Loading...
05-12-98 vCITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH SPECIAL CALLED MEETING MAY 12, 1998 AGENDA Call to order 1. Report by Dr. Terry Rice on his review of the Core City Stormwater Improvements 2. Discussion and possible action on stormwater report. 3. Any other business Adjournment MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CALLED MEETING OF ATLANTIC BEACH CITY COMMISSION HELD IN CITY HALL, 800 SEMINOLE ROAD, ATLANTIC BEACH, AT 7:15 PM ON TUESDAY, MAY 12, 1998 Present: Suzanne Shaughnessy, Mayor Richard Beaver, City Commissioner Mike Borno, City Commissioner John Meserve, City Commissioner Theo Mitchelson, City Commissioner Also: James R. Jarboe, City Manager Alan Jensen, City Attorney Robert S. Kosoy, Public Works Director Maureen King, City Clerk The meeting was called to order by Mayor Shaughnessy. 1. Report by Dr. Terry Rice on his review of the Core City Stormwater Improvements Dr. Rice presented his report dated May 11, 1998, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Dr. Rice reviewed the formula used to calculate the pipe sizes and indicated that England, Thims & Miller, (ETM)the design engineers, has applied the formula correctly in determining the pipe sizes. He felt that ETM had performed the task they were asked to do and had provided the city with the most cost effective design. However, in view of the city's desire to minimize the impact on Howell Park, he recommended that the proposed retention ponds in Howell Park be replaced with baffle boxes. Dr. Rice also recommended that citizen input be sought in large projects such as this, particularly at the 30%, 60% and 90% design stage, and he complimented the Howell Park Review Committee, which was chaired by Commissioner Borno, for the work they had done and the excellent ideas they had put forth. Commissioner Meserve asked Dr. Rice to confirm that ETM had designed a system that was efficient and effective and that they had fulfilled their contract, and that the issue of the pipe sizes and the design of the collection system met with design criteria. Dr. Rice confirmed that the pipe sizes were within the range of engineering judgement. Commissioner Meserve also confirmed that baffle boxes would provide treatment equal to retention ponds with less disruption of Howell Park. Dr. Rice concurred. Tom Trussell, 312 9th Street, inquired whether the design would still include curbs and gutters and lowering the streets, and was advised this had not been changed in the design. The Mayor inquired regarding the procedure which should be used to proceed to design the amendments which had been recommended and it was felt that since the ETM contract was Page Two Minutes - Special Called Meeting May 12, 1998 complete a request for proposals (RFP) would have to be drafted to seek a professional to design the amendments. The City Manager expressed some concern that if additional engineering firms were involved, neither firm would want to accept responsibility if problems arose in the future. Dr. Rice felt that it was important that the RFP be very clear as to what was required. He also suggested this may be a good time to get citizen input. Stephen Kuti, 1132 Linkside Drive, felt that the project should be designed for greater than a 2- year storm. J.P. Marchioli, 414 Sherry Drive, indicated he would like to see monthly testing of stormwater to determine the amount of pollution. In response to a question regarding whether any one factor of stormwater management stormwater collection, upstream management, and tailwater control)was more urgent, Dr. Rice felt that all three factors should be addressed simultaneously, as soon as possible. Cindy Corey, 394 8th Street, agreed that citizen input should be sought; however, she pointed out that volunteers could not be held accountable. She also stressed the importance of tree protection and felt efforts should be made to minimize disruption to residents during construction. Discussion ensued and Mayor Shaughnessy inquired regarding "carrying capacity" and following Dr. Rice's explanation she felt that it may be beneficial to undertake such a study. She felt that with major projects such as this, professional assistance should be sought at the beginning rather than at the end of the design process. The City Manager expressed concern about the sewer portion of the project, specifically in light of the DEP Consent Order. He suggested drafting an RFP to hook the baffle boxes up with the ETM design and have a consultant work with the city to make "value"judgements in this regard. He also suggested drafting an RFP for a tailwater pump station facility, and a carrying capacity committee made up of citizens with another consultant to assist them in developing a plan of recommendations for possible implementation or ordinance and policies that could be recommended to the City Commission for action. Dr. Rice also suggested that a methodical program to address upstream management also be considered at this time. The Mayor indicated she would like a schedule to be developed and published of what would be done for upstream management on the city's part and have public education to get cooperation from homeowners. Phil Giotto, 1528 Park Terrace West, suggested the city consider selecting a general consultant on a rotating basis to help with RFP's, design reviews, and construction management, to make sure that the right questions are asked up front. He felt the City Commission needed to make a decision whether to include baffle boxes, as recommended. He also felt the city should work with Page Three Minutes - Special Called Meeting May 12, 1998 citizens to review designs they may have for alleviating localized flooding in back yards and to coordinate ways in which they could hook up to the city's system. He also felt that it was important to coordinate with the designers of the Wonderwood Road regarding Sherman Creek and Puckett Creek. The City Manager reported he had spoken with the JTA regarding the Wonderwood Road project and they have indicated they would work with the city in this regard. He indicated he was still working with the DOT regarding the maintenance of the ditches on A-1- A. Don Phillips, 1566 Park Terrace West, said he was encouraged that the city would take a look at tail water control. He felt the city needed to be able to control the level of water in Selva Lagoon for short periods of time. At this point the Mayor closed the meeting to further public input and asked for a motion from the City Commission. Commissioner Mitchelson moved to accept in concept the ideas promulgated in the report of Terry L. Rice, Inc. dated May 11, 1998. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Borno and carried unanimously. Commissioner Mitchelson then moved to authorize staff to bring an RFP to the City Commission, subject to citizen and possible professional review, utilizing the recommendations contained in the Rice report. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Borno. Discussion ensued and Commissioner Borno felt the RFP should not be limited to only those recommendations contained in Section 4 of the report. The City Manager indicated he would try to have a draft RFP for review by the City Commission at their next regular meeting. It was also suggested that in view of Dr. Rice's knowledge of the project through his review and recommendations, that he be asked to provide professional services in connection with drafting the RFP. Mayor Shaughnessy offered an amendment to the motion to add the word "draft" in front of"RFP." The motion, as amended, was unanimously approved. Mayor Shaughnessy moved to direct the City Manager to discuss with T. L Rice, Inc. Consulting Services to the City of Atlantic Beach for the purpose of a second set of eyes on RFP's needed to complete this project. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Beaver and carried unanimously. Page Four Minutes - Special Called Meeting May 12, 1998 It was felt that the draft and review of the RFP could be completed quickly since most of the review could be handled by fax. The City Manager indicated he would try to have draft to Dr. Rice for review and get it back to the City Commission for the next meeting, or a special called meeting could be scheduled if necessary. Commissioner Borno asked for a show of hands from those in the audience who expected that this project would solve all their drainage problems. No hands were raised. Commissioner Meserve felt that the recommendation to study specific lots to see if individual problems could be solved presented a very complex problem. He felt the City Commission may not have a solution to such problems at this time. Mayor Shaughnessy indicated she would appoint a committee for upstream management at the meeting of June 8, 1998 and requested that individuals interested in serving on this committee submit their names to the City Clerk. Dr. Rice felt that this was not an urgent issue but should be considered over a period of time and felt citizens could be helpful in this respect. Commissioner Mitchelson felt there were areas for which solutions may not be possible and he wondered to what extent the city should assume responsibility to solve such problems. Commissioner Meserve inquired regarding Johansen Park and felt that a parallel RFP should be drafted to replace the proposed retention pond with baffle boxes. Commissioner Meserve moved to draft a parallel RFP on the Johansen Park area drainage issue and request staff to bring a rough RFP to the City Commission for review and go through the same process on that drainage zone. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Beaver and carried unanimously. There being no further business to come before the City Commission, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 10:23 PM. GtzQ,p u,La SUZANNE SHA HNEsS MAYOR ATTEST: Miklau/ t0-1' REEN KIN CERTIFIED MUNICIPAL CLERK Ma, 12 98 04: 40a o- 2 ExNtar-r A s-1Z-9s s5'EcIAL CAL D NIEEm4& City of Atlantic Beach Core City Stormwater Improvements independent Review* By T.L. Rice, Inc. Dr. Terry L. Rice, President May 11 , 1998 Project Number: SU9601 This report has not been reviewed externally. Even though it is published as a final report,a"revised final"version will be published if significant errors and/or omissions are identified. May 12 98 04: 40a 0 p. 3 Table of Contents Section 1 : Introduction page 1 Section 2: Core City Stormwater Management . page 3 Section 3: City Procedures page 12 Section 4: Recommendations page 15 References page 17 May 1Z UU U4: 4Ua U p. 4 Section 1 Introduction The City of Atlantic Beach, Florida, under the leadership of its five commissioners, henceforth known as "the City", faces a challenge which is very similar to that faced by all communities ... how to manage stormwater in an efficient and cost effective manner. Due to increased flooding during the early part of this decade, it became apparent that the existing system was not meeting the expectations of the public ... much of the system was old, dilapidated, and overwhelmed by demands of new development. As a first step, the City commissioned a Stormwater Master Plan that was completed in February of 1995. Once the Master Plan was complete, implementation commenced. A sewage collection system failure, and subsequent Consent Order (reference 11) to resolve the resulting case, along with continued flooding, heightened the urgency of implementing a solution. In early 1996, England, Thims 8t Miller, Inc. (ETM), was selected to design the drainage system for the City's top priority ... the sub-area know as "the Core City". On January 20, 1998, ETM completed the design. The design, even before its completion, sparked much discussion and debate. The City feels compelled to serve its citizens but, due to the uncertainty created by the ongoing controversy, it is not clear as to how best to proceed. Thus, on February 9, 1998, the City asked me, Colonel (Ret.) Terry Rice, through my company T.L. Rice, Inc., to review the work to date and render an assessment and recommendations. Although the contract identifies specific tasks to be accomplished, it was made clear, May 12 98 04: 41a 0 p. 5 by reference 2, that "your review and investigation of the Core City Water problem is not limited in any way except for the contract price that was negotiated." Based on this, it is my intent to provide the City with a comprehensive assessment of its efforts to manage stormwater for the Core City. In addition, I will make recommendations as how to best realize success in the future as the City completes the Core City plan and extrapolates the lessons learned to its entire Stormwater Management Program and other projects/activities. To accomplish this work, I chose two avenues: 1) Perform the requisite technical review based on all pertinent prior analyses and available supporting information ... in order to accomplish this I explored the entire area; met with ETM; and discussed technical matters with the City Staff, CH2M Hill, the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJWMD), and others with technical insights, and 2) Listen to all concerns so that I clearly understood the various perspectives and expectations ... this resulted in meetings with each member of the City Commission; discussions with individuals and groups; the review of numerous letters; and the conduct of a public meeting to hear testimony from the community at large. Both proved important. In general, stormwater management projects are challenges ... the Core City challenge is at the top of the list when it comes to complexity many complicated Interactions of many components, which are difficult to grasp logically as a body. My intent is to provide the City a clear, understandable analysis, which can be used to make decisions to best serve the citizens of Atlantic Beach. Thus, I have elected to get to the heart of the matter, minimize the tech-talk, and focus on giving the City the basic information in a form that facilitates its use. This report represents my best judgement; I am confident that my analysis is comprehensive, accurate, and complete. 2 May 1e JU U4: 41a a p. 6 Section 2 Core City Stormwater Management Although ETM was originally contracted, among other things, to provide final design, construction plans, and construction specifications for stormwater collection, sewage collection, and water distribution systems improvements in drainage areas SM-A, SM-B, SM-C, SM-E, SM-F, and SM-G, as defined in the City of Atlantic Beach Stormwater Master Plan dated February, 1995, SM-F and SM-G were subsequently withdrawn. Thus, the focus of my analysis will be on SM-A, SM-B, SM- C, and SM-E, "the Core City". Clearly, three factors dominate stormwater management in the Core City ... STORMWATER COLLECTION, UPSTREAM MANAGEMENT, AND TAILWATER CONTROL. Due to the lack of topographic relief, exacerbated by the intensity of development in the Core City, and the significant tidal influences of the Atlantic Ocean, each is significant and must be appropriately addressed if stormwater management is to ever meet the needs of the residents. STORMWATER COLLECTION: Stormwater collection is the focus of ETM's work. This is a point of contention and maybe, in retrospect, the scope should not have been as restrictive as it is. But based on my investigation, ETM, in accordance with reference 4, clearly was to "perform final design and prepare construction plans, prepare construction specifications, assist the City in obtaining specified permits and assist the City in the Bidding Phase to contract the,. construction of the following: Project No. 2 Stormwater collection system in drainage areas SM-A; SM-B; SM-C; and SM-E as defined in the City of Atlantic Beach Stormwater Master Plan dated February, 1995." In addition, the majority of the Commissioners have 3 Ll May 12 88 04: 41a 0 p. 7 confirmed that this is their understanding of the scope of the ETM contract. It seems that most who do not agree with this interpretation believe that an effective drainage management system must also include techniques to improve upstream management and/or tidal effects ... they do not understand why the scope was limited and/or why ETM took such a narrow interpretation ... they believe that ETM had an implied responsibility to proactively ensure that what they are doing was what the City wants. I understand their concerns but do not concur with their interpretation of ETM's charge ... ETM did what it was asked. Another point of contention is ETM's design ... concept, assumptions, calculations, etc. Among several issues, three dominate the debate ... pipe sizes, tailwater analysis, and stormwater treatment: Pipe Sizes: The traditional and accepted methods of determining the design flows and sizing the pipes to route these design flows are the Rational Method and Manning's Formula, respectively ... ETM utilized both. While Manning's Formula is empirical, the assumptions required to use it do not require much judgement. This is not true for the Rational Method ... small variations in the assumptions can create significant differences in the results. Rational Method: The Rational Method is used to determine the design flow at a given point. Simply, it says that: the Design Flow (Q - cubic feet per second) is equal to ... the Coefficient of Runoff (C — percent of rain that falls that runs off the area) times ... the Design Rainfall Intensity (I — inches per hour of rain taken from a design curve developed from data collected over a period of years for a given region -- based on a time of Concentration (TO which is a measure of how fast the water runs off an area — obviously, I for a 2-year storm is less than I for a 5- year storm and as development decreases the time of 4 Nai 12 98 04: 41a 0 p. 8 concentration, the greater the design flow for a given frequency storm) times the Area of Contribution (A - acres of area that contributes water flow to the point in question) times 1.008 (a conversion factor merely to ensure that the multiplication of the units I in inches per hour and A in acres come out to a Q in cubic feet per second ... thus, Q = 1 .008 CIA. The difficulty is that C depends on determining a percent of runoff that is a function of impervious surface, evaporation, time it takes to contribute to the point in question, etc. and I is derived from determining the amount of time it takes the point furthest away from the point in question to contribute flows to the latter point. Again, both require substantial engineering judgement based on both education and experienceeven worse, small differences in judgement can make substantial differences in the outcome. I have reviewed both ETM's application of the Rational Method and Its judgement in determining the values of the factors ... ETM applied the Rational Method properly and its judgement in determining the values is reasonable. Manning's Formula: Based on the flows at a given point, as determined by the above analysis using the Rational Method, Manning's Formula is then utilized to calculate the size of pipe required to carry that flow away. Since the equation is empirical, the logic is not necessarily clear. It says that: the Design Flow (Q - the flow in cubic feet per second that was determined above using the Rational Method) now equals 1 .49 divided by the Manning Coefficient (N — dimensionless coefficient based on the roughness of the surface — for the 5 May 12 98 04: 42a 0 p. 9 concrete culverts recommended in the design, it only ranges from 011 to .013) times the Cross Sectional Area of Flow (A — square feet of opening in the pipe) times the Hydraulic Radius to the 2/3 power (R — feet of the perimeter of the pipe that is wetted) times the Slope of the Hydraulic Grade Line to the 1/2 power S — feet of rise over foot of run reflecting the hydraulic grade — usually approximated by the slope of the pipe when not flowing full and/or there are not tailwater restrictions; when latter conditions exist, the actual energy gradient is used ... thus, Q = (1.49/N)(A)(R)2/3(S)"2. Straightforward ... little judgement required ... in this case, the pipe is designed to flow full and there are taiiwaterrestrictions, thus S is not approximated by the slope of the pipetut,the,actual. a differences in water elevations. ETM applied Marvin ng's'Formu'a a correctly in determining the pipe sizes. Thus, as far as pipe sizes are concerned, ETM followed accepted procedures and were well within the bounds of reasonableness In the application of engineering judgement. Tailwater Analysis: Tailwater analysis is not to be confused with tailwater control, which will be discussed later. The tailwater analysis determines the boundary conditions downstream of the Core City, i.e. the water levels to be expected in the Selva Marina Lagoon during the design storm. For this project, these water levels are important for two reasons: 1) The higher the tailwater, the less the rate of outflow from the Core City will be for the same size pipe ... thus, we must know what the levels are to design the stormwater collection system, and 2) if the stormwater collection system creates significant enough tailwater increases to adversely affect downstream tenants, they must be adequately addressed in the analysis. 6 May 12 98 04: 42a 0 p. 10 These calculations are difficult under ideal circumstances ... needless to say, the varying and complex conditions downstream of the Core City are not ideal. Tides, multiple constrictions, and conduits of widely varying geometry are among those conditions that make analysis a challenge. I believe that ETM made reasonable assumptions, selected appropriate methods of analysis, properly applied these methods, and reached dependable conclusions. One point: ETM, as well as CH2M Hill in its preparation of the master plan, used 3.3 feet NGVD as their assumption for the Intercoastal Waterway boundary condition which they called "mean high tide". There are several who question this assumption ... why mean high tide? Why not a more conservative assumption like highest tide observed (maximum observed was 5.45 feet NGVD during hurricane Dora in 1964)? First, for whatever reason, official gauge records indicate that "mean high water" (mean high ilie) at Mayport is 2.56 feet NGVD. Thus, it would appear that the 33 feet assumption is well above the recorded mean and is more conservative than advertised. Second, a sensitivity analysis based on boundary elevations between zero and 3.3 feet NGVD indicated negligible effects on flood stages at Howell Park and the Selva Marina Lagoon ... there is no reason to expect that higher tidal elevations would change this trend. Third, those storm events that would create water levels above 3.3 feet NGVD are relatively rare ... they certainly exceed the design frequency of the ETM stormwater collection system. Fourth, the only way to handle these less frequent events is to control the tailwater as discussed below. Thus, in my judgement, 3.3 feet NGVD is a reasonable tidal boundary condition. That is it for tailwater analysis as it was used to set boundary conditions. But there is more ... if the tailwater analysis demonstrates that tailwater restricts outflow to such an extent that the stormwater collection system cannot provide the desired-level of service then controlling the tailwater should be considered as part of a stormwater management plan. In addition, if drainage improvements for the Core City increase downstream flooding, this 7 May 12 y8 04: 43a 0 p. 11 too must be addressed. In my judgement, in the case of the Core City, both must be addressed and they are further discussed below. Stormwater Treatment: Since the improved conveyance of the new stormwater collection system will theoretically increase the pollutant loading, treatment is required. ETM selected the option of using Howell Park to accomplish the required treatment. To enjoy the full water quality benefits of detention, which combine sedimentation with biological activity, 14 days would be a reasonable goal. It appears that the detention time for the Howell Park option is much less than 14 days, thus, making sedimentation the primary benefit to the water quality. The same or similar improvements can be induced by other means in my judgement, baffle boxes are the best alternative. Initial calculations indicate that the monetary cost of baffle boxes is more than using Howell Park ... this analysis does not consider social and environmental costs. Beyond the monetary cost, the Howell Park option results in the significant destruction to the small amount of natural area that is left in Atlantic Beach ... this destruction includes wetlands which requires a permit from the Corps of Engineers. To obtain a Corps permit, the City must demonstrate that they have chosen the "least environmentally damaging practicable alternative" ... in my judgement, the baffle box concept or a similar option satisfies this requirement. I am confident that the St. Johns River Water Management District (S)WMD) will be amenable to such a change and may even be able to help with funds. Improvements should not be limited to outfalls ... I believe SJWMD would be receptive to upstream improvements to cut back on the pollution load if the City chose to pursue them. There are other design issues that have surfaced, such as the logic of the stormwater collection system layout, effectiveness of stormwater collection system layout integration with water distribution and sewage collection, the possibility of more effective utilization of streets for 8 Mau 12 98 04: 43a 0 P. 12 drainage, etc. All are subject to the design engineer's judgement and the will of the City ... do believe that such issues could have been and, in the future, can be addressed in a timely and methodical manner if appropriate procedures are developed and/or existing procedures are rigorously executed. I will discuss these in Section 3. UPSTREAM MANAGEMENT: Upstream refers primarily to the private lots that almost all have experienced development and are vulnerable to re-development. Development directly exacerbates flooding. Remember that the design flow calculated by the Rational Formula is directly and significantly increased by the percent of the water that runs off and how fast it runs off... development creates more impervious surface which, not only increases the percent of runoff, but increases the velocity of that which runs off. Going from 50% impervious to 100%, which some redevelopment is approaching, can easily more than double the design flow for the same design storm. Thus, a system that was designed for a given design storm can be overwhelmed and become ineffective simply by increasing the percent of impervious surface. Not only is it crucial to consider the effects of re-development on stormwater management, but it is also important to consider actions that will help the current situation. Each concept alone does not seem to contribute much, but the cumulative impact of implementing a suite of measures will be very positive and significant ... in general, these measures are relatively inexpensive to implement. For discussion, I have grouped them into 3 categories: Techniques: Any concept that retards runoff will enhance the City's ability to manage stormwater ... both quantity and quality. Swales, retention basins, etc. not only decrease the speed of runoff but also enhance its quality. Rules: Whether by City ordinance or incentive, great strides can be made by inspiring property owners to implement appropriate measures. Possible controls cover a broad spectrum ... examples range from limiting the percent of impervious surface area that each 9 May 12 98 04: 44a 0 p. 13 lot will be permitted which primarily helps with water quantity, to controlling pollutants freed by human activities to improve water quality. Maintenance: The systems must be kept operating as designed. Both individual owners and the City should have clear responsibilities which must be methodically carried out and monitored for compliance, e.g., leaves and other debris must removed from inlets, sediment traps cleaned, swales/ditches repaired, and streets swept ... all on a prescribed, regular schedule. The City cannot afford to disregard this component of stormwater management ... it alone can virtually render ineffective all measures taken downstream to enhance drainage. TAILWATER CONTROL: There is no question that the tide, increased downstream development, or anything that increases the tailwater in Selva Marina Lagoon decreases the effectiveness of the removal of stormwater from the Core City. This conclusion is fundamental to the mechanics of water flow ... decreasing the hydraulic gradient, which increasing the tailwater does, decreases the rate at which the stormwater will be eliminated from an area. By reference 8, ETM clearly stated the advantages of lowering this tailwater one or two feet when it stated, with regard to the construction of a pump station downstream from the Core City to lower the tailwater, "the lower tailwater elevation (one foot) will allow the Fifth Street system to convey approximately a 5-year storm, which is the generally accepted design storm" and "the lower tailwater (two feet) elevation will allow the Fifth Street system to convey approximately a 10-year storm." In reference 8, ETM discussed lowering the tailwater as a tradeoff to decreased pipe sizes. Pipe size reductions are not that significant. In my judgement, the real advantage of lowering the tailwater is that it enhances the stormwater collection system. Given the existing development and the topography of the Core City, the only way the City can substantially increase the stormwater level of service is by lowering the tailwater ... constructing a pump station with flow barrier at a point downstream. 10 May 12 98 04: 44a 0 p. 14 Where would one build a pump station? Ideally, a location is needed that permits separating downstream tidal effects from the City at the least cost. Possible locations are Selva Marina Canal near the water treatment plant, Fleet Landing weir, Mayport Road, Al A, and Wonderwood Drive. Fundamental to the analysis are two key points: 1 ) Wherever the structure is located, it will have limited impact downstream ... the ocean is the primary controller of water levels, and 2) The closer it is to the City, the smaller the pump and thus the less the construction and operating costs ... coordination requirements among impacted interests should be much less. Priority Consideration!!! There are several lots that experience flooding on a frequent basis ... some actually have water in the house and others severe moisture damage. The ETM design will provide relief for many and the opportunity for others to improve their drainage if they modify drainage internal to their lots and/or hook into the connections provided. But, in my estimation, there is a distinct possibility that there will still be lots that experience frequent flooding even after the ETM project is complete ... even if effective upstream management was in place and the tailwater was lowered. The City should recognize that some people's expectations may not be fulfilled and develop a strategy to address this possibility. In summary, to effectively handle stormwater, the City needs a stormwater management program that holistically combines the key components. At present, the focus is on STORMWATER COLLECTION. For the Corps City, the STORMWATER COLLECTION component will provide for 2-year protection. UPSTREAM MANAGEMENT should at least protect the STORMWATER COLLECTION system ... preferably, improve its level of service. TIDAL CONTROL can significantly improve the level of service for the Core City and those living downstream, and guard against rare tidal events. In addition, the City should identify any properties that may not be adequately protected and develop a strategy to deal with them. 11 Maj 12 98 04: 45a 0 p. 15 Section 3 City Procedures Government has the responsibility to ensure that public works projects meet the public need and are cost effective. Often, there are members of the public that want to participate and, even more, have local and/or technical knowledge which is important to success. When procedures do not adequately facilitate local input, two things can happen: 1) Valuable knowledge and input are not taken advantage of, and 2) III feelings are created which can lead to accusations of such things as conspiracy, fraud, waste, etc. ... i.e., loss of valuable input and/or support. The process always works best when the public is afforded an opportunity to contribute meaningfully ... when it is clear to the people that government is open. We know that, no matter how much we do to make sure all are given a meaningful opportunity to participate, there will be those who will complain or worse ... nevertheless, public servants must do their best to facilitate meaningful participation ... the dividends are enormous. In addition, it is often prudent to ensure appropriate "checks and balances" throughout the life of the bigger, more complex endeavors. Without such, Murphy's Law is inviolable ... something will go wrong. Milestones, designed to engender broad and open scrutiny, can go a long way in preventing deviations from the intent of the City. Procedures, which mandate independent technical review, are also important. Some specific ideas, in support of the above principles, are: Citizens Committees: Believe it is advantageous to establish a citizens committee for each and every major activity undertaken by the City. 12 May 12 98 04: 46a 0 p. 16 The committee should consist of volunteers but be augmented to ensure balance ... they should devise their own internal structure but it should be approved by the Commission. As an advisory body, their efforts should be parallel and linked to the main effort. For success, it is imperative that their input be considered in a meaningful way. In the case at hand, believe that the City could have realized significant dividends by enlisting the help of the Tree Board at a much earlier date than they did. Also, although committees can effectively deal with specific, major endeavors, an ombudsman serving as a general interface with the public would be very helpful in augmenting and filling voids of the specific committees. 30/60/90 % Design Reviews: These are major milestones, written directly into "project directive" documents, which afford the City the opportunity to make midstream corrections and adjustments. There are citizens that believe that the reviews should have received wider dissemination and greater public discussion. Also, an independent technical review is probably wise ... especially with major projects such as this one. These milestones should be big deals! Value Engineering (VE): l strongly believe that all major projects demand an independent review of the design to ensure the client is getting what they want at the least cost ... this is "value engineering". Point of emphasis: Least cost does not just mean least money ... social and environmental costs must be included, which can only be factored in if there is considerable public input. When this is not independently and formally accomplished, ideas go undiscovered, mistakes uncorrected, and savings unrealized. In addition, this process also motivates the prime design team to work harder to come up with the best solution. For more details regarding VE, see reference 14. The City can do this in-house, if they have the capability, which certainly includes adequate time for the staff, or it can contract a third party. It does not have to be a major effort and can be limited 13 May 12 98 04: 46a 0 p. 17 to the specific items that have been brought to the City for consideration. This is simply a smart way of doing business that, not only saves money, but deals with negative perceptions ... provides a formal way to address the concerns of the public. Since the current design is already complete, believe it only prudent to be selective if the City decides to implement and identify only the disputed items which probably should include the 1 ) large number of conflict manholes required, 2) replacement of recently completed water lines, and 3) mechanical control device at the Fleet Landing control structure. Bidability/Constructability/Operability (BCO) Reviews: it is also important to ensure that the final design will serve the contracting process, support efficient construction, and provide for effective operation once the project is put into service. Of course, the design team keeps all of this in mind as it proceeds through Its work but, again, an independent set of eyes is prudent. This step needs to be explicit and include full public participation. The BCO review can certainly be combined with the VE process. 14 Ma.y 12 98 04: 47a 0 P. 18 Section 4 Recommendations At the start of the process, believe that the City of Atlantic Beach wanted a stormwater management system that would reasonably and effectively, considering both performance and cost, drain the Core City, especially providing appropriate protection to those property owners experiencing frequent flooding. Although the ETM design will contribute to this goal, there is still much to be done. The purpose of the recommendations that follow is twofold: 1) Address those things that should be done to ensure the realization of an effective stormwater management program for the Core City and beyond; and 2) Ensure that the City gets what it wants in future, similar endeavors. Thus, to best serve its public, I recommend that the City -- Develop and implement a holistic Watershed Management Plan ... the three main components are 1) STORMWATER COLLECTION, 2) UPSTREAM MANAGEMENT, and 3) TAILWATER CONTROL. For STORMWATER COLLECTION ... Modify the ETM design to minimize the impact on Howell Park ... replace Howell Park solution with baffle boxes. Proceed with construction using the modified ETM design. For UPSTREAM MANAGEMENT ... via incentives, procedures, ordinances, etc., do all reasonable to stabilize the coefficient of runoff and times of concentration ... if possible, decrease the former and increase the latter. 15 May 12 98 04: 47a 0 p. 19 For TAILWATER CONTROL ... begin developing a plan to construct a control structure. Institutionalize more inclusive public participation and independent technical review ... citizens committees/ombudsman; formal 30/60/90% design reviews; and independent value engineering and bidability/constructability/operability reviews. For those property owners that currently experience regular flooding, analyze the benefits of the current project, especially to identify those homeowners that may still be damaged on a frequent basis after the ETM project. Ensure all affected parties understand their situation, and what they must do to take full advantage of the improvements. I If there are property owners that will not be substantially helped at a reasonable cost no matter how hard we try, develop an appropriate strategy to resolve their dilemmas. 16 May 12 98 04: 47a 0 p. 20 References 1. Atlantic Beach (City of), Florida, Letter to USACE District, Jacksonville, Subject: Request for Additional Information Response, October 17, 1997. 2. Atlantic Beach (City of), Florida, Letter to Colonel Terry Rice, Reference: clarification of contract, March 12, 1998. 3. Atlantic Beach (City of), Florida, Technical Consulting Services Agreement, Work Authorization No. 1, March 27, 1996. 4. Atlantic Beach (City of), Florida, Work Authorization No. 1, March 21, 1996. 5. Atlantic Beach (City of), Florida, Letter of Agreement between City of Atlantic Beach and T.L. Rice, Inc., Project No. SU9601, Core City Stormwater Improvements — Independent Review, February 9, 1998. 6. CH2M Hill, Stormwater Master Plan, City of Atlantic Beach, Jacksonville, FL, February 1995. 7. England, Thims 81 Miller, Inc., Letter to Jim Jarboe, City Manager, City of Atlantic Beach, Subject: Review of Howell Park Review Committee's Final Report, December 19, 1997. 8. England, Thims 81 Miller, Inc., Letter to Bob Kosoy, Public Works Director/Engineer, City of Atlantic Beach, Subject: Howell Park Tailwater Considerations in Fifth Street Stormdrain Analysis, January 15, 1998. 9. England, Thims 8t Miller, Inc., Atlantic Beach — Core City Improvements, Drainage Calculations (ETM JOB NUMBER: E96-25), Jacksonville, FL, January 20, 1998. 10. England, Thims 81 Miller, Inc., Atlantic Beach — Core City Improvement Project, Stormdrain Calculations (ETM JOB NUMBER: E96-025), Jacksonville, FL, January 20, 1998. 11. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Consent Order, FDEP vs. City of Atlantic Beach, OGC Case No. 95-2971, March 1996. 17 May 12 98 04: 48a 0 p. 21 12. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Stormwater Management —A Guide for Floridians, no date. 13. Howell Park Review Committee (HPRC), HPRC Final Report to the City of Atlantic Beach Commission, December 1, 1997. 14. Merritt, Frederick S., Loftin, Kent M., 81 Ricketts, Jonathan T., editors, Standard Handbook for Civil Engineers, 4th edition, McGraw- Hill, New York City, NY, 1996. 18