Loading...
Item T3 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 18 September 2002 Division: Growth Manaszement Bulk Item: Yes No ~ Department Marine Resources AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Discussion of the disposition and options for utilizing remaining state and county funds set aside for the Cesspit Identification and Elimination Program ITEM BACKGROUND: In 1998 and the ensuing four years, approximately $3.3 M dollars in State (1 FDEP grant and 3 FDCA grants) and County funds have been provided for the replacement of cesspits in Monroe County. The initial focus of the program was placed broadly on the replacement of all cesspits within the County. As the Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan was completed, the Commission was able to refine the Cesspit Identification and Elimination ordinance to focus solely on "Coldspot" areas, those areas that would not receive central sewer. As such, letters were sent to 30 I property owners with unknown wastewater systems. The Florida Department of Health, Monroe County Health Unit has been implementing the cesspit identification and elimination grant program for Monroe County As the effort to close out the files on all 301 cases comes to a close, there is an estimated $1.7 M dollars remaining to be spent. The attached document provides options for the Board's consideration for the use of remaining dollars in the program. Because the legislative intent for the State's funds was the replacement of cesspits, the use of these funds must focus on replacement of cesspits in other areas. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: MOU with FDOH to implement the Cesspit Identification and Elimination grant program Contracts with FDCA for grant funds CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: NA STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS; NA TOT AL COST: Approximatelv $1.7 M BUDGETED: Yes -L No COST TO COUNTY: Approximately $ 0.5 M REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No -1L. AMOUNT Per Month Year APPROVED BY: /' County Atty ~ OMBrnrchasing NA' Risk Management NA . { If ~ f . 'V" , I,': /G'l Timothy McGah-y, pirectQt'Of Growth Management i (I ,-,' \..1 To Follow -L Not Required _ AGENDA ITEM NO.: ~ 3 DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL: DOCUMENT A TlON: Included / DISPOSITION: BC020980 08/27/0212:25 PM Sep 16 02 07:56a Growth Mgt (305)289-2854 10.2 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 18 September 2002 Division: Growth Management Bulk Item: Yes No L Department Marine Resources AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Discussion of the disposition and options for utilizing remaining state and county funds set aside for the Cesspit Identification and Elimination Program ITEM BACKGROUND: III 1998 and the ensuing four years, approximately $3.3 M dollars in State (I FDEP ~rant and 3 FDCA grants) and County funds have been provided for the replacement of cesspits in Monroe County. The initial focus of the program was placed broadly on the replacement of all cesspits within the County. As the Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan was completed, the Commission was able to rdinc the Cesspit Identification and Elimination ordinance to focus solely on "Coldspot" areas, those areas that would not receive central sewer. As such, letters were sent to 30 I property owners with unknown wastewater systems. The Florida Department of Health, Monroe County Health Unit has been implementing the cesspit identification and elimination grant program for Monroe County As the effort to close out the files on all 301 cases comes to a close, there is an estimated $1.7 M dollars remaining to be spent. The attached document provides options for the Board's consideration for the use of remaining dollars in the program. Because the legislative intent for the State's funds was the replacement of cesspits, the use of these funds must focus on replacement of cesspits in other areas. PREVIOUS RELEVANT DOCC ACTION: MOU with FDOH to implement the Cesspit Identification and Elimination grant program Contracts with FDCA for grant funds CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: NA ST AFF RECOMMENDA nONS; NA TOTAL COST: Approximately $1.7 M BUDGETED: Yes -1L No COST TO COUNTY: Approximately $ 0.5 M REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No ~ AMOUNT Per Month Year DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL: of Growth Management APPROVED BY: County Atty ~ Risk Management ~ DOCUMENTATION: Included ~ To Follow _ Not Required DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM NO.: 13 BC020980 OB/27/0212:25I'M Sep 16 02 07:56a Growth Mgt (305)289-2854 p.3 Memorandum Department of Mllrine Resources 2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 420 Marathon, Florida 33050 Voice: (305) 289 2507 FAX; (305) 289 2536 Email; garrettg(lijmail.state,tlus or garrettgeo@hotmail,colll Board or County Commissioners Mayor Charles "Sonny" McCoy, Dist. 3 Mayor Pro Tern Dixie Spehar, Dist. 1 Commissioner George Neugent, Dis!. 2 Commissioner Nora Williams, Dist. 4 Commissioner Murray Nelson, Dist. 5 DATE: 13 September, 2002 SUBJECT: Board of County Commissioners George Garrett, Director of Marine Resources i!J~'tf Discussion of the disposition and options for utilizing remaining state and county funds set aside for the Cesspit Identification and Elimination Program TO: FROM: INTRODUCTION Funds have been provided from both state and County sources to fund a Cesspit Identification and Elimination Project Grant Program in "Coldspot areas" within the County. The project is largely completed within the Coldspot areas. Approximately $1,095,395 in state funds and $792,049 in County fundsremain in the program. This document provides a discussion of options available to the Commission, several issues that must be considered, and a recommendation for disposition of the remaining funds. BACKGROUND The County 2010 Comprehensive Plan, through the7 year work program, requires that cesspits be replaced in "Coldspot areas." Coldspots are areas that will not receive central sewer service~ but will be required to upgrade permitted on-site wastewater systems and unknown systems by 2010. An amount of $2,175,600 has been provided through the Florida Legislature and either FDEP or FDCA to assist Monroe County homeowners in the replacement of BC020981 09105/028:03 AM Sep 16 02 07:56a Growth Mgt (305)289-2854 p.4 their on-site systems. The County has provided up to $1,299, 975 in match funds, including a 10% administrative cost match for this project. For the past three years the Florida Department of Health has administered a program for the County to provide grants to homeowners identified as having a cesspit. Initially letters were sent to each individual homeowner in a Coldspot area that was identified as having an "unknown wastewater system." These were homeowners for whom the County and the Department of Health could not locate a permit for an on-site wastewater system. The Department of Health sent out 225 letters to those in Coldspot areas. Recipients were requested to either provide a copy of a valid permit or to upgrade their wastewater system to meet the current standards as provided in Public Law 99-395. The Department of Health administered the permitting proces~ as needed and initiated and administered a grant program to fund the replacement of cesspits where identified. The program is drawing to a close. Many homeowners were able to provide valid permits and to demonstrate that their current wastewater system was still functioning at permitted requirements. Others were required to upgrade their cesspit to meet current standards. To date (31 August 2002) $787,868.72 in state funds and $370,446.52 in County funds (including administrative costs - 1 O%of project value )have been expended. The following table provides a breakdown of the results of theFDOH mail-out to Coldspot areas: Total Purged Permits Non- Engineer Permits Permits Grants Letters Found Compliant Hired Issued Final Provided 225 38 38 11 138 -- t II - .-- 102 96 To date, 96 grantees have spent an average of $14,657.65 to replace defective on- site wastewater systems and have been reimbursed with an average grant award of $10,853.94 ($8,120 - State fund~ $2,233 - County funds). Thirty-six (36) applicants remain who will receive permits ultimately and are eligible for grant funding. Projecting the costs of these systems based on the average grant expenditure, $429,816 ($292,337.38 - State funds; $98,404.56 - County funds; $39,074 - County funds for grant administration) needs to be retained for the possibility that these 36 applicants will apply for and receive grants. 2 Sep 16 02 07:56a Growth Mgt (305)289-2854 p.5 Based on the information provided above, there is an estimated $1,095,394 in state funds and $792,049 in County funds available for projects involving the replacement of additional cesspits. The total amount available is $1,887,443. Both state grant funding agencies, FDEP and FDCA, indicate that the funds must be utilized for replacing cesspits and that, to the extent used in centralized sewer projects, homeowners with unknown wastewater systems must be specifically identified as receiving the direct benefit from the utilization of these funds. If all 36 potential additional homeowners and grantees apply for an receive grant funds, then all of the FDEP funds will have been exhausted and approximately $130,206 of the FDCA money will have been expended. Thus the only funds that staff is focusing on in the following discussion are theFDCA funds. ISSU ES Six issues are of concern in making a decision concerning the use of the remaining state funds. First, the remaining FDEP funds must be spent by July of 2003 should any remain in the FDEP grant contract. Thus, the need to define a project in which these funds can be utilized expeditiously is imperative. Dick Smith withFDEP, has indicated that his agency would be willing to advance the funds so long as the money would be utilized for identified unknown systems and that there would be reasonable expectation that the funds would be expended quickly, FDCA funds must also be expended relatively quickly. With a contract amendment, staff believes that the use of the funds can be extended to December of2003 Second, both Dick Smith and Jim Quinn withFDCA indicate that the funds need to be expended for cesspit replacement specifically and not as part of a general wastewater project. Providing funds to a project area rather than to individuals presents some difficulties, which may be overcome by building the state grant funds into the project administration, allowing a direct write down through the wastewater utility of the expenses for those homeowners with cesspits. There is a significant difference between what we know is necessary to adequately subsidize on-site wastewater system replacement and the hook-up to a centralized wastewater system. For homeowners with either type of system, the goal should be to meet the affordability guidelines set by the Commission in July, particularly within a common wastewater district. In can be done, and again, the infusion of these funds 3 Sep 16 02 07:57a Growth Mgt (305)289-2854 p.6 to write down the costs of those homeowners with cesspits would allow the utility to expand its user base. Third, in order to utilize remaining state funds rapidly, the project approach must minimize administration. The current approach, utilizingFDOH as an administer for grants to individual homeowners is very time consuming, involving not only the administration of an individual grant but an individual on-site wastewater system permit as well. It will be much easier to adopt an approach, which allows the collective utilization of the state funds. Allocation to an individual community wastewater project accomplishes this end. Fourth, the state grants for cesspit replacement do not require a County match, although a County match was provided to accommodate homeowners of varying property values. Thus, County money need not be utilized in the same project to match the state funds. Fifth, FDEP and FDCA grant contracts must be revised to adjust the grant timeframe (FDCA grant only) and Scopes of Work to reflect the changing concept for fund utilization. Sixth, an option exists to expend state funds for cesspit replacement in the Key Largo area. There is basis for such a recommendation. However, the Board of County Commissioners must consider the ramifications of any difficulty in a transition between the County and the new wastewater utility board in Key Largo. Many, "ifs" exist concerning the potential of this new Board to function expeditiously and efficiently once elected. Much is contingent upon the new Board receiving funding support in the referendum on the same ballot as the Board's first election Additionally questions arise over the new Board's capability to pick up wither the FEMA project or the Key Largo Park project and meet appointed deadlines. OPTIONS There are three basic options open to the County for use of the remaining state and County funds for the replacement of cesspits. They include use within the existing Coldspots, use in low priority hotspot areas, and use in an identified wastewater project area, such as one of the FEMA projects. Each option is discussed below. 4 Sep 16 02 07:57a Growth Mgt (3051289-2854 p.7 Option 1. Continue in Current Coldspots As has been considered in the past, it may be possible to continue the replacement of pennitted on-site wastewater systems within coldspot areas. Cesspits have already been replaced in these areas, but all wastewater systems within Coldspot areas must be upgraded by the year 2010. Because of the obligation to meet the 2010 deadline the Commission has indicated in the past that individuals with permitted systems deserve grant assistance to make required upgrades as well. Thus, the purpose of providing grant assistance to remaining homeowners in Coldspot areas would be to provide grant equity to individuals with permitted wastewater systems. The principal difficulty with this option is that the remaining grant funds were specifically appropriated for the replacement of cesspits. An interpretation would be required allowing the use of these funds for permitted systems. In addition, it may be difficult to spend the funds, provided as individual homeowner grants, as expeditiously as desired. With the number of unknown wastewater systems remaining in other areas, it is also difficult to justify expenditure of funds on permitted wastewater systems. Furthermore, as permitted on-site wastewater systems do not need to be replaced until 20 1 0 participation in the program may be minimal. Option 2. Broaden Coldspots to include low priority hotspots Some consideration has been given to the idea of extending use of the remaining cesspit replacement funds to low priority hotspot areas. These hotspot areas, in theory would be either marginal hotspots (acceptable Coldspot areas) or legitimate hotspots that simply won't receive sewer service in the foreseeable future (ten-year period). Hotspot areas are areas, which have been identified in the Wastewater Master Plan to receive sewer service. The goal of replacing additional cesspits would be achieved by broadening the geographic area of the Cesspit Identification and Elimination Program to low priority hotspots. However, a limited number of low priority hotspots could legitimately be considered as Coldspots areas for the purposes of this grant program. A couple of such areas do exist, primarily in the lower Keys. Within these areas property owners with cesspits would be required to permit and install engineered systems under the current standard. The cost is individually high and at 5 Sep 16 02 07:55a Growth Mgt (305)289-2854 p. 1 County of Monroe Growth Management Divi~ion 2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 400 Marathon, Florida 33050 Voice: ~305) 289.2500 FAX: (305) 289-2536 MEMORANDUM VIA FACSIMILE -if-pages TO: Board of County Commissioners Timothy J. McGarry, DirectA Growth Management Divisibr(' ( September 13,2002 FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: September 18, 2002 Agenda Items Documentation to Follow Board ()f Countv Commissioners Mayor Charles "Sonny" McCoy, Disl. 3 Mayor Pro Tcm Dixie Spehar, Disl. I Conlin. 13e11 Jimenez, Disl. 4 Conl1l1. Murray Nelson, Disl. 5 Com1l1. George Neu~cnt, DisC 2 Please find agenda items 1'3 and T4 with the appropriate documentation for your review. This information is being sent via facsimile so you \vill have ample time to review in preparation for the upcoming BOeC meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me. Attachments Cc: James Roberts, County Administrator James Hendrick, County Attorney Dmmy Kolhage, County Ckrk Sep 19 02 02:21p Growth Mgt (3051289-2854 p. 1 5 : fO pnJ 4. /q. 02-- 10 :1d~ I · ~~I~em~Y\t Fv1 t&02~ Please revise the second staff recommendation on page of the staff report to read as follows: "Staff recommends the Key largo project at Key Largo Park as the primary project to utilize remaining state funds, as it is probably the closest project to entering the construction phase, with the understanding that some of these flmds may also be made available to the other central, sewer projects to which the County has committed and financially supported." Agenda Item T-4 Please review the staff recommendation on page 3 of the staff report to read as follows: "Staff recommends that the definition of hardship as noted in Section 15.5-21(b), Monroe County Code, and Resolution 225-2002 should be based on the median household income for Monroe County and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development definitions aflow and very low income brackets as adjusted by household size."