AGENDA POLK REGIONAL WATER COOPERATIVE › wp-content › uploads › 2020 › 04 ›...
105
AGENDA POLK REGIONAL WATER COOPERATIVE April 22, 2020 – 2:00 PM Lake Myrtle Sports Complex 2701 Lake Myrtle Park Road Auburndale, FL 33823 A. Call to Order B. Recognition of new primary/alternate appointees of members C. Agenda Revisions D. Public Comments E. Consent Items 1. Board of Directors Meeting Minutes F. Regular BOD 2. Heartland Headwaters Protection & Sustainability Act - Legislative Update RECESS REGULAR BOD/COMMENCE PROJECTS BOD: G. Projects BOD 3. Action Item - Second Amendment to Projects Cooperative Funding Agreements 4. Action Item - Bond Counsel Selection 5. Action Item - Approval of Change Order #2 (Skink Survey) 6. Action Item - Modifications to Conservation Cooperative Funding Agreements 7. Combined Projects Technical Team Update RECESS PROJECTS BOD/COMMENCE REGULAR BOD: H. Open Discussion I. Chair / Executive Director J. Adjournment
Transcript of AGENDA POLK REGIONAL WATER COOPERATIVE › wp-content › uploads › 2020 › 04 ›...
AGENDA POLK REGIONAL WATER COOPERATIVE
April 22, 2020 – 2:00 PM Lake Myrtle Sports Complex 2701 Lake Myrtle Park Road
Auburndale, FL 33823
A. Call to Order
B. Recognition of new primary/alternate appointees of members
C. Agenda Revisions
D. Public Comments
E. Consent Items
1. Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
F. Regular BOD
2. Heartland Headwaters Protection & Sustainability Act - Legislative Update
RECESS REGULAR BOD/COMMENCE PROJECTS BOD:
G. Projects BOD
3. Action Item - Second Amendment to Projects Cooperative Funding Agreements
4. Action Item - Bond Counsel Selection
5. Action Item - Approval of Change Order #2 (Skink Survey)
6. Action Item - Modifications to Conservation Cooperative Funding Agreements
7. Combined Projects Technical Team Update
RECESS PROJECTS BOD/COMMENCE REGULAR BOD:
H. Open Discussion
I. Chair / Executive Director
J. Adjournment
In accordance with the American with Disabilities Act, persons with disabilities needing special accommodations to participate in this proceeding should contact the Polk County Communications Office not later than forty eight hours prior to the proceeding. Their offices are located in the Neil Combee Administration Building, 330 West Church Street in Bartow. Telephone (863) 534-6090, TDD (863) 534-7777 or 1-800-955-8771, Voice Impaired 1-800-955-8770 via Florida Relay Service.
If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the board with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he or she will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he or she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
E.1
April 22, 2020 Polk Regional Water Cooperative Regular Meeting Agenda Item #1
SUBJECT Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
DESCRIPTION
The Board of Directors (BOD) will consider approval of the minutes for:
Regular PRWC BOD meeting – January 15, 2020
RECOMMENDATION
Consent Agenda - Recommend approval of minutes for referenced meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT
N/A
Packet Pg. 3
E.1.a
MINUTES POLK REGIONAL WATER COOPERATIVE
January 15, 2020 – 2:00 PM Lake Myrtle Sports Complex 2701 Lake Myrtle Park Road
Auburndale, FL 33823
Member Governments in Attendance: Member Government Representative City of Auburndale Mayor Tim Pospichal, Primary (Chair) City of Bartow Commissioner James Clements, Alternate City of Davenport Commissioner Tom Fellows, Primary City of Dundee Commissioner Bert Goddard, Primary City of Eagle Lake In Absence City of Fort Meade Commissioner Jim Watts, Primary City of Frostproof In Absence City of Haines City Mayor Morris West, Primary City of Lake Alfred Mayor Charles Lake, Primary Town of Lake Hamilton Mayor Mike Kehoe, Primary City of Lake Wales Mayor Eugene Fultz, Primary City of Lakeland In Absence City of Mulberry In Absence City of Polk City Mayor Joe LaCascia, Primary Polk County Commissioner George Lindsey, Primary City of Winter Haven Mayor Pro-Tem Nathaniel Birdsong, Primary
A. Call to Order
Meeting called to order by Chairman Pospichal at 2:00 PM.
B. Recognition of new primary/alternate appointees of members
C. Agenda Revisions
No revisions of the agenda were requested.
D. Public Comments
No public comments were presented.
Att
ach
men
t: P
RW
C-M
inu
tes-
01-1
5-20
(72
35 :
Bo
ard
of
Dir
ecto
rs M
eeti
ng
Min
ute
s)
Packet Pg. 4
E. Consent Items:
1. Board of Directors November 13, 2019 Meeting Minutes
E.1.a
Motion made and seconded to approve the consent agenda as presented. Motion approved unanimously.
F. Regular BOD
2. Demand Management Plan Co-funding Agreement
Ms. Keeli Carlton (City of Winter Haven) and Ms. Mary Thomas (WSP/Carollo/TeamOne) presented an update on the conservation programs currently implemented by the Polk Regional Water Cooperative (PRWC), and the role conservation plays in the PRWC regional water supply program and funding options.
Mr. Gene Heath, Project Administrator, reviewed the past progress in conservation and grants received by the PRWC. Mr. Heath stressed the importance of increasing the participation on the existing contracts.
Mr. Ed de la Parte, PRWC legal counsel, provided a background of the agreements entered into by the member governments to implement the conservation projects. Recommended staff develop an agreement with the Cooperative’s members that implements the program being developed.
Mr. Gene Heath stated the contracts would include a personnel component, either hired directly by the PRWC or a consultant to assist local governments. Somehow the Cooperative has to get enough horsepower so a local government has the ability to move forward with conservation and the Cooperative provides the necessary assistance needed to move forward.
Chair Pospichal stated we would need a motion to ask the staff to develop a conservation agreement.
Mr. Heath confirmed.
Commissioner Lindsey asked how much money was in the pool for conservation.
Mr. Heath stated approximately half of the conservation grant money is still available for projects.
Commissioner Lindsey stated in the ball park of $300,000 and the idea is to engage someone to use those funds in the account.
Mr. Heath clarified that the Cooperative does not have an account. It is a reimbursement from the District. The Cooperative receives a reimbursement request from a member government and passes the request to the District and upon receiving funds passes the funds to the member government.
Commissioner Lindsey requested pursuing the possibility of those systems that have viable programs assist the smaller systems and get reimbursements if they have the capacity and willingness to assist in lieu of creating additional bureaucracy.
Att
ach
men
t: P
RW
C-M
inu
tes-
01-1
5-20
(72
35 :
Bo
ard
of
Dir
ecto
rs M
eeti
ng
Min
ute
s)
Packet Pg. 5
E.1.a
Chair Pospichal stated that it is his opinion that with the minimum participation of 30% he is concerned that we have tried and it is not working. We are at the time where it is necessary to ask for third party assistance and be able to reach the necessary benchmarks set by the District.
Mr. Heath stated it is a good idea and one that has been attempted over the past three years, but to date have not been able to.
Commissioner Lindsey stated the problem is that historically the ones who are not participating are not at the table.
Mayor LaCascia stated he has heard what is expected of the PRWC and what is expected by the member governments and requested what would be expected from the third party.
Mr. Heath stated those who are successful now have someone who is assigned to conservation. The assigned staff track the program, sees what is being done, and monitors the success of each project. Incurs the cost of the project and passes the cost on to the Cooperative for reimbursement by the District.
Mayor LaCascia wants to know what the third party is expected to do that we are not doing.
Mr. Heath stated it would put a person at the Cooperative level that would perform that same task for the smaller utilities that cannot have dedicated conservation staff.
Ms. Carlton stated the conservation team would like to see the conservation program streamlined and can facilitate the program for the smaller utilities but also promote the regional water cooperative and conservation as well.
Mayor LaCascia stated the bottom line is we are trying to take less water out of the upper Floridan aquifer.
Ms. Carlton stated the third party could promote the behavior changes necessary to reduce the consumption of water.
Mayor LaCascia is asking why SWFWMD is still allowing the residential irrigation well drilling.
Commissioner Lindsey stated that several meetings ago SWFWMD stated the residential irrigation wells do not come from the upper Floridan aquifer, but from the surficial aquifer and represent less than 1% of the total water use.
Mayor LaCascia stated that if it is not true that the irrigation water is coming from the surficial and not the upper Floridan aquifer system.
Mr. Eric Dehaven, SWFWMD, stated there is value in Mayor LaCascia’s statements, but there is much greater impact from conservation through the programs that have been spoken about today.
Mayor LaCascia stated that it is his understanding that 30 mgd is coming out of the aquifer for irrigation. We are talking about taking 50 mgd out of the Peace River to put
Att
ach
men
t: P
RW
C-M
inu
tes-
01-1
5-20
(72
35 :
Bo
ard
of
Dir
ecto
rs M
eeti
ng
Min
ute
s)
Packet Pg. 6
E.1.a
into reservoirs to facilitate its entry in to the upper Floridan aquifer; resulting in a net gain of only 20 mgd.
Mr. Dehaven stated that the conservation plan is there to reduce the amount of water coming out of the ground.
Mayor LaCascia stated that Polk City is trying to implement conservation programs, but have been unable to get the attention of the people of Polk City but are getting the attention of developers. They have two large developments over 1,000 homes that will be permitted in the next few months. If those homes want to put in irrigation wells while the Cooperative is talking about spending money to hire a third party to assist with conservation. Why doesn’t the District prohibit the drilling of irrigation wells to save as much as possible?
Mr. Dehaven stated that people will irrigate whether it is private or public but where we need to focus is on the conservation enforcement policies, and ensuring restrictions are followed. The irrigation is going to come from a private well or a public water supply, but the focus needs to be on conservation.
Chair Pospichal requested Mayor LaCascia and Mr. Dehaven get together and discuss the issue to review the presentation from September.
Commissioner Lindsey asked for Mr. Dehaven to explain the connection between the Surficial and upper Floridan aquifer and how domestic irrigation affects those two sources.
Mr. Dehaven stated it is important to recognize that the surficial aquifer recharges the Floridan, but also recognize that across Polk County as you travel southward the surficial becomes more of an independent aquifer. In Mayor LaCascia’s area, the water is largely coming from the upper Floridan, as you get down to Ft. Meade and southward you can use the water from the surficial without as big an impact on the upper Floridan.
Mayor LaCascia asked what is the depth of the surficial aquifer.
Mr. Dehaven stated it can range from 20 ft to 200 ft in Polk County depending if you are on or off the ridge.
Mayor LaCascia asked that if you enquire of any well driller that only drills private irrigation wells, how deep do they go?
Mr. Dehaven stated they go anywhere from 60 to 80 feet.
Mayor LaCascia stated the surficial aquifer exists for two weeks after a rainfall before permeating into the upper Floridan, and no well driller in Polk County will provide a reliability guarantee unless they drill 150 to 200 feet, and will make a presentation of the documentation at the next meeting.
Commissioner Lindsey asked how the capacity for irrigation wells for groves taken out of production due to development is credited back.
Mr. Dehaven stated that typically when looking at sustainable yield projections you are looking through time regarding what is currently permitted and what is not. As you go
Att
ach
men
t: P
RW
C-M
inu
tes-
01-1
5-20
(72
35 :
Bo
ard
of
Dir
ecto
rs M
eeti
ng
Min
ute
s)
Packet Pg. 7
E.1.a
into the future, you make assumptions about what is going away from the agricultural sector. That will be incorporated into the model looking forward when determining sustainable yield.
Commissioner Lindsey stated there was a time when industrial was considered a third of the water use, agriculture was considered a third, and public supply a third, then as the first two reduce their should be more supply available for public supply.
Mr. Dehaven stated that his earlier presentation demonstrated similar findings showing that ag was slightly ahead in Polk County but Public Supply was rapidly surpassing.
Commissioner Lindsey asked if the balance is shifting then that should push out the demand for the next level of capacity.
Mr. Dehaven stated that the PRWC project the District is working with the Cooperative on, on the Peace River, also includes a land use transition component that will look to see if upper Floridan aquifer supply is available through those land use transitions.
Commissioner Watts stated there has been very little participation, would it be better to spend the money and time on educating the citizens and commissions of the smaller communities.
Mayor LaCascia stated the PRWC representatives are going to the City’s on a one to one basis and the County has on their agenda to address the entire County.
Commissioner Watts stated it is difficult to educate his commission in one meeting with all that has been discussed and do to sunshine laws cannot simply discuss the issues at every opportunity.
Mayor LaCascia stated we are talking about enforcement of irrigation restrictions and asked if anyone believes people are checking on the days that the irrigation wells or public supplied irrigation and would like to know what the enforcement is.
Mr. Dehaven stated it is a great point that the enforcement needs to take a high priority and is typically a local government responsibility.
Mr. Heath stated the PRWC has an application into the District for $250,000 to move conservation along and are doing a conservation study looking at education, enforcement, all of these aspects of conservation. We are in the implementation stage of that, we will come out of that at the end of the year and if we do not have funding we will be sitting with that document on a shelf collecting dust. We don’t need to pursue the $250,000, but if we are going to, the District is looking for commitments from the membership so we will move forward and not stay idle.
Mayor LaCascia stated we should not spend one dollar if it isn’t going to work.
Chair Pospichal called for motion.
Att
ach
men
t: P
RW
C-M
inu
tes-
01-1
5-20
(72
35 :
Bo
ard
of
Dir
ecto
rs M
eeti
ng
Min
ute
s)
Commissioner Lindsey made a motion and seconded by Mayor Pro-tem Birdsong to apply for the $250,000 co-funding grant and how that will be spent will be decided at a later date. Motion approved unanimously.
Packet Pg. 8
E.1.a
3. Central Florida Water Initiative (CFWI) Status
Mr. Heath provided a brief description of how the PRWC developed projects based on the CFWI Regional Water Supply Plan and introduced Mr. David MacIntyre.
Mr. David MacIntyre (AquaSciTech Consulting) provided a presentation on the technical progress of the groundwater evaluation for the draft 2020 CFWI Regional Water Supply Plan. In essence the sustainable yield in 2015 was estimated at 850 mgd and the draft 2020 estimate has been reduced to 760 mgd.
Mr. Heath asked if in Mr. MacIntyre’s review of the model, did he view the science used in the planning model was credible.
Mr. MacIntyre stated in general, he thinks the model is significantly stronger than the one used in 2015 and has been independently peer reviewed rigorously.
Mr. Heath asked what the bottom line impact will be on Polk County.
Mr. MacIntyre stated that SWFWMD is the dominant permitting agency in the area and has historically taken the position that the SWUCA recovery strategy is working. However, there is definitely a pattern of the District lowering allocations every time they see a permit they view as over allocated currently. The District is probably determining how they will react to the CFWI groundwater availability right now since the number has just come out. The fact of the matter is that the fairly large numbers of violated MFLs are located in Polk County and are predicted to get worse by the new model; he assumes the District will want to be assured that something is being done down the road to mitigate that.
Mr. Heath asked Mr. Dehaven to present an update on where the new CFWI availability number stands wihin the Southwest Florida Water Management District.
Mr. Dehaven stated that this issue is coming to the SWFWMD governing board at the February meeting. Everything Mr. MacIntyre stated is on par with how the District views the regional water supply plan and are waiting on DEP to take the lead on rule building as a region for the CFWI instead of the individual water management districts.
Mr. Heath stated the PRWC used the 2015 projections for their projects and asked if the 2020 numbers should be used.
Mr. Dehaven stated yes, it is his understanding that the regional water supply plan will be updated every 5 years. This is the second update. The CFWI water supply plan is incorporated into the District’s water supply plan as part of the update every 5 years. It only make sense to look at the latest projections.
Commissioner Lindsey stated the driving force when we started this process is that the total of all of our permits exceed the groundwater availability. Historically we have been thinking of Polk County as a silo, but as the model shows a wide boundary, the range of influence moves beyond our County, our neighbors will have a greater impact than we will.
Att
ach
men
t: P
RW
C-M
inu
tes-
01-1
5-20
(72
35 :
Bo
ard
of
Dir
ecto
rs M
eeti
ng
Min
ute
s)
Packet Pg. 9
E.1.a
Mr. MacIntrye stated he wouldn’t say they would have a greater impact locally, but certainly recognizes that the groundwater availability does not recognize the political boundaries.
Commissioner Lindsey stated that is his point and that what the PRWC does will have an impact beyond the Polk County border, which makes the challenge and urgency even greater.
Recess Regular Board of Directors / Commence Projects Board of Directors at 3:13 P.M.
G. Projects BOD
4. Considerations for Phase 2A Agreement / Financing
a. Draft Agreement
Director Taylor introduced Mr de la Parte and stated there will be two additionalpresentations, one by Mr. Robert Beltran (TeamOne) and Ryan Leavengood(Lake Alfred). Upon the conclusion of the presentations, action items will bediscussed by the Board.
Mr. Ed de la Parte (PRWC Legal Counsel) presented issues for considerationrelated to and a summary of the Phase 2A Agreement.
Commissioner Watts asked for a further explanation of the virtual pipe to Ft.Meade.
Mr. de la Parte provided a brief description of the virtual water transfer process.
Commissioner Clements appreciated that the Board members have till 2/28 torelay comments; how are the conflicting comments going to be resolved beforethe document comes back to the Board in March.
Mr. de la Parte stated that he will provide revised documents in the interim sothat all of the comments have been addressed prior to coming back to the Boardin March.
Commissioner Lindsey stated the operative question becomes “or what?” Whathappens to a utility that elects not to play?
Mr. de la Parte stated that they will not be granted a long term permit (asenvisioned under the draft contract), and the permit will likely be reduced whenthey come back for renewal.
Commissioner Lindsey asked if the capacity diminishes will all of the permits bereduced by a select percentage.
Mr. de la Parte stated that the plan for participants in this process will be to havethe District renew the permits at the current quantity with a safe yield numberplaced in the permit, but will allow the members to temporarily exceed the safeyield number as alternative water supplies are brought online. That would be a
Att
ach
men
t: P
RW
C-M
inu
tes-
01-1
5-20
(72
35 :
Bo
ard
of
Dir
ecto
rs M
eeti
ng
Min
ute
s)
Packet Pg. 10
E.1.a
way to get the AWS projects moving. If you are not going to participate and you are on your own, the District will more than likely state there is not enough groundwater available and your permit will be reduced and will say you will have to meet your demand from other alternative sources. The member would more than likely be forced to go back to the Cooperative to ask for AWS and if the current AWS does not have surplus, there may be no incentive to accelerate additional projects phases or expansion at a substantial premium.
Commissioner Lindsey stated that only plays out if the water management District sticks to their guns and does not grant an extension to a water use permit or additional allocation.
Mr. de la Parte stated that is correct, but drawing on his experience with Tampa Bay Water, the District knew there were issues with over pumping to a point then set the line that pumping would have to be reduced by a set percentage.
Commissioner Lindsey asked how they accomplished that.
Mr. de la Parte stated the District accomplished the reduction by using its police powers and denying permits; forcing the utilities to come to the table and develop a plan to reduce groundwater pumpage and build alternative water projects on the District’s timetable.
Commissioner Lindsey stated that it could result in some geographic areas being placed in a moratorium on development.
Mr. de la Parte stated it does and takes control from the PRWC and places it in the hands of the District in terms of what needs to be done.
Commissioner Lindsey stated if he is a small utility and doesn’t want to grow, then not to participate.
Mr. de la Parte stated that is true, but he has been around enough governments to know that what a government of elected officials wants today can change in policy in ten years.
Commissioner Goddard stated in the briefing there was a remark that there are items that may or may not be covered, would those be cost mark ups.
Mr. de la Parte stated he did not leave out any of the major items of the agreement, but there are smaller items that he did leave out.
Commissioner Goddard said there was mention of adjustments that would come later.
Mr. de la Parte stated the adjustments he was referring to were the allocations based on fix cost of long term water demands would be adjusted at least every 5 years.
Mr. Heath stated inflation will be built into the rates
Att
ach
men
t: P
RW
C-M
inu
tes-
01-1
5-20
(72
35 :
Bo
ard
of
Dir
ecto
rs M
eeti
ng
Min
ute
s)
Packet Pg. 11
E.1.a
Mayor West stated that it was mentioned in the presentation that the withdrawals can go down. How can that happen with the growth on the ridge continues to grow.
Mr. de la Parte stated that when you project water demands you usually do it by taking historic per capita demands and applying it to a projected population. If the population projections are based on a slower growth period, then they could result in population projections and projected water demands less than what will actually be needed.
Mayor West asked if the projections are off (increased), will additional allocations be allowed.
Mr. de la Parte stated that if the projections are off, the next phase of the projects would be accelerated.
Commissioner West asked if a participant decides to go it alone outside of the PRWC, they might be denied. If you go it alone you might end up high and dry.
Mayor Pro-tem Bridsong stated that out of the three projects, only two are being looked at for Phase 2A. At some point, the other project may yield additional supply and how will that be added to this agreement.
Mr. de la Parte stated that the agreement will be amended based on the 5 year revised 50 year projections. That is why costs are being based on the 50 year projections, to make it easier to bring additional projects into the agreement.
Mayor Pro-tem Birdsong asked how the additional costs will be brought into the agreement.
Mr. de la Parte stated that the managers and Board wanted to use a uniform rate. The fixed costs are being allocated on the long term demands, not on the individual project costs. The costs will increase with new projects but the participants percentage of what they are responsible for will remain the same.
Mayor LaCascia stated Polk City is looking at an additional 1,000 units within the next few years and the water charges for the preceeding fiscal year will be audited. Polk City’s budgeted costs will be based on the actual costs of the previous year. For the purposed of the audit you assume each unit uses the amount of water projected in its project estimate and this number will clearly be wrong.
Mr. de la Parte stated we need to remember that the project estimate is the estimate that the member government’s staff estimates will be needed in the next fiscal year. It isn’t estimate what will be needed in 5 or 10 years. The short term estimate could be off a considerable amount.
Commissioner Lindsey stated the compounding rates will help conservation substantially.
Att
ach
men
t: P
RW
C-M
inu
tes-
01-1
5-20
(72
35 :
Bo
ard
of
Dir
ecto
rs M
eeti
ng
Min
ute
s)
Packet Pg. 12
E.1.a
b. Draft Funding Plan
Director Taylor introduced Robert Beltran to present the draft funding plan.
Mr. Robert Beltran (TeamOne) presented the draft funding plan to the Board ofDirectors.
Mr. Leavengood presented the proposed WIFIA application fee per membercost based on the 2018 groundwater pumpage quantities.
Commissioner Watts asked if the table on page 79 of the agenda packet wascorrect.
Director Taylor stated the table on page 79 would be what the invoice shows forthe WIFIA application.
Motion made by Commissioner Lake and seconded by Commissioner Lindsey to concur with City Managers Funding Work Group recommendation regarding eliminating P3 as a financing option. Motion approved unanimously.
Motion made by Commissioner Lindsey and seconded by Mayor West to approve moving forward with the financing approach (WIFIA, SRF, 15 year bank note). Motion approved unanimously.
Motion made by Commissioner Lindsey and seconded by Mayor West to approve collaboration with member governments to obtain support for payment of their share of the $100,000 WIFIA Application Fee, based on usage rates, to begin the loan application process in March to obtain financing in Fall 2020. Discussion followed.
Mayor LaCascia asked if any of the City Managers had concerns regarding budgeting. This is one item that will start to begin the increasing of water rates.
Director Taylor stated that concerns were not brought up at this time.
Commissioner Lindsey stated this is the fee to go along for the WIFIA application. What is the plan if WIFIA states no to the application?
Mr. Beltran stated we have been approved to apply for $235 M but it is not a guarantee. If we are not approved we would need to evaluate other funding sources.
Mayor Lake asked if there has been any pre work with WIFIA to see if they would approve the application.
Mr. Beltran stated that there was a Letter of Interest that included extensive information that was provided to WIFIA and that is how the Cooperative was determined to be a viable partner. If the Cooperative did not have the revenue to pay back on the loan or the agreements in place to prove financial feasibility, or if the project was not permitable would be red flags, but those have already been reviewed as part of the letter of interest and Team One has a high level of confidence but not a guarantee.
Att
ach
men
t: P
RW
C-M
inu
tes-
01-1
5-20
(72
35 :
Bo
ard
of
Dir
ecto
rs M
eeti
ng
Min
ute
s)
Packet Pg. 13
Motion to approve collaboration with member governments to obtain support for payment of their share of the $100,000 WIFIA Application Fee, based on usage rates, to begin the loan application process in March to obtain financing in Fall 2020 passed unanimously.
E.1.a
5. Authorization to proceed with a Request for Proposals for Bond Counsel Services
Mr. de la Parte provided a description of Environmental Protection Agency’srecommendation to the PRWC to retain bond counsel to advise the agency regardingthe WIFIA loan, the SWFWMD grant and all other funding sources for the project.
Motion made by Commissioner Lindsey and seconded by Commissioner Goddard to authorize staff to proceed with the procurement of bond counsel in connection with the Phase 2A Project, as outlined in this memorandum and select two representatives of the PRWC’s members to serve on the selection committee. Motion passed unanimously.
Motion made by Commissioner Lindsey and seconded by Mayor Pro-tem Birdsong to accept Polk County and Auburndale to select representatives to serve on the selection committee. Motion passed unanimously
6. Combined Projects Status Update
Director Taylor offered eliminating the final item from the agenda based on timeconstraints.
Motion made and seconded to remove the last item. Motion passed unanimously.
Recess Projects Board of Directors/ Commence Regular Board of Directors at 4:14 P.M.
H. Open Discussion
No open discussion was presented.
I. Chair / Executive Director Report
Polk County day is January 28, 2020, if anyone is in Tallahassee mention the HeartlandsHeadwater Report.
A project submitted by the City of Winter Haven has been deemed a land acquisitionproject and would compete with another pot of money for the land acquisition. WinterHaven has asked for a letter of support, stating the project listed in the report will not becompeting. A
ttac
hm
ent:
PR
WC
-Min
ute
s-01
-15-
20 (
7235
: B
oar
d o
f D
irec
tors
Mee
tin
g M
inu
tes)
Motion made by Commissioner Lindsey and seconded by Mayor Pro-tem Birdsong to write a letter of support for Winter Haven’s land acquisition project without competing for funding for projects included in the Heartlands Headwater Report. Motion approved unanimously.
J. Adjournment
Board meeting adjourned by Chairman Pospichal at 4:16 P.M. Next meeting is March 18,2020.
Packet Pg. 14
F.2
April 22, 2020 Polk Regional Water Cooperative Regular Meeting Agenda Item #2
SUBJECT Heartland Headwaters Protection & Sustainability Act - Legislative Update
DESCRIPTION
Every year by December 1, the PRWC coordinates and submits the Heartland Headwaters Protection &
Sustainability Act comprehensive annual report to the Governor, the President of the Senate, the Speaker
of the House of Representatives, the Department of Environmental Protection, and the appropriate water
management districts.
The municipalities within Polk County and Polk County work together to identify water resource projects
for inclusion in the Heartland report using an approved criteria for scoring those projects. The members
have expressed an interest in offsetting the costs of the 4 alternative water supply projects that the PRWC
is currently developing. This direction placed a priority to those projects for drinking water projects.
The PRWC acts as a clearing house for all project funding requests within the region. The Cooperative
simply provides a mechanism for a consolidated funding request to the State. All final funding
agreements will be made directly with the State Agencies administering the funds and the member project
sponsor. The only funding agreements the PRWC will engage in are projects that will become PRWC
assets which are 4 PRWC approved projects listed in this report.
On December 1, 2019, the PRWC submitted the FY 20-21 Heartland Report. The report listed funding
requests for expenditures that would occur in the upcoming fiscal year beginning July 1, 2020 and ending
June 30, 2021. There were 42 projects submitted for inclusion in this report, including the 4 approved
projects. The PRWC is requesting $64,346,600 in State funding out of an estimated fiscal year
expenditure of $135,259,910, about 48%.
In addition to these funds, for the second consecutive year, Governor De Santis has proposed $40 million
in Alternative Water Supply funding for FY 20-21 as part of his One Water Initiative. That program, which
is administered by DEP with input from the water management districts, will allocate funds for regional
initiatives, including the Central Florida Water Initiative. In FY 19-20 the PRWC was awarded $2.4 million
from this source and the projects identified in our annual report to the state will again be well positioned
for additional support.
Frank Bernardino, Anfield Consulting, will provide the Board of Directors an overview of the 2020
Legislative Session and the projected outcome of the Heartland State appropriations request.
RECOMMENDATION
Information only - No Action Required.
FISCAL IMPACT
Pending State appropriations for Fiscal Year 2020-2021.
Packet Pg. 15
UNIFIED VOICE TO PROMOTE
FUNDING FOR POLK’S WATER
RESOURCE
Presentation by Frank Bernardino, Anfield Consulting
March 18, 2020
Att
ach
men
t: P
RW
C L
egis
lati
ve U
pd
ate
0422
20
F.2.a
(723
6 :
Hea
rtla
nd
Hea
dw
ater
s P
rote
ctio
n &
Packet Pg. 16
F.2.a
”Heartland Headwaters Protection and Sustainability Act” (2017)
• Highlighted the importance of the unique water resources in Polk County and
the Green Swamp (Regional, not local)
• Acknowledged the link of these to health and public safety, as well as the
economic future of the region
• Established the protection of these as a matter of important state interest
• Recognized the Polk Regional Water Cooperative as a partner entity
• Requires an annual report to the Governor, Legislature, DEP & WMD.
Att
ach
men
t: P
RW
C L
egis
lati
ve U
pd
ate
0422
20 (
7236
: H
eart
lan
d H
ead
wat
ers
Pro
tect
ion
&
Packet Pg. 17
Where’s The Money? F.2.a
• Historically communities in Polk have relied on two principal sources of
funding support, the state (through member projects or direct
appropriations) and SWFWMD grants.
• Recent changes to these and other emerging funding streams require a new
strategy to maximize the opportunity for success.
• Moving forward, the traditional sources will be augmented by Springs
Protection Grants, Alternative Water Supply Grants and the CFWI
implementation dollars.
• Other communities around the state are implementing comprehensive
strategies to address their water resources needs, and in so doing,
positioning themselves to benefit from the future allocation of Amendment 1
dollars.
Att
ach
men
t: P
RW
C L
egis
lati
ve U
pd
ate
0422
20 (
7236
: H
eart
lan
d H
ead
wat
ers
Pro
tect
ion
&
Packet Pg. 18
F.2.a
FY 2019-2020 Line Item Appropriations – SB 2500
• $1,842,279 for the Polk Regional Water Cooperative Heartland Headwaters
Protection and Sustainability
• The nonrecurring funds in Specific Appropriation 1657A appropriated to the
Department of Environmental Protection for the Polk Regional Water
Cooperative Heartland Headwaters Protection and Sustainability are
provided for the purpose of entering into financial assistance agreements
with the Polk Regional Water Cooperative and must be distributed in
accordance with the projects identified in the Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Annual
Comprehensive Water Resources Report submitted to the legislature
pursuant to section 373.463, Florida Statutes, to finance the cost of designing
or constructing projects that protect, restore, or enhance the headwaters of
the river systems located in Polk County.
Att
ach
men
t: P
RW
C L
egis
lati
ve U
pd
ate
0422
20 (
7236
: H
eart
lan
d H
ead
wat
ers
Pro
tect
ion
&
Packet Pg. 19
F.2.a
FY 2019-2020 Appropriations – SB 2500
• $40,000,000 for Alternative Water Supply
• The nonrecurring funds in Specific Appropriation 1642 are provided to
establish a water supply and water resource development grant program to
help communities plan for and implement conservation, reuse and other
water supply and water resource development projects. Priority funding will
be given to regional projects in the areas of greatest need and for projects
that provide the greatest benefit. The department shall identify and research
all viable alternative water supply resources and provide an assessment of
funding needs critical to supporting Florida’s growing economy.
• These funds were disbursed pursuant to a solicitation by the Water
Management Districts with DEP picking the grant recipients.
Att
ach
men
t: P
RW
C L
egis
lati
ve U
pd
ate
0422
20 (
7236
: H
eart
lan
d H
ead
wat
ers
Pro
tect
ion
&
Packet Pg. 20
Peace Creek Integrated Water Supply Plan – Phase I
PRWC / Winter
Haven
$188,771 - $188,771
SE Wellfield Lower Florida Aquifer Projects – Phase I
PRWC / Polk
County
$1,164,052 $712,000
Auburndale / Winter Haven / Polk County Interconnect
Auburndale $165,500 -
Auburndale / Lakeland Interconnect
Auburndale $250,000 -
Pollard Road Water Plant
Winter Haven $663,904 -
TOTAL
FY 2020-21 State Funding Support
• HB 5001 includes $500,000 for the Polk Regional Water Cooperative.
• Based on the PRWC Report to the Legislature the funds are to be applied to
the West Polk Florida Aquifer Project Phase – I.
Other sources of funding for PRWC Member Projects:
• $40 Million for Alternative Water Supply
• $100 Million in Florida Forever
F.2.a
Packet Pg. 22
Att
ach
men
t: P
RW
C L
egis
lati
ve U
pd
ate
0422
20 (
7236
: H
eart
lan
d H
ead
wat
ers
Pro
tect
ion
&
F.2.a
Commitment to this Approach Will Pay Dividends
• Similar strategies already being implemented by other local governments in
Florida.
• HB 447 - the Florida Keys Stewardship Act - passed in 2016
• Promotes funding for: Land acquisition for purposes of conservation and water quality
preservation;
Projects that protect, restore, or enhance water quality, such
as stormwater or canal restoration projects; and
Projects to protect and enhance the water supply.
• Monroe County local governments have received $39.33 million
Att
ach
men
t: P
RW
C L
egis
lati
ve U
pd
ate
0422
20 (
7236
: H
eart
lan
d H
ead
wat
ers
Pro
tect
ion
&
Packet Pg. 23
–
Looking Ahead…… Amendment 1
F.2.a
Source: Annual Assessment of Florida’s Water Resources and Conservation Lands 2020 Edition
Florida Office of Economic & Demographic Research
FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29
Total to
LATF $977.48 $1,012.09 $1,046.94 $1,082.03 $1,118.04 $1,154.11 $1,190.05 $1,225.82
Committed
to Water
Resources
$319.00 $319.00 $319.00 $319.00 $319.00 $314.00 $314.00 $314.00
Not yet
Committed $521.82 $567.40 $622.40 $657.43 $716.84 $778.30 $831.68 $887.00
Att
ach
men
t: P
RW
C L
egis
lati
ve U
pd
ate
0422
20 (
7236
: H
eart
lan
d H
ead
wat
ers
Pro
tect
ion
&
Packet Pg. 24
F.2.a
DISCUSSION/QUESTIONS
Att
ach
men
t: P
RW
C L
egis
lati
ve U
pd
ate
0422
20 (
7236
: H
eart
lan
d H
ead
wat
ers
Pro
tect
ion
&
Packet Pg. 25
G.3
April 22, 2020 Polk Regional Water Cooperative Regular Meeting Agenda Item #3
SUBJECT Action Item - Second Amendment to Projects Cooperative Funding Agreements
DESCRIPTION
During the 2019 Legislative Session, the Florida Legislature appropriated $39,000,000 to establish a
water supply and water resource development grant program to help communities plan for and implement
conservation, reuse and other water supply and water resource development projects. Priority funding
was given to regional projects in the areas of greatest need and for projects that provide the greatest
benefit. After reviewing the project proposals and ranking recommendations by each of the water
management districts, the DEP selected two of the Governing Board’s approved PRWC projects for
funding:
Southeast Wellfield (N905) - $1,424,000
West Polk Lower Aquifer Deep Wells (N882) - $1,000,000
The utilization of these funds requires amendments to the Cooperative Funding Agreements for each of
these projects.
Southeast Wellfield (N905):
This amendment recognizes the addition of $1,424,000 from a State appropriation for the project
and modifies the scope of work to include conditions and deliverables for the Single Audit Act as
required for projects using State grants. This amendment applies a State appropriation for water
supply and resource development to reduce each parties’ project share by $712,000 from $5,558,958 to $4,846,958; but it will not change the total project cost of $11,117,916. The
agreement’s effective period is unchanged and remains from July 1, 2017 through December 31,
2022.
West Polk Lower Aquifer Deep Wells (N882):
This amendment recognizes the addition of $1,000,000 from a State appropriation for the project
and modifies the scope of work to include conditions and deliverables for the Single Audit Act as
required for projects using State grants. This amendment applies a State appropriation for water
supply and resource development to reduce each parties share by $500,000; from $4,470,367 to
$3,970,367; but it will not change the total project cost of $8,940,734. The agreement’s effective
period is unchanged and remains from July 1, 2017 through December 31, 2021.
On July 1, 2019 the State’s FY 2019-2020 Budget provided a Heartland Act appropriation of $1,800,000.
The Heartland Report that year consisted of the three approved alternative water supply (Combined
Projects) and nine prioritized member projects. The $1,800,000 was to be applied to the combined
projects with no funds available for the member projects.
The DEP funding of $2,424,000 is now being applied to the total cost of the Southeast Wellfield and the
West Polk Lower Aquifer Deep Wells project cost. Staff will work with our Legislators and redirect the
Heartland appropriation of $1,800,000 to the prioritized member projects from the Heartland Annual
Report submitted to the State on December 1, 2018.
The total appropriations that the PRWC and its members will realize is $4,224,000 to be applied to
projects.
Packet Pg. 26
G.3
RECOMMENDATION
Recommends Board approve the Second Amendments to the Cooperative Funding Agreements for the
Southeast Wellfield (N905) and West Polk Lower Aquifer Deep Wells (N882).
FISCAL IMPACT
- DEP Grant of $2,424,000 applied to N905 and N882
- Heartland Act appropriation of $1,800,000 applied to Heartland Report prioritized member
projects
Packet Pg. 27
G.3.a
Att
ach
men
t: N
905_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0083
0 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
Packet Pg. 28
G.3.a
Att
ach
men
t: N
905_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0083
0 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
Packet Pg. 29
G.3.a
Att
ach
men
t: N
905_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0083
0 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
Packet Pg. 30
G.3.a
Packet Pg. 31
Att
ach
men
t: N
905_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0083
0 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
G.3.a
Packet Pg. 32
Att
ach
men
t: N
905_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0083
0 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
G.3.a
Packet Pg. 33
Att
ach
men
t: N
905_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0083
0 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
G.3.a
Att
ach
men
t: N
905_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0083
0 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
Packet Pg. 34
G.3.a
Att
ach
men
t: N
905_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0083
0 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
Packet Pg. 35
G.3.a
Packet Pg. 36
Att
ach
men
t: N
905_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0083
0 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
G.3.a
Packet Pg. 37
Att
ach
men
t: N
905_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0083
0 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
G.3.a
Packet Pg. 38
Att
ach
men
t: N
905_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0083
0 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
G.3.a
Att
ach
men
t: N
905_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0083
0 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
Packet Pg. 39
G.3.a
Packet Pg. 40
Att
ach
men
t: N
905_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0083
0 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
G.3.a
Packet Pg. 41
Att
ach
men
t: N
905_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0083
0 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
G.3.a
Att
ach
men
t: N
905_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0083
0 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
Packet Pg. 42
G.3.a
Att
ach
men
t: N
905_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0083
0 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
Packet Pg. 43
G.3.a
Att
ach
men
t: N
905_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0083
0 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
Packet Pg. 44
G.3.a
Packet Pg. 45
Att
ach
men
t: N
905_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0083
0 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
G.3.a
Att
ach
men
t: N
905_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0083
0 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
Packet Pg. 46
G.3.a
Packet Pg. 47
Att
ach
men
t: N
905_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0083
0 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
G.3.a
Att
ach
men
t: N
905_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0083
0 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
Packet Pg. 48
G.3.a
Att
ach
men
t: N
905_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0083
0 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
Packet Pg. 49
G.3.a
Att
ach
men
t: N
905_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0083
0 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
Packet Pg. 50
G.3.a
Att
ach
men
t: N
905_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0083
0 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
Packet Pg. 51
G.3.a
Att
ach
men
t: N
905_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0083
0 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
Packet Pg. 52
G.3.b
Att
ach
men
t: N
882_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0084
6 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
Packet Pg. 53
G.3.b
Att
ach
men
t: N
882_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0084
6 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
Packet Pg. 54
G.3.b
Att
ach
men
t: N
882_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0084
6 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
Packet Pg. 55
G.3.b
Packet Pg. 56
Att
ach
men
t: N
882_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0084
6 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
G.3.b
Att
ach
men
t: N
882_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0084
6 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
Packet Pg. 57
G.3.b
Att
ach
men
t: N
882_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0084
6 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
Packet Pg. 58
G.3.b
Att
ach
men
t: N
882_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0084
6 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
Packet Pg. 59
G.3.b
Att
ach
men
t: N
882_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0084
6 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
Packet Pg. 60
G.3.b
Att
ach
men
t: N
882_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0084
6 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
Packet Pg. 61
G.3.b
Packet Pg. 62
Att
ach
men
t: N
882_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0084
6 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
AGREEMENT NO. 17CF0000B46
EXHIBIT "C" SPECIAL AUDIT REQUIREMENTS
The admmistration of resources awarded by the DISTRICT to the COOPERATOR, a subrecipient under this Agreement, may be subject to audits and/or monitoring by the DISTRICT as descn"bed in this Exhibit.
MONITORING
In addition to reviews of audits conducted in accordance with 2 CFR 200, Subpart F - Audit Requirements, and Section 215.97, Florida Statutes (F.S.), as revised (see "AUDITS" below), monitoring procedures may include, but not be limited to, on-site visits by DISTRICT staff, limited scope audits as defined by 2 CFR §200.425, and other procedures. By entering into this Agreement, the COOPERATOR agrees to comply and cooperate with any monitoring procedures or processes deemed appropriate by the DISTRICT. In the event the DISTRICT determines that a limited scope audit of the COOPERATOR is appropriate, the COOPERATOR agrees to comply with any additional instructions provided by the DISTRICT to the COOPERATOR regarding such audit. The COOPERATOR further agrees to comply and cooperate with any inspections, reviews, investigations, or audits deemed necessary by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEPARTMENT), Chief Financial Officer (CFO), or Auditor General of the State of Florida.
AUDITS
PART I: FEDERALLY FUNDED
This part is applicable if the COOPERATOR is a State or local government or a non-profit organization as defined in2 CFR §200.90, §200.64, and§200.70.
1. A recipient that expends $750,000 or more in federal awards in its fiscal year must have a single or program-specific audit conducted in accordance with the provisions of 2 CFR 200, Subpart F - Audit Requirements. Attachment 1 to this Exhibit indicates Federal resources awarded through the DISTRICT by this Agreement. In determining the Federal awards expended in its fiscal year, the COOPERATOR shall consider all sources of Federal awards, including Federal resources received from the DISTRICT. The determination of amounts of Federal awards expended should be in accordance with the guidelines established in 2 CPR §§200.502-503. An audit of the COOPERATOR conducted by the Auditor General in accordance with the provisions of 2 CFR §200.514 will meet the requirements of this Part.
2. For the audit requirements addressed in Part I, paragraph 1, the COOPERATOR shall ful:fill the requirements relative to auditee responsibilities as provided in 2 CFR §§200.508-512.
3. A COOPERATOR that expends less than $750,000 in Federal awards in its fiscal year is not required to have an audit conducted in accordance with the provisions of 2 CFR 200, Subpart F - Audit Requirements. If the COOPERATOR expends less than $750,000 in Federal awards in its fiscal year and elects to have an audit conducted in accordance with the provisions of 2 CFR 200, Subpart F - Audit Requirements, the cost of the audit must be paid from non-federal resources (i.e., the cost of such an audit must be paid from COOPERATOR resources obtained from other than federal entities).
REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page I of 6
G.3.b
Packet Pg. 63
Att
ach
men
t: N
882_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0084
6 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
G.3.b
Packet Pg. 64
Att
ach
men
t: N
882_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0084
6 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
G.3.b
Att
ach
men
t: N
882_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0084
6 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
Packet Pg. 65
G.3.b
Packet Pg. 66
Att
ach
men
t: N
882_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0084
6 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
G.3.b
Att
ach
men
t: N
882_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0084
6 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
Packet Pg. 67
G.3.b
Att
ach
men
t: N
882_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0084
6 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
Packet Pg. 68
G.3.b
Att
ach
men
t: N
882_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0084
6 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
Packet Pg. 69
G.3.b
Packet Pg. 70
Att
ach
men
t: N
882_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0084
6 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
G.3.b
Att
ach
men
t: N
882_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0084
6 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
Packet Pg. 71
G.3.b
Packet Pg. 72
Att
ach
men
t: N
882_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0084
6 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
G.3.b
Att
ach
men
t: N
882_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0084
6 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
Packet Pg. 73
G.3.b
Att
ach
men
t: N
882_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0084
6 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
Packet Pg. 74
G.3.b
Att
ach
men
t: N
882_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0084
6 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
Packet Pg. 75
G.3.b
Att
ach
men
t: N
882_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0084
6 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
Packet Pg. 76
G.3.b
Att
ach
men
t: N
882_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0084
6 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
Packet Pg. 77
G.3.b
Att
ach
men
t: N
882_
Ag
rNo
_17C
F00
0084
6 2n
d_A
men
d02
2620
(72
37 :
Act
ion
Item
- S
eco
nd
Am
end
men
t to
Pro
ject
s C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
Packet Pg. 78
G.4
April 22, 2020 Polk Regional Water Cooperative Regular Meeting Agenda Item #4
SUBJECT Action Item - Bond Counsel Selection
DESCRIPTION
The Polk Regional Water Cooperative (PRWC) has been invited by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (US EPA) to apply for a Water Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act (WIFIA)
loan for up to $239.1 million, and the PRWC must submit an application for the WIFIA loan by April of
2020. The US EPA has recommended that the PRWC retain bond counsel to advise the agency
regarding the loan, the SWFWMD grant, and all other funding sources for the project. On January 15,
2020, the Board authorized the PRWC to proceed with a Request for Proposal for Bond Counsel Services
using a procurement process similar to the one used by the Peace River/Manasota Regional Water
Supply Authority in 2010 to select bond counsel for a regional project.
The Board authorized staff to submit a Request for Proposal (RFP) to three firms most recently used by
PRWC members.
The selection committee, comprised of the PRWC Executive Director, the PRWC Combined Projects
Coordinator, the PRWC Legal Advisor, the City of Auburndale’s Deputy Finance Director and a Deputy County Attorney for Polk County have reviewed the proposals and ranked the firms for consideration by
the PRWC project board.
The Selection Committee met on Thursday, February 27, 2020 to conclude the evaluation of the firms
proposing responses to the RFP. The Committee’s ranking are as follows:
1. Holland & Knight (Lakeland, FL) 2. Bryant, Miller & Olive (Tampa, FL) 3. Nabors, Giblin and Nickerson (Tampa, FL)
A Notice of Intended Decision was posted on February 27, 2020 and no protests were received.
Staff is presenting the Selection Committee’s recommendation to the Board to select Holland & Knight to begin negotiating a contract that will be brought back to the Board for final approval.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Selection Committee’s recommendation of Holland & Knight and begin fee negotiations.
FISCAL IMPACT
Pending negotiations?
CONTACT INFORMATION
Packet Pg. 79
G.4.a
Att
ach
men
t: B
on
dC
ou
nse
l_R
FP
_ N
oti
ceO
fIn
ten
ded
Dec
isio
n 0
2272
0 (7
238
: A
ctio
n It
em -
Bo
nd
Co
un
sel S
elec
tio
n)
Packet Pg. 80
G.5
April 22, 2020 Polk Regional Water Cooperative Regular Meeting Agenda Item #5
SUBJECT Action Item - Approval of Change Order #2 (Skink Survey)
DESCRIPTION
In October 2019, the Polk Regional Water Cooperative (PRWC) was invited by the Environmental
Protection Agency to apply for a Water Infrastructure Financing & Innovation Act (WIFIA) loan. The
complete WIFIA application has a submission deadline of October 2020.
In order to utilize the federal nexus of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) through the WIFIA
loan application process, Carollo Engineers, Inc. (a.k.a. “Team One”) must conduct a Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) species-specific, Sand and Blue-tailed Mole Skink survey at the Southeast Water
Production Facility site. The Project site contains approximately 23.5 acres of suitable skink soils,
according to the Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS), Polk County soil database.
Therefore, skink survey will be conducted throughout the 23.5 acres of existing suitable soils. Based on
the FWS survey protocol a total of 940 (2’ x 2’) cover boards (at minimum) will need to be transported and
positioned within the 23.5-acre survey area. This work is also supportive of environmental resources and
Section 404 permitting which will ultimately be required for the construction of the Southeast wellfield and
water production facility.
It was not known when the initial project contract was negotiated and signed that the PRWC would qualify
for a WIFIA loan, therefore the services described were not anticipated. For this reason, the sand skink
survey and permitting support is not contained in the existing scope of work and requires a Change
Order.
This change order request increases the total agreement about by $200,000 to accommodate the
additional environmental services required to support continued project funding initiatives and future
environmental resources and Section 404 permitting. The source of funds for this change order comes
from those funds remaining after work was completed under the board-approved Southeast Wellfield
contract between PRWC and Florida Design Drilling Corp.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board approve an increase the total Carollo Engineers, Inc. Combined
Projects contract value by $200,000 in order to accommodate these environmental services in support of
WIFIA loan and other permitting purposes.
FISCAL IMPACT
Reallocation of $200,000 from unspent appropriation of the Florida Design Drilling Corp contract line item
to Carollo Engineers scope of work.
Packet Pg. 81
G.5.a
Att
ach
men
t: C
han
ge
Ord
er 2
- S
and
Ski
nks
SE
W 0
4222
0 (7
243
: A
ctio
n It
em -
Ap
pro
val o
f C
han
ge
Ord
er #
2 (S
kin
k S
urv
ey))
Packet Pg. 82
G.5.a
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
for
Polk Regional Water Cooperative
Combined Projects Implementation - Phase 1 – Amendment 2
Background
The Polk Regional Water Cooperative (COOPERATIVE) has been invited to apply for an Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Water Infrastructure and Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) loan for the final
design and construction of the initial phases of two of the Combined Projects. In order to apply for the
loan, certain environmental assurances must be provided to comply with National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) and to support Environmental Resource Permitting and Section 404 permitting. Specifically,
Section 7 coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is required to facilitate the approval of
the loan application for the program, and a FWS species-specific Sand and Mole Skink survey of the
Southeast Wellfield Water Production Facility site must be performed. The following scope of services
has been developed in support of the permitting processes.
There is no change to the terms of the CONSULTANT Contract. The changes described in the following
scope of services results in an increase in budget of $200,000 to Southeast Water Production Facility Task
6, and is summarized below. There are no changes to the other tasks. These changes will also need to be
reflected in COOPERATIVE Funding Agreement N905 with the SWFWMD.
Southeast Water Production Facility (SEWPF)
SE 6 Develop Preliminary Design Report
Southeast Task 6.2.4, Water Treatment Facility Site/Civil/Design/Surveying, is amended to include the
following services.
Southeast Wellfield Sand Skink Survey
In order to utilize the federal nexus of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) through the WIFIA
loan application process, ESA will conduct a FWS species-specific, Sand (Neoseps reynoldsi) and Blue-
tailed Mole Skink (Eumeces egregius lividus) survey at the PRWC Southeastern WPF site, located off of
622 Boy Scout Camp Road (north of Highway 60 on Parcel 293008000000033010), in Lake Wales,
Florida. The Project site (24.5-acres) contains both appropriate and non-appropriate skink soils. Of the
24.5 acres, approximately 23.5 acres contains suitable skink soils, while the remaining 1.0 acre contains
non-suitable (Udorthents – excavated and wetland) soils according to the Natural Resources
Conservation Services (NRCS), Polk County soil database. Therefore, skink survey will be conducted
throughout the 23.5 acres of existing suitable soils. Based on the FWS survey protocol a total of 940
cover boards (at a minimum) will need to be transported and positioned within the 23.5-acre survey
area. ESA will provide the appropriate number of survey boards and all additional field supplies
(including flagging, paint, hoes, rakes, and water), as well as all field vehicles (trucks, trailers, ATV’s) for
Att
ach
men
t: C
han
ge
Ord
er 2
- S
and
Ski
nks
SE
W 0
4222
0 (7
243
: A
ctio
n It
em -
Ap
pro
val o
f C
han
ge
Ord
er #
2 (S
kin
k S
urv
ey))
1
Packet Pg. 83
G.5.a
the transportation (pre and post survey event), installation, and survey (4 inspection events) of the
cover boards.
Each cover board will be placed on bare, even soil substrate, numbered, and (Global Position System)
GPS referenced, during the initial installation. Board surveys will begin the following week, giving the
boards at least seven days to acclimate. Board surveys will include recording observations and providing
photo documentations of skink trails (if observed) for each of the boards installed. During the survey,
ESA will provide weekly updates regarding observations recorded for the site. Upon completion of the
board survey, ESA will provide a Draft Sand and Blue-tailed Mole Skink Survey Report as required by
FWS.
These services add $120,000 to the Task 6.2 budget.
WIFIA Coordination and Biological Assessment
ESA will provide NEPA compliance support for PRWC’s pursuit of funding under the Water Infrastructure
Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA). ESA will provide support for the completion of Appendix B:
Environmental Questionnaire for WIFIA Credit Assistance to SRF Programs to assist the Client with the
loan application process. NEPA review requires coordination with a multitude of federal agencies with
purview over a series of federal special purpose laws.
One agency, which will require significant coordination support is the FWS. In order to utilize the federal
nexus of the NEPA process to facilitate FWS coordination under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act,
consultation with FWS will be initiated during the WIFIA application process. Because the proposed
project (construction of approximately 80 miles of utility piping and construction of two (2) water plant
facilities) “may affect” a number of listed species, a Biological Assessment (BA) will be required. The BA,
is a required Federal document that provides determinations on the extent to which Project actions may
affect listed or proposed species and designated and proposed critical habitat.
The BA will include information on all federally listed and proposed species and their habitats within the
entire project area (pipeline corridor and two facility sites). In order to prepare the BA, ESA will
coordinate with FWS assigned staff, obtain existing species data (including the data from the sand skink
survey of the SE Wellfield), identify proposed and/or listed species which is/are likely to be affected by
the Project actions, conduct onsite inspections of the area affected by the proposed Project, and analyze
alternative actions that may provide conservation measures and future survey events. Upon completion,
the EPA will consult with the FWS using the prepared BA with the goal of achieving concurrence with a
“may affect, but not likely to adversely affect” finding. If the FWS does not concur, they could require
additional conservation measures or request initiation of formal consultation. If the Client does not
agree to proposed conservation measures, and formal consultation is required, additional services
would be required.
These services add $80,000 to the Task 6.2 budget.
Att
ach
men
t: C
han
ge
Ord
er 2
- S
and
Ski
nks
SE
W 0
4222
0 (7
243
: A
ctio
n It
em -
Ap
pro
val o
f C
han
ge
Ord
er #
2 (S
kin
k S
urv
ey))
2
Packet Pg. 84
G.5.a
TABLE 1: FEE SUMMARY
PROJECT Previous Amendment 2 Total Amended Budget
(Amendment Change
1) Budget
Southeast Water Production $10,908,980.76 +$200,000 $11,108,980.76
Facility
West Polk Water Production $8,898,361.57 $0 $8,898,361.57
Facility
Peace Creek Integrated $8,898,361.57 $0 $8,898,361.57
Water Supply Project
Peace River and Land Use $8,898,361.57 $0 $8,898,361.57
Transitions Project
TOTAL $17,096,476.87 +$200,000 $17,296,476.87
COOPERATIVE Responsibilities COOPERATIVE will provide the following information to CONSULTANT and/or perform the following
services related to the Project:
1. Allow CONSULTANT scheduled access to the sites and/or facilitate arrangements for site access.
2. Obtain property, easements and right of way
3. Provide one representative to coordinate, schedule and receive comments/information related to
this project.
4. Furnish CONSULTANT available studies, reports and other data pertinent to CONSULTANT's
services; obtain or authorize other CONSULTANT to obtain or provide additional reports and data
as required; furnish to CONSULTANT services of others required for the performance of
SUBCONSULTANT 's services hereunder, and CONSULTANT shall be entitled to use and rely upon
all such information and services provided by COOPERATIVE or others in performing
CONSULTANT's services under this Scope of Work.”
Assumptions Made in Scope Development The following assumption are made with this scope Amendment:
1. It is assumed that all deliverables will be provided to COOPERATIVE in pdf format with one
electronic copy and twenty (20) paper copies.
2. Agency mitigation and/or permitting fees rare not included.
3. Mitigation Plans or compensation for impacts is not included.
4. Surveys, permitting, and/or relocation for other species is not included.
5. This Amendment 2 does not include the development of SRF ,WUP, or WIFIA applications.
Att
ach
men
t: C
han
ge
Ord
er 2
- S
and
Ski
nks
SE
W 0
4222
0 (7
243
: A
ctio
n It
em -
Ap
pro
val o
f C
han
ge
Ord
er #
2 (S
kin
k S
urv
ey))
3
Packet Pg. 85
G.6
April 22, 2020 Polk Regional Water Cooperative Regular Meeting Agenda Item #6
SUBJECT Action Item - Modifications to Conservation Cooperative Funding Agreements
DESCRIPTION
The Polk Regional Water Cooperative team has been highly successful in securing cofounding for
conservation best management practices, incentives, and rebates. However, due to the lack of staff
availability, the Team has been unable to implement the number of programs originally intended, and as
originally set forth in the cofounding initiative agreements. Therefore, the Conservation Team has
initiated time extension requests with the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) to
the existing contract deadlines to complete the implementations. There are no cost increases associated
with these time extensions.
The Conservation Cooperative Funding Agreements (CFA) that are presented for time extension are
Outdoor Incentives (P920), Indoor Incentives (P921) and Florida Water Star Builder Rebates (P922). The
contract period paragraph would be amend the expiration date of May 31, 2020 to November 30, 2022.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board to authorize the time extension requests and modifications to the existing
SWFWMD cofounding imitative agreements.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the time extension.
Packet Pg. 86
G.6.a
Att
ach
men
t: P
RW
C O
utd
oo
r B
est
Man
agm
ent
Pra
ctic
es (
P92
0) (
7244
: A
ctio
n It
em -
Mo
dif
icat
ion
s to
Co
nse
rvat
ion
Co
op
erat
ive
Fu
nd
ing
Packet Pg. 87
G.6.a
Att
ach
men
t: P
RW
C O
utd
oo
r B
est
Man
agm
ent
Pra
ctic
es (
P92
0) (
7244
: A
ctio
n It
em -
Mo
dif
icat
ion
s to
Co
nse
rvat
ion
Co
op
erat
ive
Fu
nd
ing
Packet Pg. 88
G.6.a
Att
ach
men
t: P
RW
C O
utd
oo
r B
est
Man
agm
ent
Pra
ctic
es (
P92
0) (
7244
: A
ctio
n It
em -
Mo
dif
icat
ion
s to
Co
nse
rvat
ion
Co
op
erat
ive
Fu
nd
ing
Packet Pg. 89
G.6.b
Packet Pg. 90
Att
ach
men
t: P
RW
C In
do
or
Co
nse
rvat
ion
Ince
nti
ves
(P92
1) (
7244
: A
ctio
n It
em -
Mo
dif
icat
ion
s to
Co
nse
rvat
ion
Co
op
erat
ive
Fu
nd
ing
G.6.b
Att
ach
men
t: P
RW
C In
do
or
Co
nse
rvat
ion
Ince
nti
ves
(P92
1) (
7244
: A
ctio
n It
em -
Mo
dif
icat
ion
s to
Co
nse
rvat
ion
Co
op
erat
ive
Fu
nd
ing
Packet Pg. 91
G.6.b
Att
ach
men
t: P
RW
C In
do
or
Co
nse
rvat
ion
Ince
nti
ves
(P92
1) (
7244
: A
ctio
n It
em -
Mo
dif
icat
ion
s to
Co
nse
rvat
ion
Co
op
erat
ive
Fu
nd
ing
Packet Pg. 92
G.6.c
Packet Pg. 93
Att
ach
men
t: P
RW
C F
lori
da
Wat
er S
tar
Bu
ilder
Reb
ates
(P
922)
(72
44 :
Act
ion
Item
- M
od
ific
atio
ns
to C
on
serv
atio
n C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
G.6.c
Att
ach
men
t: P
RW
C F
lori
da
Wat
er S
tar
Bu
ilder
Reb
ates
(P
922)
(72
44 :
Act
ion
Item
- M
od
ific
atio
ns
to C
on
serv
atio
n C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
Packet Pg. 94
G.6.c
Att
ach
men
t: P
RW
C F
lori
da
Wat
er S
tar
Bu
ilder
Reb
ates
(P
922)
(72
44 :
Act
ion
Item
- M
od
ific
atio
ns
to C
on
serv
atio
n C
oo
per
ativ
e F
un
din
g
Packet Pg. 95
G.7
April 22, 2020 Polk Regional Water Cooperative Regular Meeting Agenda Item #7
SUBJECT Combined Projects Technical Team Update
DESCRIPTION
The technical consulting team (Team One) was selected in October 2017 to complete feasibility studies of
3 projects. The consulting contract was later amended to include a fourth project in 2019.
Katie Gierok (Team One / Wright-Pierce) will provide a presentation to update the Board on the progress
of the Phase 1 Combined Projects.
Southeast Wellfield and Water Production Facility
The Conceptual Design Report (CDR) was completed in October 2019 and the
Preliminary Design Report (PDR) is underway. It is anticipated to be delivered in
June or July 2020.
West Polk Wellfield and Water Production Facility
The Aquifer Performance Test (APT) was completed in November 2019 with
positive results. The CDR is underway with expected delivery to the TAC in
March 2020.
Peace Creek Integrated Resources Plan
A water supply availability process is underway and must be finalized with
Southwest Florida Water Management (SWFWMD). A project recommendation
has been developed and presented to the TAC and includes wetland treatment
and aquifer recharge.
Peace River and Land Use Transitions
A water supply availability process is underway and must be finalized with
SWFWMD. Initial project options were presented to the TAC in April 2020.
Water supply availability update related to Peace Creek and Peace River:
The SWFWMD has recently kicked off a peer review of its Draft Lower Peace
River/Lower Shell Creek MFL reevaluation report. The reevaluation report
presents changes to the existing MFL, and of particular interest to the PRWC,
limits the application of a 400 cfs (258 MGD) daily withdrawal cap to withdrawals
from the Lower Peace River only. PRWC’s withdrawals will fall outside of this
area, and therefore PRWC is not restricted by this MFL. This restriction differs
from that presented during the litigation related to the Peace River Manasota
Regional Water Supply Authority WUP. It is anticipated that this finding will have
a positive effect on water supply availability.
RECOMMENDATION
Packet Pg. 96
G.7
N/A
FISCAL IMPACT
N/A
Packet Pg. 97
Your region, Your water, Your voice at the table
G.7.a
Your region, Your water, Your voice at the table
Att
ach
men
t: T
eam
On
e_P
roje
cts_
Up
dat
e2 0
4222
0 (7
239
: C
om
bin
ed P
roje
cts
Tec
hn
ical
Tea
m U
pd
ate)
PRWC BOD Combined Projects Status Update
April 22, 2020
Packet Pg. 98
G.7.a
Agenda
• Southeast water production facility and transmission system
• West Polk water production facility and transmission system
• Peace Creek Integrated Water Supply Project
• Peace River and Land Use Transitions
Your region, Your water, Your voice at the table
Att
ach
men
t: T
eam
On
e_P
roje
cts_
Up
dat
e2 0
4222
0 (7
239
: C
om
bin
ed P
roje
cts
Tec
hn
ical
Tea
m U
pd
ate)
Packet Pg. 99
G.7.a
Southeast WPF and Transmission
• Final CDR delivered in October, 2019
• Preliminary design underway; expected delivery June/July 2020.
• Components
– Raw and injection wellfields
– 30 MGD reverse osmosis treatment facility (buildout)
– Transmission system
– Phased design to match needs
• Injection well permitting underway
Your region, Your water, Your voice at the table
Att
ach
men
t: T
eam
On
e_P
roje
cts_
Up
dat
e2 0
4222
0 (7
239
: C
om
bin
ed P
roje
cts
Tec
hn
ical
Tea
m U
pd
ate)
Packet Pg. 100
G.7.a
West Polk WPF and Transmission
• Aquifer performance (i.e. water quality and capacity) test completed
in November, 2019
• Water production facility and transmission CDR draft delivered this
month.
• Water use permitting underway
Your region, Your water, Your voice at the table
Att
ach
men
t: T
eam
On
e_P
roje
cts_
Up
dat
e2 0
4222
0 (
7239
: C
om
bin
ed P
roje
cts
Tec
hn
ical
Tea
m U
pd
ate)
Packet Pg. 101
LFA Production
Well
Middle Confining Unit
Upper Floridan
LFA 2A
G.7.a
Att
ach
men
t: T
eam
On
e_P
roje
cts_
Up
dat
e2 0
4222
0 (7
239
: C
om
bin
ed P
roje
cts
Tec
hn
ical
Tea
m U
pd
ate)
West Polk APT Results
UFA Production
Well
• Results very positive; no discharge issues
• Water quality similar to that at Southeast
wellfield; same initial treatment process
• Long-term salinity expected to be relatively
stable, but treatment will be designed to handle
variability
• Pumping from LFA had little to no effect on UFA;
no drawdown effects expected on lakes
• 15 MGD water supply expected to be achievable
• Next steps: water use and UIC permits
Your region, Your water, Your voice at the table
Packet Pg. 102
G.7.a
Peace Creek IRP
Att
ach
men
t: T
eam
On
e_P
roje
cts_
Up
dat
e2 0
4222
0 (7
239
: C
om
bin
ed P
roje
cts
Tec
hn
ical
Tea
m U
pd
ate)
• Water supply availability process underway
• Potential sites and project options
presented to TAC on 1/7/2020. Included:– Indirect recharge (i.e. RIBs)
– Conventional treatment and distribution
– Wetland treatment and direct recharge
– Combinations of above
• TAC must next consider water supply
availability/permittability
– Weigh this project with Peace River
• Next Steps: meet with District to finalize
water available from systemYour region, Your water, Your voice at the table
Packet Pg. 103
G.7.a
Peace River and Land Use Transitions
Att
ach
men
t: T
eam
On
e_P
roje
cts_
Up
dat
e2 0
4222
0 (7
239
: C
om
bin
ed P
roje
cts
Tec
hn
ical
Tea
m U
pd
ate)
• Water supply availability process
underway
• Project options must be coordinated
with Peace Creek
• Initial project options to be presented
in this month.
• Next Steps: meet with District to
finalize water available from system
Your region, Your water, Your voice at the table
Packet Pg. 104
G.7.a
Lake Hancock Reservation, Lower Peace River
MFL Reevaluation
• Lake Hancock reservation
rulemaking underway.– Not expected to impact water availability.
• Draft Lower Peace River MFL
Reevaluation report under peer
review.– Application of MFL restrictions affect
water supply availability
– Report applies 400 cfs daily withdrawal
cap to withdrawals from the Lower Peace
only (this differs from cap presented
during litigation, which was to entire
watershed)
– This applciation is anticipated to have a
positive affect on water supply
availability.
Your region, Your water, Your voice at the table
Att
ach
men
t: T
eam
On
e_P
roje
cts_
Up
dat
e2 0
4222
0 (7
239
: C
om
bin
ed P
roje
cts
Tec
hn
ical
Tea
m U
pd
ate)
Packet Pg. 105
