Marco Island council greenlights next steps for advanced wastewater treatment and funding plan

The City of Marco Island on June 1 directed staff to proceed with the recommended Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) path after a presentation from Jeff Poteet, general manager of the city’s Water & Sewer Department.

Staff recommended Alternative 1 — a biologically focused treatment approach with a side‑stream fermentation component evaluated by Black & Veatch — as the preferred, most economical long‑term solution that best aligns with the city’s existing treatment infrastructure. The council also endorsed a design‑build delivery method to streamline coordination and limit facility downtime during construction.

Council approved three separate motions that together define the program’s immediate next steps:

• Selection of Alternative 1 as the preferred treatment alternative (motion passed 7–0). • Authorization for staff to use available unrestricted water & sewer reserves to fund preliminary design and permitting while pursuing grants, legislative appropriations, and other external funding to reduce project costs (motion passed 7–0). The city reported approximately $14.3 million in unrestricted water & sewer reserves, with staff advising that $8–10 million be maintained for emergency reserves. Staff estimated initial design/permitting outlays at an engineering percentage of the ultimate project cost, with estimates discussed during council (see clarifying details). • Authorization to proceed with a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to procure design‑build services and to return to council with negotiated contract recommendations, budget figures, and implementation plans (motion passed 7–0).

Timeline staff provided: RFQ and evaluation, 3–5 months; contract negotiation and council award expected late in the calendar year; design about 8–12 months; construction approximately 12–18 months. The full path from RFQ to operation was discussed as likely spanning multiple years (staff estimated roughly 2–3 years from design procurement to construction completion under a design‑build model).

Council questions centered on: the ability to piggyback other studies (stormwater rates discussed but treated as separate), the potential to expand reuse irrigation and non‑potable distributions (plant produces an estimated seasonal maximum around 3.1 million gallons and lower off‑season yields), supply chain and commodity cost risks (stainless steel price volatility), and how grant proceeds might be used once design is complete.

Public commenters — including members of the Waterways Advisory Committee and residents — pressed for attention to canal muck removal and the public‑health impacts of cyanobacteria and toxins, urging timely action. Staff said muck removal and additional canal remediation are separate but related conversations to pursue alongside AWT implementation.

Outcome: Council approved the selection of Alternative 1 and authorized initial funding strategy and the RFQ procurement process by unanimous votes. Staff will return with negotiated contract recommendations, refined costs after design, and financing options.

What happens next: Staff will prepare an RFQ for design‑build services, start the procurement process, and return to council with a negotiated contract, cost estimate, and financing plan. The council reserved the right to approve construction contracts after final designs and cost estimates are available.