HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 01 22 Regular
.
.
.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
CPH Project No. 6136.10
The City purchased the NOWSCO facilities in October, 1984. Shortly thereafter,
the City was informed by the Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation
(F.D.E.R.) that filtration and high level disinfection of the effluent would be
required to maintain the use of the Winter Springs Golf Course as a disposal
site. The City was successful in obtaining a grant from the state program for
$508,327. The project cost the City Utility Dept. $1,165,863 for the plant
improvements and $286,484 for the purchase of Site 16. The grant was
applicable only to "existing needs", a term used by F.D.E.R. and Environmental
Protection Agency to describe the existing customer base of the wastewater
treatment facilities at the beginning of the project. The term, as defined by
F.D.E.R. and EPA, only includes customers connected t~_the utility system.
Included in the plant project was filtration, high revel disinfection, sludge
drying facilities, emergency power, new blowers and two new effluent pumps.
The purchase of Site 16 was also eligible for grant funding. Under this
program, the "existing needs" at the time of the project were determined to be
858,000 gallons per day out of 1.5 MGD for the treatment plant (57%) and
168,000 gallons per day out of 200,000 gallons per day for Site 16, the
disposal site (84%). The attached table shows the allocation of the costs for
this program to future needs, i.e. new customers not connected to the program.
These capital improvement items were constructed to maintain capacity. They do
not include the initial cost of acquiring the utility or the construction of
the Dayron disposal site and the storage pond at the wastewater treatment plant
($1,250,000 of improvements). These costs were in the initial bonding of the
purchase.
. COSTS TO MAINTAIN CAPACITY
DEVELOPER
PROVIDED
TOTAL CAPACITY PORTION RATIO
ITEM COST PROVIDED FOR GPD --L COST
Plant $1,165,863 1.5 MGD 320,000 21 $ 244,831
Improvements
WWTP 2 $ 543,000 .76 MGD 320,000 42 $ 228,631
Site 16 Purchase $ 286,484 0.20 MGD 32,000 16 $ 45,837
Dayron Irrigation $ 43,500 0.08 MGD 80,000 100 $ 43,500
& Force Main
Other Effluent $1,094,250 0.180 MGD 57,000 32 $ 350,160
Disposal
$ 912,959
.
$912,959/
/'320,000 = $2.8,yj4-\lot'\
In addition to the $3.10 already paid.
This is based on an effluent disposal capacity shortfall of 57,000 gallons per
day a total capacity of 1.4 MGD which meets the existing flows, permitted
flows and outstanding developer agreement. The actual shortfall is unknown at
this date. To provide the effluent disposal needed, the first phase of the
reuse system described in the Master Plan must be started. Phase I is the
construction of storage facilities, irrigation pump station and irrigation
system within the power easement. It is estimated in the Master Plan that this
project will provide 180,000 gallons per day of effluent disposal. The
estimated cost of Phase I is $1,094,250 or $6.08/gallon of disposal and was
pro-rated according to the capacity required. Since it is impossible to
determine which development would be responsible for the needed capacity, we
have averaged the cost over all of the outstanding developer agreements in the
above calculations.
** These figures are above the previous $1.3 paid to NOWSCO. The City did not
receive any service availability fees from NOWSCO in the transfer of the
utility. These projects are above and beyond the original bond issue for
purchase and improvements.
.
7
.
.
.
With the Golf Course rated at 300,000 (the current average), not the existing
350,000, we would need another 50,000 gpd.
Therefore the costs become:
$1,094,240 0.180 MGD 107,000
59%
$ 244,831
$ 228,631
$ 45,837
$ 43,500
$ 650,470
$1,213,269
41,213,2691
/320,000= $3.79
with digester capacity for PSRP criteria and 57,000 gallons
ITEM
TOTAL
COST
Digester
CAPACITY
PROVIDED
DEVELOPER RATIO
PORTION ~
~
COST
320,000
14
$ 119,000
$ 912,959
$1,031,959
$ 850,000 2.26
Plus Previous
t 1,031,959/
/320,000 =
$3.22
.
.
.
The projects shown within the 1989/90 Budget are projects from the Master Water
and Wastewater Plan, Page 9-2 of the Master Wastewater and Page 7-16 of the
Master Water Plan, which are attached. The Phase I reuse system was budgeted
to begin the project and does not match the full program described by the
Master Wastewater Plan. It represents the complete design and permitting, but
only a portion of the construction of the project.
Three items are shown in the budget which are not described in the plans, but
are required to provide better operation of the wastewater facility. These
three items are currently part of the design drawings for the Wastewater
Treatment Plant Rehabilitation. The chlorine system (Item 8) should be moved
from the operations building to an area adjacent to Wastewater Treatment Plant
No.1. The current configuration is a potential safety hazard which should be
corrected. The plant water system (Item 6) will allow the irrigation of the
wastewater plant site and use effluent rather than potable water for the
chlorination system. The sludge storage improvements (Item 7) will provide
additional air drying of the sludge and reduce the handling and disposal
costs.
If we do not collect the funds previously anticipated and budgeted, we will not
be able to construct the projects necessary to serve any new development
projects within the City in terms of sewer availability.
As in our previous memo regarding effluent disposal, the City cannot serve
every developer agreement if they demanded capacity simultaneously. The
critical projects, within the budget, are the development of the Phase I reuse
program (Item 3), well #6 (Item 7), the aerator (Item 1) and the ton
chlorination system (Item 4) Water Treatment Plant No.3. Without these
projects, the utility would not be able to adequately serve the needs of the
community. Without collected the anticipated funds, Item No. 13 would have to
be deleted from the budget. In addition, we would be forced to drop Items 5, 6
and 7 previously discussed. Item 11 (Relocate Water Main 434) and 3 (8"
Interconnect Moss Road) could be delayed. Item 12 (Abandon Water Treatment
Plant No.1) was accomplished at very little cost to the City. However, there
will be well abandonment cost for two wells within two years (SJRWMD
Regulations) if we do not use these wells for any other purpose.
Within the current budget, it was anticipated that $541,445 would be collected
for service availability charges. Of this amount, $64,260- is for a new
project not currently holding a developer agreement, leaving a shortfall of
$477,185. This would require the elimination of all the sewer projects,
$360,000; the water mains, $38,000; the abandonment of Water Treatment Plant
No.1, $15,000; and the high pressure cleaner, $50,000. These total $463,000
and requires that the remaining $14,185 be found elsewhere in the budget to
complete the water projects shown in the capital improvements section of the
budget.
.10 NOWSCO
e.
PERMITTED PLANT CAPACITY
. OUTSTANDING PERMITTED FLOW
ADF( 1989)
COMMITMENTS (NON PERMITTED)
ttHORTFALL
e
MGD-'
1.345
- .195
1 . 1 50
- .887
0.263
- 0.320
(0.057)
\
I .
IMPROVEMENTS PERFORMED TO MAINTAIN CAPACITY
ALLOCATION
~ TOTAL TO
COST CAPACITY PEVELOPERS RATIO' COST
(M G D) (MGD) cr..
~L.ANT $1,185,883 1.5 .32 . 21. $244,831
MPROVEMENTS
W.WTP .,. 2 543,000 0.78 .32 42 228,831
SITE 16 286,484 0.20 .032 16 45,837
PURCHASE
DAYRON
IRRIGA TION 43~500 0.08 .08 100 43,500 .
562,799
COST PER GALLON
562,799
= $1.78
3 20,00.0
(ACTUAL COST TO DATE)
DOES NOT INCLUDE .
EFFLUENT SHORTFALL
OR DIGESTER
IMPROVEMENTS.
.
OTHER
EF.FLUENT
DISPOSAL
F'ROM PHASE I $ 1 ,094,250 0.180
.057
32
350,160
350,160 =$ 1 09
320,000 .
TOTAL $2.85 TO MEET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.
.
..
-
.
.
.
'"
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
RICHARD ROZANSKY, CITY MANAGER
John Govoruhk, Chief of Police
January 16, 1990
TRADE/EXCHANGE - SMITH & WESSON 38/357 FOR 9MM
The memo's herewith are self-explanatory.
\l1l>
,\\ ~
It is recommended that we be allowed to work with Standard Law as it is
the best offer for the City/Department on a trade/purchase bases.
(See Attached).
JG/eds
attachments
/1 l'~
U' i,~
/' ., ,/
I ~.~. .' /
,tl~/)'lZ'Sl,. ,-t
,0/'j<ibn dovot'uhk /
// Chef of Police
/
1/
.... ..,
/ .
/'/
'-,
~)u.M II tt,! ~ 0
I 'f1$W\.11L c (3)
~-J~ --~-
/ "/.
.
S?r/fPort?tJ Ad.,) r; Il.)0,im)
S;/co701&. VDJ.
/'lxE,) 89 Ar
e;;J-r-
t..??f Q!2.
5/{: cW .
gl-eJ. 9/J141. l4Iode-L S-,f'tJCJ
~()1 6/l c. 1< 3S7 111'0 i) 13 ^ .
2(;. a~ vfh Me-J. C"' od?WY Jd' ~/.
;:j~r). - J,f/ /t)t). - / c,'1tJ. - 02?
doO.- 0G /~s: - /.::;7 s- ~
IdS'" - 0S /cn?" - /vtJ.- ~
.
.
TO: CHIEF JOHN GOVORUHK
FROM: LT. ED TAYLOR
. SUBJ: REVOLVERS
DATE: DECEMBER 28, 1989
The following recommendation is being made in reference to sell
or trade the Smith & Wesson .357 revolvers, current inventory
is as follows:
model 681-( 26)
model 66-( 9)
mOdel 65-~
Total (4I)
For several years the departments issued weapon has been the
S & W revolver. About 2 years ago the department made a tran-
sition to the 9mm semi-automatic Smith & Wesson, model 659, in
doing so it left us with a total of (41) revolvers.
The main objective to the change was to provide the officers
with the additional firepower that an automatic has over the
revolver.
S & W,
S & W,
S & W,
.
Since the department has adopted the 9mm automatics as the de-
partment issued weapon it is not practical to keep the revolvers,
the manufacturer recommends they be cleaned every 6 months, to
keep revolvers properly maintained, this takes a considerable
amount of man~power hours and to think they will be stored back
on the wall to take up a lot of space which the armory does not
have.
Currently (4) officers have revolvers if any of these officers
were involved in an incident where their weapons were used and
they exhausted all of their ammunition and the back up officer
was issued an automatic, therefore .357 ammunition is not inter-
changeable with 9mm, this could create ,a serious situation.
For all of the reasons above and many more too many to mention
it would benefit the city to trade or sell the revolvers.
Lt. Ej(~
Range Instructor, Armorer
.
.t '1
/).)1'S.~
.
.
.
.I -,
TO:
JOHN GOVORUHK, CHIEF OF POLICE
FROM:
CAPTAIN CHARLES SEXTON
DATE:
JANUARY 3, 1990
SUBJ:
LT. TAYLOR MEMO DATED DECEMBER 28, 1989
BC-01-90
This memo is to endorse Lt. Taylor's memo in reference to trade or
sell of the .357 cal. revolvers which are stored in the Department
Armory. It would be very cost effective to use these weapons for
sell or trade to up-date weapons to the new 9mm automatics. Theuse
of these weapons would reduce the financial expenditure of the present
budget and all Officer's would be issued the same type weapon.
4L~
Captain Charles Sexton
Bureau Commander