Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2021-11-09 - Agendas - Final
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE %PF ARKANSAS MEETING AGENDA Water, Sewer, and Solid Waste Committee 9 November 2021 5:30 P.M. (Or immediately following Equipment Committee Session) This is a Virtual Meeting Committee: Chairman Mark Kinion; Council Member Sloan Scroggin, Council Member Teresa Turk, Council Member D'Andre Jones, Copy to: Mayor Lioneld Jordan, Paul Becker, Kara Paxton, Susan Norton, Chris Brown, Alan Pugh, Terry Gulley, Peter Nierengarten, Jeff Coles, Brian Pugh, Mark Rogers, Corey Granderson, Aaron Watkins, Greg Weeks, Monty Sedlak, Andrea Foren, Anna White, Prabha Kumar, Rupa Jha From: Tim Nyander, Utilities Director CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL UPDATES OLD BUSINESS: NEW BUSINESS: 1. Review Draft Report of the Rate Study The Committee has had the report for a couple weeks. Representatives from Black & Veatch will be zoomed in to discuss and answer questions about the report. STAFF REQUESTS THIS BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL 2. Update on the Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE) at the West Side WWTP The THE is being conducted at the West side Plant to determine what actions are necessary to achieve compliance with water -quality based effluent limits by reducing toxicity. This plan was approved by ADEQ in April 2021. Discussion on the activities to date. INFORMATION ONLY 3. South Garland Water Line Improvements This project will reconstruct aging and failing waterline infrastructure along South Garland Avenue from West Walker Street to Cato Springs Road. The existing 6-inch diameter cast iron pipe will be replaced with 8-inch diameter PVC pipe, including replacement of fire hydrants and service connections. Total length of replacements is approximately 2,600 feet. The project was designed and permitted through Garver Engineers who will be providing onsite observations and other required construction phase services. On November 9th, 2021, the City of Fayetteville will accept sealed competitive bids for the South Garland Avenue Waterline Replacement project. The bids will be shared during the Water/Sewer Committee presentation and a recommendation made at that time. STAFF REQUESTS THIS BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL 4. Recruitment and Retention Pay for Water & Sewer Construction Group Due to the current economic climate caused by the pandemic and other factors, we have experienced employees leaving city employment, and very few, if any, people applying for the open positions on our construction side of the department. There are two main reasons they are leaving, (1) there is more money being offered by the private sector for the same type of job, and (2) the employees that remain are getting stressed because of all the hours they are putting in to cover vacancies and keep up with the workload. After careful evaluation, the most viable option is to offer pay incentives to retain our existing employees and to recruit new employees. We will discuss with the committee our proposed recruitment and retention plan. 5. Overview of WWTP Monthly Report Discussion of September's Monthly WWTP Report PRESENTATIONS ATTACHMENTS Draft Rate Study THE Activities Report South Garland Waterline Improvements September WWTP Monthly Report ADJOURN Next Water, Sewer, Solid Waste Committee meets on Tuesday, December 14, 2021, 5:30 p.m. Draft WATER AND WASTEWATER COMPREHENSIVE RATE STUDY B&V PROJECT NO. 406577 PREPARED FOR City of Fayetteville, Arkansas BLACK & VEATCH City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary........................................................................................................ ES 1-0 1.1 Summary of Findings.................................................................................................. ES 1-0 1.1.1 Revenue Under Existing Rates.................................................................... ES 1-0 1.1.2 Revenue Requirements............................................................................... ES 1-1 1.1.3 Summary of Cash Flow Results................................................................... ES 1-2 1.1.4 Cost of Service Analysis............................................................................... ES 1-2 1.2 Proposed Rate Adjustments....................................................................................... ES 1-3 1.3 Disclaimer................................................................................................................... ES 1-3 2.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................2-0 2.1 Purpose............................................................................................................................2-0 2.2 Scope................................................................................................................................2-0 2.3 Study Methodology.........................................................................................................2-1 2.3.1 Financial Plan....................................................................................................2-1 2.3.2 Cost of Service..................................................................................................2-1 2.3.3 Rate Design.......................................................................................................2-2 3.0 Rate Structure Overview.....................................................................................................3-0 3.1 Fixed Charge.....................................................................................................................3-0 3.2 Volumetric (Usage) Charge..............................................................................................3-0 3.3 Existing Rate Structure.....................................................................................................3-0 3.3.1 Water Rate Structure.......................................................................................3-0 3.3.2 Wastewater Rate Structure..............................................................................3-1 4.0 Water Utility.......................................................................................................................4-1 4.1 Water Revenue Projections Under Existing Rates...........................................................4-1 4.1.1 Water Revenue Under Existing Rates..............................................................4-1 4.1.2 Projection of Service Revenue Under Existing Rates.......................................4-3 4.1.3 Other Water Revenue......................................................................................4-3 4.2 Water Capital Improvements Program............................................................................4-4 4.3 Water Revenue Requirements........................................................................................4-4 4.3.1 Water Operation and Maintenance Expenses.................................................4-4 4.3.2 Water Bad Debt................................................................................................4-5 4.3.3 Water Payment In Lieu of Taxes......................................................................4-6 4.3.4 Safe Drinking Water Fee Reimbursement........................................................4-6 4.3.5 Water Debt Service Requirements...................................................................4-6 4.3.6 Transfer to Shop Fund......................................................................................4-6 4.3.7 Transfer to Operating Reserve.........................................................................4-6 4.3.8 Water Cash Financed Capital...........................................................................4-6 4.3.9 Transfer to Capital Reserve..............................................................................4-6 4.4 Water Proposed Revenue Adjustments...........................................................................4-7 BLACK & VEATCH I Table of Contents City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study 4.5 Water Cost of Service......................................................................................................4-8 4.5.1 Determination of Cost of Service.....................................................................4-9 4.5.2 Determination of Functional Costs..................................................................4-9 4.5.3 Allocation of Costs to the Functional Cost Components...............................4-10 4.5.4 Distribution of Water Utility Costs to Customer Classes...............................4-12 5.0 Water Rate Design............................................................................................................5-15 5.1 Existing Water Rates......................................................................................................5-15 5.2 Proposed Water Rates...................................................................................................5-15 6.0 Wastewater Utility..............................................................................................................6-1 6.1 Wastewater Revenue Projections Under Existing Rates.................................................6-1 6.1.1 Wastewater Revenue Under Existing Rates.....................................................6-1 6.1.2 Projection of Service Revenue Under Existing Rates.......................................6-3 6.1.3 Other Wastewater Revenue.............................................................................6-4 6.2 Wastewater Capital Improvements Program..................................................................6-4 6.3 Wastewater Utility Revenue Requirements....................................................................6-4 6.3.1 Wastewater Operation and Maintenance Expenses.......................................6-4 6.3.2 Wastewater Bad Debt......................................................................................6-5 6.3.3 Wastewater Payment In Lieu of Taxes.............................................................6-5 6.3.4 Wastewater Debt Service Requirements.........................................................6-6 6.3.5 Transfer to Shop Fund......................................................................................6-6 6.3.6 Transfer to Operating Reserve.........................................................................6-6 6.3.7 Wastewater Cash Financed Capital..................................................................6-6 6.3.8 Transfer to Capital Reserve..............................................................................6-6 6.4 Wastewater Proposed Revenue Adjustments.................................................................6-6 6.5 Wastewater Cost of Service.............................................................................................6-7 6.5.1 Determination of Cost of Service.....................................................................6-8 6.5.2 Determination of Functional Costs..................................................................6-9 6.5.3 Allocation of Costs to the Functional Cost Components.................................6-9 6.5.4 Distribution of Wastewater Utility Costs to Customer Classes ......................6-11 6.5.5 Wastewater Utility Customer Class Costs of Service.....................................6-12 7.0 Wastewater Rate Design................................................................................................... 7-14 7.1 Existing Wastewater Rates............................................................................................7-14 7.2 Proposed Wastewater Rates.........................................................................................7-14 8.0 Combined Water and Wastewater Utilities........................................................................8-14 9.0 Disclaimer.........................................................................................................................9-15 10.0 Appendix 1: Water Tables.................................................................................................10-1 11.0 Appendix 2: Wastewater Tables........................................................................................11-1 BLACK & VEATCH I Table of Contents City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study LIST OF EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLES Table ES - 1—Water 2022 Cost of Service............................................................................................. ES 1-2 Table ES - 2 —Wastewater 2022 Cost of Service................................................................................... ES 1-3 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4-1- Historical and Projected Water Accounts...............................................................................4-2 Figure 4-2 - Historical and Projected Water Billed Volume.......................................................................4-3 Figure 4-3 - Historical and Projected Water Service Revenue...................................................................4-3 Figure 4-4 - Projected Annual Water O&M Expenses................................................................................4-5 Figure 4-5 - Water Revenues and Revenue Requirements........................................................................4-8 Figure 6-1 - Historical and Projected Wastewater Accounts.....................................................................6-2 Figure 6-2 - Historical and Projected Wastewater Billed Volume.............................................................6-3 Figure 6-3 - Historical and Projected Wastewater Service Revenue.........................................................6-3 Figure 6-4 - Projected Annual Water O&M Expense.................................................................................6-5 Figure 6-5 - Wastewater Revenues and Revenue Requirements..............................................................6-7 LIST OF WATER TABLES Table W - 1 - Water Projected Number of Accounts...............................................................................10-1 Table W - 2 - Water Projected Billed Volume (1,000 Gallons).................................................................10-2 Table W - 3 - Water Existing Rates...........................................................................................................10-3 Table W - 4 - Water Projected Revenues Under Existing Rates...............................................................10-4 Table W - 5 - Water Projected Other Revenues.......................................................................................10-4 Table W - 6 - Water Capital Improvement Program................................................................................10-5 Table W - 7 - Water Projected O&M Expenses........................................................................................10-5 Table W - 8 - Capital Program Financing..................................................................................................10-6 Table W - 9 - Water Operating Cash Flow................................................................................................10-7 Table W - 10 - Water Fund Balances........................................................................................................10-8 Table W - 11- Water 2022 Cost of Service..............................................................................................10-9 Table W - 12 - Water 2022 Allocation of Net Plant Investment to Functional Cost Components ........10-10 Table W - 13 - Water 2022 Allocation of Net Annual Depreciation to Functional Cost Components.................................................................................................................10-10 Table W - 14 - Water 2022 Allocation of 0&M Expenses to Functional Cost Components ..................10-10 Table W - 15 - Water 2022 Estimated Units of Service..........................................................................10-11 Table W - 16 - Water 2022 Unit Cost of Service....................................................................................10-12 Table W - 17 - Water 2022 Cost of Service by Customer Class..............................................................10-13 Table W - 18 - Water Proposed 2022 Rates...........................................................................................10-14 Table W - 19 - Water 2022 Cost of Service Under Proposed Rates.......................................................10-15 Table W - 20 - Water 2022 Bill Impact...................................................................................................10-16 BLACK & VEATCH I Table of Contents City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study LIST OF WASTEWATER TABLES Table S - 1 - Wastewater Projected Accounts..........................................................................................11-1 Table S - 2 - Wastewater Projected Billed Volume (1,000 Gallons).........................................................11-1 Table S - 3 - Wastewater Existing Charges...............................................................................................11-2 Table S - 4 - Wastewater Projected Revenues at Existing Rates..............................................................11-3 Table S - 5 - Wastewater Projected Other Revenues...............................................................................11-3 Table S - 6 - Wastewater Capital Improvement Program........................................................................11-4 Table S - 7 - Wastewater Projected 0&M Expenses................................................................................11-4 Table S - 8 - Wastewater Cash Financed Capital......................................................................................11-5 Table S - 9 - Wastewater Operating Cash Flow........................................................................................11-5 Table S - 10 - Wastewater Projected Fund Balances...............................................................................11-6 Table S - 11 - Wastewater 2022 Cost of Service......................................................................................11-6 Table S - 12 - Wastewater 2022 Allocation of Net Plant Investment......................................................11-7 Table S - 13 - Wastewater 2022 Allocation of Depreciation....................................................................11-7 Table S - 14 - Wastewater 2022 Allocation of O&M Expenses................................................................11-8 Table S - 15 - Wastewater 2022 Units of Service.....................................................................................11-8 Table S - 16 - Wastewater 2022 Unit Cost of Service..............................................................................11-9 Table S - 17 - Wastewater 2022 Cost of Service by Customer Class........................................................11-9 Table S - 18 - Wastewater Proposed 2022 Charges...............................................................................11-10 Table S - 19 - Wastewater 2022 Cost of Service Under Proposed Rates...............................................11-11 Table S - 20 - Wastewater 2022 Bill Impact...........................................................................................11-11 LIST OF COMBINED TABLES Table C - 1 - Combined Projected Fund Balances Table C - 2 - Combined Operating Cash Flow...... Table C - 3 - Combined 2022 Bill Impact ............. 12-12 12-13 12-14 BLACK & VEATCH I Table of Contents City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study 1.0 Executive Summary The City of Fayetteville (City) provides water and wastewater services to retail and wholesale customers. The Water and Wastewater fund is an Enterprise Fund, which is funded by the operating and capital revenues from the users of the system. Due to multiple factors including increasing operating costs, significant capital investments to meet regulatory requirements, and the need for infrastructure rehabilitation and replacement, revenues under existing rates are not adequate to meet the annual revenue requirements. Therefore, to maintain financial sufficiency and to assure equitable cost recovery, the City engaged Black & Veatch Management Consulting, LLC (Black & Veatch) to perform a Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study (Study). The primary objectives of the Study are to develop a balanced financial plan, determine cost of service allocations for each customer class and design rates to recover costs from customer classes in reasonable accord with the allocated costs of service. The financial plan was developed for the six -year period of 2021 through 2026, also referred to as the study period or the forecast period. The city's fiscal year is a calendar year, starting on January 1 and ending on December 31. As a result of our evaluations and analyses, the following summary of findings and recommendations are offered for the City's consideration. 1.1 Summary of Findings 1.1.1 Revenue Under Existing Rates The City provides retail water services to approximately 40,800 customers inside the City and about 7,000 customers outside the City. The number of retail water service customers inside the City is projected to increase to about 44,800 by 2026 and the number of outside City water customers is projected to increase to about 8,000. The City also provides treated water to four wholesale customers. Retail wastewater collection and treatment service is provided to approximately 36,900 customers inside the City and about 2,600 customers outside the City. The number of inside City wastewater service customers is projected to increase to about 40,600 by 2026 and the number of outside City wastewater service customers is projected to increase to about 2,700. 2. Treated water sales to inside City retail customers are projected to increase from approximately 3,146,800 1,000 gallons (kgals) in Black & Veatch to approximately 3,388,000 kgals by 2026. Treated water sales to outside City retail customers are projected to increase from approximately 507,600 kgals in Black & Veatch to approximately 519,400 kgals by 2026. Treated water sales to wholesale customers is projected to be approximately 219,100 kgals in 2021 and decrease to 202,300 kgals in 2022 and remain at that level through 2026. Billed wastewater volume from inside City retail customers are projected to increase from approximately 2,806,700 kgals in 2021 to approximately 2,961,800 kgals by 2026. Billed wastewater volume from outside City retail customers is projected to increase from 109,800 kgals in 2021 to about 117,400 kgals by 2026. Billed wastewater volume from wholesale customers is projected to increase from 81,000 kgals in 2021 to 126,600 kgals in 2026 due to the addition of West Fork as a wholesale wastewater customer starting December 2020. The annual wholesale wastewater volume is projected to remain at the 2021 level through 2026. BLACK & VEATCH I Executive Summary ES-1-0 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study 3. The City's current water rates became effective January 1, 2021. For both retail and wholesale customers, the water rates include a monthly base charge, which varies by meter size and a volume charge that varies by customer class. The existing schedule of rates for wastewater service became effective on January 1, 2021. For retail customers, the wastewater rates include a monthly base charge, which varies by meter size. The volume charge varies by customer class. Surcharge rates are based on excess strength of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS). The existing wastewater rate structure is described in Section 3.3.2. 4. Revenue is currently derived principally from charges for treated water and wastewater service, with some revenue also obtained fire protection charges and other miscellaneous sources. Revenue from treated water sales, under existing rates, is projected to increase from $21,186,400 in 2021 to about $22,395,400 in 2026. Miscellaneous water revenues are estimated to increase from $1,484,700 in 2021 to approximately $1,608,600 in 2026. Revenue for wastewater collection and treatment services is projected to increase from $24,461,900 in 2021 to about $25,973,600 in 2026, under existing rates. Miscellaneous wastewater revenue is estimated at $1,297,100 in 2021 and $1,420,200 per year through 2022 to 2026. 1.1.2 Revenue Requirements 1. Costs of service to be recovered from water and wastewater service charges include (1) operation and maintenance (O&M) expenses; (2) bad debt; (3) Payment In Lieu of Taxes; (4) Safe Drinking Water Fee Reimbursement; (5) debt service (consisting of principal and interest payments); (6) transfer to shop fund; (7) transfer to operating reserve; (8) cash financed capital; and (9) transfer to capital reserve. The water and wastewater utilities do not have any outstanding debt service. There are no future debt issuances are planned over the study period and no transfers to the shop fund over the study period. 2. The annual O&M expense includes the cost of labor, materials, power, chemicals, purchased water, contract services and other expenses associated with each utility's operation. In this study, FY 2021 is defined as the base budget year, based on which the O&M costs are projected for the forecast period. O&M expense for the water utility is projected to increase from $15,949,600 in 2021 to $18,739,400 by 2026 due to the combined effects of inflation and system growth. O&M expense for the wastewater utility is projected to increase from $15,674,800 in 2021 to $18,395,700 by 2026 due to the combined effects of inflation and system growth. 3. Bad debt expenses refer to outstanding balances from customers that are deemed uncollectible. The water and wastewater bad debt in 2019 was 0.5% of revenue. Bad debt projections for the study period assume 0.5% of annual revenues. Annual bad debt expenses for water utility is projected to increase from $105,900 in 2021 to $129,500 by 2026. Annual bad debt expenses for wastewater utility is projected to increase from $122,300 in 2021 to $150,200 by 2026. 4. The Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) are paid by public utilities to municipal entity as a compensation for utilization of streets, easements, right of ways or other public places. The PILOT amount is determined per City Ordinance 4449 that requires the water and wastewater funds to pay 4.25% of annual total gross sales revenues to the City. Annual PILOT amount for the water utility is anticipated to increase from $900,400 in 2021 to $1,100,700 in 2026. Annual PILOT amount for the wastewater utility is projected to increase from $1,039,600 in 2021 to $1,276,600 1,332,100 in 2026. BLACK & VEATCH I Executive Summary ES-1-1 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study 5. The Safe Drinking Water Fee (SDWF) revenue collected for each metered customer is reimbursed to the state of Arkansas Department of Public Health. The SDWF reimbursement is projected to increase from $230,000 in 2021 to $250,200 in 2026. The SDWF is a pass -through fee and is treated as a "revenue reduction" by the City. 6. The City maintains an operating reserve balance equivalent of ninety (90) days of following years' O&M budget. The transfer to operating reserve for the water utility is projected to increase from $133,000 in 2022 to $151,800 in 2026. The transfer to operating reserve for wastewater is projected to increase from $129,600 in 2022 to $147,900 in 2026. 7. The City currently utilizes the following two sources of funding for the water and wastewater utility capital projects (1): transfer from operating revenues and (2) transfer from the impact fee fund. A capital project meets the requirements of using impact fees if the existing water or wastewater capacity is expanded due to growth. The wastewater capital improvement program for the study period is $69 million, of which $67 million is projected to be funded from operating revenues and $2 million is from the impact fee fund. 1.1.3 Summary of Cash Flow Results 1. The cash flow analysis performed based on the projected annual revenues under existing rates and the projected annual revenue requirements indicates a funding gap for both utilities beginning in 2021. 2. Therefore, a series of 3% annual revenue adjustment is needed in both the water and wastewater utilities to achieve the goal of the operating fund revenues being self-sufficient and adequate to cover all of the O&M expenses, cash financing of the capital program, required transfers, and to maintain the minimum reserve requirements. Table W - 9, in Appendix 1 presents the cash flow analysis and the proposed series of revenue increases for the water utility, and Table S - 9, in Appendix 2 presents the same for the wastewater utility. 1.1.4 Cost of Service Analysis 1. The revenue requirements less any revenues from other sources provides the "net" annual operating fund revenue requirements (also referred to as "cost of service") that needs to be recovered through user rates and charges. A summary of the projected annual cost of service for 2022 is shown for water and wastewater in tables ES-1 and ES-2, respectively. Table ES - 1—Water 2022 Cost of Service 1 O&M Expenses 17,286,100 17,286,100 2 Depreciation 2,672,900 2,672,900 3 Return 1,919,300 1,919,300 4 Net Water Cost of Service 17,286,100 4,592,200 21,878,300 BLACK & VEATCH I Executive Summary ES-1-2 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Table ES - 2 —Wastewater 2022 Cost of Service 1 O&M Expenses 2 Depreciation 3 Return 4 Net Wastewater Cost of Service 16,862,500 16,862,500 8,060,600 8,060,600 558,000 558,000 16,862,500 8,618,600 25,481,100 2. As a basis for design of a schedule of water and wastewater rates, the costs of service are allocated to the classes of customers in accordance with respective service requirements of each customer class. The resulting costs of service allocated to customer classes are summarized in Table W - 17 for water and Table S -17 for wastewater. 1.2 Proposed Recommendations Based on the financial planning and cost of service analysis performed for the study period, the Black & Veatch team proffers the following series of recommendations: 1. Implement a series of 3% annual revenue increase from 2022 to 2026 for both water and wastewater utilities. 2. Implement cost of service -based rates for water and wastewater utilities in 2022. 3. Transition the existing monthly Base charge to the proposed Base Charge, derived based on cost of service, if cost of service based proposed Base Charge is greater than the existing Base charge. 4. Continue with the existing tier block structure for all customer classes but eliminate the minimum volume charge billing of 1,000 gallons from the volumetric portion of the rate structure. The aforementioned recommendations enable the water and wastewater utilities to meet all its financial obligations, so that the City can continue to provide reliable service to serve the needs of existing and future customers. 1.3 Disclaimer This report was prepared for the City of Fayetteville (Client) by Black & Veatch Management Consulting, LLC (Black & Veatch) and is based on information provided by the Client not within the control of Black & Veatch. While it is believed that the information, data and opinions contained herein will be reliable under the conditions and subject to the limitations set forth in this report, Black & Veatch does not guarantee the accuracy thereof. Black & Veatch has assumed that the information provided by others, both verbal and written, is complete and correct. The projections set forth in this report are intended as "forward -looking statements." In formulating these projections, Black & Veatch has made certain assumptions with respect to conditions, events, and circumstances that may occur in the future. While Black & Veatch believes the assumptions are reasonable actual results may differ materially from those BLACK & VEATCH I Executive Summary ES-1-3 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study projected, as influenced by the conditions, events, and circumstances that occur. As such, Black & Veatch does not take responsibility for the accuracy of data or projections provided by or prepared on behalf of the Client, nor does Black & Veatch have any responsibility for updating this report for events occurring after the date of this report. Use of this report or any information contained therein by any party other than the Client, shall constitute a waiver and release by such third party of Black & Veatch from and against all claims and liability, including but not limited to liability for special, incidental, indirect or consequential damages in connection with such use. Such use of this report by a third party shall constitute agreement by the third party user that its rights, if any, arising from this report shall be subject to the terms of this Report Limitations, and in no event shall the third party's rights, if any, exceed those of the Client under its contract with B&V. The benefit of such releases, waivers, or limitations of liability shall extend to the related companies and subcontractors of any tier of B&V, and the shareholders, directors, officers, partners, employees, and agents of all released or indemnified parties. BLACK & VEATCH I Executive Summary ES-1-4 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study 2.0 Introduction The City of Fayetteville water utility provides treated water and water distribution services to approximately 40,800 customers within the corporate limits of Fayetteville, and to approximately 7,000 customers in areas contiguous to, but outside of the City's corporate limits. The wastewater utility provides retail wastewater collection and treatment service to approximately 37,000 customers within the corporate city limits and to approximately 2,600 customers outside of the City's corporate limits. The City also provides treated water to four wholesale customers and wastewater treatment to two wholesale customers. In providing water and wastewater service, the City incurs considerable expense related to the ongoing operating and capital needs of the utilities. These operating and capital expenditures tend to increase annually due to the combined effects of inflation and the need to repair, replace, or extend existing service facilities to meet customer service requirements, as well as to meet more stringent state and federal water quality requirements and EPA requirements. The City of Fayetteville, recognizing the importance of financial planning and cost of service analysis to equitably recover the increasing costs to replace, renew, expand, improve, and operate its water and wastewater service facilities, retained Black & Veatch to perform this comprehensive study of revenue requirements, cost of service, and rates for potable water service and wastewater service. 2.1 Purpose This report examines the respective projected revenue and rate requirements of the water and wastewater systems of the City. The purpose of this report is (1) to project the future revenues of the water and wastewater utilities under existing rates and charges, as well as the operating expenses and capital financing revenue requirements of the two utilities, and to examine the adequacy of projected revenues to meet these revenue requirements through calendar year 2026; (2) to allocate these revenue requirements, or costs of service, for a representative test year to the various customer classes in accordance with the respective service requirements that each class places on the systems; and (3) to develop a suitable schedule of water and wastewater rates that will produce revenues adequate to meet the financial needs of the utility on a basis that recognizes customer costs of service, existing wholesale service agreements and practical bill impact considerations. 2.2 Scope This report presents the results of a comprehensive study of the projected revenue and revenue requirements, costs of service allocations, and proposed rates for treated water and wastewater service. Revenue and revenue requirements are projected for the six calendar years from 2022 through 2026, recognizing anticipated growth in number of customers, water use, and wastewater flows throughout the service area. The study of revenue requirements recognizes projected operation and maintenance expense, capital improvement requirements met from revenues, principal and interest payments on outstanding and proposed bond issues, and reserve fund requirements. Requirements of existing revenue bond indentures are also recognized. Costs of treated water and wastewater service are developed for each group of customers and type of service based on consideration of utility revenue needs and projected customer service requirements. Rate adjustments are designed for retail and wholesale customers in accordance with allocated costs of service, wholesale service agreement terms, and customer bill impact considerations. BLACK & VEATCH I Introduction 2-0 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study 2.3 Study Methodology The development of user rates and charges requires the integration of three critical components: (i) financial plan; (ii) cost of service allocations; and (iii) rate design. 2.3.1 Financial Plan The development and update of a financial plan is necessary to continue to focus on financial discipline, build financial stability, and maintain sustainable financial planning practices. The financial planning process helps to establish a financial roadmap to meet all of the water and wastewater utility's obligations. As illustrated in Figure 2 - 1, the key components of a financial plan are: (i) projection of revenues from user rates and other sources; (III) development of a capital financing plan to decide the mix of debt and cash funding of capital program; (iii) projection of revenue requirements (O&M and capital costs, and target reserves); and (iv) determination of the level and timing of revenue adjustments needed to maintain financial viability. The annual revenue requirements are typically developed on a cash - needs basis for public utility rate setting. The revenue requirements, under the cash -needs basis approach, include the following: Figure 2 - 1: Financial Plan ff Financial Planning Project Review Revenues PForma] Fro- Project Revenue Re uirements Scenario Planning Develop Capital /Rev Financing Plan I Adjustments O&M expenditures; Debt service expenses; Cash financing of capital program; Contributions to operating reserves; and Other obligations such as payments and transfers for specific purposes. To establish financial stability, a financial plan is typically prepared for a multi -year period. A six -year financial plan was developed for the water and wastewater utility to achieve the financial objectives and target metrics defined to build and sustain financial integrity. 2022 through 2026 is the forecast period for both revenues and revenue requirement projections. The revenue adjustments represent the level of annual revenue increases necessary to meet the annual net revenue requirements. 2.3.2 Cost of Service Cost of service can be described as the revenue that the water and wastewater utility need to generate, net of funding from other miscellaneous sources of revenues. Therefore, Cost of Service is essentially the "net revenue requirement" that is to be recovered through user rates and charges. As illustrated in Figure 2 - 2, Cost of Cost of Service Analysis I Allocate Casts Develop Units Unit Costs of Service Distribute Allocated Costs Based on Service Requirements Figure 2 - 2: Cost of Service service analysis enables an equitable apportioning of the net annual revenue requirements (also referred to as cost of service) to the various cost components and customer BLACK & VEATCH I Introduction 2-1 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study classes. The level and types of allocation performed depend on the existing and anticipated rate structure. As municipal utilities are public utilities that cannot make a profit, the equitable allocation of costs is a critical step that is necessary to establish a reasonable nexus between costs incurred in providing service and the fees charged from customers, and to establish defensible user rates and charges. 2.3.3 Rate Design The third and final component is an evaluation of the existing rate structure components and the development of proposed user rates and charges. The user rates and charge schedules typically include fixed charge, volumetric charge, and other special charge rate components. As illustrated in Figure 2 - 3, the rates and charges are designed to recover the annual cost of service allocated to these different rate components and based on local policy and practical considerations. The study methodology described above and used in the financial planning, cost of service and rate design analysis reflect the application of industry accepted rate setting approaches that are provided in the following two guidance manuals: Figure 2 - 3: Rate Design Rate Design Review Develop COS 1 Rates scenario Planning Develop Practical Rates Proposed Rates ----------------------------------- American Water Works Association (AWWA) Manual M-1: Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges for water rate setting; and Water Environment Foundation (WEF) Financing and Charges for Wastewater Systems for wastewater. BLACK & VEATCH I Introduction 2-2 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study 3.0 Rate Structure Overview The revenue requirements of a water and wastewater utility, net of any miscellaneous sources of revenues, are recovered from user rates and charges. A water rate structure usually consists of two primary components, namely, a fixed charge and a volumetric charge. Similarly, a wastewater rate structure more commonly consists of a fixed charge, a volumetric charge, and pollutant charge (for wastewater pollutants such as Bio-chemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS). Occasionally, a utility's water and wastewater rate structures may include special surcharges and/or special assessments to recover costs associated with certain service situations such as purchased water, pumping to elevations, drought conditions, readiness -to -serve, environmental conditions, and extra - strength wastewater discharges. 3.1 Fixed Charge A utility's annual revenue requirements comprise mostly of fixed costs such as salaries and benefits, pension obligations, debt service, cash financing for infrastructure renewal, and costs related to the provision of adequate capacity for service. These types of fixed costs occur on a recurring basis regardless of the amount of water used by the customer. Therefore, rate structures need to afford the ability to recover at least some of the fixed costs based on billing parameters that are not related to water usage or wastewater flow. The fixed charge, which is assessed regardless of the volume of water used, provides a mechanism to reliably recover some of the fixed annual operating costs of the utility, and provide for some level of revenue stability. In the utility industry, fixed charges are designed to recover one or more of the following types of costs, namely, (i) metering; (ii) billing; (iii) readiness -to -serve cost; (iv) specific capital investment; and (v) other specific costs. The costs of providing these functions vary among types of customers and/or by factors such as size and capacity of the meters. Therefore, to provide for equitable cost recovery, water and wastewater fixed charges are usually assessed based on meter size and also by customer class. 3.2 Volumetric (Usage) Charge In the utility industry, usage charges are designed to recover all other costs (except those that are recovered through fixed charge) associated with the treatment and delivery of water service and the collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater. The three common types of volumetric charge are: (i) inclining block rate, where the usage in the next higher usage block is priced at a higher rate per unit; (ii) uniform block rate, where all units of usage are priced at the same unit rate; and (iii) declining block rate, where the usage in the next higher usage block is priced at a lower rate per unit. As usage patterns vary among customer classes and consequently different classes place different levels of service demands, different volumetric rates can be established for the various customer classes. In designing the volumetric rate structure, practical considerations including conservation, equity, affordability, and ease of administration are addressed. 3.3 Existing Rate Structure 3.3.1 Water Rate Structure Consistent with industry rate structures, the City's water rate structure comprises of both Fixed Charge and Volumetric Charge components. The water rate structure includes the following two components: BLACK & VEATCH I Rate Structure Overview 3-0 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Base Charge (Fixed Charge); and Volume Charge (Volumetric Charge). Some of these components are applicable to only specific customer classes. The revenues derived from the above charges are collectively referred to as water Service Revenues." ■ Base Charge: The existing Base Charge for all customer classes is based on meter size. ■ Volume Charge: The existing Volume Charge is based on the quantity of water used by the customers. ■ Safe Drinkine Water Fee• This is a regulatory charge per bill that is collected by the City on behalf of the state of Arkansas Department of Public Health. The customer classes to which the specific charge components apply is illustrated in Figure 3 -1. The existing water rate schedule for 2021, for these rate components, is presented in Table W - 3 in Appendix 1. All customers are billed monthly. Figure 3 -1: Existing Water Rate Structure • Base Charge by Meter Size • Volume Rate (3-Tier Inclining Block) Minimum Usage (1,000 Gallons) Volume Rate (2-Tier Declining Block) Minimum Usage (1,000 Gallons) Volume Rate (Uniform) Minimum Usage (1,000 Gallons) Volume Rate ( Uniform) 2 rates (Reduced Peak Demand and Peak Demand) • Safe Drinking Water Fee (per month) 3.3.2 Wastewater Rate Structure Retail Inside City (Residential, Non -Residential, Major Industrial, Irrigation, Fire Protection); Retail Outside City (Residential, Non -Residential, Major Industrial, Irrigation, Fire Protection); Wholesale Retail Inside City Residential; and Retail Outside City Residential Retail Inside City Non -Residential, Irrigation; and Retail Outside City Non -Residential, Irrigation Retail Inside City Major Industrial Retail Outside City Major Industrial Wholesale • All customer classes The City's Operating Fund wastewater rate structure also comprises of both Fixed Charge and Volumetric Charge components. The wastewater rate structure includes the following three components: Base Charge (Fixed Charge); BLACK & VEATCH I Rate Structure Overview 3-1 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Volume Charge (Volumetric Charge); and BOD and TSS Charge (Surcharge). The revenues derived from all these three sources are collectively referred to as "Wastewater Service Kevenues. Some of these user rate components are applicable to only specific customer classes. ■ Base Charge: The existing Base Charge for all retail customers is based on meter size. ■ Volume Charge. The existing volume wastewater charge is based on the quantity of water used by the customer classes. Surcharge: The existing wastewater surcharge is based on the excess strengths of BOD and TSS, of certain customers. The customer classes to which the specific rate components are applicable is illustrated in Figure 3 - 2. The existing wastewater rate schedule for 2021 is presented in Table S - 3 in Appendix 2. Figure 3 - 2: Existing Wastewater Rate Structure • Base Charge by Meter Size • Retail Inside City (Residential, Non -Residential and Major Industrial); • Retail Outside City (Residential, Non -Residential and Major Industrial); • Volume Rate (2-Tier Inclining Block) Retail Inside City Residential Based on winter water usage of December, January and February Volume Rate (Uniform) Retail Inside City (Non -Residential and Major Industrial) Retail Outside City (Residential, Non -Residential and Major Industrial) Volume Rate ( Uniform) Wholesale 2 tiered rates (85% of metered water usage and Above 85% of metered water usage) BLACK & VEATCH I Rate Structure Overview 3-2 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study 4.0 Water Utility The financial plan and rate design were developed to meet all the funding obligations of the water utility, and to achieve the financial adequacy and equitable cost recovery discussed in Section 2.3. The water utility financial plan was developed for the six -year forecast period of 2021 through 2026, and includes the following key components: Revenue projections (user rate revenues and non -rate revenues); Capital improvement program financing; Annual revenue requirement projections; and Annual proposed revenue increases 4.1 Water Revenue Projections Under Existing Rates The water utility revenues are derived from the following sources: Water Service Revenues (Base and Volume Charge) Other Revenues As a first step in the development of the financial plan, Water Service Revenues under the 2021 existing rates are projected for the forecast period. 4.1.1 Water Revenue Under Existing Rates As described in Section 3.3.1, the Water Service Revenue consists of two charge components. For each of the two components, revenues are projected based on billing units and applicable existing rate schedules. The billing units necessary to compute the Base Charge revenues are the number of accounts based on meter size and customer class. The billing units necessary to compute the Volume Charge are the annual water usage by customer class and by applicable blocks of usage. 4.1.1.1 Projection of Customer Accounts Typically, historical billing units are reviewed and used to project billing units for the forecast period. The project team reviewed historical accounts and average usage trends for each customer class referenced in Section 3.3.1. Based on the review of historical trends, two annual adjustment factors were applied to project billing units for the forecast period. The two adjustment factors applied at the customer class level are accounts growth rate and usage factor. The number of accounts is projected to grow in all customer classes except for Fire protection and wholesale where the number of accounts is anticipated to remain at the 2020 level. The total number of water accounts (not including private fire connections) is anticipated to increase from about 48,620 in 2021 to about 52,850 in 2026, at an overall annual system growth rate of 1.7%. The number of private fire connections is anticipated to remain at 727 throughout the study period. Table W - 1 in Appendix 1 presents the projected annual number of water accounts and private fire connections for the period of 2021 through 2026. BLACK & VEATCH I Water Utility 4-1 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Figure 4-1 presents both the historical and projected number of accounts for the water utility. Water Utility Historical and Projected Accounts 60,000 50,000 — — — — — — 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Historical — — Projected Figure 4-1- Historical and Projected Water Accounts 4.1.1.2 Projection of Water Usage Billed water volumes are projected based on estimates of the number of water accounts and the average billed usage per account. Average water use per account is determined based on historical usage. The historical usage per account for all customer classes varies each year between 2016 and 2020. In 2020, the COVID pandemic led to stay-at-home measures and shut down of non -essential businesses across the country. Consequently, the residential customers used more water in 2020, whereas the non-residential customers used less water as compared to previous years. The average use per account for 2021 was projected to remain at the 2020 levels assuming a lingering effect of the pandemic. The average usage per account for 2022 and beyond was projected to return to the 2019 level for all customer classes assuming a return to pre -pandemic levels. Total system water usage is projected to increase from 3,873,500 kgals in 2021 to 4,109,400 kgals in 2026. Table W - 2 in Appendix 1 presents the projected annual volume for the period of 2021 through 2026. Figure 4-2 presents both the historical and projected annual billed volume for the water utility. BLACK & VEATCH I Water Utility 4-2 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Water Utility Historical and Projected Billed Volume (1,000 Gallons) 4,200,000 4,100,000 4,000,000 3,900,000 3,800,000 3,700,000 3,600,000 3,500,000 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Historical — — Projected Figure 4-2 - Historical and Projected Water Billed Volume 4.1.2 Projection of Service Revenue Under Existing Rates Water service revenues for the period 2021 through 2026 are projected for each charge component (base and volume) based on the projections of accounts by meter size, projected water usage for each customer class, and the application of the 2021 rate schedule. Water service revenue under existing rates is projected to increase slightly from $21.2 million in 2021 to $22.4 million in 2026. This growth is due to increase in water sales due to the growth in the number of accounts over the study period. Table W - 4 in Appendix 1 presents the projected annual service revenues for the period of 2021 through 2026. Figure 4-3 presents both the historical and projected annual service revenues under existing rates for the water utility. Water Utility Historical and Projected Service Revenues (Under Existing Rates) $25,000,000 520,000,000 515,000,000 510,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Historical — — Projected Figure 4-3 - Historical and Projected Water Service Revenue 4.1.3 Other Water Revenues The other revenues include the following major components: BLACK & VEATCH I Water Utility 4-3 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Impact Fee Revenue; Water/Rural Water Connection Fees; Miscellaneous Fees (Water Sales Not on Computer, Trip Fees, Tampering -Billed Service) Penalties; and Safe Drinking Water Fee (pass -through) The annual revenues from water impact fees, water connection fees and miscellaneous fees for 2021 to 2026 are projected based on historical three-year (2018 to 2020) average revenues for each of the fees. The penalties revenue in 2020 reflects only the first two and half months of revenues, as the City stopped assessing penalties for non-payment due to the pandemic. The revenue for penalties in 2021 is projected to be half of the historical three -year (2017 to 2019) average revenues due to continued waiver of the penalties as a result of the COVID pandemic during the first half for 2021. The revenue from penalties in 2022 and beyond is projected as the historical three-year average (2017 to 2019) average revenues. Table W - 5 in Appendix 1 presents the historical and projected annual service revenues for the period of 2021 through 2026. The Safe Drinking Water Fee (SDWF) is assessed for all water users in the state of Arkansas. The current rate is $0.40 per bill per month and is collected by all water utilities in the state. The SDWF revenue is projected by applying the current rate to the number of meters for the period 2021 to 2026. The revenue collected as part of this fee is reimbursed to the state. 4.2 Water Capital Improvements Program The capital project costs provided by the City were based on 2020 dollars. Based on discussions with the City, the project costs are inflated at an annual rate of 3.0% to accurately reflect the costs of projects for 2021 and beyond. The water utility Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) provides for a total of $49.0 million of investments during the study period of 2021 through 2026. Table W - 6 in Appendix 1 presents the CIP list of projects and schedule for 2021 through 2026 The CIP is expected to be financed from a funding mix of cash financing from service revenue and impact fees. 4.3 Water Revenue Requirements Projection of reliable revenue requirements includes: (1) operation and maintenance expenses; (2) bad debt; (3) Payment In Lieu of Taxes; (4) SDWF Reimbursement; (5) debt service (consisting of principal and interest payments); (6) transfer to shop fund; (7) transfer to operating reserve; (8) cash financed capital; and (9) transfer to capital reserve. The projections of annual revenue requirements for the study period is discussed in this section. 4.3.1 Water Operation and Maintenance Expenses The O&M expenses for the water utility include the annual expenses associated with the water purchases from Beaver Water District; storage and distribution; meters and services; billing and collection, and general administrative services. These expenses include personnel costs (salaries and benefits), costs for materials and supplies, costs of utilities, and contracted services. The 2021 O&M budget provided by the City was used as the baseline for projection of O&M expenses for the study period. In addition, costs associated with a water inspector (not included in the 2021 BLACK & VEATCH I Water Utility 4-4 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study budget) recurring salary and benefits costs, recurring vehicle maintenance costs and one-time cost of the vehicle purchase was added per City's direction. Based on historical O&M costs, industry experience, and discussions with the City management, appropriate escalation factors were applied to various categories of costs to project future annual O&M expenses. Annual escalation factors used for major cost categories include the following: Salaries: 4.00% Benefits: 5.00% Energy: 3.00% Chemicals: 3.00% Purchased Water: 3.00% The annual O&M expenses for water utility are budgeted at $15.9 million in 2021 and are projected to grow to $18.8 million by 2026. Table W - 7 in Appendix 1 presents a summary of total projected operation and maintenance expense for the period 2021 through 2026. Figure 4-4 presents the historical and projected O&M expenses for the water utility. Water Utility Historical and Projected O&M Expenses S25,000,000 S20,000,000 S1s,00a,000 � — — S1o,000,000 Ss,000,000 $o 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 202� 2_ Historical — — Projected Figure 4-4 - Projected Annual Water O&M Expenses 4.3.2 Water Bad Debt Bad debt expenses refer to outstanding balances owed that are deemed uncollectible. The water bad debt in 2019 was 0.5% of revenue. Hence, bad debt projections for the study period assume 0.5% of annual revenues. Annual bad debt expenses for water utility is projected to increase from $105,900 in 2021 to $129,500 by 2026 reflecting the increase in projected revenues. Line 12 in Table W - 9 in Appendix 1 presents the projected bad debt for the period 2021 through 2026. BLACK & VEATCH I Water Utility 4-5 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study 4.3.3 Water Payment In Lieu of Taxes The PILOT costs are paid by public utilities to municipal entity as a compensation for utilization of streets, easements, right of ways or other public places. The PILOT amount is determined per City Ordinance 4449 that requires that the water and wastewater funds to pay 4.25% of annual total gross sale revenues to the City. Annual PILOT amount for the water utility is calculated by multiplying actual water revenues from prior year (Water sales on Computer and Water sales not on Computer/ Bulk Water Sales, and Fire Hydrant and Protection). Annual PILOT amount for the water utility is anticipated to increase from $900,400 in 2021 to $1,100,700 in 2026. Line 13 in Table W - 9 in Appendix 1 presents the projected PILOT expenses for the period 2021 through 2026. 4.3.4 Safe Drinking Water Fee Reimbursement The SDWF revenue collected for each metered customer is reimbursed to the state of Arkansas department of Public Health. The SDWF reimbursement is projected to increase from $230,000 in 2021 to $250,200 in 2026. Line 14 in Table W - 9 in Appendix 1 presents the projected SDWF reimbursement for the period 2021 through 2026. 4.3.5 Water Debt Service Requirements The water utility does not have any outstanding debt service obligations. The City does not anticipate any debt issuances during the study period, therefore there is no projected debt service for future debt as shown in Line 15 in Table W - 9 in Appendix 1. 4.3.6 Transfer to Shop Fund The transfer to the shop fund is made by the utility whenever a new vehicle (associated with new personnel) is purchased, thereby expanding the existing fleet. There are no projected transfers to the shop fund over the study period as shown in Line 17 in Table W - 9 in Appendix 1. 4.3.7 Transfer to Operating Reserve The City maintains an operating reserve balance equivalent of ninety (90) days of following years' O&M budget. The transfer to operating reserve is projected to increase from $133,000 in 2022 to $151,800 in 2026 reflecting the growth in the O&M budget. Line 18 in Table W - 9 in Appendix 1 presents the projected transfers to the operating reserve for the period 2021 through 2026. 4.3.8 Water Cash Financed Capital The City currently utilizes the following two sources of funding for the water utility capital projects (1): transfer from operating revenues and (2) transfer from the impact fee fund. As stated in Section 4.2, the water capital improvement program for the study period is $52 million, of which $50 million is projected to be funded from operating revenues and $2 million is from the impact fee fund. A capital project meets the requirements of using impact fees if the existing water capacity is expanded due to growth. The construction contract and the budget amendment to change the source of funding to impact fee must be approved by the City Council. Table W - 8 in Appendix 1 presents the sources of funding for the water capital improvement program. Line 19 in Table W - 9 in Appendix 1 presents the projected transfers for cash financed capital for the period 2021 through 2026. 4.3.9 Transfer to Capital Reserve The water utility, after meeting all the obligations stated in sections above, transfers the excess funds to the capital reserve fund. The capital reserve fund is used as a source for funding the capital program in BLACK & VEATCH I Water Utility 4-6 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study the years that the revenues are not sufficient to meet the capital funding requirements. Line 20 in Table W - 9 in Appendix 1 presents the projected transfers to and from the capital reserve for the period 2021 through 2026. 4.4 Water Proposed Revenue Adjustments The annual revenue adjustments that are needed to achieve the defined financial performance objectives are determined by evaluating the funding gap between the projected annual revenue requirements and the projected revenues under existing rates. Table W - 9 in Appendix 1, provides a summary of the revenue and revenue requirements (financial plan) for the study period. Projected Revenue Under Existing Rates: Line 1 indicates that under existing rates (2021 rates) water utility revenues will increase from $21.2 million in 2022 to $22.4 million in 2026. Projected Other Revenues: Line 8 indicates that the other revenues are anticipated to increase from $640,000 in 2022 to $666,300 in 2026. This increase is due to the growth in SDWF, which is a pass - through. It is anticipated that all other categories of other revenues will remain flat throughout the study period. Projected Expenses: Line 15 indicates the total annual expenses for the water utility are anticipated to increase from $17.7 million in 2022 to $20.2 million in 2026. Projected Transfers: Line 20 indicates the total annual transfers for the water utility are anticipated to increase from $4.8 million in 2022 to $6.3 million in 2026. Funding Gap: The cash flow analysis indicates that the sum of revenues under existing rates and the other revenues is not adequate to fund the projected annual revenue requirements, thereby causing an operating deficit. Proposed Revenue Adjustments: To address the funding gap in the water utility, a series of revenue adjustments are proposed as follows: 2022: 3% effective (January 1, 2022) 2023: 3% effective (January 1, 2023) 2024: 3% effective (January 1, 2024) 2025: 3% effective (January 1, 2025) 2026: 3% effective (January 1, 2026) Lines 2 through 7 present the amount of additional revenues generated each year with the proposed magnitude and timing of revenue adjustments. Figure 4-5 presents the projected revenue and revenue requirements through 2026 for the wastewater utility. BLACK & VEATCH I Water Utility 4-7 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Water Utility Revenues and Revenue Requirements S30,OOQ000 S25,000,000 S20,000,000 S15,000,000 S10,000,000 S5, 000,000 $0 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 08,M Expenses Cash Financing of Capital Other Transfers Re erl_e, L'rcer E.: t r, Fate, Revenues Under Proposed Rates Figure 4-5 - Water Revenues and Revenue Requirements Table W - 10 in Appendix 1 presents the water utility's operating reserve, capital reserve and impact fee fund balances. The City has identified the minimum balance requirements for each of the following funds: ■ O&M Reserve Balance: A cash balance of at least 90 days of the follow's year operating expenses. ■ Operating Fund Balance: A minimum target of $100,000. ■ Capital Fund Balance: A minimum target of $500,000. ■ Capital Reserve Fund Balance: An amount necessary to fully fund anticipated capital projects. As shown in Table W - 10, the proposed annual revenue adjustments will allow the water utility to meeting the minimum fund balance requirements for all funds through 2026. 4.5 Water Cost of Service A key step to developing an equitable rate structure involves the cost of service analysis. The financial plan discussed in sub sections 4.1 through 4.4 provides an estimate of the total annual revenue requirements for a given fiscal year. The cost of service analysis provides a mechanism to defensibly allocate the total annual revenue requirements to the various customer classes. The cost of service is typically performed for a single year, referred to as the "Test Year" for which the rates are to be designed. The test year for which the cost of service study was performed is 2022. The key components of the cost of service analysis are: Determination of Cost of Service (net revenue requirements); Determination of Functional Costs; BLACK & VEATCH I Water Utility 4-8 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Allocation of Functional Costs to Cost Components; and Distribution of Water Utility Costs to Customer Classes 4.5.1 Determination of Cost of Service The first step is to determine the cost of service that is to be recovered from user rates and charges. As briefly discussed in Section 2.3, cost of service is defined as, and synonymous with, the "net revenue requirement" that is to be recovered for the test year through user rates and charges. Table W -11 in Appendix 1 presents the derivation of the cost of service to be recovered through water charges. As Line 18 in Table W - 11 indicates, the water cost of service for 2022 is projected to be $21.9 million. This cost of service consists of $17.3 million of net O&M expense and $4.6 million of net capital costs. Costs of service is apportioned among customer classes in this study on a "Utility Basis", that is, in terms of operating expense, depreciation expense, and return. For a municipal utility, the total of depreciation expense and return is equal to the capital cost related portion of the total cost of service. Depreciation is the loss in value of the original plant investment, not restored by current maintenance, due to wear, decay, inadequacy, and obsolescence. Annual depreciation is determined as a percentage of original investment based on expected service lives of the various facilities. Unless funds are provided for normal annual replacement of original plant items, operating reliability of the system, as well as the value, will decrease. Depreciation funds are used to finance principal payments on bond issues and provide normal annual capital expenditures. The depreciation expense associated with the water utility is estimated in this study recognizing depreciation rates presently in use by the water utility. This results in a projected test year depreciation expense of $2.7 million exclusive of depreciation on contributed plant, which is not recognized for cost allocation or rate design purposes. The contributed plant adjustment is consistent with generally accepted regulatory practices. Total return on the system investment provides funds for bond interest payments and any other costs that may be incurred. In developing the level of return on net plant serving the requirements of outside City customers, provisions for a reasonable margin should be made to meet interest on borrowed funds, and to recognize the business risk assumed by the City in providing reliable facilities to serve nonresident customers. Total return for the test year is projected to be $1,918,100 as shown on Line 17 of Table W - 11 in Appendix 1. 4.5.2 Determination of Functional Costs As a basis for developing an equitable rate structure, the test year cost of service should be allocated to the various customer classes according to respective service requirements. The basic underlying principle in developing cost of service rates is the determination of what elements in a water system are responsible for causing the level of revenue requirements that is needed. To allocate the costs to customer classes, first the operating and capital costs of service are aggregated into "Functional Cost Centers." The functional costs are then further allocated to cost components. Each component cost is then apportioned to customer classes BLACK & VEATCH I Water Utility 4-9 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Functional Cost Centers Functional cost centers of a water utility represent the activities that contribute to the incurrence of O&M and capital costs. For a water utility, they often include source of water supply, pumping, treatment, storage, distribution, meters, billing, and other administration costs. Both the O&M and capital costs defined for the Test Year, discussed in 4.5.1, need to be allocated to functional cost centers. Functional Costs The capital costs associated with the functional cost centers are determined using detailed fixed assets data, provided by the City, for each class of asset that is currently in service, construction work in progress and projected capital improvement program for the test year. The total value of the fixed assets (referred to as "Net Plant Investment") in the system is usually presented as Original Cost Less Depreciation ("OCLD"). The total estimated OCLD of the water system is $96.2 million, as presented in Line 9 in Table W -12 in Appendix 1. This plant investment data is subsequently used as a basis for the allocation to cost components, discussed in the following subsection 4.5.3.2. The O&M costs for the Test Year are allocated to the various functional cost centers based on the specific nature of costs. The allocation of the projected O&M cost of service (net operating revenue requirement) of $17.3 million, to the various functional cost centers, is presented in Table W -14 in Appendix 1. The various cost elements of water service are assigned to functional cost components as the first step in the subsequent distribution of the costs of service to customer classes. 4.5.3 Allocation of Costs to the Functional Cost Components The principal functional cost components consist of Base Costs, Extra -Capacity Costs, and Customer Costs. Base costs are those which vary directly with the quantity of water used, as well as those costs associated with serving customers under average load conditions without the elements necessary to meet water use variations or peak demands. Base costs include purchased power and treatment chemicals, and other operating and capital costs of the water system associated with serving customers to the extent required for a constant, or average annual rate of use. Extra -Capacity costs represent those operating costs incurred due to demands in excess of average, and capital related costs for additional plant and system capacity beyond that required for the average rate of use. Total extra capacity costs are subdivided into costs associated with maximum day and maximum hour demand. Customer Costs are defined as costs which tend to vary in proportion to the number of customers connected to the system. These include meter reading, billing, collection and accounting costs, and maintenance and capital charges associated with meters and services. The delineation of costs of service into these principal categories provides the means of further allocating such costs to the various customer classes based on the respective base, extra capacity, and customer service requirements of each customer class. BLACK & VEATCH I Water Utility 4-10 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Wholesale customers generally do not use smaller water distribution mains as do retail users. Therefore, separate functional cost of service categories are designated for costs which are common to all customer classes and those which are common to retail service classes only. 4.5.3.1 Water Utility Allocation to Cost Components The water utility is comprised of a variety of service facilities, each designed and operated to fulfill a given function. In order to provide adequate service to its customers at all times, the utility must be capable of not only providing the total amount of water used, but also supplying water at maximum rates of demand. Since all customers do not exert their maximum demand for water at the same time, capacities of water facilities are designed to meet the peak coincidental demands that all classes of customers, as a whole, place on the system. For every water service facility on the system, there is an underlying average demand, or uniform rate of usage exerted by the customers for which the base cost component applies. For those facilities designed solely to meet average day demand, costs are allocated 100% to the base cost component. Extra capacity requirements associated with coincidental demands in excess of average use are further related to maximum daily and maximum hourly demands. Analysis of historical system maximum day and maximum hour demands to average day demands results in appropriate ratios for the allocation of capital costs and operating expenses to base and extra capacity cost components. A maximum day to average day ratio of 2.10 is used based on experienced demands in the water system. This indicates that approximately 47.6% of the capacity of facilities designed and operated to meet maximum day demand is required for average or base use. According, the remaining 52.4% is required for maximum day extra capacity requirements. The costs associated with facilities required to meet maximum hour demand are allocable to base, maximum day extra capacity, and maximum hour extra capacity. A ratio of maximum hour to annual average day water use of 2.73 is used, based on demands experienced by the system. This ratio indicates that 36.6% of the capacity of facilities designed and operated for maximum hour demand is needed for average or base use, while 40.3% is utilized for maximum day extra capacity uses, and the remaining 23.1% is required to meet maximum hour extra capacity demand in excess of maximum day needs. 4.5.3.2 Allocation of Net Water Plant Investment The estimated test year net plant investment in water facilities consists of net plant in service as of December 31, 2019, the 2020 construction work in progress, and the estimated cost of proposed capital improvements expected to be in service by the end of calendar year 2022. As the wholesale customers have their own storage tanks, the plant investment associated with tanks was allocated to the retail customers only. The total estimated OCLD of the water system is $96.2 million, as presented in Line 9 in Table W - 12 in Appendix 1. Plant investment is allocated to cost components on a design basis recognizing the principal function governing the design of the facility. The allocation of net plant investment provides the basis for allocation of depreciation expense. 4.5.3.3 Allocation of Water Facilities Depreciation Expense Depreciation is a real part of the cost of operating a utility. In utility accounting, it is generally accepted practice to use depreciation funds to finance system replacements, improvements, and extensions. BLACK & VEATCH I Water Utility 4-11 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study While such action does not restore the value lost in each property unit every year, the total value lost through depreciation is restored to the system as a whole. Depreciation funds can be reinvested in the system either by direct payment of routine capital additions and replacements or by principal payments on bonded debt. The total estimated depreciation cost (excluding depreciation on contributed facilities) for the water system is $2.7 million, as presented on Line 9 in Table W - 13 in Appendix 1. As the wholesale customer have their own storage tanks, the depreciation costs associated with tanks was allocated to the retail customers only. 4.5.3.4 Allocation of Water Utility Operating Expenses Table W - 14 in Appendix 1 presents the allocation of O&M expense to functional cost components. Total test year O&M expense, as shown on Line 7 of this table, amounts to $17.3 million. Operating expenses are allocated to functional cost components in generally the same manner as plant investment. 4.5.4 Distribution of Water Utility Costs to Customer Classes As a basis for determining the cost of water service to each customer class, the elements of cost of service previously allocated to functional cost components are distributed among the classes in proportion to their respective service requirements. Estimates of these requirements, or units of service, reflect the average number of accounts with recognition to relative meter sizes serving each account, annual water sales, and estimated peak water demands placed on the system by each customer class. Analysis of resulting costs of service to each class and comparison of allocated costs with revenues under existing rates provide a basis for future water rate adjustments. 4.5.4.1 Water Customer Classification Customer classes consist of residential, non-residential, industrial, irrigation, wholesale, and public and private fire protection. The residential class includes single family residential, duplex, fourplex, apartment, multi -unit residential, and rooming house customers. The non-residential class includes commercial, combination, construction, government, and non-profit classes. Industrial includes major and minor industrial. Outside City includes Farmington, Greenland, Washington/Growth Area, Johnson, and Goshen/ White River. Wholesale includes the communities of Elkins, West Fork, Mt. Olive, and RDA/WWA. These classes group together customers with similar service requirement characteristics and provide a means for allocating costs to customers. 4.5.4.2 Water Units of Service The cost of service responsibility for base costs varies with the annual volume of water usage and is distributed to customer classes on that basis. Extra capacity costs are those costs associated with meeting peak rates of water use and are distributed to customer classes on the basis of their respective system capacity requirements in excess of average requirement rates. Customer costs, which consist of meter related costs, billing, collection and accounting costs, are allocated on the basis of the number of equivalent meters and monthly bills. The estimated units of service for the various customer classifications are presented in Table W -15 in Appendix 1. Estimates of test year annual water volumes, shown in Column 1, are based on the projections of total water sales for the test year 2022. Average daily water use is presented in Column 2. Columns 3 through 8 present the estimated maximum day and maximum hour capacity factors for each customer class, the resulting demands, and extra capacity requirements, respectively. BLACK & VEATCH I Water Utility 4-12 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Customer related meter and service costs are allocated on the basis of the number of equivalent 3/4 inch meters serving each customer class. The number of equivalent meters in each customer class (Column 10) is estimated by relating typical costs for meters and services larger than 5/8 inch in size to the typical cost of a 3/4 inch meter and its related service line. Customer billing and accounting costs are distributed to classes on the basis of the number of bills for each customer class in Column 11. Extra capacity requirements for fire protection service recognize, in part, peak fire flow requirements, and system capabilities established by the Insurance Service Office. One fire is estimated with peak fire flow requirements of 9,000 gallons per minute for 10 hours (maximum day) and 24 hours (maximum hour). Direct fire protection costs have been allocated between inside City and outside City customers in proportion to the number of equivalent 6-inch fire hydrants, as shown in Columns 12 and 13. 4.5.4.3 Water Utility Customer Class Costs of Service Unit costs of service are developed by dividing the total cost allocated to each functional cost component by the total applicable units of service. The customer class responsibility for service is obtained by applying unit costs of service to the number of units for which the customer class is responsible. The water utility has been built with provision for service to customers outside the City, yet the inside City customers must bear the responsibility for providing system facilities by undertaking the necessary investment. Revenues derived from outside City service should provide a margin of return on capital adequate to induce the citizens of Fayetteville to bear the risks of providing outside City service. To recognize the proprietary interest and responsibility of inside City customers in the system, it is proper to charge outside City customers, in addition to their share of operating expense and depreciation, a reasonable return on their allocated portion of value. A 7.0% (4.0% for future debt service plus 3.0% risk component) annual rate of return on the value of water facilities serving outside City customers is recognized for purposes of this study. BLACK & VEATCH I Water Utility 4-13 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Table W - 16 in Appendix 1 shows the development of the unit costs of service applicable to each cost function. Lines 1 through 3 summarize the units of service developed in Table W - 15. Total allocated costs or investment shown on Lines 4, 6, and 8 were previously developed in Table W - 12, Table W - 13 and Table W - 14 respectively. Unit costs of service for each component are determined by dividing the allocated cost or investment by the total units of service. Total allocated unit costs of service for inside and outside City customers (Lines 15 and 16) are determined by adding the unit costs for net operating expense (Line 5) and depreciation expense (Line 7) to the respective inside and outside City unit costs for return on investment (Lines 10 and 11). These unit costs applied to the respective units of service shown on Lines 1 and 2 determine the allocated total costs of service for inside and outside City customers shown on Lines 17 and 18. In order to determine the allocated costs for each customer class, the costs are allocated to the various customer classes by applying the appropriate unit cost of service to the respective service requirements of each customer class. Table W - 17 in Appendix 1 shows the resulting allocated and adjusted cost of service by customer class, revenue under existing rates, and the additional revenue required from each class. Costs associated with public fire protection are not recovered through direct charges, therefore, the cost of service for this class is reallocated to all other retail customers in proportion to their allocated cost of service as shown in Column 3. The test year adjusted cost of service, reflecting the reallocation of these costs, is shown in Column 4. The indicated increase or decrease in revenue required to meet adjusted cost of service is shown in Column 6. BLACK & VEATCH I Water Utility 4-14 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study 5.0 Water Rate Design The principal consideration in establishing water rate schedules is to establish rates to customers to recover costs that reasonably commensurate with the cost of providing water service. Theoretically, the only method of assessing entirely equitable rates for water service would be the determination of each customer's bill based upon each customer's particular service requirements. Since this is impractical, schedules of rates are normally designed to meet average conditions for groups of customers having similar service requirements. Rates should provide for equitable cost recovery, ease of customer understanding and be simple to administer. The revenue requirements and cost of service allocations described in the preceding sections provide the basis for adjusting water rates. The revenue requirements reflect the need for adjustment and the level of revenue required. The cost of service analysis provides the unit costs of service used in the rate design process and gives a basis for determining whether resultant rates will develop revenues which recover costs of service from customer classes in proportion to service required and provide the total level of revenue required. 5.1 Existing Water Rates The existing schedule of rates for water service became effective on January 1, 2021. For both retail and wholesale customers, these rates include a monthly base charge bill, which varies by meter size. The volume charge varies by customer class. The existing water rate structure is described in Section 3.3.1. The existing schedule of base and volumetric water rates is shown in Table W - 3. 5.2 Proposed Water Rates The cost of service analysis described in the preceding sections of this report provides a basis for the design of a schedule of water rates to meet those costs. Proposed water base charge and volume rates have been designed to meet the test year allocated costs of service and are presented in Table W -18. The proposed rate structure is similar to the existing structure with the exception that under proposed volume rates, the minimum volume charge associated with 1,000 gallons has been eliminated. In developing proposed schedules of water rates, it must be recognized that the cost of service studies are the result of engineering estimates, based to some extent upon judgment and experience, and detailed results should not be used as literal and exact answers but as guides for potential rate adjustments. Practical considerations such as previous rate levels, bill impact on customers, and magnitude of cost of service shifts among customer classes, and past local practices are commonly recognized in making rate adjustments. A comparison of estimated test year revenue under the proposed rates with allocated costs of service for each of the customer classes is presented in Table W - 19 in Appendix 1. This comparison indicates the proposed rates will recover revenues from inside and outside City customer groups reasonably commensurate with the cost of service and practical considerations previously noted. To better reflect the total effect the proposed rates have on customer bills, a comparison of typical inside city and outside city customer water charges under existing rates and the rates proposed to become effective January 1, 2022, is presented in Table W - 20. BLACK & VEATCH I Water Rate Design 5-15 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study 6.0 Wastewater Utility The financial plan and rate design were developed to meet all the funding obligations of the wastewater utility, and to achieve the financial adequacy and equitable cost recovery discussed in Section 2.3. The wastewater utility financial plan was developed for the forecast period of 2021 through 2026, and includes the following key components: Revenue projections (user rate revenues and non -rate revenues); Capital improvement program; Annual revenue requirement projections; and Annual proposed revenue increases 6.1 Wastewater Revenue Projections Under Existing Rates The wastewater utility revenues are derived from the following sources: Wastewater Service Revenues (Base and Volume Charge) Other Revenues As a first step in the development of the financial plan, Wastewater Service Revenues under the 2021 existing rates are projected for the forecast period. 6.1.1 Wastewater Revenue Under Existing Rates As described in Section 3.3.2, the Wastewater Service Revenue consists of two charge components. For each of the two components, revenues are projected based on billing units and applicable existing rate schedules. The billing units necessary to compute the Base Charge revenues are the number of accounts based on meter size and customer class. The billing units necessary to compute the Volume Charge are the annual wastewater billed volumes by customer class and by applicable blocks of billable wastewater volume. 6.1.1.1 Projection of Customer Accounts Typically, historical billing units are reviewed and used to project billing units for the forecast period. The project team reviewed historical accounts and billed volume trends for each customer class referenced in Section 3.3.1. Based on the review of historical trends, two annual adjustment factors were applied to project billing units for the forecast period. The two adjustment factors applied at the customer class level are accounts growth rate and volume factor. The number of accounts is projected to grow for residential customer classes Fayetteville (Inside City) and Farmington (Outside City), whereas all other customer classes are anticipated to remain at the 2020 level. The total number of wastewater accounts is anticipated to increase from about 40,100 in 2021 to about 43,300 in 2026, at an overall annual system growth rate of 1.6%. Table S - 1 in Appendix 2 presents the projected annual number of accounts for the period of 2021 through 2026. BLACK & VEATCH I Wastewater Utility 6-1 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Figure 6-1 presents both the historical and projected number of accounts for the wastewater utility. Waterwater Utility Historical and Projected Accounts 46,000 44,000 r 42,000 r r r r r r r 40,000 38,000 36,000 34,000 32,000 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Historical — — Projected Figure 6-1- Historical and Projected Wastewater Accounts 6.1.1.2 Projection of Wastewater Volume Billed wastewater volumes are projected based on estimates of the number of wastewater accounts and the average billed volume per account. Average billed volume per account is determined based on historical billed volume. The historical billed volume per account for all customer classes varies each year between 2016 and 2020. In 2020, the COVID pandemic led to stay-at-home measures and shut down of non -essential businesses across the country. Consequently, the residential customers used more water in 2020, whereas the non-residential customers used less water as compared to previous years. The average billed volume per account for 2021 was projected to remain at the 2020 levels assuming a lingering effect of the pandemic. The average billed volume per account for 2022 and beyond was projected to return to the 2019 level for all customer classes assuming a return to pre - pandemic levels. Total system wastewater billed volume is projected to increase from 3,043,100 kgals in 2021 to 3,205,800 kgals in 2026. Table S - 2 in Appendix 2 presents the historical and projected annual volume for the period of 2020 through 2026. Figure 6-2 presents both the historical and projected annual billed volume for the wastewater utility. BLACK & VEATCH I Wastewater Utility 6-2 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Wastewater Utility Historical and Projected Billed Volume (1,000Gallons) 3,500,000 3,000,000 — — — — — — — — 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Historical — — Projected Figure 6-2 - Historical and Projected Wastewater Billed Volume 6.1.2 Projection of Service Revenue Under Existing Rates Wastewater service revenues for the period 2021 through 2026 are projected for each charge component (base and volume) based on the projections of accounts by meter size, projected billed volume for each customer class, and the application of the 2021 rate schedule. Wastewater service revenue under existing rates is projected to increase slightly from $24.5 million in 2021 to $26.0 million in 2026. This growth is due to increase in wastewater sales due to the growth in the number of accounts over the study period. Table S - 4 in Appendix 2 presents the historical and projected annual service revenues for the period of 2020 through 2026. Figure 6-3 presents both the historical and projected annual service requirements under existing rates for the wastewater utility. Wastewater Utility Historical and Projected Service Revenues (Under Existing Rates) $30,000,000 $25,000,000 — — — — — — $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Historical — — Projected Figure 6-3 - Historical and Projected Wastewater Service Revenue BLACK & VEATCH I Wastewater Utility 6-3 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study 6.1.3 Other Wastewater Revenue The other revenues include the following major components: Impact Fee Revenue; Wastewater Connection Fees; Wastewater Sales Not on Computer Penalties; and WWTP Fees (Hay Sales, Biosolids/ Fertilizer Sales & Water Treatment Residual) The annual revenues from wastewater impact fees, wastewater connection fees. wastewater sales not on computer, and WWTP Fees for 2021 to 2026 are projected based on historical three-year (2018 to 2020) average revenues for each of the fees. The penalties revenue in 2020 reflects only the first two and half months of revenues, as the City stopped assessing penalties for non-payment due to the pandemic. The revenue for penalties in 2021 is projected to be half of the historical three -year (2017 to 2019) average revenues due to continued waiver of the penalties as a result of the COVID pandemic during the first half for 2021. The revenue from penalties in 2022 and beyond is projected as the historical three-year average (2017 to 2019) average revenues. Table S - 5 in Appendix 2 presents the historical and projected annual other revenues for the period of 2020 through 2026. 6.2 Wastewater Capital Improvements Program The capital project costs provided by the City were based on 2020 dollars. Based on discussions with the City, the project costs are inflated at an annual rate of 3.0% to accurately reflect the costs of projects for 2021 and beyond. The City's wastewater utility Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) provides for a total of $69.3 million of investments during the study period of 2021 through 2026. Major wastewater projects include sanitary wastewater rehabilitation totaling $15.7 million and Biosolids Dryer Replacement totaling $31.1 million. Table S - 6 in Appendix 2 presents the CIP list of projects for 2021 through 2026. The CIP is expected to be financed from a funding mix of cash financing from service revenue and impact fees. 6.3 Wastewater Utility Revenue Requirements Projection of reliable revenue requirements includes: (1) O&M expenses; (2) bad debt; (3) Payment In Lieu of Taxes; (4) debt service (consisting of principal and interest payments); (5) transfer to shop fund; (6) transfer to operating reserve; (7) cash financed capital; and (8) transfer to capital reserve. The projections of annual revenue requirements for the study period is discussed in this section. 6.3.1 Wastewater Operation and Maintenance Expenses The O&M expenses for the wastewater utility include the annual expenses associated with the wastewater conveyance, pumping, treatment and disposal; meters and services; billing and collection, and general administrative services. These expenses include personnel costs (salaries and benefits), costs for materials and supplies, costs of utilities, and contracted services. The 2021 O&M budget provided by the City was used as the baseline for projection of O&M expenses for the study period. In addition, costs associated with a wastewater inspector (not included in the 2021 budget) recurring salary and benefits costs, recurring vehicle maintenance costs and one-time cost of BLACK & VEATCH I Wastewater Utility 6-4 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study the vehicle purchase was added per City's direction. Based on historical O&M costs, industry experience, and discussions with the City management, appropriate escalation factors were applied to various categories of costs to project future annual O&M expenses. Annual escalation factors used for major cost categories include the following: Salaries: 4.00% Benefits: 5.00% Energy: 3.00% Chemicals: 3.00% Wastewater Treatment Plant Contract: 3.00% The annual O&M expenses for wastewater utility are budgeted at $15.7 million in 2021 and are projected to grow to $18.4 million by 2026. Table S - 7 in Appendix 2 presents a summary of projected operation and maintenance expense for the period 2021 through 2026. Figure 6-4 presents the historical and projected O&M expenses for the wastewater utility. Wastewater Utility Historical and Projected O&M Expenses 520,o00,o00 P $15,000,000 .. a $10,000,000 $5,000,000 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Historical — — Projected Figure 6-4 - Projected Annual Wastewater O&M Expense 6.3.2 Wastewater Bad Debt Bad debt expenses refer to outstanding balances owed that are deemed uncollectible. The wastewater bad debt in 2019 was 0.5% of revenue. Hence, the bad debt projections for the study period assume 0.5% of annual revenues. Annual bad debt expenses for wastewater utility is projected to increase from $122,300 in 2021 to $150,200 by 2026 reflecting the increase in projected revenues. Line 16 in Table S - 9 in Appendix 2 presents bad debt expense for the period 2021 through 2026. 6.3.3 Wastewater Payment In Lieu of Taxes The PILOT costs are paid by public utilities to municipal entity as a compensation for utilization of streets, easements, right of ways or other public places. The PILOT amount is determined per City BLACK & VEATCH I Wastewater Utility 6-5 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Ordinance 4449 that requires that the water and wastewater funds to pay 4.25% of annual total gross sale revenues to the City. Annual PILOT amount for the wastewater utility is calculated by multiplying actual wastewater revenues from prior year (Wastewater sales on Computer and Wastewater sales not on Computer/ Dump Fees) and is projected to increase from $1,039,600 in 2021 to $1,276,600 in 2026. Line 17 in in Appendix 2 presents PILOT expense for the period 2021 through 2026. 6.3.4 Wastewater Debt Service Requirements The wastewater utility does not have any outstanding debt service obligations. The City does not anticipate any debt issuances during the study period, therefore no projected debt service for future debt as shown in Line 18 in Table S - 9 in Appendix 2. 6.3.5 Transfer to Shop Fund The transfer to the shop fund is made by the utility whenever a new vehicle (associated with new personnel) is purchased, thereby expanding the existing fleet. There are no projected transfers to the shop fund over the study period as shown in Line 20 in Table S - 9 in Appendix 2 6.3.6 Transfer to Operating Reserve The City maintains an operating reserve balance equivalent of ninety (90) days of following years' O&M budget. The transfer to operating reserve is projected to increase from $129,600 in 2022 to $147,900 in 2026 reflecting the growth in the O&M budget. Line 21 in Table S - 9 in Appendix 2 presents transfer to the operating reserve for the period 2021 through 2026. 6.3.7 Wastewater Cash Financed Capital The City currently utilizes the following two sources of funding for the wastewater utility capital projects (1): transfer from operating revenues and (2) transfer from the impact fee fund. As stated in Section 6.2, the wastewater capital improvement program for the study period is $69 million, of which $67 million is projected to be funded from operating revenues and $2 million is from the impact fee fund. A capital project meets the requirements of using impact fees if the existing wastewater capacity is expanded due to growth. The construction contract and the budget amendment to change the source of funding to impact fee must be approved by the City Council. Table S - 8 in Appendix 2 presents the sources of funding for the wastewater capital improvement program. Line 22 in Table S - 9 in Appendix 2 presents transfer for cash financing of capital program for the period 2021 through 2026. 6.3.8 Transfer to Capital Reserve The wastewater utility, after meeting all the obligations stated in sections above, transfers the excess funds to the capital reserve fund. The capital reserve fund is used as a source for funding the capital program in the years that the revenues are not sufficient to meet the capital funding requirements. Line 23 in Table S - 9 in Appendix 2 presents transfer to and from the capital reserve for the period 2021 through 2026. 6.4 Wastewater Proposed Revenue Adjustments The annual revenue adjustments that are needed to achieve the defined financial performance objectives are determined by evaluating the funding gap between the projected annual revenue requirements and the projected revenues under existing rates. Table S - 9 in Appendix 2 provides a summary of the revenue and revenue requirements (financial plan) for the study period. BLACK & VEATCH I Wastewater Utility 6-6 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Projected Revenue Under Existing Rates: Line 1 indicates that under existing rates (2021 rates) wastewater utility revenues will increase from $24.7 million in 2022 to $25.9 million in 2026. Projected Other Revenues: Line 8 indicates that the other revenues and interest income are anticipated to increase from $720,500 in 2022 to $731,500 in 2026. It is anticipated that all categories of other revenues will remain flat throughout the study period. The slight growth is due to the increase in interest income on the operating reserve. Projected Expenses: Line 14 indicates the total annual expenses for the wastewater utility are anticipated to increase from $17.4 million in 2022 to $19.8 million in 2026. Projected Transfers: Line 19 indicates the total annual transfers for the wastewater utility are anticipated to increase from $8.6 million in 2022 to $10.9 million in 2026. Funding Gap: The cash flow analysis indicates that the sum of revenues under existing rates and the other revenues is not adequate to fund the projected annual revenue requirements, thereby causing an operating deficit. Proposed Revenue Adjustments: To address the funding gap in the wastewater utility, a series of revenue adjustments are proposed as follows: 2022: 3% effective (January 1, 2022) 2023: 3% effective (January 1, 2023) 2024: 3% effective (January 1, 2024) 2025: 3% effective (January 1, 2025) 2026: 3% effective (January 1, 2026) Lines 2 through 7 in Table S - 9 present the amount of additional revenues generated each year with the proposed magnitude and timing of revenue adjustments. Figure 6-5 presents the projected revenue and revenue requirements through 2026 for the wastewater utility. Wastewater Utility Revenues and Revenue Requirements 540,000,000 S3o'owp00 S20,000,000 510,000,000 $0 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2_2s O&M Expenses Cash Financing of Capital Other Transfers Revenues Under Existing Rates Revenues Under Proposed Rates BLACK & VEATCH I Wastewater Utility 6-7 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Figure 6-5 - Wastewater Revenues and Revenue RequirementsTable S - 10 in Appendix 2 presents the wastewater utility's operating reserve, capital reserve and impact fee fund balances. The City has identified the minimum balance requirements for each of the following funds: ■ O&M Reserve Balance: A cash balance of at least 90 days of the follow's year operating expenses. ■ Operating Fund Balance: A minimum target of $100,000. ■ Capital Fund Balance: A minimum target of $500,000. ■ Capital Reserve Fund Balance: An amount necessary to fully fund anticipate capital projects. As shown in Table S - 9, the proposed annual revenue adjustments will allow the water utility to meet the minimum fund balance requirements for all funds through 2026. 6.5 Wastewater Cost of Service A key step to developing an equitable rate structure involves the cost of service analysis. The financial plan discussed in sub sections 6.1 through 6.4 provides an estimate of the total annual revenue requirements for a given fiscal year. The test year for which the cost of service study was performed is 2022. The key components of the cost of service analysis are: Determination of Cost of Service (net revenue requirements); Determination of Functional Costs; Allocation of Functional Costs to Cost Components; and Distribution of Wastewater Utility Costs to Customer Classes 6.5.1 Determination of Cost of Service The first step is to determine the cost of service that is to be recovered from user rates and charges. As briefly discussed in Section 2.3, cost of service is defined as, and synonymous with, the "net revenue requirement" that is to be recovered for the test year through user rates and charges. Table S - 11 in Appendix 2 presents the derivation of the cost of service to be recovered through the wastewater charges. As Line 18 in Table S - 11 indicated, wastewater cost of service for 2022 is projected to be $25.5 million. This cost of service consists of $16.9 million of net operation and maintenance expense and $8.9 million of net capital costs. As performed for the water utility, costs of services are apportioned among customer classes in this study on a Utility Basis. The depreciation expense and return on system investments that were already explained in Section 4.5.1 are applicable to the wastewater utility cost of service analysis as well. The depreciation expense associated with the wastewater utility is estimated in this study recognizing depreciation rates presently in use by the wastewater utility. This results in a projected test year depreciation expense of $8.1 million BLACK & VEATCH I Wastewater Utility 6-8 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study exclusive of depreciation on contributed plant, which is not recognized for cost allocation or rate design purposes. The contributed plant adjustment is consistent with generally accepted regulatory practices. Total return for the test year is projected to be $558,000 as shown on Line 17 of Table S - 11. 6.5.2 Determination of Functional Costs As a basis for developing an equitable rate structure, the test year cost of service should be allocated to the various customer classes according to respective service requirements. The basic underlying principle in developing cost of service rates is the determination of what elements in a wastewater system are responsible for causing the level of revenue requirements that is needed. To allocate the costs to customer classes, first the operating and capital costs of service are aggregated into "Functional Cost Centers." The functional costs are then further allocated to cost components. Each component cost is then apportioned to customer classes. Functional Cost Centers Functional cost centers of a wastewater utility represent the activities that contribute to the incurrence of O&M and capital costs. For a wastewater utility, they often include source of collection, pumping, conveyance, treatment, disposal, meters, billing, and other administration costs. Both the O&M and capital costs defined for the Test Year, discussed in 6.5.1, need to be allocated to functional cost centers. Functional Costs The capital costs associated with the functional cost centers are determined using detailed fixed assets data, provided by the City, for each class of asset that is currently in service, construction work in progress and projected capital improvement program for the test year. The total value of the fixed assets (referred to as "Net Plant Investment") in the system is usually presented as Original Cost Less Depreciation ("OCLD"). The total estimated OCLD value of the wastewater system is $190.7 million, as presented in Line 26 in Table S - 12 in Appendix 2. This plant investment is subsequently used as a basis for the allocation to cost components, discussed in the following subsection 6.5.3.2. The O&M costs for the Test Year are allocated to the various functional cost centers based on specific nature of costs. The allocation of the projected O&M cost of service (net operating revenue requirement) of $16.9 million, to the various functional cost centers is presented in Table S -14 in Appendix 2. The various cost elements of wastewater service are assigned to functional cost components as the first step in the subsequent distribution of the costs of service to customer classes. 6.5.3 Allocation of Costs to the Functional Cost Components The principal functional cost components consist of volume related costs, strength related costs, and customer related costs. Volume costs are those which vary directly with the quantity of wastewater contributed. They consist of capital costs related to investment in system facilities which are sized on the basis of, or required BLACK & VEATCH I Wastewater Utility 6-9 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study because of, wastewater volume. This also includes operation and maintenance expense related to those facilities, and the expense of volume related treatment chemicals and purchased power. Wastewater strength costs consist of the operation and maintenance expense and capital costs related to system facilities which are designed principally to treat the wastewater pollutant loadings of pollutants such as BOD, TSS, and other pollutants. BOD costs reflect costs associated with the treatment of influent BOD and include costs related to activated sludge aeration and disposal of BOD related sludge. Suspended solids strength costs are those costs of wastewater treatment which tend to vary according to the quantity of suspended solids in the raw wastewater. Customer costs are those which tend to vary in proportion to the number of customer bills or customers served. These include the wastewater utility share of customer related meter reading, billing, collection, and account expense. The delineation of costs of service into functional components provides a means of distributing such costs to the various customer classes based on the respective total wastewater volume, strength, and customer cost requirements of each. Wholesale customers generally do not use lateral wastewater lines as do retail users. Therefore, separate functional cost of service categories are designated for costs which are common to all customer classes and those which are common to retail service classes only. 6.5.3.1 Wastewater Utility Cost Allocation to Cost Components In establishing the costs associated with each functional cost component, the return portion of the test year cost of service is distributed to cost functions based on an allocation of the estimated test year value of wastewater system facilities. The test year depreciation expense associated with each major element of plant facilities is allocated to cost functions in the same manner as the plant value. Operating expense is similarly allocated to cost functions based on the projected test year expense estimated for each wastewater system component. 6.5.3.2 Allocation of Net Wastewater Plant Investment The estimated test year value of wastewater facilities consists of net plan in service as of December 31, 2019, the 2020 construction work in progress, and the estimated cost of proposed capital improvements expected to be in service by the end of calendar year 2022. Table S -12 in Appendix 2 presents the allocation of the wastewater utility's total estimated plant value less contributions on an original cost less depreciation value basis. Total plant investment is estimated to be $19.7 million as indicated by Line 26 of the Table S - 12. Plant investment is allocated to cost components on a design basis recognizing the principal purpose governing the design of the facility. The allocation of net plant investment provides the basis for allocation of depreciation expense. The Owl Creek Lift Station and Force Main serve only the City of Fayetteville, hence the plant investment associated with Owl Creek is allocated directly to the City of Fayetteville customers. Additionally, the outside City customers maintain their own wastewater connections, hence, the plant investment associated with wastewater connections is allocated 100% to the City of Fayetteville customers. BLACK & VEATCH I Wastewater Utility 6-10 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study The City has a contract with the City of Farmington stipulating that Farmington will be allocated 8.2% of the costs associated with the West Treatment Plant. Hence, 8.2% of the West Treatment Plant's investment is allocated directly to the City of Farmington customers. Wastewater collection net plant is allocated 41% to both retail and wholesale (common to all) and 59% to retail only based on the ratio of interceptors (large diameter mains) which is 41% of the collection system. 6.5.3.3 Allocation of Wastewater Facilities Depreciation Expense As explained in Section 4.5.3.3, depreciation expense is a real part of the cost of operating a utility. The total estimated depreciation cost (excluding depreciation on contributed facilities) for the wastewater system is $8,060,600 as presented on Line 26 in Table S - 13 in Appendix 2. The items of expense are allocated to cost components on the same design or cost causative basis used to allocate plant investment. Hence, the depreciation expense associated with Owl Creek Lift Station and Force main and Wastewater connections is directly allocated to the City of Fayetteville customers and 8.2% of the West Treatment Plant's depreciation is allocated directly to the City of Farmington customers. 6.5.3.4 Allocation of Wastewater Utility Operating Expenses Table S - 14 in Appendix 2 presents the allocation of operation and maintenance expense to functional cost components. Total test year operation and maintenance expense, as shown on Line 14 of this table, amounts to $16.9 million. Operating expenses are allocated to functional cost components in generally the same manner as plant investment. 6.5.4 Distribution of Wastewater Utility Costs to Customer Classes The total cost responsibility of each customer class is determined by developing unit costs of service for each cost component and applying the unit costs to the respective service requirements of each class. In accomplishing this, each customer class is allocated the share of volume, strength, and customer costs for which it is responsible. 6.5.4.1 Wastewater Customer Classification Customer classes consist of residential, non-residential, industrial and wholesale. The residential class includes single family residential, duplex, fourplex, apartment, multi -unit residential and rooming house customers. The non-residential class includes commercial, combination, construction, government, and non-profit customers. Outside City includes Farmington, Greenland, Washington County/Growth Area and Johnson. Wholesale includes the community of Elkins and West Fork. 6.5.4.2 Wastewater Units of Service Derivation of the responsibility of customer classes for costs of service require that each class be allocated a portion of the volume, strength, and customer costs of service according to their respective service requirements. The cost of service responsibility for volume costs, which vary with the volume of wastewater contributed to the wastewater system, is distributed to customer classes on that basis. Strength costs are principally related to the function of reducing wastewater suspended solids, and BOD strength loading. Customer costs, which consist of meter related costs, billing, collection and accounting costs, are allocated on the basis of equivalent meters and monthly bills. BLACK & VEATCH I Wastewater Utility 6-11 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study The estimated test year service requirements or units of service for the various customer classes are shown in Table S -15 in Appendix 2. Wastewater collected and treated consists of two elements: (1) sanitary wastewater flow and (2) infiltration/inflow (1/1) of ground water into the sewers. Contributed wastewater flow is that portion of the annual water use and/or other flows from each customer class that are discharged to the wastewater system. Estimates of the contributed volume of each class is generally based upon wastewater billing records. For residential customers, the billed wastewater volume is based on average water consumption for the preceding months of December, January and February. This methodology of using a winter quarter average for quantity of wastewater flows is used to exclude outdoor uses such as irrigation, which do not return water to the collection system. For all other customer classes, the billed wastewater volume is the same as the water volume. The difference between the measured plant influent and the customer contributed wastewater flow is attributed to Infiltration and Inflow (1/1) volume. Based on discussions with the City staff, 40% of the total treated volume is assumed to be 1/1 flows. Each customer class should bear its proportionate share of the costs associated with 1/1, as it is integral aspect of wastewater system costs. The number of customer connections to a wastewater collection system and the volume of customer flows conveyed both influence the extent of 1/1 in a system. Recognizing that the major cost responsibility for 1/1 is allocable on an individual connection basis, two-thirds of the total 1/1 volume projected is allocated to customer classes based on the number of customers with the remaining one-third allocated on the basis of contributed volume. Estimated total strength units shown for each customer class are based on an average BOD concentration of 365 milligrams per liter (mg/1) and an average suspended solids concentration of 285 mg/l. 1/1 strength allowances for BOD and suspended solids are assumed at 25 mg/I and 50 mg/1, respectively. Estimated BOD and suspended solids responsibilities of each customer class presented in Table S - 15 in Appendix 2 are based on the respective indicated average strength concentrations and contributed wastewater and 1/1 volumes for each class. Customer billing and accounting costs are distributed to classes on the basis of the number of bills for each customer class (Column 7) in Table S - 15. Customer related meter and service costs are allocated on the basis of the number of equivalent 3/4 inch meters serving each customer class. The number of equivalent meters in each customer class (Column 8) is estimated by relating typical costs for meters and services larger than 3/4 inch in size to the typical cost of a 3/4 inch meter. 6.5.5 Wastewater Utility Customer Class Costs of Service Unit costs of service are developed by dividing the total cost allocated to each functional cost component by the total applicable units of service. The customer class responsibility for service is obtained by applying unit costs of service to the number of units for which the customer class is responsible. The wastewater utility has been built with the provision for service to customers outside the City, yet the inside City customers must bear the responsibility of providing system facilities by undertaking the necessary investment. Revenues derived from outside City service should provide a margin of return on capital adequate to induce the citizens of Fayetteville to bear the risks of providing outside City service. To recognize the proprietary interest and responsibility of inside City customers in the system, it is proper to charge outside City customers, in addition to their share of operating expense and depreciation, a reasonable return on their allocated portion of value. A 7.0% (4.0 % for future debt BLACK & VEATCH I Wastewater Utility 6-12 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study service plus 3.0% risk component) annual rate of return on the value of wastewater facilities serving outside City customers is recognized for purposes of this study. Table S - 16 in Appendix 2 shows the development of the unit costs of service applicable to each cost function. Lines 1 through 3 summarize the units of service developed in Table S -15. Total allocated costs or investment shown on Lines 5, 7, and 9 were previously developed in Table S - 14, Table S - 13 and Table S - 12, respectively. Total allocated unit costs of service for inside City and outside City customers (Line 18, Line 19, Line 20 and Line 21) are determined by adding the unit costs for net operating expense (Line 6) and depreciation expense (Line 8) to the respective inside and outside City unit costs for return on investment (Lines 11 and 12). These unit costs applied to the respective units of service shown on Lines 1,2 and 3 determine the allocated total costs of service for inside and outside City customers shown on Lines 18 through 21. In order to determine the allocated costs for each customer class, the costs are allocated to the various customer classes by applying the appropriate unit cost of service to the respective service requirements of each customer class. Table S - 17 in Appendix 2 shows the resulting allocated cost of service by customer class, revenue under existing rates, and the indicated increase or decrease in revenue required to meet the allocated cost of service. BLACK & VEATCH I Wastewater Utility 6-13 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study 7.0 Wastewater Rate Design The principal consideration in establishing wastewater rate schedules is to establish charges to recover costs that are reasonably commensurate with the cost of providing wastewater service. The revenue requirements and cost of service allocations described in the preceding sections provide the basis for adjusting wastewater rates. The revenue requirements show the need for adjustment and the level of revenue required. This cost of service analysis provides the unit costs of service to be used in the rate design process and gives a basis for determining whether resultant rates will generate revenues which recover costs of service from customer classes in proportion to service required and provide the total level of revenue required. 7.1 Existing Wastewater Rates The existing schedule of rates for wastewater service became effective on January 1, 2021. For retail customers, these rates include a monthly base charge bill, which varies by meter size. The volume charge varies by customer class. Surcharge rates are based on excess strength of BOD and TSS. The existing wastewater rate structure is described in Section 3.3.2. The existing schedule of base and volume rates for wastewater service is shown in Table S - 3 in Appendix 2. 7.2 Proposed Wastewater Rates The cost of service study described in preceding sections of this report provides a basis for the design of a schedule of wastewater rates to meet those costs. Proposed wastewater rates have been designed to meet the test year allocated costs of service and are presented in Table S - 18. The proposed rate structure is similar to the existing structure. As already explained in Section 5.2, practical rate design should consider multiple factors including previous rate levels, customer bill impact, and magnitude of cost shifts among customer classes. A comparison of estimated test year revenue under the proposed rates with allocated costs of service for each of the customer classes is shown in Table S - 19 in Appendix 2. This comparison indicates the proposed rates will recover revenues from inside and outside City customer groups reasonably commensurate with the cost of service and practical considerations previously noted. To better reflect the total effect the proposed rates have on customer bills, a comparison of typical bills under existing rates and the rates proposed to become effective January 1, 2022, is shown in Table S - 20. 8.0 Combined Water and Wastewater Utilities Table C - 1 in Appendix 3 presents the combined operating reserve, capital reserve and impact fee fund balances. Table C - 2 in Appendix 3 provides a summary of the combined revenue and revenue requirements (financial plan) for the study period. The revenue under existing rates are not sufficient to meet the obligations of the two utilities. As discussed in Section 4 and Section 6, a series of annual 3% proposed revenue adjustments enable the BLACK & VEATCH I Wastewater Rate Design 8-14 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study utilities to meet their operating, capital and reserve obligations. Figure 8-1 presents the projected revenue and revenue requirements through 2026 for the wastewater utility. Waterand Wastewater Revenues and Revenue Requirements S70,000,000 S60,000,000 S50,000,0oo _ S40,000,000 $30,000,000 S20,000,000 S 10,000,000 SO 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 O&M Expenses Cash Financing of Capital Other Transfers Revenues Under Existing Rates Revenues Under Proposed Rates Figure 8-1 - Water and Wastewater Revenues and Revenue Requirements Table C - 2 in Appendix 3 presents the combined water and wastewater operating reserve, capital reserve and impact fee fund balances. The City has identified the minimum balance requirements for each of the following funds: O&M Reserve Balance: A cash balance of at least 90 days of the follow's year operating expenses. Operating Fund Balance: A minimum target of $100,000. Capital Fund Balance: A minimum target of $500,000. Capital Reserve Fund Balance: An amount necessary to fully fund anticipate capital projects. As shown in Table C - 2, the proposed annual revenue adjustments will allow the utilities on a combined basis to meet the minimum fund balance requirements for all funds through 2026. A comparison of combined water and wastewater typical bills under existing rates and the rates proposed to become effective January 1, 2022, is shown in Table C - 3. 9.0 Disclaimer This report was prepared for the City of Fayetteville (Client) by Black & Veatch Management Consulting, LLC (Black & Veatch) and is based on information provided by the Client not within the control of Black & Veatch. While it is believed that the information, data and opinions contained herein will be reliable under the conditions and subject to the limitations set forth in this report, Black & Veatch does not guarantee the accuracy thereof. Black & Veatch has assumed that the information provided by others, both verbal and written, is complete and correct. The projections set forth in this report are intended as "forward -looking statements." In formulating these projections, Black & Veatch has made certain assumptions with respect to conditions, events, and circumstances that may occur in the future. While Black & Veatch believes the assumptions are reasonable actual results may differ materially from those BLACK & VEATCH I Disclaimer 9-15 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study projected, as influenced by the conditions, events, and circumstances that occur. As such, Black & Veatch does not take responsibility for the accuracy of data or projections provided by or prepared on behalf of the Client, nor does Black & Veatch have any responsibility for updating this report for events occurring after the date of this report. Use of this report or any information contained therein by any party other than the Client, shall constitute a waiver and release by such third party of Black & Veatch from and against all claims and liability, including but not limited to liability for special, incidental, indirect or consequential damages in connection with such use. Such use of this report by a third party shall constitute agreement by the third party user that its rights, if any, arising from this report shall be subject to the terms of this Report Limitations, and in no event shall the third party's rights, if any, exceed those of the Client under its contract with B&V. The benefit of such releases, waivers, or limitations of liability shall extend to the related companies and subcontractors of any tier of B&V, and the shareholders, directors, officers, partners, employees, and agents of all released or indemnified parties. BLACK & VEATCH I Disclaimer 9-16 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study 10.0 Appendix 1: Water Tables Table W - 1 - Water Projected Number of Accounts 1 2 Customer Class Inside City Residential Non -Residential 35,200 3,500 zuzz 35,800 3,500 zaxi 36,400 3,500 37,100 3,500 Z1ra5 zuz 37,700 3,500 b 38,400 3,500 3 Industrial 21 21 21 21 21 21 4 Irrigation 2,000 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,200 2,200 5 Private Fire 713 713 713 713 713 713 6 7 Subtotal Outside City Residential 41,434 6,500 42,134 6,600 42,734 6,800 43,434 6,900 44,134 7,100 44,834 7,200 8 Non -Residential 400 400 400 500 500 500 9 Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Irrigation 271 277 285 292 299 307 11 Private Fire 14 14 14 14 14 14 12 13 Subtotal Wholesale Elkins 7,185 1 7,291 1 7,499 1 7,706 1 7,913 1 8,021 1 14 Mount Olive 2 2 2 2 2 2 15 West Fork 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 RDA/WWA 4 4 4 4 4 4 17 18 19 Subtotal Total % Change 8 48,627 3.26% 8 49,433 1.66% 8 50,241 1.63% 8 51,148 1.81% 8 52,055 1.77% 8 52,863 1.55% BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix 1: Water Tables 10-1 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Table W - 2 - Water Projected Billed Volume (1,000 Gallons) 1,000 gal. 1,000 gal. 1,000 gal. 1,000 gal. 1,000 gal. 1,000 gal. Inside City 1 Residential 1,896,300 1,769,800 1,800,800 1,832,300 1,864,400 1,897,000 2 Non -Residential 678,600 827,100 827,100 827,100 827,100 827,100 3 Industrial 322,300 401,800 401,800 401,800 401,800 401,800 4 Irrigation 249,600 244,300 248,600 252,900 257,300 261,800 5 Subtotal 3,146,800 3,243,000 3,278,300 3,314,100 3,350,600 3,387,700 Outside City 6 Residential 427,900 385,700 394,600 403,800 413,300 423,100 7 Non -Residential 51,300 65,600 66,400 67,300 68,300 69,200 8 Irrigation 28,400 24,400 25,000 25,700 26,400 27,100 9 Subtotal 507,600 475,700 486,000 496,800 508,000 519,400 Wholesale 10 Elkins 81,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 11 Mount Olive 68,900 62,100 62,100 62,100 62,100 62,100 12 West Fork 69,200 65,200 65,200 65,200 65,200 65,200 13 RDA/WWA 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 Subtotal 219,100 202,300 202,300 202,300 202,300 202,300 15 Total 3,873,500 3,921,000 3,966,600 4,013,200 4,060,900 4,109,400 16 %Change 1.26% 1.23% 1.16% 1.17% 1.19% 1.19% BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix 1: Water Tables 10-2 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study 'able W - 3 - Water Existing Rates Existing Water Rates Effective January 1, 2021 Inches 5/8 3/4 $/month 6.40 6.40 $/month 7.32 7.32 $/month 8.06 8.06 $/month $/month 1 8.87 10.21 11.15 9.75 11.68 1 1/2 15.47 17.78 19.42 10.17 12.10 2 22.52 25.88 28.22 20.33 23.37 3 52.48 60.37 62.50 30.48 35.06 4 86.89 99.93 108.98 60.97 70.11 6 173.78 199.83 206.56 169.34 197.74 8 260.59 299.68 323.21 355.65 409.00 10 609.68 701.11 Monthly Water Volume Usage --,A Charge Inside City AML Outside City Wholesale 1,000 ga I. 1,000 gal. 1,000 gal. 1,000 gal. Residential 0 - 2,000 Gallons 3.41 3.92 2,000 - 15,000 Gallons 4.51 5.19 Over 15,000 Gallons Non -Residential First 300,000 Gallons Over 300,000 Gallons 6.40 7.32 3.68 4.25 3.29 3.79 Major Industrial All Usage 2.87 3.20 Irrigation First 300,000 Gallons 4.89 5.63 Over 300,000 Gallons 4.40 5.07 Wholesale Reduced Peak Demand 2.79 Peak Demand 3.11 BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix 1: Water Tables 10-3 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Table W - 4 - Water Projected Revenues Under Existing Rates 1 2 Inside City Residential Non -Residential 11,196,100 2,844,700 10,707,100 3,382,900 10,894,400 3,382,900 11,085,100 3,382,900 11,279,100 3,382,900 11,476,500 3,382,900 3 Industrial 933,000 1,163,300 1,163,300 1,163,300 1,163,300 1,163,300 4 Irrigation 1,410,700 1,392,400 1,416,800 1,441,600 1,466,800 1,492,500 5 Private Fire 967,600 967,600 967,600 967,600 967,600 967,600 6 7 Subtotal Outside City Residential 17,352,100 2,743,800 17,613,300 2,543,600 17,825,000 2,602,200 18,040,500 2,662,800 18,259,700 2,725,300 18,482,800 2,789,800 8 Non -Residential 258,700 319,300 324,000 328,900 334,000 339,400 9 Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 11 Irrigation Private Fire 190,000 27,100 168,700 27,100 173,100 27,100 177,600 27,100 182,300 27,100 187,200 27,100 12 Subtotal 3,219,600 3,058,700 3,126,400 3,196,400 3,268,700 3,343,500 Wholesale 13 Elkins 226,800 210,600 210,600 210,600 210,600 210,600 14 Mount Olive 193,900 175,200 175,200 175,200 175,200 175,200 15 West Fork 194,000 183,300 183,300 183,300 183,300 183,300 16 RDA/WWA 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Subtotal 614,700 569,100 569,100 569,100 569,100 569,100 18 Total 19 % Change 21,186,400 21,241,100 21,520,500 21,806,000 22,097,500 22,395,400 4.28% 0.26% 1.32% 1.33% 1.34% 1.35% (a) Reflects 3.0% revenue increase effective January 1, 2021. Table W - 5 - Water Projected Other Revenues 1 Water Impact Fee Revenue 976,300 976,300 976,300 976,300 976,300 976,300 2 Water Sales Not on Computer 300 300 300 300 300 300 3 Water Connection Fees 162,000 162,000 162,000 162,000 162,000 162,000 4 Rural Water Connection Fees 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 5 Service Charge/Trip Fee - Billed Service 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 6 Tampering Fee - Billed Service 200 200 200 200 200 200 7 Penalties 103,700 207,400 207,400 207,400 207,400 207,400 8 Safe Drinking Water Fee 230,000 233,800 237,800 241,800 245,900 250,200 9 Total 1,484,700 1,592,200 1,596,200 1,600,200 1,604,300 1,608,600 BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix 1: Water Tables 10-4 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Table W - 6 - Water Capital Improvement Program 1 Water System Rehabilitation/Replacement 2,060,000 0 2,185,500 2,251,000 2,318,500 0 2 Water Tank Improvements 1,030,000 1,060,900 1,092,700 1,125,500 1,159,300 2,149,300 3 Water Storage & Pump Station Maintenance 103,000 106,100 109,300 112,600 115,900 0 4 Water Meters 849,800 875,200 901,500 928,500 956,400 0 5 Backflow Prevention Assemblies 51,500 53,000 54,600 56,300 58,000 0 6 W/S Improvements defined by Study (West Water Transmission Line) 618,000 636,500 655,600 675,300 695,600 4,776,200 7 Water Impact Fee Improvements 412,000 424,400 437,100 450,200 463,700 0 8 Utilities Financial Services Improvements 0 11,100 3,300 1,700 8,700 0 9 Water/Sewer Relocations - Bond Projects 174,600 265,200 273,200 281,400 289,800 0 10 Water/Sewer Impact Fee Cost Sharing 0 79,600 82,000 84,400 86,900 0 11 Utilities Technology Improvements 0 228,100 234,900 130,000 10,400 0 12 Water/Sewer Building -Office Improvements 0 26,500 27,300 28,100 29,000 0 13 Water/Sewer Equipment Expansions 0 26,500 27,300 28,100 29,000 0 14 Water & Sewer Rate/Operational Studies 0 10,600 10,900 11,300 11,600 0 15 Phosphorus Standards Management 0 26,500 27,300 28,100 29,000 0 16 Water& Sewer Technology Equipment Replacements 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Water & Sewer Improvements Defined By Study 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 Huntsville Water Line Replacement (6-inch upto 8-inch) 776,300 0 0 0 0 0 19 Benson Water Tank 1,030,000 338,200 0 0 0 0 20 East Water Service Improvements - Township 3,290,600 0 0 0 0 0 21 South Garland Ave Waterline Replacement 253,800 0 0 0 0 0 22 East Water Service Improvements CS 3 (Gulley, PS, Goshen Lines) 0 5,304,500 0 0 0 0 23 Ila/Oaks Manor/Persimmon Waterline Replacements 927,000 0 0 0 0 0 24 Western Park Waterline Replacement 309,000 0 0 0 0 0 25 N. College Waterline Replacement - upgrade from 8" to 12" 0 0 2,185,400 0 0 0 26 Total Capital Improvement Program 11,885,600 9,472,900 8,307,900 6,192,500 6,261,800 6,925,500 (a) Capital costs reflect 3% annual inflation starting in 2021. Table W - 7 - Water Projected O&M Expenses 1 Personal Costs 3,433,300 3,579,400 3,731,900 3,890,900 4,056,700 4,229,700 2 Materials and Supplies 968,000 997,000 1,026,900 1,057,700 1,089,500 1,122,100 3 Services and Charges 9,994,400 10,294,200 10,603,100 10,921,100 11,248,800 11,586,200 4 5 6 Motorpool Cost Allocation Maintenance 837,000 631,100 85,800 862,100 650,000 88,400 888,000 669,500 91,100 914,600 689,600 93,800 942,100 710,300 96,600 970,300 731,600 99,500 7 8 Total % Change 15,949,600 1.91% 16,471,100 3.27% 17,010,500 3.27% 17,567,700 3.28% 18,144,000 3.28% 18,739,400 3.28% BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix 1: Water Tables 10-5 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Table W - 8 - Capital Program Financing S S S S S S Sources of Funds 1 Funds Available at Beginning of Year 500,200 506,800 501,700 501,700 503,600 508,700 2 Cash Financing of Capital Projects 5,460,000 9,050,000 6,860,000 6,110,000 6,180,000 6,920,000 3 Transfer from Impact Fee Fund 6,432,200 417,800 1,447,900 84,400 86,900 0 4 Subtotal 12,392,400 9,974,600 8,809,600 6,696,100 6,770,500 7,428,700 Application of Funds 5 Major Capital Improvements 11,885,600 9,472,900 8,307,900 6,192,500 6,261,800 6,925,500 6 Subtotal 11,885,600 9,472,900 8,307,900 6,192,500 6,261,800 6,925,500 7 End of Year Balance 506,800 501,700 501,700 503,600 508,700 503,200 8 Capital Reserve EOY Balance - Cumulative 12,915,000 8,453,000 6,559,000 5,789,000 5,359,000 4,634,000 BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix 1: Water Tables 10-6 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Table W - 9 - Water Operating Cash Flow Revenues 1 Revenue Under Existing Rates Indicated Revenue Increases 21,186,600 21,241,100 21,520,600 21,806,000 22,097,500 22,395,400 2 3 % Increase Effective January 1, 2022 584,100 645,600 654,200 662,900 671,900 3 3 % Increase Effective January 1, 2023 0 609,600 673,800 682,800 692,000 4 3 % Increase Effective January 1, 2024 0 0 636,200 703,300 712,800 5 3 % Increase Effective January 1, 2025 0 0 0 664,000 734,200 6 3% Increase Effective January 1, 2026 0 0 0 0 693,200 7 Total Revenue from Rates 21,186,600 21,825,200 22,775,800 23,770,200 24,810,500 25,899,500 8 Other Revenues (a) 533,100 641,600 647,500 653,500 659,700 666,300 9 Total Revenue 21,719,700 22,466,800 23,423,300 24,423,700 25,470,200 26,565,800 10 Expenses Operating Expenses 15,949,600 16,471,100 17,010,500 17,567,700 18,144,000 18,739,400 11 Bad Debt 105,900 109,100 113,900 118,900 124,100 129,500 12 PILOT 900,400 927,600 968,000 1,010,200 1,054,400 1,100,700 13 Safe Drinking Water Fee 230,000 233,800 237,800 241,800 245,900 250,200 14 Debt Service 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 Total Expenses 17,185,900 17,741,600 18,330,200 18,938,600 19,568,400 20,219,800 16 Transfers Transfer to Shop Fund 33,000 0 0 0 0 0 17 Transfer to Operating Reserve 128,600 133,000 137,400 142,100 146,800 151,800 18 Cash Financing of Capital 5,460,000 9,050,000 6,860,000 6,110,000 6,180,000 6,920,000 19 Transfer to/from Capital Reserve -1,093,000 -4,462,000 -1,894,000 -770,000 -430,000 -725,000 20 Total Transfers 4,528,600 4,721,000 5,103,400 5,482,100 5,896,800 6,346,800 Fund Balance 21 Beginning Balance 100,900 106,100 110,300 100,000 103,000 108,000 22 Annual Operating Balance 5,200 4,200 -10,300 3,000 5,000 -800 23 Ending Fund Balance 106,100 110,300 100,000 103,000 108,000 107,200 Performance Metrics 24 Debt Service Coverage NA NA NA NA NA NA 25 O&M Reserve Balance (Days) (b) O 900 900 900 900 900 90 (a) Includes interest income on operating fund balance. (b) Mininum requirement is 90 days of following year's Operating Expenses. BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix 1: Water Tables 10-7 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Table W - 10 - Water Fund Balances S $ S S S $ Operating Funds 1 O&M Reserve Balance (a) 4,061,400 4,194,400 4,331,800 4,473,900 4,620,700 4,772,500 2 Operating Fund Balance (b) 106,100 110,300 100,000 103,000 108,000 107,200 3 Total (e) 4,167,500 4,304,700 4,431,800 4,576,900 4,728,700 4,879,700 Capital Funds 4 Capital Fund Balance (c) 506,800 501,700 501,700 503,600 508,700 503,200 5 Capital Reserve Fund Balance (d) 12,915,000 8,453,000 6,559,000 5,789,000 5,359,000 4,634,000 6 Total (e) 13,421,800 8,954,700 7,060,700 6,292,600 5,867,700 5,137,200 7 Impact Fee Fund Balance (e) 22,800 581,300 109,700 1,001,600 1,891,000 2,867,300 (a) Calculated as 90 days of following year's Operating Expenses. (b) Target mininum balance is $100,000 to account for any adjustments that may be needed to the O&M balance at the end of the year. (c) Target mininum balance is $500,000. (d) Does not include expenses associated with facilities master plan to be completed in FY 2022 (e) All balances are cumulative. BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix 1: Water Tables 10-8 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Table W - 11 - Water 2022 Cost of Service Statement of Net Revenue Requirements (Cash Basis) Revenue Requirements 1 O&M Expenses 2 Bad Debt Expense 3 PI LOT 16,471,100 16,471,100 109,100 109,100 927,600 927,600 4 Debt Service 0 0 Other Expenditures & Transfers: 5 Transfer to Operating Reserve 133,000 133,000 6 Cash Funding of Capital Projects 9,050,000 9,050,000 7 Transfer to Capital Reserve-4,462,000-4,462,000 8 Subtotal 17,640,800 4,588,000 22,228,800 Less Revenue Requirements Met from Other Sources 9 Other Revenues 382,100 10 Interest Earned 25.700 382,100 25,700 11 Net Balance Available -4,200 -4,200 12 Full Year Rate Adjustment -53,100 -53,100 13 Subtotal 354,700 -4,200 350,500 14 Net Revenue Requirements to be Recovered by Rates 17,286,100 4,592,200 21,878,300 Restatement of Net Cost of Service (Utility Basis) 15 O&M Expenses 17,286,100 17,286,100 16 Depreciation 2,672,900 2,672,900 17 Return 1,919,300 1,919,300 18 Net Cost of Service 17,286,100 4,592,200 21,878,300 BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix 1: Water Tables 10-9 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Table W - 12 - Water 2022 Allocation of Net Plant Investment to Functional Cost Components Net Plant Investment: 1 Water Land and Land Rights 2,191,756 1,043,693 1,148,063 2 Water Supply 6,819,846 3,247,546 3,572,300 3 Water Storage and Pumping 4,921,351 2,343,501 2,577,851 4 Water Transmission 23,254,954 11,073,788 12,181,167 5 Water Distribution 44,985,690 16,478,275 9,063,051 5,190,657 14,253,708 6 Water Meters 2,811,340 2,811,340 7 Fire Hydrants 7,535,573 7,535,573 8 Water Genera lSystem 3,714,721 616,910 678,600 755,699 467,385 208,406 685,166 302,555 9 Total Net Plant Investment 96,235,232 15,981,936 17,580,130 0 19,577,474 12,108,287 5,399,063 17,750,214 0 7,838,128 Table W - 13 - Water 2022 Allocation of Net Annual Depreciation to Functional Cost Components Net Depreciation Expense: 1 Water Land and Land Rights 2 Water Supply 277,295 132,045 145,250 3 Water Storage and Pumping 186,149 88,642 97,507 4 Water Transmission 653,961 311,410 342,551 5 Water Distribution 1,087,773 398,452 219,148 125,512 344,661 6 Water Meters 154,018 154,018 7 Fire Hydrants 215,879 215,879 8 Water Genera lSystem 97,807 16,843 18,528 18,501 12,027 4,767 18,941 8,200 9 Total Net Depreciation Expense 2,672,882 460,299 506,328 0 505,595 328,682 130,280 517,620 0 224,078 Table W - 14 - Water 2022 Allocation of O&M Expenses to Functional Cost Components 1 Water Purchased 9,331,800 4,443,714 4,888,086 2 Water Storage and Pumping 259,914 95,207 104,727 59,980 3 Water Distribution (a) 3,000,220 971,472 1,208,880 692,358 97,507 30,002 4 Meter Services(b) 968,983 968,983 5 Customer Billing (c) 1,012,574 1,012,574 6 All Other Cost 3,067,309 935,277 1,028,804 224,506 276,477 158,346 203,944 213,118 20,523 6,315 7 Subtotal 17,640,800 5,378,991 5,916,890 0 1,291,185 1,590,094 910,685 1,172,927 1,225,692 118,030 36,317 Less: 8 Water Connection Fees (d) 164,700 164,700 9 Other Income Sources 190,000 70,567 63,728 13,907 17,126 9,809 13,201 1,271 391 10 Subtotal 354,700 70,567 63,728 13,907 17,126 9,809 164,700 13,201 1,271 391 11 Net O&M Expenses 17,286,100 5,308,424 5,853,162 1,277,278 1,572,958 900,876 1,008,227 1,212,491 116,758 35,926 (a) 3.25%of 2020 water repair costs was associated with hydrants. (b) Includes costs for Meter Reading and Meter Maintenance and Backflow prevention (c) Includes costs under Utilities Financial Services (d) Includes revenues from Water Connection Fees and Rural Water Connection Fees BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix 1: Water Tables 10-10 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Table W - 15 - Water 2022 Estimated Units of Service 1,000 gal. 1,000 gal. 1,000 gal. 1,000 gal. 1,000 gal. 1,000 gal. Equiv. Meters Bills Equiv. Hydrants Equiv. Hydrants (1)/365 (2).(3) (4) - (2) (2).(6) (7) - (4) Inside City 1 Residential 1,769,829 4,849 250% 12,122 7,273 370% 17,941 5,819 34,939 429,673 2 Non -Residential 827,079 2,266 240% 5,438 3,172 355% 8,044 2,606 6,761 41,712 3 Industrial 401,767 1,101 200% 2,201 1,101 295% 3,247 1,046 261 252 4 Irrigation 244,282 669 240% 1,606 937 355% 2,376 770 3,141 24,897 5 Subtotal 3,242,957 8,885 21,368 12,483 31,608 10,240 45,102 496,534 Fire Protection 6 Public 4,201 4,201 10,083 5,882 4,035 7 Private 491 491 1,179 688 472 8 Subtotal 3,242,957 8,885 26,060 17,175 42,870 16,810 45,102 496,534 4,035 472 Outside City Farmington 9 Residential 83,821 230 250% 574 344 370% 850 276 1,762 23,207 10 Non -Residential 17,003 47 240% 112 65 355% 165 54 245 2,315 11 Industrial 200% 295% 12 Irrigation 1,336 4 240% 9 5 355% 13 4 46 472 13 Subtotal 102,160 280 695 415 1,028 333 2,053 25,995 Greenland 14 Residential 19,818 54 250% 136 81 370% 201 65 458 5,676 15 Non -Residential 4,298 12 240% 28 16 355% 42 14 59 588 16 Industrial 200% 295% 17 Irrigation 1,230 3 240% 8 5 355% 12 4 20 96 18 Subtotal 25,345 69 172 103 255 83 537 6,360 Washington County/Growth 19 Residential 194,707 533 250% 1,334 800 370% 1,974 640 2,618 33,792 20 Non -Residential 24,123 66 240% 159 93 355% 235 76 109 1,368 21 Industrial 200% 295% 22 Irrigation 14,323 39 240% 94 55 355% 139 45 188 1,851 23 Subtotal 233,153 639 1,586 948 2,348 761 2,915 37,012 Johnson 24 Residential 6,718 18 250% 46 28 370% 68 22 158 2,064 28 Non -Residential 8,320 23 240% 55 32 355% 81 26 35 240 29 Industrial 200% 295% 30 Irrigation 77 0 240% 1 0 355% 1 0 3 24 31 Subtotal 15,115 41 101 60 150 49 196 2,328 Goshen/White River 32 Residential 80,631 221 250% 552 331 370% 817 265 1,054 14,712 33 Non -Residential 11,837 32 240% 78 45 355% 115 37 52 768 34 Industrial 200% 295% 35 Irrigation 7,411 20 240% 49 28 355% 72 23 86 886 36 Subtotal 99,879 274 679 405 1,005 326 1,192 16,366 Fire Protection 37 Public 696 696 1,669 973 668 38 Private 12 12 29 17 12 39 Subtotal 475,651 1,303 3,941 2,638 6,483 2,541 6,892 88,060 668 12 40 Total Retail 3,718,609 10,188 30,001 19,813 49,353 19,351 51,994 584,594 Wholesale 41 Elkins 75,031 206 240% 493 288 355% 730 236 23 12 42 Mount Olive 62,062 170 240% 408 238 355% 604 196 38 24 43 West Fork 65,226 179 240% 429 250 355% 634 206 23 12 44 RDA/WWA 240% 355% 48 45 Subtotal 202,319 554 1,330 776 1,968 637 83 96 46 Subtotal (Inside City) 3,242,957 8,885 26,060 17,175 42,870 16,810 45,102 496,534 4,035 472 47 Subtotal (Outside City) 475,651 1,303 3,941 2,638 6,483 2,541 6,892 88,060 668 12 48 Subtotal (Wholesale) 202,319 554 1,330 776 1,968 637 83 96 49 Total System 3,920,928 10,742 31,332 20,589 51,320 19,989 52,077 584,690 4,703 483 BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix 1: Water Tables 10-11 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Table W -16 - Water 2022 Unit Cost of Service $ 1,000 ga 1. 1,000 gad. 1,000 gpd. 1,000 ga 1. 1,000 gpd. 1,000 gpd. Equiv. Meters Bills Hydrants Hydrants Units of Service 1 Inside City 3,242,957 17,175 16,810 3,242,957 17,175 16,810 45,102 496,534 4,035 472 2 Outside City 677,970 3,414 3,179 475,651 2,638 2,541 6,975 88,156 668 12 3 Total System 3,920,928 20,589 19,989 3,718,609 19,813 19,351 52,077 584,690 4,703 483 Costs of Service Net Operating Costs 4 Total - $ 17,286,100 5,308,424 5,853,162 0 1,277,278 1,572,958 900,876 1,008,227 1,212,491 116,758 35,926 5 Unit Cost- $/unit 1.35 284.28 0.00 0.34 79.39 46.55 19.36 2.07 24.83 74.32 Depreciation Expense 6 Total -$ 2,672,882 460,299 506,328 0 505,595 328,682 130,280 517,620 224,078 7 Unit Cost - $/unit 0.12 24.59 0.00 0.14 16.59 6.73 9.94 47.65 Net Plant Investment 8 Total - $ 96,235,232 15,981,936 17,580,130 0 19,577,474 12,108,287 5,399,063 17,750,214 7,838,128 9 Unit Cost - $/unit 4.08 853.84 0.00 5.26 611.12 279.00 340.84 1,666.62 Return on Investment 30 Inside City, Unit Return - $/unit 0.05 9.76 0.00 0.06 6.98 3.19 3.89 19.04 11 Outside City, Unit Return - $/Unit 0.29 59.77 0.00 0.37 42.78 19.53 23.86 116.66 Total Return 12 Inside City -$ 939,684 151,035 167,563 0 195,080 119,929 53,588 175,650 76,838 13 Outside City - $ 979,634 193,441 204,057 0 175,292 112,852 49,635 166,424 77,931 14 Total Return - $ 1,919,318 344,477 371,621 0 370,373 232,781 103,223 342,074 154,769 Total Unit Cost of Service 15 Inside City Unit Cost - $/unit 1.52 318.63 0.00 0.54 102.96 56.47 33.19 2.07 91.52 74.32 16 Outside City Unit Cost - $/unit 1.76 368.64 0.00 0.85 138.76 72.82 53.16 2.07 189.14 74.32 17 Inside City - Cost of Service - $ 17,793,546 4,922,283 5,472,534 0 1,749,904 1,768,373 949,319 1,497,122 1,029,678 369,263 35,068 18 Outside City- Cost of Service - $ 4,084,754 1,190,915 1,258,577 0 403,342 366,049 185,060 370,798 182,813 126,343 858 19 Total Cost of Service -$ 21,878,300 6,123,199 6,731,112 0 2,153,246 2,134,422 1,134,379 1,867,920 1,212,491 495,606 35,926 BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix 1: Water Tables 10-12 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Table W - 17 - Water 2022 Cost of Service by Customer Class Inside City 1 Residential 9,087,000 1,493,900 10,580,900 10,707,100 -1.2% 2 Non -Residential 3,497,200 574,900 4,072,100 3,382,900 20.4% 3 Industrial 1,358,900 223,400 1,582,300 1,163,300 36.0% 4 Irrigation 1,097,000 180,300 1,277,300 1,392,400 -8.3% Fire Protection 5 Public 2,472,500 -2,472,500 6 Private 280,900 280,900 967,600 -71.0% 7 Subtotal 17,793,500 0 17,793,500 17,613,300 1.0% Outside City 8 Residential 2,387,500 456,200 2,843,700 2,543,600 11.8% 9 Non -Residential 351,000 67,100 418,100 319,300 30.9% 10 Industrial 0.0% 11 Irrigation 141,700 27,100 168,700 168,700 0.0% Fire Protection 12 Public 550,300 -550,300 13 Private 8,200 8,200 27,100 -69.7% 14 Subtotal 3,438,700 100 3,438,700 3,058,700 12.4% Wholesale 15 Elkins 239,100 239,100 210,600 13.5% 16 Mount Olive 198,800 198,800 175,200 13.5% 17 West Fork 208,000 208,000 183,300 13.5% 18 RDA/WWA 0 0 0 0.0% 19 Subtotal Wholesale 645,900 0 645,900 569,100 13.5% 20 Total Retail 21,232,200 100 21,232,200 20,672,000 2.7% 21 Total Wholesale 645,900 0 645,900 569,100 13.5% 22 Total 21,878,100 100 21,878,100 21,241,100 3.0% BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix 1: Water Tables 10-13 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study 'able W - 18 - Water Proposed 2022 Rates Proposed Water Rates Effective January 1, 2022 Inches $/month $/month $/month $/month $/month 5/8 6.40 7.32 8.06 3/4 1 6.40 8.87 7.32 12.26 8.06 12.26 9.75 11.68 11/2 15.90 24.22 24.22 10.17 12.10 2 22.52 33.53 33.53 20.33 23.37 3 52.48 69.85 69.85 30.48 35.06 4 86.89 102.19 108.98 60.97 70.11 6 173.78 199.83 206.56 169.34 197.74 8 10 260.59 299.68 323.21 355.65 609.68 409.00 701.11 1,000 gal. 1,000 gal. 1,000 ga I. 1,000 gal. Residential 0 - 2,000 Gallons 3.36 4.49 2,000 - 15,000 Gallons 4.44 5.95 Over 15,000 Gallons 6.30 8.45 Non -Residential First 300,000 Gallons 4.08 5.27 Over 300,000 Gallons 3.65 4.63 Major Industrial All Usage Irrigation First 300,000 Gallons 3.16 4.32 3.51 5.46 Over 300,000 Gallons 4.32 5.46 Wholesale Reduced Peak Demand 3.17 Peak Demand 3.11 BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix 1: Water Tables 10-14 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Table W - 19 - Water 2022 Cost of Service Under Proposed Rates 1 Inside City Residential 10,580,900 10,707,100 -1.2% 10,586,600 100.1% -1.1% -120,500 2 Non -Residential 4,072,100 3,382,900 20.4% 3,705,100 91.0% 9.5% 322,200 3 Industrial 1,582,300 1,163,300 36.0% 1,279,900 80.9% 10.0% 116,600 4 Irrigation 1,277,300 1,392,400 -8.3% 1,273,600 99.7% -8.5% -118,800 5 6 Subtotal Outside City Residential 17,512,600 2,843,700 16,645,700 2,543,600 5.2% 11.8% 16,845,200 2,835,700 96.2% 99.7% 1.2% 11.5% 199,500 292,100 7 Non -Residential 418,100 319,300 30.9% 388,000 92.8% 21.5% 68,700 8 Irrigation 168,700 168,700 0.0% 168,800 100.1% 0.1% 100 9 10 Subtotal Private Fire Inside City 3,430,500 280,900 3,031,600 967,600 13.2% -71.0% 3,392,500 967,600 98.9% 344.5% 11.9% 0.0% 360,900 0 11 Outside City 8,200 27,100 -69.7% 27,100 330.5% 0.0% 0 12 13 Subtotal Wholesale Elkins 289,100 239,100 994,700 210,600 -70.9% 13.5% 994,700 239,200 344.1% 100.0% 0.0% 13.6% 0 28,600 14 Mount Olive 198,800 175,200 13.5% 198,900 100.1% 13.5% 23,700 15 West Fork 208,000 183,300 13.5% 208,100 100.0% 13.5% 24,800 16 RDA/WWA 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 17 18 Subtotal Total 645,900 21,878,100 569,100 21,241,100 13.5% 3.0% 646,200 21,878,600 100.0% 100.0% 13.5% 3.0% 77,100 637,500 BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix 1: Water Tables 10-15 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Table W - 20 - Water 2022 Bill Impact Inside City Outside City Line No. Meter Residential 1 Size 3/4 Monthly Usage 1,000gaI. 0.5 xisting 611ates $ 9.81 Prdp5se""9ncrease?"' Rates $ 8.08 Decrease $ -1.73 "Wre'ase"I Decrease -17.6% Existing"PFopo'sel" Rates $ 11.24 Rates $ 9.57 "Wrea's'ejIM Decrease $ -1.68 -14.9% 2 3/4 2 13.22 13.12 -0.10 -0.8% 15.16 16.30 1.14 7.5% 3 3/4 4 22.24 22.00 -0.24 -1.1% 25.54 28.20 2.66 10.4% 4 3/4 8 40.28 39.76 -0.52 -1.3% 46.30 52.00 5.70 12.3% 5 3/4 10 49.30 48.64 -0.66 -1.3% 56.68 63.90 7.22 12.7% 6 3/4 15 71.85 70.84 -1.01 -1.4% 82.63 93.65 11.02 13.3% Non -Residential 7 3/4 10 43.20 47.19 3.99 9.2% 49.82 60.02 10.20 20.5% 8 3/4 20 80.00 87.99 7.99 10.0% 92.32 112.72 20.40 22.1% 9 1 50 192.87 212.84 19.97 10.4% 222.71 275.76 53.05 23.8% 10 1 100 376.87 416.81 39.94 10.6% 435.21 539.26 104.05 23.9% 11 11/2 50 199.47 219.87 20.40 10.2% 230.28 287.72 57.44 24.9% 12 1 1/2 100 383.47 423.84 40.37 10.5% 442.78 551.22 108.44 24.5% 13 2 100 390.52 430.46 39.94 10.2% 450.88 560.53 109.65 24.3% 14 2 500 1,784.52 1,975.77 191.25 10.7% 2,058.88 2,540.53 481.65 23.4% Industrial 15 2 100 309.52 338.52 29.00 9.4% 342.52 384.53 42.01 12.3% 16 2 1,000 2,892.52 3,182.52 290.00 10.0% 3,222.52 3,543.53 321.01 10.0% 17 4 500 1,521.89 1,666.89 145.00 9.5% 1,686.89 1,857.19 170.30 10.1% 18 4 1,500 4,391.89 4,826.89 435.00 9.9% 4,886.89 5,367.19 480.30 9.8% 19 6 2,500 7,348.78 8,073.78 725.00 9.9% 8,173.78 8,974.83 801.05 9.8% 20 6 5,000 14,523.78 15,973.78 1,450.00 10.0% 16,173.78 17,749.83 1,576.05 9.7% 21 6 10,000 28,873.78 31,773.78 2,900.00 10.0% 32,173.78 35,299.83 3,126.05 9.7% BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix 1: Water Tables 10-16 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study 11.0 Appendix 2: Wastewater Tables Table S - 1 - Wastewater Projected Accounts Inside City 1 Residential 34,600 35,200 35,800 36,400 37,000 37,700 2 Non -Residential 2,900 2,900 2,900 2,900 2,900 2,900 3 Industrial 21 21 21 21 21 21 4 Subtotal 37,521 38,121 38,721 39,321 39,921 40,621 Outside City 5 Residential 2,400 2,400 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 6 Non -Residential 184 184 184 184 184 184 7 Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Subtotal 2,584 2,584 2,684 2,684 2,684 2,684 Wholesale 9 Elkins 2 2 2 2 2 2 10 West Fork 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 Subtotal 2 2 2 2 2 2 11 Total 40,107 40,707 41,407 42,007 42,607 43,307 12 %Change 1.52% 1.50% 1.72% 1.45% 1.43% 1.64% Table S - 2 - Wastewater Projected Billed Volume (1,000 Gallons) 1,000 gal. 1,000 gal. 1,000 gal. 1,000 gal. 1,000 gal. 1,000 gal. Inside City 1 Residential 1,861,300 1,741,200 1,771,800 1,802,800 1,834,400 1,866,500 2 Non -Residential 626,900 698,700 698,600 698,600 698,600 698,600 3 Industrial 318,500 396,700 396,700 396,700 396,700 396,700 4 Subtotal 2,806,700 2,836,600 2,867,100 2,898,100 2,929,700 2,961,800 Outside City 5 Residential 94,500 97,100 98,400 99,800 101,100 102,500 6 Non -Residential 15,300 14,900 14,900 14,900 14,900 14,900 7 Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Subtotal 109,800 112,000 113,300 114,700 116,000 117,400 Wholesale 8 Elkins 81,000 81,000 81,000 81,000 81,000 81,000 9 West Fork 45,600 45,600 45,600 45,600 45,600 45,600 10 Subtotal 126,600 126,600 126,600 126,600 126,600 126,600 10 Total 3,043,100 3,075,200 3,107,000 3,139,400 3,172,300 3,205,800 11 % Change 2.30% 1.05% 1.03% 1.04% 1.05% 1.06% BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix 2: Wastewater Tables 11 1 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Table S - 3 - Wastewater Existing Charges Existing Wastewater Rates Effective January 1, 2021 I ��icataw�r4:� � I �riunueat�� � Inches 5/8 3/4 1 $/month 17.75 17.75 23.05 $/month 17.75 17.75 32.93 $/month 16.25 16.25 30.37 1 1/2 37.64 58.61 53.88 2 53.82 77.41 71.31 3 124.98 178.87 164.36 4 205.95 294.60 270.81 6 408.15 583.94 537.57 8 610.42 873.55 802.73 1,000 gal. 1,000 gal. 1,000 ga I. 1,000 ga I Residential First 2,000 Gallons 4.22 > 2,000 Gallons 5.63 All Usage 7.94 7.30 Non -Residential All Usage 4.27 7.94 7.30 Major Industrial All Usage 4.57 7.94 7.30 Wholesale 85% of metered water usage 5.04 Above 85% of metered water 2.63 Surcharge BOD - $/Ib for strength in excess of 300 ppm 0.422506 TSS - $/Ib for strength in excess of 300 ppm 0.296743 BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix 2: Wastewater Tables 11-2 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Table S - 4 - Wastewater Projected Revenues at Existing Rates S S S S S S Inside City 1 Residential 16,696,700 16,269,900 16,555,200 16,844,900 17,139,700 17,439,600 2 Non -Residential 3,505,200 3,820,000 3,819,900 3,819,900 3,819,900 3,819,900 3 Industrial 1,477,500 1,838,500 1,838,500 1,838,500 1,838,500 1,838,500 4 Subtotal 21,679,400 21,928,400 22,213,600 22,503,300 22,798,100 23,098,000 Outside City 5 Residential 1,177,400 1,206,400 1,222,200 1,238,300 1,254,700 1,271,400 6 Non -Residential 158,100 155,600 155,600 155,600 155,600 155,600 7 Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Subtotal 1,335,500 1,362,000 1,377,800 1,393,900 1,410,300 1,427,000 Wholesale 9 Elkins 407,300 408,300 408,300 408,300 408,300 408,300 10 West Fork 229,400 230,000 230,000 230,000 230,000 230,000 11 Subtotal 636,700 638,300 12 Surcharge 810,300 810,300 13 Total 24,461,900 24,739,000 14 %Change 4.90% 1.13% Table S - 5 - Wastewater Projected Other Revenues 638,300 638,300 638,300 638,300 810,300 810,300 810,300 810,300 25,040,000 25,345,800 25,657,000 25,973,600 1.22% 1.22% 1.23% 1.23% S S S S S S 1 Sewer Impact Fee Rever 743,900 743,900 743,900 743,900 743,900 743,900 2 Sewer Sales Not on Con 11,800 11,800 11,800 11,800 11,800 11,800 3 Sewer Connection Fees 47,900 47,900 47,900 47,900 47,900 47,900 4 WWTP Hay Sales 134,800 134,800 134,800 134,800 134,800 134,800 5 WWTP Biosolids/Fertiliz 54,900 54,900 54,900 54,900 54,900 54,900 6 WWTP Water Treatmen 180,800 180,800 180,800 180,800 180,800 180,800 7 Penalties 123,000 246,100 246,100 246,100 246,100 246,100 8 Total 1,297,100 1,420,200 1,420,200 1,420,200 1,420,200 1,420,200 BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix 2: Wastewater Tables 11-3 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Table S - 6 - Wastewater Capital Improvement Program 1 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation 2,956,100 3,044,800 3,136,100 3,230,200 3,327,100 0 2 Plant Pumps and Equipment- W.W.T.P. 515,000 530,500 546,400 562,800 579,600 0 3 W.W.T.P. Building Improvements 1,699,500 1,750,500 163,900 168,800 173,900 0 4 Upgrade/Replace Lift Stations -W.W.T.P. 309,000 318,300 327,800 337,700 347,800 0 5 Lake Sequoyah Sediment Removal/Dredging 515,000 530,500 546,400 562,800 579,600 0 6 Wastewater Treatment/Water Quality Improvement! 103,000 106,100 109,300 112,600 115,900 0 7 Wastewater Impact Fee Improvements 309,000 318,300 327,800 337,700 347,800 0 8 Utilities Financial Services Improvements 0 11,100 3,300 1,700 8,700 0 9 Water/Sewer Relocations - Bond Projects 174,600 265,200 273,200 281,400 289,800 0 10 Water/Sewer Impact Fee Cost Sharing 0 79,600 82,000 84,400 86,900 0 11 Utilities Technology Improvements 0 228,100 234,900 130,000 10,400 0 12 Water/Sewer Building -Office Improvements 0 26,500 27,300 28,100 29,000 0 13 Water/Sewer Equipment Expansions 0 26,500 27,300 28,100 29,000 0 14 Water & Sewer Rate/Operational Studies 0 10,600 10,900 11,300 11,600 0 15 Phosphorus Standards Management 0 26,500 27,300 28,100 29,000 0 16 Water & Sewer Technology Equipment Replacements 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Water & Sewer Improvements Defined By Study 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 Biosolids Dryer Replacement 0 0 3,278,200 9,004,100 9,274,200 9,552,400 19 Filter Cell Upgrade/Replacement at Noland WWTP 0 0 0 0 0 1,432,900 20 Upgrade Automation at both W%TPs 0 0 0 0 0 1,671,700 21 CIPP of 36" Sewer Line from Armstrong Ave to Nolan 0 0 0 0 0 1,194,100 22 Bypass Sewer Fulbright & North Gregg 1,442,000 0 0 0 0 0 23 Hamestring Lift Station Bottle Neck Resolution 0 848,700 0 0 0 0 24 Total Capital Improvement Program 8,023,200 8,121,800 9,122,100 14,909,800 15,240,300 13,851,100 (a) Capital costs reflect 3%annual inflation starting in 2021. Table S - 7 - Wastewater Projected O&M Expenses 1 Personal Costs 3,075,500 3,206,500 3,343,100 3,485,600 3,634,300 3,789,400 2 Materials and Supplies 724,700 746,500 768,900 791,900 815,700 840,200 3 Services and Charges 6,081,000 6,263,500 6,451,400 6,644,900 6,844,300 7,049,600 4 WWTP Contract 3,995,600 4,115,500 4,238,900 4,366,100 4,497,100 4,632,000 5 Motorpool 1,032,500 1,063,500 1,095,400 1,128,300 1,162,100 1,197,000 6 7 Cost Allocation Maintenance 680,700 84,800 701,200 87,400 722,200 90,000 743,900 92,700 766,200 95,500 789,200 98,300 8 9 Total %Change 15,674,800 0.81% 16,184,100 3.25% 16,709,900 3.25% 17,253,400 3.25% 17,815,200 3.26% 18,395,700 3.26% BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix 2: Wastewater Tables City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Table S - 8 - Wastewater Cash Financed Capital Sources of Funds 1 Funds Available at Beginning of Year 504,100 501,900 506,700 504,400 506,700 501,100 2 Cash Financing of Capital Projects 6,270,000 6,880,000 8,710,000 14,490,000 14,800,000 13,850,000 3 Transfer from Impact Fee Fund 1,751,000 1,246,600 409,800 422,100 434,700 0 4 Subtotal 8,525,100 8,628,500 9,626,500 15,416,500 15,741,400 14,351,100 Application of Funds 5 Major Capital Improvements 8,023,200 8,121,800 9,122,100 14,909,800 15,240,300 13,851,100 6 Subtotal 8,023,200 8,121,800 9,122,100 14,909,800 15,240,300 13,851,100 7 End of Year Balance 501,900 506,700 504,400 506,700 501,100 500,000 8 Capital Reserve EOY Balance - Cumulative 19,995,000 21,737,000 22,141,000 17,301,000 12,711,000 9,656,000 Table S - 9 - Wastewater Operating Cash Flow 1 Revenues Revenues Under Existing Rates 24,461,900 24,738,900 25,040,100 25,345,900 25,657,000 25,973,600 2 Revenue Increases 3 % Increase Effective January 1, 2022 680,300 751,200 760,400 769,700 779,200 3 3 % Increase Effective January 1, 2023 0 709,300 783,200 792,800 802,600 4 3 % Increase Effective January 1, 2024 0 0 739,500 816,600 826,700 5 3 % Increase Effective January 1, 2025 0 0 0 771,000 851,500 6 3% Increase Effective January 1, 2026 0 0 0 0 803,900 7 Total Revenue from Rates 24,461,900 25,419,200 26,500,600 27,629,000 28,807,100 30,037,500 8 Other Revenues (a) 594,700 720,500 723,000 725,700 728,500 731,500 9 Total Revenues 25,056,600 26,139,700 27,223,600 28,354,700 29,535,600 30,769,000 Expenses 10 Operating Expenses 15,674,800 16,184,100 16,709,900 17,253,400 17,815,200 18,395,700 11 Bad Debt 122,300 127,100 132,500 138,100 144,000 150,200 12 PILOT 1,039,600 1,080,300 1,126,300 1,174,200 1,224,300 1,276,600 13 Debt Service 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 Total Expenses 16,836,700 17,391,500 17,968,700 18,565,700 19,183,500 19,822,500 15 Transfers Transfer to Shop Fund 33,000 0 0 0 0 0 16 Transfer to Operating Reserve 125,600 129,600 134,100 138,500 143,100 147,900 17 Cash Financing of Capital 6,270,000 6,880,000 8,710,000 14,490,000 14,800,000 13,850,000 18 Transfer to/from Capital Reserve 1,793,000 1,742,000 404,000 -4,840,000 -4,590,000 -3,055,000 19 20 Total Transfers Fund Balance Beginning Balance 8,221,600 105,500 8,751,600 103,800 9,248,100 100,400 9,788,500 107,200 10,353,100 107,700 10,942,900 106,700 21 Annual Operating Balance -1,700 -3,400 6,800 500 -1,000 3,600 22 Ending Fund Balance 103,800 100,400 107,200 107,700 106,700 110,300 Performance Metrics 23 Debt Service Coverage NA NA NA NA NA NA 24 O&M Reserve Balance (Days) O 90.00 90.00% 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 (a) Includes interest income on operating fund balance. (b) Mininum requirement is 90 days of following year's Operating Expenses. BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix 2: Wastewater Tables 11-5 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Table S - 10 - Wastewater Projected Fund Balances 1 2 Operating Funds 0&M Reserve Balance (a) Operating Fund Balance (b) $ 3,990,600 103,800 S 4,120,200 100,400 S 4,254,300 107,200 $ 4,392,800 107,700 S 4,535,900 106,700 S 4,683,800 110,300 3 Total (e) 4,094,400 4,220,600 4,361,500 4,500,500 4,642,600 4,794,100 Capital Funds 4 Capital Fund Balance (c) 501,900 506,700 504,400 506,700 501,100 500,000 5 Capital Reserve Fund Balance (d) 19,995,000 21,737,000 22,141,000 17,301,000 12,711,000 9,656,000 6 Total (e) 20,496,900 22,243,700 22,645,400 17,807,700 13,212,100 10,156,000 7 Impact Fee Fund Balance (e) 4,437,800 3,935,100 4,269,200 4,591,000 4,900,200 5,644,100 (a) Calculated as 90 days of following year's Operating Expenses. (b) Target mininum balance is $100,000 to account for any adjustments that may be needed to the O&M balance at the end of the year. (c) Target mininum balance is $500,000. (d) Does not include expenses associated with facilities master plan to be completed in FY 2022 (e) All balances are cumulative. Table S - 11 - Wastewater 2022 Cost of Service S S S Statement of Net Revenue Requirements (Cash Basis) Revenue Requirements 1 O&M Expenses 16,184,100 16,184,100 2 Bad Debt 127,100 127,100 3 PILOT 1,080,300 1,080,300 4 Debt Sevice 0 0 Other Expenditures & Transfers: 5 Transfer to Operating Reserve 129,600 129,600 6 Cash Funding of Capital Project! 6,880,000 6,880,000 7 Transfer to Capital Reserve 1,742,000 1,742,000 8 Subtotal 17,521,100 8,622,000 26,143,100 Less Revenue Requirements Met from Other Sources 9 Other Revenues and Adjustments 676,300 676,300 10 Interest Earned 44,200 44,200 11 Net Balance Available 3,400 3,400 12 Full Year Rate Adjustment (61,900) (61,900) 13 Subtotal 658,600 3,400 662,000 14 Net Revenue Requirements to be F 16,862,500 8,618,600 25,481,100 Restatement of Net Cost of Service (Utility Basis) 15 O&M Expenses 16,862,500 16,862,500 16 Depreciation 8,060,600 8,060,600 17 Return 558,000 558,000 18 Net Cost of Service 16,862,500 8,618,600 25,481,100 BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix 2: Wastewater Tables 11-6 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Table S - 12 - Wastewater 2022 Allocation of Net Plant Investment s s s s s s s s s s s s s Net Plant Investment: 1 Sewer Collection 103,289,355 42,124,931 61,164,424 2 Sewer Connections 319,887 319,887 3 Water Meters 2,345,265 2,345,265 4 Owl Creek Lift Station and Force Main 14,103 14,103 5 Lift Stations 4,392,243 4,392,243 Sewer Treatment Plant- Noland 6 Sewage Pumping 229,919 229,919 7 Mechanical Bar Screens 172,282 51,685 120,597 8 Grit Removal 9 Primary Sedimentation 10 Disinfection 1,672,556 1,672,556 11 Aeration Equipment 1,120,704 560,352 560,352 12 Sludge Handling 400,690 220,390 180,311 13 Other Plant and Misc Equipment 937,703 443,170 193,907 200,626 14 General Treatment 12,725,018 6,731,924 2,945,516 3,047,578 Sewer Treatment Plant- West 15 Sewage Pumping 921,333 845,784 75,549 16 Mechanical Bar Screens 169,727 13,918 46,743 109,066 17 Grit Removal 1,380,570 113,207 1,267,363 18 Primary Sedimentation 6,927,776 568,078 1,907,909 4,451,789 19 Disinfection 653,801 600,189 53,612 20 Aeration Equipment 1,490,202 122,197 684,003 684,003 21 Sludge Handling 34,604,278 2,837,551 17,471,700 14,295,027 22 Other Plant and Misc Equipment 3,298,489 103,353 270,476 1,437,424 1,487,236 23 General Treatment 5,571,549 174,576 456,867 2,427,984 2,512,122 24 Sewer Land and Land Rights 6,358,594 1,878,712 135,236 2,470,280 152,831 945,827 875,138 570 25 General Plant 1,768,202 450,601 104,632 592,487 43,702 270,723 280,104 22,718 3,235 26 Total Net Plant Investment 190,664,246 48,846,487 11,041,339 64,227,191 0 4,707,998 0 29,064,153 0 30,071,312 0 2,367,983 337,795 Table S - 13 - Wastewater 2022 Allocation of Depreciation s s s s s s s s s s s s s Net Depreciation Expense: 1 Sewer Collection 2,823,622 1,151,570 1,672,052 2 Sewer Connectio ns 22,463 22,463 3 Water Meters 128,485 128,485 4 Owl Creek Lift Station and Force Main 6,509 6,509 5 Lift Stations 105,383 105,383 Sewer Treatment Plant- Noland 6 Sewage Pumping 42,418 42,418 7 Mechanical Bar Screens 33,421 10,026 23,395 8 Grit Removal 9 Primary Sedimentation 30 Disinfection 281,379 281,379 11 Aeration Equipment 124,523 (1) 62,262 62,262 12 Sludge Handling 83,361 (1) 45,849 37,513 13 Other Plant and Misc Equipment 61,102 (1) 32,325 14,144 14,634 14 General Treatment 847,144 448,165 196,092 202,887 Sewer Treatment Plant- West 15 Sewage Pumping 117,218 107,606 9,612 16 Mechanical Bar Screens 55,071 4,516 15,167 35,388 17 Grit Removal 135,374 11,101 124,273 18 Primary Sedimentation 397,767 32,617 109,545 255,605 19 Disinfection 41,046 37,680 3,366 20 Aeration Equipment 140,345 1 11,508 64,418 64,418 21 Sludge Handling 2,080,224 170,578 1,050,305 859,341 22 Other Plant and Misc Equipment 316,959 9,931 25,991 138,125 142,912 23 General Treatment 45,160 1,415 3,703 19,680 20,362 24 Sewer Land and Land Rights 4,692 1,386 100 1,823 113 624 646 25 General Plant 166,945 42,544 9,879 55,940 4,126 25,560 26,446 2,145 305 26 Total Net Depreciation Expense 8,060,611 1,300,881 970,998 1,729,915 0 277,231 0 1,751,797 0 1,970,082 0 130,630 29,277 BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix 2: Wastewater Tables 11-7 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Table S - 14 - Wastewater 2022 Allocation of O&M Expenses s s s s s s s s s s s s s 1 sewer Mains Maintenance 2,438,014 994,305 1,443,708 2 Wastewater Treatment Plant 1,874,226 356,704 40,930 725,722 750,870 3 Wastewater Treatment Plant -Noland 5,426,220 1,149,101 2,097,222 2,169,897 4 Wastewater Treatment Plant -West 1,966,065 255,901 161,217 761,283 787,664 5 Lift Stations 961,584 961,584 6 Meter Operations (a) 1,653,047 1,653,047 7 Water& Sewer Connections 198,731 198,731 8 Operations and Administration 1,396,102 188,216 169,530 138,929 19,453 344,912 356,864 159,074 19,124 9 All Other O&M Cost 1,617,111 218,012 196,367 160,922 22,532 399,513 413,358 184,256 22,151 10 Subtotal 17,521,100 2,362,117 2,127,603 1,743,559 0 244,132 0 4,328,652 0 4,478,653 1,996,377 0 240,006 Less: Other Income Sources 11 Sewer Connection Fees 47,900 47,900 12 Other Income Sources 610,700 40,890 79,974 65,539 9,177 162,710 168,348 75,042 9,022 13 Subtotal 658,600 40,890 79,974 65,539 0 9,177 0 162,710 0 168,348 75,042 0 56,922 14 Net O&M Expenses 16,862,500 2,321,228 2,047,629 1,678,021 0 234,956 0 4,165,942 0 4,310,305 1,921,335 0 183,085 Table S - 15 - Wastewater 2022 Units of Service 1,000gal. 1,000ga1. 1,000gaI. Pounds Pounds Bills Equiv. Meters (2) + (3) Inside City 1 Residential 1,741,203 1,569,234 3,310,437 5,627,580 4,793,035 421,883 34,346 2 Non -Residential 698,651 251,356 950,007 2,179,172 1,765,439 34,296 5,157 3 Industrial 396,716 88,856 485,572 1,226,170 980,007 252 249 4 Subtotal 2,836,570 1,909,446 4,746,016 9,032,922 7,538,481 456,431 39,752 Outside City Farmington 5 Residential 75,950 76,937 152,887 247,241 212,609 21,431 1,603 6 Non -Residential 12,743 7,473 20,216 40,350 33,405 1,656 157 7 Industrial 8 Subtotal 88,694 84,409 173,103 287,591 246,014 23,087 Greenland 9 Residential 10,349 17,400 27,749 35,133 31,856 5,388 435 10 Non -Residential 2,153 1,824 3,976 6,933 5,877 480 22 11 Industrial 12 Subtotal 12,502 19,223 31,725 42,066 37,733 5,868 Washington County/ Growth Area 13 Residential 4,304 1,898 6,202 13,498 11,021 336 74 14 Non -Residential 67 67 14 28 24 15 Industrial 16 Subtotal 4,304 1,965 6,269 13,512 11,049 360 Johnson 17 Residential 6,479 6,720 13,199 21,124 18,202 1,884 151 18 Non -Residential 28 141 169 114 126 48 18 19 Industrial 20 Subtotal 6,507 6,860 13,367 21,238 18,328 1,932 21 Total Retail 2,942,069 2,015,044 4,957,113 9,376,091 7,833,277 485,746 39,752 Wholesale 22 Elkins 81,017 18,069 99,086 250,391 200,104 24 23 23 West Fork 45,625 10,171 55,796 141,008 112,688 12 23 24 Subtotal 126,642 28,241 154,883 391,399 312,792 36 45 25 Subtotal (Inside City) 2,836,570 1,909,446 4,746,016 9,032,922 7,538,481 456,431 39,752 26 Subtotal (Outside City) 112,007 112,458 224,465 364,407 313,124 31,247 - 27 Subtotal (Wholesale) 126,642 28,241 154,883 391,399 312,792 36 45 28 Surcharge Customers 1,282,742 910,900 29 Total System 3,075,218 2,050,145 5,125,363 11,071,470 9,075,297 487,714 42,258 BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix 2: Wastewater Tables 11-8 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Table S -16 - Wastewater 2022 Unit Cost of Service $ 1,000 gal. 1,000 gal. 1,000 gal. 1,000 gal. 1,000 gaI. Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Bills Equiv. Meters Bills Units of Service 1 Inside City 4,746,016 4,746,016 4,746,026 4,746,016 9,032,922 9,032,922 7,538,481 7,538,481 456,431 39,752 456,431 2 Outside City -w/o Farmington 206,245 206,245 51,362 51,362 468,215 468,215 379,902 379,902 8,196 746 3 Surcharge 173,103 173,103 173,103 287,592 246,014 23,087 1,761 4 Total System 5,125,363 4,952,260 4,970,480 4,797,378 173,103 9,788,728 9,501,137 8,164,397 7,918,383 487,714 42,258 456,431 Costs of Service Net Operating Expense 5 Total- $ 16,862,500 2,321,228 2,047,629 1,678,021 234,956 4,165,942 4,310,305 1,921,335 183,085 6 Unit Cost - $/unit 0.45 0.41 0.34 1.36 0.39 0.49 3.94 0.40 Depreciation Expense: 7 Total -$ 8,060,608 1,300,881 970,898 1,729,815 277,231 1,751,797 1,870,082 $ 130,630 29,277 8 Unit Cost - $/unit 0.25 0.20 0.35 1.60 0.16 0.21 $ 3.0913 0.06 Net Plant Investment: 9 Total -$ 190,664,246 48,846,487 11,041,339 64,227,191 4,707,988 29,064,153 30,071,312 2,367,983 337,795 10 Unit Cost - $/unit 9.53 2.23 12.92 27.20 2.70 3.41 56.04 0.74 Return on Investment 11 Inside City, Unit Return - $/unit (0.02) (0.00) (0.02) (0.00) (0.01) (0.10) (0.00) 12 Outside City, Unit Return - $/Unit 0.67 0.16 0.90 0.19 0.24 3.92 Total Return 13 Inside City -$ (318,200) (81,644) (19,100) (110,697) (50,194) (51,944) (4,021) (610) 14 Outside City -$ 398,068 137,591 32,188 46,458 88,334 90,573 2,925 15 Total Return -$ 557,992 146,682 13,088 58,784 258,939 38,149 38,628 4,330 (610) Total Unit Cost of Service 16 Inside City- $/unit 0.69 0.61 0.66 0.54 0.69 3.94 2.99 0.46 17 Outside City- $/unit 1.37 0.77 1.59 0.74 0.94 3.94 7.01 Total Cost of Service 18 Inside City- Retail -$ 21,561,489 3,272,379 2,873,715 3,143,242 4,912,944 5,230,497 1,798,097 118,862 211,752 19 Inside City -Surcharge -$ 1,329,693 697,674 632,019 20 Outside City- Except Farmington -$ 1,262,202 283,342 157,900 81,673 345,270 356,499 32,288 5,230 21 Outside City - Farmington -$ 1,327,716 213,067 241,705 771,126 90,950 10,868 22 Total Cost of Service -$ 25,481,100 3,768,788 3,031,615 3,466,620 0 771,126 0 5,955,889 0 6,219,015 1,921,335 234,960 211,752 Table S - 17 - Wastewater 2022 Cost of Service by Customer Class (1) (2) (3) (4) Inside City 1 Residential 14,826,309 16,269,871 -8.9% 2 Non -Residential 4,436,046 3,819,967 16.1% 3 Industrial 2,299,135 1,838,463 25.1% 4 Subtotal Outside City 5 Residential 6 Non -Residential 7 Industrial 8 Subtotal 21,561,489 21,928,301 -1.7% 1,496,261 1,206,404 24.0% 179,693 155,633 15.5% 100.0% 1,675,954 1,362,036 23.0% 9 Total Retail 23,237,443 23,290,337 -0.2% 9 Wholesale 913,966 638,276 43.2% 10 Surcharge 1,329,693 810,298 64.1% 11 Total 25,481,103 24,738,911 3.0% BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix 2: Wastewater Tables 11-9 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Table S - 18 - Wastewater Proposed 2022 Charges Proposed Wastewater Rates Effective January 1, 2022 Inches 5/8 $/month 17.75 $/month 17.75 $/month 25.13 3/4 17.75 17.75 25.13 1 23.05 32.93 52.68 1 1/2 38.80 66.79 109.89 2 53.82 93.19 154.39 3 124.98 196.26 328.15 4 205.95 294.60 482.83 6 408.15 583.94 898.16 8 610.42 873.55 999.87 1,000 gal. 1,000 gal. 1,000 gal. 1,000 ga I. Residential First 2,000 Gallons 3.52 > 2,000 Gallons 4.69 All Usage Non -Residential All Usage Major Industrial All Usage Wholesale 85% of metered water usage Above 85% of metered water 8.23 5.15 8.68 8.23 5.72 8.68 8.23 7.22 3.76 Surcharge BOD - $/Ib for strength in excess of 300 ppm 0.5439 TSS - $/Ib for strength in excess of 300 ppm 0.6938 BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix 2: Wastewater Tables 11-10 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Table S - 19 - Wastewater 2022 Cost of Service Under Proposed Rates S S S S Inside City 1 Residential 14,826,300 16,269,900 -8.9% 14,827,800 100.0% -8.9%-1,442,100 2 Non -Residential 4,436,000 3,820,000 16.1% 4,437,300 100.0% 16.2% 617,300 3 Industrial 2,299,100 1,838,500 25.1% 2,294,700 99.8% 24.8% 456,200 4 Subtotal 21,561,400 21,928,400 -1.7% 21,559,800 100.0% -1.7%-368,600 Outside City 5 Residential 1,496,300 1,206,400 24.0% 1,483,800 99.2% 23.0% 277,400 6 Non -Residential 179,700 155,600 15.5% 192,500 107.1% 23.7% 36,900 7 Industrial 0.0% 0.0% 8 Subtotal 1,676,000 1,362,000 23.1% 1,676,300 100.0% 23.1% 314,300 Wholesale 9 Elkins 584,700 408,300 43.2% 584,700 100.0% 43.2% 176,400 10 West Fork 329,300 230,000 43.2% 329,300 100.0% 43.2% 99,300 11 Subtotal 914,000 638,300 43.2% 914,000 100.0% 43.2% 275,700 12 Surcharge 1,329,700 810,300 64.1% 1,329,700 100.0% 64.1% 519,400 13 Total 25,481,100 24,739,000 3.0% 25,479,800 100.0% 3.0% 740,800 Table S - 20 - Wastewater 2022 Bill Impact Line No. Residential 1 Meter Size 3/4 Monthly Usage 1,000 ga I. 0.5 Existing Rates $ 21.97 Inside Proposed Rates $ 19.51 City increase Decrease IIM��Rw $ -2.46 -11.2% $ 25.69 Outside City $ 22.09 increase $ -3.60 Decrease -14.0% 2 3/4 2 26.19 24.79 -1.40 -5.3% 33.63 35.11 1.48 4.4% 3 3/4 4 37.45 34.17 -3.28 -8.8% 49.51 52.47 2.96 6.0% 4 3/4 8 59.97 52.93 -7.04 -11.7% 81.27 87.19 5.92 7.3% 5 3/4 10 71.23 62.31 -8.92 -12.5% 97.15 104.55 7.40 7.6% 6 3/4 15 99.38 85.76 -13.62 -13.7% 136.85 147.95 11.10 8.1% Non -Residential 7 3/4 10 60.45 69.25 8.80 14.6% 97.15 104.55 7.40 7.6% 8 3/4 20 103.15 120.75 17.60 17.1% 176.55 191.35 14.80 8.4% 9 1 50 236.55 280.55 44.00 18.6% 429.93 466.93 37.00 8.6% 10 1 100 450.05 538.05 88.00 19.6% 826.93 900.93 74.00 8.9% 11 1 1/2 50 251.14 296.30 45.16 18.0% 455.61 500.79 45.18 9.9% 12 1 1/2 100 464.64 553.80 89.16 19.2% 852.61 934.79 82.18 9.6% 13 2 100 480.82 568.82 88.00 18.3% 871.41 961.19 89.78 10.3% 14 2 500 2,188.82 2,628.82 440.00 20.1% 4,047.41 4,433.19 385.78 9.5% Industrial 15 2 100 479.52 625.82 146.30 30.5% 871.41 961.19 89.78 10.3% 16 2 1,000 4,592.52 5,773.82 1,181.30 25.7% 8,017.41 8,773.19 755.78 9.4% 17 4 500 2,371.89 3,065.95 694.06 29.3% 4,264.60 4,634.60 370.00 8.7% 18 4 1,500 6,941.89 8,785.95 1,844.06 26.6% 12,204.60 13,314.60 1,110.00 9.1% 19 6 2,500 11,598.78 14,708.15 3,109.37 26.8% 20,433.94 22,283.94 1,850.00 9.1% 20 6 5,000 23,023.78 29,008.15 5,994.37 26.0% 40,283.94 43,983.94 3,700.00 9.2% 21 6 10,000 45,873.78 57,608.15 11,734.37 25.6% 79,983.94 87,383.94 7,400.00 9.3% BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix 2: Wastewater Tables 11 11 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study 12.0 Appendix 3: Combined Tables Table C - 1 - Combined Projected Fund Balances Operating Funds 1 O&M Reserve Balance (a) 8,052,000 8,314,600 8,586,100 8,866,700 9,156,600 9,456,300 2 Operating Fund Balance (b) 209,900 210,700 207,200 210,700 214,700 217,500 3 Subtotal Operating Funds Balance 8,261,900 8,525,300 8,793,300 9,077,400 9,371,300 9,673,800 Capital Funds 4 Capital Fund Balance (c) 1,008,700 1,008,400 1,006,100 1,010,300 1,009,800 1,003,200 5 Capital Reserve Fund Balance (d) 32,910,000 30,190,000 28,700,000 23,090,000 18,070,000 14,290,000 6 Subtotal Capital Funds Balance (e) 33,918,700 31,198,400 29,706,100 24,100,300 19,079,800 15,293,200 7 Impact Fee Fund Balance (e) 4,460,597 4,516,397 4,378,897 5,592,597 6,791,197 8,511,397 (a) Calculated as 90 days of following year's Operating Expenses. (b) Target minimum combined balance is $200,000 to account for any adjustments that may be needed to the O&M balance at the end of the year. (c) Target minimum combined balance is $1,000,000. (d) Does not include expenses associated with facilities master plan to be completed in FY 2022 (e) All balances are cumulative. BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix 3: Combined Tables 12-12 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Table C - 2 - Combined Operating Cash Flow S S 5 S S S Revenues 1 Revenues Under Existing Rates 45,648,500 45,980,000 46,560,700 47,151,900 47,754,500 48,369,000 Revenue Increases 2 3.0 % Increase Effective January 1, 2022 1,264,400 1,396,800 1,414,600 1,432,600 1,451,100 3 3.0 % Increase Effective January 1, 2023 0 1,318,900 1,457,000 1,475,600 1,494,600 4 3.0 % Increase Effective January 1, 2024 0 0 1,375,700 1,519,900 1,539,500 5 3.0 % Increase Effective January 1, 2025 0 0 0 1,435,000 1,585,700 6 3.0 % Increase Effective January 1, 2026 0 0 0 0 1,497,100 7 Total Revenue from Rates 45,648,500 47,244,400 49,276,400 51,399,200 53,617,600 55,937,000 8 Other Revenues (a) 1,127,800 1,362,100 1,370,500 1,379,200 1,388,200 1,397,800 9 Subtotal Revenues 46,776,300 48,606,500 50,646,900 52,778,400 55,005,800 57,334,800 Expenses 10 Operating Expenses 31,624,400 32,655,200 33,720,400 34,821,100 35,959,200 37,135,100 11 Bad Debt 228,200 236,200 246,400 257,000 268,100 279,700 12 PILOT 1,940,000 2,007,900 2,094,300 2,184,400 2,278,700 2,377,300 13 SDWF-Reimbursement to ADPH 230,000 233,800 237,800 241,800 245,900 250,200 14 Debt Service 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 Total Expenses 34,022,600 35,133,100 36,298,900 37,504,300 38,751,900 40,042,300 16 Transfers Transfer to Shop Fund 66,000 0 0 0 0 0 17 Transfer to Operating Reserve 254,200 262,600 271,500 280,600 289,900 299,700 18 Cash Financing of Capital 11,730,000 15,930,000 15,570,000 20,600,000 20,980,000 20,770,000 19 Transfer to/from Capital Reserve 700,000 -2,720,000 -1,490,000 -5,610,000 -5,020,000 -3,780,000 20 21 Total Transfers Fund Balance Beginning Balance 12,750,200 206,400 13,472,600 209,900 14,351,500 210,700 15,270,600 207,200 16,249,900 210,700 17,289,700 214,700 22 Annual Operating Balance 3,500 800 -3,500 3,500 4,000 2,800 23 Ending Fund Balance 209,900 210,700 207,200 210,700 214,700 217,500 Performance Metrics 24 Debt Service Coverage NA NA NA NA NA NA 25 O&M Reserve Balance (Days)(b) 0 90.00 0 90.00 90.00 90.00 ('j 90.00 ('j 90.00 (a) Includes interest income on operating fund balance. (b) Mininum requirement is 90 days of following year's Operating Expenses. BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix 3: Combined Tables 12-13 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I Water and Wastewater Comprehensive Rate Study Table C - 3 - Combined 2022 Bill Impact Line No. Meter Residential 1 Size 3/4 Monthly Usage 1,000 gal. 0.5 Existing Rates $ 31.78 Inside Propos-edW Rates $ 27.59 City Increase Decrease $ -4.19 / Increase Decrease -13.2% Existing Rates $ 36.93 Outside Proposed Rates $ 31.66 City Increase / Decrease $ -5.28 In Decrease -14.3% 2 3/4 2 39.41 37.91 -1.50 -3.8% 48.79 51.41 2.62 5.4% 3 3/4 4 59.69 53.83 -5.86 -9.8% 75.05 80.67 5.62 7.5% 4 3/4 8 100.25 85.67 -14.58 -14.5% 127.57 139.19 11.62 9.1% 5 3/4 10 120.53 101.59 -18.94 -15.7% 153.83 168.45 14.62 9.5% 6 3/4 15 171.23 150.69 -20.54 -12.0% 219.48 254.10 34.62 15.8% Non -Residential 7 3/4 10 103.65 116.44 12.79 12.3% 146.97 164.57 17.60 12.0% 8 3/4 20 183.15 208.74 25.59 14.0% 268.87 304.07 35.20 13.1% 9 1 50 429.42 493.39 63.97 14.9% 652.64 742.69 90.05 13.8% 10 1.5 100 848.11 977.64 129.53 15.3% 1,295.39 1,486.01 190.62 14.7% 11 2 500 3,973.34 4,691.06 717.72 18.1% 6,106.29 7,101.72 995.43 16.3% Industrial 12 2 100 789.04 964.34 175.30 22.2% 1,213.93 1,345.72 131.79 10.9% 13 2 1,000 7,485.04 8,956.34 1,471.30 19.7% 11,239.93 12,316.72 1,076.79 9.6% 14 4 1,500 11,333.78 13,612.84 2,279.06 20.1% 17,091.49 18,681.79 1,590.30 9.3% 15 6 5,000 37,547.56 44,981.93 7,434.37 19.8% 56,457.72 61,733.77 5,276.05 9.3% 16 6 10,000 1 74,747.56 89,381.93 14,634.37 19.6% 112,157.72 122,683.77 10,526.05 9.4% BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix 3: Combined Tables 12-14 n Associates Ltd. water resources I environmental consultants TOXICITY REDUCTION EVALUATION ACTIVITIES REPORT CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE WEST SIDE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OUTFALL 001 (AR0050288) THIRD QUARTER 2021 OCTOBER 19, 2021 TOXICITY REDUCTION EVALUATION ACTIVITIES REPORT CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE WEST SIDE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OUTFALL 001 (AR0050288) THIRD QUARTER 2021 Prepared for City of Fayetteville Water and Sewer Services 2435 South Industrial Drive Fayetteville, AR 72701 Prepared by FTN Associates, Ltd. 3 Innwood Circle, Suite 220 Little Rock, AR 72211 FTN No. R04370-2534-001 October 19, 2021 October 19, 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................1 2.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1 3.0 THE ACTIVITIES TO DATE.............................................................................................2 3.1 Effluent Screening — Pimephales promelas.............................................................2 3.2 Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing — Pimephales promelas.......................................2 4.0 CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................2 5.0 REFERENCES....................................................................................................................2 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Supporting Documentation LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of chronic toxicity screen testing, using Pimephales promelas, conducted on Outfall 001 sample since the initiation of the toxicity reductionevaluation................................................................................................ 3 Table 2. Summary of routine chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity testing, using Pimephales promelas, conducted on Outfall 001 samples since the initiation of the toxicity reduction evaluation......................................................... 3 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project organizational chart ................................................................................... 4 i October 19, 2021 1.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Since the initiation of the toxicity reduction evaluation (TRE), the following activities have been performed: • Conducted Pimephales promelas chronic screen testing on a single grab sample on four (4) occasions, and • Conducted P. promelas routine chronic whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing at Outfall 001 on one (1) occasion. Testing conducted to date by the designated toxicity testing laboratory for this TRE, i.e., Ramboll', has not identified samples with sufficient toxicity to P. promelas to justify follow-up toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) testing. 2.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Fayetteville has implemented a THE study for the West Side Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) following the THE requirements of NPDES Permit No. AR0050288. With two exceptions, the THE is being conducted according to the THE Action Plan submitted to the Arkansas Department of Energy and Environment, Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ) on April 6, 2021, and approved by DEQ on April 13, 2021. The fist exception is that the designated toxicity testing laboratory was changed from American Interplex Corporation to Ramboll following approval of the THE Action Plan. DEQ approved of the laboratory change via email correspondence on April 22, 2021. The second exception is that the West Side WWTP Laboratory & Industrial Pretreatment Director has changed. Figure 1 provides an updated project organizational chart. This document provides the results of THE activities performed to date, i.e., since April 13, 2021. 1 Ramboll, 201 Summit View Drive, Brentwood, TN 37027 October 19, 2021 3.0 THE ACTIVITIES TO DATE 3.1 Effluent Screening — Pimephales promelas Results of chronic screen tests, using 100% effluent only, conducted using P. promelas since the initiation of this THE are summarized in Table 1. The chronic screen tests conducted by Ramboll since the initiation of this THE showed no statistically significant lethal or sub -lethal effects to P. promelas. 3.2 Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing — Pimephales promelas Results of P. promelas WET testing conducted at Outfall 001 per US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2002) during the third quarter of 2021 are summarized in Table 2. WET testing conducted by Ramboll during the third quarter of 2021 showed no statistically significant lethal or sub -lethal effects to P. promelas. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS Testing conducted to date by the designated toxicity testing laboratory, i.e., Ramboll, has not identified samples with sufficient toxicity to P. promelas to justify follow-up TIE testing. THE activities will include continued screening and routine chronic WET testing of the effluent in an attempt to capture episodes of toxicity to P. promelas for further evaluation. 5.0 REFERENCES USEPA. 2002. Short-term methods for estimating the chronic toxicity of effluents and receiving waters to freshwater organisms. Fourth edition. EPA-821-R-02-013. Office of Water. Washington, DC. N Table 1. Summary of chronic toxicity screen testing, using Pimephales promelas, conducted on Outfall 001 sample since the initiation of the toxicity reduction evaluation. Pimephales promelas Chronic Screen Begin' End % Survival (N=40) Control 1 100% NOEC Average Dry Weight (mg/fish) Control 1 100% NOEC 05/17/21 05/25/21 97.5 97.5 100 0.3695 0.4407 100 06/22/21 06/29/21 95 95 100 0.4137 0.4530 100 08/17/21 08/24/21 100 100 100 0.5174 0.5253 100 09/14/21 09/21/21 95 100 100 0.2997 0.3099 100 1 — First day of test; 2 — Last day of test; NOEC — No observed effect concentration. Table 2. Summary of routine chronic whole effluent toxicity testing, using Pimephales promelas, conducted on Outfall 001 samples since the initiation of the toxicity reduction evaluation. % Effluent Percent Survival (N=40) Laboratory Ramboll Begin' 07/20/21 End 07/27/21 Control 92.5 32 97.5 42 97.5 56 100 74 100 100 97.5 NOEC 100 % Effluent Average Dry Weight (mg/fish) Laboratory Ramboll Begin' 07/20/21 End 07/27/21 Control 0.3235 32 0.3347 42 0.364 56 0.3362 74 0.3557 100 0.3437 NOEC 100 1 — First day of test; 2 — Last day of test; NOEC — No observed effect concentration. Monty Sedlak Jacolus West Side WVfTP THE Project Manager Donna McChristian Jacobs west Side WVVTP Laboratory & Industrial Pretreatment Director Jeremy Rigsby Nick Siriia FTN Associates_ Ltd. FTN Associates. Ltd. FTN TPE Project Manager FTN THE Prooct Engineer Richard Lockwood Pact Downey Rarnboll FTN Associates, Ltd. LaborntW Manager FTN THE Quality A550ance Manager Figure 1. Project organizational chart. il APPENDIX A Supporting Documentation Prepared for Jacobs: City of Fayetteville, AR Fayetteville, Arkansas Issuance Date August 2021 OUTFACE 001 TOXICITY TEST RESULTS - JULY PROJECT NUMBER: 1690022654 WATER Ramboll Test Log Number 21339 Page 1 of 35 WATER 169Ms. Donna McChristian Jacobs Engineering: City of Fayetteville WWTP 1400 N Fox Hunter Rd Fayetteville, AR 72701 CHRONIC TOXICITY TEST RESULTS - JULY RAMBOLL PROJECT NO. 1690022654 Dear Ms. McChristian: Ramboll conducted chronic (7-day) definitive (multi -dilution) whole effluent toxicity (WET) tests for the City of Fayetteville, AR West Side Wastewater Treatment Plant. The test was conducted according to requirements in Arkansas NPDES permit AR0050288. Composite samples of Outfall 001 effluent were collected on July 19, 21, and 23, 2021. The samples were received at Ramboll on July 20, 22, and 24, 2021, within the USEPA-required receipt temperature range of 0-6.0 °C. Test organisms utilized for the chronic toxicity tests were Pimephales promelas (fathead minnow) and the water flea Ceriodaphnia dubia (C. dubia). The tests were initiated upon receipt of the first sample. Test concentrations consisted of 32, 42, 56, 74, and 100 percent effluent and a laboratory moderately hard water. The test was conducted in accordance with Short -Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms, Fourth Edition (EPA-821-R-02-013). All controls met test acceptability criteria (TAC). The results of the chronic toxicity tests are as follows: TEST RESULTS FOR OUTFALL 001 EFFLUENT Permit Limits OL NOEC Value 100% (lethality) Fathead Minnow C. dubia 100% 100% NOEC Value 100% (sub -lethality) 100% 100% The results of the chronic tests with fathead minnow and C. dubia indicated No Observed Effect Concentration NOEC values for lethality of 100 percent effluent for both species. The sub -lethality NOEC values for both fathead minnow and C. dubia are also 100 percent effluent. These test results indicate no significant toxicity at the critical dilution (100 percent effluent) for both the fathead minnow and C. dubia. August 11, 2021 Ramboll 201 Summit View Dr. Ste 300 Brentwood, TN 37027 USA T +1 615 277 7570 F +1 615 377 4976 www.ramboll.com NELAP Accredited and Laboratory Certification in the following United States: AR (02-008-0), FL (E87896), IA (386), LA (02061), NC (003), OK (9973), SC (84015), TX (T104704410-11-2), VA (460171), WI (399050850), WV (351). Test Results contained in this report meet NELAP requirements. Ramboll Test Log Number 21339 Page 2 of 35 WATER The Coefficient of Variation (CV) values for fathead minnow survival in the control and critical dilution are 18 and 5.7 percent, respectively, and meet the CV limit of 40 percent for findings of no toxicity. The Coefficient of Variation (CV) values for fathead minnow growth in the control and critical dilution are 20 and 13 percent, respectively, and also meet the CV limit of 40 percent for findings of no toxicity. Test precision for growth results (as Percent Minimum Significant Difference, PMSD) value was 21 percent, which is within the USEPA PMSD bounds of 12 to 30 percent when alpha 0.05 is used for hypothesis testing. The effluent concentration - response curve is flat and not described in EPA 821-B-00-004 Method Guidance and Recommendations for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing. A flat response is indicative of a lack of toxicity. This test is considered valid for assessment of permit compliance. The monthly reference toxicant test also met all the test acceptability criteria. The Coefficient of Variation (CV) values for surviving C. dubia adult reproduction in the control and critical dilution are 25 and 19 percent, respectively, and meet the CV limit of 40 percent for findings of no toxicity. The PMSD value for reproduction results was 36 percent, which is within the USEPA PMSD bounds of 13 to 47 percent when alpha 0.05 is used for hypothesis testing. The effluent concentration -response curve is flat and not described in EPA 821-B-00-004. A flat response is indicative of a lack of toxicity. This test is considered valid for assessment of permit compliance. The monthly reference toxicant test also met all the test acceptability criteria. Copies of the laboratory bench sheets with statistical data are presented in Attachment 1. Chain -of -custody documentation, and reference toxicant data, are presented in Attachment 2. In order to meet the NELAP requirement for listing the total number of report pages; this report consists of 35 pages, including this cover letter, and attachment pages. If you have any questions, please contact Liza Heise at (615) 277-7517. Ramboll appreciates the opportunity to assist Jacobs and the City of Fayetteville with their testing needs. Yours sincerely - Liza Heise Robin L. Richards, REM Project Manager Principal Water Quality and Ecotoxicology Water Management and Planning D +1 615 2777517 D +1 703 5162431 Iheise@ramboll.com rrichards@rambolll.com cc Jeremy Rigsby (FTN) Ramboll Test Log Number 21339 Page 3 of 35 WATER Data Review Form Acute and Chronic WET Tests Ramboll The raw data (i.e., laboratory bench sheets) and data in the applicable summary sheets have been checked and found to be complete. Additionally, test conditions and control performance meet test acceptability criteria specified by the US Environmental Protection Agency and the certifying state authority for the tests conducted'. Robin L. Richards, REM Principal Water Management and Planning 1 Any data limitations regarding their applicability for determining NPDES permit compliance are discussed in the report cover letter. Ramboll Test Log Number 21339 Page 4 of 35 ATTACHMENT 1 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND RAW TEST DATA Ramboll Test Log Number 21339 Page 5 of 35 CETIS Analytical Report Report Date: 11 Aug-21 09:04 (p 1 of 4) Test Code/ID: 21339fm / 13-0200-7488 Fathead Minnow 7-d Larval Survival and Growth Test Ramboll Analysis ID: 01-2253-9284 Endpoint: 7d Survival Rate CETIS Version: CETISv1.9.4 Analyzed: 11 Aug-21 9:03 Analysis: Nonparametric-Control vs Treatments Status Level: 1 Batch ID: 00-8825-1364 Test Type: Growth -Survival (7d) Analyst: Start Date: 20 Jul-21 Protocol: EPA/821/R-02-013 (2002) Diluent: Soft Synthetic Water Ending Date: 27 Jul-21 Species: Pimephales promelas Brine: Not Applicable Test Length: 7d Oh Taxon: Actinopterygii Source: Environmental Consult & Te Age: Sample ID: 05-8275-4267 Code: 22BClFDB Project: WET Monthly Compliance Test (JUL) Sample Date: 19 Jul-21 Material: POTW Effluent Source: Discharge Monitoring Report Receipt Date: 20 Jul-21 CAS (PC): Station: Effluent Sample Age: 24h Client: City of Fayetteville Data Transform Alt Hyp NOEL LOEL TOEL TU PMSD Angular (Corrected) C > T 100 >100 n/a 1 10.75% Steel Many -One Rank Sum Test Control vs Conc-/. Test Stat Critical Ties DF P-Type P-Value Decision(a:5°lo) Lac `.Na:cr 32 28 16 1 8 Asymp 0.8627 Non -Significant Effect 42 28 16 1 8 Asymp 0.8627 Non -Significant Effect 56 30 16 1 8 Asymp 0.9446 Non -Significant Effect 74 30 16 1 8 Asymp 0.9446 Non -Significant Effect 100 28 16 1 8 Asymp 0.8627 Non -Significant Effect Test Acceptability Criteria TAC Limits Attribute Test Stat Lower Upper Overlap Decision Control Resp 0.925 0 8 >> Yes Passes Criteria ANOVA Table Source Sum Squares Mean Square DF F Stat P-Value Decision(a:5%) Between 0.031657 O-0063314 5 0.5742 0.7191 Non -Significant Effect Error 0.264624 0.011C26 24 Total 0.296281 29 Distributional Tests Attribute Test Test Stat Critical P-Value Decision(a:1%) Variances Bartlett Equality of Variance Test 237 15.09 1.7E-07 Unequal Variances Distribution Shapiro -Wilk W Normality Test 0.6891 0,9031 1.1E-06 Non -Normal Distribution 7d Survival Rate Summary Conc-% Code Count Mean 95% LCL 95% UCL Median Min Max Std Err CV% %Effect 0 L 5 0.9250 0.7168 1.0000 1.0000 0.6250 1.0000 00750 18.13% 0.00% 32 5 0.9750 0.9056 1.0000 1.0000 0.8750 10000 0.0250 5.73% -5.41% 42 5 0.9750 0.9056 1.0000 1.0000 0.8750 1.0000 0-0250 5.73% -5.41% 56 5 1.0000 1.0000 1,0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.00% -8.11% 74 5 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0-00% -8.11% 100 5 0.9750 0.9056 1.0000 1.0000 0,8750 1.0000 0.0250 5.73% -5.41% Angular (Corrected) Transformed Summary Conc-% Code Count Mean 95% LCL 95% UCL Median Min Max Std Err CV% %Effect 0 L 5 1.297 1.03 1.564 1,393 0.9117 1,393 0.09627 16.60% 0.00% 32 5 1.356 1.254 1.458 1.393 1.209 1.393 0.03673 6.06% -4.59% 42 5 1,356 1.254 1.458 1.393 1.209 1.393 0.03673 6.06% -4.59% 56 5 1.393 1.393 1.393 1.393 1.393 1.393 0 0.00% -7.42% 74 5 1.393 1.393 1.393 1.393 1.393 1.393 0 0.00% -7.42% 100 5 1.347 1.248 1.446 1.393 1.209 1.393 0.03557 5.91 % -185% 008-414-799-1 CETISTm v1.9.4.3 Analyst: QA: Ramboll Test Log Number 21339 Page 6 of 35 CETIS Analytical Report Report Date: 11 Aug-21 0904 (p 2 of 4) Test Code/ID: 21339fm / 13-0200-7488 Fathead Minnow 7-d Larval Survival and Growth Test Ramboll Analysis ID: 01-2253-9284 Endpoint: 7d Survival Rate CETIS Version: CETISv1.9.4 Analyzed: 11 Aug-21 9:03 Analysis: Nonparametric-Control vs Treatments Status Level 1 7d Survival Rate Detail Conc-% Code Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Rep 5 0 L 0.6250 1.0000 10000 1.0000 1 0000 32 0.8750 1.0000 1.0000 1 0000 1.0000 42 1.0000 1.0000 1,0000 1.0000 0.8750 56 1.0000 1 0000 1 0000 1.0000 1 0000 74 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1 0000 1.0000 100 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.8750 10000 Angular (Corrected) Transformed Detail Conc-% Code Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Rep 5 0 0.9117 1 393 1.393 1.393 1.393 32 1.209 1.393 1.393 1.393 1.393 42 1,393 1.393 1.393 1.393 1-209 56 1.393 1.393 1.393 1.393 1.393 74 1.393 1.393 1.393 1.393 1.393 100 1.393 1.393 1.393 1.209 1.345 7d Survival Rate Binomials Conc-% Code Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Rep 5 0 L 5/8 8/8 8/8 8/8 8/8 32 7/8 8/8 8/8 8/8 8/8 42 8/8 8/8 8/8 8/8 7/8 56 8/8 8/8 8/8 8/8 8/8 74 8/8 8/8 8/8 8/8 8/8 100 8/8 8/8 8/8 7/8 5/5 Graphics ON va �� n •n ae co en +a n �s �f 008-414-799-1 CETISM v1.9 4.3 Analyst-_QA: Ramboll Test Log Number 21339 Page 7 of 35 CETIS Analytical Report Report Date: 11 Aug-21 09 04 (p 3 of 4) Test Code/ID: 21339fm / 13-0200-7488 Fathead Minnow 7-d Larval Survival and Growth Test Ramboll Analysis ID: 04-0023-5012 Endpoint: Mean Dry Biomass -mg CETIS Version: CETIS0.9.4 Analyzed: 11 Aug-21 9 03 Analysis: Parametric -Control vs Treatments Status Level: 1 Batch ID: 00-8825-1364 Test Type: Growth -Survival (7d) Analyst: Start Date: 20 Jul-21 Protocol: EPA/821/R-02-013 (2002) Diluent: Soft Synthetic Water Ending Date: 27 Jul-21 Species: Pimephales promelas Brine: Not Applicable Test Length: 7d Oh Taxon: Actmopterygn Source: Environmental Consult 8 Te Age: Sample ID: 05-8275-4267 Code: 22BClFDB Project: WET Monthly Compliance Test (JUL) Sample Date: 19 Jul-21 Material: POTW Effluent Source: Discharge Monitoring Report Receipt Date: 20 Jul-21 CAS (PC): Station: Effluent Sample Age: 24h Client: City of Fayetteville Data Transform Alt Hyp NOEL LOEL TOEL TU PMSD Untransformed C > T 100 >100 n/a 1 21.07% Dunnett Multiple Comparison Test Control vs Conc-% Test Stat Critical MSD OF P-Type P-Value Decision(a:5%) Lab Water 32 -0.3896 2.362 0.068 8 CDF 0.9231 Non -Significant Effect 42 -1 403 2.362 0.068 8 CDF 0.9949 Non -Significant Effect 56 -0.4416 2.362 0.068 8 CDF 0.9315 Non -Significant Effect 74 -1 117 2.362 0.068 8 CDF 0.9880 Non -Significant Effect 100 -0 6982 2 362 0.068 8 CDF 0.9629 Non -Significant Effect Test Acceptability Criteria TAC Limits Attribute Test Stat Lower Upper Overlap Decision Control Resp 0.3235 0.25 >> Yes Passes Criteria ANOVA Table Source Sum Squares Mean Square DF F Stat P-Value Decision(o:5%) Between 0.0054896 0.0010979 5 0.5273 0.7533 Non -Significant Effect Error 0.0499728 0,0020822 24 Total 0.0554624 29 Distributional Tests Attribute Test Test Stat Critical P-Value Decision(o:1%) Variances Bartlett Equality of Variance Test 2.769 15.09 0.7355 Equal Variances Distribution Shapiro -Wilk W Normality Test 0.9855 09031 0.9455 Normal Distribution Mean Dry Biomass -mg Summary Conc-% Code Count Mean 95% LCL 95% UCL Median Min Max Std Err CV% %Effect 0 L 5 03235 0.2429 0.4042 0.3075 0.2388 0.4125 0.02905 20.08% 0.00% 32 5 03347 0.2911 0.3784 0.3225 02962 0.3862 0.01572 10,50% -3.48% 42 5 0.364 0.3258 0.4022 03737 O,3175 0.4 0.01375 8.44% -12.52% 56 5 0.3362 0.2879 0.3846 O 3325 0.2937 0.3913 0.01742 11.59% -3.94% 74 5 0.3557 0.2918 0.4197 0.3638 0.2787 0.42 0.02304 14.48% -9.97% 100 5 0.3437 0.2892 03981 0.3363 0.3 0 412 0.0196 12.76% -6.23% Mean Dry Biomass -mg Detail Conc-% Code Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Rep 5 0 L 0.2388 03025 0.3563 0.4125 0.3075 32 0.3163 0.3862 0.3525 0.2962 03225 42 0.3175 0.3737 0.375 0.3538 0.4 56 0.3075 0.3325 0.3562 0.3913 0.2937 74 0.3737 0.2787 0.3638 0.3425 042 100 0.3 0.3138 0.3562 0.3363 0.412 008-414-799-1 CETIS" vt 9.4.3 Analyst QA: Ramboll Test Log Number 21339 Page 8 of 35 CETIS Analytical Report Fathead Minnow 7-d Larval Survival and Growth Test Report Date: 11 Aug-21 09:04 (p 4 of 4) Test Code/ID: 21339fm / 13-0200-7488 Analysis ID: 04-0023-5012 Endpoint: Mean Dry Biomass -mg CETIS Version: CETISO 9.4 Analyzed: 11 Aug-21 9.03 Analysis: Parametric -Control vs Treatments Status Level: 1 Graphics i it fi �00 y{ Ramboll 2n .1 M/M `.21 008-414-799-1 CETIST"0 v1.9.4.3 Analyst: CIA: Ramboll Test Log Number 21339 Page 9 of 35 CETIS Analytical Report Report Date: 11 Aug-21 09:04 (p 1 of 1) Test Code/ID: 21339fm / 13-0200-7488 Fathead Minnow 7-d Larval Survival and Growth Test Ramboll Analysis ID: 08-3364-4842 Endpoint: Mean Dry Biomass -mg CETIS Version: CETISv1.9.4 Analyzed: 11 Aug-21 9:03 Analysis: Linear Interpolation (ICPIN) Status Level: 1 Batch ID: 00-6825-1364 Test Type: Growth -Survival (7d) Analyst: Start Date: 20 Jul-21 Protocol: EPA/821/R-02-013 (2002) Diluent: Soft Synthetic Water Ending Date: 27 Jul-21 Species: Pimephales promelas Brine: Not Applicable Test Length: 7d Oh Taxon: Actinopterygii Source: Environmental Consult & Te Age: Sample ID: 05-8275-4267 Code: 22BClFDB Project: WET Monthly Compliance Test (JUL) Sample Date: 19 Jul-21 Material: POTW Effluent Source: Discharge Monitoring Report Receipt Date: 20 Jul-21 CAS (PC): Station: Effluent Sample Age: 24h Client: City of Fayetteville Linear Interpolation Options X Transform Y Transform Seed Resamples Exp 95% CL Method Linear Linear 616925 1000 Yes Two -Point Interpolation Test Acceptability Criteria TAC Limits Attribute Test Stat Lower Upper Overlap Decision Control Resp 0.3235 0,25 >> Yes Passes Criteria Point Estimates Level % 95`/o LCL 95% UCL TU 95% LCL 95% UCL IC25 >1C0 n,!a n/a <1 n/a n/a Mean Dry Biomass -mg Summary Calculated Variate Isotonic Variate Conc-% Code Count Mean Min Max Std Dev CV% %Effect Mean %Effect 0 L 5 0.3235 0.2388 0.4125 0.06495 20.08% 0.0% 0,343 0.0% 32 5 0.3347 0.2962 0-3862 0.03515 10,50% -3.48% 0.343 010% 42 5 0.364 0.3175 0.4 0.03074 8.44%-12,52% 0.343 0,0% 56 5 0.3362 0.2937 0.3913 0.03896 11.59% -3,94% 0.343 0.0% 74 5 0.3557 0.2787 0.42 0.05153 14.48% -9.97% 0.343 0.0% 100 5 0.3437 0.3 0.412 0.04383 12.76% -6.23% 0.343 0.0% Mean Dry Biomass -mg Detail Conc-°o Code Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Rep 5 0 1 0.2388 0.3025 0,3563 0.4125 0.3075 32 0.3163 0.3862 0.3525 0,2962 0.3225 42 0.3175 0.3737 0.375 0.3538 0-4 56 0,3075 0.3325 0.3562 0.3913 0-2937 74 0-3737 0.2787 0.3638 0.3425 0.42 100 0.3 0.3138 0.3562 0.3363 0.412 Graphics 008-414-799-1 CETIS' v1,9.4.3 Analyst: CIA: Ramboll Test Log Number 21339 Page 10 of 35 RAMBOLL FATHEAD MINNOW SURVIVAL AND GROWTH 7-DAY CHRONIC TOXICITY TEST EPA-821-R-02-013 Method 1000.0 TEST LOG NO. JOBNUMBER, �In9J11��(oSN INDUSTRY: City of Fayetteville EFFLUENT 4b C"r C)0 DILUTION WATER `Mod Hard_ NPDES: Yes X No FOOD BATCH t "rytyl BEGINNING: HRS-. DATE: ENDING- HRS U DATE - TEST DILUTIONS 32. 42. 56. 74, i00' ORGANISM AGE (sate) ORGANISM SOURCE C 1 SOURCE TEMP @ TEST START RANDOMIZED BY _ LM r�R I PHOTOPERIOD: 16 hr Iight/B hr dark rLi FEEDING REGIME- 0.15 mL Artemia @ 2 times/day TEST VESSEL CAPACITY: 450 mL IO TEST SOLUTION VOLUME: 250 - 300 mL LO NO. ORGANISMS/TREATMENT:8 NO, REPLICATES: 5 "'E=t'�1��i��FZ4�►®��F! - • • • - ���'���Y6+a7��.i�YI�CE�rSr,L•��'�!G�i�l�i71�� lL��7� WW S per Ramboll Test Log Num\E�)ISx VO\LABFORMS',MASTERLISTpJ 6� ejTo"§heets\CO FayettviIIeVDCHRONICfm.xls RAMBOLL FATHEAD MINNOW SURVIVAL AND GROWTH 7-DAY CHRONIC TOXICITY TEST EPA-821-R-02-013 Method 1000.0 TEST LOG NO.: BEGINNING: HRS: DATE: PHOTOPERIOD: 16 hr light JOB NUMBER,: ENDING: HRS: �OJ DATE: `� FEEDING REGIME: CLIENT: _Fayetteville TEST DILUTIONS: 32, 42, 56, 80, 100% 0.15 mL Artemia @ 2 times/day EFFLUENT: TEST SOLUTION VOLUME. 250 - 300 mL TEST VESSEL CAPACITY: 450 mL NPDES: Yes X No NO. ORGAN ISMS/TREATMENT: 8 TEST SOLUTION VOLUME: 250 mL NO. REPLICATES: 5 L:\Ecotox Lab\LABFORMS\MASTERL IST11\Client Test Sheets\CO Fayettville\7DCHRONICfm.xls Ramboll Test Log Number 21339 Page 12 of 35 o'r O c z d u N m c � � U S i � •r�rt5� E u w 0 E a u 0 U id E E t t p C x E ° a m Ramboll Test Log Number 21339 Page 13 of 3`. �1 CO w IL O w a 0 O U u_ � O W QJ � d' Q) O LL (O � LL W a w a } z ~ w_ V' J w U 1- O z 0 O O J z wCO O z 4 z I"f ch v, O y O M d . �) 9 U r o V r+ � u � E cc A � LO U) � — c W m 3 m E 0 Z E L :$. M `'I �� O �n Z _J w O J J LL # LL t w u w U � Z o m m Cif L � ° r r s- l�1� � T � v v Ramboll Test Log Number 21339 Page 14 of 35 CETIS Analytical Report Report Date: 11 Aug-21 08 14 (p 1 of 2) Test Code/ID: 21339cd / 08-2287-9798 Ceriodaphnia 7-d Survival and Reproduction Test Ramboll Analysis ID: 19-2082-1130 Endpoint: 7d Survival Rate CETIS Version: CETISv1 9.4 Analyzed: 11 Aug-21 8.12 Analysis: STP 2xK Contingency Tables Status Level: 1 Batch ID: 00-5563-6373 Test Type: Reproduction -Survival (7d) Analyst: Start Date: 20 Jul-21 Protocol: EPA/821/R-02-013 (2002) Diluent: Mod -Hard Synthetic Water Ending Date: 27 Jul-21 Species: Ceriodaphnia dubia Brine: Not Applicable Test Length: 7d Oh Taxon: Branchicpoda Source: In -House Culture Age: Sample ID: 11-2434-9316 Code: 43043584 Project: WET Monthly Compliance Test (JUL) Sample Date: 19 Jul-21 Material: POTW Effluent Source: Discharge Monitoring Report Receipt Date: 20 Jul-21 CAS (PC): Station: Effluent Sample Age: 24h Client: City of Fayetteville Data Transform Alt Hyp NOEL LOEL TOEL TU Untransformed C > T 100 >100 n/a 1 Fisher ExacUBonferroni-Holm Test Control vs Group Test Stat P-Type P-Value Decision(o:5%) Lab Water 32 05000 Exact 1 0000 Non -Significant Effect 42 1.0000 Exact 1 0000 Non -Significant Effect 56 1.0000 Exact 1.0000 Non -Significant Effect 74 1.0000 Exact 1.0000 Non -Significant Effect 100 1 0000 Exact 1 0000 Non -Significant Effect Test Acceptability Criteria TAC Limits Attribute Test Stat Lower Upper Overlap Decision Control Resp 1 0.8 >> Yes Passes Criteria Data Summary Conc-% Code NR R NR + R Prop NR Prop R %Effect 0 L 10 0 10 1 0 0.0% 32 9 1 10 0.9 0.1 10.0% 42 10 0 10 1 0 0.0% 56 10 0 10 1 0 0.0% 74 10 0 10 1 0 0.0% 100 10 0 10 1 0 0.0% 7d Survival Rate Detail Conc-% Code Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Rep 5 Rep 6 Rep 7 Rep 8 Rep 9 Rep 10 0 L 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 32 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 42 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1 0000 1.0000 1.0000 1 0000 1.0000 56 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1. 0000 1. 0000 1 0000 74 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1,0000 1. 0000 1. 0000 100 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1. 0000 1.0000 1 0000 7d Survival Rate Binomials Conc-% Code Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Rep 5 Rep 6 Rep 7 Rep 8 Rep 9 Rep 10 0 L 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 32 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 0/1 1/1 42 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 56 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 74 100 1/1 1/1 1/1 111 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 008-414-799-1 CETIS"' v1 9 4 3 Analyst QA. Ramboll Test Log Number 21339 Page 15 of 35 CETIS Analytical Report Report Date: 11 Aug-21 08:14 (p 2 of 2) Test Code/ID: 21339cd / 08-2287-9798 Ceriodaphnia 7-d Survival and Reproduction Test Ramboll Analysis ID: 19-2082-1130 Endpoint: 7d Survival Rate CETIS Version: CETISv1.9 4 Analyzed: 11 Aug-21 8 12 Analysis: STP 2xK Contingency Tables Status Level: 1 Graphics � a s a, no Owl 008-414-799-1 CETIS-" v1.9.4,3 Analyst Ramboll Test Log Number 21339 Page 16 of 35 QA: CETIS Analytical Report Report Date: 1^, Aug-21 08 14 (p 1 of 2) Test Code/ID: 21339cd / 08-2287-9798 Ceriodaphnia 7-d Survival and Reproduction Test Ramboll Analysis ID: 18-2186-2608 Endpoint: Reproduction CETIS Version: CETIS0.9.4 Analyzed: 11 Aug-21 8 12 Analysis: Nonparametric-Control vs Treatments Status Level: 1 Batch ID: 00-5563-6373 Test Type: Reproduction -Survival (7d) Analyst: Start Date: 20 Jul-21 Protocol: EPA/821/R-02-013 (2002) Diluent: Mod -Hard Synthetic Water Ending Date: 27 Jul-21 Species: Ceriodaphnia dubia Brine: Not Applicable Test Length: 7d Oh Taxon: Branchiopoda Source: In -House Culture Age: Sample ID: 11-2434-9316 Code: 43043584 Project: WET Monthly Compliance Test (JUL) Sample Date: 19 Jul-21 Material: POTW Effluent Source: Discharge Monitoring Report Receipt Date: 20 Jul-21 CAS (PC): Station: Effluent Sample Age: 24h Client: City of Fayetteville Data Transform Alt Hyp NOEL LOEL TOEL TU PMSD Untransformed C > T 100 >100 n/a 1 35.791/ Steel Many -One Rank Sum Test Control vs Conc-% Test Stat Critical Ties DF P-Type P-Value Decision(o:5%) Lab Water 32 124.5 75 1 18 Asymp 0.9970 Non -Significant Effect 42 132.5 75 1 18 Asymp 09998 Non -Significant Effect 56 124 75 1 18 Asymp 09966 Non -Significant Effect 74 133 75 2 18 Asymp 0.9998 Non -Significant Effect 100 128 75 4 18 Asymp 0.9989 Non -Significant Effect Test Acceptability Criteria TAC Limits Attribute Test Stat Lower Upper Overlap Decision Control Resp 27.8 15 >> Yes Passes Criteria ANOVA Table Source Sum Squares Mean Square DF F Stat P-Value Decision(a:5%) Between 472.8 94.56 5 tC01 0.4262 Non -Significant Effect Error 5101.8 94,4778 54 Total 5574.6 59 Distributional Tests Attribute Test Test Stat Critical P-Value Decision(a:1%) Variances Bartlett Equality of Variance Test 13 15.09 0.0234 Equal Variances Distribution Shapiro -Wilk W Normality Test 0.914 0.9459 4 4E-04 Non -Normal Distribution Reproduction Summary Conc-% Code Count Mean 95% LCL 95% UCL Median Min Max Std Err CV% %Effect 0 L 10 27.8 22.87 32 73 31.5 17 35 2.18 24.79% 0.00% 32 10 30 22.64 37.36 34 4 38 3.252 34.28% -7.91 % 42 10 33 28.06 37.94 35 19 41 2.186 20.95% -18.71% 56 10 28.2 16.6 39.8 35.5 1 45 5.127 57.49% -1.44% 74 10 35.3 29.59 41.01 37.5 21 45 2 526 22.63% -26.98% 100 10 33.5 29.02 37.98 33 21 46 1.979 18.68% -20 50% Reproduction Detail Conc-% Code Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Rep 5 Rep 6 Rep 7 Rep 8 Rep 9 Rep 10 0 L 17 33 18 25 33 21 33 35 31 32 32 37 23 34 34 27 36 36 31 4 38 42 34 38 36 36 25 39 19 28 34 41 56 9 45 35 36 6 35 37 1 36 42 74 29 37 45 38 26 38 21 33 41 45 100 36 33 33 30 46 21 37 31 35 33 008-414-799-1 CETIS'" v1.9.4 3 Analyst CA Ramboll Test Log Number 21339 Page 17 of 35 CETIS Analytical Report Report Date: 11 Aug-21 08:14 (p 2 of 2) Test Code/ID: 21339cd / 08-2287-9798 Ceriodaphnia 7-d Survival and Reproduction Test Ramboll Analysis ID: 18-2186-2608 Endpoint: Reproduction CETIS Version: CETISv1.9.4 Analyzed: 11 Aug-21 8 12 Analysis: Nonparametric-Control vs Treatments Status Level: 1 Graphics i ff.. p 1 J [�neA 0 ep m 0 pP 0 • JI ae •� �l0 as x �a �n la 008-414-799-1 I ge 18 TM of 3,4.3 Analyst: QA: Ramboll Test Log Number 21339 CETIS Analytical Report Report Date: 11 Aug-21 08:14 (p 1 of 1) Test Code/ID: 21339cd / 08-2287-9798 Ceriodaphnia 7•d Survival and Reproduction Test Ramboll Analysis ID: 03-3669-1812 Endpoint: Reproduction CETIS Version: CETISv1.9.4 Analyzed: 11 Aug-21 8:12 Analysis: Linear Interpolation (ICPIN) Status Level: 1 Batch ID: 00-5563-6373 Test Type: Reproduction -Survival (7d) Analyst: Start Date: 20 Jul-21 Protocol: EPA/821/R-02-013 (2002) Diluent: Mod -Hard Synthetic Water Ending Date: 27 Jul-21 Species: Ceriodaphnia dubia Brine: Not Applicable Test Length: 7d Oh Taxon: Branchiopoda Source: In -House Culture Age: Sample ID: 11-2434-9316 Code: 43043584 Project: WET Monthly Compliance Test (JUL) Sample Date: 19 Jul-21 Material: POTW Effluent Source: Discharge Monitoring Report Receipt Date: 20 Jul-21 CAS (PC): Station: Effluent Sample Age: 24h Client: City of Fayetteville Linear Interpolation Options X Transform Y Transform Seed Resamples Exp 95% CL Method Linear Linear 791113 1000 Yes Two -Point Interpolation Test Acceptability Criteria TAC Limits Attribute Test Stat Lower Upper Overlap Decision Control Resp 27.8 15 Yes Passes Criteria Point Estimates Level % 95% LCL 95% UCL TU 95% LCL 95% UCL IC25 >10C n/a r/a <1 n/a n/a Reproduction Summary Calculated Variate Isotonic Variate Conc-% Code Count Mean Min Max Std Dev CV% %Effect Mean %Effect 0 t 111 27.8 17 35 6.893 24.79% 0.0% 31,3 0.0% 32 13 30 4 38 10.28 34.28% -7.91 % 31.3 0.0% 42 10 33 19 41 6.912 20.95%-18.71% 31.3 0.0% 56 10 28.2 1 45 16.21 57.49% -1-44% 31.3 0.0% 74 10 35,3 21 45 7.987 22.63%-26.98% 31.3 0.0% 100 10 33.5 21 46 6.258 18.68% -20.5% 31.3 0.0% Reproduction Detail Conc-% Code Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Rep 5 Rep 6 Rep 7 Rep 8 Rep 9 Rep 10 0 L 17 33 18 25 33 21 33 35 31 32 32 37 23 34 34 27 36 36 31 4 38 42 34 38 36 36 25 39 19 28 34 41 56 9 45 35 36 6 35 37 1 36 42 74 29 37 45 38 26 38 21 33 41 45 100 36 33 33 30 46 21 37 31 35 33 Graphics 008-414-799-1 CETIS'v1.9.4.3 Analyst: QA Ramboll Test Log Number 21339 Page 19 of 35 RAMBOLL CERIODAPHNIA DUBIA SURVIVAL AND REPRODUCTION 3-BROOD CHRONIC TOXICITY TEST EPA-821-R-02-013 Method 1002.0 TEST LOG NO. PHOTOPERIOD: 16 hr Iight/8 hr dark JOB NUMBER 7 FEEDING REGIME: 0.1 mL YCT / 0.1 mL R. subcapitata per 15 mL INDUSTRY City of Fayetteville TEST VESSEL CAPACITY: 30 mL EFFLUENT i A csl S'A0, C D n TEST SOLUTION VOLUME: 15 mL DILUTION WATER. Mod Hard NO. ORGANISMS/REPLICATE: 1 NPDES (Y/N) : NO. REPLICATES: 10 ORGANISM SOURCE INFORMATION: AGE (date): 10, TEMP/THERM @ TEST START: �•� / Qj & N RANDOMIZED BY TEST START: HOURS _L TEST END: HOURS ` vi DATE 'I DATE: l 1 a U SOURCE ID AGE (time): LAN (R C; lq�,S SURVIVAL AND REPRODUCTION DATA THERM ft Test Start 8 Daily Renewal Control REPLICATES Notes Feeding/ End S Feeding Mod Hard (A Temp (°C) 1 2 3 4 QQ 5 1� 6 1 Li 7 8 9 10 Initials/ Time Initials/ Time Date °0 ✓ / / / / / � aI aL�.C� b °; y Day Ili J a�'� �•� °3y ✓ ✓ ��3,1 `71a y ay.0 ay °4y iS ✓ �/ Day 1� °sy ,/ ✓ 1 1 �1 ✓ �� 9� I i tva Day 7 Day 8 Total j ✓ = Test Organism Alive D = Test Organism Dead 0 - Live neonates (-0) = Dead neonates +0 = Split brood Miss -- Lost or Missing M = Male 10 LiE cotoxlab/Lab!ormsrToxTestSheets/7Dchron,cC D.doc Ramboll Test Log Number 21339 Page 20 of 35 i Page of _4_ TEST LOG # a�37� CLIENT/SAMPLE ID City of Fayetteville JOB #_? LAB/STATE: RAMBOLL/ TN SURVIVAL AND REPRODUCTION DATA Test Start & Daily Renewal Concentration REPLICATES Notes Feeding) / End & Feeding 32% Initials/ Time Initials/ Time Date Temp (°C) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Adult A�� L 1 �� r DaUA y ,� ✓ / l b'ILi �� 1 °1 y ✓ I Day y a °3y 7 ✓ ✓ �/ °5y t 17 l 1 1 1''1 °6y 00 IU Day 7 Day 8 Total %�` 1 �� �y (r' �;l<� �2)(v>��i ZZq J() 2 SURVIVIAL AND REPRODUCTION DATA Test Start & Daily Renewal Concentration REPLICATES Feedingl & 42% Notes / End Feeding Temp (°C) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Initials/ Time Initials/ Time Date °ay ay - L� Day 2 cm 1)) °3y Day �� J/ q 1 J V ' a S� Day 1 1 I 1 ✓ ✓1 I'7 I �.� Day 7 Day 8 Total t j—t 1 c� . J C) I l� I` d J q I q l � 3 2 S JL ✓ = Test Organism Alive D = Test Organism Dead 0 = Live neonates (-0) = Dead neonates +0 = Split brood Miss = Lost or Missing M = Male LIE cOtoxiaWi-SWO ms/ToxTestSheets/7Dchrorn cCD, doc Ramboll Test Log Number 21339 Page 21 of 35 Page ;L of-4 L TEST LOG # C) JOB # ;?;76 S CLIENT/SAMPLE ID: City of. Fayetteville LAB/STATE: RAMBOLL / TN SURVIVAL AND REPRODUCTION DATA Test Start & Daily Renewal Concentration REPLICATES Notes Feeding) / End & Feeding 56% Initials/ Time Initials/ Time Date Temp (`C) 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 9 10 Adult AUSt r Day T3 Day ✓ ✓ / / / 4- Day 13 a °3 y ( / ✓ L{7 °4 y °5y I �-► 7I ye a °6y ✓ Pil iLo I q C1 i Day 7 Day 8 Total SURVIVIAL AND REPRODUCTION DATA Test Start& Daily Renewal Concentration REPLICATES Feeding) & 74% Notes / End Feeding Initials/ Time Initials/ Time Date Temp (°C) 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 9 10 J1 V l S Day /A/ % Day v';L-f . Day (� Gl Z3 ��•.0 Day 1/ L Day v' i ✓ J V °5y 1 l I i l V i lag-D- °6 �� as a ✓ l aa Day 7 Day 8 Total ✓ = Test Organism Alive D = Test Organism Dead 0 = Live neonates +0 = Split brood Miss -- Lost or Missing (-0) = Dead neonates M = Male UEcotexlab/Labforms/TOXTeslSheelsi7Drhronl cCD.boc Ramboll Test Log Number 21339 Page 3 of `4 Page 22 of 35 CN TEST LOG # I CLIENT/SAMPLE ID Cily of Fayetteville JOB # �.12 sq LAB/STATE RAMBOLL / TN SURVIVAL AND REPRODUCTION DATA Test Start & Daily Renewal Concentration REPLICATES Notes Feeding) / End & Feeding j ��% Initials/ Time Initials/ Timc Date Temp (°C) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Adult Day Day Day / l 1nk4CA o�i1 Day 3 �P 1� l ✓ `�_. i 1 f h t7 1 ��7 L °4 yiJ t�`y ,( °5y Lj ,ILL, °6y i "7 JD ✓ as MCA Day 7 Day 8 Total SURVIVIAL AND REPRODUCTION DATA Test Daily Start & Renewal Concentration REPLICATES Feedingl & Notes / End Feeding Initials/ Initials/ Date Temp (°C) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 Time Time Day 0 Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Day 8 Total ✓ = Test Organism Alive D = Test Organism Dead u[cotox ab',abtoonsf7oxTestSheets77DchronicCD.doc 0 = Live neonates (-0) = Dead neonates +0 = Split brood Miss = Lost or Missing M = Male Page � of _4 Ramboll Test Log Number 21339 Page 23 of 35 r,T � lv Ct [4 I �• I� T•J��I � •Y I� fs ;f +� � ,e `r � fir ,e `r � fir � fir gC+K„fife: I's � S �l lro Ramboll Test Log Number 21339 Page 24 of 35 ATTACHMENT 2 CHAIN -OF -CUSTODY FORMS AND REFERENCE TOXICANT DATA Ramboll Test Log Number 21339 Page 25 of 35 Sample Receipt Checklist: Client: Date/Time received 0�35 by c1,ee 1. Cooler sealed and intact upon arrival? No 2. Custody seals present? No 3. Samples received below 6 degrees Celsius? 04s No 4. Was ice present? Less No 5. Is the COC filled out correctly including the sample date/time and signed? te� No 6. Was the sample received within 36 hours of collection? yes No 7. Did the sample(s) arrive in good condition? YQ No 8. Was pH and DO measured and in range? res No 9. Was residual chlorine present? Yesb 1.0 mg/L? (did dechlor occur) Yes Comments: Therm 4 131�? y Batch # Sample ID Temp (C°) pH (s.u.) DO (mg/L) TRC (mg/L) a��►� w oo c ITS I Sample Receipt Checklist 1 of 1 LTH SRCO2 0721 Ramboll Test Log Number 21339 Page 26 of 35 -� -- O \�LO/ E k c § E K O 9 2 J/-JfLO = e r Q CD_ L 2 ± t@ y 0 f o 2 & ;a§jO &S@i §$ee w®mg / msa I pmg snonulu O k eq p euqctepqueo muo GJ ƒ moum�peame]mu@QD y § 2mdmQLldeemnov 5 < mq@muLjdep)aJmnov 2 @wsugauueg $noV mou@ u peace] end eel G aumoa rQl z o • 7 / 2 7 u \ �� � \ m E al / w 3 / E ) \ k / z ~ � [ f { 2 ± R \ \ ) ± / / @ >- g x ƒ / c 0 \ ® ƒ ± / \ 03 ._ ._. 3 E ~ LU \ CL \ / [ < z \ ( u U- c G \E / \ / % \ / R \ / $ 0 a U) / ¢ -D \ \ / \ < 5 5 OL \ s U O E 3 ƒ£ a § \ E ° E0 \ E f / /� )_ § 0 E \ ) @ 3 e j ■� § � �x 2 ) $ kG §� 2/ f � CL { ,£ = E i3 f 0 \ � - / .. _ ; ƒ` Lk \ .00 D LL £ . ] c a # y ` \ � f 0 ® $ / E } } k 2 § V) � § m E g k E O � & ) � k � / § LD § 3 CL \ CL k \ ' . 'm f 0 Q / ® / / ® 2 _ 7 £ E M / / } / ƒ ) 0 mWllTest Log Number 21339 Page 27 of 35 Sample Receipt Checklist: Client:_[ Date/Time received �2:2� ?_ i ��\� by� 1. Cooler sealed and intact upon arrival? Yes No 2. Custody seals present? Yes 3. Samples received below 6 degrees Celsius? t No 4. Was ice present? No 5. Is the COC filled out correctly including the sample date/time and signed? Yes No 6. Was the sample received within 36 hours of collection?(tes No 7. Did the sample(s) arrive in good condition? No 8. Was pH and DO measured and in range? Vy No 9. Was residual chlorine present? No y 1.0 mg/L? (did dechlor occur) Yes Comments: Therm # ) —4CAq Batch # Sample ID Temp (C°) pH (s.u.) DO (mg/L) TRC (mg/L) Li Sample Receipt Checklist 1 of 1 LTH_SRCO2 0721 Ramboll Test Log Number 21339 Page 28 of 35 @ 2/\R\— - -- LL o VO E G ) _ $ E 2 o ^�` M/-if�-l0 §/, � n � 2 2 \ / � � (D k / � \ 0 a •( . k u z 2q0 mSai U mGmee g / &sa Ipmeg Snonmwoo k @q p RuLldepqueo $22Q0 ~ E « mouum p a$� Guggg . x f xma@udOOnv 221 ƒ « mq p @u d pquej mn « � 2 mQs uQeuueg mnoV foumu Pe me] mno v EAlgaugo3lmO-L z o • E < ' / W ( M � � \ mf - ❑ ~k Er4 ƒ / m 2k k \ o / 0 o g k I z g lz 3 C) � e _ z [ _ Z 2 { p - t a_ / j S \ E kk\ k LLo 0 e L �O \. ƒ O/ / \ \ / � \ \ 2 / u 1 I \ / b / R f o O / « 7 q ® R ? \ ® 2 \ ) \ / a 2 7 3f e m 2 / \ / \ / \ \ ® 2 E / / Ic 0 CL / Cl M \ 13 r U@ m } $ / ! J - } \ � m=aJ ❑ ��..� 0 ( � J � s & 7\\ C (/ � CD M 22 #� ~ } c f 2 ( \ \ � ) c / k @LM q # }� � § 2 � E \ \ cn k Cl) 6 & & E \ / / @ k / $ { 0 0 2 \ 3 a e e \ c p # 7 7 \ f no f \ - J c c c 2 RamWllTest Log Number 2ag Page 29yS Sample Receipt Checklist: Client: p Date/Time received by 1. Cooler sealed and intact upon arrival? CYe No 2. Custody seals present? Yes N�o 3. Samples received below 6 degrees Celsius? Q� No 4. Was ice present? jej No 5. Is the COC filled out correctly including the sample date/time and signed? No 6. Was the sample received within 36 hours of collection? re No 7. Did the sample(s) arrive in good condition? es 1 No 8. Was pH and DO measured and in range? Ye No 9. Was residual chlorine present? Yes No ➢ 1.0 mg/L? (did dechlor occur) Yes Na Comments: Therm # S--4qlq Batch # Sample ID Temp (C°) pH (s.u.) DO (mg/L) TRC (mg/L) Sample Receipt Checklist IofI Ramboll Test Log Number 21339 Page 30 of 35 LTH SRCO2_0721 9 o 0- - r E \� c (u/ E 2 6 �D�fLO � �: 2 = U e r CIA CD \ a) $ ƒ / \ $ c $ — JaQlO %SGi pmmmee g \ msa ple SnonmWog / @q p maR (lag 7uggg x I Mouuu p aGe]>u2Q) � � x x ma @uy ee mnoV \ > < mqnp@uqdepRegmnov 2mgs u Q@uueq mnoV moumu pee me] mnoV Ea;IRau@oalm0-L z o • E / 0 / 7 ( k/ m E ¥ \ / g CO k \ d / o 9 kz~ I a-3 $ f f z ± 3 c \ k D / ± \ / Q x < ® E E g » L k LL § # /� z / _\ � O $ & m / M w ■ a \ ^ \ < f 2 E 7 ) o / y a 0) \ / U / / \ u / Z a \ \ 6 7 co t \ 0 cu \ kL c 72 Ln y e M &--I 0 E \ � I / o q (n co 3 . �^ \� . \ % CO �I§ a ,ƒ k W » ) , /� .{ \ .00 66 { \ R ( § e mWllTe 4 Log Number 21339 Page 31 of 35 r N O N O N O N U M z w H O z z U� X 0 Oa P W U Q Z LL w w w LL LU fw z U O W O OV) O O� 00 OD 00 OU� Lc N O r` Lr N O r` l') (V ' CV N CN . . - (-1/6w) NOliVNIN30NOO IOBN 5ZOI N O N M co J Ramboll Test Log Number 21339 Page 32 of 35 N C. N C C O U o n VV00 000M00 O > .-- rr—r--NNNNNNNNN---- U O W N O (0 M l0 V (O N N (D n M O M V N W W N N V M M 00 M N (p O N V M N V O O N _ p cpnn0o (Dn(D (pnnn(pnnnn 00 ao Go N N W o OD (D00 (p n (p M M n w (0 M (p N O 00 M N+ Y N O N(0 �00 O O n M N 0) N r Cl) 0M0) 001, n (0 (D l0 IQ (D M OQ 00 n 00 00 00 M 0D I, n n n F r r r r r r r r r r r r r- r r r r r N W M ON(OW n_M MNWOMWOO V 0N(O UC) — E n0 00M MM(DN nnO(O In V V M N N N r N N M N N N N N N N N N N N N W > V) Q Z n O (0 CD 0W O N LO CO n n M M N _J N Q U J w M —��E n V V (p(0V MMW(A nn wMO O O _ .- N N r r N N N N N N N N N N M M M rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr -rr D U N N M 0M N N M V n M V (O V r M M (D N N N= J 00 n 00 N a0 N 00 V N N 00 M r V N 0 N (D (V J Q/ M M O V r 0D N OO N V N (0 M l0 M cl V V M M U;E rrrr rrrrrr ���rrrr 00 r 00 (D N n (O 0 O N r N n M 0 O r N N O O w N O 6M(0 r(0 M M n w w V 6W L00N r N r N r r N r r r r r r N N N r r r N a U 0 0 0 Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O OOOOO(O 0l0 OOOO LO OOOOOO(O J W (OO(0(O(0 n Ln n(0(0 L010 n O(O(n L0(0(0N MOE r M r r r - r r r r M r r r J O 0 0 0 0 �000 O O O O(O O O O O O O LO N0 U J W a (0 O (O (0 0 n 0n 0(0 0 (0 n O (0 (0 0 0 (0 n n(O n n n M n M n n n n M(0 n n n n nM O E r .z O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J J (0 0) (A O (0 O O O (0 C C (0 O O O (0 O (0 L0 QpE w CO rr—CO-MMMr M CO-MW0-Mrr >_ J > W :3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y U J W r- N n (00 N l00 (00 LQ N (00 (00 n (00 O O r- (00 O N N OE - r-r rr -�M -(o z E c � r G L M M LO M N W O M V M O 0 N O O V O M� ui U n M n 0 N M M n W O n M N O (0 Ln M r 0 3 ¢t N V CO P7 N V (`M n M M Cl? M M N M N M V c cm O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o E U O � ; LO 0 0 ONO 000 O N N O O 7 0 0) 0) � r r N V y ... ON) ON) ON ON)ON) C N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N U)— (D io N N a i.c ' o)aa« > b c� L M ¢ m> 0> u t5 M a m>> d A � =F d a� y o 0 m 0 ur: Q �� -? fn Q Q Z 9 M LL C I�t OD 0- VO O O O CC r O O N 0 0 0 0 0 O O (D (O (D O M M r r N M M O n o (0 N C E _W (O N l0 M 00 00 N M M N 00 V O N M V NNMMMV v�(0nnnn00MOr rVN J z Z N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N `w y� D d E r N M r u� (D N W M O r N v�2 fD W M 0 F D r N z M E Ln N O J � O E t M 0 3 O M 2. O J 00 rn m E a� o Lo v m 22 M 2 f0 Q `o - >_ M O c Z O .2: M N C j 7 C M c W �00 0 c Z o O C L 00 oQ C CO M W J U Q H o tS o W H U J fO N7 O J W D W of N 2 z LO N y� O Cl Z-0 uJ u U O 0 L Q ND in WO=W m O 07 J ZJ~ Q E 0 0 W (fin E oSWwL) Z a Z -i Q :—� N N M ro Ramboll Test Log Number 21339 Page 33 of 35 r N O N 0) N U z N U H — ac La x� O C LU _ U 0. za W ,o W V LL W U z 2 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0o cD N � � Ramboll Test Log Number 21339 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14- N O 00 CD It N (l/6W) NOU"IN30NOO MeN SZO1 Page 34 of 35 C7 z Q U Si O W U z W w W W K U Z 0 2 U C C O v r O N . r N N r r M N N r r 0 0 0 O U O OW Q O) N M O M w w w N M M w Cn N N w O V CV 0 0 M d w M d w w N M d d 0 O CO t0 n w t0 w w to 10 0 Cn Un t0 w Cn N to Cn t0 H N W N N+ Q O N CO 00 w O w O d O d 0 w r` N 0)U N Q M M N c0 w N N O O 0) 0) M w w f` n w 1l tp n f� w w w CA M O O) w w w 0o OD 00 w c0 OD Ow F N �O W J N Q p) Lo f� N w 0 Cn w M M to M M w N w v E tomwwrnrnwwmwwwcot,f.r.rn W z NQQ. 0)MMhdnM(c0) co Nd tDdlnw03 U> E n n NCO n n n n U W ^ N M M CD O C0 M M 0 N O N Cn Cn )n O w O CO w OD M UQ E fN. nnmmw00 Mwr—Nw�nNNNw N?� — NCD to Cn N r w N N w w d w M O Ln w w W O OOj w M O V' LO d CD 66 MMd 7 60 M d r N r M r M r r N r r N r C O O 10 U` O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 C C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G J v r r r r r r 0' WO O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ZE LnLOIn0LOMLnNU)LnLnLOMinLO�MtoLO� () J O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W 01 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O E N N � A A A A A A A A N A N A A A A A A A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W O c) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c Z .-- N N N N N N .- N N N N N N N N N N d A O w N (A w w M C y a N N O t` N 0 Cn O N w d M g 0 M N w 0> O M M M N M M M M M M M M N N M M M N M M U Q c o r C V y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o w w o 0 0 0 o w m M o m 0) o 0 w 0) rn m 2' M O a >- C Z p Oo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ter.-�rr�r�r ref-r�rr�� U N c O rn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N1 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M V 73 G/ N N =Q 0) M 0) 7 D N 0 0) M N Q OOti��'�QtnQZO�ti�Q�� C Cj d d0 O O O O M O O r O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 01 D wNf� wMd iO CAwd N M w w O w LO N d.. p E J N t0 CO O M M f- w N f- N w d N N w d N N M M M d w 8f- I- w M O > Z _O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N v N D 0) E - NMdwwf,wCn Or .-NMI lnw�wCPO z 3 c c � O C j L1 u5 O o °D n m o > a 2 d o � CO � O � C > 2 v n N O CD c L o Q LU c LU C CO F U OC 0 o U UJ U W 0 0) W D Z a) 0 D Z D Q 0)0w D V% O (D Z o E J E U U 'c 000- z Z J . Ramboll Test Log Number 21339 Page 35 of 35 MEMO Project name Jacobs: City of Fayetteville, AR WET Testing Project no. 1690022654 Client Jacobs Engineering Group To Donna McChristian From Liza Heise Copy to John Byrd, Matt Benton (Jacobs) Jeremy Rigsby (FTN) Prepared by Liza Heise Checked by Richard Lockwood Approved by Robin Richards Results Summary: August 2021 7-Day Chronic Screening Toxicity Testing of City of Fayetteville, AR Samples Attached are the results of the chronic (7-day) screening (100% effluent) toxicity test performed with a sample from the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). This testing was conducted in support of a post toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) study. The TIE study was performed prior to Ramboll's involvement. A composite sample of West side GCO01 effluent was collected on August 16, 2021. The sample arrived the day following collection at a receipt temperature of 2.2 OC, which is within the U.S. EPA required sample receipt temperature range of 0.0 to 6.0 OC (see attached chain of custody). The test was initiated on August 17, 2021 within the 36-hr. holding time. The organism utilized for testing was Pimephales promelas (fathead minnow). With the exception of only utilizing a single sample for conducting the entire test, chronic toxicity test methods followed EPA-821-R-02-013, Short -Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms, Fourth Edition. The control met test acceptability criteria JAC). Test results are presented below: TOXICIY TEST RESULTS FOR GCO01 Percent Growth Sample Date Percent Mortality Reduction =Gh Control / 1000, (Increase) August 16, 2021 WATER September 3, 2021 Ramboll 201 Summit View Drive Suite 300 Brentwood, TN 37027 USA T +16152777570 F +16153774976 https://ramboll.com 1/2 Testing Results Discussion No significant 7-day mortality or growth effects demonstrating toxicity were observed for this test sample. Supporting WET chemistry parameters did not indicate any concerns. Test bench sheets, chains of custody, and reference toxicity data are attached. z/z CETIS Analytical Report Fathead Minnow 7-d Larval Survival and Growth Test Report Date: 02 Sep-21 11:13 (p 1 of 4) Test Code/ID: 21374fm / 07-1011-3724 Ramboll Analysis ID: 15-8372-8662 Endpoint: 7d Survival Rate CETIS Version: CETISv1 9 4 Analyzed: 02 Sep-21 11:12 Analysis: Nonparametric-Two Sample Status Level: 1 Batch ID: 05-2979-8693 Test Type: Growth -Survival (7d) Analyst: Start Date: 17 Aug-21 Protocol: EPA/821/R-02-013 (2002) Diluent: Mod -Hard Synthetic Water Ending Date: 24 Aug-21 Species: Pimephales promelas Brine: Not Applicable Test Length: 7d Oh Taxon: Actinopterygii Source: Environmental Consult & TeAge: Sample ID: 10-5699-3346 Code: 3FOO7042 Project: Toxicity Identification Evaluation Sample Date: 16 Aug-21 Material: POTW Effluent Source: TIE Receipt Date: 17 Aug-21 CAS (PC): Station: West Side GCO01 Sample Age: 24h Client: Jacobs: City of Fayetteville, AR Data Transform Alt Hyp Comparison Result PMSD Angular (Corrected) C > T 100% passed 7d survival rate 3 38% Wilcoxon Rank Sum Two -Sample Test Control vs Conc % Test Stat Critical Ties DF P-Type P-Value Decision(a:5%) Lab Water 100 27.5 n/a 1 8 Exact 1 0000 Non -Significant Effect Test Acceptability Criteria TAC Limits Attribute Test Stat Lower Upper Overlap Decision Control Resp 1 08 >> Yes Passes Criteria ANOVA Table Source Sum Squares Mean Square DF F Stat P-Value Decision(a:5%) Between 1.541E-05 1.541E-05 1 03466 Non -Significant Effect Error 0.0001233 1.541 E-05 8 Total 0,0001387 9 Distributional Tests Attribute Test Test Stat Critical P-Value Decision(a:1%) Variances Variance Ratio F Test 3 467E+11 23.15 <1.OE-37 Unequal Variances Distribution Shapiro -Wilk W Normality Test 0.6247 0.7411 1.1E-04 Non -Normal Distribution 7d Survival Rate Summary Conc-% Code Count Mean 95% LCL 95% UCL Median Min Max Std Err CV% %Effect 0 L 5 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 10000 1.0000 10000 0.0000 0.00% 0.00% 100 5 1 0000 1 0000 1.0000 1 0000 1.0000 1.0000 00000 0.00% 0.00% Angular (Corrected) Transformed Summary Conc-% Code Count Mean 95% LCL 95% UCL Median Min Max Std Err CV% %Effect 0 L 5 1391 1.384 1.397 1.393 1381 1.393 0.002481 0.40% 0.00% 100 5 1.393 1.393 1.393 1.393 1393 1393 0 0.00% -018% 7d Survival Rate Detail Conc-% Code Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Rep 5 0 L 1 0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 100 1.0000 1 0000 1.0000 1 0000 1.0000 Angular (Corrected) Transformed Detail Conc-% Code Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Rep 5 0 L 1 381 1.393 1.393 1.393 1.393 100 1.393 1 393 1.393 1.393 1.393 7d Survival Rate Binomials Conc-% Code Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Rep 5 0 L 7/7 8/8 8/8 8/8 8/8 100 8/8 8/8 8/8 818 8/8 008-414-799-1 CETISTM v1.9.4.3 Analyst. QA: CETIS Analytical Report Fathead Minnow 7-d Larval Survival and Growth Test Report Date: 02 Sep-21 11:13 (p 2 of 4) Test Code/ID: 21374fm / 07-1011-3724 Analysis ID: 15-8372-8662 Endpoint: 7d Survival Rate CETIS Version: CETISv1.9.4 Analyzed: 02 Sep-21 11:12 Analysis: Nonparametric-Two Sample Status Level: 1 Graphics Ramboll 08-414-799-1 CETISTM v1.9.4.3 Analyst: QA: CETIS Analytical Report Fathead Minnow 7-d Larval Survival and Growth Test Analysis ID: 15-6226-9475 Endpoint: Mean Dry Biomass -mg Analyzed: 02 Sep-21 11:12 Analysis: Parametric -Two Sample Batch ID: 05-2979-8693 Start Date: 17 Aug-21 Ending Date: 24 Aug-21 Test Length: 7d Oh Sample ID: 10-5699-3346 Sample Date: 16 Aug-21 Receipt Date: 17 Aug-21 Sample Age: 24h Data Transform Alt H Untransformed C > T Test Type: Growth -Survival (7d) Protocol: EPA/821/R-02-013 (2002) Species: Pimephales promelas Taxon: Actinopterygii Code: 3FOO7042 Material: POTW Effluent CAS (PC): Client: Jacobs: City of Fayetteville, AR Report Date: Test Code/ID: 02 Sep-21 11:13 (p 3 of 4) 21374fm / 07-1011-3724 Ramboll CETIS Version: CETISv1.9.4 Status Level: 1 Analyst: Diluent: Mod -Hard Synthetic Water Brine: Not Applicable Project: Toxicity Identification Evaluation Source: TIE Station: West Side GCO01 Comparison Result 100% passed mean dry biomass -mg Equal Variance t Two -Sample Test Control vs Conc-% Test Stat Critical MSD DF P-Type P-Value Decision(a:5%) Lab Water 100-0.2273 1 86 0.064 8 CDF 05870 Non -Significant Effect Test Acceptability Criteria TAC Limits Attribute Test Stat Lower Upper Overlap Decision Control Resp 05174 0.25 >> Yes Passes Criteria PMSD 12 43% ANOVA Table Source Sum Squares Mean Square DF F Stat P-Value Decision(a:5%) Between 0.0001545 0.0001545 1 005165 0.8259 Non -Significant Effect Error 0-0239224 0.0029903 8 Total 0.0240768 9 Distributional Tests Attribute Test Test Stat Critical P-Value Decision(a:1%) Variances Variance Ratio F Test 3.976 23.15 02098 Equal Variances Distribution Shapiro -Wilk W Normality Test 0.9878 0.7411 0.9933 Normal Distribution Mean Dry Biomass -mg Summary Conc-% Code Count Mean 95% LCL 95% UCL Median Min Max Std Err CV% %Effect 0 L 5 0.5174 0.4316 0.6032 054 0.4257 05975 003092 13.36% 0 00% 100 5 05253 04822 0.5683 0.52 0.4888 0.5825 0.0155 6.60% -1.52% Mean Dry Biomass -mg Detail Conc-% Code Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Rep 5 0 L 0.4257 0.4688 05975 0.555 0.54 100 05825 052 0.4888 0.5225 05125 008-414-799-1 CETISTM v1.9.4.3 Analyst: QA: CETIS Analytical Report Fathead Minnow 7-d Larval Survival and Growth Test Report Date: Test Code/ID: 02 Sep-21 11:13 (p 4 of 4) 21374fm /07-1011-3724 Ramboll Analysis ID: 15-6226-9475 Endpoint: Mean Dry Biomass -mg CETIS Version CETISv1 9.4 Analyzed: 02 Sep-21 11:12 Analysis: Parametric -Two Sample Status Level: 1 Graphics oa as a. nt 0o of w ow a., : 0021 a- a ---- -------- -- - - - --- .... ...........-....._.....-. ao� n ■ a iai 3o ro W t a6 w 6f [e n xa 008-414-799-1 CETISTm v1.9.4.3 Analyst: QA: RAMBOLL FATHEAD MINNOW SURVIVAL AND GROWTH 7-DAY CHRONIC TOXICITY TEST EPA-821-R-02-0213 Method 1000.0 �j �9--JU ( TEST LOG NO ✓� 1 BEGINNING: HRS: DATE PHOTOPERIOD: 16 hr IighUB hr dark JOB NUMBER : ��-in(a4ncl ENDING: HRS:rL�j DATE: I a I FEEDING REGIME: INDUSTRY: ` FaVettVllle TEST DILUTIONS 100% j 0 15 mL Artemia @ 2 times/day EFFLUENT: [' - S %ci't.. +a: ORGANISM AGE (date): ILO 7-1 TEST VESSEL CAPACITY: 450 mL DILUTION WATER: —MH_ ORGANISM SOURCE: (nAT rI I C[ I TEST SOLUTION VOLUME: 250 - 300 mL NPDES: Yes No °� SOURCE TEMP @ TEST START: NO ORGAN ISMS/TREATMENT: 8 FOOD BATCH: RANDOMIZED BY: I—V, NO REPLICATES: 5 Or-MMI rMnM��rr�rr�■ •��w�KRMK�■r ay■���!a ,. - • • - -' • � 1 � 1�S1�Y1�1��1�Wb]ii��►'.1+2�■/�7r��� L:\Ecotox Lab\LABFORMS\MASTERLIST_1\Client Test Sheets\CO Fayettville\7DCHRONICfmTIE As RAMBOLL FATHEAD MINNOW SURVIVAL AND GROWTH 7-DAY CHRONIC TOXICITY TEST EPA-821-R-02-013 Method 1000.0 TEST LOG NO.: 1' `� BEGINNING: HRS:P130 DATE: l'1 I PHOTOPERIOD: 16 hr light JOB NO.: Iggq-j(iq•f,laln09 ENDING: HRS: 12yj DATE' ? FEEDING REGIME: INDUSTRY: _ Fayeliv_iEle 0.15 mL Artemia @ 2 times/day EFFLUENT: jj,1e&A-SAC,-"C!: 01 NO. ORGAN ISMS/TREATMENT: 8 TEST VESSEL CAPACITY: 450 mL NPDES: Yes _ No Y1, NO. REPLICATES: 5 TEST SOLUTION VOLUME: 250 mL -.Now N ®00 WOW wo® -0© f Mmom 11 �� ' • INUMM-MIREM� L:\Ecotox Lab\LABFORMS\MASTERLIST_ 1\Client Test Sheets\CO Fayettville\7DCH RON ICfmTI E As J E 0 d f i 0 o� Id=1a I I I I I I !d=I� i 0 H W H w O w Q Mr. = W U. LL w IL w w IL z F- z F- w w J w U H n q r T Y C� _ rn Y_ E G' M U c eo � U 2 -J E j d a E �a a w W 0. d � d a E o.� Z E�$�=� `° � � O C� Z J W p O J C9 LLLL J O O 0 W c�iIr kr r o m m m r w U Sample Receipt Checklist: Client: ��►v}ll Date/Time received )-SY y by �L' 1. Cooler sealed and intact upon arrival? Yd�k No 2. Custody seals present? 6 No 3. Samples received below 6 degrees Celsius? ns No 4. Was ice present? (CVit No 5. Is the COC filled out correctly including the sample date/time and signed? ( No 6. Was the sample received within 36 hours of collection? (e No 7. Did the sample(s) arrive in good condition? Ce No 8. Was pH and DO measured and in range? )() No 9. Was residual chlorine present? Yes (N6 ➢ 1.0 mg/L? (did dechlor occur) Yes N,0 Comments: Therm # � -� % Q- Batch # Sample ID Temp (C°) pH (s.u.) DO (mg/L) TRC (mg/L) o k a 4 13 �- �. 0. Sample Receipt Checklist 1 of 1 LTH SRCO2 0721 0 �\\a E§ 0011- k E 0 % .2 U a) \ = ALL e _ » R 2$O SISa Qmea maw S \ mSa Nmeq Snongmo0 \ @q @ @uqdepquej mum HQ mouqwp eqej Gu2N0 .K aMaRuUeemnov < @q p mwqdepqueo mnoV 2gQsuQ@uueg mnoV mougw pe@me] mnov eaIlmuumoalm0i z o } vi ofECR ) � \ § �\ M Rt m E ~ \ \ 2 ) / h u I 3\ a) z lz _» § [ f 2 L k 2 \ \ » f / 2 / ) \ g LLR I,\ I / ? \ E / ± do \ < 1 b / Z \ C & _ \ \ ` ( 3 CL 0 / / / / C? / \ < \ L co 2 / o / 7 ƒ -j 2 / / / E \/ 0 6 E C $ cu f § = E 3 R 1 3 E 0 $ ) k v § § J f C- oj § £ 0 CL ❑ ❑ 2 ) � >�ƒ . 0C) ) c /El rl 3 v Q @ E § %§ ® 0)o t { El \ a m & c m c m x \ _ / ) 7� ° E ) } k 2 J m k 2 E \ 2 } a a E / / / / & ) e co \ k 3 3 $ \ . A � § / CL y 7 y \ / @ / � CD0 U e , J ± CO ƒ a) a) \ § � Mn{ . � � } _ } } H N LLI HO Z Z U� XLj OW H= � a Z LLB LLI LL LLI Z O 2 U • I 1 1 1 1 ' I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 . I 1 1 1 . 1 I 1 1 1 ♦ 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 ♦ 1 I 1 1 1 Ii ♦ 1 I 1 1 1 ♦ 1 ' 1 1 1 . ♦ 1 I 1 1 ♦ 1 / 1 1 1 ♦ 1 . 1 1 I 1 ♦ 1 1 1 / 1 !C � C4 T !C ! !C J r! 9y VVI G� Oc, S� JJ LU Q OC, ! � 70 0 0 O 0 LQ ,JJ OCR ! Col 0 0 t) cl 6- Oc, 1S s oc, ! OC., c� T 0C,�, Q- Oc, cP O O O O O O O O O O ✓� O LO O LO O LO O LO O LO ' V N O ti In N O ti LO N N N N Cn (-1/6w) NOUVMiN30NOO MeN 5ZO1 U C c 0 a� w e l6C �..- NN�00 I�MNOO)O OOOOD 001�1�1� � � � � � N N N � � N N N O > U 0 In w N Q O ID O V V ID N M O ID M M O N M N I- O O V N N V d7 In lD O M (D M N V I- O M V (D I- Q o0 O 0) (0 1` (D (D I` I- I` I- I` I- I` 00 M 00 M 00 F > In W Q (D In N 0) Cl) 0) (D 0)M I� O It 0) I` N O 0)N+ U N Q CO (D 00 (D CO N (D LO 'It CO Co CO 0 0 0) I- (D M M O W W I M In o0 00 00 W 00 W 00 W P- P- P- F — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — fn W Lo J Q V V O N V O m LO 00 (D m (D O V (D O m U — F E O W m It N O W (D (D I- I- M LO V It m N N N N m N N N N N N N N N N N N N N W N~ Z J 00 M I- W (D O I- O V 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 UJ IQ —_ £ N O (D I� O W 00 O W 00 O O O N N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M N M M M M U LU N M ID O N I,- M-IT V I'- O V M V 7 M O W N M W 04 Q J M O V O N V M V V M M N N IOD O (D M N Q 00 (D N I- LO LO O N N I- co (D (D 7 N N W LO .� N O O O (f) N (2 M O W 00 N N O 00 (P Ili c N N a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U J W O O O O In O In O O O O In O O O O O O In O O In lD In il- In t` In In In In t` O In lD In lD In il- In = 0 Cl) — — — — — — — — M — — — — — ? J 0 O O O O If) O If) O O O O M O O O O O O If) O O m If) M I- If) r M If) M If) I- O m If) M If) M I- If) W If) I- I-- r m I- m I- r r r M «7 r r r r r m I- Z U J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O rn LO M O M O O O In O O ID O O O ID O O In ID O QO M- MMM— MM— M(D(D —M M J £ n > 00000000000000000000 fn U J LLI (n LO O I() 0 0 0 I() 0 0 LO 0 0 0 LO 0 0 I() LO O I- r LO r (f) I() (f) I- «7 I() I- u7 O O I- u7 O I- I- I() 0 _7 M Cl) — (D Z c R N •� t N p ;F O m m N (D O M -Itm O (D N O w -ITO m to W M I- In N O M I- (D O I` O N (D In In O In N V V CO CO N V CO CO CO CO CO M CO N CO N M V CO rm O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Q �a > "- u L (n LO (n u� C Z 0) 0 0 r 0 0) 0 0 0 r 0 0 N r P 0 m m 0 N U= e Cl) p p —— p O O O O O O p O 0 0 0-p 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N R N Q N 6) 0 0 0 0> °) F +-' Q U)COOOzo�I��Q���Q C M CO (f) N V 6 6 M O If) N V M M CDO p 0 0 0 N 0 0 O O CDO p 0 0 0 Im G� (D N ID O M M N M O N M V ONO V In J� CD 000 O O O O O 000 Z N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N w N N � 0 N M V- O r O O V (D � 00 O O j N Z L N 0 ro E O c y c 0 cn 15 Q O O E II} N O J � O E L O 0 3 M T O 'p J N N t > 0 E m 3 m o O LO wca co O .> .O 7 D y �U c W 0 N 0 0 n c m z O o s 00 c (0i 0 Q a) O O W O U O U W J U (p J ID 0 J UJ 4 W m N N ~ I,- Co N H 0 Cl? -0 W U O N O F Q N� N W'-w 00 NJ()(n N Z J co a F c a � a- -0 W W U .c 0 z J Q MEMO Project name Jacobs: City of Fayetteville, AR WET Testing Project no. 1690022654 Client Jacobs Engineering Group To Donna McChristian From Liza Heise Copy to John Byrd, Matt Benton (Jacobs) Jeremy Rigsby (FTN) Prepared by Liza Heise Checked by Richard Lockwood Approved by Robin Richards Results Summary: September 2021 7-Day Chronic Screening Toxicity Testing of City of Fayetteville, AR Samples Attached are the results of the chronic (7-day) screening (100% effluent) toxicity test performed with a sample from the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). This testing was conducted in support of a post toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) study. The TIE study was performed prior to Ramboll's involvement. A composite sample of West side GCO01 effluent was collected on September 13, 2021. The sample arrived the day following collection at a receipt temperature of 6.0 oC, which is within the U.S. EPA required sample receipt temperature range of 0.0 to 6.0 OC (see attached chain of custody). The test, using the single sample, was initiated on September 14, 2021 within the 36-hr. holding time. The organism utilized for testing was Pimephales promelas (fathead minnow). With the exception of only utilizing a single sample for conducting the entire test, chronic toxicity test methods followed EPA-821-R-02-013, Short -Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms, Fourth Edition. The control met test acceptability criteria JAC). Test results are presented below: TOXICIY TEST RESULTS FOR GCO01 Percent Growth Sample Date Percent Mortality Reduction =Gh Control / 1000, (Increase) September 13, 2021 WATER October 5, 2021 Ramboll 201 Summit View Drive Suite 300 Brentwood, TN 37027 USA T +1 615 277 7570 F +1 615 377 4976 https:Hramboll.com 1/2 Testing Results Discussion No significant 7-day mortality or growth effects demonstrating toxicity were observed for this test sample. Supporting WET chemistry parameters did not indicate any concerns. Test bench sheets, chains of custody, and reference toxicity data are attached. z/z CETIS Analytical Report Fathead Minnow 7-d Larval Survival and Growth Test Report Date: 05 Oct-21 09:02 (p 1 of 4) Test Code/ID: 21408fm / 07-2109-7171 Ramboll Analysis ID: 00-2819-9371 Endpoint: 7d Survival Rate CETIS Version: CETISv1.9 4 Analyzed: 05 Oct-21 9:01 Analysis: Parametric -Two Sample Status Level: 1 Batch ID: 03-6087-8606 Test Type: Growth -Survival (7d) Analyst: Start Date: 14 Sep-21 Protocol: EPA/821/R-02-013 (2002) Diluent: Mod -Hard Synthetic Water Ending Date: 21 Sep-21 Species: Pimephales promelas Brine: Not Applicable Test Length: 7d Oh Taxon: Actinopterygii Source: Aquatic Biosystems, CO Age: Sample ID: 03-7377-9476 Code: 16476C14 Project: WET Monthly Compliance Test (SEP) Sample Date: 13 Sep-21 Material: POTW Effluent Source: Discharge Monitoring Report Receipt Date: 14 Sep-21 CAS (PC): Station: West Side GC 001 Sample Age: 24h Client: Jacobs: City of Fayetteville, AR Data Transform Alt Hyp Comparison Result PMSD Angular (Corrected) C > T 100% passed 7d survival rate 6.93% Unequal Variance t Two -Sample Test Control vs Conc-% Test Stat Critical MSD DF P-Ty Lab Water 100 -1.575 2.132 0.096 4 CDF Test Acceptability Criteria TAC Limits Attribute Test Stat Lower UPI Control Resp 095 0.8 >> ANOVA Table Source Sum Squares Mean Square DF F Stat P-Value Decision(a:5%) P-Value Decision(a:5%) 0.9049 Non -Significant Effect Between 0.0125953 Error 0.040599 00125953 0.0050749 Overlap Decision Yes Passes Criteria 1 2.482 0 1538 Non -Significant Effect 8 Total 0.0531942 9 Distributional Tests Attribute Test Test Stat Critical P-Value Decision(a:1%) Variances Variance Ratio F Test 328.3 23.15 5.5E-05 Unequal Variances Distribution Shapiro -Wilk W Normality Test 0.8308 07411 0.0342 Normal Distribution 7d Survival Rate Summary Conc-% Code Count Mean 95% LCL 95% UCL Median Min Max Std Err CV% %Effect 0 L 5 0.9500 08650 1.0000 1 0000 0.8750 1.0000 00306 7.21 % 0 00% 100 5 1.0000 1.0000 1 0000 1 0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.00% -5 26% Angular (Corrected) Transformed Summary Conc-% Code Count Mean 95% LCL 95% UCL Median Min Max Std Err CV% %Effect 0 L 5 1 32 1.195 1.445 1,393 1.209 1.393 0.04499 7 62% 0 00% 100 5 1 391 1.384 1 397 1.393 1.381 1.393 0.002481 0 40% -5 38% 7d Survival Rate Detail Conc-% Code Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Rep 5 0 L 1.0000 1 0000 0.8750 0.8750 1.0000 100 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Angular (Corrected) Transformed Detail Conc % Code Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Rep 5 0 L 100 1.393 1 393 1 393 1.393 1.209 1.381 1.209 1.393 1.393 1.393 7d Survival Rate Binomials Conc-% Code Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Rep 5 0 L 8/8 8/8 7/8 7/8 8/8 100 8/8 8/8 7/7 8/8 8/8 008-414-799-1 CETISTA° v1 94.3 Analyst: QA: CETIS Analytical Report Fathead Minnow 7-d Larval Survival and Growth Test Report Date: 05 Oct-21 09:02 (p 2 of 4) Test Code/ID: 21408fm / 07-2109-7171 Ramboll Analysis ID: 00-2819-9371 Endpoint: 7d Survival Rate CETIS Version: CETISv1.9.4 Analyzed: 05 Oct-21 9:01 Analysis: Parametric -Two Sample Status Level: 1 Graphics ,o ooa - os ........ L .......o� o, ooz o� '..........-....•-�...e.......................... ol oo 1 ca +uv o .n to er vo er . n +o �u ■.�r4 008-414-799-1 CETISTM v1.9.4.3 Analyst: QA: CETIS Analytical Report Fathead Minnow 7-d Larval Survival and Growth Test Report Date: 05 Oct-21 09:02 (p 3 of 4) Test Code/ID: 21408fm / 07-2109-7171 Ramboll Analysis ID: 07-4278-9278 Endpoint: Mean Dry Biomass -mg CETIS Version: CETISv1.9.4 Analyzed: 05 Oct-21 9:01 Analysis: Parametric -Two Sample Status Level: 1 Batch ID: 03-6087-8606 Test Type: Growth -Survival (7d) Analyst: Start Date: 14 Sep-21 Protocol: EPA/821/R-02-013 (2002) Diluent: Mod -Hard Synthetic Water Ending Date: 21 Sep-21 Species: Pimephales promelas Brine: Not Applicable Test Length: 7d Oh Taxon: Actinopterygii Source: Aquatic Biosystems, CO Age: Sample ID: 03-7377-9476 Code: 16476C14 Project: WET Monthly Compliance Test (SEP) Sample Date: 13 Sep-21 Material: POTW Effluent Source: Discharge Monitoring Report Receipt Date: 14 Sep-21 CAS (PC): Station: West Side GC 001 Sample Age: 24h Client: Jacobs: City of Fayetteville, AR Data Transform Alt Hyp Comparison Result PMSD Untransformed C > T 100% passed mean dry biomass -mg 19.37% Equal Variance t Two -Sample Test Control vs Conc-% Test Stat Critical MSD DF P-Type P-Value Decision(a:5%) Lab Water 100-0.3249 1.86 0 058 8 CDF 0.6232 Non -Significant Effect Test Acceptability Criteria TAC Limits Attribute Test Stat Lower Upper Overlap Decision Control Resp 0.2997 0.25 >> Yes Passes Criteria ANOVA Table Source Between Error Total Sum Squares 00002572 00194887 00197459 Distributional Tests Attribute Test Mean Square DF F Stat P-Value Decision(a:5%) 00002572 1 0.1056 0.7536 Non -Significant Effect 00024361 8 9 Test Stat Critical P-Value Decision(a:1%) Variances Variance Ratio F Test 2.38 23.15 04217 Equal Variances Distribution Shapiro -Wilk W Normality Test 0.915 07411 0.3169 Normal Distribution Mean Dry Biomass -mg Summary Conc-% Code Count Mean 95% LCL 95% UCL Median Min Max Std Err CV% %Effect 0 L 5 0.2997 02526 0.3469 0.2863 0.2525 03512 0.01698 12 67% 0.00% 100 5 03099 02372 0.3826 02838 0.2587 0.4057 002619 18 90% -3.38% Mean Dry Biomass -mg Detail Conc-% Code Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Rep 5 0 L 0.3225 02863 03512 0.2525 0.2862 100 0.2838 03238 0.4057 02587 0.2775 008-414-799-1 CETISIm v1 9 4 3 Analyst: QA: CETIS Analytical Report Report Date: 05 Oct-21 09:02 (p 4 of 4) Test Code/ID: 21408fm / 07-2109-7171 Fathead Minnow 7-d Larval Survival and Growth Test Ramboll Analysis ID: 07-4278-9278 Endpoint: Mean Dry Biomass -mg CETIS Version: CETISv1.9.4 Analyzed: 05 Oct-21 9:01 Analysis: Parametric -Two Sample Status Level: 1 oL m Cwi o Y to a ® O l • J a ow io • J � oo a% �n •� 1p 008-414-799-1 CETISTm v1.9.4.3 Analyst: QA: RAMBOLL FATHEAD MINNOW SURVIVAL AND GROWTH 7-DAY CHRONIC TOXICITY TEST EPA-821-R-02-013 Method 1000.0 TEST LOG NO.: �`1UaJ BEGINNING: HRS: �� DATE: ( t PHOTOPERIOD: 16 hr lighU8 hr dark JOB NUMBER: 1(12`(Co;2 'C'Sy ENDING: HRSJLj DATE: i71 FEEDING REGIME: INDUSTRY: City 0f_Fayetteville EFFLUENT: t Yb 1 C' \ TEST DILUTIONS: 100% ORGANISM AGE (date) 13 v 0 15 mL Artemia @ 2 times/day TEST VESSEL CAPACITY: 450 DILUTION WATER: —Mod Hard_ ORGANISM SOURCE:` mL TEST SOLUTION VOLUME: 250 - 300 mL NPDES: Yes x No FOOD BATCH: ����— SOURCE TEMP @ TEST START: iq�A s0 NO ORGANISMS/TREATMENT: 8 _ RANDOMIZED BY: U'Y) NO REPLICATES: 5 SURVIVAL (#) CONC REP N ID START DAY 1 FDAY 2 DAY 3 DAY 4 1 DAY 5 DAY 6 DAY 7 MH A B r R > C' D E Temp(°c):old/new Z.. I U- 3 LI, V 24 Y 14.3) Z 100% A lb B� Ab 'K `6 - D ) E ) L Temp(°c):oldlnew . V t! �z y. n )_H '1 11 LI A B c D E emp('cyoldinew A B C D E emp('c):o new A B C D E Temp(°c):old/new A B C D E Temp(°c) oldlnew Test Renewal Time y .- u 7= Date G clilko I2 G _ Initials (� 'Therm Lin dp -, Z ,�� morning feeding Int/Time — -1 12�y ZU afternoon feeding Int/Time lr- ' j - ► ri7� b 1 L - - • L:\Ecotox Lab\LABFORMS\MASTERLIST_1\Client Test Sheets\CO Fayettville\71)CHRONICfm xls RAMBOLL FATHEAD MINNOW SURVIVAL AND GROWTH 7-DAY CHRONIC TOXICITY TEST EPA-821-R-02-013 Method 1000.0 TEST LOG NO.. � (4p`� BEGINNING: HRS: ) 2 5-?) DATE: '72( _ PHOTOPERIOD: 16 hr light JOB NUMBER.: lad 0 I L`Z ENDING: HRS: I ?vz DATE q I _ FEEDING REGIME: CLIENT: _Fayetteville TEST DILUTIONS: 100% 0.15 mL Artemia @ 2 times/day EFFLUENT: ut.S $ t Ob C:Cwbl TEST SOLUTION VOLUME: 250 - 300 mL TEST VESSEL CAPACITY: 450 mL NPDES: Yes X No NO. ORGANISMS/TREATMENT: 8 TEST SOLUTION VOLUME: 250 mL NO REPLICATES: 5 GROWTH RESULTS -nim Comb�ined Tot Fish 1 RAN re© BMW Mr�e� UFARMNEWSM, �ffi]NNN moo rROMM . _ : - . L:\Ecotox Lab\LABFORMS\MASTERLIST_.1\Client Test Sheets\CO Fayettville\7DCHRONICfm.xls •ClC C d t� U) LL W N � mLL W LL a F W IL z W y J W U F- O z 0 O z (n m H O 1 E N H z W J LL LL L a J LU O m T r d m U) L�l = J Sample Receipt Checklist: Client: �� -0-efvI l i -Q- Date/Time received OcNS ? 1 V �1 by G Lc 1. Cooler sealed and intact upon arrival? Q No 2. Custody seals present? Yes I" 3. Samples received below 6 degrees Celsius? Ces, No 4. Was ice present? No 5. Is the COC filled out correctly including the sample date/time and signed? 699 No 6. Was the sample received within 36 hours of collection? X69 No 7. Did the sample(s) arrive in good condition? De No 8. Was pH and DO measured and in range? No 9. Was residual chlorine present? Yes (�Y ➢ 1.0 mg/L? (did dechlor occur) Yes PO) Comments: Therm # 9 u Batch # Sample ID Temp (C°) pH (s.u.) DO (mg/L) TRC (mg/L) i0c Sample Receipt Checklist 1 of 1 LTH SRCO2 0721 �.\��3 \ C'4 \ k = -j �m f��& & E a f m f B Q \ I ± ) o E $ � m / { ) J D t CL 0 e=� § CL 000 §)kk msai qmeq moome � ❑ ❑ ] § s ) '� / msa Qmeq SnonuRuog ) 0 P ( @p p @UR Rya auoQQ a&k» 7 a AAouqu peaq2j % uo Hg ƒ CL / \ �❑ y ma @uU eO mnov § E a \ E q k @ppe��pPagmnov o \§ ® o mLL ƒ� 2mqS u Qeuueg mnov {Lfj2 / 2 ) moumu pea Ge] mnov m k gm!l gaugo6lm0 ° \ \« z o ® ) < E@ I \ ƒ \ } p y y 2- 2 j 3 m ~ Q / ƒ m E t M a)_ Ecn / o \0- 2 # ' & \ b % ` E s 2 7 e E \ m $ 2 @ §CL) > ) > ) Z 2 ) § a) ) J _ / E c 2 u _0 k E R a) � % J — » /- \ ) / \ E a a) a)I / \ 0 ® LL ) a)� g \ LLI / ? cn o $ a & / e o @ a $ I \ ± elf �_ % 0 G § f / / / $ q q g _ \ \ 2 k u k k L A = 2 ) / / w / w & \ � 7 % \ 2 ) G g 2 / % \ \ / m�/ 2% x ) Z E � CO f o o \ \ � \`� \ / 2 U E ) E co _ . ± ) ) J N O N O N O N z H N Lij F-O z z U� XLj Oa W 2 � a z� W W LL W z 2 U Of C c� T ! C; 9� ! w oc, Ss o J� oc, O, �o O p 0 O� c9 O, O� ! U), O� S� d tj? O� O s oc, ! O� T Oca s o LO o LO o LO o LO o LO L N O ti In N O ti LO N (-1/6w) NOUVMiN30NOO MeN 5ZO1 • • • • • I ' • I ' • • • i • • • • 1 , U C c 0 a� w m C e _ _ V N000 Uf)MN ON 00000001�1�I� N N N N N N N N N O > U 0 LO w N Q O N O (D In M N N O U)O M V O 'It (D 0)V N 1` M Cl) O 00 Cl) 0)N md) V (D O M -ItUn In Q 1` M (D I` LO co(O I` 1` (D 1` I` I- I` 00 M 00 M 00 F > 1n W Q 00 N O 1` m W N W V M M LO I- O M O r- V N+ U N Q M W M (D O m M (D LO (D V N N O m I- r- P- LO (D (D O W 00 W 00 W 00 W O W W W P- F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - fn W J Q LA N LO O W m LO I- O 00 O r- LO V I` � M (D O O UC - F E V r U') N V O I- r O m I- M LO (c) t M m N N - N N CO m N N N N N N N N N N N N N N W U, ~ Z J V N O m W m O m N V LO M P- M M M M M UJ LQ -_ £ N N N M N N M M M M M M m M M tD I- (O 00 W O I- O O O O N N N N N U LU M U') O N I'- M V t` O V LO V 7 M O W N W W (D 04 Q J -Itco O V N V V V M M 04 oN0 N o�0 N UOO O (O M N (O - ; Q co (D N I- LO Un O N N I- M (D (D N N m LO N O U() N N N O W (c) «7 N N N a o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O UJ W OOOIn OInOOOO LnOOOOOOInOO Ln LO Ln I- Ln I- Ln LO Ln LO Ll O Ln LO Ln LO Ln I- Ln LO ? J O O O O M O M O O O O LO O O O O O O Un O O (f) U') LO I- LO I- LO M LO m r O LO m LO m LO I- LO m LU M Un I-- r I-- r I-- M I-- r Z E U J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O rn Ln O Ln O O O Ln O O LO O O O LO O O Ln LO O O Q O M M M M- M M- M (D (D - M M M J £ n > 00000000000000000000 fn U J LLI LO O LO 0 0 0 LO 0 0 LO 0 0 0 m 0 0 LO LO 00 I- LO I- LO LO UO I- UO LO I- LO O O I- LO O I- r LO UO 0 M M (D Z c R N •a t N p LF Un O N N O M V W 0 (D N O M W O O In M In t` LO N O M I� O O t` M N (D LO Un d7 LO V V M M N V M M M M M M M N M N M V M CO r O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 �a > — ooL?o C, OOOL?OOLOL?L?o O(OO C Z O O CD 0 0 0 0 0 N I- r 0 m m 0 N O p U Cl) p O O O O O O O O O O O p N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N y i6 R O_ (6 0 7) O N O U O N� 0 03 O (6 j O j 41 F i+0 0 a, ���Q 19() O O z O� L. 4Q4��QCn MO 0 0 0 0 N O O O O O O O O O O O p E N UO d7 O O N M O N o0 V O N O V Ln O M M Cl) V Ln O r t` r I` M O O N M M M J: O O O O O O O O O O O O Z N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N w N N � 0 j N M V Ln O- O O V (D 00 O O N Z L V) 0 ro E 0) c y c 0 cn 15 Q O O E U') N O J � O E L O 0 3 M T O 'p J N N t > 0 E m 3 m o O LO wca co O .> .O 7 m � m � �U c Lu 0 N 0 0 0_ c m z O O L 00 c 0 O Q Q O O W O U U W J U (p J J LU 4 w a 0 Co F � Co N W O Cl? -0 W U o N O ) Q N� N W'-w 00 NJ()(n N Z J co a F c a--0 W W U ( E - O O U - 0 z J Q FAYETTEVILLE, AR CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ON -CALL WATER PROJECTS TASK ORDER 1 (SOUTH BROOKS AVENUE AND SOUTH GARLAND AVENUE) LOCATION MAP 2049 E. Joyce Blvd. Suite. 400 Fayetteville, AR 72703 (479)527-9100 f � a F.r.N..nl. � •• _ter � ? 4 r Y PROJECT SITE TASK ORDER 1 —f ass INDEX OF SHEETS SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE 1 G001 2 G002 3 G003 4 W101 5 W102 6 W103 7 W104 3 W105 9 DETAILS I 10 DETAILS II 11 DETAILS III 12 DETAILS IV 13 DETAILS V 14 DETAILSVI 15 EROSION CONTROL DETAILS I 16 EROSION CONTROL DETAILS II NO SCALE Aft - CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARI{ANSAS W a LU O Q 0 �w5 wa LL C D-'YQ O CD alp UD= pk �m0 FULL JOB NO.: 19W01110 DATE: JAN. 2021 DESIGNED BY: CRB DRAWN BY ELH 6001 EET aBER 1 .;acobs Fayetteville Client Monthly Report for September 2021 October 21, 2021 City of Fayetteville CITY OF WA FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS ember lenges ead-On Disaster presents an opportunity to evolve solar drying Biosolids Management Site I Jacobs Fayetteville Client Monthly Report for September 2021 ;aco S Contents ExecutiveSummary..................................................................................................................................................ii 1. Plant Operations.........................................................................................................................................ii 1.1 Process Control........................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Biosolids Process........................................................................................................................................................3 1.3 Compliance.................................................................................................................................................................. 3 1.4 Successes...................................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.5 Issues/Resolutions.................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.6 Revenue.........................................................................................................................................................................7 Table 1-1: Revenue generated from the BMS............................................................................................................... 7 Figure 1-1: Revenue generated from the BMS via hay, fertilizer, and WTR.......................................................7 2. Maintenance................................................................................................................................................8 2.1 West Side....................................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Noland............................................................................................................................................................................8 2.3 Lift Stations............................................................................................................................................................... 10 2.4 BMS Maintenance................................................................................................................................................... 10 2.5 Key Performance Indicators/Measures.......................................................................................................... 10 Figure 2-1: Labor Hours by Work Order Type............................................................................................................. 10 Figure2-2: Work Order Count by Type.......................................................................................................................... 11 2.6 Capital Improvement Projects(CIP)................................................................................................................ 12 3. Laboratory/Industrial Pretreatment...................................................................................................13 Table 3-1: Revenue generated from the Industrial Pretreatment Program(IPP)........................................ 14 Figure 3-1: IPP revenue total from surcharges, fees, and fines........................................................................... 14 Figure 3-2: Loads of hauled waste -by hauler and cumulative loads per month .......................................... 14 4. Woolsey Wet Prairie................................................................................................................................15 5. Community Outreach.............................................................................................................................16 6. Sustainability............................................................................................................................................17 7. Health & Safety/Training.......................................................................................................................18 Appendix A. Additional Information.................................................................................................................19 A.1 Effluent & Influent Data....................................................................................................................................... 19 Jacobs — Fayetteville Project MI Jacobs Fayetteville Client Monthly Report for September 2021 jaco S Executive Summary The budget performance for September is holding steady for labor overages and has increased for non - labor items. The main reason for the increase in non -labor items is the recognized accrual for $35,000 in dryer repair costs. We ordered bearings and housing components to replace the parts destroyed in the dryer explosion. Although the parts have not been delivered, we counted the expenditure to provide a better forecast for annual performance. We are identifying the need for additional expenditures for dryer repairs and landfill costs. We expect to be over budget from these unexpected costs. Budget Performance S(27,204) S(113,194) $44,573 ■ Labor Non -Labor m Budget- Over (Unde- Labor Non -Labor Budget - Over (Under) March $ 10,470 $ (123,664) $ (113,194) April $ 35,404 $ (62,608) $ (27,204) May $ 36,558 $ (19,761) $ 16,797 June $ 37,208 $ 7,365 $ 44,573 July $ 20,719 $ (12,762) $ 7,957 August $ 25,275 $ 6,848 $ 32,123 September $ 24,910 $ 33,192 $ 58,102 Jacobs — Fayetteville Project MI Jacobs Fayetteville Client Monthly Report for September 2021 jaco S 1. Plant Operations The Noland and West Side Water Resource Recovery Facilities (WRRF's) effluent discharges were 100% in compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Details of effluent quality and influent loadings are shown in Appendix A. 1.1 Process Control Noland September marks the end of another successful season of the most stringent permit period. The Noland WRRF continues to utilize both aeration basins for extended aeration, which aids in breaking down the more complex carbon compounds that could raise effluent CBOD after ozonation. Planning has begun on going down to one aeration basin to reduce energy consumption without the risk of compliance problems. West Side The West Side facility continues to see an increase of BOD loading. Close monitoring of the return activated sludge (RAS) and waste activated sludge (WAS), as well as increased detention time by utilizing the nitrification gate system, helped ensure a quality effluent in this last month of the summer permit. 1.2 Biosolids Process During the month of September, the WRRF's produced 1,846 wet tons of biosolids with approximately 1,200 wet tons of biosolids applied into the solar houses prior to the thermal dryer and 646 wet tons processed directly through the thermal dryer. A total of 444 tons of partially dried biosolids from the solar houses were landfilled due to thermal dryer downtime. No belt filter pressed loads were disposed of in area landfills. The biosolids drying operation prevented an estimated $27,927 in disposal costs this month, compared to if all biosolids were landfill disposed. 1.3 Compliance A W3 water line leak occurred on September 21 st releasing approximately 180,000 gallons of treated effluent. The leak occurred on the main force line from Noland 500 yards from the White River. The W3 flowed from the road into areas 1 and 2 with no ponding or pooling and did not reach any waterways. The Line was repaired the following day with no adverse effects from the release. BMS W3 Line Repair A leak on the W3 line from Noland is repaired before adverse effects to the environment or contact with waterways could occur Jacobs — Fayetteville Project MI Jacobs Fayetteville Client Monthly Report for September 2021 jaco S 1.4 Successes Upgrades to SCADA are progressing favorably with the West Side alarm and control functions transferred to operations and numerous parts of the process functioning solely through the new VT SCADA. A different technique of managing biosolids in the solar houses is being developed to minimize the land filling of belt filter pressed biosolids. A ten -foot rotary tiller is used to aerate the biosolids daily in place of the mole. Air circulation throughout the solar house is maximized, as weather permits, by operating in manual instead of auto mode. The spinners on the biosolids spreader are deactivated to allow for three to four rows of biosolids to be placed in the house. When the house is loaded, tilling creates fluffy and aerated windrows. Each of the six solar houses are emptied and refilled weekly in conjunction with wasting demands. After fine tuning the process, three solar houses that were loaded between 9/22 and 9/24 with 189 tons of belt filter pressed material were emptied seven days later. A 33% reduction was realized with 126 tons of biosolids landfilled. The amount of water reduction will be variable due to weather patterns. 0 0 BMS Solar House Drying Operation Belt filter pressed biosolids are loaded into the solar houses and tilled to aerate. With optimized air circulation throughout the houses, a 33% reduction of biosolids moisture was achieved. Jacobs — Fayetteville Project ON Jacobs Fayetteville Client Monthly Report for September 2021 jaco S 1.5 Issues/Resolutions On September 1 1 th, the thermal dryer rotor floating bearing exploded due to a condition defined as BLEVE, or boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion. The cause of this event is still unknown. The dryer SCADA system did not reveal any temperature anomalies and two thermal fluid shut off valves were disassembled for inspection: the east swivel assembly and the floating bearing. None of these components show signs of excessive heat, malfunctioning components, or damage that could have created the temperatures necessary for the BLEVE. The bearing cartridge does have carbon residue from the grease used to lubricate the bearing assembly, but the inner and outer race and rollers do not show signs of heat damage. The explosion forced the grease seals on one side of the bearing out of the cartridge, thereby breaking the channel in which the seals rest. The pedestal cap also suffered damage to the mounting ears. A camera will be used to inspect the inside of the dryer rotor shaft for anomalies. Investigation continues into the cause of this event. BLEVE Investigation Pictured at right Undamaged grease seal Pictured below Undamaged swivel Jacobs — Fayetteville Project I Jacobs Fayetteville Client Monthly Report for September 2021 ;aco S BLEVE Investigation Inner and outer race rollers show no sign of heat damage BLEVE Investigation BLEVE Investigation Camera inspection of rotor shaft could reveal anomalies Damaged pedestal cap and Damaged grease seals OP Jacobs — Fayetteville Project 6 MI Jacobs Fayetteville Client Monthly Report for September 2021 jaco S The new electric biosolids elevator, unit 5105 was not operating properly from the vendor. BMS staff worked through several scenarios with the vendor's engineers and could not resolve the issue. A City of Fayetteville mechanic assisted with the process and eventually discovered a malfunctioning hydraulic speed control valve. Unit 5105 still needs to be tested under normal working conditions to ensure the unit will perform to specifications. The most challenging obstacle at Noland during September was a bearing failure with one of the rollers on belt filter press #2. Operations detected noise while completing routine checks, and the roller and bearing were inspected for damage. The roller was removed and sent out for repair. 1.6 Revenue Table 1-1: Revenue generated from the BMS Product Tons Sold/Received Revenue Generated Hay 355 $22,738 Fertilizer 116 $2,317 Water Treatment Residuals 177 $5,644 Figure 1-1: Revenue generated from the BMS via hay, fertilizer, and WTR Revenue Generated Biosolids Management Site $120,000 $100,000 $80,000 $60,000 $40,000 $20,000 F_,�-�mn-,Fk Ffl Ffl n F1 $- ,6 �atr �� a� �e ��� �y- ,pet ,pet ell e�`JatJ Q P� O�,oet , G �e9 O Monthly 2020 O Monthly 2021 Cumulative 2021 Jacobs — Fayetteville Project ON Jacobs Fayetteville Client Monthly Report for September 2021 jaco S 2. Maintenance 2.1 West Side West Side biosolids handling experienced a problem with unusual wear patterns on both filter press belts. Further inspection revealed cracks in the perforated roller which caused the wear in the belt. The roller was removed and sent to Mid -South Roller for repairs. (9 * 0 1 0J) '0 PM - As r- 2.2 Noland Unusual wear patterns on the filter press belts alert staff to cracks in the perforated roller Effluent pump station flow meter electrical boxes were removed and Multi -Craft Crane Services installed a 16" flow meter for BMS and an 8" flow meter for the W3 process back to the facility. New conduit was installed and a new stainless steel control panel was assembled to house the flow meter displays. Jacobs — Fayetteville Project ON Jacobs Fayetteville Client Monthly Report for September 2021 jaco S The Variable Frequency Drives (VFD) were beginning to have frequent periods of unreliable performance. Both drives were replaced with new ones to prevent further issues. This replacement also presented the opportunity to install external keypads for safer troubleshooting. The sludge feed pump drive was experiencing frequent malfunctions due to old age and was selected for replacement. The external touch screen is currently on back order and will be installed upon delivery. - IM Noland Failing sludge feed pump Biosollds drivereplaced Jacobs — Fayetteville Project 7 Jacobs Fayetteville Client Monthly Report for September 2021 jaco S 2.3 Lift Stations Lift station 22 on Double Springs Road Owl Creek revealed long run times during a high flow event a few weeks prior and was found to have a check valve failing to seal properly which will require a replacement. Lift Station 22 Double Springs Road Owl Creek Check valve fails to seal and will require replacement 2.4 BMS Maintenance After the new flow meter was installed a spike in pressure was observed on the W3 line feeding the BMS facility. The leak was located under the road in the line west of the BMS. A clamp was installed to stop the Leak and the pipe was covered. 2.5 Key Performance Indicators/Measures Figure 2-1: Labor Hours by Work Order Type ❑ 0.00, 0R 121.29, 6% 148.50, 8% ❑ 22 5O 10% ❑ administrative u 487.18, 250/ 171.05, 9° ❑ corrective maintenance emergency corrective maintenance non emergency corrective maintenance from pm/pdm preventive maintenance ❑ 975.22, 51% project ❑ safety Jacobs — Fayetteville Project MI Jacobs Fayetteville Client Monthly Report for September 2021 jaco S ❑ administrative ❑ corrective maintenance emergency corrective maintenance non emergency ❑ corrective maintenance from pm/pdm preventive maintenance project ❑ safety Figure 2-2: Work Order Count by Type 1697, 9v io --- no/ ❑ 25, 1 % 103, 6% 47, 3% Jacobs — Fayetteville Project 11 ON Jacobs Fayetteville Client Monthly Report for September 2021 jaco S 2.6 Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) A purchase order was issued for the repair of the pump 2 at lift station 52 on Broyles Avenue. This pump failed in July and was sent to Jack Tyler Engineering for a hidden damage inspection. Jack Tyler's repair proposal was presented at the August Water & Sewer Committee meeting and received final city council approval in September. A proposal to replace the anoxic mixers in Noland's east basin was presented at the September Water & Sewer Committee meeting. The existing mixer configuration is outdated and has cost the city over $200,000 in repairs over the previous five years. Jacobs staff has developed a proposal to replace the existing horizontally -mounted mixers with updated vertically -mounted units. Their proposal was sent out for sealed bids in June and received a low bid from Jack Tyler Engineering. It is anticipated that Jack Tyler's proposal will receive final council approval in October. City procurement issued a purchase order for Pinnacle Ozone Solution's proposal to repair the ozone generators at Noland. This item received administrative approval in August. Jacobs — Fayetteville Project 12 7 Jacobs Fayetteville Client Monthly Report for September 2021 jaco S 3. Laboratory/Industrial Pretreatment Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) samples were collected for White River at the Noland facility to complete retest 1 of 3 due to the failure of both species in the August WET test. Samples were sent to American Interplex Corporation (AIC) for analysis. The WR samples passed WET testing for both species; Ceriodaphnia Dubia, water flea, for survival and reproduction and the Pimepholes promelas, fathead minnow, for growth assessment showing neither lethal nor sublethal effects, in the full dilution series of 100%, 74%, 56%, 42%, 32% and 0%. Tyson composite BOD precision QC was out of control and resample was completed to fulfill the quarterly industrial surcharge sample collection. Surcharge fee reports were generated by the pretreatment department using self -generated industrial data, as well as data results from the Noland laboratory. A few industries had shutdowns or schedule changes due to the Labor Day holiday. John Byrd assisted Jeff Hickle in developing an educational booth for the November Native Seed Harvest and Blue -Green Infrastructure Fall Festival at the Woolsey Wet Prairie Sanctuary. The IPP booth will teach volunteers about the importance of industrial cooperation, sampling, and inspections. The factsheet and permit for Ecotech Consumer Products is being finalized for an estimated start up period of November 1st to 15th. Monthly surcharge and waste hauler reports were completed and sent to the City for billing. For revenue generated from the IPP, see Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1. Jacobs — Fayetteville Project ON Jacobs Fayetteville Client Monthly Report for September 2021 jaco S Table 3-1: Revenue generated from the Industrial Pretreatment Program (IPP) Revenue $95,523.54 Surcharges on August data $2,450.00 Fees from hauled waste accepted in September $0.00 Other fees paid in September $0.00 Fines assessed in September Zero violations for all industrial users Violations on August data Figure 3-1: IPP revenue total from surcharges, fees, and fines Revenue Generated Industrial Pretreatment Program $120,000 $100,000 $80,000 $60,000 $40000 $20,000 '�`� o'�e eo�� ❑ 2020 Monthly Surcharge Fees plus Hauled Waste Fees ❑ 2021 Monthly Surcharge Fees plus Hauled Waste Fees Figure 3-2: Loads of hauled waste -by hauler and cumulative loads per month Hauled Waste Summary 60 50 40 I I b 30 20 10 n r� n � I I n n ❑ 2020 Arkansas Portable Toilets 2020 White River Enviro. Services 2021 Arkansas Portable Toilets ❑ 2021 White River Enviro. Services fl n n � O ❑ 2020 Best Jet 2020 TOTAL ❑ 2021 Best Jet ❑ 2021 TOTAL Jacobs — Fayetteville Project 7 Jacobs Fayetteville Client Monthly Report for September 2021 jaco S 4. Woolsey Wet Prairie 2021 herbicide treatments for Woolsey's vegetation management largely wrapped up in September. Very dry summer weather persisted through September with 2" of monthly rainfall, representing less than half of September's normal average of 4.8 inches. The warmer dry weather allowed the Jacobs IVM team to complete 15 applications this month, with a record 60-gallons of grass selective herbicide for the control of invasive carpetgrass. Highly targeted treatments can be used occasionally to significantly diminish carpetgrass colonies in the next growing season. In addition to carpetgrass the IVM team found a sizeable new colony of Reed Canary grass in Woolsey's W2 wetland cell. Reed Canary grass was found for the first time earlier this year and could represent a significant management challenge if not closely monitored and treated. Unfortunately, September is too late for treating this perennial grass, but staff were able to collect and remove over a dozen seed heads, representing the removal of thousands of potentially viable grass seeds. Similarly, the IVM team collected and removed several large bags of mature thistle seed from city property between Woolsey Wet Prairie and the West Prairie Conservation Easement area. Being responsive to invasive vegetation in these spaces can be especially helpful in protecting the integrity of nearby restoration project areas. Small scale herbicide treatments may continue into October and November for certain cool -season species such as Himalayan Blackberry, Japanese Honeysuckle, Winter Creeper and fescue. Prescribed burn preparations will also continue into next month. September Controlling IVM Reed Canary grass and carpetgrass Jacobs — Fayetteville Project is MI Jacobs Fayetteville Client Monthly Report for September 2021 jaco S 5. Community Outreach Jacobs employees collected over $250 in supplies, toys, and food for the Fayetteville Animal Shelter. IMI Graduate students with the University of Arkansas Willson Herpetology Lab took ecology students into Woolsey Wet Prairie for a "living laboratory" demonstration where students get up -close encounters with snakes, turtles, and amphibians. Jacobs — Fayetteville Project MI Jacobs Fayetteville Client Monthly Report for September 2021 jaco S 6. Sustainability Jacobs team members gathered at BMS to collect seeds in preparation for the upcoming BGI event. Seed collection events are a vital component of the propagation of native plants throughout the facilities. Native Seed Collection at BMS Jacobs — Fayetteville Project 17 ON Jacobs Fayetteville Client Monthly Report for September 2021 jaco S 7. Health & Safety/Training The Ion City safety management tool continues to evolve in its function of providing a one -stop -shop for all job -related safety forms and planning tools. Josh Apeman, maintenance supervisor, joined the monthly safety team meeting to provide some insight into the upcoming projects in the maintenance department. The safety team discussed the Ion City access to confined space, live electrical, and lockout forms and offered support on how to best utilize them to prepare for the challenges that could arise during the work. The Jacobs leadership team focused on the further need to continue supporting the roll -out and training needed to implement Ion City at the facilities. Jacob's commitment to safety is a never-ending process. The facilities leadership team highlighted opportunities to monitor and observe subcontractors onsite and ensure they employ the same level of safety commitment as our own staff members. Jacobs associates attended the webinars: "Best Recordkeeping Practices" and "Cyber Security workshop". John Byrd attended Jacobs IPP Back to Basics: "Intro to National Pretreatment Program Chapter 3". Jacobs — Fayetteville Project 18 Jacobs Fayetteville - Client Monthly Report for September 2021 Appendix A. Additional Information A.1 Effluent & Influent Data A.2 White River Effluent Characteristics .;acobs 2021 Monthly WR WR WR Average CBOD CBOD TSS Flow (mg/L) (lbs/d) (mg/L) (MGD) Permit 5.5 578 5.0 Limit September WR WR WR WR WR D.O. pH TSS Phos Phos Ammonia Ammonia Avg Min (lbs/d) (mg/L) (lbs/d) (mg/L) (lbs/d) Min (s.u.) (mg/L) 525 1.00 105.0 2.4 252 7.5 6.0 pH Fecal Max Coliform (s.u.) (MPN/ loom[) 9.0 1,000 January 5.8 2.7 128 2.8 131 0.14 6.3 0.2 8 15.0 7.0 7.5 77 February 5.1 4.3 174 4.4 181 0.19 7.7 0.5 22 16.6 6.9 7.4 174 March 6.3 3.7 199 3.0 166 0.15 7.9 0.2 12 14.9 7.3 7.4 22 April 5.1 3.4 188 1.1 62 0.09 4.9 0.3 15 12.8 7.3 7.6 54 May 10.0 3.8 308 1.6 133 0.11 9.3 0.2 13 12.3 7.4 7.6 17 June 7.4 3.5 214 1.5 94 0.31 17.8 0.1 6 12.3 7.2 7.5 35 July 5.1 3.3 136 2.1 85 0.37 15.4 0.2 8 13.1 7.2 7.8 74 August 4.4 3.3 113 1.1 41 0.42 14.7 0.3 12 15.5 7.1 7.7 73 September 4.2 2.7 90 1.3 45 0.24 8.3 0.1 4 17.6 7.1 7.5 110 October November 5.9 3.4 172 2.1 December 104 0.22 Average 10.3 0.2 11 14.5 7.2 7.6 71 White River Effluent Characteristics- Minerals 2021 WR WR WR TDS TDS Sulfate (mg/L) (lbs/d) (mg/L) Permit 500 52,542 119 Limit September WR WR WR Sulfate Nitrate Nitrate (lbs/d) (mg/L) (lbs/d) 12,505 report report January 342 15,871 62 3,154 4 204 February 351 14,818 67 3,392 5 253 March 347 18,845 72 3,741 6 291 April 335 18,124 72 3,609 3 135 May 320 26,059 56 3,167 4 221 June 338 20,861 50 4,391 6 483 July 347 15,391 61 2,478 7 292 August 400 14,214 66 2,064 10 310 September 378 12,889 47 1,740 12 444 October November December Average 351 17,453 61 3,082 6 293 Jacobs - Fayetteville Project 19 MI Jacobs Fayetteville - Client Monthly Report for September 2021 oaco S Goose Creek Effluent Characteristics 2021 Monthl y Average Flow (MGD) GC CBOD (mg/L) GC CBOD (lbs/d ) GC TSS (mg/L) GC TSS (lbs/d ) GC Phos (mg/L) GC Phos (lbs/d) GC Ammonia (mg/L) GC Ammonia (lbs/d) D.O. Avg Min (mg/L) pH Min (s.u.) pH Max (s.u.) Fecal Coliform (MPN/100m l) Permit Limit September 6.6 550.4 10.0 834 1.00 83.4 2.3 191.8 7.5 6.0 9.0 1,000 January 10.8 2.0 174.3 1.1 95 0.08 7.2 0.2 18.4 10.7 7.0 7.4 8 February 9.7 2.0 161.9 1.0 81 0.08 6.4 0.1 8.1 11.1 7.0 7.4 5 March 11.8 2.1 202.0 1.0 101 0.13 12.8 0.1 13.3 10.4 7.1 7.5 7 April 12.1 2.0 202.1 1.0 101 0.08 7.6 0.1 13.5 9.9 7.2 7.5 6 May 14.2 2.0 236.1 1.0 118 0.06 7.2 0.1 13.6 9.7 7.3 7.5 5 June 10.9 2.0 188.4 1.0 94 0.06 5.9 0.11 10.2 9.3 7.1 7.6 6 July 9.1 2.4 177.9 1.0 75 0.22 19.9 0.2 19 9.0 7.3 7.7 10 August 7.4 2.1 129 1.0 62 0.06 3.9 0.1 9 8.7 7.5 7.7 6 September 7.0 1.9 113.7 1.0 59 0.05 3.1 0.1 7.8 8.8 7.4 7.6 6 October November December Average 10.3 2.1 176.2 1.0 87 0.09 8.2 0.1 12.5 9.8 7.2 7.5 6 Paul R. Noland Influent Characteristics Noland I Monthly Hydraulic WRRF Average Loadings Flow Percent of (MGD) Design Designed 12.6 (Annual Avg.) BOD Organic TSS TSS Loading Loading Loading Loading (lbs/d) Percent (lbs/d) Percent of of Design Design PO4 PO4 Loading Loading (lbs/d) Percent of Design NH3 NH3 Loading Loading (lbs/d) Percent of Design 2,250 29,666 23,198 765 January 6.3 49.9% 16,471 55.5% 8,150 35.1% 192 25.1% 699 31.1% February 5.1 40.1% 11,850 39.9% 7,368 31.8% 175 22.9% 720 32.0% March 6.7 53.2% 14,260 48.1% 7,846 33.8% 196 25.6% 826 36.7% April 7.1 56.6% 17,335 58.4% 9,693 41.8% 209 27.3% 939 41.7% May 7.7 60.8% 15,173 51.1% 9,797 42.2% 222 29.0% 788 35.0% June 5.7 45.1% 13,062 44.0% 8,110 35.0% 176 23.0% 543 24.1% July 5.0 39.7% 13,984 47.1% 7,746 33.4% 207 27.1% 559 24.8% August 4.1 32.5% 14,698 49.5% 9,221 39.7% 187 24.4% 789 35.0% September 4.2 33.1% 16,082 54.2% 9,571 41.3% 215 28.1% 881 39.1% October November December Average 5.8 45.7% 14,768 49.8% 8,611 37.1% 198 25.8% 749 33.3% Jacobs - Fayetteville Project 20 I Jacobs Fayetteville - Client Monthly Report for September 2021 oaco S West Side Influent Characteristics West Side Monthly WRRF Average Flow (MGD) Hydraulic Loadings Percent of Design Boo Organic TSS TSS PO4 PO4 NH3 NH3 Loading Loading Loading Loading Loading Loading Loading Loading (lbs/d) Percent of (lbs/d) Percent (lbs/d) Percent (lbs/d) Percent Design of Design of Design of Design 14,595 14,595 584 1918 Designed (Annual Avg.) 10.0 January 10.8 107.6% 12,508 85.7% 12,331 84.5% 218 37.4% 1,605 83.7% February 9.6 95.9% 13,110 89.8% 12,291 84.2% 160 27.4% 1,406 73.3% March 11.8 118.1% 15,216 104.3% 12,918 88.5% 252 43.1% 1,850 96.4% April 12.1 121.0% 12,799 87.7% 13,164 90.2% 219 37.5% 1,917 100.0% May 14.1 141.2% 12,171 83.4% 14,193 97.2% 194 33.2% 1,448 75.5% June 10.8 108.3% 11,669 80.0% 12,705 87.0% 195 33.4% 1,760 91.8% July 9.1 91.1% 12,941 88.7% 15,103 103.5% 176 30.2% 1,443 75.2% August 7.4 74.0% 16,394 112.3% 14,720 100.9% 153 26.2% 1,612 84.0% September 7.0 69.8% 17,354 118.9% 18,155 124.4% 181 31.1% 1,626 84.8% October November December Average 10.3 103.0% 13,796 94.5% 13,953 95.6% 194 33.3% 1,630 85.0% Jacobs - Fayetteville Project 21 7 jaco S Jacobs Fayetteville - Client Monthly Report for September 2021 Labor Status Department Job Title Employee Name Fayetteville /o FTE Admin Project Manager Monty Sedlak 95.00% Admin Assistant Project Manager Leonides Moreno 100.00% Admin - Operations Operations Manager Tim Luther 100.00% Admin Environmental Specialist Jeff Hickle 100.00% Admin Health, Safety, Compliance Professional Wes Cloud 70.00% Admin Project Coordinator Brandi Miller-DeWeese 90.00% Admin Administrative Assistant Christy Taylor 100.00% Admin Administrative Assistant Kassandra Foster 100.00% BMS BMS Supervisor Peter Burrow 100.00% BMS Lead Operator Jerry Genz 100.00% BMS Lead Operator John Tenberge 100.00% BMS Equipment Operator Charlie Boger 100.00% BMS Equipment Operator Rick Witherspoon 100.00% BMS Equipment Operator Vacant 100.00% BMS Operator I David Dajani 100.00% BMS Operator In Training Ben Shondelmyer 100.00% BMS Operator In Training Jeremy Johnson 100.00% BMS Operator In Training Robert Donnell 100.00% BMS Operator In Training Matthew Goud 100.00% BMS Mechanic Mike Reed 100.00% Admin Admin-Ops Supervisor Thom Vinson 90.00% LAB Laboratory Director Donna McChristian 90.00% LAB Industrial Pretreatment Coordinator John Byrd 100.00% LAB Lead Laboratory Analyst Matt Benton 60.00% LAB Laboratory Analyst Walter Choder 100.00% Maint Maintenance Supervisor Joshua Apeman 100.00% Maint Lead Mechanic Brian Daniels 95.00% Maint Lead Electrician Tim Marr 70.00% Maint Mechanic Robert Ingram 100.00% Maint Mechanic Buddy Carter 100.00% Maint Mechanic Steve Cook 100.00% Maint Mechanic Michael Spohn 100.00% Maint Mechanic Rick Dollarhide 100.00% Maint Mechanic in Training Vacant 100.00% Maint Mechanic in Training Nathan Eastwood 100.00% Operations Operations Supervisor Austin Ramsfield 100.00% Operations Operator II Shawn Santellanes 100.00% Operations Operator I Anthony Ramsfield 100.00% Operations Operator I Travis Patton 100.00% Operations Operator Justin Sweeney 100.00% Operations Operator In Training Tom Meunier 100.00% Operations Operator In Training Paul Goolsby 100.00% Operations Operator In Training Chandler Smothers 100.00% Operations Operator In Training Kasey Lybrand 100.00% Jacobs - Fayetteville Project Jacobs Fayetteville - Client Monthly Report for September 2021 .;acobs Operations Operator In Training Brittney Doyle 100.00% SCADA SCADA Supervisor Mayo Miller 100.00% SCADA Instrument & Control Tech Pat Cooley 95.00% SCADA Instrument & Control Tech Mark Gleber 100.00% Authorized Positions = 48.0 Filled Positions = 46.0 Filled FTE's= 44.6 TEMPS BMS Engineering Intern, U of A Vacant 100.00% Admin Engineering Intern, U of A Sarah Garrison 100.00% Maint Engineering Intern, U of A Vacant 100.00% SPECIAL PROJECTS (Performed in scope) Area Reason Name Hours SCADA Maintenance Maintenance Network Upgrade Campos, Edgar 8 Asset Manager Support Bass, Edward Lee 2.2 Asset Manager Support Turley, Johnny D (JD) S4 Jacobs — Fayetteville Project 23