Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1987-055
A a 6/12/87(N)LEGAL(Vnm) RESOLUTION NO. 87- 55 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ADOPTING AN ENGINEERING STUDY REQUIRED BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION AS A PREREQUISITE FOR RECEIVING GRANT FUNDING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE ROCKRIDGE AREA, A COPY OF WHICH ENGINEERING STUDY IS ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT "A". WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, has determined that the interests of the citizens and residents of Indian River County, Florida, would best be served by constructing public sewers in Rockridge; and WHEREAS, to receive a grant to fund part of the cost, it is necessary to adopt an Engineering Study required by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,. -THAT:_ The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, hereby adopts the Engineering Study prepared by Camp Dresser 8 McKee Inc. which report is required by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation as a prerequisite for receiving grant funding for construction of sanitary sewer improvements in the Rockridge Area. A copy of the Engineering Study is attached hereto and identified as Exhibit "A". The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Eggert __ and seconded by Commissioner _Wheeler ....... and, being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: bw Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Absent Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye___ Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye 1 -'40' r RESOLUTION NO. 87- 55 The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 16thday of June 1987, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1,111111I11!l1��� f : IVA Freda Wright-- -- --— ------ Clerk. v•. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: __ Charles_ P Vitunac M County Attorney 1 6 2 BY / G/ 4- Don _ Scur ock, J — Chairman 1 1 1 FINAL ' PRM 78-9 FACILITY PLANNING SUPPLEMENT SEWER COLLECTION STUDY ' INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA ' MAY 1987 ' ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NO. C 120 502 060 Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. Vero Beach, Florida 1 6706-07 1 ' CONTENTS Section Page ' 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Summary 1-1 ' 1.2 Conclusions 1-2 1.3 Recommendations 1-3 ' 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Purpose and Scope 2-1 2.2 Authorization 2-2 ' 2.3 The Setting 2-2 2.4 Background Reports 2-4 ' 3.0 EFFLUENT LIMITATION AND WATER QUALITY 3.1 General 3-1 ' 3.2 Groundwater Contamination 3-1 3.2.1 Saltwater Encroachment 3-2 3.2.2 Irrigation Practices 3-4 3.2.3 OnSite Waste Disposal 3-4 ' 3.2.4 Functions of a Septic Tank 3-6 3.2.5 Design and Operation Guidelines 3-7 ' 3.3 Groundwater Protection 3.3.1 Federal 3-12 3-12 3.3.2 State 3-12 3.3.3 Local 3-13 ' 3.4 Review of Existing Water Quality Reports 3-14 3.4.1 Background 3-14 3.4.2 Regulations 3-18 3.4.3 Case Studies 3-18 ' 3.4.4 Water Quality Data in the Study Area 3-20 3.5 Summary 3-21 ' 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 4.1 Physical Conditions 4-1 4.1.1 Hydrology 4-1 ' 4.1.2 Soils 4-3 4.1.3 Other Study Area Characteristics 4-4 ' 4.2 Demographic and Land Use Data 4.2.1 County Demographic Data 4-4 4-4 4.2.2 Land Use Data 4-5 4.2.3 Rockridge Study Area 4-5 ' 4.3 Wastewater Flows 4-10 4.4 Performance of Existing Onsite Systems 4-14 1 l ' CONTENTS (Continued) 5.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS ' 5.1 Future Land Use 5-1 5.2 Future Population Projections 5-1 ' 5.3 Forecast of Wastewater Flows 5.4 "Two Rule" Evaluation 5-2 -Thirds 5-2 6.0 ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS 6.1 General 6-1 6.2 Alternative Systems 6-1 6.2.1 Small Diameter Sewers 6-1 ' 6.2.2 Vacuum Sewers 6-1 6.2.3 Pressure Sewers 6-2 ' 6.2.4 No -Action Alternative 6.3 Cost -Effectiveness Analysis 6-2 6-3 7.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 7.1 General 7-1 7.2 Public Hearing 7-1 7.3 Public Survey 7-4 ' 7.4 Future Public Participation 7-4 8.0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN ' 8.1 General 8-1 8.2 Design Criteria 8-1 ' 8.2.1 Wastewater Flows 8-1 8.2.2 Design Layout 8-1 8.3 Time Schedule 8-5 ' 8.4 Cost Estimate 8.4.1 Construction Costs 8-8 8-8 8.4.2 Estimated Cost of Project to Homeowner 8-8 ' 9.0 ARRANGEMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION 9-1 10.0 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ' 10.1 General 10-1 10.2 Environment 10-1 ' 10.2.1 Water 10.2.2 Air 10-1 10-2 10.2.3 Land Use 10-2 10.3 Construction 10-3 l 1 CONTENTS (Continued) Appendix A Masteller & Moler Rockridge Area Sewer Feasibility Study and Report B 1969 Aerial C Public Hearing Transcript D Sewer Use Ordinance E Large User Agreement 7 J 11 1 �I 1 t J C Table 3-1 3-2 3-3 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 5-1 5-2 6-1A 6-1B 6-1C 8-1 8-2 8-3 IRC.VB4 LIST OF TABLES Typical Concentrations for Household Wastewater, Septic Tank Effluent and Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Absorption Area Results of Samples Taken in Study Area Population Distribution By Age 1960, 1970, 1979 and 1980 Rockridge Demographic Data By Block Wastewater Flow Rockridge 1972 Flows Rockridge Present Flows Future Flows - Rockridge Study Area Two -Thirds rule Evaluation: Rockridge Study Area Cost -Effectiveness Analysis Gravity System Cost -Effectiveness Analysis Grinder Pump System Cost -Effectiveness Analysis STEP System Estimated Time Schedule Estimated Project Cost of Recommended Plan Estimated Cost of Project to Individual Property Owner Follows Page 3-4 3-7 3-19 4-5 4-8 4-10 4-12 4-14 5-2 5-3 6-3 6-4 6-5 8-5 8-6 8-7 1 1 1 IRC.VB4 LIST OF FIGURES ' Figure e Follows Page 9 2-1 Indian River County Location Map 2-2 3-1 Indian River County Saltwater Intrustion Front 3-2 4-1 Study Area 4-6 4-2 Wastewater Service Areas 4-11 4-3 Septic Tank Operation 4-16 7-1 Public Notice Advertisement 7-1 ' 7-2 7-3 Notice of Public Hearing Septic Tank Survey 7-2 7-4 8-1 Proposed Pressure Water Collection System 8-1 8-2 Dwelling Grinder Pump 8-2 Typical Installation Detail 1 1 IRC.VB4 1 ' 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ' 1.1 SUMMARY ' This report presents the results of an evaluation performed in accordance with current U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Florida ' Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) guidelines for a study area in Indian River County, Florida. The report is divided into various ' sections generally outlined in the FDER checklist for this type of study. ' Background information on the purpose of this study and the planning area is presented in Section 2. Section 3 reviews the major sources of groundwater contamination, the regulations aimed at protecting groundwater ' resources, and available water quality data in the vicinity of the study area. Section 4 describes existing conditions in the study area and ' presents an analysis of population densities and wastewater flows. Section 5 examines future conditions in the study area and evaluates the ' Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) "two-thirds" flow criteria. ' Section 6 evaluates various alternative wastewater collection systems. Section 7 presents the input from the public concerning the project. Section 8 describes preliminary design and cost data for the recommended tplan. Section 9 contains the financial capability demonstration. Section 10 summarizes the environmental considerations of the recommended plan. Onsite waste disposal facilities, such as the septic tank systems in existence throughout the study area, are a potential source of groundwater contamination. The high groundwater levels, impermeable limestone layered one to two feet below the land surface, and low surface elevations of the area further reduce the effectiveness of this treatment system. IRC.VB4 6/4/87 1-1 ' The study area of Rockridge is located in east central Indian River County. Aerials are included herein to illustrate conditions within the study area. ' Tables were developed to illustrate population density and wastewater flow computations on a block -by -block basis. IThe EPA may provide partial funding of new collection systems under Public In addition to the above criterion, the system should be cost-effective. ' Generally, where the population density is less than 1.7 persons per acre, wastewater collection system projects are not considered cost-effective ' unless a severe pollution or public health problem can be documented. Where population density is less than 10 persons per acre, the facility ' plan should demonstrate that alternatives are less cost-effective than new gravity collector sewer construction and centralized treatment. ' 1.2 CONCLUSIONS ' The following conclusions are presented based upon the analysis and evaluation performed under this supplemental study to the Indian River ' County Facility (201) Plan: ' o Onsite waste disposal systems are ineffective because of the high groundwater and impermeable limestone layer beneath the ' drainfields. o Substantial human habitation was present in 1972 in all study area ' blocks. ' IRC.VB4 6/4/87 1-2 Law 92-500, if the proposed system meets certain criteria. For a block to ' be grant -eligible, it must have contained "substantial human habitation" on October 18, 1972. Blocks are grouped to form service areas, from which ' compliance with the "two-thirds rule" may be determined. This rule states that the ratio of service area flows on October 18, 1972, to those at full ' development must be greater than two-thirds. In addition to the above criterion, the system should be cost-effective. ' Generally, where the population density is less than 1.7 persons per acre, wastewater collection system projects are not considered cost-effective ' unless a severe pollution or public health problem can be documented. Where population density is less than 10 persons per acre, the facility ' plan should demonstrate that alternatives are less cost-effective than new gravity collector sewer construction and centralized treatment. ' 1.2 CONCLUSIONS ' The following conclusions are presented based upon the analysis and evaluation performed under this supplemental study to the Indian River ' County Facility (201) Plan: ' o Onsite waste disposal systems are ineffective because of the high groundwater and impermeable limestone layer beneath the ' drainfields. o Substantial human habitation was present in 1972 in all study area ' blocks. ' IRC.VB4 6/4/87 1-2 1 ' o The population density of the entire study area is 9.6 persons per acre. o The study area is approximately 95ercent developed, Pand the installation of a wastewater collection system would not encourage ' additional development beyond that growth which is presently planned. o Approximately 95 percent of the flow capacity for the collection ' system would be attributable to developments in existence in 1972. ' o All service areas meet the "two-thirds rule", indicating has been determined that the study area meets the criteria of PRM established neighborhoods. ' o Local water quality management plans, such as the 201 for Indian ' River County and Indian River County Area -Wide Wastewater Master Plan, September the 1985, recommend a central wastewater collection to system for the community. ' persons per acre, indicating that a central collection system is o A low-pressure p sure grinder pump sewer system was found to be the most ' cost-effective technology. ' o The County has the financial capability to construct, operate and ' maintain the wastewater system presented in this report. ' 1.3 RECOMMENDATIONS ' It has been determined that the study area meets the criteria of PRM 78-9. All of the blocks exhibited substantial human habitation, and 80 percent of ' the study area had a high population density of greater than or equal to 8.6 persons per acre, indicating that a central collection system is needed. Low pressure grinder pump collection sewers were determined to be ' the most reasonable wastewater collection system for the study area, based upon economic and practical considerations. ' IRC.VB4 6/4/87 1-3 1 11 ' The implementation of this project depends heavily upon the availabilty of ' EPA funds for design and construction. Without outside funding, the cost to individual homeowners could be a severe financial burden. ' The County Commission will determine what the next step in this project will be. The Commission could decide that the project is in the best ' interest of the community, in which case the County would proceed to design. However, there is a possibility that Step 3 (construction) funds ' may not be available after the system is designed. On the other hand, the Commission could decide to stop the project at this point. u 1 ' IRC.VB4 6/4/87 1-4 1 1 ' 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE On March 3, 1978, the EPA issued Program Requirements Memorandum (PRM) 78-9 ' concerning construction grant funding of wastewater collection system projects. This memorandum, which superseded PRM 77-8, establishes review ' guidelines to ensure that proposed projects meet the requirements of both PL 92-500 and PL 95-217, as well as the construction grant regulations. According to PRM 78-9, new collection systems in existing communities may be grant eligible provided the project complies with the following EPA ' policy: ' o Substantial human habitation was in existence in the study area on October 18, 1972. ' o The bulk, generally two-thirds of the expected flow (flow ' from existing plus projected future habitations) from the collection system will be wastewaters originating from the habitations in existence on October 18, 1972. o The collection system is cost-effective, considering the ' population density of the study area and the severity of the water quality problems associated with the present method of ' wastewater disposal. ' o The collection system conforms with any approved Water Quality Management Plan, Executive Orders on Wetlands and ' Floodplains, and Agency policy on wetlands. 1 ' IRC.FL1 6/4/87 2-1 1 1 ' The purpose of this engineering report is to present the results of an evaluation performed on an unsewered study area within Indian River County ' Florida. The analysis complies with the criteria and policy set forth in PRM 78-9. ' 2.2 AUTHORIZATION ' The County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida authorized Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (CDM) to prepare this wastewater collection system ' study on March 26, 1987. t Most of the County contains a very high-water table and vast areas west of Interstate 95 are subject to flooding. These conditions are not conducive with the use of septic tanks. The topography is typically flat. ' Transportation facilities include Interstate 95, U.S. 1 and Highway AlA as the primary north -south access. The only east -west route traversing the ' entire County is State Road 60. County Road 512, which connects Sebastian and Fellsmere, is the other significant east -west corridor extending west ' of Interstate 95. East -west access between Interstate 95 and the Indian River is generally good. ' The climate is humid and subtropical. The average annual temperature is about 720F. Average monthly temperatures range from about 630F to 81oF• ' Annual precipitation is variable, averaging about 51 inches per year. ' IRC.FL1 6/4/87 2-2 2.3 THE SETTING Indian River County, with a population of about 75,500, is situated in Florida's citrus belt on the Atlantic Ocean. An estimated 80 percent of the land area is in citrus groves with most residential and commercial ' development located east of Interstate 95. Vero Beach is the County's largest municipality followed by Sebastian, Indian River Shores, Fellsmere tand Orchid. Figure 2-1 provides a location map of the County. t Most of the County contains a very high-water table and vast areas west of Interstate 95 are subject to flooding. These conditions are not conducive with the use of septic tanks. The topography is typically flat. ' Transportation facilities include Interstate 95, U.S. 1 and Highway AlA as the primary north -south access. The only east -west route traversing the ' entire County is State Road 60. County Road 512, which connects Sebastian and Fellsmere, is the other significant east -west corridor extending west ' of Interstate 95. East -west access between Interstate 95 and the Indian River is generally good. ' The climate is humid and subtropical. The average annual temperature is about 720F. Average monthly temperatures range from about 630F to 81oF• ' Annual precipitation is variable, averaging about 51 inches per year. ' IRC.FL1 6/4/87 2-2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L STATE OF FLORIDA r- I -f -T-, -- GUL F OF MEXICO ATLAIMC OCEAN C�f O ORCHID INDIAN RIVER SHORES VERO BEACH FIGURE 2-1 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LOCATION MAP CDM. 1 1 ' However, in 1983 and 1984, the most recent data available, 67 and 62 inches fell, respectively. Approximately 65 percent of the annual rainfall is expected between May and September with September being the wettest month receiving nearly 8 inches. ' 2.4 BACKGROUND REPORTS Several existing reports relevant to the study area have been reviewed and parts have been excerpted for use in this report. A summary of pertinent ' existing reports reviewed is provided below. ' Area -Wide Wastewater Master Plan The Area -Wide Wastewater Master Plan report was published in September ' 1985. The study was performed by a joint venture between Carter Associates, Inc., and Williams, Hatfield and Stoner, Inc. Indian River Comprehensive Plan The Indian River Comprehensive Plan was published by The Planning and ' Development Division of Indian River County on September 15, 1982. ' Rockridge Area Sewer Feasibility Study and Report ' The Rockridge Area Sewer Feasibility Study and Report was published in April 1986. This study was performed by Masteller & Moler Associates, Inc. This report has been reproduced in its entirety and is included herein as ' Appendix A. ' Indian River County Wastewater Master Plan ' The Area -Wide Wastewater Master Plan was updated by a draft study performed by CDM dated May 1987. C IRC.FL1 6/4/87 2-4 1 1 ' 3.0 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND WATER QUALITY ' 3.1 GENERAL ' Indian River County is not only dependent on its groundwater sources to ' meet its municipal water needs, but is also dependent on its water ' resources to irrigate its most important agricultural product - citrus. Indian River County ' presently receives its water supply from wells that have been installed into either of two aquifers - the shallow, surficial aquifer and the confined Floridan Aquifer. The surficial aquifer has been ' impacted by contamination from several different sources and the aquifer is ' a smaller volume producer than the Floridan Aquifer. The Floridan Aquifer ' contains chloride concentrations in excess of 250 milligrams per liter (mg/1). To prevent future potential health hazards caused by contamination ' of the shallow groundwater source of drinking water in East Central ' Florida, the Federal government will no longer fund any project which might contaminate the aquifer, as determined by the Administrator of the EPA. ' 3.2 GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION ' The degradation of groundwater quality is generally a very slow but constant process; but equally as slow, or slower is the renovation of ' groundwater quality once an aquifer is polluted. In the East Central Florida area, the greatest threats of contamination to the groundwater are ' from saltwater encroachment, mismanaged irrigation and inappropriate waste disposal practices. Saltwater encroachment occurs along the coast when the water levels in the aquifer are lowered either artificially, through ' overpumping, and/or naturally, through droughts. Mismanaged irrigation practices, where poor quality groundwater is discharged into a potable ' surficial aquifer, is a direct degradation to a valuable resource. Inadequate waste disposal practices such as onsite systems (septic tanks) that cannot properly meet the needs of an area are a major source of ' groundwater pollution. To control or alleviate these concerns, it is important to understand their causes and effects. ' IRC.VB4 6/4/87 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3.2.1 SALTWATER ENCROACHMENT Saline water contains high concentrations of undesirable dissolved solids such as chlorides. These substances strictly limit its use by causing the water to be nonpotable, toxic to irrigated plants, and corrosive. Fresh water with as little as two percent sea water will not meet recent state drinking water standards. It is imperative that waters of this nature be kept from entering water supply wells. Salt water is slightly heavier than fresh water because it contains more dissolved solids. Along coastal zones the salt water moves inland as a wedge until balanced by sufficient freshwater head. One approximation of the configuration of the saltwater wedge is the Ghyben - Herzberg model (2) which computes the steady-state location of a sharp interface assuming steady, horizontal freshwater flow. This model, which is shown on Figure 3-1, simply stated, says that the pressure produced by the fresh water on one side of the interface must equal the pressure produced by the salt water on the other side. This means that for every foot of fresh water above mean sea level, the stationary interface is located 40 feet below sea level. Thus, each foot of fresh water above mean sea level (msl) ideally represents 40 feet of fresh water below, although, under actual dynamic conditions, this relationship may differ. As water is pumped from a well, the water table around the well is lowered, forming a cone of depression. This depressed cone causes the groundwater to flow laterally by gravity toward the well from the surrounding area. As more water is withdrawn from a well or group of wells, the cones of depression will become greater, affect a larger area, and perhaps overlap. Along the coast of Florida, one of the greatest dangers to public water supply wells is to allow the cone of depression to become so large as to induce the saltwater wedge to migrate inland. This can occur during low water table conditions caused by droughts, improper drainage, overpumpage of the well, or a combination of these conditions. Many communities in IRC.VB4 6/4/87 EAST MODEL OF THE SALTWATER WEDGE KEY DENSITY HEAD S SALTWATER f FRESHWATER 0 WATER SURFACE WEST FIGURE 3-1 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SALTWATER INTRUSION FRONT CDM ' this area (i.e., North Miami Beach, Highland Beach, and Boca Raton in Southeast Florida) have had to move or expand their well fields further ' inland away from the saltwater wedge. The obvious method of preventing this saltwater contamination is to maintain the water table around the wells high enough above sea level to prevent the saltwater wedge from moving inland and reaching the wells. ' 3.2.2 IRRIGATION PRACTICES ' Large withdrawals of water from the Floridan Aquifer were used to irrigate agricultural crops within Indian River County. Due to the higher salinity ' of this irrigation water, salts began to concentrate within the soil of the agricultural fields which then percolated with rainwater down into the ' surficial shallow aquifer. Subsequently, the chloride concentrations within the surficial aquifer became higher. Other sources of contamination caused by waters of the Floridan Aquifer are deep wells which are leaky and ' those wells that are left either poorly or inappropriately abandoned. ' 3.2.3 ONSITE WASTE DISPOSAL ' Degradation of the groundwater quality can be caused by onsite waste treatment systems such as septic tanks. There are numerous cases on record ' of well supplies becoming polluted due to septic tank discharges (see Section 3.4). The septic tank effluent is of poor quality by today's wastewater treatment standards as can be seen in Table 3-1. It can cause ' detrimental increases in nitrogen, chloride, sodium, other ions, total dissolved solids, and the microbiological level of the local ' groundwater. ' Several features inherent to the operation of septic tank systems make them prone to contaminating the groundwater without any visual indication. For ' example, if the tanks are undersized or not emptied whereby sludge and scum accumulation reduces the tank's treatment volume, a poorer quality effluent results. If high groundwater conditions (within 3 to 4 feet of drain field ' IRC.VB4 6/4/87 ' TABLE 3-1 TYPICAL CONCENTRATIONS FOR HOUSEHOLD WASTEWATER, SEPTIC TANK tEFFLUENT AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT ' F1 u IRC.VB4 6/3/87 concentration Household Septic Tank wastewater Treatment Plant Parameter Wastewater Effluent Effluent Biochemical Oxygen Demand, ' 5 -day (BODS), mg/l 430 150 20 Total Suspended Solids, mg/l 370 50 20 ' Fecal Coliform (per 100 ml) 7.5 x 105 5 X 105 200 Total Nitrogen, mg/l 84 30 30 ' Ammonia Nitrogen, mg/l 64 25 N/A Total Phosphate, mg/l 61 12 6 ' Source: Metcalf and Eddy, 1979, Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal and Reuse, 2nd Edition. F1 u IRC.VB4 6/3/87 0 i ' elevation) exist, additional renovation from the soil is curtailed. Unfor- tunately, once a tank system is installed and buried, the above operating ' problems are not recognized until the entire system fails and raw (untreated) sewage backs up into the house plumbing or seeps above ground. ' Thus, a septic tank system may on the surface appear to be functioning properly when in reality it is providing very poor "treatment." The following description of septic tank operation clarifies the capabilities and limitations of this method of onsite disposal. ' 3.2.4 FUNCTIONS OF A SEPTIC TANK ' The most important function of a septic tank is to provide protection for the absorptive ability of the subsoil. The tank conditions sewage so that ' it may be more readily percolated into the subsoil. Three functions take place within the tank to provide this protection according to the Manual of Septic Tank Practice: ' IRC.VB4 6/4/87 1. Removal of Solids: Clogging of soil with tank ef- fluent varies directly with the amount of suspended solids in the liquid. As sewage from a building sewer enters a septic tank, its rate of flow is reduced so that larger solids sink to the bottom or rise to the surface. These solids are retained in ' the tank, and the clarified effluent is discharged. 2. Biological Treatment: Solids and liquid in the tank ' are subjected to decomposition by bacterial and natural processes. Bacteria present are anaerobic, which thrive in the absence of free oxygen. The decomposition or treatment of sewage under anaerobic conditions is termed "septic," hence the ' name of the tank. Sewage which has been subjected to such treatment causes less clogging than untreated sewage containing the same amount of suspended solids. 3. Sludge and Scum Storage: Sludge is an accumulation of solids at the bottom of the tank, while scum is a partially sub- merged mat of floating solids that may form at the surface of the fluid in the tank. Sludge, and scum to a lesser degree, ' will be digested and compacted into a smaller volume. However, no matter how efficient the process is, a residual of inert solid material will remain. Space must be provided in the tank ' to store this residue during the interval between cleanings; otherwise, sludge and scum will eventually be scoured from the tank and may clog the disposal field. ' IRC.VB4 6/4/87 1 1 ' ' If adequately designed, constructed, maintained, and operated, septic tanks are effective in accomplishing their purpose. However, bacteria removal is ' not a process of a septic tank. Although the sewage undergoes treatment in passing through the tank, this does not mean that infectious agents will be ' removed. Hence, septic tank effluents can be considered hazardous. The liquid that is discharged from the tank is, in some respects, more ' objectionable than that which goes in; it is septic and malodorous. Further treatment, including the removal of pathogens, is effected through percolation through the soil. Disease -producing bacteria will in time die in the out unfavorable environment afforded by soil. In addition, bacteria are also removed by certain physical forces during filtration. This ' combination of factors results in the eventual purification of the sewage effluent. ' 3.2.5 DESIGN AND OPERATION GUIDELINES Since there are no operational standards for septic tank systems, their design and operation is governed by guidelines involving several The first in parameters. step the design of subsurface sewage disposal systems is to determine whether the soil is suitable for the absorption of ' septic tank effluent, and if so, how much area is required. The soil must have an acceptable percolation rate, without interference from groundwater ' or impervious strata. In general, two conditions must be met: I. Chapter 1OD-6 requires an effective soil depth throughout the drainfield of 42 inches or more below the bottom surface of the drainfield gravel. Also, the water table elevation at the wettest season of the year must be at least 24 inches below the drainfield gravel. 2. Table 3-2 presents some representative values for absorption ' area as related to percolation rate. ' IRC.VB4 6/4/87 0 TABLE 3-2 ABSORPTION AREA Maximum Rate of Sewage U.S. Department of Application to Trench Agriculture Soil Bottom (Gallons Per Textural Classification Percolation Rate Square Foot Per Day) Sand, Loamy Sand Sandy Loam Loam, Silt Loam Silt, Sandy Clay Loam ' Clay Loam, Silty Clay Loam, Sandy Clay, Silty Clay ' Clay, Organic Soils, Bedrock Very Coarse Sand Gravel or Fractured Rock 1 Less than 2 min/inch 2-4 min/inch 5-10 min/inch Greater than 10 min/inch but not exceeding 15 min/inch Greater than 15 min/inch but not exceeding 30 min/inch Greater than 30 min/inch Less than 1 min/inch and a water table less than 4 feet below the drain - field Source: F.A.C. Chapter 1OD-6 ' IRC.VB4 6/3/87 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.50 0.25 Unsatisfactory for standard subsurface system Unsatisfactory for standard subsurface system 1 ' The selection of the absorption system will also be dependent to some extent upon the location of the system in the area under consideration. A safe distance should be maintained between the site and any source of water supply. Since the distance that pollution will travel underground depends ' upon numerous factors, including the characteristics of the subsoil formations and the quantity of sewage discharged, no specified distance ' would be absolutely safe in all localities. Ordinarily, the greater the distance, the greater will be the safety provided. ' Proper maintenance is important to the efficient operation of septic tanks. Chapter 1OD-6.5 of the F.A.C. states: "Septic tanks should be checked at ' least once every three years (once a year if garbage grinders are discharging to the tank)". If either sludge or scum approaches the outlet ' too closely, particles will be scoured into the disposal field and will clog the system. Eventually, liquid may break through to the ground surface, and the sewage may back up in the plumbing fixtures. When a disposal field is clogged in this manner, it is not only necessary to clean the tank, but it may also be necessary to construct a new disposal field. Actual inspection of sludge and scum accumulations is the only way to ' definitely determine when a given tank needs to be pumped. When a tank is inspected, the depth of sludge and scum should be measured in the vicinity ' of the outlet baffle. Chapter 1OD-6.5 of the F.A.C. states: "Tanks should be cleaned whenever the bottom of the scum layer is within eight (8) inches ' of the top of the outlet device or when the sludge level is within eighteen (18) inches of the bottom of the outlet device". ' 3.3 GROUNDWATER PROTECTION ' The potential groundwater contamination situation demands proper management of water use and waste disposal as the basis of safeguarding the fresh ' groundwater supply. A cooperative effort among federal, state, regional, and local authorities is necessary to accomplish this task. The following IIRC.VB4 3.3.2 STATE The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) is responsible for administering all aspects of water resources in the State. Chapters 17-3 and 17-6 of the Florida Administrative Code (FAC) specifically state the rules of the FDER on water quality standards and pollution control. Chapter 17-3 is oriented to protection of all waters in the state and the preservation of water quality by setting water quality standards for various water classes. The chapter classifies groundwater in single -source aquifers used for potable supplies as Class G-1 waters. The water quality IRC.VB4 discussion presents current requirements of the various regulatory agencies aimed at protecting the groundwater from contamination. 3.3.1 FEDERAL The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (PL 92-500) and its ' amendment by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217) and 1981 (PL 97-117) are the basis for pollution control in the nation. These laws control the discharge of pollutants into the nation's water through "effluent limitations" established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Among other provisions, the laws prohibit EPA from funding systems unless the applicant has investigated various treatment alternatives in selecting the best practical waste treatment. The Federal Register of February 11, 1976, provided criteria for best ' practicable treatment (BPT) alternatives. The resulting groundwater quality from those systems employing land application techniques must comply with the National Primary Drinking Water Standards. According to Section 35.917-ld5v of 40 CFR Part 35 (September 27, 1978), the same standards hold for subsurface treatment and disposal systems such as septic tanks. The standards vary depending upon the use of the affected groundwater. The shallow aquifer in the study area would be classified Class II because it is used as a drinking water source. 3.3.2 STATE The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) is responsible for administering all aspects of water resources in the State. Chapters 17-3 and 17-6 of the Florida Administrative Code (FAC) specifically state the rules of the FDER on water quality standards and pollution control. Chapter 17-3 is oriented to protection of all waters in the state and the preservation of water quality by setting water quality standards for various water classes. The chapter classifies groundwater in single -source aquifers used for potable supplies as Class G-1 waters. The water quality IRC.VB4 1 ' criteria for Class G-1 waters is in agreement with the National Primary Drinking Water Standards. Class G II waters are groundwaters used for ' potable purposes with total dissolved solids in concentrations of under 10,000 milligrams per liter (mg/1). Chapter 17-6 of the FAC requires proper treatment of wastewaters prior to ' disposal and applies the same effluent criteria as the federal government. For flows exceeding 2,000 gallons per day, treatment process and disposal ' shall be in compliance with the FDER regulations. The design and installation of wastewater systems handling flows less than ' 2,000 gallons per day (i.e. onsite septic tanks) are governed by Chapter 1OD-6 of the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ' (DHRS) "Standards for Individual Sewage Disposal Facilities." ' The Indian River Farms 298 Drainage District is a state agency that is responsible for regulating the quantity of stormwaters in the area. This ' agency was set up to regulate drainage for the citrus groves in the area. 3.3.3 LOCAL The Regulatory agency at the local level which has jurisdiction in matters ' of groundwater protection is the St. John's River Water Management District (SJRWMD). The SJRWMD located in Palatka, governs the regulation of all ' waters in approximately 20 Central Florida counties. The agency's responsibilities include the issuance of permits for consumptive use of water, well construction, and artificial recharge (e.g. injection wells) to ' regulate and control the use of water within the District. Withdrawals of ' water in excess of 100,000 gallons per day require a water use permit. This permit system limits the amount of groundwater withdrawals and the location of the withdrawals to control the extent of saltwater intrusion in the aquifer. IRC.VB4 1 1 The State Department of Environmental Health enforces Chapter 1OD-6 of the Florida DHRS "Standards for Individual Sewage Disposal Facilities." This ' department is responsible for setting the standards which septic tank installations must meet, and inspects the septic tanks and issues construction permits. ' Although Chapter 1OD-6 does not set specific criteria for septic tank effluent quality, it requires that they be installed so that with reasonable maintenance they will function in a sanitary manner, not create ' nuisance, health hazard, or endanger the safety of any domestic water supply (10D-6.47). The poor treatment from septic tanks and their potential for contamination ' of the groundwater are problems that are difficult to quantify or control in developed areas of Indian River County. Therefore, septic tank permit evaluations are based on proper size and construction of the installation. This is the most that can be achieved in the absence of sewers even though existing conditions in the area (e.g. poorly drained soil, the shallow rock ' layer and high water table) are less than ideal for onsite disposal. ' Section 4 will discuss some of the location conditions limiting proper onsite wastewater treatment and disposal. 3.4 REVIEW OF EXISTING WATER QUALITY REPORTS ' 3.4.1 BACKGROUND ' There are more onsite disposal systems in the State of Florida than in any other southeastern state. For example, Broward and Dade Counties are two of the top five counties in the southeastern U.S. in numbers of onsite disposal systems. Since these two counties are totally dependent upon the groundwater contained in the Biscayne Aquifer for their drinking water, great precautions must be taken to ensure that septic tank effluent does not contaminate the aquifer. IRC.VB4 1 1 ' There are no standards governing septic tank effluent quality, and sources differ on their methods of determining treatment efficiency. EPA's concept ' is to assume that the tank-drainfield-soil combination removes all pollutants, so that the only loading on the environment is from the septage ' extracted periodically from the tank. On this basis, septic tanks get an overall removal efficiency rating of 92.4 percent. The second concept ' views the effluent from a tank as a loading on the soil and groundwater sectors of the environment. Pollutant removal efficiency from this point of view is 17.2 percent due to waste digestion by the anaerobic bacteria in ' the septic tank. ' A realistic assessment of treatment efficiency lies somewhere between these two extremes, depending upon site-specific variables. If soil and ' groundwater conditions are optimal, and the septic tank is designed, installed, and maintained correctly, pollutant removal rates as high as ' secondary treatment plants can be achieved. Under these ideal conditions, EPA's view of septic tank efficiency may be more correct. ' Unfortunately, septic tanks are often used inappropriately. If they are installed in clay, muck, or other impervious soils, the effluent cannot percolate properly, and the system may back up. Where shallow bedrock or hardpan exists, effluent may travel laterally for much longer distances ' than expected. If the percolation rate is high and the groundwater table is close to the surface, effluent will reach the groundwater before it has ' had the full benefit of treatment by the soil. An unsaturated zone under the drainfield at least 1 to 2 meters (40 to 80 inches) thick is desired to ' allow aerobic decomposition and other attenuation, although the state only requires that the water table be more than 24 inches below the bottom of the trench. Undersizing of a septic tank and infrequent pumping of it ' result in sludge and scum storage capacity problems. Under these conditions, solids are washed out into the drainfield, causing clogging and ' eventual failure of the drainfield. IRC.VB4 6/4/87 1 Even when a septic tank appears to be operating adequately from the surface, the effluent may be short-circuiting to the groundwater. This is ' of particular concern when septic tanks are near a well field. The increased rate of induced groundwater flow within the well field caused by pumping operations enhances the probability of contaminants which emanate ' from septic tanks to leach into shallow water supply wells. ' The most widely used indicator of septic tank contamination is the coliform bacteria. The coliform bacteria is not pathogenic itself, but its presence ' indicates the possibility of pathogenic bacteria and viruses. High concentrations of total coliform bacteria may or may not indicate that the water is contaminated by septic tanks since other sources of coliforms ' include plants, soil, and animals. The presence of fecal coliform bacteria strongly suggests that the water is contaminated. Because these bacteria ' come from the feces of warm-blooded animals, they indicate that pathogenic bacteria such as Salmonella (typhoid fever) and Shigella (shigellosis) may be present in the groundwater. ' Inasmuch as neither total coliform or fecal coliform indicate human contamination conclusively, fecal streptococci can substantiate the source ' of pollution. Fecal streptococci are also found in the intestines of warm-blooded animals. Fecal streptococci do not multiply in surface waters and are rarely found in natural soil or vegetation. However, the ' quantities of fecal coliform (FC) and fecal streptococci (FS) discharged by humans differ significantly from quantities discharged by animals. Because ' of this difference, the ratio of FC to FS can be used to show whether suspected contamination is from human or animal wastes. Typical FC to FS ' ratios for humans and other animals are as follows: ' Ratio Animal FC/FS chicken 0.4 ' cow 0.2 duck 0.6 ' human 4.4 IRC.VB4 6/4/87 1 1 ' Pig 0.04 sheep 0.4 turkey 0.1 The use of FC/FS ratio can be very helpful in pollution studies, especially ' where septic tanks are used. Establishing the source of pollution is very important, especially where it is proposed or implied that implementation ' of conventional wastewater -management facilities will eliminate measured coliform values. The ratio of FC to FS indicates the source of ' contamination as follows: ' FC/FS Ratio Source 0-.7 Animal waste .7-1.0 Primarily animal waste in mixed pollution ' 1.0-2.0 Grey area - interpretation uncertain 2.0-4.0 Primarily human waste in mixed pollution ' 4.0+ Human waste ' It is very difficult and time-consuming to test for all pathogens, and the coliform test is usually a sufficient indication of bacterial water ' quality. However, viruses may sometimes persist longer in natural systems than indicator coliform organisms. It is also necessary to realize that viruses can survive and be transported in the adsorbed state. This is well ' illustrated in a study in St. Petersburg, Florida, which investigated the potential buildup of viral pathogens in soils and groundwater. It was ' found that viruses of fecal origin survived in Florida soils and passed through as much as 5 feet of sandy soil during the dry season. Also, ' several months into the rainy season, a burst of virus appeared in 10 -foot and 20 -foot monitoring wells placed downgradient from the original test sites. A large quantity of virus is not needed for a potential health hazard. The ' average virus density in domestic sewage has been estimated to be about 700 viruses per 100 ml, but as many as 46,350 viruses per 100 ml have been ' detected in some parts of the world. It has been calculated that if a ' IRC.VB4 6/4/87 -15 1 1 water supply contains as little as one plaque -forming unit of virus per 50 gallons of drinking water in a community which utilizes 50 mgd (0.2 percent ' of which is ingested as drinking water) at a 30 percent infection rate, 600 individuals would daily contract a variety of clinical and subclinical infections. Thus, the presence of even one detectable virus unit in a ' water supply poses a potential disease hazard. ' 3.4.2 REGULATIONS ' There are no regulations directly governing the treatment efficiency of a septic tank, since that value is very difficult to obtain. Instead, the ' design and installation are controlled by Chapter 1OD-6 of the Florida Administrative Code. It is assumed that if proper design and installation procedures are followed, efficient septic tank operation will be achieved. The use of ' septic tanks does require periodic maintenance that includes pumping out the accumulated scum and sludge. It has been estimated that approximately ' 70 gallons per capita per year of this septage builds up in properly functioning systems. ' 3.4.3 CASE STUDIES ' A recent USGS study in areas serviced by septic tanks in Dade County, Florida, showed that the effluent is having a significant impact on ' groundwater quality in certain cases. From 1971 to 1974, five established neighborhoods in Dade County with septic tank densities of less than four ' per acre were monitored. The study found that where the tanks were less than 5 feet above the water table, groundwater up to 95 feet away ' horizontally and 20 feet deep was often unfit to drink. The Septic Tank Task Force of the Department of Environmental Resources ' Management in Dade County, first organized in 1971, reconvened in 1975 to ' IRC.VB4 6/4/87 1 ' An outbreak of waterborne transmission of disease was reported in Dade County. The major incident occurred in 1974 in Richmond Heights, where an outbreak of Shigellosis was linked to contamination of the community supply ' well by a nearby septic tank. The contaminated well, drilled to 25 feet and cased to 20 feet, was located 150 feet from the septic tank. Dye studies ' showed that the leachate travel time from the septic tank to the well was only 6 to 9 hours. The indicated pathogen, Shigella sonnei, has an average survival time of 10 days in the free environment. Thus, there was sufficient time for this organism to reach the well, pass through the distribution system, and infect consumers. An argument that is often heard for septic tanks is that their effluent is ' needed to recharge the aquifer. It has been shown that the recharge ' IRC.VB4 6/4/87 review the USGS report and related studies. The Task Force outlined several cases in which waterborne transmission of disease has been linked to seepage of septic tank effluent. The following examples illustrate the ' magnitude of microbial transport in midwestern states, which have permeable or creviced limestone rock much like that found in Dade County. a. Polio virus and coliform bacteria have been isolated on ' several occasions from well water in Monroe County, Michigan. One of the wells tested penetrated a limestone formation ' lying underneath a shallow layer of glacial drift. Pollution was determined to have originated from a septic tank located ' 100 feet from the well. b. An infectious hepatitis epidemic in Posen, Michigan, was caused by septic tank drainage through limestone into shallow twells. C. In Minnesota, an outbreak of gastroenteritis was traced to ' contamination of a well drilled to 198 feet (cased to 8 feet) into Platteville limestone. The source of pollution was a ' septic tank located 110 feet from the well. ' An outbreak of waterborne transmission of disease was reported in Dade County. The major incident occurred in 1974 in Richmond Heights, where an outbreak of Shigellosis was linked to contamination of the community supply ' well by a nearby septic tank. The contaminated well, drilled to 25 feet and cased to 20 feet, was located 150 feet from the septic tank. Dye studies ' showed that the leachate travel time from the septic tank to the well was only 6 to 9 hours. The indicated pathogen, Shigella sonnei, has an average survival time of 10 days in the free environment. Thus, there was sufficient time for this organism to reach the well, pass through the distribution system, and infect consumers. An argument that is often heard for septic tanks is that their effluent is ' needed to recharge the aquifer. It has been shown that the recharge ' IRC.VB4 6/4/87 1 1 ' actually generated by effluent amounts to only a very small amount of equivalent rainfall over the aquifer recharge zone, so the potential for ' recharge is quite minimal. In addition, when considering the risk involved in aiding the recharge of this aquifer with septic tank effluent, the possibility of further contaminating one of the area's immediate water supply sources, the trade-off value contemplated cannot be justified. ' After the flood of April 1979, the Broward County Health Department noted an increase in bacterial contamination of wells of Plantation Acres, ' Florida. This area still relied upon individual private wells from 60 to 75 feet deep for its water supply, even though its method of wastewater disposal was by septic tank. In the week following the flood, 14 of the 67 ' wells tested (21 percent) were found to be unsatisfactory with regard to bacterial sampling. For the five-week period following the flood, 30 of ' 181 tests (17 percent) were unsatisfactory. ' A recent study in Tacoma, Washington, evaluated 98 well records and 386 water samples over a 30 -year period. Increases in nitrates, chloride, and ' specific conductance were observed and attributed to effluent from septic tank drainfields. In streams, the MPN coliform counts increased drama- tically: 64/100 ml in 1962; 280/100 ml in 1969; and 1200/100 ml in 1973. In lakes, the percent exceeding the standard of 240/100 ml rose from 19 ' percent in 1970 to 46 percent in 1972. An analysis of the shallow aquifer indicated substantial bacterial and chemical contamination with median values of 8 MPN/100 ml at a 31 -foot depth. Deeper wells contained 6 MPN at ' 228 feet and 4 MPN at 503 feet. The combination of high septic tank density and high pumpage in localized areas resulted in groundwater ' contamination. ' 3.4.4 WATER QUALITY DATA IN THE STUDY AREA According to Mr. G. R. Schuessler R. S. of the Florida Department of Health ' and Rehabilitative Services, there have been 55 to 60 complaints regarding IRC.VB4 6/4/87 i �j septic tanks within the Rockridge section, all occurring within the last five years. These complaints have been about septage backing up within ' septage systems in homes and in part overflowing into adjoining property. The 1985 Area -Wide Wastewater Master Plan identified areas within Indian River County that were experiencing septic tank system operational ' problems. Rockridge is located in an area experiencing operational problems. 5 Some residents of Rockridge have begun discharging their waste laundry ' water directly into surface water swales (a direct access to the shallow aquifer). This practice has been used to relieve some of the sewage volume ' from the individual home to the already overly stressed septic tank system. ' On March 25, 1987, ENVIRONMETRICS, a local environmental laboratory, HRS ID #83214, took four grab samples from canals in the study area. The results of the samples shown in Table 3-3 indicate that there was no serious health threat to the residents in the study area based on this one-time sampling. The fecal coliform counts ranged from 2 to 56 per 100 ' ml and the FC/FS ratio varied from 0.005 to 0.232 indicating predominantly an animal waste source. The people of Rockridge are on the city water supply (no private drinking ' water wells), whereby relieving a potential health threat due to the potential contamination to the shallow potable source of water to the people of the study area. Based on our experience with this type of ' situation, it is possible that contaminated water will enter the shallow aquifer at the site. ' The City of Vero Beach has its well field (forroduction wells) ) 1 ocated a considerable distance to the west of the study site. The wellfield is more ' specifically located as far west as 43rd Avenue in the vicinity of the Vero ' Beach Municipal Airport. Based on the distant location of this wellfield, the potential direct contamination to the City's well field from the Rockridge septic systems is remote. ' IRC.VB4 6/4/87 1 TABLE 3-3 RESULTS OF SAMPLES TAKEN IN STUDY AREA t F� 1 IRC.VB4 ' 6/3/87 recai Goliform Feca Streptacoccus ' Sample (per 100 ml) (per 100 ml) FS/FS Ratio 1 56 241 0.232 ' 2 3 2 20 416 1,440 0.005 0.014 4 10 60 0.167 t F� 1 IRC.VB4 ' 6/3/87 0 1 ' 3.5 SUMMARY There have been numerous complaints from local residents received by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in the past five ' years regarding the malfunctioning of septic tanks in the Rockridge section of Indian River County. Surface water quality testing was conducted to ' determine the ratio of total coliforms to fecal coliforms from surface water samples collected from drainage swales at the study site. The presence of a certain ratio of fecal coliforms would confirm surface water contamination due to the excretia of humans. The concern over human wastes is its ability to pass on pathogenic organisms to other people. Aside from possible bacterial contamination, other possible water quality problems in the vicinity of the study site include saline water contamination from saltwater intrusion and from mismanaged discharge of water from the Floridan Aquifer. To determine the definite existence of groundwater contamination to the shallow Rockridge Aquifer, a system of ' monitoring wells should be installed. It is especially important to protect the water quality in the vicinity of the study site because of ' water's value as a resource. IRC.VB4 6/4/87 ' 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 4.1 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION The study area of Rockridge is located in east central Indian River County, ' Florida, west of the Intracoastal Waterway (Indian River) at approximately 27°37' north latitude and 80020' west longitude. The weather is mild, with ' a mean annual temperature of 72.60. This is due in part to the County's proximity to the north -flowing Gulfstream in the Atlantic Ocean. Rainfall ' in the study area averaged 64.27 inches for the period from 1982-1986. 4.1.1 HYDROLOGY Indian River County is underlain by two aquifers, these aquifers referred ' to as the shallow aquifer and the Floridan aquifer. Both aquifers are regional and are separated from each other by a confining unit. ' The shallow aquifer (also known as the surficial aquifer) begins at land ' surface and extends to a depth of from 100 to 150 feet below land surface (bls). At the study site, the shallow aquifer extends to approximately 150 ' feet bls. The shallow aquifer consists of layers of sand, shell, and clay which deposited were during the Pleistocene age. These layers of sedimentary material are collectively known as the Anastasia Formation. ' The Anastasia Formation does not make up the entire shallow aquifer in that it grades toward the west into a fine grained sand unit known as the Fort ' Thompson Formation. The Fort Thompson Formation contains only a few consolidated sandstone layers. ' Collectively, the two formations of the shallow aquifer exhibit good porosity however poor effective porosity. The permeability of the shallow ' aquifer is quite restricted due to the irregular nature of the interconnection of voids between the sand grains. Yields from 10 -inch ' IRC.VB4 6/4/87 4-1 1 Fj ' diameter wells within this aquifer are generally 300 to 500 gallons per minute (gpm). ' The confining unit between the shallow and Floridan aquifers is made of deposits of the sandy clay, clay, and consolidated zones of the Hawthorn ' Formation (Miocene), perhaps containing some of the Tamiami Formation overlying the Hawthorn Formation. This unit is hydrogeologically important ' in that it prevents contamination of the fresh water within the surficial aquifer with the brackish water of the Floridan aquifer. The Hawthorn ' Formation extends to a depth of roughly 450 feet bls at the study site. The Floridan aquifer is the second aquifer underlying the study site. The ' water within this zone is brackish, and is under artesian pressure. The lithology of this unit is generally a limestone with good permeability. ' Yields from 10 -inch diameter wells installed into the Floridan aquifer can be up to 3,000 gpm. tThe United States Geological Survey (USGS) maintains a series of observa- tion wells in the study area to monitor the water table levels. The USGS uses water levels measured from these wells during wet and dry seasons to prepare contour maps to show the high and low levels of the water table. ' The shape of the water table, the hydraulic gradients, and the general direction of groundwater movement can be determined from the contours. The ' direction groundwater moves is generally downgradient, perpendicular to the contour lines. Maximum and minimum water levels within the aquifer usually ' occur at the end of the wet and dry seasons, respectively. Water level maps by the USGS will be provided in the immediate future. ' The grade elevation of the study site ranges from 2.9 to 6.5 feet msl, with the average grade about 4.5 feet msl. According to Masteller & Moler, the ' water table is at depths of 10 to 30 inches for about 2 to 6 months per year, and within a depth of 10 inches below ground level during the wet ' season. r ' IRC.VB4 6/4/87 4-2 1 ' Chapter 1OD-6 of the "Rules of the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services" states, "The water table elevation at the wettest season of the year is at least 24 inches below the bottom surface ' of the drainfield gravel." By following the construction standards for drainfield systems in IOD -6.56 of a minimum cover of 6 inches and 14 inches ' of gravel in the drainfield, the minimum of 24 inches from the bottom of the drainfield gravel bed to the top of the water table cannot be met by ' many of the existing systems in the study area. ' 4.1.2 SOILS The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), through the Soils Conservation Service (SCS), provides detailed maps and data on the soils of a particular area through Soil Surveys. The composition of the soils, the shallow depth to the limestone (1 to 4 ' feet) along with the existence of a high water table, pose severe constraints on the effective and efficient operation of conventional septic ' tank disposal systems. The fine grained soils are not well suited for septic tank disposal systems because of their low permeability. ' According to the soil survey on Map Number 27, the predominant soil type in the study area is the Boca -Urban Land Complex. This soil type accounts for ' between 50 and 70 percent of the land area. Twenty to thirty percent of the soil is of the urban land classification, and the remaining small ' percentage is of the Chobee, EauGallie, Floridana and Jupiter types, which will not be discussed further because they are not a major percentage and ' they are somewhat insignificant. ' The Boca soil type is characteristically made up of fine sands and silt to a depth of roughly 4 feet, underlain by a hard limestone layer. According to Masteller & Moler Associates, who performed soil borings at the study 1 IRC.VB4 6/4/87 4-3 7 1 ' area, the hard limestone layer was encountered between the depths of 1 and 4 feet bls, and the layer is from 1 to 2.5 feet thick. ' The urban classification to a soil refers to the fact that the area is developed with houses, streets, parking lots, and driveways. According to the soil survey, the Boca -Urban Land Complex at the location ' of the study site has severe limitations to its use with septic tank absorption fields. The reason for this severe limitation is the shallow ' depth to the rock layer and the high water table. ' 4.1.3 OTHER STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS Other physical, biological, and human environmental characteristics of the ' study area are similar to those described for the rest of Indian River County in the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan, and that report is ' hereby referenced. ' 4.2 DEMOGRAPHIC AND LAND USE DATA ' 4.2.1 COUNTY DEMOGRAPHIC DATA Indian River County's population in 1970 was 36,000. In 1980, the population had increased to 59,896. This is a 66 percent increase in the County's population within that ten-year period. ' It should be noted that population growth increased 29 percent between 1975 ' and 1980. If a straight line projection was based on these growth rates, the County's future population growth rate would be approximately 6 percent ' per year. The primary factor responsible for the rapid growth rates in Indian River ' County in the last ten years is the migration of people to the County from r] ' IRC.VB4 6/4/87 4-4 1 0 ' other areas of the state and country. Population increase in the County due to net migration was 96.8 percent during the years 1970 to 1979. The age distribution of Indian River County has changed dramatically. Table 4-1 indicates that while the percentage of the population aged 0-14 ' has dropped from 30.4 percent in 1960 to 18.1 percent in 1980, the percentage of those people aged 65 or over has increased from 13.9 percent ' to 20.3 percent during the same period. These trends in the age distribution of the County's population reflect the large number of elderly and retirees moving to the County. During the 1960 to 1980 period, relatively little change has occurred in the percentage of population of ' working age (this includes ages 15-64). 4.2.2 LAND USE DATA In order to obtain specific land use data for the study area, aerial ' photographs were examined. Those taken in 1969 are representative of the area prior to October 18, 1972, when PL 92-500 was signed. Also, the Land Use Map for Indian River County, as well as other aerials, were used in preparing this report. ' 4.2.3 ROCKRIDGE STUDY AREA ' The Rockridge Study Area is located in Indian River County east of 6th Avenue and south of 17th Street. The study area lies about 2,000 feet west ' of the Indian River and is in close proximity to the Vero Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant. The study area can be seen on Figure 4-1. ' The study area is located on top of a layer of hard limestone containing ' fractures and solution holes. The limestone layer is about one to two feet below the ground surface and is one to two feet thick. Also, the groundwater level is present between three to four feet below the ground r, ' IRC.VB4 6/4/87 4-5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE 4-1 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION BY AGE 1960, 1970, 1979 AND 1980 1960 1970 1979 1980 Area Age # % # % # % # % Indian River 0-14 7,691 30.4 9,828 27.3 12,165 21.4 10,812 18.1 15-44 8,475 33.5 12,024 33.4 19,715 34.8 22,263 37.3 45-64 5,591 22.1 7,884 21.9 13,803 24.3 14,641 24.3 65+ 3,516 13.9 6,264 17.4 11,078 19.5 12,180 20.3 Region- 15-44 112,437 36.3 162,199 34.9 271,194 , 35.6 N/A 45-64 69,855 22.5 104,856 22.6 177,623 23.3 N/A 65+ 39,224 12.6 79,971 17.2 160,914 21.2 N/A TOTAL 309,529 464,148 761,027 Florida - / 15-44 38.6 38.1 39.5 N/A 45-64 20.6 21.6 22.4 N/A 65+ 11.2 14.5 17.7 N/A SOURCE - Census of Po ulation, General Social and Economic Characteristics, Bureau of the Zensus, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1960 -Table 82, 197U -Table 119 and 1980 -Table 10. Note: Florida and Region data are totaled from respective County. IRC.FL1 12/8/86 1 1 1 1 AF 45745 r-"�- FIGURE 4-1 STUDY AREA CDM C ' surface throughout the study area. The presence of the hard limestone layer and the high groundwater level are conditions that prohibit the application of inexpensive or conventional methods in which to treat and ' dispose of domestic wastewater from homes in Rockridge. ' The Rockridge area of Indian River County is a single-family lot subdivision consisting of single -story, masonry dwelling units on building ' lots generally 57 feet wide by 97 feet deep. The study area contains 422 dwelling units. Each of the dwelling units is served by the Indian River ' County Utilities Department water supply system. The water lines are typically small diameter pipelines laid within existing easements along the tcurrently back lot lines in each of the. blocks. Each of the 422 dwelling units is served by an onsite septic system consisting of a septic tank and an effluent disposal field. Environmental Protection Agency methodology requires that the study area be ' evaluated on a block -by -block basis when determining substantial human habitation and population density requirements. Figure 4-1 illustrates the ' block boundaries for the five blocks within Rockridge. The boundaries were drawn roughly along city block lines, using street rights-of-way as a ' guideline. Each block was assigned an arbitrary reference number in order to tabulate data. ' Table 4-2 demonstrates that all the blocks in the Rockridge study area meet the substantial human habitation rule, which states that the block must have had some inhabitants before October 18, 1972. Table 4-2 also illustrates the present population density per net acre on a block -by -block ' basis. None of the block densities fall below 1.7 persons/acre, which would have indicated to the EPA that a central collection system was not t cost-effective for the block. Four blocks in the study area had a density for greater than 10 persons/acre, indicating to the EPA that a central collection system is cost-effective for those blocks. All blocks had ' densities greater than 1.7 persons/acre, and no block had a density less ' IRC.VB4 6/4/87 4-8 1 TABLE 4-2 ' ROCKRIDGE DEMOGRAPHIC DATA BY BLOCK (1) Based upon 2.4 persons per dwelling. u BLOCK SIZE D.U. POP.(') D.U. POP.(') 1972 POP. DEN. PRESENT POP. DEN. NUMBER (ACRES) 1972 1972 PRESENT PRESENT PERSONS/ACRE PERSONS/ACRE 9.7 44 106 44 106 10.9 10.9 '1 2 24.9 88 211 89 214 8.5 8.6 3 27.1 92 221 94 226 8.1 8.3 ' 4 32.1 149 358 152 365 11.1 11.4 5 12.0 42 101 43 103 8.4 8.6 ' TOTALS 105.8 415 996 422 1,013 9.4 9.6 (1) Based upon 2.4 persons per dwelling. u 1 1 than 8 persons/acre. The population density of the entire study area was ' 9.6 persons/acre, indicatingto the EPA that a central 1 collection system ' should be cost-effective. 4.3 WASTEWATER FLOWS Wastewater flows for the proposed four Indian River County subregional ' treatment facilities and the Vero Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) were taken from the Wastewater Master Plan Update (May 1987). These flows ' are presented in Table 4-3 and the total flows vary from an annual average flow of 6.03 mgd in Year 1985 to a maximum month flow of 15.89 mgd in Year ' 2005. The areas served by these subregional facilities are shown on Figure 4-2. ' Flows were derived from population estimates developed in the Master Plan. The population projections were based on on analysis of existing and proposed dwelling unit counts, household size, and proposed land use. Flows were estimated assuming a wastewater generation rate of 100 gallons ' per capita per day. ' Collection of wastewater within the County is accomplished by a system of gravity sewers and pump stations. The County's pumping stations convey tributary flow to the wastewater treatment plants through a force main ' system. ' Presently, all homes in the study area depend upon individual septic tanks for wastewater treatment and disposal. The septic tanks may be located in ' the front, back, or side of the lot. ' Wastewater flows in 1972 are significant in determining EPA funding eligibility. The ratio of 1972 flows to future expected flows must exceed two-thirds, (see Section 5.4). Table 4-4 presents the estimated 1972 flows ' per block for the study area. IRC.VB4 6/4/87 4-10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE 4-3 WASTEWATER FLOW u region 1985 2005 Average Daily (mgd) 0.55 4.07 o North 0.13 1.15 o Central 0.44 3.25 o West 0.15 1.70 o South 0.83 3.40 Subtotal IRC 1.55 9.50 o Vero Beach 2.66 3.21 Total Regional 6.07 12.71 Maximum Monthly (mgd) o North 0.16 1.44 o Central 0.55 4.07 o West 0.19 2.13 o South 1.04 4.24 Subtotal IRC 1.99 11.88 o Vero.Beach 3.33 4.01 Total Regional 5.26 15.89 Source: Indian River County Wastewater Master Plan Update IRC.VB4 6/4/87 INMQYYAAN1 7 ALNIq� Y/AIY NtgNl ; � � A tl . •� ' Cl Y' a 4 • O v ` Z u o Y OY OttYtYw \1i \ 11II/11 so v e � I/u11u1111111111u/nnnnnn go Nor tti/u1�aull b�- /u/dmi iAIIIV4! 111 t1; y �l y Y 31 Q 0 n11 1 7s-- 1 tt _'09 NOY)t Y21_w N/YON • • 1t,)` •0 �•; 1 A,w B ' '1 lo N._ � • � a s • � d \ � z •- -aY Y 1t aY ct : Ld : - : U U ;o� j a i 1t N1 M p aY aYOY/It _ It N1 ON QwOjjIO( (� //'� i V Iw :� � ��11/001 • , \ W = r 10 7�nu: SIl i- i )AY M)IYYt is M1 1t _ w2,111111 • y y ~� _� 11 �/• 1/.1.1111111111.11 IIIIIr1��r1/111111111/t� II/1.111111 gtIIIIIi111s M ,t aAls tYorno � U— O W • 1 U > LLJ m . 1 i o s ,111111' f •—LINIt1I1IIIIII as tAY1p : -•� ••• F— r y. Y ••••• �/ I10 w Y • YN Olt0 •• ON also ; .� U) I 4 1 TABLE 4-4 ROCKRIDGE 1972 FLOWS (1) Based on peaking factor = 3.8 7 0 1972 Average Daily Flow (gpd) 99,600 1972 Average Daily Flow (mgd) 0.09 1972 Peak Hourly Flow (mgd)(1) 0.37 1972 1972 1972 1977— RESIDENTIAL 1972 COMMERCIAL 1972 INDUSTRIAL TOTAL BLOCK ' NUMBER 1972 POPULATION FLOW (GPD) COMMERCIAL ACREAGE FLOW (GPD) INDUSTRIAL ACREAGE FLOW (GPD) FLOW (GPD) 1 106 10,560 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10,560 '2 211 21,120 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21,120 3 221 22,080 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22,080 4 358 35,760 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35,760 ' 5 101 10,080 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10,080 (1) Based on peaking factor = 3.8 7 0 1972 Average Daily Flow (gpd) 99,600 1972 Average Daily Flow (mgd) 0.09 1972 Peak Hourly Flow (mgd)(1) 0.37 1 1 ' Total peak hourly wastewater flow for the study area in 1972 was approxi- mately 0.38 million gallons per day (mgd). Present flows were determined similarly from present population estimates obtained from 1984 aerial photographs. Peak hourly flows for the study ' area are about the same as they were in 1972 and are presented in Table 4-5. 4.4 PERFORMANCE OF EXISTING ONSITE SYSTEMS It is ver difficult to evaluate the efficiency of a septic tank due to Y Y P ' the lack of standards to govern their operation. One indication of the suitability of septic tanks in a certain area is the number of complaints registered by homeowners. A local official who is concerned with septic ' tanks on a daily basis was interviewed to determine his experiences with septic tanks in the area. Mr. Glenn R. Schuessler of the Florida Department of Health and ' Rehabilitative Services said his office receives a number of complaints about septic tanks in the Rockridge area. He said that the Rockridge area is one of the worst areas in the County concerning septic tanks and that he ' has received many complaints from that area. The typical problems are lack of septic tank maintenance, clogged drainfields, a high-water table and ' poor storm drainage. ' In the case of clogged drainfields, a remedy often chosen by homeowners is to have the tank pumped out, but that does not solve the problem. The best tsolution is to completely restructure the drainfield by removing the sludge and replacing it with sand and gravel. This is quite expensive for the ' homeowner. It should be noted that complaints from residents only result from obvious ' operational failures of the septic tank as indicated by sewage back-up into ' IRC.VB4 6/4/87 4-14 1 TABLE 4-5 ROCKRIDGE PRESENT FLOWS LOCK UMBER PRESENT POPULATION RESIDENTIAL FLOW (GPD) PRESENT COMMERCIAL ACREAGE COMMERCIAL FLOW (GPD) PRESENT INDUSTRIAL ACREAGE INDUSTRIAL FLOW (GPD) FLOW PRESENT (GPD) 1 106 10,560 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10,560 214 21,360 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21,360 '2 3 226 22,560 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22,560 4 365 36,480 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 36,480 ' 5 103 10,320 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10,320 Average Daily Flow (gpd) 101,280 Average Daily Flow (mgd) 0.1013 ' Peak Hourly Flow (mgd)(1) 0.3849 (1) Based on peaking factor = 3.8 1 1 Fj the house, nuisance odors, or seepage on the ground. When septic tank problems finally manifest themselves in these ways, they have generally ' been building up for a long time. The efficiency of the septic tank may have been impaired for years, possibly causing contamination of the groundwater. Other underground problems, such as the flow short-circuiting ' the drainfield resulting in direct percolation, may never exhibit outward signs of a failed installation. Therefore, even though many residents may ' claim to have never had any problem with their septic tanks, this does not mean that the installations are operating efficiently and not polluting ' groundwater. Figure 4-3 shows a proper septic system installation and three improper installations. Ij C IRC.VB4 6/4/87 4-16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 WILL WELL iW AND PUDDLING .3 IMP. PLUGGED ABSORPTION y FI[L04 WATER TABL fK OPERATION PROPER SEPISPOSAL FOR ON OW AMC) PUDDLING POSSIBLE --/"�CONTAMINATIOH IGH LATERI TA BL SEPTIC T IMPROPER SEP'NK OPERATION FOR ONDISPOSAL FIGURE OBTAINED FROM REPORT BY MASTELLER & MOLER ASSOCIATES, FIGURE 4-3 -CDM r 1 5.1 FUTURE LAND USE 5.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS ' In accordance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975, Indian River County prepared and adopted a Comprehensive Land Use Plan. ' The Land Use Plan Map for Indian River County was used to determine the zoning of the areas in this study. Existing development within the study areas is compatible with the County plan, so future land use will not be ' substantially different from present land use. ' 5.2 FUTURE POPULATION PROJECTIONS ' To estimate future population realistically, the assumption was made that existing structures will remain intact. Growth will result from the ' development of vacant lots in accordance with the land use plan. Another method which could have been used is to assume that the existing structures are eventually demolished and the area is ultimately redeveloped at the ' maximum density allowable in the land use plan. The latter method is not reasonable in the foreseeable future for the study area, due to the good ' general condition of the neighborhood. The 1985 County Zoning Map was utilized in projecting the maximum future ' population of presently vacant land. The map specifies the development ' that may occur according to five type and density (for example, low density with a maximum of dwelling units per acre). The number of new future dwelling units or buildings was calculated on a block -by -block basis, ' considering the zoning and available vacant acreage. The Rockridge area was 95 percent built out in 1972. ' The occupancy factor of 2.4 persons per dwelling units (DU) given in the ' County's Comprehensive Plan is assumed to remain constant in the future for the study area. The future new population is the product of that factor ' times the new dwelling units. The total future population is the sum of IRC.FL1 ' 6/4/87 5-1 1 ' the existing population plus the future new population. These statistics substantially developed in 1972. The EPA does not want to construct new are summarized below. sewers in an undeveloped area as a means of promoting growth. Therefore, the EPA developed the "two-thirds rule" as a criterion for determining grant eligibility. It states that the ratio of 1972 service area flows to future projected flows must generally be greater than two-thirds. Future Total Future Total Study Present Add'l Future Present Add'l Future ' Area DU's DU's DU's Population Population Population Rockridge 422 10 432 1,013 24 1,037 ' 5.3 FORECAST OF WASTEWATER FLOWS ' Future wastewater flows are based on the future population projections presented in the previous section. Flows will remain constant since the Rockridge area is built out. Table 5-1 demonstrates the steps in calculating future flows for the ' study area, in which the total future flow is 0.3944 mgd. The same flow factors described in Section 4.3 are used in projecting future flows. 5.4 "TWO-THIRDS RULE" EVALUATION ' The EPA will only fund new collection systems for areas that were substantially developed in 1972. The EPA does not want to construct new ' sewers in an undeveloped area as a means of promoting growth. Therefore, the EPA developed the "two-thirds rule" as a criterion for determining grant eligibility. It states that the ratio of 1972 service area flows to future projected flows must generally be greater than two-thirds. To determine compliance with the two-thirds rule, blocks in each study area ' are grouped into service areas, based upon a preliminary layout of the collection system. The study area, shown in Figure 4-1, is one service area. Table 5-2 presents the results of the two-thirds rule for Rockridge ' and the service area complies with the two-thirds rule. ' IRC.FL1 6/4/87 5-2 C 1 ' TABLE 5-1 FUTURE FLOWS - ROCKRIDGE STUDY AREA TOTAL(') ADDITIONAL ' BLOCK PRESENT FUTURE NUMBER FLOW(gpd) POPULATION '1 10,560 0.0 2 21,360 5.0 3 22,560 8.0 '4 36,480 10.0 5 10,320 2.0 11 FUTURE FUTURE (2) FUTURE FUTURE INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERICAL(2) ACRES FLOW(gpd) ACRES FLOW(gpd) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Average Daily Flow (gpd) Total Average Daily Flow (mgN Total Peak Hourly Flow (mgd) '(') Taken from Table 4-5 (2) Based 9P upon 2500 ad x Non -Residential Acres P '(3) Equals Total Present Flow plus Additional Future Flow (4) Peaking Factor = 3.8 11 f I] IRC.VB4 6/3/87 TOTAL (3) FUTURE FLOW 10,560 21,860 23,360 37,480 10,520 103,780 0.1038 0.3944 1 1 ' TABLE 5-2 TWO-THIRDS RULE EVALUATION: ROCKRIDGE STUDY AREA 1 11 1 u IRC.VB4 6/3/87 Numbers 1972 Flows For Future Flows 'Block Within Service Service Area For Service Area 1972 Flow/ Service Area Area (gpd) (gpd) Future Flow ' Rockridge 1-5 0.3785 0.3944 0.96 1 11 1 u IRC.VB4 6/3/87 ' 6.0 ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS ' 6.1 GENERAL As presented in Section 4, the high groundwater situation and the ' population density of the area preclude the use of onsite systems as the most cost-effective and environmentally sound waste management technique. ' Both the Indian River County Area- Wide Master Plan and the Comprehensive Plan are based on the assumption that the wastewater flows in densely ' populated areas should be collected and treated by one of the regional wastewater treatment plants. The block -by -block analysis presented previ- ously showed that a collection system is warranted. Such a system would be eligible for grant funds under EPA criteria. Traditionally, conventional gravity sewer systems have been used in Florida for conveying wastewater. ' The possible collection system alternatives to conventional gravity sewers are small diameter sewers, vacuum sewers, and pressure sewers. 6.2 ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS ' 6.2.1 SMALL DIAMETER SEWERS ' The alternative of small diameter sewers was eliminated based on the Recommended Standards for Sewage Works, 1978, by the Great Lakes - Upper ' Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers, which requires a minimum diameter of 8 inches for sewer lines. In addition, smaller -sized ' pipe would require steeper slopes and, therefore, more expensive, deeper cuts to maintain the minimum cleansing velocity of 2 feet per second. This ' is not economically practical considering the topography of the area. ' 6.2.2 VACUUM SEWERS The alternative of vacuum sewers was eliminated due to technical ' deficiencies presently associated with this type of system. Problems occur in three areas: system design, component reliability, and a lack of IRC.VB4 6/4/87 6-1 C I J r 1� I operation and maintenance guidance. The difficulties associated with transporting two phases, liquid and gaseous, greatly complicate the design procedure. The valve boxes often corrode, causing numerous and continued malfunctions. Standby power and system malfunction reporting devices are often inadequate or nonexistent. In order to keep the vacuum systems operational, highly skilled electronics technicians are required. A much higher degree of maintenance is required on vacuum sewers than on alternate types of sewers. It was felt that such a commitment of new skilled manpower would be unacceptable to the County. 6.2.3 PRESSURE SEWERS A pressure sewer system consists of two major elements: the onsite pressurization facility and the pressurized sewer main. There are two alternative types of pressure systems: the septic tank effluent pump (STEP) system, and the grinder pump (GP) installation. The STEP system utilizes a septic tank for pre-treatment and pumps the effluent into the pressurized collection system. The GP system pumps household wastes directly from an underground storage tank into the pressurized collection main. Pressure sewers can be more cost-effective than gravity sewers in an area with a low population density and a high water table or where special geologic formations make conventional sewer construction impractical. The Rockridge Study Area is subject to a high-water table and is situated on a one to two feet thick layer of limestone just two to three feet below the ground surface which makes dewatering particularly difficult. However, the study area is well developed with population densities exceeding 8 persons per acre. 6.2.4 NO -ACTION ALTERNATIVE The no -action alternative would consist of property owners within the study areas continuing to use septic tanks for wastewater disposal. Although no IRC. VB4 6/4/87 6-2 1 C C J J J L I . detailed cost estimates have been developed for this alternative, property owners would periodically incur costs for septic tank maintenance, including pumpout, and possibly rehabilitation of their drainfields. We would expect that, on a present worth basis, the cost of the no -action alternative would probably be less than that of other alternatives. However, the no -action alternative is expected to continue to cause environmental degradation, especially of the aquifer and the Indian River. Furthermore, the no -action alternative would conflict with the Indian River County Area -Wide Master Plan which anticipates 90 percent discontinuation of the use of septic tanks in the study area by the year 2000. On the basis of environmental aspects, the no -action alternative is eliminated from further consideration. 6.3 COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS A cost-effectiveness analysis of gravity versus pressure sewers was conducted for the study areas. A GP system and a STEP system were used in the analysis. Several assumptions were made in the cost-effectiveness calculations, which are shown in Table 6-1. A design life of 20 years was assumed for both systems, with the grinder pump unit being replaced after 15 years. The current EPA interest rate for economic analysis of 8-5/8 percent was used in present worth calculations. Quantities for the sewers were obtained from the sewer layouts shown in Figure 8-1 and unit costs were obtained from detailed cost estimates for the proposed sewers. Since there were no local data available for pressure sewers, quantities for components and unit costs were obtained from the EPA publication, Alternatives for Small Wastewater Treatment Systems. "Miscellaneous costs" for pressure sewers were reduced to 10 percent since the cost for laterals was already item- ized. All costs were updated to December 1986 using the Engineering News -Record Construction Cost Index. The total figures do not include contingencies, technical services and related costs, or inflation. The IRC.VB4 6/4/87 6-3 1 TABLE 6-lA COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS GRAVITY SYSTEM Item Gravity Sewers Quantity Cost Gravity System: 8" Sewer Pipe 21,210 l.f. $ 848,400 4" Laterals 12,936 l.f. 194,096 Service Connections 422 105,500 Manholes 75 97,500 Pumping Stations 6 450,000 Force Main, 4" 1,270 l.f. 15,240 Abandon Septic Tank 422 101,280 Subtotal $1,811,966 Pavement Repair 51,840 sq. yd. $ 648,000 Miscellaneous: Special Foundations, TV Inspection, Performance Bond Premium $ 181,197 0&M Gravity Sewers: $1,648/Mile/Year for 20 Years Present Worth = $15,455/Mile�l� x 21,210 l.f. $ 62,083 Pumping Stations: $12,823/mgd/Year for 20 Years�l� Present Worth = $120,252/mgd x 0.05908 mgd $ 7,104 Total $2,710,351 (1) P/A, 8-5/8%, 20 Years = 9.3778 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE 6-1B COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS GRINDER PUMP SYSTEM rin er uma vs em Item Cost GP System: Grinder Pumps - Original (2) 422 $ 948,637 Grinder Pumps - 15 -Year Replacement (3) 422 274,251 Less: Salvage Value of GP Replacements 422 (120,951) PVC Force Main (211, 2-1/2", 311) 18,395 l.f. 91,975 Cleanouts and Air -release Valves 422 316,500 Service Connections 422 105,500 Wet Tap Connections to Existing Force Mains 12 3,000 Convert Septic Tank 422 105,500 Electrical Cable 12,660 l.f. 37,980 Electric Outlet 422 21,100 Subtotal $1,783,492 Pavement Repair 5,184 sq. yd. $ 64,800 Miscellaneous: Special Foundations, Performance Bond Premiums $ 178,349 0&M: $110.60/Unit/Year for 20 Years(i) Present Worth = $1,037.19 x 422 437,694 Power: $14.40/Unit/Year for 20 Years(i) Present Worth = $135.14 x 422 57,029 TOTAL $2,521,365 (1) P/A, 8-5/8%, 20 Years = 9.3778 (2) P/F, 8-5/8%, 15 Years = 0.2891 (3) P/F, 8-5/8%, 20 Years = 0.1912 0.1912 x 10 Years = 0.1275 T5-Te—ars u 1 1 TABLE 6-1C COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS STEP SYSTEM SitN System ItemQuantify Cost 7 Performance Bond Premiums 0&M: $118.64/Unit/Year for 20 Years(1) Present Worth = $1,112.58 x 422 Power: $14.40/Unit/Year for 20 Years(1) Present Worth = $135.14 x 422 Septic Tank Drainage: $50/3 Years for 20 Years(1) Present Worth = $156/Septic Tank x 422 P/A, 8-5/8%, 20 Years = 9.3778 (2) P/F, 8-5/8%, 15 Years = 0.2891 (3) P/F, 8-5/8%, 20 Years = 0.1912 0.1912 x 10 Years = 0.1275 Years TOTAL $ 801,800 231,800 (102,230) 422,000 91,975 316,500 105,500 3,000 37,980 21,100 $1,929,426 64,800 $ 192,943 469,509 57,029 $2,779,538 STEP System: STEP - Pumps Original 9 422 STEP Pumps - 15 -Year (2) Replacement 422 Less: Salvage Value of STEP(3) Pump Replacements 422 Rehabilitative Existing ' Septic Tanks 422 PVC Force Main (211, 2-1/211, 3") 18,395 l.f. Cleanouts and Air -release Valves 422 Service Connections 422 Wet Tap Connections to Existing ' Force Mains 12 Electrical Cable 12,660 l.f. ' Electric Outlet 422 Subtotal. Pavement Repair 5,184 sq. yd. Miscellaneous: ' Special Foundations, 7 Performance Bond Premiums 0&M: $118.64/Unit/Year for 20 Years(1) Present Worth = $1,112.58 x 422 Power: $14.40/Unit/Year for 20 Years(1) Present Worth = $135.14 x 422 Septic Tank Drainage: $50/3 Years for 20 Years(1) Present Worth = $156/Septic Tank x 422 P/A, 8-5/8%, 20 Years = 9.3778 (2) P/F, 8-5/8%, 15 Years = 0.2891 (3) P/F, 8-5/8%, 20 Years = 0.1912 0.1912 x 10 Years = 0.1275 Years TOTAL $ 801,800 231,800 (102,230) 422,000 91,975 316,500 105,500 3,000 37,980 21,100 $1,929,426 64,800 $ 192,943 469,509 57,029 $2,779,538 1 ' costs for operation and maintenance (0&M) were also compared between the two alternatives in Table 6-1 using similar cost-effectiveness analyses as ta guide. From Table 6-1, it is evident that grinder pump -pressure sewers are more ' cost-effective than either gravity sewers or a STEP system in the study area. Capital costs for low pressure sewers were found to be approximately ' 25 percent lower than those for conventional gravity sewers. Overall, pressure sewers were found to be approximately 10 percent less expensive ' than gravity sewers to construct, operate, and maintain. Also, the pressure sewer system would not be difficult to implement in the small ' study area, due to the relatively close proximity of the study area to the Vero Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant. Capital costs for low pressure sewers were found to be approximately 10 percent lower than those for the iSTEP system. Overall, pressure sewers were found to be approximately 12 percent less expensive than the STEP system to construct, operate, and maintain. Therefore, a grinder pump -pressure sewer system was developed for the study area. Section 8 presents the preliminary design of this ' system. ' IRC.VB4 6/4/87 6-7 1 C 7.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 7.1 GENERAL In accordance with EPA requirements, a public participation work plan was developed which included a public survey and a public hearing. The informal public survey was conducted after the draft report had been completed. The more structured public hearing was held after the interim report had been written, and proper legal notification given. ' Considerable effort was expended to ensure that all interested parties were contacted for the survey and notified of the public hearing. The EPA requires advance notice of 45 days in a local newspaper or other ' conspicuous location to allow adequate time for the public to review pertinent documents and to prepare for the hearing. A public survey was ' conducted at the public hearing. The public hearing was advertised in the local newspaper and notices were delivered to all affected residents. A ' copy of the advertisement can be seen on Figure 7-1 and a copy of the notice can be seen on Figure 7-2. ' 7.2 PUBLIC HEARING ' The public hearing was held on April 21, 1987, after completion of the interim report. A presentation was given by the engineering consultants, ' which was followed by a question -and -answer session. ' The public hearing presentation included the reasons that the study was performed and the results obtained. The relationship between EPA ' population criteria and the characteristics of the study area was explained. There was a discussion on the alternatives considered for wastewater collection in the area and the costs associated with the ' alternatives. ' IRC.VB4 6/4/87 7-1 140, Saturday, February 28, 1987 ,Vero Beach, Fla., Press -Journal PUBLIC "Because The People NOTICE Must Know" FIGURE 7-1 DM NOTICE A Notice Is Hereby Given that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, Apr. 21, 1987 at 1:30 p.m., in the Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building. 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, to discuss possible funding by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation of a sewer system for the cross -hatched study area •shown above. A report has been prepared by the County's Consultant. Camp Dresser d ' McKee. Inc., which outlines the alternatives considered, the recommended plan, the preliminary de- sign and the financial data. Copies of the report are available (or review at the Utilities office during the normal working hours after Mar. 2, 1967. All Interested parties are invited to attend the Public Hearing, and all persons wishing to speak will be given an opportunity to do so following a brief presentation by the Consultant. For additional Information, contact Mr. Jeffrey Boone, Engineering ' Operations Manager, at the Indian River County Utilities Department at 567-6000, or Mr. Brian Graham at Camp presser d McKee.•Inc. at 231-4301. Dated this 28th day of February 1987. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY DON O C. SCURLOCK, JR., CHAIRMAN ' 987ON Feb. 28. Mar. 2.3, t 4, 21 • 1987 FIGURE 7-1 DM C u r I- I Telephone: (305) 567-8000 April 15, 1987 FIGURE 7-2 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Suncom Telephone: 424-1011 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGARDING WASTEWATER SERVICE TO ROCKRIDGE Dear Resident: This is to inform you that the Board of County Commissioners will hear all interested parties regarding wastewater service to the Rockridge community, on Tuesday, April 21, 1987 at 1:30 PM. The hearing will be located at the County Administration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960. Enclosed is a copy of the Public Notice as published in the Press Journal on February 28th, March 2nd and 3rd, and April 14th and 21st. Should you have any questions regarding this public hearing, please contact this office at telephone 567-8000, extension 465. Sincerely, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITIES 1 iL 11 1 1 C L F A lengthy question -and -answer period followed the presentation, during which doubts were raised concerning the need for sewers and for the study in general. Many were concerned that funding would not be available and that they would be assessed an amount that they could not afford. A transcript of the entire meeting is presented in Appendix C. 7.3 PUBLIC SURVEY A septic tank survey was distributed at the public hearing and can be found on Figure 7-3. Of the 124 people responding, 65 were against the project, regardless of the funding situation. Forty-six people were in favor of the project, only if substantial outside funding became available. Thirteen individuals were in favor of the project, regardless of the funding situation. It should be noted that only 29 percent of the households affected responded to the survey. 7.4 FUTURE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ' The County Commission could decide that the project is in the best interest of the community, in which case the County will continue with the program. ' However, there is a possibility that funds may not be available after the system is designed. At that point, the County could fund the project itself, or keep the drawings and specifications ready until construction ' grant funds became available. ' The Commission could also decide to stop the project at this point. The County could use the information gathered in this study for other purposes ' now. In the future, circumstances could change such that there is more support for a sewer project. In that case, the preliminary studies will ' have already been done, and the project can proceed right into design and construction. ' Commission meetings concerning this project will be open to the public. This will allow another opportunity for the public to participate in the decision-making process. ' IRC.VB4 6/4/87 7-4 FIGURE 7-3 ' SEPTIC TANK SURVEY ' 1. How old is your home? How long have you lived in it? Do you rent or own? 2. Have you had any operational problems with your septic tank, such as ' sewage backing up into the house or seeping up in the lawn, or a clogged drainfield? ' Explain the situation and any corrective action taken. 3. Is there any objectionable odor or problems associated with your septic tank? ' Are they more prevalent (yes or no) during period of heavy rainfall? ' when water usage is high (when using the clothes washer or when someone is taking a shower, for example)? ' in the fall more than in other seasons? 4. How often do you have your septic tank pumped out? ' 5. When was the last time your septic tank was pumped out? 6. Is your septic tank located in the front, side or back yard? t7. have Do you a garbage grinder or a clothes washer? ' 8. Check the statements below that apply: I am in favor of constructing new sewers in my neighborhood, whether grant assistance is available or not. ' I am in favor of constructing new sewers in my neighborhood, only if grant assistance is available. ' I am opposed to constructing new sewers in my neighborhood. If opposed to the sewer project: ' I think that the is too high. cost ' I don't believe that the project is needed. I am satisfied with my septic tank. ' 9. Do you have any additional comments concerning this study? 10. The following information is requested, but not required: Name: Address: ' Telephone Number: ' 8.0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN 8.1 GENERAL Previous sections of this report have presented the development, land use, population, and corresponding estimated wastewater flow quantities on a per block basis for the unsewered study area in Indian River County. The ' recommended plan is for providing a grinder pump -pressure collection system. The flows will be collected and transported to the Vero Beach ' Wastewater Treatment Plant. 8.2 DESIGN CRITERIA 8.2.1 WASTEWATER FLOWS Wastewater flows in the study area are entirely domestic. Residential ' flows are based on a "per capita" factor. Experience in Indian River County indicates that 100 gallons of wastewater per capita per day (gpcd) ' represents a reasonable rate for the average daily flow (ADF) in residential areas. In addition, this factor was verified for Indian River County in its Comprehensive Plan. 8.2.2 DESIGN LAYOUT Figure 8-1 shows a schematic layout of a manifolded system of small PVC ' force mains 2- to 3 -inches in diameter. The small PVC force mains would be constructed within the existing backyard easement areas which presently ' accommodate the existing potable water supply system serving the Rockridge project service area. ' Each dwelling unit would be furnished with an arrangment as shown on the Dwelling Grinder Pump Typical Installation Detail on Figure 8-2. It is ' proposed that the sewer contractor would remove the existing septic tank ' IRC:VB4 6/4/87 ' 8-1 1 f C L C 18TH STREET �....ee.,e...e,....,.e..t.tL! ---- - = I EXISTING 18 DIA. I CONCRETE FORCE MAIN / A 1 = �I 17 TH STREET L.t..e.e..sell gas III eelogo F— If r r If r � fuuunu.� • 16 TH STREET - I W W W W Z JT 1Z Z Z il m IQ 1 1 al / a / A > _ Q _ I : iie,.eete.t.., " I - 1 l( 1 1 1 l A - _F CANAL I Tt�nnnuutnt,t,U Lututnn,n.ntuttti I . EXISTING 6" = I Ir (9 CITY OF VERO BEACH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 15 TH STREET 14 TH PLACE 14 TH STREET P.V.C. FORCE DIA. = t,tt,tt.tt,tt PROPOSED SERVICE AREA - I = = MAIN' - - ---- EXISTING FORCE MAINS I f,te,.,t�3THil all etoilo STREET� I PROPOSED PRESSURE I COLLECTION LINE I FIGURE 8-1 PROPOSED PRESSURE WATER COLLECTION SYSTEM CDM, AF 45745 W cr cr W a Wuj Q Q J c7 3 z Z W O r H J m r � Xuj W _ CL J 0 O z r ac J a Na S _a x W N ouj W J p LLr vM Ct a Z N - O ar } _r I N F- u z vmz 1.i. L) W i s a' 2 so02 W mf W mW rrW Q cc C, U in O: zUrUr M/ Q HZr z W N{ut Ua� i.i aaa (n Y J Z cr LLAx CC O ui LD L, W — a m Z = ? Q W L1.: =0X Z Q U-) W W II �� J Q "o o V ,J ' WZ 4a 9 � fn z m 2 v aoz cr ut zaro o V Z �? z rNoz � z V1 z U in0Ja O W CO Z 0a0 > j� 0 Wry a L7 — c� m U _ J — Z J J a W Q Z J U m W ¢ > O ..� r W r r 0 3 W a U tm J d W 0 O ►- L) > Z > H N N N J O 2 W 0 W U Opp W N N W U w W W Z p Y z LL,W J } z O O ¢ a W ¢ W i w F——)Z N W z r_ O `� t asj O r03 CL W F 0 Q v w¢ O N W W O W J 0 O z C7 J Z a ,� (D J O z 3 J N J W J UM„ J cr O (rJ NW O -LLJ as N a NW� rx3z J _p- co =.1 0 Q F- W0D LL WJ I Wm a Na {L FIGURE B-2 CDM ' lid dewater its contents clean the tank fracture the bottom and ' backfill the septic tank to grade with approved backfill sandy material. Meanwhile, the existing 4 -inch service lateral from the house would be extended to connect to a fiberglass pump basin which would be installed in ' the septic tank backfill material. The existing disposal field for each home would be abandoned and a grinder pump installed in each basin would ' intermittently discharge the wastewater from each house into the manifolded small force main system shown on Figure 8-1. In effect, the grinder ' pump/small force main system functions as a water supply system in reverse. Instead of pressurized water being supplied by a main pipeline to each ' dwelling unit, pressurized wastewater is discharged from each dwelling unit into a common main. ' Each of the 422 units in the Rockridge project service area would be furnished with its own basin and grinder pump. When considering the layer ' of hard limestone and high ground water table factors, the grinder pump/manifolded small force main system results in distinct and profound ' advantages since construction will be above the ground water table and layer of hard limestone. In addition, the small manifolded PVC force mains ' have flexibility which allows them to be deflected around trees, shrubs, sheds, and utility poles located within the existing backyard easement ' area. The small 2- and 3 -inch diameter PVC force mains will primarily be ' constructed in a north -south direction and it is proposed that the force mains connect directly into the existing 6 -inch PVC force main along 16th ' Street and directly into the 18 -inch existing force main along 18th Street. ' The grinder pump system is a proven system with a track record of reliability provided that the system is properly designed and quality pumping equipment is used in its construction. Once installed, the system ' should provide trouble-free operation and effectively solve the existing sewage problems in the Rockridge area. ' IRC.VB4 6/4/87 ' 8-4 1 J C 7 1 A disadvantage of the grinder pump system, when compared to the conventional gravity sewer collection system, is that the grinder pump will cause an increase in the homeowner's electrical bill due to the intermittent operation of its 2 HP, single phase motor. Assuming the average dwelling unit discharges approximately 300 GPD of wastewater into the system, it is estimated that the 2 HP, single phase pump motor will cycle approximately 6 times and pump a total of 15 minutes out of every 24 hours. Using an estimated electric charge of 8 cents per kilowatt hour, s and assuming 2 HP is equal to two kilowatts, the estimated increase in electrical cost per dwelling unit for 15 minutes of pump operation per day is 4¢ per day, or $1.20 per month. An estimated construction cost for the grinder pump/manifolded small force main alternative is included in the following section of this Report. 8.3 TIME SCHEDULE The time schedule for constructing a sewer system in the study area will be subject to the availability of grant assistance. The EPA divides its program into three steps as follows: STEP I PLANNING STEP II DESIGN STEP III CONSTRUCTION Table 8-1 presents an estimated schedule for completion of the project without considering the time involved for receiving grant funds. 8.4 COST ESTIMATE 8.4.1 CONSTRUCTION COSTS A cost estimate was conducted for constructing the recommended wastewater collection system. This estimate was performed using EPA guidelines. IRC.VB4 6/4/87 E:M I 1 I [I 1 [I 0 TABLE 8-1 ESTIMATED TIME SCHEDULE STEP Per Request for Inclusion) Completion Date Milestone May 30, 1986 Collection System Study with Adopting Resolution, Notification of Public Hearing May 30, 1986 Public Hearing Documentation (including Public Responsiveness) May 30, 1986 Financial Capability Analysis March 15, 1987 Documentation for Reserve Capacity and Eligibility Determination March 15, 1987 User Charge System March 15, 1987 Plans and Specifications March 15, 1987 Construction Permit Application March 15, 1987 Draft Plan of Operation March 15, 1987 Engineering Contract(s) Including Project Performance Proposal March 15, 1987 Certification of Availability of Local Share of Project Costs March 15, 1987 Step 3 Grant Application and Supporting IRC.VB4 6/4/87 Documentation 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE 8-1 ESTIMATED TIME SCHEDULE (continued) STEP III Function Duration (weeks) Advertise for bids 3 - Receive and Review Bids 2 - 3 Award and Execute Contract 2 - 3 Pre -Construction Meeting 1 - 2 Notice to Proceed/ Start Contruction 2 - 3 Completion of Project 50 - 60 IRC.VB4 6/4/87 1 1 1 J 1 1 Fri 11 r TABLE 8-2 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST OF RECOMMENDED PLAN Contingencies, Technical Services and related costs at 25 percent Total Project Cost $ 466,873 $2,334,165 Estimated Item Description Estimated Quantity Construction Cost Grinder Pump 422 $ 948,637 PVC Force Main (2", 2-1/2", 3") 18,395 l.f. 91,975 Clean Out and Air Release Valves 422 316,500 Service Connections 422 105,500 Wet Tap Connections to Existing Force Mains 12 3,000 Septic Tank Conversion 422 105,500 Electrical Cable 12,660 l.f. 37,980 Electric Outlet 422 21,100 Pavement Repair 5,200 sq. yd. 65,000 Miscellaneous Special Foundations and Performance Bond Premiums 172,300 Subtotal $1,867,492 Contingencies, Technical Services and related costs at 25 percent Total Project Cost $ 466,873 $2,334,165 1 TABLE 8-3 ' ESTIMATED COST OF PROJECT TO INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER post to Total Project Eligibility(2) Project Cost Property Owner Item Cost Factor with Funding with 55% Funding Grinder Pump $948,637 eptic Tank $2,248 Conversion 105,500 VC Force Main 91,975 lean Out and Air 43,918 Release Valves 316,500 ervice Connections 105,500 Wet Tap to Existing 750 Force Mains 3,000 lectrical Cable 37,980 Electric Outlet 21,100 scellaneous 7 fiavement Repair, 18,135 Special Foundations 90 Technical Services 711,485 24 50 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ost to Proper Owner without 55% Funding 0.95 $452,974 $1,073 $2,248 0.95 50,376 119 250 0.95 43,918 104 218 0.95 151,129 358 750 0.95 50,376 119 250 0.95 1,433 3 7 0.95 18,135 43 90 0.95 10,075 24 50 0.95 339,734 805 1,686 $2,650 $5,549 1 1 Table 8-2 summarizes the construction cost estimation data. The estimated ' total project cost includes a 25 percent allowance for contingencies and related services. The construction cost of the project is 2,334,365. ' 8.4.2 ESTIMATED COST OF PROJECT TO HOMEOWNER Table 8-3 demonstrates the positive impact of grant assistance on the cost ' of the project to an individual homeowner. Major capital expenditures, such as the grinder pumps and force mains, are eligible for 55 percent grant funding. Several assumptions were made in the development of Table 8-3, the estimated cost of the project to the individual property owner: ' 1) An eligibility factor of 95 percent was assumed based on existing need. ' 2) A grant equal to 55 percent funding. IRC.VB4 ' 6/4/87 8-8 1 ' 9.0 ARRANGEMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION This section consists of a financial capability demonstration. The ' demonstration is comprised of two documents required by the EPA and FDER: a certification letter prepared by the County's Budget Officer, and the Financial Capability Package. Copies of each of these documents are presented in the remainder of this section. ' IRC.FL1 12/9/86 9-1 i 1 ITelephone: (305) 567-8000 i BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 December 8, 1986 Richard W. Smith, P.E., Chief Bureau of Wastewater Management and Grants Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 ' RE: C120502060 (STEP 3) Indian River County Utilities Sewers Suncom Telephone: 424-1011 Dear Mr. Smith: I hereby certify that we have analyzed the local share of the costs of the proposed wastewater treatment facilities, including their financial impact on this community and the residents of the service area. As a result of these analyses, I have found that we have the legal, institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure ' adequate construction, operation and maintenance, and replacement of the wastewater treatment works. Sincerely yours, ' JOE BAIRD BUDGET OFFICER 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 EXHIBIT V Wastewater Facilities Financial Information Sheet Applicant Name Indian River County, Florida Address 1840 25th Street City Vero Beach, Florida ,ip 32560 Contact Mr. Terrance G. Pinto Telephone (305) 567-8000 What Is Proposed In The Facilities Plan? • The proposed facilities will be: 7 New _ An expansion _ An upgrade (check more than one if applicable) • If treatment facilities are proposed, do they feature low O+M Cost Technology such as ponds. trickling filters, overland flow? if yes, please identify. • The facilities will serve: Indicate the approximate percentage of the plant's capacity that will be allocated to each. ❑ Yes X- No ❑ Existing ® Existing Area ❑ Existing Population Served by Industries on Sewers On -Site Systems % 100 °; ❑ Anticipated Growth e Entities to be served: County _ Municipality Sewer district Industry • Design population 162,659 (Year 2005 ) (Total projected population for the entire County). 19 EXHIBIT V (Continued) Wastewater Facilities Financial Information Sheet j t 0 • Wastewater treatment plant • Pump stations • Interceptor sewers • Collection sewers • On-site systems • Land acquisition • Other • Total construction costs $ -0-h0.14" (201) (202) ,000 _ (203) 1,197,000 (204) (205) – (206) 6o nno $7 9 , 000 f208� 13 How Will The Facilities Be Financed? A. Amount to be borrowed What Roles And Responsibilities Will Local Governments Have? (O,M+R) costs for the proposed facilities ' • Grantee share of construction costs Cooperative arrangefiaents between various entities may be required to meet the management needs of wastewater n•m1M (309) treatment facilities. • What agency will: Owns facilitl 0 •rat Indian Over County ,.«,,,,. (315) Indign River County fIiP1'faan River • Will there be financial (101) (320) contrlbutions by:. Other agencies C YeaNo Industry ry _Yes i2No County T185,000 (321) • Have participating agencies been asked Wastewater facilities Population (103) • Outside services to review: Service areas plan _Yes D(No projections _ Yng No boundaries Z Yes �C No (105) • Misc. expenses �— • Have agreements been sought between (213) • Equipment replacement 11000 the operating agency and: Participating agencies _, Yes [N Nc Other agencies Z Yes _Wo Industry ::Yes $ No (107) • Total operation, How Much Will The Facilities Cost At Today's Prices? (339) maintenance and The following figures are estimated costs for construction, operation. and maintenance of the proposed facilities. Dollar amounts are uninflated and reflect today's prices. A. Construction costs estimate 8 E per year t 0 • Wastewater treatment plant • Pump stations • Interceptor sewers • Collection sewers • On-site systems • Land acquisition • Other • Total construction costs $ -0-h0.14" (201) (202) ,000 _ (203) 1,197,000 (204) (205) – (206) 6o nno $7 9 , 000 f208� 13 How Will The Facilities Be Financed? A. Amount to be borrowed replacement (O,M+R) costs for the proposed facilities ' • Grantee share of construction costs $621,000 n•m1M (309) • Construction -related costs 103+000 (315) • Grantee contributions 5 (320) • Amount to be borrowed T185,000 (321) C. Total estimated annual wastewater to lltie £o}ts 1j CLbb I�Mn11M • Net existing O,M+R 883 (328) • Existing annual debt service 31,777 (329) • ON+R for proposed facilities 6,500 (330) • Debt service for proposed facilities See note below (331) • Total estimated annual wastewater facilities costs $1,065,160 (332) Note for Line 331: The additional debt service for special assessment bonds will be borne solely by new connections to the facilities through special assessments. stimated annual operation, maintenance, and replacement (O,M+R) costs for the proposed facilities ' Annual I Term of debt service method • Labor $1, 0001.•/Il rate lin • Utilities 500 4.500 per per year (209)) abdatind per year (210)'' • Materials per year (211) • Outside services per year (212) • Misc. expenses �— Per year (213) • Equipment replacement 11000 per year (214) • Total operation, $18,870 (339) maintenance and $1_,086,173 replacement costs _$6.500 per year (215) E. Methods of financing the amount to be borrowed Financing Amount Interest I Annual I Term of debt service method borrowed rate maturity payment General Special Assessment abdatind oon 185,00 8% 20 yrs $18,870 Revenue bond I -0- N/AVN/A -0- Loan —0- N/A -0 - Total $1185,000 (338) $18,870 1-1— (322) (323) (324) (325) D. Sources of funding for total annual wastewater facilities costs • Sewer service charges $831,396 1 •T••• (333) • Surcharge -0- (334) • Special assessments and fees — connection fee _ –0– (335) — betterment assessments – (336) — other _n_ (337) • Transfers from other funds • Other 377 2�3 u (338) l (339) • Total funding $1_,086,173 (340) RE IEXHIBIT V (Continued) Wastewater Facilities Financial Information Sheet FOR EXISTING WASTEWATER SERVICE CUSTOMERS 1 11 1 t Your community must certify that it has the capability to finance and manage the proposed facility The answers to the preceeding questions will provide useful information regarding the cost of the proposed facility, how it will be financed, and what this means in terms of costs to the typical household user. In order to evaluate effectively the true impact of the proposed treatment system, however, this information must be viewed within the overall context of the community's financial condition, financial resources, legal constraints, and local public policy. Listed below are additional elements relating to a community's overall financial condition and its ability to pay the local costs of constructing and operating the treatment system. These factors should be considered before signing the financial and management capability certification. • reasonableness of population projections relative to historic trends (if new population growth is needed to help finance the proposed system.) • total current outstanding indebtedness • state finance laws and legal debt limits • historical trends in your community's revenue sources Le.g., changes in taxable assessed property valuation with respect to population) • current bond rating and its historical trend If your community would have difficulty financing the proposed project, it should consider alternative methods of financing to mitigate the adverse impacts, re-evaluate the project alternative and scope, or consider staging implementation to spread out financing to future users. When certifying your project, the community should be fully satisfied that both the users and the community as a whole have the capability to finance and manage the facility as proposed. 21 What Are The Annual Costs Per Household? from tine *Total estimated annual wastewater Total annual costs $188 facilities charges $1,065,160 (400) per household (406) • Nonresidential shar of to I annual charges (401) • Residential share of'tott81'6nnOual charges • Number of households $8 7,040 (402) (403) 4,622 • Annual costs per household for —wastewater collection and treatment $188 (404) ' --other $-0- (405) Certification of Financial Capability 1 11 1 t Your community must certify that it has the capability to finance and manage the proposed facility The answers to the preceeding questions will provide useful information regarding the cost of the proposed facility, how it will be financed, and what this means in terms of costs to the typical household user. In order to evaluate effectively the true impact of the proposed treatment system, however, this information must be viewed within the overall context of the community's financial condition, financial resources, legal constraints, and local public policy. Listed below are additional elements relating to a community's overall financial condition and its ability to pay the local costs of constructing and operating the treatment system. These factors should be considered before signing the financial and management capability certification. • reasonableness of population projections relative to historic trends (if new population growth is needed to help finance the proposed system.) • total current outstanding indebtedness • state finance laws and legal debt limits • historical trends in your community's revenue sources Le.g., changes in taxable assessed property valuation with respect to population) • current bond rating and its historical trend If your community would have difficulty financing the proposed project, it should consider alternative methods of financing to mitigate the adverse impacts, re-evaluate the project alternative and scope, or consider staging implementation to spread out financing to future users. When certifying your project, the community should be fully satisfied that both the users and the community as a whole have the capability to finance and manage the facility as proposed. 21 a EX.iI BIT V (Continued) WastewCa ger Facilities Financial Information Sheet FOR NEW CONNECTIONS FROM THE PROJECT 1 What Are The Annual Costs Per Household? from line ' *Total estimated annual wastewater facilities charges $1,065,160 ,;M • Total annual costs $238 (400) per household (406) * Nonresidential shall fil5v annual charges (401) 1 * Residential share of total annual charges * Number of households $867,040 (402) 4 622 (403) * Annual costs per household for —wastewater collection and treatment $188 (404) ' —other $50 (405) ' Certification of Financial Capability P Y ' Your community must certify that it has the capability to finance and manage the proposed facility. The answers to the preceeding questions will provide useful information regarding the cost of the proposed facility, how it will be financed, and what this means in terms of costs to the typical household user. In order to evaluate effectively the true impact of the proposed treatment system, however, this information must be viewed within the overall context of the community's financial condition, financial resources, legal constraints, and local public policy. Listed below are additional elements relating to a community's overall financial condition and its ability to pay the local costs of constructing and operating the treatment system. These factors should be considered before signing the financial and management capability certification. * reasonableness of population projections relative to historic trends (if new population growth is needed to help finance the proposed system.) * total current outstanding indebtedness * state finance laws and legal debt limits * historical trends in your community's revenue sources Le.g., changes in taxable assessed property valuation with respect to population) * current bond rating and its historical trend >� If your community would have difficulty financing the proposed project, it should consider alternative methods of financing to mitigate the adverse impacts, re-evaluate the project alternative and scope, ' or consider staging implementation to spread out financing to future users. When certifying your project, the community should be fully satisfied that both the users and the community as a whole have the capability to finance and manage the facility as proposed. 21 WHAT ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES WILL LOCAL GOVERNMENTS HAVE? Worksheet #1 MI A. WHAT AGENCY WILL: Own the Operate The Finance The (101) Facilities Facilities Facilities Indian River Indian River Indian River County ounty ouun y--- • Does The Agency Have Experience In Performing The Function? X Yes ,— No :)( Yes No "X Yes = No (102) B. WILL THERE BE A Participating Industry FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION Agencies (103) BY: ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes LX No • Amount Expected? g 5 (104) C. WILL THE PARTICIPATING Wastewater AGENCIES BE ASKED TO Facilities REVIEW: Plan • What Will Be The Forum ❑ Yes 2No For The Review (Le, Meeting, Comments On Draft Documents)? D. WILL AGREEMENTS BE Participating SOUGHT BETWEEN THE Agencies OPERATING AGENCY AND: I] Yes rX No • Describe The Type Of Agreement Required (i.e., Ordinance Approval, Cost Allocation, Excess Capacity). 26 Population Service (105) Projections Area Boundaries Yes i %No CD Yes €No (106) Other Local Industry (1071 Agencies Yes i I No j] Yes L No (108) HOW MUCH WILL THE FACILITIES COST AT TODAY'S PRICES? A. CONSTRUCTION COSTS ESTIMATE System Component • Wastewater Treatment Plant Cost Total Cost Worksheet n2 Section A Sludge Handling Facilities (Year to be built NN/A) $ -0--(201) • Pump Stations -0- (202) • Interceptor Sewers Rockridge Force Mains $122,000 122,00 (203) • Collection Sewers _0_ (204) On-site And Other Innovative Alternative Systems RQckrid9�Orind r p,m� - 1,197.000 (205) • Land Acquisition __a0_ -__j206) • Other Inspection and Construction $ 50.000 Management Proj. Perf. & Start -Up Svcs. $10,000 60,000 (207) • TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS (201 + 202 + 203 + 204 + 205 +206+207) 1, 379 , 000 ,208) 29 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 t 1 1 B. ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPLACEMENT COSTS FOR THE PROPOSED FACILITIES Worksheet k 2 Section B System Components Sludge Cost Treatment Handling Pump Interceptor Collection On -Site Total Categories Plant Disoosal Stations Sewers Sewers Systems Costs • Labor (Salaries. Fringe Benefits. & Overtime) Operations M-intenance - Management Support Services (Purchasing, Data Processing, Finance, Etc.) Total1000 (209) • Utilities (Fuel & Power) Electricity Fuel Oil Natural Gas Automotive Fuel Water Service Other Total • Materials & Supplies Chemicals (itemize) Maintenance Automotive Laboratory Administrative Supplies General Total • Outside Services Sludge Hauling or Disposal Engineering Service Data Processing Other Total • Miscellaneous Expenses -insurance Travel & Meals Telephone - Training - Equipment Rental Total • Equipment Replacement Process Equipment (e.g.. Pumps, Scrappers. Collectors. etc.) Vehicles Minor Miscellaneous Other Total • Total Operation, Maintenance. and Replacement Costs 34 $4�0 $4,500 (210) $(211) (212) —(213) $ 500 y ""' $1,000 (214) $6,500 (215) s HOW WILL THE FACILITIES BE FINANCED? A. AMOUNT TO BE BORROWED FOR CONSTRUCTION AND CONSTRUCTION -RELATED COSTS Grantee Share of Construction Costs ($1,000-s) System Component From Line Wastewater Treatment Plant 201 Pump Stations 202 Interceptor Sewers 203 Collection Sewers 204 On -Site Systems 205 Land Acquisition 206 Other 207 Total Worksheet n3 Section A Con- struction EPA State Other Grantee Cost Share Share Grants Share $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- _U_ 122 67 -0- -0- 55 -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- 11197 658 -0- -0- 539 -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- 60 33 -0- -0 - 27 $1,379 $ 758 $ -0- $ -0- Total Grantee Share (301 + 302 + 303 + 304 + 305 + 306 + 307) 36 $ 621 (301) (302) (303) (304) (305) (306) (307) (308) (309) 11 Worksheet ;#3 Section A Construction-fleIated Costs Interest Paid on Loans and Notes $ _0_ ___.. (310) Repayments to Other Funds -0- Local Share of P!anning and Design Costs 68,000 (2 12) Legal, Financial and Other Fees for Issuance and Sale of Bonds 20,000 (313) Other Costs (Identity Administrative 15,000 (314) Total Construction -Related Costs (310+311 + 312+313+314) $103,000 (315) Grantee Contributions (Reduction in Amount to be Borrowed) Accumulated Property Tax Revenue -0 $ (316) Local Funds (Reserves) Available for the Project -0 (317) Prepaid Connection Fees and Betterment Assessments 539,000 (318) Other Sources of Front -End Funding (Identify) -0- (319) Total Grantee Contributions $ 539,000 (320) (316+317+318+319) Amount to be Borrowed $ 185 (321) (309 + 315 - 320) 39 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 41 Worksheet 43 Section B B. METHODS OF FINANCING THE AMOUNT TO BE BORROWED Financing Amount Interest Term of Annual Debt Service Method Borrowed Rate Maturity Payment Special Ass ssment Bon XGxx AWjWXbon $185,000 8% 20 years $18,870 X7d1C (322) Revenue Bond -0- N/A N/A -0- (323) Loan -0- N/A N/A I -0- (324) Total $185,000 $18,870 (325) Capital Recovery Table Length of Interest Rates in Percents Maturity in 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Years 10 .142 .149 .156 .163 .170 .177 .184 .192 .199 15 .110 .117 .124 .131 .139 .147 .155 .163 .171 20 .094 .102 .110 .117 .126 .134 .142 .151 .160 25 .086 .094 .102 .110 .119 .128 .136 .145 .155 30 .081 .089 .097 .106 .115 .124 .133 .143 .152 35 .077 .086 .095 .104 .113 .122 .132 .141 .151 40 .075 .084 .093 .102 .112 .121 .131 .141 .151 4 41 1 Worksheet #3 Section C C. TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL LOCAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM COSTS • Existing Annual Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs • Discontinued Annual Operation Maintenance, and Replacement Costs to be Discontinued as a Result of Proposed Project • Net Existing Annual Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs (Net) (326-327) • Existing Annual Debt Service S 1,026,883 - (326) $ -0- (327) s 1,026,883 (328) s 31,777 (329) • Estimated Annual Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs of Proposed Facilities (215) $ • Estimated Annual Debt Service and Other Required Expenses for Proposed Facilities (325) (1) $ • Total Estimated Annual Local Wastewater Treatment System Costs (328 + 329 + 330 + 331) 6,500 LIZ (330) (331) s 1,065,160 (3321 (1) The additional debt service on line 325 for the special assessment bonds will be borne by special assessments levied upon the r,ew connections. Thus, it will be shown on line 405 for new connections. 43 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 D. SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR TOTAL ANNUAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND FACILITIES COSTS • Sewer Service Charges S 831.396 • Surcharge on Sewer Service Charges - • Special Assessments and Fees — Connection Fees _ (S per connection, number of connections_) — Betterment Assessments (S per - number ) — Other (Describe) • Transfers From Other Funds (Identify) From tions for payment of Uebt ervice • Other ( dentify Pen i t Service Char es $100.000 _Interest In om $100 000 _MicrP11anPnuc gi,nnn • Total Funding .44 31,777 223,000 S1.086.173 Worksheet #3 Section D (333) (334) (335) (336) (337) (338) (339) (340) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Worksheet =4 FOR NEW CONNECTIONS FROM THE PROJECT WHAT ARE THE ANNUAL COSTS PER HOUSEHOLD? • Total Estimated Annual Wastewater Treatment System Costs (332) S 1,065,160 (400) • Nonresidential Share of Total Annual Wastewater Treatment System Costs S 198,120 (401) • Residential Share of Total Annual Wastewater Treatment System Costs (400 — 401) S 867,040 (402) • Number of Households 4-622 (403) • Annual Wastewater Treatment System Cost Per Household (402 _ 401) S 188 (404) • Other Annual Costs Per Household (Identify) Annual special assessment debt service :--MM/375 5gn (405) dwellings • Total Annual Costs Per Household 238 - (404 + 405) S (406) 48 1 I� 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 FOR EXISTING WASTEWATER SERVICE CUSTOMERS WHAT ARE THE ANNUAL COSTS PER HOUSEHOLD? • Total Estimated Annual Wastewater Treatment System Costs (332) • Nonresidential Share of Total Annual Wastewater Treatment System Costs • Residential Share of Total Annual Wastewater Treatment System Costs (400 — 401) • Number of Households • Annual Wastewater Treatment System Cost Per Household (402 _ 401) • Other Annual Costs Per Household (Identify) I • Total Annual Costs Per Household (404 + 405) 48 Worksheet #4 $ 1,065,160 (400) $ 198,120 (401) $ 867,040 (402) 4,622 (403) $ 188 (404) $ -0- (405) $ 188 (406) fi J 1 i t 1 1 �j t EXHIBIT VII Supplemental Information Sheet This Supplemental Information Sheet may be used by your community as the basis for an in-depth evaluation of financial condition. It outlines a method for assessing a community's relative financial strengths and weaknesses. What is The Community's Debt History? A. Bond Ratings • What % of your debt limit is currently used? i� % (517) What Is The Community's Financial Condition? • Community's most recent general obligation bond rating A4/1/83 4/ 1/83 �,.m °•. Indicator Rating Date of rating (500) • Community's most recent revenue bond rating AAA 4/1/86 2. Current surplus as a % of total Rating Fa—to of rating (501) B. Outstanding Debt q 2-4—.2% Beiow 0% D% to 5% $ 3,170,000 3. Real property tax collection rate 95.15% Below 96% X • General Obligation Bonds Above 98% (611) 4. Property tax revenues as a % of full (502) • Revenue Bonds 10.599.200 (503) • Gross Direct Debt 13.759.200 -- Above 4% 2% to 4% (504) • Direct Net Debt 3,170,000 (505) • Overlapping Net Debt value of real property 0 • 8% (506) • Overall Net Debt + Below 3% X (616) 6. Overall net debt outstanding as a % of (507) • Other Debt 13.185.899 (508) • New Debt for Other Capital Improvements 5.515.000 Above 12% (509) 7. Direct net debt per capita ^ s � C. Debt Repayment Schedule $250 to $750 Below S250 X (620) B. Overall net debt per capita • Total Overall Net Debt Due Above S1,DD0 $450 to S1,000 Below S450 X (621) (including new Issue) within next 5 years $3.170.000 (515) D. Debt Limits within next 5 years 100% Below 10% • Briefly describe any limits on debt that apply to your community. X Above 30%e (622) 10. Operating ratio 105. 1n None 100% to 120% X Above 120%: (630) 11. Coverage ratio -- Below 120% 120% to 170% X (516) • What % of your debt limit is currently used? i� % (517) What Is The Community's Financial Condition? Indicator Indicator rating Indicator value .9.rr.% Weak Average Stl_.ig „•� 4- Above 4% X (602) 1. Annual rate of change in population Below —I% —1 % to 1 % 2. Current surplus as a % of total current expenditures q 2-4—.2% Beiow 0% D% to 5% Above 5% X (610) 3. Real property tax collection rate 95.15% Below 96% X 96% to 98% Above 98% (611) 4. Property tax revenues as a % of full market value of real property 0. 3% Above 4% 2% to 4% X Below 2% (615) S. Overall net debt as a % of full market value of real property 0 • 8% Above 5% 3% to 5% Below 3% X (616) 6. Overall net debt outstanding as a % of personal income 3.0% Above 12% 4% to 12% Below 4% X (619) 7. Direct net debt per capita ^ s � Above $750 $250 to $750 Below S250 X (620) B. Overall net debt per capita $ Above S1,DD0 $450 to S1,000 Below S450 X (621) 9. •A direct not debt outstanding due within next 5 years 100% Below 10% 10% to 30% X Above 30%e (622) 10. Operating ratio 105. 1n Below 100%. 100% to 120% X Above 120%: (630) 11. Coverage ratio 168.1% Below 120% 120% to 170% X Above 170%. (631) 52 1 1 t 11 1 J 11 11 1 Worksheetr 5 Sections A and B WHAT IS THE COMMUNITY'S DEBT HISTORY? A. BOND RATINGS • Community's Most Recent General Obligation Bond Rating A 4/1/83 (500) Rating Date of Rating • Community's Most Recent Revenue Bond Rating AAA 4/1/86 (501) Rating Date of Rating B. DEBT 54 Outstanding + This Project Total • General Obligation $3,170,000 $ -0- $3,170,000 (502) Bonds • Revenue Bonds 10,414,200 --155,000(1) 10,599,200 (503) • Gross Direct Debt 13,769.,200 (504) • Direct Net Debt 3,170,000 -0- 3,170,000 (505) • Overlapping Net Debt 26,237,000 -0- 26.237.00n (506) • Overall Net Debt .29,407,000 (507) • Other Debt (2) 13,185,899 13,185,899 (508) • New Debt for Other ( 3) 5,515,000 (509) Capital Improvements (1) Special assessment bonds (self-supporting.) (2) Includes Special Obligation Bonds of $4,890,000, Special Assessment Bonds of $7,215,000, Accrued Compensated Absences of $383,116, Notes Payable to the State of Florida of $381,962, and Capital Leases of $315,821. (3) For construction of the County's Detention Center and other wastewater system projects. 54 Worksheet #5 Sections C and D C. DEBT REPAYMENT SCHEDULE • Principal Debt Repayment Schedule (Including Proposed Project) For Direct Net Debt Within Next 5 Years Existin Debt This Poject T Year 1 g.11 052,415 s -b- $1,052,�tfk5 (510) Year 2 1 � bl , Uzb -u- I, (511) Year 3 -0- 1.06 .560 (512) Year 4 _ 'Q- _ _ -0- (513) Year 5 U - - -0- (514) • Total Direct Net Debt Due (including proposed project) Within Next 5 Years (510 + 511 + 512 + 513 + 514) $ 3,170,000 (515) D. DEBT LIMITS • Briefly describe any limitations on debt that apply to your community. (516) None • What percentage of your debt limit will be used? 56 N/A % (517) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Worksheet #6 Indicators 1.4 WHAT IS THE COMMUNITY'S FINANCIAL CONDITION? INDICATOR 1 • Community Papulation 5 Years Ago ( 1980) 59,896 (600) • Current Year Population (1985 ) 76,442 (601) • Annual Rate of Change in Population 5.5 % (602) INDICATOR 2 • Property Taxes S11,150,046 (603) • Other Revenues S 6,114,049 (604) • Total Current Revenues (19.U) S17,264,095 (605) • Operating Expenditures s 13,626,492 (606) • Debt Service Payments $ 194,266 (607) • Total Current Expenditures (19-L5) $ 13,820,758 (608) • Current Surplus (Deficit) (605-608) s 3,443,337 (609) • Current Operating Surplus (Deficit) As A Percentage of Total Current Expenditures (609 = 608 X 100) 24.9 % (610) INDICATOR 3 • Real Property Tax Collection Rate (Most Recent Tax Year Available 19.L5) 95.15 % (611) INDICATOR 4 • Assessed Value of Real Property $ 3,534,024,949 (612) • Current Assessment Ratio 100.0 % (613) • Full Market Value of Real Property s 3,534,024,949 (614) • Property Tax Revenues As A Percentage of Full Market Value of Real Property (603 _ 614 X 100) 0.3 % (615) 61 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 63 1 1 1 1 u 1 n 11 Instructions for Indicators 5-9 -- Debt Caoacitv This section of the worksheet organizes information on the community's outstanding debt in order to calculate several important indicators covering the debt capacity of the community. In supplying information about a community's debt history, the analyst should include any new debt for the proposed facilities. Line 616 For Indicator 5, divide total overall net debt (507) by the full market value of real property (614) then multiply by 100. (For an example of the calculation of overlapping debt, see Chapter II.) Indicator 5 compares the amount of tax -supported debt owed by a community with the full market value of real property in the community, which is a gauge of the community's ability to support additional borrowing. Lines 617 and 618 Another measure of a community's wealth is personal income which can also be used as a yardstick to judge the community's ability to repay debt. If total personal income is not known, find the per capita income in the community and multiply it by population (617 x 601). If personal income is not available for the current year, update the most recent number using the following formula: .41 a. Obtain the consumer price index (CPI) for the year for which income information is available. 13/ 246.8 (1980) b. Obtain the CPI for the most recent year. 322.1 (1985) c. Divide "b" by "a" to calculate a CPI ratio. 1.305 d. Inflate the per capita income $9,917 (1980 ) figure by multiplying that amount by the CPI ratio found in "c." $ 12,942 13/ Consumer Price Index YEAR CPI YEAR CPI YEAR CPI 1969 109.8 1974 147.7 1979 217.4 1970 116.3 1975 161.2 1980 246.8 1971 121.3 1976 170.5 1981 272.4 1972 123.3 1977 181.5 1982 289.1 1973 133.1 1978 195.4 1983 298.4 C_l -- — Worksheet;r6 Indicators 10 and 11 INDICATORS 10 AND 11 • Sewer Fund Revenues (First Year Operational) � t nQh _ 173 16231 t Operating Revenues Non Operating Revenues (Excluding S (624) ' Revenue From Borrowing) (625) Total Revenues (623 + 624) S1,086 1,0- ' • Sewer Fund Expenses (First Year Operational) Operating Expenses (Excluding s1,033,383 (626) Depreciation and Reserves) ' Annual Debt Service (on sewer bonds) S 31,777 (627) _ S (628) Other Non Operating Expenses s1,065,160 (629) Total Expenses 105.1 % (630) • Operating Ratio (623 = 626 X 100) (631) • Coverage Ratio ((625 - 626) : 627 X 100) 166.1 % ' 66 1 10.0 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ' 10.1 GENERAL ' This project involves serving a presently unsewered area with a ' grinder pump -low pressure sewer system. Construction of the new system will adversely affect air quality, noise levels, and vehicular traffic, but these disruptions will be temporary in nature. The long-term benefit of ' the project will be improved quality of the local groundwater and surface waters. Elimination of septic tank discharges into the environment from ' densely populated areas is one of the goals of the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan. ' This environmental review is addressed only to the new sewer system within ' the study area boundaries. The various environmental aspects of further wastewater transmission, treatment, and disposal are discussed on a regional basis in the Indian River County 201 Plan. 10.2 ENVIRONMENT ' 10.2.1 WATER tEnvironmental conditions in Florida, and in particular Indian River County, ' are described in detail in the 201 Plan for this area. Of greatest environmental consideration is the location of the numerous septic tank discharges to an area of high groundwater table. The beneficial effects of the project will be realized by the elimination ' of septic tanks as a source of ground and surface water pollution. The project will eliminate drainfield effluent from leaking into the ' groundwater and thus into the aquifer which are a source of fresh water supply and from flowing into the Indian River. IRC.FL1 6/4/87 ' 10-1 ' 10.2.2 AIR ' Minimum velocities in the sewers, coupled with the high ambient temperature inherent to Florida provide conditions that are conducive to the production ' of malodorous hydrogen sulfide and other gases. These gases are produced by anaerobic bacteria which are present in septic sewage. ' This factor was considered in the preliminary sewer layout. Generally, the shortest, most direct route from the house lateral to the force main was ' chosen in order to minimize the travel time and, therefore, the septicity of the wastewater. 10.2.3 LAND USE ' As discussed in Sections 4 and 5, the Comprehensive Plan and the Area -Wide ' Wastewater Master Plan were the bases used in establishing the requirements of this project. The Comprehensive Plan was prepared by The Planning and Development Division of Indian River County. The Comprehensive Plan guides ' future growth and development in accordance with the County's goals and objectives. The unsewered areas are fully developed, which was substantiated by the ' aerial photographs in this Report. Therefore, new sewers cannot promote new growth in the area; they will serve to raise the quality of groundwater ' and surface water in the area. The proposed facilities will not impose any restrictions on land use. The ' proposed alignments of the recommended sewers and force mains lie within public rights-of-way or existing easements where land use had previously ' been restricted. Since the service area is developed, this project will not stimulate substantial growth. Enforcement of the County's land use and ' zoning laws should ensure that any future growth will conform to the desired land uses outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. ' IRC.FL1 6/4/87 10-2 �l ' 10.3 CONSTRUCTION ' The entire project will be constructed within the area shown on Figure 8-1. There will be no relocation of people as a result of construction of this project. However, the usual temporary problems associated with pipeline construction (noise, dust, excess water, construction vehicle ' traffic, and disruption of utilities) will be experienced in the residential areas. Every effort will be made to minimize these effects, ' but they are unavoidable. With regard to the construction of all pipeline work, the Contractor must ' meet the following requirements as part of the construction project contract conditions.: ' A The excavation shall not be advanced more than 100 feet ahead of ' pipe laying without the consent of the Engineer. ' B. All roots, stumps, logs, limbs, boulders, or other objects shall be removed from the job promptly as excavated and disposed of by the Contractor at his expense. C. Excavated material suitable for backfilling shall be stored in ' areas so as to cause the least inconvenience to the flow of traffic and in no case shall the Contractor block normal ingress ' and egress on public thoroughfares or to private property for a period of more than three hours. ' D. The Contractor shall conduct the excavation operation in such a manner so as not to cause injury to public health, private or ' public property, or to any portion of the work completed or in progress. The Contractor shall conduct the operation in such a ' manner as to cause a minimum of damage to the existing street pavement or surfacing. ' IRC.FL1 6/4/87 ' 10-3 1 ' E. The trench width at the top of the pipe shall not exceed the ' allowable as determined by the depth of cut and indicated on the Drawings. ' In addition, the Contractor will be required to remove all excess material and restore the site to its original condition or better. All damage ' incurred as a result of work done to existing structures, pavement, driveways, paved areas, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, fences, shrubbery, ' grass, trees, utility poles, utility pipelines, conduits, drains, catch basins, flagstones, graveled areas, and including all obstructions not ' specifically named, will be repaired. The pumping stations will be of the grinder type. The station be sites will graded and restored. ' IRC.FL1 6/4/87 ' 10-4 1 1 APPENDIX A 1 ROCKRIDGE AREA SEWER FEASIBILITY STUDY AND REPORT u r 1 �l ROCKRIDGE AREA SEWER FEASIBILITY STUDY AND REPORT FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 1840 25th STREET VERO BEACH FLORIDA 32960 APRIL, 1986 MASTELLER & MOLER ASSOCIATES, INC. P. 0. BOX 1045 SEBASTIAN FLORIDA 32958 (305) 589-4800 FILE #86001 WORK ORDER #1034 +sx -i EARL H. MASTELLER, P.E. 1 IAuthorization ' The Rockridge area sewer feasibility study and report has been authorized by Indian River County work authorization #3, dated February ' 12, 1986. ' General Information The Rockridge area of Indian River County is located east of 6th ' Avenue and south of 17th Street. A small portion of the project area lies north of 17th Street. The project area is within 2000 feet of ' the Indian River and in close proximity to the Vero Beach wastewater treatment plant. The Rockridge area is aptly named. A soil boring program, performed as part of this report, has verified that the entire project area is located over a layer of hard limestone containing fractures and solution ' holes. The entire soils report, performed by Empire Engineering & Testing, Inc. and dated March 24, 1986, is contained in the appendix of this study and report. The soils report shows that the hard limestone ' layer starts from 1 to 2 feet below the ground surface and is 1 to feet thick in the portion of the project area south of 17th Street. 2 Soil boring (B-6) was taken in the project area north of 17th Street and shows that the hard limestone starts at 4 feet below the ground ' surface and is approximately ld feet thick. The soil borirgs also show that ground water is present at 3 to 4 feet below the ground surface ' throughout the project area. The presence of the hard limestone layer and the high ground water table are conditions which prohibit an easy and inexpensive method to treat and dispose of domestic wastewater from the homes in the Rockridge area. The Rockridge area of Indian River County is a single family lot ' subdivision generally consisting of single story, masonry dwelling units on building lots 57 feet wide by 97 feet deep. The project service ' area is shown on the various exhibits included in this report and contains approximately 375 dwelling units. Each of the 375 dwelling units is served by the Indian River County utility Department water supply system. ' 1 The water lines are, generally, fairly small in diameter and are installed 1 within the existing easement area along the back lot lines in each block. Each of the 375 dwelling units is also served by individual on-site septic systems consisting of conventional septic tanks and ' effluent disposal fields. The existing septic systems do not function properly specifically ' with respect to wastewater disposal, since the layer of hard limestone prevents effective percolation of the septic tank effluent. This creates ' an unhealthy and environmentally unsound situation in addition to a major inconvenience to the residents of the Rockridge service area in the form of frequent sewage backups into their home's plumbing systems. ' The Commissioners of Indian River County, as well as the homeowners of the Rockridge service area, have concluded that there is a high ' priority need for resolving the sewage problem in Rockridge by construc- tion of a sewage collection and conveyance system which is permanent ' and cost-effective. The first step, in order to satisfy that need, is the preparation of this Engineering Feasibility Study and Report. ' Existing Sewage Facilities ' One major advantage of the Rockridge project area location is its close proximity to the existing Vero Beach wastewater treatment facility. Other existing sewage facilities in the vicinity of the project area include an 18" concrete force main constructed along the ' south side of 18th Street and a 6" PVC force main constructed along the west side of 6th Avenue and the south side of 16th Street. Of course, both of these force mains are conveying sewage to the existing Vero Beach wastewater treatment plant. Also, Fairlane Harbor is located east of the Rockridge project area and south of the Vero Beach wastewater treatment plant. Fairlane Harbor is provided with a sanitary sewer collection system consisting of conventional manholes and 8" gravity ' sewer, and an existing pump station on the westerly edge of the project which conveys the sewage via a 3" force main to the Vero Beach plant. This gravity collection system was, no doubt, constructed as part of ' the original subdivision improvements when the ground was totally vacant. The gravity collection system is installed in the street rights-of- way and was, probably, in place and ready for service before the streets -2- 1 ' were paved and houses constructed in Fairlane Harbor. of this study and report, it is assumed that For the purposes ' once the wastewater has been collected from the Rockridge project service be possible to pump the collected wastewater into the area, it will existing 18" and 6" force mains for the continued conveyance of the ' wastewater to the Vero Beach wastewater treatment facility. It should recognized that future refinements of the selected collection system ' be alternative, together with subsequent negotiations with the City of Vero Beach, may alter this assumption. Viable Alternatives ' that the existing 375 dwelling units within There is no question the Rockridge service area would have had sewer service long before now were it not for the soil conditions which exist within the project site. As indicated before, the soil boring study and report, which is contained in the appendix of this report, shows that the entire project service area rests on a 1 to 2 foot thick layer of hard limestone is, 1 to 3 feet beneath the ground surface. Under ' which generally, the hard limestone is a high ground water table which is within 3 feet of the ground surface. There is no question why the existing water distribution system is constructed with the small pipes resting on top of the hard limestone layer. ' The first alternative to consider is to construct a conventional gravity collection system consisting of manholes and 8" gravity sewer ' along with a system of conventional sewage pumping stations. The con- and removal struction of the gravity sewers will involve the break-up of the layer of hard limestone in the sewer line's path as well as ' the installation of well point dewatering systems as the sewer system is It is anticipated that at least a 20' wide swath of ' constructed. hard limestone would have to be removed in order that proper dewatering be done and to prevent undermining of the existing sand from beneath can the layer of limestone remaining on each side of the trench. The need for the wide trench area, plus additional space requirements to store the excavated material and provide for equipment maneuvering, requires that the gravity collection system be installed within the 70' wide 1 -3 1 street right-of-way corridor which exists within the Rockridge service sewer/conventional pumping station alterna- area. The gravity collection tive will be investigated in this report. collection A second alternative is the use of a low-pressure pump This system makes use of the existing septic tanks which would ' system. storage receptacles for sludge on the tank continue to function as the top of the tank. With this system, a pump and bottom and scum on ' pump chamber are suspended from the top of the septic tank and the of the existing septic tank and liquid is drawn from the middle zone pumped into a series of manifolded force mains to a central collection a Each house would have its own pump installed in or discharge point. A requirement of this alternative is that each its own septic tank. ' septic tank be totally water tight or the constant leakage of ground into the septic tank will cause the pumping system to operate water and pump large quantities of ground water into the treat- continuously ment plant. Since all of the septic tanks are quite old and it is ' suspected that they all leak substantially, it would be necessary to with this measure, and replace each of the 375 septic tanks. Even remove table would establish a major realistic source the high ground water ' to whether the new septic tanks would be, and remain, of concern as it was decided not to further water tight. Because of these reasons, ' explore this alternative. The third alternative is the installation of a grinder pump and ' pump chamber for each of the 375 dwelling units with each grinder pump into a small sized manifolded system of force mains. These discharging 6" small force mains would discharge at a point or points along the and 18" existing force mains which run by, or cross through, the Rockridge Construction which would require excavation project service area. of the existing limestone could be avoided by installing each grinder and chamber within the septic tank which is presently in place ' pump for each of the 375 dwelling units. The lid of the existing septic be removed, the contents of the septic tank pumped out and ' tank would the existing septic tank back-filled with sand material. The grinder back-filled sand chamber would be installed within the pump and pump and the existing 4" lateral from the house connected to the ' material A system of small force mains would be constructed grinder pump chamber. on top of the hard limestone layer utilizing the back yard easements. This alternative appears to be viable and will be investigated in this ' study and report. Alternatives Two alternatives for providing sewer service to the Rockridge ' of Indian River county are evaluated in this Engineering Study area involves the construction of a conventional and Report. One alternative ' gravity collection system with manholes and conventional pumping stations. This alternative is shown on "Exhibit A," which is included as part ' of this report. The second alternative is to provide sewage collection and mani- and conveyance services utilizing a system of grinder pumps folded, small PVC force mains. The second alternative is shown on "Exhibit B," which is included as part of this report. Both Exhibits A and B utilize an aerial photograph at a scale ' of 1" = 200' placed on one of our standard 24" x 36" plan sheets. The photographed area shows the portion of Indian River County east of ' U.S. Highway M1 and south of 17th Street. The project service area Also boundary of this study and report is shown on both exhibits. is the existing 6" diameter PVC force main which is located along shown the west side of 6th Avenue and the south side of 16th Street; the existing 18" concrete force main located along the south side of 18th tStreet; the existing pumping station and force main serving the Fairlane Harbor subdivision to the east of the Rockridge service area and to ' the south of the Vero Beach wastewater treatment plant; and the location of the Vero Beach wastewater treatment plant. The service area is bounded on the west by 6th Avenue, on the north by 18th Street, on ' the east by 3rd Avenue and on the south by 13th Street. As previously indicated, the service area includes approximately 375 single family ' dwelling units. The layout for both alternatives shown on Exhibits A and B are ' designed to avoid crossing 17th Street since any crossings of this thoroughfare would result in substantial construction expenses. main Also, crossings of the existing small canal, which divides 16th Street, an undesirable minimized since these crossings would also represent are 1 -5- 1�1 1 F1 1 1 i 11 11 1 project component. Both alternatives seek to maximize the availability of the existing sewage force mains in the vicinity of the project service area by making direct connections to these existing force mains. This minimizes the need for construction of additional new force mains as part of this project. Gravity Collection System/Conventional Pumping Station Alternative Please refer to "Exhibit A," included in this report, which shows a schematic layout of the recommended gravity collection system with conventional pumping stations. Spot elevations are shown on the exhibit along with system elevations at various manholes in order to determine the estimated depth of the collection system at various points. As can be seen on the exhibit, the system depths vary from a minimum of 3' to a maximum of approximately 8'. The gravity collection system will involve the construction of two conventional pumping stations and it is anticipated that each of these pumping stations can discharge directly into the existing 6" and 18" force mains passing by each of the proposed stations. In addition, two small duplex grinder pumping stations must be constructed at the east end of 14th Place and 14th Street as shown on the exhibit. Please note the Gravity Sanitary Sewer Typical Trench Section shown on Exhibit C." The proposed gravity sewer design has been laid out to maintain the minimum depth possible. Even so, it is anticipated that all gravity collection sewer must be constructed into or beneath the 1 to 21 foot layer of hard limestone which exists 1 to 2 feet below the existing ground surface. As shown by the Typical Trench Section, the removal of the existing limestone layer will require the actual removal of practically all of the existing street paved cartway. In addi- tion, the sewer contractor will install a 4" diameter service lateral from the sewer main to the street right-of-way line for service to each of the 375 anticipated connections. The construction of each 4" service lateral will require additional removal of the hard limestone layer. Since the existing dwelling units are close together, and a service lateral is to be installed for each dwelling unit, it is anticipated that the entire 70' right -of - I. u for each street will be actively involved in the construction way The residents and Indian River County should of the sewer project. be prepared to endure the usual inconveniences associated with construction of a sewer project in addition to the noise and vibra- by the breaking up and removal of the hard limestone tion caused layer. involved with this project must also bear in ' Each resident that it will be their financial responsibility to provide mind for the construction of the 4" service lateral from the right- of-way line to their dwelling unit. A local plumbing contractor should be consulted by each dwelling unit owner to provide them estimate for furnishing and installing the 4" service with a cost lateral. The plumbing contractor should be made aware, by the of the existing underground layer of hard limestone. homeowner, individual homeowner will be required to properly abandon Also, each their septic tank in accordance with the Health Department rules ' and regulations. system the conventional gravity collection Once installed, and pumping stations will function as a very reliable sewer system ' requiring only routine cleaning and maintenance. A construction cost estimate is presented in the next section of this report. Individual Grinder Pum /Manifolded Small Force Main Alternative "Exhibit B" is included in this report and $bows a schematic ' layout of a manifolded system of small PVC force mains 2 to 3 The small PVC inches in diameter along with spot elevations. force mains would be constructed within the existing back yard persently accommodate the existing potable easement areas which water supply system serving the Rockridge project service area. Each dwelling unit would be furnished with an arrangement the Dwelling Grinder Pump Typical Installation Detail as shown on on "Exhibit D." It is proposed that the sewer contractor remove the existing septic tank lid, dewater its contents, clean the tank, and backfill the septic tank to grade with approved backfill ' sandy material. Meanwhile, the existing 4" service lateral from be extended to connect to a fiberglass pump basin ' the house would installed in the septic tank backfill material. which would be 1 ' The existing disposal field for each home would be abandoned and installed in each basin would intermittently discharge a grinder pump ' the wastewater from each house into the manifolded small force main system shown on "Exhibit B " In effect, the grinder pump/small ' force main system functions as a water supply system in reverse. Instead of pressurized water being supplied by a main pipeline to each dwelling unit, pressurized wastewater is discharged from ' each dweling unit into a common main. Each of the 375 units in the Rockridge project service area ' would be furnished with its own basin and grinder pump. When considering the layer of hard limestone and high ground water table factors, the grinder pump/manifolded small force main system results in distinct and profound advantages since construction will be above the ground water table and layer of hard limestone. In addition, the small manifolded PVC force mains have flexibility which allows them to be deflected around trees, shrubs, sheds, ' and utility poles located within the existing back yard easement area. ' The small 2 and 3 inch diameter PVC force mains will primarily be constructed in a north -south direction and it is proposed that the force mains connect directly into the existing 6" PVC force ' main along 16th Street and directly into the 18" existing force main along 18th Street. ' The grinder pump system is a proven system with a track record of reliability provided that the system is properly designed and ' quality pumping equipment is used in its construction. Once installed, the system should provide trouble-free operation and effectively solve the existing sewage problems in the Rockridge area. A disadvantage of the grinder pump system, when compared to the conventional gravity sewer collection system, is that the grinder pump will cause an increase in the homeowner's electrical bill due to the intermittent operation of its 2 HP, single phase motor. Assuming the average dwelling unit discharges approximately 300 GPD of wastewater into the system, it is estimated that the ' 2 HP, single phase pump motor will cycle approximately 6 times and pump a total of 15 minutes out of every 24 hours. Using an -8- r� ejtimated electric charge of 84 per kilowatt hour, and assuming 2 HP is equal to two kilowatts, the estimated increase in electrical cost per dwelling unit for 15 minutes of pump operation per day is 4¢ per day, or $1.20 per month. An estimated construction cost for the grinder pump/manifolded small force main alternative is included in the following section ' of this report. 1 Cost Estimates A. Gravity Collection System/Conventional Pumping Station Alternative (See Exhibit A) 1. Basis of unit price estimates: average depth of 6' a. 8„ 0 PVC Gravity sanitary sewer with normal construction use $15.00/foot add for dewater/rock excavation (+) $25.00/foot add for street, driveway right-of- and drainage restoration within 70' wide way (+) $25.00/foot Total = $65.00/ft b. Standard manholes - $1200.00 each (allowance for dewatering and rock excavation is included in gravity sewer unit price) 4" 0 service laterals from gravity main to right-of-way c. line normal construction use $250.00/lateral add for rock unit excavation (dewatering included in gravity sewer price) (+) $500.00 Total = $750.00 each Unit Cost Total Cost Units Description I 18,710 LF 8110 PVC Gravity Sanitary Sewer 65.00 1,216,150 1,200.00 84,000 70 Manholes I 750.00 281,250 375 4"0 Service Laterals 2 Conv. Pump Stations w/FM 50,000.00 100,000 2 Duplex Grinder Pump Stations 15,000.00 30,000 5.00 5,350 1070 LF 21" 0 PVC Force Main Sub -total ............................... $1,716,750 15% Contingencies ................• • . . . $ 257+513 1 -9- ' Sub-Total..............$1,974,263 Engineer's Design Fee......... .$ 110,330 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST ..................$2.0®.593 Based on 375 units, cost/unit = 2,084,593/375 = $5,559.00 F -J C B. Individual Grinder Pump/Manifolded Small Force Main Alternative (See Exhibit B) 1. Basis of unit price estimates: a. At each of 375 existing dwelling units, remove existing septic tank lid; remove septic tank contents; backfill with septic tank; furnish and install grinder pump basin; control panel, wiring/conduit, individual dwelling unit 1}" diameter PVC force main. Equipment $1,600.00 Installation $ 600.00 Total $2,200.00 Recommendations and Implementation The Rockridge area of Indian River County is in need of a sewage collection system due to chronic malfunctioning of the existing individual septic systems. The area is constructed over a shallow layer of hard limestone approximately 1 to 2 feet thick. This impervious rock layer is the primary reason for the septic system operational problems. -10- Unit Cost Total Cost Units Description 375 Grinder Pump Systems Complete(See la) $2,200.00 825,000 15,845 LF 2", 21" & 3" 0 PVC Force Main 5.00 81,900 7 Wet tap connectiont to existing 100.00 700 6" 0 PVC Force Main 3 Wet tap connections to existing 500.00 1,500 18" 0 concrete force main 909,100 Sub -total ...................................$ 136,365 15% Contingencies ...........................$ Sub-total...................................$1,045,465 Engineer's Design Fee .......................$ 62,730 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST .....................$1,108,195 Based on 375 units, cost/unit = 1,108,195/375 = $2,955.00 Recommendations and Implementation The Rockridge area of Indian River County is in need of a sewage collection system due to chronic malfunctioning of the existing individual septic systems. The area is constructed over a shallow layer of hard limestone approximately 1 to 2 feet thick. This impervious rock layer is the primary reason for the septic system operational problems. -10- 1 ' The ground water table rests immediately below the layer of limestone and the presence of both the limestone layer and shallow ground water table make the construction of a conventional gravity sewage collection ' system very difficult. The Rockridge area consists of approximately 375 existing dwelling ' units, each built on lots generally 57' wide by 97' deep. The area is furnished with a water supply system by Indian River County. The ' water supply piping is constructed on top of the existing limestone layer and within back yard easements. Two alternatives were considered and schematic designs of each included in this report. One sewage collection alternative was the construction of a conventional gravity sewer collection system with ' conventional pumping stations. The total construction cost estimate of this alternative, including 15% contingencies and the engineering ' design fee, is $2,084,593.00. The construction of the conventional gravity collection system would also involve the total destruction of the existing roadway street within Rockridge and the need to completely 1 restore the street system. Also, a substantial amount of vibration and noise would be experienced during construction due to the break - up and removal of the existing hard limestone layer. The second alternative involves the installation of an individual ' grinder pump and basin for each of the 375 dwelling units and the con- struction of a network of small manifolded PVC force mains within the ' back yard easement areas. The estimated construction cost for this alternative, including 15% contingencies and the engineering design fee, is $1,108,195.00. The grinder pump/small force main alternative ' would enable construction by the use of small equipment and it is antici- pated that the entire construction of the project could occur without ' the need to remove rock. The anticipated operation of the 2 HP, single phase grinder pump would result in additional electrical expense to ' each homeowner, which is estimated in the range of $1 to $2 per month. It is our recommendation that the alternative using a conventional gravity collection system be rejected and the alternative utilizing the individual grinder pump/small network force main system be accepted as the best means of providing sewage service to the Rockridge area 1 ' of Indian River County. implement this recommendation, it is suggested that In order to ' the Indian River County Commission hold a series of public meetings with the Rockridge area residents in order to present this report and the general approval of the residents directly affected to proceed secure with the recommended alternative. The County Commission should also make the decision makers in Vero Beach aware of the contents in this report in order to refine the mechanics of how and where the collected wastewater from the Rockridge project can be discharged into the existing ' Vero Beach system for treatment at the Vero Beach plant. directly affected residents of the Rockridge area, As soon as the the City of Vero Beach and the Indian River County Commission are satis- fied and the project's general scope of work is fairly well-defined, detailed engineering design can be done and the project constructed. It is estimated that the individual house grinder pump and small force alternative design can be engineered and constructed in main system ' approximately 1 year. 1 11 -12- I -. 11 11 APPENDIX TESTING INC. ENGINEERING & TE EMPIRE Telephone ' P.O. Box 776 305.569-0153 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 ' March 24, 1986 ' Masteller & Moler Associates, Inc. p. 0. Box 1045 ' Sebastian, Florida 32958 Reference: Rockridge Wastewater Collection System ' Indian River County, Gentlemen: As you requested, we have completed pl the soil survey for the above referenced project. Enclosed 1. Soil Conservation Service. Description of Soils. ' 2. Location Map. ' 3. Soil Boring Logs. utility andetelephonere All Borings were taken in rear water ' was taken not to harm existing lines. The General Soil ProfileconsistsofSandland shellgus : Hard lyey Clayey Limestone, Silty Sand, ' Groundwater Tables varied, but were generally below the Hard Limestone. The layers of Hard Limestone encountered, varied in 2.5' at depths from 1' to 4', from the thickness; from 1' to an 80 pound jackhammer and Air surface. In some areas be utilized, to cut through the limestone. Compressor had to n 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 EMPIRE ENGINEERING & TESTING INC. P.O. Box 776 Telephone Vero Beach, Florida 32960 305-569-0153 Masteller & Moler Associates, Inc. Rockridge Wastewater Collection System March 24, 1986 In the construction of a Gravity Collection System, in this area, the following items should be taken into consideration: 1. De—watering will be needed. 2. Hard Limestone will have to be excavated. 3. Existing utilities. 4. Existing easement is 10' wide. 5. The Hard Limestone encountered at each boring location covers the entire project, at varying depths and thicknesses. If you have any questions, concerning this matter, please call the office. Sincerely, — =/4 A" �/' /' Harry 0. WagnerPE. HOW/mw 1 ' 27 - Boca -Urban land complex no capability subclass assigned This complex consists of Boca fine sand and urban land. The Boca soil and ur- ban land are so intermingled that they cannot be seperated at the scale used ' for mapping. About 50 to 70 percent of the complex consists of nearly level Boca soils or Boca soils that have been reworked or reshaped, but are still recogniz- able as Boca soil. Typically, Boca soils have 14 inches of pale brown and dark grayish brown fine sand fill material over 3 inches of very dark gray fine sand. The next 7 inches is grayish brown fine sand. Below this to a depth of about 30 inches is 6 inches of light olive gray sandy loam. Under- lying this is a layer of hark limestone containing fractures and solution holes. tTwenty to 30 percent of the land is urban land in the form of houses, streets, driveways, buildings, parking lots, and other related uses. Unoccupied areas are mostly lawns, vacant lots or playgrounds consisting of Boca soils. These ' areas are so small and intermixed with urban land that it is impractical to map them-seperately. About 15 percent of the land not covered by urban facilities are Chobee, EauGallie, Floridana, and Jupiter soils. A few areas ' with as much as 80 percent or as little as 10 percent urban land have been included. Areas of the soils that have been modified by grading and shaping are not as ' extensive in the older communities as in the newer ones. Sandy and loamy materials, as well as fragments of hard limestone and shell material from drain- age ditches or material that is hauled in, are often used to fill low areas. ' In undrained areas the water table is at depths of 10 to 30 inches for periods of 2 to 6 months, and within depths of 10 inches during the wet season. Drainage systems have been established in most areas, although the depth of the water table is dependent upon the functioning of the drainage system. Agricultural Uses Present land use precludes the use of this soil for cultivated crops, citrus, improved pasture, range, or forestry. Urbanland ' This complex has severe limitations for sanitary facilities, building site development, and recreational development. Water control measures are needed to overcome excessive wetness. Mounding may be needed for septic tank filter ' fields because of wetness and the shallow depth to rock. Sealing or lining of sewage lagoon areas is needed to help overcome excessive seepage. Many of these areas have been previously drained or modified by grading or shaping. Some water control measures, including addition of fill material and drainage to remove excess surface water after heavy rains, may be necessary for building site development. Moderate depth to the rock may cause difficulty where excavations are needed. The sandy surface layer should be stabilized for recreational use. � 33S RANGE 39E t ROCKRIDGE SUBDIVIS g��ql PARK _ UNIT 9 UNIT I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 00105 1 a 2 19 = 3 1816 1514 13 12 11 10 94 17 5 1615TH PL. 6 15SEE LARG A ;s 3 2 1 19I8I7�6151413I2II UNSHINE QUALITY HOMES 1 3 4 3 4 222 15 3 4 1 6 2T 2026T 1 20 x5 I 20 ,o 2 19 2 19 �I(714 4 17C6� 16Q19 6 Ibs17s M., 14108 I 9 10 II Fw- 22 I 21 2 �p39 4 �I(714 w 9 12 11 11 T H 1 1ORpNQE 15 *Pa 2 UNIT -3 _116 .1 ti 51. in)m ITEIRJCEI S 8 13 a 13t 7 8 910 11 11 9 9 1 2 u, ,2 I w I> a F I �o 3 T. 91 f I0 .v SCALE: 111.4001 3 In ■m �m �m ©m a coAlm t3+9m CLI O • Aim vm 0® ' 10 ® 0® 3510 im ION® ©om © 10 ED w in [A N 110 o� 31I® I� ITEIRJCEI S 8 13 a 13t 7 8 910 11 11 9 9 1 2 u, ,2 I w I> a F I �o 3 T. 91 f I0 .v SCALE: 111.4001 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t l 30tp 3JNV8 aD (' W lL.j LT in m - N N Y N ~ O Z 3nN3AV _ z ' J} OZ to U J W lan � x 3 3nN3Ab Kts W N � C) lanoo fus J W t0 N W o W m J N Of N N z 2 WO U F- O OZ J U J _ m = m J J J W m W H W or W O i- O z J Vi � �1 Q ~ M a N of b m N — Z _oma ---- Y o~i -AV' 4 Q J Z m J J ca m �� CL 'JJ M ~O 4i J Q i N _ lL.j LT in m - N N Y N ~ O Z 3nN3AV _ z ' J} OZ to U J W lan � x 3 3nN3Ab Kts W N � C) lanoo fus J W t0 N W o W m J N Of N N z 2 WO U F- O OZ J U J _ m = m J J J W m W H W or W O i- O z J Vi � 11 EMPIRE ENGINEERING & TESTING INC. SOIL BORING LOG BORING N0. B-1 0001 lcr�n r u 86180 IT 0 F�clftrOtion nLombw OT DIOM• rowww9 pr 1 -*v w...w.l...—— are foot. REMARKS, PENETRATION • BLOWS / FT ELEV. SOIL DESCRIPTION 0 S 10 20 DO 40 60 00.100 1.01 DK. GRAY SAND MED. TO FIDE SP 3.01 HARD LIMESTONE 15.0 ti'1HITE & GREENISH MED. TO FINE qpl SAND W/ROCK. & SHELL TERMINATED C 15.01 3/6/86 G.W.T. 3.51 �.� -a rt L. a.. A.1... 9 M A n wAt snow 94wVw F�clftrOtion nLombw OT DIOM• rowww9 pr 1 -*v w...w.l...—— are foot. REMARKS, I t 1 1� BORING N0. B-2 EMPIRE ENGINEERING & TESTING INC. SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NO.86180 F"Iratio1 numDW Of DIOWS (OQWA4 WF 1"v 10. "u"w"w %ally w••. •••�•••� — -� .- am fool. REMARKS, I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 EMPIRE ENGINEERING & TESTING INC. SOIL BORING LOG BORING NO. B-3 u PROJECT N 180 rel pw Iw! I f;/171y1 NV-. 1��/MST V. • '�'�' fw. ' REMARKS) PENETRATION - BLOWS/ FT ELEv SOIL DESCRIPTION 0 S 10 20 SO 40 60 00 100 1.01 DY. BR '-,krN SAND MED. TO FIDE SP 2.01 HARD LIMESTONE WHITE SAND MED. TO FNE W/ 4.01 SHELL & ROCK FRAGMENTS SP 6.0' GRAY SAND Wd ROCK & SHELL SP 7.01 TAi SAND W ROCK & SHELL sp WHITE & GREENISH SILTY CLAYS SP SAND WITH SHELL & ROCK SM SC I TERMINATED @ 15.0' 3/6/86 G.W.T. 3.0' —.d —A "ll— 'u't In M d.iw 21n e n foil tompw rel pw Iw! I f;/171y1 NV-. 1��/MST V. • '�'�' fw. ' REMARKS) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BORING NO. B-4 [J Al, EMPIRE ENGINEERING & TESTING INC. SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NO. 86180 ELEV. SOIL DESCRIPTION PENETRATION - SLOWS / FT 0 S 10 20 30 40 60 80 100 1.5' BROW' SAND BOOTY SP 4.0' HARD LIMESTONE .0' TAN PA GE SAND 14.0 GRRPNTSV TAN RTT.TV SAND*� 15.0 SHELL TERMINATED C 15.0' 3/6/86 G.W.T. 4.25' Z.oir. ;n A. an e.1,.o 21 in n n salt wow WOW v"Traym T 1TIITTID'R UT Dluws Fwwwwy r. .�•.• •••. •••••• . - one {001. . REMARKSI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 EMPIRE ENGINEERING & TESTING INC. SOIL BORING LOG BORING NO. R-5 N /O PROJECT NO. 86180 ELEV SOIL DESCRIPTION PENETRATION - BLOWS/ FT O 3 10 20 DO 40 60 80.100 1.51 BROr N SAND MEDIUM SP I MA RT, t HARD LIMESTONE 1 TAN ORANGE SILTY SAND SM 13.0' GREENISH TAN SILTY SAPID SM 15.0' SHELL TERMI14ATED @ 15.0' 3/6/86 G.W.T. 3.25' s.au.... y% k, M d.iwo 7 in n a saf st000n 54XMW r"mmiTTJTton mxnwR VT utvws www was y• c-•••• •••. .—....-w -- - -- - W* X001. REMARKS, n 1 1 EMPIRE ENGINEERING & TESTING INC. SOIL BORING LOG BORING NO. B-6 PROJECT NO. 86180 ft*lr&im number of Mows rgWkeg Qf 140 lb. hammer fdlinq 30h to drive Zin. v. u spT one bot. REMARKS, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 EMPIRE ENGINEERING & TESTING INC. SOIL BORING LOG LEGEND BORING NQ PROJECT NO. 1 W 10 15 S Penetration number of blows required of 140 lb. hommer falling 30 in. to drive tin 0 D. split spoon sampler one foot. ' REMARKS: Soils classified according to Unified Soils Classification System. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 OD m0amCmr OTrxZm; ,aVRizo `'��'� CZGNmNrn .D "i �m ZmET 4y2rZmrn I �z D- ;OzM � -4 4;^ O 01 p , ,n o rn�N0D D � m�Zom 6z or -41 N � a x y _ rn �' 0 y 2 r Z- , m N N C r•+ m r 0 N -! -4 c n O - 01 f N m m rn 0 0 Z -4� m m MM rn o n D f Gi O rn < m Z <qC) f m z0 _ ;� o Z n m M z< D ' Go -+ • rn N r m �'v co N ,�ww V+ ui (n OD DD r Nr o m O r s rrw n m Dm rn m m N y _ 4 z rn � Z I �Dov_,n =xmm8 �"�Oo 8 O z " Z 1> I I Ln ioxzm Mnnrrn D z N N GC) N O m>00 N O f-Omz x -n N -4 z rn rn r o ozZvx ; r ; n r rn rn r N pr rnZ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -0ry D mm 2 rrn rn CS Zmxin 0 m� m rZrD - r aZ Z0 w r acl ; r, C) 0 r O mmto ti o owin - �o-4 Z O -400 m N c� =r-4 r � Z 1 Z DD < Z Z rnm m 0 0 0 m O rn r 0 2 m o� C � m O IE zo 0 _ v rn D 0 � m m N r MM � V� > m D g Z m r r r r C r r Dm -m p A � 0 ODO Z Z �. DroZ, n mZ� ZONA 2 0 o��z - �fc G1 Q� Z 1000) C �" G m N z m2L, r" off°+ r. A Ln Z w G) 0 N a Z` zXo o 0 N9 m mn r � ( �' rn Z o r m I < x 0 r. Z N N = D m Z-_ N -4-n ri1CD �rn o O O O x �Z� 0 r 01 n Z _ N �.DD a N m z MOW Z � v C ��N Zw r rri �i cD ; m m rn -� -i m es n; m D r w N m nroc 3< �z zZ _ a_ .� 01 -4— -< D D A > O ` u1 Z 2 AO A W D rn 0 g (, mr- �,� 80 NrnX X cx m Z v c) r v 0 rn rn _x N m N Zrn Z Orn O r P m D rn m m v ROCKRIDGE AREA SEWER FEASIBILITY STUDY AND REPORT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ROCKRIDGE AREA SEWER FEASIBILITY STUDY AND REPORT FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 1840 25th STREET VERO BEACH FLORIDA 32960 APRIL, 1986 MASTELLER & MOLER ASSOCIATES, INC. P. 0. BOX 1045 SEBASTIAN FLORIDA 32958 (305) 589-4800 FILE x/86001 WORK ORDER x{1034 1,49 -4u,t� -1 EARL H. MASTELLER, P.E. ' Authorization ' The Rockridge area sewer feasibility study and report has been authorized by Indian River County work authorization #3, dated February ' 12, 1986. ' General Information The Rockridge area of Indian River County is located east of 6th Avenue and south of 17th Street. A small portion of the project area lies north of 17th Street. The project area is within 2000 feet of '. the Indian River and in close proximity to the Vero Beach wastewater treatment plant. The Rockridge area is aptly named. A soil boring program, performed ' as part of this report, has verified that the entire project area is located over a layer of hard limestone containing fractures and solution ' holes. The entire soils report, performed by Empire Engineering & Testing, Inc. and dated March 24, 1986, is contained in the appendix ' of this study and report. The soils report shows that the hard limestone layer starts from 1 to 2 feet below the ground surface and is 1 to ' 2 feet thick in the portion of the project area south of 17th Street. Soil boring (B-6) was taken in the project area north of 17th Street and shows that the hard limestone starts at 4 feet below the ground surface and is approximately 11 feet thick. The soil borings also show that ground water is present at 3 to 4 feet below the ground surface ' throughout the project area. The presence of the hard limestone layer and the high ground water table are conditions which prohibit an easy ' and inexpensive method to treat and dispose of domestic wastewater from the homes in the Rockridge area. ' The Rockridge area of Indian River County is a single family lot subdivision generally consisting of single story, masonry dwelling units on building lots 57 feet wide by 97 feet deep. The project service ' area is shown on the various exhibits included in this report and contains approximately 375 dwelling units. Each of the 375 dwelling units is served by the Indian River County utility Department water supply system. The water lines are, generally, fairly small in diameter and are installed -1- within the existing easement area along the back lot lines in each ' block. Each of the 375 dwelling units is also served by individual on-site septic systems consisting of conventional septic tanks and ' effluent disposal fields. The existing septic systems do not function properly specifically ' with respect to wastewater disposal, since the layer of hard limestone prevents effective percolation of the septic tank effluent. This creates an unhealthy and environmentally unsound situation in addition to a major inconvenience to the residents of the Rockridge service area ' in the form of frequent sewage backups into their home's plumbing systems. The Commissioners of Indian River County, as well as the homeowners of the Rockridge service area, have concluded that there is a high ' priority need for resolving the sewage problem in Rockridge by construc- tion of a sewage collection and conveyance system which is permanent 1 and cost-effective. The first step, in order to satisfy that need, is the preparation of this Engineering Feasibility Study and Report. Existing Sewage Facilities ' One major advantage of the Rockridge project area location is its close proximity to the existing Vero Beach wastewater treatment facility. Other existing sewage facilities in the vicinity of the project area include an 18" concrete force main constructed along the ' south side of 18th Street and a 6" PVC force main constructed along the west side of 6th Avenue and the south side of 16th Street. Of ' course, both of these force mains are conveying sewage to the existing Vero Beach wastewater treatment plant. Also, Fairlane Harbor is located ' east of the Rockridge project area and south of the Vero Beach wastewater treatment plant. Fairlane Harbor is provided with a sanitary sewer collection system consisting of conventional manholes and 8" gravity ' sewer, and an existing pump station on the westerly edge of the project which conveys the sewage via a 3" force main to the Vero Beach plant. This gravity collection system was, no doubt, constructed as part of the original subdivision improvements when the ground was totally vacant. ' The gravity collection system is installed in the street rights-of- way and was, probably, in place and ready for service before the streets -2- ' were paved and houses constructed in Fairlane Harbor. For the purposes of this study and report, it is assumed that once the wastewater has been collected from the Rockridge project service a it will be possible to pump the collected wastewater into the are , existing 18" and 6" force mains for the continued conveyance of the ' wastewater to the Vero Beach wastewater treatment facility. It should be recognized that future refinements of the selected collection system ralternative, together with subsequent negotiations with the City of Vero Beach, may alter this assumption. Viable Alternatives 'L� �I There is no question that the existing 375 dwelling units within the Rockridge service area would have had sewer service long before now were it not for the soil conditions which exist within the project site. As indicated before, the soil boring study and report, which is contained in the appendix of this report, shows that the entire project service area rests on a 1 to 2 foot thick layer of hard limestone which is, generally, 1 to 3 feet beneath the ground surface. Under the hard limestone is a high ground water table which is within 3 feet of the ground surface. There is no question why the existing water distribution system is constructed with the small pipes resting on top of the hard limestone layer. The first alternative to consider is to construct a conventional gravity collection system consisting of manholes and 8" gravity sewer along with a system of conventional sewage pumping stations. The con- struction of the gravity sewers will involve the break-up and removal of the layer of hard limestone in the sewer line's path as well as the installation of well point dewatering systems as the sewer system is constructed. It is anticipated that at least a 20' wide swath of hard limestone would have to be removed in order that proper dewatering can be done and to prevent undermining of the existing sand from beneath the layer of limestone remaining on each side of the trench. The need for the wide trench area, plus additional space requirements to store the excavated material and provide for equipment maneuvering, requires that the gravity collection system be installed within the 70' wide -3- ' street right-of-way corridor which exists within the Rockridge service area. The gravity collection sewer/conventional pumping station alterna- tive will be investigated in this report. A second alternative is the use of a low-pressure pump collection system. This system makes use of the existing septic tanks which would ' continue to function as storage receptacles for sludge on the tank bottom and scum on the top of the tank. With this system, a pump and ' pump chamber are suspended from the top of the septic tank and the liquid is drawn from the middle zone of the existing septic tank and pumped into a series of manifolded force mains to a central collection or discharge point. Each house would have its own pump installed in its own septic tank. A requirement of this alternative is that each ' septic tank be totally water tight or the constant leakage of ground water into the septic tank will cause the pumping system to operate ' continuously and pump large quantities of ground water into the treat- ment plant. Since all of the septic tanks are quite old and it is isuspected that they all leak substantially, it would be necessary to remove and replace each of the 375 septic tanks. Even with this measure, ' the high ground water table would establish a major realistic source of concern as to whether the new septic tanks would be, and remain, water tight. Because of these reasons, it was decided not to further ' explore this alternative. The third alternative is the installation of a grinder pump and ' pump chamber for each of the 375 dwelling units with each grinder pump discharging into a small sized manifolded.system of force mains. These small force mains would discharge at a point or points along the 6" ' and 18" existing force mains which run by, or cross through, the Rockridge ' project service area. Construction which would require excavation of the existing limestone could be avoided by installing each grinder pump and chamber within the septic tank which is presently in place ' for each of the 375 dwelling units. The lid of the existing septic tank would be removed, the contents of the septic tank pumped out and ithe existing septic tank back-filled with sand material. The grinder pump and pump chamber would be installed within the back-filled sand ' material and the existing 4" lateral from the house connected to the grinder pump chamber. A system of small force mains would be constructed i -4- ' on top of the hard limestone layer utilizing the back yard easements. This alternative appears to be viable and will be investigated in this ' study and report. fl I Alternatives Two alternatives for providing sewer service to the Rockridge area of Indian River County are evaluated in this Engineering Study and Report. One alternative involves the construction of a conventional gravity collection system with manholes and conventional pumping stations. This alternative is shown on "Exhibit A," which is included as part of this report. The second alternative is to provide sewage collection and conveyance services utilizing a system of grinder pumps and mani- folded, small PVC force mains. The second alternative is shown on "Exhibit B," which is included as part of this report. Both Exhibits A and B utilize an aerial photograph at a scale of 1" = 200' placed on one of our standard 24" x 36" plan sheets. The photographed area shows the portion of Indian River County east of U.S. Highway #1 and south of 17th Street. The project service area boundary of this study and report is shown on both exhibits. Also shown is the existing 6" diameter PVC force main which is located along the west side of 6th Avenue and the south side of 16th Street; the existing 18" concrete force main located along the south side of 18th Street; the existing pumping station and force main serving the Fairlane Harbor subdivision to the east of the Rockridge service area and to the south of the Vero Beach wastewater treatment plant; and the location of the Vero Beach wastewater treatment plant. The service area is bounded on the west by 6th Avenue, on the north by 18th Street, on the east by 3rd Avenue and on the south by 13th Street. As previously indicated, the service area includes approximately 375 single family dwelling units. The layout for both alternatives shown on Exhibits A and B are designed to avoid crossing 17th Street since any crossings of this main thoroughfare would result in substantial construction expenses. Also, crossings of the existing small canal, which divides 16th Street, are minimized since these crossings would also represent an undesirable -5- project component. Both alternatives seek to maximize the availability ' of the existing sewage force mains in the vicinity of the project service area by making direct connections to these existing force mains. This ' minimizes the need for construction of additional new force mains as ' part of this project. GravitCollection System/Conventional pum)ing Station Alternative Please refer to "Exhibit A," included in this report, which shows a schematic layout of the recommended gravity collection system with conventional pumping stations. Spot elevations are shown on the exhibit along with system elevations at various manholes ' in order to determine the estimated depth of the collection system at various points. As can be seen on the exhibit, the system ' depths vary from a minimum of 3' to a maximum of approximately 81. The gravity collection system will involve the construction ' of two conventional pumping stations and it is anticipated that each of these pumping stations can discharge directly into the existing 6" and 18" force mains passing by each of the proposed stations. In addition, two small duplex grinder pumping stations must be constructed at the east end of 14th Place and 14th Street as shown on the exhibit. Please note the Gravity Sanitary Sewer Typical Trench Section shown on "Exhibit C." The proposed gravity ' sewer design has been laid out to maintain the minimum depth possible. Even so, it is anticipated that all gravity collection sewer must be constructed into or beneath the 1 to 21 foot layer of hard limestone which exists 1 to 2 feet below the existing ground surface. As shown by the Typical Trench Section, the removal of the existing limestone layer will require the actual removal of practically all of the existing street paved cartway. In addi- tion, the sewer contractor will install a 4" diameter service lateral from the sewer main to the street right-of-way line for ' service to each of the 375 anticipated connections. The construction of each 4" service lateral will require additional removal of the hard limestone layer. Since the existing dwelling units are close together, and a service lateral is to be installed for each ' dwelling unit, it is anticipated that the entire 70' right-of- 1 ' for each street will be actively involved in the construction way The residents and Indian River County should of the sewer project. ' be prepared to endure the usual inconveniences associated with of a sewer project in addition to the noise and vibra- construction by the breaking up and removal of the hard limestone ' tion caused layer. involved with this project must also bear in Each resident it will be their financial responsibility to provide mind that of the 4" service lateral from the right- for the construction of-way line to their dwelling unit. A local plumbing contractor should be consulted by each dwelling unit owner to provide them ' with a cost estimate for furnishing and installing the 4" service lateral. The plumbing contractor should be made aware, by the of the existing underground layer of hard limestone. homeowner, Also, each individual homeowner will be required to properly abandon their septic tank in accordance with the Health Department rules ' and regulations. Once installed, the conventional gravity collection system ' and pumping stations will function as a very reliable sewer system requiring only routine cleaning and maintenance. A construction cost estimate is presented in the next section of this report. Individual Grinder Pum /Manifolded Small Force Main Alternative "Exhibit B" is included in this report and shows a schematic layout of a manifolded system of small PVC force mains 2 to 3 inches in diameter along with spot elevations. The small PVC force mains would be constructed within the existing back yard accommodate the existing potable easement areas which persently ' water supply system serving the Rockridge project service area. Each dwelling unit would be furnished with an arrangement on the Dwelling Grinder Pump Typical Installation Detail as shown ' "Exhibit D." It is proposed that the sewer contractor remove on the existing septic tank lid, dewater its contents, clean the ' tank, and backfill the septic tank to grade with approved backfill sandy material. Meanwhile, the existing 4" service lateral from ' the house would be extended to connect to a fiberglass pump basin which would be installed in the septic tank backfill material. ' -7 . 1 0 The existing disposal field for each home would be abandoned and a grinder pump installed in each basin would intermittently discharge the wastewater from each house into the manifolded small force main system shown on" Exhibit B " In effect, the grinder pump/small 1 force main system functions as a water supply system in reverse. Instead of pressurized water being supplied by a main pipeline to each dwelling unit, pressurized wastewater is discharged from each dweling unit into a common main. Each of the 375 units in the Rockridge project service area would be furnished with its own basin and grinder pump. When considering the layer of hard limestone and high ground water table factors, the grinder pump/manifolded small force main system results in distinct and profound advantages since construction will be above the ground water table and layer of hard limestone. In addition, the small manifolded PVC force mains have flexibility which allows them to be deflected around trees, shrubs, sheds, and utility poles located within the existing back yard easement area. The small 2 and 3 inch diameter PVC force mains will primarily be constructed in a north -south direction and it is proposed that the force mains connect directly into the existing 6" PVC force main along 16th Street and directly into the 18" existing force main along 18th Street. The grinder pump system is a proven system with a track record of reliability provided that the system is properly designed and quality pumping equipment is used in its construction. Once installed, the system should provide trouble-free operation and effectively solve the existing sewage problems in the Rockridge area. A disadvantage of the grinder pump system, when compared to the conventional gravity sewer collection system, is that the grinder pump will cause an increase in the homeowner's electrical bill due to the intermittent operation of its 2 HP, single phase motor. Assuming the average dwelling unit discharges approximately 300 GPD of wastewater into the system, it is estimated that the 2 HP, single phase pump motor will cycle approximately 6 times and pump a total of 15 minutes out of every 24 hours. Using an -8- e0timated electric charge of 8¢ per kilowatt hour, and assuming 2 HP is equal to two kilowatts, the estimated increase in electrical cost per dwelling unit for 15 minutes of pump operation per day ' is 44 per day, or $1.20 per month. An estimated construction cost for the grinder pump/manifolded ' small force main alternative is included in the following section of this report. Cost Estimates ' A. Gravity Collection System/Conventional Pumping Station Alternative (See Exhibit A) 1. Basis of unit price estimates: a. 8" 0 PVC Gravity sanitary sewer with average depth of 6' normal construction use $15.00/foot add for dewater/rock excavation (+) $25.00/foot add for street, driveway and drainage restoration within 70' wide right-of- way (+) $25.00/foot Total = $65.00/ft b. Standard manholes - $1200.00 each (allowance for dewatering and rock excavation is included in gravity sewer unit price) c. 4" 0 service laterals from gravity main to right-of-way line normal construction use $250.00/lateral add for rock excavation (dewatering included in gravity sewer unit price) (+) $500.00 Total = $750.00 each Units Description Unit Cost Total Cost 18,710 LF 8flo PVC Gravity Sanitary Sewer 65.00 1,216,150 1,200.00 84,000 70 Manholes 750.00 281,250 375 4"0 Service Laterals 2 Conv. Pump Stations w/FM 50,000.00 100,000 2 Duplex Grinder Pump Stations 15,000.00 30,000 1070 LF 21" 0 PVC Force Main 5.00 5,350 $1,716,750 Sub -total ............................... 15% Contingencies .....................• $ 257_,513 -9- Sub-Total......................$1,974,263 Engineer's Design Fee .......... $ 110,330 I TOTAL ESTIMATED COST..................$23084,523g Based on 375 units, cost/unit = 2,084,593/375 = $5,559.00 f] 1 11 11 B. Individual Grinder Pump/Manifolded Small Force Main Alternative (See Exhibit B) 1. Basis of unit price estimates: a. At each of 375 existing dwelling units, remove existing septic tank lid; remove septic tank contents; backfill ill septic tank; furnish and install grinder pump basin; control panel, wiring/conduit, individual dwelling unit 1i" diameter PVC force main. Equipment $1,600.00 Installation $ 600.00 Total $2,200.00 Recommendations and Implementation The Rockridge area of Indian River County is in need of a sewage collection system due to chronic malfunctioning of the existing individual septic systems. The area is constructed over a shallow layer of hard limestone approximately 1 to 2 feet thick. This impervious rock layer is the primary reason for the septic system operational problems. -10- Unit Cost Total Cost Units Description 375 Grinder Pump Systems Complete(See la) $2,200.00 825,000 15,845 LF 2", 21" & 3" 0 PVC Force Main 5.00 81,900 7 Wet tap connectiont to existing 100.00 700 6" 0 PVC Force Main 3 Wet tap connections to existing 500.00 1,500 18" 0 concrete force main 909,100 Sub -total ...................................$ 15% Contingencies ...........................$ 1361365 Sub-total...................................$1,045,465 Engineer's Design Fee .......................$ 62,730 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST .....................$1,108,195 Based on 375 units, cost/unit = 1,108,195/375 = $2,955.00 Recommendations and Implementation The Rockridge area of Indian River County is in need of a sewage collection system due to chronic malfunctioning of the existing individual septic systems. The area is constructed over a shallow layer of hard limestone approximately 1 to 2 feet thick. This impervious rock layer is the primary reason for the septic system operational problems. -10- 1 ' The ground water table rests immediately below the layer of limestone and the presence of both the limestone layer and shallow ground water table make the construction of a conventional gravity sewage collection system very difficult. consists of approximately 375 existing dwelling The Rockridge area units, each built on lots generally 57' wide by 97' deep. The area is furnished with a water supply system by Indian River County. The water supply piping is constructed on top of the existing limestone layer and within back yard easements. Two alternatives were considered and schematic designs of each included in this report. One sewage collection alternative was the construction of a conventional gravity sewer collection system with ' conventional pumping stations. The total construction cost estimate of this alternative, including 15% contingencies and the engineering design fee, is $2,084,593.00. The construction of the conventional gravity collection system would also involve the total destruction ' of the existing roadway street within Rockridge and the need to completely restore the street system. Also, a substantial amount of vibration and noise would be experienced during construction due to the break - up and removal of the existing hard limestone layer. The second alternative involves the installation of an individual grinder pump and basin for each of the 375 dwelling units and the con- struction of a network of small manifolded PVC force mains within the ' back yard easement areas. The estimated construction cost for this alternative, including 15% contingencies and the engineering design ' fee, is $1,108,195.00. The grinder pump/small force main alternative would enable construction by the use of small equipment and it is antici- pated that the entire construction of the project could occur without the need to remove rock. The anticipated operation of the 2 HP, single phase grinder pump would result in additional electrical expense to ' each homeowner, which is estimated in the range of $1 to $2 per month. It is our recommendation that the alternative using a conventional ' gravity collection system be rejected and the alternative utilizing the individual grinder pump/small network force main system be accepted ' as the best means of providing sewage service to the Rockridge area 11 11 of Indian River County. In order to implement this recommendation, it is suggested that ' the Indian River County Commission hold a series of public meetings with the Rockridge area residents in order to present this report and secure the general approval of the residents directly affected to proceed with the recommended alternative. The County Commission should also make the decision makers in Vero Beach aware of the contents in this report in order to refine the mechanics of how and where the collected wastewater from the Rockridge project can be discharged into the existing Vero Beach system for treatment at the Vero Beach plant. As soon as the directly affected residents of the Rockridge area, ' the City of Vero Beach and the Indian River County Commission are satis- fied and the project's general scope of work is fairly well-defined, detailed engineering design can be done and the project constructed. It is estimated that the individual house grinder pump and small force main system alternative design can be engineered and constructed in ' approximately 1 year. 1 1 C� 1 -12- J 1 11 APPENDIX 1� U 1 u C,, EMPIRE RE ENGINEERING & TESTING INC. Telephone P.O. Box 776 305-569-0153 Vero Beach, Florlda 32960 SOIL SURVEY ROCKRIDGE WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA SUBMITTED TO: MASTELLER & MOLER ASSOCIATES, INC. SUBMITTED BY: EMPIRE ENGINEERING & TESTING, INC. DATE: MARCH 24, 1986 1 EMPIRE ENGINEERING & TESTING INC. Telephone P.O. Box 776 305.569-0153 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 March 249 1986 Masteller & Moler P. 0. Box 1045 Sebastian, Florida Associates, Inc. 32958 Reference: Rockridge Wastewater Collection System Indian River County, Florida Gentlemen: As you requested, we have completed the soil survey for the above referenced project. Enclosed please find: 1. Soil Conservation Service. Description of Soils. ' 2. Location Map. ' 3. Soil Boring Logs. All Borings were taken in rear lot utility easement. Care was taken not to harm existing water mains and telephone lines. The General Soil Profile consists of various sands: Hard Limestone, Silty Sand, Clayey Silty Sand and shell. ' Groundwater Tables varied, but were generally below the Hard Limestone. ' The layers of Hard Limestone encountered, varied in depths from 1' to 4', from the thickness; surface. In from 1' some to 2.5' at areas an 80 pound jackhammer and Air through the limestone. Compressor had to be utilized, to cut 7 7 J� IRE ENGINEERING & TESTING INC.MP G C P.O. Box 776 Telephone Vero Beach, Florida 32960 305.569-0153 ' Masteller & Moler Associates, Inc. Rockridge Wastewater Collection System March 24, 1986 Conclusion In the construction of a Gravity Collection System, in this area, the following items should be taken into consideration: 1. De—watering will be needed. ' 2. Hard Limestone will have to be excavated. t3. Existing utilities. ' 4. Existing easement is 10' wide. 5. The Hard Limestone encountered at each boring ' location covers the entire project, at varying depths and thicknesses. ' If you have any questions, concerning this matter, please call the office. ' Sincerely, JIn v �1 ' Harry 0. Wagne, P. E. ' HOW/mw 1 1 27 - Boca -Urban land complex no capability subclass assigned This complex consists of Boca fine sand and urban land. The Boca soil and ur- ban land are so intermingled that they cannot be seperated at the scale used for mapping. About 50 to 70 percent of the complex consists of nearly level Boca soils or Boca soils that have been reworked or reshaped, but are still recogniz- able as Boca soil. Typically, Boca soils have 14 inches of pale brown and dark grayish brown fine sand fill material over 3 inches of very dark gray ' fine sand. The next 7 inches is grayish brown fine sand. Below this to a depth of about 30 inches is 6 inches of light olive gray sandy loam. Under- lying this is a layer of hark limestone containing fractures and solution holes. 1 Twenty to 30 percent of the land is urban land in the form of houses, streets, driveways, buildings, parking lots, and other related uses. Unoccupied areas 1 are mostly lawns, vacant lots or playgrounds consisting of Boca soils. These areas are so small and intermixed with urban land that it is impractical to map them-seperately. About 15 percent of the land not covered by urban ' facilities are Chobee, EauGallie, Floridana, and Jupiter soils. A few areas with as much as 80 percent or as little as 10 percent urban land have been included. ' Areas of the soils that have been modified by grading and shaping are not as extensive in the older communities as in the newer ones. Sandy and loamy materials, as well as fragments of hard limestone and shell material from drain- age ditches or material that is hauled in, are often used to fill low areas. In undrained areas the water table is at depths of 10 to 30 inches for periods of 2 to 6 months, and within depths of 10 inches during the wet season. Drainage systems have been established in most areas, although the depth of ' the water table is dependent upon the functioning of the drainage system. ' Agricultural Uses Present land use precludes the use of this soil for cultivated crops, citrus, improved pasture, range, or forestry. ' Urbanland This complex has severe limitations for sanitary facilities, building site development, and recreational development. Water control measures are needed ' to overcome excessive wetness. Mounding may be needed for septic tank filter fields because of wetness and the shallow depth to rock. Sealing or lining of sewage lagoon areas is needed to help overcome excessive seepage. Many of these ' areas have been previously drained or modified by grading or shaping. Some water control measures, including addition of fill material and drainage to remove excess surface water after heavy rains, may be necessary for building site development. Moderate depth to the rock may cause difficulty where ' excavations are needed. The sandy surface layer should be stabilized for recreational use. 33S RANGE 39E ' ROCKRIDGE SUBDIVISIO _RQPLCAL PARK _ _ UNIT 9 UNIT -II ' > 7�' as~ n I 0 1 20 2 191 2 19 3 Is 3 IQ 4 17 4 17 ' 1 5 16 S 5TH PL. 16 6 IS 6 1; SEE LARG 7 14 8 13 13 ' i- 91 12 9 12 10 I II 10 11 ♦ 1J I C I 1--1-1•.—i.—a-,__ SUNSHINE QUALITY HOIAES ,, 1 3 4 3 4 2 L 5< 2 5 ' PK ►- I 6 r� l 61.: 18 u19 3 l 4 2 1 6 ME, 20 26 17 x 25 1621 115 40 I 0 1 20 2 191 2 19 3 Is 3 IQ 4 17 4 17 ' 1 5 16 S 5TH PL. 16 6 IS 6 1; SEE LARG 7 14 8 13 13 ' i- 91 12 9 12 10 I II 10 11 ♦ 1J I C I 1--1-1•.—i.—a-,__ SUNSHINE QUALITY HOIAES ,, 1 3 4 3 4 2 L 5< 2 5 ' PK ►- I 6 r� l 61.: 18 u19 3 l 4 2 1 6 27 20 26 17 x 25 1621 115 40 22 1 22 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21 2 21 : .0 3 20 1 • 9 19 4 W 1 v I s < 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 A Ib ' 14 9 14 I 13 It II tt 11 IITH 3T. 11 Z-4 _FLA_ 2 UNIT 3 1M 51. toIz m ,01 IW 10 ,'e W GD SCALE: 1"- 400' LI 13LAM M310 asXB mom mm rte] EN® m ]� �RD ■m ©im ©� ■m ©in ©m mim ENRO l omm © - aim M913 0 ® Eu® 0® m® Din CO® IRM vm �I Tio m ©� Erlm Epqm f]t]' a� 0® Mum orm 1�� m ,01 IW 10 ,'e W GD SCALE: 1"- 400' �l i 30fi 3JNV8 lqcc #.- cW vs J O > '13 v J a h- N Z ~ 0 N W obZ �Y moo---- - n s 0z Q m J J m N N Y J Z �O !J — Z J J O� J m ui X N 3Ad m JA d'bh M Li > d °C h lanoo N _ to 7-- 0 h t0 1 so O � J 7f 7m. N �W W m m Y O OZ W o toTF- m J W N to 7-- 0 h t0 O � J 7f N Y O OZ J— m J W an m W � W N -� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BORING N0. B-1 Col 0 9 EMPIRE ENGINEERING do TESTING INC. SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NO. 86180 0'11 :001. REMARKS PENETRATION - SLOWS / FT ELEV. IDK. SOIL DESCRIPTION 0 S 10 20 30 40 60 00 .100 1.0' GRAY SAND MED. TO FINE SP 3.0' HARD LIMESTOP:E 15.0 WHITE & GREENISH MED. TO FINE 4 SAPID W/ROCK. & SHELL TERMINATED @ 15.0' 3/6/86 G.W.T. 3.5' a att.... '%n in Ari" Pin Q Q wA1 -OOH "Mlw 0'11 :001. REMARKS BORING N0. B-2 EMPIRE ENGINEERING & TESTING INC. SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT N0.86180 ELEV. 11.01 SOIL DESCRIPTION PENETRATION - BLOWS / i T O S 10 20 30 40 60 00.100 GRAY SAID I':E . _0 FINE 2.01 HARD LIMESTONE 5.0' _TAN SAPdD MED. TO FINE SP 7.0' GREEI`ISH SILTY CLAYEY SAPID SP SI-; �i5.01 WHITE SAND l SHELL & ROCK SP TERMINATED @ 15.0' 3/6/86 G.W.T. 3.0' - _ -- uA ► `���r &dll. %A In M dew! 2 in o a at =1"w y- am `w. REMARKS, 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 P� 1j, C� EMPIRE ENGINEERING & TESTING INC. SOIL BORING LOG BORING N0. B_3 u PROJECT 180 all foo. REMARKS, PENETRATION - BLOWS/ FT ELEV. SOIL DESCRIPTION 0 S 10 20 30 40 60 00.100 1.01 DK BROWN SAND MED. TO FIDE P 2.0' HARD LIMESTONE WHITE SAND MED. TO FNE W/ 4.0' SHELL & ROCK FRAGMENTS P 6.0' GRAY SAND W ROCK & SHELL SP 7.01 TAI; SAI, -.D W1 ROCK & SHELL sp WHITE & GREENISH SILTY CLAYE SP SAND WITH SHELL & ROCK SM SC TERMINATED @ 15.0' 3/6/86 G.W.T. 3.0' .� _._�•__ �,.� _• u._ . _�--i—d .I aAA tN Lourawr {nninn 3Akn b drive 21n. Q 11 1011 w0011 SOfT is all foo. REMARKS, 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BORING N0. B-4 G EMPIRE ENGINEERING & TESTING INC. SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT N0. 86180 ELEV SOIL DESCRIPTION PENETRATION • BLOWS/ FT 0 S 10 20 30 •0 60 00.100 1.5' BROVIN' SAND BOOTY SP 4.0' HARD LIMESTONE .0' TAN, 0PANGE-SA711D 14.01 GPPPNTSV TAN STT.TV qA^Tn 15.0 SHPLL TERMINATED C 15.0' 3/6/86 G.W.T. 4.251 a.aoi xn I. in e.iwo Pin n a soft tDo0f1 sompler a* toot. REMARKS, 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 BORING NO. R-5 u /o EMPIRE ENGINEERING & TESTING INC. SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NO. 86180 ELEV. SOIL DESCRIPTION PENETRATION - SLOWS/FT 0 S 10 ZO SO 40 60 60 100 1.51 BROrdT,? SAND MEDIUM SP I AR LIMESTONE ' TAN ORANGE SILTY SAND ST" 13.0' GP.E-NISH TAN SILTY SAND SM 15.01 SHELL TERMINATED @ 15.0' 3/6/86 G. W.T. 3.251 -A i.du.... IMI" M d.l..o ?M e I soil >o00f1 somPkr rwwirvnvn numLpw v. v.v.. WyW W" V. - - - ar» fw. REMARKS I 1 t J BORING NO. B-6 EMPIRE ENGINEERING do TESTING INC. SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT N0. 86180 am foot. REMARKS, 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 EMPIRE ENGINEERING & TESTING INC. SOIL BORING LOG LEGEND BOMNG NQ PROJECT NO. ELEV SOIL DESCRIPTION PENETRATION - SLOWS/ FT 0 S 10 20 30 40 s0 80 100 0 WELL GRADED GRAVEL OR Bl)WS per foc t a GRAVEL -SAND MIXTURE GW +.'° mi 1point of 2" ri POORLY GRADED GRAVEL OR p nd sa ple dep h GRAVEL -SAND MIXTURE GP :0.I 5 SILTY GRAVEL GM CLAYEY GRAVEL .L?E L L: '9 RAD hD s. SA ND 10 POORLY GRADED SAND SILTY SAND 15 CLAYEY SAND INORGANICS SILT AND VERY FINE SAND OR CLAYEY SILT [LEAN CLAY WITH LOW TO MRT►TIIM P1_AST7CTTY GC ORGANICS SILT -CLAY OF LOW PLASTICITY Ul. .. 1. � a SILTY OR MICACEOUS SOILS, o.r SWo �.'; I I Un )stur SP i Sa ples :.. • SM SC ML rl 0 ORGANICS SILT -CLAY OF LOW PLASTICITY Ul. .. 1. � SILTY OR MICACEOUS SOILS, MH I I ELASTIC SILT FAT CLAY WITH HIGH CH 5 PLASTICITY VA ORGANICS CLAY OF MEDIUM OH 00 r, TO HIGH PLASTICITY. ORGANICS SIL' 0 4" Pei etra i i PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY PT i5ene rat) n a SO B ows) ORGANICS SOILS Cored 60. SOILS NOT CLASSIFIED TIS in 4., CRT- (Uro unF Wa— er 'FaFle7 Date Observed Refusal to Drilling Action covdry: 191X1 Prdsslli Penelrotion number of blows required of 140 lb. hammer tolling 30 in. to drive 2 in 0 D split spoon sompler one foot. REMARKS: Soils classified according to Unified Soils Classification System. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Z r m D N� N O 0a a30 _ z .4 m m A z m x LIE O r m L/ a a -� r � V/ �o a m z z n = a U m n m O m z m mODmcmr o•nrxzrn- �mrm 3A� mm -nm 0 Z04s Az 0rz-m D-;6)Z� 0>0 00 �r0D�D �DDofrnr rn -4 z �oo,+mc z 0z(n CA m \ m< � A 3;D z< CA < Go r -� mZ ,o � M 0 OD DD O -ID rr N rn C ` m wDom I ID O i� m 0 Lit rn� cm �sm jai m 1 m x -� - Ln J r Z K N �_ m D m m o O A m D 0 m S v z �DOV/D i:Kmm-4 �,Tc00 of- m T z --Z f -4rSn r m D <�0nrn rn DSD 40 ?OAz -1Zmm ZDCD o'Dx m 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'vN Daorn c= Zrnx x > rrn �x T o rn-< in �V OON v rnN O -4 r�D "nr""4 x:1 x �Zr r nC 0) W r r. czic' o rn m N N A = vxrn� * prn_u•1 Z m o -40 00 m O xr•4 r x IgDZ D < z ZX�; 0 m O C x O rn rn 9p r rn J �7 A D C_ -i ` v rn 0 IE O _ rn -� D o m N r x D rn m Z r r r rmm r - O r �� .n 3> -n �- >ro_w A mm0 ZLn2 a Z ZONA r < zio //z V/ Z T O "I D mODA rn oF°nr = DX -4 NZw Z y mx Z4 fn CL m r n r D O O�c m a r r- I rn=� x v= m �— Z M . D m' Z a _ O T /A Y� -1 p rn : rn v Q a 0 Z XZC) r� r 3tn DT v � m z rrn ZO N C C) n�z 0� Ni s n v .. m N m i) i11 m -1 D< n; �? °° r -4X nroc z� Nom+ D w 1— D O � N _2 O rj 8 C X x �N •1 �rC 2 O O r m N 3.4 Q1 rn x N O m m DI z r $m D r„ x O rn v C APPENDIX B r, C L J APPENDIX C r� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PUBLIC HEARING ROCKRIDGE SUBDIVISION Tuesday, April 21, 1987 4 5 6 7 1 R 1 9 10 ' 11 12 13 1 1.4 1s 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ' 23 24 25 LA 1 VP. SrT!T?L('rTC: We're going to go ahead and call to order our meeting., and T want to make some introductions. The purpose of the meeting is a requirement to have this public hearing and to let you have an opportunity to voice any of your concerns about the project. And we have ramp, Presser, r�cXee, who are consultants and have prepared the report here, to anso.•er any ouestions. -Ird just feel very free to ask any question that's on your mind about anything, the health problems, the kind of project, the dollars and cents, anything at all.. That's the purpose of the meeting. At this time, I'll turn the meeting over to Terry Pinto, our T1tility Pirector, and he can introduce our consultants. ASR. PIN'T0: Good afternoon. Thank you all for coming out. We know sometimes it's difficult to break away from your daily chores to come out and see us and we appreciate the fact that you're here. As I've met with a good number of you several times, let me go back to the heeirning of this project a little hit to enlighten you on where we were and where we think we're going. It was brought to our attention by a petition that came out of your subdivision that there was a need and a want for a waste -water treatment system to service your subdivision because of some problems that were being 7,AMPATAPG 9 ASsGGTATFS A computer Assisted Transcript (305)569-n910 n li l L 2 3 5 6 10 ' 14 1S 11 12 1R 13 ' 14 1S experienced in that area, being an area that's, that has a very h1gh eater table and, a rock layer, and that's where your name Rockridge came from, very close to the surface of the ground. I took that petition as the Pirector of TTtilities to the Foard of County Commissioners and asked, based on the nctition, to have. permission to have w"lat we term a feasibility study performed to look at the possibilities and the cost of providing sewer service to vour area. We have done that. Tn the process of doing this feasibility study, it came to our attention that because of the specific conditions in your area -- and your area is somewhat different than the rest of the county. First of all, it was more than the majority of houses were hunt prior to 1972, which is a key time for, under a feeeral law. And also the entire community as a whole is experiencing the same type of problems. The other thing that we looked at is the availability of waste -water treatment capacity very close to vour area in the City of Pero Beach Waste it'ater Treatment plant. So when we looked at all these things and looked at the nossil,il ity of building the system, it became feasible to us that, yes, we can provide waste -water facilities for the Rockridge development, and there's one ZMIBATARO F ASSOCTATFS A romnuter Assisted Transcript (305)564-091.0 16 17 1R to 20 21 22 23 24 ?5 experienced in that area, being an area that's, that has a very h1gh eater table and, a rock layer, and that's where your name Rockridge came from, very close to the surface of the ground. I took that petition as the Pirector of TTtilities to the Foard of County Commissioners and asked, based on the nctition, to have. permission to have w"lat we term a feasibility study performed to look at the possibilities and the cost of providing sewer service to vour area. We have done that. Tn the process of doing this feasibility study, it came to our attention that because of the specific conditions in your area -- and your area is somewhat different than the rest of the county. First of all, it was more than the majority of houses were hunt prior to 1972, which is a key time for, under a feeeral law. And also the entire community as a whole is experiencing the same type of problems. The other thing that we looked at is the availability of waste -water treatment capacity very close to vour area in the City of Pero Beach Waste it'ater Treatment plant. So when we looked at all these things and looked at the nossil,il ity of building the system, it became feasible to us that, yes, we can provide waste -water facilities for the Rockridge development, and there's one ZMIBATARO F ASSOCTATFS A romnuter Assisted Transcript (305)564-091.0 L 2 3 4 5 6 ' 7 Q 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ' 23 ' 24 25 sr,all area that's not in the Rockridge development that we think we can service. As T say, it came to our attention at that time that there's, there was a possibility of federal funding to assist in paying for the cost of this project. It's a large project and the feecral funding aspect would help greatly in �clT)ing vot, afford the project. The County has followed a Policy in building utilities that the cost of constr>>ction of utilities in anv specific area should not detrimentally affect user, existing users on the system. So new customers are supposed to pay for the project that 'benefits them and it cannot cost otter old customers anything at all within their rate structure. And I'm sure you can appreciate that for when and if v ou become customers, if some new developrren.t needs waste -water facilities, you do not want that cost to he added into your rate structure so you would he paying for someone else's problem. So we followed that policy. But at the same time, we went ahead and applied for an EPA, which is the Environmental Protection Agency, the united States Environmental Protection Agency, and the PFR, which is the State Pepartment of Fnvironmer.tal Pegulations, to apply for a grant that nays for a portion of voter system. Now, in the original feasibility, we Oetermired ZAMBATARO f ASSOCIATFS A computer Assisted Transcript r r t fi t l 2 3 4 5 6 7 R 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2.2 23 24 25 4 that it was possible to build your system without the grant if we made a direct assessment against the properties. Eut when you look at the total cost of the project, we think that would be difficult for the type of community that you are, a basically retired community, fixed income community, to ray that substantial cost which will come out of our report of such a system without sore sort of assistance. And the only assistance that's available at this time was this FPA/PFR grant. Ve've retained the consultants of Camp, Presser, McKee to give us all the information that's necessary so we can pass to you and to prepare the necessary applications for the DER and EPA, which were very, very extensive. The study that had to go into doing your proiect, for an example, because it's an even Fnvironmental Protection Agency project, there's more study that Trent into your small area than went into the entire Hater treatment plant that services the entire south county area. Put the regulations are there for reasons to protect the other taxpayers that are paying for these feeeral grants, that some community doesn't come in and Just build for the sake of building and wasting their money. So with that little back ground, there are some specific provisions that we have to cover under the law and one of them is this public hearing. We want as much input, ZAMPATARO & ASSOCIATFS A computer Assisted Transcript (?f?5 )5F9-0910 V, n t 1� 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5 pro and con, about this project that we can get so we know the right direction and the FPA can crake their decision on whether they're going to fend the protect or not. It's very important to note that this type of puM is hearing plays a very large part in the federal government and the state governments' decision on whether they're going to invest f"nes into the System to service us in cur county. T wi11 let the consultants go through, they have to read into the record something that's required by law that will give you some more information. They will go through the report. And we'll entertain any questions, any and all questions. If we do not have the answers for those questions, we'll assure you that you will receive some answer. When that time comes, we would jest simply ask that you come up to the podium so we can get your name and your address so if there is something we have to get rack to you with, we can certainly do that. I'd like to introduce Mr. Pon Vunksgaard, who is the managing engineer in charge of this project. MR. YTT�I(SCAAPD: Thank you, Terry. On my immediate left here is Brian Craham, Vfio's also with our firm and is a project engineer associated with this Pro.iect. AS Terry indicated, this is the nub1ic participation component of the overall project. Tt is a ZPIPATAR0 F, ASSOCTATFS A computer Assisted Transcript (305)569-0910 J k, r] r LI 1 n 1 3 4 5 6 1 C' 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 F requirement since the County is presently pursuing to obtain grant funding to help to offset the cost of this project. Besides the formal part of the public hearing we're having here today with you all, I would like to mention to you that on the back table hack there, there is a little survey form, and that lithe survey form asks you S ome simr,7e Yes, ro, tvpe oncstions and concerns what your past experiences have been with your own in,diviOual systems. And we would appreciate it if you would take the time, sometime either during the public hearing here or while you're home tonight watching TV or whatever, take the time to fill it out and get it turned in either to our offices here in Vero or to the County Utility Department. It will all become part of the total public participation package that is submitted with the final report that's given up to FFR. I would like to mention that there's a key word when I say final report, that the report that is in front of the County Commission at this time and the TTtility Penartment is an interim report. We are in the process right now of finalizing that report, and this public hearing is a part of that process and to take the input from you and to conform the project to mak e it the best for the overall commim i tv. . Witlh that as an introehiction, T wotild like to read ?A�IBATARC F ASSCCTATFS A computer Assisted Transcript (305)569-0910 L 2 3 4 5 ' 6 1 g c 10 ' 11 12 13 14 15 ' 16 17 is is 1 20 21 22 23 ?4 25 with your patierce -- I think you all have a copy of it, so you can read along with me and correct me if T misspell or mispronounce any words or anything like that. But it's a requirement that I get this kind of information into the aublic record in order that your project could potentially become grant So with that as an introduction, I'm ,Qoirg to let my associate here, Prian, real' it. Trarl' you. Yp. CPA.TTM.T: ramp, Presser F, VcYee was authorized by the Indian River bounty Board of County Commissioners to conduct a sewer system feasibility study for the Rockridge area of Indian River County. The location of the proposed project is within Indian River r'ounty located in the Rockridge subdivision. The area is generally located from 18th Street south to 13th Street and from 6th Avenue east to 3rd Avenue. Also included is the area west of 6th Avenue along 16th Place, 16th Street, 150 Place, 15th Street, 6th court and 14th Street. The monthly sewer service charge for a residential connection in Indian River bounty is a customer charge of $1.83 per meter, fil.5? per equivi lent residential unit and $2.86 per thousand gallons of potable water billed up to 12,000 pallors. The cost for a commercial connection is S2.R3 r.er thousand gallons of potablc water billet?. For a residential home, a typical monthly charge would be ZA�•n'ATARO F, ASSOr'TATFS A conl+uter Assisted Transcrint f305156R-n9ln i7 P, t n, i 2 3 4 5 6 7 R a 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 �.9 approximately 515. The proposed project would remove a probable source of contamination by eliminating septic tank effluent, thus improving the surface water and ground water in and around the study area. However, during construction traffic flow may he restricted and noise and air ouality problems may he encoiinterec rluc to diming etiring construction. These r.roblems would be mitigated as much as possible. Yo long term negative environmental effects would he created by the proposed proiect. The estimated cost to individual property owners based upon the preliminary project costs would he as much as $5,112 without gran -t funding to as little as X2,300 with grant funding. The actual cost to each property owner would depend on the amount of funding available and the actual project cost at the time of the construction. The cost to each property owner would be a one-time fee. However, since it is not a small one-time fee, it could be paid off over a five to ten year period depending on the funding mechanisms available to the County at the time of construction. In addition, each property owner would ?be required to pay a one- time imnact fee to the bounty in the amount of $1,250. Thank you. VP. *`TTrTVSCAARn; Thank you, Frian. I would like to make one minor qualification, make ZAYBATARO f ASSOCIATES A Computer Assisted Transcript (305)569-0410 t l� I 1 t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 i9 20 21 22 23 24 25 0 sure t>^ere's no misunderstanding. In the third paragraph there, we're talking about the typical monthly charge of ,15. That, of course, is for service and that, of course, does not include the cost that the homeowner would have if they were to spread that out over the five -.year period or something like that instead of paying at all up front in lump sum. So the rum'1er coi)ld increase on a monthly basis if you were to do that. Okay. We do not have a formal presentation today in the aspects of going through the actual sewer design and that type of thing. That's really not the purpose of today. The purpose of today is to hear from You. This report, if you have looked at it, I know some of You people have gone by the TTtility Department, has been on file. And at this time, I would like to open it up to you, the general Public, and entertain any questions that you have and give yon the detailed answers to those. To maybe keep a little organization here today, maybe we can start over on the left-hand side here, and anybody who has any questions on the left -band side, if you'd like to raise your hand and come forward. QTR. PINTO: I have a question., if you don't mind. Terry Pinto, and I'm Director of TTtilities. When we say the, when we're given the numT,er for the service cbarp_e of X15, what was the consumption, the ZAMPATANI & ASSOC IATFS A rompiiter Assisted Transcript (305)569-0910 1 1 J �J n c 6 R n l0 11 12 13 14 14 16 17 1.8 19 20 21. 22 23 24 25 10 flow that we estimated that on? �T. rMAFIAN: We estimated that on 70 gallons per person a day, times two point three people in a house, over 30 days for the month. WIR. PTNTO: And what was that total amount for the month on flow, gallonage? VP. rnAT'1'V: Arnroximately five thoiisand. �'P. PIYTO: T just wanted then to sate that. Five thousand gallons a month, we're talking about that amount of nonev. Our records indicate that the Pockridge area has 'been experiencing lower than the average use of water, somewhere around three thousand to thirty-five hundred gallons. So you can adjust your thinking of what your charges are going to he by that. Five thousand gallons I think will cover -- practically every house in Rockridge uses no more than five thousand gallons of water. It's one of the most conservative areas that we have in the county and one that really helps us out when the water management people look at our total consumption. They're very concerned with how much we use per dwelling and they like us to keep clown as much as possible. And your development helps us out in those total numbers. A i'P`RFP OF TTTE ATTPTFNCF: That's a minimum fee of ZAVRATAP0 f ASSOCIATES A Computer Assisted Transcript (305)S69-0910 1 L r3 4 5 1 6 7 t8 1 10 j11 19 12 r13 22 14 15 r16 17 r 18 1 19 20 r21 22 23 '4 1 25 r 11 1,"R. PINTO: No, no. That's if you used five thousand gallons, we're estimating that you'd use $1S worth of service. The $2.86 per thousand is the number that will increase as you increase your usage. ?Tow, if you have a water bill and you let me know what your water bill is, TIM compute for you at any time, Just call my office, and I'll eot^nute for you carat your notcntial rate v-oulrl he. 'T. NITTNYg, (AAPT): Okay. Anybody have any gt!estions over on the left-hand side? Sir, would you come forward. YR. HUTCHINS: T'd like to ask a question. I've only attended one meeting and I'm not up on this. MR. MV KSCAARP: Sir, could T ask you to come forward and ptit your name into the public record, into the microphone . MR. HITTrpTNTq: ?'v name's 1lutcbins. AIR . MITNKSGAARP: If you could give your address, too. MR. 1-MTr1!TYS: 1330 4th Avenue. MV question is, as T understand, you're going to have indivieual pumps at each house: is teat correct? *'P . w"TTNY1crAAPP : That is right. r,P. TT,Tr1TTrS: Are these pumps submersible" �`n . *TTfixSCAA P71 : That's correct. VP. I'ITTrITTNS: They are submersible. ZATBATARO & ASSOrTATF.S A rom>?uter Assisted Transcript (305)SAO-0910 Fi 1 S 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1.7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 12 "P. YTINVSCAAPr,: Well, they're a grineer type pump. They are that general nature, yes. MR. ITITTrPTYS: Tn other words, they'll be submerged in water. MR. rqTYKSGAARP: Yes. YR. piTTrPTYS: Then I've got news for you, that they're very vulnerable to every electrical shower. You a.et an electrical hit sore there near the pump, out she goes. I have worked for the sewer district and had a little hit of familiarity with that. All. above ground pumps, no problem. MR. MPNKSGAAPP: Right. You're right, and lightning is very much a concern in all. of Florida, and especially here in what I would call. the South Florida area. A.nd lightning arresters are a very important part of the design and that will be addressed if this, if the County Commission decides to go forward with this project, to design and move forward with it. That is one area that needs to be addressed. T can assure you, though, that submersible type waste -water pumps are the standard make, shall we say, of the 1980's and they're becoming very popular in the 1080's due to the maintenance and costs associated with them are very favorable to utilties. And it's becoming the more of the standard than of the exception that the suhmersihle type installation is Being installed. ZAVRA TARO 8 ASSnrIATFS A computer Assisted Transcrint (30S)569-0910 r1l ij fl J 12 13 14 is 1.6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i3 ?'R . MTTrTTTN4; : ro you have some of these sys ter+s in the state, some other county, that's been in use awhile? MR. GRAHAM: Yes. As a matter of fact, there are a few in the state. I believe Port St. Lucie, Terry, you're familiar with it. ?'R. PTNTO: Yes. T'll say this, T }ave personal experience with this tvne of system and a similiar system installed by the general. pcvelopment Corporation teat have been in approximately 15 years, going back approximately 15 years. And we have found that the cost effectiveness of the operation is superior to much of the, many of the types of systems that are built today. I want everyone to understand that the pump and the system that we're talking about installing, the responsibility for maintenance of that system will be the utilty, and therefore, we're very concerned that we build something that's going to give us the least amount of maintenance as possible. It's not that -- we're not going to build something at the responsibility of the home owner, if it breaks, you have to go out and fix it. Tt will be the responsibility of the home oioner to, if it's not working, call on the Phone, and we have to send someone out to repair it. And it does not cost NIou any more on voter rate than any other customer of the system is paying. So therefore, we're ZAMIRATAR,O & ASSOrIATFS A romputer Assisted Transcript 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 E c 1C 11 12 13 14 i5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 l very aware and we're looking very closely at that. M.P. M!TrPTNT,,R Well, I hope you'll have a few S extra pumps on hand so you'll he able to replace them quite G soon. ASR. PINTO: Well, let me say that, too, and it's a > very good point. The method of maintenance that we perceive and that T've used in other areas that T've workcO is not that we go in and do some type of repair to that pump. We'll carry a sufficient number of replacement primps so it's a mere exchange. The guy can come in, and I can assure you that within 70 minutes, he can pull that pump out and put a new pump in. Ar.d then we worry about whether we repair that pump or not. MP. HIT('FTNS: Cood, good. That's the only thing that T was concerned with because I had worked for a sewer district and that was a bi,g problem. But that was quite a few years back. Thank you, gentlemen. MR. rTT�KSCAAFP: Ile fust like to add one more thing. (Inc of the Ivey advantages to the submersible type or grinder type is from esthetics. "at I mean by that is from the site. It's all buried, it's all below ground. If you think of an above ground pump type installation, some people, it's not exactly, pretty. You can maybe hide it with some hushes or fl overs or something like that. Put the installations that we're talking ab out here is all below 7A'k'l'ATARO f ASSor TATFS A romnuter Assisted Transcript (305)SFP-0910 1 �l i] 15 1 ground. The only thing that would be above ground that you 2 Mould see as a home owner would be the electrical disconnect 3 switches, of course, which are there for safety, and then 4 also the electric meter. And that I think is a key 5 consideration for this. 6 "T. SrrTRLC('K: ?'on, why eon't you maybe give a 7 little hit of background on why this particular design, the 8 existing situation. It wasn't like if we were beginning ? from scratch that we wotj ld go to this particular concept. Could you fill in the audience a little bit on why we choose �. this approach. '• h`R. MTTYVSCAARP,: When you are talking about sewer design, there's what they call the conventional system, which probably most of you are all aware of, which are gravity sewers. Basically you're running out of your homes and down through a gravity drain into a central system that's, say, located out in the street or in the backyard easements. It falls down to probably a depth of around 14, 15 feet usually in South Florida due to the high ground water table. About at that point, it becomes not cost effective to continue with a gravity type slope and you put in some type of lift station. Either you lift it up and you start the process all over again or you Qo into a force main system where, under pressure, you Pump it all the way to a treatment plant. We'll call that the typical system that is ZAM13A.TARO & A SSCC TATF_:S A Computer Assisted Transcript (305)569-0910 11 1' ' 1 1; ' l: i] 15 1 ground. The only thing that would be above ground that you 2 Mould see as a home owner would be the electrical disconnect 3 switches, of course, which are there for safety, and then 4 also the electric meter. And that I think is a key 5 consideration for this. 6 "T. SrrTRLC('K: ?'on, why eon't you maybe give a 7 little hit of background on why this particular design, the 8 existing situation. It wasn't like if we were beginning ? from scratch that we wotj ld go to this particular concept. Could you fill in the audience a little bit on why we choose �. this approach. '• h`R. MTTYVSCAARP,: When you are talking about sewer design, there's what they call the conventional system, which probably most of you are all aware of, which are gravity sewers. Basically you're running out of your homes and down through a gravity drain into a central system that's, say, located out in the street or in the backyard easements. It falls down to probably a depth of around 14, 15 feet usually in South Florida due to the high ground water table. About at that point, it becomes not cost effective to continue with a gravity type slope and you put in some type of lift station. Either you lift it up and you start the process all over again or you Qo into a force main system where, under pressure, you Pump it all the way to a treatment plant. We'll call that the typical system that is ZAM13A.TARO & A SSCC TATF_:S A Computer Assisted Transcript (305)569-0910 11 1� ' lE 17 ' 23 is i] 15 1 ground. The only thing that would be above ground that you 2 Mould see as a home owner would be the electrical disconnect 3 switches, of course, which are there for safety, and then 4 also the electric meter. And that I think is a key 5 consideration for this. 6 "T. SrrTRLC('K: ?'on, why eon't you maybe give a 7 little hit of background on why this particular design, the 8 existing situation. It wasn't like if we were beginning ? from scratch that we wotj ld go to this particular concept. Could you fill in the audience a little bit on why we choose �. this approach. '• h`R. MTTYVSCAARP,: When you are talking about sewer design, there's what they call the conventional system, which probably most of you are all aware of, which are gravity sewers. Basically you're running out of your homes and down through a gravity drain into a central system that's, say, located out in the street or in the backyard easements. It falls down to probably a depth of around 14, 15 feet usually in South Florida due to the high ground water table. About at that point, it becomes not cost effective to continue with a gravity type slope and you put in some type of lift station. Either you lift it up and you start the process all over again or you Qo into a force main system where, under pressure, you Pump it all the way to a treatment plant. We'll call that the typical system that is ZAM13A.TARO & A SSCC TATF_:S A Computer Assisted Transcript (305)569-0910 19 20 ' 21 22 ' 23 24 25 i] 15 1 ground. The only thing that would be above ground that you 2 Mould see as a home owner would be the electrical disconnect 3 switches, of course, which are there for safety, and then 4 also the electric meter. And that I think is a key 5 consideration for this. 6 "T. SrrTRLC('K: ?'on, why eon't you maybe give a 7 little hit of background on why this particular design, the 8 existing situation. It wasn't like if we were beginning ? from scratch that we wotj ld go to this particular concept. Could you fill in the audience a little bit on why we choose �. this approach. '• h`R. MTTYVSCAARP,: When you are talking about sewer design, there's what they call the conventional system, which probably most of you are all aware of, which are gravity sewers. Basically you're running out of your homes and down through a gravity drain into a central system that's, say, located out in the street or in the backyard easements. It falls down to probably a depth of around 14, 15 feet usually in South Florida due to the high ground water table. About at that point, it becomes not cost effective to continue with a gravity type slope and you put in some type of lift station. Either you lift it up and you start the process all over again or you Qo into a force main system where, under pressure, you Pump it all the way to a treatment plant. We'll call that the typical system that is ZAM13A.TARO & A SSCC TATF_:S A Computer Assisted Transcript (305)569-0910 1U, �l ri 1 W 16, 1 installed that probably most people are familiar with and 2 that system was analyzed for vour subdivision. 3 Another system that was analyzed is a vacuum 4 system. A vacuum system is a system that, it sounds just 5 like it's name, it involves a small diameter sewer, but it's 6 not operating under a gravity flow situation, it's operating 7 unc'er some tyre of gravity situation that's nul l ir.g the 8 sewage through the force mains. The advantage of that System is that you do not have to have deep excavations. And that is the key point when you come to your l community 'because you have two very strong negatives when -' you get into construction costs and that is, number one, you have high ground water table, like a lot of People do in this part of the country, but you also have, as Terry mentioned earlier, you have this rock ledge, which the name of your community or vour subdivision was named after, a rock ledge which is only a few feet below your surface and extends for a few feet down. And the cost associated with penetrating that and putting in a typical system makes it advantageous to start to Look at some alternative type of sewer design. This alternative type of sewer design is a vacuum system. That was looked at and was determined not to be cost effective. Another type of system is what's called a low pressure system, and that's what's being proposed for your ZAP"RA TARO f A SSOC TATES A Computer Assisted Transcript (305)569-0910 19 1 ' 1 l; 1. 23 ' l� lE 1i ri 1 W 16, 1 installed that probably most people are familiar with and 2 that system was analyzed for vour subdivision. 3 Another system that was analyzed is a vacuum 4 system. A vacuum system is a system that, it sounds just 5 like it's name, it involves a small diameter sewer, but it's 6 not operating under a gravity flow situation, it's operating 7 unc'er some tyre of gravity situation that's nul l ir.g the 8 sewage through the force mains. The advantage of that System is that you do not have to have deep excavations. And that is the key point when you come to your l community 'because you have two very strong negatives when -' you get into construction costs and that is, number one, you have high ground water table, like a lot of People do in this part of the country, but you also have, as Terry mentioned earlier, you have this rock ledge, which the name of your community or vour subdivision was named after, a rock ledge which is only a few feet below your surface and extends for a few feet down. And the cost associated with penetrating that and putting in a typical system makes it advantageous to start to Look at some alternative type of sewer design. This alternative type of sewer design is a vacuum system. That was looked at and was determined not to be cost effective. Another type of system is what's called a low pressure system, and that's what's being proposed for your ZAP"RA TARO f A SSOC TATES A Computer Assisted Transcript (305)569-0910 19 20 ' 21 22 23 ' 24 ri 1 W 16, 1 installed that probably most people are familiar with and 2 that system was analyzed for vour subdivision. 3 Another system that was analyzed is a vacuum 4 system. A vacuum system is a system that, it sounds just 5 like it's name, it involves a small diameter sewer, but it's 6 not operating under a gravity flow situation, it's operating 7 unc'er some tyre of gravity situation that's nul l ir.g the 8 sewage through the force mains. The advantage of that System is that you do not have to have deep excavations. And that is the key point when you come to your l community 'because you have two very strong negatives when -' you get into construction costs and that is, number one, you have high ground water table, like a lot of People do in this part of the country, but you also have, as Terry mentioned earlier, you have this rock ledge, which the name of your community or vour subdivision was named after, a rock ledge which is only a few feet below your surface and extends for a few feet down. And the cost associated with penetrating that and putting in a typical system makes it advantageous to start to Look at some alternative type of sewer design. This alternative type of sewer design is a vacuum system. That was looked at and was determined not to be cost effective. Another type of system is what's called a low pressure system, and that's what's being proposed for your ZAP"RA TARO f A SSOC TATES A Computer Assisted Transcript (305)569-0910 J J t li 17 1 st1hdill ision. And that low pressure system also involves a 2 srr,all diameter force main that would be laid in the 3 backyards, in the hack easements of your properties. Right 4 now you have a water system hack there and you also have 5 power hack there. It would be laid back in that same 6 general area with those. And what would he done is that 7 each septic tank teat vo>> own, it would ''e filled with sand B and then a precast type system of filler glass with a wet well l type system with the grinder pump system in it would be placed down inside your septic tank system. The advantage of this would be saving construction '. costs 'because the entire system will not be required, depending on final design again if the project Proceeds to that point, but the intent is that we will not have to be penetrating through the rock ledge, that the small diameter pressure or low pressure force main systems that can be laid in your backyard easements can he laid an top of the rock ledge and the existing septic tanks can be converted into this grinder or submersible type pump system that we talked about Just a little hit ago. So as a brief general overview, the entire report did a cost effective analysis. IAT en I talk about cost effective analysis, I'm not just talking about construction costs, T'm also talking about operation and maintenance costs. In looking at the whole concept and putting it all ZAMPATAF0 $ ASSOCTATFS A rompvter Assisted Transcript (305)569-0910 l; 1; 20 1� ' 16 17 1R 17 1 st1hdill ision. And that low pressure system also involves a 2 srr,all diameter force main that would be laid in the 3 backyards, in the hack easements of your properties. Right 4 now you have a water system hack there and you also have 5 power hack there. It would be laid back in that same 6 general area with those. And what would he done is that 7 each septic tank teat vo>> own, it would ''e filled with sand B and then a precast type system of filler glass with a wet well l type system with the grinder pump system in it would be placed down inside your septic tank system. The advantage of this would be saving construction '. costs 'because the entire system will not be required, depending on final design again if the project Proceeds to that point, but the intent is that we will not have to be penetrating through the rock ledge, that the small diameter pressure or low pressure force main systems that can be laid in your backyard easements can he laid an top of the rock ledge and the existing septic tanks can be converted into this grinder or submersible type pump system that we talked about Just a little hit ago. So as a brief general overview, the entire report did a cost effective analysis. IAT en I talk about cost effective analysis, I'm not just talking about construction costs, T'm also talking about operation and maintenance costs. In looking at the whole concept and putting it all ZAMPATAF0 $ ASSOCTATFS A rompvter Assisted Transcript (305)569-0910 19 20 21 2.2 23 24 25 17 1 st1hdill ision. And that low pressure system also involves a 2 srr,all diameter force main that would be laid in the 3 backyards, in the hack easements of your properties. Right 4 now you have a water system hack there and you also have 5 power hack there. It would be laid back in that same 6 general area with those. And what would he done is that 7 each septic tank teat vo>> own, it would ''e filled with sand B and then a precast type system of filler glass with a wet well l type system with the grinder pump system in it would be placed down inside your septic tank system. The advantage of this would be saving construction '. costs 'because the entire system will not be required, depending on final design again if the project Proceeds to that point, but the intent is that we will not have to be penetrating through the rock ledge, that the small diameter pressure or low pressure force main systems that can be laid in your backyard easements can he laid an top of the rock ledge and the existing septic tanks can be converted into this grinder or submersible type pump system that we talked about Just a little hit ago. So as a brief general overview, the entire report did a cost effective analysis. IAT en I talk about cost effective analysis, I'm not just talking about construction costs, T'm also talking about operation and maintenance costs. In looking at the whole concept and putting it all ZAMPATAF0 $ ASSOCTATFS A rompvter Assisted Transcript (305)569-0910 1 1� 1 19 20 1 1 1 I 23 .l 1� 1! ' 1t 1. lE 1 19 J 1 together and comparing it on an amps to amps basis on a 2 present worth analysis, if you're familiar with those 3 concepts, and getting a true comparison, that is what's 4 required for the County to demonstrate in order to get grant 5 funding. 6 The other big factor associated with grant funding 7 is did you have su'lstar.tial habitation, T guess is the word, 8 on your Property prior to 1972, and We've documented throu.ph 9 our air reels that approximately, I think the number is 96, D 98 percent, something like that, of your entire subdivision 1 is grant eligible. So the potertial exists to lower the Z impact to you, the home owners, dramatically if the County S continues to pursue this grant funding. MR. CRANAM: I'd just like to add that in considering the gravity, the conventional gravity sewers, it was not thought feasible to put it in the backyard easements. This woule mean that we would have to dig up the streets, and that would cost a lot more and that's part of the reason why the alternative was selected. The cost associated with placing the gravity sewers in the line became prohibitive because of the work that would have had to have been done to the streets and to dewater the ground to lav the pines in the ground. MR. FRATI,S: qty name is Frails, 1491 Fifth Avenue. ?AMPATAP0 f ASSCCTATES A. Computer Assisted Transcript (:05)569-0910 20 21. 22 1 23 24 25 J 1 together and comparing it on an amps to amps basis on a 2 present worth analysis, if you're familiar with those 3 concepts, and getting a true comparison, that is what's 4 required for the County to demonstrate in order to get grant 5 funding. 6 The other big factor associated with grant funding 7 is did you have su'lstar.tial habitation, T guess is the word, 8 on your Property prior to 1972, and We've documented throu.ph 9 our air reels that approximately, I think the number is 96, D 98 percent, something like that, of your entire subdivision 1 is grant eligible. So the potertial exists to lower the Z impact to you, the home owners, dramatically if the County S continues to pursue this grant funding. MR. CRANAM: I'd just like to add that in considering the gravity, the conventional gravity sewers, it was not thought feasible to put it in the backyard easements. This woule mean that we would have to dig up the streets, and that would cost a lot more and that's part of the reason why the alternative was selected. The cost associated with placing the gravity sewers in the line became prohibitive because of the work that would have had to have been done to the streets and to dewater the ground to lav the pines in the ground. MR. FRATI,S: qty name is Frails, 1491 Fifth Avenue. ?AMPATAP0 f ASSCCTATES A. Computer Assisted Transcript (:05)569-0910 l� i i9 I It r•ould cost more to put it in the street than it 2 would in the ditch. Then you have to put all those streets 3 down. 4 MR. GRAPAW,: Exactly, sir. That's what I was 5 saying. It's prohibitive to put it in the street. 6 MP. I'RAII_S: Tt would he easier to put it in the 7 !1itc� : t;nul in,t Its 8 N`R. GnAPAY: yes. Put there's not enough room in the bacicvards to go in and nut in a conventional gravity sewer. ISR. FRAII.S: There's 20 feet. GRAFAM: But that would have meant digging up S your whole backyard, yours and your neighbors' behind you. MR. FRATLS: It's ten feet from each property. And nobody uses it, it's all ditch and utilities anyhow. ISM- GRAHAM: The state requires that there is a ten foot distance between a water pipeline and a sewer. And that would have meant that we would have to have gone off the water feeder ten feet and dug a ditch. And if you're Putting in an eight inch pipe, you just can't dig an eight inch ditch. It takes a lot of space. And because of the high ground water present, you have to dewater, which means take the water out of the ground by purining, it. And that takes a lot more digging to pet the rumps in the ground to suck it out. ZAMPATARG F ASSnrTATFS A. computer Assisted Transcript (305)560-0910 1 1: 1! 1f li to ' 20 r21 22 23 ' 24 25 i9 I It r•ould cost more to put it in the street than it 2 would in the ditch. Then you have to put all those streets 3 down. 4 MR. GRAPAW,: Exactly, sir. That's what I was 5 saying. It's prohibitive to put it in the street. 6 MP. I'RAII_S: Tt would he easier to put it in the 7 !1itc� : t;nul in,t Its 8 N`R. GnAPAY: yes. Put there's not enough room in the bacicvards to go in and nut in a conventional gravity sewer. ISR. FRAII.S: There's 20 feet. GRAFAM: But that would have meant digging up S your whole backyard, yours and your neighbors' behind you. MR. FRATLS: It's ten feet from each property. And nobody uses it, it's all ditch and utilities anyhow. ISM- GRAHAM: The state requires that there is a ten foot distance between a water pipeline and a sewer. And that would have meant that we would have to have gone off the water feeder ten feet and dug a ditch. And if you're Putting in an eight inch pipe, you just can't dig an eight inch ditch. It takes a lot of space. And because of the high ground water present, you have to dewater, which means take the water out of the ground by purining, it. And that takes a lot more digging to pet the rumps in the ground to suck it out. ZAMPATARG F ASSnrTATFS A. computer Assisted Transcript (305)560-0910 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1.3 14 15 1.6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 YP- r'P. FRATIS: Actually that would apply to either place, wherever you put it, road or in the hack. going to cost. MR. GRAHAM: ('orrect, for the gravity sewer, that's correct. 50 thousand dollars. For the recommended grinder pump system, construction cost, one million seven YR. FP.AILS: okay. Po you have a total for the gravity system on ii+at it would cost and also on the pump syster , YP- GPAPPf: Yes, sir, T do, 'no you want present worth cost or constructior. cost? MP. FRAILS: Well, I'd like to have both, what the whole system over there is going to cost and what each individual is going to cost. VR. GRANA-": To construct the gravity, conventional gravity sewers, construction cost, tv,o million eight hundred 50 thousand dollars. For the recommended grinder pump system, construction cost, one million seven hundred 20 thousand dollars. MP. FRAILS: NTow, can you tell me what size pumps are going in? MR. GRAHAM Yes, sir. The e?rinder numnc ern +•.,- horsepower. 'N?. FRAILS: Two horse. ;"R. GRAI'AM: Two, two and a half, depending, again, on final desien. Two horsepower. They would pump at approximately two hundred gallons per minute. ZAMPATARO f ASSnrIATFS A computer Assisted Transcript (305)569-0910 1 l� 1 1 1 1 1 ' 19 20 ' 1� lE 17 18 1 21. 1 �T— FRAILS: Is this at 110 volts or 220 vol ts? 2 MR. CRARAM: Tt could be either, 1.1.0, 220, or 440, 3 depending on -- 4 MR. FRAILS: Well, we don't have 440. We only 5 have 220. 6 MR. CRAFAI+: A separate line could be brought in 7 off the line if that would I -e needed. I serioiisly doubt 8 that would be needed. Then can be run on 110 or 220. 9 tT . FRAILS: My reason for the ouestion is that the cost of operating these pumps, a two horsepower pump, You're not going to operate it for the price of a 50 watt light huLb like the word has teen around. ' MR. CRAHAM: htell, sir, we've estimated the costs. And for two people living in a home producing one hundred gallons of waste -water a day each, that ends up being six thousand gallons a month, and as Mr. Pinto pointed out, that is quite a lot more than the typical Rockridge home, it world cost you twelve cents a month. MR. FRAILS: For the use of the sewer? MR. CRANAM: To use the pump, twelve cents. MR. FRATI.S: Put that doesn't have anything to do with the cost of electricity to run the pump. *4R. CRAI'AM: That is the cost of electricity to run the pump, twelve cents a month or a dollar fifty for the year. ZAMPATARC ° ASSo IATES A computer Assistee Transcript (305)550-0910 19 20 ' 21 22 23 ' 24 25 1 21. 1 �T— FRAILS: Is this at 110 volts or 220 vol ts? 2 MR. CRARAM: Tt could be either, 1.1.0, 220, or 440, 3 depending on -- 4 MR. FRAILS: Well, we don't have 440. We only 5 have 220. 6 MR. CRAFAI+: A separate line could be brought in 7 off the line if that would I -e needed. I serioiisly doubt 8 that would be needed. Then can be run on 110 or 220. 9 tT . FRAILS: My reason for the ouestion is that the cost of operating these pumps, a two horsepower pump, You're not going to operate it for the price of a 50 watt light huLb like the word has teen around. ' MR. CRAHAM: htell, sir, we've estimated the costs. And for two people living in a home producing one hundred gallons of waste -water a day each, that ends up being six thousand gallons a month, and as Mr. Pinto pointed out, that is quite a lot more than the typical Rockridge home, it world cost you twelve cents a month. MR. FRAILS: For the use of the sewer? MR. CRANAM: To use the pump, twelve cents. MR. FRATI.S: Put that doesn't have anything to do with the cost of electricity to run the pump. *4R. CRAI'AM: That is the cost of electricity to run the pump, twelve cents a month or a dollar fifty for the year. ZAMPATARC ° ASSo IATES A computer Assistee Transcript (305)550-0910 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 ' lc l; ' 1E ' lc ZQ 21 22 23 24 25 22 1 �'R. FRATI,S: Twelve cents a month? 2 MR. GRANA"": Twelve cents a month. 3 MR. FRAILS: �'o way, absolutely no way. WbatIs 4 the cost if we use the sewers? 5 MR. GPANAM: The surcharge, sir' A'R. FPAILS: Ire 11 , yeah. Is that based on the 7 amount of water You Ilse: riO t? 8 "T• CrAYTAV: Yes, sir. That was descri?,ed -- g N'UY SCAAF P : That was that � a mor th . 0 MP. FRAILS: Pardon I MR. W'UNYSCAAPP: That was approximately $15 a 2 month. 3 MR. FRAILS: Approximately $15 a month. And eight # cents a month for electricity? ' MR. MTTTKSCAAPrD TI,•el_ve cents. The electricity is a very small component, sir. Tt's not really a, in dollar magnitude, it's a very small amount of mor.ev. MR. FPAII,S: Don't get me wrong, T'm not for the sewers. T am. T Just want to have a sewer that's not going to he costing_ me 20 bucks a month to have the sewer. r''R• �'TTYVSCAAv'P: 1''ell, as Vr. Pinto explained to You - - N'P. FP.ATLS: You're never going to run a two horsepower hump on twelve cents a month. MTTYKSGAAPD: v:cll, see, it doesn't run ZAMIiATArC & ASSorTATES A romputer Assisted Transcript (305)569-0410 l� 1 J .1 I J 23 1 continuously. 2 1 MR. FRATLS: T know it doesn't run continuously. 3 It costs more to start it up than it does if it runs 4 continuously. S That is a theoretical calculation 6 based on that efficiency point. And you've got the initial inertia of starting the pumn. Tt Would ?�e difficult to 8 calculate that Pu tuber. But the point of the calculation, 9 sir, is not whether it's a dollar or two dollars or three I dollars. The point is that it's not, it's not ten dollars, I twenty dollars, thirty dollars, that type of thing. • MR. FRAILS: It will be at least five, a minimum 5 of five dollars. MP- MITNTKSCAARP: We're not going to dispute Whether it's that. The point is teat in the order of magnitude, it's a relatively small number. "R. FRATLS: *''y question is the additional charge after hooking these things up. It winds up well.] be paying thirty dollars a month for the sewer system. MR. ?"UNKSCAARD: Well, you could be paying that much if you spread out the cost of the construction. MP. FRATLS: Resides the cost of it. !'R. ?I'!�'KSGAA Pr: Well, once again, it would depend on your water usage, sir, .hat your monthly bill would he. And it is my understanding that the county does ZAR'PA TARO! F� A SSOC TATFS A Computer Assisted Transcript (?GG15f9-paip l; 1� 1 lE 17 ' 18 '19 20 ' 21 22 ' 23 24 ' 25 I J 23 1 continuously. 2 1 MR. FRATLS: T know it doesn't run continuously. 3 It costs more to start it up than it does if it runs 4 continuously. S That is a theoretical calculation 6 based on that efficiency point. And you've got the initial inertia of starting the pumn. Tt Would ?�e difficult to 8 calculate that Pu tuber. But the point of the calculation, 9 sir, is not whether it's a dollar or two dollars or three I dollars. The point is that it's not, it's not ten dollars, I twenty dollars, thirty dollars, that type of thing. • MR. FRAILS: It will be at least five, a minimum 5 of five dollars. MP- MITNTKSCAARP: We're not going to dispute Whether it's that. The point is teat in the order of magnitude, it's a relatively small number. "R. FRATLS: *''y question is the additional charge after hooking these things up. It winds up well.] be paying thirty dollars a month for the sewer system. MR. ?"UNKSCAARD: Well, you could be paying that much if you spread out the cost of the construction. MP. FRATLS: Resides the cost of it. !'R. ?I'!�'KSGAA Pr: Well, once again, it would depend on your water usage, sir, .hat your monthly bill would he. And it is my understanding that the county does ZAR'PA TARO! F� A SSOC TATFS A Computer Assisted Transcript (?GG15f9-paip 1 1 ] 1 1 1� It li ]E 20 21 22 23 ') 4 25 24 1 have a cut off on scV.'ers. Is that, Terry, iip to twelve 2 thousand? So it's not like it's an unlimited number that 3 just keeps growing and growing and growing. They do have a 4 cut off on waste -water. 5 MP- FRAII S: Okay. If we were to have the gravity 6 system, what would that cost each home? 7 '�'r, *,ITYI-SCAAT'Tt: It woul(i he tre same vali!e 8 except for the rov-er hill. 9 !'"T'- FRA ILS: Except for what hill? Q MR. MTTYKSCAARP: The electric bill would he the 1 only difference. Z MR. PPA II,S: The same except for the electric 5 hill? MITYKSCAARD: Right. ' MR. FRATLS: That's my basic questions. If I think of anything else, I'll come up again. MP. A'TWKSCAAPJI: Thank you, sir. Any other questions over on the left-hand side? Yes, ma'am. MRS. Przoznt�rSKI: I am a single person. I i1se $14 to $15 a month for water. Yow, you people talk about five thousand gallons a month. T don't belong in that class. lfba t would I have to pay for my bill? MP. '`'T^''1'SCAAPn: Okay. r'oule T first have vour name and address. ?AI+RATARO & A SSnr• TA TFS A Computer Assisted Transcript (305�5h9-Qg10 1 1 25 ] IN'PS- PRZOZOWSKJ! I am Sophie Frzozowski and i 2 live 1651 5th Court. 3 MR. YLTNTKSGAARD: Okay, thank you. 4 Terry, if her water hill was running at that 5 level, what would You estimate the waste -water bill to he. 6 It would be at three thousand gallons. '�. PT*:"1 n: That t,:ould ?tee r'0 rercent of the numher 8 we quoted, so that would he nine dollars. 1) TARS. BRZOZOVSKI: A month? a MR. MUNKSGAARD: That's correct. MRS. BRZOZOSKI: Extra. MR. wTTW'KSCAARP: Extra, associated just for the > service charge for your monthly waste -water service. It would be 60 Percent of that valve, or nine dollars. ACRS. RRZOZO WSKI: And then more expenses would be added to that' '``R• A`TR<'KSGAARP: Yes, You would have additional expenses, ma'am, if you decided to take a. I guess a loan or whatever word you want to call it. Pepending on what mechanism the County chooses at a later date, the County Commission, they could choose like a special assessment Proaram or they could -- there's many different kinds of funding mechanisms that they could use to help You, the individual rro7perty nwrers. T eon't really think that's the purpose of today's ZMIRATARo F ASSnrIATFS A_ Computer Assisted Transcript (305)F69_0910 1 ' 1 1 ' 1; ' ]f ]7 18 20 ' 21 2.2 23 24 ' 25 1 25 ] IN'PS- PRZOZOWSKJ! I am Sophie Frzozowski and i 2 live 1651 5th Court. 3 MR. YLTNTKSGAARD: Okay, thank you. 4 Terry, if her water hill was running at that 5 level, what would You estimate the waste -water bill to he. 6 It would be at three thousand gallons. '�. PT*:"1 n: That t,:ould ?tee r'0 rercent of the numher 8 we quoted, so that would he nine dollars. 1) TARS. BRZOZOVSKI: A month? a MR. MUNKSGAARD: That's correct. MRS. BRZOZOSKI: Extra. MR. wTTW'KSCAARP: Extra, associated just for the > service charge for your monthly waste -water service. It would be 60 Percent of that valve, or nine dollars. ACRS. RRZOZO WSKI: And then more expenses would be added to that' '``R• A`TR<'KSGAARP: Yes, You would have additional expenses, ma'am, if you decided to take a. I guess a loan or whatever word you want to call it. Pepending on what mechanism the County chooses at a later date, the County Commission, they could choose like a special assessment Proaram or they could -- there's many different kinds of funding mechanisms that they could use to help You, the individual rro7perty nwrers. T eon't really think that's the purpose of today's ZMIRATARo F ASSnrIATFS A_ Computer Assisted Transcript (305)F69_0910 1 2 1 3 t4 5 6 ' 7 8 10 ' 11 12 ' 13 14 15 ' 16 17 ' 18 19 20 21 22 23 ' 24 25 i 26 meeting. I don't think the County Commission is ready to make that decision today. There will. to many other Public hearings later on down the road if the project continues to move forward that those kinds of questions will he addressed by the County Commission at that time. w'PS. PP7070WSxT: T'm living here ?6 years in that house anal T've ncN,cr bac' any trou'�1 c ',efore. Go that's wry T'd MVe to know all the Particulars. 'rhapl You. MR. VTTVySCAARP: Right. T nnderstar0, ma'am. Thank you. A"R. FRAIT:S: Pas this system already been determined or do we have a choice? WfP - MTTNTYSCAAP.P : No, sir, it hasn't teen determined, T can tell You that. MP. FRATLS: Tt hasn't peen determined' MR. MINKSC:AAPP: No, this is an interim report. Tt has draft stamped all. over it. T can tell You the process that's gone on so far is it's not been before the county Commission yet. Tt's purely a working document between the County staff and their consultants, CPR,. Tt's been to the State of Florida, Pepartr+ent of Environmental regulation, for their review. They are delegated the authority by FFA to to their funding mechanism to distri'�t.tte grant f>>nds within the state of Florie'a. They have reviewed the document. And on a Preliminary basis, 7AYPA77Ap0 & ASSCrTATFS A Computer Assisted Transcript (nS?S6n-(?Qln IJ u 1 �J 11 l: 1; 1: 12 15 l6 17 1R 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 1 they approved it up to this point and allowed us to go ahead 2 with this next step, which is the P "blic participation 3 step. 4 So as far as decisions being made, I would tell 5 you at this point no decisions have been made, although a b cost effective analysis has been conducted within the report 7 "bich confirmed the Prier feasibility report that Terry B mentioned that the low pressure type sewer system is cost effective for this application here. MR. SCITRIXTY: For the grant application, in order to get awarded that, you have to use the most cost effective method, which is what you just demonstrated. ?'R. ?11ThYSCAARP: That is right. 10R. FRAILS: well, was this to determine which System is going to he used, or is there going to he other hearings on this? MR. MM-TSCAARD: Well, there will be a hearing with the County Commission wher the final report is broUght before them for adoption. And at that time, T'm sure that the County commission. will take public testimony again or comments from the public in relationship to whether they should go ahead with the program or Pot. And at that time, you'd obviously he able to speak again. "P. FRP,TT.S: Ts that the time that the system will be determined? ZAMPATAR O f A ISSOC IATES A romputer Assisted Transcript (305)569-0p10 J 1� 1 it J 1 J 28 1 VR. hMVKSUAPP: T would say yes. In that final 2 report that we would prepare for the County and submit then 3 to the funding agency, in that final report, a 4 recommendation will be contained within that recommending S one type of sewer system over the other, and then the County 6 Commission will he required to pass an authorizing 7 resolcltion accepting the documents as is or with various 8 modifications that is so desired ?-y the rounty and to he 9 incorporated and then sent on to the State for final I certification. I vR. FPAILS: I'm sure everybody in here wants the system, including myself. It's just that you say cost effective for the County, b »t how about cost effective for the individual home owner. That's the important part. PTNTO: Let me make comment on that for you. And T want everyone to understand. When we talk about what's most cost effective for you, the user of the system or the person livirg in Rockridge. There are several concerns that you have, and he makes a very good point, and our, the thrust of our feasibility study is to what's most cost effective for you, the individual, first, and second, the system as a whole, the County utility system. r'ow, when we say that, the only cost that you receive that's different than anyone else is the cost, as T said in the beginning, the cost of the construction of the ZAMPATAPn $ ASSorTATFS A. Computer Assisted Transcript (305)569-0910 1. 1! ' if li lA ' 19 20 ' 2? 22 ' 23 24 25 J 28 1 VR. hMVKSUAPP: T would say yes. In that final 2 report that we would prepare for the County and submit then 3 to the funding agency, in that final report, a 4 recommendation will be contained within that recommending S one type of sewer system over the other, and then the County 6 Commission will he required to pass an authorizing 7 resolcltion accepting the documents as is or with various 8 modifications that is so desired ?-y the rounty and to he 9 incorporated and then sent on to the State for final I certification. I vR. FPAILS: I'm sure everybody in here wants the system, including myself. It's just that you say cost effective for the County, b »t how about cost effective for the individual home owner. That's the important part. PTNTO: Let me make comment on that for you. And T want everyone to understand. When we talk about what's most cost effective for you, the user of the system or the person livirg in Rockridge. There are several concerns that you have, and he makes a very good point, and our, the thrust of our feasibility study is to what's most cost effective for you, the individual, first, and second, the system as a whole, the County utility system. r'ow, when we say that, the only cost that you receive that's different than anyone else is the cost, as T said in the beginning, the cost of the construction of the ZAMPATAPn $ ASSorTATFS A. Computer Assisted Transcript (305)569-0910 1 C 1 system, meaning that when we take the total cost of building 2 your Sewer system, it gets divided tip among the users. So 3 therefore, the, in simple terms, the cheapest pay to build 4 it is the cheapest for you. 5 Now, if, in fact, the operation of the system 5 became more expensive to operate, that will not change your 7 cost as a 1.1tility customer at all. You'll nay the cract F same rate that everyone else in Tndian River roiinty pays. So the cost that you really want to be concerned about is what it's going to cost us to build the system and how much funding we're going to get from the federal agency to help ' Pay for it, because that's the number that you're paying different than everyone else. So if there are any questions about that, I want to try to make that perfectly clear. Nis concern abort operating cost is a good concern, but it's more of a concern for the system as a whole than it is for you because the operating cost, no matter what it is, is not going to change your rate structure. Your rate structure is going to be common to everyone else's. Ve have to look at it because we don't want your system 'burdening the rest of the system. !-'e want it to he the most, the one that would run the least expensive, and we've gone throl!gh great extremes to look at that. \Tow, T don't want to lead anyone the wrong way in ZAMBATAP0 & ASSOCTATFS A computer nSsisted Transcript (305)569-0910 li 1; 15 lE 17 18 1.9 ' 20 21 22 ' 23 24 25 C 1 system, meaning that when we take the total cost of building 2 your Sewer system, it gets divided tip among the users. So 3 therefore, the, in simple terms, the cheapest pay to build 4 it is the cheapest for you. 5 Now, if, in fact, the operation of the system 5 became more expensive to operate, that will not change your 7 cost as a 1.1tility customer at all. You'll nay the cract F same rate that everyone else in Tndian River roiinty pays. So the cost that you really want to be concerned about is what it's going to cost us to build the system and how much funding we're going to get from the federal agency to help ' Pay for it, because that's the number that you're paying different than everyone else. So if there are any questions about that, I want to try to make that perfectly clear. Nis concern abort operating cost is a good concern, but it's more of a concern for the system as a whole than it is for you because the operating cost, no matter what it is, is not going to change your rate structure. Your rate structure is going to be common to everyone else's. Ve have to look at it because we don't want your system 'burdening the rest of the system. !-'e want it to he the most, the one that would run the least expensive, and we've gone throl!gh great extremes to look at that. \Tow, T don't want to lead anyone the wrong way in ZAMBATAP0 & ASSOCTATFS A computer nSsisted Transcript (305)569-0910 u 11 i u 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 s0 talking abot.it the final decision of the type of system that we're going to build. I'm going to recommend to the County Commission to wild the most cost effective system on present worth, which means we're going to take it and look at it over a ten year expanded condition and see what the total cost is. That's what's going to the county rorrmission . And right now all of our studies indicate that this low pressure system is the one. And it's my experience with the grant institutions, which is in this case the federal and state government, that they're going to look at the most cost effective system. And T do not, T would not recommend to the Board of County Commissioners a system that T thought that the FPA was going to look at as not the most cost effective one. Then I have to justify why I'm recommending that because I believe that would be, that would not be doing my job correctly, and secondly, that would jeopardize the ability to get the grant. So we're -- MR. FRAILS: Well, that's the important thing, right. MR. PTNTO: We're spending a lot, a lot of time to do this and a lot of dollars to do this the right way. A`R. FRAILS: I appreciate that. *'P. PT^TTO: And you're the person that we want to protect. ZP,(BATARO & ASSOCIATFS A Computer Assisted Transcript (305)569-091-0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 11 11 M 3 4 5 6 7 R 10 11 12 1.3 14 15 16 17 I'S 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 z1 'VP . 17RATI.S: U'el l , thank you. Put actually, it boils down to the cheapest way is tre most possible way to get the grant, not the hest way. MR. PINTO: Yo. The most cost effective way. The most cost effective way is the hest way, 1,ecause we're not looking at only today's construction cost. Vic have to add in the operating cost and we tiave to look, as the engineer said, we have to compare apples and apples. So you have to take the conventional system and predict the total cost of operation and construction cost over a period of time, and then you take the alternatives and look at it the same way. And the 'bottom line comes out the most cost effective way and that's what you're doing. MIR. FRAILS: Okay. Y.P. *"TINKSGAApP: I will say this, sir. I will add that the vacuum system, as T indicated, was looked at. However, though, that was not done on a detailed basis because we did not feel comfortable in recommending that from a reliability standpoint on a long term basis. So those kinds of considerations are taken into account to make sure that the system that you are going to get is reliable, and we would not recommend it if it wasn't going to he. It's just to get three hundred sixty pumrs to work instead of four or five numn stations. r -'R. FRATT.S: That's a big difference. ZAYRATARn f, ASSOCTATFS A Computer Assisted Transcript (305)569-0910 1 1 L 2 3 4 S 7 g ' 9 10 ' 11 12 13 14 15 ' 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ' 23 24 25 Z7 A'R. �ft?KKSCAAP.P: Okay. Ouestion over here. VP. FAVAIO'P: The name is Hammond, 1520 3rd Court . May I ask how it's been determined that there is a problem in RockrieRe with sewage? �`R. 111TNYSCAARP: I will address that puestion, sir, in a 'general regard. As Part of the report, we 0,id go out and take some samples out in the canals, Looked for levels of chloroform, fecal strep, the various different types. The sampling that we did perform was inconclusive. We did not find levels of contamination based on the limited amount of sampling that we'd done that we could conclusively say without a shadow of a doubt that, uh-huh, it's pollution right there and that's the source. I'm not going to say that today because we didn't find that to be true. It was a one-time sampling, though. As we talked abort earlier, I'm sure that if we strategized our sampling based on rainfall event and ground water tabling and went maybe not to the canals but maybe some other location on the site, we might be able to find that pollution. That was not the intent of the study, was to determine whether or not, in fact, there was pollution or there wasn't pollution. That was not the scope of the project. The scope of the project that our firm's involved with and the ('ounty retained us for was to demonstrate tinder ZAP+RATAPO 8 ASS(?CIATFS A Computer Assisted Transcript (305)569-n9lo 1 L� 1 1 11 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 24 �Z the existing grant regulations wrether or not the subdivision would qualify for grant funding. The good news from the report is that, yes, it does, and it does at a level. of in the high 90 percent that it's eligible for grant funding. Don't let me mislead you by grant. The grant is a 75 percent grant. VIlat I mean '-v tyrant elityihility means You take that factor times that grant amount. Fut to get rack to vour specific point, ohviously there must he some sentiment in the community to go forward and to look at this and to evaluate the cost and to determine the actual_ impact to the home owners so the County Commission can be informed and the home owners can be informed on whether they want to make that decision to go forward with the program or not. And that's what we've accomplished. MR. TWT'CTD: Let me ask Mr. Pinto that. I think- he's hinkhe's the one that the question should he addressed. I address the wiestion to you, sir, rather than the Camp, Presser. ' PINTO: Yes. The project was initiated through a petition from the Rockriege area, a request for the county to provide sewer service. 'bat's what started us into the feasibility studv. In reacting to that petition, we took it to the ZAI�Ti:ATARr & ASSOrIATFS A romputer Assisted Transcript (3051569-0910 1-1 u J 1 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 g 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 County, roard of county Commissioners, and asked permission to proceed in performing the feasibility study to show whether there was a need, and we have determined that there is a need, and the cost. And I think maybe it would be a good idea that, the director of the Health Pepartment is here, maybe he can make a statement on his knowledge of that area ani' any problems that exist in that area. Now, basis technology would tell us that an area that's as densely populated as you live in, with as high a water table as you have, with a rock layer, that when flooding conditions take place, there is more than the normal potential for pollution. And with all of those factors put together, we're recommending that we do proceed with the project. Mp . PAMMOND : Let me tell you why I ask the question. T'm curious as to whether complaints of not being able to flush were the cause or whether chloroform in the canals was the cause. So is there a comment on those two questions? YP. PIN -10: Before he answers that, let me say that it's also very important that this little survey form that we were providing today ask those type of questions again so we can get a little more specific in what's going on there, too. So with that in mind, then �"r. Calanis, who is our ZAMRATARO F ASSOCTATFS A romnuter Assisted Transcript (305)560-0010 1 l� i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 C 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 if 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 health expert, will tell us of his experiences. VR. GALAN'TS: We all know what an expert is, right. In answer to your gilestion, hack as long as three and four years ago, we at the Pealth Department had been asked to identify some areas in this community that should have priority and should have priority for public sewage. And pro' -ably unrermcst in coir mine' was the Rockridge area based on our own experience which had us involved with many, many complaints, neighbor against neighbor, discharges of not only toilet waste or failures of septic tanks, but more specifically the utilization of just straight pipes to the ditch for laundry waste. We had investigated these complaints. We had determined scientifically, in our mind at least, that this area is not appropriate for septic tanks. And I think we've been over and over this as to the high ura ter table, the underlying limestone area, which even if it could accept the effluents it's not a treatable type material. Tn oth.er words, it's not going to effectively treat that effluent. It's going to have fissures, holes, it's aoing to transport it into our ground supply prior to treatment. So dial we have complaints? Yes. I'll he harpv to stand up here and say there were periods of time when people in this room could not flush their toilets, especially during periods of pith rains. .7_AYRATARO $ ASSOCTATFS A Computer Assisted Transcript (3051569-0910 0 0 1 1 j 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 36 Would that he true, anybody here can't flush their toilets? When they called me before, I called Terry, we spoke to their consultants and we placed a very high priority on this. And T think the people here placed a very high priority on this. ?fit?. FMI" NP,: I.et me tell you why T ask these questions. I've lived in Pockridge for ten nears. Puring the early part of that ten years, I had flesh problems as other people did. Later on a regrading was done at the hack of the property. It was done, as far as I'm concerned, in a fashion such as to solve the problem, and as a matter of fact, it did. I have seen other regrading in the area which, in my opinion, was not done to solve the problem and it wasn't solved. We talk here about being cost effective. As far as this court is concerned, we, we the County, used levels and instruments to assure that the surface water run- off was appropriate about two years ago. And since that time, my problem that was constant in the first seven years isn't there anymore. Rased on the experience I've had, T would suggest that maybe an inexpensive way to solve the problem might he to assure that the grades everywhere in the swale area were checked to see whether they were appropriate. 7.AYPATARC f, ASSOCIATFS A Computer Assisted Transcript (305)569-0911 2 3 4 5 6 7 R 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ;7 1k P. GAIAAIS: Okay. T think what you are talking about basically is improve the drainage in the community, and therefore, improve or lower the water table as such that you can flush your toilet. Is that your point? NR. PANIMOND: Depending upon what you define as the water table, that is the point. Tt's the water level ria'bt after a heavy rain. You can't have a situation iehere the ditch is pitched such to not get rid of that excess water right away. As I said, on 3rd Court, when we got decent levels in there, my problem went away, as did the problem of a few neighbors. MR. CALANTS: And my point is that by improving the drainage, and I would agree with you, that you can basically somewhat lower the ground water table in certain areas. But we still have the problem of the inappropriate soils that don't treat the effluent properly. We still have the problem of not -- what do we have, five hundred septic tanks in a quarter mile square area. The proliferation of tanks in an area, the proximity to the Indian fiver -- and what we're really trying to work on, folks, what we're going to do for the future of this community, our children and those type of things. We also want to help you and take care of this problem, but we're interested in the public's health, the health of the river, et cetra, et cetra. 7.AVPATAPO & ASSOCTATFS A Computer Assisted Transcript (305)569-na1.0 1 1 L 2 3 L fl F, 5 6 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2n 21 22 23 24 25 38 MP. PINTO: To expound on that a little bit. The gentleman makes a very good point that I'd like to discuss with you, also. And that is the mere fact that you can flush your toilet doesn't mean that you have a good working septic system. The mere fact that ,your septic system doesn't overflow doesn't mean that you have a good working Septic SVStCM. 1"hat has happened in that area, and some other areas in the county, also, that the water table is such that you get a lateral movement, meaning from one side to the other, not down, of your septic waste. The digging or deepening of the canal system or drainage in the backyards may very well mean that your septic tank is flowing along with the other drainage water along the canal. You're not having the flush problem in your house, but you're having a lateral movement into the drainage district, and as you deepen them, that's exactly what happens. The system takes the water from the higher ground behind your house and brings it into that drainage district and off it goes on it's merry way passing all your homes and then into the river. That is our concern. Fortunately, because of the timing, of your development, that it was all developed at one time and it was developed prior to 1972, it nuts you in a position that we think vou're °rant eligible. At the same ZA�'BATARn & ASSOCIATFS A computer Assisted Transcript (305)560-041? 1 L� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 To time we were looking at your 'Project, we're looking at a project at Rlue Cypress Jake, which really the conditions are very much the same as far as water table, except that most of their permanent development took place after 1972 and they are not grant eligible and that total cost of that system is going to have to be borne by the people who live there. So there are some pluses. V'e know we have a situation that is going to cost money. T,'e would very much love to have an area over there that we do not have a problem with. We're not looking, we're not out looking for sewer customers. It's just that we have a health problem that we want to take care of, and again, it's you the customer or the citizen that we're concerned aboilt. NR. FRA.ILS: Is it possible to make a recommendation to someone that we have two horsepower pumps and on 220 volts, not 110. Otherwise everybody's lines will he out of balance. tT. x4TTYVSGAARTI: Right. Those are all considerations for final design. The report doesn't get into that. We'll look at it to make sure that the costs associated with it are covered for either situation. Rut that's all part of final design and we'll make those recommendations at that time. But certainly you can make your point known now and get it in a public hearing and ZPTATARO g ASSOrTATrS A Comnuter Assisted Transcrint �I 1 L 3 4 F� C J 5 F i 9 10 1.1 12 1.3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21. 22 2? 24 2S 40 we'll take, You know, _full evaluation of that. T'm glad you got up because T wanted to talk about the electric bill a little bit with. you. We've been making some different assumptions up here to see the sensitivity -- MR. FR.ATI.S: T bet it's a lot different than twelve cents a month. Vn• ti`jrR�� crA P� T) !''e11 , it all den.cnes on the assumption ynu make, sir, of how much i,,aste-water You're generating, and also you have to make an assumption of how many minutes out of the day is that pump going to run. And those get into some assumptions that are difficult to make because everybody's different. But you've got to make some general rules of thumb. T'll tell you the assumption we made here. ITe've made three different calculations here based on different assumptions and you get different power hills ohvioiisl.y based on those. So the one that we gave to you earlier in the program was we assumed two people at a hundred gallons a day or two hundred gallons a dwelling unit, and we assumed for that that it was going to run 30 minutes a month, which equates to that thirty-seven cents a month or a dollar and a half a year. Tf you make the change to, you leave the gallonage the same, but you say, well, it's going to run 00 minutes a month, then it iumps up the bill to a dollar forty-eight or ZAMBATARO $ ASSOr. TATES A Computer Assisted Transcript f3nSls69-091.0 3 4 5 b 7 4 1Q 11 12 13 14 15 lb 17 1R 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 41 magnitude. And the question that becomes the assumption on our part is, and I know it's interesting to you because you're saying, well, what is it and what is it not, is the question is you've got a pump in there that can pump two hundred gal ions a minute, rut you're only generating, sav, a hundred to two hundred gallons a day of water. The question is how efficient is that pump to come up on speed and to pump. And that pump will he on for a very short period of time because you've got a small amount of waste- water being generated. If I can hast put one more number out to you. If you assume, as in the report here, we've noticed that some very large numbers were assumed in relationship to the other ones. Three hundred gallons a day was assumed instead of two hundred. And we talked about 15 minutes out of every 24 hours or seven and a half hours per month. Then the hill becomes a dollar twenty a month or around ten to twelve dollars a year. So the point is that you can make a lot of different assumptions on how much, you know, khat length of time is that numb going to run, how efficient is it going to run and what flow rate are you going to generate, and that number's going to varv, that monthly bower bill. I'm ZA!kTPATARr F ASSnrTATFS A romnuter Assisted Transcript (305)569 -nolo VI J 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 42 certainly not going to tell you what your rower hill is going to he because you'll be the first ore to call me and tell me it wasn't that value. Put what T'm trying to say is in order of magnitude, it's down in that lower range. To me as a engineer, it's not significant. Put I realize to you that have to nav that power hill every month, that's different. R'e think ahrn7t a cool riirr,p or some trir.g like that that's mavhe costing you, I don't know what the pool pump runs, maybe twenty, thirty dollars a month. They always talk about forty dollars a month to run a pool. MR. FRAILS: That's a free flowing pump. MTTNTKSrAARP: Tt's run for six hours a day. MR. FRAILS: Vat kind of pressure is going to be in the line? YR. MTTRWSCAARn: The pressure? MR. FRA.TI_S: That you'll he pumping against. Tnstead of gravity, yoW ve got to be pumping against pressure. MR. YUNYSGAARTt: Tt's a very low type of system. MR. FRAILS: The higher the pressure, the more it's going to cost to operate. YR. PINTO: Tt's low pressure. �.M. MTTNTYSCAAPP: The typical operating -- we don't have the curves here in front of us, T'm sorry. y'e'll certainly rrovir'e that, though. Tf you come up to me ZMMATAAn & ASSOCTATFS A computer Assisted Transcript (?OS1Sf9-0910 n 1 [i 7 1 1 4 5 6 7 8 n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 to 20 21 22 23 24 25 41 afterwards, I'll get You a business card and get vour name and we'll get it to you. M'e're figuring around thirty feet a head is where the operating point is. So that's a very low pressure system. NR. FRAII.S: Are there any master pumps in between on this or is this directly into the watershed, into the retriever? Fllich one is it^ Tei'. A'TIYVSrAARP: Well, t`eat's a question that's going to be answered in final design. I don't mean to put you off on that, but there's a couple different scenarios here to play out, and that is where is the waste -water going to go. If it goes to the City of Vero Beach Waste Water Treatment Plant as previously planned for right now in our report, it probably will not have to be pumped 'because that treatment Plant is located right next to the Indian River. So it's very close. The header head that has to be placed in the system can probably achieve that. That all has to be modeled and that's part of final design and that's tasked for another day down the road. But on a planning level hasis, it appears to have the chance of being successful without having to have another pump station. If you go to another facility, though, that's not the City of Fero Peach. And right now it's not concepted to change that. MR. FRAILS: Wbat size reservoir is the tank we're ZANTBATARO 6 ASSCrIATFS A computer Assisted Transcript �305)56�-nQln u l� 1 F J 1 d 1. 2 3 4 S 6 7 R 9 10 11. 12 13 14 15 16 17 1R 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 44 going to put in, the pump reservoir, or is it a direct system? QTR. uTTTKSCAARP: I'm going to guess around 50 gallons. VR. PINTO: It's not a direct system. IMP. A41TNKSCAARP: It's not a direct system, no. You 'gave a small reservoir -- 1" FRATI.S: A septic tank isn't SO gallons. VT. �'TTNKSCAART) : Ohl your septic tank is probably two hundred, five hundred. I would have guessed five hundred. What we're doing, as I explained earlier, sir, we're going to come in and fill it with sand, okay, and then we're just going to drop this package system down into it. WIR. FRAILS: I was just worried about how much these pumps were going to start up and how much reserve is going to be in the tank when it pumps off and how much is it going to hold before it starts again. VP. VTTNYSCAARP: Let's assume 350, and if I'm wrong, I'll get with you on a different answer. And if you're generating, you've got two people there, let's say a hundred gallons a day, which Terry says is not even anywhere near that in your development, it's not running much. And once it comes on, it's not going to rain very long because ZAMPATAPO F, ASSO('IATFS A Computer Assisted Transcript (305)569-0910 1 L 3 ' 4 5 6 7 23 g a 10 11 12 13 14 ' 15 ' 16 17 ' 18 45 these humps are around two hundred gallons a minute. ASR. FPAILS: Well, if you have a 20 gal 1lon reserve tank, it won't start un until 20 gallons is in the reserve; right? MR. MITYYSCAARh : k'el 1 , you have an operating level that's in between. I.T. PTN''n: Tet me exniain samethinv ahnilt o septic tank. �T— FRAII_S: I've seen these things were you sink something and you put your pump on it. MR. SCTTRLOCK: It's not a direct system, there is a reservoir. VR. 17PAII,S: That's why I asked where the reservoir is. If it's a five gallon reservoir, it might as well be -- ?T. PINTO: Let me explain something to you. There's more reservoir, more capacity in this system to hold than there is your septic tank. Fveryone who thinks that a septic tank has a thousand gallons or five hundred gallons, a septic tank is filled all the time and it's your drain field that gives You your capacity. Therefore, when you have a high water table system and it's flooding, you do not have any capacity at all in your septic tank, nothing. You do not flush. The flooding conditions, because of the way the 7P, ,BATARO & ASSOCIATES A Computer Assisted Transcript (305)S69-0910 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45 these humps are around two hundred gallons a minute. ASR. FPAILS: Well, if you have a 20 gal 1lon reserve tank, it won't start un until 20 gallons is in the reserve; right? MR. MITYYSCAARh : k'el 1 , you have an operating level that's in between. I.T. PTN''n: Tet me exniain samethinv ahnilt o septic tank. �T— FRAII_S: I've seen these things were you sink something and you put your pump on it. MR. SCTTRLOCK: It's not a direct system, there is a reservoir. VR. 17PAII,S: That's why I asked where the reservoir is. If it's a five gallon reservoir, it might as well be -- ?T. PINTO: Let me explain something to you. There's more reservoir, more capacity in this system to hold than there is your septic tank. Fveryone who thinks that a septic tank has a thousand gallons or five hundred gallons, a septic tank is filled all the time and it's your drain field that gives You your capacity. Therefore, when you have a high water table system and it's flooding, you do not have any capacity at all in your septic tank, nothing. You do not flush. The flooding conditions, because of the way the 7P, ,BATARO & ASSOCIATES A Computer Assisted Transcript (305)S69-0910 1 �7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 sz n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 n(, system will he designed, do not have any affect on tic capacity in the reservoir. The only time where you have a problem is, as we all know, if there's power failure. And if there's power failure, as I said before, there isn't any question that you have to use some common sense. You don't run around flushing all your toilets when you know that your electric is off. Put normally •you woulc'*I't do that anyit•ay. MT. FPATI.S: Ilse a bucket. I'P . PINTTO: ?Formally you woul en' t do that anyway. MR. FRAILS: T have to do that now. T,T . PINTO: One lady said I have to co to McDonald's every time that it rains. So T think that we're going to give you a hetter system than you presently have. MR. FRAILS: Okay. T hope so. VP. POLPON: My name is Poldon, 1411 3rd Court. Getting back to the cost per owner. I notice in one paragraph here it says in addition to the construction cost will be an impact fee. Is that true? MR. NUNKSGAAPP: That's correct. Ant. POLPON: Now, is that impact fee payable initially, hefore the construction starts, or how does that work? P,M. MI",,TKSC-AAPP: T'm going to let Terry answer that one on when the Oounty would like reception of that money. ZAMPATARO F, AS¢orTATFS A Computer Assisted Transcript (305)g69-OP10 1 L� 1 1 u 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 1.6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 47 YR. PINTO: There's an impact fee that pays for capacity. It has nothing to do with the construction of your system, the lines that are built. This pays for the waste -water capacity that's reserved for your system. And everyone in the county that connects to a waste -water system has to pay an impact fee of $1,250. Both the assessment for the constriyction are the impact fee will he able to he spread over a time period. We have an existing payment plan that extends out to five years. We'll he looking at the possibility of doing "fiat we call an assessment role to see if that can he spread out over a longer period of time for your development. So you can count on, if you want to spread it out five years, you can do that. That's there. We'll research the possibilities of spreading it out longer. But as far as payment up front, no, that impact fee does not have to be paid all at one time »p front. MR. POILDON: So in other words, a minimum cost would he for over three thousand dollars for each household: correct? right now. YOU. TT. PINTO: Yes. That's the way it's looking V"R. POTPON: 'chat's all T wanted to know. Thank 1'R. r'TT?!KSGAARP: Any more questions? 7AN'BATAR0 F ASSnrTATFS A Computer Assisted Transcript (305)569-0910 1 L 3 ' 4 5 1 u 6 7 8 9 1.0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4F MRS. APBAT ULT:O: My name is Yattie Abbatiello, 14170 S5th Avenue. Have you people looked into the fact that down Fifth Avenue in front of, from our place doom, and where it starts, I don't know where it starts from, but there is a, not the storm sewer, the city water, the erinkin.g water, there's a hip gine that goes down to about 3rd Avenue, I guess, that that water is out and on Fifth Avenue. It's in the street. E�o that the other kind of a pump, you couldn't put the system, the other system down this way. Do you understand what I'm talking about? MR. PINTO: Yes, yes. Your water line is not in your back easenent, it's in the front. MRS. ABBATIELLO: Yes, where we get our water from, ves, is in the hack. Rut this water has taken it down so it goes off on to the, someplace down in the 3rd or 4th Court. I know it was put there 'because I couldn't get in my house for a while. +P. PINTO: ','here are some main water lines that run off all through the system that don't, that aren't related to even your own consumption. MP. AREATIFLLC: That is right in front of our house. It's about, I say it's about twelve to 14 feet from the road. We moved into Rockridve around thirty-two years ago. There is a line in the back and this water lines comes ZAATATARO F ASSOCIATES A Computer Assisted Transcript 1 r 1 h u 1 J J 11 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 lq 20 21 22 23 24 25 4-0 in the front, goes down to the end of the street and cuts into 3rd Court. That's what she's trying to explain right there. MR. PINTO: All of the existing utilities in the area have been taken into consideration, and also let me say now that we expect, when we start building this waste -hater system in your area, if we build it, we'll have some problems kith your existing water system. You have a lot of little two inch lines, inch and a half lines, galvanized, and we will take that opportunity at that time if they're damaged to replace them with more acceptable lines and more acceptable materials used today. And that will be because that system is existing. That's a cost that has to he borne by the entire system and not by the individuals living there. So we expect these type of constr»ction problems when we go through the area. MR. PASNIh'GS: My name is Flashings and T live at 1681 4th Avenue One question. Ts this sewage bill, is that on a Yearly basis? T'm a part-time resident dovn here. Does that go on -bile T'm up north, while T'm going north, or does it Just continue iwbile water is being used? �T. MUNIVSCAARn• Ik'hat voti have is you have a base charge and then you have a gallonage charge. So if you're not using your home and you haven't disconnected, T guess, ZAMPATARC & ASSDrTATFS A computer Assisted Transcript (3�5)5F9-010 . 1 1 1 11 1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1E 1.9 20 21 22 23 24 25 cn if you haven't turned your service off, if yo!i left your service on, then you would incur that base charge. MR. HASITYNGS: I leave the water on all year. MR. MTJh'KSCAARp: Right. So you would get that base charge, sir, minimum charge. IkT. PTNTO: Actually, let me explain that. There's a minirmum charge that's w4 at vc call base facility charge that everyone nays whether you're here or not here, and that's reserving Your capacity in the system. And the mere fact that someone leaves does not stop some of the cost that's incurred in the operation. We don't lay people off during the summer. That cost has to keep incurring. So there is that minimum charge. But the gallonage charge, which is $2.R6 per thousand gallons, is charged on gallons used. If you do not use it, you do not pay for it. You just pay that minimum cost. And it's a monthly hill. MR. FP.ATLS: There's no minimum? MR. PTNTO: Yo, you Pay for exactly what you use. There's a minimum allowance to he used. You nay for exactly what you use, plus the base charge. MR. MUNKSGAARP: On the gallonage, there's no minimum, and that was vour question. YP. PT*?TO: There's a maximum. NIP . PRAIL'17 On the water hill you pet a minimum. MR. PIVTO: A'o, you don't. ZAVPATAR() & ASSOCTATrS A Comnuter Assisted Transcript (,05)569-09in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ' R 10 ' 11 1.2 13 ' 14 is ' 15 17 ' 18 '19 20 ' 21 22 23 24 25 0 51 MR. FRAILS: You pay it whether you use it or you don't use it. MR. PINTO: Yes, there's that charge. That's what we call a base facility charge. You pay that if you don't use anvthing at all. You pay that on a monthly basis. Then you acid to it based on the exact amount of Qallons that you use. vP. FRAILS: In other words, if you didn't use any Hater, you didn't pay any surcharge or whatever you call. it. MR. PINTO: You pay the base charge, but not the gallon charge. MR. HASHINCS: Another question T'd like to address to you gentlemen. Are each one of the residents of Rockridge going to receive something to say yes or no concerning their, whether they want this sewage or not, or is that what you're going to base your decision on whether you're going to apply this or not? MR. PINTO: No. MR. I'ASPTNGS: Now are you going to do that? w1P. PTNTO: h'e're going to base it on the general response that we get from the community, from this public hearing, and there -will. be a final hearing in front of the fourty commission, when the County commission finely makes the decision that, ves, we'll accept the project. 1K'e'11 ZAMRATAPn F ASSOCIATES A Computer Assisted Transcript (305)569-0910 1 S? probably he recommending to the County commission to proceed with engineering. There are some steps that we have to go through for the finishing of the part that is the County's responsibility. The County will have to front, if we get a grant, the County will have to front the construction money before it's reimbursed the grant. So there are vrocedures that We have to go through in front of t}ic cotInty commission to have these types of things done. �'R. HASFTYGS: I might add that it would seem silly to me not to try to get this grant because I think it's inevitable that we're going to have sewage in Rockridge. MR. PIYTO: Thank you. ?+'R. TTitICT'IT'S: "Y name's Putchins, 1330 4th Avenue. In case we have a failure on the pump now, do we have a backup valve or a red light come on, or what happens? noes it hack up in the house? MR. PINTO: No. There will. he an alarm type of a system, probably a light, that indicates a failure. It will he worked on some sort of float basis in the reservoir itself. There will be a 24-hour response number that you'll be able to call and on a 24-h our basis someone will react to that complaint and come out. MR, . MTTrT'TNS : Thank you very much. 7.AMRATAFC & ASSOCIATFS A Computer Assisted Transcript (305156Q-0910 9 10 11 12 13 ' 14 15 16 17 ' 18 ' 19 20 ' 21 22 23 ' 24 2.5 S? probably he recommending to the County commission to proceed with engineering. There are some steps that we have to go through for the finishing of the part that is the County's responsibility. The County will have to front, if we get a grant, the County will have to front the construction money before it's reimbursed the grant. So there are vrocedures that We have to go through in front of t}ic cotInty commission to have these types of things done. �'R. HASFTYGS: I might add that it would seem silly to me not to try to get this grant because I think it's inevitable that we're going to have sewage in Rockridge. MR. PIYTO: Thank you. ?+'R. TTitICT'IT'S: "Y name's Putchins, 1330 4th Avenue. In case we have a failure on the pump now, do we have a backup valve or a red light come on, or what happens? noes it hack up in the house? MR. PINTO: No. There will. he an alarm type of a system, probably a light, that indicates a failure. It will he worked on some sort of float basis in the reservoir itself. There will be a 24-hour response number that you'll be able to call and on a 24-h our basis someone will react to that complaint and come out. MR, . MTTrT'TNS : Thank you very much. 7.AMRATAFC & ASSOCIATFS A Computer Assisted Transcript (305156Q-0910 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 c� VP- POPP IrTTF? : Tfy nair-e is Joseph Pod r ique z . T live at 1481 Fifth Avenue. I'd like to get clarification. Po we have all soil lines going into the septic system? ASR. YTTYKSrAARP: Fxcuse me, sir, what's the question? TT. pnrPTrTTI Po all soil lines, waste lines, go into the septic system? W. PINTO: They're supposed to. MR. MUNKSGAARP: Sanitary waste lines, not storm water. MR. PODRIrTTEZ: Not storm water. MR. MTTNKSCAARP: Not rain water, storm water. Sanitary lines go into it. MR. POPTZTCTTFZ: Now about washing machine water? MR. MUNKSCAARP: Washing machine water woTTld go into it. TKR. ROPRICT,TEZ: And kitchen? MR. MTTNKSCAAPP: Kitchen water would go into it. MR. RODRTGTTF_Z: That was my question. Thank you. MR . WTNKSCAARD: Yes. MR. YFI:SON: name is Pill Yel son. T live at 230 14th Street. In answer to the man's nnestion, the washinv machines are not hooked up to the septic system right Pow. ZA "PATARO & ASSOr IATFS A Computer Assisted Transcript (3Ti5)569-0410 1 �7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 R g 10 11 12 13 14 75 16 17 1R 19 2.0 21 22 23 24 25 S4 They're hooked up into whatever you want to call. it now. They will have to '�e Paid separately by a plum'�er, or something, won't they, to be hooked up. MR. PINTO: I'm glad the meal th Pepartment guy left. MP. YFLSON: So am I. Rut that's what he's talkirg a' -out now. AT. PIAtTn: Yes, they will have to he connected to the sewer system. And let me say now that as far as we're concerned and as far as this Public hearing is concerned and what's going on the record, that I'm saying now that they should he connected to your waste -water system and not be dumped directly anywhere. That is a direct violation of the law to do that. MP. YFLSON: Yow, while we're going into the record. The County spent a lot of money and a lot of time on this project. Can we get some idea how much time and how much it cost the County to make this survey? The reason I'm asking is because this is not just something that went up in the air. It cost the County a lot of money to go in and survey this whole thing and this is the hest that you people find for us and we have to take your recommendation. r' . PINTO: I believe if you take the engineering costs spent thus far from outside consultants and the staff ZAIMPATAR0 f ASSnnIATF,S A. computer Assisted Transcript (305)569 -nolo J J u 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 time that the County put into this, we're around $75,000. The design cost of the system, which will be the next step, even prior to getting final approval, we have to design the system and submit it, we're talking about probably another hundred twenty-five thousand to a hundred fifty thousand. We have put considerable amount of money and time into this because we recognize it to he a pro'�lem. I•"e're not complaining about putting that in. We see there is a need, and where there's a need, we have to react. M.P. NFLSOF: Yow, there was also a possibility we're talking something like 55 percent of it being grant and a possibility of going as high as 75 percent grant? MR. PTYTO: There is, because of the type of system being looked at is alternative and innovative, T think they call it -- A'R . MI!T'KSCAARTI : Yes, I and A. MR. PTY -TO: I and A, that there is a provision to increase the grant amount, and that is strictly up to the FPA to do that. We are going to,apply for that and we are confident that we meet all the eligibility for the 55 percent and that would I,e the ! 9 10 ' 11 12 13 14 ' 15 i16 17 18 19 20 ' 21 22 ' 23 24 25 1 s6 A!R. N`FLSOY: Tn other words, more or less, if we more or less accept this, we can go as high as 75? This is a factor in our going higher on our grant? MR. PTN'TO: Well, let's say this. The conventional system is a, if we were to get that approved, it would be 55 percent. The low pressure system, being alternative and innovative, there is the Possibility that it could go as high as the extra 20 percent. 'fR. Y!71,SON: Thank vou. MR-- Mi.TYYSGAARD: That's a very good point, Terry, because when we do the cost effective analysis, we can't take grant money into account. We have to do it purely on pure cost to the home owner and to the utility user. But with the potential additional 2.S percent grant funding on the T and A or the low pressure system to you the home owner, it even reduces it even more, and is a motivation to you as a home owner to try an I and A type system as this is proposed. Yes, ma'am. tms. rFTAPMAN: ?'y name is Ruth Chapman and T 1 ive at 1450 5th Avenue. T would like to thank Mr. Pinto for what he has clone to this point, and I also rant the County rommission to he commended becatTse when they orieinated this study from the vieuroin.t of the petition that was signed, T want ZAMPATARO f ASSnrTATES A romputer Assisted Transcript (305)569-0010 2 ' 3 4 5 ' 6 7 8 9 10 11. 12 13 ' 14 15 1.6 17 1g I19 20 ' 21 22 ' 23 ?4 25 71 57 everybody here to know that they never did ta6'le us for the thirty-five or forty-five dollar fee that had been tacked on for other studies. T think this Rockridge group should understand and know that this County has done a great deal for them without, to this point, ever asking a single penny from them. vr. Pinto has explained the situation to us any number of times and '-'r. Scurlock has. TTe's peen out. Yr. Galanis has been out to see us. And T think what it comes dot.:n to is that we are all in favor of doing the best for the least amount of money and we sincerely hope that this grant does go through. Thank you. ATR. YTINKSGAARP: 'thank vou. Yes, sir. V.P. PFRRFT.LA: rfy name is Mr. Perrella. T live at 1580 6th Avenue. Rfy question to you is regarding surface water. After a rain storm on 6th Avenue and Rockridge Boulevard, the front of my house looks like a waterfront lot. This has been a constant problem from 17th Street south on 6th Avenue. Where is this water going to go if this site proposal is enacted? IUP. MUNTYSGAAPn: Okay. The project that we're talking about does not address storm water, okay. The proiect that we're talking to vou ali todav about is for sanitary waste and like kitchen waste, like the other 7AYPATAR0 F, ASSnr'TATFS A Computer Assisted Transcript (30S1SF9-t?�1n 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 1 20 21 22 73 24 25 r,8 gentleman talked about , although maybe some of Vol] might have some minor plumbing problems that you need to correct. But storm water is a whole different issue. Tn fact, it's illegal to hook up a storm water drain, a roof leader, that type of avenue for rain water to get into your sewer system. The county has a sewer use ordinance. That is illegal to do that. And this prosect, the intent of it is not to solve a storm water problem. T'm sorry, but that's the not the intent of the proiect. MR. PEPRFLLA: Okay. T have been told that this flooding of the streets in Rockridge is a result of this no drainage of surface water. And as a result of that, this water is going into each and every one of our backyards over here and into our septic tanks and backing up the system. Yow, isn't this related in any way, shape or form that they have got to take care of the surface water as well as the sewer problem? V. P. *"i'h'KSCA.ARP: T agree -- MR. PINITC: Let me get the consultants off the hook because they're, they are hired to do a waste -water study and design the waste -water system and this individual consultant is not involved in the storm water drainage prop 1 em that you have or the ITt i l i ty nepa rtment . I 'hear what you're saving and understand what you're saying. Put this entire public rearing process is to address a waste- ZAMBATAPO f ASSCCIATFS A Computer Assisted Transcript (305)569-0910 1 L 2 ' 3 4 5 6 8 J I 59 eater system. The Road and Bridge Department and the County Commission can hear your problem as far as the storm drainage in an area. We cannot, we cannot address it. I would love to, but we cannot address it. MR. PEPPELI.A: May. Thank you. w?. MTJYKSCAARII: Thank you, sir. VR. FRATIS: Are all waste -pater sti s�. tems going to he hooked in on this one puma? MR. 11UNKSGA.ARD: Wel 1 , not one Primp. There are approximately, I can tell. you that right now there are approximately four hundred -- 'MP. FRAILS: Into the one system. MR. MUNKSCAAPP : Yeah. MP. FRAILS: Into each individual house system. "R. h!TTNKSCAARP: Yeah. There's approximately four hundred twenty, I believe is the number, residential units that's proposed to be part of the Project. YR. FRAILS: I'm talking individual homes. All the waste -water from each individual home will be hooked in through this one system at the house. MP . P IN'Tr : Yes. MP. MtNTKSGAAR.D: System at the house? MR. FRAIT,S: At each individual home. That includes, T iust got the opinion that we're going to have to pay separately to have our washing machines hooked up, ZAMBATAPO & ASSorTATES A computer Assisted Transcript (30415F�-n�l� Q 10 11 12 13 '14 is ' 16 17 1 is ' 19 20 ' 21 22 ' 23 24 2s J I 59 eater system. The Road and Bridge Department and the County Commission can hear your problem as far as the storm drainage in an area. We cannot, we cannot address it. I would love to, but we cannot address it. MR. PEPPELI.A: May. Thank you. w?. MTJYKSCAARII: Thank you, sir. VR. FRATIS: Are all waste -pater sti s�. tems going to he hooked in on this one puma? MR. 11UNKSGA.ARD: Wel 1 , not one Primp. There are approximately, I can tell. you that right now there are approximately four hundred -- 'MP. FRAILS: Into the one system. MR. MUNKSCAAPP : Yeah. MP. FRAILS: Into each individual house system. "R. h!TTNKSCAARP: Yeah. There's approximately four hundred twenty, I believe is the number, residential units that's proposed to be part of the Project. YR. FRAILS: I'm talking individual homes. All the waste -water from each individual home will be hooked in through this one system at the house. MP . P IN'Tr : Yes. MP. MtNTKSGAAR.D: System at the house? MR. FRAIT,S: At each individual home. That includes, T iust got the opinion that we're going to have to pay separately to have our washing machines hooked up, ZAMBATAPO & ASSorTATES A computer Assisted Transcript (30415F�-n�l� 11 1 L 2 3 4 5 6 F1 60 system to it. Am I hearing right or wrong? MR. PTNTTO: Yes, You're hearing right. All your waste -- 'QTR. FRAILS: That's still waste -Mater. MR. PINITO: All the waste -water that comes out of your house, kitchen waste, sewage that comes from your toilets, shower, hath, washing machine -- t)'R. FPATT.S: Will he hooked in. MR. PTYTO: Will he hool;ce in. MR. FRAILS: I understood just a moment ago that a washing machine hook-up will have to he paid for separately by the individual. MP. PINTO: No. Someone, there are some people we're being told that have an illegal connection now of their wash water into the canal or into the drainage district. That will have to cease and should, it should be changed whether or not the system is built. That should go through your septic system. MR. FRAILS: These are hooked un without any extra charge, besides the charge of hooking up to begin with? NSR. PINTO: No. If you have an illegal connection r.ow, vou're going to have to hear the burden of connecting that into the system. A mFAePFR OF THF AITPT�'rF • !What if vov have tito septic tanks, one for washing machine and the other, they're ZAMPATAPO F, ASSOCTATFS A Comriiter Assisted Transcript (3ns)s69-0910 7 ' 23 g Q ' 10 11 12 13 ' 14 is 16 17 ' is 19 20 21 F1 60 system to it. Am I hearing right or wrong? MR. PTNTTO: Yes, You're hearing right. All your waste -- 'QTR. FRAILS: That's still waste -Mater. MR. PINITO: All the waste -water that comes out of your house, kitchen waste, sewage that comes from your toilets, shower, hath, washing machine -- t)'R. FPATT.S: Will he hooked in. MR. PTYTO: Will he hool;ce in. MR. FRAILS: I understood just a moment ago that a washing machine hook-up will have to he paid for separately by the individual. MP. PINTO: No. Someone, there are some people we're being told that have an illegal connection now of their wash water into the canal or into the drainage district. That will have to cease and should, it should be changed whether or not the system is built. That should go through your septic system. MR. FRAILS: These are hooked un without any extra charge, besides the charge of hooking up to begin with? NSR. PINTO: No. If you have an illegal connection r.ow, vou're going to have to hear the burden of connecting that into the system. A mFAePFR OF THF AITPT�'rF • !What if vov have tito septic tanks, one for washing machine and the other, they're ZAMPATAPO F, ASSOCTATFS A Comriiter Assisted Transcript (3ns)s69-0910 22 ' 23 24 ' 2.5 F1 60 system to it. Am I hearing right or wrong? MR. PTNTTO: Yes, You're hearing right. All your waste -- 'QTR. FRAILS: That's still waste -Mater. MR. PINITO: All the waste -water that comes out of your house, kitchen waste, sewage that comes from your toilets, shower, hath, washing machine -- t)'R. FPATT.S: Will he hooked in. MR. PTYTO: Will he hool;ce in. MR. FRAILS: I understood just a moment ago that a washing machine hook-up will have to he paid for separately by the individual. MP. PINTO: No. Someone, there are some people we're being told that have an illegal connection now of their wash water into the canal or into the drainage district. That will have to cease and should, it should be changed whether or not the system is built. That should go through your septic system. MR. FRAILS: These are hooked un without any extra charge, besides the charge of hooking up to begin with? NSR. PINTO: No. If you have an illegal connection r.ow, vou're going to have to hear the burden of connecting that into the system. A mFAePFR OF THF AITPT�'rF • !What if vov have tito septic tanks, one for washing machine and the other, they're ZAMPATAPO F, ASSOCTATFS A Comriiter Assisted Transcript (3ns)s69-0910 1 1 1 2. 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 61 called grease septic tanks. I have two. AT. PTNTn: If you have two septic tanks, I would say at this time -- and of course, all this has to he, the closer we get with engineering, the better answers that we can give -- but I would say at this time, it would be your responsibility as the home owner to connect it into the septic tank tbat we choose to be tie main nump facility. Now, we have to come out and really, really look at it and do engineering to see. I can assure votj this. We'll do it in the way that would affect your pocketbook the least. We're not going to just go in and for the mere sake of saying it's got to be this way. Tt has to he good engineering to decide what we have to do. But we have you in mind when we design it. Yes, sir. AT. LAVr.: }+v name is Fd Tang and T live at 1410 5th Court. When all of these little minor details are taken care of, how soon can this project get started and how long will it take to complete? MR. PTNTn: Pass. MR. "ITTNTKSnAARP• Well, sir, there's a table 8-1 in the report that is presently prepared for the County's review. There's a schedule in there, and it's two pages ZAwTATARC & ASSnrTATFS A Computer Assisted Trar.scrint (30s?569-t!91 n 1 1 J 1-� J 1 2 3 4 S 5 7 8 9 10 11 1.2 13 14 is 16 1.7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 r, 2 long here. T'll just try to summarize it for vont quickly. Right now, if this project continues to go forward, there is a potential that this project right now is -- I don't want to get too detailed with you, but there's a funding portion and there's a planning portion on the grant description list. And right now there's a potential to be elevated during the FY 'R7 vcar. Ri�bt now we're in the fiscal year 187. There's a potential that the County could get elevated at the end of the FY 'R7 year, which would he August, at the Fnvironmental Regulation Commission meeting. And that's why we're holding this public hearing right now, because it's important for the County to make that decision if they want to move forward with the project or not. 1:et's assume that the fast track is done and the County would be elevated in '87. By the way, the County has filed application for fiscal vear 'R8 for continuance in case the 'R7 funding doesn't go through. Fut say you got funding in August, or elevated, excuse me, in August, and You got certified and you get certified within 60 days after that. So that would be September or October. The hest you could hope for would probably be the county would get grant money in another 60 to 90 days after that. So rJe're in late 'R7 now, right, when they get the grant. Of course, tieing a nuhl is project, the County would have to go through a formal public biddin¢ period. ZAW'BATARO 8 ASSnrTATFS A Computer Assisted Transcript (30s)569-0910 1 5 6 7 8 n 10 11 12 13 14 15 1.6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 63 Being that it's grant money again, the regulations require a minimum of 30 days advertising for that. They have to go through various document approvals on that, which takes another 60 to 90 days. So that part of the project, the bidding period, clue to the grant funding and all the approvals you have to get of the contractors, can run tip to another 00 to a hundred twenty days. Probably, if everything rent very well, sir, and we didn't have any delays, probably the earliest you would see a contractor in your backyard would be I would say the spring of 188. MP- UNTG: how long would it take to complete? MR. MITINKSGAARP: This project? I believe that we are talking probably around a nine month period of total construction. So maybe by the end of '88, if everything went well, everybody would he hooked up and on-line. Your restoration work might not be done, that kind of thing. But vou'd probably have beneficial use of the new sewer system and he off ,your septic tank. That's if everything went very well. NOW, that was all based on the assumption, once again, that the County would get elevated here at the end of the fiscal year up into the FY 1987 funding list. That might not happen and they might role back over into the '88 list, which then would probably move everything hack by, T ZAMPATARO f ASSOCTATFS A Computer Assisted Transcript (305)569-0910 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R 9 10 11 1.2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 64 would say, some six months at a minimum. !IR. PI�'T0: So you won't be looking at anv costs until the project was completed and you were connected. So you can keep that in mind, also. The project would be under construction and completed before you would be required to ray any of the costs at all. Even your impact fee and the whole i:•orks. So vou'il �e looUre at 'R9. Fo you can start savine up. MRS. M OZOWSKI: T'nderstand in Pockridge, we have dry we1.1s in back of the house for our washing machines. Is that illegal? MR. PINTO: If you have a septic system, an approved septic system that is going into, that is not illegal. That's okay. MRS. BPZOZOWSKI: That's just where the washing machine i s . YP. PINTO: I would really have to see what it is. Pry well doesn't click in my utility terminology. If there's something there that's acceptable, it has to be a septic system design. And if that's the case, then that's okay. But they will have to be tied together because that's the only way you can get it into the pumping system. tT,S. BRZOZOWSKI: That's what I have. MD. FPAILS: That won't lie lef*al when the sewer system is in. ZAYPATARO f ASSot'IATES A. Computer Assisted Transcript (305)569-0910 l� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 65 MR. PTNT0: That's right. That will not be. Okay. We certainly thank you very much for coming out. We appreciate your participation. We value your input. And you will he hearing from us again. (Fearing concluded at 3:15 n.m.) ZAMPATAPO & ASSOrTATFS A romputer Assisted Transcript (305)569-0910 1 �7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 C6 STATE OF FLOR IPA 1 i SS. INDIAN RIVER COTTNTY 1 I, Patrice C. OINTea1 , being a Notary Public for the State of Florida at Large, do hereby certify that I reported the above hearing; that the foregoing pages numbered 1 to 66, inclusive, constitute a true record of the hearing. I farther certify that J am not attorney or counsel for any of the parties, nor a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action. WITNESS my hand and official seal in the City of Vero Beach, County of Indian River, State of Florida, this 2-1.!day of , A.D. 1987. Patrice C. O'Neal, Notary Public State of Florida at Large. My commission expires March 27, 1989 ZAMPATARO F ASSOC, IATFS A Computer Assisted Transcript (305)560-0910 1 1 1 1 C] 1 APPENDIX D 1 ' INDIAN RIVER COUNTY_ ORDINANCE N0. 84-18 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY C014MISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 24-31 THROUGH SECTION 24-67 OF,THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR ' CONNECTIONS WITH WATERWORKS SYSTEM; CONNECTIONS WITH SEWER REQUIRED; SEWER CONNECTIONS REQUIRE COUNTY WATER; EXCEPTIONS TO CONNECTIONS; CONNECTIONS MAY BE MADE BY COUNTY; DEFINITIONS; RATES AND CHARGES; IMPACT FEE, EXPANSION POLICY; EXTENSION OF WATER AND SEWER SERVICES; ' OFF-SITE WATER DISTRIBUTION AND SEWAGE COLLECTION SYSTEMS] EXISTING AGREEMENTS; UNIFORM EXTENSION POLICY; UNLAWFUL CONNECTION; UNLAWFUL CONSTRUCTION; CONNECTING OLD PLUMBING; SANITARY REQUIREMENTS; DISPOSAL ' REQUIREMENT; STANDARDS FOR INSTALLATION OF SEPTIC TANK; MAINTENANCE OF PLUMBING SYSTEM; PAYMENT OF FEES AND BILLS REQUIRED; COLLECTION OF SEWER FEES WHERE OWNER HAS COUNTY WATER SUPPLY; FAILURE TO MAINTAIN PLUMBING ' SYSTEM; NO SERVICE FREE; SEPARATE CONNECTIONS FOR EACH SEPARATE UNIT; WATER/SEWER FEES CHARGEABLE TO PROPERTY OWNERS --COUNTY MAY BILL TENANT; BILLING CYCLE; WATER CHARGES ON NEW CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNTS; DISCONTINUANCE OF SERVICE FOR NON-PAYMENT; WATER AND SEWER EQUIPMENT IN EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OF UTILITY DEPARTMENT; PERMIT REQUIRED TO DRAW WATER FROM FIRE HYDRANTS; PROHIBITION AGAINST DAMAGING EQUIPMENT; REQUIRED INSTALLATION OF BACK FLOW PREVENTION DEVICES; POWER AND AUTHORITY OF INSPECTORS; ' DISCHARGE OF WATER IN SANITARY SEWERS; PROHIBITING DISCHARGE OF SPECIFIED WASTE AND WATERS INTO THE COUNTY SEWERAGE SYSTEM; WATER SHORTAGE EMERGENCIES; WELL AND LAWN SPRINKLER SYSTEMS; PENALTIES; REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ' PROVISIONS; INCORPORATION IN CODE; SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY ' COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION 1 ' CONNECTIONS WITH WATERWORKS SYSTE24 Where the same shall be available; the owner of every ' lot or parcel of land within the unincorporated portion of Indian River County, hereinafter referred to as "County", shall (except ' as limited by Section 3) connect, or cause the plumbing of any building, or buildings thereon to be connected, with the County waterworks system of Indian River County, Florida, or franchised ' private utility system upon the approval of the system managers, g , and use such facilities within two (2) months following notifica- tion to do so by the Indian River County Utility Department. All such connections shall be made in accordance with the rules and ' regulations which shall be adopted from time to time.by the Board Of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, which ' rules and regulations shall provide for a charge for making such _o iconnections in such reasonable amount as such board may fix and ' determine by resolution, or in the case of a private utility, the rules and regulations adopted by the utility and approved by the Board of County Commissioners. ' SECTION 2 CONNECTIONS WITH SEI4ER REQUIRED ' The owner of each lot or parcel of land within the County upon which lot or parcel of land any building or trailer ' used as a dwelling is now situated, or shall hereafter be situated, for either residential, commercial or industrial use, ' shall connect or cause such building or buildings or trailer or trailers to be connected with the public sewer facilities of the County sewer system of Indian River County, Florida, or franchised private utility system upon approval of the systems managers, and ' use such facilities within two (2) months following notification to do so by the Utilities Department of Indian River County, Florida. All such connections shall be made in accordance with the rules and regulations which shall be adopted from time to time by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, which rules and regulations shall provide for a charge g for making any such connections in such reasonable amount as such ' board may fix and determine by resolution or in the case of a private utility the rules and regulations adopted'by the utility and approved by the Board of County Commissioners. No connection or connections shall be required where said sewer system or line ' is more than two hundred (200) feet from such lot or parcel of land, unless such connection is necessary to prevent a health ' hazard. ' SECTION 3 ' SEWER CONNECTIONS REQUIRE COUNTY WATER All connections to the County sewer system shall be ' simultaneously connected to the County water system, unless the water system is not available, as determined by the Utility Department. No County ' sewer service shall be provided without County water except as determined by the Utility Department, the tripartite [agreement] between the City of Vero Beach, Vero Mall va ' and Indian River County and the lands addressed thereon or where ' such service previously existed. SECTION 4 EXCEPTIONS TO CONNECTIONS ' This article shall not be construed to require or entitle any person to cross the private property of another to ' make any such sewer or water connection. SECTION 5 ' CONNECTIONS MAY BE MADE BY COUNTY If any such owner of any lot or parcel of land within ' the County shall fail and refuse to connect with and use the facilities of the sewer system of the County after notification by 1 the Utilities Division, as provided herein, then the Utilities Division shall be authorized to make such connections, entering on or upon any such lot or parcel of land for the purpose of making such connections. The base facilities charge of the County shall ' apply -beginning twenty (20) days after notification by the County Utility Department to connect. The County shall thereupon be entitled to recover the cost of making such connection, together with accrued base facilities charges, interest and attorney's fees, by suit in any court of competent jurisdiction. ' In addition, and as an alternative means of collecting such costs or making such connections, the County shall have a lien on such lot or parcel of land for such cost, which lien shall be of equal dignity with the lien of state and county and munici- pal taxes. Such lien may be foreclosed by the County in the same manner provided by the laws of Florida for the foreclosure of 1 mortgages upon real estate. SECTION 6 DEFINITIONS For the purpose of this ordinance, the following terms ' shall have the meanings set forth thereafter. (a) Base Facilities Charge. The charge imposed by the ' County for each equivalent residential unit which is not related to actual usage of either water or sewer service but represents a ' portion of the cost to the County of having the system available 60LEM ' to serve thatequivalent residential unit. 1 (b) Equivalent Residential Unit. (1) Each single family residence served by the County through a single water meter and/or single sewer service connection constitutes one equivalent residential unit. (See chart below.) (2) Each residential room or combination of rooms, designed to be occupied on a permanent or long-term basis, and not ' otherwise defined as a hotel or motel herein and each apartment unit, condominium unit, multi -family unit or prepared mobile home space that includes connection points for sewer and/or water service and that is owner occupied, offered separately for rent as ' a rental or lease unit, or vacant, will constitute one equivalent residential unit. Multi -unit apartment condominiums, and similar ' multi -unit residential structures or complexes are defined to con- sist of multiple equivalent residential units regardless of whether or not a single water or sewer connection serves the ' entire complex. (See chart below.) (c) Commercial Industrial and Non-residential Accounts. All other types of accounts not previously defined as an equivalent residential unit will, for the purposes of estab- lishing the applicable rate structure, be considered to comprise multiple equivalent residential units according to the following chart and formula: UNIT DESIGNATIONS ' 1. Single family home UNITS 1 2. Private dwelling w/rented rooms or boarding house 1 each room available for rent over 3 t 3. Hotel/motel - per living1 unit .20 4. Rental or condominium apartment 1 5. Mobile living unit - 1 6. Townhouse ' 7. Single family home w business 1 of business other thanlrestauran, each place 1 B. School -per each 30 full time1 Per each 60 part time pupils 1 t faculty 1 (part time attendance lesslthanf3.5hours) 1 9. Church 1 J �j J 10. Church w/banquet facilities 2 11. Clubs, societies, service organizations 1 w/dining facilities 3 12. Service station -w/o repair or maintenance w/repair or 1 maintenance w/car wash per 250GPD 2 1 13. Take out restaurant w/o seating 3 14. Diner, tavern, restaurant -1 to 50 seating capacity each additional 15 3 seats or segment thereof 1 15. Laundromat or self service laundry per @ washer 16. Soda fountain and/or luncheonette 1 1 to 25 each additional 20 seats or segmenteating thereofap. 2 1 17. Supermarket 1 to 3 water fixtures per water fixture thereafter 1/3 1 .33 1 18. Retail and general commercial business 1 per first 2500 sq. ft. per each 5000 or part thereof 1 1 19. Office building for @ 3000 sq. ft. or part thereof- 1 1 20. Nursing home -per 20 bed capacity for @ 10 staff or se segment thereof 1 1 21. Warehouse -per @ 5000 sq. ft. gross floor area or part thereof 1 22. Industrial & manufacturing plant w/o use of water for processing per @ 3000 sq. ft. gross area or for @ 5 employees whichever is greater 1 23. Industrial & manufacturing plant using water for processing and/or has discharge to wastewater System shall be determined on an individual basis. Minimum 3 24. Barber shop -hair dresser 1 to 3 sinks each additional sink 1 1/3 25. Establishments requiring service for irrigation or fire service will be handled on an individual basis using 250GPD as a basis of calculating units. In any case, where use exceeds 250GPD per unit, units will be increased or flow will be restricted at the discretion of the Utility. 26. (d) Combination Accounts. Accounts that contain both residential and commercial facilities served through a common meter may be treated as either residential.or non-residential whichever method of computation results in a larger number of 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10. Church w/banquet facilities 2 11. Clubs, societies, service organizations w/dining facilities 1 3 12. Service station -w/o repair or maintenance 1 w/repair or maintenance w/car wash per 250GPD 2 1 13. Take out restaurant w/o seating 3 14. Diner, tavern, restaurant -1 to 50 seating capacity each additional 15 3 seats or segment thereof 1 15. Laundromat or self service laundry per @ washer 16. Soda fountain and/or 1 luncheonette 1 to 25 each additional 20 seats or se seating cap. gment thereof 2 1 17. Supermarket 1 to 3 water fixtures per water fixture thereafter .33 1/3 1 1 18. Retail and general commercial business 1 per first 2500 sq. ft. per each 5000 or part thereof 1 1 19. Office building for @ 3000 sq. ft. or part thereof. 1 1 20. Nursing home -per 20 bed capacity for @ 10 staff or se segment thereof 1 1 21. Warehouse -per @ 5000 sq. ft. gross floor area or part thereof 1 22. Industrial & manufacturing plant w/o use of water for processing per @ 3000 sq. ft. gross area or for @ 5 employees whichever is greater 1 23. Industrial & manufacturing plant using water for processing and/or has discharge to wastewater system shall be determined on an individual basis. Minimum 3 24. Barber shop -hair dresser 1 to 3 sinks each additional sink 1 1/3 25. Establishments requiring service for irrigation or fire service will be handled on an individual basis using 250GPD as a basis of calculating units. In any case, where use exceeds 250GPD per unit, units will be increased or flow will be restricted at the discretion of the Utility. 26. (d) Combination Accounts. Accounts that contain both residential and commercial facilities served through a common meter may be treated as either residential. or non-residential whichever method of computation results in a larger number of equivalent residential units. ' (e) Hotel and Motel. Any building or groups of build- ings containing sleeping room accommodations for guests and pro- viding the services generally provided by a hotel or motel and ' recognized as a hotel or motel in the community in which it is situated or by the industry, and offering daily or weekly rates, ' with a bath or connecting bath for every rental unit and occupied only by transient guests. It is the intent of this section that ' any such structure offering a residential or combination of rooms for rent or lease for longer than a month at a time shall not be ' considered a hotel or motel. SECTION 7 ' RATES AND CHARGES The rate schedule attached hereto as Appendix "A" is ' hereby adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. A. Base Facilities Charge. This charge shall apply to every connected equivalent residential unit and to each equivalent residential unit reserved for future use in a development. For facilities that have received a Certificate of Occupancy this ' charge will apply until the facility is permanently disconnected from the system. For developments which have entered into an ' agreement with the County for the construction of the necessary lines to connect the project to the County system, the fee shall ' commence upon certification by appropriate governmental authori- ties that the lines are ready for use. For all other reserva- tions, the fee shall commence at the time of reservation. For temporary disconneptions, customers will pay the base facilities charge for each month the facility is disconnected at the time of reconnection. All individuals who have reserved capacity at the ' date of enactment of this section shall be given the option of commencing payment of the base facilities charge or to relinquish ' the reservation and receive a refund of all funds collected by County for the reservation. This election must be made within ' thirty (30) days of notification by the County. B. Water Production Charqe. This charge represents the cost associated with the production of water at the County water ' plant and shall apply to all customers who purchase water at the water plant to be distributed by purchaser, as set forth in tAppendix "A." C. Volume Charge. A charge imposed that is directly ' related to the volume of water consumed or sewage treated and designed to recoup the cost associated with the operation of the ' system that varies with consumption levels as set forth in Appendix "A.'l- ' D. Customer Charge. This charge represents the costs to the system associated with billing, collection, meter reading ' and general customer services imposed on each meter installed, as set forth in Appendix "A." ' E. Deposits Required upon Opening, Transferring, Reconnecting; Refund Policy. The County shall require a deposit as set forth in Appendix "A" for all water or sewer accounts that ' are opened, transferred to another name or upon reconnection to the system. Upon discontinuance of service, and rendering of ' final bill, the deposit shall be refunded; less any amount remaining unpaid. In the event any customer service is shut off for non-payment; prior to reconnection the customer will pay the accrued base facilities charge plus, if in the discretion of the ' Utility Director it is necessary to assure payment, a deposit equal to twice the customer's average monthly bill in lieu of following the schedule set forth hereafter. Accrued interest on the County Deposit Fund shall be used to offset bad debts of the ' system. Customers who have not been assessed late payment fees or been shut off for non-payment for a period of thirty (30) months 1 shall receive a refund of their deposit. (1) Sewer Service: A deposit equal to the water deposit. A sewer only customer will pay a deposit equal to two ' (2) times the water deposit schedule. F. Specific Service Charges (1) Water Service Connection: To defray the cost of and imposed when County constructs a water lateral from customer's property to watermain in adjacent street, including meter installation (normal residential customers only; others cost plus -7- See Appendix A." (2) Sewer Service Connection: To defray the cost of and imposed when County constructs a sewer lateral from customer's Property to main in street (normal residential customers only). ' See Appendix "A." (3) Meter Installations Onl : Where an existing available usable service lateral is presently installed, a charge will be imposed as set forth in A Appendix "A." The listed charges do not include meter vault which will be supplied by developer. G. Miscellaneous Service Char es (1) Reconnect durinr normal working hours (8:30 AM - 4:00 pM): This charge is made upon initial service connect, or ' for change from temporary to permanent service, a reconnect after delinquency shut-off, or for transfer of service from one location to another, where there was an existing account. See Appendix "A." I (2) Reconnect durin off-dutyhours: See Appendix "A." ' (3) Meter re -reads and leak ins ection: This charge is for special inspection at request of customers when there is no interruption of service and the account remains in the same name. ' If the re -read is a result of an error of the intial m • eter read- ing, this charge will not be assessed to the.customer. See Appendix "A." (4) Delinquency charge: County shall charge an addi- tional $1.50 plus one and one-half percent (1-1/28) interest monthly on all outstanding balances if payment is not made in ' total by each payment deadline date. The deadline date shall be fifteen (15) days after the billing date. ' (5) General service calls: In all instances where County is requested to respond to a service call to correct a ' problem that was not caused by the County, the County shall charge the responsible party for all direct labor, direct materials, direct overhead, fringe benefit factor and the County's indirect cost rate pursuant to a formula established by the County's ' Utility Division. ' (6) Meter calibration: request Upon p q est of a customer, the ' Utility Department shall test a water meter to determine if the meter is operating within established standards, (95 to 101.5 per ' cent of true). If the meter has been tested within the last twelve (12) months, there shall be a ten -dollar ($10.00) non-refundable service charge if the meter is found to be ' operating accurately. If the meter is in error, i.e., outside the range of ninety-five (95) to one hundred one and five -tenths ' (101.5) per cent of true, then a billing adjustment will be made for a period not to exceed the past six (6) months of actual ' service. There shall be no charge for testing in the event the water meter has not been tested within the last twelve (12) months ' preceding the request. The service charge may be applied against monies due in the event a meter, after testing, is found to be ' inaccurate within the range established above. (7) Damage repair: All damage caused by the failure of ' a contractor or customer to properly locate and isolate water and sewer facilities shall be repaired by the County and charged to the responsible party under the provisions of paragraph "E"; or in the alternative, County may hire a contractor to perform the repair work and charge the responsible party for the repairs. In ' addition, the responsible party shall pay the County a fine of one hundred dollars ($100.00) for each such instance. (8) Line location -- same as general service calls. (9) Engineering services: These fees will be assessed ' to defray the cost of processing.a developer's application for subdivision construction, site plan, reviewing the plans and tinspecting the water and sewer facilities as constructed. See Appendix "A." Inspection fee: County shall charge according to the table on Appendix "A" or time, materials and overhead whichever is ' greater. (10) Other miscellaneous charges --See Appendix "A". H. Additional Costs for Complex Connections The specific service charges listed in this section are based on the average historical costs of such services. If in the �o F, 1 1 1 F1 event a particular service required by a customer is determined by the Utility Division to have a cost which greatly exceeds the "norm", then such cost of service shall be negotiated between the County and the developer and reduced to a written instrument approved by the customer and the Utility Director. See Appendix "A. 11 I. Annual Fire Protection Charges These charges are established to defray the cost of pro- viding extra capacity in the water system and maintaining water and fire protection facilities for customers having sprinkler systems, private fire lanes, etc.; they are designed to recover a portion of the availability cost and customer cost. In addition, this cost covers the additional capacity and expense associated with line size and hydrants in the fire district. (1) EXdrants. The fire district wherein the water system and hydrants are located shall be assessed the charge set forth in Appendix "A"*per hydrant annually. If hydrant is accessible by private entity only, then that entity shall be charged. (2) Fire systems. Each facility with a fire protection system shall be charged annually in accordance with the chart in Appendix "A." SECTION 8 IMPACT FEE EXPANSION POLICY This section establishes procedures to facilitate the orderly expansion of the County water supply system and wastewater treatment system and provides alternates for funding such expan- sion by those specifically benefiting thereby, by imposing a user charge which is reasonably calculated to offset a portion of the capital cost of the anticipated new demand on the systems. The remaining capital cost shall be recouped through the monthly charges. Indian River County has determined that certain neces- sary improvements will have to be undertaken in order to provide a water supply and wastewater treatment system to meet the needs of a large influx of new residents, industrial and business _10- establishments anticipated to occur in futureears. In Y order to finance these improvements, several combined methods of financing ' will be necessary, one of which is an impact fee. The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida has the authority under Florida Statutes §125.01 and §163.3161 et seq., and supporting cases to establish'a user ' charge hereinafter called an impact fee in order to offset the cost of the necessary extension of the County's water and sewer systems. The amount of these impact fees have been established on the recommendation of the County's rate consultants and after wide ' ranging input from concerned citizens at public hearings. The Board of County Commissioners now finds and deter- mines after an examination of all methods of financing, that the impact fee is a necessary integral part of financing the cost of future water systems and wastewater treatment systems in the County at this time, and that this fee should be reviewed on a regular basis in order to ensure that it continues to reflect a charge that is commensurate with the burden imposed on the system by new development. ' A. Impact Fee Imposed. There is hereby imposed an impact fee according to the following schedule, based on the ' equitable portion of the cost of financing the extension of the County's sewer and water systems on each equivalent residential ' unit responsible for creating the need for additional system expansion. The obligation to pay the impact fee shall occur at the earliest of the following dates: When the capacity is reserved, when a water or sewer permit is granted, or when a building permit is issued. Water service. . . . . . . . . . . See Appendix "A" ' Sewer service. . . . . . . . . . . See Appendix "A" B. If a building permit is issued for -an existing non- residential, commercial or industrial connection which will increase water demand or sewer treatment demand or if a building changes from residential to non-residential occupancy, the total number of equivalent residential units for the old and new parts of the facility will be computed according to the definition of -11- equivalent residential units and impact fees shall be assessed on the difference. C. Escalation of imoact fees. The basis for the impact fees imposed by this section has been structured by the County with respect to two major but variable factors. First, the present level of construction cost of water distribution, sewer ' collection, water treatment plant and wastewater treatment plant facilities. -Second, the theory of treatment facilities and their relative degree of treatment system sophistication as prescribed by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. ' • 1 auto The foregoing schedule of impact fees shall auto- matically escalate based upon increases in utility construction ' index published in the Engineering News Record magazine (ENR) (if ENR goes out of business, an equivalent index will be used by the County), entitled "twenty cities' construction cost index," using as a base the published index for the quarter ending June 30, 1980. The County shall automatically adjust the impact fees set forth herein semi-annually with the first such adjustment to be ' not earlier than December 31, 1984. The automatic escalation shall not exceed the percentage difference between said ' construction cost index for the base period as compared with the period in review. ' D. Escalation of Plant cavacitY fee bv County Board of County Commissioners. Separate and apart from the automatic esca- lation provisions set forth above, the Utility Department of the County may file with the Commission a higher or lower impact fee schedule, and in su pport of that schedule, detail the reasons requiring such increased fees. Such reasons may include and be related to increasing standards of service; inadequate or incorrect estimates of the total anticipated fees versus the actual investment levels required by the County for water or sewer plant treatment facilities; actual experience with regard to matters of service area density having a direct bearing upon ' assessments received versus the cost of construction of the facilities; matters of net investment bearing upon rates and ' -12- ' charges required of consumers and/or such other :natters which may reasonably bear upon the needs, necessities or consideration ' requiring such change. - E. Use of proceeds. The proceeds accumulated by reason ' of the establishment of the impact fees can be used only for capital expenditures for the expansion of the County's water system or wastewater treatment system. The funds may be used for extending, oversizing, separating or constructing new additions to the treatment plant or collection and interceptor systems of the water and wastewater systems so as to meet the increased demand ' which additional connections to the system create. Said proceeds may not be used for improving, updating or bringing the present ' system into compliance with any change in law or other events which would otherwise require such improving, updating or bringing ' the present system into compliance. F. Trust fund established. There are hereby estab- lished two (2) trust funds, one designated as (A) Impact Fee Trust Fund for the Expansion of the Indian River County Water System, and the second one designated as (B) Impact Fee Trust Fund for the ' Expansion of the Indian River County Sewerage System. All impact fees paid to the County shall be ' deposited in the appropriate trust fund to be held in separate accounts and used only for the purposes of the expansion of the ' respective County systems. Funds may be disbursed from these accounts in a customary manner in accordance with appropriate law ' with the added requirement that the disbursal of such funds shall require approval of the County Administration and Utility ' Director. Any funds on deposit in said trust funds which are not immediately necessary for the expansion of the respective systems ' may be invested in the manner provided by law for the investment of surplus County funds. All interest earned on invested funds in the respective trust funds shall bear the same restrictions on ' expenditure as those funds which created the interest. All of the preceding notwithstanding, none of such ' funds deposited in the respective trust fund shall ever be expended by Indian River County in a manner that is contrary to -13- 1 1 1 1 1 those principles set forth in the case captioned; Contractors and Builders Association of Pinellas County v. City of Dunedin, 329 So. 2d 314 (1976) as further interpreted from time to time by the " Supreme Court of the State of Florida and various appellate courts. G. Use of funds previously collected. The use of.any funds previously collected by the County under Ordinance No. 80-22 or 80-21 as plant capacity fees or contributions in aid of construction are hereby restricted for use for the purpose for which they were collected. In no event shall any of such funds ever be used in a manner contrary to the principles set forth in ' the case of Contractors and Builders Association of Pinellas County V. City of Dunedin, 329 So.2d 314 (1976) as interpreted by ' the Supreme Court of the State of Florida and appellate courts from time to time. Under no circumstances shall any funds ' collected under the terms of any previously adopted ordinance or under the terms of this ordinance be expended for any purpose other than extending, oversizing, separating, or constructing new additions to the treatment plant or collection and interceptor ' systems of the water and wastewater system so as to meet the increased demand which additional connections to the system ' create. H. Time payment of impact fee upon showinq of hardship. The Board of County Commissioners may establish an alternate method of payment for units presently in existence which have received occupancy permits from the County. Upon a showing of proper hardship to the Commission, the Commission may allow in its sole discretion pay- ment of the water and/or sewer impact fees in whole or in part over a period of three (3) years at such interest rate to be ' determined by the Board. Upon the Commission's authorizing an alternate pay- ment schedule for an applicant, a lien' for the amount due shall be executed in recordable form reflecting the payment schedule and ' filed in the public records of Indian River County, Florida. Upon all payments being made in full, said lien shall be released of -14- 1 ' record. SECTION 9 ' EXTENSION OF WATER AND SEWER SERVICES A. Contributions in aid of construction. The County requires the contribution in aid of construction through the installation of water distribution and sewage collection fac'ili- ties by the developer with title to such facilities being trans- ferred to the. County when the installation has been completed. The facilities are "on-site" and "off-site" as defined in this article. The requirement for such contributions is for the ' purpose of defraying the cost of the water distribution and sewage collection systems and to partially defray the cost of the hydraulic share of the systems. ' B. On-site facilities. Each developer shall be respon- sible for the design, installation, inspection and testing of the ' complete water distribution and sewage collection systems located in the street or streets adjoining or within the boundaries of the ' developer's property. The term "complete water distribution and sewage ' collection systems," as used herein, shall include all component parts of a water distribution system including valves, fittings, ' laterals, hydrants and all appurtenances as shown upon the approved design of such water distribution system and all the ' components of the sewage collection system, including all collec- tion lines, manholes, force mains, lift or pumping stations, including the site for same, and all other appurtenances as shown on the approved design for installation of such sewage collection. systems. The developer shall supply the County with two sets of ' "as built" plans. SECTION 10 ' OFF-SITE WATER DISTRIBUTION AND SEWAGE COLLECTION SYSTEMS A. The location, size or proposed densities of a developer's property may make such service to the property depen- dent upon the developer's extension of off-site water distribution and sewage collection facilities. For the purpose of this -15- article, the term off-site shall defined as those mains, water transmission lines, sewage collection lines, sewage force mains and/or pumping stations necessary to connect to the developer's property with facilities of the County adequate in size to trans- mit to the developer's property an adequate quantity of water under adequate pressure and/or transmit sewage collected on -the developer's property to the treatment plant or disposal site of the County. It is the County's policy to expand its water and sewerage system in an orderly, economical manner and in those cases in which the County would not normally be expanding its system to serve a developer's project at that time and such an extension would require an extraordinary expenditure by the County for transmission facilities and such expenditure does not fall within the "norm" associated with the County's standard impact fee then such developer shall be required to construct or pay the cost Of off-site facilities associated with his project. In this event,*the County shall negotiate an agreement with 'the developer requesting service setting forth the developer's responsibility for off-site facilities and the County's responsibility for requiring such facilities to be oversized to meet future demands. B. Refundable advances. The County may require, in addition to the contribution in aid of construction of off-site facilities herein set forth, a refundable advance by.the developer to further temporarily defray the cost of any "off-site" extension of water and/or sewer mains and pumping stations necessary to connect the developer's property with the then terminus of the County's water and sewer facilities. This provision recognizes instances in which a developer may be required to advance funds to construct off-site facilities sized in accordance with the County's Master Plan. All amounts expended by the developer pur- suant to such an agreement over and above the developer's hydraulic share for off-site facilities shall be refunded to developer in accordance with the terms and conditions of a refunding agreement which the County will execute with the developer. County may assume a portion of the material cost of such projects when it deems it to be in the best interest of the -16- 1 ' County utility system. The refund agreement shall provide for a plan of refund based upon the connection of other properties, to ' the extent of their hydraulic share, which properties will be served by the "off-site" facilities installed by the developer. ' Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the County will limit the life of such refund agreement to a term of not more than five (5) years, after which time'any portion of the refund not made to the developer by the terms and conditions of the refund ' agreement will have lapsed and thereafter such refund agreement shall be canceled. In no event shall the developer recoup an amount greater than the difference between the capitalized cost of ' such "off-site" improvements and the developer's own hydraulic share of such improvements. The developer shall not be entitled to any interest upon the refund of the developer's advance. SECTION 11 EXISTING AGREEMENTS County recognizes that certain developer agreements have ' been executed by the County and developers in the past. Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to abrogate, obviate or avoid ' the respective parties obligations in those agreements. SECTION 12 ' UNIFORM EXTENSION POLICY The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River ' County hereby declares its intent to adopt a uniform non- discriminatory water and sewer service extension policy. Such Policy is hereby authorized to be adopted by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners and provide for but not be limited to the following subjects: ' (a) Uniform policy for the extension of the County's water system ' (b) Uniform policy for the extension of the County's wastewater system (c) Criteria for determining the financial feasibility for such extensions ' (d) Apportionment of costs for off-site water systems (e) Apportionment of costs for off-site sewage -17- 1 1 I collection systems (f) Contributions in aid of construction (g) Refundable advances SECTION 13 UNLAWFUL CONNECTION No person shall be allowed to connect into any water line or sewer line owned by the County without the written consent of the County, and then the connection with such line shall be made only under the direction and supervision of the Utility Department. Any property owner, plumber or other individual who shall make any connection without such consent of the County shall, upon conviction, be subject to the penalties hereinafter provided. SECTION 14 UNLAWFUL CONSTRUCTION No person, group of persons, firm or corporation shall build or remodel or cause to be built or remodeled any structure used for human habitation or occupancy on a property within the County which is within two hundred (200) feet of a public sanitary gravity sewer line or water main without connection to the gravity line or water main. All construction shall adhere to latest revision of "Construction specifications for water distribution and sewage collection facilities by Vero Beach." SECTION 15 CONNECTING OLD PLUMBING Whenever it is desirable or required to connect old plumbing with the County sewer main and/or water line, the owner or plumber contemplating doing such work shall notify the County Utility Department, who will inspect said old plumbing and notify the owner or plumber what alterations will be necessary to place said old plumbing in an acceptable condition for such connection. Alterations shall be made within two (2) months of notification. Any owner or plumber who shall make any connection without the approval of the County Utility Department shall, upon conviction, be subject to the penalties hereinafter provided. -18- ' SECTION 16 SANITARY REQUIREMENTS Every residence and building in which human beings reside, are employed or congregated, shall be required to have a sanitary method of disposing human excrement, gray water discharge such as washing machines, dishwashers, etc.; namely, either a sanitary water closet that is connected with the County or fran- chised sewer,, or an approved type of septic tank. A septic tank ' will be used only if the property is more than two hundred (200) feet from the gravity sewer line. SECTION 17 DISPOSAL REQUIREMENT It shall be unlawful for any person, persons, firm or corporation owning or leasing any premises in the County to permit the disposal of any human excrement on any property, leased or rented by any such person, firm or corporation, except in a sani- tary water closet, where sewage lines are available as defined ' above. SECTION 18 . ' STANDARDS FOR INSTALLATION OF q-- TANK No septic tank other than those approved by the appro- priate agencies shall be constructed or installed within the County. No septic tank shall be constructed on a property within two hundred (200) feet of a County gravity sewer line, where elevation, soil conditions and environmental requirements permit, septic tanks will be preferred for single-family homes provided with public or franchised water. For lots with wells and septic tanks, there shall be no more than four (4) units per acre with a ' limitation that the number of units per acre allowed shall be determined by current Florida Department of Environmental ' Regulation and Health Department Rules and Regulations existing as of the date application is made. Multifamily buldings and commer- cial buildings shall not be permitted to have septic tanks which have a higher equivalent than that allowed for residential ' connections. The standard of connection for multifamily and commercial buildings not exceeding the above residential equi- valent shall be as provided by the Florida Department of -19- Environmental Regulation and Health Department Rules and ' Regulations existing at the time of application. SECTION 19 MAINTENANCE OF PLUMBING SYSTEM ' The owner of the property shall be responsible for maintaining and keeping clean the water and sewer pipes leading and connecting from the plumbing system to the County distribution lines and main sewers. This includes the meter boxes and ' easements for access to them. SECTION 20 PAYMENT OF FEES AND BILLS REQUIRED Bills for monthly charges and fees should be submitted and shall be payable on the fifteenth day from the date of the bill. If any monthly bill remains unpaid on the sixteenth day of the month for such service, a penalty as set forth in Appendix "A" shall be imposed and added to the bill. If the monthly bill remains unpaid on the twenty-fifth calendar day after the bill, the water service to the customer shall be subject to discontinu- ance until all past -due water bills are fully paid, together with ' such reconnection fee as set forth in Appendix "A." All other parts of this article will apply as presently written. SECTION 21 COLLECTION OF SEWER FEES WHERE OWNER HAS COUNTY WATER SUPPLY Where sewage disposal fees are not paid in accordance with the provisions outlined above, the County shall have a right to cut off the water supply to the plumbing system, and the owner shall have no right to reconnect the water supply until the sewage ' disposal fees have been paid in full. Any violation of this pro- vision by reconnecting the water supply, until such sewage dis- posal fees are paid in full, shall be considered a violation of this article and subject to the penalties hereinafter provided. 1 SECTION 22 FAILURE TO MAINTAIN PLUMBING SYSTEM Failure to keep the sewer pipe, i.e., the pipe leading from the plumbing system to the sewer main, clean and maintained -20- in a proper manner will give the County the right to cut off the water connection, which shall not be reconnected until the sewer ' pipe is cleaned and maintained properly. Any violation of this provision by reconnecting the connection from the County water ' line, until such sewer pipes are cleaned and maintained properly, shall be considered a violation of this article, and subject to the penalties hereinafter provided. Cleaning by forcing obstacles through service lines to the public system is forbidden. SECTION 23 NO SERVICE FREE No water nor sewage disposal service shall be furnished or rendered free of charge to any person, firm or corporation whatsoever; and the County and each and every agency, department or instrumentality which uses either or both services shall pay therefor at the rate fixed by this article. SECTION 24 SEPARATE CONNECTIONS FOR EACH SEPARATE UNIT ' Each building, whether occupying one or more lots and whether it shall occupy any lot or parcel jointly with any other residential building, shall be billed separately for the payment of the water fees and the sewage disposal fees, and separate ' connections and meters will be required for each building, unless the Director of Utilities determines it is in the.County's best interest to approve the use of a master meter. SECTION 25 WATER/SEWER FEES CHARGEABLE TO PROPERTY OWNERS -- COUNTY MAY BILL TENANT Water and sewer services are held to be furnished to the property and the fees, therefore, are chargeable to the property owner. The County may bill the tenant or occupant of each prem- ises for the water and sewer charges at the request of the owner, express or implied, but this shall in no way relieve the owner of 1 responsibility for payment. Any payment remaining unpaid for a period of thirty (30) days shall constitute a lien in favor of Indian River County against the property serviced and the County Administrator is authorized and directed to record said lien in -21-