Loading...
07-23-1990 - Special '., r;f , '-' ..., CITY COUNCIL OF EDGEWATER SPECIAL MEETING JULY 23, 1990 MINUTES Mayor Mitchum called the Special Meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. in the Community Center. He stated the purpose was for discussion and action on pending engineering, legal and financial issues of the capital improvements program. ROLL CALL Mayor David Mitchum Councilman Dan Hatfield Councilmember Gigi Bennington Councilman Russell Gold Councilman Thomas Fish City Attorney Josel Alvarez City Manager Elly Johnson City Clerk Susan Wadsworth Chief Lawrence Schumaker Present Present Present Excused Present Present Present Present Present Mayor Mitchum asked about the administrative hearing, which is a legal issue. City Attorney Alvarez explained at the last meeting the consulting engineers informed us they had a petition filed which would have the effect of delaying issuance of the discharge permit and will go to administrative hearing under Chapter 120. He said due to the seriousness of that situation from a legal standpoint as to the effects it could have on the program on financing, engineering, and the plan we1ve been pursuing, he invited Mr. Cliff Schulman, an attorney who is a specialist in this area and who has handled thousands of these matters over the last 15 years. He added he1s here on his own time. Mr. Cliff Schulman, with the law firm of Greenburg, Traurig, stated it1s been 18 years and they specialize in environmental law. He reviewed his prior experience, along with the filing of the petition within the 14 days of the June 20th State DER issuance of its intent. He noted another petition with 131 signatures was also filed within the time frame, and one day late a letter of objection was received by DER from United Taxpayers and it1s also being considered as a petition in opposition. He explained the hearings are not what they are used to, and it1s a complete and full trail on the issue of whether to permit. He explained DER is the party to that and burden of proving entitlement to the permit is on the applicant, the City of Edgewater. Mr. Schulman explained within 15 days of filing of the petition with DER, it will be referred to an administrative hearing judge and he'll notify all the parties that a petition's been received and will attempt to set a trial date, which is usually 3 to 4 months from the time they received it, which would be about an October-November date. He noted with a very complicated matter with a lot of expert witnesses, that date is ambitious and it may go 5 or 6 months to get to discovery. He exp 1 a i ned they have depos i t ions and interrogator i es with an exception that they1re usually dealing with issues involving scientific issues such as the impact of discharge and impact on nearby beaches and wildlife and resources of the Indian River Lagoon. He stated the trial can take one day to three weeks and it's very complex and there's an attorney for the other side and after all the evidence, the citizens have an opportunity to address the hearing officer and make presentations. He said when the trial is finished, a transcript is prepared verbatim and that will take one to two months, and when prepared it goes to the State Hearing Officer which takes 45-60 days, and the Hearing Officer will take 90-120 days after trial. He pointed out the Hearing Officer only issues a recommended order which goes to the Secretary of DER who then makes his decision regarding issuance of the permit, and that can take another 60-90 days. He said when the Secretary issues an order that is the decision if they get the permit or not, that's about 6-8 months from today. He added when the decision takes place, there's a 30 day appeals period for anyone dissatisfied with the result. He noted in the appellate process, you take 6 months to a year to resolve the appeal, and depending on the motivation of the opposition and their ability to fund the effort, they1re looking at possibly a 1 to 1-1/2 year delay. Mr. Schulman stated the petition from the United Taxpayers may be tossed out because of being untimely, the one signed by the 131 has problems with form and may be tossed out, but the petition from Volusia-Flagler may be able to get to hearing, although it may have some technical problems. '-' .....,. Councilman Fish stated the time frame looks to be 6 to 8 months opposed to 1 to 1-1/2 years or more, if we prevail. Mr. Schulman explained that at any time during the process, discussions do take place in an attempt to resolve the situation and you do your best to avoid litigation. He said his best advice is to get ready for a problem and the permit is in jeopardy and it can't wait until a week before trial. He explained the procedure for notification with a notice of referral from DER that it was shipped to the Division of administrative Hearings, and then a notice from a Hearing Officer about 10 days later that he's received it and where they'll hear it. He added he'll ask the parties to meet and discuss it. Mayor Mitchum stated there's an opportunity to settle the matter before then with all parties concerned. Mr. Schulman said anytime during the process if the parties can reach an amicable resolution, they can ask them to send it back to DER. Mayor Mitchum asked if they'd get the permit at that point. Mr. Schulman replied if they could settle with all petitioners, they could get it, and settlements will have to be noticed in the newspapers like the permit, and they may not accept what was agreed upon and it will start allover again. Councilmember Bennington asked if the burden of proof will be on the City. Mr. Schulman replied they have a burden of showing with preponderance that he's given reasonable assurance that all requirements have been met. Councilmember Bennington asked if we need legal representation at this point. Mr. Schulman advised it, noting there's legal discovery and motion to dismiss and cross examinat ions and everyone is subject to be sworn and subject to be cross examined. He added it's a quasi judicial hearing. City Attorney Alvarez asked the chances that the permit will be granted if they take the position that this matter is purely between the petitioners and DER and do noth i ng. Mr. Schu 1 man exp 1 a i ned the burden of proof is the DER wi 11 not generally defend a permit applicant, and it's not that they don't want to help but they are just an administrative body and you must make your decision. He added generally the permit applicant works with DER counsel. City Attorney Alvarez said certain materials are prepared and submitted to DER. He asked if the suggestion is to sit on it and go to trial. Mr. Schulman explained DER can change their position legally up to and in the hearing, and they (the City) need to be there with their own people. City Attorney Alvarez asked if the issue they'll be dealing with is similar to those considered by DER during their administrative analysis. Mr. Schulman replied most have been, and one has been raised and that's impact of the new bill that went into effect July 1st, #3247, regarding new and increased discharge into the Indian River Lagoon. He pointed out the bill hadn't taken effect when DER submitted it's intent to permit on June 20th. City Attorney Alvarez asked if with the new bi 11, if DER says don I t increase the volume of discharge even though the proposed discharge is advanced wastewater treatment, can we continue with the amount of discharge we have. Mr. Schulman replied only until 1995 and then all cities' discharge must terminate and by 1992 any governmental agency must present a letter to DER indicating how they'll meet their goal. City Attorney Alvarez asked what if we can't prevail in qualifying for one of the exceptions listed in the bill. Mr. Schulman replied the present plan is a secondary treatment plant and under the bill as written, the only way to qualify for any of the exceptions is to have an AWT plant and any secondary treatment of effluent will cease in 1995 with certain advanced discharges to be allowed to continue under certain circumstances, such as you don1t have any practical alternatives and you won't violate State water quality standards. City Attorney Alvarez asked the alternative for all municipalities that have to face this. Mr. Schulman replied alternatives are limited in Florida, one is to discharge to the Lagoon or to another water body, ocean outfall, or deep well injection of 3 to 4,000 feet and wastewater reuse, which is treated to use for golf courses and irrigation. He pointed out reuse is favored under State policy. Mr. Ron Ferland, Project Manager, Dyer, Riddle, Mills & Precourt, Inc., stated the current Progress Report has the permit issuance dates and when responses were received to have a track of the scheduling, plus the engineers fees to date and percent completion. He pointed out the cover letter is a project priority listing and it's recommended based on available capacity of the facilities and the public health and safety environmental impact and the City's ability to proceed with the project. He stated priorities listed: first, water treatment plant, wellfield expansion, and transmission main that have to occur together; second, the Florida Shores wastewater collection system, wastewater treatment 2 Council Special Meeting Minutes July 23, 1990 'wi' """ Ron Ferland (Continued) plant upgrade and expansion, and reclaimed water effluent disposal system; third, City-wide critical drainage improvements because of impact on public safety and health; fourth, water distribution improvements; and fifth, Florida Shores drainage improvements; and sixth, Florida Shores paving improvements. He pointed out these priorities don't have to occur sequentially. City Attorney Alvarez stated priorities need to be addressed at this time based on what they're facing legally. He asked what the water distribution system improvements include. Mr. Ferland replied they've been identifying in the distribution system master plan to provide improved services, especially in Florida Shores where they are served by 211 lines and they have pressure problems at the south end. He added the improvements will get water more efficiently and for providing fire protection in those areas that aren't served by 611 lines. He said the other component is to provide fire protection for commercial and industrial. City Attorney Alvarez asked how number 4, the water distribution system improvements tie in with the first priority, water treatment plant, wellfield expansion and transmission main, and can they have one without the other. Mr. Ferland replied yes, the distribution system improvements in Florida Shores can be done on an earlier basis as they've been done by the City and it's not a critical, urgent need, but with the water treatment plant, the City's had to blend raw water because of a severe drought and the existing plant is at capacity and the transmission main coming from 1-95/442 intersection down 442 to Willow Oak and cut off at 26th or 28th and cross the railroad tracks and comes out to Roberts Road and the piece from 28th to Roberts to the entrance to Meadow Lake has been put in by the School Board and the remaining piece would be put in as development occurs on Roberts Road. He said by running the transmission main through the south end they'll get substantial improvement in service even if they don' t put in the 611 1 ine and the 611 1 ine wi 11 further improve the system and wi 11 provide fire protection. He pointed out they need the water plant and wellfield and transmission main to get the water to the service area and the improvements related to fire protection can be done on a longer time frame. City Attorney Alvarez asked about number 3, City-wide critical drainage, if we improve the drainage and canals and they increase the flows of stormwater to the River, will we face the same problem welre facing. Mr. Ferland replied at some point in time they'll have to deal with stormwater discharge to the Indian River but the City with current regulations and current program of stormwater retention basins holding the water and providing treatments prior to discharge to the canal will meet criteria being written by EPA. He added they'll probably have to get a NPDES permit and one condition is to provide the best technology for stormwater. He pointed out the critical improvements for Florida Shores are intended to take care of extreme flooding occurrences there now and doesn' t mitigate the current water quality that's in place but it tries to help drain water and get it out of the streets and houses. City Attorney Alvarez stated if wastewater plant improvements are delayed for two years, septic tanks are a problem, but the problem's increased with poor drainage. He asked if an increase in drainage facilities until such time as the wastewater plant can be improved will help the present conditions in conjunction with the water plant and new water distribution systems. He also asked if the present wastewater plant has capacity to absorb existing flows if we don't install a collection system in the Shores. Mr. Ferland replied the current plant is at 750, and it's 1 million daily. and if you don't sewer Florida Shores, by 1995 you have to have in place an advanced water treatment plant to continue to discharge to the River. He pointed out very few of the critical drainage improvements are related to Florida Shores except dredging and maintenance of existing canals. He noted public health hazard is the more septic tanks you have and the more impervious areas, the more the water table comes up and the more you discharge into the River. City Attorney Alvarez asked if they could be facing a moratorium, adding he feels they'll prevail. Mr. Ferland explained developable lots on high ground don't require a lot of fill for a septic tank but will probably require mounds because septic tank regulations are becoming more strict, but sites that are low need mounded drainfields or significant fill. He pointed out since there's documentation of leeching into the River, they could be looking at a Health Department related moratorium in Florida Shores and the City having to deal with a septic tank moratorium and will see a severe cutback or end to Florida Shores growth which would be a significant impact on the City. He added he sees it1s reasonable it could occur in the next two years. 3 Council Special Meeting Minutes July 23, 1990 --- ~ City Attorney Alvarez asked Mr. Ferland asked if it's his professional oplnlon from an engineering standpoint based on what's transpired with the potential delay of the wastewater disposal and based on needs we now have for good drinking water and add i t i ona 1 we 11 s, is there any reason why we can't proceed with priority 1, the water treatment plant and wellfield expansion. Mr. Ferland replied there's no reason they can't proceed with those programs and they should have their permit and all they need by the end of August. He pointed out the crux is the issue needs to be looked at by the Financial Advisor and the Finance Committee or team whether by dropping off the wastewater program, whether revenue bonds can be issued, and whether revenues are sufficient for just the water system since you won't have continual growth. City Attorney Alvarez clarified he's not advocating dropping anything but trying to understand what's to be done now and to break it up into items they can understand. Mr. Ferland said 1 to 2 years for administrative hearing and special assessments resolutions and if it's delayed a year that provides an opportunity for the water system to be put on the front burner for funding as well as implementation from a professional technical perspective. He again said he needs to talk with the Financial Advisor and Finance Committee to see if we can change this in mid-stream and do the bond in the next month and initiate the water plant in the next 2 months. He pointed out the financing plan needs to be looked at in regard to restructuring. Mayor Mitchum said they're talking about the administrative hearing and what he's objected to is treating effluent disposal into the Indian River, and now they have untreated runoff from septic tanks. Mr. Ferland agreed. Mayor Mitchum said we're preparing to eliminate those septic tanks and they're saying you have to improve the septic tank runoff but can't do it at the expense of putting treated water into the River. He asked if this will be taken into consideration at the hearing that we1ve embarked on one of the most advanced effluent disposal systems and have discussed effluent disposal. Mr. Schulman replied that's subject to evidence being submitted to the Hearing Officer and the issue, and the Officer will have a lot more liberality in what he can entertain and will hear anyone to get a clear picture. Councilmember Bennington asked how they'll pay for the cost of this. Mr. Schulman said litigation is hard to estimate and if it goes two weeks with 10 expert witnesses, it could possibly be $50-$75,000 legal fees and then you have to pay your experts. He added the cost isn't unreasonable when you put it in perspective of a $7 million dollar plant. Councilmember Bennington asked if we'll roll cost of litigation into cost of the CIP if we prevail. Mr. Schulman suggested they direct the question to the Financial Advisor. Councilmember Bennington stated it will drive the project cost up. Mr. Schulman agreed. City Attorney Alvarez stated Chapter 157 addresses cost of proceedings, i.e., expert witnesses. Mr. Schulman and City Attorney Alvarez discussed frivolous lawsuits. Mr. Ferland stated the document has dates and status with some assumptions, and the water plant, upon review of all documents, could be ready to go to bid from September to November based upon the current program of bond revenues in December. Mayor Mitchum asked the status of the water treatment plant permit with the County. Mr. Ferland explained they want a specific location of the flow of swales and the shrubs were taken care of and the crepe myrtles. Mayor Mitchum asked the next step. Mr. Ferland replied the development order will be issued and it usually is in two weeks, then it will be the septic tank permit for the water plant, and they can bid the job and award to the successful bidder and then he'll get the building permit. Mayor Mitchum asked if he foresees any problems with obtaining the permit. Mr. Ferland replied he sees no problems. He added the only outstanding permit is DER because we have to expand the filters and that's being done and will be submitted tomorrow and they've said they'll issue another 14 day notice period for people to object. He stated the other critical factor is the wellfield is included in those permittings and the transmission main is lagging by about two months and they plan to pick that up in August with two months to complete than get the permits and get ready to go on the pipe line in the November time frame. He pointed out it doesn't pose a problem because it's a 9-month construction period. He said in order to improve the system is to construct the water line in two phases, which would give the benefit of the new line and when the new plant comes on line you have collectors to serve it. He added it will improve the pressure dramatically in Florida Shores. 4 Council Special Meeting Minutes July 23, 1990 ......., ... Councilmember Bennington asked if they're ready to go with Wildwood and Shangri- La on item #3, City-wide critical needs. Mr. Ferland replied yes, plans are in place and the Cityls capable of doing some, but there are some designs and permits that have to be obtained from FEC and Volusia County and he was waiting for the new City Engineer to come on board for a cost savings to the City. Councilmember Bennington stated they could go ahead with #3 because welre collecting the fee for that. Mr. Johnson explained it's in the proposed budget and anything up to $100,000 of projects are listed in the plans they approved. Councilmember Bennington asked if they can start that prior to anything else if it's listed as number three. Mr. Ferland replied they could do number 3 first. Councilman Hatfield asked if they're planning five square miles of sending advanced treated wastewater back to the community for sprinkler systems. Mr. Ferland replied yes. Councilman Hatfield said they looked at reuse onto a green site and they may have to go back to that anyway before 1995. Mr. Ferland explained the initial program was to provide reclaimed water facilities in Florida Shores because theylll be digging up the roads anyway and the intent of the reclaimed water program is they'll be able to provide reclaimed water in any area of the City where they request it, and if they get a golf course in the City theylll get reuse water and green spaces such as parks will be provided reclaimed water. Councilman Hatfield asked if they can do that on vacant land. Mr. Ferland replied yes, and they looked at it. Councilman Hatfield asked how much 1 and is needed for a project such as th is. Mr . Fer 1 and sa i d it's spray irrigation. Mayor Mitchum noted that not everyone will hook up, and asked the percentage. Mr. Ferland replied they assume 30% and it's about 600,000 gallons. Councilman Hatfield said they still have 1.8 million gallons and asked how many acres it would take for spray irrigation. Mr. Johnson explained it depends on the type of soil and system involved, and they can't just put it on vacant property. Mr. Ferland stated they looked at available parcels and the only one found was an orange grove on 442 and only came up with about 1-1/2 MGD and then they looked at adding wetlands. Mayor Mitchum asked how much weill need in 1995. Mr. Ferland replied about 1.8 or 1.9, and 2.5 is the 10 year horizon. Councilmember Bennington said there are a lot of areas where people would gladly pay for the lines and the use. Mr. Ferland said that1s negotiable if the City can spend the money and the peop 1 e are wi 11 i ng to get the extens ions made. Councilmember Bennington asked why it has to be underground sprinkler systems. Mr. Ferland explained there's a requirement that when you hook up it has to be buried underground to try to avoid any cross connection with the potable water system and people don1t think it's drinking water and hook up to it. Mr. Ferland stated in the Florida Shores infrastructure status report, there are two aspects, paving and drainage and utility, and they dealt with utility special assessment and not with paving and drainage special assessments and how the City will pay their one-third of the contribution. He said they have to address the paving and drainage finance plan and develop it to do the construction concurrently. Mayor Mitchum asked Mr. Stan Livengood, Financial Advisor, where we stand with the water plant and where does the SRF come in if the wastewater plant falls through, with the 6.9 million SRF and $2 million dollar grant we may receive. Mr. Livengood replied assurances have been received by the City's consulting engineers from DER that in the grants administration area, because the City has no control over this administrative appeal process, unless a negotiated settlement is received soon there will be a significant delay in securing the construction permit for this new wastewater treatment facility which is a pre- condition to entering into the 1990 loan agreement which is 6.8 million of 4- 1/4% loan funds. City Attorney Alvarez asked if we get the construction permit before we get the discharge permit. Mr. Livengood replied the discharge permit is part of the construction permit for the wastewater treatment plant, one is no good without the other, and you couldn't start construction of a facility if you don1t have assurance the effluent discharge could be permitted in a fashion that's in the overall system design. He added they'll hold money for us and you were told previously that by the end of this fiscal year, September 30th, if you didn1t' have your 1991 loan agreement executed that money was gone, and now possibly you won't be able to enter into the 1991 agreement before September 30th, but DER assured us that doesn't matter because the delays are not the responsibility nor controllable by the City and the money will be preserved and 5 Council Special Meeting Minutes July 23, 1990 -.,. ""'" is available, assuming they prevail and get the effluent permit. Mayor Mitchum asked about the $2 million grant. Mr. Ferland replied he doesn1t know because one of the bases of the grant was the Cityls ability to proceed with monies readily available. Mayor Mitchum stated it might hinge on whether we can get the issue settled out of administrative hearing. Mr. Ferland said helll call or write tomorrow requesting verification as to the City's status due to the petition and funding priority and verifying what they told him verbally to have something to take to the bank. City Attorney Alvarez asked how long they'll hold the money. Mr. Ferland said they may not hold 1990 money but may roll this into 1991 priority and give us both components and perhaps put the money is escrow. He said placement on the list will stay the same. Mayor Mitchum stated we weren't guaranteed placement on 1991. Mr. Ferland said they'll fund us for 1991 and we went from low pressure to gravity and they only allocated for low pressure and they gave us what was obligated for low pressure. He noted we take our chances for 1992 and are on the proposed list. Mayor Mitchum asked about financing for the water plant if the wastewater gets tied up in administrative hearings. He said they discussed the priority and that it's important, now what's the next step. Mr. Livengood said their recommendation for financing the water plant is to proceed as quickly as possible after the special assessment process levying special assessments within Florida Shores was completed. He said he was advised this evening by the consulting engineers that the water and wastewater rate study with recommended increases has been submitted but he hasn't reviewed the situation with the engineers and itls a major change in the basic assumptions he was working with and advising Council. He said if Council's willing to implement rate increases they may be in the position to issue bonds immediately to proceed with the water project instead of having to wait until implementation of the special assessment process. Counc ilmember Benn i ngton asked how the spec i a 1 assessment process will be affected by the administrative hearing. Mr. Livengood replied the adminis- trative hearing deals only with improvements to the wastewater plant and a portion of the special assessments are for assessing the impact fees. Councilmember Bennington asked if the rate schedules are enough to cover the water plant and our improvements up to $15 million. Mr. Livengood replied thatls his understanding but this was new information to him. Mr. Ferland explained the report was presented to staff for their first review and the intent is for a presentation for the second meeting in August, giving three weeks to read it. He further explained the basic premise has been the two utility systems as stand a lone systems and the water program wi 11 totally support the water program needs, operation and maintenance, and capital and debt service, and wastewater treatment supports wastewater needs. He added he'll send the information to Mr. Livengood. Mayor Mitchum asked if the rate study addressed customers in the 180 area. Mr. Ferland replied yes. Counc ilmember Benn i ngton asked if we don't preva il and cannot increase the discharge, can we go ahead with the project and does the study take into account the need to upgrade the existing sewer plant. Mr. Ferland replied no, adding to upgrade the existing wastewater treatment plant with the current customer base would be a substantial rate increase because there's not a lot of growth there. Councilmember Bennington asked if they have to do that anyway. Mr. Ferland Replied you have to find an alternative effluent or provide AWl to qualify for the exceptions, and if they only deal with 1 MGD you can provide reclaimed water but still haven't sewered Florida Shores. Mr. Johnson pointed out that whether they get the permit to discharge into the River or not, they have to take all septic tanks off the line. He added if the City would contact the petitioner along with DER, maybe it could be settled before an administrative hearing. City Attorney Alvarez asked the interrelation of the present existing finance plan and the rates to support the bond issue. Mr. Livengood explained he1s not comfortable replying to interrelations until his review. He added they want to minimize the total dollar amount that would have to be extracted from rates of the combined customers and new customers to be connected in Florida Shores. He said it was their recommendation that it was necessary to complete the special assessment process before they could issue bonds because until the special assessment process was complete and special assessment rates were in place you couldn't assure the financial markets that those 2,500-3,000 new customers would 6 Council Special Meeting Minutes July 23, 1990 . . '--" ....., , . be in existence and would be connected and start generating revenue to be applied in repaying the $15 million water and sewer bond revenue. He added he was told it was never the consulting engineer's intent that any of those rate revenues from the initial 3,000 new customers in Florida Shores would be needed or be applied in repaying the water and sewer revenue bond issue and the rate study in the review process is structured so the revenues are not required. He expressed concern that there's a significant amount of miscommunication between the consulting engineer and himself and if the rate study is approved by Council, then Council can proceed with issuing water and sewer revenue bonds prior to completing the special assessment process, which is desirable, but it wasn't a situation he presented to them as a possibility. Mayor Mitchum stated held asked Mr. Gerry Hartman to be here tonight in case Council had any questions. He said Mr. Hartman is no longer with Dyer, Riddle, Mills & Precourt, but he was the major player in the CIP and is available if Council has any questions of him. Councilmember Bennington stated Mr. Hartman was involved in this program since 1985, and she asked his assessment of where they stand, and are they where he anticipated when he was Project manager. Mr. Hartman replied thatls difficult to answer, in 1985 he assisted the City in drawing up the short term bank loan which was repaid fully to allow for expansion of water facilities to allow breathing room and then the western wellfield, the water treatment plant, and transmission facilities were the top priority. He added that priorities changed and events occurred and the original plan was to have the water plant in service now and it's no fault of anyone, the events occurred. He said they1re about 1-1/2 years behind the water plant and on the wastewater side they were looking to have those things completed earlier but there were all kinds of events. He added original plans would have this under construction by now, and they got the permits for water and allowed capacity for future customer growth and future public safety. Councilmember Bennington said water's been her main concern for a long time and she's upset they're lagging behind. She said she didn't realize they1d rely on rate increases to finance the water plant itself and she assumed special assess- ments would help obtain the bonds. Mayor Mitchum asked if he's an expert witness at administrative hearings. Mr. Hartman rep 1 ied he qua 1 ifies as expert witness for water and wastewater treatment effluent disposal at an administrating hearing. Mayor Mitchum requested an overview. Mr. Hartman explained he just finished the City of Cocoa administrative hearing that lasted about 2-1/2 to 3 years and cost the City and people on both sides over a million dollars. Mayor Mitchum asked what the hearing was on and Mr. Hartman replied the Cocoa wellfield, and it was a major controversy that still hasn't been resolved and no ruling was made. Mayor Mitchum asked Cocoa's water budget. Mr. Hartman replied itls 40 MGD. Mayor Mitchum said their budget is in excess of $20 million a year. Mr. Hartman said it's 5% of their budget. He added he1s been qualified as a technical expert at many administrative hearings. Councilman Fish said since Mr. Hartman is no longer with Dyer, Riddle and he was appointed to the CIP, held like Councills input as to clarification of where they are on contractual obligation with Dyer, Riddle, as he understands our contract with Dyer, Riddle, has been with definition and design of the plants and held like to know what Council wants to do when they go into the next phase with actual construction. He said they need to decide on the CIP Committee and put it back on track and have meetings again. Mr. Ferland explained they sent a letter which indicates the separation of Mr. Hartman and Dyer, Riddle and Mr. Hartman's being the main principal representative in the contract it provides an alternative of terminating Mr. Hartman and naming himself as principal representative. He stated Mr. Mills and Mr. Tisdale, the proposed principal in charge for this City, are present. Mr. Ferland stated regarding bidding services and construction management, they currently are in individual amendments to the contract with Dyer, Riddle and they desire to continue their role to perform construction management services. Mayor Mitchum pointed out design isn't done yet. Mr. Ferland agreed, noting when you bid it and ride herd, itls normally more efficiently done by the design engineer and usually there are two components of a contract. He added regarding the CIP Committee, he was the appointed designee when Mr. Hartman could not attend. Mayor Mitchum asked who appointed him. Mr. Ferland replied Mr. Hartman. 7 Council Special Meeting Minutes July 23, 1990 ',' '\. '-' ...... City Attorney Alvarez said Councilman Fish's question pertains to CIP composition and that would be a separate matter than looking into the contract and continuing services into construction, which he doesn't have in front of him. Mayor Mitchum sa i d that's another issue, construct i on management, and the contract is for design. City Attorney Alvarez said he understands it's definition and design. Mayor Mitchum said they defined it and they're to design and it's status quo. Councilman Fish said when they created the committee, they specifically named Gerry Hartman as a member and not as a principal of Dyer, Riddle, and they named the City Manager and another Department Head and that was taken as a Council action as specifically named as a member of that committee. and he doesn't know where they stand as members of the committee. Mayor Mitchum said he thinks that's correct. City Attorney Alvarez said if Council wants Mr. Hartman to continue in the CIP, they need to reaffirm his appointment. Councilman Hatfield stated they would want Ron Ferland as the principal. Mayor Mitchum suggested they may want an additional person. Councilman Hatfield pointed out they'd want someone from Dyer, Riddle. Mayor Mitchum explained Councilman Fish questions if they want Gerry Hartman to continue in a role in the CIP Committee and they may need a motion. Councilman Hatfield questioned the whole affair with bringing him here because he's not with Dyer, Riddle, and asked if he wants to bring another engineer on board. Mayor Mitchum stated Mr. Hartman would be a valuable asset. Councilman Hatfield pointed out he's not free (of charge). Mayor Mitchum stated it would be advantageous to maybe retain Mr. Hartman in some capacity since he I s worked on the project and they're go i ng into the admi n i strat i ve hearings and he could spearhead the drive on the hearing. Councilmember Bennington asked if Mr. Hartman would be interested. Mr. Hartman replied he's no longer with Dyer, Riddle, Mills & Precourt and if the firm may want him to work on any work they can contract with him and if Council wants him to work for them with something else or from a technical expert standpoint, that's their discretion. Councilman Hatfield asked if there's a conflict of interest from a legal standpoint about coming into a contract with a former employer. Mayor Mitchum said his intent and suggestion was not to bring Mr. Hartman into an engineering contract but to utilize his expertise and his main concern is the administrative hearing plus the water treatment plant, and his suggestion wasn't to hire him as an engineer to do what Dyer, Riddle is doing. Councilman Fish agreed that Mr. Hartman may be an extremely valuable asset with respect to the object i ve of th i s pet i t i on and he concurs with the Mayor. Councilmember Bennington concurred because he's been working with the City since 1985 and they could use his expertise. City Attorney Alvarez questioned if they want to do nothing with the pending petition and let DER handle it, adding if they decide to defend the appeal, they need the best possible help in the State. Mayor Mitchum suggested contacting the petitioner as they may not have to go to administrative hearing, which was why held bring up Mr. Hartman's, Mr. Ferland's, and Mr. Schulman's expertise, it may only take one meeting and might be done by the City Attorney and City Manager. Counci lmember Bennington asked if they can reinstate and redefine the CIP Committee. Mayor Mitchum suggested a motion. Councilmember Bennington said she was at a loss for a long time on their standing with the CIP and they were updated recently. She noted that Councilman Gold at a previous meeting asked for minutes of CIP meetings but none has been held since then. She then moved they reinforce the CIP Committee to be made up of the Mayor, David Mitchum, City Manager Elly Johnson, City Attorney Jose' Alvarez, our CIP project engineer Ron Ferland, Gerry Hartman as our expertise, and Cliff Schulman as an expert legal advisor on this administrative hearing. She included any department heads the committee needs. Councilman Fish seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 3-1. Councilman Hatfield voted NO. Councilmember Bennington said the committee needs to meet immediately to decide on goals. Mayor Mitchum requested the City Manager contact everyone tomorrow and set up a meeting as soon as possible. Councilman Hatfield stated someone has to negotiate a fee. Mayor Mitchum suggested the City Manager and City Attorney negotiate it. Mr. Georoe Ewino, from the audience, called out this is a workshop. Mayor Mitchum clarified this is a special meeting. 8 Council Special Meeting Minutes July 23, 1990 -' ~ , ~ """" Councilmember Bennington amended her previous motion to include the Financial Advisor. Councilman Fish seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 4-0. Mayor Mitchum stated Mr. Hartman's role is not as engineer and it may not play into this but they can1t turn back now an his expertise is in that area. He suggested a motion to negotiate with Mr. Gerry Hartman. Councilman Fish so moved. Councilmember Bennington seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 3-l. Councilman Hatfield voted NO. City Attorney Alvarez said Council will want recommendations for final decision. Mayor Mitchum agreed. Mayor Mitchum thanked Mr. Mills for the letter from Dyer, Riddle, Mills & Precourt on the continued commitment. Mr. Russ Mills, CEO of Dyer, Riddle, Mills & Precourt, I nc. , stated they I re a 300 member firm and are wi 11 i ng to offer their resources to the City of Edgewater. Mayor Mitchum suggested a motion to adjourn. Councilman Fish so moved. Councilman Hatfield seconded the motion. Meeting was adjourned at 10:14 p.m. Minutes submitted by: Lura Sue Koser ATTEST: ---------- ~~ ~~-- CITY CLEI(K 9 Council Special Meeting Minutes July 23, 1990