More Septic to Sewer Q&A

The Town received questions related to the septic to sewer conversion project from concerned residents. Below are the Town’s answers.

Question 1: The update posted on the LCS webpage says, “In September, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) placed Lake Clarke on the list of “Impaired Water Bodies”. In 2016, years before the Lake was considered impaired, the Town engaged consulting engineers to design a master sewer plan. Why did the Town feel sewer was important at that time? Does the Town feel there are other advantages of installing sewer, besides its current claim that septic tanks are causing the Lake’s impairment?

Answer: The Town Council has for many years participated in the Florida League of Cities (FLC) Legislative Policy Committees.  One of those Committee is the Utilities, Natural Resources & Public Works Committee.  Every year this committee discusses wastewater, septic tanks, water quality and a variety of other environmental issues.  We were able to see what was happening all over the state with septic tanks, and we were able to discuss with other Cities their issues and challenges.  We have heard from many other Cities about the unfunded mandates coming from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP).

Additionally, we knew that Palm Beach County and FDEP had been sampling and testing water quality in Lake Clarke since 2001 and compiling a water quality data base.  The findings from FDEP’s studies would result in action, we just didn’t know when.  The Town Council wanted to have a better understanding of options, feasibility and potential costs so an engineer was asked to develop a master planning document.

At about the same time, owners of commercial properties along Forest Hill Boulevard came to the Town and asked if we could provide sewers to them.  The Town designed and built a sewer system for the commercial properties.  Those properties that are participating in the system are paying their fair share through a sewer assessment.  That sewer system is what has allowed the restaurants to come to Town.

Benefits are many.  For example, there are no restrictions on where you plant trees, you can use all of your yard, you will have room to expand your home, it’s better for the environment, the Lake water quality will improve, home owners no longer need to worry about septic tank maintenance, and your property’s value will increase.

Question 2: The update posted on the LCS webpage says, “When the Lake is declared impaired the Town is obligated (unfunded mandate) to improve Lake Clarke water quality. The Town now has only two options, negotiate an Alternate Restoration Plan or wait for the FDEP authored TMDL/BMAP.” The FDEP offers a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study as an acceptable first step once a body of water is added to their verified list of impaired bodies of water. To quote the FDEP “TMDLs are developed for impaired waterbodies to determine the water quality conditions necessary to restore the given waterbody; that is, TMDLs establish restoration targets. The work to implement these restoration targets begins after a TMDL is adopted and approved and is carried out by responsible entities within the watershed. The FDEP has not obligated the Town to take any action nor would they without an adopted and approved TMDL. In fact, the FDEP is still in the process of finalizing their list of impaired bodies of water in our area. Why is LCS telling residents that the Town is being mandated to clean the Lake?

Answer: A form of this question was asked of FDEP directly by Mrs. Chrzanowski and Mr. Hoofnagle.  FDEP’s response is DEP Response: Lake Clarke is proposed for addition to Florida’s Verified List of Impaired Waters for chlorophyll a, total nitrogen, and biology. If the Town of Lake Clarke had not contacted the DEP regarding the ongoing septic to sewer project, the waterbody would be placed on the Verified List and a total maximum daily load (TMDL) would subsequently be developed for the lake. In this scenario, it is likely that Lake Clarke would be placed on DEP’s 2-year TMDL Work Plan for TMDL development and adoption by 2024. Responsible entities, including the Town of Lake Clarke, would then be expected to identify projects or activities necessary to achieve the TMDL required reductions. Our expectation is that the Town would identify the same septic to sewer project proposed in the Alternative Restoration Plan to attain the TMDL requirements. The benefit of the Alternative Restoration Plan over the TMDL route is that the Alternative Restoration Plan can begin the pathway towards restoration soon, thus leading to “cleaner water, faster” and before conditions in Lake Clarke worsen and require costlier remedies.

In the same correspondence FDEP stated “We intend to finalize the Verified List in late April to early May 2022 by taking the final lists to the DEP Secretary for adoption as a final agency action. This process is following the DEP’s new biennial assessment for the identification of impaired waters. The rules that we are implementing for identifying impaired waters are: Chapter 62-302, F.A.C., Florida’s Surface Water Quality Standards and Chapter 62-303, F.A.C. Identification of Impaired Surface Waters.”

A FDEP TMDL is followed by a Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP).  In 2020, the State Legislature passed SB712, the Clean Waterways Act.  In that legislation, it says that if 20% or more of the nutrient loading in a BMAP comes from septic tanks, then a septic tank remediation plan must be part of the solution.  FDEP also has the discretion to require a septic tank remediation plan even if the 20% threshold isn’t reached.

Question 3: In the 9/13/2021 Town Manager’s Status Report a TMDL was cited as the next step to address the Lake’s impairment. There was no mention of a septic to sewer conversion in this report or any others until the 1/10/2022 Town Manager’s Status Report where it states the Town decided that “sewer is the only effective way to improve Lake water quality”. What happened during those three months that led the Town to this decision?

Answer: The Town Council has always wanted to be proactive, not reactive.  From September 2021 to January 2022 we invested 100’s of hours of research, discussions, negotiations, and analysis looking for least cost methods to address a difficult challenge.  Considering FDEP’s input, the current availability of other people’s money (local, state, and federal grants and low-cost loans), the lack of practical/implementable stormwater solutions, and a need for action if we want to use other people’s money, septic to sewer is an effective way for us to improve Lake Clarke water quality.  Timing is critical to getting and using other people’s money.

Question 4: Lake Clarke is interconnected to other bodies of water by many canals, some of which are managed by South Florida Water Management District and Lake Worth Drainage District. To quote the FDEP “All entities that discharge water to or otherwise manage the water flow within the Lake Clarke watershed, including the upstream canals, are potentially responsible for helping to address the impairment. This includes Palm Beach County and other “co- permittees” to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit for Palm Beach County”. Has the Town discussed restoration plans or remediation efforts with PBC or any of the other MS4 permittees in the Lake Clarke watershed area? Shouldn’t the Town work with other responsible entities and share the responsibility of cleaning up the Lake? Why is Lake Clarke’s impairment the sole responsibility of a group of the Town’s residents, specifically only the residents within LCS Utility service area? Has the Town gone to other municipalities for monetary contributions?

Answer: The Town has been discussing our plan and approach with Palm Beach County and other MS4 partners. In fact, we had the endorsement and support of Palm Beach County for our $1.7M legislative ask for septic to sewer funding this year.  We are working with Palm Beach County and the Village of Palm Springs (the only other MS4 entities in the Lake Clarke basin), but because the Town Council asked us to be proactive in 2016, we are ahead of the other entities. That does not mean, we have any bigger role to play in this cleanup. FDEP is helping us define “our fair share” and providing reasonable assurance that when we complete what we are proposing in the 4e Plan, we will be done.

Question 5: In October of 2021 the Town began discussing an Alternative Restoration Plan (ARP)/4e permit with the FDEP as an alternative to completing a TMDL of Lake Clarke. The plan listed 3 restoration activities to improve water quality in the Lake: installing sewer, reconditioning stormwater swales, and harvesting invasive aquatic plants. If accepted by the FDEP, this 4e status would further delay a TMDL and instead commit LCS to voluntary resident funded restoration programs aimed at improving the Lake’s water quality. A TMDL would require some time to accomplish and pause the expensive septic to sewer project. The additional time for a TMDL would allow for securing government funds and time for current supply chain issues to resolve. Why does the Town and/or its experts feel that a TMDL is not the best approach? What is the advantage of an ARP to LCS taxpayers? How can the Town be sure the proposed actions in the 4e permit will remedy the Lake’s impairment without a study identifying the causative sources of the Lake’s pollutants? Why are nutrient inputs from other sources being ignored and 100% of the cost burden being placed on the residents of the Lake?

Answer: Timing is everything.  For example, American Rescue Plan Act monies have to be spent by 2024/25.  The Palm Beach County Environmental Bond list of projects are only going to include “shovel ready” projects.  “Shovel ready” means projects that are designed, permitted and ready to bid when the grant money is available.  We don’t have to remedy the Lake impairment, but we have to do our fair share as defined by FDEP.  If we do this now and the cost to cure gets greater in future years, as FDEP has said is likely, they will hold others responsible.  FDEP fully acknowledges there are other contributors to the Lake Clarke basin.  We are negotiating with FDEP for our fair share of the costs and actions to cure the Lake impairment (it’s not 100%).

Question 6: In the 10/6/2021 Town Manager’s Status Report it was stated “A remedial action plan would likely have the same requirements as a TMDL but would save the Town a lot of money in the preparations, review and adoption process of a TMDL.” The remediation plan the Town has submitted to the FDEP includes a very expensive and highly disruptive plan for sewer infrastructure. How does this plan save the Town money? Did the Town ever consider submitting a remedial action plan to the FDEP without the septic to sewer conversion? Why or why not?

Answer: Please see FDEP’s response to Mrs. Chrzanowski in question 2 above.  Even FDEP expects it to cost more and we expect public monies to not be available in the future which would be a double hit to our utility customers.  FDEP acknowledged that mechanical cleaning of the vegetation of the Lake was necessary but not enough.  Which brings us back to SB 712 and FDEP’s ability to focus efforts on septic tanks. It’s the inevitable conclusion to any FDEP conversation.

Question 7: At the Town Council meeting on 1/18/22 the Town estimated a TMDL would cost LCS $250K. We contacted the FDEP and asked how much a typical TMDL study costs. Their response “TMDL development is a component of our regular duties; therefore, there is typically no cost”. How did the Town conclude LCS would save $250K by not proceeding with a TMDL?

Answer: FDEP will drive the TMDL development process.  In their responses to questions asked by Mrs. Chrzanowski, FDEP says the cost is theirs.  The Town will want to be active in the development of that document and will have consultants and staff actively involved to ensure we are comfortable with the data and analysis, basin definition, roles of the other MS4 parties and our role in the cleanup of the Lake.  The follow-on regulatory action is the Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP).  The Town will want to be active in the development of that document as well.  That’s where the Town costs will be incurred.

Question 8: The update posted on the LCS webpage says, “If the Town fails to remove the sources of nutrients and harvest biomass, it could be subject to fines up to $25,000 per parameter per day.” The FDEP will not impose fines on any municipality without a finalized and fully adopted TMDL. To quote the FDEP “All entities that discharge water to or otherwise manage the water flow within the Lake Clarke watershed, including the upstream canals, are potentially responsible for helping to address the impairment. This includes Palm Beach County and other “co- permittees” to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit for Palm Beach County. The work to implement these restoration targets begins after a TMDL is adopted and approved and is carried out by responsible entities within the watershed.” Why would only the Town be subjected to fines at this level instead of all contributing entities?

Answer: The fines are described in the Clean Water Act Section 309 Federal Enforcement Authority which is enforced by the federal government (different than the State Clean Waterways Act SB712).  We didn’t say it was “only” a Town fine, it would be a fine to any MS4 ignoring the adopted TMDL and BMAP. *Edited on 06/17/2022 per FDEP: This $25,000 fine is a statutory maximum for NPDES facilities that are illicitly discharging wastewater into impaired waterbodies. This is not for parameters that have been determined to be impaired and are included on the federal 303(d) List or Florida's Verified List.* 

Question 9: In the 11/2/2021 Town Manager’s Status Report, regarding a meeting with consultants, Jones Edmunds, and the FDEP, it was stated “We will be responsible for a majority of the cleanup of the Lake. We have options: we can commit to cleanup efforts, and they will postpone enforcement action, or we can wait for the enforcement action to occur and then we do the cleanup. We are talking to them about an Alternate Remediation Plan (ARP) which will commit us to a certain level of cleanup and then a reassessment by FDEP of the Lake water quality. In staff’s opinion and that of our consultant, negotiating an ARP with FDEP is the best (least costly and fastest to improve Lake water quality) approach for the Town.” Why is the Town responsible for a majority of the cleanup of the Lake when the Lake is fed by many water sources? How is an ARP that includes septic to sewer conversion the “least costly and fastest to improve Lake water quality” approach? Is there a study that delineates septic to sewer as the most cost effective and best approach to nitrogen removal for Lake Clarke?

Answer: In our negotiations with FDEP, we have been able to better define our role and “fair share” portion of this Lake water quality problem.  We believe the category 4e (Ongoing Restoration Activities) Plan as crafted is the appropriate action with FDEP.  The engineering team leaders working on the multi-faceted response to the lake impairment challenge presented to the Town by FDEP each have 35+ years of experience with wastewater and stormwater issues.  There are no practical/implementable major stormwater solutions to nutrient reduction because the Town has no vacant land, has 56 stormwater outfalls, and the Lake is influenced by 7 drainage canals.  There are stormwater nutrient removal actions being implement either through the Town’s stormwater illicit discharge program or through the swale rebuild work being proposed as part of the septic to sewer conversion program.

Question 10: The update posted on the LCS webpage says, "Our experts believe that the decision to sewer is the only effective way to improve the Lake water quality”. TMDLs completed in other jurisdictions recognize that stormwater and surface run-off are the primary issues, and that removal of septic tanks will not obtain adequate levels of nutrient removal. Who are the experts the Town refers to and what are their credentials? How were the Town’s experts identified? Were the experts obtained by Town through a competitive bid, or recommended by a third-party? What were the experts tasked with? Where is the report or study supporting the experts’ decisions?

Answer: The Town requested proposals from the engineering community consistent with the Consultants Competitive Negotiations Act (F.S. 287.055) which was enacted by the Florida Legislature in 1973. CCNA governs the processes required for procurement of professional engineering services which requires communities to select engineers based on qualifications.  Jones Edmunds demonstrated the best qualifications to assist us in planning and designing a central sewer system.  They authored the Septic to Sewer Guidance Manual prepared on behalf of the Florida Water Environment Association Utility Council for FDEP. The manual was prepared as a resource that can be used by all of the stakeholders involved in the process. It reflects an understanding of the concerns and challenges faced by the various groups working together to improve our environment through transition from septic to sewer.   The Jones Edmunds Task Orders and their status are presented every month in the Jones Edmunds Monthly Report and published as part of the Town Council Agenda.  There is the AECOM Master Plan and two Jones Edmunds Reports which are large and difficult to mail to most people.  The Town’s website says to email EPearson@lakeclarke.org and she will provide a file share link where the documents can be downloaded.

Question 11: To date, the Town has paid more than $500K to three different sewer engineering firms, AECOM, Engenuity Group, and Jones Edmunds, towards the design and planning of a sewer system that in the end will provide wastewater services to less than half of the Town’s 1500 plus homes. How does the Town justify paying more than half a million dollars to sewer engineering experts? In the last 5 years, how much money has the Town spent on remediation efforts to improve the Lake’s water quality?

Answer: Your question 11 needs some context.  By state statue, the Town can only provide sewer services to those homes that receive water from the Town; our existing water customers.  The Town wants to be prepared and knowledgeable on this issue and believed that engineering, planning and design was an appropriate expenditure of utility reserves.  Also recognize that $300,000 of the “more than $500k” came to the Town as a legislative appropriation to assist with the design of a sewer system.  We thank our legislators for their assistance.  In the last 7 years, we have spent more than $951,000 to convert approximately 35 equivalent residential units (ERUs) from septic to sewer. Conversion to central sewer allowed Sushi Jo, 4 Brothers, and Dunkin to come into Town.

Question 12: The Town has decided the best first step to addressing Lake Clarke’s impairment is to convert 135 septic tanks to sewer in MICA West area, the corner of the neighborhood that is the furthest away from the Lake. Of those 135 septic tanks, less than 50 are on waterfront lots. What do your experts estimate the annual nutrient load reduction will be in the Lake once this phase of septic to sewer is completed?

Answer: The objectives of the MICA West project are simple: 1) improve ground water and surface water quality by significantly eliminating nutrients coming from the septic tanks of these 135 homes; 2) reduce surface water runoff contaminants by re-establishing the grass swales on the sides of the roadways and improving the subsurface drainage infrastructure; and 3) reduce water loss and improve system reliability by installing new water lines within the area.

Lake Clarke Shores is located on a sand hill.  Soil transmissivities are very high and nutrients suspended in the water flow easily through the soils in all directions.

Using information provided by Dr. Xueqing Gao, FDEP’s nutrient removal expert and environmental consultant with FDEP’s Onsite Sewage Program, Division of Water Resource Management, we estimated removal (elimination) of 2025 pounds of nitrogen and 189 pounds of phosphorus each year from this project.

Question 13: The update posted on the LCS webpage says, “It’s important to note that the septic to sewer conversion project contemplated by the Town will only impact homeowners living in the Lake Clarke Shores Utility Service Area.” When all 5 phases of the Town’s septic to sewer conversion project are complete, 702 of the 1544 homes in LCS will no longer use septic tanks and drain fields. If septic tanks are causing the Lake’s high nutrient levels, how will removing less than half of them remedy the Lake’s impairment issues? Has there been any study indicating which homes are contributing to the Lake’s impairment? (One would think that the priority would be all homes directly on the Lake)

Answer: Again, we are not responsible for remediating the entire Lake Clarke impairment. We are responsible for our fair share.  That’s what we are addressing with the 4e Plan.  FDEP asked us if we could move the Plan faster and if we could do the Lake homes first.  We explained there are some engineering issues caused by the geography of the Lake that will take some time to design around.  They suggested we not delay the whole project and continue with the Plan as proposed.

Question 14: In the 1/10/2022 Town Managers Status Report it was stated “Based on a variety of different studies done by FDEP scientist and University researchers; each septic tank generates about 15 lbs. of nitrogen a year. The Town’s utility service area contains about 700 properties that are still on septic tanks. Those septic tanks generate 10,500 lbs. of nitrogen per year”. These numbers do not consider the significant amount of denitrification that occurs with an operational septic tank and drain field system prior to effluent reaching a waterway. Furthermore, there is no study or actual data to confirm how much, if any, of the nitrogen from nearby septic tanks is entering the Lake. Studies in Port St Lucie of an area with 5,601 septic tanks indicate that only about 20% of the reduction you are claiming will be achieved. The money the Town will require residents to pay for the proposed sewer plan would be better spent targeting the other 80% of the nutrient problem. What proof does the Town have that installing sewer will remove sufficient nutrient loads from the Lake to achieve FDEP requirements? How has the Town confirmed LCS septic tanks are causing the Lake’s impairment? Wouldn’t our taxpayer dollars be better spent targeting the other 80% of the Lake’s nutrient problem?

Answer: Nutrient removals are variable based on soil types, soils transmissivities, ground water levels and flow, ground water chemistry, number of septic tanks per acres (housing density), and many other factors.  We have not reviewed that study and cannot speak to whether it is comparable.  Instead we choose FDEP’s nutrient expert opinion.  FDEP has told us if we implement the 4e Plan and address some form of biomass removal in the Lake, they will assume we have done our part and will hold others accountable for the rest of the impairment issues.  They are pleased that we choose to use their nutrient expert as a reference for our Plan.  Considering the trump card FDEP holds in the context of SB 712 and their ability to force us to remove septic tanks, our approach seems to be prudent.

Question 15: The FDEP’s Draft TMDL of Pine Lake says that a MS4 permittee is "responsible for reducing the anthropogenic loads associated with stormwater outfalls that it owns". If the FDEP conducted a TMDL and found that Lake Clarke’s issues were caused by stormwater and surface run-off from other urban areas and/or MS4 permittees, those other municipalities would bear the responsibility of removing those nutrients from the Lake. If this happened, it would make the expenditures for a sewer system moot and would cost LCS residents nothing. Additionally, if stormwater and surface run-off is a significant factor in Lake Clarke’s impairment, converting from septic to sewer may have little to no impact. Has this been studied and established? If not, why?

Answer: Pine Lake drainage basin is a highly industrialized basin with thousands of acres of parking lots, industrial areas and a major airport.  Lake Clarke drainage basin is mostly residential.  The approaches to nutrient removal between the basins will be very different.  Lake Clarke Shores utility customers will have to pay their fair share of the nutrient removal needs of Lake Clarke.  We and FDEP believe those obligations are defined in the 4e Plan with the exception of the biomass component.  What is left will fall to the other MS4 basin partners.

Question 16: The update posted on the LCS webpage says, “The Town is applying for grants and low interest loans for this project.” Many of the grants LCS has applied for have been denied by the State. What funds and/or grants has the Town applied for the sewer conversion? What was turned down and by who? Has the Town exhausted all of their options for funding? Why not wait until the Town has received a stockpile of funding before proceeding with such a large infrastructure project?

Answer: The Town has applied for $5.05M in grants and special legislative appropriations.  We have received $300k.  The Governor vetoed $1M, the legislature did not fund $2.05M, and FDEP said our $1.7M grant request was not funded because the Governor recommended FDEP only fund BMAP projects.  (To be clear, FDEP says an alternate restoration 4e Plan has the same status for funding as a mandatory BMAP project).

Every day new funding opportunities come along.  The Palm Beach County Environmental General Obligation Bond, as an example, could be a new funding source.  The County is asking for shovel ready projects. That means the projects must already be designed, permitted and ready to bid.  We are working on the septic to sewer designs so we can respond to these types of grant opportunities.  Friday, we began the application process for Federal Clean Water Act 319(h) monies.  These monies are a competitive 60% matching grant administered by FDEP specifically for connecting the homes to a central sewer system. To be clear if the Town were to receive 319(h) grant money, it would be used to pay for a portion (up to 60%) of the work on the owner’s property, not in the public right-of-way.

The Town subscribes to a grant identification service called eCivis through the Florida League of Cities.  We are also participating in a National League of Cities Federal Funding program.  Congresswoman Frankel’s staff communicates with Town staff on a regular basis to help us find monies.

It is important to have all the monies in place or committed before construction begins.  The Town does not want a project that starts and stops due to funding.  Making sure we are eligible to submit (shovel ready) is critical to receiving monies at the appropriate time.  We are following the sequence “design it, permit it, fund it, bid it, and then build it.”

Question 17: The update posted on the LCS webpage says, “Each homeowner in the Lake Clarke Shores Utility Service Area is required by statute to pay their fair share of the cost of the sewer system”. To gain clarity, can you point us to the Statute the Town is referring to? When did this statute become law? Who were the Town Council members at the time this statue was adopted?

Answer: When the Town references statutes, we mean state law, not Town Code or Ordinance.  It has been a law for a very long time, and the reference is 170.01(1)(b) and (k), Fla. Stat. and 197.3632, Fla. Stat.

Question 18: The update posted on the LCS webpage says that residents will pay the costs for sewer “through [a] non-ad valorem assessment over a 20-year period”. Why isn't the Town funding this project using bonds?

Answer: The Town uses a financial advisor to tell us the best way to fund a project based on the project specifics.  Sometimes he suggests bank loans, bonds, or in this case the Clean Water State Revolving Fund program low-interest loans.  SRF funding is federal money administered through FDEP.  Sometimes SRF loans include principal forgiveness, but it is unlikely we would qualify because we are a community with a higher median household income.  The loan interest rate is expected to be 0.75%.

Question 19: The update posted on the LCS webpage says, “An equivalent fair share distribution of the cost would be approximately $21,300 per property or approximately $120 per month for 20 years.” Is it true that this does not include the costs of abandoning the current septic tanks and connecting to the sewer? Please explain the parameters of the funding for the Town as well as the financing options for residents. When were these costs calculated and by who? Is there an update on this figure due to rising costs, higher interest rates, supply chain issues, and fuel price increases?

Answer: These costs do not include the connection and abandonment.  The Town would borrow the money from SRF with an agreed annual debt service payment to the State.  They would use the loan proceeds to pay for construction.  The Town would then go through the process of dividing the project cost between the properties receiving the benefit.  The property owner would receive a notice of the assessment amount offering the property owner the option of a 20-year loan or a lump sum payment.  The assessment amount was calculated by the Town Manager based on the latest engineering estimates.  The number is an estimate.  When we have a designed and permitted project, we will get a final Engineers Opinion of Cost and these numbers can be updated.  The actual cost of the project will be determined through a public bidding process where qualified construction contractors will provide their lowest bid best price for the work.  Before we start construction, as stated earlier, we will have a thorough understanding of grants, loans, and costs, and can produce a more realistic assessment number.

Question 20: The 9/13/2021 and 10/6/2021 Town Manager’s Status Reports discusses the FDEP Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems (OSTDS) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) stating “Public input is an important and valued part of all Florida rule development activities.” Why were LCS residents not involved, surveyed, or asked to provide input on this proposed septic to sewer project particularly when residents have voted no to this conversion in the past? Will the Town consider establishing a committee made up of residents who will assist the Town in making decisions on implementation of, funding of, and payment of the septic to sewer project? If so, can that committee be formed now and input from the committee be applied to the decisions the Town has made to date?

Answer: The preamble to the question and the question are discussing different things.  FDEP provides the public access and participation to a plethora of public issues, you can go to their website and sign up for notifications to all sorts of meetings and publications.

In question 2 above, FDEP is very clear, we have to address the nutrient impairment in the Lake.  Our utility customers choice is “do it now” or “do it later”.  There is no “do nothing” option.  The questions are does the Town 1.) act now, negotiate a voluntary plan, take advantage of unprecedented public monies, and limit our cleanup exposure; or does the Town 2.) wait for the TMDL and BMAP, take on more costs and more responsibility for cleanup, and miss the window of public money?  Again, it’s important to follow our sequence “design it, permit it, fund it, bid it, and then build it.”

A construction project run by committee always results in delays, missed opportunities and cost overruns.  The Town staff believe that once FDEP and EPA have agreed to the 4e Plan, we will execute this project as we would any other project.  *Edited on 06-17-2022 per FDEP: FDEP and EPA accept 4e documents as an acknowledgment that proactive efforts will likely lead to beneficial impacts on area water quality. 4e documents are not approved by either agency.* We follow our sequence of design it, permit it, fund it, bid it, and then build it.  Each step in the sequence involves input and involvement of the Town Council in the presence of the public.

Question 21: On the LCS webpage under the section Town History it reads “The issue of sewers vs. septic tanks was resolved by a vote of the Town residents on June 30, 2005, with a vote of 655 in favor of septic tanks vs. 141 in favor of sewers.” Why has the Town decided to now deny LCS residents the right to vote on this septic to sewer project?

Answer: Please see the FDEP comments in Question 2 and my comments in Question 20.

Question 22: Many residents don’t know the actual costs they will incur if the proposed sewer system is installed. What are the estimated costs for the following: Which residents will be required to burden the costs? What is the cost per resident for construction of the sewers? What is the cost per resident to connect to main sewer lines in the street? What is the period of time residents will be given to connect and how long will they have to complete the connection? What is the cost per resident to fill and/or remove septic holding tanks/septic field? Will this be mandatory? What will the monthly wastewater fee be for each resident? Provide examples. Are there any other fees or charges per resident not listed above?

Answer: Lake Clarke Shores Utility Customers will be the ones receiving the benefits of the sewer system.  We have no new information on costs other than what’s on the LCS website showing $21,300 per home (not resident) and it only affects our Utility customers, not all LCS residents.  At this time, we have no estimates of the cost to connect, we are making application to FDEP/EPA through the Clean Water Act Section 319(h) program for grant funding to offset connection costs.  State Statute 381.00655 allows 365 days to make the connection.  We’re still working on these costs.  The Town abandoned two septic tanks on the 6900 W. Lake Dr. site.  It cost us $640 to pump out and certify to DOH.  We abandoned these septic tanks in place.  The Town’s current sewer charge is $5.00 per thousand gallons.  If your water bill is for 3,000 gallons, your sewer bill will be $15.00 per month.  If you use 6,000 gallons of water, your sewer bill will be $30.00 per month.

Question 23: Many homeowners have lived in LCS for 20+ years, are close to retiring or already retired and on fixed income. By the time you add the costs for connection, it will cost these homeowners a minimum of $30,000. What is the benefit to these homeowners to stay in LCS and pay for this septic to sewer conversion? What will happen to those who cannot afford this costly expenditure?

Answer: The Town Council has directed staff to do all we can to minimize costs.  Between the Master Plan and the two most recent Preliminary Design Reports, the estimated costs fell a little more than $5M.  We will continue to work hard to get grants to off set costs.  The Town will also be offering a 20-year low interest loan option for home owners.  On a $21,300 loan, the payments would be approximately $120 per month.

Question 24: Do any of the Town Council members or Town staff know or have personal and/or professional relationships with anyone involved in the implementation of this project, including but not limited to testing of the water quality/bacteria levels, land surveying, infrastructure engineering, installing sewers, plumbing to connect to sewers, removal of septic tanks/drain fields, or financial institutions that will provide financing to homeowners that require it?

Answer: Palm Beach County created the Commission on Ethics to foster integrity in public service and to prevent conflicts between private interests and public service.  The type of relationship mentioned in the question is specifically prohibited by law (State and County).  The elected officials and the Town Manager are required to take 4 hours of training each year on ethics and all staff are required to take a one-hour refresher course every two years.  Additionally, the Palm Beach County Office of the Inspector General will occasionally audit our contracting and business practices.

Question 25: Will all the Town Council members and Town Manager complete and sign a Conflict-of- Interest documents to confirm they have no personal and/or professional relationships with anyone involved in the implementation of this project, including but not limited to testing of the water quality/bacteria levels, land surveying, infrastructure engineering, installing sewers, plumbing to connect to sewers, removal of septic tanks/drain fields, or financial institutions that will provide financing to homeowners that require it?

Answer: See number 24 above.

Question 26: When will a Request for Proposal (RFP) be posted for bidding on any, and all, phases of the septic to sewer construction projects? Is a draft version of the RFP available for review? Will bidders be required to provide references for similar projects? Who from the Town is on the bid evaluation team?

Answer: State law will dictate this project be bid.  That is a different process than a request for Proposal.  The bid documents include the design documents. Since no design is complete, no bid documents are available at this time.  I expect permitting on MICA West in September and advertising for bids in Winter 2022.  The bid documents will be available to the public, and the bid opening is a public meeting.  An estimate of the bid opening date will be early December.  We will present the bid information and the funding proposal to the Town Council for approval when ready.  The bids are sealed, there are procurement rules from the Inspector General, the state and, if federal dollars are involved, from the federal government on how we solicit and open sealed bids.  The bid evaluation team will be the Town Manager, the Town Clerk, the Consulting Engineer, and the Town Attorney.

Question 27: In the Vacuum Sewer Preliminary Design System Report Northern Utility Service Area (master plan) document, on page 11, it says “Appendix B provides the vacuum pump station and siting review decision matrix.” The matrix only shows the scores for the one location. What were the other locations considered and the scoring for those locations?

Answer: The other sites are identified in the 2019 AECOM sewer master plan along with the siting matrix.  In October of 2020, Jones Edmunds updated the siting matrix showing the North Park as the optimum vacuum pump station site.

Question 28: Regarding Appendix B in the Vacuum Sewer Preliminary Design System Report Northern Utility Service Area document, was any consideration given to the West side of the park, which would be less intrusive for the homes adjacent on the East side?

Answer: The Vacuum Pump Station is proposed to be in North Park and to look like a single-story single-family home.  I’m unsure of what west side or east side refers to.

Question 29: In the Vacuum Sewer Preliminary Design System Report Northern Utility Service Area document, on page 16 it says “Emergency power is provided by an interior or exterior generator capable of running for 3 to 7 days depending on the load requirements of the system. The generator will have a propane tank and will run on natural gas.” Why only 3 to 7 days, and why not also connect to a natural gas line?

Answer: The report says the generator will run on natural gas and will have a 3-7 day supply of propane in case there is a service disruption to the natural gas.  With over 500 homes dependent on this station, redundancy is important.