Loading...
07-16-1990 - Regular " . 'I '-'" '-- CITY COUNCIL OF EDGEWATER REGULAR MEETING JULY 16, 1990 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Mitchum called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Center. ROLL CALL Mayor David Mitchum Councilman Dan Hatfield Councilmember Gigi Bennington Councilman Russell Gold Councilman Thomas Fish City Attorney Jose' Alvarez City Manager Elly Johnson City Clerk Susan Wadsworth Chief Lawrence Schumaker Present Present Present Present Excused Present Present Present Present INVOCATION. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Reverend Dr. Tee, Edgewater Union Church, delivered the invocation. There was a pledge of allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meetina of Julv 2. 1990 - Councilman Gold moved for approval. Councilmember Bennington seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 4-0. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mayor Mitchum advised they're under the 3 minute rule unless Council wishes otherwise. Harrv Jones, 3035 Tamarind, spoke as Chairman of the Merit Board. Mr. Jones distributed copies of a memo dated July 31, 1989, to the Mayor and City Council. He said they felt with the advent of the City Manager-Mayor and Council form of government some duties of the Merit Board weren't appropriate so they proposed four changes in their duties. He noted three of these referred to "official channels". He distributed copies of an Ordinance number 89-0-30, stating it was prepared by the City Attorney and in the personnel phases "city council II was struck out and "official channels" was put in. Mayor Mitchum called time. Councilman Hatfield suggested since he's speaking as Chairman of the Merit Board instead of bringing this up under Citizen Comments, he can give them a brief synopsis and bring a proposal for the next agenda that they can study and have a rational decision. Mr. Jones requested more time. Mayor Mitchum agreed to extend it because he's Chairman of the Merit Board. Mr. Jones distributed copies of Ordinance 89-0-30 which was passed by Council, stating "city council II was struck out and "City Manager" is there, also in number 3 and 6. He stated this has deprived the Merit Board access to the City Council. He read an excerpt from page 20 of the Charter regarding establishment of the Merit Board. He stated the City Attorney prepared an ordinance for Council and when it reached them, it had been rewritten and the intent had been changed. He asked Council to find out who made the change, why, and under whose orders. He said he didn't get the data until it was too late to get on this week's agenda. Mr. Johnson explained he didn't make the changes, and they were discussed with the City Attorney and he discussed them again today with him. He noted the proposal came in two days after he came on board, and copies were sent to the Merit Board and other members of the Merit Board remember seeing it before it went to Council. He said Council can change it, and it was done about 12 months ago. He stated anything the Merit Board sends to him, he sends to Council and the City Attorney, and he doesn't always agree with them. Mr. Jones stated based on the Charter, he requests and recommends all advisory boards and committees report directly to Council. He added they saw it as it was written up but doesn't believe that was what Council wanted and they wanted to keep it within the status of the current Charter. He recommended at the next meeting that additional data be brought in and have the Merit Board report directly because now it just says it will be established, and based on that, they'll have no authority whatever and he recommends it be changed. ~ '-"" .."., CITIZEN COMMENTS (Continued) Frank Roe, 2732 Juniper Drive, stated at the first meeting after Council was elected he asked them to study needs of the City before acting on important issues but they didn't take his advice and they've all disappointed him. He asked if anyone objected to the 3 minute limit by the Mayor. He said 3 minutes should be enough to make a case but if it's an important issue, 3 minutes is not ample time and these tactics prove to him the Council doesn't care about the taxpayers. He asked how others feel about treatment they've received the last two years, and asked for Council comments. He suggested Council may want to tell the citizens what they've done for them to improve their life styles. Bill Klein, 2910 Needle Palm, asked Mayor Mitchum if there have been any budget workshops. Mayor Mitchum replied no. Mr. Klein stated by now they usually have Council workshops with Department Heads and have started work on the budget and he's appalled Council hasn't been involved with the budget. Mayor Mitchum said it's about time and there's a document being prepared. Mr. Klein stated even though some are not running for re-election, Council is the boss and he hopes they won't be the rubber stamp of the one who's putting it together. Mr. Klein said he requested information from City Hall and didn't receive it in the order he asked for it. He said held asked for an itemized list of certain things and didn't get it and he'll be back in City Hall asking for certain specific things and if he doesn't receive them, helll go to the State Attorney. Kathy Bushong, 1211 Bond Street, owner of Little Red Furniture House, stated she's purchased 927 A-3 across the street and applied for an occupational license to be transferred and upon inspection of the unit she was told everything was brought up to Code except she was obliged to purchase a fire hydrant. She said she feels it's unfair for a small business to be responsible for fire hydrants that are to be used throughout the City and different businesses. She said she presented this to First Federal Savings and Council received a letter from Vice President Richard Fawley stating he wished they'd reconsider this decision and allow her the occupational license without purchasing the fire hydrant. Councilman Hatfield noted this will be coming up later on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA City Engineer1s request to purchase computer equipment at cost of $16,680 under GSA contract and land Development & Regulatory Agency and Planning & Zoning Department recommendations to amend Code, Chapters 3, 7, and 14, and Appendix A, ZoninQ - Mayor Mitchum asked if Council wants to remove anything. Councilman Hatfield asked to remove item 4.B. re: LDRA. Councilmember Bennington agreed. Mayor Mitchum requested a mot i on to close and accept the con sent agenda. Councilman Hatfield so moved. Councilmember Bennington seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 4-0. land Development & Regulatory Agency and Planning & Zoning Department recommendations to amend Code, Chapters 3, 7, and 14, and Appendix A, Zoning Councilman Hatfield stated this is a lengthy ordinance proposal and there are a lot of questions for LDRA and it might be advantageous to have a special meeting with them to discuss it because it involves deleting power of the City Council and giving it to LDRA. He pointed out nothing needs to be done right away and held like a meeting sometime in August. He then moved to TABLE it until the August 5th meeting to set a date to meet with the LDRA. Councilmember Bennington seconded the motion, agreeing with Councilman Hatfield and noting there are things in the draft that donlt even apply to LDRA and the way it's presented, there are a lot of things they need to go over with LDRA. Mayor Mitchum clarified the next meeting is the 6th. Motion CARRIED 4-0. City Attorney Alvarez stated the draft wasn't prepared in his office and he won't be present at the 6th meeting, this came straight from LDRA through the Planning Department. Mayor Mitchum asked if that's customary. City Attorney Alvarez replied when they decide on a draft, then they direct him to prepare it. NEW BUSINESS Release of Edgewater landing Phase II performance bond with requirement that maintenance bond be submitted - Mr. Johnson stated they received a request and have clearance from each person involved and the bond is being posted and it's their recommendation the release be granted. He pointed out this is Phase II. Councilman Hatfield moved they release Edgewater Landing's performance bond upon receipt of their maintenance bond. Councilman Gold seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 4-0. 2 Council Regular Meeting Minutes Ju ly 16, 1990 '-' .... ORDINANCES. PUBLIC HEARINGS. AND RESOLUTIONS FIRST READING: Ord. 90-0-29 Establishing deductibles for settlement of claims as recommended by self-insurance committee - Mayor Mitchum read the ordinance. ORD. 90-0-29 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDGEWATER, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE IV. "SELF-INSURANCE FUND", SECTION 2-68, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF EDGEWATER, FLORIDA, BY PROVIDING FOR DEDUCTIBLES FOR CLAIMS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Councilman Gold moved for approval of Ordinance 90-0-29. Councilmember Bennington seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 4-0. Ord. 90-0-30 Repealing Ord. 79-0-10 re: street light impact fees - Mayor Mitchum read the Ordinance. ORD. 90-0-30 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDGEWATER, FLORIDA, REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 79-0-10, IN ITS ENTIRETY WHICH IMPOSED A STREETLIGHT IMPACT FEE ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ALL NEW RESIDENCES AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Councilmember Bennington moved they accept Ordinance 90-0-30. Councilman Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 4-0. Councilmember Bennington stated her intent when she made the motion at the last meeting was to follow the City Attorney's recommendation and immediately stop collecting those fees, and she moved they do it right now. Mayor Mitchum said he thought it was in the motion. Councilman Gold seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 4-0. Ord. 90-0-31 Amending Appendix A. Zoning. Section 607.00. 1-1 light industrial district. by allowing transportation services as a permitted use - Mayor Mitchum read the Ordinance. ORD. 90-0-31 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDGEWATER, FLORIDA, AMENDING APPENDIX A, ZONING, SECTION 607.00 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF EDGEWATER, FLORIDA, BY ALLOWING TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AS A PERMITTED USE; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Council- man Hatfield moved they accept Ordinance 90-0-31. Councilman Gold seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 4-0. Res. 90-R-41 Authorizing appropriate officials to execute Interlocal Agreement with County Council. acting as Ponce De Leon Port Authority. for Kennedy Park boat ramp repairs - Mayor Mitchum read the Resolution. RES. 90-R-41 - A RESO- LUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDGEWATER, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATE OFFICIALS OF THE CITY OF EDGEWATER, FLORIDA, TO EXECUTE THE "INTER- LOCAL AGREEMENT" FOR REPAIRS TO BOAT RAMPS AT GEORGE KENNEDY MEMORIAL PARK WITH THE COUNTY OF VOLUSIA, ACTING AS THE PONCE DE LEON PORT AUTHORITY; REPEALING ALL RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Councilman Gold moved for approval of Resolution 90-R-41. Councilman Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 4-0. Res. 90-R-42 Authorizing application for matching grant to Ponce De Leon Port Authority for Riverside Drive river walk - Mayor Mitchum read the Resolution. RES. 90-R-42 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDGEWATER, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE PONCE DE LEON PORT AUTHORITY; ASSURING THAT THE REQUIRED 50 PER CENT MATCHING FUNDS WILL BE AVAILABLE; AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATE OFFICIALS OF THE CITY OF EDGEWATER, FLORIDA, TO EXECUTE THE APPLICATION; ASSURING THAT FUNDING IS AVAILABLE UPON COMPLETION TO OPERATE THE FACILITY; REPEALING ALL RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Councilman Hatfield asked if matching funds can come from the recreational impact fees. Mr. Johnson replied whatever funds are approved with the budget and they can designate it at that point, and can appropriate from impact fees if not already appropriated. He noted it's just applying for it now and they're not sure they'll get it. Councilman Hatfield moved they accept Resolution 90-R-42. Councilmember Bennington seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 4-0. Res. 90-R-43 Authorizing appropriate officials to execute Cooperation Agreement with County of Volusia for Community Development Block Grant Program - Mayor Mitchum read the Resolution. RES. 90-R-43 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDGEWATER, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATE CITY OFFICIALS TO EXECUTE A COOPERATION AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF VOLUSIA TO UNDERTAKE OR ASSIST IN UNDERTAKING ESSENTIAL ACTIVITY PURSUANT TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM; REPEALING ALL RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH AND PROVIDING FOR 3 Council Regular Meeting Minutes Ju ly 16, 1990 '-" '--' ORDINANCES. PUBLIC HEARINGS. AND RESOLUTIONS (Continued) FIRST READING: Res. 90-R-43 (Continued) AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Councilmember Bennington asked if this grant was used for resurfacing. Mr. Johnson replied yes, and also for one neighborhood park they're developing. Councilmember Bennington moved they accept Resolution 90-R-43. Councilman Gold seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 4-0. SECOND READING: (PUBLIC HEARING) Mayor Mitchum noted the first item won't be audience participation for the petition but the second reading will be for audience input and he requested a motion to go from regular meeting to public hearing. Councilmember Bennington so moved. Councilman Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 4-0. Public Hearina re: application for certificate for Robert J. Faunce d/b/a Yellow Cab and accept City Clerk1s recommendations re: waivina Code requirement and amendina Code - Mr. Johnson stated there's an application for a taxi cab and the City Clerk has worked with the gentleman and the City Attorney and it's recommended the certificate be approved for Mr. Faunce. Robert James Faunce, 3589 Omni Circle, stated he's worked in the taxi cab business the last 23 years. Mayor Mitchum asked if there were any objections. There were no comments from the audience or from Council. Ord. 90-0-28 Establishina policies & procedures re: peddlina. solicitina and canvassina within City limits - Mayor Mitchum read the Ordinance. ORD. 90-0-28 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDGEWATER, FLORIDA, DECLARING AND ESTABLISHING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES WITH RESPECT TO PEDDLING, SOLICITING, AND CANVASSING WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS; REQUIRING REGISTRATION OF CERTAIN PERSONS AND ESTABLISHING BUSINESS REGULATIONS FOR SUCH PERSONS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. He requested audience comments and there were none. Mayor Mitchum requested a motion to go back into the regular meeting. Councilman Hatfield so moved. Councilman Gold seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 4-0. Robert J. Faunce d/b/a Yellow Cab - Councilman Hatfield moved they accept the City Manager's recommendation. Councilmember Bennington seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 4-0. Ord. 90-0-28 - Councilman Gold moved for approval of Ordinance 90-0-28. Councilman Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 4-0. Councilmember Bennington noted they need to establish a fee when the ordinance is passed. Mayor Mitchum advised itls scheduled for the next agenda. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Discussion and update by Financial Advisor Stan Livenaood and Leaal Counsel Dan Livermore re: defeasance of Gulf Breeze Pool loan - Mr. Livengood stated no action is needed tonight but he'll have documents implementing it for the agenda August 6th. He stated in late May Council approved his recommendation regarding financing that was closed June 7th in Orlando which approved sale of 1990 BANis of $4.7 million to Sun Bank, refunding outstanding 1989 BAN's previously purch- ased by Sun Bank, and establishing an escrow which defeased City obligations under an outstanding 1964 water and sewer utility revenue bond issue. He pointed out it also was to establish an escrow to defease obligation under a 1988 Gulf Breeze Pool loan agreement. He stated all was accomplished at June 7th closing with the following modification: 1988 Gulf Breeze loan is still outstanding, it hasn't been defeased, and the $675,000 authorized to defease it was placed in escrow in Sun Bank June 7th, was invested, and is earning interest for the City. Mr. Livengood said on June 7th Sun Bank agreed to purchase 1990 BAN's even though they were not the obligation they contracted to purchase, and because the 1988 Gulf Breeze loan hasnlt been defeased, Sun Bank owns 1990 BANis that have a junior lien to the 1988 Gulf Breeze loan on the City's water and sewer net rev- enue and is contracted to have first lien. He explained they didn't get the 1988 loan defeased June 7th because they had verbal agreement to pay $675,000 to the Pool, which Council approved, and they wanted to make a cash payment to the Pool because the Pool could defease the 1988 loan obligations less expensively than the City could do itself. He explained the borrowing rate of the City under the 1988 loan agreement was 7.9% interest on $650,000 of borrowing, which meant under Federal Tax Laws the Pool could invest money to defease those obligations at a rate of 7.9%, but if the City invested, it would be restricted to the interest rate of 6.6% for the 1990 BAN's. 4 Council Regular Meeting Minutes July 16, 1990 '-- ..."",. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (Continued) Discussion and update by Financial Advisor Stan Livenqood and Leqal Counsel Dan Livermore re: defeasance of Gulf Breeze Pool loan (Continued) Mr. Livengood said the Pool's cost to purchase an escrow was approximately $655,000 and the City's cost was $710,000, or about $55,000 difference. He explained he requested $675,000 instead of $655,000 because the concept was unique and it was non-asset bonds. He said helll recommend Council get rid of this Gulf Breeze loan which will tie up an additional $55,000 of City funds for a period ranging from 6 months to 7-1/2 years. He stated this is a different situation than he presented to them in May and what was authorized. Mr. Livengood explained non-asset bonds of Gulf Breeze and generated investment income of 1-1/2 to 2% more per year than interest they had to pay on bonds since 1985. He noted it pays administration costs of the Pool and provides a source for paying origination's issuance costs. He noted that by 1998 it's expected because of arbitrage all non-asset bonds will be retired and the share will be zero, but as of May 1st the City's pro rata share of non asset bonds was $21,000, which they agreed to pay in the loan agreement. Mr. Livengood stated the deal he worked out with the Pool verbally and recom- mended to the City of $675,000 was the Pool's cost of $655,000 to purchase the escrow, plus the City1s non-asset bond pro rata share as of May 1st of another $20,000, and they split the difference of the Pool and City's cost of the escrow. Mr. Livengood said on June 7th Sun Bank purchased the 1990 BAN's even though the 1988 Gulf Breeze loan hadn't been defeased and put $675,000 in a separate specific escrow which can be used only to retire the 1988 loan with joint consent of Sun Bank and the City. He suggested efforts and cooperation of Sun Bank should be acknowledged and they should be thanked. He explained the Pool discovered if they accept prepayment from the City of $675,000 cash, they1d have to give IRS an opinion that it was their reasonable expectation they could turn around and within the next 36 months loan the money back to another borrower at interest rates equal to or greater than 7.9% because that's what the Pool is obligated to pay on that loan. He added they didn't think they could make that certifi- cation because they feel interest rates are going down and they couldn't accept cash payment. He stated to defease the Gulf Breeze obligation, the City must form the escrow themselves and while 1990 BAN's are outstanding the yield is restricted to 6.6% and cost will be approximately $710,000. He explained there's only $675,000 at Sun Bank now and it will take an additional $35,000 of City funds. He pointed out the City expects in November or December of this year about $14 million plus of water and sewer utility revenue bonds will be issued and part of the proceeds will be used to retire the 1990 BAN's and when that happens, allowable yield for this escrow, the one for the 1988 loan and that established June 7th to defease the 1964 bond, if interest rates are the same then as they are now, the bonds will bear about 7-1/4 to 7-3/8%. He explained they expect to restructure these escrows and get a substantial portion of the $35,000 or more back for the City. He pointed out there's no absolute guarantee the bonds will be issued, but in order to complete defeasance of the Gulf Breeze loan they must now deal with the non-asset bond obligation and the City pledged first lien on the utility net revenues to pay to Gulf Breeze Pool what the pro rate share of non-asset bonds might be at the call date of 1998. He stated the lien must be removed because the City won't be in a position to meet its obli- gations to the State and enter into the Revolving Fund loan agreements unless the first lien on the utility revenue is eliminated. Mr. Livengood stated this non asset bond lien must be removed and they negotiated a second escrow, with the first to be $710,000, and amount of non-asset bond pro rata share as of May 1, 1990, of $21,800, and the City purchase U. S. Government Treasuries that mature shortly before the 1998 call date with a maturity value in excess of $40,000. He added you grant the Pool first lien on proceeds of that escrow to pay whatever the City's share is of non-asset bonds in 1998. He noted it's possible the non-asset bond balance could increase and the City's share could be greater than maturity value of the U. S. Treasuries, or $40,000, and the City would agree to budget and appropriate from legally available non ad valorem revenue whatever amount of non-asset bonds pro rata share might be greater than maturity value of the escrow U. S. Treasuries. Mr. Livengood said it will take an additional $55,000 approximately of City funds, borrowed utility funds, to establish these two escrows and the one for $21,000 he's confident will be returned to the City in 1998 with interest which 5 Council Regular Meeting Minutes Ju ly 16, 1990 ~ ~ UNFINISHED BUSINESS (Continued) Discussion and update bv Financial Advisor Stan Livenqood and Leqal Counsel Dan Livermore re: defeasance of Gulf Breeze Pool loan (Continued) means they lost use of that portion of it for 7 years and it's invested and investment earnings will come to the City. He added he believes a part of the remaining $35,000 can be recovered when water and sewer bonds are issued and they restructure the 1964 bond escrow as well as the 1988 Gulf Breeze loan escrow and recover at a higher yield some of that escrow cost. Councilman Hatfield asked if it's a $675,000 debt to Gulf Breeze Pool. Mr. Livengood replied it's $640,000 to Gulf Breeze with $675,000 in escrow at Sun Bank to provide for payment of the Gulf Breeze loan and its obligation. Council- man Hatfield said they'll need an additional $35,000 to the $675,000. Mr. Livengood agreed. Councilman Hatfield asked what they'll do with it. Mr. Livengood replied they'll take $710,000 to do the same thing the Pool can do with $675,000, and the higher the interest rate at which you can invest money, the smaller the principal amount you have to invest to have a given cash flow and the Pool can invest at 7.9% and the City is restricted to 6.6% so it takes a larger principal amount. Councilman Hatfield asked if the $21,000 second escrow would be an individual escrow. Mr. Livengood replied yes. Councilman Hatfield said it's not a part of the $710,000. Mr. Livengood agreed that's correct. Councilman Hatfield said that's to insure to Gulf Breeze that no matter how we invest the $710,000 they'll have to guarantee to take the lien off our utility and put it on this escrow. Mr. Livengood explained the City pledged a first lien on its utility revenue to make principal and interest and call premium payment to Gulf Breeze. Councilmember Bennington said they'll put $710,000 into an account to make the payments, principal and interest, and then $21,000 is in another account and clears up everything and Gulf Breeze has a lien on that instead of the utility rate. Mr. Livengood said there's a possibility that in 1998 the City's pro rata share of non-asset bonds could be greater than $40,000, although expected amount then is zero, but if it's greater than $40,000, then you've covenanted to budget and appropriate whatever is greater than $40,000 from any legally available non ad valorem revenues available to the City. Councilman Gold asked why they can't pay it off without penalizing us. Mr. Livengood replied the loan agreement doesn't grant the borrower the unilateral right to do that and you have to get out from all obligations before 1998. Councilmember Bennington said the Pool can't make money by our paying it off early and they won't let us do it. Mr. Livengood agreed that's correct and he reviewed risks to the Pool in accepting prepayment, adding there'll be documents in the August 6th agenda and they'll be present and will have more details. Councilman Hatfield asked if there will be anything about how we stand with the State Revolving Loan. Mr. Livengood suggested Mr. Ferland will discuss it. Councilman Hatfield suggested they have it at the next meeting. Mayor Mitchum called a 5-minute recess at 8:10 p.m. He called the meeting back to order at 8:20 p.m. Policy statement on City's fire protection - Mr. Johnson stated at the last meeting Council requested a draft pol icy regarding fire hydrants and fire protection and it's included for their consideration. He read the "Statement of the City's Fire Protection Policy". Councilman Hatfield stated he agrees with item 1 for new development but feels even though the use is changed, when the structure isn't changed or use is con- sistent with what it was previously used for, he doesn't see as a significant change. He said he'd like to see that as long as the structure doesn't change, and hasn't been changed, there need not be a change in the fire flow. Council- member Bennington agreed with Councilman Hatfield that she has no problem with number 1 and new development should pay costs to develop, but it was suggested to her that maybe the possibility existed that we could credit the business person with their water use to offset the expense of the fire hydrant and she called the accountant and he said no, because the water is an enterprise fund and this is general fund, and she also talked to him about the lessee signing an agreement that they'll put in the improvement when the lines become available 6 Council Regular Meeting Minutes Ju ly 16, 1990 '-" ~ UNFINISHED BUSINESS (Continued) Policy statement on City's fire protection (Continued) and he said he wasn't an attorney but didn't see how we could hold a lessee liable. She pointed out on existing buildings, the Fire Chief has the option of determining what should go in there, if it should go in there, after he determines if it's life threatening or property damaging and any decision can be appealed to the Board which they're now sett i ng up. She sa i d that's inState Statute they read before, and she doesn't feel every citizen in Edgewater should pay for fire hydrants or whatever for a business but she feels very strongly that for existing structures, if they don't pull a building permit when they move in for an occupational license or don't do any kind of modification, they shouldn't be charged for this. She said it's the City's fault it's there. Councilman Gold said he thought it was the City's responsibility to provide fire protection but now with lack of funds, to get it going, if people were willing to support payment for it, if not, we'll have to rely on businesses to help defray the cost, you can't have it both ways. He expressed concern if adequate water supply can be provided and whether it would be the owner's or business's responsibility. He suggested possibly cost could be reduced if we could piggy back off any other city that may be purchasing fire hydrants. He pointed out after they get actual fire protection it might be a reduced insurance premium. Councilmember Bennington stated at the last meeting she asked the Chief in reference to the Fire Code about the 500 feet, 150 feet from a fire hydrant. She read an excerpt from the minutes regarding a complex with a building within 150 feet of the fire hydrant and the last building is approximately 500 feet. She asked if that's legal and do they have to require that second building or last building in the complex, if someone moved in or out of it, to install a fire hydrant and he replied any building has to be within 500 feet. She asked if they can fight a fire within 500 feet in a complex. Fire Chief Vola replied no, that was a condensed version of his answer, and the answer held given was that no part of any building on that complex, no part of the building, may be any more than 500 feet of fire hose on the ground from the hydrant, that's what the Code says, and it's measured by hose length. Councilmember Bennington asked how we can force an existing building to put in a fire hydrant if they're not within 150 feet when the Code says any building can be no greater than 500 feet. Chief Vola explained it doesn't say any building, it says any portion of any building, and you can have a building that's 150 feet away and we still have to stretch the fire hose from the truck to the seat of the fire and therels where the 500 feet of hose lay comes in. He pointed out there are two different hoses, one is a supply hose from the water system to the fire truck where it stops and the second is the hand or attack lines stretched from the fire truck to all portions of the building and that's where part 1 and part 2 come in. He explained to layout 500 feet of hose on the ground and then put a fire truck there and expect it to get adequate fire flow through that above ground line is not practical. He pointed out there are two different portions of that same Code. Councilmember Bennington stated with the example brought to them tonight, it says she won't be granted an occupational license until she installs a fire hydrant, and was she given a choice of sprinkler system versus fire hydrant. Chief Vola replied yes. Councilmember Bennington asked why it doesn't say fire hydrant or sprinkler system. Chief Vola replied it's his oversight, it was discussed and wasn't met with enthusiasm, and it's also not the most economical of the choices. Councilmember Bennington asked the City Attorney if they can legally have an occupant sign an agreement that when we get the lines there they'll pay for the expense of the hydrant. City Attorney Alvarez said the occupant presumably is transient and he'd prefer to see the agreement with the owner of the building, it wou 1 d have more enforceab il i ty, and we don I t dea 1 wi th renters on water deposits, we deal only with owners, and it's something Council needs to look at. Councilmember Bennington asked if they want to establish a policy that any change of occupancy or use in an existing structure has to have a fire hydrant, sprinkler system or stand pipe system or they don't get an occupational license. She said she doesn't feel they should and doesn't think it should be in here. Councilman Hatfield stated Mrs. Bushong bought a retail unit and identity of that unit hasn't been changed and she's only moving into it, someone had a business there before. He said he didn't see where responsibility to the unit has changed. He noted it will make it almost impossible for Mr. Rowe to rent units. 7 Council Regular Meeting Minutes July 16, 1990 '-' ...., UNFINISHED BUSINESS (Continued) Policy statement on City.s fire protection (Continued) Councilman Hatfield said New Smyrna Beach gives incentives to encourage business and if we want to encourage businesses and industry to come to Edgewater to structures we already have, and if the structure hasn't been changed and usage is something such as one retail store opposed to another retail store, he feels the City has some obligations and the taxpayers have some obligations to assist to bring retail business and industry into the City. Councilmember Bennington agreed with Councilman Hatfield, and said if they're going to encourage businesses and development that in turn will help our economy with a broader tax base, for the amount it will cost in existing structures to put fire hydrants in, she doesn't see where they can go wrong. Mayor Mitchum asked the cost of the fire hydrant. Chief Vola replied he thinks it's between $1,100 and $1,200. Mayor Mitchum stated they're getting people to agree to it but we're not actually putting in fire hydrants. Chief Vola replied not until such time as water mains are in place or upgraded to support them. Mayor Mitchum stated they're requiring a hydrant be paid for but we don't have the hydrant so if the place of business is going to receive fire damage, it's going to receive it whether itls paid for or not, and they're requiring lessees to pay this which he's not sure that would hold up in court. He said Chief Vola has a tough job to bring existing things up that have been ignored over the years. He said he has no problem with bringing buildings up to Code and making people follow Fire Codes when they remodel, and fire safety isn't grandfathered in, and when they remodel they should follow Code and put in fire walls and update electricity. He agreed it may need to be addressed later and as improvements are brought into this area that the property owners participate in an impact fee or assessment and if a block has 4 property owners and one fire hydrant would service them when we bring the line through, then assessment would be split four ways. Mayor Mitchum stated as taxpayers they're all paying since they're the City and held like to see a policy developed, and can't see making someone who needs an occupational license pay this. He suggested as they bring the improvements on line that we address the problem at that time because we're charging for something we don't even know we can provide. Councilmember Bennington asked if he agrees with the first item. Mayor Mitchum replied yes. Councilmember Bennington suggested they accept that and in any of their policies they accept that they explain the appeals process in that policy or when they renew their occupational licenses to make them aware there is an appeal process and how to go about it. Mayor Mitchum suggested it be handed out to them at that time when the decision is made, and they're told no. Council- member Bennington said they're not getting the message. Mayor Mitchum asked if it's being done. Mr. Johnson replied the process hasn't been set up and the committee's trying to get it established. Councilmember Bennington said she's also talking about Planning and Zoning and anything that has an appeal process. Mr. Johnson noted they've had hearings on LDRA appeals recently. Councilmember Bennington said they have a Building Trades Regulatory Appeals Board that acts as a board of adjustment and they didn't realize until about a year and half ago they could hear complaints the builders had or a citizen had against a builder. Council members discussed items on the policy. It was the consensus there was no problem with item 1. Councilman Hatfield and Councilmember Bennington agreed they had no problem with 3. Councilman Hatfield said in item 3 they're talking about a remodeling project where the building usage is being changed. Mayor Mitchum said perhaps a restaurant type where the seating is expanded. Councilman Hatfield said it's where they'd have a higher increase in fire flow and he agrees with it when they change the structure and the usage. He said the problem is item 2 and he has no problem with paragraph one but the second paragraph needs to come up with something agreeable to all about who will pay for all this. He noted on roads it's one-third, one-third, one-third and they all share in it. He suggested a shared expense between the City and owners of structures and get lessees out of it. Councilmember Bennington suggested with item 3 they take "or occupant II out and leave just "owner". Councilman Hatfield agreed. Mr. Johnson asked about a man leasing the building and it requires fire protection and the owner won't pay for it, which has happened in a couple of cases, then who would be responsible to put it in. Councilmember Bennington replied the owner, if there's a building permit. Mr. Johnson stated the owner said he won't put the hydrant in even though the business requires additional fire protection and the tenant will pay for it if he wants it. Mayor Mitchum pointed out if we 8 Council Regular Meeting Minutes July 16, 1990 ....... ..... UNFINISHED BUSINESS (Continued) Policy statement on City's fire protection (Continued) had an ordinance that says the owner, it will be up to the owner. Councilman Hatfield said the situation is between the owner and the tenant. Mr. Frank Roe, from the audience, asked if this is a public hearing. Mayor Mitchum replied no, they may have one later. Mr. Roe attempted to continue speaking and Mayor Mitchum advised him he's out of order. Councilmember Bennington questioned on number 2, if they don't increase required flow, how can there be a larger threat to property and life, and she thinks State Statutes addresses that by giving the Fire Chief the option. Counc il member Benn i ngton moved they accept in th i s fire protect i on po 1 icy statement number 1 and number 3 with the "and/or occupant II marked off and they further check into number 2 and maybe have a public hearing and get some ideas from other cities how they handle this in existing structures. Mayor Mitchum requested Chief Vola get that information and bring it back to the next meeting. He suggested they take action tonight to relieve the situation because if it doesn't increase the fire flow they seem to agree there's not an impact. Councilman Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 4-0. Chief Vola asked that they not bind him to the next meeting because it may take longer to get written replies from other cities. Councilmember Bennington suggested it be as soon as possible. Councilmember Bennington asked if a motion is needed from a legal standpoint that until they corne up with a policy dealing with this they do not enforce making existing structures. Mr. Johnson replied they have a policy adopted and they'll follow it and the other isn't in the policy. He added their problem has been and still is with definition of State law and the Chief's interpretation of it and responsibility State Statute puts on him as a fire official. He said they still feel the Code says certain things but the Council's adopted a policy and the policy will be enforced. Councilmember Bennington asked if by adopting this policy and leaving that out, if there were a problem they'd be taking the burden of the responsibility off the Chief and putting it on their shoulders. City Attorney Alvarez replied he doesn't think it's a question of responsibility on anyone's shoulders, it's a matter of interpretation of regulations, discretion, and fairness, and they've made a decision and that's the end of it as far as he's concerned. Mayor Mitchum asked Chief Vola to get information as soon as possible, and the way it stands now the section is out so they're not enforcing it. Councilmember Bennington said Mrs. Bushong can get her occupational license. Mayor Mitchum agreed if she meets other requirements. Mr. Johnson said they'll work with her. Concurrency impacts report with presentation by Plannino & Zonino Director Mark Karet - Mark Karet, Director of Planning and Zoning, stated at the last Council meet ing Counci 1 member Bennington asked him to prepare a brief presentation regarding concurrency management and the outline was given to Council in this agenda. He made the following comments: "In 1985 the State of Florida passed a Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. This Act, called the Growth Management Act, because of its provisions that have become known as the concurrency requirements. The word concurrency refers to events that occur at the same time and/or place. The specific events that the Growth Management Act is concerned with are development and the location of supporting facilities and services. The specific time that the Act is concerned with is the point at which impacts of development are felt. The Growth Manage- ment Act states "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. Concurrency does not apply to every public facility and service, but does apply to the basic infrastructure that is necessary to adequately accommodate growth. These facilities and services are solid waste disposal, storrnwater 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. 9 Council Regular Meeting Minutes Ju ly 16, 1990 'w' "tIItII1 UNFINISHED BUSINESS (Continued) Concurrency impacts report with presentation by Plannina & Zonina Director Mark Karet (Cont inued) Concurrency app 1 ies to all development act ions that have impact on public facilities and services. The City has some limited discretion in determining which developments are either vested or exempt from a concurrency test. A concurrency test is simply a comparison of a particular development's demand for infrastructure to the available capacity of the existing public facilities and services. The term vested refers to an established private property interest that cannot be eliminated in regard to some future benefit. Vesting is closely, but not completely, akin to what is commonly known as "grandfathering", Developments which receive approval prior to the effective date of the City's concurrency management system can be vested completely or subject to limitations. By the way, the City's Concurrency Management System must be in place by November 1, 1990. Moreover, some development actions can be exempted altogether from concurrency. These development actions may include the construction of public safety facilities such as Police and Fire stations, or other items such as utility substations and similar devices. Rooms, access- ories, and amenities added to residences may also be exempt. In addition, some jurisdictions are exempting developments that are referred to as de-minimis. The impact of these de-minimis projects are considered so slight they that they will not measurably degrade the levels of service. One caveat is appropriate in regard to either vesting or exempting projects. When you vest or exempt a project while you're not putting them through a concurrency test, they do eat up available capacity and whether they.re testing for concurrency or not, that capacity must be reserved for them. Let me give you an example of how concur- rency might work for a typical private development. Suppose a developer has found a properly designated vacant site for a medical clinic he or she wishes to build on Park Avenue. After checking with the City, the developer learns that all the public facilities necessary to support his or her development are operating at an acceptable level of service. However, it seems that a segment of U.S. 1 which runs from Park Avenue to the North City limits, is operating very close to its established full capacity. While U.S. 1 is a quarter mile away from this particular development, it is anticipated by the City that a substantial number of trips generated by the clinic will impact that segment of U.S. 1. The City also determines that the trips generated by the clinic will degrade the segment of U.S. 1 below its adopted levels of service. The developer also learns that the Florida DOT has no current plan to improve the road. As a result, he or she cannot get a development order. This leaves the developer with essent- ially three basic options: 1) the developer can ditch the project, 2) the developer can scale down the project so that it will not generate enough traffic to degrade the U.S. 1 segment. The problem is that the scaled down version of the project changes the economics and it will take that much longer to break even, or 3) the developer may make improvements to the road, at his or her own expense. That will mitigate the traffic impacts of the clinic, such as a turn lane or traffic signal at the intersection of Park Avenue and U.S.l. The problem here is that these improvements will add substantially and unexpectedly to the overall costs of the project. We have seen how concurrency will affect private sector. 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. 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 wi 11 be halted under concurrency without adequate supporting infrastructure, any undue delay in the provision of services will occur directly at the expense of the City's tax base. Now, more than ever, capita 1 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. Not all of the public facilities and services necessary to support development are provided by the City. State and County roads cut through a number of jurisdictions and drainage basins do not conform to corporate limits. As a result, this makes intergovernmental coord- ination a particularly important component of the concurrency management system. When Councilmember Bennington first raised the issue of concurrency management it was in reference to some concerns of what a particular developer heard from the County. Volusia County must have their concurrency management system in place one month before the City's. Naturally this puts them ahead of the city and most other cities within the County. In addition, in their capacity as a major provider of transportation facilities, this gives them a good reason to wish to control concurrency determinations on a County-wide basis. In fact, there have been some discussions at the County level of adopting a minimum standard for concurrency management related to protection of the environment. 10 Council Regular Meeting Minutes July 16, 1990 '-r ..., UNFINISHED BUSINESS (Continued) Concurrency impacts report with presentation by Plannina & Zonina Director Mark Karet (Continued) This would give the County staff the ability to control both the costs of road improvements and all development in the County. In response to the County, the municipal Planning Directors, in cooperation with VCOG, have begun investigating the creation of a County-wide concurrency management system. It is envisioned that this system would be independent of the control of any single local government. The MPO is currently developing a computer model that will simulate transportation County-wide. This would be a necessary prerequisite for any organization that was attempting to manage concurrency on a County- wide basis. The County has participated in these discussions so far but they have stated as recently as today that it is staff's recommendation that they take an independent approach to concurrency management. Councilman Hatfield asked if it would be separate for municipalities. Mr. Karet replied yes, and a road maintained by them, such as Park Avenue, they will get approval from the County if they want to develop. Councilman Hatfield asked about Roberts Road. Mr. Karet replied that1s still a question. Councilman Hatfield asked about State roads, and u.S. 1. Mr. Karet replied it's State Road 5 and receives some Federal funding and most likely under the County's approach to concurrency management, you'd have to go to the County in regard to that. Councilman Hatfield stated the County can control all our growth on Park Avenue, U.S. 1 and Roberts Road. Mr. Karet said there's an attempt to take the same approach as the water supply when the County had begun discussions in reference to the need to have a Volusia County Regional Water Management District and some of the cities banded together and created a Halifax Water Authority. He added that subsequently the County has joined with the combined municipalities. Councilman Gold asked if we allow them to build on a restricted road and the County doesn1t approve it, do we have to pay toward costs of rights of way or something. Mr. Karet replied it depends on the concurrency management system, if a County-wide system has been opposed, and we're not willing to maintain the road, then the County will have authority to veto that development, but if we're willing to accept responsibility of maintenance of the road, then we can control it. Councilman Hatfield expressed concern that all our commercial development and business zoning is along Indian River Boulevard and Park Avenue, and in the future Roberts Road and u.S. 1 and it will all go to the County. Mr. Karet said if it's on those roads. Mr. Johnson referred to a vote in Tallahassee regarding growth management and concurrency requirements. Councilmember Bennington stated if we have to put a building moratorium on the City, that's our main industry and can really hurt us. Mr. Karet said any delay in the placement of capital improvements is done at the expense of the tax base. Determination of term of ad hoc Beautification Committee - Mr. Johnson stated the expiration of the resolution is up and they need direction from Council to continue. He added the Committee gave them information about their feelings. Councilmember Bennington stated it's up August 1st and she thinks they've been doing a terrific job and she1d like to continue it and doesn't want to put a time limit on it and would like a resolution to establish it permanently. City Attorney Alvarez suggested they could just remove the year. Councilman Hatfield stated his initial idea for the Beautification Committee was to advise the City and the number one project was to motivate people to clean up their properties and to make U.S. 1 and commercial areas more attractive and to let them know the City appreciates it. He added they're doing that, but he doesn1t feel it should be their responsibility to have car washes to raise money for City projects, and the City should be responsible for funding City projects. He suggested they be sent some kind of appreciation for what they.ve done and give them some positive input that certain monies will be budgeted for beautification and for landscaping in the City and their efforts might be better served on advising where and what types of landscaping might be best. He noted 2 or 3 of the Committee members are landscapers and they may want to redirect their pattern away from fund raising into an advisory committee to the City. Councilman Hatfield then moved they extend the Beautification Committee for an indefinite term, that we send a letter thanking them for their year's work for this City and the input they've had, and also in the letter redirect their time spent away from money making projects into advisory and landscaping projects and let the City finance the project. Councilmember Bennington seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 4-0. 11 Council Regular Meeting Minutes Ju ly 16, 1990 ,., .." COUNCIL/OFFICERS REPORTS City Attorney - City Attorney Alvarez stated a petition has been filed for an administrative hearing regarding the CIP which delays our ability to get a permit for the discharge to the Indian River. Mayor Mitchum stated he had the City Manager request Ron Ferland give them a report on the CIP. City Manaaer - Mr. Ron Ferland, Project Manager, Dyer, Riddle, Mills & Precourt, Inc. gave a brief overview of the various projects: With the Alan Thomas water treatment plant, we've responded to the Volusia County Development Review Committee and the Department of Environmental Regulation, and he's meeting with Volusia County Review on Wednesday with a final response to their last request for additional information and we should be getting our development order from them subsequent to their receiving the information and signing off; with DER the only outstanding issue is they'd like to see the filters enlarged and we've resized the filters and will be submitting that information this week and should have the DER permit and the Volusia County development order in the July-August time frame. At that point the City will be in a position, if they desire, to go out for bids once the financing is obtained; wellfield expansion will occur concurrently with the water treatment plant; the consumptive use permit for the wellfield is in hand and that can start at any time when funding is available; water transmission main on 442 that connects the proposed water plant to the existing distribution system is approximately two months from being completed and they intend to put it on the back burner until Florida Shores design situation is resolved but we're getting ready to pick it up two weeks from now, and go into permitting and to be ready for bid; all our Florida East Coast railway crossings have been obtained, there are two for crossing permits for that water ma in; and we've been coord i nat i ng placement wi th DOT and the i r potential widening of SR 442 so when they widen the road we won't have to relocate the line within five years after constructing it; design of the facility for wastewater treatment plant expansion and upgrade was completed in March and submitted to DER for technical review in accordance with the State Revolving Fund and the State's review comments have been received, we've verbally gone over them with the State and provided sufficient responses and the only issue out- standing is providing adequate storage for shellfish water holding plus reject water, and we're working with them on that, and the intent is to submit to DER the revised design when we reach a conclusion on storage in mid to late July. Mr. Ferland continued his overview: The SRF application has been submitted to DER and the outstanding items with SRF are 1) receipt of the finding of no significant impact from the facilities planning section, and they are currently reviewing minutes of the May 30th 201 Amendment public hearing and capital financing plan and advised they're in a position to issue the FONSI (finding) in August; they're awaiting legal title certification of the wastewater plant site and that is being handled by the City Attorney; regarding DER construction permit, the State indicated an intent to issue the permit for wastewater dis- charge to the Indian River published by the City on June 20th, and there was a 14 day hearing period allowed. He said on the 14th day, the State received a petition for administrative hearing from Volusia-Flagler Environmental Political Action Committee, Inc.. He added they also received several other one paragraph petitions from United Taxpayers of Edgewater as well as other citizens and those issues were not considered salient to issuance of the permit. He said some information was miscalculated and the issue was nutrient load would be increased in the United Taxpayers' petitions when in actuality, with advanced waste treat- ment, even at 2-1/4 million gallons a day, nutrient loading to the river would be reduced almost by one-third of what's currently being discharged now at 1 million gallons a day. He stated the PAC petition will probably be upheld in terms of being valid for administrative hearing and he hasn't got a standing from the DER attorney handling the case because he's been on vacation. He pointed out the petition may be heard, but that doesn't mean the petitioners will prevail. He said the petition requests the permit be issued under dictate of HB 3247, but the intent to issue was issued under guidelines of recent EPA mandated regulations which are in Chapter 17-4.242, anti-degradation permitting requirements, and we had to respond to DER regarding this, and it's similar to the exception allowed in HB 3247. He pointed out 3247 mandates that all dis- charges into Indian River Lagoon, from Palm Beach County to Ponce Inlet, be removed from the Indian River and that affects Edgewater, New Smyrna Beach, Titusville, Vero Beach, Fort Pierce, and every community along the Indian River waterway that discharges. He stated the legislation has a paragraph that DER may grant an exception to subsection 1 or 2, which is elimination of the discharge by 1995, under the following circumstances: 1) if the applicant 12 Council Regular Meeting Minutes Ju ly 16, 1990 '-' ~ COUNCIL/OFFICERS REPORTS (Continued) City Manaqer (Continued) conclusively demonstrates no other practical alternative exists and discharge will receive advanced waste treatment or higher level of treatment, and in our 201 Facilities Plan we1ve looked at all alternatives available for effluent discharge and concluded, with concurrence of DER, that is what's economically and realistically available to the City in terms of a discharge, 2) the City unilaterally decided to go to advanced waste treatment He said the other component of the exception is if the applicant conclusively demonstrates proposed discharge will not result in a violation of State water quality standards either by itself or in combination with other discharges, it won't hinder efforts to restore water quality of the Indian River Lagoon system. He pointed out they1re going to be putting better water into the Indian River than is currently being discharged. Mr. Ferland stated normal procedure for administrative hearings is lawyers from the State and the petitioner, because they've petitioned DER, not the City of Edgewater, those lawyers with the lawyer from the City attending, will try to negotiate a settlement which would possibly be for the City to embark on a more aggressive reclaimed water system than they currently have, and he1s not sure they can do it more aggressively than they are planning to, because they're taking a 5 square mile development and providing reclaimed water to it. He said if it goes to administrative hearing, the wastewater treatment plant program will be delayed approximately six months, which is two months to get on the administrative hearing docket, two months for preparation of attorneys for DER and PAC to prepare their case and take depositions, two months for the hearing officer to respond and make his recommendation, and implementation of that recommendation. He noted the six months period will put the wastewater treatment plant permit issuance, if the City prevails and is issued a permit, in December or January, which more closely aligns funding mechanism for the collection system in Florida Shores, so from a time perspective, it works out well if the City prevails and receives the permit. Mr. Ferland stated we have a financial commitment from DER regarding the State Revolving Fund for 1990 which ends in September and he's talked to the State and they assured him that this administrative hearing is of no fault of the City and the City has done everything in its power, responded satisfactorily in the eyes of DER to every piece of information requested, and it does not affect the standing for SRF for 1990, nor the standing for 1991 funding which is a different project altogether. Mr. Ferland noted the State, in recognition of Edgewater's commitment to clean the environment and provide a better environmental system than it currently has with septic tanks and secondary treatment discharge, has found $2 million dollars in closing out the grant program that needs to be used and they decided Edgewater would get the full $2 million. He explained this is contingent upon approval of the Environmental Regulation Commission when they meet in September and it's a grant, not a loan where the money has to be repaid, and nothing is final until ERC approves it. Mr. Ferland stated the Florida Shores infrastructure improvements consist of water, wastewater, reclaimed water, paving, and drainage, and the aerial survey is completed and utility system design is approximately 70% complete. He said they'll provide the City with construction documents that will be available at the end of July, proceed with preparation of assessment rolls, and get the City embarked on the three public hearings associated with an assessment program. He noted during the assessment program public hearings period, they'll finalize plans and take care of details that don1t affect parcel cost. Mr. Ferland stated paving and drainage is approximately 60% complete and there's a lag because you do wastewater and then paving and drainage have to work around it and we anticipate 100% completion of that design for special assessment purposes in August, with the clean up going into an October-November time frame. Mr. Ferland stated one thing that's complete is the primary-secondary corridors for future traffic demands have been defined, whether it will be 20 foot or 24 foot for the pavement width, east/west roads that are going to be closed and used for stormwater retention basins have been defined, typical right of way and retent i on bas insect ions have been deve loped, and swa 1 e and retent i on bas i n bottom elevations and grades have been programmed for the total Florida Shores 13 Council Regular Meeting Minutes July 16, 1990 '- ..." COUNCIL/OFFICERS REPORTS (Continued) City Manaaer (Continued) development. As part of the infrastructure program and recognizing the City's need with the new elementary school opening in November to January, they designed a sidewalk along Roberts Road that will provide a safer access for children to the new school from Florida Shores than what exists now. Mr. Ferland stated in the stormwater master plan, they've applied for a concept- ual permit to St. Johns River Water Management District, and on Turgot Avenue paving, drainage design is completed but since the City is currently negotiating with the School Board to possibly obtain the site on the west side of the Shangri-La canal, rather than buying an area on the east side of Shangri-La canal for stormwater retention basin required for paving Turgot Avenue, we're in a hold pattern to put facilities on the west side if the City purchases that property. Mr. Ferland stated with the water and wastewater rate study, they had to final- ize the finance plan to a conceptual status, which they now have, and debt service amounts from the Finance Advisor, and a draft was developed and will be sent to City staff this week for preliminary review and next week Council will receive a report and review it and have a presentation at the August 6th meeting. Councilmember Bennington asked if the Building and Planning Departments know about the east/west roads defined for stormwater retention basins so they don't issue driveway permits. Mr. Ferland replied they.ve worked with Planning and Zoning and Building and identified streets and have a policy in place on how to handle access to those lots from the north/south roads to the east/west roads. Councilman Gold asked the depth of the swales. Mr. Ferland replied not as deep as India Palm, maximum will be 2 to 2-1/2 foot, with most to be 1-1/4 to 1-1/2. Councilman Hatfield suggested they have an update on each subject once a month. Mayor Mitchum agreed it I S a good idea as they get closer, and they need a response from Dyer, Riddle before the next meeting for items he's going to go through. He stated the CIP Committee hasn't met recently and they need to. He requested a more detailed report of the following: what.s going on in the water, wastewater, stormwater, and roads; the status of the City, State, County, and Federal permits, which ones we have, which ones do we need, why we don't have them, and when will we get them; status of land acquisition and easements, and have we identified parcels needed for easements and temporary construction. He asked if we have right of way across the railroad. Mr. Ferland noted we have the permit for right of way. Mayor Mitchum continued with his requests: status of engineering completion versus contract schedule; status of engineering costs versus contracted amounts; percentages complete; and what items are critical. He said he sees the water treatment plant as more critical than the wastewater treatment plant and sewer, because with water shortage we1ve had a lot of demand on the system and are having to blend water, and that's a priority. Councilmember Bennington said wastewater is important but water is right now the most important. Mayor Mitchum said they have the consumptive use permit for the water plant but can1t build it because of problems with the County. Mr. Ferland pointed out they also don't have bonds issued. Mayor Mitchum stated they need a priority list with water treatment plant on the top. He asked the status of participation and educational programs for the public, they did a news- letter and need something from DRMP, and status of financing plan, which is more from Stan Livengood, and we need them to bring it together. He said all need to be addressed and there are a lot of things involved at State and County level that we need to control if we can. He requested a bi-weekly status report from Dyer, Riddle of what's going on. He added we've spent a lot of money and need to show something concrete. Mayor Mitchum asked Dyer, Riddle to reaffirm their commitment and Ron Ferland to be full time for Edgewater with a letter stating Edgewater is their priority because we don't need part time people or someone who doesn't know what's going on. He again stated the water plant is a priority. City Attorney Alvarez said he has some concerns. He reviewed the memorandum they received which outlines Mr. Ferland's presentation and different percentages of completion in terms of dollars and job. He noted his concerns are not in order of priority: 1) opening paragraph states DRMP is providing engineering services related to definition and design, and he's heard about going to construction, and how is that going to be achieved? Who's going to do that? How are those 14 Council Regular Meeting Minutes Ju ly 16, 1990 . . '- ..."", COUNCIL/OFFICERS REPORTS (Continued) City Manaaer (Continued) contracts going to come about and be reviewed, espec- ially complexities of the bidding process and preparation of those contracts? He said as part of design there should be a bid package, contract models sub- mitted, and those contracts shouldn't be submitted at a time that they just sign them and send them out. He added helll need a lot of consultation before we embark on construction, they're looking at $20 to $30 million dollars of con- struction and chances are weill incur unforeseen conditions underground and incur overrun costs in a number of matters. He asked who is going to be responsible and how is it going to be handled as we embark into that last phase? City Attorney Alvarez continued with his concerns: Regarding the water plant, we had an initial estimate of a building permit by March and this is July, and that's not unreasonable, and he's not an expert on administrative hearings but he's seen them go for as long as two years. He said with the permit for effluent disposal the memo called for a minimum of six months and he wishes it's right but they can't labor under rose colored glasses for the following reasons: we are on line for $4. some million dollars of BANis, we have a facility with a design that's one half million dollars, the water plant has a contract of $364 and it's $295 so itls virtually designed. He asked what do we do with the water that comes back from the homes if we don't have a place to put it? He said the cornerstone of the project is the effluent disposal and without that, they don't have anything, and they have new wells and a new plant and are sending out new good water and if they don't have the effluent disposal either in the river or someplace, then what do they do? Do they continue with designs and other expen- ditures with uncertainty of the petition? He said he1s heard the attorney for DER will handle it for the City and there will be attorneys for the petitioners, and are we going to sit back and let them handle it? He noted they have a legal standing and they should be supervising that process very closely because if it gets tied up with an appeal, then what do we have to face? He stated Council needs to assert who will have legal responsibility on the outcome of adminis- trative hearings and any possible appeals as that hasn't been decided or defined. Mr. Ferland stated he agrees with the Mayor and Councilmember Bennington that water is the highest priority and it's always been. He pointed out Park Avenue had an interim expansion, and in order to lock down SRF funding in absence of perfecting the special assessment pledge, they're using the same money to pledge to SRF instead of being able to issue revenue bonds for the water plant. He said if the City prevails on the permit, then they have an opportunity to revisit the finance plan with intent of issuing bonds for water improvements. He stated regarding construction management percent completions, the contract will show fees include construction management and engineering inspections associated with projects. He said construction documents and contracts will be reviewed by legal counsel and will be bid in accordance with Florida law and they accept the lowest acceptable bidder to do the job. He stated the collection system for Florida Shores is the key and unless theylve perfected the financing tool to pay this, they don1t need effluent disposal increase at the wastewater plant until they know how they're going to do the collection system. He said they.ll have the design complete but have to determine if it will be special assessment or referendum for G.O. bonds. He noted they have to hold an equalization hearing, which is third of the public hearings required in the special assessment process. He said he'll detail status of the permits, but the only easement acquisition outstanding is 140 feet on 442 where it goes to 65 feet and that has been addressed to City staff to provide acquisition of the easement back in January. He said other components, stormwater facility, reclaimed water mains, wastewater collection system, water systems and force mains and pump stations will be in public rights of way. He said with the wastewater treatment plant, they're in the process of getting title insurance and certification on the property which is being handled by the City Attorney. He said he'll give Council as much detail as they want, his commitment to Edgewater has been 100% and will continue to be. He said on pendings, the staff load has 20 to 30 people devoted to the projects to get it in a timely manner so they can decide what they want to implement. City Attorney Alvarez stated issues he raised weren't designed for a response from Mr. Ferland but to conclude his observations to Council. He said in January last year the Council formed a CIP Committee and meetings have been held until the last several months and issues Council raised have to be addressed by the CIP Committee and then have to come to Council for decision. He asked that they go back to that system which the motion states that no one individual is to make decisions, as he sees very important issues here and he's not participating in making those decisions. 15 Council Regular Meeting Minutes July 16, 1990 ..., ...., . , COUNCIL/OFFICERS REPORTS (Continued) City Manaaer (Continued) Councilmember Bennington asked if he's the project manager. Mr. Ferland replied yes. Councilmember Bennington asked about Mr. Gerry Hartman. Mr. Ferland replied it was withheld because of a separation agreement and Mr. Hartman was principal in charge of the environmental division and due to a disagreement with the six other partners for whatever reason, he's decided to leave the firm of DRMP and has established his own firm. He said he feels the loss, and since then he's been promoted to manager of the environmental division and has taken over responsibilities of Gerry Hartman but that hasn't caused his commitment to diminish, and it probably enhances it because he has more power with the company. Councilmember Bennington asked if he'll be meeting with the County to get a use permit for the wastewater treatment plant. Mr. Ferland replied he'll meet with the County Wednesday on the water treatment plant. He said an outstanding issue is the number of crepe myrtles on the site and they miscounted last time and they want clarification about where the flow will go after a 100 year storm, and upon resolving those two issues, there are no others outstanding with the County, and DER had only one outstanding issue which was the filter sizing and they responded to that, and when they get that, they're intending to issue. He said for the transmission main, the outstanding issue is the DER permit and DOT permit. He added the water plant also has a DOT driveway permit he has to get. City Council - Councilman Hatfield stated there could be a situation that someone is able to build a mound around his home and put a four foot fence on top of it. He asked if it's legal as they found it's a gray area. He moved they direct the City Manager to have the Planning Department and Engineering look into the ordinance and give them a response back of any changes that may be needed. Councilmember Bennington seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 4-0. QUESTIONS FROM PRESS There were no questions from the press. CITIZEN COMMENTS Frank Roe, 2732 Juniper Drive, stated held attended the meeting regarding fire hydrants and a motion passed that the occupant has to pay for the fire hydrant. Mayor Mitchum clarified they discussed it. Mr. Roe stated they'd passed it and Councilmember Bennington presented it, so why is it still on the books. Council- member Bennington stated she didn't make the motion. Mr. Roe stated he doesn't think it's right to try to legislate anything backward and there was a hydrant put in Florida Shores and the City paid for it. He asked if there's a fund for the department. Mr. Johnson replied no. Mr. Roe asked who put it in Florida Shores. Mr. Johnson replied it's when the infrastructure was put in, and this is commercial, not residential. Mr. Roe stated they donated money for them to enlarge the pipes and there's no reason to spend so much time on that topic when something could be done at the last meeting and someone suggested a workshop. He said itls not a great way to spend their time. He suggested when they go for election held like them to state what they did in the last two years. He suggested they practice water conservation. Mayor Mitchum called the time 1 imit. Al Rowe, Edgewater Industrial Park, stated a fire hydrant costs $2,600 by a plumber and the hydrant is approximately $1,100. He said regarding tenants and owners, the landlords have mortgages usually and if someone refused to put in a hydrant, the tenants will walk so he has to have tenants in his building and will put them in if it comes down to that. He added itls hard to rent when you tell a tenant held have to pay $2,600 on top of his first, last, and damage deposit and they'll just go elsewhere and it will drive people from this area. He stated he pays $600 a month in sales tax to the State, $13,000 on property tax with Edgewater getting $3,500 of that and has for 10 years. He said he has 27 businesses on his property and quite a few employees and the higher the cost for him to operate, the more rent he'll have to charge. He thanked Counc il members who are sensitive to his feelings and several are in favor of the fire hydrants not needed in existing buildings. He added nobody will mind with new construction. ADJOURN. Mayor Mitchum suggested a motion to adjourn. Councilman Gold so moved. Councilman Hatfield seconded the motion. Meeting adjourned at 10:02 p.m. Minutes submitted by: Lura Sue Koser 16 Council Regular Meeting Minutes July 16, 1990 .. '-" ATTEST: ~ CITY CLERK I App oved this ~ day of u f- . 19~. t-~ a. 4d ~ L' y. C 1/ se t MAYOR ~ P' 'I * ;1 t:' i c.< ~ 1 (' .,- Z U /10 COUNCILMAN - ZONE FOUR ~L~ 17 Council Regular Meeting Minutes Ju ly 16, 1990