Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
04-18-1994
~ ,-- .. (.) Q .----- Votinq Order Councilman Hays Councilman Mitchum Mayor Hayman Councilman Jones Councilwoman Martin AGENDA CI'l'Y COUNCIL OF' EDGEWA'l'ER APRIL 18, 1994 7:00 p.m. COMMUNITY CENTER 1. Call to Order, Roll Call, Allegiance' Invocation, Pledge of 2. Approval of Minutes A. Regular Meeting of April 4, 1994 3. Citizen Comments 4. Council/Officers Reports A. City Attorney B. City Manager C. City Council 5. Consent Agenda Items on the consent agenda are defined as routine nature that do not warrant detailed discussion or individual action by the Council; therefore, all items remaining on the consent agenda shall be approved and adopted by a single motion, second and vote by the City Co u n c i I . Items on the consent agenda are not subject to discussion. One of the most basic rules of a consent agenda is that any member of the City Council may remove any item from the consent agenda simply by verbal request at the City Council meeting. Removing an item from the consent agenda does not require a motion, second or a vote; it would simply be a unilateral request of an individual Councilmember. ' (None) Business Halifax Ford's request to hold Tent Sale April 23-26, 1994, at 1207 S. Ridgewood Ave. Police Chief's request to purchase 1994 Ford 150 from Duval Ford at State Bid of $10,925 Fire/Rescue Chief's request to purchase four sets of bunker gear from Safety Equipment for $2,721 Fire/Rescue Chief I s request to purchase comprehensive physical, cardiovascular and pulmonary evaluations of career personnel from EmployMed for $4,860 E. Designation of member and alternate to Volusia City-County Water Supply Cooperative Board of Directors F. Recommendation to accept proposal from W. W. Young and Associates to provide community survey at cost of $4,800 G. Economic Development Board's recommendation to consider proposal for a "What I s Your Beef? II Workshop for Business and Professional People 6 . New A. B. C. D. -'" (.) Q City Council of Edgewater Agenda - April 18, 1994 Page Two 6. New Business (Continued) H. Joe Martin re: fire hydrant located at corner of West Park Ave. and Flagler Ave. /SP-9401 addition to Edgewater Machine & Fabricators, Inc. I. Ini tial review and comment on certain administrative sections of Land Development Code - General Provisions, Decision Making and Administrative Bodies, Application and Hearing Procedures, Enforcement Procedures, and Nonconformities 7. Ordinances, Public Hearings, and Resolutions First Reading: (None) Second Reading: (Public Hearing) A. Public Hearing re: Request of R.P. and Lillian Davisworth for abandonment of 25 ft. of Thomas St. West of Riverside Drive 8. Unfinished Business A. Community Survey 9. Council/Officers Reports A. City Attorney B. City Manager C. City Council 10. Questions from Press 11. Citizen Comments 12. Adjourn. All items for inclusion on the May 2, 1994, City Council agenda must be received by the City Manager's office no later than 4:30 p.m. Monday, April 25, 1994. PIII':;lIiIIlL I.u CltiJpL(~I' 7.06, I".S., Lf iJlI illlLLvidllil.l. duc.i,clu::; 1.0 appeal any decision made with respect to any matter considered at a meeting or hearing, that individual will need a record of the proceedings and will need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. IA ALI FORD. MERCURY , April 5, 1994 To: Edgewater City Council From: Halifax Ford Used Cars RE: Permission to construct a Temporary Tent To Whom it May Concern, Halifax Ford Used Cars requests permission to construct a temporary tent for the purpose of selling used cars. This sale will be held on April 23, 24, atra--2 .r.h at 1207 S. Ridgewood Ave. 0 Thank You, Greg Stirn Office Manager LL Now I I P.O. BOX 1960 • NEW SMYRNA BEACH, FLORIDA 32168 • 904/428 -9094 • DAYTONA 904/255 -7940 4 ``rir MEMORANDUM TO: George E. McMahon, City Manager FROM: Mark P. Karet, Director of Community Development //c< HATE Apr 11 1994 SUBJECT: Halifax Ford's Request for a Tent Sale The applicants' wish to erect a 30 foot by 60 foot tent on their property located at 1207 S. Ridgewood Avenue. The sale will be held between Saturday, April 23rd and Tuesday, April 26th. The Department of Community Development has no objections so long as the applicant complies with the following conditions: 1 -) Obtains an occupational license for the sale, 2 -) Refrains from displaying vehicles in the right-of-way, 3 -) Does not block driving lanes or driveways, 4 -) Does not run power cords across driveways or driving lanes, 5 -) Does not place any signage or advertising in the right -of -way. low MPK/smp c:\mpk 1994 \corr \citymngr\halifax 0 ' / Q pEWA7p� _ CITY t 71 -`' TER V. ,. �•' :.� ty ti `r POST OFFICE BOX at TER, FLORIDA 32132 Nome (904) 424-2 • __ �•' > 04) 424 -2431 LAWRENCE 'SCHUMAKER CHIEF OF POLICE TO: George E. McMahon, City Manager c FROM: Lawrence F. Schumaker, Chief of Police DATE: April 6, 1994 SUBJECT: Vehicle Tent Sale 1. Please refer your Routing Form, dated April 6,1994, concerning a request by Halifax Ford to hold a tent sale, April 23 thru ''`ur April 26. 2, There should be only a light impact on the police service and have no problem with granting said request. Now LFS /pt CITY OF EDGEWATER ROUTING FORM DATE: April 6, 1994 FROM: George E. McMahon, City Manager City Attorney Parks N Recr-Atior City Clerk /Personnel -" % City Engineer Public Works X Community Development Utilities Finance All Department Heads Fire ACTION REQUESTED ( ) Please review /respond to attached (X) Please prepare report or recommendation ( ) Please note and return to me ( ) Please see me to discuss this ( ) Please answer, sending me a copy of your letter ( ) Please prepare reply for my signature ( ) Please take charge of this ( ) Pl mdse coordinate /bcheduie ( ) Please advise Employees ( ) For your information only ( ) At your convenience ( ) URGENT - Immediate action desired (X) Latest date for activity Monday, 4/11/94 Comments: Re: Halifax Ford's request for tent sale 4/23 - 4/26 lwe • 8 AGENDA REQUEST DATE: April4. 1994 NEW UNFINISHED CONSENT BUSINESS x BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING RESOLUTION ORDINANCE ITEM DESCRIPTION /SUBJECT: PURCHASE 1994 FORD , 150 , 4X2 , 1/2 TON PICK -UP FOR ASSIGNMENT TO ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS ; FROM DUVAL FORD AT STATE BID PRICE. BACKGROUND: 1985 ANIMAL CONTROL TRUCK NOW HAS 113,000 MILES AND IS BECOMING VERY EXPENSIVE DUE TO NEEDED REPAIRS RECOMMENDATION/ CONCLUSION: 1994 BUDGET ANTICIPATED A COST OF $13,000 FOR A NEW TRUCK, STATE BID err► # 070 - 001 -94 -1 BASE PRICE $10,174.00, A/C $660.00, RAIN SHIELDS $43.00, RUST PROOFING $48.00 TOTAL COST: $ 10,925.00 FUNDS AVAILABLE: ACCOUNT NUMBER 56640 - EQUIPMENT (SPECIFY IF BUDGET AMENDMENT IS REQUIRED) NO PRESENTED BY: PREVIOUS AGENDA ITEM: YES NO X DATE: AGENDA ITEM NO: Respectfully submitted, car 12 Ntaw Concurrence: 4 ,007.1,0 r. George E cMahon City Manager DATE: April 8, 1994 NEW UNFINISHED ow CONSENT: BUSINESS: X X X BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION: ORDINANCE: ITEM DESCRIPTION /SUBIECT: Request permission to urchase 4 sets of Bunker Gear. BACKGROUND: Request the purchase of 4 sets of lunker Gear to replace worn out Bunker Gear still in use. The cost of this purchase will be piggybacked on the contract offered to the Volusia County Fire Chiefs Association through Safety Equipment. The cost per set of bunker gear including suspenders is $680.37 for a total cost of $2,721.48. This Bunker Gear will meet all NFPA and OSHA requirement s. �.• RECOMMENDATION /CONCLUSION: Recommend Council approval to purchase 4 sets of Bunker Gear through Safety Equipment at the cost of $2,721.48. FUNDS AVAILABLE: Account Number: 10522/53520 (Specify If Budget Amendment Is Required) Presented By: Chief William C. Vola Previous Agenda Item: YES_ NO XXX Date: 4/08/94 Agenda Item No.__ Respectfully Submitted, »;& lw William C. Vola, Chief Department of Fire/Rescue Concurrence: .ems George E. McMahon City Manager CHOICES I N STRUCTURAL OR PROXIMITY T y, t CLOTHING STYLING "�x >_ ` 74 • 4 j ; t i ,,, t 1 c,, r.:�` ?:� M f fit i'� ' � �. d s ..k t 4:.'',°;e4:/..',° ;r , a (. fi ` : • « P ie - . ' ,. FRONTAL t �, : . Y 0 66, g v�1 C OM PA RISON ,7 >' + r z ; a ` r i a d + 4 yp e't, `k i . ty'r, Ct <? ( � � 111 x i + '�` , . s x , rdr -�., st, -,-, , •x.12•:^1 ' a it f'` -, �` d � � � , r r i 1 • rF 3 f�'� 2 v 'f NS 1 < n � ' a '` '�• ,y..c S L." r X ar .. +�+ 1:..: ata � +!^' r 2 ^E5°Y 4 �t,*.t Y; r 's s �s 4 . ' t x u.' r. t' 4 2 '' 3` . , j'_ r f W , � -� y7 r � fix. f , . a . ,,r , 1 i g j , ,, Tails shortened front reduces garment ,, r '� ' �1 , , • 7 " i " �' w eight1 8 %to25 %,freestheupperlegs 1 , r ,, `: jtj , t o r = . i i ,.� • ,J A +x rye # + h forunham ered ladderchrnbing /crawl ?, . t € • r ` w. t,, s< � �' r `'trr` - , r y .: * ;. 'd' `'; i an ' 'facilit tr unk ventilation - , � X41 e. f q ; t ?, . .� r ' * ?� * ' . , g� a ., �_, Y when$CBAIs aes,,r , ` . t , ". x ' 1`r E f nf� iS +i,, ; . ' a• �3 ./G . .� e: , p N y a , r 4 s x ft ^'1 ° ' r t 7 :F s -• s s t °z� � s lh r t Y r t y " 4 � . cr S ' ? s 4 r : r 3. „• . 4 1, Y ' tt 1 r c 1 . . ' '� ,;(- a .. "' S � / x :i,r ` ' ' A d a `,`..*, p 'I ''- 3 � x k 3 It.-4? v . • �• ' ° d ' Y 1� ;' ' S +q ? .T c t r # � R . . . � ' .. y ' r a f r �`" a 4 ; x, a . tg r ?�4 t VVt n t •t y ` i a i t * . � X : r } p x +� , t;- r� y t t r �' y , 7 � 3 � r,.t 4:, C �lq r } ti,�4 � " Ax �y �y 1 15 � , S`.. T :$ Sd•\ S fi t ` tA x�° } x. C `� .6, - ' t ' . v' 1 •� �1 fe'. .1 a � rY '. ,a ail t a, s ,+ a 4 '� 8 ,o to QSoi h ,re �.�. � � *�� r ' � r �i� � � "ft's* F 3, t . r �,. with lighter 3 r X Q1,' n y: •-.�.�I , c 1 . . thsame i x' � rt+c ' ` � h "1 'w ` ` 6 i` +. �t . e r - , Al-IV p r j * , ry , - « t Rrar a Xr ' ?,'t M3sn t 4 r t � 4 �"� 7�ff' arb•7Frt♦ a y .P> ' , •tx x% 'art •y"`, ,�N' ' L[ '� t ft7 „e; hy�. ,�'� y�% x 1 t y o x4 • ' � � r K ” A ;Rt '1 ak. Sta, 'i" i� S it,4r -t hy.' .c-k'r'� 41" �.� a �m r �k � f ; � ;c?� 7 `� � a r s'• a.. e'� � �� -re "„�^a �x r k � f ''"�" 3 �4I y trr- t . a x TRADITIONAL.3 t ' • i j x "` . ,� . � t om ... ; _ , q y , a' f ti A fi • g 1. Pz. n .y 1'` b , r • • � i i . i+ ,. q ¢ ta 4 ; r . .,' " ',� y y , : t lil +` t �rr.. KK " 7 ` F T: t 4 i F ' A , A b 4 4R ^ '.114i''''' ' r . V 'i3 '. i y r` " 3• e . F ,. i. r ,, 'nit. ;„ Ha 1..Akk � 1. "�a.. ,.,.., ,+:..fu a,,., -'a°. - u + ` ,. ;a .n, 5 � -r „k7:$41., � , .« • ``TAILED STYLING EXPLAINED Patented U.S., Canada and Internationally (PATENT PENDING also) It Tails are an anti - stress clothing system that reduced garment weight, allows ventilation and improves maneuverability while maintaining maximum protection levels. The Tails concept is based on the recognition that the structure of the human backbone guarantees 95% of all mid -body flex occurs to the front (causing REAR body extension ONLY). Since it is body extension that can cause a protective gap between coats and pants in certain body positions, this implies coats can be worn much shorter in front than in the rear and still assure no protective gap (i.e. we can't bend backwards to the degree we can bend forward so we don't extend in the front to the degrees we extend in the back). Shortening the non - functional, same length, coat front reduces garment weight between 18 % -25% (same materials, same options, etc.), improves ventilation, allows unrestricted upper leg mobility, and hence fights firefighters stress (the leading cause of firefighter fatalities). NOTES: 1). For effective protection in all body position, the Tails coat composite must be ordered to fall 6” below the waist in the front and 12" in the rear (9" & 12" shell overlap unless Weight Reduction Hemming (pg. 21) is specified). And as NFPA 1500 requires, bunker pants (of Traditional Design) must be worn at all times. Additionally, as good firegrounds practice dictates, breathing apparatus should be worn whenever a firefighter might encounter flashovers or extremely high ambient heat conditions. 2). Because of the short length of a Tails coat, pockets are not provided as a standard feature on this style coat (they can however be ordered as a custom option). Therefore, it is recommended that pants to be worn with Tails coats be ordered or retrofitted with bellows pockets. Moving pockets to the pants lowers the firefighters center of gravity making him more stable during movement, unburdens the collarbone already overburdened with the weight of the air packs and allows unrestricted access to pocket contents even when breathing apparatus is donned (coat pockets are sealed by the SCBA waist strap). 3). Tails coats will be provided with an additional strip of 2" trim on the bottom of the "Tail" to prevent "Tail roll ". There will be no charge for this additional trim and it will match the trim package ordered in material & color. If no trim has been ordered* a material reinforcement will be provided. 4). Tails coats will be provided with two take up straps. These straps are intended for those fairly rare occasions when thermal sealing is required but breathing apparatus will not be worn (i.e. pump operation on a cold winter day). These straps are not normally engaged since doing so prevents coat "bellowing'' which allows body cooling ventilation to occur when breathing apparatus is removed. -8- PLEASE REVIEW CAREFULLY x '� ,� � f��' M r 4. i • • r � w : " . y • r�+ '^t� �� � � � t r ,� :. . a �,' K; y k Your in desic n is at least as Important as -. , . I p your .choice, to ntate ria s .- ht'°iPZ f. _ t ,r ; , f t 4 t , L �.► f d M x r t � .'1�,,, � „,d '•ft �r COMPARISON s �.�. •��� rr y Sz f y ;1; f �!' } 1 a. : . .:: 'M t= � � � �: 4g ye t � i�' `Oe r cw et°+ ,r r�Ycr p s'4` kt A i� 4 `�f M r1 (�S "�F `V`C s py. t c4 �U 't �� Sg4j s�z +9�Y�� �. R'. , T qq�� : R; tt „ g '�- „ t - _ —► where .�. � -# � � x ” +..< s, t �:'t'S`S�� } 4,r;a ri n�• - •sad !t Kan. �+ ,c� t� .� -,r y�. � � �R�' * """""•,� N i�,r'i� , a rt ? ',' yY�: °* �f :' J r. L .r..' a� ,.ti '� 3 r,s �.X.�. ¥ �t�'^a 6 1 �'�•i' �t `c�'t = � 'i'�”' �• ; f t �7 .'! � ' >b 1i,ik.. �° J � +Q � r "tiy :. � <n � � >; .t? n. 4 `~i� e• A,a'°� < r 5 3if r �' �,xx SO S a f@ �j�' '3 "+ r "sr r r � � '�?, ,�y �r r��..,••: ,a�,'r � ,. urce s sole '�.�» � ��� w a= r do f 9 x�. d02 P2clfle a v s' tr K z . a ,>• i 3 citi for � �,�'�+ ����'.:' r �'` g t,� x++: �. �3 `!:Ya2zn 3''x rr n � t ^s � y � .` �{x r" � .';..'4�..��,.,'€., "� t r ,• ' 5 - TAILS s �'I4 �y, . TRADITIONAL 35, a }� ar e ° % ' s a, .s r x �'� .. + r a > � �" .,f, f f. . iy� t '_ rk ♦-1 •N a ' ��" "fa'''.°'y .. .., 4 =;'Aa : x.` y,u �k. F X9 s 7 �. tt -� r.-,� .�"•.. ' ;`,` a TRADITIONAL STYLING EXPLAINED Traditional design concept relies on coat length (or pants overlap) to assure protection. Photo above illustrates 35" length traditionally styled coat. This length (35 ") hits the average man mid thigh, as such it is only ordered when bunker pants are worn on ALL responses. The standard traditional styled lengths (40 ") hits a man of average height immediately at the knee. NOTES: 1.) While some firefighters in the past have relied on along bunker coat (approximately 40 inches long) and high boots, the turnout coatis designed to protect basically the upper part of the human body (except head & hands). As manufacturers of protective clothing, we agree strongly with NFPA, #1500 and the 1991 Edition of NFPA 1971 requiring bunker pants be provided" and their "use required" on ALL structural fire calls. 2.) Since use of 40" coat (without bunker pants) offers no lower torso protection and is now prohibited by NFPA Standards and since the full length front of a 35" coat serves no functional purpose; we respectfully request customers closely exarnine the Tails concept before ordering traditional styling. While we will be glad to manufacture traditionally styled garments, we honestly believe they offer only disadvantages in comparison to the Tails styling. Plea:;e contact our customer service department for further discussion or referral to departments who can share their excellent Tails field results. NOTE ON BIBS, HIGHWAISTED PANTS, PANTS WITH RAISED BACKS, ETC.: (i.e. UPSIDE DOWN TAILS) Morning Pride was one of the first manufacturers to test the third style of bunker clothing; short coat and bib (i.e.; extended height) pants. However, both laboratory and field testing soon established the design concept as inherently stressful since it wraps the trunk (where thermal energy is generated) at all tirnes and prevents body cooling ventilation. As stress is already the leading cause of firefighter death; we feel it would be irresponsible to continue to offer the short coat /bibbed systems. Our position on the stressful nature of the bibs has been confirmed by other independent field tests such as that conducted by Project Fires. The mobility and lightness of short coats is duplicated with the Tails system but without the necessity for stressful bibs. Our research indicates that modifying the bib (i.e. shortening it to highwaisted pants, rear bib only, etc.) does NOT resolve the stress ?roblem as the biggest part of the trunk (including the high blood flow, high heat exchange kidneys) remains wrapped. This means recent competitive attempts to move the Tails from itE patent protected coat position to the pants is design non - functional (still stressfully wraps the kidneys). For full details, ask our customer service qroup for our "Upside Down Tails" Flyer. -9- Safety Equipment SALES OFFICES LOCATED IN: TAMPA/ ORLANDO/ JACKSONVILLE/ PENSACOLN MIAMI/ PUERTO RICO/ GAINESVILLEJ LAKELANC)/ Company ATLANTA , GAJ ALBANY, GAJ BRUNSWICK, GA 6852 HANGING MOSS ROAD ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32807 (407) 678 -2701 To whom it may concern: Safety Equipment , :ompany is pleased to offer the Volusia County Fire Chiefs Association a contract for Bunker Gear. This contract will give each department the opportunity to pick and choose their gear ensemble. Pricing will start with a basic gear selection which will include some key features (listed below). Each department will then add options to it as they wish. For example: TAILS COAT/PANTS MODEL 2150 450.00 + GORETEX/E- 89,ARALITE,NOMEX (COAT/PANTS) 131.00 + RADIO POCKET 8.20 TOTAL 590.20 If there are any questions about this contract please do not hesitate to call me at 800 -741 -5246. Than}: you. Ierr Sincerely, Michael K. Botet Regional Sales Manager • "err AGENDA REQUEST DATE: March 30, 1994 NEW UNFINISHED vow CONSENT: BUSINESS: X X BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION: ORDINANCE: ITEM DESCRIPTION /SUB IECT: Request permission to purchase comprehensive physical, cardiovascular and pulmonary evaluations of Career Personnel in compliance with Firefighters OSHA (NFPA 1500) BACKGROUND: This item was budgeted for and approved at $6,050. We solicited 5 quotations from various physician groups in the local area. From those 5 requests we received 2 quotes. They are: Dr. Vance Wilson with Cardiology Associates, and EmployMed. The services offered by EmployMed meet the requirements of NFPA 1500 and are the least costly. The quote from EmployMed comes in at $1,190.00 below the budgeted amount. Cardiology Associates $5,500.00 EmployMed $4,860.00 RECOMMENDATION /CONCLUSION: Recommend Council approval to purchase employee physicals through EmployMed in the amount of $4,860.00. FUNDS AVAILABLE: Account Number: 10522/52310 (Specify If Budget Amendment Is Required) Presented By: Chief William C. Vola Previous Agenda Item: YES NO XXX Date: 3/30/94 Agenda Item No. Respectfully Submitted, Gvx- lw William C. Vola, Chief Department of Fire /Rescue Concurrence: g 7.� ----- Geor e E McMahon City Manager toe CITY OF EDGEWATER DEPART MENT OF FIRE/RESCUE SE RVICES P.O. BOX 100 w , EDGEWATER, FLORIDA 321320100 (904) 424 -2445 March 21, 1994 TO: William C. Vola, Fire Chief FROM: Jill S. Landreville, Life Safety Inspector v5C. - SUBJECT: Proposals for physical examinations At the end of March I began researching available services and prices for our semi - annual physical examinations. I am now able to provide you with all the information gathered and to make an informed recommendation. I began by contacting the offices of three local internists *law Flasterstein, Ownby and Rosemund). I explained our needs relating the physical examination, blood work, and stress test. All three office managers took messages but never returned the calls. Someone contacted Dr. Vance Wilson of Cardiology Consultants in Daytona Beach and a bid was submitted. I contacted EmployMed, the occupational health care service of Halifax Medical Center. They were eager to provide the necessary services to our employees and are very familiar with Fire /EMS needs as they currently provide similar physical examinations and screenings for Deltona Fire Department and EVAC Ambulance. Through my contact at EmployMed I was referred to Human Performance International (HPI). HPI is a division of Halifax Medical Center that utilizes physiology, biomechanics, nutrition and medicine to complete personal development programs for occupational readiness. I met with the doctors at HPI at length. They had been looking * *ow to expand their service into the realm of Public Safety and we were the first agency to approach them. The following is a comparison of services and prices between the two bids submitted by Cardiology Associates and EmployMed: CARDIOLOGY ASSOCIATES Noy The submitted bid includes a physical examination, stress test, pulmonary function test and "finger stick" cholesterol evaluation. Since I did make this request for bid I am unable to determine if these general statements would meet the specific requirements we must follow. The Division of State Fire Marshal FST -2 form has specific visual and hearing requirements. I am unsure if this physical examination would include these services. TOTAL COST: $5500/10 = $550 PER EMPLOYEE EMPLOYMED The submitted bid includes a physical examination, vision test, audiogram, resting EKG, back strength and flexibility test, urinalysis, CBC including cholesterol, functional capacity stress test, nutritional Noy interview, pulmonary function test, dynamic visual skills test, body composition analysis, basic measures of strength and flexibility of major muscle groups. I faxed copies of the FST -2 and Physician Report of Work Capacity forms to EmployMed and have been assured that all areas will be assessed. TOTAL COST: $4860/10 = $486 PER EMPLOYEE Please find the attached bid proposal from Dr. Vance Wilson as well as the proposal from EmployMed. The EmployMed proposal includes a price breakdown of services and costs. Their proposal also includes an detailed explanation of the services as well as rationale for their administration. EmployMed is also going to provide on -site debriefing of our personnel and recommended courses of action based on test results. The functional capacity (maximal oxygen consumption) test is not only going to determine the "fitness" of the employee's heart but the employee's overall "fitness" to perform the duties of a firefighter. EmployMed informs me that two (possibly three) physicals can be performed per week lasting five to six hours each. For all of these reasons, I feel that EmployMed is offering the most service for less money. 6a/ , tom .Jt 695 NORTH CLYDE MORRIS BOULEVARD • POST OFFICE BOX 9790 DAYTONA BEACH, FLORIDA 32120 (904) 258 -8722 - AOGER K. LEWIS. M.O., F.A.C.C. HENRY K. LUI, M.D., F.A.C.C. Diplomate American Board of Internal Medicine Diplomats American Board of Internal Medrme and Cardiovascular Diseases February 11, 1994 end Cartiovescular Diseases KIM A. KLANCKE, M.D., F.A.C.C. ' VANCE E. WILSON. M.O. Diplomete American Board of Internal Medicine Diplomete American Board of Interne) Medicine end Cardiovascular Diseases and Cardiovascular Diseases Mr. George McMann City of Edgewater Edgewater, FL Dear George: Mike Hays has informed me that you have ten firefighters coming up for an annual physical. I would be interested in • performing physical evaluations including a physical examination, stress test, pulmonary function testing and finger stick cholesterol evaluations for $5,500. I am a board certified Nor internist and cardiovascular specialist. I would be very interested in providing you this service. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, 1 1/4414t. WJ 1 m'v Vance E. Wilson, MD, FACC VEW:sla Now / � -, 1 EALT H NETYWORN • Occupational Health Care Services :R `:lonagad Health Core Company lorre March 15, 1994 Ms. Jill Landreville City of Edgewater Department of Fire and Rescue Services PO Box 100 Edgewater, FL 32132 -0100 Dear Ms. Landreville: Thank you for considering the use of EmployMed Occupational Services for your physical examinations. Below please review the requested services and their costs: Physical Exam with Medical Doctor $30.00 T/0 Vision Test 10.00 Audiogram 10.00 EKG (resting) 15.00 r B -200 Back Test 35.00 Urinalysis 8.00 CBC /SMAC 20 23.00 Stress Test (Functional Capacity Test) 170.00 Nutritional Interview 50.00 Pulmonary Function Test 20.00 Dynamic Visual Skills 40.00 Body Composition Analysis 35.00 Basic Measures of muscular strength and endurance 25.00 Flexibility of hamstrings, back, neck and shoulder areas 15.00 TOTAL OF THE ABOVE $486.00 As a reminder, all physical examinations must have a scheduled appointment time so all services involved can be coordinated by EmployMed. Thank you again and please call if you have any questions or concerns. Sow Sincerely, Zi_ M 'y Howard Program Coordinator • (lHf' u, _'III iI i. PROPOSAL FOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Edgewater Fire Department - HPI 1994 ,�„ Proposed Evaluation Protocol and Follow -Up: Following the assessment and the analysis of individual and group data, we propose to meet with Edgewater Fire Department officers at their firehall in order to discuss our observations and to recommend a course of action to remediate those areas which can be improved. This consultation would occur in a group setting over one or two sessions, depending on limitations of time which may be imposed. We have included in this proposal what we feel is the minimum assessment protocol for the firefighter. This list of evaluation components is more extensive than the available budget for this year would normally allow and as such we have modified the pricing of each test this year to fit within the available budget. We have proposed the following list because we feel that these components do have a direct bearing on the functional capability of the firefighter and it is our desire to implement a comprehensive program, which includes guidance with respect to post- assessment follow -up, from the outset. The cost of debriefing for each test is included in the assessment price. Now 1. Pulmonary Function Test to include: forced vital capacity, slow vital capacity and peak flow loop. Rationale: The toxic gases associated with many fires make it necessary to utilize a self - contained breathing apparatus or in some instances, to invoke restricted breathing protocols, Abnormal lung volumes and lung mechanics would therefore constitute serious problems for the firefighter. Cost: $30 (includes report and debriefing) • 2. Functional Capacity (Maximal Oxygen Consumption) Test utilizing a cycle ergometer and gas analysis to establish overall body stamina. Rationale: The test of Maximal Oxygen Consumption represents the single best physiological measure of overall body stamina. Via a progressive exercise test to volitional exhaustion, the functional capacity of each subject is measured. From a performance point of view, a relatively high cardio - respiratory fitness will translate directly to an increased fatigue resistance that will allow the firefighter to be effective longer in an emergency situation requiring a great deal of physical effort and, once fatigued, to recover more quickly from such fatigue. This test will only be conducted with officers who have been cleared on the basisof the physical and resting electrocardio- gram to be able to undertake the maximal exercise test. . 0 ;_ 1_11P11 Fi.F=.;. Cost: $170 (includes report and debriefing) 4. Dynamic Visual Skills to include: contrast sensitivity, visual scan and eye -hand co- ordination. Rationale: In a normally sighted individual, 85% of the information being processed by the mind comes via the visual channels. Frequently, as a result of the unique situations inherent in a fire, officers are required to operate in a hostile visual environment (little or no light, reflections, smoke, steam, etc.). Add to this the importance of being able to discern the appropriate color coding of electrical wiring and chemical fire differentiation, to see flash points developing in the periphery while concentrating on the fire, to appropriately judge depth in the positioning of an aerial ladder, or to instantaneously respond with accuracy of movement to a visual cue in the firefighters peripheral field, the relevance of possessing well developed visual skills becomes clea. Cost: $40 (includes report and debriefing) 5. Body Composition Analysis via the Skinfold Technique and the assessment of Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR). Rationale: Given the elevated incidence of heart disease and premature death in the firefighting population (Barnard, 1975; Bernauer and Bonanno, 1975), it has been shown "wr that a high level of cardio- respiratory fitness and/or a positive profile for total body fat can reduce the risk factor associated with these problems. The Skinfold Technique assesses the specific fat profile of each firefighter while the BMR provides a driect measure of their caloric consumption profile. This information is utilized by our nutrition consultant, Cost: $35 (includes report and debriefing) 6. Nutrition Interview and Evaluation. Rationale: Nutrition has a direct bearing on health and performance. An I- PI nutrition expert will evaluate and discuss each officers nutrition status. Cost: $50 (includes report and debriefing) 7. Basic measures of muscular strength and endurance to inlcude: Grip Strength and Endurance, upper arm, shoulder and upper back endurance, and abdominal endurance. • Rationale: Specific muscular strength and endurance are important characteristics for the firefighter. Job - related tasks which involve lifting, carrying, dragging, pulling, pushing, climbing, etc. rely upon a base of overall body stamina as well as specific strength and endurance in the active muscle groups Cost: $25 (includes report and debriefing) ..:4.4 f 1 HJ . i . 8. Flexibility of tho Hamstrings.back, neck and shoulder areas. Rationale: Joint flexibility (range of motion) is acknowledged to be an important component of general fitness. It is relevant from both a performance point of view (Le. .,, sufficient flexibility to twist, climb, stretch, etc.) as well as from an injury prevention and rehabilitation perspective. Cost: $15 (includes report and debriefing) . 1 Now AGENDA REQUEST Date: April 11, 1994 NEW UNFINISHED CONSENT BUSINESS 4/18/94 BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING RESOLUTION ORDINANCE ITEM DESCRIPTION /SUBJECT: Appointment of member and alternate member to Volusia City - County Water Supply Cooperative Board of Directors. BACKGROUND: Don Feaster, Water Resource Manager of - ^ ooperative, has requested the City designate a member an . - member for the Board. The Mayor has been representing Edg- - - - zs the member and Mr. Feaster would like confirmation of the position of Mayor as the designated member and that an alternate be named, which can be another Council member or a staff member. Q RECOMMENDATION /CONCLUSION: jf) ' * Council's decision. FUNDS AVAILABLE: ACCOUNT NUMBER: (SPECIFY IF BUDGET AMENDMENT IS REQUIRED) PREVIOUS AGENDA ITEM: YES NO X DATE: AGENDA ITEM NO. Respectfully submitted: -- )'^--c` - )--- -, -,:t-i- George McMahon City Manager ITV 'o� J�'� VOLUSIA CITY - COUNTY WATER SUPPLY COO= E R TI V E 135 EAST INTERNATIONAL SPEEDWAY BLVD., SUITE 22 0 DAYTONA BEACH, FLORIDA 32118 - 904/254 -4676 • FAX 904/254-4617 �Eq OUR NEW NUMBER IS (904) 239 -6455, FAX (904) 239 -6463 *,. MEMORANDUM TO: Executive Committee Members: - • .,- eorge McMahon, City of Edgewater Frank Roberts, City of New Smyrna Beach FROM: Donald R. Feaster, P.E., Water Resource Manager DATE: March 14, 1994 SUBJECT: Designated Alternates for Board Members The list below represents the designated alternates if a Board member cannot attend a Board meeting. Please note that we have not received written confirmation of the alternates for New Smyrna Beach and Edgewater. Please provide a copy of the letter, minutes or resolution appointing the alternate. ,,`,,. City of Daytona Beach Howard Tipton copy of resolution on file City of Edgewater George McMahon City of Holly Hill J. D. Mellette copy of minutes on file City of New Smyrna Beach Frank Roberts City of Ormond Beach Eugene Miller copy of resolution on file City of Port Orange Kenneth Parker copy of letter on file County of Volusia Richard Kelton copy of letter on file DRF /jr law AGEX3 G r I" ° r MEMORANDUM DATE: April 12, 1994 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: George E. McMahon, City Manager ,")1's SUBJECT: Recommendation for City Survey Requests for proposals were sent to a number of Florida universities and interested outside firms to do a City -wide survey for the following purposes: 1. To obtain citizens' opinions of current City services (level and quality of service). 2. To determine the goals residents are interested in having the City pursue over the course of the next 3 to 5 years. 3. To determine the direction of economic development and how it may relate to other City goals, policies, and budget. 4. To determine any concerns the City residents may have which may be addressed. The survey should be totally objective and conducted by an outside third party to provide objective correlation and recommendations to the City based on the results and final analysis of the survey. Four replies were received but one was unable to participate at this time. The three costs submitted were $9,815; $4,956.50; and, $4,800. The lowest proposal is from W. W. Young and Associates in Melrose. The time frame for completion of the survey is sixty days after approval of their proposal. I am recommending Council award a contract /agreement with W. W. Now Young and Associates in the amount of $4,800 to do the City survey. GEM:lsk Attachments l • e a ,, NW- Mr. George McMahon April 11, 1994 City of Edgewater P.O. Box 100 Edgewater, P1, 32132 -0100 Subject : Request for proposal : City Survey Dear Mr. McMahon, W. W, Young and Associates is pleased to submit the following city survey proposal for consideration. W. W. Young has conducted numerous community surveys and extensive demographic studies throughout his long career. Surveys conducted for the cities of Maitland and Cocoa both focused on attitudes and beliefs of residents concerning policies and actions of government. These surveys included perception questions and detailed queries on critical issues including recreation, crime, growth planning and environmental concerns. Now Similar work completed includes general surveys for the cities of Winter Park, Daytona Beach Shores, Cocoa and a law enforcement focused study for the City of Gainesville. Pending contract approval, W. W. Young and Associates is prepared to immediately work with city officials to develop a questionnaire tailored specifically for Edgewater's unique geographic and commercial characteristics. Sample selection may be accomplished using factors the city deems appropriate (Le. property value stratification, geographic quadrants, population centers, etc.) in conjunction with standard random generation by database. We anticipate completion of the survey and presentation of a final report approximately sixty days after proposal approval. Fees for consultation services and delivered final report for the City of Edgewater total $4,800. W. W. Young and Associates comprises Dr. William W. Young, Jeffrey C. Young and Steven L. Creel. Dr. Young is semi : retired and serves literally as consultant and director of activities in current assignments. In this project, Dr. Young's expertise will be relied upon for formulation of an unbiased and thorough questionnaire and evaluation of results for a final report. Steve Creel and I have worked extensively with Dr. Young in the past and welcome this opportunity to use our experience in preparation and execution. We appreciate the invitation to present a proposal for this survey and foresee an excellent working relationship with the City of Edgewater. Sincerely, _fir />Ir .•i y C. Youn; CITY OF EDGEWATER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS COMMUNITY SURVEY The City of Edgewater, Florida, is considering a community survey to determine attitudes of residents and businesses towards policies and policy priorities; and conditions in the community which are conducive to the improved quality of life and role of the City in its achievement. Requests for Proposals are now being solicited for this project. Your college /organization is invited to submit a proposal based on the following information: 1. Survey plan - Use of ctratificd random samples comprised of some community influentials, and some residents of the City to be selected by stratified random sample and representing the diverse economic levels and each quadrant of the City. Selection of the sample will be carried out by the consultant and distribution of the forms will be carried out by the City. 2. Ouestionnaire - Will be prepared, pre- tested and administered to each group identified above, by the Now consultant. Each questionnaire will be with two general issues; policies needed and policy priorities. The questionnaire would also identify community character- istics conducive to a better quality of life, stressing environmental factors. 3. Final Report - Format will be an executive summary of findings in each document. The findings should include not only the raw data, but recommendations to the City based on data. 4. Report Submittal - Finding and recommendation will be made only to authorized City representatives. 5. Critical Issues - Focus of issues will be developed by the consultant in cooperation with the City Council and key appointed officials. 6. Service Delivery Opinion - Residents' evaluation of City service delivery by ciAmographic groups for each City quadrant. `orr► 7. Survey Accuracy - Accuracy of survey should be within a plus or minus 5% error factor and the confidence interval should be substantiated. 8. Survey Final Report - Survey and all final reports should be completed on or before May 1, 1994. Request for Proposals Community Survey Page Two All consultants submitting RFP's should include at a minimum: 1. Experience in similar community surveys 2. Experience of consultants' staff 3. List of other government surveys successfully completed 4. Describe project implementation schedule, management and monitoring plan, including method of selecting survey sample and focus questions. 5. Total cost of consulting services for project. GEM:lsk AGENDA REQUEST Date: April 12, 1994 Noir New Unfinished Consent Business X Business Public Hearing Resolution Ordinance ITEM DESCRIPTION /SUBJECT: "What's Your Beef?" Workshop Proposal. BACKGROUND: The purpose is to identify problem areas with City procedures and processes through a series of meetings with local business and professional people. (See Attachment) RECOMMENDATION /CONCLUSION: The EDB recommends that the City Council review and consider this proposal. FUNDS AVAILABLE: ACCOUNT NUMBER: (SPECIFY IF BUDGET AMENDMENT IS REQUIRED): N/A PREVIOUS AGENDA ITEM: YES NO X DATE: AGENDA ITEM NO. Respectfully submitted: Philip Fong, Chairman C\ Economic Development Board Now PF: ej m Attachment c: \edb \agendare \31294 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD CITY OF EDGEWATER BOX 100, EDGEWATER, FL 32132 *or MEMORANDUM DATE: April 12, 1994 TO: .:amity Council and Mayor - FROM: Philip Fong, Chairman Economic Development Board E: "What's Your Beef?" Workshop proposal ' `����� Pursuant to the "What's Your Beef?" workshop outlined in the EDB's vision and goals for 1994, attached is a copy of the Edgewater Area Council (EAC) of the Chamber of Commerce's proposal of such workshop for your review and consideration. At the EDB April 7, 1994 meeting, the Board discussed the EAC's proposal and felt that the proposal to be consistent with its goals and objectives. The Board is supportive of the said r■ proposal. Two elements that were discussed at the April 7, 1994 meeting between the Board and Mr. Steve Dennis and Sandy Jones of the Chamber which were not mentioned in the proposal are: 1. Cost participation of the City and 2. Feedback Survey as to the effectiveness of the proposed workshops. While the EAC is to provide a more detailed cost estimate in the near future, Mr. Dennis indicated at the meeting a rough estimate of 700 to the Board. Expenses such as postage, printing, labels, facility rental were considered as part of the cost. Mr. Dennis also indicated to the board that the Feedback Survey can be easily implemented. A request for this proposal to be included in the April 18, 1994 Council Meeting has been made. If you have any questions regarding this subject, please feel free to contact me. Attachment Noy cf: Mark P. Karet, Director of Community Development George E. McMahon, City Manager EDB Members c: \edb\memo \wybwp.312 Imo. -! a� Southeast Volusia Chamber of Commerce Serving New Smyrna Beach • Edgewater • Oak Hill April 7, 1994 Philip Fong Chairman Economic Development Board City of Edgewater P.O.Box 100 Edgewater, FL 32032 Dear Mr. Fong: The Southeast Volusia Chamber of Commerce is most appreciative of the opportunity to assist the Economic Development Board in the "What's Your Beef" program. � o. Per your request the information provided is an overview of the preliminary plans and format for your review. We will adapt any changes or suggestions you may offer. Tentative plans have been made regarding facilitator, notices and location, however these are subject to modification should it be necessary. Through our combined efforts I am confident that it will be a successful program. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely Steve Dennis Executive Vice President Now 1404 South Ridgewood Ave. • Edgewater, FL 32132 • (904) 426 -5401 115 Canal Street • New Smyrna Beach, FL 32168 • (904) 428 -2449 • 1 -800- 541 -9621 4. WHAT'S YOUR BEEF PURPOSE To identify legitimate problem areas with City processes and procedures through a series of meetings with local business and professional people. To use the results of the meetings to develop a set of recommendations or solutions to be presented to the City Council via the Economic Development Board. FORMAT Meetings will be held at a neutral location without elected officials or City staff present. Participants will be divided into groups of 8 -10 with a designated facilitator to direct the session. A scribe will be included to record the results at each group. Facilitator will meet in advance to ensure uniformity of presentation and reduce unnecessary or derogatory commentary. It will be important for the facilitator to maintain an impartial role in the process therefore, a firm understanding of the intended goals is imperative. R" 'TLTS `rpon completion of the sessions the results will be compiled and forwarded to the Economic Development Board of Edgewater for their review and recommendations. It will be important to include in the recommendations a projected time line for implementation. The Chamber will assist in any presentations of the material to the City Council. LOCATION It is proposed to use a school auditorium or cafeteria for this purpose. Indian River Elementary has indicated that their facility is available. SCHEDULE The date is tentatively set for the week of June 6 through June 15. Two evening sessions and one Saturday morning session are suggested. This will provide ample opportunity for individuals to find a meeting to fit their schedule. Sessions will last approximately 2 to 2 1/2 hours each. INVITATION AND NOTICE Individuals will be invited to participate and RSVP will be requested. The list of participants will be taken from the occupational license list provided by the City. Participants will be encouraged to a "stakholcer" is the process of change. In addition, it will be stressed that City staff a''elected officials will not be present. Some additional exposure can be attained through media editorial. 4 � / r ,4C-* Southeast Volusia Chamber of Commerce ' Serving New Smyrna Beach • Edgewater • Oak Hill April 18, 1994 Philip Fong, Chairman Economic Development Board City of Edgewater P.O. Box 100 Edgewater, FL 32132 Dear Mr. Fong: Listed below is a detailed cost estimate for the "What's Your Beef ?" Workshops, as requested in your letter dated April 12, 1994. Air Cond. /Facility Charge $20 per 2 hours. Tuesday, June 7, 1994 6 - 9 PM Thursday, June 9, 1994 6 - 9 PM Saturday, June 11, 1994 9:30 AM - 12:30 PM TOTAL 12 HOURS @ $20 PER 2 HOURS $120 Custodial Charges - Approx. 3 hours @ $6 per hour. $18 Postage for invitations to occupational license holders Approximately 1100 @ $.19 $209 Beverages and snacks Approximately 100 @ $1.50 per person ,�.S15O TOTAL // $ N If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Steve Dennis Executive Vice President 1404 South Ridgewood Ave. • Edgewater, FL 32132 • (904) 426 -5401 115 Canal Street • New Smyrna Beach, FL 32168 • (904) 428 -2449. 1 -800- 541 -9621 6, H. East Volusia Engineering, Inc. 435 -B1 Air Park Road Edgewater, FL 32132 (904) 423 -8988 8 April, 1994 �rrr Mayor and City Council City of Edgewater P.O. Box 100 Edgewater, FL 32132 RE: Edgewater Machine and Fabricators, Inc. Site Plan Permit Application for expansion of existing building Dear Sirs and Madam: This letter is submitted on behalf of Edgewater Machine and Fabricators, Inc. (EMF) and its purpose is twofold: first, to discuss some of Chief Vola's comments contained in his March 26 letter to the LDRA; second, to quantify public interest in this project. Quoting from paragraph 5 of Chief Vola's letter to the LDRA: "This unprotected risk has several negative impacts upon our Community (emphasis added): 1...The Insurance Services Office would identify this as a deficit in the overall evaluation of our City's Fire Protection Class which could increase the costs of Fire insurance city -wide (emphasis added). 2...It is improbable that the Fire /Rescue Department could control a fire In this building since there is no water with which to fight it. This would result in the loss of the entire structure causing a net loss of jobs. wages, and tax dollars to our City (emphasis added)." Compare the above with his statement in paragraph 7: "The Fire Protection requirements and measures required of this project are for the sole benefit of this project (emphasis added)." Also, a passage from the preface to the Fire Code states: "... a community can be assured that the safety, health and welfare of the public are being provided for when the requirements as outlined in these documents are maintained." '`r Clearly, Chief Vola's conclusion in paragraph 7 is inconsistent with his statements in paragraph 5 and the preface to the Standard Fire Code. I suggest that his conclusion in paragraph 7 is false, and that his statement in paragraph 5 that the loss of the entire structure would cause "a net loss of jobs, wages, and tax dollars to our City" is correct. Chief Vola's comments in paragraph 6 raise the issue of concurrency. The following quotation is from Mr. Karet's presentation on concurrency impacts, made to the City Council on July 16, 1990: Edgewater City Council Page 2 April 8, 1994 "...'Public facilities and services needed to support development shall be made available concurrent with the . impacts of such development'. The bottom line for the City is that new development can only be approved for specific locations at which we have or will have the capacity to provide services before the development project is complete. ...These facilities and services are solid waste disposal, • stormwater drainage, roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, parks and recreation. This infrastructure must be provided to an extent which is consistent with the levels of service established in our Comprehensive Plan. If the facilities and services are not in place or the adopted levels of - services are not maintained, then development cannot be approved by the City. ...What are its implications for the City? The programming of improvements to the City's public facilities and services will take on a new urgency (emphasis added). In the past, improvements to the City's capital facilities could be delayed almost indefinitely provided the environment and the quality of life could stand the stress. Since development will be halted under'concurrency without adequate supporting infrastructure, any undue delay in the prevision of services will occur directly at the expense of } the City's tax base (emphasis added) . Now, more than ever, : lore capital improvement projects represent an investment in the City's future. Edgewater, just like anyone who saves for retirement or a child's education, will have the future it is willing to pay for. ... Mr. Karet said any delay in the placement of capital improvements is done at the expense of the tax base (emphasis added)." Both Chief Vola and Mr. Karet have tied the timely placement of infrastructure to an improved and /or expanded tax base for the City, and EMF does not dispute this obvious linkage. And what is the tax base that has been provided? For fiscal years 1984 through 1993, real estate taxes totaling slightly less than 1/4 million dollars have been paid, almost $60,000 of which was paid to the City of Edgewater. What does this existing tax base represent? In 1990, the $6,580 paid to Edgewater was equivalent to that paid by 36 median value owner occupied houses. By the time the proposed 6,000 sq. ft. addition is equipped, this expanded tax base will produce new tax revenue for the City equivalent to at least 3 new owner occupied homes, and at the same time provide increased employment opportunities. Now to the subject of jobs. Employment at EMF has ranged from 140 (3 shift operation) in 1982 to a low of 34 in 1993. Over the 1984 -1993 decade, annual employment averaged 50 and the annual payroll averaged over one million dollars. These jobs are not the tourist industry jobs so typical of Volusia County. EMF's annual wages have averaged from a low of $16,055 in 1984 to a high of $24,273 in 1992, exceeding the Volusia County 1992 average wage of $19,175 by 26 per -cent. • Edgewater City Council Page 3 April 8, 1994 Adding TARMAC and the projected Dougherty Marine end -of- summer payroll to EMF's, the existing industrial area located at North Flager Avenue 'fir+ will be providing 97 jobs at a total annual payroll of $1,974,995 by the end of this summer. This does not include new jobs facilitated by the proposed 6,000 sq. ft. expansion. Quoting from the Water Distribution System Master Plan by Dyer, Riddle, Mills, & Precourt transmitted to Councilmen Baugh, Prater, Mitchum, Asting, and Rotundo on 31 August, 1988: ...The distribution system was analyzed to determine its ability to accommodate future City population growth as projected in the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. ...These analyses pinpointed areas with distribution system deficiencies and the conditions under which they experienced operational difficulties such as inadequate pressure. ...This report summarizes the recommended improvements in the form of a Capital Improvements Program and the conditions under which they are needed. In addition, estimated construction costs and a preliminary schedule have been prepared." On page 6 -5 of the report, three industrial fire flow areas are r identified, and it is the North Flagler Avenue project that is relevant to Edgewater Machine and Fabricators, Inc.: "... the project consists of 2,400 L.F. of 12 -inch pipe and four fire hydrants_ The project construction cost is $71,000. It is recommended (emphasis added) that the construction costs be funded by the industrial customers who are directly receiving the benefits. Therefore, should the existing and /or potential industrial customers desire a lesser degree of fire flow protection due to their site /industry specific conditions, the pipe line size, and resulting construction costs, may be reduced. ... Based on estimates of population growth and assumptions regarding project priorities an approximate implementation schedule for these projects was prepared. This schedule is shown as Table 6 -2." Table 6 -1 showing the estimated costs and Table 6 -2 showing the project schedule is attached. Please note that NONE OF THE INDUSTRIAL FIRE FLOW PROJECTS ARE INCLUDED IN THE SCHEDULE, which extends to the year 2000. As evidenced by the City's failure to act on the industrial fire flow water system improvements. identified in the August, 1988 master plan, and as further evidenced by the fact that EMF had to bring this issue to the Council for resolution, this existing industrial area has been, and continues to be, an unrecognized, unappreciated asset for the City of Edgewater. • Edgewater City Council Page 4 April 8, 1994 '4111w In conclusion, it is requested that the City Council direct staff to permit the 6,000 sq. ft. addition to proceed through certificate of • occupancy based on the City's existing fire service capabilities, until such time as the City has executed item 10.c. of the August 31, 1988 Water Distribution System Master Plan. In your deliberations on this request, please refer to Mr. Michael L. Brewer's letter for possible options regarding implementation of item 10.c. Sincerely, /e D. Martin, P.E. enclosures: (1) Chief Vola's letter to LDRA, dated 29 March, 1994 (2) Figure 6 -4, North Flagler Avenue Industrial Fire Flow Improvements • (3) Page 6 -5, Description of Industrial Fire Flow Projects (4) Table 6 -1, Water Distribution System Improvements Construction Cost Estimate (5) Table 6 -2, Water Distribution System Improvements Project Cost Schedule o + i �rr+ 3 CITY OF EDGEWATER DEPARTMENT OF FIRE RESCUE SERVICES P.O. BOX 100 EDGEWATER, FL 32132 -0100 Phone 904/424 -2445 FAX 904/424 -2450 29 March 1994 TO: Members, LDRA RE: E.M.F. Expansion Site Plan As Fire Official for the City of Edgewater, I have disapproved the above referenced Site Plan as submitted. This building, as it currently exists, does not conform with the requirements of Chapter 603.1.3 of the Standard Fire Prevention Code®. Any addition to this complex would increase the required amount of water necessary to control any fire occurring there, and as such, would increase the non - conformity. The Standard Fire Prevention Code® has been established by Florida Statute ,, be the minimum Fire Code in effect throughout the State of Florida. I t s provisions, or equivalent alternates approved by the local Fire Official, must, at minimum, be provided for. This Code establishes a maximum distance of not more than 150 feet of distance from the required fire hydrants to the building. The nearest existing Fire Hydrant to this structure is over 2,000 feet of travel distance from the front door of this structure. Without a reasonably close source of fire protection water supplies, there is no fire protection for this building. This unprotected risk has several negative impacts upon our Community: 1...The Insurance Services Office would identify this as a deficit in the overall evaluation of our City's Fire Protection Class which could increase the costs of Fire Insurance city -wide. 2...It is improbable that the Fire /Rescue Department could control a fire in this building since there is no water with which to fight it. This would result in the loss of the entire structure causing *$•w net loss of jobs, wages, and tax dollars to our City. The basis upon which Growth Management is founded is that the infrastructure supporting growth must be in place when that growth occurs. Further, it is the responsibility of growth to support itself. The proposed project represents a 20% expansion of the existing structure on that site. The applicant seeks to make that increase without providing for the infrastructure necessary t o support that increase. / Edgewater's Life Force In accordance with the provisions of the Fire Code, this project has been calculated to require at least 2750 gallons of water per minute, or built in fire protection methods applied which will reduce that fire flow. The Fire Protection - equirements and measures required of this project are for the sole benefit of this '"project. The required Fire Protection design, established by State Law and local Ordinance have not been met on this submittal. As such, this project cannot be approved. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. William C. Vola, Chief Edgewater Department of Fire and Rescue Services t • 2 Edgewater's Life Force uL J h \Lflf J O 0= N , d 1 NT ill , 1 W D SCALE: 1 =600 g ' Q w p J Ct J J L. Q CC CL Z !~ a ' Li flaw _ O Z I--- v I Q 0 W Q Z Z W J Q Q O i P ?C N o cc 3 w O 0 0 w W Z Fc fp N Zz Z z O 'c° x: N .i N J v w Op l w c o w oo II Z • \ 1 r WEST PARK AVENUE 0 , -31 z Z w ..1 Z N J L e tp 1 \ Niue X r , WN UL • � H N Tr I w I . 1 041 I k DYER, RIDDLE, MILLS NORTH FLAGLER AVENUE FIGURE ��� AND P PREd g' INC' INDUSTRIAL FIRE FLOW IMPROVEMENTS 6-4 inch line and the City pay the difference between the 6 -inch line cost and the actual cost. The contribution should be approximately $44,800 making the actual construction cost paid by the City $122,200. %11.0 8. Western WTP Mains - The project consists of 9,300 L.F. of 20 -inch, 15,100 L.F. of 16 -inch and 6,200 L.F. of 12 -inch pipe. The estimated construction cost is $1,154,500. However, prior to this analysis it was estimated that a 20 -inch main was required from the new treatment plant to Kumquat Tree Drive. As a result of this analysis line sizes have been modified. In the WTP construction budget, $747,500 was allocated for transmission mains. Therefore, if desired only $407,000 need be budgeted for these mains or the WTP budget can be lowered to - pay only the 20 -inch and 12 -inch line costs. 9 Ridgewood Loop - The project consists of 3,900 L.F. of 12 -inch pipe. The estimated construction cost is $108,000. However, this project will be constructed as development occurs in the southeast area and can be at least partially funded through developer contributions. These contributions should • amount to at least $54,000 and could be be high enough to fund the entire "tow project. 10. Industrial Fire Flow - a. Old County Road - The project consists of 2,060 L.F. of 10 -inch and 1,300 L.F. of 8 -inch pipe and three fire hydrants. The project construction cost is $74,900. b. Industrial Street - The project consists of 3,600 L.F. of 10 -inch pipe and five fire hydrants. The estimated construction cost is $88,900. c. North Flagler Avenue - the project consists of 2,400 L.F. of 12 -inch pipe and four fire hydrants. The project construction cost -is $71,000. *saw It is recommended that the construction costs be funded by the industrial customers who are directly receiving the benefits. Therefore, should the 87- 400.08 6 -5 { TABLE 6 -1 WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 3 ' Project Name Construction Cost ( Mango Tree Extension N/A Indian River Boulevard Area 12,900 Edgewater School 44,900 Florida Shores - Phase I 190,000 Florida Shores - Phase II 673,500 Florida Shores - Phase III 647,000 Edgewater Landing Extension 167,000 Western WTP Mains Ridgewood Loop 108,000 i tio r Industrial Fire Flow Old County Road 74,900 Industrial Street 83,900 North Flagler Avenue 71.000 TOTAL $2,485,100 . Notes: (1) Does not deduct developer contributions. (2) Based on the following costs: 6 -inch pipe $12 /L.F. 10 -inch pipe @ $20 /L.F. 12 -inch pipe (i $24 /L.F. 16 -inch pipe . $32 /L.F. ,,, 20 -inch pipe $40 /L.F. (3) Includes engineering, legal, administration and contingencies (15%). 87- 400.08 6 - i I • I Z > 70 X o 'C Ti . 0 to r to 7 3 -o O 7 4 . , v' �, - D ,- - IF �X a 4x �. •-• mow' l O ° ma a s 0 A C CID w a- w cr 0 O w� w. 4.4 �7 .4 CIS al = o 1 7 ..... 1 pp y g of O�o to er,s � N ..4 p-.. omnope o a., +f - , et 7 0 eD o - et � ° :- - a ° ms s.. • •• -, ee . w ee ° CA ?r CA 7 ?" � '" '�„ 7 .j 0 i A ^Z ^ O • m 'fl o e 7 C o b 4 h m 1 w 7^ n o a, �p p X ' . N N — -% oip y , O. Ch = 1 7 1 g n< g eu 7 C = _ C k >> -n A N= a A A A 7' O a i . t f) -a D '� A c C7 n n n 0 n T 7 co m ee a M M N a 40 a ZR LA CO of to OD 'O cn CO a co eo 0 0 0 , -r o 0 0 ..c m 0" M M N 44 X O t" N — ry r N N O co "3 o N co N V �q' G .... O .T. . O O O O O O O M 7 go M ~ r C - 4., N co o N y — r 7 co (0 to q 0 p 0 0 0 Z 0 0 0 CO r m S ! N M M y r p S t.f eJ 7 c. O N 0 O p CO p O 7) IV 3 CD rc M 1 y a a 0 r O O 0 O O O • M M N_ a ta N O tJ O t0 O a Of a 0 0 0 0 0 M M N f.J N L r crl ea y 0 0 • u+ 0 0 0 O o O O Q) t3 C O O tr V+ , MICHAEL L. BREWER ATTORNEY AT LAW 500 CANAL STREET, NEW SMYRNA BEACH. FLORIDA 32168 (904) 423 -5504 TELECOPIER: (904) 423 -8370 April 8, 1994 Edgewater City Council 104 N. Riverside Drive Edgewater, Florida 32132 RE: Edgewater Machine and Fabricators, Inc. Site Plan Permit Application for expansion of existing building Dear Sirs and Madam: I represent Edgewater Machine and Fabricators, Inc. (EMF) and they have applied for a site plan permit to add an additional six thousand (6,000) square feet of covered building area to their existing thirty -two thousand (32,000) square feet of industrial building located on the east side of Flagler Avenue north of the " Tarmac concrete plant and facility. EMF has the need to expand immediately to accommodate its production schedule requirements. The City of Edgewater has recognized since 1988 that the fire protection provided to the industrial properties located on Flagler Avenue north of Park Avenue is grossly inadequate. You currently have sufficient water flow capacity to provide the fire protection at the intersection of Flagler Avenue and Park Avenue. However, the new EMF facility addition is approximately one thousand eight hundred (1800) feet north of your capacity availability. Several factors sh uld be understood -- before you make a decision on how to deal with this necessity. Apparently, the Florida Inland Navigation District (F ) contemplates an acquisition of a pory.on, if not all,'`of1 the FEC industrial property lying west and _northerly of the EMF property. FIND contemplates developing a spoils site and will apparently run a road from Park Avenue (as an extension of Mango Tree Drive) northerly and loop it to the east and back south to Park Avenue. In essence, a loop road will be created. Good engineering and Noy along for water supply would call for a twelve (12 ") inch pipe along the loop road. However, the construction of the twelve (12 ") inch pipe for the FIND project is a year or two in the future. In the meantime, if City water is to be extended north from Park Avenue along Flagler Avenue, the sizing should be installed which will conform to the future plan (12 inch pipe). EMF could adequately service its facilities with six (6 ") inch pipe but is reluctant to bear the entire cost of making the water line Edgewater City Council Page 2 April 8, 1994 I °rr, available all along Flagler Avenue. There are less expensive ways to obtain the necessary fire protection, but EMF also considers the availability of potable drinking water at its plant to be desirable after so many years of living without. It is essential that EMF construct its six thousand (6,000) square foot addition and be using the facility by late June, 1994. It will be difficult, if not impossible, for the City to make a water line available to the site for fire protection services within that time frame. It should be noted that the expansion of this building is less than twenty (20 %) percent addition and the existing facility has been operating with inadequate fire protection for many years. The engineering study which was conducted by the City in 1988 acknowledges the complete lack of fire protection in three (3) of the industrial sites in the City, none of which have been corrected since 1988. City policy and procedures on the subject indicate that a developer must provide the water line capacity for fire protection, or wait until the City's scheduled improvements occur. The problem is, there is no scheduled time when the water will be made available to EMF. Perhaps it is an oversight, but EMF has paid substantial taxes and has been a solid citizen /employer in this City for many years. It is time that the City allocate some of its resources to provide the services required. As we see the situation, there are at least three (3) acceptable options to address this matter and a decision of how to proceed must immediately be made. 1. The City can commence the project of installing a twelve (12 ") inch water line from Park Avenue north along Flagler Avenue to the EMF property, designed to ultimately be made a part of a twelve (12 ") inch loop through the FIND industrial property. The schedule should contemplate completion, not later than July 1994. In the meantime, a permit for construction to be requested by EMF can be issued and upon completion, a Certificate of Occupancy given even though fire protection may not be in place until a short time later. EMF and the other property owners can be charged for their incremental share of the cost of installing a six (6 ") inch line and individually required fire plugs. A Special Assessment District can be established to accomplish collection of the property owner's share. The City should pay for the cost of oversizing the pipe to the twelve (12 ") inch line and for fire plugs the City deems desirable to meet its needs. Considering the fact that fire protection has been unavailable for so many years, it is beneficial to now have the impetus requiring its installation. Edgewater City Council Page 3 April 8, 1994 2. The City could enter into a Developer's Agreement with EMF which requires the developer to install the twelve (12 ") inch water line. The City would agree to reimburse EMF for the direct cost of installing the twelve (12 ") inch pipe, less EMF's incremental share of the cost for a six (6 ") inch pipe and needed plugs. The City will recoup other portions of the cost from other property owners through a special assessment district. In this manner, EMF will have its fire protection in place at the time a Certificate of Occupancy for its expansion is issued. 3. The third alternative is that EMF install either a six (6 ") inch line from Park Avenue to its site, or use an internal system to meet the fire protection code. By this method, no other property owners will share the benefit of better fire protection and the industrial area will not be prepared for the ultimate twelve (12 ") inch pipe loop that is contemplated in the future. The City has recognized this problem of inadequate fire flow capacity to the industrial areas within the City limits since the Nu engineering study of 1988. Six (6) years later, nothing has been done to correct the identified problem. However, new items have been supplanting the agenda for capital improvements such; as the extension of a water line down US1 outside of the City limits to presumably make money at selling water to residents south of 0 Edgewater towards Oak Hill. Those people are not in the tax base for the City of Edgewater. EMF recognizes that they too are entitled to get water eventually, but perhaps the City's priorities need to be adjusted or parallel priorities developed. EMF would like good drinking water at its plant in addition to adequate fire protection. We request that you consider the alternatives proposed and make a decision about a course of action to be pursued. EMF must act soon, and an efficient well planned action is our desire. Sincerely, Michael L. Brewer, Esq. Now MLB /mlv Transcription of Handwritten Notes From April 5 Meeting (Copy of handwritten notes is attached for verification) Issues 1. Fire protection: who pays for water services? (FPL & Ma Bell - easement available for utility use) 2. EMF - willing to absorb some of the costs - impact fees and assessments. Agrees to shared basis for all property owners through property assessments. Need for master plan ---- 12" lines on Park Ave. available. 3. EMF needs 1200 linear feet ? ?? * What is City's exact policy ? ?? * What is cost benefit ? ?? (payback /breakeven pt.) • What is partnership feasibility ? ? ?? • What are financing options ? ?? 18 April meeting of Council Sequence of Events What When 1. City completion of feasibility study 2. EMF acceptance 3. Council approval of options to accomplish 18 April task & approval of appeal & recognition that project will be accomplished thru development agreement, equally divided assessment & dedicated right of way. 4. Site plan approval & development agreement 5. Engineering develop plans and advertise for 2 wks. LDRA bids and Ordnance for public hearing 1 wk. City 6. Start construction (a) water (b) building v.j jI , , 1 � ' CHATHAM = � ' see i { s k corporation as aWS+.s, N a w • SAVANNAH, GEORGIA :� 4 % - CORPORATE OFFICE SALES OFFICE PHONE: (912) 233 -4182 PHONE: (912) 233 -5751 _ - - -. -- FAX: (912) 944 -0238 FAX: (912) 944 -0236 BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA PHONE: (205) 791 -2261 �� �� " "�' ti PHONE: (919) 682 -3388 FAX: (205) 791 -2267 ��- 41,,/ • FAX: (919) 682 -0322 " " ` ' fi:• X 1 •:1 COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROUNA • ORLANDO, FLORIDA s PHONE: (803) 799 -8888 PHONE: (407) 859 -0310 FAX: (803) 799 -7671 � 1 - 5 ()-. FAX: (407) 857 -1161 , : , . =zr ! ±cL . 4 • v IV ��. ?L - s BELL i • • / 6 )1 Ell, ..." evegl 4, 6 51,44A ' 1 ` l i • • � # I . i .. k,..„... -aeria_044-66....,' :'• .. • • i liY - . - ,/ _jo. 0, /.I 2PT ...„ a 1 *I ...ect . . C A _ , 3 1 , . . . e . , / , 0 I . . . g . c k I a - 9 ? . ' % v ? P ? 4 ( 50711 1 1 • 44. C.R.3 I - i..41 ebli I '...... a N • ‘A • / 7 • i . .11 4441 . 1, ; . 0 e ...(2 Carbon tai ess / Aluminum • serving industry since 1915 . ectcr,A76 , -7 --- 5-- Atc;A_ /99 .. ,....._______ • , to-- if- 1 is .. 1 V .'m Q e } • •�4" ' - •-. -air.: • - A... , , r4 „ . .'...,,,..,:;',:, , .: i .,', -- ",,..'47. , i 'ter -e. - 144'1 \IF c.,? 41 0.e..) 1 4.41 . .. ;.• :,,,,`,...t r ;04 ;"fr' t4'-', . 4 * ,.'7 . it) . 2 ...A__ A r 'll-16.--.— c . • /0. ?• , A/. ' 1 1 • / 8 ct 41.....,41.).„. , r ;, , 1 I ' . tl S AO 0 . 0 , , 1 , I ► I ,d-' �� 8. i .v isi ID 4-4 Q-111.' . .. .. (i/eyti.......01)... l ir-o M • P..#. %, j •1 Edgewater Machine & Fabricators, Inc. I "Quality Service for Military and Commercial Needs" r } r 7. Ar Art li _-- -- ' . • • 41041 RI 4 .' .s- » r �tssn, +�A -rrq.. �aa1a , ".�+,.`.. .. - .....!" r -- --:,, -. . r - .. a...,.,,.,:.. - �.. .T7 r * I A a 202 North Flagler Avenue • P.O. Box 358 • Edgewater, Florida 32132 Telephone: (904) 428 -3215 • Fax: (904) 423 -9480 raj % IT . Id14 j % -,...,,_ Edgewater Machine & Fabricators, Inc. "Quality Service for Military and Commercial Needs" Edgewater Machine and Fabricators, Inc., is a WELDING small, minority, business concern engaged in the Welders and Welding Procedures Qualified to AWS, machining and fabrication of ferrous and non - ferrous Military STD's., Naysea, U.S.C.G. and customer metals. Founded in 1980, EMF has become a diversified approved in GTAW, FCAW, GMAW, SMAW on carbon contract manufacturer for the Marine Industry (winches steels, stainless steels and aluminum. and davits for life saving equipment) and the Military/Industrial Complex (components, assemblies QUALITY ASSURANCE and containerization systems). EMF maintains an inspection system in accordance with MIL- I- 45208A. Our quality plan is used in conjunction We are located on 40 acres in southeast Volusia with customer quality requirements to assure specifica- County, Edgewater, Florida. Plants 1 and 2 have a com- tion compliance. Non Destructive Testing (NDT) is bined area of 50,000 sq. ft., roofed and enclosed with ad- performed in -house per ASNT -TC -1A and MIL - STD -410. ditional external space available as required. Copies of our Quality Manual are available upon request. EMF has the manpower, equipment and facilities to design, prototype, inspect /test and mass produce com Conveniently located, our facilities are ponents or assemblies from raw materials to completed end items, with quality and reliability, in an economic well suited for material handling and transfer and timely manner. Our versatility in machining and with easy access to two major highways, metal fabrication, combined with our military specifica- Intracoastal Waterway and FEC Railway. tion background, enable us to meet the requirements of TO JACKSONVILLE both military and commercial customers. Our staffs ex - N a DAYTONA BEACH pertise affords EMF the knowledge to address and solve \ ATLANTIC OCEAN interface problems and to design, fabricate, inspect and W E \ test in accordance with our customer's contract s NEW SMYRNA BEACH requirements. u \.\\ EDGEWATER Q® 1� Ey— N.Y.♦ Fob.* Ic I w OAK HILL. ENGINEERING /DESIGN \° Complete facilities and personnel available to provide ME total engineering services from design to finished pro- 436 TITDSYILLE\ JOHN F. KENNEDY duct. In -house micro -film technical library with access ORLANDO I SPACE CENTER to Industry and MIL - Standards /Specifications, welding Ili BEE EXPWY LINE 528 Q CAPE CANAVERAL codes, etc. Drawings in accordance with DOD -D -1000 0 9 ORLANDO JET PORT ` and DOD - STD -100. Level 1, 2, and 3 documentation. TO COCOA ' COCOA BEACH Configuration control to MIL - STD -480 and DISNEYWORLD MIL- STD -481. For further information, call or write: MACHINING & FABRICATION Telephone: (904) 428 -3215 Fully equipped machine and fabrication shops to han- 202 North Flagler Avenue dle most types of ferrous and non - ferrous metals. Manual P.O. Box 358 and CNC lathes and milling machines, horizontal and Edgewater, Florida 32132 vertical boring and milling equipment, gearcutting, shearing, plasma arc cutting, bending, rolling, punch FAX• (904) 423 -9480 ing, drilling, metalizing, sandblasting and painting. CAGE NO. IW328 n kY „a 4 4 3 _,. t7F i I n n o. 0 CPI ,, 4 t, , .,,,,.‘ ,, , / ..-, ,.‘..\:-.7-....-..---- I 01,__ 0 ,, ..„... - -,- it l'' • • • V e *'- , \ 1 - ' ' r,-,„ , .:: - , g_. ___, ,,,. ■ .r «1r • al Kw& p' W il u I A t t . ' m w a t ICI 1■I te`"«.�. s:T i is 4 ' . ''. 14 ._ w e. r ,\. .. _ _ _ , _,.„. _,,,..,. ____„...,,,,zii. 4 , , \ 44 „4.,,-, --- -- ' ' I of II r • r ' `_� 1\ ` • �., _ ►•• r+, ,-, of F.,. .. . — , 4 ad P w y • k” 1111111.11111111111 ot m PL. � col 0 1 ci) o a e o v a � .l 1 '""' E. SD 0 to ft 0� , fi r 64. ft CA cra ° ' its c u e �.� 1. ;.• 0 / , ul *-- CO > \ 'IlIniftPUM""f U WI I 49-:11171.4 , . . . ,*- ', ..• I p T _ - - {� e A � f: I to 1 ? •. t 4 -4-1 1� 'ova '• uu TT Q tt � �E M o l E a } k 3 ♦.aa 1-y • 711 - 7 --. N.' 1 Z 1 ellSe .. —1 '_ ..t — � ' -11h" , p o w II: °: , l ,r ,iikytik, .. ' v + 1 F \ . b "r< + co r f s, o ` 1 - j it I - — �-- O O .,.4o CM) r ct ,- -. 4 41 0 ,,, s. cu + 01108.... �" ,.:F , ny c • ; s ot �l c O 'a . 1! CA L r G+ V �C ! • FI g CS3 ., , / 1 r. Ti z al p A . 4110 .. m i - . .4 y a , -4. * s. ..- t , z 0 1 . 107 ; ' 0.! ' ________—______- _______--lifire„...; ...., — . . ..7......... - . a .4. w F ' v,.a. _.— - l` , is . 1 , r > —. gi p t i I■I i j f k CA w Wel 4 44 - U bA i a t :*4$. 0 Q O QI 0 W its g i * y 0 b cl 0+ c� 4 . %NO c i+ 0 $. 0 ., n om : 0 CD CD CL CZ 0 v1U 3 0+ �+ 1 rat;- 'ea.aW x tea.. CC 3 11 '34--y- t'1' A.- W $ ' i r i . , :' 'g ' , =......-- it i •- .,„ . — -. , 1' .• 1 v . , ___.i :11„:„..: it --it; . , a A , ..., __.: 4 , 1 _ iii\ 0 i ir loi, i r ^ ry AA * . U Z o O as c E- wo ,. ......W &W kO 0 . . E ai ' '' I .1 { ra , t Pi Li° -�, 1 1� �.4 . , f� , - , !II. gri ii -, Q.) ; 0 , k En y i _. r , .0 ,, _ 4 1 �> w cA 0 I I /IIIIIII111 /I!fII l ilI1111hi i CID V w A CD Ce4J CS CS N Z ° o PQ a ^cd O w a E O co _2 to 4 o up • 2 a�'5 >''a d� a a A xcncnw'ct a 3 m E-i W .T.1 Z a' Urn o w g1/4-- • d o w � o w � ci U E P " :1 ' dr wo a d �" ° m o "�� x� x 0 x �w v o W M E.., Z w m 4 0 3� OI as °A d (2) CD O U (1) 0E-4w T U • co Z O:5,xw E.m E4A) o Mm dga U� Z E'd › A- Fp mm 4 ( . 't oi �• ca W a c 4 x P 3 3 o a. �° y a� U� a 0 z w , 4 _r i ...iv._ Ion C ,,:, .,› CD CD PLI ai tn o d 0° • E-+ Z a) � - .,› .3 m � � � „T � d , a W A a o E. 0.'' ., A Z �. o a' c r • z Oa a a o .. 2d ° E. W • 1-e).2 0.i . m t4 c o p( A a m a 0 � U ° 0 � , ai 0 a 0 E" o x w' ›, x •- cp 4.0 m ci) o w °' - a U w m 3 0 O g �, A d 1.4 s °' �a - N E-' 0 Z t 6 3� d� g 2.8 Q`4 O 41-1 4 till o g ca. p" v1°' c) g3 w3 Z a�x U,o -� Z "Z.) z 7) w �' d a� 0. v • o F an Q+ a', d� .� '"' ; � a _ i ag ° w � x71 0.',�� a `�i O a ' w Z >gx O c4 ww W00 d� Q 00 3z 0 d A3 d d A A x a a / " ��rt F • r y tre4 - I '4.:4; / , l _ ° ; r i y - . . „00,1 I y p, r ': m • i n ,/ / lr cfl , , ► fi r CD ' 1 tc C B cn 4 ��• cr o ly o Z 2, 0 ,,,--.: .. _ pi\ , .,. O r ■ .w ,,s j > 1. .. ' ,''....,..-' 4. - N - ...v O • ! (g:' f *, . x ill" V1 - , y • "�'�o . fn a s , = -- I 2, 1... ,... _1r a I) : - cp 4. o x `�� ...-'' r. '• .*.; 6.''14 ' ' ' ' ';'...'°': 4 � e ' ' i kit- _ - . : . Wi ,, 1 ,., � r +�- -, _ v . . f ... k�- e ,,, Illit ,i.:N1, ', . . ,411117: , a ° O n s Iiiiiii'-:4t - -a' j 1 ,, • A d iq -4 e }p - ' i , . . . . . . . . ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . ... . . ........ . ' . w lit ' I 1 r 5 f ►+. Q to co lat cn ' Pd y 0 z y .: \\:: ''..-,:. '< SS 'I CID o b II!111111111 E. 1 . , IIIIIilllli 1 O o IIIIIII f ' `r- �/` • ` 111111111 Q , o , g cn t ' I.... \ 0 . ...,,,,, O OQ ' illiiil��� o E F eD ill .� III alii►llt Material Handling, Sandblasting & Painting Material Handling is facilitated by the use of overhead jib and mobile cranes, hoists and monorail systems through progressive stages of fabrication and assembly to final shipment. I ,11 _ r r�/. vat 30. 4111111111,ff mew ""- ��� lib ' t . IMPININ pi— 1 L lit ' i L A , - ,-:,- I - f , i I i iii ' it it 411111, { �, ��, �} • .Ye. 1 1 7/ *'''''f' ' dill , a . — i I .sus * . � � ! • V , A_ s � / i - _ ;., , ., ,,,,, . . , - ---- r - - i 1 -� Wit_- ■ . ._ ..„.. QUALITY ASSURANCE & TESTING r * A ♦k ✓** ___ Quality System approved to MIL -I -45208 with certified in -house inspectors. r� �;� 7A:\ 4 ` I �i ' d a wit„ . .1 {' �, . t( .. 30 Ton load testing of Martin Marietta Corporation Prototype testing of Davit and Titan IV Handling Fixture. Winch Systems for USCG approvals. a h _ ; , I" r „,,, , ..... - , ,.. , -, . , . - . _ .. .„) , ..;.- _ ,1 .. 1 P- 101, .. ,... . , . „„ . „.. , It <x ----\,,..._, ,, Pressure and Impact Testing of Shipping Containers. DAVITS & WINCHES I 41i ,... 0 . " a f a h aLL 4 TAO Davit System testing, destined for U. Westinghouse Mini- Winch, load testing. Navy Fleet Oilers. n f _ ..use' °> '') li t i A a _. 55 ss ..._ 7 , ,, . CM ' 3 _ _ ,,,,„„ . `,,,:r - r_ ___ ___. ,. k, , _,...., _ ,_ ... ,_ ., ....._ .......„-e *1 $ , 1 , , , ,,-„,__, 3 Custom painting of Winch and Davit Systems per customer requirements. J. - 1_,- ,i-e_aus.... V f fa rM A 3 .4 ' `'` .ax A. r 2 rye y mrws t � Davits and Winch Systems being loaded for shipment. DAVITS & WINCHES M anufactured U.S.C.G. &customer requirements for Life Saving Equipment used fo r shipboard and and offshore tested to U drilling . . rigs. # +.�.. ,r - ss t 4y ; t t 4 t . a Y .. a A tp > a 3 w Y � y a i � "` ems z e +alt n Hydraulic Assisted P Davit /Winch Assembly. I ii , Viii � , T t i • i 41- ! ,. off �,. i ,i, , p ! , i , H Slewing Davit , 's Assembly. ORD type Davit with L Ai di ,t „ ir , II, .,r ' 440A ■w { pi I . ,., .,. ; 1 `I , - . ,,- 1 i tit _,A4.; --.-,7",,,.; A . 1 :44Afkr* i'4,, V ' ' - f '1/4 ' , k*L ' ..,` r P:00; ' rl --- '‘11114 2',i1.4*.' .. : , of Davit Prototype Testing. Aidoormir■% • P.O j ft P Edgewater Machine & Fabricators, Inc. EQUIPMENT LIST MACHINING CENTERS: FABRICATION: 1- CNC Monarch VMC 75 Vertical Machining 1- Kalamazoo Horizontal Band Saw Center 24" x 48" x 24" 1- Marvel Vertical Band Saw 2- CNC Shizuoka Vertical Machining Center, 1- Promacut Cold Cut Saw (3) Axis, 15" x 31" x 18" 1- Peddinghaus Super 16 Iron Worker 1- Airco (4) Head Servograph Cutting Machine, MILLING: Complete with 9' x 22' Watertable and 2- Wells Index Vertical Milling Machine, Pac 45 Plasma Torch (2) Axis DRO, 12" x 32" x 16" 1- Niagara Shear, 3/8" x 10' 2- Buffalo Angle Rolls BORING: 1- Press Brake, Cincinnati, 8' x 65 Tons 1- Henri Hauser Jig Bore, 20" x 28" x 28" 1- Jet 24 Sheetmetal Handroll 1- Shibaura Horizontal Boring Mill, 1- Webb Initial Pinch Plate Roll, 5/8" x 10' 3" Spindle, (2) Axis DRO, 36" x 42" 3- Worthington Weld Positioner Indexable Table, 40" x 40" x 27" 1 @ 100# Capacity, 2 @ 3000# Capacity 1- Shibaura Horizontal Boring Mill, 3- Hydraulic Press up to 200 Ton 4" Spindle, (2) Axis DRO, 42" x 48" 1- Hossfeld Bender #2, Hydraulic Indexable Table, 56" x 50" x 40" 1- Chicago Pneumatic Compression Riveter 1- G & L Horizontal Boring Mill, 3- Miller Syncrowave Tig Welders 5" Spindle, (2) Axis DRO, 48" x 84" 20- Welders, Miller, Airco Wire/Electrode Table, 72" x 72" x 48 ", Outboard Support, 3- Phoenix Rod Stabilizing Oven Right Angle Head, Rotary Table 48" x 60" 1- MK Packrat Track Welder 1- Southwark Bulldozer/Up to 6" Pipe Bender TURNING: 14" Stroke x 110 Tons 2- CNC Howa Lathe, 25" x 60" 1- CNC American Uniturn Lathe, 48" x 120" MATERIAL HANDLING: 1- LeBlond Engine Lathe, 15" x 80" 2- 5 Ton Bridge Crane 40' Span x 22' Hook 1- Pratt & Whitney Engine Lathe, 18" x 84" 7- 2 Ton Jib Crane with Hoists 1- Cincinnati Engine Lathe, 23 x 146" 1- 6000# Clark Forklift 1- King Vertical Turret Lathe, 44" x 36" 1- 8000# Yale Forklift 1- Craven Facing Lathe, 73" x 76" 1- 30,000# Pettibone Mobile Crane GEAR CUTTING: CLEANING & FINISHING 1- Gould & Eberhardt 36" Gear Hob 1- 25' x 40' Sandall Sandblast System 1- Gould & Eberhardt 48" Gear Hob With 40 HP Farr Dust Collector Connected, Via A 235' Monorail, To A 25' x 40' DRILLING: Paint House with Waterfall 1- Avey (4) Spindle Drill Press 1- Ingersol -Rand 75 HP Rotary Compressor 1- Ogawa Radical Drill 14" x 60" Arm 1- Wheelabrator Blast Cabinet & Exhaust System 1- Carlton Radial Drill 15" x 72" Arm 1- Metco Wire Metalizing System 1- Binks Electrostatic Paint System GRINDING: 2- Graco Airless Paint Pumps 1- Landis, Cylindrical O/D, 10" x 48" 1- Binks Paint Booth Complete with (2) Banks of 1- Stanko Surface Grinder, 10" x 12" x 24" Heater Dryers and a 12' x 60' Overhead Conveyor MILLING & TURNING ACCESSORIES: QUALITY ASSURANCE: 1- CNC Rotary Table, Taskmaster Control 2- Granite Surface Plates, Up to 10" x 48" x 96" 1- CNC 30" Rotary Table, General Numeric Control 1- 10" Optical Comparator 1- Greco CNC Minifile 1- Theodalite Optical Measuring System 3- Hydraulic Tracer Attachments 1- Pressure Testing Capability 1- Lot Gauges & Measuring Equipment MISC. MACHINING EQUIPMENT: 1- Tower Testing 30' Height x 100,000 Lbs. Capacity, 1- 1" Morrison Key Seater Tilt up to 20 °, Trim up to 20° 1- Oliver Drill Sharpener 1- Dynamometers (20K & 50K) 1- Cincinnati Shaper, 32" 1- Magna -Flux, Florescent, Dye Penetrant Equipment for NDE. ( East Volusia Engineering, Inc. " 435 -B1 Air Park Road Edgewater, FL 32132 (904) 423 -8988 8 April, 1994 Mr. Mark Karet, Director Department of Community Development City of Edgewater P.O. Box 100 Edgewater, FL 32132 Dear Mr. Karet: This letter is a request to establish a development agreement related to the proposed development depicted on site plan SP -9401. Timing of this request is intended to facilitate placing the agreement on the LDRA agenda no later than 25 May, 1994. Proposed terms of the agreement are as follows: 1. Landscape plan signed and dated 3 February, 1994, by Landscape Architect Richard B. Truitt, will be implemented only if Florida inland Navigational District (FIND) does not proceed with development of spoils site V -26 as approved by the Edgewater City Council on 7 February, 1994. If FIND proceeds with development of V -26, the landscape plan will be revised to provide the 26 trees in a 10' landscape puffer at the revised (to be determined) property frontage. In either case, the trees will be of the Live Oak variety. 2. Fire flow requirements will be met by installation of a 6 inch line along the routing depicted on Figure 6 -4, North Flagler Avenue Industrial Fire Flow Improvements, contained in the "ENGINEERING REPORT For The City Of Edgewater, Florida, WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN, DRMP No. 87- 400.08, dated August 31, 1988." Allocation of costs shall be as follows: (a) City of Edgewater shall provide Engineering and Permits. (b) City of Edgewater shall pay for incremental upsizing over six inch diameter. (c) Remainder to be funded by industrial customers who are directly receiving the benefits. Performance: (a) The City of Edgewater shall have the distribution pipe and water service operational by 1 July, 1994. It is agreed that the language of this proposal may need to be modified, depending on City Council directions to be provided at the April 18 meeting of the City Council. Si 'erely, 411 4 4/ / 1 9 /1i-^ .e D. martin, P.E. t, _. _ . J. L___ L J _ , mili ...., a W cn z O a O, Ill , CC N CL NI W Z...... SCALE: 1 =600 > Q a cc Q J 0 C� X J _ CC CC O I— irril Z o Q O U N Q 0 W W Z Z Q 0 J _ X N w .- O fIN VI N F J Z W L W a) W CO WEST PARK AVENUE z ZW ...1 J EZ r lo w i v ' . c3 Z P o X w f I n • DYER, RIDDLE, MILLS NORTH FLAGLER AVENUE FIGURE r AND PRECOURT, INC. INDUSTRIAL FIRE FLOW IMPROVEMENTS 6-4 MEMORANDUM Date: April 11, 1994 From: Terry A. Wadsworth, Director of Utilities - 1 7 W To: Mr. George E. McMahon, City Manager Subject: North Flagler Avenue Water Line Extension There has been a recurring policy dilemma pertaining to water line extensions and who should bear the cost for these improvements. This topic certainly warrants careful consideration by the Mayor and City Council, the ultimate policy authors. Before entering into a specific discussion on the circumstances surrounding the extension of water service on North Flagler Avenue, I would like to touch on some general issues impacting this issue. 1. The Edgewater Utilities Department The Edgewater Utilities Department operates as an enterprise Fund. In the simplest of terms, this means the Department operates as a business where revenues must equal or exceed expenses. Deficits are made up for by increasing the cost of service which, in our case, means raising water and sewer rates. There has been an attempt to compare the Southern Service Area 12 inch water line extension with that of extending a 12 inch water line down North Flagler Avenue. Let's examine the two projects from a business perspective. a. Southeastern Service Area 12" Water Line Extension Estimated Project Cost - 12" water line to Oak Hill High End Estimate $400,000 Engineering Costs (Already established) 25,000 Capital Layout (Impact Fees) $425,000 Potential Revenues (from DRMP Reports) Existing Service Connections (Including Oak Hill) 1,500 Service Connections at Build out 4,250 '14ir Impact Fee Potential -1,500 X $1,000 (existing) $1,500,000 Impact Fee Potential -4,250 X $1,000 (build out) 4,250,000 In other words, if the City of Edgewater was to serve only one in ten of the planned units at build out, the Utilities Department would realize $425,000 in impact } Page 2 Mr. George E. McMahon April 11, 1994 North Flagler Avenue Water Line Extension Now fees, and all 12" line costs would be paid for. In addition, the expanded customer base with a surcharge on the base water rate would yield considerable income for the Utilities Department. From a business perspective, is this an investment with excellent opportunity for a high return on that investment? The answer is obviously yes. And please consider this does not take into account any other land able to be developed. b. North Flagler Avenue 12" Water Line Extension Estimated Project Cost (1988 Estimate) $71,000 Potential Revenues Existing (Impact Fees) $ 4,000 Future (unknown, allow 100 fixtures) 10,000 Cost Projection Loss ($57,000) Also, please consider that water from the City will not o be used now for industrial purposes at this site. Water will be used for drinking and personal hygiene uses which is non - intensive. If we estimate 10,000 gallons of water will be sold every month, it will yield the following: Base Rate (2,000 gallons) $ 8,55 8,000 x $2.73 per 1,000 gallons 21.84 $30.39 Due to the minimal use in such a long, dead end run of 12" pipe, it will be necessary for the Utilities Department to purge this line twice a month. The volume of the line is 4,700 gallons. To flush it twice a month would require nearly 10,000 gallons. In other words, this line would net out generating absolutely no revenue whatsoever for the Utilities Department. Would this be a prudent investment for the rate payers of the system? The statement has also been made that because the business litr,,, requiring the water line on North Flagler Avenue has been paying taxes for years, the City owes them fire protection. Please be aware, not one penny of taxes from the General Fund goes to subsidize the operation of the Utilities Department. In fact, the Utilities Department makes an annual transfer of funds to the General Fund. The only contributors to the utilities system are the rate payers who are connected to and using the water and wastewater systems. Page 3 Mr. George E. McMahon April 11, 1994 North Flagler Avenue Water Line Extension Nor 2. Past Precedents for Funding Line Extensions In September of 1988, Dyer, Riddle, Mills & Precourt, Inc. completed an engineering report for the City of Edgewater entitled "Water Distribution System Master Plan ". This report outlines necessary upgrades and line extensions within the City along with cost projections and funding mechanisms. This report was presented to the Edgewater City Council on January 14, 1989. Figure 6 -4 of this report depicts a proposed 12 inch water line extension to serve North Flagler Avenue. In keeping with this plan, a 12 inch stub out for North Flagler Avenue was provided from the 12 inch line on the north side of Park Avenue during the utilities relocation and upgrade project associated with the County's road widening project. If you proceed in the distribution system master plan to the bottom of page 6 -5 and the top of page 6 -6, you will see "It is recommended that the construction costs be funded by the industrial customers who are directly receiving the benefits ". Several precedents exist with the developer either contributing or bearing all costs of ,,, construction for necessary water line extensions. The following is a partial list for your review and consideration which are related to the Master Plan. a. Edgewater Landing - As part of the water line improvements necessary for their Phase III development, Edgewater Landing was required to do a six (6) inch line extension along the east side of U.S. #1 from Edgewater Landing to the six (6) inch water line which terminated in front of Pyramid Trailer Park. The distribution system master plan called for this line to be 12 inches, so the developer paid to have the 12 inch line installed and the City reimbursed them for the difference between what a six (6) inch line would have cost (their share) and the 12 inch line requirement. b. Edgewater Commons - Edgewater Commons was under construction and needed water prior to the completion of the 16 inch water line on the south side of Roberts Road. They chose to connect to the existing six (6) inch line on Roberts Road with the agreement that when the 16 inch line was available, they would extend this line to provide adequate fire flow for the shopping center. When the 16 inch line was complete, they connected as agreed. c. Chet Boyce Industrial Park -West Marion Avenue - Once again, the master plan called for a ten (10) inch water line to be installed which was greater than the flow requirement for the project, so the City paid the difference between the two line sizes. Page 4 Mr. George E. McMahon April 11, 1994 North Flagler Avenue Water Line Extension d. Indian River Elementary School - When Indian River Elementary was constructed, their flow requirement was equal to an eight (8) inch line supply. The Master Plan called for a 16 inch line to be run through Whistle Stop Park. Once again the school board paid for installation of the 16 inch line and the City reimbursed them for the difference between the eight (8) inch and 16 inch line. e. Bella Vista Baptist Church - The Master Plan calls for a 16 inch line on the west side of U.S. #1 from Roberts Road. south. The Church will pay for their portion of the flow needed and the City will pay the difference to have the 16 inch line installed. f. Daytona Beach Community College - The college flow requirement was for a 12 inch water line. Due to this circumstance, DBCC paid the entire cost for a 12 inch water line from West Park Avenue and Air Park Road to the campus on Tenth Street. This water line cost in excess of $200,000. To summarize, the policy of an entity paying their share of the necessary flow requirement has been applied to subdivisions, shopping centers, industrial parks, public schools, colleges, and churches. This has been a fair and effective policy for cost allocation on necessary infrastructure improvements. As the minimum flow requirement for North Flagler Avenue is a 12 inch line, the precedent has been set for the developer to bear all costs associated with the construction of this water line. 3. Other Factors - North Flagler Avenue from the FEC right -of -way north is not a dedicated city street. With almost any development, the developer installs the infrastructure prior co the City accepting any easement or right -of -way. For example, a subdivision does not dedicate street right -of -ways to the City expecting the City to then install improvements. Cities do not traditionally install infrastructure improvements on private property, and I feel this would be a most dangerous precedent to set. As this water line would not be in a street right -of -way, it is highly unlikely it would ever be looped or extended to serve industrial clients other than those on property owned by the developer in this matter. Again, whoever derives the benefit should bear the cost of the improvement. J � Page 5 Mr. George E. McMahon April 11, 1994 North Flagler Avenue Water Line Extension 4. Options to Fund Line Extensions - Here are some options for the funding of water line extensions. a. Hydraulic Apportionment - This is the method we are currently using in which the one generating the need for the flow pays only for the line size he needs to serve his flow requirement. Applying this policy on North Flagler Avenue, the developer would pay for 100 0 of the line cost. b. Front Foot Assessment - In this method a line would be extended a certain distance and all property owners along the route would pay by their frontage on the line. This method was used for the collection system in Florida Shores, which is largely a residential area. The problem with this method in industrial applications is the vast deviation in flow requirements, especially for fire flow. As an example, if a 12 inch water line is run by two businesses, both with 100 foot frontage, and one needs a 12 inch line for fire protection and one only needs a six (6) inch line, do they derive an equal %me benefit? I am also unclear at this point on how the City would assess the property north of the FEC right -of -way on North Flagler Avenue which is not a dedicated city street. c. City Pays for Extension - A city can pay for the extension of water lines if there is reason to believe the investment will be returned by impact fees and charges for service. As demonstrated earlier, this (North Flagler Avenue) would not be a sound investment for the Utilities Department or the City to make. I realize the Mayor and the City Council set policy for the City, and this is a difficult issue. However, I feel our existing policy is sound and is employed by other municipalities, and I endorse its continued application. TAW:b1j 11 "rr►' MEMORANDUM TO: George E. McMahon, City Manager FROM: Mark P. Karet, Director of Community Development DATE: April 12, 1994 SUBJECT: SP -9401 - Edgewater Machine & Fabricators, Inc. (EMF) Addition To An Existing Building On March 30, 1994 the LDRA voted 7 -0 to deny the applicant's request for site plan approval. The LDRA denied the site plan because it did not meet the requirements of the code. Normally, site plans that do not meet the requirements of the code are not placed before the LDRA. Staff identifies the deficiencies of the site plan and then the applicant revises the plan to reflect the necessary changes. Once this has been accomplished the site plan is placed before the LDRA for final action. Staff notified EMF's agent, Mr. Joe Martin that the site plan was in violation of the fire code and City policy. Staff indicated that the site plan would not be placed on the LDRA's agenda until the deficiency was corrected. A copy of the correspondence is attached. Mr. Martin appealed this determination to the LDRA. Now that the LDRA has denied approval of the site plan, EMF has appealed that decision to the Council. The fire code establishes a maximum distance between fire hazards (i.e. buildings) and a source of fire protection (i.e. water). The code further states that the water should be available in sufficient quantity to effectively deal with the potential hazard. There are a number of different methods of estimating whether a supply of water is sufficient. Edgewater, as with many other cities, uses a formula developed by the Insurance Services Office. Chief Vola provides more detailed information on EMF's fire flow requirement in his `%sr memorandum. Interestingly, neither the applicant, his agent, or his attorney have argued that the site plan conforms with the code. In fact, the applicant concedes that it does not. Page -2- SP -9401 - Edgewater Machine & Fabricators, Inc. The applicant, his agent, and his attorney recognize that the site even without the addition does not have a source of water that is adequate to fight a fire. Yet the applicant still wants to expand. EMF has asked staff, the LDRA, and now the Council to approve this expansion even though the existing fire protection is inadequate. The applicant's agent and attorney ask the City to overlook the code requirements for no other reasons than the small size of the expansion and the large size of EMF's payroll. Compounding this problem, the applicant has recently taken action that increases the potential fire hazard on the site. The applicant vacated one of his buildings in order to rent it out to Dougherty Marine, Inc. Dougherty Marine manufactures boats. Dougherty Marine moved in without applying for a new occupational license. Occupational licensing triggers a series of inspections intended to determine that a building is safe for occupancy. Naturally, these inspections do address fire protection. Code enforcement activity has been initiated against Dougherty Marine, Inc. They have now applied for an occupational license. The presence of Dougherty Marine on the site is significant because boat manufacturing represents a much greater fire hazard than the operation of a machine and fabrication business. The building addition and the rental of space to Dougherty Marine would both be very '' positive, if the applicant was willing to comply with the code and pay for the necessary improvements. Instead, EMF argues that if the City is going to insist on compliance with the code, then the City (really the utility customers) must pay for the water line. This argument is contrary to past practice of the City. Terry Wadsworth's memorandum cites just a few examples of how others have been required to pay for their own water needs. The applicant's agent and attorney justify the shifting of costs from their client to the utility customers by referencing the 1988 Water Distribution System Master Plan prepared by DRMP. The master plan naturally recommends a number of upgrades to the water system, including one in the area of north Flagler Avenue. They reason that because the improvement was mentioned in the plan, then the utility customers are obligated to pay for it. However, EMF's agent and attorney place no weight on the fact that the same plan recommends that their client pay for the improvements. ENCLOSURE MPK/smp t o ' c:\mpk1994 \con \citymngr \emf CITY OF ED G EWATER LAND DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATORY AGENCY APPROVED/DISAPPROVED FOR AGENDA Applicant: Edgewater Machine & Fab., Inc. Plan No.: SP -9401 Authorized Agent: Joe D. Martin NOTICE TO APPLICANT: PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT AFTER REVIEW OF YOUR APPLICATION AND /OR PLANS THE FOLLOWING ITEM(S) APPLY: On LDRA's Agenda for Date Time xx Not on LDRA's Agenda YOUR PLAN HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED OFF BECAUSE THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCIES WERE FOUND FROM THE: itrrr DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 904 -424 -2412 BUILDING DEPARTMENT 904 - 424 -2411 xx FIRE/RESCUE DEPARTMENT 904 - 424 -2445 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 904 - 424 -2476 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 904 - 424 -2476 UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 904 - 424 -2460 POLICE DEPARTMENT 904 - 424 -2425 OTHER: ` 411 " f /smp c:\ldra \plans.rvw March 23, 1994 Joe D. Martin, P.E. East Volusia Engineering, Inc. 435 B -1 Air Park Road Edgewater, Florida 32132 RE: SP -9401 - Edgewater Machine & Fabricators, Inc. (EMF) Expansion Dear Mr. Martin: As the attached cover sheet indicates, the above referenced site plan has not been placed on the Land Development and Regulatory Agency's (LDRA's) agenda for the March 30th meeting. This action has been taken because your plan resubmittal did not adequately address the staffs review comments. The following deficiency still remains uncorrected: Inadequate Fire Flow The site contains a 32,483 square foot structure which is not adequately supplied with a sufficient flow of water for the Fire/Rescue Department personnel to effectively combat a fire. Your client now wishes to expand that structure by 6,055 square feet or 19% without some provision that would make enough water available to the site for fire control. The approval of such a proposal would violate Section 603.1.3 of the Standard Fire Prevention Code (1991 Edition) and the fire protection policy established by the City Council in 1990. This policy states in part that owners of new development have two options available to them which include: 1 -) Deferring development until the City provides the necessary supporting infrastructure; or 2 -) Provide the necessary supporting infrastructure at their own expense in accordance with all applicable regulations and codes. The policy defines new development as any project which requires site plan approval. ''fiw In order for your plan to be placed on a LDRA agenda you must revise the site plan so that it complies with the above referenced code and policy. You may wish to contact the Fire/Rescue Department to discuss EMF's specific fire flow requirements and the means by which the flow can be provided. Page -2- SP -9401 - Edgewater Machine & Fabricators, Inc. Expansion "'rrr You may appeal staffs determination that your site plan does not comply with the City codes and policies to the LDRA. However, you are advised that the LDRA does not have the authority to waive a requirement of the Fire Code or Council policy. To appeal a staff interpretation to the LDRA, you must do so in writing. As part of the plan resubmittal you requested that the buffer requirement across the front of the EMF site be made conditional on the actions of the Florida Inland Navigation District's use of the PID as a spoil site. The LDRA cannot grant conditional site plan approvals. The only mechanism currently available to the City for this type of approval is a development agreement. Staff would be happy to meet with you to discuss an agreement. Sincerely, Mark P. Karet, AICP Director of Community Development MPK/smp c:\mpk 1994 \corr\sp9401 'fir • CITY OF EIDCiEWATEH DEPARTMENT OF FIRE RESCUE SERVICES P.O. BOX 100 EDGEWATER, FL 32132 -0100 Phone 904/424 -2445 FAX 904/424 -2450 , 10 April 1994 TO: George McMahon, City Manager RE: E.M.F. Expansion Site Plan The Edgewater Machine and Fabrication building, as it currently exists, does not conform with the requirements of Chapter 603.1.3 of the Standard Fire Prevention Code®. Any addition to this complex would increase the required amount of water necessary to control any fire occurring there, and as such, would increase the non - conformity. The Standard Fire Prevention Code® has been established by Florida Statute to be the minimum Fire Code in effect throughout the State of Florida. I t s provisions, or equivalent alternates approved by the local Fire Official, must, at n i n i m u m, be provided for. A local jurisdiction may increase their code to more stringent requirements than those established in the minimum, but may not decrease the provisions of this Code below these required minimums. This Code establishes a maximum distance of not more than 150 feet of distance from the required fire hydrants to the building, and no more than 500 feet from any hydrant to any portion of any building. The nearest existing Fire Hydrant to this structure is well over 2,000 feet of travel distance from the front door of this structure. The applicant has suggested that they should be exempt ( "grandfathered ") from the Code requirements because this building has existed for years. The project in question is not maintaining a current structure, but an expansion of an existing structure. "Grandfathering" is not a legally permissible option under the provisions of either our Code or State law. Without a reasonably close source of sufficient water supply, suppression of a fire in this building becomes a serious problem. This unprotected risk has s everal negative impacts upon our Community: 1...The Insurance Services Office would identify this as a deficit in the overall evaluation of our City's Fire Protection Class which could increase the costs of Fire Insurance city -wide. 2...It is improbable that the Fire /Rescue Department could control a fire in this building since there is no water with which to fight it. 1 Edgewater's Life Force Such an sn could result in the Toss of the entire structure causing a net loss of jobs, wages, and tax dollars to our City. The principals upon which Edgewater's Growth Management Plan is founded i s that the infrastructure supporting growth must be in place when that growth occurs. Further, it is the responsibility of growth to support itself. The proposed project represents approximately a 20% increase of the existing structure on that Noksv site. This project seeks to make that increase without providing for the infrastructure necessary for it's support. In accordance with the provisions of the Fire Code, this project has been calculated to require at least 2750 gallons of water per minute. This Required Fire Flow must be provided to the site, or the buildings provided with installed fire protection equipment (such as fire sprinklers) which will reduce that fire flow demand. Without benefit of certain site specific data, I can only give an estimated projection of water flow capacities for this site. If a 6" main were installed, the minimum size allowed for Fire Suppression use, there would be a calculated maximum of 1,000 GPM flow at the terminal end. If the line size were increased to the 12" maximum diameter available to this site, that flow would be increased to roughly 2,500 GPM. This main will be a "dead end" main; it ends at the project site, rather than being interconnected to other water feed mains, which dramatically w jecreases the available water flow. I attempted to work out a short term solution to this situation with Mr. Joe Martin, project representative. After preliminary work was completed, the effort was canceled. I was told that there was no interest by the owner to invest in any such improvements. The Fire Protection requirements and measures required of this project are for the sole benefit of this project: any water main additions called for to service this site will not benefit the utilities system of any other part of the City. This fact makes this specific situation totally different from all previous appeals set before Council. It should be further noted that the applicant rented out part of his existing complex to a fiberglass boat building company creating the need for the additional space identified in the Site Plan. The applicant has rented this building to a tenant using a manufacturing process which has a marked increase in fire risk, sprays ,flammable finishes, and uses hazardous chemicals that pose a serious fire or explosion risk. This new business creates an even more urgent need for the installation of water mains sized sufficiently for large volume water flows. 2 Edgewater's Life Force Several years ago, the Edgewater City Council established a Are Protection Policy Statement by consensus. It states, in part, that the infrastructure necessary or required to support all new development shall be installed at the time o f in ,ievelopment and shall be the sole responsibility of the developer to provide. This Policy statement has been enforced over many projects since its adoption. It has never been the position of this Department to impede the healthy growth or development of this Community. In fact, we are supportive of improved economic growth by development of our business Community, and are an active member of the Chamber of Commerce. It must be clearly understood that, while we strongly support the development of this Community's economic base, we are obligated, by law and oath, to assure that the supporting infrastructure is developed to provide for the safety of both the Community at large and the investment of business developer. The minimum Fire Protection requirements, t Law, City established by Sae , q � Y Y Ordinance, and sound design practices, have not been met on this project as submitted. As such, this project cannot be approved. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. *ay -)." • William C. Vola, Chief Edgewater Department of Fire and Rescue Services 3 Edgewater's Life Force CI'T'Y OF EDGEWATER Department Of Fire And Rescue Services I'.U. Box 100 Edgewater, Florida 32132 - 0100 Phone (904) 424 -2445 FAX (904) 4. -2450 r Fire Protection Policy Of The City of Edgewater New Development. - For the purpose of this policy, new development is defined as any development action that requires site plan review and /or approval. New development has the option to implement one of the following alternatives: 1. Defer development of their property until the City provides the .. necessary supporting infrastructure in accordance with a pre- established schedule of improvements; or 2. Provide the necessary supporting infrastructure at their own expense in accordance with all applicable regulations and Codes. In either of the above options, it shall be the sole responsibility of the developer to provide fire hydrants, sprinkler systems, standpipe systems or other similar devices for conveying the required fire flow. II. Change of Occupancies or Uses in Existing Structures which increase required fire flow. 1. It shall be the sole responsibility of the owner to provide the necessary supporting infrastructure and fire hydrants, sprinkler systems, standpipe systems, or other similar devices for i '`"` conveying the required fire flow. WCV/lw b;daewater's Life Fnree � - MEMORANDUM DATE: April 13, 1994 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: George E. McMahon, City Manager4 7L SUBJECT: Joe Martin /East Volusia Engineering, Inc. - Request to waive City Fire Code Requirements/ SP -9401 Site Plan for Zeller Property A request from Joe Martin, representing Oscar Zeller, dated March 31, 1994, seeks Council direction to staff to allow the existing source of fire protection located at the corner of West Park and Flagler Avenues. Subsequent requests and correspondence from Joe Martin and Zeller's attorney, Michael Brewer, implies that the City is obligated to pursue completion of its Utilities Master Plan accepted by City Council in 1988, which recognized the need to provide a 12 -inch water line to the North Flagler Avenue property for fire protection. Their justification for granting this request is predicated on two principle factors: 1) The City's Master "'w Utilities Engineering Plan specifying the necessity for a 12 -inch water line, and 2) The economic value to the City of the Zeller property proposed expansion. I strongly urge City Council to deny this request and direct the applicant to submit an acceptable site plan and developer's agreement, which complies with City Codes and policies, to the LDRA for appropriate review for the following reasons: 1. The City's Utilities Master Plan identifies various need for expanding and providing utilities projects; however, the plan as approved by City Council, and subsequently adopted as the City's policy, clearly states that those developers or properties benefitting from the project will pay the cost of the benefit. 2. The City's Fire Code and Fire Protection Policy adopted by City Council meets the minimum State Fire Protection and National Standards. Again, it is the sole responsi- bility of the developer to provide fire hydrants and infrastructure to meet required fire flow. The City's Engineering Study references a 12 -inch water line as the size pipe to meet fire flow requirements. �. A-- AGENDA REQUEST C.A. NO.: 94 -38 Date: April 11, 1994 NEW UNFINISHED CONSENT BUSINESS BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING 4/18/94 RESOLUTION ORDINANCE ITEM DESCRIPTION /SUBJECT: Public Hearing Regarding Request by R.P. and Lillian Davisworth for Abandonment of 25 feet of Thomas Street West of Riverside Drive BACKGROUND: Attached is a copy of the petition filed by R.P. and Lillian Davisworth requesting the abandonment of 25 feet of Thomas Street adjacent to the Davisworth's property on the northwest corner of Thomas Street and Riverside Drive. In Paragraph 5 of the petition, ,,, reference is made to the July 1, 1993 letter from the City Attorney to Captain Jeff Hathorn, the Davisworth's son -in -law. A copy of the letter is included. Also attached is a copy of a survey of Thomas Street. This matter has been discussed with the Council informally on several previous occasions. It has been agendaed this time for formal consideration by the Council. Accordingly, because the request is for abandonment of an opened public right -of -way notice of the public hearing was advertised on April 4, 1994, in The News - Journal. In addition. adjoining property owners and those with frontage on Thomas Street were notified my mail of the hearing. In response to that notification, the attached letter was received from Robert T. Sawyer, 1316 2nd Street. The Davisworth's petition has been reviewed by the Director of Utilities, Director of Community Development, Director of Public Works, and City Engineer. In summary, the position of these Staff members is that it is not generally prudent for the City to abandon opened right-cf-way which may be needed for future services such as sewer, reclaimed water, stormwater treatment /pollution abatement, +4 and sidewalk construction and for the maintenance of such improvements. Although the Davisworth's have stated in the petition that they would grant the City a full and unrestricted easement through all abandoned property, Staff still can not support the request. RECOMMENDATION /CONCLUSION: Staff will be prepared to address this matter in more detail on April 18th. If the Council approves the request for abandonment a resolution will be necessary to effect that decision. A better legal description of the abandoned right -of -way would be necessary however. Saw FUNDS AVAILABLE: ACCOUNT NUMBER: (SPECIFY IF BUDGET AMENDMENT IS REQUIRED) PREVIOUS AGENDA ITEM: YES XX NO DATE: May 17, 1993 AGENDA ITEM: 5A July 19, 1993 7E October 18, 1993 7B Respectfully submitted, Concurrence: 54-1-Lar Kris a A. Storey George A. McMahon City Attorney City Manager y r CITY OF EDGEWATER, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VOLUSIA COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA IN RE: PETITION OF R.P. DAVISWORTH CASE NO.: AND LILLIAN L. DAVISWORTH, HUSBAND AND WIFE, PETITIONERS HEARING: BEFORE: THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDGEWATER, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VOLUSIA COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA PETITION FOR AUTHORIZATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ABANDONMENT OF A CERTAIN PORTION OF REAL PROPERTY LYING ADJACENT TO AND ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY LINE OF LOT 5, BLOCK 10, TOTEM PARR SUBDIVISION low COMES NOW PETITIONERS, R.P. DAVISWORTH AND LILLIAN L. DAVISWORTH, HUSBAND AND WIFE, and respectfully submits this their Petition for Authorization by The City Council of the City of Edgcwater, Volusia County, Florida, for abandons cnt of a ccrtair portion of real property lying adjacent to and along the southern boundary line of lot 5, block 10, Totem Park Subdivision, and would state: 1. That Petitioners are the true owners of that certain real property know as: Lot 5, Block 10, Totem Park Subdivision, as per Map Book 4, Page 46, Public Records of Volusia County, Florida. - 1 2. That Petitioners and Petitioners' forefathers have been in continuous open possession of and have resided upon said real property for a period of time exceeding forty -five (45) years. 3. That Petitioners and Petitioners' forefathers home, structure, and property improvements thereon, including the maintenance and the planting of trees, have existed upon and on that certain portion of real property lying adjacent to and long the southern boundary line of lot 5, block 10, Totem Park Subdivision, for a period of time exceeding forty -five (45) years. `"'r'' 4. That Petitioners have a right, claim, and interest to and in said real property lying adjacent to and along the southern boundary line of lot 5, block 10, Totem Park Subdivision, by way of adverse possession. See: St. Petersburg vs. Meloche, (1926), 92 FLA 770, 110, SO 341, where the Supreme Court of Florida held that the _ City of St. Petersbu was enj oint_; £rum appropriating certain real property for strict purposes where the claimant had made certain improvements upon said real property including the extension of his home as well as maintaining and planting trees thereon for a period of time exceeding seven years. 5. That Petitioners have at all times fully cooperated with City Council officials regarding the non - adversarial resolution of the City's trespass and encroachment upon Petitioners' real • - 2 - property situated along the east side of S. Riverside Drive in a project commonly referred to as "River Walk." That said cooperation was made with the understanding that the City would be receptive to and work toward an amicable, non - adversarial resolution of the request herein made by way of this Petition. (See Letter dated July 1, 1993, under the signature of Krista A. Storey, City Attorney, to Petitioners herein). 6. That certain discrepancies exist between the actual lay of the land, which is the subject of this Petition, and that certain 1909 plat there of and of this City's latest survey. (See: Plat of Boundary prepared by Daniel W. Corey, 1986). 7. That an apparent "right -of -way" of the subject property might have been granted by Petitioner's stroke - ridden mother to the City of Edgewater sometime in the 1940's without either consideration or upon the advice of independent council, and } ., h Additionally, a d withcut :+n� rcccr3..d record whatsoever. :..1w "right- of -way" was made in open violation of code restrictions regarding certain "set offs" between boundary lines and then existing structures upon the land as evidenced by existing dwelling, garage and planted cck trees that have been in existence for well over 45 years. Nor 8. That the abandonment by the City of that certain portion of real property lying adjacent to and along the southern boundary - 3 - line of lot 5, block 10, Totem Park Subdivision, will provide the City with additional real estate tax revenue. That is to say, that Petitioners herein will be subject to all taxes levied upon that real property granted through this Petition. 9. That the granting of this Petition does not adversely affect or encroach upon the right, claims, or interest of any person or existing municipal roadway, street, or development. 10. That the Petitioners will grant the City a full and unrestricted easement of all lands granted through this Petition. 11. That in a meeting with Edgewater City Staff on September 13, 1993, the City staff members stated that they were willing to abandon ten (10) feet of the Thomas Street right -of -way, in order to correct the existing encroachment, to the Petitioners' real property. 12. That although the Petitioners' real property is now in compliance with all City sit back requirements, it is due only to the grandfather clause provisions of the law, and affords no protection should the Petitioners wish to change or modify the existing structure without applying for and receiving a variance ''err to do so. This also greatly effects the present marketability of this real property. - 4 - 13. That while this City Council might well be in favor of granting such a variance for modification to the existing structure, future City Councils might not be as understanding and cooperative; thus placing the Petitioners in an undesirable, adversarial situation should they choose to modify their existing structure. • 14. That as an alternative effort to continue to fully cooperate with the City of Edgewater and to correct certain boundary discrepancies along Riverside Drive, Petitioners will exchange 20 feet of certain portions of real property owned and maintained by Petitioners situated along the west side of Riverside Drive, known as lots 3, 4 and 5, block 10, Totem Park Subdivision for that requested certain portion of real property lying adjacent to and along the southern boundary line of lot 5, block 10, Totem Park Subdivision. WHEREFORE, based .or, the foregoing grounds, Petitioners, R.P. Davisworth and Lillian L. Davisworth, Husband and Wife, respectfully request the City of Edgewater to grant their Petition for Authorization by The City for Abandonment of a Certain Portion of Real Property lying adjacent to and along the southern boundary line of lot 5, block 10, Totem Park Subdivision. It is further requested that the abandonment be grant to an extent of twenty -five (25) feet along the southern boundary line of lot 5, block 10, Totem Park Subdivision. - 5 - Executed this ,,z14 day of )1p- ! , e 7, 2 1�v , 1993. it i e R. P. Davisworth 0 v�� 1J.7G�"'i� Lillian L. Davi orth 'ar - 6 - �W 4,° O �a CITY OF EDGEWATER 4 . • 104 N. RIVERSIDE DRIVE P.O. Box 100 - Edgewater, Florida 32132 -0100 . (904) 428 -3245 SunCom 371 -7005 Now 4) 4 -1 ���T4lITY G LETTER VIA FAX AND BY MAIL/ ATTACHMENTS VIA MAIL July 1, 1993 Captain Jeff Hathorn 8228 Alderman Road Melrose, FL 32666 Re: Riverwalk Dear Captain Hathorn: This letter is written in response to your phone call on June 30, 1993. Please find attached an excerpt from the City Council minutes of *,,, May 17, 1993, at which time the Council discussed the right -of -way issue regarding the Davisworth property. As verified by the minutes, the Council authorized Staff to initiate the vacation of the easternmost portion of the Thomas Street right -of -way subject to a granting of an easement for the Riverwalk by the Davisworths. Staff initiated this vacation immediately after the meeting by contacting Dan Corey to have a survey of that area completed. To date, due to the many commitments of Mr. Corey, the survey has not been completed. The survey is an essential portion of the vacation process because without the survey, the City has no basis for identifying that portion of the right -of -way which is being vacated and accordingly there would be no basis for identifying that portion of the right -of -way that will revert to Mr. Davisworth. As both I and Jack Corder have committed to you on several occasions, as soon as the survey is received the matter will be scheduled for the next Council meeting. The next City Council meeting is July 19, 1993. We certainly anticipate that the survey will be received in time to place the matter on the agenda for that meeting. I spoke to Jack Corder regarding the other matters you mentioned during our phone conversation. Please be advised of the following: 1. First and most important, Jack felt that he had received your permission to continue with the project during a phone conversation he had with you on June 21st. Jack assures me that he would not have authorized the contractor to proceed without your authorization. We certainly_ apologize for the apparent misunderstanding. 2. Jack has not forgotten his commitment to you to place fill dirt on the property. 3. Neither has Jack forgotten the commitment to replace the palm tree. His intention is to do that once that portion of the project is finalized to insure the best result for the planting of the tree. In addition, Mr. Davisworth will be contacted prior to the planting so that the tree will be placed exactly where he would like it. 4. Jack stated he is aware of the truck ruts and will see that they are addressed once the project is finalized in that area. 5. In reference to the loop in the sidewalk, Jack has advised me that the loop has been included in the plans for that area from the beginning and accordingly was in the plans which he showed you and Mr. Davisworth. I have included a second draft of the proposed easement for your review. The document has been revised pursuant to a conversation with Larry Hamilton to delete the reference to drainage facilities since none are necessary in this portion of the Riverwalk. I have also committed to both you and Mr. Hamilton that the issue ``o' of the western portion of the Thomas Street right -of -way and its "encroachment" upon Mr. Davisworth's garage will be presented to the City Council at the same meeting that the vacation is presented. Hopefully this letter addresses all the concerns which you raised during our conversation yesterday. If not, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, , f \e / Gka - 2 Kri.sta A. Storey City Attorney RAS Attachments Copy to: Larry Hamilton Director of Parks and Recreation Now a:pa /f7 1:"D " — 1994 CFI r A er-Lex , - 41rof P e e t, t _ 214-z. 2 - - / 44-(14 ** 4 red-et-r_ C q 3 / /teel-es et4c KX4 c;/ /5 Ce_,y ee-e • ea-L 91(.1.2K (3/6 • Cafr,.„ . 3 ( 3 2._ October 26, 1993 George McMahon 'to.. City Manager City of Edgewater Edgewater, Fla. 32132 Dear Mr. McMahon, Re: Abandonment of the extension of Thomas Street, east side _ of Riverside Drive As citizens of Edgewater and residents of the Thomas Street area, we are aware that the city has been petitioned to abandon the above described property. �� We feel that this would violate the rights of many residents that use this property for access to the river and would only --) . result in the personal gain of two adjacent property owners, whom already have such access. We are asking that the petition for abandonment be denied and this letter be recorded and read at the city Council meeting in protest of such abandonment. Thank you, Residents Address A t_e_e...7 -- i -iict-m-,?-- J / G- oZ 'i .�/ Gb 3L�3 )r.„ 17-1.(e 'D 31-- c k,, eers .,,Or L . p c5„.14.„,r_.,1 .--,`' -- 7.Z....0-4,4:-0,2.4 , / 1 e=9: 161 / 11-1427L- �a3 / ,. - 0 dz2,t,o(--3U-rf,s2d4e-e ( 4 01 dv...../9...„,......„.. .... .... f._.",...„..„, , 101" _ 2 ,/ , ' C ' ------ , . _ 1 , . .1 Celitalt-'-‘"Cl' �i i .dam e . cirtzi . Ar - , , / 199_" .. IT , :_..7„,_„:„.. tvc . • f ` 3/t' I � S' �'/J Gez- W4?-E R f4 I .47 '... / .. ' / �11 . I I1 ! 7 i/ ,, el..., ..-, . ow,... /--..; . _ _ • .. .... 6._ , . _ _._ . , 1 . : . .._ . , „,t..... ,, -,:. . . ,-- --_,..- , - , ..,._ey . ---; 5 4 N, •!•,.-; :: r1 1 -• 1� -- 1 5 ,t � -- • 5 U /I., to - i_ © ' y •TtJ� __ - -- v ' 1 a 9 1 1 1 0 i .4\ SIG 1 1- 4 S 1'� 1 3 Z x 11821....- — v t0 ,i vv . etsfroomi 1 alleamal •* 14,,, 0052 , 16 . alio ip .. y en•• Ill` . t ...___- Cr lai ,. WW1 %l S "- 1 % 4. 1 62G • \ • ___________ V 1 i • 7 . 1 le 113 4 I 1. .1.....■■•••■••■•••......... 01, . li I ' _ ..t . .c 6 111 . 7 6 i s ;0011111 . ____ .3 1 \ 31- 11 4.9 —11 • . -. Vr 0 C. 5 .. 4 0+,AAS .� . . s � 1 J q t to . ' \ Bar �' - IS V On 14 _ ---- 1 _ _____ ___. . • •4 1 3 Z 4 � a�� q , 1 z1 - . r-- 3_ -- 13' r4 rre �_ ;. 19 8 'Q_, 3 v • z v r S 1 Y 7 5 is D k . / , - 1 7.13‘-'1A-- i3 /2 t • 6 4 11 v 4 S A / , \ 1 /3 i y , • Vie/ - -,.....„-_,.__, 1,3 / ) N tc � , Pi.. g`' ..... A ' (,_____ \ . 44 7 . A• \ 3 . 7 / _ ... i , c ----- -z 4 s,, --4, ' ? r 1 I .. ' , e r [---------