Electrification of No Name takes center stage again

Another process that could ultimately end with allowing the electrification of No Name Key will begin Tuesday in front of the county’s Development Review Committee.

In a surprise move, at least to the Board of County Commissioners, county planning staff has introduced a proposal to change the land use plan for No Name Key to allow for the extension of central wastewater services and support utilities, including commercial power, for that function.

The electrification of No Name Key has been a contentious issue for more than a decade. A group of residents living on the small island off the eastern shore of Big Pine filed a suit in the late 1990s claiming they had a constitutional right to commercial power on the island. That suit was denied by the courts and was followed in 2001 by a county ordinance prohibiting the extension of commercial power to No Name Key.

Last year, another group of residents, mostly newcomers to the island in the last 10 years, began to lobby the BOCC to allow installation of central sewer systems on the island, and as a by-product, the commercial power necessary to run that system.

The county commission at the time agreed with them, but the state Department of Community Affairs rejected the proposal, partly because the BOCC approved a land use development regulation (LDR) that was not in compliance with the comprehensive plan for growth management in the county, and partly because it objected to the overly broad language in the proposal that would have allowed commercial power to be extended to even some out islands.

The new commission in January of this year rescinded that LDR and asked that the necessary comprehensive plan change be delayed for discussion for six months until it could get a report from the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority on what type of wastewater system would be best suited to serve the needs of No Name Key. That study was supposed to outline what central systems, if any, would work for the island’s 43 homes on la cost effective basis, or what on-site systems might be the best bet for the ecologically sensitive island that is largely encompassed by a federal Coastal Barrier Resource designation.

That designation forbids the expenditure of federal dollars for development over, through or to coastal barrier resource areas. Under that prohibition, residents could not receive water, sewer service or electricity that was paid for by federal dollars, nor can they receive federally subsidized flood insurance.

The FKAA has not yet done that report.

According to FKAA Executive Director Jim Reynolds, the utility, saddled with designing and building the remaining central sewer systems for unincorporated Monroe County and no money as yet available from the county for that endeavor, had placed planning for No Name Key on a back burner until the issue of electricity or no electricity was settled.

The BOCC asked to see the comprehensive plan change again in July, hoping it would also get a report from FKAA on system development alternatives and the requirements of other utilities for those alternatives to use as part of the basis for its decision.

In the intervening months, the group seeking electrification of No Name Key, which resident Bob Reynolds says represents about 75 percent of the property owners, although it’s actually 30 of 43, has applied for commercial power from Keys Energy Services.

The group has also, through land use consultants Craig and Company, been working with county planning staff to rewrite the plan change in order to target any changes to No Name Key.

As a result of those changes, which County Attorney Suzanne Hutton deemed “substantive,” the proposed change was brought back to the DRC level Tuesday to begin as a new proposal instead of a re-hash of the old one.

Growth Management Director Drew Trivette told the BOCC in a special session Tuesday that staff had “altered” the amendment to better address concerns raised by the DCA that the initial proposal was overly broad.

“This amendment is very specific to No Name Key,” said Trivette.

The new proposal allows the extension of sewer and power to those areas on No Name Key where the future land use is zoned residential medium, which Trivette says encompasses all of the already built homes on the island, and nowhere else.

“This is a much better way to do this,” said Trivette. He added that the commission would still see the issue again in July, just a different version, although he said the staff could bring back the original if the commission so desired.

Trivette has also opined that Keys Energy Service can extend commercial power to No Name Key without permits from the county, though he urged support of this new proposal to allow electrification of the island.

Reynolds says the comprehensive plan language change is vital to allow commercial power to flow to No Name Key.

Donald Craig, consultant representing the No Name Key Property Owners Association, which was formed in the wake of the latest battle for electrification of the island, said the BOCC would be asked to support electrification of the island at the expense of the property owners who wanted it. He also has opined that the county must make this move to allow the electrification of the island.

According to Keys Energy, the cost to run commercial power to No Name Key could run from about $900,000 to $1.9 million.

The difference, says KEYS spokesman Julio Barroso, is in whether residents choose an all-underground transmission system at $1.9 million, or a more traditional above-ground system at about $900,000. A hybrid of the two would range in cost between those two, he added.

Hutton told commissioners that after an evaluation of the new proposal, she felt it prudent to send the request back through the entire process, DRC to planning commission to BOCC. From there, it will have to be approved by DCA.

She said while the change may not have any effect on the board’s decision, it could open up legal challenges because the July hearing is supposed to be a continuation of the hearing held in January where a different proposal was discussed.

“What staff did was change the proposal to something we felt DCA would approve,” said Trivette.

Upon questioning, Trivette said that the DCA might still reject the proposal, but he felt the objection would be less significant because of the targeted nature of the regulation.

Beth Ramsey-Vickery, No Name Key resident, urged the commission to support the proposal.

“The No Name Key Property Owner’s Association represents 30 of the 43 homes on No Name Key,” she said. “We are asking you to support this proposal. We have people whose lives are being seriously harmed out there now.”

She told commissioners that one of the association members recently had back surgery and is now confined to a wheelchair. She needs an elevator to get in and out of her home, something not readily accomplished by a generator. Many of the island’s residents use generators to power their homes, though most also have some form of solar power.

“I felt the BOCC direction in January as very clear. You wanted this issue to come back to the BOCC. Not to the DRC, not to the planning commission, because I thought you wanted to spare the residents form going through this public tit-for-tat again,” said Alicia Putney, No Name resident and longtime vocal opponent of electrification of the island.

Diane Beruldsen, a Lower Keys activist, said that although she’s not a member of the No Name Key community, she appreciates its beauty and ambiance, as well as its claim as home to a significant portion of the endangered Key Deer population.

“I don’t understand these people who buy in a very restricted area, then don’t like the restrictions and want to change them,” said Beruldsen. “Once you bring electricity to No Name Key you will bring more development for sure.”

“Knowing the sensitivity of this issue it really bothered me to see it this way,” said Commissioner Heather Carruthers, who sponsored the discussion as a last-minute add-on item to the special meeting agenda.

“I was under the impression we had agreed we would not address this issue again until FKAA had some decisions for us. Now I find it’s going to the DRC for a new process. I thought we’d see it first,” said Carruthers.

“When it comes to electrification of the island this is a community issue that needs to be dealt with by the community,” said Mayor George Neugent. “Keys Energy is moving forward with the request to supply power, although I understand they’re waiting on our input as well.”

He said that electrification, paid for by the residents, was separate issue from the coastal barrier resource issue that prohibits the expenditure of federal monies on the island.

He said that in discussions with US Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the Keys’ Congressional representative, the question of whether to remove No Name from the CBRS designation has never been forwarded to Congress.

Neugent said he believes lifting that designation will take an act of Congress.

According to officials with the US Department of the Interior, any changes to the CBRS system must be sponsored by a Congressional member or Senator. If approved by both houses and signed by the President, those changes are then implemented by DOI through publishing in the Federal Register.

This year, Congress added tracts to the CBRS designation, including parcels in Monroe County.

At day’s end, the BOCC decided to let the new proposal wend its way through the process and go to the DRC Tuesday at 1 p.m. in the Marathon Government Center.

1 Comment »

One Response to “Electrification of No Name takes center stage again”

Comments

1. Mary Frances Bakke Jun 15 2009 / 3pm

   Dear Steve,
   Thank you for getting this story from George Neugent and writing an unbias article about an issue that is most important to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents on No Name Key. A super-majority of residents on No Name Key want power and will pay for it. The County has had a Resolution since 1951 granting permission to the public utility company to bring power to No Name Key. The state law requires utilities be in place before issuing building permits. Finally, decisions are being based on the law – not propaganda or political reasons. Thanks for standing up and being counted as a fair and unbias newspaper for Big Pine Key and No Name Key. We are committed to making No Name Key a “truly” green community by cleaning up the air, noise, and water pollution. We appreciate your article which informs the citizenship.