City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. The mayor has called a special council meeting to order. Mayor Roscoe? Present. Council Member Bracken? Here. Council Member Kaplan? Here. Council Member London? Here. Vice Mayor Sardinius?

Here.

Council Member Stoner? Here. Council Member Bosquez? Here. Mr. Mayor, we do have a quorum. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. The next item, Mr. Mayor, is public comments.

Okay. I'm going to need your help. We've got a lot of cards to go through. We'll try to see if we can limit it to about two minutes and try not to be repetitive if somebody's already said something. Okay. We want to hear your public input. Let's also try to be nice, okay? Let's not demonize someone because they have a different idea. Let's make sure that we have a very cordial and civil meeting so that we can get on with the business here. It's important that you come to the mic, be ready to speak, say whatever you want to say, and then I'll call you when I see that you're exceeding your time. Remember that the essence of democracy is the respect for differing opinions. So let's do it that way tonight, and let's make sure We do Key Biscayne nice, OK? All right. Like I said, we got a lot of cards. So hang on. Here we go. Lana Montalban.

Dear Council members, my name, like you said, is Lana Montalban.

I just want to say that the vote... And your address, I'm sorry. Yes, 250 Seaview Drive.

The vote you take today is going to be irreversible. There are too many unanswered questions. I'm here to urge you maybe not to vote tonight. As a veteran journalist, I don't take information at face value, and any of the information, I don't know if it's biased. Is there any lobby that had any incline into this? I don't really know the answers, but to me it sort of feels like the tobacco industry informing us about cigarettes, and some older people in this audience will understand the reference. I am not an environmental engineer so I am alarmed because it's quite impossible to understand some of the language or the details. Are the consultants right? I know that there were meetings where the consultants were talked to directly. I didn't participate in any of them and maybe that's why I have so many doubts. My objection is I'm very well informed and I'm still wondering why one proposal talks about cutting many trees. That should never be an option. There are big differences between the proposals. Why? Don't they both have the same goal? And what does 90 cubic feet per second versus 57 cubic feet per second initial means? What are FDEP requirements or DERM and NPDES permits? I don't understand any of that. Why am I supposed to understand the technical details? And one is more than $10 million more expensive than the other one, while the maintenance expense is the opposite, almost a million versus half a million dollars a year, and the services seem to differ greatly. We're entering another hurricane season, and it could be an emergency, but rushing towards a decision that cannot be reversed is never the best road to take. We all need these ideas to be explored more. Yes, it's just two more sentences. We need these ideas to be explored more in depth before a decision is made. All I'm saying is you are our representatives. Please represent us well. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right. Next speaker, Mike Davey.

Mike Davey, 50 Ocean Lane Drive. I think what that woman just said, it sort of encapsulates what we've been going through. I was up there when we started looking into this issue. There's been a lot of information. We've gone through a lot of iterations. There's been a lot of attacks on people, unfortunately. But look, I think you're doing the right thing. I think looking into the GIT sounds like the right way to go. But that's why we elected you all, to get up there. take a good, long, hard look at the information that's put in front of you and come to a good decision for this community. We don't know what the future brings, but I do appreciate what everybody up there is trying to do. I know you're all working hard. I know how hard it is to be up there and make decisions like this because it's important. This is critically important. I think this is, Joe's been up there for the two most important projects we've done. That's the sewer project and now this project. This is this is the most important thing we've got facing us is how do we deal with the stormwater into the future so I commend you all for doing it. I would also just ask to your point mayor let's stop with the attacks on staff. You know it's one thing to go after us as either elected or former elected and call us whatever you want but the fact is it's like punching somebody who's in handcuffs when you go after somebody on staff. There aren't ulterior motives amongst these people and they may have opinions they're human beings. But the fact is, I know all these people here, they work hard for us. They put their time and effort into doing the best they can for this community. And I think to demean them, it demeans us. Because these are good people. They mean well. And we can disagree with their opinions, but we've got to give them the respect that they deserve as the people that we employ to do the jobs they do. So that's it. Good luck tonight. Enjoy.

Thank you. Next speaker, Mark Freed.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Mark Freed, 525 Warren Lane, Key Biscayne. Everyone, I think most people have seen the ad hoc committee's meetings. Council Member London put it pretty succinctly. This job we're looking to have done is to remove water. We can remove water quickly or quicker. We can do it expensive or a little less expensive. I like what Ed likes, less expensive. And it's sufficient. Former council member De La Cruz has said for years, and it finally seems to have sunk in, clean the wells. And with the cleaning of the wells, I see a difference in the drainage. It's quicker. Former Mayor Festa summed up at the ad hoc committee, great point. Put the GIT at the school, take care of that problem. Let's see how it works and move on from there. It'll be less expensive. So based on the deliberation logic of these people and what my conclusion is, I say, let's get GIT going. Let's move this water. Another thing, it appears that the tree removal, which came up in the last few weeks and seems to be a big halt, I'm wondering if there's a consultant malpractice, and if so, can we get some of that $9 million back?

Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker is Claire London.

Good evening, everybody. Claire Amarina, London, 736 Woodcrest Road.

You going to be nice to this guy here? No?

I'm very fair, always. What I will tell you, those of you that don't know, is that I served on the beautification board of Keebus Game for years with Ceci Sanchez and Gina Coleman. And one of the things that came up time and time again was keeping the tree canopy intact. And that's what we work quite hard to do. And I've got to be honest, when I found out a couple of weeks ago that we would lose 565 trees in Zone 1 alone, I was shocked. And... I would urge people to, and you when you take a vote, to really think about that. I want to keep it short because I just want to have you visualize something with our beautiful mature tree canopy that took nearly 25, 30 years to get like this. It's gorgeous. Our children walked to school under the shade of those trees. Runners run and walk and favor those roads. And people with dogs walk with their dogs. And they choose the roads with the shade. So let's not forget the importance of it and how long it took to get it. And thank you for your consideration always.

Thank you. Betty Conroy.

Good evening, council. My name is Betty Sim Conroy, 785 Crandon Boulevard, unit 1403. The shock that we residents and at least one council person felt when we learned that AECOM is planning to destroy 565 trees in zone one was very upsetting. This shock led me to want to know more about the history on this. It led me to want to research and find out when did the village know about the 565 trees that were planned to be cut down. With the help of AI, I pursued my research. By January 28, 2025, at the special council meeting, AECOM's plan was 100% designed. By January 5, 2026, the design plan was described as 100% designed and ready to go out for bid. Based on verified documents, the village had public design level knowledge of Zone 1 impacts for about a year before the plan was described as fully designed and ready to go out for bid. The village probably, and I don't know what part of the village, the manager, the council, I don't know that. But the village, whoever was working on this, probably knew about the trees by January 2025, and most certainly by January 2026. 30% of the design was done by September 2024, 60% of the design by early January 2025, 100% design and ready to go to bid by January 5, 2026. So at least three months ago, with a completed design plan, the village had to be aware of the 565 trees that AECOM planned to have destroyed. However, as far as public knowledge, maybe two weeks ago, we found out about this. This is obviously a classic example of a lack of transparency in our government. It makes me wonder, how many times is this happening? Government transparency.

You want to wrap up, Betty?

I'm not allowed to finish?

No, I've said, can you wrap up, please?

Government transparency directly strengthens public trust by ensuring accountability, reducing opportunities for corruption, and giving citizens meaningful access to how decisions are made. Transparency fosters trust by demonstrating that officials know their actions are subject to public scrutiny, making them more likely to act ethically and responsibly. When information is hidden or difficult to assess, citizens assume the worst, leading to cynicism and belief that government isn't serving their interests. I don't like saying this, but I'm afraid we are seeing a growing lack of trust in our own government here in Key Biscayne.

Thank you. We've got Fausto Sanchez.

Good evening. I'll just make this short.

Your name and address, I'm sorry.

Fausto Sanchez, 600 Rectory Drive. I've called this beautiful island home for over 41 years. In that time, I've seen our community transform. This progress has been a blessing for many. It brought us the amenities and vibrant life that we enjoy today. But after decades, the downside of that progress is clear, our Biscayne Bay. It is at a tipping point. We must respect the environment enough to set limits. It's time to prioritize the health of our Bay so that the next 41 years are defined by prevention and restoration and not just development. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Next speaker, John Festa.

John Festa, 695 Harbor Lane. Really short, Joe. Thank you. I want to thank you again for the committee being formed. I want to thank the committee members for deliberating for a long time. Just wanted to state that this project that you're putting forward has nothing to do with hurricanes. It has everything to do with a long-term plan of sea level rise and short-term local flooding problems. The committee came to the conclusion last week that the GIT plan was the better solution for both the environment and for solving quickly shorter term local problems. So I commend you for that. I hope the council goes along with that and you move forward with that plan and start getting the school flooding problem solved. Thank you. Thank you.

Luis de la Cruz.

Luis de la Cruz, 640 Allendale Road.

Thank you all of you for coming. Really appreciate it. And we're finally here to make the decisions. With all due respect to the first speaker, we can't kick this down the road. We need to make a decision today. And I think all of you know that there's only one correct decision. There's no, this is my opinion or this is your opinion. This is the most important decision that the Village of Key Biscayne council members will ever have made through today. I don't know what's going to happen in the future, but through today, we have never made a decision that's more important than today. I planned on standing up here and going over all the things that I have with you guys, but I am not going to do that. I'm not going to do that because I think you've heard it too many times already. You know exactly how I feel about the role of the management with respect to convincing all of you to spend a whole lot of money that you should never have spent, but it's not really your fault because you had to rely on experts and the experts told you something else. And I'm seeing all kinds of numbers on documents that I even received today put together by Black and Veatch and by the management and by AECOM trying to convince you all of things that are just not true. I just don't know how to say it anymore. So I think you're all very well versed in everything. You did the right thing, Mr. Mayor, the very, very you know, courageous thing, which is to have appointed the ad hoc committee because they were able to go through everything with a fine-tooth comb. So thank you so much for that. Really appreciate it. And I just hope you make the right decision today. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Rose Haney.

Rose Haney, 472 Glenridge Road. I live four houses down from the school. I'm pretty much in the flood, what they call the flood zone when it rains. There's a lot of water on my street, just like in front of the school. But I have to tell you before I... talk about the ACOM system, that it's gotten a lot better since they cleaned the drains. And I've been here over 40 years. My kids, my son used to walk to school. Okay, I'm opposed to the ACOM system for four different reasons, but... You know, I see that the ACOM, they came up with a solution, but it would cause two more very serious problems. So that's why I am against it. The first one is cutting trees down, 565 trees. That is just not a good idea. This is island paradise for a reason. And the reason is the grain that we have, the shade we have, and the beautiful blue water around the island, OK? So cutting the trees down affects the shade area, it affects the electric bills, it affects the birds, the bees, the butterflies, and more. Okay, and the last time someone tried to cut down trees on Crandon when Lipton came and put a big bridge over there, we literally had people out there standing in front of the bulldozers. And I think basically if you go with this plan, you'll have the same thing, but you have a lot more people because it affects their backyard. Okay, so the trees are very important. Not only are the trees important, the water's important. The water around us, the water that we ski in, the water that the fish swim in. The manatees are right where the stormwater drains are going to come. And I don't know if you realize 1,200 manatees have died in the state of Florida, and a lot of it has to do with rainwater being pumped down. from the runoff going into the bay and the areas that they swim in and they're starving, okay? You can look that up. And actually that's where the drainage is gonna be right there where all the manatees are in Hurricane Harbor. um it's just not a good idea to do that okay and raising roads too by two and a half feet that's a big concern because they did that in miami beach and there's a lot of low-lying properties like mine and hundreds okay on key biscayne low-lying properties and when you raise roads you got to be very careful because Drain, gravity is faster than pumps, and the water will go in our yard. I'm going to get to the end here. OK, thank you. OK, so that's the third reason that scares me. And the other thing is the disruption of the roads for years, and the kids trying to get to school, and the dust everywhere, and the construction. It's just not a good idea. So you want to keep this island paradise as it is. Please vote against the ACOM plan and consider the GIT plan, and I appreciate you working on the recommendation. It looks good to me.

Thank you, Rose. Ed Easton.

Ed Easton, 18 Harbor Point. I'm in favor of the GIT program. I'm against the ACON program. I have never seen a construction bid that had a 50% or 60% variance. It seems unheard of to me. I'm in favor of it because it does not eliminate 565 trees. It does not pump water into the bay. And this community cannot afford $100 million worth of debt. I think that's the right move, and I thank you all for all the service you do for this community.

Thank you, Ed. Jocelyn Torres.

Good evening. Jocelyn Torres, 161 Crandon Boulevard, apartment 121. This is about protecting our trees, preserving the health of our bay, and using our resources wisely. So I believe the GAT aligns with these priorities, so I ask you to support the initiative. Thank you.

Thank you.

Ceci Sanchez.

260 Cypress Drive, Cecile Sanchez. I am wearing, because I was there, when, do you remember when Andrew passed by that the canopy of Old Gate Florida State Park went away? How long did that take so that we could have shade back in the park? 20 years? More? I don't understand it. I do not understand it, how someone plans something, such a big project, and doesn't disclose the impact, the negative impact, the pros and the cons. We should have known about it. I think if we would have known about it, maybe less money would have been spent, because it's out of the question. We are paradise found. We are proud of where we live, and we want to keep it that way. Please. And to get an exemption dumping untreated water in Biscayne Bay? Our bay? How could we think about such a thing? We are saying Tree City USA, please. Let's continue living. Let's get the school like former Mayor Festa says. I thank you for serving, but please listen to us because we count. We need to know. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker, Patricia Romano.

Good evening, Patricia Romano. This is . Thank you for your service, all of you. First, I want to say happy birthday to Mother Earth, today's Earth Day, the only one we have, so we better take care of it. The ad hoc committee has recommended the selection of the GIT proposal because it is a more efficient and fiscally responsible approach to initiate our efforts to mitigate flooding from heavy rain and sea level rise. I urge you to vote in favor of the GIT stormwater policy. We are living through uncertain times. We require us to be extremely cautious with our expenditures. My preference for the GIT proposal is based on its modular and phased implementation of the project that results in a better allocation of our village resources and much less disruption of our daily life. In simple terms, the GIT proposal is more practical and more affordable. We are experiencing increasing exorbitant home insurance premiums and utilities costs. The last thing we need in our village is to incur in a debt of hundreds of millions, which will certainly result in devastating tax increases on our properties. You must also consider the environmental impact on Biscayne Bay and on our community by the ACOM proposal. We will never stand the destruction of our almost 600 mature trees that I was checking the price to replace those, and it's over $10 million if you're going to plant the same trees. But I'm sure they will plant little trees that it will take 40 years to grow. Our consideration must be given to the effect on our community's quality of life if we were to replace the entire existing stormwater system and implement a comprehensive road raising and grading as proposed by ACOM. Most of us remember how much we suffered during the destruction of our roads for the installation of the current stormwater system. traffic nightmares and muddy cars and shoes. I should also mention that based on the required elevation of new homes in Key Biscayne, road racing is a solution looking for a problem. Raising roads in other coastal cities in Florida, like Miami Beach, has caused significant issues, including diverted flood water that swam lower-lying homes, steep inaccessible drivers, and causing stormwater to pour in yards.

Okay, you're wrapping up?

Yeah, I'm wrapping up. It's the last five words. No, more than five. It is my understanding that comprehensive flooding control projects must include effective mitigation of ditch erosion caused by high tides and storm surges. Many cities in Florida are using living or regular segmented breakwaters to enhance shoreline stability. Maybe we can look into that. I do believe, however, that GIT should add emergency generators to power the pumps. In King's Cane, we lose power when we flush the toilets, if you know what I mean. Thank you.

Joseph Valdez Hurtado.

That's a difficult one to follow. Joseph Valdes Hurtado, 600 Great Tree Drive. You and some that sat on that dais before you allowed this to happen, to go on for way too long, and brings us here to face the consequences of absorbed absurd management of resources and finances. It started backwards. The first concern in the environment should have been the main goal of the administration and councils years ago by targeting the real issues and demanding truthful answers. Not polluting the bay and keeping existing trees are the always should always have been the priority for the well-being of Key Biscayne. Instead, it began with two apparent conflicts of interest, followed by years-long discussions about one inch versus two and a half inches of pipes, two to three inches of draining water in a few minutes less than what the existing wells well-maintained should have done. We homeowners have paid over $8 million for an experiment gone wrong. Those in charge wasted valuable time and manpower instead of concentrating on real and urgent issues that continue to affect our daily lives. It's up to you now to end this unfortunate chapter in TV's games history.

Thank you. Finley Matheson.

Good evening. Finley Matheson, 480 West Matheson Drive. My father used to say there's more than one way to skin a cat. And I think we ought to skin this one with common sense. Keep it simple. do the environmentally the right thing, and do the most cost effective approach. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I've got Elena Iturralde.

Elena Torralde, 290 Sunrise Drive. Good evening, Mayor, Council Members. I'm not someone who enjoys public speaking, but I felt I needed to come tonight. For many of us, this is not only pipes, budgets, or engineering plans. It is about what kind of place we want to live in. When many people think of nature here, they think of the beach or the sea. For me, I think of forest and trees. Our trees are not decorations. They give shade, beauty, habitat, cooler streets, and a sense of home. Biscayne Bay is not just water beside us. It is part of our identity, our wildlife, and our responsibility. Learning that so many mature trees may be lost is truly heartbreaking. If there is a solution that protects residents while also protecting nature, then that is the direction we should choose. Please think long term. Once mature trees are gone, they are gone for decades. Once nature is damaged, restoring it is never simple. Please choose wisely with respect for both people and the environment and for those who will come after us.

Thank you very much. Got Alan Fine.

Good evening, my friends. Alan Fine, 525 Allendale Road, Key Biscayne. Like Mayor Festa and others, I want to thank you for all of your work on this issue. I must say, At the beginning of this process, first of all, as all of you know, I worked very hard on the original bond issue, which, as most of our referendums have done, passed by more than two to one margin. Because back then, my hair was already on fire every time I walked out and looked at the drain in front of my house and I saw that even at low tide, the water was just a few inches away and it's coming up and it's going to keep coming up. And my friend Ed understood and I think we had great agreement on what we needed to do on that vote. On this one, originally I was pretty impatient and concerned that we might be studying this issue to death, and we should just get on with it. But I talked to my friend Ed. I talked to my friend Michael. And they explained to me what they were working on. And I'm very proud that it seems as if, and I know Fernando has reviewed this as well, I was very pleased that there seems to be a great consensus on what you need to do tonight. To me, as Rose and some of the others pointed out, I think the main issue to me, having lived through what happened when the sewer system was put in, the disruption to our lives was awful. And if that alone could be avoided, that would be great. But perhaps more important, I did not realize until spending a lot of time talking with you all that the canopy, the canopy that we've created from nothing, our streets used to look like Hialeah, and now they look like Coral Gables. I mean, we just can't give that up.

It's better than Coral Gables.

On some streets, better than Coral Gables. On Allendale, we could have some different trees, which would help. But I think we need to move ahead. We need to move along and do the right thing. I appreciate all the work all of you have put in. I came tonight because I was concerned that all of this was being presented in emails I was receiving as something other than the consensus that I saw forming. and an argument that we need to have yet another referendum. It's time for this council to do its job. And the fact that you've reached consensus is great. It's time to move ahead. No referendums. Let's just move and move forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Brett Moss.

Good evening, Brett Moss, 152 West Master Drive, Key Biscayne. First, I want to thank this council for your hard work and your diligence. I want to thank the mayor for organizing the ad hoc committee. And I especially want to acknowledge the ad hoc committee itself and our fellow residents for their tireless on the research and persistence on this topic. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed that local government is where democracy truly happens. Seeing this level of engagement from our community and our elected council is democracy at its finest. Tonight, we stand at a fork in the road. We face a critical choice in how we alleviate our floodwaters as produced by rainwater. A large centralized pump system discharging into the bay, or modular injection wells discharging into the earth. Both of them work when it comes to moving water. But the question is, what is better for our community? I'm here tonight to voice my strong opinion and support for the modular injection well system. I believe this is the right path for four reasons. One is adaptability. This system is modular. We don't have to scrap our existing infrastructure. We can fix and reuse what we have and prioritize in the most vulnerable areas first. We can also extend the system to cover more areas and more homes. Second, financial feasibility. The centralized system requires a massive upfront capital investment. Injection wells allow for incremental funding. We can scale the project in manageable phases matching our spending to our actual needs rather than overextending our budget today. Environmental stewardship is a third one. And everybody knows how I feel about certain things in there. So we have learned that injection wells have a lower impact on the sea life and water quality compared to direct bay discharge. And the last is preserving our community character. The modular approach protects our natural beauty, specifically our 30-year-old tree canopies, which would be devastated by a massive infrastructure required for a centralized system. So we look to you tonight for your leadership to choose the correct path for our community, and please do that tonight. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Okay, that's all the cards I have.

The next item are reference materials included in the agenda. I think the next item is discussion.

Yeah, discussion. I want to ask the ad hoc committee and the chair, Mike Bracken, to lead off. And I think we just want to spend some time on what it was, the process that you went through over a fairly large period period of time and then talk about how you got to that conclusion and then I'll ask also Fernando and Ed to talk about their experience in the Ad Hoc Committee and how'd you come up with that solution in the end.

So, Joe, after a considerable period of time and quite a bit of discussion between all of us, and we weren't initially aligned, by the way, and by the time we got through our conversations, we did get aligned, and we firmly believe that we should be supporting the GIT extension project and moving forward with that project to get to the point where we can have deliverable drawings and move forward with the design-build application. And I think Fernando, Ed, if you want to add something here, but I think we've reiterated this pretty much over and over and over again at the last time.

I recognize how we had our tussles in the process. Dissension is good, I think, in the process of democracy and deliberating. I think, Mr. Mayor, I think one of the things that as a professional here that I've done this work, for extensively through time, but also keeping a strong eye on the environment. Remember my days back when we were doing this type of projects in highly urbanized areas like Miami Beach. It was very important, at least for me, to really ensure that whatever we discharge into the bay, I mean, at least minimize it completely and look at wells Unfortunately, that was not the time. Maybe it was a bit early in my argument. And this thing has been moving. Just the subject of resiliency, for everybody's sake, is something that has been moving quite quickly in the last decade. And we are catching up. There's a lot of issues. Before that, really, the words resiliency was not even part of our lexicon. I think we instituted it early in 2009. with all these projects, and then a lot of cities started taking off really quick, including ourselves, started noticing that the issue of hurricanes, repeated hurricanes, repeated issues with insurability, and also moods ratings started to really get into the consciousness of municipalities. So there is, yes, there is a process of iteration that we have to go through as engineers, We've gone extensively back to the drawing board on this, particularly in this case. And I think one of my points was that finally, within my own community, I could bring forth an idea that I wanted to implement back in 2009, which was to inject down deep into aquifers. I believe, and I said it back then in 2009, that we need to divorce ourselves completely from discharges into the bay. The bay is already at a tipping point. It is not necessarily as a result of us There are other stakeholders that are contaminating and affecting and taking the oxygen away from the corals, a lot of nutrients. And we need to do our part. And I've been talking about this here since 2024. I think when I wrote the first article about the water quality issues, we brought it here into council. Twice we brought it up and we discussed it. And I think finally we're at a point that I personally believe, and I know the rest of the committee does, that the way to go is to move towards injection wells and protecting our precious resource, which is Biscayne Bay. Thank you.

Ed. Joe said be nice tonight. I'm always nice. And I'll go pick on anybody. Thank you. Basically, most people know where I came from. I started, I read the first report back in 21 with ACOM. I'm sorry. Is it on? It's on now. There you go. Like I said, back in 21, I read the report. I digested it. I accepted it. And I was happy. I figured, you know, this is what we have to do. I knew nothing about exactly the details that went into it. As we progressed, I disagreed. I differed at a certain point. I did my own calculations. I'm not an engineer. I'm not a storm store developer. But just common sense. And we wound up with the ad hoc committee. Again, I thank Joe for that. Because I think when the numbers came in, we're all unexpected, including Steve, from the initial estimates and what came back. So this was another way of exploring. And we explored. We looked at everything. And I must tell you that I... I screwed up. And the way I screwed up is I did not know about the 565 trees. And I screwed up because the last few days I've been reading all the detailed breakdowns they come did from the 30% plan, the 60% plan, and the 100% plan. When you look at the 30% plan, they have a number in there where they use $15 to take a chainsaw to cut down 18 to 24 inch trees, And they have another number in there, which is $15, to get bulldozers in there, lock all the stumps up, and clean it all up. So if I had ever looked at that, and I didn't, I didn't see it, I wasn't given it, I didn't ask for it either, I just got the summary, I would have known back in 24. I didn't do that. I apologize, because I would have raised hell before, not now. And obviously, not to bore anybody, but you know, The bay is really important. And we say great and wonderful and we want to protect it. We do. But somehow or other, the trees is every day when you walk out of the house, every day when you drive around, every day when the sun shines, that's what hits you. I'm not saying it's more or less important by the bay, but that's something that I think everyone here has to say, wow, this is where we live. This is beautiful. And once that happened, there was no going back for me. I mean, I'm just... I'm stubborn, I'm obstinate, I'm old. What can I tell you? By the same token, I'm 100% for the GIT. Hopefully we'll all come together and get it done and move forward. And that's where I am.

Thank you. Let's get a couple initial comments since we want to go through a couple other things. Which way you want to go, Ms. Nancy?

Sure. I just have a couple of general comments. First of all, I want to make it clear that I, too, am not an engineer or a scientist. But since I have been, even since I was campaigning and through the two years I've been almost two years on council, I have tried my level best to learn about the ACOM proposal, And now about the GIT proposal. I have gone to, obviously, the council meetings. I have gone to virtually every ad hoc committee meeting. And I have gone to the monthly staff meetings that we have with Black and Veach and AECOM and our staff, really trying. It's complicated. It is complicated. And there is no one answer, because there is no finite information. There are estimates, but we can't even go forward on the basis of history. So everybody up here, everybody is making the best decision that they can, including me, based upon the information that we have. And I don't think anybody in this staff or on council has any ulterior purpose but to serve this community I have my own preference now that we're at this point I Think that the the GIT proposal leans more toward a the best interests of this community from an ecological perspective. The trees are not only important because they're beautiful and because they give a shade, but they're also for clean air and to cut down on our energy consumption. I also want to make it perfectly clear that my own decision in this, my own vote, has nothing to do with the threat of a referendum. I've come to my decision. from a common sense point of view, from the information that I've learned, and nothing other than my own analysis of the situation and the facts that we have has led me to my decision. I really appreciate Council and the Ad Hoc Committee and everything that they have done because they have also done their level best studying and coming to the decision that they think is best.

Thank you. Thank you.

I thought about moving to adjourn when Davey stood up at the podium.

I thought I should have done it then, but it's too late now.

I don't think that this is an unfortunate chapter in our community life, as was suggested. It is a challenge. It has been a lot of study, a lot of work. over the course of a long period of time, I think we've come to a point of having two different alternatives that are nothing alike. If we were aspiring a year ago to be in a position to be able at some point in time to compare apples and apples, it's very clear as of late that that's never going to happen because these are not of the same fruit. AECOM plans positives have been discussed for a long time. The tree detail, it seems to me, my memory is that the detail came out not in connection with their progress completion developments, but rather when the road harmonization plans were coming out for concrete discussion. And all of a sudden, the realization lit up the room that all of us reacted to with a degree of shock and horror. about the number of trees that would have to be removed and replaced, with skepticism too about whether they could possibly be replaced with mature trees and whether the canopy would be degraded inevitably as a result. That was, I would say, a dire negative at that time. whenever that occurred, whenever that was. I don't think there was ever five seconds of serious discussion about discharging untreated water into the bay. That was never at issue. The question of filtration efficacy has always been a serious question. The place we landed at in terms of ACOM's permitting requirements, it's not an exception, simply simply a permit, but that does not obviate the serious discussion about whether the better and more responsible process is filtration, injection, or discharge into the bay. We are all sensitive of the health of the bay and all recognize that it's damaged, and we do not want to contribute to worsening that damage. With all that, we come to two problems with ACOM that I find difficult getting past. One is the disruption, the construction disruption. And another, and that includes the trees, but it's more than that. Although I probably couldn't get past the trees if that were the only issue. The other is I harbor a sense that ACOM has delivered a level of service that is beyond what we need. We spent a lot of time talking about what the level of service needs to be to ensure continuity and to mitigate the kinds of disruptions that come from worsening weather. And we came to a standard. to its credit, ACOM developed a plan to meet that standard. I think we've never, any of us, I speak for myself, but I think this applies to all of us here, and some of us who preceded us, that are here now in this same conversation, felt that the level of service could be a little less, could be a little worse. We could tolerate more for longer. continue to harbor that asterisk and insecurity about how much ACOM has engineered to deliver arguably perhaps more than we need. Coming to GIT, I'd like to ask a couple of questions because there are some, I would say, known unknowns that bear on price and efficacy. And we're at a stage with ACOM's iteration that I, after two days of reading all of this material, can't answer. And because they bear on cost variability, someone mentioned 50% variability. That's what I understand the ACOM high side variable is at least 50%. It may be a little more than that. And the particular questions that occurred to me have to do with the, maybe there's three, to be very categorical about this and save time. The first is the underground injection criteria and code compliance. A separate clean water consideration, not the same as the Bay but tending towards the same end, recognizing that those standards exist for injection and also that water injected seeps out to the Bay at some point. That's question number one. And I just imagine that surmise that the GIT hasn't yet iterated far enough to be able to cost that out and to be able to describe how that's actually going to have to occur. And the second part, I think, possibly is the reliance on the existing system without identifying preliminarily even what types of improvements or what types of weak links without the benefit of an underground assessment might compromise expectations on the transport to the wells. And the third is just intrinsic, which is financing. We have a financing package that's in place that's not going to be able to be transferable automatically. We can speak to that tonight. I hope we will. But the cost variability, and including the projections that Black and Veatch laid out on operations and maintenance over time, those are the questions that I can't answer right now about GIT. OK.

Initial comments.

So I've thought a lot about this. I was originally going to go point by point to try to work out the delta between one option and the other and the fact that these are not apples to apples and they are two very different options. But before doing that and before going into some questions, I wanted to lean into a little bit of what Nancy said and the importance of community and just the process we've been through. I wrote something down just because I don't wanna miss anything. So first off, I wanna thank everybody for coming here. I wish I'd see more of you more often, to be quite honest. We sit up here and we do the best that we can and we do it because you placed us here to do so and we all find an enormous amount of responsibility to do so. And I'm sorry to hear that there are people here that might suggest that there is anything but thoughtful intent behind everything that we do. That is not the case. I know every single one of these people. I'm incredibly proud to be sitting here next to all of them. And that includes our staff. Thank you for our residents who showed up, for our ad hoc committee meetings who stayed engaged through a process that was deliberately slow because we asked it to be. Thank you to the engineers on both sides, GIT and ACOM, who brought their best professional thinking to a generally hard problem and gave this council something very rare, a real choice supported by real data. And thank you to our village staff who translated years of technical work into something the public can understand and act on. Two years, specifically on this $5 million, more than four public meetings, an independent review, two fully evaluated engineering paths. That is not money or time wasted. That is exactly what responsible government looks like when the decision is hard enough and the stakes are high enough to deserve it. There is no other comparably sized coastal community in Florida who has entered a decision like this one with two fully evaluated alternatives. Independent technical review and a public record, this complete. It does not exist. I've said it before, we are the trailblazers. We are the ones setting the example. It's an important responsibility. And it should not be thrown away, and I feel an immense amount of empathy for people that think that, honestly, that there is anything nefarious or not transparent about what we've gone through for the last two years. I feel empathy and pity for people that feel that way, because that is not who we represent. It never has been, and it never will be as long as I sit here or any of my colleagues sit up here. There are several disparities in the comparison of both of these. It's a horrible thing to suggest that there's 560 trees being displaced or removed or changed or whatever you'd like to call it. 343 of those are palm trees. Palm trees do not give us the shade that many people have spoken about. And in the GIT program, there is...

I said this at the very beginning.

If you continue, I'll have the room cleared. So please. In the GIT... All I'm trying to suggest that is ACOM had a very thoughtful, intentional approach to how we replace that. GIT has not. That's just one small example. I'm not suggesting that any one is better than the other. And certainly, we cannot kick this can down the road. The people who live in our community, they've come to our meetings. They've submitted their comments. They've moved their cars. They've watched water rise and waited. They should not wait any longer. They're waiting to see us act tonight. I want them to know that this council has heard them. And despite all the questions that are going to happen now, I think that tonight we absolutely have to come to a decision. Now that decision is not binary. It doesn't mean 100% one or 100% the other. What it means is a continued thoughtful approach to see what is the best opportunity for us to have the best solution at the right cost. And so with that being said, we'll move on. We'll ask some questions. I think it's important to ask those questions. I think Frank touched on quite a few of them because education of our residents is important. I want you to know what it is that we're getting into in both respects. And at the end of it, I have no doubt that we'll come up with an excellent plan. And I have a feeling that we're all pretty much in the same place. And you'll see this council work in unison. And I think And I feel in my gut that we're going to come to the same conclusion. OK.

Thank you. One supplement to my question. Sure. This might help drill down on sort of the Grobman question. In 2024, one of the points of advice that we got was that injection wells were not suitable to address this problem, full stop. And there was an analysis as to why that is. So one simple question is, what's changed? Is it a difference of opinion? Is there a different level of analysis that has looked at the problem in a different way? I'd like to know. Part of what that touched on, I will say this incorrectly because we're going to get technical when we start talking about head depth. But part of this premise was there wasn't sufficient pressure to be able to push that water down at the base of the well. So that's a physical constraint, not an opinion. So that opinion is obviously changed. And I'd like to just talk about why that is, how that happened, okay? That's probably the most important question.

Okay. Let me try this. I think I know how to count votes, okay? And what I see us doing right now is I think I'd like to take a vote and then continue the discussion after. I really would really love all of you to stay so that we can do that and ask these kind of questions and get these kind of answers. I just feel like we want to give the public input that was given and give our our blessing to the GIT plan and just keep going. Because I can see we have the ad hoc committee that I named already come to us with three affirmative votes for GIT. From what I've heard from my colleagues so far, there doesn't seem to be a huge discrepancy. We got a bunch of questions like that, but what do you all think about, let's have the vote and then continue.

The question of what we're voting on is perfectly clear. Because I don't think we're voting on installing the GIT plan tonight.

Tomorrow.

Right. I think we're voting on, do we want to pursue that design idea? Do we want to go further down the road? I think that's what we're voting on today. Maybe I'm wrong, but I want to make sure that we're all on the same page about what we're voting on.

Do you want to take a shot at it? Yes.

I'd like to make a motion to accept the GIT plan, and we engage GIT to go forward to prepare bid packages for two, four, and six well installation. then once we do that, it goes out to . And then we can make a decision how we're going to proceed with that.

I'll second that. I want to ask a question before that. And this is just strictly a procurement question more than anything else to the attorney. Are we, by choosing GIT to proceed, are we in the limits within CCNA? That's all. This is just a clarification, because we also want to, in the heat of the moment, folks, we want to make sure that we're staying legal here.

I do think, so let's start to how GIT was retained. GIT was retained to do a planning study under the CCNA statute. To proceed to the next step, you would have to then- Chad, you want to explain what the CCNA is? So the CCNA is a Florida law which requires competitive bidding for certain practice areas such as engineering, where the bids have to be based upon the qualifications of the individuals bidding and not based upon price. There's some exceptions to that, but that's generally speaking. So when the village seeks engineering services under state law, we need to follow that procedure unless it falls into one of the exceptions. So here, We believed that retaining GIT, and I believe you actually might have even sought bids, didn't you? You did seek bids. We did seek bids, and GIT was retained. However, we could have used them as a planning study. With that being said, now that we have this information, the CCNA would require us to go out and seek qualified individual companies or individuals to actually prepare the design criteria package. or take it to the next step. That's not saying that GIT can't bid on it, but it is a procedure that we would have to follow. So I would suggest in your motion, you would just stick with the, proceed with the GIT plan, and then you can direct the manager to proceed to bid it out, to hire the professional, you know, to actually.

And then my motion is you direct it, sir.

Yes, I second it.

And again, I'll reiterate, I'm not saying that GIT can't apply. It's just the process that has to be done.

And we can discuss that afterwards, too. Can somebody clarify the motion, please? Chad, clarify the motion, please.

Motion was just made.

I believe that Councilmember London would like to make a motion to proceed with the GIT plan that has been presented. and to direct the manager to seek competitive bids to hire a engineer to design a design criteria package for this project.

Okay. We have a second, Madam Clerk. Is that appropriate?

Yes, Council Member Vazquez.

Yes. Okay, discussion on the motion?

Call the roll. Without, at the stage of development that this concept is at now, Are there assumptions?

Come on, come on.

Are there assumptions relative to discharge capability that if not met, cause this system to be ineffective? Not that we're aware of.

We can ask.

I think this answers one question before. I'd rather. I know, but it's satisfying.

Who do you suggest? I would suggest we speak to the GIT representative. If you have questions, you can bring him up and ask.

We have one basic question, which is the confusion between the disposal well and the shallow injection well. What you're referring to is the water table they had, which is a differential. between the surface and the water table diminishes. That pressure is reduced, it doesn't drain as fast. An injection well works with a pump with electric motor pressurizing it, so it doesn't really matter.

It matters in this respect from what I've read, and I'm not an engineer. Neither am I. There are limits in permitting capabilities for certain pressure max. Correct. The question that arose is whether that max can be achieved to cause this to dissipate water.

Yeah, we should actually bring it. Mr. Manager.

Hold on, hold on. We have a proper motion before us here. Second. Let's vote on that motion and then we can keep going. Sure. The question is technical, that's all.

I'm sorry, on the motion that was modified, who made the second? And you accept those changes?

I accepted the amendment. Okay. All right.

Okay. Roll call. Madam Clerk, roll call.

Council Member Bracken? Yes. Council Member Kaplan?

Yes.

Council Member London? Yes. Vice Mayor Sardinius? Yes. Council Member Stoner? Yes. Council Member Vasquez? Yes. Mayor Roscoe?

Yes.

Motion carried. Thank you.

Let's get to Frank's questions. And then everybody else's questions so that we can get a little bit better feel for what we want to do.

Joe, would it be appropriate to ask the engineer to come up and answer his question? Answer his question, yes.

I would stick around. That was your question. Yes. Good evening, Mayor. Hold on a second. We'll get through this here.

Can we clear out and take your conversations outside, please? Thank you. Thank you. Okay. You want to re-ask the couple of things that you had? Did you hear my questions?

Yes, council member.

Were they sufficiently clear to frame a conversation?

Yes, I'll start with the first question, which was the capacity for the injection. It is not GIT that proposed injection wells first. So this has been reflected in the Tetra Tech master plan from 2011. In the ESC master plan from 2015, numerous studies, approximately 40 wells have been investigated in the 90s to determine the hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer, which is the criteria that you're discussing that may limit the amount of the fluid that can be injected in the ground. All they have concluded that it Approximately 1,200 gallons per foot of head can be injected. For some of the wells much exceeding those, there are two wells that already have been installed in the 90s on ocean line and in another location recently have been upgraded with emergency generators. So these have shown capacity that are relevant. The Garden District injection wells shows approximately 1,200 gallons per foot of hat to be injected. And we are following pretty much these. Also, the ACOM reported 1,200 gallons. We're not an outlier that this has been value that has been investigated, confirmed through different tests. And so yes, we will be able to inject this amount in the ground. So that I think we're basing maybe some other areas in Florida don't have this capacity, but the hydrogeology here is favorable for underground injection.

That's one of the reasons we're paradise.

Yes, that's correct. And so the injection is basically at between 80 and 120 feet below the ground. And also to answer the second question of the first question about the water quality, how the water quality, how it may end up in the bay. FDEP, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, does not require water quality treatment for injection wells. However, this is required for discharges in the bay because this is considered direct discharge and pollution in the bay. Underground injection is not in this category. Miami-Dade County requires a 90-second sedimentation which is what treatment, which we provide, which is equivalent also the ACOM provides the same. ACOM plan also provides the same sedimentation. So these are basically equivalent in terms of water quality treatment. And again, this is required by Miami-Dade County. The agency that deals with the bay and the permits in the bay is Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and we will be in compliance. As a matter of fact, when we started looking conceptually of what we want to develop, one of our conditions was safe discharge of flooded water safe discharge in the ground and no discharge in the bay. So that was conceptually what we started with.

Did I look at this correctly? I thought that I saw drawings of the hydrocarbon separator. Is that the proper description?

Hydrodynamic separation.

Did it look very similar to what Akon had specified?

Yes, we both. These are typically used for all pretreatment. They call them pretreatment. But basically, that takes the heaviest particles and separate them. And this is also used to remove potential clogging particles from the well and to extend its life and its performance. So that's the basic initial treatment of water, to remove the heavy particles like sand.

and different similar first flush when the rain hits the first flush and the captures that and it separates the larger solid.

And the well heads are cleaned and the filters are maintained. Yeah.

Each well will have this separator hydrodynamic separator which is fairly big but it's underground. It's approximately 15, 16 feet deep, and it's approximately 12 feet diameter. So it's not a small container, but it's underground. It's from concrete, and it's used to retain 90 seconds to slow down the water and allow sedimentation to occur.

So in effect, the treatment for water quality purposes, the treatment is approximately equivalent to what ACOM was specifying.

Yes, approximate equivalent in their conceptual plan, AGOM referred to using membrane, but that was not included in the final design. So membrane filtration was, but again, this is not required for disposal in the groundwater.

I think one of the things that I'd like to add to that, that it's not just, I want to make sure it's not we're talking about water quality specifically, but also a repeated use discharge, repeated turbidity, repeated changes in temperature. And those are things that are when you do what is called a point discharge, that's what you get. I mean, you get all this water that's just rushing right into the bay. And that's what we're really just avoiding altogether, which really that's what we want to do. I think, yeah, I think your nutrients and your respective are pretty much the same right.

There I would say that the same it has so they can refer to best management practices for this.

And part of the point district.

Let me give a shot here. So I spent some time reading your alternative stormwater plants and the submission that you did on April 8 OK. And one of the things that I want to come out is, as I read through this, and I think that you did a good job of outlining what risks are and what things you don't know yet if it's you that gets selected to develop the plan. But I thought it was a fair treatment of all the risks that are involved. In the different sections here, there is a constant reference. You keep saying final design should incorporate head controls, instrumentation, and another one you say the design should also evaluate a detailed operational plan will be developed, basis for expansion for Zone 1 to Zone 1, and on and on. So I want people to understand that the uncertainty that this group here still can feel is it's not, this isn't 100% cooked. It's in the process. And I think what we made a decision on was centralized versus decentralized. And so you point to a lot of those things that need to be fleshed out instead of flushed. So I want you to address it, and I want people to hear it. I mean, it's like people think it's just easy being up here and making a quick decision. Your disclaimer says this. This document is a preliminary report that remains under active revision. The content is subject to additional analysis and refinement and may contain omissions, incomplete assessments, or elements that require further editing. So can you address us and tell us what would have to happen in order to get to a point where we could put this out to bid? How do you see that you're able to answer all these questions that you raise also to all our satisfaction and our staffs and consultants and all that?

Yes, so we identified as we went through, we provided the concept, I believe we're final with the concept, we finalized the concept, but in addition to each of The concept plan and how this will be treated, where it's going to be, what's separate, there is a number of details that needs to be listed and provided, which is more subjective of the final design. So even we identified what needs to be done. We do not assume that we will be the project group that will finalize all these plans. But so we listed things that, based on our practice and based on all the information that we know, that they have to be implemented. And you can see lots of these were just Some of them are based on the operating conditions. Some of them will require additional, for example, testing. And so that's what we addressed in this. It's not a final design. Minor change, I would say minor changes are expected, but not major changes. For example, we propose five wells for this area, six wells for this area. We expect six wells. We're proposing hydrodynamic separator. So we're not expecting this will be removed. We're proposing pumps with the wet wells with the exact approximate direction of how deep the well is. We don't expect these to be changed. All the major components will be, they're very well established.

And you would agree that once that final design is in, that that would strengthen whatever estimate or projection we have on price today?

Yeah, that's correct.

And subject to possibly being

a little bit more or a little bit less but it's going to be in that neighborhood yes that's correct i think for example some of the uh questions that we may have to adjust for example we provided preliminary information where where this the entire set of uh reservoirs and the well and everything how they're going to be disposed some of there might be some variation in particular i wanted to mention that This will be adjusted based on underground utilities, and originally when we placed the wells, because it's approximately 75 feet long, the whole complex of equipment pumps and valve box by 15, so we may have to adjust based on the utilities and also based on trees. We would like to preserve all of it, so we will be looking for So some variation will be, so that's not completed yet.

Okay. Go ahead, Nancy.

I just have a quick comment, and I want to remind everybody. AECOM was at 30% at one point in time. and we proceeded and we ended up in a place that we weren't maybe that happy with. And while I don't, and no one here expects that to happen, we're at 30% now. So things happen that we're not anticipating, I would assume.

Do you have something I don't know how you got to 30%?

So we may be in a different place than everyone is expecting tonight. And I'm hoping that everyone's not gonna turn around and say that we were not transparent. This is where we are, and we're proceeding on the basis of the information we have now with the best decision that we can make. But there's no guarantees, even on the price. I know on the ACOM, as we proceeded, I remember at one point in time, a cost was added because WASDE asked us to do something, and that was something that wasn't part of ACOM's plan. So there are unforeseen things that happened. That costs money.

Fernando. Yeah. I think that one of the things that I want to say, why I incline towards this solution, decentralized solution, is because of the fundamentality, if that's a word, of the design in itself. As an attorney, maybe like the theory of, like the legal theory for kind of trying to translate it to you guys. And as engineers, you know, We're designing something that will be more accommodating in an urban environment. I kept on saying it was a robust design that was great. But at the end of the day, it's a design sometimes a infrastructure has to accommodate not just to the specific needs that you have to do physically, but also to the needs of the community. And that's the challenge that we find as engineers. And I think that's where we're at right now. Having said that, we are at a 30%. And there are some things that need to happen.

You guys both say 30%. Where is that?

We're not at 30. I'm sorry. You're right, Mayor. Thank you for correcting that. You're not at 30%. You don't have 30% plans. You are at a conceptual level. Conceptual, right. That you are at a conceptual level that you will develop 30% plans as a design criteria package and according to Florida statutes, et cetera, so this thing can be bid properly.

Excuse me. The manager and Chad, you both, is that what our contract with him says, that we go to 30%? No, it's develop a concept plan.

Ah, okay. Okay, well then we have an issue, then we have to talk about how we're gonna get to a final 30% plan.

Well, that's what we discussed before with the CCNA, that we're gonna have to figure that out.

We're gonna have to figure that out. I wanted to get to the issues to constructability, respectively. Go for it. I think we need to get to the hydraulic verification before any type of dcp I hope we can get that to that sooner because we will understand at that point in time. What councilmember stoner saying you know we got to get to a real sense of what this construction costs is going to be right, so you need to understand you well there's a connectivity transparency risk call before we get to construction. The CCTV and the confirmation of the pipes, that to me remains a big question mark, not necessarily something that would stop the concept and the fundamental idea of the design, but something that would definitely have to be done before we go out to bid. Well, your injectivity confirmation, we spoke about pretreatment, and also I'd like to see a risk matrix, to be honest with you. Because we are what we're going to get right now in a design criteria we're going to transfer that risk, we have to make sure that we transfer that risk to the contractor and not vice versa, because now we're getting into real you know shovels on the ground, this is not a hundred percent plans that is going to go out to be bid this is. 30% set of plans that's going to be issued to an engineer with a designer that's going to do the work and we better have all our risks identified before we hit that because then from then on it's double the cost. Yeah, we want to be there.

Yeah, thanks for we we did not create the risk matrix. But what part of all of these extended writing and documentation was to to provide the basis for this redevelopment. So we provided sufficient details for us.

So we like the theory. We want to proceed with that theory. But we also understand the concrete necessities of having a full package for bidding. And that's what I'm talking about. This is hard construction talk that we have to do now, not just engineering anymore. We are where we're at in engineering.

Right. Agreed, yes. You agree? Yes, completely, yes. That's interesting.

Frank, you had?

I just, apropos of your urbanism point, the panel discussion that I did at University of Miami Architecture School is on this very subject. So they're trying to think through how to marry character and continuity of character with practical engineering necessity. Brave new world.

Yeah, I wanted to mention that when we started with the development of this planet, first of all was, of course, safe disposal of the flooded water. So that was number one question. And the second was preservation of the current character. That means that minimize disruption, minimize any of these aspects, because we believe that the conditions were 2050. Let's say 2050, there is some sea level rise. But based on our analysis, it's going to be approximately one foot. We just don't see how this will create a tremendous flooding of the road that they needed to be raised in the favor of and then disruption of everywhere. So so that's why I mentioned preservation of the community character was environmental character of this area was one of the number one concepts for selecting this route.

The main feature in this design is the modularity right. We have different wells are going to be located that are going to be progressively accommodated as we face climate change or we have additional needs and all that. Do you have, and I know we've touched on this at the ad hoc, but I think for the benefit of the public, I think, like I said, it's great that every 30 years or so we'll be able to reassess the condition, not have a sarcophagus lying in the middle of the street, but now we have pumps. So how are you going to formulate the respective modality of gradual development of these wells.

Yeah, we also looked at adaptability was also another concept. How do you extend it? For example, exactly the same question. Can you extend it? And I'll give you an example. For example, you have these two wells that are two pump stations with wells that are installed. They're installed in a way that you have one pump station in the beginning and two wells, one from one side and the other from the other side. So if it's necessary to increase the capacity, that can be done by adding another well along the street on the other side. So that's something that we already kind of consider as a potential expansion. that's beyond the level of service, of course.

Right, but the next level, this is like the Lego approach, right? Think about it in that concept. Potentially, yeah. Yeah, the design criteria engineer or design criteria package has to have a set of specifications or performance guidelines or whatever it may be that, the DCP can then gather and develop properties.

We will reflect in, for example, in the valve box the way we have it right now. We have a small branch for the potential outflow through the force main. So that will be considered in the design package to have this potential for extension without the need to do it now.

It's really more, I think it's really more of a question of staff that we have to understand how this modular system is going to be built. I know it's going to be built in stages.

I'm done. Stupid question. Why do we have to... go ahead and TV the pipes. In fact, suppose we have a small leak in the pipe. I assume we don't, because Chris flushes the pipes. They seem to work fine. But if we had a leak, what's going to happen to the water that leaks out of that pipe?

GIOVANNI INNELLA- Small leaks would not be a big concern. But if the pipe is broken. But what would happen to that water?

It would go underground, right?

GIOVANNI INNELLA- Yeah, it will be underground.

But for a small leak, it's not a problem.

Well, if you had a big loop, you know about it.

Not necessarily. Well, of course we would, because when you flush the pipe, you'd see the water come out the other end.

And also, if there is a location, because this is something can happen. If you have a root, it can penetrate the pipe and basically can collapse it. And that's not...

If we had that problem, we'd have a blockage, wouldn't we?

Yeah.

Where the flow would be stopped and the pressure would be higher coming out one end or whatever. It's like a post. I mean, it would be visual, as I'm trying to say. I mean... I understand when you want to do this, but I don't know why, in fact, if everything seems to be running smoothly, why you want to go spend that money right now to do it, that's all. I mean, you can say, well, it's boots and suspenders or boots and whatever, but... You need to ask the maintenance guy.

Okay. For example, there was, you know, when there was a few flood events here, particularly the one in January, There are some catch basins who are working properly. You can see the water drain, but there's some where they're just completely plugged. So I think for those that might be useful, I think selectively can be done.

To do the whole system, Bob. Have we got bids on that yet, Steve? It's about a half million bucks? Approximately, yes.

I don't remember if it was in Mike's memo or in yours, but one answer was suggested that water seeping out would potentially be recaptured repeatedly, causing a degradation in efficiency? Because you're basically pumping the same water over and over again.

Yeah, recirculation, kind of, yeah. That's a big hole in the pipe.

I don't understand that at all. That's where I understood that one.

Potentially, that can enter the pipes, and this could be pumped in through the, so. It'd have to be a really big hole. Makes no sense. We don't think that's the biggest concern is to lose the conveyance because the entire concept here is based on some of the pipes can be used and will be useful for conveyance. If they don't have the conveyance, that would reduce the efficiency of the drainage system.

That's my question. It's not significant.

The talk a little bit about your roadway number in terms of the there's six affected areas right that you're you may have to do something there if it's not directional boring. Is that number that you have sufficient to. fix anything because obviously in the other approach we would have to trench and when we trench we have the the problem of the harmonization with the driveways etc we don't have that but you still you're not going to be very popular with the uh the person who's uh who's right in front of where you're going to put this thing in the ground and uh within the the striking distance of the swale Um so my question was about the I think you put 2 and a half million for roadway improvements landscaping.

Great increase surfacing can improvement of the. Of the flow of the slope so that we to provide range to the yeah it we estimated these based on a percentage we don't have the specific locations right yet.

That would be more design because in the other plan a calm they had physically gone and looked at every every single driveway and.

Well, because they're raising it, so that's where it comes from. But in this case, there is not going to be raising of the driveways, and so that will be preserved.

And I see there's different numbers, but one number I saw is the thing is 95 feet in length and 14 feet wide. You said today 70-something.

Yeah, 75 by 15. Why does that...

What variation is it because of where it is in the street?

Because it requires the space. For the injection well, it requires space, let's say, 10 by 10 feet. Then you have a valve box. Then there is a pump, submersible pump. It requires its own wet well. And then there is the hydrodynamic separator. So they're in a serial connection, one behind each other. And they can be slightly modified to be moved around. But in general, they're projected to be in a serial close to each other.

Thanks for that.

It will be more compact. Okay.

So just to confirm, we're talking about basically a box. It would be 75 by 15.

Yeah, the footprint for four.

In plan.

Yeah, all four components is going to be about approximately 75 by 15.

And those will mostly be in the roadway, in the right of way.

They will be in the right of way. And it's possible to place some of it within the road if there is not sufficient space because it's approximately 15 feet of right of way. For example, some of the roadways will be affected because when there is a dewatering, it has to extend outside of the boats.

Right.

And at this time, you don't have de-conflicted the whatever utilities might be there, right?

Yeah, no. We have looked at, there was already from the previous effort, there were all of the lines were displayed. So we basically look to be around. So we have also the survey. So we had basic information to be able to say that, yes, we'll find empty space, which will minimize the disruption.

But you said something a little bit different today using the swell. I understood it to be on the roadway.

Not on the roadway. It would be in the right of way, not This equipment, it will be in the right-of-way. In some cases, the right-of-way may not.

We don't have huge right-of-ways.

Yeah, in some cases. In the majority, the locations we selected, there is approximately 15 and greater right-of-way. So that was even our purpose of selecting basically empty space, free space that does not indicate utilities, does not indicate treats. and trees based on the survey, what we have the information. And we also visited each of the site. We had a visit. And based on this visit, we decided how to move this not on that street, but on the other street. So these are adjustable. They will not affect the level of service. These components, the pump station with the wells, They can be located on either side without affecting the level of service. So they're active components where they cause drainage towards each of these modular units. Great.

About 50 years ago, my friends at the United States Naval Academy gave me a book called The Existential Pleasures of Engineering. I could write a chapter now. That's interesting.

And we haven't talked about this so far, but you agree that the initial estimate, and it's a very rough estimate, obviously, is for what you're suggesting that we do as part of the conceptual aspects that you started is 56,700,000.

So, yes, I want to comment on this because this includes the 30% contingency and other factors that are also, they have uncertainty on its own.

Right.

So the more we add up these factors, the more we generate uncertainty over the top of another uncertainty. We have, in our estimate, we have a construction cost of $38 million for all six before including these additional factors. We recommend to the council members to look at that cost and accept this cost as a target number. And that's something that we do in design. We look at the preliminary design. We look at it with the conceptual design. We understand what needs to be done, and we adjust it as needed. And we create the target cost.

So you're saying that the 56 number is your target max or target what?

Yeah, that will be a target max. But we're recommending to look at the $40 million as a target. At what? At the $40 million, which was our construction cost, 38. 38, yeah. We recommend looking into that. Go for the design your bits. I think that should be the cost and if it comes higher, then that's another aspect. But even the design should be oriented towards accomplishing these costs. So it should be controlled costs really. There are items that can be optimized in the design. That is what we believe. We can optimize some of the design features. while you keep the level of performance to try to keep the cost down.

GARY GENSLERER- Here, Chen Moore, who put out this, I guess $43 million, $5.98 as the estimate subtotal so far.

Here is Chen Moore. CHEN MOORE JR.: Excuse me, but didn't you tell me that we put in $4 million for each well, disposal well, right? Yes. And didn't you tell me they're getting bids now on the current project, $1.9 million?

Yeah, we had bids. I have a bid from Florida, somewhere from Fort Lauderdale, that was $1.9 for a similar well. And so they vary. This is a budget number, the $4 million is a budget number. It's a conservative number. And it is... We recommend to use it, but when you go for the bidding, it should be lower. You should try to accomplish a lower bid with multiple bidders.

Alberto, do you want to? Yes, good evening. Alberto Pisani with Chenmore. So what we price there is the concept as it is now with the six pump stations, the six nodes. But what he's saying in terms of... what he's saying in terms of the target-based design, target value design, is you could structure your design criteria package in a way Instead of being rigid and saying we need six pump stations with six wells with all these features exactly the way we show them in the conceptual plan, you prescribe the performance of the system and you let the design build team design to that performance. So it may be five pump stations with seven wells or they may alternate the design as long as they're meeting whatever performance target, your level of service and other performance targets that you put in the design criteria package. That's a strategy that you could take. I'm not saying that you have to do it that way.

But I think it's very important for the public to understand, and council too, that if we just write a spec of performances, we leave it with an open price for the contractor. That's why we need, it's very important before this thing goes out to bid, that we have a clear understanding of how the risk is going to be transferred to the contractor via the contractor. It's, you know, you have to understand, the contractor, they'll look at the plans, obviously, but what they look at is the contract, the contract, the contract. That's what we make, or that's where we lose money. So that's fine, and that's why I'm having this discussion. We need to have that, so we look forward to that. Yeah, agreed, yes.

Are we talking about the extended area?

We're just talking about... No, we're not. Not yet.

Because that's what we voted on to proceed with.

That's what you recommended, right?

Yes.

What the ad hoc committee recommended. Right.

Yeah, the extended area will still have the six. It will have more storm lines installed. So that will be... additional, but it will still have the same active components. The majority of the system will be included.

I just think when we're talking about numbers, we have to all be on the same page about what... Joe, I was going to point that out, that the budget number on this was 67, and you were looking at to the GIT, which was the comparison between Zone 1, but we were recommending that we looked at the GIT extension.

Yeah, I got you. I just don't think we're there yet.

I agree. I think that's what we're proceeding with the drawings.

Black & Veatch did a comparison at the end. It made no recommendation, but obviously, Let's hear what that comparison yielded and what different aspects of it that we'd like to hear and discuss. No, no, no. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You're out of order. We're having a conversation. He's not impartial. Oh, okay. You didn't remember what I said. You're demeaning the person in front of you here.

I'm not demeaning anything. I'm just telling you that he's not impartial.

Please. Thank you.

Well, thank you very much, Mr. Mayor, council, residents. Obviously, we've been here for Two years now, we did do a design oversight from 30% on with a calm, you also were put in charge to project manage alternative. Stormwater your name and come Michael who know with black and beach thank you. And so that was what we were instructed to do. I believe we did a pretty good job at getting us to this point. So on those tasks, we were first to make sure that we kept on task and kept the train moving. Also to offer support to make sure that they had the information and the overall knowledge and background and files and data. As questions came up, we continued to support them. then also to provide design oversight and assistance and recommendations to engineers as well. So we did that. We had a team of engineers review his solution. We validated his solution. We validated the modeling. We validated the pumps, the engineering. We had questions. We had disagreements. We identified risks. That's what we put together in our evaluation. So I hope that those risks will be considered as we continue to move forward. That was the purpose of that evaluation. We did that along with evaluating the risks and the system for the ACOM. We brought that comparison so that all the information was present, that was validated from a team that thoroughly went over that data. I think there's a number of risks, as you saw, on both sides. I think at this stage, we commend GIT and Chenmore because they did a tremendous amount of effort in a relatively short amount of time to get to this conceptual design. And as they move forward, there will be a number of things that we'll have to continue to evaluate and validate.

Would you say that the One overreaching aspect of this that makes it attractive is this modular approach, the phasing aspect. Can you address that?

Yes, I think so. I think we discussed this a few times today, but from the centralized system, you would have to build the pump station, you'd have to build the outfalls, you'd have to build the force main, and then you'd have to start building the trunk lines before you're collecting any stormwater for the new system to be able to dispel. This system, you can start installing the pump stations at a localized level and start connecting the conveyance system locally to each well to start getting benefits.

So for example, if we only did one at the school, the level of service, would be achieved or not be achieved?

It wouldn't be achieved throughout the zone. That's for sure. So he would have to remodel it for just that area and we'd have to permit it for just that.

So it would work well at the localized portion of it, but obviously you would not be able to have that level of service for the whole zone is what you're saying.

That's correct. But we can rezone for a localized support in order to... make smaller bid packages in order to be more adaptable with where the critical areas within Zone 1 are, whereas on the centralized plan, well, it would have to change the plan significantly.

So in order to get the level of service that we required and that we said they're both even, AECOM and this one, you have to have all six pumps being able to work, right?

For zone one. For zone one. The entire zone one.

Yeah, for zone one, yeah.

That's the analysis.

Okay.

So, and I will say that we did have one of our senior cost estimators review his OPCC, his... opinion of probable construction cost it was a very thorough class 5 estimate so we did agree with that I think we put in some comments on there, but it was it is within that range that we would expect to do recommend to keep that 30% contingency at this point that standard we do also. Recommend to keep that range of probability for this project at this point because of the unknowns, because of the allowances that he put in. So learning from lessons that were in the past, we want to make sure that that's at least acknowledged so also public is aware of that.

So Mike, just to reiterate, if we would decide to just do a well right around the school, we would be able to model to get the level of service that we would expect at the school. However, that would not meet the level of service farther away from the well. Is that what you're, that's what I heard you state. I just wanna make sure that's what you are saying.

I think if you were to do just the, four streets around the school, we'd have to remodel that and then re-engineer a bit from what he did for the entire zone one. And that wasn't what he was asked to do. He did what his scope of work was.

Just as a follow-up to the modularity of the program, does that mean that every time we add pumps, we have to remodel, we have to rezone, we have to recalculate, and there's an associated cost with each one of those modularities? to this full zone one?

We've conducted this analysis for the entire We conducted this analysis for the entire complex of what we are proposing. So as a matter of fact, we also included the entire island, but the active components were six covering the zone one. So the conclusions are valid for the entire zone. But just to add to and confirm what Michael said, if you use one single well, basically it will draw water towards the well. but as you go further from the well, the level of service will not be satisfied.

And this is how you explain the difference in level of service in Zone 1 versus Zone 1 Extended? Yes, as you go further away... Can you walk me through what that looks like in removal of water and time? Specifically for Zone 1 versus Zone 1 Extended?

The wells, the way we position the wells are at points based on the... We looked at the available space, the coverage needs to be provided. So we did some optimization, how to move them around to provide coverage for the entire area. Then after this, when we saw that we are covering the entire satisfactory level of service in the entire area, We looked in the vicinity where these were connected. And that's how we extended, we delineated additional extension. So that's a concept typically in a watershed kind of environment when you add an active component just to pump water, for example. the boundaries of where the water comes from, they change. And basically, we look at the directions of the flow. So that was the reason we suggested that this can provide additional coverage with the existing system that was designed for the zone one only.

Okay, and so for example, within zone one, core one may see a relief within an hour, whereas extended may see relief within two hours.

So the entire relief was designed to be within 3.5 hours. And so it varies. For example, within proximity of the wells, basically it's you have this accomplish within one hour or so. As you go further away, this is approximately 3.5 hours. If you go further away, even further outside of the zone, you still accomplish some change, but it is not corresponding to level of service. So yes, everything is within 3.5 hours. And also the pumps, the way they work, they work basically at their top rate of 15 cubic feet per second for approximately one hour to 45 minutes. And then they slow down.

Assuming that's what we're trying to... establish here is a modular approach to learn more on true costing to be able to align the costing comparison between a common yourself. What would it look like to place two pumps? Would it be one pump? What would be your recommendation to help us arrive at a place of certainty where we do wells? Yeah. Two wells? Two wells. Where would those wells be located? And what kind of data is that going to help you?

On each side, we're talking about future sea level rise maybe in the next. For now, for this moment, we are suggesting one single well with the pump station and the corresponding appurtenances. And if it needs to be extended, that's a possibility. But we are not really considering this. There is space to be extended. So that will be added on the other side.

And what's the approximate time that we might consider it would take for those two pumps to start enjoying some relief from today? From construction? To fund it, to design it, to construct it.

I think it will take some time to create the design package.

estimate, round numbers.

Let's say design package can be created within eight months, like Fernando. For those two pumps? Yes, for a single modular unit. Okay. For a single modular unit. A single modular unit has a duplex pump, which means two identical pumps that can be used. So I think it's realistic to talk about eight months. Eight months for the two pumps that we're talking about. Yes, for a single package.

But that's just... The initial?

Yeah, no. That's what I'm getting at.

I think we're confusing. I'm confused now. So let's back up. So to get to a design-build package for the Zone 1 extension, how much time are we discussing?

I think eight months is more realistic because you will be... That's for the whole thing, correct? Yeah.

Not just for the two pumps. I was asking about the two pumps.

Oh, no, because they're nearly identical. You have six units that are going to be identical. Right. So that will simplify in a way, but there is going to be permitting questions, there is going to be bidding, advertising. There is different... I think eight months is realistic.

That's realistic.

Yeah. So Mike, just to confirm, you're on the same page. You believe we could get to the point where we could have a design-build package in eight months and be ready to be able to put this out potentially for bid in an eight-month period? For Zone 1 extension. For Zone 1 extension.

And that's to bid as a design-build project. Correct. Correct. So then you'll still have to design and then build it. But just to get to the point of a design-build eight months, I believe, is realistic.

Okay. Thank you that that's really that just to make sure everybody's clear that's for the entire zone one extension package and this is a design and build it.

The 6 months then that's going to be another 6 months but what design the whole package or we're not going to necessarily do the whole correct we can make all at once we can make that decision at a different time.

And then how long to build it. We were considering, I think we created a sample schedule. I believe it was 18 months to build it.

We reviewed that to a point. We do think there will be more discussion. Some of that schedule has the pumps all being built at the same time. We probably would not do that from a disruption standpoint. We would add probably another six to 12 months on that.

So what would be the soonest that that zone, those two pumps, would find some kind of relief?

Just two pumps we could probably do on that.

OK, which pumps specifically? I'm sorry. I don't think that's been selected yet. I'm sorry.

You're right. You're right. You're right.

I don't think even the delivery method, I think there should be further analysis on it. So which dwells from now to initial relief around the school and this other location, how long would that be?

I would say 18 months.

I don't think that's fair to ask him because we're going to have to bid this out. Another contractor will come in. They'll have to go. That's something we ask the contractor. But I do apologize for interrupting, Vice Mayor. But I want to go back to the original question on the design criteria package. I know we talked about eight months. But I also hear the council asking can we then do each one individually? Would we have to separate those as an individual design criteria package and put that out? Talk to me how we would do that, because obviously the initial GCP would be the entire package. we choose to do one at a time, talk to me how we would do that individually. It's a little bit different, and you know what I mean.

Yes, but I would say I think the amount of the effort will be very close to have the whole design package for all six wells for the extended zone, because basically it's a repetition of the, rather than do six separate, I think it will not necessarily extend any It is possible, but the way we had it, we have a schedule, sample schedule, which is very theoretical at this point, really. But it includes many aspects, like such a permitting, such a development of design-build package. So we have this for, I think it was approximately 36 months for the entire construction. But of course, this is the best case scenario.

Do you get your answer or not really?

I think this carries some uncertainty in terms of bidding, in terms of how do you decide to proceed, and possibly costing. And costing, how do you want to?

To align with funding cycles depending on, again, moving forward and how big the packages will be.

I love the idea, obviously, we have to test or go I guess go slow, drive the nail halfway, however you guys, but at the end of the day, we're looking at economies of scale, and are we benefiting, and this is more of economic, financial question, it's not a technical question. It's how do we, what's the best approach that you guys think we could do to minimize the overall impact? Because this is, you know, we're talking millions. So every time we go out to bid, the contractor has to mobilize, general conditions, utilities, everything. So it's all that added cost that gets repeated instead of just going out to bid. Good point. And, yeah, I mean, I think that that's something very quick.

We've got to study that.

We need to, yeah, because contractors are top heavy.

Sure, absolutely. But we can price that. I mean, that's something that we can do. There's also ways to do that.

You can bid out the entire thing, but then ask the contractor to provide us a piece. Identification of milestone and how we would move forward.

I just think it's an important point to leave on the table for discussion at a later time when we go out for construction. But I'd like to have that balance figured out between what's a sweet spot for both economies of scale and achieving the level of service that we want to get.

Well, I want to go because that's one of the reasons why I asked the question we had before is. If you do bid them out individually six times, you're likely going to get six different contractors, six different people doing it their way. And that may not create a network that's going to work as effectively as we hope it would. There's a lot to think through. Along those lines,

Do you have a problem with the design bill? Do you think it has some areas that might not work for us particularly?

No, I don't see. We investigated. First of all, we looked at the already 100% plan. So we have a pretty good view on what was done before. So in the entire, all this analysis based on what we did what we saw from the previous work. So we based this on the previous work. I don't see any concerns in terms of the, it can be scheduled. Again, we have developed a schedule that's approximately 36 months, I believe. That could be the basis. We suggested two wells per package, total of three packages instead of having too many because I think this will minimize in some way the mobilization and allow the contractor to schedule it this well and that well. So that would be a rational way to do it.

Mr. Huda, do you see any problems with the design build?

I think we should do a more in-depth analysis of the delivery methods. The design build, the one thing that comes up is just you put a lot of risk when you don't have a specific design. So when we don't know how many pipes we're going to be replacing, what the status of the pipes are, that can be an issue.

Would we want these to be uniform so that it's easier than to maintain and all that.

They will be they would be uniform I would imagine because they're all there they're modular means basically this right, but if you have three design builds right to do.

We would have to specify as part of the design criteria package. We could do that. That would put the cost up more. It would take flexibility away from the contractor, but those are all things that I think Mike is talking about that we'd have to evaluate.

That's why we have still a lot of homework to do here. A lot. That's why we're moving forward with the homework.

Giorgio, so I think you said, was it 30, 36 months? Yeah, 36. What do you consider start point, end point? is like today's start point, or what would be start point for you?

No, we call it month one.

But what is that milestone, though?

Let's say month one, I presume that once you're ready with the package for the bidding for the contract, that's actually for the design development of design criteria package, that will take three months.

Okay, so that's start point of notice to proceed for the design criteria package. Yeah. Okay, okay. One of the things I want to make sure the council is clear too on this one is, as you know, we have a full financial package for the centralized project. Right now, the only thing we have against it right now is the GOB on this option here. If we do want to go out and get other people's money to do this, that will impact the timeline because these grant timelines, the loan timelines, have a life of their own. and that we have to live by that life. So I think, again, and he said it very clearly, best case scenario, 36 months. If we choose to use other people's money, it's gonna adjust it. So no diligence is, sorry, go ahead.

Does that mean we can't start the application for the various grants that we have now that we're gonna have to reapply for until later on?

Well, I see Colleen right on the side of my eye. I've still got good peripheral vision, but just not as fast as she is. But real quickly, though, they have a life of their own and a timeline of her own, and she'll go through what that is. And each one of them has a different timeline.

I think the easiest way is to give a high-level overview of what we have for AECOM right now. We have $60 million in what's called a state revolving fund loan. That can be applied for every year. We would need to have the design goals more or less completed or the DCP completed before we'd be able to apply for construction funding. So we wouldn't be able to apply for it this cycle. We'd have to wait a year. For Resilient Florida, we are about to receive $10 million in grant funding for the AECOM plan specifically. That cannot be repurposed. towards this plan, we got that money because we had full design and full permitting. So in order to be competitive for that again, we'd have to go through full design and full permitting. I'm not actually sure if a DCP is gonna work with that.

I think the timeline for that is due in September, right? So we wouldn't be able to do that till September 27?

Yeah, I'm not even sure they would take a DCP and score well, because we have to have design done, signed and sealed, not DCP, and then we have to have permits done.

to score well for that. I'm having a little bit of trouble with the eight months, to be honest with you, because I see this as a pretty, you know, it's an enclosed area. It's a structural system that is going to be located somewhere. And we're not talking about, you know, pipes through the streets, utilities. Yes, we're going to have some disruption, but let's face it, the footprint is much smaller. So why is it eight months? I mean, why can't it be faster?

You're up again.

It's really relatively a small footprint, right?

So the permit for the FDP to get a permit, I think we have all the required information. Let's say this would not take more than three months. Then we would, I think even though if you assume that it's less than eight months, I think it's just optimistic to assume. Prudent. Yeah, it's probably conservative estimate to say, okay, eight months, right? from the beginning to the, from advertisement to have a package developed. All right, but we want to get to construction.

We made this very tough decision here because we want to move forward. We want to continue moving forward with flooding, addressing our flooding. And so we have to, you know, staff is also going to be guided by certain financing deadlines. So I think it's important. I know you're working through the concept, but whoever is, whatever timeline gets to you that it's a critical path, I think we need to resolve that quickly.

Yeah. And one aspect that may work in your favor, but what's not certain is the wet season ends in October. So you have really all this time until the next wet season starts, until April. All this needs to be resolved. And probably construction needs to be started.

Go ahead.

Assuming it's not just a transferable type commitment. Can you just walk us through what that would even look like with regards to potential risk of that money and how that money could then potentially be applied to this type of project?

So this type of project is something the SRF would fund. So the soonest we'd be able to get that money would be, as Steve said, we could potentially use it September 2027, assuming that we have the DCP together and we meet all the requirements.

That would be a full 100% design.

They actually are OK with the design criteria package, a design bill, because we'd pursue that question with them when we were looking into CMAR. But I wanted to touch on the fact that we have about $3 million in a Biscayne Bay water quality grant. for AECOM system that is now no longer applicable. They don't consider injecting water into the grounds of improvement to water quality for the bay. And that grant was to improve the runoff into the bay. So that's no longer available to us. And we have $2 million in federal appropriations that were coming that are no longer going to be able to be used. We have $750,000 in state appropriations that are no longer gonna be used. So we're looking at close to 16 million in grant funding for zone one that is now no longer applicable, most of which coming from FDEP. That's also where our state revolving fund is coming from.

This is very- So have you guys looked at what alternatives there is for funding for this project?

It's SRF. Strictly SRF. And then appropriations if we can get it. But SRF will receive notice that we no longer want the $60 million that they gave us. So we'll have to see how they like another application about a year from now.

When's as soon as we can know about that?

What do you mean?

When's as soon as we would know whether we would have the money available or not?

First we'd have to do. A facilities plan, walk them through the step-by-step process.

Yeah, so what we did with the AECOM plan is we have to present to them a facilities plan, which is essentially a stormwater master plan zoomed in on a particular area like Zone 1 that has been vetted and okayed, and there's public notices required to do that. That has to be approved by them and by council, and then we would be able to submit an application for the... the construction loan, but that wouldn't be available to us until September or so, uh, 2027. We would know in August, 2027, if we got the loan or not, it'd be if, if we get the design done in time, there's a lot of ifs there.

We've signed like seven documents. I feel like we've brought seven things to the council for this one.

Yeah, we've signed a lot of documents. So what's different is we used design loan funding for AECOM, which put us in that pipeline to get construction funding. We used... Okay. Sorry, I got distracted. So that design loan required the facilities plan and another application, and therefore that kind of set us through a different timeline for the construction loan. If we just start design on our own dime... then we would be able to start that as soon as we wanted, and then construction funding would come after that. Yeah.

But I believe there's four steps that we have to bring to council, correct?

Yeah, there's the facilities plan. It has to be approved by council. We have to notify it to the public. There has to be a clearinghouse period with the state agencies to make sure that they're okay with all of the environmental and permits that we would go through to get the project done. They have a whole reviewing period. It includes historic preservation. It's just kind of everything. And then they basically score our project at their August annual meeting. And if we score well enough, then we get funding. If we don't score well, we may not get funding. It's not like we automatically get the funding.

So in your professional opinion, that was a lot.

Yeah.

I mean, you're super detailed. I love it. It's great.

I'll be hired.

Summary.

Yeah.

How much money are we leaving on the table versus how much money we might get back? And what's the probability of getting that back? And then a timeline.

Yeah, I can do that. I would love to do that. Thank you. We are leaving $76 million on the table. Full stop. That includes $60 million of loan funding, $16 million of grant funding, free money. We will likely not get Resilient Florida because it took us four years to get this far, and I don't think we would even be able to with the design criteria package, with the design build, so that's off the table. We will not get the Biscayne Bay Water Quality Grant. That is not an applicable project. That's a total of $14 million of the $16 million we will not get We may be able to get state appropriations. We may be able to get federal appropriations. That's legwork done on a political level with lobbyists. That's not through grant agencies.

That is hard to do.

It's hard to do. It's hard to do.

So we may get back 45 of the 70, potentially.

I would say SRF is your best bet if you want to finance the project.

I would say that. And that would take two years. Why would we not get the same 60 that the ACOM plan got?

It's about who else applies and how well we score. It's a different project.

When we score better, then we're not dumping water into the Bay. It's a clean water fund.

The ACOM project had water quality components to it, so they didn't look at it like that.

I realize they're still dumping into the Bay.

You'll have to ask them how they score it. Thank you.

But the best that we can do is to reapply and work on it to try to get it again, OK? But it is, you know, it's a fact that we're leaving money on the table. And it's unfortunate, but, you know.

Well, right now we are. In time. Well, we're going to come off the table.

Right, but the $10 million. Yeah. Okay.

Time horizon of about two years.

I mean.

You're delaying it to use SRF.

Yeah.

It's a foregone conclusion that none of this is transferable?

Absolutely.

We asked when we were up there, you know,

He didn't slam the door on us.

Right. He did not. But it's not something that's done, and it's because you don't have the design, so that's a big part of it.

There's nothing to review. I think if we came to them with a different design that was fully designed and fully permitted, that's a different question. But if we have a concept, there's no way the money would be transferred.

Council Member Caput, when we were up there, the question that we were asking is if we chose to value engineer. this design and slightly modify it, that was acceptable, but this is a completely different concept, different design. It would have to go through the facility planning process.

Constructability based on financing would then be delayed at minimum two years, but what would be the mechanism to pay for it before we receive that funding that we think we might be able to get?

Obviously the general obligation bond is there if we choose to use the reserves that we currently have, so those are both things that we could use.

I have to add, you just triggered just the thought in my mind. You said the AECOM design is funded, right? Yes. Now, and I would like to leave this on the table to understand. That's a sunk cost for us right now. Right now, as it stands after the vote today, the AECOM design is a sunk cost. Yes. Okay. But that sunk cost today gives us an opportunity to get how much money? I mean, as a design, the funding that you got for that pipeline.

The designs leading to the funding, about $75 million.

$75 million. You're having issues of conveyance with your pipe because you really don't know what the conditions of the pipe are. And I'm going to think, it's like we're sitting on a table here, but one of the things that we evaluated on the beach was when we were looking at the wells is to develop a train. And the way I'm looking at it is that your wells were great. when they capture the first flush to reduce the flooding immediately, right? But I think there's something to say about that particular design, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, that we'll be able to, let's say, consider the wells as being kind of in the front line, they pick up the flow, the first flush, they discharge it. Yet the other system is there, it's fully priced, we know with the exception of the outfall, we know how much it's gonna cost, you know how much your wells are gonna cost, It can act as a secondary system. We can reduce the pipe sizes. We obviously don't want to go to 72, but we could reduce that pipe size maybe to a 48 and use that second system as a train. Think about it. I'm just saying. Because the wells, think about it. The wells can act as an intake point immediately. Boom, right? They're on the front line. How does the drop of water travel? It comes in and goes down into the well in the first flush. For minor storms and regular storms, those wells work great. But when we get into excessive storm events, which is what really affects life and limb here, we have to have a system that can actually convey it. And we're counting right now on CCTVing older pipes. Why throw the baby out with the bathwater when we have it fully funded? Let's use a portion of that design. Let's not throw it away. Let's be good engineers, put it together. It's not a question of logos and brands. It's a question of functionality. And I think, honestly, I think the more I think about it, the more it works.

Yeah, one doesn't exclude the other ones.

One doesn't exclude the other. You create a hybrid that is fully funded.

And in addition, what we were considering, we were considering emergency force main, which pretty much has the same function.

That plan is fully done. It would have to end up in the garbage can, unfortunately. I don't want to do that if we can save portions of that plan and you can design your system and your pumps... to capture that first intake and balance it out with the rest. And it's fully funded, and we can get to construction.

If you're able to modify it.

I just want to make sure I'm understanding clearly. You want to combine? You want to basically?

OK. The way I'm talking about it is that you've got two fronts. There's nothing foreign about this. It's a typical train, right?

I'm sorry.

You've got two fronts. You've got your wells that are acting immediately. Imagine you're a drop of water. Yeah, I think I understand that. It goes right in.

From a financing standpoint, you want to just add the two together.

Yes. I'm thinking that would be a good idea to explore. In hopes of keeping some of that funding.

Well, thank you. If you look at, and I know you guys have it in your packet, if you look at section 2.6, is that where I'm talking about that, where GIT suggests a similar, not the exact concept.

No, I know they did. That's why, I mean, he said that.

The other council members aren't clear what you're talking about. It is on section 2.6 in your packet.

It's not a matching requirement, though, by the village?

You've got to have a board here. I'd love to be able to draw. But if you have the well system and then you build certain portions, I'm not saying build everything, I'm not saying, and in fact, we can start with one modular well, but what I'm saying is that we can develop a system that is hybrid, that works in capturing the first flush and the first impact, and that when it overflows and it's overcome by rainfall, it goes into the other system, but it never hits the bay, only under an emergency condition.

which is loss of power? It could be loss of power. I'm not sure you'd be able to keep the graph. I think you can.

Because I already looked at it.

Right now?

I already looked at the hybrid. Yeah, I mean, so there's a concept out there that I think we need to look at. If you look at, you know, for light events, the front line, which would be the injection wells, could capture all the volume immediately. He's got that priced. For a typical storm event, his wells would probably handle most of it, not all of it. And then it has a minimal assist from the trunk line system, right? And then at a design storm event, your wells are at capacity, and the backbone spine, which we would call it the system, would be the active partner that would distribute the flow. It would probably end up being at the same price that we're at right now, and we'll probably have a better price right now understanding because he's got his wells down and we got our pipes down.

I love the idea. I understand the engineering. It works, trust me. I believe it works because I believe you know that better than I do. What I'm saying is from a funding standpoint, I'm not sure the agencies are going to look at that as a value engineer or a completely new design. I just wouldn't assume that we can... keep all of our funding with that approach.

I understand, but I'm saying why throw that money away and why throw the plans away when we have an opportunity to... We can always ask for now.

What would that look like, Colleen? You just ask?

I would need to... Oh, no, we can always ask.

We can definitely ask. I hesitate asking before getting direction from you all because whenever you ask a question like that of an agency... No, no, you don't.

We have to work this out with staff. We're not there yet. We're not there. I'm just throwing the idea... Because what we're saying here is that we're losing a massive amount of money. Yes. And we're doing ourselves. Somebody else's money. Or somebody else's money. We're doing ourselves a tremendous disservice. But if we come together, why can't we get along, right? can we come together as a team and put both things together, we can work into a hybrid train that is you receive your funding while at the same time we can get the wealth. I know, but I think you can.

I honestly think. To be clear though, Councilmember, we can't ask for money unless we have a design. I think that's one of the things that she's clearly stated.

You have a design, you have a design. You have a 100% design.

Good question. But it's a centralized. We had a long conversation tonight about not ripping up the entire village to install a whole.

I'm not saying put, I'm not saying rip it all. I'm saying use it only for the areas that you can provide for the well. The well is the modular, it's the input. But I'm not saying build the entire pipe. I'm saying use those pipes and those plans that are 100% done and that we have received some partial funding to save it.

We will, how about we look at that, and maybe we think about how we could combine them, and I think it would be worth understanding how they'd be integrated physically, if at all.

I'd be happy to go over it with you. I'd be happy to go over it.

Because I would need to explain it, but otherwise we'll have to revisit that.

You'll have to wait. Yeah. Yeah, I'm good. Oh, okay. Can I have a... Georgia? So having you both here that you can discuss the issue of the estimating of what this potential, I would assume that you have a view that it's less than his conservative approach of looking at these things and trying to figure out how much they cost. So what would you say? I mean, it's a class five estimate, right? We're not near enough to have more data that would then give us a truer number, let's say. I want to see you both discuss that amongst yourselves to see how far are we away from having a better true estimate.

I think I mentioned this earlier. So a class 5 estimate, just on your basic estimating scales, goes from a range of minus 50 to plus 100. I think we recommended plus 75 because of the level of detail that he already had on here. I think once you got to an actual 30% where you started putting pipes and wells onto paper, start deconflicting, then you can get to a class four. You reduce your contingency. You reduce your range. That would probably be at about a design criteria package 30%.

Yeah, I wanted also to add that one of the reasons I'm hesitant to just accept this as a numbers is because, for example, for the wells, for the whole set of components, we talked to a contractor and he gave us already what they call budget price. And this already has... some uncertainty included, their own uncertainty. So then if we add additional uncertainty to that component, that's. So I think we can look again.

Right. But in your case, you would say. He's too conservative, and he would say that you're too liberal in your estimate.

No, I wouldn't provide any opinion about this. I think we need to look more carefully, and I would assume that even these budget costs, I know that they're conservative, because we know that the contractor will give you without design.

For the sake of the public, I mean, this is,

Engineering 101 you you have this in the estimate manual or whatever so all engineers look at that to try to do what we're trying to say here when we review the the cost estimate and it goes down to how much is there to review so you look at linear feet of pipe you look at size of pumps you look at size of wells so you know how much concrete how much dewatering you have you look at allowances for the mobilization based on where it is so As the design starts getting more defined, I mean, you see there's three pages of an OPCC, which is appropriate at this level. If you saw ACOMs at this level, it was basically two pages. So at 30%, it was 20 pages. At 100%, it was, what, 300 and something pages worth of work. So there's more to review at those points, and there's more level of certainty on those estimates. Can I add something?

One thing I'd like to add is this. That basically, if you look at the ACOM plan and the 100% thing, I think it's 390 pages in the breakdown of the estimate. And it's very complicated and complex, and all kinds of stuff. This is pretty simple in the sense that one item probably is 60% to 70% of the total cost. Do you agree, Mike? In other words, the injection well, the 75-foot structure in the ground, it's probably the pump station, dynamic separator and everything else that is probably 60 to 70 percent of the total cost So when one item is so much of the total cost the variability of all the other stuff becomes minimal So in other words you have 15 different sizes of pipes in Europe more than that in the a comp thing Here we have 24 inch pipes, basically So we have really one item. We basically are not building a structure at Harbor Park, which we have all kinds of things going, electrical, plumbing, everything in the world. We're not doing any of that. So we're repeating the same major thing six times, and then piping. So it's much simpler to cost this than it is to cost the Acorn Fund. So the major thing that I would suggest to you, Giorgio, is get a best price, realistic best price, for this thing. Now, you mentioned $1.9 million. You have $4 million in here. So let's say there's somewhere in between. But that, I think, would be the best thing to give us more of a feeling of what the realistic price is.

But unlike your usual self, you are saying this thing is going to come in at less than what everybody is saying.

Well, what Giorgio is saying is it's coming in at $38. Well, I'm sorry. I think the numbers are all over the place.

But what's a million a month's rent, right?

Zeros. Anyway, but the point is, you have $4.7 million there for future force maids. Do we want that? That's one item. Take a look in there. Is that not the backup system? Sorry? Well, that interconnects.

I mean, is that what that's not for?

Basically, allowances? No, it's the thing that if it's needed, it needs to exist.

Can I just add something?

Could I add something here, guys? One of the things that Giorgio did do is he went to existing projects where they're using the same components.

But one of the things we talked about in our meetings was that

and the Chenmore guys can comment on this, is that because this is a fairly modular system and they're basically using this over and over and over again in other areas, there are existing prices for this hardware. So part of the comparison is that there is existing hardware prices for this and there are actually active projects going on. The variable is that That we're on Key Biscayne, and they're in other places, like, for example, Fort Lauderdale. So there will probably be a delta cost associated with that. But the substantial point that Ed is trying to bring up is that because it's the six things of the same thing over and over again, and we have some preliminary pricing for that, there's probably a better understanding of the cost. And I think that's what he was driving at.

Thank you. And we're all hoping that is. But there can exist a huge level of doubt.

That's why we're moving forward with a design package.

Is there a percent design that you would feel more comfortable in that certainty of price? 30 60 percent 90 percent at what point do we arrive at in better certainty of cost of true?

Let me let me do it this way, mr. Huda Are you familiar with what we're doing in the Garden District?

I'm familiar. Yes.

Okay, somewhat similar to His conceptual plan.

There are some similarities. It's a pump station to injection well Three new wells and remodifying another well, can you can you tell us what is already existing?

It's being converted So so tell us what the what what's the differences between? between His approach and what we're trying to do at the garden district

Well, that one is reusing the majority of the existing conveyance pipe and it's tying it into that conveyance pipe Then you're putting it into I believe it has three pumps I see four in the back That's four wells but the pumps inside the pump station One pump station, but how many pumps are in that pump station? I don't know.

Okay. Chris, do you know? The station itself has two pumps in the wells

But Chris, the two wells are in the same bed. They're not four separate.

There's four separate wells. There's piping to all four wells. It comes out of the station. And how many pumps serving those wells? There's two pumps in the wells. In the pump station. In the pump station. Four wells, two pumps in the pump station.

So it has similarities.

You're right.

So then it's all piped together. It's not the same. Two wells, two pumps operate the four wells.

That's right. So one wet well where the pumps sit, and then it pumps out a force main to four different wells. His system will have two pumps in a wet well and go to one big well.

And this was designed by somebody other than AECOM?

Albright Engineering is the engineer of record on it.

Who did they subcontract out to?

That's the engineer record. I don't know.

What did you have to do with it? This was for the analysis for depth damage analysis. This was for the FEMA grant.

FEMA grant.

Yeah. There was a grant for this project, and I did the analysis, the H&H analysis, hydrologic analysis.

So roughly speaking, that one's coming in at?

The cost estimate for that one is between $13 and $15 million. OK.

We're talking about looking at whether or not we need the generator there and all that stuff.

The generator is currently included in that price.

Okay. So it could come off that price if we decided not to, but that's in that general vicinity. $13 million on the low end?

Yes.

Okay.

The generator is not included in ACOM's prices.

Right. No, but the only thing I'm trying to point out is that we have, with a different engineer record, a design that's coming in at $13 million. So, you know.

Big difference.

The Garden District design has a generator included in their cost estimate and then their design, yes.

That's part of the funding. But the generators is $300,000. It's not a million dollars.

To include the system and the structure, it's about a million dollars. We drop it off, which is why he's using generally $13 million.

So that's the tank, the structure, and the generator.

And the fuel tank.

The fuel tank.

The whole thing. So that's why he's saying 13. The total project's 14.6.

So knowing that information, do you feel less comfortable, more comfortable with the concept that he's derived?

We feel comfortable with his OPCC at this point, his estimate at this point.

Okay.

But we're losing money. Maybe. No, we are. The grants.

Well, we're losing money. It's all relative. Are we losing money if we're not doing a more expensive system?

No.

I'm not.

We don't know. We don't know any of that.

Well, we knew all along that if we went with a different system, we're going to have to apply for financing. And all that was there all over again. We knew that. I don't, it's not necessarily gone forever. We don't know.

We don't spend the 60 million, we don't.

Okay, I look forward to whoever's doing the design criteria package that is very tight, or the construction contract, because that's where the money's gonna start. That's where the cash is really at. Contractor, this is all hypothetical, theoretical.

But it was, they come, that's where all the same situation. The same.

All right. Let's see if we can bring this to a landing. Thank you very much. I want to make a couple of comments, if you'll indulge me. It's really interesting that when I set up the ad hoc committee and put these fine gentlemen to work, The off ramp that we took was, at first, almost 100% looking to reduce costs. So that was where we started. We started with, OK. people looked at the initial estimates and everybody got sticker shock, right? So the idea behind the ad hoc committee was to say, okay, take a look and see how we can reduce costs. And that was what we were doing the entire time is to looking at a project that would reduce our flooding. and what the benefits of trying to do something different, trying to, we call it value engineering, we call it different things, on how to come about with that. And now, at the end of this process, and it was a process, it was a deliberative process, I think that one of the best things about having looked at the alternative stormwater plan was that I think we can say with a lot of certainty now that. This is the range the real range of what this project is going to cost. And we have to get our heads around the fact that infrastructure projects are going to be expensive OK. And and you just because we got sticker shock, the first time you know that number that a calm and we we just disparage a calm, but that number is in the range of what we're talking about okay so. It behooves all of us to listen to the entire conversation and the entire thing, because we have vilified this one company. But the truth is that we are in the range. We're in the range. Whether you call it 43, whether you call it 56, or you call it 66, I'm so hoping that you are right and it's less money. Okay? But we're not there yet. We're not there yet. And so everyone needs to put this into perspective and say, okay, there are going to be hiccups along the way here. There's going to be potentially some increases along the way. The design is going to give us something, and we may have to look at it a little bit closer. Okay? Both systems met the level of service. Both systems had ways to address the water quality issue. In the end, we have pivoted from only pushing the cost issue to a bunch of other factors. which I think that we are totally in agreement with. We don't want less canopy. We don't want less trees. We certainly, if we could avoid it, not pump water into the bay. And we looked at all these different categories that we really weren't focusing on that. Our focus was, oh boy, this is too expensive. How are we going to be able to tell people that we found ways to reduce it? So I want everybody out there to continue to remember this day and continue to remember this conversation, because there are going to be hiccups along the way. There's going to be problems. We are, and we need to be honest, we are leaving money on the table so far. And again, I hope to God that we are able to make some change and that they'll say, okay, you know, this project does the same thing. It's reducing flooding, but it's got a different design. What can I tell you, Mr. Loan Officer? So I appreciate the work of the ad hoc committee it made us look at different things. I don't think that we were completely off I don't think that staff was completely off I don't think that we in our analysis we're completely off we learn things along the way okay. And yeah, there is a cost of learning. There is a cost of doing stuff that isn't being done by a whole lot of communities. And we have challenges being in a coastal area that other people don't have. But we looked at those factors. We looked at those different things. And we said, OK, yeah. We're in the delta. We're in the area of that cost, overall cost. And we have to swallow hard because that cost ain't going down. Ain't going down. I hope I'm wrong. And I can say, yes, sir. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. But I don't think that cost is going down. And I want to be optimistic. And I'm going to continue to help and push this forward. And we have to go to Tallahassee. I'll go to Tallahassee. to try to understand how we can make some changes and save some of that money. But I want everyone to be honest and open and say, yeah, yeah, we made a good decision, but there are a lot of buts there that this community has to come to grips with. And I think that was the purpose of staying here a little bit longer and appreciate that you did. Because we have to have many more conversations about this. We didn't talk about the power reliability issue as it comes to the pumps. We didn't talk fully about the outfalls. I mean, there's still a lot to digest and work through. But again, thanks to the ad hoc committee. Thanks to staff for putting up with all these different gyrations that we've made. Thank you to our consultants. And thank you to Mr. GIT. I will never be able to pronounce your last name. And if I have a motion to adjourn, I will accept it.

All those in favor, say aye. We're adjourned.