MINUTES OF MEETING
CORAL
SPRINGS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
A regular meeting of the Board of
Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District was held on Monday, May
17, 2010 at 3:05 p.m. at the District Office, 10300 NW 11th Manor, Coral
Springs, Florida.
Present and constituting a quorum were:
Robert Fennell President
Sharon Zich Vice President
Glenn Hanks Secretary
Also present were:
Kenneth Cassel District
Manager
Susan F. Delegal District
Counsel
Jane Early District Engineer
Dan Daly Director of Operations
Kay Woodward District Accountant
Randy Frederick Drainage
Supervisor
Ed Stover Water Department
David Macintosh Wastewater
Department
Gerrit Bulman CH2M Hill
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call
Mr.
Cassel called the meeting to order and called the roll.
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the April 19, 2010
Meeting
Mr. Fennell stated each
Board member received a copy of the minutes of the April 19, 2010 meeting and
requested any corrections, additions or deletions.
Mr.
Daly stated on page three in the middle of the page it says, “Mr. Stover
responded we just designed and provided SDC for a six engine ERL.” That comment and the three below it were made
by Mr. Johnson and not Mr. Stover.
On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr.
Fennell with all in favor the minutes of the April 19, 2010 meeting were
approved as amended.
Mr. Hanks asked I have one question
on terminology. QAPC procedures?
Mr. Bulman responded it is probably
QAQC, which is quality assurance.
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisors’ Requests and Audience Comments
There not being any, the next item
followed.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Amendment #2 (Final) to Work Authorization #51 for
Services during Construction on Monitoring Well #3
Mr. Fennell asked can you tell us
what this is about.
Mr. Cassel responded yes. Monitoring Well #3 is the well project that
the contract portion was originally issued to Layne Christianson for the
engineering work. You will remember at
one point we had a dropped pipe as well as some other issues, which came
up. As we went through with the
contractor we basically told the contractor any delays in time would come out
of potential claims or potential money he might be entitled to under the
contract. He had to cover his lost time,
his lost issues as well as my engineering time.
This was going on back in September.
We have held them to that. They
have agreed all the way through the project.
Since we have a contract with the
contractor and we have a contract with the engineering firm, by taking the
money back from the contractor I have to utilize the dollars which would have
normally gone to the contractor and pay the engineering fees. The bottom line is the original estimate for
the total contract budget was $2.142 Million and some change. We are coming in at $2.112 and some change. So we are about $30,000 under. The total budget for the project has not
changed. It is just the allocation of
the budget.
Mr. Fennell asked so who is getting what
money?
Mr. Cassel responded CH2M Hill is
getting an additional $27,500 under this agreement. The original $72,150 was to carry them theoretically
until November. They managed to stretch
those dollars all the way until March.
This will cover the end of March, April and May closeout of the project
on time with the project. There were
several things towards the end that delayed the project. When they went to plug and abandoned
Monitoring Well #2, when they opened it up, whoever had performed it in the
past did not do it in a typical manner.
Mr. Bulman stated no. There was a transition in pipe materials so
that they had to flange a continuous piece of pipe, which means they had to
elevate the well and they could not put pressure on it. They had to bring in a larger crane to hold
the casing in place while they removed the well, which is a little bit of a feat
to do out there.
Mr. Daly asked who was the engineer
on that project? Do you know?
Mr. Bulman responded I do not know
who did the engineering at the time.
Mr. Daly asked was it a different
firm? No matter who it was it was signed
off.
Mr. Cassel responded the
modifications done at the time, for whatever reason, the problem is whatever
records we had did not indicate that occurred inside. You cannot tell from the outside of the case.
Mr. Fennell asked is the project now
complete with all the punch list?
Mr. Bulman responded no. There are two outstanding punch list items. They are very minor and we are waiting on
asbuilts drawings for controls in electrical as well as the final submittal on
the operations and maintenance manual.
Once we receive those things, which we have already reviewed, it will be
complete on the contract.
Mr. Hanks asked is there anything
out there that would compromise or affect our ability to approve this work
authorization?
Mr. Cassel responded no. The contractor is already fully aware of the
dollars which will be removed out of his final change order. He has verbally signed off on that.
Mr. Hanks stated the contractor is
agreeable to it.
Mr. Cassel stated yes.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded Mr.
Fennell with all in favor Amendment #2 and final to Work Authorization #51 was
approved.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Bid Award for Replacement of
Pumps at Pumps Station #1
Mr. Fennell stated we first started
off replacing all of the engines. Is
that right?
Mr. Frederick responded the engines
are all replaced.
Mr. Fennell stated then after a
while we started on the pumps.
Mr. Frederick stated we did the
pumps, but we kept two of the original pumps that were in the best
condition. Now the pumps we refurbished
are starting to have some problems. We
had a leak in one. The gear heads are
getting kind of noisy when we run the pumps.
We want to upgrade the last two existing pumps to what we have with the
other existing pumps.
Mr. Daly stated apparently we have
two different manufactured pumps.
Mr. Fennell stated I am looking at
this tabulation sheet. Are we talking
about the same pumps?
Mr. Frederick responded yes.
Ms. Zich asked is that not
incredible?
Mr. Fennell asked are they the same
manufacturers?
Mr. Frederick responded yes. Farmers is the one we went with to replace
the other six and they are half the price.
It is unbelievable.
Mr. Fennell asked are we absolutely
sure they are the same pumps and there is not a difference in horsepower or
something?
Mr. Cassel responded we bid this
earlier and we had an issue with the bids so we had to re-bid it. Both bidders were fairly aware that FPI was
probably going to be in the neighborhood they ended up coming in at because
they were in the same area on the last bid they put in. So they came back in the same area. The other guy just did not come down to meet
him.
Mr. Fennell asked does this include installation
costs or something?
Mr. Frederick responded it includes
everything.
Ms. Zich asked were the other pumps
we replaced before similarly around $70,000 each?
Mr. Frederick responded yes. I think they were approximately $75,000.
Mr. Hanks asked looking back at what
you have done for the repairs, would you say the repairs were worthwhile and
cost effective or should we have considered replacing them all at that time?
Mr. Frederick responded I would have
liked to replace them all, but it was not my call back then. I was not in charge when it was done.
Mr. Fennell asked when was it done?
Mr. Frederick responded those two
pumps were refurbished in 1999.
Mr. Fennell stated that was 11 years
ago.
Mr. Hanks asked how much was spent?
Mr. Frederick responded I am not
sure what the cost was.
Mr. Hanks asked was it $20,000?
Mr. Frederick responded no. It was more than that. We just went out to bid to possibly refurbish
and it is approximately $30,000 to $35,000.
Mr. Hanks stated it is about half of
the price.
Mr. Fennell asked did FPI put in the
last pumps?
Mr. Frederick responded yes. They have done six of them.
Mr. Fennell asked how did they do?
Mr. Frederick responded they are
good. I have not had any problems with
them so far. The gear heads that are on
the existing pumps are the original gear heads.
They have been rebuilt many times and we cannot get parts for them
anymore. It is very hard to get pumps. The new gear heads we have are a lot
quieter. They work very well. We have not had any problems with the new
pumps at all.
Mr. Fennell stated I cannot believe
Moving Water Industries more than doubled the price. Who makes double the price?
Mr. Frederick responded the last
time we went out for bids, like Mr. Cassel was saying we had a problem, they
were told. We took a bid for
refurbishing and replacing to see what the cost comparison was. Each manufacturer was aware of what the other
guys bids were at the time.
Mr. Hanks stated Farmers is hungry
and Moving Water Industries has enough work apparently.
Mr. Frederick stated I guess so.
Mr. Hanks asked was there any
commitments in terms of bid documents or in their responses as to when these
parties would be able to take action on this?
Mr. Frederick responded it is going
to take eight to ten weeks to get the gear heads. They will start manufacturing the pumps right
away. I told them I need to have three
pumps operational at all times. When
they bring one pump in they will pull that pump, repair the discharge pipe with
that pump.
Mr. Hanks asked so are we still
going to have our full permitted capacity through the pump station?
Mr. Frederick responded yes. Plus; if there is a storm out there and it is
getting anywhere close, we are not going to do anything. We will just leave it as is and take our
chances with what we have right now.
Mr. Fennell asked are the two pumps
that are there now operating?
Mr. Frederick responded they are
operational, but you never know what is going to happen. One is in pretty bad shape. The other one is not super bad.
Mr. Hanks asked are there funds
available for this Ms. Woodward?
Ms. Woodward responded yes. These are funds we have been accumulating in
our designated list. You have roughly
$2.3 Million in designated funds. We are
going to pull the money from that and use it to pay for this project.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms.
Zich with all in favor the replacement of pumps at Pump Station #1 was awarded
to the lowest bidder, Farmers Pump Incorporated.
Mr. Cassel stated you would think if
you know what your competitor is going to be bidding at, you should get close
to them.
Ms. Zich stated that is why I wanted
to make sure the other bid was right and that they did not get together.
Mr. Fennell stated they must be
selling to somebody.
Ms. Zich stated somebody who only
receives one bid. That is what is
scary. What if we would have only
received the one bid.
Ms. Delegal stated that has
happened.
Mr. Cassel stated that is where you
look back at historical documents of what you paid before.
Ms. Zich stated that is why I had
asked what we paid for the others; even if it was years ago. At least you know if it is in the
ballpark.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Distribution of Proposed General Fund Budget for
Fiscal Year 2011 and Consideration of Resolution 2010-5 Approving the Budget
and Setting the Public Hearing
Ms. Zich stated Ms. Woodward and her
staff did an excellent job.
Mr. Fennell stated I think the idea
is we are going to keep the fees the same again.
Mr. Cassel stated that is correct.
Mr. Fennell stated there is no
increase and there is no decrease.
Ms. Zich asked how often do we
replace the carp? It is $12,000 in the
budget.
Mr. Frederic responded I am not
seeing a lot of weeds out there and I do not want to order a bunch of fish that
are not going to have anything to eat.
Mr. Daly stated they all died.
Mr. Cassel stated the weeds
died. The carp survived.
Mr. Frederick we pulled eight of
them out of one canal. I do not know
what happened. They were not full grown
yet.
Ms. Zich stated I think we should
have them in the budget just in case we need them, but I was just curious.
Mr. Frederick stated I do not want
to overstock and not have enough food to feed them.
Mr. Hanks stated I was surprised at
our proposed budget for chemicals and how it has gone up $20,000. Is that a 20% increase this year?
Mr. Frederick responded well one
year we took over Lake Coral Springs, which added some costs to my budget and
then last year I went over budget. We
have had eel grass and we have been able to treat it with Aquathol Super
K. It comes in a 25 pound pail. We have to order quite a bit of that and I am
not sure what the cost is per pound.
Mr. Hanks asked is that eel grass
something we are concerned about clogging the pumps?
Mr. Frederick responded it is
spreading throughout the District and I do not want to let it get out of
control. It might be hard to get rid
of. It is almost like the Hydrothol thing
we went through years ago and it could start spreading, clogging everything
up. The last time we pumped, SWCD had a
lot of eel grass come down in their area.
It was mounds of it they were pulling out. It could potentially cause pump
problems.
Mr. Fennell stated looking at the
total revenues in the general fund proposed budget I see a carry forward of
$96,842, which brings the total to $2,156,794.
This is less than the actual for fiscal year 2009. Was there actually a projected carry forward
in those numbers? It does not really add
up.
Ms. Woodward responded there was not
a projected carry forward. The reason we
have the carry forward showing for fiscal year 2011 is if you look at the field
expenditures under capital improvements, which is the very last line of the
expenditures, we are projecting to spend $289,000 in fiscal year 2011. This represents the potential replacement of
both of the LP tanks at pumps stations #1 and #2 for a total cost of $289,000
and in addition to that there were expenditures needed at both of the pump stations
for resurfacing asphalt and fixing some things.
Because in past years we have not allowed any excess budget drop to the
bottom line so that we can accumulate funds, we have $2.3 Million of designated
funds we have accumulated over the last two years. If we do in fact go out to do this work that
is projected at the bottom of the field expenditures, we will to the extent we
have not utilized other lines in the budget, we will be using the excesses
there, and should we need to we will draw on some of those funds we accumulated
in prior years. That could potentially
be the $90,000 figure.
Mr. Fennell stated I guess the
number I was not sure of was when I looked at the total revenue numbers at the
bottom, it says $2.29 Million. I do not
see how that adds up.
Ms. Woodward asked where?
Mr. Hanks responded on the left hand
of the page.
Mr. Fennell stated it is like you
are missing something. Should that be
$2.090 Million?
Ms. Woodward stated I would have to
recheck the math on it.
Mr. Daly stated most likely.
Mr. Fennell stated okay. That is the issue. There is a typo there. I am surprised because it is usually done on
a spreadsheet.
Ms. Woodward stated this was carried
over from a prior schedule and I should have rechecked it. What you look at for assessment revenues is
not your total revenue, but the top line, which has been roughly running about
the same.
Mr. Fennell stated we are putting in
exactly the same amount as in 2009.
Mr. Hanks asked where is the 1% or
2% for property appraiser and revenue collector?
Ms. Woodward responded if you look
at the very bottom of the page after you see the field operations in the
reserves, down at the bottom of that block it basically indicates we have a net
tax levy of $2,030,195. That number
represents after all of the discounts have been taken. That 7% represents the assumption that
everyone pays in the first month and takes the full 4% discount, 2% for the tax
collector and 1% for Ms. Parrish’s office.
Mr. Fennell stated we have been
trying to build up the reserves which were depleted by the last hurricane. We are trying to get to a point where there
were some additional changes that we wanted to make to the flow of the water. We wanted to interconnect two different
canals. Are we anywhere near having that
amount of money yet to be able to do that?
Mr. Cassel responded we are working
on the grant. Has it been approved yet?
Ms. Early responded out of all the
grants submitted only one, which was one of the CSID ones got chosen to go to
the next level for potential funding.
That was the 1,700 linear foot of 84 inch interconnect. This was the largest one we recommended. I am waiting to hear with regard to the first
phase. The other grants we submitted had
three different phases of culverts. They
said to resubmit next year. We knew we
were not going to get funded on everyone.
NSID did not get funded on any of theirs. The big one for CSID was chosen. I am just waiting to hear how much they are
actually going to give.
Mr. Fennell asked where do we find
out about that?
Ms. Early responded hopefully in the
next month or two. I originally thought
we were going to hear in January whether one was selected. I just heard about three weeks ago that one
of our projects was selected. Hopefully
in the next month or so we should know something.
Mr. Fennell asked is there any
additional things we should do, go talk to anyone or get additional political
support?
Ms. Early responded I do not really
think you can. I will look into it, but
once you submit all of the data.
Mr. Fennell stated It is not like
that. I happen to know the City of Coral
Springs would use some of the…
Ms. Early stated it is FEMA.
Mr. Fennell asked I know, but if it was
not just us asking, if it was us and the city asking, would that help at all?
Ms. Early responded I can send you
the email information I have of who we deal with.
Mr. Fennell stated okay.
Ms. Early stated I can send you the
contact information. I do not think it
is going to make a difference.
Mr. Fennell stated I know we had
told Commissioner Gold about this three or four years ago. He has actually brought it up twice in
conversations with regard to what we are actually doing about this. He has always taken a high interest in clean
waterways. If we needed an additional
push, I am sure he would help us out. How
much would this actually fund of the project?
Ms. Early responded I think we asked
for $2 Million.
Mr. Fennell stated I forget how much
we were saying this was. We were saying
about $4 Million or something like that.
Ms. Early stated the original entire
project was approximately $9 Million to do all of the culverts. Then we broke it down to different
phases. Phase one was just this one pipe
because we felt that was the most important one. If we could get any of them; that was the one
we wanted. I think it was $2.2
Million.
Mr. Cassel stated for the total
project. Is that right?
Ms. Early responded yes.
Ms. Woodward asked how much would be
the District part of that?
Ms. Early responded I think the
funding is 75%.
Mr. Cassel stated it is either 60/40
or 70/30.
Ms. Early stated I think it is
70/30.
Ms. Woodard asked is the total $2
Million?
Mr. Cassel responded a little over
$2 Million. Our portion would be 25% to
40% of that.
Ms. Early stated and we are getting
great construction prices. We did that
estimate last year and it is high.
Mr. Hanks asked any ideas as to how
SFWMD would perceive these modifications and move the new numerical standards
if we are pursuing a change to the system without any improvements to water
quality treatment?
Ms. Early responded I think if we
keep the water within the District and we are not pumping out into their
system, they could see it as a benefit.
In NSID we added a pump so we could pump from the west to the east so we
keep as much water within NSID as possible without pumping to the L-36. That was approved right away.
Mr. Cassel stated if we can balance
between the east and the west basin versus having to pump on the east basin,
let it charge the west basin, it is that much less water we have to discharge.
Mr. Fennell asked is that even
possible to do?
Ms. Early responded anything is
possible. It just costs money.
Mr. Cassel stated part of what this
interconnect does is it connects right out here in this canal, goes across by
the school and over into the other side.
Ms. Early stated that is a culvert.
Mr. Fennell stated that is all in
the east basin so it just connects two of the canals in the east basin.
Ms. Early stated that is right.
Mr. Fennell stated I was wondering
if it was possible to connect the east and west basin.
Ms. Early stated you can. You just have to go to a pump station or
something.
Mr. Hanks stated you also have a
flood control elevation difference. Do
we not Mr. Frederick?
Ms. Early responded that is why NSID
would put a pump at the amil gate. It
was easy there because we had an amil gate already.
Mr. Hanks stated you do not have
another jurisdiction separating the two.
Ms. Early stated and you do not have
anything to pump over.
Mr. Hanks stated you have a
directional bore underneath with a large diameter pipe and you are able to do
it. You may not have all the future
capacity, but you can do it.
Ms. Early stated it does help.
Mr. Fennell stated I remember the
reports we had looking at the east and west basin and how there is a big
difference in the water area. The west
basin has much more bigger lakes.
Ms. Early stated it is the same case
in NSID. There is a lot more water in
the west basin. We topped the east basin
and we gained a foot in the east basin in no time at all. We only dropped maybe two-tenths of a foot in
the west basin. That is how much water
there is.
Mr. Frederick stated in our
situation, as far as pumping, I can draw from the east side fast, but the west
side takes quite a bit of time. To help
that situation I can start to pump and when we get the well at that level we
can open the interconnect.
Mr. Hanks stated before we do
anything I would take a bit of investigation from our engineers. You are going to be dealing with water
quality issues at that point. Water
qualities in the east basin do not apply to water qualities in the west basin
as well as a couple of other things.
Mr. Fennell stated in looking at the
issues we saw with flooding and potential flooding and how to balance out these
things. It sounds like it might be this
canal interconnect.
Ms. Early stated the 84 inch culvert.
Mr. Fennell stated actually
interconnecting the two systems could have a whole lot of benefits.
Mr. Hanks asked counsel, what is the
procedure on this? Do we need to accept
the budget first and then set the public hearing?
Ms. Delegal responded there is a
resolution, which is attached to your back up.
It is resolution 2010-5. I think
it has been amended. What this
resolution does is accepts the proposed budget and sets your public
hearing.
Mr.
Cassel stated there is actually a supplemental resolution. It will be Resolution 2010-6. There is one in front of you. We moved the date of the public hearing up to
June 21, 2010.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms.
Zich with all in favor Resolution 2010-6, approving the proposed general fund
budget for fiscal year 2011 and setting the public hearing for June 21, 2010 at
3:00 p.m., was adopted.
Mr. Fennell asked are they any other
corrections to the proposed budget?
Mr. Hanks asked do we have to set
the amount?
Mr. Cassel responded a copy of the
proposed budget will be attached to the resolution. This will be forwarded to the county.
Ms. Woodward stated looking back at
the differential in 2009 the number printed there is actually correct. The reason why it does not add up is because
there is a line that accidentally got dropped after the line that says assessment revenues budgeted. What should be inserted between that and
interest income is a line which says assessment
revenues excess collected. The
difference, which is roughly $210,000, represents the amount that was paid in
as a result of people paying late and having to forego the discount. Once that line gets added back in it will
change no other detail on this page.
Mr. Hanks asked does this have any
impact on the proposed budget for fiscal year 2011?
Ms. Woodward responded no. It does not because the assumption we always
make on the budget is very conservative.
We assume we are going to receive the least amount of money possible and
that everyone pays on day one.
Mr. Hanks stated okay. Thank you.
Mr. Fennell asked so this is the
proposed budget, but it will be corrected?
Ms. Woodward responded that line
will be corrected.
Mr. Fennell asked is there anything
else we should correct or that you want to change?
Ms. Woodward responded one item
which is new this year and you may not have noticed because it is a small
number is under administrative expenditures.
There is a line item halfway down called Actuarial Computation – OPEB.
There is a new ruling under GASB-34, which indicates health insurance
benefits which may potentially be provided to retirees require actuarial
computation. This happens to be the year
CSID is required to make this computation.
You have to make it once every few years to determine if there is any
potential liability to the District.
Mr. Fennell stated this should get
us to a good point. I see the reserves
will go up again next year; even though we just spent $50,000 on pumps.
Mr. Hanks stated one of my biggest
dilemmas is for Mr. Zilmer to again look into keeping down our insurance costs.
Mr. Daly stated we are actually
meeting with our representatives tomorrow.
Mr. Hanks asked so what do we have
next?
Mr. Fennell responded we approve
this as the preliminary budget.
On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Ms.
Zich with all in favor the preliminary budget was approved.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports
A. Manager
·
Consideration of
Filter Piggyback
Mr. Cassel stated in one of our
filter beds we have some cracked tile which is allowing the filter media to get
into the pipes. We suspected and knew we
had some cracks and some issues, but when we opened up one of the pipes during
the construction to do an interconnect Mr. Stover noticed we have filter
material in the pipes.
Mr. Hanks stated ‘definitely’ being
the key word.
Mr. Cassel stated yes, definitely
above suspected. It was definitely time
to address the filter bed. We looked at
bidding it out ourselves. We also looked
at different issues. We have become a
member of a cooperation that goes out together and bids different projects
between other municipalities. Mr. Stover
was able to find the City of Sunrise had done a filter system and found the low
contractor there was willing to extend pricing and structure such that we can
meet the criteria of having been publicly bid and get the best price at the
same time.
Mr. Hanks asked does this meet the requirements
for the piggyback?
Ms. Delegal responded yes. It does.
Mr. Fennell asked what is the
urgency?
Mr. Stover responded Filter #9 is a
16 by 16 filter. It is one of our big ones.
Mr. Daly stated you all walked
passed it last month.
Mr. Stover stated there is a big
hole where the tiles have come out. All
of the media has fallen into that.
Mr. Cassel stated that is one of the
reasons why when we were out there last month that filter bed is offline.
Mr. Stover stated we took it offline
at the end of March.
Mr. Hanks asked so do those filter
bricks sit on top of these half pipes with channels?
Mr. Cassel responded no. They are buried underneath.
Mr. Stover stated all of the black
media you see over there, underneath that is garnet and different types of
stones. Underneath of that is three or
four layers of sand. Then you have that
actual under drain there. When the under
drain cracks or breaks, and you can see we have some tiles we show that we
pulled out of there, all of that will fall down into there and of course it
goes into the outflow.
Mr. Fennell asked is any work being
done now or are you waiting on us?
Mr. Stover stated we are waiting for
you.
Mr. Hanks asked is this system
substantially similar?
Mr. Stover responded they are a lot
smaller, but they have a bank of six. We
have a bank of three and it is only Filter #9 that is damaged.
Mr. Fennell stated we obviously have
to do this, but we were talking about how much more work we were going to do
going forward in keeping these things going; even when we get in there and do
water filtration. What effect does this
have on that decision and should we be doing more if that is our plan?
Mr. Cassel responded this is the
larger filters and we are going to be keeping as we are repairing Plant #3,
which is our larger plant. That is going
to be the section of the total treatment system on the lime softening that we
are going to keep in service the longest.
We will be taking out one, two and three in the smaller plants as the
nanofiltration system comes on board, but we will keep Plant #3 as the last one
we would decommission in the sequencing.
Repairs to this at this time are good insurance; if we have an issue
with the nanofiltration plant, that plant can come online and take care of the
lion’s share of what we need to do.
Mr. Hanks asked what is the
continued lifespan for the large lime softening plant?
Mr. Cassel responded there is a ten
year cycle for changing the filter media.
With doing the repairs we are doing to the main bridge and motor thing
we probably have what Mr. Stover?
Mr. Stover responded we will get
five or six years out of it. We are
going to have a new aeration basin. We
are going to do some work on the aeration trays. All of the struts underneath that have been
rotted out will be replaced. The walkway
will be replaced and then the rails will be put back on. The weir that are rusting out in the top
three feet of the ring there is going to be sandblasted clean and painted.
Mr. Hanks asked so this is an approximate
$100,000 of repairs which is expected to keep that section of the plant as it
relates to the filter going for another how many years?
Mr. Cassel responded if we keep the
filter ten years, it will be good for at least ten years.
Mr. Hanks asked what sort of motion
do we need on this?
Ms. Delegal responded I just want to
ask one question for clarification. This
a unit pricing contract for the City of Sunrise, is that right? So are we going to be basing our relationship
on the same unit pricing that is in the contract between the City of Sunrise
and this contractor?
Mr. Stover responded that is
correct. It is just blown up a little
bit because our filters are a little bigger.
Mr. Cassel stated we have the total
price of proposal of what the bottom line numbers are.
Mr. Stover stated they came back
with a bid of $136,000, $137,000. I
called them and we renegotiated. Now it
is technically $127,570.
Ms. Delegal asked is this consistent
with the unit pricing with the City of Sunrise?
Mr. Stover responded it is
consistent with the unity pricing of Sunrise.
Ms. Delegal stated what we will
actually do Mr. Fennell is enter into an agreement with the same contractor
whereby we would just recite the fact we are using the statute which allows us
to piggyback and we would attach the Sunrise contract, incorporate all of the
various provisions we are going to use and make a few changes such as
contracting with CSID. We will tailor
it. It will be a short contract which
will incorporate the Sunrise contract.
If you want to do this, you should authorize the preparation of an
agreement as I have stated with All State Filter Rehab. It is an individual doing business as All State
Filter Rehab, Mr. Denis C. Kull.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms.
Zich staff was authorized to prepare an agreement with All State Filter Rehab
using the City of Sunrise’s award of contract as a basis for preparation for
$127,570.
Mr. Fennell asked do I need to sign
this?
Mr. Cassel responded there will be a
separate signature.
Mr. Fennell asked so we do not have
to re-bid this?
Mr. Cassel responded no.
Mr. Fennell stated we have approved
the bid.
Ms. Delegal stated you have
piggybacked on their project.
Mr. Hanks stated Sunrise has already
gone ahead and put that out. They were
the responsive low bidder.
Ms. Delegal stated it has already
been competitively awarded and you are entitled to piggyback on to that.
Ms. Zich asked are the funds there?
Ms. Woodward responded yes. The funds are there.
Ms. Zich stated this is repair and
replacement.
Ms. Woodward stated that is
right. We have in our renewal and
replacement fund, even though the original engineer’s report indicated we
should have $1 Million, we actually have $2 Million in that account; partly in
anticipation of the fact we were not certain of what the final deadlines would
be for completion of the nanoplant and Plant F.
Mr. Fennell asked how many gallons
per day is this facility capable of?
Mr. Stover responded 7.2 MGD. We can max it out at 7.2 MGD.
Mr. Fennell stated that is pretty
good.
Mr. Stover stated we are geared to
do 5.5 MGD with the tanks and the plant.
Mr. Fennell stated so if the
nanofiltration plant headed for disaster someday for something, we could
actually get by on this.
Mr. Stover asked are you talking
about the lime softener?
Mr. Fennell responded yes.
Mr. Stover stated it is well worth
keeping this big plant operating.
Mr. Fennell stated it is an
inexpensive insurance policy.
Mr. Hanks stated we are required by
State Law to maintain certain amount of redundancy here within the plant in
terms of excess capacity.
Mr. Daly stated it is either build a
plant or build a new storage container.
Mr. Fennell stated well we were trying
to think about what to do with the old facilities. There are other facilities there. What are their capabilities?
Mr. Cassel responded the two smaller
plants will match the capacity of Plant #3.
Mr. Stover stated Plant #3 has
maximum of about 2,800 to 3,000 gallons a minute. The two smaller plants combined are about
2,800 gallons a minute.
Mr. Hanks stated and that translates
to roughly 7 MGD as a combined total.
Mr. Cassel stated this is why we are
saying Plant #1 is the oldest with the filters that are in the worst case
scenario. This is why if you take that
out of service first as you decommission, then you would decommission Plant # 2
and you would keep Plant #3 as the last one; when you get to the point of
wanting to decommission it completely.
Mr. Fennell asked is there anything
else we can do with those two plants?
Mr. Stover responded I can do some
investigation into what some of the other plants have done with their old
plants, but a lot of them have not been taken care of. When Margate did their renovation they tore
it down and build it up again. They went
from an 8 Million gallon clarifier to a 13 Million gallon clarifier. They tore everything down, got rid of all the
metal and built it up again from scratch.
·
Monthly Water
& Sewer Charts
Mr.
Fennell asked where is the intrusion from the water coming from and do we know
how much?
Mr. Cassel responded we are still in
the process of finalizing that. We gave
Mr. Hanks some additional flow data last week.
We are still in the process of making sure that before we go down some
rabbit hole that creates a bunch of expense with no benefit, we make sure we
are chasing the right rabbit down the right hole. We are doing this with additional field observations
and information we have given to Mr. Hanks as well as we have sent it to Mr.
Schwarz at CH2M Hill to look at as part of their I&I report
information.
Mr. Fennell asked are you actually
making any progress in figuring out how much it is?
Mr. Hanks asked how much
infiltration?
Mr. Fennell responded yes. We were actually going backwards other than
what we have coming into the plant. It
was less accurate the longer we went.
Mr. Hanks asked what, the
infiltration?
Mr. Fennell responded our ability to
actually figure out what we have.
Mr. Cassel stated part of the issue
is depending on some of the numbers, and Mr. Hanks is aware of this as well as
anybody, depending on the numbers you start with, if you are using run times,
but your run times are not really reflective of the gallons you are pumping
because the pump is inefficient because of either the impellor, blow-by or
things like that, you are going to get inaccurate numbers in where you think it
might be. You think it is in area A that
your influence is coming from; in reality you are looking at meter run times
for electricity, but your pumps may be inefficient. You think you are pumping 450 gallons a
minute, but you are really pumping 200 gallons a minute because of blow-by
inefficiency.
Mr. Fennell stated that is where we
were a couple of months ago.
Mr. Cassel stated we have done some
field testing. We have a Doppler meter
we are looking at. We are pulling that
information to gather, basing it against run times and pump efficiencies,
seeing what our head pressures are that we are pushing. Depending on the head pressure, your pump
efficiency can decrease so again you think you are pumping 400 gallons and you
are only pumping 300 gallons. All of
those have to be looked at and accounted for as far as what we really think in
each section. What we have taken is what
appear to be the worst areas first. We
are trying to make sure that if those are, then we chase it, but if they are
not, the data we put in our analysis is faulty data going in. You are chasing something you should not be
chasing. So you have to verify the fact
of what you thought was correct data, is in fact the correct data. That is what we are solving through those
issues right now.
Mr. Hanks stated I think what one of
the items we are looking at or, I should say Mr. Schwarz is looking at, is
whether or not the issue is your dry season type of infiltration that is the
main issue or is it you are immediately following a storm issue, which can give
you indications as to where to look for the problem. It is just like with a car. Does it give you trouble starting up cold or
starting up hot?
Mr. Fennell asked how much does it
take to actually measure the real flow out of each one of these stations?
Mr. Hanks asked with a Doppler
meter?
Mr. Fennell responded it sounds like
part of our problem is we really do not know the flows other than what actually
comes into the plant.
Mr. Hanks stated I think we are
getting the flows fairly accurate on those Doppler meters now.
Mr. Cassel stated we are.
Mr. Hanks stated what was happening
before was they were basing it off of run times, which are not accurate at all.
Mr. Fennell asked what does it cost
us to actually get real good data all the time?
You were hinting that we may not actually know where the problem is at.
Mr. Hanks responded knowing we have
a problem at the lift station is defining it to a particular region. Identifying exactly where along those sewer
lines the break is, that is where we are going to be taking a separate issue.
Mr. Cassel stated some of the
mainlines have been lined already, but the laterals have not. The service connections, which go up to the
houses have not. This is where we are looking
at if it is a rain type event when groundwater comes up. In other words, are our flows in a dry season
when the groundwater is low not an issue?
We are trying to determine what our canal elevation is, our invert
elevations, to say when we are at, say level 8, we get the peaks, when we are
at 7.5 we do not get the peaks. Then you
start looking at which connections are above that or below that elevation and
start concentrating there.
As a back up we have also looked
into several different companies that can line anything from ¾ inch water pipes
to 36 inch storm drain pipes. There are
entities out there who can do the laterals as well as look at the mains. We are looking at different companies like
that to see if they also do the investigation work. When we get to a point we are already looking
at potential suppliers to be able to come in, narrow down and correct our issue
even further.
Mr. Fennell asked do we need meters
in every lift station?
Mr. Hanks responded these are
portable. You do not need to have data
24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
Ms. Woodward can address each section as it comes along. (At the
June 21, 2010 meeting Mr. Hanks clarified this statement was in reference to
the financial aspect) You do not
need to be spending. What do each one of
those meters cost?
Mr. Daly responded they cost between
$12,000 and $18,000.
Mr. Fennell stated there must be
mechanical flow meters that can actually be put into these things.
Mr. Cassel stated the issue with
wastewater mechanical flow meters is they create other issues such as clogs and
accumulation of debris.
Mr. Hanks stated this is why you go
with the Doppler meters; just like different ways of measuring water flow,
depending on what volumes you are talking about.
Mr. Fennell asked so when will we
know?
Mr. Cassel responded we are going to
keep pushing on it. We should have a
better handle on which area of a section we want to take a further look at
within the next 30 to 60 days.
Mr. Fennell asked are the flow
meters actually giving good results? Can
you correlate it to something?
Mr. Cassel responded that is what we
are looking at now; the last batch of data we got during a rain event and
during a dry event. We are now being
able to compare the two systems.
Mr. Daly stated it is pretty much
between lift stations one through eight.
There is one in there that is probably a decent one. He can tell that also by what the electric
bill is every month versus another. There
is one area I found this is happening to.
We want to go in with cameras and see where the break is and things like
that. We may never catch them all.
Mr. Hanks stated you never will
catch them all. The trick is to identify
whether the volume of flow is causing a health risk. Are we at risk during certain rainfall events
for exceeding the pumping capacity of the lift station and risking overflow
into our canal system? This is one
issue. Another issue is whether the
quantity of flow coming through in excess of our baseline flows. Is this costing us as a District more than it
would cost us to fix the problem? How
much does it cost us to treat that amount of water and then take a look at how
much the repairs will be? The solution
may be to shift more of our stormwater burden over to the west basin and help
keep the east basin lower. This may be a
solution.
Mr. Fennell stated it would be an
interesting solution.
Mr. Daly stated it would be easy to
get the money for that since it is the general fund.
Mr. Hanks stated we may want to
consider, after we get this report, put out a request for bids for
investigation.
Mr. Cassel stated pilot projects
scenario.
Mr. Hanks stated yes.
Mr. Fennell stated let us first get
the right data.
Mr. Bulman asked has this additional
data not been provided to Mr. Schwarz yet?
Mr. Cassel responded I think we sent
him something…
Mr. Daly stated last Tuesday or
Wednesday.
Mr. Cassel stated yes. Last Tuesday he received additional
information from Mr. Crowell.
·
Utility Billing
Work Orders
Mr.
Cassel stated they are tracking about where they normally did this time of the
year.
Mr. Hanks stated you are off over
March. What is happening there?
Mr. Daly responded I do not
know.
Mr. Cassel stated we are lower than
last year.
Mr. Daly stated it is pretty much
more calls. It turns out there were
leaking toilets and things like that where we had to send our crew out to do
bypass.
Mr. Cassel stated mis-reads are down
from 11 this time last year to 3.
Mr. Hanks stated okay. Good.
·
Discussion of
NatureScape and Broward county Incentives
Mr. Cassel stated this is a basic
discussion of the NatureScape conservation water program that we have been
involved in for several years. At this
point in time no action is required. We
have participated in it and we do get some credit from SFWMD as far as a
conservation component in our permits. The
big takeaway here is the potential expense to remain in this program as we go
further. If you look down you will see
the total is $20,000.
Ms. Woodward asked is that an annual
amount?
Mr. Cassel responded yes. That is the annual amount. Mr. Daly, is this in the budget as an item?
Mr. Daly responded it is not because
this budget was prepared before we got this, but I do not know this is cast in
stone. This will probably hold the same
for every one of the communities, districts and cities on there. Their budgets are being prepared now. This is something which is proposed. A lot of them have already been passed so I
am sure this will probably take effect in the 2012 budget.
Mr. Hanks stated my one caution is
that in the back up materials to this water conservation program, the
resolution that is in there, they are referencing a deduction in per capita of
water use as much as 28,000 gallons per year.
Mr. Fennell asked per capita?
Mr. Hanks responded yes. That is big time mistake. It means every man, woman and child in the
county would be basically using 23 gallons of water a day. If you figure how many times you go to the
bathroom and you flush the toilet at 1.8 gallons per flush, you have basically
used it up. Forget about showering,
bathing, cooking and laundry.
Mr. Daly stated we tell our
customers it is an average of 100 gallons per person, per day, per household; so
3,000 basically per person, per month.
Mr. Hanks stated I put in a call to
Dr. Jurado to find out where that number came from.
Mr. Daly stated the other side of
the coin would be there are districts and cities such as us who have bonds out
there and their rates and their volume is supposed to pay for their debt
service. Now when you have a third of it
left, what do you do?
Mr. Hanks responded I just wanted to
bring it to everyone’s attention that is not an achievable number. If you are extremely eco-conscious, forgot to
shower everyday and did not use your dishes, you might be able to achieve
that. Practically speaking, that is not
an achievable number.
Mr. Fennell asked this is a
ridiculous number, but even so; given the amount of water we have in Florida
and the fact 99% of it goes out into the ocean, how would this actually do any
good?
Mr. Hanks responded what it will do
good for us is if the water that actually goes out to the ocean surface water,
it would require a more extensive treatment than what we have for use of the
Biscayne Aquifer.
Mr. Fennell asked which eventually
drifts down to where?
Mr. Hanks responded eventually they
are also benefiting from the filtering features of 60 feet of limestone. From that perspective, is the $20,000 in
conservation, that is based on how much citizens are utilizing the program as
well. What is it; $10,000 base fee cost?
Mr. Cassel responded yes.
Mr. Fennell stated it looks to me
like the cost of incentives are about $500,000 out of the $868,000 so there is
another roughly $370,000 that are going to overhead, administration, Broward
County consulting assistance full-time staff person.
Mr. Daly stated and that is just to
start.
Mr. Fennell stated I do not know
efficient this thing is.
Mr. Daly stated I kind of just
glanced through it and it is mostly toilets and those sorts of things. Which town do you think is going to benefit
the most by replacing toilets; a newer area of town or someplace old? This is a slew of cities up and down the cost
here.
Mr. Fennell asked so who actually
gets these incentives and who actually gets the money?
Mr. Daly responded my point is who
would actually want to cash in on them and that would be the older eight gallon
a flush toilets in some of the older Pompano areas.
Mr. Hanks stated or here too.
Mr. Fennell stated but you cannot
buy the old ones anymore if you have to replace it.
Mr. Cassel stated people can rehab
the internal parts out of them.
Mr. Fennell asked do the new toilets
actually save water? Do you not have to
flush them twice as often?
Mr. Cassel responded it depends. In certain brands a one flush works and in
other brands it will take two or three flushes to clear. The bottom line is you might end up using the
same amount of water depending on the brand of water closet you purchase.
Mr. Hanks stated the translation is
you get what you pay for.
Mr. Cassel stated even some of the
higher ones do not flush that well. It
is a particular brand and design of flow.
Mr. Hanks stated they are getting
better as the years progress.
Ms. Zich stated maybe we should let
our people know which ones are the best ones to get.
Mr. Daly stated we do not know
yet. We would have to change everybody’s. Europe has had, for years, two buttons on
their toilets; one for big flushes and one for little flushes. They are now selling them at Sam’s Club for
$158.
Mr. Bulman asked did you say 28,000
gallons per capita?
Mr. Hanks responded we are talking
approximately 78 gallons per day.
Mr. Bulman asked not a reduction,
but rather a use of 78?
Mr. Hanks responded no. It says reduction.
Mr. Bulman stated so you would be
going from an average of 100 gallons to 78 gallons.
Mr. Hanks stated no.
Mr. Cassel stated a reduction of 78
gallons. Reduce it by 78 gallons.
Mr. Hanks stated somewhere along the
line, some politician got it mixed up.
Mr. Bulman stated rather than a
reduction to, it is a reduction of.
Mr. Hanks stated yes. I am sure that is what the case is.
Mr. Fennell asked so what do we have
to do here?
Mr. Cassel responded nothing. It is just an ‘FYI’ at this point in time. Later as it comes through we will come back
and cycle for your action or non action at a later date.
Mr. Fennell asked is there anything
else?
Mr. Cassel responded that is it
under staff reports. The other
information I will relay to you underneath the engineer’s report.
B. Attorney
Ms. Delegal stated the only thing I
wanted to advise you of, I know at the last meeting Mr. Lyles reviewed a couple
of bills; one potential constitutional amendment. There were two of them I noticed in the
minutes. One of them had to do with
public notices being able to post on a website for advertisements and
publishing notices, which would have probably been a good thing, but that died
in committee. It did not pass, nor did
the potential constitutional amendment which would have required members of
boards with the power to levy ad valorem taxes to be elected. That also died in committee. My review shows no bills of any affect on this
body that were passed by the legislature this year.
Mr. Fennell asked is there anything
else?
Ms. Delegal responded that is it.
Mr. Fennell stated I think the idea
to post things on a website is a good one.
I think we should go ahead and do it anyway.
Mr. Cassel stated we post the
meeting dates on there already.
Mr. Daly stated just as long as that
did not negate from the actual letter of the law, which says it has to be
published in the newspaper.
Ms. Delegal stated the bill would
have allowed you to do that as a substitution.
You can still do that, but you still must go through your normal
newspaper notices like you always have.
Mr. Daly asked supposing it does not
make it to the website, but it makes it to the paper; what happens? Are we on the hook for anything?
Mr. Cassel responded no.
Ms. Delegal stated as long as you
have met your newspaper requirements.
Mr. Daly stated I can easily put
that on.
Mr. Fennell stated sometimes we bid
things out and we do not get many bids back.
If it became known that we were doing this, we might actually see more
responses or it might be easier for people to get information.
Mr. Cassel stated one of the things
we do a lot of times is staff and/or with consultation from the engineering
firm or from my background of contacts with others, we know of different
companies out there which do the work; so besides the advertisements a good
number of times we have contacted these companies directly letting them know a
bid is coming out. It helps as far as
getting people to come in and at least look at the bids to decide whether they
want to bid on it so you do not get stuck with a one bid scenario. We have been fairly diligent by staff trying
to make sure we get at least two or three competent bidders that are actually
going to look at the document and bid for us.
Mr. Fennell stated it may speed
things up too. Email bids there and if
you have to get it there by post or by hand delivery, it could be a couple of
days, or if you have revisions. You
might be doing that now. It just may be
a more efficient way of doing things.
Mr. Cassel stated addendums after
the bid has started is sent out via email to those who came in and signed in
for their package.
Mr. Hanks stated the one thing I
would caution on is our potential pitfall if you were to accept bids
electronically. That is opening up a
whole can of worms. Any kind of public
notices that we put in for engineering services always have to be delivered in
hard copy. There is no debate because
they stamp it in at the clerk’s office this way there is no argument for the
email server going down.
Mr. Bulman stated there was an
article this month in the Florida Water Resources Journal written by a
contractor about how bids can be made more attractive in case you are
interested.
Mr. Hanks asked did it have to do
with email?
Mr. Bulman responded no, but it did
have suggestions about providing lists of vendors and suppliers.
Ms. Woodward asked we are not saying
we are going to be supplying the bid documents by email or on the website?
Mr. Cassel responded no.
Ms. Woodward stated my problem is if
we are required by law now to do everything on paper and if a guy goes to the
paper and gets his information five days after the guy who goes onto your
website, we now have a problem with the fact that we did not provide things
equally to everyone.
Mr. Daly stated that is exactly what
I was trying to bring up earlier.
Ms. Woodward until the law changes I
would say do it the way you were doing it.
Mr. Cassel stated the paper would
precede anything you would put on your website.
The website would just be a back up.
If the notice runs on Friday the 15th, you put it on the
website on the following Monday as a courtesy.
If you wanted to put it on the website, you would always put it at least
one business day after it ran in the paper.
What the original proposed law was; you could do either the newspaper or
your website. Since the law did not
change we still go with the newspaper.
It would just be a courtesy if we wanted to put it on the website, but
my recommendation would be to put it on one business day after.
C. Engineer
·
Project Status
Report
Mr. Cassel stated Mr. Johnson was
going to be back, but he had a death in his family and could not make it back
in town. This is a higher level flow
chart of the schedule review of the project that you can look at and
review.
Mr. Fennell asked is the monitoring
well actually operating?
Mr. Bulman responded yes.
Mr. Fennell stated so we have issues
to clean up there, but we have to keep that going.
Mr. Fennell asked what about Plant
F?
Mr. Cassel responded we had a meeting
two or three Mondays ago with the contractor, the District, CH2M Hill, Mr.
Lyles and the attorney for the contractor.
We discussed the design of Plant F, the welds of Plant F and some of the
issues. As you come down to the bottom
line of it, it was concluded the steel itself is within the structural
integrity of the design criteria. The
issue came as part of the welds in that the welds would be the weak point. We decided as a District it became evident it
was necessary for the District to do its own third party testing, in case we
get into a brouhaha with the contractor, to confirm or deny if the welds are
good or not good.
We contracted with a radiological
testing lab that came out and did a number of x-rays of the welds in Plant F
which are defective. The contractor was
verbally notified last Tuesday that he has issues with the welds. They were told verbally in a meeting I had
with them that they have to come up with a solution and CH2M Hill has finally
received from the testing lab their report.
They are putting a letter together to the contractor in written format
stating that according to the criteria the welds are defective and asking them
what they are going to do to make it right.
Mr. Fennell asked are they
repairable?
Mr. Cassel responded my
understanding is they are repairable. You
have to set up a criteria in a process for how you are going to open the welds
up, repair them, make sure they are good welds and go forward.
Mr. Fennell asked why would the same
problem not happen again?
Mr. Cassel responded the contractor
should have done some non destructive testing from the beginning; either radiological
or ultrasound testing according the contracts.
They chose not to. Their welding
inspector said the welds were good by a visual, but when you do the
radiological testing the welds are actually defective.
Mr. Fennell asked what percentage of
the welds is it?
Mr. Cassel responded out of 37 feet
of horizontal weld only 7 feet were good.
Mr. Fennell stated that is very
significant.
Mr. Cassel stated yes. I was in the trailer the Friday before last
looking at the x-rays and it is evident when you see the two pieces of steel lying
side by side, you will see the two pieces of steel with a gap. When a weld is good you do not see a gap or a
line in the x-ray. All there would be
are hairline openings or larger openings that when they took the x-rays you
could see the fact it does not meet the standards of a full penetration weld. One of the first questions asked at the
meeting on Tuesday was what was CH2M Hill’s solution to repair it. It is not CH2M Hills design of the
plant. CH2M Hill did not design the
plant. The contractor’s engineer
designed the plant. I told the
contractor at the meeting that it is his engineer’s problem to figure out and
fix according to his contract specifications if there is any defective
well. They have to come up with a
program and parameters of how to repair it as well as what repairs are necessary
to make it correct.
Mr. Hanks asked do we still have the
opportunity to go review their proposed fix and accept it or reject it?
Mr. Cassel responded yes. Their proposed fix will be reviewed by our
engineering firm to confirm or deny that it should fix it.
Mr. Fennell stated well that was
just on a sample. We have 1,000 feet of
welds, is that right?
Mr. Cassel responded yes. We did about 60 to 70 feet of vertical welds
and a good section of the vertical welds were also defective. Some of the girder splice welds, when you
look at the x-ray, you can see there is weld, but there is not penetration on
half of the steel. There is material
there, but it did not penetrate. It is
hard to see from the photographs the defect of the weld per se.
Mr. Fennell asked was this a random
sample?
Mr. Cassel responded we told the RT
guy to look at the welds on the north side of the tank. They did a section of vertical and horizontal
welds. Then to get a better feel for how
prevalent this is we told them to do a random spot on the other side of the
tank and do another section of x-rays, which they did. Consistently there are significant issues
with the integrity of the welds.
Additionally while they were onsite,
to save on mobilization costs and knowing we had some issues with Digester #1,
which Intrastate is supposed to be working on a repair for us, I had them do
three shots on Digester Tank #1. This is
the project which was completed about a year ago. There are issues with those welds as well.
Mr. Fennell asked are these cosmetic
issues or are these real integrity strength issues?
Mr. Cassel responded they are
strength issues. They are structural
issues. The steel is designed for 36,000
PSI. The PSI that is in the design
calculations is about 24,000 to 28,000. This
takes into the fact that if it is a full penetration weld that is fused
properly, the weld is going to be as strong as the steel adjacent to it. When you have welds which are not full
penetration to the right quality, those become your weak points.
Mr. Fennell asked does the
contractor agree to the severity of this issue?
Does he understand or is he still not convinced?
Mr. Cassel responded they really did
not say anything back. They are probably
going to wait until they get the formal written information of rejection of
their wells. What is interesting is
their welding inspector has come out and is now signing off on the date he
supposedly visually inspected the welds.
Some of the welds in the pipe were ones which were visually inspected
and we had the x-ray guys do; they are defective as well.
Mr. Hanks stated so some of these
which were indicated you actually had the RT people take shots of the ones
which were visually approved and they do not meet the specifications.
Mr. Cassel stated that is correct. The reason I went on a limb for the District
was because I wanted to make sure if we got into this, as to who needs to
repair what and why it needs to be repaired, I do not have engineering company
A over here and engineering company B over here fighting. I want for the District to say it is either
good or it is bad. This is why the
District contracted directly with the RT company. In order to do it we did a straight pass
through, through CH2M Hill, to get them on board.
Mr. Hanks stated it is no different
than if you were doing a paving job and you go out there to collect a sample of
the limerock base.
Mr. Cassel stated or doing a core
sample split on a concrete pour. It is
the same scenario; just independent verification by the owner.
Mr. Fennell asked what is the
diameter of this thing?
Mr. Cassel responded I believe it is
a total of 135 feet in diameter.
Mr. Fennell asked do all the welds
need to be redone?
Mr. Cassel responded they need to be
examined and determined as to which ones are good and which ones are not. From our perspective it is clearly a
contractor issue. There are parameters
within the contract that they are supposed to do certain testing and certain
inspections regardless of whether we ask for them or an individual overlooking
the project is asking for reports. They
are supposed to do certain things according to plans and specifications.
Mr. Fennell stated but you have also
shown, at least in several cases, where the individual inspection was in
suspicion.
Mr. Cassel stated that is correct.
Mr. Fennell stated that cannot be
relied upon so now they have to step up to some kind of continuous x-ray. So what are the next steps? We obviously have to send them a letter. Is our legal department going to get heavily
involved in this?
Mr. Cassel responded yes.
Mr. Fennell stated we are
essentially asking for a major re-work here.
Mr. Cassel stated in order to track
it I had Mr. Lyles set up a separate billable account for issues on this so the
invoice comes in for his time spent on this type of issue so we can track it in
the case we do get into any litigation we will have a good handle on the amount
of time, money and legal fees that were expended upon by enforcing the
contract.
Mr. Hanks asked are the engineers also
following the same procedure?
Mr. Cassel responded the engineers
are also keeping track of every hour and every issue they do.
Ms. Woodward asked are they going to
be issuing that on a separate invoice?
Mr. Cassel responded no. They are tracking it. There will be a separate invoice coming in
for the RT time.
Ms. Woodward stated the issue to me
is it sounds like these are costs which can be run through the bond
construction. As a result of that, in
order for us to pay them and get reimbursed or have the payments made directly
out of the bond funds, we need to do it by requisition. My preference is that we do not have apples
and oranges on an invoice that I place in for requisition. I want a pure invoice which is literally just
for bond work if it is possible.
Mr. Cassel stated yes. The invoice for the RT company will be coming
through separate. The invoice for CH2M
Hill’s time to evaluate what they have put together from the RT is coming in as
a separate invoice from CH2M Hill.
Ms. Woodward stated I think it is
what we really need to do. This way we
have a pure trail.
Mr. Fennell asked do you have such
thing as a project number you can assign to these things or subproject number?
Ms. Woodward responded I can track
it. That is not the issue. The issue is to make sure it is not
commingled on an other invoice with other types of items which are being paid
through operational cash or paid through some other source.
Mr. Cassel stated I will get with
you in the morning. Because this is also
separate from the engineering services during construction for the
project. This is separate so it is all
coming in totally separate from their normal billing situation.
Mr. Fennell asked do we need to
allocate additional funds to you for any additional inspections?
Mr. Cassel responded no. At this time we have spent approximately
$12,000 on the RT time thus far.
Mr. Fennell asked will this be
assigned to the construction project?
Mr. Cassel responded it will come
out of bond funds.
Ms. Woodward stated this is all part
of the project cost.
Mr. Cassel stated that is where we
are at this point in time.
Mr. Fennell stated it is sounding
like the only satisfactory thing is they are going to have to redo all of the
welds and they are going to have to be all x-rayed. I do not what kind of cost it will be.
Mr. Cassel stated it comes up to
what their design engineer believes is an appropriate fix for the issue.
Mr. Fennell stated but even so we
obviously cannot take this inspector’s word.
We need a way of verifying this.
Mr. Hanks asked do we need to notify
Intrastate that the visual inspections which have been represented to us as
passed have been determined to be faulty by an independent company>
Mr. Cassel responded I believe I
conveyed that to them on Tuesday and it will also be part of the letter by CH2M
Hill from us as the owner’s representative.
Ms. Delegal stated if anything, I am
going to encourage good documentation of everything going forward; complete
details.
Mr. Fennell asked what kind of copy should
we be sending to you?
Mr. Cassel responded we send Mr.
Lyles’ office copies of everyone of the letters we have sent to Intrastate in
the past.
Ms. Delegal stated everything that
gets conveyed to them orally should be confirmed in writing to create this
record we will need to have.
Mr. Fennell stated I do not
understand what it will take to re-weld the whole thing. Does anybody have an idea?
Mr. Cassel responded I am not sure
what the timeframe is. My understanding
is there is some kind of arc something or other where they go back over the
weld and they basically arc burnout the existing weld and re-weld it. This will have to be done on the inside and
on the outside.
Mr. Hanks responded if you have a
solution like that, I would like to have the input from CH2M Hill’s welding
specialist because if you start reheating that metal, you are changing the
characteristics of that metal. You can
make it more brittle. You can make it
more ductile.
Mr. Cassel stated that is just one
of the things I heard they can potentially do.
Again, it is back to their engineer to come up with a solution which
fits the criteria that makes the tank design fit what we need it to do.
Mr. Fennell stated the tank was
supposed to be ready last month. It is
obviously not ready this month. I am
betting it will not be for several months.
How do we stand as far as being able to handle our system out
there? Will we be able to keep going?
Mr. Macintosh responded yes we
should be able to keep going.
Mr. Fennell stated that is good to
know so we can make sure this gets done right.
Mr. Cassel stated one other issue
they are addressing in Plant F, and I have not seen the repair of it yet, I do
not remember if when you were all out there we talked about the topping in the
inner tank.
Mr. Fennell asked do you mean the
cement?
Mr. Cassel responded yes.
Mr. Hanks asked the grout?
Mr. Cassel responded the grout. There were a lot of hollow spaces.
Mr. Hanks stated yes. I remember that.
Mr. Cassel stated about 50% of it
did not bond so they had to remove it all and they are going to be reworking
that. It is another issue as to their
oversight of their project. It does not
really hold up.
Mr. Fennell asked who is their
engineer?
Mr. Cassel responded he is over on
the west coast.
Mr. Fennell asked did you ever get
to talk to him?
Mr. Cassel responded he was at the
meeting three Mondays ago. He was in
town.
Mr. Fennell asked what did he have
to say.
Mr. Cassel responded basically the
steel designs is where we came down to.
If there is anything there is an issue on, it is the welds. If the welds are weak or not complete, then
that is the weak point in the design.
The steel itself should meet the criteria; with the weak point being the
welds. This is why we focused in on
getting the diagnostic testing of the welds to make sure whether they were good
or not.
Mr. Fennell asked so when do we
learn more about this? What is the next
step?
Mr. Cassel responded the next step
is the letter which goes out to them and their response.
Mr. Fennell asked and you said the
letter will go out this week?
Mr. Cassel responded the letter
should be out this week. If it were some
other contractors I would expect a response within a few days. Their response time seems to be extremely
lagging so I do not expect a response for at least two weeks.
Mr. Stover asked do we have to double monitor
them on their construction over here at the nanoplant now?
Mr. Cassel responded they are two
different scenarios. The nanoplant was
designed by CH2M Hill and by their specifications. They are inspecting it and making sure it
meets the criteria; their design, their specifications, their plans, the steel,
the notes, the placement, all of that was done by CH2M Hill on the nanoplant.
Mr. Stover stated whereas on Plant F
it was just that we needed a 2.4 Million gallon per day treatment plant.
Mr. Cassel stated a package plan
designed by the contractor, engineer or package plant supplier to meet these
criteria. Even in that criteria and the
design criteria in the eight volumes of improvements there were specifications
as to types of steel, types of welding, full penetration weld, types of
coatings that were supposed to be specified, parameters that had to be met in this
design. They can design it how they
want, but it has to meet this criteria.
What we are finding is some of the criteria are not being met. Also when they build it, it needed to be
built within these criteria and they are not doing some of those things.
Mr. Fennell asked what was the
error?
Mr. Cassel responded one section of
the specifications stated a certified welding inspector would be onsite
inspecting the welds while they are being constructed and that every weld would
be 100% visually inspected as well as a percentage of them that are supposed to
be RT or non destructive tested. What
they should have been doing, if you really look at the specifications, when
they started putting the plant together, they should have taken some x-rays or
RT shots.
Ms. Zich asked have we had problems
like these on other ones?
Mr. Cassel responded when we did the
shots on Digester #1 we have some issues with the welds.
Mr. Hanks stated Digester #1 also
has some structural issues.
Mr. Cassel stated one of the
questions raised in the meeting was that they had built other things. My radar would not be as high and confidence
as low if we did not have problems when we tried to operate Digester #1 like
you are supposed to be able to operate it and the wall buckled. That caused me to look at it and question
whether we got what we were supposed to get over there by their design. Clearly they are aware their design on
Digester #1 was insufficient. A
different engineering firm has stepped up to the plate. They redid the design and they redid the
specifications. They put together a plan
of how to fix it and it is being reviewed by CH2M Hill as we speak to see if it
meets the criteria of that project’s specifications. Again, it was a different project with
similar specifications. Does it meet the
criteria to be a proper repair?
Ms. Woodward asked what else have
they built out here?
Mr. Daly responded Plant E.
Mr. Cassel stated Plant E back in
2000 or 2002.
Ms. Zich asked did we ever look at
those welds really closely?
Mr. Daly responded it is still
operational.
Mr. Cassel stated once we get
Digester #1 up and Plant F up, I recommend we take Plant E down, clean it have
the RT guys come in and do some random shots on the welds to see what kind of
condition they are in. Then we can go
back to see what we may or may not need to do on that plant.
Mr. Hanks asked do we need to do any
notifications to the bonding company?
Mr. Cassel responded I am not sure
at this time.
Ms. Delegal stated it depends on where
we are. At some point we will need to do
that, but right now it sounds like we are in the diagnostic phase. We will keep it in mind.
Mr. Cassel stated the surety has
been made aware because we have had other issues with subcontractors on payment
issues. We have been copying the bond
company on those issues and they will be copied on the defective weld scenario
because they not only hold their pay and performance bond, but they also hold
their surety bond as well.
Mr. Fennell asked who would have
looked at the x-rays they should have taken?
Mr. Cassel responded they would have
been looked at by the testing laboratory and they would give you a report. By looking at the report you can see if it
has met the criteria.
Ms. Zich asked do our engineers,
CH2M Hill, typically test it so that they know if it is right?
Mr. Cassel responded the tricky part
on this is that the guy in the field is looking at it to see if it is
welded. It is not CH2M Hill’s
responsibility to verify the quality or integrity of the weld. That is the responsibility of the contractor
to make sure the weld is proper.
Mr. Fennell stated what I am seeing
here is a lack of a quality plan. What I
do not see is a continuous set of inspections.
There should have been a flag somewhere showing they did not run any
x-rays.
Mr. Cassel stated if CH2M Hill as
our representative onsite, or me or one of us is asking them where their
reports are, they can come back and say we are interfering with their means and
methods of construction. The attorney
will say that is not a place where we want to go because we end up taking
liability.
Mr. Fennell stated there is a
significant problem here. If you do not
have a quality person who goes in and looks at the construction as it goes on,
can ask for results and can look at the results, then we do not have a quality
plan.
Mr. Cassel stated the QAQC is the
responsibility of the contractor.
Ms. Zich stated I am thinking the
same thing. If we have CH2M Hill out
there, but their hands are tied if they think the welds are not right. I just want to get it right.
Mr. Hanks stated I think we have had
Mr. Johnson present it back to us in many different occasions whether it be the
nanoplant or Plant F; how many times he has asked for documentation and how reluctant
this company has been to provide documentation.
The issue was brought to our attention; not by anyone sitting up here at
the table, but by our engineers. They
were the ones who said they were looking gat it and it was not right. They brought in their welding specialist to
come in and take a look at it. Is it
later than we would like to see it? Yes,
but I am very glad CH2M Hill is out there and caught it at all.
Ms. Zich stated I am so thankful
they caught it too.
Mr. Hanks stated in terms of that I
think we are in good shape having CH2M Hill out their in the field. That being said, CH2M Hill; it would have
been a lot nicer to have caught this when the plant was half up.
Mr. Fennell stated it looks to me
like you did not have a separate quality overview as we go through from a
construction standpoint and I think it actually has to be tied to payment. It is not just a question of whether the work
is complete, but if the work is verified as good.
Mr. Hanks asked the other thing we
need to look at is what scope of services did we contract with CH2M Hill to
perform?
Mr. Fennell responded I was under
the impression there was a quality plan in there that would be inspected as it
goes. If you are afraid to raise your
hand because you might interfere with the guy doing his job, I do not see how you
can be a quality inspector. Even when
your building a house you have to leave a ladder for someone to go up to your
roof and do and inspection. I design
products and I have to tell you every step of the way I have to meet certain
quality specifications. I did all kinds
of different stuff before I could ever ship a product out the door. It was not just at the end. I had peer reviews and all kinds of things I
had to do before I could ship a product.
We are making a big product here.
We need quality inspection as we go.
It needs to be tied to money and other kinds of criteria. If we did not have that, then we have a
problem and we may have a problem coming up in our newer stuff. I am asking for a quality plan tied to money.
Mr. Hanks stated Mr. Cassel, I think
what ties into Mr. Fennell’s request is I would like you to take a look at our
contracts with CH2M Hill and look at the scopes we are working with them on. In light of our events which occurred on
Plant F and digester #1, take a revisit at those. Is the scope presented in those work
authorizations compatible with the needs we perceived today?
Mr. Cassel responded I will look at
it and see.
Mr. Fennell stated you have to have
a quality plan as you go.
Ms. Zich stated and this was
supposed to be done by April 3, 2010 and now we are near the end of May and we
are just now establishing this. It seems
awfully late to be establishing this.
Mr. Cassel stated the contractor has
been aware that we have had issues with their welds prior to our last monthly
meeting where we did a walkabout. They
have been aware of the issues raised by CH2M Hill. It basically started on the piping and then
we started looking at it more so, that they had issues they needed to answer
back to us. It took us until three
Mondays ago to have this meeting to finally get them to the table to sit down
and talk to us. They are very slow in
responding to any request you have to get the project done.
Mr. Fennell stated we have a project
in the works. We obviously have to do
something about this and we have to decide how we are going to inspect the
major repair job. I am not going to rely
upon the manufacturer anymore to do that.
Yes he should be doing it, but we need to inspect. We need to tie this into our future
contracts. We have a current project
going on, which we may have an issue as far as what we do, but I think we have
to devise a quality plant for it too. There
should be certain key points as we go along where there is certain
manufacturing, strength or criteria we should be able to test for. It does not have to be 100% inspection. It could be quality. You can do inspections, but it should be tied
to money too.
Mr. Cassel stated there are certain
parameters in several of the charts which require the contractor to do testing
at certain levels at certain times.
Mr. Fennell stated it is not just
testing. He is going to have to turn
that over.
Mr. Cassel stated the reports are
supposed to come in. Some of those
reports are still slow.
Mr. Fennell stated then he does not
get paid then. You are going to have to
make sure those reports become imperative.
Mr. Daly asked when they are visual
and they still do not match, what good is a report?
Mr. Fennell responded there are
supposed to be radiology reports too.
Mr. Daly stated but he signed off on
it and he has his license on the line so that is supposed to be good enough.
Mr. Fennell stated we are seeing in
hindsight this guys own quality plans are not good enough. It is going to cost him plenty of money
too. He probably does not realize he is
messing up. His plan by itself was not
good enough.
Ms. Woodward asked if we have it
built in there that they are supposed to test something by these RTs, can we
ask them for that report? Is that
interfering? If that is something they
are supposed to give us, why can we not ask them for it?
Mr. Cassel responded we have asked
them for a number of reports on a number of issues on a lot of things. Some of it we have not seen yet and other
parts they have said their interpretation is different. We are telling them they are wrong and what
it is. We have been battling an
interpretation on some of the issues between the contractor’s interpretation of
what the specifications say and what we say they are.
Mr. Fennell asked are there any
other issues we need to vote on tonight?
Mr. Cassel responded no there are no
issues you have to vote on at this point in time other than the financials.
EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the April Financials and Check Registers
·
Summary of Cash
Transactions
·
Projected Cash
Flows
Ms.
Zich stated I have looked at these and they are fine with me.
On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr.
Hanks with all in favor the financials for the month of April were
accepted.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports (Continued)
C. Engineer (Continued)
Mr. Hanks stated I understand a
little bit of what is going on because I joined them after the last meeting. Ms. Woodward, did you have a question?
Mr. Fennell responded I think she
was asking why we did not get this stuff turned over.
Ms. Woodward stated I thought
someone had made the comment that our asking them for something can be
perceived as interfering with the process, but to me it is like; if I am paying
someone to give me something, can I not at least ask if I can have it. I do not see where that is interfering with
the process. That is just asking where
we are.
Ms. Delegal stated I am sort of at a
loss here because I was not involved in any of the discussions, but it seems to
me we have identified an issue at this point; regardless of where we are at in
the project. We are in a negotiation
stage with this particular contractor.
We know there are things wrong.
We are going to take some remedial steps as far as at least identifying
some of the things you suggested as far as getting someone in there to do some
forensic work at this point in time. I
think we need to work with the engineer and really go through the contractual
obligations to see because it is all tied to money. If they do not do what we think they need to
be doing or not doing the work right, then we are not going to be paying them. To me, that is a great motivator as far as
getting them to give us reports and giving them deadlines. If they are looking for any kind of continued
payment, because he who holds the money sort of has a little bit of an
advantage.
I am sure Mr. Lyles is going to be
working with your manager’s office to go through the contract and see where we
do have some leverage here. The number
one thing is to document it all because we would like to be able to work
something out with these people if we can, get them to do what they need to do,
understanding they are the ones who designed it and not CH2M Hill, but they can
do the review. To the extent that we
need to bring someone else in to look at this and see where we are in the project,
then that should be done. If we can work
it out, fine. We put the bonding company
and the surety on notice as soon as possible so there are no opportunities for
any kind of disclaimers on their part.
Just be mindful of what our remedies are under the contract. If we need to invoke them, then we will do
so. Hopefully, we will try to work it
out before we get to that stage.
NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment
There being no further business,
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms.
Zich with all in favor the meeting was adjourned.
Glen Hanks Robert
D. Fennell
Secretary
President