Title
MOTION TO APPROVE THE TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM PRODUCED BY THE CITY’S GENERAL WATER CONSULTANT CAROLLO TITLED "PFAS TREATMENT FEASIBILITY EVALUATION", DATED MARCH 2025, AND TO APPROVE A REQUEST TO ADVERTISE AN RFQ TO PROCURE ENGINEERING SERVICES TO DESIGN THE RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS BY WAIVING SECTION 35.19(A) OF THE CITY’S CODE OF ORDINANCES, WHICH REQUIRES ALL SEALED COMPETITIVE SOLICITATIONS TO BE PRESENTED TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION PRIOR TO ADVERTISEMENT.
Summary Explanation and Background
SUMMARY EXPLANATION AND BACKGROUND:
1. PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are persistent synthetic compounds that have been used in a variety of industrial and consumer product applications including non-stick cookware and firefighting foams. The first PFAS compound was invented in 1938, and manufacturing of the product began in the 1950’s.
2. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was first alerted to the risks of PFAS in 1998, which were described as human-made "forever chemicals" that "never break down once released.” The presence of PFAS compounds in source water used for drinking is of increasing public concern due to their widespread use and environmental persistence.
2. On December 27, 2021, EPA published its fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5), which was a rule requiring drinking water utilities to conduct monitoring for 29 PFAS compounds. The data was to be collected during the period 2023 - 2025, with the intent that EPA may use the monitoring data to develop additional, future regulations.
3. Utilities Department Staff arranged for this testing, as required, in March 2023 and again in September 2023. PFAS compounds were detected in both tests, at concentrations that were below the EPA Health Advisory Level in place at the time.
4. On March 14, 2023, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced proposed regulatory standards for six PFAS compounds. Based on the UCMR 5 test results, the City’s drinking water would exceed EPA’s proposed standards for two of the six compounds.
5. In November 2023, City Manager Dodge directed Staff to solicit a proposal from the City’s general water engineering consultant Carollo, to evaluate water treatment options to meet EPA’s proposed standards, with benefits and costs of each, and recommend a course of action.
6. On March 20, 2024, the City Commission approved a proposal from Carollo to perform the above-mentioned study.
7. On April 26, 2024, EPA published its final drinking water rule for the six PFAS compounds, setting maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) and requiring public water systems to monitor these compounds in drinking water. The monitoring must start by April 26, 2027, and the results must be provided to the public via the City’s annual Water Quality Report (Consumer Confidence Report). The MCLs must be met by April 26, 2029.
8. Carollo completed their report on March 20, 2025 and conclude the following:
• The most feasible treatment alternative for the City to meet EPA’s new regulation is to modify the existing water treatment plant (WTP) as follows:
o Expand the WTP’s existing ion exchange (IX) system to remove more total organic carbon from the water, as a pre-treatment process for the PFAS treatment. This consists of adding 4 new IX vessels to the existing 8 vessels, and associated piping.
o Construct a new PFAS-specific IX system downstream of the above IX system, which would consist of 20 new IX vessels and associated piping.
o Construct other planned WTP improvements that have been planned but not yet implemented. This includes new clearwell bypass piping, replacement of certain high service pumps, and other improvements.
• Carollo estimates the capital cost of these improvements to be approximately $55 million, with a possible range of $38 - $82 million.
• Carollo estimates an increase in annual O&M costs of $6.3 million. This is mostly due to the fact that the PFAS IX resin cannot be regenerated, and must be disposed of and replaced when it’s spent.
• Carollo estimates a little over 4 years to procure engineering services, produce plans/specs, procure a construction contractor, and construct and startup the improvements.
The following is Carollo’s estimated implementation schedule, to which Staff has included funding estimates:
|
Task |
Duration (Months) |
Milestone Dates |
Funding Needed |
|
PFAS Study |
|
April 2025 (Completed) |
N/A |
|
Procurement - Engineering Services |
6 |
October 2025 |
N/A |
|
Design Phase |
12 |
October 2026 |
$ 5,450,000.00 |
|
Permitting |
3 |
January 2027 |
$ 10,000.00 |
|
Procurement - Construction |
4 |
May 2027 |
N/A |
|
Construction Phase (with CEI) |
24 |
May 2029 |
$ 59,950,000.00 |
|
TOTAL |
49 |
|
$ 65,410,000.00 |
9. Staff has reviewed the report and agrees with its findings and recommendations, and therefore, recommends Commission approval of the technical memorandum produced by the City’s general water consultant Carollo titled "PFAS Treatment Feasibility Evaluation", dated March 2025.
10. Pursuant to §35.19(A) “All sealed competitive solicitations as defined in § 35.18 shall be presented to the City Commission for their consideration prior to advertisement.” However, due to the perceived urgency to construct these improvements, and the tight timeline for compliance with the new regulations, Staff recommends Commission approval to advertise a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to procure the engineering services needed to design the recommended improvements to the WTP, by waiving section 35.19(A) of the city’s code of ordinances, enabling the City’s Administration to create and publish the RFQ without needing to present the draft RFQ to the City Commission for approval. The justification for this recommendation is that engineering consultants must be procured under the provisions of Section 287.055 Florida Statutes (Consultant's Competitive Negotiation Act), which takes much more time than the traditional bid process. If approved, the results of the selection process will be presented to the Commission for approval to negotiate with the top-ranked firm, and then again for approval of the negotiated contract.
Financial Impact
FINANCIAL IMPACT DETAIL:
a) Initial Cost: Not Applicable
b) Amount budgeted for this item in Account No: Not Applicable
c) Source of funding for difference, if not fully budgeted: Not Applicable
d) 5 year projection of the operational cost of the project: Not Applicable.
e) Detail of additional staff requirements: Not Applicable.
FEASIBILITY REVIEW:
A feasibility review is required for the award, renewal and/or expiration of all function sourcing contracts. This analysis is to determine the financial effectiveness of function sourcing services.
a) Was a Feasibility Review/Cost Analysis of Out-Sourcing vs. In-House Labor Conducted for this service? Not Applicable.
b) If Yes, what is the total cost or total savings of utilizing Out-Sourcing vs. In-House Labor for this service? Not Applicable.