1. Water Treatment Plant No. 2 Concentrate Zero Liquid Discharge August 30, 2011

2. McKim & Creed, Inc. Tommy Brown, P.E. – Vice President, Project QA/QC Craig Wells, P.E. – Principal-in-Charge Phil Locke, P.E. – Senior Project Manager Ryan Popko, P.E. – Assistant Project Manager, Lead Project Engineer

3. Water Treatment Plant No. 2 Overview Membrane Softening Water Treatment Plant – Fresh groundwater wells provide the source water – Produces drinking water – Produces concentrate or “reject” stream – Concentrate discharged into Royal Palms Waterway

4. Current Plant Design Capacity Permitted production is ~6.3 Million Gallons per Day (MGD) Source water required is ~7.5 MGD Drinking water ~6.3 MGD Reject water ~1.2 MGD Concentrate Permeate Groundwater

5. Administrative Order Administrative Order for Concentrate Disposal – EPA determined current concentrate discharge permit is not allowed by the Clean Water Act – FDEP notified City that concentrate disposal permit would not be renewed – Administrative Order requires City to devise an alternate method of disposing of the concentrate

6. Background City performed an evaluation of concentrate disposal alternatives based on: – Costs – Regulatory compliance Evaluation selected Zero Liquid Discharge for Pilot Study Zero Liquid Discharge Pilot Study confirmed treatability, feasibility, and economics as favorable ― Technical feasibility ― Environmental benefits

7. Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) Overview Treats concentrate stream to remove excess mineral content Treated stream blended with finished water from water plant Process is integrated into existing water plant; will operate as one facility Eliminates concentrate discharge from water plant

8. No Liquid Discharge ZLD Recovered Water Concentrate Permeate Groundwater Drinking water – ~7.5 MGD Future Situation

9. Project Delivery Method City selected an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) – Advertised Request for Qualifications (RFQ) Six OEMs responded Evaluation included technical process and experience information City selected three OEMs for further consideration – Advertised Request for Proposal (RFP) Evaluation included pricing information – Selected Doosan Hydro Technology

10. Project Delivery Method City selected a Design Engineer – Requested technical qualifications (RFQ) from the three firms under contract to provide utility engineering services Evaluation utilized qualifications based selection per state law – Selected McKim & Creed

11. Project Delivery Method Future Actions – Design to be performed by McKim & Creed Design will incorporate the OEM equipment that has been selected by the City Technical plans and specifications will be prepared to include equipment provided by the OEM – Advertisement for a General Contractor (GC) Price competition, based on using OEM equipment and pricing provided to City

12. Project Costs Total Estimated Project Costs $7.3M vs. $7.5M budget Construction Costs $2.15M OEM (quote) $4.00M General Contractor (still subject to bid environment) $0.24M Bidding and Engineering Services during Construction (quote) Design Costs $0.58M Engineering (quote) $0.11M OEM Services (quote) Integration Costs $0.22M Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System (quote)

13. Benefits of Project Achieves regulatory compliance Increases water plant design capacity at build-out by ~1.2 MGD Eliminates discharge permit and associated sampling costs Meets the Consumptive Use Permit requirement for Alternative Water Supply Design incorporates City’s green initiatives – Water Conservation – Waste Recovery Delays costs associated with future expansions

14. Project Schedule Work Order issued for design: September 2011 Award construction contract: May 2012 Substantial completion and Administrative Order compliance: April 2013

15. Questions