Loading...
031486-Special Session374 MINUTES City Commission, Sanford, Florida ~rch 14: 19 86 The City Commission of the City of Sanford, Florida, met in Special Session in the City Hall in the City of Sanford, Florida, at 1:00 o'clock P. M. on March 14, 1986. Present: Mayor-Commissioner Bettye D. Smith Commissioner John Y. Mercer Commissioner Milton Eo Smith Commissioner David T. Farr Commissioner Bob Thomas City Attorney William L. Colbert City Manager Frank A. Fais°n City Clerk H. N. Tamm, Jr. Also Present: SEMINOLE COUNTY Commissioner Bob Sturm, Chairman Commissioner Sandra Glenn Commissioner Barbara Christensen Commissioner Bill Kirchhoff Commissioner Fred Streetman Ken Hooper, County Administrator Nikki Clayton, County Attorney Jim Bible, Director of Environmental Services Woody Price, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT SERVICE AleX Alexander Bill Bostwick CAMP, DRESSER & McKEE Dave Wright Zake Fuller The meeting was called to order by the Chairman. The Chairman announced this was a continuation from the February 6, 1986 joint meeting. Jim Bible reported Seminole County had been working to come up with a concept that could be implemented and/or shared with the City of Sanford and the City of Lake Mary on a regional wastewater program, and further, that Consultants Ken Dresser and Keith McKee are present to discuss in detail recommended program for effluent disposal and treatment at the Yankee Lake site. Mr. Bible introduced Dave Wright and Zake Fuller from Camp, Dresser and McKee for the presentation. Mr. Wright explained his firm had been involved with Seminole County for the last three an~ a half months or so, working with the County on their continuing efforts for a master planning in the wastewater treatment and effluent disposal in the Northwest service area of the County. They have had a couple of opportunities to meet with Sanford's representatives in the last several weeks, and given them some briefings on how far they have come on some of the program on common aspects they have developed. Their original assignment had been to investigate the Northwest service area at the Yankee lake site, specifically for the service related needs of Seminole County. As they got into to the study, the question came up regarding the potential of Sanford joining with Seminole County and more fully utilizing the site. With that in mind, they redirected some of their efforts, looked at the impacts that they would deal with for Seminole County and Sanford and the other municipalities to more fully utilize the development capability of the site. Their initial assignment was to look at the site primarily for what treatment plant could be built on the site, and what was the capability for effluent disposal. They designated three areas as A, B, C, and soley for the purpose of sizing the potential for the facilities and earmarked 40 MGD as a reasonable upper limit to determine space. They found that they did have three areas that offered potential for that space development, and then MINUTES City Commission, Sanford, Florida March 14, 375 19 86 movinG back into the phased program for Seminole County, they then earmarked the area required for their Phase I facility which was called "5 MGD"; and that was done under the premise that it was soley for the benefit of Seminole County, not considering other municipalities. They did look at, and realized they had the space available for upwards of 40 and beyond MGD with the space that existed on the site was useable for physical plant consturction. So if Sanford were to come in, it would not effect their analysis whatsoever. At the present time, none of the three sites have been designated as the selected site. They are currently working with Seminole County Staff to determine what would be the best site for them to develop that facility. Moving from the treatment plant facilities, they had then been requested to move through the site to determined what its capabilites were for effluent disposal. With that in mind they started by taking a look at with what they call "The Sanford System" (a name that has developed over the years in regards to a proposed method to effluent disposal) and it became apparent that it would be advantageous to take a Good hard look at it in terms as opposed to re-inventinG the wheel. As they Got through the system, there were several concerns raised that were based on.a process of treatability of the liquid that is to be used through that system, and some of the cost related concerns that they saw in the costs presented. They have concluded that that would not be the most technically viable or cost effective method to pursue, so they have not recommended that system to their client. Conversely what they have done, they have Gone back and esentually renalysied the site, they brought on board Dr. Ronnie Best from the Center of Wetlands at the University of Florida, who is a noted expert in the this field in the State of Florida. What they found was what they had previously designated for rapid infiltration can and will be developed as rapid infiltration. They concluded based on their rapid infiltration from the former studies, the limited capabilities here is 2 million Gallons a day of effluent disposal capability. That takes into account concerns that have been brought previously by DER and the environmental Groups and providing the necessary underground flow-blockers that proclude any movement in the liquid towards Yankee Lake and also proclude any movement of liquid towards Sulfur Creek and the Wekiva Basin. Therefore, 2 MGD is the only rapid disposal infiltration capacity that they feel comfortable presenting to their client. Moving into the site-proper itself, they broke the site down into three destinct zones; Zone A is their upland hammock zone that moves from elevation 30 to the Bermzone which is about elevation 10; on the North side of the berm zone, moving North, they defined another zone as Zone B which is another hydro-hammock zone but at lower elevations at slightly higher water level; and finally Zone C in the upper North section, a large Marsh type area which transgresses from the East side of the area to West corner of the site to the berm area by the St Johns River. The investigations that they and Dr. Best have done fit the developable capability of Zone A between elevations 30 and elevation 10 moving North to have a range of about a range of 8 to 9 million Gallons a day, and that was designated by Dr. Best investigations both for hydro-loGic factors and environmental factors. Moving North to the berm the area would be developable under the current FDER regulations as at pristine wetland to a range of MINUTES City Commission, Sanford, Florida March 14, 19 86 about two inches per week and give about two or three MGD of effluent disposal; Zone C which is the Marsh zone is a more complex area, the disposal capability is unknown. Again what they have concluded so far is a effluent disposal of 2 million gallons a day of what is no discharge; 8 to 9 millions gallons a day in Zone A; and 2 to 3 MGD of disposal in Zone B. They have taken a look at the disposal capability from several view points, first there were concerns raised of whether or not they could put into that area anything but AWT (advanced wastewater treatment effluent). From investigations with Dr. Best, it is inappropriate to discuss anything at this time but AWT and could not support the AST (advanced secondary treatment effluent) and will only stand behind AWT at the site at this time. Concerns about the nitrogens, nitrates, phospherous removals are such that the data they have available and Dr. Best presented, indicates that his firm could not conclusively guarantee to their client those levels would be reduced to the levels required by the regulatory agencies. So going back and trying to rehash the Sanford system they concluded that the advanced secondary wastewater effluent was something they could not support and recommend to their client. So they are not supporting AST (advanced secondary treatment effluent) and they are supporting and standing behind only the AWT to that site. They are now finalizing their assesment to the site, proposing a 10 MGD system on the site; attempt to continue their efforts with Dr. Best on Zone C; but they do feel that the accumlative capability of this area which is the RIBS (rapid infiltration basins), Zone A and Zone B, coupled altogether would give a range of 12 to 14 million gallons per day of effluent disposal, given that the product is a advance wastewater treatment effluent. Mr. Wright explained hydrocyanic, as defined, describes the plants, plants species, the hydrogeological conditions that exist in the area, the type of trees, vegetation, etc. for that zone, based on trees species, vegetation that exist there. Generally its a wetlands, type of barium, some of it is marshy, some dry, some water, with cypress trees, pine trees, generally. Commissioner Fart requested Mr. Wright to explain what he understood being said, that given the City's advanced secondary treatment at Sanford plant, the rapid infiltration system that you evaluated would only be able to dispose of 2 millions gallons a day. Mr. Wright, explained, no, when they examined the rapid infiltration system at this site, they did it under several views. The original "Sanford system", being a series of rapid infiltration which had basins with lines underneath called underdrains, that facilitated the hydrolic movement of the liquid down through the soil matrix below the rapid infiltration basin to the collection line, ie the underdrain. There it was all collected into a major header system, redistributed into the main distribution header, perculate up to the ground surface, and then either go on to the ground surface or move through a storm berm, down through the rest of the site, to the St John's River. This discharge system is not a no-discharge system. The drawings that were actually prepared and the 201 documents and supplementary documents show that as the water perculated up to the.ground, it moved across the soil matrix, it eventually accumlated and indicated a major control at or overflow structure to the St Johns River, but in looking at that it would hydrolocially convey the liquid is not the key question, but could it properly take care of the nutrients MINUTES City CommissiOn, Sanford, Florida March 14, 377 19 86 that needed to be reduced to the levels that would have to be met, such that upon reaching the waters of the state that it would meet all the criteria with FDER. Concerns that they had was that the removable capabilities of the phospherous and nitrogens was not convincingly shown at this point in time in that system, so they could not support it for Seminole County. There were questions of phosperous rules capability, the eventual breakthrough time of the phosperous from the soil metrix through the rapid infiltration basins, there were also credits taken for the phosperhous moving down throught the hyrdocynanic areas, they cannot support those removals. Therefore, they went back to re-examine the question of effluent disposal and cannot support an underdrain system, because they don't believe they can achieve the levels of nitrogen removals needed. Then they looked at the rapid infiltration basins with AWT wastewater coming to them without the underdrain system and at that point in time, the underdrain did not give us any particular nutrient removal benefit. In doing that, accounting for the flow-blockers, that needed be provided, protect Yankee Lake, protect Sulfur Creek, and also to, insure that they didn't start popping through the claylands about 5 to 7 feet below grade and start to hydrolocially drain Yankee Lake with an under-ring system, they concluded tht the only rendering they could support for rapid infiltration basins was 2 million gallons a day, with advanced wastewater treatment coming to them. Mr. Bible explained that based on the work that was done by Camp, Dresser and McKee and the Center for Wetlands and trying to determine what could be the potentially maximum utilization, it was indicated that the best utilization of the site in terms of maximizing it, would be some form of wetlands effluent disposal and the only thing that could be technically supported by the engineers and the Center for Wetlands was an applications for AWT effluent. Based on that assumption, he asked the engineers to go back and look at what the numbers would be for a 10 MGD wastewater treatment plant, if they were to construct it with AWT effluent characteristics and dispose of it through the rapid infiltration basins and the wetlands program. Essentually the cost estimate is 63.8 million dollars for 10 MGD AWT with effluent disposal at the site, which was broken down into two components. The wastewater treatment plant, approximately 35 million dollars and the effluent disposal system, 28.8 million dollars. That can translate into about $6.38 per " gallon to treat and dispose of the wastewater, which corresponds very close with Seminole County connection fee of $6.00 per gallon used throughout the County. They feel comfortable that at least on a preliminary basis the numbers seem sto indicate that this type of facility is cost comparable to other facilities that they are being forced to build for more strigent requirements of treatment of wastewater effluent. Commissioner Christensen asked if this AWT treatment the same as the treatment that is used on the golf course. Mr. Bible explained the treatment exceeds that essentually because they are removing the nitrogen and phospherous not necessarily required for an application for a golf course. He feels it is going to be something that is going to become important with the type of future effluent re-use system that they are trying to tie-up in the Northwest area. There are some golf courses located near the Wekiva River and we would feel a lot more comfortable with a re-use program that acheived high levels of treatment 378 MINUTES City Commission, Sanford, Florida March 14, 19 86 even under that alternative. Bill Simmons, Director of Engineering and Planning, explained that he has done a quick analysis for using the numbers which Mr. Bible has just provided. Although it maybe an academic interest, comparing it with what the working estimates were for the Sanford use of the Yankee Lake site. In order to keep it in prespective in terms of capital cost per gallon of capacity, he eliminated from consideration the correction of our combined sewer overflow and the inflow-infiltration work which the City had looked at for a total package of approximately $33,000,000 to correct and take care of everything. If you eliminate those two items which are not really related to the plan, you will come down to little under $20,000,000. of bonding required by the City of Sanford, after grants, for Sanford developing Yankee Lake. Mr. Simmons looked at two alternatives for working with the County. He hasn't heard them say they would do effluent disposal only if we upgraded our plant to AWT, however, he calculated it anyway. The worse case number is if we shipped them raw sewage, where we have to build a plant, a pumping station, and pipe. They have given us a $6.58 per gallon for their 10 MGD plan for AWT and effluent disposal. We have been working with the requirement of 7.3 MGD - that would yield a capital cost between our pipeline if we are able to retain the grant money to pay for the pipeline, a cost to Sanford of over $50,000,000. That's before you figure the $10,000,000 roughly for CSO removal and the I-and-I correction, a net cost to the citizens of Sanford of $60,000,000 to correct the problem and use the County's facilities. If you make the assumption that maybe we can ship AWT effluent and they will accept it, we might manage to save about $10,000,000 off of those numbers, leaving a gross cost of $50,000,00 for everything, and $40,000,000 for getting rid of our 7.3 MGD of AWT effluent which we treat, however, that doesn't allow for increase in operating costs because AWT plants are more expensive to operate than secondary plants. After discussion, Commissioner Farr stated that based on what we have heard so far, he does not feel that this is a viable alternative of the City of Sanford. Not only is it not cost effective, it is not a cost considerable, not even in the ballpark. He appreciates what the County is trying to do, but it is not an alternative for the City of Sanford. We can't even consider it. Commissioner Mercer stated that the proposal was not enough gallonage to support the City of Sanford much less anybody else, because of City projected needs 10 million gallons and they have a total of 12 millions gallons projected. So that would leave 2 million gallons for the rest of the County. Commissioner Farr stated that the County, through their engineers, has opened up a little bit different alternative for Sanford with the Wetlands disposal. If the DER will consider that on this site, there might be other sites out there that we could consider for wetland disposal that we have not considered before because we have been thinking in terms of a no-discharge system. So our alternatives, prior to this meeting, may have been few, but they may be even more now. Mr. Alexander explained that DER has not changed their position since the last meeting, as far as DER is concerned they are still looking at no-charge without any MINUTES City Commission, Sanford, Florida March 14, 19 86 additional pollutants going into the lake. If the consultants feel that going to the Wetlands, it will be enough cleansing effect before it goes to the lake, we have a certain reservation, they feel they can do it. We are now at a stage they would have to prove to us that it could be done. This is a unknown at this point. We have not changed our position at all, and we don't know if it's going to work, because our feelings about Wetlands there or a filtering effect into the lake. We don't know, it's a Problem right now. Commissioner Christensen inquired as far as the watering the golf course, could you use secondary treatment discharge. Mr. Wright stated it would have to be an advanced secondard type treatment, where you provide additional filtration, high level disinfection, to go to a golf course. Commissioner Christensen inquired if the City had a golf course. Commissioner Farr stated that she was not talking about any sizable numbers at all. Commissioner Christensen, asked also about the airport. Commissioner Farr stated the airport has been studied, too, and there, again, the numbers are not large enough to even come close. We're talking about a very small percentage. The Mayor reported the airport was a total of 2 MGD. Commissioner Farr reported plus the costs to run the pipe all around town to take- back treated effluent would run the numbers up far too high, and we would rather have a single source for effluent disposal. The Mayor stated we are faced with the Sanford citizens who have gotten bills higher than some of them can afford to pay just to support what we were going to do to start with, and if itJs going to be some 20 to 30 million dollars more than that, seems like we are in an untenable position. Commissioner Farr stated he doesn't think the Commission could go back to the citizens and ask them to pay four or five times more than the utility bill in order to support a Yankee Lake joint effort just for capital improvement. I think it behooves us to try to find other alternatives. Commission Streetman inquired of Mr. Alexander, of the proposed Sanford system as it was referred to here, if that is a discharge or no-charge system. Mr. Alexander stated from what DER has seen, we consider it a no-charge system. We felt with a 7.3 MGD and berm, it is a no-discharge. Mr. Bostwick explained that any effluent that you put out there is going to eventually end up in the river system, but we felt you wouldn't be able to track it. How much would the site be able to take under these conditions is preliminary at this point, and as additonal data is gathered, then that can be a fine program. Commissioner Mercer inquired, plus we would have to upgrade our plant to a AWT, which is an additional cost to the citizens, which we must consider in addition to this. Mr. Simmons reported that the estimated costs of upgrading our plant to AWT which was included in the alternative for shipping to them AWT effluent is approximately 14.25 million dollars for plant upgrade only, to bring it to AWT standards for 7.3 MGD. 38O MINUTES City Commission, Sanford, Florida March 14, 19 86 Commissioner Christensen stated these costs figures are depressing at best. She asked Jim Bible, what is the projected gallons that the County is looking at as far as the County needs. Mr. Bible stated about 20 million gallons per day. Commissioner Christensen inquired out of that 20 million that you project, the last time you said you included the one unit per acre in with those figures, and no land-use changes and no rezoning. She has been talking to the developers out there; each and every one of them said there is no way that they would consider running sewer lines for on unit per acre because the cost for that length is absolutely astronomical. So she thinks Mr. Bible needs to revisit just what the County's needs would be, because those developers have no intention of doing that and using that capacity. Mr. Bible reported that in the last two or three weeks along, he has had calls from developers in that area, asking when the sewer is going to be available. Commissioner Christensen inquired as to what developers, because she has talked to everyone that has come through with that type of development and they said they have no intentions of putting sewer lines in. You tell me just which developers they are, because she gets just the opposite from the people who are actually doing it. Commissioner Smith inquired of Mr. Bible if this 20 MGD included Sanford. Mr. Bible stated no. Mr. Simmons stated he would like to pursue the question he asked before and didn't hear an answer to, as to whether or not within their scheme of things they would entertain the lower costs of the two alternatives involving us working with the County, that of us doing AWT and them disposing of the AWT effluent we generate. Mr. Bible explained that is why we developed the latter that envelopes both of those costs, yes, they would entertain that. Mr. Simmons inquired secondly, would you entertain taking the effluent for the full amount or are you going to insist on some takeback. Mr. Bible reported that they would probably look more favorable on some takeback, as we are with the individual developers making a committment to takeback. The City of Lake Mary in their discussions has made a committment to a takeback. They would treat the City of Sanford as anybody else. Both unincorporated Seminole County, other municipalities and developers would be required some takeback. He thinks that is the thrust that the St Johns Water Management District is taking with all of the CUPs that are being issued out in that area. He anticipates that in five years time that that will be a manitory requirement. Mr. Simmons stated that based on what Mr. Bible has just said, he would have to increase his figures upward by about 2 to 3 million dollars more in order to finance the pipeline in order to take the effluent back to the City of Sanford and put it somewhere. The Mayor asked who has a solution. Commissioner Mercer asked Mr. Alexander, using AWT what are the criteria for disposal. Mr. Alexander explained the question is they are bringing up an Area C which is a Wetlands area using that in the future and that effluent being cleansed through the Wetland MINUTES City Commission, Sanford, Florida March 14, 381 19 86 before it reaches the St Johns; the question is to what extent is the effluent Going to be cleansed in such a way to increase keep the water quality in the St Johns, we don't know. No one knows at this point, it just a speculation and you cannot based anything until you know the exact figures. Commissioner Mercer inquired what is NAWT that has to be removed. Mr. Alexander stated that as far as advanced treatment type of effluent which has a very strict requirements on nitrogen and phospherous, but still you are Going to bring several million Gallons of effluent to the St Johns, we are Going to have some effect, to what extent , we don't know. Commissioner Streetman inquired that as far as the capacity figures that have been dicussed today it did not include anything in Area C. Mr. Alexander stated that's right. Commissioner Mercer stated that the maximum of 17 millions is what the engineer said excluding Zone C. Mr. Bible stated let's Go back to what they are trying to do, he believes the numbers that the engineers indicated were 2 MGD as rapid infiltration, they feel that is something that could be permitted very easily. The Wetlands is Going to take some time to permit, a year of enGineerinG studies, water quality analysises, plus Going out there and doing some work over the year, permits to DER, etc. Zone A which we have secondary level of confidence with approximately 8 maybe 9 MGD, Zone B which they have less confidence has a potential of 2 to 3 MGD, they are talking about 11 to 13 MGD capacity of rapid infiltration and A and B as the Zone. The engineers are doing work with the Center for Wetlands to see if there is capacity in Zone C, and they will come back with recommendations with something they will feel comfortable with. What will happen in the future is they have have numbers that they feel comfortable with, the engineers feel they can back up. To Get additional capacity will take additional time for monitorinG. The numbers they are saying today, they feel are numbers that are a low to middle range of an application, there is a potential for higher, but they feel they need to make a business decision on the 11 to 13, and that's a Good number for them to proceed, and anything after that would certainly be better. Mr. Alexander reported that DER has spent some time with the consultants of the City more than they have spent with the County, and they feel very comfortable with what they have seen submitted by the City for some 7 million Gallons of secondary treatment. Commissioner Mercer stated that as far as he was concerned the City of Sanford from what he has heard there is nothing that the County can do to help the City of Sanford. The Mayor reported there is an awful amount of difference. Commissioner Mercer stated that what has been heard here is exactly what the City engineers told them on February 11 last year. The Mayor reported that somethinG that has not been mentioned today that the City Commissioners are acutely aware of is the time factor. ATTEST: There being no further business, the meetinG was adjourned. ~/ M--AY O R