Sustainable Water Works System Sustainable Water Works System Pl i F S t i bl CitPl i F S t i bl CitPlanning For a Sustainable CityPlanning For a Sustainable City
Kyla JacobsenCity of Elgin Water Director
&&
Jeffrey W. Freeman, P.E., CFM, LEED APEngineering Enterprises, Inc.
March 22, 2011
Presentation OverviewPresentation OverviewBackground Information
Water Works System OverviewWater Works System Overview
Historical & Projected Water Use
Regulatory Review
Sustainable Source Water Assessment
Water Supply, Treatment & Storage Evaluation
Water Distribution System EvaluationWater Distribution System Evaluation
Financial Review & Summary
Sustainability Summary
Background InformationBackground Information
City of Elgin & Vicinity
Background InformationBackground Information
City of Elgin Sustainability Focus Sustainability Action Plan Sustainability Action Plan Green Initiatives Throughout
Community
Comprehensive Water Master Plan Utilize Research & Recommendations
Included In Water 2050Included In Water 2050 Positioning/Mission Statement For
Plan:
Background InformationBackground Information
300,000
Historical and Projected Population SummaryCity of Elgin, Illinois
274 777
250,000
Historical Population
274,777
190,000
202,518
150,000
200,000
opul
atio
n
CMAP 2030 Projection
SIU Demand Study (Includes Bartlett and Sleepy Hollow)
2005 Comprehensive Water Master Plan
167,375
,
100,000
Po
2005 Comprehensive Water Master Plan
CMAP Projection (Compounded 2.08%)
0
50,000
01920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Year
Background InformationBackground InformationDeferred Capacity Increases Due To Water Use Reduction
4040
(MG
D) Required Capacity
Before Conservation Downsizing
20Cap
acity
(
Existing Capacity
Delay
20
eman
d/C
Baseline
D d Aft
0Pea
k D
e Demand AfterConservation
Year
2010 20302020 2040
Water Works System OverviewWater Works System Overview
SupplyTreatmentGround StoragegElevated StorageBooster Pump Station
Water Works System OverviewWater Works System Overview Riverside WTP Two (2) Lime Softening
Treatment Trains = 32 MGDTreatment Trains = 32 MGDTotal Capacity
Supply F Ri I t k 32 MGD Fox River Intake = 32 MGD
Capacity Six (6) Deep Sandstone
WellsWells
Airlite WTP (Expansion In Design)Design) Two (2) Lime Softening
Treatment Trains = 10 MGDTotal CapacityTotal Capacity
Supply Five (5) Deep Sandstone Wells
2 400 ft2,400 ft
Water Works System OverviewWater Works System Overview
Ground Storage Tanks (12.0 MG)
Elevated Storage Tanks (5.5 MG)O (1) i L PZ
Pump Stations
Ri id WTP - Three (3) @ Slade Avenue Facility = 4.0 MG
- One (1) in Low PZ = 2.0 MG
- Two (2) in High PZ = 1 5 MG
- Riverside WTP Low & High PZ’s
- Airlite WTP High & West PZ’s- Two (2) @
Riverside WTP = 6.0 MGT (2) @ Ai lit
= 1.5 MG- One (1) in NW PZ
= 1.0 MGO (1) i W t PZ
& West PZ s- Fox Lane PS
Northwest PZLyle Avenue PS- Two (2) = @ Airlite
WTP = 2.0 MG- One (1) in West PZ
= 1.0 MG- Lyle Avenue PS
West PZ - Bowes Road PS
West PZWest PZ
Water Works System OverviewWater Works System Overview
Water Works System OverviewWater Works System Overview
Historical & Projected Water UseHistorical & Projected Water UseHistorical Water Use
City of Elgin, IL
Pumped Water - RawAll Water Users
ADD MDD MDD MDD:ADD MHD MHD MHD:MDD
Historical Water Use Summary
Year MGD MGD Date Ratio MGD Date Ratio2000 12.95 17.54 24-Jul 1.35 21 24-Jul 1.202001 13.11 19.88 15-Jul 1.52 23 15-Jul 1.162002 12.96 19.79 1-Aug 1.53 22 2-Aug 1.112003 13.53 19.09 29-Jun 1.41 22 29-Jun 1.152004 13.48 17.09 3-Aug 1.27 25 3-Aug 1.462005 14.11 22.37 24-Jun 1.59 31.5 24-Jun 1.41
y Elgin Current Trends (CT)
Water Use = 115 gpcd2006 13.83 19.97 16-Jul 1.44 27 16-Jul 1.352007 14.47 19.46 31-Jul 1.34 23 31-Jul 1.182008 14.73 19.86 18-Sep 1.35 26 5-Aug 1.312009 14.35 18.17 14-Aug 1.27 25 15-Aug 1.38
Average: 1.41 1.27
Water Use Projections: 1.50 1.50
ADD:MDD = 1.5 MHD:MDD = 1.5
2040 CT Water Use Projection
Village of Sleepy Hollow
3% Industrial special
Single family-branch SVC
0.05%j ADD = 26.0 MGD MDD = 39.0 MGD
Single family40%
Village of Bartlet23%
special8%
MHD = 58.4 MGD
Multi Family13%Industrial
Outside Use0 01%
Government/Institution
4%
23%
13%Commercial
6%
Industrial 3%
0.01%
Historical & Projected Water UseHistorical & Projected Water Use
35%8,000
Non‐Revenue WaterCity of Elgin, Illinois
30%7,000
Raw Water Pumped
Treated Water Pumped
Non‐Revenue Water ‐Distribution System (%)
20%
25%
5,000
6,000
allons)
Non‐Revenue Water ‐WTP Process Use (%)
Non‐Revenue Water ‐Unidentified (%)
15%4,000
r (Million Ga
5%
10%
2,000
3,000
Water
5%
0%
0
1,000
‐5%0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Year
Historical & Projected Water UseHistorical & Projected Water Use
Total Estimated Savings = 3.85 MGD or 17% of 2040 demand
Utility Water Savings Indoor Residential Commercial, Industrial
& Institutional SavingsOutdoor
0.58 MGD savings from water waste prohibition
programs for
0.8 MGD savings from
HET replacement
for all
1.28 MGD savings from utility focused
efforts to reduce system
0.3 MGD savings from HE Clothes
Washing Machines for
0.53 MGD savings from faucet and
shower head retrofits for
0.3 MGD savings from water conservation at commercial, industrial
institutional facilities, not considering potential
0.06 MGD savings from water waste prohibition
programs for p gall customers housing
ylosses
B li Ed ti Eff t
all households
residential all
households
g pfuture process
efficiencies
p gnew
construction
Conservation Coordinator, School Education Programs and Public Information Programs (including water surveys/audits/expanded billing data)
Baseline Education Efforts
Historical & Projected Water UseHistorical & Projected Water Use
70.0
Historical and Projected Water Use SummaryCity of Elgin, Illinois
Elgin - ADD Bartlett - ADD
58.41
49 75
60.0
Elgin ADD Bartlett ADD
Sleepy Hollow - ADD Total MDD (CT)
Total MDD (LRI) Total ADD (CT)
Total ADD (LRI) Total MHD (CT)
38.94
49.75
40 0
50.0
MG
D)
( ) ( )
Total MHD (LRI)
38.94
33.17
25 9630.0
40.0
ater
Use
(M
25.96
22.1120.0
Wa
10.0
0.02000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Year
Historical & Projected Water UseHistorical & Projected Water Use Emergency Water Use
Demand EMERGENCY DEMAND REDUCTION CALCULATION
Managed Water Demand Under Near Catastrophic Circumstances (i e Fox
Emergency Emergency2009 Demand DemandADD Reduction Reduction
Distribution Factor Of ADD
Circumstances (i.e. Fox River Unusable For Short Period)
M i t i P d ti T
Single Family & Multifamily 53.0% 0.50 26.5%
Bartlett & Sleepy Hollow 26.0% 0.62 16.2%
Industrial & Commercial 17.0% 1.00 17.0%
Maintain Production To Meet: 100% Industrial,
Government/Institutional 4.0% 1.00 4.0%
Other < 1% -- --
Total: 100 0% -- 63 7%Commercial & Governmental/Institutional ADD Water Use
Total: 100.0% -- 63.7%
50% Residential ADD Water Use
Historical & Projected Water UseHistorical & Projected Water UseWATER USE PROJECTION SUMMARYWATER USE PROJECTION SUMMARY
ADD Water MDD Water MHD WaterUse Projection Use Projection Use Projection
Population CT LRI CT LRI CT LRIPlanning Period Projection (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD)Planning Period Projection (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
2040 Emergency 202,518 16.53 14.07 -- -- -- --
2040 202,518 25.96 22.11 38.94 33.17 58.41 49.75
W t U WWS Si i
Planning Area Build-Out 417,826 48.05 39.88 72.08 59.82 108.11 89.73 Based on 115 gpcd for CT Water Use & 95.45 gpcd for LRI Water Use
2040Supply ADD
Water UseProjection
WWS SizingComponent Demand
2040 Emergency
pp y
2040
Supply MDD
Treatment MDD2040 Storage MHD
Distribution Facilities MDDPlanning
Area BuildArea Build Out Water
Transmission Network
MHD
FFD
Regulatory ReviewRegulatory ReviewRECENT AND NEAR FUTURE DRINKING WATER REGULATION COMPLIANCE RECENT AND NEAR FUTURE DRINKING WATER REGULATION COMPLIANCE
SUMMARY
Regulation Year Enacted
In Compliance? Compliance Status Yes No Surface Water Treatment Rule 1989 WTPs meet treatment requirements
Total Coliform Rule 1989 System is routinely monitored as required
Lead and Copper Rule 1991 Water system is in compliance and routine monitoring is completed as required
Unregulated Contaminant M it i R l 1998 Samples are collected as requiredMonitoring Rule 1998 Samples are collected as required
Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule 1998
WTPs meet treatment requirements and providing required removal of Cryptosporidium and viruses
Stage 1 Disinfectant / Disinfection Byproducts Rule 1998 System meets MCLs for DBPs and
routinely monitor as required WTPs meet MCLs and routinely monitorRadionuclides Rule 2000 WTPs meet MCLs and routinely monitor as required
Arsenic Rule 2001 System meets MCLs and monitor as required
Filter Backwash Recycling Rule 2001 All backwash is routed to head of
treatment plant Long Term 1 Surface Water Only applies to systems with fewer thanLong Term 1 Surface Water Treatment Rule 2002 N/A Only applies to systems with fewer than
10,000 customers
Long Term 2 Surface Water Treatment Rule 2005 In Progress
WTP meets required log removal of viruses, additional source water sampling for Cryptosporidium required in 2015
Stage 2 Disinfectant / Di i f ti B d t R l 2005 In Progress
IDSE has been completed; Compliance monitoring plan is due to IEPA by April 1,Disinfection Byproducts Rule 2005 In Progress monitoring plan is due to IEPA by April 1, 2012
Ground Water Rule 2006 Current groundwater supplies are not susceptible to fecal contamination
Total Coliform Rule 2010 N/A System is routinely monitored as required under current rule Proposed rule would set MCL at
Radon Rule Proposed N/A
p300 pCi/L or 4,000 pCi/L with a multimedia mitigation program to address radon in indoor air
Sustainable Source Water AssessmentSustainable Source Water Assessment
Fox River Deep Sandstone Aquifers
Shallow Sand & Gravel AquiferAquifers Gravel Aquifer
Sustainable Source Water AssessmentSustainable Source Water AssessmentHi t i l F Ri L Fl At Al i1000
Historical Fox River Low Flows At Algonquin
100ow (c
fs)
100
Dai
ly fl
o
2005
9 Days 14 Days200319881966Q7,10
Daily flows in the Fox River at Algonquin during the 4 years since 1965 when flows
have fallen below the Q7,10 (108 cfs)
10JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER
Sustainable Source Water AssessmentSustainable Source Water AssessmentF Ri P j t d L Fl M d li R ltFox River Projected Low Flow Modeling Results
300
2040 CT Scenario with 32 mgd withdrawal
July - Significantly Dry (Lowest 10%)REGIONAL CURRENT TRENDS (CT) WATER USE PROJECTION
600
650
April - Significantly Dry (Lowest 10%)REGIONAL CURRENT TRENDS (CT) WATER USE PROJECTION
200
250
Flow
(mgd
)
2040 CT Scenario with 32 mgd withdrawal
Present-Day Flow
3 0
400
450
500
550
600
w F
low
(mgd
)
100
150
10-Y
ear L
ow
n ora ville150
200
250
300
350
10-Y
ear L
ow 2040 CT Scenario with 32 mgd withdrawal
Present-Day Flow
in ora
kville
FLOW
7-day, 10-year Low Flow (Q7, 10) - Significantly Dry (Lowest 10%)REGIONAL CURRENTTRENDS (CT) WATER USE PROJECTION
0
50
Alg
onqu
in
Elg
in
Aur
o
Yor
kFLOW
N S0
50
100
Alg
onqu
Elg
in
Aur
o
YorkFLOW
N S
100
125
150
(mgd
)
2040 CT Scenario with 32 mgd withdrawal2040 Condition is less than present flowPresent-day flow
REGIONAL CURRENT TRENDS (CT) WATER USE PROJECTION
50
75
100
10-Y
ear L
ow F
low
0
25
Alg
onqu
in
Elg
in
Aur
ora
Yor
kville
FLOW
N S
Sustainable Source Water AssessmentSustainable Source Water Assessment Fox River Withdrawal Analysis &
Permitting Summary Fox River Baseflow Is Projected To Increase Fox River Baseflow Is Projected To Increase
Current & Future Elgin Withdrawals Will Have No Measureable Affect On Hydrology of Fox River
Current Permitted Withdrawal Rate (32 MGD) “is not specifically subject to the minimum seven-day, ten-year (Q7,10) or other levels of low flow
t i ti ”restrictions”
…..“future increases in withdrawal due to normal growth and expansion of the system are likewise not restricted”
IDNR emergency withdrawal restriction authority “to prevent adverse affects on navigation, natural resources and other public interests”
Sustainable Source Water AssessmentSustainable Source Water AssessmentTypical City of Elgin Existing Well ConstructionTypical City of Elgin Existing Well Construction
Sustainable Source Water AssessmentSustainable Source Water AssessmentBarite Dissolution & PrecipitationBarite Dissolution & Precipitation
Barite Dissolution & Precipitation Dissolution
Barite (BaSO4(s)) Is Naturally Occurring Within St. Peter (SP) and Ironton-Galesville Sandstone (IG)Galesville Sandstone (IG)
Reducing Conditions Cause Ba2+ Release and SO4
2- Reduction To Sulfide (H2S(g), HS- and S2-)
GP
SP Precipitation
Solubility Product of Barite Is Very Low 1.0842 X 10-10
SO 2 I Add d T th B h l F th
IG
SO42- Is Added To the Borehole From the
Galena Platteville (GP) Dolomite and Mt. Simon Sandstone (MS)
High Concentrations of Ba2+ and SO42- In
MS
the Borehole Cause BaSO4(s) Precipitation
Barite Rock Pump Assembly Pump Bowl Column Pipe
Sustainable Source Water AssessmentSustainable Source Water Assessment
200
300
400
500
ve M
SL)
Simulated Head in Ancell (St. Peter) Unit
Sustainable Yield Analysis
-200
-100
0
100
200
ted
Hea
d (ft
aboAnalysis
Regional Deep Aquifer Modeling
-500
-400
-300
200
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Sim
ulat
Year
Top of Ancell Unit Bottom of Ancell Unit1 Well @ 1.44 MGD 3 Wells @ 2.5 MGD5 Wells @ 5.0 MGD 5 Wells @ 8.0 MGD
g Sustainable Yield Based
On Drawdown To Mid-Year
Point of St. Peter Sandstone Airlite WTP Well Field =
SUSTAINABLE YIELD FROM EXISTING WELL FIELDS
Water Elevation Wells UsedDrawdown
(FT)Flow
(MGD)Elevation (FT MSL)
Airlite Well Field Airlite WTP Well Field = 4.2 MGD
Slade Ave. Well Field =
Airlite Well FieldTop of St. Peter Formation 1 Existing 145 1.4 170
Mid-Point of St. Peter Formation 5 Existing 255 4.2 70
Bottom of St. Peter Formation 5 Existing 365 6.0 -30Slade Avenue Well Field
Top of St. Peter Formation 6 Existing 184 4.6 161
6.3 MGDTop of St. Peter Formation 6 Existing 184 4.6 161
Mid-Point of St. Peter Formation 6 Existing 253 6.3 92
Bottom of St. Peter Formation 6 Existing 322 8.1 23
Sustainable Source Water AssessmentSustainable Source Water Assessment
Local Shallow Sand & Gravel Aquifer Analysis Limited Sand & Gravel
D i Thi kDeposit Thickness Limited Areal Extent or
Discontinuous Sand &Discontinuous Sand & Gravel Deposits
Anticipated Production Anticipated Production Too Low For City Well Consideration
Sustainable Source Water AssessmentSustainable Source Water AssessmentAnnual Energy Cost Increase For Deep Well Usage
At Riverside WTP
$352,642
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
crea
se
$176,321$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
rgy
Cos
t Inc
$58,774$50 000
$100,000
$150,000
nnua
l Ene
r
$0$0
$50,000
Fox River @ 13 MGD
Fox River @ 12 MGD; Slade Ave
Fox River @ 10 MGD; Slade Ave
Fox River @ 7 MGD; SladeAve Wells @
An
MGD MGD; Slade Ave. Wells @ 1 MGD
MGD; Slade Ave. Wells @ 3 MGD
Slade Ave. Wells @ 6 MGD
Water Supply, Treatment & Storage Water Supply, Treatment & Storage EvalEval.. Needs Assessment Calculations
For Three (6) Water Use Projections….: Maximum Day Demand (CT & LRI) Average Day Demand (CT & LRI) 25
Maximum Day System Source Capacity (CT)City of Elgin, Illinois
Scenario 1 ‐ Riverside WTP is Off‐Line
Scenario 2 ‐ Fox River is Not Accessible
Scenario 3 ‐ Riverside Wells are Off‐LineProjectedExisting Average Day Demand (CT & LRI) Emergency Demand (CT & LRI)
….and Five (5) Operational ‐10
‐5
0
5
10
15
20
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 +15,000 +30,000 +45,000 +60,000 +75,000 +90,000 +95,401
illion Gallons Per Day)
Scenario 4 ‐ Airlite WTP is Off‐Line
Scenario 5 ‐ Existing Resources On‐Line
Scenarios: Riverside WTP Offline N F Ri Withd l
‐40
‐35
‐30
‐25
‐20
‐15
Supp
ly (M
Year Additional Population
No Fox River Withdrawal Riverside Wells Offline Airlite WTP Offline
ea p
Airlite WTP Offline All Existing Resources On-Line
Water Supply, Treatment & Storage Water Supply, Treatment & Storage EvalEval..
No Fox River Withdrawal Needs Assessment Summary
0.00Maximum Day Demand Average Day Demand Emergency Demand
Demand Projectiony
-6.03-3.58
-10.00
-5.00
cit
-15.46-11.61
-20.00
-15.00
pply
Def
ic
5 Wells@ 1,000
GPM
3 Wells@ 1,000
GPM
-28.44
-22.67
-30.00
-25.00Sup
CT
LRI-35.00
Water Supply, Treatment & Storage Water Supply, Treatment & Storage EvalEval..
6Peak Hour Storage Needs Assessment Summary
CTExisting Projected
3
4
5
ons)
LRIg j
1
2
3
Mill
ion
Gal
l
0.5 MGSurplus
-1
0
1
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 +15 K +30 K +45 K +60 K +75 K +90 K +95.4 K
Stor
age
(M
-3
-2
-1S
2 MG3Additional PopulationYear 2 MG
Deficit
Water Distribution System EvaluationWater Distribution System Evaluation
Model Development & VerificationVerification Started With City’s IDSE MWH
Soft InfoWater Model Completed GIS & Model
Updates Model Verification With Fire Flow
Testing: Three (3) Tests In Northwest (Future Three (3) Tests In Northwest (Future
West) Pressure Zone One (1) Test In High Pressure Zone Three (3) Tests In Low Pressure Three (3) Tests In Low Pressure
Zone
Water Distribution System EvaluationWater Distribution System Evaluation
Existing System MHD Node PressuresExisting System MHD Node Pressures
Water Distribution System EvaluationWater Distribution System Evaluation
Existing System Fire Flow AnalysisExisting System Fire Flow Analysis
Water Distribution System EvaluationWater Distribution System Evaluation
Water Distribution System EvaluationWater Distribution System Evaluation
50%
Western Planning Area Transmission Network Summary
40%
50%N
etw
ork
CT
LRI
20%
30%
mis
sion
N
10%
20%
Of T
rans
m
0%8 12 16 24 30 36 42
% O
8 12 16 24 30 36 42Water Main Diameter (inches)
Financial Review & SummaryFinancial Review & Summary
SupplyTreatment
Ground StorageElevated Storage
Booster Pump Station
Financial Review & SummaryFinancial Review & SummaryPh i & I l t ti Pl (CT)Phasing & Implementation Plan (CT)
City of Elgin, IL
Immediate Near Future Long Term0 - 15,000 Additional Pop. 15,000 - 45,000 Additional Pop. 45,000 - 95,401 Additional Pop.
W t W k S t 0 6 Y 7 17 Y 18 30 Y Water Works System 0 - 6 Years 7 - 17 Years 18 - 30 Years
Component Description Cost Description Cost Description Cost Total1 - Deep Sandstone Well & Collector Main
$ 3,418,000 1 - Deep Sandstone Well & Collector Main
$ 3,418,000 3 - Deep Sandstone Wells & Collector Main
$ 10,254,000
Well No. 2A Abandonment $ 50,000 Well No. 1 Modification $ 625,000 Well No. 6 Abandonment $ 50,000 Well No. 2 Modification $ 625,000 $ , $ ,Well No. 1A Modification $ 405,000 Well No. 3 Replacement $ 1,010,000 Well No. 3A Modification $ 405,000 Well No. 4 Modification $ 625,000 Well No. 4A Modification $ 405,000 Well No. 5 Modification $ 405,000 Well No. 5A Modification $ 405,000
Supply Subtotal: $ 5 138 000 $ 6 708 000 $ 10 254 000 $ 22 100 000
Supply
Supply Subtotal: $ 5,138,000 $ 6,708,000 $ 10,254,000 $ 22,100,000
Treatment Airlite WTP Rehabilitation & Expansion To 10 MGD
$ 15,000,000
Treatment Subtotal: $ 15,000,000 $ - $ - $ 15,000,000
Storage 1 - 1.0 MG EWST (Low PZ) $ 2,727,000 1 - 2.0 MG EWST (West PZ) $ 4,206,000
Storage Subtotal: $ 2,727,000 $ - $ 4,206,000 $ 6,933,000 Route 31/Big Timber Area WM Interconnect
Expand Bowes Road BPS Pumping Capacity
High Zone Suction Feed WM To Bowes Road BPS
Route 20/Coombs Road WM Interconnect
$ 1,625,000 Expand Lyle Avenue BPS Pumping Capacity
High Zone Suction Feed WM To Lyle Avenue BPS
B R d/N l R d $ 985 000Bowes Road/Nesler Road WM Interconnect
$ 985,000
Continue 4" WM Replacement Program
As Needed Continue 4" WM Replacement Program
As Needed Continue 4" WM Replacement Program
As Needed
Construct Large Diameter As Needed Construct Large Diameter As Needed Construct Large Diameter As Needed
Distribution
Construct Large Diameter WM Network To Serve New Developments
As Needed Construct Large Diameter WM Network To Serve New Developments
As Needed Construct Large Diameter WM Network To Serve New Developments
As Needed
Distribution Subtotal: $ 2,610,000 $ - $ - $ 2,610,000
TOTAL: $25,475,000 $ 6,708,000 $14,460,000 $ 46,643,000
Financial Review & SummaryFinancial Review & Summary
Capital Cost Savings With LRI Water Use CommitmentCity of Elgin ILCity of Elgin, IL
Water Works System Present Worth Capital CostComponent CT LRI SavingsSupply $22,100,000 $15,264,000 ($6,836,000)
Treatment $15,000,000 $15,000,000 $0
Storage $6,933,000 $2,727,000 ($4,206,000)
Distribution $2,610,000 + $2,610,000 + $0 Distribution $ , , $ , , $
TOTAL: $46,643,000 + $35,601,000 + ($11,042,000)
Sustainability SummarySustainability Summary
Water Audit / Non-Revenue Water Analysis
Water Conservation Best Practices Evaluation & Goal Setting LRI Water Use Projection
Sustainable Source Water Assessment
Water Supply Energy OptimizationWater Supply Energy Optimization
Future System Sizing & Cost Savings SummaryFuture System Sizing & Cost Savings Summary For Water Conservation Commitment
Questions & AnswersQuestions & AnswersQuestions & AnswersQuestions & Answers
Kyla JacobsenWater DirectorCity of Elgin150 D t C t150 Dexter CourtElgin, IL 60120(847) 931-6160
Jeffrey W. Freeman, P.E., CFM, LEED APVice PresidentE i i E t i IEngineering Enterprises, Inc.52 Wheeler RoadSugar Grove, IL 60554(630) 466 6700(630) 466-6700
