Item L06
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
. Meeting Date: Wed., August 15,2001
Division:
BOCC4
Bulk Item: Yes
No XX
Department: Comm. Nora Williams
,
.,'
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval oflntergovernmental Task Force Readiness to Proceed
document, and approval of distribution formulation for the allocations agreed to among the municipal
governments for wastewater funding.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
PREVIOUS REVELANT BOCC ACTION:
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
TOT AL COST:
BUDGETED: Yes
No XX
COST TO COUNTY:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes
No
AMOUNT PER MONTH_ Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty _ OMB/Purchasing _ Risk Management _
f{~ AJ~
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
(Nora Williams, Commissioner)
DOCUMENTATION:
Included XX To Follow
Not Required_
DISPOSITION:
AGENDAITEM#~
Revised 2/27/01
DRAFT
6/22/01
DRAFT
MONROE COUNTY INTERGOVERNMENTAL TASK FORCE
ESTABLISHMENT OF READINEsS-TO-PROCEED
Federal and State Funding
"
Prepared by: Roger Braun/Jack Teague, FKAA
Mike McDaniel, FDCA
Dick Smith, FDEP
i;
_;1'
The following criteria define when a recipient is eligible to receive a percentage of their share of any
federal/state appropriations for wastewater and storm water improvements authorized under the
Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Act. The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority was requested to
compile the criteria in consultation with the Florida Department of Community Affairs and the Florida
Department of Environmental. The criteria have been previously presented per State Representative
Ken Sorenson's April 18, 2001 to "All Local Governments in Monroe County and Appropriate Staff."
To qualify for grant award, the following conditions must be met: All planning (including the
selection of sites, wastewater/stormwater systems to be implemented, reclaimed water
evaluation, and financing must be complete; sites must be established as available for the
intended purposes, public participation must be documented; and a (design/build/operate),
(design/build), or a construction contract would have to be either executed or authorized for
execution by the project sponsor's governing body.
1. SITES. All Project sites shall be:
a) Identified. Legal descriptions of the properties, including boundary surveys,
shall be complete for all required project sites. When all work will be in
existing easements or rights of way or on property otherwise owned by the
project sponsor, only the identification of the site(s) will be necessary.
b) Determined environmentally and technically suitable. Environmental
Assessments complete. If determined necessary Environmental Impact
Statements completed. Initial geo-technical evaluations of sites, as necessary
to assure feasibility of construction shall be completed. When all work will be
in existing easements or rights of way or on property otherwise owned by the
project sponsor and properly zoned, the foregoing determination will be
unnecessary.
c) Available. Sufficient interest must be held, by the local government, in the
sites to enable uninterrupted construction. Sufficient interest means
ownership, easement, right-of-way, formal agreement enabling construction,
~ contract for purchase, formal option for purchase/lease wi~ willing seller, or
initiation of condemnation process.
d) Sites shall have the appropriate legal zoning designation(s).
2.1 ENGINEERING FOR WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROJECTS.
a) Identification of treatment plant capacity, treatment level, and treafinent
processes.
Page 1 of 3
DRAFT
b)
6/22/01 DRAFT
Identification of collection and transmission system technology and preliminary
layout.
z
c) Physical overlay of treatment plant process units and disposal facilities on
plant site location survey.
2.2 ENGINEERING FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROJECTS.
.'.
B
a) Identification of treatment and disposal facilities or methods.
b) Identification of conveyance and storage capacities.
3. PLANNING DOCUMENTATION.
a) All wastewater/stormwater planning must be complete and the recommendations,
including those for reuse of reclaimed water, contained in the planning documents
must be adopted by the local government. The recommendations are to be
reflected in the procurement or contract documents.
b) The financial plan identifying rates, fees, and charges associated with providing
wastewater/storm water management services under the different grant funding
levels identified by the Intergovernmental Funding Task Force. Information on
customer base, location and level of services shall be reflected in the
procurement or contract documents for wastewater management services. The
plan shall address all capital costs (including financing) operation and
maintenance costs. .
b.1) The financial plan shall identify the amount(s) and source(s) of the non-
federal share (State Revolving Loan Program, commercial lending, bonds,
dedicated local revenues, etc.) of the project costs associated with the
different grant funding levels identified by the Intergovernmental Funding
Task Force.
b.2) The financial plan shall identify the nature and amount of all estimated
costs, both for the project sponsor's wastewater/stormwater management
system and for additional work, if any, associated with the system for
which individual property owners will be directly responsible.
b.3) A commitment from a financing entity to make available the non-federal
share of the project costs must be documented. '
4. LEGAL
a) Connection ordinance for wastewater management systems. The connection
ordinance shall describe all existing wastewater conditions subject to
mandatory connection.
a) Pretreatment ordinance for wastewater systems. The pre-treatment ordinance
shall describe the conditions under which wastes may be discharged to the
system.
Page 2 of 3
DRAFT
6/22/01
DRAFT
b)
User charge or fee provisions for wastewater/stormwater management
systems. Draft ordinance/resolution provisions shall describe the structure of
rates, fees, and charges. It shall describe the conditions and process under
which the schedule of rates, fees, and charges will be changed.
.
5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. Public participation shall be complete for the following
activities: t
',,'
a) Selection of project sites to be acquired for the project.
b) Establishment of ordinances/resolutions.
c) Adoption of recommendations for wastewater/stormwater management
options and reuse.
d) Financial planning.
6. FUNDING LEVEL. The acceptance of any federal grant funds shall not be contingent
upon the receipt of additional federal/state funds in subsequent appropriations.
7. DEADLINES FOR READINESS-TO-PROCEED
a) Quarterly Progress Assessment Meeting shall be held by the
Intergovernmental Task Force.
b) The deadline for establishing Readiness-To-Proceed for fiscal year 2002
Grant Funds shall be June 30, 2002.
---End--
~
-
...
Page 3 of 3
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
West 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 by all that applying funds in
phases to each proiect will potentially require multiple revisions offundingjgrant 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 priority 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
.dslamorada
~. "
Marathon
Key West
28.33%
28.33%
28.33%1
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 Proiect 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%
I Note that these figures will not always add up to 100% because of the decimal places proceeding beyond
where demonstrated within the text ofthese minutes. Where decimals extend beyond that reflected here,
100% 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 proiect 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 proiect 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 proiect 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, 2001, 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:
1. 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 designed for 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 the ir "share" of the $100 million federal 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:
1. Key West will provide its documentation on the proposed stormwater project
promptly.
2. FKAA will correct the spreadsheet to represent the agreed-upon distribution offederal
funds for Marathon and Key Largo given expected costs (see attached, Item 1).
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 of the 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. Jody 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 19th.)
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 NEP A requirements. Nora will
also take these requests to her ACOE meeting when in Jacksonville next week for the
Florida AssociatioI1:of Counties annual meeting.
..,:i
~
Next meeting: Monday, July 23rd at 2:00 PM, Marathon Gov't Annex Bldg.
80CC4
\
~ "11'
.~o~, {tt:
\\-~ \'~//
~~\\~~ /./
V / l/
-
"
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARV
Meeting Date: Wed., August 15,2001
Division:
Bulk Item: Yes No XX Department: Comm. Nora Williams
<~
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval of Intergovernmental Task Force Readiness to Proceed
document, and approval of distribution formulation for the allocations agreed to among the municipal
govenm1ents for wastewater funding.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
PREVIOUS REVELANT BOCC ACTIO~:
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
TOTAL COST:
BUDGETED: Yes
No XX
COST TO COUNTY:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes
No
AMOUNTPERMONTH_ Year_
APPROVED BY: County Atty _ OMB/Purchasing _ Risk Management _
t{~ tU~
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
(Nora Williams, Commissioner)
---
DOCUMENTATION:
Included XX To Follow
Not Required_
AGENDA ITEM #
/ - ~fo
DISPOSITION:
Revised 2/27/01
To: My Fellow Commissioners
From: Nora Williams
Re: Requested Approval of Funding Distribution Formula
..::
I am asking for your support for the funding formula described in the following pages
that was put together by the Intergovernmental Task Force. It may not be fastest way to
get the first systems accomplished but what it does do, and I suspect that will be
invaluable, is to keep us working together for funding and for shared issues as this
process evolves. I hope you will add your support to this formula as DCA is currently
working to put together a document that can be used in Washington to show our
consensus and our willingness to move forward in partnership with the Feds, the State,
and one another.
Note that you've seen this formula before in the minutes from an early June meeting. I
have also included for your approval within this information packet a copy of the
"readiness to proceed" document produced by DEPIDCA/FKAA. I will also fax to your
offices before the end of the week the minutes from the last IGTF meeting for your
information.
f{~ tV~
Distribution Formula Approved by the Intergovernmental Task Force and presented
for approval to the various Municipal Governments of the Florida Keys:
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 West
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 to proceed" within the fiscal year in which an appropriation was made
(see "readiness to proceed" document). 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. Both Layton and Key Colony Beach would be a later year priority.
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 Unincorporated Monroe 28.33%
$8.5 million Islamorada 28.33%
$8.5 million Marathon 28.33%1
$4.5 million Key West 15%
Totals: $30 million 100%
The percentages above would hold for all projects ready for funding within the fiscal year for which
the appropriation was made. If any of the wastewater projects proposed for funding should be found
to be "not ready," 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 Project One
$10.3 million Key West
Totals: $30 million
65.67%
34.33%
100%
I 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, 100% 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.
2
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
Totals: $15 million
32.834%
32.83%
34.33%
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. If an amount of funding that is presumed too small to be divided, the IGTF fill immediately
schedule a meeting to propose funding for a project or project(s) for which substantial progress can
be made SHOULD the IGTF determine that the funding formula proposed above is not workable
under that condition.
Note that this entire funding scenario is based on the conviction of the
Intergovernmental Task Force that we are stronger standing together, and supporting
one another in everyone's moving forward. This funding formula is based upon a
commitment by every municipal government to make progress on water quality
issues, and to stand together until all such projects are funded.
Note also that, because state funding may well be forthcoming BEFORE the federal funds are in
place, those funds will need to be made available along the lines of the distribution formula
expressed above (for the federal funds) so that those priority projects may establish their "readiness
to proceed" as quickly as possible).
END
3 See Footnote 1 above.
4 See Footnote 1 above.
3