HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-06-21 - City Commission Special Meeting MinutesCITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 21, 1984
Tape CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Philip B. Kravitz called the meeting to order on
1 Thursday, June 21, 1984, at 1:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers.
Mayor Kravitz read the Notice of Rescheduled Special Meeting, originally
scheduled for Tuesday, June 26, 1984, at 10:00 A.M., regarding utility
grants.
MEDITATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Kravitz called for a Moment
of Silent Meditation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mayor Philip B. Kravitz
Vice Mayor Sydney M. Stein
Councilman Jack Stelzer
Councilman Raymond J. Munitz
Councilman John J. Dunne
ALSO PRESENT: Laura Z. Stuurmans, City Manager
Alan Ruf, Consulting City Attorney
Carol A. Evans, Assistant City Clerk
Carol Thrasher, Secretary
Anthony- A._ Nolan, Consulting-- nginee-r .-.
Mayor Kravitz advised that there have been problems with the rating of
the Waste Water Grant and after attempts to get the Grant upgraded, it
was in vain and the City did not get the Grant. He stated that it was
_ ..... r�u.ggested_-that Coun-ci-l--hold a meating, to--diseuss the..autaon on the
Grant so that the public will know what has taken place and what the
City is doing. He added that Council will hear from all parties
concerned for judgment of action to be taken and then the Public will
be given the opportunity to be heard.
City Manager Laura Stuurmans stated that there are two concerns here
today. Generally Council and the public have had a brief overview about
the ranking of the Tamarac Grant for the Spray Irrigation Program. She
stated that today's meeting will address why the Grant received the low
ranking, so that everybody will have a better explanation and understanding
of that ranking. She stated of primary importance, when going back to
all that was said prior to the March election, is that the work that was
to be done by Grant and Bonds were for compliance purposes. She added
that there are very crucial things that must be addressed and Staff is
prepared to delineate those in a brief capsule form. She asked that Mr.
Nolan give the history of the procedure from the time that the City
purchased the utility and address those concerns that Staff needs Council
to consider.
Mr. Tony Nolan, Senior Vice President of Williams, Hatfield, & Stoner,
_
advised that in 1969, the Behring Corporation built a Utility Plant which
became known as Tamarac Utilities, Inc., and currently is Tamarac Utilities
West, on the present site. He said that this plant discharged a treated
waste water effluent into the surface waters of the Colony West Country
Club and subsequently received a permit from regulatory authorities to use
that effluent as an integral part of the Spray Irrigation system of the
Club.
..l- 6/21/84
/cmt
A
He continued that when the City purchased the utility in 1980, the
purchase included the operating permit and a large users agreement
which had been signed by the operators of Tamarac Utilities, Inc.
He stated that it was their view that they were running out of capacity
at the plant and they wanted some relief. He added that the large
users agreement with the County was assigned to the City and allowed
them, and then the City, to be a part of the yet to be approved 201 Plan
which is an outgrowth of the Environmental Protection Agency's funding
process He said that the Plan was not completely
approved and was readdressed about 3 years ago by a subsequent set of
consulting engineers engaged by the County.
_Mr. time Nolan continued that at that tthe City of Tamarac, being a large user,
. - ime the
was concerned about a disproportionate sharing of the costs because some
of the other large users were dropping out and going their own way. He
named Sunrise, Margate, and Coral Springs; and stated as a consequence,
the concern was that these users might provide less expensive waste water
treatment alternatives than those who stayed with the system. He stated
that during the 2i years of the 201 review process, some regulations
changed and it became obvious to the City that the spray irrigation process
the City was using was going to be a regulatorily acceptable alternative
in Broward County. He continued that as that alternative became available
to the City, with the cost of joining the County or remaining on its own,
it was evident that Tamarac was better off as its own entity. He said that
was a long and arduous process of review and re -review by the County and
its consultants and the City of Tamarac; and finally the 201 Plan, as now
approved by the EPA and DER demonstrates that Tamarac is a separate entity
or sub -region, with spray irrigation as its effluent disposal mechanism.
Mr. Nolan said, bearing in mind that the 201 Plan is the vehicle for EPA
funding, the next obvious step was to apply for Grant Status, which the City
did on March 14th of this year. He added that the City submitted its
Reaueuat_fQ_r _lnclusi.on-on the construction Grant's priority list for 1965; and
- --.. _ _
after review of all applications by DER in Tallahassee before the March 15th
deadline, a list was published in mid -May. He said that prior to the publi-
cation of that list, two items needed clarification and the City was only
made aware of one of those items, which was a request by DER for additional
information about bond financing and whether or not the bonds had actually
'been validated. He stated that some questions were placed before the City's
Bond Counsel and he provided the City with a. 1Ptter stfnul.atin.�, that the
Bonds did not have to be validated, from a legal standpoint. He added that
this was subsequently approved by the DER.
Mr. Nolan advised that the other item was for further clarification of the
existing discharge parameters which was revealed during conversations with the
people reviewing the Plan and those reviewing the applications; and the City
was not aware of this problem. He added that apparently during the point
allocation process, a question arose as to additional bonus points to
Tamarac based on quantity and constituents of cischarge to tH_ su_r_Face-----
waters and a call was placed from Tallahassee to West Palm Beach, at which
time West Palm Beach advised Tallahassee that Tamarac had not informed them
of any discharge. He continued that therefore no discharge was on record
and, without any further consideration or conversations with Tamarac, they
disallowed that in the point ranking process. He added that that was
approximately 400 points.
Mr. Nolan advised that after the list was published, they made a trip to
Tallahassee to try to ascertain what could be done to elevate that score.
He said that Staff subsequently assembled a list of items and submitted
that to the Environmental Regulatory Commission with a request to be heard
on their agenda and added that at that time, Tamarac was rated 40th on the
list. He explained that this list does not determine eligibility for
funding; it sets the priority and itemizes how the money is distributed
based on the State's perception of priority. He continued that Tamarac's
presentation was made to the Environmental Regulatory Commission, along
with others requesting reconsideration of the point ranking; and none
received consideration.
-2-
6/21/84
/cmt
He advised that Tamarac still has the 109 basis points that it had
before the first trip to Tallahassee and the ranking on the priority
list remains as #40. He reminded Council that last year Tamarac's
SSES modifications were ranked quite far down on the list and it
appeared that they would not be funded; but some of the others higher
on the list were not prepared to go forward with their plans and Tamarac
currently has a Grant offer from DER on that system. He added
that at this point in time it would appear that the probability does
not exist for the liquids portion of the system this year. He added
that Staff was prepared to present strong evidence to the Environmental
Regulatory Commission and the DER on the City's behalf, but they were not
well received.
Mr. Nolan advised that there are four Requests for Grant Inclusion in
Tallahassee at the present time; one is the effluent disposal system on
the EPA list and there are three on the Small Communities Trust Fund List.
He enumerated these as: (1) the composting portion of the system, which
has not gone out for design yet; (2) A force main underneath the Turnpike
which will more properly join portions of the system situated west of the
Turnpike with the County's repump station at Grants Plaza. He stated that
this is the only portion of the City's system that remains in the County's
section of the 201 and the waste water is discharged up to the north
regional plant; and (3) Pump station modifications and force main improve-
ments that are needed in the northwestern portion of the City in Land
Sections 5 & 6.
Mr. Nolan distributed a list of the City's concerns and recommended course
of action (See Attachment 1), and gave his comments on each item:
Cnnr am G
1. Questions have come up recently as to whether or not the quick spray
alternative is the most cost-effective alternative and it may very well
be that because of the increased popularity of injection wells in the
vicinity that the cost has dropped and they may be more costly than spray
irrigation; but that was not the case the last time the figures were reviewed.
2. The operating permit at the waste water plant needs to be addressed
because it expires in September.
3. The progress schedule was prepared anticipating capture of Federal
funds and moving forward with this project on a schedule that would have
placed Tamarac in compliance earlier. Mr. Nolan said he assumed that at
tt point that schedule is not going to be met.
4. The sludge treatment facility is one of the projects on the Small
Communities Grant List and the three projects on that list are probably
in the range where they will be funded this year although no offer has
been made yet. In all probability, the people higher on the list on
these projects will not all be ready to move forward with their plans in
a timely manner.
5. There is some lead time necessary to develop an alternative to the
sod farm, which is really the solids process.
6. The rate study needs to be enacted to insure that the bond coverages
are met.
Mr. Nolan commented on.the Recommended Course of Action:
1. Williams, Hatfield & Stoner recommended to the City Manager that an
independent consultant be engaged to evaluate the cost and effect of either
method of effluent disposal and that the consultant be informed in advance
that he would not be in line to do the design of the treatment process that
he would be..st.udy3ng. This would eliminate any bias because it is important
that the City has confidence in the cost effectiveness of either.alternative
and there should be no reason to doubt the validity of the numbers as presented.
--3- 6/21/84
/cmt
2. The temporary operating permit is needed to accommodate the
existing wastewater treatment plant effluent and operation, par-
ticularly during the re -review process.
3. This item is part of the spray irrigation alternative and Mr. Nolan
said he believes it is necessary to continue with that work. It has a
definite bearing on the final cost of any work to be done in the
spray irrigation alternative area, namely the lining of ponds; and
that will have an impact on the study to be done by the consultant.
4. The City has already advertised a request for expression of interest from
the engineering community. Mr. Nolan said his recommendation to proceed and
select that consultant is based on the fact that Tamarac will stay in the
wastewater treatment business; solids have to be treated irrespective
-- ..
of whether it is a deep well or a spray irrigation system. The proba-
bility of capturing the funds off the Small Communities Trust Fund list
is good and one of the problems facing the City is that if the offer
is made, they will have only 45 days to provide a biddable set of
construction documents. He advised that if the City is to meet that
expectation, they need to go ahead with this work.
5. Anticipated changes that could affect Tamarac as far as its Grant
eligibility is concerned must be discerned. The last change of any
significance was in November 1983 and they expect additional changes in
both the funding process and the formulas used to allocate points.
Mr. Nolan advised that this is the background to date and he regretted
to say that it does not look as though 1985 funds will be available for
this process but he feels confident of future funding.
Mayor Kravitz stated that Mr. Nolan has given a good outline of what took
place and where the City stands now; but the Mayor is concerned about what
went wrong, where the fault was, and what the City did that prevented them
from getting the Grant.
Mr. Nolan replied that on the State's scale, Tamarac is not a large polluter
and the fact that the City did not document to the State the discharges
into the surface water, even though there were not huge pollution problems
evolving from that process, the City did not get the basic 400 points.
Mayor Kravitz asked whether or not that was known when the City filed for
the Grant and if there was any reason why the City did not know that it
was necessary to document that in order to receive the Grant. Mr. Nolan
advised that when the Request for Inclusion Form was prepared, members of
the City's Staff and Williams, Hatfield & Stoner staff went to Tallahassee
to discuss all aspects of the form and they were not aware of the mandate
that had been placed on the City in 1981 to monitor on a continuing basis;
therefore they believed that their documentation was sufficient.
Mayor Kravitz stated that Williams, Hatfield & Stoner were engaged by the
City to take care of this task and he asked whether or not it was Mr.
Nolan's duty to see what was required and .what would have helped the
City in obtaining this Grant. Mr. Nolan replied that they carried out
the task as outlined by the City in accomplishing the work prior to
the preparation of the form, the actual preparation of the Request for
Inclusion form, monitoring while it was in Tallahassee, and the follow-up,
to the best of their ability. He added that they were not privy to
correspondence between Broward County Environmental Control Board and
the City of Tamarac. Mayor Kravitz asked for clarification that Mr. Nolan
was not given the information required to correct the situation and Mr.
Nolan responded that he believed there was no information available to
correct it, because the discharge was not documented; therefore the best
information available was submitted to the DER in the application process.
-4- 6/21/84
/cmt
�J
l
Mayor Kravitz asked if it was correct that there was correspondence in
the City but was not available to Mr. Nolan. Mr. Nolan advised that
this was corrected after the list was published and they were given the
opportunity to clarify the situation. He stated that copies of the
correspondence and items of interest from the Plant operating log were
submitted to the DER. He added that those items addressed technical
information such as specific flows, specific rainfall events, and specific
discharges; but the point is that those items were not in DER's records
in West Palm Beach and they chose to ignore them.
Mayor Kravitz asked how much Mr. Nolan was paid by the City over the
years for the purpose of obtaining this Grant. Mr. Nolan replied that
he could not say what portion of the monies associated with the spray
irrigation system paid by the City to Williams, Hatfield & Stoner were
spent on the Grant application preparation, monitoring, and follow-up
alone; but the preliminary engineering budget was recently redefined
to $110,000.00 maximum. Mayor Kravitz asked Mr. Nolan if he knew whether
or not the City had reached close to that maximum and Mr. Nolan clarified
that he could not say what portion was for the Grant process alone. He
continued that there has been a great deal of work done to generate
preliminary engineering documentation for things needed to build the
system, not necessarily to permit the system.
Vice Mayor Stein asked if it was correct that Williams, Hatfield & Stoner
were originally to receive $180,000.00 for this preliminary_work and Mr.
Nolan confirmed the amount and advised that the original estimate called
for the preliminary and final engineering phases. He added that the Grant
processing was included in the preliminary phase. The Vice Mayor clarified
with Mr. Nolan that it was recently reduced to $110,000.00 and asked if
they have received $110,000.00 for this work. Mr. Nolan advised that his
billings to date were approximately $90,000.00.
Vice Mayor Stein recounted that in 1981, the City Engineer agreed with
West Palm Beach to supply a weekly report of overflow, if any, in order
to stay in compliance with their condition for approval. He clarified
with Mr. Nolan that if those reports were available for submission to DER,
the City would have been entitled to the 400 points. Mr. Nolan stated that
it was not even necessary that they accompany the submission, only that they
had been on record in West Palm Beach. The Vice Mayor stated that at the
time of clarification, DER called West Palm Beach instead of the City, and
it was confirmed that there was no documentation. The Vice Mayor stated
that if the records promised by the City Engineer had been kept, they could
have been reconstructed for the DER. Mr. Nolan advised that that was the
position that the DER fell back upon. He stated that the reports were not
to be weekly; it was for monitoring water surface elevation on a continuing
basis and notification of a discharge was to be reported when it occurred and
the City Manager confirmed that. .
Vice Mayor Stein asked Mr. Nolan why he didn't ask for the City's records
if he knew that one of the point credits would be for the outflow. Mr.
Nolan replied that in the preparation of the documentation accompanying the
application and in conversations with the regulatory people in Tallahassee,
it was believed that sufficient documentation was contained within the
application. He continued that the question came up when Tallahassee called
West Palm Beach for information that would give Tamarac more points.
The Vice Mayor stated that he understands what happened but the City was
involved in a project valued between $5 and 7Million and the chain of events
from the lack of records to the preparation of the request has caused the
City to lose that Grant. He suggested to the Mayor that the City is faced
with some very tight deadlines and in order to make the decision for the
next step, they must get some agency consents and move forward. He stated
that as an alternative, they could have a moratorium on building in the
City, which could create a tremendous lawsuit from Marmon because of the
City's obligation for the 6,000 ERC's.
-5- 6/21/84
/cmt
The Vice Mayor stated that Council must decide today if the City is
going to continue to use the same people and move on; or fire everybody.
He stated that he agreed with some of Mr. Nolan's recommendations but
added that he wanted that impartial consultant to evaluate the work
that has already been done and advise Council the value of it and if
it was correct.
C/M Munitz corrected Mr. Nolan's statement in that the purchase of TUT
was in 1979 not 1978. The City Manager advised that Mr. Nolan was referring
to when the bonds were sold and Mr. Nolan confirmed. C/M Munitz asked Mr.
Nolan if the approval from the previous administration for Williams, Hatfield
& Stoner to do this work was as a result of a bid. Mr. Nolan stated that the
City of Tamarac engaged Williams, Hatfield & Stoner on a continuing base
contract in 1971 and the Company has worked for the City on various assign-
ments throughout that period of time. He added that they were selected as
Tape one of several firms reviewed, and have been working with the City continu-
2 ously since that time on an hourly contract, not exclusionary.
C/M Munitz asked Mr. Nolan if the previous Council ever requested any
bidding from any other engineering firms other than Williams, Hatfield
& Stoner and Mr. Nolan replied that there were several other firms that
did work for the City in the recent past. C/M Munitz asked if that work
was comparable to what Williams, Hatfield & Stoner is doing and Mr. Nolan
said no.
G/M Munitz stated that he is concernea witn wnat happened and why; and
basically what happens now. He stated that they must pinpoint the
responsibility as to what happened and why it happened. C/M Munitz
mentioned the report on outflow that should have been made and asked
what the affect of that was. Mr. Nolan replied that the DER took the
position that since there was no report, the City did not have an out-
flow; therefore the City was disqualified from the 400 basis points.
C/M Munitz asked if the results depended on that one action and Mr. Nolan
confirmed that it did.
City Manager Stuurmans advised that she spoke to Ellen Slayer in Tallahassee,
who is responsible for the grading. The City Manager advised that Ms.
Slayer indicated that Tamarac did not receive the 400 points because they
had no record on file with DER that they discharged, and that the 400
points would have brought Tamarac up to 509 points, knocking Sunrise out
of position, and making Tamarac fundable.
C/M Munitz asked what Williams, Hatfield & Stoner's responsibility was in
monitoring the events as they happened and Mr. Nolan replied that the firm
has no responsibility; they serve at the City's pleasure. C/M Munitz
questioned that, realizing the necessity for proper back-up, Mr. Nolan
did not offer this information and Mr. Nolan responded that his firm and
the people in DER were satisfied with the information presented in the
Request for Inclusion form as it was submitted. C/M Munitz asked if Mr.
Nolan knew, at any time, that the weekly monitoring was required and Mr.
Nolan replied that the first time he was aware of that requirement was
after the trip to Tallahassee.
C/M Munitz referred to the presentation made to the people prior to the
referendum on the Bond Issue and stated that in September 1983, Williams,
Hatfield & Stoner were authorized by the previous Council for an amount
not to exceed $180,000.00 to perform the services that have just been
presented. Mr. Nolan replied that that work was to proceed with the
...........
preliminary engineering design phase. C/M Munitz continued that in that
phase, they discussed a 75% Grant if it was innovative and 55% if it was
not; but at no time was there mentioned a possibility that the City would
get nothing. Mr. Nolan advised that the opinions at that time were that
the City would receive the Grant. C/M Munitz asked for clarification that
because the report was not made, the City got nothing and Mr. Nolan
confirmed again that was the reason.
-6- 6/21/84
/cmt
C/M Munitz asked Mr. Nolan what his input to the bond presentation
was and Mr. Nolan advised that it was very minimal; they took some
pictures and provided technical information to Mr. Browne who developed
the script.
C/M Munitz referred to Item #5 in Mr. Nolan's recommended courses of
action and asked who. Mr. Nolan envisions doing this work; Mr. Nolan
replied that the City staff should do that. C/M Munitz mentioned that
in Item #1 Mr. Nolan recommended an independent counsultant and the
Councilman asked if that person would also be involved with the work in
Item #5. Mr. Nolan advised that the City has chosen to be the adminis-
trator of this effort through the City Engineer's Office and Mr. Nolan
sees no fault with that but the recommendation in Item #1 is for a
specific task, not an ongoing task. He continued that Item #2 would
also be a City function but added that his Company would be pleased to
provide input if the City desires; Item #3 is an item that is contained
within the $180,000.00 with his firm and he assumed that the City would
want them to pursue that; Item #4 should be a function of the City. He
added that the City has already obtained responses from a number of
engineering firms from which they could select a consultant. He continued
that Item #5 should be handled by the City, with technical input from
whomever they choose.
C/M Munitz referred to a utility rate study and asked if the anticipated
increase at the time of the presentation was correct at $1.80 and Mr.
Nolan affirmed. C/M Munitz asked what Mr. Nolan envisions will happen
to the monthly rate now that the City did not get the Grant. Mr. Nolan
replied that without the Grant, he does not envision the City building
these systems and added that this is part of the step -back -and -review
process. He continued that the City needs to know the cost of the spray
irrigation versus that of deep well injection; and that's why they are
recommending the evaluation by an independent consultant. As far as the
impact on the rates are concerned, he stated that any work effort itemized
here will probably not affect the rates; what will affect the rates is the
slow -down of building, as previously indicated by their reports, and the
reports of the Auditors. He stated that Williams, Hatfield & Stoner's
report to the bond holders and the auditor's report indicated that the
coverage was getting slim and it was time to review that coverage. He
added that the auditor reported his desire to include the percent of
actual cost of amortization of the debt service to the County for facili-
ties that were not constructed. Mr. Nolan advised that Williams, Hatfield
& Stoner's recommendation was that those items should not be included in
the rate base because they were incomplete facilities and clarification
needs to be made.
In response to C/M Munitz's question, Mr. Nolan advised that SSES is Sewer
System Evaluation Survey and continued that Tamarac has a vitrified clay
system in some of the earlier portions of the City. He explained that
flower pots are made of vitrified clay and added that from time to time
problems will develop that manifest themselves as in -flow to the system.
He added that the system runs approximately 4,000,000 gallons a day and
when it rains, that flow goes up to as high as 7,000,000 gallons a day.
He advised that this Grant is directed towards abating that in -flow and
keeping it out of the system so it does not cost the City money to try to
treat it or discharge it into surface waters of the State, which would be
a violation.
C/M Munitz referred to a meeting in August 1979 when he opposed the purchase
and questioned Mr. Nolan about future compliance with the 201. At that time
he also asked what Mr. Nolan envisioned could happen to the City's rates if
and when they were asked to comply with the 201 improvements and Mr. Nolan's
answer was nothing. C/M Munitz asked Mr. Nolan if that was correct and Mr.
Nolan confirmed that it was.
-7-
6/21/84
/cmt
C/M Dunne asked Mr. Nolan if Williams, Hatfield & Stoner were the
engineers who verified that the utility plant was in good condition
when it was purchased. Mr. Nolan replied that they did an evaluation
of the utility prior to the bond sale and this information was reflected
in a report to the City and was included in the Bond prospectus and
financial information as back-up for the Bond sale. C/M Dunne stated
that the City has spent a great deal of money putting the plant in
shape and Mr. Nolan advised that the plant was a 4.9 million gallon -
a -day extended aeration system comprised of four units and the system
won awards since taken over by the City, as well as before that time. Mr.
Nolan expressed his belief that an inordinate amount of money has not been
spent which was necessitated by the condition of the plant and referred
to those expenditures as maintenance to keep the plant in working order.
C/M Dunne asked the City Engineer how much money was spent to get the
plant in good shape when the City first took over and Mr. Keating replied
that he did not have those figures, but over the years the facility has
been painted and some mechanical equipment has been replaced. Mr. Nolan
advised that monies were subtracted from the value of the system to reflect
depreciation and those monies were to reduce the sale price of the plant.
He added that these monies would have been used for rejuvenation, but he
does not believe that it was in excess of those amounts. C/M Dunne stated
that that is a good estimation but he feels that the City bought the Plant
twice.
C/M Stelzer questioned the City Manager regarding her conversation with
Ellen Slayer and asked if the reports mentioned would have indicated that
Tamarac had a larger or smaller overflow discharge than Sunrise. City
Manager Stuurmans replied that it would have just reflected a discharge.
Mr. Nolan advised that the requirement was that the City report discharge
and they did that with the Memorial Day rainfall. He added that when that
report was made, the City was asked to monitor the volume and constituents
of flow and, in all probability, Tamarac's flow would not have matched the
volume of Sunrise or Plantation because they were discharging on a continu-
ous basis. He continued that Tamarac was trying to capture funds and Grant
points on the fact that Tamarac does discharge in a no -discharge area, as
determined by the DER.
C/M Stelzer asked if the fact that the discharge was smaller than other
Cities had an effect on Tamarac's not receiving the Grant and Mr. Nolan
replied no, but it affected being allowed further consideration. C/M
Stelzer mentioned the innovation previously discussed by Mr. Nolan and the
fact that the cost of spray irrigation would exceed that of the deep well
injection; and asked if it was correct that getting the Grant would make
it cheaper to get the spray irrigation. Mr. Nolan replied no and stated
that the City's evaluation process with the County reflected that it was
less expensive for the City to go with the spray irrigation system than
to continue with the County on their system. He added that that was the
only justification for inclusion of that portion of the 201. He stated
that the Environmental Protection Agency has a mandate to fund the least
expensive alternative.
C/M Stelzer asked again if the spray irrigation would have cost less than
the deep well injection and Mr. Nolan replied yes, with the numbers that
were available at that time; however, with the influx of new technology
the cost may have come down. Mr. Nolan continued that it was his suggestion
that it is time to re-evaluate before proceeding to spend more money. C/M
Stelzer confirmed that this was Mr. Nolan's reason for Recommendation #1
and the Councilman agreed with the reasoning for retaining the independent
consultant.
6/21/84
/cmt
L
� � r
C/M Stelzer asked Mr. Nolan if the 20% discussed previously had been
changed to pertain to points received for filing properly and Mr. Nolan
replied no but there had been a change in EPA's rules. He explained that
Broward County was not a zero discharge area prior to that time; and spray
irrigation systems received bonus points in the prioritization of need. He
i� stated that this was a needs list whereby the State was trying to put the
most needy on top, and so forth on down the line. He continued that with
the point system in effect at that time, additional points were received for
alternative technology. He added that when the rules were changed, Broward
County was changed to a no discharge area but that did not injure Tamarac's
ability to capture funds and the points came back because of discharging
into a no discharge area.
C/M Stelzer asked for clarification that Tamarac has a variance until
July or September of „�98(% Aand Mr. Nmllan advised that Tamarac has a
variance from Broward County's Environmental Quality Control Board which
speaks toward a compliance schedule, which Williams, Hatfield & Stoner
has submitted on the City's behalf. C/M Stelzer asked if an extension
could be obtained on that and Mr. Nolan responded that this is covered
in his recommendations.
C/M Stelzer asked what is going to happen with the sod farm for sludge
treatment and the problem with Leadership; and if more property will have
to be purchased. Mr. Nolan advised that part of the original project
discussed a liquids phase, which is the spray irrigation -system or deep
well, and a solids phase. He added that the solids phase is that which
must be dealt with and is the most difficult portion. He continued that
there is the probability of being funded under the Small Community Trust
Fund list in 1985 and capture monies to help build that. He advised that
the lease on the sod farm is for another two years and is included in the
compliance schedule submitted.
Mr. Nolan advised that Tamarac has two grant applications pending which
deal with the wastewater treatment because of a judgment call by Williams,
Hatfield & Stoner that split the original project, as the most probable
way to get funding for the solids process under the Small Community Trust
Fund list. He stated that the liquids portion is not included because there
is a cap on the amount of money in one year, and the two portions would have
exceeded that cap.
C/M Stelzer asked, with the liquids grant not forthcoming, would the City
be able to get a Grant for the sod farm and disposal of solid waste and
Mr. Nolan responded that there is a distinct probability of getting that
Grant. City Manager Stuurmans advised that Tamarac is on the Small
Community list but are just outside the contingent list, and the proba-
bility that those above Tamarac will drop off has been outlined by Mr.
Nolan. She pointed out that Tamarac was even lower on the list last year
when funding was awarded. Mr. Nolan added that this is what is perceived
will happen this year with the solids processing application.
C/M Stelzer asked then if there is the possibility of getting the SSES
funding and Mr. Nolan responded that Tamarac already has that offer.
C/M Stelzer continued that if the City pursues that funding, would there
be an urgency in getting rid of the wastewater and Mr. Nolan replied yes,
because the City is not in compliance with the environmental regulations.
C/M Stelzer asked for confirmation that the City has a variance until
September 1986, and Mr. Nolan advised that that variance is from EQCB,
not DER. He added that the DER permit runs out in September and the City
needs to seek a temporary operating permit on this matter. C/M Stelzer
asked if the City has to have the rate study regardless of the resolutions
on wastewater and Mr. Nolan replied yes and added that the City has
advertised for a consultant to design the solids process and includes
work on the rate study.
-9- 6/21/84
/cmt
l�
J
Vice Mayor Stein stated that last year the question was asked if
the City had competitive bidding on the engineers and the answer
then was that because of the original purchase of the water plant
and the bonds issued, the City had to continue with these engineers.
He asked Mr. Nolan if that was true and Mr. Nolan replied no and
added that Williams, Hatfield & Stoner's agreement with the City was
non -exclusionary.
Vice Mayor Stein mentioned that the City has a Grants person who was
not involved in this Grant and asked the City Manager if it would not
have been helnful if he had been notified of the filing and asked
to help in monitoring the application from day to day. The Vice Mayor
_ stated that perhaps the Grants person would have known that Palm Beach
was being called regarding the discharge and the City could have filed
before, instead of after the rating. City Manager Stuurmans advised that
the provisions of Mr. Caesar's contract do not address the monitoring of
that request for inclusion form. She added that Mr. Nolan had indicated
that his firm was monitoring this from the time of mailing to the publica-
tion of the list and because the information was of a technical and
engineering nature, it was more properly handled by Mr. Nolan.
The Vice Mayor stated that he assumed that the City had a Grants person
because he is a lobbyist and has influence and, knowing this, he questioned
that the Grants person was not used for whatever help he could give. The
City Manager stated that Mr. Caesar attends Council meetings, is apprised
of the City's activities and, in that respect, he was aware of the Grant.
The Vice Mayor stated that it was not Mr. Caesar's duty to come to the
City Manager to offer assistance; it was the City Manager's duty to
request assistance.
City Engineer Larry Keating agreed that everyone was concerned about how
the City got to this point and stated that it is an extremely complicated
situation. He added that in all of these things, the fact stands out
that there was a discharge which was built in by the previous utility
owners and the City undertook construction to stop that discharge. He
continued that Mr. Nolan's office was not aware of it because his services
were not needed or utilized for that purpose. Mr. Keating stated that it
is a little late for this situation but he has outlined procedures to
insure that future reporting is complied with.
Mr. Keating continued that he believes it is an oversimplification to
say that the City did not get the Grant because of failure to report, and
all anybody can do now is speculate. He advised that after learning of
the rating, they went to Tallahassee to discuss the matter with the DER
staff and at that time, DER mentioned the failure to report. He stated
that other things mentioned during these discussions were whether or not
the discharge was a wastewater or a storm -water problem; and if the dis-
charge was insignificant when considering the discharge of other utilities
applying for the Grant. He said it is unfortunate but it must be recognized
that the DER is trying to distribute money State-wide and had a list
identifying a number of problems in the County. He expressed his doubts
that anyone could bring the problem down to one statement.
City Manager Stuurmans stated that it is unfortunate that there was such
limited time to address the needs, the technology, and the cost of such a
complex issue of major improvement. She advised that there were two printed
programs given to the Public: a bond brochure that was reviewed and approved
by the Council and a Question/Answer format that was given technical review,
legal review, editing, and approval by the Council; and a slide presentation
which was reviewed by the Council and members of the public for input. She
continued that all of these addressed optimism, favorable hope of obtaining
Grants, and the eligibility of Grant funds. She added that at no time did
she, or a member of City staff, guarantee to any individual that Grant
funds were forthcoming. She added that what, in fact, does occur at such
times is that the enthusiasm and the optimism of the promoter to a given
crowd, generates a feeling of positivism that is spread to the community.
She concluded that this is what occurred with regard to the feeling that
the people were guaranteed the Grant.
-10- 6/21/84
/cmt
L. .1
C/M Munitz asked Mr. Keating to comment on Mr. Nolan's statement that
the failure to report the discharge was the determining factor in the
rating and Mr. Keating replied that he does not think any one thing
was the cause. He added that it is a very convenient excuse; but in
Tallahassee, that was not the main focus of the discussion. He said
the questions raised there were on the nature of the discharge: whether
it was quantified; whether it was due to the wastewater effluent or
Tape 3 rainstorms; and whether it was as bad as others.
C/M Munitz asked what effect it would have had in 1981, had the discharge
been reported and Mr. Keating replied that in all likelihood, as with
other Cities, Tamarac would have had to do whatever construction was
necessary to stop the discharge, to the point of enacting a moratorium.
C/M Munitz asked for clarification that it could have exposed the City
to an immediate additional expense and Mr. Keating agreed, but said that
it may or may not have been substantial.
C/M Munitz asked Mr. Keating to comment on the discharge by the former
utility owner mentioned previously. Mr. Keating replied that they had
a positive connection to the City's canal system, which was a pipe
connecting the lake system in Colony West to the City's waterways. C/M
Munitz asked if that would have resulted in a negative aspect to the
evaluation of the system when it was bought by the City and Mr. Keating
could not answer that. C/M Munitz asked Mr. Nolan if this fact was
included in their evaluation at the time of purchase. Mr. Nolan replied
that the questions asked of the regulatory people on behalf of the City
of Tamarac was if TUl was in compliance with their operating permit and
they were in full compliance at that time, yet two years later they were
cited for not being in compliance. Mr. Nolan added that his firm was not
aware of that non-compliance.
John Lachmann, resident, asked Mr. Keating the capacity of the wastewater
plant and Mr. Keating replied that it is 4.9 million gallons a day, with
the current average of daily flow being 4 million gallons. Mr. Lachmann
asked what percentage of that flow was being discharged into the canals
through the piping system from Colony West and Mr. Keating advised that
there is no current flow because that pipe has been blocked off. Mr.
Lachmann asked what the percentage was previously and Mr. Keating
estimated it at less than 5%.
Harold Newman, President of the Concerned Citizens, expressed his concern
over the failure to get the Grant because their organization recommended
that the voters approve the bond issue for this system. He stated that
he is not satisfied and cannot accept Mr. Nolan's comments. He believes
a consultant to be one who was fully aware of what was required, what
was needed, and to see to it that it was accomplished. He stated that
he was also concerned that the Grants person was not asked to participate.
He added that in discussions with Mr. Caesar and with legislative repre-
sentatives, he was informed that they did not know that Tamarac was applying
for a Grant; and had they known, perhaps they could have helped, as they
did with Plantation and Sunrise. Mr. Newman agreed with the Vice Mayor's
statements as to where the fault lies and asked how this situation is
going to be rectified without a complete analysis from the very beginning,
by an outside opinion.
Bruce Hoffman, resident, referred to C/M Munitz's statements and stated
that even though the City Manager stated that no one guaranteed receiving
the Grant, the residents were assured at every meeting that they would get
not less than 55%, and possibly as much as 75%; and based on that informa-
tion, the voters passed the bond issue. He stated that the information
was false and, for whatever reason, the voters were misled. He suggested
that the voters be given another opportunity to vote on the bond issue,
with the truth and the full information.
-11- 6/21/84
/cmt
A
C/M Munitz advised that the total of the bond issue was the total
without any Grants but agreed with Mr. Hoffman that at no time was
it implied that Tamarac would not get the Grant. C/M Munitz does
not believe that a new vote will accomplish anything. Mr. Hoffman
insisted that the bond issue was passed and the voters were not told
the truth. He continued that the City now has the right to pass the
bonds in the full amount and such an issue is completely dishonest.
Vickie Beech, resident, stated her concerns that the present Council
has inherited past problems with this bond issue and with administra-
tion problems within the City. She pointed out that this Council
recently saved $77,000.00 on a new insurance program and asked how
much more could have been saved if administration had been checked
thoroughly. She suggested that the Council retain an efficiency expert
to do a total evaluation of every department in the City.
Hermar Weiss, .resident. asked Mr. .Nolan whether or not he evermade
recommendation to the City that something was wrong during this time
of reporting and Mr. Nolan replied no, but at the time that the report
was prepared by the City on behalf of the bond holders, there were
recommendations made for modifications, changes in operations, and
projections. Mr. Weiss asked who was responsible for receipt and analysis
of that report in the City and Mr. Nolan replied that it went to the
City administration and then passed on to the representative of the bond
holders. Mr. -Weiss_ continued that at that point, who had responsibility
to bring it to the attention of the proper people.
The City Manager confirmed that the question concerned the annual report
and stated that that report goes to the City Council upon its receipt in
August and is part of their package for consideration in the approval of
the Utilities West budget on an annual basis. Mr. Weiss asked if disclosure
was made at that time, why wasn't anyone alerted to the fact that the City
could conceivably lose the Grant. The City Manager advised that that was
not within the report. Mr. Weiss stated that had opinions been rendered
by the engineering firm, it would have alerted people to the fact that
receipt of the Grant was jeopardized and asked why Mr. Nolan did not render
such an opinion. Mr. Nolan replied that they did not know of that
probability until after DER reviewed the requests. Mr_.Weiss objected
that there was no disclaimer statement in any document presented prior
to the bond issue.
Garry Gralla, resident, stated that he has heard nothing today that would
indicate an urgency for the need of an upgraded system and the only thing
that would have been to the City's advantage was reporting the overflow.
He stated that Council should consider the contradiction between the City
Manager's statements and those of the City Engineer. He asked the City
Manager if she was aware of the reports that the City was committed to
file regarding an overflow and she advised that the correspondence on
that subject was not copied to her office at the time; she learned about
it after the trip to Tallahassee. She reported that in subsequent
discussions, the City Engineer advised her that the problem was a
routine operating requirement and did not need to be copied to the City
Manager. She advised that the City Engineer has agreed to provide the
City Manager's Office with copies of a new procedure and all reports to
DER in the future.
Morris Glicksman, resident, stated that he is concerned that the Grantsman
was not requested to use his political clout to assist in this Grant. He
stated that he is not aware that the City has ever applied for any other
Grant and asked for a list of such applications. Mr. Glicksman asked the
City Manager if she really believed that the people did not understand
that they were going to get at least 55% funding with this Grant and why
the City administration did not use the Grantsman. The City Manager
replied that much has been said about the enthusiasm and positivism in
the course of the bond referendum. She stated that Staff was confident
of their Request for Inclusion form, they had good meetings on the subject,
all the feedback was good, and there was no reason to suspect that they
were going to be tripped up on a commitment from three years prior. She
added that the problem would not have been amenable even with Mr. Ceasar's
assistance.
-12- _6121L_84
/cmt
Bernie Hart, President of Tamarac's President Council, stated that many
errors have been made along the way, some accidental and some by negli-
gence; and the people will await Council's decision on this matter.
C/M Munitz asked the City Engineer if he agreed with Mr. Nolan's five
recommended actions and Mr. Keating agreed. Mr. Keating stated that
regardless of any other action, the City must recognize that it must
meet with the regulatory agencies. He continued that beyond that,
there is still the potential for getting funded for the solids pro-
cessing facility and if work is not started on that soon, they may not
get that funding.
C/M Munitz stated that he understands that there was a rule change in
1983 and asked Mr. Nolan or Mr. Keating to address that. Mr. Keating
advised that prior to 1983, when proposing an alternative technology
program, such as Tamarac was, the City would be eligible for additional
bonus points in the priority listing system; and the change eliminated
those additional points.
Vice Mayor Stein reiterated his earlier parameters for action and stated
that everyone agrees that something must be done; the question is who is
going to do it. The Vice Mayor stated that it is absurd to ask the City
Engineer and the present engineering firm to continue with this work.
He feels that these questions must be answered: if something must be
done, who is going to be authorized to do it; and if an outside consultant
firm is going to be called, they should evaluate not only what should be
done but also what has been done. The Vice Mayor added that it is impor-
tant that the City know what it got for its $98,000.00.
C/M Stelzer pointed out that of the five recommended courses of action,
two of those call for consultants. He advised that the City Manager has
been dealing with a consultant and the City Manager stated that she has
been discussing this with CMD and they are willing to do the work, but
have not come up with any cost figures. She advised that this firm is
doing the work on the deep well for the City of Plantation and a spray
irrigation project at Naples, so they would have current statistical
data as to the cost of either program. She added that a number of the
projects on the priority list are CMD projects.
The City Manager continued that time is important because in order to
set the wheels in motion with regard to the variance currently before
EQCB and the temporary operating permit expiring in September, the City
must be able to specify which project will be used. C/M Stelzer advised
that Council must decide today on the consultant and asked the City
Manager if she had any other contacts. The City Manager advised that
she is using those firms that have submitted expressions of interest
on the other projects but she is concerned that the consultants know
at the outset that they would have nothing to gain by performing the
evaluation, to avoid any bias. She added that time does not allow for
advertising for a consultant just for this purpose and there may be a
limit to the number of firms that would be willing to perform the evalu-
ation knowing that they would not have the opportunity of bidding on the
design or construction phase of the project.
C/M Munitz asked if a letter, in line with these statements, to those
firms who have submitted expression of interest would elicit a prompt
reply. The City Manager stated that since this is so critical, she
would like to have the opportunity to contact other representatives
and report this information to Council by the last meeting of July so
that the variance request and the operating permit can be worked on
during Council recess in August.
-13-
6/21/84
/cmt
City Manager Stuurmans stated that another item that has not been
addressed today is the fact that there were statements made in the
course of the bond presentation that failing to get Grants, there
would be a hold and relook; and that is exactly what is occurring.
She added that the Board of Directors of the Concerned Citizens Group
are here today who say that they told their people to vote for the
bonds, they advocated it, and they are in an awkward position with
their people. She pointed out that that same group of people also
elected four members of this Council and they are going to control
the marketing of that bond issue. She expressed her belief that
that control is going to be influenced not only upon the needs of the
City, but their concerns also.
C/M Stelzer MOVED to authorize the City Manager to proceed to get
quotes from independent consultants to proceed with this project and
to do whatever is necessary to obtain figures for Council's determina-
tion. C/M Munitz SECONDED.
VOTE:
ALL VOTED AYE
C/M Stelzer referred to the request for a consultant to study the utility
rates and MOVED to add this to the City Manager's projects. C/M Munitz
stated that the consultant _suggested in Item 4 for the rate
study would depend on the design study factors. C/M Stelzer disagreed
and stated that the rate structure must be changed before the next fiscal
year; it is not going to be dependent on the wastewater treatment.
Mayor Kravitz stated the point was well taken but this special meeting
is only to discuss Grants. C/M Stelzer withdrew his motion.
Mr. Nolan explained that Item 4 will be accomplished by the same consultant
and the City has advertised for interested consultants for the solids
treatment process, which included that the consultants should also be able
to do rate studies. He suggested that the authorization to the City Manager
would then accomplish both objectives; and in the event that this is
elevated and Tamarac can get funds, they will need their plans within
45 days.
Vice Mayor Stein stated that the motion just passed had nothing to do with
Mr. Nolan's statements. The Vice Mayor added that the City has advertised
for letters of intent from engineers to discuss the sod farm and the solid
waste. Vice Mayor Stein MOVED to authorize the City Manager to continue
expeditiously to conduct competitive negotiations and report to Council
so that an engineer can be retained to proceed with work on the sod farm
and the utility rate study.
C/M Munitz asked if that information could be furnished no later than the
July 13th meeting and the City Manager advised that they would work toward
that date.
C/M Dunne SECONDED.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE
The City Manager advised that an advertisement will appear in the newspaper
with respect to the validation of the revenue bond. She added that everyone
should be aware of the fact that that is not an indication of the sale of
bonds; it is merely a.legal mechanism to proceed to a point where the
Court recognizes the validity of the referendum.
-14-
6/21/84
/cmt
L_
W
J
Mayor Kravitz adjourned the meeting at 3:45 P.M.
ATTEST:
This document was promulgated at a cost of $ ,10.1,4 or $ ?. 34-
per copy to inform the general public and public officers and
employees about recent opinions and considerations by the Council
of the City of Tamarac.
-15-
,CITY OF TAMAIt . L
APMED AT MEETING OF
City Clerk
6/21/84
/ cmt
C-]
U
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
UTILITY GRANTS
June 21, 1984
ATTACHMENT 1 - Submitted by Tony Nolan for discussion purposes, See Page 3
Concern
1) Provide the most cost-effective wastewater treatment improvements to
accomplish mandated upgrades.
2) State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Permit which
expires September, 1984.
3) Variance from Broward County Environmental Quality Control Board which
mandates compliance with a progress schedule to keep variance in affect.
4) A sludge treatment facility project that could be elevated to the fundable
portion of the small community trust fund list.
5) A sod farm lease that will expire in approximately two years.
6) A rate study in order to insure coverage required by bond covenant is met.
Recommended Course of Action
1) Retain an independent consultant familiar with both spray irrigation and
deep wells to determine the method of effluent disposal the City should
pursue.
2) Write the State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation advising
of the intent to seek a temporary operating permit and base the time
schedule for submittal upon the time needed for independent consultant to
complete number one above.
3) Continue with the request for variance from the Broward County
Environmental Quality Control Board to not line the effluent holding ponds
required with the spray irrigation project.
4) Retain a consultant(s) to conduct a utility rate study and complete the
design of the wastewater compost facility.
5) Work with D.E.R. staff to determine anticipated FY 86 funding levels and
possible priority ranking changes.
1
-16-
6/21/84
/cmt