Loading...
Agenda Workshop 11-14-00 CITY COMMISSION CITY OF DELRAY BEACH. FLORIDA SPECIAL MEETING & WORKSHOP - NOVEMBER 14, 2000 6:00 P.M. - FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM The City will furnish appropriate auxilmy aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program or activity conducted by the City. Contact Doug Randolph at 243-7127 (voice) or 243-7199 (rDD), 24 hours prior to the program or activity in order for the City to reasonably accommodate your request. Adaptive listening devices are available for meetings in the Commission Chambers. NAMING RIGHTS CONTRACT WITH FLIGHT MEDIA: Consider a report from Flight Media on the stares of the naming rights contract and an associated request for an extension of the contract which is due to expLre on November 17, 2000. APPOINTMENT OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL/ADDERLY VS. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH: Consider approval of the appointment of outside counsel for the City m the referenced matter. 3. 4. 5. WORKSHOP AGENDA Education issues: · Recommended boundaries for Orchard View Elementary, Plumosa Elementary and Carver Middle Schools · Consideration of the purchase of vacant lands for future school sites · Consideration of the creation of an Education Board Coordinator position Feasibility study of skate park in Delray Beach Police compensation package Barrier Island water reuse project Commission comments Please be advised that if a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at this meeting, such person will need to ensure that a verbatim record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. The City neither provides nor prepares such record. f4ov-Og-O0 01:33P Alex McKenzte 770 Ei6g g722 P.02 Thuredey, November 09, 2000 D~vid Harden Ct~ Manager The City of DMmy Besch 100 NW let Ave. Oelmy Beech. FL 33444 Vie Fmx: ~4t-243-~'t99 Deer David, Mayor $chmldt and membe~ of the Dstray Bemch City Council: As you know by rny rno~ recent report sent to Bmhm Dubln which was presented to yOu on October 10th, Flight Media does not at the prase~ time have a sponsor for tim naming rlght~ of the Delray Beach Tengis Complex. This letter Is to request an extension of the contract avmrded me in May end which ends on November 17, 2000. I woulcl like to make a fo~al prc;c;;~etlorl for an exte~Won to the city <3~uncil in Paf~on on November 14, 2000. This Is a brief written summery of why I feel the city sllould give Flight Media an ext~sion, As I ~ated in my racet recent report the e~onomy has ceffainly been in somewhat of a turmoil s~nce the beginning of apHng end the clown turn of the stock market. The uncertainty of vCqat wfl~ happen with the eco~x~ny and the elections is eiso causing companies to pay mom attention to the budget process going into 2001. Many companies have experienced huge paper iocees ~ith what is going on with th~ stock market ~ though they am considered solid finandally. This hes torced companies to deley or make some drastic desisions concerning their nmrkeflng end advertising budgets. The~e are decisions that they I~ave not had to make over the last ten years. Marketing and edverti~ing budge~ come right off the top and in turn companies whose stock has been on a declined are mdu~ing t,'-~T,~ budgets to make their finencists look stronger for Well Street. Many companies who would normally make budget decision~ by the third quaffer have not made decisions as of yet. This has made it difficult for me to pin some clients down as to wh~her or nat they are even Inten~ted. The tennis complex is a yep/particul~ type of facility which datum-nines what type of companies I present tt to, This would be the first tennis stadiums that I know et', that has a naming rigMs sponsor. If a company is going to tie their trams into an event or a facility they have a specific reason in mind. The rno~ common being the oplx~rtunity for branding coltaln produots or se~ices. I am constantly Ionking to find newways to com, lnce a company this oRconunity has a tremendous value to offe~ while tying into its present end futura marketing plans. Many companies I have talked to have been puffing money into go~f rsiated alx~nsomntps and I~eve not evon thought about tennis even though the consumer demographics are the ~ame. Tennis has nc~ ~ gatting the same media attention thet ~ is getting at the present time. Brahm Dui=in and nts people have done an excellent job in bringing more eves~ to the complex whte. J~ certainly helps mewhen I talkto polentiat cllents about what isgoing on at thecemplex. Brahmand I are constenay tatRlng abou{ the various things I am doing in pr~f~ntlng the facility before putting it into effect. I have made some edJustmente, in the dollars pertaining to what a client v, ould pay for this oppodunlty. I realize in the contract that is asys that the minimum · corngany can pay is $250,000 a year. The present sponso~hip package starts at $150,000 in year one and graduating up to $500.000 in year ten. I changed this because when looking at the market today and knoudng how advertisers think concerning this type of opportunity it made sa~ae. The total dollars for this project now comas out to 3.2 million ever ten years instead of 1.2 ever five years. This is r~ est in stone becmam I can esaure you that whenit corneadown toit, a oompany will want to dosome negotiating offof those numhem. I havesot the hottom number at the $150,000. What would be negotiated is the amount of yeer~ and the number on ttm heck e~d. But, I have also put limits on this. It is, not less than six yearn and total dolla~ of 1.3 million. My job is tO establish an agreement that will be both beneficial to the city and the ~oormor. I know my changing this has concerned some city courmll memhem. Please keep in mind though, that it also states In the contract that the city has the right to turn anything down I bring to them. Nov-09-O0 0~:34P Alex NcKenzte 770 B69 97~ P.03 Page 2 I also wa~ed to Ixtng you up to date on the pofential clients that heys a true thterest in the proj~t This I hope wa; give yOu another reeaco you would want to extend the ccotmct. Those intefestad at present are SBC, The Principal Group, AXA Equitable, Sun America, Lincoln Ficanctai, Northwest Mutual, DLJ Direct and JW Genesis. The Principal Group, AY, A, Lincoln Flnan=ial and Northwestern Mutual am reviewing their budgets and prolx=als at this time. They tell me they should have a better feel for thlng~ by the first of December. JW Genesis and DLJ Direct were both recently acquired by othe~ fin~s. DLJ Direct was bought out by sn investment banking firm in Boston, they are still very Interested but will not know how things will shake out for marketing d~lars until the first of the year. JVV Genesis was bought out by First Union Securities and told me that anything to do with them would now have to go through First Union Securities. I have contacted First Union and se~t them a prolX)s~l packel. Sun America Is very intemMed but I got c~ugM up in a pemonnal change which did not allow the ~1 the oppo~lunlty to be ixesented within the proper time frame because certain people were not aware of it, After having discussions with their top marketing people they are Mill trying to find a way to see ff it can fit into their budget for 2001, if not they tell me it looks very good for 2002. The strongest reslx)nse I have received is from SBC which Is Southw~tem I~dl one of the oltginal baby Bells. They are coming into the Southeaate~n mart(at end want to make a strong presence in Florida. They are looking for certain concessions that I have discuss1 with Brahm and he working on. If these concessions can be rna{ then we will begin serious negotiations by the middle of December. So, wh~ it ~mes down to la wily should the city continue to use Flight Media as its repmamtative for this project. As you can see I have worked very hard In pre~'~ng this IXOjant to a variaty of componk~, Many of them am financially related because it fits the demographic profile of the eveflta end the facility in general. I have contacted local retail companies based in the South Florida area ~ unfortunately do no{ have an Interest in suppoding the facility. I want you all to ur.~i=-~tftd the kind of effo~ I have put into this project, Sometimes I can ~ es much as eight to twelve hours a day o~ the phone doing follow up just trying to make sum the proposal got Into the right hands. Many times the Foposal moves o~ to olher deparlmant~, Individuals er the cileeta ad agency for first review, wile In tom I have to try and convince fo push it up the ladder. This takes s lot of time, effort and diligence on my part to continue to follow up with each and ove~y prospect until I receive an answer one way of another. In some cases I have made up to fifteen phone calls before I was even able to di~uss the opportunity with the individual I sent it to. I can assure you they are not siting around with bated breath waiting for me to contact them. They are ats~ reviewing at least twenty to thirty proposals at any one time. So my diligence is important to be sum the this project does no{ get lost In the shuffle and remains in the forefront until I receive some so~t of dec-Jsion. There am not many comflanie~ like Flight Media who do this typo of I:~roje~l. Most agencies such es F[igM Me<tls will not take on a project suCh es this unless they know they have a prospect in hand. Usually it is because they do not v~nt to dedicate an individual to take the time to go through such a search. This is why I get these type pro)acta becaues I know no one is truly willing to wori( the way I do, I believe In (letlveitng before you collect any mOney for a project such as this and there are not any other people in my Indu~ry that I know of who are willing to take these kind of ~hences. I truly believe in this project for a variety of reeson~ and because of that I can not tell you how bediy I wallt It to ~.,~.7~1. I am a hags fan of tannia and can think d no~hlng be~er than to be Involved in the events going on at the c~rnple~. I love the South Florida area and all that it has to offer and feel very strongly that a company willing to sponsor this project can enhance its position in the market place hecaues of what the area has to offer, I hope you will take all this I~o considafatJon and realize that I am and will continue to be the right pera=n for this project. Nex Mokenzie Pmstdont Flight Media I:ITY OF DELRI:IY BEI11:H CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DELRAY BEACH 1993 200 NW 1st AVENUE · DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 TELEPHONE 561/243-7090 · FACSIMILE 561/278-4755 Writer's Direct Line: 561/243-7091 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: November 9, 2000 City Commission Susan A. Ruby, City Attorney Appointment of Outside Counsel in the Case of Adderly vs. the City of Delray Beach The above case was served on the City on June 5, 2000. The suit contains counts for battery and negligent supervision and/or retention. Due to conflicts, our office recommends the appointment of outside counsel for the City in this case. It is our recommendation that Fred Gelston, Esq. be appointed to represent the City. The cost of representation is $100 per hour. By copy of this memorandum to David Harden, City Manager, our office requests that this matter be placed on the November 14, 2000 City Commission agenda. Please call me if you have any questions. CCi David Harden, City Manager Alison Harty, City Clerk Fred Gelston, Esq. TO: THRU: FROM: SUBJECT: DA~,/,/~. A~TY MANAGER PAI~J~DORLIN(~, AJ~G DII~ECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING WORKSHOP MEETING OF NOVEMBER 14, 2000 CONSIDERATION OF EDUCATION ISSUES (I.E. BOUNDARIES, FUTURE SCHOOL SITES, AND CREATION OF AN EDUCATION COORDINATOR POSITION). Staff with community input have developed alternative boundaries for both Carver Middle School and Omhard View Elementary School and the associated student demographic makeup is attached in Exhibit A and B. A visual presentation of the proposed boundaries will be made at the workshop meeting. The City proposed boundaries provide for a diverse population, which in turn helps to maintain a socio- economic balance and equality within the schools. It is noted that in both plans, only a portion of the pockets being bussed could be eliminated based on the limited school capacity within the City. In light of the above, the Education Board has recommended that the City Commission consider the acquisition of two parcels of land for a future elementary and middle school. The first site is located at the southwest corner of Swinton Avenue and SE 10th Street containing approximately 8.67 acres (Exhibit C - Parcel H). This parcel is desirable, as it is located in the geographical area where the student population exists, is predominately vacant and could be combined with the 3.66 acre parcel that the City owns on the north side of SE 10th Street (Exhibit C - Parcel G). The second parcel is 20 acres in the northwest section of the City's Future Planning Area (Exhibit C - Parcel A) for a future middle school. The last issue that the Education Board would like the City Commission to consider is the creation of an Education Coordinator position for the reasons and basis as outlined in the attached Memorandum from the Education Board. Discuss and provide direction. Attachments: Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C, Memorandum from the Education Board Exhibit A Exhibit B CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIOA POSSIBLE NEW SCHOOL SITES L-30 CANAL 5~ ~6 LINTON LEGEND: ~ - POSSIBLE SCHOOL SITES ~ - SITES WITH AN APPROVED SITE PLAN EXISTING PUBLIC SCHOOLS: 1. ATLANTICHIGHSCHOOL 2. PLUMOSAELEMENTARYSCHOOL 3. BANYANCREEKELEMENTARYSCHOOL 4. CARVER MIDDLE SCHOOL 5. S.D, SPADYELEMENTARYSCHOOL 6. VILLAGEACADEMY 7. PINE GROVE ELEMENTARY 8. ORCHARD VIEWELEMENTARYSCHOOL Exhibit C To: Honorable Mayor David Schmidt and City Commissioners From: Delray Beach Education Board Subject: Education Coordinator Date: November 6, 2000 The City of Delray Beach has always vigorously supported excellence in education among all the schools in the City. The impact of quality education significantly contributes to the reputation of Delray Beach as one of the most desirable communities in South Florida. School quality is the most important factor influencing decisions about where to live. Well performing schools help strengthen the community and stabilize neighborhoods. Increase in property values will be realized and corporate businesses are more likely to locate in areas where quality education flourishes. The ability to maintain quality education is threatened from several factors. These include increasing student populations, inadequate facilities, reduced funds from the Palm Beach County School District, lack of quality teachers, changing school boundaries, etc. The Education Board provides a necessary and important linkage between the City and the schools. We are aware of the immediate needs of the schools and the potential impact these factors have on the quality of education in our community. We continue to address these issues, however we recognize that additional assistance is needed. The recent and current issues surrounding school boundaries points to the fact that the City needs to have information earlier on the planning efforts of the School District to provide more meaningful input at the policy formulation period and the ability to develop alternatives to counter recommendations that are not in the best interest of the City. We need information earlier on deviations from published construction plans that may be detrimental to the City so we can organize appropriate responses. The Principals in our community, both public and private have identified grant writing and mentor programs as significant opportunities to increase the quality of education. However, they lack the resources and manpower to implement these activities. The Education Board believes and recommends that the City should enhance its commitment to quality education by establishing a position of Education Coordinator. The responsibilities of this new position would include but not limited to: Serving as liaison/lobbyist between City of Delray Beach Education Board, Palm Beach County School Board and area schools to take a proactive approach to education issues within the City. Identifying and providing grant writing assistance directly to the schools. Developing and implementing an on going business outreach program with the Chamber of Commerce and local businesses. Providing a "clearinghouse" for education related programs already within the City such as the Education Board, Delray Beach Greater Youth Council, after school programs, summer camp programs, Kids for Cops, Mad Dads, Sandoway House, Delray Beach Library, cultural arts programs (i.e. Milagro, Miami City ballet, Historical Society, etc.). Coordination of School Concurrency. Providing continuous public relation efforts to improve and maintain the public image of Delray Beach schools. Strengthening existing mentorship programs through neighborhood and community awareness and assistance programs. Assisting in the implementation of a public access education channel. Developing and maintaining a City education information web page. We believe this position should have high visibility within the City structure to reflect the commitment of the City and enhance its ability to liaison with Palm Beach County School District, Delray Beach Businesses, civic groups, and the community at large. We further believe that this position will provide a significant return on this investment to the funds received by schools and the overall quality of education in the City of Delray Beach. rlTY OF DELA;IY BER£H DELRAY BEACH AII-AmericaCity 1993 100 N,W. 1st AVENUE. DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 - 561/243-7000 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: David Harden City Manager Joe Weldon Director of Parks and Recreation Feasibility Study on Skate Park November 3, 2000 Enclosed please find 6 copies of the Study of the Feasibility of a Skate Park in the City of Delray Beach for you, the Mayor and City Commission. Dr. Eric Shaw, Ph.D., Chairman and Professor of the Marketin9 Department at Florida Atlantic University, will make a presentation to City Commission at the workshop on November 14, 2000. D~r~cW~olrd°~f Parks and Recreation Enclosures JW:cp Ref:dhskstdy (~ ~p=~ THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS ~/~' 3' ~ A Study of the Feasibility of a Skate Park in the City of Delray Beach ~ presented to . ~ Delray Beach Parks and Recreation Department : · by · · Eric H. Shaw, Ph.D. ~ Chairma. n and Professor ~ Marketing Department ~ Florida Atlantic .University ~ Boca Raton, Flomda 33431 ~ (561) 297-3639 ~ OCtober 23, 2000 2 Executive Summary The purpose of this study is to determine the feasibility of a skate park in the City of Delray Beach. Evaluating feasibility requires answers to a number of questions. Which type of skaters use a skate park? What ages are they? How often do they skate? When and where do they skate? why do some skaters prefer a park rather than skating in their own neighborhood? what is their potential use of a skate park? what will users pay? Survey research was employed to find answers. Two populations offering contrasting viewpoints were surveyed: managers who operate skate parks and students who are heavy users of them. The Operations/Facilities Survey involved a sample of 21 skate park ~anagers, 8 operated by cities and 13 owned privately. The User/Usage survey consisted of 182 students in grades 2 through 12, ages 7 to 17. The Operations/Facilities survey shows that most skate parks do not remain in business long. Those that do, however, have been operating as long as 12, 14 or 30 years and are still-going strong. Most skate parks encourage inline skaters, roller skaters and skateboarders; but do not allow BMX biking nor hockey playing (it is played on distinctive.skate hockey rinks). Parks open as early as 7:00am, and typically close by 10:00pm. Most have 2, 3, or 4 daily sessions, and if lit and supervised include a night session. There are 40-60 pement more skaters during weekends and holidays than on weekdays. The number of skaters per week during the past three years has been relatively stable at skate parks, declining slightly fi.om 258 in 1998 to 230 in 1999, then increasing slightly to 241 in 2000. Eighty-five percent of the parks offer skating at a reduced fee with the purchase of a yearly/seasonal pass. The typical fee for privately owned skate parks is $5 with a pass and $10 without one. Skate fees at city parks arc about half the price, $3 with pass and $6 without. The charge for a yearly/seasonal pass averages $35 at privately owned parks and $20 at those operated by cities. Several city parks allow flee skating, with no yearly pass charges or daily fees, but the skating is without supervision. The majority of skate park users are younger than age 16. Most parks do not offer exclusive sessions for different ages; although a few parks offer occasional special sessions for children under age 7. There are seldom exclusive sessions for different types of skaters; although a few parks provide occasional sessions for BMX bikers only. Some parks also have occasional special sessions for exhibits, demonstrations and group skating lessons. Skaters of different ages (except for very young children, under age 7) and different types of skaters (except for BMX bikers) skate together amiably without any difficulty. Skate parks advertise in a wide variety of media. Most popular are flyers, web sites and brochures. City skate parks are usually located near a sports complex, such as basketball or tennis courts, or are part of a larger recreational park. Private parks are generally stand alone facilities. 3 In the skate park user/usage survey, more than 80 percent of the 182 students surveyed report engaging in some type of skating. Of the skaters, inline skaters account for about 42 pement, roller skaters 28 percent, skateboarders 25 percent and skate hockey players 6 percent. The highest skating participation rates are in the 7-11 age group and the lowest for ages 16 and above. (An IISA study of inline skaters shows that participation in skating occurs in ages 24 and higher; but adults are very light users of skate parks.) By age 10 more than half the students have been skating a year or longer and by age 12 most are experienced skaters. The most popular skating activities arc trick/extreme skating (45 percent), speed skating (18 percent), fun/rccrcation/exercise skating (18 percent) distance skating (11 percent) and artistic/dance (5 percent). Almost 60 percent of trick/extreme skaters say they would frequent a skate park. Park participation rotes are highest among trick/extreme skaters because most skate parks offer what they cannot find in their neighborhood, a course with ramps, half pipes and a variety of obstacles to practice their skills. Stu~lents report skating an average of 3 days per week, for an average duration of almost 2 hours, a total of six hours of skating a week. They mostly skate on weekends and prefer skating during daylight hours. Almost 90 pement of the students surveyed live in the city of Delray Beach or within five miles of it. Students overwhelmingly skate within a mile of their own neighborhood, which involves little more than putting on skates at home and skating off. But the 20 percent who skate two or more miles fi'om home almost always travel by car. The students estimate their average use ora skate park at about 4-5 days a month. Of the 149 skaters in the sample, 15 (10 percent) say they would never use the park and 15 would use it 11 or more days per month. (Offering skating lessons will undoubtedly attract some of the 20 percent non skaters in the sample.) Likely users state they much prefer skating during daylight (75 percent) than nighttime (25 percen0 and on weekends (90 percent) compared to weekdays (10 percent). About half the students sampled have tried scooters, which combines aspects of inline skates and skateboards with a handle. Only one year old, it is already the hot new skating fad among younger students. Scooter riding represents the most rapidly growing segment of the skating population, and thercforc provides an attractive new segment for skate parks to target. From a business standpoint, skate parks make moderate profits at best. From a usage standpoint, skate parks are widely popular with students, particularly younger children. Based on profits, skate parks seldom represent a success story. For city parks, however, success comes from providing residents a valued service. In conclusion, if the goal of the park is to provide school age children with a safe place to practice their sport, with at best moderate profits and morc likely sustaining some losses, particularly in the early years, then in my opinion a skate park in the City of Dekay Beach is feasible and likely to be successful. Table of Contents Executive Summary List of Table Ina'oduction Skate Park Operations/Facilities Survey S _u~nary of Operations/Facilities Survey Skate Park User/Usage Survey Summary of User/Usage Survey Conclusion Appendices A. List of Skate Parks Surveyed B. Cover Letter to Skate Park Managers/Operators C. Operations/Facilities Questionnaire D. Cover Letter to School Principals E. User/Usage Questionnaire F. Pro forma Income Statement for Bumsville Skate Park 2 16 17 4 32 33 34 35 36 37 31 30 Table List of Tables 1. Years in Operation 2. Types of Skaters Using Park 3. City/Private Ownership vs. Single/Multiple Sessions 4. Number of Skaters Weekly 5. Comparison of Number of Weekly Skaters 1998-2000 6. Daily Fee: No Pass/Season Pass vs. City/Private 7. Prices of Season/Annual Pass 8. Percent of Skaters by Age Category 9. Advertising Media vs. City/Private Skating Parks 10. Other Nearby Facilities vs. City/private Skating Parks 11. Number of Skaters 12. Types of Skaters 13. Age Frequency and Pement of Skaters for Each Age 14. NSGA Study of Age Participation for Inline Skating, 1996 15. Years Skating 16. Skating Activities Preferred vs. Frequency of Park Use 17. Skates per Week 18. Hours per Skate 19. Preferred Time of Week Skating 20. Preferred Time of Day Skating 21. Where Residing 22. Distance to Skate 23. Distance Traveled vs. Method of Travel 24. Expected Skate Park Use 25. Preferred Time of Day for Skate Park Usage 26. Preferred Time of Week for Skate Park Usage Page 5 8 9 10 10 11 12 13 13 15 16 19 19 20 20 21 22 23 23 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 6 Introduction Skating is a popular activity, particularly since skateboards were developed and roller skating evolved into inline skating in the mid 1980s. It is estimated that the number of inline skaters has grown to 30 million participants in 1997'. Combining inline skate wheels with a skateboard-like body with a handle, riding a scooter is the hot new skating fad among younger children. Depending on the type and activity of the skater, skating offers many attractions. For most it is fun and recreational, for some it provides exercise and a workout, for still others it offers excitement and a test of skills. Skating is not all positive; however, many express colacem about the hazardous nature of skating, to skaters and to pedestrians. A skate park offers a win-win solution. Skate parks offer a safe haven for both pedestrians and skaters. At a park, skaters are off the sidewalks and streets, thereby avoiding confrontations with pedestrians and automobiles. And while practicing their sport, most parks require skaters to wear safety equipment, such. as a helmet, wrist, elbow and knee guards, thereby reducing injury to themselves. While skate parks offer many attractive features, they are also costly to build and operate. Many, if not most, skate parks do not remain in business long. It may take several years of losing money to build a sustainable user base to ultimately become profitable. Even then, profits tend to be modest. So there is no obvious answer to the question of building and operating a skate park. There are business concerns and there are usage concerns. The purpose of this study is to address the business and usage issues and determine the feasibility of a skate park in Delray Beach. Determining feasibility requires answers to a number of questions. Who uses a skate park? What ages? which types of skaters? How many? How often? when? where? Why do skaters use a park? What will they pay? To find answers requires asking people. This involves survey research. Two contrasting populations were surveyed: (1) operators and (2) users. The first group consists of managers of skate parks in business for at least one year. The second population surveyed consists of potential skate park users, particularly Delray Beach students. These two groups offer opposing perspectives, managers who are in business to supply skate park services, on the one hand, and users who enjoy skating and have a demand for them, on the other. The main types of skaters are defmed by their skates and wheels. Inline skaters, also known as rollerbladers (after Rollerbladem the original inline skate brand), have two wheels in tandem per skate. Roller skates have two pair of front and back wheels per skate. Skateboarders ride on an oval board with two pair of front and back wheels. Skate hockey players use inline skates, but require special equipment, such sticks and pucks, and a hockey skating rink with goal posts for playing. Unless specifically designed for hockey, few skate parks allow hockey playing. 'According to the International Inline Skating Association (lISA), as reported in P & R magazine, September 1999, p. 153. Skate Park Operations/Facilities Survey 7 A major soume of concern in conducting the survey was the large number of skate parks that are no longer in operation. Of more than two hundred skate parks found on the Inte/'net, only about 3040 had a valid address or phone number and could be reached by mail or telephone. This means that most skate parks identified on the Interact have a very short life span. Unfortunately, there are no clear explanations why they may have gone out of business and reasons could range from poor site selection, to weak management, to owner retirement. Nevertheless, the simple fact that as many as 80-85 percent of attempted contacts are no longer in operation means that merely building a skate park does not guarantee skaters will come. On the other hand, the longevity of some of the 15-20 percent that remain in business, a few as long as 12, 14 and 30 years, suggest that some managers have clearly worked out a success formula for operating a skate park. Twenty-one skate parks completed the questionnaire, a response rate of about 60 percent of all skate parks actually contacted., and 10 percent of those identified on the Intemet. Those responding are located in Florida (5), California (10), Texas (2), Georgia (1), Idaho (1), and Pennsylvania (1). Eight are city operated and 13 are privately owned (Appendix A lists the skate parks included in the survey). City skate parks have a different perspective than private parks. City operated parks focus on offering residents a service, with less emphasis on profits. Privately owned skate parks are primarily concerned with making a profit. The cover letter and questionnaire mailed to skate park managers/operators are given in Appendices B and C, respectively. Responses to the questionnaires are shown below. Skate park managers/operators were contacted to obtain information on park characteristics, types of skaters using the park, successful methods of operation, when and where, how frequently and how much they pay, among other questions. The names of skate parks were found using an Intemet search of "Skate Places" and "Skate Parks," as well as various permutations of inline, mllerblade, roller skate and skateboard parks and places. In addition, web sites of "parks" at the Florida Recreation and Parks Association (FRPA) and the National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) were searched. More than 200 skate parks were identified. Each skate park was telephoned to identify the correct contact person, usually the manager or owner, and tb verify the correct address. A questionnaire was then mailed. If there was no response to the mailing, in some cases the skate park was phoned and a telephone interview conducted. Question 1. ttow long has your skate park been operating? The number of years each skate park has been operating is shown in Table 1. Table 1. Years in Operation Years Operating Frequency Percent 1 4 19.0 2 2 9.5 3 9 42.9 5 1 4.8 6 1 4.8 7 1 4.8 12 1 4.8 14 1 4.8 30 I 4.8 Total 21 100.0 The mean average length of operation reported by the 21 skating rinks in the sample is 5.2 years. The range varies fi.om a low of just over one year to a high of 30 years. Because the distribution of values are distorted or "skewed" due to one extreme value (30 years, described by the owner as "the oldest skate park in operation"), the median average of 3 years is considered more representative of the distribution.' 'The mean average is the sum of values divided by the total number of values. For example, consider a distribution with the values: 1, 1, 3, 5, 10. The mean average is 20/5=4. The median average is the middle value, with half the values above and half below, in this case 3. In this example, the two averages are reasonably close, indicating a relatively normal distribution. However, if the value 10 is replaced by 90, then the mean average is 100/5=20, which distorts or "skews" the distribution because of one extreme value. In this case the median of 3 is more representative of the distribution than the mean of 20, because the median is not subject to distortion fi.om one or a few extreme values. If the mean exceeds the median, the distribution is skewed toward the high numbers. Conversely, if the median exceeds the mean, the distribution is skewed toward the Iow numbers. A third average is the mode, the value that occurs most frequently. In the example, 1 is the mode. If the mean, median and mode are identical or very close, this indicates a normal distribution in which no one or few values skew the entire distribution of values. Question 2. Is the park open to inline skaters roller skaters skateboarders The various types of skaters allowed in skate parks are shown below. Table 2. Types of Skaters at Skate Parks Type of Skater Inline skaters & roller skaters only Inline skaters & skateboarders only Roller skaters & skateboarders only Inline skaters, roller skaters & skateboarders Total Frequency Percent I 4.8 5 23.8 0 0.0 15 71.4 21 100.0 The table shows more than 70 percent of the skate parks are open to all three types of skating. Five percent exclude skateboarders and almost 25 percent exclude roller skaters. No park excludes inline skaters because they are the most popular form of skating (see Question 11 in the Skate Park User/Usage Survey). Three skate parks also offer a few exclusive sessions for BMX bikers. Question 3. What are the hours of operation? weekdays weekends The hours of operation on weekdays ranged from opening as early as 7:00am to a late opening of l:00pm, closing times range from 8:00pm to 10:00pm. On weekends, opening was from 9:00am to 12:00pm (noon) and closing times range from 6:00pm to lam. One city skate park describes its hours of operation as: "from dawn till dusk" rout the park is unlit and without supervision). Question 4. ~4re there skating sessions? Of the responses, 57.1 pement of the respondents indicated two to four skating sessions per day compared to 42.9 percent who allowed all day skating. The percent city/private ownership vs. single/multiple sessions is compared in Table 3. Table 3. City/Private Ownership vs. Single/Multiple SesSions Sessions: Single Multiple Total Ownership: City 23.8%(5) 14.3%(3) 38.1%(8) · Private 19.1%(4) 42.9%(9) 61.9%(13) Total 42.9%(9) 57.1%(12) 100.0%(21) The table shows city skate parks offer all day skating at almost twice the rote of multiple sessions. The reverse relationship holds for privately owned parks, they have multiple sessions at just over double the rote of a single all day session. Generally, the higher the number of sessions, the greater the amount of revenue. Question 5. About how many skaters: weekdays weekends The mean and median average, as well as the minimum and maximum number of skaters during weekdays (total of 5 days), weekends (total of 2 days) and the entire week (total of 7 days) are summarized in the following table. Table 4. Number of Skaters Weekly Weekday Weekend Total Week Skaters Skaters Skaters Mean 100.6 143.8 240.7 Median 75.0 122.0 225 Minimum 15 40 75 Maximum 250 350 600 The average number of weekend skaters exceed weekday skaters by roughly 40 percent (based on mean or maximum) to 60 percent (using the median or minimum). Question 6. About how many users last year? two years ago The mean number of total skaters weekly last year averaged 229.5 (median 168), ranging from 11 to 577. Two years ago, the mean number of total skaters weekly was: 258.1 11 (median 228), with a low of 20 to a high of 577. A comparison of the three years, 1998- 2000, is shown in tabular form below. Table 5. Comparison of Number of Weekly Skaters 1998-2000 2000 1999 1998 Mean 241 230 258 Median 225 168 228 Minimum 75 11 20 Maximum 600 577 577 There is no discemable trend in the data. The growth in weekly number of skaters from 1999 to 2000 was 4.9 percent based on the mean (and 3.4 pemant using the median). The grovCth from 1998 to 1999 was -11.1 pement using the mean (and -26.3 percent with the median). While 2000 shows an increase over 1999, it has not quite achieved the numbers of skaters since 1998. The numbers for 1999 and 1998 are suspect, however, because question 6 was the only question in the survey with more than three missing cases. For the year 1999 10 (47.6%) respondents did not answer the question, for 1998 11 (52.3%) did not answer. In comparison, question 5 for the year 2000 shows only two (9.5%) missing values. Some missing cases are due to skate parks in operation for less than two years and some to changes in management; nevertheless, this is still a large number of missing cases. Usually, the larger the number of missing cases, the greater the variance, and the less reliable the numbers. There is some supporting evidence for the up-down-up pattern of the data. In one case precise numbers could be confirmed. The skate park in Boca Raton reports the number of skaters during fiscal years 2000, 1999, 1998 were 10,808 (208 weekly), 10,165 (195 weekly) and 11,648 (224 weekly), respectively; in close agreement with the trend in Table 5. Question 7. Is there a charge for skating? daily $ season/yearly pass $ The mean average daily skating fee per session is $6.88 (median $6.00), ranging fi'om $0 to $13.00 without a season/yearly pass. If a season/yearly pass is offered, the daily fee was reduced to a mean of $3.34 (median of $3.50), ranging from $0 to $8.00. The number of parks charging various daily fees with no pass/season pass vs. city/private ownership is shown below. ~ 12 Table 6. Daily Fee: No Pass/Season Pass vs. City/Private No Pass Daily fee City Privat $0 $2.00 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $8.00 $10.00 $12.00 $13.00 1 2 Total 7 1 Season/Year Pass City Private 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 5 1 7 12 For city skate parks, fees cluster in the range of $2.00 to $4.00 with a season/yearly pass. Without a pass fees range from $2 to $6.00, excluding the three parks without any fees. For privately owned skate parks, the modal fee is $5.00 with a pass, and $10.00 without a pass. The mean average fee for a season/yearly pass is $31.40 (median $35.00), excluding the three city parks that do not charge any daily fees for skating. The lowest priced pass is $5 (more of a membership fee) and the highest $119.00 (charged by a private operator, it entitles skaters to use the park free as often as they like). A frequency disffibution of prices for seasonal/yearly passes broken down by the number of city vs. private skate parks is reported in Table 7. 13 Table 7. Prices of Season/Annual Pass Price City Private Total $0 3 3 $5 1 1 $15 1 1 2 $20 1 2 3 $25 1 1 2 $35 3 3 $40 1 I $42 I 1 $50 1 1 $60 1 1 $75 1 1 $119 1 1 Total 8 12 20 Seventeen of the 20 parks responding report offering seasonal/yearly passes. The data show that city skate parks charge much lower prices, based on the median average, for season/yearly passes than private skate parks, $20 compared to $35.00 (excluding the three city parks that charge no skating fees). Some city owned parks charge non- residents a much higher fee for a pass than the price paid by city residents (for example, the skate park in Boca Raton charges non residents double [$50] the resident price [$25] for a semiannual pass). Only resident fees for city owned parks are reported above. Question 8. Whatpercent of users areages 7-11 12-16 17 over The percentages of skaters in each age category are shown below. The mean and median are in close agreement indicating a normal dislribution of values. Table 8. Percent of Skaters by Age Category mean median 7 - 11 34.8% 30.0% 12- 16 45.7% 50.0% 17 & up 19.4% 20.0% total* 100.1% 100.0% Numbers may not total 100.0 percent due to rounding. 14 Managers report that about half of all skaters using their park are in the 12 to 16 year old age group, and about 80 percent are 16 or younger. Question 9. Are there exclusive sessions for different age groups? Seventy percent (1.4/20) of those responding indicate they do not offer exclusive sessions for different age groups compared to thirty percent (6/20) offering exclusive sessions usually for younger age groups, usually age 7 and under. Question 10. Are there exclusive sessions for different types of skaters? Eighty pement (16/20) of the respondents state they do not offer exclusive sessions for inline skaters, roller skaters, or skateboarders versus twenty pement (4/20) offering exclusive sessions; but only for special events, such as races, demonstrations and lessons. Three respondents indicated they offer exclusive sessions for BMX bikers only. Question 11. How do the various groups get along when skating together? (different age groups, different types of skaters). All responses indicate that the various age groups and different types of skaters were able to skate together compatibly. The sole exceptions were very young children and BMX bikers, hence a very few exclusive sessions at the very few skate parks that allow them entry. Question 12. Is the park: privately owned __ or city/county operated Of the responses, 61.9 percent (13/21) identify themselves as privately owned and 38.1 percent (8/21) list city ownership. Question 13. Do you advertise: yellow pages brochures newspapers other flyers web site The early waves of questionnaire mailings did not ask a question about advertising. Fourteen responses were obtained from subsequent waves. Table 8 divides the responses by advertising media vs. city/private skating parks. Table 9. Advertising Media vs. City/Private Skating Parks City Private Total Yellow pages 0 3 3 Brochures 5 2 7 Flyers 6 5 11 Web site 4 5 9 Newspapers 1 3 4 Other 3 0 3 Total 19 18 37 City and privately owned skate parks advertise in about the same number of media. For both city and private, flyers and web sites provide the most popular advertising mediums (and usually the least expensive). No city park, in the survey, advertises in the yellow pages and only one uses newspapers. The responses listed in the other category include: skate magazines, city quarterly newsletter, and television (local public station). Generally, the more media employed by the park, the greater the skater awareness and usage. Question 14. Are there any other playgrounds~recreational facilities incorporated in the park or adjacent to it? Some skate parks am located adjacent or close to a variety of different facilities. These include a video arcade, restaurants and snack bars. Some parks are located near or are part of a sports complex: including hockey rinks, swimming pools, soccer fields, tennis or basketball courts. A few are part ora larger recreational park. About a third of the parks are free standing and have no other playgrounds or recreational facilities nearby. A comparison of facilities vs. city/private is shown in the table below. 16 Table 10. Other Nearby Facilities vs. City/Private Skating Parks City Private Total Recreational park 3 0 3 Restaurant/snack bar 0 1 1 Stand alone 1 7 8 Sports facilities 3 5 8 Other 1 0 1 Total 8 13 21 The table shows that most city skate parks are part of a larger recreational or sports complex, while the majority of private skate parks are stand alone facilities. 17 Summary of Operations/Facilities Survey The skate park Operations/Facilities survey shows that most skate parks do not remain in business long, but those that do have been operating as long as 12, 14 or 30 years and am still going strong. Most skate parks encourage inline skaters, roller skaters and skateboarders; but do not allow BMX biking nor hockey playing (it is played on distinctive skate hockey finks). Parks open as early as 7:00am, and typically close by 10:00pm. Most have 2, 3, or 4 daily sessions, and if lit and supervised include a night session. There are 40-60 percent more skaters during weekends and holidays than on weekdays. The n~umber of skaters per week during the past three years has been relatively stable at skate parks, declining slightly from 258 in 1998 to 230 in 1999, then increasing slightly to 241 in 2000. Eighty-five percent of the parks offer skating at a reduced fee with the purchase of a yearly/seasonal pass. The typical fee for privately owned skate parks is $5 with a pass and $10 without one. Skate fees at city parks are about half the price, $3 with pass and $6 without. The charge for a yearly/seasonal pass averages $35 at privately owned parks and $20 at those operated by cities. Several city parks allow free skating, with no yearly pass charges or daily fees, but the skating is without supervision. The majority of skate park users are younger than age 16. Most parks do not offer exclusive sessions for different ages; although a few parks offer occasional special sessions for children under age 7. There are seldom exclusive sessions for different types of skaters; although a few parks provide occasional sessions for BMX bikers only. Some parks also have occasional special sessions for exhibits, demonstrations and group skating lessons. Skaters of different ages (except for very young children, under age 7) and different types of skaters (except for BMX bikers) skate together amiably without any difficulty. Skate parks advertise in a wide variety of media. Most popular are flyers, web sites and brochures. City skate parks are usually located near a sports complex, such as basketball or tennis courts, or arc part ora larger recreational park. Private parks are generally stand alone facilities. Having examined the operations of skate parks the report now considers the people who use them. Skate Park User/Usage Survey 18 The original intent was a survey of several of the public schools in Delray Beach. A cover letter with a sample questionnaire was mailed to the principals of all six. public schools soliciting their support. Letters were followed-up with telephone calls. In one conversation it was learned that surveying public school students requires prior approval by the Research and Evaluation Committee of the School District of Palm Beach County. The committee's number one guideline requires that research "have significance for the improvement of education." This mseamher engaged in several amiable conversations with various committee staff. It was ultimately determined, however, that a feasibility study of a municipal project, no matter how well intentioned and despite the obvious after school benefits to students, was too far removed fi.om the educational requirement. Consequently, the four private elementary schools in Delray Beach were solicited to survey their students, using the same procedure, letters followed by phone calls. Three declined to participate, but one agreed. The main survey used in this study consists of 161 students at Trinity Lutheran Elementary School in grades 2 through 8, ages 7 to 14. This student sample was supplemented with a prior survey of 21 student members of the Delray Beach Youth Council, mainly in grades 9 through 12, ages 14 to 17. Thus, the total usable sample contained 182 students, in grades 2-12, ages 7 to 17. A third survey involved more than 100 children attending a summer camp at S.D. Spady Elementary School. This survey included preschoolers, kindergarten and first graders, ages 4 to 6, among others. Unfortunately, the responses were not considered usable because the questionnaires were filled-in by camp counselors, and in many cases it was apparent that answers were highly repetitive and heavily biased (a misguided attempt to please the researcher). Consequently, the S.D. Spady sample was discarded. The cover letter and actual questionnaire are shown in Appendices D and E, respect- ively. Questions and responses are shown below. People of school age are the principle users of skate parks. To determine ages and types of skaters, how, when and where they skate, and particularly, skaters' potential skate park usage, a student survey was conducted. Actually, three surveys of users and usage were undertaken. 19 Question 1. I am an: inline skater roller skater skate hockey player I do not skate skateboarder The number of students reporting they are skaters of one type or another is shown in Table 11. Table 11. Number of Skaters Frequency Percent Number of skaters 149 81.9 Do not skate 33 18.2 Total' 182 100.1 Students engage in some type of skating, activity by a ratio of more than four to one. It should be noted that on these types of surveys respondents have an inherent tendency to exaggerate in favor of satisfying the expectations of the researcher. Consequently, results should be regarded as optimistic. Of those who skate, the various types of skating preferred are stated below. Table 12. Types of Skaters Frequency Percent Inline skater 90 41.5 Roller skater 60 27.6 Skateboarder 54 24.9 Skate hockey player 13 6.0 Total types of skaters# 217 100.0 More skaters prefer inline than any other type of skating, roller skating and skate- boarding are about even, and the fewest number of students play skate hockey. 'Percents may not total 100.0 due to rounding. ~Total types of skaters exceed number of skaters because many students choose two or more skating activities (eight students choose three: inline, roller, and skateboarding). Question 2. 1 am years old, and ! am in grade __in school The age distribution of respondents and the percent who are skaters, of one type or another, for each age are listed below. Table 13. Age Frequency and Percentage of Skaters for Each Age Percent who Age Frequency are Skaters 7 21 90.5 8 16 93.8 9 21 95.2 10 19 59.5 11 33 96.9 12 25 72.0 13 20 70.0 14 11 56.4 15 5 60.0 16 5 40.0 17 6 33.3 Total 182 The table shows the highest concentration of skaters in the 7 to 11 age group, and the lowest percentages for ages 14 and above. The particularly low percentage of skaters aged 16 and 17 probably results from their obtaining auto permits and shifting interests to other activities. Another perspective on age participation is provided by a National Sporting Goods Association Survey, for inline skating only, shown in the following table. Table 14. NSGA Survey of Age Participation for Inline Skating, 1996 Percent of Age Inline Skaters Under 14 14-17 18-24 25-35 36-44 65 and over 44.7 13.7 11.0 16.0 10.1 .6 Total 95.5 (Source: National Sporting Goods Association, as reported in P & R magazine, September 1999, p. 155.). 21 The table (inadvertently?) omits ages 45-64, which presumably make up the missing 4.5 pement of the total. The P & R article cited above does not provide information on the number sampled or the survey methodology, but does provide an International Inline Skaters Association (IISA) estimate of 30 million inline skaters in 1997. Assuming the figures am valid, table 14 reports the highest participation rates for inline skaters in the under 14 age bracket, as found in this study for skaters of all types. Although the NSGA Survey indicates 31.2 pement of adults aged 25 and above are inline skaters, casual observation shows there are much fewer adult roller skaters and skateboarders. Also, few people in the older age groups frequent skate parks. Nevertheless, the NSGA data (Table 14) show agreement in the overlapping school age categories with Table 13, and thereby supports the present study. Question 3. 1 have been skating for years. The number of years of skating experience reported by students is listed in Table 15. Table 15. Years Skating Years Frequency Percent skating 1 10 6.8 2 21 14.3 3 23 15.6 4 25 17.0 5 21 14.3 6 20 13.6 7 12 8.2 8 11 7.5 10 2 1.4 11 1 .7 12 1 .7 Total 147 100.0 By the time students reach age 10, more than half have been skating a year or longer. By age 12 most are experienced skaters. 22 Question 4. 1 like: trick/extreme skating artistic/dance skating distance skating speed skating other Table 16 shows the kinds of skating activities students prefer and a weighted average of park use for that activity, with both expressed as pementages. Table 16. Skating Activities Preferred vs. Frequency of Park Use Preferred Activity Percent Percent likely Preferring to frequent Activity Skate Park Trick/Extreme 45.3 58.5 Artistic/Dance 5.4 6.4 Distance 10.8 7.3 Speed 18.2 15.4 Hockey 2.7 1.7 Other: Fun/Recreation/Exemise 17.6 10.7 Total 100.0 100.0 Almost half of the skaters responding prefer trick/extreme skating (also called aggressive skating), which involves ramps, half-pipes, cones, ascents with steep descents, and lots of large obstacles. Skate parks offer an ideal environment to provide such obstacles, which cannot be found in the local neighborhood, hence the high percentage of likely park use among trick/extreme skaters. Artistic and dance skating, one of the least preferred activities among respondents, entails tums, spins, and jumps, solo or with a skate parmer. These skaters require a surface flee of obstacles, and skate parks do not feature any special attraction beyond a smooth surface. As their names imply, distance skaters like long skates and speed skaters like to race. Both distance and speed skaters prefer a smooth straight surface or a long oval rather than a small radius circle. Skate hockey players require special park equipment (goal posts), as well as personal equipment (such as helmets, sticks, and pucks), which does not blend well with either an obstacle course or other skaters. Question 5. On average, I skate about days a week The average number of days skating per week is reported below. 23 Table 17. Skates per Week Days Frequency Percent .5 8 5.4 1.0 37 25.2 1.5 1 .7 2.0 18 12.2 3.0 31 21.1 4.0 23 15.6 5.0 14 9.5 6.0 7 4.8 7.0 8 5.4 Total 147 100.0 Students report skating a mean and median average of 3 days per week, almost every other day, ranging from a low of one skate per two weeks to skating daily. Question 6. On average, I skate for about hours per skate The average number of hours per skate is found in the table below. Table 18. Hours per Skate Hours Frequency Percent .3 1 .7 .5 10 6.9 1.0 46 31.7 1.5 14 9.7 2.0 50 34.5 2.5 4 2.8 3.0 17 11.7 4.0 3 2.1 Total 145 100.1 The mean average duration per skate is 1 hour 42 minutes (median 2 hours), ranging from a low of about 20 minutes to a high of 4 hours. Seventy-five percent of the skaters 24 report skating between 1 and 2 hours per skate. The Skate Park'Operations/Facilities Survey, Question 4, indicates 2 hours as the minimum skate session, 3 hours as the typical session offered, and a number of parks offer 4 hour sessions. This table shows a 2 hour session will satisfy about 84 percent of skaters, 3 hours about 98 percent, and a 4 hour session will satisfy 100 percent of all skaters. Multiplying the reported average 3 days per week of skating, in the previous question, with the median average 2 hours per skate, indicates that skaters engage in some form of skating activity an average of 6 hours per week. Question 7. 1 skate mostly on: weekdays weekends The time of week skaters prefer is stated in Table 19. both Table 19. Preferred Time of Week Skating Frequency Percent weekdays 6 4.0 weekends 48 32.2 both 95 63.8 total 149 100.0 Students report skating on both weekdays and weekends, but overwhelmingly prefer to skate on weekends compared to weekdays. This is probably because students prefer to skate during daylight (see Question 8, below), and there are more daytime hours available on weekends compared to weekdays after school. Question 8. 1 skate during: daytime only.__ nighttime The time of day preferred by skaters is indicated below. both 25 Table 20. Preferred Time of Day Skating Frequency Percent daytime 43 28.9 nighttime 1 .7 both 105 70.5 Toml 149 100.0 Students report skating during'both daytime and nighttime, but overwhelmingly prefer to skate during daytime relative to nighttime. Skating at night in unlit areas is hazardous, even with streetlights or flashlight it is difficult to see small obstacles on the sidewalk or road. Especially for an inline skater, a small t~ee twig or branch, a little sand, or a small hole or crack in the pavement is enough to trip-up an experienced skater and cause a fall. Question 9. 1 live: in Delray Beach within 5 miles of the city more than 5 miles from Delray Beach Table 21 identifies the location where students are living. Table 21. Where Residing Within Delray Beach Less than 5 miles... More than 5 miles... Frequency Percent 122 67.0 40 22.0 20 11.0 Total 182 100.0 Two-thirds of the students live in the city, and the remainder apparently reside in unincorporated Palm Beach county or adjacent cities, such as Boca Raton, Boynton Beach or Highland Beach. Most city skate parks draw primarily from city residents. This would be the case for Dekay Beach, because Boca Raton has a skate park, Boynton Beach has a skate hockey fink, and Highland Beach has few children. 26 Question 10. l usually: skate in my neighborhood __ The distance skaters travel to skate is found below. or travel miles to skate Table 22. Distance to Skate Distance Traveled to Skate Frequency Percent 0 to 1 mile 119 80.4 2 to 5 miles 21 14.2 6 or more miles 8 5.4 Total 148 100.0 Students skate overwhelmingly in their own neighborhoods, but they will travel to skate when desired. Question 11. To get to the places I skate, I go by: car__ skate bike bus other walk Method of travel to skate destinations is compared with distance traveled in Table 23. Table 23. Distance Traveled vs. Method of Travel Method of Travel: Distance Traveled: 0-1 miles 2-5 miles 6 or more Total Bike 24 3 27 Skate 73 3 76 Walk 9 9 Car 6 16 8 30 Other 24 24 Total 136 22 8 166 Most students skate within a mile of their own neighborhoods, which usually entails little more than putting on skates at home and skating off. For skates more than two miles away the usual mode of travel is by car. 27 Question 12. I would use a skate park in Delray Beach. Estimated park usage in days per month is shown below. · days a month Table 24. Expected Skate Park Use Park Use per Month Frequency Pement 0-2 days 44 . 29.5 3-5 days 50 33.6 6-8 days 23 15.4 9-11 days 19 12.8 12-15 days 8 5.4 16 or more days 5 3.4 Toml 149 100.0 The mean average of the original ungrouped data is 5.4 days of park use per month (median 4 days). The table shows just over 60 percent of the students say they would use the park 5 days or less, and 90 percent say 11 days or less. The numbers taper off above 11 days, but the maximum is 30 days per month. This is not as unrealistic as it sounds. Some skaters are very enthusiastic about skating. More than 5 percent of the skaters sampled report skating daily (see Question 5). Question 13. I would use a skate park mostly during the daytime both nighttime The time of day skaters report they would use a skate park is shown below. Table 25. Preferred Time of Day for Skate Park Usage Frequency Percent Daytime 97 53.3 Nightime 28 15.4 Both 14 7.7 None 8 4.4 149 Total 100.0 28 The numbers overwhelmingly favor daytime skating, similar to Question 8 which asks about their current preference. Surprisingly, those skaters reporting both day and night are lower than Question 8. Question 14. I wouM use a skate park mostly during weekdays.__ both weekends The days of the week skaters state they would use a park is shown in Table 26. Table 26. Preferred Time of Week for Skate Park Usage Frequency Percent Weekdays 11 6.0 Weekends 114 62.6 Both 15 8.2 None 8 4.4 149 100.0 Total Again, the numbers for weekends are significantly greater then weekdays, similar to Question 7. And again there is no clear reason why skaters feel they would use a park on both weekdays and weekends less then they report in Question 7. Question 1Sa. lrideascooter: yes no This question was asked on the Trinity Lutheran Elementary School survey, but not asked on the Delmy Beach Youth Council survey. Of the 161 students polled, 78 (48.4%.) said yes, 67 (41.6%) said no, and 16 (9.9%) gave no response. Scooters are the hot new skating fad among younger students. It combines the elements of inline skate wheels with a skateboard with a handle. Scooter riders offer an attractive new target for skate parks. Almost half the sample say they have tried scooters and the numbers are expected to grow rapidly in the next several years. The scooter industry predicts sales of 2-5 million units for 2000, up fi.om virtually zero in 1999. Scooter riders are the fastest growing segment of the skating population and represents an additional skate park target market. 29 Question 15b. Do you have any additional thoughts or comments about a skate park in Delray Beach This question was asked on the Delray Beach Youth Council Survey, but not asked on the Trinity Luthem Elementary School survey. Of the 21 students surveyed, the following comments were offered. Comments: 1. "It would be good because theres (sic) a lot of people who skate and I'~ go there." 2. "Even though I don't skate that much, I feel a skate park would be fun and useful for someone that skates a lot." 3. "We need one." 4. "I would use it and so would my friends I think." 5. "I do not skate often, however I feel there is a need for a park for the many people that skate, I myself know several skaters." 6. "It would probably be more beneficial to ppl (sic, people?) who do trick skating, etc." 7. "Boca has a skate park we should to." It is interesting to note that a third of the students surveyed, even those that do not skate, have enough enthusiasm for a skate park to offer comments. i. 30:' Summary of Skate Park User,Usage Survey In the skate park user/usage survey, more than 80 percent of the 182 students surveyed report engaging in some type of skating. Of the skaters, inline skaters account for about 42 percent, roller skaters 28 percent, skateboarders 25 percent and skate hockey players 6 percent. The highest skating participation rates are in the 7-11 age group and the lowest for ages 16 and above. (An IISA study of inline skaters shows that participation in skating occurs in ages 24 and higher; but adults are very light users of skate parks.) By age 10 more than half the students have been skating a year or longer and by age 12 most are experienced skaters. The most popular skating activities are trick/extreme skating (45 pement), speed skating (18 pemen0, fun/recreation/exercise skating (18 percent) distance (11 pement) and artistic/dance skating (5 percent). Almost 60 pement of trick/extreme skaters say they would frequent a skate park. Park participation rates are highest among trick/extreme skat6rs because most skate parks offer what they cannot find in their neighborhood, a course with ramps, half pipes and a variety of obstacles to practice their skills. Students report skating an average of 3 days per week, for an average duration of almost 2 hours, a total of six hours of skating a week. They mostly skate on weekends and prefer skating during daylight hours. Almost 90 pement of the students surveyed live in the city of Delray Beach or within five miles of it. Students overwhelmingly skate within a mile of their own neighborhood, which involves little more than putting on skates at home and skating off. But the 20 pement who skate two or more miles fi.om home almost always travel by car. The students estimate their average use of a skate park at about 4-5 days a month. Of the 149 skaters in the sample, 15 (10 pement) say they would never use the park and 15 would use it 11 or more days per month. (Offering skating lessons will also undoubtedly attract some of the 20 pement non skaters in the sample.) Likely park users indicate they much prefer skating during daylight (75 percent) than nighttime (25 pemant) and on weekends (90 pement) compared to weekdays (10 pement). About half the students sampled have Ned or frequently ride scooters, which combines aspects of inline skates and skateboards with a handle. Only one year old, it is already the hot new skating fad among younger students. Scooter riding represents the most rapidly growing segment of the skating population, and therefore provides an attractive new segment for skate parks to target. ! ! I i I l 31 Conclusion The stated purpose of this study is to determine the feasibility of a skate park in the City of Delray Beach. So the question is: Is a skate park feasible? If the goal of the skate park is primarily to generate significant profits, then feasibility is doubtful. On the other hand, if the goal is to provide school age children with a safe venue to practice their sport, with at best modest profits but more likely sustaining some losses, at least for the early years, then a city skate park is indeed feasible. From a business standpoint, skate parks make moderate profits at best. Those private parks showing profitability, still represent small business operations. A large number of private parks, if not most, do not make enough profits to remain in business more than a few years. A few city skate parks manage to generate profits by keeping their operating costs low and developing multiple sources of revenue. Some share facilities with other sporting activities as part of a sports complex and some are part of a larger recreational park~ thereby reducing operating costs. On the other side of the profit equation, along with daily skating fees and charges for yearly/seasonal membership passes, there are additional revenue streams. These sources include: equipment rentals, skating lessons, event fees, retail sales, corporate sponsorships, advertising fees, and confectionery sales, among others. (An example is shown in Appendix F, Pro forma Income Statement). Most city skate park are not profitable; however, they can sustain losses and still be successful. An example is offered by a neighboring skate park. A July 30, 2000 proposal requests a 1,875 sq. ft. expansion (costing $140,000) to their existing 12,000 sq. ft. skate park (costing $300,000). The Boca Raton proposal emphasizes "the current Skatepark has been successful, since the opening in March 1998." In several interviews with various Boca Raton city employees, all express satisfaction with skate park participation and regard the park as successful. And yet, in its last two years of operation the park has experienced losses. In 1999, the park generated revenues of about $26,500 against an operating budget of $112,900 incurring a loss of-$86,400. For fiscal 2000, an estimated $27,700 in revenues against $107,300 in costs producing a loss of-$79,600. Based on profitability, losses hardly repmsant a success story. Success comes from providing residents a valued service. From a usage perspective, skate parks are widely popular with students, particularly younger children. One city skate park describes: "the kids waiting at the gate for us to open." The large number of existing city and private parks and their increasing growth attest to the popularity of skating. Inline skating alone has an estimated 30 million participants, and scooter users offer parks a new growth opportunity. The survey of Delray Beach students indicate that 80 percent are skaters, and 90 percent of them would use a skate park. Even if the survey results are excessively optimistic, it is clear that a very large number of skaters would at least try the park. In conclusion, it is my opinion that a city skate park in Delray Beach is feasible and likely to be successful. Appendix A List of Skate Parks Surveyed Eisenberg Skate Park; Piano, Texas Freestyle Skate Park; Kennedale, Texas SK8 Underground; Moreno Valley, California Mission Valley Skate Park; Mission Valley, California Skaters Extreme Skate Park and Pro Shop; Snellville, Georgia Kona Skate Park; Jacksonville, Florida Skate Park of Tampa; Tampa, Florida Monterey Bay SK8 Station; Monterey Bay, California Tauthaus Park; Idaho Falls, Idaho Skate Street Skate Park; Ventura Florida Magdalena Family YMCA; Encinitas, California Skate-N-Sport; Victorville, California South Florida Extreme (SFX) Skate Park; Pembrook Pines, Florida City of Palm Dale; Palm Dale California Dorbrook Visitors Center; Dorbrook, California Fleishmann Park; Naples, Florida Signal Hill Community Center; Signal Hill, California City of Hermosa Beach; Hermosa Beach, California City of Escondido Sports Center; Escondido, California FDR SK8 Park; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania City Boca Raton; Boca Raton, Florida 32 Dr. Eric H. Shaw Professor and Chairman Department of Marketing College of Business (561) 367-3036 Appendix B Cover Letter to Managers/Operators FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY 777 GLADES ROAD P.O. BOX 3091 BOGA RATON, FLORIDA 33431-0991 Date Name of Park Name of Park Manager Address 1 Address 2 City, State, Zip Dear, I am a professor at Florida Atlantic University conducting a research survey to determine skating park usage. The purpose of this letter is to request your help in collecting data for the research project. I would appreciate your filling out the enclosed questionnaire and mailing or faxing it back to me. The questionnaire should take about five minutes to complete. If you have any questions feel free to phone or e-mail me. As an incentive to complete the questionnaire, I will send you a report of skating park usage based on the aggregated data. 'Sincerely yours, Eric H. Shaw, Ph.D. Professor and Chairman Boca Raton · Fort'Lauderdale · Davie · Palm Bea~ch Gardens · Fort Pierce A Member of the State University System of Florida An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution .. ' ' Appendix C ~ " ca Check if you would like a copy of the report. Skatepark Operations/Facilities Survey ~ 1. How long has your skate park been operating? __ 2. Is the park open to inline skaters roller skaters skateboarders __ 3. What are the hours of operation? weekdays weekends i 4. Are there skating sessions? What hours? ~ 10. 5. About how many users? weekdays__ 6. About how many total users last year? __ 7. Is there a charge for skating? daily $__ 8. What percent of users are ages? 7 - 11 __ 9. Are there exclusive sessions for different age groups?__ 11. weekends two years ago season/yearly pass $ 12 - 16 17 over Are there exclusive sessions for different types of skaters?__ How do the various groups get along when skating together? (different age groups, different types of skaters) 12. Is the park: privately owned 13. Do you advertise: yellow pages newspapers other 14. Are there any other playgrounds/recreational facilities incorporated into 15. or city/county operated brochures flyers web site Please fax back to 561 995-8577 the park or adjacent to it Is there any other information you can tell us about your operation or facilities? ': Appendix D Cover Letter to Principals FLORIDA ATLANTIC UN IT ELpD IZ ~ P.O. BOX 3091 BOCA RATON. FLORIDA 33431-0991 Dr. Eric H. Shaw Professor and Chairman Department of Marketing College of Business (561) 367-3036 Date Name of School Name of Principal Address 1 Address 2 City, .State, Zip Dear I am a professor at Florida Atlantic University conducting a research survey, under the auspices of the Delray Beach Parks and Recreation Department, to determine the feasibility of a skating park in Delray Beach. The purpose of this letter is to request your help in collecting data for the research project. To determine skater preferences, it is necessary to survey children and teens of various ages. I would like to survey one section of each grade in your school. I will provide envelopes containing the questionnaires (sample enclosed) with each grade marked on the outside of the envelope. The questionnaire should take less than five minutes to complete and less than five minutes to administer. The instructions are self-explanatory, either fill in the blank or check the best answer. I would appreciate your distributing the envelopes to a teacher of each grade. The teacher will distribute and collect the questionnaires in his/her classroom, and then return the envelope containing questionnaires to the central administration office. I will retrieve the envelopes at the end of the day. I will phone to confirm your participation and answer questions any you may have. Sincerely yours, Eric H. Shaw, Ph.D. Professor and Chairman o · Boca Raton · Fort'L~uderdale * Davie Palm Bee. ch Gardens Fort Pierce A Member of the State University System of Florida An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institut/on  · .. Appendix E Skatepark User/Usage Survey ~ I I am an: inline skater____ roller skater_____ skateboarder I skate hockey player I do not skate ~ 2. I am old years ~ 3. I .h. ave be. en skating fo~__~_ years .. ~ 4. I hke: trick/extreme skatingartistic/dance skating__ ~ distance skating speed skating other 5. On average, I skate about__ days a week ~ 6. On average, I skate for about hours per skate ~ 7. I skate mostly on: weekdays weekends both ~ 8. I ~.kat~ during daylight only nighttime both ~ 9. I hve ~n Delray Beach within 5 miles of the city more than 5 miles from Delray Beach ~ 10. I usually: skate in my neighborhood or travel miles to ~ skate ~ 11. To get to the places I skate, I go by: car walk ~ skate bike bus other ~ 12. I would use a skate park in Delray Beach days a month ~ 13. I would use a skate park mostly during the daytime ~ nighttime ~ 14. I would use a skate park mostly on weekdays weekends ! 15. I ride a scooter: yes no Appendix F Pro Forma Income Statement for Burnsville Skate Park Revenues: User Fees $38,250 Equipment Rental 7,650 Advertising Fees 6,000 Concessions 4,500 Donations 6,000 Concerts 4,000 Demonstrations 2,500 Total Revenues $68,900 Operating Expenses Salaries $8,568 Utilities 1,800 Concessions 3,150 Rental Equipment 6,140 Telephone 1,200 Maintenance 10,600 Liability Insurance 10,000 First Aid Training 1,254 Storage 1,200 Portable Rest Rooms 473 Total Operating Expenses $44,645 Income Before Capital Improvements $24,255 Capital Improvements Chain Link Fencing $10,000 Grading and Paving 5,417 Lumber and Mason~ 2,634 Electrical 4,250 Cement Curbs 200 Concession and Equipment Stand 1,500 Other 254 Total Capital Improvements $24,255 Income After Capital Improvements 0 37 NOVEMBER 2000 PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA BY: Professional Engineering Consu/lants, Inc. 200 E. Robinson Street, Suite 1560, Orlando, FL 32801//1/.~' RECLAIMED WATER FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS CITY OF DELRAY BEACH November 2000 PEG/Professional Engineering Consultants, Inc. 200 E. Robinson Street, Suite 1560 Orlando, FL 32801 (407) 422-8062 -- (407) 849-9402 (fax) CITY OF DELRAY BEACH RECLAIMED WATER FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS Paoe No. 1.1 1.2 Background ................................................. 1 Scope and Objectives .......................................... 1 CltAPTER 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................... 2 2.1 General ..................................................... 2 2.2 Wastewater ................................................. 2 2.3 Water Supply ................................................ 3 2.3.1 Service Area ........................................... 3 2.3.2 Rates and Charges ...................................... 3 2.4 Reuse Facilities ............................................... 6 2.4.1 City of Boca Raton ...................................... 6 2.4,2 City of Pompano Beach .................................. 6 24.3 Palm Beach County ...................................... 7 244 South Central Regional Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Board (SCRWTDB) ............................ 8 CHAPTER 3. POTENTIAL RECLAIMED WATER USERS .................... 9 3.1 3.2 Reclaimed Water Facilities Potential Users .......................... 9 Reclaimed Water Irrigation Demands and Schedules ................... 9 CHAPTER 4. PROPOSED RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM .................. 12 4.1 General .................................................... 12 4.2 Outfall Connection ........................................... 12 4.3 System Configuration ......................................... 12 44 Re-Treatment Facilities ........................................ 12 4.4.1 Re-treatment Requirements ............................... 12 4.4.2 Process Components and Equipment ........................ 15 CITY OF DELRAY BEACH RECLAIMED WATER FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Paee No. 4.4.3 Reclaimed Water Storage ................................ 15 4.4.4 Site Location ......................................... 15 4.5 Transmission System ......................................... 17 4.5.1 General .............................................. 17 4.5.2 Corridor Analysis ...................................... 17 4.5.3 Hydraulic Analysis ..................................... 17 CHAPTER 5 COST ANALYSIS ............................... 19 5.1 5.2 5.3 54 55 General .................................................... 19 Capital Costs ............................................... 19 Cost Comparison ............................................ 31 Operation and Maintenance Costs ................................ 31 Potable Water Impact Costs ................................... 33 5.6 Summary of Costs ........................................... 33 5.6.1 Phasel .............................................. 34 5.6.2 Phase II ................ 34 5.7 58 Rates and Fees .............................................. 34 Other Alternatives ........................................... 36 CITY OF DELRAY BEAClt RECLAIMED WATER FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) TABLES Table ~o. ~ 3.2.1 Potential Irrigation Demands of Reclaimed Water Service Area ........ 11 5.2.1 Unit Prices Utilized for Basic Pipe Installation ...................... 20 5.2.2 Add-Ons ................................................... 21 5.2.3 Cost Estimate for Phase I Reclaimed Water Piping ................... 22 5.2.4 Cost Estimate for Phase Il Reclaimed Water Piping .................. 26 5.2.5 Cost Estimate for Phase I Re-Treatment Facility (2.0 MGD) ............ 29 5.2.6 Cost Estimate for Phase II Re-Treatment Facility (+20 MGD) .......... 30 5.3.1 Capital Cost Comparison ...................................... 31 5.4.1 Cost Analysis for 2.0 MGD Retreatment Facility O&M ............... 32 5.4.2 Cost Analysis for Distribution Piping O&M ........................ 32 5.6,1 Phase I Summary of Costs (Annual) .............................. 34 5.7. I Phase I Summary of Reclaimed Water Rates and Fees and Comparative Potable Water Rates ............................ 35 FIGURES Figure No. Paee No. 2.3.1 Delray Beach Water Facilities and Service Area ...................... 4 4.4.4 Re-treatment Facility ......................................... 16 TOC.3 DB-16I1,0 (11103100) G:L, AO01CRPT CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The City of Delray Beach is served by the South Central Regional Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Board (SCRWTDB) which was founded in 1974 through an interloca[ agreement between the Cities of Delray Beach and Boynton Beach to provide regional treatment and disposal of wastewater. The South Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Facilities (SCRWWTF) presently has a treatment capacity of 24 MGD and provides secondary treatment with flow equalization and disposal by ocean outfall, through the City of Dekay Beach. The City &Defray Beach retained PEC's services in 1996 to perform a planning-level analysis on a potential reclaimed water system within the City's service area. This analysis considered several sites for a re-treatment facility, several layouts for the re-treatment facilities and planned a distribution system which served the barrier island residences and golf courses. The costs determined for thc system prohibited the City from moving forward with this plan. A.~er further consideration, the City of Delray Beach, with the understanding of its interlocal responsibility to the SCRWTDB, considered other means to achieve reuse within its city limits which may be cost effective to implement because of the City's geographic or hydraulic (out fall) location. The City currently utilizes a twenty year old 16-inch Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) crossing to deliver sewage from the Beach area to the SCRWWTF. This existing 16- inch crossing has not been inspected since it was put into operation and is the City's only means to convey raw sewage from the Beach area to the SCRWWTF. In a coordination effort to inspect and rehabilitate the existing 16-inch force main, the City has requested and been granted permission from the SCRWTDB to utilize an existing out-of-service 24-inch ICW crossing as a force main from the Beach Area to the SCRV~'O, rTF. The City realizes that the possibility exists for the existing 16-inch force main to be removed from service, inspected, rehabilitated (if necessary) and returned to service as a potential reclaimed water main connecting the mainland and the Beach Area. Since the ocean outfall pipeline from the SCRWWTF passes through the Delray Beach downtown area and the Barrier lsland area along Atlantic Avenue, and the City has an existing lntracoastal Waterway crossing that could be designated for reclaimed water distribution, the City concluded that a reclaimed water system may be viable. To determine the feasibility of this reclaimed water system, the City of Delray Beach retained Professional Engineering Consultants, lnc (PEC) under its continuing consulting services contract to propose a possible layout for the systems and analyze costs for the system on a planning level. 1.2 Scope and Objectives This study evaluates the potential irrigation demand for a reclaimed water system within the Barrier lsland and selected sites on the mainland and preliminary costs opinions associated with the construction of re-treatment, storage and distribution facilities In this report we will evaluate the cost associated with the installation of a reclaimed water system, addressing capital costs, O&M costs, and lost potable water revenue for a reclaimed water system within the City of Delray Beach G:~., .'~001CRIrr .]. DB-16II.O(III0310O) CHAPTER 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 General The Cit~, currently does not have a reclaimed water system, nor does it operate a wastewater treatment facility. However, many nearby communities do own and operate reclaimed water treatment/re-treatment facilities and distribution systems. The City's wastewater is treated at the SCRWWTF. The City does operate and maintain potable water treatment and distribution facilities which provide water within the City limits and on regular, as-needed and emergency bases to nearby communities. 2.2 Wastewater SCRWTDB is the entity responsible for the treatment ofwastewater collected from the cities of Boynton Beach and Delray Beach. The Board is comprised of City Commissioners from both cities and employs an executive director to oversee daily operations of the Board. Both the City of Delray Beach and Boynton Beach share in the responsibility for providing capital funds for improvements to the treatment facility. The public utilities department of each City has the legal, managerial, and financial responsibility to ensure adequate wastewater collection system planning, construction, operation, and maintenance. Both utilities employ a wastewater collection system superintendent who is responsible for directing the daily activities of the collection system staff5 The SCRWTDB service area includes the City of Boynton Beach, The City of Delray Beach and the oceanside City of Highland Beach, a wholesale customer of Delray Beach. The SCR~SX, ZTF is located in northern Delray Beach, just south of Boynton Beach and west of 1-95. The service area encompasses approximately 31 square miles. The SCRWWTF presently has a treatment capacity of 24 MGD and provides secondary treatment with flow equalization and disposal by two methods - an ocean outfall and a reclaimed water system - described as follows. Ocean Outfall - The ocean outfall is located approximately one mile offshore in the Atlantic Ocean at a depth of approximately 90 feet. The SCRWWTF provides basic secondary treatment for ocean disposal. For this outfall, the facility does not provide filtration nor does it provide high level disinfection required by FDEP for reclaimed water systems. The existing chlorine contact chamber provides approximately four (4) minutes of contact time and the remaining 26 minutes of contact time required by FDEP (CT value = 30) are achieved in the outfall pipe. The ocean outfall can discharge approximately 10-12 MGD by gravity flow. Effluent flow rates greater than 10-12 MGD are either pumped to the ocean outfall or gravity overflow to one of the two fiow equalization tanks for subsequent discharge to the ocean outfall. Two effluent flow equalization tanks with a total capacity of 3.0 million gallons (MG) G:'~...~,001CRPT -2- DB-16/1,0 (I I/DM00) 2.3 2.3.1 provide peak storage reducing the peak flows to the effluent pumps at flow rates above 10-12 MGD. This maximizes the gravity flow to the ocean outfall by supplementing diurnal Iow flows below 10-12 MGD. Reclaimed Water System - The reclaimed water system provides public-access reuse, as defined primarily by Chapter 62-610, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C), to five golf courses within the City of Boyton Beach proper and outlying .unincorporated areas. To provide public-access reuse, SCRWWTF site also houses a re-treatment facility which is permitted to re-treat 10 MGD of secondary treated effluent for distribution. The re-treatment facility consists of additional filtration, chlorination, storage and pumping facilities including Tetra filters (six cells), a chlorine contact chamber, transfer pumps, 3 MG storage tank, and high service effluent pumps. The effluent pumping system consists of three horizontal centrifugal pumps, Nos. I and 3 are 200 horsepower pumps rated at 17 MGD at 55 feet TDH and No. 2 pump is a 350 horsepower variable speed pump rated at 25.5 MGD at 58 feet TDH, and three vertical turbine pumps of 200 horsepower each. The effluent force main consists of 36-inch and 30- inch piping from SCRWWTF, crossing the ICW to a final disposal to the Atlantic Ocean outfall. Water Supply Service Area Each entity of the SCRWTDB independently provides potable water to their respective service areas. The City of Delray Beach provides water service to consumers within a service area of approximately 15 square miles. As shown in Figure 2.3.1, the water service area includes the City of Delray Beach and the Town of Gulfstream. The City is connected to the Highland Beach system on the south. The City provides supplemental water to Highland Beach on an as-needed basis. The City is also connected to Palm Beach County's system, Boynton Beach's system and Boca Raton's system. However, these connections are opened only during emergency conditions. The geographic boundaries for the Delray Beach service area are approximately the Atlantic Ocean on the east, Military Trail on the west, the SFg~D Canal C- 15 on the south, and the Lake Worth Drainage District Canal L-30 on the north. 2.3.2 Rates and Charges Water service within the City of Delray Beach's service area includes customers both inside and outside of the City limits. The general structure of Delray's monthly water charges are an increasing block structure with base charges. Those customers residing outside the City are billed a premium to receive service fi.om the City of Delray Beach. G:\, \O01CRirf -3- DB-I§II.O(IlIO31ffi) BOYNTON BEACH DELRAY N.T.S. ~--~.._._...__.~ ~ ~---~-..~_REACH BOCA RATON I ! CONSERVATION AREA No.1 ~O LEGEND: DELRAY B~CH ~NATER SEEN1CE AEEA ~VATER TREATMENT Pr. ANT WELL OR WELL FIELD [] CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA I ' FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS I Residential water service is billed to the customer with a fixed rate portion and volumetric rate portion. The fixed portion of the residential customer billing inside the City is comprised of two components: a capacity charge and a customer charge. The current capacity charge is $7.93 per dwelling unit while the customer charge is $1.61 and is charged per meter. The commodity charge is a volumetric charge which increases with increased block usage for users within the City. The sane type of charges apply to residential users outside of the City limits (Gulfstream, Highland Beach). With the capacity charge being $9.91 per dwelling unit and the customer charge being $2.01. Likewise, the commodity charges increase with increased block usage outside of the City limits, but are 25 percent higher than those within the City limits. The following lists the costs for the volumetric commodity charges for both inside and outside of the City. Inside Ci~ 0 - 3,999 gal. 4,000 - 20,999 gal. 21,000 - 35,999 gal. 36,000 - 50,000 gal. above - 50,000 gal. $1.09/1,000 gal $1.20/1,000 gal. $1.32/1,000 gal. $1.43/1,000 gal. $t .64/1,000 gal. $1.36/1,000 gal. $1.50/1,000 gal. $1.65/1,000 gal. $1.79/1,000 gal. 5;2.05/1,000 gal. The capacity charge portion ofthe fixed monthly non-res~dentaalhrr~gat~° customer billing is based on meter size equivalents ranging from $7.93, corresponding to a 3/4-inch meter, to $1,004.49, corresponding to a 10-inch meter. The customer charge portion of the monthly billing is no different from the residential users at $1.61. The volume based commodity charges for this user group is however at a uniform rate ors 1.18/1,000 gallons within the City limits. Similar charges also apply to non-residential/irrigation customers outside the City's limit; with the capacity charge ranging from $9.91, corresponding to a 3/4-inch meter, to $1,255.62, corresponding to a 1 O-inch meter, and the customer charge being $2.01. The volume based commodity charges for this user group is also at a uniform rate of $1.48/1,000 gallons outside the City limits. Emergency rate adjustments for water conservation are added as a surcharge to the commodity charge during periods of mandated water restrictions by the South Florida Water Management District. Surcharges for water usage in excess of 15,000 gallons by any customer in an3' one month is as follows: Restriction Phase Overall Reduction in Use Percent Surchar£e Apl~lied I 15% 15% I1 30% 30% III 45% 45% IV 6O% 6O% G,. ,[L~ICRIr''r .5. DB-16I1.0 (I 1103100) I 2.4 2.4.1 Reuse Facilities City of Boca Raton The Boca Raton Reclaimed Water System, known as "Project II~IS" (In-City Reclamation Irrigation System), provides reclaimed water for irrigation to the Sabal Park/Pinelands area, Florida Atlantic University (250,000 gallons per week), Mizner Park, and a number of commercial green spaces along the Federal Highway. The system also provides on-site irrigatirn and in-plant uses (250,000 gallons per week) to the Glades Road WWTF as part of the Phase I construction completed in 1994. Phase II constructio~ expected to be completed this year, will add 400 single family customers, condominiums and golf courses in the southeastern part of the city to the IJ~IS. Boca Raton's reclaimed water is produced at the Glades Road WWTF and includes chemical feed, flocculation, filtration (medium depth automatic backwash sand filters), and high level disinfection (CT value of 30). The Phase I facilities provide an average production of 3.0 MGD with a storage capacity of 3.0 MG and high service pumping facilities to distribute reclaimed water to its customers at 90 psi. The City of Boca Raton's present rate structure for reuse water is comprised of two components: a commodity charge and a customer charge. The commodity charge is a uniform rate of $0.20 per 1000 gallons. However, the monthly customer charge is a per meter charge fluctuating with the size of the meter as follows: 1" $6.00 I V:" $13.50 2" $24.00 4" $96.00 6" $216.00 8" $384.00 A 25 percent premium is added to all rates and charges outside of the City limits. 2.4.2 City of Pompano Beach The Pompano Beach Reclaimed Water Facility (PBRWF) is very similar to the facility proposed for the Beach Area of Delray Beach whereby secondary effluent withdrawn from an ocean outfall is re-treated for reuse. The Pompano Beach Reclaimed Water Facility is permitted to re-treat 2.5 M GD of secondary treated effluent from the Broward County North District Regional g~,rTP's ocean outfall line. The re-treatment facility consists of an Outfall Pump Station, 360 LF of 24-inch diameter influent force main, filter/GST transfer pumps, one 2.0 MG ground storage tank with a separate internal chlorine contact tank, irrigation pumps and chemical feed system. The Outfall Pumps are connected directly to the outfall pipeline and are controlled by either the filter effluent pumps or the level in the storage tank. Reclaimed water is irrigated primarily on the City's 350-acre golf course (0.9 MGD of the total current flow of 1.0 MGD), while the remaining reclaimed water is irrigated in City parks and road medians (Federal Highway and Copan Road). The City plans to expand the reclaimed system to include irrigation of residential areas by Fall of the year 2001. The reuse rate structure for the City of Pompano Beach is also based solely on a volumetric charge.. Because the major reclaimed water user is the City's municipal golf course, the actual charges are "zero net sum" transfers between the Recreational Department and the Water Resources Department. 2.4.3 Palm Beach County The Palm Beach County Reclaimed Water System distribution area encompasses approximately four square miles surrounding the Southern Region Wastewater Reclamation Facility (SRWRF). The system provides reclaimed water for the Indian Springs Golf Course, Westchester Golf Course, Polo Trace Golf Course and approximately 1200 residential homes. The system also provides on-site irrigation encompassing approximately 100 acres and in- plant uses to SRWP,.F. The County's reclaimed system has been in operation since 1997. SRWRF has a treatment capacity of 22 million gallons per day with a current average production level of 6 MGD. At this time, there is no planned expansion for the reclaimed water distribution system. Palm Beach County's present rate structure for reuse water is comprised of two components - a customer charge and a commodity charge. The customer charge is a flat rate of $2.50 per month per customer account. Potable water or wastewater customers are not assessed with additional customer charges for the addition of reclaimed water service. The commodity charge is a fixed rate per meter monthly charge fluctuating with the size of the meter. This rate is billed irrespective of actual consumption as follows: Capacity' Fee per Meter 5/8" & 3/4" $5.00 1" $10.00 1 7.," $120.00 2" $160.00 3" $350.00 4" $1,000.00 6" $2,000.00 G:'~..ACOI CRI'T -7- DIg-16II .0 01103100) 2.4.4 South Central Regional Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Board (SCRWTDB) The South Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility (SCRWWTF) is permitted to re- treat 10 MGD of secondary treated effluent for irrigation. Re-treatment includes additional filtration and chlorination to meet public-access reclaimed water standards as defined primarily in Chapter 62-610, F.A.C. The advanced treated wastewater is provided to five golf courses within the Boynton Beach service area: Hunters Run, Delray Dunes, Quail Ridge, Country Club of Florida and Pine Tree. The SCRWTDB is responsible for maintenance of the re-treatment facility, as well as, the reclaimed distribution piping. The reuse rate structure for the SCRWTDB reclaimed water system is based solely on a volumetric charge. The Country Club of Florida golf course utilizes an on-site lake for storage. The County Club pays $0.20/1000 gallons. The other four (4) golf courses utilize the SCRWWTF 3 MG storage tank and are charged a fee of $0.28/1000 gallons. -8- DI~I 6/1.0 (11103100) CHAPTER3 POTENTIAL RECLAIMED WATER USERS 3.1 3.2 Reclaimed Water Facilities Potential Users The study area for this Reclaimed Water System Feasibility Report is located within the City of Delray Beach between Interstate 95 (I-95) and the Atlantic Ocean from Linton Boulevard to George Bush Boulevard. The potential Reclaimed Water Distribution System could be constructed in two separate phases. · Phase I would include construction of the re-treatment plant and the reclaimed water distribution system east of the ICW. The City of Delray Beach has selected a property west of the ICW, along N.E. 3rd street. This site is adjacent to the 36-inch effluent force main, which connects to the 30-inch ocean outfall for the potential reclaimed water re-treatment site (shown on the aerial map). The distribution system would include all properties within an area bounded to the north by George Bush Boulevard, to the east by the Atlantic Ocean, to the south by Linton Boulevard and to the west by the Intracoastal Waterway. A rehabilitated 16-inch ICW crossing would be utilized as the connector between the re- treatment plant and the Beach Area Distribution System. Phase I1 would include the construction of the Reclaimed Water Distribution System throughout the City of Delray Beach Mainland. The Phase II Reclaimed Water Distribution System would include selected city-owned properties within an area of Delray Beach bounded to the north by Lake Ida Road, to the east by Dixie Highway, to the south by Linton Boulevard and to the west by Interstate 95. As part of this Feasibility Study, potential alignments for a reclaimed water distribution system providing reuse to these pre-selected sites have been developed (shown on the aerial map). Reclaimed Water Irrigation Demands and Schedules The proposed Phase I reclaimed water service area has been divided into ten (10) sections for the purposes of estimating irrigation demands from various potential users and different categories of use. (Refer to the enclosed map for the location and boundaries of the respective sections). Table 3.2.1 presents the ten (10) sub-areas with the respective net pep,'ious land areas and the calculated irrigation demands based on an application rate of 1 ~/: inches per week over the net pervious areas. This is based upon a usage rate of ~/2-inch per application with three (3) applications per week. This irrigation rate is based on a published irrigation rate from St. Johns River Water Management District (S.IRWMD) which recommended an irrigation rate of l/2-inch to 3/4-inch of water per application. Many current rates promoted by jurisdictional agencies including those from SJP, WMD, recently have become more conservative (lower) however, the lower rates appear to be a number that a community might strive for and not an accurate prediction of actual irrigation usage. As shown in Table 3.2 1, the total irrigation demand in Phase I of the study area would be approximately 6,411,000 gallons per week or about 2,137,000 gallons per day. This demand will vaB' with the wet/dB' season demands and will var3' locally with each user. G:,,...[001CRPT -9- DB-Ifi/1.0 (I 1103100) The re-treatment system should be designed to be expandable to accommodate the Phase I1 expansion. Phase II consists of 18 City-owned sites which have been identified by the City for reclaimed water. Net pervious land areas of these developed city-owned sites were estimated from an aerial provided to us by the City. The irrigation demand for Phase II was determined using I V2 inches per week similar to Phase I. As shown in Table 3.2.1 the total irrigation demand for Phase II is 4,026,000 gallons per week or about 1,342,000 gallons per day. Based on the estimated reuse demand the re-~'eatment facility and related systems should be sized to accommodate approximately 2.0 million gallons per day (MGD) for each phase for a total build-out capacity of 4.0 MGD. TABLE 3.2.1 POTENTIAL IRRIGATION DEMANDS OF RECLAIMED WATER SERVICE AREA PHASE 1 I 602~640 13.g 563,46~ 187,823 563,468 391 2 798,312 18.3 746,422 248.807 746,422 518 3 1,116,767 25.6 1,044.177 348,059 1,044,177 725 4 511.209 11.7 477,980 159327 477,980 332 5 825,422 18.9 771,770 257,257 771,770 536 6 646,304 14.8 604,294 201,431 604,294 420 7 990,624 22.7 926,233 308,744 926,233 643 8 614,928 14.1 574,958 191,653 574,955 399 9 684.316 15,7 639.835 213,278 639,835 444 10 65.913 1.5 61,629 20,543 61.629 43 Sublo~l phas~l 157.1 6.410.767 2,136.922 6,410,767 4,452 pHASE II I 341.947 7.85 319.720 106.573 319,720 222 2 124,996 2.87 116.871 38.957 116,871 81 3 159.430 366 149.067 49,689 149.067 104 4 432.988 994 404.844 134,948 404.844 28l ~ 67.518 1.55 63.129 21,043 63.129 44 6 327,573 7.52 306,281 102.094 306.281 213 7 190.358 437 177.985 59.328 177,985 124 8 28.750 66 26.881 8,960 26.881 19 9 77.973 1.79 72.905 24.302 72.905 51 10 106.287 2.44 99.378 33.126 99.378 69 Il 115.365 265 107.866 35.955 107,866 75 12 86,870 2.0 81.223 27,074 81,223 56 13 22.673 0.52 21.199 7,066 21,199 15 14 184.206 4.23 172.233 57.411 172.233 120 15 360,736 8.28 337.288 112.429 337,288 234 16 70.132 161 65.573 21.858 65.573 46 17 368.676 8 46 344.712 114,904 344.712 239 18 1.239.723 2846 1,159.141 386.380 1,159.141 805 SubtotalPha~ll 98.86 4.026,298 1.342.099 4.026.298 2,796 Toml phmcland I1 255.96 10.437.065 3.479.022 10.437.065 7.248 Ir~ gation demandz are hazed on a ½ .inch irrlgat~on uzage per application, three (3) applications per week over the net perviom area. Peaking Factor o. f three {3) is utilized.for peak demand ba~ed on a 4 hour irrigation periad and three {3} applicatio.Z per week. -]1- DB-16/I.0 (11103100) CHAPTER 4 PROPOSED RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.4.1 General This chapter presents the potential set-up for a re-treatment, storage and distribution system for the City of Delray Beach. The basic concept of the Reclaimed Water System would be to withdraw secondary treated wastewater from the 36-inch diameter effluent force main outfall passing along NE 3rd Street, re-treating the secondary effluent to state standards for public access reclaimed water systems and storing and distributing the reclaimed water to irrigation users along the beach area and identified city-owned sites from Linton Boulevard to George Bush Boulevard. Outfall Connection The effluent main from SCR%%VTF to the ICW is a 36-inch line. The ICW crossing to the final outfall is a 30-inch effluent line. The aerial map shows the location of the effluent force main outfall from the SCR%~VTF to the Atlantic Ocean. Up to approximately 14 MGD of wastewater effluent can gravity flow from the SCRWWTF to the Atlantic Ocean. Flows greater than 14 MGD which are to be disposed through the ocean outfall can be pumped by the effiuen! pump station at the SCRWWTF. Up to 10 MGD of reuse is permitted for disposal through SCRWTDB's reclaimed water system. The location of thc proposed outfall connection for the Reclaimed Water Facility would be west of the Intracoastal Waterway along NrE 3rd Street (refer to aerial map). System Configuration The City of Delray Beach has identified a potential site for the re-treatment and storage site located west of the lntracoastal Waterway, adjacent to the 36-inch effluent force main, along the south side of NE 3rd Street. This location allows for a relatively inexpensive site and facilitates expansion to the Phase II portion of the proposed system. The re-treatment and storage facilities would consist of a local re-treatment site adjacent to the proposed connection to the outfall pipeline, approximately 100 feet of force main to convey treated secondary effluent to the re-treatment facility and distribution piping from the on-site ground storage tank. Re-Treatment Facilities Re-Treatment Requirements Re-treatment facility design alternatives were analyzed previously in PEC's report titled "Beach Area Reclaimed Water System Feasibility Study". In the previous repo~, several alternatives were designed and cost opinions were provided for each alternative. A system configured similarly to alternative RT-5 from the previous report was used as the basis for the preliminary site layout and pricing ora re-treatment facility in this report. The re-treatment facility would be constructed in two phases corresponding to the phases designated for the distribution system. The Reclaimed Water System Capacity for Phase I would be approximately 2.0 MGD. The re-treatment facility should be designed to be expandable to a total of 4.0 MGD to accommodate Phase II flows· The preliminary layout of the re- treatment facility included consideration of the following: 1. Chloride Control - This was determined not to be a problem based on the high chloride tolerances of the local plant species and Iow chloride levels of the wastewater treatment effluent. Phosphorus and Nitrogen Removal - h was determined that nitrogen removal will not be necessary based on current treatment plant loadings. Phosphorus removal is not required by FDEP or by any other consideration. Filtration - The presence of suspended solids can interfere with and reduce effectiveness of the downstream disinfection process and can impact the nutrient concentrations in the effluent. Suspended solids removal by filtration is recommended for the re-treatment facility. Several types or configurations of filtration equipment (filters) are currently available. Three in particular are widely used and possess an extensive record of past performance and operation. A fourth type (Membrane on Disk) is also considered as it offers several advantages, and only lacks in the period that it has been available and thus has less history of past performance. The four Filter types are described as follows. A. Automatic Backwvashing Filter: a shallow single or dual media (sand or sand, carbon) filter that is backwashed automatically while the filter remains in operation. B. Deep Bed Sand Filter: Perhaps the oldest type in consideration, the deep sand filter is simple to operate with automation but must take a filter cell out of service to backwash. Tankage for backwash supply must also be available due to the high backwash supply needed. A larger area is needed for this type than the others Backwash volume is higher than others. Continuous Sand Backwash Upflow:(Dynasand) Granular sand media is fed down in opposition of the upflow through the filter cell continuously. The media is reticulated and cleaned. This filter uses less area than the other two common and widely used filter types. Membrane on Disk Filter: The cloth membrane over hollow disc filter media remains static as flow passes through, trapping particulate matter on the outside surface of the membrane. The multiple disk core revolves in backwash mode through spray wash cleaning. The unit continues to filter during O-;. \001CRFT - 13o DI~-16/1.0 (11103100) backwash periods. Advantages include low backwash rate and small footprint. The area needed is almost identical to the Dynasand type previously described. PEC has been tracking the performance of this product for approximately six(6) years. During the last decade several installations of this product have occurred in Florida. The filter appears to have performed very well during this time. The practical considerations for this filter application require a filter that is efficient in 'ose of space, does not return high rate or volume of backwash and is automatic in operation. Backwash and backwash supply are of concern due to space restrictions as well as cost and maintenance requirements. The Continuous Sand Backwash (Dynasand) Filter and the Membrane on Disk Filter (Aquadisk) both meet the practical requirements for this application. The Continuous Sand Backwash Filter has been included in this preliminary design for purposes of determining feasibility and worthiness of area available for the proposed facility. The Membrane on Disk Filter could be substituted later if final design considerations support this option due to the ability to meet the practical requirements stated previously. The Continuous Sand Backwash is described specifically as follows: An upflow continuous backwash filter consists of a sand media bed, air lift system, a backwash/sand separator assembly and associated components and controls. The filter influent flows from the bottom to the top of the media, as the media flows or sinks to the bottom The sand media flow to the bottom is caused by an air lift system that pumps dirty or contaminated media from the bottom of the unit to the backwash/sand separator mounted on the top of the filter. The backwash/sand separator agitates the dirty media in a washer section to release contaminants and allows the clean sand to fall back into the filter cell and directs the backwash water away from the system to be recycled to the treatment system. No moving parts or pumps are in contact with the wastewater. Compressed air is used to control the continuous backwash system. This type of filtration system has been used extensively in wastewater tertiary filtration applications with consistent suspended solids removal and a high degree of reliability. Although this type of filter is high in construction cost, the upflow continuous backwash filter requires less land area than the other type of filters and has less backwash impact on recycle flows to the treatment process. Disinfection - A CT value of 30 is typically selected for a reclaimed water system because the reclaimed water treatment processes upstream of the point of application greatly reduce the coliform count to less than 5,000 fecal coliform per 100 mi. The CT value of 30 is accomplished by providing a contact chamber with a detention time of 30 minutes at peak flov¥ and l0 rog/1 chlorine residual, or a contact chamber with a detention time of 15 minutes at peak flow and a chlorine residual of 20 mg/1. To minimize the operational cost and environmental impacts of using chlorine, many facilities are designed with the larger contact chambers to achieve the CT value of 30. 4.4.2 Process Components and Equipment The major process components of the re-treatment facility are the (1) influent pumps, (2) filters, (3) chlorine contact chamber, (4) low lit transfer pumps to the storage tank, and (5) high service pumping facilities. To evaluate the cost impact of the storage tank and site requirements, a preliminary design for the proposed re-treatment facility was prepared. This preliminary layout uses the system compoEents as described in previous sections as follows: Influent Pumping: Filtration: Disinfection: Low Lilt Pumps: High Service Pumps: Tube type Submersible Propeller Pump Upflow Continuous Backwash Filter (Dynasand) Chlorine Contact Chamber (CT=30)(Sodium Hypochlorite) Tube type Submersible Propeller Pump Split Case Centrifugal Pumps with VID Constant Pressure System 4.4.3 Reclaimed Water Storage Normally, the availability of reclaimed water varies with the daily (diurnal) as well as seasonal variations in flow and usually is not coincident with the irrigation demands (10:00 p.m to 6:00 a.m.). Additionally, SCRWTDB currently provides approximately 6 MGD of reuse to its reclaimed water system. Based on these quantities, additional disposal appears to be available. Reclaimed water facilities are constructed with storage facilities to store flows from the V~%VTF, when disposal is required, until there is available demand in the system and because otherwise, the individual treatment components of the re-treatment facility would need to be designed to treat the instantaneous demand flow of the reclaimed water system. Preliminary design indicated that the storage requirement for Phase 1 is approximately 1.5 million gallons (MG). Based on similar calculations to accommodate instantaneous flows, Phase II would require between 0.75 and 1.0 MG of storage capacity for a totaI build-out capacity of 2.25-2.5 MG. 4.4.4 Site Location For the purpose of this report, we have chosen one (1) layout from our previous report that the given site will accommodate, as shown in Figure 4.4.4. The potential re-treatment site located south of NE 3rd Street is bounded to the north, south and west by developed commercial properties and to the east by NE 3rd Avenue. Based on an aerial map provided by the City, approximate site boundaries were determined to be 275 feet (north-south) by 135 feet (east-west). This site can easily support the 2.0 MGD treatment and 1.5 MG storage facilities for Phase 1. The Phase I1 facilities of an additional 2.0 MGD re- treatment plant expansion and storage facilities between 0.75-1.0 MG are more constrained. However, with a few modifications a preliminary site layout was developed. 4.5 4.5.1 Total storage facilities would need to be limited to 2~0 - 2.25 MG instead of the 2.25-2.5 which was determined by preliminary storage calculations. Based on the lack of available land, the preliminary nature of the calculations and the associated projected flows and the non- essential nature of reclaimed water, the slightly smaller storage facilities may be considered. Additionally, to conserve space and to be cost effective, one storage facility to accommodate both Phase I and Phase II would need to be constructed. Transmission System Generhl The transmission system would be pressurized at the re-treatment facility to approximately 80- 85 psi for a minimum service connection pressure of 40 psi. 4.5.2 Corridor Analysis After review of all available data, including aerial photographs and the City of Delray Beach Water and Sewer Atlases, a potential Phase I Reclaimed Water Transmission Mains Alignment (as indicated on the enclosed map) along State Road A1A, Gleason Street, Bronson Avenue and Andrews Avenue was chosen for the following reasons: Al A is the most direct north-south alignment from Linton Boulevard to Casuarina Rd. with adequate right-of-way; therefore reducing pipe costs and friction losses Gleason Street affords the least potential for conflict with other existing utilities when the A1A right-of-way becomes constricted. A pipeline crossing of Atlantic Avenue was installed under a previous construction contract from Bronson Ave. to Andrews Ave. Three (3) potential alignments have been delineated for Phase II as shown on the enclosed aerial map. One route follows roadways that are designated to be reconstructed in the near future. The other two (2) alignments give the City latitude to follow alternate roadways giving consideration to local traffic, existing utilities and recent and current roadway construction. Due to the preliminary nature of this evaluation, a detailed analysis of soils, groundwater, environmental and utility conflicts, or easements was not made. 4.5.3 Hydraulic Analysis Estimating the average daily flow through the system assists in sizing of the treatment facility and gives a comparative to the peak demand (see below) for sizing the distribution and storage facilities. As described in Section 3, the potential reclaimed water irrigation demand was determined based on an irrigation frequency of three (3) times per week and one-half inch of water per application This translates to a irrigation rate of one and one-half inches per week. Approximating the instantaneous demand on a system directs the sizing of the pipes in the distribution system and the size of the storage tank to meet peak demand. Instantaneous G:\..A001CRPT -17- DB-16/1.0 (11103/00) irrigation rates are based on the assumed calculated average daily flow and the following factors: Since a three time per week irrigation schedule was used only half of the weekly demand would be required on any given day. This yields a factor of one half QA). The majority of the demand would be realized between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. (i.e., four (4) hours per day). This yields a peak factor of six (6). -The proposed peaking factor is calculated by multiplying the two factors (~A x 6 = 3). Therefore, a peaking factor of three (3) is assumed for the calculations provided in Table 3.2.1. The various segments of the Reclaimed Water Transmission Main were sized according to acceptable pressure losses over the segment lengths for the given instantaneous irrigation demands. Transmission mains were determined to be 16-inch and 12-inch lines. Preliminary analysis was also accomplished for the lateral piping required for Phase I and Phase II. It was found that generally four-inch, six-inch, and eight-inch laterals will be sufficient to distribute reclaimed water throughout the system. A peaking factor of 4.0 and 4.5 have commonly been applied for reclaimed systems recently however lower peaking factors can be used to reduce line sizing and consequently the cost of the system. In the event that a system demonstrates a higher peak usage, the system can be adjusted by encouraging off-peak usage by the customer. It should be noted that reclaimed water is not an essential use product. Most system use problems can be field adjusted by public notification. Additionally, consideration to the sizing of the existing potable lines is eiven. Providing irrigation lines in sizes larger than the existing potable is difficult to justify. ~n irrigation system has the ability to be self-regulated by the customer adjusting the time at which the system is utilized. CHAPTER 5 COST ANALYSIS 5.1 5.2 General A cost opinion can be used by the City as an effective tool to determine the feasibility ora proposed project and as an aid in considering budgetary impacts ora proposed project. The costs opinions presented here are based on actual construction project's bid costs for similar work (i.e., pipelines through trafficked roadways, concrete and equipment costs, etc.). Most prices are based on projects under construction within the last year, with Contractor's bid prices as recent as May 2000. Cost opinion's are based on average bid prices for material and labor and not "low bidder" bid costs. It should be noted that the current construction market is volatile and prices have been escalating steadily for the past few years. Therefore the costs supplied in the report should be reviewed, at such time when the City intends to rely on the costs, to determine any inflationary effects which should be considered. Assumed cost data are presented in Tables 5.2.1 and 5.2.2. Capital Costs Capital expenditures are usually incurred for the creation of new water or wastewater capacity. Rate-making principles apportion costs applicable to new capacity to capital charges that new customers pay as they connect to the system. Capital expenditures made for reclaimed water disposal may be allocated to customers in one of two ways. For customers not yet connected to the system (uncommitted capacity), the incremental costs incurred for new disposal capacity may be allocated to the connection or impact fees charges for new connections. The remaining portion of capital costs not allocated to future customers/impact fees should be recovered through user charges. Collection of capital costs through user charges recognizes that portion of the cost that benefits existing system users by upgrading the level of effluent disposal service they receive. However, the City does not currently operate a reclaimed water system. The estimated capital costs are divided into four (4) sections as follows: 1 2 3 4. Phase I Piping Costs Phase I1 Piping Costs Phase 1 Re-Treatment Facility Costs Phase 11 Re-Treatmem Facility Expansion Piping, appurtenances and restoration unit costs are provided in Tables 5.2.1 and 5.2.2. Tables 5.2.3 and 5.2.4 present the calculated costs for each phase of the reclaimed water piping. Cost opinions provided are of a preliminary nature and assume all pipe lengths are greater than 2,000 linear feet (LF). Costs for lengths much shorter than 2,000 linear feet (LF) may increase significantly. "Take-off' quantities for the reclaimed water piping are based on a city-provided aerial map of the proposed service area. Tables 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 present the estimated costs for the reclaimed water re-treatment facility and potential expansion. Table 5.2· 1, presented below, describes the utilized cost opinions for installed piping and appurtenances as described in the table. TABLE 5.2.1 · UNIT PRICES UTILIZED FOR BASIC PI~E I~STALLATION 1" $18/LF 2" $20FLF 4" $26/LF 6" $33/LF 8" $35/LF 12" $40/LF 16" $45/LF Prices b~clude: 1. Isolation valve(s) at approximately 1,000 feet spacing 2. Air relief structure(s) at approximately 4,000 feet spacing 3. Basic trench stabilization 4. Basic surface restoration 5. Minor traffic control 6. Fittings G ?....',001CR P'r -20- DILl611.0 (Ill(B/il)) Table 5.2.2 details further estimated costs for piping "add-ons" required to complete construction and restore disturbed areas to pre-construction condition. TABLE 5.2.2 ADD-ONS (Unit Prices of Items Not Included in Basic Pipe Installation) 1. Surface Restoration Minor Asphalt Roadway Restoration - pavement removal, patch $70.00 and overlay Concrete Sidewalks and Driveways - removal and replacement $20.00 Sod - Removal and Replacement $3.50 2. Traffic Control Pipe(s) out of pavement in shoulder of major roads $5.00 Pipe(s) in pavement, lane closure required $10.00 3. Bore and Jack 4" Reclaimed Water Main $150.00 8" Reclaimed Water Main $200.00 12" Reclaimed Water Main $350.00 16" Reclaimed Water Main $350.00 4. Service Connections 1" Reclaimed Water Meier $525.00 EA I V:" Reclaimed Waler Meter $1.100 EA 3" Reclaimed Waler Meter $2.300 EA 4" Reclaimed Waler Meter $2.600 EA 5. Mobilization-Demobilization/General Conditions and Miscellaneous 10% of Total 6. Contin[~en~' 20% &Total Table 5.2.3 presents estimated quantities, estimated unit prices and the resulting cost for each segment shown on the aerial map. TABLE 5.2.3 COST ESTIMATE FOR P}tASE I RECLAIMED WATER PIPING pri~e 1 6" Pipe and Appurtenances 4,190 LF $33.00 $138,270.00 16" Pipe and Appurtenances 1,627 LF $45.00 $73,215.00 Asphalt Restoration 260 LF $70.00 $18,200.00 Drivewa? Restoration 896 LF $20.00 $17,920.00 Sod Restoration 4.661 LF $3.50 $16,313.50 Additional Traffic Control 1,627 LF $5.00 $8,135.00 Service Connection - 1 'A" 2 EA $1,100.00 $2.200.00 2 Sod Restoration 28 LF $3.50 $98.00 Sen'ice Connection - I W' 6 EA $1.100.00 $6.600.00 Service Connection - 3" I EA $2.300.00 $2.300.00 3 4" Pipe and Appurtenances 3.620 LF $26.00 $94,120.00 8" Pipe and Appurtenances 8,020 LF $35.00 $280.700.00 16" Pipe and Appurtenances 3.860 LF $45.00 $173.700.00 Asphalt Restoration 572 LF $70.00 $40,040.00 Drivewa?' Restoration 1.888 LF $20.00 $37.760.00 Sod Restoration 13,040 LF $3.50 $45.640.00 Additional Traffic Control 3.470 LF $5.00 $17,350.00 Service Connection- I 'A" 6 EA $1.100.00 $6.600.00 4 4" Pipe and Appurtenances 2.790 LF $26.00 $72.540.00 16" Pipe and Appurtenances 2.940 LF $45.00 $132.300.00 Asphalt Resloralion 240 LF $70.00 $16.800.00 Drivewa,x Restoration 808 LF $20.00 $16.160.00 Sod Restoration 4.682 LF $3.50 $16.387.00 Service Connection - I 'h" 10 EA $1.100.00 $11,000.00 TABLE 5.2,3 (Cont'd) COST ESTIMATE FOR PHASE I RECLAIMED WATER PIPING Section NO. " Description : Q~fl~ l~ni~ ~U~t 5 4" Pipe and Appurtenances 3,940 LF $26.00 $102,440.00 8" Pipe and Appurtenances 2,700 LF $35.00 $94,500.00 Asphalt Restoration 930 LF $70.00 $65,100.00 Driveway Restoration 528 LF $20.00 $10,560.00 Sidewalk Restoration 90 LF $20.00 $1,800.00 Sod Resloration 5,182 LF $3.50 $18,137.00 Sen,ice Connection ~ I Va" 20 EA $1,100.00 $22,000.00 8" Bore & Jack (Atlantic Ave) 90 LF $200.00 $18,000.00 6 4 Pipe and Appurtenances 680 LF $26.00 $17,680.00 6 Pipe and Appurtenances 1,460 LF $33.00 $48,180.00 8" Pipe and Appurtenances 1,500 LF $35.00 $52.500.00 12" Pipe and Appurtenances 2.200 LF $40.00 $88.000.00 16" Pipe and Appurtenances 760 LF $45.00 $34.200.00 Asphalt Restoration 384 LF $70.00 $26.880.00 Dnve-s~ a? Restora0on 544 LF $20.00 $10.880.00 Sod Resloration 5.672 LF $3.50 $19.852.00 Sen'ice Connection - I ¼" 8 EA $1,100.00 $8,800.00 7 4 Pipe and Appurtenances 690 LF $26.00 $17,940.00 6" Pipe and Appurtenances 4.080 LF $33.00 $134,640.00 8" Pipe and Appurtenances 3,220 LF $35.00 $112,700.00 16" Pipe and Appurtenances 1,020 LF $45.00 $45,900.00 Asphalt Restoration 564 LF $70.00 $39,480.00 Dnvewa? Restoration 1.216 LF $20.00 $24.320.00 Sod Restoration 7,530 LF $3.50 $26.355.00 Additional Traffic Control 650 LF $5.00 $3.250.00 Sen'ice Connection - I ',4" 9 EA $1.100.00 $9.900.00 G:',. ~001CRIrf -23- DB. 16II.O(IIIO3IffO) TABLE 5.2.3 (Cont'd) COST ESTIMATE FOR PHASE l RECLAIMED WATER PIPING 8 4' Pipe and Appu~enances 1,650 LF $26.00 $42,900.00 8" Pipe and Appurtenances 3,640 LF $35.00 $127,400,00 12" Pipe and Appurtenances 1,930 LF $40.00 $77,200.00 Asphalt Restoration 144 LF $70.00 $10.080.00 Driveway Restoration 848 LF $20,00 $16.960.00 Sod Restoration 6.228 LF $3.50 $21,798.00 Service Connection - 1 'A" 6 EA $1,100.00 $6,600.00 9 6" Pipe and Appurtenances 1,910 LF $33.00 $63.030,00 Asphalt Restoration 48 LF $70.00 $3.360.00 Drivewa? Restoration 400 LF $20.00 $8.000.00 Sod Restoration 1.462 LF $3.50 $5.117.00 Sen'ice Connection - I '/2" 4 EA $1.100.00 $4.400.00 10 16" Pipe and Appurtenances 1.620 LF $45.00 $72.900.00 Asphalt Restoration 72 LF $70.00 $5.040.00 Drivev,'ay Restoration 192 LF $20.00 $3.810.00 Sod Restoration 1,356 LF $3.50 $4,746,00 Additional Traffic Control 1.620 LF $5.00 $8,100.00 Sen'ice Connection - I W' 8 EA $1.100.00 $8300.00 16" Bore & Jack (S.E. 6th) 90 LF $350.00 $31.500.00 16" Bore & Jack (S.E 5th} 90 LF $350.00 $31.500.00 TABLE 5.2.3 (Cont'd) COST ESTIMATE FOR PHASE I RECLAIMED WATER PIPING 16" Bore & Jack (Dixie I-li~hway) 170 LF $350.00 $59,500.00 TOTAL - PHASE I: $2,911,113.50 Mobili?atlonfDemobilization, General Condition_qMisc., 10% $291,111.35 Subtotal - Basic Construction Estimate: $3,202,224.85 Plus Construction Contin~enc},, 20%: $640,444.97 Es~imatefl ConstructiOn Cost forRecl~med:Wat~T~Sm~6n Main~i ] $3~42,669~82 G: ,. AOOtCRI~r -25- Da-16/1.0 (I 1103/00) Table 5.2.4 presents estimated quantities, estimated tinit prices and the resulting cost for each site shown on the aerial map. TABLES.2.4 COST ESTIMATE FOR PHASE H RECLAIMEDWATERPIPING .1 4" Pipe aha Appurtenances 1,530 LF $26.00 $39,780.00 Asphalt Restoration 98 LF $70.00 $6,860.00 Sod Restoration 1,432 LF $3.50 $5,012.00 Sen'ice Connection - 4" I EA $2,600.00 $2,600.00 2 8" Pipe and Appurtenances 2.020 LF $35.00 $70,700.00 Asphalt Restoration 96 LF $70.00 $6,720.00 Driveway Restoration 400 LF $20.00 $8,000.00 Sod Restoration 1,524 LF $3.50 $5,334.00 Service Connection - 4" 1 EA $2.600.00 $2,600.00 3 12" Pipe and Appurtenances 1.970 LF $40.00 $78,800.00 Asphalt Restoration 104 LF $70.00 $7.280.00 Dnvev, ay Resloration 160 LF $20.00 $3.200.00 Sod Restoration 1.706 LF $3.50 $5,971.00 Service Connection - 3" 2 EA $2,300.00 $4.600.00 12" Bore 8: .lack (Atlantic Ave,) 240 LF $350.00 $84,000,00 4 & 6 6" Pipe and Appunenances 1,360 LF $33.00 $44,880.00 Asphalt Restoralion 96 LF $70.00 $6,720.00 Drivewa? Restoration 160 LF $20.00 $3,200.00 Sod Restoration 1,104 LF $3~50 $3~864.00 Service Connection - 4" 2 EA $2,600.00 $5.200.00 5 2" Pipe and Appurlenances 2.095 LF $20.00 $41.900.00 Asphalt Restoration 156 LF $70.00 $10.920.00 Drivewa? Restoration 112 LF $20.00 $2.240.00 Sod Restoration 1.827 LF $3,50 $6.394.50 TABLE 5.2.4 (CONT'D) COST ESTIMATE FOR PHASE H RECLAIMED WATER PIPING Section EStimated Unit Estimated ! No. Description Q~anti~ unit= PriCe= ~m0uni S~vice Connection - 3" 2 EA $2,300.00 $4,600.00 7 4" Pipe and Appurtenances 700 LF $26.00 $18,200.00 12" Pipe and Appurtenances 1,350 LF $40.00 $54,000.00 Asphalt Restoration 98 LF $70.00 $6,860.00 Drivewa)' Restoration 288 LF $20.00 $5.760.00 Sod Restoration 1,664 LF $3.50 $5,824.00 Service Connection - 4" 1 EA $2,600.00 $2,600.00 4" Bore & Jack (Lk. Ida Rd.) 110 LF $150.00 $16,500.00 8 1" Pipe and Appurtenances 330 LF $18.00 $5,940,00 12" Pipe and Appurtenances 1.980 LF $40.00 $79.200.00 Asphalt Restoration 218 LF $70.00 $15,260.00 Drive~ a? Restoration 240 LF $20.00 $4,800.00 Sod Restoration 1.852 LF $3.50 $6,482.00 Sen'ice Connection - ] V:" I EA $1.100.00 $1.100.00 10. 11, 12. & 13 16" Pipe and Appurtenances 3.270 LF $45,00 $147,150.00 Asphalt Restoration 322 LF $70.00 $22.540.00 Drivewa? Restoration 80 LF $20.00 $1.600.00 Sod Restoration 2.868 LF $3.50 $10.038.00 Sen'ice Connection - 3" 3 EA $2.300.00 $6.900.00 Sen'ice Connection - 4" I EA $2.600.00 $2.600.00 9, 14. 15, $88,400.00 & 16 4" Pipe and Appurtenances 3.400 LF $26.00 Asphah Restoration 266 LF $70.00 $18,620.00 Dm.ewa? Resloration 160 LF $20.00 $3.200.00 Sod Resloration 2.974 LF $3.50 $10.409.00 Sen'icc Connectmn - 3" 2 EA $2.30000 $4.600.00 TABLES.2.4(CONT'D) COST ESTIMATE FOR PHASE H RECLAIMEDWATER P~ING NO. Description Qnantity Un!~ , prsce~ Amount Service Connection - 4" 2 EA $2,600.00 $5,200.00 17 4" Pipe and Appml. enances 2,700 LF $26.00 $70,200.00 8" Pipe and Appur,-,n-,~c~s 3,300 LF $35.00 $115,500.00 Asphalt Restoration 388 LF $70.00 $27,160.00 D rive'c.'a)' Restoration 368 LF $20.00 $7,360.00 Sod Restoration 5.244 LF $3.50 $18,354.00 Sen'ice Connection - 4" I EA $2,600.00 $2,600.00 8" Bore & .lack (Atlantic Ave.) 240 LF $200.00 $48,000.00 18 8" Pipe and Appurtenances 3.470 LF $35.00 $121,450.00 Asphah Resloration 98 LF $70.00 $6,860.00 Sod Resloration 3.372 LF $20.00 $67.440.00 Sen'ice Connection - 4" I EA $2.600.00 $2,600.00 TOTAL - PHASE II: $1,492.682.50 Mobilization/Demobilization. General Conditions/Misc.. 10% $149.26825 Subtotal - Basic Construction Estimate: $1,641.950.75 Plus Construction Contin~aen~'. 20%: $328,390.15 Estimated Constracdon 6o~1 forReclaimed Water Transmission Mains: ] $i;970,340.90 Tables 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 present the cost opinion for the potential reclaimed water re-treatment facility. TABLES.2.5 COST ESTIMATE FOR PHASE I RE-TREATMENT FACILITY(2.0 MGD) 1 Clear and Grab and Rough Grading I AC. $3,000.00 $3,000.00 2 Excavation, earthwork, regrade 1400 C.Y. $10.00 $14,000.00 3 Pump Building 1664 S.F. $70.00 $116,480.00 4 2.0 MG storage tank 1 EA. $500,000.00 $500,000.00 5 SUmctu~e Tank, Base 230 CY $400.00 $92,000.00 6 Structure Tm~k, Walls 500 CY $400.00 $200,000.00 7 Structure Tank, Elevated 50 CY. $500.00 $25,000.00 8 Metals: stairs, h-rail, grating I L.S. $22,000.00 $22,000.00 9 Tube pumps/inst. 2 EA $10,000.00 $20,000.00 10 Lo'*' lift pumps/inst. 3 EA. $25,000.00 $75,000.00 11 Submersible pumps/inst. I L.S. $15,000.00 $15,000.00 12 High Service pumps/inst. 2 lEA. $45,000.00 $90,000.00 13 Disinfection feed equipmenffinst. I L.S. $50,000.00 $50,000.00 14 Alum feed equip/inst. I L.S. $35,000.00 $35,000.00 15 Filter eqinpmentAnst l0 EA. $24~000.00 $240,000.00 16 Air compressors/inst I LS. $40,000.00 $40,000.00 17 Ductile iron p~pin.o.., fittings, valves/inst I L.S. $150.000.00 $150,000.00 18 24" Flox~ Meter 1 L.S $20,000.00 $20,000.00 19 Conc wall/Chain liuk fencing 1 L.S. $10,00000 $10,000.00 20 Offsite piping com~ection lo outfall 1 L.S. $180,000.00 $180,000.00 2] Miscellaneous Small Piping I LS. $4,000.00 $4,000.00 22 Concrete paving 1 L.S. $3,000.00 $3,000.00 23 Grass and Sodding 1 L.S. $3,000.00 $3,000.00 24 Elecmcal I L.S $100,000.00 $100,000.00 25 Electrical-Lighting I LS $4,000.00 $4,000.00 26 lnsu-umentation I LS. $12,000 O0 $12,00000 SUBTOTAL BASIC CONST. EST. $2,023,480 CONST. 20 % CONTtNG. $404,696 I I ESTIMATED CONST. COST $2.428,176 I I TABLES.2.6 COST ESTIIVIATE FOR PHASE H RE-TREATMENT FACILITY(+2,0 MGD) ITEM ESTI31ATEII UNIT NO. DESCRIPTION QTY~ uNIT PRICE AMOUNT I Clear ~ind Grub and Rough Grading 0 AC. $3,000.00 $0.00 2 Excavation, earthwork, regrade 1000 C.Y. $10.00 $10,000.00 3 Pump Building 0 S.F. $70.00 $0.00 4 2.0 M.G. storage tank 0 EA. $500,000.00 $0.00 5 Structure Tank, Base 200 C.Y. $400.00 $80,000.00 6 Slructure Tank, Walls 400 C.Y. $400.00 $160,000.00 7 Structure Tank, Elevated 0 C.Y. $500.00 $0.00 8 Metals: stairs, h-rail, grating 1 L.S. $10,000.00 $10,000.00 9 Tube pumps/insl. 2 EA. $10,000.00 $20,000.00 10 Lov, lift pumps/inst. I EA. $25,000.00 $25,000.00 11 Submersible pumps/inst. 0 L.S. $15,000.00 $0.00 12 High Se~'ice pumps/inst. I EA. $45,000.00 $45,000.00 13 Disinfection feed equipmenffinst. I L.S. $20,000.00 ~ $20,000.00 14 Alum feed equip./inst. I LS. $15,000.00 i $15,000.00 15 Filter equip~nent/inst. 8 EA. $24,000.00 $192,000.00 16 Air compressors/inst I L.S. $30,000.00 $30,000.00 17 Ductile iron piping, fittings. I L.S. $30,000.00 $30,000~00 valves/inst. 18 24" Flow Meter 0 L.S. $20.000.00 $0.00 19 Conc wall/Chain link fencing 0 L.S $10.000.00 $0.00 20 Offsile piping connection IO ouffall 0 L.S $180.000.00 $0.00 21 Miscellaneous Small Piping I L.S. $4.000,00 $4.000.00 22 Concrete paving 0 L.S. $3,000.00 $0.00 23 Grass and Sodding I L.S. $3.000.00 $3,000.0(] 24 Electrical I L.S. $30.000.00 $30.000.00! 25 Electrical-Lighting I L.S. $4,000.00 $4,000.00: 26 Instrumentation I L.S. $6.000.00 $6,000.00' SUBTOTAL BASIC CONST. EST. $684.000 I I CONST. 20 % CONTING. $136.800 ESTIMATED CONST. COST $820.800 I I 5.3 Cost Comparison As this Reclaimed Water Feasibility Analysis serves as an addendum to the 1996 Beach Area Reclaimed Water System Feasibility Study, a comparison of estimated project capital costs was performed and is presented below in Table 5.3.1. We are comparing the most similar distribution system (Phase I) and the most similar re-treatment facility (RT-5) as described in Section 4.4.1. Costs presented in the table below are presented in Tables 5.2.3 and 5.2.5 from this analysis and Tables 4.5.5, 4.5.6 and 4.6 from the previous 1996 report. TABLE 5.3.1 CAPITAL COST COMPARISON 1996FeasibilitY StudY ~: 2000Fea~ibiii,~nil~: Distribution System Cost $3,193,000 $3,843,000 Re-Treatment Facility Cost $2,901,000 $2,428,000 Total Capital Costs $6,094,000 $6,271,000 5.4 Based on the Total Capital Cost figures presented in Table 5.3.1 above, and the approximate 2.0 MGD proposed for both systems, a dollars per gallon comparative figure is determined. These figures are calculated below. (1996) $6,094,000/2,000,000 gallons per day = $3.05/gallon (2000) $6,271,000/2,000,000 gallons per day = $3.14/gallon The 1996 Feasibility Study reviewed the City of Delray Beach's alternatives for providing reclaimed water to the beach area including residential communities, commercial properties and golf courses from Linton Boulevard to Briny Breezes Boulevard. The City reduced the extent of the project area for the 2000 Feasibility Analysis to provide reclaimed water to residential communities and commercial properties from Linton Boulevard to George Bush Boulevard AJthough the service area was moderately reduced, only a 3 percent cost reduction is shown in this comparison. This is attributed to several causes described below. The 1996 system included golf courses which distribute flow over a 12-hour period instead of an assumed 4-hour period thereby increasing the pipe sizes for the Year 2000 system. Construction costs in recent years have been escalating which is reflected in the cost opinion for the Year 2000 system. Operation and Maintenance Costs Table 5.4 1 presents the present worth for the Operation and Maintenance costs for a 2.0 MGD re-treatment facility and piping for Phase I over a year period. TABLE 5.;4.1 COST ANALYSIS FOR 2.0 MGD RE-TREATMENT FACILITY O&M Component O&M Usage , AnnU~ O&~ Intl. P: S.- None 15 hp / day $6,900 Disinfection Chlorine gas 84#/d $6,700 NaOCI (15%) 66 gal/d $29,500 Filter Air B/W None 5 hp/d $2,300 Low lift Pumps None 10 hp / day $4,600 B/W Recycle None Ihp / day $500 HS Pumping None 100 hp/day $45,700 Total Cost Estimate $96,200 TABLE 5.4.2 COST ANALYSIS FOR DISTRIBUTION PIPING O&M PRASE 1 O&M Cost , Annual O&M Cost Transmission FM $0.10/ft. $3,500 Lateral and Service $0.10/ft. $2.500 Sub-Total :$6,000 PHASE II Transmission FM $0. I O/ft. $1,700 Lateral and Service $0.10/fl. $1,200 Sub-Total $2,900 G:',. A001CRPT -32- DB- 1611.0 (11/03/00) 5.5 Potable Water Impact Costs Consideration is given to the value of potable water not used as a result of using reclaimed water for irrigation. The use of potable water for irrigation differs from reclaimed water because of the relative cost difference between the two (2) sources of water. Users of potable water limit the use of potable water for irrigation because of the relatively high cost. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection's "Guidelines for Preparation of Reuse Feasibility Studies for Applicants Having Responsibility for Wastewater Management" states that on ~tverage for every gallon of reuse water used, a percentage of this the demand relates to the amount of potable water that will be saved. This percentage would be determined based on current irrigation records, etc., if available. This percentage would typically be lower for areas with low current irrigation rates and higher for those communities with high irrigation demand. For this system, a 50 percent potable water savings (revenue loss) was used when considering the beach area customer usage. Costs are based on usage from 4,000 gallons to 20,999 gallons per month. Lower use volumes (between 0 and 3,999) would be considered essential use only, without irrigation. Phase 1 Cost of Water: Volume of Reuse Water: Volume of Potable Water Saved: Cost Per Year (Revenue Lost) $1.20/1,000 gallons 2.14 MGD 1.07 MGD $468,660/year Phase H Cost of Water: Volume of Reuse Water: Volume of Potable Water Saved: Cost Per Year: $1.20/1,000 gallons 1.34 MGD 670,000 GPD $293,500/year 5.6 Summary of Costs Costs provided herein are either capital or annual costs. Typically when comparing alternatives comparison of the present worth costs are used. This report does not compare alternative reclaimed water systems. However, a comparison of the cost potential reclaimed water system and existing costs to the City and its customers, including a comparison to existing water rates does assist in determining the cost effectiveness of this system. Therefore, for the purposes of our review all costs are shown as annual cost. Annual cost are either the estimated annual cost as presented or, for one-time capital costs, the cost is distributed over a 20-year repayment period at 6 percent interest and thereby is presented as an annual cost. Summary tables for the annual costs for Phase I is presented below. 5.6.1 5.6.2 Phase 1 TABLES.6.1 PRASEISUMMARY OF COSTS (ANNUAL) Capital Cost Distribution System $335,000 Capital .Cost Re-treatment Facility $212,000 O&M Cost $102,000 Potable Revenue Lost $469,000 $1,118,000 Phase H 5.7 Rates and Fees Rate structures for reclaimed water systems vary widely throughout the State of Florida. Man3, communities charge their customers both a customer fee and a commodity fee. The customer fee is generally a fixed rate charge of between $3.00 and $6.00, however, the commodity fee can be a either volumetric charge (such as the City of Boca Raton at $0.20 per 1000 gallons) or a fixed rate charge (such as Palm Beach County at $5.00 to $10.00). In most cases, the larger users (such as golf courses, commercial properties, and multi-family housing) will pay a significantly higher customer fee (up to $2,000 based upon meter size). Potential rates for a system should be based upon actual capital outlayed by the municipality for the service provided balanced with what the market will bear for that service. In this report a limited evaluation ofpotemial rates is provided. This rate analysis is provided as a tool to determine the cost effectiveness of the proposed reclaimed water program and not to determine the actual rate schedule to be charged to the customer. It provides the costs presented in Section 4 of this report in a format that can be compared with the City's current water rate and with reclaimed water rates established for neighboring communities. For comparison purposes the rates are provided as a straight volumetric charge per 1,000 gallons. Charging customers as a flat fee might be a more feasible alternative when a rate schedule is developed. There are several ways to consider how the costs for a system should be recovered. Many system operators are willing to absorb the capital expenditures into the overall tax base and require the feasibility of a project based upon its ability to pay for itself on an annual basis (i.e., O&M costs, etc.) This method of recovery is easily justified for a community that operates its own treatment facilities where an improvement to the treatment plant is a benefit to the entire community and not just those customers which benefit from the end result, which is G:\...'~001CRPT -34- DI~I6/1.0 (11103100) receiving reclaimed water for irrigation. Other times, the feasibility ora project is based upon its ability to pay for all costs incurred by the project. Rates for the proposed reclaimed water system were analyzed based on two (2) recovery cost scenarios, Altemate I and II. In Alternate I annual costs only were considered. For Alternate Il Capital Costs, in addition to annual costs were considered. Alternate I assumes the reclaimed water usage fees to be imposed would recoup the estimated annual operating cost of the Re-treatment Facility, the estimated annual operating costs of the reclaimed water distribution system, and the estimated annual lost potablewater revenue. The estimated total annual cost to the City is $571,000 per year at the proposed 2.0 MGD design flow. This equates to an average annual operating cost of $0.78/1000 gallons. Alternate II assumes the reclaimed water usage fees to be imposed would recoup the estimated annual operating cost of the Re-treatment Facility, the estimated annual operating costs of the reclaimed water distribution system, the estimated annual lost potable water revenue (Alternate I), and the capital cost for the re-treatment facility and the distribution system distributed over a 20-year repayment period. The estimated total annual cost to the City is $1,118,000 at the 2.0 MGD design flow. This equates to an operating cost of $1.53/1000 gallons. The costs presented thus far have been based on volumetric charges for comparison purposes with the potable water system rates. However, the capital cost debt service incurred by this project would not vary with customer usage. Additionally, the use of meters for the proposed reclaimed water system was not considered in this study. Therefore, a flat rate billing may be a more logical. Table 5.7.1 compares the estimated volumetric fee charges required to recover the costs described in Alternates I and II with the actual potable water fees charged to customers using between 4,000 and 20,999 gallons per month. TABLE 5.7.1 PHASE I SUMMARY OF RECLAIMED WATER RATES AND FEES AND COMPARITIVE POTABLE WATER RATES Total Annual Reclaimed Potable Alternate Cost of Volumetric Volumetric Description Reclaimed Charge Charge: System (Based on a 2 MOD (4,000-20,999 Design Flow) gal;) Allernate i (Operation & Maintenance $571,000 $0.78/I 000 $1.20/ 1000 Cosl and Losl Potable Water gallons usage gallons Revenue) Total AnnUal Reclaimed:= t)°tal)ie .Alternate Costof VOif~fi~ voi~etfi~ DescriptiOn Reclaimed charge Charge System (Based on a 2 MGD (41000,20;999 D~i~ ~0~) Alternate ILA (Operation & Maintenance $1,118,000 $1.53/1000 $1.20/1000 Cost, Lost Potable Water gallons usage gallons Revenue, and Capital Cast) 5.8 The rates presented above demonstrate that the proposed reclaimed water system can effectively pay for its operating costs (including lost potable water revenue) at $0.78/1,000 gallons which is competitively priced with the current mid-level (4,000-20,999 gallons) potable water costs ($1.20/1,000 gallons). However, the study also demonstrates that in order for the system to recover the capital costs, in addition to operating costs, through reclaimed water fee charges over 20 years recovery time period, the City would need to charge approximately $1.53/1,000 gallons which is in excess of the City's $1.20/1,000 mid-level water rate. The rate becomes cost effective for the customer only for water usage in excess orS0,000 gallons per month which is charged at $1.64/1,000 gallon. Other Alternatives The development of this report initiated discussions with SCRWTDB concerning the project described herein. The possibility of SCKWTDB working with the City toward the development of this project was addressed however, further coordination between the two (2) entities would be required to determine if a joint project is feasible. A joint project could alleviate some costs to the City through cost sharing between the two (2) entities and would possibly reduce the land required for the project by allowing some facilities to be located at the V~%VTP site. Additionally, the capital costs could be distributed over a larger tax base, since the improvement is a benefit to all customers utilizing the wastewater treatment facility. Since it appears that the system can effectively recover its operating costs, lowering the capital costs borne by the City appears to be essential for the successful implementation of this project. Coordination with SCRWTDB may be the key to moving forward with this project. A similar system has been described herein which serves the City of Boyton Beach with reclaimed water from the SCRWWTF. Based on conversations with the director of SCRWTDB, there appears to be available land on the W~rTP site, available effluent for reclaimed water disposal, and a willingness of the Board to coordinate with the City of Delray Beach to proceed with further discussions for a joint reclaimed water system.