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 Concentrate Groundwater Reject water ~1.2 MGD Permeate Drinking water ~6.3 MGD

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 • Technical feasibility • Environmental benefits • 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

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

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