06-02-99 v MINUTES OF THE WORKSHOP MEETING OF THE ATLANTIC BEACH CITY
COMMISSION HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS AT 8:10 P.M. ON
111/ WEDNESDAY,JUNE 2, 1999
Present were: Suzanne Shaughnessy, Mayor
Richard Beaver, Commissioner
Mike Borno, Commissioner
John Meserve, Commissioner
Theo Mitchelson, Commissioner
David Thompson, City Manager
Robert Kosoy, Public Works Director
Donna Kaluzniak, Assistant Public Works Director
Julie Brandt, Secretary
The meeting was called to order at 8:10 p.m. by Mayor Shaughnessy. The purpose of the
meeting was to review the R-A-M Report Staff Analysis and the answers to the questions on the
report as submitted to R-A-M in a memo dated May 26, 1999. The memo is attached and made
part of this official record as Attachment A.
11 City Manager Thompson distributed copies of the Preliminary Design Report/Core City
Improvements and Tailwater Control letter dated June 1, 1999 written in response to the
questions submitted under Attachment A. A copy of the letter is attached and made part of this
official record as Attachment B.
Commissioner Mitchelson inquired concerning the cost comparison for designing a system for a
five year, 24 hour storm, a ten year, 24 hour storm and the mean annual ( two year), 24 hour
storm and still be within budget.
City Manager Thompson stated it was staff's opinion that some of the limitations R-A-M were
under or felt they were under, also limited the project and increased the costs. It was reported
that the by-pass around Howell Park would cost $840,000 - $900,000 to build. City Manager
Thompson felt, in his discussions with R-A-M,that there were some modifications to be made
in the design, such as limiting the by-pass significantly, using the existing drainage, and using
Howell Park for overflow to cut costs. He noted that the report did not recommend acceptance
of the R-A-M design in its entirety because it was felt improvements and adjustments should be
made to the design.
Commissioner Mitchelson inquired if the cost included exfiltration. City Manager Thompson
stated that at at first it was not included, but in a separate discussion of exfiltration R-A-M felt
if it was included, it could help achieve 5 year level without a great deal of difficulty.
0 Commissioner Mitchelson requested clarification concerning if the 5 year level could be
Minutes Page -2-
Workshop Meeting - R-A-M Report
• June 2, 1999
achieved by either utilization of Howell Park for overflow or by the use of exfiltration, but not
both. City Manager Thompson responded that according to R-A-M, if exfiltration was used,
you would achieve a 5 year level and eliminate the use of Howell Park. Discussion ensued
concerning utilization of Howell Park and it was felt that there was room to save money by
dredging the natural features of Howell Park, if needed, to enhance the flow of water away
from the area.
Commissioner Meserve commented that he had read the staff report and there was no total
answer, but with innovative design between staff, he believed the project could be built within
budget while accommodating the amount of stormwater to be handled.
Commissioner Meserve then inquired what the process would be to modify the initial R-A-M
report with some of the changes suggested from subsequent reports, to achieve a design
acceptable to everyone.
Mayor Shaughnessy suggested that each Commissioner give their preferences and then go from
there. Commissioner Meserve stated that he was not an engineer and did not know enough about
an exfiltration system at this point, to know how it would work. Mayor Shaughnessy also had
questions concerning exfiltration and requested an explanation of the process and the area to be
• affected by the same.
Public Works Director Kosoy briefly described how an exfiltration system works, stating that
basically it was a huge french drain containing manholes for access for cleaning. He further
stated that such a drain had been proposed for East Coast Drive and would be constructed in the
roadway. Mr. Kosoy noted extensive geotechnical work would be needed to determine the water
table and other sub-surface conditions before utilization of exfiltration.
Commissioner Borno inquired concerning the budgeted costs of the project. It was pointed out
that the $9 million budget included the following: (1) $6 million for water, sewer, street
reconstruction, including curb and gutter, and mobilization, and(2) $3 million for stormwater
drainage improvements, which included $2 million for the tailwater improvements
Commissioner Borno felt the stormwater design and placement of the drainage improvements
was the major issue, since the water and sewer line replacements had to be completed.
Commissioner Meserve commented that the aerials used by R-A-M were out of date and
appeared to be at least six years old. Public Works Director Kosoy confirmed that the aerials
were six years old. Commissioner Meserve believed the reconnection to Sherman Creek would
provide a long term solution to the problem, but he did not know how it would be accomplished.
It was pointed out that the area would provide 26+ acres of wetlands for stormwater storage.
0 Alternative D for the Sherman Creek reconnect was discussed in detail. Commissioner
Minutes Page -3-
Workshop Meeting - R-A-M Report
III June 2, 1999
Meserve believed alternative "D" would not work, since the route goes under the structures in
photo which are the frames of an old motel, which are still in ground. He also indicated that
Arby's restaurant was not shown on the aerial and that Fleet Landing maintained a drainage
easement through the area and a retention pond. He indicated there was 100 +tons of concrete
in the path of the proposed line. Referencing Route D, Commissioner Meserve also pointed out
that there was a 50,000 square foot building located under the wording "400 LF..." not shown on
the aerial. He felt it might be feasible to go along the road shown on the aerial.
Commissioner Meserve referred to a small parking lot located at the east end of the white line
shown on the aerial (marked by an arrow labeled "connection to existing ditch to Sherman
Creek") and stated that Fleet Landing owned 13 acres beginning at that site going 560' deep and
1,200 feet long, which included the property behind Food Lion. He further stated that Fleet
Landing had construction plans for the 13 acres and an open ditch would not be compatible with
those plans. He pointed out that the 27 landlocked acres located next to the Fleet Landing
property were owned by the Bull family, with 24 of the 27 acres being "designated" wetlands.
Commissioner Borno felt any open lined ditches should be concrete capped with ringbolts to
avoid any public nuisance issues.
• Mayor Shaughnessy inquired if the lake in Fleet Landing was connected to the Selva Marina
Lagoon. Commissioner Meserve stated the lagoon was connected by an underground overflow
pipe to the lagoon. The Mayor then suggested the possibility of using the lake as a shorter
connection to Sherman Creek. This suggestion was was briefly discussed, and it was felt that
there was merit into investigating if the water would be able to flow through lake, which at its
east side is 30 feet deep, and into Sherman Creek. Commissioner Meserve pointed out that
the entire area by the shopping center drained to the south and west and was required by the St.
Johns River Water Management District to go into the lake.
It was discussed that Alternative D, as presented, was not feasible. Alternatives A, B and C
were discussed as being intrusive on existing developments and the tree canopy. It was pointed
out that the aerial used in Alternative C did not reflect the development which has taken place
in Sevilla Gardens during the past three years.
Mayor Shaughnessy left the meeting at 8:45 p.m. to get a more recent aerial and returned to the
meeting at 8:50 p.m.
Commissioner Meserve suggested that they go back to the beginning and start over with a new
aerial to see what development has taken place during the past six years. Discussion ensued
concerning the connection of the underground overflow pipe from the lagoon to the lake at Fleet
Landing in Alternative "D" and how it might work if Alternative "C" could also be utilized.
Minutes Page -4-
Workshop Meeting - R-A-M Report
111) June 2, 1999
It was the consensus of the Commission that the route suggested in Alternative "A" was too
long. The Commission felt R-A-M should re-evaluate Alternative "C" and take into
consideration the construction which has taken place and not shown on the aerial used by R-A-
M. It was also suggested that R-A-M evaluate the feasibility of utilizing the lake at Fleet
Landing, if elevations and permitting could be worked out to connect it to Sherman Creek.
(Designated Alternative "E" by the Commission). Commissioner Meserve stated he had
recent aerials of the "D" route, which he would provide to the city.
Discussion ensued concerning the drainage plan for the shopping center area. Commissioner
Meserve pointed out that shopping center drained through the Fleet Landing property to the
south and west - down Mayport Road. A brief discussion ensued, and the Commissioners
decided if it was possible, they wished to obtain information regarding the original thinking
concerning draining the property discussed (Fleet Landing and the shopping center) to the west
instead of to the east.
Commissioner Borno stated he wished to discuss the May 25, 1999 memo to City Manager
Thompson from Public Works Director Kosoy. The memo is attached and made part of this
official record as Attachment C.
• Commissioner Borno referenced Alternates 1, 2 & 3, and the staff recommendation for design-
bid-build, and discussion ensued concerning the base system for all alternatives. Commissioner
Borno indicated he was not in total agreement with the base system for any of the alternates,
which he felt were fundamentally the same. (The base system description is found on Page 9-5
of the R-A-M manual). He briefly explained the use of the flap gate and inquired concerning
installation of flap gates at Wonderwood instead of Fleet Landing to gain an additional basin.
Mayor Shaughnessy expressed concern that this would place the flap gates after the confluence of
the Puckett Creek drainage system, which drains Neptune Beach to the south.
Commissioner Borno felt the flap gate should be utilized in its simplest form when needed, such
as during high tide conditions. He believed none of the regulatory agencies would object to the
infrequent use of a flap gate as a management tool.
City Manager Thompson pointed out that when the Commission tasked R-A-M to design the
system, the flap gates were to be automated, which costs more money. Commissioner Beaver
expressed concern regarding placement of flap gates in the City of Jacksonville. City Manager
Thompson responded that he had spoken with the FDOT and the JTA and they were not
concerned as long as the City of Atlantic Beach maintained the flap gates. Control of the flap
gates was briefly discussed and it was the consensus of the Commission that some type of
agreement would be needed to determine who would control the flap gates.
Public Works Director Kosoy reported that the Public Works Department designed a manually
Minutes Page -5-
Workshop Meeting - R-A-M Report
0 June 2, 1999
operated flap gate for the Hopkins Creek basin, which were 30% complete. Mr. Kosoy stated
he had sent the plans to R-A-M and suggested its use for the proposed Wonderwood flap gate.
City Manager Thompson pointed out that the location of a flap gate at Wonderwood would
require daily attention due to the strong tidal effect there, and probably should be automated.
Commissioner Borno, still referencing page 9-5 of the R-A-M report, agreed that something had
to be done to the 11th Street culvert, but inquired as which canal would be widened and what
bridge would be replaced, as listed in the base system construction costs.
Mayor Shaughnessy felt there was no need for automated flap gates and requested information
concerning the cost of both types of flap gates.
Commissioner Beaver stated that he wished to clarify that the $9 million project was not just a
stormwater drainage project, but included water, sewer, and road reconstruction.
Commissioner Borno then inquired concerning the Howell Park bypass and ribbon curbs, and
asked that the amount of piping and types of curb be revisited. He questioned zigzagging pipe
to save trees. Assistant Public Works Director Kaluzniak explained that it would save more trees
• in that some of the roots may come to the center of the road. Commissioner Borno favored
putting the pipe down the center of the road and utilizing inverted crowns. Public Works
Director Kosoy explained the benefits of using ribbon curb, whereas an inverted crown would
require the inlet be placed in the center of the road or wherever the trunk line is located.
Commissioner Beaver pointed out that the inverted crown road would add additional costs to the
reconstruction of the road. Public Works Director Kosoy explained that a cross section of a
road consisted of an asphalt top, a layer of limerock and a compacted sub-base. Placement of
a storm drain will disturb the road and when reconstructed the top course may be the only thing
that has to be replaced. It was pointed out that use of an inverted crown required excavation of
the entire cross-section of the road and reconstruction in the same way.
The location of existing water and sewer lines was briefly discussed. Public Works Director
Kosoy explained that most of the sewer lines ran along the side of the roads, except on 10th
Street and Seminole Road where they were located in the roadway. It was the consensus of the
Commission to obtain a cost comparison of ribbon curb vs. inverted crowns.
Mayor Shaughnessy stated she would like to reconsider the inverted crown because Sam Mousa,
Director of Public Works for the City of Jacksonville, indicated that the inverted crown is a less
expensive way to do roadways - either as a retrofit or as new construction. The Mayor further
explained that the inverted crown disturbed the narrowest possible area because there were no
side drains. The Mayor stated that there were no drawings in the R-A-M design report indicating
0 where and how far back the side drains would be located with the ribbon curb. She also
Minutes Page-6-
Workshop Meeting - R-A-M Report
0 June 2, 1999
indicated the inverted crown would have minimal impact on the trees.
The Mayor then referenced Figure 4.7 of roadway cross section alternatives in the R-A-M report.
The Mayor indicated that the examples showed the locations of pipes under road, where they
should be and would get the least disturbance in the future. Looking at the diagrams,the Mayor
felt the existing roadbed would not be preserved. Commissioner Beaver explained that the entire
roadbed would not be disturbed, as the pipes would be installed in a trench.
Mayor Shaughnessy stated that she favored using inverted crowns for the following reasons: (1)
Installation of an inverted crown would require the removal of only 2-3 inches of roadway, (2)
the center of the road would provide a way to convey water,resulting in reduced pipe sizes,
and(3) it did not allow leaves and twigs to enter system. Mayor Shaughnessy indicated that the
city would need to implement a better leaf sweeping program if inverted crowns were used, and
felt sweeping should occur at least every six weeks. She felt that if the leaves were managed
before they got to the drains,the city would be ahead. The Mayor felt that city personnel could
clear drains during large rainfall events. The Mayor stated she wanted to get back to simplicity.
She felt drains were invasive to yards, and she did not want to extend construction into front
yards. Mayor Shaughnessy did not feel the pipe going down center of road would cause a
problem to trees because she was informed during a discussion with an urban forester that 25%
• of the root ball could be disturbed without damage. She felt that running the pipe down the
center of the road would eliminate the need for jogging pipes from one side of road to the other
and would eliminate the requirement for expensive curb& gutter. Mayor Shaughnessy then
read the positives and negatives of using inverted crowns from the initial analysis found in the
R-A-M report as follows: (1) It transports significant amounts of water relatively inexpensively,
(2)the location of inlets is in the center of the road, therefore, less impact on trees, (3)does not
require installation of expensive curb and gutter, and(4)prevents leaves and twigs from entering
the stormwater system. The Mayor indicated that the negatives of this type of system were(1)
the leaves could accumulate in the center and had to be cleared frequently to keep the system
running well, (2) during a heavy rainfall the center of the road tends to pond to relatively deep
levels pushing vehicles to the side of the roadway, and(3) long straight roadways with constant
gradients can experience inlet ineffectiveness due to runoff missing an inlet . The Mayor
suggested that inverted crowns be used on the numbered streets in the old city, where possible,
and on Sherry Drive.
Public Works Director Kosoy stated that he had spoken with R-A-M and they would investigate
inverted crowns for some streets if tree loss would not be too bad. He indicated that inverted
crowns and ribbon curbs could not be used on the same street. The pros and cons of ribbon
curbs were briefly discussed. Alternatives to sewer line replacement were also briefly discussed.
City Manager Thompson reminded the Commission that the Department of Environmental
0 Protection(DEP) Consent Order concerned infiltration of the sewer lines and reduction of that
Minutes Page -7-
Workshop Meeting - R-A-M Report
410 June 2, 1999
infiltration was the critical part of the project.
Mayor Shaughnessy inquired if some part of the project could be started right away to address
part of the sewer problem in order to satisfy the consent order. Public Works Director Kosoy
felt that if the city had a 30% design with locations of storm sewers, it might be able to address
some of the sanitary sewer lines.
Commissioner Borno favored the staff recommendation for the design-build. He felt the
engineers should put project together. Commissioner Borno further stated that he had spoken
with Dr. Gregory Powell, P.E. concerning the hydrology and found the majority of figures were
correct but needed to be calibrated by putting in the survey details, including hydrology and
geographical information . Commissioner Borno pointed out that this had to be completed
before you reached the design/build stage. He further indicated that the Powell designed model
assumed certain water levels in Selva Lagoon, and the pitfalls of the Sherman Creek
reconnection needed to be considered. Commissioner Borno felt there was a reasonable
probability that concepts would work, but more detail was needed.
Commissioners Beaver and Mitchelson believed R-A-M was looking for direction as to how to
• proceed, and then they would put together the modeling as directed by the Commission.
Public Works Director Kosoy stated he wished to clarify a previous comment made by
Commissioner Borno concerning staffs recommendation. Commissioner Borno stated he had
mispoken and favored staffs recommendation for design-bid-build. Public Works Director
Kosoy stated that he had also spoken to Dr. Powell, and he felt that the level of effort put forth by
R-A-M on the preliminary design report was appropriate, and if more was needed, Sherman
Creek was a critical area to look at to see if it was feasible.
Mayor Shaughnessy again stressed simplicity and indicated that Mike Cullum of the St. Johns
River Water Management District (SJRWMD)told the city that if the existing system was
whole, the city might only need upstream management. Commissioner Mitchelson pointed out
that even if the existing system worked, it was not designed to accommodate a five year storm.
City Manager Thompson recapped the issues discussed and stated that there were parameters
and limitations placed on R-A-M, which the Commission felt should be opened up and used to
find cost effective ways of doing things, such as the possible use of inverted crowns, and usage
of natural drainage areas in Howell Park where water can stand, as long as it does no damage to
the trees. City Manager Thompson stated that he would continue to work with R-A-M unless
directed otherwise by the Commission.
A brief discussion ensued and it was the consensus of the Commission to use natural drainage
0 areas in Howell and Johansen Parks as long as the water stays for no more than twelve hours.
Minutes Page-8-
4 Workshop Meeting - R-A-M Report
June 2, 1999
It was suggested that the work in core city be performed without the Sherman Creek
reconnection or exfiltration to see what would happen. Commissioner Mitchelson disagreed
and felt the city needed to move the water,treat the water and have a place to move it to. He
favored obtaining a five year level of service within the $9 million budgeted,but if that could
not be accomplished,then exfiltration should be added to the project to reach the five year level
of service. It was suggested that funding from the SJRWMD be explored for the reconnection.
Commissioner Mitchelson inquired why one way numbered streets were not considered. He felt
using one way streets would reduce costs by reducing the size of the road and amount of
impervious surface. City Manager Thompson indicated that the Parking and Traffic Committee
and Police Department had recommended against it. City Manager Thompson stated he would
pull the report and review the reasons for the recommendations. It was suggested that the City
Manager ask the engineers if one way streets would save money. Commissioner Borno stated he
would like to investigate Sherry Drive and Ocean Boulevard being made one way.
Commissioner Beaver favored the Sherman Creek reconnection, as well as utilization of Howell
Park and exfiltration. He requested that R-A-M investigate what could be done with the east-
west streets' plan to add exfiltration later, if it is cost prohibitive to do it now. He also inquired if
• the system could be designed in phased function, to begin with the core city, and wanted to
know if it could be designed to get to a higher level of service in the future. He also inquired if
enough money could be saved by using option E to get exfiltration, and if smaller pipe size
could be utilized to to put in exfiltration later.
City Manager Thompson responded that if the city waited on the exfiltration and built the core
city according to the present gravity system,the city would lose hundreds of thousands of dollars
by overbuilding the system. City Manager Thompson felt that if the system was built with the
smaller sized pipe without exfiltration, flooding would occur. He pointed out that usage of
Howell Park to store water, with exfiltration, might eliminate the $900,000 Howell Park bypass.
It was discussed that exfiltration would handle the smaller storms more efficiently and quicker,
whereas,the Sherman Creek connection would have the greatest impact on major storms.
Commissioner Borno felt that existing culverts should not be torn out and replaced with bigger
ones. He felt that restrictions only occurred a few times a year during flooding, and could be
remedied by the use of overflow hydraulic bypass pipes such as those located at Fleet Landing.
Commissioner Borno emphasized the importance of keeping this in mind during the design of
the system.
Commissioner Borno inquired if there was enough time to get the work completed to comply
with the DEP Consent Order. Public Works Director Kosoy indicated that time was running
out. Assistant Public Works Director Kaluzniak indicated compliance might be reached with
0 30%plans as noted before, or if we part of the project could be phased and could start lining
Minutes Page -9-
Workshop Meeting - R-A-M Report
0 June 2, 1999
some sewers.
Commissioner Borno inquired as to the main permitting agency. Public Works Director Kosoy
indicated the SJRWMD would permit the project and the Army Corps of Engineers would be
involved with permits concerning the wetlands. Commissioner Borno suggested use of an
Environmental Resource Permit and contacting Army Corps.
A brief discussion of the tree canopy in the core city area ensued. Tree root systems were
discussed, and it was pointed out that an oak tree's root system could extend 100 yards.
Commissioner Beaver indicated that if the root system was disturbed, damage to the tree would
occur and a proportionate amount of tree crown would have to be trimmed in order to save the
tree. Commissioner Beaver suggest that the money for tree mitigation from the project be used
to hire a tree surgeon to help save existing trees.
City Manager Thompson stated that the R-A-M Group had complied with the preliminary design
work and suggested authorizing payment of several invoices that were being held. He felt the
additional work discussed tonight went beyond the scope of the original project and a price for
that work would have to be negotiated. The Commission agreed with his suggestion.
• Mayor Shaughnessy suggested contacting at Early Piety, an arborist with Specialty Tree.
There being no further discussion, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
Julie Brandt
Secretary
0
ATTACHMENT A
JUNE 2, 1999 COMMISSION WORKSHOP MTG.
. MEMO
0
To: Mayor Suzanne Shaughnessy
City Commissioners
�—
From: David E. Thompsoff"
Subject: R-A-M Report Staff Analysis
Date: May 26, 1999
Since the updated R-A-M report was received on May 7, 1999, it has been evaluated through city
staff and through some of their professional contacts. There are a number of questions that need
to be addressed by R-A-M to assure clarification of specific issues and concerns on the part of
staff. To this end, staff has also solicited questions from elected officials to be submitted to staff
and subsequently to R-A-M. Assuming that the questions have acceptable answers, staff is
inclined to recommend the following:
Recommendation: Staff recommends negotiating a design contract with R-A-M for a
conventional Design-Bid-Build project.
The overall assessment of the report is summarized below:
• Summary: The recommendation of a gravity system appears to be the most cost-effective
scenario for resolving the storm water issues. Although there are some ongoing
questions relative to how the Sherman Creek connection would be completed, and
there are ongoing questions relative to the pump and pipe sizes discussed in the
report, the overall plan appears to be a valid solution to the flooding problems that
have occurred in the past.
Spending $9,000,000 to obtain the protection for a mean-annual storm does not
appear to be a good investment. However, after some discussion with R-A-M, we
believe that with some creativity, staff and R-A-M can design a gravity system
that will provide protection for a 5 year, 24 hour storm, and the system can be
built at an expense within the $9M budget.
Hiring another engineer to design this project would be a mistake. R-A-M was
selected due to their credentials, and they have proposed a feasible system within
the many constraints that they were given for this project. Bringing in a new
engineer would require considerable time and effort just to bring them up to speed
on the problems.
The actual price of the work will not be available until the construction design is
completed and the construction bid is awarded. This project could conceivably
• cost significantly more or less than the projected costs.
Mayor Suzanne Shaughnessy
Page 2
May 26, 1999
The City is under a consent order that establishes November 15, 1999 as a date for
having the plan established, December 31, 1999 for implementation, and
December 30, 2001 for completion.
Without reviewing the entire storm water project development over the past several years, R-A-
M was given a task that had numerous restrictions including the preservation of the parks,
maintaining water levels at the golf course between high and low marks, and preserving trees.
Each of these limitations was accommodated, and each resulted in a cost to the City of Atlantic
Beach.
There are still questions that staff would like to address to R-A-M to obtain a higher comfort
level with the report's recommendations. Staff expects to have answers before the June 2, 1999
meeting with the City Commission.
Attachments: May 25, 1999 Memo to David Thompson from Robert S. Kosoy
May 26, 1999 Memo to David Thompson from Robert S. Kosoy
•
•
110
MEMORANDUM
May 25, 1999
TO: David Thompson, City Manager
FROM: Robert S. Kosoy, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF REVISED R-A-M REPORT DELIVERED 5/7/99
On April 14, 1999 we directed the R-A-M group to amend the Preliminary Design
Report to 1) provide a financially feasible solution not to exceed $9.0 million and offer
maximum protection to the City within this budget, 2) amend the Preliminary Design
Report to estimate the cost of the solution(s) proposed, and 3) to resubmit a final
invoice for a total cost not to exceed the amount authorized in Phase I (see letter dated
April 14, 1999 attached). On May 7, 1999 R-A-M delivered their revised report.
• 1. Ten Year, 24 hour storm
R-A-M has concluded that removing the Sherman Creek connection at the
downstream end and/or the exfiltration system at the upstream side of the project
will increase pipe sizes to the point that the project cannot be accomplished
within our $9 million budget. Their original ballpark estimate was $13,565,000
for this option (see page 11-41, IV-14 & ETM Preliminary Opinion of Probable
Cost).
2. Five Year. 24 hour storm
R-A-M has concluded, as in the ten year, 24 hour storm, that removing either the
Sherman Creek connection or the exfiltration system will increase pipe sizes to
the point that the project cannot be accomplished within our $9 million budget.
3. Mean Annual. 24 hour storm
R-A-M has provided three "preliminary ball park estimates" for the mean annual
storm event as follows:
Alternate Base System Cost of Additional Contingency Engineering Total Project
Number (pg. IX-8) System Cost
1 $6,923,542 $1,572,000 $235,800 $196,500 $8,927,842
• 2 $6,923,542 $2,352,000 $352,800 $294,000 $9,992,342
3 $6,923,542 $1,790,000 $268,500 $223,750 $9,205,792
Alternate #1 uses a Sherman Creek Connection north of Fleet Landing to
• achieve the budget figure of$9 million for a mean annual storm event. Alternate
#2 uses an exfiltration system and Alternate #3 uses a huge pump station on 5'h
Street to achieve the mean annual storm event for $9.9 million and $9.2 million,
respectively. The mean annual storm event is the same as the 2 year, 24 hour
storm event to which England, Thims & Miller (ETM) designed.
The three alternates, while meeting our proposed budget of$9 million or being
within 10%, only achieve a level of service for a mean annual storm, i.e. a 2 year,
24 hour storm. This level of service, although similar to the ETM design, should
be improved upon. For example, Jacksonville Beach is using a five year, 24
hour storm for their stormwater pump stations. In addition, our Master Plan from
CH2 M Hill called for a five year, 24 hour storm. In our opinion, this engineering
•
firm can be required to design and acquire a permit for a gravity system that will
work for a five year, 24 hour storm and a contractor can construct the project for
a cost approaching $9 million. We will not know exact costs until we contract for
design and construction.
4. Project Delivery Systems
a) Conventional Design-Bid-Build
We can authorize R-A-M to design to a five year, 24 hour storm and
provide additive and deductive alternates, with major deducts being for
the less critical drainage areas in the project area. The project could then
be bid and awarded within the $9 million budget.
b) Design-Build
This alternate project delivery system would allow us to select a team to
design and build the project for a specified price. Similar to the Dutton
Island Culvert project— technical proposals would be evaluated first and
scores assigned, and the technical scores would be announced at the bid
opening when cost proposals would be opened. The costs would be
adjusted by the technical scores. This method could subject the City to
additional liability.
c) Construction Manager at Risk
Under this project delivery system, a design firm can be hired as
Construction Manager to begin the design and provide a Guaranteed
Maximum Price (GMP). However, the GMP is typically not provided until
30% or 60% design plans are complete.
Considering the R-A-M Group's familiarity with the project and their level of expertise,
we recommend negotiating a design contract with the R-A-M Group for a Conventional
Design-Bid-Build.
MEMORANDUM
0 May 26, 1999
TO: DAVID THOMPSON
CITY MANAGER
FROM: ROBERT S. KOSOY,P.E.
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS r.#14°C---
RE: DISCUSSION OF R-A-M PRELIMINARY
DESIGN REPORT
A telephone conference was held on May 25, 1999 with Richard Howard, City Engineer, and
Jim Hunt, Stormwater Project Manager for the City of Orlando regarding the above report.
Their general opinion was that there were a lot of competing interests to balance in this design
that are not in the interest of the overall project. Because of the amount of input,there were too
many constraints to meet without spending a lot of money. Rick emphasized the need to focus
on the real reason for the project, which is flooding of homes and property.
If the flooding of eight to ten homes is the major problem we are trying to solve,they suggest the
City buy those properties and turn them into a retention area. They stated that property and
• homes had been purchased in Orlando under similar circumstances. I advised that Retired
Colonel Terry Rice suggested this option in a public meeting. They noted that$9 million
seemed like a lot of money to solve this problem. I then explained that water and sewer
improvements were included in this project. They noted that the cost numbers looked on the
high side, but were not too far out of line, especially for an estimate. Their suggestion was to get
the detailed quantity take-offs and unit costs to get maximum flexibility for decision making.
In discussing exfiltration,they noted that it does not work well in areas with a high ground water
table,but they trusted the work of Dr. Frank Marshall, and would agree with any
recommendation he made. They suggested that extensive geotechnical work be performed prior
to going with exfiltration.
Their opinion was the pumping scenario would be overkill, due to the capital cost of the pump
stations, along with operations and maintenance costs. They thought the gravity scenario was a
good analysis, but did not recommend designing for only a mean annual storm.
Lastly, I discussed my recommendation to retain our current engineering team to do the design to
a 5 year storm, with additive and deductive alternates, so that we could bid and construct the
most critical parts of the project. They agreed, and said we have a good team of engineers, and
that there were no "miracles" to solve a problem with our set of parameters. They felt that
hiring another engineer to redesign the project would be a mistake.
41110
II ... FAX TRANSMISSION
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
800 SEMINOLE ROAD
ATLANTIC BEACH, FL 32233
(904) 247-5806
FAx: (904) 247-5805
To: Mr. Wayne Reed, R-A-M Date: May 27, 1999
Fax#: 296-4580 Pages: Six (6), including this cover
From: David E. Thompsoon sheet.
Subject: Questions on Report
COMMENTS: •
After your latest report was received, Atlantic Beach staff members solicited questions from
elected officials, the storm water review committee, and other staff members. The attached
questions are intended to address some of the issues that those people raised.
• Please review the questions and provide responses as soon as possible. Atlantic Beach has a
Commission/Staff meeting to discuss the R-A-M report on June 2, 1999 at 5:00 pm, and we
would like to have responses prior to that meeting if possible.
•
Questions Regarding Storm Water Evaluation and Preliminary Design Report
1. The ETM design did not include flap gates and the Sherman Creek connection, yet they
provided a 2 year level of service. How is it that the R-A-M design, which includes flap
gates and the Sherman Creek reconnection only provides a 1 year level of service?
2. If Atlantic Beach commits to the exfiltration system at a cost of more than 1.5 million
dollars, how will that impact the level of service in Atlantic Beach?
3. Did you consider channeling some of the water from the core city to Hopkins Creek
instead of running all of it through the Selva Marina lagoon?
4. Would it be feasible to consider channeling the storm water down Plaza Road and out
Levy Road to an outfall at that location?
5. Would it be feasible to consider channeling the storm water out Church Road to an outfall
at that location?
6. Why is it not recommended to add a pump station near Fleet Landing to pump the storm
water out of Atlantic Beach?
• 7. It is difficult to visualize the proposed Sherman Creek reconnection. It appears that the
water would have to be routed through private property, and the estimated cost for the
purchase of that property will need to be determined. Is the price of property acquisition
included in the projected costs of the project?
Staff would like to see on a map or diagram how and where that connection would be
made?
Are there any adverse effects from making this connection?
Additionally, the land north of Fleet Landing is private property, and it is necessary that
we consider the impact of reconnecting Sherman Creek and directing storm water onto
that property. Has this impact already been examined, or will it be done in the next phase
of the design (if authorized).
8. After the some of the original controversy about pump and pipes sizes, it was noticed that
the revised report did not alter them significantly. Did R-A-M re-evaluate the original
design work on the pump and pipes sizes? There have been detailed questions about the
volume of water and the velocity that it would have to move, and I believe that R-A-M
should anticipate questions relative to the pump alternatives articulated in Section II.
There are citizens who have questioned how much research went into this alternative.
9. There was an error in the dollar figures on page I1-42 #5 that needs to be corrected.
10. There is a typo on Table II-13 that needs to be corrected.
11. On page I1-42, the route of the pipes bypassing the parks is stated as going down Selva
Marina Drive. In previous discussions and in Section IX, it appeared that you have
eliminated that route as a feasible option.
12. Please be prepared to discuss the attached questions from Don Phillips.
13. The issue of velocity of the water has been raised as a possible problem in the proposed
design. Will the speed of the water in the lagoons and creeks create erosion problems,
•
and will significant increases be required in these channels to move the water away?
14. The original R-A-M report suggested that there were advantages to using inverted crown
roadways for storm water purposes. The current report recommends against using
inverted crowns. Was this a result of City staff's influence or opposition, or was it R-A-
M's determination not to recommend inverted crown roadways?
•
1 . Question about the SWMM Model .
Page II-5 , paragraph B( 1 ) references the "City of Jacksonville Master
Stormwater Plan (MSMP) prepared by Camp, Dresser and McKee (CDM) in the
early 1990' s"
RAM describes the CDM as follows:
The CDM SWMM model was configured with the main channel of the Selva
Marina drainage system running from an outfall for Sherman Creek
through the Sherman Creek flood plain to Selva Marina Lagoon, and
then south through Howell Park at the upstream limit . The Selva
Marina drainage canal along A1A was modeled as a connecting channel
from the Selva Marina Lagoon to Puckett Creek to the northwest . This
connection with Puckett Creek provided a second outfall for the Selva
Marina drainage system. The CDM City of Jacksonville Sherman
Creek/Puckett Creek model simulates the drainage system before the
construction of Oceanwalk, Fleet Landing, and Sevilla Gardens
developments.
COMMENT: Sevilla Gardens was developed prior to 1990 and , by 1990 all
drainage of the Selva Marina Lagoon had been diverted from Sherman
Creek to the Selva Marina channel draining along A1A into Puckett
Creek .
QUESTION : Why would Camp, Dresser and McKee (CDM) include a SWMM
Model in their City of Jacksonville Master Stormwater Management Plan
11/0 which did not simulate actual field conditions? OR Did RAM
misinterpret the facts relating to this model ?
2 . Question comparison of peak water elevations as reported in CH2M-Hill
report and those contained in the RAM report .
11/1 Reference last sentence in paragraph 2 , page II-6 - " the CH2M Hill
model used SWMM to establish backwater elevations, then modeled
individual pipe networks in each basin using AdiCPR. "
Table 3-2 , page 3-7 of the CH2M Hill report identifies peak
elevations resulting from their SWMM model analysis as follows :
Basin Location Storm
2 10 25 100
Peak Elevation (msl )
SM Upstream of Fleet Landing Culvert 5 . 6 6 . 6 7 . 3 8. 4
SM At Selva Marina Country Club 5 . 7 6 .8 7 . 4 8. 5
SM Upstream of 11th Street Culvert 5 . 7 6 . 8 7 . 4 8 . 5
SM In Howell Park 5 . 7 6 . 9 7 . 5 8. 5
Compare these elevation to those reported by RAM (Table II-1 , pg II-10)
Table II-1
Water surface elevations at various location for existing conditions
Basin ' Location Storm
24hr 10 25 100
Peak Elevation (feet, NGVD)
Node 21025 Fleet Landing West 5 . 11 6 . 43 7 .05
1111 Node 10101 Country Club Drive 6 . 00 7 . 45 8.03
Node 10113 11th Street 6 . 01 7 . 46 8 .04
Node 10121 Plaza 6 . 07 7 . 64 8 . 06
Node 10145 Howell Park 6 . 28 8 . 53 9 . 20
Two things stand out when you compare the RAM SWMM model results with
the CH2M Hill model results:
First- Elevations from the RAM SWMM model are much higher than the
elevations determined by the CH2M Hill SWMM model . Storm
elevations in Howell Park for 10 year storm are (6 . 9 CH2M
Hill ) versus (8. 53 RAM) and for 25 year storm the
comparisons are (7 . 5 CH2M Hill ) versus (9 . 20 RAM) .
Second- The difference in the elevation of the water level in Howell
Park and the elevation of the water level at Fleet Landing
West is 2 . 1 feet (8 . 53-6 . 43) for a 10-year storm and 2 . 15
feet (9 . 20-7 . 05) for a 25 year storm, whereas , the CH2M Hill
model shows only minor differences between the elevations of
these two locations . 3 feet (6 . 9-6 . 6) for a 10-year storm
and . 2 feet (7 . 5-7 . 2) for 25 year storm.
QUESTION : Which SWMM model more closely predicts the correct water
elevation? and , if the CH2M Hill model reflects a better
calibration than the RAM model , what affect does this have
on pipe sizes and costs as reflected in the RAM report?
110 Does the City really intend to spend $9 ,000,000 for a
stormwater management system based on the questionable
results of an uncalibrated SWMM model ?
3 . The map (Figure II . 1 ) incorrectly shows drainage basin input
locations as follows:
1111 Drainage basin inputs SM-A, SM-B and SM-F near the north end of Selva
Lagoon should be only SM-G.
Drainage basin input SM-G at Country Club Road should be SM-F .
Drainage basin input SM-E and part of SM-F should be located at 11th
street.
QUESTION: Is this only a simple drafting error in the positioning of
these stormwater inputs , or were these drainage basin inputs actually
entered into the RAM SWMM model at these locations?
4. Carefully evaluate the paragraph on page II-8 which reads -
A comparison of observed conditions reported to the R-A-M Team by
knowledgeable citizens to the conditions simulated by the revised
model confirms that the revised model is capable of simulating the
performance of the Selva Marina drainage system at the conceptual
elevation level of this analysis so long as reasonable engineering
judgement is utilized . Based on this , it is felt that the revised
Atlantic Beach SWMM model provides a reasonable representation of the
performance of the Selva Marina drainage system , particularly when it
is used in a comparative mode, with a conservative approach to
• interpretation of the results . IT IS IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THAT A
MODEL THAT HAS BEEN FORMALLY CALIBRATED MAY YIELD RESULTS THAT ARE
MATERIALLY DIFFERENT THAN THE RESULTS PROVIDED BY THE ATLANTIC BEACH
SWMM MODEL PRODUCED BY THE R-A-M.
QUESTION : Who were the knowledgeable citizens that "confirmed that
observed conditions" generally matched the simulated results
of the RAM SWMM model . Is this an example of " reasonable
engineering judgement"?
5 . Question concerning SWMM model results of hydraulic restrictions in
the canal system.
1110 Paragraph 4, page II-17 includes a lengthy discussion of the
"numerous locations in the Selva Marina drainage system where there
is a relatively small pipe, culvert , or channel section that
restricts flows such that upstream water levels are raised" . "The
impact of these restrictions becomes more significant for the more
severe storms" .
To illustrate their claim, Table II-4, page II-18 shows "Water
Surface Elevations at Various Locations with Downstream Restrictions
Removed" . The elevations in this Table II-4 are, as follows:
Location Storm
24hr 10 25 100
Peak Elevation (feet, NGVD)
Node 21025 Fleet Landing West 4. 43 5 . 15 5 . 64
Node 10101 Country Club Drive 5 . 39 6 . 52 7 . 13
Node 10113 11th Street 5 . 47 6 . 68 7 . 30
Node 10121 Plaza 5 . 78 7 . 69 8. 13
Node 10145 Howell Park 7 . 51 9 . 44 9 . 57
Table II-1 , page II-10 shows "Water Surface Elevations at Various
Locations for the Existing Conditions" , as follows:
Location Storm
• 24hr 10 25 100
Peak Elevation (feet, NGVD)
Node 21025 Fleet Landing West 5 . 11 6 . 43 7 . 05
Node 10101 Country Club Drive 6 . 00 7 . 45 8. 03
Node 10113 11th Street 6 .01 7 . 46 8 . 04
Node 10121 Plaza 6 .07 7 . 64 8. 06
Node 10145 Howell Park 6 . 28 8 . 53 9 . 20
COMMENT: If you compare the elevations shown for Plaza and Howell Park
for a 10-yr and 25-yr storm (downstream restrictions removed)
with the elevations shown for Plaza and Howell Park (existing
• conditions or restrictions in place) you will note that the RAM
SWMM model resulted in higher elevations at Plaza and Howell
Park when downstream restrictions were removed .
QUESTION : How can this possibly be correct?
11/0
JUNE 2, 1999 COMMISSION WORKSHOP MTG.
e .
THE R-A-M PROFESSIONAL GROUP IN
ENGINEERING - PLANNING - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
• June 1, 1999
Mr. David E. Thompson
City Manager
City of Atlantic Beach
800 Seminole Road
Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233
Re: Preliminary Design Report/
Core City Improvements and Tailwater Control
R-A-M Project No. 198-021-05
Dear Mr. Thompson:
Please accept the following in response to your recently submitted comments,
which were co-authored by Frank E. Gray, Jr., P.E., and Frank Marshall, PhD, P.E.:
Comment No. 1. The ETM design did not include flap gates and the Sherman Creek
• connection, yet they provided a 2 year level of service. How is it that the R-A-M design,
which includes flap gates and the Sherman Creek reconnection only provides a 1 year
level of service?
Response: The R-A-M design provides for a conservative minimum annual
storm level of service, which is approximately equal to (though slightly greater
than) a 2-year level of service, not a 1-year level of service. This means that no
flooding is anticipated in yards and/or streets for storm events that are
approximately as severe as a mean annual storm, or less severe. For more
severe storms, the R-A-M design with flap gates and the Sherman Creek
reconnection would provide better protection than the ETM design, though
flooding conditions are still likely to occur. In particular, the Sherman Creek
reconnection would be anticipated to reduce the duration of flooding conditions
in the Core City.
Comment No. 2. If Atlantic Beach commits to the exfiltration system at a cost of more
than 1.5 million dollars, how will that impact the level of service in Atlantic Beach?
Response: The exfiltration system is not a part of the revised solution
presented in the new section of the final report entitled `Budgetary Limitations,"
because of its high cost and the greater relative benefit of the Howell Park
bypass and the Sherman Creek reconnection. The exfiltration system will
• improve the level of service above the mean annual storm level.
4655 Salisbury Road , Suite 210 - Jacksonville, Florida 32256
(904) 296-4440 - FAX (904) 296-4580
•
Mr. David E. Thompson
City Manager
City of Atlantic Beach
R-A-M Project No. 198-021-05
June 1, 1999 Page 2
Comment No. 3. Did you consider channeling some of the water from the Core City to
Hopkins Creek instead of running all of it through the Selva Marina lagoon?
Response: As part of the early research for this project, conveyance of some
runoff to Hopkins Creek was discussed. However, after considering the
problems in conveying the runoff to Hopkins Creek coupled with a Hopkins
Creek drainage system that appears to already be at or exceeding capacity, this
option was eliminated as being infeasible.
Comment No. 4. Would it be feasible to consider channeling the stormwater down
Plaza Road and out Levy Road to an outfall at that location?
Response: The option of channeling the water to the west past the Selva
Marina down Levy Road was not considered as a viable alternative for several
reasons:
• a) this route does not have a natural conveyance ditch which could be
used,
b) the ground profile does not drop along this route which would
require deeper and, therefore, wider areas through which to flow,
c) this route would pass through a congested area which does not
have an available corridor for installing a large stormwater
conveyance ditch or culvert,
d) the friction losses created by the water as it passes through the
long narrow conveyance conduit (ditch or culvert), would cause
significant loss of available head and the ditch would have to be too
large to be feasible on a cost basis or available land area basis,
e) this route also has a 21-inch sewer outfall line on one side of the
road and a 10-inch water line on the other, and the roadway has
also been recently paved; the demolition and replacement of these
utilities would be additional expenses to this route, and
f) there are other problems associated with deviating from the natural
flow path of a drainage basin which are not obviously apparent and
these mainly impact the area to or through which water is being
Mr. David E. Thompson
City Manager
City of Atlantic Beach
R-A-M Project No. 198-021-05
June 1 , 1999 Page 3
directed. There may not be a drainage problem in an area, but if more
stormwater is directed into an area, stormwater problems could be created by
the resulting increases in the water level in that area.
Comment No. 5. Would it be feasible to consider channeling the stormwater out
Church Road to an outfall at that location?
Response: The response to this comment is very similar to the response to
Question No. 4, but this route changes directions several times to arrive at a final
discharge location. Changes in direction for a large outfall line create
considerable additional expense and require significant land area.
Comment No. 6. Why is it not recommended to add a pump station near Fleet Landing
to pump the storm water out of Atlantic Beach?
Response: A pump station is not recommended at Fleet Landing pumping
• down the level of the Selva Marina Lagoon because the hydraulic characteristics
of this drainage system do not lend themselves to a reasonable technical or cost-
efficient solution with a pump at this location. In order to reduce the elevation of
the Selva Marina Lagoon, very large pumps would be needed. Because the
Selva Marina Lagoon is relatively narrow and shallow, it acts as a channel, not
as a reservoir. The area with the flooding problems, the Core City, is a relatively
long distance from this location. For these reasons, the improvement in the
hydraulic grade line conditions in the Core City (which is the purpose of the
pump) is minimal for pumps of a reasonable size.
Comment No. 7. It is difficult to visualize the proposed Sherman Creek reconnection. It
appears that the water would have to be routed through private property, and the
estimated cost for the purchase of that property will need to be determined. Is the price
of property acquisition included in the projected costs of the project?
Staff would like to see a map or diagram how and where that connection would be
made.
Additionally, the land north of Fleet Landing is private property, and it is necessary that
we consider the impact of reconnecting Sherman Creek and directing stormwater onto
that property. Has this impact already been examined, or will it be done in the next
phase of the design (if authorized)?
Mr. David E. Thompson
City Manager
City of Atlantic Beach
R-A-M Project No. 198-021-05
June 1, 1999 Page 4
Response: It has been determined that the Sherman Creek reconnection is
critical to the future of stormwater management in the City of Atlantic Beach. In
future years as the City continues to grow, the need for a large low-lying storage
area as a part of the main conveyance route for large stormwater flows will
become more and more apparent. If this area is not reconnected, the need will
become more apparent even sooner.
Routes for making this reconnection needed to be evaluated and then modeled
to determine the potential positives and negatives of reconnection. Possible
routes were determined by first, reviewing topographic maps, then by examining
aerial photographs, then by reviewing property boundary maps. Four
possibilities for reconnection were selected for site investigation. These four
routes were investigated via boat or on foot. The four routes labeled A through
D are shown on the attached aerial photographs.
Route A is the route along Selva Marina Drive. This is the route originally
• proposed in the March 15, 1999 Preliminary Design Report submitted by the
R-A-M Team. This route would provide the most benefit hydraulically to the
stormwater system since the connection is further upstream than the other
connection routes. The estimated tree loss is approximately 4 mature oaks
along Selva Marina Drive. This route has not been abandoned completely, but
its consideration has not been received positively due to tree loss and political
impacts.
Routes B and C were found to present very difficult problems when examined
physically due to the existing obstacles along each route. Route B would be
required to pass through the middle of the Sevilla Condominium complex and
exit to Selva Marina Drive near the main entrance of the complex with similar
results as Route A.
Route C, which is along the north property line of the golf course and the south
boundary of Fleet Landing, looks promising on the west portion of the route, but
the east end is impractical due to the existing homes and structures near the
eastern connection point.
Route D is the most promising of the routes since most of the route is through
wooded or open areas. The RV parking lot at the northernmost end of Fleet
Landing would need to be crossed with a large box culvert and an easement
would need to be acquired in order to cross this lot. The estimated price for
Mr. David E. Thompson
City Manager
City of Atlantic Beach
R-A-M Project No. 198-021-05
June 1, 1999 Page 5
acquiring this property is included in the total estimate for construction of the
facilities. The balance of the route would involve a large sodded ditch. Although
this route does not benefit the stormwater system hydraulically as much as
Route A, there are still very significant benefits to the reconnection, especially
during the larger stormwater events.
With respect to adverse impacts, because this analysis is only a conceptual level
evaluation, some actual impacts have been considered but not quantified. At
this point in time, adverse impacts, if any. can likely be eliminated through
design. Areas of potential impact are the homes on the west side of Selva
Marina Drive in Sevilla Gardens, and perhaps near the outfall in the vicinity of
Mayport Road and Wonderwood Drive. In both cases, local improvements can
be made to relieve any current and/or potential future flooding should the
Sherman Creek reconnection be completed. In the original report, it was
recommended that additional detailed survey information be obtained at these
locations as the first step of preliminary detailed engineering so any potential
• impacts can be evaluated in detail. However, with the information available at
this time, which is considered to be adequate for a conceptual evaluation, the
Sherman Creek reconnection does not appear to have any adverse impacts that
cannot be eliminated.
The impact to the property north of Fleet Landing was also considered at this
conceptual level of evaluation for potential impacts. Because most of the land
that would be crossed by the open channel is relatively high in elevation, model
results show that the open channel will not overtop until a very severe storm is
experienced.
Resolving those impacts and addressing the associated permitting issues would
be worth the benefit to having the system reconnected although these have not
been thoroughly examined and would need to be addressed in the next phase.
Comment No. 8. After the some of the original controversy about pump and pipes
sizes, it was noticed that the revised report did not alter them significantly. Did R-A-M
re-evaluate the original design work on the pump and pipes sizes? There have been
detailed questions about the volume of water and the velocity that it would have to
move, and I believe that R-A-M should anticipate questions relative to the pump
alternatives articulated in Section II. There are citizens who have questioned how
much research went into this alternative.
Mr. David E. Thompson
City Manager
City of Atlantic Beach
R-A-M Project No. 198-021-05
June 1, 1999 Page 6
Response: In the original report, a gravity solution was recommended instead
of a pumping solution, due to cost, environmental considerations, and long term
effectiveness. The City Commission expressed the opinion that no more than
about $9.0 million is available for the Core City project, which also includes new
water and sewer mains and road paving, as well as drainage improvements.
Because the cost of an effective pumping alternative would require dedication of
most of the budget to drainage improvements, no additional pump alternatives
were considered.
Most of the work on this project related to the computer model that was utilized
was directed toward the pumping alternative. A large amount of research went
into this alternative. It was realized at the beginning of the project that pumping
was the preferred alternative by many people. It certainly would have been
easier to recommend a pumping alternative. However, as the analysis
proceeded, it became clear that a pumping alternative was not well matched to
the hydraulic characteristics of the Selva Marina Lagoon drainage system, and
• the cost of an effective pumping alternative reinforced the opinion that a pumping
alternative is not an appropriate solution for the Atlantic Beach Core City flooding
problems.
Comment No. 9. There was an error in the dollar figures on page 11-42 that needs to be
corrected.
Response: The estimated cost for the gravity driven alternative should have
been $3,615,000 instead of$3,15,000.
Comment No. 10. There is a typo on Table 11-13 that needs to be corrected.
Response:. "TALBE 11-13"should have been `TABLE 11-13".
Comment No. 11. On page 11-42, the route of the pipes bypassing the parks is stated
as going down Selva Marina Drive. In previous discussions and in Section IX, it
appeared that you have eliminated that route as a feasible option.
Response: See the responses to Comment No. 7, concerning Route A.
Comment No. 12. Please be prepared to discuss the attached questions from Don
Phillips.
Mr. David E. Thompson
City Manager
4) City of Atlantic Beach
R-A-M Project No. 198-021-06
June 1, 1999 Page 7
Don Phillips Question 1. Page 11-5, paragraph B(1) references the "City of Jacksonville
Master Stormwater Plan (MSMP) prepared by Camp, Dresser and McKee (CDM) in the
early 1990's". Why would Camp, Dresser and McKee (CDM) include a SWMM Model in
their City of Jacksonville Master Stormwater Management Plan which did not simulate
actual field conditions? OR Did RAM misinterpret the facts relating to this model?
Response: The research that was done for this project included a review of the
St. Johns River Water Management District permits for Oceanwalk, Sevilla
Gardens single-family subdivision, and Fleet Landing. Sevilla Gardens
condominium does not appear to have been required to be permitted through the
District, probably because of its early date of construction. One of the original
connections of the Selva Marina Lagoon to Sherman Creek was already severed
when CDM prepared their SWMM model for the City of Jacksonville. CDM was
primarily concerned with the identification of problems within the primary channel
of the Selva Marina Lagoon downstream of the Core City. The USGS
Quadrangle Map that was in effect at the time of the CDM modeling effort
provides confusing information. When asked about the base for the CDM model,
• a current CDM engineer stated that this map was likely the source used to
develop the model, though this engineer(Patrick Victor, P.E.) was not a CDM
employee at the time of the City of Jacksonville SWMM activities. The R-A-M
Team's analysis of the CDM input data lead to the conclusion that they simulated
the waterway as it was configured before these developments were put in place.
That is an opinion that was formed through the review of existing information.
Don Phillips Question 2. Question comparison of peak water elevations as reported in
CH2M-Hill report and those contained in the RAM report. Which SWMM model more
closely predicts the correct water elevation? and, if the CH2M Hill model reflects a
better calibration than the RAM model, what affect does this have on pipe sizes and
costs as reflected in the RAM report? Does the City really intend to spend $9,000,000
for a stormwater management system based on the questionable results of an
uncalibrated SWMM model?
Response: As presented in the above response, the SWMM model developed
by CDM and utilized by CH2M Hill contained a connection to Sherman Creek.
The R-A-M existing conditions model had no Sherman Creek connection. That
alone could be the difference between the two model outputs. However, the
R-A-M model used for all simulations also added much more detailed field
information gathered by ETM for the channel sections between Fleet Landing
and Plaza, which could also affect the results. In general, the elevation
differences are not considered by the R-A-M Team to be unreasonable or
Mr. David E. Thompson
City Manager
4111 City of Atlantic Beach
R-A-M Project No. 198-021-06
June 1, 1999 Page 8
significant. In particular, if the CDM SWMM model elevations are used to
determine pipe sizes, there would be little, if any, difference in the recommended
size.
Don Phillips Question 3. The map (Figure 11.1) incorrectly shows drainage basin input
locations. Is this only a simple drafting error in the positioning of these stormwater
inputs, or were these drainage basin inputs actually entered into the RAM SWMM
model at these locations?
Response: As pointed out by Mr. Phillips, the map is incorrect due to a drafting
error.
Don Phillips Question 4. Carefully evaluate the paragraph on page II- 8 which reads -
... Who were the knowledgeable citizens that "confirmed that observed conditions"
generally matched the simulated results of the RAM SWMM model. Is this an example
of"reasonable engineering judgement"?
• Response: One of several citizens whose input was documented regarding
flooding conditions within the drainage basin was Mr. Philips, who provided video
evidence and described water levels under flooding conditions during at least
one of the walk-throughs.
Don Phillips Question 5. Question concerning SWMM model results of hydraulic
restrictions in the canal system. How can this possibly be correct?
Response: As explained during the presentation to the City Commission, the
first computer model runs were intended to provide information about the
drainage system by either stressing or relieving stress on the system, sometimes
in ways that are impractical. In this case, downstream restrictions were
completely removed one-by-one starting at the discharge and moving upstream
until all restrictions to flow were removed. The higher elevations shown in this
table, above the existing condition, likely occurred because the tide could now
propogate unhindered throughout the system. Additionally, with resistance to
flow removed from the system there are other cyclic events that have the
potential of producing the results that are presented.
Comment No. 13. The issue of velocity of the water has been raised as a possible
problem in the proposed design. Will the speed of the water in the lagoons and creeks
Mr. David E. Thompson
City Manager
City of Atlantic Beach
R-A-M Project No. 198-021-06
June 1, 1999 Page 9
create erosion problems, and will significant increases be required in these channels to
move the water away?
Response: We do not know for sure if we clearly understand the comment, but
we assume the concern relates to increases in the velocity of water and,
therefore, resulting erosion due to providing a positive drainage system which
will move the runoff into the creeks and lagoons. Also, the downstream
restrictions in the lagoon are being removed, which will allow for freer movement
of the water through the system. It is true that there will probably be increases in
velocities in certain areas and resulting erosion and sedimentation downstream,
but the system should stabilize in a few months after several rainfall events. The
contractor will be required to install barriers and filters to prevent significant
damage which could be caused by erosion during the first few months during
and after construction. There are some areas where new facilities will cause
increases in velocities, especially at the discharge of the larger drainage
• structures. In these locations consideration for these impacts must be evaluated.
Comment No. 14. The original R-A-M report suggested that there were advantages to
using inverted crown roadways for stormwater purposes. The current report
recommends against using inverted crowns. Was this a result of City staffs influence or
opposition, or was it R-A-M's determination not to recommend inverted crown
roadways?
Response: See letter to Hon. Mayor Shaughnessy, dated June 1, 1999.
R-A-M's recommendation for ribbon curb was in no way influenced by City Staff.
Feel free to call with any questions or comments.
Best personal regards,
THE R-A-M PROFESSIONAL GROUP, INC.
/j414 4.°(
Wayne C. Reed
President
FEG:lmj
Enc.
cc: Mr. Robert S. Kosoy, P.E. - w/enc.
_____
A,..... ......
E .--i THE R-A-M PROFESSIONAL GROUP, INC.
Naammassmamrammeastostar
ENGINEERING - PLANNING - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
June 1, 1999
Via Facsimile: 247-5805
Honorable Mayor Suzanne Shaughnessy
City of Atlantic Beach
800 Seminole Road
Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233
Re: City of Atlantic Beach
Core City Inverted Crown Roadway
R-A-M Project No. 198-021-05
Dear Honorable Shaughnessy:
At the request of your David E. Thompson, the following is written in response to
a memorandum forwarded to you by Mr. Sam Mousa (authored by Mr. David
Schneider, dated May 19, 1999) and sent to me by City Staff. We are unaware of what
information was provided to Messrs. Mousa and Schneider. We have worked with and
IIII for the City of Jacksonville on numerous occasions and know Mr. Schneider's opinion to
be reasonable. In this case, however, it appears that not all pertinent information was
provided to allow for a comparative analysis of our recommendations, thus the following
clarification is provided:
1. Within our original proposal, The R-A-M Professional Group, Inc. (R-A-M)
recommended that inverted crown roadway sections "be considered in
some areas" (see Page IV-15). In fact, as stated in my letter to you of
April 13, 1999, inverted crown sections were given serious consideration
in R-A-M's analysis of the most appropriate solution to saving trees within
the Core City at the lowest possible cost.
2. R-A-M has never recommended a standard curb and gutter, normal crown
roadway section, nor has the Team ever stated that such a solution is less
expensive than unguttered inverted crown roadways. In fact, R-A-M has
recommended a very different roadway section - ribbon curb without
gutter, re-utilizing the existing roadway grades to the greatest practical
extent.
3. Mr. Schneider states that costs for a "normal curb and gutter" could be
less if the existing roadways were to be re-used. As stated above, this is
very nearly the case in R-A-M's recommendations, except that we do not
0 recommend installation of gutters - only ribbon curbing as previously
mentioned.
4655 Salisbury Road , Suite 210 - Jacksonville , Florida 32256
Honorable Mayor Suzanne Shaughnessy
• City of Atlantic Beach
R-A-M Project No. 198-021-05
June 1, 1999 Page 2
4. In response to saving trees, again, Mr. Schneider was apparently
unaware of the full recommendations R-A-M made. Terms like
"ridiculous" and "highly questionable" could be understandable when
comparing a typical City of Jacksonville 3-lane curb and gutter roadway
with adjacent sidewalks on both sides of the roadway with a typical
unguttered inverted crown section. Once again, however, this has never
been R-A-M's recommendation. The ribbon curb section R-A-M
recommends and the meandering nature of conveyance piping do allow
considerably greater flexibility in avoiding root zones of major trees, many
of which extend beyond the center of the western end of the Core City
numbered streets.
5. In his memorandum, Mr. Schneider presumes that "there are small
roadside swales along the existing roads". As you are aware, this is not
the case within the Core City of Atlantic Beach.
• 6. Lastly, Mr. Schneider indicated that R-A-M provided an estimate of $29.00
per linear foot for curb and gutter normal crown roadways, implying that
this was the total cost. He further stated that City of Jacksonville (total)
costs for a typical 3-lane curb and gutter roadway with two sidewalks are
about $350-400 per linear foot. To clarify, our $29.00 per linear foot figure
only included the asphalt pavement, limerock base, subgrade
stabilization, and the ribbon curb, and was only being used for comparison
purposes. The breakdown for these items is as follows:
Asphalt Paving $ 5.00
Limerock Base 6.00
Stabilization 6.00
Ribbon Curb 12.00
The relatively low per linear foot prices for limerock base and stabilization
are due to being able to maintain the existing roadway profile and thereby
saving much of the existing limerock base and subgrade.
In summary, we stand behind our letter to you of April 13, 1999. We also
generally agree with Mr. Schneider's sediments when comparing a typical City of
Jacksonville 3-lane curb and gutter section with sidewalks on both sides of the roadway
with an unguttered inverted crown. Unfortunately, this is not what has been
0 recommended - nor is this reflective of the conditions in the Core City which require
careful analysis and experienced engineering judgment to fully address.
Honorable Mayor Suzanne Shaughnessy
City of Atlantic Beach
R-A-M Project No. 198-021-05
June 1, 1999 Page 3
Let me know if you need any additional explanation on this matter.
Sincerely yours,
THE R-A-M PROFESSIONAL GROUP, INC.
Wayne C. Reed
President
WCR:lmj
cc: Mr. David E. Thompson
Mr. Robert S. Kosoy, P.E.
Mr. David Schneider, P.E.
•
•
ATTACHMENT C —
JUNE 2, 1999 COMMISSION WORKSHOP MTG.
MEMORANDUM
May 25, 1999
TO: David Thompson, City Manager
FROM: Robert S. Kosoy, Director of Public Works 3t0T-----.a.
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF REVISED R-A-M REPORT DELIVERED 5/7/99
On April 14, 1999 we directed the R-A-M group to amend the Preliminary Design
Report to 1) provide a financially feasible solution not to exceed $9.0 million and offer
maximum protection to the City within this budget, 2) amend the Preliminary Design
Report to estimate the cost of the solution(s) proposed, and 3) to resubmit a final
invoice for a total cost not to exceed the amount authorized in Phase I (see letter dated
April 14, 1999 attached). On May 7, 1999 R-A-M delivered their revised report.
1. Ten Year. 24 hour storm
• R-A-M has concluded that removing the Sherman Creek connection at the
downstream end and/or the exfiltration system at the upstream side of the project
will increase pipe sizes to the point that the project cannot be accomplished
within our $9 million budget. Their original ballpark estimate was $13,565,000
for this option (see page 11-41, IV-14 & ETM Preliminary Opinion of Probable
Cost).
2. Five Year, 24 hour storm
R-A-M has concluded, as in the ten year, 24 hour storm, that removing either the
Sherman Creek connection or the exfiltration system will increase pipe sizes to
the point that the project cannot be accomplished within our $9 million budget.
3. Mean Annual, 24 hour storm
R-A-M has provided three "preliminary ball park estimates" for the mean annual
storm event as follows:
Alternate Base System Cost of Additional Contingency Engineering Total Project
Number (pg. IX-8) System Cost
1 $6,923,542 $1,572,000 $235,800 $196,500 $8,927,842
2 $6,923,542 $2,352,000 $352,800 $294,000 $9,992,342
• 3 $6,923,542 $1,790,000 $268,500 $223,750 $9,205,792
Alternate #1 uses a Sherman Creek Connection north of Fleet Landing to
411 achieve the budget figure of$9 million for a mean annual storm event. Alternate
#2 uses an exfiltration system and Alternate #3 uses a huge pump station on 5th
Street to achieve the mean annual storm event for $9.9 million and $9.2 million,
respectively. The mean annual storm event is the same as the 2 year, 24 hour
storm event to which England, Thims & Miller (ETM) designed.
The three alternates, while meeting our proposed budget of$9 million or being
within 10%, only achieve a level of service for a mean annual storm, i.e. a 2 year,
24 hour storm. This level of service, although similar to the ETM design, should
be improved upon. For example, Jacksonville Beach is using a five year, 24
hour storm for their stormwater pump stations. In addition, our Master Plan from
CH2 M Hill called for a five year, 24 hour storm. In our opinion, this engineering
firm can be required to design and acquire a permit for a gravity system that will
work for a five year, 24 hour storm and a contractor can construct the project for
a cost approaching $9 million. We will not know exact costs until we contract for
design and construction.
4. Project Delivery Systems
a) Conventional Design-Bid-Build
We can authorize R-A-M to design to a five year, 24 hour storm and
• provide additive and deductive alternates, with major deducts being for
the less critical drainage areas in the project area. The project could then
be bid and awarded within the $9 million budget.
b) Design-Build
This alternate project delivery system would allow us to select a team to
design and build the project for a specified price. Similar to the Dutton
Island Culvert project— technical proposals would be evaluated first and
scores assigned, and the technical scores would be announced at the bid
opening when cost proposals would be opened. The costs would be
adjusted by the technical scores. This method could subject the City to
additional liability.
c) Construction Manager at Risk
Under this project delivery system, a design firm can be hired as
Construction Manager to begin the design and provide a Guaranteed
Maximum Price (GMP). However, the GMP is typically not provided until
30% or 60% design plans are complete.
Considering the R-A-M Group's familiarity with the project and their level of expertise,
we recommend negotiating a design contract with the R-A-M Group for a Conventional
loDesign-Bid-Build.
•
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
SPECIAL CALLED MEETING
JUNE 2, 1999
AGENDA
Call to order
•
1. Discussion and possible action relative to the proposed flyover at the
intersection of Atlantic Boulevard and Mayport Road
2. Any other business
Adjournment
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CALLED MEETING OF THE ATLANTIC BEACH
• CITY COMMISSION HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS AT 6:25 P.M. ON
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2, 1999
Present were: Suzanne Shaughnessy, Mayor
Richard Beaver, Commissioner
Mike Borno, Commissioner
John Meserve, Commissioner
Theo Mitchelson, Commissioner
David Thompson, City Manager
Robert Kosoy, Public Works Director
Donna Kaluzniak, Assistant Public Works Director
Julie Brandt, Secretary
Also present were: Jerry Holland, Council Member-Elect of the City of Jacksonville
Ed Jones, Councilor from the City of Neptune Beach
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Shaughnessy at 6:25 p.m.
1. Discussion and possible action relative to the proposed flyover at the intersection of
Mayport Road and Atlantic Boulevard
•
Mayor Shaughnessy indicated that the meeting was being held to discuss the Jacksonville
Transportation Authority (JTA) flyover presentation given during the Workshop Meeting held
just prior to this meeting.
Commissioner Meserve believed it was important for the Commission to urge the JTA design, if
at all possible, to allow a left turn lane or u-turn under the ramp for traffic going north on
Mayport Road. He felt the Commission should emphasize the need for the left turn lane and
perhaps they would look a little harder to include it in the design.
Commissioner Beaver agreed with Commissioner Meserve on the u-turn issue and indicated he
wanted additional design work on the lights because he was not convinced lights could not be
installed in the wall. He expressed concern that the proposed lighting would illuminate the
entire area, not just the flyover. He felt additional information was needed.
Mayor Shaughnessy indicated that initially the Commission supported the flyover by a three to
two vote, and now the position of the Commission was not to support the flyover. She felt that
discussion of landscaping and lighting, while useful, were not relevant at this point while
investigating how to stop the project.
Commissioner Borno stated it was his understanding that when the project was completed, you
•
Minutes Page -2-
410
Special Called Meeting
June 2, 1999
could still come east on Atlantic Boulevard, go along the service road until you get to Florida
Boulevard and make a left turn onto Mayport Road. He questioned that if this was the case, then
why was the JTA building the flyover. He felt the flyover had nothing to do with evacuation
from the island.
Commissioner Beaver felt the left turn lane was needed in case a car missed getting into the lane
for the flyover. Commissioner Beaver felt the flyover would help with evacuation, and
recounted that a few years ago the Mayor's office had issued a notice for a possible evacuation
which caused severe traffic problems from citizens who were trying to get back to the beach.
Commissioner Borno inquired if the city had ever received an estimate from the JTA to relocate
utilities. Public Works Director Kosoy stated that no estimate was ever received, however,
approximately $60,000.00 had been budgeted for the project. He further stated that the cost
would depend on whether or not the waterlines under Mayport Road and the effluent outfall
line shared with Neptune Beach, which is near the proposed berm, would have to be relocated.
He indicated that if the piers required to support the structure go through the waterlines, then
there would be a cost to the city.
IIIMayor Shaughnessy then opened the floor for public comments.
William McGee of 1831 Selva Marina Drive stated he needed more information on traffic flow
and expressed concern for the problems caused if Mayport Road traffic is detoured onto Plaza
during construction. He felt businesses such as Publix would be adversely affected during
construction of the flyover.
Joe Posch of 142 Magnolia Street stated he opposed the project, and expressed concern that the
residents from Section H would not be able to get to the bus stop on Mayport Road. He felt the
bridge widening and flyover projects were out of sequence and the bridge widening should be
completed before the flyover.
Susan Posch of 142 Magnolia Street opposed the project and stated it had already negatively
impacted real estate sales in Section H.
Dan Goulet of 2217 Cypress Landing Drive, representing the Church of God located at 680
Mayport Road, stated the church was growing and he had safety concerns for the parishioners
who walked to church and lived on the east side of Mayport Road. He stated that the barrier
wall, which extends to Eighth Street, will make it difficult for them to cross the road.
Don Phillips of 1566 Park Terrace West stated he supported the Commission and did not favor
IIIthe project. He felt the flyover should not be constructed before the effects of Wonderwood
Minutes Page -3-
Special Called Meeting
June 2, 1999
were known.
Alan Potter of 374 Second Street opposed the project due to the high costs associated with
building above grade, the potential for more collisions on Mayport Road and the taking of
commercial property from the tax roll for right-of-way. Mr. Potter then offered his suggestions
for construction of the flyover and location of retention ponds.
Stephen Kuti of 1132 Linkside Drive opposed the project and suggested the Commission write
to Gov. Bush for assistance to stop the project.
Ed Jones, Councilor from Neptune Beach, opposed the project due to the visual effect of the
flyover and the increase in traffic. He questioned the projections used by the JTA when
determining the need of the flyover and the basis for those projections. He felt Wonderwood
would be the route of choice for citizens going to Mayport. Councilor Jones stated that over the
years elected officials have had varying opinions concerning projects, but he wanted to know the
procedures used by the JTA to gain public input and the outcome of that input. He further stated
that if the flyover was built, he would like to know if the JTA had addressed pedestrian safety
• for walking or biking across the intersection. He also believed there should be alternative
lighting options for the flyover.
Mayor Shaughnessy believed that the JTA had not addressed the pedestrian safety issue and that
the project was designed to move traffic. She shared the same concerns expressed by Councilor
Jones and briefly explained public input on the project began in 1994 or 1995 and the process
used by the JTA. The Mayor commented that four alternative plans for the intersection were
presented at that time and none of them were the flyover.
J.P. Marchioli of 414 Sherry Drive stated his opposition to the flyover and commented on a
bulletin he had received in the mail from the JTA and presented the Commission a copy of his
response to the article. Mr. Marchioli's letter is attached and made part of this official record as
Attachment A.
There being no further public comments, Mayor Shaughnessy closed the public hearing.
Mayor Shaughnessy expressed disappointment that the JTA representatives had come to the
meeting unprepared and had not presented the requested information. She stated that her reasons
for opposing the flyover remained the same, except an additional reason had been added to her
list- the lack of an additional evacuation lane. The Mayor felt the Beach Boulevard bridge
needed attention more than the Atlantic Boulevard bridge and should hold top priority. She felt
taxpayer dollars were being spent with no oversight, no elected representation and without
• regard to public opinion of the project. Mayor Shaughnessy felt the idea of talking to people
Minutes Page -4-
110
Special Called Meeting
June 2, 1999
in Tallahassee had merit, and felt the Commission would have to decide if it wanted to pursue
legal action against the JTA based on the city's height ordinance, the process used by the JTA,
or on the negative impact on the established quality of life in Atlantic Beach.
Commissioner Meserve stated he had no problem with the elevated design portion. He did not
believe, as he had heard stated, that the project would destroy the beaches forever. He stated
that each person had his own opinion of the beauty relative to the project, and it might be more
favored if it cut down on the person's travel time. Commissioner Meserve believed that if the
choice was between doing nothing and building the flyover, then the flyover should be built
because it would be unmitigated disaster not to build it. He believed that the argument that the
flyover violated the city's height ordinance lacked merit and nothing would be gained by
pursuing legal action. Commissioner Meserve also stated that he had not been convinced that
the design would not work and he would have to go with the engineers who say it will work. He
felt the intersection improvements were needed and the project should move forward as soon as
possible because any more delays would result in increased costs.
Commissioner Borno felt the flyover provided no benefits to the residents or businesses located
within the first eight blocks of Mayport Road. He felt the speed limit was set too high on
• Mayport Road and expressed concern for citizens turning left into the post office. He felt the
speeding problem which already exists on Mayport Road would be compounded by the flyover
and cause additional problems at the post office, which is located only two blocks from the end
of the flyover ramp. Commissioner Borno concurred with the Mayor's concerns, and felt that no
matter what had been expressed by the citizens and Commission, the JTA was determined to
complete the project.
Mayor Shaughnessy suggested that the Commission collaborate on a letter to be sent to Governor
Bush, the Florida Department of Transportation in Tallahassee, and the Jacksonville
Transportation Authority. The Mayor felt the letter should contain the following: (1)the city is
disappointed that the JTA took the position of being unapproachable, unavailable and unwilling
to take further public input with regard to design, (2) wording that the community does not want
the flyover, and (3) address issues concerning quality of life and traffic circulation. It was also
suggested that the letter ask for an appointment with the officials to discuss the issues.
Commissioner Borno supported the Mayor's suggestion, but felt it would have to go further. He
then inquired of Councilor Jones as to how the City of Neptune Beach got the FDOT to stop the
proposed widening of Third Street (A-1-A). Councilor Jones responded that it was his
understanding that the city had expressed their opposition early on in the process during the
feasibility study which made it easier to stop the project..
IIICommissioner Mitchelson reiterated his opposition to the flyover. He stated that according to
Minutes Page -5-
0 Special Called Meeting
June 2, 1999
case law he had read, the JTA was an authority, and the powers given to them as an authority,
would allow them to go forward with the project even if the city objected. He believed the
flyoverpro eet would not be City of Atlantic Beach taxpayer's money well spent.
legal action*
Commissioner Beaver favored the project and believed it was too late in the process for the JTA
to abandon the project. He believed the improvements were needed to improve traffic flow onto
Mayport Road and for evacuation purposes. He did not favor entering into litigation.
Mayor Shaughnessy inquired if anyone favored hiring a specialist lawyer such as John DeVault,
for a professional legal opinion to see if the city had legal grounds to object to the flyover project.
Mayor Shaughnessy moved to hire a specialist lawyer, John DeVault, to obtain a
professional legal opinion to see if the city has legal grounds to object to the flyover project.
The motion carried by a three to two vote with Commissioners Beaver and Meserve voting
nay.
Commissioner Borno felt the Commission would be remiss if they did not send the letters
• previously discussed. It was discussed that all avenues should be taken and the letters should
also be sent to local elected officials and the Duval Delegation.
Dorothy Kerber expressed her opposition to the flyover and felt there would be a chance to stop
the project if a letter writing campaign to local, state and national representatives was launched.
Commissioner Beaver suggested that a limit should be placed on the lawyer's fee and inquired
as to the authority of naming a specific attorney to give the opinion. City Manager Thompson
explained that the existing City Attorney's contract allowed him to select a speciality lawyer for
the city, if needed.
Discussion ensued concerning placing a dollar limit on the attorney's fee. It was suggested that
City Manager Thompson bring the attorney's fee back to the Commission.
Discussion ensued concerning drafting a letter to the various elected officials, and it was decided
that the Mayor and Commissioners Mitchelson and Borno would meet with City Manager
Thompson to draft the letter.
Commissioners Beaver and Meserve stated they would not sign such a letter and Mayor
Shaughnessy requested the City Attorney's legal opinion of such action.
*as amended June 14, 1999 by Commissioner Mitchelson
0
Minutes Page -6-
. Special Called Meeting
June 2, 1999
There being no further comments or business to come before the Commission, the
meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Suzanne ShaughnessA
Mayor/Presiding Officer
ATTEST:
Julie M. Brandt, Secretary
•
410
ATTACHMENT A
q JUNE 2, 1999 SPECIAL CALLED MEETING
' // /79 414 Sherry Drive
Atlantic Beach, Fla. 322=
S
Mr, Jack Gabriel, Project Coordinator
Jacksonville Transportation Authority
100 Myrtle Avenue
Jacksonville, Florida 32203
SUBJECT: Atlantic Boulevard/Mayport Road Interchange
Article in your Annual Report,
Dear Sir:
First, it is not an 8, 7 million dollar project as y'all have stated,
it is a 17. 4 million dollar project. Money is not free !
Secondly, a single lane, to the extent planned is not safe. We do have
early morning, low lying, fog out here at the beaches.
Thirdly, a wreck on the bridge would be very difficult to service; and, the
resulting traffic delay far worse than the present situation (conditions).
Fourth, y'all are going to have to do a lot of convincing (And you will not),
that the single lane flyover is superior to and extended (YOU HAVE ALMOST
A MILE AVAILABLE BACK TO THE INTRACOASTAL BRIDGE) two lane,
eastbound, off ramp from Atlantic Boulevard to Mayport Road (Northbound)
with a shorter third lane for Southbound traffic, right hand turn, for
Florida Boulevard. A very inexpensive project.
Fifth, We all know that when the current improvement to Atlantic Boulevard
is complete, all the traffic control equipment will be synchronized for all
other and early morning and late afternoon Mayport traffic. Provided that
it is done correctly, of course. This will be a major improvement!
As well, completion of Wonderwood Connector, already under construction
on the east end, will be a God send.
Last of all, I am sure that y'all are well aware of the problems that will
result, if the flyover is constructed, FOR ALL RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES
west of Mayport Road in that area. When I say PROBLEMS, I mean
PROBLEMS !
--` 'ncer jy yours
..„(a.
• JPM/jpm J. P. (Marc) Marchioli
cc: Beaches Leader
File
MINUTES OF THE WORKSHOP MEETING OF THE ATLANTIC BEACH CITY
• COMMISSION HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS AT 5:00 P.M. ON
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2, 1999
Present were: Suzanne Shaughnessy, Mayor
Richard Beaver, Commissioner
Mike Borno, Commissioner
John Meserve, Commissioner
Theo Mitchelson, Commissioner
David Thompson, City Manager
Robert Kosoy, Public Works Director
Donna Kaluzniak, Assistant Public Works Director
Also present were: Jack Gabriel of the Jacksonville Transportation Authority
Roger Sharp of the Jacksonville Transportation Authority
Jerry Holland, Council Member-Elect of the City of Jacksonville
Ed Jones, Councilor from the City of Neptune Beach
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Shaughnessy at 5:15 p.m.
• The meeting was held for the purpose to obtain information relative to the changes in the design
of the flyover from what was reviewed on September 2, 1998 at the Authority to the present.
Mayor Shaughnessy inquired if any plans were available for review by the Commission. Mr.
Gabriel indicated that he had not brought any plans with him, but they were now 90% complete.
Two photo boards of the intersection were displayed illustrating what the flyover would look
like from ground level, looking west on Atlantic Boulevard toward the intersection, and from an
aerial view.
Mayor Shaughnessy asked the Commissioners if they wished to continue with the meeting, since
no plans were available for review. She felt that either the 90% complete plans or the design
visuals presented during a recent meeting she attended should have been brought for review.
Commissioner Beaver believed the Commission should listen to the presentation before making
any decisions, and Commissioner Mitchelson concurred.
Mayor Shaughnessy then requested an update on the design changes made since September of
1998.
Mr. Gabriel stated that the overall height of the flyover had been lowered from 65' to 45', with
barrier walls of 3', and the height of the light poles had been lowered from the standard 35-40'
to 27', which is the lowest height permitted for lighting. He further stated that the lighting had
0
Minutes Page -2-
• Workshop Meeting - Mayport Road/Atlantic Boulevard Flyover
June 2, 1999
not been finalized, but it would be shielded to protect from spillover into the adjoining areas to
the extent presently experienced. Mr. Gabriel reported that lighting could not be installed inside
the concrete barrier because it would weaken the strength of the barrier wall, and the
Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) would be unable to maintain it.
It was further reported that the median on Mayport Road now ended at 8th Street, not Plaza,
and a single left turn lane under the ramp had been provided for access to the apartment complex
located next to the corner.
Mayor Shaughnessy inquired if a second turn lane could be provided to allow access to the
Section H area. Mr. Gabriel stated they were in the process of determining if similar access
could be provided from the opposite direction.
Mr. Gabriel also stated that the pond shown at the northwest corner of the intersection had been
eliminated and a berm and landscaping would be installed at that location.
Mayor Shaughnessy inquired concerning the budget for the project. Mr. Gabriel indicated the
• budget remained at $8.7 million plus 18% for construction engineering, inspections, contingency
and right-of-way costs. He indicated that $1 million had already been spent on design costs.
Commissioner Meserve verified that the ramp had been shifted to the west and this allowed for
the lower height and shorter ramp. He also inquired if there were any provisions for light
sequencing on Mayport Road to aid traffic flow, and Mr. Sharp indicated that the JEA had no
plans to do that.
Commissioner Mitchelson inquired concerning the location of the retention ponds. It was
explained that a retention pond would now be located between 4th and 5th streets and another
one would be located farther west on Atlantic Boulevard. It was noted that no homes would be
taken in order to construct these ponds.
Commissioner Mitchelson also inquired concerning noise abatement and it was pointed out that
the berm and landscaping would help since the noise comes from ground level at the traffic
signals.
Commissioner Beaver inquired as to why the retention pond at the intersection had been
eliminated. It was explained that during the evolution of the drainage plan for the project, it was
determined the retention pond was not needed. It was also reported that the Florida Department
of Transportation(FDOT) or the City of Atlantic Beach would be responsible for maintaining the
0 landscaping.
• Minutes Page -3-
Workshop Meeting - Mayport Road/Atlantic Boulevard Flyover
June 2, 1999
Commissioner Beaver inquired concerning the use of in-the-wall lighting and Mr. Gabriel
reiterated that it could not be installed in the wall because it would weaken the strength of the
barrier wall and produce a strobe light affect for traffic on the flyover. Commissioner Beaver
indicated he wished to further investigate this type of lighting.
Commissioner Borno inquired as to the cost to Atlantic Beach to move infrastructure. Mr. Sharp
indicated that there was no estimate of the cost to relocate utilities at this time, and it would
depend on where the utilities are presently located in the FDOT right-of-way.
Mayor Shaughnessy inquired concerning the height of the ramp, including the light poles. Mr.
Sharp indicated that the ramp was 46' in height and the light poles 27' for a combined height of
73' for the flyover.
Mayor Shaughnessy also inquired if the retention pond located on Atlantic Boulevard would
encroach into Tresca Park and was informed it would not be located on park property.
• The Mayor also inquired as to the location of the first left turn going north on Mayport Road and
was informed that it would be at 8th Street.
Mayor Shaughnessy then inquired if there would be an extra westbound lane for evacuation
purposes. Mr. Gabriel stated there was not an extra lane at this time, and an explanation of the
traffic pattern in relation to construction of the new bridge over the Intra Coastal Waterway
(ICW) ensued. Using the aerial for points of reference, it was explained that the three lanes
coming from the bridge to the flyover would drop down to two lanes at the interchange and the
left turn under overpass would be eliminated. It was also reported that the signalized right turn
from Mayport onto Atlantic westbound will be eliminated by utilization of the right lane, which
will become an extra lane when the bridge is completed.
Mr. Gabriel indicated he would provide the city with a color graphic of the interchange the
following day.
A timetable for construction was briefly discussed. Mr. Gabriel indicated that construction on
the flyover would begin in late fall of 1999 with completion in eighteen months, and
construction of the new bridge was scheduled to begin during the summer or fall of 2000. It
was explained that at some point, both projects would be under construction simultaneously, and
the existing overpass would have to be shut down. It was further explained that traffic would be
routed to traffic lights, and they would try to keep one lane open at all times. He indicated there
would be no closures during peak traffic hours if at all possible.
4111
S
Minutes Page -4-
Workshop Meeting - Mayport Road/Atlantic Boulevard Flyover
June 2, 1999
There being no further discussion, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m.
Julie Brandt
Secretary
0
110
RECONNECTION OF SHERMAN CREEK - ROUTE "D"
oii
m
0
0 z
z
m
C,
z
0 11
I
m
z
C)
m
0
cnm
7"e
G
C
--1
m
*al
CI