Laserfiche WebLink
ANALYSIS <br />Negotiations with CH2M Hill Southeast, Inc., for professional <br />services to design a connector pipe from the West Regional WWTP to <br />the deep well at the landfill have been completed, and Task Order <br />No. 2 (Scope of Work) has been concluded. Task Order No. 2 consists <br />of: <br />Task 1 Design and Permitting <br />Task -2 Services during Bidding, Construction <br />and Resident Observation <br />The professional consultant fees are described as follows: <br />Basic Services (4.7% of estimated construction cost) $45,367.00 <br />Resident Inspection (0.9% of estimated construction 9,000.00 <br />cost) <br />Additional Services <br />Survey 4,558.00 <br />Geotechnical 4,877.00 <br />Surge Analysis 7,963.00 <br />Permit 2,730.00 <br />Direct Expenses, Printing 2.305.00 <br />$76,800.00 <br />The basic services and resident inspection services compensation are <br />in accordance with FmHA guidelines. The estimated construction cost <br />is $969,900.00. -The compensation for both services shall be <br />adjusted based upon the final construction cost. Funding for design <br />of this project shall be from the sewer impact fee fund. <br />The Department of Utility Services recommends the Board of County <br />Commissioners approve Task Order No. 2 and authorize the chairman of <br />the Board of County Commissioners to execute Task Order No. 2. <br />Commissioner Adams asked why we need a deep well for the <br />effluent when we have our irrigation project, and why the wetlands <br />cannot be used as a backup. <br />Director Pinto explained that the first method of effluent <br />disposal is irrigation and the wetlands are part of the irrigation <br />project. We also have percolation ponds and direct irrigation. <br />The deep well would back up those methods. <br />Commissioner Adams was concerned about the basic concept of <br />deep wells for effluent disposal because of situations where the <br />well fails, and she gave, the examples of deep well failures at <br />Hercules and in Melbourne. <br />Director Pinto stated that the Hercules situation was not a <br />failure of the well. They relined the inside of that well because <br />it had been in use for 10 years and was in need of maintenance. <br />The Melbourne system had problems associated with engineering and <br />installation. He further explained that if a deep well were our <br />primary method of disposal, we would need a second well as a backup <br />for it. Our system consists of four different types of effluent <br />disposal with the deep well is the backup for the others so the <br />39 <br />FEBX993 BOOK <br />