Loading...
10-04-1995 - Workshop CITY COUNCIL OF EDGEWATER WORKSHOP OCTOBER 4, 1995 7 :00 P.M. COMMUNITY CENTER MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Hayman called the Workshop to order at 7 : 00 p.m. in the Community Center. ROLL CALL Mayor Jack Hayman Present Councilman Danny Hatfield Present Councilwoman Louise Martin Present Councilman Michael Hays Present Councilman David Mitchum Present City Attorney Krista Storey Present City Manager George McMahon Present City Clerk Susan Wadsworth Present Police Chief Lawrence Schumaker Present MEETING PURPOSE The purpose of the meeting was to hear and review comments from the public regarding the East/West street detention ponds being constructed as part of the Florida Shores Road Improvement Project; specifically comments from residents who have observed and reviewed the demonstration project detention pond constructed at 29th and Hibiscus Drive recently for the purpose of familiarizing residents with the type of detention ponds to be used throughout the Florida Shores Road Improvement Project. Mayor Hayman identified they would have a presentation that would bring everybody up to speed and create a level playing field on how they got to where they were in terms of the design and specifications for the overall project as they knew it today. They would then define the issues as they think they are based upon the public' s input. Mayor Hayman identified Gary Cook, who was the assigned project manager for the project, was present from the St. Johns River Water Management District and that representatives from Quentin Hampton & Associates, the Engineering Firm, were also present . Mayor Hayman informed the public the product they produced from the workshop was not a decision and was only a consensus . They would develop a consensus based upon input on the final outcome of the 1 Council Workshop October 4, 1995 project and what it should look like. The Council would make a formal decision at a regular meeting. Mayor Hayman identified some of them have very strong feelings about the location, configuration and the effect any of the ponds or sites may have on the real estate values, the beauty and the safety of their respective houses . They understood the intensity and importance of it. He asked the public to work with them and control their emotions . They would work with the public in any way and every way they could to arrive at a reasonable solution for the City. Councilman Hays pointed out a number of people in the community requested they have another meeting regarding this so their opinions may be heard. He requested the public show each other dignity and respect and asked that everyone be given the same courtesy as everyone has a different opinion. City Manager McMahon identified, for the people that were concerned that the City had not properly notified the public about the detention ponds and what had gone on, that he had minutes from eleven meetings that talked solely about detention ponds over the past year or two and twelve newsletters that specifically identified the project and what was going on with the detention ponds . He then commented on witnessing the demonstration detention pond at 29th Street and Hibiscus Drive and identified this was the design they intended to use. City Manager McMahon further explained detention ponds were used everywhere water has to be retained. Every city uses them. They were not a novelty to the City of Edgewater. He spoke of Florida Shores being a developed area that never had detention ponds designed into it at the time the subdivision was put together. The unfinished work now with the paving was a requirement of law that said that water had to be contained. He further identified that the design had been permitted by the State. City Engineer Kyle Fegley commented on the prototype detention pond that had been constructed at 29th Street and Hibiscus Drive. He then commented on what staff, Quentin Hampton & St. Johns had done to assist them with regard to modifying the ponds by raising the pond bottom elevations helping them to taper in the side banks . Mr. Fegley then commented on some of the modifications that had been made to help the people who had driveways on the side streets . He also commented on the swales that were located in the front of people' s homes . Mayor Hayman asked Mr. Fegley to define the technical terminology he was using as the public was not familiar with as it related to swales, ditches and slopes . 2 Council Workshop October 4, 1995 Mayor Hayman wanted Mr. Fegley to describe the project after which there would be an opportunity for the public to ask questions . Mr. Fegley continued his presentation by further commenting on the modifications that had been made to help the people who had driveways on side streets . Mayor Hayman asked Mr. Fegley to comment on why the City and the engineer' s design didn' t acquire some of the vacant land that they have in Florida Shores for use as a collection and retention area on the stormwater project. He also spoke of people asking why it was that the project, in areas especially where retention areas are in the vicinity of a house, why they don' t use the typical perforated pipe in lieu of a retention area. Mr. Fegley identified acquiring vacant land was cost prohibitive and would have elevated the capital cost to pursue this project, which he had heard verbally. He then commented on under drain systems and underground filtration systems . Councilman Hays spoke of considering purchasing vacant lots when they started looking at this six years ago. He commented on there being a decrease in the tax base because no one would ever build a house on it. He further identified they found that the vacant property available was not always in the location that it was needed to handle the stormwater runoff. They also found that large standing lakes would not recharge the aquifer, which was what the project was about. The bottom line was it was cost prohibitive. City Manager McMahon stated the purpose of which the plan was created would be totally defeated by buying property throughout Florida Shores . The water has to be retained somewhere in the area dispersed. Rick Fernandez, Quentin Hampton & Associates, identified a lot of the adjustments that were being proposed would have a cost impact on this project if there was a major redesign of the retention pond system, which he felt should be brought to Council' s attention. The decisions that were reached would take some time to bring back to Council regarding the full impacts of the decision to change the configuration of the ponds . Mayor Hayman identified Mr. Fegley demonstrated three alternatives they had designed for consideration and acceptance . Mr. Fernandez commented on one of the alternatives and the significant impact it would have on the project cost. Councilwoman Martin asked for an idea of what the monetary increase would be on the changes . Mr. Fernandez was not able to provide her that information. They had to listen to the direction Council dictated after hearing from the citizens and then they could provide Council with the cost impacts of those decisions . 3 Council Workshop October 4, 1995 City Manager McMahon spoke of it being a function of the contract they have executed with the contractor and there being a penalty for delay in any way of this project on behalf of the City. That delay to redesign this he estimated would take a minimum of three to six months plus the re-permitting. There was then a discussion regarding changes and alternatives to areas that had significant impact on the project having to be redesigned and re-permitted. Mr. Fegley explained the modifications he showed, the three scenarios, had been reviewed, approved and blessed by St. Johns . They had given them a lot of latitude and a lot of flexibility. If the Council goes with what he had shown, there would be no major redesign or re- permitting and would be a matter of in-house modifications to existing plan sheets and make sure they were still in compliance with the guidelines of St. Johns . Councilman Mitchum asked if there was a cost difference in the pond that they built. Mr. Fernandez identified some of the pond configurations were smaller and that what would impact the pond was the driveway stabilization and some other things . The project was designed with the concept that every square foot of area would be filled with retention to maximize the retention in the project area. Mr. Fernandez commented on what would happen to each individual side street and them being individually designed to meet the requirements of that particular set of homeowners around it; almost like a custom project for an intersection. Councilman Mitchum pointed out obviously they didn' t have to dig as deep and if they were shrinking areas by driveways at some point there is a certain area of ground they wouldn' t have to touch so they would be able to retain some of that stabilization. Mr. Fegley identified they hadn' t had time to go through and compare the revised to the original and quantify it and see what the unit prices were. Right now they were trying to get the project moving. Mr. Fegley further commented on downstreaming the ponds and the contractor not having to excavate as deep and in some cases they may not have to dewater. Councilman Mitchum questioned downsizing and modifying some of the areas and making the decisions based on an as come as needed basis . Mr. Fegley was hoping the amount of material that had to be excavated was of a lesser degree and would offset the extension of the pipe to meet the pond that had been shifted. Councilman Hays felt it might be important to help the audience understand why it was important that they detain this water for the 4 Council Workshop October 4, 1995 percolation and asked Mr. Fegley address it, which he did by identifying stormwater was the biggest contributor of pollutants to the natural waters . He further commented on the road surface creating runoff and discharge as well as roads having a lot of pollution factors . He then commented on there being a lot of phosphorous nutrients that come from people fertilizing their yards and a lot of zinc that comes from the granules of people roofs as well as nutrients from grass clippings . Without any means of capturing the material it goes right into the environment. The purpose of the detention ponds is to capture the first flush and let the heavy particulates settle on the pond bottom and the natural terrain acts as a filter so they won' t have intrusion to the ground water. Let it naturally filter itself instead of discharging directly to the estuary. There was then a discussion regarding this water not going into the aquifer, Florida Shores not being a high recharge area and the drinking water which comes from the Floridan Aquifer being a different underground body of water. Councilman Hays identified a huge part of what this was about was protecting the Indian River. Mayor Hayman identified Mr. Anderson had asked a couple of days ago for some time to present his questions in a graphic form. Mayor Hayman identified they would be accepting citizen comments . The following citizens spoke: Andy Anderson, 1730 Pine Tree Drive, presented his idea of an alternative to the retention pond idea and identified the advantages of it. Stewart Weber, 1432 Victory Palm Drive, spoke of the detention pond that had been dug at Juniper and 31st Street. He identified they were a lot more than two feet deep and the slope was not what was indicated. The detention pond on the west side of Juniper and 31st was full of water and had been for many days . He questioned why it was still full . Mr. Weber was informed it was not finished. Mr. Weber identified he was trying to sell his home and his real estate agent told him his property value would decrease by more than $5, 000 if the detention pond was put in the front of his house . He felt the Council was being penny wise and pound foolish. If they decrease the property values in Florida Shores through this project, the tax base would shrink. Mayor Hayman recognized the conditions Mr. Weber reported on at 31st and Juniper and 32nd and Kumquat and that they did not conform to the two foot and the 1 to 6 slope ratio. Those were constructed originally based on the original design and specifications of the plan. He hoped Mr. Weber might have commented on the demonstration 5 Council Workshop October 4, 1995 site at 29th and Hibiscus because that more closely resembled the changes presented by Mr. Fegley. Jerry Lee, 3047 Juniper Drive, commented on the project on 29th Street. The original soil was removed and filter sand was put in place. The groundwater beneath that spot had been pumped out of there for four days . He asked if that spot was still dry because it was empty underneath. He informed Councilwoman Martin that Florida Shores was not a flood zone as they spoke about the other evening. Councilwoman Martin informed him it would be if a hurricane came through. Mr. Lee informed her so would Riverside Drive. Mr. Lee stated at the Council meeting the other night the Council was concerned about vehicles being parked in front of people' s homes decreasing property values. He spoke of the holes in front of his house decreasing his property value. He was a builder in this community and knew exactly what a lot with a canal cost compared to a lot without one. Councilwoman Martin felt once the project was complete it would be beautiful . Mr. Lee disagreed. Sandra Gates, 3331 Juniper Drive, commented on the engineering people saying it would incur a cost to them to accommodate every side road. She asked why they didn' t do this to begin with? Ms . Gates looked at the detention pond at 29th Street and questioned if they would have more lights and what would happen when people turn right or left and go into the culverts . Ms . Gates took her granddaughter for a walk and she thought it was a swimming pool . She asked about the children. Cynthia Weber, 1432 Victory Palm Drive, asked how many other cities had this in place as she heard this project was experimental . Gary Cook, St. Johns River Water Management District, identified he hadn' t seen this particular situation. He then described what the St. Johns River Water Management District does and what role they play. Mr. Cook further identified he had not seen a project that uses the road system, abandons them and uses them for retention. That decision was based on the local policy makers and not the Water Management District. They reviewed it for water quality concerns . Ms . Weber then asked how they were going to ensure the safety of children. Councilman Hays commented on child safety. At what point are the parents responsible for their children and at what point was the community responsible. He questioned why someone would put their 6 Council Workshop October 4, 1995 child in a hazardous situation. Ms . Weber questioned why the City was putting their children in this situation. She felt flashing lights, a hole with water in it and barricades were an attraction to children. Councilwoman Martin commented on all of the canals that were currently located in Florida Shores and never hearing of a fatality. Ms. Weber asked if that was what it was going to take . Councilwoman Martin stated the only fatalities happen in backyard pools . Ms . Weber stated they fence in their backyard pools and asked if the City was going to fence in the retention ponds . There are fewer canals than there would be retention ponds . Ms . Weber further expressed concern with regard to the safety of children. She felt the only way the City was going to wake up and open their eyes was for a child to die or be seriously injured which she felt was ludicrous . Mayor Hayman assured her nobody wanted to see that occur. Ms . Weber then questioned how they were going to be maintained. She was told by the City Engineer' s office that it would be contracted to a private company. Ms . Weber spoke of the cost of maintaining these and all of the other costs involved. She has spoken with several real estate agents that told her it would be $3, 500 per lot to purchase the empty lots in Florida Shores . She felt the loss of property value in Florida Shores would be much more than the cost of buying the lots and doing it that way. Jay Lowry, 3332 India Palm Drive, felt the Council also needed to show people respect and consideration. He spoke of filing civil lawsuits against the City of Edgewater, St. Johns River Water Management District and Halifax Paving as of last Thursday. He was putting a federal stop work order on this plan. He further commented on contacting the Public Works Department for four days before they got a response. The roads and upkeep of Florida Shores were still the responsibility of the Public Works Department. He felt they didn' t even maintain what they had and questioned what they were going to do with a new project. If a retention pond is put in the side, front and back of his property, his house will not be worth half what he just paid for it. Mr. Lowry then commented on a situation that happened when they got the heavy downpour last Thursday with regard to seven cars that got stuck that needed to be towed. He further commented on Public Works finally coming out Monday to bring one load of crushed shell . They never drained the water out of the hole before they dumped the shell in the hole. The grader came down the road and ran over the pile of sand which only made a mud puddle. When they started screaming and yelling they sent another truck load of shell out. 7 Council Workshop October 4, 1995 Mayor Hayman appreciated his frustration and anger and asked him to comment on his view. Mr. Lowry stated he was a homeowner and they were going to put ditches in his property. He didn' t know where the Council believed they were better than the citizens . He wanted the appropriate water plan in that the people wanted where their homes would keep their value. He felt the way they were going now was decreasing their property values . They don' t maintain the roads now. He wanted to know how they were going to maintain the ponds they wanted to put in. Mr. Lowry felt the Council could say what they wanted but the public couldn' t. Lynn Cunningham, 3303 Orange Tree Drive, knew they had to do something about the stormwater management in Florida Shores . He wanted to know if anybody actually looked at the percolation area and percolation rates of those areas that were in place and compare them with what they were doing. He questioned if they really needed 360 ponds or did they need to rework the existing ditches into reasonable swales . Councilman Hays called for a point of order and commented on adopting a resolution that identified how their meetings would be conducted. He felt everyone had an opportunity to be heard but personal attacks by anyone in the room were contrary to how they run their meetings . He asked that anyone who had personal feelings against him wait until after the meeting to express it to him. He asked Mayor Hayman to assist him with that and identified he would be a part of the meeting as long as it was conducted in a civil manner. Mayor Hayman identified they would move through the process and further commented on the resolution adopted by the Council with regard to the conduct of their meetings . He apologized to Councilman Hays if his actions contributed to some offense things that happened to him tonight. He also informed the public they could restrict the presentations of the public to three minutes . He did not restrict them but did implore them to make their point to help the Council help the public solve this problem. Ted Nickoloff, 3232 Umbrella Tree Drive, stated his house was proposed to have a pond in front of it. He thought the Council missed the point of the last meeting they had. They didn' t want the ponds at all in any configuration. He felt they needed to keep in mind that they were responsible for each other. He wanted this whole thing to be revisited by getting rid of the ponds and for Council to work for the citizens as they were elected to do, which he felt they needed to start doing tonight. Angie Sills, 3320 Mango Tree Drive, stated if someone bought a piece of property with a canal it was there when they bought it. She read every newsletter as far as paving it said several of the roads would 8 Council Workshop October 4, 1995 be turned into retention ponds . She wasn' t in a hurry for paving and wasn' t something that really bothered her. She felt they would have children drowning in the ponds and would have cancer and leukemia rates from pesticide runoffs . She wanted to know how much it would cost to maintain the ponds as opposed to the price of maintaining the roads they have now. She felt the prototype pond was a poor choice as there were no driveways involved in that particular intersection. She felt they needed to look at this on a large scale and decide if this was what they really wanted. She spoke of the children playing now on the streets . Once the roads were paved the cars would be going faster and the side streets where they would play ball would be ditches . She questioned where they were going to play. Ken Pitchford, 3131 Juniper Drive, pointed out Mayor Hayman and Councilman Hatfield had been to this house and saw the situation there. He felt all they were going to do was modify it to fit the Council' s needs and to try and fit his . He found this completely unacceptable. If they can' t do this correctly, then don' t do it at all . He felt this was becoming very personal because his home, his family and his livelihood were being threatened. He had 63 more petitions to add to the 736. He felt he would have 1, 000 signatures in another week. He then submitted the petitions to the Council . Marguerite Getlein, 2329 Orange Tree Drive, had two driveways coming out on 24th, hers and her neighbors, and they were told they could come out to Orange Tree Drive and the neighbor could go out to Needle Palm Drive. She mentioned the comments being made about the children and expressed concern with how the old people would back out of the space that had been allowed to them. She felt if they all stood together and said they weren' t going to take the high assessments that Edgewater would be out of luck. A.J. Neill, 3324 Victory Palm Drive, understood the paving plan had been in the process for five or six years and questioned why tax rates weren' t prorated over that time to help ease the burden upon them. He spoke of laws for swimming pools being fenced in and felt there had to be laws about the ditches being fenced in. He then asked what would be done for erosion around the ditches and what type of grass would be put down. Mayor Hayman pointed out everything other than talking about taxing the community five or six years ago had been discussed prior to approving the project. Mr. Neill asked where they could get a copy of that. Mayor Hayman stated they would make sure he got a copy of the minutes and that he could speak to City Engineer Fegley. Edward Keenan, United Taxpayers of Edgewater, 1905 Pine Tree Drive, commented on the cost for vacant lots . He spoke of the canals being manmade and being there for years . He felt the reality was buying 9 Council Workshop October 4, 1995 property and putting the ponds on them compared to losing the value of homes would far outweigh and was the lesser of two evils . He then spoke of the culverts having grates over them so the kids couldn' t get in them. He now understood they weren' t going to do that. He felt that was another child hazard that should be looked into. He then asked who granted the right to make the perpendicular canals and the rights-of-way behind the homes . He asked why they were told 328 ponds when St. Johns said less were needed; if any temporary barriers had been put up around some of the deep pits, which he felt should be done; if it was true that one individual hired an attorney to stop putting a pond in front of his home on India Palm Drive; how many more of these cases the City would face over this; if it was true that Halifax Paving was selling the dirt from the ponds to the State of Florida for the Flagler Avenue bridge and if they were sharing in some of profit of that sale. Mayor Hayman asked Mr. Fegley to comment on the fill dirt resale allegations Mr. Keenan mentioned. Mr. Fegley explained the excess fill dirt was the contractors to maintain per the contract documents and that the City had no use or purpose for it. Mr. Keenan commented on a gentleman that put in a bid for the Flagler Avenue job and lost it to Halifax Paving. City Manager McMahon pointed out that Halifax Paving was the lowest bidder. Henry Dardinski, 2704 Sabal Palm Drive, commented on looking at one of the drainage ditches . He sent a letter to the Mayor on September 25th, with copies to the Councilmembers, City Manager McMahon, City Engineer Fegley and City Attorney Storey, which he read into the record at this time. There was a five-minute recess at this time. Gail Wells, 2503 Woodland Drive, felt this was a mess . She has been coming to the meetings for a year and a half expressing how bad she felt the plan was and that it wouldn' t work. She felt the detention pond at 29th and Hibiscus was a bad example as there were no homes there. She spoke of what had been done at Mr. Lee' s home. She then expressed concern regarding the maintenance of the detention ponds and identified she mowed her own ditches. She also commented on a lift station that she had across from her house that has affected her property value and having to mow the grass around this lift station because the City didn' t do it. If they can' t mow and maintain eleven lift stations, she found it hard to believe they were going to mow and maintain 360 swales . She has been trying to keep up on this by coming to Council meetings and looking at the plans and even she didn' t know what was going to happen. She spoke of the number of detention ponds changing from 180 to 230 to 330 and now 360. She felt that was part of the reason people didn' t understand because of things always changing. She further identified she felt the plan was not acceptable the way it was . 10 Council Workshop October 4, 1995 Jerry Lee, 1731 Air Park Road, property owner in Florida Shores, had petitions with 61 signatures that he presented to Council . He further expressed concern with the maintenance issue. He asked if they had come up with a dollar figure it would take to maintain this, what that figure was and how they arrived at it. Mayor Hayman spoke of when they were computing the cost of maintenance of the swales and the retention areas . He identified a cost savings of $200, 000 with regard to not having to grate the roads and the crew associated with driving up and down the streets, which he felt would help reduce the 1/3 cost that the City would have to pay. After looking closely, they concluded it would be close to a wash. City Manager McMahon identified there were 25 miles of unpaved roads in the City that still needed to be maintained that were not part of the project. He believed a rationale figure to work with was they would probably save between $100, 000 and $200, 000, which he felt would be on the high end. He felt as far as mowing, they would have to acquire a couple pieces of equipment or contract it out. Assuming the City did the job, they believed they could do it between $50, 000 and $75, 000 a year. Mr. Lee identified they wouldn' t be maintaining just a right-of-way or median in the road. There were driveways going in and out and gravel areas that would need to be maintained, which couldn' t be done with a grader and had to be done by hand. He felt it would cost the taxpayers $330, 000 to $340, 000 for labor to maintain the retention ponds . Mr. Lee then commented on the people in Florida Shores that take pride in their yards . He felt this process was an extension of these people' s lawns and questioned if an acceptable standard was maintaining these once a week, once a month, or once every other week. City Manager McMahon explained what he felt was acceptable and how he arrived at his figures . Mr. Lee spoke of the maintenance problems they had right now. He felt they had to have a written schedule identifying which blocks were going to be maintained which weeks of the year. City Manager McMahon felt their standards right now were probably higher than that. Mr. Lee spoke of the maintenance expense going on year after year forever. If they didn' t have any of that expense because they did this a different way and they were spending the $300, 000 a year to pay off an additional debt they may have to take on in order to do this the right way, then he thought they should look at that. Sheryl Hamlin, 2403 Sabal Palm Drive, expressed concern with the Indian River Elementary School being located on Roberts Road and the children walking and riding their bikes to and from school . She commented on it being impossible to keep children out of 360 retention 11 Council Workshop October 4, 1995 ponds. She felt they would also have sick children from playing in the pesticide filled grass pits . Joan Mazur, 1529 Queen Palm Drive, spoke of planning to stay in Edgewater forever. She was very upset when she saw what was first done. She felt what they were talking about this evening was what they did that they realized wouldn' t work. The whole plan had been revised. They were all in this together and had to work together to make it right. The City was trying to make it work so it would be acceptable to everyone. She identified they were no longer going to have deep ditches as they were making wider, shallower areas . Mayor Hayman understood her position and what she was trying to say but felt she was entering into an argument with the audience. He asked her to conclude her remarks with her recommendation. He felt Ms . Mazur was entitled to express her views and although they didn' t necessarily support what she had to say he felt they owed her the right to speak. Ms . Mazur suggested they try to be open-minded and work with the City. Charles Gebelein, 1730 Umbrella Tree Drive, commented on the demonstration pond at 29th and Hibiscus as well as the detention pond south of 30th. He spoke of previously commenting on child safety and cars going into the ponds and offering suggestions of alternative ways to go as well as providing a list of property prices he received, which were about $4, 500 for a 40 foot lot. In the stormwater master plan, which was a few years old, there was no mention made of ponds in the streets, which he identified as being a novel thing that had come since then. He further commented on why he felt the sample pond was very deceptive. The sample pond was laid out shallower than any of the ponds south of 30th Street and was put in with a big drain in the middle. Councilman Hatfield asked if the drain line was an inlet line and not an exit line. Mr. Fegley identified there was an influent line that went under the road to interlink the ponds but he thought Mr. Gebelein was referring to the under drain system, which he further commented on. Arlynne Shaffer, 3047 Lime Tree Drive, wanted to know what Federal, State or County grants they had applied for and if they had had any response if they had applied for these grants . She spoke of most of them living on fixed incomes and their only important assets being their children and their property and being fortunate to be able to receive a pension. Ms . Shaffer stated through FPL bills they get charged a franchise charge and utility tax and that some of that goes back into the General Fund and she wanted to know if any of that would go towards the roads . 12 Council Workshop October 4, 1995 City Manager McMahon identified that federal grants were grant specific. That grant money has been dried up until there is virtually little or none. He spoke about a CDBG grant that was approved that the City used to do some paving a few years ago. He spoke of receiving the last EPA grant for sewerage in the State . They also weren' t giving stormwater grants any more. The money they received from CDBG went for low income people in the Florida Shores area in order to allow them to hook up to the sewer system. He commented on a small amount of money they received for an evidence person. There was no money available for this from the State, County or Federal government. He further commented on the franchise fee which has been sued as part of the General Fund and that money being pledged toward this process, which would never be enough to cover the debt service for a $15 million project. The debt service came from assessments, from the revenues pledged out of the General Fund and from the increase in taxes that were necessary to infill the money they had to put up for the debt service. He further commented on lowering the debt service by $100, 000 a year. Steve Hamlin, 2403 Sabal Palm Drive, felt they were making a mistake with this project but if they are stuck in a position where they need to do something, he felt it should be downscaled and see how it works out for a few years . He asked about the life expectancy for the filtering system in the detention ponds . His driveway entrance was off of 24th Street and he wanted to make sure he could get in and out of his driveway properly and safely. Bill Benson, 3327 Juniper Drive, took the blame for not reading the information and making himself familiar with what was going on. He apologized in advance if some of his comments were already addressed in the information that had been provided. He was under the understanding property values would decrease because of the detention ponds . He then commented on the sample detention pond and there being more draining into that one. He was informed that would be a collector. Mr. Benson felt if they had pictures to show them what the project would look like they may have had a different opinion and more people may have been involved. Mr. Benson asked if it was too late for them to change their minds . He felt everyone would have great respect for the Council if they admitted they made a mistake and decide to cease what they were doing or change it. Mr. Benson personally wanted paving but felt they had to find another alternative for the drainage, one that increases property values, not decrease them. 13 Council Workshop October 4, 1995 Mr. Benson then commented on the maintenance of the detention ponds and identified he had heard nothing about cleaning out the detention ponds and the pipes . He asked who would maintain the paved roads and identified it was them. He felt they were glorified drain fields and asked what the projected maintenance was in keeping these things from getting clogged up and how often would they have to be redone. Barbara Baker, 2323 Woodland Drive, identified she was a custodial grandparent and she cares for her mother who was in a wheelchair. She is out there mowing the City' s property every week or paying someone else to mow it. In taxes, she is going to still have to pay for mowing the ditches . She expressed concern with the detention ponds being exposed and not fenced in. Ms . Baker then commented on her neighbor' s mortgage increasing because of the taxes . How are the young people ever going to be able to support these homes? Bob Meeker, 2413 Victory Palm Drive, wanted to know why the project couldn' t fall under a grandfather clause and pave this place like the rest of Florida Shores and the City. He felt the requirements were for new subdivisions going in and pointed out that Florida Shores was 35 years old. City Manager McMahon further commented on this already being looked into which ultimately resulted in the design of the pond on 29th and Hibiscus . There is no grandfather clause in the State regulations . It says they must comply. Mr. Meeker expressed concern with this plan never being created anywhere in the State of Florida or the United States and they didn' t even know if this plan was going to work. City Manager McMahon then pointed out that the Water Plant and the Sewer Plant had to meet the standards of the Federal and State government. That plan had to meet the water quality standards of this State. There was no option. The only option they had was working with the design. The permits had been issued by the State agency responsible for the review. In order to complete this project and in order not to have revenue taken away by the State or be fined by the State, they have to complete the project in substantial compliance with those standards . Mr. Meeker asked if the plan didn' t work who was going to fix it. Councilman Mitchum stated St. Johns gave them the standards of what they had to maintain. He pointed out St. Johns didn' t say they had to do this particular design. They gave them the standards of what they had to maintain. They had to meet the criteria laid out by St. Johns when they permitted this . St. Johns did not design this . The City' s Engineer designed it and St. Johns approved it as meeting their specs . 14 Council Workshop October 4, 1995 Mr. Meeker asked who the engineers were that designed the system. Councilman Mitchum informed him Dyer, Riddle, Mills & Precourt and it was finished up by Quentin Hampton & Associates . Mayor Hayman commented on St. Johns authorizing the changes presented by Mr. Fegley earlier. He then addressed Mr. Meeker' s concerns with regard to guarantees for work. What they were trying to do in the design of the retention and collection system was workable and was proven to work elsewhere in the State. City Manager McMahon identified the engineers that design these things know how to design these and that the engineering firm that designed this worked for at least two years on the design. He further commented on what value engineering is . After the engineering was done with the arrival at reasonable conclusions in terms of dollars and cents and what was functional and met the legal requirements, those were approved as the specifications that were finalized with St. Johns approval . City Manager McMahon then addressed the concern of how long the system would work. He further commented on having standards in maintenance they have to meet by State requirements . He also identified the ponds were not like canals . Mr. Meeker felt they still hadn' t gotten anything on how long the guarantee was for. Mayor Hayman suggested they look at the retention areas in the developments throughout Volusia County that had to meet the same criteria with the same agencies that the City had to with many of them being there for years and still functioning. He identified it being a function of maintenance of the pipes, the material you put in place as far as the life expectancy and the function of acts of nature. The life expectancy of the project under normal conditions, they believe these design criteria will function as they were designed to do. Mention was made of the frequency of the storms and the large amounts of rain they had been getting lately. There was then a discussion with regard to people having to fence in their pools and that no fences were being placed around the detention ponds . City Manager McMahon felt that the detention area was substantially different than a swimming pool . City Manager McMahon spoke of raising eight children and not being insensitive to children. He also had grandchildren. George Kramer, 3307 Juniper Drive, expressed concern with the roads in Florida Shores that run north and south not having fire hydrants . City Manager McMahon explained they were not closing the streets off and that an emergency vehicle could get through any one of those 15 Council Workshop October 4, 1995 areas . Mr. Fegley commented on Fire Chief Vola stating many times that they do not use the east-west streets to access any homes and only use the north south streets . The Utilities Director had an ongoing policy of upgrading hydrant spacing that was built into the Utilities Department. City Manager McMahon identified the Utilities Director and Fire Chief had a plan that addressed where there were gaps in the reasonable distance for hydrants, which was an ongoing plan. Mr. Kramer further expressed concern with the distance between hydrants . He identified he was a fireman for 22 years and that he knew what he was talking about. Mayor Hayman again identified the fire emergency vehicles could get through the detention ponds . He further explained City Manager McMahon was trying to tell Mr. Kramer they hadn' t completely installed the optimum fire hydrant program for this part of the City and that it was underway. The Fire Chief has assured them he has the capability to fight the fires that they are confronted with in the community. He encouraged Mr. Kramer get with Fire Chief Vola and City Manager McMahon to discuss this . City Manager McMahon further explained the plan did not materially affect their firefighting capability. Mr. Kramer identified he had already spoken with the Fire Chief. Mayor Hayman identified it was past 10 p.m. They have heard the community telling them that they don' t like what they have got. He needed to move them closer to solutions before they entertained further discussion from people who had already talked to them. He wanted to move towards some suggestions . Mayor Hayman asked Councilman Mitchum to comment on a conversation he had with Mr. Cook. Councilman Mitchum identified he asked Mr. Cook what would happen if they just paved and didn' t pay any attention to the stormwater. Mr. Cook' s answer was they couldn' t do that. He then asked what they could do. Mr. Cook wasn' t prepared to answer that question and in all fairness probably couldn' t answer that question at this point. The solution to his problem is not an easy one. The reason for the workshop was because they realized there were some concerns . If they weren' t concerned about this, they wouldn' t be having this meeting tonight. He realized this had not been easy. Councilman Mitchum spoke of being convinced a low pressure system would work in the system and he still wasn' t convinced that wouldn' t have worked and saved the City a lot of money. He spoke of the level of intensity from the citizens on that program that caused the Council to change their minds . You don' t accomplish things accusing people. You accomplish things by working together. 16 Council Workshop October 4, 1995 Councilman Mitchum mentioned not being threatened with an election and he was prepared to win or lose when he ran. He spoke of making decisions based on what he thinks is best for the people . If there comes a point where he decides to run again and he is not elected that was fine. That would not affect his decision. His decision would be affected by the hard work of the community and everybody pitching in to try and find a solution to the problem. They had a problem but couldn' t possibly make a decision tonight. He spoke of being an elected official not being an easy job. He mentioned St . Johns already relaxing some of the requirements and providing them with a set of criteria and rules that they had to go by. He felt they should see if there was anything else and identified this was not a dead issue. Mayor Hayman identified there was widespread dissatisfaction with the stormwater management part of the road improvement program. They recognized the need to meet some standard of treatment of the stormwater that they generate in the City. It would be prudent for them to consider with the engineers and St. Johns what their alternatives were. City Manager McMahon identified he would follow Council' s policy as they are the policy makers . They had three contract documents, one for the loan, the contractor and the engineer. Every delay would cost additional money. He informed Council tomorrow he would give written authorization to the contractor to do or not do the job. Mayor Hayman informed City Manager McMahon in a workshop they couldn' t formulate a decision and give direction and that they were trying to arrive at a consensus to clarify where they were. City Manager McMahon identified until the Council gave him direction by a decision nothing would change other than the fact that City Engineer Fegley would work with the revised criteria of St. Johns . Nothing else could change unless Council authorized it. Councilman Hays wanted to know where they were on the agenda. Mayor Hayman identified he was trying to conclude the proceedings . Councilman Hays asked if they were finished with public input. Mayor Hayman hoped they were. City Manager McMahon felt one practical solution was within the framework that St. Johns had given them. The engineer was able to give direction to the contractor to deviate from the original plans that way. He didn' t view this as decision making as he much as he did direction to the City Manager. Councilman Hays spoke of committing themselves to a project and if they started making changes, those changes would cost money. They started on this project six years ago and had numerous meetings . He informed the public that if a majority of the people in the community felt that no matter what they needed to change this that there would 17 Council Workshop October 4, 1995 be a cost factor there. He suggested if there were things the Council hadn' t heard from the citizens that they be allowed to speak. Councilman Mitchum was okay letting them speak but identified he didn' t want to rehash something that had already been said and that they had a decision to make. Almost 10 : 30 p.m. Mary D'Aiello, 3132 Yule Tree Drive, felt the biggest problem seemed to be the homes that have driveways and the fronts of their homes facing the numbered streets . She suggested these properties be exempt from the detention ponds and felt maybe this would help with solving the dissention. Their house faces 32nd Street. They also have a canal that runs on the west side of their property. Jim Hilton, 2423 Victory Palm Drive, asked what recourse the EPA would have against the City if they just did the paving. Councilman Hays informed him he would not believe what it would cost them. He identified they would withhold the City' s revenue share and they would never issue another building permit in the City limits . City Manager McMahon identified they would also levy a fine. Ed Jacalone, 2503 Tamarind Drive, questioned why they needed this elaborate system and why they couldn' t use the existing canals. City Manager McMahon explained the existing canals were not designed for that; they were not designed to filter and take out the filtration impurities that come off of the roads; and the State would not permit them to do that. Cynthia Weber, 1432 Victory Palm Drive, asked if something happened to a child who would be liable . City Attorney Storey did not have a simple answer. She felt Ms . Weber had the perception that simply because the City built the structure if someone was injured the City would automatically be liable which she identified was not the case and that there were numerous factors involved. City Manager McMahon spoke of the City automatically being exposed to any risk, which they have insurance for. Ms. Weber asked why they were paying an outside company to do this rather than having City workers do it. She was told the City at one time purchased the equipment to do this and subsequently sold it. Councilman Hays informed her the City never had the equipment to do this job. Ms . Weber asked if it would have been cost effective for the City to do it. Councilman Mitchum pointed out they weren' t qualified to do the job. Mark Meeker, 2617 Umbrella Tree Drive, felt maybe they should consider abandoning the whole project and staying with the shell roads . 18 Council Workshop October 4, 1995 Jerry Lee, 3047 Juniper Drive, stated the people in the community don' t want what was designed. He believed everyone was deceived from the beginning. He felt the bottom line was if it would continue or change. There were no further citizen comments at this time. Mayor Hayman informed Council it was time to give City Manager McMahon their conclusive thoughts and guidance. Councilman Hays felt before they made any substantial changes to the project, they needed to be certain of themselves . He wasn' t prepared to make any substantial changes at this point in time . He wanted to know how much St. Johns was willing to come down on their requirements . He wanted City Engineer Fegley or City Manager McMahon to contract the engineer and St. Johns to see if they would allow them to just discontinue the retention areas that abut the driveways . If the majority of the Council wanted to stop the project altogether, it would be tantamount to piling up a few million dollars on the floor and burning it. He identified he would not be a part of that. City Manager McMahon identified delays in the project would delay the drawdown from the bank and the expenditure of their money. If they extend the project in terms of time beyond the IRS rules of arbitrage, they would pay the difference. If they did nothing else, they would pay the difference which would translate into a cost to the community. Every day they delay the contractor they will pay the contractor, subcontractor and the engineer as this was in their contracts . Councilman Hatfield was scared to think about how much money they would throw away if they stopped this project. He felt there could be changes in the program and that there was a need for changes . He felt they needed to sit down with St. Johns to find out what the absolute minimum retention was that they could get away with in this area. He also spoke of not putting retention ponds where there are existing driveways that come out onto the numbered streets . He felt that needed to be looked at this week as they couldn' t afford to run the price up and that they must move on this project. Councilwoman Martin wanted to know how much more changes or delays would cost in taxes and how much more would have to be assessed. She then spoke of having to abide by Florida Statutes and the laws . Councilman Mitchum commented on a stop work order that was issued from the meeting the other night. His suggestion at that time was that they stop the work in front of the driveways . Since that time St. Johns came out and relaxed some of their requirements . He felt they should ask the question about eliminating the retention ponds that would abut driveways, which he identified he had no problem with. He was not prepared to stop the project and was prepared to proceed around the areas that needed to be addressed. If they could eliminate 19 Council Workshop October 4, 1995 the driveways, then they have won half the battle. Can they avoid some of the areas in question and still proceed with the project. Mr. Fegley felt they could and identified some options . He felt they needed to allow the contractor to proceed. In the meantime he felt they would need to proceed with implementing some of the detention areas but not next to existing driveways . They should probably finish up the one at 32nd and Juniper to give a visual impression of what one looks like adjacent to a driveway. City Manager McMahon didn't want Mr. Lee to have to live with that problem any longer than necessary. Mr. Fegley informed him it wasn' t representative of the final product and if they had to fill it in they would do so. The other detention pond on that street would be filled in in its entirety. Part of the stipulations of St. Johns was they had to rough in the detention areas before they proceeded with paving. They were proceeding with paving tomorrow so this impacted them now. He would pursue it adamantly and felt they could get away with some type of conveyance swales with ditch checks in them which would reduce the requirement for the detention ponds . City Manager McMahon asked Mr. Fegley if he felt he could buy enough time that would not substantially delay the contractor to allow him to continue progress as his contract calls for while they try and resolve the issues with St. Johns that had been raised at the meeting. Mr. Fegley felt it had to be done. City Manager McMahon identified if they had a problem he would have to come back to Council with another decision for them to make. He would have to ask them to have a special meeting. Mr. Fegley felt they had to see how flexible St. Johns was going to be. Mayor Hayman expressed his appreciation for Councilman Mitchum bringing up the importance of the stop work order. He further commented on savings and increases they were looking at as a result of the changes . He did not want to see retention areas in front of anybody' s driveway. He also did not want to stop the project. He felt it was imperative that they understand the importance of getting feedback from St. Johns asking them if they were prepared to assist them any further with any other relief. They still have to collect and dispose of an awful lot of water. He supported what the Council was saying about continuing the project. He wanted a project that met the needs of the community. He didn' t think anyone wanted to create an eyesore or degrade the property value in front of anyone' s home. He felt the initiative that the engineers and St. Johns had shown so far was a giant leap forward towards obtaining what is an efficient and effective stormwater management system to support the road improvement program and the stormwater runoff that the road improvement program was going to generate. City Manager McMahon asked Mr. Fegley that all communications with St. Johns be in writing. 20 Council Workshop October 4, 1995 Katherine Lee wanted to know if they had any idea when the ditches could be filled in front of her son' s home. Mr. Fegley again identified he felt they needed to proceed with completing that to its final state. Councilman Mitchum identified Mr. Fegley' s suggestion that if they are successful with St. Johns that it could be filled in. Mayor Hayman asked Ms . Lee to support what they were trying to do. Ms . Lee spoke of it not being safe to drive in and out of her son' s driveway. City Manager McMahon felt comfortable with the direction Council had given him and City Engineer Fegley. There would be no stop work order put on the project. They would try and work around the difficult areas while they move forward with whatever progress they can make with St. Johns . They would come back with a document identifying what St. Johns would and would not allow and would make recommendations to Council based on that document. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Councilman Hays moved to adjourn. The meeting adjourned around 11 : 00 p.m. Minutes submitted by: Lisa Bloomer, CMC 21 Council Workshop October 4, 1995