Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutGulf Stream 10 Year Capital Improvement Plan10 Year Capital Improvement Plan FINAL JUNE 2018 TOWN OF GULF STREAMTOWN OF GULF STREAMTOWN OF GULF STREAMTOWN OF GULF STREAM Mathews Consulting TOC-1 a Baxter and Woodman Company Town of Gulf Stream 10-Year Capital Improvements Plan Table of Contents Page Section 1 Introduction 1.1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 1-1 Section 2 Water Distribution System 2.1 Project Background ............................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Project Purpose and Scope ................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Service Area .......................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.4 Water Distribution System ..................................................................................................... 2-4 2.5 Interconnects with Other Municipalities ................................................................................. 2-5 2.6 Existing Water Quality ........................................................................................................... 2-5 2.7 Population Projection............................................................................................................. 2-6 2.8 Historical Water Demands and Level of Service .................................................................... 2-7 2.9 Future Redevelopment .......................................................................................................... 2-9 2.10 Water Demand Projections .................................................................................................. 2-10 2.11 Water System Condition Assessment ................................................................................. 2-11 2.11.1 Background ................................................................................................ 2-11 2.11.2 Distribution System ..................................................................................... 2-11 2.11.3 Fire Hydrants .............................................................................................. 2-12 2.11.4 Interconnects .............................................................................................. 2-12 2.11.5 Summary of Assessment Findings .............................................................. 2-12 2.12 Water System Hydraulic Analysis ........................................................................................ 2-13 2.12.1 Model Development .................................................................................... 2-13 2.12.2 Model Performance Criteria ........................................................................ 2-14 2.12.3 Base Demand Distribution .......................................................................... 2-15 2.12.4 Model Calibration ........................................................................................ 2-15 2.12.5 Model of Future Condition ........................................................................... 2-15 2.12.6 Model Performance ..................................................................................... 2-16 2.12.7 Fire Flow Analysis ....................................................................................... 2-16 2.12.8 Summary of Model Results and Recommendation of Improvements.......... 2-19 2.13 Summary and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 2-20 Mathews Consulting TOC-2 a Baxter and Woodman Company Table of Contents (Cont.) Page Section 3 Roadway and Stormwater 3.1 Project Background and Purpose .......................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Scope of Work ....................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.3 Field Investigation .................................................................................................................. 3-2 3.3.1 Pavement Analysis ....................................................................................... 3-2 3.3.2 Stormwater Survey ....................................................................................... 3-6 3.4 Roadway Rehab Strategies ................................................................................................... 3-8 3.5 Additional Stormwater Conditions ........................................................................................ 3-11 Section 4 Implementation 4.1 10-Year CIP Implementation ................................................................................................. 4-1 Appendices Appendix A – Bulk Water Agreement Appendix B – Consumer Confidence Report Appendix C – Water Demands by Customer Class Appendix D – Hydraulic Model Layout Appendix E – Hydraulic Model Results Appendix F – Roadway Pavement Investigation Appendix G – Results of Roadway Survey (FDOT) Appendix H – Community Rating System Fact Sheet Appendix I – Town Commission Briefing on CIP Findings (March 2018) Appendix J – FDOT Underdrain Detail List of Tables Table 1.1 Infrastructure Breakdown.................................................................................................. 1-1 Table 1.2 10-year Capital Improvements Plan ................................................................................. 1-3 Table 2.1 Existing System Pipe Characteristics ............................................................................... 2-4 Table 2.2 Pipe Age ........................................................................................................................... 2-4 Table 2.3 TAZ Population Projections .............................................................................................. 2-6 Table 2.4 Levels of Service .............................................................................................................. 2-9 Table 2.5 Water Demand Projections ............................................................................................. 2-10 Table 2.6 Hydraulic Model C-Factor ............................................................................................... 2-13 Table 2.7 ISO Fire Flow Requirements .......................................................................................... 2-14 Table 2.8 Water Distribution System Performance Criteria ........................................................... 2-14 Table 2.9 2030 Flow Conditions at Max Day – Fire Hydrant Table................................................. 2-17 Table 2.10 Distribution Improvements for Increased Fire Flow ........................................................ 2-19 Table 3.1 FEMA Community Rating System .................................................................................. 3-12 Table 4.1 Implementation Schedule of One-time Projects ................................................................ 4-2 Table 4.2 Implementation Schedule of Ongoing Projects ................................................................. 4-3 Mathews Consulting TOC-3 a Baxter and Woodman Company Table of Contents (Cont.) Page List of Figures Figure 2-1 Existing Potable water Distribution System ...................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-2 Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) Map ...................................................................................... 2-7 Figure 2-3 Water Consumption Data ................................................................................................. 2-8 Figure 2-4 Fire Flow Project Upgrades ............................................................................................ 2-18 Figure 3-1 Roadway Wear and Defects ............................................................................................. 3-2 Figure 3-2 Roadway Breakdown by Condition ................................................................................... 3-4 Figure 3-3 Roadway Condition Atlas.................................................................................................. 3-5 Figure 3-4 Storm Sewer Atlas ............................................................................................................ 3-7 Figure 3-5 Strategy A, B and C Cross Sections ............................................................................... 3-10 Figure 4-1 Implementation Map ......................................................................................................... 4-4 Mathews Consulting 1-1 a Baxter and Woodman Company Items Unit Quanity 6-Inch Watermain L.F.36,453 12-Inch Watermain L.F.6,846 Fire Hydrants E.A.49 Storm Sewer Pipes L.F.9,375 Stormwater Structures E.A.121 Intracoastal Storm Outfalls E.A.14 Public Roadways L.F.37,895 Town of Gulf Stream Infrastructure Breakdown Section 1 Introduction 1.1 Executive Summary The Town of Gulf Stream (Town) commissioned Mathews Consulting, a Baxter & Woodman Company (MC) to prepare a 10-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the Town’s potable water, stormwater and roadway systems. MC’s scope included reviewing pertinent historical Town records, creating an inventory list of the Town’s infrastructure, complete field inspections to verify existing infrastructure conditions, and building a hydraulic model for the potable water system. MC reviewed and analyzed the Town’s system and developed a recommended 10-year CIP which includes a breakdown of projects and cost estimates in order for the Town to use as a roadmap to ensure timely repair and replacement of critical public infrastructure. Using GIS provided maps, meetings and field inspections MC reviewed and compiled a master list of the Town’s existing infrastructure (Refer to Table 1.1) The findings conclude that no local public infrastructure has yet reached critical failure and, as detailed further within this report, the Town has a good backbone for the primary layout and function of its infrastructure systems. Table 1.1 However, MC’s analysis established that there are areas within the Town that are more critical and require replacement. These areas include: 1) Potable Water System – Major sections of the existing potable water main system are reaching the end of their expected service life. MC recommends the Town begin planning and budgeting for the replacement of these older watermains. Section 2 provides additional detail on the Town’s potable water system. 2) Local Drainage – Ponding and nuisance flooding issues are prevalent along the edge of public roadways within the “core” area of Town. Many of these issues can be resolved with grading and other strategies as part of reconstructing the existing roadways. As many of the water mains under these same segments are targeted for replacement, a “holistic approach” is recommended to Section 1 Introduction Mathews Consulting 1-2 a Baxter and Woodman Company address these infrastructure issues together. Section 3 provides additional detail on the Town’s roadway and stormwater systems. The “holistic approach” will allow the Town to replace the water main as part of roadway reconstruction projects which will also include roadway grading, drainage inlet adjustment and roadway paving to address the primary local infrastructure issues together. The 10-year CIP Priorities Summary, Table 1.3, has developed three tiers of needs based upon the assumption of completing work “worst-first”. In total over $10.3 million of projects have been identified. In May 2018, the Town Commission approved a Resolution to adopt this 10-year CIP as a basis for moving forward to address the Town’s existing public infrastructure. The recommended Implementation Schedule, Table 4.1 and Table 4.2, includes all of the recommended projects for the 10-year plan while also considering other local impacts including: • Impacts on Residents – a holistic approach of addressing all critical infrastructure as part of one area project is recommended to limit the number to times a road is “dug-up” adjacent to homeowners. • Economy of Scale – projects are sized and grouped in order to secure the best contractor pricing. • Local Priorities – Town staff provided input on local planning and cash flow considerations and determined that completing large construction projects every other year (2020, 2022, 2024, 2026 and 2028) provided local benefits to the Town and its residents. The Implementation Schedule is a guide for moving forward and should be reviewed by Town staff annually as part of the budget cycle. The projects recommended in this plan will address the aging water main system and drainage concerns in the “Core Area” while reconstructing or resurfacing all of the Town’s public roads. By adopting this plan and starting implementation the Town is making a strong commitment to maintain its public infrastructure and preserve the quality of life for the Town’s residents. Section 1 Introduction Mathews Consulting 1-3 a Baxter and Woodman Company Table 1.2 Town of Gulf Stream Rehab Strategies: 10-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) A - roadway resurfacing with minimal utility work Priorities Summary (February 2018) B - water main replacement with trench paving and roadway resurfacing C - roadway reconstruction with grading/drainage improvements and water main replacement TIER 1: Location Rehab Strategy Length (LF)CIP Cost1 CIP Support Cost2 Total CIP Cost Ongoing Annual Cost Notes Active storm system maintenance ---$ -$ -$ 40,000.00$ Annual system cleaning and repair program including outfall maintenance Bermuda Lane reconstruction C 363 182,952.00$ 36,590.40$ 219,542.40$ -$ 3140 Polo Drive new storm sewer outfall -145 64,300.00$ 2,500.00$ 66,800.00$ -$ Design is underway; CIP support costs reflect field observations-only Tier 1 Sub-totals-247,252.00$ 39,090.40$ 286,342.40$ 40,000.00$ TIER 2: Location Rehab Strategy Length (LF)CIP Cost CIP Support Cost Total CIP Cost Ongoing Annual Cost Notes Old School Road reconstruction C 832 419,328.00$ 83,865.60$ 503,193.60$ -$ Gulf Stream Road reconstruction C 2,205 1,111,320.00$ 222,264.00$ 1,333,584.00$ -$ Includes relocating rear yard water main to front and looping Oleander Way reconstruction C 785 395,640.00$ 79,128.00$ 474,768.00$ -$ Polo Drive reconstruction C 1,030 519,120.00$ 103,824.00$ 622,944.00$ -$ Middle Road reconstruction C 485 244,440.00$ 48,888.00$ 293,328.00$ -$ Tangerine Way and Emerald Row resurfacing A 747 134,144.00$ 13,414.40$ 147,558.40$ -$ Includes 8-inch water main from Tangerine Way to Canary Walk Remainder of A1A water main replacement to Sea Rd 3550 887,500.00$ 221,875.00$ 1,109,375.00$ -$ Tier 2 Sub-totals-3,711,492.00$ 773,259.00$ 4,484,751.00$ TIER 3: Location Rehab Strategy Length (LF)CIP Cost CIP Support Cost Total CIP Cost Ongoing Annual Cost Notes Remainder of Place Au Soleil resurfacing A 5,571 475,392.00$ 47,539.20$ 522,931.20$ -$ Remainder of Core reconstruction C 7,033 3,544,632.00$ 708,926.40$ 4,253,558.40$ -$ Hidden Harbor and Pelican Lane reconstructio B 1,937 660,300.00$ 132,060.00$ 792,360.00$ -$ Includes additional 6-inch water main replacement in easement Tier 3 Sub-totals-4,680,324.00$ 888,525.60$ 5,568,849.60$ TIER 1, 2 and 3 TOTAL-8,639,068.00$ 1,700,875.00$ 10,339,943.00$ Other CIP Considerations: Project CIP Cost CIP Support Cost Total CIP Cost Ongoing Annual Cost Notes Town-wide Water Meter Replacement Program (7-10 years)-$ -$ -$ 40,000.00$ Ongoing replacement schedule for water meters FEMA CRS Program (currently a rescinded rating 10)-$ 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 5,000.00$ Reestablished level 8 = $28,500 annual insurance premium savings Note 1. CIP costs are assumed to be 2018 construction estimates with a 20% contingency Note 2. CIP support costs include engineering design and field observation services Mathews Consulting 2-1 a Baxter and Woodman Company Section 2 Water Distribution System 2.1 Project Background The Town of Gulf Stream (Town) has an aging water distribution system, which was mostly installed in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s. The water distribution system is approaching the end of its expected useful life. The Town has not observed a decrease in levels of service to the water distribution system but wants to implement a water Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) prior to any future difficulties. 2.2 Project Purpose and Scope The Town is requesting assistance from Mathews Consulting a Baxter and Woodman Company (MC) in the preparation of their 10-year CIP for the potable water distribution system. The purpose of this proposal is to provide a review of the existing systems, identify required improvements with costs and recommend a 10- year planning strategy for scheduling the completion of the work. The purpose of this report is to create a plan of action in order to keep the Town system in good working condition. The following tasks were completed under this scope of work: ♦ Data Collection and Needs Assessment – updated Town population projections, reviewed historical water demand and consumption data, established updated water LOS (Level of Service) for per capita demands, and assessed future water needs and projected future demands based on population and development projections for the water system. ♦ Water System Condition Assessments – conducted field investigations of the water system components, identified known problems within the system and assessed the condition of the components for renewal and replacement requirements. ♦ Hydraulic Modeling – updated the Town’s hydraulic model of the water distribution system and assessed its capacity to accommodate future water demands and fire flow requirements. ♦ CIP Project List and Cost Evaluation – provide the Town with a list of water distribution system capital improvement projects and associated project and upgrade costs. ♦ Final Report – documented the above tasks and prepared a recommendation of upgrades, recommended implementation schedule, and construction cost estimates. Detailed results of these activities are listed in subsequent sections of this Report. Section 2 Water Distribution System Mathews Consulting 2-2 a Baxter and Woodman Company 2.3 Service Area The Town of Gulf Stream is a coastal community located in Palm Beach County between the Cities of Boynton Beach and Delray Beach. The Town’s service area encompasses approximately 0.83 square miles. The Town is comprised of mostly residential properties along with two golf courses. The Town currently provides potable water supply to its residents through a bulk water agreement with the City of Delray Beach. Two (2) interconnects, one 6-inch connection located to the south along A.1.A/Ocean Boulevard, and one 8-inch connection located to the west at U.S. Highway 1 and Place Au Soleil, provide the water supply to the Town. The Town also maintains a 6-inch emergency interconnect with the City of Boynton Beach to the north along A.1.A/Ocean Boulevard. The Town owns and maintains the water distribution system within its service area. Refer to Figure 2-1 for a map of the Towns potable water distribution system. Section 2 Water Distribution System Mathews Consulting 2-3 a Baxter and Woodman Company Section 2 Water Distribution System Mathews Consulting 2-4 a Baxter and Woodman Company Estimated Installation Period Pipe Diameter (inch)Total Linear Feet Pipe Age from 2017 (years) 3 1,950 57-77 4 7,950 57-77 6 20,500 57-77 1950's 12 1,250 67 1960's 8 2,200 57 1980's 12 750 37 6 1,050 27 12 300 27 2005 4 150 12 2007 12 6,700 10 1990's 1940 - 1960 Note: System age breakdown provided by Harvel Utility Construction, Inc. in 201 Town of Gulf Stream Pipe Age Pipe Diameter (inch)Pipe Material Total Linear Feet 3 Asbestos-Cement (Transite)781 4 Asbestos-Cement (Transite)5,998 6 Asbestos-Cement (Transite)27,240 8 Asbestos-Cement (Transite)1,128 12 Polyvinyl Chloride 9,220 44,367 Town of Gulf Stream Existing System Pipe Characteristics Total Linear Feet of Potable Watermain Note: System pipe characteristics calculated using Town of Gulf Stream GIS (2017) 2.4 Water Distribution System The water distribution system consists of a piping network covering approximately 0.83 square miles, and is essentially built-out. The piping network is made up of 3-inch to 12-inch piping. The majority of the system is 6-inch and was installed in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. Refer to Table 2.1 for a breakdown of pipe diameters, material and linear feet of pipe and Table 2.2 for a breakdown of system pipe diameter and pipe age. Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Section 2 Water Distribution System Mathews Consulting 2-5 a Baxter and Woodman Company 2.5 Interconnects with Other Municipalities The water distribution system is supplied by three (3) interconnects that exist between the Town and neighboring water suppliers. The Town currently provides potable water supply to its residents through a bulk water agreement with the City of Delray Beach. Two (2) interconnects, one 6-inch connection located to the south along A.1.A/Ocean Boulevard, and one 8-inch connection located to the west at U.S. Highway 1 and Place Au Soleil, provide the water supply to the Town. The current bulk agreement is based on a 1,000 gallons usage fee and has no maximum capacity limit. The Town also maintains a 6-inch emergency interconnect with the City of Boynton Beach to the north along A.1.A/Ocean Boulevard. See Appendix A for the City of Delray Beach and City of Boynton Beach bulk water agreements. 2.6 Existing Water Quality The Town’s existing water quality complies with all State and Federal drinking water quality requirements for public water supply systems. The only water quality problem documented by the Town consists of periodic decline of chloramines residual in the distribution system. The Town has added a chlorinator to add chlorine to the system in order to maintain a chloramines residual as required by the drinking water regulations. Every year, the Town distributes a Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) documenting the results of water quality testing for the previous year. A copy of the latest CCR is included in Appendix B. Section 2 Water Distribution System Mathews Consulting 2-6 a Baxter and Woodman Company TAZ % in Area 2017 2020 2025 2030 391 74%605 609 623 640 392 100%358 360 367 377 521 33%54 55 56 58 1,017 1,023 1,045 1,074 Note: Source PBC Planning Department 2015 Population Allocation Model TOTAL Town of Gulf Stream TAZ Population Projection 2.7 Population Projections Each year, the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida prepares the official population projections, in five-year intervals, for each Florida county. Since BEBR issues only a single countywide figure for each county, the Planning Division of the Palm Beach County (PBC) Planning Department annually allocates these figures to smaller geographies for localized planning efforts. The population projections developed for the Town are based on the PBC Planning Departments’ 2015 Population Allocation Model. The projected population for the Town of Gulf Stream service area was estimated by overlaying a map of the Town’s service area onto PBC’s GIS base map containing population segregated into Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) (refer to Figure 2-2). Population projections for the entire Town were developed by assessing a percentage of service area located within each TAZ and summing the population projections of the individual TAZs within the overall service area. The population summary of the final population projections are included in Table 2.3. Table 2.3 Section 2 Water Distribution System Mathews Consulting 2-7 a Baxter and Woodman Company Section 2 Water Distribution System Mathews Consulting 2-7 a Baxter and Woodman Company 2.8 Historical Water Demands and Levels of Service Two years of data, December 2015 to November 2017, was evaluated to establish recent historical potable water demands for the Town. Consumption data records from the Town’s billing accounts, as well as master meter water flow data from the Town’s three (3) connections were reviewed and summarized. Consumption data was organized into the following sub-categories: Single-family residential, Multi-family residential, Nonresident, Irrigation, Reserve and Public meters. The Town’s historical customer water demands by customer class are summarized and shown in Figure 2-3. A complete summary of the Town’s historical potable water consumption data is provided in Appendix C. Calculated single family, multi-family, and commercial water demands include irrigation usage. Section 2 Water Distribution System Mathews Consulting 2-8 a Baxter and Woodman Company Figure 2-3 Section 2 Water Distribution System Mathews Consulting 2-9 a Baxter and Woodman Company Service Item Value Single Family Residential Water Demand 1,515 gal/day/unit Multi-Family Residential Water Demand 2,404 gal/day/unit Average Person per Household*2.54 Aggregate Per Capita Finished Water Demand 602 gal/day/capita Max Month : Min Month, Max Day Demand Factor 1.42 Instantaneous Peak : Max Day Demand Factor 2.00 Minimum Water Distribution System Pressure at Peak Hour Flow 45 psi Minimum Water Distribution System Pressure at Fire Flow Condition 20 psi Minimum Fire Flow Requirements 1,000 gpm Residential * Note: Per U.S. Census 2015 data. Water Demand Other LOS Criteria Based upon the historical demand evaluation, Table 2.4 shows the Levels of Service established for the Town: Table 2.4 Level of Service 2.9 Future Redevelopment The Town’s service area is predominantly “built-out”. Future land area changes are anticipated to be minimal, and the Town has adopted a policy of limiting redevelopment, maintaining existing low density housing within the Town. As of the completion of this report, the Town has no development/redevelopment projects. Section 2 Water Distribution System Mathews Consulting 2-10 a Baxter and Woodman Company 2.10 Water Demand Projections The population projections established under Section 2.7 were coupled with the projected Levels of Service established under this Section 2.8 to develop water demand projections for the Town. The water demand projection worksheet is listed below in Table 2.5. Table 2.5 Based on the projections presented above, the Town is anticipated to have a total consumed water flow (average day) of .64 MGD and a maximum day demand of .91 MGD in the Year 2030. This is an increase from 2017 consumed flows of 5% or .03 MGD average day flow and .04 MGD maximum day flow by year 2030. This slow increase can be contributed to the Town’s buildout and limited redevelopment. The Town’s bulk water agreement with the City of Delray provides no maximum capacity. Based on the projections above, the current agreements are sufficient to meet the 10-year water supply needs of the Town (through Year 2030). 2017 2020 2025 2030 Population 1,017 1,023 1,045 1,074 %Growth 0.59%2.15%2.75% Projected Avg Metered Water Flow, MGD 0.65 0.65 0.66 0.68 Projected Max Day Metered Water Flow, MGD 1 0.92 0.92 0.94 0.97 Projected Avg Consumed Water Flow, MGD 0.61 0.61 0.63 0.64 Projected Max Day Consumed Water Flow, MGD 1 0.87 0.87 0.89 0.91 1. Projected Max Day = Avg. Day x 1.42 Max Day Factor Town of Gulf Stream Water Demand Projections Section 2 Water Distribution System Mathews Consulting 2-11 a Baxter and Woodman Company 2.11 Water System Condition Assessment 2.11.1 Background As previously noted, the Town’s potable water service area encompasses a 0.83 square mile coastal region in south Palm Beach County. The Town’s existing water distribution and fire hydrant system are provided in Figure 2-1. The Town’s water distribution system consists of the following major components: ♦ Distribution System ♦ Fire Hydrants ♦ Interconnects (with neighboring utilities) MC met with the Town to identify improvements needed to meet the Town’s existing needs and future water demand conditions. 2.11.2 Distribution System The potable water distribution system is made up of 3-inch to 12-inch diameter piping, with the majority being 6-inch diameter. The oldest water mains were installed in 1940’s making them 70 plus years old. These water mains are asbestos-cement (transite), and they were installed within the roads. One section of 6-inch was installed within an alleyway. Most of the water mains were installed in the 1940’s, 1950’s and, 1960’s. The distributions system is aging and requires replacement within the next 10 years. The Town relocates and exercises all valves once a year. The town also performs flow tests on the east and west side of the intercostal once per year in order to evaluate pressure and flow conditions at various points within the Town. The Town performs manual reads on all meters once every two (2) months. During the manual reads each meter is visual inspected for wear and tear. The meters were installed in the 1950’s and are replaced as needed by maintenance staff. 2.11.3 Fire Hydrants There are approximately 50 fire hydrants located with the Town’s water distribution service area. The existing fire hydrants throughout the Town’s water distribution system vary in age and type, but most fire hydrants appear to be in working condition and easily accessible. The town flushes ten (10) hydrants each week and paints all hydrants once per year as part of their maintenance program. Section 2 Water Distribution System Mathews Consulting 2-12 a Baxter and Woodman Company 2.11.4 Interconnects Three (3) interconnects exist between the Town of Gulf Stream and neighboring water suppliers. These interconnects can be used to maintain water supply within the Town and supply additional flow during an emergency, or to provide emergency water to the neighboring utility. The Town periodically tests the emergency connection with Boynton Beach. The City of Delray Beach is responsible for maintaining the meter and interconnects to the Town. 2.11.5 Summary of Assessment Findings Based upon the results of the field investigations and discussions with Town staff, the Town’s water distribution system, in general, is in good condition. In order to maintain long-term operation of the system, the town has implemented several programs: ♦ Weekly hydrant testing ♦ Annual hydrant painting ♦ Annual flow testing ♦ Annual valve relocates ♦ Annual valve exercising ♦ Bi-monthly inspection of water meters It is recommended that the Town continue these maintenance programs to ensure prolonged life of the distribution system. Detailed costs and scheduling associated with all of these improvements are provided in Section 4. Section 2 Water Distribution System Mathews Consulting 2-13 a Baxter and Woodman Company Material Installation Date C-Factor PVC Before 1980 130 PVC After 1980 140 A.C. (Transite)Before 1980 120 Town of Gulf Stream Hydraulic Model C-Factors 2.12 Water System Hydraulic Analysis 2.12.1 Model Development The Town of Gulf Stream contracted with Mathews Consulting (MC) to perform a 10-Year Capital Improvements Plan. A computerized hydraulic model of the Town’s water distribution system was developed for the existing water distribution system using Bentley's WaterCAD® V8i hydraulic modeling software. The model was created utilizing water main and fire hydrant atlases and GIS data that depicted the size and locations of all existing water mains and the location and identification number of all existing fire hydrants. Elevations of the water distribution system were assumed to be 3 feet below grade. The model was completed, tested and calibrated. MC met with experienced Town staff to determine the level of improvements that had occurred since the Town’s system was originally installed. These improvements were incorporated into the model. Refer to Appendix D for a layout of the 2017 hydraulic model piping network. This hydraulic model uses the Hazen-Williams equation for pressure head loss through the pressure pipes. Table 2.6 shows the relative roughness coefficient or C-factors applied to the pipes through this hydraulic model. Table 2.6 Section 2 Water Distribution System Mathews Consulting 2-14 a Baxter and Woodman Company Flow Condition Minimum System Pressure (psi) Maximum Daily Flow 50 Peak Hour Flow 45 Town of Gulf Stream Water Distribution System Performance Criteria Use Type Fire Flow Required at 20 psi (min) pressure (NFF20) Maximum Daily Flow 50 Peak Hour Flow 45 Town of Gulf Stream ISO Fire Flow Requirements 2.12.2 Model Performance Criteria The criteria that determines whether a water distribution system and its representative hydraulic model is satisfactory or requires improvements is typically defined by its ability to deliver required peak hour flow rates, as well as the ability to deliver fire flow rates at a minimum system pressure during Maximum Daily Flow. The minimum required fire flow at 20 psi is referred to as NFF 20. The City of Delray Beach has an ISO fire protection rating of PC2, and the water distribution system is required to provide the flow rates and pressure listed in Table 2.7 for fire protection to maintain this ISO rating: Table 2.7 For the purpose of this analysis, the system was modeled using a minimum pressure of 63 psi. The City of Delray Beach told MC they provide a normal pressure of 63 psi to the Town. The system performance criteria for normal system operation was established by MC and summarized and listed in Table 2.8 below: Table 2.8 Section 2 Water Distribution System Mathews Consulting 2-15 a Baxter and Woodman Company 2.12.3 Base Demand Distribution The Town’s water distribution service area was divided into 36 “zones” or sub-areas. The historical customer demand analysis presented in Section 2.10 was used to distribute the customer's demands evenly to all of the water demand junctions within each of the 36 zones. This was accomplished by sorting the customer data by address and assigning each customer account to a designated “zone”. The next step consisted of summing the historical water demands or flow within each zone and dividing each zone's flow by the number of model junctions within each zone to determine each junction's demand rate per zone. The individual zone demand rates were applied to each junction and established as the base demand distribution of the model. This “base demand” was used as the initial run of the model. The historical billing data from December 2015 – November 2017 was used in this exercise. 2.12.4 Model Calibration Calibration of a hydraulic model is important in order to validate the model's output and provide confidence that the model is accurately representing the performance of the system. There was one locations that a major 12 inch water main (N. Ocean Avenue) had been installed. The piping configuration was revised and changes incorporated in the model. The relative roughness coefficient or C Factor of the pipes were adjusted to account for the aging infrastructure and field conditions. However, the only pressure or flow data recovered from the system was extracted from an ISO study. This study tested two (2) fire hydrants for flow and pressure conditions. The flow and pressure called out in the ISO report were equivalent to the data measured in the model. 2.12.5 Model of Future Conditions The “base demand” model described above was modified to analyze future condition by applying the future water demand projections and piping improvements required to meet fire flow requirements of the system. Models were developed to represent future average daily flow (ADF) conditions, maximum daily flow (MDF) conditions, peak hour flow (PHF) conditions, and fire flow conditions. The peaking factor applied for this Study is modified from the standard peak hour flow (PHF). Industry standard historically reveals a PHF:ADF factor to be approximately 2.0. The demand projections described in Section 2.10 were allocated globally throughout the model for the “2030 Flow” condition. This approach stresses the system to reveal any future deficiencies of the system. The future water demand projections presented in Section 2.10 were the basis used to increase the base model demands by using a ratio of the future demand compared to the base 2017 demand. In addition to the future demand projections, a leakage rate of 7% was also added to the future demand projections based on calculated values from the master meter records. The leakage rate represents unaccounted for water loss in the system downstream of the master meter and prior to the customer’s meter. The unaccounted for Section 2 Water Distribution System Mathews Consulting 2-16 a Baxter and Woodman Company water percentage is based on the Town’s historical water loss accounting reporting and a separate MC analysis. The maximum daily flow (MDF) system demand was determined and distributed throughout the model similarly to the future demand projections by multiplying the ADF by the ratio of ADF to MDF presented in Section 2.8. This ratio of MDF:ADF is 1.42. 2.12.6 Model Performance The Town's goal for peak hour flow is to maintain a system pressure greater than 45 psi. The model produced very good results for future peak hour conditions, as system pressures range between 50 and 63 psi during future peak hour, MDF flow conditions. Refer to Appendix E for model results. 2.12.7 Fire Flow Analysis As described in Section 2.12.2, satisfying the fire flow requirements of a water distribution system is typically the design limiting condition of the system. This is the case for the Town’s water distribution system. The WaterCAD® V8i hydraulic modeling software is very useful and well adapted for this analysis. The fire flow requirements of the system are incorporated into the model so that a fire flow demand range is applied to each hydrant until the upper limit of the range is met and the minimum system pressure is reported; or, the available fire flow at that hydrant is reported for when any other junction in the system decreases to 20 psi. This available fire flow at 20 psi is referred to as AFF 20. For this analysis, the upper limit for the fire flow analysis was set at 3,000 gpm. The initial model runs showed that the existing water distribution system requires improvement. The results found hydrants to be deficient. The deficiencies were identified by fire hydrants that are not meeting the performance requirements reported in Section 2.12.2. The deficiencies occur in the 2017 existing system fire flow scenario. However, when identifying areas in the system to upgrade in order to meet a healthy fire flow condition, the 2030 models must be run. The 2030 fire flow scenario found 16 of the 50 hydrant do not meet the required fire flow conditions. The deficient hydrants are located throughout the town and not in one individual area. MC ran a 2030 fire flow model and upgraded different pipe segments in the water distribution system in order to provide the required fire flow in the future. After the projects were identified and the model was run, all the Town’s fire hydrants met the requirements reported in Section 2.12.2. Refer to Table 2.9 for a list of deficient hydrant pre and post system improvements. Refer to Figure 2-4 for the recommended water distribution upgrades to meet fire flow requirements. Section 2 Water Distribution System Mathews Consulting 2-17 a Baxter and Woodman Company Pressure (psi) Fire Flow (Available) (gpm) Satisfies Fire Flow Constraints? Pressure (psi) Fire Flow (Available) (gpm) Satisfies Fire Flow Constraints? H-2 1,000 3,000 50 779 FALSE 50 1,100 TRUE H-9 1,000 3,000 51 852 FALSE 51 1000 TRUE H-23 1,000 3,000 51 845 FALSE 51 1,032 TRUE H-24 1,000 3,000 51 858 FALSE 51 1,019 TRUE H-27 1,000 3,000 50 441 FALSE 50 1000 TRUE H-28 1,000 3,000 50 484 FALSE 50 1,178 TRUE H-29 1,000 3,000 50 535 FALSE 50 1,273 TRUE H-30 1,000 3,000 50 670 FALSE 50 1,541 TRUE H-31 1,000 3,000 50 857 FALSE 50 1,212 TRUE H-32 1,000 3,000 50 853 FALSE 50 1,170 TRUE H-35 1,000 3,000 50 875 FALSE 50 1,756 TRUE H-36 1,000 3,000 50 879 FALSE 50 2,174 TRUE H-37 1,500 3,000 50 1,075 FALSE 50 1,799 TRUE H-38 1,000 3,000 50 671 FALSE 50 1,709 TRUE H-39 2,000 3,000 50 1,083 FALSE 50 2,553 TRUE H-UNK-6 1,000 3,000 50 774 FALSE 50 1,090 TRUE H-UNK-8 1,000 3,000 50 916 FALSE 50 2,231 TRUE H-UNK-6 is located near 2520 Avenue Au Soleil H-UNK-8 is located near 3268 Lakewview Drive Fire Flow (Needed) (gpm) Fire Flow (Total Upper Limit) (gpm) With No CIP Upgrades With CIP Upgrades Town of Gulf Stream 2030 Flow Conditions at Max Day Fire Hydrant Table Label Table 2.9 Section 2 Water Distribution System Mathews Consulting 2-18 a Baxter and Woodman Company Mathews Consulting 2-19 a Baxter and Woodman Company Hydrant, Area and Issue Improvement H-2 and H-UNK-6. Southern loop of Avenue Au Soleil <1,000 gpm NFF20 Increase 325 LF section of 6 inch to 8 inch on Avenue Au Soleil H-9, H-31, H-32, H-35, H-36, H-37, H- 38, H-39 and H-UNK-8 <1,000 gpm NFF20 Increase 3,550 LF section of 6 inch to 10 inch on N Ocean Boulevard H-23 and H-24. Southern section of distribution system <1,000 gpm NFF 20 Increase 400 LF section of 4 inch to 6 inch on Driftwood Landing H-27, H-28, H-29, H-30. Northern section of distribution system. <1,000 gpm NFF20 Increase 1,750 LF section of 6 inch to 8 inch on Little Club Road and N. County Road H-38 <1,000 gpm NFF20 Increase 1,000 LF section of 4 inch to 6 inch on Oleander Way Town of Gulf Stream Distribution Improvements for Increased Fire Flow 2.12.8 Summary of Model Results and Recommendation of Improvements The performance of the Town's water distribution system proves to be excellent for providing the required pressure and flow during all PHF model runs. However, all fire flow model runs identified areas of deficiencies. The hydraulic model demonstrates that much of the system does not meet the minimum NFF 20 described in Section 2.12.2. However, updating the distribution system in several areas (refer to Figure 2- 4) helps create additional flow capacity and provides sufficient fire protection flow to the Town. Refer to Table 2.10 for a summary of the required improvements. Costs for the improvement projects can be found in Section 4. Table 2.10 Section 2 Water Distribution System Mathews Consulting 2-20 a Baxter and Woodman Company 2.13 Summary and Recommendations The Town of Gulf Stream (Town) has an aging water distribution system, which was mostly installed in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. The water distribution system is approaching its projected useful life. The Town is requesting assistance from Mathews Consulting a Baxter and Woodman Company (MC) in the preparation of their 10-year CIP for the potable water distribution system. MC performed a population and historical water analysis to project the Towns water demand needs for 2030 future flow conditions. Based on the projections presented above, the Town is anticipated to have a total consumed water flow (average day) of .64 MGD and a maximum day demand of .91 MGD in the Year 2030. This is an increase from 2017 consumed flows of 5% or .03 MGD average day flow and .04 MGD maximum day flow by year 2030. This slow increase can be contributed to the Town’s buildout and limited redevelopment. A computerized hydraulic model of the Town’s water distribution system was developed for the existing water distribution system using Bentley's WaterCAD® V8i hydraulic modeling software. The model was created utilizing water main and fire hydrant atlases and GIS data that depicted the size and locations of all existing water mains and the location and identification number of all existing fire hydrants. Using the projected flow information MC ran several models to test the existing and future durability of the Towns water distribution system. The performance of the Town's water distribution system proves to be excellent for providing the required pressure and flow during all PHF model runs. However, all fire flow model runs identified areas of deficiencies. The hydraulic model demonstrates that much of the system does not meet the minimum NFF 20 criteria. However, updating the distribution system in several areas helps create additional flow capacity and provides sufficient fire protection to the Town. The suggested system upgrades should be prioritizes following the list below: ♦ The 3,550 LF of 10 inch on N Ocean Boulevard is the highest priority to the Town. The Town at a minimum should install 10-inch pipe but should also evaluate increasing to a 12-inch due to constructability factors. This section of water main will need additional fire hydrants to keep up with minimal 2017 fire hydrant separation codes. The proposed water main should be installed before Little Club Road and North County Road. ♦ The 1,750 LF of 8-inch on Little Club Road and North County Road is a secondary priority project which requires installation after the upgrades on N. Ocean Boulevard. ♦ The 325 LF of 8 inch on Avenue Au Soleil is a secondary priority project. ♦ The 400 LF of 6 inch on Driftwood Landing is a secondary priority project. ♦ The 1,000 LF of 6 inch on Oreander Way is secondary priority project. Mathews Consulting 3-1 a Baxter and Woodman Company Section 3 Roadway and Stormwater 3.1 Project Background and Purpose The Town of Gulf Stream is looking for roadway and stormwater priorities to include as part of a 10-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The goal is to identify areas requiring repair work and to schedule and prioritize the work based upon existing conditions. Section 4 includes estimated construction prices. 3.2 Scope of Work Data Collection Mathews Consulting, a Baxter & Woodman Company (MC) reviewed all existing files and information as provided by the Town. The Town provided prior project plans, budgets, roadway and stormwater system maps and other pertinent information for this analysis. Visual Field Survey and Needs Assessment MC performed a visual survey of all Town roadways to visually determine the condition of the roadway pavement sections. A ranking system was used based upon FDOT’s 2017 Flexible Pavement Condition Survey Handbook which allowed the existing conditions of each roadway segment to be independently scored. MC also performed a visual survey of all of the Town’s drainage system inlets and pipes to determine existing conditions. Town staff provided areas of local drainage concerns including ponding and nuisance flooding along local public roadways. Inspections were also completed during times of “King Tide” which impacts the water elevation along the Intracoastal which all the Town’s storm sewers rely on for outfall. All of the Town’s reports on the existing stormwater pump station were also reviewed to confirm usage rates and reliability. Projects Alternatives and Phasing Based upon the needs developed for the roadway and stormwater systems, project alternatives were developed and phasing was considered. Ultimately, any high-priority standalone projects would be recommended to be completed with the initial phase of the CIP. The phasing plan also will consider strategies and approaches for the Town to consider that would be the most cost-effective along with reducing construction impacts on local residents. Section 3 Roadway and Stormwater Mathews Consulting 3-2 a Baxter and Woodman Company 3.3 Field Investigation 3.3.1 Pavement Analysis As part of the scope of work for this project a visual survey was required of all Town roadways in order to determine the condition of the roadway pavement sections. A ranking system was developed in order to identify the roadways requiring repair work by level of need tied to the estimated remaining service life of the road. The ranking system followed the guidelines outlined in the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), 2017 Flexible Pavement Condition Survey Handbook. Because the survey of the Town roads was to be a visual survey, the ranking system used by FDOT was modified to identify the areas of importance generally taken into account when deciding if a roadway needs reconstruction services or if there is remaining service life for the pavement section. The major defects, with examples below, chosen to visually (refer to Figure 3-1) determine the serviceability of a roadway were: ♦ Rutting ♦ Cracking ♦ Patching ♦ Raveling ♦ Subgrade Failure Figure 3-1 Roadway Wear and Defects Section 3 Roadway and Stormwater Mathews Consulting 3-3 a Baxter and Woodman Company Rutting This defect in the pavement can be determined visually. Rutting mainly occurs when the pavement is reaching moderate to severe deterioration, usually falling under the “Fair” to “Failed” ratings, due to the distortions it causes on the pavement with time. Class I, II and III Cracking Cracking falls into three different categories, according to its severity, as follows: Class I cracking refers mainly to hairline cracking in either the longitudinal or transverse direction, such as the pavement cracking, where the roadway is still in good condition. Class II cracking may begin to exhibit moderate spalling or severe branching. Some alligator cracking may also be present but not at the level of severity as in Class 3 cracking. Class III cracking represents very severe roadway cracking conditions and extend in all directions. It may extend all the way to the base of the roadway material undermining the road’s base. This includes severe spalling and pieces of pavement material breaking away. Patching Patching is used on pavement to temporarily repair a roadway segment. It is considered to be less than a rehabilitation done on the roadway segment but is a defect that needs to be corrected. Raveling Raveling, which is the loss of surface aggregate, is a defect that would also be present when there is Class III cracking. Raveling is rated by the degree of aggregate and binder loss in the pavement and how widespread the raveling is in the roadway segment being reviewed. Subgrade Failure Subgrade failures occur when the prepared soil beneath the asphalt structure can no longer adequately support the weight of the structure or the traffic. As noted in the FDOT 2017 Flexible Pavement Condition Survey Handbook, the results of the evaluation using these areas of importance aid in the following: 1. Determining the present condition of the Town’s roadway system 2. Comparing present with past conditions 3. Predicting future deterioration rates 4. Estimating rehabilitation needs 5. Providing justification for prioritizing rehabilitation projects Section 3 Roadway and Stormwater Mathews Consulting 3-4 a Baxter and Woodman Company Road Investigation Results Using FDOT’s criteria, all of the Town’s roadways were grouped into five potential categories based upon their current pavement condition: A. Category A – none to minor defects B. Category B – minimal defects C. Category C – moderate defects D. Category D – moderately excessive defects E. Category E – excessive defects A condition report for each roadway pavement section, digital photograph log and the associated ranking are included in Appendix F and Appendix G. Refer to Figure 3-3 for a map of the Town’s entire public roadway system. The map is color coordinated to match the corresponding pavement condition. Figure 3-2 Section 3 Roadway and Stormwater Mathews Consulting 3-5 a Baxter and Woodman Company Section 3 Roadway and Stormwater Mathews Consulting 3-6 a Baxter and Woodman Company 3.3.2 Stormwater Survey The storm sewer layout varies throughout the Town and does not have a typical storm sewer layout nor substantial local stormwater detention. All of the existing public storm sewer structures and pipes were visually inspected with field reports completed for each. The entire stormwater system outfalls (discharges) to the Intracoastal and appears to be built over time to provide inlet and pipe drainage to various low spots. In reviewing the Town by area, there are three existing conditions: 1. “Core” Area – a majority of the existing storm sewer system is located in the north half of the Town. This area also has a majority of the on-road ponding and nuisance flooding issues. In reviewing the existing topography in this area, see Figure 3-4, there are storm sewers extended to existing depressional areas. Areas of standing water along the edge of roadways and elsewhere is primarily due to poor grading to the existing inlet structures. As discussed above, water main replacement is required in this area and the grading to existing drainage structures could be improved along with re- crowning the road and inlet adjustment as part of reconstructing the roadways. Much of this area also relies on an existing stormwater lift station located at the corner of Old School Road and Polo Drive. Upon review of the lift station usage reports, there is additional capacity available so additional drainage can be directed towards it with future roadway reconstruction projects. 2. Place Au Soleil – west of the Intracoastal, the Place Au Soleil neighborhood relies on overland drainage to four existing Intracoastal outfalls. The topography analysis confirms that positive drainage exists for a majority of the public right-of-way in this area. During major rain events, some pockets of standing water can occur east of the existing outfalls in the easterly cul-de-sacs. The depth and duration of ponding appears to be an issue that could be addressed as part of any future roadway work with minor regrading or additional inlets. 3. South of Big Club – the southerly area of the Town does not rely on any public storm sewer for the existing public roadways. Overland flow and private storm sewers handle the drainage in the area and the topography review did not show any areas of major public flooding. Section 3 Roadway and Stormwater Mathews Consulting 3-7 a Baxter and Woodman Company Section 3 Roadway and Stormwater Mathews Consulting 3-8 a Baxter and Woodman Company 3.4 Roadway Rehab Strategies Upon review of the existing roadway conditions and stormwater system, three rehab strategies are recommended as part of the Town’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) implementation. Each of the public roadway segments was included within a Strategy below based upon the level of infrastructure needs. The strategies and segments area as follows: Strategy A – Roadway Resurfacing In areas that do not have a short-term need for water main replacement and lacking any major drainage issues, roadway resurfacing is the recommended strategy. For this strategy and the others, the projects were tiered based upon the assumption of completing projects “worst first”. Ideally, Tier 1 projects would be programmed and completed prior to Tier 2 projects, and so on. The recommended tiers and roadway segments for Strategy A are: Tier 2: ♦ Tangerine Way (Avenue Au Soleil to cul-de-sac) ♦ Emerald Row (Avenue Au Soleil to cul-de-sac) Tier 3: ♦ Orchid Lane (Avenue Au Soleil to cul-de-sac) ♦ Indigo Point (Avenue Au Soleil to cul-de-sac) ♦ Canary Walk (Avenue Au Soleil to cul-de-sac) ♦ Cardinal Circle (Avenue Au Soleil to Avenue Au Soleil) ♦ Avenue Au Soleil (Federal Highway to south end) Strategy B – Water Main Replacement with Trench Paving and Roadway Resurfacing For areas where the water main is in need of replacement but there are not substantial drainage issues, this strategy would include water main replacement with trench paving and roadway resurfacing. The recommended tiers and roadway segments for Strategy B are: Tier 3: ♦ Hidden Harbor Drive (Ocean Boulevard to west end) ♦ Pelican Lane (Ocean Boulevard to west end) – this roadway was recently resurfaced in coordination with the City of Delray Beach. The condition of the water main should be the driver for programming this segment. Strategy C – Roadway Reconstruction with Grading/drainage improvements and Water Main Replacement For areas in need of both water main replacement and drainage improvements, full roadway reconstruction is the recommended strategy to address each of the issues of concern. This strategy would include water Section 3 Roadway and Stormwater Mathews Consulting 3-9 a Baxter and Woodman Company main replacement, roadway grading and re-crowning, storm drainage inlet adjustment and pipe repairs along with rebuilding (paving) the road. It is also recommended that the Town’s roadways are widened, if necessary, to a minimum width of 18-20 feet, as available, to eliminate driving off the road when two cars pass or a landscaping truck (or other) is parked along a local road. The recommended tiers and roadway segments for Strategy C are: Tier 1: ♦ Bermuda Lane (Sea Road to south end) Tier 2: ♦ Old School Road (Gulfstream Road to cul-de-sac) ♦ Gulf Stream Road (Sea Road to drainage divide, see map) ♦ Oleander Way (Lakeview Drive to north end) ♦ Polo Drive (Gulfstream Drive to Palm Way) ♦ Middle Road (Polo Drive to cul-de-sac) Tier 3: ♦ Golfview Drive (Ocean Boulevard to west end) ♦ Gulfstream Road (Golfview Drive to drainage divide, see map) ♦ Middle Road (Golfview Drive to Polo Drive) ♦ Palm Way (Polo Drive to cul-de-sac) ♦ Banyan Road (Ocean Boulevard to cul-de-sac) ♦ Polo Drive (Palm Way to Old School Road) ♦ Wright Way (Old School Road to cul-de-sac) ♦ Sea Road (Ocean Boulevard to Gulfstream Road) ♦ North Country Road (Ocean Boulevard to Sea Road) Section 3 Roadway and Stormwater Mathews Consulting 3-10 a Baxter and Woodman Company Section 3 Roadway and Stormwater Mathews Consulting 3-11 a Baxter and Woodman Company 3.5 Additional Stormwater Considerations 3140 Polo Outfall With a home under construction at 3140 Polo Drive, a one-time opportunity exists to provide a new outfall to the Intracoastal which can be utilized with future drainage expansion in the Core-area. Design for this project is underway. It is recommended that construction be completed in concert with the neighboring project as soon as all regulatory requirements are addressed. King Tide The Town’s existing outfalls and stormwater system were inspected during times of “King Tide” when the level of the Intracoastal is typically a few feet higher than the invert of the existing outfall pipes. The existing duck valves at the end of each storm sewer outfall are utilized to minimize the impacts of the Intracoastal elevation by preventing backup into the local system when the Intracoastal water elevation is higher than local. The valves also allow water to equalize if some local areas are higher than the Intracoastal. The outfall inspections did uncover areas of barnacle build-up and other maintenance needs. It is recommended that ongoing inspection and maintenance of the valves be scheduled by the City. Also, an analysis of each’s existing condition is recommended annually and replacements scheduled immediately, if needed, due to the importance of these valves on the functionality of the local system. Local Infiltration The primary drainage components for each roadway rehab strategy are as detailed above. One additional tool that the Town could consider is to increase local infiltration in area parkways in locations without directly adjacent storm sewer facilities. With the mucky, wet parkways and standing water on the edge of pavement observed during October-November 2017, an option could be to install small (6-inch), shallow perforated pipes in a bed of stone wrapped in a fabric material, see Appendix J (FDOT detail). This would allow additional stormwater infiltration after major rain events end and also collect additional private property runoff prior to discharge to the public road. In coordination with Town staff, a “pilot project” location was selected to install a 40-foot long segment of perforated pipe including a project standard detail. The local soil conditions and relatively high water table do not appear conducive to exfiltration techniques, but mitigating the parkways materials and adding perforated piping could help provide additional infiltration to further drain the public right-of-way. FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS) Between October 1999 and November 2014, the Town of Gulf Stream participated in FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS). The CRS program rewards communities for taking a proactive approach toward floodplain regulations required as part of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The primary “reward” is lower insurance premiums for policy holders (Gulf Stream residents) within the floodplain that carry flood insurance. Section 3 Roadway and Stormwater Mathews Consulting 3-12 a Baxter and Woodman Company CRS Rating Insurance Premium Reduction SFHA1 (%) Insurance Premium Reduction2 (%) Local Gulf Stream Saving 10 0%0%$0 9 5%5%$16,300 8 10%5%$28,500 7 15%5%$40,000 6 > Below 20%+10%+- Town of Gulf Stream FEMA Community Rating System 1. 293 policy holders under this insurance plan 2. 81 policy holders under this insurance plan Before FEMA rescinded the rating, the Town had a rating of 8, which reflected in a 10% insurance premium rate reduction for flood insurance policy holders in the Special Flood Hazard Area. Craig Carpenter, the local FEMA representative, advised that reestablishing a CRS rating of 8 would reflect $28,500 annual savings for the 293 local Gulf Stream policies eligible for insurance premium discounts. Table 3.1 A CRS Fact Sheet (June 2017) is attached in Appendix H with more information on the program. Re- application to the program would require reporting to FEMA’s consultant on City regulatory practices, policies, and procedures. Reporting is then required annually and a re-application process (and new rating) is required every three to five years. The annual local cost to administer the program is estimated at $5,000 (which may be completed by Town staff and/or consultants). Primary requirements required to maintain the previously achieved rating of 8 include: • Keeping a database of all permits issued in the floodplain; • Requiring and keeping on file elevation certificates for new homes or substantial construction projects; and, • Completing public outreach to Town residents. The next steps for application would be to contact FEMA’s area representative, Craig Carpenter, at 404-825- 3003 or ccarpenter@verisk.com. Section 3 Roadway and Stormwater Mathews Consulting 3-13 a Baxter and Woodman Company Lawn Watering Enforcement Some of the ponding observed in areas of Town may be exacerbated by lawn watering. The Town’s lawn watering restrictions are as required by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and allows odd numbered addresses to irrigate on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday and even numbered addresses on Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday, both during non-daylight hours. Irrigation between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. is prohibited by the SFWMD. Additional public education, outreach or enforcement could increase compliance with the existing regulations and have a beneficial impact on some local ponding issues. Mathews Consulting 4-1 a Baxter and Woodman Company Section 4 Implementation 4.1 10-Year CIP Implementation This Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) provides the Town of Gulf Stream with a roadmap to rehabilitate and replace the Town’s critical public infrastructure. The Town will need to internally assess current conditions and perform an annual update to the CIP implementation. The internal annual re-evaluation of the CIP should take into account new information related to the existing public infrastructure including road conditions, water and stormwater difficulties, and future public initiatives. When implementing the CIP the Town should consider the following: • Annual budgeting • Local priorities/needs • Status of project design • Project permitting • Coordination with other utilities • Local resident expectations On March 9, 2018, the draft CIP findings and initial recommendations were briefed to the Town Commission, see Appendix I. A follow-up briefing on April 13, 2018 included a draft implementation schedule and more information on potential CIP funding. In May, 2018, the Town Commission approved the format and recommendations in this 10-year CIP. Working closely with Town staff, a recommended Implementation Schedule, Table 4.1 and Table 4.2, is structured to limit impacts on Town residents, provide economy of scale with implementation and provide the Town a path to move forward. This plan includes all of the local priorities identified in Table 1.2. The plan includes the following local considerations: • Impacts on Residents – a holistic approach of addressing all critical infrastructure as part of one area project is recommended to limit the number to times a road is “dug-up” adjacent to homeowners. • Economy of Scale – projects are sized and grouped in order to secure the best contractor pricing. • Other Local Priorities – Town staff provided input on local planning and cash flow considerations and determined that completing large construction projects every other year (2020, 2022, 2024, 2026 and 2028) provided local benefits to the Town and its residents. Section 4 Implementation Mathews Consulting 4-2 a Baxter and Woodman Company Table 4.1 Town of Gulf Stream10-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)Implementation Schedule (One Time Projects May 2018) General Fund Water Fund General Fund Water Fund General Fund Water Fund General Fund Water Fund General Fund Water Fund General Fund Water Fund General Fund Water Fund General Fund Water Fund General Fund Water Fund General Fund Water Fund General Fund Water Fund 3140 Polo Drive outfall construction and inspection 66,800$ North Core Area design and permitting 300,179$ 231,104$ North Core Area reconstruction and inspection 2,165,374$ 1,540,693$ Place Au Soleil resurfacing design 39,008$ 10,061$ Place Au Soleil resurfacing and inspection 551,021$ 70,400$ South Core Area design and permitting 245,601$ 189,085$ South Core Area reconstruction and inspection 1,768,316$ 1,260,567$ Remainder of A1A Water Main design 133,125$ Remainder of A1A Water Main construction and inspection 976,250$ Hidden Harbor and Pelican Lane design 23,244$ 75,801$ Hidden Harbor and Pelican Lane WM, resurfacing and inspection 187,975$ 505,340$ Annual Total by Fund:66,800$ -$ 300,179$ 231,104$ 2,165,374$ 1,540,693$ 39,008$ 10,061$ 551,021$ 70,400$ 245,601$ 189,085$ 1,768,316$ 1,260,567$ -$ 133,125$ -$ 976,250$ 23,244$ 75,801$ 187,975$ 505,340$ Grand Total by Year: CIP costs are assumed to be 2018 construction estimates with a 20% contingency General Fund Water Fund Total Total Cost (2018-2028):5,347,517$ 4,992,426$ 10,339,943$ Average Annual Cost:486,138$ 453,857$ 939,995$ One-time Projects 202320222021202020192018 3,028,883$ 133,125$ 976,250$ 99,045$ 693,315$ 20282027202620252024 66,800$ 531,283$ 3,706,067$ 49,069$ 621,421$ 434,686$ Section 4 Implementation Mathews Consulting 4-3 a Baxter and Woodman Company Table 4.2 Town of Gulf Stream10-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)Implementation Schedule Ongoing Projects (May 2018) General Fund Water Fund General Fund Water Fund General Fund Water Fund General Fund Water Fund General Fund Water Fund General Fund Water Fund General Fund Water Fund General Fund Water Fund General Fund Water Fund General Fund Water Fund General Fund Water Fund Active storm system maintenance 40,000$ 40,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ FEMA CRS Program reenrollment 1 15,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ Town-wide Water Meter Replacement Program 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ Annual Total by Fund:40,000$ -$ 55,000$ -$ 35,000$ 40,000$ 35,000$ 40,000$ 25,000$ 40,000$ 25,000$ 40,000$ 25,000$ 40,000$ 25,000$ 40,000$ 25,000$ 40,000$ 25,000$ 40,000$ 25,000$ 40,000$ Grand Total by Year: 1) Offset by potential $28,500 annual savings for Town flood insurance rate payers 65,000$ 65,000$ 2028 40,000$ 55,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 65,000$ 65,000$ 65,000$ 65,000$ 65,000$ 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Ongoing Projects 2018 2019 2020 2021 Section 4 Implementation Mathews Consulting 4-4 a Baxter and Woodman Company Section 4 Implementation Mathews Consulting 4-5 a Baxter and Woodman Company Upon construction of all the recommended projects in this plan, the City will have replaced the aging water main under public roadways, improved drainage conditions in the “Core” area and reconstructed or resurfaced all of the Town’s public roads. Next steps beyond ten years would be a condition assessment and life-cycle analysis of the remaining water mains with the first priority being those in easements on private property south of the Big Club followed by the existing mains in Place Au Soleil. APPENDIX A Bulk Water Agreements Appendix A.pdf 1Appendix A.pdf 1 5/31/2018 9:43:03 AM5/31/2018 9:43:03 AM Appendix A.pdf 2Appendix A.pdf 2 5/31/2018 9:47:24 AM5/31/2018 9:47:24 AM Appendix A.pdf 3Appendix A.pdf 3 5/31/2018 9:47:25 AM5/31/2018 9:47:25 AM Appendix A.pdf 4Appendix A.pdf 4 5/31/2018 9:47:25 AM5/31/2018 9:47:25 AM Appendix A.pdf 5Appendix A.pdf 5 5/31/2018 9:47:25 AM5/31/2018 9:47:25 AM Appendix A.pdf 6Appendix A.pdf 6 5/31/2018 9:47:26 AM5/31/2018 9:47:26 AM Appendix A.pdf 7 Ap p e n d i x A . p d f 7 5/31/2018 9:47:27 AM 5/ 3 1 / 2 0 1 8 9 : 4 7 : 2 7 A M Appendix A.pdf 8Appendix A.pdf 8 5/31/2018 9:47:27 AM5/31/2018 9:47:27 AM Appendix A.pdf 9Appendix A.pdf 9 5/31/2018 9:47:27 AM5/31/2018 9:47:27 AM Appendix A.pdf 10Appendix A.pdf 10 5/31/2018 9:47:28 AM5/31/2018 9:47:28 AM Appendix A.pdf 11Appendix A.pdf 11 5/31/2018 9:47:28 AM5/31/2018 9:47:28 AM Appendix A.pdf 12Appendix A.pdf 12 5/31/2018 9:47:29 AM5/31/2018 9:47:29 AM Appendix A.pdf 13Appendix A.pdf 13 5/31/2018 9:47:29 AM5/31/2018 9:47:29 AM Appendix A.pdf 14Appendix A.pdf 14 5/31/2018 9:47:29 AM5/31/2018 9:47:29 AM Appendix A.pdf 15Appendix A.pdf 15 5/31/2018 9:47:30 AM5/31/2018 9:47:30 AM Appendix A.pdf 16Appendix A.pdf 16 5/31/2018 9:47:30 AM5/31/2018 9:47:30 AM Appendix A.pdf 17Appendix A.pdf 17 5/31/2018 9:47:31 AM5/31/2018 9:47:31 AM Appendix A.pdf 18Appendix A.pdf 18 5/31/2018 9:47:31 AM5/31/2018 9:47:31 AM Appendix A.pdf 19Appendix A.pdf 19 5/31/2018 9:47:32 AM5/31/2018 9:47:32 AM Appendix A.pdf 20Appendix A.pdf 20 5/31/2018 9:47:32 AM5/31/2018 9:47:32 AM Appendix A.pdf 21Appendix A.pdf 21 5/31/2018 9:47:32 AM5/31/2018 9:47:32 AM Appendix A.pdf 22Appendix A.pdf 22 5/31/2018 9:47:33 AM5/31/2018 9:47:33 AM Appendix A.pdf 23Appendix A.pdf 23 5/31/2018 9:47:33 AM5/31/2018 9:47:33 AM Appendix A.pdf 24Appendix A.pdf 24 5/31/2018 9:47:34 AM5/31/2018 9:47:34 AM Appendix A.pdf 25Appendix A.pdf 25 5/31/2018 9:47:34 AM5/31/2018 9:47:34 AM Appendix A.pdf 26Appendix A.pdf 26 5/31/2018 9:47:34 AM5/31/2018 9:47:34 AM Appendix A.pdf 27Appendix A.pdf 27 5/31/2018 9:47:35 AM5/31/2018 9:47:35 AM Appendix A.pdf 28Appendix A.pdf 28 5/31/2018 9:47:35 AM5/31/2018 9:47:35 AM Appendix A.pdf 29Appendix A.pdf 29 5/31/2018 9:47:35 AM5/31/2018 9:47:35 AM Appendix A.pdf 30Appendix A.pdf 30 5/31/2018 9:47:36 AM5/31/2018 9:47:36 AM Appendix A.pdf 31Appendix A.pdf 31 5/31/2018 9:47:36 AM5/31/2018 9:47:36 AM Appendix A.pdf 32Appendix A.pdf 32 5/31/2018 9:47:36 AM5/31/2018 9:47:36 AM Appendix A.pdf 33Appendix A.pdf 33 5/31/2018 9:47:37 AM5/31/2018 9:47:37 AM Appendix A.pdf 34Appendix A.pdf 34 5/31/2018 9:47:37 AM5/31/2018 9:47:37 AM Appendix A.pdf 35Appendix A.pdf 35 5/31/2018 9:47:37 AM5/31/2018 9:47:37 AM Appendix A.pdf 36Appendix A.pdf 36 5/31/2018 9:47:38 AM5/31/2018 9:47:38 AM Appendix A.pdf 37Appendix A.pdf 37 5/31/2018 9:47:38 AM5/31/2018 9:47:38 AM Appendix A.pdf 38Appendix A.pdf 38 5/31/2018 9:47:38 AM5/31/2018 9:47:38 AM Appendix A.pdf 39Appendix A.pdf 39 5/31/2018 9:47:39 AM5/31/2018 9:47:39 AM Appendix A.pdf 40Appendix A.pdf 40 5/31/2018 9:47:39 AM5/31/2018 9:47:39 AM Appendix A.pdf 41Appendix A.pdf 41 5/31/2018 9:47:39 AM5/31/2018 9:47:39 AM Appendix A.pdf 42Appendix A.pdf 42 5/31/2018 9:47:40 AM5/31/2018 9:47:40 AM Appendix A.pdf 43Appendix A.pdf 43 5/31/2018 9:47:40 AM5/31/2018 9:47:40 AM Appendix A.pdf 44Appendix A.pdf 44 5/31/2018 9:47:40 AM5/31/2018 9:47:40 AM Appendix A.pdf 45Appendix A.pdf 45 5/31/2018 9:47:41 AM5/31/2018 9:47:41 AM Appendix A.pdf 46Appendix A.pdf 46 5/31/2018 9:47:41 AM5/31/2018 9:47:41 AM Appendix A.pdf 47Appendix A.pdf 47 5/31/2018 9:47:41 AM5/31/2018 9:47:41 AM Appendix A.pdf 48Appendix A.pdf 48 5/31/2018 9:47:42 AM5/31/2018 9:47:42 AM Appendix A.pdf 49Appendix A.pdf 49 5/31/2018 9:47:42 AM5/31/2018 9:47:42 AM Appendix A.pdf 50Appendix A.pdf 50 5/31/2018 9:47:42 AM5/31/2018 9:47:42 AM Appendix A.pdf 51Appendix A.pdf 51 5/31/2018 9:47:42 AM5/31/2018 9:47:42 AM Appendix A.pdf 52Appendix A.pdf 52 5/31/2018 9:47:43 AM5/31/2018 9:47:43 AM Appendix A.pdf 53Appendix A.pdf 53 5/31/2018 9:47:43 AM5/31/2018 9:47:43 AM Appendix A.pdf 54Appendix A.pdf 54 5/31/2018 9:47:43 AM5/31/2018 9:47:43 AM Appendix A.pdf 55Appendix A.pdf 55 5/31/2018 9:47:44 AM5/31/2018 9:47:44 AM APPENDIX B Consumer Confidence Report 2016 ANNUAL DRINKING WATER QUALITY REPORT May 22, 2017 Re: 2016 Water Quality Report — Town of Gulf Stream Dear Customers and/or Residents: We are pleased to present to you this year's Annual Water Quality Report. This report is designed to inform you about the quality of water and services we deliver to you every day. Our constant goal is to provide you with a safe and dependable supply of drinking water. The Town of Gulf Stream purchases its water from the City of Delray Beach Utilities. The City of Delray Beach withdraws water from shallow under -ground aquifers, known as the "Anastasia Formation", through wells and applies a lime softening process to treat the water. The Delray Beach Treatment Plant utilizes what is known as "Lime Softening Process" to treat raw water prior to distribution to its customers. Upon arrival at the Water Treatment Plant, the raw water is first aerated to remove natural gases. The water is then blended with lime in a clarifier for softening, color removal and iron removal. After the blending process the water is then filtered and disinfected per Federal and State drinking water standards. Prior to distribution. Fluoride is injected to maintain one part per million to prevent tooth decay. This report shows our water quality and what it means. If you have any questions about this report or concerning your water utility, please contact the City of Delray Beach Water Plant 561-243-7318 or the Town Hall 561-276-5116. The Town of Gulfstream routinely monitors for contaminants in your drinking water according to Federal and State laws, rules, and regulations. Except where indicated otherwise, this report is based on the results of our water monitoring for the period of January 1 to December 31, 2016. The data obtained, and presented in this report are from the most recent tests performed in accordance with the established drinking water laws, rules, and regulations. The Town of Gulf Stream is responsible to test for total Coliform bacteria monthly and Lead and Copper every thirty-six (36) months in accordance with 40 CFR 141. Subpart I. The City of Delray Beach, the primary supplier, is responsible for the monitoring of additional Primary and Secondary contaminants prior to its delivery in accordance with Federal and State laws. This annual report is for the reporting period of January 1 to December 31, 2016. The chart below shows substances that the EPA requires our utility to report. To determine how we compare to the federal regulation, compare the column that shows the highest level allowed by EPA (MCLs) to the column that shows the level detected at our utility during 2016, our last tesling period. Contaminant and Unit of Measurement Dates Of Sampling (mo./yr.) AL Exceeded YIN 90a' Percentile Result Lead and Copper (Tap Water No. of Sampling Sites Exceeding the AL MCLG AL (Action Level) Likely Source of Contamination Corrosion of household plumbing systems; Copper (tap water) (ppm) June 2016 NO 0.23 mglL 0 1.3 1.3 ppm erosion of natural deposits; leaching from wood preservatives. Corrosion of household Lead (tap water) (ppb) June 2016 NO 0.0039 mglL 0 0 15 ppb plumbing systems, erosion of natural deposits. Stag •' Disinfectants and Disinfection By -Products (DDPB) Parameters/Stage 1 Chloranuncs For haloacetic acids or TTHM, the level detected is the highest locananal running annual average (LRAA},computed quarterly, or quarterly averages oral/ samples collected if the system is mannonng quarterly or is the average of all samples taken dunng the year if the system monitors Icss frequently than quarterly. Range of Results in the range of individual sample results (lowest to highest) for all monitonng locations Disinfectant or Contaminant and Unit of Measurement Dates of Sampling (mo/yr) MCL Violation {YIN) Level Detected Range of Results MCLG MCL Likely Source of Contamination Haloacetic Acids {HAAS) (ppb) 8/_82016 N 19 23 1 it 87 • 19.23 N A 60 By-product of drinking water disinfection_ Total Trihalornelhanm (TTHM) (PPB) 828/2016 N 21 1 19 5 21 I N A 80 By-product of drinking water disinfection. C1ilornmines (PPM) 8/28/2016 N 3.2 PPM 0 09 5 9 4 PPM 4 PPM Water Additive to control Microbes Page 1 2016 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report May 1, 2017 Page 2 DEFINITIONS: The terms and abbreviations found in the above table are defined below: Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG): The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety. Maximum Contaminate Level (MCL): The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. MCLs are set as close to the MCLGs as feasible using the best available treatment technology_ Parts per million (ppm) — one part per million corresponds to one minute in two years or a single penny in $10,000. Parts per billion (ppb) -- one part by weight of analyle to 1 billion parts by weight of the water sample. Action Level (AL) -- the concentration of a contaminant, which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirements, which a water system must follow. ND — means nol detected and indicates that the substance was not found in laboratory analysis. A — Absent IMPORTANT INFORMATION: If present, elevated levels of lead can cause serious health problems, especially for pregnant women and young children. Lead in drinking water is primarily from materials and components associated with service lines and home plumbing_ The Town of Gulf Stream is responsible for providing high quality drinking water, but cannot control the variety of materials used in plumbing components. When your water has been sitting for several hours, you can minimize the potential for lead exposure by flushing your tap for 30 seconds to 2 minutes before using water for drinking or cooking. If you are concerned about lead in your water, you may wish to have your water tested. Information on lead in drinking water, testing methods. and steps you can take to minimize exposure is available on the Safe Drinking Water Hotline or at http;//www.epa.gov/safewater/lead. The source of drinking water (both tap water and bottled water) includes rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs and wells. As water travels over the surface of the land or through the ground, it dissolves naturally occurring minerals and, in some cases, radioactive material, and can pick up substances resulting form the presence of animals or from human activity. Contaminants that may be present in source water include: a. Microbial contaminants. such as viruses and bacteria, which may come from sewage treatment plants, septic systems, agricultural livestock operations, and wildlife. b. Inorganic contaminants, such as salts and metals, which can be naturally -occurring or result from urban storm wafer runoff, industrial or domestic wastewater discharges. oil and gas production, mining or farming. c. Pesticides and herbicides, which may come from a variety of sources such as agriculture, urban storm water runoff and residential uses. d. Organic chemical contaminants, including synthetic and volatile organic chemicals, which are by- products of industrial processes and petroleum production, and can also come from gas stations, urban storm water runoff, and septic systems. e. Radioactive contaminants, which can be naturally occurring or be the result of oil and gas production and mining activities. In order to ensure that tap water is safe to drink the EPA prescribes regulations to limit the amount of certain contaminants water provided by public water systems. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations establish limits for contaminants in bottled water that must provide the same protection for public health, Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be expected to contain at least small amounts of some contaminants. The presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that the water poses a health risk. More information about contaminants and potential health effects can be obtained by calling the Environmental Protection Agency's Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-426-4791. Some people may be more vulnerable to contaminants in drinking water than the general population. Immuno- compromised persons such as persons with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, persons who have undergone organ transplants, people with HIV/AIDS or other immune system disorders, some elderly, and infants can be particularly at risk from infections. These people should seek advice about drinking water from their health care providers. EPA/CDC guidelines on appropriate means to lessen the risk of infection by Cryptosporidium and other microbiological contaminants are available from Safe Drinking Water Hotline (1-800-426-4791). We at the Town of Gulf Stream work around the clock to provide top quality water to all our customers. We ask that you help us protect our water systems. which are the heart of our community, our way of life and our children's future.. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT DRINKING WATER QUALITY REPORT FOR 2016 1993 2991 (This report is mandated by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and has been produced and distributed at our customers' expense) The report is for Water Quality supplied to our customers from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016. This report is intended to provide our customers with information relating to the quality of water produced by the City of Delray Beach Water Treatment Plant. Our Drinking Water is produced within the stringent govemmental guidelines for treatment and testing of drinking water in the United States. (ESPANOL)Este es un documento muy importance con respecto a su agua potable. Este reporte esta disponible en Espanol en La Casa Municipal cuando (lame a (561) 243-7000 o visitenos en la Internet a www.mydelraybeach.com. (KREYOL) Ti Liv sa, se yon Dokiman tit enpotan Konsenan Kalite Dlo Ke ou bwe. Si ou la vle, ou Kapab jwen'n li an Kreyol nan Komi'n Delray Beach la. Health Information Some people may be more vulnerable to contaminants in drinking water than the general population. Immune -compromised persons such as persons with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, persons who have undergone organ transplants, people with HIV/AIDS or other immune system disorders, some elderly and infants can be particularly at risk to infections. These people should seek advice about drinking water from their health care providers. EPA/CDC guidelines on appropriate means to lessen the risk of infection by Cryptosporidium and other microbial contaminants are available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline (1- 800426-4791). if present, elevated levels of lead can cause serious health problems, especially for pregnant women and young children. Lead In drinking water is primarily from materials and components associated with service lines and home plumbing. The City of Delray Beach is responsible for providing high quality drinking water, but cannot control the variety of materials used in plumbing components. When your water has been sitting for several hours, you can minimize the potential for lead exposure by flushing your tap for 30 seconds to 2 minutes before using water for drinking or cooking. If you are concerned about lead in your water, you may wish to have your water tested. information on lead in drinking water, testing methods, and steps you can take to minimize exposure is available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline or at httaaiwww.eaa.govlsafewaterIlead. Coliforms are bacteria that are naturally present in the environment and are used as an indicator that other, potentially harmful, waterborne pathogens may be present or that a potential pathway exists through which contamination may enter the drinking water distribution system. We found coliforms indicating the need to look for potential problems in water treatment ar distribution. When this occurs, we are required to conduct assessment(s) to identify problems and to correct any problems that were found during these assessments. During the past year we were required to conduct and complete a level 1 assessment. No corrective actions were required. In addition, we had some sites in the distribution system extremities and end points that violated the minimum total chlorine residual level of 0.6 mg/L. When this occurred, actions were taken to raise levels above the minimum standard. Why are Contaminants present in Drinklna Water? The sources of drinking water (both tap water and bottled water) include rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs and wells. As water travels over the surface of the land or through the ground, it dissolves naturally occurring minerals and, in some cases, radioactive material, and can pick up substances resulting from the presence of animals or from human activity. Contaminants that may be present in source water include: (A) Microbial contaminants, such as viruses and bacteria, which may come from sewage treatment plants, septic systems. agricultural livestock operations, and wildlife. (B) Inorganic contaminants, such as salts and metals, which can be naturally occurring or result from urban storm water runoff, industrial or domestic wastewater discharges, oil and gas production, mining, or farming. (C) Pesticides and herbicides, which may come from a variety of sources such as agriculture, urban storm water runoff, and residential uses. (D) Organic chemical contaminants, including synthetic and volatile organic chemicals, which are by-products of industrial processes and petroleum production, and can also, come from gas stations, urban storm water runoff, and septic systems. (E) Radioactive contaminants, which can be naturally occurring or be the result of oil and gas production and mining activities. In order to insure that tap water is safe to drink, EPA prescribes regulations, which limit the amount of certain contaminants in water provided by public water systems. FDA regulations establish limits for contaminants in bottled water, which must provide the same protection for public health. Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be expected to contain at least small amounts of some contaminants. The presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that water poses a health risk. More information about contaminants and potential health effects can be obtained by calling the Environmental Protection Agency's Safe Drinking Water Hotline (1-800-426-4791). Where Does Our Water Come From? The City of Delray Beach withdraws water from a shallow under -ground aquifer known as the "Anastasia Formation". There are 30 raw water wells located throughout the City from which water is drawn and piped to the water treatment plant. We are currently operating under a water use permit issued by the South Florida Water Management District. Our water use permit allows for the withdrawal of up to 19.1 million gallons per day. In 2016, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) performed a Source Water Assessment of our system. The assessment was conducted to provide information about potential sources of contamination near City's wells. There were seventeen potential sources of contamination identified for the City's system with low to moderate susceptibility levels. The assessment results are available on the FDEP Source Water Assessment and Protection Program web site at www.deo.state.fl.us/swapp or they can be obtained by contacting the city at (561) 243-7318. The city monitors for source water contaminants on a semiannual basis to ensure its safety. How is Our Water Treated? The City of Delray Beach Water Treatment Plant utilizes what is known as "Lime Softening Process" to treat raw water prior to distribution to our customers. Upon arrival at the Water Treatment Plant, the raw water is first aerated to remove natural gasses. The water is then blended with lime in a clarifier for softening, color removal and iron removal. After the blending process the water is then filtered and disinfected per the Health Department. Prior to distribution, Fluoride is injected to prevent tooth decay. Now we Ensure the Hlchest Water Quality? During the treatment process as well as after the water is released into the distribution system, it undergoes a series of intense testing. Thousands of samples are analyzed each year for chemical, physical and microbiological parameters. The results of this test are compared with standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. These results are indicated on the tables included below in this pamphlet. When reading these tables, the lower the test results. the higher the water quality. This ongoing testing and research is your assurance that water produced by the City of Delray Beach will be of the highest quality for consumption each time you turn on your faucet. Additional Testing We also conduct tests for the presence of 85 additional contaminants, such as Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) & Pesticides, Unregulated Contaminants, Arsenic, Asbestos, Mercury and many others. We are pleased to report that all of these additional contaminants were below the detection limits of our sampling instruments. Compliance monitoring requirements for certain contaminants are less frequent than once per year since concentrations are not expected to vary significantly from year to year. Some results are from previous years monitoring. Additional llrfor►nation The Environmental Services Department of the City is open Monday through Friday from 7:30am to 4:30pm and can be contacted directly for questions and concerns relating to water quality. The City of Delray Beach conducts regular City Commission meetings on the first and third Tuesday of every month in the Commission Chambers at City Hall. These meetings are open to the public and are an excellent forum for citizens to voice their questions and concems. We have worked very hard to maintain a first rate facility and we welcome the public to tour our Water Treatment Plant. Tours can be scheduled by contacting the Water Treatment Plant directly. Further details of our water treatment process are also available at our web site www.mwdelravbeach.com. lmoortant releohone Numbers City of Delray Beach Environmental Services Dept. City of Delray Water Treatment Plant Palm Beach County Public Health Unit Interestins_Comnarisons 1 part per million is equal to 1 cent in $10,000 1 inch in 16 miles Definitions Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG): The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLG's allow for a margin of safety. Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL): The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water MCL's are set as close to the MCLG's as feasible using the best available treatment technology. Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal (MRDLG): The level of a drinking water disinfectant below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MRDLG's do not reflect the benefits of the use of disinfectants to control m crobial contaminants. Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level (MRDL): The highest level of a disinfectant allowed in drinking water. There is convincing evidence that addition of a disinfectant is necessary for control of microbial contaminants. Action Level (AL): The concentration of a contaminant, which, if exceeded, triggers a treatment, or other requirement that a water system must follow. Level 1 Assessment: A Level 1 assessment is a study of the water system to identify potential problems and determine (if possible) why total coliform bacteria have been found in our water system. (561) 243-7000. ext. 4000 (561) 243-7318 Florida Department of Health (561) 837-5900 Environmental Protection Agency (904) 791-1599 (800)426-4791 1 second in 12 days 1 par in 55,500 rounds of golf 1 pound in 500 tons Abbreviations Parts per Million (ppm) Parts per Billion (ppb) Not Detected (ND) Picocurie per Liter (pCi1L) Not Applicable (NIA) 2016 CCR TEST RESULTS -CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Primary Inorganic Contaminants Contaminant and Unit of Measurement Oates o( sampling (mo..yr) MCL aMRDL V)e/eG(on YIN Lore/ Detected Rasps ofRends MCLG MCL Lfkay Source of Contamination Barium (ppm) 10/14 N 0.00439 ppm 0.00439 2 ppm 2 ppm (a) .r:hromlum (ppb) 10/14 N 1.84 ppb 1.84 100 ppb 100 ppb (b) Fluoride (ppm) 05)16 N 0-83 ppm 0.11 -0.83 4 ppm 4 ppm (c) Nitrate as Nitrogen (ppm) 11)16 N 0.11 ppm 0.11 0.12 10 ppm 1 ppm 10 ppm (d) -- Nitrite as Nitrogen (ppm) 11)16 N 0.12 ppm 1 ppm (e) Sodium (ppm) 10/14 N 30.4 ppm 30.4 160 ppm 160 ppm (1) Microbiological Contaminants (Contaminant Dates of Sampling Ammar) MCL orMRDL VblapaftY/N Level Detected Range of Results MCLG or MRDLG MCL or MRDL LA* Source of CAVMMUEIs4 Total Calitorrn Baclena 01/16-03116 N —.1-. 3% 0 - 3 0 5% (g) Stage 2 Disinfectant/Disinfection By -Product (D1DBP) Parameters/ Stage 1 Chloramines Disinfectant or Contaminant nd Linn of Measurement s Dates of (mo4rl MCL er MRDL V]btarlon KM La.ar 4>,.a.ce.e Rip dR•arie MCLG or MRDLG MCL or MRDL Likely Source of Contamination Total Trihalomethanes (ppb) 01/16 -12116 N 26.9 ppb 17.4 - 37.2 0 ppb 80 ppb (h) (h) ._ (i) -- Total Hato Acetic Acid (ppb) 01/16112/16 N_ 32.9 ppb 14,1 - 40.6 — —4--- 0 ppb 60 ppb .- --Chloramines (ppm) 01!18 -12/16 N 3.2 pp -i--1-0707-76:9 4 ppm 4 ppm-4- Lead and Copper (Tap Water Contaminant and Unit of Measurement Dates of Sampling (mo/yr) AL Ewraeded (Y/N, Sly, % Aercerrah Result Na of sampling styes a reedkug the AL MCLG AL (Action LOMO Llh•ty Santee or Conlamfnarlon I.ead (tap water] ppb , (77.'16 -12/16 N 4 ppb 1 d'ripb ' 15 ppb (1} Copper (tap water) ppm i 47115 -12/16 N 0.22 ppm 0 1.3 ppm 1.3 ppm (k) The following is a list of the definition and likely source of contamination for each detected contaminant. a) Barium Discharge of drilling wastes; discharge and pulp mills from metal riiiiiiiiiies; erosion of natural deposits (b) Chromium Discharge from steel erosion of natural deposits 0) Fluoride _ d) Nitrate as Nitrogen Erosion discharges Formed natural of natural deposits; water additive which promotes strong teeth at optimum levels between 0.7 and 1.2 ppm: from fertilizer and aluminum factories. when nitrogen is exposed to oxygen; both are elements occurring in nature. A likely source is erosion of deposits. n) Nitrite as Nitrogen Formed natural Sall when nitrogen is exposed to oxygen; both are elements occumng in nature. A likely source is erosion of dajusits. (0 Sodium water intrusion; leaching from soil 9) Total cokform Bacteria Naturally present in the environment h) TTHM's 8 HAA's TTHM's 8 HAA's are contaminants formed when chlorine reacts with carbon compounds naturally occurring In givund water. such as chloroform- These items area by-product of drinkinq water Chlorinating. _ (i) Chloramines Water additive used to control microbes (j) Lead Lead is an element occurring in nature and often occurs in water syxtems- as the result. as the result of corrosion of household plumbing (k) Copper 'syxtems Copper is an element occumng in nature and often occurs in water of corrosion of household plumbing APPENDIX C Water Demands by Customer Class Town of Gulf Stream Metered Data Customer Class Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Total Addresses 20,924,500 20,924,500 14,723,500 14,723,500 15,611,000 15,611,000 17,920,000 17,920,000 19,757,500 19,757,500 20,172,500 20,172,500 19,888,000 Multi Family 1,762,000 1,762,000 1,346,500 1,346,500 1,360,500 1,360,500 1,643,500 1,643,500 1,448,000 1,448,000 1,979,000 1,979,000 1,846,500 Single Family Residence (SFR) 16,567,000 16,567,000 11,631,000 11,631,000 11,853,000 11,853,000 13,739,000 13,739,000 15,839,500 15,839,500 15,459,000 15,459,000 15,301,500 Non Resident (NR) 1,047,000 1,047,000 772,000 772,000 1,360,000 1,360,000 1,032,500 1,032,500 955,000 955,000 1,076,500 1,076,500 1,099,500 Irrigation 1,121,500 1,121,500 642,000 642,000 645,000 645,000 1,124,000 1,124,000 1,082,000 1,082,000 1,162,500 1,162,500 1,180,500 Reserve 0000000000000 Public 427,000 427,000 332,000 332,000 392,500 392,500 381,000 381,000 433,000 433,000 495,500 495,500 460,000 Customer Class Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 May-17 Jun-17 Jul-17 Aug-17 Sep-17 Oct-17 Nov-17 Total Addresses 19,888,000 17,122,500 17,122,500 18,058,000 18,058,000 19,542,500 19,542,500 19,716,000 19,716,000 18,984,000 18,984,000 Multi Family 1,846,500 1,634,000 1,634,000 1,942,500 1,942,500 1,585,500 1,585,500 961,500 961,500 919,500 919,500 Single Family Residence (SFR) 15,301,500 13,256,000 13,256,000 13,677,000 13,677,000 15,442,000 15,442,000 16,969,500 16,969,500 16,126,500 16,126,500 Non Resident (NR) 1,099,500 1,049,000 1,049,000 1,106,500 1,106,500 999,000 999,000 962,500 962,500 975,500 975,500 Irrigation 1,180,500 850,000 850,000 921,500 921,500 1,038,500 1,038,500 523,000 523,000 591,000 591,000 Reserve 0 0 0 64,000 64,000 136,000 136,000 43,500 43,500 24,500 24,500 Public 460,000 333,500 333,500 346,500 346,500 341,500 341,500 256,000 256,000 347,000 347,000 Customer Class No. Total Addresses 376 Multi Family 21 Single Family Residence (SFR) 318 Non Resident (NR) 15 Irrigation 16 Reserve 1 Public 5 Monthly Water Use Data - 2015, 2016 Monthly Water Use Data - 2017 APPENDIX D Hydraulic Water Layout Gulf Stream Water Model 20130 with CIP Changes.wtg 2/12/2018 Bentley System, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Bentley WaterCAD V8i (SELECTseries 4) [08.11.04.58] Page 1 of 1 Pipe Diameter (inches)Color Code 3 4 6 8 10 12 APPENDIX E Hydraulic Model Results ID Label Length  (Scaled) (ft)Diameter (in) Material Hazen‐Williams C Flow  (gpm)Velocity (ft/s) 210 P‐105 66 6 Asbestos Cement 120 331 3.76 211 P‐106 115 6 Asbestos Cement 120 208 2.36 306 P‐156 519 6 Asbestos Cement 120 140 1.58 327 P‐167 506 6 Asbestos Cement 120 130 1.48 496 P‐229 375 6 Asbestos Cement 120 130 1.48 275 P‐140 926 6 Asbestos Cement 120 130 1.47 502 P‐233 257 6 Asbestos Cement 120 130 1.47 39 P‐5 98 12 PVC 140 502 1.43 208 P‐103 304 6 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐123 1.4 308 P‐157 552 6 Asbestos Cement 120 116 1.31 86 P‐30 202 12 PVC 140 459 1.3 77 P‐25 58 12 PVC 140 438 1.24 81 P‐27 233 12 PVC 140 438 1.24 87 P‐31 40 12 PVC 140 438 1.24 91 P‐33 208 12 PVC 140 438 1.24 104 P‐41 510 4 Asbestos Cement 120 47 1.2 497 P‐230 662 6 Asbestos Cement 120 100 1.14 508 P‐237 206 12 PVC 140 391 1.11 310 P‐158 496 6 Asbestos Cement 120 93 1.05 113 P‐47 34 12 PVC 140 354 1 469 P‐222 41 12 PVC 140 354 1 509 P‐238 76 12 PVC 140 354 1 89 P‐32 522 3 Asbestos Cement 120 21 0.97 214 P‐108 148 12 PVC 140 ‐331 0.94 312 P‐159 460 6 Asbestos Cement 120 81 0.92 127 P‐55 390 12 PVC 140 324 0.92 216 P‐109 355 8 Asbestos Cement 120 144 0.92 320 P‐163 199 4 Asbestos Cement 120 36 0.91 322 P‐164 288 4 Asbestos Cement 120 36 0.91 500 P‐232 292 6 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐79 0.89 503 P‐234 315 6 Asbestos Cement 120 79 0.89 366 P‐189 259 3 Asbestos Cement 120 19 0.87 332 P‐170 119 6 Asbestos Cement 120 73 0.83 337 P‐173 50 6 Asbestos Cement 120 73 0.83 128 P‐56 46 12 PVC 140 292 0.83 143 P‐64 489 12 PVC 140 292 0.83 527 P‐239 306 12 PVC 140 292 0.83 133 P‐59 614 4 Asbestos Cement 120 32 0.81 118 P‐50 627 4 Asbestos Cement 120 30 0.78 247 P‐125 138 6 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐67 0.76 152 P‐70 685 12 PVC 140 260 0.74 157 P‐73 704 12 PVC 140 260 0.74 162 P‐76 343 12 PVC 140 260 0.74 474 P‐224 475 12 PVC 140 260 0.74 528 P‐240 301 12 PVC 140 260 0.74 530 P‐241 226 12 PVC 140 260 0.74 493 P‐227 370 6 Asbestos Cement 120 63 0.72 499 P‐231 467 6 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐63 0.72 347 P‐179 169 6 Asbestos Cement 120 62 0.7 218 P‐110 118 8 Asbestos Cement 120 108 0.69 272 P‐138 46 12 PVC 140 229 0.65 168 P‐80 556 12 PVC 140 229 0.65 Town of Gulf Stream 2017 Flow Conditions at Peak Hour Pipe Table ID Label Length  (Scaled) (ft)Diameter (in) Material Hazen‐Williams C Flow  (gpm)Velocity (ft/s) Town of Gulf Stream 2017 Flow Conditions at Peak Hour Pipe Table 172 P‐82 48 12 PVC 140 229 0.65 531 P‐242 181 12 PVC 140 229 0.65 252 P‐128 59 8 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐100 0.64 346 P‐178 794 6 Asbestos Cement 120 53 0.6 203 P‐101 25 12 PVC 140 ‐208 0.59 54 P‐14 160 4 Asbestos Cement 120 23 0.58 229 P‐116 301 8 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐89 0.57 243 P‐123 60 6 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐48 0.54 245 P‐124 121 6 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐48 0.54 462 P‐218 314 6 Asbestos Cement 120 47 0.54 463 P‐219 378 6 Asbestos Cement 120 47 0.54 103 P‐40 91 6 Asbestos Cement 120 47 0.53 213 P‐107 741 12 PVC 140 ‐187 0.53 198 P‐98 147 12 PVC 140 ‐187 0.53 342 P‐176 516 4 Asbestos Cement 120 21 0.52 249 P‐126 69 8 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐79 0.5 251 P‐127 226 8 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐79 0.5 384 P‐198 106 6 Asbestos Cement 120 44 0.5 386 P‐199 46 6 Asbestos Cement 120 44 0.5 388 P‐200 560 6 Asbestos Cement 120 44 0.5 389 P‐201 232 6 Asbestos Cement 120 44 0.5 222 P‐112 305 4 Asbestos Cement 120 19 0.49 262 P‐133 445 4 Asbestos Cement 120 19 0.49 50 P‐11 786 6 Asbestos Cement 120 43 0.49 197 P‐97 743 12 PVC 140 ‐170 0.48 304 P‐155 257 12 PVC 140 ‐170 0.48 314 P‐160 498 6 Asbestos Cement 120 39 0.45 241 P‐122 309 6 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐39 0.44 224 P‐113 62 6 Asbestos Cement 120 36 0.41 226 P‐114 58 6 Asbestos Cement 120 36 0.41 316 P‐161 44 6 Asbestos Cement 120 36 0.41 318 P‐162 240 6 Asbestos Cement 120 36 0.41 289 P‐147 586 6 Asbestos Cement 120 36 0.4 138 P‐62 451 6 Asbestos Cement 120 32 0.36 137 P‐61 492 6 Asbestos Cement 120 32 0.36 117 P‐49 98 6 Asbestos Cement 120 30 0.34 110 P‐45 731 6 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐30 0.34 291 P‐148 712 6 Asbestos Cement 120 29 0.33 260 P‐132 336 4 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐12 0.31 330 P‐169 192 6 Asbestos Cement 120 27 0.3 228 P‐115 551 4 Asbestos Cement 120 12 0.3 60 P‐17 349 6 Asbestos Cement 120 25 0.29 273 P‐139 373 12 PVC 140 99 0.28 324 P‐165 173 12 PVC 140 99 0.28 295 P‐150 432 6 Asbestos Cement 120 24 0.27 297 P‐151 514 6 Asbestos Cement 120 24 0.27 293 P‐149 27 6 Asbestos Cement 120 24 0.27 65 P‐20 145 4 Asbestos Cement 120 11 0.27 350 P‐181 167 6 Asbestos Cement 120 24 0.27 352 P‐182 325 6 Asbestos Cement 120 24 0.27 494 P‐228 911 6 Asbestos Cement 120 24 0.27 354 P‐183 174 6 Asbestos Cement 120 23 0.26 ID Label Length  (Scaled) (ft)Diameter (in) Material Hazen‐Williams C Flow  (gpm)Velocity (ft/s) Town of Gulf Stream 2017 Flow Conditions at Peak Hour Pipe Table 356 P‐184 329 6 Asbestos Cement 120 23 0.26 358 P‐185 248 6 Asbestos Cement 120 23 0.26 254 P‐129 159 6 Asbestos Cement 120 22 0.25 256 P‐130 366 6 Asbestos Cement 120 22 0.25 458 P‐215 120 4 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐9 0.24 348 P‐180 463 4 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐9 0.23 340 P‐175 133 6 Asbestos Cement 120 21 0.23 236 P‐119 324 6 Asbestos Cement 120 20 0.23 505 P‐235 374 6 Asbestos Cement 120 20 0.23 220 P‐111 420 6 Asbestos Cement 120 19 0.22 362 P‐187 321 6 Asbestos Cement 120 19 0.22 364 P‐188 227 6 Asbestos Cement 120 19 0.22 506 P‐236 366 6 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐19 0.22 239 P‐121 415 6 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐19 0.22 266 P‐135 335 4 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐8 0.21 46 P‐9 68 4 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐8 0.21 48 P‐10 316 4 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐8 0.21 52 P‐13 167 6 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐18 0.2 99 P‐38 353 6 Asbestos Cement 120 17 0.19 44 P‐8 166 6 Asbestos Cement 120 15 0.17 61 P‐18 43 6 Asbestos Cement 120 15 0.17 335 P‐172 341 6 Asbestos Cement 120 12 0.13 459 P‐216 46 6 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐9 0.11 287 P‐146 5 6 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐8 0.1 325 P‐166 198 12 PVC 140 ‐31 0.09 303 P‐154 5 12 PVC 140 ‐31 0.09 200 P‐99 418 12 PVC 140 17 0.05 209 P‐104 19 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 299 P‐152 37 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 465 P‐220 50 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 175 P‐84 61 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 453 P‐213 65 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 382 P‐197 63 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 165 P‐78 65 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 395 P‐204 64 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 190 P‐93 65 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 106 P‐42 63 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 135 P‐60 71 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 140 P‐63 67 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 155 P‐72 61 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 376 P‐194 63 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 120 P‐51 64 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 195 P‐96 66 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 391 P‐202 47 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 185 P‐90 64 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 471 P‐223 85 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 446 P‐211 61 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 74 P‐23 62 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 378 P‐195 66 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 401 P‐207 63 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 460 P‐217 87 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 268 P‐136 69 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 ID Label Length  (Scaled) (ft)Diameter (in) Material Hazen‐Williams C Flow  (gpm)Velocity (ft/s) Town of Gulf Stream 2017 Flow Conditions at Peak Hour Pipe Table 270 P‐137 68 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 150 P‐69 65 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 264 P‐134 64 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 145 P‐66 63 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 258 P‐131 58 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 56 P‐15 63 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 279 P‐142 40 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 372 P‐192 63 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 360 P‐186 63 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 448 P‐212 70 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 428 P‐208 61 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 63 P‐19 59 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 160 P‐75 63 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 125 P‐54 70 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 477 P‐226 72 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 374 P‐193 63 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 393 P‐203 346 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 368 P‐190 67 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 370 P‐191 64 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 399 P‐206 63 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 442 P‐209 72 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 397 P‐205 65 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 380 P‐196 78 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 84 P‐29 68 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 79 P‐26 297 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 115 P‐48 76 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 180 P‐87 101 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 301 P‐153 89 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 281 P‐143 284 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 233 P‐118 66 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 231 P‐117 63 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 170 P‐81 67 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 ID Label Elevation (ft) Demand Collection Demand (gpm)Hydraulic Grade  (ft)Pressure (psi)Pressure Head  (ft) 313 Water Node 3 0 <Collection: 1 item> 16 117.48 51 117.48 309 Water Node 3 0 <Collection: 1 item> 38 117.96 51 117.96 495 Water Node 3 0 <Collection: 1 item> 30 118.78 51 118.78 333 Water Node 3 0 <Collection: 1 item> 6 117.48 51 117.48 311 Water Node 3 0 <Collection: 1 item> 22 117.58 51 117.58 341 Water Node 3 0 <Collection: 1 item> 11 117.62 51 117.62 284 Water Node 3 0 <Collection: 1 item> 32 117.24 51 117.24 290 Water Node 2 0 <Collection: 1 item> 4 117.05 51 117.05 492 Water Node 2 0 <Collection: 1 item> 40 117.31 51 117.31 498 Water Node 2 0 <Collection: 1 item> 15 117.75 51 117.75 501 Water Node 2 0 <Collection: 1 item> 51 118.22 51 118.22 529 Water Node 2 0 <Collection: 1 item> 31 120.65 52 120.65 526 Water Node 2 0 <Collection: 1 item> 32 121.15 52 121.15 507 Water Node 2 0 <Collection: 1 item> 37 121.5 53 121.5 88 Water Node 2 0 <Collection: 1 item> 21 120.77 52 120.77 455 Water Node 2 0 <Collection: 1 item> 9 121.72 53 121.72 64 Water Node 2 0 <Collection: 1 item> 11 121.69 53 121.69 53 Water Node 1 0 <Collection: 1 item> 23 121.61 53 121.61 93 Water Node 1 0 <Collection: 1 item> 30 120.75 52 120.75 100 Water Node 1 0 <Collection: 1 item> 47 120.22 52 120.22 129 Water Node 1 0 <Collection: 1 item> 32 120.56 52 120.56 191 Water Node 1 0 <Collection: 1 item> 0 120.61 52 120.61 504 Water Node 1 0 <Collection: 1 item> 39 120.05 52 120.05 265 Water Node 1 0 <Collection: 1 item> 8 120.13 52 120.13 261 Water Node 1 0 <Collection: 1 item> 19 120.03 52 120.03 259 Water Node 1 0 <Collection: 1 item> 12 120.24 52 120.24 255 Water Node 1 0 <Collection: 1 item> 22 120.31 52 120.31 225 Water Node 0 <Collection: 1 item> 24 120.46 52 120.46 221 Water Node 0 <Collection: 1 item> 19 120.29 52 120.29 199 Water Node 0 <Collection: 1 item> 17 120.6 52 120.6 351 Water Node 0 <Collection: 1 item> 24 119.31 52 119.31 357 Water Node 0 <Collection: 1 item> 23 118.42 51 118.42 365 Water Node 0 <Collection: 1 item> 19 117.12 51 117.12 321 Water Node 0 <Collection: 1 item> 36 116.8 51 116.8 288 Water Node 0 <Collection: 1 item> 7 117.13 51 117.13 296 Water Node 0 <Collection: 1 item> 24 116.96 51 116.96 473 J‐175 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.69 52 120.69 467 J‐173 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.47 53 121.47 461 J‐171 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.48 53 121.48 457 J‐170 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.73 53 121.73 398 J‐162 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 117.44 51 117.44 392 J‐159 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 117.24 51 117.24 390 J‐158 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 117.24 51 117.24 387 J‐157 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 117.3 51 117.3 385 J‐156 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 117.44 51 117.44 383 J‐155 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 117.46 51 117.46 363 J‐145 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 117.55 51 117.55 361 J‐144 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 117.57 51 117.57 355 J‐141 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 118.44 51 118.44 353 J‐140 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 118.47 51 118.47 349 J‐138 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 119.34 52 119.34 345 J‐137 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 117.57 51 117.57 Town of Gulf Stream 2017 Flow Conditions at Peak Hour Junction Table ID Label Elevation (ft) Demand Collection Demand (gpm)Hydraulic Grade  (ft)Pressure (psi)Pressure Head  (ft) Town of Gulf Stream 2017 Flow Conditions at Peak Hour Junction Table 339 J‐134 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 117.86 51 117.86 336 J‐133 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 117.87 51 117.87 331 J‐131 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 117.9 51 117.9 328 J‐130 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 117.98 51 117.98 326 J‐129 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 119.52 52 119.52 323 J‐128 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.52 52 120.52 319 J‐126 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 117.17 51 117.17 317 J‐125 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 117.43 51 117.43 315 J‐124 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 117.47 51 117.47 307 J‐120 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 118.48 51 118.48 305 J‐119 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 119.35 52 119.35 302 J‐118 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.52 52 120.52 294 J‐114 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 117.01 51 117.01 292 J‐113 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 117.04 51 117.04 286 J‐110 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 117.24 51 117.24 282 J‐108 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 117.51 51 117.51 280 J‐107 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 117.98 51 117.98 278 J‐106 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 117.98 51 117.98 276 J‐105 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 117.98 51 117.98 274 J‐104 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 118.72 51 118.72 271 J‐103 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.53 52 120.53 253 J‐94 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.34 52 120.34 250 J‐93 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.35 52 120.35 248 J‐92 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.31 52 120.31 246 J‐91 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.29 52 120.29 244 J‐90 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.22 52 120.22 242 J‐89 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.18 52 120.18 240 J‐88 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.16 52 120.16 237 J‐87 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.07 52 120.07 235 J‐86 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.07 52 120.07 234 J‐85 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.09 52 120.09 227 J‐82 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.37 52 120.37 223 J‐80 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.47 52 120.47 219 J‐78 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.42 52 120.42 217 J‐77 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.44 52 120.44 215 J‐76 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.48 52 120.48 212 J‐75 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.69 52 120.69 207 J‐74 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.27 52 121.27 204 J‐72 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.27 52 121.27 201 J‐71 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.73 52 120.73 196 J‐69 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.6 52 120.6 186 J‐65 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.54 52 120.54 181 J‐63 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.52 52 120.52 176 J‐61 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.52 52 120.52 171 J‐59 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.54 52 120.54 166 J‐57 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.63 52 120.63 161 J‐55 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.78 52 120.78 156 J‐53 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.84 52 120.84 151 J‐51 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.97 52 120.97 146 J‐49 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.1 52 121.1 142 J‐48 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.22 52 121.22 136 J‐45 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.27 52 121.27 ID Label Elevation (ft) Demand Collection Demand (gpm)Hydraulic Grade  (ft)Pressure (psi)Pressure Head  (ft) Town of Gulf Stream 2017 Flow Conditions at Peak Hour Junction Table 131 J‐43 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.2 52 121.2 126 J‐41 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.34 52 121.34 121 J‐39 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.33 52 121.33 116 J‐37 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.35 53 121.35 111 J‐35 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.46 53 121.46 107 J‐34 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.45 53 121.45 102 J‐32 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.32 52 121.32 98 J‐30 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.35 53 121.35 95 J‐29 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.37 53 121.37 90 J‐27 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.58 53 121.58 85 J‐25 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.83 53 121.83 80 J‐23 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.68 53 121.68 75 J‐21 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.81 53 121.81 70 J‐19 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.79 53 121.79 59 J‐15 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.71 53 121.71 49 J‐11 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.74 53 121.74 47 J‐10 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.73 53 121.73 45 J‐9 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.71 53 121.71 43 J‐8 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.7 53 121.7 41 J‐7 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.71 53 121.71 38 J‐6 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.94 53 121.94 34 J‐4 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.73 52 120.73 32 J‐3 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.55 52 120.55 536 ach Intercon 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 117.05 51 117.05 ID Label Length  (Scaled) (ft)Diameter (in) Material Hazen‐Williams  C Flow (gpm)Velocity  (ft/s) 210 P‐105 66 6 Asbestos Cement 120 358 4.06 211 P‐106 115 6 Asbestos Cement 120 225 2.55 306 P‐156 519 6 Asbestos Cement 120 147 1.67 327 P‐167 506 6 Asbestos Cement 120 137 1.56 496 P‐229 375 6 Asbestos Cement 120 137 1.56 502 P‐233 257 6 Asbestos Cement 120 137 1.55 275 P‐140 926 6 Asbestos Cement 120 137 1.55 39 P‐5 98 12 PVC 140 539 1.53 208 P‐103 304 6 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐133 1.51 86 P‐30 202 12 PVC 140 494 1.4 308 P‐157 552 6 Asbestos Cement 120 122 1.39 77 P‐25 58 12 PVC 140 471 1.34 81 P‐27 233 12 PVC 140 471 1.34 91 P‐33 208 12 PVC 140 471 1.34 87 P‐31 40 12 PVC 140 471 1.34 104 P‐41 510 4 Asbestos Cement 120 50 1.27 497 P‐230 662 6 Asbestos Cement 120 106 1.2 508 P‐237 206 12 PVC 140 421 1.19 310 P‐158 496 6 Asbestos Cement 120 98 1.11 113 P‐47 34 12 PVC 140 382 1.08 469 P‐222 41 12 PVC 140 382 1.08 509 P‐238 76 12 PVC 140 382 1.08 89 P‐32 522 3 Asbestos Cement 120 22 1.02 214 P‐108 148 12 PVC 140 ‐358 1.01 127 P‐55 390 12 PVC 140 351 0.99 312 P‐159 460 6 Asbestos Cement 120 86 0.97 216 P‐109 355 8 Asbestos Cement 120 152 0.97 320 P‐163 199 4 Asbestos Cement 120 38 0.97 322 P‐164 288 4 Asbestos Cement 120 38 0.97 500 P‐232 292 6 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐83 0.95 503 P‐234 315 6 Asbestos Cement 120 83 0.95 366 P‐189 259 3 Asbestos Cement 120 20 0.92 128 P‐56 46 12 PVC 140 317 0.9 143 P‐64 489 12 PVC 140 317 0.9 527 P‐239 306 12 PVC 140 317 0.9 332 P‐170 119 6 Asbestos Cement 120 78 0.88 337 P‐173 50 6 Asbestos Cement 120 78 0.88 133 P‐59 614 4 Asbestos Cement 120 34 0.86 118 P‐50 627 4 Asbestos Cement 120 32 0.82 152 P‐70 685 12 PVC 140 284 0.8 157 P‐73 704 12 PVC 140 284 0.8 162 P‐76 343 12 PVC 140 284 0.8 474 P‐224 475 12 PVC 140 284 0.8 528 P‐240 301 12 PVC 140 284 0.8 Town of Gulf Stream 2030 Flow Conditions at Peak Hour Pipe Table ID Label Length  (Scaled) (ft)Diameter (in) Material Hazen‐Williams  C Flow (gpm)Velocity  (ft/s) Town of Gulf Stream 2030 Flow Conditions at Peak Hour Pipe Table 530 P‐241 226 12 PVC 140 284 0.8 247 P‐125 138 6 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐70 0.8 493 P‐227 370 6 Asbestos Cement 120 67 0.76 499 P‐231 467 6 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐67 0.76 347 P‐179 169 6 Asbestos Cement 120 66 0.75 218 P‐110 118 8 Asbestos Cement 120 114 0.73 168 P‐80 556 12 PVC 140 251 0.71 531 P‐242 181 12 PVC 140 251 0.71 252 P‐128 59 8 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐106 0.68 172 P‐82 48 12 PVC 140 234 0.66 272 P‐138 46 12 PVC 140 234 0.66 203 P‐101 25 12 PVC 140 ‐225 0.64 346 P‐178 794 6 Asbestos Cement 120 56 0.64 54 P‐14 160 4 Asbestos Cement 120 24 0.62 229 P‐116 301 8 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐94 0.6 213 P‐107 741 12 PVC 140 ‐206 0.58 198 P‐98 147 12 PVC 140 ‐205 0.58 463 P‐219 378 6 Asbestos Cement 120 50 0.57 462 P‐218 314 6 Asbestos Cement 120 50 0.57 243 P‐123 60 6 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐50 0.57 245 P‐124 121 6 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐50 0.57 103 P‐40 91 6 Asbestos Cement 120 50 0.56 342 P‐176 516 4 Asbestos Cement 120 22 0.55 197 P‐97 743 12 PVC 140 ‐188 0.53 304 P‐155 257 12 PVC 140 ‐188 0.53 249 P‐126 69 8 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐83 0.53 251 P‐127 226 8 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐83 0.53 384 P‐198 106 6 Asbestos Cement 120 47 0.53 386 P‐199 46 6 Asbestos Cement 120 47 0.53 388 P‐200 560 6 Asbestos Cement 120 47 0.53 389 P‐201 232 6 Asbestos Cement 120 47 0.53 222 P‐112 305 4 Asbestos Cement 120 20 0.52 262 P‐133 445 4 Asbestos Cement 120 20 0.52 50 P‐11 786 6 Asbestos Cement 120 45 0.51 314 P‐160 498 6 Asbestos Cement 120 42 0.47 241 P‐122 309 6 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐41 0.47 316 P‐161 44 6 Asbestos Cement 120 38 0.43 318 P‐162 240 6 Asbestos Cement 120 38 0.43 224 P‐113 62 6 Asbestos Cement 120 38 0.43 226 P‐114 58 6 Asbestos Cement 120 38 0.43 289 P‐147 586 6 Asbestos Cement 120 38 0.43 138 P‐62 451 6 Asbestos Cement 120 34 0.38 137 P‐61 492 6 Asbestos Cement 120 34 0.38 117 P‐49 98 6 Asbestos Cement 120 32 0.36 ID Label Length  (Scaled) (ft)Diameter (in) Material Hazen‐Williams  C Flow (gpm)Velocity  (ft/s) Town of Gulf Stream 2030 Flow Conditions at Peak Hour Pipe Table 110 P‐45 731 6 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐32 0.36 291 P‐148 712 6 Asbestos Cement 120 30 0.34 260 P‐132 336 4 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐13 0.33 330 P‐169 192 6 Asbestos Cement 120 28 0.32 228 P‐115 551 4 Asbestos Cement 120 12 0.32 60 P‐17 349 6 Asbestos Cement 120 27 0.3 293 P‐149 27 6 Asbestos Cement 120 26 0.29 295 P‐150 432 6 Asbestos Cement 120 26 0.29 297 P‐151 514 6 Asbestos Cement 120 26 0.29 65 P‐20 145 4 Asbestos Cement 120 11 0.29 350 P‐181 167 6 Asbestos Cement 120 25 0.29 352 P‐182 325 6 Asbestos Cement 120 25 0.29 494 P‐228 911 6 Asbestos Cement 120 25 0.29 273 P‐139 373 12 PVC 140 97 0.28 324 P‐165 173 12 PVC 140 97 0.28 354 P‐183 174 6 Asbestos Cement 120 24 0.27 356 P‐184 329 6 Asbestos Cement 120 24 0.27 358 P‐185 248 6 Asbestos Cement 120 24 0.27 254 P‐129 159 6 Asbestos Cement 120 23 0.26 256 P‐130 366 6 Asbestos Cement 120 23 0.26 458 P‐215 120 4 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐10 0.25 348 P‐180 463 4 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐10 0.25 340 P‐175 133 6 Asbestos Cement 120 22 0.25 236 P‐119 324 6 Asbestos Cement 120 21 0.24 505 P‐235 374 6 Asbestos Cement 120 21 0.24 220 P‐111 420 6 Asbestos Cement 120 20 0.23 362 P‐187 321 6 Asbestos Cement 120 20 0.23 364 P‐188 227 6 Asbestos Cement 120 20 0.23 506 P‐236 366 6 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐20 0.23 239 P‐121 415 6 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐20 0.23 266 P‐135 335 4 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐9 0.22 46 P‐9 68 4 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐9 0.22 48 P‐10 316 4 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐9 0.22 52 P‐13 167 6 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐19 0.21 99 P‐38 353 6 Asbestos Cement 120 18 0.21 44 P‐8 166 6 Asbestos Cement 120 16 0.18 61 P‐18 43 6 Asbestos Cement 120 16 0.18 335 P‐172 341 6 Asbestos Cement 120 13 0.14 303 P‐154 5 12 PVC 140 ‐40 0.11 325 P‐166 198 12 PVC 140 ‐40 0.11 459 P‐216 46 6 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐10 0.11 287 P‐146 5 6 Asbestos Cement 120 ‐9 0.1 200 P‐99 418 12 PVC 140 18 0.05 209 P‐104 19 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 ID Label Length  (Scaled) (ft)Diameter (in) Material Hazen‐Williams  C Flow (gpm)Velocity  (ft/s) Town of Gulf Stream 2030 Flow Conditions at Peak Hour Pipe Table 299 P‐152 37 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 258 P‐131 58 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 140 P‐63 67 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 145 P‐66 63 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 74 P‐23 62 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 190 P‐93 65 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 378 P‐195 66 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 370 P‐191 64 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 401 P‐207 63 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 374 P‐193 63 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 195 P‐96 66 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 106 P‐42 63 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 56 P‐15 63 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 120 P‐51 64 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 170 P‐81 67 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 428 P‐208 61 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 471 P‐223 85 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 233 P‐118 66 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 391 P‐202 47 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 268 P‐136 69 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 465 P‐220 50 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 446 P‐211 61 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 160 P‐75 63 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 135 P‐60 71 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 368 P‐190 67 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 376 P‐194 63 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 175 P‐84 61 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 395 P‐204 64 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 264 P‐134 64 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 165 P‐78 65 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 372 P‐192 63 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 448 P‐212 70 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 125 P‐54 70 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 399 P‐206 63 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 382 P‐197 63 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 84 P‐29 68 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 360 P‐186 63 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 279 P‐142 40 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 150 P‐69 65 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 453 P‐213 65 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 63 P‐19 59 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 270 P‐137 68 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 397 P‐205 65 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 460 P‐217 87 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 ID Label Length  (Scaled) (ft)Diameter (in) Material Hazen‐Williams  C Flow (gpm)Velocity  (ft/s) Town of Gulf Stream 2030 Flow Conditions at Peak Hour Pipe Table 393 P‐203 346 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 185 P‐90 64 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 380 P‐196 78 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 79 P‐26 297 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 477 P‐226 72 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 155 P‐72 61 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 180 P‐87 101 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 115 P‐48 76 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 231 P‐117 63 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 442 P‐209 72 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 301 P‐153 89 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 281 P‐143 284 6 Asbestos Cement 120 0 0 ID Label Elevation  (ft)Demand Collection Demand (gpm)Hydraulic  Grade (ft) Pressure  (psi) Pressure  Head (ft) 313 Water Node 36 0 <Collection: 1 item> 16 116.91 51 116.91 309 Water Node 35 0 <Collection: 1 item> 40 117.45 51 117.45 495 Water Node 34 0 <Collection: 1 item> 32 118.36 51 118.36 333 Water Node 33 0 <Collection: 1 item> 7 116.92 51 116.92 311 Water Node 32 0 <Collection: 1 item> 24 117.03 51 117.03 341 Water Node 31 0 <Collection: 1 item> 12 117.07 51 117.07 284 Water Node 30 0 <Collection: 1 item> 34 116.64 50 116.64 290 Water Node 29 0 <Collection: 1 item> 5 116.43 50 116.43 492 Water Node 28 0 <Collection: 1 item> 42 116.73 51 116.73 498 Water Node 27 0 <Collection: 1 item> 16 117.21 51 117.21 501 Water Node 26 0 <Collection: 1 item> 54 117.74 51 117.74 529 Water Node 25 0 <Collection: 1 item> 33 120.44 52 120.44 526 Water Node 24 0 <Collection: 1 item> 33 121.02 52 121.02 507 Water Node 23 0 <Collection: 1 item> 39 121.42 53 121.42 88 Water Node 22 0 <Collection: 1 item> 22 120.65 52 120.65 455 Water Node 21 0 <Collection: 1 item> 10 121.69 53 121.69 64 Water Node 20 0 <Collection: 1 item> 11 121.65 53 121.65 53 Water Node 19 0 <Collection: 1 item> 24 121.57 53 121.57 93 Water Node 18 0 <Collection: 1 item> 32 120.6 52 120.6 100 Water Node 17 0 <Collection: 1 item> 50 120.02 52 120.02 129 Water Node 16 0 <Collection: 1 item> 34 120.38 52 120.38 191 Water Node 15 0 <Collection: 1 item> 1 120.4 52 120.4 504 Water Node 14 0 <Collection: 1 item> 41 119.78 52 119.78 265 Water Node 13 0 <Collection: 1 item> 9 119.87 52 119.87 261 Water Node 12 0 <Collection: 1 item> 20 119.76 52 119.76 259 Water Node 11 0 <Collection: 1 item> 13 119.99 52 119.99 255 Water Node 10 0 <Collection: 1 item> 23 120.07 52 120.07 225 Water Node 9 0 <Collection: 1 item> 25 120.23 52 120.23 221 Water Node 8 0 <Collection: 1 item> 20 120.05 52 120.05 199 Water Node 7 0 <Collection: 1 item> 18 120.38 52 120.38 351 Water Node 6 0 <Collection: 1 item> 25 118.95 51 118.95 357 Water Node 5 0 <Collection: 1 item> 24 117.96 51 117.96 365 Water Node 4 0 <Collection: 1 item> 20 116.52 50 116.52 321 Water Node 3 0 <Collection: 1 item> 38 116.15 50 116.15 288 Water Node 2 0 <Collection: 1 item> 7 116.53 50 116.53 296 Water Node 1 0 <Collection: 1 item> 26 116.34 50 116.34 473 J‐175 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.48 52 120.48 467 J‐173 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.39 53 121.39 461 J‐171 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.41 53 121.41 457 J‐170 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.7 53 121.7 398 J‐162 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 116.88 51 116.88 392 J‐159 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 116.64 50 116.64 390 J‐158 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 116.64 50 116.64 387 J‐157 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 116.71 50 116.71 385 J‐156 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 116.88 51 116.88 383 J‐155 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 116.89 51 116.89 363 J‐145 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 117 51 117 361 J‐144 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 117.01 51 117.01 355 J‐141 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 117.98 51 117.98 353 J‐140 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 118.01 51 118.01 349 J‐138 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 118.98 51 118.98 Town of Gulf Stream 2030 Flow Conditions at Peak Hour Junction Table ID Label Elevation  (ft)Demand Collection Demand (gpm)Hydraulic  Grade (ft) Pressure  (psi) Pressure  Head (ft) Town of Gulf Stream 2030 Flow Conditions at Peak Hour Junction Table 345 J‐137 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 117.01 51 117.01 339 J‐134 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 117.33 51 117.33 336 J‐133 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 117.34 51 117.34 331 J‐131 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 117.38 51 117.38 328 J‐130 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 117.47 51 117.47 326 J‐129 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 119.18 52 119.18 323 J‐128 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.28 52 120.28 319 J‐126 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 116.57 50 116.57 317 J‐125 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 116.85 51 116.85 315 J‐124 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 116.9 51 116.9 307 J‐120 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 118.03 51 118.03 305 J‐119 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 118.99 51 118.99 302 J‐118 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.28 52 120.28 294 J‐114 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 116.39 50 116.39 292 J‐113 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 116.43 50 116.43 286 J‐110 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 116.64 50 116.64 282 J‐108 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 116.94 51 116.94 280 J‐107 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 117.47 51 117.47 278 J‐106 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 117.47 51 117.47 276 J‐105 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 117.47 51 117.47 274 J‐104 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 118.29 51 118.29 271 J‐103 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.3 52 120.3 253 J‐94 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.1 52 120.1 250 J‐93 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.11 52 120.11 248 J‐92 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.07 52 120.07 246 J‐91 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.05 52 120.05 244 J‐90 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 119.96 52 119.96 242 J‐89 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 119.92 52 119.92 240 J‐88 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 119.9 52 119.9 237 J‐87 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 119.81 52 119.81 235 J‐86 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 119.81 52 119.81 234 J‐85 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 119.83 52 119.83 227 J‐82 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.13 52 120.13 223 J‐80 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.25 52 120.25 219 J‐78 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.19 52 120.19 217 J‐77 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.21 52 120.21 215 J‐76 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.26 52 120.26 212 J‐75 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.49 52 120.49 207 J‐74 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.16 52 121.16 204 J‐72 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.16 52 121.16 201 J‐71 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.54 52 120.54 196 J‐69 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.38 52 120.38 186 J‐65 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.31 52 120.31 181 J‐63 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.28 52 120.28 176 J‐61 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.29 52 120.29 171 J‐59 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.3 52 120.3 166 J‐57 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.41 52 120.41 161 J‐55 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.59 52 120.59 156 J‐53 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.66 52 120.66 151 J‐51 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.81 52 120.81 146 J‐49 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.96 52 120.96 ID Label Elevation  (ft)Demand Collection Demand (gpm)Hydraulic  Grade (ft) Pressure  (psi) Pressure  Head (ft) Town of Gulf Stream 2030 Flow Conditions at Peak Hour Junction Table 142 J‐48 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.1 52 121.1 136 J‐45 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.16 52 121.16 131 J‐43 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.09 52 121.09 126 J‐41 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.24 52 121.24 121 J‐39 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.23 52 121.23 116 J‐37 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.27 52 121.27 111 J‐35 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.38 53 121.38 107 J‐34 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.37 53 121.37 102 J‐32 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.23 52 121.23 98 J‐30 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.26 52 121.26 95 J‐29 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.28 52 121.28 90 J‐27 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.51 53 121.51 85 J‐25 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.81 53 121.81 80 J‐23 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.63 53 121.63 75 J‐21 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.79 53 121.79 70 J‐19 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.76 53 121.76 59 J‐15 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.67 53 121.67 49 J‐11 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.71 53 121.71 47 J‐10 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.7 53 121.7 45 J‐9 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.67 53 121.67 43 J‐8 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.67 53 121.67 41 J‐7 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.67 53 121.67 38 J‐6 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 121.93 53 121.93 34 J‐4 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 120.54 52 120.54 32 J‐3 0 <Collection: 1 item> 16 120.31 52 120.31 536 n Beach Interconnect 0 <Collection: 0 items> 0 116.43 50 116.43 ID Label Hydrant  Status Lateral  Length (ft) Elevation  (ft) Hydraulic  Grade (ft) Pressure  (psi) Fire Flow  (Available) (gpm) Fire Flow  (Needed) (gpm) Fire Flow (Total  Upper Limit) (gpm) Satisfies Fire Flow  Constraints? 426 H‐2 Closed 20 4.5 121 50 1,100 1,000 3,000 TRUE 425 H‐3 Closed 20 4.5 121 50 1,738 1,000 3,000 TRUE 424 H‐4 Closed 20 4.5 121 50 2,022 1,000 3,000 TRUE 421 H‐5 Closed 20 4.5 121 51 1,497 1,000 3,000 TRUE 423 H‐6 Closed 20 4.5 121 50 1,687 1,000 3,000 TRUE 422 H‐7 Closed 20 4.5 121 51 1,378 1,000 3,000 TRUE 466 H‐7A Closed 20 4.5 122 51 2,273 1,000 3,000 TRUE 408 H‐8 Closed 20 4.5 122 51 1,369 750 3,000 TRUE 410 H‐9 Closed 20 4.5 122 51 1000 1,000 3,000 TRUE 406 H‐10 Closed 20 4.5 122 51 1,638 1,000 3,000 TRUE 407 H‐12 Closed 20 4.5 122 51 3,000 1,000 3,000 TRUE 411 H‐14 Closed 20 4.5 122 51 3,000 1,000 3,000 TRUE 412 H‐15 Closed 20 4.5 121 51 3,000 1,000 3,000 TRUE 413 H‐16 Closed 20 4.5 121 51 3,000 500 3,000 TRUE 414 H‐17 Closed 20 4.5 121 51 3,000 500 3,000 TRUE 478 H‐17A Closed 20 4.5 121 51 3,000 2,000 3,000 TRUE 415 H‐18 Closed 20 4.5 121 51 3,000 500 3,000 TRUE 416 H‐19 Closed 20 4.5 121 50 3,000 2,000 3,000 TRUE 417 H‐20 Closed 20 4.5 121 50 3,000 2,000 3,000 TRUE 479 H‐21 Closed 20 4.5 121 50 2,661 1,000 3,000 TRUE 418 H‐22 Closed 20 4.5 121 50 3,000 1,000 3,000 TRUE 68 H‐23 Closed 20 4.5 122 51 1,032 1,000 3,000 TRUE 69 H‐24 Closed 20 4.5 122 51 1,019 1,000 3,000 TRUE 67 H‐25 Closed 20 4.5 122 51 1,022 750 3,000 TRUE 405 H‐26 Closed 20 4.5 122 51 1,635 1,000 3,000 TRUE 449 H‐27 Closed 20 4.5 121 50 1000 1,000 3,000 TRUE 450 H‐28 Closed 20 4.5 121 50 1,178 1,000 3,000 TRUE 451 H‐29 Closed 20 4.5 121 50 1,273 1,000 3,000 TRUE 441 H‐30 Closed 20 4.5 121 50 1,541 1,000 3,000 TRUE 436 H‐31 Closed 20 4.5 121 50 1,212 1,000 3,000 TRUE 434 H‐32 Closed 20 4.5 121 50 1,170 1,000 3,000 TRUE 431 H‐33 Closed 20 4.5 121 50 1,368 1,000 3,000 TRUE 432 H‐34 Closed 20 4.5 121 50 2,080 1,000 3,000 TRUE 440 H‐35 Closed 20 4.5 121 50 1,756 1,000 3,000 TRUE 439 H‐36 Closed 20 4.5 121 50 2,174 1,000 3,000 TRUE 438 H‐37 Closed 20 4.5 121 50 1,799 1,500 3,000 TRUE 435 H‐38 Closed 20 4.5 121 50 1,709 1,000 3,000 TRUE 480 H‐39 Closed 20 4.5 121 50 2,553 2,000 3,000 TRUE 454 H‐41 Closed 20 4.5 121 50 1,440 1,000 3,000 TRUE 404 H‐42 Closed 20 4.5 122 51 3,000 1,000 3,000 TRUE 472 H‐43 Closed 20 4.5 122 51 3,000 1,000 3,000 TRUE 403 H‐UNK ‐ 1 Closed 20 4.5 122 51 1,984 1,000 3,000 TRUE 402 H‐UNK‐2 Closed 20 4.5 122 51 3,000 1,000 3,000 TRUE 409 H‐UNK‐3 Closed 20 4.5 122 51 3,000 1,000 3,000 TRUE 419 H‐UNK‐4 Closed 20 4.5 121 50 3,000 1,000 3,000 TRUE 420 H‐UNK‐5 Closed 20 4.5 121 51 3,000 1,000 3,000 TRUE 429 H‐UNK‐6 Closed 20 4.5 121 50 1,090 1,000 3,000 TRUE 430 H‐UNK‐7 Closed 20 4.5 121 50 1,638 1,000 3,000 TRUE 433 H‐UNK‐8 Closed 20 4.5 121 50 2,231 1,000 3,000 TRUE 437 H‐UNK‐9 Closed 20 4.5 121 50 1,531 1,000 3,000 TRUE Town of Gulf Stream 2030 Flow Conditions at Max Day with CIP Fire Hydrant Table APPENDIX F Roadway Pavement Investigation APPENDIX G Results of Roadway Survey (FDOT) Picture to Picture Street Name FDOT Rating Comments 1 to 17 Gulf View Dr. Class IB Minor cracking and some spalling locations. Patch jobs at the intersection of Gulfstream for water and sewer. 18 to 24 Gulf Stream to Middle Rd.Class IB Minor cracking within the limits with no spalling or patching. 25 to 30 Middle Rd between Polo and Gulfstream.Class IB Minor cracking within the limits with Minor spalling and some patching. 31 to 44 Polo Dr. between Gulf View to Palm Way Between Class IB and II Minor cracking but in midpoint there is some spalling in the roadway and EOP has jagged edges from erosion. 45 to 55 Middle Rd last stretch by Intercostal Between Class IB and II Minor cracking but there are pockets next to driveways with sever spalling and some potholes to the base. EOP has jagged edges and uneven pavement. 56 to 62 Palm Way Class IB Minor cracking within the limits and minor spalling in the middle and right side. 65 to 70 Gulfstream to middle lateral drainage. Between Class IB and II Minor cracking within the limits and moderate spalling in the middle and right side. There is a worn patch job by a driveway at extended pavement poor shape. 71 to 79 Polo Dr. after curve to Lakeview Dr. Class IB Minor cracking within the limits and minor spalling in the middle and right side. 80 to 84 Polo Dr. between Lakeview and Banyan Class IB Minor cracking but in midpoint there is some spalling in the roadway and EOP has jagged edges and worn out sod. 88 to 99 Gulfstream middle lateral drainage to Banyan Class II Minor cracking within the limits and moderate to severe spalling in the middle and right side. There is a worn pavement in isolated spots with sod erosion. 100 to 106 Gulfstream between Banyan and Old School Between Class IB and II Minor cracking but in midpoint there is moderate spalling in the roadway and EOP has jagged edges and one location Right side EOP eroded exposing the base approximately 150 ft. from the school driveway. 1 Gulf Stream Pavement Condition Analysis 12/7/2017 Picture to Picture Street Name FDOT Rating Comments 107 to 113 Old School Rd Class IB to Class II Minor cracking within the limits and eroded sod at EOP Right. just east of Polo Dr. Also, standing water at intersection of Gulfstream on the Left and patch job just west of Polo Dr. 114 to 120 Polo Dr. between Banyan and Old School Class IB Minor cracking within the limits and eroded sod at EOP Right before Banyan. Just south old school standing water on Left EOP. 121 to 125 Wright Way Class IB Minor cracking but in midpoint there is some spalling in the roadway and EOP has some standing water at edge driveway before the turn. 126 to 131 Gulfstream between Old School and to Sea Rd. Class IB and beginning Class II Minor cracking and spalling throughout. But one section just north of old school severe spalling and raveling pavement on left side at exit of the school. 132 to 136 Bermuda Ln Sea Rd to End Class II to Class III Pavement at end of the roadway is severely damaged exposed base and raveling. In the middle Right heavy deep cracking from water damage. No pictures Bermuda Ln to Sea rd. Class IB Minor cracking with little spalling 137 to 139 Sea Rd to AIA Class IB Minor crack in middle roadway Picture to Picture Street Name FDOT Rating Comments 1 to 8 Cardinal Circle Class IB Minor cracking and some spalling locations. The asphalt surface course is raveling a little. 9 to 12 Upper Avenue Au Soleil by Entrance to after median island Class IB Minor cracking within the limits at outside EOP. No present of spalling or patching. 13 to 20 Orchid Ln Class IB Minor cracking within the roadway. Cul- de-sac surface course worn out and many cracks on pavement. 21 to 37 Avenue Au Soleil median Island to curved enclosed polygon. Class IB Minor cracking within the limits. Some of EOP Left and Right have minor spalling and cracking. 38 to 48 Avenue Au Soleil enclosed curve polygon. Class IB Minor cracking with some minor spalling. There is the area after T intersection on the Right where the surface course is raveling and many bunched up cracking of pavement. 49 to 52 Emerald Row Class IB and Class II Minor cracking within the limits with one section west of cul-de-sac Right side sever spalling and cracking. EOP of pavement both side jagged. 53 to 56 Tangerine Way Class IB and Class II Minor cracking within the limits. The Cul-de-sac has series damaged pavement at the end due to the tree roots growing in the pavement. 57 to 62 Indigo Place Class IB Minor cracking within the limits and minor some jagged EOP. 63*to 67*Oleander Way Class IB and Class II Minor cracking at the pavement on the roadway. At the intersection of Lakeview poor patched asphalt. Also, extended pavement on Right poor condition cracking and significant spalling. One location after the ascending grade right of Lakeview damaged exposed pavement base. 68 to 68 Pelican Ln Class IB Minor cracking new surface. 69 to 74 Hidden Harbor Class IB Minor cracking but in the middle uneven pavement and cross slope. Also, sever cracking and spalling after 4th last house closest to the intercostal. 2 Gulf Stream Pavement Condition Analysis 12/19/2017 APPENDIX H Community Rating System Fact Sheet  FEMA s mission is to support our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a nation we work together to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards. Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration Community Rating Syst em June 2017 The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS) was implemented in 1990 as a voluntary program for recognizing and encouraging community floodplain management activities exceeding the minimum NFIP standards. Any community in full compliance with the minimum NFIP floodplain management requirements may apply to join the CRS. 1,444 Communities Participate in the CRS Nearly 3.6 million policyholders in 1,444 communities participate in the CRS by implementing local mitiga- tion, floodplain management, and outreach activities that exceed the minimum NFIP requirements. Under the CRS, flood insurance premium rates are discounted to reward community actions that meet the three goals of the CRS, which are: (1) reduce flood damage to insurable property; (2) strengthen and support the insurance aspects of the NFIP; and (3) encourage a comprehensive approach to floodplain management. Although CRS communities represent only 5 percent of the over 22,000 communities participating in the NFIP, more than 69 percent of all flood insurance policies are written in CRS communities. CRS Classes The CRS uses a Class rating system that is similar to fire insurance rating to determine flood insurance premium reductions for residents. CRS Classes* are rated from 9 to 1. Today, most communities enter the program at a CRS Class 9 or Class 8 rating, which entitles residents in Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) to a 5 percent discount on their flood insurance premiums for a Class 9 or a 10 percent discount for Class 8. As a community engages in additional mitigation activities, its residents become eligible for increased NFIP policy premium discounts. Each CRS Class improvement produces a 5 percent greater discount on flood insurance premiums for properties in the SFHA. * CRS Class changes occur on May 1 and October 1 of each year. The data contained in this fact sheet were current through May 2017. Best of the Best Seven communities occupy the highest levels of the CRS. Each built a floodplain management progra m tailored to its own particular hazards, character, and goals. Under these programs, each community carries out numerous and varied activities, many of which are credited by the CRS. The average discount in policyholder premiums varies according to a community s CRS Class and the average amount of insurance coverage in place. " Roseville, California was the first to reach the highest CRS rating (Class 1). Floods in 1995 spurred Roseville to strengthen its floodplain management program. Today the City earns points for almost all CRS-creditable activities. The average premium discount for policies in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) is $963. " Comprehensive planning has been a key to Tulsa, Oklahoma in reducing flood damage from the dozens of creeks within its juris- diction. The City (Class 2) has cleared more than 900 buildings from its floodplains. The average SFHA premium discount is $709. " King County, Washington (Class 2) has preserved more than 100,000 acres of floodplain open space and receives additional CRS credit for maintaining it in a natural state. The average premium discount in the SFHA is $722. " Pierce County, Washington (Class 2) maintains over 80 miles of river levees. The County mails informational brochures to all floodplain residents each year. The average premium discount in the SFHA is $846. " Fort Collins, Colorado (Class 2) uses diverse approaches to keep its large student population informed. Identifying and protecting critical facilities and continually improving its GIS system help the city maintain its exemplary program. The average premium discount in the SFHA is $703. " Sacramento County, California, has steadily improved its rating since joining the CRS in 1992. Now a Class 2, the County s more significant activities are diligent public outreach on protecting waterways, purchasing flood insurance, and preparing for floods. The average premium discount in the SFHA is $395. " Thurston County, Washington, has a history of planning for hazard mitigation, watershed protection, and open space. Combining that with strict development standards and stormwater management has helped the County achieve Class 2. The average premium discount in the SFHA is $577.  FEMA s mission is to support our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a nation we work together to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards. Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration Community Rating System CRS Credit A community accrues points to improve its CRS Class rating and receive increasingly higher discounts. Points are awarded for engaging in any of 19 creditable activities, organized under four categories: �% Public information �% Mapping and regulations �% Flood damage reduction �% Warning and response. Formulas and adjustment factors are used to calculate credit points for each activity. The communities listed below are among those that have qualified for the greatest premium discounts: Class 1: Roseville, California Class 2: Sacramento County, California Fort Collins, Colorado Tulsa, Oklahoma King County, Washington Pierce County, Washington Thurston County, Washington Class 3: Louisville Jefferson County, Kentucky Ocala, Florida Class 4: Charlotte, North Carolina Palm Coast, Florida Charleston County, South Carolina Maricopa County, Arizona Benefits of the CRS Lower cost flood insurance rates are only one of the rewards a community receives from participating in the CRS. Other benefits include: �% Citizens and property owners in CRS communities have increased opportunities to learn about risk, evaluate their individual vulnerabilities, and take action to protect themselves, as well as their homes and businesses. �% CRS floodplain management activities provide enhanced public safety, reduced damage to property and public infrastructure, and avoidance of economic disruption and loss. �% Communities can evaluate the effectiveness of their flood programs against a nationally recognized benchmark. �% Technical assistance in designing and implementing some activities is available to community officials at no charge. �% CRS communities have incentives to maintain and improve their flood programs over time. How to Apply To apply for CRS participation, a community must initially inform the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Regional Office of its interest in applying to the CRS and will eventually submit a CRS application, along with documentation that shows it is implementing the activities for which credit is requested. The application is submitted to the Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO)/CRS Specialist. ISO works on behalf of FEMA and insurance companies to review CRS applications, verify communities credit points, and perform program improvement tasks. A community s activities and performance are reviewed during a verification visit. FEMA establishes the credit to be granted and notifies the community, the State, insurance companies, and other appropriate parties. Each year, the community must verify that it is continu- ing to perform the activities that are being credited by the CRS by submitting an annual recertification. In addition, a community can continue to improve its Class rating by undertaking new mitigation and floodplain management activities that earn even more points. CRS Training CRS Specialists are available to assist community officials in applying to the program and in designing, implementing, and documenting the activities that earn even greater premium discounts. A week-long CRS course for local officials is offered free at FEMA s Emergency Management Institute (EMI) on the National Emergency Training Center campus in Emmitsburg, Maryland, and can be field deployed in interested states. A series of webinars is offered throughout the year. For More Information A list of resources is available at the CRS website: www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program-community- rating-system . For m ore inform ation about the CRS or to obtain the CRS application, contact the Insurance Services Office by phone at (317) 848-2898 or by e-mail at nfipcrs@iso.com . APPENDIX I Town Commission Briefing on CIP Findings (March 2018) Ten-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) TOWN OF GULF STREAM BRIEFING ON DRAFT RESULTS MARCH 9, 2018 1 Project Summary 1.Analysis of potable water system 2.Analysis of roadway and storm sewer systems 3.Recommended projects with cost estimates to consider for ten-year CIP 4.Other stormwater recommendations 5.Implementation plan 2 Potable Water System Background: 44,367 linear feet of public water main (3-12”) Generally, the system has excellent flow for daily conditions (provided by Delray Beach) and layout with adequate fire flow pressure Much of the local system is original construction and reaching the end of its expected service life –a 2012 Town memo put water main replacement cost of pre-1970 mains at $8.1 million Recommendations: 19,700 LF of local water main to be programmed for replacement as part of the ten-year CIP Six segments of the above total includes upsizing and/or looping to improve local fire flow and water quality Future consideration –water meter replacement project 3 Local Roadway and Storm Sewer Systems Background: 37,895 linear feet of public roadway 9,375 linear feet of storm sewers including 14 Intracoastal outfalls Three sub-areas for drainage: Core Area-existing pipe network to all depressional areas but standing water/ponding along the edge of roadways Place Au Soleil-overland flow to existing outfalls with minimal ponding South of Big Club-minimal public infrastructure All public roads were inspected with a rating provided (see map next slide) Recommendations: Three rehab strategies are recommended based upon (1) if there’s a need for water main replacement and (2) the existing drainage conditions: Strategy A-resurface roadway with minimal utility work Strategy B-water main replacement with trench paving and roadway resurfacing Strategy C-roadway reconstruction with grading, storm inlet and sewer adjustments and water main replacement 4 Roadway Condition Atlas FDOT Flexible Pavement Condition Survey Handbook: No roads rated as Category A or E 39% rated as Category B –minimal defects 59% rated as Category C –moderate defects 2% rated as Category D –moderately excessive defects With no roadway failure (Category E), the water system and drainage needs can help drive the CIP priorities utilizing “worst first” for segments with similar needs. 5 Core-area Drainage 6 Existing storm sewer infrastructure extended to all depressional areas; however, roadway ponding and nuisance flooding still exists Recommendations: Reconstruct the roadways with the planned water main replacement Re -grade the roadways to provide positive drainage to existing structures including re- crowning the roads Add inlets, as necessary, and consider the introduction of infiltration techniques/tools Widen area roadways to 18-20’, as available (case-by-case basis) Rehab Strategies-A, B & C 7 A B C Other Stormwater Recommendations Active Maintenance Program: Ongoing inlet and pipe cleaning Outfall duck valve inspection, cleaning and replacement Minor repairs to maintain reliability of system, as needed, until CIP projects FEMA’s CRS Program: Town’s rating rescinded in 2014 Reestablishing participation in program = +/-$28,500 of annual insurance premium savings for residents Lawn Watering Outreach and/or Enforcement: Existing South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) requirements Odd numbered addresses to irrigate on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday Even numbered addresses on Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday, both during non -daylight hours Irrigation between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. is prohibited 8 Summary of CIP Priorities-Tiers 1,2&3 9 Implementation Plan Implementing the recommended projects over ten years would cost the city $1 million per year –assuming 2018 construction cost estimates with a 20% contingency This is approximately double the 2018 (and historic) capital budget expectations Using existing budget expectations, the projects could be implemented over 20 years; however, the additional risk with the potable water system should be monitored A condition assessment of aging water main should be completed if leakage or breaks increase Annual CIP planning should also contemplate other water system issues Other roadway maintenance (mill and resurfacing) may be required Input/direction/questions? 10 APPENDIX J FDOT Underdrain Detail Coarse Aggregate ..... . ·:.· Fine Aggregate .. . .. /, ·-:-.:::� .. ?)� Coarse Aggregate Fine Aggregate Underdrain:. Pipe I- ... ·/, . ···�·-::: � Underdrain ·. � 18" Std. TYPE I LAST < DESCRIPTION: REVISION � 07 /01/07 � Filter Fabric Envelope I.24" Std. . I � Std. � Std. TYPE II TYPE III DESIGN NOTES l. The type of underdrain should be selected to meet design water removal rate and soil conditions. Caution is prescribed in the use of these typical sections since special designs may be required to satisfy project conditions. 2. Type I underdrain is intended for minimum water removal conditions. 3. Type II underdrain is intended for moderate water removal conditions. Where reactive conditions may create chemical clogging, the use of an inert material and/or elimination of the filter fabric may be necessary. 4. Type III underdrain is intended for maximum water removal conditions. Filter fabric is required between the coarse aggregate or fine aggregate including those described in general notes 2 and 3. Design note 3 applies for reactive conditions. 5. Type V underdrain is intended for use in detention basins and other locations which require a filtration system. The standard fine aggregate specified for Type V underdrain conforms to filtration gradation requirements of Chapter 62-25 FAC. 6. The designer should detail in the plans, the location of: (a) Type V underdrain, (b) nonstandard locations of Type I, II, and III underdrain, (c) underdrain inspection boxes, (d) cleanouts for Type V underdrain, and (e) underdrain outlet pipes. 7. The designer should specify the flow line elevations at the beginning, bends, junctions and ends of underdrain pipes and outlet pipes. 8. The designer should evaluate whether an external filter fabric envelope is required around underdrain Types I and Ill. When required, fabric shall be specified in the plans. FOOT DESIGN ST AN DAROS 2013 Filter Fabric Envelope GENERAL NOTES 1. The underdrain pipe shall be either 4" smooth or 5" corrugated tubing unless otherwise shown in the plans. 2 3. 4. 5. 6. The size to be furnished will be based on the nominal internal diameter of a pipe with a smooth interior wall. Except when prohibited by the plans, the special provisions or this standard, pipe with a corrugated interior wall may be provided based on the following size equivalency. 4" smooth interior equivalent to 5" corrugated interior 5" smooth interior equivalent to 6" corrugated interior 6" smooth interior equivalent to 8" corrugated interior 8" smooth interior equivalent to 10" corrugated interior Fine aggregate shall be quartz sand meeting the requirements of Sections 902-4 of the Standard Specifications . Coarse aggregate shall be gravel or stone meeting the requirements of Sections 901-2 or 901-3. The gradation shall meet Section 901, Grades 4, 467, 5, 56 or 57 stone unless otherwise shown restricted in the plans. Underdrain Type I, II, III and V shall be in accordance with Section 440. Filter fabric shall be Type 0-3 (See Index No. 199). The internal filter fabric of Type V underdrain shall have a permittivity of 0.7 /sec. and an A0S of #40 sieve. When Type I is used, a filter fabric sock meeting Section 948 is required. 7.See Index No. 500 for the standard location of Type I, II, and III underdrain. The location of Type V underdrain and nonstandard locations of Type I, II, and III underdrain will be as detailed in the plans. 8. All filter fabric joints shall overlap a minimum of l'. The internal filter fabric of Type V underdrain shall overlap into the coarse aggregate or the fine aggregate a minimum of l'. 9. Underdrain outlet pipes shall be nonperforated and all bends shall be made using ¼ (45 deg.) elbows. 90 deg. bends shall be constructed with two ¼ elbows separated by at least l' of straight pipe. Outlet pipes stubbed into inlets or other drainage structures shall be not less than 6" above the structure flow line. Outlet pipes discharging to grassed areas shall have concrete aprons, hardware cloth, and bordering sod as shown in Index No. 287 for Edgedrain outlets. 10. Pay Item shall be based on the size of the smooth interior products. The contract unit price for Underdrain, LF, shall include the cost of pipe, fittings, aggregate, sock, filter fabric, underdrain cleanouts, and concrete aprons. The contract unit price for Underdrain Outlet Pipe, LF, shall be full compensation for trench excavation, pipe and fittings, concrete aprons, hardware cloth for concrete aprons, stubbing into drainage structures, backfill in place, and disposal of excess materials. The contract unit price for Underdrain Inspection Box, EA. shall be for the number completed and accepted. UNDERDRAJIN INDEX NO. SHEET NO. 286 1 For Gulf Stream refer to Type II »¿TYPE Min . 02 286 2 UNDERDRAIN 6 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 2 9 : 3 0 : 0 9 A M R E V I S I O N C : \ d \ p r o j e c t s \ s t a n d a r d s \ r o a d w a y \ 0 0 2 0 0 - s \ 0 0 2 8 6 - 0 2 . d g n NO. SHEET NO. INDEX r d 9 6 0 r h DESCRIPTION: REVISION LAST 2013 FDOT DESIGN STANDARDS Envelope Filter Fabric Trench Side Optional Table Design Water 0 ’ A b s o l u t e M i n i m u m 1 ’ D e s i r a b l e M i n i m u m Pipe Underdrain Coarse Aggregate Ditch Or Basin Bottom Crown Matches Aggregate Fine Level Line See Gen. Note 8. Alt. Overlap Location Gen. Note 5. Fabric See Internal Filter 3" of Coarse Aggregate Filter Fabric Envelope Ditch or Basin Bottom Envelope Filter Fabric Trench Side Optional 0’ Absolute Minimum 1’ Desirable Minimum Table Design Water Coarse Aggregate Underdrain Pipe Filter Fabric Envelope Gen. Note 5. Fabric See Internal Filter See Gen. Note 8. Alt. Overlap Location 3" of Coarse Aggregate No Filter Fabric No Filter Fabric Fine Aggregate Ditch or Basin Bottom Surface Warp Apron Fine Aggregate Filter Fabric Wrap 6" Min. 6" Min. Max. 2" Conc. Apron Threaded Cap (Nonperforated) Cleanout Riser Wye Fitting Elbow8 1 Pipe UnderDrain No Filter FabricDitch Or Basin Bottom Aggregate 3" Of Coarse Fine Aggregate Envelope Filter Fabric Underdrain Pipe 0’ Absolute Minimum 1’ Desirable Minimum Table Design Water S e e G e n . N o t e 5 . I n t e r n a l F i l t e r F a b r i c Optional Trench Side Coarse Aggregate Gen. Note 8. Location See Alt. Overlap UPPER LIMIT »¿TYPE SECTION AALOWER LIMIT »¿CLEANOUT FOR TYPE ⁄ UNDER Varies: (1: 4) (1:2 Max.) 6 " Min. 6" Min. 6" 3" Std. 6 " S t d . * Slope To Match Top of Fine Aggregate * 2 ’ Min . to 2 ’-2 " M i n . 6 " Min. 6" Min. 6" 3" Std. 2’ Varies: (1:2 Max.) * Slope To Match Top of Fine Aggregate * 2 ’ Min . to 2 ’- 2 " 2 ’- 6 " 2’-6" 3" Aggregate Coarse A A Varies (4’ Std.) 3" Std. 1 2 " 2 ’ M i n . t o 2 ’- 2 " 18" Std. Min. 6" M i n . 6 " Min. 6" 3" Std.