2018-01-31 flint amp final - michigan...asset management – asset management is an integrated set...

APPENDIX J

2017 WATER SYSTEM ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN

City of Flint, MI

2017 WATER SYSTEM ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN (AMP) Flint Drinking Water Distribution System Optimization

FINAL

January 31, 2018


arcadis.com

2017 WATER SYSTEM ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN (AMP) Flint Drinking Water Distribution System Optimization

Prepared for:

City of Flint 1101 S. Saginaw Street Flint, Michigan 48502

Prepared by:

Arcadis of Michigan, LLC 28550 Cabot Drive Suite 500 Novi Michigan 48377 Tel 248 994 2240 Fax 248 994 2241

Our Ref.:

20616001.0000

Date:

January 31, 2018

This document is intended only for the use of

the individual or entity for which it was

prepared and may contain information that is

privileged, confidential and exempt from

disclosure under applicable law. Any

dissemination, distribution or copying of this

document is strictly prohibited.


arcadis.com i

CONTENTS

Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................... vii Glossary of Terms ....................................................................................................................................... viii Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1

ES-1 Asset Inventory .............................................................................................................................. 1 ES-2 Level of Service ............................................................................................................................. 1 ES-3 Critical Assets ................................................................................................................................ 2 ES-4 Capital Improvement Project Plan ................................................................................................. 3 ES-5 Revenue Structure ......................................................................................................................... 9

1.0 Asset Management Program Overview ................................................................................................ 12 1.1 City and Water Department Overview .......................................................................................... 12 1.2 Brief History of Asset Management Efforts .................................................................................. 13 1.3 Purpose of This Document ........................................................................................................... 14 1.4 Mission, Goals, and Asset Management Strategy ....................................................................... 14 1.5 Adopted Framework ..................................................................................................................... 15 1.6 Plan/Schedule for Water System AM Program ............................................................................ 17

2.0 Asset Inventory ..................................................................................................................................... 19 2.1 Assets Included in AMP ............................................................................................................... 19 2.2 Asset Definition and Level of Detail .............................................................................................. 19

2.2.1 Horizontal Assets .............................................................................................................. 19 2.2.2 Vertical Assets .................................................................................................................. 20

2.3 Asset Attributes ............................................................................................................................ 22 2.3.1 Horizontal Assets .............................................................................................................. 22 2.3.2 Vertical Assets .................................................................................................................. 22

2.4 Asset Inventory ............................................................................................................................. 23 2.4.1 Horizontal Asset Inventory ................................................................................................ 23 2.4.2 Vertical Asset Inventory .................................................................................................... 26

2.5 Data Improvements ...................................................................................................................... 27 2.5.1 Incomplete or Low Confidence Data ................................................................................. 27 2.5.2 Recommendations for Improvements ............................................................................... 27

3.0 Level of Service .................................................................................................................................... 29 3.1 Development Methodology ........................................................................................................... 29 3.2 LOS Goals and Performance Measures ...................................................................................... 30 3.3 Performance Management Tracking ............................................................................................ 32

4.0 Critical Assets ....................................................................................................................................... 35 4.1 Likelihood of Failure (LOF) Factors and Scoring Scales .............................................................. 35

4.1.1 Horizontal Assets Factors and Scoring ............................................................................. 35 4.1.2 Vertical Asset Factors and Scoring ................................................................................... 37 4.1.3 Horizontal Assets Likelihood of Failure Summary ............................................................ 43 4.1.4 Vertical Assets Likelihood of Failure Summary ................................................................ 46

4.2 Consequence of Failure (COF) Factors and Scoring Scales ....................................................... 51 4.2.1 Horizontal Assets Factors and Scoring ............................................................................. 51


arcadis.com ii

4.2.2 Vertical Assets Factors and Scoring ................................................................................. 52 4.2.3 Horizontal Assets Consequence of Failure Summary ...................................................... 53 4.2.4 Vertical Assets Consequence of Failure (COF) Summary ............................................... 55

4.3 Redundancy ................................................................................................................................. 58 4.4 Risk (Criticality) Factor Calculation .............................................................................................. 58

4.4.1 Horizontal Asset Risk Summary ....................................................................................... 60 4.4.2 Vertical Asset Risk Summary ............................................................................................ 62

5.0 Capital Improvement Project Plan ........................................................................................................ 66 5.1 Introduction to Horizontal Capital Planning Tool .......................................................................... 66 5.2 Estimated Useful Life and Remaining Useful Life ........................................................................ 66


5.3 Replacement Value Estimates ..................................................................................................... 70 5.3.1 Horizontal Assets .............................................................................................................. 70 5.3.2 Vertical Assets .................................................................................................................. 71

5.4 Capital Planning Model Configuration and Scenario Results....................................................... 71 5.4.1 Horizontal Assets .............................................................................................................. 71 5.4.2 Vertical Assets .................................................................................................................. 75

5.5 5-Year CIP Summary ................................................................................................................... 76 5.6 20-Year CIP .................................................................................................................................. 77 5.7 CIP Funding Gap Discussion ....................................................................................................... 78

6.0 Revenue Structure ................................................................................................................................ 80 6.1 Water System Revenue Under Existing Rates ............................................................................ 80

6.1.1 Existing Rate Structure ..................................................................................................... 80 6.1.2 Projected Accounts and Volumes ..................................................................................... 81 6.1.3 Projected Revenue Under Existing Rates and Charges ................................................... 82 6.1.4 Miscellaneous Revenue .................................................................................................... 83

6.2 Water System Revenue Requirements ........................................................................................ 83 6.2.1 Operation and Maintenance Expenditures (OpEx) ........................................................... 83 6.2.2 Capital Expenditures (CapEx) ........................................................................................... 86 6.2.3 Total Revenue Requirements ........................................................................................... 87

6.3 Additional Revenue Required to Close Funding Gap .................................................................. 88 6.4 20-Year Projection ........................................................................................................................ 89 6.5 Mitigation of Revenue Increases .................................................................................................. 90

7.0 FY2017 Year-End Report ..................................................................................................................... 92 7.1 Asset Inventory Summary ............................................................................................................ 92


7.2 Detailed Expenditures .................................................................................................................. 93 8.0 FY2018 Proposed AM Activities ........................................................................................................... 94

8.1 AM Activities Planned for FY2018 (Next Steps) ........................................................................... 94 8.2 Alternative Pipeline Renewal Approach ....................................................................................... 94


arcadis.com iii

TABLES Table 1: Horizontal Critical Assets Summary ................................................................................................ 2 Table 2: Vertical Critical Assets Summary .................................................................................................... 3 Table 3: Scenarios Summary ........................................................................................................................ 4 Table 4: 5-year CIP Baseline (Current CIP) in Dollars ................................................................................. 6 Table 5: Additional Recommended Capital Investment FY2018-2022 in Present Day Dollars .................... 7 Table 6: Additional Recommended Capital Investment FY2018-2037 in Present Day Dollars .................... 8 Table 7: Projected Water Revenue Under Existing Rates .......................................................................... 10 Table 8: Projected Water System Revenue Requirements ........................................................................ 10 Table 9: Estimated Revenue Increases Needed to Meet Revenue Requirements .................................... 10 Table 10: Storage Facilities with Capacities ............................................................................................... 12 Table 11: Implementation Schedule for AM Program ................................................................................. 17 Table 12: Assets Feature Classes .............................................................................................................. 20 Table 13: Horizontal Asset Attributes .......................................................................................................... 22 Table 14: Vertical Asset Attributes .............................................................................................................. 22 Table 15: Horizontal Asset Inventory – by Diameter .................................................................................. 24 Table 16: Horizontal Asset Inventory - by Material ..................................................................................... 25 Table 17: Horizontal Asset Inventory - by Install Year ................................................................................ 25 Table 18: Vertical Asset Inventory – Visually Assessed ............................................................................. 26 Table 19: Vertical Asset Inventory – Not Visually Assessed ...................................................................... 27 Table 20: Tiered Approach to Performance Management .......................................................................... 30 Table 21: LOS/KPI Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 32 Table 22: AWWA Buried No Longer Estimated Useful Life by Material ..................................................... 35 Table 23: Estimated Useful Life Values Used for Horizontal Assets .......................................................... 35 Table 24: Physical and Performance Condition for Horizontal Assets ....................................................... 37 Table 25: Mechanical Physical Condition Criteria and Scores ................................................................... 38 Table 26: Electrical Physical Condition Criteria and Scores ....................................................................... 39 Table 27: Structural Physical Condition Criteria and Scores ...................................................................... 40 Table 28: HVAC Physical Condition Criteria and Scores ........................................................................... 41 Table 29: Vertical Asset Performance Condition - General ........................................................................ 42 Table 30: Vertical Asset Performance Condition - Specific Factors ........................................................... 42 Table 31: Horizontal Asset Break Data Summary ...................................................................................... 43 Table 32: Horizontal Asset Physical Condition Summary ........................................................................... 44 Table 33: Vertical Asset Condition Summary ............................................................................................. 47 Table 34: Vertical Assets - Highest LOF Scores ........................................................................................ 48 Table 35: Vertical Assets - Highest Performance Condition Scores .......................................................... 50 Table 36: Horizontal Assets - COF Criteria and Scores ............................................................................. 51 Table 37: Vertical Assets - COF Criteria and Scores ................................................................................. 52 Table 38: Horizontal Asset - Overall COF Summary .................................................................................. 53 Table 39: Vertical Asset COF Summary ..................................................................................................... 55 Table 40: Vertical Assets - Highest COF Scores ........................................................................................ 56 Table 41: Risk Calculation Example ........................................................................................................... 59 Table 42: Horizontal Asset Risk Summary ................................................................................................. 60 Table 43: Vertical Asset Risk Summary ...................................................................................................... 62


arcadis.com iv

Table 44: Highest Risk Vertical Assets ....................................................................................................... 65 Table 45: Horizontal Assets EUL Summary ................................................................................................ 66 Table 46: Standard EUL Values for Water Assets ...................................................................................... 67 Table 47: Adjusting EUL based on Asset Condition ................................................................................... 69 Table 48: Horizontal Assets Replacement Cost Summary ......................................................................... 70 Table 49: Thresholds for R&R .................................................................................................................... 71 Table 50: Initial 2018 System-Wide Average Scores ................................................................................. 72 Table 51: Scenarios Summary .................................................................................................................... 72 Table 52: Scenario 3 Detailed Yearly Results ............................................................................................ 74 Table 53: 5-year CIP Baseline (Current CIP) in Dollars ............................................................................. 76 Table 54: Additional Recommended Capital Investment FY2018-2022 in Present Day Dollars ................ 77 Table 55: Additional Recommended Capital Investment FY2018-2037 in Present Day Dollars ................ 77 Table 56: Monthly Water Service Charge ................................................................................................... 80 Table 57: Monthly Water Volume Charge ................................................................................................... 81 Table 58: Projected Water Accounts .......................................................................................................... 81 Table 59: Projected Annual Billed Volume (Ccf) – Inside and Outside City Customers ............................. 82 Table 60: Projected Revenue Under Existing Rates and Charges ............................................................. 82 Table 61: OpEx Budget Summary .............................................................................................................. 83 Table 62: Projected Operation and Maintenance Expense ($1,000s) ........................................................ 86 Table 63: Water System Capital Improvement Plan ($) ............................................................................. 86 Table 64: Total Water System Revenue Requirements ($) ........................................................................ 87 Table 65: Projected Revenue Required from Rates and Charges ($) ........................................................ 88 Table 66: Planned Revenue Increases to Meet Funding Gap .................................................................... 88 Table 67: Projected Revenue Under Existing Rates vs. Revenue Requirements ($1,000s) ..................... 90 Table 68: Horizontal Assets - Inventory Summary for Water Mains ........................................................... 92 Table 69: Vertical Assets - Inventory Summary .......................................................................................... 93 Table 70: Expenditures for FY2017 ............................................................................................................ 93 Table 71: Proposed Activities for FY2018 ................................................................................................... 94


arcadis.com v

FIGURES

Figure 1: Scenario 3 Water Main Replacement Costs, Break Rate, and Risk ............................................. 4 Figure 2: Assets Replacement based on RUL .............................................................................................. 5 Figure 3: Vertical Assets – 5-year CIP .......................................................................................................... 6 Figure 4: Funding Gap Summary .................................................................................................................. 9 Figure 5: Blended Approach to AMP Development .................................................................................... 16 Figure 6: Horizontal Asset Overview ........................................................................................................... 24 Figure 7: Deterioration Curves .................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 8: Horizontal Asset Break Rate Summary ....................................................................................... 44 Figure 9: Horizontal Assets LOF Summary ................................................................................................ 45 Figure 10: Horizontal Asset LOF Summary Map ........................................................................................ 46 Figure 11: Vertical Asset Physical Condition Summary .............................................................................. 47 Figure 12: Vertical Asset Performance Condition Summary ...................................................................... 50 Figure 13: Horizontal Assets COF Summary Map ...................................................................................... 54 Figure 14: Horizontal Asset COF Summary ................................................................................................ 55 Figure 15: Vertical Asset COF Summary .................................................................................................... 56 Figure 16: Horizontal Asset Risk Summary Map ........................................................................................ 61 Figure 17: Horizontal Asset Risk Groupings ............................................................................................... 62 Figure 18: Vertical Asset Risk Summary .................................................................................................... 63 Figure 19: Vertical Asset Risk Matrix .......................................................................................................... 64 Figure 20: Scenario 3 Water Main Replacement Costs, Break Rate, and Risk ......................................... 73 Figure 21: Scenario 3 Initial and Final COF Condition ............................................................................... 74 Figure 22: Assets Replacement based on RUL .......................................................................................... 75 Figure 23: Vertical Assets - 5-year CIP ....................................................................................................... 76 Figure 24: Funding Gap Summary .............................................................................................................. 79


arcadis.com vi

APPENDICES

Appendix A: MDEQ Asset Management Program Checklist

Appendix B: MDEQ Asset Management Guidance for Water Systems

Appendix C: Vertical Asset Inventory and Scoring Summary

Appendix D: Capital Model Scenario Details

Appendix E: Data Profiler Report – GIS Inventory


arcadis.com vii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AM Asset Management

AMP Asset Management Plan

AWWA American Water Works Association

CA Condition Assessment

CCF Hundred Cubic Feet

CIP Capital Improvement Plan

CMMS Computerized Maintenance Management System

COF Consequence of Failure

EUL Estimated Useful Life

FY Fiscal Year

GIS Geographic Information System

HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning

I&C Instrumentation & Controls

ISO International Standards Organization

KPI Key Performance Indicator

LGIM Local Government Information Model

LOF Likelihood of Failure

LOS Level of Service

MCC Motor Control Center

MDEQ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

MGD Millions of Gallons per Day

O&M Operations & Maintenance

R&R Rehabilitation & Replacement

RUL Remaining Useful Life

SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition

SMART Specific, Measurable, Actionable, Realistic, Time-related

SOP Standard Operating Procedure

TBD To Be Determined

TBL Triple Bottom Line

TBP To Be Provided

UPS Uninterruptible Power Supply

VFD Variable Frequency Drive


arcadis.com viii

GLOSSARY OF TERMS Asset – An asset is a physical component of a utility’s system, which deteriorates over time as the system ages. An asset for a water system can be visible or invisible (buried) and can include: pipelines, valves, tanks, pumps, wells, hydrants, treatment facilities, etc.1 Asset Attribute – the specific data attributed to an asset. These characteristics can be physical, financial, location, and asset management related. Asset Management – Asset management is an integrated set of processes to minimize life cycle costs of assets, at an acceptable level of risk, while continuously delivering established level of service. 2 Asset Management Plan – An Asset Management Plan (AMP) is a tool to help a utility implement its Asset Management Program. The AMP helps the utility ensure its ability to deliver the required level of service by determining when it’s appropriate to repair, replace, or rehabilitate assets and developing a long-term funding strategy to pay for these investments. MDEQ requires an AMP to have five core components: Asset Inventory, Level of Service, Criticality Assets, Revenue Structure, and Capital Improvement Project Plan. Capital Improvement Plan – A Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a multi-year program for expenditures for rehabilitation, replacement, and balancing of municipal infrastructure systems. Projects considered through the CIP process involve proposed investment in the City’s infrastructure and facilities, such as police and fire stations, parks and recreation facilities, community centers, offices, roads and sidewalks, and utilities. Consequence of Failure – Consequence of failure analysis should consider all the possible costs/impacts of an asset failure. Examples include: cost of repair, social cost, repair/replacement cost, legal costs, environmental costs, regulatory impacts, or impacts to the community. 3 Critical Assets – Two questions are important to determine criticality – how likely is it that the asset will fail; and what is the consequence of failure? The assets that have the greatest probability of failure and the greatest consequences associated with the failure will be the assets that are the most critical. Determining asset criticality will allow a utility to manage its risk and determine where to spend O&M dollars and plan capital expenditures. 4 Horizontal Assets – Horizontal assets refer to pipelines and their appurtenances, usually inventoried in a Geographic Information System (GIS) asset inventory. Level of Service – Level of Service (LOS) defines the way in which the utility stakeholders want the utility to perform over the long term. The LOS can include any technical, managerial, or financial components the utility wishes, as long as all regulatory requirements are met. 5

1 Definition paraphrased from MDEQ Asset Management Guidance for Water Systems, July 2013, p.1 2 National Association of Clean Water Agencies – NACWA 3 Ibid, p. 7 4 Ibid, p. 6,8 5 MDEQ Asset Management Guidance for Water Systems, July 2013, p. 4


arcadis.com ix

Likelihood of Failure – Likelihood of Failure describes an asset’s probability of failing, based on several factors such as age, condition, failure history/maintenance records, historical knowledge, and/or specific testing records. Redundancy – Redundancy refers to whether there are other installed assets that can provide the same service (either partially or fully) if failure occurs. Redundancy can significantly reduce risk. If the asset is determined to be very critical, then redundancy would be recommended. 6 Risk (also known as Criticality) – Risk is evaluated by considering an asset’s likelihood of failure, consequence of failure, and redundancy. Vertical Assets - Vertical assets refer to discrete assets found at facilities such as treatment facilities, pump stations, and storage facilities. Vertical assets are usually inventoried in a Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS).

6 Ibid, p.9


arcadis.com 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Flint’s water distribution system consists of approximately 582 miles of water pipelines and associated appurtenances, pumping facilities (Cedar Street, Torrey Road, West Side Avenue Pump Stations), the Flint Water Treatment Plant’s Pump Station #4 and Control Station #2, and water storage facilities (Cedar Street, Dort, and West Side Reservoirs, Clear Well #4, and WTP Elevated Storage Tank). This Asset Management Plan summarizes the following components for these assets: Asset Inventory, Level of Service, Critical Assets, Capital Improvement Project Plan, and Revenue Structure, in accordance with the guidelines and best practices outlined by MDEQ. For the purposes of this Asset Management Plan (AMP), the critical assets will be evaluated with a risk score.

ES-1 Asset Inventory This plan is focused on potable water distribution system assets which are owned, maintained, and operated by the City. The horizontal assets include: distribution mains, fire hydrants, control valves, system valves, meters, and service laterals. Meters and service laterals are not currently in the GIS inventory; however, it is recommended they are added in the future, and included in future AMP updates. The vertical assets in the AMP include: mechanical, structural, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), and electrical assets at the treatment facility, pump stations, and water storage facilities. The horizontal assets inventory was based on the Geographic Information System (GIS) and hydraulic model data in conjunction with field survey efforts and scanned atlas drawings. The vertical asset inventory data is currently housed in asset spreadsheets, which the City uses for maintenance management. Only basic attribute data was included in these spreadsheets - such as facility, asset ID, and asset name. As part of the AMP development, condition assessment of pump station assets was performed, and additional physical attributes were captured from the asset nameplates. Improvements in attribute data gaps are recommended for the horizontal asset inventory. Pipe installation years were assumed based on pipe replacement project dates and hydrant fabrication dates for the AMP risk analysis. The accuracy of pipe installation years affects the pipe’s estimated useful life (EUL), critical for rehabilitation and replacement (R&R) planning. The City plans to implement Cityworks Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) in 2018. Horizontal and vertical asset inventories should be included in the CMMS program, utilizing the AMP developed hierarchy for vertical assets. An asset hierarchy is not required for horizontal assets unless the City would like to review asset risk by zones. Comprehensive SOPs are recommended to ensure the asset inventory is maintained as changes occur over time.

ES-2 Level of Service The City drafted twenty-five Level of Service (LOS) measures and key performance indicators (KPIs) using guidance from the MDEQ and the American Water Works Association’s (AWWA) Utility Benchmarking publications. The measures will be implemented in a tiered approach, with Tier 1 containing the most important measures to maintain the required LOS. The City will use a pilot program to implement the Tier 1 measures, so that adjustments can be made to the program before rolling out Tier


arcadis.com 2

2 and 3 measures. The City will use the model of “Plan-Do-Check-Act” to ensure the performance management program is continually enhanced throughout its five-year full implementation. During the implementation phase of the City’s asset management (AM) program, the City will need to develop LOS definition sheets to identify owners and targets for the selected measures.

ES-3 Critical Assets To determine critical assets, a risk analysis was performed, including an asset-level evaluation of the likelihood of failure (LOF), the consequence of failure (COF), and asset redundancy. The likelihood of failure analysis is based on the physical and performance condition of assets, and the consequence of failure analysis is based on a Triple Bottom Line (TBL) approach evaluating economic, social, and environmental impacts. Risk scoring for horizontal and vertical assets is distributed on a scale from 1 (lowest risk) to 25 (highest risk), and assets are organized into one of five risk groupings: Lowest (1 – 5), Low (6 – 10), Medium (10 –16), High (16 – 20), and Highest (21 – 25). The majority of horizontal and vertical assets were categorized as having Lowest to Medium Risk. The highest risk horizontal assets included pipes with high LOF with the ability to impact multiple customers if failure occurs. The high LOF scores were due to the age of pipe and results from the hydraulic model (i.e. low c-factor or high head loss). Overall, the system included only 0.25% of highest risk scoring pipes; with the majority of pipes falling into the lowest risk category.

Table 1: Horizontal Critical Assets Summary

Risk Group Segments Miles % System

Lowest Risk (1-5) 8,392 277.00 47.5%

Low Risk (6-10) 5,764 174.00 29.8%

Medium Risk (11-15) 2,639 7900 13.6%

High Risk (16-20) 1,541 51.00 8.7%

Highest Risk (21-25) 28 1.50 0.3%

The vertical assets were mostly categorized as lowest risk, with only 5 assets (or 3%) falling into the high-risk category. This is due to limited data to evaluate the asset performance issues and redundancy in the system. Currently, not all of the facilities are being operated and there is ample redundancy at the pump stations. The high-risk vertical assets are pumps at multiple facilities and the Cedar Street Pump Station building. Many of the pumps have an increased LOF due to leakage issues, corrosion, and steel/concrete support issues. At the time of the inspection, the building at the Cedar Street Pump Station had a flooded basement. Additional investigation is needed to evaluate if there was any damage caused by the flooding to the substructure. The consequence of these failures are high replacement costs and time (up to 24 hours) required to respond and repair the assets.


arcadis.com 3

Table 2: Vertical Critical Assets Summary

Risk Number of Assets % of Total Assets

Lowest Risk (1-5) 81 51%

Low Risk (6-10) 58 36%

Medium Risk (11-15) 16 10%

High Risk (16-20) 5 3%

Highest Risk (21-25) 0 0%

ES-4 Capital Improvement Project Plan For linear assets, Arcadis used a GIS-based capital planning model that applies service level, criticality, condition, pipe deterioration curves and replacement cost criteria in conjunction with budget alternatives to plan for the replacement & rehabilitation. Various budget scenarios were modeled to show how the system-wide condition and risk change based on higher or lower funding levels. This allows for choosing the most appropriate long-term funding to achieve service level and risk goals. The model was configured to allot 20% of funding to high risk pipes and 80% of funding to those in the worst condition (high LOF score). For example, in 2018, $12 million was budgeted for water main replacement. Therefore $2.4 million went to replace the highest risk pipes and the remaining $9.6 million was used to replace the worst condition pipes. This configuration ensures that the highest risk pipes due to poor performance scores are replaced while still applying funds to minimizing the rising break rate. Four funding scenarios were run based on this configuration. All three scenarios start with the previously planned funding of $12M in 2018, $19M in 2019 and $7M in 2020. Scenario 1 is also based on the previous plan which allocated a constant $5M per year from 2021 through 2037. Scenario 2 increased funding by $0.5M each year starting at $7M in 2020 and finishing at $15.5M in 2037. Scenario 3 increased funding by $1M each year starting at $7M in 2020 and finishing at $20M in 2037. Scenario 4 increased funding by $2M each year starting at $7M in 2020 until reaching and holding $21M per year from 2027 through 2037. The following table shows how the break rate, physical condition, performance condition, overall LOF, and risk change by the end of each scenario. All scenarios show an increase in break rate and thus the physical condition, but the performance condition shows marked improvement in each scenario. This is primarily because almost 47% of the water mains have initial performance scores of 4 or 5, which represents poorer condition. In Scenario 1, the increased physical score overwhelms the improved performance score, resulting in an increased risk score. The better physical scores of Scenarios 2, 3 and 4 along with the reduced performance scores result in a risk reduction as shown in the table below.


arcadis.com 4

Table 3: Scenarios Summary

Scenario Name Scenario

Year Break Rate

Physical Score

Performance Score

LOF Risk Score

% Max Risk

Start 2018 33.95 2.16 3.00 3.17 7.18 54.8%

Scenario 1: Initial Plan 2037 55.58 3.17 2.56 3.54 7.53 58.7%

Scenario 2: $0.5M Ramp Up

2037 45.64 2.78 2.18 3.11 6.60 48.3%


2037 39.33 2.53 1.93 2.84 6.05 42.2%

Scenario 4: $2.0M Ramp Up to $21M/year

2037 34.90 2.35 1.73 2.63 5.59 37.1%

Scenario 3 represents the recommended funding scenario. It includes an aggressive ramp up of water main replacement as shown in the following figure. Over 20 years, $310M is spent to replace 198 miles of water mains, which is 1/3 of the existing system. Although the system wide break rate increases initially, it levels off and reduces to under 40 breaks per 100 miles per year. Maintaining a target of 40 breaks per 100 miles per year represents maintaining the current condition of the system. Scenario 3 Risk is gradually reduced almost every year in the plan.

Figure 1: Scenario 3 Water Main Replacement Costs, Break Rate, and Risk

For Vertical Assets, Arcadis developed capital projects in Excel based on the risk analysis and remaining useful life. The risk evaluations for vertical assets yielded twenty-four assets that are recommended to be replaced within the next five years based on risk, present condition, and remaining useful life. The following chart indicates the number of assets to be replaced in the following increments, based on the risk and RUL analysis: 0-2, 3-5, 6-10, 11-20, and 20+ years. All critical assets are included for replacement in the first five years.


arcadis.com 5

Figure 2: Assets Replacement based on RUL

Installation cost was estimated based on the methodology outlined in Section 6.3.2, for the twenty-four assets recommended to be replaced or repaired in years 1-5. For mechanical, electrical, and HVAC assets, complete replacement of the asset was considered at the end of the asset’s useful life and replacement cost was estimated for the asset. For structural assets, since complete replacement is unlikely due to the expense, structural repairs were estimated and used in the analysis. CIP Group 1 includes R&R of assets with an RUL from 0 up to 2; CIP Group 2 includes R&R of assets with an RUL 2 up to 3; CIP Group 3 covers assets with RUL 3 up to 4; CIP Group 4 covers RUL 4 up to 5 and CIP Group 5 covers RUL 5 up to 6. A total investment of almost $2M is required to rehabilitation/replace these assets over the next five years, as illustrated in the chart below. Based on discussions with the City, there is a line item included in the current CIP line item for “Pump Station Improvements” that could potentially cover the anticipated replacement needs. If it is determined that the anticipated replacement needs ($2M) for the first five years are not addressed in the current CIP, then the financial model will need to be adjusted accordingly.

20

4

68

55

13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

RUL 0-2 RUL 3-5 RUL 6-10 RUL 11-20 RUL 20+

Qu

anti

ty o

f A

sset

s

RUL Grouping

Vertical Assets - Remaining Useful Life


arcadis.com 6

Figure 3: Vertical Assets – 5-year CIP

The City’s current CIP plan includes investment in horizontal assets as part of the following projects: Northwest Transmission Main, Small Main Replacement, Atherton Road Main. The City plans to invest in various Pump Station Improvements in FY2019 and 20. It is estimated that the completion of the following projects will be the end of their corresponding fiscal year.

Table 4: 5-year CIP Baseline (Current CIP) in Dollars

Project FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 Funding Source

FAST START – LSLR

28,000,000 50,000,000 37,000,000 12,000,000 0 Grants

GCDC Back-Up Supply

1,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 0 0 Grants

Northwest Transmission Main

4,000,000 8,000,000 0 0 0 Grants

Meter Replacement – AMR/AMI

1,000,000 10,000,000 0 0 0 Grants

Small Main Replacement

6,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 0 0 Grants

Small Main Replacement (Cash Portion)

0 0 0 5,000,000 5,000,000 Cash

CIP Group 1 CIP Group 2 CIP Group 3 CIP Group 4 CIP Group 5

Series1 $269,998 $1,116,092 $431,970 $125,237 $-

$269,998

$1,116,092

$431,970

$125,237

$- $-

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

Co

st

CIP Years 1-5

Vertical Assets - 5 year CIP


arcadis.com 7


Dort Pumping Station/Cedar St. Pump Replacement

500,000 4,500,000 0 0 0 Grants

Water Facility Consolidation

200,000 0 2,800,000 0 0 Cash

Distribution System WQ Monitoring

1,000,000 1,000,000 0 0 0 Grants

Dam Maintenance

500,000 250,000 0 0 0 Cash

72-inch Line Maintenance

500,000 0 0 0 0 Cash

Pump Station Improvements

0 500,000 2,500,000 0 0 Cash

Atherton Road Main

2,000,000 5,000,000 0 0 0 Grants

TOTAL 44,700,000 90,250,000 55,300,000 17,000,000 5,000,000 -

Based on the risk and RUL analysis discussed in previous report sections, the following additional capital investments (beyond the current CIP) are recommended for FY2018-2022 for vertical and horizontal assets.

Table 5: Additional Recommended Capital Investment FY2018-2022 in Present Day Dollars

Fiscal Year Vertical Assets

R&R* Horizontal Assets

R&R Funding Source

FY2018 - - TBD

FY2019 - - TBD

FY2020 - - TBD

FY2021 - $8,000,000 TBD

FY2022 - $9,000,000 TBD

* It is assumed that the approximately $2M in anticipated vertical asset R&R is addressed in the current “Pump Station Improvements” CIP line item, so no additional investment is shown here for vertical assets. If this is not the case, the financial model will need to be adjusted accordingly to include the anticipated investment for vertical assets.

The investment in horizontal assets, based on the recommended capital model scenario outlined in Section 6.4, will require $1M additional funding each year to replace poor condition, high risk pipes. Therefore the 20-year CIP will include $1M increases each year as listed in the table below, ending at $24M in 2037. The total investment in horizontal assets R&R is $310M, with a total of approximately 200 miles replaced.


arcadis.com 8

For vertical assets, the 5-year CIP is assumed to be addressed in the Pump Station Improvements CIP line item, so no additional investment is shown for the 5-year period. Beyond the 5-year CIP, an average R&R rate of 3% was estimated based on the overall replacement cost of the pump stations.


Fiscal Year Vertical Assets

R&R Horizontal Assets

R&R Funding Source

FY2018 - - TBD

FY2019 - - TBD

FY2020 - - TBD

FY2021 - $8,000,000 TBD

FY2022 - $9,000,000 TBD

FY2023 $200,000 $10,000,000 TBD

FY2024 $200,000 $11,000,000 TBD

FY2025 $200,000 $12,000,000 TBD

FY2026 $200,000 $13,000,000 TBD

FY2027 $200,000 $14,000,000 TBD

FY2028 $200,000 $15,000,000 TBD

FY2029 $200,000 $16,000,000 TBD

FY2030 $200,000 $17,000,000 TBD

FY2031 $200,000 $18,000,000 TBD

FY2032 $200,000 $19,000,000 TBD

FY2033 $200,000 $20,000,000 TBD

FY2034 $200,000 $21,000,000 TBD

FY2035 $200,000 $22,000,000 TBD

FY2036 $200,000 $23,000,000 TBD

FY2037 $200,000 $24,000,000 TBD

As noted above, Scenario 3 is the recommended Asset Management Plan for the City. The financial analysis in Section 6.0 of this Report outlines the analysis that determines the estimated funding gaps, as well as the revenue increases needed to meet the following:

Annual O&M expenses, including water system operation and maintenance and annual payments for water service.

Cash Funded Capital – This includes annual amounts to fund the cash portion of the City’s CIP, and annual replacement amounts for Scenario 3 for horizontal and vertical assets.

Reserve Balances – This includes transfers to or from the available Operating Fund balance. The City targets for the Water Fund to maintain 25 percent of the annual expenditures for O&M and debt service, and Transfers to the General Fund.

The following chart reflects the funding gap for implementing the Scenario 3 Asset Management Plan


arcadis.com 9

Figure 4: Funding Gap Summary

To close the funding gap, the City will need regular increases to its water system rates and charges. This includes the annual increases noted in Table 66 of Section 6.4. The percent increases needed assume that the City will fund the annual Scenario 3 requirements from water system operating revenues. The City has indicated that it will be extremely difficult to undertake the revenue increases necessary to implement the Scenario 3 plan. As such, it will pursue various other funding sources such as state and federal grants to offset the funding gap. It also plans to offset rate impacts through initiatives that would improve operating efficiencies; improve revenue collection rates; or enhance low-income assistance. These alternative funding sources and initiatives would help close the funding gap for the Scenario 3 plan beyond FY 2022. The City could also attempt to pursue future state revolving fund loans or other financing for a portion of the Scenario 3 replacements. In recent years the City retired its outstanding debt service, and this Asset Management Plan does not reflect a plan for the City to issue debt or take advantage of state revolving fund (SRF) loans. If available, and if desired by the City, these mechanisms could push revenue increases to future fiscal years, and mitigate revenue increases as the Scenario 3 replacement capital ramp up begins.

ES-5 Revenue Structure The City currently utilizes a two-part rate structure for its water system. The first part includes a monthly service charge that is graduated by meter size (5/8-inch to 20-inch). The volume charge is a declining block structure with three blocks:

010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,00080,00090,000

100,000

$1,0

00s

Fiscal Year

Asset Management Funding GapScenario 3

Total Revenue Under Existing Rates Revenue Requirements


arcadis.com 10

0 to 35 hundred cubic feet (Ccf) per month

36 to 2,000 Ccf per month

Over 2,000 Ccf per month

Using the current rates, projected accounts, and volumes by block provided by the City, Arcadis estimates the City’s water system will produce the following annual revenue for the 5-year period FY 2018 to FY 2022. As is seen, the revenue under existing rates increases slightly due to projected better collection rates from billings to customers over the next five years. The City projects that it will collect approximately 65% of billings from Residential customers in FY 2018, but expects this to improve to 85% by FY 2022.

Table 7: Projected Water Revenue Under Existing Rates

Description FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Revenue from Water Rates and Charges

22,596,500 23,264,100 23,916,100 24,553,000 25,175,300

Miscellaneous Revenue

1,231,100 1,223,400 1,223,400 1,223,400 1,223,400

Total Water Revenue

23,827,600 24,487,500 25,139,500 25,776,400 26,398,700

Water system revenues are managed in the Operating Fund and are used to meet the revenue requirements of the system. The City targets an Operating Fund balance of 25 percent of annual operations and maintenance (O&M) and debt service expenditures. The projected 5-year revenue requirements consist of O&M expense and cash funded capital (including replacement of horizontal and vertical assets). The following presents the projected water system revenue requirements:

Table 8: Projected Water System Revenue Requirements

1 2 3 4 5

Line No. Description FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

1 O&M Expense 28,837,200 30,881,300 31,753,100 32,659,000 33,600,600

2 Cash Funded Capital

1,200,000 772,500 5,622,800 8,741,800 10,129,600

3 Total Revenue Requirement 30,037,200 31,653,800 37,375,900 41,400,800 43,730,200

As is seen, water revenues under existing rates are less than the projected revenue requirements. To close the gap and maintain the appropriate balance of cash reserves in the Operating Fund, Arcadis estimates that the following annual revenue increases would be needed:

Table 9: Estimated Revenue Increases Needed to Meet Revenue Requirements

1 2 3 4 5


arcadis.com 11

Description FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

% Annual Revenue Increases 0.0% 27.5% 16.4% 10.9% 3.2%

Arcadis also evaluated the 20-year revenue requirements for O&M and cash funded capital. The 20-year projection in Section 6.4 includes Arcadis’ estimate of needed horizontal and vertical asset replacement for Scenario 3 of the Section 5.4 Asset Management Plan. The analysis included maintaining the Operating Fund at a balance of 25 percent of O&M and debt service. Beyond FY 2022, the analysis reflects that annual revenue increases of 3 percent to 7 percent would be necessary should these be funded with cash from operations. The financial analysis reflects a conservative estimate of the revenue increases that would be necessary to meet the revenue requirements associated with Scenario 3 of the Asset Management Plan. There are several areas and initiatives that could mitigate the revenue increases, including:

Pursuit and attainment of additional state and federal grants to fund a portion of the projected capital improvements

Use of state revolving fund loans or other debt financing options as feasible to fund a portion of future capital improvements

Water shut off policy to improve revenue collection rates from customers

Improving operational efficiencies

Enhancing low-income assistance programs for customers

Alternative water rate structure to mitigate impact on low-income customers

As the City evaluates or undertakes areas and initiatives, Arcadis recommends that the City perform regular financial planning to derive the optimal financial plan that mitigates rate impacts to customers.


arcadis.com 12

1.0 ASSET MANAGEMENT PROGRAM OVERVIEW

1.1 City and Water Department Overview The City of Flint operates a public water system which supplies drinking water to a population of over 98,000 through 582 miles of distribution mains. The system supplies an average of 13.2 million gallons per day (MGD). Incorporated in 1855, it is estimated that the City of Flint’s first water distribution pipelines were installed as early as 1912. The City currently purchases finished water from Great Lakes Water Authority (GLWA), boosting the concentration of chlorine and orthophosphate for corrosion control and adjusting the PH, prior to distribution. The City also owns and operates the Flint Water Treatment Plant (WTP), which was originally constructed in 1952, and recently renovated in 2014. The plant has historically been used as a backup supply with the ability to intake from the Flint River. However, an interconnection with Genesee County will serve as a future backup supply. Four pump stations, Pump Station #4, Cedar Street, Torrey Road, West Side Avenue Pump Stations were constructed in 1948, 1948, 1948, and 1972, respectively. The City maintains five storage facilities, as listed below. Under current operating conditions, the Dort Reservoir, Clear Well #4, West Side Avenue Pump Station and Reservoir are not in use.

Table 10: Storage Facilities with Capacities

Storage Facility Type Reported Capacity (MG)

Cedar Street Reservoir Ground Storage Reservoir 20

Clear Well #4 Buried Tank 4

Dort Reservoir Ground Storage Reservoir 20

West Side Avenue Reservoir (Inactive)

Ground Storage Reservoir 12

WTP Elevated Tank Elevated Tank 2

58

Overall, the City of Flint’s water distribution system includes approximately 582 miles of pipelines and appurtenances, and vertical assets at four pump stations, one water treatment plant, control station 2, and five storage facilities. Historically, the City purchased water from GLWA; however, in 2013, the City decided to purchase water from a new regional water supplier, the Karegnondi Water Authority (KWA). During the transition, the City drew water from the Flint River and treated the water via the Flint WTP prior to distribution. Following the City’s drinking water crisis, the City switched back to the finished water supply from GLWA. A 30-year contract to continue purchasing water from GLWA was signed in November 2017. That contract includes a credit from GLWA to the City for the share of the KWA raw water pipeline debt. In addition, an interconnection with Genesee County is being constructed to serve as a backup supply. The City is currently undergoing a Water Distribution System Optimization effort, which involves several components including identification and implementation of distribution system operational best practices, standard operating procedures, corrosion control testing, hydraulic modeling and system operations


arcadis.com 13

recommendations, Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) functional requirements definition, and the development of this AMP. The recommendations from the Hydraulic Modeling Technical Memorandum (issued as draft in October 2017, and currently being updated) was used to develop an understanding of what facilities will be included in the future water distribution system. This AMP assumes that the future plan for water distribution facilities in operation will include:

Treatment: Flint Water Treatment Plant, consisting of flow monitoring and chemical adjustment only (chlorine, orthophosphate and pH – depending on water quality)

Pumping: Cedar Street Pump Station, Pump Station #4, Torrey Road Pump Station o West Side Avenue Pump Station will remain out of service

Storage: Cedar Street Reservoir, WTP Elevated Tank, and Dort Reservoir (placed into service) o West Side Avenue Reservoir and Clear Well #4 will remain out of service

1.2 Brief History of Asset Management Efforts

The City has performed many studies and master plans over the years. In 2008, the City of Flint Water System Review (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) 2008) cited many key improvements necessary to the water supply, including the recommendation to develop an Asset Management System. The City embarked on subsequent asset management activities including field verification of hydrants and valves, the development of a GIS-based model, the development of a replacement program for assets more than fifty years old, and various assessments of pumping and treatment facilities. However, like many water utilities across the country, the City lacked the resources to implement the proposed Asset Replacement Program and other recommendations documented within the reports. City resources often were shifted away from this preventive work to respond to corrective issues, such as emergency breaks or construction activities.

In 2014, the City experienced a highly-publicized drinking water crisis. In response to the state of emergency declaration and United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) emergency administrative order, multiple projects were initiated between 2015 and 2017. Efforts related to asset management included:

Resume purchasing water from the Great Lakes Water Authority (formerly Detroit Water and Sewerage Department)

Provide an inventory of lead service lines, water interruptions, and unoccupied homes

Develop and implement a distribution system water quality optimization plan (Arcadis 2017)

Valve Assessment and Exercising (Wachs Water Services 2015)

Development of a Capital Improvement Plan (DLZ Michigan 2015)

Deliver a Fiscal Year 2016 Year-End Report (Water Service Center 2016)

In 2016, the City published their first Draft Asset Management Report (Rowe Engineering 2016). The purpose of the report was to “…develop an inventory and define the needs of the City’s utilities and roadways.” It was a good first step in the process of asset management and began to provide information for the City to make decisions and establish priorities for maintenance and replacement of the City’s infrastructure. The Report was reviewed by the MDEQ and feedback was provided for areas of improvement, to be addressed in future updates, which are now included in this document.


arcadis.com 14

1.3 Purpose of This Document The purpose of the 2017 Water System AMP document is to build upon the first Asset Management (AM) report and further develop and implement an AMP with the following criteria:

Meets the minimum criteria established within the MDEQ Asset Management Program Checklist and Asset Management Guidance for Water Systems (Appendices A and B, respectively)

Includes the following core components: Asset Inventory, Level of Service, Critical Assets, Capital Improvement Project Plan, and Revenue Structure

Addresses all assets related to potable water distribution, pumping, and storage assets maintained by the City’s Department of Public Works - Water Service Center and Water Treatment Plant divisions

Contains a schedule for the development and implementation of an AM Program that can be achieved in 3-5 years

Is submitted to the MDEQ on or before January 1, 2018

1.4 Mission, Goals, and Asset Management Strategy The Mission Statement for the City of Flint’s Asset Management Program is as follows: We commit to protecting public health through the effective management of our drinking water system pumping, storage, and distribution assets. We strive to make the most cost-effective renewal and replacement investments in our system, while being transparent in justifying our investment decisions to our stakeholders. We endeavor to win back the confidence of our customer base through implementing best practices and industry standard asset management practices to ensure our system yields safe drinking water. The goals of our Asset Management Program are the following:

Increase customer confidence in our ability to effectively manage our assets.

Work together, across divisions, to ensure utility-wide buy-in to asset management practices.

Produce a risk-based CIP that will justify a 20-year asset rehabilitation and replacement plan

Work together, with our customers, to reduce delinquent accounts and increase collection rates over the next five years.

The objectives of our Asset Management Program are the following:

Develop an Asset Management Plan, acceptable to the MDEQ, by January 1, 2018. The AMP will be updated at least annually going forward.

Implement a full Asset Management Program based on industry best practices and MDEQ guidance in the next 3-5 years.

Develop a transparent capital improvement plan that can be easily justified to our stakeholders by 2019.

Implement an Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) program to bring success to our program through effective management of asset inventory, condition, COF, and risk data by 2020.


arcadis.com 15

Implement a proactive asset replacement strategy to ensure reliable water supply to our customer base in time for the 2021 CIP.

1.5 Adopted Framework In the United States, the USEPA promotes the use of AM and application of associated strategic AM concepts such as level of service, life cycle analysis, and risk. This focus builds on the development of asset management elsewhere, with the International Infrastructure Management Manual (IIMM) spearheaded in Australia and New Zealand, and the British Standards Institution’s Publicly Available Specification 55 (PAS 55) for asset management in the United Kingdom. Over the last decade, these concepts have been widely adopted and continually refined in these countries. Recently, in the United States, municipalities and utilities have begun to recognize the need to develop a more structured approach to ensure accurate/defendable budget forecasting and project prioritization. A wide variety of organizations have published their own unique approach to asset management, as there is no “one size fits all” standard. The City’s approach to the development of the AMP is based firstly on MDEQ Guidance, and complies with both of the following publications:

Asset Management Program Review Checklist (MDEQ 2017) – Appendix A

Asset Management Guidance for Water Systems (MDEQ 2013) – Appendix B The MDEQ Guidance requires five core components to an AMP: Asset Inventory, Level of Service, Critical Assets, Revenue Structure, and Capital Improvement Project Plan. The AM Program Review Checklist provides specific details as to what information should be included in each section. In addition to meeting these minimum requirements, the AMP considers other best practices, such as:

Asset Management Guidance and Best Practices (USEPA 2008)

Asset Management Systems Requirements and Guidelines for the Application of ISO 55000-2 (International Organization for Standardization 2014)

International Infrastructure Management Manual (IIMM 2015)

IAM Anatomy of Asset Management (Institute of Asset Management 2015) Lastly, the City of Flint considered the goals and objectives in the AMP development. The goals and objectives were developed through conversations with AM Steering Team Representatives: Rob Bincsik, Director of Public Works and Mark Adas, City Engineer. The result is a blended approach to AMP development illustrated in the following diagram.


arcadis.com 16

Figure 5: Blended Approach to AMP Development

ISO 55000

City of Flint Goals

MDEQ Guidance


arcadis.com 17

1.6 Plan/Schedule for Water System AM Program The table below represents the major objectives to be achieved in each year, over the next 5 years, to implement the Asset Management Program for the City of Flint. Specific details are provided in each section of the AMP.

Table 11: Implementation Schedule for AM Program

Year 1 (2018) Year 2 (2019) Year 3 (2020) Year 4 (2021) Year 5 (2022)

Asset Inventory

Import vertical inventory, and attribute data into Cityworks CMMS Implement SOPs to maintain asset inventory

Enforce SOPs to ensure asset inventory is maintained Implement an asset tagging program to install physical tags in field with unique identification for each asset.

Implement recommended data improvements

Maintain accurate asset inventory

Maintain accurate asset inventory

Level of Service

Performance Management Pilot Program: Develop LOS definition sheets and begin measuring 5 Tier 1 performance measures

Review Lessons Learned – Check and adjust Tier 1 measures

Develop LOS definition sheets and begin measuring Tier 2 performance measures. Report to internal stakeholders.

Develop LOS definition sheets and begin measuring Tier 3 performance measures. Check and adjust Tier 1&2 measures

Full Performance Management Implementation - Report to External Stakeholders. Develop a LOS dashboard for reporting.


arcadis.com 18

Year 1 (2018) Year 2 (2019) Year 3 (2020) Year 4 (2021) Year 5 (2022)

Critical Assets

Perform a condition and COF assessment for water storage facilities to identify critical assets Perform redundancy analysis for vertical assets and factor into risk analysis Load pumping and WTP asset condition and COF data into CMMS

Load storage asset condition data into CMMS Implement PM program for regular inspection of most critical assets

Expand PM program to all applicable assets Build standardized Job Plans for PMs

Reassess critical assets and update CIP

CIP

Utilize current CIP Review and refine EUL tables based on current asset failure history

Obtain asset-level costs for vertical assets and prepare to integrate risk/RUL results into next CIP

Develop list projects based on identified Critical Assets

Implement formal business case evaluation and project prioritization processes

Prepare new 5-year CIP based on risk and RUL evaluations for vertical assets.

Revenue Structure

Seek additional grant funding sources to offset projected water system capital improvements Adopt FY 2019 budget with necessary revenue increases from water rates and charges

Perform continued financial planning; pursue grant funding opportunities to offset capital improvements; consider use of state revolving fund loans to fund a portion of main replacement CIP and mitigate rate increases; implement necessary revenue increases from water rates and charges


arcadis.com 19

2.0 ASSET INVENTORY

2.1 Assets Included in AMP The AMP is focused on potable water distribution system assets which are owned, maintained, and operated by the City. The horizontal assets included in the AMP include: distribution mains, fire hydrants, control valves, and system valves. Meters and service laterals are not currently in the GIS inventory; however, it is recommended they be added in the future, and included in future AMP updates. This may be accomplished as part of a comprehensive AMI project that the City is planning. The vertical assets included in the AMP are: mechanical, structural, HVAC, and electrical assets at the treatment facility pump station and control station, other pump stations, and water storage facilities. Fixed assets excluded from the AMP are: water treatment plant (except pump station 4 and control station 2), dams, other minor water-related appurtenances/facilities, water administration buildings, facilities, and yards, land/real estate, and other asset types (wastewater, stormwater, streets, traffic, etc.). Non-Fixed Assets (also known as expendable/portable assets) which are not included are: fleet, equipment/major tools, spare parts inventory, office equipment and computers, etc. Since the scope of this AMP is to address horizontal and vertical water distribution assets, these other assets will not be included in the AMP. It is the intention that the AMP will serve as a template and other City asset types could be added as separate documents.

2.2 Asset Definition and Level of Detail

2.2.1 Horizontal Assets

The horizontal asset water main inventory was based on the GIS and hydraulic model data in conjunction with field survey efforts and scanned atlas drawings. The GIS has been updated based on the ESRI Local Government Information Model (LGIM) format. The GIS is built within an ESRI personal geodatabase named Flint_pgdb.mdb, using the NAD 1983 State Plane Michigan South International Feet projection. This geodatabase was initially populated from different data sources provide by the City. Water mains were populated from a shapefile named WaterPipes_83. These pipes were matched to the hydraulic model and adjustments were made to both datasets to align pipe segments, geometry, and diameters. Through this process, 17,683 segments representing 573.54 miles (98.58%) of the GIS water mains were linked to the hydraulic model data. The link was established by storing the unique hydraulic model label attribute in the GIS Model_ID attribute. Fire hydrants and system valve assets were populated from a file geodatabase named Flint_Master_GDB. This geodatabase utilized the NAD 1983 State Plane Michigan South US Feet projection, therefore the feature classes were re-projected to International Feet. Additional fire hydrants and water valves assets were field surveyed and appended to their respective feature classes. Currently, these surveyed appurtenances do not line up with the water main features. This is not a major short-term


arcadis.com 20

problem, because these appurtenances are not considered a primary asset. Future data clean-up should be performed to align the water mains with these surveyed points. The water main feature class within GIS and the hydraulic model did not contain any asset installation dates. The City identified mains that were part of eight recent water main replacement projects between 1998 and 2012. These pipes were assigned install years based on their respective project years. The hydrant data included the fabrication year for 3,503 of the 3,604 records (97.2%). This data was used to estimate the water main installation years which were not populated. To be conservative, the oldest hydrant fabrication date was assigned to the nearest stretch of water main having the same diameter and material from interaction to intersection. Hydrant fabrication dates after 1995 were ignored because the eight replacement projects captured all the new water mains. The remaining pipe install years were populated based on adjacent connected pipes where the hydrant fabrication year was applied. If better information becomes available in the future, these install dates should be updated in a future AMP update. GIS network structures were populated based on the hydraulic model tanks and reservoirs. Pumps in the GIS were also populate based on the hydraulic model. Populated LGIM feature classes are as follows.

Table 12: Assets Feature Classes

Feature Class Description Quantity Length (miles) Category

wFitting Nodes 16,656 NA Appurtenance

wHydrant Nodes 3,604 NA Appurtenance

wMain Water main lines 18,364 581.84 Horizontal Asset

wNetworkStructure Storage Nodes 9 NA Vertical Asset

wPump Nodes 14 NA Vertical Asset

wSystemValve Nodes 9,577 NA Appurtenance

Only the water mains are considered assets for the capital planning model. Although there are 18,655 water main segments (589.12 miles) in the GIS, only 18,364 segments (581.84 miles) are owned by Flint, active, connected and are not piping within a pump station facility boundary. Information regarding horizontal assets in the rest of this document will be related to the 582 miles water mains. Network structures and pumps are contained within the GIS but are considered under the vertical asset category. Appurtenances such as valves and hydrants are not considered individually, however they are accounted for within the water main replacement costs based upon typical spacings.

2.2.2 Vertical Assets

The City of Flint determined that the following three questions will guide the definition of a vertical asset for the AMP.

1. Will a work order be written to this specific item? 2. Will a separate condition assessment need to be performed on this item?


arcadis.com 21

3. Will depreciation or costs need to be tracked separately on this item?

The specific level of detail was defined further for mechanical, electrical, HVAC, and structural assets so that it is clear to what granularity assets will be tracked. Mechanical assets are defined as:

All pumps and process mechanical equipment

All actuated gates/valves

Manual valves >= 14” are assets (cost dependent). o Valves < 14” are assessed as part of the piping collection. o Actuators are assessed as part of gate/valve

Cranes, hoists, sump pumps

Electrical assets are defined as:

All motor control centers (MCCs) o Individual MCC buckets are assessed as part of the overall MCC.

Electrical panels

Transformers

Generators

Variable frequency drives (VFDs)

Motors (over 100 HP) o Motors less than 100 HP are assessed as part of the piece of equipment.

Remote instrumentation and remote-control panels are assets. o Local instrumentation or control panels are assessed as part of the piece of equipment. o PLC/RTU assessed as part of control panel, except stand-alone PLC panels in the

control room which are considered assets.

I&C assets such as: transmitters, controllers, analyzers, SCADA equipment, etc. HVAC assets are defined as:

Fans (exhaust and supply)

Unit heaters

Dehumidifiers

Air conditioners Structural assets are defined as:

Buildings o The building roof is defined as a separate asset

Process tanks (buried or above ground)

Process structures (wet wells, chambers, etc.)


arcadis.com 22

2.3 Asset Attributes Asset attributes describe an asset’s characteristics and they generally fall into four categories: physical, financial, location, and asset management related. The tables in each section below lists each type of attribute and where the data should be stored and maintained.


The GIS houses attributes such as material, diameter, length, and install year. Additionally, financial and asset management attributes have been loaded into the GIS from the data source listed below.

Table 13: Horizontal Asset Attributes

Attribute Type Attribute Recommended Data Source

Physical Material GIS

Diameter GIS

Length GIS

Location Asset Location GIS

Financial Install Year GIS

Replacement Cost Capital Planning Tool

Estimated Useful Life Capital Planning Tool

Asset Management Physical Condition Score Capital Planning Tool

Performance Condition Score Hydraulic Model

Consequence of Failure Score Hydraulic Model and Capital Planning Tool

Risk Score Capital Planning Tool


The vertical asset data is currently housed in asset spreadsheets, which the City uses for maintenance management. Only basic attribute data is included in these spreadsheets - such as facility, asset ID, and asset name. As part of the AMP development, condition assessment of pump station assets was performed, and additional physical attributes were captured from the asset nameplates. As the City prepares for Cityworks implementation in 2018, this asset data should be used as a basis for populating the CMMS.

Table 14: Vertical Asset Attributes

Attribute Type Attribute Recommended Data Source

Physical Facility Identification CMMS (future)

Asset Identification CMMS (future)

Asset Name CMMS (future)

Asset Type CMMS (future)

Capacity/Size CMMS (future)

Manufacturer/Model CMMS (future)

Financial Install Date CMMS (future)


arcadis.com 23

Attribute Type Attribute Recommended Data Source Install Cost CMMS (future)

Replacement Cost CMMS (future)

Estimated Useful Life CMMS (future)

Asset Management Physical Condition Score Visual Assessment, CMMS (future)

Performance Condition Score Desktop Analysis, CMMS (future)

Consequence of Failure Score Desktop Analysis, CMMS (future)

Redundancy Factor Desktop Analysis, CMMS (future)

Risk Score Desktop Analysis, CMMS (future)

2.4 Asset Inventory

2.4.1 Horizontal Asset Inventory

The map of the overall water distribution system is illustrated below. The primary horizontal assets - the 582 miles of water mains – are shown in blue.


arcadis.com 24

Figure 6: Horizontal Asset Overview

The following tables characterize the City’s water distribution system by diameter, material, and age. Actual water main sizes range from 2” to 72”. Over 50% of the pipes are 6” diameter. The 26 water mains with a diameter of 0” will be assumed to be 6” for replacement planning.

Table 15: Horizontal Asset Inventory – by Diameter

Diameter Segments Miles % System

0” 26 0.09 0.02%

2” 47 0.60 0.10%

3” 116 1.50 0.26%

4” 1525 25.80 4.43%

6” 9162 299.64 51.50%

8” 4530 138.33 23.78%


arcadis.com 25

Diameter Segments Miles % System 12” 1490 46.63 8.01%

10” 1 0.01 0.00%

14” 71 0.95 0.16%

16” 473 21.37 3.67%

18” 262 10.33 1.78%

20” 1 0.01 0.00%

24” 500 26.99 4.64%

30” 81 3.11 0.53%

36” 31 2.69 0.46%

40” 4 0.02 0.00%

42” 23 0.36 0.06%

48” 9 0.42 0.07%

60” 3 0.05 0.01%

72” 9 2.94 0.51%

Total 18364 581.84 99.99%

The vast majority (95.5%) of the water mains are cast iron material. For replacement planning, the 85 water mains with an unknown material were assumed to be cast iron if the install year was older than 1970 and ductile iron if newer.

Table 16: Horizontal Asset Inventory - by Material

Material Segments Miles % System

CAS – Cast Iron Pipe 17888 555.43 95.46%

CP – Concrete Pipe 7 0.53 0.09%

DIP – Ductile Iron Pipe 284 15.20 2.61%

GP – Galvanized Pipe 1 0.05 0.01%

PCCP – Prestressed Concrete Cylinder Pipe

1 0.37 0.06%

PVC – Polyvinyl Chloride Pipe

3 0.02 0.00%

RCP – Reinforced Concrete Pipe

3 0.60 0.10%

SP – Steel Pipe 92 5.36 0.92%

UNK – Unknown Material 85 4.26 0.73%

Total 18363 581.81 100.00%

The following table is based on water main installation years populated as described in Section 2.2.1. Based on this assignment, over 70% of the water mains were installed in the 1930s, 40s and 50s.

Table 17: Horizontal Asset Inventory - by Install Year

Install Decade Segments Miles % System

1910 50 1.63 0.28%

1920 412 13.06 2.25%


arcadis.com 26

Install Decade Segments Miles % System 1930 7065 226.84 38.99%

1940 1520 49.13 8.44%

1950 4018 136.15 23.40%

1960 1381 44.30 7.61%

1970 1523 42.62 7.32%

1980 1119 26.15 4.49%

1990 1092 34.30 5.90%

2000 134 5.81 1.00%

2010 50 1.82 0.31%

Total 18364 581.81 100.00%

2.4.2 Vertical Asset Inventory

Asset inventory for vertical assets for the City of Flint is currently maintained in an asset register spreadsheet and summarized in Appendix C. As part of the AMP development effort, asset inventory and condition assessment activities were carried out at four facilities, listed below, and detailed asset inventory, attribute, and condition data was recorded. A total of 160 assets were assessed, and likelihood of failure, consequence of failure, and risk evaluations were performed on these assets, which is detailed in Section 4.

Table 18: Vertical Asset Inventory – Visually Assessed

Facility Assessment Type Number of Assets % Facility

Flint Water Treatment Plant (including Pump Station #4)

Mechanical 36 46%

Electrical 27 34%

HVAC 12 15%

Structural 4 5%

Total 79 100%

Cedar Street Pump Station

Mechanical 17 53%

Electrical 8 25%

HVAC 5 16%

Structural 2 6%

Total 32 100%

Torrey Road Pump Station

Mechanical 8 47%

Electrical 5 29%

HVAC 2 12%

Structural 2 12%

Total 17 100%

West Side Avenue Pump Station

Mechanical 18 56%

Electrical 9 28%

HVAC 3 9%

Structural 2 6%

Total 32 100%

The five water storage facilities were not visually assessed, so specific asset quantities are not available


arcadis.com 27

at this time. The City of Flint has identified the location of the water storage facilities on its system-wide map, and they are contained within the GIS and the hydraulic model being developed. A future step can be to perform structural condition assessments and COF analyses of the storage facilities once the City confirms which facilities will be used going forward. In addition, a structural assessment was performed on the Dort Reservoir in 2017. This plan will be updated with this information if the City chooses to utilize the Dort Reservoir for future operations.

Table 19: Vertical Asset Inventory – Not Visually Assessed

Facility Structural

Cedar Street Reservoir Reservoir

Dort Reservoir Reservoir

West Side Reservoir (currently out of service) Reservoir

Clear Well #4 Well

WTP Elevated Tank Tank

2.5 Data Improvements

2.5.1 Incomplete or Low Confidence Data

As part of the AMP development effort, data gaps were identified in the GIS and those gaps were closed to perform a complete risk assessment. The updates to the GIS are detailed in Section 2.2.1; recommendations for further improvements to both horizontal and vertical asset data are outlined below.

2.5.2 Recommendations for Improvements

2.5.2.1 GIS Improvements

The horizontal asset inventory is contained within the GIS and has been updated as part of the AMP development effort. Some additional recommendations for improvement include:

1. The assumed installation years, based on hydrant fabrication represents the least confident data that has the greatest impact on replacement planning and defining critical assets. All available record drawings and institutional knowledge should be mined to update the install years with more confident data.

2. The 26 water mains with unknown diameters should be researched and updated. 3. The 85 water mains with unknown material should be researched and updated. 4. The locations of water mains should be updated based on the field surveyed hydrant and valve

locations. Additional field location work may be needed in area with minimal survey data. 5. A review of asset definition and hierarchy should be performed prior to the implementation of

Cityworks. If the segments are too small, it will be problematic to write work orders to specific pipe segments.

6. Consider adding meters and service lines as part of future AMI project.


arcadis.com 28

2.5.2.2 CMMS Implementation

The City currently manages its vertical asset inventory with spreadsheets and hard-copy work orders for maintenance activities. The City expects to be implementing the Cityworks CMMS program in 2018. The vertical asset inventory developed as part of the AMP development should be prepared for import to the new Cityworks program. Vertical asset data is best organized in an asset hierarchy and includes unique asset identification numbers and associated asset attributes. Vertical assets that were condition assessed were organized into a five-level asset hierarchy as follows:

1. Utility (City of Flint) 2. Facility (Flint WTP, West Side Pump Station, Cedar Street Pump Station, Torrey Road Pump

Station) 3. Process (Chemical Feed, HS Pumping, Booster Pumping) 4. Group (Valves, Cranes, Pumps, Electrical, HVAC, Buildings, I&C, Sump Pumps) 5. Asset

It is recommended that this hierarchy framework be used going forward, as the City prepares its data for Cityworks implementation. It is important that the City’s asset inventory is maintained properly so that it remains an accurate representation of the asset base. It is recommended that standard operating procedures (SOPs) for adding and removing assets, and updating asset data in the CMMS are developed to ensure the asset inventory is maintained properly. Recommendations include:

1. Utilize the detailed asset and condition data for the four visually assessed facilities. 2. Develop a detailed asset inventory for the water storage facilities. 3. Perform a field condition assessment and COF analysis for water storage facilities. 4. Build the hierarchy for Cityworks based on the hierarchical framework developed for condition

assessment. 5. Develop SOPs for addition, modification, and removal of assets from CMMS. 6. The installation years used were based primarily on facility construction dates and secondarily on

institutional knowledge on process (e.g. chemical feed) or group (e.g. pumps, HVAC) replacement dates. The City would have a more accurate representation of install dates if a review was conducted of all available records, nameplates, and institutional knowledge on an asset by asset basis.


arcadis.com 29

3.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE

3.1 Development Methodology Four main sources provide guidance for the development process for Levels of Service (LOS): Effective Utility Management Primer, AWWA Benchmarking publications, MDEQ Guidance, and the City’s goals and objectives for its Asset Management Program. For the development of Levels of Service, the MDEQ Guidance has included fifteen questions to consider:

1. What is the LOS goal for health, safety, and security? 2. How often is the system out of compliance with regulations? 3. Are the operators properly certified? 4. How does the utility stay aware of and prepare for new regulations? 5. Do you share your LOS statement with your customers? 6. How do you track and respond to customer needs/complaints? 7. Can the current process be improved? 8. How quickly does the utility respond to customer issues? 9. Is maintenance being deferred to save money? 10. How much will the improvements cost and how will they be funded? 11. Are assets being properly maintained to insure they are in reliable working condition? 12. What areas within the system are most important to insure the best LOS possible? 13. When considering a preferred LOS, are asset age and life cycles, asset conditions, funding

availability, etc. being factored in? 14. How often will the LOS statement be reviewed in order to capture changes such as funding

availability (growth and decline), regulatory requirements, demand of customers (increases/decreases in customers), and physical deterioration of assets (addressing water loss/maintenance)?

15. Are O&M activities being maximized to meet the LOS goals?

The City of Flint’s Levels of Service will also consider the best practices outlined in the ISO 55000 Standard. ISO 55000 refers to Levels of Service as “Objectives” and outlines the following requirements:

1. Provide the essential link between the organizational objectives (i.e. your strategic plan) and the asset management plan(s)

2. Are tailored to suit each organization’s needs, which may include addressing subsets of objectives (e.g. for the asset management system, asset portfolios, the asset system and at asset level)

3. Can vary for different functions carried out to meet stakeholder requirements 4. Should consider information or data from internal and external sources including contractors, key

suppliers, regulators or other stakeholders 5. Should be “SMART” -specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-bound 6. Can be both quantitative measurements (e.g. mean time between failure) and qualitative

measurements (e.g. customer satisfaction)


arcadis.com 30

There are hundreds of performance measures used in the water and wastewater sector. The Effective Utility Management (EUM) Primer and the MDEQ guidance were both used as resources in the development of the City of Flint’s LOS and performance measures. The EUM Primer was originally released in 2008 and has been updated recently in January 2017.The Primer outlines ten categories for an effectively managed utility, listed below:

Product Quality

Customer Satisfaction

Employee and Leadership Development

Operational Optimization

Financial Viability

Infrastructure Strategy and Performance

Enterprise Resiliency

Community Sustainability

Water Resource Sustainability

Stakeholder Understanding and Support The City of Flint developed an LOS statement to guide the development of the measures: The City strives to provide safe drinking water to its customers, meeting all regulatory requirements, through the effective maintenance of its assets. The City will review the LOS statement annually as part of the AMP review and update effort. The following goals and performance measures will be implemented to ensure this LOS statement is met.

3.2 LOS Goals and Performance Measures The City will implement a tiered approach to performance measurement, with the most important LOS and KPI goals implemented first in Tier 1. The City will need to develop LOS and KPI definition sheets in 2018 for the Tier 1 measures. The definition sheets will assign owners and targets for the measures. The implementation of Tier 2 and 3 measures will follow, after the Tier 1 measures are piloted and any necessary adjustments are made as part of the familiar continuous improvement cycle of Plan-Do-Check-Act. The approach enables staff buy-in and ensures that measures are meaningful for decision making. The City is currently in the process of selecting and implementing a CMMS and real-time modeling software. Once the systems have been implemented, the City will evaluate the data sources to determine if some additional leading indicators can be added to the selected LOS and KPIs shown below:

Table 20: Tiered Approach to Performance Management

Ref. No.

Tier LOS/KPI Definition Source

1 1 Water Quality Monitoring

Number of Incidents Out of Target Range as Measured by Achieving Standard at Specified/Critical Points in The System

MDEQ, EUM - Product Quality

2 1 Total Water Quality Complaints

Discoloration, Taste / Odor MDEQ, EUM - Customer Satisfaction

3 1 Water Pipeline System Integrity

Total Water Main Breaks and Leaks Per 100 Miles

EUM - Infrastructure Strategy and Performance


arcadis.com 31

Ref. No.


4 1 System Renewal and Replacement Rate

R&R Expenditure / Present Value of Assets

MDEQ, EUM - Infrastructure Strategy and Performance

5 1 Aged Accounts Receivable / Delinquent Accounts

1-29 Days, 30-59 Days, 60-89 Days, 90+ Days

City of Flint

6 1 Affordability Index % of Median Household Income (MHI) EUM - Community Sustainability

7 1 OSHA Recordable Incident Rate

Total count of reportable incidents per month

MDEQ, EUM - Enterprise Resiliency

8 2 Total Meter Reading Errors Per Cycle

Meters That Were Misread During Routine Billing Cycle

EUM - Customer Satisfaction

9 2 Certification Coverage % of certifications achieved or maintained

MDEQ, EUM - Employee and Leadership Development

10 2 Total Percent of Non-Revenue Water

System Water Loss EUM - Infrastructure Strategy and Performance

11 2 Work Order Completion Ratio

Percent of Total Maintenance Work Orders Issued/Scheduled That Were Completed


12 2 Percent of Work Orders Completed on Schedule

Percent of Total Maintenance Work Orders Completed on or Before Their Schedule Date


13 2 Valve Inspection and Maintenance Program Productivity

Valves Inspected and Exercised/Repaired Per FTE or Crew

MDEQ, EUM - Operational Optimization

14 2 Asset Inspection and Assessment Productivity (per AMP requirements)

Assets Inspected or Assessed Per FTE or Crew

MDEQ, EUM - Operational Optimization

15 2 Equipment Uptime / Downtime

Total Amount of Time Equipment is Functional / In Service as a Percentage of Total Hours

EUM - Enterprise Resiliency

16 2 Equipment Failures/Breakdowns

Number of Equipment Failures/Breakdowns


17 3 Average Response Time for Customer Correspondence

Average Response Time in Working Days from Customer Inquiry

MDEQ, EUM - Customer Satisfaction

18 3 Customer Service Appointments Kept Within Scheduled Time

Percent of Total Appointments Kept Within Scheduled Time or Within XX Hour Window

MDEQ, EUM - Customer Satisfaction

19 3 Percent Employee Turnover Rate

Voluntary and Involuntary EUM - Employee and Leadership Development


arcadis.com 32

Ref. No.


20 3 Vacancy Rate Open and vacant positions as a percent of total employees

EUM - Employee and Leadership Development

21 3 Compensation Equality Average salary EUM - Employee and Leadership Development

22 3 Average Training Hours Per Employee

Total training hours / Total FTE per year EUM - Employee and Leadership Development

23 3 Revenue Collection Rate and Rolling Average

% Collected Revenue versus Amount Billed

City of Flint

24 3 Lost work Days Per FTE As Reported in OSHA Form 300A EUM - Enterprise Resiliency

25 3 Lost Time Incidents Per 200,000 Hours Worked

Total Incidents / Total Hours Worked by All Staff


3.3 Performance Management Tracking Each of the twenty-five LOS and KPI goals will be further defined by the City of Flint as the pilot performance measurement begins with the Tier 1 measures. Many of the measures will be measured manually at the start, but as the City implements Cityworks, reports can be developed to make the process more automated. The table below includes recommended frequency and data source for each performance measure. Currently, targets for these measures are not defined. As the City pilots the Tier 1 measures, performance targets can be established, and adjustments may be made to the frequency and data source recommendations.

Table 21: LOS/KPI Recommendations

Ref. No. LOS Measure Definition Recommended Data Source

Recommended Frequency

1 Water Quality Monitoring Number of Incidents Out of Target Range as Measured by Achieving Standard at Specified/Critical Points in The System

Water Quality reports/Compliance Spreadsheet

Monthly

2 Total Water Quality Complaints

Discoloration, Taste / Odor

Customer Information System

Monthly

3 Water Pipeline System Integrity

Total Water Main Breaks and Leaks Per 100 Miles

Break tracking sheet

Annual

4 System Renewal and Replacement Rate

R&R Expenditure / Present Value of Assets

Capital Planning Model

Annual


arcadis.com 33



5 Aged Accounts Receivable / Delinquent Accounts

1-29 Days, 30-59 Days, 60-89 Days, 90+ Days


Monthly, Quarterly

6 Affordability Index Customer Information System

Annual

7 OSHA Recordable Incident Rate

OSHA reports/ Employee Safety tracking sheet

Monthly

8 Total Meter Reading Errors Per Cycle

Meters That Were Misread During Routine Billing Cycle


Monthly, Quarterly

9 Certification Coverage % of certifications achieved or maintained

HR/Training database

Annual

10 Total Percent of Non-Revenue Water

System Water Loss Customer Information System

Annual

11 Work Order Completion Ratio

Percent of Total Maintenance Work Orders Issued/Scheduled That Were Completed

CMMS

Monthly

12 Percent of Work Orders Completed on Schedule

Percent of Total Maintenance Work Orders Completed on or Before Their Schedule Date

CMMS

Monthly

13 Valve Inspection and Maintenance Program Productivity

Valves Inspected and Exercised/Repaired Per FTE or Crew

CMMS Monthly

14 Asset Inspection and Assessment Productivity (per AMP requirements)

Assets Inspected or Assesses Per FTE or Crew

CMMS Monthly

15 Equipment Uptime / Downtime

Total Amount of Time Equipment is Functional / In Service as a Percentage of Total Hours

CMMS/SCADA

Monthly

16 Equipment Failures/Breakdowns

Number of Equipment Failures/Breakdowns

CMMS/SCADA Monthly

17 Average Response Time for Customer Correspondence

Average Response Time in Working Days from Customer Inquiry

Customer Information System Quarterly

18 Customer Service Appointments Kept Within Scheduled Time

Percent of Total Appointments Kept Within Scheduled Time or Within XX Hour Window


Quarterly


arcadis.com 34



19 Percent Employee Turnover Rate

Voluntary and Involuntary


Annual

20 Vacancy Rate Open and vacant positions as a percent of total employees

HR/Training database Annual

21 Compensation Equality Average salary HR/Training database

Annual

22 Average Training Hours Per Employee


Annual

23 Revenue Collection Rate and Rolling Average


Monthly

24 Lost work Days Per FTE As Reported in OSHA Form 300A

OSHA reports/ Employee Safety tracking sheet

Annual

25 Lost Time Incidents Per 200,000 Hours Worked

Total Incidents / Total Hours Worked by All Staff

Employee Safety tracking sheet Annual


arcadis.com 35

4.0 CRITICAL ASSETS

4.1 Likelihood of Failure (LOF) Factors and Scoring Scales

4.1.1 Horizontal Assets Factors and Scoring

For horizontal assets, physical condition is based on Estimated Useful Life (EUL) of different pipe materials and break data. The AWWA Buried No Longer EUL data and experience with other utilities by region were used to produce an exponential deterioration curve representing the break rate increase as a pipe ages.

The Buried No Longer EUL, measured in years, for Midwest water utilities, regardless of size is shown in the following table.

Table 22: AWWA Buried No Longer Estimated Useful Life by Material

Cast Iron Ductile Iron PVC Steel Concrete PCCP

Long Short Long Short 120 85 110 50 55 80 105 105

Cast iron and ductile iron have a range of EUL (from long to short) while PVC, steel, concrete and PCCP only have a single estimated serviceable age. Experience shows that smaller diameter cast iron and ductile iron have a shorter useful life than larger diameter mains. Cast iron pipe also was produced using different casting methods and to different standards over time. Cast iron was initially pit cast until about 1920 when spun cast became the standard. Spun cast had superior strength than pit cast therefore around 1945 the wall thickness was reduced to save cost. In general, pre-1920 cast iron is not as good as later pipe, but those that are still in service clearly were installed well and have not been subjected to typical stresses that would cause them to fail at an earlier age. For this reason, all pipe prior to 1945 were given the same relatively long EUL. Post 1945 cast iron were assumed to have a shorter EUL. Buried No Longer does not list galvanized pipe but experience shows this is typically used in smaller diameters and has a very short life compared to other materials.

The following table lists the EUL used for the pipe materials, sizes and install years in the City’s inventory. The pipes are listed as cohorts, which represent groups of pipes with different structural properties.

Table 23: Estimated Useful Life Values Used for Horizontal Assets

Cohort Name Diameter Installed EUL (years)

Cast Iron Pre-1945 Small

2” thru 8” 1914 thru 1945 100

Cast Iron Post 1945 Small

2” thru 8” 1946 thru 1980 90


arcadis.com 36

Cohort Name Diameter Installed EUL (years) Cast Iron Pre-1945 Large

10” thru 72” 1914 thru 1945 120

Cast Iron Post 1945 Large

10” thru 72” 1946 thru 1980 110

Concrete 30” thru 42” 1930 thru 1994 105

Ductile Iron Small

2” thru 8” 1961 thru 2012 60

Ductile Iron Large

10” thru 30” 1961 thru 2012 110

Galvanized 2” 1938 thru 1938 40

Prestressed Concrete Cylinder

72” 1959 thru 1959 105

PVC 6” thru 18” 1995 thru 1995 55

Reinforced Concrete

30” thru 36” 1930 thru 1994 105

Steel 16” thru 24” 1928 thru 1995 80

The following graph of deterioration curves correspond to the cohort EUL list above. The end of useful life is related to a break rate of 80 breaks per 100 miles per year.

Figure 7: Deterioration Curves

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130

Break Rate

AgeGalv PVC DIP Small

Steel CI Pre 1945 Small CI Post 1945 Small

Conc, RCP, PCCP DI Large CI Post 1945 Large CI Pre 1945 Large

Cond 1

Cond 2

Cond 3

Cond 4

Cond 5


arcadis.com 37

Each pipe of the City’s inventory is associated with one specific cohort. As a pipe ages, it follows its cohort degradation curve, thus increasing its break rate. Each pipe is assigned a physical

condition score from 1 to 5 based on its age and corresponding break rate. The condition score starts at 1 and increases by 1 for every increase of 20 breaks per 100 miles per year as shown on the right vertical axis. Pipes that have experienced a break have their break rate increased by 10 breaks per 100 miles per year.

For horizontal assets, performance condition is based on the hydraulic model C-factor and head loss gradient. Lower C-factors yield higher head loss and will result in reduced flows and pressure.

The performance and physical condition criteria are shown in Table 24. The final overall pipe condition score is the maximum of any of the three criteria.

Table 24: Physical and Performance Condition for Horizontal Assets

Criteria 1 2 3 4 5

Model Pipe C-Factor <= 100 > 50 and <= 100 > 30 and <= 50 > 15 and <= 30 <= 15

Model Head Loss Gradient (Ft/1000Ft)

<= 0.1 > 0.1 and <= 1 > 1 and < = 4 > 4 and <= 10 > 10

Break Rate (per 100 miles per year)

<= 20 > 20 and <= 40 > 40 and <= 60 > 60 and <= 80 > 80

Actual Breaks Increase Individual Pipe Score by 10 breaks per 100 miles per year if a Break Occurred

4.1.2 Vertical Asset Factors and Scoring

There are two components of the vertical asset likelihood of failure assessment as well – physical condition and performance condition. Physical condition refers to the current state of repair and operation of an asset, as influenced by age, historical maintenance, and operating conditions. Performance condition refers both to the current state of performance and the ability of the asset to meet operational requirements in the future. To evaluate asset condition, a standard 1 to 5 scale is used (1 – excellent and 5 – very poor), which results in a comparative ranking of assets. The overall condition of an asset is the maximum of all the physical and performance condition criteria. The table below provides generalized descriptions which correspond to each physical condition score. For vertical assets, physical condition is evaluated through visual inspection and utilizing physical condition scoring criteria defined for each assessment type. Each assessment type includes the following criteria:

Mechanical – corrosion, leakage, vibration, and damage to concrete pedestals, steel supports, piping/valves, local panels, field instruments, and electrical connections.

Electrical/I&C – corrosion, vibration, dielectric leakage, electrical damage, damage to concrete


arcadis.com 38

pedestals, steel supports.

Structural – leakage, cracking, steel damage, wood damage, water drainage, roof damage, walkways/platforms, doors/hatches/windows.

HVAC – corrosion, leakage, vibration, concrete support/base damage, steel supports, piping/valves, local control panels, field instruments, electrical connections.

Core and ancillary criteria are defined in the tables below for each assessment type. Only the scores of core criteria carry forward to the risk calculation. Ancillary scores will not affect the overall score of the asset. However, if the ancillary criteria are in poor condition the City should replace or repair the ancillary item to prevent an asset failure as part of their maintenance work. The specific factors included in the evaluation of physical condition for mechanical, electrical, structural, and HVAC assets are listed in the four tables below:

Table 25: Mechanical Physical Condition Criteria and Scores

Mechanical Visual Condition Assessment

Criteria Condition 1 2 3 4 5 CORE CRITERIA

Corrosion Surface only 0% <10% 10%-50%

>50% - 75%

>75%

Structural None None None 1 location >1 location

Leakage Gaskets / Connections None

Historic only

Drip only Stream 1 location

Stream >1 location

Holes / Failures None None None 1 location >1 location

Vibration

Apparent with Noise None None Yes Yes Yes

Non-Structural Damage None None None Yes Yes

Structural Damage None None None None Yes

Concrete Pedestals

Surface Cracking / Loose Grout

None <10% 10%-50% >50% -75%

>75%

Through Cracks None None None <25% >=25%

Missing Pieces None None None None 1 or more

Steel Supports

Surface Corrosion None <10% 10%-50% 50%-75% >75%

Structural Corrosion None None None <25% >=25%

Missing/Broken Anchors None None None <25% >=25%

ANCILLARY CRITERIA

Piping / Valves

Leaks – gaskets None None Drips only Stream – 1 location

Stream - >1 location

Leaks – holes / failures None None None 1 location >1 location

Corrosion - surface None <10% 10%-50% >50%-75%

>75%

Corrosion - structural None None None <20% >=20%

Support Damage None None None <20% >=20%

Local Panels

Surface corrosion None <10% 10%-50% >50%-75%

>75%

Structural damage None None None 1 location >1 location

Internal corrosion / leakage None None None Yes Yes


arcadis.com 39

Mechanical Visual Condition Assessment

Criteria Condition 1 2 3 4 5 Panel Instruments – non-function

None None None <20% >=20%

Field Instruments

Damage / non-functional devices

None None None <20% >=20%

Leakage None None Drips only Stream – 1 location


Electrical Connections

Conduit / Junction Box Surface Corrosion

None None <20% >20%-50%

>50%

Damage / gaps / missing gaskets

None None None 1 location >1 location

Exposed wiring None None None 1 location >1 location

Table 26: Electrical Physical Condition Criteria and Scores

Electrical Visual Condition Assessment

Criteria Condition 1 2 3 4 5 CORE CRITERIA

Corrosion Surface only None None <20%

>20%-50%

>50%

Structural None None None 1 location >1 location

Dielectric Leakage

Transformer/Connection Leaks

None Historic only


Stream >1 location

Holes / Failures None None None None 1 location

Vibration/Noise

Apparent with Noise None None Yes Yes Yes

Non-Structural Damage None None None Yes Yes

Structural Damage None None None None Yes

Electrical Damage

Evidence of Overheating/Arcing


Evidence of Water Damage


Grounding Missing/Damaged


Insulation Wear None None None 1 location >1 location

Cooling System Broken None None None 1 location >1 location

ANCILLARY CRITERIA

Concrete Pedestals


None <10% 10%-50% >50% -75%

>75%

Through Cracks None None None <25% >=25%

Missing Pieces None None None None 1 or more

Steel Supports

Surface Corrosion None <10% 10%-50% 50%-75% >75%

Structural Corrosion None None None <25% >=25%

Missing/Broken Supports None None None <25% >=25%


arcadis.com 40

Table 27: Structural Physical Condition Criteria and Scores

Structural Visual Condition Assessment

Criteria Condition 1 2 3 4 5

CORE CRITERIA

Leakage Cracks/Joints None

Historic only


Stream >1 location

Penetrations / Failures None None None 1 location >1 location

Cracking

Cracking (Width of crack)

None Minor (< 1mm)

Moderate (1-2mm)

Major (>2mm)

Excessive (not serviceable)

Exposed Reinforcement None None None 1 location >1 location

Spalling, Exposed Aggreg., Pitting, Delamination, Freeze/Thaw Damage

0% 0% <10% >10% - 30%

>30%

Steel Damage

Cracking None None None 1 location >1 location

Fatigue/Connection Failure


Deformation None Minor Moderate Major Excessive

Loss of Section 0% 0% <10% >10% - 30%

>30%

Wood Damage

Dry Rot None None None 1 location >1 location

Warping/Splitting None None None 1 location >1 location

Connection Failure None None None 1 location >1 location

Loss of Section 0% 0% <10% >10% - 30%

>30%

Water Drainage Standing Water (% of foundation)

None - <5% >5%-10% >10%

Roof/Cover

Leaks - Cracks/Joints None Historic only


Stream >1 location

Leaks - Penetrations / Failures


Sagging None Minor Moderate Major Excessive

Support Damage None None None <20% >=20%

ANCILLARY CRITERIA

Walkways / Platforms / Railings

Surface corrosion None <10% 10% - <25%

25% - 50% >50%

Structural damage None - - 1 location >1 location

Loss of Section None - <10% >10% - 30%

>30%

Deformation / Deflection None - <=5% >5% - 10% >10%

Doors / Hatches / Windows

Leaks None - - 1 location >1 location

Surface Corrosion None <10% 10% - <25%

25% - 50% >50%

Structural Damage None - - - >= 1 location


arcadis.com 41

Table 28: HVAC Physical Condition Criteria and Scores

HVAC Visual Condition Assessment

Criteria Evaluation 1 2 3 4 5 CORE CRITERIA

Corrosion

Surface only None <10% 10% - <25% 25% - 50% >50%

Structural (loss of metal)

None - - 1 location >1 location

Leakage Gaskets / Connections None Historic only Drip only

Stream 1 location

Stream >1 location

Holes / Failures None - - 1 location >1 location

Vibration / Noise

Vibration Apparent with Noise

None <10% normal

10% to 20% normal

>20% to 30% normal

>30% normal

Non-Structural Damage None - - Yes -

Structural Damage None - - - Yes

Concrete Supports


None <10% 10% - <25% 25% - 50% >50%

Through Cracks None - <10% 10% - 25% >25%

Missing Pieces None - <5% 5% - 20% >20%

Steel Supports

Surface Corrosion None <10% 10% - <25% 25% - 50% >50%

Structural Corrosion None - <10% 10% -25% >=25%

Damaged / Missing Anchors

None - <5% 5% - 20% >=20%

ANCILLARY CRITERIA

Piping / Valves

Leaks – gaskets None - Drips only Stream – 1 location


Leaks – holes / failures None - - 1 location >1 location

Corrosion - surface None <10% 10% - <25% 25% - 50% >50%

Corrosion - structural None - <10% 10% -25% >25%

Support damage None - <5% 5% - 20% >20%

Local Panels

Surface corrosion None <10% 10% - <25% 25% - 50% >50%

Structural damage None - - 1 location >1 location

Internal corrosion / leakage

None <10% / none

10% - <25% / none

>=25% / 1 location

>=25% / >1 location

Panel Instruments – non-function

None - - 1 device or 20%

>1 device or >20%

Field Instruments

Damaged / non-functional devices

None - - 1 device or 20%

>1 device or >20%

Electrical Connections

Conduit / J. Box - surface corrosion

None <10% 10% - <25% 25% - 50% >50%

Damage - gaps / missing gaskets

None - - 1 location >1 location

Exposed wiring None - - 1 location >1 location


arcadis.com 42

The performance condition captures the modes of asset failure in addition to mortality, and include the following main factors:

Capacity – considers current and future needs Efficiency

o Reliability - average time equipment is available when needed o O&M Issues – frequency of O&M Issues beyond regular maintenance o Obsolescence – technology / availability of parts

Level of Service – considers current and future needs o Regulatory/customer commitments

The table below provides generalized descriptions which correspond to each performance condition score.

Table 29: Vertical Asset Performance Condition - General

Score Description of Performance Condition

1 – Excellent Meets all capacity and regulatory requirements in all current and future anticipated demand conditions. State of the art technology with overall excellent performance.

2 – Good

Meets all capacity and regulatory requirements in current and future anticipated average conditions. May have minor risk under current peak conditions and will not meet anticipated future peak capacity conditions. Future regulatory compliance may require some modifications. Overall performance excellent to very good with tried and true technology

3 – Moderate

Current capacity is acceptable under average conditions but does not consistently meet current peak condition and would likely not meet future peak conditions. Current regulatory requirements are met, but future requirements will likely not be met, even with modifications. Overall performance and efficiency are average.

4 – Poor Current performance is marginal and will not meet future additional requirements or increased demand (e.g. capacity, level of service goals and/or future regulatory requirements).

5 – Very Poor Current performance unacceptable and does not meet currently required performance criteria (e.g. capacity, level of service goals and/or regulatory requirements).

Performance scoring is completed through a desktop analysis that includes document reviews and staff interviews. For vertical assets, the factors considered in assessing the performance condition are shown below:

Table 30: Vertical Asset Performance Condition - Specific Factors

Criteria Evaluation 1 2 3 4 5

Capacity

Ability to meet current capacity

Average – Yes Peak – Yes



Average – Yes Peak - No

Average – No Peak - No

Ability to meet future capacity


Average – Yes Peak – No

Average – No Peak – No


Average – No Peak – No -


arcadis.com 43

Criteria Evaluation 1 2 3 4 5

Regulatory

Ability to meet current regulations & utility goals




Average – Yes Peak - No

Average – No Peak - No

Ability to meet future regulations & utility goals


Average – Yes Peak – No



Average – No Peak – No -

Reliability

Average time equipment is available when needed

99-100% 95-99% 90-94% 85-89% < 85%

O&M Issues

Frequency of O&M Issues above and beyond regular maintenance

None Very Infrequent (Quarterly)

Infrequent (Monthly)

Frequent (Weekly)

Very Frequent (>Weekly)

Obsolescence Equipment Technology

Technology Best Available/ State of the Art

Technology Industry Standard/ “Tried and True”

Technology Considered Appropriate

Technology Nearing Obsolescence

Technology Obsolete / Out of Date

4.1.3 Horizontal Assets Likelihood of Failure Summary

For horizontal assets, a standard performance indicator for asset condition is the number of main breaks per 100 miles of distribution system. The breaks per year are listed in Table 31 along with the associated break rate based on 582 miles of water mains. This results in an average current break rate of 34.3 breaks per 100 miles per year. If one excludes the breaks related to the water crisis in 2014 and 2015, the average current break rate would be 29.6 breaks per 100 miles.

Table 31: Horizontal Asset Break Data Summary

Year Breaks Break Rate

2008 177 30.4

2009 242 41.6

2010 141 24.2

2011 196 33.7

2012 159 27.3

2013 152 26.1

2014 314 54.0

2015 276 47.4

2016 138 23.7


arcadis.com 44

Figure 8: Horizontal Asset Break Rate Summary

Based on the criteria described in Section 4.1.1, the current physical and performance conditions are listed in Table 32. The maximum of these two scores represents the overall LOF for each pipe. The table shows the percent of pipe by length for each group of physical and performance scores and the overall percentage by LOF.

Table 32: Horizontal Asset Physical Condition Summary

LOF Physical Performance Min C-

Factor

Max Gradient (ft/1000ft)

Segments Miles %

System % LOF

1 1 1 110 0.00 793 10.03 1.72% 1.72%

2

2 1 110 0.00 981 12.64 2.17%

30.28% 1 2 70 1.00 1368 52.21 8.97%

2 2 70 1.00 2790 111.33 19.14%

3

3 1 110 0.00 546 4.97 0.85%

19.84%

3 2 70 1.00 1245 51.12 8.79%

1 3 50 3.96 1006 32.54 5.59%

2 3 50 3.87 707 24.33 4.18%

3 3 50 3.65 78 2.49 0.43%

4

4 1 110 0.00 24 0.54 0.09%

45.99%

4 2 110 0.89 81 6.41 1.10%

4 3 110 1.22 3 0.24 0.04%

1 4 30 9.96 2248 60.51 10.40%

2 4 30 9.95 2320 65.62 11.28%

3 4 30 9.98 3564 107.50 18.48%

4 4 30 5.63 299 26.74 4.60%

30.4

41.6

24.2

33.7

27.3 26.1

54

47.4

23.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Nu

mb

er o

f b

reak

s p

er 1

00 m

iles

Years

Break Rate Per Year


arcadis.com 45

LOF Physical Performance Min C-

Factor

Max Gradient (ft/1000ft)

Segments Miles %

System % LOF

5

5 1 110 0.00 5 0.03 0.00%

2.16%

5 2 110 0.52 15 0.60 0.10%

5 4 30 1.20 82 4.19 0.72%

1 5 15 667.67 72 2.36 0.41%

2 5 15 266.76 95 4.23 0.73%

3 5 15 168.40 33 0.74 0.13%

4 5 15 0.02 2 0.07 0.01%

5 5 15 1.48 7 0.37 0.06% 18,364 581.84 100.00%

Figure 10 is a map depicting the water mains and their overall LOF scores, ranging from 1 (unlikely to fail) to 5 (very likely to fail). Water mains with a score of 5 are in poor condition and are shown in red below. The designations on the left-hand side of Figure 10, e.g., “5 && 5”, reflect the physical and performance conditions, respectively.

10.03

176.18

115.45

267.56

12.59

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1 2 3 4 5

Mile

s

Likelihood of Failure

Length of Pipes by LOF

Figure 9: Horizontal Assets LOF Summary


arcadis.com 46

Figure 10: Horizontal Asset LOF Summary Map

4.1.4 Vertical Assets Likelihood of Failure Summary

Likelihood of failure is based on the asset condition score, ranging from 1 (very good) to 5 (very poor). The assets with a physical and/or performance condition score of 4 or 5 are more likely to fail. Based on the physical condition assessment, 13% of assets are likely to fail, and based on the performance assessment, 3% of assets are likely to fail. Overall the pumps at the stations appear to be working, but near the end of their useful life as well as some of the chemical feed equipment. In additional, the


arcadis.com 47

majority of the HVAC equipment appear to be original installs at past their typical life expectancy. The majority of assets are in very good to fair condition. Several pieces of equipment are newer and were brought online to treat the water supplied by GLWA in 2016.

Table 33: Vertical Asset Condition Summary

LOF Physical Condition

(Asset Qty) Physical

Condition %

Performance Condition

(Asset Qty)

Performance Condition %

1 32 20% 129 81%

2 54 34% 0 0%

3 52 33% 25 16%

4 15 9% 6 4%

5 7 4% 0 0%

Figure 11: Vertical Asset Physical Condition Summary

In general, the majority of vertical assets rated in good-to-fair physical condition. There is ample redundancy in the system and several assets do not need to operate on a daily basis, therefore many of the assets exhibit a better physical condition than would be expected based on the age of the facilities. However, seven assets rated very poor and fifteen rated poor. These assets are listed below, with their reason for being scored poorly.

32

54 52

15

7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 (Very Good) 2 (Good) 3 (Fair) 4 (Poor) 5 (Very Poor)

Qu

anti

ty o

f A

sset

s

Physical Condition Score

Vertical Asset Physical Condition Summary


arcadis.com 48

Table 34: Vertical Assets - Highest LOF Scores

Facility Asset Name Physical Condition Score

Reason(s) Physical Condition

Comment

CEDAR STREET PUMP STATION

PUMP NO. 1 DISCHARGE DAMPENING VALVE

4 Leakage Body seal leaks

FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT

HIGH SVC PUMP NO. 7, 13-21 MGD

4 Leakage Seal valve leaks. Currently not in service, but will remain in analysis until officially abandoned.

WESTSIDE PUMPING STATION

PUMP NO. 3 DISCHARGE ROTOVALVE

4 Corrosion Corrosion on shaft


PUMP NO. 1 DISCHARGE ISO VALVE

4 Leakage Seal leaks

TORREY ROAD PUMPING STATION

PUMP NO. 1 SUCTION ISO VALVE

4 Steel supports

50% corroded


LOW SVC PUMP 6 DISCHARGE VALVE

4 Steel supports

Full corrosion on support, though still appears functional. Currently not in service, but will remain in analysis until officially abandoned.


PUMP NO. 1 4 Leakage Seal leaks


BP01 MOTOR 4 Corrosion, Vibration

Corrosion: one area of structural loss has been painted over; Vibration: bearing needs additional investigation, sound coming from motor


TRANSFORMER 01 4 Corrosion Surface corrosion


TRANSFORMER 01 4 Corrosion Surface corrosion


MCC 01 4 Vibration MCC has a loud noise is causing ground to vibrate, further investigation recommended


WS PUMP STATION 4 Cracking, Steel damage

Cracking: column holding support beam has structural corrosion at base, causing block to fall off support. Exposed rebar in basement. Steel damage: column holding support beam has structural


arcadis.com 49

Facility Asset Name Physical Condition Score

Reason(s) Physical Condition

Comment

corrosion at base, further investigation required.


UNIT HEATER 02 4 Corrosion Surface corrosion on heating element


EXHAUST FAN 4 Corrosion Heavy surface corrosion


UNIT HEATER 01 4 Corrosion Heating element is very hot on one side, causing metal flaking


PUMP NO. 2, 4 MGD 5 Steel supports

Structural failure


PUMP NO. 2 SUCTION ISO VALVE

5 Corrosion 80% corrosion


PUMP NO. 2 5 Steel supports

Severe surface corrosion on supports caused by active leaks


SUMP PUMP 5 Corrosion Full surface corrosion


PUMP NO. 1 5 Corrosion, Leakage

50% corrosion; Leakage: multiple active sprays


PUMP NO. 1 CONE VALVE

5 Corrosion, Leakage

Full corrosion; Leakage: multiple sprays and drips


CS PUMP STATION 5 Leakage, Water drainage

Leakage: 3 to 4 feet of water in basement; Water drainage: standing water in basement

In general, the majority of vertical assets rated in very good performance condition. Given that the City does not have a CMMS, there was limited data to review for performance scoring. Additional feedback is need from the City to identify additional performance issues throughout the system. The scores indicate that the assets are currently meeting all capacity and regulatory requirements, have current state of the art technology, and have overall good performance. The twenty-five assets rated as “fair” were all electrical assets (motors, MCCs, transformers, switchgear, and panels).


arcadis.com 50

Figure 12: Vertical Asset Performance Condition Summary

The assets which received poor performance condition scores were at the Flint Water Treatment Plant and include two broken unit heaters, and at Torrey Road Pumping Station and include two pumps, MCC 01, and a control panel. Pump 2 was out of service; pump 1 was in service at the time of the assessment, and had active leaks and bearing noise indicating failure was imminent. The MCC and control panel were deemed obsolete and had exposed wires. Overall, poor scores were due to obsolete design, unreliable performance, and O&M issues resulting from a lack of corrective work orders.

Table 35: Vertical Assets - Highest Performance Condition Scores

Facility Asset Name Performance Condition Score

Reason(s) Performance Condition

Comment


CONTROL PANEL

4 Obsolescence Obsolete design, exposed wires


MCC 01 4 Obsolescence Obsolete design, exposed wires


PUMP NO. 1 4

Reliability Pump 2 was out of service

O&M issues Pump was near failure, loud bearing, spraying water, corrective work order should have been written

PUMP NO. 2 4 Reliability Pump 2 was out of service

129

0

25

6 00

25

50

75

100

125

150

1 (Very Good) 2 (Good) 3 (Fair) 4 (Poor) 5 (Very Poor)

Qu

anti

ty o

f A

sset

s

Performance Condition Score

Vertical Asset Performance Condition Summary


arcadis.com 51

Facility Asset Name Performance Condition Score

Reason(s) Performance Condition

Comment


O&M issues Pump was near failure, loud bearing, spraying water, corrective work order should have been written


UNIT HEATER 03

4 O&M issues Unit appears to be broken and not responding to controls


UNIT HEATER 02

4 O&M issues Unit appears to be broken and not responding to controls

4.2 Consequence of Failure (COF) Factors and Scoring Scales The consequence of failure analysis is based on a triple bottom line (TBL) evaluation, which considers the economic, social and environmental consequences of a failure. Where applicable, the potential costs of failure are assigned to specific criteria within each TBL category to develop the best approximation of the overall potential cost. The following COF factors and scoring descriptions are presented below: Economic Consequence: The criteria and measures for evaluating direct economic impact considers repair costs and disruption to operations, including effort to repair (time, cost, and need for outside expertise) and impact to operations (loss of redundancy, impacts to upstream and/or downstream processes.) Environmental Consequence: The criteria and measures for evaluating environmental impact consider timing and magnitude of impacts to the environmental and regulatory violations. Social Consequence: The criteria and measures for evaluating social impact consider timing and magnitude of impacts to customers and stakeholders, including disruption of service and disruptions to the community.

4.2.1 Horizontal Assets Factors and Scoring

The following are the specific COF criteria and scoring developed for horizontal assets, reflecting the TBL categories – economic, social and environmental.

Table 36: Horizontal Assets - COF Criteria and Scores

Criteria Measure 1 2 3 4 5

Economic Pipe Diameter < 8” >= 8” and

< 10” >= 10” and

< 20” >= 20” and

< 30” >= 30”

Economic Rail Road NA NA Within 50ft Intersecting NA


arcadis.com 52


Economic and Social

Roads NA

25ft of Major

Collector Centerline

Within 30ft of Minor Arterial

Centerline

Within 30ft of Principal Arterial

Centerline

Within 50ft of

Interstate Centerline

Social Demand Shortfall < 0.01 GPM

> 0.01 GPM and

<= 5 GPM

> 5 GPM and

<= 100 GPM

> 100 GPM and

<= 1,000 GPM

> 1,000 GPM

Social Critical/Vulnerable Customers

NA

Secondary Feed to Public Facility

Secondary Feed to Dialysis

Center or Primary Feed

to Public Facility

Secondary Feed to Nursing Home

or Hospital or Primary Feed to Dialysis Center

Primary Feed to Nursing Home or Hospital

Social Large Users NA NA > 50 GPM

and <= 100 GPM

> 100 GPM and

<= 500 GPM > 500 GPM

Environmental Water Bodies NA Within 50ft Intersecting NA NA

Diameter criteria was based on the diameter of pipes. Large Users and Demand Shortfall are based on hydraulic model results. All other criteria are based on pipe proximity to related GIS features.

4.2.2 Vertical Assets Factors and Scoring

The following are the specific COF criteria and scoring developed for vertical assets. The scores were applied for each asset through a desktop assessment. Interviews with plant staff occurred during the site visit to discuss the impacts of specific assets failing.

Table 37: Vertical Assets - COF Criteria and Scores

COF Criteria and Scoring


Economic (Capital Cost)

Estimated Replacement Cost

<$10K $10-<$25K $25-<$75K $75-<$500K > $500K

Economic (O&M Impact)

Staffing and Cost Impacts

No Impacts

Low % Un/Planned (<=2 FTEs

for <= 1 day)

Moderate % Un/Planned

(2+ FTEs for <=1 week)

High % Un/Planned (2+ FTEs for

>1 week)

Highest % Un/Planned (outsourced)


arcadis.com 53

COF Criteria and Scoring


Social (Health and Safety)

Potential for illness or injury

No potential

Potential for minor illness or

injury

Potential for moderate illness or

injury

Potential for major illness or

injury

Potential for fatality

Social (Stakeholder Impact / Service Delivery)

Disruption length and magnitude

None <1 day

Localized >1 day

Localized <1 day

Widespread >1 day

Widespread

Environmental (Regulatory)

Permit compliance enforcement action

No compliance

impact NA

Technical violation but

no enforcement

action

Violation with minor

enforcement action

Enforcement with action and fines

Environmental (Ability to Respond to Continue Service)

Time to respond & repair

Immediate or no

impact <2 hrs 2 to <8 hrs 8 to <24 hrs >24 hrs

4.2.3 Horizontal Assets Consequence of Failure Summary

The table below represents the resulting COF scores based on the criteria described in Section 4.1.1. The majority of the system scored within the lowest to medium impact categories; while approximately 17% of the system scored either in the high or highest impact category, which is expected for a water distribution system.

Table 38: Horizontal Asset - Overall COF Summary

COF Diameter Range Segments Miles % System

1 (Lowest impact) 2-6 6083 206.86 35.56%

2 (Low impact) 2-8 4816 144.44 24.82%

3 (Medium impact) 2-18 4468 129.10 22.19%

4 (High impact) 2-24 2556 80.67 13.87%

5 (Highest impact) 3-72 441 20.75 3.57%

TOTAL 18364 581.82 100.00%

The following color-coded map shows the COF scoring for each water main. The major distribution lines throughout the City received scores of 5 and 4, as shown on the map below. While the smaller lines servicing individual streets received lower COF scores.


arcadis.com 54

Figure 13: Horizontal Assets COF Summary Map

The summary of number of horizontal assets in for each COF score is provided below. The majority of the system fell within the lowest impact category.


arcadis.com 55

Figure 14: Horizontal Asset COF Summary

4.2.4 Vertical Assets Consequence of Failure (COF) Summary

The vertical assets were scored on the hierarchy process-level or group-level, based on the impact of their failure on the criteria outlined in Section 4.2.2. The majority of assets scored lowest-medium impact, with only 18% scoring high impact. For vertical assets, the overall COF score was obtained by taking the maximum of the scores in each TBL category, calculating the average, and rounding the overall COF.

Table 39: Vertical Asset COF Summary

COF Quantity of Assets % of Assets

1 (Lowest impact) 47 29%

2 (Low impact) 51 32%

3 (Medium impact) 33 21%

4 (High impact) 29 18%

5 (Highest impact) 0 0%

206.86

144.44129.1

80.67

20.75

0

50

100

150

200

250

1 (Lowest impact) 2 (Low impact) 3 (Mediumimpact)

4 (High impact) 5 (Highestimpact)

Mile

s

COF Score

Horizontal Asset COF Summary


arcadis.com 56

Figure 15: Vertical Asset COF Summary

The assets which received the highest COF scores included major pumps and their motors, and the building and roof assets themselves since failure of these assets would result in a large capital cost (estimated between $75,000-$500,000) and a significant impact to level of service by an increased respond and repair time.

Table 40: Vertical Assets - Highest COF Scores

Facility Asset Name CoF

Score Reason(s)

CoF


LOW SVC PUMP NO. 5, 20 MGD 4 Capital cost, response time


HIGH SVC PUMP NO. 8, 13-21 MGD 4 Capital cost, response time




PUMP NO. 2 4 Capital cost, response time


HIGH SVC PUMP NO. 7, 13-21 MGD 4 Capital cost, response time

4…51

3329

00

25

50

75

100

1 (LowestImpact)

2 (Low Impact) 3 (MediumImpact)

4 (High Impact) 5 (HighestImpact)

Qu

anti

ty o

f A

sset

s

COF Score

Vertical Asset COF Summary


arcadis.com 57


Score Reason(s)

CoF


HIGH SVC PUMP NO. 0 4 Capital cost, response time














HIGH SVC PUMP NO. 1 4 Capital cost, response time


BP03 MOTOR 4 Capital cost, response time


LSP05 MOTOR 4 Capital cost, response time






HSP01 MOTOR 4 Capital cost, response time












CS2 BUILDING 4 Capital cost, response time


CS2 STORAGE SHED 4 Capital cost, response time


PUMP STATION 4 ROOF 4 Capital cost, response time


CS PUMP STATION 4 Capital cost, response time


arcadis.com 58


Score Reason(s)

CoF


PUMP STATION 4 4 Capital cost, response time


CS PUMP STATION ROOF 4 Capital cost, response time

4.3 Redundancy Redundancy is a specific measure in place to reduce the impact of an asset failure. In practice, risk mitigation can be achieved through any number of techniques including design measures such as redundancy and pump-arounds, operational measures such as diversions, heightened monitoring, and offline spares. A redundancy analysis was not performed as part of this AMP development; however, it is recommended for future updates to the AMP. The basic methodology for calculating redundancy is outlined below: For vertical assets, redundancy should be evaluated at peak operating conditions. For example, if three pumps are needed to satisfy peak demand and four are installed and functional, then one quarter of the pumps can fail with minimal consequence and the risk mitigation score is reduced from 1 by one quarter. Redundancy and redundancy factor are calculated using the following equation:

Redundancy = Number Installed – Number Needed Number Installed

Redundancy Factor = (1 – Redundancy)

For horizontal assets, redundancy can be applied on a case-by-case basis considering situations such as parallel water mains or multiple distribution paths to a service point.

4.4 Risk (Criticality) Factor Calculation The distribution system assets provide vital services to customers, and failure represents a unique risk to

the City from social, environmental, or economic ramifications. Through risk analysis, we can compare

the relative risks embedded in the system to make better resource allocation decisions. When assets

throughout the organization are scored using a consistent methodology, the calculated risk score

provides a common basis for comparison of a highly diverse collection of assets.

To calculate risk, the likelihood of failure score is multiplied by the consequence of failure score. If any

redundancy factor is available, it can be multiplied to reduce the overall risk.

The risk score is calculated using the following formulas for each asset type:


arcadis.com 59

Horizontal Asset Risk Calculation: Risk = Max Likelihood of Failure x Max Consequence of Failure

Vertical Asset Risk Calculation:

Risk = Max Likelihood of Failure x Weighted Max Consequence of Failure x Redundancy Factor

An example of a vertical asset risk calculation is provided below:

Table 41: Risk Calculation Example

Equipment Physical Score Performance

Score COF Score Redundancy

Factor

West Side Avenue Pump #1

Core Criteria:

Corrosion = 2

Leakage = 2

Vibration = NS

Conc. Ped = 1

Steel Supp. = 2

Capacity 1

Economic:

Capital Cost = 4

O&M Impact = 1

4

4 pumps 4 needed at peak

(assumed)

4-4 = 0

4

(1-0) = 1

Ancill. Criteria:

Piping/Vlvs = 1

LCP = NS

Field Inst. = NS

Elec. Conn. = NS

Regulatory 1

Social:

LOS = 1

H&S = 1

1

Reliability 1

Environmental:

Regulatory = 1

Resp. Time = 1

1

O&M Issues 1

Obsolescence 1

Overall Phys. Condition = 2 (Good)

Overall Performance Condition = 1 (Very Good)

Weighted Max = (4+1+1)/3

LOF = 2 COF = 2 Rf = 1

Risk = LOF x COF x Rf = 2 x 2 x 1 = 4 (out of 25)


arcadis.com 60

Risk of both vertical and horizontal assets will be distributed on a scale of 1 (lowest risk) to 25 (highest

risk). Based on the risk score, assets are organized into one of five risk groupings: Highest (21-25), High

(16-20), Medium (11-15), Low (6-10) and Lowest (1-5). Using the assets relative risk ratings, projects can

be scoped and prioritized to address the greatest risks to the organization. The risk ratings serve as a

crucial communication tool to guide capital improvement planning efforts and O&M funding decisions.

4.4.1 Horizontal Asset Risk Summary

The following summary table illustrates that the majority of horizontal assets fell within the lowest risk categories (1-5 and 6-10). Less than 51 miles of pipe were designated as high risk (16-20) and less than 2 miles were scored highest risk (21-25).

Table 42: Horizontal Asset Risk Summary

Risk Group Segments Miles % System

Lowest Risk (1-5) 8392 276.60 47.54%

Low Risk (6-10) 5764 173.69 29.85%

Medium Risk (11-15) 2639 79.48 13.66%

High Risk (16-20) 1541 50.58 8.69%

Highest Risk (21-25) 28 1.46 0.25%

These risk groups are mapped in the following Figure 16 Figure 16and graphed in Figure 17.


arcadis.com 61

Figure 16: Horizontal Asset Risk Summary Map


arcadis.com 62

Figure 17: Horizontal Asset Risk Groupings

4.4.2 Vertical Asset Risk Summary

The following summary table illustrates that the majority of vertical assets fell within the lowest risk category (risk score 1-5). Only 5 assets (3% of total) were designated as high risk and no assets were scored highest risk (21-25).

Table 43: Vertical Asset Risk Summary

Risk Group Number of Assets % of Total Assets

Lowest Risk (1-5) 81 51%

Low Risk (6-10) 58 36%

Medium Risk (11-15) 16 10%

High Risk (16-20) 5 3%

Highest Risk (21-25) 0 0%

These groups are graphed in Figure 18.

276.6

173.69

79.48

50.58

1.460

50

100

150

200

250

300

Lowest Risk (1-5) Low Risk (6-10) Medium Risk (11-15)

High Risk (16-20) Highest Risk (21-25)

Mile

s

Risk Score Grouping

Horizontal Asset Risk Grouping


arcadis.com 63

Figure 18: Vertical Asset Risk Summary

81

58

16

50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Lowest Risk (0-5) Low Risk (6-10) Medium Risk (11-15)

High Risk (16-20) Highest Risk (21-25)

Qu

anti

ty o

f A

sset

s

Risk Score Grouping

Vertical Asset Risk Grouping


arcadis.com 64

Figure 19: Vertical Asset Risk Matrix

The following table includes the high-risk assets – Pumps 1 & 2 at Torrey Road Pumping Station, the Pump Station Building and Pump 1 at Cedar Street, and Pump 7 at Flint WTP. The assets below are high-risk because they are in poor condition and have a high consequence of failure. Several pumps have leakage issues, corrosion, steel/concrete support, and performance issues as well. In addition, the basement of the building at the Cedar Street Pump Station was flooded during the site inspection. Additional investigation is needed to determine the cause of flooding, if any equipment was damaged, or if there are any substructure issues. The consequence of these failures are high replacement costs and time (up to 24 hours) required to respond and repair the assets. High level summary information can be found in the table below, and full details can be found in Appendix C.


arcadis.com 65

Table 44: Highest Risk Vertical Assets

Facility Process Group Asset Name

Risk Score

Comments


BOOSTER PUMPING

PUMPS PUMP NO. 2

20

Physical condition: asset is in poor to very poor condition due to corrosion, leakage, and issues with steel supports. Performance: Pump has reliability and O&M issues – was near failure and out of service. A corrective work order should have been written. Consequences of failure: estimated replacement cost is $30,000, and time to respond and repair is between 8 to 24 hours.


BOOSTER PUMPING

PUMPS PUMP NO. 1

20

Physical condition: asset is in very poor condition with corrosion, leakage, and issues with concrete and steel supports. Performance: Pump has reliability and O&M issues – was near failure. A corrective work order should have been written. Consequences of failure: estimated replacement cost is $21,500, and time to respond and repair is between 8 to 24 hours.


BOOSTER PUMPING

BUILDING

CS PUMP STATION

20

Physical condition: asset is in very poor condition due to leakage and water drainage issues. The basement contains 3-4 feet of standing water. Consequences of failure: estimated replacement cost is >$500K, and time to respond and repair is between 8 to 24 hours.


BOOSTER PUMPING

PUMPS PUMP NO. 1

16

Physical condition: asset is in poor condition due to seal leaks. Consequences of failure: estimated replacement cost is $105,000, and time to respond and repair is between 8 to 24 hours.


HIGH SERVICE PUMPING

PUMPS

HIGH SVC PUMP NO. 7, 13-21 MGD

16

Physical condition: asset is in poor condition due to seal valve leaks. Currently not in service, but will remain in analysis until officially abandoned. Consequences of failure: estimated replacement cost is $144,000, and time to respond and repair is between 8 to 24 hours.


arcadis.com 66

5.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PLAN

5.1 Introduction to Horizontal Capital Planning Tool Arcadis used a GIS-based capital planning model that applies service level, criticality, condition, pipe deterioration curves and replacement cost criteria in conjunction with budget alternatives to plan for the R&R of linear assets. Various budget scenarios were modeled to show how the system-wide condition and risk change based on higher or lower funding levels. This allows for choosing the most appropriate long-term funding to achieve service level and risk goals.

5.2 Estimated Useful Life and Remaining Useful Life Estimated Useful Life (EUL) and Remaining Useful Life (RUL) are critical in supporting long-term capital and financial planning and asset management. EUL defines the total expected service life in years of an asset from the time it is commissioned, and RUL estimates the years of service life between the time of analysis and the time an asset is expected to need replacement. Years in Service is based on the install date of the equipment.

RUL = EUL – Years in Service


As described in Section 4.1.1, the following table represents the Estimated Useful Life of the water main cohorts. The table list the number of segments, miles and percentage of pipe based on length within each cohort.

Table 45: Horizontal Assets EUL Summary

Cohort Name

Diameter Installed EUL (years) Segments Miles % System

Cast Iron Pre-1945 Small

2” thru 8” 1914 thru 1945

100 7032 218.71 37.59%

Cast Iron Post 1945 Small

2” thru 8” 1946 thru 1980

90 6452 194.27 33.39%

Cast Iron Pre-1945 Large

10” thru 72” 1914 thru 1945

120 1129 41.79 7.18%

Cast Iron Post 1945 Large

10” thru 72” 1946 thru 1980

110 1189 46.98 8.07%

Concrete 30” thru 42” 1930 thru 1994

105 7 0.53 0.09%

Ductile Iron Small

2” thru 8” 1961 thru 2012

60 1920 52.92 9.09%


arcadis.com 67

Cohort Name

Diameter Installed EUL (years) Segments Miles % System

Ductile Iron Large

10” thru 30” 1961 thru 2012

110 537 20.25 3.48%

Galvanized 2” 1938 thru 1938

40 1 0.05 0.01%

Prestressed Concrete Cylinder

72” 1959 thru 1959

105 1 0.37 0.06%

PVC 6” thru 18” 1995 thru 1995

55 1 0 0.00%

Reinforced Concrete

30” thru 36” 1930 thru 1994

105 3 0.6 0.10%

Steel 16” thru 24” 1928 thru 1995

80 7032 5.36 0.92%


Estimated Useful Life values are typically applied to defined asset types or categories based on industry standards, and can be adjusted upward or downward over the life of the asset as needed based on observed physical and performance condition. The table below includes the Average Useful Life used for vertical assets.

Table 46: Standard EUL Values for Water Assets

Asset Group Asset Type Average

EUL (Water)

Building and Grounds

Buildings (general buildings, structures, and improvements 40

Grounds (general grounds, pavement, fence, flag poles, etc.) 25

Security Equipment (gates, cameras, etc.) 10

Electrical

MCCs 30

Panelboard 30

Motors (if separated) 25

VFD 25

UPS 20

Switchgear 25

Transformers 25

Switchboard 25

Motor Control Panel 15

Generator 25

Local Control Panel 20

Instrumentation

Process Measuring Devices 10

Flow Meters 20

Process Control Analyzers (pH, chlorine, DO, turbidity, etc.) 10

Process Compliance Equipment (samplers) 10

PLCs 15

RTUs 15


arcadis.com 68


EUL (Water) Remote input and output panel 20

Basins/Ponds

Sludge Lagoon 40

Reject Pond 40

Stormwater Pond 40

Pumps

Submersible 15

Centrifugal 20

Split Case 20

Vertical Turbine 20

Fuel 15

Diaphragm – Plunger 20

Progressive Cavity 15

Vacuum 20

Pump – Other 15

Chemical Feed Pumps 10

Chemical Transfer Pumps 10

Process Mechanical

Blowers 15

Aerators 20

Screens 25

Compactor 15

Compressor 15

Mixer 12

Fans 12

Accelerator Drive 20

Filter 20

Odor Control 15

Baghouse 20

Lime Feed System 20

UV Unit 20

Crane 20

Process Mechanical – Other 20

Yard Piping Exposed Piping 60

Buried Piping 60

Valves/Gates

Gate 20

ARV 15

Pinch 15

Globe 15

Pressure 15

Check 25

Blow-Off 15

Plug Valves 20

Butterfly 25

Valves – Other 25

Process Gates 25

Structures Elevated Tanks 40


arcadis.com 69


EUL (Water) Ground Level Tanks 40

Buried Tanks 20

Hydro-pneumatic Tanks 20

Process Tanks 40

Fuel/Chemical Tanks 20

HVAC

Exhaust Fans 15

Hot Water Pumps 15

Hot Water Boilers 25

Unit Heaters 20

Hot Water Heaters 20

HVAC Unit 20

Condensing Unit 20

Air Dryer 15

Air Handling Unit 20

Dehumidification Unit 15

Ventilation Unit 20

Air Conditioners 15

Heat Pumps 15

The asset’s effective useful life will be adjusted based on the assigned physical condition of the asset and the percent of its useful life already expended. This results in an adjusted effective useful life for each asset based on physical condition. By subtracting the asset age from the adjusted effective useful life, a more realistic remaining life can be calculated for each asset. The adjusted useful life calculations based on physical condition and expended useful life are provided below.

Table 47: Adjusting EUL based on Asset Condition

Overall Physical Condition

Age / EUL Adjusted EUL

1 to < 2

< 20% EUL (no adjustment)

20% Age + 0.8 EUL

2 to < 3

< 50% EUL (no adjustment)

50% Age + 0.6 EUL

3 to < 4

< 20% 0.6 EUL

20% - 50% 0.8 EUL

50% - 80% EUL (no adjustment)

80% Age + 0.3 EUL

4 to < 5 < 20% 0.4 EUL


arcadis.com 70

Overall Physical Condition

Age / EUL Adjusted EUL

20% - 50% 0.5 EUL

50% - 80% 0.8 EUL

80% - 100% EUL (no adjustment)

100% Age + 0.1 EUL

5 Any value Age

5.3 Replacement Value Estimates


The rehabilitation and replacement unit costs detailed the table below were used for the given diameter ranges.

Table 48: Horizontal Assets Replacement Cost Summary

Pipe Diameter Cost Replacement per Linear Foot

6 in $254

8 in $265

10 in $302

12 in $340

14 in $389

16 in $421

18 in $475

20 in $508

22 in $562

24 in $616

26 in $670

28 in $724

30 in $772

32 in $875

36 in $1075

40 in $1177

42 in $1220

48 in $1480

60 in $1998

72 in $2430


arcadis.com 71


Replacement costs were developed for vertical assets that are recommended to be replaced in the next five years. For electrical, mechanical, and HVAC assets, replacement costs were estimated and for structural assets, repair costs were estimated using the following methodology:

1. Review existing drawings and asset photos where available. 2. Estimate replacement costs using RS Means Cost Works as a guide where asset class and

capacity is available for assets (such as fans, generator, pumps, large motors, boilers, hoists, panels, small valves etc.)

3. Estimate replacement costs for large assets based on project experience and historical pricing information for assets (such as MFP’s, switchgear, large valves, etc.)

4. Include demolition, material cost, installation, and start-up costs. 5. Escalate replacement costs by a factor of 1.4 to account for Level V cost estimating that assumes

30-50% contingency. 6. Escalate the costs for overhead and profit by a factor of 1.21, to arrive at installation cost. (The

total markup for the RS Means assumption is 1.694.)

A recommendation for future versions of the AMP involves creating asset-level cost estimates for all assets.

5.4 Capital Planning Model Configuration and Scenario Results


The model considers the pipes for replacement that meet the following thresholds defined in the table below. For example, for a pipe with the highest COF score of 5, the model considers that pipe for replacement when it reaches a break rate of 60 or has a performance score of 4 or higher. Conversely, a pipe with the lowest COF would not be considered for replacement until it reaches a break rate of 80 or a performance condition of 5. Each year, every pipes’ break rate will increase, but their performance score will stay constant until they are replaced, at which time the performance changes to a 1. For each year, every pipe that meets the thresholds identified below are eligible for replacement.

Table 49: Thresholds for R&R

COF Description Break Rate Performance Score

1 Lowest 80 5

2 Low 75 5

3 Medium 70 5

4 High 65 4

5 Highest 60 4

The model was configured to allot 20% of funding to high risk pipes and 80% of funding to those in the worst condition (high LOF score). For example, in 2018, $12 million was budgeted for water main replacement. Therefore $2.4 million went to replace the highest risk pipes and the remaining $9.6 million


arcadis.com 72

was used to replace the worst condition pipes. This configuration ensures that the highest risk pipes due to poor performance scores are replaced, while still applying funds to minimizing the rising overall break rate. Four funding scenarios were run based on this configuration. All three scenarios start with the previously planned funding of $12M in 2018, $19M in 2019 and $7M in 2020. Scenario 1 is also based on the previous plan which allocated a constant $5M per year from 2021 through 2037. Scenario 2 increased funding by $0.5M each year starting at $7M in 2020 and finishing at $15.5M in 2037. Scenario 3 increased funding by $1M each year starting at $7M in 2020 and finishing at $20M in 2037. Scenario 4 increased funding by $2M each year starting at $7M in 2020 until reaching and holding $21M per year from 2027 through 2037. For comparison the initial 2018 system-wide average scores by length are:

Table 50: Initial 2018 System-Wide Average Scores

Break Rate

Physical Score

Performance Score

LOF COF Min Risk

Score

Max Risk

Score

Current Risk

Score

% Max Risk

33.95 2.16 3.00 3.17 2.25 2.25 11.25 7.18 54.8%

The overall minimum possible system wide risk of 2.25 would occur if every pipe was new and therefore had an LOF score of 1. Conversely the maximum possible system wide risk of 11.25 would occur if every pipe was at end of useful life with an LOF score of 5. The initial 2018 system wide risk of 7.18 therefore represents (7.18 – 2.25) / (11.25 – 2.25) = 4.93 / 9.0 = 54.8% of maximum risk. The following table shows how the break rate, physical condition, performance condition, overall LOF, and risk change by the end of each scenario. All scenarios show an increase in break rate and thus the physical condition, but the performance condition shows marked improvement in each scenario. This is primarily because almost 47% of the water mains have initial performance scores of 4 or 5. Scenario 1 increased physical score overwhelms the improved performance score, resulting in an increased risk score. The better physical scores of Scenarios 2, 3 and 4 along with the reduced performance scores result in a risk reduction as shown in the table below. The results of all four scenarios are shown in Appendix D.

Table 51: Scenarios Summary


Year Break Rate

Physical Score

Performance Score

LOF Risk Score

% Max Risk

Start 2018 33.95 2.16 3.00 3.17 7.18 54.8%

Scenario 1: Initial Plan 2037 55.58 3.17 2.56 3.54 7.53 58.7%


2037 45.64 2.78 2.18 3.11 6.60 48.3%


2037 39.33 2.53 1.93 2.84 6.05 42.2%


arcadis.com 73


Year Break Rate

Physical Score

Performance Score

LOF Risk Score

% Max Risk

Scenario 4: $2.0M Ramp Up to $21/year

2037 34.90 2.35 1.73 2.63 5.59 37.1%

Scenario 3 represents the recommended funding scenario. It includes an aggressive ramp up of water main replacement as shown in the following figure. Over 20 years, $310M is spent to replace 198 miles of water mains. Although the system wide break rate increases initially, it levels off and reduces to under 40 breaks per 100 miles per year. Scenario 3 Risk is gradually reduced almost every year in the plan.

Figure 20: Scenario 3 Water Main Replacement Costs, Break Rate, and Risk

The following graph shows the Risk Matrix (length of pipe by COF and LOF) for the initial and final year of the plan. These graphs show the length of pipe by LOF within each of the five COF groups. The goal is to minimize the amount of high LOF pipe in the high COF groups. The initial risk profile in 2018 shows 7.56 miles of LOF 4 and 5 in the COF 5 group. There are also 44.46 miles of LOF 4 and 5 in the COF 4 group. By 2037, there is no LOF 5 and only 0.53 miles of LOF 4 in the COF 5 group. The COF 4 group has been reduced to 11.75 miles of LOF 4 and 5 pipe, with almost none of it being LOF 5. Therefore, the miles of pipe in the two highest Risk groups will be reduced by 75% from over 52 miles to less than 13 miles.


arcadis.com 74

Figure 21: Scenario 3 Initial and Final COF Condition

The detailed yearly results of Scenario 3 are listed in the following table.

Table 52: Scenario 3 Detailed Yearly Results

Scenario 3 System Wide Averages Replaced Replaced Averages

Year Budget Age Break Rate

LOF Risk Segments Length Age COF Break Rate

LOF Risk

2018 $12,000,000 67.72 33.95 3.17 7.18 58 3.56 88.05 4.11 112.01 4.73 20.56

2019 $18,999,766 68.18 34.52 3.15 7.10 218 7.39 84.68 3.25 49.82 2.91 16.21

2020 $6,999,389 68.11 35.18 3.12 6.98 81 3.08 58.21 4.12 28.83 1.87 18.71

2021 $7,999,904 68.80 36.35 3.12 6.93 61 4.77 88.12 4.03 60.44 3.35 16.11

2022 $8,999,935 69.08 37.21 3.11 6.87 86 5.86 91.25 3.83 59.63 3.10 15.42

2023 $9,999,954 69.16 38.01 3.16 6.90 417 6.13 85.97 4.10 55.00 3.41 16.40

2024 $10,999,770 69.25 38.86 3.14 6.80 190 7.35 92.30 3.21 65.20 3.98 13.07

2025 $11,999,044 69.08 39.51 3.12 6.71 415 6.96 79.09 3.91 48.82 3.01 15.67

2026 $12,999,885 69.14 40.42 3.11 6.62 108 8.45 90.27 3.06 68.91 3.73 12.25

2027 $13,999,959 68.83 40.95 3.12 6.56 123 8.94 90.42 2.94 68.69 3.86 11.78

2028 $14,999,996 68.44 41.45 3.11 6.51 145 10.55 94.96 2.24 77.93 4.65 10.56

2029 $15,999,999 67.72 41.61 3.09 6.45 169 10.59 98.58 1.88 76.08 4.34 7.99

2030 $16,999,993 66.92 41.81 3.24 6.66 102 11.67 99.34 1.40 84.09 4.75 6.47

2031 $17,999,915 65.93 41.73 3.18 6.60 210 12.58 97.54 1.48 81.31 4.68 6.81

2032 $18,999,990 64.82 41.58 3.11 6.51 130 12.94 100.25 1.72 80.59 4.67 8.12

2033 $19,999,933 63.59 41.39 3.06 6.43 115 13.63 100.35 1.63 82.78 4.65 7.64

2034 $20,999,981 62.24 41.06 3.01 6.35 211 14.87 99.27 1.68 86.26 4.67 7.77

2035 $22,000,000 60.70 40.45 2.94 6.26 257 15.36 100.86 1.77 88.30 4.65 8.21

2036 $22,999,688 59.04 39.70 2.87 6.16 318 16.65 100.38 2.24 91.18 4.68 10.47

2037 $23,999,980 57.17 38.64 2.81 6.01 419 16.71 101.97 1.99 94.70 4.69 9.35


arcadis.com 75


The City of Flint has a Capital Improvement Plan in place for FY2018 through FY2022. The LOF, COF, and risk evaluations for vertical assets yielded twenty-four assets that are recommended to be replaced within the next five years based on risk, present condition, and remaining useful life. The following chart indicates the number of assets to be replaced in the following increments, based on the risk and RUL analysis: 0-2, 3-5, 6-10, 11-20, and 20+ years. All critical assets are included for replacement in the first five years.

Figure 22: Assets Replacement based on RUL

Installation cost was estimated based on the methodology outlined in Section 6.3.2, for the twenty-four assets recommended to be replaced or repaired in years 1-5. For mechanical, electrical, and HVAC assets, complete replacement was considered at the end of the asset’s useful life; and for structural, repair, not complete replacement, was considered in the analysis. CIP Group 1 includes R&R of assets with an RUL from 0 up to 2; CIP Group 2 includes R&R of assets with an RUL 2 up to 3; CIP Group 3 covers assets with RUL 3 up to 4; CIP Group 4 covers RUL 4 up to 5 and CIP Group 5 covers RUL 5 up to 6. A total investment of almost $2M is required to rehabilitation/replace these assets over the next five years, as illustrated in the chart below. Based on discussions with the City, there is a line item included in the current CIP line item for “Pump Station Improvements” that could potentially cover the anticipated replacement needs. If it is determined that the anticipated replacement needs ($2M) for the first five years are not addressed in the current CIP, then the financial model will need to be adjusted accordingly

20

4

68

55

13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

RUL 0-2 RUL 3-5 RUL 6-10 RUL 11-20 RUL 20+

Qu

anti

ty o

f A

sset

s

RUL Grouping

Vertical Assets - Remaining Useful Life


arcadis.com 76

Figure 23: Vertical Assets - 5-year CIP

5.5 5-Year CIP Summary The City’s current CIP plan includes investment in horizontal assets as part of the following projects: Northwest Transmission Main, Small Main Replacement, Atherton Road Main. The City plans to invest in various Pump Station Improvements in FY2019 and 20. It is estimated that the completion of the following projects will be the end of their corresponding fiscal year.

Table 53: 5-year CIP Baseline (Current CIP) in Dollars


FAST START – LSLR 50,000,000 37,000,000 12,000,000 0 0 Grants

GCDC Back-Up Supply 1,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 0 0 Grants

Northwest Transmission Main

4,000,000 8,000,000 0 0 0 Grants

Meter Replacement – AMR/AMI

1,000,000 10,000,000 0 0 0 Grants

Small Main Replacement 6,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 0 0 Grants


0 0 0 5,000,000 5,000,000 Cash


500,000 4,500,000 0 0 0 Grants

Water Facility Consolidation 200,000 0 2,800,000 0 0 Cash

Distribution System WQ Monitoring

1,000,000 1,000,000 0 0 0 Grants

Dam Maintenance 500,000 250,000 0 0 0 Cash

72-inch Line Maintenance 500,000 0 0 0 0 Cash

CIP Group 1 CIP Group 2 CIP Group 3 CIP Group 4 CIP Group 5

Series1 $269,998 $1,116,092 $431,970 $125,237 $-

$269,998

$1,116,092

$431,970

$125,237

$- $-

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

Co

st

CIP Years 1-5

Vertical Assets - 5 year CIP


arcadis.com 77


Pump Station Improvements

0 500,000 2,500,000 0 0 Cash

Atherton Road Main 2,000,000 5,000,000 0 0 0 Grants

TOTAL 44,700,000 90,250,000 55,300,000 17,000,000 5,000,000 -

Based on the risk and RUL analysis discussed in previous report sections, the following additional capital investments (beyond the current CIP) are recommended for FY2018-2022 for vertical and horizontal assets.


Fiscal Year Vertical Assets R&R Horizontal Assets R&R Funding Source

FY2018 - - TBD

FY2019 - - TBD

FY2020 - - TBD

FY2021 - $8,000,000 TBD

FY2022 - $9,000,000 TBD

* It is assumed that the approximately $2M in anticipated vertical asset R&R is addressed in the current “Pump Station Improvements” CIP line item, so no additional investment is shown here for vertical assets. If this is not the case, the financial model will need to be adjusted accordingly to include the anticipated investment for vertical assets.

It is estimated that the completion of the following projects will be the end of their corresponding fiscal year.

5.6 20-Year CIP The investment in horizontal assets, based on the recommended capital model scenario outlined in Section 6.4, will require $1M additional funding each year to replace poor condition, high risk pipes. Therefore the 20-year CIP will include $1M increases each year as listed in the table below, ending at $24M in 2037. The total investment in horizontal assets R&R is $310M, with a total of approximately 200 miles replaced. For vertical assets, the 5-year CIP is assumed to be addressed in the Pump Station Improvements CIP line item, so no additional investment is shown for the 5-year period. Beyond the 5-year CIP, an average R&R rate of 3% was estimated based on the overall replacement cost of the pump stations. The 3% reinvestment rate is based on an estimated useful life for a pump station of 30 years.


Fiscal Year Vertical Assets R&R Horizontal Assets R&R Funding Source

FY2018 - - TBD

FY2019 - - TBD

FY2020 - - TBD

FY2021 - $8,000,000 TBD


arcadis.com 78

Fiscal Year Vertical Assets R&R Horizontal Assets R&R Funding Source FY2022 - $9,000,000 TBD

FY2023 $200,000 $10,000,000 TBD

FY2024 $200,000 $11,000,000 TBD

FY2025 $200,000 $12,000,000 TBD

FY2026 $200,000 $13,000,000 TBD

FY2027 $200,000 $14,000,000 TBD

FY2028 $200,000 $15,000,000 TBD

FY2029 $200,000 $16,000,000 TBD

FY2030 $200,000 $17,000,000 TBD

FY2031 $200,000 $18,000,000 TBD

FY2032 $200,000 $19,000,000 TBD

FY2033 $200,000 $20,000,000 TBD

FY2034 $200,000 $21,000,000 TBD

FY2035 $200,000 $22,000,000 TBD

FY2036 $200,000 $23,000,000 TBD

FY2037 $200,000 $24,000,000 TBD

It is estimated that the completion of the following projects will be the end of their corresponding fiscal year.

5.7 CIP Funding Gap Discussion As noted above, Scenario 3 is the recommended Asset Management Plan for the City. The financial analysis in Section 6 of this Report outlines the analysis that determines the estimated funding gaps, as well as the revenue increases needed to meet the following:

Annual O&M expenses, including water system operation and maintenance and annual payments for water service.

Cash Funded Capital – This includes annual amounts to fund the cash portion of the City’s CIP, and annual replacement amounts for Scenario 3 for horizontal and vertical assets.

Reserve Balances – This includes transfers to or from the available Operating Fund balance. The City targets for the Water Fund to maintain 25 percent of the annual expenditures for O&M and debt service, and Transfers to the General Fund.

The following chart reflects the funding gap for implementing the Scenario 3 Asset Management Plan


arcadis.com 79

Figure 24: Funding Gap Summary

To close the funding gap, the City will need regular increases to its water system rates and charges. This includes the annual increases noted in Table 67 of Section 6.4. The percent increases needed assume that the City will fund the annual Scenario 3 requirements from water system operating revenues. The City has indicated that it will be extremely difficult to undertake the revenue increases necessary to implement the Scenario 3 plan. As such, it will pursue various other funding sources such as state and federal grants to offset the funding gap. At this time, the 5-year CIP includes significant funding from grant sources. Beyond FY 2022, it is not clear how much grant funding might be available for the City’s water system, and therefore the financial analysis assumes cash funding of the future replacement capital per Scenario 3. The City could also attempt to pursue future revenue bonds or SRF loans to offset some of the Scenario 3 replacement capital. In recent years the City retired its outstanding debt service, and this Asset Management Plan does not reflect a plan for the City to issue debt or take advantage of SRF loans. If available and if desired by the City, these mechanisms could push revenue increases to future fiscal years and mitigate revenue increases once the replacement capital ramp up begins. Once water system operations and business functions are stabilized, the City may be able to consider using state revolving fund loans or revenue bonds to fund a portion of the future horizontal asset R&R. This would result in a lower level of total revenue requirements over the 20-year period to the benefit of current ratepayers.

010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,00080,00090,000

100,000

$1,0

00s

Fiscal Year

Asset Management Funding GapScenario 3

Total Revenue Under Existing Rates Revenue Requirements


arcadis.com 80

6.0 REVENUE STRUCTURE An effective AMP requires a corresponding financial plan to ensure that the City understands the necessary funds for performing operations and implementing the capital improvements. Arcadis completed a financial plan that is based in part on a rate study currently being performed by the City and another consultant. The City’s rate study projections to FY 2026 serve as the baseline projection for revenue under existing rates and revenue requirements such as operation and maintenance (O&M) and cash funded capital. Arcadis then incorporated the capital improvement recommendations outlined in this report, and extended the financial plan to a 20-year projection through FY 2037. The financial plan calculates the estimated revenue increases that are required for the City to meet the projected operating budget and capital costs, including the capital plan recommendations outlined in this report. The following sections outline the financial projections developed as part of this asset management plan, including an overview of the City’s revenue structure, its operating budget, anticipated annual capital improvements, and the estimated annual revenue increases from rates and charges needed to implement the plan.

6.1 Water System Revenue Under Existing Rates The City has developed a projection of revenue under existing rates and charges for the water system. The following sections provide an overview of the projected revenue under existing rates and charges.

6.1.1 Existing Rate Structure

The legal basis for setting the City’s water rates is found in the City of Flint Code of Ordinances. Chapter 46-52.1 outlines the City’s requirement to calculate and transmit a new schedule of water rates on or before April 15th of each year. The City submits a budget each year that includes a schedule of rates and charges for the water system. The City Council reviews and adopts the annual budget, including the underlying schedule of water system rates and charges. The City’s existing water rate structure consists of a monthly fixed service charge graduated by meter size, and a declining block volume charge. The City has separate rates and charges for customers that reside within the City limits and customers that reside outside of the City limits. The following presents the City’s existing rates and charges for general water service.

Table 56: Monthly Water Service Charge

Meter Size Inside City Outside City

Residential Non-Residential Residential Non-Residential 5/8" $ 22.90 $ 55.79 $ 34.17 $ 83.74

3/4" $ 44.03 $ 69.37 $ 65.95 $ 95.84

1" $ 58.15 $ 78.48 $ 87.08 $ 117.74

1-1/2" $ 58.15 $ 112.60 $ 87.08 $ 169.06

2" $ 58.15 $ 157.40 $ 87.08 $ 236.26

3" $ 310.83 $ 468.65

4" $ 547.05 $ 820.71

6" $ 1,075.75 $ 1,613.34

8" $ 1,560.05 $ 2,340.24


arcadis.com 81

Meter Size Inside City Outside City

Residential Non-Residential Residential Non-Residential 10" $ 2,153.48 $ 3,247.30

12" $ 2,605.31 $ 3,907.77

16" $ 3,242.25 $ 4,863.28

20" $ 3,501.98 $ 5,709.67

Table 57: Monthly Water Volume Charge

Block Monthly Volume

Inside City Outside City Residential Non-Residential Residential Non-Residential

1st Block 0 to 35 Ccf $ 6.187 $ 6.187 $ 9.285 $ 9.285

2nd Block 36 to 2,000 Ccf $ 5.835 $ 5.835 $ 8.939 $ 8.939

3rd Block Over 2,000 Ccf $ 4.755 $ 4.755 $ 7.140 $ 7.140

Arcadis did not perform a detailed cost of service study and rate design for this AMP, however, the rate structure used by the City is common within the water industry. The graduated monthly service charge by meter size (Table 56) reflects the relatively higher cost incurred by water utilities for operation and maintenance and capital replacements of larger connections and meters. The declining block rate structure (Table 57) is also common. It is generally used by communities to recover system costs from a variety of customer types, e.g., residential, commercial, multi-family, and industrial. The blocks and associated rates are typically designed to recover each class’ respective cost of service.

6.1.2 Projected Accounts and Volumes

The City has developed projected water system accounts and usage volumes for the period FY 2018 to FY 2026. The City’s basic assumptions related to the number of water accounts are shown in the following Table for the 5-year period FY 2018 through FY 2022:

Table 58: Projected Water Accounts

Customer Class

FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Inside Residential

29,133 29,133 29,133 29,133 29,133

Inside Non-Residential

1,533 1,533 1,533 1,533 1,533

Outside Residential

140 140 140 140 140

Outside Non-Residential

42 42 42 42 42

TOTAL 30,848 30,848 30,848 30,848 30,848

As the table reflects, the City projects the number of Inside City and Outside City customers to remain stable for the foreseeable future.


arcadis.com 82

The City has summarized the cumulative billed usage by rate block for both Inside and Outside City customers through the year FY 2026. The following Table provides the projection of billed volume by rate block for the five-year period FY 2018 through FY 2022.

Table 59: Projected Annual Billed Volume (Ccf) – Inside and Outside City Customers

Block Monthly Volume

FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

1st Block 0 to 35 Ccf 1,817,629 1,781,276 1,745,651 1,710,738 1,676,523

2nd Block 36 to 2,000 Ccf

871,646 854,213 837,129 820,386 803,979

3rd Block Over 2,000 Ccf

529,435 518,847 508,470 498,300 488,334

Total 3,218,710 3,154,336 3,091,249 3,029,424 2,968,836

As is seen the total billed volume shows a decrease from year to year. This reflects the City’s estimate that Residential and Non-Residential billed volume will decrease by 2.0 percent per year to FY 2026 to reflect a general trend in the water industry of declining water consumption. Beyond FY 2026, it is assumed that the per capita consumption will then remain stable.

6.1.3 Projected Revenue Under Existing Rates and Charges

Arcadis applied the existing water rates and charges to the projected monthly billings and billed volume to derive an estimate of revenue under existing rates and charges. The following Table presents the estimated water revenue under existing rates and charges.

Table 60: Projected Revenue Under Existing Rates and Charges

Line No.

Customer Class FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

1 Residential Service Charge Revenue

8,206,600 8,206,600 8,206,600 8,206,600 8,206,600

2 Residential Volume Charge Revenue

10,067,700 9,866,400 9,669,000 9,475,600 9,286,100

3 Subtotal (Ln. 1+ Ln. 2) 18,274,300 18,073,000 17,875,600 17,682,200 17,492,700

4 Residential Collection Factor

65.00% 70.00% 75.00% 80.00% 85.00%

5 Adjusted Residential Revenue (Ln. 3 X Ln. 4)

11,878,300 12,651,100 13,406,700 14,145,800 14,868,800

6 Non-Residential Service Charge Revenue

2,813,600 2,813,600 2,813,600 2,813,600 2,813,600

7 Non-Residential Volume Charge Revenue

8,964,600 8,785,300 8,609,600 8,437,400 8,268,700

8 Subtotal (Ln. 6 + Ln. 7) 11,778,200 11,598,900 11,423,200 11,251,000 11,082,300

9 Non-Residential Collection Factor

91.00% 91.50% 92.00% 92.50% 93.00%

10 Adjusted Non-Residential Revenue (Ln. 8 X Ln. 9)

10,718,200 10,613,000 10,509,300 10,407,200 10,306,500

11 Total Revenue (Ln. 5 + Ln. 10)

22,596,500 23,264,100 23,916,000 24,553,000 25,175,300


arcadis.com 83

A significant issue for the City is the estimated revenue collection factor, particularly for the Residential customers. For FY 2018, it is estimated to be 65 percent of billings. This results in less revenue available to meet system revenue requirements. The City estimates that the collection factor will improve to 85 percent by FY 2022 for Residential customers.

6.1.4 Miscellaneous Revenue

The City also maintains fees and charges for miscellaneous services provided. These include fees and charges related to activities such as water turn on/off services; meter testing requests; and other miscellaneous services, as well as interest income. The City estimates that miscellaneous revenue will be approximately $1.2 million per year.

6.2 Water System Revenue Requirements The City’s revenue requirements generally consist of:

1. Operation and maintenance expenses necessary to provide the labor, materials, and supplies required to provide drinking water to the citizens of Flint.

2. Capital-related expenditures to design and construct the necessary water system improvements, as well as provide funds for the normal renewal and replacement of water system assets as they reach the end of their useful life. This would include any debt service or loan payments should the City determine to fund capital improvements with debt.

3. Operating reserves to ensure the City has sufficient funds on hand to adequately fund system operations should unanticipated revenue shortfalls or expenses occur.

6.2.1 Operation and Maintenance Expenditures (OpEx)

The water system projected OpEx are derived from the FY 2018 and FY 2019 Adopted Budget, which includes the operating budget approved by the City Council for the water fund. The following Table reflects the Adopted Budget for the Water Fund for FY 2018 and FY 2019. The Table also reflects adjustments made by the City to better reflect anticipated O&M expenditures since the budget was adopted. These adjustments are related to the City’s determination that it will obtain finished drinking water from the Great Lakes Water Authority (GLWA) in lieu of treating water at its own treatment plant.

Table 61: OpEx Budget Summary

Acct. No. Description FY 2018 Budget

Adjust. FY 2018

City Rate Model

FY 2019 Budget

Adjust. FY 2019 City Rate

Model 536.1 Utilities Water Administration

Wages and Fringes

244,831 0 244,831 258,912 0 258,912

Supplies and Operating Expenses

1,000,895 -250,000 750,895 1,039,248 -250,000 789,248


arcadis.com 84


Adjust. FY 2018

City Rate Model

FY 2019 Budget


Model

Debt Service Pass Through (KWA)

6,597,561 0 6,597,561 7,020,781 0 7,020,781

536.206 Water Cross Connection Program

Wages and Fringes

171,373 0 171,373 182,056 0 182,056


3,200 0 3,200 3,200 0 3,200

540.1 Water Service Center Management

Wages and Fringes

451,130 0 451,130 486,582 0 486,582


1,144,272 0 1,144,272 1,351,812 0 1,351,812

540.2 Water Service Center Meter Reading

Wages and Fringes

144,837 0 144,837 153,390 0 153,390


300,000 0 300,000 300,000 0 300,000

540.202 Water Service Center Distribution Mains

Wages and Fringes

3,156,666 0 3,156,666 3,346,815 0 3,346,815


1,116,000 0 1,116,000 1,088,000 0 1,088,000

545.2 Water Plant Operations

Wages and Fringes

1,388,553 -736,160 652,393 1,447,029 -767,247 679,782


14,394,860 -7,905,873 6,488,987 15,014,739 -8,003,237 7,011,502

545.201 Water Plant Maintenance

Wages and Fringes

1,096,378 -534,816 561,562 1,154,416 -556,536 597,880


arcadis.com 85


Adjust. FY 2018

City Rate Model

FY 2019 Budget


Model


463,490 -105,000 358,490 538,490 -130,000 408,490

545.203 Water Plant Dam Maintenance


625,000 -625,000 0 625,000 -625,000 0

900.1 Cost Allocation and Retiree Healthcare

Wages and Fringes

2,694,373 0 2,694,373 3,000,068 0 3,000,068


3,089,161 0 3,089,161 3,243,619 0 3,243,619

966.101 Transfer to the General Fund

Transfer 911,428 0 911,428 959,171 0 959,171

Total Expenses 38,994,008 (10,156,849) 28,837,159 41,213,328 (10,332,020) 30,881,308

As can be seen, the City expects water OpEx to be approximately $28.8 million and $30.9 million for FY 2018 and FY 2019, respectively. Significant OpEx is related to the City’s contractual obligations for water supply. Utilities Administration includes approximately $7.0M in FY 2019 for the payment of annual debt service related to the Karegnondi Water Authority’s (KWA’s) project to supply raw water from Lake Huron. Water Plant Operations includes approximately $5.7M in FY 2019 for the annual payment related to GLWA’s supply of finished water to the City. The annual bill from GLWA will be $12.7M with $7.0M going to a trust for the KWA bond payment. To estimate the future OpEx for the water system, the City anticipates OpEx categories to generally increase on an annual basis. The following reflect annual cost escalation factors used to project OpEx to FY 2026.

Salaries, Wages, and Benefits - 3.0%

Pension - 5.0%

Materials and Supplies - 3.0%

Power - 4.0%

GLWA Supply Costs - 5.0% The following Table presents the projected OpEx for the water system by operating unit. The Table shows that water system OpEx is projected to increase from approximately $28.8M in FY 2018 to $33.6M in FY 2022. This reflects an average annual increase in OpEx of 3.9% for the 5-Year projection period.


arcadis.com 86

Table 62: Projected Operation and Maintenance Expense ($1,000s)

Acct. No. Description FY

2018 FY

2019 FY

2020 FY

2021 FY

2022 536.100 Utilities Water Administration 7,593 8,069 8,095 8,122 8,149

536.206 Water Cross Connection Program 175 185 193 200 208

540.100 Water Service Center Management 1,595 1,838 1,897 1,958 2,021

540.200 Water Service Center Meter Reading 445 453 468 484 500

540.202 Water Service Center Distribution Mains 4,273 4,435 4,582 4,735 4,893

545.200 Water Plant Operations 7,141 7,691 8,054 8,435 8,833

545.201 Water Plant Maintenance 920 1,006 1,044 1,083 1,124

545.203 Water Plant Dam Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0

900.100 Retiree Healthcare 5,784 6,244 6,431 6,624 6,823

966.101 Transfer to the General Fund 911 959 988 1,018 1,048 TOTAL 28,837 30,881 31,753 32,659 33,601

6.2.2 Capital Expenditures (CapEx)

The City has significant capital improvements planned for the 5-Year and 20-Year projection period. The following Table presents the City’s projection of capital improvements for the period FY 2018 to FY 2022. Column 6 of the Table reflects how the City anticipates funding these capital improvements. The current plan calls for using either available grant funding or cash from water system revenues. The City does not anticipate issuing any revenue bonds or loans from state revolving fund (SRF) programs.

Table 63: Water System Capital Improvement Plan ($)

1 2 3 4 5 6 Line No.

Description FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Funding Source

1 FAST START – LSLR

50,000,000 37,000,000 12,000,000 0 0 Grants

2 GCDC Back-Up Supply

1,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 0 0 Grants

3 Northwest Transmission Main

4,000,000 8,000,000 0 0 0 Grants

4 Meter Replacement – AMR/AMI

1,000,000 10,000,000 0 0 0 Grants

5 Small Main Replacement

6,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 0 0 Grants

6


0 0 0 8,000,000 9,000,000 Cash

7


500,000 4,500,000 0 0 0 Grants


arcadis.com 87

1 2 3 4 5 6 Line No.

Description FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Funding Source

8 Water Facility Consolidation

200,000 0 2,800,000 0 0 Cash

9 Distribution System WQ Monitoring

1,000,000 1,000,000 0 0 0 Grants

10 Dam Maintenance

500,000 250,000 0 0 0 Cash

11 72-inch Line Maintenance

500,000 0 0 0 0 Cash

12 Pump Station Improvements

0 500,000 2,500,000 0 0 Cash

13 Atherton Road Main

2,000,000 5,000,000 0 0 0 Grants

14 Total Capital Improvements (2017 Value)

44,700,000 90,250,000 55,300,000 20,000,000 9,000,000

15

Total Capital Improvements (Inflated Value)*

44,700,000 92,957,500 58,667,800 21,854,500 10,129,600

16

Less Anticipated Grant Funding

(43,500,000) (92,185,000) (53,045,000) (13,112,700)

-

17

Net to Be Funded from Operations (Ln. 15 + Ln. 16)

1,200,000 772,500 5,622,800 8,741,800 10,129,600

* CIP estimates inflated at an annual rate of 3.0% from FY 2017 costs.

As can be seen in the Table above, the City anticipates meeting significant capital needs from state and federal grants. This requires the amount seen on Line 17 to be funded from operations, and is accordingly included as part of the water system annual revenue requirements. Line 6 reflects the results of the Scenario 3 Asset Management Plan recommendation for horizontal assets. The Scenario 3 recommendations for additional replacement of vertical assets is set to begin in FY 2023 at approximately $200,000 per year.

6.2.3 Total Revenue Requirements

The following Table summarizes the annual revenue requirements for the water system from the above sections.

Table 64: Total Water System Revenue Requirements ($)

1 2 3 4 5 Line No. Description FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

1 O&M Expense 28,837,200 30,881,300 31,753,100 32,659,000 33,600,600


arcadis.com 88


2 Cash Funded Capital

1,200,000 772,500 5,622,800 8,741,800 10,129,600

3 Total Revenue Requirement

30,037,200 31,653,800 37,375,900 41,400,800 43,730,200

6.3 Additional Revenue Required to Close Funding Gap To meet the revenue requirements above, the City will require additional water rate increases. The Table below presents the total revenue requirements, offset by 1) other miscellaneous revenue; 2) interest income; and 3) transfers to and from the operating balance to supplement revenue or maintain targeted operating balances per City policy. The City’s policy is to maintain an operating fund balance that is equal to 25% of the operating budget and annual debt service expenditures. At the beginning of FY 2018, the City anticipates that approximately $15,577,700 will be on hand for the Water Fund.

Table 65: Projected Revenue Required from Rates and Charges ($)


1 Total Revenue Requirements

30,037,200 31,653,800 37,375,900 41,400,800 43,730,200

2 Less: Miscellaneous Revenue

(1,231,100) (1,223,400) (1,223,400) (1,223,400) (1,223,400)

3 To / (From) Operating Balance

(6,209,600) (772,500) (657,200) 226,600 235,300

4 Required Revenue from Rates

22,596,500 29,657,900 35,495,300 40,404,000 42,742,100

As is seen, the projected net revenue requirements from rates and charges (Line 4) are projected to increase to approximately $42.7 million by FY 2022. This is more than the projected revenue under existing rates and charges seen in Table 66. To close the gap between projected revenue requirements and revenue under existing rates, the City would need annual rate increases beginning in FY 2019. The following Table reflects the planned rate increases and additional revenue to meet the projected revenue requirements. It is assumed that any revenue increase is implemented to recover a full year’s worth of revenue with increased rates and charges.

Table 66: Planned Revenue Increases to Meet Funding Gap


1 Revenue Under Existing Rates

22,596,500 23,264,100 23,916,100 24,553,000 25,175,300

Revenue from Rate Increases


arcadis.com 89


2 FY 2018 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0

3 FY 2019 27.5% 6,394,000 6,573,200 6,748,300 6,919,300

4 FY 2020 16.4% 5,006,000 5,139,300 5,269,600

5 FY 2021 10.9% 3,963,500 4,064,000

6 FY 2022 3.2% 1,313,900

7 Total Revenue from Rates

22,596,500 29,658,100 35,495,300 40,404,100 42,742,100

8 Plus: Miscellaneous Revenue

1,231,100 1,223,400 1,223,400 1,223,400 1,223,400

9 Total Revenue 23,827,600 30,881,500 36,718,700 41,627,500 43,965,500

10 Less: Total Revenue Requirements

(30,037,200) (31,653,800) (37,375,900) (41,400,800) (43,730,200)

11 Net To / (From) Operating Fund (Ln. 9 + Ln. 10)

(6,209,600) (772,300) (657,200) 226,700 235,300

12 Beginning Operating Fund Balance

15,577,700 9,368,100 8,595,800 7,938,600 8,165,300

13 Ending Operating Fund Balance (Ln. 11 + Ln. 12)

9,368,100 8,595,800 7,938,600 8,165,300 8,400,600

As can be seen, the City would require revenue increases to water rates and charges seen in Lines 2 through 6. This produces revenue from rates and charges that increases to approximately $42.7 million by FY 2022. Combined with Miscellaneous Revenue (Line 8) it produces Total Revenue (Line 9) to meet the projected revenue requirements (Line 10). The difference (Line 11) reflects sources and uses of Operating Funds on hand to maintain a targeted Operating Fund balance that is equal to 25 percent of annual O&M and any debt service. In this instance, the ending balance (Line 13) by FY 2020 approximates 25 percent of annual O&M expense as the water system currently has no outstanding debt service.

6.4 20-Year Projection For the 20-year projection, the increasing rate of replacement for horizontal assets, combined with annual replacements for vertical assets, will continue to require additional funding from the City. The following Table presents the projected revenue, revenue requirements, and necessary revenue increases to close the funding gap.


arcadis.com 90

Table 67: Projected Revenue Under Existing Rates vs. Revenue Requirements ($1,000s)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Line No. FY

Projected Revenue

Requirements

Less: Miscellaneous

Revenue

To / (From)

Operating Fund

Net Revenue

from Rates

Revenue Under

Existing Rates

Projected Funding

Gap

% Revenue Increases Needed

(3)+(4)+(5) (7)-(6)

1 2018 30,037 (1,231) (6,210) 22,597 22,597 0 0.0%

2 2019 31,654 (1,223) (773) 29,658 23,264 (6,394) 27.5%

3 2020 37,376 (1,223) (657) 35,495 23,916 (11,579) 16.4%

4 2021 41,401 (1,223) 227 40,404 24,553 (15,851) 10.9%

5 2022 43,730 (1,223) 235 42,742 25,175 (17,567) 3.2%

6 2023 46,404 (1,223) 245 45,425 25,947 (19,478) 3.1%

7 2024 48,970 (1,223) 254 48,001 25,630 (22,371) 7.0%

8 2025 51,658 (1,223) 264 50,699 25,318 (25,381) 6.9%

9 2026 54,475 (1,223) 275 53,526 25,013 (28,513) 6.9%

10 2027 57,424 (1,223) 286 56,486 25,013 (31,473) 5.5%

11 2028 60,512 (1,223) 297 59,586 25,013 (34,573) 5.5%

12 2029 63,746 (1,223) 309 62,831 25,013 (37,818) 5.4%

13 2030 67,130 (1,223) 321 66,228 25,013 (41,215) 5.4%

14 2031 70,671 (1,223) 334 69,782 25,013 (44,769) 5.4%

15 2032 74,377 (1,223) 348 73,501 25,013 (48,488) 5.3%

16 2033 78,253 (1,223) 362 77,391 25,013 (52,378) 5.3%

17 2034 82,308 (1,223) 378 81,461 25,013 (56,448) 5.3%

18 2035 86,548 (1,223) 396 85,714 25,013 (60,701) 5.2%

19 2036 90,981 (1,223) 412 90,160 25,013 (65,147) 5.2%

20 2037 95,617 (1,223) 429 94,808 25,013 (69,795) 5.2%

Note: Minor variances in summations due to rounding

As can be seen in Column 9, the City will require regular, annual increases from rates and charges to meet its projected O&M expenses, fulfill capital improvement requirements (including the recommendations in this Asset Management Plan), maintain an Operating Fund balance of 25 percent of O&M and debt service. The cumulative revenue derived from the increases above will provide the necessary revenue to offset the annual gaps seen in Column 8.

6.5 Mitigation of Revenue Increases The percent revenue increases noted above are considered to be a conservative estimate. The City has several ongoing initiatives that should mitigate the increases, including:

The promotion of more efficient operations/staffing over time to reduce costs and improve performance of the water system

Improved revenue collections from customers resulting from the implementation of the City’s shut off policy

Enhancement of low income assistance programs


arcadis.com 91

Use of alternative rate design to address affordability for customers that use a minimal amount of water

There are other areas that would offset the conservative revenue increases noted above. This includes the continued pursuit of state and federal grants to offset a portion of the projected renewal and replacement capital over the 20-year projection period. If feasible, and if desired by the City, consideration should also be given to using SRF loans or other similar mechanisms to finance a portion of the future renewal and replacement capital. This would help to push rate increases further into the future to the benefit of Flint’s current customers. Finally, the revenue requirements are based on the CIP which includes cost estimates based on a conservative, open-cut method for the replacement of the distribution system. If feasible, other, less expensive methods of rehabilitation should be considered to reduce the financial burden for the City and its customers. Arcadis recommends that the City continue with regular financial planning to appropriately incorporate the results from the areas and initiatives mentioned above. Any benefits in terms of cost savings or revenue enhancement can be factored in to the financial plan, providing future, mitigated rate increases for customers.


arcadis.com 92

7.0 FY2017 YEAR-END REPORT The City of Flint began a Drinking Water Optimization Project in 2017, which included the development of an MDEQ compliant Asset Management Plan. This year, the City’s preparation to submit the AMP has included the following efforts:

Development of Levels of Service measures

Development of methodologies to score likelihood and consequence of failure for horizontal and vertical assets, and how to calculate risk.

Review and update of GIS inventory data.

Condition assessment of vertical assets at pump station and water treatment plant facilities.

Configuration of Capital Planning Model, scenarios, and development 20-year CIP plan

7.1 Asset Inventory Summary The following summary tables detail the progress made to date in identifying the City’s water distribution system assets. The intent is use these tables to track and show progress with each yearly AMP update.


The GIS horizontal asset inventory, detailed in Section 2.2.1, includes 582 miles of water main, 3,604 hydrants, 9,577 valves, and 16,656 fittings. A data profile analysis was performed to determine the completeness of the fields in the GIS database tables. The fields were summarized as to percent populated, zero, or negative. Many data gaps were identified through this process and recommendations are detailed in Section 2.5.2.1. Key attributes for water mains and their profile results are detailed below; the complete data profile results are summarized in Appendix E.

Table 68: Horizontal Assets - Inventory Summary for Water Mains

Key Attribute % Populated % Zero % Negative

Diameter 100% 0% 0%

Material 100% - -

Install Date 1% 0% 0%

Length 100% 0% 0%

To resolve the low percentage of install dates populated in the GIS, data gaps were closed by using pipe replacement project dates, using hydrant fabrication year dates, and using install dates based on adjacent pipes.


The City performed a condition assessment on 160 assets at four pumping facilities listed below; the five storage facilities were not condition assessed at this time. However, all facilities have been inventoried with respect to MDEQ requirements. The City can increase the number of attributes collected, as well as the LOF, COF, and Risk scores in future updates of the AMP.


arcadis.com 93

Table 69: Vertical Assets - Inventory Summary

Facility Total Quantity

Field-Located

Attributes Collected

LOF Scored

COF Scored

Risk Calculated

Flint WTP (PS#4 and CS#2)

79 100% 80%* 100% 100% 100%

Cedar Street PS

32 100% 80%* 100% 100% 100%

Torrey Rd PS 17 100% 80%* 100% 100% 100%

West Side Ave PS

32 100% 80%* 100% 100% 100%

Cedar Street Reservoir

1 100% 100% 0% 0%** 0%**

Clear Well #4 1 100% 100% 0% 0%** 0%**

Dort Reservoir

1 100% 100% 0% 0%** 0%**

West Side Avenue Reservoir

1 100% 100% 0% 0%** 0%**

WTP Elevated Tank

1 100% 100% 0% 0%** 0%**

*Asset Specific Install Year and additional Replacement Costs need to be developed **To be determined based on which water storage facilities will be used in the future

7.2 Detailed Expenditures The City of Flint experienced a drinking water crisis in 2014, and has since been operating in crisis-mode with a very reactionary approach to rehabilitation and repair. The table below reflects that in FY2017, no dollars were invested in pipe replacement or facility improvements. The City intends to move to a more proactive approach going forward in FY2018-FY2022.

Table 70: Expenditures for FY2017

Estimated Cost Comment

Pipe Repair TBD To be provided by City of Flint

Pipe Replacement 0 No investment made in FY2017

Facility Expenditures – Capital Investment

0 No investment made in FY2017

Corrective Maintenance TBD Future measurement when CMMS is implemented

Preventative Maintenance TBD Future measurement when CMMS is implemented

While the City of Flint did perform Corrective Maintenance and Preventative Maintenance activities in 2017, it is difficult to track given the current lack of CMMS program. In future updates to the AMP, hours for both CM and PM should be summarized, along with the cost for each, by asset class.


arcadis.com 94

8.0 FY2018 PROPOSED AM ACTIVITIES

8.1 AM Activities Planned for FY2018 (Next Steps) AM activities planned for the upcoming year, FY2018, are described in the table below.

Table 71: Proposed Activities for FY2018

Year 1 (2018)

Asset Inventory

Import service lines with attribute data into GIS

Plan for implementing Section 2.5 recommended data improvements by FY 2020

Import vertical and horizontal inventory and attribute data into Cityworks CMMS

Implement SOPs to maintain asset inventory

Level of Service

Develop LOS Definition Sheets for 5 of the Tier 1 performance measures. Definition sheets will identify owners and targets for LOS/KPI measures.

Performance Management Pilot Program: Begin measuring 5 Tier 1 performance measures

Critical Assets

Perform a condition and consequence of failure assessment for water storage facilities

Upload pumping and WTP asset condition and consequence of failure data into CMMS

Implement Valve Exercising Program

Determine pipeline renewal approach for FY2018 high-risk pipes

Perform pipe replacement and rehabilitation technology review – see Sec 8.2

Perform replacement and/or rehabilitation of approximately 3.6 miles of high risk pipelines

Perform replacement and/or rehabilitation of approximately twenty high risk/low RUL pump station assets.

CIP Utilize current CIP, with additional recommendations for vertical and horizontal

R&R as outlined in Section 5.

Revenue Structure

Factor the results of this Asset Management plan into the City’s internal budget discussions.

Recommend relevant increases to water rates and charges as part of the annual budget process.

Continue to pursue alternative grant funding sources to offset projected vertical and horizontal R&R as outlined in Section 6.

8.2 Alternative Pipeline Renewal Approach Currently the R&R budget is conservatively estimated based on open-trench construction. Determining the appropriate pipeline renewal approach will significantly influence the City’s R&R planning and budget. Before employing a replacement or rehabilitation method, determining the structural condition of the water main is necessary. Evaluations can range from simple and inexpensive to high-tech and costly. Examples of successful methods for determining pipeline renewal approach include leak/break performance,


arcadis.com 95

sample extraction/evaluation, and in-situ testing. Several variables impact the cost of water main renewal including, but not limited to project size, pipeline diameter, renewal method, bypass requirements, MOT, and number of service lines, valves, and fittings. Depending on the renewal method, the cost could be between 25 percent and 100 percent of conventional open-trench construction. The pipeline renewal approach analysis should include direct contracting and related costs, as well as indirect costs associated with public disruption, longer-term maintenance, and other life-cycle costs. Arcadis performed an extensive field effort in support of recalibration of the City’s hydraulic model in May 2017. The flow tests indicated severe degradation of the tested piping, which could limit pipe renewal options. Due to the current condition of the pipes and projected R&R need, the City should evaluate rehabilitation options versus traditional open-trench construction. By selecting an alternative rehabilitation technology, the City could potentially reduce the projected R&R needs and allow for the City to replace more pipes over the 20-year period. Upon completion of the Distribution System Optimization Study, the City should update this AMP to reflect the selected optimal operating scenario.

Appendix A

MDEQ Asset Management Program Checklist

8/2017

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY DRINKING WATER AND MUNICIPAL ASSISTANCE DIVISION

ASSET MANAGEMENT PROGRAM REVIEW CHECKLIST

Water Supply Name: WSSN:

Received Date:

A. Asset Inventory Answer

Yes No NA Includes a description of the assets the system has chosen to track. Describes the level of detail used for each asset. (pump station / pumping unit / motor) Includes source, pumping, treatment, and distribution assets. Describes the parameters tracked for each asset. (Name, Location, Date installed, Exp. useful life, etc.) Identifies any incomplete or low-confidence data. Outlines a plan for completing or refining the dataset.

B. Criticality Assessment Answer

Yes No NA Provides a description of the scale used for likelihood of failure. Provides a description of the scale used for consequence of failure. Lists factors considered in assessing likelihood of failure. Lists factors considered in assessing consequence of failure. Describes the methodology and formula used to calculate the criticality factor.

C. Level of Service Goals Answer Yes No NA

Includes a description of the process used to develop the level of service goals. Provides a list of water system goals. Describes how each goal will be tracked and assessed.

D. Capital Improvement Plan Answer

Yes No NA Identifies needs for both 5 and 20 year planning periods. Plan includes project name, cost, estimated completion date, and funding source. The CIP has been reviewed and approved by water supply administrators. (owner/board/council/etc)

E. Funding Structure and Rate Methodology Answer

Yes No NA Includes annual operating budget. Includes current, approved rate structure. Provides documentation of legal authority for rate setting. Weighs anticipated costs (operation and capital) against revenue. Outlines plan to close funding gap, if identified.

Reviewer: Date of Initial Review:

Comments Issued, Awaiting Revision Date Revisions Rcvd:

Approved Date Approved:

8/2017

Notes: A.

As

set I

nven

tory

B.

Crit

ical

ity A

sses

smen

t

C.

Leve

l of S

ervi

ce

Goa

ls

D.

Cap

ital I

mpr

ovem

ent

Plan

E.

Fund

ing

Stru

ctur

e &

Rat

e M

etho

dolo

gy

Appendix B

MDEQ Asset Management Guidance for Water Systems

1 July 2013

Asset Management Guidance for

Water Systems

What is Asset Management? Water systems are made up of assets; some are buried assets and “invisible,” while the rest are visible. These are the physical components of the system and can include: pipe, valves, tanks, pumps, wells, hydrants, treatment facilities, and any other components that make up the system. The assets that make up a water system lose value over time as the system ages and deteriorates. As the assets deteriorate, the level of service the utility’s customers desire may become compromised, operation and maintenance (O&M) costs can increase, and the utility may be faced with excessive costs it can no longer afford. There is an approach to managing the assets of the system that can assist the utility with making better decisions on caring for these aging assets. This approach is called asset management. The International Infrastructure Management Manual defines the goal of asset management as meeting a required level of service in the most cost-effective way through the creation, acquisition, operation, maintenance, rehabilitation, and disposal of assets to provide for present and future customers. A water utility has a responsibility to manage its assets in a cost-effective manner for several reasons:

1) these assets represent a major public investment

2) well-run utilities are important to economic development

3) proper operation and maintenance of a utility is essential for public health and safety

4) utility assets provide an essential customer service

5) asset management promotes efficiency in the operation of the system

6) properly managing the assets is the basis of self-sufficiency

The intent of asset management is to ensure the long-term sustainability of the water utility. By helping a utility manager make better decisions on when it is most appropriate to repair, replace, or rehabilitate particular assets and by developing a long-term funding strategy, the utility can ensure its ability to deliver the required level of service perpetually.

Asset management is a set of procedures to manage assets through their life cycles, based on principles of life cycle costing. These procedures, to be effective, must be implemented in a programmatic way. Properly practiced, it involves all parts of the organization and entails a living set of asset performance goals to implement asset management. An Asset Management Plan is a tool to help the utility implement its Asset Management Program.

Core Components of an Asset Management Plan

Typically, there are five core components in an Asset Management Plan:

1) Asset Inventory

2) Level of Service

3) Critical Assets

2 July 2013

4) Revenue Structure

5) Capital Improvement Project Plan

As part of this guide, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has developed an Asset Management Plan Workbook. This workbook is in Excel and can be used as an active asset management tool or as a guide for what an asset management plan can look like.

Effective asset management implementation is comprehensive. It may involve integrating a number of tools along with other existing systems (accounting, financial reporting, purchasing and stores, payroll, etc.) to create a comprehensive information system that will support an integrated Asset Management Program. An Asset Management Program will have a Mission Statement. This Mission Statement defines the program.

The following is an example of a Mission Statement:

We commit to improving and maintaining the public health protection and performance of our drinking water plant and distribution utility assets, while minimizing the long-term cost of operating those assets. We strive to make the most cost-effective renewal and replacement investments and provide the highest-quality customer service possible.

A DEQ-approved Asset Management Plan will include a Mission Statement and list Asset Management Team members. A Mission Statement should be an overarching purpose for maintaining an Asset Management Program. Consider the impacts to public health, your ability to comply with regulations, and financial stability if you do not manage utility resources. An Asset Management Plan will have short-term and long-term processes to evaluate current conditions and revise/update as needed. It will also contain an Action Plan that identifies actions needed to make improvements and meet goals.

When assembling an Asset Management Team, consider current and past municipal staff (officials, board members, clerks, accountants, and engineers), current and past utility staff (operators and other service workers), and any other stakeholders that can help in assembling the information to develop your Asset Management Plan. Asset Inventory The first core component of asset management is the asset inventory. This component is probably the most straightforward of all. It is also, arguably, the most important and time consuming. Questions that the utility will ask itself in this component are:

• What do I own?

• Where is it?

• What condition is it in?

• What is its remaining useful life?

• What is its value?

What do I own?

The most fundamental question a utility owner, manager, or operator can ask is, “what assets do I have?” It is absolutely critical for a utility to understand what it owns. It is difficult to manage something effectively if you don’t know what that “something” is. However, this is not

3 July 2013

an easy question to answer: some assets are underground and can’t be seen; assets generally are put in at different times over a long period of time; records regarding what assets have been installed may be old, incomplete, inaccurate, or missing; and staff turnover in operations and management may limit the historical knowledge of system assets. Because of these difficulties, doing a complete asset inventory on the first try may not be possible. It is important to recognize that asset inventory is an ongoing process. To develop the initial inventory, there are a number of resources a utility can draw upon such as as-built drawings, invoices, staff knowledge, visual observation, interviews with residents and consultants. A utility should use as many approaches as it deems necessary to get the best initial inventory of assets. Information on each asset may include the manufacturer, original price, and category (i.e., distribution, collection, storage). Where are my assets? Once you know what you have, it is important to know where the assets are located. This involves two steps:

1) connecting the asset in the inventory to a specific location

2) mapping the assets

The first step is to connect the asset with a location. The location could be a street name, street address, or building location such as pump house or treatment building. The addresses should be as specific as possible; that way, assets can be grouped together based on their asset type, such as all hydrants on Main Street.

Mapping will provide a visual picture of the asset locations, especially buried assets. The map can be as simple as a hand drawn map or as complex as a Geographic Information System (GIS) map.

What is the condition of my assets?

After the assets have been identified and located, it is important to know the condition of the assets. A condition assessment can be completed in many different ways, depending on the capability and resources of the utility. The simplest way is to assign a numerical ranking to each asset. This approach uses the best information available. Below is an example of a ranking system.

Condition Assessment

Condition Rating Description

5 Unserviceable

4 Significant Deterioration

3 Moderate Deterioration

2 Minor Deterioration

1 New or Excellent Condition

If resources are available, a higher level of assessment could include leak detection for water pipes.

4 July 2013

What is the remaining life of my assets?

All assets will eventually reach the end of their remaining useful lives. Some assets will reach this point sooner than other assets. There are many factors that will affect the useful life of an asset such as maintenance practices, type of materials, usage, and surrounding environment. Useful life will also vary over time; for example, a pump may originally have been assigned a useful life of 15 years, but with proper maintenance that useful life may extend to 20 years. Useful life should be reevaluated on a regular basis. Past experience, system knowledge, existing and future conditions, and maintenance practices will dictate ongoing changes/updates to the useful life.

What is the value of my assets?

The value of the asset is the cost to replace the asset after it has exhausted its useful life. Obtaining costs for the asset replacement is not easy. In some cases, the utility will use an estimate based on best practices; in other cases, the utility may rely on a consultant or manufacturer’s catalogs and sales representatives. More reliable data can be added when available.

Organizing the Asset Inventory/Summary There are many options regarding how to manage the asset inventory data. There are commercial and open-source software options available as well as the opportunity for a utility to create its own database for asset inventory. The key to any asset inventory is that the data is comprehensive, accessible, and there is a means to safeguard the data. It is important to develop at least a rudimentary asset inventory with all of the characteristics discussed above. The data quality can be increased over time as the system gathers more information and the Asset Management Team becomes more comfortable with the concept of asset management.

It is critical for utilities to understand that asset inventory is an ongoing process. Over time, assets will be added and deleted from the asset inventory. Utilities should also be careful to not let themselves get “bogged down” in the asset inventory component. Asset inventory, while critical, should not be all consuming. As time goes on, a utility should consider ways in which it can make the inventory more sophisticated. As an example, a system may want to develop a GIS map and database or add radio frequency tagging of the assets for tracking purposes.

Using the Asset Inventory Tab

An Asset Inventory Tab has been included as part of the Asset Management Workbook. This Excel spreadsheet allows users to input data in each of the cells. The spreadsheet lists assets in column A and can be expanded by inserting any additional number of desired rows. More columns can be added to expand the number of asset identifiers such as serial number or date installed. Columns for Probability of Failure and Consequence of Failure perform mathematical functions to determine the Criticality Factor and should not be used to enter data. The forthcoming section on Critical Assets will provide information on inputting data into cells.

Level of Service Level of Service (LOS) defines the way in which the utility stakeholders want the utility to perform over the long term. The LOS can include any technical, managerial, or financial components the utility wishes, as long as all regulatory requirements are met. The LOS will become a fundamental part of how the utility is operated.

The best way to understand LOS may be to think of a worst case scenario. Imagine a water system that struggles with constant water main breaks, a water tower in need of painting, low- water pressure, has inaccurate billing numbers due to water meters over 30 years old, and has

5 July 2013

no idea how to start addressing their problems. Because of these issues, the water system has difficulty with compliance and receives customer complaints regularly, even though water rates are low. The LOS for this system would be considered low.

All utilities must operate within the state and federal regulations and requirements. These regulations are generally specified in the Safe Drinking Water Act for water systems, but there are additional rules and regulations at the state and federal level. Although the state and federal regulations set bare minimum standards of operation in the LOS, these standards will not adequately address all areas of operation and should not be the sole factor of the LOS. Utilities should include many other factors to delineate important areas of the utility’s operation.

Within the range of the minimum (regulations) and maximum (absolute capabilities of assets), there are numerous items a utility could include within its LOS. Items may be included so the utility can communicate its intentions with its customers, measure its performance, and determine critical assets. Understanding what LOS to choose will help in developing an Asset Management Plan that truly captures the utility’s performance and how to accomplish future goals.

It is important for the utility to communicate with its customers to avoid confusion, bad feelings, accusations of improper operation, and to make clear what the customer’s expectations should be. This need for communication is particularly important for smaller, rural systems, but it is important for all systems. The Asset Management Team should develop a LOS Statement to help focus efforts on what an Asset Management Plan should accomplish and how to be most cost effective while meeting customer expectations and complying with state and federal regulations. The LOS Statement should address the service areas, identify any deficiencies, and set goals for improvement.

Defining the LOS sets the goals for the utility. These goals allow the operations staff to have a better understanding of what is desired from them, and the management has a better understanding of how to use staff and other resources more efficiently and effectively. Reviewing how the utility is meeting LOS also allows the management to shift resources if needed from one task to another to meet all the goals most effectively. Understanding the desired LOS will help to prioritize and characterize the system’s assets, as well as how to manage finances to reach the LOS goals.

There is a direct link between the LOS provided and the cost to the customer. When a higher LOS is provided, costs to provide that higher level will likely increase. This direct link demands that the utility have an open dialogue with its customers regarding the LOS desired and the amount the customers are willing to pay for this LOS or increased services.

Ideally, the public or customers of the utility would be actively involved in the development of the LOS. Similar to the overall Asset Management Plan that will change and adjust over time, the LOS may need to be adjusted from time to time. This adjustment may be required because the system may discover that it is too costly to operate the system at the levels previously defined. Or the adjustment may be necessary due to new rules or regulations that require a change in operation. Additionally, the customers may feel that they desire a different level of service. As with all components of asset management, LOS is an ongoing process and determining and detailing the level of service that the system is going to provide is a key step in asset management.

6 July 2013

Typical questions to consider when developing the LOS for the system:

1) What is the LOS goal for health, safety, and security?

2) How often is the system out of compliance with regulations?

3) Are the operators properly certified?

4) How does the utility stay aware of and prepare for new regulations?

5) Do you share your LOS statement with your customers?

6) How do you track and respond to customer needs/complaints?

7) Can the current process be improved?

8) How quickly does the utility respond to customer issues?

9) Is maintenance being deferred to save money?

10) How much will the improvements cost and how will they be funded?

11) Are assets being properly maintained to insure they are in reliable working condition?

12) What areas within the system are most important to insure the best LOS possible?

13) When considering a preferred LOS, are asset age and life cycles, asset conditions, funding availability, etc. being factored in?

14) How often will the LOS statement be reviewed in order to capture changes such as funding availability (growth and decline), regulatory requirements, demand of customers (increases/decreases in customers), and physical deterioration of assets (addressing water loss/maintenance)?

15) Are O&M activities being maximized to meet the LOS goals?

Critical Assets Not all assets are equally important to the utility’s operation. Some assets are highly critical to operations and others are not critical at all. Certain assets or types of assets may be critical in one location, but not critical in another. For example, a well pump serving the downtown area may be deemed more critical than a well pump servicing an industrial park under construction. A utility must examine its assets very carefully to determine which assets are critical and why.

Determining Criticality

In determining criticality, two questions are important. The first is how likely is it that the asset will fail; and second, what is the consequence of failure? Determining an asset’s criticality will allow a utility to manage its risk and aid in determining where to spend operation and maintenance dollars and plan capital expenditures.

To determine the probability of failure a utility needs to look at a number of factors: asset age, condition of asset, failure history, historical knowledge, experiences with that type of asset in general, maintenance records, and knowledge regarding how that type of asset is likely to fail. Below is an example of a ranking system for probability of failure.

7 July 2013

Probability of Failure Levels

Description Performance Rating

Failure of Individual Item Type of Failure

Imminent 5 Likely to occur in the life of the item

Continuously experienced

Probable 4 Will occur several times in the life of an item

Will occur frequently

Occasional 3 Likely to occur sometime in the life of an item

Will occur a few times

Remote 2 Unlikely but possible to occur in the life of an item

Unlikely, but can reasonably be expected to occur

Improbable 1 So unlikely, it can be assumed occurrence may not be experienced

Unlikely to occur, but possible

To determine the consequence of failure, it is important to consider all of the possible costs of failure. These costs include: cost of repair; social cost associated with the loss of the asset; repair/replacement costs related to collateral damage caused by the failure; legal costs related to additional damage caused by the failure; environmental costs created by the failure; loss of business revenue to the community; and any other associated costs or asset losses. The consequence of failure can be high if any one of these costs is significant or the accumulation of several costs occur with a failure. Below is an example of a ranking system for the consequence of failure.

Consequence of Failure Levels

Description Level

Catastrophic disruption

5 Massive system failure, severe health affect, persistent and extensive damage

Major disruption 4 Major effect, major loss of system capacity, major health effects, major costs, important LOS compromised

Moderate disruption

3 Moderate effect, moderate loss of system capacity, moderate health effects, moderate costs, important LOS still achieved

Minor disruption 2 Minor effect, minor loss of system capacity, minor health effects, minor costs

Insignificant disruption

1 Slight effect, slight loss of system capacity, slight health effects

8 July 2013

Assessing Criticality

Assessing criticality requires an examination of the probability of failure and the consequence of failure as discussed above. The assets that have the greatest probability of failure and the greatest consequences associated with the failure will be the assets that are the most critical. The table below is an example of assessing criticality.

An analysis of different assets will reveal which asset has the highest criticality factor and, therefore, which asset would require the most attention either for repair or replacement.

Assessing Criticality

Multiplied Consequence (Cost) of Failure

1 2 3 4 5

Probability of Failure

1 1 2 3 4 5

2 2 4 6 8 10

3 3 6 9 12 15

4 4 8 12 16 20

5 5 10 15 20 25

To use this table, estimate the probability of failure from 1 to 5, with 5 being very high probability of failure and 1 being a very low probability of failure. Then assess the consequence of failure from 1 to 5 in the same manner. Using the number for probability of failure, move across the row until the column associated with the number for consequence of failure is reached. Alternatively, move down the column for the consequence of failure until the row for probability of failure is reached. Locate the number that is in the box where the row and column intersect. That is the criticality number for the asset.

As an example in a water system:

Asset: Pine Street water main; constructed in 1950

Service History: One service repair in the past 15 years

Probability of failure: 3 – the water main is old, and will most likely need to be replaced in the next 10 years, but is still in reasonable condition

Consequence of failure: 2 – The water main services a now-abandoned industrial park. The city wants to maintain fire service, but presently serves no customers. The water main has easy access, so repair is relatively easy and timely.

Probability of failure * Consequence of failure = Criticality factor

3 * 2 = 6

Criticality Factor: 6 – A 6 would not be considered a critical rating. Typically, an asset falling in the criticality range of 1 to 8 will not be considered critical. An asset falling in the criticality range of 9 to 16 will be important, but not critical. An asset above 16 in the criticality range will be considered critical.

Low

Low

High

High

9 July 2013

Redundancy

When determining the criticality factor of an asset, one more element is considered – that of redundancy. Redundancy can significantly reduce risk. If one part of a system fails and there is not another part for redundancy and/or backup to immediately take its place, then risk is increased. Lack of redundancy in any system is not good.

Redundancy refers to whether there are other assets that are able to provide the same service if failure occurs. Does the utility have any other asset, system, or approach that will completely fulfill the function of the critical asset if it fails? Does the utility have any other asset, system, or approach to partially fulfill the function of the critical asset if it fails? If an asset is determined to be critical, then redundancy is critical. Risk should be managed in any decision-making process. The utility should analyze and document acceptable risk tolerance for all critical assets.

Criticality Analysis Over Time

The condition of the asset will change over time as will the consequences related to failure. Therefore, it will be necessary to periodically review the criticality analysis and make adjustments to account for changes in the probability of failure and the consequence of failure. As with all the components of the Asset Management Plan, the criticality analysis is an on-going process.

Using the Asset Inventory Tab

The Asset Inventory Spreadsheet, which is part of the workbook, has cell inputs for Probability of Failure and Consequence of Failure and then calculates the Criticality Factor. Use the Asset Description Tab to determine the numerical rating for Probability and Consequence for each asset. The Asset Inventory Spreadsheet will then calculate a Criticality Factor. If the Criticality Factor is greater than 18, the number will be bolded and the cell will be highlighted in red. This indicates that the asset and its failure is significant and should be added to the Capital Improvement Project Plan Tab.

Revenue Structure The rate methodology is a tool to determine rates and charges that will provide sufficient revenues to cover operation, maintenance, replacement, capital improvement projects, and debt costs. A billable flow methodology will generate revenue through a commodity rate based on usage. A readiness to serve or fixed charge methodology will generate revenues through a fixed unit such as a residential equivalent unit or meter equivalent unit. A fixed and variable methodology is a combined methodology and will generate revenues for fixed expenses through a fixed unit and generate revenues for variable expenses through a commodity rate. The fixed unit generates a fixed revenue stream, which is used to recover those costs that are incurred regardless of flow, such as insurance and debt payments. The variable rate generates revenue based on flow, which is used to recover those costs incurred due to usage, such as chemicals and power.

The budget should consist of the actual budget line items as required by the State of Michigan Chart of Accounts and other accounting statutes, rules, regulations, and requirements applicable to municipal entities. Only those costs related to the water system should be listed in the water budget. Accurate budgeting will help track and control spending, ensure accountability, and improve the ability to anticipate expenses.

Once total expenses have been identified, rates and charges can be reviewed to determine which will provide sufficient revenues to cover expenses. If subsidies occur, then the users of the system are not paying for the true cost of service – someone else is making up the difference. While temporary subsidies are sometimes necessary to cover unexpected costs,

10 July 2013

continued use of subsidies will result in either significant rate increases in the future or a problematic deficit in the water budget.

Replacement

The rate methodology should also include a replacement breakdown. This breakdown will identify items owned by the utility. These operating pieces of equipment generally have a useful life of 20 years or less with values of more than $500, contain moving parts, and would include such things as vehicles, generators, pumps, meters, and computers. Replacement items will also appear in the asset inventory, but usually have a dedicated funding source due to their limited useful life and importance to the operation of the system. On an annual basis, replacement funds are set aside in a dedicated “Replacement Fund” and build up until needed. The purpose of the Replacement Fund is to set aside money on an annual basis for items that will need to be replaced during the normal course of operating the system. Once a particular item fails, money is drawn from the Replacement Fund to replace the item in question without disrupting the existing budget.

Using the Replacement Tab

A Replacement Tab is developed that lists operating assets that will be replaced within the next 20 years that will be funded out of system revenues. The Replacement Tab will contain assets identified as replacement items. For each item, a remaining useful life and replacement cost is identified. The replacement cost is the cost to replace the item at failure or replacement time. The replacement cost is divided by the remaining useful life to calculate an annual contribution to the Replacement Fund for each item. The annual total amount for replacement will then be included in the budget as a line item. These items will be funded out of system revenues, so they must be accounted for in the annual budget and in the rates and charges.

Capital Improvement Project Plan A long-term Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) should look at the utility’s needs for the future. Ideally, the planning period would be at least 20 years, with a minimum of 5 years. It is understood that the specific expenditures and needs of the utility in the latter years, say 15 to 20 years, are more speculative than the needs for the first 5 to 10 years, particularly the first 5 years. However, the inclusion of the needs for this longer time period will provide a better opportunity for the water system to plan for its capital needs. Capital improvement projects are projects that the utility has an extended period of time to plan for and are projects that usually cover high cost, non-recurring items.

There are several categories of capital improvements that must be considered. The categories are listed below.

• Capital Needs Related to Future/Upcoming Regulations

• Capital Needs Related to Major Asset Replacement

• Capital Needs Related to System Expansion

• Capital Needs Related to System Consolidation or Regionalization

• Capital Needs Related to Improved Technology

In order to fund any short or long-term project, the utility must first identify the desired project and its anticipated cost. Once costs have been identified, the utility can begin to set money aside to fund future projects. The Capital Improvement Fund is funded on an annual basis and the accumulated Capital Improvement Fund monies can be used to supplement bonding for the

11 July 2013

particular project, act as a down payment or cover the entire cost of the project as determined by the utility.

Funding for Capital Improvement Projects

The utility determines the estimated cost of each identified project and the intended date for project initiation. The clear identification of the project, its cost, and the intended timeframe provides the utility with a defensible presentation for setting aside and safeguarding funds for projects.

The following information is helpful when prioritizing and gaining support for a capital improvement project:

• Description of the project

• Brief statement regarding the need for the project

• Year project needed

• Is the year needed flexible or absolute

• Estimate of project cost

• How costs were estimated

• Funding source(s) considered/available for this type of project

• Changes in overall operations that may occur as a result of the project (include operator requirements, additional O&M costs, regulatory changes, any efficiencies that may be gained, etc.)

• Impact of the project on LOS

As stated previously, the CIP should cover a 20-year period. It should be updated each year so that it always shows 20 years of needs. If there are no needs in a particular year, the CIP can reflect this. Annual review of the project list may reveal that some projects can safely be pushed back for several years or may not be needed due to changing conditions. The projects are planned several years in advance, so conditions may have changed, eliminating or reducing the need for an identified project. Alternatively, some projects may now need to be addressed sooner than anticipated and the CIP will need to be adjusted accordingly.

Some of the expenses related to capital improvements may be funded out of the system’s revenues rather than solely outside sources. If system revenues are to be used either to offset costs or as a debt repayment stream, the budgets and rates must reflect the costs.

Using the Capital Improvement Project Tab

A Capital Improvement Project Tab lists those projects that are planned for in the next 20 years. The spreadsheet will identify the projects, the anticipated timeframe in which the project will occur, the anticipated cost of the project, and the annual contribution to the Capital Improvement Fund for the item. The annual total amount for Capital Improvement Fund will then be included in the budget as a line item. These items will be funded out of system revenues, so they must be accounted for in the annual budget and in the rates.

12 July 2013

Conclusion

Asset management is a systematic process of operating, maintaining, and upgrading assets cost-effectively. It is an active, on-going process that provides information to managers in order to make sound decisions about their capital assets and allows decision makers to better identify and manage needed investments in their utility’s infrastructure.

As the concept of asset management has grown in recent years, an extensive body of resources is now available to help develop and expand our knowledge and practice of asset management. This includes resources for utilities, such as software and guidebooks, as well as resources to help local officials understand and support asset management efforts. Asset management has been a major focus of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA has a dedicated website to asset management with numerous guidebooks for communities, which also offers on-line training and regional seminars on the subject. In addition, the EPA has also developed asset management software called Check Up Program for Small Systems (CUPSS), which is targeted for small communities. Furthermore, the DEQ has developed the asset management workbook described in this guide which is one of many tools a community can use for asset management.

Drinking water rules now require a detailed inventory of assets and capital improvement plans for publicly-owned water systems beginning in 2016. With more and more focus on asset management, it is important for your community to begin asset management planning and seek out the resources that will provide for current and long-term sustainability of your water systems.

13 July 2013

Appendix A

Useful Resources

Asset Management Tools

Cartegraph - Public Works and Utilities Software

http://www.cartegraph.com/

Check Up Program for Small Systems (CUPSS) – EPA Asset Management Software http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/drinkingwater/pws/cupss/index.cfm

Cityworks - Public Asset and Work Management Solutions for Infrastructure

http://www.cityworks.com/products/software/the-cityworks-suite/

eRPortal - Asset and Maintenance Management Software

http://www.erportalsoftware.com/products/enterprise-asset-management-software.asp

Plan-It – Capital Improvement Plan Software

http://www.cipsoftware.com/

GIS

Ersi/ArcGIS

http://www.esri.com/

MapInfo – Mapping Application

http://www.pb.com/software/Location-Intelligence/MapInfo-Suite/MapInfo-Professional.shtml

http://www.cartegraph.com/

http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/drinkingwater/pws/cupss/index.cfm

http://www.cityworks.com/products/software/the-cityworks-suite/

http://www.erportalsoftware.com/products/enterprise-asset-management-software.asp

http://www.cipsoftware.com/

http://www.esri.com/

http://www.pb.com/software/Location-Intelligence/MapInfo-Suite/MapInfo-Professional.shtml

Appendix C

Vertical Asset Inventory and Scoring Summary

Asset Register - Flint Water Treatment PlantCedar Street Pump StationWestside Pumping StationTorrey Road Pumping Station

Mechanical Assessments

Faci

lity

Proc

ess

Gro

up

Asse

t

Inst

all D

ate

Corr

osio

n

Leak

age

Vibr

atio

n

Conc

rete

Sup

port

s

Stee

l Sup

port

s

Pipi

ng V

alve

s

Loca

l Pan

els

Fiel

d In

stru

men

ts

Elec

tric

al C

onne

ctio

ns

Phy.

Con

d. C

omm

ents

Max

Phy

sica

l Sco

re

Perf

. - C

apac

ity

Perf

. - R

egul

ator

y

Perf

. - R

elia

bilit

y

Perf

. - O

&M

Issu

es

Perf

. - O

bsol

esce

nce

Perf

. Con

d. C

omm

ents

Max

Per

f. Sc

ore

COF

- Cap

ital C

ost

COF

- O&

M Im

pact

COF

- Hea

lth &

Saf

ety

COF

- Sta

keho

lder

Im

pact

COF

- Reg

ulat

ory

COF

- Res

pons

e Ti

me

Max

CO

F

Max

Con

ditio

n

Risk

FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANTHIGH SERVICE PUMPING

VALVESHIGH SVC PUMP 8 SUCTION VALVE

1995 2 1 - - - - - - - 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 4


PUMPSLOW SVC PUMP NO. 5, 20 MGD

1952 2 3 - 1 2 3 - - - 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 3 3 4 4 3 12


PUMPSHIGH SVC PUMP NO. 8, 13-21 MGD

1995 3 2 - 1 3 3 - - - 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 3 3 4 4 3 12



1948 3 3 - 1 2 3 - - - 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 3 3 4 4 3 12


VALVESLOW SVC PUMP 5 DISCHARGE VALVE

1990 3 2 - 1 2 - - - - 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 3 6

WESTSIDE PUMPING STATIONBOOSTER PUMPING

VALVESPUMP NO. 1 DISCHARGE CHECK

1972 1 2 - - - 1 - - - 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2


VALVESPUMP NO. 2 DISCHARGE CHECK

1972 2 2 - - - 1 - - - 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2


PUMPS PUMP NO. 1, 4 MGD 1972 2 2 - 1 2 1 - - - 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 4

CEDAR STREET PUMP STATIONBOOSTER PUMPING

VALVESPUMP NO. 2 DISCHARGE ISO VALVE

1948 3 3 - 2 - - - - -UNDER WATER

3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 3 6


VALVESPUMP NO. 2 DISCHARGE ISO

1972 2 3 - - - 2 - - - 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3

FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICAL FEED PUMPSSODIUM HYPO METERING PUMP 1

2016 1 1 1 - - 1 - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 1 3


VALVESPUMP HEADER FILL VALVE

1948 2 1 - - - - - - - UNDER WATER 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 4


PUMPS SEAL WATER PUMP 1972 3 3 - - 2 3 - - - 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 6


VALVESPUMP NO. 1 DISCHARGE DAMPENING VALVE

1948 3 4 - 3 - - - - -

leaks around body seals, UNDER WATER 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 4 8


VALVESRESERVOIR FILL VALVE

1972 3 3 - 2 2 2 1 - - 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3


PUMPS PUMP NO. 2 1948 2 2 - 2 2 2 - - - 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 3 3 4 4 2 8


PUMPS PUMP NO. 2, 4 MGD 1972 3 3 - 1 5 3 - - -structural failure

5 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 10


HVAC HOT WATER HEATER 1972 3 2 - - 2 - - - 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3



1948 2 1 - 3 - - - - -UNDER WATER

3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 3 6

CEDAR STREET PUMP STATION CHEMICAL FEED PUMPSSODIUM HYPO METERING PUMP FL

1948 1 2 - - 1 3 - - - 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 6



1948 1 1 - 1 1 - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 2


PUMPSHIGH SVC PUMP NO. 7, 13-21 MGD

1995 3 4 - 1 3 3 - - -seal valve leakage

4 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 3 3 4 4 4 16

FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICAL FEED PUMPSSODIUM HYDROXIDE

2016 1 1 1 - - 1 - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 1 3


VALVESPUMP NO. 1 SUCTION VALVE

1948 1 1 - - - - - - -UNDER WATER

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 2

Faci

lity

Proc

ess

Gro

up

Asse

t

Inst

all D

ate

Corr

osio

n

Leak

age

Vibr

atio

n

Conc

rete

Sup

port

s

Stee

l Sup

port

s

Pipi

ng V

alve

s

Loca

l Pan

els

Fiel

d In

stru

men

ts

Elec

tric

al C

onne

ctio

ns

Phy.

Con

d. C

omm

ents

Max

Phy

sica

l Sco

re

Perf

. - C

apac

ity

Perf

. - R

egul

ator

y

Perf

. - R

elia

bilit

y

Perf

. - O

&M

Issu

es

Perf

. - O

bsol

esce

nce

Perf

. Con

d. C

omm

ents

Max

Per

f. Sc

ore

COF

- Cap

ital C

ost

COF

- O&

M Im

pact

COF

- Hea

lth &

Saf

ety

COF

- Sta

keho

lder

Im

pact

COF

- Reg

ulat

ory

COF

- Res

pons

e Ti

me

Max

CO

F

Max

Con

ditio

n

Risk

TORREY ROAD PUMPING STATIONBOOSTER PUMPING

VALVESPUMP NO. 2 SUCTION ISO VALVE

1948 5 3 2 - 4 3 - - -80 PERCENT CORR 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 5 10



1948 2 1 - 3 - - - - -UNDER WATER

3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 3 6


VALVESHIGH SVC PUMP 8 DISCHARGE VALVE

1983 2 1 - - 2 - - - - 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 4

FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICAL FEED PUMPSSODIUM HYDROXIDE

2016 1 1 1 - - 1 - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 1 3


VALVESHIGH SVC PUMP 1 DISCHARGE ISO

2015 1 1 - 1 1 - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 2


VALVESPUMP NO. 3 DISCHARGE ROTOVALVE

1972 4 3 - 2 2 1 - - -SHAFT see photo 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4



1972 2 3 - - - 2 - - - 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3

CEDAR STREET PUMP STATION CHEMICAL FEED PUMPSSODIUM HYPO METERING PUMP FL

1948 1 2 - - 1 3 - - - 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 6


CRANES

CRANE 1972 3Not

Scored- 2 2 - - - - 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3


PUMPSHIGH SVC PUMP NO. 0

1995 3 3 - 3 3 3 - - - 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 3 3 4 4 3 12


VALVESLOW SVC PUMP 3 SUCTION VALVE

1948 2 2 - 1 - - - - - 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 4



1995 2 1 - - - - - - - 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 4

FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICAL FEED VALVES VALVE 01 2000 3 2 - 2 2 3 2 - 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 6



1948 2 2 - 1 - - - - - 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 4


SUMP PUMP

WEST SUMP PUMP 1972 3 2 - - 3 3 - - - 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3



1948 2 4 - 3 - - - - -

seal leaks, UNDER WATER

4 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 4 8



1952 2 3 - 1 3 2 - - - 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 3 3 4 4 3 12



1948 2 2 - - - 2 - - - 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 4



1995 3 3 - - - - - - - 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 3 6


VALVESPUMP HEADER ISO VALVE

1948 1 1 - - - - - - -UNDER WATER

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 2



1948 1 1 - 1 2 2 - - - 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 3 3 4 4 2 8



1990 3 2 - 1 2 - - - - 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 3 6


PUMPS PUMP NO. 2 1948 4 4 - 3 5 3 - - -

50 Percent Corr, MULTIPLE ACTIVE SPRAYS

5 1 1 4 4 1

Reliability: pump 2 was out of service; O&M issues: pump was near failure, loud baring spraying water, corrective work order should have been written

4 4 3 1 3 3 4 4 5 20

Faci

lity

Proc

ess

Gro

up

Asse

t

Inst

all D

ate

Corr

osio

n

Leak

age

Vibr

atio

n

Conc

rete

Sup

port

s

Stee

l Sup

port

s

Pipi

ng V

alve

s

Loca

l Pan

els

Fiel

d In

stru

men

ts

Elec

tric

al C

onne

ctio

ns

Phy.

Con

d. C

omm

ents

Max

Phy

sica

l Sco

re

Perf

. - C

apac

ity

Perf

. - R

egul

ator

y

Perf

. - R

elia

bilit

y

Perf

. - O

&M

Issu

es

Perf

. - O

bsol

esce

nce

Perf

. Con

d. C

omm

ents

Max

Per

f. Sc

ore

COF

- Cap

ital C

ost

COF

- O&

M Im

pact

COF

- Hea

lth &

Saf

ety

COF

- Sta

keho

lder

Im

pact

COF

- Reg

ulat

ory

COF

- Res

pons

e Ti

me

Max

CO

F

Max

Con

ditio

n

Risk



1952 2 1 - 1 - - - - - 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 4


SUMP PUMP

SUMP PUMP 1948 5 1 - - 2 2 - - -FULL SURFACE CORR

5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5



1948 1 1 - - - - - - -UNDER WATER

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 2


CRANES

CRANE 01 1948 2 1 - 2 2 - 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 4



1948 2 2 2 - - 3 - - - 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 4


VALVESPUMP NO. 1 SUCTION ISO VALVE

1948 3 3 2 - 4 3 - - -50 PERCENT (steel) CORR 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 4 8



1948 2 1 - 3 - - - - -UNDER WATER

3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 3 6


PUMPS PUMP NO. 4, 8 MGD 1972 2 2 - 2 3 3 - - - 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 6


PUMPS PUMP NO. 3 1948 2 1 - 1 2 2 - - - 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 3 3 4 4 2 8



1948 1 1 - - - - - - -UNDER WATER

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 2

FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICAL FEED PUMPSPHOSPHORIC ACID METERING PUMP 1

2016 1 1 1 - - 1 - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 1 3


PUMPS PUMP NO. 1 1948 5 5 3 5 5 4 - - -

50 Percent Corr, MULTIPLE ACTIVE SPRAYS

5 1 1 4 4 1

Reliability: pump 2 was out of service; O&M issues: pump was near failure, loud baring spraying water, corrective work order should have been written

4 4 3 1 3 3 4 4 5 20


PUMPS PUMP NO. 3, 8 MGD 1972 3 3 - 2 2 3 - - - 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 6



1983 3 2 - 1 2 - - - - 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 3 6



1972 2 3 - - - 2 - - - 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3

FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICAL FEED PUMPSSODIUM HYPO METERING PUMP 2

2016 1 1 1 - - 1 - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 1 3



1990 3 2 - 1 4 - - - -

full corrosion on support. still appears functional

4 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 4 8


VALVESPUMP NO. 1 CONE VALVE

1948 5 5 - 4 2 5 - - -

full corr, multiple sprays and drips 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 5 10



1995 2 1 - - - - - - - 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 4

FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICAL FEED VALVES VALVE 02 2000 3 2 - 2 2 3 2 - 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 6



1983 2 1 - - 2 - - - - 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 4



2015 1 1 - 1 1 - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 2

Faci

lity

Proc

ess

Gro

up

Asse

t

Inst

all D

ate

Corr

osio

n

Leak

age

Vibr

atio

n

Conc

rete

Sup

port

s

Stee

l Sup

port

s

Pipi

ng V

alve

s

Loca

l Pan

els

Fiel

d In

stru

men

ts

Elec

tric

al C

onne

ctio

ns

Phy.

Con

d. C

omm

ents

Max

Phy

sica

l Sco

re

Perf

. - C

apac

ity

Perf

. - R

egul

ator

y

Perf

. - R

elia

bilit

y

Perf

. - O

&M

Issu

es

Perf

. - O

bsol

esce

nce

Perf

. Con

d. C

omm

ents

Max

Per

f. Sc

ore

COF

- Cap

ital C

ost

COF

- O&

M Im

pact

COF

- Hea

lth &

Saf

ety

COF

- Sta

keho

lder

Im

pact

COF

- Reg

ulat

ory

COF

- Res

pons

e Ti

me

Max

CO

F

Max

Con

ditio

n

Risk


VALVESPUMP NO. 4 DISCHARGE

1972 3 3 - 2 2 1 - - - 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3


SUMP PUMP

EAST SUMP PUMP 1972 3 2 - - 3 3 - - - 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3



1972 2 3 - - - 2 - - - 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3



1983 2 1 - - 2 - - - - 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 4



1952 2 2 - 1 - - - - - 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 4


CRANES

CRANE 01 1948 2 1 - 2 2 - 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2

FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICAL FEED PUMPSPHOSPHORIC ACID METERING PUMP 2

2016 1 1 1 - - 1 - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 1 3


PUMPS PUMP NO. 1 1948 2 4 - 2 2 2 - - - seal leaks 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 3 3 4 4 4 16


PUMPSHIGH SVC PUMP NO. 1

2014 1 1 - 1 1 1 - - -

seal valve leakage see photo, NEW PUMP NOT YET IN SVC

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 3 3 4 4 1 4



1995 2 1 - - - - - - - 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 4

Electrical Assessments

Faci

lity

Proc

ess

Gro

up

Asse

t

Inst

all D

ate

Corr

osio

n

Vibr

atio

n

Die

lect

ric

Leak

age

Elec

tric

al D

amag

e

Conc

rete

Sup

port

s

Stee

l Sup

port

s

Phy.

Con

d. C

omm

ents

Max

Phy

. Con

d. S

core

Perf

. - C

apac

ity

Perf

. - R

egul

ator

y

Perf

. - R

elia

bilit

y

Perf

. - O

&M

Issu

es

Perf

. - O

bsol

esce

nce

Perf

. Con

d. C

omm

ents

Max

Per

f. Sc

ore

COF

- Cap

ital C

ost

COF

- O&

M Im

pact

COF

- Hea

lth &

Saf

ety

COF

- Sta

keho

lder

Im

pact

COF

- Reg

ulat

ory

COF

- Res

pons

e Ti

me

Max

CO

F

Max

Con

d. S

core

Risk

CEDAR STREET PUMP STATION BOOSTER PUMPING PUMPS BP03 MOTOR 1948 2 - 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 3 3 4 4 3 12


ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER 01 1995 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 9

CEDAR STREET PUMP STATION BOOSTER PUMPING I&C CHLORINE ANALYZER 1948 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

CEDAR STREET PUMP STATION BOOSTER PUMPING I&C CONTROL PANEL 1948 2 - - - 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2

FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICAL FEED ELECTRICALPHOSPHORIC ACID PUMP PANELBOARDS

2016 1 1 1 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 3 3 3 1 3

WESTSIDE PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING I&C WELL LEVEL METER 1972 2 - - 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2


PUMPS LSP05 MOTOR 1952 3 - 3 1 2 1oil leakage around base 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 3 3 4 4 3 12

WESTSIDE PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING ELECTRICAL BP03 MOTOR 1972 3 - 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 3

motors are out of service. last maintenance 01-16.

3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 6


ELECTRICAL SWITCHGEAR 01 2017 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 9

WESTSIDE PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING I&C ALARM PANEL 1972 2 1 - - 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2


ELECTRICAL PANEL PP-X01 1990 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 9



ELECTRICAL MCC 02 1995 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 9

TORREY ROAD PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING ELECTRICAL BP01 MOTOR 1948 4 4 3 1 5 4

one area of structural loss, that has been painted over; bearing need additional investigation. sound coming from motor; through crack on base. concrete not connected to base.; heavy corrosion on base

4 1 1 1 1 3


3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 12

CEDAR STREET PUMP STATION BOOSTER PUMPING ELECTRICAL PANELBOARD 1948 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 9

FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICAL FEED I&C FLOW METER RECORDER 2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

CEDAR STREET PUMP STATION BOOSTER PUMPING ELECTRICAL MCC 01 2017 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 9



ELECTRICALPS4 LOW SERVICE PUMP CONTROL PANEL

1995 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 9

TORREY ROAD PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING I&C CONTROL PANEL 1948 3 - - 3 2 1

corrosion on panel fan; Junction box corroded

3 1 1 1 1 4

obsolete design, exposed wires

4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4

TORREY ROAD PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING ELECTRICAL MCC 01 1948 3 1 - - 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 4

obsolete design, exposed wires 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 12


PUMPS HSP01 MOTOR 2017 2 - 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 3 3 4 4 2 8

FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICAL FEED ELECTRICALHYPO AND CAUSTIC PUMP PANELBOARDS

2016 1 1 1 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 3 3 3 1 3

WESTSIDE PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING I&C CHLORINE RESIDUAL ANALYZER 1972 1 - 1 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICAL FEED I&C CHLORINE ANALYZER 2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


ELECTRICAL MCC 01 2017 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 9


ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER 02 1995 2 1 1 1 - 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 9


ELECTRICAL MCC 03 1948 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 9

FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICAL FEED I&C TURBIDIMETER 2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


ELECTRICAL PANEL PP-D 1993 2 1 1 3 2 1exposed wiring panel might be out of service

3 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 9


PUMPS HSP07 MOTOR 1995 2 - 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 3 3 4 4 2 8


ELECTRICAL PS4 MAIN CONTROL PANEL 1995 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 9


ELECTRICAL PANEL PP-E 1993 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 9


ELECTRICAL PANELBOARD 01 1990 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 9

Faci

lity

Proc

ess

Gro

up

Asse

t

Inst

all D

ate

Corr

osio

n

Vibr

atio

n

Die

lect

ric

Leak

age

Elec

tric

al D

amag

e

Conc

rete

Sup

port

s

Stee

l Sup

port

s

Phy.

Con

d. C

omm

ents

Max

Phy

. Con

d. S

core

Perf

. - C

apac

ity

Perf

. - R

egul

ator

y

Perf

. - R

elia

bilit

y

Perf

. - O

&M

Issu

es

Perf

. - O

bsol

esce

nce

Perf

. Con

d. C

omm

ents

Max

Per

f. Sc

ore

COF

- Cap

ital C

ost

COF

- O&

M Im

pact

COF

- Hea

lth &

Saf

ety

COF

- Sta

keho

lder

Im

pact

COF

- Reg

ulat

ory

COF

- Res

pons

e Ti

me

Max

CO

F

Max

Con

d. S

core

Risk

FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICAL FEED I&C CONTROL PANEL 01 2016 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


PUMPS LSP04 MOTOR 1995 3 - 2 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 3 3 4 4 3 12

TORREY ROAD PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING ELECTRICAL BP02 MOTOR 1948 3 - 2 1 3 3

corrosion on base

3 1 1 1 1 3


3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 9


PUMPS HSP08 MOTOR 1995 2 - 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 3 3 4 4 2 8


PUMPS LSP03 MOTOR 1995 3 - 2 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 3 3 4 4 3 12

TORREY ROAD PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER 01 1948 4 1 - 1 3 2surface corrosion

4 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 12



3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 6



3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 6

FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICAL FEED ELECTRICAL MCC 01 2016 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 3 3 3 1 3

WESTSIDE PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING ELECTRICAL BP02 MOTOR 1972 3 - 2 1 2 5

pump base cracked

3 1 1 1 1 3


3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 6


PUMPS LSP06 MOTOR 1952 3 - 3 1 2 1oil leakage around base 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 3 3 4 4 3 12


ELECTRICAL HSP01 VFD 1995 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 9

CEDAR STREET PUMP STATION BOOSTER PUMPING ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER 01 1948 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 9

WESTSIDE PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER 01 1972 4 1 - 1 3 2surface corrosion

4 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 8

WESTSIDE PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING ELECTRICAL MCC 01 1972 2 4 - 1 2 2

MCC has a loud noise and causing ground to vibrate, further investigation recommended

4 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 8

Structural Assessments

Faci

lity

Proc

ess

Gro

up

Ass

et

Inst

all D

ate

Leak

age

Crac

king

Stee

l Dam

age

Woo

d D

amag

e

Wat

er D

rain

age

Roof

Cov

er

Wal

kway

s an

d Pl

atfo

rms

Doo

rs, H

atch

es,

Win

dow

s

Phys

. Con

d.

Com

men

ts

Max

Phy

sica

l Co

nditi

on

Perf

. - C

apac

ity

Perf

. - R

egul

ator

y

Perf

. - R

elia

bilit

y

Perf

. - O

&M

Issu

es

Perf

. -

Obs

oles

cenc

e

Max

Per

f. Co

nd.

Scor

e

COF

- Cap

ital C

ost

COF

- O&

M Im

pact

COF

- Hea

lth &

Sa

fety

COF

- Sta

keho

lder

Im

pact

COF

- Reg

ulat

ory

COF

- Res

pons

e Ti

me

Max

CO

F

Max

Con

d. S

core

Risk


BUILDING TR PUMP STATION 1948 3 3 3 - 3 1 4 4

column holding support beam has surface corrosion; corrosion on walkways, unsafe to use; heavy corrosion on doors

3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 3 1 4 3 3 9


BUILDINGWS PUMP STATION ROOF

1972 2 2 2 - 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 4

FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANTCHEMICAL FEED

BUILDING CS2 BUILDING 1948 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2minor cracks on pad

2 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 3 3 1 4 4 2 8


BUILDING WS PUMP STATION 1972 3 4 4 1 1 1 3 3

evidence of water intrusion in basement. reservoir appears to have active leaks if it was in service.; column holding support beam has structural corrosion at base, causing block to fall off support. exposed regarding pins in basement, further investigation required

4 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 8

FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANTCHEMICAL FEED

BUILDING CS2 STORAGE SHED 1948 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 3 minor cracks on pad 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 3 3 1 4 4 2 8


BUILDINGPUMP STATION 4 ROOF

1948 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 3 3 1 4 4 2 8


BUILDING CS PUMP STATION 1948 5 3 3 1 5 1 3 33 to 4 feet of water in basement; standing water in basement

5 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 3 3 1 4 4 5 20


BUILDINGTR PUMP STATION ROOF

1948 3 2 2 - 1 3 - -column holding support beam has surface corrosion

3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 3 1 4 3 3 9


BUILDING PUMP STATION 4 1948 2 3 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 3 3 1 4 4 3 12


BUILDINGCS PUMP STATION ROOF

1948 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 3 3 1 4 4 2 8

HVAC Assessments

Faci

lity

Proc

ess

Gro

up

Ass

et

Inst

all D

ate

Corr

osio

n

Leak

age

Vibr

atio

n

Conc

rete

Sup

port

s

Stee

l Sup

port

s

Pipi

ng V

alve

s

Loca

l Pan

els

Fiel

d In

stru

men

ts

Elec

tric

al C

onne

ctio

ns

Phys

. Con

d. C

omm

ents

Max

Phy

s. C

ond.

Sco

re

Perf

. - C

apac

ity

Perf

. - R

egul

ator

y

Perf

. - R

elia

bilit

y

Perf

. - O

&M

Issu

es

Perf

. - O

bsol

esce

nce

Perf

. Com

men

ts

Max

Per

f. Co

nd. S

core

COF

- Cap

ital

Cos

t

COF

- O&

M Im

pact

COF

- Hea

lth

& S

afet

y

COF

- Sta

keho

lder

Im

pact

COF

- Reg

ulat

ory

COF

- Res

pons

e Ti

me

Max

CO

F

Max

Con

d. S

core

Risk

FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANTHIGH SERVICE

PUMPINGHVAC

UNIT HEATER 04 ELECTRICAL ROOM

1948 3 1 - - 2 3 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3


PUMPINGHVAC UNIT HEATER 03 1948 3 1 2 - 2 3 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 4 1

unit appears to be broken and not responding to controls

4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4

CEDAR STREET PUMP STATION BOOSTER PUMPING HVACHEATER SOUTH LOWER

LEVEL1948 1 1 2 - 1 - - - - 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2

TORREY ROAD PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING HVAC DEHUMIDIFIER 1948 2 1 - - 2 2 - - - 2 1 1 1 1 160 HZ

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2

TORREY ROAD PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING HVAC HEATER 1948 2 1 - - 2 2 4 - - 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2

WESTSIDE PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING HVAC UNIT HEATER 01 1972 1 1 - - 2 - 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2


PUMPINGHVAC UNIT HEATER 02 1948 3 1 2 - 2 3 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 4 1

unit appears to be broken and not responding to controls

4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4


PUMPINGHVAC

UNIT HEATER 06 RESTROOM

1952 3 1 - - 2 3 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3

WESTSIDE PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING HVAC LOWER LEVEL HEATER 1972 1 1 - - 1 - 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

CEDAR STREET PUMP STATION BOOSTER PUMPING HVAC UNIT HEATER 02 1948 4 1 - - 2 2 2 2 2surface corrosion on heating element 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4

FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICAL FEED HVAC DEHUMIDIFIER 01 2016 1 1 - - 1 - 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 160 HZ

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


PUMPINGHVAC

UNIT HEATER 05 ELECTRICAL ROOM

1952 3 1 - - 2 3 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3


PUMPINGHVAC

HOT WATER HEATER 01 RESTROOM

1948 2 1 - 1 1 1 - - 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2

FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICAL FEED HVAC UNIT HEATER 02 2016 1 1 - - 1 - 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

WESTSIDE PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING HVAC UNIT HEATER 02 1972 1 1 - - 2 - 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2


PUMPINGHVAC UNIT HEATER 01 1948 3 1 - - 2 3 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3


PUMPINGHVAC

HIGH SVC PUMP WELL HEATER 1

1948 2 1 - - 1 1 - - - 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2

CEDAR STREET PUMP STATION BOOSTER PUMPING HVAC EXHAUST FAN 1948 4 1 - - 2 3 2 2 3heavy surface corrosion 4 1 1 1 1 1

60 HZ1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4

CEDAR STREET PUMP STATION BOOSTER PUMPING HVACHEATER NORTH LOWER

LEVEL1948 1 1 2 - 1 - - - - 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2

CEDAR STREET PUMP STATION BOOSTER PUMPING HVAC UNIT HEATER 01 1948 4 1 - - 2 2 2 2 2

heating element is very hot on one side causing metal flaking

4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4


PUMPINGHVAC

LOW SVC PUMP WELL HEATER 1

1948 2 1 - - 1 1 - - - 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2

FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICAL FEED HVAC UNIT HEATER 01 2016 1 1 - - 1 - 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Facility Process Group Asset Max Phy Cond Max Perf Cond MAX COND Max COF Redundancy COF*Red Risk Asset Type Install Date Age EUL Age/EUL AUL RUL Replacement cost estimate

Install Cost Estimate


HIGH SERVICE PUMPING VALVES

HIGH SVC PUMP 8 SUCTION VALVE 2 1 2 2 1 2 4

Gate1995 22 20 110% 34 12 -$


HIGH SERVICE PUMPING PUMPS

LOW SVC PUMP NO. 5, 20 MGD 3 1 3 4 1 4 12

Centrifugal1952 65 20 325% 71 6 -$



HIGH SVC PUMP NO. 8, 13-21 MGD 3 1 3 4 1 4 12

Centrifugal1995 22 20 110% 28 6 -$




Centrifugal1948 69 20 345% 75 6 -$



LOW SVC PUMP 5 DISCHARGE VALVE 3 1 3 2 1 2 6

Butterfly1990 27 25 108% 34.5 7.5 -$

WESTSIDE PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING VALVES

PUMP NO. 1 DISCHARGE CHECK 2 1 2 1 1 1 2

Check1972 45 25 180% 60 15 -$


PUMP NO. 2 DISCHARGE CHECK 2 1 2 1 1 1 2

Check1972 45 25 180% 60 15 -$

WESTSIDE PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING PUMPS PUMP NO. 1, 4 MGD 2 1 2 2 1 2 4

Vertical Turbine1972 45 20 225% 57 12 -$

CEDAR STREET PUMP STATION BOOSTER PUMPING VALVES

PUMP NO. 2 DISCHARGE ISO VALVE 3 1 3 2 1 2 6

Gate1948 69 20 345% 75 6 -$


PUMP NO. 2 DISCHARGE ISO 3 1 3 1 1 1 3

Butterfly1972 45 25 180% 52.5 7.5 -$

FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICAL FEED PUMPS

SODIUM HYPO METERING PUMP 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 3

Chemical Feed Pumps2016 1 10 10% 10 9 -$

CEDAR STREET PUMP STATION BOOSTER PUMPING VALVES PUMP HEADER FILL VALVE 2 1 2 2 1 2 4

Globe1948 69 15 460% 78 9 -$

WESTSIDE PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING PUMPS SEAL WATER PUMP 3 1 3 2 1 2 6

Pump – Other1972 45 15 300% 49.5 4.5 3,000$ 5,082$


PUMP NO. 1 DISCHARGE DAMPENING VALVE 4 1 4 2 1 2 8

Valves – Other1948 69 25 276% 71.5 2.5 9,000$ 15,246$

WESTSIDE PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING VALVES RESERVOIR FILL VALVE 3 1 3 1 1 1 3

Valves – Other1972 45 25 180% 52.5 7.5 -$

CEDAR STREET PUMP STATION BOOSTER PUMPING PUMPS PUMP NO. 2 2 1 2 4 1 4 8

Centrifugal1948 69 20 345% 81 12 -$


Vertical Turbine1972 45 20 225% 45 0 43,300$ 73,350$

WESTSIDE PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING HVAC HOT WATER HEATER 3 1 3 1 1 1 3 Hot Water Heaters 1972 45 20 225% 51 6 -$ CEDAR STREET PUMP STATION BOOSTER PUMPING VALVES


Butterfly1948 69 25 276% 76.5 7.5 -$

CEDAR STREET PUMP STATION CHEMICAL FEED PUMPS

SODIUM HYPO METERING PUMP FL 1 2 1 2 3 1 3 6





Gate1948 69 20 345% 85 16 -$



HIGH SVC PUMP NO. 7, 13-21 MGD 4 1 4 4 1 4 16

Centrifugal1995 22 20 110% 24 2 144,000$ 243,936$


SODIUM HYDROXIDE (CAUSTIC) METERING PUMP 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 3



PUMP NO. 1 SUCTION VALVE 1 1 1 2 1 2 2

Gate1948 69 20 345% 85 16 -$

TORREY ROAD PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING VALVES

PUMP NO. 2 SUCTION ISO VALVE 5 1 5 2 1 2 10

Valves – Other1948 69 25 276% 69 0 9,600$ 16,262$



Butterfly1948 69 25 276% 76.5 7.5 -$



HIGH SVC PUMP 8 DISCHARGE VALVE 2 1 2 2 1 2 4

Globe1983 34 15 227% 43 9 -$


SODIUM HYDROXIDE (CAUSTIC) METERING PUMP 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 3




HIGH SVC PUMP 1 DISCHARGE ISO VALVE 1 1 1 2 1 2 2

Butterfly2015 2 25 8% 25 23 -$

Cost Estimates and RUL Data




PUMP NO. 3 DISCHARGE ROTOVALVE 4 1 4 1 1 1 4

Valves – Other1972 45 25 180% 47.5 2.5 13,000$ 22,022$



Butterfly1972 45 25 180% 52.5 7.5 -$

CEDAR STREET PUMP STATION CHEMICAL FEED PUMPS

SODIUM HYPO METERING PUMP FL 2 2 1 2 3 1 3 6


WESTSIDE PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING CRANES CRANE 3 1 3 1 1 1 3

Crane1972 45 20 225% 51 6 -$


HIGH SERVICE PUMPING PUMPS HIGH SVC PUMP NO. 0 3 1 3 4 1 4 12

Centrifugal1995 22 20 110% 28 6 -$



LOW SVC PUMP 3 SUCTION VALVE 2 1 2 2 1 2 4

Gate1948 69 20 345% 81 12 -$




Butterfly1995 22 25 88% 37 15 -$

FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICAL FEED VALVES VALVE 01 3 1 3 2 1 2 6

Valves – Other2000 17 25 68% 25 8 -$




Gate1948 69 20 345% 81 12 -$

WESTSIDE PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING SUMP PUMPWEST SUMP PUMP 3 1 3 1 1 1 3

Pump - Sump, 5 HP or Less 1972 45 20 225% 51 6 -$



Plug Valves1948 69 20 345% 71 2 9,500$ 16,093$




Centrifugal1952 65 20 325% 71 6 -$



Butterfly1948 69 25 276% 84 15 -$




Gate1995 22 20 110% 28 6 -$

CEDAR STREET PUMP STATION BOOSTER PUMPING VALVES PUMP HEADER ISO VALVE 1 1 1 2 1 2 2

Gate1948 69 20 345% 85 16 -$




Centrifugal1948 69 20 345% 81 12 -$




Butterfly1990 27 25 108% 34.5 7.5 -$

TORREY ROAD PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING PUMPS PUMP NO. 2 5 4 5 4 1 4 20

Centrifugal1948 69 20 345% 69 0 30,000$ 50,820$




Gate1952 65 20 325% 77 12 -$

TORREY ROAD PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING SUMP PUMPSUMP PUMP 5 1 5 1 1 1 5

Pump - Sump, 5 HP or Less 1948 69 20 345% 69 0 2,500$ 4,235$



Gate1948 69 20 345% 85 16 -$


HIGH SERVICE PUMPING CRANES CRANE 01 2 1 2 2 1 2 4

Crane1948 69 20 345% 81 12 -$



Butterfly1948 69 25 276% 84 15 -$


PUMP NO. 1 SUCTION ISO VALVE 4 1 4 2 1 2 8

Valves – Other1948 69 25 276% 71.5 2.5 4,300$ 7,284$



Butterfly1948 69 25 276% 76.5 7.5 -$




Centrifugal1948 69 20 345% 81 12 -$



Gate1948 69 20 345% 85 16 -$


PHOSPHORIC ACID METERING PUMP 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 3


TORREY ROAD PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING PUMPS PUMP NO. 1 5 4 5 4 1 4 20

Centrifugal1948 69 20 345% 69 0 21,500$ 36,421$








Butterfly1983 34 25 136% 41.5 7.5 -$



Butterfly1972 45 25 180% 52.5 7.5 -$


SODIUM HYPO METERING PUMP 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 3





Butterfly1990 27 25 108% 29.5 2.5 8,000$ 13,552$

TORREY ROAD PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING VALVES PUMP NO. 1 CONE VALVE 5 1 5 2 1 2 10

Valves – Other1948 69 25 276% 69 0 3,500$ 5,929$




Butterfly1995 22 25 88% 37 15 -$

FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICAL FEED VALVES VALVE 02 3 1 3 2 1 2 6

Valves – Other2000 17 25 68% 25 8 -$




Globe1983 34 15 227% 43 9 -$




Globe2015 2 15 13% 15 13 -$


PUMP NO. 4 DISCHARGE ROTOVALVE 3 1 3 1 1 1 3

Valves – Other1972 45 25 180% 52.5 7.5 -$

WESTSIDE PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING SUMP PUMPEAST SUMP PUMP 3 1 3 1 1 1 3

Pump - Sump, 5 HP or Less 1972 45 20 225% 51 6 -$



Butterfly1972 45 25 180% 52.5 7.5 -$




Globe1983 34 15 227% 43 9 -$




Gate1952 65 20 325% 77 12 -$

CEDAR STREET PUMP STATION BOOSTER PUMPING CRANES CRANE 01 2 1 2 1 1 1 2

Crane1948 69 20 345% 81 12 -$


PHOSPHORIC ACID METERING PUMP 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 3



Centrifugal1948 69 20 345% 71 2 105,000$ 177,870$


HIGH SERVICE PUMPING PUMPS HIGH SVC PUMP NO. 1 1 1 1 4 1 4 4

Centrifugal2014 3 20 15% 20 17 -$




Butterfly1995 22 25 88% 37 15 -$

CEDAR STREET PUMP STATION BOOSTER PUMPING PUMPS BP03 MOTOR 3 1 3 4 1 4 12

Motors (if separated)1948 69 25 276% 76.5 7.5 -$


HIGH SERVICE PUMPING ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER 01 2 3 3 3 1 3 9

Transformers1995 22 25 88% 37 15 -$

CEDAR STREET PUMP STATION BOOSTER PUMPING I&C CHLORINE ANALYZER 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Process Control Analyzers (pH, chlorine, DO, turbidity, etc.) 1948 69 10 690% 77 8 -$

CEDAR STREET PUMP STATION BOOSTER PUMPING I&C CONTROL PANEL 2 1 2 1 1 1 2

Remote input and output panel 1948 69 20 345% 81 12 -$

FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICAL FEED ELECTRICAL

PHOSPHORIC ACID PUMP PANELBOARDS 1 1 1 3 1 3 3

Panelboard2016 1 30 3% 30 29 -$

WESTSIDE PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING I&C WELL LEVEL METER 2 1 2 1 1 1 2

Process Measuring Devices 1972 45 10 450% 51 6 -$


HIGH SERVICE PUMPING PUMPS LSP05 MOTOR 3 1 3 4 1 4 12


WESTSIDE PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING ELECTRICAL BP03 MOTOR 3 3 3 2 1 2 6



HIGH SERVICE PUMPING ELECTRICAL SWITCHGEAR 01 1 3 3 3 1 3 9

Switchgear2017 0 25 0% 25 25 -$

WESTSIDE PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING I&C ALARM PANEL 2 1 2 1 1 1 2



HIGH SERVICE PUMPING ELECTRICAL PANEL PP-X01 2 3 3 3 1 3 9

Motor Control Panel1990 27 15 180% 36 9 -$






HIGH SERVICE PUMPING ELECTRICAL MCC 02 2 3 3 3 1 3 9

MCCs1995 22 30 73% 40 18 -$


Motors (if separated)1948 69 25 276% 71.5 2.5 4,500$ 7,623$

CEDAR STREET PUMP STATION BOOSTER PUMPING ELECTRICAL PANELBOARD 2 3 3 3 1 3 9

Panelboard1948 69 30 230% 87 18 -$

FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICAL FEED I&C FLOW METER RECORDER 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Process Measuring Devices 2016 1 10 10% 10 9 -$

CEDAR STREET PUMP STATION BOOSTER PUMPING ELECTRICAL MCC 01 1 3 3 3 1 3 9

MCCs2017 0 30 0% 30 30 -$




HIGH SERVICE PUMPING ELECTRICAL

PS4 LOW SERVICE PUMP CONTROL PANEL 1 3 3 3 1 3 9


TORREY ROAD PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING I&C CONTROL PANEL 3 4 4 1 1 1 4


TORREY ROAD PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING ELECTRICAL MCC 01 3 4 4 3 1 3 12

MCCs1948 69 30 230% 78 9 -$


HIGH SERVICE PUMPING PUMPS HSP01 MOTOR 2 1 2 4 1 4 8

Motors (if separated)2017 0 25 0% 25 25 -$

FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICAL FEED ELECTRICAL

HYPO AND CAUSTIC PUMP PANELBOARDS 1 1 1 3 1 3 3

Panelboard2016 1 30 3% 30 29 -$

WESTSIDE PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING I&C

CHLORINE RESIDUAL ANALYZER 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICAL FEED I&C CHLORINE ANALYZER 1 1 1 1 1 1 1




MCCs2017 0 30 0% 30 30 -$


HIGH SERVICE PUMPING ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER 02 2 3 3 3 1 3 9

Transformers1995 22 25 88% 37 15 -$



MCCs1948 69 30 230% 87 18 -$

FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICAL FEED I&C TURBIDIMETER 1 1 1 1 1 1 1



HIGH SERVICE PUMPING ELECTRICAL PANEL PP-D 3 3 3 3 1 3 9

Motor Control Panel1993 24 15 160% 28.5 4.5 4,000$ 6,776$





HIGH SERVICE PUMPING ELECTRICAL PS4 MAIN CONTROL PANEL 2 3 3 3 1 3 9

Switchgear1995 22 25 88% 37 15 -$


HIGH SERVICE PUMPING ELECTRICAL PANEL PP-E 2 3 3 3 1 3 9



HIGH SERVICE PUMPING ELECTRICAL PANELBOARD 01 2 3 3 3 1 3 9

Panelboard1990 27 30 90% 45 18 -$

FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICAL FEED I&C CONTROL PANEL 01 1 1 1 1 1 1 1















TORREY ROAD PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER 01 4 3 4 3 1 3 12

Transformers1948 69 25 276% 71.5 2.5

$ 250,000 423,500$





FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICAL FEED ELECTRICAL MCC 01 1 1 1 3 1 3 3

MCCs2016 1 30 3% 30 29 -$







HIGH SERVICE PUMPING ELECTRICAL HSP01 VFD 1 3 3 3 1 3 9

VFD1995 22 25 88% 42 20 -$

CEDAR STREET PUMP STATION BOOSTER PUMPING ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER 01 2 3 3 3 1 3 9

Transformers1948 69 25 276% 84 15 -$

WESTSIDE PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER 01 4 3 4 2 1 2 8

Transformers1972 45 25 180% 47.5 2.5

$ 100,000 169,400$

WESTSIDE PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING ELECTRICAL MCC 01 4 3 4 2 1 2 8

MCCs1972 45 30 150% 48 3 255,000$ 431,970$

TORREY ROAD PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING BUILDING TR PUMP STATION 3 1 3 3 1 3 9

Buildings (general buildings, structures and improvements 1948 69 40 173% 81 12 -$

WESTSIDE PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING BUILDING WS PUMP STATION ROOF 2 1 2 2 1 2 4


FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICAL FEED BUILDING CS2 BUILDING 2 1 2 4 1 4 8


WESTSIDE PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING BUILDING WS PUMP STATION 4 1 4 2 1 2 8

Buildings (general buildings, structures and improvements 1972 45 40 113% 49 4 66,930$ 113,379$

FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICAL FEED BUILDING CS2 STORAGE SHED 2 1 2 4 1 4 8



HIGH SERVICE PUMPING BUILDING PUMP STATION 4 ROOF 2 1 2 4 1 4 8


CEDAR STREET PUMP STATION BOOSTER PUMPING BUILDING CS PUMP STATION 5 1 5 4 1 4 20

Buildings (general buildings, structures and improvements 1948 69 40 173% 69 0 47,560$ 80,567$

TORREY ROAD PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING BUILDING TR PUMP STATION ROOF 3 1 3 3 1 3 9



HIGH SERVICE PUMPING BUILDING PUMP STATION 4 3 1 3 4 1 4 12


CEDAR STREET PUMP STATION BOOSTER PUMPING BUILDING CS PUMP STATION ROOF 2 1 2 4 1 4 8



HIGH SERVICE PUMPING HVAC

UNIT HEATER 04 ELECTRICAL ROOM 3 1 3 1 1 1 3 Unit Heaters 1948 69 20 345% 75 6 -$


HIGH SERVICE PUMPING HVAC UNIT HEATER 03 3 4 4 1 1 1 4 Unit Heaters 1948 69 20 345% 75 6

1,100$ 1,863$

CEDAR STREET PUMP STATION BOOSTER PUMPING HVAC

HEATER SOUTH LOWER LEVEL 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 Unit Heaters 1948 69 20 345% 81 12 -$

TORREY ROAD PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING HVAC DEHUMIDIFIER 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 Dehumidification Unit 1948 69 15 460% 78 9 -$ TORREY ROAD PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING HVAC HEATER 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 Unit Heaters 1948 69 20 345% 81 12 -$ WESTSIDE PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING HVAC UNIT HEATER 01 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 Unit Heaters 1972 45 20 225% 57 12 -$ FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT

HIGH SERVICE PUMPING HVAC UNIT HEATER 02 3 4 4 1 1 1 4 Unit Heaters 1948 69 20 345% 75 6

1,100$ 1,863$





UNIT HEATER 06 RESTROOM 3 1 3 1 1 1 3 Unit Heaters 1952 65 20 325% 71 6 -$

WESTSIDE PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING HVAC LOWER LEVEL HEATER 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Unit Heaters 1972 45 20 225% 61 16 -$ CEDAR STREET PUMP STATION BOOSTER PUMPING HVAC UNIT HEATER 02 4 1 4 1 1 1 4 Unit Heaters 1948 69 20 345% 71 2 5,775$ 9,783$ FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICAL FEED HVAC DEHUMIDIFIER 01 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Dehumidification Unit 2016 1 15 7% 15 14 -$ FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT


UNIT HEATER 05 ELECTRICAL ROOM 3 1 3 1 1 1 3 Unit Heaters 1952 65 20 325% 71 6 -$



HOT WATER HEATER 01 RESTROOM 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 Hot Water Heaters 1948 69 20 345% 81 12 -$

FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICAL FEED HVAC UNIT HEATER 02 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Unit Heaters 2016 1 20 5% 20 19 -$ WESTSIDE PUMPING STATION BOOSTER PUMPING HVAC UNIT HEATER 02 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 Unit Heaters 1972 45 20 225% 57 12 -$ FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT

HIGH SERVICE PUMPING HVAC UNIT HEATER 01 3 1 3 1 1 1 3 Unit Heaters 1948 69 20 345% 75 6 -$



HIGH SVC PUMP WELL HEATER 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 Unit Heaters 1948 69 20 345% 81 12 -$

CEDAR STREET PUMP STATION BOOSTER PUMPING HVAC EXHAUST FAN 4 1 4 1 1 1 4 Exhaust Fans 1948 69 15 460% 70.5 1.5 1,425$ 2,414$ CEDAR STREET PUMP STATION BOOSTER PUMPING HVAC

HEATER NORTH LOWER LEVEL 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 Unit Heaters 1948 69 20 345% 81 12 -$

CEDAR STREET PUMP STATION BOOSTER PUMPING HVAC UNIT HEATER 01 4 1 4 1 1 1 4 Unit Heaters 1948 69 20 345% 71 2 5,775$ 9,783$ FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT


LOW SVC PUMP WELL HEATER 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 Unit Heaters 1948 69 20 345% 81 12 -$

FLINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICAL FEED HVAC UNIT HEATER 01 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Unit Heaters 2016 1 20 5% 20 19 -$

Appendix D

Capital Model Scenario Details

System Wide (581.82 miles)

Summary Results for Scenario 1: Initial Plan Scenario

Year Budget Age Brk Rate Miles Age Brk Rate

Scenario Replaced

COF RiskRiskLOF LOF

2018 $11,999,626 67.7 34.0 3.67 88.7 110.7 3.99 20.07.23.17 5.00

2019 $18,999,771 68.2 34.5 10.74 88.8 61.5 3.69 15.77.13.15 4.32

2020 $6,999,796 67.5 34.7 4.95 88.2 53.9 4.14 16.66.93.11 4.01

2021 $4,999,335 67.8 35.5 2.62 78.5 51.5 3.95 15.86.83.10 4.00

2022 $4,999,609 68.4 36.6 3.35 85.4 53.5 3.65 14.66.83.11 4.09

2023 $4,999,862 68.9 37.7 2.16 80.5 46.3 3.81 15.36.93.17 4.04

2024 $4,999,921 69.6 38.9 3.29 96.5 73.4 2.18 9.26.93.17 4.49

2025 $4,999,842 70.1 40.0 3.32 90.2 65.8 3.49 14.06.93.17 4.06

2026 $4,999,968 70.6 41.1 3.37 92.0 73.9 3.04 12.46.93.18 4.08

2027 $4,999,386 71.0 42.2 3.28 85.6 74.4 2.53 11.56.93.22 4.49

2028 $4,999,923 71.6 43.4 3.39 95.7 79.7 2.04 9.86.93.23 4.93

2029 $4,999,945 72.0 44.6 3.50 94.9 78.6 2.30 10.87.03.26 4.85

2030 $4,999,687 72.4 45.8 3.33 98.7 85.1 1.49 7.37.33.47 4.98

2031 $5,000,000 72.9 47.1 3.23 100.0 88.2 1.43 6.87.33.47 4.92

2032 $4,999,674 73.3 48.4 3.13 100.8 94.8 1.55 7.57.33.46 4.94

2033 $4,999,858 73.8 49.8 3.41 101.6 93.5 1.56 7.57.43.48 4.94

2034 $4,999,836 74.2 51.2 3.55 101.2 95.2 1.72 8.17.43.49 4.90

2035 $4,999,949 74.5 52.6 3.36 100.4 101.1 1.65 8.37.43.50 5.00

2036 $4,999,963 75.0 54.0 3.18 105.8 100.5 1.56 7.87.53.51 5.00

2037 $4,999,942 75.4 55.6 3.71 106.4 106.5 1.76 8.87.53.54 5.00

$122,995,893 74.53

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

2037

Years

Bu

dg

et

(Mill

ion

$)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Ris

k

Bre

ak R

ate

Budget Break Rate Risk

Page 1 of 1


Summary Results for Scenario 2: $0.5M Ramp Up Scenario


Scenario Replaced

COF RiskRiskLOF LOF

2018 $11,999,626 67.7 34.0 3.67 88.7 110.7 3.99 20.07.23.17 5.00

2019 $18,999,771 68.2 34.5 10.74 88.8 61.5 3.69 15.77.13.15 4.32

2020 $6,999,796 67.5 34.7 4.95 88.2 53.9 4.14 16.66.93.11 4.01

2021 $7,499,855 67.8 35.5 4.13 80.3 48.2 3.93 16.06.83.10 4.08

2022 $7,998,845 68.2 36.5 4.36 83.1 49.9 3.77 14.86.83.10 4.02

2023 $8,499,535 68.6 37.5 4.32 81.0 39.0 3.92 16.36.93.15 4.18

2024 $8,999,744 69.0 38.6 5.96 94.5 67.6 2.94 12.36.83.14 4.33

2025 $9,498,710 69.0 39.4 5.10 88.6 54.3 3.73 15.26.73.13 4.11

2026 $9,999,581 69.2 40.4 6.74 92.0 70.7 3.02 12.46.73.13 4.08

2027 $10,499,652 69.2 41.1 6.89 91.3 68.3 2.85 11.86.73.15 4.11

2028 $10,999,947 69.1 41.9 7.08 96.9 81.2 2.07 10.16.63.14 4.96

2029 $11,499,590 68.9 42.5 7.80 95.5 77.3 1.83 8.86.63.14 4.93

2030 $11,999,743 68.6 43.0 7.89 96.4 84.1 1.33 6.46.93.32 4.95

2031 $12,499,803 68.3 43.6 8.32 96.2 85.6 1.39 6.66.93.28 4.93

2032 $12,999,445 67.9 44.0 8.42 95.3 80.3 1.77 8.56.83.24 4.93

2033 $13,499,563 67.6 44.6 8.91 97.5 81.9 1.87 9.16.83.22 4.95

2034 $13,999,959 67.1 45.0 9.61 102.3 87.4 2.01 9.56.73.20 4.87

2035 $14,499,989 66.4 45.3 9.70 104.3 92.0 1.69 8.16.73.16 4.91

2036 $14,999,826 65.6 45.6 10.66 102.5 94.0 1.90 9.16.63.14 4.91

2037 $15,499,778 64.8 45.6 10.69 104.7 98.0 1.84 8.86.63.11 4.90

$233,492,758 145.96

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

2037

Years

Bu

dg

et

(Mill

ion

$)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Ris

k

Bre

ak R

ate


Page 1 of 1




Scenario Replaced

COF RiskRiskLOF LOF

2018 $12,000,000 67.7 34.0 3.56 88.1 112.0 4.11 20.67.23.17 5.00

2019 $18,999,766 68.2 34.5 7.39 84.7 49.8 3.25 16.27.13.15 4.99

2020 $6,999,389 68.1 35.2 3.08 58.2 28.8 4.12 18.77.03.12 4.59

2021 $7,999,904 68.8 36.3 4.77 88.1 60.4 4.03 16.16.93.12 4.00

2022 $8,999,935 69.1 37.2 5.86 91.3 59.6 3.83 15.46.93.11 4.06

2023 $9,999,954 69.2 38.0 6.13 86.0 55.0 4.10 16.46.93.16 4.00

2024 $10,999,770 69.3 38.9 7.35 92.3 65.2 3.21 13.16.83.14 4.22

2025 $11,999,044 69.1 39.5 6.96 79.1 48.8 3.91 15.76.73.12 4.03

2026 $12,999,885 69.1 40.4 8.45 90.3 68.9 3.06 12.36.63.11 4.01

2027 $13,999,959 68.8 41.0 8.94 90.4 68.7 2.94 11.86.63.12 4.02

2028 $14,999,996 68.4 41.4 10.55 95.0 77.9 2.24 10.66.53.11 4.84

2029 $15,999,999 67.7 41.6 10.59 98.6 76.1 1.88 8.06.43.09 4.43

2030 $16,999,993 66.9 41.8 11.67 99.3 84.1 1.40 6.56.73.24 4.87

2031 $17,999,915 65.9 41.7 12.58 97.5 81.3 1.48 6.86.63.18 4.85

2032 $18,999,990 64.8 41.6 12.94 100.2 80.6 1.72 8.16.53.11 4.87

2033 $19,999,933 63.6 41.4 13.63 100.4 82.8 1.63 7.66.43.06 4.87

2034 $20,999,981 62.2 41.1 14.87 99.3 86.3 1.68 7.86.43.01 4.84

2035 $22,000,000 60.7 40.5 15.36 100.9 88.3 1.77 8.26.32.94 4.85

2036 $22,999,688 59.0 39.7 16.65 100.4 91.2 2.24 10.56.22.87 4.82

2037 $23,999,980 57.2 38.6 16.71 102.0 94.7 1.99 9.36.02.81 4.85

$309,997,081 198.03

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

2037

Years

Bu

dg

et

(Mill

ion

$)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Ris

k

Bre

ak R

ate


Page 1 of 1




Scenario Replaced

COF RiskRiskLOF LOF

2018 $12,000,000 67.7 34.0 3.56 88.1 112.0 4.11 20.67.23.17 5.00

2019 $18,999,766 68.2 34.5 7.39 84.7 49.8 3.25 16.27.13.15 4.99

2020 $6,999,389 68.1 35.2 3.08 58.2 28.8 4.12 18.77.03.12 4.59

2021 $8,999,985 68.8 36.3 5.49 88.3 59.5 4.05 16.26.93.12 4.00

2022 $10,999,971 69.0 37.1 7.08 91.5 59.3 3.87 15.66.93.11 4.05

2023 $12,999,845 68.9 37.8 7.57 81.2 47.9 4.13 16.56.93.15 4.00

2024 $14,998,799 68.8 38.6 9.57 89.1 61.1 3.43 13.96.73.13 4.17

2025 $16,999,920 68.3 39.1 7.67 78.6 38.0 3.92 15.76.63.09 4.03

2026 $18,999,989 68.3 40.1 12.79 90.7 66.9 3.08 12.36.53.08 4.00

2027 $20,999,992 67.3 40.1 13.53 94.0 68.7 2.97 11.96.43.07 4.01

2028 $20,999,442 66.1 40.0 14.46 93.3 74.8 2.14 9.96.23.03 4.73

2029 $20,999,994 64.8 39.7 14.26 94.6 71.8 2.08 8.56.12.99 4.20

2030 $20,999,999 63.5 39.5 15.19 90.9 77.8 1.53 6.96.23.10 4.83

2031 $20,999,945 62.1 38.9 14.62 95.4 78.9 1.46 6.76.13.02 4.86

2032 $20,999,908 60.7 38.5 14.51 95.3 77.6 1.50 7.06.02.93 4.86

2033 $20,999,958 59.3 38.0 14.21 97.0 81.7 1.59 7.46.02.87 4.88

2034 $20,999,950 58.0 37.5 14.48 97.1 83.9 1.68 7.85.92.81 4.86

2035 $20,999,981 56.5 36.9 14.74 99.3 88.5 1.80 8.45.82.75 4.85

2036 $20,999,970 55.0 36.1 15.48 104.7 98.3 1.78 8.75.72.69 4.95

2037 $20,999,992 53.2 34.9 14.91 105.6 100.1 1.81 8.85.62.63 4.94

$352,996,795 224.59

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

2037

Years

Bu

dg

et

(Mill

ion

$)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Ris

k

Bre

ak R

ate


Page 1 of 1

Appendix E

Data Profiler Report – GIS Inventory

Summary Records per Table

Data ProfileThe following list contains the profiled database table names and their record count. The table name and record count are highlighted red if there are no records in a table. An asterisk (*) is placed in front of any table without a Primary Key and it is highlighted yellow.

The following pages detail each table having one or more records.Each table field is listed with the percent of populated, zero and negative values. An empty field has a Null value, zero length string or all spaces. Zero or negative values may occur in a numeric field. Although empty, zero and negative values are not necessarily invalid, they may indicate a problem. Fields containing all empty, zero or negative values are highlighted red. Fields containing 50-100% empty or zero values or any negative values are highlighted yellow.

Text fields may have the top 10 most occurring value lengths listed. If listed, the quantity of zero length strings will be highlighted red.The top 10 most occurring values (greater than 1% and occurring more than once) will be listed. Empty or zero values will be highlighted red.

An asterisk (*) is placed in front of any field containing all unique values, they are highlighted blue and **UNIQUE** is shown next to the field name.

Flint_pgdb_v4

*Geocode_Mainbreak_2008_2016 (Point) 1,695 *INE_DynamicValue 3 *INE_GenerateID 1*wAbandonedLine (Edge) 0 *wAbandonedPoint (Junction) 0 *Water_Distribution_Net_Junctions (Junction) 0*WaterPressureZone (Polygon) 0 *WaterUtilityDistrict (Polygon) 0 *wCasing (Edge) 0*wConstructionLine (Edge) 0 *wControlValve (Junction) 0 *wCurbStopValve (Junction) 0*wElevationPt (Junction) 0 *wFitting (Junction) 16,654 *wHydrant (Junction) 3,604*wLateralLine (Edge) 0 *wMains (Edge) 18,653 *wNetworkStructure (Junction) 9*wPump (Junction) 14 *wSamplingStation (Junction) 0 *wServiceConnection (Junction) 0*wStructure (Polygon) 0 *wSystemValve (Junction) 9,577 *wTestStation (Junction) 0

08-Dec-17 Page 1 of 43Flint_pgdb_v4

Geocode_Mainbreak_2008_2016 Table - 1,695 recordsPoint

Percent Populated / Zero / Negative Values per Field

NONEPrimary Key:

Address 100% / / ARC_City 100% / / ARC_State 100% / /ARC_Street 100% / / ARC_Zip 0% / / Asset_ID 86% / /AssetIDUpdate 4% / / BreakDia 100% 14%/ 0%/ City 100% / /Complain_1 93% / / ComplaintW 100% 7%/ 0%/ created_date 0% 0%/ 0%/created_user 0% / / FacilityID 86% / / last_edited_date 86% 0%/ 0%/last_edited_user 86% / / Match_addr 86% / / Match_type 100% / /MatchPipe 82% 11%/ 0%/ NEAR_DIST 100% 0%/ 14%/ NEAR_FID 100% 0%/ 14%/*OBJECTID 100% 0%/ 0%/ Pct_along 100% 21%/ 0%/ Ref_ID 100% 0%/ 14%/Score 100% 14%/ 0%/ Shape 100% 0%/ 0%/ Side 64% / /Stan_addr 100% / / State 100% / / Status 100% / /Void 93% / / WaterAddit 34% / / WaterCit_1 0% / /WaterCitiz 1% / / WaterCom_1 2% / / WaterCom_2 1% / /WaterCompl 100% / / WaterDateE 93% 0%/ 0%/ WaterDateR 93% 0%/ 0%/WaterDateW 100% 0%/ 0%/ WaterHandl 100% / / WaterHouse 100% 39%/ 0%/WaterNeare 30% / / WaterPipeM 86% / / WaterPipeS 86% / /WaterPipeU 86% / / WaterStree 100% / / WaterTimeR 0% 0%/ 0%/WaterWard 0% / / X 100% 14%/ 86%/ Y 100% 14%/ 0%/ZipCode 100% 100%/ 0%/

1,559 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0Address (string254) Unique:

Most Occurring Lengths Count % 20316 12%Characters:18915 11%Characters:16814 10%Characters:16717 10%Characters:13718 8%Characters:12519 7%Characters:10820 6%Characters:10213 6%Characters:

7522 4%Characters:7112 4%Characters:

1 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0ARC_City (string30) Unique:

Most Occuring Values Count %1,695Flint 100%

1 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0ARC_State (string4) Unique:

Most Occuring Values Count %1,695MI 100%

1,559 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0ARC_Street (string60) Unique:

Most Occurring Lengths Count % 20316 12%Characters:18915 11%Characters:16814 10%Characters:16717 10%Characters:13718 8%Characters:12519 7%Characters:10820 6%Characters:10213 6%Characters:


1 Null/Zero/Neg: 1,695 / 0 / 0ARC_Zip (string20) Unique:

1,032 Null/Zero/Neg: 238 / 0 / 0Asset_ID (string100) Unique:

Most Occurring Lengths Count % 1,4578 86%Characters:

31 Null/Zero/Neg: 1,621 / 0 / 0AssetIDUpdate (string10) Unique:

Most Occurring Lengths Count % 401 2%Characters:348 2%Characters:

Most Occuring Values Count %310 2%



13 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 229 / 0BreakDia (int32, 0/1 to 30, Avg=6.17/7.13, StDev=3.92/3.3) Unique:


1112 7%Characters:

Most Occuring Values Count %9396 55%3388 20%2290 14%

5312 3%474 3%3424 2%213 1%

1 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0City (string254) Unique:

Most Occuring Values Count %1,695Flint 100%

1,581 Null/Zero/Neg: 115 / 0 / 0Complain_1 (string254) Unique:


1151 7%Characters:

1,581 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 115 / 0ComplaintW (int32, 0/9 to 1922, Avg=849.87/911.72, StDev=554.58/523.0) Unique:

Most Occurring Lengths Count % 8483 50%Characters:6714 40%Characters:1161 7%Characters:

602 4%Characters:


0 Null/Zero/Neg: 1,695 / 0 / 0created_date (datetime) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 1,695 / 0 / 0created_user (string255) Unique:

1,014 Null/Zero/Neg: 238 / 0 / 0FacilityID (string10) Unique:


311 2%Characters:


9 Null/Zero/Neg: 241 / 0 / 0last_edited_date (datetime, 2017 to 2017, Avg=2017.0, StDev=0.0) Unique:


7421 4%Characters:

Most Occuring Values Count %62911/25/2017 12:25:54 AM 37%42311/25/2017 12:25:53 AM 25%32811/25/2017 12:25:55 AM 19%

3911/25/2017 7:09:28 PM 2%

1 Null/Zero/Neg: 241 / 0 / 0last_edited_user (string255) Unique:


Most Occuring Values Count %1,454HELTZEL 86%

1,315 Null/Zero/Neg: 238 / 0 / 0Match_addr (string117) Unique:

Most Occurring Lengths Count % 2381 14%Characters:19332 11%Characters:18833 11%Characters:16935 10%Characters:14434 8%Characters:14036 8%Characters:

9331 5%Characters:6030 4%Characters:5742 3%Characters:5437 3%Characters:

1 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0Match_type (string2) Unique:

Most Occuring Values Count %1,695A 100%

4 Null/Zero/Neg: 300 / 191 / 0MatchPipe (int32, 0/1 to 3, Avg=2.36/2.74, StDev=1.03/0.46) Unique:


Most Occuring Values Count %9003 53%2922 17%1910 11%



1,297 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 238NEAR_DIST (double, -1.0/0.07 to 556221.94, Avg=406.37/472.91, StDev= Unique:




Most Occuring Values Count %238-1 14%

1,033 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 238NEAR_FID (int32, -1/41 to 18578, Avg=8827.22/10269.31, StDev=6391.79/5719.47) Unique:


803 5%Characters:


1,695 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0OBJECTID *UNIQUE* (int32, 1 to 1695, Avg=848.0, StDev=489.45) Unique:



304 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 364 / 0Pct_along (double, 0.0/0.5 to 100.0, Avg=38.15/48.59, StDev=36.89/35.02) Unique:

Most Occurring Lengths Count % 6757 40%Characters:3651 22%Characters:2983 18%Characters:2896 17%Characters:

512 3%Characters:94 1%Characters:85 0%Characters:


3650 2%2920.4082 2%2710.2041 2%2512.2449 1%2414.2857 1%242.0408 1%218.1633 1%204.0816 1%2050.5051 1%

1,018 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 238Ref_ID (int32, -1/13035164 to 13512750, Avg=11230236.91/13064688.95, StDev= Unique:


2382 14%Characters:


14 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 238 / 0Score (int16, 0/61 to 89, Avg=67.13/78.1, StDev=27.63/5.57) Unique:


2381 14%Characters:

Most Occuring Values Count %1,01181 60%

2380 14%17877 11%11166 7%

7368 4%2965 2%2263 1%

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0Shape (byte[]) Unique:

3 Null/Zero/Neg: 616 / 0 / 0Side (string1) Unique:

Most Occuring Values Count %634R 37%445L 26%

1,535 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0Stan_addr (string79) Unique:

Most Occurring Lengths Count % 20139 12%Characters:19540 12%Characters:14841 9%Characters:14542 9%Characters:14443 8%Characters:11438 7%Characters:


Most Occuring Values Count %24| | | | | | | | | | FLINT | MI | 1%



1 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0State (string254) Unique:

Most Occuring Values Count %1,695MI 100%

3 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0Status (string1) Unique:

Most Occuring Values Count %1,385M 82%

238U 14%72T 4%

2 Null/Zero/Neg: 115 / 0 / 0Void (string254) Unique:


1151 7%Characters:

Most Occuring Values Count %1,580FALSE 93%

153 Null/Zero/Neg: 1,120 / 0 / 0WaterAddit (string254) Unique:



918 1%Characters:68 0%Characters:584 0%Characters:461 0%Characters:452 0%Characters:440 0%Characters:

Most Occuring Values Count %1742 VALVE SHUT DOWN 10%

733 VALVE SHUT DOWN 4%454 VALVE SHUT DOWN 3%322 VALVE SHUTDOWN 2%226 VALVE SHUT DOWN 1%195 VALVE SHUT DOWN 1%

3 Null/Zero/Neg: 1,690 / 0 / 0WaterCit_1 (string254) Unique:

9 Null/Zero/Neg: 1,677 / 0 / 0WaterCitiz (string254) Unique:



25 Null/Zero/Neg: 1,669 / 0 / 0WaterCom_1 (string254) Unique:


429 0%Characters:342 0%Characters:239 0%Characters:232 0%Characters:219 0%Characters:

2 Null/Zero/Neg: 1,679 / 0 / 0WaterCom_2 (string254) Unique:


166 1%Characters:

1 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0WaterCompl (string254) Unique:

Most Occuring Values Count %1,695Water main break 100%

266 Null/Zero/Neg: 115 / 0 / 0WaterDateE (datetime, 2013 to 2016, Avg=2014.14, StDev=0.65) Unique:



Most Occuring Values Count %2161/29/2014 12:00:00 AM 13%1261/30/2014 12:00:00 AM 7%

672/28/2014 12:00:00 AM 4%528/9/2014 12:00:00 AM 3%492/10/2014 12:00:00 AM 3%433/21/2014 12:00:00 AM 3%384/18/2014 12:00:00 AM 2%341/28/2014 12:00:00 AM 2%333/31/2014 12:00:00 AM 2%339/3/2013 12:00:00 AM 2%



1,011 Null/Zero/Neg: 115 / 0 / 0WaterDateR (datetime, 2007 to 2016, Avg=2012.19, StDev=2.3) Unique:


1,077 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0WaterDateW (datetime, 2008 to 2016, Avg=2011.91, StDev=2.46) Unique:



29 Null/Zero/Neg: 3 / 0 / 0WaterHandl (string254) Unique:




Most Occuring Values Count %759Church, Jeff 45%536Simpson, Paul 32%101Spooner 6%

96Southall, Warren 6%51Swickard, Howard 3%46Swickard 3%20Stohon, Pete 1%

727 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 656 / 0WaterHouse (int32, 0/101 to 30032, Avg=1382.68/2255.67, StDev= Unique:



438 Null/Zero/Neg: 1,186 / 0 / 0WaterNeare (string254) Unique:


548 3%Characters:547 3%Characters:476 3%Characters:469 3%Characters:365 2%Characters:3411 2%Characters:2912 2%Characters:2715 2%Characters:2710 2%Characters:

8 Null/Zero/Neg: 236 / 0 / 0WaterPipeM (string254) Unique:




Most Occuring Values Count %1,399cast iron 83%

21lead 1%

14 Null/Zero/Neg: 229 / 0 / 0WaterPipeS (string254) Unique:




Most Occuring Values Count %9396" 55%3388" 20%

5312" 3%474" 3%3424" 2%213/4" 1%

3 Null/Zero/Neg: 238 / 0 / 0WaterPipeU (string254) Unique:



Most Occuring Values Count %1,429water main 84%

28service line 2%



628 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0WaterStree (string254) Unique:

Most Occurring Lengths Count % 32910 19%Characters:23412 14%Characters:2229 13%Characters:21511 13%Characters:16513 10%Characters:1628 10%Characters:14314 8%Characters:


Most Occuring Values Count %22DORT HWY S 1%

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 1,695 / 0 / 0WaterTimeR (datetime) Unique:

1 Null/Zero/Neg: 1,695 / 0 / 0WaterWard (string254) Unique:

1,276 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 238 / 1,457X (double, -84.92/0.0 to 0.0, Avg=-71.94/0.0, StDev=29.08/0.0) Unique:



37 0%Characters:

1,245 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 238 / 0Y (double, 0.0/42.97 to 44.33, Avg=36.99/43.03, StDev=14.95/0.04) Unique:





1 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 1,695 / 0ZipCode (int32, 0/0 to 0, Avg=0.0/0.0, StDev=0.0/0.0) Unique:

Most Occuring Values Count %1,6950 100%


INE_DynamicValue Table - 3 records


NONEPrimary Key:

COMMENTS 0% / / *FIELDNAME 100% / / ON_CHANGE 100% 33%/ 0%/On_ChangeGeo 100% / / ON_CREATE 100% 0%/ 0%/ ON_MANUAL 100% 33%/ 0%/RUN_WEIGHT 0% 0%/ 0%/ TABLENAME 100% / / VALUEINFO 100% / /*VALUEMETHOD 100% / /

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 3 / 0 / 0COMMENTS (string255) Unique:

3 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0FIELDNAME *UNIQUE* (string64) Unique:

Most Occurring Lengths Count % 210 67%Characters:

2 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 1 / 0ON_CHANGE (int16, 0/1 to 1, Avg=0.67/1.0, StDev=0.58/0.0) Unique:


2 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0On_ChangeGeo (string50) Unique:


Most Occuring Values Count %2TRUE 67%

1 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0ON_CREATE (int16, 1 to 1, Avg=1.0, StDev=0.0) Unique:


2 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 1 / 0ON_MANUAL (int16, 0/1 to 1, Avg=0.67/1.0, StDev=0.58/0.0) Unique:


0 Null/Zero/Neg: 3 / 0 / 0RUN_WEIGHT (int16) Unique:

1 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0TABLENAME (string254) Unique:

Most Occuring Values Count %3* 100%

2 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0VALUEINFO (string254) Unique:


Most Occuring Values Count %2FacilityID 67%

3 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0VALUEMETHOD *UNIQUE* (string254) Unique:


wAbandonedLine Table - 0 recordsEdge


NONEPrimary Key:

ABANDATE 100% 0%/ 0%/ ABANSOURCE 100% / / created_date 100% 0%/ 0%/created_user 100% / / DIAMETER 100% 0%/ 0%/ Enabled 100% 0%/ 0%/FACILITYID 100% / / GIS_ENDID 100% / / GIS_ID 100% / /GIS_STARTID 100% / / INSTALLDATE 100% 0%/ 0%/ last_edited_date 100% 0%/ 0%/last_edited_user 100% / / MATERIAL 100% / / MODEL_ENDID 100% / /MODEL_ID 100% / / MODEL_STARTID 100% / / OBJECTID 100% 0%/ 0%/SHAPE 100% 0%/ 0%/ SHAPE_Length 100% 0%/ 0%/

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0ABANDATE *UNIQUE* (datetime) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0ABANSOURCE *UNIQUE* (string60) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0created_date *UNIQUE* (datetime) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0created_user *UNIQUE* (string255) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0DIAMETER *UNIQUE* (double) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0Enabled *UNIQUE* (int16) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0FACILITYID *UNIQUE* (string20) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0GIS_ENDID *UNIQUE* (string10) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0GIS_ID *UNIQUE* (string10) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0GIS_STARTID *UNIQUE* (string10) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0INSTALLDATE *UNIQUE* (datetime) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0last_edited_date *UNIQUE* (datetime) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0last_edited_user *UNIQUE* (string255) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0MATERIAL *UNIQUE* (string20) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0MODEL_ENDID *UNIQUE* (string10) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0MODEL_ID *UNIQUE* (string10) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0MODEL_STARTID *UNIQUE* (string10) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0OBJECTID *UNIQUE* (int32) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0SHAPE *UNIQUE* (byte[]) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0SHAPE_Length *UNIQUE* (double) Unique:


wAbandonedPoint Table - 0 recordsJunction


NONEPrimary Key:

ABANDATE 100% 0%/ 0%/ ABANSOURCE 100% / / created_date 100% 0%/ 0%/created_user 100% / / DIAMETER 100% 0%/ 0%/ Enabled 100% 0%/ 0%/FACILITYID 100% / / GIS_ID 100% / / INSTALLDATE 100% 0%/ 0%/last_edited_date 100% 0%/ 0%/ last_edited_user 100% / / MATERIAL 100% / /MODEL_ID 100% / / OBJECTID 100% 0%/ 0%/ SHAPE 100% 0%/ 0%/

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0ABANDATE *UNIQUE* (datetime) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0ABANSOURCE *UNIQUE* (string60) Unique:






0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0GIS_ID *UNIQUE* (string10) Unique:





0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0MODEL_ID *UNIQUE* (string10) Unique:




Water_Distribution_Net_Junctions Table - 0 recordsJunction


NONEPrimary Key:

Enabled 100% 0%/ 0%/ OBJECTID 100% 0%/ 0%/ SHAPE 100% 0%/ 0%/





WaterPressureZone Table - 0 recordsPolygon


NONEPrimary Key:

AVGPRESSURE 100% 0%/ 0%/ created_date 100% 0%/ 0%/ created_user 100% / /HIGHELEVATION 100% 0%/ 0%/ last_edited_date 100% 0%/ 0%/ last_edited_user 100% / /LOWELEVATION 100% 0%/ 0%/ OBJECTID 100% 0%/ 0%/ PRESSUREDATE 100% 0%/ 0%/Shape 100% 0%/ 0%/ Shape_Area 100% 0%/ 0%/ Shape_Length 100% 0%/ 0%/ZONEID 100% 0%/ 0%/

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0AVGPRESSURE *UNIQUE* (double) Unique:



0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0HIGHELEVATION *UNIQUE* (int16) Unique:



0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0LOWELEVATION *UNIQUE* (int16) Unique:


0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0PRESSUREDATE *UNIQUE* (datetime) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0Shape *UNIQUE* (byte[]) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0Shape_Area *UNIQUE* (double) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0Shape_Length *UNIQUE* (double) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0ZONEID *UNIQUE* (int16) Unique:


WaterUtilityDistrict Table - 0 recordsPolygon


NONEPrimary Key:

AGENCY 100% / / AGENCYURL 100% / / CONTACT 100% / /created_date 100% 0%/ 0%/ created_user 100% / / DISTRICTID 100% / /DISTTYPE 100% / / EMAIL 100% / / last_edited_date 100% 0%/ 0%/last_edited_user 100% / / NAME 100% / / OBJECTID 100% 0%/ 0%/PHONE 100% / / Shape 100% 0%/ 0%/ Shape_Area 100% 0%/ 0%/Shape_Length 100% 0%/ 0%/

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0AGENCY *UNIQUE* (string255) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0AGENCYURL *UNIQUE* (string100) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0CONTACT *UNIQUE* (string50) Unique:



0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0DISTRICTID *UNIQUE* (string10) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0DISTTYPE *UNIQUE* (string50) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0EMAIL *UNIQUE* (string100) Unique:



0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0NAME *UNIQUE* (string50) Unique:


0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0PHONE *UNIQUE* (string12) Unique:





wCasing Table - 0 recordsEdge


NONEPrimary Key:

ACTIVEFLAG 100% 0%/ 0%/ created_date 100% 0%/ 0%/ created_user 100% / /DIAMETER 100% 0%/ 0%/ Enabled 100% 0%/ 0%/ FACILITYID 100% / /INSTALLDATE 100% 0%/ 0%/ last_edited_date 100% 0%/ 0%/ last_edited_user 100% / /MAINTBY 100% 0%/ 0%/ MATERIAL 100% / / Model_ID (From Label field) 100% / /ModelEnd_ID 100% / / ModelStart_D 100% / / Notes 100% / /OBJECTID 100% 0%/ 0%/ OWNEDBY 100% 0%/ 0%/ RECORDLENG 100% 0%/ 0%/SHAPE 100% 0%/ 0%/ SHAPE_Length 100% 0%/ 0%/

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0ACTIVEFLAG *UNIQUE* (int16) Unique:









0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0MAINTBY *UNIQUE* (int16) Unique:


0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0Model_ID *UNIQUE* (string20)From Label field

Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0ModelEnd_ID *UNIQUE* (string10) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0ModelStart_D *UNIQUE* (string10) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0Notes *UNIQUE* (string255) Unique:


0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0OWNEDBY *UNIQUE* (int16) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0RECORDLENG *UNIQUE* (double) Unique:




wConstructionLine Table - 0 recordsEdge


NONEPrimary Key:

created_date 100% 0%/ 0%/ created_user 100% / / Enabled 100% 0%/ 0%/last_edited_date 100% 0%/ 0%/ last_edited_user 100% / / OBJECTID 100% 0%/ 0%/SHAPE 100% 0%/ 0%/ SHAPE_Length 100% 0%/ 0%/










wControlValve Table - 0 recordsJunction


NONEPrimary Key:

ACTIVEFLAG 100% 0%/ 0%/ created_date 100% 0%/ 0%/ created_user 100% / /DIAMETER 100% 0%/ 0%/ ENABLED 100% 0%/ 0%/ FACILITYID 100% / /INSTALLDATE 100% 0%/ 0%/ last_edited_date 100% 0%/ 0%/ last_edited_user 100% / /LOCDESC 100% / / MAINTBY 100% 0%/ 0%/ Model_ID (From Label field) 100% / /Notes 100% / / OBJECTID 100% 0%/ 0%/ OWNEDBY 100% 0%/ 0%/ROTATION 100% 0%/ 0%/ SHAPE 100% 0%/ 0%/ VALVETYPE 100% / /





0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0ENABLED *UNIQUE* (int16) Unique:





0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0LOCDESC *UNIQUE* (string200) Unique:



Unique:




0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0ROTATION *UNIQUE* (double) Unique:


0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0VALVETYPE *UNIQUE* (string30) Unique:


wCurbStopValve Table - 0 recordsJunction


NONEPrimary Key:

ACTIVEFLAG 100% 0%/ 0%/ created_date 100% 0%/ 0%/ created_user 100% / /CURROPEN 100% 0%/ 0%/ DIAMETER 100% 0%/ 0%/ ENABLED 100% 0%/ 0%/FACILITYID 100% / / INSTALLDATE 100% 0%/ 0%/ last_edited_date 100% 0%/ 0%/last_edited_user 100% / / LOCDESC 100% / / MAINTBY 100% 0%/ 0%/Model_ID (From Label field) 100% / / NORMALLYOPEN 100% 0%/ 0%/ Notes 100% / /OBJECTID 100% 0%/ 0%/ OPERABLE 100% 0%/ 0%/ OWNEDBY 100% 0%/ 0%/ROTATION 100% 0%/ 0%/ SHAPE 100% 0%/ 0%/ TURNSTOCLOSE 100% 0%/ 0%/VALVETYPE 100% / /




0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0CURROPEN *UNIQUE* (int16) Unique:










Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0NORMALLYOPEN *UNIQUE* (int16) Unique:



0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0OPERABLE *UNIQUE* (int16) Unique:




0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0TURNSTOCLOSE *UNIQUE* (int32) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0VALVETYPE *UNIQUE* (string30) Unique:


wElevationPt Table - 0 recordsJunction


NONEPrimary Key:

created_date 100% 0%/ 0%/ created_user 100% / / ELEV 100% 0%/ 0%/Enabled 100% 0%/ 0%/ GPSDATE 100% 0%/ 0%/ last_edited_date 100% 0%/ 0%/last_edited_user 100% / / Model_ID (From Label field) 100% / / Notes 100% / /OBJECTID 100% 0%/ 0%/ SHAPE 100% 0%/ 0%/ VDATUM 100% / /



0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0ELEV *UNIQUE* (double) Unique:


0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0GPSDATE *UNIQUE* (datetime) Unique:




Unique:




0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0VDATUM *UNIQUE* (string50) Unique:


wFitting Table - 16,654 recordsJunction


NONEPrimary Key:

ActiveFlag 0% 0%/ 0%/ created_date 0% 0%/ 0%/ created_user 0% / /Enabled 100% 0%/ 0%/ *FacilityID 100% / / FittingType 0% / /InstallDate 0% 0%/ 0%/ last_edited_date 100% 0%/ 0%/ last_edited_user 100% / /LocDesc 0% / / MaintBy 0% 0%/ 0%/ Model_ID 96% / /Notes 0% / / *OBJECTID 100% 0%/ 0%/ OwnedBy 0% 0%/ 0%/PointX 100% 0%/ 0%/ PointY 100% 0%/ 0%/ Rotation 0% 0%/ 0%/SHAPE 100% 0%/ 0%/

1 Null/Zero/Neg: 16,646 / 0 / 0ActiveFlag (int16, 1 to 1, Avg=1.0, StDev=0.0) Unique:


1 Null/Zero/Neg: 16,653 / 0 / 0created_date (datetime, 2017 to 2017, Avg=2017.0, StDev=0.0) Unique:


1 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0Enabled (int16, 1 to 1, Avg=1.0, StDev=0.0) Unique:

Most Occuring Values Count %16,6541 (True) 100%

16,654 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0FacilityID *UNIQUE* (string10) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 16,654 / 0 / 0FittingType (string50) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 16,654 / 0 / 0InstallDate (datetime) Unique:




Most Occuring Values Count %2,24911/25/2017 12:25:41 AM 14%2,24911/25/2017 12:25:44 AM 14%2,22211/25/2017 12:25:42 AM 13%2,21411/25/2017 12:25:43 AM 13%2,21311/25/2017 12:25:40 AM 13%2,18811/25/2017 12:25:45 AM 13%1,91311/25/2017 12:25:39 AM 11%1,34911/25/2017 12:25:46 AM 8%



0 Null/Zero/Neg: 16,654 / 0 / 0LocDesc (string200) Unique:

1 Null/Zero/Neg: 16,646 / 0 / 0MaintBy (int16, 1 to 1, Avg=1.0, StDev=0.0) Unique:


15,936 Null/Zero/Neg: 716 / 0 / 0Model_ID (string20) Unique:

Most Occurring Lengths Count % 9,3244 56%Characters:5,5295 33%Characters:



0 Null/Zero/Neg: 16,654 / 0 / 0Notes (string255) Unique:


wFitting Table - 16,654 recordsJunction




91 0%Characters:

1 Null/Zero/Neg: 16,646 / 0 / 0OwnedBy (int16, 1 to 1, Avg=1.0, StDev=0.0) Unique:


16,647 Null/Zero/Neg: 1 / 0 / 0PointX (double, 13289218.52 to 13324167.94, Avg=13303814.49, StDev=6899.56) Unique:


1,54815 9%Characters:15914 1%Characters:


16,645 Null/Zero/Neg: 1 / 0 / 0PointY (double, 537795.12 to 575528.87, Avg=556810.32, StDev=8689.0) Unique:



0 Null/Zero/Neg: 16,654 / 0 / 0Rotation (double) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0SHAPE (byte[]) Unique:


wHydrant Table - 3,604 recordsJunction


NONEPrimary Key:

ActiveFlag 100% 0%/ 0%/ Corr_Type 100% / / created_date 100% 0%/ 0%/created_user 100% / / Enabled 100% 0%/ 0%/ FabDate (Corrected from SurveyHydYe 100% 3%/ 0%/*FacilityID 100% / / Flow 0% 0%/ 0%/ GNSS_Height 100% 0%/ 0%/GPS_Date 100% 0%/ 0%/ GPS_ID (ID assigned by survey contrac 100% / / GPS_Time 100% 0%/ 0%/Horz_Prec 100% 0%/ 0%/ HydColor 99% / / Hydrant_No 83% / /HydValveSize 100% / / InstallDate 0% 0%/ 0%/ last_edited_date 100% 0%/ 0%/last_edited_user 100% / / LastService 48% 0%/ 0%/ LocDesc 83% / /MaintBy 0% 0%/ 0%/ Manufacturer 100% / / Max_HDOP 100% 20%/ 0%/Max_PDOP 100% 20%/ 0%/ Model_ID (Label field from the hydrauli 0% / / Notes 0% / /*OBJECTID 100% 0%/ 0%/ Operable 0% 0%/ 0%/ OwnedBy 0% 0%/ 0%/PaintCondition 99% / / Rcvr_Type 52% / / Rotation 0% 0%/ 0%/SHAPE 100% 0%/ 0%/ *SurveyHyd_ID (ID provided to survey c 100% / / SurveyHydYear 97% 0%/ 0%/SuveyValve_ID (ID provided to survey c 36% / / Vert_Prec 100% 0%/ 0%/

1 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0ActiveFlag (int16, 1 to 1, Avg=1.0, StDev=0.0) Unique:


3 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0Corr_Type (string36) Unique:


33318 9%Characters:

Most Occuring Values Count %1,891MSRN Real Time Kinematic 52%1,380Postprocessed Carrier Float 38%

333Postprocessed Code 9%

2 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0created_date (datetime, 2017 to 2017, Avg=2017.0, StDev=0.0) Unique:


Most Occuring Values Count %1,89110/2/2017 2:22:28 PM 52%1,7139/24/2017 10:02:39 PM 48%

2 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0created_user (string255) Unique:

Most Occuring Values Count %1,891EBAYANE 52%1,713HELTZEL 48%



100 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 101 / 0FabDate (int32, 0/202 to 2017, Avg=1908.54/1963.56, StDev=327.67/48.83)Corrected from SurveyHydYear based on assumptions

Unique:


1011 3%Characters:

Most Occuring Values Count %7511908 21%2031999 6%1552010 4%1342008 4%1132005 3%1101955 3%1010 3%

931952 3%802011 2%741954 2%


0 Null/Zero/Neg: 3,604 / 0 / 0Flow (double) Unique:

3,576 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0GNSS_Height (double, 696.48 to 820.72, Avg=763.28, StDev=20.41) Unique:







57 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0GPS_Date (datetime, 2015 to 2017, Avg=2016.05, StDev=1.0) Unique:


3178 9%Characters:

Most Occuring Values Count %1759/19/2017 12:00:00 AM 5%1749/18/2017 12:00:00 AM 5%1619/21/2017 12:00:00 AM 4%1367/8/2015 12:00:00 AM 4%1369/14/2017 12:00:00 AM 4%1327/20/2015 12:00:00 AM 4%1219/25/2017 12:00:00 AM 3%1207/15/2015 12:00:00 AM 3%1187/16/2015 12:00:00 AM 3%1177/22/2015 12:00:00 AM 3%

3,499 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0GPS_ID (string255)ID assigned by survey contractor

Unique:



3,387 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0GPS_Time (datetime, 1899 to 1899, Avg=1899.0, StDev=0.0) Unique:


2,304 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 14 / 0Horz_Prec (double, 0.0/0.01 to 10.34, Avg=0.35/0.35, StDev=0.57/0.57) Unique:




314 0%Characters:

9 Null/Zero/Neg: 20 / 0 / 0HydColor (string60) Unique:



55 0%Characters:

Most Occuring Values Count %3,502YELLOW 97%

46UNKNOWN 1%

2,919 Null/Zero/Neg: 611 / 0 / 0Hydrant_No (string20) Unique:



6 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0HydValveSize (string60) Unique:


487 1%Characters:

Most Occuring Values Count %1,8775 52%1,1555.25 32%

5105.00 14%48UNKNOWN 1%




220 0%Characters:

Most Occuring Values Count %1,41011/25/2017 12:25:37 AM 39%1,41011/25/2017 12:25:38 AM 39%

75011/25/2017 12:25:36 AM 21%





24 Null/Zero/Neg: 1,891 / 0 / 0LastService (datetime, 2015 to 2015, Avg=2015.0, StDev=0.0) Unique:


2438 7%Characters:

Most Occuring Values Count %1367/8/2015 12:00:00 AM 4%1327/20/2015 12:00:00 AM 4%1207/15/2015 12:00:00 AM 3%1187/16/2015 12:00:00 AM 3%1177/22/2015 12:00:00 AM 3%1077/9/2015 12:00:00 AM 3%1067/13/2015 12:00:00 AM 3%1047/27/2015 12:00:00 AM 3%1037/28/2015 12:00:00 AM 3%

997/24/2015 12:00:00 AM 3%

2,825 Null/Zero/Neg: 611 / 0 / 0LocDesc (string200) Unique:

Most Occurring Lengths Count % 31841 9%Characters:30642 8%Characters:29143 8%Characters:26940 7%Characters:22539 6%Characters:21444 6%Characters:19945 6%Characters:17238 5%Characters:14146 4%Characters:10937 3%Characters:

Most Occuring Values Count %88NONE 2%

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 3,604 / 0 / 0MaintBy (int16) Unique:

16 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0Manufacturer (string30) Unique:




Most Occuring Values Count %1,044DARLING 29%

737Traverse City 20%478TRAVERSE CTY IW 13%308EJIW 9%285AMER-DARLING-B84B 8%281EAST JORDAN IW 8%161MUELLER 4%126MUELLER-BSR 3%

72TRAVERSE CITY IW 2%46UNKNOWN 1%

1,806 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 738 / 0Max_HDOP (double, 0.0/0.6 to 8.21, Avg=1.02/1.28, StDev=0.72/0.56) Unique:




Most Occuring Values Count %7380 20%1920.7 5%1480.8 4%1260.9 3%

731.3 2%721 2%660.6 2%371.1 1%

1,864 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 738 / 0Max_PDOP (double, 0.0/0.5 to 20.6, Avg=1.8/2.26, StDev=1.34/1.1) Unique:




Most Occuring Values Count %7380 20%1291.3 4%

841.1 2%571.2 2%511.39 1%431.4 1%431.5 1%411.53 1%381.44 1%

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 3,604 / 0 / 0Model_ID (string20)Label field from the hydraulic model

Unique:





0 Null/Zero/Neg: 3,604 / 0 / 0Operable (int16) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 3,604 / 0 / 0OwnedBy (int16) Unique:

9 Null/Zero/Neg: 20 / 0 / 0PaintCondition (string60) Unique:




Most Occuring Values Count %1,590Rusted 44%

788POOR 22%468FAIR 13%263RUST VISIBLE 7%218GOOD 6%152Chipped 4%

57PAINT FLAKED OFF 2%48UNKNOWN 1%

2 Null/Zero/Neg: 1,713 / 0 / 0Rcvr_Type (string36) Unique:


67311 19%Characters:

Most Occuring Values Count %1,218Leica GS Series 34%

673Leica GS 14 19%



3,604 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0SurveyHyd_ID *UNIQUE* (string20)ID provided to survey contractor

Unique:

95 Null/Zero/Neg: 101 / 0 / 0SurveyHydYear (int32, 1900 to 2017, Avg=1964.65, StDev=37.79) Unique:


Most Occuring Values Count %7511908 21%2031999 6%1552010 4%1342008 4%1132005 3%1101955 3%

931952 3%802011 2%741954 2%682009 2%

1,310 Null/Zero/Neg: 2,289 / 0 / 0SuveyValve_ID (string60)ID provided to survey contractor associated with the surveyed hydrant watch valve

Unique:


1,650 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 14 / 0Vert_Prec (double, 0.0/0.02 to 11.46, Avg=0.45/0.45, StDev=0.82/0.82) Unique:




514 0%Characters:


wLateralLine Table - 0 recordsEdge


NONEPrimary Key:

ActiveFlag 100% 0%/ 0%/ created_date 100% 0%/ 0%/ created_user 100% / /Diameter 100% 0%/ 0%/ Enabled 100% 0%/ 0%/ FacilityID 100% / /InstallDate 100% 0%/ 0%/ last_edited_date 100% 0%/ 0%/ last_edited_user 100% / /LineType 100% / / LocDesc 100% / / MaintBy 100% 0%/ 0%/Material 100% / / Model_ID (From Label field) 100% / / ModelEnd_ID 100% / /ModelStart_D 100% / / Notes 100% / / OBJECTID 100% 0%/ 0%/OwnedBy 100% 0%/ 0%/ SHAPE 100% 0%/ 0%/ SHAPE_Length 100% 0%/ 0%/WaterType 100% / /

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0ActiveFlag *UNIQUE* (int16) Unique:



0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0Diameter *UNIQUE* (double) Unique:


0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0FacilityID *UNIQUE* (string10) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0InstallDate *UNIQUE* (datetime) Unique:



0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0LineType *UNIQUE* (string30) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0LocDesc *UNIQUE* (string50) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0MaintBy *UNIQUE* (int16) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0Material *UNIQUE* (string20) Unique:


Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0ModelEnd_ID *UNIQUE* (string20) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0ModelStart_D *UNIQUE* (string20) Unique:



0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0OwnedBy *UNIQUE* (int16) Unique:



0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0WaterType *UNIQUE* (string30) Unique:


wMains Table - 18,653 recordsEdge


NONEPrimary Key:

ActiveFlag 100% 0%/ 0%/ created_date 0% 0%/ 0%/ created_user 0% / /Diameter 100% 0%/ 0%/ Enabled 100% 0%/ 0%/ EndNode_ID 100% / /*FacilityID 100% / / HydYearAssumed 100% 0%/ 0%/ HydYearSeed 28% 0%/ 0%/HydYearSurveyed 36% 0%/ 0%/ InstallDate 1% 0%/ 0%/ last_edited_date 100% 0%/ 0%/last_edited_user 100% / / Legacy_Counter 99% 0%/ 0%/ Legacy_FAC_ID 99% / /Legacy_FacilityID 100% / / Legacy_WSEG_ID 99% 0%/ 0%/ MaintBy 100% 0%/ 1%/Material 100% / / Model_ID 96% / / ModelCFactor 96% 0%/ 0%/ModelDemandShortfall 96% 87%/ 0%/ ModelEnd_ID 96% / / ModelMaxGradient 96% 20%/ 0%/ModelStart_ID 96% / / Notes 2% / / *OBJECTID 100% 0%/ 0%/OwnedBy 100% 0%/ 1%/ RR_AssumedInstallYear 100% 0%/ 0%/ RR_BreakRate 98% 0%/ 0%/RR_COF 100% 0%/ 0%/ RR_COF_Critical_Customer 100% 99%/ 0%/ RR_COF_Demand 100% 0%/ 0%/RR_COF_Diameter 100% 0%/ 0%/ RR_COF_Rail 100% 99%/ 0%/ RR_COF_Road 100% 60%/ 0%/RR_ConditionScore 98% 0%/ 0%/ RR_LOF 98% 0%/ 0%/ RR_PerformanceScore 100% 0%/ 0%/RR_PreviousBreaks 100% 95%/ 0%/ RR_ReplaceCost 100% 0%/ 0%/ RR_RiskScore 98% 0%/ 0%/Shape 100% 0%/ 0%/ Shape_Length 100% 0%/ 0%/ StartNode_ID 100% / /TransMiss 0% / / WaterType 0% / /

2 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 49 / 0ActiveFlag (int16, 0/1 to 1, Avg=1.0/1.0, StDev=0.05/0.0) Unique:

Most Occurring Values % Length Count %18,6041 (True) 100%100%

4 Null/Zero/Neg: 18,649 / 0 / 0created_date (datetime, 2017 to 2017, Avg=2017.0, StDev=0.0) Unique:




21 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 58 / 0Diameter (double, 0.0/2.0 to 96.0, Avg=8.08/8.1, StDev=5.07/5.06) Unique:


3,1822 17%Characters:

Most Occurring Values % Length Count %9,1726 (6") 49%51%4,5498 (8") 24%24%1,5294 (4") 8%4%1,50412 (12") 8%8%

50524 (24") 3%5%48616 (16") 3%4%28618 (18") 2%2%

2 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 49 / 0Enabled (int16, 0/1 to 1, Avg=1.0/1.0, StDev=0.05/0.0) Unique:

Most Occurring Values % Length Count %18,6041 (True) 100%100%

16,149 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0EndNode_ID (string10) Unique:


78 Null/Zero/Neg: 25 / 0 / 0HydYearAssumed (int32, 1914 to 2012, Avg=1950.98, StDev=21.23) Unique:


Most Occurring Values % Length Count %5,9961930 32%33%

7931955 4%5%7191952 4%4%5691938 3%2%4901954 3%3%4571951 2%2%4471940 2%2%4331995 2%2%4301946 2%2%4111950 2%2%

79 Null/Zero/Neg: 13,463 / 0 / 0HydYearSeed (int32, 1914 to 2012, Avg=1951.85, StDev=22.32) Unique:



2841955 2%2%2021952 1%2%



99 Null/Zero/Neg: 11,996 / 0 / 0HydYearSurveyed (int32, 202 to 2017, Avg=1956.46, StDev=53.29) Unique:


33 0%Characters:


3291999 2%2%2841955 2%2%2021952 1%2%

10 Null/Zero/Neg: 18,401 / 0 / 0InstallDate (datetime, 1950 to 2012, Avg=2003.24, StDev=11.1) Unique:





Most Occurring Values % Length Count %1,49811/25/2017 12:25:28 AM 8%6%1,49511/25/2017 12:25:34 AM 8%8%1,46911/25/2017 12:25:35 AM 8%9%1,46711/25/2017 12:25:24 AM 8%7%1,46711/25/2017 12:25:33 AM 8%8%1,46611/25/2017 12:25:31 AM 8%9%1,46611/25/2017 12:25:32 AM 8%9%1,46511/25/2017 12:25:26 AM 8%7%1,46511/25/2017 12:25:30 AM 8%7%1,46011/25/2017 12:25:27 AM 8%7%


Most Occurring Values % Length Count %18,585HELTZEL 100%99%

18,464 Null/Zero/Neg: 159 / 27 / 0Legacy_Counter (int32, 0/1 to 19672, Avg=9825.9/9840.26, StDev= Unique:



18,481 Null/Zero/Neg: 169 / 0 / 0Legacy_FAC_ID (string20) Unique:



18,646 Null/Zero/Neg: 5 / 0 / 0Legacy_FacilityID (string20) Unique:


18,490 Null/Zero/Neg: 159 / 0 / 0Legacy_WSEG_ID (int32, 1 to 18494, Avg=9247.29, StDev=5338.45) Unique:



91 0%Characters:

2 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 151MaintBy (int16, -1/1 to 1, Avg=0.98/1.0, StDev=0.18/0.0) Unique:


1512 1%Characters:

Most Occurring Values % Length Count %18,5021 (Our Agency) 99%99%

9 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0Material (string20) Unique:


1032 1%Characters:

Most Occurring Values % Length Count %18,068CAS 97%95%

290DIP 2%3%



17,936 Null/Zero/Neg: 716 / 0 / 0Model_ID (string50) Unique:




10 Null/Zero/Neg: 717 / 0 / 0ModelCFactor (double, 15.0 to 140.0, Avg=65.18, StDev=38.08) Unique:



Most Occurring Values % Length Count %8,57530 46%45%7,100110 38%40%1,53950 8%9%

29890 2%2%22470 1%2%

682 Null/Zero/Neg: 716 / 16,247 / 0ModelDemandShortfall (double, 0.0/0.0 to 2248.74, Avg=0.63/6.7, StDev= Unique:


1,4325 8%Characters:1224 1%Characters:1006 1%Characters:


32 0%Characters:


15,470 Null/Zero/Neg: 716 / 0 / 0ModelEnd_ID (string20) Unique:


6,3315 34%Characters:1,0473 6%Characters:



11,837 Null/Zero/Neg: 717 / 3,650 / 0ModelMaxGradient (double, 0.0/0.0 to 667.67, Avg=0.56/0.7, StDev=6.32/7.08) Unique:




59 0%Characters:


12,768 Null/Zero/Neg: 716 / 0 / 0ModelStart_ID (string20) Unique:








Most Occurring Lengths Count % 9715 1%Characters:5610 0%Characters:447 0%Characters:4018 0%Characters:348 0%Characters:2924 0%Characters:199 0%Characters:1612 0%Characters:146 0%Characters:

74 0%Characters:




91 0%Characters:

2 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 151OwnedBy (int16, -1/1 to 1, Avg=0.98/1.0, StDev=0.18/0.0) Unique:


1512 1%Characters:

Most Occurring Values % Length Count %18,5021 (Our Agency) 99%99%

79 Null/Zero/Neg: 3 / 0 / 0RR_AssumedInstallYear (int32, 1912 to 2012, Avg=1950.95, StDev=21.26) Unique:



7931955 4%5%7191952 4%4%5691938 3%2%4901954 3%3%4571951 2%2%4471940 2%2%4331995 2%2%4301946 2%2%4111950 2%2%

260 Null/Zero/Neg: 289 / 0 / 0RR_BreakRate (double, 2.45 to 300.0, Avg=32.43, StDev=17.26) Unique:




Most Occurring Values % Length Count %3478.75 2%2%3388.23 2%2%33111.19 2%2%27613.45 1%1%21818.29 1%1%20517.2 1%1%

5 Null/Zero/Neg: 3 / 0 / 0RR_COF (int16, 1 to 5, Avg=2.27, StDev=1.13) Unique:


Most Occurring Values % Length Count %6,1231 33%35%4,8302 26%25%4,6373 25%23%2,5804 14%14%

4805 3%4%

5 Null/Zero/Neg: 3 / 18,378 / 0RR_COF_Critical_Customer (int16, 0/2 to 5, Avg=0.06/4.21, StDev=0.51/0.81) Unique:



5 Null/Zero/Neg: 3 / 0 / 0RR_COF_Demand (int16, 1 to 5, Avg=1.1, StDev=0.34) Unique:



1,4602 8%4%1973 1%1%



5 Null/Zero/Neg: 3 / 0 / 0RR_COF_Diameter (int16, 1 to 5, Avg=1.63, StDev=0.89) Unique:



4,5492 24%24%2,4793 13%14%

5104 3%5%1915 1%2%

3 Null/Zero/Neg: 5 / 18,559 / 0RR_COF_Rail (int16, 0/3 to 4, Avg=0.02/3.35, StDev=0.23/0.48) Unique:



5 Null/Zero/Neg: 5 / 11,105 / 0RR_COF_Road (int16, 0/2 to 5, Avg=1.25/3.09, StDev=1.59/0.78) Unique:



3,4413 18%17%2,1024 11%10%1,8182 10%10%

5 Null/Zero/Neg: 289 / 0 / 0RR_ConditionScore (int16, 1 to 5, Avg=2.06, StDev=0.86) Unique:



4094 2%6%

5 Null/Zero/Neg: 289 / 0 / 0RR_LOF (int16, 1 to 5, Avg=3.13, StDev=0.98) Unique:



7931 4%2%3115 2%2%

5 Null/Zero/Neg: 3 / 0 / 0RR_PerformanceScore (int16, 1 to 5, Avg=2.91, StDev=1.15) Unique:


Most Occurring Values % Length Count %8,5354 46%45%5,6582 30%38%2,4441 13%5%1,8023 10%10%

2115 1%1%

2 Null/Zero/Neg: 3 / 17,637 / 0RR_PreviousBreaks (int16, 0/1 to 1, Avg=0.05/1.0, StDev=0.23/0.0) Unique:



1,0131 5%17%

13,890 Null/Zero/Neg: 5 / 0 / 0RR_ReplaceCost (int32, 11 to 12762527, Avg=51715.49, StDev=157119.62) Unique:

Most Occurring Lengths Count % 8,9054 48%Characters:6,7385 36%Characters:2,9396 16%Characters:


14 Null/Zero/Neg: 289 / 0 / 0RR_RiskScore (int16, 1 to 25, Avg=7.16, StDev=4.47) Unique:



Most Occurring Values % Length Count %5,0274 27%30%2,6178 14%13%2,47712 13%13%2,1402 11%11%1,5759 8%8%1,3976 7%7%1,24616 7%6%

8643 5%5%2971 2%1%29520 2%2%

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0Shape (byte[]) Unique:



17,830 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0Shape_Length (double, 0.04 to 5252.07, Avg=166.77, StDev=253.64) Unique:




13,176 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0StartNode_ID (string10) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 18,653 / 0 / 0TransMiss (string5) Unique:

1 Null/Zero/Neg: 18,629 / 0 / 0WaterType (string30) Unique:



wNetworkStructure Table - 9 recordsJunction


NONEPrimary Key:

ActiveFlag 100% 0%/ 0%/ AncillaryRole 100% 100%/ 0%/ *created_date 100% 0%/ 0%/created_user 100% / / Enabled 100% 0%/ 0%/ *FacilityID 100% / /InstallDate 0% 0%/ 0%/ last_edited_date 100% 0%/ 0%/ last_edited_user 100% / /LocDesc 0% / / MainBy 100% 0%/ 0%/ *Model_ID 100% / /Notes 0% / / *OBJECTID 100% 0%/ 0%/ OpDate 0% 0%/ 0%/OwnedBy 100% 0%/ 0%/ Rotation 0% 0%/ 0%/ SHAPE 100% 0%/ 0%/StructName 56% / / StructType 100% / /


Most Occuring Values Count %91 (True) 100%

1 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 9 / 0AncillaryRole (int16, 0/0 to 0, Avg=0.0/0.0, StDev=0.0/0.0) Unique:

Most Occuring Values Count %90 (None) 100%

9 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0created_date *UNIQUE* (datetime, 2017 to 2017, Avg=2017.0, StDev=0.0) Unique:


Most Occuring Values Count %9EBAYANE 100%




0 Null/Zero/Neg: 9 / 0 / 0InstallDate (datetime) Unique:


Most Occuring Values Count %911/25/2017 12:25:23 AM 100%


Most Occuring Values Count %9HELTZEL 100%

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 9 / 0 / 0LocDesc (string200) Unique:

1 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0MainBy (int16, 1 to 1, Avg=1.0, StDev=0.0) Unique:


9 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0Model_ID *UNIQUE* (string20) Unique:


0 Null/Zero/Neg: 9 / 0 / 0Notes (string255) Unique:

9 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0OBJECTID *UNIQUE* (int32, 2 to 10, Avg=6.0, StDev=2.74) Unique:


0 Null/Zero/Neg: 9 / 0 / 0OpDate (datetime) Unique:

1 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0OwnedBy (int16, 1 to 1, Avg=1.0, StDev=0.0) Unique:

Most Occuring Values Count %91 (Our Agency) 100%

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 9 / 0 / 0Rotation (double) Unique:



wNetworkStructure Table - 9 recordsJunction

5 Null/Zero/Neg: 4 / 0 / 0StructName (string20) Unique:


1 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0StructType (string30) Unique:

Most Occuring Values Count %9Storage Basin 100%


wPump Table - 14 recordsJunction


NONEPrimary Key:

ActiveFlag 100% 0%/ 0%/ AncillaryRole 100% 100%/ 0%/ *created_date 100% 0%/ 0%/created_user 100% / / DesHead 0% 0%/ 0%/ DesignGPM 0% 0%/ 0%/DishDiam 0% 0%/ 0%/ DynHead 0% / / *Elevation 100% 0%/ 0%/Enabled 100% 0%/ 0%/ *FacilityID 100% / / InletDiam 0% 0%/ 0%/InstallDate 0% 0%/ 0%/ last_edited_date 100% 0%/ 0%/ last_edited_user 100% / /LocDesc 0% / / MaintBy 100% 0%/ 0%/ MaxOpDisc 0% 0%/ 0%/MaxopHead 0% 0%/ 0%/ *Model_ID 100% / / Notes 0% / /*OBJECTID 100% 0%/ 0%/ OwnedBy 100% 0%/ 0%/ PumpName 93% / /PumpType 0% / / RatedFlow 0% / / RatedPress 0% / /Rotation 0% 0%/ 0%/ SHAPE 100% 0%/ 0%/ ShutHead 0% 0%/ 0%/



1 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 14 / 0AncillaryRole (int16, 0/0 to 0, Avg=0.0/0.0, StDev=0.0/0.0) Unique:

Most Occuring Values Count %140 (None) 100%

14 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0created_date *UNIQUE* (datetime, 2017 to 2017, Avg=2017.0, StDev=0.0) Unique:


Most Occuring Values Count %14EBAYANE 100%

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 14 / 0 / 0DesHead (double) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 14 / 0 / 0DesignGPM (double) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 14 / 0 / 0DishDiam (double) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 14 / 0 / 0DynHead (string20) Unique:

14 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0Elevation *UNIQUE* (double, 717.49 to 764.44, Avg=736.22, StDev=18.62) Unique:




0 Null/Zero/Neg: 14 / 0 / 0InletDiam (double) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 14 / 0 / 0InstallDate (datetime) Unique:


Most Occuring Values Count %1411/25/2017 12:25:23 AM 100%


Most Occuring Values Count %14HELTZEL 100%

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 14 / 0 / 0LocDesc (string200) Unique:

1 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0MaintBy (int16, 1 to 1, Avg=1.0, StDev=0.0) Unique:


0 Null/Zero/Neg: 14 / 0 / 0MaxOpDisc (double) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 14 / 0 / 0MaxopHead (double) Unique:


wPump Table - 14 recordsJunction



29 14%Characters:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 14 / 0 / 0Notes (string255) Unique:

14 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0OBJECTID *UNIQUE* (int32, 15 to 28, Avg=21.5, StDev=4.18) Unique:

1 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0OwnedBy (int16, 1 to 1, Avg=1.0, StDev=0.0) Unique:


13 Null/Zero/Neg: 1 / 0 / 0PumpName (string50) Unique:


29 14%Characters:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 14 / 0 / 0PumpType (string50) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 14 / 0 / 0RatedFlow (string20) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 14 / 0 / 0RatedPress (string20) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 14 / 0 / 0Rotation (double) Unique:


0 Null/Zero/Neg: 14 / 0 / 0ShutHead (double) Unique:


wSamplingStation Table - 0 recordsJunction


NONEPrimary Key:

ActiveFlag 100% 0%/ 0%/ Address 100% / / created_date 100% 0%/ 0%/created_user 100% / / DisinfRuled 100% / / Elevation 100% 0%/ 0%/Enabled 100% 0%/ 0%/ InstallDate 100% 0%/ 0%/ last_edited_date 100% 0%/ 0%/last_edited_user 100% / / MainBy 100% 0%/ 0%/ Model_ID 100% / /Notes 100% / / OBJECTID 100% 0%/ 0%/ OwnedBy 100% 0%/ 0%/Rotation 100% 0%/ 0%/ SampleVal 100% / / SHAPE 100% 0%/ 0%/SpDate 100% 0%/ 0%/ StationID 100% / / StationName 100% / /ThreshHit 100% / /

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0ActiveFlag *UNIQUE* (int16) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0Address *UNIQUE* (string255) Unique:



0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0DisinfRuled *UNIQUE* (string3) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0Elevation *UNIQUE* (double) Unique:


0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0InstallDate *UNIQUE* (datetime) Unique:



0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0MainBy *UNIQUE* (int16) Unique:




0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0OwnedBy *UNIQUE* (int16) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0Rotation *UNIQUE* (double) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0SampleVal *UNIQUE* (string3) Unique:


0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0SpDate *UNIQUE* (datetime) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0StationID *UNIQUE* (string10) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0StationName *UNIQUE* (string50) Unique:

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0ThreshHit *UNIQUE* (string3) Unique:


wServiceConnection Table - 0 recordsJunction


NONEPrimary Key:

ACCOUNTID 100% / / ACTIVEFLAG 100% 0%/ 0%/ created_date 100% 0%/ 0%/created_user 100% / / CRITICAL 100% 0%/ 0%/ ENABLED 100% 0%/ 0%/FacilityID 100% / / INSTALLDATE 100% 0%/ 0%/ last_edited_date 100% 0%/ 0%/last_edited_user 100% / / LOCATIONID 100% / / LOCDESC 100% / /MAINTBY 100% 0%/ 0%/ METSERVICE 100% / / Model_ID 100% / /Notes 100% / / OBJECTID 100% 0%/ 0%/ OWNEDBY 100% 0%/ 0%/ROTATION 100% 0%/ 0%/ SERVICETYPE 100% / / SHAPE 100% 0%/ 0%/

0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0ACCOUNTID *UNIQUE* (string30) Unique:




0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0CRITICAL *UNIQUE* (int16) Unique:






0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0LOCATIONID *UNIQUE* (string20) Unique:



0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0METSERVICE *UNIQUE* (string5) Unique:






0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0SERVICETYPE *UNIQUE* (string50) Unique:



wStructure Table - 0 recordsPolygon


NONEPrimary Key:

ACTIVEFLAG 100% 0%/ 0%/ created_date 100% 0%/ 0%/ created_user 100% / /FACILITYID 100% / / INSTALLDATE 100% 0%/ 0%/ last_edited_date 100% 0%/ 0%/last_edited_user 100% / / LOCDESC 100% / / MAINTBY 100% 0%/ 0%/NAME 100% / / OBJECTID 100% 0%/ 0%/ OPDATE 100% 0%/ 0%/OWNEDBY 100% 0%/ 0%/ Shape 100% 0%/ 0%/ Shape_Area 100% 0%/ 0%/Shape_Length 100% 0%/ 0%/ STRUCTTYPE 100% / /










0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0NAME *UNIQUE* (string20) Unique:


0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0OPDATE *UNIQUE* (datetime) Unique:





0 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0STRUCTTYPE *UNIQUE* (string30) Unique:


wSystemValve Table - 9,577 recordsJunction


NONEPrimary Key:

ActiveFlag 0% 0%/ 0%/ BypassValve 0% 0%/ 0%/ ClockToClose 61% 61%/ 0%/Corr_Type 100% / / created_date 100% 0%/ 0%/ created_user 100% / /CurrOpen 0% 0%/ 0%/ DepthOfBury 14% 8%/ 0%/ Diameter 86% 0%/ 0%/Enabled 100% 0%/ 0%/ *FacilityID 100% / / GNSS_Height 100% 0%/ 0%/GPS_Date 100% 0%/ 0%/ GPS_ID 14% / / GPS_Time 100% 0%/ 0%/Horz_Prec 100% 0%/ 0%/ HydrFlag 14% 0%/ 0%/ InstallDate 0% 0%/ 0%/last_edited_date 100% 0%/ 0%/ last_edited_user 100% / / LocDesc 86% / /MaintBy 0% 0%/ 0%/ Max_HDOP 100% 6%/ 0%/ Max_PDOP 100% 6%/ 0%/Model_ID 0% / / NormallyOpen 0% 0%/ 0%/ Notes 0% / /*OBJECTID 100% 0%/ 0%/ Operable 0% 0%/ 0%/ OwnedBy 0% 0%/ 0%/Rcvr_Type 100% / / Rotation 0% 0%/ 0%/ SHAPE 100% 0%/ 0%/SurveyValve_ID (ID provided to survey 100% / / TurnsToClose 86% 24%/ 0%/ ValveType 86% / /Vert_Prec 100% 0%/ 0%/

1 Null/Zero/Neg: 9,567 / 0 / 0ActiveFlag (int16, 1 to 1, Avg=1.0, StDev=0.0) Unique:


1 Null/Zero/Neg: 9,567 / 10 / 0BypassValve (int16, 0/0 to 0, Avg=0.0/0.0, StDev=0.0/0.0) Unique:


2 Null/Zero/Neg: 3,738 / 5,829 / 0ClockToClose (int16, 0/1 to 1, Avg=0.0/1.0, StDev=0.04/0.0) Unique:


Most Occuring Values Count %5,8290 (False) 61%

5 Null/Zero/Neg: 10 / 0 / 0Corr_Type (string36) Unique:


29311 3%Characters:

Most Occuring Values Count %6,076Postprocessed Carrier Float 63%1,854Postprocessed Code 19%1,339MSRN Real Time Kinematic 14%

293Uncorrected 3%

146 Null/Zero/Neg: 0 / 0 / 0created_date (datetime, 2017 to 2017, Avg=2017.0, StDev=0.0) Unique:

Most Occuring Values Count %8,2289/24/2017 10:13:46 PM 86%



1 Null/Zero/Neg: 9,567 / 0 / 0CurrOpen (int16, 1 to 1, Avg=1.0, StDev=0.0) Unique:


28 Null/Zero/Neg: 8,282 / 773 / 0DepthOfBury (double, 0.0/0.01 to 15.0, Avg=0.46/1.15, StDev=1.31/1.87) Unique:




13 Null/Zero/Neg: 1,362 / 0 / 0Diameter (double, 2.0 to 30.0, Avg=7.12, StDev=2.85) Unique:


7152 7%Characters:

Most Occuring Values Count %5,4936 (6") 57%1,7158 (8") 18%

39312 (12") 4%2604 (4") 3%13116 (16") 1%






9,550 Null/Zero/Neg: 10 / 0 / 0GNSS_Height (double, 640.23 to 9999.0, Avg=768.69, StDev=212.05) Unique:





106 Null/Zero/Neg: 10 / 0 / 0GPS_Date (datetime, 2015 to 2017, Avg=2015.28, StDev=0.69) Unique:


Most Occuring Values Count %2946/8/2015 12:00:00 AM 3%2616/9/2015 12:00:00 AM 3%2596/2/2015 12:00:00 AM 3%2576/16/2015 12:00:00 AM 3%2566/24/2015 12:00:00 AM 3%2566/3/2015 12:00:00 AM 3%2536/10/2015 12:00:00 AM 3%2486/11/2015 12:00:00 AM 3%2476/25/2015 12:00:00 AM 3%2386/18/2015 12:00:00 AM 2%

1,280 Null/Zero/Neg: 8,238 / 0 / 0GPS_ID (string255) Unique:



8,257 Null/Zero/Neg: 10 / 0 / 0GPS_Time (datetime, 1899 to 1899, Avg=1899.0, StDev=0.0) Unique:


8,727 Null/Zero/Neg: 15 / 13 / 0Horz_Prec (double, 0.0/0.02 to 106.12, Avg=0.93/0.93, StDev=2.35/2.35) Unique:




213 0%Characters:

2 Null/Zero/Neg: 8,228 / 10 / 0HydrFlag (int16, 0/1 to 1, Avg=0.99/1.0, StDev=0.09/0.0) Unique:






321 0%Characters:

Most Occuring Values Count %1,53011/25/2017 12:25:48 AM 16%1,50011/25/2017 12:25:47 AM 16%1,50011/25/2017 12:25:49 AM 16%1,50011/25/2017 12:25:50 AM 16%1,50011/25/2017 12:25:51 AM 16%1,50011/25/2017 12:25:52 AM 16%

30011/25/2017 12:25:46 AM 3%24411/25/2017 12:25:53 AM 3%





113 Null/Zero/Neg: 1,349 / 0 / 0LocDesc (string200) Unique:




Most Occuring Values Count %6,450NONE 67%1,050AT GIVEN INTERSECTION 11%

298AT GIVEN ADDRESS 3%107AT GIVEN ADDRESS IN STREET 1%

1 Null/Zero/Neg: 9,567 / 0 / 0MaintBy (int16, 1 to 1, Avg=1.0, StDev=0.0) Unique:


8,221 Null/Zero/Neg: 10 / 549 / 0Max_HDOP (double, 0.0/0.08 to 35.25, Avg=1.38/1.46, StDev=0.92/0.88) Unique:




Most Occuring Values Count %5490 6%1860.7 2%1510.8 2%1070.9 1%

8,326 Null/Zero/Neg: 10 / 549 / 0Max_PDOP (double, 0.0/0.94 to 46.6, Avg=2.75/2.92, StDev=1.63/1.53) Unique:





10 Null/Zero/Neg: 9,567 / 0 / 0Model_ID (string20) Unique:


1 Null/Zero/Neg: 9,567 / 0 / 0NormallyOpen (int16, 1 to 1, Avg=1.0, StDev=0.0) Unique:






91 0%Characters:

1 Null/Zero/Neg: 9,567 / 0 / 0Operable (int16, 1 to 1, Avg=1.0, StDev=0.0) Unique:


1 Null/Zero/Neg: 9,567 / 0 / 0OwnedBy (int16, 1 to 1, Avg=1.0, StDev=0.0) Unique:




4 Null/Zero/Neg: 10 / 0 / 0Rcvr_Type (string36) Unique:


46111 5%Characters:

Most Occuring Values Count %7,687GeoXH 6000 80%

878Leica GS Series 9%541GeoXH 2008-3000 6%461Leica GS 14 5%



9,567 Null/Zero/Neg: 10 / 0 / 0SurveyValve_ID (string20)ID provided to survey contractor

Unique:


88 Null/Zero/Neg: 1,349 / 2,311 / 0TurnsToClose (int32, 0/1 to 298, Avg=16.36/22.75, StDev=16.51/15.28) Unique:


463 0%Characters:

Most Occuring Values Count %2,3110 24%1,46720 15%

90919 9%69421 7%34026 4%31725 3%24527 3%20918 2%18822 2%1791 2%

6 Null/Zero/Neg: 1,355 / 0 / 0ValveType (string30) Unique:



719 0%Characters:

Most Occuring Values Count %6,073GATE NOT GEARED 63%2,045UNKNOWN 21%

5,826 Null/Zero/Neg: 15 / 13 / 0Vert_Prec (double, 0.0/0.02 to 100.58, Avg=1.31/1.31, StDev=3.27/3.27) Unique:




213 0%Characters:


wTestStation Table - 0 recordsJunction


NONEPrimary Key:

created_date 100% 0%/ 0%/ created_user 100% / / Enabled 100% 0%/ 0%/INSTALLDATE 100% 0%/ 0%/ last_edited_date 100% 0%/ 0%/ last_edited_user 100% / /Model_ID 100% / / OBJECTID 100% 0%/ 0%/ SHAPE 100% 0%/ 0%/











Arcadis of Michigan, LLC

28550 Cabot Drive

Suite 500

Novi, Michigan 48377

Tel 248 994 2240

Fax 248 994 2241 www.arcadis.com

2018-01-31 flint amp final - michigan...asset management – asset management is an integrated set...

Documents