The central issue at the council meeting was the proposed extension of the deadline for a long-delayed project aimed at constructing a reclaimed water storage and aquifer recharge enhancement facility on the Golden Gem Road property. Originally set in motion in 2009, the project has faced numerous setbacks, prompting a series of extensions that have pushed the deadline from 2014 to 2025. The proposed sixth amendment seeks to extend the deadline further to May 29, 2026. This extension aims to allow the city and the district to conduct comprehensive evaluations and enhance collaboration efforts. Public Works Director and City Engineer Vladimir Simonowski provided an extensive overview of the project’s history and current status. He noted that efforts are underway to modify the consumptive use permit and complete various technical evaluations, which include hydrologic and liner material assessments. These are critical for determining the project’s feasibility and timeline, with some evaluations expected to conclude as late as January 2026.

Simonowski highlighted the broader impact of the project, stressing its importance not only for Apopka but also for surrounding municipalities, such as Altamonte Springs and Mount Dora. The design of the project’s south pond is nearing completion, with the expectation that it will be finalized by spring of the following year. The council’s discussion included clarifications about the project’s operational capacity. According to Simonowski, the Golden Gem pond holds approximately 49 million gallons, with plans to allocate $14.5 million in the upcoming fiscal year for a new reclaimed water pumping station and liner replacements. These investments are intended to ensure the facility operates effectively by late 2025.

Public comments raised concerns. Albert McKim expressed skepticism about the project’s feasibility. He argued that essential evaluations of the liner material could only be conducted accurately by removing the existing liners for testing. McKim’s concerns about the project’s management and the city’s adherence to regulatory requirements added a contentious perspective to the meeting.

Further apprehensions were voiced by a representative from the Orange Soil and Water Conservation District. The representative emphasized the need for addressing the pond’s condition, particularly regarding the debris improperly used in its construction. The representative highlighted that materials like concrete and plastics could leach into the water system, potentially affecting public health. The speaker urged the council to ensure thorough inspections and corrections to prevent future sinkholes.

Council members sought clarity on the engineering standards adhered to during the pond’s construction. Questions arose about whether the facilities were built to required standards and if there were recourses due to the failures experienced. It was explained that the current liner was installed following the specifications of a geotechnical engineer and supported by a stability analysis. Discussion also shifted to the construction process oversight, which involved an internal design but outsourced construction. Concerns were raised about the facility’s projected water output, which currently averages 8.2 million gallons daily. This is below the planned output of 12 to 13.8 million gallons, posing a challenge as more development projects are approved.

Financial implications were also at the forefront of the discussion. It was noted that the city could face a repayment of approximately $10.24 million to the St. Johns River Water Management District if the facility is not utilized as intended. Options included either returning the property to the district or maintaining ownership while repaying the funds. Council members acknowledged the facility’s importance for future growth and development, questioning the implications for the city’s comprehensive plan and approval of additional projects if the site remains non-functional.