Loading...
06-06-2005 - Workshop ,. CITY COUNCIL OF EDGEWATER WORKSHOP JUNE 6, 2005 5:30 P.M. COMMUNITY CENTER MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Schmidt called the Workshop to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Community Center. ROLL CALL Mayor Donald Schmidt Councilman James Brown Councilman Dennis Vincenzi Councilwoman Harriet Rhodes Councilwoman Judith Lichter City Manager Kenneth Hooper City Clerk Susan Wadsworth City Attorney Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Arrived at 5:35 p.m. MEETING PURPOSE The purpose of this meeting was to discuss Facility Planning for the Southern Service Area (Water, Sewer & Reclaimed Water) followed by an update of the 2005 Legislative Session concerning growth. City Manager Hooper stated Quentin Hampton, our consultant, is also a consultant for the County. We have worked with the County over master planning the area in essence from our southern City limits all the way to the County's Wastewater Plant, which goes past Ariel Road so it's the US 1 corridor down to Oak Hill probably in and around and some of into Oak Hill. They have had a tremendous amount of development activity along U.S. 1, annexing into the City, development plan approvals. The County built a plant three or four years ago. Its capacity has probably been sold so at this point there is a need to expand. My understanding is that Quentin Hampton is doing that for the County as the expansion so they have worked with the County and jointly funded this master plan. Tonight they will describe how large the expansion needs to be and where it's going to occur. Mr. Brad Blais is going to walk them through and Page 1 of 1 Council Workshop June 6, 2005 , talk about three components. After that Pat Drago and Sara Lee Morrissey from the School Board were also going to update them on some of the rules and policies that have changed with the School Board. City Manager Hooper was going to talk about growth management and give Council some information about what's coming up out of the new growth management act. Brad Blais, Quentin Hampton & Associates, stated they were looking at the wastewater, potable water and reclaimed water elements for the Southeast Service Area. He referred Council to the Powerpoint Presentation and explained they were looking at Roberts Road to the north and extending south to the Lighthouse Cove area. (Attached) Mr. Blais stated on the wastewater side of things, they started out looking at the existing pump stations and the capacities and the existing force mains. Currently the lift station at Ariel Road that is pumping to the County Wastewater Plant is becoming somewhat stressed and is near its capacity limits and the County is looking at doing some diversion and work in that area to try decrease the run times and increase their capacity in that station. They did an existing conditions model of all the different stations and the flows. They looked at the run times in all of the different stations and calculated approximately how much flow is being delivered to the Wastewater Plant currently. He referred to a diagram that showed the existing stations and also the proposed stations in the areas where developments are coming in. They have identified stations such as Edgewater Harbor, Fort Macaulay, Fishermen's Cove, Kayat expansion, Jones Fish Camp and another area identified by Belmont Homes. Each of these have been given a theoretical flow based on the estimated density and the sewerage being generated from each of these sites. Mr. Blais then referred to the new wastewater sources. They are looking at a total flow of about seven hundred and eighty to eight hundred thousand gallons per day. As far as the ability of the stations to pump into the existing force mains, they looked at the major stations. One at Ariel Road, Forte McCauley, Edgewater Harbor and identified a number of different scenarios and what could be done to handle the additional flow. He pointed out the different model runs that were set up for each station. They are looking at two phases of improvement to handle all of these Page 2 of2 Council Workshop June 6, 2005 I r · developments. There are a total of seventeen new stations that will be coming along. The new force main, the 10Y force main, identified in red would be the phase one improvements. They were looking for triggers that would say okay when do they need to construct these individual projects and when do these needs to be online in order to not have the capacity problems in your infrastructure. What the analysis has told them is when four of these primary systems come online, by the time the fourth is online, they will need to have the phase one improvements constructed which is essentially this ten thousand foot run of 10Y force main. Following that the ultimate plan would be to have 10Y force main coming all the way back and then an additional 16Y force main going all the way into the County plant. Those are the two phases. Phase one, the estimated cost is approximately $400,000. Phase two would be approximately $580,000 so the total cost would be about $980,000, roughly a million dollars in total wastewater force main improvements. This assumes that all of the lift stations and the infrastructure at the developed sites would be constructed and paid for by the actual development themselves. The City would not have responsibility for constructing the lift stations. Councilwoman Lichter asked if any of the wastewater is reusable? Mr. Blais informed her yes and that they had an element on this in the third part of their presentation. Councilwoman Lichter stated being on WAV she anticipates it going no place and being wasted. Mr. Blais informed her part of the discussion is if they do have dry line requirements for new developments coming in at such time as they do decide to hook them up they can utilize the reclaimed water. Mayor Thomas stated Oak Hill would eventually have to tie into that plant. He asked if their plan to upgrade the plant encompasses part of this, maybe in the back of their head. City Manager Hooper didn't think so. He thought at this point the County in their discussions with him have been telling them what Edgewater wants. The unincorporated, they have done the same exercise for them, which is to look at the land use and convert the land use to number of units. What Mr. Blais explained about wastewater was about Page 3 of3 Council Workshop June 6,2005 3,000 plus or minus units for Edgewater. The County's got some units and Oak Hill isn't talking to anybody so whether they are in or out, he didn't think anybody was going to spend four or five dollars a gallon to expand the plant when they don't know what they are going to do. Mr. Blais explained there is a little bit of reserve that's built into the County's projections. The existing plant is 600,000 gallons per day. They are looking at expanding by 900,000 gallons per day for a total capacity of 1.5 million gallons per day. Edgewater's uses are slightly under eight hundred. It was that incremental module that just made sense to move to that level. Whether they will need more then a hundred and twenty, he didn't think anybody has taken it that far yet. But that is probably the incremental amount that may be available immediately upon completion of the first expansion phase. City Manager Hooper informed Council his goal would be to buyout all that they can. If there is a 900,000 expansion, that they buy all of it and they would divert some of their other flows there so whatever is on the table, he thinks their discussion with the County is they are looking to partner with them for the expansion. In other words, Edgewater pays for that share and that 900,000 or 800,000, whatever number is out there, is what the City is going to be allocated. Unless Oak Hill asks for something, he didn't know if there would be any reserve left at that point. Councilwoman Lichter asked if a plan like this has to go through the levels and if it had to be approved by St. John's? Mr. Blais stated the short answer was no. This is the City's plant in so much as it affects the County and their areas, it's also their plan. Essentially what they were doing is they are looking at what they need to serve the City. This is something they would be funding a number or portion of it. This is primarily the City's plan and maybe St. John's and DEP. Obviously they have regulatory oversight on how things are done to meet the requirements. How they go about accomplishing it is pretty much up to the Council. Page 4 of 4 Council Workshop June 6,2005 l Councilman Vincenzi stated development should be paying for the expansion. He asked what about buying the reserve capacity? City Manager Hooper informed him the same. He stated this is an enterprise system so this whole thing is going to cost whatever it costs. Say it's four to five million dollars for the capacity and the rest of it, all out of impact fees. Edgewater Harbor is a good example. They are coming in the door and they make them prepay for the water and sewer capacity and that number is around $600,000 and that's what that money goes for. They are seeing all new development by way of impact fees or they build the station and dedicate/give the stations to the City, that combination of funds. So it's not out of rate structures and at this point they don't intend any borrowing. This looks like it could be a cash flow issue, as these guys come online, prepayment of impact fees and they are going to be constructing this up front. Mr. Blais continued his Powerpoint Presentation by going over the potable water side. There will be a similar exercise where they look at the existing conditions, existing meter readings and existing water sales information and identified existing conditions and set up a computer model of the system and then super imposed future conditions to identify infrastructure needs for the service area. Because of the way they are set up, they identified SR 442 as the limit of the model. Whatever happens down in the southern service area, Roberts Road south, is going to have some impact on the existing areas in the Florida Shores area. They went ahead and looked at the whole area, all the way from the Water Plant south to the limit to just south of Ariel Road. Mr. Blais stated the existing water main in Florida Shores approximately 2,080 gallons a minute and the existing development on US 1 corridor is approximately 600 gallons a minute. They are looking at roughly 2,700 gallons per minute in the peak demand condition. For peak, what they are referring to their is the average daily flow is say 2,000,000 gallons a day for the entire City. Instantaneously, they can have peak demands up to two possibly three times higher than that. The City's water system has a peak of about two, so the demands are twice as high during the morning hours or other parts of the day as Page 5 of5 Council Workshop June 6, 2005 they are across the normal part of the day. When they are looking at these numbers these are peak numbers. Councilman Vincenzi questioned the figures being current. Mr. Blais informed him they were. Mr. Blais stated all of the sites that are numbered are proposed developments. The ones that are not numbered are just the existing withdrawal sites for which they have water use information already available. Mr. Blais then commented on projects under construction. The total amount for Edgewater Lakes, Edgewater Harbor, and Fisherman's Cove is approximately 485 gallons per minute. Future projects being considered, hospital, Kayat, Jones Fish Camp, Forte McCauley North and South and the Terra Mar expansion for a total demand of 765 gallons per minute. Mr. Blais stated currently if they look at the existing pipe network and projects under construction, this is where their reserve pressures are given at 60 PSI pressure from the plant. With just the projects under construction they are down in the 20 PSI range at the point of connection, which is substandard. That is even without looking at future projects. They have a situation where they do need to do some infrastructure improvements to support the projects that are currently coming online. Mr. Blais then stated this is a long linear border. There are really not a whole lot of options as far as what they can do. Obviously they need larger conduit to carry more water. So they are looking at a proposed 16" water main reinforcement. They looked at a number of different sizes and the 16" was an optimized size. They looked at the comparison available pressures under different conditions and the future conditions they had anywhere from a 10 to 15 PSI increase up size from the 12" to the 16" pipe. Incrementally there is not that much cost difference. A lot of the cost is restoration behind the pipes so they would definitely recommend the upsizing verses trying to just get in with the smaller line. Mayor Schmidt asked what was out there now? Mr. Blais informed him right now they have a 12" from Roberts Road to Volco Road. Mayor Schmidt asked if this would replace that. Mr. Blais informed him it would be parallel with it. Page6of6 Council Workshop June 6, 2005 Councilwoman Lichter stated with existing developments that are now in place, who pays? City Manager Hooper informed her that new development would pay. The path that they are going down is all for new development. If for the most part they didn't add new development, they wouldn't be adding new lines. They would be adding some pumping and some storage. It's a new development cost. Councilman Vincenzi stated those impact fees come in handy. Councilwoman Lichter stated well that's controlling growth. She would consider all of those impact fees if she were buying a new house. Mr. Blais stated even with the 16" main, they have conditions where the low pressure, sub 20 PSI conditions would occur. That will not allow the areas to meet fire code requirements. That's going to be one thing that drives this whole thing is when the commercial developments come in they are going to have to meet a peak fire flow demand and at the hydrant they will do the test and if they don't meet the minimum fire flow they won't get a CO for the units. Councilwoman Lichter questioned if that would help with the fire insurance rates. City Manager Hooper informed her it would definitely help. Councilwoman Lichter felt the homeowners would be happy about that. Councilman Vincenzi asked if he was talking about supplying all this water from the existing plant that's out there? Mr. Blais informed him yes and that this is modeled from that source, that being the only pumping source. That's why they identified a ground storage pumping and the parallel 16" force main. If they construct another storage tank and pump station down in that corridor, it would allow them to fill that tank at all peak times, either during night time hours or during middle of the day when people aren't using a lot of water and then they could meet their peak demands with a pump site somewhere in that stretch of line. Councilman Vincenzi asked what the storage capacity would be. Mr. Blais informed him they could develop an analysis of different cost benefit ratios and different sewer capacities. They are recommending either a 750,000 gallon or 1,000,000 gallon storage tank for water in that area. Page 7 of7 Council Workshop June 6,2005 He then identified the conceptual site plan of a future pump station. There has been some discussion with the County as far as potential site, which is roughly across the street from Hacienda del Rio. He didn't know how far the discussions would go. City Manager Hooper stated they have reached a point when the County has agreed to lease us that site and probably the property that would also house the Animal Control facility for like a 99 year lease for a buck a year or something. The County's interested. It's not so much a magnanimous thing, is that's where they are going to get their water that's being stored there. He thinks on the Animal Control facility, it's not the subject night; they are also interested in shared space. So that property was when they bought the original utilities from Hacienda, that's where the original water plant was located. So it's a 20-acre plus or minus site. It's back off of US 1 a little bit and he thought they were interested in making a public use out of it that will benefit both governments. So they are pretty far along. They would meet on Wednesday and part of the subject is converting that into an agreement. Mr. Blais stated this is really an essential element if it is something that really has to be there in order to meet their fire flow and peak flow demands, whether it's on that site or not, somewhere in that stretch they do need storage and pumping and this is in lieu of an elevated storage tank, which is essentially a ground storage tank much like they would see at the Water Plant. He spoke of it being maintenance free. The only maintenance item is the pump station that would be an unmanned type pump station. Councilwoman Lichter asked what was out there now? City Manager Hooper informed her it's vacant. That's an old water plant when they bought it from Hacienda. All that stuff gets cleared off and turns into this and turns into the shelter he hoped. Councilwoman Lichter asked if that one would come down? City Manager Hooper informed her yes, everything comes down. City Manager Hooper asked Mr. Blais to give an update on the two additional wells. Page 8 0[8 Council Workshop June 6, 2005 Mr. Blais explained currently they are going through the consumptive use permitting process. We're hopefully close to the end of that. They have to identify some future well sites west of 1-95 but they do have plans and they are preparing to construct two additional water supply wells on existing City owned property so the minute they get the CUP, in fact they can go ahead and get those two wells drilled. City Manager Hooper informed Council it's probably their first step. They will see that on the agenda for the next Council meeting the authorization for the design and put those things out to bid for construction. Councilwoman Lichter asked if it had to go to St. John's? Mr. Blais informed her they've got control but they do have to have an approved consumptive use permit that identifies those well sites as a well water source. They are far enough along and he didn't think that was going to be a stumbling block. They are very confident they can go ahead and get those under construction next year. Again they are looking at additional well water supply sources as well. Mr. Blais commented on the cost benefit analysis as far as looking at the cost per gallon of capacity. The minimum capacity that they need is about 750,000 gallons. The incremental cost of going from that to a million gallon storage tank is really not that much in the scheme of things. What that allows them is a little bit of flexibility. They don't have to use the entire full volume so they would probably recommend going with a million- gallon tank. Councilman Vincenzi asked that when they say a million gallon tank, they mean to store a million gallons but they really don't have a million gallons to use? Mr. Blais explained that their usable capacity is about 80% of their storage volume they could actually utilize. Councilman Vincenzi asked if he was saying they have to have at least a million. Mr. Blais stated the 750,000 would meet their needs based on that area, having a demand of about 780,000 gallons per day. Typically they don't need to divide the 50% of that average day capacity for that area. So theoretically the 500,000 gallon number could be utilized but since they can't use the entire tank Page 9 0[9 Council Workshop June 6, 2005 volume they are saying they would recommend. larger tank isn't that that 750 would be the minimum size The incremental cost of going to a much. Mayor Schmidt asked what the price difference was between a 1 and 1.25 or something like that? City Manager Hooper asked Mayor Schmidt if he was talking about Oak Hill, which he was. Mayor Schmidt stated he was just thinking if they are spending this kind of money and they are doing this kind of stuff and too many times people don't think about five years, ten years from now and then all of a sudden they have to tear it down and build another one, that sort of thing or if it can be worked in. City Manager Hooper stated he couldn't get them to talk to us. Councilman vincenzi stated you are assuming Oak Hill wants to deal with us. They may just want to develop themselves and get their own water plant. Councilwoman Lichter stated they tried to do that one time with the sea water and whatever it was that fell totally through but they are probably trying to be very independent. City Manager Hooper thought they would talk to Council and he thought they would ask to buy wholesale. What Mr. Blais is describing is Edgewater's needs. If they show up before they build anything there is time to accommodate them and they could make a larger tank or build two 750,000 gallon tanks. That's part of what they would have to do. Every time they try to plan for them, we get beat up so he has given it up. Mr. Blais commented on the total cost. There is a $400,000 number, which is the number for a 750,000 MGD tank. The total cost is approximately $1.6 million. Mr. Blais concluded his Powerpoint Presentation by going over Reclaimed Water. What they looked at was new wastewater sources in the area and looked at a total flow of roughly 760,000 gallons per day. He spoke of areas they targeted that looked like good targets for reclaimed water irrigation, identified acreage and estimated water use from each of these areas. So each of these areas are colored and shown in the handouts are supplied with reclaimed water Page 10 of 10 Council Workshop June 6, 2005 for public access irrigation purposes and they are estimating there needs to be approximately 996,000 gallons per day, use that exceeds their wastewater generation capacity for that entire area. Councilman Vincenzi asked if that was average over a year? Mr. Blais informed him this was an average number. Councilman Vincenzi stated meaning they have the same problem in Florida Shores. They could use 4,000,000 gallons during the peak season and nothing during the winter. What is this? Mr. Blais informed him this was based on average numbers so they would need to look at augmenting or if they were going to provide this full amount, they would have to have something to handle those peak days and this is probably a little bit liberal as far as the on average basis. The estimate for the analysis purposes was roughly 996,000 gallons. Councilwoman Lichter asked if when they figured that figure if they figured the new County rules about what kind of grass and developers. Is that going to be a law with the new homes that they can't use what we are using that just soaks up water and have to use a different type of grass in new developments? City Manager Hooper stated not so much of a different type, as much as they are trying to restrict the percent coverage. He was pretty sure, what Mr. Blais' was basing that off of was just soil types. Councilwoman Lichter stated then it might tighten up a little when the new County rules go into effect, which she feels should apply to our development now. City Manager Hooper informed her it will but they are going to really see as they see in the Shores that whatever is out there for reclaimed is all getting used most of the year. Councilwoman Lichter felt when they put the meters on and have it be the treasure it is, it may change. Page 11 of 11 Council Workshop June 6, 2005 City Manager Hooper didn't think he had ever seen a customer that once you introduce reclaimed water, you never have enough. I haven't seen anybody that had too much. Mr. Blais felt when it's really dry that's the problem and the key is trying to find that balance. What they tried to do was make a good engineering assessment what they thought was reasonable reclaimed water consumption for those areas defined. And then it would be a decision of which of those areas get reclaimed water. Mr. Blais commented on the available pressure at the points of connection. Sixteen inch to Edgewater Harbor and twelve inch to Florida Shores and obviously these are all proposed pipe sizes. This is kind of looking at the disposal needs at the wastewater plant and reclaimed water demand or reclaimed water needs of the proposed development areas. Currently the plant has a permanent capacity to dispose of 600,000 gallons per day of effluent. They do that by land application through spring irrigation and say a low rate land application process that slows down. They are not conducive to percolation ponds or virtually any other type of effluent disposal. They will not get a surface water discharge. They are going to need to find alternative sources to dispose of effluent from that facility. Mr. Blais then stated with that the increase is 900,000 gallons per day. They will be looking for a permanent disposal site for 900,000 gallons per day effluent, 365 days a year. They are looking at roughly 996,000 or one MGD reclaimed water demand in that area and average annually reclaimed water demands is 1.1 MGD. The average annual flow at Edgewater's plant is probably 1.6 MGD so the differential there is about 500,000 gallons per day. They do not currently have enough reclaimed water demand or reclaimed water to supply these customers. If they did it would be for them to decide if that was a decision they wanted to make. It is a logical choice to utilize excess capacity at the southeast regional plant and the capacity increase basically providing the effluent disposal site. It needs to be discussed between the County and the City, and find an equitable arrangement but the County's uplands disposal needs are approximately equal to Edgewater's reclaimed water demands. They recommend reaching some agreement regarding wet and dry season effluent disposal and reclaimed water supply where the County could permit their facility and make that official use of that water and Page 12 of 12 Council Workshop June 6,2005 the City could provide reclaimed water to customers in that area. Mr. Blais then commented on storage tank sizes. Reclaimed water storage requirements and peak capacities are much higher than potable water. Potable water peaks are particular in order of 1.5 to 2. Reclaimed water peaks are in order of 3 to 4. That means all of that demand they see in an entire day is compressed into an eight hour window so that means they've got three to four hundred times your average daily flows, your instantaneous need for water and in dry areas it could be even worse. So they are looking at somewhere between the two to three million gallon storage tank required to provide storage pressure in that area. Mr. Blais further stated they looked at combining that site and creating a joint storage and pumping facility on the common site with the water distribution system. The total cost for the facility included all of the routes from the County's plant, and the interconnects coming all the way back to Edgewater's facilities. They've got the pipeline costs, pump station improvements, ground storage tank construction site, and site acquisition that which also identified in that area. They are looking at a total cost potentially of $5,276,700. Councilman Vincenzi asked if they have a reclaimed water impact fee. City Manager Hooper informed him no but they do charge for the use of that. It actually gets paid out of part of wastewater because the wastewater impact fee covers the treatment but also the disposal so this would be part of the disposal so they could use the wastewater effluent disposal portion of their impact fee on that. Councilwoman Lichter stated but that's not the money up front. In other words, as they pay, they don't accept their payment. She questioned if they have to pay in advance for this. City Manager Hooper informed her they pay up front but they do pay their water and sewer impact fees up front. That's where they will fund some of this. Councilwoman Lichter stated the only thing with reclaimed water is it sets very well with all the kinds of authorities. It's very much of a plus when they are trying to get their CUP requirements. Page 13 of13 Council Workshop June 6, 2005 City Manager Hooper stated this is being promoted through DEP and the District and there are some financing opportunities where they will jump in and pay for it. Councilwoman Lichter stated there might well be. thinks something's set up in Tallahassee too for Definitely St. John's, so yes there is something She reclaimed. out there. Mr. Blais stated certain things they can't pay for through various programs. Florida Forever is one that can't pay for pumps and pipes but they can pay for storage. They can pay for land and all these other things. There is always partnering and finding ways to combine revenue streams. In order for the southeast regional wastewater plant to expand they will need to identify an effluent disposal mechanism. They go to land application, land applying 900,000 gallons per day of effluent for a low rate system, it could take fifty to a hundred acres and with the land cost, it could be $2.5 million to $5 million. He was just throwing numbers out there. Whichever way they decide they want to handle effluent disposal, there will be a cost associated with that. Councilman Vincenzi stated this is sewerage going to the County plant and then the County plant having this effluent left over that they need to dispose of. Mr. Blais stated it had to go somewhere. Once it's through the treatment process, this is something it is really going to drive. A large part of the cost of this project is their mechanism for effluent disposal and there is really no cheap way, there is no effluent outfall to the river. It's going to be an expensive proposition whichever way they go with it and that is going to be a hard cost for constructing that facility is identifying effluent disposal. Mayor Thomas asked what the size was of the tank they built on Mango a couple of years ago. Environmental Services Director Terry Wadsworth informed him it was 2.25 MGD. Councilman Vincenzi stated if this a result of Edgewater's growth, sewerage going to the County Plant and all that, so what cost does Edgewater have to bare and what can the County bare? City Manager Hooper explained most of what they have seen, if they summarize Mr. Blais' numbers they are City numbers, that's what it's going to cost. Page 140[14 Council Workshop June 6, 2005 Councilman Vincenzi asked if that was what the whole thing would cost? City Manager Hooper stated right. Most of that growth is all City growth so they are seeing the City is going to pay largest portion of that because it's all of our units and our impact fees. As annexation occurs there is less and less unincorporated so there is less development around there. The County has a regional treatment plant that we help. The City is probably the only reason they are in business and as we grow whatever capacity is created is generated for us. Most of these costs are going to be passed on to us. It's a pro ratio. Whatever percent the County is using for their growth, they are going to pay that percentage. Whatever we are using, we are going to pay that percentage of it. City Manager Hooper stated Mr. Blais is describing that the plant to get permitted to expand, they can't just expand the wastewater treatment without knowing exactly where and how much it is going to cost to get rid of that disposal. And that's either reclaimed or huge land application. Right now they spray orange groves. That's a shrinking deal and that's very expensive property to be buying and what they are trying to develop is some of that same property. He asked if the County gave them any feedback on this at all at this point? Mr. Blais informed him not really. They are looking at options and part of their task is to layout the options and then cost the different disposal options. They have looked at soil types and they looked at trying to do percolation ponds. If they don't have a freeboard between the season high ground water table and the bottom of the pond, they don't have a percolation pond. Unfortunately, they don't. They are really looking at low rate land application, which doesn't allow anything over .5 to maybe one gallon per day per square foot. Councilwoman Lichter asked if that was the County's problem right now and not Edgewater's. City Manager Hooper informed her no. The County owns a wastewater plant that has 600,000 gallons of capacity. Most of that capacity is going to be sold to Edgewater as a wholesale. Edgewater will use all of the new capacity so it's their plant and to expand, we are partners and we are going to be paying for that expansion because all of the new customers in essence Page 15 of 15 Council Workshop June 6, 2005 are inside the City so that's becoming our problem as a partner in their plant. Councilwoman Lichter stated conversely whatever we build here that they are going to use, they will be going in on. City Manager Hooper stated same thing on the water. As we expand the water, whatever water component they purchase they are going to pay for. So that's the whole purpose of our interlocal agreement with the County. We provided water through that area, they provide sewer. You stop the duplication of both infrastructure products being put in and it's worked and worked well. It's just at that next phase. What they are describing and the reason they got into this is this long term plan of that area that is highly urbanize and going into an awful lot of growth, how it's going to be done and this is the water, sewer and reclaimed component of it. The next step is to put this on their agenda and have them accept this. We are dealing with the County and will be bringing the Council in essence a contract that says the County will expand the plant from .6 to 1.5. Here is our sharej here is their share. We are expanding the water system by storage and pumping and here is our share and here is their share. Councilwoman Lichter asked if the Miami Corporation factored in at all with this situation? She thought it looked like they were encroaching into what could be new well fields. City Manager Hooper informed her no. They've got their own certified service area but it's outside of this. Councilwoman Lichter stated some of it looked like it wasn't even west of Oak Hill and that it was coming south into Edgewater. City Manager Hooper informed her it really doesn't play into this. City Manager Hooper further explained everything from Roberts Road south, the reclaimed has an infusion of water, reclaimed water back into the Shores but that's the only interaction play to it. Councilwoman Rhodes asked future impact fees to pay Hooper informed her yes. if they have present or immediate for this right now? City Manager Every house that goes up, which Page 16 of 16 Council Workshop June 6, 2005 is about 3,000 homes in this area, are being proposed and that's 3,000 homes times $3,500 so there's $12,000.000. Councilwoman Rhodes stated some of these are like phase one and phase two kind of things where even though they have to build to accommodate three phases, they only have phase one built at this time so they are only receiving money for phase one at this time for that amount of houses at this time. Is that right? City Manager Hooper informed her that was partially correct. They have a reserve of impact fees that we have now and the idea is they collect money, they build things and more money comes in because they have now increased the ability to handle that infrastructure. So that's a cash flow issue. In essence that's the way it is going to occur. They are going to be able to take the impact fees and Edgewater is one of the few cities, probably the only city, forcing developers to pay up front. When they reserve a hundred thousand gallons of water and sewer they have to write a check. Most places make them pay it through the building permit, which creates the problem of by then you have had to already put in infrastructure, but they don't have the money so we are making them pay up front. Councilwoman Rhodes stated it still doesn't address the issue of phase one, phase two and phase three construction projects. Because they are paying up front for phase one but we are putting in lines and equipment and infrastructure for three phases. So how are we going to pay? City Manager Hooper stated they are charging them one, two and three phases. They are charging them all of it. Councilwoman Lichter stated they aren't putting in what they don't have impact fees for? City Manager Hooper informed her they may be putting some current dollars and get reimbursed out of current dollars but they are not getting ahead of the schedule and are not borrowing the money to do that. Councilwoman Rhodes asked if they could reimburse themselves from impact fees later on that they have spent? City Manager Hooper informed her they could. Councilwoman Rhodes stated that she knew impact fees have some structure and rules to them. City Manager Hooper further stated but if they take a water impact fee in they are supposed to build a water improvement within six years of that money Page 17 of 17 Council Workshop June 6, 2005 and they can pay water and it's all one system, it's one connected system. Councilwoman Lichter stated she thought the new state law would apply to all cities in terms of controlled growth, all your infrastructures have to be in before you can develop. Mayor Schmidt stated the biggest headache is going to be paying for the reclaimed part of it. City Manager Hooper stated the reclaimed and that's a new one to the developers. The developers know all about prepaying the water and prepaying the sewer. To date they haven't realized that they have to put dry lines in. They are making all new subdivisions that have come inside the current City put in dry lines and wait until the reclaimed. They are able then to go ahead and hook up at a later date. These guys along here that's going to be a little sticker shock because they haven't been told they are going to be required to put the dry lines in. Councilman Vincenzi stated he still didn't understand where the money for the reclaimed part was going to come from? City Manager Hooper stated the cost of an impact fee for water and sewer, if they save a gallon of water because they don't have to take it out of a potable well, they can take that impact fee that they are paying for water and pay for a portion of the reclaimed. The same thing on the sewer. He then commented on the sewer impact fee. There is a component of that for treatment, a component that's the collection and transmission system to get it somewhere and a component for disposal. That disposal component is that reclaimed piece so they are paying for that. Councilman Vincenzi asked how paid for through impact fees? suspected it was all, at some to be paid by impact fees. much of this was going City Manager Hooper point in time they are to be going Councilman Vincenzi asked how much they are going to have to layout now? In other words, if we've got to build this thing then they have to expand the water, expand the City plant and figure out a way to dispose of all this stuff by two years from now, in order to accommodate growth that's planned? How much are they going to have to layout and how much impact fee money is going to be here to use? Any Page 18 of 18 Council Workshop June 6, 2005 idea? City Manager Hooper stated no, not tonight but the answer is it's got a balance. Councilman Vincenzi stated but they won't have all of that. City Manager Hooper informed him they would have most that. They don't have to build everything that Mr. Blais described day one. They are going to build what it takes to accommodate the growth that is paying the impact fees and then they will move on to other phases. Some of these parts that Mr. Blais talked about, he's described a couple of different phases. They do a section of a line and then they go back and do others. So it matches. The money in is going to equal the money out. There is no plan to go out and finance to borrow. Councilwoman Lichter stated they can slow down too if the building slows down. City Manager Hooper stated that would not help them pay for anything. If they are required because they have new subdivisions coming on and they've got to run that line to the furthest one, slowing down after that just slows the cash flow. That becomes an issue that they don't commit until they know they've got enough players for that money. Councilwoman Lichter stated not committing in her mind means halt a little bit or slow down until they know they have it. City Manager Hooper stated they wanted the Council to see first that there is a plan for water, for sewer and reclaimed. That it costs and your impact fees and even if it means an adjustment, they are going to come back and hear staff say, well we've got to do all this stuff and our impact fees are X and maybe it needs to be X plus, so they may be talking about an increase with some of that. But at the end of the day all of that money that Mr. Blais is talking about is coming out of impact fees of one source or another or it doesn't get built. Councilwoman Rhodes and Councilwoman Lichter both suggested that be put in writing. Mr. Blais commented on land acquisition being very favorably looked on when purchasing land. Mayor Thomas stated with the land acquisition if they use the 20 acres or so from the County, there is no acquisition there. City Manager Hooper stated there may be some other wet weather storage issues they have to deal with. If a Page 19 of 19 Council Workshop June 6, 2005 hundred percent of what they have is reclaimed is permitted then they have a wet weather issue, there's got to be property somewhere. City Manager Hooper informed Mayor Schmidt that Pat Drago was going to talk to them about the new policies that have been adopted by the School Board and talk about some future needs in the same kind of area they have just gone through. Pat Drago stated that they were here to talk a little bit about historical growth and projected growth. She thought it would be relevant and tied into the discussion that they had on water, sewer and connection needs and they were going to talk a little bit about their capital program that they have and then a few minutes on the School Board policy that the Board just adopted relating to growth management and the role that they are asking the City to play and take on their behalf. She introduced Sara Lee Morrissey who was going to talk about growth projections. Sara Lee Morrissey went through the attached Powerpoint Presentation by first going over the historical growth, which identified the total population and the proportion of public school enrollment since 1970. One of the things that she wanted to call to their attention was the proportion of students to total population and as they project for growth that may change. Certainly from 1970 it was 18.7% of the total population and in 2003 it was 13.6%. Over the last few decades it's changed by two tenths of a percent being 15.2% in 1990. She wanted to call their attention to that because as they would see their student projections, which are based on local governments 2025 projections, they use 14% to estimate student population. There is a lot being discussed right now about the impact of the baby boomers on growth in Florida and baby boomers who are just in their beginning stage of retirement could impact the proportion of student population to total numbers. Ms. Morrissey then commented on the Population Growth by Area. She called their attention to Southeast Volusia. What she wanted them to look at was the change that starts happening right now around 2005 and is shown increasing rather than being just a steady growth that was experienced from 1990 to 2005 it starts to go up as they start growing at a faster rate. This is in fact what they were observing as they watched the New Smyrna Beach City Commissions and Page 20 of 20 Council Workshop June 6, 2005 Edgewater City Council agendas. Certainly that is something that they are taking note of in terms of projecting where their needs will be in future years. Ms. Morrissey then commented on where they are with students. She spoke of using the 21-day count. They think that that's really probably their highest student population for capacity purposes so they use the 21-day count. She further commented on the permanent capacity and the school's capacity being measured strictly by the permanent space they have. This also reflects the adjustments that they made on their permanent capacity based on class size reduction. When the constitutional amendment was passed every elementary school classroom in Volusia County was originally designed for 25 students. That classroom as of 2009 is going to house 18 so they had to find seven more students from every single classroom between 2003 and 2009. She spoke of a series of workshops they have had with their Board in February and March, taking a look at how they close that gap between student population projections and capacity. This was done from the assumptions in place. Ms. Morrissey then went over the Assumptions & Constraints. She stated they are still planning and permitting for one year for school and that changes. They assume specific construction durations. Storms can effect that as well as availability of labor material. She commented on what they use for assumptions for schools and they think it's a pretty sound assumption. Then they look at some other things that contribute to that such as infrastructure being available to the site and cost increase at 4% a year. She spoke of using the same plan for schools, they use the same plan with modifications every single time they build a middle school. The same thing with elementary schools. She commented on cost to build schools increasing by 40% from the summer of 2004 through today. She then commented on there being no challenge to school impact fees. This was an assumption that was presented to the Board in March, shortly after the County Council adopted the increase in the school impact fee from $1136 to $5284. The Volusia Homebuilders lost no time and a challenge has been filed so they are at the point right now that they will not be budgeting those increased collections until the lawsuit is settled. They have the first hearing at the end of this month but they all know how long lawsuits can take. She then spoke of assuming student enrollment at 1,300 per Page 21 0[21 Council Workshop June 6,2005 year, which has been proven out for them in the past. What they don't know is if that is going to prove true in the future when they look around at what is happening in Volusia County. Ms. Morrissey then spoke about the capacity of design and engineering consultants and the capacity of contractors and subcontractors. They have postponed bids because they did not have a sufficient number of bidders. They had one bid for their addition and they could not get subcontractors. Orange County cancelled two schools a week and a half ago because they could not get a sufficient number of bidders. Ms. Morrissey also commented on the availability of building materials, the difficulty in resolving permitting issues and the unusual storm events this last year. Ms. Morrissey then commented on the list of projects that they have presented to the Board. When they look at the list of classroom additions, each one of the classroom additions are a direct result of the constitutional amendments for class size reductions. By adding nine classrooms at their standard elementary schoolsl they will bring that back up to the capacity that was first planned to house. She mentioned New Smyrna Beach High School being under construction and this being eligible for a hurricane shelter protection area. Ms. Morrissey then commented on the declining enrollment at New Smyrna Beach Middle School being where they are at today. They don/t feel it is going to stay that way. She commented on the growth curve and having to decide how to deploy their resources. These things they shift but this is for this planning window. She spoke of the new schools which are funded specifically by the impact fee. With the impact fee under challengel she thinks they are going to have to review the schedule on those. She thinks they are going to have to review scheduling for all that construction because if they can/t pay for it then they can/t build it. So they are going to be looking at that because the dollars that they had planned at $11.7 million for an elementary school and now they go to almost $17 million. It doesn/t take two of those before you are a school behind. So they are going to be looking at that. Ms. Morrissey then spoke of the Board having a taxing capacity of two mills for all of their property values that Page 22 of 22 Council Workshop June 6, 2005 they could use to build schools. The Board had asked the County Council and the County Council had levied an impact fee for that full amount $5284. She spoke of the citizens of Volusia County passing the half-cent sales tax. She further spoke of not closing the gap but they are narrowing the gap for elementary, middle and high. Where they stand and why they are here to talk tonight was because they felt the Council would want to know a lot of the overall plans. They have borrowed every available dollar. This is a recurring borrowing pattern. As new property dollars came on the tax roll, they have planned to borrow every single year to the max and they know what that means from a budget standpoint. It pledges every single impact fee that they thought they were going to collect at the $5284 calculated at 5,000 a year and it took and built out sales tax programs. They are going to be revising that and it's not going to be creating more capacity, it will be creating less. She wanted them to see the Board will continue and she met at seven o'clock this morning to look at the capital projects list to see what they could do and they looked to see how much more they could borrow and if there is any opportunity there. Ms. Morrissey then walked Council through some of the population projections. She then commented on the 3,000 units that are proposed for the US1 corridor and those units in and of themselves, based on the student generation rate from the impact fee study, which was approved by the Council and approved by the School Board, will yield 1200 new students. That doesn't take into account the 600 acres west of 1-95 or the 5,600 acres west of 1-95 or the multiple thousand of acres that New Smyrna Beach is in the process of reviewing and approving development for. If things are what she believes them to be, this number for southeast, which totals about 4,000, is low unless of course the proportion of students to total population is something different. The distribution of students may be different than was originally projected as well as the proportion of students. Ms. Morrissey commented on the Board being very concerned about making sure they keep track of what's happening and certainly if they can't build for it, let's know that at a point they can build they have a site to build on. She further commented on Land Banking. All of these properties reflect efforts that have been and are currently being made by the Board to buy property in advance to make sure Page 23 of23 Council Workshop June 6, 2005 everybody knows where the future school can plan for them when the time comes. commented on two pieces of property the in Edgewater. sites are so they She further School Board owns Councilman Brown asked if the twenty-nine acre site is buildable or not buildable and if the School Board was going to be able to build anything on that? Ms. Morrissey thought a portion of it was buildable. They have no current plans for it. That site is very close to Edgewater Public School. In terms of the discussions they have had in the past, they range from leasing it to a Charter school to looking at some sort of ancillary facility there. They are very reluctant to let go of anything that they have because it's so difficult for them to obtain it. Councilman Brown asked if the City should at some future date acquire property that would be more suitable for the School Board, would they consider trading that to the City? Ms. Morrissey informed him they have had a couple conversations to that effect and they would certainly entertain sitting down and seeing if there was something that they thought might suit them better. Councilman Brown would like to see pursue that if they possibly could. Ms. Morrissey then commented on the Coordinated Planning Areas. Those are areas that she had identified throughout the County, where she sees a lot of things starting to happen. These are all areas where they see the need to work closely with local government to plan for their infrastructure needs which eventually become community assets and that would be for schools. She commented on the three areas that have been identified in Edgewater. Those are three areas where they believe that they need to work closely together to plan for future schools. Ms. Drago then presented an update on School Board Policy 613. The School Board is asking that as the Council reviews development that in their staff report, that they have information that they provide relating to school capacity and planned sites and what they think based upon the impact fee study, what they think that student generation rate would be so they could have that for their planning. They are also asking that if there is not available capacity, that they ask that they are partners in development and development communities and that as development proceeds that they ask them to litigate or Page 24 of 24 Council Workshop June 6, 2005 offset the impact to schools. She thinks that that is really the essence of what they have and when they look at their building program, they are fortunate. The good news is no sales tax. The good news is the Board has gone to the 2 mills for a long time. The good news is they had an impact fee adopted. The good news is they have school sites identified. The bad news is costs are going up and the impact fee is challenged and they need to work together to make sure that they do not fall farther behind. The Board was very clear and wanted to make sure they are partners. Councilwoman Lichter stated that it seems to her like common sense that certain types of housing may have fewer children in them then other types. She was thinking condos for example aren't necessarily the backyard if you have three kids. She wondered if they found that to be true? Ms. Dragon informed her that was reflected in the impact fee study. Councilwoman Lichter commented on two-story buildings. They say they use the same plan for every building they build. She asked why in certain pieces of property wouldn't it maybe lend itself to something else and is there something so terribly wrong with two-story buildings? Ms. Drago informed her they have a two-story elementary school in DeBary and the elementary school they just did on Airport Road is two stories. They pay extra for the circulation. She spoke of having students more spread out when they add classrooms. Their middle schools are going to two stories and Mainland is three stories. Mayor Schmidt stated while the impact fees are being challenged, are they still being collected? Ms. Drago informed him they are collected by they may have to refund them. That's why they are reluctant and cannot budget them at this point. Mayor Schmidt questioned Seminole County going up to nine thousand? Ms. Drago informed him Orange County went up to $7,000. Osceola is at $9,000. They are under a court challenge and they haven't been able to build anything. Lake County is at $7,000. We are not out of line. Osceola County has a challenge and they haven't built anything and they are growing at 6,000 students a year. Page 25 of 25 Council Workshop June 6, 2005 Mayor Thomas stated now their challenge started obviously before ours? Ms. Drago informed him their challenge started before ours and ours is the first at collection for impact fees. Mayor Thomas asked if they have any idea of how their challenge is going because obviously if one wins, then it will be hard for a court to say you are not going to win? Ms. Dragon stated their challenge is based on a different part of a law in the study. The challenge in Osceola County had a different consultant and they calculated very different from what they did. So far the basis for our challenge has been on the rule adoption process. They are not tied as far as the legal issues. Councilman Vincenzi referred to the handout. It says that it would be the School Board's expectation that the local government will require the applicant to provide the school district with the means to mitigate the adverse impact of the proposal on the schools. He asked what they were asking? Ms. Drago addressed his concerns. If development proceeds and they have maxed every available dollar and they need to house students, they are asking the local governments to be their partners in that and the City would be approving the land use. Councilman Vincenzi stated easier said than done sometimes. Councilman Vincenzi stated a lot of developers are already cooperative as far as donating land and what not. He didn't think cities had any problem planning for water, sewer, roads, all that sort of stuff but the bottleneck seems to be getting the money to actually build the schools? Ms. Drago stated right now they feel like this is a seven-year program. She thinks it's at six hundred million dollars. That's a lot to pledge. If the impact fees are forthcoming as growth occurs theoretically that pays for it. City Manager Hooper commented on the problems the City is going to run into. We have a long US 1 corridor, a whole series of fifty to hundred acres coming in. Each one of those by itself is too small to carve out a twenty-acre site so those developers are going to whine, oh not me, take it out of his. The difficulty and what they've got to wrestle with is they have a whole corridor in there. They have four or five of the same developers and somewhere at a Page 26 of 26 Council Workshop June 6,2005 point, they are going to say cough up twenty acres or more there. As you get out to the west, there is a very large 5,600-acre DRI. There is room. That's a pretty easy thing to say. Give me a high school site or elementary school site. The smaller ones become very difficult to exact that and if they can get it and not have to give credits, that's what they need. Councilwoman Lichter asked if they could meet again. She feels there is a lot to discuss. If the whole group doesn't want to meet again, she certainly would like to meet with Ms. Morrissey and Ms. Drago. Ms. Morrissey and Ms. Drago would be happy to meet again. Councilman Brown thanked them for coming. Opening this communication between the School Board and the City, he thinks they can foresee the problems a little bit better than they were seeing before. He doesn't think they were on the same page. He feels they can work together and come up with a solution. City Manager Hooper stated they talked about the beautification and the improvements along SR 442 and they said they would bring back a color copy. They now had one thing that we wanted to share with Council. He showed Council some examples of signs for the entrances into the City. Councilwoman Lichter asked if they had to decide this tonight having not seen this before. City Manager Hooper informed her they didn't have to decide tonight. There being no further business to discuss, the Workshop adjourned at 6:58 p.m. Minutes submitted by: Lisa Bloomer Page 27 of27 Council Workshop June 6,2005 ~q~~ l.: . 11' ; "j I , I . ~ . d'l; v: ! i! Ii l.:~H I '-I'; I, H , i. ~-"~-'ln~ ~~ ~ i: : ,..q , J ; i / ...:.::::....... -..~. ~"-l J l , f, ....:."'... ,-...... '>>",~... .' l '....~~'" ....-.; ! . .......-..... ..~~~i ..-..... ........ ........l ';::;::..; ..,...:.>;;.":....... _.,_r.. ...,.-"" ....,,,01/,.., """-Z_"" .t . l l- \ "'-.,.,'100...,..... , ...'C,,'. ........,. ..i .....-..... "...J..." \. ~~7~ 1 ~ Wastewater - .. . : . - Pump Station Operation Times & Theoretical Flow ~r PUMP STATION /I LOCATION RUNTIME FLOW DAILY (MIN/DAY) RATE FLOW (GAL/MIN) (GAL/DAY) SE8 River Breeze 10 ll8 J,180 SE 9 Kayat 5 430 2,150 SEJO Hacienda 378 300 ll3,4oo SE 14 Hacienda (U5J) 6 550 3,300 SE II Lighthouse Cove 50 250 12,500 SEJ7 South Waterfront Park 58 llO 6,380 SE J8 South Waterfront Park 66 llO 7,260 SE 19 South Waterfront Park 84 J2S 10,500 SE 20 South Waterfront Park 5J 125 6,375 SE J3 Arlel Rd. 540 580 313,200 Meadow/ake Roberts Rd. 90 300 27,000 Edgewater landing US J N. of Roberts Rd. 215 340 73,JOO Terra Har Terra Mar 200 ~ 30,000 - - =qh~ ~--_.. - - - -..----------1[- .~,,~ Wastewater ~ , -- n (iJ'!.;~ 'I.W.tf.l"'~"":( U.II:2W"'lU.~ e)~':rIlU~~ <<. qTlMl:CAaE't5.. ..s~IOJTt~rr... .,. ~TniAfUU ~: ::-naM t't.ur.\fll:a::nt'\' (10- .caaNSN~ f11-lf\All)llt>O<<S ,,~':,. ~=~ ~q1:.Ii. 2 ~ Wastewater.: -- -- ., New Wastewater Sources Southeast Service Area >~ TRACT II' IDENTIFIER PROPOSED AVERAGE PUMP UNITS FLOW STATION (GPM) FLOW (GPM) I J Waterfront Park. J80 3/5,000 JOO #2 Edgewater Harbor 73/5 J47,000 4JO 113 Terra Mar Exp. 500 JOO,OOO 280 114 Forte McCauley South 450 90,000 250 #5 Forte McCauley North 300 /50,000 J70 1/5 Edgewater Lakes Phase JI 328 /5/5,000 J80 # 7 Flshermans Cove 40 8,000 None '8 Hospital 400 80,000 220 119 Kayat Property 260 52,000 J45 no Jones Fish Camp Condo 350 70,000 J95 1 JJ Jnntl Along US # J 250 50,000 140 IJ2 Belmont Homes 90 J8,000 50 TOTAL _3,88",- 777,o..o.!! ~qJ;.~ ~-~~~ ~ - ~~~ - ~ ~- ~ ----~----- -------r-- rT;?~ Wastewater : --- , Length of Regional Force MaIO Used by Pump Stations after Force Main Bypass STATION STATUS LENGTH LENGTH LENGTH &" MAIN 10" MAIN 12" MAIN (FEET) (FEET) (FEET) Lighthouse Cove Ex/sUng 0 0 5,900 River Breeze Existing 0 4,300 5,900 Arlel Road Existing 0 7,500 5,900 Forte McCauley S Proposed 0 10,500 5,900 Terra Mar Exp. Proposed 0 JO,700 5,900 Terra Har Existing 0 JJ,400 5,900 Forte McCauley N Proposed 0 12,500 5,900 Jones Fish Camp Future 0 13,500 5,900 /Cayat Property Future 0 15,600 5,900 Edgewater Harbor Under Const. 0 15,800 5,900 Hospital Future 0 1/5,000 5,900 SE 14 Existing 0 16,300 5,900 Edgewater Lakes III Jl Under Const. 0 1/5,/500 5,900 SE JO Existing 0 J 6,800 5,900 Waterfront Park Future 2,700 1/5,800 5,900 Belmont Homes Future 3,900 J/5,800 5,900 Headowlake Existing 8,800 J 6,800 5,900 ~g!;.l!. Edflewater landing Existing 8.800 J/5,800 _ ~ $,900 3 ~ Wastewater . -; - - " ~ -?'. J Interim Actions 1. Edgewater Harbor '2. Terra Mar - l3~HacieildalDel:Rio,(COUnty)~;r:--, jf~~ =qkIL ~------~----- -------f- r'y~~~~~ Wastewater : - -, .l"' , PUMP STATION FOUR STATION PARALLEL LOCATION OPERATION EXISTING 10,500 feET FORCE MArN 10" REINfORCEMENT (GPH) (GPH) I AM'R~d 112 251 f'o,t. HcC.uley Hurt" 20J 2<7 ~dpflw.r.r H~rbo, 272 20' HKIe,.,d4 Del Rio 5J .0. TOTAL 0$7 ... EXISTING fORel! MAIN (GPH) 16,000 fEET 10" RUNfORCI!HENT (GP") PUMP STATION FOUR STATION PARALLEL LOCATION OPERATION EXISTING 16,000 fElT FORCE MAIN 10" REINfORCEMENT (GP") (GPH) Ar/.1 R04d 112 312 forte H~u"r North 20' 200 E~w.""H",.bor 27] JSO H.-cMnd~ "., Rio 5J IT, rOrAL 0$7 J,IS' _Fo~~~r-!~~~~~C!.~oo' H~~ ~:!:'!!!! "._ PUMP STATION LOCATION FOUR STATION PARALLEL OPERATION Four S'~!~,~.P.r~!~! JO".~d He"", J 5-- P!~ ArMI RtMd hJrt. H~u", North ldgewlIter Hllr", HKlend.o.'RIo rorAL JJ2 20. 272 $I 157 20J 250 317 U. Ufo - ~ ~g!;.~ _ .~!urSt~~Io?! J~.'!.~:~_..IO"~/" 4 ~ - . Wastewater : ~ . - ;; . \ ..!! !.,.. ! · . I,!, .~.itil!' ,- l~~..'i'-'if I -....' f .... " "") j r~~~~~!J !. Ii . -' , ! . , -- ....--- , i i I legend S_, LItl.. """'.. ! i -~ -0 -...- _11" '.--.----.-.-----J t ~:.~.==::~:_._ _ . . . .......--.. ..,,:.~~.. i'; ,"'f:~~";:';" ~---- ---.---- -----~ '7';~~i:4 Wastewater ~ ! . - .':;'-:; Cost Esti mate ., . ;::" . Phase 1 Phase 2 ~q~l!. 5 ~"~" '_:',~ - - - -- - - - - - -~ If - rJ~ Water System ~ - ... - > ~. Wholesale Water Service to Volusia County US #1 Study Area Year 2003/2004 MONTH WATER PURCHASED (1,000 GAL) Octo'ber 2003 F... 7,340 November 2003 7,430 December 2003 7,371 January 2004 7,615 February 2004 6,834 March 2004 8,904 April 2004 8,567 May 2004 10,370 June 2004 8,113 July 2004 7,565 August 2004 6,515 September 2004 5,518 TOTAL 92,142 Average Day 252 ~eu.gs.e~~ p~ M~ 335 ~q!:.I:!.. ~ JC~:I'.l_"n .,,~l.i.' . I 'Ill, !'\';,"- i .., f ;. I ~ ; ! iil;' -, ..' .. ,! : t ~ i ", II! i H! , I j , ~~~~ .:., -. , '. o. m -~....... '.,...... ~_ff. _ '. .....11.. I . i !! , -.-. - l - , - , 'W ; - i " i' , i lli...,; ~:... ~..~ . " ~. .......>o;t -., , .1 .. ..:tJ .... .~ .~ - ... ;:'! .,.t I -.- ......,;..... ; .... .- '- .",,, -. r- ..i - ... ., . .. ,. . - ; i , . ... .~ [.-0 .... " - 1 '''- -~, ~ ............--- -,,- Logond . DI!IolANQ NODI!: -, WATEAllI\IES , -. _r ... ". -" -" j: , -~ -.. -~., ~- ~~,--_.. I ""., I ..::;::::-- I-M'....-~E~L:;('. .1 I -,.;fI;.A'~i~p.....;'~~,.~ . .c.:....;,.llTtllI 6 ~ Water System . -: . - .\.~~ Existing Water Demand Florida Shores TAZ LOCATION WATER POPULATION DEMAND (GAL/MIN) Jl8 '"dun Itlv., 'hld. to 1,500 200 zs- w..r Roy.1 ,.Im J29 Ind;.n /title, IIlvd. to 1,600 280 25"1 rut Royal P.'m JJO 25"" to 30"" West Roy.' 1,'00 JlO P.lm JJJ 30- to 36f:'1o w..r ROY.' ".00 JOO ,.Jm JJl Jt)III to 36'" EAst ROY.' 800 "0 ,.Im JJJ 15" '0 JO'" E.st Roy.' 1,000 160 'aim JJ' E.., o( HibiIKu. North 1,900 JU JJ5 E..t of Hibiscus South 1,600 U. Tot.' ~OBa Existing Development US #1 Corridor PROJECT WATER DEMAND (GAL/MIN) E6gew.r.r L.ndlng ,...dow t..th T.". Ha, 55 5. 50 17. '00 .0 '0 '0 8,. W.terfront Pa,k ~CMnd. 0.1 Rio r"dl.An HArl1<o, Is1a'" River 1I,..n Lighthouse eo..- ~--- ~--------~-----f- r~:~~ Water System ~ : -- 'I,IW.II~'TN.U. #1_ b7M4Tf1HA1l1lO1 Q."J1;UloWI[)l;I~ ::: ::::::=:~ :::==11 ..~ 1UII"f'... ..~~"AT~no .1~-JDAlOS'~CAW n .. .'.0 .....:.':'~ .i:.:ir;;:"~:''''-.''' == ,.::."; t. ~ ~~IL _1...........~'fl:I.lloC CDII;V......._ 7 ~r< ,;'1 --- - ---~-- ) 1>~ Water System - -. I ~~ Projects Under Construction ,'i- PROJECT WATER DEMAND (GAL/MIN) Edllewalflr La~es 220 Edgewater Harbor 250 Flshermans Cove 15 !~ - --. 485 . -- - Future Projects Under Consideration PROJECT WATER DEMAND (GAL/MIN) HospItal 135 Kayat 90 Jones FIsh Camp 120 Forte McCauley North 100 Forte McCauley South 150 Terra Mar ExpansIon 170 - TOTAL 765 -- - - ~--- ----------~--- -- - --- -- -- - ~ -~- '-T,:~ Water System ~ : - -. Existing Pipe Network Serving Existing Units and Projects Under Construction LOCA nON · Edgewater Landing Hacienda Del Rio Indian Harbor Estates Lighthouse Cove Edgewater Harbor FLOW (GAL/MIN) 65 1.75 100 50 250 PRESSURE (PSI) 40 26 24 24 25 o.-~l!. 8 ~ - . - Water System ... ~ ! ~- l'~ :~=-~ IMOUOIVoGe'J ,...~<-,. .'. \: n "', f=::~'l /,,*_0IlC.l!1.lt1fT! ~~;~f.".~'--~- /, ", ~ _~IL ~-----~-~-- --- u-----------r- p~~ Wa~rSy~em l :~ Comparison of Available Pressure from Parallel Main Construction Under Construction and Future Flow LOCATION AVAILABLE PRESSURE IN SYSTEM UNDER CONSTRUCTION FUTURE FLOW FLOW 12" PIPE (PSI) 36 36 16" PIPE (PSI) 38 38 12" PIPE (PSI) 11. 11. Lighthouse Cove Indian Harbor Estates Terra Mar 36 38 Jones Fish Camp 36 38 Edgewater Harbor 36 38 Hacienda Del Rio 36 38 Meadowmke 40 40 .... --....:..n.......... _ ~....-.-.__ ..,.. ,...--""-'"__'"'-"'_____~_~ 11. 11. 13 13 25 16" PIPE (PSI) .19 .19 .19 .19 20 20 25 '..... ;..;:,;,0 ...............Ir ~~l!.. 9 ~.."......,,,,, f!:. i ~...~ -I 1--' - - ~ Water System ~ -- r;; ., System Performance Ground Storage, Pumping, & Parallel 16" Main Future Flow LOCATION AVAILABLE PRESSURE IN SYSTEM FUTURE FLOW 16" TO BROOKS CIRCLE (PSI) r Lighthouse Cove t Indian Harbor Estates ~ Terra Mar I Jones Fish Camp Edgewater Harbor Hacienda Del Rio Meadowlake 53 53 53 53 54 54 59 16" TO EDGEWATER HARBOR (PSI) 48 48 49 51 54 54 59 ~%Ii ~---------- ~- ._---~-~ r7~~~ Water System ~ i . -~-. ~.~: ,..-- ::,';.~.-..--- , --. -~._- -- - i " I I G~ I ::;~,/~( _~ I, '\ I ~YQ~' It H I i I If \. i I '-. ~ i r;-:/ i ". "'."i-~ L:~:" 'I' I'''' ~ I ! ~/~;~;"'., . J . -I Iv.. - --.--. i "-- ~~~I~~~_ "-......... ....". , l i I I I I f Ii o-*q.!;.~ ~'-.:--_.__:.!.:.........~'::~ _.~'...-...._..._..~ ".~'..' ...--.,~.~... f.Cil8Ll A/fIJIlIPlAW51ArJOI COtCC"I'lJAL~ CJOo:IL"'~~I~tl..1JC. --- 10 ~ - Water System ~ -- Construction Cost Ground Storage Prestressed Tanks TANK CAPACITY 500,000 Gallons 750,000 Gallons It..OOO,ooo Gallons TANK CONSTRUCTION COST $285,000 $345,000 $4()0,000 COST IGALLON OF CAPACITY $.57 $.46 $.~ -Q'!:"~ ~-~~- n_~_~_ ~- --- -- -~~-~-----r ~~?~ Water System ~ :~..; Preliminary Opinion of Cost Pump Station & Storage Southeast Service Area ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT TOTAL COST J Land Acquisition (J.5 AC) J LS $80,000 $80,000 2 0.75 MG Storage Tank J LS $400,000 $400,000 3 Pump Station J LS $750,000 $750,000 4 Site Improvements J LS $80,000 $80,000 Construction Sub-Total $J,3JO,000 Design Survey $78,000 Contract Administration $75,000 and Inspection Contingency $J35,000 TOTAL $J,598,000 ~~l!.. 11 ~ Water System .~ I - ~~ ITEM 1 2 1- Prellmmary Opinion of Cost 16 Inch Water Main to Edgewater Harbor 3 4 DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT TOTAL UNIT COST 16" Water Main 11,000 LF $60 $660,000 Connection to Existing 3 EA $19,000 $57,000 Systems Tie-in at Roberts Road 1 EA $5,000 $5,000 Valves 3 EA $1,600 $4,800 12" 2 EA $2,100 $4,200 16" Mobffuation/DemobffuaHon 1 EA $20,000 $20,000 Construction Sub-Total $751,000 Design and Survey $70,000 Contract Administration and $45,000 Inspection Contingency $60,000 TOTAL !~26,000 =~li. 5 ~-~----- -----._--~ ~7_'ij!~ Water System ~ . -- " - ..\ \ ~j> " \~ n\ . r=-~;:-] .,...";N1Il'ON:DII.N1 ':~;-'----- I/-.;.-:.~. \. ~,,,,'-' <., SCAiI'-.'_'U1 ,\.~" ..,.,. \..J;'~.~ \~~~~': \ , /';'- ,I . \,~~:"r=3 ., j " \AT-- ; ...,.... .. ,~~.. , ~ ,-" , \ \ ~-_\\ _..:\ SOUTHf4ST SfIZVlCE &ilEA \:lATERt>>STIllBUTlOM 'TOO, ,..~~ 1V.~O/Ct.I.$"" ,...,""s~~... =%1!. 12 ~ Reclaimed Water -. ~ - i'! " LOCATION New Wastewater Sources Southeast Service Area #1. Waterfront Park #2 Edgewater Harbor #3 Terra Mar Exp. #4 Forte McCauley S #5 Forte McCauley N #6 Edgewater Lakes Phase II #7 Fishermans Cove #8 Hospital #9 Kayat Property #1.0 Jones Fish Camp Condo # 1.1. Infill Along US # 1. TOTAL PROPOSED UNITS 1.80 736 500 450 300 328 40 400 260 350 250 _ ~!!9~ AVERAGE FLOW (GPM) 36,000 1.47,000 1.00,000 90,000 60,000 66,000 8,000 80,000 52,000 70,000 50,000 '. ~f!d!00 o-o~IL {~ j ~ I i: .' ~ ~ r:: ! , ,f' !' '; ~'--, . r ll;j, 1 ( l Ii;' I 1 ~ . . ! ~ /.::~":-""4 ! L~Ol2nd R01lSO Proposed Usar" ~.,O'.... 'C<o'._t.~...~~_ .0-01 I___'n......... :.,....'..... 100... .oc:.ol1'_(.'....,<:iG..-.. C_'...l.._ /:~,;t:i'_;~ ;:."::-;')\0" '13 ~~'-~;--<l-- - - -- - - '1 ~ Reclaimed Water .:. -- J Reclaimed Water Distribution Sites Within the Study Area ;;;. j,~,' LOCATION ESTIMATED USE (GALLONS/DAY) Edgewater Harbor 79,000 Jones Fish Camp 38,000 Terra Mar Condominium 54,000 Forte McCauley North 1.50,000 Forte McCauley South 225,000 Transfer to Florida 450,000 Shores Storage TOTAL 996,000 ~qgI ~-,.,,#..,~~---- --------- .---- ~ - - -~--~ ~~ Reclaimed Water I 1 2 I - I~ Available Pressure at the Points of Connection 16" to Edgewater Harbor 12" to Florida Shores LOCATION PRESSURE AVAILABLE (PSI) Forte McCauley South 58 Terra Mar Expansion 58 Forte McCauley North 57 Jones Fish Camp 57 Edgewater Harbor 57 " Roberts Road~(Alt. 1.) 54 Juniper Drive (Alt. 2) 53 ~q!:.H '14 ~ and City of Edgewater's SE Service Area Reclaimed Water Demand VCUD SE Regional WWTP Treatment and Effluent Disposal Capacity = 0.60 MGD SE Service Area Reclaimed Water Demand = 0.996 MGD Proposed Treatment Capacity Increase = 0.90 MGD Average Annual Reclaimed Water Demand = 1.1 MGD Required Effluent Disposal Capacity = 0.90 MGD Ocean Avenue WWTP Avg. Annual Flow = 1.6 MGD Summary~.lh*u_~!:y~ effluent disposal needs are approXi~matelY equal Ito Edgewater's reclaimed water demands. An agre~me!!! sho ~~_f!~.lr!!g~rding.wet a,!d, dry~seas.on, effluent disposall~ecla supply. ~... . .nR;claim~d Water .... !; t7:~~ , -. -~' Construction Costs Ground Storage Tanks 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 TANK CONSTRUCTION COST $400,000 $620,000 ._J812.c.900 COST/GALLON OF CAPACITY TANK CAPACITY (GALLONS) $.40 $.31 _1...2!. ~~li. '15 , ~.<. "J 1 f-~ Reclaimed Water - - _~~~~o~~~~:___ -1: , 8' I , :1 V<IA..... ,.r1C' I' "Y_.7 to... ---1 " 1.' ( : : '(' I , ~~. , .'t ' I ;li ~ if ;;~\- ~~J;" ~:~\5]:'J~:~'~"r- ~ !!j ~ ,0 ..... I ' '.,..., ...............-, 'C' l.l , 'I I _-!J I , ('-' 1 ,.[t..'l" I : '~/: ~_ _...::-:~~5!:n __ ____J ~- ~:~,~,:: - ~~- ~!' .:.:;';l;;:~, " - .".~.-- -- .-. . .,~~_. -... .'_a'....___.~'=" =~ """""""'" ~Qt.l2.. Preliminary Opinion of Cost Reclaimed Water System ~ ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL J S.E. Plant High Service Pump 1 LS $700,000 $700,000 Station 2 F.S. High Service Pump Station 1 LS $1,000,000 $1,000,000 3 Ground Storage Tank J LS $8JO,000 $810,000 4 Site Improvements 1 LS $180,000 $180,000 S Site Acquisition (3.5 acres) 1 LS $160,000 $160,000 6 J6" Reclaimed Water 16,400 LF $44 $721,600 7 12" Reclaimed Water 17,300 LF $37 $640,100 8 Service Connectlons(Tee and 7 EA $5,000 $35,000 Valve) 9 Mob"uat~nIDemob"uatlon 1 LS $100,000 $100,000 ConstructIon Sub-Total $4,346,700 Design and Survey. $260,000 Contract AdmInistration & $230,000 Inspection Contingency $440,000 TOTAL ___$5,?,?6,.!.'!-L -- .~-- '...........~... __qt.-I!. 16 ~ ~ w ~ u. <= <= <= <= <= Ii <= <= <= <= <= <= <= <= <= <= <= <= <= <= <= = = Q <= <= <= ~ ~ \C 0'\ -..:J \C c:> ... .&;;. QC) -..l ~ ~ \C tII QC QC) <= ... -..l = 0'\ ~ ~. ~ w ........ \C -..l Q \C Q ... c:> ... -..l ...... . w r.> -..l ~ ~ N ... ~ <= ... => W c:> ... ... W ... Q w ~ N = =- <= ~ III D ~ rLJ. <:> ~ ~ = Q.. -- ~ ~ = <:> fIIIIIIo- f:I.j = -- = ~ <:> = => tit Q <= => o ,...... = => = <:> = ~ tit <= = <:> <= N = Q = = <:> N tit => => = = ~ \.C QC => ~ I-C \C> \.C C> Q ~ = ,..... = N fIIIIItl-. Q ..... . <:> = = <= ~ N d = ~ .... = =- =- ~ ~ ~ => N tt5 = = t + + + 00 00 == ~ eJ r:IJ = = = Q tI> Q = = ... :l ...... = ~ ....... lIiiIiil. = C =- =- ~. =- = ~ == ~ ........... Q.. ~ ~ ~ ~ t't> ~ ~ tt> ~ ....... -- = ~ ...... ... ~ ..... .., = ~ = ~ rJ'J Q = ~ ~ ~ ,.... =' ~ - ~ = Q.; ~ ~ 2 Q s= ~ g;; ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ (JJ Q = ~ == ~ - _. S' ~ r7J Q == e. fWO ~ tI!) ,...,.. <:> ~ = => => N ~ => <:> => => => <:> .a;;;. = <= => tIl <:> <:> => Q'\ --.1 => <::> <= <:> <:> => r' . . . - - - . - -.. . - ; .,. I I . _ _________----.: tA ~ tit :-. _UO --J L~__ ~ - ~ Q <= => = N - --..l U. U. tA => <= - C~_~:--nn ... .. -_________=_ .... - Ul Ul N , -... \C th QC - - - ...~.. """" -. - I . I I -~----~------- ....... - ~ N - QC ~ N . 0 N ~ Q <::> ~ ~ Ul Q ~ a ~. tt> ~ .-... ~ ~ ft) ~=- ~~ ffi~ cbCIJ ~ ~ = =- tt) = ~ {IJ . . . . . . . . . . . cCj)>nn(f)zn....... n-o :J -I < OJ OJ M'" 0 a :J a OJ c=ROJ'U'Uc fJ)=r :J:J Ul n" OJ::: OJ OJ g. 9- [if OJ :c ~ m fJ) :J C C n nUl..:::.. _ rT _I OJ - C- -I -I :J OJ -I M'" lB" -I CD ' :J -~=~~M'"~~2::J"'~3~lC ~ -I ~ a 0 ~ :J CD ~ I m CD d: OJ CD:J --t\ -n " lC C :J a :J OJ'Onc..OCD~'N I QT:Jc.. ~CD-nOCD=M'"CDCD~N'c..~ ...J Ul C- :J Ul 3 0 -I ~ C "" CD 0 CrT-" OJ fJ) 3 0 CD ,,<:::,lCCDUlrTOJ03IQJ" CD -I c.. OJ :J :J n ~ < :J rT 3 < :J _I n OJ M'"::J'" 0 OJ M'" 0 a 0" -I CD lC :J arT ~ :::;" 0 0' -I ::J'" :J :J ~ ~ lC ...J...J 0 - M'" CD ...J - I ~ 'U (rl c.. n - OJ OJ ....Ul::J'" ..:J Ul CD 3 CD CD -I 2: M'" Ul -< lC "OJ ~:J OJ 3~ CD:J.... ffi ul" 3 ~ c.. lC Ul 'U nl M'" ~ !:t , -I UI -. CD OJ ~ 0 UI <: ..... 0 a ::t fJ) :J Ul n M'" CD 0 (J') :J :J ~ c ffi II M'" ::J'" 3 3 x. CD lC Ul c- " ctr CD 0 -< ;;;. 8 ~" ..... CD en:J Q ~ CD ~~ ~ lC W -. M'" ...J CD OJ VI ...J 0 M'" :J M'" CD " C q-no CDUl::J"'" CD OJo,,- Ul(J') ....Ul ~:J~ 333 ro Q~OJ ~oo lC (J') rt " CD r6 < . "- OJ 2.. I rp Ul (J'):J :J 5. -I q " [if :J C = c- CD ~. c.. OJ -< OJ Ul c- O , )> (f) (f) c 3: \J -I ........ o z (f) ~ n o z (f) -I ~ ........ Z -I (f) ;0 ;0 ;0 z z co co co co co co co co )> ::0 Z CD CD CD CD CD () () () () () () () () a. CD CD :J 'U 'U :E :E a. 'U :E 0 Q) Q) en Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) r-+ Q) C Q1 en en en en en en en en en -. en m 0 0 0 0 r-+ CD CD 0 0 en en en en en en en en :J CD 0 en -. :J'" :J'" a a a a a a a a :J'" 0 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 :J CD CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 ~ en :J :J 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 :J --- r-+ r-+ r-+ "'tJ CD )> )> )> )> )> )> )> )> ~ 3 a. a. a. 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. - 0 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. 0 0.. r-+ r-+ ;::::;.: r-+ r-+ r-+ r-+ ;::::;.: Z -. -. -. -. -. -. -. -. CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :J :J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J :J (Q OJ Z 0 Z z =i en en -0 "'T1 0 0 () en s: I c CD en CD CD 3 'U 'U Q) CD en CD :J'" 'U Q) :J :E r-+ :E :E 2 r-+ 2 CD CD C'" ~. :J'" CD 0 r-+ en :J en 0 r-+ :E 0.. 0 0 :J'" 0 r en CD m m CD :J 0 Q) Q) 3 :J ~ CD m Q) 0 Cb Q) 0 CD :J :J CD CD 0 '< 3 3 " m CD () CD ~ () 0.. s: CD '< 3 3 en r ~ CD CD CD en CD 3 m Q) m CD I 0.. m ::J r-+ CD m m " ." Q) 3 ::J ::J CD CD CD CD CD (Q 0.. )> CD r-+ r-+ m " :J CD 3 CD " :J'" CD I CD Q) Q) r-+ en 3 0 3 :J ~ ~ CD m Q) 3 CD 3 m CD I - CD (Q r-+ 3 ~ CD ::J CD 0 r- :J'" Q) CD ::J - :J (Q :J :J r-+ CD Q) - ~ ~ <; CD 3 r-+ Q) r-+ r-+ :J'" ~ r-+ Q) 3 Q) '< Q) :J CD Q) ~ ~ r-+ -< ~ r-+ ~ ~ CD 0 Q) ::J 0 "U ~ r-+ :J :J Q) r-+ Q) :-' 0 ~ Q) () ::1- ~ r-+ 0 '< ~ - -- - -- f---- f-- ~-- - -- - -:-- -- en 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N :c: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "'tJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m Q') Q') Q') Q') Q') Q') Q') Q') 0> Q') Q') Q') Q') 01 01 01 r- z I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -< Z -...I -...I -...I -...I "" -...I -...I -...I -...I -...I "" -...I -...I Q') 0) 0) I I j I ~ G) I _ 1 - j I I 1 ::0 -- .._-~ _ l __ _ _ ____ _ - - - - - 1- --- --- m o - Q. II Z (1) :E .... ~ -. tn '< (1) S>> .., s: z z :u z z :u z :u :u z (0 (0 (0 (0 m CD CD CD (I) (I) CD CD CD CD CD 0 0 0 0 en :E :E u ~ ~ u :E u c.. :E .-+ m m m CD m m m m C CD en en 0 en en 0 )> 0 cb en en en en en m ..., 0 0 ::J 0 en en en en en -0 :::T :::T CD (") (") CD 0 CD 0 :::T a ..., a ..., 3 ::T ::T 3 3 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 u 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 CD CD - CD 3 0 ::J - ::J 0 0 ::J Q) ::J - 3 3 3 3 .-+ - - .-+ ~ .-+ CD "tJ "T1 ::J )> )> )> )> -I "T1 .-+ m c.. c.. c.. c.. - 0 Q) c.. c.. c.. c.. 0 0 -. -. z - -. .-+ .-+ .-+ .-+ -. -. .-+ .-+ 0 0 0 0 '< '< ::J :J ::J :J ..- --- I I s: I Z Z --i () o;f en z en -0 "T1 0 0 c (I) (I) ID CD 0 CD :E -. 0 CD to c.. Ci1 ~ ~ ::J '< c :E :J m OJ '< :::T c.. ::J .-+ .-+ CD CD .-+ en ID 0 :::T m CD g en m I en CD m m u ::t .-+ .-+ ~ 0 = m 0 s: 0 CD :E r - (I) (I) - :::T 0 CD ::+ ~ Q) 3 m Q) m 3 3 c.. .-+ - s: 0 Q 3 Q) '< CD ^ 0 .-+ Q) c.. .-+ CD m CD CD -n CD (I) (I) CD 0 ..., c.. - 0 :J 3 )> - CD CD :J ~ ~ ::J .-+ m m c.. - :J :::T m 3 CD 0 0 .-+ lit lit m 0 CD 0 ID m 0 0 I ~ CD CD CD :J - ~ ~ ~ c to m 3 3 .-+ r- Q ::J m en :::T CD ::J Q) - '< CD CD ~ .-+ CD ~ ~ to . . .-+ 3 :J Q) . ~ :J CD Q 0 .-+ ~ .-+ 0 :J CD m m () . - m :J 0 ~ ID .. .. ~ .-+ .-+ C "tJ m CD :J '< to (I) 0 ~ .-+ CD - ~ 0 0 ~ 0 .-+ D) ., - '< . f-- - - . -- - f-- -- I-- 1-- - I-- - _.- . - n_ _. -- en 0 0 I\.) I\.) I\.) I\.) N N I\.) I\.) I\.) I\.) I\.) I\.) I\.) I\.J I\.) :I: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "tJ 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 ex> ex> ex> ex> 00 00 -...J -...J -...J -...J -...J -...J -...J -...J -...J Z r- I I I I 6 6 I I I I I I I I I - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001 z -< 1(0 (0 (0 (0 CD CD ex> ex> ex> ex> ex> ex> ex> ex> ex> I I Ie> ~ I I I I I L. I . I I :;0 I I I I I ! I I L_ I I -1 I I l I I ... ~.I- - L I - - - - . -- m o - C. II Z CD :e .... ::T -. tn '< CD Q) ., z z z z z :;0 z :;0 )> :;0 s: CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD 0- CD ~ ~ :E :E ~ -c ~ "2- 0- "2- Q) Q) Q) .-+ Q) CJ) c en en en en en en .-+ m (") (") 0 (") CD (") (") (") (") (") CD (") CD :J CD ~ en ::r ::r ::T ::T ::r 3 ::r 3 3 -u (') 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 CD CD Q) a! 0 0 0 :J 0 ::J ::J ::J "'1J - - - .-+ - .-+ .-+ ." ~ - Q) 0 (") z ;::::;: '< Z :E: s: Z z -u 3: m )> s: 0 CD -. CD CD -. 0 .-+ Q) ~ (C 0- CD ~ :E ~ Ci3 c. () Q) ~ 3 ::r 0- c. ::J " 0 CD m 0 - .-+ CJ) m en m ::J ::J CD (") m 0- CD (") = CD CD - ::r ." 3 en : I 3 3 :E: CD OJ 0 ." CD CD co 3 CD CD 0 - ::J CD ~. :E: ::T Q) " . CD )> ~ - .-+ ~ . (") m Q) CD .. ::J Q &r - &r ::T - 0- -< C .-+ " Q) ~ " co ~ m CD -< s: r- CD - " N CD - ~ . :E . 3 Et 0- - - ~ 0- -< ~ - Q) ... CD ~ .-+ 0 CD .. C CD .. ::J D) CD ~ CD .-+ Z - r 0 Q) . Et Q) 3 -< en ::J . ~ 0- OJ D) . . OJ - (") -. --- '-- .- ::r . I .- .- - - - - - -- _. -- -- _. - - -- en (') 0 N N N N N N N N N N N :E: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "'1J ~ ~ ....lr. ....lr. ~ ....lr. 0 0 0 0 0 0 m N ~ ....lr. ....lr. ~ 0 CD CD CD CD 00 r- Z I I I I I I I I I I I - ~ ~ ....lr. ....lr. ~ ....lr. ~ ....lr. ....lr. ....lr. 0 -< z W N N N N ....lr. 0 0 0 0 CD I I ~ G) ! 1_1 i i I 1::;0 1 I I J _. 1 ! _1 I 1 I J t _ .- ... _ .L - - __1_ -- ..J. ..J. N N W W c.n 0 c.n 0 c.n 0 c.n ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ~ I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~1t N ~ CD ~)- ... ~ w en ... CO 0') n ~ ~ ~ :T ~ 0 ?>( ,. ... 0 ~ CD c.n - ()C) ;: , ~ ~Q ..... D) CD ... .., ~ CD c.n I\) 'WI 0 N 0 ~ CD 0 ~ II I!l I 0 0-0 "--'-'fJ) Q) CD I\)r+ CJ1 Oc: -C .., i Ie. Q) ~CD n ;::;~ '< ~ '< CD n r+ en ~ 0 r+ c: ~ r+ .......... ~ ~ I\) ~ w w CJI 0 CJI 0 CJI 0 CJI ~ - - - - - - - I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~~ ~ ~)-. ~<>. ..a. en n ~~ ..... .. ~ ..... ..a. 0 ~ 0 - -< ~Q CD D) ~ .., N C) C) CD . II ~ ~ 'i~ en-c en-c C) .....(1) ..... -K s:::: -K s:::: 0 0.3 c. ""'""'"- (I) (I) (I) Q) ~ ~ ~ ::::s .....(1) ut[ o~ Q) ..... -c Q) n -- ~ ~ ~~ (('~ ~ ~)- ~ ~( ~ ~Q ~ ~~~~ww~ cnocnocnocno ~ w w ~ w y w w 00000000 00000000 00000000 I . cn'"tJ "'(1) r:: ... 0.3 (I) Q) ~ ~ "'(1) o~ Q) ... -c Q) n ~ ..:.. co .. (II ....... co [;j] cn'"tJ ... ... r:: 0 0. '-- (I) (I) ~ ~ ut[ (,,) (,,) .. co ~ co en n ::T o o - -< CD D) .., N o ~ N I ~ W ~ ~ "" w ~ CJ1 en -...J 00 U) 0 0 0 0 0 <:) 0 <:) <:) <:) 0 <:) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <:) 0 0 <:) 0 0 <:) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 en ~ -I c: 0. 0 CD (1) ~ ~ ~ Q) CD (it m ~ m - CD ~ 3 ~ w ()C) en w ~ n ~ :T CD s:: len 0 -- CON 0 0. 0. N - - 0 -< (1) ....... ~ CD Q) ., ::I: ~ -- N 0 (Q CO ::r en ~ 0 en CO "C o "C c: iii'" ,.... -- o :1 - . mN :10 .., N o en - 3~ (I) 0 :1 -. ,....(1) -(") ~ ,.... ~cn "",,-0 ,.... 0-""" c: oc. .....(1) ~a S' D cnmN "C:10 (1)..,0 (")o~ ir = 6 -3en (')(I)cn (1):1,.... :1 ,.... c: .... - c. (I) (I) (1) U1 ~ :1 - - ,.... c: c. -- :1 CQ . . . . . . . ~ ~ . . . . . . . '-J-C3:mmmmN~mNWNN:r:m 0\ ffi" c: m m m m U) -. m 0\ \D ex:> Lr1 C m )>(ric.3333:1>8:3)>)>)>)>(ri3 qOmmmmmn_mqqqqrTm m(Jl ~ :: ~ ~ ~ ~ :! tD ~ m(Jl (J)m m(Jl CD(J) [!} ~ .... (J):r: OJ OJ OJ OJ u, ::= OJ m OJ n!;g ~~~~~ :':;I~ ~Q~~I m3~ -r1 -" .... .,. .,., ^ , ^ ~ .,. - (J) lC .,. ,- - .,..,. V J V J ", ==.,. 0 :J'" ~m~O-<;::t:;::t:'" OJI1 -ICDrTn ~ .... :::::mm= I :::::,:J_(J)OJ::::: ........ :::r:.... OJ ~ rT W [!} -" I I I I ~ m I :J 0 m ~ I \DmlCOO OQ.zn' -c or .... 3::r m mOo -4 ~ CD CD <" OJ Q ;0, OJ o (J)rtrt~~~tD~~m:JrTm3~ CD;onOOggtD~ Ic.O~O QJ~::r:J:J:J:J tD DI (J)3:0Z' ~:J c.. :J-oOJOJOJOJDI,...3OJOJoOJmc. 0. OJ 0 ........ = tD -< (Jl -< < :J 3 OJ @ ~ ~!::;'lQ."'3ggDJ~mg'OJ 3 II n" 0.... OJ)> :J;O :J OJ ~ ~=R DJ5.N OJ<DJ@ 79-" ::::: , ^ OJ'" CD m OJ c.. -. rT ~_::r OJ- m(Jl 0 ~ I - CD (n n I OJ I OJ ,,,- -cO ;0"" ::ron -< ~ ffi" ~ 0. ~ OJ ::r 0 g (ri g - tD -< OJ :J 0:J ..... g ~ OJ :JOJ {It:J 0 OJ I OJ:J m OJ OJ OJ OJ n CD CD ::r OJ OJ n n ::r ::r m Q. ~ tD ~ DI ,... tD ~ · · · · ..J ..J _ mmU1(j\C(j\U1 mmbO(f)O--- 3300~0~ mmO)> )>0 :J:J)>QnQ)> r-t"r-t"nmQmn OJ OJ ., (f)" ., -<-< m~ c.:om (f) ~,fJ) 0 Q ~ 0 ;:;:NO;o' m m m :::!!!.OJmo(6 I I r-t":::J 0.. -0 0 monlO3 c::::: OJ :J ::r (D -0 <fJ) OJ--- ~ m 3 rnr-t" oOJ~(D r-t"o (Dr-t""'-':J om g~m~ !!!.ar :::J o..m OJ:::J OJ lO 0.. :::J c.. m lO 0..' ~ m "'-' Ul ~~ Ulm (DOJ mOJ .,r-t" OJ ., ro ., n ., n ::r ::r -. _. :::J :::J-o -0 ., ., 0 o n n m (D (f) (f) fJ) (f) . . . 00<0-0 rom.,ar OJ:J 3:J n m 0 r-t" ::r C!: :J OJ OJc..C!: :::J 0 oon:J OJ"O "< ~ fJ) OJ ~:J~ ~ lC I wfJ) (j\ 0 w ., )> ~ n :J ., c.. ro o OJ (D ro < OJ ro n _ ::r o -0 3 m :::J r-t" "'-' z m ~ (f) 3 "< ., :::J OJ n o o ~ Cl. -- :J OJ ,....,. CD Cl. \J - OJ :J :J -- :J lC )> ~ CD OJ CJ) ~ OJr-t' O:J'" Olm ""Ol 0..< OlOl ::l=: o..~ r-t' =: :J'" -. m~ OlO <-n Ol _.en -n Ol:J'" 2:0 mo - ~ ~. =2 fir (=i. en mo en~ r-t':J Om r-t' 0.. :J"'o- rn-< mr-t' ~. ffi r-t' CDCf) ~n :J'" o o ~ ~. . ~~g:g:~QJ;Om m~ 0.. <: m m :J"''''' v I'Ll <: ::l 0 ~ -@ o:-@ o..::l m Q. m. m m CD mC3xn<:~~~ < r-t' Ol <: en -. en Q2.. g ::!l"'O Ol r-t' ~- 0..., < Ol ::l :J'" 0.. 0 -00 CDno..Olmn 3-n-<~mr-t'<~ m en m < 0 Q2..lC :Jr-t' OlOOl n 00 r-t'C~""cOl-o< OlO".....OJOl -3m en ~ :J r-t' lC ., n r-t' -< o. 0< m:J ~ en "'O::l CD ~ 3 n=: OJO""OCD ~@ :J -n::l ::l ~ Ol- :Jr-t'3 mn fir -< CD :J'" CD X 0 0.. r-t' 0.. m :J -.:J o CD Ol r-t' ~ (/) 0- I""T" X < en -. -. -< \...1m Ol r-t' ::l 0.. "'0 -. Ol lC CD g:lO ~ ~ ~ III ~ CD m en _. ..., Q..:J'" en ::l o. =: m -' CD 9- ~ :J ~ -g g -. o~ oo;+;::;-~ o CD -n-n CJ) Ol OJ - 0.. n m -. -0 n c.. Ol x :J ^, r-t' -. 0- -c -. n a.I.I ~ -< OJ ~ C o. 0 ..., r-t' n -. rT -n -. :J'" _.:J 0.. ~ ~ ~ m rTlC CD · -' ~ .. CD ~. <: -. <::: ::l (f) n ::T o o OJ o OJ ...., c.. -C o -- n -< 0\ ......... W . ~ OJ r-t'" - (/) '"'C C ~ OJ ::rOnO(/)-h n ~ OJ Q ::J'""'C CD OJ =rort-oc3"'O r-t'" ..., OJ lC 0 OJ- "'0 -. (/) - OJ"" rn CD:g 0 n !:!:"'C 0 (f) -. ..., < OJ 0 < n "'0 3 0 ro -C :J OJ ~ ::r a"'Cri13~CD3o 0 < OJ - 3 -. x ro -h 0 c:noro~n:Jr-t" ro rt --t'\ :J --- ro 0.. =r - c.. 0 I""'t" I""'t" I""'t" ~ 3 CD OJ -. :J ::r (/) ::r -. ro "'0 :J ,...,. ro ::r ro :J :J..., 0 rt ::r '"'C 0 (J) lC rt 0 OJ ::r ro ..., c n ro :E "'0 \ rorooo::::rxo~ a. '"'C 0 -. \,/16 OJ c..O-C 0 (/) C m (rl R U'l c -go:a. -c ?J ~ ~ ~o OJ lC ro"" (rl 0 -. < n. OJ N -. O<_OJ (/)0 n :J =: -< ..., :J C OJ- c..c..-::J --' OJ ,...,. - · ............. - ::r n CJ"'""C -. ::J ~ Vl OJ 7'CD -:JlC '-'I CD < :J := OJ ,...,. OJ J--.-.L ::< ro 0 CD :J ::r::J I.' -. OJ :E < :J ro 0... \,J\J @:J-CDroVl"-.... (/) roVlc..rtO 0...,...,. C..., OJ lC::r 0.. _ ::J ro ro ro OJ 0.. :J::J r-t'" 0... . ., lC lC 0.. O~ n m 0'" 0 ro .., 0 -- < Ul 0 c.. ~ ro , - ro'" ., ro,......,ronB: :J::r:J"""O:J !:!:030lCOJ ~:Jro<:l""" :J < -- ro c.. OJ ,..... 0 ~ _ 0.. ro CD Ul .., ::J -0 < t'\, ,..... ^ lC - ro ~ 0 OJ oUl380J:J ...,.., n - ro'" :J '-J ::r -- OJ -- 30!:!:c-OJ:J roOlCOUllC ~ur~Ql~)> · ~ ro !:!: -n CD ::rg:<~OJ ro ro m.. c -- :J -<..,Ul OJ~~(Og: -C < ;::t:lQ ro -cro::rOo.. .., ., o Ul - ~ -- <rog,.....~ 5- -- OJ ::r ::::!- lC3-OJ~ :J "'C :J Ul..... roOJ 0..,..... ~~ g:~ ~ (03 . O~"(J") :J -- ro n ,.......c ~ OJ ::r c ...J .., __0 """"".,0 bJ::rro- roOJOJ ~3-c0 ::r ro -c OJ oOJ==d. Q.:J@ro ~ Ul :J X ,..... """-0 OUlro 3g~ -- Ul !:!: -0 _ c.c.,o OJ 0 n """<OJ roo:- ,.....rolC ::r,.....o ro ::r < OJro~ c..Ul::J < n 3 ro ::r ro CAo:J roO,..... -Ul -- 0.. 3 - - ,..... -c ~ 0 OJ ::::!_ ~~ . (f) n :::T o o OJ o OJ ..., c.. -0 o -- n -< CJ\ ....... LV . o CD..c -aCD < -aCD ::J a. S' (') 0 OJ C---i -to.::J C -. CD 0 < 0 -to.::J CD ~ OJ < OJ..c C"~. c::: = CD 3 00 CD == CD - -. - C -a ,...... <: n\ C CD - -a -. -. OJ OJ WlI 00 3 00 OJ o~-aCD::J ==0 en ~ 000< (J) co::J """'NOJ :JcoCDCD(") CD 3 CD ,...... 0 - . -c :::;. (C ::J CD ~ 00 ~ a.~ ::JOJ-' ;:+OO~,......O ~ CD c CD 0 co 0 0 OJ -. 00 -. ~ 0 ::Jo 3 ;:+o<CD-to.~OJ- ,...... OJ -c 3 Q. '< ::J OJ ~ ~ ,...... OJ -to. r-+ -a a. 00 ~ 0 00 Q o' ~ C CD OJ ~ OJ < 0 0 0 ~ -.::J -a ::J C 0'" < 3 ~ OJ -a -' 00 -. a. -. CD OJ -. ~ 00 0 CD CD -c 0 C- oo-OCDO d 00 -. ::J OO::T ::J (") ~ ::J- a. 0 (C Q) CD CD 00 ~ a Q. -s2. ::J ~ ,...... OJ 00 r-+ """'CD 00 . Q) m a. c C1 Q) . I CD a. G) ..., o ~ . I ::T . -0< o 0 , - -+c :3 U\ ~ -. -s 0 -. ~ ~ 0 n c: ., :3 ~..t ::t (/) ::s n La :r :s-O .......0 lQ- :s""'U\ -O~ C Q Q ::s - -+ -.CJl ........ -<-+ n 0 00- 3 ro 3--< c 0 :3 C __, -+ -. ~ U\ lil l" " ~. r ] -r- - - - . . , Ie. ........ \. ..~./,.. r . .. Summary of Growth Management Act 2005 Legislative Session The following is a section by section summary of the Growth Management Act, CS/SB 360 as passed by the Legislature. This summary is taken in large part from the Senate staff analysis and modified to add and delete portions to reflect the final bill. The bill provides: Section 1. Amends s. 163.3164, F.S., to define the term "financial feasibility." Revenues must be available now will be available from committee funding sources of the first 3 years or committed for years 4 and 5 of a capital improvement schedule for financing capital improvements and the funds are adequate to fund level off service standards in the 5 year schedule of improvements. Section 2. Amends s. 163.3177(2), F.S., to require a local government's comprehensive plan to be financially feasible. It amends subsection (3) to require that the capital improvements element in a local Comprehensive plan include a schedule of improvements to ensure the adopted level-of-service standards are achieved and maintained. Capital improvements to be funded by a developer must be supported by an enforceable development agreement. If the' planned revenue sources are not realized, the local government must identify other sources to fund capital projects or amend its comprehensive plan. The schedule must be coordinated with the applicable metropolitan planning organizations long-range transportation plan. This bill requires an annual review of the capital improvements element to maintain a financially feasible 5-year schedule of capital improvements. Amendments to include the required schedule in the capital improvements element must be filed no later than December 1 J 2007. A local government may not adopt any map amendments after December 1 J 2007, unless and until the annual update has been adopted and transmitted to DCA. If a local government cannot adequately address the deficit in level-of-service standards for existing development in a 1 O-year plan, DCA may allow the plan to address the deficit to be extended over a 15year period. Subsection (6) of s. 163.3177, F.S., is amended to strengthen the link between development approval and water supply planning. Within 18 months after the governing board approves an updated regional water supply plan, the potable 1 water element must incorporate water supply projects identified by the local government from the regional water supply plan or proposed by the local government. Subsection (12) of s. 163.3177, F.S., is amended to require a county and each municipality to adopt a consistent public school facilities element and to enter into an interlocal agreement under s. 163.31777, F.S. The local governments may receive a waiver from this requirement if Department of Community Affairs (DCA) determines certain criteria have been met. The DCA must set a schedule to ensure each local government adopts the element and updates the interlocal agreement by December 1, 2008. These plan amendments are exempt from the twice-per-year limitation on the frequency of plan amendments. Subsection (13) is added to encourage local governments to develop a community vision. The process of developing a community vision requires the local government to hold a workshop with stakeholders and two public hearings. It provides a grandfather clause for local governments that have developed a community vision between July 1, 2000, and July 1, 2005, that substantially meets the objectives, goals, and policies of this subsection and the vision is reflected in the comprehensive plan or land development regulations. Subsection (14) encourages local governments to adopt an urban service boundary. This area must be appropriate for compact, contiguous urban development within a 1 O-year planning timeframe. The establishment of an urban service boundary does not preclude development outside the boundary. Section 3. Repeals s. 163.31776, F.S., relating to the public educational facilities element in a comprehensive plan. Section 4. Amends s. 163.31777, F.S., relating to the public schools interlocal agreement. It eliminates language making it optional to include a process in the interlocal agreement that requires a school board to inform the local g6vernment of the effect of comprehensive plan amendments on school capacity. The bill also revises the language providing an exemption for municipalities from the interlocal agreement requirement. Section 5. Amends s. 163.3180, F.S., to include schools and adequate water supplies in the list of infrastructure subject to the concurrency requirement on a statewide basis. Transportation facilities must be in place when the local government approves the issuance of a building permit or its functional equivalent that results in traffic generation or the facility must be under actual construction within 3 years of such approval. When establishing adequate level- of-service standards for arterial and collector roads, a local government must consider the roadway facility's adopted level-of-service standards in adjacent jurisdictions. 2 Also, this bill requires local governments to consult with FOOT prior to the designation of a transportation concurrency exception area (TCEA), transportation concurrency management area (TeMA) or multimodal transportation district (MMTO) to address the area's or district's impact on the adopted level-of-service standards for the Strategic Intermodal System facilities within the area or district. The bill encourages local governments to initially apply school concurrency on a district-wide basis. Within five years after the adoption of school concurrency, local governments are required to apply school concurrency on a less than district-wide basis. The bill requires school facilities to be adequate within 3 years of final subdivision or site approval. It provides mitigation options for schools, including the contribution of land. In addition, the local government has to credit the developer for certain payments on a dollar-for-dollar basis. This bill clarifies that the school concurrency provision does not limit the authority of a local government to deny a development permit or its functional equivalent pursuant to its home-rule powers, except as provided in part /I of ch. 163, F.S. This bill requires a local government to specifically authorize proportionate fair- share mitigation in its comprehensive plan for transportation and schools. A local government's land development regulations must include methodologies to calculate proportionate fair-share mitigation. Proportionate fair-share mitigation must include cash payments, contribution of land, and construction and contribution of facilities. It allows a local government to impose proportionate fair- share mitigation on projects prior to the failure of a facility to meet level-of-service standards, but requires such mitigation to be applied to an impacted transportation facility to the maximum extent possible. Section 6. Amends s. 163.3184, F.S., to allow a county that has adopted a community vision and an urban service boundary to be exempt from further regional and state agency review. Affected persons may still petition for administrative review of plan amendments. Section 7. Amends s. 163.3184, F.S., to provide for small-scale plan amendment review on map amendments within an established urban service boundary. Also exempts affordable housing developments from the small scale amendment exception in urban service or infill areas. Section 8. It requires a local government's evaluation and appraisal report (EAR) to determine how successful the local government has been in identifying alternative and traditional water supply projects and the degree to which the work plan for water supply facilities has been implemented, including the development of alternative water supplies. The EAR must also evaluate the extent to which a concurrency exception area, 3 concurrency management area, or a multimodal district has achieved its purpose. Also, it must assess the extent to which changes are needed to develop a common methodology for measuring impacts on transportation facilities to implement a concurrency management system. This bill requires amendments based on an evaluation and appraisal report to be adopted during a single amendment cycle within 18 months after the report is determined to be sufficient. Failure to adopt such amendments will result in a prohibition against any further plan amendments by the local government until the EAR amendments have been adopted and transmitted to DCA. The prohibition commences when the update amendments are past due. Also, a local government must provide a copy of the updated comprehensive plan within 6 months after the effective date of the updated amendments to DCA and all agencies designated by rule. Section 9. Amends s. 339.135, F.S., to allow local governments to rely on the first 3 years of the adopted work program relating to the State Transportation Trust Fund for planning and concurrency purposes. Section 10. Directs the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability to perform a study by December 31, 2005, regarding adjustments to the boundaries of the Florida Regional Planning Councils, Florida Water Management Districts, and Department of Transportation Districts. This study must be submitted to the Governor and the Legislature by January 15, 2006. Section 11. Creates s. 163.3247, F.S., establishing the Century Commission as a standing body to help Florida's citizens envision and plan their collective future with an eye towards both 25-year and 50-year horizons. The 15 members of the Commission will be appointed five each by the Governor, Speaker, and Senate President. One member will be designated by the Governor as Chairman. The appointments must reflect the diversity of Florida's citizens, and should include individuals with interests in the following: growth management; business and economic development; environmental protection; agriculture; government; and other stakeholders. Community affairs secretary will appoint an executive director. Section 12. Creates s. 339.2819, F.S., to establish the Transportation Regional Incentive Program for the purpose of providing funds to improve regionally significant facilities in regional transportation areas. Section 13. Amends s. 337.107, F .S., to allow the FDOT to include right- of-way services as part of certain design-build contracts. Section 14. Amends s. 337.107, F.S., to eliminate language allowing the FDOT to include right-of-way services as part of certain design-build contracts. Section 15. Amends s. 337.11, F .S., to allow FDOT to combine the design 4 and construction phases of any project into a single contract. Section 16. Amends s. 337.11, F.S., effective July 1,2007, to limit the type of projects for which the FOOT may combine the design and construction phases. Section 17. Amends s. 380.06, F.S., to provide an exemption from development-of-regional-impact review for proposed development within an urban service boundary established under s. 163.3177(14), F.S. It also provides an exemption from development-of-regional-impact review for proposed development within a Rural Land Stewardship Area if the local government has entered into a binding agreement with jurisdictions that would be impacted and the FOOT regarding the mitigation of impacts on state and regional transportation facilities, and has adopted a proportionate fair share methodology. Section 18. Amends s. 1013.33, F.S., to make conforming changes to the requirements for an interlocal agreement between local governments and district school boards. Section 19. Amends s. 206.46, F.S., to increase the threshold for maximum debt service for transfers in the State Transportation Trust Fund. Section 20. Amends s. 339.08, F.S., to provide for the expenditure of moneys in the State Transportation Trust Fund for specified purposes. Section 21. Amends s. 339.155, F.S., to provide for the development of regional transportation plans in Regional Transportation Areas. Section 22. Amends s. 339.175, F.S., regarding metropolitan planning organizations to make conforming changes to provisions of this act. Section 23. Amends s. 339.55, F.S., to provide for loans for certain projects from the state-funded infrastructure bank within the FOOT. Section 24. Amends s. 1013.64, F.S., to provide that funds distributed to the Public Education Capital Outlay and Debt Service Trust Fund pursuant to s. 201.15(1) (d), F.S., must be expended to fund the Classrooms for Kids Program created in s. 1013.735, F.S., and the High Growth County District Capital Outlay Assistance Grant Program, created in s. 1013.738. Section 25. Amends s. 1013.65, F.S., to make conforming changes to section 24 of this bill allowing expenditure of funds for appropriation annually. Section 26. Amends s. 201.15, F.S., to annually provide $541.75 million to the State Transportation Trust Fund, $100 million to the Water Protection and Sustainability Program Trust Fund, and $105 million to the Public Education Capital Outlay and Debt Service Trust Fund from the taxes collected under s. 5 ~ . .. 201..15, F.S. Section 27. Appropriates moneys from the General Revenue Fund for the 2005-2006 fiscal year on a non-recurring basis and in quarterly installments to the following trust funds: · $575 million to the State Transportation Trust Fund. · $100 million to the Department of Environmental Protection fot the Water Protection and Sustainability Program Trust Fund. · $71.65 million to the Public Education Capital Outlay and Debt Service Trust Fund within the Department of Education. · $3.35 million to the Grants and Donations Trust Fund within DCA. The bill then appropriates the amounts from the trust funds above for the .2005-2006 fiscal year on a non-recurring basis to be expended as follows: · $575 million for specified transportation programs. · $100 million from the Department of Environmental Protection Water Protection and Sustainability Program Trust Fund. · $71.65 million from the Department of Education Public Education Capital Outlay and Debt Service Trust Fund to fund the Classrooms for Kids program at $41.65 million, with $30million for the High Growth County assistance program. · . $3.25 million from the DCA Grants and Donations Trust Fund to provide technical assistance to local governments and school boards. .$250,000 to support the Century Commission created by this act. Section 28. Requires Dot to appropriate monies and submit the budget amendment to the legislature for review. Section 29. Establishes legislative intent that planning is important to state. Section 30. Establishes a School Concurrency Task Force. Eleven members are appointed by Governor, Speaker, President of Senate, School Boards, Counties, League of cities, Secretary of DCA serve and the Commissioner of Education also serve as ex officio members. Report due to Legislature by December 1, 2005. Section 31. Establishes Impact Fee Review Task Force. 15 members are appointed 5 each by Speaker and President of Senate none of whom are to be members of the Senate or House. They then select an addition member of the House and Senate respectively. Governor appoints two persons and DCA secretary serves as ex officio member. Review is extensive and includes methodologies of calculation, need for statute, and other requirements. Must report by February 1, 2006. Section 32. Confirms DOT will provide 50 per cent of matching funds for County Incentive grants program. 6 Section 33. Provides monies are appropriated for Small County Outreach Program under the bill. Section 34. Provides monies are appropriated for the Starts Transit Program under the bill. Section 35. Provides monies are appropriated for the strategic inter modal system in the bill. Section 36. Provides an appropriation for the water protection and sustainability Trust Fund. Section 37. Provides that the high growth capital outlay assistance program established in bill will only be used to construct new student stations. To qualify, school districts must levy full 2 mills of discretional capital outlay millage, must have twice the statewide average of growth in FTE students over 4 year period, must have used all classroom First Program monies and have more than 15,000 students. Section 38. Provides that DRIL which is under review prior to the adoption an optional sector plan in the bill may have the application reviewed under laws in force prior to adoption of optional sector plan. Section 39. Provides developer may choose to have DRI reviewed under this act but otherwise exempts all DRI under review and pending on effective date of act. Section 40. Appropriated 3 million for technical assistance to local governments to implement act. Section 41. Sets effective date of July 1, 2005. 7 FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT POLICIES NUMBER 613 Approved May 24, 2005 GROWTH MANAGEMENT The School Board strongly believes that it is in the best interest of the overall community for the School Board to work cooperatively with local governments. Recognizing that overcrowded conditions will adversely affect the educational services provided at any given school. it is the School Board's belief that local governments should give full consideration to the impacts of new residential development on existing school capacity. Each local government should provide the school district with all application material submitted by the applicants for rezoning and/or land use map amendment at the time of submittal. Prior to approving any rezoning and/or land use . map amendments that increase the residential density of the property. the School Board recommends that the local governments involved require that any staff report on the proposed rezoning and/or land use map amendment include a review and evaluation of the following information. · The availability of existing school capacity or any planned expansion of capacity in the next five years; · The number of students likely to be generated by the new development, as calculated by the school district; · The availability of school sites owned by the School Board and the available services to these sites. If the staff reports that approval of the proposed rezoning and/or land use map amendment would result in the student population exceeding existing and planned school capacity, the School Board believes the local government should publicly acknowledge that approval of the prooosal will have an adverse impact on the educational services and facilities provided in the area. If the proposed rezoning and/or land use map amendment is to be granted notwithstanding an adverse report regarding the impact on school overcrowding, it would be the School Board's expectation that the local government will require the applicant to provide the school district with the means to mitigate the adverse impact of the proposal on the schools. Legal Authority: Sections 1001.41 (2). 1001.43(5). 1001.49(3), Florida Statutes Laws Implemented: Sections 163.3161 (3) and (4), 1013.33, Florida Statutes History: (Adopted -- (Effective Date -- )