City of Graceville, Florida - Better Buildings Initiative...the State Revolving Fund (SRF) funding...

City of Graceville, WWTP Facilities Plan

FRWA Aerobic Digester Energy & Process Efficiency Project of 26

City of Graceville, Florida FDEP-SRF Clean Water Facilities Plan, March 27, 2017

1 FDEP-SRF CLEAN WATER FACILITIES PLANNING REQUIREMENTS:

Section 62-503.700(2) F.A.C. covers the planning requirements for the State Revolving Loan Program. The loan applicant must provide the following planning documentation:

2 FACILITIES PLANNING DOCUMENT, CONTENT OUTLINE:

A. Executive Summary B. Cost Comparison/Cost and Effectiveness Analysis C. Environmental Effects/Benefits D. Selected Alternative E. Public Participation Process F. Financial Feasibility G. Schedule H. Adopting Resolution

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Project Description:

The proposed project is to improve energy and process efficiencies in the Graceville WWTF Aerobic Digester. The work will be to install new process controls and equipment to optimize the aerobic digester process at the Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) in Graceville, Florida. The project will minimize nutrients discharged in facility effluent, reducing nutrient pollution in receiving waters, reduce facility operation and maintenance costs, minimize reliance on expensive chemical treatments to achieve regulatory compliance, and increase facility reliability by replacing aging aeration blowers with new, more efficient models. The Graceville WWTF is permitted for 1.1 MGD, and is meeting current effluent requirements. However, an analysis of facility operations found that optimization of the aerobic digester process could significantly reduce the discharge of Total Phosphorus (TP) in the facility’s effluent, without the site’s current reliance on the application of Alum to meet its effluent Total Phosphorus limits of 1.0 mg/l.

Need or Justification for Project.

Holmes Creek and the Choctawhatchee River have extensive recreational use by the public, including non-contact (boating) and contact (swimming, fishing) activities. Although Holmes



Creek is considered to have overall good water quality, some degradations have occurred. According to the Choctawhatchee River and Bay System SWIM Plan 2002 Update: “Although the Holmes Creek basin is less intensively developed than some areas of the Choctawhatchee River and Bay watershed, it does face significant management challenges. Past studies of the creek have suggested that water quality has been impacted by agricultural runoff and wastewater treatment plant discharges (Livingston et al. 1987; Hand et al. 1996). The work by Schlenk et al. (2001) indicates that heavy recreational use, particularly in the vicinity of springs, has adversely affected biodiversity. Additionally, residential and other development in the vicinity of the stream and in the recharge area has the potential to result in NPS pollution of the creek and adverse effects on groundwater recharge.” Only 15 miles downstream from the Graceville WWTF, the Minnow Creek system enters Holmes Creek. The Minnow Creek system is listed as Impaired, for excessive nutrients which have depressed dissolved oxygen levels below State Water Quality Standards. Discharge of these excessive nutrients from the Minnow Creek system negatively affects water quality of the Holmes Creek system. The Northwest Florida Water Management District’s Strategic Water Management Plan of November 2015 lists Holmes Creek as a high priority area for protection. Reduction of nutrient discharges from the Graceville WWTF will reduce nutrient loads in the Holmes Creek system and help to mitigate some of the excessive nutrients entering it from the Minnow Creek system, thereby enhancing water quality in a listed priority waterbody.

Project Location Map. This map must clearly show the precise location of the proposed project. Roadways must be legibly labeled.

Graceville, Florida, is located in the Northwest corner of Jackson County, only 2 miles south of the Alabama State Line. (See Graceville Location Map). The WWTF is located in Southwest Graceville, at the end of Treatment Plant Road. (See Graceville Location Close-up Map). The physical address of the WWTF is off of Treatment Plant Road at 865 6th Ave, Graceville, FL 32440. The facility is bordered on its south and west sides by Little Creek and Holmes Creek, respectively. The facility discharges into Little Creek, which almost immediately drains into Holmes Creek, a major tributary of the Choctawhatchee River. The Choctawhatchee River ultimately discharges into Choctawhatchee Bay, in Walton County, then into the Gulf of Mexico at Destin.



Graceville WWTF



According to City-Data.com, the City of Graceville has a population of 2,223 civilian residents. Within the service area of the Graceville WWTF, there is also the Graceville Correctional Facility, with a transient population of approximately 2,000 inmates. The resident population of the City has a median income of approximately $23,046 per year, as of 2013, approximately half of the State of Florida median income of $46,036.



4 COST COMPARISON:

A cost comparison of at least three alternatives, one of which can be no action.

Graceville currently uses approximately 10,000 gallons of Alum per year to meet effluent TP standards, at a cost of about $10,000. Even using a very conservative estimate of 70% reduction in Alum use to satisfy effluent TP concentrations below 1.0 mg/L, a reduction of chemical operation costs of $7,000 per year would be realized.

A cost and effectiveness analysis of the processes, materials techniques and technologies.

According to the pilot study, optimization of the digester operation would be accomplished by installing a chemical analyzer that would monitor the chemistry within the digester tanks in real-time and, using algorithm, control aeration + mixing timing, volume, and duration accordingly, to optimize the biosolid stabilization process to produce class B Biosolids and improve the fixation of soluble phosphorous compounds to the digester biosolids. The precipitated Phosphorous compounds would therefore be removed from the plant as solids and transported to the landfill or to a land application site, rather than returning to the plant headworks and recycling in the system causing an overload in the facility’s phosphorous mass balance, or being discharged to receiving waters. With the digester system optimization, effluent TP levels below 0.5 mg/l can be achieved without the use of chemicals, whereas effluent TP levels below 0.3 mg/L are expected. In addition to allowing Graceville to meet its current effluent TP limits, and any more restrictive TP limits which might be imposed in the foreseeable future, the above described process would not typically require the day to day application of Alum to meet effluent permit standards below 1.0 mg/L considering the current influent phosphorous loadings to the headworks. Although the regular application of Alum would not be needed for the day to day operation, there are some circumstances, such as significant rainfall events for example, which might require occasional use of Alum to ensure uninterrupted compliance with all effluent regulatory standards. An additional cost savings, not quantified in this analysis, would be achieved by reducing annual biosolids production and associated sludge hauling costs. Application of Alum generates additional sludge, which is disposed of through the sludge wasting process and biosolids treatment process., In Graceville’s situation, optimization of digester aeration will entail significantly less aeration than is currently supplied. In order to achieve sufficiently controllable lower rates of aeration, smaller, more efficient “jockey” blowers would be installed. An estimated reduction in electrical energy usage from 240.6 MWh to 63.4 MWh per year would result in an estimated annual cost savings of $13,747 per year of operation. If electrical usage and demand rates increase in the future, costs savings would increase commensurately. In combination with



chemical cost savings, total operation costs can be reduced by a total of approximately $20,747 per year. In order to accomplish the optimization of the digester operation, the previously mentioned chemical analyzer would be installed, along with sample pumps and lines from the two digester tanks, a Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) would be installed to receive data from the analyzer and apply a control algorithm, several aeration control valves that are currently operated manually would be replaced with automated valve actuators and air flow monitoring meters for accurate digester aeration control. Two new digester jockey blowers would be installed and replace two of the three current blowers. The digester process would also be equipped with two new submicelle mixers to keep the digester biosolids in suspension during periods of the biosolid treatment process. The digester blower and mixer operation would be monitored through a power monitoring device which evaluates the daily, monthly and annual power usage and demand. The new installed equipment components would be integrated to a centralized PLC motor control panel which is interfaced through a remote operator interface located inside the operations building for optimized process monitoring. The operator interface system would include a SCADA control software to allow fully automatic or semi-automatic control of digester operation and provide real time monitoring of system operation and effectiveness, including historical trend charting to document system effectiveness. Graceville WWTF has currently three 50 HP digester aeration blowers installed with only one blower running 16 hours per day. The current blowers have limited turn down ability and cannot supply the reduced air flow levels needed for digester optimization. The currently installed digester blowers are also late in their service life, being 32 years old. Because the existing blowers cannot perform the optimized process, even in a backup role, it is recommended that two of the current installed digester blowers be replaced with jockey blowers which are reduced in size and can alter the air flow through VFD controls. These new blowers will allow the facility to perform maintenance or repairs without disrupting operations, and not have to perform another blower replacement project within the 20 year duration of the State Revolving Fund (SRF) funding cycle of this project.

An evaluation of any reuse and energy conservation measures that may be applicable, after considering the costs of construction, operation and maintenance, and replacement.

According to the pilot study, optimization of the digester operation would be accomplished by installing a chemical analyzer that would monitor the chemistry within the digester tanks in real-time and, using algorithm, control aeration + mixing timing, volume, and duration accordingly, to optimize the biosolid stabilization process to produce class B Biosolids and improve the fixation of soluble phosphorous compounds to the digester biosolids. The precipitated Phosphorous compounds would therefore be removed from the plant as solids and transported to the landfill or to a land application site, rather than returning to the plant



headworks and recycling in the system causing an overload in the facility’s phosphorous mass balance, or being discharged to receiving waters. With the digester system optimization, effluent TP levels below 0.5 mg/l can be achieved without the use of chemicals, whereas effluent TP levels below 0.3 mg/L are expected. In addition to allowing Graceville to meet its current effluent TP limits, and any more restrictive TP limits which might be imposed in the foreseeable future, the above described process would not typically require the day to day application of Alum to meet effluent permit standards below 1.0 mg/L considering the current influent phosphorous loadings to the headworks. Although the regular application of Alum would not be needed for the day to day operation, there are some circumstances, such as significant rainfall events for example, which might require occasional use of Alum to ensure uninterrupted compliance with all effluent regulatory standards. Graceville currently uses approximately 10,000 gallons of Alum per year to meet effluent TP standards, at a cost of about $10,000. Even using a very conservative estimate of 70% reduction in Alum use to satisfy effluent TP concentrations below 1.0 mg/L, a reduction of chemical operation costs of $7,000 per year would be realized. An additional cost savings, not quantified in this analysis, would be achieved by reducing annual biosolids production and associated sludge hauling costs. Application of Alum generates additional sludge, which is disposed of through the sludge wasting process and biosolids treatment process., In Graceville’s situation, optimization of digester aeration will entail significantly less aeration than is currently supplied. In order to achieve sufficiently controllable lower rates of aeration, smaller, more efficient “jockey” blowers would be installed. An estimated reduction in electrical energy usage from 240.6 MWh to 63.4 MWh per year would result in an estimated annual cost savings of $13,747 per year of operation. If electrical usage and demand rates increase in the future, costs savings would increase commensurately. In combination with chemical cost savings, total operation costs can be reduced by a total of approximately $20,747 per year. In order to accomplish the optimization of the digester operation, the previously mentioned chemical analyzer would be installed, along with sample pumps and lines from the two digester tanks, a Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) would be installed to receive data from the analyzer and apply Aquaconeer’s control algorithm, several aeration control valves that are currently operated manually would be replaced with automated valve actuators and air flow monitoring meters for accurate digester aeration control. Two new digester jockey blowers would be installed and replace two of the three current blowers. The digester process would also be equipped with two new submicelle mixers to keep the digester biosolids in suspension during periods of the biosolid treatment process. The digester blower and mixer operation would be monitored through a power monitoring device which evaluates the daily, monthly and annual power usage and demand. The new installed equipment components would be integrated to a centralized PLC motor control panel



which is interfaced through a remote operator interface located inside the operations building for optimized process monitoring. The operator interface system would include a SCADA control software to allow fully automatic or semi-automatic control of digester operation and provide real time monitoring of system operation and effectiveness, including historical trend charting to document system effectiveness. Graceville WWTF has currently three 50 HP digester aeration blowers installed with only one blower running 16 hours per day. The current blowers have limited turn down ability and cannot supply the reduced air flow levels needed for digester optimization. The currently installed digester blowers are also late in their service life, being 32 years old. Because the existing blowers cannot perform the optimized process, even in a backup role, it is recommended that two of the current installed digester blowers be replaced with jockey blowers which are reduced in size and can alter the air flow through VFD controls. These new blowers will allow the facility to perform maintenance or repairs without disrupting operations, and not have to perform another blower replacement project within the 20 year duration of the State Revolving Fund (SRF) funding cycle of this project.

For non-point source projects funded under Section 319 or 320 of the Clean Water Act, the cost comparison requirement shall be deemed to have been met when a “qualified” best management practice (BMP) is selected for implementation.



5 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS:

Discuss environmental benefits associated with the proposed project.

The recent pilot project demonstrated potential project benefits include a: a) reduction in energy via new technology b) reduction in chemical consumption through the use of new technology c) effluent discharge levels are expected to improve/reduce the phosphorus levels

significantly

Will the proposed project have any significant adverse effects upon flora, fauna, threatened or endangered plant or animal species, surface water bodies, prime agricultural lands, wetlands, or undisturbed areas?

The project is located entirely within the existing WWTP footprint (site) and therefore is not expected to have any adverse effects upon flora, fauna, threatened or endangered plant or animal species, surface water bodies, prime agricultural lands, wetlands, or undisturbed areas.

Provide a list of endangered/threatened plant and animal species (obtain from U.S. Fish and Wildlife) for the project area.

Washington County, Florida endangered/threatened plant and animal species

Group Common Name Scientific Name Status

Amphibians Reticulated flatwoods salamander Ambystoma bishopi Endangered

Amphibians Gopher Frog Lithobates capito Under Review

Birds Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Recovery





Birds Arctic peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus tundrius Recovery

Birds Wood stork Mycteria americana Threatened

Clams Choctaw bean Villosa choctawensis Endangered

Clams Southern kidneyshell Ptychobranchus jonesi Endangered

Clams Oval pigtoe Pleurobema pyriforme Endangered

Clams Shinyrayed pocketbook Lampsilis subangulata Endangered

Clams Southern sandshell Hamiota australis Threatened

Clams Gulf moccasinshell Medionidus penicillatus Endangered

Clams Fuzzy pigtoe Pleurobema strodeanum Threatened

Group Common Name Scientific Name Status

Clams Tapered pigtoe Fusconaia burkei Threatened

Fishes Atlantic sturgeon (Gulf subspecies) Acipenser oxyrinchus (=oxyrhynchus) desotoi

Threatened

Flowering Plants Apalachicola wild indigo Baptisia megacarpa Under Review



Flowering Plants Panhandle meadowbeauty Rhexia salicifolia Under Review

Flowering Plants Papery whitlow-wort Paronychia chartacea Threatened

Flowering Plants Gentian pinkroot Spigelia gentianoides Endangered

Flowering Plants Smooth barked St. JohnÂ’s wort Hypericum lissophloeus Under Review

Flowering Plants Karst pond xyris Xyris longisepala Under Review

Flowering Plants Boykin's lobelia Lobelia boykinii Under Review

Insects Little oecetis longhorn caddisfly Oecetis parva Under Review

Mammals Gray bat Myotis grisescens Endangered

Reptiles Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon corais couperi Threatened

Reptiles Florida pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus

Under Review

Reptiles Gopher tortoise Gopherus polyphemus Candidate

Reptiles Alligator snapping turtle Macroclemys temmincki Under Review

Will the proposed project have any significant adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income communities?

The project is intended to improve effluent water quality and therefore will not have any significant adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income communities

What investigations/site visits were performed to determine the environmental effects of the proposed project? This should be accomplished by a qualified individual. Submit any report or findings.

The proposed project is considered maintenance or rehabilitation of existing facilities as located within a disturbed area, and therefore pose no threat to the surrounding environment.

Will the proposed project be in a floodplain (using the 500-year flood or using the freeboard value reached by adding 2 to 3 feet to the 100-year flood)?

The project is in a floodplain, however elements or components of the project do not occupy additional space in the flood plane



6 SELECTED ALTERNATIVE:

Describe existing and recommended facilities

Anaerobic Digester Description The proposed anaerobic digester (AD) process would be replacing the currently installed and operating aerobic digester process at the City of Graceville WWTF. The purpose for eliminating the aerobic digester process is to improve biosolid digestion with better energy efficiency. The new AD process would come with new constructed digester tanks which improve the treatment plant’s infrastructure with new structures and equipment for biosolids handling. The current aerobic digestion process at the Graceville WWTF consists out of 2 aerobic digester basins that are equipped with a fine bubble diffused aeration system. The aerobic digester process contains three 50 HP blowers to supply air to the digester vessels. Current operation requires only 1 blower operating at full load for approximately 16-hours per day. Evaluation of the facility has shown that AD process would operate at reduced power costs to treat the biosolids to Class B Biosolids Standard levels. The current power usage for the aerobic digester process was estimated 240,600 KWh per year which is equivalent to an annual power usage charges of $18,800. Future energy usage and demand charges are likely to increase, creating greater power costs for the operation of the Graceville biosolids treatment process, if the conventional aerobic digester process is continued. One problem the facility is also facing is that the current blowers cannot be turned down sufficiently and approximately 50% of the air generated has to be bled off to the nearby equalization basin. It is desired to reduce the digester energy costs through process improvements and the replacement of energy inefficient process equipment. The AD process biodegrades waste activated sludge organic materials in the absence of oxygen and the presence of anaerobic microorganisms to Class B Biosolids. AD is the consequence of a series of various groups of microorganisms. The three stages of the anaerobic digester process (hydrolysis/liquefaction, acidogenesis and methanogenesis) would be executed in two digester vessels, operated in series. Each digester vessel would be equipped with digester mixing equipment and heat exchanging units to maintain a temperature controlled homogenized substrate for optimum performance results. The generated methane gas will be used to heat the digester biosolids through the heat exchanging units. Excess gas will be burned through a gas torch to prevent the greenhouse gas methane from escaping into the atmosphere. The AD process equipment would include sensors for temperature, tank level and pH monitoring. Integrated to a centralized PLC system with human interface that displays the digester process in real time and provides historical trending. It is estimated the new installed process equipment would reduce the annual power usage costs to approximately 127,677 KWh, which is equivalent to approximately $10,000.



Nutrient side stream loadings from the AD process would be returned to the headworks of the main stream SBR process. The side stream ammonia concentration levels would require additional aeration as well as utilization of reactor capacity of the current SBR tanks. The Graceville WWTF is permitted to treat a monthly average daily flow of 1.1 MGD. The annual average daily flow from August 2015 to July 2016 averaged 1.05 MGD. It is expected that the facility operation would be negatively affected due to the high ammonia side stream loadings which would have an adverse impact on the facilities effluent TN removal rates. In order to compensate the high ammonia and CBOD side stream loadings from the AD process at the Graceville WWTF, an additional EQ basin with an automated pumping system, tank level sensors and flow monitoring would be constructed to equalize the high side stream nutrient loadings to the mainstream SBR process. The current SBR system would also be equipped with a glycerin feeding system including chemical storage tanks, chemical feed pumps with flow metering to provide an additional source of carbon for improving denitrification in the SBR reactors and complying with effluent TN permit standards. The AD process would also increase the side stream phosphorous concentrations compared to the currently operated aerobic digester process. It is expected that increased chemical cost for effluent phosphorous would apply due to the increased phosphorous loadings to the mainstream SBR reactors.

Provide detailed cost estimate of selected alternative.

Item Description Quantity Units Unit Price Totals

1 Mobilization and Insurance 1 LS $35,000.00 35,000.00

2 Demolition and Removal-Disconnect, remove, and dispose of blowers

1 LS $25,000.00 25,000.00

3 Mechanical Installation-VFDs, Blowers, Mixers, Sample pumps, valves, actuators, sample lines, filter

1 LS $210,000.00 210,000.00

4 Electrical Installation-Control panels, power, ChemScan, control and power wiring to blowers, mixers, actuators

1 LS $470,000.00 470,000.00

5 Testing and Training-Equipment and controls testing, staff training and trouble shooting

1 LS $210,000.00 210,000.00

Sub-Total Costs

950,000.00

6 Contingencies 10% % $95,000.00 95,000.00

7 Engineering Design and Permitting 4.60% % $43,700.00 43,700.00

8 Services During Construction 1.80% % $17,100.00 17,100.00 Total Estimated Cost

1,105,800.00



7 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS:

Hold public meeting to explain the project, including cost and impact on user charges; and enable public participation in evaluating project alternatives.

Meet local requirements or 14 days, whichever is greater, for advertising the public meeting. Provide minutes of public meeting and include a copy of the advertisement.

For non-point source projects funded under Section 319 or 320 of the Clean Water Act, the public participation requirement shall be deemed to have been met as a result of the environmental review process.

SIGN IN SHEET FOR The City of Graceville

FDEP SRF Funded, WWTP Facilities Upgrade PUBLIC MEETING

May 9, 2017

PLEASE SIGN IN: Name: Address: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.



ADVERTISEMENT FOR PUBLIC HEARING

Review of Proposed Wastewater Facility Plan for The City of Graceville, Florida

Funded in part through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, State Revolving Fund for Clean Water The City of Graceville will hold a public hearing on May 9, 2017 at 6:00 pm in City Hall to discuss a proposed Wastewater Facility Plan on file with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, State Revolving Fund, Clean Water Program. The meeting will include a discussion of:

1. two potential options and the selected option 2. environmental effects of the selected option and 3. the associated cost of the selected option, to include a review of the dedicated pledge

revenue source for match funding of the recommended alternative The City of Graceville Wastewater System Improvements project proposes to implement needed efficiency improvements within the wastewater treatment plant. Interested persons are invited to attend this meeting. The meeting is open to everyone and open discussion is encouraged. Should you have questions regarding this public hearing, please contact Michelle Watkins at 850-263-3250. **Provide affidavit of above advertisement from local newspaper (here). ***Recommended publishing dates April 30 and May 7, 2017. ****Provide Public Meeting minutes from Clerks Office (here).



8 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY:

Identify revenues to be dedicated to repaying the loan.

Pledge revenue for the SRF loan element of the entire project is to be the City’s Water and Wastewater Enterprise Fund.

Existing/Proposed User Charge System

See the attached Resolution No. 16-0616 – Utility and Public Services Fee Schedule that provides the City’s current Water and Wastewater Rates.

WWTP Improvement, Revenue Summary

The City of Graceville, Wastewater Utilities Department proposes to install new process controls and equipment to optimize the aerobic digester process at the Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) in Graceville, Florida. The purpose is to minimize nutrients discharged in facility effluent, reducing nutrient pollution in receiving waters, reduce facility operation and maintenance costs, minimize reliance on expensive chemical treatments to achieve regulatory compliance, and increase facility reliability by replacing aging aeration blowers with new, more efficient models. Funding of this WWTP improvement is proposed to include a Florida Department of Environmental Protection, State Revolving Fund (FDEP-SRF). The terms may include 80 percent principal forgiveness (grant) and 20 percent local match (loan). The expected loan terms for the 20 percent match are 20 years and 1%. The Vendor has provided an estimated construction cost of $1,105,800 as detailed above on page 12.

Total Estimated Cost $1,105,800

Principal Forgiveness (Grant) 80% $884,640

Local Match (Loan). 20% $221,160

The City’s 20% match would be $221,160

Expected Operations Expenses, Pre and Post Construction

The vendor has completed an onsite pilot program to demonstrate the propose product and the results of implementing the equipment within the treatment process. Their findings are as follows:



Aquaconeer LLC PO Box 15234, Panama City, FL 32406

Phone: 407-913-1495, Email: [email protected]

City of Graceville WWTF Aquaconeer Digester Performance and Power Cost Savings Analysis

Digester Process Performance Estimate

Year Annual Power Usage Savings

Annual Power Demand Savings

Annual Chemical Savings

Cumulative Estimated

Savings

Totals $14,435 $316 $7,000 $21,751

Energy Rate Data The power usage charge and the power demand charge in any period will be determined by applying the baseline rates as defined below.

Energy Type Rate Unit

Average Energy Used $0.0782 per kWhr

Average Energy Demand $6.60 per kW

Based on the Vendors findings presented above, the anticipated annual savings is $21,751 from the Operations and Maintenance budget.

Complete Capital Financing Plan

See the Capital Finance Plan on the following pages.



CAPITAL FINANCING PLAN WW-02b

City of Graceville (Project Sponsor)

Eugene Adams, City Manager

(Authorized Representative and Title)

5348 Cliff St Graceville, FL 32440-2344

(City, State, and Zip Code)

Sterling L. Carroll, P.E., State Engineer Florida Rural Water Association 850-668-2746

(Capital Financing Plan Contact, Title and Telephone Number)

2970 Wellington Circle

(Mailing Address)

Tallahassee FL 32309

(City, State, and Zip Code)

The Department needs to know about the financial capabilities of potential State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan applicants. Therefore, a financial capability demonstration (and certification) is required well before the evaluation of the actual loan application.

The sources of revenues being dedicated to repayment of the SRF loan are Wastewater Revenues

(Note: Projects pledging utility operating revenues should attach a copy of the existing/proposed rate ordinance)

Estimate of Proposed SRF Loan Debt Service

Capital Cost* $221,160

Loan Service Fee (2% of capital cost) $4,423

Subtotal $225,583

Capitalized Interest** $1,128

Total Cost to be Amortized $226,711

Interest Rate*** (estimated at 1.0%, TBD by SRF) 1.0%

Annual Debt Service $12,512

Annual Debt Service Including Coverage Factor**** $14,388

* Capital Cost = Allowance + Construction Cost (including a 10% contingency) + Technical Services after Bid Opening.

** Estimated Capitalized Interest = Subtotal times Interest Rate times construction time in years divided by two.

***20 GO Bond Rate times Affordability Index divided by 200.

**** Coverage Factor is generally 15%. However, it may be higher if other than utility operating revenues are pledged.



Loan Terms and Debt Service

The anticipated SRF Loan Obligation from the 20% match of the final bid price, would be $225,583. Amortizing this amount at 1.00% and 20 years yields a monthly debt service of $1,043 ($12,512 annually).

Monthly Loan Payment

Loan Amount $225,583

Number of months 240

Annual Interest Rate 1.0%

Monthly Loan Payment $1,043

Annual Loan Amount $12,512

Projected Rate Sufficiency Summary

The expected cost savings is $21,751; the calculated annual debt service obligation for the City on the proposed WWTP improvement is $12,512. Implementation of the improvement would yields an annual windfall for the City of $9,239.

Annual Estimated Savings $21,751

Annual Loan Amount $12,512

Estimated Net Annual Savings $9,239

These funds would be realized from the current O&M budget and therefore rate sufficiency exist to implement the project without a rate increase over current practices.



SCHEDULE OF PRIOR AND PARITY LIENS List annual debt service beginning two years before the anticipated loan agreement date and continuing at least fifteen fiscal years. Use additional pages as necessary.

IDENTIFY EACH OBLIGATION

#1 Water & Sewer Bonds, 1994 Series

#2 Water & Sewer Bonds, 1998 Series #3

Coverage % 15% Coverage % 15% Coverage %

Insured (Yes/No) Yes Insured (Yes/No) Yes Insured (Yes/No)

#4 #5 #6

Coverage % Coverage % Coverage %

Insured (Yes/No) Insured (Yes/No) Insured (Yes/No)

Fiscal Year

Annual Debt Service (Principal + Interest) Total Non-SRF Debt Service w/coverage

Total SRF Debt Service w/coverage

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6

2017 56,511 47,627

2018 55,980 47,178

2019 57,051 48,082

2020 56,397 47,531

2021 56,412 47,543

2022 56,412 47,543

2023 56,412 47,543

2024 56,412 47,543

2025 56,412 47,543

2026 56,479 47,600

2027 56,479 47,600

2028 56,479 47,600

2029 56,479 47,600

2030 56,479 47,600

2031 49,560 41,769

2032 49,560 41,769

2033 49,560 41,769

2034 49,560 41,769

2035 49,560 41,769

2036 33,960

2037 33,960



SCHEDULE OF ACTUAL REVENUES AND DEBT COVERAGE FOR PLEDGED REVENUE (Provide information for the two fiscal years preceding the anticipated date of the SRF loan agreement)

FY 2104 FY 2015 (a) Operating Revenues (Identify)

Service Charges (W&S) $1,432,892 $1,533,026

Miscellaneous 5,100 12,725

(b) Interest Income 1,960 1,642

(c) Other Incomes or Revenues (Identify)

-0- -0-

-0- -0-

(d) Total Revenues 1,439,952 1,547,393

(e) Operating Expenses (excluding interest on

debt, depreciation, and other non-cash items) 1,207,232 1,209,207

(f) Net Revenues (f = d – e) 232,720 338,186

(g) Debt Service (including coverage)

Excluding SRF Loans 65,583 63,828

(h) Debt Service (including coverage) for

Outstanding SRF Loans 14,388 14,388

(i) Net Revenues After Debt

Service (i = f – g – h) $152,749 $259,970

Source: Annual Audits for 2014 (p. 17) & 2015 (p. 17)

Notes:



SCHEDULE OF PROJECTED REVENUES AND DEBT COVERAGE FOR PLEDGED REVENUE (Begin with the fiscal year preceding first anticipated semiannual loan payment)

FY FY FY FY FY

(a) Operating Revenues (Identify)

$ 1,686,329 $ 1,770,645 $ 1,859,177 $ 1,952,136 $ 2,049,743

8,913 8,913 8,913 8,913 8,913

1,642 8,913 8,913 8,913 8,913

(b) Interest Income

(c) Other Incomes or Revenues (Identify)

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

(d) Total Revenues 1,696,883 1,788,470 1,877,002 1,969,961 2,067,568

(e) Operating Expenses1 $ 1,330,128 $ 1,396,634 $ 1,466,466 $ 1,539,789 $ 1,616,779

(f) Net Revenues (f = d - e)

$ 366,755 $ 391,836 $ 410,536 $ 430,172 $ 450,789

(g) Existing Debt Service on Non-SRF Projects (including coverage)

103,158 105,133 103,928 103,955 103,955

(h) Existing SRF Loan Debt Service (including coverage)

0 0 0 0 0

(i) Total Existing Debt Service (i = g + h)

103,158 105,133 103,928 103,955 103,955

(j) Projected Debt Service on Non-SRF Future Projects (including coverage)

0 0 0 0 0

(k) Projected SRF Loan Debt Service (including coverage)

14,388 14,388 14,388 14,388 14,388

(l) Total Debt Service (Existing and Projected) (l = i + j + k)

117,546 119,521 118,316 118,343 118,343

(m) Net Revenues After Debt Service (m = f – l)

$ 249,209 $ 272,315 $ 292,220 $ 311,829 $ 332,446

Source: Projections based on 5% increase per year.

Notes: (i.e. rate increases, explanations, etc.) 1. For existing and proposed facilities, excluding interest on debt, depreciation, and other non-cash items.



CERTIFICATION I, Michelle Watkins, City Clerk , certify that I have reviewed the information

Chief Financial Officer (please print) included in the preceding capital financing plan worksheets, and to the best of my knowledge, this information accurately reflects the financial capability of City of Graceville, Florida

Project Sponsor I further certify that City of Graceville, Florida has the financial capability to ensure

Project Sponsor adequate construction, operation, and maintenance of the system, including this SRF project.

Signature Date



9 SCHEDULE: • Schedule for implementing the recommended facilities

Task Month and Year

Submit the Facilities Plan and RFI to State March 2017

Submit design documents, obtain permits, and acquire sites (as necessary) March, 2017

Listing on SRF Priority List for Preconstruction Planning activities. May 2017

Bidding May 2017

Project awarded June 2017

Equipment obtained August 2017

NTP and Installation begins September 2017

Complete activity (such as construction or non-structural BMP) November 2017

Project Closeout December 2017

Begin payments to SRF June 2018



10 ADOPTING RESOLUTION: Specific Authorization to implement the planning recommendations.

City Staff to complete sample resolution below and provide executed Adopting Resolution

RESOLUTION Number

[SAMPLE]

“A RESOLUTION OF CITY OF GRACEVILLE, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE STATE REVOLVING FUND LOAN PROGRAM; MAKING FINDINGS; AUTHORIZING THE LOAN APPLICATION; AUTHORIZING THE LOAN AGREEMENT; ESTABLISHING PLEDGED REVENUES; DESIGNATING AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES; PROVIDING ASSURANCES; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE.”

WHEREAS, Florida Statutes provide for loans to local government agencies to finance the construction of wastewater treatment facilities; and

WHEREAS, Florida Administrative Code rules require authorization to apply for loans, to establish pledged revenues, to designate an authorized representative; to provide assurances of compliance with loan program requirements; and to enter into a loan agreement; and

WHEREAS, the State Revolving Fund loan priority list designates Project No. WWLoan Number as eligible for available funding; and

WHEREAS; the City of GRACEVILLE, Florida, intends to enter into a loan agreement with the Department of Environmental Protection under the State Revolving Fund for project financing.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GRACEVILLE, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION I. The foregoing findings are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof.

SECTION II. The City of GRACEVILLE, Florida, is authorized to apply for a loan to finance the Project.

SECTION III. The revenues pledged for the repayment of the loan are net water and sewer system revenues after payment of debt service on the City’s Series 1994 Water and Sewer System Revenue Bonds and the Series 1998 Water and Sewer System Refunding Revenue Bonds.

SECTION IV. The City Manager is hereby designated as the authorized representative to provide the assurances and commitments required by the loan application.

SECTIOIN V. The Mayor is hereby designated as the authorized representative to execute the loan agreement which will become a binding obligation in accordance with its terms when signed by both parties. The Mayor is authorized to represent the City in carrying out the City’s responsibilities under the loan agreement. The Mayor is authorized to delegate responsibility to appropriate City staff to carry out technical, financial, and administrative activities associated with the loan agreement.



SECTION VI. The legal authority for borrowing moneys to construct this Project is ______, Florida Statutes.

SECTION VII. All resolutions or part of Resolutions in conflict with any of the provisions of this Resolution are hereby repealed.

SECTION VIII. If any section or portion of a section of this Resolution proves to be invalid, unlawful, or unconstitutional, it shall not be held to invalidate or impair the validity, force, or effect of any other section or part of this Resolution.

SECTION IX. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption.

PASSED and ADOPTED this ______ Day of _______________[month], ________ [year].

ATTEST APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY

City Clerk City Attorney

Mayor



11 HOUSE KEEPING ITEMS:

State Clearinghouse (SCH) Review

Submit one electronic copy of the planning document (electronically signed and sealed by a P.E. registered in the State of Florida) to the State Revolving Fund. This document will then be forwarded to the SCH who will then distribute the plan electronically.

SCH review process takes 6 to 8 weeks

Department Actions

The Department reviews the planning documents and works with project sponsors to ensure that planning requirements are met. In addition, Department staff will be responsible for the following actions.

Environmental Review

DEP performs an environmental review for all projects. The environmental review establishes the environmental significance of a proposed project and establishes the Department's intention to make funding available for the project.

For each project, the DEP publishes a Florida Environmental Information Document (FEID) in the Florida Administrative Weekly.

Acceptance of Planning Documents

Upon completion of all planning requirements, the Department will issue a letter accepting the planning document.

Other Planning Related Issues

To get on the fundable portion of the priority list requires the following readiness-to-proceed requirements.

Completion of the planning requirements as described above.

Department acceptance of biddable plans and specifications.

Certification of availability of all projects sites necessary for the purpose of construction, operation, and maintenance over the useful life of the facilities.

Permit (as-required).

The planning document shall be signed and sealed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida. The approval process is estimated to take approximately 3 months once a complete document has been submitted by the sponsor’s engineer.

Projects are subject to removal from the fundable portion of the priority list if the loan application is not submitted within 120 days of placement on the fundable portion of the priority list and are also subject to removal if the loan agreement has not been executed within 210 days of being placed on the fundable portion of the priority list.

Loans are awarded on a “first come, first serve” basis.

City of Graceville, Florida - Better Buildings Initiative...the State Revolving Fund (SRF) funding...

Documents

Transcript of City of Graceville, Florida - Better Buildings Initiative...the State Revolving Fund (SRF) funding...