MINUTES
OF MEETING
CORAL
SPRINGS
IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT
The regular meeting of the
Board of Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District was held on
Present and constituting a quorum
were:
Bob Fennell President
Glen Hanks Vice President
Sharon Zich Secretary
Also present were:
John Petty Manager
Dennis Lyles Attorney
John McKune Engineer
Isabello Rodriguez CH2M-Hill
Ed Flavin CH2M-Hill
Kevin Alvarez CH2M-Hill
Cory Johnson CH2M-Hill
Sean Skehan CH2M-Hill
Rob Hungate CH2M-Hill
Randy Fredericks Field
Supervisor
Doug Hyche District Staff
Brenda Schurtz District
Staff
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll
Call
Mr.
Fennell called the meeting to order and Mr. Petty called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of
the December 18, 2006 Meeting
Mr. Fennell stated each Board member
received a copy of the
There not being any,
On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr. Fennell
with all in favor the minutes of the
THIRD ORDER OF
BUSINESS Award of
Contracts
A. Potable Water Flocculent
Mr. Petty stated this is a coagulant
aid we add in the water treatment process.
Staff has been evaluating various alternatives and believes this one to
be the best as it is the lowest responsive bid.
Mr. Fennell asked are we awarding
the contract to Generic Chemical?
Mr. Petty responded yes. We find the chemical they are offering breaks
down better in the potable water stream.
We were concerned with some of the synthetics and the end result after
settling in the water.
Mr. Fennell asked what does this
chemical do?
Mr. Petty responded the flocculent
aid comes in a fabric mesh style, which aids in getting fine particles out of
the suspension process.
Mr. Hanks asked has this chemical
been tested so we know we are getting the right type of treatment and dollar
amount?
Mr. Petty responded yes. This fits within our budget criteria. The chemical offered by Tropichem Enterprises
did well in performance measures but we were not satisfied with what we were
going to end up with in the treatment process.
Mr. Hyche stated we used Whisprofloc
consistently for years. The chemical
Generic Chemical is providing us, FBS-A105 is the synthetic version. Whisprofloc is shipped to us from
Mr. Hanks asked if we were comparing
our dollars and performance, is Generic Chemical the best?
Mr. Hyche responded yes.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich
with all in favor the contract for potable water flocculent was awarded to
Generic Chemical at the lowest responsive bid amount of $20,000 per year.
B. Aquatic Weed Control Chemicals
Mr. Petty stated Mr. Frederick bids
this contract out every year and recommends award to the lowest responsive
bidder of each chemical. This way we get
the best price for each chemical.
Mr. Hanks asked are we sharing this
bid with our sister districts?
Mr. Petty responded the other
districts have their own departments but we bid the chemicals together in order
to get the best price possible.
Mr. Frederick stated some companies
offered the same price on specific chemicals, which is the manufactures set
price. I recommend splitting the
business between two companies. For
Induce, Glades Formulating bid Surf-Ac 910 for $8.50 per gallon. I provided the label for this chemical. At the bottom it says, “Not for aquatic
use”. Therefore, I had to eliminate them
from the bid. In this case, we will go
with X-77, which was bid by UAP Timberland in the amount of $14.10 per gallon.
Mr. Hanks asked are these prices
consistent or similar to what we have seen in the past?
Mr. Frederick responded yes. As a matter of fact, I think some of them are
lower than what they were last year?
On
MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich with all in favor the contract for the
purchase of aquatic weed control chemicals was awarded the lowest bidder for
each respective chemical; and in the case of two low bidders staff has the
ability to split the purchase with each company.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Request for
Surface Water Management Permit for
Mr. Petty stated we will defer to
the engineer on this matter.
Mr. McKune stated this item was going
to be discussed by Ms. Early but she has not yet arrived.
Mr. Petty stated we will hold this
item until Ms. Early’s arrival.
FIFTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Staff
Reports
A. Attorney
Mr. Lyles stated we had our final
public hearing before the legislature delegation with respect to the special
bill amending your act providing for the changes on voting, bidding thresholds
and benefits for the Supervisors. The
bill was approved unanimously and sent to
Mr. Fennell stated so this has a
chance of going through. Last time,
Mr. Lyles stated I am not expecting to
have a problem this time around. If I
hear something to the contrary, I will be on the phone with you right
away. This can be handled by staff in
Mr. Fennell asked when do they meet?
Mr. Lyles responded in another month
or so. This item will be done at the end
of the session like all the other special local bills are.
Mr. Fennell stated by April or May,
this will be over with. Our elections
are in June. How does this bill affect
the election?
Mr. Lyles responded the election
will have to be held in connection with the November General Election. The first time around, we are suggesting
staggered terms. You will have two four
year term seats and one two year seat. The
next landowners meeting is scheduled for the June meeting. I do not think it is possible to do this any
other way than to have the landowners meeting in June. The Board at that time will make the
determination of when the conversion will take place. It will only be in connection with a regular
General Election. There will be no
special elections or off year elections.
We will hold this landowners election as we have in the past. Assuming this bill passes, the 2008 General
Election is when you will have the first electoral vote for members of this
Board.
Mr. Fennell asked what about the
bidding threshold?
Mr. Lyles responded the bidding
threshold will be substantially altered to bring you in line with other
agencies of local government. For
example, a $4,001 item will not have to be advertised in the newspaper. In many cases, the threshold is going to be
$150,000, which is similar to what CDD’s do with their ability to buy services
and goods. There was also the
compensation for the Board members.
After 30 years of the Board receiving $200 per meeting, they will
receive $400 per meeting.
Mr. Fennell stated this has a good
chance of passing. The Board will be in
better shape and have a better ability to make decisions. If the upcoming Board wants to have General
Elections, they certainly can, with no cost to us for doing so.
Mr. Hanks asked does it allow us to
change the size of the Board?
Mr. Lyles responded no. There will still be three members.
Mr. Petty stated keep in mind when
you make this change, there is no going back.
Mr. Fennell stated the Board has to
decide whether or not this is in the best interest of the residents.
Mr. Petty stated I believe we added
the phrase, “Up to the Board” mostly for NSID’s benefit.
Mr. Lyles stated the process we
discussed in the past about urbanization and the petition process has to do
with the expense and time concerning work not required for everyone serving as
an elected official. One of the concepts
in the present law is the degree of urbanization. You certainly reached and surpassed the
threshold as you are near build-out.
NSID is not quite there and they may not do it at the first possible
opportunity, which is in 2008 because they are still developing large tracts of
land. They may wait another election
cycle or they may never do it. They are
not obligated to do it and as Mr. Petty said, once you do it, you cannot go
back. They are not as far along the path
of being a totally urbanized built out area as CSID. Now it is a matter of your judgment of when
and if you think it is appropriate.
Mr. Fennell stated from a political
standpoint, we are in better shape.
Mr. Lyles stated believe it or not,
one or two members of the delegation thought this should not happen without the
necessity of having a petition from 10% of the registered voters on having a
special election and referendum. Their
opinion was this was in the original bill and we needed to go through those
steps to change it. Everyone else is
saying, “They are proposing to go from a landowner’s election to one person one
vote process, what could be more democratic and fair than that?” In the end, while the representatives did not
concede the point, they voted in favor of the bill. We are optimistic it is going to pass in
Tallahassee.
C. Manager
i. Discussion of Water and Sewer Rate
Sufficiency
Mr. Petty stated we provided to the
Board additional material for consideration.
In looking at the rates adopted in the early 1990’s, the intent was for
them to pay the operating costs plus produce less than $1 million per year for capital
improvements and a Renewal and Replenishment Fund. Over the years we have not made any adjustments. In looking at the rates now to see if they are
still as good as they were before, we found we are not making our goals of the
$835,000 plus for capital improvements.
In fact we are in the negative by $753,000. The question from the prior discussion was,
“Why does the budget not show a deficit”.
The budget shows revenues higher than what the rates project based on
historical conditions not on flow times rate considerations. When you look at a rate sufficiency, you can
only count on the rates coming through based on flow. We cannot count on the conservation rate,
which raises a considerable amount of revenue as the residents may start
conserving. They have been conserving
since we instituted the rate in the early 1990’s and continue to do so. Therefore, we do not count this rate in
looking at the sufficiency.
We transferred $200,000 out of our reserve;
otherwise we would be in a negative mode.
You have budget projections higher than what the rates will get you
without going into the conservation rate surcharges with the $200,000 transferred
from the reserves. Our recommendation to
the Board is to revitalize our rates. It
has been 15 years since we have done so and we feel it is prudent at this
time. We suggest using the mid-rate
analysis and not the high end rate analysis, which is usually six figures. We should have CH2M-Hill perform this work at
a fee between $30,000 and $35,000. We
believe having an independent rate analysis will get us back on track with
whatever capital program we decide to adopt.
Ms. Zich stated it is time to do a
study to see where we stand.
Mr. Fennell stated we can certainly
do the study. If we look at our capital
budget as adopted, we brought in capital outlay money of $150,000. However, after making the adjustments for
personnel, it was a wash. Where we are
showing more expenses are in plant and field operation costs. The plant operations are $300,000 more, with $163,000
allocated for electrical work. There
were also some insurance costs, which were part of the rate structure. We had some maintenance costs but they are
included in the normal cost of operations.
Mr. Petty stated exactly. In 15 years, those are the cost increases we
will be looking at.
Mr. Fennell stated field operations
increased a couple of hundred thousand dollars due to salary and wages. There are pension and health expenses, which
are a wash. Electricity increased from
$87,000 to $132,000. I was surprised to
see Repairs and Maintenance dropped.
Mr. Petty stated we moved those
funds to Renewal and Replenishment.
Mr. Fennell stated in general, our
fixed operations are increasing. We knew
this would happen with the personnel changes, which makes us a stronger
organization. We talked a year or two
ago about other ways of cutting down expenses.
We got rid of security, which saved us a couple of hundred thousand
dollars per year. We will do as much
competitive bidding as we can but it is time to look at the rates. The Board has to decide on the type of rate
structure. We currently have a rate
structure in place where the cost increases the more water used.
Mr. Petty stated these are
conservation rates.
Mr. Fennell stated they gave us the
greatest use. Despite the sufficiency,
people spent more money on water than they thought. We actually received more money by those rate
structures. I do not know if we can
neglect the fact of the rate structure being a big part of it. I know you are thinking we should not count
on it.
Mr. Petty stated you are
correct. There will always be some
monies in there but the conservation rate has lowered usage by a measurable
amount between 1992 and now. Part of this
is due to the fixture requirements for toilets and shower heads in homes. I do now know whether people are trying hard to
conserve water but certainly the industry is trying. This should continue. While there will be income from a
conservation rate by design, how much you can count on is difficult to
determine. From a financial viewpoint,
we do not recommend you count on it.
Mr. Fennell asked are there any
other ways to bring in revenues?
Mr. Petty responded this Board has
always considered other ways. We are
starting to get requests from other government agencies to do utility billing
and other services off of the new computer system, which is now in place. Staff is in the trial mode of the computer
system as we speak. It is one-fifth the
size of the system it is replacing and 10 times faster. It is amazing. IBM has done a wondrous job in the
manufacturing of the chip they have in this machine.
Mr. Fennell stated since we
consolidated our organization, we can certainly look at ways to sell more of
our services. This should give us more
leverage in our own services.
Mr. Hanks stated as the population
increases and re-development continues, there is going to be an increased
demand for water, not just in our District but in other locations.
Mr. Fennell stated leveraging our
abilities might be a good thing for us to continue to do. In the future, we may see more and more water
restrictions from the SFWMD on how much water we can pump out of the
ground. We may need to start looking at
reductions in the free water used for irrigation as there may be other means
out there. We may be in a situation 10
years from now where we can charge for reclaimed water.
Mr. Petty stated absolutely. You will hear more about this later in the
meeting. It is going to get more
competitive. It is already more
competitive from all the utilities trying to provide the best water they can
for their residents. We are in this
battle as we speak. One of the first
items the engineers are going to discuss tonight is the Consumptive Use Permit,
which gives us the right to use the Biscayne Aquifer. We definitely want to fight for this good
water supply. As water use becomes more
critical, our position will be one we want to protect.
Mr. Fennell stated there are other
issues we can look at from a revenue source perspective. As far as the county is concerned, we are in
an excellent physical position as far as getting water. We are at the top of the Biscayne Aquifer. There actually may come a time when what is
needed out here is for us to pump more water and ship it east. I can see this happening.
Mr. Petty stated we are already
being asked by SFWMD to do as much recharging to this area as possible. This will be discussed by the engineer in
their presentation.
Mr. Fennell stated we need to look
at additional revenue sources. We are in
a position where we have good wellfields and can build some new ones. If we have to, we can pump enough water for
our neighbors. We actually have a
location on-site where we can process water rather than having it shipped to
us.
Mr. Hanks stated unfortunately, we
do not own the water falling on us. It
is under the jurisdiction of the SFWMD who is providing us with a license to
utilize a certain portion of their water source.
Mr. Petty stated I understand the
suggestion. Our engineers are familiar
with those politics. SFWMD issues five
year permits. We discussed this matter
with the engineer and what will be looked at is what this utility does as an
entity. If you are perceived as being a
leader in the governance of water and wastewater utilities, then you may get
extra consideration from the permitting agencies. This is what we are going to be striving
for. The position you discussed in the
past was referred to as a Regional Water Supplier position, which has been
pre-empted by the county in the last couple of years. I think we are in a very good position to
show we are a leader in the governance of utilities in Broward County.
Mr. Fennell stated we are trying to
give you some direction of how this fits into the rate study. We are also going to look at better ways of
purifying water. When the other utility
companies went down around us and people needed water, they were shipping it in
from places 1,000 miles away in order for people to have water when we still
had water on-site.
Mr. Petty stated there were millions
of gallons on-site.
Mr. Fennell stated there should be a
way to provide water in those situations such as selling bottled water rather
than cutting costs or raising prices. I
like the rate structure we currently have with the conservation rates. I recommend increasing each rate a certain
percentage and calling it a day.
Mr. Petty stated staff suggests having
CH2M-Hill perform a rate study having to do with the capacity and commodity
rates study as well as a fixed commitment to the community, which many
utilities have. This may be supported by
ad valorem charges or other fees and charges.
It should be based on how much water you use. There should also be a fee based on the urban
environment. In most large utility
structures, there are three types of rates; fixed administration, fixed
facility costs by a General Fund or ad valorem and capacity and commodity. Capacity has to do with fixed items like
personnel requirements under DEP. You
cannot vary those and must have a fixed number of operators per shift. Electricity and chemicals are variables based
on how many gallons you make with the understanding you must have a fixed
number no matter whether you do 5 million gallons or 3.5 million gallons. We have these wonderful variable frequency
motors, which are supposed to save us electricity but never do because you must
meet the pipeline pressure of 85%. Even
though the motors have the ability to go from 0 to 100%, they are at 85% before
they even push water into the pipe. We
have variable, fixed and institutional costs, which we want to balance out.
Mr. Hanks stated I want to see
included in the study recommendations for tying into certain commodity costs so
we can track and adjust it in the future without having to put away money in
our utility rates.
Mr. Petty stated whatever formula is
adopted in the rate study, we will present to the Board during the budget process.
Mr. Fennell stated we should take a
base cost like electricity and tie it to the budget going forward.
Mr. Petty stated we can do this.
Ms. Zich stated whatever we need to
get in excess of what we have; we need to add to each person’s bill. Is a certain percentage of everyone’s bill
fixed?
Mr. Petty responded yes. In the 1992 rate study, the fixed portion
represented only debt and not fixed costs.
The commodity portion of $1.90 per thousand dollars represented both
fixed and variable operating costs.
Ms. Zich asked does everyone’s bill
have fixed and commodity amounts?
Mr. Petty responded we want to have
the rate study look at the possibility of having a fixed amount for the
institution itself coming out of the General Fund assessment.
Mr. Fennell stated you want a tax.
Mr. Hanks asked does this help to alleviate
some of the problems we saw with the utilities on the Gulf Coast? A number of utilities had been wiped out by
Hurricane Katrina. Where do they get the
funds to rebuild?
Mr. Petty responded I do not know if
this is a good solution but it certainly could not hurt because you have a
third revenue source. With all the
people gone, I do not know if it would be fixed. You still need to have value in the land. We have the fixed cost for the
institution. Then we move over to those
categories such as employee costs which were fixed by rule and possibly
electric and chemical costs and have the variable cost portioned on the bill. On their ad valorem assessment in the General
Fund along with drainage responsibilities, they will also have a portion
assigned to water and sewer.
Mr. Fennell stated all those
justifications may sway the Board but in the end we have to sell this to the
public. It will come down to me
comparing the costs you have now and costs you are going to have. This has to be on page one. I need to know what people in the center part
of the city in North Springs, Tamarac and Margate are paying, what we are
paying and what we are going to pay in the future. I need to have much more straightforward
justification.
Mr. Petty stated the costs before
and in the future is what we will compare it to.
Mr. Fennell asked are we going to be
back here in three or four years doing the same thing or do we need an
escalation clause?
Mr. Petty responded we request this
model be authorized and require CH2M-Hill to prepare the formula so we can
upgrade based on our costs. Each cost
category can be upgraded as we do the budget.
The model we adopted in 1992 had the capability where you could put the
costs in, recalculate the methodology, come up with new rates and go through
the rule adoption process each year.
This is something we can do every year during the budget process. We can show the Board when increases are
necessary and you can decide whether it is a material change or not and we will
adopt whatever is necessary. We have
been asked for the rate study to be usable by staff in this manner since you do
not want to have to come back every three years.
Mr. Hanks asked can we use the model
from 1991, throw in today’s numbers and come up with a projection?
Mr. Petty responded we could but it
may only be usable for the next couple of years. As soon as you start looking at the capital
improvement program, which we hope to have later on this evening, I do not know
whether this rate works there.
Mr. Fennell stated the big issue is
how much money we are going to be spending on capital. In your old study, you were paying off $3
million in bonds. We are now down to $2
million.
Mr. Petty stated it will be
concurrent with the rate study.
Mr. Hanks stated there will be some
capital improvement component, which gets thrown back into the rate study.
Mr. Petty stated correct.
On
MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich with all in favor the Work
Authorization with CH2M-Hill to prepare a rate sufficiency study in the amount
not to exceed $35,000 was approved.
ii. Monthly Water & Sewer Charts
Mr. Petty stated these charts are
standard in nature. Our water loss is
still at an enviable 6.5%.
iv. Utility Billing Work Orders
Mr. Petty stated the work orders are
in acceptable ranges. We have nothing to
bring to the Board’s attention at this time.
v. Complaints Received/Resolved
Mr. Petty stated there is nothing
out of the ordinary or anything that has not been resolved. Your Customer Service Department does a good
job.
Mr. Hanks asked are we making
progress on bringing the wastewater infiltration back into line?
Mr. Petty responded we still have
infiltration issues and always will.
With a system of this age, there is no way around it. From my own observations and talking to the
operators, I believe they have enough tools to handle all the infiltration
issues they currently have. You allowed
them a search tank, which costs $600,000 giving them the opportunity to store water
in case there is horrendous inflow. The
day to day material seems to be handled by the design.
C. Engineer – Consideration of Work Authorizations
1. Consumptive Use Permit Renewal
2. Capital Improvement Analysis
Mr. Petty stated the key to
everything we are going to be doing in the capital improvement program, follows
the Consumptive Use Permit. The biggest
issue is accessibility to the Biscayne Aquifer and high quality water. Your second choice for a water supply is not
even close to the Biscayne Aquifer’s quality.
The cost of treating water jumps dramatically.
Mr. Fennell asked what is our second
choice?
Mr. Hyche responded Florida Aquifer.
Mr. Petty stated this is a brackish
water supply. It is fairly deep. You are looking at reverse osmosis.
Mr. Hanks asked is this where we
dispose our waste?
Mr. Skehan responded it is part of
the Florida Aquifer but there are usable and un-usable parts. This is defined by the specific water
quality, which are totally dissolved solids.
Anything below 1,500’ to 1,600’ can potentially be used as a disposal
zone. However, you want to have this area
completely isolated away from any potential usable zone. The injection zone is down 2,800’ to 3,000’
and is isolated away from the potential use of the upper Florida Aquifer, which
is anywhere between 800’ and 1,200’. For
reverse osmosis, the reject has to come off the membrane process. Then you have to make modifications to your
injection well system and/or potentially have another new injection well, which
is costly.
Mr. Petty stated while this all may
be fun for us as operators, it is costly for our users. The reason why we are getting into these
other matters is because politics can become so heavily involved in Consumptive
Use Permits. Effluent reuse, which is
using every drop of water to the best of your ability, is a strong component in
the Consumptive Use Permit. We have been
able to use financial efficiency as a rule of thumb. The Consumptive Use Permit is a fairly
straightforward and highly important issue for us, which has 1,001 parameters
tied to it. This is where we hope to
show with the engineer’s capital improvement program, we are a leader in the
county.
Mr. Skehan stated we already discussed
the opportunity of selling bottled water.
It is something to give consideration to. It is nice to be here today to discuss your
Improvement Plan for water and wastewater.
We are going to look at several different items about why the CIP is
important to CSID. One item is the water
use permitting side of the equation. So
much is tied to your water use permit as it is a trigger for what you want to
do in the future relative to your water treatment process have a line treatment
process. You currently have a lime
treatment process with three different trains.
The first train was constructed in 1972, the second was constructed in
1976 and the third was constructed in 1984 or 1985. What you have is an aged process, which you
have made significant investment into when it was originally constructed. At this point, you need to look forward
because it reached its design age and is beginning to show what is taking
place.
What is important is providing the
highest level of service to your customers through affordable rates, high
redundancy and reliability. The key word
is “reliability”. Replacement of aging
infrastructure is a key component.
Ultimately, your goal in being able to provide this level of service to
your customers is to meet current and future regulations. Several items have to do with what you are
able to do with the new technologies available for the implementation of
advanced water treatment technologies and effluent reuse. The responsibility to the regional aquifer is
to be able to recharge and give this opportunity back to the Consumptive Water
Use Permit. Tied to this is the Water
Management District and DEP looking for CSID to implement some use or level of
water resource so there is no loss of water in the system. It is the best management of your resources
to ultimately preserve the aquifer allocation.
We pointed out already; this is a significant item for where you want to
be able to go.
What we are going to look at this
evening is replacement of aging infrastructure on the water side and looking at
similar items on the wastewater side; what needs to take place; the proposed
projects in the CIP and ultimately how this is going to fit together for you
given the age of your system and how you can provide the best level of service
to your customers. Since you are
familiar with the condition of the plant, we will revisit some of the
components of your facility.
Mr. Petty stated this facility has
been economically feasible for a long time.
I feel the Board and staff have done a wonderful job of operating the
facility for the length of time they have but I do not know if you can squeeze
another nickel out of what has already been taken out of these plants. I have seen this before and it going to start
looking bad. It is not because you did
not get your money’s worth out of it. It
is because we did.
Mr. Skehan stated Mr. Petty’s point
is all too important because the Board and staff have done an excellent
job. It all works together to be able to
keep the plant operating where it is currently.
In actuality, the life expectancy of some of the components of your system
is probably five years ago. In our
overview of the plant, we are starting with the lime and sludge ponds, which
are difficult to manage. The sludge does
not go away with the lime process. It
piles up and has to be dried and hauled away.
This facility has been part of the lime process in the past. Twenty-five years ago when the utility was constructed,
there was no community around you. This
is similar to what was taking place in other utilities. Now you have a community growing around you
and a line having the potential to blow out.
You received complaints and you will want to give consideration to this
on how this is handled in the future. In
addition, the lime and sludge dust goes into the plant and affects the
equipment. It is labor intensive to take
care of this.
Another component is the corrosion
on the filters. There is no surface
rust, but rust going into the equipment and affecting various components. On process number 3, which is the largest
unit, the corrosion is going through structural components. It is not supposed to be there. Therefore, it is important to recognize what
to do and how to move forward into the future in regards to the best options for
the utility.
Moving towards the wastewater side
of the facility, there is significant corrosion. In Units A and B, one of the units failed and
is no longer functionable. As you
proceed through the facility, the corrosion issues are considerable. It is hard to look at beyond what is
there. One particular wall failed and was
reinforced with vertical and horizontal beams at the bottom and top to be able
to continue to operate.
Additionally, when you have this
level of corrosion taking place, things become less safe. This is a primary consideration because of
insurance rates. There are indentations
in one of the tanks due to fatigue to the steel and corrosion is taking place
along the bottom and top of the structure.
It is evident in many different places.
You have a number of different options to look at and give consideration
to for the future. In the past when the
utility was first established, you looked at this from a 20 to 25 year time
frame. Now having reached its ultimate
life expectancy, you want to invest another 20 to 25 years into the
future.
Ongoing construction projects on the
wastewater side of the facility include:
• Nano
filtration, a way to replace the lime softening process
• Reclaimed
water facility
• Wastewater
A and B replacement
• Sludge
facility, replacement of the belt filter press and roof
• Injection system monitor well, issues
with corrosion in the tubing in the monitor well, which is currently being
replaced
• Emergency
generator
It was great sitting here a couple
of years ago after the hurricanes and having water going out to the
customers. There were a few utilities
around but they were not providing any water and were actually begging for
water. You were in the pilot’s seat in
that particular year and can continue to do so with additional augmentation of
the generator system.
Continuation of Ongoing construction
projects:
• Reclaimed
water conveyance, which will tie into the reuse system
• Operating
building expansion for an emergency response center
We have seen the importance of managing
emergencies in the past and having a place for staff to be able to stay and do
what they need to. This is something to
consider for the future.
Mr. Fennell asked are ongoing
projects ones we already funded?
Mr. Petty responded ongoing projects
are ones we have contracts out for subject to funding availability, in keeping
track with everything being done now. It
was envisioned the purpose of this CIP was to have additional funds to complete
the work. If we are delayed for any
reason, we will stop any portion of this contract until we get the funds.
Mr. Fennell asked what projects do
we currently have in place?
Mr. Petty responded the emergency
generator the Board wanted us to have to give us the ability to operate for
more than just a few days.
Mr. Hyche stated we want to operate
for 14 days or more.
Mr. Petty stated Mr. McKune has a
new digester being constructed under this contract.
Mr. McKune stated the current
projects are all for the wastewater side.
It is basically a solids handling improvement program including a new
digester, which we are in need of. There
are five different pump stations conveying various portions of the waste stream;
a new roto-guard, which takes water out of the sludge for further processing
and a new chemical storage building. In
the past, we utilized a shed for 15 years to store aquatic maintenance
chemicals. DEP in one of their annual
site inspections was concerned the shed was going to fall down.
Mr. Petty stated we did this for
groundwater protection.
Mr. Fennell asked what about the water
treatment side?
Mr. McKune responded there is no
current CIP on the water treatment side.
There has only been maintenance over the past year.
Mr. Fennell stated you were talking
about doing something with one of the units.
Mr. McKune stated you are referring
to Unit 3, which was shown to be most corroded.
It needs to be taken out of service and have a complete overhaul but at
the present time, we cannot do so because of its capacity.
Mr. Petty stated we have no facility
to use in its place. If we turn it off,
we do not have enough capacity to make the daily demand.
Mr. Fennell stated we authorized the
design.
Mr. McKune stated it was rolled into
the CIP. It can still be done. What we anticipated was a stop gap measure to
take the existing one out of service for its needed maintenance and replace
with a new plant.
Mr. Hanks asked did this have
something to do with reverse osmosis?
Mr. Petty responded yes. It was included in today’s discussion of the
CIP. What they call nano filtration, is what
we call the membrane softening process.
Mr. Fennell asked what have we
funded on the water purification site?
Mr. McKune responded you authorized
the design of the fourth water treatment unit.
If this plant continued using lime softening, you would need $8 million
in addition to building the tank for new filters and lime/sludge dewatering
system, which alone costs $2 million to $3 million in construction costs. We held back design of the fourth tank
because we were looking at other options.
Mr. Fennell stated we were going to
do it but now you are coming back with a different proposal.
Mr. McKune stated correct.
Mr. Petty stated since you have to
apply for the Consumptive Use Permit, this is the time to make the
decision.
Mr. Johnson stated I am going to
discuss the difference between nano filtration or membrane softening and your
current lime softening. This process is
similar to reverse osmosis, which is something you should consider in your 20
to 25 year outlook. Nano filtration is a
much more robust process and more flexible.
It should be able to handle regulatory challenges as they occur over the
next 20 to 25 years. Rather than lime
softening, you have chemicals straining out the organics and the color from the
water as well as calcium and magnesium.
It is an easier system to operate and much more consistent
operation. There are significantly lower
operator requirements. It also
eliminates the sludge handling. It is
highly automatable. This is good
technology moving forward and what many other utilities are starting to
implant.
Nano filtration is also easy to
phase in as it is contained within a building.
You size your building to a certain size to allow for expansion over
time. It is fairly modular for sliding
and skidding new membrane racks into a building. You can add to it over time. Boynton Beach is using nano filtration. They started out with a 4 mgd facility but
the building was large enough to fit another 4mgd. They chose to do this instead of going the
lime softening route. Other membrane
facilities CH2M-Hill is working with is Cooper City Utilities, Bonita Springs
Utilities, Fort Pierce Utilities and FKAA.
Mr. Fennell asked what happens when
the membrane gets clogged and what is the life of the membrane?
Mr. Johnson responded there is a
cleaning process where acids or bases are used to clean the surface of the
membrane as they will clog over time.
You will apply a low ph or high ph chemical to remove the materials on
the surface and recover most of the performance of the membrane. This may happen once or twice a year. Depending on how well the membranes are
maintained, a typical design life is three to five years, although there are
facilities who make it to 10 years. It
is built into your overall operating process.
Mr. Fennell asked in five years do you
need to purchase a new membrane?
Mr. Johnson responded just the membranes. High pressure vessels house the membrane
unit.
Mr. Petty stated approximately 70%
to 80% of what you are building is fixed and does not go away for 30 years.
Mr. Fennell asked how much are we
paying per membrane every five years?
Mr. Petty responded the membrane
cost is computed as a consumable. You
will not have the lime cost or by-products cost but you have the membrane
replacement cost. Historically the three
year figure is the most conservative, with five years being the norm. There are tubes with seven to eight membranes
stuck together. You are going to replace
those tubes as they deteriorate. You
will not do a whole train at once but it could be just the second stage as not
all membranes are created equally. You
can remove the second stage and put in new tubes and then a year or two later
go after the first stage. It is a
consumable calculated into your rate structure each year. The trains are rated on performance. You clean them once the performance gets to a
75% recovery and you have decreased flow.
Instead of being able to make 8 million gallons a day, they will only be
able to make 7 million and then 6 million gallons.
Mr. Fennell stated it is a general
failure method.
Mr. Petty stated correct. You may have time to stage this as you see
fit.
Mr. Skehan stated depending on the
amount of capacity you have for a plant like this, you will not be using all
the capacity at one time. Your typical
average day use is 4 mgd. If you have
more capacity in your trains, say 8 mgd, you are going to be using each train
incrementally. There is a rotation to
their use. It is like rotating the tires
on your car. You need to have them in
different positions and use them for different parts to get longer use out of
them depending on the cleaning and how well you take care of them.
Mr. Hanks asked does this give us
the flexibility to adapt to changing water conditions as per the surface water
permit?
Mr. Johnson responded to a
degree.
Mr. Hanks asked what if SFWMD says
we cannot use the Biscayne Aquifer anymore?
Mr. Petty responded these pressure
vessels will be okay but the membranes will have to be switched. The headers will probably have to be changed
out because of increased pressures.
Generally speaking, most of this system will still be usable. More importantly, if the regulations change
and arsenic or another contaminant hits a regulation level we have not anticipated,
the membranes do a rejection of dissolved solids based on this membrane. By adding more pressure or possibly changing
out a few membranes, we will have a whole new tank and structure.
Mr. Hanks asked are there different
membranes addressing certain pollutants?
Mr. Petty responded usually.
Mr. Fennell asked what is the
response time of the system; gallon in and gallon out in time?
Mr. Petty responded it takes an hour
and a half to soften the water.
Mr. Hyche stated if you started from
scratch.
Mr. Fennell stated this can be done
in the early morning hours.
Mr. Petty stated we can turn them on
and off with the sun if you wish. A
number of plants turn on at 8 a.m. and off at 5 p.m.
Mr. Hanks stated in some instances,
we will not see a continuous use of electricity like we see on these plants but
it would go up and down with the demand.
Mr. Petty stated we could manage the
facilities to be off peak hours.
Mr. Hyche stated to some
degree. You would still have high
service capabilities.
Mr. Petty stated this is part of the
design. You do not turn it on all at
once. It needs to be done in stages so
the red line needle on your electric meter does not go nuts.