09/18/2003 Agreement
/~ ~.El
URS
September 16, 2003
Mr. James Roberts
County Administrator
Monroe County
1100 Simonton St.
Room 2-205
Key West, FL 33040
RE: Proposal for Consulting Engineering Services
New Stock Island Wastewater Collection System
Dear Mr. Roberts:
URS Corporation (URS) is pleased to submit this proposal to Monroe County to perform
consulting engineering services related to the recently completed wastewater collection and
conveyance system located in the southern portion of Stock Island. This proposal was prepared
in response to your verbal request on September 9,2003. We have organized this proposal into
the following five sections:
.
URS Background and Qualifications
Project Understanding
Scope of Work
Project Schedule
Estimated Costs
.
.
.
.
URS BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
URS is an international consulting firm that has provided quality engineering services to public
and private sector clients for over 65 years. The firm stands on its reputation in the consulting
industry for providing technically sound and cost-effective professional services that are
structured to meet the needs of our clients.
URS Corporation
7650 West Courtney
Campbell Causeway
Tampa, FL 33607-1462
Tel: 813.286.1711
Fax: 813.287.8591
URS
Monroe County Florida
Mr. James Roberts
September 16, 2003
Page 2
The firm currently employs approximately 1,000 professional, technical, and support personnel
in the state of Florida. URS provides governmental, private, and industrial clients with technical
and consulting services related to the management and treatment of domestic and industrial
wastewater, the development of water supplies and distribution systems, and the remediation of
sites contaminated with toxic or hazardous substances. Currently, the firm is engaged in
numerous projects related to compliance with federal, state, and local laws.
URS specializes in the planning, design, construction management, and start-up of cost-effective
and environmentally sound water and wastewater management systems. Services include
planning and preliminary engineering, detailed design and contract documents preparation,
regulatory assistance and permitting, and construction observation and related activities. Our
local staff consists of expert professionals in environmental, civil, and chemical engineering, as
well as the related scientific support disciplines.
Specifically related to wastewater engineering, URS provides a full range of engineering services
for wastewater management. URS assists clients in identifying their wastewater management
needs; evaluating existing facilities; designing facility modifications or new improvements;
providing full construction services; and, furnishing operation and maintenance advice to start up
and keep facilities operating efficiently. In fact, URS recently completed the Citywide Master
Planning and Engineering Study in Cape Coral for the expansion of wastewater, potable water,
and reclaimed water irrigation systems throughout 4 large service areas in the 114-square-mile
city.
This project will be staffed by senior wastewater engineers located in our Tampa office. The
Water/Wastewater Design Group in Tampa is recognized as a key design center within the firm.
Field and office work will be performed by registered professional engineers with extensive
wastewater system design and operation experience, and especially within the state of Florida.
Copies of Curricula Vitae for our proposed team are attached to this proposal.
URS
Monroe County Florida
Mr. James Roberts
September 16, 2003
Page 3
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
Based on information discussed with you during our telephone call on September 9, we
understand that the KW Resort Utilities (the Utility) currently operates and maintains a
municipal sanitary wastewater collection and treatment system on Stock Island. The Utility is
privately owned, but has PSC jurisdiction to operate and maintain the system. In addition, an
agreement was reached approximately four years ago whereby the Utility accepts and treats
sanitary wastewater from the Monroe County (the County) Detention Facility.
We further understand that in May of 2002, the Monroe County Board of Commissioners (the
Board) approved an expansion of the wastewater collection system to include the un-sewered
residential southern portion of Stock Island. The Utility had contracted with a design
engineering firm to prepare design drawings and technical specifications, and solicited bids from
qualified contractors. Based on Board approval, the Utility engaged a contractor to install the
new wastewater collection system, The work was completed on schedule, and within the
approved project budget. A PSC-approved residential tap fee of $2,700 was established prior to
construction of the new wastewater collection system. A total of $2,100 of the tap collected tap
fees would be directed to the County, and the remainder would be directed to the Utility. Since
completion of the construction work, the County has received numerous complaints from
affected Stock Island residents with regard to their connection to the new municipal sewer
system.
We understand that for several reasons, the County Clerk is conducting a financial audit of the
completed sewer construction project. In support of the audit, and to resolve serious questions
that have been raised, the County is requesting assistance from an independent engineer to
evaluate several technical aspects related to the new collection system. The proposed Scope of
Work to support the County's request is described in the following section.
SCOPE OF WORK
URS proposes three tasks to complete this project. These include (1) field verification of the
installed system as compared to both the original design drawings and the as-built drawings
prepared by the Utility's engineer; (2) office review and evaluation ofthe field data, and relevant
URS
Monroe County Florida
Mr. James Roberts
September 16, 2003
Page 4
design documents, correspondence, and construction activity records provided by the County;
and, (3) a summary engineering letter report summarizing key findings of the evaluation.
Task 1 - Field Verification
A senior URS engineering designer will travel to the project location and verify that key features
of the new collection system (e.g., manhole numbers and locations, main and lateral sizes and
locations, pump station numbers and locations) are consistent with conditions depicted on the as-
built drawings. We anticipate that the field verification work will require no more than three
days to complete. We will require the assistance of one individual from the County maintenance
department to assist our designer in gaining access to pump station locations, lifting manhole
covers, etc.
URS requests that the as-built drawings be provided for review in our office prior to arrival of
URS personnel at the project site. In the event the as-built drawings are not available prior to the
field inspection, we will require copies of the original design drawings work in order to become
familiar with the general layout and scope of the completed construction activities.
Task 2 - Engineering Document Review
Following our field inspection work of as-built conditions, we will examine the original design
drawings and specifications, and the as-built drawings, for comparison purposes. If multiple
revisions of the design drawings exist that pre-date the bid package documents, we will need
copies of these as well to evaluate the nature of differences in the project scope that may have
occurred as part of the design process. In addition, URS will review other available
documentation from the County, including but not limited to project correspondence,
daily/weekly/monthly construction activity logs, and other related bid package information, such
as material and quantity estimates.
The document review will allow URS to identify where potential inconsistencies in project scope
may exist from the initial design stage, to the construction bidding stage, and to the as-built
conditions observed in the field. For example, differences may be observed between the original
bid estimates for pipe materials and/or total quantities, or possibly material excavation quantities.
Given the scope and schedule constraints of our assistance to the County, URS's review will not
URS
Monroe County Florida
Mr. James Roberts
September 16, 2003
Page 5
include a detailed construction cost estimate, but rather will identify where significant
differences may exist that could have impacted the final construction costs as compared to the
originally bid scope of work.
Task 3 - Summary Report
URS will prepare a summary letter report describing the field and office activities performed,
and the key findings of our evaluation. We will prepare a letter report for the County's use in its
ongoing project audit. We anticipate that immediately following submittal of the report, we will
attend a meeting with County personnel, and if necessary with the County Commissioners, to
review the findings of our evaluation.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Given the County's strict schedule constraints, URS is prepared to begin work immediately upon
receipt of a written Notice to Proceed (NTP). We expect that our field verification work will be
conducted from September 18th to the 19th. The office evaluation work will proceed
concurrently, and following the field activities. URS will submit its summary letter report no
later than October 10; however, recognizing the importance of the County's audit work, we will
strive to complete the draft report for review before that date. URS will arrange a meeting with
County personnel to review the report at a time that best meets the County's schedule.
ESTIMATED COSTS
The following table summarizes URS costs for Tasks 1 through 3 as described in the above
Scope of Work. Costs will be incurred on a lump sum basis. In accordance with the County's
request, we will advise of the status of costs incurred to date on a weekly basis, to ensure that
project costs do not exceed the estimated costs presented here. URS will perform the work
described in this proposal in accordance with the General Consulting Services Agreement
between Monroe County and URS, dated January 1,2002.
URS
Monroe County Florida
Mr. James Roberts
September 16, 2003
Page 6
Task Number Estimated Costs ($)
1 Field Verification 4,500
2 Engineering Document Review 9,800
3 Summary Report 10,500
Total $24,800
URS sincerely appreciates the opportunity to submit this proposal to Monroe County. If you
have any questions about this proposal, please call me at (813) 636-2109.
Sincerely,
URS CORP.
)1uJ ~
Michael J. Condran, P.E.
Senior Engineer
cc: Mil Reisert - MIA
URS
Monroe County Florida
Mr. James Roberts
September 16, 2003
Page 7
AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED AND ACCEPTANCE
OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
The Scope of Work referenced in the attached Proposal, dated September 16,2003, presented in
this URS Corporation proposal are acceptable and URS Corporation is authorized to proceed.
-::../ <--- =~. ~ 1\ (
By: .---:-... --- ~
Signature *
~ "'''",5-.1' L. RO'W6t2~
Printed
Monroe County *
9 - I?-o J
Date
For:
*
Individual with authority and company responsible for payment of URS Corporation
InVOIces.
SOUTH STOCK ISLAND
NEW WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
REVIEW OF DESIGN PROCESS AND
AS-BUILT FACILITIES
Prepared for:
Monroe County Board of Commissioners
Prepared by:
URS Corporation - Tampa, Florida
October 20, 2003
Page 1 of22
1.0 INTRODUCTION
URS Corporation (URS) was contracted by Monroe County to conduct an independent
engineering evaluation of the recently installed vacuum wastewater collection system in the
southern portion of Stock Island, Florida. This review was initiated to address concems raised
by the community regarding the fees that may be assessed by the operating utility, and additional
costs to connect to the new system. URS review activities were completed in accordance with
our letter proposal to the County dated September 16,2003.
This report provides a summary of URS' field and office review activities and presents key
technical findings and observations related to the design and installation of the subject sewer
system. The summary information provided in this report is based on a field inspection of the
sewer system, available project documents provided by the County, and through direct
communication with project principals.
Review activities completed by URS were directed to answer the following basic questions:
Is the constructed wastewater collection system consistent with recommendations contained in
the 1999 Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan Update (Master Plan Update) for Monroe County, as
adopted by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) in 2000?
Do the As-Built drawings of the completed system, dated September 2003, reflect the design
approach depicted in the construction Bid Set drawings dated May 30, 2003? Do the As-Built
drawings accurately depict the observed field conditions?
Was the constructed system modified from the anticipated design when the BOCC entered into
its Capacity. Reservation and Infrastructure Contract with KW Resort Utilities (the Utility) on
July 31, 2002? If the system was modified, could these changes result in adverse financial
impacts to future individual users of the system?
1.1 Project Background
The existing sanitary wastewater collection system and associated treatment plant that primarily
serve the northern portion of Stock Island was purchased by KW Resort Utilities (the Utility) in
1997. This existing collection system conveys wastewater via both gravity sewers and
pumping/force main facilities to the wastewater treatment plant, which is centrally located on the
island. In addition, a series of smaller package wastewater treatment plants were used at several
mobile home parks on the island. The Utility is privately owned, but is subject to Public Service
Commission (PSC) oversight with respect to tariffs.
New Wastewater Collection System Review
Stock Island, Florida Keys
URS Corporation
October 20, 2003
Page 2 of22
Subsequent to the sale of the system to the Utility, the southern portion of Stock Island remained
largely unsewered, and individual residents and commercial establishments relied upon septic
tanks with drainfields or cesspits for the disposal of wastewater. County-wide evaluations
identified southern Stock Island as a critical area, or "hot spot" in Monroe County that
represented a significant source of pollutant loading to the environmentally-sensitive local water
resources. As a result, conceptual planning for and implementation of a centralized sewer
system for southern Stock Island was initiated.,
The Master Plan Update for Monroe County was prepared by the engineering firm CH2MHiII in
1999, and was adopted by Monroe County in June 2000. Separately, the Utility commissioned
the Weiler Engineering Corporation of Port Charlotte, Florida (the Engineer) to prepare an
engineering planning document under its auspices, titled the Comprehensive Engineering Report
for KW Resort Utilities Wastewater Treatment Plant (Engineering Report). The Engineers'
report was finalized in 1999. Both plans addressed the need to provide centralized sewer service
in densely populated areas and concluded that vacuum collection systems were the preferred
approach. This conclusion was based on the favorable level of installation and operation costs,
as well as their operational simplicity. In the Master Plan Update, CH2MHiII also indicated that
vacuum collection systems be augmented with low pressure and conventional force main
systems on a case-by-case basis to effectively address variable local conditions.
In October 2001, the Utility and the Engineer outlined an approach to complete a design of a
centralized vacuum sewer system for southern Stock Island. In December 2001, the Board of
County Commissioners (BOCC) reviewed the proposed design approach and approved the
expenditure of $199,300 for the Utility to develop a detailed system design. The design work
began in January 2002 and system permit applications were filed by the Utility with the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) in March 2002. At the conclusion of design
activities in May 2002, the Utility solicited bids from contractors to construct the system. Bids
were received on June 27, 2002. The Utility negotiated a final contract price with E.T.
MacKenzie of Florida, Inc. of Sarasota, Florida (the Contractor).
Subsequently, the BOCC approved the proposed expansion of the wastewater collection system
to include the unsewered residential and commercial portion of southern Stock Island by entering
into a Capacity Reservation and Infrastructure Contract with the Utility during its meeting on
July 31, 2002. This contract provided funds to the Utility in an amount not to exceed $4,606,000
to construct the system expansion in exchange for which the Utility provided capacity at its
wastewater treatment plant equal to 1,500 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs). Figures 1 and 2
show the approximate location of the new vacuum collection system installed between October
2002 and August 2003, and the system layout, respectively.
New Wastewater Collection System Review
Stock Island, Florida Keys
URS Corporation
October 20, 2003
4111,
a en
�N v s {%}} •✓ 1U \ o L t yY 4'� • LSs }�y'•g'�� rr: r r « C
�. m �t f eRF �r ). + 1el
O a X y: y �t is L
01)'r l `` �yJ 1 " .f ''� yY"i : ,;. rX }mot': _1 (,
AM
SiEor, y.o 5 1
L -i . .. . /�':Sd Nita ' ', x 4." / 1 .4g., It I j
E v •.1-.• f!t4. • 4 v •Z ' i
`.. ,"'''i� \.t s nVI
Y --.1 ..+ 14,ri"," -tea ,'" t�y1._ ?l1i ,.
lt,
r. 1, Y
' f...,',:A7..,..1-.:04,1,....-',...:,:-,;.. i\,....,. .r.,11.t, --' . ". .•t:----- -....*A.,,,,.\-4.-..L.,',.. '. c_. ..;:, , 1 --...) :•,:•...5;2
•
(� 1 - • r
•
� fC3 . �.. o.10
p Q Q > t ,i l• i �y:
0
a
QI - • Gam:
V1 tti 14
am �` aptia y a:\ / r
'
.
iig, + l3 ,.s . �', . . \i, jevl ..ytr irF {
S u
4,
y _
"• (i 't _E .'1 .•rif 7d N
je4.81,4i, , ,:. .
lliq
1E— VIM
1 g ~ C is
X t '.—.'7'.1 Ille'-' 1'.7.° liErr-11111!"6 * " . • * *
r
` I ocK.i . . Ii 1 :il I ' . ' .�r kr''•-s. , ate. c
o e4
i t rnr f+ .4 ' o • tip. �aEig -,. ',�'` . .. 74
1";-; .`:r ,• . .c ,? •
�• _f ,bi d•• WXIN` y'aw-.'a-.+" 'gam• f d ili
z (4
• a
N ❑ e7
el 0
4.
et
= "
Lac4IN OO.vr —I� t"••. auM-w:xaK) r Ol -MCNA 61881i1M34VM l t ! 0Nas T..4 inw ....' . IG , . .,=
ass.
' --YizT sDai IKY awl M1t18W1 O aJ
CI
U •- i`� I 0
cn c) Li ill
!qtg 1 p
._ /x I ge
• +� , \ ' ,-"-z '' 's it
`'
WU
Y ,,
�,�+ 'fit .
F L" f� t 1/4
W I !i 4 '�� \t t7
,,?,,/ / •,... --
i -+
+
►ell. \\ t Y ,; ,. U�+ ill".S11 !! pit
U y rrrIY CJ ! iil� fiy tYA3
kiipakii4
IN Co I I
ALI.1
t 1 • __ a ;t..:�p,,,tn, aesz:dy !
W { titr..11gY e ,F': .t'.,�+nt�r eseR�t r- 4.� 7� yl}tAt d$
z ..,
g ! -- rrNil
,- , P:t'to.:iUe i r T' 1ii'
t t ,
sous e
tas
U ' .. • i • _ Rm ri�. •b'- ��_ `i;•(1,11 � ' Yi li I I E i..tiLi;
i;
A _,:4i: IMilkilil OM 1 t = • i 1 ,
. _
..•...•
l
' !4:L•
di �tl - ter r
il • \\.
' ! =' . — isI iti%- 'a m •;r •
swam, tot INI
15 V..q.,..-4..,r� � INIV MI a
tsr w .1�
L
ri lit,' •411101
Cli ..---.'"...'.-ts\‘
0 CI
' 1. :, {
t l t . lQ
1—,
..
a t
u
'7. cil
Page 5 of22
1.2 Review Goals
Based on review of the available documentation and discussions with project principals, the
intent of the project was to provide a central sewer system, which could be readily, and cost
effectively accessed by the majority of the remaining unsewered residential and commercial
users in the service area. Review activities completed by URS included three discreet tasks:
(1) Complete a field inspection of the installed system comparing both the original
design drawings and the record (Le., as-built) drawings prepared by the Utility's
engineer,
(2) Review field data, relevant planning and design documents, correspondence, and
construction activity records provided by the County and the Engineer,
(3) Prepare a technical report summarizing key findings of the design process and as-
built drawing review.
1.3 Report Organization
This report is organized into the following four sections:
· Introduction
· Document Review and Field Inspection
· Findings
· Summary of Findings and Other Considerations
Section 1 provides the foregoing project background, and the URS scope of work and related
goals for the review. Section 2 describes the process used to conduct the review pertaining to the
system engineering planning, design, and construction processes that URS developed based on
the collective review of the project chronology, as well as interviews with County personnel, the
Engineer, and others as documented herein.. Section 3 identifies the key issues of the project,
provides a discussion of each issue, and lists key fmdings of the review process. Section 4
summarizes the key findings, and presents several observations related to the project that the
County may wish to evaluate further.
New Wastewater CoUection System Review
Stock Island, Florida Keys
URS Corporation
October 20, 2003
Page 6 of22
2.0 DOCUMENT REVIEW AND FIELD INSPECTION
The project evaluation consisted of reviewing available documents, conducting a field inspection
of the collection system, and meeting with project principals. Each of these activities is
summarized in the following subsections.
2.1 Document Review
URS initiated the evaluation of the new vacuum collection sewer system on September 18,2003,
attending an initial meeting with County staff at the Monroe County Administration Office in
Key West. Documents related to the project were obtained for review. These included planning
documents, design, construction, and record drawings of the vacuum collection system, the
Reimbursement and the Capacity Reservation contracts between the County and the Utility,
correspondence between the Utility, Engineer, County, and others associated with the project,
Contractor and Engineer pay applications, county codes and ordinances related to wastewater
collection and disposal, and other miscellaneous documents of relevance. A complete list of all
documents received and reviewed as part of the evaluation process is given in Attachment A.
The document review allowed URS to evaluate potential differences in the sewer system design
layout among the different sets of design drawings prepared by the Engineer. URS also
confirmed the organizational relationships among the parties associated with the project.
Figure 3 depicts the project organization and presents the values of the referenced contracts.
Finally, URS used the available documentation to reconstruct a chronological timeline of the
project from the time of conceptual planning in 1998 through the completion of construction
activities. Figure 4 shows the project time line based on review of available documents.
2.2 Field Inspections
URS conducted two field inspections (September 19 and September 25,2003) to verify as-built
conditions of the new vacuum collection system. System components inspected included:
(1) The vacuum pump station and wastewater transfer system located at the Utility's
Wastewater Treatment Plant,
(2) All buffer tanks,
(3) Selected vacuum valve pits.
New Wastewater Collection System Review
Stoek Island, Florida Keys
URS Corporation
October 20, 2003
M
M
....
Q
t--
41
bIl
CO!
j:l.,
i
~
00
~
o
u
GiJ
00
s~
rt)OOS
~zu
s~~
~:s~
s~~
~~
~~
000
5~
U
~~
O~
~g
E;~
000
~
j:l.,
000
~88
0": .
~~g
.,f
... ... ...
C:l"'l
QQ
.~Q
01....
10 ~
QQ
c.....
10 10
Q 4>
{,).c
rn,g
~O
-
I -
I- ~
GlSZ ~
c>W ~~~g8g 800
z:2 c ~ 0.88
-w ::::I
~~ ~;1;<<i<<i<<ia> 000'-
..J Of/) ~CO,...
..J ~.,. OJ
r-- OCD ~ ...............; ..;MN
~~ ~ J: CDE
> :2 .........
en 0=
~~ N ~- ~~ozw~
0:: J: c;:) _~oen z>z
e w u ~~ a:!:ot=;zl:) ouo
I :;)_g~~F- ~Z-
Z 00 en~IDii:~ uWbti
Q uo:: cO :;)0 wI!;!
C> I ~ ~~ ! a:Zo..
> en I CDm I-~en
00 ,!D:: Z w~ ~o~
z en o u OuO
:E Ci.i olio: uz~
0 - ~~
8 W z:;) 00:
:e o ~ID tlH
0 -~ ~~
1';1;1 Uc :;)~
::S 0 - ~<( tiO: ~~
i: I Z enW
0 0:: . C 0 ZO/l
U 0 I 0 u 80
z ~ 0 Z ~
;:) u- 0:: ffi
0 lii o~ W i W Z
0 W i Z 0
Z 1-0:: Z ..: (; g
lL ~ ~~ (!j I'i Z
0 - W :;)
~ io- Z 0:
C ~g W lii
0:: ~ ~ Z
a:m 0
~ z w=> u
=> ca.. =>
EO 0 0
I u u
i:
L
Z -
::;)
0
0
w I -
0 I I
0:: g>>
Z m d
0 g .E "c
:e F= aj ~
:J o:::g m
~ 0::01 GIS W
W'E 0.2 Gl ~~
I-U-
- t: WI ~~ ;{~ ~"!
~c:
- 0 C> "- C>~
m zg' ~.~ I-lU
~'6 CJ)l1.
0:: WW o~ ZC
.... I/)
~ .!! Gl _Gl
uo E :2l!!
~ III
:2 c: CC>
Gl <(
r: J:
u.i .c
~
E
T CJ)
1 -
T
T J
o en-l
ZWl!
~o
<tl-
&3
...J
~
Z
o
~
lii
z
~
"t
~
E
$
...
;:;
Cl
Q ...
;>-
]~
Ci~
U.-
10 10
.. Q
~fi:
~ ~
4>"'Cl
... c:
... 01
01-
~..:l
~~
..,g
Zrn
M .....
M 1:,..,
.... 0=
0 .- =
Cl .N
go .. ~
U 0=
OIl Z =.,N
.. ..
ell o u
tl.i U,.Cl
0 ~~
~3S DNIA\~a mlOJml ~'I1nR-SV O3f1SSI Ci)
W3J.SAS 110 NOUOmI.LSNO:::> HSINIII <(
..... <'l
0
0
..... N
::E
<(
::E ::E
~
~ ~
lI:J
:z: .....
0
E Cl
W3J.SAS 110 NOUOfi'lllSNO:::> NIOOR ~
f;I;1 J.3S DNIA\~a NOUOfinSNOO 'IVNI:I mmsSI ~ Z
~
~ 11IH WZI-O HlIM10VlliNQO ~ru.onHl~NI
0 0
~~ <INV NOUVJl>l3S3>/ AJ.J:>id\IO S>I3lN3 a<v NOlSNVdX3 CJ3JIO>IddV"""" L
rB1SAS E>NICMro~ Ci)
~;:J A.LNflOO 0130N3ONOdS:M:IOO slInans 11IH mHO ~ <(
~~B SOOlOWlNOO WO~ sala S3I\130~
~f=~ Sl:!OlOVlliNQO HlIM 001133.-. ala 3&1 H33NIE>N3 i . ..... S
0
~t>= 13S E>NIMVHO ala 03nSSI ONV sala 03.UOnos N
.....
S~~ 11tH .-.ZHO t'VOH::I SNVld J,Z AvrI ::10 M31A3H SlS3003H A.LNflOO :=J ::E
o~ 13S E>NIMWO nlH3J.Nl 03nSSI A.LI1Iln =:r-
g:~ SlIMBd d3O.::I1VAOHddV 03l\130~ <(
d30::1 01 SNVld I il:IOd~ OORB3NIE>N3103roHd OO::l1VJJ.I.-.ans --.r--
~ 13$ E>NIMVHO E>NIl.LIMBd 03nSSl ONV NOUVOI1ddV llr4H3d d30::I 0311::1 -..r- ::E
Q ~
j NE>IS30 E>N1H33NIE>N3 00::1 A.LNnoo HlIM lOWlNOO lN3'-'3SHna'-'l~ .....
lI:J NE>IS30 ralSAS 0311V130 d013A3O OJ. saNn::I S3I\OHddVOooa Cl
...
~ ...
0
u 0
N
~ ~
....
Cl ~
Z
0 ~
Ci)
<( E
.... g ::l
(111H .-.ZHO) NV1d H31SWI A.LNnoO 3OHNOlIII .... ~
::E N fI.l
I:
<( o VI
.- ;."
::E ... u
J!~
~ -..
0"Cl
.... U'I:
Cl .. 0
s:: u _
.r..
t~ ~ ~ ~
u"Cl
.. I:
.. ..
..-
00 ~~
0'\ .;:r:
I~ 0'\ ~ ...
... u 0
(H3113M> S3UI111n .wOS3H ~ HO::l NV1d 3AISN3H~dV1l00 ..... Zf;l
Page 9 of 22
The buffer tanks and valve pits were inspected by removing the lid of each unit and confirming
that the underground components had been installed.
In addition to the various system components inspected, URS field verified the relative location
of the primary vacuum mains to the degree possible. Certain portions of the vacuum main
alignments could not be directly field verified since the County has since re-paved some of the
roads where the project was constructed. However, the presence of the system's vacuum mains
in and along the re-paved roads was confirmed by visually identifying the presence of manhole
lids associated with the various vacuum valve pits along the main routes.
2.3 Meetings and Interviews
URS conducted a series of meetings and/or interviews with individuals associated with the
project, including County staff and the Engineer. In addition, interviews were conducted with a
vendor-representative of the vacuum sewer equipment manufacturer, Airvac, and with
CH2MHilI personnel. The purpose of these meetings was to develop a clear understanding of
the project and the chronology of events during its implementation.
Additionally, the Engineer's site representative identified himself to the URS representative
during the field inspections and further described the process that occurred during. the final
design of the system. This individual also provided assistance in locating and accessing the
buried vacuum mains and service stub-outs.
Finally, URS submitted a list of project-specific questions to the Engineer on October 4, 2003 to
obtain additional clarification about the design process. The Engineer prepared and submitted a
formal response to the questions on October 9, 2003. A copy of the letter to the Engineer, and
their responses is included in Attachment B.
New Wastewater Collection System Review
Stock Island, Florida Keys
URS Corporation
October 20, 2003
Page 10 of22
3.0 FINDINGS
Based on the information review, field inspections, and interviews with project principals, URS
has developed technical findings related to the design and construction of the new collection
system to address the three basic questions identified in Section 1. The following three
subsections present the issue, a summary discussion of the information related to each specific
issue, and the associated major findings.
3.1 System Design Approach
Issue
Is the constructed wastewater collection system consistent with recommendations contained in
the 1999 Master Plan Update for Monroe County, as adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC) in 2000?
Discussion
The Utility's Engineer conducted an initial evaluation of the wastewater collection system
requirements by estimating anticipated wastewater flow rates and their point of connection in
south Stock Island, as summarized in the 1998 Weiler Engineering, Inc. Comprehensive
Engineering Report. A similar evaluation was completed in the 1999 CH2MHill Master Plan
Update. The two reports cited different units of wastewater measurement for individual points-
of -connection. The 1998 Engineer's report cited "equivalent residential connections" (ERCs),
with a published value of 207 gpd for each ERC. The 1999 CH2MHill report cited "equivalent
dwelling units" (EOUs), with a published value of 167 gpd for each EOU. Moreover, the reports
cited different counts for the EOUs and ERCs at the anticipated build-out conditions, thus
resulting in different wastewater flow rate estimates for the existing and future build-out
conditions. Specifically, the 1998 Comprehensive Engineering Report indicated a total ERC
count at full build-out of 1,880. The 1999 Master Plan Update identified that 960 sewered
EOUs and 982 unsewered EOUs were present in the subject service area. Project-related
correspondence has further indicated an EOU count of 1,775.
A subsequent March 2002 Updated Capacity Analysis Report prepared by the Engineer for
project permitting purposes indicated a total ERC build-out count for the service area of 2,093.
However, the proposed collection system design as presented by the Engineer, also in March
2002, indicated that capacity for an additional 1,500 EDUs would be provided to accommodate
the planned system expansion.
New Wastewater Colledion System Review
Stock Island, Florida Keys
URS Corporation
Odober 20, 2003
Page 11 of22
The proposed value of 1,500 additional EDUs was apparently computed by the Utility based on
available treatment capacity at the wastewater treatment plant. The current permitted treatment
plant capacity of 499,000 gpd, and the current average daily flow rate entering the plant is
measured to be approximately 250,000 gpd. Thus, the 1,500 EDU count presented in the
Capacity Reservation Contract was taken to be the current excess capacity of 249,000 gpd
divided by the published EDU flow rate of 167 gpd, i.e.,
Equivalent Plant Reserve Capacity
=
Current Excess Capacity
Master Plant EDU Rate
249,000 RPd
167 gpd
1,500 EDUs
=
=
Resolution of the reason for differences between the use of ERCs and EDUs in the different
engineering planning documents and their estimated values cited therein could not be achieved
given the available documents reviewed. Moreover, the new vacuum collection system has a
physical design limitation for connection of buffer tanks. Specifically, according to the system
manufacturer, the number of buffer tanks that can be installed on any given vacuum main is
limited to approximately 25% of the total number of connections (i.e., the number of valve pits
and buffer tanks combined). This physical limitation may potentially affect future connections
of buffer tanks for flows exceeding 1000 gpd, such as from mobile home parks and
condominium complexes.
Findings
Key fmdings related to the system design approach are:
(1) The constructed wastewater vacuum collection system is consistent with
recommendations described in the referenced Master Plan Update with respect to
this preferred type of sewer system.
(2) Discrepancies exist between the County's Master Plan Update document and the
Utility's Engineering Report with respect to a definitive planning value for either
ERCs or EDUs present in the south Stock Island service area. There apparently is
no clearly established value for planning future system expansion that will include
the remaining unsewered areas, and for determining what impacts may result to
both the new collection system and/or the wastewater treatment plant.
New Wastewater Collection System Review
Stock Island, Florida Keys
URS Corporation
October 20, 2003
Page 12 of 22
3.2 As-Built Conditions
Issue
Do the As-Built drawings of the completed system, dated September 2003, reflect the design
approach depicted in the construction Bid Set drawings, dated May 30, 2003? Do the As-Built
drawings accurately depict the observed field conditions?
Discussion
In order to evaluate potential differences among the various design plan sets received for review,
URS completed a detailed comparison. Table 1 lists the five plan sets that were reviewed:
Table 1 —Plan Sets Reviewed
, ✓ �' r x`' 4 0,7s ,E� P k2 ai l t x
Ian e ko t gate ���" -' iesen �tion � ..%
1 March 2002(I) Preliminary Design Plans—Submitted to FDEP to secure
construction permit.
Interim Design Plans—Date-stamped by the Engineer,and
2 May 21,2002(2) received by the County on May 21,2002.The County requested
a review from CH2MHill on May 24,2002. Comments from
CH2MHill were received by the County on July 5,2002.
Final Design/Construction Plans(Bid Set)—Used for contractor
3 May 30,2002 bidding. The County was verbally advised by the Utility that
these plans were similar to the May 21,2002 set. The BOCC
adopted these plans during the July 31,2002 BOCC meeting.
Construction Set—Nearly identical to the May 30th set. These
4 September 30,2002 plans also referred to in project correspondence as the"October
2002 Construction Set."
Record Drawings(As-Built Drawings)—Submitted by the
5 September 12,2003 Engineer to certify the project complete and to represent the
system as installed,showing deviations from the Bid Set dated
May 30,2002.
Notes:
(1) The exact date of plan submission to the FDEP could not be verified.
(2) This set of plans is stamped by the Engineer on May 21,2002.
New Wastewater Collection System Review URS Corporation
Stock Island,Florida Keys October 20,2003
Page 13 of 22
For each set of drawings, URS conducted a take-off quantity analysis of the principal
components that comprise the system (i.e., vacuum valve pits, buffer tanks, and vacuum
pipelines). In addition, changes to the physical configuration of the system were noted and
documented including relocation of service stub-outs among others. Contractor Pay
Applications submitted to the County through the Utility were also reviewed to compare against
the quantity take-off results for the major system components shown in the As-Built drawings,
for which payment was requested.
Table 2 summarizes the number of the vacuum valve pit and buffer tank quantities indicated
among the five drawing sets. Table 3 presents a summary comparison of the quantities of
the sewer lines and vacuum valve pits and buffer tanks from the As-Built Drawings, the
approved Contractor Pay Applications, and a final quantity tabulation provided by the engineer
on October 9,2003.
Table 2—Comparison of Vacuum Sewer Tank Inventory Comparison
'.-1 Feet nitf nb ,, t,..-41XTAV VITAL -Itirglireceril
Sets March Interim Set Bid Set Construction Set As-Built Set Final
ttT;ype :I I9/20,>2002a .wtV'Iay j;$2002 :Maj'30 Y2002.$ 7SSept 30,2002;i Sept 12,2003 1';t1nm1;ation
Valve Pits
Type Al 0 6 9 9 23 --
Type A 40 11 30 30 15 40
Type B 24 20 32 32 31 30
Total 64 37 71 71 69 70
Buffer Tanks
Type C 11 17 15 15 13 13
Type E 0 11 0 0 0 0
Type G 0 0 0 0 0 0
Type I 0 1 0 0 0 0
Total 11 29 15 15 13 13
Dual Buffer Tanks
Type D 0 4 0 0 0 0
Type F 0 6 0 0 0 0
Type H 0 3 0 0 0 0
Type J 0 1 0 0 0 0
Total 0 14 0 0 0 0
Vacuum Stub-Outs
STUB 0 2 16 16 16 --
New Wastewater Collection System Review URS Corporation
Stock Island,Florida Keys October 20,2003
#,s
Page 14 of 22
Table 3—Comparison of System Component Quantities
".; =Built x n_ �rPa tF agubel arf ,11
a
_to m s� ppLca ions..,
. :
10"PVC Vacuum Sewer(4) 13,130 13,100 13,665
8"PVC Vacuum Sewer(4) 4,317 4,508 4,709
6"PVC Vacuum Sewer(4) 4,959 4,926 5,434
4"PVC Vacuum Sewer(4) 627 266 844
Valve Pit Type A 15 10 40
Valve Pit Type Al 23 12 --
Valve Pit Type B 31 25 30
Valve Pit Type C 13 13 13
Notes:
(1) Dated September 12,2003.
(2) Summary through Pay Application No. 10.
(3) Engineer's final tabulated quantities from Engineer's Field Notes,provided October 9,2003.
(4) All sewer lengths indicated in linear feet installed.
As shown on Table 2, the quantities listed in the table are consistent for the vacuum valve pits
and buffer tanks for all drawing sets, except the May 21, 2002 set. This drawing set, identified
by the Engineer as an interim design development set, shows a total of 37 valve pits, 29 buffer
tanks, and 14 dual-buffer tanks. This is in contrast to the contractor Bid Set dated May 30, 2002,
which shows 71 valve pits, 15 buffer tanks, and no dual-buffer tanks. The As-Built drawings
dated September 12, 2003 show relatively comparable numbers to the contractor Bid Set, with 69
valve pits, 13 buffer tanks,and no dual-buffer tanks.
Table 3 indicates significant discrepancies between the quantities for all cost items shown in the
As-Built Drawings, the Pay Applications, and Final Engineer Tabulations, except for the buffer
tanks. According to the Engineer, the Contractor is currently preparing a final Pay Application
that is intended to reconcile the quantities between the As-Built conditions and their final
quantity tabulation.
There are minor discrepancies between the location and alignment of vacuum system
components that enter the wastewater treatment plant site, including the four, 10-inch vacuum
mains, and the influent tank and building. These are considered to be insignificant, though the
As-Built drawings should be revised to accurately depict the actual equipment arrangement at the
plant site.
New wastewater Collection System Review URS Corporation
Stock Island,Florida Keys October 20,2003
Page 15 of22
Regarding miscellaneous field observations of the installed system components, URS noted that
flowable fill was used in some trenches as backfill material prior to pavement restoration. By
placing flowable fill into the trenches, the Contractor did not provide a proper granular material
to bed, haunch, and crown the pipe for proper protection in accordance with the design drawings.
in certain locations. Where flowable fill was placed directly around the pipe, a pipe break
occurred during the URS field inspection. This construction technique could cause similar
problems elsewhere in the system. Due to the limited nature of the field inspections conducted
by URS, the extent of this construction practice could not be fully evaluated.
Finally, URS observed some manholes that were not set at or slightly above grade, as designed.
The Contractor was required to sawcut the pavement around some of the manholes so that they
could be accessed for servicing.
Findings
(1) The review revealed that there is general agreement between the project construction
drawings (Bid Set and Final Construction Set) and the As-Built drawings for major
system components. In other words, the constructed wastewater collection system is
consistent with the May 30, 2002 plans as adopted by the BOCC on July 31, 2002.
(2) Until the final Pay Application is received from the Contractor and reviewed, the
significant discrepancies between the measured quantity take-otf values from the As-
Built drawings, the quantities listed in the Pay Applications received to date, and the final
Engineer tabulated values cannot be reconciled.
(3) Field inspections verified that 13 buffer tanks were installed as indicated in the As-Built
drawings. Of this number, one buffer tank was installed per an addendum to the
construction contract for Hurricane Joe's. In general, vacuum valve pits that are depicted
on the As-Built drawings corresponded well to those visually observed in the field. URS
confirmed the presence of additional vacuum valve pits along the vacuum main
alignments.
(4) Field inspections confirmed the physical location and depth of ten pre-selected vacuum
mains and service stub-out locations. In general, the information presented on the As-
Built drawings regarding the location and depth of burial of the mains were in agreement
with the field data collected. Attachment C is a copy of URS field notes taken during
the field inspections.
New Wastewater Collection System Review
Stock Island, Florida Keys
URS Corporation
October 20, 2003
Page 16 of22
3.3 Plan Modifications
Issue
Was the constructed system modified from the anticipated design when the BOCC entered into
its Capacity Reservation and Infrastructure Contract with the Utility on July 31, 2002? If the
system was modified, could these changes result in adverse financial impacts to future individual
users of the system?
Discussion
Concerns have been expressed recently with regard to possible modifications made to the
May 30, 2002 design documents, used for contractor bid solicitation, and adopted by the BOCC
on July 31, 2002 for construction. Additionally, if changes to the design plans were made, what
impact would result for the system users.
In order to identify whether such changes had been made, a project chronology was developed to
understand the sequence of events during planning, design, review, bidding, and contract
execution. The project chronology is shown in Figure 4. The following summarizes significant
milestone dates for the project:
· Conceptual Planning (1998 through 2001)
· Design and Permitting (January through May 2002)
· Bid Solicitation & Contractor Selection (June and July 2002)
· Capacity Reservation Contract Execution (July 2002)
· System Construction (September 2002 through August 2003)
As discussed in Section 3.2 of this report, review of the five drawing sets prepared by the
Engineer indicated that quantities of the major system components (Le., buffer tanks, valve pits,
pipe lengths) were similar among all sets, except the May 21, 2002 drawing set. The May 21 set
was described by the Engineer as an "Interim" or "Working" set of design drawings, and do not
represent the final arrangement and quantities of major system components. The May 21
drawings were date-stamped and signed by the Engineer, but were not formally stamped with the
design engineer's Seal of Professional Registration. The May 21 drawings were delivered to the
County by the Utility on May 24, 2002. The Utility had requested a review and comment of
these drawings.
New Wastewater Collection System Review
Stock Island, Florida Keys
URS Corporation
October 20, 2003
Page 17 of22
The County forwarded the May 21 drawings to their engineering consultant, CH2MHilI, on May
24,2002 for review on behalf of the County. Comments from CH2MHiII were submitted to the
County on July 5, 2002. These comments were subsequently included in the Agenda for the
BOCC meeting held on July 17,2002. Apparently, resolution of these comments on the May 21
drawings from CH2MHilI was not made. A copy of the letter from CH2MHiIl is included in
Attachment D. Utility personnel present at the July 17 BOCC meeting apparently also did not
indicate that discrepancies existed in the design represented in the May 21 drawings and the
contractor bid set of May 30.
As part of the contractor solicitation activities, a pre-bid meeting was held between the Utility,
the Engineer, the County, and the contractors on June 11,2002. Prior to the meeting with the
contractors, the Utility, the Engineer, and the County convened to review the contractor bid
drawings, dated May 30, 2002. There is no formal documentation that the May 30, 2002
drawings were delivered to the County, though these drawings were used during the pre-bid
meetings on June 11. CH2MHilI was not provided the May 30 drawings for review and
comment. Contractor bids were received on June 27, 2002 and were based on the May 30
drawings.
During the BOCC meeting of July 31, a version of the Capacity Reservation Contract between
the County and the Utility was attached to the formal Agenda for consideration by the BOCC.
The contract document referenced engineering drawings dated May 16, 2002. After the BOCC
meeting began, a revised version of the contract document was provided to the County
Administrator, and included a date change for the referenced engineering drawings to May 30,
2002. This revised document was subsequently considered and executed by the BOCC and the
Utility .
Following the execution of the Capacity Reservation Contract, the Utility issued a contract with
the Contractor to commence construction activities. The Utility maintained direct control and
supervision of the Contractor during the construction period. The Engineer was retained by the
Utility to provide on-site construction supervision, and to provide material testing services. Pay
Applications prepared by the Contractor were reviewed by the Engineer, and submitted to the
County for payment. The County engineer reviewed the Pay Applications for approval prior to
payment to the Contractor. The County did not conduct on-site inspections of day-to-day
construction activities.
New Wastewater Collection System Review
Stock Island, Florida Keys
URS Corporation
October 20, 2003
Page 18 of22
Findings
(1) There are significant discrepancies in the number of valve pits and buffer tanks between
the May 21, 2002 drawing set and the contractor bid set, the construction drawing set,
and the as-built drawing set. According to County personnel, the May 21 set was
reviewed with the understanding this represented the final design approach.
(2) CH2MHiII comments on the May 21 drawings were not addressed.
(3) Substantial design changes made late in process has led to confusion regarding the
collection system components and layout.
New Wastewater Collection System Review
Stock Island, Florida Keys
URS Corporation
October 20, 2003
Page 19 of22
4.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
The following subsections present a summary of the findings of the URS review of available
documents related to the new sewer system in south Stock Island, and other considerations the
County may wish to evaluate further.
4.1 Summary of Findings
URS identified nine key findings associated with its review of the project documentation. These
findings are:
(1) The constructed wastewater vacuum collection system is consistent with
recommendations described in the referenced Master Plan Update with respect to
this preferred type of sewer system.
(2) Discrepancies exist between the County's Master Plan Update document and the
Utility's Engineering Report with respect to a definitive planning value for either
ERCs or EDUs present in the south Stock Island service area. There apparently is
no clearly established value for planning future system expansion that will include
the remaining unsewered areas, and for determining what impacts may result to
both the new collection system and/or the wastewater treatment plant.
(3) The review revealed that there is general agreement between the project
construction drawings (Bid Set and Final Construction Set) and the As-Built
drawings for major system components. In other words, the constructed
wastewater collection system is consistent with the May 30, 2002 plans as
adopted by the BOCC on July 31, 2002.
(4) Until the final Pay Application is received from the Contractor and reviewed, the
significant discrepancies between the measured quantity take-off values from the
As-Built drawings, the quantities listed in the Pay Applications received to date,
and the final Engineer tabulated values cannot be reconciled.
(5) Field inspections verified that 13 buffer tanks were installed as indicated in the
As-Built drawings. Of this number, one buffer tank was installed per an
addendum to the construction contract for Hurricane Joe's. In general, vacuum
valve pits that are depicted on the As-Built drawings corresponded well to those
visually observed in the field. URS confirmed the presence of additional vacuum
valve pits along the vacuum main alignments.
New Wastewater Collection System Review
Stock Island, Florida Keys
URS Corporation
October 20, 2003
Page 20 of22
(6) Field inspections confirmed the physical location and depth of ten pre-selected
vacuum mains and service stub-out locations. In general, the information
presented on the As-Built drawings regarding the location and depth of burial of
the mains were in agreement with the field data collected. Attachment C is a
copy of URS field notes taken during the field inspections.
(7) There are significant discrepancies in the number of valve pits and buffer tanks
between the May 21, 2002 drawing set and the contractor bid set, the construction
drawing set, and the as-built drawing set. According to County personnel, the
May 21 set was reviewed with the understanding this represented the final design
approach.
(8) CH2MHiII comments on the May 21 drawings were not addressed.
(9) Substantial design changes made late in process has led to confusion regarding the
collection system components and layout.
4.2 Other Considerations
During the review process of available project documents and information provided to URS
described in the foregoing sections, three additional issues were identified that were beyond the
established scope of work, but which the County may wish to review further. These issues
include:
Issue No.1 - Treatment Plant Reserve Capacity
As discussed in Section 3.1, the Utility apparently computed the number of additional EDUs that
could be accommodated based on the actual reserve treatment capacity at the Stock Island
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Additional analysis appears warranted to confirm that the capacity
purchased by the County is equivalent to the actual reserve capacity available.
The Florida Administrative Code (F .A.C.), Chapter 62-600.405 describes specific planning
requirements for municipal wastewater treatment plants when 50 percent of its rated capacity is
reached. Specifically, when the plant hydraulic capacity is estimated to be reached or exceeded
within five years, engineering planning and preliminary design for the expansion must
commence. If the estimated plant capacity will be reached or exceed within four years,
preparation of engineering plans and specifications for the plant upgrade are required. Finally, if
plant capacity is estimated to be reached or exceeded within three years, a complete construction
permit application must be prepared and submitted.
New Wastewater Collection System Review
Stock Island, Florida Keys
URS Corporation
October 20, 2003
Page 21 of22
Monroe County Ordinance requires users with access to a centralized sewer system to connect to
the system within one year. The newly completed wastewater collection project allows for the
immediate connection of 1,500 EDUs. Connection of these new users in a short period of time
would result in the plant rated hydraulic capacity to be reached. While provisions exist in F AC
62-600.405(9) to adjust the schedule for plant expansion, the County may wish to examine the
current system configuration with regard to potential impacts at the treatment plant. Moreover,
based on current plant capacity the FDEP has the authority to limit or possibly delay some of the
new connections until capacity issues are resolved.
Issue No.2 - Adequacy of Buffer Tank Distribution
The number and distribution of buffer tanks installed on the vacuum mains is limited based on
physical limitations of the existing system design. According to the system manufacturer, the
number of buffer tanks cannot exceed approximately 25% of the total number of service
connections (i.e., both buffer tanks and valve pits). Thus, the existing vacuum system design
will limit the total number of buffer tanks that can be installed on anyone vacuum main,
potentially affecting larger users. An engineering review may be warranted for the number and
location of larger users, and the location of buffer tanks that would need to be installed with
respect to potential impacts to connection and their associated costs.
Issue No.3 - Scope of Engineering Services During Construction
The fmal negotiated construction cost between the Utility and the Contractor was $3,500,000.
Additional construction phase services (i.e., construction administration, construction inspection,
engineering support, legal services, and material testing) were included in the approved Capacity
Reservation Contract, resulting in a total contract price of $4,606,000. This included a $380,000
contingency. This contingency value represents 10.9 percent of the construction costs, and could
be considered typical for projects of this nature. Information provided verbally from the
Engineer during this review indicated that no contingency funds were required to complete the
construction activities.
Table 4 summarizes the fees for construction phase services provided as a percent of the final
negotiated construction cost of $3,500,000. Note that the line item "Construction Administration
& Certification" in the table was included in the December 2001 BOCC-approved expenditure
under the Reimbursement Contract with the Utility.
New Wastewater Collection System Review
Stock Island, Florida Keys
URS Corporation
October 20, 2003
Page 22 of 22
Table 4—Summary of Design and Construction Phase Service Costs
1 Construction Administration&Certification 46,300 1.3
2 En:ineerin: Su.•'rt and Ins.ection 279 000 7.9
3 Construction Administration and Le:al Fees 347 000 9.9
4 Material Testin: 100,000 2.9
Total 772 00 22.0
Notes:
These services were provided through the December 31,2001 Reimbursement Contract with Utility.
These services were provided through the Capacity Reservation and Infrastructure Contract with the Utility.
Total costs incurred for construction phase services are 22.0 percent of the negotiated
construction costs. An audit of the construction phase services provided may be warranted to
confirm that the fees expended are consistent with the services provided.
New Wastewater Collection System Review URS Corporation
Stock Island,Florida Keys October 20,2003
+11r `r'
^ • • • • a
o i888 8 8 3 8 d E
4o o 'o 'o "o 'o 'o •o -o 'o 'o "o 'o >o
E > > > > > > > > > > > > > > O -.
,j _ c c c o • c c c c c c c c c L {-
-:n • �E cE r E E E € =E Cl,
c O v m v v 0 v v v v v v v v c v v L v u Cr
II
4a m aaVvm505QQmum ° oLmo ` `otro
1 m Eu o o . Lb u y m me Lm o o $ Lm o o 1 o 1 1 m � u n u v m m o u > o o . o m a ooi m n
v�$.`Q J J a _1 F- a s co J J U a J J J J ¢ ¢ J J J f U. a Q J J V)
t':+r •
O
■ ::S v:y. C �
I •: ci
K x* L j L a)
m I- P. o ' 3 m
t?rlr� ° p cr a O N C) V ^ to ' co b = n co Oo °' > O1 i 2
'. J{::: 30 O E' �, 2
u a s a s 4 s o : C C ae s * a Q a a • w V
i o tl i0 o m E E E E a o c V E c cc c v Q o c in
ff o 0 o 0 0 0 o m
m m or m m m > > > > o v o 2 o i, i, i� T o x • v c m a
C • '5 U t 0 m m m m C L m m m m m m • b • • 0 C
m 'A = : • o o a 2 U ; a a a a 'o .o) a E a -r, <a : a a a < o y y 3 o Lc 1
E c v ' E 'E b i Y o a o 0 o v u b i i) a z 8, 0 7f o 3 E.
m , c O it U o
o m tl o _ 2 t u •o o a E m - m o E c = @ ^ a m o ' M co U.
o c 8 o a E U Z - 2 0 3 8 '- 2'¢ c c c c c c a c a c 0 c c c 3 c c 4 '0 10 m b
0° ::: .D ¢ o v - c ron o v .4 = C c 41 0 0 0 0 W O O 0 Q o 0 0 0 0 0 o O r rn a m 2 `o
0 0 8 ¢ a o r o v 'a N c • 5 3 8 .c
c 0 0 o U 0 t E.
s m o • o o >. 0 io n • U . £ .E < a
o a m L .i b y C n 1 '2 U u U S o p o ; .4 2 L $ E
b o v 5 Q n Lm Y E E o • aI c o 'oi 2 > > > O 2 L O o C 2 0 > > c Z 0 Q • O c o o • C
:� v € � ,°� 5 Ti Ti Ti Ti 3 0 � v Ti " Ti ro Fi Fi a U o a = c E a ¢
:i s U n 2 o U H L 0 o a • m ¢ o t c 2 3 °- m o v o iL 0 -. O E -o o c
::r o v r 5 a 3 Sc $ o if "t `t .0 a s U o W m m m m g a m r o o a • P � t r ad U U `a n _8
�+yf:::� a ¢ L p W Z E° 5 m m 7 m v 0 v r o U.¢ - - - L 0• - o - o - &- - c o c- c c • ¢ a C m
=i :•l:'R C m 3 O z O m - m a M w_ n .c • c ".f{ • :° 'm •b ¢ • lm 'g '2 1' •� ° .1) U - i m . Yi N .2
>: S 0 c - a U c ~ �'m > F2 0 O m u `C o `o D o c `o_ ,. ¢ o T' o o ,2 c c c U c o m .Y c B L c 0 3
p::`�� 0 o �v B o o t .4 .4 .4 .4 `o .4 Q c o u L U
,S a c ,,E Cr E 2 0 L o m - m .2 m o co o m en 'm ¢ o 'm 2'0 U a 44, L6 m m 0 m L c . O > •c o o v
o r' 0 0 . ¢ „ , a 0 E g a L Z Z Z Z `o : Z m Z `o Z o t Z 3 Z ° 4 v v .6 ¢ ^ E U z 0
•�:}:,::<:;� U _w >T¢ ] 8 c -c . 0 8 4 g Q U c `b a 2 n 2 a n o -4 a cc n n 2 O a a , E 8 0@ 4 '2 ¢
��i. $ ° Y N ' > tl E E 4 z 8 • O W O O • 0 ¢ ¢ cc ¢ J •p ¢ ° et J Z ¢ O b b m • v L p N « a O
:.r: Z o L Cu, «^ vU c C - C � T = = 2, r = o U ¢ ¢ 3 ¢ ga .42 ¢ E � `off E
`' 4 c ° L o 0 S 0 m L O 2 2.2 2 m 2• m .. 2 c L k S ` o E v o
,a:::? f E o m a E 08 E . .. 8 U a m m m 0 E m E ° 2 `O 4 S 2' € 0 o _ "" o o to ° E
.:} • E .4 n E 'i v & E E N .E n o N N z 8 `o
0 > o o n o _ P o 0 0 0 o o o n n N • o a m o o 0 m 0 m o o m o G. 0'c m o 2 0 0 0 c o o n
`.%% 3v� zU a ¢ mm ¢ oU ¢ o ¢ av) � a` JODUoomov oU � oaoo � oazo ¢ z EUu if! v�
F5 . >,
=::,, m 5 0 J p O o ao- m O • m -2 i0 m o a 71 m
`n) c 8 8 ' w 3 >O888 .08 82 8 8 88 c
0::: E q E o .n c o r )
c
0 E a n n ° y n n n n . a c n n n n a m o 0
a o It.',"
x n n E n n n n a _0 n n a n n b
a Y w a a E E a a a a U a a < a s a u a
O �• }' O O • O b O o 0 0 o L o r)
5 .4 a U E o 4 E U o ° .O .4 .4 O ., 4 c 0 • 0 o 0 0 4 • 'S`' 0 m
0 o L L 0 '0 E z.. U a 0 0 0 o g 'o c o 0 0 0 0 0 co v a 11. E a
-r4 � a c y 8 E > 0 >C V a >C c n ^ 0 0
°•
Q cR o b o c c 2>25 c E V "o e• cQ Q c c Q c „ • c 0 c m O c c c c 8 0 ; • x N 2
� E V n U U 6 d > 0 o 2 O m O a m p o o o u E o B O p C co U -5
0 o a 0 E E 0 0. rn v v c o rn b' o: o n M a E a= a�n v of a s C •: co m
. c • m (5 > 0 0 0 o c o .4 fo c o 0 o x >, m c .2 m o 0 o m m '- c = 3
'7 8 . 4 • O m o U C o 1CO 0 m C m m m m w .tl C p ^ Y ^ 4 m C N C m U o 0
+ o `o -z > 3 'o > j o c , a Ea co, m 'v °'2222 S- 1 o1 .°i u1 c 2Moo < g -S7 I U7 ¢
0 3 • C F 7 c - C c a O O L C .• r C ¢ C O C m C C N C ° 8 ° ., E
oca Nti, ., .4 c L m > o .4 x L a U o 0 0 z z z 4 Y u r ., t ¢ c , - .4 .-4 c, .4 0 8 r,, a 0 0 o
o •c 2 0 4 0 t" 2 2 .E r L 2 2 2 2 8 ¢ 2 -^, 2 ^ 2 c 2 2 0 2 o o c S Q >
z° 3 • a U E • 0 E 8 2 -• E o 6 c o > ` o c
0 a p, 0 3 c ° c % c o c o E o, z o 0 E ' o •
8 0 - 0 c 8 5 L 9 m 0 m 0 U a 2 U° o 0 0 0 3 0 o U°O -^ o o .c o o 5 o 0 0 S -c ? o c e c co
m ° c o r n 0 -t o 2 .` r D r c V 8 o m o U c $ M p ^o 0 0,
£ ¢ u w O c - a 2 ° ° 5 L D g .E a c c c c 5 m c i. c 0 c p c c• c c W 3 U L E r
'v c o 2 • . E, o 8 c T. N c oo w e U o 2 0 '0 0 o r c o m o c m ° 0 0 o v o `o c cc c c ., m 8 o
is 0 o J • U O 8 C 0 0 0 5 0 0 y 0 0 0 U 0 o 0 a 0 O . 000000z O .O •' m .9 C o 0
iilrL' o 8 F 8 r g Q 0 P 8 E e E 8 E 8 8 8 ¢ m 8 E 8 6 c 8 8 8 e o 3 �c .x v a° 8
0 0 +t • .o S n• c 22 • L U(e o zz -; m 'v O c c o 0 9 > ° ii 8 t E
8 3a .: • am .°ou)S = ila° 43wf m° s = aam � mf 4 $ f mwiiifim i3mrd) >° 4YTn • &50a: 5z m
f-'C' c c c c c c c c c c c cgggg c c1 c c� c c c c c cggggggg •4 c c c c o c
:}}�- 0 0 0 O O _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 O _ 0 . 0 _ 0 0 0 0 O O O C 0 O O 00 0
i:;
} U U U U g201, 000 U U U U U U U - U U U U U U U
O 3 O O = O O O = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U U U C' U U• 0
8888 m8 = oar, tG28 888o = o8888m88 - 8 � oa00008D • D8 - § 88 O
'r-� cc cc cc CC ¢ Y = C = C C c •O ¢ -•O• C C L C N C C N c C C C C •L L ¢ 2 ¢ c C
.,:r 0 0 0 0 • • 'O O O, 'O b UO OO U O O O O O O O = O O • O = O O O O o O O O b O O • O b
3 .Z 7 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 D U m U f m 3 2 3 2 7 f 0 2 7 3 2022222222 la Sc s 3 2 2 3 f m 7
{Y ' 8 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 O O O O O O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 - 0 2 2 0 2
::: � -aaaaaaaaaaas � aa6aasnaasat a aaaaa a
iMi
m ., a o-
pp (v Q pp Q .5. c� c� SC S QQ � r � e � NNre Q pg {� gg p g r Nz
00o 0v c, 00c, 00 n 0 n n 0 a 0 ad aa000 a; 0n 0 . 00 f00 o, ornrn0
o 0 0 - o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .- .- : o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W 4. rrr rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrr
St. C L L L C C C C C C C C C C C C cc L L C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C L L L cc C
$ 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 - O
Sl ��� v o o U U � o o U o 0 0 0 0 � o o U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o U o U o 0 0 0 � o 0 0 o U � o o U o 0 0 0 - �
0 w 1.:Ay: 8 8 00 8 8 8 8 0 8 8 8 8 00 °O 8 8 8 8 8 8 °O b0 8 8 b0 8 8 8 8 8 0° 8 8 °O o0 8 8 8 °O 88 8 88 • 8 8 8 00 0° 8
'• C 2722 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C N
m :.g] 8 8 0 8 • • 8 8 8 0 8 0 0 `6 0 0 0 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 8 8 8 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 8
N
2 t. 2 2 O - 2 2 g M O N O M N 4 (7 N c7 C) N t0 C7 cO l0 N M (D 8 f7 f7 N 8 N (7 M N
may., c' N c7 C) O O O O O O N t9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cy O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 (7 O co f7 O
J, p o - o p, o. Qp o o u p j. a 6. �'0 i o a S g d ; h ;o g �i b n n a d $ b o h o. ;o o n o ;
- f :i Ti $a • a tl b O S a. m b ) m 0 b t� to m m 0 O� O • 0 m O O O tl V /) a t� to
$},::? N N a (p 41 41 a fA 41 4) 4/ 41 !q 4) a 4) a N N fA V1 41 41 fq a 4/ (A (n 41 41 (A 41 fD N f// fn f/) 4J - 01 a a fA a 4J
co m cb -- cb co cS m air co co m m co e5 •- co co co co oS co co co co co co co cb co co ao co co ab m co .- of) co
CI 6 N `*
U o
._ .Z -2 i:i• ,:•; N N V n 40 O O .- N W V O O h N O NO N N NN N IN' N0 N m N O y N)
3gcO 10 hN c0 r3 O vN N yy - n V V N U) N
Oa _
U) c Z
URS
October 4, 2003
Mr. Jeff Weiler, F.E.
President
The Weiler Engineering Corporation
20020 Veterans Boulevard
Suite 7-9
Port Charlotte, Florida 33954
RE: New Wastewater Vacuum Collection System for South Stock Island
Transmitted Via Facsimile: (941) 764-8915 and by U.S. Mail
Dear Mr. Weiler:
As we discussed during our telephone call on Thursday, October 2, URS Corporation (URS) is
conducting a review of certain technical matters related to the south Stock Island's new vacuum
wastewater collection system on behalf of Monroe County. Several questions have arisen as part
of our on-going review that Weiler Engineering Corporation (Weiler) may be able to clarify.
In the interest of completing our review as quickly as possible, the Monroe County
Administrator, James Roberts, has asked URS to submit our questions directly to Weiler via
facsimile. As we mentioned during our phone call to you on October 2, we would appreciate
responses to the above questions by the close of business on Tuesday, October 7.
1. P~ease clarify what source information and/or documentation was initially used to develop an
estimate for the construction cost of the project for the purposes of engineering planning and
design. We have been informed that a cost estimate for this project was developed, but are
not certain regarding its origin, date of preparation, or method of development.
2. As part of the engineering planning and design process, was a' Preliminary Engineering
Report (PER) or similar Design Basis Document prepared to establish the proposed selection
and subsequent design of the vacuum collection system? If so, could you please provide a
copy of the documentation used by Weiler?
URS Corporation
7650 West Courtney
Campbell Causeway
Tampa, Fl33607-1462
Tel: 813.286.1711
Fax: 813.287.8591
URS
The Weiler Engineering Corporation
Mr. Jeff Weiler, P.E.
October 4, 2003
Page 2
3. Per the Capacity Reservation and Infrastructure Contract with Monroe County dated July 31,
2002, there were 1,500 EDUs associated with this project. Please provide Weiler's basis of
design for the requisite sewer service to these EDUs associated with the project. With regard
to the system configured by Weiler, please clarify that consideration was given during the
design process for future connections to the system. For example, what design
considerations were made to facilitate future connections to the system? Will the system as
currently designed have the necessary capacity to serve all existing users along the locations
- where a vacuum main now exists?'
4. More specifically related to existing system capacity, please clarify the available hydraulic
--- ----- . -capacity associated -with each of the four,-l1}.;inchmains- of-the-vacuum -conection-system~--as- ..
well as the overall hydraulic capacity of the existing vacuum pump station?
5. Based on the current and fmallayoutJdesign 'Of the four vacuum mains, how many additional
buffer tanks and vacuum pitS can be connected to each main without jeopardizing reliable
system operation? Also, please describe limitations and/or requirements on the spacing of
connections along the vacuum mains between vacuum pits and buffer tanks for the system as
designed.
6. Based on the available information reviewed, we understand that Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) permitting of the project commenced in March 2002 based
on design plans submitted to the FDEP at that time. KW Resort Utilities received approved
permits from the FDEP in May 2002. Subsequent to the March 2002 design drawings,
various design modifications were made to the vacuum collection system, including changes
to the number and location of vacuum pits, buffer tanks, and service stub-outs indicated in
two sets of drawings submitted in May 2002 [i.e., plans dated May 16, 2002 (stamped May
21, 20(2) and May 30~ 2002]. Please verify that the changes made after March 2002; (1)
were not substantially different from that used as the basis to obtain the permit; and/or, (2)
supplemental documentation was submitted to the FDEP describing and outlining the
changes for consideration by, and approval from, the FDEP before construction commenced.
7. Review of the May 16,2002 (stamped May 21, 20(2) design plans indicate that both single-
and dual-buffer tanks were to be installed. Construction details of both buffer tank
arrangements were present in the May 16 set. The May 30,2002 drawings indicate that only
single-buffer tanks were to be installed and no details of the dual-buffer tank. arrangement
were present. However, one of the sheets on the Record Drawings prepared by Weiler and
dated September 12, 2003 shows a dual-buffer tank arrangement. Why is there a detail of a
dual-buffer tank in the Record Drawing set?
URS
The Weiler Engineering Corporation
Mr. Jeff Weiler, P.E.
October 4, 2003
Page 3
8. Regarding the apparent elimination of all dual buffer tanks and a large number of single
buffer tanks as indicated from an examination of the May 16, 2002 (stamped May 21, 2(02)
drawings and the May 30, 2002 drawings, please indicate the design basis for making these
adjustments.
9. Regarding the project specifications, and more specifically, the bid tabulation sheets, it
appears that no line items were provided for single- or dual-buffer tanks. Only vacuum pit
types "A", "AI", ''B'', and "c" were included in the bid tabulation. Please clarify this
apparent inconsistency in terminology used for these system components.
-iO:-Please-provi'de-a-copyofWeiler's Probable-Opinio-n-of-Constroct1o1rCostsqforlhe-proJectqthaT"" - -- -- ..-
was used to ev~uate construction bids received in June of 2002. What process was used to
track and update the estimated cost of the project as changes were made to the design plans
during both'the design and construction phases? More specifically, were cost reductions
identified and enumerated. by Weiler due to the changes noted between the May 16, 2002
(stamped May 21, 2(02) and May 30, 2002 set of design plans before bids were obtained fot
the project?
11. As part of Weiler's on-site construction monitoring activities, how were Change Orders
and/or Credits managed between KW Resort Utilities and the Contractor?
12. Based on review of the payment applications submitted by KW Resort Utilities to Monroe
County, there were two approved mobilization charges associated with Pay Applications
Number 1 and Number 5 dated September 25, 2002 and January 27, 2003, respectively.
Please indicate what specific Contractor costs were associated with each of these
mobilization charges submitted for payment.
13. A preliminary quantity take-off estimate of key system components (i.e., valve pits, buffer
tanks, and vacuum main lengths) was completed as part of the recent URS review, as
indicated in the record drawings dated September 12,2003. Please confirm the total actual
. quantities of these components installed.
14. Please indicate if Weiler has submitted the certified Record Drawings of the project to the
FDEP for formal permitting documentation. If so, has the FDEP provided comments or
indicated official approval of the Record Drawings?
000
URS
The Weiler Engineering Corporation
Mr. Jeff Weiler, P.E.
October 4, 2003
Page 4
Please feel free to contact David Burgstiner or me if you have any questions on the above. Our
telephone number here in Tampa is (813) 286-1711.
SinCerely,
URS Corporation
~~n
~ ft:-.
~chaelJ.Condran,P.E.
Senior Engineer
... - _____.....____.__n .... -... ~._.- -...-_____ _ _ .._._ _. ...". ._~__.......___.. ____ .__ .", _" n_n_.___ .. "_ __.__._ '___u_ ._ _"_______.._._
cc: Mr. James Roberts - Monroe County Administrator
T~E J~llERS~GIN~ERING
~)R "1'/0 .I~ J '*to,~
"Excellence In Engineering"
20020 Veterans Blvd., Suite 7-9
Port Charlotte, FL 33954
(941) 764-6447 ph .
(941) 764-8915 fax
October 7, 2003
Mr. Michael J. Condran, P.E.
Senior Engineer
URS Corporation
7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway
Tampa, Florida 33607-1462
. . .
Re: Response to URS Letter dated Octobet4, ~o03IReqti~fforIttf0l1DatioJ:l .
Dear Mr. Condran:
Following is my response to your questions outlined in the letter referenced above. If a
response is unclear or you need anyfurtberiI1fonnation, please don9tli~itateto call.
1. Please clarify what source informat,ion,and/or docmnentation was. Uritlallyusedto .'
develop an estimate for the cons1ipCtiOllcost of the project for thepuq,oses ()f ..
engineering planning and desigtLWe have been informed that a cOst estiniateJortbis.. . .
project was developed, but m:-enofcertam regm:-ding its origin, date of preparation, or .
method of development .
The initial estimate for the conStnlCtion cost of the project was developed utilizing
figures from the origimtlBngineering Report prepared by Weiler Engineering in 1998,
the Monroe County Milster Plan prepared by CH2M HiU in June of 2000, numberS
from Air Vac and fro.1It recent actual construction projects in the Keys andJilUilized
during preparation olt~ Preliminary Engineering Report in March of 2002.
.
I have included ctjpies of eilCh.
2. As part of the engineerin.g planning and design process, was a Preliminary Engineering
Report (PER) or siit.1tarDesign Basis Document prepared to establish the proposed
selection and ~bsequent design of the vacuum collection system? If so, could you please
provide a copy ofthedOcuinentation used by WeileI'?
-----_.,_._._.._~-'-------_.__.__.._-.----_.._--_._--_._--.-.---..-----.....---..-..----.-- .--.--..-------.-.-----------------
As part of the planning and design process, an Engineering Report was prepared in
1998 and llnEngineering Report was prepared in March 2002. The Monroe County
Master Plan was also utilized extensively during the selection process.
3. Per the Capacity Reservation and Infrastructure Contract with Monroe County dated
July 31, 2002, there were 1,500 EDUs associated with this project. Please provide
Weiler's basis of design for the requisite sewer service to these EDUs associated with the
Letter to URS -10/8/2003
Page 1
project. With regard to the system configuration by Weiler, please clarify that
consideration was given during the design process for future connections to the system.
For example, what design considerations were made to facilitate future connections to the
system? Will the system as currently designed have the necessary capacity to serve all
existing users along the locations where a vacuum main now exists?
I believe the Agreement was to actually sell the County 1500 EDU's. The vacuum
collection system was designed to accommodate all customers and potential customers
along the mains which we anticipate to be more than 1500. The projected future flows
were based on land use information, the Master Plan and sound engineering
judgment. 1 t :s�'7t% 'gk ,ri1•* re _ �
:- c .r,d' sin •, �P r, r - .c
Please refer to section 9 of the 2002 design'report. Based on"the design flows which is
how the total number of ERC's are calculated for a potential customer were tip?.
determined to be 2083 at build out Expected flows were determined to be less than .
design flows and were utilized to determine the plant capacity requirements as.rlutlined; y.
below and in the Engineering Report. The Design flows were based on a projected use ,.-k
of 205 GPD for residential users and complete build out of both residential and
commercial properties.Design flows for commercial properties were estimated on the x .
maximum potential for area usage based on IOD-6 F.A.C. Expected flows for -�, �"4 Y '„'
residential properties are based on 174 GPD per residential connection and the currenOg
build out ofresidential properties. Expected flowsfor commercial properties erties are �4 M '`P P P p P ke, ,tPp• ._ e..::;1..
estimated at 80% of flow as dhe4frated by 1OD-6 F.A.C. This adjustment factor was`f° r r ~';k
established by examination of existing water use data compared to flows predicted by ; t;.]:'.:: -IOD-6 F.A.C. Design flows for properties with existing Package Plants were estimated F .' t�' ':.
as the design capacity of the plant Expected flows for properties with ng•package :�� :' '
plants were estimated by exa»unq ion of existing flow data. '`�` :"
t t ;}�n,,:v filer, .,h.gip, fY gs•.F1'ii�i:ti;.'9r`::::''r- -,::
Excerpt "Note that the design flows are the maximum potential for flows that, o y; ,. ;`�., ` 'ii:r..
- may not occur over the next s:U tears Actual flows expected after system const� �it :. ..':z` .,..;. t.
r' are shown as expected flows. Design flows are used for collection system design and ', , �a r 0
ak _: expected flows are utilized for the Treatment Plant Capacity Analysis. This a roach F � :r �-` ` = ;
,Niia ,} recognizes that the.colllctzon system should be designed for any and all contingencies : �� ' • �, ',
c,< due to the econo c. my of scale achieved by including the capacity in the lines now and the 1 • „
undesirability of future street disturbance to increase the capacity of collection lines at- ft : "
•. : a later date. These higher design flows are also used for vacuum station design for ,s:s f..
yr' a' - r :�1x�y.'�dn r • "'q-^j.
i � . - similar reasons The lower expected flows are used for plant capacity analysis due the - 4 ' •� :;
r Vit_IX.‘ reality that expanding the treatment plant for theoretical flows that may not occur ; F�-' • 5 =;.},F,i-r~ ., � .S;tit, ,.
,g, -,fP_,' {. create a project that is not economically viable.Additional connections to the system
:: - .a:- ,, can be controlled to ensure that the Treatment Plant operates within permit parameters.
i C
��:#�..Y:�.w.�,. .at all times ,:.r:� :f
F{1.•f-1'i-t"y�Y�:.. 'i-`y- .,I t 3P �I 'j..:< :•�`'�.ti.. .
..S..' ._ie -ti;i: •.,Y i.,.F{ '' '.I. .'f:'•�'�..?,.• _ `•l..L '�' :
`▪: .,=; 4. More specifically related to existing system capacity,please clarify the available t;: __.: `.
,, is , hydraulic capacity associated with each of the four, 10-inch mains of the vacuum . . ;r
ti Sri R - • .. v:.. . , .
:.. : Letter to URS-10/8/2003 ''it `vS,'
#;'4.,2!,. +:y-.: Page 2 t'
Y !f 3 A 4
collection system, as well as the overall hydraulic capacity of the existing vacuum pump
station?
The design was based on the design flows as outlined in the Engineering Report(2002)
referenced above and consistent with the design parameters set forth by the
manufacturer,Airvac. Each 10"main has a capacity of 373 gpm peak flow(factor 3.5
times adf) and each main is designed so there is less than 13'of static head loss to the
end or for future branches connecting to the mains. The station is designed for 833
gpm peak flow and the vacuum pumps are designed to operate in the range of 16'Hg to
20"Hg all of which are included in the current construction to accommodate the future
connections. In addition, although the Monroe County Ordinance requiring
connection to central sewer service requires connection when sewer is available and
defines available for commercial establishments as a vacuum,pressure, or gravity
system within fifty feet of the property line, stubs were provided to make it easier to
connect.
.,- r; 2 y v •y
s,
Excerpt: "Note that the design flows are the maximum potential for flows that may or
may not occur over the next 50 years.Actual flows expected after system construction •''
are shown as expected flows. Design "F .P g flows are used for collection system design and
expected flows are utilized for the Treatment Plant Capacity Analysis. This approach ,
recognizes that the collection system should be designed for any sand all contingencies `
due to the economy of scale achieved by including the capacity in`the lines now and the: '
undesirabili o future street disturbance to increase the capacity o -c ction lines ate`.• {.F
tJ'of P tJ' f �� �
a later date. These higher design flows are also used for vacuum statiin design for 40::..3. �
similar reasons. The lower expected flows are used for plant capacity anal) due the `- `,
reality that expanding the treats te►ntplant for theoretical flows that may, not ccur , y ,,
�,. i Y:r.. v . fir : r`y icY .sit
create a project that is nig economically viable.Additional connections to the•shill �s..•14-,• ;yr,
can be controlled to ensure that the Treatment Plant operates within e t 1:- �':p pet* •tx tip`•:. :;.: .
at all times': ;4 �; a :. ., �.5.
tr
�4'f 't9r, r '1.41.;i '`y9 ¢{ '4 GCS r.` i-
5. Based on the current and fit�nalr.
rla layout/design of the fourny r �`
.t., Y gn vacuum mains,how man , .� �s z�•
u ,'=' additional buffer tanks and vacuum pits can be connected to each main without E _ ` ,. . ... 1 �'
` <, jeopardizing reliable system operation? Also,please describe limitations and/or - ��
1 P g Y P �, "' '�
t� r uirements on the s p acin of connections along the vacuum main between vacuum pits.':' :-.s,-,-1`'
�. �0 r,r, P pis
x �.
and buffer tanks for the system as designed. `: .. '�f,'i
„ The current configuration has maximized the allowable flow via buffer tanks based on ;.` ::3. -:,c..,,j
t .,' the anticipated flow to each as the manufacturer requires that not more than 25% o : ' i.�`"5� .r`ryr`
is •.; +,xf. • ::
f the flow be"introduced via buffer tanks. The buffer tanks were placed in locations that `��' `r
* ti ;r we anticipate an alternate means of collection was not feasible. As with the buffer x�fri E_� s 4�. Fr:.
' '-.: '• tanks, the number of valve pits is not the issue, it is the flow introduced through the :: ..=' - r
valve pits Each main has been designed to accommodate the anticipated flows ,G .: ..'
f; r;: " including current and future that we anticipate to be introduced via valve pits.
A... .-L'_Ix' it,., tea R; -s 4� 0' .
`"• _:..�..;;. :����4{..:. ,^.. ., . . �l,�'�''�=y���• is ::.•�:?,�:,;
▪ ,r -10/8/2003
`,,r: r Letter to URS i �:'
I�nn i' Pa e3
The system has been configured to accommodate the Manufacturers requirement for
separation and, based on our research, will not be a problem for future connections or
valve pit installations.
6. Based on the a information reviewed, we understand that Florida Department of
Environmental Protection(FDEP)permitting of the project commenced in March 2002
based on design plans submitted to the FDEP at that time. KW Resort Utilities received
approved permits from the FDEP in May 2002. Subsequent to the March 2002 design
drawings, various design modifications were made to the vacuum collection system
including changes to the number and location of vacuum pits,buffer tanks, and service
stub-outs indicated in two sets of drawings submitted in May 2002 (i.e.,plans dated May
16, 2002 (stamped May 21, 2002),and May 30, 20021. Please verify that the changes
made after March 2002; (1)were not substantially different from that used as the basis to
obtain the permit; and or, (2) supplemental documentation was submitted to the FDEP
describing and outlining the changes:for consideration by, and approval from; the FDEP-:
before construction commenced f L `�J-Lr� � �
t}' . i- 444- � fr�',*.'k re Y .1�
The changes made to the plans dated May 30,2002 were noi substantially different
from the March plans that were submitted to the FDEP or the plans for construction in _4
October. Separation notes were added and language was added to the permit to assure
that adequate precautions were taken if the plant began to reach capacity.. 'S '_E "'
_„,
The most significant changes to the plans were to the vacuum station and building.. ^� �t `:A.
The tank size was increased, a pump g '�'` •
p p was added and the building was elevated rather � �,�..s�
titan elevating the equipment within the building. ; ; .4:":;t;,
The FDEP has issued approvals substantiating that the system was consl , , 4w,,I Y,,,.4,� :_�.
substantial conformance with the plans and permits. I have included co :e a' ; .._".;' " `° V-
�`, 7. Review of the May 16, 2002 (stamped May21, 2002)designplans indicate that`both
single- and double-buffer tanks were to be installed, Construction details of both buffer iL1 ' .,. _ .s. •
F tank arrangements were present in the May 16 set. The May 30, 2002 drawings indicate 4 � 4
�5ii'+: '-rr*,,�t is .. �,S`ti•
�.�;- �' that only single-buffer tanks were to be installed and no details of the dual-buffer tank r ` += ' `
e"t'''�{ •n• rfro
1 arrangement were provided. However, one of the sheets on the Record Drawings k
-. . prepared by Weiler and dated September 12,2003 shows a dual-buffer tank arrang :a ": r - f b
;;'^ ' Whyis there a detail of a dual-buffer tank in the Record Drawing set? =';�.� : - - " `
,..,., _• The May 21, 2002/May 16, 2002 plans are design development plans and were nevetir.' T�} i .... ;
L 1 t •'['t x-
0 i intended for construction. The detail of a dual-buffer tank remained in the Record : . ? t
„ } . . Drawings as an oversightc.Viii,?4A74:,��` ;�
ntO . 5'_ . 8. Regarding
=�•` k.: .t g g the apparent elimination of all dual buffer tanks and a large number of
t-b:li �.,44..it:)` single buffer tanks as indicated from an examination of the May16, 2002 (stamped May h',' ..
::: 2112002) drawings and the May30, 2002 drawings,please indicate the design basis for `: ` -:-' �`- ;
�:.t making these adjustments. 1,
J l_ j 4-,..,,{{.. fW h AF yf F i9..,y � tf {,5j�x:J�}_J.• o
_. "d C.'�y1x{•'p,�z -.a1 ;', '�y ^3ny9b-.rrkKf ' i '�, „:,,,:op: �
twsw`•,�, ar�• fff:
'��+rFr
l ` p �'x,' Letter to URS-10/8/2003 :ti
Page 4 ��,t�±�"4p_�'`�:.
The May 21, 2002/May 16, 2002 plans are design development plans and never
intended for construction.
We considered buffer tanks at numerous locations in order to provide extra storage in
the system and to provide a convenient means of connection as outlined in the
County's Ordinance and the definition of"Available': After detailed analysis and
coordination with the manufacturer, we determined the most feasible locations for the
buffer tanks while meeting the manufacturer's requirements in that no more than 25%
of the flow should be contributed via buffer tanks Consideration was given to the
condition of existing onsite collection systems and wh;,ther extensive new construction
or repairs would be necessary to meet industry and utility standards and to connect to
the new vacuum system. In nearly every case,•it appeaed that a new vacuum system
would be the same or less costly than an alternative system. This has been confirmed by
Mr. Williams report from March 2003 and Mr. Garrett's Memorandum to the Board.of
County Commissioners dated April 11, 2003. •hW;V..
In addition, the Utility has contracted with four multi-edu customers in recent months
to connect new collection systems,to the Utility's infrastructure. Three have been
vacuum and one gravity. Based on the construction cost estimates provided by the
customers, it appears that the gravity system was more expensive per edu than any of .4
the vacuum systems just as we predicted. pypy , ' y,,y VitiritlIt
The number � tr - ��,�"'; x � ._�ti
of valve pits or buffer tanks is not the issue. The issue(lie flow ' t.f :;i -
introduced at these connections The mains and station were designed to accommodate x,'�.;
� M
the flows. The May 16 plans you refer to are a step in the design process and were Just <:::; 's.
one of the various design schemes we considered. You will notice the Master Main `_: : f.;,:. -V:::.:?,
Line Plan does not match the.�Piwq and Profile sheets The May 30 plansare the Final,�, , i Sri
Design and what was construete 1 . ir•''x.., -�:� :--,
3 d f 4�i'i r� NI-i".1 'J.Ij f,
{e At no point was the design driven by cost factors associated with the buffer tanks to ,';: ;fi; t:r .:�, :G,�.-.
,u:: :':.� if-
either the Utility or private property owner. rF "`,:.} , � ,
K, .:. r
, 9. Regarding the project specifications, and more specifically,the bid tabulation sheets it:: - . w
appears that no line items were provided for single- or dual-buffer tanks. Only vacuum ; � _
cc » cc » cc » cc rti.�.Ls�. 1f G
{ pit types A , Al , B , and C were included in the bid tabulation. Please clarify this f 1:14. 7,N,
g apparent inconsistency in terminology used for these system components.
', .Jib v k' t , ,ci c ;' �Y•blfrl,{;; ''2r
± Type "A"is a normal valve pit. Type "Al"is a short valve pit Type "B"is a deep valve: ^'.°`'`�". :``.''.'
?T=#k ` pit and type "C"is a buffer tank. = k
tr
r, a� a; ` 10. Please.provide a copy of Weiler's Probable Opinion of Construction Costs for the ='• �'>t,= .�r.V
;_:' .' project that was used to evaluate construction bids received in June of 2002. What . '4
Wli�4 process was used to track and update the estimated cost of the project as changes were ? _ ::: "':04..:'7
tt'�t .. ��" made to the design plans duringboth the design ;
.;,1,�}. � gn and construction phases. More ��,� ,.•,�.��:=.'..'
{'' 3�" I specifically, were cost reductions identified and enumerated by Weiler due to the changes `:P': `
a � '5 ;E a �.,' R
t ram, ,,�,,,yy ALE iTM2 4V :.:T± _'_• ✓. ..
y T�a� 1`j 1:�.`r
4 - :�._
! 3a," FS'r Letter to URS-10/8/2003
pf.L't � Sri Page 5 l' Fs ii 'r
•-{' .i "fir+ ..lti.,!: ..'_.4. r. V:.;..
noted between the May 16, 2002 (stamped May 21,2002) and May 30, 2002 set of design
plans before bids were obtained for the project?
Included,find our initial estimates and the estimate we used to evaluate the bids. The
impact of the buffer tank reduction on the cost estimate of the project is easily
calculated and we certainly tracked the changes. However, cost impacts were
ancillary, and the primary reason for any changes was to ensure the reliability of the
system and that the system was designed consistent with the manufacturer's
requirements and the Monroe County Ordinance regarding availability arJ fit_
�tJ ,
Cost reductions and additions were enumerated throughout the design process We do
not have a record of specific cost reductions between the May 16 plans and the May 30
plans as the May 16 plans do not exist;iand the plans dated May 21, 2002 were not
complete or ever considered for construction. }* .
11. As part of Weiler's on-site construction monitoring activities, how were Change
Orders and/or Credits managed between EW Resort Utilities and the Contractor? r4 6T =
Changes were always approved is the specified chain of command, sometimes verbally
due to the tune sensitive nature Of the construction process. We are in the process of ° ``'
ti
preparing a final pay request and balancing change order. Included, find a copy of thett
balancing credits and extras which wil be submitted with the final pay request p�-�▪ '_
a-t 'J, }J k,.
12. Based on review of the payment applications submitted by KW Resort Utilities to,h :.. .''C3,
Monroe County, there were two approved mobilization charges associated rith Pay ` .
Applications Number 1 and lumber 5 dated September 25, 2002 and Janu27,2b • i„ ;,.>�,4.
respectively. 3if..4t}'.M.� T ./ ° . ,;,.. ; '�i▪ "+ , .;•• .sf:7:
*-
Please indicate what specffictor costs were associated with each oi`-these 'p� ; �� �,▪ �, " ,.r�r
Mobilization charges submitted`f�or payment. .. _ • •
A section of the specifications specifically delineates what the mobilization charges air r `� �: �
� .,;:,
for. There are two separate submittals, because we bid it as two projects One for Phase2 � 4r�
E NV .y 1 and one for Phases 2&3. We just happen to have the same contractor for both � ,, �4 {
contracts.Ater bidding, we decided to negotiate with one contractor and during, . dmi, ,<t s;
.f :s negotiations, agreed to pay hun for both mobilizations - �t tt a ° u ,• `,,,?°` ,T
,f s'H 1 ' ., '? :;:*"._,(....11'. ',,;'' � ✓,
} _ 4 13. A preliminary quantity take-off estimate of keysystem components (i.e.,valve its r A,.'
14t 5, buffer ranks, and vacuum main lengths)was completed as part of the recent URS review • °*-`.: • t
� T • �
1• l Yr�.
e �Y �,; as indicated in the record drawings dated September 12, 2003. Please confirm the total : w ,
'•� actual quantifies of these components installed. +F. '`
x J Included i_nd the final adjusted quantities which will be included in the final pay • l_''. • " `-.
re uest. n r .:'' .,-,S
- ' ' ii. •ter iv. '_s �-'i:' ::, _ f s.k,..u-
.!.s.V.,'..5.44i.R.4.;1:+,:i 1 g;....-.;.,‘1I:;::?:0 f`.;41 ::!:,:::...:::.:.i ',k,.,'?1: .;:s.:.;.:1?..,„
.,;:-01%;, te144:544.e .-ii-.4'3:'•:A!).K04.,::,-.::.
brr Letter to URS-10/8/2003 �
.,:.:
:4-" :%.;W Page 6 ! #,} €�
?�.g.L :
-...1r,
14. Please indicate if Weiler has submitted the certified Record Drawings of the project
to the FDEP for formal permitting documentation. If so,has the FDEP provided
comments or indicated official approval of the Record Drawings?
:41•-'4 ,100.TA4.W.:ii*: ,4:'
We have submitted and the project has been approved. I have included copies for each.
Numerous references have been made to plans dated May 21, 2002 and referred to as
May 16, 2002 plans. Weiler Engineering has no record of transmitting plans dated May
16, 2002 or May 21, 2002 to the County or the County's Consultant. Weiler Engineering
transmitted plans to the County on March 22, 2002 dated March 19, 2002 for phase I and
dated March 20, 2002 for phase II and III and on June 11,2002 John Johnson, Elizabeth
Ignoffo and I met with Dave Koppell and Berry Rilard it.1,0 AM at the County
Engineering office and gave them May 30, 2002—:BID stT.-.pliaWfici went through the
plans with them. Later that day at the pre-bid meeting John Johnson asked that everyone
at the meeting(Dave Koppell was present) to make sure theywere using(lie plans . .,I.1
indicating BID SET. .. .. . ' ... '''-w,4".14t,i..",i. .. .%`-','''':.;--..'-'.'..t.i:;.--.:•''4..'-- t7,
*,,,.....g .,...V.-.1,4f$t6'...--'04-ii.t9r,
, , -.. ..' .:2.. .11*0-1;,,)•.;.....-.4.i'ilF,!:';5..!!h?,i4iIi.V.,.3.41:4....;..0.:::.;;-, .
,-.• .‘,.‘.. . ., • ,
Ken Williams of CH2MHill issued a letter to Mr. Tim McGarr's,of the County dated iiily,.:;:-/
11, 2002 referring to the Plans dated May 21, in which Mr. Willip*asked a number of
questions that are being raised today. Specifically, who was to pay for the internal
collection systems? Weiler EngineerinA.,was given the letter in Fetirifary, 2003. Shortl?'•753.;;','E" ..
after that, we provided Mr. Willianis';t1:-•Correct set of plans. Mr. Williams indicated to us :T7••',..,...
. ... ...
that he had not seen the May 30, 2002 plans prior to that. Subsequent to that, Mr.
Williams and the County conducted an investigation into whether the':design was fair an4...: S.:•-.;ii7.'''''..'..5.
equitable and it was determined to be fair and equitable to the residents of South Stock
Island. , :4.1..6i.--. 14?
.z., ....1*...., ,. . •-•.!-?:.::: . '-'1.Y.:1:-';'‘. ..:;::•'.1'.44:1?A•Wi!...4'.•....!•::•.?4...;..
0,k.4i,'..•:1;•:-':• ''..'; :::-1:','... ::::.'kAl' :•'-i•'''t.,f''...'...24:1'.1:'5 .':;:.: .
*'-;•ii.;,••• .i:".: 4114i'..kl... ..2-Y•AY:, '',.5:'-§le‘:'•-•'-:-.:
As we discussed, I will ofghtightlill of the supporting information ford
morning. elititik ' .••••'••.....i..... .,1,-;:i,i',;.79-,.-:.:::: :%.,- ...,.,..
..s.47.... •--.1-..--:'.'.frt.!:i!....:;-r.. '... .s.f4CV.:!:,!'.;•:'4,'?,f-i,4.!-:'5.. .•-- .....:'.•;..
. .,..,..-..,;-..-.:
'-.7.:;;:z.,-.."•... ..:,..:%-,-,.,..!.F. ...,,,.... .z..i,...;..:.:-...,.-;.!.-.-...
.-;..
1
s-:.4......1,..„.1.A,-..1 :4.?,....4,:•,..,. .44,-....,,. •,•,,,,;i74....,,il-4-...:,:. ...#,...-...,::',...-j,1.14::;'..5•4;]i4..1,)?';...-:,..
r A. As always,please feel free me a call if you have any questions or wis ski.•A,i,,,:,,,,,i t-,:k.7 *..:,..-.-!.4,44 .,....v4.;,..),,li,
these or any other -- ' 7),is iier.
... ,i::', .7,,,2.-.,• j.. "r,: •.IP• A.lis,•-"-.N,-
riti:-. . - --,L. -II,. :. . -1.-k".--.r.k.,:i'47.•!,.i
, .0,....t....!
v......., 42A„:..-•---,..., -., '...",'.-4.7.'..A.5.:Av
,,7.J.. ..-.,
•, , 3;;,,D4-:- 5n,:i4ia-r2k
lefift., .XA'' Nr;.,;',:':'' -• ..,4060 -",J •• .. :..,..,:t.if‘:,•‘"44,11,-;„ Sincerely, , ...,,...-g .,„.z-,:' •—•,..„..4s.p.!,.; ._.:„.•,... ,,•,-..s...,•:„..,
.„. ..„....,,, , . ..•::,„, . -st.....,•,",x-, •:„- -.-.;:s.•-if ,....,.--f...... -,,,,1!
• :.• .,........'"Af'';4: '.-1;'%-Kifr•??..:.'-'4 4 itistk.._ .
'I.4151iIII:::11 4:1 R. Je eiler'P.
't‘....",;;;{:"Y;;:•":`..:.:::4,Y*5;., .hi.'..'
:)f,'''A,;t''fzikr,tti..:i.. . •
I ,,,,•it t .- .:.,..1.:-. President • 1.,:i!,iiilY1S-.:1-•...i:ritN...::-.4:
n..i.;4.....4::;.1,;,,,'°":i.:2:!:`,,....1277'.:1...".:•4.1:LfW0i,i%:::;;76.A.-.T..44. The Weiler..gngineering Corporation ?..-•.?:!-........:-..4i,t,:o...i,,,!z..,.•:. :,:-.-..'-faiiktir,41
,,t,'•'..4b.i.:ItAV;t .-,•.-. t•Lkl*ItiP•;1 :7.'..Z;A.
:i...;fil. .Y''7.
."; tI:f*AYt;';.. -...q.,tkil. fi,:y:•,•A:•:? •i'...'..'..i.f!',.*:;.P4'.':::',:: ::,:s.-'•-,Z,
.1'.4.:•.•:::k4 ;4q1V14;!.•' ';..:'?o,14;•„V;;. .•\.;•.',.•-:.11;:'-•'::'
ir. F.....;--.. "{Pt !',.)•'; N'r''''''.:, ,it_17.1-. - • • -_-iLej: .! ..:,,,,,,,...- ii•:"....7.''' '‘••• .
3.3:0,9.'414 i.r. ' '•• Encl ./Y;•!••::::„;:.(.44,.•: :: '',.f';'' -•`.•-il•T?-;','V,,T'':
f7?i•••••-::'-:•'-';'';:: • .• 7"'.'-''''.::!•:t17;....);
1,.704C: "'„+.-4.•:;••:.-i•:•g,'7:•••1•••...:..) .1-• -;:cilt,_•it'
---te'.9‘•••,, Rf:::;. .'''
'1:P.,',t' i•,':::'!:1-`...f, 'Cc i• .Willialif Smith, P.A.
-.-....t.,4t....7t:;,:!,-*:::-.., ..:,..:... '.::....7/-....7§W.:r:•:. ";
•rri-9. 4,- ...1.:,:;:.;
^:i:1:;;;.:z74:
;
. 1:,:,;s.......
• Letter to ORS-10/8/2003
*-1r,••
-e,....„-.,!;;;.:„..,,.-, ,,,,▪ Page 7
r
i;:.tai;!;.;(4%*it:.. . -,.. , '; .*:-.;r.r.• .2
;.W..::.0•,-.24;,..:1',11,STe-'4,--:.; .:,:'
'.••*:0;..,i.'1:.
Irrn..::...'!;::!;;;Pitft.,....9.-.?e.-,:si;',.il-. :•a..
Field Notes
Project Orientation Meeting with Monroe County
September 18, 2003
The following notes were taken during initial meetings with Monroe County officials prior to
field inspection of recent construction work related to the project.
> KW Resort Utilities is the entity, which operates the Stock Island WWTP and collection
systems. They also own and operate the golf course located on Stock Island.
> The Sanitary service hookup to the jail already occurred.
> KW Report Utilities proposed expansion of the sewer system on Stock Island.
> Weiler Engineering Corp. (Weiler) was contracted by KW Resort Utilities to prepare
design/construction documents and provide field services for the new sanitary sewer system.
Mr. Ed Castle of Weiler served as project manager and certified the record drawings.
> CH2M Hill previously developed the Monroe County Utility Master Plan. CH2M Hill is
also under contract with the Keys Aqueduct Authority.
> Ken Williams of CH2M Hill (located in the Key West office) was retained by George Garrett
of Monroe County to review plans prepared by Weiler Engineering Corp. for the new
sanitary sewer system that would serve south Stock Island.
> Project permitting was conducted in or around March 2002 through the FDEP Marathon field
office. Mr. Gus Rios was the FDEP reviewer.
> Bidding was not conducted under standard public bid rules.
> A set of plans was prepared and received in the middle of May 2002 (Le., the May 16th Plan
Set). This was the set of plans that was reviewed and approved by the BOCC for $4.6M.
> A second set of plans was delivered in late May 2002 which were to be used for construction
(Le., the May 30th Plan Set). The BOCC met to approve a date change to the plans, but were
apparently unaware that any substantive changes besides the plan date occurred.
> The project was developed to be executed in two phases, however, no separate construction
phases occurred.
> The system was apparently installed on-budget and ahead of schedule.
> County did not have direct construction oversight during the project.
> A set of field drawings reflecting as-built information was submitted in October 2002. A
final set of record drawings was recently submitted on September 12,2003.
> Clark Briggs of Monroe County will assist URS in accessing and inspecting portions of the
newly installed sanitary sewer system.
> The County requested an ordinance review regarding service location connection points.
Two ordinances exist; one from 2000 and a second recently issued in 2003.
> Jim Roberts, County Administrator will be out of town between September 2300 and 30th,
returning October 1st. The Coun~ requested a report regarding findings from URS be
provided no later than October 10 , 2003 for review by the County and other interested
constituents.
> The County provided a series of documents to URS during the field visit. A complete list of
documents is attached for review. Documents included various correspondence, contractor
payment applications, pay applications to the engineering firm Weiler for field services, and
a series of drawings that were prepared and submitted for the project.
> Refer to handwritten field notes taken by David Burgstiner of URS for additional information
collected in the field on September 19, 2003.
. s hck:XS)~Jt'd P"lE'
AC(j~c::.1- : ~ S/oc/=
Ro~'Vc f:JL . .
J.aC"'Qh~: Sbc;:b
tut!'~fA,/~' &f~.
ft~: .~d.~1
J;;sk/h
. . Ve-"t'"~q-p?
O~~
efcr St'Pt,/9,2a:J.s
l~/Jd ~/$;sJ~ t=~/u~~
J~",o! ~~~)(?"S:
~~;7 117 .[jbsIlCUl~"
;? .I~d~.s-;~ ~~~m
~~7Jr/?i c::;/ ~ur
~.,.... .s;..y);, c- ($i)Sk-IJ$/~
03:~~ .A,/Jy;....Q.... l~.::z$,4Hc:I ~M::PF
~~/ d C. . ~): &/?~.J' A(~t.'~ ~~ . .
! ". '~;'jr. --.. .',>? ,d/' .../~ : ~:s :
'" . . . ;.. ..A ~_.'-C.. _.. ,. ~bt::)
. P"""",:" ;L "1.foli4r. ts. ~A'~ ..J1W . .
p:<vld...ddr~.I~ :.u.o...~.s><_ r~A]
';k,M,;d~~q-! '~VR$ ~~;q k-/
cJ!-;. ih-". d"'-.... . .~~U,p? ~a.t/"r sysl."
" C"~hP~~d~:4 (.?;f;./kc/ &? ~ p~Af
.. :::Q~..- 'n~. ~ ~~:6.."" =-~p.,....-?,kP/r(t:
. ..-.1..:.... . ~d ,<" J '~C' ~--;i- €Pb.q,
- .c'C:;:>h~~~~" -:..... "'r".&J~'J ....~'r:. .....r-
. 0 .qL-(~#ar ~pJh. ./ap-). ..... ...
.~ 'J!~C~~~'_~~;',."':~o?r .l44f~11 (u/~.b;~~):'.
- W.W. .R~~~ill9_#-..~ ,M~~. ~ .lkp)~ ft~f?~1t
..- Q, :'<C),efI!/:/5-:... .~. ."... " Vc;;.t.t II- (11/ .,:;?Ap;-s /N~)
-.r V4L'~~d7" {1=k. . /" 1Iet-&( Ir O/'~/d$.. .
'. - .V4(""~H#1, 3~ .~ E>~J)JJ!J (<<14 fl~l'1Jr'>)
. .. i- II",..",....., ...,..,.,,,;4:"....""" .. . ""::"'.... /6":-:' ~ ~
~r S~~}.r.sl~H.
;. O1:C!>O
!..
,
:
,.
,. .
09'
. I
.\
;;
f ~
[ .
i
f :
.....
. '
" .
" .
.... : '.,
..
,I
U/t'/c. .
R.~ ?~
~.)~ ~ ::S-/oCk..:1$-)"Hd
.t<<t'/c
5)~'/~~3~'
a
;I:...,.-.;}
~4 . ....&-l/
.3kk
.J/~.s
,f ~'. ~
. '.1 ._.
,F..t~..1 8zt .J)J,/
F/-s V4'.Jyt'
r'?-l ~.mt'
F 3- -1 gufJA,~ .
.Ff-.3 V4" )1'-('
1=.?-10 . V~)V1"
~hv+.
::r;, e: - 1-" : .
. t::"7.? l-' r
Z~c'''? i/7" . .
A C!: I-/v-r:-
J~hvt"'" .
J-f. . L~~b)v<,..
~ 2- I.
EI-S-
AS--~
. 'C.~;..z
'.V?-Z'
'". .D;J~ '$ .
l/e:;.)Y"f!
. 1/ M . ""..... ..-...---.....-. "....:--."" ".---..... -"--...
~/:..~/I* L/l~drL'c.. (4)
. .
8~fJIJ" .:. ~).' ';--;~~hy~:"
l?km-r ... AA J;;~.t.Yr':. C..:?)
. 8'UJ#.~ : v,?).. .:r;,4~~Y~
~e?c-.J;y~.
. At::" 1-; Y' -r-
. ~ --. cr) (4)
.(3)"
($)
. (S-)
"
. .D.J- 2
.?-
. .
;..DJ-J
"c~_&
;,. . ..~ -:-r
~::..r:5~q
. .
. ..:..', .'
Vet:, 11(<'. 71..
" . &~Mi :'~;'L ::cn~a4Yr-
~:.8uP;;... ",)C Y7?4C'hr- .
VaJv~ '. .-'1'1 . :L~4C' b~~'
8~M/ ~"9
l-+vt' d I
l/. /y-< d- I
~)
/
~
/..
,
;.
'>
.'~
~ -.-
5~
~
(t;
02
U~
~:-..
(:l)
(J)
(1)
(~-) .
~
~);~~. (t)
h.~... .
hyr ." . ....
b-k/!'.. ..... . . .
J-;v.~, .'" .... ".
:J.:. v.~. .. .... '" '.,.
:;g~- _~i2H ..
I rl _
..~.L") .. ._~ ._ _ . ,
.. . -.. ...
tiJk .
:5~-7S~~t:I .~~c $"~cr ~~. /~.:z;t;";.?~.
6;-) J..;~-t"/5 =>"U//k . J <7"-'7 j2'e;/1 n;',vs 0
(.{' /:J ('t? '5)1- / j .? '.' e:I. '7"/ . / 1 J. .. ~. /
-b/l@C/.. r- ,e:-,h:r~ ~. ~r~t('..1'd cY~M/7~
JJC:WdJ 44} <<"-4. ,,6 /??,p/? A../r .(cpr-/J
W'Y/7CA. ).,..... pi 1#7";''#.Ab.k /kn if,- ~
o ...~.I. Fi,,-Id cJbs:-/.. '-k.bd-s :<;E ~ks.. ".
(i.) Dl-fI'/NJ,..'{1,;/J In''.. .'fr~Y1~ I ~rzh/;'
. IOt!"~IIIvt?AS 4/CJ1 . ~~t""'.r Thns JfJ1vI;J .
Tr-~4""n ~/?,?4. d ~ dr:-;{;..("~/~.J-/Q>1
:YfJ d rsh",br*"d c?/".-~.s 0 7;1~c:;/~c?-S" .
. ./11 (".~qdr'd? ~~,L " ,L- 0m/k/ ;h.,' ~
. /}7Ir/S'-C""h~>> .. . Lc::;u,r-}tv-r: <!j:~JiL
. C:;.I1d .~Qh/'c.. '. 'Wr."'~ /~d. '." :~.c:rlp/7 1> .
~. ,J/(... . t!f
4-J?C/".-Sr . . 0" . .
~""
C2' .z;' . . : ~f"" ... ~'J A'/?' :J;J.'i ,'.1"'. .
'-.J. . ,l/)C'"e?r/tt'~..'.. . .Q/.../../.~ .~'/?d.~
~rrf 4- .: ~6 ~ Sl-I:IIJ...~~~+ ~h.~/J.:.b~ . ..
'. r$-r-:7 .4d~."P ll?-t'-'p/I.Jk~lel~.R-/~
..G)Alil/"cpkn /J1Hhp(,"dink/Ohvi; <::.bIer
~)Jrj~t ~h;'~/vr-f/h ;lo'"4<e(iw..!f" .
1)1 ~d' J/.vr bu . Y:MA'ks C::;~~/.I7L
.. //lC'C!!"/rr'~,!. /.d~.. . (i~); ~.s- 4:: b.~f.H/.4)k. .
. C'!}7- q ~ ip:f;:ch~. :. V~/y;' R;)." F.?-.4: J,." J
c::;cfl",y J"/;II/#/ . ~~: &I~.) . . . .
. .
.. (;1)Alc.r1yct fr.-,IL d:s/IVJ:-h,....h drW>>"aY!.S
:.' . h/r/t' /.A'.sk~~' 4clry'" 1;&1"1' $"'///c',r'" .6/?"A:
: cO'/11?Jrky';~:.,r/d. pr'~Ky.
~ ' C>) _ Jco,d,~ ~l?./ a... . , 01/< &. ler p.,,1 JlQ~ r",N ...
~t
.j:.
J .
.\
aCJ:::tSIQAc{, P?<~~<f ~. /~~
U) ~ ~ .1 i ./ d{A/k,~,'~11/5 if~'4.J.bh~.
7p<.:~ ~O, !'. . . I, 1'1 /J! ' j
I~:~ qu~/~;:/7.?Jt'C~<::7 f.--w=t4"'---""-
~~~//~.!ot?~ fiY/"r-~..4u;
~d ~~ o./( UI~/ - Y'...-'~(f;'J
S>~P?-+ d # //l#f'd.rc ~ ~/~.sr.&C'
~ /,)i9'~//'" .ir;~'I- UPS'" /..-Ph)v"-..-.J'
A1~. ~.tlfc ~;"V-cV 4111 ~~4A-'" -
/<lf~/~~ ':'I'~ Q/?1'r$"/1 c::;4 ~ ~4:
<?fc/ .f1'':'//':>I',...:I ~ ~k.a-~
~/ fl//(/,/?;I- ~6~~~ 74'/~
/f ?f'J-f: I ! I
! . Af(~ ~",J+ CV,.-,fr-/ l,-.?~
,I. 11y~;L!/2 ~J~ ~..b~~f~~'
;. h'~c/:ir 4dV'~.af aI-:;:Y?/7<:F
"i rr?'~{ ?)J~.s. ~U'b~;tk'~~~
i" rrc-h/J/J" / ~r-~/f~~jr if ~/; ~C
I .d~hk'-'V ~/;?.r ~~9"}Lftr/~
~""r~ ~ ~~~ ?(V,$.,.-!kd)..r
~n ~ ..bH-----., $" ~r7 ~ PR~Ir/ .
h~d hi b~ /rdh'r'rl/ 6""'~.#/.r
/t/o/{1 ~~~~/h dffr4'A.L~ .
~~.-1k1 )Ik~ ~/?~vt"',lar q r'47J
.q~?-J.v:5 4 ~r6bJ !Lf/r4
~>>.c$ ;b 1~~J.bc?"? r~.1?1'
~+. j ! I'
I I '.1 . !
" .?Rrt"'/~I'J pb/1.d.J~ ~ _.
'A{~ /6, ~1. h4S J.t !rqfS'~/i/~J
?d~1 ;c.-C-;5/~'-dl dCf,{-~ cf!
M4y' ~/~2. ?f~~ ~ p<?J7
~ ~ --f 4"'r/~ .M'~,f ~~ eM
! At~vLo...2..ra1 ~.kJ.S"~/ d/-t'
Cr..(~ ~4 d h< ...5"l::?A.t~.
7c1l
Is.
J 3~
G
M
,:~~
~!:h
g~1"I
e? C?"
.J.-" En
I~
7 J?1c
"
~~*,e/ _ R:j 7=fi7--Y~.:l27~ .
7~:~ ~:~~sj;;~~si;
~ ~.?)c-.u p~u 4:/d/i.... ..
J;Jl.~?oL;/1cJ, ~. .
. .
8.'/5 . /?"b/4d .. /r'ln1l~~/Gii)
U/k/T'p . ...../;: ~ /. ~~/. .
g.hck5 '.P"'r-h<<??jq}? 40?/~_1
@. ~4'd -/- Si~ ("'S~C:- ?k~b ~
.'
1 3~ $'0 D~~rI- 5)" ..:Es }4;' J .~l?d g.k/~ ;
.' h ~~~.~d/m"Y,7.. .~~~;6 '. 1
fiy,...k?/~~' .~~/t(' A?ch".4 .?~Q\4/~ ~
pk~~. .~.:. . .L>>-:>d-;p~./c
. .. .... . '. . ~ ~ . ,'. ". " ., . '. .
I : .
"<".
.t;
~
-..: J'
.~
~"....
~4:
....-
~
1.
f;. :
r
, .
~
~
~c.
~'t':':
Is . >/1 '.. t;: "~';~77;'';&~'''rl?'/~
k/ ,,?:,,/<< M, .... '[)" 7")- ,,?...~p&~S. .
I.(~-r M . - .\~/,~/-,~. :.': . ~~;.~ ". ... . .;;p
. . ~1')Jt'...., Am, .. _". .. ...w,. . p~ .
'l>I~;'~JI'~~~dJl ~t" .,a.Ad/!1L,,~g~4'ffI
as ~l.)l1f 7ft.,.,.;II '.. "~~pi(~" 1'#s 1<$,2~
'?- ~~rly' .fJ~,,/d ." ~ . '~IJiiJf1t,,~o<f'r~~~-?6 .
t <;1.,. r I:. Jm1Jf . . . r,.. .1/.. &74 '; i::1Jr""~$??.!?'f p(;
.f.:,. :8,/2 .M?~~ A 1.( V4l?~,.. .~..,w;, r<h. ~Q::23:-!4~
(, I;;:I('''ISII~ <~~~~2.HtJ~i4-K?",.it1r:.J1-f~
(wirJ:?.ch.,.,.j (1))114. N<?f?'bir. a ~ A&,i,I
~J7
elL
~._ L_~..:_ :
J.
<
II
Ji
/,
:r~ rJdY ~~ .
fit:'
L
16of'.' ~J~.J!
Ir
~(
.'f,
"i.
....:
I
17 -k_' 1-;'
-..~~\
j
..
-L~h(" ~
441q
<i45CJ
1z;sl
4432
-4453
<J.45/f
C:::;~5S
CJ43C
4157
445&'
11?:i
-: </41:0
44(1
4462.
416g
1461
#~S
41CG
44b7
*'6
;>l4c
~
~
~~
~-~
H
'I
f "":J?~Jii?d.~
... ~__ _ .'__ ou__ ._.
..
:S-~k:.:rsf;d . '1c#Cf s:; ~~:2r73"
, Ph,/G ~ - G/?~/?P'"d
--L4::/e--K ~ 5u~ L~ /J::~~e'I'JP;"A?
441 q R:o., ~Vi ~//- ~b/"~ ~~/~
<14 a::> V 4'G(I{'" t4 IN' p/ I- ~D S'}bo ~~
4!)L(si ,1" r It JJ
4452 B,..fJl /" 7q. k :CD ::r" Ic/,~#'
-4453 V4ll(lfn \I" Yf! Pif :rp S;/~Lc:rdt';"'~
445/f If ~ I' I' :Z:-~/l~
~4SS-'~ . " ~s;,JfC'~
<:::J43t ~vrnY~ J?skr*"f-h:n /
.449 .ya;/fl~ T/f:J4}/IU' / fllf/~~~:5
-44~ SF~ l/c -U~"j/#';H ,q/~ (~*,I'~
4m " /f /f,r Je '"
< <44(;0 )! 1#,,, 14:0"....... ......t/ ~R-.p &/U/J?r1i/'~k
44&/ ~"'/N4S'~ V ~~l'~q,l1bNlksZ" lUJdTP)
4462. 6?h,.de!"r- 4:/~ ~ ~t'~k~ ?btr~~
11~ SJy~f (?~ -vWkJ!P'(4 K>~}(~
T7C'7 i<0 ~ t/hl,fv ~,/nC3 ~1r4'H#!'~
1ttt ~W;~/;'f ...Io;~h}.4~, N
41b7 .., .M~~~ Y1r; ~in. ~/r-..5
f~ 5J~ ~ I /Gr Ur-s~ !Z
* . ~ d "c.-/l ~ch .4:>
~ Pj;,-;"'/ aAW~ I ~ 4'" 7/.;4-~
/7~/':>r'*:/ ?/7~ ;b ~k 'b~h~..
r j/'n-~ qJ ~ 4'//)?.)~h.3
~.s~c:I ~b.:s'~ h,;-t!'~ ~ kk/{ hv-"'~
#J-s: /<7~+ '>;;~j,~~r" pa:,3:
~ 9/Jrk
U~l'M ,.
6>
MONROE COUNTY
FLORIDA
\" '.
~~~.....
/""'"
".Jtt. "...:....
... ....
JAMES L. ROBERTS
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
11JE fUSTOIlICGATOCIOARFACroRY PH: (3OS) 292-4441
1100 SIMONTON STREET, SUITE 20S FAX: (30S) 292-4544
KEY WEST, FLOlUDA 33040 e-IIIlIiI: robens-james@monroec;o-fl.com
.
MONROE COUNTY
FLORIDA
y~.-
...... ........:....
....-
DENT PIERCE
DIRECTOR OF PUBUC WORKS
1100 SIMONTON ST..IlOOM 2-231
HISTOIUC OATO CIOAIl FACTOI,Y
KEY WEST, FLORIDA J304CJ
.~~
l.
. PH: (305) 292-4560
(30'>743-0079 EXT.4560
(305) 152-1469 EXT. 4560
1CEYWEST,n.
M30 Fnet &net
Key West, FL33040
(305) 2tS.3301 p.
(.315) BS-OIO ru
(.315) 481-41347 eel
PORTCIWlI.OTTE,n.
2882. Veterau
S.lte 7-9, ZIp 33954
(941) 764-6oW7 p.
(941) 7~15 ru
MONROECOUNTY y..".
FLORIDA ~:..."""-
BERRY B. RIKARD, JR P.E.
DESION ENGINEER
6>
1100 SIMONTON STREET, 1M 2.215
KEY WEST, FLOlUDA 33040
HDIil:~-ft.goY
.
1100 Simonton Street
Room 2-215
Key West, FL 33040
PH; (3OS) 292-4426
FAX: (30S) 295-4321
Monroe County
Florida
~
#
".". /-
Clark W. Briggs
Engineering
PH: (3OS) 292-4426
Fax:(305) 295-4321
E Mall: mccog2@mlJl.l1atc.fI.us
ARWC
The World Leader in
Vacuum Sewer Technology
CORPORATE Of'FICE
4217 N. Old us 31, P.O. lox 528
Rochester, IN <46975 U.s.A.
Phone: (574) 223-3980
Fax: (574) 224-5566
Web: www.ailvac.com
Field Note Summary
Stock Island Sewer System Evaluation
Field Date: September 25, 2003
Puroose:
Supplemental site visit to verify presence and burial depth of vacuum
mains and service laterals.
10:30 a.m.
· Arrive at Site and meet with County personnel including Clark Briggs. Ed Castle
of Weiler Engineering present at time of visit. Also present was Nancy Brooking
of the FDEP (Marathon field office).
· Discussed with County proposed work to verify sewer depths. Previous list
developed contains random locations for possible investigation. Will only need to
verify a portion of the vacuum main and service lateral locations proposed on the
list. Will select those locations that are already disturbed versus locations where
new pavement anellor conflicts are present. Not all locations on the list need to be
field verified.
· Following table summarizes the results of the field investigation:
Summary of Sewer Burial Depths
Time Location Vacuum Main! Approximate Depth Notes
Service Lateral (inches below 2rade)
11:00 Suncrest Road Al-13 Cleanout =33 1
11:45 Suncrest Road LineAl =44 2
12:10 --- --- --- 3
12:15 Hallericbl1lt Avenue B21-Al Cleanout =44 4
12:55 Laurel Avenue El-6 = 15 5
13:15 - --- - 6
16:00 Laurel Avenue Line El =30 7
16:10 -- --- --- 8
16:40 Pennisula Avenue Fl-4 Cleanout =40 9
16:50 Pennisula Avenue Line Fl =35 10
17:00 Sunshine Street C2-1 Cleanout 1 =43 11
17:00 Sunshine Street C2-1 Cleanout 2 =68 11
17:00 Sunshine Street C2-1 Cleanout 3 =35 11
Notes:
(1) Relocate proposed dig location #1 to east end of Suncrest where cleanouts are installed.
Verified depth of6" diameter service line via a 4" cleanout. Measured to service invert and
subtracted 6" to approximate top of pipe depth.
(2) Groundwater intrusion prevented visual confirmation of pipe. Metal probe used to verify
pipe depth.
(3) Heavy rainfall event commenced during departure from Suncrest to next location. Rain event
continued until about 12:40.
(4) Verified depth of service via 4" cleanout. Tap verified pipe invert at 46" below grade.
Subtracted 6" to approximate top of pipe depth.
(5) Prior to dig, URS confirmed with Ed Castle of Weiler regarding approxiate location of
service lateral and vacuum main. According to Castle, vacuum main should be around 30
inches below grade and the lateral should be around 20 to 22 inches below grade. During
dig, encountered flowable fill in a relatively large area and during removal of fill, damaged
service lateral E1-6. Depth of service lateral was higher than anticipated at only 15" below
local grade
(6) County Commissioner George Neugent arrives at site and introduced himself. Minimal
conversation occurred. Left site around 13:30.
(7) The cleanout at F1-4 (1 of 2) was checked to verify depth of service pipe. Measured 46" to
service lateral invert. PVC threaded cap at cleanout not glued and came off during
inspection
(8) Dent Pierce of Monroe County arrives at site. URS briefs Dent regarding field results..
(9) Per Chris Johnson of Weiler, vacuum line F1 should be 13 feet off road centerline and at a
depth of approximately 36" below grade. This information was confirmed correct.
(10) Apparently there are three cleanouts served by vacuum pit C2-1. One of the three services is
relatively deep at nearly 6 feet below grade. Middle cleanout is missing valve lid and
support ring.
(11) Subsequent to earlier rain event, intermittent rain occurred throughout remaining afternoon.
URS terminated inspections after excavation of vacuum header F 1 due to saturated soil
conditions and water ponding. Lightening also occurring periodically, making unsafe work
conditions.
17:10
· Completed inspection work and left site. Light rain continuing. Refer to photo
log for additional field documentation.
~. ~ILt.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
JttIy 5, 2002 I
Mr. TlmMo(l~
Division of Growth +agement
Momoe County I
2798 Overseas Hl~w,y, Suite 420
Marathon, Meri4a a '50
Subject: I<W Re,s.\kItU "tie$ Wa.,tewater Collection System Expansion
,. . ~
i ';(.f
!
~
./ -.....
/
~ to 5th Street
fY West. F'L 33()40-S835
'305,294;1645
! .
. '1':306.294..913
I
j
I
!
Dear Tim:
I
We haye ntct4e;a .S.". r.e~iew ~ffhe d.rawings for the pFOposed vacuum s . ~er
system~pansiea!L;<'" .. 0bs.~l.lS are summarized below. :
1. It .pe::::l:' ..... ::sy.s.ktms..that are<aln'ently connected to ,pack .
at&,~,:pra',' ' " .: ~~ ~~t$ho the.new vacuum sewer system by me ;' ofbulf$f
tanks, a ~lll! , ': ,ea.f cll>~()n to a vacuum system for larger cance ,flratea
flows. ItWoUfll'be. neficial if I<W Resort Utilities would confirm this an ,identify
the bu6~r ~s w. ere th~se ,connections ar-e to be made. .
2. Are the .pJ&poloed . uIfe..:tanks always immediately adjacent to the waste (atar.
treatmant,~ ". ',' .',' ~,()r pumping sta1.iOJ.ltS to be ~handoned? : .
3. How '.e.fIte. bt.tiIiet taniks to: be paid for? We did not see a unit price for b ':fier
~:~tifi~ _BldPiQp.osal. .;
4, it.i$~iiJt6....tf"_.. . ,-ar."ft:~&iy 1,77S exi&ting equivalent dwelling ,Wts
(El),U$l'(.Kw : .' ..tJ.tfti_t..tet$hHh~ as.eq:uivaIent residential conn bions.
. '. . I
[BRe&}};t.hat_eb.. .".tved by. cent:ralsewel'S. ! .
5. It is alsO p~ect<<d. at."t&Jdm,tely 1,000 BOUs will ~(')n.t\ect within on L year,.
with the Waftoo~ '0Jilllact0'VeJ' the next five years (155 connections per ~r). .
Where at~ 'these" EDU&that will €OMect over the ne.xt five years? : '
6. There are 1(!)U:r at'.ea withirt the limits-of the proposed sewer SY'6tem exp ,'ion
with the note, "Are Requ#ed to.b1staIllnternal Vacuum Tanks". ExacUy 'hat i~
reqiuJed, who is l'EJ p.Ons:U,le for both installing the internal vacuum tanks ~nd the
the associated costs1 when will this work be dGne, and how many BDDs a ie in
these areas? . .
7. Review of the drawings indicates there are other smaller trailer parks.. so e
housing areas., and ~ther al'eas that do not have vacuum sewer facilities (v c~ urn
valve pits) adJacen~ to the properties for easy connection to the new vacu ,m ').
sewer system. Howlwill these areas be connected to the new vacuum colle ,tion
s~s.tem expansion? I
!.::'.'
:1 .
:j
; ,
\. 1
I
I
I
i
i
i
I
I ~.
I
I
I
,
~
t'
..,.--.'"
Mr. Tim McGarry
July 5, 2€)02
Page 2
There are only 87 acuum valve pits included in the Bid Proposal for all
pha$f\s.CQll8id' ': 'I,th,ebtUfer:tanks used for connecting the approxim
EDUs'currentl1<() pat$age>pJantS: (theco~tributingfJow from bufferta .
lbnitedin it'"a.' .' ,sewer sy~teJn), the 87 vacuum valve pits appear to
TheteartaWy.1s 'gQ.Od;d..~.reas()n for the low number of vacuum v
but therea&f>n-ls. 0t ~'P,.~tto,us.
It is my un4.... ,.na'U:hree:o.ftbe bids received on June 27 were just sbtly
abo'Ve.the'$4~600~ . ,. .tej'81l~;fhat1~W Resort Utilities expects to have ~gQ~
a COJ\tra~ pltce'~f,6t. ,~OOO"wi~ OM of the-~ Ioweat bidders by the Jul l7 BOCc
Dle.ca$tg.ln~'.W Ji;t!le*_;Of)Q is a ,reasonable price for the work in ,tved. .
The lact._ttlie- thlee low.tbicild.ers were within about five percent of each ~'..ther al$o
confitms'thatthe'$4;..' : ,OOO!sa tea$.onable price. ~
~8.
Please let"me know ,h. you want to prooeed from here. Except for July 8 ',-9, I am
available to m.eet'With the County I and KW Resort Utilities, if you desire, at our
convienee. Inth.,. ,time, f~l&ee to call me with any questions or comm
, .
i
i
I
I
!
j
I:
I
I
i
. I
I
I
~
cGe4)J!ge'.Garrett.