01-12-98 vCITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMISSION MEETING - January 12, 1998
AGENDA
Call to order
Invocation and pledge to the flag
1.Approval of the minutes of the Regular Commission Meetings of December 8, 1997 and
Special Public Hearing Meeting of January 5, 1998
2.Recognition of Visitors:
A. Introduction of Police Department Sergeants - Vic Gualillo and Dane Smith
3.Unfinished Business:
A. Continued Public Hearing and related action on the Core City Drainage Project
Mayor Shaughnessy)
4. Consent Agenda:
A. Acknowledge receipt of monthly reports: new occupational licenses, and reports
from Building, Code Enforcement, Fire and Recreation Departments
5.Action on Resolutions:
6.Action on Ordinances:
7.New Business:
A. Authorize execution of Subgrant Agreement between 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc.,
and Mayport Waterfront Partnership/City of Atlantic Beach(Commissioner Meserve)
B. Authorize the Police Department to apply for a Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
in the amount of$10,000 and authorize the City Manager to execute the related
documents (Dir. Thompson)
C. Approve the replat of Blocks 74 and 75, Section H, and authorize the Mayor to sign
the replat documents(City Manager)
D. Approve Change Order to Maintenance Agreement with the Florida Department of
Transportation and authorize the City Manager to execute the Supplemental
Agreement (City Manager)
E. Community Development Board Appointments (2) (Commission)
F. Authorize submission of Recycling Grant request and approve expenditure of funds
in accordance with Alternative D in Public Works Staff Report (City Manager)
G. Action on selection of a Labor Attorney(City Manager)
Page Two AGENDA January 12, 1998
8. City Manager Reports and/or Correspondence:
9.Reports and/or requests from City Commissioners, City Attorney and City Clerk
Adjournment
If any person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered
at any meeting, such person may need a record of the proceedings,and,for such purpose,may need to ensure
that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,which record shall include the testimony and evidence upon
which the appeal is to be based.
Any person wishing to speak to the City Commission on any matter at this meeting should submit a request to
the City Clerk prior to the meeting. For your convenience,forms for this purpose are available at the entrance
to the Commission Chambers.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 286.26, Florida Statutes, persons with
disabilities needing special accommodation to participate in this meeting should contact the City Clerk by 5:00
PM,Friday,January 9, 1998.
v
O O
T T
E E
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ATLANTIC S S
BEACH CITY COMMISSION HELD IN CITY HALL, 800 SEMINOLE
ROAD, AT 7:15 PM ON MONDAY,JANUARY 12, 1998
PRESENT: Suzanne Shaughnessy, Mayor
Richard Beaver
Mike Borno
John Meserve
Theo Mitchelson, Commissioners M S
O E
AND: James Jarboe, City Manager T C
Alan C. Jensen, City Attorney I 0 Y
Maureen King, City Clerk ONE N
COMMISSIONERS ND S 0
Tlic 'muting was called to ordcr by Mayor Shaughnessy. The invo ulion wu:I
given by Father John Meehan of St. Johns Catholic Church followed by the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Mayor Shaughnessy acknowledged former Mayor Lyman Fletcher and forme-
Commissioner Dezmond Waters.
1. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting held
December 8, 1997. BEAVER X
BORNO X X
Motion: Approve minutes of the Regular Meeting held ME SERVE X X
December 8, 1997. MITCHEL SON X
SHAUGHNESSY X
The motion carried unanimously.
Approval of the minutes of the Special Public Hearing Meeting of
January 5, 1998.
Mayor Shaughnessy stated, as a matter of clarification of her position, she
would like to amend the minutes to add the following: In paragraph three,
page one, insert the words "as a public trust" at the end of the first sentence
and add the following as the second sentence in said paragraph, "She stressed
seeking solutions which will address both items and both issues". BEAVER X
BORNO X X
Motion: Approve minutes of the Special Public Hearing Meeting ME SERVE X X
of January 5, 1998 as amended by Mayor Shaughnessy.
MITCHEL SON x
SHAUGHNESSY X
The motion carried unanimously.
2. Recognition of Visitors:
M S
O E
T C
I 0 Y
ONE N
Minutes page -7- COMMISSIONERS N D S 0
January 12, 1998
A. J.P. Marchioli of 414 Sherry Drive requested that all notices of
meetings placed on the City Hall bulletin board include the date and time of the
posting.
B. Introduction of Police Department Sergeants Vic Gualillo and
Dane Smith.
Public Safety Director Thompson introduced the city's newly promoted
sergeants, Vic Gualillo and Dane Smith. Director Thompson explained the
testing procedure used for the sergeant's position and provided a brief history
of each man's achievements.
On behalf of the Commission, Mayor Shaughnessy congratulated the new
sergeants and thanked them for their service to the city.
3. Unfinished Business:
A. Continued Public Hearing and related action on the Core City
Drainage Project (Mayor Shaughnessy)
Mayor Shaughnessy stated this was the continuation of the public hearing on
the Core City Drainage Project and how it impacts Howell Park. She then
announced that the Commission had just completed a workshop session from
4:00 - 6:30 p.m. on the same issue, and commented it was worth the large
amount of time being spent considering the scope of the project, the money
spent thus far, and the need for the project to be cost effective.
Mayor Shaughnessy then opened the floor for the public hearing and invited
comments from the audience.
Alan Potter of 374 2nd Street expressed his continued concern that the
citizens of Atlantic Beach were being obligated under the current plans to
spend $7 million on a project which is wasting money by tearing up most of
the water lines and the sanitary sewer system put in five years ago in the core
city area from 1st through 12th Streets. Mr. Potter felt the pipes (66" and 72")
in the ETM plan were oversized by 200 - 300%, and reduction in the pipe size
would save the city over $600,000.00. As an example, he cited the Hubbard
Construction project on Atlantic Boulevard where the company is installing siK
miles of 48" pipe. He then called for an outside opinion from a reputable
engineer regarding the pipe size.
J.P. Marchioli of 414 Sherry Drive stated Howell Park was a wetlands and
M
O F
T C
I 0 Y
ONE N
Minutes Page 3-
COMMISSIONERS N D S 0
January 12, 1998
should be left undisturbed. He believed the project needed curb and gutter and
the pipe was oversized. Mr. Marchioli inquired if any water quality tests had
been performed.
Fred Kerber of 375 1st Street stated he believed ETM did a good job
avoiding large trees but did not like the placement of a drain box in his yard.
He also stated the location of the fire hydrant on his street had been changed
and he would like that to be reviewed. Mr. Kerber also questioned the pipe
size and stated the Commission needed to further explore the suggested
alternatives and get an unbiased second opinion on those alternatives.
Steve Foreaker of 387 6th Street thanked the Commission and Staff for
taking the issue seriously and working so hard to find a solution. Mr. Foreako
also supported hiring an outside consultant to review the project and give an
unbiased opinion on the pipe size. He cautioned the Commission not to make
any hasty decisions, and stated Howell Park should be preserved and it was
worth paying to keep it for future generations.
Don Phillips of 1566 Park Terrace West stated pipe size computations were
difficult to make and both could be correct. He questioned why the City of
Jacksonville standards were not used when making the computation.
He also noted that the first public outcry on this particular project related to
Johansen Park and subsequently it was made an "additive alternate" to the
project. Mr. Phillips continued that Howell Park was not an issue at that timf
because he believed the citizens did not know what was going on there until
much later when the trees to be removed were marked with paint.
There were no further public comments and Mayor Shaughnessy closed the
public hearing.
Mayor Shaughnessy then directed the questions raised by the citizens to Hug z
Mathews of England, Thims and Miller (ETM) which are summarized as
follows:
Can we preserve the water system as it now exists? No, because when the
streets are put to grade to allow the drainage system to work, the water line
would have very little if any cover. Lowering the line for an entire street, by
past experience, does not work. The water lines need to be replaced both
horizontally and vertically, and this part of the project is totally separate from
Howell Park.
Did we test the water quality for pollution? The pollutant load was
M S
O E
T C
I O Y
ONEN
Minutes Page -4- COMMISSIONERS N D S 0
January 12, 1998
estimated using the data generated for the City of Atlantic Beach from the
NPDES permit done by CH2M Hill.
Please comment on the City of Jacksonville standards were not followed in
the request for RFP's. Mr. Mathews responded that typically, when this
statement is made, it is dealing with the selection of a two year design storm.
A two year design storm was selected for the following reasons: It was what
was recommended in the stormwater master plan prepared for the city by
CH2M Hill; it is very clear that they recommend using a 5" - 24 hour rainfall,
and it corresponds to the design storm. This was discussed with the
Commission early on in the project. The Jacksonville standard refers to the
design standards,the types of pipe to be used,the type of inlets and asphalt,
etc. It uses a five year design storm, and deals with a time of concentration -
10 minutes, vs. 20 minutes, vs. 47 minutes. For subdivisions, the City of
Jacksonville Land Development Procedural Manual allows calculations as
high as 20 minutes from the starting inlet. ETM started with 20 minutes on
the extreme end. Inlets with underground stubouts where the homeowners
might connect, were assigned 10 minutes. In apartments and more dense
communities,the city recognizes and does require in many cases, that a 10
minute time be used on the inlets. Mr. Mathews indicated core city area is
comprised of primarily 50' lots with numerous duplexes and triplexes with a
lot of pavement-there is a great deal of runoff in the area.
Mayor Shaughnessy pointed out that more and more pervious surface is
disappearing as development and redevelopment takes place.
Was the use of fertilizer considered when figuring the pollution load?
Pollution load deals with many issues other than fertilizer, which include oils
off of the pavement, silt, loose sand, erosion, etc. The standards were based on
national research using a cross-section of many different types of
neighborhoods and combined together into a large data base. It was pointed
out that the City of Atlantic Beach, for whatever reasons, did not have the
amount of pollution found in comparable neighborhoods in other areas.
Mayor Shaughnessy thanked Mr. Mathews and stated that that she would like
to avoid bottom line thinking in solving the problem. She stated, although the
city must be fiscally responsible, there were higher values involved and if 100
years from now Howell Park was still preserved and being used by our
grandchildren and great grandchildren,then the additional monies spent, if
needed, would not seem like much money spent to preserve a public trust.
Commissioner Mitchelson stated, with regard to water quality, that since the
SJRWMD is holding the city to a tremendously reduced standard (85-95%
M S
O E
T C
I O Y
ONE N
Minutes Page -5- COMMISSIONERS N D S 0
January 12, 1998
break on the type of retention that normally would be required with a new
project),because of the city's lack of space,the city would be hard pressed to
prove any type of test to show the lesser amount of fertilizer we put in Atlantic
Beach is going to exceed the break already given the city.
BEAVER X
Motion: Each Commissioner vote on the two alternatives they BORNO X
believe merit further study as listed in the "Summary of Design ME SERVE X X
Alternatives" dated January 7, 1998. MITCHELSON X X
SHAUGHNESSY X
Commissioner Mitchelson stated he made the motion in order to find out
which alternatives are most important to the Commission and hone in on
them.
Mayor Shaughnessy asked for clarification of the motion and asked
Commissioner Mitchelson if he was referring to specific alternatives, and it
was decided to use those from the list of seven alternatives presented in the
Summary of Design Alternatives" dated January 7, 1998 prepared by ETM,
which is attached and made part of this official record as Attachment A..
Commissioner Meserve indicated he did not particularly favor the motion,
and stated that comments had been made that the Commission should not rush
to judgement,but since this has been going on for twenty months now, he did
not think the Commission was rushing to judgement. Commissioner
Meserve stated they would never find a solution to satisfy everyone; and
reminded the Commission that they had made a decision on the project at one
point,based on alternatives provided by the engineer. The engineer then did
the 100%design, got the project permitted and,the SJRWMD came and said it
was a good project,except for some concerns about trees. Commissioner
Meserve believed the project had been "talked out" and the Commission shoulc
move forward and make a decision.
Commissioner Borno also believed the existing plan was good, but he would
like to see an analysis and cost estimate for using baffle boxes at the ends of
the numbered streets.
Commissioner Beaver believed that ETM was a good engineering firm, but
one issues that continued to come up was the pipe size. Commissioner Beaver
then inquired if there was a way for the Commission to find out once and for
all, if in fact, the correct pipe size is being used. He then inquired if there was
merit for an outside firm to evaluate the pipe size.
Mayor Shaughnessy concurred with Commissioner Beaver's concerns and
indicated she also favored obtaining a third party opinion on the pipe size.
M S
O E
T C
I O Y
ONE N
Minutes Page -6- COMMISSIONERS N D S
January 12, 1998
City Manager Jarboe explained that there were certain "triggers" which
determine if you have to go through the Consultants Competitive Negotiation
Procedures.
Considerable discussion ensued concerning the scope of work involved to get
the outside engineer up to speed on the project, and it was pointed out he
would have to be paid for his time to do this, and cost would be the "trigger"
to determine what procedure to follow.
Commissioner Beaver stated he was not ready to make a decision tonight
because he still needed to evaluate the information presented at the workshop.
Commissioner Meserve asked the Commission to think about what would
happen if they hired a neutral,third party engineer who said he did not agree
with any of the alternatives presented. He then asked the Commission how
could we trust the opinion of someone who has not gone to the same depth as
ETM to design the project? Do we ask ETM to redesign the project based on
this third party opinion or do we start all over again and hire a new engineering
firm? Commissioner Meserve then reiterated his position that ETM was a
good firm comprised of numerous engineers with a lot of years of engineering
experience who had provided a good design. He urged the Commission to
move forward and cautioned that obtaining the third party opinion might leave
the Commission back at square one.
Mayor Shaughnessy stated she did not favor voting on any two of the
alternatives. Mayor Shaughnessy indicated the flooding victims were
guaranteed relief when the project is complete, but she was not sure about
what would happen in the park. Mayor Shaughnessy stated that as far as she
could determine, after reading the contract documents and CH2M Hill report,
listening to the comments, and asking the tough questions, she was satisfied
that the engineer(ETM) had fulfilled his contract and did what he said he
would do. However, she pointed out the project was not a citywide drainage
project because it did not address the tail water issues. In conclusion, Mayo]
Shaughnessy stated she would welcome a third party opinion on the issue of
pipe size, and pointed out the contract with ETM had ended by virtue of the
fact the work had been completed and was over unless extended by the
Commission.
The question was called and the motion failed by a one to four vote with
Mayor Shaughnessy and Commissioners Borno, Beaver and Meserve voting
nay.
Commissioner Meserve inquired what would be accomplished by putting off
M S
O E
T C
I O Y
ONEN
Minutes Page -7- COMMISSIONERS N D S 0
January 12, 1998
making a decision for two weeks.
Commissioner Mitchelson stated he had learned a great deal in the past twenty-
four hours and preferred to wait.
Commissioner Borno reiterated his position concerning baffle boxes and
culverts, and stated he preferred to gain additional information on the costs of
those items during the next two weeks.
Commissioner Beaver inquired where the additional money would come from
to make adjustments costing up to $1 million, and expressed concern that
other parts of the city, such as Levy Road paving, which had been promised for
more than five years, would be neglected because of this.
Mayor Shaughnessy responded there was some of the one-time money left and
not all money spent would come from reserves. Mayor Shaughnessy believed
nothing would be neglected because she was not yet convinced it would cost
1 million. She stated that she was still looking for cost saving ideas and
indicated three new cost saving ideas had come from this morning's meeting
and would like to look for others.
Motion: Hold a Special Called Meeting and in the interim, ask BEAVERO
X
Staff to work with ETM to come up with and recommend a plan to MESERVE x x
get a third party engineering firm to give their opinion on the MITCHELSON x x
sizing of pipes. SHAUGHNESSY X
Mayor Shaughnessy inquired if the motion was limited to the sizing of pipes
and stated she could not support that. Commissioner Borno concurred and
asked that the motion be amended to include baffle boxes and culverts and
inquired if they had to be limited to what is in the motion as direction to Staff.
There was no further discussion and the motion failed 0 - 5 with the entire
Commission voting nay.
Amended 1-26-98 - See attached Page 7A
Motion-Bireet-stafffe-obtain-a-thirdpaity-engintertogive n
BEAVER x
opinion-on-pipe-sizing,-tl use-e€everts—
BORNo x
on-the-east-west-streets,-amdany-etther-iteni-whieh-ma 3'-be-
M
MITCHELSON X
submitted-ia-writing-by-.C.ammission.Member-within-twenty SHAUGHNESSY X X
fettritettrSr
As a point of clarification, City Manager Jarboe stated he was allowed under
the city's purchasing code to go as high as$5,000.00 without Commission
approval. However, State Statutes allow $15,000.00 or$20,000.00 to be
M S
O E
Page 7A C
0Minutes-January 12, 1998 I
N
Y
0 N EN
COMMISSIONERS N D S O
Amendment as indicated on Page 7
Motion: Direct Staff to work with ETM (England Thims BEAVER X
Miller Engineers) to provide an analysis and/or cost BORNO X X
evaluation related to the hiring of a third party engineer, MESERVE X
MITCHELSONfeasibilityandcost, same thing related to culvert and/or baffle SHAUGHNESSY
x
SHAUGHNESSX X
box concept on the east/west streets and any other things that
any of us can think of and submit in writing in twenty-four
hours
M S
O E
T C
I O Y
ONE N
Minutes Page -8- COMMISSIONERS N D S 0
January 12, 1998
spent before the RFP requirement. City Manager Jarboe then asked if the
Commission wished to waive the city's purchasing code requirement and go as
high as the state guidelines allow.
Commissioner Beaver then inquired if anyone had any idea how much this
would cost.
Discussion ensued, and it was the consensus of the Commission to allow the
City Manager to spend up to the amount allowed under the state guidelines
There being no further discussion, the motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Borno inquired as to the amount of time needed to do this and
asked if it should be tied to the next regularly scheduled meeting. BEAVER X
Amended 1-26-98
BORNO X X
Motion: ! • •
MESERVE X X
MITCHELSON X
Motion: Defer to the next scheduled meeting
SHAUGHNESSY X
Some discussion ensued if this would allow enough time to find an engineer
and collect the data.
Following some further discussion, the motion carried unanimously.
4. Consent Agenda:
A. Acknowledge receipt of monthly reports: New Occupational
Licenses, and Reports from Building, Code Enforcement, Fire
and Recreation Departments
The Consent Agenda items were received and acknowledged as
presented.
5. Action on Resolutions:
None.
6. Action on Ordinances:
None.
7. New Business:
M S
O E
T C
I O Y
ONE N
Minutes Page -9- COMMISSIONERS N D S 0
January 12, 1998
A. Authorize execution of Subgrant Agreement between 1000 Friends
of Florida, Inc., and Mayport Waterfront Partnership/City of
Atlantic Beach (Commissioner Meserve)
BEAVER X
Motion: Authorize execution of Subgrant Agreement between 100( BORNO X
S ERFriendsofFlorida, Inc. and Mayport Waterfront Partnership/City
MTCHEE x x
of Atlantic Beach.
MITCHELSON X
SHAUGHNESSY X X
There was no discussion and the motion carried unanimously.
B. Authorize Police Department to apply for a Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant in the amount of$10,000 and authorize
the City Manager to execute the related documents (Director
Thompson)
Public Safety Director Thompson explained the monies would be used to
upgrade communications in the Public Safety Department.
BEAVER X
Motion: Authorize the Police Department to apply for a Local Law BORNO X X
Enforcement Block Grant in the amount of$10,000.00 and MESERVE X X
authorize the City Manager to execute the related documents.
MITCHELSON X
SHAUGHNESSY X
There being no further comments, the motion carried unanimously.
C. Approve the replat of Blocks 74 and 75, Section H and authorize
the Mayor to sign the replat documents (City Manager)
BEAVER X
BORNO X
Motion: Approve the replat of Blocks 74 and 75, Section H and MESERVE X X
authorize the Mayor to sign the replat documents. MITCHELSON X X
SHAUGHNESSY X
Commissioner Beaver inquired as to the ownership of the property to be
replatted, if the prospective development would be compatible with the zoning
in the surrounding area, and if off-street parking was provided.
Community Development Director Worley replied that Beaches Counseling
Associates were the prospective buyers for the property and would offer the
townhomes for sale. Mr. Worley further explained that the zoning was
compatible with the surrounding area and off-street parking was provided.
Commissioner Borno inquired if drainage requirements had been met, and
City Manager Jarboe explained that those requirements would be addressed in
the construction documents.
M S
O E
T C
I 0 Y
ONE N
Minutes Page -10- COMMISSIONERS N D S 0
January 12, 1998
There being no further discussion, the motion carried unanimously.
D. Approve Change Order to Maintenance Agreement with the
Florida Department of Transportation and authorize the City
Manager to execute the Supplemental Agreement (City Manager)
BEAVER X
Motion: Approve Change Order in the amount of$2,000.00 to BORNO X X
Maintenance Agreement with the Florida Department of MESERN/r: X X
Transportation and authorize the City Manager to execute the MITCHELSON X
Supplemental Agreement. SHAUGHNESSY X
Commissioner Mitchelson inquired as to the history of the agreement. City
Manager Jarboe explained the agreement would provide additional monies for
the city to take over and continue maintaining the FDOT ditch which begins
at Fleet Landing and extends north along Mayport Road and State Road A 1 A,
which was recently cleaned by FDOT.
There being no further discussion, the motion carried unanimously.
E. Community Development Board Appointments (2) (Mayor)
Mayor Shaughnessy reappointed Sharette Simpkins and nominated Dezmond
Waters for appointment to the Community Development Board. The
appointments were unanimously approved by the City Commission.
Mayor Shaughnessy requested that a Resolution of Esteem be prepared for
outgoing Board Member, Mark McGowan, and placed on the next
Commission agenda.
F. Authorize submission of Recycling Grant request and approve
expenditure of funds in accordance with Alternative D in Public
Works Staff Report (City Manager)
BEAVER X
Motion: Authorize submission of Recycling Grant request and BORNO X X
approve expenditure of funds in accordance with Alternative D MESERVE X X
listed in the Public works Staff Report. (The Staff Report is MITCHELSON X
attached and made part of this official record as Attachment A).
SHAUGHNESSY X
City Manager Jarboe briefly explained the Staff recommendation.
There being no further comments, the motion carried unanimously.
G. Action on selection of a Labor Attorney (City Manager)
M S
O E
T C
I 0 Y
ONE N
Minutes Page -11- COMMISSIONERS N D S 0
January 12, 1998
Motion: Authorize the City Manager to schedule interviews during BEAVER x
the next Commission Meeting with the six attorneys/law firms who BORNO x
submitted proposals to the city's request for RFP for a Labor MESERVE X X
Attorney. MITCHELSON X X
SHAUGHNESSY X
Commissioner Beaver inquired as to the criteria used by Staff when ranking the
various attorneys/firms and City Manager Jarboe explained the process and
suggested conducting the interviews at the next meeting.
There being no further comments or discussion, the motion carried
unanimously.
8. City Manager Reports and/or Correspondence:
None.
9.Reports and/or requests from City Commissioners, City Attorney
and City Clerk
Commissioner Beaver reported that a meeting would be held on Wednesday,
January 14, 1998 at Alimacani Elementary School relative to the proposed
gambling ship to be located at Johnson Island and another meeting would be
held January 28, 1998 .
There being no further discussion or business to come before the Commission,
the meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Suzanne Shaughnessy
Mayor/Presiding Officer
ATTEST:
CiAAALLA k7-('
Maur en King, CMC
City Clerk
a
ATTACHMENT A
CORE CITY IMPROVEMENT PROJL
JANUARY 12, 1998 COMMISSION MEETING
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
SUMMARY OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
JANUARY 7, 1998
REMAINING
APPROX. PARK AREA
ADDITIONAL TREE IMPACT
ALTERNATIVE COST AC)
1. CURRENT DESIGN 0 1.12 AC
2. BAFFLE BOXES 200,000 - $450,000 0.46 AC
3. BAFFLE BOXES 400,000-$650,000 **0.15 AC
W/ BOX CULVERT possible deduct of$100,000
according to Mike Schmidt)
BAFFLE BOXES 650,000 0.15 AC
W/ DISCHARGES
REROUTED TO
PINE ST. & PLAZA
PUBLIC WORKS ALT. #2)
5. STREET SWALES 363,641 0.46 AC
W/ RIBBON CURB &
W/ STABILIZATION MAT
6. STREET SWALES 53,910 0.15 AC
W/O RIBBON CURB &
W/O STABILIZATION MAT
W/ BOX CULVERT
6th STREET OUTFALL 159,382 1.12 AC *
RELOCATE POND
INTO MORE OPEN
AREA OF PARK) Acreage of impact is unchanged,
But number of trees impacted may
be reduced by approx. 50%
December 19, 1997
City of Atlantic Beach
800 Seminole Road
Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233
RE: Review of Howell Park Review Committee's Final Report
Core City Improvement Project
City Project No. SU9601
E.T.M. Project No. 96-025
ATTN:Mr. Jim Jarboe
City Manager
ar Mr. Jarboe:
As requested, we have reviewed the Howell Park Review Committee's Final Report, and are hereby
submitting our comments:
I. BACKGROUND:
The Current Design for the Core City Improvement Project includes excavating two ponds in Howell Park
totalling 1.39 acres (i.e. 15% of the total 10.4 acre park area), of which 1.12 acres is currently forested
with the remainder consisting of existing canal.
The proposed ponds serve two purposes: to provide stormwater treatment, and to accomodate the
inverts of the proposed larger outfall pipes. Approximately 0.66 acres of the forested impact is
associated with the stormwater treatment function, and approximately 0.46 acres of the forested impact
is associated with the "sumps" for the larger outfall pipes.
The Howell Park Review Committee was charged by the Mayor to explore design alternatives which
would reduce the impact to the forested park area.
II. SUMMARY:
ter reviewing the Committee's recommendations (see Section III. below), we believe that those
recommendations having the potential to reduce tree impact in the park area can be summarized as
follows:
REDUCTION REMAINING
IN PARK PARK ANTICIPATED
ALTERNATIVE TREE IMPACT TREE IMPACT ADDITIONAL COST
1. BAFFLE BOXES 0.66 AC 0.46 AC 191,286
2. BAFFLE BOXES 0.97 AC 0.15 AC 393,223
W/ BOX CULVERT
3. STREET SWALES 0.66 AC 0.46 AC 363,641
W/ RIBBON CURB &
WI STABILIZATION MAT
4. STREET SWALES 0.97 AC 0.15 AC 53,910
W/O RIBBON CURB &
W/O STABILIZATION MAT
W/ BOX CULVERT
For a breakdown of the cost analysis, see Exhibits 1 - 4
REVIEW OF COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS:
FIRST RECOMMENDATION:
Utilize a "Treatment Train" approach, which consists of incorporating one or more of the
following concepts:
CISTERNS:
We believe that the use of cisterns will provide limited stormwater treatment credit since they
would collect a portion of roof runoff, but would not collect roadway or lawn runoff. In addition, we
do not believe that they would have any significant reduction in peak flowrates due to limited
storage volumes.
In order to claim credit for stormwater treatment by constructing cisterns on private property, the
St. Johns River Water Management District will require that the City provide an enforcement and
maintenance vehicle, consisting of obtaining easements over the private property or adopting an
Ordinance requiring that all property owners be in compliance within a specified timeframe.
SWALES ALONG HOUSES:
It is our opinion that constructing swales on private property along houses will provide limited
stormwater treatment credit since they would collect a portion of roof and lawn runoff, but would
not collect roadway runoff.
In order to claim credit for stormwater treatment by constructing swales on private property, the St.
Johns River Water Management District will require that the City provide an enforcement and
maintenance vehicle, consisting of obtaining easements over the private property or adopting an
Ordinance requiring that all property owners be in compliance within a specified timeframe.
STREET SWALES:
Stormwater treatment may be provided by installing roadside swales on each street instead of
providing treatment in Howell Park. This alternative may reduce the impact to forested areas of
the park by 0.66 acres (60%), at an additional cost of approximately $363,641. "Sumps"would still
be required to accomodate the proposed outfall pipes, and would impact 0.46 acres of forested
area.
E.T.M. and City staff reviewed this alternative with the Commission during the preliminary
engineering phase, and concluded that it is not an acceptable alternative for this project due to the
nature and extent of the associated negative impacts. We continue to be concerned about these
negative impacts and wish to discuss these at the upcoming workshop meeting.
REVERSE OR INVERTED STREET CROWNS:
This option consists of reversing or inverting the crowns of the streets to a "V" section versus the
current raised crown.
The use of reverse crown street sections would not reduce the size of the underground
stormsewer system; would not present a significant cost savings; and presents a traffic safety
hazard.
Reverse crown sections are typically used in apartments and parking lots where speeds are
substantially less than on City streets.
BAFFLE BOXES:
Stormwater treatment may be provided by installing underground concrete baffle boxes on each
sidestreet instead of providing treatment in Howell Park. This alternative would reduce the impact
to forested areas of the park by 0.66 acres (60%), at an additional cost of approximately $191,286.
Sumps" would still be required to accomodate the proposed outfall pipes, and would impact 0.46
acres of forested area.
As an option, the "Sumps" may also be eliminated by replacing the circular pipes along Sherry
Drive with a box culvert. This alternative would reduce the impact to forested areas of the park by
an additional 0.31 acres (28%), at an additional cost of approximately $201,937. Some ditch .
regrading and widening (along the existing 5th St. & 7th St. ditches) would still be required, and
would impact 0.15 acres of forested area.
DO NOT INSTALL CURBS & GUTTERS:
The cost number of $1.5 million indicated in the Committee's report includes the costs associated
with rebuilding the roadway pavement and the driveway connections. Since the roadway
pavement and driveways should be rebuilt even if the street swale and/or reverse crown
alternatives are utilized, the actual construction cost savings associated with eliminating the curb
and gutter is approximately $330,000. If the curb and gutter system is eliminated, either street
swales or reverse crown streets must be utilized to control runoff. If this is done, the cost of the
swale section or reverse crown streets must be deducted from any savings realized from the curb
and gutter removal.
SECOND RECOMMENDATION:
As an interim measure, install additional catch basins on the existing stormsewer system at
selected locations.
This recommendation will not significantly reduce existing flooding because the primary problem
appears to be the existing undersized stormsewer system rather than a lack of catch basins.
THIRD RECOMMENDATION:
valuate if some of the existing stormwater collection system piping is of sufficient size to be of
se in the retro fit construction period.
This was performed early on in the project, and it was found that the existing pipes (generally
ranging in size from 10" to 15" on the sidestreets) were substantially undersized (the proposed
stormwater piping in those areas generally ranges in size from 24" to 48").
FOURTH RECOMMENDATION:
Coordinate with Assistant Public Works Director regarding specific ideas to provide cost savings
on the sanitary sewer portion of the project. ,
The Assistant Public Works Director indicated that if the reverse crown roadway alternative
previously discussed were to be utilized, that would place the proposed stormsewer system in the
center of the roadway, which would present the possibility of leaving the existing sanitary sewer
located on the side of the roadway) in-place and utilize slip-lining instead of replacement.
However, the cost of slip-lining is generally greater than the cost of replacement if the cost of
pavement repair is excluded. Since the pavement must be completely rebuilt in order to
accomodate a reverse crown section, the cost of sewer replacement as currently planned appears
to be less expensive than slip-lining in that scenario.
FTH RECOMMENDATION:
The J.E.A. should plan and engineer the underground electrical system in the Core City during
this project.
We agree that if the City decides to have the J.E.A. place the electrical system underground, it
should be accomplished in conjuction with the Core City Improvement Project.
SIXTH RECOMMENDATION.,
The Stormwater Master Plan should be reviewed and used as a guide to utilize the discussed
concepts of the "Treatment Train".
The Stormwater Master Plan was reviewed and used as a guide during the Preliminary
Engineering phase of this project. Areas of proposed deviation from the Plan (such as Curb and
Gutter, Howell Park, Johansen Park, and Seminole Road Ditch) were presented to the City
Commission for review and decision. The Commission's decisions are reflected in the current
design.
The Master Plan only generally addresses stormwater treatment. However, there is no
discussion in the Master Plan regarding constructing improvements to private property to reduce
runoff.
SEVENTH RECOMMENDATION;
valuate using pervious surface material on the surface of the roads, and identify alternative
sidential streetscape designs and other innovative ways to reduce total impervious surface.
The St. Johns River Water Management District has indicated that it does not recognize pervious
roadways as a credit toward stormwater treatment. Therefore, the only potential advantage of
pervious roadways would be a reduction in the runoff coefficient, with the hope of smaller pipe
sizes as a result.
Since only approximately 5% of the drainage basin for this project consists of roadway area, then
reducing the runoff coefficient of the roadway area from 0.95 to 0.70 would only reduce the overall
runoff coefficient for the drainage basin by approximately 1%, which is insignificant.
i.e.
Imperv. Roadways, C = (60% open)*(0.20)+(35% lot coverage)*(0.95)+(5% roads)*(0.95) = 0.50
Pervious Roadways, C = (60% open)*(0.20)+(35% lot coverage)*(0.95)+(5% roads)*(0.70) = 0.49)
EIGHTH RECOMMENDATION:
Increase natural infiltration by various methods.
INFILTRATION SYSTEMS:
While infiltration systems are widely used in certain locations, they are generally not acceptable at
these elevations and in areas of high groundwater. As a result of this, we anticipate limited
benefits from this type of system at this location.
SMALL BASINS:
There is not sufficient room within the existing right-of-way to provide the multiple small basins
suggested. Existing St. Johns River Water Management District rules require that any
development larger than a four-unit complex be constructed with onsite stormwater treatment. At
the City's option, these thresholds could be reduced to require the construction of stormwater
holding areas on each lot.
PRIVATE PROPERTY CONTROLS:
Generally, the other suggested methods are not effective at significantly reducing the amount of
runoff. However, if they are to be relied upon at all, a City Ordinance would be required to limit the
amount of impervious area on private property and to require the planting of native vegetation.
NINTH RECOMMENDATION:
Reduce non-point source pollution by public education and participation in reducing or
eliminating chemical applications on lawns, and other voluntary measures.
In order to claim credit for stormwater treatment by eliminating application of lawn chemicals, the
St. Johns River Water Management District would require that the City provide an enforcement
vehicle, consisting of adopting an Ordinance to that effect.
TENTH RECOMMENDATION:
Establish control of future increases of storm water runoff.
As mentioned previously (see eighth recommendation above), existing St. Johns River Water
Management District rules require that any development larger than a four-unit complex be
constructed with onsite stormwater treatment. At the City's option, these thresholds could be
reduced to require the construction of stormwater holding areas on each lot.
ELEVENTH RECOMMENDATION:
Concern for long term flooding/property damage (City to assist individual property owners in
identifying possible correction methods for houses that experience severe flooding or continuing
property damage).
Raising the foundations of the houses that experience severe flooding problems would reduce
flood damage to those structures, however yard and street flooding would remain.
TWELFTH RECOMMENDATION:
Contruct pump station at Fleet Landing.
We agree that constructing a stormwater pump station would reduce flood stages in the Selva
Marina Lagoon. Extensive downstream improvements (as further discussed in "The Why" section
below) would also be required prior to installation of the pump station to prevent increasing
downstream flooding. Anticipated cost is in excess of$1 million.
However, this would not result in smaller pipe sizes in the Core City area, since the selection of
the 2-year design storm anticipated that at some point in the future improvements may be made
that would lower the tailwater, which would bring the proposed system closer to the accepted
5-year storm.
THE WHY" ITEMS:
In addition to the twelve specific recommendations above, the Committee identified the following
items in "The Why" section of their report.
UTILIZE ALTERNATE LOCATIONS FOR STORMWATER TREATMENT:
Selva Marina Lagoon
This option was explored early in the design process and discussed with the St. Johns
River Water Management District, but was eliminated for the following reasons:
The City does not currently have ownership over most areas of the Lagoon, which
would require condemnation proceedings and associated costs to obtain easements.
This option would change the state classification of the Lagoon from the existing
designation of Class Ill waters to a designation of stormwater treatment pond, which
would prohibit fishing, boating, etc. We believe that it would not be possible to
obtain agreements from all adjacent property owners on this issue.
The Lagoon is currently classified as "Waters of the State" and therefore providing
treatment in this area will require mitigation of degradation of State waters.
Sherman Creek
We do not consider an interconnection with this creek to be a feasible alternative (either
hydraulically or economically) due to the distance from the project area, and due to existing
development in the path.
Hanna Park Lakes
We do not consider an interconnection with these lakes to be a feasible alternative (either
hydraulically or economically) due to the distance from the project area, and due to existing
development in the path.
They do not appear to be candidates for compensatory treatment due to the difference in
drainage basin characteristics from the project area.
CONSIDER 100-YR STORM & L.O.S. GUIDELINES WHEN SIZING "TREATMENT TRAIN":
Treatment facilities are typically sized to meet the state water policy presumptive design and
performance criteria of achieving at least an 80% reduction in the average annual load of
pollutants.
Stormsewer facilities are typically sized to convey a 5-year storm (= 6.5-inches in 24-hours).
However, this project was designed to provide the level of service recommended in the
Stormsewer Master Plan, which is a 5-inches in 24-hour (= 2-year) storm.
Outfall systems are required to be analyzed for the even larger 25-year 24-hour storm per St.
Johns River Water Management District requirements. These requirements were met for this
project.
FLEET LANDING WEIR OPTIONS:
Provide Adjustable Weir Height
The current design includes replacing the existing flashboard riser structure with an
adjustable mechanical weir gate.
Install Flap Gate on Downstream Side
We agree that installing a flap gate may provide some degree of protection from backflow
from extremely high tides, but computer modelling indicates that it would not significantly
reduce the peak flood stages in the Selva Marina Lagoon produced by storm events.
Construct Pump Station
We agree that constructing a stormwater pump station would reduce flood stages in the
Selva Marina Lagoon. Extensive downstream improvements (as further discussed below)
would also be required prior to installation of the pump station to prevent increasing
downstream flooding. Anticipated cost is in excess of$1 million.
However, this would not result in smaller pipe sizes in the Core City area, since the
selection of the 2-year design storm anticipated that at some point in the future
improvements may be made that would lower the tailwater, which would bring the proposed
system closer to the accepted 5-year storm.
REMOVE DOWNSTREAM CONSTRICTIONS:
We agree that replacing the downstream culverts at AlA and Wonderwood (along with associated
channel improvements) would reduce flood stages in the Selva Marina Lagoon. Anticipated costs
are approximately $600,000 for the box culvert replacements and approximately $250,000 for the
channel widening.
This was analyzed in the preliminary engineering phase and was determined to have limited
benefit in the Core City area.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
ENGLAND, THIMS & MILLER, INC.
N. Hugh Mathews, P.E.
Executive Vice President
cc: Mayor and Commissioners, City of Atlantic Beach
Mr. Jim Jarboe, City of Atlantic Beach
Mr. Bob Kosoy, City of Atlantic Beach
EXHIBIT #1 - BAFFLE BOXES
DELETIONS:
CLEARING & GRUBBING LS 3,500
POND EXCAVATION LS 50,000
TREE MITIGATION IN 1,452 $ 82.50 $ 119,790
COST DECREASES SUBTOTAL = $ 173290
ADDITIONS:
CONCRETE BAFFLE BOX EA 13 $ 20,000 $ 260,000
ENGINEERING & PERMITTING LS 79,625
COST INCREASES SUBTOTAL = $ 339,625
NET SUBTOTAL = $ 166,335
15% CONTINGENCY = $ 24,951
NET INCREASE IN COST = $ 191,286
EXHIBIT #2 - BAFFLE BOXES & BOX CULVERT
DELETIONS:
48" RCP CLASS III STORMSEWER LF 314 $ 76 $ 23,864
60" RCP CLASS III STORMSEWER LF 361 $ 118 $ 42,598
66" RCP CLASS III STORMSEWER LF 686 $ 194 $ 133,084
72" RCP CLASS III STORMSEWER LF 192 $ 200 $ 38,400
TYPE "J-1" CONFLICT MANHOLE (8') EA 12 $ 3,000 $ 36,000
MULCH PEDESTRIAN TRAIL LF 900 $ 10.00 $ 9,000
WOOD DECK OVER M.E.S. EA 2 $ 7,500.00 $ 15,000
CLEARING & GRUBBING LS 5,500
POND EXCAVATION LS 75,000
TREE MITIGATION IN 2,134 $ 82.50 $ 176,055
COST DECREASES SUBTOTAL = $ 554,501
ADDITIONS:
CONCRETE BAFFLE BOX EA 13 $ 20,000 $ 260,000
8' x 3' CONCRETE BOX CULVERT LF 1,553 $ 350 $ 543,550
ENGINEERING & PERMITTING LS 92,884
COST INCREASES SUBTOTAL = $ 896,434
NET SUBTOTAL = $ 341,933
15% CONTINGENCY = $ 51,290
NET INCREASE IN COST = $ 393,223
EXHIBIT #3 - STREET SWALES (W/ CURB & MAT)
DELETIONS:
CLEARING & GRUBBING LS 3,500
POND EXCAVATION LS 50,000
TREE MITIGATION IN 1,452 $ 82.50 $ 119,790
CURB & GUTTER LF 30,000 $ 10.00 $ 300,000
COST DECREASES SUBTOTAL = $ _ 473,290
ADDITIONS:
EROSION CONTROL MAT SY 34,000 $5 $ 170,000
RIBBON CURB LF 30,000 $ 10.00 $ 300,000
ENGINEERING & PERMITTING LS 319,499
COST INCREASES SUBTOTAL = $ _ 789,499
NET SUBTOTAL = $ 316,209
15% CONTINGENCY = $ 47,432
NET INCREASE IN COST = $ 363,641
EXHIBIT #4 - STREET SWALES (WIO CURB&MAT) & BOX CULVERT
DELETIONS:
48" RCP CLASS III STORMSEWER LF 314 $ 76 $ 23,864
60" RCP CLASS III STORMSEWER LF 361 $ 118 $ 42,598
66" RCP CLASS III STORMSEWER LF 686 $ 194 $ 133,084
72" RCP CLASS III STORMSEWER LF 192 $ 200 $ 38,400
TYPE "J-1" CONFLICT MANHOLE (8') EA 12 $ 3,000 $ 36,000
MULCH PEDESTRIAN TRAIL LF _ 900 $ 10.00 $ 9,000
WOOD DECK OVER M.E.S. EA 2 $ 7,500.00 $ 15,000
CLEARING & GRUBBING LS 5,500
POND EXCAVATION LS 75,000
CURB & GUTTER LF 30,000 $ 10.00 $ 300,000
TREE MITIGATION IN 2,134 $ 82.50 $ 176,055
COST DECREASES SUBTOTAL = $ _ 854,501
ADDITIONS:
CONCRETE BAFFLE BOX EA
EROSION CONTROL MAT SY
RIBBON CURB LF
ADDITIONAL PAVEMENT STRIP SY 3,333 $ 11.50 38,330
8' x 3' CONCRETE BOX CULVERT LF 1,553 . .$ 350 $ 543,550
ENGINEERING & PERMITTING LS 319,499
COST INCREASES SUBTOTAL = $ 901,379
NET SUBTOTAL = $ 46,878
15% CONTINGENCY = $ 7,032
NET INCREASE IN COST = $ 53,910
December 19, 1997
City of Atlantic Beach
800 Seminole Road
Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233
RE: Alternative Pond Location
Core City Improvement Project
City Project No. SU9601
E.T.M. Project No. 96-025
ATTN:Mr. Jim Jarboe
City Manager
Dear Mr. Jarboe:
As you know, public interest regarding tree impact to Howell Park expressed during the Special
orkshop Meeting and Special Commission Meeting held last October led to the formation of the Howell
Irk Review Committee. It is our recollection that there was a portion of the public present at those
neetings who were willing to accept some tree impact in the park if it could be relocated to a less
sensitive area (i.e. away from the Fifth Street outfall area and into a more open area of the park).
Since the Review Committee's Final Report does not address the alternative of relocating the ponds
within the park, we recommend that further study be performed on that alternative and be presented to
the City Commission, especially since the Committee's recommendation to eliminate curb-and-gutter
from the project and utilize roadside swales instead will cause serious and long term negative impacts to
the adjacent property owners.
We believe that there are alternatives available to relocate the ponds within Howell Park to less forested
areas, which would reduce tree impact to sensitive areas while preserving the benefits of curb-and-gutter
streets. Attached find a conceptual drawing and opinion of cost for one of these alternatives.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
ENGLAND, THIMS & MILLER, INC.
N. Hugh Mathews, P.E.
Executive Vice President
Mayor and Commissioners, City of Atlantic Beach
Mr. Jim Jarboe, City of Atlantic Beach
Mr. Bob Kosoy, City of Atlantic Beach
6th STREET OUTFALL
DELETIONS:
42" RCP CLASS III STORMSEWER LF 350 $ 68 $ 23,800
66" RCP CLASS III STORMSEWER LF 50 $ 194 $ 9,700
72" RCP CLASS III STORMSEWER LF 200 $ 200 $ 40,000
CLEARING & GRUBBING LS 2,500
ESTIMATED TREE MITIGATION IN 1,367 $ 82.50 $ 112,778
50% REDUCTION)
COST DECREASES SUBTOTAL = $ 188,778
ADDITIONS:
60" RCP CLASS III STORMSEWER LF 350 $ 118 $ 41,300
84" RCP CLASS III STORMSEWER LF 350 $ 300 $ 105,000
90" RCP CLASS III STORMSEWER LF 240 $ 350 $ 84,000
PAVEMENT REPAIR SY 267 $ 11.50 3,071
RELOCATE 12" SANITARY SEWER LF 200 $ 40 $ 8,000
TYPE "A" SANITARY MANHOLES EA 3 $ 2,000 $ 6,000
ENGINEERING & PERMITTING LS 80,000
COST INCREASES SUBTOTAL = $ 327,371
NET SUBTOTAL = $ 138,593
15% CONTINGENCY = $ 20,789
NET INCREASE IN COST = $ 159,382
sjaaut6rr] ub"s3Q AP Di+!1psuop = tr.,-7. 4a.uo
1.II Is-IW1cw.l.•PuDifxu p-a •Aa C.omo
IMMOootS t OOt4 o 00 L OO ti pp —_
gyp_==......i...............
cvTLycaoe mos;I-- r—
Q
V_ r _a.a- 1 Fri r ~"1 Ll llC
uw1.4, ,
L_J-1-1-1- _,
LIL/.-:r:
ell 1140 i
f 0SL I, mil t•
I:..: I -j. a% • •
Ia
9 sy11 ALoo
norm co
7.0 d illJ !,t"t (-) WA w.ou .oa n+t .
fo.•u c*
SI VI tory
124 911! ar l
9 Ltr7o131
S
X30 T; .,.44-aivna3seo 7 N irol fQ 9Ni1Nd td 332i1 T/7gd1
ooaw I 3 V '
AA
Slw
I ofj.
MA A..44 NI[,1.,3iUT
I 1'1
s, cr-o.
31Dad
P
Wit,PYRI1S303d ixwisr+ao f11;464$ ALk( ) 'M.
1 ire
141141IV NIIMIVIIMIK :• -.:
miartal. -.
Pr •.., . %CZ 1-fa-4 ak oft
icaVIL-- . ••••••......... V4 , 4.*Cf.
141p (t,: _7-,:-....... .,,,. ..:7:177 . __. x.i.,........e. I ' 4. lip iiim.L..Ht:4%,./
11- .,..Altir, •
4
7:
4f4161.1t#4.151, .4*.
it 1._ k lr, i
I O r--
rrils 0 .:,
ifir
1114 MO
111114111‘.."1444<:A
HO -38 +ixvur J f/r ,,, _ __ r9-o-uw R ,`.
3H1 01 teemn1 M3M30 0Ml
L6.0-..r• ` 3 .-„l.NLLL Xl$113SS$1
e 4'
4 4..
pmts aol ura
Ni_ 4and
aQ.1-13 M O H hili f ity ,
31YTIDc02iddy 3211/ N MOf6
03103
i
141‘4k
a102id 38 0MI NTR3a 01 j`r+ 112111114"..”.50N0d QH1/ ^9ifvIHf1Q! '$3fif1
S3t1113112115 ICA WISE() 731.
11OLL/::1_.../..,--E.._..........
d
r*
s.
rl : r
GRAPHIC SCALEBASEi
4.
z/
1.;;;I
4.
BID Q' IMO MI 11 111 .1.11
1.1
r•
AFT F
pf. • B • -DOCUMENTS Oti'
s .':- f$t
r o.
IA W441%
W..
0•,...t
y
l
0.1i . % .q61 40.
11.4'cif
Ns e 43•-••..
4
Is cr7if T O7 o e
41 • J CJNe3-..\,1
1 e Q C •7 C • P N
I./
1/. k 4, k A
O
J
eiC
J
tfG pWA11 0
o c es,
p^ •
k ••Si TAKE STR_t
s e
I- .710013E .t TO BE 5 0, e-----
1,000._st
N•
J•] -
r Mitir a •. Cm .YY
o'Rpww
BRIDGE w i
41
I I i S'
a
Z. ^t ,bar
PRUILCAA • ISIINC ••..g.J sP >a•., `'•
d 0 REMAIN it BE SI _ PROTECTED `r •'E7!1', tit 1 D
o
1 1 TOP-O.a7 Ac 'J
MST. OR• ill q NWl-O31 Ac
s..I
C
BJTT-0.03 Ac.
J 1
4 sr
ns Exrs7lrtc£'
Z0
LKWAY `
J IPEL `
T PONECTED. '
J
11MTE
J _'..
JfE•s le
v O CONSTRUCT PEDESTRIANTRaL
j 4 fr., - ~• ia`0
et
oi
s.
yam;liffDue-1EPI P
fier
1 I
jF SHERRY DRIVE c4i•ti I-
1 lift j
ir.
r` d
m— mil 7.
K'''aKT, L t1fS' . . °,•.. s iaJ ml/'1• l rJ r-'•.
7 r v..., ,7. J afY O•a'!•..s • r A}V.:<411.1. err
5 i.. "w. //-, p-•,J.• "
Twww+
nl%
C:r__. .. •-•z;i eu. -• - 'v.7•' •z
s Li t, .1-. 3,. Et
IIIIIOSEMISIIIIMINPUMWMOINIWIVIP
i
b
4): I ;
eL11G'jt•
c
Q
I
I .
v T'
S i.0I>n
f, U
SEM==a==- M 1=; —
Em 2_, NoliEmo
in=rirm7:::_:::_____17:7:__
7 Imemormognriariffirmfflomm. —7J:
Cp=
EMIMMIIIIIIMIIIMI MIIMMIIIMINIMMIlliiiiiiiiii' .
1"M"..8.M...11=1..
IMININNIIMMIN=111111•111MO
p p
SCC" MIMS CiCt=C .
MM.
ti¢r,fnc CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACHoveCORE CITY PLAN / PROFILE 0 4.• OAC
1: ncc.'s PM its CWC'IDC ncMPARTRJT DATE: _ -
ATTACHMENT B
JANUARY 12, 1998 COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA ITEM NO: '1 F
COMMISSION MEETING /
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: RECYCLING GRANT
SUBMITTED BY: Robert S. Kosoy/Director of Public Works
DATE: December 24, 1997
BACKGROUND:
The City of Atlantic Beach was appropriated $5,234.67 this year in Recycling Grant monies.
Last year we received $13,458. This is a decrease of$8,223.33. The following is a list of
items we can purchase for Expenditure of Budgeted Funds:
Alternative A:
1,000 Recycling Bins @ $5.25/Each Total $5,250.00
Alternative B:
Have Contract Hauler (Waste Management)pick up tires Total $5,644.80
instead of requesting citizens to bring to Public Works
Alternative C;
Purchase 119 Composting Bins @ $44.00/Each Total $5,236.00
Alternative D:
500 Recycling Bins @ $5.25/Each $2,625.00
6 - 6'Picnic Tables @ $449.00/Each -2,694.00 Total $5,319.00
RECOMMENDATION: We must submit our written request to the City of Jacksonville by
January 31, 1998 to be eligible for the State of Florida Recycling Grant
Fund. It is the recommendation of Staff that the Commission approve
Alternative D (500 recycling bins and 6 picnic tables). We are quickly
running out of recycling bins and they are needed throughout the year.
With regard to the picnic tables,these would be placed at beach accesses.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Data Sheets on Design and Pricing
2. Quote from Waste Management
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
FROM:, • JAX WASTE CONTROL FAX NO. : 9042601449 12-23-97 05:21P P .02
Jacksonville Waste Control
6501 Greenland Rd.44;;;;h
Jacksonville. Florida 32258 A Waste Management Company
904/260.1592• FAX: 904/280-1449
December 23, 1997
Bob Kosoy, P.E.
Public Works Director
City of Atlantic Beach
800 Seminole Road
Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233
Dear Mr. Kosoy;
This will provide our quote to collect used automobile tires and pick up truck tires at
curbside once per week in Atlantic Beach.
Our proposed rate is $.10 per month per residential customer. This price will be subject to
increase at the same rte and schedule currently provided for in our contract.
This is the same rate we are paid for similar services to the City of Jacksonville. Tires
must be derimed and limited to four tires, four times per year. These tires must be waste
tires generated by each residence in the course of normal occupancy and not by result of
any commercial enterprise.
Thank you for the opportunity to quote you this rate and if accepted we will prepare
necessary contract amendments and begin service on your schedule.
Sincerely,
De • . ne Igou
Division President and General Manger
04 a65-. C uS'Mn"etZ1'
i '
Q re ko,u.
Y
ntd
st
441,l eK y
a 4.!ivlsicn of Reuse Services. inc.
Sht 5 5
BULK RATEA
U.S.INDUSTRIES3 INC. POSTAGE PAID
FT.LAUDERDALE.FL
PERMIT#1
BTW
BETTER THAN WOODLA4IMARECYCLEDPLASTICPRODUCTS
23%250 SIN 31st Avenue • Pembroke Park, FL 33009962-2100 • FAX (305) 963-4778
BTW
4,.,.::..,i.4.;:::.....:7'...it;:•:"m..-'el•fi' 21`
Discover-A . Better_
Al .„„;.... .ternative----;.f.-s•-----:::::-
1......,, ...7..„47.......„4„,....,a,.. ....,:„..:,70..in:_:„........,..„....,........;,...,,,...5
C...::f ' i•,.1:s..4'Ar...-7*.......-ff P-'-'I.Frt f—11! 1 -1 4*----.7i.:;4.-..1 s..4::-.Veatz•gz=4)tikc.;;;JJ ..aalsk-, !:14",:-•:.7}.'N,,,.:14144-4.75.-:-<7,:f•ly
2,...74:---:.--- --'.
e,„1.„,oe,ts_ttwr•-1........-. .- •.-‘ :.-.-... .,..1:.,.:.-Ese,
7'.••-• • -.....:V:. -..-......-....-.-.:::,...-.::31:::%.,;:,,,,,...y..-..7.:•:' ..'-•:.•: ' -• '.s•• "c9'• •
If•••047-s.f.-'.- '- - ' _ - -.•,-,.7.-.."‘:'7-7•••..4N.:''"- - --4.:..
k. .A.....•,!A:4--,e-4.,r..7.t...---...''.".1•-s---.7..- -...1 -__"-:-.. ."•41. '",-,--::::---44.7.4.7,74-*1•45,...-'',....,............;.-.. ,.....t.2.1Th';', -7:._.- :- _ • --7.. :- ;. "7",...:. '''-Ik•f-ir:•= 4.:4 4 --,`' .1/4-i-•"%7".:traz.'•!:•.'..t:71.--.: .-.'....5:;.;,..:•-•*-4:441-,-.47?-*•***:IIR---7:1,:4"-r-o-le$W,
r-124-11--f,*-.E-.*.•% .y, ./
47. 4....,, .,•,•,,,e4o.....r.---:..*.:••••"i::*.-**‘:*.S...r.:-?.a.44,1.- :‘..g...,-.14'
4.....,,.. .:,'--44.-* 'es•VT...-t,-',..7:f--7,7^:':--.."...,-,:s;:./.'75ft-b'''AT:-.1,..--,-IN- ' ---.:-•,-.41:! •':y•,-.•..t.A.:-•'-•:::7:. :•-s.--•7.-...-14.-s.:6s4-V-44...b..1--.0.•......',... -.-----..-•---'-•eft,.._. ••,...-;.•: ••-•.
r.'...:-....,....- ...---•::.1,:-;..ip2o-r
c-..- 7.:---.----;.:zFV:fe,.4.4,2.:„.t4-.-4.4:::•-•*:::::,:latz,--47,..-, - "''v:!....--: :-•.1,\'!--:. ....:.i.r4,4-7:-..--fr.",•Wklf-V:55tn-_,L.-::.:Itrckt.s:Zitni -:::-,-:;I:1.i*.:',4-4-.1:i:4••:::-.t-xvi--7,-;•."-et-li4iiVz:v-':-.il:itl.:4-,---i-::f.t.-p-.La.2N-zi-`-'.7.;`1•31.--..:----.;,i.,.14-.:-:446 ,'';'.--;---.f.-Vr"-,--1.:-eic--..-,17:....-5.1...e*s.,.1:-;:.?%-,4„,---.5-.:-.;
12„. ,
A.I.,,_-••••..,..-.,..___
Nt 7c-,....1--..-_,, ....os.-....3,,,,..........,-.-i-s- c...4.-.1P..r-V.t.....,...31.4,•=44-2=...414.
114„?... •-,, ,,:
a7,3.-,..,-..e•-•••:-....".!'....v.n......i.,,.4;3.-1.-•kz.i.... ........a.i."27.:::X.,.••••41.. .J..q.'.,.-.,,:,-.",..
0. . .
e Turn This • • •
1.4.:X-.71.,:11.•*2::-4:'`V.66.- . li,,:jp..-.-.-: '...... •-1.:. '- "' -"'Fli-il''.7::: 141.*•:1P.,ItilF-4;:
iiii4V.4'... :1;4....1::seN.'„,t. :it''. 40
S.5f.e:r1:1'161,4-"r 421.4:::C41-r:• -•"614'7.4.:4:10 4iNli'':,''--4111::- ilts-1
BE„,-..,.., , ,E,„04.
rtartoN
5 154.i-.,..:•-•,.:!...1'..A.:Fio.•-•.•:: ...i;•:;,..,..?if-a-,1•••,-z• ..---7.-6-, - -- 6:4:..,;.-• .4...?4-7-1.-.'''.'-: • _,V s.i-,?M•••,--;;.:-..-.:.4. ..
7,-,1,.......4. -.4. .
1....t.r..=.1•C--:.-.-•-,.:: - 4- e A.
Pr:Z....*• +- .••:.!:,.;•,z.........!,-*‘::.Y.4.:14,•".:•te...'.**--.g4.-„7:. ..:.*-11.4.,:;•:::::,•,•: ....',11.:nZel.,a,#.1„1%)..3:"..--'," 170. 1 i'
ajrirro.
net.FP.:::•:::.. ''''' pill,f...4:71.-:.i..:-- ,:'.3fitz.-z-''.f•:,'ei':.1-'-
zfz-Z:.*=:'"-;::,t;-•-. , ,..,./.116S;;;:1-Y--**.f. ::"."-' 3 0.11-3Esi....,...7-_,..;:„.„..,:"1.....,....,-........„...,...;.: 3,..,.... ...„...,„.12.• .....,..,,,...
4.:•• • •
st,....;•-,-.,..;, • 1.SWPOt5"2.-2A.21*.t.;:,.•
s.. •,..P•At
C"t.:--I.t-a.:';2.
1:
ATa II111 r IP L'AP...-.•.-s-Z2'-- A-Z:074:k.
1%V.E:: - . .-%::-I- 1 51;Iryg.../rY .1 ...!.."-V-.-::::t. qv - "*4
a.'.
jli.,.. ::*IV::*.•1*.rir"pN*14.'•sn---10.-
R:-.'ill -ii-Z--re.:. • "r
zi-:;:4:-.:..t•-t•Atir -* . . ..,;,-.;
sf:44.4 4i-v,-.._ •.,... ....:13,..-1.:•;;;-#4.....detice.,!--....-N-.1
af•77.1*.:.`",..
4.1.:::.,:;.....4.1-.**4.: 6 ;M.ra..Z....1,&::
64,, 4!:.'....t.,...a - 44"'.., ''':',
7%*;.;-1'-'-.Y.F' * . ..':
14A";:z.::•,Zii 4.1t-14.1...le.t.:s*..
st.Z.•...7...f.:1**** 4.,.:..*:"E.Vot et.•;Jr•••••:•:::.**-
ii.,*:.....-.7*••kt....,:::et..-za.,-Zaa-.:-.,--,-::: ...V.4*-- .-,:.,:.4.',.
Il•••:•4 ..,-.....*.-gr....I...I,:•411:44-4.../4.4 s a -.-r-. . .i"111.14:111- .1:17,7 7 .-:•`..7-":11150Vll i,4i: .:11-.
1.1.017".P-::•-i 4i•i;::-:::11:5-f-'--.2'77' - .1.-; !
7:7. . I.:* ' 1.'- -z-V2.._: 1:-‹..A.'"7 .6ig Rea 1 i: 'V•4-1
A.z.•:.. -,_ I.....:-4A,_ s.-..-,,-,--!.1.6 ,-..-----,------,
17,,..".ut,--_-7---Ill.m.k.eszt.-, F.:/:-.:4147::.z .:-:,,A'::.:-.4.,....,,,rt, •-•‘''..:•71-,..i.i....--;.-a-k-
4,..,--=•-••------ --.6.1:-.:4•,...1..-%.4.e.i..z:.-Zt:i.C.r..;;4......v.-4.4,ii...t....-4•Zerr-.
br....7.
a.
6......-........2.-,t• ..".••''..,.",...."...----......:"...,;..... ...-.
0.54!0:.::.4...:e.,....."*.;..r-
a
saga?.-,. i .i.„:.:-, a,41 a?„„,N*''.''-;,.---•'''r.T4-‘- :..;;:l..'• !;:. *,,,..:$'!2•:..... '."•..;. ..N.tral,L.11;:i.Z.2 . . _4.1----- ':- - - ',..-.....,.„
fs:•.tettni---.'--.-----1:-:.10 !...-140 ',.n I:1,i:...,-- •- ;'i-c:;:txt: •--W-..-_ ----,-• , •-t.:,---" t11:0-.4-:,,•,..!,/,‘ 1:---• t !,-;-.7.- - ti I: ' .e,,,, .--- .- ,. ..... - - - ,•-,...o-N.....--4.-.14, .i ............:- .,,,,,
z• . , .4,- *Y.`.4"-.• '.* *'-'*•
s . - .It.
1:.. 64.,,,.,11**--.7.- .-..r.....'%;,.- --. ....:1 W.z•j6 ./f'... rS-
s...4--i!' 2..,----.: ;"‘ . 4::1"1?;. -.....!''
2,..: ‘;':...:''''. - .
a. • ... :
A INDUSTRIES INC. r-:•!7:.c--.-..-Air...... i-...:::•••••• ,..-1•0;; -,,,..-- B T WA
7...,4_.-f 1.-::::-.......-. ;-.6, :1-,...._.::-..-77-,.—......... . . •,S---..-, .t..,4ez---,---.1---1.114 ...:•:--• ----e•-• --•--L.4.1 BETTER THAN WOOD
z.--.....:...L.:1.."...t .:::.'.-."''...;:" •'RECYCLED PLASTIC PRODUCTS '."..":-.=•`.-2%.,....-.- -..t—.47.-''''....-
i.;. Ik..., .1.0.7,:z..1,r-,-....- .. 7.---. -.....
i•--.‘*,:-.!r.. % .:.1-Prii•-,;;;;;:l...7•:-: ••, . 2020 Nr•- u- -- 1-.':;':?.,-- --- ---,:•:;-.3-.;_.•ft:;:,14.-
j.1.1,•;.--1-:--....-.. 1
SW 31st Avenue
1...-:1-z:-- •••• :.: ." • -Pembroke Park, FL 33009 t:".77-..i.: :-..••' -.' .. •
s
305)962-2100 i•-:-:.•-.• .' ..
4FAX(305) 963-4778
s' ':•:•---- •
0 0 Into :-•this .
JU1-24- 6 WED . i ; 1 i
3/
4,07:4•N
c(
American Earth D/.1/
Friendly, Inc.
Recycled Plastic Products Price List
Efteative:August/1996
Illustration Description Dimension Weight Price
Deluxe Picnic Tables - All Recycled Plastic
6 Ft. Picnic Table 60" x 31" x 72" 295 Lbs. 5449.00
4 Ft. Childs Picnic Table 33"x 22" x 48" 125 Lbs. $179.00vo
Optional Stainless Steel hardware: 525.00 per table)
The " J "Leg Table
Wallkvan zed S-
Thru PicnicteelFraTableme 55" x 30" x 72" 225 Lbs. 5399.00 r
C
b Ft,}
qj
Optional Stainless Steel hardware: 535.00er table)
Handicap Accessible Tables/A.D.A.r(c)
7 II2 Ft- Picnic Table 60"x 31"x 90" 345 Lbs. 5549.00
All Recycled Plastic
7 1/2 Ft. Walk-thru Table 55"x 30"x 90" 260 Lbs. 5499.00 71,
Galvanized Steel Frame
f lexagon Picnic Table
Walk-in Design 30"x 72" 275 Lbs. S549-00 -
4,`! Deluxe Hexagon Picnic TableI '1 Seats 12 People 28" x 90" 450 Lbs. 5799.00110
it e0414 Standard colors: Gray, Tan, Cedar
Custom colors available in quantity
Standard hardware: galvanized
Shipping and({cradling not included in price)
1450 S.W. lrua Strccr.fa•Dc1ray Beach.F1.33444-Ph:(407)276-4152•Fax (407)276-3965
Kw truth deka.Rd/tart a 1I!!
1410S.W. 10thSrrcct.N2•DClrevt:1 79... ...
Equal Opportunity Employer
ati
a
f
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
J4oKSONVo..
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES
SOLID WASTE DIVISION
December 11, 1997
Ann Muese, Director of Finance
Atlantic Beach
1200 Sandpiper Lane
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
Dear Ms. Muese:
The City of Jacksonville has again been awarded the Recycling and Education grant from the State
Department of Environmental Protection for the period October 1, 1997 through September 30, 1998.
The amount that your city is eligible from this grant is prorated by population figures within Duval
county. The calculation for Atlantic Beach is as follows:
Population Incentive X Grant)Total
12,908/754,048 01711827 X 305,794 5,234.67
Attached is a copy of the grant conditions that must be followed in order for your city to be eligible to
receive reimbursement of funds. If you intend to apply for your share as stated above, submit in writing
an expenditure plan by January 31, 1998.
Once your plan is submitted and accepted, reimbursement for expenditures can be made. The
deadline for all reimbursements is August 31, 1998. (If documentation is not received by this date, you
will not be reimbursed.)
For your information, there continues to be discussion in the State Legislature about eliminating or
reducing this grant. We will keep you informed on this matter. If you have any questions or need
additional assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at(904)632-4479.
Sincerely,
Suzart1e Lichter
Manager of Finance&Administration
Solid Waste Division
SL:kr
Attachment
cc: Janice Eggleton Davis, Division Chief
Accounting Division
515 N.LAURA STREET,6TH FLOOR/JACKSONVILLE,FLORIDA 32202-3156
TELEPHONE 904/632-8050 FAX 904/632-4471
PART II - GRANT CONDITIONS
A. GENERAL CONDITIONS:
1. The method of payment, for the period October 1, 1997 through
September 30, 1998, will be on a reimbursement basis only.
2. The grantee shall elect to submit reimbursement requests on either
a monthly or quarterly basis. The method chosen shall be followed
for the entire grant period. An original of the reimbursement
request, with summaries and appropriate contracts attached, shall
be due on the last day of the month following the end of the
reporting period (monthly or quarterly) . Each reimbursement
request shall be submitted in detail sufficient for pre audit and
post audit review.
3. Grant funds may be expended through September 30, 1998. A final
reimbursement request must be submitted no later than October 31,
1998.
4. Reimbursement requests must be signed by the designated Authorized
Representative. This should be the same person who signed the
grant agreement. If there is a change in the authorized
representative during the grant period, the Department must be
notified of the new representative by resolution or minutes of a
commission meeting.
5. Expenditures shall be limited to allowable items as listed in
Section 62-716.430 of the Solid Waste Grants Program Rule:
a) Solid waste recycling grants shall be used to provide
funding for recycling program capital costs, which include
equipment purchases, solid waste scales, facility
construction and other such costs approved by the
Department.
b) Grant funds may also be used for operating subsidies,
provided that the applicant shall demonstrate that such a
use is necessary for the success of the recycling program,
and shall show how the subsidy will benefit the program.
c) Recycling grant funds shall be used for projects to assist
local governments in recycling paper, glass, plastic,
construction and demolition debris, white goods, and metals
and in composting and recycling the organic material
component of municipal solid waste.
d) Solid waste education grant funds shall be used to promote
recycling, volume reduction, proper disposal of solid
wastes, and market development for recyclable materials. Up
to 30 percent of grant funds may be used for planning
studies to assess the feasibility and success of the
recycling and education programs.
e) All existing public and private recycling infrastructure
shall be fully used to the extent possible when planning and
implementing the local government recycling programs. Funds
shall not be used for duplicating existing private and
public recycling programs unless the applicant demonstrates
that such existing programs cannot be integrated into the
planned recycling program.
6. Each recipient of grant funds shall maintain accurate records of
all expenditures of grant funds and shall assure that these
records are available at all reasonable times for inspection,
review or audit by Department personnel and other personnel
authorized by the Department. Records shall be kept for a period
of at least 3 years following the end of the grant period. The
grantee agrees that it will expeditiously initiate and complete
the program work for which assistance has been awarded under this
agreement in accordance with all applicable provisions of Florida
Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code.
7. Allowable costs may be charged to this agreement beginning either
October 1, 1997, or the date this agreement is fully executed,
whichever date is later.
8. Grant funds shall be included in the grantee's Annual Audit
performed under the Single Audit Act (A128) . Any subgrants made
by the grantee shall also include a provision for the subgranted
funds to be included in the subgrantee's Annual Single Audit. A
copy of all Single Audits shall be submitted to the Department of
Environmental Protection, Solid Waste Section, by March 31st of
each year.
9. The Department has the right to terminate a grant award and demand
refund of grant funds for non-compliance with the terms of the
award or the Solid Waste Grants Program Rule 62-716. Such action
may also result in the Department declaring the local government
ineligible for further participation in the program until the
local government complies with the terms of the grant award.
10. Grantee shall obtain all necessary construction-related permits
before initiating construction.
11. The State of Florida's performance and obligation to pay under
this grant agreement is contingent upon receipt of funds presently
anticipated from the Florida Department of Revenue.
12. Travel expenses incurred are included in the amount of this grant
and no additional travel expenses will be authorized. Any
requests for reimbursement of travel expenses must be submitted in
accordance with Section 112.061, Florida Statutes.
13. The Department reserves the right to unilaterally cancel this
contract for refusal by the grantee to allow public access to all
documents, papers, letters, or other material subject to the
provisions of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, and made or received
by the grantee in conjunction with this grant.
14. The Grantee is prohibited from using grant funds for the purpose
of lobbying the Legislature or a State Agency.
MINUTES OF THE COMMISSION WORKSHOP HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS AT
4:00 PM ON MONDAY, JANUARY 12, 1998
PRESENT: Suzanne Shaughnessy, Mayor
Richard Beaver, Commissioner
Mike Borno, Commissioner
John Meserve, Commissioner
Theo Mitchelson, Commissioner
John LaLiberte, Former Howell Park Committee Member
Poe Posch, Former Howell Park Committee Member
Jim Jarboe, City Manager
Bob Kosoy, Public Works Director
Jim Jacques, Asst. Public Works Director
Maureen King, City Clerk
Hugh Mathews, England, Thims& Miller engineer
The meeting, which was held for the purpose of discussing possible solutions to the questions in
connection with the core city drainage, was called to order by Mayor Shaughnessy.
The Mayor indicated she had walked the drainage system over the weekend and now had a better
understanding of the system. She reported that she and Commissioners Borno and Mitchelson
had met earlier in the day with engineer Mike Schmidt to discuss the various issues relating to the
core city drainage project.
Commissioner Beaver expressed concerns regarding the cost of amendments to the current design
and wondered, in the event a decision was made to go around Howell Park, whether the city
would be willing to spend additional funds to go around Johansen Park if that issue was brought
back.
Commissioner Borno said he would like to see baffle boxes costed out.
Commissioner Mitchelson indicated he would like to have a straw poll to see which alternatives
the commissioners felt were feasible. He felt that since the downstream area had not been
included in the scope of services in the England, Thims& Miller agreement, that the engineers
should be authorized to study this area, including tide water flood gates.
Commissioner Meserve felt the issues which needed further consideration were street drainage-
the calculations/formula used to determine street drainage/pipe sizes would take care of rainfall in
a 2-year storm and get the water off the streets - more rain would result in water in the streets;
Trees - need to maintain the park in its present form as far as possible; Selva Marina Country
Club - would additional flow in the Selva Lagoon cause problems for the golf course?; Storm
water pump station - the City does not own the land north of Fleet Landing and the addition of a
Page Two
Minutes - City Commission Workshop
January 12, 1998
pump station there would do nothing to solve drainage problems in the core city area- Tide water
does not back up at Fleet Landing - A better location would be at the Intracoastal Waterway and
this would have to be coordinated with Jacksonville.
Commissioner Meserve felt the engineers had advised the City Commission of the possible
options earlier in the design process and they had designed what they had been directed by the
City Commission. He felt that the cost of maintaining baffle boxes would be considerable. He felt
the engineers had done a good job and the city should proceed with their plan.
Mayor Shaughnessy felt that the goals to provide drainage and preserve the park were not
exclusive. In response to her question as to why the Stormwater Master Plan could not be
submitted and permitted as written, it was pointed out that the St Johns River Water Management
District (SJRWMD) would not allow the Selva Lagoon to be used for stormwater treatment since
it was considered Waters of the State, thus another method of treatment had to be found and it
was felt that ponds was the most likely solution to be permitted.
In response to a comment that the ETM plan did not take tides into consideration, it was pointed
out that ETM was not tasked to address tail waters outside the city boundaries. A lengthy
discussion ensued and it was felt that it would be possible to start working on the core city area
while working on a solution to outfall problems.
John LaLiberte expressed concern regarding the impact that increased water flow would have on
the Selva Marina golf course and said that the club loses considerable revenue when the golf
course has to be closed. He urged the City Commission to use caution and solve the drainage
problem, and not just move it further down stream. He supported the construction of a pump
station.
Joe Posch also felt the questions regarding down stream water flow were very important and
needed to be reviewed further. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the amount of additional
water which would be directed to Selva Lagoon and the fact that the ETM plan was based on a 2-
year storm with"normal"tides. Mr. Posch submitted a sketch of a storm water flood gate design
It was pointed out that the culvert running under the Wonderwood Road would probably be
replaced with the construction of the new Wonderwood Road and that this would be permitted
through the City of Jacksonville. However, it was felt that the perfect solution which would solve
all drainage/flooding problems,just did not exist but a reasonable compromise could be reached.
With respect to water quality Mr. Posch also pointed out that the Storm Water Master Plan
recommended source control of water quality and he suggested the city try to keep as much
debris as possible out of the drainage system through street sweeping, leaf collection and citizen
Page Three
Minutes - City Commission Workshop
January 12, 1998
education. Hugh Mathews pointed out that these measures were good in conjunction with other
design features, but by themselves, would not be enough to get the project permitted.
A question was raised as to the amount of storm water treatment required north of Plaza and
Hugh Mathews pointed out that the SJRWMD had approved the ETM design which only
provided about one-tenth the amount of treatment which would be required in a new development
and had made special allowance for the area north of Plaza because of the efforts being made in
the core city area.
Further discussion ensued regarding the pipe sizes and how pipes could/should be stacked. Mr.
Mathews explained that the engineers had taken traffic issues into consideration during the design
process and the project was designed in such a way as to have one lane open to traffic during
construction, and not require closing of streets during construction. It was felt that this issue of
pipe sizes should be resolved once and for all.
Following further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 6:25 PM.
Maureen King
Certified Municipal Clerk