Loading...
Item J4 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: Wed.. July 18.2001 Division: Bacc Bulk Item: Yes No XX ~. .' Department: Comm. Nora Williams AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Discussion of issues relating to $100 Million Federal Water Quality Improvements Authorization, progress (or lack thereof) in Washington, and discussion of requested act of approval at upcoming special meeting. ITEM BACKGROUND: PREVIOUS REVELANT BOCC ACTION: CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: ST AFF RECOMMENDATIONS: TOTAL COST: BUDGETED: Yes No XX COST TO COUNTY: REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No AMOUNT PER MONTH_ Year APPROVED BY: County Atty _ OMB/Purchasing _ Risk Management_ , . t{~ tUL~..J (Nora Williams, Commissioner) DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL: DOCUMENTATION: Included XX To Follow_ Not Required_ AGENDA ITEM # /..rtt DISPOSITION: Revised 2/27/0 I Minutes Intergovernmental Task Force Meeting Date: June 6, 2001 Meeting Location: Marathon Government Annex Meeting Time: 9 am ~. ,.' Meeting convened 9 am. A brief discussion took place concerning the previous day's Affordable Housing Summit. It was decided that the Intergovernmental Task Force would offer its services as an already-existing intergovernmental body in whatever ways may be of service. On the issue of Water Quality Funding, a brief discussion occurred concerning the State Matching funds, as to whether or not those funds should be used to fund additional wastewater treatment facilities rather than as matching funds for the three projects already discussed and prioritized (with the acknowledgement that stormwater grant monies would need that match as there is no user fee offset). The Board of Monroe County Commissioners had unanimously requested that this be considered, as they had given up a large percentage of what the Intergovernmental Task Force had determined to be their "due," to make possible the full funding of the wastewater treatment projects for Islamorada and Marathon. This item was not resolved. On the issue of the prioritization of projects for the $100 million federal appropriation, the Intergovernmental Task Force determined that the immediate priority should be Key We.st stormwater and the three large municipal central wastewater treatment systems. It was acknowledged that Key West had stepped aside from a population-based claim on funds with the understanding that they would be a funding priority. The IGTF recommended that all the priority projects should participate in any funding that occurs until such time as their promised amounts of funding were reached, as long as all such prioritized projects were deemed "ready" within the fiscal year in which an appropriation was made. The discussion of whether a single project should be fully funded before other projects received any funding went on for some time. It was unanimously concluded that we would all be best served if priority projects shared in both the successes and failures of our efforts to secure appropriations. The appropriation scenario outlined below would allow all three large centralized wastewater treatment systems to continue to move forward. It was understood bv all that applying funds in phases to each proiect will potentially require multiple revisions of funding/grant and user fee impacts and applications. If, however, any of those wastewater facility projects were not ready, Key West would see additional funds (and/or a higher percentage of funds) of its total to be received. Layton acknowledged that, at this point, there is no rush for their funding. Key Colony Beach was not represented at the meeting, but discussion was held that they would have their information requested, and, because of the relative size of their allocation. they could be fitted into a later year priol'ity as deemed necessary. The following scenarios were allowed and supported by the group: Should the $30 million appropriation be made, it would be divided as follows: $8.5 million $8.5 million $8.5 million $4.5 million Totals: $30 million Unincorporated Monroe ;:Jslamorada .' Marathon Key West 28.33% 28.33% 28.33% I 15% 100% The percentages would hold for all projects ready for funding within the fiscal year for which the appropriation was made. If any of the above mentioned wastewater projects was determined to be "not ready, (see task #1 below)" then the division would be as follows: $9.85 million Wastewater Project One $9.85 million Wastewater Project Two $10.3 million Key West Totals: $30 million 32.832% 32.83% 34.33% 100% If two of the above mentioned wastewater projects were determined to be "not ready," the division would be as follows: $19.7 million Wastewater Proi ect One $10.3 million Key West Totals: $30 million 65.67% 34.33% 100% Should the appropriation be less than $30 million, the division of funds would follow the percentages outlined above, not the numeric figures, for each of the scenarios detailed. For example, if the appropriation were to be $15 million, and all parties were deemed to be "ready" within the appropriation fiscal year, the division would be as follows: $4.25 million Unincorporated Monroe 28.333% $4.25 million Islamorada 28.33% $4.25 million Marathon 28.33% $2.25 million Key West 15% Totals: $15 million 100% If anyone of the wastewater projects should not be ready to proceed, the division would be as follows: $4.925 million Wastewater Project One $4.925 million Wastewater Project Two $5.15 million Key West 32.834% 32.83% 34.33% 1 Note that these figures will not always add up to 100% because of the decimal places proceeding beyond where demonstrated within the text of these minutes. Where decimals extend beyond that reflected here, ]00% is a rough equivalent of the figures noted in the minutes, but an actual equivalent of the full figure, were its full decimal equivalent represented. 2 See Footnote I above. 3 See Footnote I above. 4 See Footnote I above. 2 Totals: $15 million 100% Once an appropriation is made or scheduled to be made, the Intergovernmental Task force will sit down with its state partners to review quarterly the readiness status of each and every prioritized project. Tasks Assigned: .:.,." " 1) Clear Definition of readiness to proceed from Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority in coordination with DCA and DEP. 2) Islamorada: will bring detailed information concerning the cost of their system (total and per EDU, and the impacts of the federal grant on those costs) as well as a general description of the project and a current timeline of completion. 3) Marathon: will bring detailed information concerning the cost of their system (total and per EDU, and the impacts of the federal grant on those costs) as well as a general description of the project and a current timeline of completion. 4) Monroe County: will bring detailed information concerning the cost of the Key Largo system (total and per EDU, and the impacts of the federal grant on those costs) as well as a general description of the project and a current timeline of completion. 5) Key West: description of the actual project to be funded, total cost and source of matching funds and a current timetable of completion. Next meeting: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 20, 2001, 6 pm, MARATHON GOVERNMENT ANNEX. Task assignments outlined above are due. Additional note: Mike McDaniel, DCA, offered to set up a meeting for the Intergovernmental Task Force in Jacksonville in July when appropriate with the Army Corps of Engineers. Participants are asked to keep their schedules as open as possible as we await possible dates. Additionally, Nora offered to seek the Sheriffs plane to take local municipal representatives to the meeting, once a meeting date was known. 3 Minutes DRAFT Intergovernmental Task Force June 20, 200 I, 6PM Marathon Gov't Annex Bldg. Those present at the meeting introduced themselves. Representatives were present from all municipal governments except Layton and Key Colony Beach. Also represented were FKAA & from the State, DCA and DEP. Minutes from the last meeting ~ere approved as presented. FKAA, DEP & DCA presented their proposed draft "Readiness to Proceed" document, detailing what they suggested, in keeping with the federal authorization guidelines, to qualify projects for funding. While members of the IGTF were largely supportive of the document, it was asked that three issues be revisited: I. The possible availability of funds in small incremental appropriations Concern was expressed that small incremental appropriations might not be enough to guarantee that a project would go forward. How that might impact our ability to apply for small funds for big projects was to be examined. 2. Stormwater applications The draft was designedfor the wastewater treatment facilities. The document needed to be re-examined and revised to allow the qualification of storm water projects. 3. Item 6a (draft "RtP" is being faxed to those receiving minutes who were not present at the meeting) There was much discussion of whether 6a allowed the applicant to assume the entire amount of their "share" of the $100 millionfederal authorization in the funding scenario to be presented. Clearly, due to our agree-upon distribution and the likelihood that no project would receive all allowed monies in a single year's appropriation, it is crucial that an applicant be able to re-apply for a project. expecting additional funds (up to the agree-upon point) from the $100 million authorization. Priority Projects Impacts were discussed. Islamorada noted that they would be unable to provide the information described until after their due diligence process is concluded July 19,2001. The FKAA presented materials pertinent to both the Marathon and Key Largo central sewage facilities, but the materials lacked the requested calendar and did not correctly reflect the distribution of funds. Key West expressed that they had the information requested but had not yet placed it in a form suitable for distribution. Getting the appropriation: Jody Thomas of the Nature Conservancy noted that there may have been action on June 19th concerning our appropriation in a House subcommittee (subsequently revealed to have been NO ACTION on our appropriation). Mike McDaniel of DCA noted that there is a definite need for unity and a comprehensive presentation of the requested materials in order to keep this moving forward. Action Items: I. Key West will provide its documentation on the proposed stormwater project promptly. 2. FKAA will correct the spreadsheet to represent the agreed-upon distribution of federal funds for Marathon and Key Largo given expected costs (see attached, Item I). 3. FKAA will provide a calendar for progress on Marathon and Key Largo. 4. FKAA, DEP & DCA will provide the revised "Readiness to Proceed" document by the end ofthe month. 5. Islamorada will prepare their due diligence materials presentation in a manner that provides the information requested (to be presented at our next meeting). 6. lody Thomas will provide a federal funding update as soon as available. (Note that she has: we were not included in House subcommittee recommendations on the 19Ih.) She will also provide a list of tasks/folk to be contacted (Administration and Senate Staff) with specific information on what to discuss. (See attached Item Two) 7. The state folk will work with the Army Corp. of Engineers to have them make a budget request for our next year's appropriation. Additionally, they will work to ensure that these appropriations are not subject to NEPA requirements. Nora will also take these requests to her ACOE meeting when in Jacksonville next week for the Florida Association of Counties annual meeting. ,:- Next meeting: Monday, July 2yd at 2:00 PM, Marathon Gov't Annex Bldg.