Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06152005 Special HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PLAN INCLUDING CANALS JUNE 15, 2005 - 6:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 1. Mayor McCollum called the Special Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 3. ROLL CALL Citv Council Present: Mayor Nathan McCollum Vice-Mayor Brian Burkeen Council Member Andrea Coy Council Member Lisanne Monier Council Member Sal Neglia Staff Present: City Manager, AI Minner City Attorney, Rich Stringer City Clerk, Sally Maio City Engineer, David Fisher Stormwater Engineer, Ken Jones Engineering Technician, Mike Driscoll Public Works Director, Terry Hill Deputy City Clerk, Jeanette Williams MIS Technician, Barbara Brooke Police Officer, Jason Mills Police Officer, Dan Acosta Eric Grotke, Camp, Dresser & McKee Mike Schmidt, Camp, Dresser & McKee Ana DeMelo, Camp, Dresser & McKee Special City Council Meeting June 15, 2005 Page Two 4. STORMWATER ISSUES A. Presentation and Discussion of Collier Creek Canal/Seawalllssues The City Engineer opened the presentation to City Council on the seawall issue citing the available $2.4 million in grant funds, and options available (see revised City Engineer report attached). He said replacing seawalls in only a portion of the one-mile subject area was considered with available funding. The City Attorney advised City Council on the legal aspects of the issues and explained the storm water master plan that is currently in place. He said the current area of concern is the canal north of CR512 developed very early by General Development Corporation; and noted some of the seawalls are located in the canal right-of-way but the question of ownership does not address maintenance costs. He said if Council chose Option 1, replacing the seawalls, staff did not know how the additional funding would be found. The City Engineer explained the concrete cap that is in all three options with the assistance of Eric Grotke, CDM and Engineering Tech, Mike Driscoll who presented a power point exhibit of the three available options. (see attached to minutes). Mr. Grotke responded to questions from Council relative to elevations, and requirements to dredge the canal to certain depths to filter pollutants and for restoration to its original depth. Ms. Coy asked if Bill Ingui and Eugene Wolff would be allowed to speak at this time because their input may cover concerns of other members of the public. Ken Grover, Wimbrow Drive, asked what it will cost the individual homeowner. Billlngui, Layport Drive, representing himself and Mr. Wolff made a presentation to City Council (see attached to minutes) as previously submitted prior to the meeting. City Council waived the five minute time limit on public input for this special meeting. Dean Quick, 502 Layport Drive, said his property adjacent to CR512 has been washed out many times, he keeps being sent to other agencies and everyone keeps putting him off. 2 Special City Council Meeting June 15, 2005 Page Three Mary Heineke, Joy Haven Drive, on the canal south of Barber Street, urged using option 1, because maintenance of sodded slopes is difficult, and rock is dangerous. Side II, Tape I Vance Stillinger, 705 Layport Drive, discussed a problem with a drainage system installed in his yard last year. Mike Pearce, 525 Wimbrow Drive, said St. Johns River Water Management District told him that 1995 was the last time a water quality test was conducted, and suggested the City spend some money on testing for pollutants. He said he has noticed a dramatic decrease in wildlife in the canal over the years. He said he had also learned that the canal south of CR512 flows south and asked if the water north of CR512 could flow south. Pete Kahle, 402 Concha Drive, said he had asked Council several years ago to reduce pollutants which flow directly into the canals through drains installed by property owners and said they must have been permitted by the City of Sebastian. He wanted to know the last time city crews were assigned to clean out the canals and said the City does not maintain the system, which is forty years old. He said Mr. Stringer was right when he attempted to promote turning the waterway into water recreation for the whole City and urged Council to direct staff to look into the pollution and take away the pipes that are illegally installed. Richard Scurlock, 900 Layport, said the prior owner told him his bulkhead belonged to him, and asked that if it does belong to him that the City do nothing to damage it. Kenny Lee, 697 Wimbrow Drive, suggested trees inside the bulkhead be cut down, said he would pay a sensible amount of money for this; and said there should be a code that prohibits planting trees along the bulkhead. Eugene Wolff, 757 Wimbrow Drive, said he appreciated this new Council because things did not seem to be "done deals" any longer. He said the thought of changing the canal to a water retention pond is ludicrous, suggested forming a committee to look extensively at the problem rather than rushing to spend the $2.4 million on conversion to water retention. He suggested spending the funds elsewhere, and then address asbestos, water level and maintenance concerns; and replace the walls where they need to be replaced. Greg Golien, 711 Wimbrow Drive, said the canal was never set up properly in the beginning and it should be dredged with new seawalls at proper grades; and it should be up to the City to take care of the problem. He said there is four to five feet of muck in the bottom of the canal. 3 Special City Council Meeting June 15, 2005 Page Four Dave Derda, 585 Wimbrow Drive, asked how the canal will be dredged. He agreed there is four foot of sludge but it is vegetation and asked how the sludge will be cleaned and solidified, noting it takes a very long time and would not allow it to be done in his yard. Mayor McCollum called recess from 7:40 p.m. to 7:55 p.m. All members were present. Constance Kenney, 549 Wimbrow Drive, said the bulkheads by the dam are not damaged but are damaged in the south end. She said she was offended by City staff telling her what they are going to do to her property, and was concerned that the City will destroy her property by dredging, she is not convinced that strip- mining her canal will keep it environmentally sound, the canal was dredged in 1978 with a single pipe down the center, and that one class action lawsuit will stop this. Robert Lachowski, 591 Wimbrow Drive, said he did not need a seawall because he maintains it and it is in good shape; and the City should repair where it is really needed. Mary Ingui, 676 Layport Drive, asked how the $6 million was derived and will the project be bid; and suggested the Environmental Committee be used to address the asbestos and pollution issues in the canal. Mickey Groepler, Wimbrow Drive, urged that the City dredge safely if necessary at all; and suggested that maybe Lake Hardee needs to be dredged rather than the canal. She asked if the bond money could be used to clean up swales in front yards. George Nader, 666 Layport Drive, said the overall issue is a maintenance nightmare. Bob Odette, 755 Wimbrow, said it would be fair for everyone to share in the cost of protecting the canal. Beth Konash, Layport Drive, said she hopes Council listens to the residents, and does what is right for the whole City. Dean Quick, 502 Layport Drive, said all of this was caused by the CR512 expansion; said the City owns ten feet into his property; suggested installing a large pipe and filling in the entire area and building a park. He asked if he owned the property or does the City own it. Side I, Tape II, 8:15pm Constance Kenney asked who is going get the dirt that is going to come out of the canal and how much money will be paid for it. She suggested methods to obtain funding. 4 Special City Council Meeting June 15, 2005 Page Five BiIIlngui on behalf of Damien Gilliams, asked if GDC turned over properties to the City that could be sold at a later time to fund projects. Pete Kahle asked if it was necessary to make a decision tonight and encouraged Council to take time to look at information that was provided to make an informed decision. Mayor McCollum closed the public input portion of the agenda. In response to questions from Council: The City Engineer said there seems to be a clear consensus to repair the seawalls, and though there is no funding to repair one mile of seawalls, staff could explore this. The City Attorney said recreational impact fees could be used if the rock option was used, but not for seawalls or dredging. He said those funds could be used for public access such as boat launch areas. Mayor McCollum clarified some misinformation, said it was unfair that people who live on the canal are more impacted by taxes than other residents who do not. The City Attorney said the City owns the seawalls, and that drainage pipes into the canals are illegal, to which the Mayor directed the City Manager to send out code enforcement. The City Engineer said they have had input from St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). Eric Grotke and Mike Schmidt, COM said they have worked extensively with SJRWMD and Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Grotke said SJRWMD has extensive information about water quality in the canals. Mr. Schmidt addressed state and federal water quality requirements. Mayor McCollum stated that this meeting was advertised to all citizens in the normal manner: noted that there is no current protection for children on seawalls at this time, that the City is trying to address maintenance of the canals. The City Attorney said there is a twenty-foot easement on every lot in which no trees should be planted by property owners. The City Engineer said if the canals are not dredged, seawalls could be repaired, but he could not use the bond money to do so without dredging. He said a seawall for each 80 foot lot would be approximately $15,000, that there are maybe 40 properties in need of replacement seawalls and the life expectancy of a new seawall would be approximately 20 years. Mr. Grotke said $15,000 per lot may be a little bit low. 5 Special City Council Meeling June 15, 2005 Page Six In response to the question of exchanging land for repairs, the City Attorney explained if the same amount of water flow happened without the repair of the sea walls, how the City could justify using the bond money for sea walls. He stated if the City expanded the sea walls all the way to the right-of-way line that would add to drainage capacities, which would justify using the bond money. The City Engineer said if a seawall collapsed and did not inhibit the flow, under current City policy, he would be under no direction to fix it. He said by dredging we reap storm water treatment enhancement and there are not many other opportunities to improve water quality and flow; and by spending the money to do that you could justify fixing the seawalls. He said there is no environmental agency pushing the City to do the dredging. The City Attorney said there is decaying debris, which is picked up by stonms and empties into the Sebastian River which counts against the City for water quality. He said the City entered into a contract with BMI to do water monitoring several years ago, and they were calculating how much each agency was responsible for dumping into the Sebastian River, and pollutants were found to be coming from the canals. Mayor McCollum said this is not an urgent matter, and reminded the public that the urgency is that property owners are saying "my seawalls are falling" and asked what the City was going to do. He said it is not an urgency that the City developed; and he looks at it like his own street, Laconia Street which has no sidewalk, has had curbing removed, and explained the City has the responsibility to replace things that meet the public good. Mr. Burkeen asked if there is land donated as noted by Mr. Gilliams. The City Attorney explained that tracts of land were given to the City in exchange for relieving General Develoopment Corporation from developer obligations such as paving roads in Sebastian Highlands. Mr. Burkeen also asked if money could be made from the dredged silt. The City Attorney stated by the time the silt was processed and trucked out of the City the proceeds would not put the City ahead with a profit but only reduce the cost of the selling the silt. The City Engineer stated there are approximately 80,000 cubic yards of silt to be dredged. Side /I, Tape /I Ms. Coy said knowing that the City owns the seawalls, enforcement of improper drainage will have to be addressed. She said she views this and all drainage concerns as a citywide problem and said the City must work toward making the entire system work. She asked for copies of the list of properties the City obtained during the settlement agreement with General Development Corporation. 6 Special City Council Meeting June 15, 2005 Page Seven The City Engineer explained that seawalls do not need water to hold them up and they are designed to hold the land back. He also said dredging costs would not be reduced by dredging less silt, but agreed less silt removed would take less time to dredge and less material to haul. The City Attorney said the City is going to have to do pollution control and this is one of the places we can do it in abundance. The City Engineer defined "credit" which he said has no monetary value, that it is simply credit for doing something we are required to do by higher authorities. Ms. Coy asked whether it was true that the canal flow changed when the twin pairs project was constructed and said she would like to pursue asking for Indian River County assistance if this is so. The City Manager said Council has been given three options and one option is affordable, the second option can be done by shifting funds around and eliminating other projects, and the other option is going to be more painful and things would have to be considered like increasing the stormwater utility fee. He reminded Council that this will open the door for the other nine miles of canal; and that this is not a millage issue but is a stormwater issue. Mr. Neglia suggested Mr. Wolff contact Commissioner Wesley Davis about the CR 512 issue. Mayor McCollum asked if anyone on Council was prepared to make a motion tonight on any of the options and no one responded that they were ready. Mayor McCollum asked for a cost to repair only the seawalls that need it without dredging; and asked for ten-year maintenance costs for options 2 (rock) and 3 (grass sloping). The City Manager stated that maintenance costs would come out of Engineering Division general funds. The City Engineer said he could have the numbers before the next Council meeting. Ms. Coy asked for the cost of fixing portions of the canal. Mayor McCollum suggested placing this on the July 13th agenda instead so that Mr. Neglia will be in attendance but that staff could submit the information to Council as soon as it is available. Mr. Burkeen requested any recent pollution testing information done on the canals if available. Mayor McCollum asked about the consequences of not dredging and if there an ecological problem if we do dredge. 7 Special City Council Meeting June 15, 2005 Page Eight On MOTION by Ms. Monier, and SECOND by Ms. Coy the report from the City Engineer was placed on the July 13'h agenda for answers to all questions. The City Engineer reiterated the questions: Cost estimates for: . Repairing seawalls now in a state of collapse (without dredging). . Ten-year maintenance program for o Sodded side slope option o Rip rap rock slope option o New bulkhead / seawall option . Dredging option with replacement of seawall (like for like) per segment o From CR-512 to Fleming Street Bridge o From Fleming Street Bridge to Barber/Lake Street Bridge o From Barber/Lake Street Bridge to Control Structure (Dam) Summary Report regarding timing and sources of water quality testing information. Summary Report regarding the overall expected benefits/ consequences to the City of dredging the canal vs. not dredging the canal including, but not necessarily limited to: cost, environmental, enforcement, and quality of life considerations. Motion carried on a roll call vote of 5-0. B. Final Determination of Scope for Stormwater Bond Revenues Capital Improvements This item will be addressed at the July 13th, 2005 meeting. 5. Being no other business, Mayor McCollum adjourned the Special Meeting at 9:55 p.m. Approved at the July 13, 2005 Regular City Council Meeting. ~ ~ 8 Special Council Meeting of 15 June 2005 Canal(s) I Bulkheads There will be a special City Council meeting on Wednesday evening, June 15, to discuss and determine whether to deal with the Collier Creek Canal north of Sebastian Boulevard (CR-512) in conjunction with the Stormwater Capital Improvement Projects bond funding now in hand and, if so, which scenario to follow in doing so. Current revised bond funding allocations now allow up to a maximum of $2,400,000 to be spent in dealing with the approximately one mile of canal! bulkheads north of CR-512 within the next two years. If the City Council decides to not apply any of that funding toward that section of canal, the funds will be applied to non-canal stormwater capital improvement projects. After numerous meetings with SI. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), it is agreed the following options are viable; i.e., they are permittable and they meet the needs of the City's Master Stormwater Management Plan going forward as well policy and objectives of both SJRWMD and the ACOE. (A) Do nothing. Spend the $2,400,000 of allocated bond funding on other non-canal stormwater capital improvement projects whose full scope will be further determined immediately for design and permitting purposes. (B) Do one of the following options, spending a maximum of $2,400,000 from stormwater bond funding in any case. .1. Provide new "seawalls' in conjunction with canal dredging. This option would cost a total of approximately $6,100,000, including up to $2,400,000 allocated from the Stormwater Capital Improvement bond funds. Estimated additional direct project funding required might be approximately $3,700,000. No additional mitigation funding is expected under this scenario. 2. Provide rip-rap rock slope in conjunction with canal dredging. This option would cost a total of approximately $3,200,000 for design, permitting, and construction (including a concrete cap along the top edge). This amount does not include possible additional mitigation funding required in the amount of anywhere from $-0- up to $1,000,000. This additional mitigation cost can be finally determined, based on all circumstances, only when the permit application is submitted to the regulatory agencies. Based on discussions to date with the regulatory agencies (SJRWMD and ACOE), we believe the required mitigation amount can be minimized but it would still be prudent to allow for the worst case, i.e,: a projected total maximum cost of $3,200,000 + $1,000,000 = $4,200,000. After allocation of $2,400,000 from the current stormwater bond funding, the projected total maximum additional direct project funding required might be as much as $1,800,000. 3. Provide sodded side slopes in conjunction with canal dredging. This option would cost a total of approximately $2,000,000 (including a concrete cap along the top edge). This amount does not include possible additional mitigation funding required in the amount of anywhere from $-0- up to $1,000,000. As in the option for the rip-rap rock slope, this additional mitigation cost can be finally determined, based on all circumstances, only when the permit application is submitted to the regulatOry agencies. Based on discussions to date with the agencies (SJRWMD and ACOE), We believe the required mitigation amount can be minimized but it would still be prudent to allow for the worst case, i.e.: a projected total maximum cost of $2,000,000 + $1,000,000 = $3,000,000. After allocation of $2,400,000 from the current stormwater bond funding, the projected total maximum additional direct projectfunding required might be as much as $600,000 The City Attomey will be providing further guidance as to legal, financial, and policy issues in this matter. The decision by Council will have an impact in defining and clarifying the City's role going forward in maintaining and making requisite improvements in canals throughout the City. 31 May 05 DWF Notes Review of "Analysis" Memo from Ingui I Wolff dated 8 June 05 Regarding Collier Creek Canal The following notes reflect a general review of the subject "Ana/ysisn memo. Some points in the memo are not covered here specifically. Page 2: . The City's Master Stormwater Management Plan (MSWMP) does provide a comprehensive plan for the City as a whole, . Yes, Collier Creek is part of an overall system. . Last year's hurricanes damaged the control structure and may well have accelerated the deterioration I collapse of the bulkheads along the canal. Visual inspection indicates at least 85% of all bulkheads along the canal north of CR-512 are in some stage of collapse. Page 3: . The issue at hand is not about who pays for- kburying the wallsn. It is whether any action is to be taken regarding dredging the section of the canal north of CR-512 and, if so, what accompanying treatment to take regarding the edges of the canal. . The proposed project is in keeping lNith two equally important major objectives I drivers: (1) The City's meaningful response to EPA's TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load 01 pOllutants) regulations- both current regulations and the more stringent regulations and enforcement by EPA I FDEP I SJRWMD expected in the near future; and (2) Meeting requirements applicable in the City's future permitting application for mOdifying front yard swales to curb and gutter (per City Council direction in 2002). Note that the term .credits. refers to a ledger system for tallying permitting conditions I requirements relating to storage, conveyance, and treatment of stonnwater. A "credit" does not have any monetary value per se. . The Army Corps 01 Engineers (ACOE) and SI. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) have reviewed the project options for dredging the canal while also reducing loadings I pollutants to the St Sebastian River. BoOl ACOE and SJRWMD recognize Ole merits of the proposed project; I.e. (1) The dredging of the canal to remove sediment accumulated over the past 30 years and more; and (2) The creation of increased storage capacity which in turn enhances stormwater treabnent Both ACOE and SJRWMD now stand ready to further review whichever option the City decides to pursue going lOIWard. Page 4: . Sediment has accumulated in the canal over the past 30 years and more. The project will also remove .exotic and nuisance vegetation. . The control structure is set at fixed elevation. . Hot summer months are normally a rainy season. Also, the prospective future swate modifications will reduce stagnant I standing water and resulting mosquito problems in front swales. . Boat laundl opportunity? Page 5: . Some canal walls are in the right-of-way; some are on private property. . Canals are merely a conveyance to the discharge structure. Little percolation now. Dredging would provide percolation to surficial aquifer. Page 8: . There is a contributing area. . City rates constant for all properties' improvements throughout the City for the benefit. of City residents. DWFI15June 05 Page10f3 Notes Review of "Analysis" Memo from Ingull Wolff dated 8 June 05 Regarding Collier Creek Canal Page 9: . Asbestos discussion: See attached email! memo from COM I A. DeMelo dated 24 May 05. . Hurricanes damaged the control structure and accelerated deterioration of existing seawalls. Page 10: . Modifications at the control structure (dam) to fix the control elevation. Page11: . Pipes speed up the flow of water to the discharge point. E;:PA, FDE?, and SJRWMD want to slow it d.own. DWF /15 June 05 Page 2013 Notes Review of "Analysis" Memo from Ingui I Wolff dated 8 June 05 Regarding Collier Creek Canal The following is from COM's Ana DeMelo in her emaii transmittal of 14 June 05: From: DeMelo, Ana Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 2:29 PM To: Moulton, Douglas; Schmidt, Michael F; Grotke, Eric Subject: Sebastian Hello all, I prepared this little summary trying to address the questionsj comments related to the engineering aspects of the fax we received in a language that can be understood by the residents. I was thinking that wej City may want to be prepared to distribute this kind of information to clear the confusion that was written on the fax. I imagine that the person that prepared the fax may have distributed the same document to all the residents. Please advise, comment and edit document as you see fit. Thanks, Ana Collier Creek Waterway Improvement Project Currently, Collier canal is the receiving body for the storm water that drains from the front yard swales and ditches. It conveys the storm water to the Sebastian River via a control structure that regulates the water level within the canal. The canal was part of a flat floodplain system that went as far south as the southern boundary of Sebastian City limits. During the past 30+ years, Collier Canal has accumulated sediments and therefore the canal has lost its original depth. Based on geotechnical investigation, the sediment layer that has accumulated is about 6 ft deep, with location where it is deeper than 6 ft. The Collier Creek Waterway Improvement project is proposing to reestablish the Collier Creek depth as it was conceived by GDC. The proposed dredging will bring the canal to its original depth by removing the layer of sediment that has accumulated in the past 30+ years. Today the canal is only about 5 ft deep. This shallow depth is detrimental to the canal ecological health. A deeper water column benefits the water quality of the canal by minimizing the algae growth and the resuspension of sediments that contain pollutants; it will maintain water less turbid, improving the water quality that is discharged to the St. Sebastian River. DWF /15 June 05 Page 3 013 Page 1 of! David Fisher From: DeMelo, Ana [DemeloAC@CDM.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 5:48 PM To: David Fisher; Ken Jones Cc: Grotke, Eric Subject: Asbestos - Sheet Pile Oave Fisher, Here is a summary report that I gather after my conversation with DEP regarding the asbestos in the old sheet pile. Please let me know if this summary is adequate or if you need additional information. Tomorrow, I will send you a summary discussing the side slopes and the concrete cap. Thank you, Ana Asbestos Fiber - Airborne Release. On May 2nd, 200S COM contacted OEP - Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA} department and spoke to Mr. John Hund the TSCA coordinator in Atlanta COM explained to Mr. Hunt the two potential alternatives for the Collier Canal project that deal with canal side bank improvement and the existing asbestos-cement sheet piles. Both alternatives propose to entomb the existing sheet piles. Mr. Hund confirmed that there is no problem associated with the release of airborne asbestos fiber if the corrugated asbestos-cement sheet piles were to be entombed by the installation of new sheet piles or by placing fill to the side banks. Mr. Hund informed that if the existing sheet pile is to be drilled through for the installation of tie backs for the new sheet piles, the threshold for a maximum area of an asbestos-cement sheet pile that can be handled with no adverse impact is 160 square-feet. COM also contacted Ms. Kathy Evangelo at the Central District Office of FOEP in Orlando. Ms. Evangelo oversees the Indian Riyer County area for regulatory aspects of the handling of material containing asbestos fibers and related activities that may cause the asbestos fiber to become airborne. Ms. Evangelo concurs with the assessment of Mr. Hund and once the design alternative is selected, COM will contact Ms. Evangelo again for further clarification on this matter as needed. Ana Carmen V. DeMelo, P.E. Senior Project Manager COM 1601 Belvedere Road, Suite 211 South West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 phone: 561689-3336 fax: 561 689-m3 www.cdm.com 6/15/2005 The Collier Creek Canal as a part of the Sebastian Highlands Water System r~, " C;"" l'_.::~'~ ..n ., , - <-~ --I - ."._ {'n ' 'f':" :::u C"J -1'1 r'11 co "'Tl C) (I) rT"1 '" rq .'~'- -0 =t t,) -< :3 -< )>.. rl ('j "J r-v n, An Analysis ;~.. (J' C: _' The presenters of this report do not presume to be the spokespersons for the residents along the Collier Creek Canal, but do suggest that the Sebastian City Council carefully consider the information gathered from comments made by homeowners living along the canal and at both formal meetings and conversations outside of these meetings. We believe it conveys a consensus view and suggestions that the City Council should take under advisement. Bill Ingui Layport Drive Sebastian, Florida 32958 Eugene Wolff Wimbrow Drive Sebastian, Florida 32958 June 8, 2005 1 A CRITICAL QUESTION Should the City of Sebastian address only the Collier Creek Canal or be more concerned with devising a "WHOLE CITY" storm and flood water protection plan? . The 250 miles of swales and 20 miles of canals are part of a whole city water system. . The swales in front of homes, pipes under roads that connect swales throughout the city and the tie-in to the canals that permeate the landscape, many in complete disrepair and in need of renewal or at the least maintenance, as well as the safe confinement of hazardous materials, are all part of the primary concern for the City Council. . Please DO NOT use the "Collier Creek Canal" as the poster child for arguments that suggest any canal improvement is part of cost overruns or money spent to help only a few. This idea should be relegated to "smoke and mirrors" thinking. To have residents, through the media or at meetings, believe this notion and by failing to provide full disclosure to see the canals as part of a WHOLE CITY SYSTEM, does a disservice to all of its citizens. HISTORY Collier Creek Canal is a part of a system that is more than an amenity . Collier Creek Canal was an existing creek which GDC dredged and incorporated into the plan for a Sebastian Highlands Subdivision. . Anyone who makes the suggestion that canals were created for beautification and enhancement of the subdivision and fail to see the function of the canal and walls. . The Collier Creek Canal, along with the walls that prevent eroded surfaces and heavy foliage to choke the water flow, is a necessary part of diverting the flow of flood waters from miles away. It should not be considered simply as an amenity. . Hurricanes Francis and Jeanne showed how well the Collier Creek Canal worked as it accepted the heaviest of rains. Homeowners worried about roofs and pool awnings being torn by 100 mph winds and touch-down tornadoes, but none had to worry about flooding because the canal took it on the chin and survived. 2 ARGUMENTS THA T DON'T HOLD UP (1) "The biggest complaint residents had...seemed to be about the possibility of them having to pay for burying the walls." (The Press Journal, "Dredging, Seawall Plan Drawing Fire," Tony Judnich, March 25, 2005) OH REALLY? To accept this line of thinking, it conveys a clearly incorrect message to the public and does an injustice to the canal property owner - It assumes that if the City decided to pay to cover the asbestos walls, the residents along the canal would just walk away, happy with the whole idea THIS IS A VERY SHALLOW PORTRAYAL OF GOOD CITIZENS WHO ARE CONCERNED WITH THE ENVIRONMENT - LET'S TAKE A LOOK! WE KNOW A LOT MORE ABOUT THE DREDGING PLAN . The core of proposals made by the engineers is the deep dredging of the canal. . Deep dredging of the canal will convert the Collier Creek to a water retention pond storage area and is a poorly conceived plan that has not been rationally thought out. . The "plan" assumes an awful lot - it is a "long shot" - a "gamble" - The idea is to take $1.8 to $2.8 million of taxpayers bond money with the hope of possibly earning EPA CREDITS - NO GUARANTEES to this plan - Just a "long shot." . No private enterprise would risk such a capital expenditure with so little promise of receiving any benefit whatsoever. . The Dredging I EPA Credits Plan - in a nutshell o When the canal is dredged deeper, the flow of water is slowed o The dredging goes deep enough to cut through into the sand bed o The canal becomes a sediment pond o The speed of water flowing into the St. Sebastian River is slowed by means of this "PONDING EFFECT" o The EPA is very happy o The City of Sebastian would receive credits - like money $$$ o The City can now use the credits $$$ for the real project they had in mind all along - the BIG KAHOONA in the sky - Fixing the 250 miles of swales o BUT NO ONE IS SURE THE EPA WILL BUY INTO THE DEAL AND GIVE THE CREDITS. 3 . What happens with deep dredging? o The conversion will destroy much of a key component of the ecosystem - the aquatic plant life - which thrives on the natural sand bed of the creek o This is part of the chain that sustains over five different species of fresh water fish, several different crustaceans, otters, turtles, alligators, endangered wood storks and other bird species, along with destruction of many bald cypress trees. o Canal residents will be subjected to over a year of construction noise and disturbance. o The properties abutting the deep sloping mud ditch would require an endless maintenance program to prevent erosion and overgrowth of weeds and other foliage. o The deep ditch would certainly pose a greater threat to small children and pets, as well as some elderly folks. o Wind and tide would greatly reduce the water flow and a deeper ditch would almost certainly not have enough water. o The water would stagnate and smell during the hot summer months, requiring more maintenance from mosquito infestations. o At the end of the day, the taxpayer's money would be wasted, the existing canal that ACTUALLY WORKS and has proven its worth, could be ruined and the EPA may never give those sought after credits anyway. o THESE are the concerns of the citizens along the canal unreported in the news media. (2) "The canal wall is an 'amenity' and an amenity is not maintained by the City!" OH REALLY? · The history of use already stated strongly suggests that the Collier Creek Canal is not an "amenity." . The "WHAT IF" Thinker - "What if' the "amenity" argument were allowed to stand, the City Council would have to think long and hard about how money is spent on an amenity. Example: Sebastian Municipal Golf Course - Dollars spent on the course come from a general pool of dollars in the City of Sebastian budget. It is an amenity for which even those who do not use it find their tax dollars being spent on its upkeep. Collier Creek Canal Wall- Why would the property owner adjacent to the canal be isolated out as the focused payee for any repair or maintenance of the canal that affects the lives of many more people than does the Municipal Golf Course? Any resident can drop a canoe or kayak into the canal at Hardee Park and enjoy the waters, without a charge - Perhaps it should be called the Municipal Canal. The Golf Course receives City dollars without "rattling the saber of unfair use of tax dollars" waved to alarm non-canal property owners that is used when speaking about fixing canal walls. 4 (3) "The canal walls are like roads - they are owned by the city, but the homeowner has to pay for its repair!" OH REALLY? . It has been suggested that the canal wall is like the road in front of your home. While it may not be owned by the homeowner, they certainly have to pay for it. The "road in front of your home" argument is flawed as it is used by the City Attorney at a meeting, emphasizing that if you have a road repair in front of your home, you pay for it - "I don't want to pay for your canal walls." . Can the City Attorney produce a tax document that specifically refers to the "road in front of your home" tax line on a bill paid by the homeowner? . The homeowner at 626 Layport Drive can produce a document that shows the City of Sebastian required the family to pay over $900 for the right to purchase 3 feet x 90 feet of the right-of-way along the canal in order to avoid placing a pool enclosure on the very edge of the pool rather than an acceptable walk around area to help save a drowning child. (4) "The canal wall is owned by the homeowner!" OH REALLY? . The City Council has finally acknowledged that the City of Sebastian is responsible for the canal system and swales, under the 1991 Bankruptcy agreement between itself and the previous owner, the General Development Corporation (GDC), in which it assumed the obligations already under the prevue of GDC at that time. . We appreciate not having to revisit who owns the canal - Can we therefore assume that the City owns the canal walls too? WHA T IS THE COLLIER CREEK AND WHA T PART DO THE WALLS ALONG ITS EDGES PLA Y? THE ANSWER - IT'S A "WA TER SYSTEM" The canal is part of a water system that supports the drainage of floodwaters from areas beyond the canal . The canal walls have come to serve specific purposes o It is used to retain and direct the water flow, unencumbered by sediment o Spread the waters from outlying areas to a location where it can safely percolate into the soil strata o Protect the community from flood or storm waters 5 Culverts shown center and right draw water from two sides of a street and funneling, with the left culvert, into the Collier Creek Canal. The flip side of the street shows water is directed under the road toward the Collier Creek Canal. Culverts that direct water under streets are found several blocks from the Collier Creek Canal, all moving toward that final destination. 6 Where swales are non-existent, gratings cover tunneling systems that direct the water toward the Collier Creek Canal. This grating is on one side of Wimbrow Drive and leads underneath to the next photograph. A ONE MILE ditch - from Collier Creek running under Wimbrow Drive and continuing under every street parallel to Fleming Street for over a mile toward the point where Fleming curves into Main Street - The "system" is alive and necessary. M~LAGEANDASSESSMENT The millage rate is not the same as the assessment on property · The argument that everyone pays the same, made to the City Council, is based on some wrong-minded thinking. Let's pursue the following line of thought to clear up a misconception. . Millage rates are described on a homeowner's REAL ESTATE tax receipt and everyone pays the same Millage Rate for services Example: St. Johns River Water Mosquito Control Sebastian Storm Drainage - Millage Rate = .4620 - Millage Rate = .2399 - Basic cost of $48 . Canal or waterfront property is assessed differently AND higher than other properties, where an appraisal makes clear reference to "waterfront." This appraised value is applied to the millage rate and the waterfront owner pays more than the standard property owner. . The appraisal is based on the home and the physical appearance of the surrounding property - the wholeness of the picture for appraisal purposes. This would strongly 7 suggest that a canal wall, not iust a canal of water, at the time of the original appraisal, regardless of ownership, has a bearing upon the ASSESSED VALUE of the home and the tax collected. . The City and County governments collect a higher amount of tax from the waterfront dweller, despite the same millage rate, based on this assessment. This is what distinguishes waterfront and non-waterfront home ownership... higher taxes. . Repairing the canal wall to its original condition is part of maintaining the appraised value of the waterfront property and suggests that anything less than original condition would require a re-appraisal for less and perhaps a reduction in the amount of taxes collected from that homeowner. . The City would be double dipping if they were to assess the homeowner for canal wall repair or replacement on top of the already higher assessment and subsequent taxes levied. The City isn't "playing nice" when it unnecessarily and incorrectly alarms the non- waterfront property owner into thinking they are being asked to contribute to a canal. . How do cities really think? An example of how a city does think about improvements might be provided by looking at the typical language of assessment used by San Diego, CA, where "the community as a whole is responsible for paying the costs and expenses of carrying out any purpose that benefits the community, including the constructing, maintaining, operating, extending, repairing, or otherwise improving any or all projects or works of improvement established or to be established within or on behalf of the zone." . An effort to search for information about assessments upon taxable property turns up no specific references to homeowners who abut a canal system in Florida. It is always part of the community-as-a-whole that pays for improvements. . The City should instead point to some facts - (1) The canal is part of a system that helps all residents (2) Waterfront property already has a greater tax levied than the average homeowner in Sebastian (3) There is no project location marked on the tax dollars collected from a property owner. Simply put, the pool of dollars fixes the hole on Laconia Street and the cracked pipe under Wimbrow connecting different swales. In the end, perhaps the homeowner along the canal should say "SHOW ME THE MONEY" already collected at a higher waterfront rate and spend it wisely on the canal. 8 ASBESTOS The canal has been buttressed by a cement / asbestos wall that has deteriorated over the past 40 plus years . The waters pressing against the asbestos canal wall percolates into the groundwater that flows into connecting tributaries. The homeowner that abuts the canal should be applauded for addressing a city-wide issue and not condemned for suggesting the cost is primarily an environmental one for the City of Sebastian and agencies that work with the City. . Contact with the Indian River Environmental Health Department has revealed THAT Florida Statute No. 469 - asbestos abatement - requires only a licensed and regulated operator to deal with any form of asbestos. Any dumping of asbestos into a landfill might require prior approval and would require the City to deal with environmental concerns that citizens have brought forward. . It might be true that only airborne particles of asbestos pose a threat to the environment, but it has not been shown to many very concerned residents that a hazard doesn't exist when the particles are broken during movement in the water. . Perhaps it is a wiser move by the City Council to treat everyone's concern with respect, stop arguing about whether there is a danger to the environment and instead deal with encapsulating the offensive material. If it decides to remove the material, it should be done under governmental oversight and replaced with less offensive material. COST OF REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE AN ALTERNATE PLAN . Point No. 1 - The historic nature of the walls, despite the amenity argument provided by the City Attorney, shows that it has been used to control flood and storm waters. They now serve a valuable purpose as part of a storm water SYSTEM. . Point No.2 - Dredging the canal is costly and unnecessary - Everyone has learned that after two hurricanes, while roofs were lost and trees uprooted in 100 mph winds, the Collier Creek Canal performed flawlessly. . Point No.3 - Repair only the walls that are in complete disrepair, safely removing the potentially hazardous and offensive materials and replacing them with a more substantial material 9 . Damage to the walls has continued rapidly in the last 4 years with a change to the water level Walls that have lost their soil under the short 4 foot wall because the water level has dropped . Point No.4 - Spend money wisely and stop thinking about the next plan - The City Council should be advised to get the "CREDITS" from another project. . Point No.5 - Get the first donation from our new neighborhood store - HOME DEPOT - Ask for about $100 in solid oak boards that can go across the dam and increase the level of water that supports the walled infrastructure, removing them only during the storms that naturall raise the volume of water Some residents argue that the boards across the dam (see the slots) have been moved and the water level has dropped - Spend $100 at Home Depot and the water level problem can be solved. 10 .. '.l · Point No.6 - Remove the debris I foliage in the canal that is preventing smooth flow and look at the canal as it exists NOW. Here is where the $1.8 OR LESS can be spent when used to repair walls using the safe materials that have been built into the most recent wall work near the canal dam in the past two years. The walls closest to the dam have sustained the least damage perhaps because they are the newest where homes have recently been built - What was used in the last 2 years just might work out to be THE ANSWER for the City of Sebastian . Point No.7 - Imagine what the canal could look like if the walls were repaired and the water level adjusted with sophisticated use of the dam at the end of Collier Creek. See the walls as already containing a volume of water that took on the hurricane season and "won." . Point No.8 - Repair the swales and between-property ditches - put pipes where the ditches have proven to be sources of over-growth - and provide a GPS master plan of water flow into all of the vital canals that make up Sebastian. 11