Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 09 23 Regular C Boat Docks COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM C Consent Informational Public Hearing Regular X /23 September fJ, 2002 Meetdng {2------/~ Mgr. / Attor / Dept. Authorization REQUEST: The Community Development Department requests the City Commission reconsider information about boat docks. ,I PURPOSE: The purpose ofthis agenda item is for the City Commission to reconsider the October . 16, 2000, report prepared by the consulting firm of Breedlove, Dennis and Associates, Inc. and April 22,2002, presentation to the' City Commission regarding consideration of new boat dock regulations. APPLICABLE LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY: The provisions of 163.3167(11), F.S., which states, "Each local government is encouraged to articulate a vision ofthe future physical appearance and qualities of its community as a component of its local comprehensive plan. The vision should be developed through a collaborative planning process with meaningful public participation and shall be adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction. " CONSIDERATIONS: 1. In August 1999, the City Commission authorized the City Manager to engage consultants to review the City codes related to wetlands, conservation areas and docks and prepare amendments to the code if necessary. CDD/August 30. 2002/3:12 PM , ,$eptember 9,2002 REGULAR AGENDA ITEM C Page 2 FINDINGS: .~:," 3. 2. Breedlove, Dennis and Associates, Inc. completed its research and summarized its findings concerning wetlands, conservation areas and boat docks in a workshop on October 16, 2000. 3. On November 13,2000, the City Commission directed the consultant to provide a scope of services for additional services, complete with prices. 4. On February 25,2002, the City Commission requested that staff investigate the status of the research concerning boat docks. 5. On April 22, 2002, the City Commission heard a presentation from Senior Scientist Penny Copel, of Breedlove, Dennis and AssoCiates, Inc., and voted not to approve additional funding or change the existing City Code [pertaining to boat dock regulations] . 6. On August 26,2002, staff was directed to bring this item back to the City Commission for further review. 1. In an October 16, 2000 workshop, Breedlove, Dennis and Associates, Inc. presented a detailed report, which outlined the results of a review of City ordinances related to wetlands, conservation areas, threatened or endangered species, species of special concern and their habitats and boat docks. On November 13, 2000, the City Commission considered Regular Agenda Item "B" to decide ifthe October 16, 2000, report prepared by Breedlove, Dennis and Associates, Inc. was acceptable as presented or if additional work were required. The consensus of the City Commission [at the October 16,2002, meeting] was to direct the consultant to prepare a scope of services complete with prices to develop additional data on boat docks and bring the matter back to the Commission. On April 22, 2002, the City Commission heard the presentation by Breedlove, Dennis and Associates, Inc., and voted 3-2 not to spend additional money to review boat docks and boat dock regulations or to amend the City Code to incorporate boat dock provisions. On June 20, 2002, City Attorney Anthony Garganese opined on the appropriateness of reconsidering its previously approved official action. On August 26,2002, staffwas directed to bring this item back to the City Commission. 2. 4. 5. 6. ST AFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests the City Commission vote whether or not to reconsider data on the status of the Breedlove, Dennis and Associates, Inc. effort in connection with boat docks and approve a scope of services dated March 18,2002 (Attachment B). CDD/September 4, 2002/9:30 AM September 9,2002 REGULAR AGENDA ITEM C Page 3 t' A. B. C. Breedlove, Dennis and Associates, Inc. scope of services City Attorney's June 20,2002, letter Minutes of April 22, 2002, City Commission meeting COMMISSION ACTION: t' CDD/August 30, 2002/3:12 PM '. ATTACHMENT A (c BDA ENVIRON/vl!:NT..\L C00!::'l.'I.T.'\N'I'::, March 19, 2002 File: 99126-20.1 Mr. Charles Carrington City of Winter Springs 1126 East State Road 434 Winter Springs, Florida 32708-2799 Phone: 407-327-5970 Fax: . 407-327-6695 RE: Proposal to Assist the City of Winter Springs Modifications and/or Amendments to Adopted Ordinances for Boat Docks ((-- ..,:., Dear Charles: Pursuant to your request, Breedlove, Dennis & Associates, Inc. (BOA) is providing the following proposal to assist the City of Winter Springs with revising or amending adopted ordinances and to assist with drafting language for new ordinances regarding boat docks'within the city limits. The general scope of our services will include a review of current codes re1ating'to boat docks for both the City of Winter Springs and other municipalities and counties in central Florida. BaSed on that review, a workshop would 'be scheduled with City of Winter Springs personnel and with city commissioners to review possible modifications to existing ordinances and potential, amendments to these ordinances. A public hearing would also be scheduled and the suggested changes presented with public participation and comment. Drafts of the proposed cHanges would be provided for final discussion, modification, and approval. Our services under this contract are not intended to duplicate permitting requirements of other federal, state, and local governments, but to maximize the City of Winter Springs' protection for its natural resources not addressed eisewhere in.' government codes or permitting regulations. We propose the following workscope for our services. '~'.'(:": f: .. \'.~::~ ;'. 1':\ADMIN\PROJECTS\99 I 26\PROPOSAL\CARRINGTON\OOA T.DOC .. " IlllEElll.( )\IE, I lENNIS &. I\SS( lCIJ\TES, IN(:. I kl W. CJ\NTtlN AVEj\;lJE i WINTI:l( 1':\I,f.:.1'1. 1~>'1 I'H(l:\:E ~l17.(;7/.'IiS! / FJ\X .ll'7.(,)7'/l\!S ( (-" C;ll"..' (.... .BDA \ , [NVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Mr. Charles Carrington March 19,2002 Page 2 o Task No.1 - Review of Existing Ordinances We will review the existing City of Winter Springs ordinances related to boat docks and mooring defined by our, previous experience. We will also contact other municipalities and government agencies to obtain model ordinances and local ordinances from which to formulate modifications. These other contacts may include, but not be limited to, the American Planning Association, Urban Land Institute, League of Cities, Seminole County, Orange County, City of Sanford, City of Orlando, and City of Altamonte Springs. Other contacts may be made as directed by the City of Winter Springs. Upon completion of this data collection and review, we will formulate proposed changes to the existing city ordinances and recommend options for '!,mending the adopted codes. o Task No.2 -.Progress Review Workshop A workshop will be scheduled to present recommended options. These options will have been developed based on our review of other ordinances from other municipalities. The goal of this workshop will be to define the ordinances to be modified or amended to provide additional protection for the City of Winter Springs. o Task No.3 - Preparation of Proposed Ordinance Amendments Based on information and comments received during the Progress Review Workshop, a draft of the proposed otdinance amendments will be prepared and submitted to the City of Winter Springs. o Task No. 4 - First Commission Meeting (Public Hearing/First Reading of Ordinance Amendments) We will ~ cobrdinate with the City of Wintei Springs to present recommended modifications of city ordinanc~s during the regularly scheduled public meeting with the City Commissioners. BOA will make a preseniat~b~ and answer question.s during t~is hearing, as neces~ary. Any .necessary re~isions t~ the, propose~ 0~~1I1ance amendments will be mady, and a final draft WIll be submItted to the CIty of Wmter Springs.: . , . . l. I, : . :-:: P;\ADMIN\PROJECTS\99IU,\I'ROI'OSA L\CARRINGTON\!30A T.DOC . ". .' . I .. , (,. ("' .\... ~7~'~;:' .~,::., , . '" \ ',', \, BDA EN\:llt( 1;\!,\'II:NT..\1. t:, )~SULT.-\"TS Mr. Charles Carrington March 19, 2002 Page 3 o Task No.5 - Second Commission Meeting (Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinance) A final public meeting with the City Commissioners wilt be scheduled to approve recommen'ded changes, to the city's ordinances protecting natural resources. We wilt attend this meeting to answer questions and provide a presentation. as necessary. o Task No.6 - Requested Services Work related to tasks above and beyond the scope of services provided herein wilt be conducted on a time and materials (T&M) basis pursuant to your authorization. Cost of Services and Invoicing Dr. W. Michael Dennis an9 Ms. Penny E. Cople will attend the workshop and meetings representing BOA. The 'anticipated costs for each task have been outlined below for your review. However, the actual costs for the completion of each of these tasks may be more or less than the estimated costs provided for each task below. The total contract amount wilt not exceed $6,200. without prior authorization in the event additional meetings or tasks are assigned. Billing will be on a not-to-exceed basis for Task Nos. I through 5 in accordance with the enclosed Schedule of Professional Fees and subject to the attached Temls and Conditions as identified on the foltowing table. Bilting for any additional authorized tasks not included in this proposal wilt be on a T &M basis. We have also provided a box for each step in this process for your approval. If you accept our proposed services, please check those tasks that you wilt need. We will work from a purchase order from the City of Winter Springs, if required. Task No. Description Estimated Costs o Task No. 1 Review of Existing Ordinances $2,500 o Task No.2 Progress Review Workshop $500 o Task No.3 Preparation of Proposed Ordinance Amendments $1,500 o Task No.4 First Commission Meeting (Public Hearing/First Reading of Ordinance $1,000 Amendments) o Task No.5 Second Commission Meeting (Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinance) $1,000 1':\AOMIN\PROJECTS\99 I 26\PROPOSAL\CARIUNGTON\OOA T,DOC . r ( ( . \......,. c.., BDA ENVII~ONMENTr\L CONSULTANTS Mr. Charles Carrington March 19,2002 Page 4 Task No. Description Estimated . , Costs. ,- , o Task No.6 Requested Services T&M Space has been provided below for your acceptance of this proposal and your signature hereon will constitute a contract between us for the work, Please sign both copies and return them to our office. A fully executed contract will be returned for your files Sincerel);' yours, 8~.S Director, Proposals and Contracts Penny E. Cople, B.S. Senior Scientist Accepted by: Charles Carrington City of Winter Springs Ronald W. McLemore City Manager Date I: W. Michael/Dennis, Ph.D. President' ,I Breedlove, Dennis & Associates, Inc. . ':1 Date I, PEC/BAB/tdm Enclosure .1 I':\ADM I N\l'IWJ ECTS\<J9 I 26\I'ROI'OSAL\CAIUUNGTON\OOA T,DOC OIl ". .' , f ( BDA \ \ ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS TERMS AND CONDITIONS I. Other support provided at the request of the Client or representatives of the Client including, but not limited to, team meetings, agency negotiations, public presentations, mitigation design, pennitting assistance, sufficiency responses or additional analyses not mentioned eisewhere in this Proposal will be billed on a time and materials basis according to the attached rate schedule. All requested services must be approved by the Client before additional support can be initiated. (. 2. Unless specified elsewhere in the Proposal, the proposed costs constitute Breedlove, Dennis & Assoc'iates, Inc.'s (BDA) estimate of the charges required to complete . the Project as defined. Final costs for this Project may vary from the estimated costs. For many projects, all activities are often initially not fully definable. As the Project progresses, the facts uncovered may alter the scope of work and consequently the cost of completion. BDA will inform the Client of such situations so that negotiations of change in scope and fees can be accomplished as required. 3. BDA's fees are based on the actual time required by the individuals assigned to the Project task, plus reimbursable expenses. Reimbursable expenses mean the actual expenses incurred directly or indirectly in connection with the Project. Reimbursable expenses include, but are not limited to long distance telephone calls, computer charges, living and travel out-of-town, inter-city travel, reproduction of reports, drawings and documents, and special fees. Client shall compensate the consultant for reimbursable expenses. Individual hourly rates vary according to the degree of responsibility involved and the skill required. BDA will submit our bill for these services monthly. Payment is due upon submission. 4. After January 1,,2003, all hourly and daily rates quoted within this contract may Increase by 5%, at the '('.".'" .' ,. (: . ,~.. O:\M ^ RKETl NG\FEESCH E0\2002.T &CDOC determination of BDA, updn written notice to Client, and may increase by 5% annually thereafter. 5. This Proposal to perform services for this Project shall remain open for acceptance for a period of sixty (60)- days from the date thereof, after which time BDA reserves the right to review, revise or withdraw its Proposal. 6. All inforn1ation, furnished by Client to BDA shall be returned to Client upon the conclusion of the Work unless the same shall have been consumed or merged into the Work. BDA may retain copies of any such information furnished to BDA by Client and BDA shall, in all events, retain full possession and ownership of it's field and Project notes and all other documents or'data'generated',' COhsuirted' or merged into any reports, opinions, or applications required in connection with the Project and the Work. 7. This Contract may be terminated by either Party for reason or for no reason by giving thirty (30) days written notice to the other Party. Said notice shall be sufficient if it is delivered to the Party personally or mailed by certified mail to the Party's mailing address. Upon any termination under this paragraph, BDA will prepare a final invoice following the date of a final termination notice which date shall be the "Effective Date of Termination." Where the method of payment is based on time and materials, the final invoice wi 11 be based on reii'lib'ursem-en(fc;r 'all-serVices"and . expenses associated with the Project up to the Effective Date of Termination. 8. Neither BOA nor Client shall be liable to the other for any damages whatsoever caused by termination of this Contract or failure to perfoml under this Contract, except for services actually performed and costs and commitments actually incurred by BOA under this Contract, prior to the Effective Date of Termination. In no event shall either Party be liable to the other for any other claim of direct, indirect, I IlllEEIII.( lVE. I lION;": I:' ,-;" :\;~I 'I :1:\Tb. 1j\;1;, ... \ II' \X',I :,\NT\ l~ ,WENl:1: WI:-':TEI: 1':\1,10:, 1'1. \eI'" "II< );>':1: -Il'7.(,n.ls...;~ ' 1':\\ .h\'i.(oi7.'i(\'.~ ( BDA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS special, incidental, or consequential damages (including loss of profits) whether based on contract, tort, or another legal theory. 9. The Parties to this Contract agree to make the submission to mediation of any dispute or controversy arising out of this Contract, as set forth herein, an expres~ condition precedent to any legal or equitable action or proceeding of any nature whatsoever. All disputes between the Parties to this Contract arising out of or in connection with this Contract shall be referred for mediation to a mediator who is a member of the Florida Bar in good standing, and who is mutually acceptable to all Parties subject to the dispute. Each Party to all disputes submitted for mediation shall pay an equal share of the costs and fees charged by the mediator. ' 10. The Client acknowledges that it has secured legal rights to the property upon which the proj.ect will be developed. The CHent further acknowledges and agrees that the type of , services to be pefformed by BDA are covered under Florida ( .tatutes 713.03 (Liens for professio.~al services) and that the ;i., . non-payment of fees owed under thIS Agreement may rFsult in a mechanic's lien or other encumbrances being placed on the property upon which the project is/will be located. : 11. This Contract shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida, and the Parties expressly agree that any mediation proceeding, or any action at law or suit in equity, shall be instituted' and maintained only ~n the Courts of Orange County, Flolrida, and each Party Jaives the right to change o(venue. :It is agreed by and between the Parties that this agreement'was executed in the State of Florida, United States of Ametica. In the event BO~ retains legal counsel to enforce any of the provisions of thi~ agreement, the Client agrees to pay all reasonable attorneys fees and any additional attorney' fees pursuing collection of this judgement. I I I 12. This agreem'ent, and any specified attachment, or exhibits attached constitute the entire agreement bet\\ieen , ..if' . O:\M^ RKETI NG\FEESCH ED\2002- T &c.ooc .. '\~..,. BOA and Clicnt and all promises, representations, understandings, and agreements with the respect to the subject matter hereof and inducements to thc making of this agreement relied upon by either Party have been expressed herein, and may not be altered, amended, or modified unless in writing executed by the Parties hereto, 13. Neither this agreement nor any interes,t herein may be assigned by the Client without BOA's prior written consent. No Party shall be liable for 'delay in the performance hereunder do to causes beyond their control, including, but not limited to, acts of God, fire strikes, acts of war, or the intervention of governmental authority, but any such failure shall be remedied as soon as reasonably possible: 14. Each Party executes this agreement as an independent contractor and nothing herein shall be construed to form a joint venture, partnership, or any similar form of association. 15. In the event of default by Client in the payment of any sum to BDA when due, or in the performance of any of Client's obligations under this agreement, BOA shall have the right to terminate this agreement, until such time as the default may be cured. Client shall reimburse BOA for all costs and expenses to enforce collection of any monies from Client. 2 .. c. ATTACHMENT B .> BROWN, WARD, SALZMAN & WEISS, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Ushcr L. Brown · Suzannc 0' Agrcsta Anthony A. GargancscD Gary S, Salzmano John H. Ward · Jeffrey S. Weiss Debra S. Babb Jeffrey P Buak Alfred Truesdell Joseph E. Blitch Scott D. Danahy Theodore F. Greene, 1lI Kristine R, Kutz Brett A. Marlowe Todd K. Norman Cheyenne R. Young Two Landmark Center 225 East Robinson Street, Suite 660 Post Office Box 2873 Orlando, FL 32802-2873 (407) 425-9566 (407) 425-9596 FAX EmaiI: agarganese@orlandolaw.net Website: www.orlandolaw.net Cocoa: 866-425-9566 · Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer oBoard Certified Business Litigation Lawyer DBoard Certified City, County & Local Government Law June 20, 2002 The Honorable Paul P. Partyka and Members of the City Commission City of Winter Springs 1126 East S. R 434 Winter'Springs, FL 32708 RE: Boat Docks Dear Mayor and Members of the City Commission: At the June 10; -2002 City Commissioff'Ineeting, Deputy Mayor Gennell sought to have the City Commission change its current position on whether to adopt additional boat dock regulations. As a result, Parliamentary Rules were invoked. I advised the City Commission that under certain circumstances the Commission always has a right to reconsider a previous official action and, if desired, to change its official position on an issue. In general, this is done by either a Motion to Reconsider or a Motion to Rescind in accordance with Robert's Rules. These two rules are often used interchangeably, but they should not be. They are two very different motions. For example, a Motion to Reconsider can only be made by a Commissioner who voted on the "prevailing side." By comparison, any Commissioner, regardless of which side they voted, can make a Motion to Rescind a previous vote. Accordingly, my interpretation of Robert's Rules would permit any Commissioner to make a Motion to Rescind the Commission's April 22, 2002 decision not to pursue additional boat dock regulations, The Honorable Paul P. Partyka and Members of the City Commission June 20, 2002 Page 2 Several key aspects of a Motion to Reconsider should be emphasized: 1. It can only be made on the day the vote to be reconsidered was taken, or on the next succeeding day. 2. It must be made by a member who voted on the prevailing side. 3. Any member may second it and a majority vote is required. ) 4. It cannot be applied: a. When the same result may be attained by some other parliamentary motion; b. When the vote has been partially executed; c. When an affirmative vote to contract has been taken and the other party to the contract has been notified; d. On a Motion to Reconsider; e. When something has been done as a result of the vote that the Commission cannot undo. 5. The effect of adopting this motion is to place before the Commission the original question in the exact position it occupied before it was voted upon. On the other hand, a Motion to Rescind has the following key aspects: I. It is amain motion that can be introduced only when there is nothing else before the Commission. 2. It may be made by any member and is debatable. 3. Any vote taken by the Commission may be rescinded by a majority vote, provided notice of the motion has been given at the previous meeting or in the agenda for the current meeting. A two-thirds vote, or a majority vote of the entire Commission is require to rescind a vote without notice. 4. Votes cannot be rescinded after something has been done as a result of that vote that the Commission cannot undo; or when the vote was to approve a contract and the other party has been informed of the vote; or where a resignation or expulsion from office has been acted on, and such person was present or officially notified, Nevertheless, for the reasons discussed above, if the Commission desires to take another look at regulating boat docks, Robert's Rules would require the Commission to rescind the April 22, 2002 vote. The Honorable Paul p, Partyka and Members of the City Commission June 20, 2002 Page 3 I will be happy to answer any questions regarding this letter at the Commission's June 24, 2002 meeting. AAG:jf cc: Ronald W. McLemore, City Manager Anthony A. Garganese City Attorney , ATTACHMENT C " l .... pY" ~ -;J' CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 22, 2002 PAGE 8 OF 30 VOTE: COMMISSIONER McLEOD: AYE COMMISSIONER MILLER: NAY COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: AYE COMMISSIONER BLAKE: NAY MAYOR PARTYKA: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Further discussion ensued on the definition of dumpsters. Manager McLemore added, "We just need to add the words 'Bulk container. ", Commissioner Blake stated, "I don't think it adequately addresses commercial areas - I agree with Commissioner Miller that the problem - we ought to handle it the right way and I would rather that we not water it down - and any of these special circumstances we just have to work on them." j VI. REGULAR REGULAR A. Community Development Department Requests The City Commission Receive Information About Boat Docks. (This Agenda Item Was Previously Listed On The March 25, 2002 Regular Meeting Agenda And The April 2, 2002 Special Meeting Agenda As Regular Agenda Item "K. " Mr. Charles Carrington, Community Development Department Director introduced this 4' Agenda Item and introduced Ms. Penny Cope!. ;. ~7' ;~ Ms. Penny Copel, Senior Scientist, Breedlove, Dennis & Associates, Inc., 330 West Canton Avenue, Winter Park, Florida: addressed the Commission regarding this topic. Discussion. Tape I/Side 8 Commissioner Miller suggested, "That this City Commission this evening very seriously consider, I know I would support it tonight, the passage of a moratorium on boat docks until such time that we are able come to grips with what the impact of this is going to be on the lake, because the number of boat docks which have already been built is not significant, but if we don't come to some very strong decision like this to protect the lake, protect what is our only natural asset - I think we are going to be in deep trouble because once they start, you can't recover it. So that would be my suggestion - I would ask this Commission to consider passing a moratorium this evening on all boat docks that have ,J not been approved - say at the end of this month." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 22,2002 PAGE 9 OF 30 Commissioner Martinez recommended that "At this time, provide the City with an Ordinance that would be clear and would make sure that there is enough meat in it to prevent further damaging of Lake Jesup by future property owners that want to build docks there. What I am suggesting - I am not requesting or supporting a moratorium, I don't think we could do that legally, but I am suggesting that the City Attorney draft an Ordinance and bring it back to us for consideration." Discussion followed on what the City Commission should do. Commissioner Blake said, "I am having some difficulty grasping the value of what we are trying to do because given the size of the lake and the very few areas available for any development at all along the lake, I don't see a large pressure and haven't to this date seen a lot of pressure for boat dock construction out there." Manager McLemore added, "I thought when we had this discussion before that we talked J about the State's permitting involved - and the fact of developing criteria and having an _ entity to be able to review that scientifically was far beyond our means and the Commission basically agreed not to go forward." Discussion ensued on permitting; the side setbacks of some lots In the Parkstone subdivision; and Riparian Rights. "I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DO NOT APPROVE ITEM 'A' FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING NOR DO WE CHANGE ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN OUR PRESENT CODE." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER McLEOD. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BLAKE. DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ STATED, "WE NEED SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO TRY AND HELP THE ST ATE AND EVERYBODY ELSE PRESERVE THE STATE OF THE LAKE, ONCE THEY SPEND THE KINDS OF MONEY THEY ARE LOOKING TO INVEST INTO THE CLEANING UP OF LAKE .JESUP." MANAGER McLEMORE ADDED, "THE NEW INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE TODAY THAT WE PROBABLY DIDN'T HAVE IN THAT DISCUSSION WHEN WE LOOKED AT THIS BEFORE WAS THAT THERE APPARENTLY IS GOING TO BE A REAL EFFORT AT THIS POINT IN TIME TO CLEAN THE LAKE UP AND WE MIGHT GIVE SOME CONSIDERATION TO ANOTHER LOOK AT THIS." Commissioner Martinez said, "Point of Order" and commented for the record about what he had just stated. ': .-," / CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 22, 2002 PAGE 10 OF 30 VOTE: COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: NAY COMMISSIONER McLEOD: AYE COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE COMMISSIONER MILLER: NAY MAYOR PARTYKA: AYE MOTION CARRIED. REGULAR B. Utility Department Presenting Alternatives For Implementation Of The Utility/Stormwater Rate Study. Mr. Jack Burgiel, Public Resources Management Group, Inc., 225 South Swoope Avenue, Maitland, Florida: addressed the Commission. Discussion. Tape 2/Side A Further discussion. Commissioner Blake inquired if "Going from - 'Option l' to 'Option 2,' the usage rates stays the same?" Mr. Burgiel agreed and said, "Yes." Commissioner Blake then said, "But your going from 'Option l' to 'Option 2' on your base charges are different for the two (2) and I am wondering why the flat rate goes up forty cents ($.40) and the metered rate would go up fifty-five ($.55) cents?" Commissioner Blake then asked, "Why would you have a flat rate of $8.40 if you are going to have meters?" Mr. Burgiel agreed and stated, "You are correct - it shouldn't be there, my error." Furthermore, Commissioner Blake stated, "The forty cents ($.40), the fifty-five ($.55), mathematically you should either both be forty (40) or both fifty-five (55), but not mixed i_if you have the same number of customers and if the difference between is installing the meters or covering the costs of the meters and it's a customer charge, it is forty cents ($.40), times the number of customers of fifty-five (55), times the number of customers - it should be the same number." Commissioner Blake then explained, "That math is going to be the same for both 'Option l' and 'Option 2' and that is where your eight dollars ($8.00) comes from - the difference is the forty cents ($.40). Ifwe have a fixed base charge or the fifty-five (55), if we have a meter charge, those two (2) numbers I am arguing should be the same. Which one should they be?" Mr. Burgiel responded, "It should be the forty cents ($.40)." Commissioner Blake added, "So it should be three dollars and forty cents ($3.40) plus the variable charge?" Mr. Burgiel agreed and said, "Yes - you are correct."