Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Wastewater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wastewater pump-enclosure project far behind schedule; SRF loan and scope changes cited
Summary
Council asked staff for a funding history after hearing that the SRF-funded pump-enclosure project has been extended more than 570 days, has required reengineering and change orders, and now shows a larger carry-forward in the 2024–25 CIP.
City of Cape Canaveral staff told the council Aug. 12 that a multi-year wastewater pump-enclosure project (CIP WW17) funded in part by a State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan has experienced major delays and scope changes that have pushed cost carryovers into the 2024–25 budget.
At the workshop Public Works staff and Tim (project staff) said the construction agreement was signed in 2022, then engineers discovered underground utility conflicts and other issues that required redesign and resulted in multiple change orders.
Why it matters: The delay has increased the project timeline and changed how the SRF loan is being drawn. Staff reported the SRF lender granted an extension and is not requiring loan payments from the city while the project remains incomplete.
Budget history and amounts discussed: Staff recited the project funding history from the budget book: the 2021 budget included about $301,500 in SRF funds, the 2022–23 budget included $750,000, and 2023–24 included $750,000; the 2024–25 draft budget shows $1,560,000 for the pump-enclosure program. Staff said actual cumulative expenditures through June totaled about $648,000 (roughly $25,736 in 2021, about $256,000 in 2022–23 and $357,000 of the current-year $750,000 as of June). Staff also cited an SRF loan identifier (referenced in the meeting as W005048 / 5058) and said the remaining loan balance is about $1.4 million.
Delays and causes: Tim told council the project has been extended roughly 570 days past the original completion date because of underground utility conflicts, required reengineering, and some construction changes (adding a man door and other modifications). That sequence increased the time frame more than the contract team expected; staff indicated the contractor was not solely at fault and that some responsibility lies with the engineering scope and unforeseen site conditions.
Council direction and follow-up: Council asked staff for a detailed accounting. City staff committed to prepare a memo showing inception-to-date expenditures, the SRF loan draw schedule, and the project’s funding history across fiscal years; Joey (finance) and John (administration) were asked to locate exact invoice and budget records and circulate the result to council.
Ending: Council members pressed staff to provide clear, line-item figures for the project’s past expenditures and remaining work before finalizing 2024–25 CIP allocations.
