MSD Final Merger Study

Metropolitan Sewerage District
Buncombe County, North Carolina
Impact Study on MSD Rate

Payers of Proposed
Consolidation/Merger
Phase I City of Asheville
Water System and
Phase II Water Systems in
Buncombe County
March 20, 2013
Report Prepared By:
ARCADIS G&M of North

Carolina
Table of Contents
Contents
Executive Summary
ES-1
ES.1. Purpose and Overview of Study................................................................................ ES-1

ES.2. Metropolitan Sewerage District ................................................................................. ES-1
ES.2.1. Overview of System ...................................................................................... ES-1
ES.2.2. MSD Organization and Management............................................................ ES-2
ES.2.3. Billing and Collections ................................................................................... ES-4
ES.2.4. Description of Assets ..................................................................................... ES-4
ES.2.5. Condition of Assets ....................................................................................... ES-4
ES.2.6. Capital Improvement Program ...................................................................... ES-5
ES.2.7. Financial Condition and Utility Rates ............................................................ ES-5
ES.3. Asheville Water System ............................................................................................ ES-6
ES.3.1. Overview of System ...................................................................................... ES-6
ES.3.2. Asheville Water Resources Department Organization and Management ....ES-7
ES.3.3. City Functions and Major Contracts .............................................................. ES-7
ES.3.4. Condition of Assets ....................................................................................... ES-8
ES.3.5. Financial Condition and Utility Rates (City).................................................ES-10
ES.4. Phase I Evaluation of Consolidation/Merger ...........................................................ES-12
ES.4.1. Organization and Management...................................................................ES-12
ES.4.2. Financial Analysis .......................................................................................ES-15
ES.4.3. Regulatory Analysis ....................................................................................ES-20
ES.5. Water Systems in Buncombe County ......................................................................ES-20
ES.5.1 Town of Biltmore Forest ............................................................................ES-20
ES.5.1.1 Biltmore Forest System Condition ...................................................ES-21
ES.5.1.2 Biltmore Forest Water Department Organization ............................ES-21
ES.5.1.3 Biltmore Forest Operations and Capital Projects ............................ES-22
ES.5.1.4 Biltmore Forest Financial Condition and Water Rates ....................ES-22
ES.5.2 Town of Montreat ......................................................................................ES-23
ES.5.2.1 Montreat Water System Condition...................................................ES-23
ES.5.2.1.1 Water System Assets ..................................................................ES-23
ES.5.2.1.2 Water System Condition ..............................................................ES-24
ES.5.2.2 Montreat Water Department Organization .....................................ES-24
ES.5.2.3 Montreat Operations and Capital Projects ......................................ES-26
ES.5.2.3.1 Operations and Regulatory Review ..............................................ES-26
ES.5.2.3.2 Capital Program ............................................................................ES-26
ES.5.2.4 Montreat Financial Condition and Water Rates...............................ES-27
ES.5.3 Town of Weaverville ..................................................................................ES-29
ES.5.3.1 Weaverville System Condition .........................................................ES-30
ES.5.3.1.1 Water System Assets ................................................................ES-30
ES.5.3.1.2 Water System Condition ............................................................ES-30
ES.5.3.2 Weaverville Water Department Organization ................................ES-31
ES.5.3.3 Weaverville Operations and Capital Projects ..................................ES-32
ES.5.3.3.1 Operations and Regulatory Review ..............................................ES-32
ES.5.3.3.2 Capital Program ............................................................................ES-33
ES.5.3.3.3 Water Supply Alternative ..............................................................ES-33
ES.5.3.4 Weaverville Financial Condition and Water Rates ..........................ES-34
ES.5.4 Phase II Evaluation of Consolidation / Merger ..........................................ES-35
ES.6. Conclusions ..............................................................................................................ES-40

Impact Study on MSD Rate Payers of Proposed
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1-1
1.1. Purpose of Report ......................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2. Overview of Study ......................................................................................................... 1-1
2. Metropolitan Sewerage District
2-1
2.1. Overview of System ...................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2. Service Area.................................................................................................................. 2-2
2.3. Organization and Management..................................................................................... 2-3
2.4. Billing and Collections ................................................................................................... 2-5
2.5. Description of Assets .................................................................................................... 2-5
2.5.1.
Collection System .......................................................................................... 2-5
2.5.2.
Wastewater Reclamation Facility (WRF) ...................................................... 2-6
2.5.3.
Hydroelectric Dam ......................................................................................... 2-7
2.6. Condition of Assets ....................................................................................................... 2-7
2.6.1.
Collection System .......................................................................................... 2-7
2.6.2.
Wastewater Reclamation Facility .................................................................. 2-8
2.6.3.
Regulatory Compliance ................................................................................. 2-8
2.6.3.1. NPDES Permit .................................................................................... 2-8
2.6.3.2. Air Permit ............................................................................................ 2-8
2.6.3.3. Collection System Permit .................................................................... 2-8
2.7. Operations and Maintenance ........................................................................................ 2-9
2.8. Capital Improvement Program .................................................................................... 2-10
2.9. Financial Condition and Utility Rates .......................................................................... 2-11
2.9.1.
Fiscal Policies and Requirements ............................................................... 2-11
2.9.2.
Historical Financial Results and Current Financial Condition ..................... 2-12
2.9.3.
Sewer User Charges ................................................................................... 2-13
3. Asheville Water System
3-1
3.1. Overview of Water System ........................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1.
Watershed and Water Treatment Facilities ................................................... 3-1
3.1.2.
Transmission and Distribution System .......................................................... 3-1
3.2. Service Area.................................................................................................................. 3-2
3.3.1.
Organizational Overview and Staffing Levels ............................................... 3-3
3.3.2.
City Functions Related to the Water System ................................................ 3-4
3.3.3.
Major Contracts ............................................................................................. 3-5
3.4. Description of Assets .................................................................................................... 3-5
3.5. Condition Assessment .................................................................................................. 3-7
3.5.1.
Field Visits ..................................................................................................... 3-8
3.5.2.
Treatment Plants ........................................................................................... 3-8
3.5.3.
Pump Stations ............................................................................................... 3-9
3.5.4.
Distribution System ..................................................................................... 3-10
3.5.5.
Other Water Infrastructure........................................................................... 3-10
3.6. Operations and Maintenance ...................................................................................... 3-12
3.6.1.
Utility Operations ......................................................................................... 3-12
3.6.2.
Permits and Regulatory Compliance........................................................... 3-13
3.7. Capital Improvement Program .................................................................................... 3-19
ii
Table of Contents
3.8. Financial Condition and Utility Rates (City) ................................................................ 3-24
3.8.1.
Fiscal Policies .............................................................................................. 3-24
3.8.2.
Historical Financial Results ......................................................................... 3-25
3.8.3.
Water Rates, Fees, and Charges ................................................................ 3-27
3.8.4.
City Indirect Costs ....................................................................................... 3-29
3.8.4.1. Building / Office Space...................................................................... 3-30
3.8.4.2. Customer Service and Billing ............................................................ 3-31
3.8.4.3. Engineering ....................................................................................... 3-31
3.8.4.4. Financial Budgeting, Accounting, Financial Reporting .................. 3-31
3.8.4.5. Fleet .................................................................................................. 3-32
3.8.4.6. Human Resources ............................................................................ 3-32
3.8.4.7. Information Technology .................................................................... 3-33
3.8.4.8. Inventory Management ..................................................................... 3-34
3.8.4.9. Purchasing ........................................................................................ 3-34
3.8.4.10. Risk Management ............................................................................. 3-34
3.8.4.11. Other City Indirect Costs ................................................................... 3-34
4. Phase I Evaluation of Consolidation / Merger
4-1

4.1.1.
Staffing .......................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.1.1. Staffing Level Analysis ........................................................................ 4-1
4.2. Operations and Maintenance ........................................................................................ 4-6
4.3. Infrastructure and Improvements .................................................................................. 4-6
4.4. Financial Analysis ......................................................................................................... 4-7
4.4.1.
Cost Impacts ................................................................................................. 4-7
4.4.1.1. Building / Office Space........................................................................ 4-7
4.4.1.2. IT Integration ....................................................................................... 4-8
4.4.1.3. City Indirect Costs ............................................................................... 4-8
4.4.1.4. Sullivan Act Transfers ....................................................................... 4-10
4.4.1.5. Other Transactional Costs ................................................................ 4-10
4.4.1.6. Cost Impact Summary ...................................................................... 4-10
4.4.2.
Cash Flow Projections ................................................................................. 4-11
4.4.2.1. Baseline Scenario ............................................................................. 4-15
4.4.2.2. Merger Scenario 1 ............................................................................ 4-16
4.4.2.3. Merger Scenario 2 ............................................................................ 4-17
4.4.2.4. Merger Scenario 3 ............................................................................ 4-18
4.5. Regulatory Analysis .................................................................................................... 4-19
4.5.1.
Federal Issues ............................................................................................. 4-19
4.5.2.
State and Local Issues ................................................................................ 4-20
4.5.2.1. Sullivan Act ....................................................................................... 4-20
4.5.3.
Assignment/Transfer of Permits .................................................................. 4-21
5. Water Systems in Buncombe County (Phase II)
5-1
5.1. Biltmore Forest .............................................................................................................. 5-1

5.1.1.
System Overview and Service Area .............................................................. 5-1
5.1.2.
Description of Assets ..................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.3.
Condition of System ...................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.4.
Organization and Management ..................................................................... 5-2
5.1.5.
Operations and Maintenance ........................................................................ 5-2
5.1.6.
Capital Projects ............................................................................................. 5-2
5.1.7.
Financial Condition and Utility Rates ............................................................ 5-2
iii
Table of Contents
5.2. Town of Montreat .......................................................................................................... 5-4
5.2.1.
System Overview and Service Area .............................................................. 5-4
5.2.2.
Description of Assets ..................................................................................... 5-4
5.2.3.
Condition of System ...................................................................................... 5-5
5.2.3.1. Field Visits ........................................................................................... 5-6
5.2.4.
Organization and Management ..................................................................... 5-6
5.2.5.
Operations and Maintenance ........................................................................ 5-7
5.2.5.1. Utility Operations ................................................................................. 5-7
5.2.5.2. Permits and Regulatory Compliance .................................................. 5-8
5.2.6.
Capital Projects ........................................................................................... 5-10
5.2.7.
Financial Condition and Utility Rates .......................................................... 5-12
5.3. Weaverville.................................................................................................................. 5-16
5.3.1.
System Overview and Service Area ............................................................ 5-16
5.3.2.
Description of Assets ................................................................................... 5-16
5.3.3.
Condition of System .................................................................................... 5-17
5.3.3.1. Field Visits ......................................................................................... 5-17
5.3.4.
Organization and Management ................................................................... 5-18
5.3.5.
Operations and Maintenance ...................................................................... 5-20
5.3.5.1. Utility Operations............................................................................... 5-20
5.3.5.2. Permits and Regulatory Compliance ................................................ 5-20
5.3.6.
Capital Projects ........................................................................................... 5-22
5.3.7.
Financial Condition and Utility Rates .......................................................... 5-24
5.4. Evaluation of Consolidation / Merger .......................................................................... 5-28
5.4.1.
Staffing ........................................................................................................ 5-28
5.4.2.
Infrastructure and Improvements ................................................................ 5-29
5.4.3.
Operations and Maintenance ...................................................................... 5-30
5.4.4.
Financial Analysis ........................................................................................ 5-30
5.4.4.1. Phase II Merger Impacts ................................................................... 5-31
6. Summary and Conclusions
6-1
6.1. Summary of Evaluation ................................................................................................. 6-1

6.1.1.
Phase I Evaluation ........................................................................................ 6-1
6.1.2.
Phase II Evaluation ....................................................................................... 6-3
List of Tables
Table ES-1: Existing Water Rates City of Asheville...........................................................ES-11
Table ES-2: Projection of Staffing Levels and Salaries / Benefits Under Merged Scenario.. ..ES-14
Table ES-3: Summary of Cost Savings Merger Scenario 1 ..................................................ES-17
Table ES-6: Existing Water Rates Town of Biltmore Forest .................................................ES-23
Table ES-7: Water System 5 Year CIP for the Town of Montreat ............................................ES-27
Table ES-8: Water System Historical Financial Ratio Summary for the Town of Montreat .....ES-28
Table ES-9: Existing Water Rates Town of Montreat ............................................................ES-29
Table ES-10: Water System 5 Year CIP for the Town of Weaverville .....................................ES-33
Table ES-11: Existing Water Rates Town of Weaverville .....................................................ES-35
Table ES 12: Summary of Cost Savings From the Merger with the Town of Biltmore Forest .ES-38
Table ES 13: Summary of Cost Savings From the Merger with the Town of Montreat ...........ES-38
iv
Table of Contents
Table ES 14: Summary of Cost Savings From the Merger with the Town of Weaverville (Scenario
1) ...............................................................................................................................................ES-39
Table ES 15: Summary of Cost Savings From the Merger with the Town of Weaverville (Scenario
2) ...............................................................................................................................................ES-39
Table 2-1: MSD Historical Financial Results .............................................................................. 2-12
Table 2-2: MSD Historical Financial Results Ratio Summary ................................................. 2-13
Table 2-3: Historical Sewer Rate Trends ................................................................................... 2-15
Table 3-1: List of Tanks ................................................................................................................ 3-5
Table 3-2: List of Pump Stations .................................................................................................. 3-6
Table 3-3: Pump Station Condition Assessment .......................................................................... 3-9
Table 3-4: Tank and PRV Condition Assessment ...................................................................... 3-11
Table 3-5: Summary of Permits .................................................................................................. 3-14
Table 3-6: Federal Drinking Water Regulations ......................................................................... 3-14
Table 3-7: City of Asheville Water Quality Report ...................................................................... 3-16
Table 3-8: Asheville Water System 5 Year CIP ....................................................................... 3-20
Table 3-9: City Water System Historical Financial Results ........................................................ 3-26
Table 3-10: City Water System Historical Financial Results Ratio Summary ......................... 3-27
Table 3-11: Existing Water Rates City of Asheville ................................................................. 3-28
Table 3-12: Historical Water Rate Trends .................................................................................. 3-28
Table 3-13: Summary of Indirect Costs Allocated to the Water Resources Department ........... 3-30
Table 4-1: Projection of Staffing Levels and Salaries / Benefits Under Merged Scenario ........... 4-4
Table 4-2: Summary of Cost Savings Merger Scenario 1 ....................................................... 4-12
Table 4-3: Summary of Cost Savings Merger Scenario 2 ....................................................... 4-13
Table 4-4: Summary of Cost Savings Merger Scenario 3 ..................................................... 4-14
Table 4-5: Financial Projection Summary Baseline Scenario ................................................. 4-16
Table 4-6: Financial Projection Summary Merger Scenario 1 ................................................. 4-17
Table 5-1: Water System Historical Financial Results for the Town of Biltmore Forest............... 5-3
Table 5-2: Existing Water Rates Town of Biltmore Forest ........................................................ 5-3
Table 5-3: Town of Montreat Supply Wells .................................................................................. 5-5
Table 5-4: Water System 5 Year CIP for the Town of Montreat ................................................. 5-10
Table 5-5: Water System Historical Financial Results for the Town of Montreat ....................... 5-13
Table 5-6: Water System Historical Financial Ratio Summary for the Town of Montreat .......... 5-14
Table 5-7: Existing Water Rates Town of Montreat................................................................. 5-15
Table 5-8: Summary of Permits .................................................................................................. 5-20
Table 5-9: Federal Drinking Water Regulations ......................................................................... 5-21
Table 5-10: 2011 Town of Weaverville Water Quality Report .................................................... 5-22
Table 5-11: Water System 5 Year CIP for the Town of Weaverville .......................................... 5-23
Table 5-12: Water System Historical Financial Results for the Town of Weaverville ................ 5-25
Table 5-13: Water System Historical Financial Ratio Summary for the Town of Weaverville.... 5-26
Table 5-14: Existing Water Rates Town of Weaverville .......................................................... 5-27
Table 5-15: Summary of Cost Savings From the Merger with the Town of Biltmore Forest ...... 5-33
Table 5-16: Summary of Cost Savings From the Merger with the Town of Montreat ................ 5-33
Table 5-17: Summary of Cost Savings From the Merger with the Town of Weaverville (Scenario
1) ................................................................................................................................................. 5-34
Table 5-18: Summary of Cost Savings From the Merger with the Town of Weaverville (Scenario
2) ................................................................................................................................................. 5-34
List of Figures
Figure ES-1: MSD Service Area Map. .................................................................................... ES-2
Table of Contents
Figure ES-2: Town of Montreat Organizational Structure. ....................................................ES-25
Figure ES-3: Town of Weaverville Public Works Organizational Structure. .........................ES-32
Figure 2-1: MSD Service Area Map.............................................................................................. 2-2
Figure 4-1: Projected Staffing Levels .......................................................................................... 4-5
Figure 5-1: Town of Montreat Organizational Structure ............................................................... 5-7
Figure 5-2: Town of Weaverville Public Works Organizational Structure................................... 5-19
Appendices
A.
Existing Organizational Structure for the MSD and City of Asheville Water Resources
Department
B.
Asset Information / Site Inspection Summary (Phase I and II)
C.
Financial Model (Spreadsheet Scenarios) (Phase I)

vi
Executive Summary
ES.1. Purpose and Overview of Study
The Municipal Sewerage / Water System Committee (Committee) submitted a final
report to the Legislative Research Commission on the merger of the City of Asheville
(City) water system with the Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County, NC
(MSD or District). The Committee report provided a number of recommendations for
the implementation of a merger of the City water system with MSD. The legislation will
potentially require the City water system to merge with MSD and potentially include
other water systems in Buncombe County. The legislation was originally anticipated to
be brought before the North Carolina House of Representatives in January 2013.
In advance of the promulgation of any legislation by the North Carolina legislature, the
MSD retained ARCADIS G&M of North Carolina (ARCADIS) to conduct a detailed
study of the potential financial impact to MSD ratepayers of a proposed merger of the
City water system and other water systems in Buncombe County with MSD (Report).
The study was conducted in two phases:
Phase I City water system, including the former Buncombe County water system
Phase II - Town of Biltmore Forest, Town of Montreat and Town of Weaverville
The purpose of this Report is to study, identify and quantify financial impacts to MSD
rate payers associated with the proposed merger of these water systems with the MSD.
The review and evaluation of legal, governance, valuation and compensation issues is
beyond the scope of this study. It is our understanding that the analysis of such issues will
be performed subject to the enactment of the proposed legislation. In accordance with
the schedule outlined by the MSD, the findings and conclusions of Phase I of this study
were presented to the MSD Planning Committee and MSD Board in November 2012 and
Phase II of this study were presented to the MSD Planning Committee in February 2013.
ES.2. Metropolitan Sewerage District

ES.2.1. Overview of System
The MSD was established in 1962 to provide wastewater treatment and collection to the
municipalities and sanitary districts within Buncombe County. The MSD provides
wastewater transport and treatment for most of the urbanized portion of Buncombe
County, North Carolina. Its service area is over 180 square miles and services over
125,000 customers. Most of the MSDs customers are located inside its geographical
boundaries. The MSD provides wastewater collection and treatment for the City and
ES-1
Executive Summary
surrounding communities, including Biltmore Forest, Weaverville, Black Mountain,

Montreat, Woodfin, Woodfin Sanitary Water & Sewer District, and certain
unincorporated areas of Buncombe County. Through separate contractual arrangements,
the MSD also serves customers in the Cane Creek Water and Sewer District in northern
Henderson County and in the Avery Creek Sanitary Sewer District in southern Buncombe
County.
Figure ES-1 illustrates the MSDs service area.
Figure ES-1: MSD Service Area Map
ES.2.2. MSD Organization and Management

The MSD is governed by a Board comprised of twelve members appointed by the
governing bodies of eight local governments and other political subdivisions and serve
threeyear overlapping terms:
City of Asheville (3 members)
ES-2
Executive Summary
Buncombe County (3 members)

Biltmore Forest (1 member)
Black Mountain (1 member)
Montreat (1 member)
Weaverville (1 member)
Woodfin Sanitary Water and Sewer District (1 member)
Town of Woodfin (1 member)
The Board is solely responsible for setting rates and fees for service. The Chairman,
Vice-chairman and Secretary-Treasurer are elected annually by the Board. The Board
employs the General Manager (currently Thomas Hartye, P.E.), who is responsible for
managing all MSD operations.
The organizational chart shown below presents the current governing management
structure of MSD.
Including the General Manager and his Executive Secretary, MSD has a total of 148 fulltime equivalent (FTE) staff.

ES-3
Executive Summary
ES.2.3. Billing and Collections

The MSD direct bills approximately 460 industrial and well-water customers, it also
contracts with the municipalities and other member agencies which furnish water on a
retail basis to residential customers for billing and collecting the Districts user charges
and fees from such users. The fee that the MSD pays for billing and collections is
included as a separate item on such bills.
The City currently serves and bills approximately 85 percent of the users of the MSDs
facilities. The other municipalities and political subdivisions rendering such billing and
collection services to the MSD are the Woodfin Sanitary Water and Sewer District and
the towns of Biltmore Forest, Weaverville, Black Mountain and Montreat. Henderson
County, North Carolina also renders billing and collection services to the MSD for
customers located in the Cane Creek Water and Sewer District, which is located in
adjacent Henderson County.
ES.2.4. Description of Assets
The MSD owns and operates a regional wastewater collection and treatment system in
Buncombe County NC. Wastewater is treated at its 40 million gallons per day (MGD)
secondary treatment plant serving Buncombe County (specifically Asheville, Biltmore
Forest, Black Mountain, Montreat, Weaverville, Woodfin and Buncombe County at
large). Overall the MSD treatment facility serves approximately 125,000 residential and
commercial customers and over 20 distinct industries. For FY2012, the average daily
flow through the plant was 18.7 MGD and the maximum flow treated was 50.2 MGD.
Sludge from the treatment process is either burned in an incinerator or processed in an
alkaline stabilization process to produce Nutri-Lime, an agricultural supplement.
In addition, the MSD owns and operates the Craggy Dam hydroelectric generating
facility on the French Broad River adjacent to the Wastewater Reclamation Facility
(WRF). This facility is capable of generating enough electricity to supply most of the
needs of the WRF, and is rated at 2,550 kW.
The MSD covers approximately 180 square miles and the collection system includes over
974 miles of public sanitary sewer line, 32 public pump stations and approximately
27,700 manhole access points.
ES.2.5. Condition of Assets
Based on review of available documents, including regulatory compliance reports, the
MSD assets provide effective wastewater treatment and collection. The WRF provides
effective/efficient treatment services to the community, averaging carbonaceous
biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) and total suspended solids (TSS) removal
efficiencies of 93 percent and 90 percent, respectively. Flow to the WRF remains well
below hydraulic capacity for the plant, with an average flow of 18.7 million gallons per
ES-4
Executive Summary
day. The WRF remained in compliance for all permitted parameters and received a
favorable review by N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) and Western North Carolina Regional Air Quality Agency (WNCRAQA)
regional office staff with respect to the annual facility inspections. In addition, the WRF
has demonstrated consistent compliance with its major permits (i.e., National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), air, collection system). The MSD has also
achieved several industry recognition awards for its performance. For example, in FY
2012 it received the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) Peak
Performance Award for tenth consecutive year acknowledging Treatment Plant
compliance.
The MSD has undertaken an aggressive program to correct existing known collection
system problems. Between 1990 and 2011, over 880,000 linear feet of pipe have been
replaced and over $259 million has been re-invested in sewer rehabilitation projects.
However, due to the large size of the MSD system, there is much work still to be done.
From 2011 to 2021, the MSD expects to rehabilitate or replace an additional 500,000
linear feet of pipe.
Over the past 21 years, the MSD has reinvested $275 million in its wastewater system,
with average annual CIP spending of $13.1 million over the period. This average amount
corresponds to approximately 1.2 percent replacement rate as compared to the FY2011
estimated replacement cost of assets. The total CIP spending over the period comprised
approximately 59 percent of the total operating revenues generated over the same period,
and indicates a significant focus on capital reinvestment.
The MSDs collection system has experienced a significant reduction in the number of
sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) since 2000 as a result of its proactive approach to
system maintenance. The trend has been continual, down from 289 SSOs in FY2000 to
25 in FY2012.
ES.2.6. Capital Improvement Program
The MSD has developed both a Collection System Master Plan and Treatment Plant
Facilities Plan to guide development of a 10-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
These documents are regularly updated to reflect member agency planning efforts and
development trends, as well as changing economic conditions and system needs. MSD
utilizes a CIP Committee, comprised of representatives from all of their member
agencies, that makes annual recommendations to the MSD Board regarding program
priorities. The MSD has planned for a ten-year CIP totally approximately $149 million.
ES.2.7. Financial Condition and Utility Rates
The MSD fiscal policies and procedures are reflective of its strong fiscal management of
its wastewater utility. MSD has kept debt levels relatively low as indicated by its low
ES-5
Executive Summary
debt to equity ratio, moderate amount of outstanding debt per customer, and consistently
high debt service coverage. The moderate amount of outstanding debt per customer is
reflective of MSDs focus of capital reinvestment. MSDs solid historical financial
results have aided MSD in maintaining its strong credit rating. MSDs credit is rated
AA+ by Fitch Ratings, Aa2 by Moodys, and AA by Standard & Poors.
The MSD Board of Directors has the authority to set rates and fees. Monthly sewer rates
consist of three components; a maintenance charge, a billing charge, and a treatment
(volume) charge.
The maintenance charge recovers service, inspection, and
maintenance-related operational and capital costs, and is charged based on water meter
size. Currently, the MSD domestic user charge is $3.98 per ccf (in District) and $3.99
(out of District) and its billing charge is $2.21 per bill. Additional rates and charges are
provided in the MSD ordinance.
ES.3. Asheville Water System

ES.3.1. Overview of System
The Citys water system is comprised of 3 water treatment plants (WTPs), 40 pump
stations, 32 ground storage tanks, approximately 1,660 miles of pipe, 11 pressure
reducing valves, one pressure sustaining valve, and one control valve. The mountainous
terrain requires 39 independent pressure zones to avoid extreme (i.e., excessive or
minimal) pressures. The current system supplies water to areas that range in elevation
from 1,950 to 3,700 feet mean sea level (MSL). The existing distribution system
provides over 21 million gallons of potable water to approximately 125,000 people on an
average daily basis, including the recently acquired Buncombe County water system.
Runoff from a 17,000 acre protected watershed in Buncombe County provides roughly 7
billion gallons of stored water in the Burnette and Bee Tree reservoirs. This raw water
supply is treated at two facilities: the William DeBruhl WTP (5 MGD) and the North
Fork WTP (31.5 MGD). The Mills River/French Broad River provides an additional raw
water source. This raw water is treated at the Mills River WTP (7.5 MGD). The William
DeBruhl WTP, which is located adjacent to the Bee Tree Reservoir approximately 9
miles northeast of downtown Asheville, was constructed in 1985. The North Fork WTP,
which is roughly 12 miles northeast of downtown Asheville, came online in 1955. The
William DeBruhl and North Fork WTPs provide potable water to the eastern, western,
and northern sections of the system. In 1999, the Mills River WTP was placed in
service. It is located 15 miles south of downtown Asheville and primarily supplies
potable water to the southern portion of the system. Total permitted capacity is 44 MGD,
compared to an average daily demand of 21 MGD.
The existing distribution network consists of over 1,660 miles of pipe ranging in diameter
from two-inches to 36-inches. Approximately 80 percent of the system demand is
supplied by the North Fork and William DeBruhl WTPs.
ES-6
Executive Summary
The City system provides water to approximately 125,000 customers.

ES.3.2. Asheville Water Resources Department Organization and
Management
The Citys Water Resources Department (the Water Resources Department) is run by a
Director who is administratively responsible to the City Manager. The organization
structure for the Water Resources Department is presented below.
The management structure consists of the City Manager, Water Resources Director, and
five Divisions, each led by a Division Manager reporting up to the Water Resources
Director. Including the Water Resources Director and his Administrative Assistant, the
Water Resources Department has a total of 147 FTEs.
ES.3.3. City Functions and Major Contracts
The City provides services to the Water Resources Department for which the Water
Resources Department pays indirect costs to the Citys General Fund. These services
include: engineering, budgeting, accounting and financial reporting, fleet management,
human resources, information technology, inventory management, purchasing and risk
management. The Water Resources Department also has a number of service contracts in
ES-7
Executive Summary
place related to the operation and maintenance of its water system.

contracts include:
These service
Building maintenance
Grounds maintenance
Utility bill printing, stuffing and mailing
Office supplies and equipment
Water storage tank cleaning, coating and painting
Street restoration/paving, and
Capital projects construction
ES.3.4. Condition of Assets
The condition of the Citys major water system assets was assessed based on focused
field investigations, visual observations, and information made available by the City.
Field investigations of major assets (e.g., storage tanks, pump stations, treatment
facilities, and other above ground assets) of the City Water System were completed.
Given the time constraints of the project and the detailed evaluations already conducted
by others, assessment of the systems dams was based solely on the results of such
reports and investigations.
Each of the Citys three water treatment facilities was visited by an ARCADIS water
system specialist, along with a representative number of the most critical tanks and
pumping stations in the system. For buried infrastructure such as water distribution
mains, we relied on available field inspection and maintenance information compiled by
others, along with other representative reports, as available.
The general condition of all three water treatment facilities is good, reflecting recent
renovation projects and the Citys proper attention to maintenance. Relatively minor
issues such as painting, small leak repair, corrosion, and general housekeeping were
noted, and are detailed in this Report. The City currently holds the following permits and
certifications: Public Water Supply Operating Permits, NPDES permits, Air Quality
permits, state laboratory permits, State Laboratory Certification and Wastewater
Laboratory Certification. Based on the data reports in the 2011 Annual Water Quality
Report, the City Water System is in compliance with all Federal Drinking Water Rules.
Due to the mountainous terrain in Ashevilles water system, approximately 40 pump
stations are needed to provide adequate pressure to the various pressure zones. Many of
these pump stations are located in series with other tanks and pump stations to create
stepped pressure zones along areas having significant elevation differences.

ES-8
Executive Summary
A representative sample of pump stations was visited for condition assessment purposes.
The pump stations visited were selected by the City as representative of the City water
system based on several factors, including but not limited to size, type, age, condition,
etc. Since many of the facilities were constructed within the last 20 years, it is
anticipated that conditions will likely be similar from location to location. With the
exception of two pumps requiring maintenance at the Black Mountain pump station, the
pump stations appear to be in good condition.
With respect to its distribution system, the City has embarked on a program to identify
and replace segments of its distribution system based on recommendations provided
Brown & Caldwell (2006 Report) and JJ&G (2009 Master Plan Report). The City has
been able to achieve a level of replacement of approximately 30,000 feet per year (0.3
percent of total system annually). The JJ&G Report recommended a replacement level of
80,000 feet per year (1 percent of total system).
The City is in the process of updating its Replacement Planning Model (RPM) by Brown
& Caldwell. It is anticipated that the updated RPM will identify and prioritize specific
water segments according to a certain schedule.
The Citys water system consists of a series of different pressure zones to account for the
mountainous terrain. Each of these pressure zones, as well as each treatment plant, has at
least one tank to provide storage and suction for its associated pumping facilities. These
tanks are generally constructed of either pre-stressed concrete, steel, or bolted steel with a
glass fused lining. In addition to the tanks, various pressure reducing valves (PRVs) also
provide connectivity between different pressure zones. Similar to the pump stations, a
representative sample of tanks and PRVs was visited for condition assessment purposes.
With the exception of Poplar Ridge Tank which was observed to have an active leak, the
remaining tanks observed appeared to be in good condition.
The City typically prepares a rolling 5-year CIP for the Water System that is updated
each year to account both for projects that have already had funds encumbered and those
that are added to or deleted from the list. The City is currently updating their latest CIP
and expanding it to 10 years to match the same planning horizon as MSD.
The Citys water system CIP is typically divided into the following categories:
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) projects
Distribution System projects (generated from the Asset Management Plan)
Water Production projects
Neighborhood Water Line Replacement projects (generated from the RPM model)
Water Master Plan projects (generated from the 2009 JJ&G Water Master Plan)
ES-9
Executive Summary
The original CIP provided by the City to MSD in August, 2012 identified recommended
projects totaling approximately $37 million for the FY2012/13 through FY2016/17
planning period. According to City staff, this number represented the amount of funding
that would be available to address CIP projects, and not necessarily the entire actual
project needs of the system. City staff revised the CIP in October, 2012 to include all
anticipated needs, resulting in a 5-year CIP totaling approximately $66 million for
FY2013/14 through FY2017/18. Further, an estimate of $22 million/year was provided
for the succeeding 5-year period later revised down to $12 million, but without any
specific project detail.
ES.3.5. Financial Condition and Utility Rates (City)
The City Water Resources Department has fiscal policies and/or requirements, such as
revenue covenants, debt service coverage requirements, debt to equity targets, and capital
financing policies which guide the fiscal management of its water utility.
Over the past 21 years, the City has reinvested $181 million in its water system, with an
average annual CIP spending of $8.6 million over the period. This average amount
corresponds to a replacement rate of approximately 0.7 percent of the FY2011
replacement cost of assets. The total CIP spending over the period comprised
approximately 38 percent of the total operating revenues generated over the same period.
The City has kept debt levels relatively low as indicated by its moderately low debt to
equity ratio, relatively low amount of outstanding debt per customer, and variable but
consistently moderate to high debt service coverage. These historical financial results
have aided the City in maintaining its strong water utility credit rating. The Citys
underlying water utility credit rating is Aa2 by Moodys, and AA by Standard & Poors.
The City Council sets the water rates, and no other agency or body regulates or has
authority over the Citys utility rates. The Citys user charge structure consists of (1) an
administrative charge that recovers direct billing and collection cost, (2) volume charges
that vary based on the cost of providing service to different classes of customers, and (3)
a capital improvement charge that varies by meter size and is intended to recover the cost
of water system infrastructure improvements. There is also no variation in water rates
between City water customers located inside and outside the corporate limits of the City,
which is not permitted in accordance with the Sullivan Acts passed by the N.C. General
Assembly. A summary of the existing water rates is provided in Table ES-1.

ES-10
Executive Summary
Table ES-1:
Existing Water Rates City of Asheville

Rate Per
CCF
Description
Base Fee
Per Bill
Consumption Charge
Meter Size
Monthly
Charge
Capital Improvement charge
Single Family Residential

Multi-Family
$3.77
$3.19
$6.00
$6.00
Commercial (<= 1,000 ccf monthly)

Commercial (>1,000 ccf monthly)
$3.19
$1.69
$6.00
$6.00
Commercial (<=2,000 ccf bimonthly)

Commercial (>2,000 ccf bimonthly)
$3.19
$1.69
$6.00
$6.00
Base Fee
All water accounts are charged a $6.00 base fee per bill
5/8"
3/4"
1"
1-1/2"
2"
3"
4"
6"
8"
10"
$3.82
4.37
52.42
87.36
152.88
480.48
840.84
1,081.08
1,321.32
1,561.56
The City also charges other miscellaneous fees and charges for specific water-related
services. For example, the City charges a delinquent bill fee of $15, disconnect/reconnect
fees of $50, and establish or transfer of service fees of $55. These and other
miscellaneous fees generated approximately $1.7 million for the Water Resources Fund
in FY2012. A complete list of miscellaneous fees related to the Citys water system can
be found on the Citys website.
The Citys General Fund provides support services to the Water Resources Department
and these costs are allocated to the Water Resources Department through indirect
charges. In 2011, a Central Services Cost Allocation Plan 1 was completed which detailed
the indirect cost allocations to the City. These costs totaled approximately $2,076,000.
In FY 2009 through FY2012, indirect costs were as follows:
FY2009: $2,324,365
FY2010: $2,676,753
FY2011: $2,499,821
FY2012: $2,349,404
FY2013: $2,206,649 (budgeted)
These indirect charges include costs related to building/office space, customer service
and building, engineering, financial, fleet, human resources, information technology,
Central Services Cost Allocation Plan, City of Asheville, Maximus, Inc. 2011.
ES-11
Executive Summary
inventory management, purchasing, risk management, and other City indirect costs (i.e.,
allocation of elected officials/governing body) and administration (i.e., City Manager).
ES.4. Phase I Evaluation of Consolidation/Merger

ES.4.1. Organization and Management
Under a consolidated/merged organization and management structure, all functions
associated with water and wastewater service in the Asheville area would be unified,
including purchasing, billing and bill collection, engineering, human resources,
information technology, fleet management, etc., which could result in cost savings. For
purposes of this study, it was assumed that the consolidation would not change the
personnel makeup of either service provider and the existing water and sewer functions
would report to the MSD General Manager and the MSD Board of Directors. In order to
evaluate the projected staffing levels and associated potential financial impact of a
consolidated organization, the following assumptions were utilized:
All City Water Resources Department employees, including currently funded
vacancies, will be part of the consolidated organization. The only potential staff
reductions considered were those resulting from retirements or natural attrition.
A potential of thirteen (13) additional staff would be hired to fully replace/provide
services that the City currently provides to the Water Resources Department for
which the Water Resources Department currently pays indirect costs to the Citys
General Fund of approximately $2.4 million per year. These staff are in the areas of:
- Financial Services (2), for Purchasing and Inventory Management
- Human Resources (2)
- Information Technology (3)
- Fleet Maintenance, Building Trades, and additional administrative duties (6)
All eligible retirees will retire, but in most cases rehiring will occur to fill vacated
positions. However, there are instances where effective management and reengineering of existing positions may be possible; thus, negating the need to fill a
position vacated due to retirement.
Staff were deemed eligible to retire based on meeting any one of the following
conditions:
- 30 years of service
- 25 years of service and age 60
- Age 66
Annual attrition rate assumed to be 3 percent of total budgeted staff, of which 75
percent are assumed to be refilled over the study period (as it is not possible to
determine where the natural attrition will occur within each organization, a detailed
analysis of job descriptions, roles, responsibilities, duties and the potential to cover
such functions with remaining staff was unable to be performed).
ES-12
Executive Summary
MSD has averaged 4.0 percent annual turnover since FY2004. With the filling of
the majority of those vacated positions, MSD has still lowered its budgeted staff
count from 167 to 148 since FY2001.
- The Water Resources Department has averaged 11.4 percent annual turnover
since FY2005 and has increased its staff from 126 to 147 over that same
timeframe. There is no anticipated staff increase for operational work that is not
currently being performed by the Water Resources Department.
- Other utilities have experienced similar and even greater efficiency gains than
these turnover rates associated with cross-training, job-sharing, and reengineering of positions as part of organizational consolidation efforts.
Annual salaries and fringe benefits inflationary rate assumed to be 3 percent for
consolidated organization.
Using the assumptions identified above, along with a review of job descriptions and
associated roles, responsibilities, and duties of individual MSD and Water Resources
Department staff, an analysis was performed to identify the projected staffing levels
required of the consolidated organization. This analysis was carried for each of the next
ten years, allows for the projection of staffing levels and associated salaries and benefits
costs associated with consolidation, as presented in the following table.

ES-13
Executive Summary
Table ES-2:
Projection of Staffing Levels and Salaries / Benefits Under Merged Scenario
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
FY 2019
FY 2020
FY 2021
FY 2022
295
293
291
287
285
283
279
276
274
270
Consolidated Organization
Full-Time Employees1
Retirement Eligible
14
12
10
16
Retirement Position Rehired3
12
11
15
Natural Attrition4
6
293
6
291
6
287
6
285
6
283
6
279
6
276
6
274
6
270
6
267
Natural Attrition Rehired5

FY-End Staff Count
Subtotal Salaries and Benefits6
20,651,680 $ 21,658,962 $ 22,134,605 $ 22,775,263 $ 23,432,474 $ 23,806,327 $ 24,263,199 $ 24,810,184 $ 25,181,812 $ 25,656,088
Additional Post-Merger Staff7

Additional Staff Cost8
0
$
Total FY-End Staff Count
293
Total Salaries and Benefits Costs:
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
$ 1,281,056 $ 1,319,488 $ 1,359,072 $ 1,399,845 $ 1,441,840 $ 1,485,095 $ 1,529,648 $ 1,575,537 $ 1,622,804

304
300
298
296
292
289
287
283
280
20,651,680 $ 22,940,018 $ 23,454,093 $ 24,134,335 $ 24,832,318 $ 25,248,167 $ 25,748,294 $ 26,339,832 $ 26,757,349 $ 27,278,891
Data for FY 2013 provided by MSD and City of Asheville Water Dept.
2
Projected based on personnel dates of birth and dates of hire provided by MSD and the City of Asheville Water Dept.
3
Projected based on analysis of job descriptions, roles, and responsibilities of retirement eligible staff from both organizations, anticipated efficiency gains and re-engineering of positions, as well as converations with MSD HR personnel
4
Assumed at 3% of each organization's staffing level
5
Assumed that 25% of natural attrition positions will not be replaced due to efficiency gains and re-engineering of positions
6
Based on average salaries and fringe benefits calculated from MSD and City Water Department FY 2013 Budget Detail for Salaries and Fringe Benefits. Starting in FY 2014, City staff health benefit was increased from current $8,950 to $11,645,
which is MSD's health benefit cost per employee. In addition, City Water Dept. staff salaries and fringe benefits not including healthcare were increased by 6.4% over a 4-yr period (FY 2014-17) to mirror the compensation adjustments for MSD
staff over the past four years. Salaries and Fringe Benefits were also inflated 3% annually.
7
Additional staff required to fully replace/provide services that the City of Asheville currently provides to the Water Dept. for which the Water Dept. pays indirect costs to the City's General Fund of approximately $2.4 million annually.
8
Cost for additional post-merger staff, which includes compensation adjustments for supervisory staff taking on additional responsibility, inflated at 3% annually.

Impact Study on MSD Rate Payers of Proposed Consolidation/Merger
ES-14
Executive Summary
Based on the information provided in the table above, it is projected that the combined
staffing levels could decrease from 304 initially post-consolidation, to 280 in FY2022.
This represents an approximate 1 percent average annual reduction, which is reasonable
considering the historical attrition trends and projected retirement eligibility. It is also
reasonable based on what other, similar utilities have experienced as a result of the
efficiency gains associated with cross-training, job-sharing, and re-engineering of
positions that is often a part of organizational consolidation efforts. The majority of the
positions eligible for retirement during the 10-year timeframe, that are projected to not be
filled once they become vacant, are associated with sewer collection system and water
distribution system maintenance, which have the greatest overlap of skill sets, training,
and knowledge.
It should be noted that for this analysis, Water Resources Department staff salaries and
benefits were projected to increase by $2,695 per employee beginning in FY2014 to
eliminate the current discrepancy between the Water Resources Departments healthcare
benefit costs per employee ($8,950) and MSDs healthcare benefit costs per employee
($11,645). However, it is quite possible that the overall healthcare costs per employee
for the consolidated utility will be reduced after consolidation, due to the increased
buying power of a larger organization.
In addition, the City Water Department staff salaries and fringe benefits not including
healthcare were increased 3 percent annually with an additional 6.4 percent over a 4-yr
period (FY2014-17) to mirror the compensation adjustments for MSD staff over the past
four years.
ES.4.2. Financial Analysis
The financial analysis of the City/MSD merger was prepared under the following
assumptions:
MSD would retain all current City Water Resources Department employees, and
these employees would be subject to the same MSD personnel policies applicable to
current MSD employees;
MSD would assume all City water system indebtedness;
MSD would keep water accounting and sewer accounting separate following the
merger, with no immediate impact to sewer customers or MSDs long-term business
plan;
All City water customers, including wholesale customers would remain unchanged
after the merger; and
Evaluation of cost impacts, if any, associated with compensation to the City for water
system assets was beyond the scope of this study.

ES-15
Executive Summary
A summary of the costs and benefits associated with the merger were prepared under
three merger scenarios. Merger Scenario 1 assumes MSD transfers all of the staff from
the Citys Water Resources Department to MSD and maintains that level of staffing from
FY2014 through FY2022. Merger Scenario 1 does not reflect the opportunities for
operational efficiencies. Merger Scenario 2 assumes MSD transfers all of the staff from
the Citys Water Resources Department to MSD and reduces staff through attrition and
retirements, as described above. Merger Scenario 2 incorporates the water staff
operational efficiencies that are projected to be realized as a result of the merger. Merger
Scenario 3 incorporates potential reductions in MSD staff through attrition and
retirements directly related to the merger. The projected cost savings of the merger under
these three scenarios are shown in Tables ES-3, ES-4, and ES-5.
It is anticipated that the net savings associated with the merger under Merger Scenario 1
is approximately $10.3 million over the period FY2014 through FY2022, or an average
annual savings of approximately $1.1 million. It is anticipated that the net savings
associated with the merger under Merger Scenario 2 is approximately $16.8 million over
the period, or an average annual savings of approximately $1.9 million per year. These
savings estimates only include the impact to water operations. However, it is expected
that additional operational savings could also be realized as a result of the merger which
could result in reduction in MSD staff through attrition and retirements, saving an
additional $5.1 million over the period. Therefore, the total estimated annual savings
under Merger Scenario 3 is $21.9 million, or an average annual savings of $2.4 million
per year. These projected net savings could result in the lowering of the City projected
water rate increases under the merger scenarios.
In addition to the savings identified above, merging the Water with MSD would mean the
elimination of NCDOT Non-betterment costs for water line relocation for NCDOT
projects. The savings can be significant, i.e. millions of dollars. For instance, this cost
from 2001-2012 ranged from $6.7 Million to $14.5 Million based on City records. Major
NCDOT projects slated for the next ten years have recently been delayed but eventually
would have significant budgetary (and rate) impacts to the water system under the City of
Asheville. The non-betterment costs would not apply to MSD due to the NC General
Statutes and therefore would not be borne by the water customer.

ES-16
Executive Summary
Table ES-3:
Summary of Cost Savings Merger Scenario 1

FY2013
Description
FY2014
City vs MSD Water Salaries and Benefits Cost Difference

Elimination of City Overhead Charges
Addition of 13 Postions (Salary & Benefits)
Elimination of Sullivan Act Transfers included in City CIP
Customer Service & Maintenance Buildings
Additional Cost for IT Integration
Transaction Cost - Legal, Engineering, Financing
Elimination of MSD Sewer Billing (Net of Adjusted Revenue)
- $
-
Total Annual Cost (Savings) of Merger
- $
Total Cost (Savings) Over 9 Years

Average Annual Savings
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
853,555 $ 1,023,587 $ 1,054,294 $ 1,085,923 $ 1,118,501 $ 1,152,056 $ 1,186,617

692,560 $
540,219 $
(2,879,176)
(2,795,317)
(2,713,900)
(2,634,854)
(2,558,111)
(2,483,603)
(2,411,265)
(2,341,034)
(2,272,848)
1,622,804
1,575,537
1,529,648
1,485,095
1,441,840
1,399,845
1,359,072
1,319,488
1,281,056
(1,900,401)
(1,874,137)
(1,848,306)
(1,676,578)
(1,676,578)
(1,676,578)
(1,676,578)
(1,676,578)
(1,341,262)
1,400,000
2,600,000
1,735,000
700,000
3,242,165 $
(605,564) $ (1,875,215) $ (1,736,750) $ (1,738,555) $ (1,740,414) $ (1,914,057) $ (1,941,861) $ (1,970,156)
$ (10,280,406)
(1,142,267)

ES-17
Executive Summary
Table ES-4:

Description
FY2013
City vs Water MSD Salaries and Benefits Cost Difference

Reduction in Salaries and Benefits Cost - Water Staff Attrition

FY2014
- $
- $
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
540,219 $
692,560 $
853,555 $ 1,023,587 $ 1,054,294 $ 1,085,923 $ 1,118,501 $ 1,152,056 $ 1,186,617
(135,514)
(282,863)
(368,956)
(461,924)
(713,673)
(898,435)
(1,009,514)
(1,213,100)
(1,427,992)
(2,272,848)
(2,341,034)
(2,411,265)
(2,483,603)
(2,558,111)
(2,634,854)
(2,713,900)
(2,795,317)
(2,879,176)
1,281,056
1,319,488
1,359,072
1,399,845
1,441,840
1,485,095
1,529,648
1,575,537
1,622,804
(1,341,262)
(1,676,578)
(1,676,578)
(1,676,578)
(1,676,578)
(1,676,578)
(1,848,306)
(1,874,137)
(1,900,401)
2,600,000
1,400,000
1,735,000
700,000
3,106,651 $
(888,427) $ (2,244,171) $ (2,198,674) $ (2,452,228) $ (2,638,849) $ (2,923,571) $ (3,154,961) $ (3,398,147)
$ (16,792,377)
(1,865,820)

ES-18
Executive Summary
Table ES-5:

Description
FY2013

Reduction in Salaries and Benefits Cost - Wastewater Attrition
CS & Maintenance Buildings

FY2014
- $
- $
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
540,219 $
692,560 $
853,555 $ 1,023,587 $ 1,054,294 $ 1,085,923 $ 1,118,501 $ 1,152,056 $ 1,186,617
(135,514)
(282,863)
(368,956)
(461,924)
(713,673)
(898,435)
(1,009,514)
(1,213,100)
(1,427,992)
(162,112)
(250,463)
(343,970)
(442,861)
(547,376)
(657,764)
(774,282)
(897,199)
(1,026,795)
(2,272,848)
(2,341,034)
(2,411,265)
(2,483,603)
(2,558,111)
(2,634,854)
(2,713,900)
(2,795,317)
(2,879,176)
1,281,056
1,319,488
1,359,072
1,399,845
1,441,840
1,485,095
1,529,648
1,575,537
1,622,804
(1,341,262)
(1,676,578)
(1,676,578)
(1,676,578)
(1,676,578)
(1,676,578)
(1,874,137)
(1,900,401)
(1,848,306)
2,600,000
1,400,000
1,735,000
700,000
2,944,539 $ (1,138,891) $ (2,588,141) $ (2,641,535) $ (2,999,604) $ (3,296,613) $ (3,697,853) $ (4,052,160) $ (4,424,942)
$ (21,895,199)
(2,432,800)

ES-19
Executive Summary
ES.4.3. Regulatory Analysis

Rules Governing Public Water Supply are codified in the North Carolina Administrative
Code Title 15A, Subchapter 18C. Federal regulations are adopted by reference in the
State Rules. The current water system is in compliance with all drinking water
regulations, as is shown in the Report, and continued compliance is expected with the
consolidated/merged system.
As an existing public water system, the City currently has all of these documents in place.
A merger with MSD would require that these documents be revised, as applicable, and in
the case of the Water System Management Plan submitted to the Public Water Supply
Section. At a minimum, the changes to these plans would include MSD as the owner.
Assuming that current operation policies remain in place, any additional revisions are
anticipated to be minor.
ES.5. Water Systems in Buncombe County

Subsequent to the complete of the Phase I (Asheville) study, the Phase II analysis was
conducted to study, identify and quantify financial impacts to MSD rate payers associated
with the proposed merger of the Towns of Biltmore Forest, Montreat, and Weaverville
water systems with the MSD. The Phase II analysis addresses those water districts in
Buncombe County who have expressed potential interest in being included in this
consolidation impact analysis. As with Phase I, the review of legal, governance,
valuation and compensation issues is beyond the scope of the Phase II analysis. It is our
understanding that the analysis of such issues will be performed subject to the enactment
of the proposed legislation and part of subsequent negotiations.
ES.5.1 Town of Biltmore Forest
The Town of Biltmore Forest (Biltmore Forest or Town) is a town in Buncombe
County, North Carolina with a population in 2011 of 1,526. The Town was incorporated
in 1923. The Town built its water system in the early 1920s, has always purchased water
on a wholesale basis from the City of Asheville, and provides retail water service to its
customers. In 2011 the average daily amount of water purchased from the City was
approximately 0.172 million gallons per day (mgd). The Towns contract with the City
allows the Town to purchase up to 0.35 mgd, and the contract expires in 2022.
The Town estimates that the population will grow from 1,526 to 1,610 between 2011 and
2020, which is an average of approximately 0.6 percent per year. The Town reports in its
Local Water Supply Plan that it has only one significant parcel left for future
development (approximately 20 home sites), and there is no additional land in the Town
available for commercial, industrial, or institutional development other than that which

ES-20
Executive Summary
currently exists. There are currently 762 residential customers, nine commercial
customers, and nine institutional customers within the system. 2
ES.5.1.1 Biltmore Forest System Condition
The water system consists of approximately 20 miles of distribution pipelines, of which

approximately 80 percent are ductile iron between 2 inches and 6 inches in diameter, and
20 percent are ductile iron above 6 inches in diameter.
Since the Towns water assets consist of only distribution pipelines and no aboveground
infrastructure, a field inspection was not conducted. The Town reports that with an
existing local water purchase agreement with the City of Asheville, no future
improvements are anticipated to be required within the Town to meet present and future
quantity and quality needs. The vast majority (approximately 85 percent) of the water
lines in the system were replaced in 2002, eliminating known deficiencies in the system.
ES.5.1.2 Biltmore Forest Water Department Organization
Redundancy of service functions of each municipality provides the opportunity for the
reduction of staffing levels. For purposes of this study, it was assumed that the
consolidation would not change the personnel makeup of water department staff of the
Towns, and current full-time water system staff would be transferred to MSD and would
report to the MSD General Manager and the MSD Board of Directors. Since neither the
Town of Biltmore Forest nor Montreat have dedicated full-time water department staff, it
was assumed that no staff positions from these Towns would transfer to MSD following
the merger. However, since each town spends approximately 1,100 hours of staff time
per year operating and maintaining their respective water system utilities, it was assumed
that 0.5 FTEs for each (1.0 FTE in total) would be required by MSD to operate and
maintain these systems after a potential consolidation/merger.
Since the Town of Weaverville has approximately nine (9) budgeted full-time water
system staff (currently eight filled positions) that manage, operate, and maintain the
Towns water system, it was assumed (under Scenario 1) that all nine full-time staff
would be transferred to MSD following the merger. These positions include the
following:
Water Distribution Supervisor
Water Maintenance Crew Chief
Skilled Laborers (2)
Water Projection ORC
Chief Operator
2
2011 Local Water Supply Plan for Biltmore Forest.

ES-21
Executive Summary
Plant Operators (2)

With the addition of these staff positions to the MSD organization, there is the potential
to reduce the number of total water system staff over time through cross-training
initiatives. Similar to the analysis performed for the potential consolidation of MSD and
the City of Asheville Water Resources Department, it is anticipated that any reductions in
staff would only occur through retirements and attrition. However, since there are no
full-time water system staff from the Town that are eligible to retire within the study
period, and natural attrition is assumed to occur at a similar 3 percent rate as that for
MSD and the City of Asheville (with 75 percent of the attrition positions being filled), it
is assumed that there will be no reduction of Weaverville water system staff within the
study period (under Scenario 1). However, since an option exists to supply Weaverville
with water from the City of Asheville system, a second scenario (Scenario 2) was
prepared that assumed the reduction of Weaverville water system budgeted staff from
nine to five positions in 2018.
Furthermore, in order to ensure future compensation equitability between MSD and the
Town of Weavervilles staff, it is recommended that a job classification and
compensation study be conducted within the first two years after consolidation occurs.
ES.5.1.3 Biltmore Forest Operations and Capital Projects
The Town purchases water on a wholesale basis from the City of Asheville, and does not
operate a water treatment plant. There are no tanks in the system, and a majority of water
lines were replaced in 2002.
Since the vast majority (approximately 85 percent) of the water lines were replaced in
2002, there are no substantial water system capital projects currently planned. The
Towns FY2012-13 annual budget planned for $7,500 of expenditures including meters,
meter boxes and hand tools.
ES.5.1.4 Biltmore Forest Financial Condition and Water Rates
Biltmore Forest anticipated generating between $310,000 and $389,000 per year in water
sales over the past five years. Over this period, operating expenses have increased from
$313,000 to $342,000 per year, and the current water system annual debt service is
approximately $450,000.
The Towns water user charge structure consists of a monthly fixed charge (i.e. base rate)
that includes 2,250 gallons, and three tiers of volumetric rates that decrease with
increasing consumption. A summary of the existing water rates is provided in Table ES6.

ES-22
Executive Summary
Table ES-6:
Existing Water Rates Town of Biltmore Forest

Base Rate (Bi-Monthly)
From 2,250 to 60,000 gallons
From 60,000 gallons to 100,000 gallons
Above 100,000 gallons
$37.99 (Includes 2,250 gallons)

$4.51 per 1,000 gallons
ES.5.2 Town of Montreat

The Town of Montreat, North Carolina (Montreat or Town) is located in the eastern
portion of Buncombe County, just north of the Town of Black Mountain, in western
North Carolina. Montreat was incorporated as a North Carolina township in 1967. Much
of the property in the area is still owned by the Mountain Retreat Association, formed in
1897 by a Congregationalist minister from Connecticut. According to the United States
Census Bureau, the town has a total area of 2.8 square miles.
Montreat is the home of Montreat College, a private, four-year co-educational liberal arts
Christian college with a student body of approximately 450 undergraduate students. Also
located in Montreat is the Montreat Conference Center (also known as the Mountain
Retreat Association), which is a conference center serving the Presbyterian Church.
Montreat's water supply system serves a population of approximately 750 people through
668 connections. The seasonal population is approximately 3,000. The system consists
of approximately 640 residential meter connections and 28 institutional connections. The
Town reports that population is expected to increase by an average of approximately 0.6
percent per year between 2011 and 2020. 3
The water system is governed and controlled by the Town Board, which is responsible
for enforcing full compliance with all the rules and regulations governing all connections
with the water system.
ES.5.2.1 Montreat Water System Condition
ES.5.2.1.1 Water System Assets
The Montreat water system consists of 12 water supply wells, two water storage tanks,
and a booster pump station. Although the Town owns 12 water supply wells, it operates
only 11 at present. The water supply wells obtain water from a bedrock aquifer and are
Local Water Supply Plan for the Town of Montreat, 2011.

ES-23
Executive Summary
located in the Blue Ridge and Inner Piedmont Recharge Area, where the estimated
average recharge rate is 0.6 mgd per square mile. The wells are not screened.
Since 2002, four new wells have been drilled to increase the Towns water supply. These
four wells are located on a property upgradient from the Town that has now been
permanently conserved under the Southern Conservancy. This area consists of
approximately 2,500 acres that is bordered to the north by the Blue Ridge Parkway and to
the west by the City of Ashevilles North Fork reservoir property, all of which will
remain undeveloped with hiking being the only activity allowed on the property.
The water is treated by chemical addition. Treatment of water from each of the wells
consists of aqua mag and chlorine. In addition, two wells use poly phosphate for iron
removal. The average daily usage is approximately 0.085 mgd. The average day water
withdrawal rate was 0.11 mgd in 2011. Water demand as a percentage of supply was 47
percent in 2011.
The Town has two storage tanks used for finished water storage with a total capacity of
600,000 gallons. A pump station on Appalachian Way fills the 100,000 gallon storage
tank and creates additional pressure to the upper reaches of the system during fire flow
demands.
The distribution system includes 18 miles of distribution lines, approximately 93 percent
of which are ductile iron and 6 inches in diameter. The remaining distribution pipe in the
system ranges in size between 3 inches and 8 inches is made of cast iron, galvanized iron,
and polyvinyl chloride.
The Town also has an emergency connection with Black Mountain and a booster pump
station with the ability to purchase 0.05 mgd on an emergency basis.
ES.5.2.1.2 Water System Condition
Field investigations of major water system assets (e.g., storage tanks, pump stations, and
other above ground assets) were based on visual observations and accessibility. A water
system specialist visited Water Supply Wells A and 5, both water storage tanks, the Black
Mountain Booster Pump Station, and the pump station on Appalachian Way.
The general condition of each of these facilities is good, and all facilities received an
overall assessment score of 1 (excellent condition) or 2. Relatively minor issues such as
corrosion and general housekeeping were noted. Full details of individual component
assessments can be found in Appendix B.
ES.5.2.2 Montreat Water Department Organization
The total Town staff consists of 14 employees, and the Town reported that approximately
eight (8) of these employees perform work related to the water system on a part-time
ES-24
Executive Summary
basis, as represented by the blue boxes on the organizational chart shown in Figure ES-2.
The employees that perform work related to the water system include the Director of
Public Works, Senior Water Operator, three (3) Utility Maintenance Workers, Finance
Officer, Town Administrator, and the Town Clerk. Of these personnel, four are certified
operators. However, none of these staff is dedicated full time to the water system. It was
reported by the Town that approximately 11 percent of the time for these staff is
dedicated to operating and maintaining the water system.
Figure ES-2: Town of Montreat Organizational Structure
Town of Montreat
Board of Commissioners
Boards and
Commissions
Town Clerk
Town
Administrator
Public Works
Director
Finance Officer
Town Attorney
Police Chief
Utility Maintenance
Techs/Operators
Police Officers
Utility Maintenance
Workers (3)
Auxiliary Police

Building Inspector/
Code Admin.
ES-25
Executive Summary
ES.5.2.3 Montreat Operations and Capital Projects
ES.5.2.3.1 Operations and Regulatory Review
The Town operates 11 water supply wells, and maintains two booster pump stations (one
station is only used in emergencies to purchase water from Black Mountain) and two
water storage tanks. A meter replacement program is in place, as well as valve exercising
and leak detection programs. Fire hydrants and distribution lines are flushed annually.
Water storage tanks are regularly inspected as mandated by the State. Storage tanks were
inspected in 2012 and funding was provided for cleaning and minor repairs to the tanks.
The Town plans to have the tanks painted in FY2012-13.
During the flooding of 2004, electrical power to the water supply wells and pumping
stations was lost for almost three days, resulting in the Towns first emergency water
crisis. The Town plans to purchase a portable generator and provide electrical
connections to the pump station on Appalachian Way and three wells, as detailed in the
CIP.
The Town of Montreat currently holds a Public Water Supply Operating Permit through
the NC DENR-Division of Water Resources, Public Water Supply Section. During 2011,
the Town received a monitoring and reporting violation that covered the time period of
January 1, 2011. The Town has since taken the required sample, and the sample results
showed compliance with drinking water standards. 4
The Town or Montreat implements a Wellhead Protection Plan which is encouraged by
the NC Department of Environmental Health (NCDEH). Based on information provided,
the Town meets all wellhead protection measures required by the NCDEH for public
supply wells to be used as a community water system.
ES.5.2.3.2 Capital Program
Montreat prepares a 5-year CIP for the Water System that is updated each year. A
summary of the CIP is provided in Table ES-7 below. A description of each of these
projects follows.
2011 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report for the Town of Montreat.
ES-26
Executive Summary
Table ES-7:
Water System 5 Year CIP for the Town of Montreat

Description
FY2012-13 FY2013-14 FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Water Line Replacement

Well Exploration & Const.
Water Storage Facility
Water Tank Inspection/Maint
Backhoe Replacement
Water Line Extension
Portable Generators
Total
$ 39,500
64,150
25,000
19,095
119,000
4,000
$ 270,745
$ 50,000
64,150
19,095
4,000
$ 137,245
$ 50,000
64,150
19,095
60,000
$ 193,245
$ 40,000
120,000
64,150
19,095
$ 243,245
$ 50,000
64,150
19,095
$ 133,245
Future
Total
$ 39,500
320,750
23,000
$ 269,000
120,000
641,500
48,000
95,475
119,000
68,000
$ 1,360,975
$ 383,250
Based on the information reviewed, it appears that the Town has a program in place to
address future requirements of the water system, including but not limited to water
supply, water line replacement, water storage, tank repair/replacement, equipment needs,
and extension of system.
ES.5.2.4 Montreat Financial Condition and Water Rates
Montreat generated between $256,000 and $267,000 per year in water sales over the past
five years. Over this period, operating expenses have increased from $46,000 to $91,000
per year, and the current water system annual debt service is approximately $100,000.
The water system net fixed asset value is approximately $1.8 million, and the Town is
carrying approximately $780,000 in outstanding water system debt. Current cash on
hand within the Water Fund is over 1,000 days of operating expenses, and debt service
coverage (calculated as revenue less operating expenses divided by annual debt service)
was calculated to be 2.5 in FY2011-12, indicating a strong financial condition. These
financial ratios and results are summarized in Table ES-8.

ES-27
Executive Summary
Table ES-8:
Water System Historical Financial Ratio Summary for the Town of Montreat
Water Utility 1
Net Book Value
Total Debt Outstanding
Net Assets
Outstanding Debt to Net Plant Assets
Long Term Debt to Equity Ratio
Outstanding Debt Per Customer
Benchmark 2
1,840,429
780,579
42%
0.53
$1,169
Days Cash on Hand

Debt Service Coverage
1911
2.5
Number of Customers
668
44%
$1,502
292
2.1
As of June 30, 2012. Source: FY2012 CAFR.
2011 Water and Wastew ater Medians for Utilities w ith AA Credit Ratings, Fitch Ratings, January 18, 2011.
The Towns water user charge structure consists of a fixed charge (i.e. water access fee)
and a uniform volumetric rate per 1,000 gallons of water. A summary of the existing
water rates is provided in Table ES-9.

ES-28
Executive Summary
Table ES-9:
Existing Water Rates Town of Montreat

Monthly Residential Water Access Fee
Monthly Institutional Water Access Fee (1" Line)
Water Rate (per 1,000 gallons)
$14.00
$90.00
$220.00
$4.49
The Town also charges other miscellaneous fees and charges for specific water-related
services. For example, the Town charges a late fee of $25 and a reconnection fee of
$100. A complete list of miscellaneous fees related to the Towns water system can be
found on the Towns website.
ES.5.3 Town of Weaverville
The Town of Weaverville, North Carolina (Weaverville or Town) is located within
Buncombe County encompassing approximately 2.5 square miles. The Town is a
Municipal Corporation and was established in 1875. The Town has a Council-Manager
form of government, and legislative and policy making authority rest with the Mayor and
a five-member Town Council. The Town owns and operates the Weaverville Water
System, which was originally constructed in 1913.
The Town has grown considerably over the past 30 years. In 1980, the Towns
population was approximately 1,495. By the 1990 census, the Town had grown to a
population of 2,107 that represented a 40.9 percent population increase in 10 years. By
1997, the Town had grown an additional 18.7 percent to a population of 2,450 according
to the North Carolina Office of State Planning. The current population in Weaverville is
estimated to be 3,092, which is a 6 percent change since 2000.
In 2000, the Weaverville Water System reported serving all of the Town, approximately
1,125 customers, and approximately 550 customers in northern Buncombe County in the
area adjacent to the corporate limits of the Town and along the water transmission line
from the Lawrence T. Sprinkle, Jr. Water Treatment Plant. In 2011 the Town reported
having 2,119 residential customers, 148 commercial customers, 11 industrial customers,
and 9 institutional customers. Between 2011 and 2020, the Town reports an anticipated
population growth of approximately 0.37 percent per year. 5
Local Water Supply Plan for the Town of Weaverville, 2011.

ES-29
Executive Summary
ES.5.3.1 Weaverville System Condition
ES.5.3.1.1
Water System Assets
Water customers of the Town are served by the Lawrence T. Sprinkle, Jr. Water
Treatment Plant (WTP), which is located approximately six miles north of Weaverville
near the border of Buncombe and Madison counties. The Lawrence T. Sprinkle, Jr. WTP
has a design capacity of 1.5 mgd. Water treatment consists of coagulant chemical
treatment, prior to the Up Flow process. Effluent from the Up Flow process enters the
settling basins, where natural settling of the remaining floc particles occurs. The settled
water is then filtered through engineered filtration beds. Final treatment includes the
addition of chlorine, corrosion inhibitor, and pH adjustments.
The Towns water distribution system consists of approximately 62 miles of water
service lines ranging in size from 2-inches to 12-inches. There is also a 20-inch
distribution line from the Lawrence T. Sprinkle, Jr. WTP. The existing system storage
capacity is 3.7 million gallons, which is provided by seven (7) storage tanks. There are
also four (4) pump stations for water distribution throughout the Towns service area.
The Town has emergency water connections with the City of Asheville and the Town of
Mars Hill. The City of Asheville connection is an 8-inch connection located in Woodfin,
near the Dubose Hill Water Storage Tank. The Town has used this connection in the
past, during drought conditions and emergencies to purchase small quantities of water
from the City of Asheville.
In 1996, the Town constructed a new Public Works Facility at 15 Quarry Road at a cost
of nearly $1 million. This facility is used for administrative and maintenance activities of
the Street, Sanitation and Recreation Departments and Water (distribution system)
Maintenance. Loan principal and interest payment are divided equally between the
Towns General Fund Budget and the current revenues of the Water Department. As of
the end of FY2011, the debt associated with the Public Works Facility has been
completed repaid by the Town.
ES.5.3.1.2
Water System Condition
Using compiled information relative to the water system, focused field investigations of
the major water assets were conducted to assess their condition. Assets were rated on a
standardized scale from 1 (excellent condition) to 5 (very poor condition). Equipment
associated with water system facilities such as these should typically be rated as either 1
or 2, otherwise remedial efforts should be undertaken to either rehabilitate or replace the
asset, based on the criticality of its function.
Field investigations of major water system assets (e.g., treatment facilities, storage tanks,
pump stations, and other above ground assets) were based on visual observations and
accessibility. On December 4, 2012, a water system specialist visited the Lawrence T.
ES-30
Executive Summary
Sprinkle, Jr. Water Treatment Plant, Ox Creek Booster Pump Station and Tank, Hamburg
Mountain Storage Tank, and the Perrion Pump Station and Tank.
overall assessment score of 1 (excellent condition) or 2. Relatively minor issues such as,
corrosion and general housekeeping were noted. Full details of each individual
component assessment can be found in Appendix B.
ES.5.3.2 Weaverville Water Department Organization
The water system is part of the Towns Public Works Department and, as presented in
Figure ES-3, is organized into three divisions; Water Administration, Water Production,
and Water Maintenance. The Water Administration Division performs activities
including water account maintenance and billing and finances, which are performed
primarily by Town Hall staff. The Town Manager, the Public Works Director, and an
Administrative Assistant are also involved in Water Department administrative duties.
Water Production activities take place at the Lawrence T. Sprinkle, Jr. Treatment Plant.
The activities of this department include operation of the water treatment plant and
monitoring of water quality within the water distribution system. Four full-time
employees work within this division.
Water Maintenance is the department responsible for the maintenance of the water
distribution system necessary to supply water to the Towns customers. These activities
also include water meter reading, installing new water taps, and the physical duties
necessary to maintain water quality in the system such as routine flushing programs, and
operating and maintaining the pump stations and storage tanks. Four full-time employees
are employed in Water Maintenance.

ES-31
Executive Summary
Figure ES-3: Town of Weaverville Public Works Organizational Structure
Public Works Director
Administrative
Assistant
Public Works
Supervisor
Water Distr.
Supervisor
Water Prod.
ORC
Sanitation Crew
Chief
Sanitation Crew
Chief
Recreation Crew
Chief
Street Crew Chief
Water Maint.
Crew Chief
Chief Operator
Semi-Skilled Labor
Semi-Skilled Labor
Skilled Labor
Skilled Labor
Skilled Labor
Plant Operator
Manpower #3
June 30 - Sept 30
Manpower #1
May 1 Dec 15
Skilled Labor
Plant Operator
Manpower #2
May 1 Dec 15
Other Town employees support the water system, including the Town Manager, Finance
Officer, collections personnel, and an administrative assistant. A portion of the personnel
costs associated with these positions is allocated to the Water System as follows:
Position
Town Manager
Finance Officer
Collections
Administrative Assistant
Water Fund Responsibility
% Water
Allocation
10%
15%
40%
50%
$70,590
ES.5.3.3 Weaverville Operations and Capital Projects

ES.5.3.3.1 Operations and Regulatory Review
The Town operates one water treatment plant and maintains four (4) booster pump
stations and seven (7) water storage tanks. There has been no major improvement project
at the Lawrence T. Sprinkle, Jr. Water Treatment Plant in the past 5 years. The Town
reports that an extensive automated meter replacement (AMR) program is underway;
ES-32
Executive Summary
over 700 meters were replaced in 2011 and 2012. The Town implements valve
exercising and leak detection programs. Approximately 10 distribution system leak
repairs are made monthly. Fire hydrants and distribution lines are flushed annually.
Storage tanks are regularly inspected as mandated by the State.
The Town currently holds the following major permits for the WTP: Public Water Supply
Operating Permit, NPDES Permit, and Air Quality Permit. Based on the data reports in
the 2011 Annual Water Quality Report, the Weaverville Water System is in compliance
with all Federal Drinking Water Rules.
ES.5.3.3.2 Capital Program
Weaverville prepares a 5-year CIP for the Water System that is updated each year. A
summary of the CIP is provided in Table ES-10 below.
Table ES-10:
Water System 5 Year CIP for the Town of Weaverville

Total
Project Cost FY2012-13 FY2013-14 FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Project Title
19,000 $
25,000
32,500
92,500
26,400
612,360
182,500
67,000
32,500
52,000
42,000
60,200
557,375
18,500
52,000
78,000
570,000
50,000
9,500
9,500
Rebuild 2 High Service Water Pumps

Install Waste Effluent Monitoring System
Replace 1999 Explorer - Sampling & Testing
Replace Filter Bed Media
Chlorine Gas Delivery System Rebuild
Install Standby Diesel Generators
Replace Chlorine Gas Disinfection System
Replace Bulk Chemical Tank & Transfer System
Replace 2005 Explorer - Production Supervisor
Replace Water Lines - Yost Street
Replace 1999 Water Service Truck
Replace Water Lines - Coleman Street
Replace Water Lines in Boyds Union Chapel area
Replace 1986 Air Compressor
Replace 2007 Mini-Excavator
Replace Water Lines - Oakland St to Highland St
AMR System
GIS System-Shared with GF
20,000
50,000
100,000
-
Total
$ 2,569,835 $ 112,000
$ 847,475
25,000
32,500
92,500
26,400
612,360
182,500
67,000
32,500
52,000
42,000
60,200
557,375
18,500
52,000
150,000
-
78,000
150,000
-
150,000
-
$ 1,036,860
$ 260,500
$ 313,000
As noted over a third of the 5-Year CIP budget is allocated for water line replacement.
Other significant projects are the installation of standby diesel generators, and treatment
facility upgrades to chemical feed systems. In addition, the Town is in the process of
replacing all water meters with an AMR System.
ES.5.3.3.3 Water Supply Alternative
The unit cost of producing water at the Lawrence T. Sprinkle, Jr. Water Treatment Plant
was estimated to be approximately $3.25 per 1,000 gallons, which is relatively high
ES-33
Executive Summary
compared to the City of Ashevilles cost of producing water (estimated at $0.88 per 1,000
gallons). Therefore, it may be worthwhile to consider the option of providing water to
Weaverville from the Asheville system, rather than continuing to operate and maintain
the Weaverville treatment system and upgrade the Lawrence T. Sprinkle, Jr. WTP at
some point in the future.
A preliminary evaluation was completed to determine the ability to supply water to
Weaverville from the Asheville system. An 8 line currently connects the systems, but
this line is sized for emergency use only. However, it was estimated that a booster pump
station (1 MGD) would be necessary to supply water from the Asheville system and meet
daily demands in Weaverville. One possible location for the pump station is near the
intersection of Merrimon Avenue and Weaverville Road. If a new pump station were to
be situated at this location, a new 12 transmission line would need to be constructed to
avoid subjecting the existing lines (and customers served by them) to excessive pressure
generated by the booster pump. The 12 water line could follow Weaverville Road to the
area of Reems Creek Road in Weaverville, where there are multiple 8 lines to efficiently
transfer water into the Towns system. The cost for a duplex booster pump station and
approximately 3.7 miles of 12 ductile iron water lines was conservatively estimated to
be $2.5 million dollars. Further analysis and a preliminary engineering report (PER)
would be needed to confirm the necessity of the pump station and water supply line,
location and design requirements of the pump station, along with any other equipment
necessary to supply treated water to Weaverville.
An estimate of the annual water production and conveyance cost difference between
providing water to Weaverville from the Asheville system and from the Weaverville
treatment system indicates that it would be less costly (by approximately $82,000 per
year) to continue to provide water from the Weaverville system. This is due to the
additional cost of constructing the booster pump station and water lines, and is based on
the premise that MSD would retain the direct staff associated with the Weaverville water
system following the potential merger. Additional savings could also be realized under
this scenario if Weaverville water production staffing levels were reduced.
ES.5.3.4 Weaverville Financial Condition and Water Rates
Weaverville generated between $1.33 million and $1.59 million per year in water sales
over the past five years. Over this period, operating expenses have ranged from $1.23
million to $1.64 million per year, and the current water system annual debt service is
The Towns water user charge structure consists of a monthly fixed charge (i.e. minimum
charge) that varies by meter size, and five tiers of volumetric rates that increase with
higher amounts of billed consumption. A summary of the existing water rates is provided
in Table ES-11.
ES-34
Executive Summary
Table ES-11:
Existing Water Rates Town of Weaverville
Description
Water Rates
First 3,000 gallons
Next 22,000 gallons
Next 175,000 gallons
All over 500,000 gallons
Minimum Monthly Charge
Meter Size
5/8"
3/4"
1"
1-1/2"
2"
3"
4"
6"
8"
Inside Town
Outside Town
Rate ($ per 1,000 gallons)

$6.77
$13.55
$7.41
$14.81
$8.07
$16.14
$8.73
$17.46
$9.40
$18.81
Charge Per Month
$13.55
$27.72
$42.53
$81.04
$132.88
$273.59
$437.39
$885.17
$1,433.80
$27.09
$55.45
$85.07
$162.08
$265.75
$547.19
$874.77
$1,770.33
$2,867.61
ES.5.4 Phase II Evaluation of Consolidation / Merger

Similar to the potential merger of the City of Ashevilles water system with MSD, the
merger of the water systems of the Towns of Biltmore Forest, Montreat, and Weaverville
with MSD have the potential to bring greater efficiencies, improved customer service,
and create a coordinated effort to provide clean water to the regions customers. Water
and wastewater shared services and regional cooperation already occurs within the region
to some extent. For example, the Town of Biltmore Forest purchases wholesale water
from the City of Asheville, the Town of Weaverville has an emergency water connection
with the City of Asheville, and both the Towns of Montreat and Weaverville provide
customer billing for the MSD. However, a more consolidated, regional water system can
serve to minimize redundancy, facilitate better overall planning, and provide operational
consistency to customers. Under a consolidated/merged organization and management
structure, all functions associated with water and wastewater service in the Asheville area
would be unified, including purchasing, billing and bill collection, human resources,
information technology, fleet management, etc., which could result in cost savings and
better service as these functions are performed by specialized staff. In addition,
consolidation can often provide greater buying power for employee benefits, materials,
ES-35
Executive Summary
supplies, equipment, chemicals, utilities, insurance, and office supplies, and allow for a
unified front for economic development.
The merger impacts associated with the merger of the Towns water systems with MSD
are summarized below.
Merger with the Town of Biltmore Forest
The merger scenario prepared for the Town of Biltmore Forest includes the cost impacts
of the elimination of indirect transfers to the General Funds of the Town, the reduction in
personnel costs associated with staff within the Town that perform water system
operation and maintenance functions on a part-time basis. It was assumed that these staff
would remain Town employees, providing other Town services and functions. The Town
has also incurred debt (i.e., a note payable) for expanding and improving its water
system. The annual debt service on the note is approximately $450,000, which is
supported by a transfer of funds from the Towns General Fund to the Water Fund. For
the purposes of the merger impact assessment, it was assumed that Towns General Fund
would continue to fund the repayment of the note, and this debt would not be transferred
to MSD. The merger scenario also incorporates the revenue impact of adjusting water
rates to match the City of Asheville water rates following the merger. Since the Towns
water rates are higher than the Citys, this would result in a reduction of revenue
generated from water rates collected from Town customers by approximately $63,000 per
year.
The savings associated with the merger is estimated to be approximately $775,000 over
the period FY2014 through FY2022. However, the net savings, which factors in the
system revenue reduction from adjusting water rates to the Citys water rates results in a
net savings of approximately $200,000, or an annual average savings of approximately
$22,000. The projected merger impacts are summarized in Table ES-12.
Merger with the Town of Montreat
The merger scenario prepared for the Town of Montreat includes the cost impacts of the
elimination of indirect transfers to the General Funds of the Town, the reduction in
would remain Town employees, providing other Town services and functions. The
merger scenario also incorporates the revenue impact of adjusting water rates to match
the City of Asheville water rates following the merger. Since the Towns water rates are
higher than the Citys, this would result in a reduction of revenue generated from water
rates collected from Town customers by approximately $48,000 per year.

ES-36
Executive Summary
negligible net merger impact. The projected merger impact is summarized in Table ES13.
Merger with the Town of Weaverville
The merger scenario prepared for the Town of Weaverville assumes MSD transfers all of
the full-time staff from the Town of Weavervilles Water Department to MSD and
maintains that level of staffing from FY2014 through FY2022. However a second
scenario was prepared for the Town of Weaverville that allows the reduction of the
number of budgeted staff positions by four positions, as described above. The merger
scenario also considered the revenue impact of adjusting water rates to match the City of
Asheville water rates following the merger. Since the Towns water rates are comparable
to the Citys, the revenue impact of the water rate structure change is anticipated to be
negligible.
The net savings projections associated with the merger with the Town of Weaverville is
approximately $209,000 over the period FY2014 through FY2022. The net savings
associated with Scenario 2 (which assumes supplying the Town of Weaverville with
water from the City of Asheville system and shut down of the Lawrence T. Sprinkle, Jr.
WTP), was projected to be approximately $675,000 over the period FY2014 through
FY2022. The projected cost savings of the merger under these two scenarios are shown
in Tables ES-14 and ES-15.

ES-37
Section 5
Water System in Buncombe County
Table ES-12:
Summary of Cost Savings From the Merger with the Town of Biltmore Forest
Description
FY2014
Reduction in Personnel Expense
Addition of 0.5 FTE

Elimination of City of Asheville Water Purchases
Elimination of Asheville Wholesale Water Revenue
Revenue Impact (Water Rates Changed to Asheville Rates)
FY2015
(102,300) $
FY2017
FY2016
(105,369) $
(108,530) $
FY2018
(111,786) $
FY2020
FY2019
(115,139) $
(118,593) $
(122,151) $
FY2021
(125,816) $
FY2022
(129,590)
26,015
26,795
27,599
28,427
29,280
30,158
31,063
31,995
32,954
(200,850)
(206,876)
(213,082)
(219,474)
(226,058)
(232,840)
(239,825)
(247,020)
(254,431)
200,850
206,876
213,082
219,474
226,058
232,840
239,825
247,020
254,431
62,946
63,953
63,953
63,953
63,953
63,953
63,953
63,953
(13,339) $
(14,621) $
(16,978) $
(19,406) $
(21,906) $
(24,482) $
(27,135) $
(29,868) $
63,953
(32,683)
(200,418)
(22,269)
Table ES-13:
Summary of Cost Savings From the Merger with the Town of Montreat
Description
FY2014

Addition of 0.5 FTE
Reduction in Contributions to the General Fund
6,069

12,581
1,398
FY2015
(52,957) $
26,015
(14,585)
47,597
$
FY2016
(54,546) $
26,795
(15,023)
48,359
5,585
FY2017
(56,183) $
27,599
(15,473)
48,359
4,302

FY2018
(57,868) $
28,427
(15,937)
48,359
2,980
FY2019
(59,604) $
29,280
(16,416)
48,359
1,619
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
(61,392) $
30,158
(16,908)
48,359
-
(63,234) $
31,063
(17,415)
48,359
-
(65,131) $
31,995
(17,938)
48,359
-
(67,085)
32,954
(18,476)
48,359
-
217
(1,228) $
(2,715) $
(4,248)
ES-38
Section 5
Water System in Buncombe County
Table ES-14:
Summary of Cost Savings From the Merger with the Town of Weaverville (Scenario 1)
Description
FY2014
Reduction in Direct Personnel Expense

Town vs MSD Benefits Cost Difference
Reduction in Indirect Personnel Expense

FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
- $
52,125
(72,708)
-
- $
53,689
(74,889)
-
- $
55,300
(77,136)
-
- $
56,959
(79,450)
-
- $
58,667
(81,833)
-
- $
60,427
(84,288)
-
- $
62,240
(86,817)
-
- $
64,107
(89,422)
-
66,031
(92,104)
-
(20,583) $
(21,200) $
(21,836) $
(22,491) $
(23,166) $
(23,861) $
(24,577) $
(25,314) $
(26,074)
(209,102)
(23,234)
Table ES-15:
Description
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
Reduction in Direct Personnel Expense1

Reduction in Weaverville WTP Operating Cost 2
Addition of Asheville Water Production Cost 3
Capital Cost of Pump Station and Water Line (amortized)4
- $
(72,708)
52,125
-
- $
(74,889)
53,689
-
- $
(77,136)
55,300
-
- $
(79,450)
56,959
170,705
-
(238,885) $
(81,833)
32,593
(255,249)
239,561
170,705
-
(246,051) $
(84,288)
33,571
(262,906)
246,748
170,705
-
(253,433) $
(86,817)
34,578
(270,794)
254,151
170,705
-
(261,036) $
(89,422)
35,615
(278,917)
261,775
170,705
-
(268,867)
(92,104)
36,684
(287,285)
269,629
170,705
-
(20,583) $
(21,200) $
(21,836) $
148,214
(133,107) $
(142,222) $
(151,610) $
(161,279) $
(171,239)

(674,862)
(74,985)
Assumes shut down of Weaverville water plant in FY2017 following the construction of a pump station and water line. Assumes elimination of four water plant staff in FY2018.
Assumes elimination of Weaverville WTP non-labor cost (except pumping cost).
3
Assumes, and the addition of City of Asheville direct water production and operations cost.
4
Assumes $2.5 millon in capital cost for a new pump station and water line. Long-term debt financing with an interest rate of 4.5 percent, term of 25 years, issuance cost of 1.25 percent.
2

ES-39
Executive Summary
ES.6. Conclusions
The conclusions of this study are as follows:
Phase I
The City water system facilities are generally in good condition to provide adequate
water supply throughout the service area. The facilities appear to be maintained and
operated in accordance with generally accepted utility standards.
The most recent draft of the Citys CIP seems reasonable to maintain the facilities in
good repair and operating condition and, when the projects are completed, should be
adequate relative to the treatment plants and pump stations to allow the facilities to
continue to meet the present federal and state regulatory requirements.
It was estimated that a potential of thirteen (13) additional staff would be needed to
fully replace/provide services that the City currently provides to the Water Resources
Department for which the Water Resources Department pays indirect costs to the
Citys General Fund of approximately $2.4 million per year.
While there are a number of potential future regulations that may affect the operations
and reporting, there are no imminent future regulations that we believe would have
any different impact to the MSD than to the City. The MSD is generally accepting the
increased newly (unapproved) planned CIP identified by the City for the water
system. In addition, the MSD has the history, organizational structure and programs /
policies in place to fund and make any necessary adjustments to the rates.
The operation and maintenance of the City water system is anticipated to continue to
operate generally consistent with how it does now. Staff at individual facilities will
maintain their same positions and responsibilities, and current programs to address
system operations and maintenance will remain in place. Existing contracts, such as
the tank maintenance contract, will remain in effect.
As part of implementation, consideration will need to be given with regard to the
management of the Citys watershed (approximately 17,000 acres). This land is
currently owned by the City, but it may make sense for the MSD to lease and manage
this property since activities on the property could have a direct impact to the water
system.
Merger Scenario 1 assumes MSD transfers all of the staff from the Citys Water
Resources Department to MSD and maintain that level of staffing from FY2014
through FY2022. It is anticipated that the net savings associated with the merger
under Merger Scenario 1 is approximately $10.3 million over the period FY2014
through FY2022, or an average annual savings of approximately $1.1 million.
Resources Department to MSD and reduces staff through attrition and retirements. It
is anticipated that the net savings associated with the merger under Merger Scenario 2

ES-40
Executive Summary
is approximately $16.8 million over the period, or an average annual savings of

approximately $1.9 million per year.
Merger Scenario 3 assumes the same parameters as Merger Scenario 2, but also
incorporates potential reductions in MSD staff through attrition and retirements
directly related to the merger. It is expected that additional operational savings could
also be realized as a result of the merger which could result in reduction in MSD staff
through attrition and retirements, saving an additional $5.1 million over the period.
Therefore, the total estimated annual savings under Merger Scenario 3 is $21.9
million, or an average annual savings of $2.4 million per year.
Phase II
The merger scenario prepared for the Towns of Biltmore Forest and Montreat
includes the cost impacts of the elimination of indirect transfers to the General Funds
of the Town, the reduction in personnel costs associated with staff within the Town
that perform water system operation and maintenance functions on a part-time basis.
It was assumed that Biltmore Forest and Montreat staff would remain Town
employees, providing other Town services and functions.
It was assumed that Town of Biltmore Forests General Fund would continue to fund
the repayment of the note ($450,000), and this debt would not be transferred to MSD.
The merger scenario also incorporates the revenue impact of adjusting water rates to
match the City of Asheville water rates following the merger. Since the Towns
generated from water rates collected from Town customers by approximately $63,000
per year.
The savings associated with the merger is estimated to be approximately $775,000
over the period FY2014 through FY2022. However, the net savings, which factors in
the system revenue reduction from adjusting water rates to the Citys water rates
results in a net savings of approximately $200,000, or an annual average savings of
The merger scenario for Montreat also incorporates the revenue impact of adjusting
water rates to match the City of Asheville water rates following the merger. Since the
Towns water rates are higher than the Citys, this would result in a reduction of
revenue generated from water rates collected from Town customers by approximately
$48,000 per year.
results in a negligible net merger impact.
The merger scenario prepared for the Town of Weaverville assumes MSD transfers
all of the full-time staff from the Town of Weavervilles Water Department to MSD
and maintains that level of staffing from FY2014 through FY2022. However a
second scenario was prepared for the Town of Weaverville that allows the reduction
ES-41
Executive Summary
of the number of budgeted staff positions by four positions if the supply of water
from the Asheville system is determined to be feasible. The merger scenario also
considered the revenue impact of adjusting water rates to match the City of Asheville
water rates following the merger. Since the Towns water rates are comparable to the
Citys, the revenue impact of the water rate structure change is anticipated to be
negligible.
The net savings projections associated with the merger with the Town of Weaverville
is approximately $209,000 over the period FY2014 through FY2022. The net savings
water from the City of Asheville system and shut down of the Lawrence T. Sprinkle,
Jr. WTP), was projected to be approximately $675,000 over the period FY2014
through FY2022.

ES-42
1. Introduction
1.1. Purpose of Report
The Municipal Sewerage / Water System Committee (Committee) submitted a final
report to the Legislative Research Commission on the merger of the City of Asheville
(City) water system with the Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County, NC
(MSD or District). The Committee report provided a number of recommendations for
the implementation of a merger of the City water system with MSD. Legislation to
require the merger of City water system with MSD and potentially include other water
systems in Buncombe County was originally anticipated to be brought before the North
Carolina House of Representatives in January 2013. As of the date of this Report, this
legislation has not been promulgated.
In advance of the promulgation of any legislation by the North Carolina legislature, the
MSD retained ARCADIS G&M of North Carolina (ARCADIS) to conduct a detailed
study of the potential financial impact to MSD ratepayers of a proposed merger of the
City water system and other water systems in Buncombe County with MSD (Report).
The study was conducted in two phases:
Phase I City water system, including the former Buncombe County water system
Phase II - Town of Biltmore Forest, Town of Montreat and Town of Weaverville
The former Buncombe County water system was originally to be part of Phase II of this
Report, but the water system assets were recently transferred to the City and are now part
of the City Water System.
The purpose of this Report is to study, identify and quantify financial impacts to MSD
rate payers associated with the proposed merger of local water systems with the MSD.
The review and evaluation of legal, governance, valuation and compensation issues is
beyond the scope of this study. It is our understanding that the analysis of such issues will
be performed subject to the enactment of the proposed legislation. In accordance with
the schedule outlined by the MSD, the findings and conclusions of Phase I of this study
were presented to the MSD Planning Committee and MSD Board in November 2012 and
Phase II of this study were presented to the MSD Planning Committee in February 2013.
1.2. Overview of Study

The evaluation of the potential merger of water systems in the region has been under
discussion for many years. Legislation to require the merger of the City water system

1-1
Section 1
Introduction
with MSD and potentially include other water systems with MSD is anticipated to be
brought before the North Carolina House of Representatives in early 2013.
This Report provides an assessment of the financial impact of the proposed merger of the
City and other local water systems on MSD rate payers. The MSD has gathered
significant relevant information and has performed a preliminary merger evaluation
including the preparation of due diligence documents. ARCADIS also interviewed a
number of MSD and Asheville management and staff to gather relevant information and
data.
Phase I of the Report includes a high level assessment of the financial impacts related to
the following elements of the City water system as it would pertain to a potential merger
with MSD:
Major water system assets condition
- Treatment Plants
- Pump Stations
- Distribution System
- Other Major Water Infrastructure
Organizational and Staffing Levels
Water System related City functions
Utility Billing and Customer Service
Fleet
Indirect Costs
Major outsourced contracts
Utility Operations
Shared facilities
IT systems
Regulatory Compliance
Capital Improvement Requirements
Rates, Revenues and Expenses
Debt and Reserves
Phase I of this Report was prepared utilizing many sources of information generally
including documents and reports provided by the MSD and the City. In the preparation of
this Report, several meetings were had with the City as well as numerous discussions.
During the Report preparation there was exchange of information and documents
regarding the Citys water system and MSD wastewater system between the MSD and
1-2
Section 1
Introduction
the City. The Report summarizes the work completed as of the date of issuance. Phase II
of the Report includes a high level assessment of the financial impacts related to the
following elements of the Town of Biltmore Forest, Town of Montreat and Town of
Weaverville water systems relative to a potential merger with MSD:
Major water system assets condition
- Treatment Plants (Weaverville only)
- Pump Stations
- Distribution System
- Other Major Water Infrastructure
Organizational and Staffing Levels
Water System related Town functions
Utility Billing and Customer Service
Indirect Costs
Major outsourced contracts
Utility Operations
Shared facilities
IT systems
Capital Improvement Requirements
Rates, Revenues and Expenses

1-3
2. Metropolitan Sewerage District

2.1. Overview of System
Buncombe County is located in the Blue Ridge Mountains of Western North Carolina.
The MSD is comprised of the following political subdivisions located within Buncombe
County:
City of Asheville
Fairview Sanitary Sewer District
Caney Valley
District
Town of Montreat
Town of Woodfin
Skyland Sanitary Sewer District
Woodfin Sanitary Water & Sewer

District
Town of Biltmore Forest

Busbee Sanitary Sewer District
Town of Black Mountain
Sanitary
Sewer
Beaverdam Water & Sewer District

Crescent Hill Sanitary Sewer District
Swannanoa Water & Sewer District
EnkaCandler
District
Town of Weaverville
Venable Sanitary District
Water
&
Sewer
The District was established in 1962 to construct and operate facilities for sewage
treatment for municipalities and sanitary districts within Buncombe County. In 1967, the
District completed the construction of a 25 million gallons per day (MGD) wastewater
treatment plant adjacent to the French Broad River. Nineteen miles of interceptor sewer
were initially built, connecting the wastewater collection systems located within the
municipalities and other political subdivisions which comprised the District. In the late
1980s, the District expanded the capacity of the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) to its
current capacity of 40 MGD, rehabilitated the hydroelectric dam and powerhouse to
mitigate energy costs, and built a thermal converter for sludge disposal.
In July 1990, the political subdivisions comprising the District transferred their respective
sewerage systems to the District. These systems had been previously owned, operated,
and maintained separately by each political subdivision. The purpose of this sewer
consolidation was to create a consolidated sewerage system in the urbanized portion of
Buncombe County with ownership of all components of the system and responsibility for
their operation, maintenance, and capital improvement centralized with the District.
Before the sewer consolidation, the District had little control over the condition,
operation, and maintenance of individual collector systems, which significantly affect the
operational efficiency of the wastewater plant.

2-1
Section 2
2.2. Service Area

The MSD provides wastewater transport and treatment for most of the urbanized portion
of Buncombe County, North Carolina. Its service area is over 180 square miles and
services over 50,000 customers. Most of the MSDs customers are located inside its
geographical boundaries. The MSD provides wastewater collection and treatment for the
City and surrounding communities, including Biltmore Forest, Weaverville, Black
Mountain, Montreat, Woodfin, Woodfin Sanitary Water & Sewer District, and certain
unincorporated areas of Buncombe County. Through separate contractual arrangements,
the MSD also serves customers in the Cane Creek Water and Sewer District in northern
Henderson County and in the Avery Creek Sanitary Sewer District in southern Buncombe
County.
Figure 2-1 illustrates the MSDs service area.
Figure 2-1: MSD Service Area Map
The collection system has been extended over the years as a result of expansion and
development, and now collects wastewater through approximately 977 miles of sewer
2-2
Section 2
line. The wastewater treated by the MSD is gathered in the collection systems located
primarily within the boundaries of the municipalities and other political subdivisions
comprising the MSD and conveyed to the MSDs wastewater treatment plant through
large sewer lines called interceptors that generally run parallel to the French Broad River,
the Swannanoa River or one of their primary and secondary tributaries. Included in the
MSD System are 32 remote pumping stations that pump wastewater through force mains
where gravity flow is not feasible.
2.3. Organization and Management

The MSD is governed by a Board comprised of twelve members appointed by the
governing bodies of eight local governments and other political subdivisions and serve
threeyear overlapping terms:
City of Asheville (3 members)
Buncombe County (3 members)
Biltmore Forest (1 member)
Black Mountain (1 member)
Montreat (1 member)
Weaverville (1 member)
Woodfin Sanitary Water and Sewer District (1 member)
Town of Woodfin (1 member)
The Board is solely responsible for setting rates and fees for service. The Chairman,
Vice-chairman and Secretary-Treasurer are elected annually by the Board. Members
serve staggered three-year terms and may be re-appointed.
Active subcommittees are the Capital Improvement Program, Personnel, Planning,
Finance and Right-of-Way. The Board employs the General Manager (currently Thomas
Hartye, P.E.), who is responsible for managing all MSD operations.

2-3
Section 2
The organizational chart shown below presents the current governing management
structure of MSD.
METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT

OF BUNCOMBE COUNTY
RATE PAYERS OF
METROPOLITAN
SEWERAGE DISTRICT
MSD BOARD
COMMITTEES
CIP
Finance
Personnel
Planning
Right-of-Way
DIRECTOR OF
FINANCIAL SERVICES
LEGAL COUNSEL
EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY
DIRECTOR OF WASTE
TREATMENT &
MAINTENANCE
DIRECTOR OF
PLANNING &
DEVELOPMENT
AUDITING FIRM
ENGINEER OF
RECORD
GENERAL MANAGER
DIRECTOR OF SS
MAINTENANCE
DIRECTOR OF SS
CONSTRUCTION
DIRECTOR OF
HUMAN RESOURCES
DIRECTOR OF
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY
DIRECTOR OF
CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT
The management structure consists of the following eight (8) functional divisions each
led by a Division Director reporting up to the General Manager:
Financial Services Division consists of 9 full-time equivalent staff (FTEs) responsible
for managing core financial services such as financial budgeting and financial
forecasting, accounting and investments, warehouse/inventory, and purchasing.
Waste Treatment and Maintenance Division consists of 42 FTEs and manages
operations including industrial waste, fleet maintenance, building trades, and
electrical and mechanical maintenance.
Planning & Development Division consists of 6 FTEs that primarily coordinate
private developments by overseeing sewer system expansions, allocation and taps.
Sewer System Construction Division consists of 27 FTEs and is responsible for the
construction, replacement and repair of pipeline and taps.
Sewer System Maintenance Division consists of 30 FTEs and manages the technical
services and preventive maintenance aspects of the system.

2-4
Section 2
Human Resources Division consists of 6 FTEs and typically manages human

resources functions within the District such as payroll, benefits, employee & public
relations, and environmental health and safety programs.
Information Technology Division consists of 10 FTEs responsible for the
management of the IT network and acting as the custodians of enterprise system
applications such as GIS.
Capital Improvement Division consists of 16 FTEs responsible for the engineering
design and drafting, right of way (ROW) management, construction management and
overall project management.
Including the General Manager and his Executive Secretary, MSD has a total of 148
FTEs. Organizational charts for each of the eight (8) divisions are presented in
Appendix A.
2.4. Billing and Collections

The MSD direct bills approximately 460 industrial and well-water customers, it also
contracts with the municipalities and other member agencies which furnish water on a
retail basis to residential customers for billing and collecting the Districts user charges
and fees from such users. The fee that the MSD pays for billing and collections is
included as a separate item on such bills. If any payments received are less than the total
amount of the charges for both water service and wastewater disposal services, the
amount received is pro-rated as to each such item. In the event of customer non-payment,
the municipality or other political subdivision that furnishes water to the MSDs customer
will terminate water service, and not reinstate it until the charges are paid in full. The
City currently serves and bills approximately 85 percent of the users of the MSDs
facilities. The other municipalities and political subdivisions rendering such billing and
collection services to the MSD are the Woodfin Sanitary Water and Sewer District and
the towns of Biltmore Forest, Weaverville, Black Mountain and Montreat. Henderson
County, North Carolina also renders billing and collection services to the MSD for
customers located in the Cane Creek Water and Sewer District, which is located in
adjacent Henderson County.
2.5. Description of Assets

2.5.1.
Collection System
The MSD covers approximately 180 square miles serving over 50,000 billed customers
and an estimated population of 125,000 people. Within this area, MSD service extends
along the French Broad River and Swannanoa River Valleys. The collection system
includes over 977 miles of public sanitary sewer line, 32 public pump stations and
approximately 27,700 manhole access points. In this large network of sewer lines less
than 65 miles of sewer lines are large interceptors with diameters ranging from 24" to
66". One third of the balance is comprised of smaller 6" lines and the rest is made up of
2-5
Section 2
lines ranging from 8" up to 24" in size. The majority of this pipe is between 50 and 100
years old, and is in continual need of rehabilitation or replacement.
2.5.2.
Wastewater Reclamation Facility (WRF)
The Wastewater Reclamation Facility (WRF) is a 40 MGD secondary treatment plant

serving Buncombe County (specifically Asheville, Biltmore Forest, Black Mountain,
Montreat, Weaverville, Woodfin and Buncombe County at large). Overall the MSD
treatment facility serves approximately 50,000 residential and commercial customers and
over 20 distinct industries.
For FY2012, the average daily flow through the plant was 18.7 MGD and the maximum
flow treated was 50.2 MGD. Sludge from the treatment process is either burned in a
thermal converter or processed in an alkaline stabilization process to produce Nutri-Lime,
an agricultural supplement. The WRF utilizes an attached growth process, comprised of
152 rotating biological contactors (RBCs), which provide full secondary treatment. These
RBCs provide 450-500 acres (3+ acres each unit) of surface area for biological growth.
MSDs facility is one of the largest RBC plants in the world.
The plant consists of:
Preliminary Treatment Components
- IDI Barscreens (2 units) w/screenings compactor and shaftless screw conveyer
- Influent Pumps (3 units) 35 MGD rated capacity each
- Aerated Grit Chambers (3 units) w/associated grease removal
Primary Treatment Components
- Primary Microscreens (7 units) 250 micron screens
Secondary Treatment Components
- 1st Stage RBCs (44 units)
- 2nd Stage RBCs (72 units)
- 3rd Stage RBCs (36 units)
- Intermediate Pumps (3 units) pump water to clarifier from 3rd RBC stage
- Intermediate Clarifier (4 cells total volume 2 MG)
- Secondary Microscreens (18 units) 27 micron screens
Disinfection Components
-
Sodium Hypochlorite solution average feed 1,000 gallons/day at 8 percent

solution strength with dechlorination of effluent prior to exiting the treatment
facility
Residuals Handling Components
-
Gravity Thickeners (2 units) 100 foot diameter each

2-6
Section 2
- Gravity Belt Thickeners (4 units)

- 2.5 Meter Belt Presses (2 units)
- Anaerobic Digesters (2 units) 100 foot diameter each
- Fluidized Bed Incinerator (40DT/day rated)
- Alkaline Stabilization Facility (40DT/day rated)
Energy Management Components
-
2 Megawatt Diesel Generator currently being updated to 4MN (full backup/emergency power for WRF)
- 450 Kilowatt Gas Generators (2 units) operate on natural or landfill gas
- 850 Kilowatt Hydro Turbines (3 units) induction units (French Broad River
source)
Automation Components
2.5.3.
SCADA systems employed throughout facility fully automated control of WRF

Hydroelectric Dam
The District owns and operates the Craggy Dam hydroelectric generating facility on the
French Broad River adjacent to the WRF. This facility is capable of generating enough
electricity to supply most of the needs of the WRF, and is rated at 2,550 kW.
2.6. Condition of Assets

2.6.1.
Collection System
The MSD assumed ownership and maintenance of the various local public wastewater
collection systems in 1990. Since that time, the MSD has undertaken an aggressive
program to correct existing known collection system problems. Between 1990 and 2011,
over 880,000 linear feet of pipe have been replaced and over $259 million has been reinvested in sewer rehabilitation projects. However, due to the large size of the MSD
system, there is much work still to be done. From 2011 to 2021, the MSD expects to
rehabilitate or replace an additional 500,000 linear feet of pipe.
Approximately $150 million will be spent on the MSDs Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) over the next 10 years. Of this, 11 percent will be spent on rehabilitating medium
to large interceptors, 76 percent on rehabilitating or replacing small collection lines, and
13 percent on the WRF and pump station projects. The total estimated cost to rehabilitate
the Districts aged collection system and WRF facility over the next twenty year period is
estimated at over $300 million.
The most reliable indicator of the collection systems performance is the trend over time
of the number of sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) in the system. A proactive approach to
maintaining the system will result in sustaining or reducing the number of SSOs
evaluated over a period of time. Evaluating this data over several years tends to cancel
2-7
Section 2
out the effects of short term climate impacts such as drought or intense precipitation
events.
The MSD has implemented a number of projects to reduce infiltration (groundwater
entering the sewer lines) into its collection system. The MSDs collection system has
experienced a significant reduction in the number of SSOs since 2000 as a result of its
proactive approach to system maintenance. The trend has been continual, down from 289
SSOs in FY2000 to 25 in FY2012.
2.6.2.
Wastewater Reclamation Facility
As presented in MSDs FY2012 System Performance Annual Report, performance

measure targets and permit limits at MSDs WRF were met during the FY2012 annual
reporting period. The WRF provides effective/efficient treatment services to the
community, averaging carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) and total
suspended solids (TSS) removal efficiencies of 93 percent and 90 percent, respectively.
Flow to the WRF remains well below hydraulic capacity for the plant, with an average
flow of 18.7 MGD. The WRF remained in compliance for all permitted parameters and
received a favorable review by N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NC-DENR) and Western North Carolina Regional Air Quality Agency (WNCRAQA)
regional office staff with respect to the annual facility inspections.
2.6.3.
2.6.3.1.
NPDES Permit
The MSD is authorized to discharge up to 40 MGD to the French Broad River pursuant to
its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (the "NPDES
Permit"). The MSD operates an industrial pretreatment program whereby certain
industrial users, depending on the character and the quantity of their discharge, are
required to pretreat their wastewater prior to discharging it to the System. The MSDs
discharge has consistently been in compliance with the limitations and requirements in
the NPDES Permit.
2.6.3.2.
Air Permit
The MSD has been issued a permit by the WNCRAQA, which governs emissions from
the thermal converter used to incinerate sludge. The MSD is in compliance with the terms
of its permit.
2.6.3.3.
Collection System Permit
The MSD operates under the 5-year North Carolina Department of Water Quality
Collection System Permit (the "Collection System Permit") effective October 25, 2007.
The Collection System Permit prohibits overflows unless caused by factors beyond
reasonable control or severe natural causes. The Collection System Permit also requires:
2-8
Section 2
(1) adequate measures to contain SSOs; (2) a capital improvement program and funding;
(3) regular inspection and cleaning of 10 percent of the sewer system each year; (4) a
record of SSOs and complaints; and (5) rehabilitation of 250,000 linear feet of pipe over
the five years. The District has submitted the required annual reports, issues public
notice of overflows as required, inspects and cleans at least ten percent (10 percent) of its
System annually, has in place a capital improvement program and maintains a record
of SSOs and complaints. As previously discussed, due to aggressive rehabilitation efforts
and preventative maintenance, the District has significantly reduced the number and
severity of SSOs by over 90 percent from 2000 levels.
2.7. Operations and Maintenance

The MSD maintains an aggressive Preventative Maintenance Program whereby
approximately 900,000 linear feet of sewer lines were cleaned in FY2012 by high
pressure water jetting equipment. In addition, over 110,000 linear feet of sewer lines were
mechanically or chemically treated to remove tree roots and blockages. MSD also
maintains its rights-of-way to ensure access to the system for cleaning and maintenance
activities.
The MSD maintains a service contract agreement with Pace Analytical, Inc. (NC certified
lab) which incorporates the exchange of full laboratory testing services for use of existing
laboratory space. This progressive opportunity continues to yield significant long-term
savings to MSD. MSD was again recognized for outstanding wastewater treatment
efforts by the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA formerly
AMSA) and received the prestigious NACWA Gold Award signifying consistent NPDES
permit compliance during the 2010 calendar year. This marks the eleventh consecutive
year MSD has been honored with a Peak Performance Award representing continued
excellence in environmental protection. The WRF successfully participated in a
surveillance audit regarding ISO14001 certification coming through with zero non
conformances.
Some of MSDs significant operations and maintenance accomplishments in FY2012
were:
Received the NACWA Peak Performance Award for tenth consecutive year
acknowledging Treatment Plant compliance
Final Microscreen Replacement Project construction phase was almost completed
during this fiscal year and preparing for start-up in late August
Contracted with Power Secure to monitor, maintain and exercise the 2-MW back-up
generator at the WRF. The electrical upgrade project, including additional generation
has begun. The design phase is complete, bids have been accepted and awaiting
Board approval
2-9
Section 2
The accumulation of grit in RBC Basin #1 was removed by Hydrovac

WRF SCADA continued improvements to plant, remote pump station & flow
monitoring SCADA
Continued comprehensive WRF process monitoring/evaluation RBC and solids
separation/removal
Continued hydrogen sulfide (H2S) gas detection/monitoring system at Carrier Bridge
Pump Station liquid and vapor phase odor control program
Continued structural systems improvements at WRF and pump stations
Continued/Expanded Grease Public Education local schools, civic groups,
advertising
Procurement of new work order database for WRF maintenance section which will
utilize current data history
Major pump rehabilitation of #2 and #3 influent pumps
Upgrades made to the grease removal system
Started data collection to evaluate ammonia concentrations
Finalize Sewer Use Ordinance (SUO) to adopted the EPAs Streamlining Rule
Installed new grinder for Erwin Hills Pump Station
Information in this section was taken from the MSDs FY2012 System Performance
Annual Report.
2.8. Capital Improvement Program

The MSD has developed both a Collection System Master Plan and Treatment Plant
Facilities Plan to guide development of a 10-year CIP. These documents are regularly
updated to reflect member agency planning efforts and development trends, as well as
changing economic conditions and system needs. MSD utilizes a CIP Committee,
comprised of representatives from all of their member agencies, that makes annual
recommendations to the MSD Board regarding program priorities.
The MSD has replaced or rehabbed nearly 20 percent of the entire collection system and
is implementing a long term asset management plan to rehab or replace a little over 1
percent of the system per year, which translates to a little over 50,000 feet each year.
Since consolidation in 1990, the District has spent $276 million on its CIP - $243 million
for replacing and rehabbing sewer lines and $33 million on rehabilitation of the
Treatment Plant and general infrastructure.
The CIP for the next 10 years totals approximately $149 million, earmarked as follows:
Interceptors/Wet Weather Rehab - $16 million
2-10
Section 2
Collection System Rehabilitation - $112 Million

Treatment Plant/Pump Stations - $18 million
Other - $3 million
Information in this section was taken from data supplied by MSD to the Legislative
Resource Commission in January, 2012.
2.9. Financial Condition and Utility Rates

The following summarizes current fiscal policies and requirements, historical finance
results, and historical and current sewer rates associated with MSDs wastewater utility to
provide the reader with a perspective regarding the fiscal management and financial
performance of MSD.
2.9.1.
Fiscal Policies and Requirements
The following are relevant MSD fiscal policies and requirements, which are reflective of
MSDs strong fiscal management of its wastewater utility:
Revenue Covenant. MSD is required by its Bond Order to set rates at such a level that
the excess of revenues over current expenditures equals at least the greater of (a) 120
percent of parity debt service due in the fiscal year, or (b) 100 percent of parity and
subordinate debt service due in the fiscal year. MSD has established a revenue policy
that established a minimum target for debt coverage 1.5 on bonded debt.
Capital Reserves: MSD has established a Capital Reserve Fund, and is required to
maintain an amount equal to 6.0 percent of current expenses in the adopted annual
Operation & Maintenance Fund Budget as set forth in the Bond Order. This fund may
be used only for debt service payments in the event of inadequate revenues or for
unusual and extraordinary repair and maintenance expenses.
Capital Project Funding: MSD funds capital projects from a combination of revenue
bonds and current revenues (pay-as-you-go). Generally speaking, half of the funds
for capital improvements come from debt financing, with the other half funded by
current revenues. MSD has an objective of maximizing the use of pay-as-you-go
funding of capital improvements, with a target of 50 percent.
Capital Financing: The types of debt instruments that may be used by the District
include (a) Revenue Bonds, (b) Bond Anticipation Notes, (c) Installment Purchase
Agreements (private placement), (d) Certificates of Participation, when feasible, (e.)
and Commercial Paper, when feasible. MSD has a policy of limiting the percentage
of variable debt to the maximum permitted by the Local Government Commission.
The use of interest rate exchange agreements may also be a component of the MSDs
methods of financing. In determining whether or not to enter into interest rate
exchange agreements, MSD is guided by the goals of reducing borrowing costs,
minimizing associated financing risks, and ensuring prudent expenditure of District
funds.
2-11
Section 2
2.9.2.
Historical Financial Results and Current Financial Condition
Over the five year period (fiscal year FY2007 through FY2011), revenues generated by
MSD have remained relatively flat. At the same time, operation and maintenance
expenses have increased by an average of 2.5 percent per year, annual debt service has
remained relatively flat, and annual investment in infrastructure has increased by
approximately 5.0 percent per year on average. Total MSD expenses over the period
have increased by an average of 3.1 percent per year. Over the same period, debt service
coverage (i.e. net revenues divided by debt service) has remained at or above 2.0, and
funds available for construction has increased slightly over the period. Historical
financial results for the MSD are shown in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1:
MSD Historical Financial Results

Description
Fiscal Year Ending June 30th

FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2007
Revenues
User Charges
Facility & Tap Fees
Interest Income
Other Miscellaneous
Avg Annual
% Change
FY2011
$ 24,771,102 $ 24,895,694 $ 24,290,719 $ 25,369,818 $ 26,894,894

3,054,950
3,005,184
2,959,115
1,654,010
2,238,171
2,190,254
1,742,108
1,047,587
578,302
493,002
1,194,643
702,777
509,239
433,899
612,721
Total Revenues
31,210,949
30,345,763
28,806,660
28,036,029
30,238,788
-0.6%
Expenses
Operations and Maintenance
Debt Service
Equipment
Infrastructure
11,977,241
8,068,069
179,834
12,574,902
12,070,195
8,167,726
450,531
12,471,794
12,808,349
7,701,442
437,423
12,447,791
12,754,727
7,441,558
521,644
9,173,231
13,522,468
8,216,340
457,576
16,082,779
2.5%
0.4%
5.0%
Total Expenses
32,800,046
33,160,246
33,395,005
29,891,160
38,279,163
3.1%
Revenues Over (Under) Expenses
(1,589,097)
(2,814,483)
(4,588,345)
(1,855,131)
(8,040,375)
Other Financing Sources:

Proceeds from Bonds & Grants
Use of Available Funds
19,321,797
-
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
(1,589,097)
(2,814,483)
(4,588,345)
17,466,666
(8,040,375)
DS Coverage (with Total Revenue)

Funds Available for Construction (July 1)
2.4
35,046,692
2.2
32,628,926
2.1
29,669,151
2.1
25,496,310
2.0
42,331,200
1.2%
Sources: FY2007 to FY2011 from MSD Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures - Budget and Actual (Non-GAAP),
FY2011 and FY2012 Budget Document, Budgetary Forecast Based on Current Business Plan.
Over the past 21 years, the MSD has reinvested $275 million in its wastewater system,
with average annual CIP spending of $13.1 million over the period. This average amount
corresponds to approximately 1.2 percent replacement rate as compared to the FY2011
estimated replacement cost of assets. The total CIP spending over the period comprised
as shown in Table 2-2, and indicates a significant focus on capital reinvestment.
2-12
Section 2
Furthermore, MSD has kept debt levels relatively low as indicated by its low debt to
equity ratio, moderate amount of outstanding debt per customer, and consistently high
debt service coverage. The moderate amount of outstanding debt per customer is
reflective of MSDs focus of capital reinvestment. These solid historical financial results
have aided MSD in maintaining its strong credit rating. MSDs credit is rated AA+ by
Fitch Ratings, Aa2 by Moodys, and AA by Standard & Poors.
Table 2-2:
MSD Historical Financial Results Ratio Summary

MSD1
Capital Assets
Accumulated Depreciation
$483.6M
131.9M
Net Book Value

% Capital Assets Depreciated
$351.7M
27%
Benchmark 2
Total CIP Spending (FY1991 - FY2011)

Total Operating Revenue (FY1991 - FY2011)
Total CIP Spending as % of Revenue
$293.7M
499.8M
58.8%
Asset Replacement Cost

System Replacement Rate
$1,071M
1.2%

$94.6M
27%
0.32
$1,872
$1,502
1,030
2.0
292
2.1
Days Cash on Hand

44%
As of June 30, 2011. Source: FY1991 through FY2011 CAFRs
2.9.3.
Sewer User Charges
The MSD Board of Directors has the authority to set rates and fees. Monthly sewer rates
consist of three components; a maintenance charge, a billing charge, and a treatment
(volume) charge.
The maintenance charge recovers service, inspection, and
maintenance-related operational and capital costs, and is charged based on water meter
size as follows:

2-13
Section 2
Size
5/8
3/4"
1
1 1/2"
2
3
4
6
8
10
Monthly Maintenance
Charge
$6.13
8.93
15.82
36.24
64.11
142.18
253.70
571.50
1,014.78
1,589.07
A billing charge of $2.21 per bill covers the cost of billing and collection procedures.
The MSD remits this fee to the municipalities performing billing and collection services
for the District.
The treatment charge for domestic users is $3.98 per hundred cubic feet (ccf) for
customers within the District, and $3.99 for customers outside of the District boundaries.
The charge recovers all direct and indirect costs of wastewater treatment and collection,
maintenance, inspection, administration, and capital costs not covered by the
maintenance charge. Sewer customers without a water meter are charged as flat sewer
charge per month. Industrial customers located within the District boundaries are
charged $2.975 per ccf, and those located outside the District are charged $2.985 per ccf.
Industrial users may also be subject to additional high strength waste surcharges.
The MSD has implemented gradual, incremental sewer rate increases over the past 10
years, as shown in Table 2-3. Currently, a customer that uses 10 ccf bi-monthly with a
5/8 water meter pays $54.27 bi-monthly, inclusive of the billing charge.

2-14
Section 2
Table 2-3:
Historical Sewer Rate Trends

Fiscal
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Meter/Maint Billing
Charge
Charge
4.60
4.69
4.83
5.05
5.25
5.41
5.61
5.81
5.98
6.13
1.75
1.78
1.84
1.92
1.95
2.05
2.05
2.11
2.14
2.21
Rate Per
CCF
2.99
3.05
3.14
3.28
3.41
3.51
3.64
3.77
3.88
3.98
% Change
Bi-Monthly Bill1 Bi-Monthly Bill
$40.85
41.66
42.90
44.82
46.55
47.97
49.67
51.43
52.93
54.27
1.9%
2.0%
3.0%
4.5%
3.9%
3.1%
3.5%
3.5%
2.9%
2.5%
Based on a residential customer with a 5/8" meter using 5 ccf per month, 10 ccf bi-monthly.
In addition, the MSD charges a one-time facility fee and a tap fee for new customers.
The facility fee recovers a portion of the cost associated with providing treatment facility
capacity. Currently, new customers with a 5/8 meter pay a facility fee of $2,500 to
connect. Tap fees recover the cost of making a tap of the private sewer lateral into the
Districts sewer line or manhole. The tap fee is $650 if installed by the MSD, with an
additional charge of $2,200 for pavement disturbance, if applicable.
The MSD also charges other miscellaneous fees and charges for specific services
provided by the District. These can be found in the Districts rate ordinance.

2-15
3. Asheville Water System

3.1. Overview of Water System
The Citys water distribution system has experienced significant changes since the
1990s.
The number of customer connections has increased from 39,000 to
approximately 56,000 connections. More than half of the water demand used to be
comprised of industrial, commercial, and institutional users. However, changes in the
economy and demographics have shifted demand toward residential customers. While
many of the large industrial users have left the area, explosive residential growth has
occurred in Asheville and the neighboring communities within Buncombe County.
Although the number of customer connections has increased by approximately 33
percent, the average day demand has remained relatively constant. The additional
infrastructure associated with the additional customer connections has elevated system
workload.
3.1.1.
Watershed and Water Treatment Facilities
Runoff from a 20,000 acre protected watershed in Buncombe County provides roughly 7
billion gallons of stored water in the Burnette and Bee Tree reservoirs. This raw water
supply is treated at two facilities: the William DeBruhl Water Treatment Plant (WTP) (5
MGD) and the North Fork WTP (31.5 MGD). The Mills River/French Broad River
provides an additional raw water source. This raw water is treated at the Mills River WTP
(7.5 MGD). The William DeBruhl WTP, which is located adjacent to the Bee Tree
Reservoir approximately 9 miles northeast of downtown Asheville, was constructed in
1985. The North Fork WTP, which is roughly 12 miles northeast of downtown
Asheville, came online in 1955. The William DeBruhl and North Fork WTPs provide
potable water to the eastern, western, and northern sections of the system. In 1999, the
Mills River WTP was placed in service. It is located 15 miles south of downtown
Asheville and primarily supplies potable water to the southern portion of the system.
Total permitted capacity is 44 MGD, compared to an average daily demand of 21 MGD.
3.1.2.
Transmission and Distribution System
The existing distribution network consists of over 1,660 miles of pipe ranging in diameter
from two inches to 36 inches. The original network was constructed between 1920 and
1940. During this period, cast iron was the prevalent pipe material. Subsequent
infrastructure improvements have utilized ductile iron pipe and, in some cases, polyvinyl
chloride pipe (PVC). Most of the Asheville system water mains that are four inches or
smaller in diameter are galvanized iron. In the current system, approximately 45 percent
of the pipes are cast iron, 30 percent are ductile iron, 20 percent are galvanized iron, and
5 percent are polyvinyl chloride.
3-1
Section 3
Asheville Water System
The main distribution system receives potable water from the North Fork and William
DeBruhl WTPs to service the eastern, western, and northern sections of the system.
There is a pump station located at the North Fork clearwell to service the Black Mountain
and Allen Mountain pressure zones, which are located in the eastern most region of the
service area. The North Fork and William DeBruhl WTPs supply water to the West
Asheville and Candler Knob ground storage tanks. Approximately 80 percent of the
system demand is supplied by the North Fork and William DeBruhl WTPs.
The Mills River WTP services the southern portion of the system and provides
approximately 20 percent of the system demand. When the Mills River WTP came
online, the water main valve on Charlotte Highway near Cedarwood Drive and the water
main valve on South Tunnel Road near Swannanoa River Road were closed. This
effectively separated the southern service area from the remainder of the system.
However, two six-inch water main connections still exist at the intersection of Wood
Avenue and Cedar Street and the intersection of Biltmore Avenue and Swannanoa River
Road. As a result, the southern service area is not completely isolated from the
remainder of the system, but interaction between the areas has been substantially
impeded. In recent years, the 24-inch valve on South Tunnel Road is partially opened on
a regular basis to meet the varying system demands. A pump station is located at the
Mills River WTP to pump potable water north from the clearwell to the South Buncombe
ground storage tank.
3.2. Service Area

Located in the heart of the Blue Ridge Mountains, Asheville is the largest city in western
North Carolina. The increased influx of tourists and second home owners has increased
the water demand in the 183 square miles of the Citys service area, which covers all of
Asheville, approximately 27 percent of Buncombe County outside the City; and
approximately 2 percent of Henderson County. The existing distribution system provides
over 21 million gallons of potable water to approximately 125,000 people on an average
daily basis, including the recently acquired Buncombe County water system.
The system is comprised of 3 water treatment plants, 40 pump stations, 32 ground storage
tanks, approximately 1,660 miles of pipe, 11 pressure reducing valves, one pressure
sustaining valve, and one control valve. The mountainous terrain requires 39
independent pressure zones to avoid extreme (i.e., excessive or minimal) pressures. The
current system supplies water to areas that range in elevation from 1,950 to 3,700 feet
mean sea level (MSL).

3-2
Section 3

3.3.1.
Organizational Overview and Staffing Levels
The City of Asheville Water Resources Department (the Water Resources Department)
is run by a Director who is administratively responsible to the City Manager. The
organization structure for the Water Resources Department is presented below. Detailed
organizational charts for each Water Resources Department Division are presented in
Appendix A.
The management structure consists of the City Manager, Water Resources Director, and
five Divisions, each led by a Division Manager reporting up to the Water Resources
Director:
Water Operations consists of 91 FTEs and is responsible for providing customer
service, billing, and collections for water, wastewater, stormwater, and sanitation;
meter reading, meter maintenance, backflow monitoring; mapping; and water
distribution system maintenance including leak repair, tap installation, valve and
hydrant maintenance, and construction.
Water Information Systems consists of 1 FTE responsible for information systems
and technology implementation. The majority of the Water Resources Departments
information technology (IT) needs are met by the Citys IT Department.
3-3
Section 3
Water Services consists of 3 FTEs responsible for quality assurance and special
Water Division projects.
Engineering Services consists of 9 FTEs responsible for development plan review,
inspection, and project and contractor management.
Water Production consists of 41 FTEs and is responsible for operations and
maintenance of the North Fork WTP, the William DeBruhl WTP, and the Mills River
WTP, along with the central Laboratory.
Including the Water Resources Director and his Administrative Assistant, the Water
Resources Department has a total of 147 FTEs. Additional organization charts for the
Department and individual Divisions are presented in Appendix A.
3.3.2.
City Functions Related to the Water System
In addition to the organizational functions outlined in Section 3.3.1, the City provides
services to the Water Resources Department for which the Water Resources Department
pays indirect costs to the Citys General Fund. These services include the following:
Engineering - Currently, the City Engineering Department provides engineering
design and technical services support to the Water Resources Department related to
the administration of the Water Resources Departments capital improvement
projects.
Budgeting, Accounting, and Financial Reporting - The Citys Accounting Division
provides support to the Water Resources Department related to payroll, general
accounting, grants management, treasury management, accounts payable, and
financial reporting functions.
Fleet Management - The Citys Fleet Management Division provides maintenance
and repair services to the Water Resources Departments motor vehicle fleet.
Human Resources - The Water Resources Department relies on the Citys Human
Resources Department to provide services related to employee recruitment and
testing, administration of employee disciplinary action, management of personnel
records, administration of pay and position classification plans, employee relations
and training, administration of all employee fringe benefit programs, and
administration of health and safety program.
Information Technology The Citys Information Services provides central data
processing services, systems design, development and implementation, and telephone,
radio, and micro-computer support and maintenance to the Water Resources
Department.
Inventory Management The Water Resources Department relies on the Citys
Central Stores Division to manage, maintain, and distribute its inventory, including
vehicle maintenance and repair parts for on and off-road equipment, water
maintenance materials for maintaining the water system, and supply items related to
janitorial, safety, industrial and office commodities.
3-4
Section 3
Purchasing - The Citys Purchasing Department provides services to the Water

Resources Department related to material and equipment purchases, including
vehicles and heavy construction equipment. This department is responsible for
developing specifications, soliciting bids, processing purchase orders, and awarding
contracts. In addition, the Purchasing Department manages all fixed assets for the
Water Resources Department, including land, buildings, and equipment.
Risk Management - Risk Management is a division within the Citys Finance
Department responsible for monitoring and maintaining appropriate insurance
coverage for the Water Resources Department.
3.3.3.
Major Contracts
In addition to the services described in Section 3.3.2 for which the Water Resources
Department pays indirect costs to the Citys General Fund, the Water Resources
Department also has a number of contracts in place to maintain adequate levels of service
for operations and maintenance of the water system. These contracts include:
Building maintenance
Grounds maintenance
Utility bill printing, stuffing and mailing
Office supplies and equipment
Water storage tank cleaning, coating and painting
Street restoration/paving
Capital projects construction
3.4. Description of Assets

A generalized discussion of the City water system is provided in section 3.1. Overview
of Water System, located in this Report. In addition to the Citys water system
information provided previously, Tables 3-1 and 3-2 list the tanks and pumping stations
in the Asheville system, respectively.
Table 3-1:
List of Tanks
Install
Date
1971
1992
1988
1991
2005
1996
Name
Allen Mountain Tank
Avery's Creek Tank
Avondale Heights Tank
Beaverdam Ground Storage Tank
Biltmore Lake Ground Storage Tank
Cedarwood Tank
Location Description
Roy Roberts Dr
Brevard Rd
Avondale Rd
135 Black Oak Dr
Biltmore Lake on Rust Spinner
Cedar Summit Rd

Material
Concrete
Concrete
Steel
Concrete
Steel
Steel
3-5
Section 3
Install
Date
2000
2003
1989
1989
1995
2007
2005
1955
2003
1998
2010
1988
2001
2003
2004
1973
1986
1977
2008
1998
2005
Concord Ground Storage Tank

Duckers West
Eastmoor Ground Storage Tank
Fairview Downs Tank
Gaston Mountain Tank
Grovestone Tank
Lutheridge Ground Storage Tank
Mine Hole Gap Ground Storage Tank
Mount Royal Reservoir
Park Avenue Tank
Patton Mountain Tank
Peach Knob Ground Storage Tank
Poplar Ridge Tank #1
Reynolds Mountain Tank
Riceville Road Ground Storage Tank
Ridgeview Estates Tank
South Buncombe Ground Storage Tank
South Cliff Tank 1
Spivey Mountain Tank
Walnut Cove Ground Storage Tank 1
2007
1979
1998
1988
1956
1987
Walnut Cove Ground Storage Tank 2

West Asheville Candler Knob Tank - 3MG
West Asheville Candler Knob Tank - 5MG
Windsong Tank
Young's Cove Ground Storage Tank
Bee Tree Production clearwell
1999
Mills River Production clearwell
1977
North Fork Production clearwell
Name
Keswick Dr
Duckers West
Hampton Parish Dr
Churchill Downs Dr
402 Ninebark Ct (Gaston Mtn)
Eagle Crest Dr
Hendersonville Rd
Charlotte Hwy
Crestwood Dr
130 Distant View
Sunset Smt
Peach Knob Dr
31 Greenmont Dr
102 Windcliff Dr
678 Altamont Vw
Patriots Dr
Stonecrest Dr
185 Mills Gap Rd
Southcliff Pkwy
Spivey Mountain Rd
The Cliffs at Walnut Cove, Raven
Cliff Lane
Cliffs of Walnut Cove Tank 2
92 Candler Knob Rd
92 Candler Knob Rd
19 A Windsong Dr
30 Mountain Rd
1370 Bee Tree Lake Rd,
Swannanoa, NC
4037 Haywood Rd, Mills River,
NC
3374 North Fork-Left Fork Rd
Material
Concrete
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Concrete
Steel
Steel
Concrete
Concrete
Steel
Steel
Concrete
Steel
Steel
Concrete
Steel
Concrete
Steel
Steel
Concrete
Concrete
Steel
Concrete
Concrete
Steel
Concrete
Table 3-2:
List of Pump Stations

Install
Date
2001
1988
1983
1991
2005
1991
1995
Name
Allen Mountain Pump Station
Avondale Pump Station
Ballentree Pump Station, Upper
Beaverdam Pump Station
Biltmore Lake Pumping Station
Biltmore Square Mall Pump Station
Cane Creek Pump Station
603 Tomahawk Ave across the street
205 Avondale Rd
82 Ballantree Dr
176 Beaver Dam Rd at Kimberly
658 Wickham's Fancy Dr
890 Brevard Rd
36 Lower Christ School Rd. This pump is
designed to pull water from Hendersonville
System

3-6
Section 3
Install
Date
1996
2003
1994
1989
1989
1989
Cedarwood Pump Station

Duckers West Pump Station
East Asheville Booster Pump Station
Eastmoor Pump Station
Enka Lake Pump Station
Fairview Downs Pump Station
2009
1995
1991
2007
2005
1992
2002
1998
1988
1988
2001
2003
2003
2002
2004
1983
1986
1998
2008
1998
2007
2005
2007
2007
1970
2004
1988
Upper Haw Creek Pump Station

Gaston Mountain Pump Station
Grove Park Inn Pump Station
Grovestone Pump
Lutheridge Pumping Station
Mount Royal Pump Station
Orchard Ridge Pump Station
Park Avenue Pump Station
Patton Mountain Pump Station
Peach Knob Pump Station
Poplar Ridge Pump Station #1
Reynolds Mountain Pump Station #1
Reynolds Mountain Pump Station #2
Riceville Forest Pump Station
Ridgeview Estates Pump Station
South Buncombe Pump Station
South Cliff Pump #1
Spivey Mountain Pump Station
Stradley Mountain Pump Station
Walnut Cove Pumping Station #1
West Asheville Pump Station
Whispering Pines Pumping Station
Windsong Pump Station
Name
15 Cedar Summit Rd
408 Coopers Hawk Dr
2665 Riceville Road
146 Eastmoor Dr
24 Enka Lake Rd
125 Churchill Downs Dr, Fairview Downs
Development
New Haw Creek Pump
402 Ninebark Ct
290 Macon Ave
Lake Eden Rd
7 Upper Laurel Dr
19 Balsam Ct
275 Lynn Cove Rd
75 Park Ave
818 Town Mountain Rd, 28805
101 Patton Mountain Rd
37 Windover Dr
31 Greenmont Dr
102 Windcliff Dr. Poplar Ridge S/D
191 Senator Reynolds Rd
681 Altamont Vw
24 Clarke Rd
3 Ridgeview Way
1597 Sweeten Creek Rd
Westside Village Rd
92 Candler Knob Rd
270 Stradley Mountain Rd
15 Commerce Way Avery's Creek
Sand Hill School Rd

1 Dayla Rd
19 A Windsong Dr
Information in this section was provided by the City.
3.5. Condition Assessment

the major water assets were conducted to assess their condition based on visual
observation and information made available by the City. Condition assessment of key
system components evaluates the current physical state and performance of the assets.
Physical condition refers to the current state of repair and operation of an asset, as
3-7
Section 3
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.
Assets are rated on a standardized scale from 1 (excellent condition) to 5 (very poor
condition). Equipment associated with water system facilities such as these should
typically be rated as either 1 or 2, otherwise remedial efforts should be undertaken to
either rehabilitate or replace the asset, based on the criticality of its function.
3.5.1.
Field Visits
Field investigations of major assets (e.g., storage tanks, pump stations, treatment
facilities, and other above ground assets) of the City Water System were based on visual
observations and accessibility. Given the time constraints of the project and the detailed
evaluations already conducted by others, assessment of the systems dams relies solely on
the results of such reports and investigations.
Each of the Citys three water treatment facilities was visited by an ARCADIS water
system specialist, along with a representative number of the most critical tanks and
pumping stations in the system. For buried infrastructure such as water distribution
mains, we relied on available field inspection and maintenance information compiled by
others, along with other representative reports, as available.
Using the raw data and information gathered in the field, each of the major facilities and
systems was assessed with respect to the following:
Asset condition
Capacity and capability analysis
Environmental performance
Operations and maintenance performance
The following sections summarize the field condition assessments for the various system
components. It should be noted that a field visit of the dams was beyond the scope of this
study and as such was not formally conducted. Full details of each individual component
assessment can be found in Appendix B.
3.5.2.
Treatment Plants
The City owns and operates the following water treatment facilities:
William DeBruhl WTP constructed in 1985; decommissioned in 1999; placed back
into service in 2008
North Fork WTP constructed in 1955
Mills River WTP constructed in 1999
3-8
Section 3
The general condition of all three water treatment facilities is good, reflecting recent
renovation projects and the Citys proper attention to maintenance. Relatively minor
issues such as painting, small leak repair, corrosion, and general housekeeping were
noted, and are detailed in Appendix B.
3.5.3.
Pump Stations
Due to the mountainous terrain in Ashevilles water system, approximately 40 pump

stations are needed to provide adequate pressure to the various pressure zones. Many of
these pump stations are located in series with other tanks and pump stations to create
stepped pressure zones along areas having significant elevation differences.
A representative sample of pump stations was visited for condition assessment purposes.
The pump stations visited were identified by the City to be representative of the City
water system based on several factors, including but not limited to size, type, age,
condition, etc. Since many of the facilities were constructed within the last 20 years, it is
anticipated that conditions will likely be similar from location to location. Field
investigations were made at the following locations, with detailed information for each
provided in Appendix B:
Table 3-3:
Pump Station Condition Assessment

Pump Station Location
Condition Rating
Comments
West Buncombe
Master Plan recommends new PS closer to S.

Buncombe Tank
Biltmore Lakes
None
Black Mountain
1-3
Fairview Downs
Evidence of leak at ARV
Grovestone
Shrinkage crack in equipment pad
Lutheridge
None
Patton Mountain
Oversized cut-out around motor controls is a safety

hazard
Peach Knob
Cracks in masonry building
Poplar Ridge #1
Piping needs to be field painted
Poplar Ridge #2
Piping needs to be field painted
Riceville
Missing floor drain; corrosion on pipe fittings; fascia

needs painting
South Buncombe
Master Plan recommends new PS closer to S.

Buncombe Tank
Spivey Mountain
Minor corrosion and leakage
Walnut Cove #1
Considering relocation
Pumps # 1 and #2 in need of maintenance; other

pumps in good condition

3-9
Section 3
3.5.4.
Distribution System
As described in section 3.1.2. of this report, a significant portion of the Asheville water
distribution system was installed many years ago and consists of cast iron or galvanized
steel material. These materials represent approximately 65 percent of the entire
distribution system, and tend to create more maintenance/replacement pressures on the
system than do other pipe materials due to their tendency to corrode internally. A regular
program to evaluate and clean/replace these pipes should be a mainstay of the Citys
ongoing operation of the distribution system.
Recognizing this fact, the City has embarked on a program to identify and replace certain
segments of the distribution system according to recommendations provided by its
consultant, Brown & Caldwell. These recommendations were originally published in a
2006 report, and have resulted in a level of replacement of approximately 30,000 feet per
year (0.3 percent of total system assets annually). The subsequent Water System Master
Plan prepared by JJ&G in 2009 increased the recommended rate of water main
replacement to 1 percent, or 80,000 feet per year; actual replacement rates, however, have
not met this recommended pace. An update of the Replacement Planning Model (RPM)
by Brown & Caldwell is currently underway that will identify and prioritize specific
water main segments to be replaced according to a certain schedule, and it is
recommended that the rate of replacement of aged mains be increased significantly from
its current level.
In addition to the typical smaller diameter distribution mains, the City also has multiple
large diameter transmission mains serving as the backbone of the system from the
treatment plants. The City recently commissioned a study to evaluate the existing
parallel 36-inch steel and 24-inch cast iron transmission mains from the North Fork WTP,
with concern being that failure of either of these mains would significantly disrupt overall
system operation. Results of this evaluation are anticipated by mid-2013, and it is
anticipated that any repair or replacement will require a significant capital investment.
3.5.5.
Other Water Infrastructure
As noted in section 3.5.3., Ashevilles water system consists of a series of different

pressure zones to account for the mountainous terrain. Each of these pressure zones, as
well as each treatment plant, has at least one tank to provide storage and suction for its
associated pumping facilities. These tanks are generally constructed of either prestressed concrete, steel, or bolted steel with a glass fused lining. In addition to the tanks,
various pressure reducing valves (PRVs) also provide connectivity between different
pressure zones.
Similar to the pump stations, a representative sample of tanks and PRVs was visited for
condition assessment purposes. Field investigations were made at the following
locations, with detailed information for each provided in Appendix B:
3-10
Section 3
Table 3-4:
Tank and PRV Condition Assessment

Tank/PRV Location
Condition Rating
Comments
Averys Creek Tank
Minor surface cracks; in process of being painted
Candler Knob Tank
Recently repaired and painted
Fairview Downs Tank
Routine cleaning/painting required to maintain

structure
Lutheridge Tank
None
Mills River WTP Finished Water

Tank
Needs painting
North Fork WTP Finished Water

Tank
None
North Fork WTP Backwash

Tank
None
Patton Mountain Tank
Routine cleaning/painting required to maintain

structure
Active leak needs to be repaired; water running

between tank bottom and ring wall
Riceville Tank
None
South Buncombe Tank
Spivey Mountain Tank
Walnut Cove Tank #1
At risk from falling rocks
Walnut Cove PRV #1
Paint starting to fail/chip
Based on documents reviewed and information provided by the City, it is our

understanding that the City has conducted periodic inspection of the dams and a number
of inspection reports prepared by others (e.g., Schnabel Dam Engineering). Based on
review of the Schnabel reports for the Bee Tree Dam and North Fork (Burnette) Dam,
dated June 2011, it appears that the crest of the dams and concrete spillways are generally
in good condition. There is some seepage on the downstream slope berm at the Bee Tree
Dam. In addition, maintenance of vegetative growth along the crest and access roadway
was identified. For the North Fork (Burnette) Dam, structural analysis of the tainter gates
along with subsequent cleaning and painting of the gates and replacing the seals was
recommended. The detailed evaluation and recommendations of the dams are presented
in the Schnabel 2011 Inspection Reports.
Based on its current CIP, the City anticipates a capital expenditure of approximately $12
million for projects related to its dams, including but not limited to repairs and tunnel
evaluation at the North Fork WTP Dam. Based on the Citys current CIP, approximate $6
million of capital projects have been identified in 2014 and 2015. ARCADIS has not
independently confirmed the status of on-going projects and specific data available
specifically which improvements have been completed.
3-11
Section 3
Dams are required to have periodic inspections (formal and informal) at different
intervals based on their hazard classification. While the responsibility for compliance
with applicable regulations rests with the owner of the facility and the owner is expected
to have appropriate hydrology & hydraulic studies, inundation mapping and emergency
action plans depending on the dam classification, in most cases the regulators do not
specifically initiate required updates of these studies or associated improvements until the
owner applies for a permit to construct or modify the dam in question. Once the owner
does apply for a permit, the application process would require that all the appropriate
studies, such as stability analysis and spillway capacity analysis be completed as part of
the application. Depending on the outcome of the any future engineering studies some of
the dams may require significant capital expenditure.
Regardless of the ownership of the dam, it is anticipated that should any required capital
improvements be identified that such projects would be prioritized and implemented to
preserve the integrity of the infrastructure and funds allocated. The water rates needed to
support such capital improvements would need to be adjusted accordingly.

3.6.1.
Utility Operations
The City operates three water treatment plants. The North Fork WTP and William
DeBruhl WTP are direct filtration plants each supplied by a reservoir impoundment in the
mountains east of the City and feed the distribution system by gravity. The Mills River
WTP, an enhanced coagulation/filtration plant with ozone contactors, is located south of
the City and withdraws raw water from either the Mills River or the French Broad River
and feeds the distribution system by pumping. All three treatment plants provide water
to storage tanks with overflow elevations of 2440 feet. North Fork and William Debruhl
plants primarily supply the east, west and north portions of the system and Mills River
plant primarily supplies the south portion of the system.
Several recent projects have been completed to maintain the water treatment plants, and
several additional projects are programmed. These projects include:
After being out of service since 1999, improvements and repairs were made to the
William DeBruhl WTP and Bee Tree Dam to allow it to return to service. During the
period that the plant was out of service the Mills River WTP satisfied the system
demand.
Improvements to the filter media and optimization of filter operation at the North
Fork and William DeBruhl WTPs have been made to allow these plants to continue to
operate as direct filtration plants. These improvements avoided costly improvements
to provide sedimentation.
Additional wash water storage holding volume has been provided at the William
Debruhl WTP.
3-12
Section 3
North Fork (Burnette) Dam has been inspected in 2011 and planning is underway to
correct four items identified in the inspection:
-
Increase spillway capacity.

Address seepage in joints of the outlet conduit.
Maintain the tainter gates.
Repair a 36-inch water main near the downstream entrance of the outlet conduit.
Schnabel Engineer evaluating and design repairs and spillway expansion
In addition to the portion of the distribution system that is supplied directly from the three
water treatment plants, 40 pumping stations, 31 ground storage tanks, 11 pressure
reducing valves, one pressure sustaining valve, and one control valve provide service to
39 independent pressure zones. Improvements to maintain and optimize these facilities
include:
Replacement of the previously oversized Black Mountain pumps.
Off-peak operation of the Mills River WTP to reduce pumping expenditures.
A maintenance contract with Carolina Management Team to provide water storage
tank and pipe coating and maintenance.
Water main maintenance consists of responding to breaks and leaks. In 2011, 523 line
repairs were made, 980 leaks were repaired, and 8,010 feet of water main was replaced,
as reported in the 2011 Performance Measures Report. Additionally, 274 hydrants
received corrective maintenance, 42 received preventative maintenance, and 47 hydrants
were installed (either new or replacement). The following initiatives are in place to
address water main maintenance:
A water audit determined in 2002 that the level of water loss, from leakage overflows
and illegal connections, was at an acceptable level. Realizing that some amount of
water loss is unavoidable, the basis for this determination is to compare the cost to
prevent as much loss as possible to the cost to treat this amount of water. Since it
would cost less to treat the water, and since there is sufficient safe yield it was
determined that the resources necessary to address water loss can serve a greater good
elsewhere.
The two, 100 and 50 year old, parallel water mains that convey treated water from
North Fork to the system are critical assets and a program is underway to accurately
locate and determine their condition. The result of this program is the development
of a robust line replacement and refurbishment program.
3.6.2.
Permits and Regulatory Compliance
The City currently holds permits listed in Table 3-5.

3-13
Section 3
Table 3-5:
Summary of Permits
Permit
Agency
Public Water Supply Operating Permits
NC DENR - Division of Water Resources, Public

Water Supply Section
NPDES Permits
NC DENR - Division of Water Quality, Surface

Water Section
Air Quality Permits
Western North Carolina Regional Air Quality

Agency and NC DENR Davison of Air Quality
State Laboratory Certification
NC Division of Public Health
Wastewater Laboratory Certifications
NC DENR Division of Water Quality
State Rules. Table 3-6 presents a summary of the drinking water rules.
Table 3-6:
Federal Drinking Water Regulations

Regulation
Description
Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts

Rule (Stage 2 DBP rule)
Regulates the level of disinfection byproducts, Total

Trihalomethane (TTHM) and Haloacetic Acids
(HAA5), based on a locational running annual
average (LRRA).
Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR)
Requires systems to disinfect and to filter, unless

specific filter avoidance criteria are met. Treatment
must be sufficient to achieve at least 99.9 percent (3
log) inactivation/removal of Giardia lamblia and at
least 99.99 percent (4 log) inactivation/removal of
viruses. Requires 95 percent of the Combined Filter
Effluent (CFE) measurements to be less than 0.5
NTU (see LT1ESWTR below). Requires a minimum
disinfectant residual entering the system of 0.2 mg/L
and for disinfectant residual to be detectable in the
system.
Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment

Rule (LT1ESWTR)
Modifies the SWTR by requiring: at least 99 percent

(2 log) inactivation/removal of Cryptosporidium,
monitoring of Individual Filter Effluent (IFE), and a
reduction to 0.3 NTU that 95 percent of the
measured turbidity levels cannot exceed.
Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment

Rule (LT2ESWTR)
Added source water monitoring and additional

inactivation/removal of Cryptosporidium ranging
from an additional 1 log to 3 log depending on the
results of source water monitoring and type of
filtration technology employed.
Filter Backwash Recycling Rule (FBRR)
Establishes criteria to provide for the recycling of

spent filter backwash water, thickener supernatant,
or liquids from dewatering processes.
Total Coliform Rule (TCR)
Establishes a maximum contaminant level (MCL)

3-14
Section 3
Regulation
Description
based on the presence or absence of total coliforms,
modifies monitoring requirements including testing
for fecal coliform or E. coli, requires use of a sample
siting plan, and also requires sanitary surveys for
systems collecting fewer than five samples per
month.
Based on the data reports in the 2011 Annual Water Quality Report, the City Water
System is in compliance with all Federal Drinking Water Rules. The results of the 2011
water quality monitoring are presented in Table 3-7.

3-15
Section 3
Table 3-7:
City of Asheville Water Quality Report

Substance and Unit
of Measurement
Ideal Goal
-MCLG
Fluoride, ppm
Turbidity, NTU
N/A
N/A
Total Organic Carbon

(Source), ppm
N/A
Total Organic Carbon

(Treated), ppm
N/A
Copper, ppm
1.3
High Level
Allowed -MCL
Sample
Data
EPA Definition of
Potential Source(s) of
Substance
REGULATED AT THE TREATMENT PLANT
4
1/5/11
Water additive which
promotes strong teeth;
erosion of natural
deposits; discharge from
fertilizer and aluminum
factories.
TT = 1 NTU
4/7/2011
The likely source is soil
Maximum limit for
runoff. Monitoring
any measurement
turbidity (cloudiness of
water) ensures the
effectiveness of our
filtration system.
TT = 95 percent of
N/A
samples <0.3 NTU
Results
Individual Plant
Results
High 0.92
Range:
(NC 0.92)
Mills River (MR)

= 0.92
North Fork (NF) =
ND
William DeBruhl
(WD) = ND
MR = 0.23
NF = 0.24
WD = 0.26
TT
Average = 1.25
Range:
(ND 1.40)
Average = ND
Range:
(ND - ND)
NF, WD,
Naturally present in the
MR
environment.
Quarterly
TT
NF, WD,
MR
environment.
Quarterly
REGULATED AT THE CUSTOMERS TAP
AL = 1.3
Jan Jun
Corrosion of household
2009
plumbing systems;

High 0.26
100 percent of
samples 0.3
NTU
th
0.055 at 90
percentile
MR = 100
percent
NF = 100 percent
WD = 100
percent
MR = ND 1.4
NF = ND
WD = ND 1.2
MR = ND
NF = ND
WD = ND
None of the 100
targeted
3-16
Section 3
Substance and Unit

of Measurement
Ideal Goal
-MCLG
High Level
Allowed -MCL
AL = 15
Sample
Data
Jan Jun
2009
EPA Definition of
Substance
erosion of natural
deposits; leaching from
wood preservatives.
plumbing systems;
erosion of natural
deposits.
Results
Individual Plant
Results
th
Lead, ppb
Total Coliform
Bacteria
(presence or
absence)
Fecal Coliform or E.
Coli
(presence or
absence)
Total
Trihalomethanes, ppb
N/A
Human or animal fecal

waste.
0 percent
80
By-product of drinking
water chlorination.
HAA5, ppb
N/A
60
1/5/11,
4/13/11,
4/14/11,
7/5/11,
10/6/11
27.4 (RAA)
Range:
(11.0 41.0)
22.6 (RAA)
Range:
(11.0 47.3)
REGULATED IN THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

5 percent positive
6/21/11,
Naturally occurring in the
samples
12/8/11,
environment.
12/19/11
Total Haloacetic Acid

< 3 at 90
percentile
2 percent
sampling sites
exceeded the
Action Level.
One of the 100
targeted
sampling sites
exceeded the
Action Level.
(2009)
Three positive
samples for the
year. Upon
rechecking site,
upstream &
downstream, all
samples showed
no total coliform
bacteria.
No positive
samples for
2011.
MR = 27.1 (Avg.)
NF = 37.0 (Avg.)
WD = 18.0 (Avg.)
MR = 19.3 (Avg.)
NF = 24.4 (Avg.)
WD = 24.1 (Avg.)
3-17
Section 3
Substance and Unit

of Measurement
Ideal Goal
-MCLG
High Level
Allowed -MCL
Sample
Data
Chlorine, ppm
MRDLG =
4
MRDL = 4
Daily
KEY TO UNIT ABBREVIATIONS

AL
= Action Level; the concentration of a contaminant that
triggers treatment or the other requirements that a water
system must follow. Action Levels are reported at the
th
90 percentile for homes at greatest risk.
MCL
= Maximum Contaminant Level; the highest level of a
contaminant that is allowed in drinking water.
MCLG
= Maximum Contaminant Level Goal; the level of a
contaminant that is allowed in drinking water.
MRDLG = Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal; the level of
a drinking water disinfectant below which there is no
known or expected risk to health.
EPA Definition of
Substance
Water additive used to
control microbes.
Results
Individual Plant
Results
System
average 1.19
Range:
(0.21 1.85)
On 10-20-2011
the allowable limit
for chlorine was
exceeded at the
William DeBruhl
WTP.
MRDL
Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level; the highest level

of a disinfectant allowed in drinking water.
N/A
Not Applicable.
ND
Not Detected.
NR
Not Regulated.
NTU
ppb
ppm
RAA
TT
=
=
=
=
<
Nephelometric Turbidity Unit is a measure of the clarity

of water. Turbidity in excess of 5 NTU is noticeable to
the average person.
Parts per billion or micrograms per liter.
Parts per million or milligrams per liter.
Running Annual Average
Treatment Technique; a required process intended to
reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water.
Less than.

3-18
Section 3
3.7. Capital Improvement Program

The City typically prepares a rolling 5-year CIP for the Water System that is updated
each year to account both for projects that have already had funds encumbered and those
that are added to or deleted from the list. Asheville is currently updating their latest CIP
and expanding it to 10 years to match the same planning horizon as MSD.
The Citys water system CIP is typically divided into the following categories:
NCDOT projects
Distribution System projects (generated from the Asset Management Plan)
Water Production projects
Neighborhood Water Line Replacement projects (generated from the RPM model)
Water Master Plan projects (generated from the 2009 JJ&G Water Master Plan)
The original CIP provided by the City to MSD in August, 2012 identified recommended
projects totaling approximately $37 million for the FY2012/13 through FY2016/17
planning period. According to City staff, this number represented the amount of funding
that would be available to address CIP projects, and not necessarily the entire actual
project needs of the system. This CIP total for the planning period is generally consistent
with the CIP for the Water Resources Department that is included in the Citys
FY2012/13 adopted budget, which also totaled approximately $37 million for the
planning period. City staff revised the CIP in October, 2012 to include all anticipated
needs, resulting in a 5-year CIP totaling approximately $66 million for FY2013/14
through FY2017/18. Further, an estimate of $22 million/year was provided for the
succeeding 5-year period later revised down to $12 million, but without any specific
project detail. The revised CIP is shown in Table 3-8.

3-19
Section 3
Table 3-8:
Asheville Water System 5 Year CIP

Requested
2013/2014
Planning Years
2014/2015
2015/2016
2016/2017
2017/2018
NCDOT Projects:
McFee Road Bridge
80,000
Mills Gap Road Bridge
65,000
Distribution System Projects:

Affordable Housing Infill
Development Incentive
Brevard Road from I-26 to Sardis
Road
Gerber Road & Ball Brothers Vault
Meadow Rd, Lyman St, Victoria Rd,
& McDowell St
Merrimon Avenue Main
Replacement
Meter / Vault Repair
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
386,000
50,000
2,500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
1,350,000
3,825,000
500,000
500,000
Water Production Projects:

Fairview Reservoir - 1 MG
1,050,000
Hydraulic System
95,000
Mills River Raw Water Reservoir 15

MG
North Fork WTP Dam / Tunnel
Evaluation & Repairs
North Fork WTP Generator Transfer
Switch
Pump Station Meters
1,540,000
6,000,000
6,000,000
550,000
500,000
Ridgeview Tank 95,000 GAL
300,000
Software Updates / HMI - all WTP's

VFD Motors or Soft Starts at Pump
Stations
Water Storage Tank / Pump Station
Maintenance
Water Treatment Plant
Improvements
200,000
180,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
1,900,000
Neighborhood Water Line Replacement Projects:

Barnard Avenue & Sevier Street
581,251
Biltmore Avenue
1,227,995
Blue Ridge Rd, BR Assembly Dr, &

Maney Lane
Britt Drive
College Circle
640,000
73,532
150,000
850,000
Conestee St & Conestee Place
191,969
Daniel/Starnes Cove Roads, Pisgah

View Ct.
Deanwood Cir, Forest St, &
Ardmore St
242,000

350,190
3-20
Section 3
Requested
2013/2014
Planning Years
2014/2015
Dogwood Court (East)
2015/2016
2016/2017
2017/2018
166,585
Fortune St, N. Blue Ridge Rd,

Taylor St, & Freeman Dr
Frederick Street
250,000
47,596
Gatehouse, Parkridge, & Creekside

Court
Glenn Bridge Road SE
Gorman Bridge, River View Church,
Wilson, etc. Roads
Hanover St,
Pennsylvania/Richland/Montana
Ave
Hazel Mill Rd, Annie St, & Richland
St
Hendersonville Road
193,556
200,000
1,130,000
1,130,000
1,011,059
386,041
551,487
Innsbrook & Maplewood Roads
643,401
Joe Jenkins Road
250,000
Kenilworth side roads, Ravenna St,

Finalee Ave, etc.
Knauth Road
859,896
Lindsey Road
140,000
409,332
Long Shoals Road
250,000
Monte Vista Place
96,000
Mountain Crest Road / Patton

Cemetery Road
Mt. Carmel Subdivision and Erwin
Hills Road
Muirfield Subdivision
310,000
North, Northview, Forsythe, & West

Streets
Old Bee Tree/Rainbow
Ridge/Halcyon Hill, etc. Roads
Patton Avenue
360,000
210,000
1,190,000
2,059,524
350,000
1,146,454
Piney Mountain Church Rd
160,000
Pisgah View Apartments
938,008
Plateau & Hilltopia Roads
183,433
Sherwood Road
38,000
Smokey Park Highway & Old 19/23
2,500,000
South Grove Street & Morgan

Avenue
South Lexington Avenue
2,500,000
375,203
60,000
South Malvern Hills Subdivision
650,000
1,166,108
1,348,545
Springdale Avenue
229,291
Sweeten Creek Road

Tiny Farms Subdivision
750,000
Valley View Road
64,000
Waynesville Ave, Tremont St, &

Short Tremont St
Willis Way & Woodley Avenue
850,377
275,743

3-21
Section 3
Requested
2013/2014
Planning Years
2014/2015
2015/2016
142,500
807,500
2016/2017
2017/2018
Water System Master Plan Projects:

Beaucatcher Rd from Buckstone to
Kenilworth
Candler School Rd / Old Candler
Town Rd
College Street from Windswept to
Clemmons
Enka Lake Rd from Sand Hill to
Ironwood
Fairmont Rd from Old 19/23 to
Justice Ridge Rd
Mills Gap Road from Concord Pump
Station to tank on Keswick
Swannanoa River Rd from
Caledonia to Bryson
Tunnel Rd from Overbrook and
Crockett
Total CIP
172,500
510,000
172,500
977,500
550,000
1,100,000
280,000
240,000
$18,212,262
$13,341,632
$9,225,524
$11,958,578
$12,022,078
After reviewing the revised CIP and noting the significantly higher funding required, the
following issues were noted that needed to be clarified and/or could potentially affect
actual CIP expenditures over the planning period:
1. North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Projects
a. Two projects were included that account for moving existing water mains or
increasing their size in conjunction with NCDOT roadway projects.
2. Distribution System Projects
a. The Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) project will be completed in FY2012/13.
b. The revised CIP increased the amount for Meter Vault Repair from a total of
$300k to a level of $500k/year ($1.5 million total). This discrepancy was
explained by City staff as a need to repair a number of the large meters in the
system.
c. Three new water main projects totaling $2.9 million were added.
3. Water Production Projects
a. Mills River WTP Raw Water Basin - the original CIP did not include any funds
for a potential basin. The revised CIP includes $1.5 million for this project.

3-22
Section 3
b. Maintenance Facility - the original CIP included $1.5 million for

repairs/replacement. The revised CIP does not include any funds for this purpose.
If the merger does not happen, the City will still have to make these
improvements, so the $1.5 million should be included in any baseline CIP
analysis.
c. Transmission Main Repair/Replacement the City is currently conducting a $2.4
million evaluation of its existing 36 and 24-inch transmission mains. No funds
have been included in the CIP for addressing the condition of these mains, but
replacement could cost as much as $50 million. This would be a significant
potential impact to the CIP within the planning horizon.
d. North Fork Dam Repair - the original CIP included $1.5 million for evaluation of
the dam. Subsequent preliminary analysis has indicated that the spillway should
be replaced at a cost of $12 million.
e. Poplar Ridge Tank #1 this tank was found to have a leak during our field
condition assessment investigations. Funds for repairing the tank will be included
in this current fiscal year.
f. Spivey Mountain Tank - $1.3 million was included in the original CIP for this
tank, but has now been deleted due to lack of need.
g. Tank/PS Maintenance this item has been increased from $100k/year to
$150k/year, to be done through a contract arrangement.
h. Two new projects totaling $275k were added.
4. Neighborhood Water Line Replacement Projects
a. The Brown & Caldwell RPM model update is not yet complete. However, 38
projects have been identified from that model that have been added to the
Neighborhood projects list. These projects are based upon replacing failing and
substandard pipe that is beyond its useful life, and total $26 million.
b. Muirfield and South Malvern Hills Subdivision projects these projects were
increased from $715k in the original CIP to $2.7 million in the revised CIP. The
change resulted from two things: 1) adjustments the actual water main cost
estimate inclusive of paving to $1.7 million, and 2) inclusion of $984,500 for
Community Development.
The amount attributable to Community
Development should be deleted since it is not directly related to water system
improvements.

3-23
Section 3
5. Water Master Plan Projects

a. Candler School Rd Water Main reduced from $1.1 million to $172k due to prior
year funding.
b. Walnut Cove Pump Station Replacement the $292k originally budgeted for this
project has already been encumbered.
c. Mine Hole Gap Tank/Concord Rd Water Main this project has been deleted
from the original CIP and has been replaced by the Fairview Tank project.
The information from the revised CIP, taking into account the modifications noted above,
was utilized in developing the financial models discussed elsewhere in this report.
3.8. Financial Condition and Utility Rates (City)

The following summarizes current fiscal policies and requirements, historical financial
results, and historical and current water rates associated with the Citys water utility. This
information is presented to provide the reader with a perspective regarding the fiscal
management and financial performance of the system.
3.8.1.
Fiscal Policies
The following are relevant City Water Resources Department fiscal policies and/or
requirements, which are reflective of the Citys fiscal management of its water utility.
Revenue Covenant. Under the Citys General Indenture, it has covenanted that it will
maintain water rates and charges to produce revenues from the water system at least
equal to the total of (a) current expenses of the water system, plus (b) 120 percent of
the debt service requirements to become due in the fiscal year on bonds attributable to
the water system, plus (c) 100 percent of the debt service requirements for
subordinated indebtedness to become due in the fiscal year, plus (d) 100 percent of
the debt service requirements for General Obligation indebtedness to become due in
the fiscal year, plus (e) 100 percent of debt service of other indebtedness to become
due in the fiscal year, plus (f) the amount required to be contributed to reserve funds
associated with the bond covenants.
The City has a policy to maintain debt service coverage ratios at a level of 1.25 to 1.5
times coverage or greater.
The City has a policy that charges for water users are set at a level to provide
sufficient revenues to cover all annual operating and debt service expenditures, to
accumulate funds for the acquisition and replacement of capital equipment and
facilities, and to finance the long-term capital improvement plan.
The City has a policy that rate increases will be implemented with a maximum level
of predictability, consistency and affordability.

3-24
Section 3
The City has a policy to maintain utility system debt to equity at a level not to exceed
70 to 75 percent.
The City has a policy to fund not less than 30 percent of the water system CIP with
annual revenues and cash reserves.
The City has a policy to maintain the average annual residential water bill at less than
or equal to 1.5 percent of the real median household income.
The City expressed a policy of transferring up to 5 percent of Water Fund revenues to
the General Fund (general Capital Projects Fund for street and sidewalk
improvements under the Sullivan Act).
In fiscal years FY2009-10 and FY2010-11, the amount of the transfers from the Citys
Water Fund for street and sidewalk improvements associated with waterline
improvements totaled $1.66 million, $0.34 million, and $0.66 million, respectively. 6 In
FY2011-12, the City is anticipates transferring approximately $1.0 million (3 percent of
Water revenue) to the General Fund to support General Fund capital improvements
associated with water line projects. 7 The City anticipates increasing the amount of Water
Fund transfers to the General fund by 1 percent each year until the maximum amount of
transfers equal to 5 percent of Water Fund revenues is reached. 8 This corresponds to
transfers of approximately $1.3 million in FY2013-14, and $1.6 million in FY2014-15.
3.8.2.
Historical Financial Results
Over the five year period (fiscal year FY2007 through FY2011), revenues generated by
the City Water System have increased by an average of approximately 1.1 percent. At
the same time, operation and maintenance expenses have increased by an average of 1.3
percent per year, debt service has increased by 7.5 percent, and annual investment in
infrastructure has increased by more than 11.0 percent per year on average. Total Water
Resources Fund expenses over the period have increased by an average of 3.7 percent per
year. Over the same period, debt service coverage (i.e., net revenues divided by debt
service) has varied from 1.7 to 3.3, and fund balance has increased over the period.
Historical financial results for the Citys Water Resources Fund and Major Capital
Projects Fund are shown in Table 3-9.
Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports for the City of Asheville for FY2009-10, p.46, and FY2010-11,
p.48.
7
FY2012-13 Proposed Annual Budget, City of Asheville, NC for FY2012-13, p.vi.
8
Water and Sewer Rate Study Final Report, prepared by Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc., August 2011,
and confirmed with Mr. Steve Shoaf, Utility Director, Asheville Water Resources Department at a meeting
held on August 1, 2012.
3-25
Section 3
Table 3-9:
City Water System Historical Financial Results

Description
Water Resources Fund
Revenues
Charges for Service
Reconnection and Deliquent Fees
Connection and Setup Fees
Other Operating Revenue
Interest Income
FY2007
FY2008

FY2009
FY2010
Avg Annual
% Change
FY2011
$ 20,697,430 $ 21,559,119 $ 21,612,926 $ 31,177,452 $ 32,781,581

Incl Above
1,020,776
949,619
Incl Above
Incl Above
Incl Above
Incl Above
3,106,551
2,674,128
2,514,527
6,011,361
6,112,732
81,411
166,455
6,222,465
142,300
300,866
1,429,927
610,386
940,606
Total Revenues
31,395,804
32,624,154
31,442,595
31,559,729
33,090,336
1.1%
Expenses
Debt Service
Capital Outlay
15,106,621
4,954,448
-
17,277,304
5,572,412
-
17,121,454
8,299,664
-
16,993,518
7,647,970
1,122,846
16,118,187
7,117,084
782,106
1.3%
7.5%
Total Expenses
20,061,069
22,849,716
25,421,118
25,764,334
24,017,377
3.7%
11,334,735
9,774,438
6,021,477
5,795,395
9,072,959
50,232
(10,028,214)
-
20,626
(7,582,568)
-
(9,604,173)
(54,720)
69,480
(5,597,735)
(200,003)
20,376
(5,625,000)
(1,425,299)
1,356,753
2,212,496
(3,637,416)
9,990
(3,729,217)
172,252
10,028,214
-
1,469,705
(20,262,568)
39,582,605
7,582,568
-
532,785
(29,662,159)
59,704
(9,351,228)
9,604,173
(100,000)
5,597,735
(1,457,478)
198,683
(6,527,523)
198,194
5,625,000
-
6,481,239
28,372,310
(19,625,201)
(5,151,267)
(505,646)
3.3
15,707,380
2.8
11,347,120
1.7
12,663,719
1.9
32,336,668
Other Financing Sources:

Proceeds from Bonds & Grants, Assets
Transfers to Major Capital Projects Fund
Other Transfers
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
Major Capital Projects Fund
Revenues
Expenditures (Capital Projects)
Proceeds from Bonds, Loans & Grants
Transfers From Water Resources Fund
Other Transfers
Revenues and Financing Sources Over Expenditures
Debt Service Coverage (with Total Revenue)
Ending Fund Balance1
67,137
2,043,036
11.8%
2.4
35,424,546
Source: FY2008 to FY2011 from City Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures - Budget and Actual (Non-GAAP).
1
Unrestricted current assets (excluding inventory) less currrent liabiliites.
Over the past 21 years, the City has reinvested $181 million in its water system, with an
average annual CIP spending of $8.6 million over the period. This average amount
corresponds to a replacement rate of approximately 0.7 percent of the FY2011
replacement cost of assets. The total CIP spending over the period comprised
as shown in Table 3-10. Furthermore, the City has kept debt levels relatively low as
indicated by its moderately low debt to equity ratio, relatively low amount of outstanding
debt per customer, and variable but consistently moderate to high debt service coverage.
These historical financial results have aided the City in maintaining its strong water
utility credit rating. The Citys underlying water utility credit rating is Aa2 by Moodys,
and AA by Standard & Poors.

3-26
Section 3
Table 3-10:
City Water System Historical Financial Results Ratio Summary

City
Water Utility 1
Capital Assets
Accumulated Depreciation
Net Book Value
% Capital Assets Depreciated
$281.9M
108.3M
$173.6M
38%
Total CIP Spending (FY1991 - FY2011)

Total Operating Revenue (FY1991 - FY2011)
Total CIP Spending as % of Revenue
$186.6M
492.4M
37.9%
Asset Replacement Cost

System Replacement Rate3
$1,300M
0.7%

$71.4M
41%
0.51
$1,349
Days Cash on Hand

Benchmark 2
802
2.4
44%
$1,502
292
2.1
As of June 30, 2011. Source: FY1991 through FY2011 CAFRs. Asset replacement cost from presentation
to the LRC by Steve Shoaf in January 2012.
2
Average annual CIP spending divided by asset replacement cost.
3.8.3.
Water Rates, Fees, and Charges
The City Council sets the water rates, and no other agency or body regulates or has
authority over the Citys utility rates. The Citys user charge structure consists of (1) an
administrative charge that recovers direct billing and collection cost, (2) volume charges
that vary based on the cost of providing service to different classes of customers, and (3)
a capital improvement charge that varies by meter size and is intended to recover the cost
of water system infrastructure improvements. There is also no variation in water rates
between City water customers located inside and outside the corporate limits of the City.
A summary of the existing water rates is provided in Table 3-11.

3-27
Section 3
Table 3-11:
Existing Water Rates City of Asheville

Rate Per
CCF
Description
Base Fee
Per Bill
Meter Size
Consumption Charge
Monthly
Charge
Capital Improvement charge
Single Family Residential

Multi-Family
$3.77
$3.19
$6.00
$6.00
Commercial (<= 1,000 ccf monthly)

Commercial (>1,000 ccf monthly)
$3.19
$1.69
$6.00
$6.00
Commercial (<=2,000 ccf bimonthly)

Commercial (>2,000 ccf bimonthly)
$3.19
$1.69
$6.00
$6.00
5/8"
3/4"
1"
1-1/2"
2"
3"
4"
6"
8"
10"
Base Fee
All water accounts are charged a $6.00 base fee per bill
$3.82
4.37
52.42
87.36
152.88
480.48
840.84
1,081.08
1,321.32
1,561.56
The City has implemented water rate increases periodically over the past 10 years, as
shown in Table 3-12. Currently, a customer that uses 5 ccf per month with a 5/8 water
meter pays $51.34 bi-monthly for water service.
Table 3-12:
Historical Water Rate Trends

Fiscal
Year
Base
Charge
Bi-Monthly
Consumption
Charge
per CCF
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
$4.83
4.83
4.83
4.83
4.83
4.83
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
$3.32
3.32
3.32
3.32
3.32
3.45
3.59
3.77
3.77
3.77
CIP
Charge
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bill1
% Change
Bi-Monthly
Bill
7.00
7.00
7.00
7.28
7.64
7.64
7.64
$38.03
38.03
38.03
45.03
45.03
46.33
49.18
51.34
51.34
51.34
0.0%
0.0%
18.4%
0.0%
2.9%
6.2%
4.4%
0.0%
0.0%
Based on a residential customer with a 5/8" meter using 5 ccf per month, 10 ccf bi-monthly.

3-28
Section 3
The City also charges other miscellaneous fees and charges for specific water-related
services. For example, the City charges a delinquent bill fee of $15, disconnect/reconnect
fees of $50, and establish or transfer of service fees of $55. These and other
miscellaneous fees generated approximately $1.7 million for the Water Resources Fund
in FY2012.
In addition, the City charges new customers that connect to the system several one time
fees, including development, water availability, tap and meter fees. Currently, a new
customer needing a 5/8 meter would pay a development fee of $1,125 plus a 4 percent
technology fee, a $50 availability fee, tap and meter fees of $1,073, and a service charge
of $55. These fees generated approximately $2 million for the water utility in FY2012.
A complete list of miscellaneous fees related to the Citys water system can be found on
the Citys website.
3.8.4.
City Indirect Costs
The Citys General Fund provides support services to the Water Resources Department
and these costs are allocated to the Water Resources Department through indirect
charges. In 2011, a Central Services Cost Allocation Plan 9 was completed which detailed
the indirect cost allocations to the City. These costs totaled approximately $2,076,000, as
shown in Table 3-13. In FY 2009 through FY2012, indirect costs were as follows:
FY2009: $2,324,365
FY2010: $2,676,753
FY2011: $2,499,821
FY2012: $2,349,404
FY2013: $2,206,649 (budgeted)
Central Services Cost Allocation Plan, City of Asheville, Maximus, Inc. 2011.
3-29
Section 3
Table 3-13:
Summary of Indirect Costs Allocated to the Water Resources Department

Department
Building Use Allow
Professional Svcs
Governing Body
Building Maint
Building Maint
City Hall Ops
Human Resources
Human Resources
Human Resources
Budget
General Admin
Information Svcs
Information Svcs
Information Svcs
Information Svcs
Fleet Management
Purchasing
Risk Management
Central Stores
Accounting
Accounting
Accounting
PW Engineering
Customer Svc
Activity
City Hall
Annual Audit
Governing Body
Maint/Svcs CH
Citywide Maint
City Hall Ops
Personnel Admin
Org Devel
Health Svcs
Budgeting
Dept Coord
Info Services
Computer Usage
Telephone Mgmt
Radio Mgmt
Fleet Mgmt
Purchasing Svcs
Risk Mgmt Admin
Central Stores
General Accting
Payroll Accting
Water Collections
Water Projects
Water Projects
Allocation Basis
Usable Square Footage
Number Of Accounting Transactions Processed
Number of FTEs
Number of FTEs
Number of FTEs
Number of FTEs
Number of FTEs
Number Of Computers (Four Quarters Averaged)
Percent Of Computer Usage
Departmental Charges
Amount Of Purchase Orders
Number of FTEs
Number Of Checks And Direct Deposits
Direct Assignment
Direct Assignment With Direct Bill Netted Off
Direct Assignment With Direct Bill Netted Off
Allocated
Units
8,993
32,510
146
8,993
8,993
8,993
146
146
146
32,510
146
108
27
199,132
2,055
552,037
5,290,534
146
1,281,444
32,510
3,782
100
100
100
Total
Allocation
$26,233
24,012
51,065
175,514
12,105
64,229
160,560
25,787
15,528
41,377
309,196
208,486
354,944
1,371
1,697
119,259
59,818
42,132
223,637
250,091
26,697
85,540
16,277
(219,326)
$2,076,230
Total
A description of these indirect costs is provided below.

3.8.4.1.
Building / Office Space
Based on the Citys Central Services Cost Allocation Plan, the City is permitted to claim
a use allowance (in lieu of depreciation) for city-owned buildings. The use allowance is
computed at 2 percent of acquisition cost plus capital improvements, exclusive of land.
The central service activities of city government are located in City Hall along with other
departments and activities. The use allowance totaling $161,850 for City Hall is allocated
to occupants based on assigned square footage. The building use allowance indirect cost
for the Water Resources Department use of 8,993 square feet of space at City Hall was
$278,000 in 2011
This cost associated with operating and maintaining the City Hall other city buildings is
allocated to the occupants of City Hall based on square footage occupied. The Water
Resources Department was allocated approximately $175,500 of City Hall costs, and
approximately $12,100 of the City-wide building maintenance costs in 2011.

3-30
Section 3
The City also allocates the cost of City Hall operations and maintenance to the occupants
of City Hall based on square footage occupied. The Water Resources Department was
allocated approximately $64,200 of these costs.
Department
Building Use Allow
Building Maint
Building Maint
City Hall Ops
Activity
City Hall
Maint/Svcs CH
Citywide Maint
City Hall Ops
Allocation Basis
Allocated
Units
Total
Allocation
8,993
8,993
8,993
8,993
$26,233
175,514
12,105
64,229
$2.92
19.52
1.35
7.14
$278,082
$30.92

Total
Cost Per
Unit
Source: Central Services Cost Allocation Plan, City of Asheville, Maximus, Inc. 2011.
3.8.4.2.
Customer Service and Billing
The Citys customer service function is a division within the water department. It
primarily serves the water department, but the City also handles some city-wide customer
service needs. According to the Citys 2011 Central Services Cost Allocation Plan,
approximately $985,000 of the customer service costs are associated with the Water
Resources Department, and $219,000 (or 18.2 percent) of the $1,204,000 customer
service cost is allocated to other City functions, including Public Works, Accounting,
Parking Fund, Stormwater, Sanitation, and Recycling in accordance with the number of
phone calls received.
3.8.4.3.
Engineering
Currently, the City Engineering department provides full service engineering design and
technical services to other City departments and activities of city government, including
the design and administration of capital improvement projects. In accordance with the
2011 Central Services Cost Allocation Plan, the Water Resources Department is allocated
approximately $16,300 from the City Engineering department. This is in addition to the
engineering costs associated with the Water Resources Departments Water Engineering
Division, which has a budget of approximately $690,300 in FY2012.
3.8.4.4.
Financial Budgeting, Accounting, Financial Reporting
The Citys Accounting Division is responsible for payroll, general accounting, grants
management, treasury management, accounts payable, and financial reporting functions.
General accounting includes such duties as maintenance of fiscal records pertaining to
general and special funds, maintenance of fiscal records pertaining to federal and state
grants awarded to the city, and preparation of internal revenue and expenditure reports.
The general accounting function is allocated based on the number of accounting
transactions processed for the year. The cost of the annual audit is allocated in the
Professional Services cost center.
3-31
Section 3
In accordance with the Central Services Cost Allocation Plan, the City indirect cost for
budgeting, accounting, and financial reporting was $427,700 in 2011.
Department
Professional Svcs
Budget
Accounting
Accounting
Accounting
Activity
Annual Audit
Budgeting
General Accting
Payroll Accting
Water Collections
Allocation Basis
Number Of Checks And Direct Deposits
Direct Assignment
Total
Allocated
Total
Units
Allocation
32,510
32,510
32,510
3,782
100
$24,012
41,377
250,091
26,697
85,540
Cost per
Unit
$0.74
1.27
7.69
7.06
855.40
$427,717
Source: Central Services Cost Allocation Plan, City of Asheville, Maximus, Inc. 2011.
3.8.4.5.
Fleet
The Citys Fleet Management Division is responsible for operation of the citys garage,
which provides maintenance and repair services to the city motor vehicle fleet. The
division also operates a refueling station and maintains an inventory of motor fuels and
lubricants used in city vehicles. The Fleet Management Division bills the user of services
for labor and supplies at a markup rate. Residual costs (the undistributed amount after
backing off charges) and incoming costs from other central service departments are
allocated to City departments based on the amount of the direct annual Fleet billings.
In accordance with the Central Services Cost Allocation Plan, the Water Resources
Department indirect costs for fleet is approximately $119,259, and direct billed fleet costs
to the Water Resources Department were budgeted at approximately $255,100 for Fleet
Management, and $228,000 for fuel. In FY2013, budgets for Fleet Management and fuel
are $319,300 and $344,736, respectively.
3.8.4.6.
Human Resources
The Citys Human Resources Department is responsible for the provision of all
centralized personnel functions, such as employee recruitment and testing, administration
of employee disciplinary action (up to and including demotion and termination),
grievance policy formulation, and the management of a central personnel records system.
The department is also responsible for administration of the pay and position
classification plans, employee relations and training, administration of all employee
fringe benefit programs, administration of a health and safety program, and
administrative support for the Asheville Civil Service System. Costs are allocated to each
department and/or division based on the number of full time personnel.

3-32
Section 3
In accordance with the Central Services Cost Allocation Plan, the City Water Resources
Departments indirect cost for human resources was approximately $201,900 in 2011,
and direct billed human resources costs to the Water Resources Department totaled an
additional $28,300.
Department
Human Resources
Human Resources
Human Resources
Subtotal
Human Resources
Total
3.8.4.7.
Activity
Allocation Basis
Personnel Admin
Org Devel
Health Svcs
Number of FTEs
Number of FTEs
Number of FTEs
Health Svcs
Direct Bill
Allocated
Units
Total
Allocation
Cost per
Alloc Unit
$160,560
25,787
15,528
$201,875
28,300
$230,175
$1,099.73
176.62
106.36
146
146
146
Information Technology
Information Services provides central data processing services to city departments.

Services include systems design, development and implementation, daily operation of the
computer center, and micro-computer support and maintenance. General Information
Services time is allocated based on the number of city computers. CPU usage is recapped
quarterly to determine the percent of utilization for the computer usage function.
Management of the citys internal telephone system is included in this division. Within
the indirect cost allocation plan, telephone costs are allocated to all user departments
based on distributed charges for telephone service. Costs associated with management,
user assistance, and coordination of repairs for the citys radios are allocated based on
charges to each department. The Water Resources Department is billed for some
computer services on a direct charge basis.
Department indirect costs for information services was approximately $566,500 in 2011,
and direct billed information services costs to the Water Resources Department totaled
Department
Information Svcs
Information Svcs
Information Svcs
Information Svcs
Subtotal
Information Svcs
Total
Activity
Allocation Basis
Info Services
Computer Usage
Telephone Mgmt
Radio Mgmt
Number of Computers
Percent Of Computer Usage
Info Services
Direct Billed

Allocated
Units
108
27
199,132
2,055
Total
Allocation
Cost per
Alloc Unit
$208,486
354,944
1,371
1,697
$566,498
17,903
$584,401
$1,939.41
12,921.15
0.01
0.83
3-33
Section 3
3.8.4.8.
Inventory Management
The Citys Central Stores division manages the central warehouse operation of the City,
in which inventory is maintained and distributed to all departments and divisions of the
City. Inventory distribution includes vehicle maintenance and repair parts for on and offroad equipment, water maintenance materials for maintaining the water system and
numerous supply items in the janitorial, safety, industrial and office class commodities.
Central warehouse costs are allocated to each department based on the cost of items that
are removed or ordered from the inventory of the warehouse.
Department indirect cost for inventory management is approximately $223,600.
3.8.4.9.
Purchasing
The Citys Purchasing Department is responsible for materials and equipment purchases,
including vehicles and heavy construction equipment. This department is responsible for
developing specifications, soliciting bids, processing purchase orders, and awarding
contracts. It also disposes of all city surplus property through public auctions. The
division manages all fixed assets for the City, including land, buildings, and equipment.
Costs related to the Purchasing/Contracting function are allocated based on purchase
orders.
Department issued purchase orders in the amount of $5,290,500 in 2011 and its indirect
cost allocation was approximately $59,800.
3.8.4.10. Risk Management
The Citys Risk Management function is a division of the Citys Finance Department.
The City is self-insured for insurance coverage. Costs for risk management salaries,
wages, and other direct and indirect costs are allocated to each department based on the
number of city personnel.
Department has 146 personnel, and its indirect cost for risk management was $42,132, or
approximately $288 per employee in 2011.
3.8.4.11. Other City Indirect Costs
Other City indirect costs to the Water Resources Department that were identified in the
Central Services Cost Allocation Plan are as follows:

3-34
Section 3
Governing Body - The City is governed by seven elected officials who make up the
Governing Body. Costs of the Governing Body are allocated to each department
based on the number of full time personnel. The City Water Resources Department
indirect cost for the Governing Body was $51,100 in 2011.
General Administration - The City Manager and staff are responsible for the
administration of all affairs of the City. This function is identified as departmental
coordination and is allocated to City departments based on the number of full time
personnel. The City Water Resources Department indirect cost for the General
Administration was approximately $309,200 in 2011.

3-35
4. Phase I Evaluation of Consolidation / Merger

The objective of a water and wastewater utility consolidation is to bring greater
efficiencies, improved customer service, and create a coordinated effort to provide clean
water to the regions customers. A consolidated organization can serve to minimize
redundancy, facilitate better overall planning, and provide operational consistency to
customers. Under a consolidated/merged organization and management structure, all
functions associated with water and wastewater service in the Asheville area would be
unified, including purchasing, billing and bill collection, human resources, information
technology, fleet management, etc., which could result in cost savings (see Section 4.4).
In addition, consolidation can often provide greater buying power for employee benefits,
materials, supplies, equipment, chemicals, utilities, insurance, and office supplies, and
allow for a unified front for economic development.
4.1.1.
Staffing
Forming a consolidated water and wastewater authority requires careful design and
planning. Both the MSD and City are performing the evaluation to better understand the
impact of the proposed consolidation/merger. Ensuring the necessary management and
staff to maintain public health, quality of water and wastewater, and levels of service are
important considerations for a consolidated organization. However, redundancy of
service functions provides the opportunity for the reduction of staffing levels over several
years through retirements and attrition.
Potential challenges of transferring
knowledgeable management and staff from the City to the MSD may include impacts on
seniority, vacation and sick time accruals, differences in benefits, and work location and
required travel. These challenges should be addressed during a potential implementation
phase of the study.
4.1.1.1.
Staffing Level Analysis
For purposes of this study, it was assumed that the consolidation would not change the
personnel makeup of either service provider, and the existing water and sewer functions
would report to the MSD General Manager and the MSD Board of Directors.
In order to evaluate the projected staffing levels and associated potential financial impact
of a consolidated organization, the following assumptions were utilized:
vacancies, will be part of consolidated organization. The only potential staff
reductions considered were those resulting from retirements or natural attrition.

4-1
Section 4
Evaluation of Consolidation Merger
A potential of thirteen (13) additional staff would be hired to fully replace/provide

services that the City currently provides to the Water Resources Department. The
Water Resources Department currently pays indirect costs to the Citys General Fund
of approximately $2.4 million per year. These staff are in the areas of:
All eligible retirees will retire, but in most cases rehiring will occur to fill vacated
positions. However, there are instances where effective management and reengineering of existing positions may be possible; thus, negating the need to fill a
position vacated due to retirement.
Staff were deemed eligible to retire based on meeting any one of the following
conditions:
- 30 years of service
- 25 years of service and age 60
- Age 66
Annual attrition rate assumed to be 3 percent of total budgeted staff, of which 75
percent are assumed to be refilled over the study period (as it is not possible to
determine where the natural attrition will occur within each organization, a detailed
analysis of job descriptions, roles, responsibilities, duties and the potential to cover
such functions with remaining staff was unable to be performed).
-
MSD has averaged 4.0 percent annual turnover since FY2004. With the filling of
the majority of those vacated positions, MSD has still lowered its budgeted staff
count from 167 to 148 since FY2001.
- The Water Resources Department has averaged 11.4 percent annual turnover
since FY2005 and has increased its staff from 126 to 147 over that same
timeframe. There is no anticipated staff increase for operational work that is not
currently being performed by the Water Resources Department.
- Other utilities have experienced similar and even greater efficiency gains
associated with cross-training, job-sharing, and re-engineering of positions as part
of organizational consolidation efforts.
Annual salaries and fringe benefits inflationary rate assumed to be 3 percent for
consolidated organization.
Using the assumptions identified above, along with a review of job descriptions and
associated roles, responsibilities, and duties of individual MSD and Water Resources
Department staff, an analysis was performed to identify the projected staffing levels
required of the consolidated organization. The table below presents a comparison of
projected staffing levels at the end of FY2013 for both organizations. As shown, it is
anticipated that MSD will have two staff that will retire, while the Water Resources
4-2
Section 4
Department will have six. Each of the retirees is anticipated to be replaced due to job
duties and corresponding responsibilities that are not currently able to be covered by
remaining personnel. It is also projected that each organization will have four other staff
that will leave through natural attrition, three of which will be replaced within each
organization.
MSD
Full-Time Employees
FY 2013
148
City Water Dept.

Full-Time Employees
FY 2013
147
Retirement Eligible 1
Retirement Position Rehired
2
2
6
6
Natural Attrition2
Natural Attrition2
Natural Attrition Rehired

Final Staff Count
1
3
147
Natural Attrition Rehired

Final Staff Count
Projected based on personnel dates of birth and dates of hire provided by MSD
Assumed at 3% of staff
3
Assumed that 25% of natural attrition positions will not be replaced
4
Projected based on personnel dates of birth and dates of hire provided by the City
3
146
Carrying out a similar calculation for each of the next ten years allows for the projection
of staffing levels and associated salaries and benefits costs associated with consolidation,
as presented in the following table.

4-3
Section 4
Table 4-1:
Projection of Staffing Levels and Salaries / Benefits Under Merged Scenario

FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
FY 2019
FY 2020
FY 2021
FY 2022
295
293
291
287
285
283
279
276
274
270
14
12
10
16
12
11
15
6
293
6
291
6
287
6
285
6
283
6
279
6
276
6
274
6
270
6
267
Consolidated Organization
Full-Time Employees1
Natural Attrition4
Natural Attrition Rehired5
FY-End Staff Count
Subtotal Salaries and Benefits6
20,651,680 $ 21,658,962 $ 22,134,605 $ 22,775,263 $ 23,432,474 $ 23,806,327 $ 24,263,199 $ 24,810,184 $ 25,181,812 $ 25,656,088
Additional Post-Merger Staff7

Additional Staff Cost8
0
$
Total FY-End Staff Count
293
Total Salaries and Benefits Costs:
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
$ 1,281,056 $ 1,319,488 $ 1,359,072 $ 1,399,845 $ 1,441,840 $ 1,485,095 $ 1,529,648 $ 1,575,537 $ 1,622,804

304
300
298
296
292
289
287
283
280
20,651,680 $ 22,940,018 $ 23,454,093 $ 24,134,335 $ 24,832,318 $ 25,248,167 $ 25,748,294 $ 26,339,832 $ 26,757,349 $ 27,278,891
Data for FY 2013 provided by MSD and City of Asheville Water Dept.
2
Projected based on personnel dates of birth and dates of hire provided by MSD and the City of Asheville Water Dept.
3
Projected based on analysis of job descriptions, roles, and responsibilities of retirement eligible staff from both organizations, anticipated efficiency gains and re-engineering of positions, as well as converations with MSD HR personnel
4
Assumed at 3% of each organization's staffing level
5
Assumed that 25% of natural attrition positions will not be replaced due to efficiency gains and re-engineering of positions
6
Based on average salaries and fringe benefits calculated from MSD and City Water Department FY 2013 Budget Detail for Salaries and Fringe Benefits. Starting in FY 2014, City staff health benefit was increased from current $8,950 to $11,645,
which is MSD's health benefit cost per employee. In addition, City Water Dept. staff salaries and fringe benefits not including healthcare were increased by 6.4% over a 4-yr period (FY 2014-17) to mirror the compensation adjustments for MSD
staff over the past four years. Salaries and Fringe Benefits were also inflated 3% annually.
7
Additional staff required to fully replace/provide services that the City of Asheville currently provides to the Water Dept. for which the Water Dept. pays indirect costs to the City's General Fund of approximately $2.4 million annually.
8
Cost for additional post-merger staff, which includes compensation adjustments for supervisory staff taking on additional responsibility, inflated at 3% annually.

4-4
Section 4
Based on the information provided in the table above, and depicted in the chart below, it
is projected that the staffing levels will decrease from 304 initially post-consolidation, to
280 in FY2022. This represents an approximate 1 percent average annual reduction,
which is reasonable considering the historical attrition trends and projected retirement
eligibility. It is also reasonable based on what other, similar utilities have experienced as
a result of the efficiency gains associated with cross-training, job-sharing, and reengineering of positions that is often a part of organizational consolidation efforts. The
majority of the positions eligible for retirement during the 10-year timeframe that are
projected to not be filled once they become vacant are associated with sewer collection
system and water distribution system maintenance, which have the greatest overlap of
skill sets, training, and knowledge.
Figure 4-1: Projected Staffing Levels
Projected Staffing Levels

Consolidated Utility
320
300
280
Projected Full-Time Employees
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
293
304
300
298
296
292
289
287
283
280
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
FY 2019
FY 2020
FY 2021
FY 2022
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Fiscal Year-End
It should be noted that for this analysis, Water Resources Department staff salaries and
benefits were increased by $2,695 per employee beginning in FY2014 to eliminate the
current discrepancy between the Water Resources Departments healthcare benefit costs
per employee ($8.950) and MSDs healthcare benefit costs per employee ($11,645).
4-5
Section 4
However, it is quite possible that the overall healthcare costs per employee for the
consolidated utility will be reduced after consolidation, due to the increased buying
power of a larger organization.
In addition, the City Water Department staff salaries and fringe benefits not including
healthcare were increased 3 percent annually with an additional 6.4 percent over a 4-yr
period (FY2014-17) to mirror the compensation adjustments for MSD staff over the past
four years. MSD staff compensation increases are tied directly to the Consumer Price
Index (CPI). Since the outset of the economic downturn in FY2009, MSD staff have
received an overall 8.4 percent compensation increase. Over that same time period,
Water Department staff have received a 2.0 percent compensation increase; a difference
of 6.4 percent. Therefore, to accommodate a more equitable compensation structure
within the consolidated organization, it was assumed that Water Department staff
compensation would be increased an additional 6.4 percent over the first four years after
consolidation. In order to ensure future compensation equitability between MSD and
Water Department staff, it is recommended that a job classification and compensation
study be conducted within the first two years after consolidation occurs.
The cost/savings impacts associated with the projected staffing level assessment
presented above is discussed in Section 4.4.3.

The water system under a merger/consolidation scenario is anticipated to operate much
like it does now. It is anticipated that staff at individual facilities will maintain their same
positions and responsibilities, and current programs to address system operations and
maintenance will remain in place. Existing contracts, such as the tank maintenance
contract, will remain in effect.
One area that could potentially be impacted is responsibility for managing the 20,000
acres of watershed tributary to the water systems reservoirs. This land is currently
owned by the City, but it may make sense for the MSD to lease and manage this property
since activities on the property could have a direct impact to the water system.
4.3. Infrastructure and Improvements

The individual CIPs from both MSD and the City water system identified in this report
will be evaluated and funded under a merger/consolidation scenario much like they are
now as independent, self-sustaining programs. The consolidation of resources could,
however, potentially result in efficiencies associated with combining common facilities
such a maintenance facility or shared fleet operations.
The City has identified a need to spend approximately $1.5 million on renovating or
replacing its existing maintenance facility. A consolidated organization may benefit from
4-6
Section 4
combining operations into a new, centrally located facility that could serve both water
and wastewater functions with common equipment, office space, and operations areas.
4.4. Financial Analysis

This section provides a summary of the anticipated cost impacts, financial projections,
and customer rate impacts associated with the merger. The cost impacts refer to the
discussion of merger impacts described in Sections 4.1 through 4.3. The financial
analysis was prepared under the following assumptions:
MSD would retain all current City Water Resources Department employees, and
current MSD employees;
MSD would assume all City water system indebtedness;
plan;
All City water customers, including wholesale customers would remain unchanged
after the merge; and
Evaluation of cost impacts, if any, associated with compensation to the City for water
system assets was beyond the scope of this study.
4.4.1.
Cost Impacts
The following subsections provide a description of the anticipated cost impacts of the
merger on the water system.
4.4.1.1.
Building / Office Space
Under the merger scenario, the MSD envisions customer service staff operating out of
City hall for one to two years following the merger until another location can be obtained.
In addition, the MSD anticipates renting or purchasing a new property to be used as an
operations building.
Estimates for rental of the current City Hall space and acquisition of a new space for the
customer service function total $1.3 million in FY2014 and $1.2 million in FY2015.
Estimates for purchasing a new property to be used as an operations building total $1.8
million in FY2014 and $1.7 million in FY2015 10. The cost of the operations building
would replace the Citys current CIP project for a new maintenance facility, which totals
$500,000 in FY2014 and $1.5 million in FY2015.
10
Estimates provided by MSD.

4-7
Section 4
4.4.1.2.
IT Integration
Under the merger scenario, it is estimated that MSD would need to incur between
$435,000 and $1,735,000 for initial information technology purchases and licensing
directly related to the merger. 11 For conservativeness, the higher end of the range was
used in the financial model described below. This estimate includes the cost of the
following items:
New desktops/laptops for Water Resources Department employees (110 systems)
Microsoft Office productivity software including 125 copies of Office 2010
Servers to run Maximo CMMS
Cost to transfer Maximo CMMS from the City to MSD, including licensing,
documentination and training
Purchase and deployment of a phone system at two locations
Storage and backup space (4 SANs for backup and storage)
Network wiring and hardware for two locations
Cost to merge the Munis billing software with MSDs existing financial software
4.4.1.3.
City Indirect Costs
Following the merger, the Water System would no longer be required to pay for indirect
costs for services provided by the Citys General Fund. This would reduce Water System
costs by approximately $2.2 million. However, in replace of the services provided by the
Citys General Fund, MSD would potentially add staff, and expenses associated with
these functions. An estimate of these costs totals approximately $1.3 million, and is
described below.
Customer Service and Billing
It was assumed that MSD would transfer the entire customer service function from the
City. As such it was assumed that the customer service function would continue to
perform customer service support to City Public Works, Accounting, Parking Fund,
Stormwater, Sanitation, and Recycling. Therefore, the portion of the costs allocated to
these other City functions (approximately $219,000) were included in the customer
service cost under the merged scenario, and revenues of the same amount for providing
these services were also included.
11
Based on information provided by MSDs IT Manager, Matthew Walter.

4-8
Section 4
Engineering
It was assumed that the entire engineering staff and related costs associated with the
Water Resources Departments Water Engineering Division would be included under the
merger scenario.
Financial Budgeting, Accounting, Financial Reporting
In replace of the Citys General Fund Accounting Division, budgeting, accounting, and
financial reporting functions would be handled by existing MSD finance and accounting
staff.
Fleet and Building Trades
In replace of the Citys General Fund Fleet Management Division, which is responsible
for operation of the citys garage, and provides maintenance and repair services to the
city motor vehicle fleet, fleet services will be provided by MSD.. The directly billed fleet
costs to the Water Resources Department were included under the merger scenario. In
addition, MSD will provide an additional position in the Water Resources Department to
address the building trades services and mechanical maintenance functions associated
with carpentry, painting, masonry, and metal fabrication. In total, six (6) additional staff
would be required to address these additional fleet and building trades needs.
Human Resources
In replace of the Citys General Fund Human Resources Department, which is

responsible for the provision of all centralized personnel functions, such as employee
recruitment and testing, administration of employee disciplinary action (up to and
including demotion and termination), grievance policy formulation, and the management
of a central personnel records system, MSD would need to add two (2) staff to support
this function.
Information Technology
In replace of the Citys General Fund Information Services Department, which is

responsible for systems design, development and implementation, daily operation of the
computer center, and micro-computer support and maintenance, MSD would need to add
three (3) staff to support this function.

4-9
Section 4
Inventory Management
In replace of the Citys General Fund Central Stores division, in which inventory is
maintained and distributed to all departments and divisions of the City, approximately
one (1) staff would be needed to support this function.
Purchasing
In replace of the Citys General Fund Purchasing Department, which is responsible for
materials and equipment purchases, including vehicles and heavy construction
equipment, MSD would need to add one (1) staff to support this function.
Risk Management
In replace of the Citys General Fund Risk Management function, which is a division of
the Citys Finance Department, MSD would not be adding staff to support this function,
as these duties are typically covered by the Director of Financial Services.
4.4.1.4.
Sullivan Act Transfers
Under the merger scenario, the transfer of money from the Water Resources Department
to the Citys General Capital Projects Fund for the purposes described under the Sullivan
Act, would be eliminated. The City has budgeted an amount equal to approximately $1
million (3 percent of revenues) in FY2013, which is expected to be increased by 1
percent of revenues each year until the maximum amount of transfers (5 percent) allowed
under the Sullivan Act is reached. 12
4.4.1.5.
Other Transactional Costs
It is anticipated that MSD would need to incur approximately $700,000 in merger

transaction costs. This amount includes financing related costs, such as credit rating fees
and bond transaction costs, for assuming the Citys debt, costs associated with system
inventory and condition, and outside legal fees related to the transaction.
4.4.1.6.
Cost Impact Summary
A summary of the costs and benefits associated with the merger were prepared under
three merger scenarios. Merger Scenario 1 assumes MSD transfers all of the staff from
the Citys Water Resources Department to MSD and maintains that level of staffing from
FY2014 through FY2022. Merger Scenario 1 does not reflect the opportunities for
operational efficiencies. Merger Scenario 2 assumes MSD transfers all of the staff from
the Citys Water Resources Department to MSD and reduces staff through attrition and
12
Water and Sewer Rate Study Final Report, prepared by Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc., August 2011,
and confirmed with Mr. Steve Shoaf, Utility Director, Asheville Water resources Department at a meeting
held on August 1, 2012.
4-10
Section 4
retirements, as described in Section 4.1. Merger Scenario 2 incorporates the water staff
operational efficiencies that are projected to be realized as a result of the merger. Merger
Scenario 3 incorporates potential reductions in MSD staff through attrition and
retirements directly related to the merger. The projected cost savings of the merger under
these three scenarios are shown in Tables 4-2, 4-3, and 4-4.
per year.
In addition to the savings identified above, merging the Water with MSD would mean the
elimination of NCDOT Non-betterment costs for water line relocation for DOT
projects. The savings can be significant, i.e. millions of dollars. For instance, this cost
from 2001-2012 ranged from $6.7 Million to $14.5 Million based on City records. Major
NCDOT projects slated for the next ten years have recently been delayed but eventually
would have significant budgetary (and rate) impacts to the water system under the City of
Asheville. The non-betterment costs would not apply to MSD due to the NC General
Statutes and therefore would not be borne by the water customer.
4.4.2.
Cash Flow Projections
Several cash flow, water rate, and customer impact projections were prepared to illustrate
the projected annual impact of the merger on water system cash flows, financial
condition, and customer rates. A baseline 10-year financial projection was prepared for
the water system as it currently exists as a City Water Resources Department. This
baseline was largely taken from the Citys financial model, which was provided to MSD
on October 24, 2012. Cash flow, water rate, and customer impact projections for the two
merger scenarios were then prepared reflecting the cost impacts as described above. A
summary of cash flow, water rate, and customer bill projections under each scenario is
provided below, and detailed cash flow projection tables are provided in Appendix C.

4-11
Section 4
Table 4-2:

FY2013
Description
FY2014

- $
-
- $

FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
853,555 $ 1,023,587 $ 1,054,294 $ 1,085,923 $ 1,118,501 $ 1,152,056 $ 1,186,617

692,560 $
540,219 $
(2,879,176)
(2,795,317)
(2,713,900)
(2,634,854)
(2,558,111)
(2,483,603)
(2,411,265)
(2,341,034)
(2,272,848)
1,622,804
1,575,537
1,529,648
1,485,095
1,441,840
1,399,845
1,359,072
1,319,488
1,281,056
(1,900,401)
(1,874,137)
(1,848,306)
(1,676,578)
(1,676,578)
(1,676,578)
(1,676,578)
(1,676,578)
(1,341,262)
1,400,000
2,600,000
1,735,000
700,000
3,242,165 $
(605,564) $ (1,875,215) $ (1,736,750) $ (1,738,555) $ (1,740,414) $ (1,914,057) $ (1,941,861) $ (1,970,156)
$ (10,280,406)
(1,142,267)

4-12
Section 4
Table 4-3:

Description
FY2013
City vs Water MSD Salaries and Benefits Cost Difference


FY2014
- $
- $
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
540,219 $
692,560 $
853,555 $ 1,023,587 $ 1,054,294 $ 1,085,923 $ 1,118,501 $ 1,152,056 $ 1,186,617
(135,514)
(282,863)
(368,956)
(461,924)
(713,673)
(898,435)
(1,009,514)
(1,213,100)
(1,427,992)
(2,272,848)
(2,341,034)
(2,411,265)
(2,483,603)
(2,558,111)
(2,634,854)
(2,713,900)
(2,795,317)
(2,879,176)
1,281,056
1,319,488
1,359,072
1,399,845
1,441,840
1,485,095
1,529,648
1,575,537
1,622,804
(1,341,262)
(1,676,578)
(1,676,578)
(1,676,578)
(1,676,578)
(1,676,578)
(1,848,306)
(1,874,137)
(1,900,401)
2,600,000
1,400,000
1,735,000
700,000
3,106,651 $
(888,427) $ (2,244,171) $ (2,198,674) $ (2,452,228) $ (2,638,849) $ (2,923,571) $ (3,154,961) $ (3,398,147)
$ (16,792,377)
(1,865,820)

4-13
Section 4
Table 4-4:

Description
FY2013

Reduction in Salaries and Benefits Cost - Wastewater Attrition
CS & Maintenance Buildings

FY2014
- $
- $
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
540,219 $
692,560 $
853,555 $ 1,023,587 $ 1,054,294 $ 1,085,923 $ 1,118,501 $ 1,152,056 $ 1,186,617
(135,514)
(282,863)
(368,956)
(461,924)
(713,673)
(898,435)
(1,009,514)
(1,213,100)
(1,427,992)
(162,112)
(250,463)
(343,970)
(442,861)
(547,376)
(657,764)
(774,282)
(897,199)
(1,026,795)
(2,272,848)
(2,341,034)
(2,411,265)
(2,558,111)
(2,634,854)
(2,713,900)
(2,483,603)
(2,795,317)
(2,879,176)
1,281,056
1,319,488
1,359,072
1,399,845
1,441,840
1,485,095
1,529,648
1,575,537
1,622,804
(1,341,262)
(1,676,578)
(1,676,578)
(1,676,578)
(1,676,578)
(1,676,578)
(1,848,306)
(1,874,137)
(1,900,401)
2,600,000
1,400,000
1,735,000
700,000
2,944,539 $ (1,138,891) $ (2,588,141) $ (2,641,535) $ (2,999,604) $ (3,296,613) $ (3,697,853) $ (4,052,160) $ (4,424,942)
$ (21,895,199)
(2,432,800)

4-14
Section 4
4.4.2.1.
Baseline Scenario
The baseline scenario is a financial projection of the water system as it is currently

operated by the City. This scenario was developed primarily from the financial
projections provided by the City. This financial projection is based on the following
parameters:
The beginning FY2013 unrestricted cash balance in the Water Resources Department
is $29,147,000.
Billed flow, base charge, and CIP charge billed units were assumed to remain flat
over the forecast period ;
Miscellaneous revenues generated from connection fees, fireline charges, delinquent
& interest fees, and other miscellaneous revenue sources were assumed to remain flat
over the forecast period;
Operating expenses were based on FY2012 actuals and were projected to increase by
average of approximately 3.0 percent per year.
Capital outlay was based on FY2012 actuals and was projected to increase by
approximately 2.5 percent per year.
Debt service associated with existing outstanding debt was assumed to follow the
established debt service schedules. No advanced refunding or refinancing of debt
was assumed.
The water system capital plan was assumed as described in Section 4.3.
The capital plan will be funded with a mix of cash from current revenues or capital
reserves and with long-term debt.
It was assumed that approximately $16 million in debt will be issued in FY2014, $12
million in FY2019 and $12 million in FY2021. The debt was assumed to be parity
debt with an interest rate of 4.5 percent per annum and a term of 25 years.
The cash flow and water rate projections for the baseline are summarized in Table 4-4.
The cash flow projection indicates that cash balances will generally remain at or above
one year of operation and maintenance expenses, and debt service coverage (defined as
annual net revenues divided by annual debt service) will decline through the forecast
period but remain above 1.5. Water rate increases that were included in the Citys
October 24, 2012 financial model were assumed in the baseline projection. The average
projected rate increases included in the baseline were 1.1 percent in FY2014, 1.6 percent
in FY2015 through FY2018, 1.1 percent in FY2019, and 1.6 percent in FY2020 through
FY2022, as shown in Table 4-5.

4-15
Section 4
Table 4-5:
Financial Projection Summary Baseline Scenario
Fiscal
Year
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
$ 17,617,000
17,745,000
15,559,000
18,827,000
19,486,000
20,156,000
21,774,000
22,012,000
22,525,000
23,040,000
427
416
352
412
412
412
430
420
415
409
2.74
2.47
2.26
2.24
2.21
2.19
2.02
1.88
1.76
1.64
2.67
2.41
2.21
2.19
2.16
2.19
2.02
1.88
1.76
1.64
0.0%
1.1%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.1%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
0.9%
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
1.5%
1.0%
1.5%
1.5%
1.4%
Number of days of operation and maintenance expense at the end of the fiscal year.
Operating revenues less operating expenses (net revenues) divided by parity debt service.
Operating revenues less operating expenses (net revenues) divided by total debt service.
4.4.2.2.
Blended
Residential
Ending Fund Cash Parity DS Total DS Water Rate Water Rate
Increase4
(Days)1 Coverage2 Coverage3 Increase
Balance
The difference betw een the blended and residential w ater rate increase is due to the City's rate
design plan, w hich adjusts the individual rate components differently for each customer class.
Merger Scenario 1
Resources Department to MSD and maintains that level of staffing from FY2014 through
FY2022. In addition, this scenario includes the cost impacts and savings as described
under Section 4.4.1, and includes:
Adjustment to salary and benefit costs associated with staff transferred from the
Citys Water Resources Department to achieve parity over a three year period;
The elimination of City General Fund overhead costs allocated to the Water
Resources Department. Replacement of these costs with the cost of the addition of 13
support services positions.
Elimination of transfers to the Citys General Capital Projects Fund by reducing the
Citys Water System CIP by amounts referred to as Community Development
Allowance.
A reduction in capital project financing amounts in FY2019 and FY2022 to reflect a
reduced CIP from exclusion of the Community Development Allowance.
The addition of cost for new customer service and maintenance buildings. The
inclusion of $2.5 million in additional parity debt for the customer service building.
4-16
Section 4
The addition of cost for IT systems integration.

The addition of merger transaction costs.
The cash flow and water rate projections for Merger Scenario 1 are summarized in Table
4-6. The cash flow projection indicates that cash balances will generally be slightly
higher than under the baseline scenario, and debt service coverage will be comparable to
the baseline scenario, and reflects a decrease in the water rate increases that were
included in the Citys October 24, 2012 financial model. Under this scenario, the average
projected water rate increases remained the same as the baseline in FY2014 through
FY2016, but were reduced in FY2017 through FY2022. An estimated 0.8 percent water
rate increases would be needed in FY2017 through FY2022 (reduced from 1.6 percent),
would be needed under this scenario to achieve generally the same cash balances and
debt service coverage results as the baseline. It is important to note that Merger Scenario
1 does not reflect the savings associated with the opportunities for operational
efficiencies. These are included under Merger Scenarios 2 and 3.
Table 4-6:
Financial Projection Summary Merger Scenario 1
Fiscal
Year
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Blended
Residential
Increase4
Balance
$ 17,617,000
16,917,000
15,166,000
20,139,000
22,133,000
23,880,000
24,856,000
26,095,000
25,562,000
26,724,000
427
396
340
432
455
474
476
483
456
460
2.74
2.51
2.25
2.21
2.14
2.07
1.92
1.77
1.63
1.50
2.67
2.44
2.20
2.16
2.09
2.07
1.92
1.77
1.63
1.50
0.0%
1.1%
1.6%
1.6%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.9%
1.4%
1.4%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
4.4.2.3.
Merger Scenario 2
Resources Department to MSD and reduces staff through attrition and retirements, as

4-17
Section 4
described in Section 4.1. In addition, this scenario includes the cost impacts and savings
as described under Merger Scenario 1 and Section 4.4.1.
4-7. The cash flow projection reflects a decrease in the water rate increases due to
elevated cash balances and debt service coverage as compared to the baseline scenario.
Under this scenario, the average projected water rate increases remained the same as the
baseline in FY2014 through FY2016, but were reduced in FY2017 through FY2022. No
water rate increases would be needed in FY2017 through FY2022 (reduced from 1.6
percent) to achieve generally the same cash balances and debt service coverage results as
the baseline.
Table 4-7:
Fiscal
Year
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Blended
Residential
Increase4
Balance
$ 17,617,000
17,053,000
15,585,000
20,927,000
23,140,000
25,112,000
24,320,000
25,721,000
23,371,000
24,746,000
427
402
355
459
488
519
489
501
443
457
2.74
2.53
2.29
2.26
2.17
2.11
1.96
1.80
1.67
1.54
2.67
2.46
2.24
2.21
2.12
2.11
1.96
1.80
1.67
1.54
0.0%
1.1%
1.6%
1.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.9%
1.4%
1.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.4.2.4.
Merger Scenario 3
Merger Scenario 3 assumes the same parameters as Merger Scenario 2, but also
incorporates potential reductions in MSD staff through attrition and retirements directly
related to the merger.
4-8. The cash flow projection reflects a decrease in the water rate increases due to
4-18
Section 4
elevated cash balances and debt service coverage as compared to the baseline scenario.
Under this scenario, the average projected water rate increases remained the same as the
baseline in FY2014 and FY2015, but were reduced in FY2016 through FY2022. No
water rate increases would be needed in FY2016 through FY2022 (reduced from 1.6
percent) to achieve generally the same cash balances and debt service coverage results as
the baseline.
Table 4-8:
Fiscal
Year
Blended Residential
Increase4
Balance
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
$ 17,617,000
17,215,000
15,997,000
21,218,000
23,409,000
25,463,000
22,932,000
24,779,000
21,066,000
23,276,000
427
406
365
465
494
526
461
483
400
430
2.74
2.55
2.33
2.25
2.16
2.12
2.00
1.88
1.77
1.67
2.67
2.49
2.27
2.20
2.12
2.12
2.00
1.88
1.77
1.67
0.0%
1.1%
1.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.9%
1.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
The difference betw een the blended and residential w ater rate increase is due to the City's
rate design plan, w hich adjusts the individual rate components differently for each customer
class.
4.5. Regulatory Analysis

State Rules. The current water system is in compliance with all drinking water
regulations, as is shown in Section 3.6.2, and continued compliance is expected with the
merged system.
4.5.1.
Federal Issues
The Mills River Water Treatment Plant has water withdrawal facilities that can obtain
water from both the Mills River and the French Broad River. These withdrawal facilities
have screens that are designed to exclude debris from entering the intake. It is common
4-19
Section 4
for the US Fish and Wildlife Service to require withdrawal facilities to incorporate
screens that prevent fish from entering the intake. Typically these screens have openings
in the range of 1 mm to 3 mm and are sized to limit the through slot velocity to no more
than 0.5 feet per second. Although screens designed for fish protection are not currently
required, it is possible that this may be required with a future increase in the capacity of
the Mills River Plant.
4.5.2.
State and Local Issues
The Citys water system includes dams at both Lake Bee Tree and North Fork Lake that
are regulated by North Carolina Administrative Code Title 15A Subchapter 2K Dam
Safety. The dam at Bee Tree Lake has recently been evaluated for Dam Safety
compliance and remedial actions implemented to achieve such compliance. The dam at
North Fork Lake is currently being evaluated. Based on the findings appropriate
remedial actions will be taken to achieve compliance.
4.5.2.1.
Sullivan Act
Chapter 399 of the 1933 Public-Local Laws section of the state statutes (known as the
"Sullivan Act") address the particular circumstances of the supplying of water to
residents of Buncombe County by the City and the associated charges for service.
Sullivan Act I required the City to provide water to customers in the County at the same
rate as customers in the City, Sullivan Act II requires the City to continue to provide
water to customers in the County at the same rate as customers in the City, but requires
the County to maintain its water lines at its own expense. It also declared that water
consumers residing and located outside of the corporate limits of the City are entitled to
the use of Asheville surplus water only, and the governing body of the City is authorized
and empowered to discontinue the supply of water to any districts, or water consumers,
out of the corporate limits of the City at any time that there may be a drought or other
emergency or at any time the governing body of the City may lawfully deem that the City
has use for all of its water supply.
In 2005, the General Assembly enacted S.L. 2005-139 (Sullivan Act III), which allows
new customers in the County to tap on to the water system as long as the daily usage of
the system does not exceed the 50-year minimum safe yield. This Act also specifies that
the City needs to account for a public enterprise in a separate fund and may not transfer
any money from that fund to another except for a capital project fund established for the
construction or replacement of assets for that public enterprise.
In June of 2009, the General Assembly enacted S.L.2009-114, which was an amendment
to the Sullivan Act specifying that the City may use up to five percent (5 percent) of
utility revenues for street and sidewalk improvements associated with waterline
improvements.

4-20
Section 4
4.5.3.
Assignment/Transfer of Permits
All community and non-transient non-community public water systems must meet the
requirements of the Capacity Development Program to demonstrate the owners ability to
manage the system in accordance with the Rules Governing Public Water Systems.
Capacity development refers to a water system's technical, managerial, and financial
ability to comply fully with all aspects of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
Technical capacity refers to the physical and operational ability of a water system to
meet SDWA requirements. Requirements include the completion of an Operation and
Maintenance Plan and an Emergency Management Plan for all new or expanding
community and non-transient non-community water systems [Rule .0307 (d)(e)].
Managerial capacity is the ability of the water system owner and manager(s) to
conduct the affairs of the system in a manner that enables the water system to achieve
and maintain compliance with SDWA requirements. As part of a Water System
Management Plan, new or expanding community and non-transient non-community
water systems must develop and submit documentation regarding the systems
organization, ownership, management qualifications, management training and
policies [Rule .0307 (c)].
Financial capacity is a water system owner's ability to acquire and manage financial
resources to allow the system to achieve and maintain compliance with the SDWA
requirements. As part of a Water System Management Plan, new or expanding
community and non-transient non-community water systems must develop and
submit documentation to demonstrate the water systems financial capacity. For
systems regulated by the North Carolina Local Government Commission, or the
North Carolina Utilities Commission, this financial capacity may be demonstrated by
documenting compliance with Local Government Commission or North Carolina
Utilities Commission requirements [Rule .0307 (c)(7)].
As an existing public water system, the City currently has all of these documents in place.
A merger with MSD would require that these documents be revised, as applicable, and in
the case of the Water System Management Plan submitted to the Public Water Supply
Section. At a minimum, the changes to these plans would include MSD as the owner.
Assuming that current operation policies remain in place, any additional revisions should
be minor.

4-21
5. Water Systems in Buncombe County (Phase II)

The purpose of this Phase II analysis is to study, identify and quantify financial impacts
to MSD rate payers associated with the proposed merger of the Biltmore Forest,
Montreat, and Weaverville water systems with the MSD. This Phase II analysis addresses
those water districts in Buncombe County who have expressed potential interest in being
included in this consolidation impact analysis. The review of legal, governance,
valuation and compensation issues is beyond the scope of this Phase II analysis. It is our
understanding that the analysis of such issues will be performed subject to the enactment
of the proposed legislation and part of subsequent negotiations.
5.1. Biltmore Forest

5.1.1.
System Overview and Service Area
The Town of Biltmore Forest (Biltmore Forest or Town) is a town in Buncombe

County, North Carolina with a population in 2011 of 1,526. The Town was incorporated
in 1923. The Town built its water system in the early 1920s, has always purchased water
on a wholesale basis from the City of Asheville, and provides retail water service to its
customers. In 2011 the average daily amount of water purchased from the City was
approximately 0.172 million gallons per day (mgd). The Towns contract with the City
allows the Town to purchase up to 0.35 mgd, and the contract expires in 2022.
The Town estimates that the population will grow from 1,526 to 1,610 between 2011 and
2020, which is an average of approximately 0.6 percent per year. The Town reports in its
Local Water Supply Plan that it has only one significant parcel left for future
development (approximately 20 home sites), and there is no additional land in the Town
available for commercial, industrial, or institutional development other than that which
currently exists. There are currently approximately 762 residential customers, nine
commercial customers, and nine institutional customers within the system. 13
5.1.2.
Description of Assets
The water system consists of approximately 20 miles of distribution pipelines, of which

approximately 80 percent are ductile iron between 2 inches and 6 inches in diameter, and
20 percent are ductile iron above 6 inches in diameter.
5.1.3.
Condition of System
Since the Towns water assets consist of only distribution pipelines and no aboveground
infrastructure, a field inspection was not conducted. The Town reports that with an
13
2011 Local Water Supply Plan for Biltmore Forest.

5-1
Section 5
Water Systems in Buncombe County (Phase II)
existing local water purchase agreement with the City of Asheville, no future
improvements are anticipated to be required within the Town to meet present and future
quantity and quality needs. The vast majority (approximately 85 percent) of the water
lines in the system were replaced in 2002, eliminating known deficiencies in the system.
5.1.4.
Organization and Management
The Town employs a total of 18 personnel. Personnel that may be involved with the
water system include:
Unskilled Laborer
Financial Assistant
Public Services Worker 1
Public Works / Safety Director
Equipment Operator II
Town Administrator
Public Works Technician
Assistant to the Town Administrator
Based on information provided by Biltmore Forest, it is assumed that the employees

associated with the positions listed above devote approximately 10% of their time to
operating and maintaining the water system utility.
5.1.5.
As noted in Section 5.1.1, the Town purchases water on a wholesale basis from the City
of Asheville, and does not operate a water treatment plant. There are no tanks in the
system, and a majority of water lines were replaced in 2002.
5.1.6.
Capital Projects
Since the vast majority (approximately 85 percent) of the water lines were replaced in
2002, there are no substantial water system capital projects currently planned. The
Towns FY2012-13 annual budget planned for $7,500 of expenditures including meters,
meter boxes and hand tools.
5.1.7.
Financial Condition and Utility Rates
A summary of the historical financial results for FY2007-08 through FY2011-12 is

provided in Table 5-1. As shown in the table, Biltmore Forest anticipated generating
between $310,000 and $389,000 per year in water sales over the past five years. Over
this period, operating expenses have increased from $313,000 to $342,000 per year, and
the current water system annual debt service is approximately $450,000.

5-2
Section 5
Table 5-1:
Water System Historical Financial Results for the Town of Biltmore Forest
Description
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
FY2007-08 FY2008-09 FY2009-10 FY2010-11
Water Fund Revenues

Water Charges
Water Tap & Connect Fees
Interest Earned
Commissions, Sewer Chg
Other Financing Source
Approp, Fund Balance
$ 352,062 $ 347,637 $ 310,039 $ 373,653 $ 389,074 $ 374,500

9,265
6,000
16,165
7,520
7,925
8,000
25,041
11,457
3,715
5,916
2,310
5,000
8,114
8,867
7,878
8,079
8,256
8,000
289,540
421,500
424,029
339,699
339,699
339,699
79,544
-
Total Water Fund Revenues
$ 684,022 $ 795,461 $ 761,826 $ 734,867 $ 747,264 $ 814,743
Water Department Expenses

Salary & Wages
Benefits
Materials & Supplies
Water Purchases
Maintenance
Other Misc
Capital Outlay
$ 81,147 $ 90,029 $ 97,826 $

87,206 $
90,312 $
99,320
27,095
29,809
32,455
35,145
37,573
42,580
15,604
17,810
14,988
8,234
14,891
13,000
182,116
170,892
175,863
190,358
187,078
195,000
955
250
1,517
380
1,000
6,487
8,501
6,983
5,554
7,274
6,250
9,730
6,517
13,268
4,792
7,500
Debt Service
325,000
Total Water Fund Expenses
450,091
450,091
Actual
FY2011-12
450,092
450,092
Budget
FY2012-13
450,093
$ 638,404 $ 776,862 $ 784,973 $ 791,374 $ 792,392 $ 814,743
Sources: Town Budget FY2013, Annual Financial Reports for FY2007-08 through FY2011-12.
The Towns water user charge structure consists of a monthly fixed charge (i.e. base rate)
that includes 2,250 gallons, and three tiers of volumetric rates that decrease with
increasing consumption. A summary of the existing water rates is provided in Table 5-2.
Table 5-2:
Existing Water Rates Town of Biltmore Forest

Base Rate (Bi-Monthly)
From 2,250 to 60,000 gallons
From 60,000 gallons to 100,000 gallons
Above 100,000 gallons
$37.99 (Includes 2,250 gallons)


5-3
Section 5
5.2. Town of Montreat

5.2.1.
The Town of Montreat, North Carolina (Montreat or Town) is located in the eastern
portion of Buncombe County, just north of the Town of Black Mountain, in western
North Carolina. Montreat was incorporated as a North Carolina township in 1967. Much
of the property in the area is still owned by the Mountain Retreat Association, formed in
1897 by a Congregationalist minister from Connecticut. According to the United States
Census Bureau, the town has a total area of 2.8 square miles.
Montreat is the home of Montreat College, a private, four-year co-educational liberal arts
Christian college with a student body of approximately 450 undergraduate students. Also
located in Montreat is the Montreat Conference Center (also known as the Mountain
Retreat Association), which is a conference center serving the Presbyterian Church.
Montreat's water supply system serves a population of approximately 750 people through
668 connections. The seasonal population is approximately 3,000. The system consists
of approximately 640 residential meter connections and 28 institutional connections. The
Town reports that population is expected to increase by an average of approximately 0.6
percent per year between 2011 and 2020. 14
The water system is governed and controlled by the Town Board, which is responsible
for enforcing full compliance with all the rules and regulations governing all connections
with the water system.
5.2.2.
The Montreat water system consists of 12 water supply wells, two water storage tanks,
and a booster pump station. Although the Town owns 12 water supply wells, it operates
only 11 at present. The water supply wells obtain water from a bedrock aquifer and are
located in the Blue Ridge and Inner Piedmont Recharge Area, where the estimated
average recharge rate is 0.6 mgd per square mile. The wells are not screened.
Since 2002, four new wells have been drilled to increase the Towns water supply. These
four wells are located on a property upgradient from the Town that has now been
permanently conserved under the Southern Conservancy. This area consists of
approximately 2,500 acres that is bordered to the north by the Blue Ridge Parkway and to
the west by the City of Ashevilles North Fork reservoir property, all of which will
remain undeveloped with hiking being the only activity allowed on the property. A
summary of the supply wells is provided in Table 5-3.
14
Local Water Supply Plan for the Town of Montreat, 2011.

5-4
Section 5
Table 5-3:
Town of Montreat Supply Wells

Well
Number
Depth
(Feet)
Capacity
(gpm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
A
B
A01
A02
A03
A04
400
345
345
345
305
545
500
750
605
605
605
605
60
60
38
0
48
60
149
80
30
30
20
80
The water is treated by chemical addition. Treatment of water from each of the wells
consists of aqua mag and chlorine. In addition, two wells use poly phosphate for iron
removal. The average daily usage is approximately 0.085 mgd. The average day water
withdrawal rate was 0.11 mgd in 2011. Water demand as a percentage of supply was 47
percent in 2011.
The Town has two storage tanks used for finished water storage with a total capacity of
600,000 gallons. A pump station on Appalachian Way fills the 100,000 gallon storage
tank and creates additional pressure to the upper reaches of the system during fire flow
demands.
The distribution system includes 18 miles of distribution lines, approximately 93 percent
of which are ductile iron and 6 inches in diameter. The remaining distribution pipe in the
system ranges in size between 3 inches and 8 inches is made of cast iron, galvanized iron,
and polyvinyl chloride.
The Town also has an emergency connection with Black Mountain and a booster pump
station with the ability to purchase 0.05 mgd on an emergency basis.
5.2.3.
Condition of System
In 2006, McGill Associates evaluated the Towns water system and determined it was in
good condition with no improvements needed to meet fire flow demand conditions.
McGill Associates recommended replacement of some water lines due to water quality

5-5
Section 5
concerns. The Town has reported that it has replaced approximately eighty percent
(80%) of its water lines since the mid-1980s. 15
the major water assets were conducted to assess their condition. Condition assessment of
key system components evaluated the current physical state and performance of the
assets. 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.
Assets were rated on a standardized scale from 1 (excellent condition) to 5 (very poor
condition). Equipment associated with water system facilities such as these should
typically be rated as either 1 or 2, otherwise remedial efforts should be undertaken to
either rehabilitate or replace the asset, based on the criticality of its function.
5.2.3.1.
Field Visits
Field investigations of major water system assets (e.g., storage tanks, pump stations, and
other above ground assets) were based on visual observations and accessibility.
A water system specialist visited Water Supply Wells A and 5, both water storage tanks,
the Black Mountain Booster Pump Station, and the pump station on Appalachian Way.
Using the raw data and information gathered in the field, each of the major facilities was
assessed with respect to the following:
Asset condition
overall assessment score of 1 (excellent condition) or 2. Relatively minor issues such as
corrosion and general housekeeping were noted. Full details of individual component
assessments can be found in Appendix B.
5.2.4.
The total Town staff consists of 14 employees, and the Town reported that approximately
eight (8) of these employees perform work related to the water system on a part-time
basis, as represented by the blue boxes on the organizational chart shown in Figure 5-1.
The employees that perform work related to the water system include the Director of
15
2012-2017 Town of Montreat Capital Plan, adopted March 8, 2012

5-6
Section 5
Public Works, Senior Water Operator, three (3) Utility Maintenance Workers, Finance
Officer, Town Administrator, and the Town Clerk. Of these personnel, four are certified
operators. However, none of these staff is dedicated full time to the water system. It was
reported by the Town that approximately 11 percent of the time for these staff is
dedicated to operating and maintaining the water system.
Figure 5-1: Town of Montreat Organizational Structure
Town of Montreat
Board of Commissioners
Town
Administrator
Boards and
Commissions
Town Clerk
5.2.5.
5.2.5.1.
Public Works
Director
Finance Officer
Town Attorney
Police Chief
Utility Maintenance
Techs/Operators
Police Officers
Utility Maintenance
Workers (3)
Auxiliary Police
Building Inspector/
Code Admin.

Utility Operations
The Town operates 11 water supply wells, and maintains two booster pump stations (one
station is only used in emergencies to purchase water from Black Mountain) and two
water storage tanks. A meter replacement program is in place, as well as valve exercising
and leak detection programs. Fire hydrants and distribution lines are flushed annually.
Water storage tanks are regularly inspected as mandated by the State. Storage tanks were
inspected in 2012 and funding was provided for cleaning and minor repairs to the tanks.
The Town plans to have the tanks painted in FY2012-13.
stations was lost for almost three days, resulting in the Towns first emergency water
crisis. The Town plans to purchase a portable generator and provide electrical

5-7
Section 5
connections to the pump station on Appalachian Way and three wells, as detailed in the
CIP.
5.2.5.2.
The Town of Montreat currently holds a Public Water Supply Operating Permit through
the NC DENR-Division of Water Resources, Public Water Supply Section. During 2011,
the Town received a monitoring and reporting violation that covered the time period of
January 1, 2011. The Town has since taken the required sample, and the sample results
showed compliance with drinking water standards. 16
The Town or Montreat implements a Wellhead Protection Plan which is encouraged by
the NC Department of Environmental Health (NCDEH). The Town meets all wellhead
protection measures required by the NCDEH for public supply wells to be used as a
community water system, including:
1) The well shall be located on a lot so that the area within 100 feet of the well shall be
owned or controlled by the person supplying the water. The supplier of water shall be
able to protect the well lot from potential sources of pollution and to construct
landscape features for drainage and diversion of pollution.
2) The minimum horizontal separation between the well and known potential sources of
pollution shall be as follows:
a) 100 feet from any sanitary sewage disposal system, sewer, or a sewer pipe unless
the sewer is constructed of water main materials and joints, in which case the
sewer pipe shall be at least 50 feet from the well;
b) 200 feet from a subsurface sanitary sewage treatment and disposal system
designed for 3,000 or more gallons of wastewater flow per day, unless it is
determined that the well water source utilized a confined aquifer;
c) 500 feet from a septage disposal site;
d) 100 feet from buildings, mobile homes, permanent structures, animal houses or
lots, or cultivated areas to which chemicals are applied;
e) 100 feet from surface water;
f) 100 feet from a chemical or petroleum fuel underground storage tank with
secondary containment;
16
2011 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report for the Town of Montreat.
5-8
Section 5
g) 500 feet from a chemical or petroleum fuel underground storage tank without
secondary containment;
h) 500 feet from the boundary of a ground water contamination area;
i) 500 feet from a sanitary landfill or non-permitted non-hazardous solid waste
disposal site;
j) 1,000 feet from a hazardous waste disposal site or in any location which conflicts
with the North Carolina Hazardous Waste Management Rules cited as 15A
NCAC 13A;
k) 300 feet from a cemetery or burial ground; and
l) 100 feet from any other potential source of pollution.
3) The Department may require greater separation distances or impose other protective
measures than necessary to protect the well from pollution. In doing so, the
Department shall consider the following:
a) The hazard or health risk associated with the source of pollution;
b) The proximity of the potential source to the well;
c) The type of material, facility or circumstance that poses the source or potential
source of pollution;
d) The volume or size of the source or potential source of pollution;
e) Hydrogeological features of the site which could affect the movement of
contaminants to the source water;
f) The effect that well operation might have on the movement of contamination;
g) The feasibility of providing additional separation distances or protective
measures.
4) The lot shall be graded or sloped so that surface water is diverted away from the
wellhead. The lot shall not be subject to flooding.
5) When the supplier of water is unable to locate water from any other approved source
and when an existing well can no longer provide water that meets the requirement of
this Subchapter, a representative of the Division may approve a smaller well lot and
reduced separation distances for temporary use.
5-9
Section 5
5.2.6.
Capital Projects
Montreat prepares a 5-year CIP for the Water System that is updated each year. A
summary of the CIP is provided in Table 5-4 below. A description of each of these
projects follows.
Table 5-4:
Water System 5 Year CIP for the Town of Montreat

Description
FY2012-13 FY2013-14 FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17

Well Exploration & Const.
Water Storage Facility
Water Tank Inspection/Maint
Backhoe Replacement
Water Line Extension
Portable Generators
Total
$ 39,500
64,150
25,000
19,095
119,000
4,000
$ 270,745
$ 50,000
64,150
19,095
4,000
$ 137,245
$ 50,000
64,150
19,095
60,000
$ 193,245
$ 40,000
120,000
64,150
19,095
$ 243,245
$ 50,000
64,150
19,095
$ 133,245
Future
Total
$ 39,500
320,750
23,000
$ 269,000
120,000
641,500
48,000
95,475
119,000
68,000
$ 1,360,975
$ 383,250

The Town has a policy of continuously upgrading outdated or improperly sized water
lines. The Town replaces lines on an as-needed, priority basis as determined by the Public
Works Director. Work on the replacement of these lines is accomplished by contractors
in the case of large projects and by town crews on the smaller projects. The current water
line replacement program includes the following:
Replacement of a water line along Georgia Terrace between the Post Office and Lord
Apartments in FY2012-13
Replacement of a water line along Calvin Trail in FY2013-14.
Replacement of a water line along Quillan Lane in FY2014-15.
Replacement of a water line along Mecklenburg Circle in FY2015-16.
Replacement of a water line along Tennessee Road in FY2016-17
Replacement of a water line along the Big Piney right-of-way in future years.
Water Exploration and Construction
As the Towns water production declines and demand on the system grows, the location
of additional well sites will be required. If an acceptable water source is found during the
exploration process, a new well will be constructed by completion of the drilling,
installation of a pump, construction of a well house, testing and tying the new well into
the water system. During 2010-2011, the Town tied in four new well sites (i.e. Harmony
and Greybeard) which expanded production by 120 gallons per minute. These additional
water sources will satisfy the most immediate demands on the system. Beginning in
5-10
Section 5
2007-2008, it was recommended that well site exploration be conducted every three
years; however, with the three new well sites now on-line, exploration should begin again
within a five-year period.
Water Storage Facility Construction
This project will consist of the construction of a 100,000 gallon water storage tank at the
upper end of Greybeard Trail. The new storage tank will expand the storage capacity of
the Towns water system; extend fire protection into areas of town with lower flows;
expand the towns ability to provide water to residents in Town living at higher
elevations; and provide another level of protection during power outages by increasing
the ability to supply water throughout the Town using gravity.
Water Tank Inspection and Maintenance
Following the inspection of the water tanks in in 2012, funding was provided to complete
the cleaning and minor repairs to the tanks. Other repairs may be necessary depending on
the results of future inspections. It is mandated by the State that inspections of the tanks
be completed every five years and any maintenance concerns be addressed at that same
time. These costs include tank painting proposed for 2012-2013 following the regularly
scheduled inspection at an estimated cost of $25,000.
Backhoe Replacement
This project replaces the 1999 Ford backhoe. The backhoe is nearing the end of its useful
life. This backhoe is now the only operational backhoe.
Water Line Extensions
It is estimated that the Town has replaced approximately eighty percent (80%) of its
water lines since the mid-1980s. While replacing water lines is a priority for the older
parts of the system, plans are also in place for extending new lines into areas without
service for both water supply and fire protection. Lines are planned to be installed on an
as-needed, priority basis as determined by the Public Works Director. Work on the new
lines will be accomplished by Town crews.
The CIP budget for 2012-2013 includes the installation of a new water line in the Upper
Kentucky Road area above Peace Lane. The installation of the water line will coincide
with the paving and drainage improvements and will be assessed to the benefiting
property owners under the public utility extension ordinance.

5-11
Section 5
Portable Generators
stations was lost for almost three days resulting in the Towns first emergency water
crisis. This project provides funds for the purchase of a portable generator ($60,000) to
run either the wells or pumping stations. Prior years costs include money set aside in the
current fiscal year to outfit the pump station on Appalachian Way. Wells 1, B and A will
then be outfitted with electrical connections ($12,000) in the following years to support
the generator. This will enable the Town to provide limited amounts of water during an
emergency until power can be restored. It is anticipated that one well or pump station
will be outfitted with the electrical connections each year. The Town also plans to
purchase a generator. .
5.2.7.
A summary of the Towns historical financial results for the water system for FY2007-08
through FY2011-12 and the budget for FY 2012-13 is provided in Table 5-5. As shown
in the table, Montreat generated between $256,000 and $267,000 per year in water sales
over the past five years. Over this period, operating expenses have increased from
$46,000 to $91,000 per year, and the current water system annual debt service is

5-12
Section 5
Table 5-5:
Water System Historical Financial Results for the Town of Montreat

Description
Actuals
Budget
FY2008-09 FY2009-10 FY2010-11 FY2011-12 FY2012-13
FY2007-08
Water Fund Revenues

Water Sales
MSD Billing Fees and Postage
Water Taps
ARRA Revolving Loan Fees
ARRA Principal Forgiveness
ARRA Loan Proceeds
Miscellaneous
Investment Earnings
Community Service Fee
Late Fees
Interfund Transfers
Fund Balance Appropriations
Water Fund Expenses
Personnel
Maintenance and Repair
Departmental Expenses
Utilities
Professional Services
$ 256,790 $ 266,872 $ 261,156 $ 257,219 $ 256,887 $ 283,000

13,948
17,276
13,702
15,536
16,446
22,500
1,500
2,900
4,350
1,950
1,850
3,000
30,776
251,022
300,000
2,258
9,677
245
35,948
3,012
123,000
6,771
2,916
1,128
1,085
614
1,000
9,734
35,880
44,514
2,452
2,307
2,000
50,000
8,550
$
$
281,267 $ 299,641 $ 590,315 $ 631,868 $ 325,630 $ 493,050

- $
46,262
Capital Outlay
Debt Service
62,535
36,800
- $
- $
- $
- $
23,040
39,343
30,000
46,405
75,340
45,007
51,691
88,800
28,000
123,996
36,850
412,358
36,850
18,129
181,618
81,904
92,223
245,750
100,500
145,597 $ 207,251 $ 524,548 $ 267,794 $ 265,161 $ 493,050
Sources: Audited Financial Statements FY2009, FY2010, FY2011, FY2012, and Town Budgets FY2012 and FY2013.
carrying approximately $780,000 in outstanding water system debt. Current cash on
hand within the Water Fund is over 1,000 days of operating expenses, and debt service
coverage (calculated as revenue less operating expenses divided by annual debt service)
was calculated to be 2.5 in FY2011-12, indicating a strong financial condition. These
financial ratios and results are summarized in Table 5-6.

5-13
Section 5
Table 5-6:
Water System Historical Financial Ratio Summary for the Town of Montreat
Water Utility 1
Net Book Value
Net Assets
Benchmark 2
1,840,429
780,579
42%
0.53
$1,169
Days Cash on Hand

1911
2.5
Number of Customers
668
44%
$1,502
292
2.1
The Towns water user charge structure consists of a fixed charge (i.e. water access fee)
and a uniform volumetric rate per 1,000 gallons of water. A summary of the existing
water rates is provided in Table 5-7.

5-14
Section 5
Table 5-7:
Existing Water Rates Town of Montreat
Monthly Residential Water Access Fee

Water Rate (per 1,000 gallons)
$14.00
$90.00
$220.00
$4.49
The Town also charges other miscellaneous fees and charges for specific water-related
services. For example, the Town charges a late fee of $25 and a reconnection fee of
$100. A complete list of miscellaneous fees related to the Towns water system can be
found on the Towns website.

5-15
Section 5
5.3. Weaverville
5.3.1.
The Town of Weaverville, North Carolina (Weaverville or Town) is located within

Buncombe County encompassing approximately 2.5 square miles. The Town is a
Municipal Corporation and was established in 1875. The Town has a Council-Manager
form of government, and legislative and policy making authority rest with the Mayor and
a five-member Town Council. The Town owns and operates the Weaverville Water
System, which was originally constructed in 1913.
The Town has grown considerably over the past 30 years. In 1980, the Towns
population was approximately 1,495. By the 1990 census, the Town had grown to a
population of 2,107 that represented a 40.9 percent population increase in 10 years. By
1997, the Town had grown an additional 18.7 percent to a population of 2,450 according
to the North Carolina Office of State Planning. The current population in Weaverville is
estimated to be 3,092, which is a 6 percent change since 2000.
In 2000, the Weaverville Water System reported serving all of the Town, approximately
1,125 customers, and approximately 550 customers in northern Buncombe County in the
area adjacent to the corporate limits of the Town and along the water transmission line
from the Lawrence T. Sprinkle, Jr. Water Treatment Plant. In 2011 the Town reported
having 2,119 residential customers, 148 commercial customers, 11 industrial customers,
and 9 institutional customers. Between 2011 and 2020, the Town reports an anticipated
population growth of approximately 0.37 percent per year. 17
5.3.2.
Water customers of the Town are served by the Lawrence T. Sprinkle, Jr. Water
Treatment Plant (WTP), which is located approximately six miles north of Weaverville
near the border of Buncombe and Madison counties. The Lawrence T. Sprinkle, Jr. WTP
has a design capacity of 1.5 mgd. Water treatment consists of coagulant chemical
treatment, prior to the Up Flow process. Effluent from the Up Flow process enters the
settling basins, where natural settling of the remaining floc particles occurs. The settled
water is then filtered through engineered filtration beds. Final treatment includes the
addition of chlorine, corrosion inhibitor, and pH adjustments.
The Towns water distribution system consists of approximately 62 miles of water
service lines ranging in size from 2-inches to 12-inches. There is also a 20-inch
distribution line from the Lawrence T. Sprinkle, Jr. WTP. The existing system storage
capacity is 3.7 million gallons, which is provided by seven (7) storage tanks. There are
also four (4) pump stations for water distribution throughout the Towns service area.
17
Local Water Supply Plan for the Town of Weaverville, 2011.

5-16
Section 5
The Town has emergency water connections with the City of Asheville and the Town of
Mars Hill. The City of Asheville connection is an 8-inch connection located in Woodfin,
near the Dubose Hill Water Storage Tank. The Town has used this connection in the
past, during drought conditions and emergencies to purchase small quantities of water
from the City of Asheville.
In 1996, the Town constructed a new Public Works Facility at 15 Quarry Road at a cost
of nearly $1 million. This facility is used for administrative and maintenance activities of
the Street, Sanitation and Recreation Departments and Water (distribution system)
Maintenance. Loan principal and interest payment are divided equally between the
Towns General Fund Budget and the current revenues of the Water Department. As of
the end of FY2011, the debt associated with the Public Works Facility has been
completed repaid by the Town.
The 2009 Master Plan indicated that if significant future growth is realized, the Town
may need to increase its WTP capacity in the near future. However, a more conservative
view indicates that the Town has adequate water treatment capacity for the foreseeable
future. Furthermore, the Master Plan states that the Towns WTP capacity should be
adequate for at least the next five years. 18
5.3.3.
Condition of System
the major water assets were conducted to assess their condition. Assets were rated on a
standardized scale from 1 (excellent condition) to 5 (very poor condition). Equipment
associated with water system facilities such as these should typically be rated as either 1
or 2, otherwise remedial efforts should be undertaken to either rehabilitate or replace the
asset, based on the criticality of its function.
5.3.3.1.
Field Visits
Field investigations of major water system assets (e.g., treatment facilities, storage tanks,
pump stations, and other above ground assets) were based on visual observations and
accessibility.
On December 4, 2012, a water system specialist visited the Lawrence T. Sprinkle, Jr.
Water Treatment Plant, Ox Creek Booster Pump Station and Tank, Hamburg Mountain
Storage Tank, and the Perrion Pump Station and Tank. Using the raw data and
information gathered in the field, each of the major facilities was assessed with respect to
the following:
Asset condition
18
Water System Master Plan 2009 for the Town of Weaverville.

5-17
Section 5

overall assessment score of 1 (excellent condition) or 2. Relatively minor issues such as,
corrosion and general housekeeping were noted. Full details of each individual
component assessment can be found in Appendix B.
5.3.4.
The water system is part of the Towns Public Works Department and, as presented in
Figure 5-2, is organized into three divisions; Water Administration, Water Production,
and Water Maintenance. The Water Administration Division performs activities
including water account maintenance and billing and finances, which are performed
primarily by Town Hall staff. The Town Manager, the Public Works Director, and an
Administrative Assistant are also involved in Water Department administrative duties.
Water Production activities take place at the Lawrence T. Sprinkle, Jr. Treatment Plant.
The activities of this department include operation of the water treatment plant and
monitoring of water quality within the water distribution system. Four full-time
employees work within this division.
Water Maintenance is the department responsible for the maintenance of the water
distribution system necessary to supply water to the Towns customers. These activities
also include water meter reading, installing new water taps, and the physical duties
necessary to maintain water quality in the system such as routine flushing programs, and
operating and maintaining the pump stations and storage tanks. Four full-time employees
are employed in Water Maintenance.

5-18
Section 5
Figure 5-2: Town of Weaverville Public Works Organizational Structure
Public Works Director
Administrative
Assistant
Public Works
Supervisor
Water Distr.
Supervisor
Water Prod.
ORC
Sanitation Crew
Chief
Sanitation Crew
Chief
Recreation Crew
Chief
Street Crew Chief
Water Maint.
Crew Chief
Chief Operator
Semi-Skilled Labor
Semi-Skilled Labor
Skilled Labor
Skilled Labor
Skilled Labor
Plant Operator
Manpower #3
June 30 - Sept 30
Manpower #1
May 1 Dec 15
Skilled Labor
Plant Operator
Manpower #2
May 1 Dec 15
The eight full-time water system positions within the Public Works Department include
the following:
Water Production ORC
Chief Operator
Plant Operators (2)
In addition to these full-time positions, a portion of the Public Works Directors salary
and Administrative Assistants salary is paid for out of the water system budget.
Other Town employees support the water system, including the Town Manager, Finance
Officer, collections personnel, and an administrative assistant. A portion of the personnel
costs associated with these positions is allocated to the Water System as follows:
Position
Town Manager
Finance Officer
Collections
Administrative Assistant
Water Fund Responsibility
% Water
Allocation
10%
15%
40%
50%
$70,590

5-19
Section 5
5.3.5.
5.3.5.1.

Utility Operations
The Town operates one water treatment plant and maintains four (4) booster pump
stations and seven (7) water storage tanks. There has been no major improvement project
at the Lawrence T. Sprinkle, Jr. Water Treatment Plant in the past 5 years. The Town
reports that an extensive automated meter replacement program is underway; over 700
meters were replaced in 2011 and 2012. The Town implements valve exercising and leak
detection programs. Approximately 10 distribution system leak repairs are made
monthly. Fire hydrants and distribution lines are flushed annually. Storage tanks are
regularly inspected as mandated by the State.
In 1926, the Town entered into a lease with the United States Forest Service for property
on the Ox Creek area for use as a watershed. The use of this property and associated
treatment facility was suspended in 1998 with the completion of the Lawrence T.
Sprinkle, Jr. WTP. This property is presently maintained for possible future and/or
emergency use as a water source.
5.3.5.2.
The Town currently holds permits listed in Table 5-8.

Table 5-8:
Summary of Permits
Permit
Public Water Supply Operating Permit
NPDES Permit
Air Quality Permit
Agency
NC DENR Division of Water Resources, Public
Water Supply Section
NC DENR Division of Water Quality, Surface
Water Section
Western North Carolina Regional Air Quality
Agency and NC DENR Division of Air Quality.
State Rules. Table 5-9 presents a summary of the Federal regulations.

5-20
Section 5
Table 5-9:
Federal Drinking Water Regulations

Regulation
Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection
Byproducts Rule (Stage 2 DBP rule)
Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR)
Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water

Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR)
Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water

Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR)
Filter Backwash Recycling Rule (FBRR)
Total Coliform Rule (TCR)
Description
Regulates the level of disinfection byproducts, Total
Trihalomethane (TTHM) and Haloacetic Acids (HAA5),
based on a locational running annual average (LRRA).
Requires systems to disinfect and to filter, unless specific
filter avoidance criteria are met. Treatment must be
sufficient to achieve at least 99.9% (3 log)
inactivation/removal of Giardia lamblia and at least
99.99% (4 log) inactivation/removal of viruses. Requires
95% of the Combined Filter Effluent (CFE) measurements
to be less than 0.5 NTU (see LT1ESWTR below).
Requires a minimum disinfectant residual entering the
system of 0.2 mg/L and for disinfectant residual to be
detectable in the system.
Modifies the SWTR by requiring: at least 99% (2 log)
inactivation/removal of Cryptosporidium, monitoring of
Individual Filter Effluent (IFE), and a reduction to 0.3
NTU that 95% of the measured turbidity levels cannot
exceed.
Added source water monitoring and additional
inactivation/removal of Cryptosporidium ranging from an
additional 1 log to 3 log depending on the results of source
water monitoring and type of filtration technology
employed.
Establishes criteria to provide for the recycling of spent
filter backwash water, thickener supernatant, or liquids
from dewatering processes.
Establishes a maximum contaminant level (MCL) based on
the presence or absence of total coliforms, modifies
monitoring requirements including testing for fecal
coliform or E. coli, requires use of a sample siting plan,
and also requires sanitary surveys for systems collecting
fewer than five samples per month.
Based on the data reports in the 2011 Annual Water Quality Report, the Weaverville
Water System is in compliance with all Federal Drinking Water Rules. The results of the
2011 water quality monitoring are presented in Table 5-10.

5-21
Section 5
Table 5-10:
2011 Town of Weaverville Water Quality Report

Substance and Unit of
Measurement
Ideal
Goal MCLG
High Level
Allowed MCL
Sample Date
Chlorine, ppm
2011
Water additive used to control

microbes
Turbidity, NTU
N/A
TT = 1 NTU
Maximum
limit for any
measurement
2011
The likely source is soil runoff.

Monitoring turbidity (cloudiness
of water) ensures the
effectiveness of our filtration
system.
Range: 0.04-0.08
Range: ND-1.16
Combined Radium
EPA Definition of Potential

Source(s) of Substance
2008
Erosion of natural deposits
Total Organic Carbon, ppm
N/A
TT
2011

environment.
pH
N/A
N/A
2011
Naturally Occurring
Lead, ppb
AL = 15
2011
plumbing systems; erosion of
natural deposits.
Total Coliform Bacteria

(presence or absence)
5% positive
samples
2010
Naturally occurring in the

environment.
Total Trihalomethanes, ppb
80
2011
N/A
60
2011
By-product of drinking water

chlorination.
Total Haloacetic Acid
HAA5, ppb
Results
Range:
0.20 2.1
Range:
ND -3.6
Range: 7.5-8.2
3 at 90th percentile
0%
Range:
(5.0-67.0)
Range:
(6.0 33.0)
KEY TO UNIT ABBREVIATIONS

AL
Action Level; the concentration of a contaminant that triggers

treatment or the other requirements that a water system must follow.
Action Levels are reported at the 90th percentile for homes at greatest
risk.
MRDL
Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level; the highest level

of a disinfectant allowed in drinking water.
MCL
Maximum Contaminant Level; the highest level of a contaminant that

is allowed in drinking water.
N/A
Not Applicable.
MCLG
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal; the level of a contaminant that is

allowed in drinking water.
ND
Not Detected.
MRDLG
Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal; the level of a drinking

water disinfectant below which there is no known or expected risk to
health.
NR
Not Regulated.
NTU
Nephelometric Turbidity Unit is a measure of the clarity

of water. Turbidity in excess of 5 NTU is noticeable to
the average person.
ppb
Parts per billion or micrograms per liter.
ppm
Parts per million or milligrams per liter.
RAA
Running Annual Average
TT
Treatment Technique; a required process intended to

reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water.
<
Less than.
5.3.6.
Capital Projects
Weaverville prepares a 5-year CIP for the Water System that is updated each year. A
summary of the CIP is provided in Table 5-11 below.

5-22
Section 5
Table 5-11:
Water System 5 Year CIP for the Town of Weaverville

Total
Project Cost FY2012-13 FY2013-14 FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Project Title
19,000 $
25,000
32,500
92,500
26,400
612,360
182,500
67,000
32,500
52,000
42,000
60,200
557,375
18,500
52,000
78,000
570,000
50,000
9,500
9,500
Rebuild 2 High Service Water Pumps

Install Waste Effluent Monitoring System
Replace 1999 Explorer - Sampling & Testing
Replace Filter Bed Media
Chlorine Gas Delivery System Rebuild
Install Standby Diesel Generators
Replace Chlorine Gas Disinfection System
Replace Bulk Chemical Tank & Transfer System
Replace 2005 Explorer - Production Supervisor
Replace Water Lines - Yost Street
Replace 1999 Water Service Truck
Replace Water Lines - Coleman Street
Replace Water Lines in Boyds Union Chapel area
Replace 1986 Air Compressor
Replace 2007 Mini-Excavator
Replace Water Lines - Oakland St to Highland St
AMR System
GIS System-Shared with GF
20,000
50,000
100,000
-
Total
$ 2,569,835 $ 112,000
$ 847,475
25,000
32,500
92,500
26,400
612,360
182,500
67,000
32,500
52,000
42,000
60,200
557,375
18,500
52,000
150,000
-
78,000
150,000
-
150,000
-
$ 1,036,860
$ 260,500
$ 313,000
Over a third of the 5-Year CIP budget is allocated for water line replacement. Outdated
or improperly sized water lines have been prioritized and will be replaced over the next
five years. Other significant projects are the installation of standby diesel generators, and
treatment facility upgrades to chemical feed systems.
As mentioned in Section 5.3.5.1., the Town is in the process of replacing all water meters
with an Automated Meter Reading (AMR) System. An AMR System consists of small,
low-power radio transmitters connected to individual water meters. This technology
saves the Town the expense of periodic trips to each physical location to read a meter,
and provides billing accuracy.
The unit cost of producing water at the Lawrence T. Sprinkle, Jr. Water Treatment Plant
was estimated to be approximately $3.25 per 1,000 gallons, which is relatively high
compared to the City of Ashevilles cost of producing water (estimated at $0.88 per 1,000
gallons). Therefore, it may be worthwhile to consider the option of providing water to
Weaverville from the Asheville system, rather than continuing to operate and maintain
the Weaverville treatment system and upgrade the Lawrence T. Sprinkle, Jr. WTP at
some point in the future.
A preliminary evaluation was completed to determine the ability to supply water to
Weaverville from the Asheville system. An 8 line currently connects the systems, but
this line is sized for emergency use only. However, it was estimated that a booster pump
5-23
Section 5
station (1 MGD) would be necessary to supply water from the Asheville system and meet
daily demands in Weaverville. One possible location for the pump station is near the
intersection of Merrimon Avenue and Weaverville Road. If a new pump station were to
be situated at this location, a new 12 transmission line would need to be constructed to
avoid subjecting the existing lines (and customers served by them) to excessive pressure
generated by the booster pump. The 12 water line could follow Weaverville Road to the
area of Reems Creek Road in Weaverville, where there are multiple 8 lines to efficiently
transfer water into the Towns system. The cost for a duplex booster pump station and
approximately 3.7 miles of 12 ductile iron water lines was conservatively estimated to
be $2.5 million dollars. Further analysis and a preliminary engineering report (PER)
would be needed to confirm the necessity of the pump station and water supply line,
location and design requirements of the pump station, along with any other equipment
necessary to supply treated water to Weaverville.
An estimate of the annual water production and conveyance cost difference between
providing water to Weaverville from the Asheville system and from the Weaverville
treatment system indicates that it would be less costly (by approximately $82,000 per
year) to continue to provide water from the Weaverville system. This is due to the
additional cost of constructing the booster pump station and water lines, and is based on
the premise that MSD would retain the direct staff associated with the Weaverville water
system following the potential merger. Additional savings could also be realized under
this scenario if Weaverville water production staffing levels were reduced.
5.3.7.
A summary of the historical financial results for FY2007-08 through FY2011-12 and the
budget for FY 2012-13 is provided in Table 5-12. As shown in the table, Weaverville
generated between $1.33 million and $1.59 million per year in water sales over the past
five years. Over this period, operating expenses have ranged from $1.23 million to $1.64
million per year, and the current water system annual debt service is approximately
$253,000.

5-24
Section 5
Table 5-12:
Water System Historical Financial Results for the Town of Weaverville

Description
FY2007-08
Water Fund Revenues

Water Sales
Miscellaneous Revenue
Water Taps
Impact Fees
Fee for MSD Collections
Interest Water Revenue
Interest Earned
Water Fund Expenses
Water Administration
Salary & Wages
Benefits
Other Misc
Capital Equipment
FY2008-09
Actuals
FY2009-10
FY2010-11
FY2011-12
Budget
FY2012-13
$ 1,411,806 $ 1,326,157 $ 1,390,118 $ 1,539,696 $ 1,590,580 $ 1,577,390

25,843
17,415
7,935
10,056
9,000
6,000
17,280
18,720
8,630
18,660
5,000
5,000
38,700
53,100
34,000
22,567
15,000
5,000
34,315
36,390
37,314
38,878
36,000
37,500
4,256
4,169
4,600
5,237
3,500
3,500
65,441
67,838
41,767
15,075
5,000
5,000
$
1,597,641 $ 1,523,789 $ 1,524,364 $ 1,650,169 $ 1,664,080 $ 1,639,390
160,980 $ 182,344 $ 160,989 $ 154,981 $ 153,010 $ 139,210

48,946
47,230
46,496
47,313
47,330
42,730
2,694
3,782
3,621
2,793
3,670
8,500
15,618
46,376
17,630
27,952
22,800
28,600
10,000
-
Water Production
Salary & Wages
Benefits
Contract Services
Chemicals
Utilities
Water Purchases
Maintenance
Other Misc
Capital Equipment
243,023
74,099
30,258
53,850
105,586
21,525
64,853
9,906
269,486
75,535
32,732
42,709
103,345
23,628
77,281
28,481
273,076
78,937
34,092
37,273
103,004
2,050
16,778
81,076
6,839
283,694
86,605
32,196
35,287
111,357
4,753
25,299
61,390
1,772
285,490
85,830
43,200
17,000
52,000
109,000
5,000
19,000
80,650
46,800
197,220
60,360
41,850
13,600
48,000
108,800
8,000
22,000
86,730
50,000
Water Maintenance
Salary & Wages
Benefits
Contract Services
Chemicals
Utilities
Water Purchases
Maintenance
Other Misc
Capital Equipment
Capital Outlay
189,930
62,900
46,000
51,584
26,700
7,000
50,500
122,000
254,400
169,783
41,479
51,314
17,895
26,056
7,089
62,493
22,291
177,593
169,011
42,617
49,441
2,828
27,035
5,666
13,451
6,801
43,753
187,640
56,688
63,897
4,491
30,188
8,846
23,143
1,721
19,088
206,510
58,420
58,200
2,690
31,500
11,000
24,920
23,500
15,000
225,210
65,480
65,360
5,500
32,500
11,000
26,090
77,000
20,000
Debt Service
265,728
269,862
290,963
235,290
261,560
252,650
1,908,080 $ 1,778,784 $ 1,523,427 $ 1,506,384 $ 1,664,080 $ 1,636,390
Sources: Audited Financial Statements FY2009, FY2010, FY2011, FY2012, and Town Budgets FY2012 and FY2013.

5-25
Section 5
In November 1995, the Town sold $3.864 million water bond anticipation notes for the
financing of water system improvements including the construction of the new Lawrence
T. Sprinkle, Jr. WTP. The notes are General Obligations of the Town issued under
authority of a $4.6 million order for water bonds approved by Weaverville voters at a
referendum held in June, 1993. Annual bond payments are made from current year
operating revenues of the Water Department.
carrying approximately $2.7 million in outstanding water system debt. Current cash on
hand within in the water fund of over 600 days of operating expenses is strong, and debt
service coverage (calculated as revenue less operating expenses divided by annual debt
service) was calculated to be 1.1. These financial ratios and results are summarized in
Table 5-13.
Table 5-13:
Water System Historical Financial Ratio Summary for the Town of

Weaverville
Water Utility 1
Net Book Value
9,303,382

Net Assets
2,793,934
Days Cash on Hand

Number of Customers
30%
0.32
$1,222
639
1.1
Benchmark 2
44%
$1,502
292
2.1
2,287
The Towns water user charge structure consists of a monthly fixed charge (i.e. minimum
charge) that varies by meter size, and five tiers of volumetric rates that increase with
higher amounts of billed consumption. A summary of the existing water rates is provided
in Table 5-14.

5-26
Section 5
Table 5-14:
Existing Water Rates Town of Weaverville
Description
Water Rates
First 3,000 gallons
Next 22,000 gallons
All over 500,000 gallons
Minimum Monthly Charge
Meter Size
5/8"
3/4"
1"
1-1/2"
2"
3"
4"
6"
8"
Inside Town
Outside Town
Rate ($ per 1,000 gallons)

$6.77
$13.55
$7.41
$14.81
$8.07
$16.14
$8.73
$17.46
$9.40
$18.81
Charge Per Month
$13.55
$27.72
$42.53
$81.04
$132.88
$273.59
$437.39
$885.17
$1,433.80

$27.09
$55.45
$85.07
$162.08
$265.75
$547.19
$874.77
$1,770.33
$2,867.61
5-27
Section 5
5.4. Evaluation of Consolidation / Merger

Similar to the potential merger of the City of Ashevilles water system with MSD, the
merger of the water systems of the Towns of Biltmore Forest, Montreat, and Weaverville
with MSD have the potential to bring greater efficiencies, improved customer service,
and create a coordinated effort to provide clean water to the regions customers. Water
and wastewater shared services and regional cooperation already occurs within the region
to some extent. For example, the Town of Biltmore Forest purchases wholesale water
from the City of Asheville, the Town of Weaverville has an emergency water connection
with the City of Asheville, and both the Towns of Montreat and Weaverville provide
customer billing for the MSD. However, a more consolidated, regional water system can
serve to minimize redundancy, facilitate better overall planning, and provide operational
consistency to customers. Under a consolidated/merged organization and management
structure, all functions associated with water and wastewater service in the Asheville area
would be unified, including purchasing, billing and bill collection, human resources,
information technology, fleet management, etc., which could result in cost savings and
better service as these functions are performed by specialized staff. In addition,
consolidation can often provide greater buying power for employee benefits, materials,
supplies, equipment, chemicals, utilities, insurance, and office supplies, and allow for a
unified front for economic development.
5.4.1.
Staffing
Redundancy of service functions of each municipality provides the opportunity for the
reduction of staffing levels. For purposes of this study, it was assumed that the
consolidation would not change the personnel makeup of water department staff of the
Towns, and current full-time water system staff would be transferred to MSD and would
report to the MSD General Manager and the MSD Board of Directors. Since neither the
Town of Biltmore Forest nor Montreat have dedicated full-time water department staff, it
was assumed that no staff positions from these Towns would transfer to MSD following
the merger. However, since each town spends approximately 1,100 hours of staff time
per year operating and maintaining their respective water system utilities, it was assumed
that 0.5 FTEs for each (1.0 FTE in total) would be required by MSD to operate and
maintain these systems after a potential consolidation/merger.
Since the Town of Weaverville has approximately nine (9) budgeted full-time water
system staff (currently eight filled positions) that manage, operate, and maintain the
Towns water system, it was assumed (under Scenario 1) that all nine full-time staff
would be transferred to MSD following the merger. These positions include the
following:
5-28
Section 5

Water Projection ORC
Chief Operator
Plant Operators (2)
With the addition of these staff positions to the MSD organization, there is the potential
to reduce the number of total water system staff over time through cross-training
initiatives. Similar to the analysis performed for the potential consolidation of MSD and
the City of Asheville Water Resources Department, it is anticipated that any reductions in
staff would only occur through retirements and attrition. However, since there are no
full-time water system staff from the Town that are eligible to retire within the study
period, and natural attrition is assumed to occur at a similar 3 percent rate as that for
MSD and the City of Asheville (with 75 percent of the attrition positions being filled), it
is assumed that there will be no reduction of Weaverville water system staff within the
study period (under Scenario 1). However, since an option exists to supply Weaverville
with water from the City of Asheville system, a second scenario (Scenario 2) was
prepared that assumed the reduction of Weaverville water system budgeted staff from
nine to five positions in 2018.
Furthermore, in order to ensure future compensation equitability between MSD and the
Town of Weavervilles staff, it is recommended that a job classification and
compensation study be conducted within the first two years after consolidation occurs.
5.4.2.
Infrastructure and Improvements
It is anticipated that the individual CIPs from MSD and the Towns water systems would
be evaluated and funded under a merger/consolidation system much like they are now
as independent, self-sustaining programs. The consolidation of resources could,
however, potentially reduce the need to purchase additional equipment (e.g., the planned
purchases of a backhoe by the Town of Montreat could be reconsidered of this
construction equipment could be provided by MSDs current rolling stock inventory),
resulting in efficiencies associated with combining common equipment and assets.
As discussed above, in 1996, the Town of Weaverville constructed a new Public Works
Facility at 15 Quarry Road at a cost of nearly $1 million, which is used for administrative
and maintenance activities of the Street, Sanitation and Recreation Departments and
Water (distribution system) Maintenance. As of the end of FY2011, the debt associated
with the Public Works Facility has been completed repaid by the Town. Under the
merger scenario, MSD and the Town will need to decide whether this maintenance
facility will be needed for water system maintenance, or whether the facility could be
retooled for another purpose. If the facility would continue to be useful for water system
maintenance, then MSD could potentially continue to pay the Town for a portion of the
5-29
Section 5
debt service and operating cost associated with this facility. The potential use of this
facility and compensation to the Town should be evaluated as part of
merger/consolidation negotiations.
5.4.3.
Under the consolidated/merged entity, the Town of Biltmore Forest would continue to be
supplied with treated water from the City of Asheville water treatment plant, but there
would no longer need to be a wholesale arrangement between the City and the Town,
since both the City and Towns existing water systems would be part of a unified regional
water system. In addition, instead of the Towns of Montreat and Weaverville providing
sewer billing for MSD, the billing function would be consolidated and performed by
MSD.
5.4.4.
Financial Analysis
Similar to the financial analysis that was prepared for the merger of the City of Asheville
with MSD, the financial analyses of the merger of the Towns of Biltmore Forest,
Montreat, and Weaverville were prepared under the following assumptions:
MSD would retain all current full-time water system employees of the Towns, and
current MSD employees. A second scenario that relaxes this assumption was prepared
for the Town of Weaverville system (Scenario 2). This scenario assumes supplying
the Town of Weaverville with water from the City of Asheville system and shut down
of the Lawrence T. Sprinkle, Jr. WTP, which would allow for a reduction of four
water plant staff positions;
Town of Weaverville water system staff benefits were increased by $5,623 per
employee beginning in FY2014 to eliminate the current discrepancy between the
Towns healthcare benefit costs per employee ($6,022) and MSDs healthcare benefit
costs per employee ($11,645);
MSD would either assume the Towns water system indebtedness or provide annual
payments to the Town corresponding to the Towns annual water system debt service
obligations;
plan;
All water customers of the Towns would remain unchanged after the merger; and
Evaluation of cost impacts, if any, associated with compensation to the Towns for
water system assets was beyond the scope of this study.

5-30
Section 5
5.4.4.1.
Phase II Merger Impacts
The merger impacts associated with the merger of the Towns water systems with MSD
are summarized below.
Merger with the Town of Biltmore Forest
The merger scenario prepared for the Town of Biltmore Forest includes the cost impacts
of the elimination of indirect transfers to the General Funds of the Town, the reduction in
would remain Town employees, providing other Town services and functions. The Town
has also incurred debt (i.e., a note payable) for expanding and improving its water
system. The annual debt service on the note is approximately $450,000, which is
supported by a transfer of funds from the Towns General Fund to the Water Fund. For
the purposes of the merger impact assessment, it was assumed that Towns General Fund
would continue to fund the repayment of the note, and this debt would not be transferred
to MSD. The merger scenario also incorporates the revenue impact of adjusting water
rates to match the City of Asheville water rates following the merger. Since the Towns
generated from water rates collected from Town customers by approximately $63,000 per
year.
net savings of approximately $200,000, or an annual average savings of approximately
$22,000. The projected merger impacts are summarized in Table 5-15.
Merger with the Town of Montreat
The merger scenario prepared for the Town of Montreat includes the cost impacts of the
elimination of indirect transfers to the General Funds of the Town, the reduction in
would remain Town employees, providing other Town services and functions. The
merger scenario also incorporates the revenue impact of adjusting water rates to match
the City of Asheville water rates following the merger. Since the Towns water rates are
higher than the Citys, this would result in a reduction of revenue generated from water
rates collected from Town customers by approximately $48,000 per year.
5-31
Section 5
negligible net merger impact. The projected merger impact is summarized in Table 5-16.
Merger with the Town of Weaverville
The merger scenario prepared for the Town of Weaverville assumes MSD transfers all of
the full-time staff from the Town of Weavervilles Water Department to MSD and
maintains that level of staffing from FY2014 through FY2022. However a second
scenario was prepared for the Town of Weaverville that allows the reduction of the
number of budgeted staff positions by four positions, as described above. The merger
scenario also considered the revenue impact of adjusting water rates to match the City of
Asheville water rates following the merger. Since the Towns water rates are comparable
to the Citys, the revenue impact of the water rate structure change is anticipated to be
negligible.
The net savings projections associated with the merger with the Town of Weaverville is
approximately $209,000 over the period FY2014 through FY2022. The net savings
water from the City of Asheville system and shut down of the Lawrence T. Sprinkle, Jr.
WTP), was projected to be approximately $675,000 over the period FY2014 through
FY2022. The projected cost savings of the merger under these two scenarios are shown
in Tables 5-17 and 5-18.

5-32
Section 5
Water System in Buncombe County (Phase II)
Table 5-15:
Summary of Cost Savings From the Merger with the Town of Biltmore Forest
Description
FY2014
Addition of 0.5 FTE

Elimination of City of Asheville Water Purchases
Elimination of Asheville Wholesale Water Revenue
FY2015
(102,300) $
FY2016
(105,369) $
FY2017
(108,530) $
FY2018
(111,786) $
FY2019
(115,139) $
FY2020
(118,593) $
(122,151) $
FY2021
(125,816) $
FY2022
(129,590)
26,015
26,795
27,599
28,427
29,280
30,158
31,063
31,995
32,954
(200,850)
(206,876)
(213,082)
(219,474)
(226,058)
(232,840)
(239,825)
(247,020)
(254,431)
200,850
206,876
213,082
219,474
226,058
232,840
239,825
247,020
254,431
62,946
63,953
63,953
63,953
63,953
63,953
63,953
63,953
(13,339) $
(14,621) $
(16,978) $
(19,406) $
(21,906) $
(24,482) $
(27,135) $
(29,868) $
63,953
(32,683)
(200,418)
(22,269)
Table 5-16:
Summary of Cost Savings From the Merger with the Town of Montreat
Description
FY2014

Addition of 0.5 FTE
6,069

12,581
1,398
FY2015
(52,957) $
26,015
(14,585)
47,597
$
FY2016
(54,546) $
26,795
(15,023)
48,359
5,585
FY2017
(56,183) $
27,599
(15,473)
48,359
4,302

FY2018
(57,868) $
28,427
(15,937)
48,359
2,980
FY2019
(59,604) $
29,280
(16,416)
48,359
1,619
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
(61,392) $
30,158
(16,908)
48,359
-
(63,234) $
31,063
(17,415)
48,359
-
(65,131) $
31,995
(17,938)
48,359
-
(67,085)
32,954
(18,476)
48,359
-
217
(1,228) $
(2,715) $
(4,248)
5-33
Section 5
Water System in Buncombe County (Phase II)
Table 5-17:
Description
FY2014
Reduction in Direct Personnel Expense


FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
- $
52,125
(72,708)
-
- $
53,689
(74,889)
-
- $
55,300
(77,136)
-
- $
56,959
(79,450)
-
- $
58,667
(81,833)
-
- $
60,427
(84,288)
-
- $
62,240
(86,817)
-
- $
64,107
(89,422)
-
66,031
(92,104)
-
(20,583) $
(21,200) $
(21,836) $
(22,491) $
(23,166) $
(23,861) $
(24,577) $
(25,314) $
(26,074)
(209,102)
(23,234)
Table 5-18:
Description
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
Reduction in Direct Personnel Expense1

Reduction in Weaverville WTP Operating Cost 2
Addition of Asheville Water Production Cost 3
Capital Cost of Pump Station and Water Line (amortized)4
- $
(72,708)
52,125
-
- $
(74,889)
53,689
-
- $
(77,136)
55,300
-
- $
(79,450)
56,959
170,705
-
(238,885) $
(81,833)
32,593
(255,249)
239,561
170,705
-
(246,051) $
(84,288)
33,571
(262,906)
246,748
170,705
-
(253,433) $
(86,817)
34,578
(270,794)
254,151
170,705
-
(261,036) $
(89,422)
35,615
(278,917)
261,775
170,705
-
(268,867)
(92,104)
36,684
(287,285)
269,629
170,705
-
(20,583) $
(21,200) $
(21,836) $
148,214
(133,107) $
(142,222) $
(151,610) $
(161,279) $
(171,239)

(674,862)
(74,985)
Assumes shut down of Weaverville water plant in FY2017 following the construction of a pump station and water line. Assumes elimination of four water plant staff in FY2018.
Assumes elimination of Weaverville WTP non-labor cost (except pumping cost).
3
Assumes, and the addition of City of Asheville direct water production and operations cost.
4
Assumes $2.5 millon in capital cost for a new pump station and water line. Long-term debt financing with an interest rate of 4.5 percent, term of 25 years, issuance cost of 1.25 percent.
2

5-34
6. Summary and Conclusions

6.1. Summary of Evaluation
Although the merger of the City water system and other water systems within Buncombe
County has been considered and evaluated previously, the current merger of the
identified water systems with the MSD is being driven by recommendations of the
Committee to the Legislative Research Commission and the anticipated legislation of the
North Carolina General Assembly. In advance of the promulgation of any legislation
mandating the merger/consolidation of the City water system with the MSD, the MSD
commissioned a study to understand the potential impact of a merger to the MSD
ratepayers. As noted, the review and evaluation of legal, governance, valuation and
compensation issues is beyond the scope of the MSD study. These issues will be
addressed in subsequent phases. In addition, it is anticipated that the legislation once
promulgated by the legislature could outline parameters with respect to these issues.
6.1.1.
Phase I Evaluation
The following presents a summary of the Phase I analysis performed and the results of
such evaluation:
The City water system facilities are generally in good condition to provide adequate
water supply throughout the service area. The facilities appear to be maintained and
operated in accordance with generally accepted utility standards. Based on
documentation reviewed and limited field visits conducted as described in this
Report, the facilities are in good repair and operating condition.
The most recent draft of the Citys CIP seems reasonable to maintain the facilities in
Under a merged scenario, the MSD will need to continue to invest in CIP and
preventative maintenance programs to preserve and prolong the life of the water
system assets. MSD has demonstrated that it has programs and resources in place to
commit to such continued investment.
vacancies, will be part of consolidated/merged organization. The only potential staff
reductions considered for the consolidated organization were those resulting from
retirements or natural attrition.
It was estimated that a potential of thirteen (13) additional staff would be needed to
fully replace/provide services that the City currently provides to the Water Resources
Department for which the Water Resources Department pays indirect costs to the

6-1
Section 6
Summary and Conclusions
Citys General Fund of approximately $2.4 million per year. These staff are in the
areas of:
While there are a number of potential future regulations that may affect the operations
and reporting, there are no imminent future regulations that we believe would have
any different impact to the MSD than to the City. The MSD is generally accepting the
increased newly (unapproved) planned CIP identified by the City for the water
system. In addition, the MSD has the history, organizational structure and programs /
policies in place to fund and make any necessary adjustments to the rates.
The operation and maintenance of the City water system is anticipated to continue to
operate generally consistent with how it does now. Staff at individual facilities will
maintain their same positions and responsibilities, and current programs to address
system operations and maintenance will remain in place. Existing contracts, such as
the tank maintenance contract, will remain in effect. As part of implementation,
consideration will need to be given with regard to the management of the Citys
watershed (approximately 20,000 acres). This land is currently owned by the City,
but it may make sense for the MSD to have operational control of this property since
activities on the property could have a direct impact to the water system.
The following summarizes the potential cost impacts under a consolidated / merged
scenario, as more fully detailed in Section 4.
Building/Office Space: Under the consolidation scenario, MSD envisions customer
service staff operating out of City hall for one to two years following the merger until
another location can be obtained. In addition, MSD anticipates renting or purchasing
a new property to be used as an operations building.
Estimates for rental of the current City Hall space and acquisition of a new space for
the customer service function total $1.3 million in FY2014 and $1.2 million in
FY2015. Estimates for purchasing a new property to be used as an operations
building total $1.8 million in FY2014 and $1.7 million in FY2015. The cost of the
operations building would replace the Citys current CIP project for a new
maintenance facility, which totals $500,000 in FY2014 and $1.5 million in FY2015.
IT Integration: Under the merger scenario, it is estimated that MSD would need to
incur between $435,000 and $1,735,000 for initial information technology purchases
and licensing directly related to the merger.
City Indirect Cost: The Water System would no longer be required to pay for
indirect costs for services provided by the Citys General Fund. This would reduce
Water System costs by approximately $2.2 million. However, in replacement of the
services provided by the Citys General Fund, MSD would add staff, and expenses
6-2
Section 6
associated with these functions. An estimate of these costs totals approximately $1.3
million.
Sullivan Act Transfers: The transfer of money from the Water Resources
Department to the Citys General Capital Projects Fund for the purposes described
under the Sullivan Act, would be eliminated. The City has budgeted an amount equal
to approximately $1 million (3 percent of revenues) in FY2013, which is expected to
be increased by 1 percent of revenues each year until the maximum amount of
transfers (5 percent) allowed under the Sullivan Act is reached.
Other Transactional Costs: It is anticipated that MSD would need to incur
approximately $700,000 in merger transaction costs. This amount includes financing
related costs, such as credit rating fees and bond transaction costs, for assuming the
Citys debt, costs associated with system inventory and condition, and outside legal
fees related to the transaction.
Three merger scenarios were presented. Merger Scenario 1 assumes MSD transfers all of
the staff from the Citys Water Resources Department to MSD and maintain that level of
staffing from FY2014 through FY2022. Merger Scenario 2 assumes MSD transfers all of
the staff from the Citys Water Resources Department to MSD and reduces staff through
attrition and retirements. Merger Scenario 3 assumes the same parameters as Merger
Scenario 2, but also incorporates potential reductions in MSD staff through attrition and
retirements directly related to the merger.
per year.
6.1.2.
Phase II Evaluation
The following presents a summary of the Phase II analysis performed and the results of
such evaluation:
The Towns water system facilities are generally in good condition to provide
adequate water supply throughout the service area. The facilities appear to be
maintained and operated in accordance with generally accepted utility standards.
Based on documentation reviewed and limited field visits conducted as described in
this Report, the facilities are in good repair and operating condition.
6-3
Section 6
The most recent draft of the Towns CIP seems reasonable to maintain the facilities in
Under a merged scenario, the MSD will need to continue to invest in CIP and
preventative maintenance programs to preserve and prolong the life of the water
system assets. MSD has demonstrated that it has programs and resources in place to
commit to such continued investment.
The merger scenario prepared for the Towns of Biltmore Forest and Montreat
includes the cost impacts of the elimination of indirect transfers to the General Funds
of the Town, the reduction in personnel costs associated with staff within the Town
that perform water system operation and maintenance functions on a part-time basis.
It was assumed that Biltmore Forest and Montreat staff would remain Town
employees, providing other Town services and functions.
It was assumed that Town of Biltmore Forests General Fund would continue to fund
the repayment of the note ($450,000), and this debt would not be transferred to MSD.
The merger scenario also incorporates the revenue impact of adjusting water rates to
match the City of Asheville water rates following the merger. Since the Towns
generated from water rates collected from Town customers by approximately $63,000
per year.
results in a net savings of approximately $200,000, or an annual average savings of
The merger scenario for Montreat also incorporates the revenue impact of adjusting
water rates to match the City of Asheville water rates following the merger. Since the
Towns water rates are higher than the Citys, this would result in a reduction of
revenue generated from water rates collected from Town customers by approximately
$48,000 per year.
results in a negligible net merger impact.
The merger scenario prepared for the Town of Weaverville assumes MSD transfers
all of the full-time staff from the Town of Weavervilles Water Department to MSD
and maintains that level of staffing from FY2014 through FY2022. However a
second scenario was prepared for the Town of Weaverville that allows the reduction
of the number of budgeted staff positions by four positions if the supply of water
from the Asheville system is determined to be feasible. The merger scenario also
considered the revenue impact of adjusting water rates to match the City of Asheville
6-4
Section 6
water rates following the merger. Since the Towns water rates are comparable to the
Citys, the revenue impact of the water rate structure change is anticipated to be
negligible.
The net savings projections associated with the merger with the Town of Weaverville
is approximately $209,000 over the period FY2014 through FY2022. The net savings
water from the City of Asheville system and shut down of the Lawrence T. Sprinkle,
Jr. WTP), was projected to be approximately $675,000 over the period FY2014
through FY2022.

6-5

Phase I City of Asheville Water System and Phase II Water
Systems in Buncombe County
APPENDIX
A
Existing Organizational Structure for the
MSD and City of Asheville Water
Resources Department

OF BUNCOMBE COUNTY
RATE PAYERS OF
METROPOLITAN
SEWERAGE DISTRICT
MSD BOARD
COMMITTEES
Construction
CIP
Finance
Personnel
Planning
Right-of-Way
DIRECTOR OF
FINANCIAL SERVICES
LEGAL COUNSEL
EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY
DIRECTOR OF WASTE
TREATMENT &
MAINTENANCE
DIRECTOR OF
PLANNING &
DEVELOPMENT
AUDITING FIRM
ENGINEER OF
RECORD
GENERAL MANAGER
DIRECTOR OF SS
MAINTENANCE
DIRECTOR OF SS
CONSTRUCTION
DIRECTOR OF
HUMAN RESOURCES
DIRECTOR OF
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY
DIRECTOR OF
CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT

OF BUNCOMBE COUNTY
FINANCIAL SERVICES
DIRECTOR OF
FINANCIAL SERVICES
BUDGET ANALYST I
PURCHASING
SUPERVISOR
PURCHASING AGENT
II
PURCHASING AGENT
I
ACCOUNTING
MANAGER
ACCOUNTING
TECHNICIAN II
ACCOUNTING
TECHNICIAN I
ACCOUNTING
TECHNICIAN I

OF BUNCOMBE COUNTY
WASTE TREATMENT AND MAINTENANCE
DIRECTOR OF WASTE
TREATMENT &
MAINTENANCE
WRF
SUPERINTENDENT
FLEET
MAINTENANCE
MANAGER
FACILITIES
MAINTENANCE
MANAGER
WRF MAINTENANCE
MANAGER
TECHNICIANS
MECHANIC
WRF SENIOR OPERATOR
MECHANICAL
MAINTENANCE CREW
LEADER
FIELD OPERATIONS
MANAGER
WRF OPERATORS
INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT
COORDINATOR
INDUSTRIAL WATER
CHEMIST
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
TECHNICIAN
SCADA/PLC
TECHNICIAN
TECHNICIANS
ELECTRICAL
MAINTENANCE CREW
LEADER
TECHNICIANS
PUMP STATION
MAINTENANCE CREW
LEADER
TECHNICIANS

OF BUNCOMBE COUNTY
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR OF
PLANNING &
DEVELOPMENT
PRIVATE
DEVELOPMENT
COORDINATOR/PLAN
REVIEW
PRIVATE
DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT MANAGER
PRIVATE
DEVELOPMENT
INSPECTOR
SYSTEM
COORDINATOR III

OF BUNCOMBE COUNTY
HUMAN RESOURCES
HUMAN
RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH & SAFETY
MANAGER
EHS ADMINISTRATIVE
ASSISTANT
PUBLIC RELATIONS
REPRESENTATIVE
PAYROLL/BENEFITS
MANAGER
HR PROGRAMS
MANAGER

OF BUNCOMBE COUNTY
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
DIRECTOR OF IT
IT NETWORK
MANAGER
DATABASE
ADMINISTRATOR/
DEVELOPER
GIS MANAGER
GIS ANALYST
IT TECH II
IT TECH I
DATABASE ANALYST
GIS TECHNICIAN I
TECH. SERVICES
DATA MANAGER

OF BUNCOMBE COUNTY
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
DIRECTOR OF CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT
ENGINEERING OFFICE
MANAGER
DESIGN/DRAFTING
MANAGER
RIGHT-OF-WAY
MANAGER
CONSTRUCTION
MANAGER
ROW ADMIN.
ASSISTANT
ENGINEERING TECH III

ENGINEERING TECH III
RIGHT-OF-WAY
AGENT
ENGINEER III
CONSTRUCTION
ADMIN. ASSISTANT
CONSTRUCTION
INSPECTOR III
CONSTRUCTION
INSPECTOR II
ENGINEER II
ENGINEER I

OF BUNCOMBE COUNTY
SEWER SYSTEM SERVICES
SSD
ADMINISTRATOR
GENERAL
MANAGER
DISPATCHER II
OFFICE ASSISTANT II
DIRECTOR OF SS
CONSTRUCTION
DIRECTOR OF SS
MAINTENANCE
TAP INSTALLATION
CONSTRUCTION &
REPAIR SUPERVISOR
PIPELINE
REPLACEMENT
CONSTRUCTION &
REPAIR SUPERVISOR
CONSTRUCTION
CREW LEADER
CONSTRUCTION
CREW LEADER
CONSTRUCTION
CREW LEADER
LITTLE FLUSHER
T.S.OPERATOR II
FIRST RESPONDERS
TANKER T.S.
OPERATOR I
CONSTRUCTION
CREW
CONSTRUCTION
CREW
PORTABLE FLUSHER
T.S.WORKER II
EMERGENCY TV
T.S.OPERATOR II
T.S.OPERATOR III
T.S.WORKER II
CONSTRUCTION
CREW
ROD TRUCK
T.S.OPERATOR I
CONSTRUCTION
WORKER III
WORKER III
T.S.WORKER II
TV VAN
T.S.OPERATOR III
T.S.OPERATOR III
WORKER I
CONSTRUCTION
CREW LEADER
CONSTRUCTION
CREW
PREVENTATIVE
MAINTENANCE
SUPERVISOR
TECHNICAL SERVICES
SUPERVISOR
LOCATES ULOCO/
T.S.OPERATOR I
BIG FLUSHER
T.S.OPERATOR III
T.S.WORKER II
FLUSHER
T.S.OPERATOR II
CALL TRUCK
T.S.OPERATOR III
T.S.OPERATOR II
TV VAN
T.S.OPERATOR II
T.S.OPERATOR II
CITY OF ASHEVILLE
WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
WATER ADMINISTRATION
WATER RESOURCES
DIRECTOR
OPERATIONS
MANAGER
CUSTOMER SERVICES
SUPERINTENDENT
MAINTENANCE
SUPERINTENDENT
WATER
INFORMATION
SYSTEMS ANALYST
METER SERVICES
SUPERINTENDENT
ADMINISTRATIVE
ASSISTANT
WATER SERVICES
ADMINISTRATOR
QUALITY ASSURANCE
COORDINATOR
SPECIAL PROJECTS
COORDINATOR
ENGINEERING
SERVICES MANAGER
WATER PRODUCTION
SUPERINTENDENT
CITY OF ASHEVILLE
WATER OPERATIONS DIVISION
WATER RESOURCES
OPERATIONS
MANAGER
ADMINISTRATIVE
ASSISTANT
SECRETARY
METER READING
ASSISTANT
SUPERINTENDENT
HYDRANT CREW
CONSTRUCTION
CREW
MAPPING
N-E LEAK CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE
& BILLING
SUPERINTENDENT
WATER METERING
SUPERINTENDENT
WATER
MAINTENANCE
SUPERINTENDENT
TAP CREW
BACKFLOW
VALVE FLOATING/
SERVICE CREW
METER
TECHNICIANS
S-W LEAK CREW
CITY OF ASHEVILLE
WATER ENGINEERING SERVICES
ENGINEERING
SERVICES MANAGER
SENIOR PROJECT
ENGINEER
INSPECTOR
INSPECTOR
INSPECTOR
CIVIL ENGINEER
VACANT
SECRETARY SENIOR
PLANS REVIEWER
TECHNICIAN
CITY OF ASHEVILLE
WATER PRODUCTION DIVISION
WATER
PRODUCTION SUPT.
ADMINISTRATIVE
ASSISTANT
NORTH FORK
SUPERVISOR
LABORATORY
SUPERVISOR
WILLIAM DEBRUHL
SUPERVISOR
MILLS RIVERS
SUPERVISOR
WATER PRODUCTION
MAINTENANCE
SUPERVISOR
WTP OPERATOR III
WTP OPERATOR III
LABORATORY
TECHNICIAN
WTP OPERATOR III
WTP OPERATOR III
WTP OPERATOR III
WATERSHED
TECHNICIAN
WTP OPERATOR III
WTP OPERATOR II
LABORATORY
TECHNICIAN
WTP OPERATOR III
WTP OPERATOR III
WTP OPERATOR III
TRADESWORKER III
WTP OPERATOR I
WTP OPERATOR III
LABORATORY
TECHNICIAN
WTP OPERATOR III
WTP OPERATOR III
WTP OPERATOR II
TRADESWORKER II
WTP OPERATOR
WTP OPERATOR
WTP OPERATOR III
WTP OPERATOR I
WTP OPERATOR
TRAINEE
TRADESWORKER II
WTP OPERATOR III
LABORER I
WTP OPERATOR III
TRADESWORKER II
WTP OPERATOR II
WATER
INFORMATION
SYSTEMS MANAGER
WATER INFORMATION
SYSTEMS TECHNICIAN

APPENDIX
B
Asset Information / Site Inspection
Summary (Phase I and II)
CITY OF ASHEVILLE
Buncombe County MSD
Facility: City of Asheville

Location:
Avery's Creek Tank
Structural Assessment - Process Tanks

General Information:
Structure Description
Use
Type Of Construction
Year Built
LxWxH (above grade)
Basement Dimensions
Water Storage Tank

Finished water storage
Pre-stressed concrete
x
Place for Photo, as applicable
Physical Condition Assessment
Steel
Concrete/Masonry
Condition
1-5/NA
1
Corrosion
Leakage
1
2
Cracking
1
Spalling
1
Settling
1
Joint Damage/Failure
1
Exposed Reinfcmt/Aggreg.
1
Pitting
1
Delamination
1
Freeze/Thaw Damage
Corrosion
Loss of Section
Cracking
Deformation
Fatigue
Connection Failure
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
Ancillary Items 1-5/NA

1
Railings
1
Walkways
1
Platforms
1
Stairs/Ladders
1
Hatches/Doors
Supports
Cathodic Prot.
Equipment Exceptions
1-5
Comments:
Tank is in the process of being painted.
Surface cracks are minor / do not need to be repaired.
Process Condition Assessment (to be completed at interviews)

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Operational History (Note any operational data available from CMMS and interviews)
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
29-Aug-12
Comment(s)
Buncombe County MSD

Location: Biltmore Lakes PS
Mech.Assessment - General Equipment

Inventory Information:
Equipment Description
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Booster Pumps
Grundfos
CR 45-6-2
2
In line
220 gpm
50 / xxxx / xx / xxx
Electric motor

Condition
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
1
Support/Base Damage
1
Paint/Coating Damage
N
Labeling Missing (Y/N)
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
1
Piping/Valves
1
Motors
1
Instruments
1
Local Control Station/Panel
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
1-5/NA
1
1
Not observed running
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
29-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Location: Black Mtn PS 1 of 3

Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Booster Pumps
Ingersall- Rand
2
/ Hor. Split case
#1 and #2
1968
/
Electric motor

Condition
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
4
Support/Base Damage
4
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
2
Piping/Valves
2
Motors
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
1-5/NA
3
2
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Location: Black Mtn PS 2 of3

Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Booster Pumps
Ingersall- Rand
2
/ In-line
#3 and #4
/
Electric motor

Condition
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
1
Support/Base Damage
1
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
1
Piping/Valves
1
Motors
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
1-5/NA
1
1
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Location: Black Mtn PS 3 of 3

Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Booster Pumps
2
/
#5
2010
end suction

Condition
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
1
Support/Base Damage
1
N
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
1
Piping/Valves
1
Motors
1
Instruments
1
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
1-5/NA
1
1
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Location:
Candler Knob Tank

Use
Year Built
LxWxH (above grade)
Basement Dimensions
Water Storage Tank

Pre-stressed conc.
1981
x
Steel
Concrete/Masonry
Condition
1-5/NA
1
Corrosion
Leakage
1
1
Cracking
1
Spalling
1
Settling
1
1
1
Pitting
1
Delamination
1
Freeze/Thaw Damage
Corrosion
Loss of Section
Cracking
Deformation
Fatigue
Connection Failure
Overall Rating
Comment(s)

1
Railings
1
Walkways
1
Platforms
1
Stairs/Ladders
1
Hatches/Doors
Supports
Cathodic Prot.
1-5
Comments:
Has recently been repaired and painted.

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
29-Aug-12
Comment(s)
Buncombe County MSD

Location: Wm DeBruhl WTP

Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Air Scour Blower
Rotary lobe
??

Condition
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
1
Support/Base Damage
1
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
1
Piping/Valves
1
Motors
1
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
1-5/NA
1
1
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD


Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Wash Water pumps
Vert turbine can

1985

Condition
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
1
Support/Base Damage
2
N
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
2
Piping/Valves
2
Motors
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
1-5/NA
2
1
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Mech.Assessment - Chem. Feed Systems
Metering Pumps
Transfer Pumps
Sodium Bicarbonate
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
/
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Bulk Storage Tank Data

Qty
Capacity
Manuf.
Silo
Day Tank Data

Qty
Capacity
/
Manuf.
Material
ID #s
Material
ID #s

Components
1-5/NA
Bulk Storage Tanks
Day Tanks
Transfer Pumps
Metering Pumps
Piping/Valves
Instruments
Motors
Overall Rating
Code(s)
Comment(s)
A
B
C
D
E
F
Condition Codes
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Labeling Missing
1-5
Comments:
Slight amount of paint failure, needs painting.

1
Reliability
Comments:
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Metering Pumps
Transfer Pumps
Sodium Hydroxide
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
/
Neptune
2
Diaphragm
/
Solenoid

Qty
Capacity
Manuf.
1
10,000
Material
ID #s
Day Tank Data

Qty
Capacity
1
180
Material
ID #s
Manuf.

Components
1-5/NA
2
Bulk Storage Tanks
1
Day Tanks
Transfer Pumps
1
Metering Pumps
1
Piping/Valves
Instruments
Motors
Overall Rating
Code(s)
Comment(s)
A
B
C
D
E
F
Condition Codes
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Labeling Missing
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
Comments:
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Mech.Assessment - Filters and Valves

Manufacturer
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Media Type/Depth
Size (LxWxD)
Basin Material
Filters
Leopold dual parallel bottoms
2
/ Gravity
1985
2.6 MGD each
Sand/10"-anthracite/20"
x
x
Physical Condition Assessment - Valves

Code Condition
A Body Corrosion
B Stem Corrosion
C Seal Damage/Leakage
Valve Evaluation
#
Service
Influent
Effluent (Rate of flow control)
Wash water
Waste
Filter to waste
Air Scour
D Actuator Damage
E Supports Damage
F Other
Mfg
Type
Size
Material
Code(s)
B
Cond. Rating
B'fly
B'fly
B'fly
B'fly
B'fly
Physical Condition Assessment - Filter Components

Ancillary Items
Media
Air Scour
Piping
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
1-5/NA
2
1
1
1
1
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:
Failing paint on influent valve operating stand

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Comments
elec. Motor act.
elec. Motor act.
elec. Motor act.
elec. Motor act.
elec. Motor act.
elec. Motor act.
Buncombe County MSD

Metering Pumps
Transfer Pumps
Fluoride
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
/
Neptune / Pulsatron
2
Diaphragm
/
Solenoid

Qty
Capacity
Manuf.
1
6,000
Material
ID #s
Day Tank Data

Qty
Capacity
1
55
Material
ID #s
Manuf.

Components
1-5/NA
2
Bulk Storage Tanks
1
Day Tanks
Transfer Pumps
1
Metering Pumps
1
Piping/Valves
Instruments
Motors
Overall Rating
Code(s)
Comment(s)
A
B
C
D
E
F
Condition Codes
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Labeling Missing
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
Comments:
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Metering Pumps
Transfer Pumps
Sodium Hypochlorite
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
/
Pulsatron
3
Diaphragm
/
Solenoid

Qty
Capacity
Manuf.
1
8,000
Material
ID #s
Day Tank Data

Qty
Capacity
1
500
Material
ID #s
Manuf.

Components
1-5/NA
2
Bulk Storage Tanks
1
Day Tanks
Transfer Pumps
1
Metering Pumps
1
Piping/Valves
Instruments
Motors
Overall Rating
Code(s)
Comment(s)
A
B
C
D
E
F
Condition Codes
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Labeling Missing
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
Comments:
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD


Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Mixing
top entry
/
/
electric motor / gear

Condition
Corrosion
Leakage
Comment(s)
1-5/NA
1
1
Vibration/Noise
1
Support/Base Damage
1
N
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
Piping/Valves
Motors
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Metering Pumps
Transfer Pumps
Coagulant (Depac)
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
/
Neptune
2
Diaphragm
/
Solenoid

Qty
Capacity
Manuf.
4
330
Material
ID #s
Day Tank Data

Qty
Capacity
1
55
Material
ID #s
Manuf.

Components
1-5/NA
1
Bulk Storage Tanks
1
Day Tanks
Transfer Pumps
1
Metering Pumps
1
Piping/Valves
Instruments
Motors
Overall Rating
Code(s)
Comment(s)
A
B
C
D
E
F
Condition Codes
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Labeling Missing
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
Comments:
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Metering Pumps
Transfer Pumps
Ortho Phasphate
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
/
Neptune
2
Diaphragm
/
Solenoid

Qty
Capacity
Manuf.
1
6,000
Material
ID #s
Day Tank Data

Qty
Capacity
1
55
Material
ID #s
Manuf.

Components
1-5/NA
2
Bulk Storage Tanks
1
Day Tanks
Transfer Pumps
1
Metering Pumps
1
Piping/Valves
Instruments
Motors
Overall Rating
Code(s)
Comment(s)
A
B
C
D
E
F
Condition Codes
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Labeling Missing
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
Comments:
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD


Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Service pumps
Layne
3
Vert turbine can

1985

Condition
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
1
Support/Base Damage
2
N
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
3
Piping/Valves
2
Motors
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
1-5/NA
2
1
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Location: Fairview Downs PS

Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Booster pumps
Goulds
JML1409
2
Multi-stage
125 gpm
/
/
electric motor
1860781 / 1860783

Condition
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
1
Support/Base Damage
1
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
2
Piping/Valves
1
Motors
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
1-5/NA
1
1
Comment(s)
Evidence of leak at ARV. / Some corrosion at unions
1-5
Comments:
Receptacle for portable generator.

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Location:
Fairview Downs Tanks

Use
Year Built
LxWxH (above grade)
Basement Dimensions
Water Storage Tank

Steel
x

Condition
1-5/NA
Comment(s)
Steel
Concrete/Masonry
Corrosion
Leakage
Cracking
Spalling
Settling
Pitting
Delamination
Freeze/Thaw Damage
Corrosion
Loss of Section
Cracking
Deformation
Fatigue
Connection Failure
Overall Rating

Comment(s)
N/A
Railings
N/A
Walkways
N/A
Platforms
3
Wooden
Stairs/Ladders
N/A
Hatches/Doors
1
Supports
Cathodic Prot.
2
1
1
1
1
1-5
Comments:
Routine cleaning/painting required to maintain structure.

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Location: Grovestone PS

Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Booster pumps
Grundfos
2
in line
2006
250 gpm
Baldor
25 / 3525 / 460 / xxx
electric motor

Condition
Corrosion
Leakage
1-5/NA
1
1
1
2
1
N
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
1
Piping/Valves
1
Motors
1
Instruments
1
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
Shrinkage cracks in equipment pad
Comment(s)
Mild corrosion at bolts
1-5
Comments:
Generator installed in 2009

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Location: Lutheridge PS

Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Booster Pumps
Peerless
3AE14G
2
Hor. Split case

2005
250 gpm
15 / 1767 / xx / xxx
Electric motor

Condition
Corrosion
Leakage
1-5/NA
2
1
Vibration/Noise
1
Support/Base Damage
1
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
1
Piping/Valves
1
Motors
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
corrosion at bolts
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
29-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Location:
Lutheridge Tank

Use
Year Built
LxWxH (above grade)
Basement Dimensions
Water Storage Tank

bolted / glass fused steel
2005
x

Condition
1-5/NA
Comment(s)
Steel
Concrete/Masonry
Corrosion
Leakage
Cracking
Spalling
Settling
Pitting
Delamination
Freeze/Thaw Damage
Corrosion
Loss of Section
Cracking
Deformation
Fatigue
Connection Failure
Overall Rating

1
Railings
N/A
Walkways
1
Platforms
1
Stairs/Ladders
1
Hatches/Doors
N/A
Supports
N/A
Cathodic Prot.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
29-Aug-12
Comment(s)
Buncombe County MSD

Location: Mills River WTP
Metering Pumps
Transfer Pumps
Alum Feed
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Feed pumps
Diaphragm

Qty
Capacity
Manuf.
2
Material
ID #s
Day Tank Data

Qty
Capacity
1
Material
ID #s
1999
/
Solenoid
Manuf.

Components
1-5/NA
1
Bulk Storage Tanks
1
Day Tanks
Transfer Pumps
1
Metering Pumps
1
Piping/Valves
1
Instruments
Motors
Overall Rating
Comments:
Code(s)
Comment(s)
A
B
C
D
E
F
Condition Codes
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Labeling Missing
1-5

1
Reliability
Comments:
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
30-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Location:
Mills River WTP

Use
Year Built
LxWxH (above grade)
Basement Dimensions
Clearwell
Finished Water Storage
Steel
1999
x

Condition
1-5/NA
Comment(s)
Steel
Concrete/Masonry
Corrosion
Leakage
Cracking
Spalling
Settling
Pitting
Delamination
Freeze/Thaw Damage
Corrosion
Loss of Section
Cracking
Deformation
Fatigue
Connection Failure
Overall Rating

1
Railings
1
Walkways
1
Platforms
1
Stairs/Ladders
Hatches/Doors
Supports
Cathodic Prot.
2
1
1
1-5
Comments:
Needs painting

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
Date:
Comment(s)
Buncombe County MSD


Manufacturer
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Media Type/Depth
Size (LxWxD)
Basin Material
Filters
General Filter bottoms
3
Gravity
1999
7.5 mgd (total)
Sand-GAC
/
x
x

Code Condition
A Body Corrosion
B Stem Corrosion
Valve Evaluation
#
Service
Influent
Effluent (rate of flow control)
Wash
Air scour
Waste
Filter to waste
D Actuator Damage
E Supports Damage
F Other
Mfg
Type
Size
Material
Code(s)
Cond. Rating
1
1
1
1
1
1
Comments

Ancillary Items
Media
Surface Wash
Piping
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
1-5/NA
2
Comment(s)
GAC media is origianl; estimated to need replacement in 2019.
1
1
1
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
30-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD


Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Filtered water trans pumps
End suction

Condition
Corrosion
Leakage
Comment(s)
1-5/NA
3
2
1
1
2
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
2
Piping/Valves
2
Motors
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
30-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD


Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Flocculation
Lightnin
18
Top entry mixer

1999
1 / 1180 / xx / xxx
Electric motor / gear box

Condition
Corrosion
Leakage
Comment(s)
1-5/NA
2
1
Vibration/Noise
1
Support/Base Damage
2
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
Piping/Valves
Motors
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
30-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Metering Pumps
Transfer Pumps
Fluoride Feed
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Feed pumps
Diaphragm

Qty
Capacity
Manuf.
1
Material
ID #s
Day Tank Data

Qty
Capacity
1
Material
ID #s
1999
/
Solenoid
Manuf.

Components
1-5/NA
1
Bulk Storage Tanks
1
Day Tanks
Transfer Pumps
1
Metering Pumps
1
Piping/Valves
1
Instruments
Motors
Overall Rating
Code(s)
A
A
Comment(s)
A
B
C
D
E
F
A
A
A
Condition Codes
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Labeling Missing
1-5
Comments:
Corrosion, due to fluoride gas, present throughout room. Reported to be due to a faulty vent that has been
repaired.

1
Reliability
Comments:
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
30-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Metering Pumps
Transfer Pumps
Hydrogen Peroxide Feed
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
/
Feed pumps

Qty
Capacity
Manuf.
Material
ID #s
Day Tank Data

Qty
Capacity
Material
ID #s
Diaphragm
1999
/
Solenoid
Manuf.

Components
1-5/NA
Bulk Storage Tanks
Day Tanks
Transfer Pumps
1
Metering Pumps
1
Piping/Valves
1
Instruments
Motors
Overall Rating
Comments:
Code(s)
Comment(s)
A
B
C
D
E
F
Condition Codes
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Labeling Missing
1-5

1
Reliability
Comments:
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
30-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD


Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
High Service Pumps
Vert turbine - can


Condition
Corrosion
Leakage
1-5/NA
3
2
Vibration/Noise
1
Support/Base Damage
2
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
2
Piping/Valves
2
Motors
Instruments
1
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
Evidence of leak on pump no. 3
Mild touch up painting needed
Comment(s)
Leaking from check valve
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
30-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD


Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Intake pumps
Submersible
1999
5.0 mgd each
/

Condition
Comment(s)
1-5/NA
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
Piping/Valves
Motors
Instruments
1
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:
Pumps and piping in below grade vault and are not accessible for observation.

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
30-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Metering Pumps
Transfer Pumps
Sodium Hypochlorite Feed
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Feed pumps
Diaphragm

Qty
Capacity
Manuf.
2
Material
ID #s
Day Tank Data

Qty
Capacity
1
Material
ID #s
1999
/
Solenoid
Manuf.

Components
1-5/NA
1
Bulk Storage Tanks
1
Day Tanks
Transfer Pumps
1
Metering Pumps
1
Piping/Valves
1
Instruments
Motors
Overall Rating
Code(s)
Comment(s)
A
B
C
D
E
F
Condition Codes
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Labeling Missing
1-5
Comments:
One original bulk tank replced with a lined wood stave tank

1
Reliability
Comments:
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
30-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Metering Pumps
Transfer Pumps
Sodium Bicarbonate Feed
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Feed pumps

Qty
Capacity
Manuf.
Material
ID #s
Day Tank Data

Qty
Capacity
Material
ID #s
Ejectors
1999
Manuf.
/
/
Solenoids on motive water and slurry

Components
1-5/NA
Bulk Storage Tanks
Day Tanks
Transfer Pumps
1
Ejectors
1
Piping/Valves
1
Instruments
Motors
Overall Rating
Code(s)
Comment(s)
A
B
C
D
E
F
Condition Codes
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Labeling Missing
1-5
Comments:
Housekeepping measures needed to reduce accumulation of product residue.

1
Reliability
Comments:
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
30-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Metering Pumps
Transfer Pumps
Sodium Bicarbonate Silo
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
/
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type

Qty
Capacity
Manuf.
Material
ID #s
Day Tank Data

Qty
Capacity
Material
ID #s
Manuf.

Components
1-5/NA
3
Bulk Storage Tanks
Day Tanks
Transfer Pumps
Metering Pumps
Piping/Valves
Instruments
Motors
Overall Rating
Code(s)
Comment(s)
A, E Silo
A
B
C
D
E
F
Condition Codes
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Labeling Missing
1-5
Comments:
Silo needs to be painted.

1
Reliability
Comments:
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
30-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Metering Pumps
Transfer Pumps
Sodium Hydroxide Feed
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Feed pumps
Diaphragm

Qty
Capacity
Manuf.
2
Material
ID #s
Day Tank Data

Qty
Capacity
1
Material
ID #s
1999
/
Solenoid
Manuf.

Components
1-5/NA
1
Bulk Storage Tanks
1
Day Tanks
Transfer Pumps
1
Metering Pumps
1
Piping/Valves
1
Instruments
Motors
Overall Rating
Comments:
Code(s)
Comment(s)
A
B
C
D
E
F
Condition Codes
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Labeling Missing
1-5

1
Reliability
Comments:
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
30-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Location:
Mills River WTP

Use
Year Built
LxWxH (above grade)
Basement Dimensions
Ozone Contactor
Pre-disinfection
Concrete
1999
x
Steel
Concrete/Masonry
Condition
1-5/NA
3
Corrosion
Leakage
3
1
Cracking
1
Spalling
1
Settling
1
1
1
Pitting
1
Delamination
1
Freeze/Thaw Damage
Corrosion
Loss of Section
Cracking
Deformation
Fatigue
Connection Failure
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
Leakage/corrosion at
port in wall.

1
Railings
1
Walkways
1
Platforms
1
Stairs/Ladders
1
Hatches/Doors
Supports
Cathodic Prot.
1-5
Comments:
There are two contactors; one for raw water and one for settled water.

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
30-Aug-12
Comment(s)
Buncombe County MSD


Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Ozone Destructor
Ozonia
4
/
1999
5 / 3500 / xx / xxx

Condition
Corrosion
Leakage
Comment(s)
1-5/NA
1
1
1
1
1
N
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
1
Piping/Valves
Motors
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
30-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD


Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Ozone Generator
Ozonia
3
/
1999

Condition
Corrosion
Leakage
Comment(s)
1-5/NA
1
1
1
1
1
N
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
1
Piping/Valves
Motors
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
30-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD


Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Ozone OCW-S Pump

Aurora
2
end suction
1999
2 / 1760 / xx / xxx

Condition
Corrosion
Leakage
Comment(s)
1-5/NA
1
1
1
1
1
N
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
1
Piping/Valves
Motors
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
30-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD


Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Ozone SVI Pump

Aurora
3
end suction
1999
3 / 1760 / xx / xxx

Condition
Corrosion
Leakage
Comment(s)
1-5/NA
1
2
1
1
1
N
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
1
Piping/Valves
Motors
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
30-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Metering Pumps
Transfer Pumps
Phosphate Feed
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Feed pumps
Diaphragm

Qty
Capacity
Manuf.
Totes
Material
ID #s
Day Tank Data

Qty
Capacity
1
Material
ID #s
1999
/
Solenoid
Manuf.

Components
1-5/NA
Bulk Storage Tanks
1
Day Tanks
Transfer Pumps
1
Metering Pumps
1
Piping/Valves
1
Instruments
Motors
Overall Rating
Comments:
Code(s)
Comment(s)
A
B
C
D
E
F
Condition Codes
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Labeling Missing
1-5

1
Reliability
Comments:
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
30-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Metering Pumps
Transfer Pumps
Polymer Feed
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Feed pumps
Diaphragm

Qty
Capacity
Manuf.
2
Material
ID #s
Material
ID #s
1999
Day Tank Data
Qty
Capacity
/
Electric motor
Manuf.

Components
1-5/NA
1
Bulk Storage Tanks
Day Tanks
Transfer Pumps
1
Metering Pumps
1
Piping/Valves
1
Instruments
Motors
Overall Rating
Comments:
Code(s)
Comment(s)
A
B
C
D
E
F
Condition Codes
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Labeling Missing
1-5

1
Reliability
Comments:
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
30-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Location:
Mills River WTP

Use
Year Built
LxWxH (above grade)
Basement Dimensions
Pre-sedimentation
Turbidity reduction
Earthen with mebrane liner
1999
x

Condition
1-5/NA
Comment(s)
Steel
Concrete/Masonry
Corrosion
Leakage
Cracking
Spalling
Settling
Pitting
Delamination
Freeze/Thaw Damage
Corrosion
Loss of Section
Cracking
Deformation
Fatigue
Connection Failure
Overall Rating

1
Railings
1
Walkways
1
Platforms
Stairs/Ladders
Hatches/Doors
Supports
Cathodic Prot.
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
30-Aug-12
Comment(s)
Buncombe County MSD


Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Rapid Mix
Lightnin
4
Top entry mixer

1999
3 / 1755 / xx / xxx

Condition
Corrosion
Leakage
Comment(s)
1-5/NA
2
1
Vibration/Noise
1
Support/Base Damage
2
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
Piping/Valves
Motors
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
30-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD


Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Raw Water Pumps
Vert turbine-can
1999
xx / 1200 / xx / xxx
VFD

Condition
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
2
Piping/Valves
Motors
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
1-5/NA
1
1
1
1
1
N
Comment(s)
Evidence of leak at the check valves
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
30-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD


Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Sed Basin Sludge Collector

Envirex
3
Chain & flight

1999
0.5 / 1725 / xx / xxx


Condition
Corrosion
Leakage
Comment(s)
1-5/NA
1
1
Vibration/Noise
1
Support/Base Damage
2
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
Piping/Valves
Motors
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
30-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Location: North Fork WTP

Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Air Scour Blower
Rotary Lobe

Condition
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
1
Support/Base Damage
1
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
1
Piping/Valves
1
Motors
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
1-5/NA
1
1
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Metering Pumps
Transfer Pumps
Alum
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
/
Wallace & Tiernan

2
Diaphragm
/
Electric motor

Qty
Capacity
Manuf.
2
6,000
Day Tank Data

Qty
Capacity
2
50
Manuf.
Material
FRP
ID #s
Material
ID #s

Components
1-5/NA
1
Bulk Storage Tanks
Day Tanks
Transfer Pumps
1
Metering Pumps
1
Piping/Valves
Instruments
Motors
Overall Rating
Code(s)
Comment(s)
A
B
C
D
E
F
Condition Codes
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Labeling Missing
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
Comments:
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Metering Pumps
Transfer Pumps
Sodium Bicarbonate
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
/
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type

Qty
Capacity
Manuf.
Material
ID #s
Day Tank Data

Qty
Capacity
Material
ID #s
Manuf.

Components
1-5/NA
2
Silo
1
Slurry Tanks
2
Dry Feeder
Metering Pumps
Piping/Valves
Instruments
Motors
Overall Rating
Code(s)
A
Comment(s)
A
B
C
D
E
F
Condition Codes
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Labeling Missing
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
Comments:
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Metering Pumps
Transfer Pumps
Sodium Hydroxide
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
/
Wallace & Tiernan

2
Diaphragm
/
Electric motor

Qty
Capacity
Manuf.
2
12,000
Material
FRP
ID #s
Day Tank Data

Qty
Capacity
Material
ID #s
Manuf.

Components
1-5/NA
1
Bulk Storage Tanks
Day Tanks
Transfer Pumps
1
Metering Pumps
1
Piping/Valves
Instruments
Motors
Overall Rating
Code(s)
Comment(s)
A
B
C
D
E
F
Condition Codes
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Labeling Missing
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
Comments:
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Location:
North Fork WTP

Use
Year Built
LxWxH (above grade)
Basement Dimensions
Clearwell
Pre-stresed concrete
x
Steel
Concrete/Masonry
Condition
1-5/NA
1
Corrosion
Leakage
1
1
Cracking
1
Spalling
1
Settling
1
1
1
Pitting
1
Delamination
1
Freeze/Thaw Damage
Corrosion
Loss of Section
Cracking
Deformation
Fatigue
Connection Failure
Overall Rating
Comment(s)

Railings
Walkways
Platforms
Stairs/Ladders
Hatches/Doors
Supports
Cathodic Prot.
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Comment(s)
Buncombe County MSD

Metering Pumps
Transfer Pumps
Polymer - Filter Aid
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
/

Qty
Capacity
Manuf.
Material
ID #s
Material
ID #s
/ aphragm
Day Tank Data

Qty
Capacity
1
Manuf.

Components
1-5/NA
Bulk Storage Tanks
Day Tanks
Transfer Pumps
Metering Pumps
Piping/Valves
Instruments
Motors
Overall Rating
Code(s)
Comment(s)
A
B
C
D
E
F
Condition Codes
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Labeling Missing
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
Comments:
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD


Manufacturer
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Media Type/Depth
Size (LxWxD)
Basin Material
Filters
6
Gravity
5.17 MGD each

Sand - Anthracite
x
x

Code Condition
A Body Corrosion
B Stem Corrosion
Valve Evaluation
#
Service
Influent
Effluent (rate of flow control)
Wash water
Waste
Filter to waste
Air scour
D Actuator Damage
E Supports Damage
F Other
Mfg
Type
Size
Material
Code(s)
Cond. Rating

Ancillary Items
Media
Surface Wash
Piping
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
1-5/NA
2
Comment(s)
1
1
1
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Comments
Buncombe County MSD

Metering Pumps
Transfer Pumps
Fluoride
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
/
Wallace & Tiernan

2
Diaphragm
/
Electric motor

Qty
Capacity
Manuf.
1
6,000
Day Tank Data

Qty
Capacity
1
250
Manuf.
Material
FRP
ID #s
Material
ID #s

Components
1-5/NA
1
Bulk Storage Tanks
Day Tanks
Transfer Pumps
1
Metering Pumps
1
Piping/Valves
Instruments
Motors
Overall Rating
Code(s)
Comment(s)
A
B
C
D
E
F
Condition Codes
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Labeling Missing
1-5
Comments:
Mild corrosion due to exposure to fluoride gas.

1
Reliability
Comments:
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Metering Pumps
Transfer Pumps
Sodium Hyopchlorite
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
/
Wallace & Tiernan

3
Diaphragm
/
Electric motor

Qty
Capacity
Manuf.
2
10,000
Material
FRP
ID #s
Day Tank Data

Qty
Capacity
Material
ID #s
Manuf.

Components
1-5/NA
1
Bulk Storage Tanks
Day Tanks
Transfer Pumps
1
Metering Pumps
1
Piping/Valves
Instruments
Motors
Overall Rating
Code(s)
Comment(s)
A
B
C
D
E
F
Condition Codes
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Labeling Missing
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
Comments:
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD


Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Mixing
Top entry
/
/
electric motor/gear box

Condition
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
1
Support/Base Damage
1
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
Piping/Valves
Motors
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
1-5/NA
1
1
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Metering Pumps
Transfer Pumps
Ortho Phosphate
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
/
Wallace & Tiernan

2
Diaphragm
/
Electric motor

Qty
Capacity
Manuf.
1
6,000
Day Tank Data

Qty
Capacity
1
50
Manuf.
Material
FRP
ID #s
Material
ID #s

Components
1-5/NA
1
Bulk Storage Tanks
Day Tanks
Transfer Pumps
1
Metering Pumps
1
Piping/Valves
Instruments
Motors
Overall Rating
Code(s)
Comment(s)
A
B
C
D
E
F
Condition Codes
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Labeling Missing
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
Comments:
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD


Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Raw Water Pumps
End suction
/
/
electric motor/gear box

Condition
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
1
Support/Base Damage
2
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
Piping/Valves
Motors
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
1-5/NA
1
1
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD


Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Wash Water Pumps
Split case

Condition
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
1
Support/Base Damage
1
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
1
Piping/Valves
1
Motors
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
1-5/NA
1
1
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Location:
North Fork WTP

Use
Year Built
LxWxH (above grade)
Basement Dimensions
Wash Water Tank

Pre-stresed concrete
x
Steel
Concrete/Masonry
Condition
1-5/NA
1
Corrosion
Leakage
1
1
Cracking
1
Spalling
1
Settling
1
1
1
Pitting
1
Delamination
1
Freeze/Thaw Damage
Corrosion
Loss of Section
Cracking
Deformation
Fatigue
Connection Failure
Overall Rating
Comment(s)

Railings
Walkways
Platforms
Stairs/Ladders
Hatches/Doors
Supports
Cathodic Prot.
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Comment(s)
Buncombe County MSD

Location: Patton Mtn PS

Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Booster Pumps
Peabody Floway
XKL
2
Vert. Turb. - can

500 gpm
125 / 3600 / xx / xxx
Electric motor
88-21254 / 88-21255

Condition
Corrosion
Leakage
1-5/NA
1
1
1
1
2
N
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
1
Piping/Valves
1
Motors
1
Instruments
3
2
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
Mild corrosion on the flange connection nuts/bolts.
Comment(s)
Motor control panel door has oversized opening

Mild corrosion of the steel vault structure.
3
4
5
1-5
Comments:
Generator installed in 2009.
Over sized cut out around motor controls is a hazard.
Mild corrosion present; can be addressed with routine maintenance and painting.

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Location:
Patton Mtn Tank

Use
Year Built
LxWxH (above grade)
Basement Dimensions
Water Storage Tank

Pre-stressed Conctrete
x
Steel
Concrete/Masonry
Condition
1-5/NA
1
Corrosion
Leakage
1
1
Cracking
1
Spalling
1
Settling
1
1
1
Pitting
1
Delamination
1
Freeze/Thaw Damage
Corrosion
Loss of Section
Cracking
Deformation
Fatigue
Connection Failure
Overall Rating
Comment(s)

1
Railings
1
Walkways
1
Platforms
1
Stairs/Ladders
1
Hatches/Doors
Supports
Cathodic Prot.
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Comment(s)
Buncombe County MSD

Location: Peach Knob PS

Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Booster pumps
Fairbanks Morse
2
Vert. Turb. - can

340 gpm
125 / 3550 / 240 / xxx
Electric motor
058097-1 / 058097-2

Condition
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
2
Support/Base Damage
3
N
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
2
Piping/Valves
2
Motors
2
Instruments
2
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
1-5/NA
2
2
slightly painted over.

Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:
Cracks in masonry building.
Generator installed in 2009.

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Location: Poplar Ridge PS # 1

Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Booster Pumps
Grundfos
CR8 40U
2
in line
58 gpm
5 / 3450 / xx / xxx

Condition
Corrosion
Leakage
1-5/NA
1
2
Vibration/Noise
1
Support/Base Damage
1
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
2
Piping/Valves
Motors
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
evidence of leakage (residue) on skid.
Comment(s)
some corrosion. Has not been field painted, only has shop finish.
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Location: Poplar Ridge PS # 2

Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Booster Pumps
Grundfos
CR8 100U
2
in line
63 gpm
7.5 / 3450 / xx / xxx

Condition
Corrosion
Leakage
1-5/NA
2
1
Vibration/Noise
1
Support/Base Damage
1
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
2
Piping/Valves
Motors
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
at bolts
Comment(s)
some corrosion. Has not been field painted, only has shop finish.
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Location:
Poplar Ridge Tank # 1

Use
Year Built
LxWxH (above grade)
Basement Dimensions
Water Storage Tank

Steel
x

Condition
1-5/NA
Comment(s)
Steel
Concrete/Masonry
Corrosion
Leakage
Cracking
Spalling
Settling
Pitting
Delamination
Freeze/Thaw Damage
Corrosion
Loss of Section
Cracking
Deformation
Fatigue
Connection Failure
Overall Rating
3
2
2
Bare metal in spots

1
Railings
1
Walkways
1
Platforms
1
Stairs/Ladders
Hatches/Doors
Supports
Cathodic Prot.
1-5
Comments:
Active leak, water running between tank bottom and ring wall in front right quadrant.

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Comment(s)
Buncombe County MSD

Location: Riceville PS

Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Booster pumps
Goulds
2
in line
New pumps
Baldor
/
Electric motor

Condition
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
3
Piping/Valves
Motors
2
Instruments
2
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
1-5/NA
1
1
1
2
2
N
Comment(s)
Missing floor drain. / corrosion on pipe fittings.
1-5
Comments:
Pumps that were replaced (per Master Plan) 50 gpm / 2 hp / 3450 rpm
New roof, fascia needs painting. Receptacle for portable generator.

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Location:
Riceville Tank

Use
Year Built
LxWxH (above grade)
Basement Dimensions
Water Storage Tank

2011
x

Condition
1-5/NA
Comment(s)
Steel
Concrete/Masonry
Corrosion
Leakage
Cracking
Spalling
Settling
Pitting
Delamination
Freeze/Thaw Damage
Corrosion
Loss of Section
Cracking
Deformation
Fatigue
Connection Failure
Overall Rating

1
Railings
N/A
Walkways
1
Platforms
1
Stairs/Ladders
1
Hatches/Doors
N/A
Supports
N/A
Cathodic Prot.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Comment(s)
Buncombe County MSD

Location: South Buncombe PS

Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Booster Pumps
Aurora
3
Vert. Split case

150 / 3500 / xx / xxx

Electric motor

Condition
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
2
Support/Base Damage
1
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
2
Piping/Valves
1
Motors
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
1-5/NA
1
1
Comment(s)
Chipped paint
1-5
Comments:
Master plan recommended a new station closer to the So Buncombe Tank.

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Location:
South Buncombe Tank

Use
Year Built
LxWxH (above grade)
Basement Dimensions
Water Storage Tank

Pre-stressed conc.
x
No Photo Available
Steel
Concrete/Masonry
Condition
1-5/NA
1
Corrosion
Leakage
1
1
Cracking
1
Spalling
1
Settling
1
1
1
Pitting
1
Delamination
1
Freeze/Thaw Damage
Corrosion
Loss of Section
Cracking
Deformation
Fatigue
Connection Failure
Overall Rating
Comment(s)

1
Railings
1
Walkways
1
Platforms
1
Stairs/Ladders
1
Hatches/Doors
Supports
Cathodic Prot.
1-5
Comments:
Has recently been repaired and painted.

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
28-Aug-12
Comment(s)
Buncombe County MSD

Location: Spivey Mtn PS

Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Booster Pumps
Aurora
411
2
Hor. Split case

2005
250 gpm
200 / 3500 / xx / xxx
Electric motor
96-06234-2 / 96-06234-2

Condition
Corrosion
Leakage
1-5/NA
2
2
Vibration/Noise
1
Support/Base Damage
1
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
1
Piping/Valves
1
Motors
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
slight drip at seal / may have leaked at pipe taps
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
29-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Location:
Spivey Mtn Tank

Use
Year Built
LxWxH (above grade)
Basement Dimensions
Water Storage Tank

Pre-stressed Conctrete
1999
x
Steel
Concrete/Masonry
Condition
1-5/NA
1
Corrosion
Leakage
1
1
Cracking
1
Spalling
1
Settling
1
1
1
Pitting
1
Delamination
1
Freeze/Thaw Damage
Corrosion
Loss of Section
Cracking
Deformation
Fatigue
Connection Failure
Overall Rating
Comment(s)

1
Railings
1
Walkways
1
Platforms
1
Stairs/Ladders
1
Hatches/Doors
Supports
Cathodic Prot.
1-5
Comments:
Cleaned/crack repair/painted last year.

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
29-Aug-12
Comment(s)
Buncombe County MSD

Location: Walnut Cove PRV # 1

Manufacturer
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Media Type/Depth
Size (LxWxD)
Basin Material
Pressure reducing valve

/
Diaphragm
/
x

Code Condition
A Body Corrosion
B Stem Corrosion
Valve Evaluation
#
Service
PRV Pressure reducing
D Actuator Damage
E Supports Damage
F Other
Mfg
Type
Size
Material
Code(s)
Cond. Rating
2

Ancillary Items
Media
Surface Wash
Piping
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
1-5/NA
1-5
Comments:
Paint starting to fail/chip.
Below grade vault / door in good shape.

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
29-Aug-12
Comments
Buncombe County MSD

Location: Walnut Cove PS # 1

Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Booster Pumps
Grundfos
CR45-4-1
2
in line
180 gpm
30 / 3525 / xx / xxx

Condition
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
1
Piping/Valves
1
Motors
1
Instruments
2
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
1-5/NA
1
1
1
1
1
Comment(s)
Junction box missing a cover plate.
1-5
Comments:
Master plan recommended replacing the pumps.
Staff indicated they are considering a relocation.

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
29-Aug-12
Buncombe County MSD

Location:
Walnut Cove Tank # 1

Use
Year Built
LxWxH (above grade)
Basement Dimensions
Water Storage Tank

x

Condition
1-5/NA
Comment(s)
Steel
Concrete/Masonry
Corrosion
Leakage
Cracking
Spalling
Settling
Pitting
Delamination
Freeze/Thaw Damage
Corrosion
Loss of Section
Cracking
Deformation
Fatigue
Connection Failure
Overall Rating

1
Railings
N/A
Walkways
1
Platforms
1
Stairs/Ladders
1
Hatches/Doors
N/A
Supports
N/A
Cathodic Prot.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1-5
Comments:
At risk from falling rocks.

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
29-Aug-12
Comment(s)
Buncombe County MSD

Location:
West Asheville Tank

Use
Year Built
LxWxH (above grade)
Basement Dimensions
Water Storage Tank

Pre-stressed conc.
1998
x
Steel
Concrete/Masonry
Condition
1-5/NA
1
Corrosion
Leakage
1
1
Cracking
1
Spalling
1
Settling
1
1
1
Pitting
1
Delamination
1
Freeze/Thaw Damage
Corrosion
Loss of Section
Cracking
Deformation
Fatigue
Connection Failure
Overall Rating
Comment(s)

1
Railings
1
Walkways
1
Platforms
1
Stairs/Ladders
1
Hatches/Doors
Supports
Cathodic Prot.
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
29-Aug-12
Comment(s)
Buncombe County MSD

Location: West Buncombe PS

Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Booster Pumps
Goulds
3316
2
Horz. Split case

2,100 gpm
250 / 1780 / xx / xxx
Electric motor

Condition
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
2
Support/Base Damage
3
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
3
Piping/Valves
2
Motors
2
Instruments
2
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
1-5/NA
3
1
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:
Master plan recommended a new station closer to the So Buncombe Tank.

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
29-Aug-12
TOWN OF MONTREAT
Buncombe County MSD
Facility: Town of Montreat

Location: Well A
Mech.Assessment - Chemical Feed System

Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Water Supply Well
submersible
0.030 GPD
/

Condition
1-5/NA
Corrosion
Leakage
2
1
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
Piping/Valves
1
Motors
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
not observed running
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:
Chemical treatment provided: Aqua Mag and Chlorine

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
17-Jan-13
Buncombe County MSD

Location: Well A
Metering Pumps
Transfer Pumps
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
/
Chlorinator
Regal
1

Qty
Capacity
Manuf.
Material
ID #s
Day Tank Data

Qty
Capacity
Material
ID #s
solution feed
Manuf.

Components
1-5/NA
Bulk Storage Tanks
Day Tanks
Transfer Pumps
Metering Pumps
Piping/Valves
Instruments
Motors
Overall Rating
Code(s)
Comment(s)
A
B
C
D
E
F
Condition Codes
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Labeling Missing
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
Comments:
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
17-Jan-13
Buncombe County MSD

Location: Well A
Metering Pumps
Transfer Pumps
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
/
Aqua Mag Feed

Qty
Capacity
Manuf.
1
Material
ID #s
Material
ID #s
diaphragm
/
solenoid
Day Tank Data

Qty
Capacity
drum
Manuf.

Components
1-5/NA
Bulk Storage Tanks
Day Tanks
Transfer Pumps
Metering Pumps
1
Piping/Valves
Instruments
Motors
Overall Rating
Code(s)
Comment(s)
A
B
C
D
E
F
Condition Codes
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Labeling Missing
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
Comments:
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
17-Jan-13
Buncombe County MSD

Location: Well 5
Mech.Assessment - Chemical Feed System

Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Water Supply Well
submersible
0.012 GPD
/

Condition
1-5/NA
Corrosion
Leakage
2
1
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
Piping/Valves
1
Motors
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:
Chemical treatment provided: Bleach (disinfection)

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
17-Jan-13
Buncombe County MSD

Location: Well 5
Metering Pumps
Transfer Pumps
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
/
Bleach Feed
Qty
Capacity
Manuf.
1
Material
ID #s
Material
ID #s
diaphragm
/
solenoid
Day Tank Data

Qty
Capacity
drum
Manuf.

Components
1-5/NA
Bulk Storage Tanks
Day Tanks
Transfer Pumps
Metering Pumps
1
Piping/Valves
Instruments
Motors
Overall Rating
Code(s)
Comment(s)
A
B
C
D
E
F
Condition Codes
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Labeling Missing
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
Comments:
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
17-Jan-13
Buncombe County MSD

Location: Black Mountain BPS

Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Booster Pump
Grundfos
2
/

Condition
1-5/NA
Comment(s)
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
Piping/Valves
Motors
Instruments
Other
Comment(s)
Corrosion
Leakage
Overall Rating
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
17-Jan-13
Buncombe County MSD

Location: Appalachian Way

Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Booster Pump
split case
1984
30

Condition
1-5/NA
Corrosion
Leakage
Comment(s)
Fair amount of corrosion
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Other
1-5/NA
Ancillary Items
Piping/Valves
Motors
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
17-Jan-13
Buncombe County MSD

Location:
100,000 gallon tank

Use
Year Built
LxWxH (above grade)
Basement Dimensions
storage reservoir
finished water
steel
x

Condition
1-5/NA
Comment(s)
Steel
Concrete/Masonry
Corrosion
Leakage
Cracking
Spalling
Settling
Pitting
Delamination
Freeze/Thaw Damage
Corrosion
Loss of Section
Cracking
Deformation
Fatigue
Connection Failure
Overall Rating

Railings
Walkways
Platforms
Stairs/Ladders
Hatches/Doors
Supports
Cathodic Prot.
1
1
1-5
Comments:
This tank is located in the high pressure zone.

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
17-Jan-13
Comment(s)
Buncombe County MSD

Location:
500,000 gallon tank

Use
Year Built
LxWxH (above grade)
Basement Dimensions
storage reservoir
finished water
steel
x

Condition
1-5/NA
Comment(s)
Steel
Concrete/Masonry
Corrosion
Leakage
Cracking
Spalling
Settling
Pitting
Delamination
Freeze/Thaw Damage
Corrosion
Loss of Section
Cracking
Deformation
Fatigue
Connection Failure
Overall Rating

Railings
Walkways
Platforms
Stairs/Ladders
Hatches/Doors
Supports
Cathodic Prot.
1
1
1-5
Comments:
This tank is located in the main pressure zone.

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
17-Jan-13
Comment(s)
TOWN OF WEAVERVILLE
Buncombe County MSD
Facility: Town of Weaverville

Location: Raw Water Pump Station

Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP / RPM
Drive Type
Serial Number
Raw Water Pumps

Floway
JKH 5 stage
2
/ Vert Turbine
RWP #1 and RWP #2
1998
1,042 gpm @ 277 ft TDH

1800
100 /
electric motor

Condition
1-5/NA
Corrosion
Leakage
1
1
Vibration/Noise
1
Support/Base Damage
1
1
1
Other
1-5/NA
Ancillary Items
Piping/Valves
2
Motors
1
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
None detected
None detected
Normal levels
None detected
None detected
Comment(s)
Slight leak at stem packing
1-5
Comments:

Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Space for a third pump to be added is avaialbe to
increase capacity.
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
4-Dec-12
Buncombe County MSD

Location: Raw Water Pump Station

Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Intake Screen

Condition
1-5/NA
Corrosion
Leakage
1
NA
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Other
Ancillary Items
Piping/Valves
Motors
Instruments
Other
NA
NA
1
NA
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
1-5/NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:
Screen panel, with relatively large openings, inserted into guide rails. Can be removed for inspection and
cleaning.

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
Comments:
The screen openings are note as being relatively
large (no direct observation made, exact size not
known). In some cases permitting agencies have
required screens with smaller openings intended to
exclude entry of juvenile fish into the intake.
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
16-Jan-13
Buncombe County MSD

Location: Ivy River Water Treatment Plant

Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Backwash Pump
Allis Chalmers
1
Horiz. split case

Condition
1-5/NA
Corrosion
Leakage
1
1
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
1
1
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
Piping/Valves
2
Motors
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
Comment(s)
slight amount of corrosion.
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
16-Jan-13
Buncombe County MSD


Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Surfacewash Pump
Allis Chalmers
1
Horiz. split case


Condition
1-5/NA
Corrosion
Leakage
1
1
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
1
1
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
Piping/Valves
2
Motors
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
Comment(s)
slight amount of corrosion.
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
16-Jan-13
Buncombe County MSD


Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Clearwell
Crom
1
250,000 gallons
/

Condition
1-5/NA
Corrosion
Leakage
1
1
Vibration/Noise
NA
Support/Base Damage
2
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
Piping/Valves
Motors
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
Slight staining
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:
Could only be observed from a distance.

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
16-Jan-13
Buncombe County MSD


Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Pretreatment Claricone
CB&I
1
Upflow clarifier
1.5 MGD
/

Condition
1-5/NA
Corrosion
Leakage
1
1
Comment(s)
Vibration/Noise
NA
Support/Base Damage
1
1
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
Piping/Valves
Motors
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
16-Jan-13
Buncombe County MSD

Metering Pumps
Transfer Pumps
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Chlorine
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Chlrinators
Regal
/
solution Feed

Qty
Capacity
Manuf.
2 ton
Day Tank Data

Qty
Capacity
Manuf.
Material
ID #s
Material
ID #s
/
/
Solenoid valves

1-5/NA
Components
Bulk Storage Tanks
1
Day Tanks
NA
Transfer Pumps
NA
Metering Pumps
1
Piping/Valves
1
Instruments
Motors
Overall Rating
Code(s)
Comment(s)
Ton containers on scales
solution type feeders
A
B
C
D
E
F
Condition Codes
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Labeling Missing
1-5
Comments:

1
2
3
4
5
Reliability
Comments:
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
16-Jan-13
Buncombe County MSD


Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP:Flash Mix/Flocculator
Drive Type
Serial Number
Mixer
Chemineer
2
4
/
/
7.5
Gear box
Flash mix
Flocculator

Condition
1-5/NA
Corrosion
Leakage
1
NA
Vibration/Noise
1
Support/Base Damage
1
2
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
Piping/Valves
Motors
1
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
Comment(s)
VFDs
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
16-Jan-13
Buncombe County MSD

Metering Pumps
Transfer Pumps
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Chem transfer pumps
Metering Pumps
Pulsa Feeder
Series 680
2
3
2
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type

Qty
Capacity
1 10,000 gal
2 10,000 gal
Cent. end suction
/
/
/
Alum (Delpac)
Caustic
Phosphate
Manuf.
Material
Alum
Caustic
ID #s
Day Tank Data

Qty
Capacity
2 275 gal
2 276 gal
Manuf.
Material
Alum
Caustic
ID #s

Components
1-5/NA
Bulk Storage Tanks
Day Tanks
Transfer Pumps
Metering Pumps
Piping/Valves
Instruments
Motors
Overall Rating
Code(s)
Comment(s)
A
B
C
D
E
F
Condition Codes
Corrosion
Leakage
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
Labeling Missing
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
Comments:
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
16-Jan-13
Buncombe County MSD


Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
Sedimentation Basins
Concrete

Condition
1-5/NA
Corrosion
Leakage
1
1
Comment(s)
Vibration/Noise
NA
Support/Base Damage
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
Piping/Valves
Motors
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:
Basins are not equipped with sludge removal mechanisms

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
16-Jan-13
Buncombe County MSD


Manufacturer
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Media Type/Depth
Size (LxWxD)
Basin Material
Filters
Leopold (underdrains)
2
gravity
/
x

Code Condition
A Body Corrosion
B Stem Corrosion
Valve Evaluation
#
Service
Influent
Rate of Flow
Rewash
Backwash
Waste
Surfacewash
D Actuator Damage
E Supports Damage
F Other
Mfg
Type
B'fly
B'fly
B'fly
B'fly
B'fly
B'fly
Size
Material
Code(s)
Cond. Rating

Ancillary Items
Media
Surface Wash
Piping
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
1-5/NA
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
16-Jan-13
Comments
Buncombe County MSD

Location:
Hamburg Mountain

Use
Year Built
LxWxH (above grade)
Basement Dimensions
Reservoir
Finished Water
Concrete
^1986
x
x
1,000,000 gallons
Steel
Concrete/Masonry

Condition
1-5/NA
Corrosion
Leakage
Comment(s)
staining
Cracking
Spalling
Settling
Pitting
Delamination
Freeze/Thaw Damage
Corrosion
Loss of Section
Cracking
Deformation
Fatigue
Connection Failure
Overall Rating

1
Railings
Walkways
Platforms
1
Stairs/Ladders
Hatches/Doors
Supports
Cathodic Prot.
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
16-Jan-13
Comment(s)
Buncombe County MSD

Location:
Perrion

Use
Year Built
LxWxH (above grade)
Basement Dimensions
Reservoir
Finished Water
Steel
mid 1980's
x
x
100,000 gallons

Condition
1-5/NA
Comment(s)
Steel
Concrete/Masonry
Corrosion
Leakage
Cracking
Spalling
Settling
Pitting
Delamination
Freeze/Thaw Damage
Corrosion
Loss of Section
Cracking
Deformation
Fatigue
Connection Failure
Overall Rating

1
Railings
Walkways
Platforms
1
Stairs/Ladders
Hatches/Doors
Supports
Cathodic Prot.
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
16-Jan-13
Comment(s)
Buncombe County MSD

Location:
Hamburg Mountain

Use
Year Built
LxWxH (above grade)
Basement Dimensions
Reservoir
Finished Water
Concrete
^2002
x
x
1,000,000 gallons
Steel
Concrete/Masonry

Condition
1-5/NA
Corrosion
Leakage
Comment(s)
staining
Cracking
Spalling
Settling
Pitting
Delamination
Freeze/Thaw Damage
Corrosion
Loss of Section
Cracking
Deformation
Fatigue
Connection Failure
Overall Rating

1
Railings
Walkways
Platforms
1
Stairs/Ladders
Hatches/Doors
Supports
Cathodic Prot.
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
16-Jan-13
Comment(s)
Buncombe County MSD

Location:
Perrion Hydro Tank

Use
Year Built
LxWxH (above grade)
Basement Dimensions
Reservoir
Finished Water
Steel
x

Condition
Steel
Concrete/Masonry
Corrosion
Leakage
1-5/NA
Comment(s)
1
1
Cracking
Spalling
Settling
Pitting
Delamination
Freeze/Thaw Damage
Corrosion
Loss of Section
Cracking
Deformation
Fatigue
Connection Failure
Overall Rating

Railings
Walkways
Platforms
Stairs/Ladders
Hatches/Doors
Supports
Cathodic Prot.
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
16-Jan-13
Comment(s)
Buncombe County MSD

Location: La Perrion High Service

Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
High Srvc Booster Stat.

Weinman
2
Split case
160 gpm
40 /
electric Motor

Condition
1-5/NA
Corrosion
Leakage
1
1
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
1
1
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
Piping/Valves
1
Motors
1
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
16-Jan-13
Buncombe County MSD

Location: Perrion Hydro Station

Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number

Grundfos
2
Vert in line
96 gpm
10 /
electric Motor

Condition
1-5/NA
Corrosion
Leakage
1
1
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
1
1
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
Piping/Valves
1
Motors
1
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
16-Jan-13
Buncombe County MSD

Location: Perrion Fire Pump

Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number
end suction
30 /
electric Motor

Condition
1-5/NA
Corrosion
Leakage
1
1
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
1
1
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
Piping/Valves
1
Motors
1
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
16-Jan-13
Buncombe County MSD

Location: Ox Creek (Hamburg Mountain)

Manufacturer
Model Number
Quantity/Type
Equipment IDs
Installation Date
Capacity
Motor Manuf.
HP/RPM/V/FLA
Drive Type
Serial Number

Deming
2
Vert turbine
160 gpm
10 /
electric Motor

Condition
1-5/NA
Corrosion
Leakage
1
1
Vibration/Noise
Support/Base Damage
1
1
Other
Ancillary Items
1-5/NA
Piping/Valves
1
Motors
1
Instruments
Other
Overall Rating
Comment(s)
Comment(s)
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
16-Jan-13
Buncombe County MSD

Location:
Ox Creek

Use
Year Built
LxWxH (above grade)
Basement Dimensions
Reservoir
Finished Water
Concrete
1920's
x

Condition
Steel
Concrete/Masonry
Corrosion
Leakage
Cracking
Spalling
Settling
Pitting
Delamination
Freeze/Thaw Damage
Corrosion
Loss of Section
Cracking
Deformation
Fatigue
Connection Failure
Overall Rating
1-5/NA
Comment(s)
1
1
2
1

Railings
Walkways
Platforms
Stairs/Ladders
Hatches/Doors
Supports
Cathodic Prot.
1-5
Comments:

1
Reliability
O&M Performance
Capacity
Regulatory
Overall
5
Comments:
Performed By:
David Baird
Date:
16-Jan-13
Comment(s)

APPENDIX
C
Financial Model (Spreadsheet
Scenarios) (Phase I)
Baseline Proforma - Operating Fund

Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County
Merger Study of the City of Asheville - Water Resources Department
1
Line
No.
Description
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
5
6
FY2017
FY2018
10
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
1
2
Revenues
User Charge Revenue
Miscellaneous Revenue
$ 29,147,559
4,747,417
$ 29,455,071
4,747,417
$ 29,913,486
4,747,417
$ 30,378,615
4,747,417
$ 30,851,821
4,747,417
$ 31,357,940
4,747,417
$ 31,706,666
4,747,417
$ 32,218,693
4,747,417
32,735,330
4,747,417
33,260,597
4,747,417
Total Revenues
$ 33,894,976
$ 34,202,488
$ 34,660,903
$ 35,126,032
$ 35,599,238
$ 36,105,357
$ 36,454,083
$ 36,966,110
37,482,747
38,008,014
4
5
6
7
Revenue Requirements
Operating Expenses
City Overhead
Transfer to GCP2
Capital Outlay
$ 15,076,518
2,206,649
990,336
333,860
$ 15,587,742
2,272,848
342,207
$ 16,120,093
2,341,034
350,762
$ 16,674,676
2,411,265
359,531
$ 17,252,667
2,483,603
368,519
$ 17,855,320
2,558,111
377,732
$ 18,483,967
2,634,854
387,175
$ 19,140,029
2,713,900
396,855
19,825,019
2,795,317
406,776
20,540,551
2,879,176
416,945
5,942,854
175,725
6,118,579
5,942,623
170,580
546,256
6,659,459
5,935,573
165,435
1,092,512
7,193,520
5,933,623
160,290
1,092,512
7,186,425
5,930,023
155,145
1,092,512
7,177,680
5,929,423
1,092,512
7,021,935
5,926,473
1,502,958
7,429,431
5,919,786
1,913,404
7,833,190
8
9
10
11
Debt Service
Existing Parity Debt Service
Existing Subordinate Debt Service
Proposed New Debt Service
Total Debt Service
12
Capital Projects Funded with Cash
7,438,564
2,712,262
10,841,632
5,225,523
7,658,578
7,622,078
2,644,857
$ 27,574,518
$ 36,847,041
$ 32,728,831
5,918,229
2,323,850
8,242,079
5,917,342
2,734,296
8,651,638
3,005,520
13
Total Revenue Requirements
$ 32,164,506
$ 31,857,421
$ 34,941,047
$ 35,435,176
$ 28,935,427
14
15
16
17
Beginning Balance
Transfer to Capital Reserves
Ending Balance
$ 27,076,193 $ 17,617,027 $ 17,744,996 $ 15,558,858

1,730,470
6,627,969
(2,186,138)
3,268,611
(11,189,636)
(6,500,000)
$ 17,617,027 $ 17,744,996 $ 15,558,858 $ 18,827,469
$ 18,827,469
658,191
$ 19,485,661
$ 19,485,661
670,181
$ 20,155,841
$ 20,155,841 $ 21,774,497 $
7,518,656
4,237,279
(5,900,000)
(4,000,000)
$ 21,774,497 $ 22,011,776 $
18
Ending Balance of Capital Reserve Fund
$ 11,189,636
19
User Charge Rate Increase
0.0%
1.1%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.1%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
20
Ending Year Cash on Hand (Days)
427
416
352
412
412
412
430
420
415
409
21
22

Parity Debt Service Coverage Ratio
Total Debt Service Coverage Ratio
2.74
2.67
2.47
2.41
2.26
2.21
2.24
2.19
2.21
2.16
2.19
2.19
2.02
2.02
1.88
1.88
1.76
1.76
1.64
1.64
23
24
25
Capital Plan3
Capital Plan - Community Development/Sullivan Act
Total Capital Plan
26
27
28
29
30
Capital Plan Funding

Revenue Bonds
SRF Loans
Pay-As-You-Go
Capital Reserve Fund
Total Capital Plan Funding
$ 17,689,636
$ 13,689,636
9,689,636
5,389,636
989,636
6,889,636
1,512,415
31,269,191
22,011,776 $
6,213,557
(5,700,000)
22,525,333 $
7,212,415
35,493,830
22,525,333
2,514,185
(2,000,000)
23,039,518
195,857
7,438,564
7,438,564
$ 17,371,000
1,341,262
18,712,262
$ 13,165,054
1,676,578
14,841,632
7,548,945
1,676,578
9,225,523
$ 10,282,000
1,676,578
11,958,578
$ 10,345,500
1,676,578
12,022,078
$ 10,345,500
1,676,578
12,022,078
$ 10,173,772
1,848,306
12,022,078
10,147,941
1,874,137
12,022,078
10,121,677
1,900,401
12,022,078
7,438,564
7,438,564
$ 16,000,000
2,712,262
$ 18,712,262
5,225,523
4,000,000
9,225,523
$ 12,022,078
$ 12,022,078
12,022,078
12,022,078
3,005,520
9,016,558
12,022,078
10,841,632
4,000,000
$ 14,841,632
7,658,578
4,300,000
$ 11,958,578
7,622,078
4,400,000
$ 12,022,078
2,644,857
9,377,221
$ 12,022,078
Baseline proforma taken from October 24, 2012 model provided by Lauren Bradley, City of Asheville, Director of Finance and Management Services to Scott Powell, MSD Director of Finance, which excludes the potential
transmission main project in FY2019-FY2022.
2
Based on an 10/24/12 email from Phil Kleisler with the City to Scott Powell with MSD, transfers to the General Capital Projects Fund following FY2013 are included in the CIP shown in line 24.
3
Includes new maintenance facility project with a cost of $500,000 in FY2014 and $1,500,000 in FY2015, which was not included in the proforma provided by the City on October 24, 2012 (without the transmission main project).
Also includes an adjustment in the CIP estimate for the Murifield/South Malvern Hills projects in FY2014 and FY2015 based on 10/24/12 email from Phil Kleisler at the City to Scott Powell with MSD, and transfers to the General
Capital Projects Fund. Community Development/Sullivan Act amounts shown separately.
Financial Model (10-28-12)Baseline.xlsm
10/28/2012
Proforma for Merger Scenario 1

Line
No.
Description
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
5
6
FY2017
FY2018
10
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
1
2
Revenues
User Charge Revenue
Miscellaneous Revenue1
$ 29,147,559
4,747,417
$ 29,455,071
4,227,417
$ 29,913,486
4,227,417
$ 30,378,615
4,227,417
$ 30,621,644
4,227,417
$ 30,866,617
4,227,417
$ 31,113,550
4,227,417
$ 31,362,458
4,227,417
31,613,358
4,227,417
31,866,265
4,227,417
Total Revenues
$ 33,894,976
$ 33,682,488
$ 34,140,903
$ 34,606,032
$ 34,849,061
$ 35,094,034
$ 35,340,967
$ 35,589,875
35,840,775
36,093,682
4
5
6
7
8
Operating Expenses2
Added Positions, benefits, contracts3
City Overhead4
Transfer to GCP5
Capital Outlay
$ 15,076,518
2,206,649
990,336
333,860
$ 15,607,961
1,281,056
342,207
$ 16,292,653
1,319,488
350,762
$ 17,008,231
1,359,072
359,531
$ 17,756,254
1,399,845
368,519
$ 18,389,614
1,441,840
377,732
$ 19,049,890
1,485,095
387,175
$ 19,738,530
1,529,648
396,855
20,457,075
1,575,537
406,776
21,207,168
1,622,804
416,945
5,942,854
175,725
5,942,623
170,580
5,935,573
165,435
5,933,623
160,290
5,930,023
155,145
5,929,423
-
5,926,473
-
5,919,786
-
Debt Service
Proposed New Debt Service6
9
10
11
12
Total Debt Service
13
6,118,579
631,609
6,744,812
1,263,217
7,364,225
1,263,217
7,357,130
1,263,217
7,348,385
1,263,217
7,192,640
1,616,423
7,542,896
1,969,629
7,889,415
7,438,564
3,906,000
10,565,054
3,548,945
5,982,000
5,945,500
796,551
$ 27,882,036
$ 35,892,182
$ 30,350,999
5,918,229
$
2,316,090
8,234,319
5,917,342
$
2,662,551
8,579,893
1,105,119
14
$ 32,164,506
$ 29,632,910
$ 32,855,002
$ 33,347,326
$ 28,465,056
15
16
17
18
Beginning Balance
Ending Balance
$ 27,076,193 $ 17,617,027 $ 16,917,479 $ 15,166,199

1,730,470
5,800,452
(1,751,279)
4,973,121
(11,189,636)
(6,500,000)
$ 17,617,027 $ 16,917,479 $ 15,166,199 $ 20,139,321
$ 20,139,321
1,994,058
$ 22,133,379
$ 22,133,379
1,746,708
$ 23,880,087
$ 23,880,087 $ 24,855,997 $
6,875,910
5,238,876
(5,900,000)
(4,000,000)
$ 24,855,997 $ 26,094,873 $
19
$ 11,189,636
20
0.0%
1.1%
1.6%
1.6%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
21
427
396
340
432
455
474
476
483
456
460
22
23

2.74
2.67
2.51
2.44
2.25
2.20
2.21
2.16
2.14
2.09
2.07
2.07
1.92
1.92
1.77
1.77
1.63
1.63
1.50
1.50
24
25
Capital Plan7
Capital Plan - Community Development/Sullivan Act8
28
29
Total Capital Plan
30
31
32
33
34

Revenue Bonds12
SRF Loans
Pay-As-You-Go
$ 11,665,054
-
700,000
989,636
6,889,636
1,512,415
1,735,000
3,100,000
2,900,000
7,438,564
$ 22,406,000
$ 14,565,054
7,548,945
$ 10,282,000
$ 10,345,500
$ 10,345,500
$ 10,173,772
10,147,941
10,121,677
7,438,564
7,438,564
$ 18,500,000
3,906,000
$ 22,406,000
3,548,945
4,000,000
7,548,945
$ 10,345,500
$ 10,345,500
10,147,941 $
(0)
10,147,941 $
1,105,119
9,016,558
10,121,677
796,551
9,377,221
$ 10,173,772
195,857
5,945,500
4,400,000
$ 10,345,500
10,147,941
-
5,982,000
4,300,000
$ 10,282,000
7,212,415
$ 10,173,772
-
10,565,054
4,000,000
$ 14,565,054
5,389,636
25,561,940
3,161,752
(2,000,000)
26,723,693
$ 10,345,500
-
$ 16,871,000
-
9,689,636
26,094,873 $
5,167,068
(5,700,000)
25,561,940 $
32,931,929
$ 10,345,500
-
IT Systems integration
Operations/Customer Service Bld11
7,438,564
-
$ 10,282,000
-
10
27
$ 13,689,636
30,673,707
7,548,945
-
Merger Transaction Cost9
26
$ 17,689,636
10,121,677
-
Includes reduction of $520,000 associated with MSD sewer billing.

Adjustments reflects difference in benefits cost between MSD and the City, and assumption that average annual salary cost parity will be achieved over a four year period for the staff positions that transfer from the City to MSD,
also includes a reduction of $520,000 associated with sewer billing, which would be covered under MSD's wastewater fund.
3
Includes the addition of 13 support services positions and associated salary and benefits cost.
4
Eliminated under the merger scenario.
5
Eliminated under the merger scenario, including the portion of the CIP related to the General Capital Projects Fund shown in line 25.
6
Includes $2.5 million in additional parity debt for the customer service building. Assumes an interest rate of 4.5 percent, term of 25 years, issuance cost of 1.25 percent.
7
Excludes City's CIP line item for a new maintenance facility, $500,000 in FY2014 and $1.5 million in FY2015. Capital project replaced by line 28.
8
9
Transaction costs include bond transaction cost, credit ratings, legal fees, and system inventory & condition.
10
Includes IT and CMMS integration, software, and hardware.
11
Includes new customer service and operations/maintenance buildings.
12
Includes $2.5 million of revenue bond financing for a new customer service building in FY2014, and reduction in bond financing in FY2019 and FY2021 due to elimination of Sullivan Act transfers.
2
Financial Model (10-28-12) Merger Scenario 1.xlsm
10/28/2012

Line
No.
Description
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
5
6
FY2017
FY2018
10
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
1
2
Revenues
User Charge Revenue
$ 29,147,559
4,747,417
$ 29,455,071
4,227,417
$ 29,913,486
4,227,417
$ 30,378,615
4,227,417
$ 30,378,615
4,227,417
$ 30,378,615
4,227,417
$ 30,378,615
4,227,417
$ 30,378,615
4,227,417
30,378,615
4,227,417
30,378,615
4,227,417
Total Revenues
$ 33,894,976
$ 33,682,488
$ 34,140,903
$ 34,606,032
$ 34,606,032
$ 34,606,032
$ 34,606,032
$ 34,606,032
34,606,032
34,606,032
4
5
6
7
8
Operating Expenses2
3
Added Positions, benefits, contracts
4
City Overhead
5
Transfer to GCP
Capital Outlay
$ 15,076,518
2,206,649
990,336
333,860
$ 15,472,447
1,281,056
342,207
$ 16,009,790
1,319,488
350,762
$ 16,639,275
1,359,072
359,531
$ 17,294,329
1,399,845
368,519
$ 17,675,941
1,441,840
377,732
$ 18,151,455
1,485,095
387,175
$ 18,729,016
1,529,648
396,855
19,243,975
1,575,537
406,776
19,779,177
1,622,804
416,945
5,942,854
175,725
5,942,623
170,580
5,935,573
165,435
5,933,623
160,290
5,930,023
155,145
5,929,423
-
5,926,473
-
5,919,786
-
Debt Service
9
10
11
12
Total Debt Service
13
6,118,579
631,609
6,744,812
1,263,217
7,364,225
1,263,217
7,357,130
1,263,217
7,348,385
1,263,217
7,192,640
1,548,141
7,474,614
1,833,065
7,752,851
7,438,564
3,906,000
10,565,054
3,548,945
5,982,000
5,945,500
2,000,000
796,551
$ 27,746,522
$ 35,609,318
$ 29,204,921
5,918,229
$
2,111,244
8,029,473
5,917,342
$
2,000,000
2,389,423
8,306,765
1,105,119
14
$ 32,164,506
$ 29,263,954
$ 32,393,078
$ 32,633,653
$ 29,498,339
15
16
17
18
Beginning Balance
Ending Balance
$ 27,076,193 $ 17,617,027 $ 17,052,993 $ 15,584,577

1,730,470
5,935,966
(1,468,416)
5,342,077
(11,189,636)
(6,500,000)
$ 17,617,027 $ 17,052,993 $ 15,584,577 $ 20,926,654
$ 20,926,654
2,212,954
$ 23,139,608
$ 23,139,608
1,972,379
$ 25,111,986
$ 25,111,986 $ 24,319,678 $
5,107,692
5,401,111
(5,900,000)
(4,000,000)
$ 24,319,678 $ 25,720,789 $
19
$ 11,189,636
20
0.0%
1.1%
1.6%
1.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
21
427
402
355
459
488
519
489
501
443
457
22
23

2.74
2.67
2.53
2.46
2.29
2.24
2.26
2.21
2.17
2.12
2.11
2.11
1.96
1.96
1.80
1.80
1.67
1.67
1.54
1.54
24
25
Capital Plan7
28
29
Total Capital Plan
30
31
32
33
34

12
Revenue Bonds
SRF Loans
Pay-As-You-Go
$ 11,665,054
-
700,000
989,636
6,889,636
1,512,415
1,735,000
3,100,000
2,900,000
7,438,564
$ 22,406,000
$ 14,565,054
7,548,945
$ 10,282,000
$ 10,345,500
$ 10,345,500
$ 10,173,772
10,147,941
10,121,677
7,438,564
7,438,564
$ 18,500,000
3,906,000
$ 22,406,000
3,548,945
4,000,000
7,548,945
8,147,941
2,000,000
10,147,941
1,105,119
9,016,558
10,121,677
8,345,500
2,000,000
$ 10,345,500
796,551
9,377,221
$ 10,173,772
195,857
5,945,500
4,400,000
$ 10,345,500
10,147,941
-
5,982,000
4,300,000
$ 10,282,000
7,212,415
$ 10,173,772
-
10,565,054
4,000,000
$ 14,565,054
5,389,636
23,371,060
3,375,222
(2,000,000)
24,746,282
$ 10,345,500
-
$ 16,871,000
-
9,689,636
25,720,789 $
3,350,271
(5,700,000)
23,371,060 $
31,230,809
$ 10,345,500
-
Operations/Customer Service Bld11
7,438,564
-
$ 10,282,000
-
10
27
$ 13,689,636
31,255,761
7,548,945
-
26
$ 17,689,636
10,121,677
-

Adjustments reflects difference in benefits cost between MSD and the City, and assumption that average annual salary cost parity will be achieved over a four year period for the staff positions that transfer from the City to MSD.
O&M expenses reflect lower personnel costs (as compared to Merger Scenario 1) due to incorporation of proposed staff attrition plan. Adjustment also includes a reduction of $520,000 associated with sewer billing, which would be
covered under MSD's wastewater fund.
3
4
5
6
Additional parity debt for the customer service building. Assumes an interest rate of 4.5 percent, term of 25 years, issuance cost of 1.25 percent.
7
8
9
10
11
Includes new customer service and operations/maintenance buildings, financed with $2.5 million in revenue bonds.
12
Includes $2.5 million of revenue bond financing for a new customer service building, and reduction in debt financing in FY2019 and FY2012.
2
10/28/2012

Line
No.
Description
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
5
6
FY2017
FY2018
10
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
1
2
Revenues
User Charge Revenue
$ 29,147,559
4,747,417
$ 29,455,071
4,227,417
$ 29,913,486
4,227,417
$ 29,913,486
4,227,417
$ 29,913,486
4,227,417
$ 29,913,486
4,227,417
$ 29,913,486
4,227,417
$ 29,913,486
4,227,417
29,913,486
4,227,417
29,913,486
4,227,417
Total Revenues
$ 33,894,976
$ 33,682,488
$ 34,140,903
$ 34,140,903
$ 34,140,903
$ 34,140,903
$ 34,140,903
$ 34,140,903
34,140,903
34,140,903
4
5
6
7
8
9
Operating Expenses2
Reduction of Personnel Costs (Attrition of WW Staff)3
Added Positions, benefits, contracts4
City Overhead5
Transfer to GCP6
Capital Outlay
$ 15,076,518
$
2,206,649
990,336
333,860
$ 15,472,447 $ 16,009,790 $ 16,639,275 $ 17,294,329 $ 17,675,941 $ 18,151,455 $ 18,729,016 $

(162,112)
(250,463)
(343,970)
(442,861)
(547,376)
(657,764)
(774,282)
1,281,056
1,319,488
1,359,072
1,399,845
1,441,840
1,485,095
1,529,648
342,207
350,762
359,531
368,519
377,732
387,175
396,855
Debt Service
10
11
12
13
Total Debt Service
14
5,942,854
175,725
$
6,118,579
5,942,623
170,580
$
631,609
6,744,812
5,935,573
165,435
$
1,263,217
7,364,225
5,933,623
160,290
$
1,263,217
7,357,130
5,930,023
155,145
$
1,263,217
7,348,385
5,929,423
$
1,263,217
7,192,640
5,926,473
$
1,479,859
7,406,332
5,919,786
$
1,696,501
7,616,287
7,438,564
3,906,000
10,565,054
3,548,945
5,982,000
5,945,500
4,000,000
796,551
$ 27,584,410
$ 35,358,855
$ 28,294,075
19,243,975 $
(897,199)
1,575,537
406,776
5,918,229
-
1,906,398
7,824,627
5,917,342
$
4,000,000
1,105,119
$ 32,164,506
$ 28,919,985
$ 31,950,217
$ 32,086,277
$ 30,772,294
16
17
18
19
Beginning Balance
Ending Balance
$ 27,076,193 $ 17,617,027 $ 17,215,105 $ 15,997,152

1,730,470
6,098,078
(1,217,952)
5,220,918
(11,189,636)
(6,500,000)
$ 17,617,027 $ 17,215,105 $ 15,997,152 $ 21,218,070
$ 21,218,070
2,190,686
$ 23,408,756
$ 23,408,756
2,054,626
$ 25,463,382
$ 25,463,382 $ 22,931,991 $
3,368,609
5,846,828
(5,900,000)
(4,000,000)
$ 22,931,991 $ 24,778,818 $
20
$ 11,189,636
21
0.0%
1.1%
1.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
22
427
406
365
465
494
526
461
483
400
430
23
24

2.74
2.67
2.55
2.49
2.33
2.27
2.25
2.20
2.16
2.12
2.12
2.12
2.00
2.00
1.88
1.88
1.77
1.77
1.67
1.67
25
26
Capital Plan8
29
30
Total Capital Plan
31
32
33
34
35

Revenue Bonds13
SRF Loans
Pay-As-You-Go
700,000
6,889,636
1,512,415
1,735,000
3,100,000
2,900,000
7,438,564
$ 22,406,000
$ 14,565,054
7,548,945
$ 10,282,000
$ 10,345,500
$ 10,345,500
$ 10,173,772
10,147,941
10,121,677
7,438,564
7,438,564
$ 18,500,000
3,906,000
$ 22,406,000
3,548,945
4,000,000
7,548,945
6,147,941
4,000,000
10,147,941
1,105,119
9,016,558
10,121,677
6,345,500
4,000,000
$ 10,345,500
796,551
9,377,221
$ 10,173,772
195,857
5,945,500
4,400,000
$ 10,345,500
10,147,941
-
5,982,000
4,300,000
$ 10,282,000
7,212,415
$ 10,173,772
-
10,565,054
4,000,000
$ 14,565,054
989,636
$ 10,345,500
-
$ 11,665,054
-
5,389,636
21,066,005
4,210,016
(2,000,000)
23,276,021
$ 10,345,500
-
12
Operations/Customer Service Bld
28
$ 16,871,000
-
9,689,636
24,778,818 $
1,987,187
(5,700,000)
21,066,005 $
29,930,887
$ 10,282,000
-
11
7,438,564
-
7,548,945
-
27
$ 13,689,636
32,153,716
2,116,295
8,033,637
15
$ 17,689,636
19,779,177
(1,026,795)
1,622,804
416,945
10,121,677
-

Adjustments reflects difference in benefits cost between MSD and the City, and assumption that average annual salary cost parity will be achieved over a four year period for the staff positions that transfer from the City to MSD.
O&M expenses reflect lower personnel costs (as compared to Merger Scenario 1) due to incorporation of proposed staff attrition plan. Adjustment also includes a reduction of $520,000 associated with sewer billing, which would be
covered under MSD's wastewater fund.
3
Includes reduction of personnel costs due to incorporation of proposed staff attrition plan attributable to the merger for wastewater staff.
4
5
6
7
Additional parity debt for the customer service building. Assumes an interest rate of 4.5 percent, term of 25 years, issuance cost of 1.25 percent.
8
9
10
11
12
Includes new customer service and operations/maintenance buildings, financed with $2.5 million in revenue bonds.
13
Includes $2.5 million of revenue bond financing for a new customer service building, and reduction in debt financing in FY2019 and FY2012.
2
10/28/2012

MSD Final Merger Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MSD Final Merger Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Metropolitan Sewerage District

Buncombe County, North Carolina

Impact Study on MSD Rate

Report Prepared By:

ARCADIS G&M of North

ES.1. Purpose and Overview of Study................................................................................ ES-1

Buncombe County, North Carolina

1.1. Purpose of Report ......................................................................................................... 1-1

2. Metropolitan Sewerage District

2.1. Overview of System ...................................................................................................... 2-1

3. Asheville Water System

3.1. Overview of Water System ........................................................................................... 3-1

4. Phase I Evaluation of Consolidation / Merger

4.1. Organization and Management..................................................................................... 4-1

5. Water Systems in Buncombe County (Phase II)

5.1. Biltmore Forest .............................................................................................................. 5-1

6. Summary and Conclusions

6.1. Summary of Evaluation ................................................................................................. 6-1

Asset Information / Site Inspection Summary (Phase I and II)

Financial Model (Spreadsheet Scenarios) (Phase I)

Buncombe County, North Carolina

ES.2. Metropolitan Sewerage District

surrounding communities, including Biltmore Forest, Weaverville, Black Mountain,

Figure ES-1: MSD Service Area Map

ES.2.2. MSD Organization and Management

Buncombe County (3 members)

Buncombe County, North Carolina

ES.2.3. Billing and Collections

ES.3. Asheville Water System

The City system provides water to approximately 125,000 customers.

place related to the operation and maintenance of its water system.

Buncombe County, North Carolina

Buncombe County, North Carolina

Existing Water Rates City of Asheville

Capital Improvement charge

Single Family Residential

Commercial (<= 1,000 ccf monthly)

Commercial (<=2,000 ccf bimonthly)

ES.4. Phase I Evaluation of Consolidation/Merger

Buncombe County, North Carolina

Projection of Staffing Levels and Salaries / Benefits Under Merged Scenario

Retirement Position Rehired3

Natural Attrition Rehired5

Additional Post-Merger Staff7

Total FY-End Staff Count

Total Salaries and Benefits Costs:

$ 1,281,056 $ 1,319,488 $ 1,359,072 $ 1,399,845 $ 1,441,840 $ 1,485,095 $ 1,529,648 $ 1,575,537 $ 1,622,804

Buncombe County, North Carolina

Buncombe County, North Carolina

Buncombe County, North Carolina

Summary of Cost Savings Merger Scenario 1

City vs MSD Water Salaries and Benefits Cost Difference

Total Annual Cost (Savings) of Merger

Total Cost (Savings) Over 9 Years

853,555 $ 1,023,587 $ 1,054,294 $ 1,085,923 $ 1,118,501 $ 1,152,056 $ 1,186,617

(605,564) $ (1,875,215) $ (1,736,750) $ (1,738,555) $ (1,740,414) $ (1,914,057) $ (1,941,861) $ (1,970,156)

Buncombe County, North Carolina

Summary of Cost Savings Merger Scenario 2

City vs Water MSD Salaries and Benefits Cost Difference

Total Annual Cost (Savings) of Merger

Total Cost (Savings) Over 9 Years

(888,427) $ (2,244,171) $ (2,198,674) $ (2,452,228) $ (2,638,849) $ (2,923,571) $ (3,154,961) $ (3,398,147)

Buncombe County, North Carolina