Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021 09 20 City Commission Special Meeting Minutes CITY COMMISSION ' ,T59 SPECIAL MEETING ts *' MINUTES MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2021 AT 6:30 PM CITY HALL- COMMISSION CHAMBERS 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434, WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA CALL TO ORDER Mayor Kevin McCann called the Special Meeting of Monday, September 20, 2021 of the City Commission to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of the Municipal Building (City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida 32708). Roll Call: Mayor Kevin McCann, present Deputy Mayor Ted Johnson, present Commissioner Matt Benton, present Commissioner Kevin Cannon, present Commissioner TiAnna Hale, present Commissioner Rob Elliott, present City Manager Shawn Boyle, present City Attorney Anthony A. Garganese, present City Clerk Christian Gowan, present *AGENDA NOTE* A FULL TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS ATTACHED TO THE END OF THESE MINUTES. Mayor McCann outlined proposed rules of procedure for the proceedings. "MOTION TO ADOPT PROCEDURES AS OUTLINED BY THE MAYOR." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CANNON. SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR JOHNSON. DISCUSSION. VOTE: BENTON (AYE); CANNON (AYE); JOHNSON (AYE); HALE (AYE); ELLIOTT (AYE) MOTION CARRIED 5-0. AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS 100.) Not Used INFORMATIONAL AGENDA 200.) Not Used CONSENT AGENDA 300.) Not Used PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA 400.) Not Used REGULAR AGENDA 500) Pursuant to Resolution No. 2021-09 and Section 4.11 of the City Charter, City Commission Investigation Proceeding Related to the City's Existing Consumptive Use Permits Issued by St. Johns River Water Management District and the Multi-Phase Expansion of the City's Reclaimed Augmentation Plant at Lake Jesup and Related Distribution System. Mr. Marc Jones, Esquire was present representing the following subpoenaed individuals: • Mr. Kip Lockuff, Former Public Works and Utilities Director (not present) • Former Commissioner Rick Brown (not present) • Former Commissioner Ken Greenberg (not present) • Former Commissioner Jean Hovey (not present) • Former Commissioner Joanne Krebs (not present) • Former Mayor Charles Lacey (not present) • Former Commissioner Cade Resnick (not present) Mr. Darren Elkind, Esquire was present representing the following subpoenaed individuals: • Mr. Brian Fields, Former Community Development Director (present) • Mr. Kevin Smith, Former City Manager (present) Mr. Smith and Mr. Fields were sworn in by the City Clerk and provided testimony to the Commission. "MOTION TO APPROVE TAKING NO ACTION ON THE SEPTEMBER 20, 2021 LETTER SUBMITTED BY MR. JONES, AND TO REVISIT THIS WHEN THE NEXT SET OF WITNESSES COME IN, AND TAKE ACTION AT THAT TIME." MOTION BY COMMISSIONERCANNON. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HALE. DISCUSSION. VOTE: BENTON (AYE); CANNON (AYE); JOHNSON (AYE); HALE (AYE); ELLIOTT (AYE) MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Discussion followed on next steps and Attorney Garganese agreed to communicate with CPH's representatives to set up a mutually agreeable time for their testimony to be heard. PUBLIC INPUT Mr. Paul Partyka, 404 Park Lake Drive, Winter Springs wondered why the process was initiated this way, thought a workshop would have been more effective and thought the subpoenas should be retracted. Mr. Geoff Kendrick, 7784 Trotwood Blvd, Winter Springs reiterated Mayor Partyka's comments, thought the Commission was abusing its power, and suggested hiring an independent agency to review. Mr. Kendrick also asked why Commissioner Cannon was not subpoenaed. Ms. Gina Shafer, Winter Springs Village, Winter Springs thanked the Commission for addressing water problems and noted appreciation for holding these discussions in the sunshine. Ms Shafer also thought public input should have been heard in the beginning. Mr. Art Gallo, 799 Nandina Terrace, Winter Springs spoke about sunshine requirements and noted he would reserve judgments on if subpoenas were right or wrong. Encouraged people to review everything Mr. Ron Ligthart, 7036 Winding Waters Circle, Winter Springs expressed disappointment with Commission, thought the proceedings were a hostile process, thought Kip Lockuff was very smart and qualified and spoke on the importance of appreciating technical expertise. Discussion followed on the importance of holding these conversations in the sunshine and the projects currently underwayto address the issues being discussed. ADJOURNMENT Mayor McCann adjourned the meeting at 9:44 PM. RESPEC,iF LLYSUBMITTED: q-9•''• •••...': CHRISTIAN GOWAN CITY CLERK APPROVED: sEu�t�o� MAYOR KEVIN McCANN w `✓ 2021 City Commission Regular Meeting. NOTE: These Minutes were approved at the�, y g g The following is a transcript prepared by a Court Reporter for the Monday, September 20, 2021 City Commission Special Meeting 1 1 CITY COMMISSION MEETING 2 SPECIAL MEETING 3 4 5 REGULAR AGENDA ITEM NO. 500 6 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 7 INVESTIGATION PURSUANT TO CITY CHARTER 8 SECTION 4.11 AND RESOLUTION 2021-09 9 / 10 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 11 12 DATE TAKEN: MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2021 13 TIME: 6:29 P.M. -8:16 P.M. 14 PLACE: CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS-CITY HALL 15 1126 East State Road 434 16 Winter Springs, Florida 32708 17 18 REPORTER: CATHERINE M. MORROW 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 THE MAYOR: Evening everyone. I would like 2 to call the September 20, 2021, city commission 3 meeting to order. Christian, conduct the role. 4 CITY CLERK: Commissioner Benton? 5 COMMISSIONER BENTON: Here. 6 CITY CLERK: Deputy Mayor Johnson? 7 DEPUTY MAYOR: Here. 8 CITY CLERK: Commission Cannon? 9 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Here. 10 CITY CLERK: Commissioner Hale? 11 COMMISSIONER HALE: Here. 12 THE CLERK: Commissioner Elliott? 13 COMMISSIONER ELLIOTT: Here. 14 THE CLERK: Mayor McCann? 15 THE MAYOR: Here. 16 THE CLERK: Mr. Garganese? 17 CITY ATTORNEY: Here. 18 THE CLERK: Thank you. If we may stand? 19 (A prayer was made by the Deputy Mayor.) 20 THE MAYOR: All right, folks. This is a 21 special meeting of the city commission, which is 22 being held to conduct one specific item of 23 business. On July 12, 2021,the city commission 24 adopted resolution number 2021-09 invoking its 25 investigatory powers under section 4.11 of the city 3 1 charter to initiate and conduct a formal 2 investigation into certain business affairs of the 3 city related to the city's consumptive use water 4 permits and Lake Jesup reclaimed water augmentation 5 plan. 6 As a mayor, it is my responsibility to preside 7 over these proceedings at the outset because this 8 is something that, to my knowledge, the city 9 commission has not previously done before. I am 10 going to lay out some supplemental ground rules for 11 tonight's proceeding, after seeking advice from 12 counsel, because I want this evening, most 13 importantly, to be conducted in a fair, clear, and 14 orderly manner. 15 Having said that, there are particular ground 16 rules. 17 First, as it relates to decorum,the normal 18 city commission meeting rules of decorum and 19 professionalism will apply to this proceeding as 20 applicable and as expected. 21 Number two, as it relates to the city charter, 22 this proceeding is being conducted under 4.11 as 23 stated of the city charter. For the record that 24 section states, quote, the commission may make 25 investigations into the affairs of the city and the 4 1 conduct of any city office or agency for the 2 purpose -- may subpoena witnesses, may administer 3 oaths, take testimony and require the production of 4 evidence. Any person who fails or refuses to obey 5 a lawful order issued in exercise of these powers 6 by the commission shall be guilty of a misdemeanor 7 and punishable by a fine of not more than $500 or 8 by imprisonment for not more than 60 days or both, 9 unquote. 10 In other words, this investigation is being 11 conducted solely at the direction of the city 12 commission and no one else. Again, my role as 13 mayor is to preside over these proceedings while I 14 ask questions and seek clarification during these 15 proceedings. My primary purpose is to keep the 16 proceeding moving in a fair, clear, and orderly 17 manner. 18 Number three, as it relates to the scope of 19 the investigation, to summarize the resolution 20 adopted by the city commission, the commission sets 21 forth some extraordinary challenges the city has 22 recently faced regarding potable and reclaimed 23 water systems. 24 The scope of the investigation in tonight's 25 proceedings are related to the provision for 5 1 potable and reclaimed water and limited only to the 2 following three matters of interest. 3 The three matters of interest that we are 4 addressing this evening are first, to identify and 5 explain the factual projections, supporting data, 6 and analysis that were prepared by the city related 7 to obtaining the city's current two consumptive use 8 permits from St.Johns water management district, 9 one for ground water and potable use; that's permit 10 number 8238, and permit number two, or the second 11 permit, for surface water and for irrigation. That 12 is permit number 105763. 13 Second, is to identify--second purpose here 14 is to identify and explain the factual history 15 behind the design, permitting, construction, 16 operation, and management of the Lake Jesup 17 Reclaimed Water Augmentation Plant as well as the 18 current condition and feasibility of using that 19 plant for future use. 20 And the third purpose is to identify and 21 explain the factual history behind the reasons why 22 the city didn't complete the multiphase expansion 23 of the city's reclaimed distribution facilities as 24 identified in the study prepared by CPH engineers, 25 dated September 20, 2005. Ironically, that makes 6 1 it exactly 16 years ago today. 2 The fourth guiding principal this evening-- 3 the purpose of this meeting is to receive testimony 4 from the witnesses subpoenaed by the city 5 commission. The questioning by the city 6 commission, and the testimony provided by the 7 witnesses shall be specifically limited to the 8 scope of the investigation expressed by the 9 resolution,which I just summarized. 10 In other words, questions and testimony is 11 required to be germane and relevant to the scope of 12 the investigation. Outside opinions or other input 13 is not welcome. We are after facts, and I will 14 vigorously defend that. We will stay on topic from 15 all involved in the room. 16 The fifth, testimony under oath pursuant to 17 section 4.11 of the city charter. Witnesses who 18 testify to the matter of facts at tonight's 19 proceedings will give such testimony under oath or 20 affirmation. The city clerk will swear in 21 witnesses. 22 Sixth, as to transcript of testimony, court 23 reporter services were obtained by the city for 24 tonight's proceedings to make an accurate record of 25 the proceeding. All witnesses and their counsel at 7 1 their expense may obtain the transcript of the 2 proceedings through the city clerk's office. 3 Number seven, important right to counsel. 4 During this proceeding, everyone should understand 5 that it is a fundamental principal of law that 6 every witness has a right to counsel. The 7 participation of counsel during the course of the 8 hearing and while the witness is testifying shall 9 be limited to advising said witness as to his or 10 her legal rights. 11 However, counsel may not state objections -- 12 excuse me--counsel may state objections on behalf 13 of his or her client, but counsel will not 14 otherwise be permitted to engage in argument with 15 the city commission. Advise your client you are 16 here for them, not us. 17 Number eight, privilege against self 18 incrimination. During the questioning of any 19 witness, everyone should understand that. 20 It is a fundamental principal of law that 21 every witness may invoke his or her right against 22 self incrimination as provided by law. 23 Nine, enforcement. Pursuant to section 4.11 24 of the city charter, the city commission reserves 25 the right that any subpoenaed witness who has not 8 1 complied with the subpoena, he or she refuses to be 2 sworn or to testify or answer proper questions by 3 the city commission and any of its members through 4 the scope of investigation, in such case, any 5 decision by the city commission to enforce the 6 subpoena against any witness may be taken up at a 7 later date, if it is deemed necessary by the city 8 commission. 9 Ten, questioning witnesses. Each of the five 10 members of the city commission will be afforded an 11 opportunity to question each witness when the 12 witness is sworn and ready to testify and will call 13 on each commissioner who will question the witness 14 one at a time. 15 Please do not interrupt another commissioner 16 when it is their turn to ask questions. For the 17 sake of time please try to refrain from asking 18 repetitive questions that have already been 19 answered. Once each commissioner has had an 20 opportunity to question the witness, I will ask the 21 city commission whether any of its members has any 22 additional followup questions until the questioning 23 has been concluded. 24 When the witness is finished responding to the 25 questions,the witness is excused from the 9 1 proceeding. Please remember we must keep this 2 proceeding moving. Questions will be, again, 3 germane and relevant to the scope of the 4 investigation. Commissioners will refrain from 5 being argumentive with any of the witnesses and 6 their counsel. 7 Number eleven, all important public input. 8 Respect the time of the witnesses and their counsel 9 here this evening. We will not have public input 10 until all the witnesses have had the opportunity to 11 testify. We will proceed directly to call 12 witnesses. 13 Public input will occur at the end of the 14 testimony, if the commission determines that time 15 still allows. I suspect we will make that time. 16 Number twelve, and in closing here, order of 17 witnesses. Eleven witnesses were issued subpoenas 18 and all witnesses were served by process server 19 except for former Commissioner Brown. 20 Despite numerous attempts, the process server 21 was unable to serve the subpoena upon Mr. Brown. 22 Mr. Brown will be rescheduled at a later date and a 23 new subpoena issued to Mr. Brown. In furtherance 24 of the previous direction of the city commission, 25 copies of the certificate of service have been 10 1 provided to the city clerk and are entered into the 2 record. 3 CPH Engineering, witnesses David Gierach and 4 Terry Zaudtke, are represented by Attorney Frank 5 Hamner. Mr. Hamner provided a letter to the city 6 attorney, dated September 15th of this year. And 7 due to a previous client matter out of town, 8 Mr. Hamner was not able to make tonight's 9 proceeding, and he requested that his clients' 10 testimony be rescheduled so he can attend the 11 proceedings. 12 Therefore,the testimony of David Gierach and 13 Terry Zaudtke will be rescheduled to a later date. 14 As for the remaining witnesses that have been 15 served, we will proceed with the witnesses in the 16 following order. First will be Mr. Kip Lockuff, 17 former public works and utilities director. Second 18 will be Mr. Kevin Smith,the former city manager. 19 Third,will be Mr. Brian Fields,former community 20 development director, followed by Mr. Charles 21 Lacey, the former mayor; Mr. Ken Greenberg, former 22 commissioner; Mrs.Jean Hovey, former commissioner; 23 Mr.Joanne Krebs, former commissioner; Mr. Cade 24 Resnick, former commissioner. 25 1 am requesting consensus of the city 11 1 commission as to the procedures I outlined, 2 therefore, unless there are any objections by the 3 city commission, I would like to call Mr. Kip 4 Lockuff to appear and be sworn to testify. 5 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Mayor, I think in 6 fairness to every witness, they should have the 7 opportunity to be cross examined by their attorney, 8 which will provide any additional information after 9 we finish questioning the witnesses. 10 THE MAYOR: I understand the sense of 11 fairness. I am very concerned about time 12 management, and I am also concerned about deviating 13 away from facts, having folks come--we are simply 14 here to gather facts. We are not here to hear 15 speeches,whether it be from this dais, from an 16 attorney, or from someone putting on a show. 17 1 am very concerned about the people 18 intentionally or unintentionally eating up time so 19 that this entire proceeding is basically 20 ineffective. Because we can have one person sit 21 here and tie up the entire proceeding and stop any 22 valuable work from being done. 23 1 would be willing to do that as long as there 24 are limitations. I will use this gavel. If the 25 questioning or answers are not pertinent to the 12 1 facts, I will interrupt you. We will not be going 2 on long tirades for any other motivation,whether 3 it be motivation to stop time, motivation to 4 posture, motivation to earn attorney's fees, 5 whatever that is. We will keep it moving forward. 6 1 will be very aggressive. I suspect at the 7 end of the evening I may not have friends. I may 8 irritate folks on both sides of this microphone. 9 We have got to keep this moving forward. 10 COMMISSIONER CANNON: My concern is the rule 11 of completeness and fairness to a witness, so they 12 at least are given an opportunity, if they or their 13 attorney feel as though there was an additional 14 fact or something presented, and we haven't the 15 most accurate picture. 16 1 don't know if that will or will not arise, 17 but I do not want to close that door by the 18 procedures we are adopting now. 19 THE MAYOR: I believe that sounds reasonable. 20 1 am willing to afford that as long as things move 21 along. Again, I will be very liberal with the use 22 of a gavel and interruptions. And I expect all in 23 attendance to abide by those basic rules. 24 COMMISSIONER CANNON: I make a motion that we 25 adopt the procedures as set forth by the Mayor. 13 1 THE MAYOR: The motion is made by Commissioner 2 Cannon and seconded by Deputy Mayor Ted Johnson. 3 Christian? 4 THE CLERK: Commissioner Benton? 5 COMMISSIONER BENTON: Aye. 6 THE CLERK: Commissioner Cannon? 7 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Aye. 8 THE CLERK: Deputy Mayor Johnson? 9 DEPUTY MAYOR: Aye. 10 THE CLERK: Commissioner Hale? 11 COMMISSIONER HALE: Aye. 12 THE CLERK: Commissioner Elliot? 13 COMMISSIONER ELLIOTT: Aye. 14 THE CLERK: Mr. Mayor? 15 THE MAYOR: Aye. 16 THE CLERK: Thank you. 17 THE MAYOR: Mr. Kip Lockuff, former public 18 works and utilities director. If Christian will -- 19 MR.JONES: I am not Mr. Lockuff. My name is 20 Mark Jones. I am an attorney representing a number 21 of individuals. 22 MR. MAYOR: I'm going to let you have your 23 time tonight, I promise you. 24 MR.JONES: I represent a number of 25 individuals here tonight: Mr. Lockuff, former 14 1 public works and utilities director; former Mayor 2 Charles Lacey; former commissioner Rick Brown, 3 former commissioner Ken Greenberg; former 4 commissioner Jean Hovey; former commissioner Joanne 5 Krebs; and former commissioner Cade Resnick. 6 1 have a prepared statement that covers all of 7 my clients as to why they are not going to be in 8 attendance tonight. I want to make sure that makes 9 its way into the record. So if it is okay, I am 10 going to approach the clerk to put that into the 11 record. 12 The reason they are not hear today needs to be 13 in the record, so we need to put it into the 14 record. 15 THE MAYOR: And I would like to remind 16 everyone, again, we are here simply to ask 17 questions on facts. That is all we are here for. 18 MR.JONES: I appreciate that. There is a 19 letter in the record explaining why CPH is not 20 here. I am going to put in the record why my 21 clients aren't here. 22 1 have a copy for every commissioner. I would 23 like to read it into the record. If the Mayor is 24 telling me I am not going to be given that 25 opportunity, I'll sit down. 15 1 THE MAYOR: That looks to be a very thick 2 document. 3 MR.JONES: Let me continue. This is a 4 statement of why my clients are not appearing. In 5 addition, it is a written response from 6 Mr. Lockuff. 7 Through a public records request we were able 8 to obtain questions that were proposed to be asked. 9 He answered those questions in written form for the 10 commission. There is a written response in this 11 packet. This is not just me doing a drive-by in 12 front of the commission. 13 THE MAYOR: You can submit. At that point you 14 are not under subpoena. Your clients are under 15 subpoena. It is duly noted that those individuals 16 are not present; that their attorney is here. You 17 can leave that for the record. 18 COMMISSIONER CANNON: I know I would like a 19 copy, for the record. 20 MR.JONES: May I approach? 21 THE MAYOR: Yes,thank you. 22 COMMISSIONER CANNON - I do have one question, 23 Mayor. The city attorney may want to ask this 24 question. Mr.Jones has instructed all of his 25 clients not to appear today and to honor the 16 1 subpoena. 2 MR.JONES: I believe Mr. Cannon is aware of 3 the attorney-client privilege in that matter. 1 4 advised my client not to show up today. 5 COMMISSIONER CANNON: That is all I want to 6 know. I want to reiterate what the mayor said. My 7 desire in these proceedings is to find out what 8 happened, why it happened, and if we can prevent it 9 from happening again. 10 THE MAYOR: I am not looking to point fingers, 11 blame or anything like that. It's just that we 12 have got a big chunk of change spent on a facility 13 that is taxpayer dollars. I am really concerned 14 why that happened. Under my watch, I just don't 15 want it to happen again. That was the purpose of 16 my line of questioning. 17 Okay. Mr. Kevin Smith, the former city 18 manager, if you would please come forward? 19 MR. ELKIND: Mr. Mayor, if I may have a 20 moment, briefly? My name is Darren Elkind. My 21 professional address is 142 East New York Avenue. 22 I represent both Mr. Smith and Brian Fields. 23 They are here in accordance with the subpoena 24 with which they were served. I am not going to 25 make any speeches. I just want to make it very 17 1 clear for you. I sent a letter, I am sure you all 2 have it,with our concerns over the nature of these 3 proceedings, which are very unusual based on 4 25 years of experience and representing the local 5 government. 6 For that reason, they are the consummate 7 professionals. They want you to have a clear 8 understanding of the questions or the issues about 9 which you have questions. They have prepared -- I 10 was able to receive written questions today. 11 They have quickly put aside their other work 12 duties today to get detailed answers to the 13 questions. I will tell you Mr. Smith has a lot 14 more information than Mr. Fields does in regard to 15 questions received. 16 THE MAYOR: Stay on topic. 17 THE WITNESS: What we will do, on my advice, 18 is we have those written answers. I have extra 19 copies for everybody. We will put it in the 20 record, and they will be happy to take an oath and 21 affirm these answers are true and correct,to the 22 best of their knowledge. 23 We will give them to you for the record. 24 We'll give you a moment or two to read them. If 25 you have additional questions,they will be happy 18 1 to respond to those. 2 THE MAYOR: It is your position you would like 3 to read the questions,then your clients will take 4 followup questions? 5 MR. ELKIND: Yes. When collegial bodies take 6 part in investigations they are usually in 7 agreement on the manner in which questions are 8 enforced. 9 These folks walked down here to city hall. 10 Somebody called them and said hey,we have 11 questions. We want to know about these things. So 12 I have some grave concerns, maybe they will not 13 come to fruition and maybe my concerns will be for 14 not. 15 That is the way I have instructed them. And 16 they will comply with the terms of the subpoena and 17 provide that testimony in writing. 18 THE MAYOR: It is my understanding, and I will 19 look to the city attorney, in response to your 20 email, that your clients were subpoenaed to come 21 and answer questions and that in nowhere did it say 22 that other than you asked as a courtesy you be 23 provided questions in advance,that you would be 24 actually answering those questions;that we would 25 have the opportunity to have them simply-- now if 19 1 they want to read those questions, and if they want 2 to read their answers from the questions that we 3 gave them, and they may want to read what they 4 wrote, I think that may be appropriate. 5 MR. ELKIND: I think that is fine. The point 6 I will make clear, and I will instruct my clients 7 not to answer verbal questions from the dais. That 8 is just the rule. We are here -- let me just 9 answer now--we are here to answer questions and 10 provide you with information. 11 I will point out that nobody else is here 12 other than my two clients. They are professionals. 13 They are here to provide information. I don't want 14 to digress, Mayor. It is unheard of to have an 15 investigation and serve former employees with a 16 subpoena to ask them about the work they did in 17 your employ. 18 THE MAYOR: I would argue that although that 19 is, in fact,very unique and very rare, it is also 20 very rare that a municipality accepts federal and 21 state and taxpayer funds, to the tune of$3.5 22 million dollars, and we have no idea what has 23 happened. 24 At the same time--and that is, again,we are 25 sticking with the three points that we were 20 1 attempting to answer. 2 1 respect these two gentleman, I do. They 3 worked for the city for many, many years and 4 provided the city great service in many, many ways. 5 1 simply--again, these commissioners have voted 6 and asked to be able to ask questions. I would ask 7 Mr. Garganese,that does not,to me, appear to 8 follow the subpoena as it is written and the 9 investigation as the commissioners have voted for. 10 And so in my role as presiding over this 11 does--this doesn't appear to me to meet the 12 order. 13 CITY ATTORNEY: The city charter authorizes 14 the city commissioner to conduct investigations and 15 subpoenas. In furtherance of that subpoena, the 16 charter doesn't limit it just to written questions, 17 written answers. There is no limitation on the 18 subpoena. 19 The commission issued the subpoena to testify. 20 The clients are here. I am not sure if they will 21 testify other than to provide answers,written 22 answers to written questions that were preliminary 23 questions that were provided by some of the 24 commissioners in advance of this meeting. 25 I don't know if they will answer questions. 21 1 But I am hearing, at least, their witnesses will 2 come in and be sworn. They will be able to 3 regurgitate questions they were provided in advance 4 of this meeting and provide a response verbally to 5 those questions. Whether they go any further, 1 6 guess, it is up to Mr. Elkind's advice to his 7 client. 8 The subpoena powers of the commission do not 9 limit the city commissions subpoena powers to 10 providing written questions and to getting written 11 answers. 12 MR. MAYOR: Thank you. I appreciate that. 13 MR. ELKIND: May I make a suggestion? 14 THE MAYOR: Yeah. 15 MR. ELKIND: As you pointed out,your time is 16 valuable. Their time is valuable. If I may 17 suggest? They really are here to answer questions. 18 We are concerned when you say we took$3.5 million 19 in loans. 20 Again, we don't know what happened. We are 21 concerned when somebody says something like that. 22 So here is what we are willing to do. They will 23 read the question or I can read the question. And 24 they will be happy to read their answers to you. 25 If any of you have any additional questions 22 1 once we get to that, then by all means jot them 2 down. They are here to provide answers. From a 3 timing perspective, if you can't get to it tonight 4 or don't want to, these gentleman will be happy to 5 provide you answers, provide that information to 6 you in the future. 7 The other folks who didn't show up tonight 8 apparently are going to do it in the future. So 9 why don't we move it along. 10 THE MAYOR: We are in agreement to start with. 11 For clarification, I have never and did not 12 insinuate nor would ever accuse these two gentleman 13 who served our city of taking that money in any 14 way. I did not say that, and I want to make sure 15 it is on the record that I am not accusing these 16 two professionals of taking money. 17 All we are simply trying to do is find out 18 what has gone on with the plan,that's it. I am 19 not accusing these two gentleman that served our 20 city. 21 So let's swear them in. Mr. Elkind,you and 22 your client are free to take a seat over there. 23 MR. ELKIND: Madam Clerk, I have taken the 24 liberty of making copies, if you want them? 25 THE MAYOR: And Mr. Smith, if you would stand 23 1 to be sworn in? Thank you. 2 (Party Sworn) 3 MR. SMITH: I do. 4 THE CLERK: Thank you. 5 MR. ELKIND: May I approach? 6 THE MAYOR: Read the questions. Read your 7 answers. 8 MR. ELKIND: May we proceed, Mayor? 9 THE MAYOR: One moment, please. 10 MR. ELKIND: The first question is, why did 11 the$3.5 Lake Jesup reuse plant not work? 12 MR. SMITH: First, a few things to note 1 13 think important to this body. The Lake Jesup plant 14 was a treatment plant for water augmentation 15 purposes, in distinguishing that between 16 augmentation and reuse. But for purposes I will 17 address later,the Lake Jesup plant is referring to 18 this plant over here. 19 1 am not trying to be silly. The plant on 20 Lake Jesup,just for your edification, didn't cost 21 $3.5 million. It was part of a two-prong project. 22 So it roughly cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 23 half of that. 24 The first part was the Lake Jesup plant. The 25 other is the Oak Forest Pumping and Storage 24 1 Facility, which is located just north of the spray 2 fields. It was probably, again, half that cost, 3 give or take a few hundred thousand dollars. 4 Again, I do not have the exact numbers. 5 As far as the plant functioning, certainly I 6 was privy to some conversations about its 7 viability, plant functions about its viable, and 8 whether or not it was working properly. 9 But based on my research and my conversations 10 with professional engineers, who were consulted for 11 us, and our public use and utility director,the 12 plant did, in fact, work for the purpose it was 13 intended to do. 14 The second question is, why was the$3.5 15 million Lake Jesup Reuse Plant not used? 16 It was used. The up force facility, 17 particularly provided $3.5 gallons of storage for 18 the reuse and significant overall improvements for 19 the city's reuse system. 20 If I may, it was quite an impressive feat. I 21 am real proud of the work we did there. It 22 basically helped move the reuse from the west waste 23 Florida plant to the homes on the east side of 24 town, significantly improving the pressure and 25 reliability of the overall system. The Lake Jesup 25 1 facility provided irrigation to the center of the 2 park. And at the time,the distribution lines 3 phase of this project had not yet begun. 4 Number three was,when did you know there was 5 problems with the $3.5 million Lake Jesup plant? 6 My opinion is the plant did not have problems, 7 other than some minor clogging issues with the 8 intake lines due to the water quality in Lake 9 Jesup. Those concerns were addressed. 10 And number four,when did you learn of the 11 above? 12 1 am not aware of any problems, other than the 13 intake discussed above and do not recall the dates. 14 What actions did you take to address the$3.5 15 million plant? My opinion is it is not a failure 16 of the plant. 17 Moving onto number six, are you aware of or 18 have you ever read the reclaimed water augmentation 19 study dated 9/20/05? If not, were you aware it 20 existed? If yes, do you remember if there were any 21 attempts on your behalf to determine if the 22 timeline was being followed in relation to 23 reclaimed water? 24 Yes, I am aware of the study. I have read 25 some of it. Due to several factors it was decided 26 1 that the city wouldn't move forward with 2 implementation of the residential lines. These 3 factors included the following. The current and 4 difficult physical conditions we were under; the 5 water augmentation study dated 9/20 was issued when 6 the economy was doing well and we were in the midst 7 of a so-called building boom. 8 By the time we got to the construction of the 9 Lake Jesup intake plant the economy was in a 10 recession and development had slowed significantly. 11 The city already owed approximately$50 million in 12 overall debt when I came aboard. And the expansion 13 of the reclaimed distribution system would have 14 cost an additional $14 million. That much money at 15 the time would not have been a prudent course of 16 action. 17 It could be argued that we did not have the 18 money for the$3.5 million project due to several 19 things, including a $1.2 million, to the best of my 20 memory, grant from the Water Management District 21 and utilization of state revolving fund loan 22 proceeds, which included favorable terms, 23 conditions, and rates. 24 We were able to build a project with fiscal 25 prudence. Senior city staff brought in agenda 27 1 items to the city commission in 2011 outlining the 2 fiscal situation and explaining the manner in which 3 the Lake Jesup plant would be funded. 4 MR. ELKIND: Mr. Mayor, if you would like 1 5 have a copy of it. 6 THE MAYOR: I have a copy. 7 MR. ELKIND: 2011? 8 THE MAYOR: I have the reclaimed water 9 augmentation study and the June 2017 -- 10 MR. ELKIND: This is the evidence --what 11 Mr. Smith is referring to in his testimony is a 12 city commission -- it outlines the numbers very 13 clearly. So this is helpful to the understanding 14 of the financial aspect of this. You said you 15 didn't know what happened. May I approach? 16 THE MAYOR: Yes, please. 17 MR. SMITH: Would you like me to continue? 18 THE MAYOR: Yes. 19 MR. SMITH: Under the question of the water 20 augmentation study of 2005,the purpose of the Lake 21 Jesup plant was not primarily to provide additional 22 irrigation water, but rather to decrease the amount 23 of ground water being pumped in from the aquifer 24 and to offset it with water from Lake Jesup. 25 Significant debt to expand the reclaimed 28 1 system was not warranted because we had instituted 2 significant conservation measures. For example, we 3 created the new water conservation coordinator 4 position. We instituted a heavy consumer education 5 effort-- I apologize --and so on and so forth. 6 Those efforts proved not only to be a success, but 7 enormously so. 8 If you reference the chart below in the 9 2011/2012 time frame when we were constructing the 10 plant up through 2019, you could see we were 11 significantly, at the time, below our allotted CUP. 12 And even though we hadn't expanded the Lake Jesup 13 system, the distribution lines into residential 14 areas, the amount of head room, if you will, that 15 we had below our maximum CUP was very significant. 16 We attribute those, at the time, directly to 17 our water conservation efforts. CPH later did the 18 same in their 2017 water quality report that was 19 sent to the Central Florida Water Initiative. 1 20 hope I am saying that correctly. 21 In 2014,we were approximately 30 percent 22 below the CUP in that year alone. Drop in usage 23 deferred both the short-term need for expansion of 24 the line and arguably the long-term need to expand 25 the system. Attention should be paid to the 29 1 ongoing conservation efforts being undertaken by 2 the city. 3 Moving onto number seven. During your 4 discussions pertaining to the proposed development 5 project, during your tenure was the consumptive use 6 permit or reclaimed water ever discussed or brought 7 to your attention? 8 Yes, of course. All new development has to 9 demonstrate there is sufficient water available to 10 serve the project. This concept is referred to as 11 concurrent use, which I am sure you all know. I am 12 not an expert as a city manager. I am not 13 personally involved in discussions or individual 14 development projects. 15 Number eight. During your tenure, what 16 department and specifically what individuals were 17 you dependent upon to inform you of any issues 18 related to development projects as they pertain to 19 the consumptive use permit or to reclaimed water? 20 Utilities Public Works Department. 21 Number nine. What, if any, was your 22 involvement with the$3.5 million Lake Jesup 23 Surface Water Plant? If none, were you aware that 24 the facility existed? Have you ever visited the 25 Lake Jesup Surface Water Plant? 30 1 My role was city manager, oversight and 2 strategy relative to funding of the project. Yes, 3 1 have visited the plant. Again, the Lake Jesup 4 plant was only part of$3.5 million project. The 5 pumping and storage facility was the other element 6 of the project,which together with the Lake Jesup 7 plant caused a net total, after grants, of 8 approximately$3.5 million. 9 Number ten. Did you ever make inquiries or 10 take any action to determine why the$3.5 million 11 Lake Jesup Surface Water Plant did not work? 12 No professional engineer or other 13 appropriately qualified personnel ever advised me, 14 personally,that the plant did not. It is my 15 belief and understanding that the plant did work. 16 There were adjustments that needed to be made with 17 the intake system but otherwise the plant worked. 18 Same correction on project cost. Again,just 19 to remind that it is not a $3.5 million loan for 20 Lake Jesup. 21 Number eleven. Do you know who is responsible 22 for the design of the$3.5 million Lake Jesup 23 Surface Water Plant? CPH Engineers designed the 24 project. I do know that there were different 25 contractors for the Lake Jesup portion and the Oak 31 1 Forest portion,to the best of my recollection. 2 Same direction on project cost as above. 3 Number twelve. Had you known of the serious 4 issues on the $3.5 Lake Jesup Water Plant, what 5 actions would you have taken? 6 The premise of the question does not reflect 7 the actual facts, in my opinion. However, if there 8 were any pertinent problems during my tenure, 1 9 would have done my best to address them. And same 10 correction on the cost as noted above. 11 Mayor,that is what I have. I hope I didn't 12 read that too fast. It is a little awkward. 13 THE MAYOR: I will open up the questioning, 14 starting with my left. Commissioner Hale, do you 15 have questions? 16 Would you like to pass for a moment and come 17 back? 18 COMMISSIONER HALE: I'll pass for a moment. 19 THE MAYOR: Commissioner Benton? 20 MR. ELKIND: Mr. Mayor,we are truly not 21 trying to be difficult. I have done this for a 22 long time. I have grave concerns about the 23 process. 24 But if folks have questions that they want to 25 get an answer to, ask the question. If it is not, 32 1 in my opinion, appropriate, I will just tell him 2 not to answer it, which I am entitled to do. 3 THE MAYOR: I fully respect that. That is 4 what counsel is here for. I completely understand 5 your point. I am giving in the moment. We value 6 your time. We understand. I am simply asking if 7 they have questions. I am trying to do it in an 8 orderly fashion. 9 Commissioner Benton, do you have a question? 10 1 want to make sure Commissioner Benton gets a copy 11 of this for reference. Our memories aren't that 12 long. 13 MR. SMITH: Nor is mine. 14 MR. ELKIND: If we can ensure that the city 15 clerk has a copy? 16 THE MAYOR: I am in my Monday June 12, 2017, 17 commission meeting minutes. For the record, I am 18 also holding the commission agenda from June 12, 19 2017, okay? Commissioner Benton? 20 COMMISSIONER BENTON: I have one question for 21 you? 22 MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. 23 COMMISSIONER BENTON: Page 1, item 3001. 24 MR. SMITH: Yes? 25 COMMISSIONER BENTON: Where it says the city 33 1 is well positioned over the 20-year planning period 2 to meet our water supply needs and following that 3 it is highlighted? 4 MR. SMITH: Yes? 5 COMMISSIONER BENTON: It also includes the 6 statement that the investment--includes 7 allocation reduction due to the previous investment 8 in reclaimed water system, including augmenting the 9 reclaimed water system from Lake Jesup. 10 He says, our designated alternative water 11 supply. He also says staff is comfortable staying 12 below the consumptive use permit of 1.5/1.4 billion 13 gallons of potable water for a year through 2029 as 14 manageable using available resources, such as the 15 Lake Jesup Reclaimed Water Plant, reclaimed 16 augmentation, irrigation and audits, etc. 17 My question is how were these things, 18 including the augmentation plant, put on the agenda 19 for commissioners to include on the consent agenda? 20 Why was the augmentation plant included? Was there 21 any evidence that the plant had produced water that 22 was useable for the purposes of irrigation? Yes? 23 No? Do you understand the question? 24 MR. SMITH: Can I -- I am not trying to be 25 obstructive. In the end you asked yes or no. Did 34 1 you have any evidence that the plant produced water 2 that could be used for irrigation? 3 MR. BENTON: Correct, because that is what was 4 put on the agenda. 5 MR. SMITH: Yes, I did. 6 MR. BENTON: Thank you. Do you want to 7 elaborate or is it too far back to remember? 8 MR. SMITH: I am told I can't. Yes, I would 9 like to. 10 THE MAYOR: Commissioner Cannon? 11 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Pass. 12 THE MAYOR: I will circle back. Deputy Mayor? 13 DEPUTY MAYOR: Mr. Smith, I think on the table 14 you should have the copy of the CDM Smith Engineers 15 system evaluation? 16 MR. SMITH: Yes. 17 DEPUTY MAYOR: And you had made reference 18 that,to your knowledge, the plant was functioning. 19 In that report-- I apologize. I do see Page 5 20 addresses automatic--well, in this report they 21 reviewed the data used for the startup and 22 commencement of the plant in 2013. 23 And also in the report it revealed by analysis 24 of the data that the plant never produced water 25 that was suitable to meet the specifications that 35 1 it was designed to produce. Then, as we understand 2 it, the plant shut down after four months of 3 operation. From the very beginning it was, for 4 lack of a better term, fired up, if you will. And 5 then it ran four months and then it stopped. 6 Apparently, it had a sketchy history of 7 operation since then. This report was conducted in 8 2018. 1 believe you were still the city manager at 9 that time? 10 MR. SMITH: Correct. 11 DEPUTY MAYOR: That kind of leads-- is a 12 segway to the June 17th regular commission meeting 13 where the city water plan was presented. And also 14 couched within the city water plan from June 17th 15 is reference to the Lake Jesup Augmentation Plant 16 being a --the component of-- being utilized to-- 17 it is one of the key pieces, if you will, to the 18 puzzle of our CUP situation that we face now. 19 My question to you is,were you aware of this 20 report when it was produced in June of 2018? 21 MR. SMITH: I was aware that the report was 22 solicited. But I actually never saw the report 23 once it was completed. But I was aware that the 24 new utilities and public works director, at the 25 time, wanted to pursue a company that she was 36 1 familiar with as opposed to a company she had not 2 worked with before. So I wanted to let her pave 3 her own path, if you will. I was aware she 4 commissioned the report. 5 DEPUTY MAYOR: So you did not read this 6 report? 7 MR. SMITH: Not until this afternoon when 1 8 got here. 9 THE MAYOR: Commissioner Elliott? 10 COMMISSIONER ELLIOTT: Just a couple of quick 11 questions because a lot of the questions you read 12 were questions I posed so I got my answers. 13 So you were hired on in November of 2005, 14 correct? 15 MR. SMITH: Correct. 16 COMMISSIONER ELLIOTT: And you either retired 17 or resigned April 2019, correct? 18 MR. SMITH: I am sorry. I was hired in 19 November 2005, but not as the city manager. 20 And then your second part commissioner? 1 21 didn't hear you? 22 COMMISSIONER ELLIOTT: And then resigned as 23 city manager in April 2019, correct? 24 MR. SMITH: That's correct. 25 COMMISSIONER ELLIOTT: Were you ever aware of 37 1 any repairs that were done at the augmentation 2 facility during your tenure? 3 MR. SMITH: Repairs? I was aware they were 4 working on the intake filtering system to get it-- 5 I'm not an engineer. I don't even play one. I am 6 not even good at it. But I was aware that they 7 were trying to dial in, if you will, if that makes 8 any sense,the intake valve for the filtration 9 system on the plant. 10 COMMISSIONER ELLIOTT: And were you aware that 11 at any time steps were taken to bypass certain 12 processes at the facility that may or may not have 13 been permissible? 14 MR. SMITH: No. 15 COMMISSIONER ELLIOTT: That is all I have. 16 MR. MAYOR: Commissioner Hale? 17 COMMISSIONER HALE: I believe that the 18 questions that were submitted were part of my 19 questions. I thank you for being here. 20 THE MAYOR: And back to Commissioner Cannon? 21 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Kevin, I have a couple 22 of questions. Basically, while you were the city 23 manager in 2007. The city obtained a consumptive 24 use permit for this Lake Jesup Water Augmentation 25 Plant, which contemplated pulling water out of Lake 38 1 Jesup and also possibly pull some additional water 2 out of an artesian well. Do you remember that? 3 MR. SMITH: I wasn't the manager in 2007. 4 COMMISSIONER CANNON: In 2011, you were the 5 city manager, right? 6 MR. SMITH: Correct. 7 COMMISSIONER CANNON: And in order to borrow 8 the money from the state revolving fund, your 9 office brought to the commission for adoption 10 resolution 2011-18? Do you remember that? 11 MR. SMITH: No. 12 MR. ELKIND: Is it the one I gave to you? 13 COMMISSIONER CANNON: It should be, I think, 14 in the stack. I don't remember exactly. 15 MR. SMITH: I have it. 16 COMMISSIONER CANNON: So that was on May 9, 17 2011, agenda item 202 of the commission? 18 MR. ELKIND: Can the city clerk have a copy? 19 THE MAYOR: Yes. She has got it. 20 MR. ELKIND: You were going to ask--the 21 normal process is when you are questioning a 22 witness, if you give them a document, give them a 23 minute to read it. 24 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Absolutely. In that 25 stack of papers, the very last thing is the 39 1 resolution. I wasn't on the commission yet. But 2 as I understood it, in order to go for the 3 revolving grant funds -- 4 MR. ELKIND: Can you give him just a minute to 5 read it? 6 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Sure. Sure. It is 7 2011. 1 apologize. 8 MR. ELKIND: Commissioner? 9 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Basically, I am not a 10 city manager. I wasn't even part of the city 11 government back then. But as I understood it, by 12 reading this agenda item 202 from the May 9, 2011, 13 commission meeting, the state learned that it could 14 get some grant funds under that state revolving 15 fund. 16 And in order to do that, a resolution had to 17 be passed. And I think had you done that type of a 18 process when you passed a resolution authorizing 19 the application for those state resolving grant 20 funds? 21 MR. ELKIND: Do you understand the question? 22 MR. SMITH: Yes. To my recollection,the only 23 state revolving fund loan application I was part of 24 during my tenure here was this one. I have been 25 part of state revolving fund processes as a finance 40 1 director in my past. But here at Winter Springs it 2 was just this one. Does that answer your question? 3 COMMISSIONER CANNON: May 9, 2011, the city, 4 using the documents that are in that agenda item 5 applied for monies out of the state to help defray 6 the cost of building the Lake Jesup and Oak Forest 7 storage tank that you made reference to; is that 8 fair? 9 MR. SMITH: I don't mean to be specific here. 10 These state revolving fund loans are somewhat of a 11 misnomer. It is basically debt. It is not a 12 grant. We are borrowing money. We get our 13 favorable interest rate. You get to capitalize 14 interest during a three-year construction period, 15 which that is the way it used to be. I think we 16 may be saying the same thing. 17 COMMISSIONER CANNON: It is a good point. It 18 is the City of Winter Springs taxpayer's debt and 19 dollars going to repay that loan; is that right? 20 MR. SMITH: Again, it is not to bore everybody 21 with a public county lecture or class, but the 22 funds that are used from taxpayer dollars, such as 23 property taxes, go into the general fund for 24 discretionary purposes. 25 So if, for example,we were to raise the 41 1 millage rate by 6 mill, we could use any of that 2 money for purposes of just repaying this loan or 3 paying any part of the water and sewer system. So 4 not to be semantic, the rate payors of the system 5 would be responsible to pay that debt. 6 1 would say yes to your question and 7 substitute rate payors with taxpayers. 8 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Okay. So the rate 9 payors, they are the residents of Winter Springs, 10 the business owners in Winter Springs, and 11 customers of the water utility. I call them the 12 citizens of Winters Springs. But be that as it 13 may-- 14 MR. SMITH: Or the absentee owners from out of 15 state. 16 COMMISSIONER CANNON: They are the ones that 17 ultimately are going to repay this loan. 18 MR. ELKIND: Mayor, we are now--this is 19 exactly what I was concerned about; that is a 20 statement. It is not a question, sir. If you've 21 got a question and you need some facts, he is going 22 to answer. 23 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Soon May 9, 2011, while 24 you were the city manager,the commission adopted a 25 resolution. And in that agenda item 202 packet you 42 1 will see, first of all, the St.Johns Water 2 Management CUP, consumptive use permit, for that 3 plant. Do you see that? 4 MR. SMITH: No. 5 COMMISSIONER CANNON: It is about 15 pages in. 6 Permit 105763? 7 MR. SMITH: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER CANNON: If go to the page 9 immediately following the signature, Kirby Green is 10 the executive director and Wilkin whoever, signed 11 off on it by St.Johns. Go to paragraph 12. It is 12 paragraph 12, and it goes from 2008 year-by-year 13 all the way to 2020. 14 It says how many gallons of water, the 15 reclaimed system can pull. And it ranges from 16 87.6 million gallons all of the way up to 813 17 million. Do you see that? 18 MR. ELKIND: Again, you can't skip to one line 19 in the document. You need to take 10 minutes or so 20 and read the document and go through it. If there 21 is a real simple question, we can maybe have him 22 review it and have him come back up. 23 But it's inappropriate to have somebody 24 comment on a document without taking a few months 25 to read the document. This is what I was trying to 43 1 get stuff ahead of time. 2 COMMISSION CANNON: Mr. Smith, was it your 3 general understanding as the city manager at the 4 commission meeting May 9, 2011,that the city 5 obligated itself under this reuse consumptive use 6 permit to gradually increase the reuse water that 7 we were going to be distributing throughout the 8 city? 9 MR. SMITH: No. 10 COMMISSIONER CANNON: You didn't understand 11 that? 12 MR. SMITH: No, sir. 13 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Okay. 14 MR. SMITH: My understanding is we were 15 applying for a very favorable loan, a very 16 favorable term to help defray the burden that we 17 were placing on the Winter Springs taxpayers? And 18 if I may, I am very proud of what we did here. 19 But, no, that is not my understanding that that was 20 occurring here in this document. 21 MR. ELKIND: I have never seen this document. 22 Just so we are all on the same sheet of music. You 23 are referring to the consumptive use with those 24 numbers, the consumptive use permit issued in 2007, 25 with the projections,whatever they were from the 44 1 professionals in 2007? 2 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Right. Yeah, so when 3 you were the city manager you were aware of the 4 concept of a consumptive use permit issued by St. 5 Johns; is that fair? 6 MR. SMITH: Yes. 7 COMMISSIONER CANNON: One for drinking water 8 and this one for reuse water? 9 MR. SMITH: Only after my memory was 10 refreshed. Again, my purview is to supervise the 11 entire city. And quite frankly, I didn't get into 12 the details and intricacy of consumptive uses 13 permit because I had some very bright people that 14 could assist me with that. 15 So was I aware that we had a consumptive use 16 permit? Did I understand that we didn't exceed 17 that? Did I understand the basic working knowledge 18 of it? Yes, I did. Did I understand the 19 specifics? It depends on the specifics. But it is 20 quite possible that I did not. 21 The level of specifics in this report, I can't 22 say in the quick amount of time that I looked at it 23 that I had working knowledge of it. No, sir. 24 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Okay. Who did you --as 25 the sitting manager, you supervised all of the 45 1 different employees and department heads and so 2 forth. Who would be the best person during this 3 time frame as a department head or a city employee, 4 who would have the most information on this and the 5 other consumptive use permit, like,who should we 6 talk to? 7 MR. SMITH: Again, I appreciate what my 8 attorney is advising, and advising that it is not 9 my responsibility to assist you all in this matter. 10 MR. ELKIND: Assist them with how to ask. 11 MR. SMITH: Okay. Now I am in trouble with my 12 attorney. My answer is the utilities and public 13 works director at the time. 14 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Kip Lockuff? 15 MR. SMITH: Yes. 16 COMMISSIONER CANNON: I didn't want to assume 17 anything, and that's why I was asking. On that 18 same consumptive use permit, paragraph 17, the next 19 page over talks about report dates, when reports 20 are submitted by the City of St.Johns. 21 MR. ELKIND: I was saying something. What is 22 your question? 23 COMMISSIONER CANNON: If you look at the next 24 page of the consumptive use permit, paragraph 17, 25 it contemplates that the city, under this permit, 46 1 is to report every six months to St.Johns. Who 2 did you delegate that responsibility to? I am 3 assuming it wasn't you, based on what you said 4 earlier? 5 MR. SMITH: That would be correct that it was 6 not me. To the best of my knowledge,that would 7 have fallen under the utilities and public works 8 director or his designee. 9 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Paragraph 20 10 contemplates that in 2010, 13, 16, 19, 22, and 25, 11 the detailed water audit from the reclaimed water 12 system, would it be the same that you had delegated 13 that to public works utility director, Mr. Lockuff, 14 during this time frame? 15 MR. SMITH: Commissioner Cannon, again, you've 16 had more time than I've had to look at this. 17 Please tell me again, what sections are you 18 referring to? 19 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Paragraph 20, st.Johns 20 water audit? 21 MR. SMITH: Yes,to the best of my knowledge 22 in reading this, it would be natural for me to say 23 that I would have delegated that to Lockuff or his 24 designee. 25 COMMISSIONER CANNON: So in May 2011 in this 47 1 agenda item package, 202, we have got the reclaimed 2 water augmentation study dated September 20, 2005, 3 that was attached to it. And there is also that 4 consumptive use permit we just talked about. There 5 was also a plan document for building the plant. 1 6 think it is right there, I think, on the third page 7 right after the residence simulation. It is the 8 reclaimed water augmentation document, supplemental 9 cleaning document. It's the one I gave you, sir. 10 It is like the third page in. It is right in that 11 stack. 12 MR. ELKIND: What document is it you are 13 looking for, specifically? Reclaimed water 14 augmentation project supplemental planning report 15 dated April 11th? 16 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Correct. Correct. 17 MR. ELKIND: Do you want him to review that 18 now? 19 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Yeah, please. It is 20 part of the agenda item. 21 MR. SMITH: Commissioner, I am not an 22 engineer. I have never seen this document before 23 so you all have to bear with me. What section are 24 we looking for? 25 MR. ELKIND: Do you want him to read the whole 48 1 thing? 2 COMMISSIONER CANNON: No. If you go to Page 4 3 of that document, paragraph 1.5? 4 MR. SMITH: Okay. 5 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Did you generally 6 understand --as the city manager augmentations of 7 the reclaimed water system to supply irrigation to 8 the water as an alternate to potable water, 9 reducing potable water demands and reducing 10 withdraws, did you generally understand that 11 concept back then? 12 MR. SMITH: I don't recall. 13 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Well, let's go forward 14 about a year before this in 2010, while you were 15 the city manager in 2010, the city got a 16 consumptive use permit for the drinking water, the 17 potable water, and that document-- here, I will 18 give it to you. 19 MR. ELKIND: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to not 20 permit this. You don't invite a former 21 professional to come to a meeting, ask for 22 information and questions and then for the first 23 time give him documents. 24 This could have been handled over lunch. He 25 would have gladly come in here and answered any of 49 1 these questions. 2 MR. MAYOR: I am going to ask the commissioner 3 to get to the question. 4 MR. ELKIND: We are not going to review 5 anymore documents. 6 COMMISSIONER CANNON: The consumptive use 7 permit that the city pulled from St.Johns for 8 drinking water in 2010 specifically contemplated 9 and required that over time the city would be 10 reducing the amount of water pulled out of the 11 aquifer while increasing the amount of reuse water 12 that residents were using for irrigation. 13 Did you generally understand that in 2010? 14 MR. ELKIND: I am not sure I understand the 15 question. 16 MR. SMITH: I do not. I am not an expert to 17 consumptive use permits. I know what they are for. 18 1 know what purpose they serve. And I know that 19 our general goal was to try to reduce from the 20 Florida aquifer,which I did. 21 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Well, it's paragraph 19 22 that was issued by St.Johns for drinking water, 23 number 8238 in January 2010. 24 MR. ELKIND: So the question is? 25 COMMISSIONER CANNON: You generally understood 50 1 the concept that by greater utilization of the 2 reuse water, less drinking water would be pulled 3 out of the aquifer and sprayed on people's lawns 4 for irrigation? 5 MR. SMITH: That's fair. I generally 6 understood there were several measures available to 7 reduce the amount of potable water that were 8 sprayed on folks lawns,to include production and 9 the withdrawal from the Florida aquifer, which 10 could have been via reused water or it could have 11 been conservation methods that we later instituted 12 conceptually. 13 COMMISSIONER CANNON: I just have a few more 14 questions, but I am happy to yield questions to any 15 of the other commissioners. I don't want to 16 dominate the time, I'll circle back. If you don't 17 mind? 18 CDM Smith system evaluation that you gave. My 19 question is you mentioned that Alena Rivera, that 20 you had given her authority to move forward in 21 having this group come in to evaluate the Lake 22 Jesup plant. Is that a fair statement? 23 MR. SMITH: I don't remember the specifics, 24 but generally speaking, yes. 25 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Did that request solicit 51 1 any inquiry from you as to why she would want to 2 have this outside engineering group come in to 3 perform an analysis on the functioning of that 4 plant? 5 MR. SMITH: Yes. 6 COMMISSIONER CANNON: And do you recall any of 7 the inquires that you made as to why she was 8 pursuing this? 9 MR. SMITH: Yes. A couple come to mind. 10 First,we already--we had information to that 11 regard from our current engineering firm. But to 12 the best of my recollection, she felt she had a 13 relationship with her previous consultants that she 14 worked with. 15 And my goal is to make her as successful as 16 possible. I like to have people have the 17 opportunity to use folks that they are comfortable 18 with. I have often done that myself. This is one 19 of the firms she was extremely comfortable with. 20 Second, there had been concerns expressed that 21 potentially the plant was not working as you all 22 had stated earlier, quote, unquote, it should have. 23 It wouldn't hurt to get someone else to take a look 24 at it. 25 At the same time, though, I had been assured 52 1 by several parties that the plant was functioning 2 perfectly well. But I wasn't apprehensive, if you 3 will, to seeking someone else's opinion. 4 COMMISSIONER CANNON: You never had an 5 opportunity to read the report? 6 MR. SMITH: No. 7 COMMISSIONER CANNON: I think-- 8 MR. SMITH: Let me be clear. I don't ever 9 remember it being provided to me. It may have 10 been. To the best of my recollection, it was never 11 provided to me. Had it been provided to me, 1 12 would have read it. 13 COMMISSION CANNON: The document does point 14 out some very relative concerns about the 15 functioning of the plant, or more accurately, the 16 lack of functioning of that plant. To me, when 1 17 read this report, it became very concerning that 18 the plant actually did not work and has never 19 worked. I am just making a statement. The 20 question couched within this then. 21 MR. SMITH: Let's try to get information, if 22 we could, and not make accusations, respectfully. 23 COMMISSIONER CANNON: I was stating my take on 24 it, my summary. 25 MR. SMITH: I just received it that way. So I 53 1 apologize if I misperceived it. 2 COMMISSIONER CANNON: One my other questions 3 is cycling back to 2017,when the City of Winter 4 Springs'water supply plan was on a consent agenda 5 item. 6 MR. SMITH: Yes. 7 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Did you make it a 8 practice to read these plans prior to them being 9 added to an agenda? 10 MR. ELKIND: Well, Mr. Mayor, we are talking 11 about practices of what you read and when you put 12 something on a consent or full agenda item. 1 13 mean, you have a discussion. You want to get facts 14 why this plant works, doesn't work,what problems, 15 what process do you go to. 16 We are not going to answer questions about 17 what your process was in terms of how you 18 decided which agenda to put an agenda item on. 19 He's not going to do that. I am not going to give 20 him an opportunity to tell you that. 21 COMMISSIONER CANNON: My point is there is 22 some pieces. There is some paragraphs there. 23 MR. ELKIND: Again, it is not a time to make 24 points. It is a time to ask questions, sir. 25 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Well, if you're not 54 1 going to answer the question -- 2 MR. SMITH: If you have a question, I'll 3 answer it. 4 MR. ELKIND: Re-ask the question, please. 5 MR. SMITH: Just re-ask the question, please. 6 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Were you aware on Page 7 1-12 --and if you need to take a moment, I am just 8 referring to the top half of the page, reclaimed 9 augmentation report. 10 MR. SMITH: Agenda item 301? 11 COMMISSIONER CANNON: It is the actual report 12 itself. 13 MR. SMITH: I have a lot of papers. I am not 14 sure which report you are referring to? 15 COMMISSIONER CANNON: No, that is not it. 16 2017 City of Winter Springs water supply. 17 MR. SMITH: Water supply plan? 18 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Yes. It should be on 19 your table somewhere. 20 MR. SMITH: Okay. We have the water supply 21 plan here. Thank you Madam Clerk. Okay, 22 commissioner, I think, to the best of my ability, I 23 am ready. 24 COMMISSIONER CANNON: It says that the current 25 population level would estimate that the 55 1 consumption decreased by that amount, so forth. 2 You can read it. Couched in that is the projection 3 that the remaining land available for development 4 in the city service area is not land zoned for 5 single family residential where most of the 6 irrigation takes place? 7 Did you provide any of the commissioners, any 8 insights to the developments that were approved 9 right before and right after this plan was 10 approved. 11 MR. ELKIND: Just so I understood what the 12 question is,you want to know if your former city 13 manager provided insights to the commission about 14 approved development projects? 15 COMMISSIONER CANNON: No. My question is 16 this. During this time frame there are a couple of 17 things going on. You had the report that Ms. 18 Rivera pursued? 19 MR. SMITH: Yes. You have -- 20 MR. ELKIND: You are talking about the 21 April 2017 report and the June--you said at this 22 time. Which time are we talking about? 23 COMMISSIONER CANNON: When the water plan was 24 approved. 25 MR. ELKIND: And when was it approved? 56 1 COMMISSIONER CANNON: That was during the 2 June 12, 2017, meeting. 3 MR. SMITH: Just to be clear, sir, because 1 4 don't want to interfere with your questions. The 5 Rivera report that you are referring to from CDM 6 Smith was issued June 6, 2018. We are talking a 7 year later, so just trying to keep that in order 8 for you. 9 COMMISSIONER CANNON: I'm sorry. That is my 10 fault. 11 MR. SMITH: I have a lot of papers so just 12 give me a little bit of time, and I will try my 13 best to answer your questions. 14 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Referring to that page, 15 the statement that was couched in here that is -- 16 MR. ELKIND: Hang on. Which statement are we 17 now referring to? You have lost me. 18 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Page 12 of the water 19 plan that was present on the consent agenda 20 June 12, 2017. Seven lines down. 21 The remaining land development for the city 22 service area is not land zoned for single family 23 residential where most of the irrigation takes 24 place. 25 My question is, during that window of time, 57 1 April 24th, prior to this, to January 22, 2018, we 2 approved 379 single family homes. We approved 3 thirty-- in Northern Oaks subdivision we approved 4 35 single family homes. January 8, 2018,we 5 approved 114 town homes in green line. 6 MR. ELKIND: Mayor, I'm sorry. I'm not trying 7 to be difficult but there is no question. 8 COMMISSIONER CANNON: My question to you given 9 all of this IS were the commissioners, at that 10 time, aware of the draw for irrigation from these 11 developments? At any time were they aware that 12 this would be impacted? 13 MR. ELKIND: No. No. No. No. He cannot answer 14 questions about what other people are aware of. 15 That's not just a legal issue. That is just common 16 sense. 17 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Did you speak to any of 18 the commissioners about the water consumption for 19 irrigation on any of these projects that were being 20 worked on? 21 MR. ELKIND: Again, you have strayed so far 22 from what you put in your resolution pursuant to 23 which the subpoena was issued. If you know the 24 answer to this question -- 25 MR. SMITH: I don't understand the question. 58 1 My fault. I do not understand. 2 COMMISSIONER CANNON: I am done. 3 MR. SMITH: I know most of you. Mr. Elliott, 4 1 don't know you. Actually, put yourself in my 5 shoes. It is difficult to have documents. It is 6 difficult to have documents that some I haven't 7 seen in years, if I have ever saw, and to try to 8 answer questions. 9 And I would like to be helpful. I feel like 10 Commissioner Johnson is getting frustrated because 11 I'm not helpful. If I'm not, I apologize. I am 12 trying to be helpful. 13 1 want you to be aware that if it doesn't come 14 across that way it's because I am struggling to 15 find what we are looking for here and to understand 16 what we are asking. 17 COMMISSIONER CANNON: I apologize if I didn't 18 make myself clear. 19 MR. SMITH: I feel like I am letting you down 20 because I don't know the question. 21 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Don't feel that way. 22 That's fine. 23 MR. SMITH: I think there is some pertinent 24 things here that would help you all. But, again, 25 it is your time to ask questions, so I am not going 59 1 to inject what I think is pertinent. I will just 2 answer your questions. 3 MR. ELKIND: If we have another time, not in a 4 hearing and under these rules that you want to ask 5 Mr. Smith questions-- 6 MR. SMITH: Give me a call. Invite me to 7 lunch. I am more than happy to do the best that I 8 can. 9 THE MAYOR: It is difficult. It is difficult 10 to follow. It is difficult to follow the 11 questioning. It is difficult to answer. 12 MR. SMITH: Again, that is why rather than run 13 the entire city by myself, I have comment folks 14 that helped me. Any Ts are crossed and Is are 15 dotted. I am sure there are things you felt didn't 16 make sense or what not. But I am having trouble. 17 THE MAYOR: Commissioner Elliott? 18 COMMISSIONER ELLIOTT: The CDM Smith report, 19 dated June 6th, refers to the site visit that was 20 conducted on April 18th of that same year. 21 So on Page 11, one of the points says, repair 22 of the intake pump control panel is required to 23 restart the facility. This repair should be 24 completed as soon as possible, which leads me to 25 believe that at least on or about April 18, 2018, 60 1 the facility was not operating. Were you aware 2 that it was not operating on that date? 3 MR. SMITH: I wasn't aware. Again, I felt 4 this CDM Smith was important, again, for two 5 reasons. One, I wanted Mr. Rivera to -- not to be 6 repetitive-- but to use the folks she was 7 comfortable with. 8 But I was concerned about it because I have 9 successfully worked with CPH for several years. 10 But a second set of eyes, I am always for that, 11 third set even. I operate that way. But I also 12 look at this report, and CPH hasn't had any 13 opportunity to opine on it. 14 It may just be their opinion. Their opinion 15 may be right. But they may also be looking for our 16 business. I am not trying to imply anything. 17 There could be two sides to this story. The folks 18 that built the plant and worked for me expressed in 19 no uncertain terms the plant was operational. 20 Although they did need to look at some of the 21 intake valves, some trial an error work in that 22 regard. But at the end of the day,the plant was 23 functioning for its intended purpose. That is what 24 1 was aware of. 25 Now, again,the CDM report could be right. It 61 1 could be wrong. It could be binary. So does that 2 answer help with your question? 3 COMMISSIONER ELLIOTT: If a report says a 4 plant wasn't operating, you were not aware that it 5 was not operating? 6 MR. SMITH: That is my recollection. That is 7 correct. I was not. 8 THE MAYOR: So just to summarize here and we 9 will go back to direct questions. It is your 10 memory that this plant never had a problem. That 11 the friction here is that the commission and myself 12 have been told repeatedly that this plant has never 13 worked. 14 For over the 12 years, it has worked, in 15 total, roughly 90 days. Over a decade this plant 16 has not operated. It is your testimony or it is 17 your memory that you weren't aware, and so it 18 sounds to me that you are saying direct the 19 questions to CPH? 20 MR. SMITH: No. No, if I may? 21 THE MAYOR: Please? 22 MR. SMITH: I think both of the statements you 23 made are incorrect. Let me be clear, I am not 24 saying you are incorrect. I am not saying that it 25 never had any issues. I am also not saying I 62 1 forgot what I just said --it did have some issues. 2 Again, I wish I had a more technical term -- 3 getting it dialed in. There was some problems with 4 the filtration system pulling out of murky Lake 5 Jesup. 6 Hopefully, it will get better, but probably 7 not in our lifetime. There was an argument that it 8 work too well. It was sucking too much passed one 9 area, but not the next area. And for that reason 10 the staff at the time did not want it to reach 11 folks' yards and the pop-up heads get clogged. 12 But at that point in time we weren't expanding 13 it at that point. So yeah, it did have some things 14 that were being addressed. Again, when I talked to 15 the president of the CPH, he said Kevin, it works. 16 And if there is ever any issues,you have my word, 17 I'II get it fixed. 18 That is what I wanted to hear. That made me 19 feel comfortable, that our contractor was on top of 20 it and was going to take care of it. But the fact 21 that it never worked, only worked for a few days, 1 22 think the confusion there may be the fact that it 23 only worked X amount of months in eight years. Am 24 1 caging that correctly? That is not true, 25 categorically false. I am speculating that because 63 1 we were using it for irrigation of Central Winds 2 Park and whatever small areas that we were using 3 it, normal reuse, toilets being flushed, if you 4 will, we are going into our new Oak Forest pumping 5 facility, $3 million facility. 6 It was holding that, and that was used first. 7 We only withdrew from Lake Jesup when we needed it, 8 which was about one month out of every year in May. 9 So over an eight-year period,we probably used it 10 for eight months--only needed for eight months. 11 It worked the entire the time, and trying to get it 12 dialed in during the period of time,they try to 13 work on this. 14 The water that was coming from the-- I only 15 know this because I sat down with Lockuff when 1 16 first got this job. I said, Kip, please help me 17 understand this stuff. The man is an encyclopedia. 18 With due respect to my current public works 19 director, who is a great individual, Kip is one of 20 best I have ever had. 21 1 said that just to give you a context-- he 22 educated me a whole lot on how things work. It 23 doesn't make me an expert. It gives me a working 24 knowledge to do my job, in my humble opinion. The 25 water that comes from, quote, unquote, flushing 64 1 your toilet, if we don't use that, we have to spray 2 it into the spray field. No one wants to do that. 3 We want to use that first. Then we want to go to 4 the augmentation second. 5 For that reason, we only needed it maybe the 6 one month out of the year that it was functioning. 7 But to say it didn't work, I don't have knowledge 8 of that. 9 THE MAYOR: I think the question has been 10 answered. Thank you. Commissioner? Anyone else? 11 COMMISSION CANNON: So the other part of the 12 equation here is you have the augmentation plant 13 from 2005. It looks like this. 14 MR. SMITH: The study, not the plan? The 15 study? 16 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Yeah, 2005. 17 MR. SMITH: Yeah, I've got the study. 18 COMMISSIONER CANNON: If go to Page 5-3. The 19 bottom 5-4? 20 MR. SMITH: It goes from 3 to 2 to 4. Bear 21 with me. 5-3. Yes. 22 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Okay. And then section 23 5.2 distribution system expansion. If I understood 24 what you just said, rather than spray the reused 25 water coming out of the sewer plant on the spray 65 1 field, it could be used on people's lawns. It 2 would use less drinking water to irrigate their 3 lawns? Is that what you were just referring to? 4 MR. SMITH: No. I was referring to we needed 5 to use our--if we use the affluent first,we 6 would meet the demand, and there would be nothing 7 left to spray on the spraying field. 8 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Along that line, if you 9 look at this table, 5.2, every other year starting 10 in 2008 there was a multiphase, seven-phase plan, 11 in every other year to expand that reuse 12 augmentation in the area. Do you see that? 13 MR. SMITH: I see the area you are referring 14 to. 15 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Okay. Then go to the 16 next page over,the table 5-5 in that report, it 17 talks about phase one. And it names specific 18 subdivisions in there you will recognize. 19 It comes up with a projected cost of$2,047, 20 500, shows what the average flow would be, dry 21 season, and how many gallons, if you will. Phase 22 1, would put$491,520 gallons a day of reuse 23 irrigation rather than drinking water. Do you see 24 that? 25 MR. SMITH: Yes. 66 1 COMMISSIONER CANNON: The concept from what 1 2 am reading here, Phase two and Phase three, four, 3 five, six, and seven. 4 So every two years, extending those reuse 5 lines to the different neighborhoods, we are going 6 to utilize more of that affluent reuse water coming 7 out of the plants for people to irrigate their 8 lawns and thereby use less corrugated drinking 9 water coming out of the water wells. Did you 10 understand. 11 MR. SMITH: I think I am following you, yes. 12 It is not reuse. It is augmentation, surface water 13 withdrawal. 14 COMMISSIONER CANNON: If you don't extend the 15 reuse lines, and from what we were told by staff, 16 none of these phased extensions took place, so how 17 are we going to use less drinking water for 18 irrigation, if we don't extend the reuse lines 19 every other year like what's in this report? 20 MR. SMITH: The way we did, through 21 conservation methods. Again, when you look at this 22 chart,we would be the envy of every other city as 23 to who well we draw our CUP. 24 It would be fiscally irresponsible for us to 25 rescind those lines when we had this type of chart 67 1 working to our advantage. Now, we didn't know what 2 the future was going to hold. In the meantime, we 3 were able to hopefully wait out to the availability 4 of the state revolving fund loans and those type of 5 grants were there. They weren't there during this 6 particular period of time so we would be able to 7 leverage our dollars further in the future. 8 I think it is pertinent to also point out in 9 this study that it says right here on Page ES1 that 10 there are many more steps required to make this 11 project a reality. 12 At the time this study was not adopted. It 13 was prepared by CPH and it was never sent to the 14 state or any regulatory agency. It was just an 15 internal document for our use in trying to decide 16 what the best route was going forward. 17 Did we spend this in a difficult fiscal time 18 or try something that costs exponentially less? We 19 chose to go this route. There was a strong 20 argument that this plan may have never been 21 implemented, maybe not never, certainly not in the 22 near future. 23 If you go back to the agenda item that Mr. 24 Elkind referenced earlier, when we were presenting 25 the fiscal plan in 2011 to the commission, it 68 1 specifically says that this distribution expansion 2 was not going to happen in the near future. It was 3 never intended to happen anytime in that time 4 frame. It was never intend to follow this 5 schedule. 6 Due respect to my good friend, Brian Fields, 7 who is an engineers and any of the other engineers 8 in the room, this may or may not have been 9 practical. It turned out not to be practical based 10 on all the environments and everything going on 11 in similar times. 12 Yes, if we had done this, there would be less, 13 arguably, less potable water used for irrigation 14 purposes. But because we did this, the same, if 15 not better, result, for this period of time. Then 16 after I left it may have been different 17 circumstances that warranted this. 18 1 remind you you still have a beautiful plant, 19 a great asset down on the water to help you do 20 this, if you so choose, but that is certainly your 21 call going forward and your staff. I don't mean to 22 advise them on what they should do. 23 MR. ELKIND: Mr. Mayor, I put in my letter we 24 allotted two hours for-- he has been here. You 25 still need to hear from Mr. Fields, so. 69 1 COMMISSIONER CANNON: I've got one followup 2 question from what we were just discussing. 3 THE MAYOR: To begin with, I genuinely 4 appreciate all three of you being here. I feel 5 like I learned. That is, in fact, the idea of this 6 meeting is to learn. I feel as if I learned a lot. 7 But having said that, that subpoena,whether that 8 was the way we should have handled it or not that 9 is a different issue. 10 You attempted to put a time restraint on it. 11 Let's just get through the questions. The 12 commissioner has one more question. 13 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Mr. Smith, during your 14 tenure as the city manager,when we had projects 15 coming before the commission that were approved, 16 Integra 360,The Rise Apartments,Tuscaloosa 17 Crossings, Blake Apartments, the town homes and so 18 forth, these residential apartments, are you 19 familiar with the concept of water concurrency. 20 MR. SMITH: Generally,yes. I am familiar 21 with the concept of concurrency, be it school, be 22 it water, generally, yes. 23 COMMISSION CANNON: Sewer as well. So what 24 happened here is that the data that you were 25 looking at from that 2007 water plan that was 70 1 submitted ended in 2016, by the chart you keep 2 folding up, that graph. 3 MR. SMITH: It ended in 2019. 1 apologize. 4 It is unfair. 5 COMMISSIONER CANNON: What has brought us to 6 this point, which I don't know if you have had a 7 conversation with our current city manager or not? 8 MR. SMITH: No. 9 COMMISSIONER CANNON: We exceeded our CUP last 10 year. 11 MR. SMITH: I was aware of that because of the 12 email Mr. Boyle sent out. 13 COMMISSIONER CANNON: In May of this year, we 14 had to declare a water emergency on irrigating 15 because we are using too much water. 16 MR. SMITH: I am generally aware of that as 17 well. 18 COMMISSIONER CANNON: And so our city staff 19 has come in just in the last few months and as 20 recently as just the last commission meeting and 21 said, basically,we are probably--it is highly 22 likely we are going to be exceeding our CUP again 23 for 2021. 24 Nobody knows precisely yet, but it looks like 25 it is headed that way. I know that as the city 71 1 manager your job was to put together the agendas, 2 and our current city manager does the same thing. 3 And I recognize you are not an engineer. You rely 4 upon engineers like Mr. Fields or Mr. Lockuff. 5 But are you aware of any time where any staff 6 member,you or any of your staff members alerted 7 the commission that by approving this project,we 8 may be exhausting our CUP. 9 MR. ELKIND: I'm sorry, which project? 10 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Any project from The 11 Rise to the present? 12 THE MAYOR: Were you aware, please correct me 13 if I am wrong,were you aware that we are danger of 14 exceeding our consumptive use permit by approving 15 these new developments. 16 MR. ELKIND: Wait a minute, and you are 17 probably going to get made at me. You had three 18 issues you wanted to talk about over the reclaimed 19 augmentation plan. 20 THE MAYOR: Item one, identify and explain the 21 factual projections for data and analysis that will 22 be prepared by the proposed city to be able to 23 obtain the city's two consumptive use permits from 24 St.Johns Water Management. Ground water for 25 potable use, permit number 8238 and surface water 72 1 irrigation use, permit number 105763. 2 MR. SMITH: Let me try to answer it. 1 3 apologize it. I am having difficulty answering it. 4 The overall responsibility for everything that 5 happens, every management decision in this city 6 during my tenure is mine. Let's be clear about 7 that. But as far as monitoring our concurrency and 8 availability under our CUP, I didn't do that on a 9 daily basis. 10 However, I do know that public works staff did 11 that. They had a running total everyday in the 12 public works file that tracked that amount of 13 availability and whether or not a new project would 14 affect that or not. 15 And again, during the time that we were 16 tracking that during this period --you never have 17 plenty, but we had a lot of head room on our CUP. 18 Yes, we were tracking it. 19 1 went back and spent a whole day Saturday 20 looking at those development application and final 21 engineering plan approvals,you know,that would 22 come before the commission, the staff reports, the 23 development agreements, and I could not find one 24 instance where you and your staff alerted the 25 commission that we are going to run out of-- if 73 1 you approve this, we may run out of water, you 2 know, under the CUP. 3 MR. ELKIND: Again, is there a question? 4 COMMISSIONER CANNON: My question is did you 5 ever have any private conversations with any 6 commissioner or the Mayor that said, hey, if we 7 continue to approve these new developments two, 8 three, four, five years down the road when they are 9 actually out of the ground and hooked up, we are 10 going to exceed our CUP? That is the question, I'm 11 trying to answer. 12 MR. SMITH: No, those discussions were not 13 necessary because there was no concern about doing 14 so. If you look back to this agenda item,that one 15 of you gave me earlier, if you look down at the 16 bottom it says 301. 17 In 2017 the city's well positioned over the 18 20-year planning period to meet water supply needs, 19 including allocation reductions to the previous 20 investments in reclaimed water, so on and so forth. 21 It goes on further on the next page to say, 22 staff is comfortable saying below the consumptive 23 use permit, a limit of 1.514 billion gallons of 24 potable water though 2029 is manageable using-so 25 on and so forth. At this point in time that we are 74 1 using conversation, so on and so forth, Lake Jesup 2 at its current iteration of 2,000 homes, not 3 expanded, and it will go on further in the study 4 somewhere to speak to that, that we are in a 5 position to meet concurrency with our water needs. 6 1 don't recall at any point in time that being a 7 concern period. 8 THE MAYOR: I think that brings about the crux 9 of the real issue here. They are conflicting. We 10 are, in fact, over our CUP. We've hit the wall. 11 We are having issues. You were asked a question. 12 You answered the question. You have documentation. 13 Thank you, sir. 14 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Do you remember myself 15 and other commissioners inquiring about the CUP 16 right from the dais and being told we are fine on 17 the CUP. There is no problems with the CUP or 18 words to that effect? 19 MR. SMITH: I don't remember that. I probably 20 shouldn't answer this way. It wouldn't surprise me 21 because of the situation we were in at the time. 1 22 don't know the exact time frame we are talking 23 about either, and I left early in 2019. 24 COMMISSIONER CANNON: And I know we are going 25 to ask Mr. Lockuff these questions. But you 75 1 understood as the city manager that his department 2 was keeping a running balance of where we stood 3 under the CUP and was doing that water currency 4 analysis with any new projects we brought to the 5 commission? Is that the department-- 6 MR. SMITH: Absolutely. And further, meeting 7 our sewer permits, he was required to sign off on 8 those documents stating so. 9 Again, subject to your conversations with Mr. 10 Lockuff, because at the risk how this is going to 11 sound, and it not sounding any other way than 12 factual, I didn't review those every day of my 13 life. 14 COMMISSIONER CANNON: I was kind of hoping he 15 would be here because I figured he would probably 16 be the most technically savvy person on this stuff. 17 MR. SMITH: Again, my understanding from 18 Attorney Jones is that he has answered the 19 questions, and it is sufficient. 20 THE MAYOR: So are there further questions for 21 Mr. Smith from the commission before we ask 22 questions of Mr. Fields? 23 COMMISSIONER HALE: Did anyone ever come to 24 you because you stated that you did have an intake 25 issue we kept having to deal with. Did anyone come 76 1 up with a long-term solution, anything like that? 2 MR. SMITH: My understanding, commissioner, is 3 yes, they did. But at the point in time we were 4 not extending the line, so it was not-- I hesitate 5 to say this, because I don't want to keep saying 1 6 am not an engineer. I don't want to misspeak. 7 My understanding was yes, they did. It took 8 some back and forth. But we were not at the point 9 where it was necessary because we were just 10 irrigating the park. 11 At the point that we were going to move 12 forward with distribution, if and when,they would 13 have tested that to be sure. Again, Mr. Gierach, 14 from CPH assured me, and I have known him a long 15 time, I take him at his word that if there were any 16 issues, he would have solved that. 17 COMMISSIONER HALE: Currently-- 18 MR. ELKIND: He can't answer that. 19 THE MAYOR: Commissioner Cannon? 20 COMMISSIONER CANNON: You know the situation 21 we find ourselves in? 22 MR. SMITH: Generally. It's a stretch, but 1 23 am not totally blind to it. I understand you 24 exceeded you CUP. 25 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Me, I don't know about 77 1 the rest of the commission, we are trying to figure 2 out where things went wrong and how do we change 3 our processes or procedures to make sure that we 4 can get this back on the right track? Right now 5 all indications are that we are over the CUP. Do 6 you have any suggestions for us? 7 MR. ELKIND: I'm sorry. It is absolutely 8 inappropriate for this man to-- he wants to be 9 helpful. He is certainly not an engineer and 10 either am 1. It is not appropriate for him to try 11 to give you suggestions. 12 The premise of your question, where things 13 went wrong while he was here, did you all exceed 14 the CUP while you were here? He is probably the 15 last--the premise of your question where things 16 went wrong after he was gone, so maybe those were 17 sent in motion before. Who knows, but it is just 18 inappropriate. 19 MR. SMITH: I have some suggestions. It is 20 not my place. I don't want to step on your city 21 manager's toes. He is a brilliant man, twice the 22 city manager I will ever be. Do I have opinions? 23 Certainly I do. 24 Do I have some thoughts? Yes, I do. I will 25 be happy to share those with you with his blessing, 78 1 the three of us over lunch or whatnot. But in this 2 environment, I think it is important that I rely on 3 what Mr. Elkind is telling me. And Mayor, as you 4 spoke earlier, it is certainly within your rights 5 and purview, this entire commission to do this. 6 My opinion is this could have been solved less 7 with a subpoena and more with a phone call or 8 lunch. It is a better, more productive 9 environment. It is my sense everything you are 10 doing tonight you are entitled to do. 11 So I am trying to impart, if I come across 12 like I am not being helpful, it is not my intent. 13 In this line of work, sometimes MBAs don't matter, 14 like I have don't matter. 15 Sometimes the experience I have, doesn't 16 matter. It is your reputation. I want to be known 17 as and always wanted to be known as somebody that 18 is there to help. I feel like to some extent, I 19 haven't done that tonight. That was not my intent. 20 I am generally confused by a lot of the 21 questions as I think you are. And why doesn't this 22 plant work? Why do you think it doesn't work? How 23 did we exceed our consumptive use permit? I think 24 we are both confused, perplexed, and would like to 25 get some answers. I am doing my best to try to 79 1 help you. It is important to me, to Mr. Elkind's 2 chagrin, I just generally want to help. 3 THE MAYOR: Are there any further questions 4 for Mr. Smith? 5 COMMISSIONER CANNON: I mean, maybe what we 6 can do as the city manager we approve projects and 7 they don't come online for-- 8 MR. SMITH: Commissioner, I don't mean to 9 interrupt you, but you and I have had that problem 10 with the school board for years. We approve 11 projects with developers and they have got to have 12 it tomorrow. Then we don't hear from them for four 13 years. It makes it really difficult to do our job. 14 So we can only do it on the best information 15 we have at the time based on concurrency on what we 16 know at the time,which is what we did. 17 MR. ELKIND: The technical experts will be 18 much better for you on that issue. There is a 19 process they follow. 20 THE MAYOR: We are now deviating. So 21 Mr. Elkind can take his two minute restroom break. 22 (Break.) 23 THE CLERK: Ladies and gentleman, welcome 24 back. Motion to extend the meeting by Commissioner 25 Cannon. Seconded by Deputy Mayor Johnson. 80 1 THE CLERK: Commissioner Benton? 2 COMMISSIONER BENTON: Aye. 3 THE CLERK: Commissioner Cannon? 4 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Aye. 5 THE CLERK: Deputy Mayor Johnson? 6 Deputy mayor: Aye. 7 THE CLERK: Commissioner Hale? 8 COMMISSIONER HALE: Aye. 9 THE CLERK: Commissioner Elliott? 10 COMMISSIONER ELLIOTT: Aye. 11 THE CLERK: Mr. Mayor? 12 THE MAYOR: Aye. 13 THE MAYOR: Motion passes. 14 THE CLERK: If you'd raise your right hand? 15 Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole 16 truth, and nothing but the truth. 17 THE WITNESS: I do. 18 THE CLERK: Thank you. 19 THE MAYOR: Would you like to read the 20 questions and the answers? 21 MR. ELKIND: As I gold you, Mr. Fields has a 22 lot less detail. 23 MR. FIELDS: Good evening Mayor, 24 commissioners. Starting with the first question. 25 Are you aware of and have you ever read the 81 1 reclaimed water augmentation study dated 2 September 20, 2005? Yes. 3 If yes, do you remember if there were any 4 attempts on your part to determine if this timeline 5 was being followed in relation to reclaimed water? 6 No. I had no involvement in the approval of 7 the study. It was never a part of my duties to 8 determine if the timeline suggested by the study 9 was being followed. 10 It should be noted that this is a feasibility 11 study, not a master plan. Let me just state for 12 the record, because I don't know everybody here, 1 13 was a city engineer. I started with the city in 14 March of 2005. 15 1 was a city engineer until 2016. 1 became 16 the community development director from 2016 to 17 2018,just for the context of these answers. 18 During your discussions pertaining to the 19 proposed development projects during your tenure 20 was a consumptive use permit or reclaimed water 21 ever discussed or brought to your attention? 22 The consumptive use permit, no. As far as 23 reclaimed water, the current or future availability 24 of reclaimed water was discussed as part most 25 development projects. 82 1 Depending on the project and the location, 2 development projects were generally required to be 3 one of the following. One, connect the existing 4 reclaimed water system for irrigation. Two, 5 connect the potable water system for irrigation, 6 but to construct and utilize a separate irrigation 7 piping and service system designed to reclaim water 8 standards for future connection to the reclaimed 9 system. 10 Or three, use another non-potable source of 11 water for irrigation, such an irrigation, well, or 12 retention pond. 13 During your tenure what departments, 14 specifically which individual, to inform you of any 15 issue related to development projects as they 16 pertain to the consumptive use permit or reclaimed 17 water? 18 As the city engineer I reported to the public 19 works utilities director. If I had questions 20 regarding reclaimed water, I would typically speak 21 with the members of the city's utility department. 22 Question. What, if any, was your involvement 23 with the$3.5 million Lake Jesup surface water 24 plant? If none,were you aware that the facility 25 existed. Have you ever visited the Lake Jesup 83 1 Surface Water plant? 2 1 had no involvement with the study, planning, 3 design, permit and construction, startup, 4 operations post construction analysis or any other 5 aspect of the water plant, itself? 6 My involvement was limited to the site work, 7 paved access, parking, drainage, and landscaping. 8 And I have been to the site. 9 Did you ever make any inquiries or take any 10 action to determine why the$3.5 million Lake Jesup 11 Surface Water plant did not work? I have no 12 knowledge of the plant not working. 13 Do you know who was responsible for the design 14 of the$3.5 million water surface plant? Do you 15 know who would be responsibile for construction? 16 CPH was responsible for the design. I don't 17 remember the names of the construction contractors 18 who worked on the project. 19 Had you known of the serious issues 20 surrounding the$3.5 Lake Jesup Surface Water 21 plant,what actions would you have taken? 22 1 had no knowledge of the specific issues in 23 question or the potential seriousness. As a city 24 employee, if I became aware of a serious issue of 25 any manner, I would inform my supervisor. 84 1 Why did the$3.5 million Jesup plant not work? 2 Again, I have no knowledge that the plant does 3 not work or whether it is being utilized currently. 4 Why was the$3.5 Jesup plant not used? 5 1 do not know the extent to which the plan was 6 utilized. When did you know there were problems 7 with the$3.5 million Lake Jesup plant. I didn't 8 know there were specific problems. 9 In 2018 1 became aware that the public works 10 utility director brought in a new engineering 11 consultant to evaluate a number of city facilities. 12 1 do not know what the result of that study were. 13 When did you learn the above? 14 Again, in 2018 1 became aware our utility 15 director brought in a new engineering consultant. 16 And the last question, what action did you 17 take to the address the failed $3.5 million plant? 18 1 have no knowledge that the plant failed. 19 THE MAYOR: Thank you. Commissioners? 20 Anyone? Mr. Elliott? 21 COMMISSIONER ELLIOTT: A large portion of 22 questions posed on that document were my questions. 23 So I appreciate you responses. 24 THE MAYOR: Deputy Johnson? 25 DEPUTY MAYOR: To be honest with you, I 85 1 anticipated that you were not directly involved 2 with this. I think mine was just curiosity since 3 you were working with other members of the various 4 departments and units and whatnot. To understand 5 correctly, you were never, at any time, presented 6 with any concerns about the Lake Jesup plant not 7 functioning to a less successful level, at any 8 time? 9 MR. FIELDS: Just in 2018, when the new 10 consultant was brought in to evaluate facilities, I 11 heard they were looking at the plant. 12 DEPUTY MAYOR: I mean prior to that? 13 MR. FIELDS: No. 14 THE MAYOR: Commissioner Benton? 15 COMMISSIONER BENTON: I think I understand 16 your answer to one of the questions. I didn't give 17 anybody any information about the results of the 18 use of that plant or any results that they got, how 19 well it was working. You did not do that? 20 MR. FIELDS: No. 21 DEPUTY MAYOR: Do you mind saying where that 22 information would have come from, CPH or our 23 utilities director? The numbers? 24 MR. FIELDS: What specific information? 25 DEPUTY MAYOR: How well the augmentation plant 86 1 was working? 2 MR. FIELDS: I think it would be a question 3 for the design team, startup contractors, equipment 4 manufacturers, any number of folks directly 5 involved with the project. 6 DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you. 7 THE MAYOR: Commission Hale? 8 COMMISSIONER HALE: I would ask you the same 9 thing. Were you aware of anyone talking about a 10 long-term solution? 11 MR. FIELDS: No. 12 THE MAYOR: And Commissioner Cannon? 13 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Brian, the CDM report, 14 that is on the table, had you seen that at any 15 time? Had anyone briefed you on the findings? 16 MR. FIELDS: No. The first time I have seen 17 it. 18 COMMISSIONER FIELDS: I think you understood 19 from what you had a chance to sit through here,we 20 are trying to--we are over the CUP and we have 21 got a bunch more projects coming out of the ground. 22 And so we are trying to figure out, at least 23 from my perspective, what processes-- I know your 24 only part of what I expected, your only sort of 25 involvement, would have been from the water 87 1 concurrency, you know, as developments were coming 2 in, some of them as development director. Do you 3 know who kept the log or the running total of 4 available capacity and what was being set aside for 5 approved projects? Was there such a water 6 checkbook, if you will. 7 MR. FIELDS: Yes. That was very carefully 8 evaluated with every project. What my role is 1 9 can tell you, at least through 2016, being a city 10 engineer, what happened on those projects. 11 Whenever a project came in they have to get an 12 FDEP water permit and FDEP sewer permit. Each of 13 those applications they fill out. We review them. 14 Then it goes to our public works utility director, 15 who puts in the plant capacity and the commitments, 16 which is that running total of what has been 17 approved to date. 18 Even going back years, there was never at any 19 time with any project there was a concern that we 20 were even coming close, up to 2016. 1 don't know 21 what happened after that. If anything I could do 22 to help, I would. But it wasn't an issue then. 23 COMMISSIONER CANNON: So was it on a computer? 24 Did you ever see it? Where was that data file 25 actually kept? 88 1 MS. FIELDS: In the utility department. I am 2 not sure where. 3 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Kip can give us more 4 information. Where we find ourselves right now is 5 we were over the CUP last year. We're likely to be 6 over this year. We have got another 30 million 7 gallons of projects that are going to be coming 8 online, probably within the next 12 months. 9 We are trying to figure out--what I want to 10 know is we have to tweak our processes. We have to 11 figure out how to do this. Do you have any 12 suggestions? Can you think of any other processes 13 other than the ones you were following that might 14 enhance us? 15 MR. ELKIND: Now wait a second. This is an 16 important thing. I am not trying to be difficult. 17 One of the things I put in my letter to you is he 18 is going to answer questions in his capacity as a 19 former city engineer, community development 20 director for the city. 21 Any answer he gives is in that capacity. He 22 is no longer your director. If he gives you advice 23 - I am concerned about him giving professional 24 advice, if not under the subpoena. 25 COMMISSIONER CANNON: While you were serving 89 1 in that capacity as city engineer and later as 2 development director, can you think of any other 3 processes or checklists or anything that could have 4 been employed, or did you feel that all of the 5 processes had been used at the time? 6 MR. FIELDS: I felt like our processes were 7 very thorough and adequate. I don't know what 8 happened after that to get you to where you are 9 today. 10 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Okay. 11 THE MAYOR: Further questions for Mr. Fields? 12 DEPUTY MAYOR: Mr. Fields,we are dealing with 13 some structural problems at the Lake Jesup plant. 14 Do you recall the construction company, the name of 15 that company that actually built the plant, because 16 nobody else does? Do you know the name of that 17 group? 18 MR. FIELDS: I don't know. If I heard it I'd 19 remember it. 20 DEPUTY MAYOR: Contract awards, okay. 21 THE MAYOR: Any further questions? 22 Gentleman, although -- 23 MR. ELKIND: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Smith knows the 24 name. 25 MR. SMITH: To the best of my recollection, 90 1 the name of the company is Killibrew, and I am 2 embarrassed to tell you I remember that because of 3 Harmon Killibrew of the Minnesota Twins. A 4 separate crew that built the enforced part of the 5 project. 6 THE MAYOR: With that being said, as the Mayor 7 1 would like to thank both of you for your service 8 to the city. Thank you Mr. Elkind for your 9 professional services to your client. 10 This device is challenged with --with that 11 being said,this dais is challenged with attempting 12 to fix a number of issues that our community is 13 facing. 14 Although, the facts how are that the 15 augmentation plant is not working. We do have a 16 great deal of work to do. We are over our CUP. We 17 have other issues. With that being said, 1 18 appreciate your time. It is valuable. We 19 appreciate your service. 20 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Can I just ask one more 21 question? 22 THE MAYOR: Yeah. 23 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Brian, did you have 24 participation in the decision not to do the 2008, 25 2010, 2012, 2014, every other year to extend the 91 1 reuse lines? Did you participate in any of those 2 discussions or decision making? 3 MR. FIELDS: I recall there wasn't funding to 4 extend those lines. It wasn't a matter to choose 5 to do it or not. As I recall it was the money 6 wasn't there. 7 COMMISSIONER CANNON: The coffer shows that 8 there was many millions of dollars in the utility 9 fund that still haven't been used. Were you 10 involved with that or was that more Kip involved in 11 that department? 12 MR. FIELDS: I wasn't involved in considering 13 implementing those phases. 14 MR. MAYOR: We are finished with the three of 15 you gentleman. Thank you very much. 16 MR. ELKIND: May we be excused? 17 THE MAYOR: Yes. That opens us up to 18 discussion. Commissioner Kendrick is here. But we 19 do have to have a discussion about the letter of 20 Mr.Jones,which now, it is very thick. 21 But now that I have had a chance to read it 22 and the inclusion in the record because it is --we 23 need -- I would like my fellow commissioners to 24 read that letter. Because whether we accept it 25 into the record or not and whether it comports with 92 1 our rules of decorum is questionable. 2 1 would like you guys to look at that. It is 3 attacks against me, personally, and some of the 4 other commissioners. If we wouldn't allow that to 5 take place in our chambers,we need to discuss this 6 at some point. We do have commission Kendrick 7 here. So I would like to hear him. 8 You can step forward, commissioner. 9 THE CLERK: He wasn't issued a subpoena. 10 THE MAYOR: Thank you. I do not have that on 11 my records. So Commissioner Kendrick was not 12 issued a subpoena like many others were. 13 CITY ATTORNEY: He was not on the list. 14 THE MAYOR: Oh. I apologize. There seems to 15 have been a little breakdown there. So 16 Commissioner, if you will give us a couple of 17 minutes to have a discussion. Then we will be 18 opening up for public input, which you are more 19 than welcome. Give us a couple of minutes. 20 This brings us back to discussion. 21 COMMISSIONER CANNON: There is no other 22 witnesses. I assumed he had been tendered a 23 subpoena. If that is not the case, that is fine. 24 THE MAYOR: I just want to take a minute to 25 allow myself and the commissioners to read the 93 1 September 20, 2021, letter that was hand delivered 2 to us by Attorney Jones at the beginning of this 3 commission meeting, particularly the first four 4 pages his letter. 5 DEPUTY MAYOR: With all due respect, it is 6 going to take a half an hour. My question would be 7 can we postpone adding this into the record until 8 our next commission meeting, once we have had the 9 opportunity to address the contents? 10 COMMISSIONER CANNON: I am fine with that. 11 COMMISSIONER HALE: I have a question. The 12 letter,the first letter, doesn't look like it fits 13 our rules that we adopted at the beginning of the 14 meeting. But I am concerned that on into the 15 document are some of our questions that we have 16 asked for answers. 17 Can we--so we have to just discuss it at our 18 next meeting. 19 COMMISSIONER ELLIOTT: I would rather have 20 more time to digest this document. 21 COMMISSIONER CANNON: We need to digest this, 22 so we haven't formally accepted this into the 23 record, this letter, this whole packet. We are not 24 finished with this tonight, because some other CPH 25 people are going to be coming later. So Anthony-- 94 1 if I may, Mayor, can I ask a -- 2 THE MAYOR: Please. 3 COMMISSIONER CANNON: We don't have to accept 4 this into the record tonight. Can we delay 5 accepting? 6 CITY ATTORNEY: You are probably going to need 7 more time to review this and digest it. At least 8 for the purpose of tonight's meeting, counsel, 9 Mr.Jones, has arrived. He appeared before the 10 commission. He advised you that he is representing 11 several of the individuals subpoenaed. 12 He advised them not to attend this proceeding. 13 Putting his reasons and argument aside as to why, 14 that is one thing. But the record needs to reflect 15 that Mr.Jones has appeared before the commission, 16 advised the commission he advised his clients not 17 to appear. 18 In addition, he has also advised the 19 commission that one of his clients, Kip Lockuff has 20 prepared, according to Mr.Jones, responses to 21 questions. 22 And at the very least, I think you need to 23 accept, based on the representations of Mr.Jones, 24 accept, at least for now,the response to the 25 questions that he claims were prepared by Mr. 95 1 Lockuff. So there is some aspect of this,which 1 2 think, are in the record. 3 MR.JONES: I want to add that that letter 4 explains the reason my clients are not here and 5 explains why I don't believe lawfully issued 6 subpoenas have been issued here. 7 If this commission is going to seek to enforce 8 those subpoenas before a criminal court of law, 9 everything in that letter is going to happen, the 10 discovery process. I am going to take depositions. 11 Further discovery requests. I am going to do all 12 of that and that needs to be in the record here. 13 COMMISSIONER CANNON: So I am prepared --you 14 know what, I think we need to some time to confer 15 with you, Anthony, on this and not take any action 16 tonight. There are three pages of questions and 17 answers by Mr Lockuff. 18 By accepting that, I am certainly not, I don't 19 know what the rest of commission is inclined to do. 20 But one thing that has become very apparent today 21 is that Mr. Lockuff, as your utilities director, 22 has more knowledge on the reuse lines and plants. 23 That is what the last two witnesses indicated, 24 that he would be the person with the most 25 knowledge. And these three pages of questions and 96 1 answers is a little bit helpful, but there is other 2 information we need to ask him other than that. So 3 1 would prefer, I think Deputy Mayor said, if we 4 could postpone making a decision on whether to 5 accept this letter, this whole package into the 6 record tonight, unless you tell us. 7 CITY ATTORNEY: I don't know how you do that. 8 With all due respect to the commission,the Mayor 9 prefaced this meeting by stating that each of the 10 witnesses have a right to counsel and a right to 11 state objections. 12 So I haven't read this letter in its entirety. 13 Clearly subpoenaed individuals have a right to 14 counsel. Mr.Jones is saying his letter comports 15 to state objections,which I think they are 16 entitled to make. 17 In addition, he claims that Mr. Lockuff has 18 presented some answers, at least in writing, to 19 some of the questions based on Mr.Jones' 20 representation. I don't see a signed document here 21 by Mr. Lockuff to any stretch of the imagination. 22 Your prior two witnesses have likewise 23 provided written responses. So if Mr. Lockuff has 24 indeed provided responses--we are going on 25 Mr.Jones' representation. I don't see why you 97 1 can't accept them either. Accepting this document, 2 all I know it is represented to you by counsel. He 3 stated objections. You may not like the 4 objections, but he stated objections. 5 1 would like to point out to the commission 6 that the scope, all of the rules you put into place 7 was not provided with any of the subpoenas to 8 anyone prior to tonight. 9 The is the first I've heard of any of it,the 10 scope and where we were going with this. How am I 11 supposed to advise a client to come here to this 12 commission without any rules whatsoever, any 13 boundaries. 14 This commission could have handled this in an 15 entirely different fashion. You chose to make this 16 a court case and issued subpoenas and ask nothing 17 but leading questions to get desired answers. 18 THE MAYOR: Sir? 19 MR.JONES: This could have been handled 20 differently. 21 THE MAYOR: Sir? Thank you. 22 COMMISSIONER CANNON: I make a motion to 23 adjourn this. We are not completed with this 24 investigation. We are going to have another day. 25 Then i make a motion that we take no action on the 98 1 September 20, 2021, letter submitted by Mr.Jones 2 at this time; that we revisit that when we have the 3 next set of witnesses to come in and we can take 4 action at that time. 5 Hopefully, Mr. Lockuff will come in like Mr. 6 Smith and Mr. Fields did and read his answers into 7 the record and help to shed some light as probably 8 the one person with the most knowledge on all this. 9 DEPUTY MAYOR: I have a question for Mr. City 10 Attorney. If we accept the questions at the very 11 end of all of this, is this intended to be the sole 12 testimony of this particular witness? 13 THE MAYOR: No. 14 CITY ATTORNEY: No. As I mentioned early on, 15 the subpoena powers of the commission, as stated in 16 the charter. Subpoena power is not limited to 17 written questions, written answers. Attendance, 18 and testimony is contemplated within the subpoena 19 powers under the charter. 20 THE MAYOR: We are going to enter this into 21 the record. I believe we are done with Mr. Brown 22 for this evening. 23 MR.JONES: I have one question. You may 24 recall when they were reading questions and 25 answers,there were more questions than answers on 99 1 their form than what you have. So the group of 2 questions that I submitted are not in the packet. 3 I'm sure you can get your hands on those. 4 MR.JONES: I can make a request for them. 5 COMMISSIONER ELLIOTT: Right. Right. There 6 is probably twice as many questions than are on 7 here. That makes it easy for me. 8 MR.JONES: I will find out how Mr. Elkind 9 obtained those questions. 10 THE MAYOR: Is there a motion we are accepting 11 this whole packet into the record? 12 COMMISSIONER CANNON: No, we are not accepting 13 it into the record. My motion was to defer any 14 action on it. We have no more business to do 15 tonight because we have other witnesses we have got 16 to reschedule with CPH and hopefully other 17 witnesses. 18 MS.JONES: I am going to object. 19 THE MAYOR: Sir, you are not being 20 acknowledged. You are not being acknowledged. 21 COMMISSIONER CANNON: I am sorry, 22 commissioner. Thank you for the clarification. 1 23 make a motion that we take no action on it tonight. 24 We are not done with this hearing. We are at least 25 going to have another date where we are going to 100 1 have to do some of the other witnesses. And so -- 2 THE MAYOR: A motion appears to be made by 3 Commissioner Cannon give the commission time to 4 read through the packet. Is there a second? 5 COMMISSIONER HALE: There is probably 30 to 6 50 pages here. 7 THE MAYOR: Is that a second by Commissioner 8 Hale? 9 COMMISSIONER HALE: Yes, a second. 10 DEPUTY MAYOR: Just one more bit of discussion 11 on this for the city attorney. As you know I am 12 clearly very uncomfortable having this document 13 entered into the record when there is no way any of 14 us could have possibly read it. 15 So what-- please give me some clarity on 16 this. If we decide to wait and read it and then 17 revisit this, are we on a good legal standing doing 18 that. 19 CITY ATTORNEY: I think the record reflects 20 very clearly tonight that Mr.Jones appeared on 21 behalf of his clients, as stated in this letter. 22 He has advised his clients not to appear in 23 response to the subpoena. 24 That is clearly on the record. In furtherance 25 of his advice, he has submitted to the commission 101 1 his letter on his letterhead dated September 20, 2 2021. What the city commission does with this 3 letter is probably subject to the commission having 4 ample time to review it and then discuss it at a 5 later date. 6 In fact, I believe the Mayor's opening preface 7 said that,that there are certain noncompliance 8 issues with the subpoena, the commission thinks is 9 not compliant. The commission can consider what to 10 do a later date. I think that is a matter of 11 course. I think that is the point the commission 12 is making. 13 DEPUTY MAYOR: Is a vote necessary to give us 14 time. Do we--a motion has been made and 15 seconded. Do we need to vote? 16 CITY ATTORNEY: That's up to the commission. 17 If the commission wants to make the record clear 18 that they are going to review this letter and take 19 it up amount a subsequent meeting, a motion can be 20 made. 21 Basically, it's a procedural decision by the 22 commission in my view. 23 THE MAYOR: A motion has been made by 24 Commissioner Cannon and seconded by Commissioner 25 Hale. Christian? 102 1 THE CLERK: Commissioner Benton? 2 COMMISSIONER BENTON: Aye. 3 THE CLERK: Commissioner Cannon? 4 COMMISSIONER CANNON: Aye. 5 THE CLERK: Deputy Mayor Johnson. 6 DEPUTY MAYOR JOHNSON: Aye. 7 THE CLERK: Commissioner Hale? 8 COMMISSIONER HALE: Aye. 9 THE CLERK: Commissioner Elliott? 10 COMMISSIONER ELLIOTT: Aye. 11 THE MAYOR: Okay. Moving forward. Is there 12 further discussion before we move forward to take 13 appropriate--are we going to wait for CPH. I 14 just want to make sure I have a clear understanding 15 of the next steps we are taking. 16 We are going to have an opportunity to read 17 through the large packet provided by Mr.Jones. We 18 are going to schedule time to meet with and hear 19 from CPH. And then the discussion will continue at 20 that point. 21 COMMISSIONER CANNON: I think the city 22 attorney should reach out to the attorneys for CPH 23 and any other attorneys that have appeared and 24 discuss whether or not anyone else will appear or 25 not and give us a briefing on what to do. I don't 103 1 think we can make a decision tonight other than, 2 obviously,we have heard from two witnesses and 3 there is others that we need to hear from and try 4 to figure out. 5 CITY ATTORNEY: Mr. Hammer said his clients 6 will attend. He references in the record that they 7 would arrange a mutually convenient time for his 8 clients to respond to the subpoena. 9 1 am happy to reach out and followup on that 10 to see what is a mutually convenient time and 11 advise the manager and commission accordingly. 12 In addition, Mayor, I believe you mentioned 13 it, but copies of the subpoenas are in the record 14 as well as certificates of service are in the 15 record for this proceeding. 16 THE MAYOR: Okay. Without further discussion, 17 we will move onto public input. I have two blue 18 forms. As is customary, this opens this portion of 19 the meeting for the residents to be heard. When 1 20 call your name, state your name and address 21 clearly. Please do not address individual 22 commission members or myself. 23 Be respectful and do not use disparaging 24 language. If I do not already have a blue form and 25 you choose to speak,would you please make sure you 104 1 fill out a blue form before you leave? Thank you. 2 Let's start with former Mayor Paul. 3 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good 4 evening members of the commission and city 5 attorney. I appreciate this tough situation. But 6 what I would like to do is --first of all, Paul 7 Partyka, 404 Park Lake Drive, Winter Springs. 8 Rhetorically,what I would like to say is 9 why--why was this process initiated this way? 10 Why, in terms of the process and the reasoning 11 behind this,why was it done this way? As you can 12 see, it puts everyone on a very defensive position. 13 It is a travesty of the process for finding 14 solutions. 15 Why could not a workshop be called and invite 16 the people in attendance. I am a former elected 17 official and current resident, and I listened to 18 all this and am embarrassed about how this process 19 was done. Rather than a cordial situation, it has 20 been become adversarial versus being collaborative. 21 Furthermore,why now. 22 If there was an issue, this could have been 23 handled way before this. We have commissioners on 24 this dais going back as early as 2014 and 2016 and 25 2018. So why do we put ourselves in such an 105 1 adversarial position? Because people,when they 2 get a subpoena, become defensive. Let me make a 3 suggestion. It is never too late to change things. 4 Why not, at this point in time, retract all of the 5 subpoenas? 6 Why not invite everybody into a workshop or as 7 some people said lunch one on one or two on one, or 8 two on two,whatever you want to say and get to a 9 situation where people are collaborative in trying 10 to find the solution to this problem. Think about 11 it for a second. 12 You as a commission can change the process. 13 You have experienced this now first time. I have 14 never been through this. But I know one time, 15 everybody is nervous. You can talk about what kind 16 of questions you can ask. 17 This is a very, very unique and unusual 18 process. Get back to cordiality. Get back to 19 collaborative help in finding solutions. So my 20 suggestion would be is we retract all the 21 subpoenas, get back to where these people want to 22 help. 23 1 think you have heard that. Why not give 24 them a chance for all of us to find a solution. 25 That is my suggestion. Thank you very much. 106 1 Thank you Mayor. 2 THE MAYOR: Commissioner Kendrick. 3 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, 4 commissioners. Thank you. It has been a long time 5 since I've been here. Geoff Kendrick, 1184 6 Trotwood Boulevard, Winter Springs, Florida. I 7 echo Mayor Partyka's sentiment. 8 This is really frustrating. I never would 9 have believed this process can be occurring in my 10 city. And I am only addressing the commission when 11 I say that this commission has collapsed in the 12 past ten months. 13 1 don't know what happened or where it came 14 from? But it has happened. We are bordering on 15 misuse of power, and it must stop. Let's talk 16 about it, misuse of power. 17 Let's imagine 35,000, 37,000 Winter Springs 18 residents wake up one morning and they say, my city 19 commission has the ability to subpoena me at no 20 fault of my own, against my will, at my own 21 expense, and for any reason whatsoever. 22 It doesn't matter. They can make it up. On 23 top of all that, if they choose not to comply, 24 meaning the citizens, they can be fined, imprisoned 25 or both. How does that sit with you guys? It is 107 1 disgusting. The fact that we are even here is 2 disgusting. If you want to fix the problem, sit 3 down. Hire an independent agency. Get it 4 inspected. Bring it back with staff. Present it 5 to the commission. Find a remedy. This is not 6 hard. 7 I mean, we were moving, from my perspective, 8 in the right direction, and we have come to this 9 point in ten short months. What has happened? 10 Instead of our commission choosing to create -- I 11 mean --excuse me. 12 Instead of trying to find a resolution,we 13 have created a theatrical performance on the 14 taxpayers' dime. The sole purpose is self 15 promotion and to deflect blame, and you know it. 16 To deflect blame from one or more 17 commissioners who have had the access to this 18 information for seven years and done nothing. The 19 real question is, why weren't one of you 20 subpoenaed, who has been here the whole time? 21 There is a commissioner on this dais that has 22 been here since 2014. That commissioner was not 23 subpoenaed for this. That commissioner had all of 24 this information, and did nothing with it until 25 now, until the cup runneth over, excuse my pun. We 108 1 never had this problem before. Why now? Thank 2 you. 3 THE MAYOR: Anyone further? 4 AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is Gina Shafer. 1 5 live in Winter Springs Village. I first want to 6 thank you commissioners and city manager for trying 7 to handle all of the water problems in the city. 8 As a Winter Springs Village resident, when 1 9 moved into the Winter Springs Village almost eight 10 years ago, I was told that we would be hooked up to 11 reclaimed water for our irrigation in order to keep 12 our HOA dues from going up. 13 At this moment, we are still not hooked up. 14 My second question as a taxpayer is why did the 15 city manager for the department of public works not 16 keep a running table on the water use and 17 consumption for new development and making this 18 information to the past city counsel. 19 1 worked in retail and for years we had to do 20 year-to-date projects. We had a five-year run in. 21 We knew five years out what our projection for our 22 next sales were supposed to be. 23 Why did our local departments not have 24 something like that in use for future projects and 25 for the reclaimed water? I lived in Avery Park in 109 1 early 2000. That was the newest development and 2 touted as the place to be and what the Winter 3 Springs Village would one day be. Back then we had 4 two meters, one for water and one for our lawns, 5 and it was public utilities. 6 A lot has been written on social media and a 7 lot of false information has been out there. And 1 8 want to thank you for giving some sunshine. And 1 9 know that some people are not happy about their 10 subpoena. 11 1 say this, meeting somebody and having lunch 12 with them is not letting the public know what 13 actually happened. I also think that the 14 commission should have listened to public input at 15 the very beginning of this meeting. It was on the 16 agenda. 17 And if you want to go by Robert's Rule of 18 Order, which I am follower,you deviated from that, 19 and I am kind of disappointed because I only get 20 three minutes. Usually you would get six minutes 21 in a meeting. I got three. 22 I am a little disappointed because maybe those 23 other gentleman would have heard what I had to say. 24 Thank you very much for your time. 25 THE MAYOR: Thank you, Ms. Shafer. 110 1 Anyone else? 2 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Art Gallo, 199 Nandina 3 Terrace. I hadn't planned to say anything tonight. 4 As a resident, I am just very curious, like 5 everyone else here, never been through a subpoena 6 process. 7 Appreciate the words of Mayor Partyka. 1 8 understand where you are coming from. I don't know 9 if doing the subpoena was the right way or the 10 wrong way. But I do know as a resident, it is all 11 out here in the open. We are hearing what is going 12 on. 13 It is part of the sunshine process. So I am 14 not saying it is good or bad. I am thinking from 15 my perspective at least I am hearing what is 16 happening, which I couldn't if we did it over a 17 lunch. That is not to say you wouldn't get the 18 answers over a lunch; you could still do that. 19 But the residents, who are the taxpayers that 20 put in the$1.5 million or$3 million, have a right 21 to know. I think just the fact that it is open, 22 and you are willing to do that, is good. 23 Again, I do think the subpoena process is 24 difficult, but it is a fact of how you do business. 25 It is something the commission was given the power 111 1 to do. And it is keeping it open to the public 2 where it needs to be. A workshop is nice, but not 3 everybody attends workshops. I think this is the 4 best commission and mayor this city has ever had. 5 You have always been honest with the public. You 6 have always tried to be open and do the best thing 7 for the city residents. 8 1 am not a Facebook guy or a social media guy. 9 1 think it is the worse thing that has ever 10 happened to this world, given all the problems you 11 see we are having. People don't read. They don't 12 do their own research. 13 They believe what is on Twitter. They believe 14 what is on Facebook. I believe everyone has to do 15 their own homework. You've got to read everything, 16 not just one place. You have got to look at 17 everything and get the truth. 18 And I think this subpoena is one way to get to 19 the truth and do it in the open. And it is 20 something that you are given the power to do. I am 21 glad now that I am sitting standing here talking to 22 you that maybe it had to be done. 23 If you want to pull it that is up to your 24 discussion, if you think you can make better 25 process in a meeting. I don't know if you can. I 112 1 don't know if it is worth it. I appreciate being 2 able to come and listen. And to those folks on the 3 other end of the line that they can hear it too and 4 certainly go in later and do their own research and 5 get to the truth. This is how you do it. Thank 6 you. 7 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Ron Nichols (phonetic). 8 1036 Morning Moore (phonetic) Circle, Winter 9 Springs. So I have been following this for quite 10 some time. I have to say I am highly disappointed 11 with the direction of this commission. 12 In my mind you created a very hostile 13 situation as was stated by former Mayor Partyka, 14 and I agree with him 100 percent. I used to come 15 here a lot, you know, during the Meglamore 16 (phonetic) days and the Kevin Smith days, in the 17 early days. 18 Granted I haven't come here more lately. But 19 the fact is, I spoke to Kip a lot of times. 20 Sometimes we agreed; sometimes we disagreed. But 21 you know what, this guy was sharp. He was highly 22 competent in a technical point of view that I don't 23 think anybody here can duplicate. 24 I'm sorry, that is just the way it is. The 25 thing is you have to appreciate people's technical 113 1 abilities, and Kip was one of them. I am not 2 saying everything was right. And I am not sure 3 about everything. But, again, I think you created 4 a very hostile situation. I am angry about this 5 reclaim system. 6 In my mind you were basically telling he is 7 guilty, no matter what. Instead of opening up your 8 mind. Hey, let's give Kevin Smith a call. Let's 9 give Kip a call. For example, the sewer system on 10 the west side, right, it failed, right? Boom -- 11 boom -- boom. 12 I would have called Kip, whether you liked 13 either him or not. This is what I heard. You were 14 just opening and closing a value, see what happens. 15 You said that right here. Is that the right way to 16 approach it? No. 17 Well, let's open up this valve. Let's open up 18 this valve and see what happens. It doesn't work 19 that way. I am sorry. I am very,very 20 disappointed. I think this could have been solved 21 in a very cordial manner. 22 But I am very disappointed with the direction 23 that it has taken. This should never have happened 24 this way. I bet you have gotten a lot more answers 25 to help you as a whole. And I think, personally, 114 1 you may not like this, but you are looking for a 2 smoking gun by trying to corner Kevin with certain 3 questions because I didn't care for the fact that 4 you are asking all these questions that should have 5 been submitted to Kevin Smith in the first place. 6 All right. What did this commission say a 7 while ago? Oh, all these questions are only going 8 to take 5, 15 minutes. What time is it now? I am 9 sorry. I am just upset about that. But those 10 mistakes that are made. 11 Look, I know you like to be loved. I like to 12 be loved too. I personally don't care who loves 13 me, who hates me. But look,you know, I think 14 there is sometimes too much focus on, like, you 15 can't do no wrong. 16 And look, everyone makes mistakes. I make 17 mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. But I just 18 thought that the tactics here were disgusting. 19 Thank you for your time. 20 THE MAYOR: Anyone further? No one further? 21 Then I would remind residence please fill out a 22 blue firm and leave it with the city clerk. And if 23 there is no further--Commissioner Benton? 24 COMMISSIONER BENTON: Can I speak? 25 THE MAYOR: Absolutely. 115 1 COMMISSIONER BENTON: I appreciate those that 2 showed up for the subpoenas tonight. A lot of what 3 was talked about tonight was concerning a June 12, 4 2017, commission meeting on item 301 on the consent 5 agenda. 6 1 think maybe our commissioners might have 7 paid more attention to that, if that meeting had 8 lasted longer than 17 minutes. That is how long 9 the whole meeting lasted. All of those questions 10 that came up tonight were about what was discussed 11 in a meeting that lasted 17 minutes; that's all. 12 THE MAYOR: Commissioners, anything further? 13 DEPUTY MAYOR: I just want to make a comment 14 for discussion that we should have gone ahead and 15 reached out, sit down with some of the individuals 16 who were subpoenaed and try to work out the 17 problems. Well, my comment would be, we are 18 working on the problems currently. We have an 19 excellent city manager. 20 We have excellent staff. We were backed into 21 a corner, and we had to find solutions. We are 22 solving the problems. We are currently working on 23 the Jesup Reclaimed Augmentation Plant. 24 In 18 months we will have a reclaimed water 25 main from the west side of town to serve the east 116 1 side of town. We are doing that. We have two 2 sewer plants,waste water treatment plants that are 3 literally falling apart. As recently as last night 4 our crews were out there patching the east side 5 plant. These are things we inherited, but we are 6 diligent in solving problems. 7 There has been comments that this group has, 1 8 guess, gone into the abyss or something, but 1 9 would argue otherwise, because everyone sitting up 10 here is doing the best they can to address all of 11 the problems. They are significant problems, quite 12 frankly, we inherited. 13 1 think when it cycles back to the Lake Jesup 14 plant, my biggest concern was the apparent lack of 15 communication from when the documents indicate to 16 the commission that was up here at that time. 17 It seems like to me that years went by, and 1 18 don't believe the commissioners were aware of 19 various problems that were going on at that plant. 20 When it comes to communication, as many of you 21 know, before I sat up here, I attended nearly every 22 meeting. 23 They started at, I think, 5:15 or 5:30 so 1 24 was always late. I tried to make every meeting. 1 25 honestly think the commissioners were not aware of 117 1 some of very important information that we are now 2 trying to have clarity on. As a taxpayer, I would 3 like to have a clear understanding of a plant, a 4 plant that started functioning in 2013, stopped 5 functioning in 2013, and according to this 6 documentation was patched together and functioned 7 for a while in 2017,then stopped again. 8 That is a significant amount of taxpayer 9 money. And I think me along with the near 37,000 10 other residents are entitled to some explanation as 11 to what happened and why did it go on so long. 12 As far as the process, the city charter 13 permits us to approach it in this manner. The 14 entire commission agreed to pursue it in this 15 process. Thank you, Mayor. 16 THE MAYOR: Commissioner Hale? 17 COMMISSIONER HALE: Onto what Ted - 18 Commissioner Johnson said and another comment 1 19 remember hearing, I believe, I heard we are not 20 allowing people to have their own voice to defend 21 themselves. 22 1 personally felt that this is how we can make 23 sure that they have their voice heard. I am not a 24 political person. I know that sounds--whatever, 25 but I can assure you I love our city, and I want 118 1 open communication. It is hard when everything is 2 politicized. This is our way of making sure we can 3 do it in the sunshine for our residents to be part 4 of it. That is all I want to say. I love our 5 city. 6 I feel like this is an opportunity for 7 everyone to be able to come together and help. I 8 am sorry if their feelings were defensive. But I 9 love our city. I love all of our residents here 10 so. 11 THE MAYOR: Commissioner Elliott? 12 COMMISSIONER ELLIOTT: Speaking for myself, I 13 can't speak for the entire commission, but I am not 14 looking for a smoking gun or blame. I am just 15 looking for information. I was not around when any 16 of this was going on. 17 1 was just "Joe citizen" sitting out there 18 fat, dumb, and happy and not having any idea that 19 some of these things were going on. A few days ago 20 1 was out at the west treatment plant. 21 When you can poke your finger through 22 quarter-inch steel, you have got a problem,just 23 one of the many problems that most folks don't even 24 know. But there is some serious issues going on in 25 this city that this commission being faced with. 119 1 We are not going to kick the can down the road. 2 These proceedings in my mind were strictly for 3 information. 4 1 just don't want to repeat the problems, the 5 situations, the issues now that some commission ten 6 years down the road is going to have to put up with 7 because of something I did or didn't do. 8 When I started off these proceedings this 9 evening, the mayor was kind enough to let me say a 10 quick prayer. If you remember what I said, which 11 is these commissioners can be enlightened to the 12 point with your guidance we could not repeat and 13 oversights, past oversights, miscommunications or 14 uninformed discussions. 15 That is what it is all about. Whether or not 16 you agree that it is through he subpoena process or 17 sitting down and having lunch or having a workshop, 18 that is your personal opinion. 19 The fact that at least some of the folks here 20 think that bringing it out in the sunshine is part 21 of the reason I agreed to it so that people do 22 understand what has happened in the past. But as 23 far as pointing the finger and looking for blame, a 24 smoking gun, that is not my intention. 25 We just want to make sure that we understand 120 1 what happened, we try to figure out how to fix it, 2 and we sure as heck don't repeat it and do it again 3 because it is not fair to the rest of Winter 4 Springs. 5 THE MAYOR: Commissioner? 6 COMMISSIONER CANNON: I am not looking for a 7 smoking gun. And contrary to what people are 8 accusing me of, this is not a witch hunt. That is 9 not the fact at all. 10 This whole concurrency thing,when new 11 development comes into the city, and they want to 12 be approved, the city staff and engineers and so 13 forth, have to tell us commissioners if there is 14 enough water and sewer and the roads and the whole 15 nine yards. 16 So right now, we learned that we were over our 17 CUP for last year, beginning of this year. Shortly 18 thereafter we had water emergency, right? The 19 plant, the reuse--the sewer plants and so forth 20 are in really poor disrepair. That is what it is, 21 okay? 22 My biggest thing, and I have said it several 23 times, I have a suspicion that whatever process we 24 have been using for this water concurrency and this 25 sewer concurrency and so forth, whatever process we 121 1 are using hasn't worked. There has got to be a 2 flaw in it. Because for every one--and even 3 Brian Fields and Kevin Smith, everyone is like, 4 okay--and I went back and looked through all of 5 these land use,you know, when we would be looking 6 at a final site plan and the city engineers and so 7 forth are saying yup, we have got adequate water 8 and sewer, all right? 9 So the commission approved all of these 10 different projects. And as sure as I am talking 11 and breathing in the future there will be more 12 development projects come to the city. It is a 13 dynamic process. 14 But right now we have got independent living 15 facilities,we've town homes, we got more homes 16 that are-- literally all of these are going to be 17 coming online within probably the next 6 to 18 12 months, and it is many millions of gallons. 19 It's like, I think about 30 million gallons 20 that is more demand on our water system. And right 21 now all indications are for 2021 we are going to be 22 over the CUP. 23 So what I have said and what I am going to 24 continue to say is we have got to evaluate whatever 25 processes we would use for the concurrency 122 1 analysis, right, for water and sewer. The fact 2 that we were over the CUP last year and we are 3 likely going to be over the CUP this year and 4 probably more next year,we have got to figure out, 5 is there a flaw in that whole review process on 6 concurrency. Because the facts are what they are, 7 okay. 8 1 mean, something went off--and I use the 9 expression --something went off the rails with the 10 water concurrency. And so I know Mr. Lockuff, 11 Mr. Fields, I hold all of these men in high regard, 12 1 do. 13 Brian just told us they kept a detailed 14 analysis of how much water do we have and how much 15 have we already committed to? This is what we need 16 to have Kip shed light on. And we need to look at 17 whatever process we follow, and I think we need to 18 tweak it or make some adjustments to it. 19 You know you have got some technical 20 engineering on that plant and the rehab of the 21 plants and the new plants that is technical 22 engineering stuff. But what concerns me is how 23 have we been doing our water and waste water 24 concurrency analysis? 25 The fact that we have gotten it so wrong here, 123 1 we have got to reevaluate that because it is going 2 to take so many years or months to put all these 3 plants in and all the lines. That is an 4 engineering, construction timeline thing. That is 5 not much we can do with that other than we are 6 approving all the contracts and we are moving 7 forward. 8 My biggest concern is that as new people, new 9 projects want to come into our city,we have got to 10 make sure that whatever this water concurrency 11 process of review that we have been using, that it 12 is going to work because the physical anecdotal 13 evidence is it hasn't worked, right? 14 And that is what I am trying to find out, 15 which is the reason why I asked Mr. Smith and Mr. 16 Fields, hey, have you got any suggestions. And 1 17 understood their lawyer's objection. And I wasn't 18 trying to put them in an awkward position. 19 You know the definition of insanity, 20 Einstein's favorite is you expect different results 21 when you keep doing the same thing. Right now we 22 are significantly over the CUP, and we are going to 23 be even more so when these new buildings come 24 online shortly. 25 The question is we have to quickly evaluate 124 1 what these processes are that brought us to this 2 point and,you know, maybe the system that we have 3 been using-- I mean anecdotally, if we are over 4 the CUP but we were keeping a detailed record, how 5 are we still over the CUP, which is what I said 6 from the dais, if you all remember. 7 How can that be? How can we be over the CUP? 8 1 know I asked multiple times asked and I know 9 commissioner Kendrick is here, how are we over the 10 CUP? Oh,yeah, we are fine on the CUP, right? And 11 all of the reports that were submitted to us for 12 approving all of these developments, Integra,The 13 Rise,The Blake,The Hawthorne, all of these 14 projects,Tuscaloosa Crossing, yeah, we are fine, 15 adequate water and sewer. 16 Then all of a sudden we don't have it. 17 Obviously, there is something--and if some 18 mistake in calculations were done or whatever, so 19 be it. But we have to figure out where this 20 process --and it is really a staff process because 21 none of us are engineers. 22 And it is up to the city manager, and the 23 utility and department heads to crunch these 24 numbers and keep track of this stuff. But, 25 obviously, something is not functioning. And we 125 1 don't have the luxury of just staying the course 2 and doing what we have been doing because --and 3 expecting a different result because that is not 4 going to happen. That is Einstein's definition of 5 insanity. 6 And so anybody who was offended because of the 7 subpoenas, I personally will apologize right now. 8 1 wasn't trying to offend anybody, okay? This is a 9 very serious matter that we have that is 10 confronting us. It involves many, many millions of 11 dollars. 12 It has the impact of slowing down or 13 preventing us from approving new development in 14 this city. This is a grave matter. This is really 15 important. We have got to figure out how suddenly 16 we went so far over the CUP. That is all that I am 17 looking for. 18 That is all I have said from day one. And so 19 Mr.Jones I know you are here. Please tell your 20 clients there is nobody here looking for smoking 21 guns and looking to attack anybody, not at all. 22 What we are trying to figure out is a lot of 23 this goes way back to 2005, 1 mean, 15, 16 years 24 ago before any of us was up here. We are trying to 25 figure out what was done,what processes were 126 1 followed. Somehow, I think, and I may be wrong, 2 but if everyone is keeping track of the CUP, but we 3 are grossly over the CUP, then maybe it was an 4 honest mistake in calculation. I don't know. But 5 we have to figure that out. 6 Maybe if we reach out to some other cities, 7 Shawn and Jason, to see what process they are using 8 to keep track of the CUP and water and sewer and so 9 forth. I still don't know, technically, how our 10 engineers have done it. 11 1 know we have a major problem, many millions 12 of dollars are at stake. Delaying developments 13 that are good developments that would be beneficial 14 for the city, that is in play here. We don't want 15 to do that. So that is it. 16 So to respond to the suggestions that we are 17 just trying to be malicious, we have got to figure 18 this out. I think it is appropriate to do it here 19 in these chambers, not over lunch. I understand 20 lunch, but several people said they have a right to 21 know. And that's it. 22 So we have the right, not only the right, but 23 frankly, we have the obligation as a commission to 24 do this. 25 Mayor, I respect you immensely. We have got 127 1 to get to the bottom of this and make sure that we 2 don't repeat this going forward. And every 3 organization from time-to-time has problems, things 4 that slip through the cracks, and you do that self 5 assessment and you figure out what needs to be 6 done. 7 That is the purpose. That is only the purpose 8 from my perspective and I think from the rest of 9 the commission. We have got to learn from our you 10 can call it mistakes or whatever so we don't repeat 11 them. And that is all this has ever been about 12 from this commissioner. 13 And I think that is saying from all of the 14 commissioners up here. You know when something 15 doesn't work, you find out why it doesn't work, 16 where things went wrong and fix it, not just the 17 broken plant but you fix the rest of it. 18 That includes why we need to do the 19 re-extension of the reuse line. I mean, there is 20 lots of things that maybe we should have been 21 moving on a few the years ago. But those are 22 things that are going to take many, many months and 23 years to implement to build a permit. 24 In the meantime, we are in a serious problem 25 right now. So that's it. So if anybody listening 128 1 was offended because we used subpoenas, well, I am 2 very sorry. I wish they had come in just like Mr. 3 Fields and Mr. Smith did. It was helpful. I wish 4 the others did the same. I think we would be a lot 5 further along. 6 THE MAYOR: Commissioner Benton? 7 COMMISSIONER BENTON: Nothing. 8 COMMISSIONER HALE: I just have one more thing 9 about having everyone come here,think about it, 10 there is five of us, at an hour a piece one on one 11 we sit down for lunch. 12 1 felt like it was a more streamline process 13 also. Remember sunshine law, we can't meet and 14 talk about things, so I thought we could meet and 15 talk to all of us. 16 THE MAYOR: If I may speak for myself. My ego 17 is not caught up in this. This is not about-- 1 18 think as an individual, I can live and learn, and 1 19 try to learn every day. 20 Ms. Shafer's comments about ensuring there is 21 public input at the beginning of the meeting, the 22 mayor and the commissioners input about the 23 subpoenas, I am listening. We are listening. 24 And I am not above and my ego is not big 25 enough that I can't admit, I have really got to 129 1 think about that. You are residents. You are 2 involved. You have an opinion. You have been 3 heard. 4 1 want you to know you have been heard. 1 5 personally learned a lot tonight from the 6 discussion. And the reality is we are well over 7 our CUP. And remember that CUP, that amount of 8 water that we are pulling every year is going down 9 we are allowed to pull. 10 Not only do we have developments coming online 11 that are going to increase it, but the amount we 12 are allowed to pull is going to continue to drop. 13 That is one of the missing keys. 14 We are talking about nobody seems to have 15 noticed that. That seems to be clearly one of the 16 issues. The bottom line truth is we did spend 17 nearly$2 million, so half of$3.5 million, so 18 $1.75 million on that plant. 19 It doesn't work. Now, hey, it was only 20 supposed to be used a month or two a year, but it 21 still never worked a month or two a year. So we do 22 have a responsibility to find out how that 23 happened. Moving forward, folks, the city, our 24 infrastructure, this is not the only crisis. That 25 is not what this meeting is about. But our waste 130 1 water treatment plants will be in the news folks. 2 The maintenance and the replacement was kicked 3 down the street year after year. I am not blaming 4 anyone. Most likely, I would say the commissioners 5 did not know,were not aware how bad they were, how 6 long ago they were due for replacement. 7 One thing is for sure, this will be in the 8 news,those waste water treatment plants. We need 9 to brace ourselves. We have got a lot bigger 10 problems coming. I am human. To wrap this up. 11 1 accept the constructive input, the criticism 12 by the mayor, the commissioner, by the residents. 13 It is valuable. I am all ears. I hear you. 14 This dais hears you. We care. The motivation 15 is to do the right thing, to watch out for the 16 taxpayers'wallets,their dollars. This is going 17 to get a lot more critical before it gets better. 18 You have been heard. I appreciate you listening 19 and sticking around and hearing all of us. 20 Is there anything further? 21 We stand adjourned. Thank you all for being 22 here. 23 24 25 The following items were directed to be included in the record by the Commission during the Monday, September 20, 2021 City Commission Special Meeting : CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA SUBPOENA FOR HEARING IN RE: CITY COMMISSION INVESTIGATION OF: (1)City of Winter Springs Lake Jesup Reclaimed Augmentation Plant; (2) City of Winter Springs Consumptive Use Permit #8238 (Ground water for potable use and reclaimed/surface water for irrigation); and (3) City of Winter Springs Consumptive Use Permit # 105763 (Surface water from Lake Jesup and artesian well water for irrigation use) THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA: TO: Rick Brown 699 Bear Paw Court Winter springs, Florida 32708 YOU ARE COMMANDED pursuant to Resolution 2021-09 of the City Commission of Winter Springs, Florida, dated July 12, 2021, and in accordance with the authority vested in the City Commission under Section 4.11 of the City Charter and Florida law, to appear before the City Commission at City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida 32708, on Monday September 20, 2021, at 6:30 p.m. to testify regarding the subject matter of the investigation generally stated above. If you fail to appear, you may be held in contempt of the City Commission. You are subpoenaed to appear before the City Commission and unless excused from this Subpoena by the City Commission, you shall respond to this Subpoena as directed. If you need a sr:ecial accommodation in order to attend because of a disability, please contact the City Clerk at 407-327-6560 at least two 2)days prior to the meeting.; Dated _ Kevin McCann,Mayor Presiding officer on behalf of the City Commission of Winter Springs CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA SUBPOENA FOR HEARING IN RE: CITY COMMISSION INVESTIGATION OF: (1)City of Winter Springs Lake Jesup Reclaimed Augmentation Plant; (2) City of Winter Springs Consumptive Use Permit #8238 (Ground water for potable use and reclaimed/surface water for irrigation); and (3) City of Winter Springs Consumptive Use Permit# 105763 (Surface water from Lake Jesup and artesian well water for irrigation use) THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA: TO: Brian Fields 185 Nandina Terrace Winter Springs, Florida 32708 YOU ARE COMMANDED pursuant to Resolution 2021-09 of the City Commission of Winter Springs, Florida, dated July 12, 2021, and in accordance with the authority vested in the City Commission under Section 4.11 of the City Charter and Florida law, to appear before the City Commission at City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida 32708, on Monday September 20, 2021, at 6:30 p.m. to testify regarding the subject matter of the investigation generally stated above. If you fail to appear, you may be held in contempt of the City Commission. You are subpoenaed to appear before the City Commission and unless excused from this Subpoena by the City Commission, you shall respond to this Subpoena as directed. If You need a special accommodation in order to attend because of a disability. please contact the City Clerk at 407-327-6560 at least two f2 days :prior to the meetin:.. Dated Kevin McCann,Mayor Presiding officer on behalf of the City Commission of Winter Springs CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA SUBPOENA FOR HEARING IN RE: CITY COMMISSION INVESTIGATION OF: (1)City of Winter Springs Lake Jesup Reclaimed Augmentation Plant; (2) City of Winter Springs Consumptive Use Permit #8238 (Ground water for potable use and reclaimed/surface water for irrigation); and (3) City of Winter Springs Consumptive Use Permit# 105763 (Surface water from Lake Jesup and artesian well water for irrigation use) THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA: TO: David Gierach, President CPH Engineers, Inc. 500 West Fulton Street Sanford, Florida 32771 YOU ARE COMMANDED pursuant to Resolution 2021-09 of the City Commission of Winter Springs, Florida, dated July 12, 2021, and in accordance with the authority vested in the City Commission under Section 4.11 of the City Charter and Florida law, to appear before the City Commission at City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida 32708, on Monday September 20, 2021, at 6:30 p.m. to testify regarding the subject matter of the investigation generally stated above. If you fail to appear, you may be held in contempt of the City Commission. You are subpoenaed to appear before the City Commission and unless excused from this Subpoena by the City Commission, you shall respond to this Subpoena as directed. If you need a special accommodation in order to attend because of a disability, please contact the City Clerk at 407-327-6560 at least two 2 days prior to the meeting. Dated Kevin McCann,Mayor Presiding officer on behalf of the City Commission of Winter Springs CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA SUBPOENA FOR HEARING IN RE: CITY COMMISSION INVESTIGATION OF: (1)City of Winter Springs Lake Jesup Reclaimed Augmentation Plant; (2) City of Winter Springs Consumptive Use Permit #8238 (Ground water for potable use and reclaimed/surface water for irrigation); and (3) City of Winter Springs Consumptive Use Permit# 105763 (Surface water from Lake Jesup and artesian well water for irrigation use) THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA: TO: Ken Greenberg 1635 White Dove Drive Winter springs, Florida 32708 YOU ARE COMMANDED pursuant to Resolution 2021-09 of the City Commission of Winter Springs, Florida, dated July 12, 2021, and in accordance with the authority vested in the City Commission under Section 4.11 of the City Charter and Florida law, to appear before the City Commission at City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida 32708, on Monday September 20, 2021, at 6:30 p.m. to testify regarding the subject matter of the investigation generally stated above. If you fail to appear, you may be held in contempt of the City Commission. You are subpoenaed to appear before the City Commission and unless excused from this Subpoena by the City Commission, you shall respond to this Subpoena as directed. If you need a special accommodation in order to attend because of a disability.please contact the City, Clerk at 407-327-6560 at least two (2)days prior to the meeting. Dated Kevin McCann,Mayor Presiding officer on behalf of the City Commission of Winter Springs CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA SUBPOENA FOR HEARING IN RE: CITY COMMISSION INVESTIGATION OF: (1)City of Winter Springs Lake Jesup Reclaimed Augmentation Plant; (2) City of Winter Springs Consumptive Use Permit #8238 (Ground water for potable use and reclaimed/surface water for irrigation); and (3) City of Winter Springs Consumptive Use Permit# 105763 (Surface water from Lake Jesup and artesian well water for irrigation use) THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA: TO: Jean Hovey 549 Brookside Drive Winter Springs, Florida 32708 YOU ARE COMMANDED pursuant to Resolution 2021-09 of the City Commission of Winter Springs, Florida, dated July 12, 2021, and in accordance with the authority vested in the City Commission under Section 4.11 of the City Charter and Florida law, to appear before the City Commission at City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida 32708, on Monday September 20, 2021, at 6:30 p.m. to testify regarding the subject matter of the investigation generally stated above. If you fail to appear, you may be held in contempt of the City Commission. You are subpoenaed to appear before the City Commission and unless excused from this Subpoena by the City Commission, you shall respond to this Subpoena as directed. if you need a special accommodation in order to attend because of a disability. please contact the City Clerk at 407-327-6560 at least two (2) days r)rior to the meeting. Dated d` AU, - cC Kevin McCann,Mayor Presiding officer on behalf of the City Commission of Winter Springs CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA SUBPOENA FOR HEARING IN RE: CITY COMMISSION INVESTIGATION OF: (1)City of Winter Springs Lake Jesup Reclaimed Augmentation Plant; (2) City of Winter Springs Consumptive Use Permit #8238 (Ground water for potable use and reclaimed/surface water for irrigation); and (3) City of Winter Springs Consumptive Use Permit# 105763 (Surface water from Lake Jesup and artesian well water for irrigation use) THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA: TO: Joanne Krebs 1002 Taproot Drive Winter Springs, Florida 32708 YOU ARE COMMANDED pursuant to Resolution 2021-09 of the City Commission of Winter Springs, Florida, dated July 12, 2021, and in accordance with the authority vested in the City Commission under Section 4.11 of the City Charter and Florida law, to appear before the City Commission at City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida 32708, on Monday September 20, 2021, at 6:30 p.m. to testify regarding the subject matter of the investigation generally stated above. If you fail to appear, you may be held in contempt of the City Commission. You are subpoenaed to appear before the City Commission and unless excused from this Subpoena by the City Commission, you shall respond to this Subpoena as directed. If you need a special accommodation in order to attend because of a disability, please contact the City Clerk at 407-327-6560 at least two (2t days prior to the meetino. Dated �2 { _f Kevin McCann,Mayor Presiding officer on behalf of the City Commission of Winter Springs CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA SUBPOENA FOR HEARING IN RE: CITY COMMISSION INVESTIGATION OF: (1)City of Winter Springs Lake Jesup Reclaimed Augmentation Plant; (2) City of Winter Springs Consumptive Use Permit #8238 (Ground water for potable use and reclaimed/surface water for irrigation); and (3) City of Winter Springs Consumptive Use Permit# 105763 (Surface water from Lake Jesup and artesian well water for irrigation use) THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA: TO: Charles Lacey 1410 Winding Stream Court Winter Springs, Florida 32708 YOU ARE COMMANDED pursuant to Resolution 2021-09 of the City Commission of Winter Springs, Florida, dated July 12, 2021, and in accordance with the authority vested in the City Commission under Section 4.11 of the City Charter and Florida law, to appear before the City Commission at City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida 32708, on Monday September 20, 2021, at 6:30 p.m. to testify regarding the subject matter of the investigation generally stated above. If you fail to appear, you may be held in contempt of the City Commission. You are subpoenaed to appear before the City Commission and unless excused from this Subpoena by the City Commission, you shall respond to this Subpoena as directed. If you need a special accommodation in order to attend because of a disability. ,)lease contact the City Clerk at 407-327-6560 at least two i 2 f days_)rior to the meeting. Dated 6 /a/.; Kevin McCann,Mayor Presiding officer on behalf of the City Commission of Winter Springs CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA SUBPOENA FOR HEARING IN RE: CITY COMMISSION INVESTIGATION OF: (1)City of Winter Springs Lake Jesup Reclaimed Augmentation Plant; (2) City of Winter Springs Consumptive Use Permit #8238 (Ground water for potable use and reclaimed/surface water for irrigation); and (3) City of Winter Springs Consumptive Use Permit # 105763 (Surface water from Lake Jesup and artesian well water for irrigation use) THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA: TO: Kip Lockcuff 2512 Creekview Circle Oviedo, Florida 32765 YOU ARE COMMANDED pursuant to Resolution 2021-09 of the City Commission of Winter Springs, Florida, dated July 12, 2021, and in accordance with the authority vested in the City Commission under Section 4.11 of the City Charter and Florida law, to appear before the City Commission at City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida 32708, on Monday September 20, 2021, at 6:30 p.m. to testify regarding the subject matter of the investigation generally stated above. If you fail to appear, you may be held in contempt of the City Commission. You are subpoenaed to appear before the City Commission and unless excused from this Subpoena by the City Commission, you shall respond to this Subpoena as directed. If you need a special accommodation in order to attend because of a disability. please contact the City,Clerk at 407-327-6560 at least two (2) days prior to the meetinc;. Dated y� Kevin McCann,Mayor Presiding officer on behalf of the City Commission of Winter Springs CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA SUBPOENA FOR HEARING IN RE: CITY COMMISSION INVESTIGATION OF: (1)City of Winter Springs Lake Jesup Reclaimed Augmentation Plant; (2) City of Winter Springs Consumptive Use Permit #8238 (Ground water for potable use and reclaimed/surface water for irrigation); and (3) City of Winter Springs Consumptive Use Permit# 105763 (Surface water from Lake Jesup and artesian well water for irrigation use) THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA: TO: Cade Resnick 520 Seven Oaks Boulevard Winter Springs, Florida 32708 YOU ARE COMMANDED pursuant to Resolution 2021-09 of the City Commission of Winter Springs, Florida, dated July 12, 2021, and in accordance with the authority vested in the City Commission under Section 4.11 of the City Charter and Florida law, to appear before the City Commission at City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida 32708, on Monday September 20, 2021, at 6:30 p.m. to testify regarding the subject matter of the investigation generally stated above. If you fail to appear, you may be held in contempt of the City Commission. You are subpoenaed to appear before the City Commission and unless excused from this Subpoena by the City Commission, you shall respond to this Subpoena as directed. If you need a special accommodation in order to attend because of a disability, please contact the City Clerk at 407-3277-6560 at least two 2) days prior to the meeting. Dated Kevin McCann,Mayor Presiding officer on behalf of the City Commission of Winter Springs CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA SUBPOENA FOR HEARING IN RE: CITY COMMISSION INVESTIGATION OF: (1) City of Winter Springs Lake Jesup Reclaimed Augmentation Plant; (2) City of Winter Springs Consumptive Use Permit #8238 (Ground water for potable use and reclaimed/surface water for irrigation); and (3) City of Winter Springs Consumptive Use Permit# 105763 (Surface water from Lake Jesup and artesian well water for irrigation use) THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA: TO: Terry Zaudtke CPH, Inc. 500 West Fulton Street Sanford, Florida 32771 YOU ARE COMMANDED pursuant to Resolution 2021-09 of the City Commission of Winter Springs, Florida, dated July 12, 2021, and in accordance with the authority vested in the City Commission under Section 4.11 of the City Charter and Florida law, to appear before the City Commission at City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida 32708, on Monday September 20, 2021, at 6:30 p.m. to testify regarding the subject matter of the investigation generally stated above. If you fail to appear, you may be held in contempt of the City Commission. You are subpoenaed to appear before the City Commission and unless excused from this Subpoena by the City Commission, you shall respond to this Subpoena as directed. If you need a special accommodation in order to attend because of a disability, please contact the CityC lerk at 407-327-6560 at least two 2 days plior to the meeting. Dated Kevin McCann,Mayor Presiding officer on behalf of the City Commission of Winter Springs CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA SUBPOENA FOR HEARING IN RE: CITY COMMISSION INVESTIGATION OF: (1)City of Winter Springs Lake Jesup Reclaimed Augmentation Plant; (2) City of Winter Springs Consumptive Use Permit #8238 (Ground water for potable use and reclaimed/surface water for irrigation);and (3) City of Winter Springs Consumptive Use Permit# 105763 (Surface water from Lake Jesup and artesian well water for irrigation use) THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA: TO: Kevin Smith YOU ARE COMMANDED pursuant to Resolution 2021-09 of the City Commission of Winter Springs, Florida, dated July 12, 2021, and in accordance with the authority vested in the City Commission under Section 4.11 of the City Charter and Florida law, to appear before the City Commission at City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida 32708, on Monday September 20, 2021, at 6:30 p.m. to testify regarding the subject matter of the investigation generally stated above. If you fail to appear, you may be held in contempt of the City Commission. You are subpoenaed to appear before the City Commission and unless excused from this Subpoena by the City Commission, you shall respond to this Subpoena as directed. If you need a special accommodation in order to attend because of a disabilit , lease contact the City Clerk at 407-327-6560-at least twow2_da §_prior to the meetin Dated 0 r. .. ........... .m.m Kevin McCann,Mayor Presiding officer on behalf of the City Commission of Winter Springs AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE State of Florida County of Seminole Case Number: N/A Court Date:9/20/2021 6:30 pm ff + + CITY COMMISSION INVESTIGATION OF: (1)City of Winter Springs Lake Jesup Reclaimed Augmentation Plant;et al. LIN2021020985 Received by Lynx Legal Services, LLC on the 13th day of August,2021 at 1:28 pm to be served on Brian Fields,185 Nandina Terrace,Winter Springs,FL 32708. I,Ketsy Camacho,being duly sworn,depose and say that on the 27th day of August,2021 at 12:09 pm,I: SUBSTITUTE served by delivering a true copy of the Subpoena for Hearing and a witness fee check in the amount of$11.00 with the date and hour of service endorsed thereon by me,to: Deepika Fields as Wife/Co-Resident at the address of:185 Nandina Terrace,Winter Springs,FL 32708,the within named person's usual place of Abode,who resides therein,who is fifteen(15)years of age or older and informed said person of the contents therein, in compliance with F.S.48.031(1)(a). Military Status:Based upon inquiry of party served, Defendant is not in the military service of the United States of America. Description of Person Served:Age:58,Sex: F,Race/Skin Color: Middle Eastern,Height:65,Weight:165, Hair: Black,Glasses:Y I am over the age of 18, have no interest in the above action,and am a Certified Process Server,in good standing,in the judicial circuit in which the process was served. Under the penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing proof of service,and I attest that the facts stated in it are true. Ke y C a Subscri ed and Sworn to before me on the day of _006 >O—, by the affiant who is personally known t Lynx Legal Services,LLC 201 E.Pine Street NOTARY PUBLIC Suite 740Orlando,FL 32801 0 (407)872-0707 u'x�t• 7.:;t,w ._^4;:,""•.r:c r,f= .:da i,tVsb P,-t,„s Our Job Serial Number:LIN 2021020985 95 Copyright O 1992-2021 Database Services,Inc-Process Server's Toolbox V8.2c AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE State of Florida County of Seminole Case Number: N/A Court Date:9/20/2021 6:30 pm II II IN RE- CITY COMMISSION INVESTIGATION OF: (1)City of Winter Springs Lake Jesup Reclaimed Augmentation Plant;et al. LIN2021020980 Received by Lynx Legal Services, LLC on the 13th day of August,2021 at 1:28 pm to be served on Cade Resnick,520 Seven Oaks Boulevard, Winter Springs,FL 32708. I, Ketsy Camacho,being duly sworn,depose and say that on the 2nd day of September,2021 at 8:26 pm,I: SUBSTITUTE served by delivering a true copy of the Subpoena for Hearing and a witness fee check in the amount of$11.00 with the date and hour of service endorsed thereon by me,to:Susan Soderberg as Fiance/Co-Resident at the address of:520 Seven Oaks Boulevard,Winter Springs,FL 32706,the within named person's usual place of Work,who resides therein,who is fifteen(15)years of age or older and informed said person of the contents therein,in compliance with F S.48.031(1)(a) Military Status:Based upon inquiry of party served, Defendant is not in the military service of the United States of America Description of Person Served:Age:40,Sex: F, Race/Skin Color:White, Height:65,Weight:175,Hair:Blonde,Glasses: N I am over the age of 18,have no interest in the above action,and am a Certified Process Server,in good standing,in the judicial circuit in which the process was served. Under the penalty of perjury,I declare that I have read the foregoing proof of service,and I attest that the facts stated in it are true Z" Z-, ` SubsCribed and Sworn to before me on the 3 day of Kets 7ama L by the affiant who is personally know to m Lynx Legal Services,LLC ((� 201 E.Pine Street Suite 740 NOTARY PUBLIC Orlando,FL 32801 (407)872-0707 Our Job Serial Number:LIN-2021020980 ae^�'J4.°•''gar"./'ri'-d'hv'�S�v`L,'°,P"t:'�,i��+r'�:i Copyright©1992-2021 Database Services,Inc-Process Server's Toolbox V6 2d AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE State of Florida County of Seminole Case Number: NIA Court Date:9/20/2021 6:30 pm I CITY COMMISSION INVESTIGATION OF: II I I III I III III I III I I I II I I II I I I II III (1)City of Winter Springs Lake Jesup Reclaimed Augmentation Plant,et al. LIN2021020983 Received by Lynx Legal Services, LLC on the 13th day of August,2021 at 1:28 pm to be served on Charles Lacey,1410 Winding Steam Court, Winter Springs,FL 32708. I, Ketsy Camacho,being duly sworn,depose and say that on the 10th day of September,2021 at 6:04 pm,I: INDIVIDUALLYIPERSONALLY served by delivering a true copy of the Subpoena for Hearing and a witness fee check In the amount of$11.00 with the date and hour of service endorsed thereon by me,to:Charles Lacey at the alternate address of:Red Eye Tavern,855 East State Road 434, Winter Springs,FL 32708.and informed said person of the contents therein,in compliance with state statutes. Military Status:The person served with said documents refused to state whether or not the Defendant is in the Military Service of the United States of America. Description of Person Served:Age:70,Sex:M, Race/Skin Color:White,Height:6'0,Weight: 175, Hair:White, Glasses: N am over the age of 18, have no interest in the above action,and am a Certified Process Server, in good standing,in the judicial circuit in which the process was served.Under the penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing proof of service,and I attest that the facts stated in it are true. (� Kets arna � �Sub rib d a d Sworn to before me on the /7 day of 18 67 by the affiant who is personally kn to me. ynx Leg Services,LLC 201 E.Pin a3t NOTARY PUBIC iC Suite 740Orlando,FL 32801 (407)872-0707 "&".% NoTary PublIC Stale of Florida Our Job Serial Number:LIN-2021020983 Caleb Ramos ■ Piy Ccotntmiiion GG 951205 �i ridgy Expires 071020-024 Copyright m 1992-2021 Database Services,Inc.-Process Server's Toolbox VB 2d AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE Subpoena for Hearing and a witness fee check in the amount of$11.00 Case Number:N/A IN RE:: CITY COMMISSION INVESTIGATION OF: II I I I II�II��I I�II I I II I I I II�I I I�II (1)City of Winter Springs Lake Jesup Reclaimed Augmentation Plant;et al. Received by Lynx Legal Services, LLC on the 13th day of August,2021 at 1:28 pm to be served on David Gierach,PreA41?- FAineers,Inc, 500 West Fulton Street,Sanford,FL 32771. I, Ketsy Camacho,being duly sworn,depose and say that on the 18th day of August,2021 at 11:53 am,I: SUBSTITUTE served by delivering a true copy of the Subpoena for Hearing and a witness fee check in the amount of$11.00 with the date and hour of service endorsed thereon by me,to: Patricia Hunt as Secretary,a person employed therein and stated as authorized to accept service for CPH Engineers,Inc at the address of:500 West Fulton Street,Sanford,FL 32771,the within named person's usual place of employment,in compliance with State Statutes. Description of Person Served:Age:53,Sex:F, Race/Skin Color:White, Height:66,Weight: 165,Hair. Red,Glasses:N I am over the age of 18,have no interest in the above action,and am a Certified Process Server,in good standing, in the judicial circuit in which the process was served Under the penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing proof of service,and I attest that the facts stated in it are true. Subscri d and worn to before me on the day of Ke Camac by the affiant who is personally known to sKe Lynx Legal ervices,LLC 201 E.Pine Street NOTARY PUBLIC Suite 740 Orlando,FL 32801 (407)872-0707 Our Job Serial Number:LIN-2021020978 H +rr� '=Ar 1 Copyright©1992-2021 Database Services,Inc-Process Server's Toolbox V8 2c AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE State of Florida County of Seminole Case Number: N/A Court Date:9/20/2021 6:30 pm I CITY COMMISSION INVESTIGATION OF: III I III I III III�II�I�IIIIIII�III�lI III (1)City of Winter Springs Lake Jesup Reclaimed Augmentation Plant;et all. LIN2021020986 Received by Lynx Legal Services, LLC on the 13th day of August,2021 at 1:28 pm to be served on Jean Hovey,549 Brookside Drive,Winter Springs,FL 32708. I, Ketsy Camacho,being duly sworn,depose and say that on the 19th day of August,2021 at 6:23 pm,I: INDIVIDUALLYIPERSONALLY sensed Jean Hovey by delivering a true copy of the Subpoena for Hearing and a witness fee check in the amount of$11.00 with the date and hour of service endorsed thereon by me,directly to Jean Hovey at the given address of:549 Brookside Drive,Winter Springs,FL 32708,and informed said person of the contents therein,in compliance with state statutes. Description of Person Served:Age:70,Sex:F,Race/Skin Color:White, Height:65,Weight: 180, Hair:Gray,Glasses:Y I am over the age of 18,have no interest in the above action,and am a Certified Process Server,in good standing,in the judicial circuit in which the process was served.Under the penalty of perjury,I declare that I have read the foregoing proof of service,and I attest that the facts stated in it are true. T K y ralServices, Subscrl d and wor to before me on the & day of 008C7 by the affiant who is personallyknown to Lynx Le LLC 201 E.Pine Street NOTARY PUBLIC Suite 740 Orlando,FL 32801 (407)872-0707 4 x�� Our Job Serial Number:LIN-2021020986 Copyright©1992-2021 Database Services,Inc-Process Servers Toolhox VB 2c AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE State of Florida County of Seminole Case Number:NIA Court Date:9/20/2021 6:30 pm CITY COMMISSION INVESTIGATION OF: III I���I III IIN��INI�IIII�II IIIII�I III (1)City of Winter Springs Lake Jesup Reclaimed Augmentation Plant;et al. LIN2021020981 Received by Lynx Legal Services, LLC on the 13th day of August,2021 at 1:28 pm to be served on Joanne Krebs,1002 Taproot Drive,Winter Springs,FL 32708, I, Ketsy Camacho,being duly sworn,depose and say that on the 19th day of August,2021 at 7:59 pm,I: SUBSTITUTE served by delivering a true copy of the Subpoena for Hearing and a witness fee check in the amount of$11.00 with the date and hour of service endorsed thereon by me,to:Paul Krebs as Husband/Co-Resident at the address of:1002 Taproot Drive,Winter Springs,FL 32708, the within named person's usual place of Abode,who resides therein,who is fifteen(15)years of age or older and informed said person of the contents therein,in compliance with F S 48.031(1)(a), Military Status: Based upon inquiry of party served, Defendant is not in the military service of the United States of America I am over the age of 18, have no interest in the above action,and am a Certified Process Server, in good standing,in the judicial circuit in which the process was served. Under the penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing proof of service,and I attest that the facts stated in it are true. Kets amac Subscr ed an Sworn to before me on the 20 (fay of 1 67 L by the affiant who is personally known t%Jne. [!� Lynx Legal ices,LLC 201 E.Pine Street NOTARY PUBLIC Suite 740 Orlando,FL 32801 (407)872-0707 >`rc s.. ;,•�I� i>..,�I,C:�rEFr 3r=ic,rls s Our Job Serial Number:LIN-2021020981 Copyright©1992-2021 Database Services,Inc.-Process Servers Toolbox V8 2c AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE State of Florida County of Seminole Case Number: N/A Court Date:9/20/2021 6:30 pm CITY COMMISSION INVESTIGATION OF: (1)City of Winter Springs Lake Jesup Reclaimed Augmentation Plant;et al. LIN2021020984 Received by Lynx Legal Services,LLC on the 13th day of August,2021 at 1:28 pm to be served on Ken Greenberg,1635 White Dove Drive, Winter Springs,FL 32708. I, Ketsy Camacho,being duly sworn,depose and say that on the 19th day of August,2021 at 7:40 pm,I: SUBSTITUTE served by delivering a true copy of the Subpoena for Hearing and a witness fee check in the amount of$11.00 with the date and hour of service endorsed thereon by me,to:Jane Doe(Refused Name)as Wife/Co-Resident at the address of:1635 White Dove Drive,Winter Springs,FL 32708,the within named person's usual place of Abode,who resides therein,who is fifteen(15)years of age or older and informed said person of the contents therein,in compliance with F.S.48.031(1)(a). I am over the age of 18,have no interest in the above action,and am a Certified Process Server,in good standing, in the judicial circuit in which the process was served Under the penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing proof of service,and I attest that the facts stated in it are true. Ke Cam Subscdbed anV Sworn to before me on the If?0 da of b�by the affiant who is personally D067 known 144ne- Lynx Le al Services,LLC 201 E.Pine Street NOTARY PUBLIC Suite 740 Orlando,FL 32801 (407)872-0707 �� ■�� :;ta.ry'f= ^tic'�42C of F?ur;da Our Job Serial Number:LIN-2021020984 �" k; Gaieb F+;,,srr3 f".y w,o YY•r'ri[+7 tizG 951,if'' Ic?S Q:}"L':I°�k7'e'4 Copyright 01992-2021 Database Services,Inc.-Process Servers Toolbox V8 2c AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE Subpoena For Hearing and a witness fee check in the amount of$11.00 Case Number:N/A IN RE: CITY COMMISSION INVESTIGATION For: Kevin McCann LIN2021021836 Ir Received Legal Services,LLC on the 20th day of August,2021 at 4:53 pm to be served on Kevin Smith, I, Ketsy Camacho,being duly sworn,depose and say that on the 23rd day of August,2021 at 6:59 pm,I: INDIVIDUALLY/PERSONALLY served Kevin Smith by delivering a true copy of the Subpoena For Hearing and a witness fee check in the amount of$11.00 with the date and hour of service endorsed thereon by me,directly to Kevin Smith at the given address of: and informed said person of the contents therein, in compliance with state statutes. Military Status:The person served with said documents refused to state whether or not the Defendant is in the Military Service of the United States of America. Description of Person Served:Age:50,Sex: M,Race/Skin Color:White, Height:58",Weight: 170,Hair: Dark Brown,Glasses:Y I am over the age of 18,have no interest in the above action,and am a Certified Process Server,in good standing, in the judicial circuit in which the process was served. Under the penalty of perjury,I declare that I have read the foregoing proof of service,and I attest that the facts stated in it are true. K yC Subsc jibed an worn to before me on the day of 00Ei7 a by the affiant who is personally known Lynx L al Services,LLC 201 E.Pine Street NOTARY PUBLIC Suite 740 Orlando,FL 32801 �„• v .r� •+P��'tsf°+a^�."+!'.+M �./4' (407)872-0707 Our Job Serial Number:LIN-2021021838 ems. e r1y. tCl!9"1;.5 Copyright 0 1992-2021 Database Services,Inc.-Process Servers Toolbox VS 2c AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE State of Florida County of Seminole Case Number:N/A Court Date:9/20/2021 6:30 pm l CITY COMMISSION INVESTIGATION OF: (1)City of Winter Springs Lake Jesup Reclaimed Augmentation Plant;et al. LIN2021020972 Received by Lynx Legal Services, LLC on the 13th day of August,2021 at 1:28 pm to be served on Kip Lockcuff,2512 Creekview Circle,Oviedo, FL 32765. I,Ketsy Camacho,being duly sworn,depose and say that on the 20th day of August,2021 at 2:33 pm,I: SUBSTITUTE served by delivering a true copy of the Subpoena for Hearing and a witness fee check in the amount of$11.00 with the date and hour of service endorsed thereon by me,to:Laurie Lockcuff as Wife/Co-Resident at the address of:2512 Creekview Circle,Oviedo,FL 32765,the within named person's usual place of Abode,who resides therein,who is fifteen(15)years of age or older and informed said person of the contents therein,in compliance with F.S.48.031(1)(a) Description of Person Served:Age:55,Sex:F, Race/Skin Color:White, Height:65,Weight: 175, Hair:Blonde,Glasses: N I am over the age of 18,have no interest in the above action,and am a Certified Process Server,in good standing,in the judicial circuit in which the process was served. Under the penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing proof of service,and I attest that the facts stated in it are true. nn, ralserv�,ces, Subsc ed an Sworn to before me on the e' day oflfi_by the affiantwho is personallyknown I eEl LLC 201 E.Pine Street NOTARY PUBLIC Suite 740 Orlando,FL 32801 (407)872-0707 ,ar„ �7ti?:y r'u:nllC.s'.t8:e Of FlrnC•a y� r �• �,:i.et;i+c'r+caS Our Job Serial Number:LIN-2021020972 Copyright 0 1992-2021 Database Services,Inc-Process Server's Toolbox V8 2c AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE Subpoena for Hearing and a witness fee check in the amount of$11.00 Case Number:N/A IN RE:: CITY COMMISSION INVESTIGATION OF: I (1)City of Winter Springs Lake Jesup Reclaimed Augmentation Plant;et al. I Received by Lynx Legal Services, LLC on the 13th day of August,2021 at 1:28 pm to be served on Terry Za idtke CP0W9Pi68W?Fulton Street,Sanford,FL 32771. I, Ketsy Camacho,being duly sworn,depose and say that on the 18th day of August,2021 at 11:53 am,I: SUBSTITUTE served by delivering a true copy of the Subpoena for Hearing and a witness fee check in the amount of$11.00 with the date and hour of service endorsed thereon by me,to:Patricia Hunt as Secretary,a person employed therein and stated as authorized to accept service for CPH,Inc at the address of:500 West Fulton Street,Sanford,FL 32771,the within named person's usual place of employment, in compliance with State Statutes. Description of Person Served:Age:53,Sex. F, Race/Skin Color:White, Height:5'6,Weight: 165,Hair: Red,Glasses: N I am over the age of 18, have no interest in the above action,and am a Certified Process Server,in good standing,in the judicial circuit in which the process was served.Under the penalty of perjury,I declare that I have read the foregoing proof of service,and I attest that the acts stated in it are true. Subscribed and Sworn to before me on the X day of 1 06Camac by the affiant who is personally known t � Lynx Leg rvicps,LLC 201 E.Pine Street NOTARY PulTUC Suite 740 Orlando,FL 32801 (407)872-0707 ,O;P%, rvrne=r h-., ,;p o,Ho ;. 1 Our Job Serial Number: LIN-2021020979 P C:z cb Ra^or; ray.,:,,.,,,:e,;: :•��a�„�5 Copyright®1992-2021 Database Services,Inc.-Process Servers Toolbox V8 2c PAUL Darren J. Elkind*= I Matthew D. Branz I Christopher B. Paul I Melissa Morgan Paul ELKIN . Harlan G. Paul I Pedram Adam Samei BRANZ of counsel:Harlan L. Paul I Lonnie N. Groot* P *Board Certified Specialist—City, County& Local Government Law ATTORNEYS AT LAW *Board Certified Specialist—Civil Trial Law September 16, 2021 VIA EMAIL ONLY: kmccann(c�winterspringsfl.orq The Honorable Kevin McCann, Mayor City of Winter Springs 1126 East State Road 434 Winter Springs, FL 32708 Re: Resolution 2021-09 "Investigation" Dear Mayor McCann: I have the pleasure of representing Kevin Smith and Brian Fields, respectively the former City Manager and former City Engineer for the City of Winter Springs. I am writing you to outline the manner in which Mr. Smith and Mr. Fields will respond to the subpoenas with which they were served in this regard. They will be in attendance at the hearing on Monday, September 20, 2021 at 6:30 p.m. as ordered by the subpoenas with which they were served. Resolution 2021-09 states, in pertinent part, that "the City Commission desires to understand why the aforementioned plan was not fully implemented and whether the plan is viable today, however, the technical personnel and consultants utilized by the City in 2005 to prepare the plan and obtain CUP# 105763 are no longer employed by the City..." The City was apparently under the impression that it could not obtain information from its former "technical personnel' without the issuance of subpoenas. This was incorrect, and my clients, who are both consummate professionals, would have gladly provided any information that they had with the current City administration. The fact that the City of Winter Springs has made absolutely no effort to obtain any factual information from my clients leads me to believe, based upon my 26 years of representing local governments, that the upcoming "hearing" has nothing to do with factfinding and everything to do with political showmanship. Consequently, I find it necessary to implement the parameters set forth below in order to ensure that the City Commission does not abuse its investigatory powers. Deland Office Miami Office(available by appointment) paulandelkind.com 142 E.New York Avenue 1031 Ives Dairy Road,Suite 228 DeLand, FL 32724 Miami, FL 33179 P:386.734.3020 P:305.459.0749 The Honorable Kevin McCann, Mayor City of Winter Springs September 16, 2021 Page two 1) Pursuant to the above-cited provision of Resolution 2021-09, my clients are being subpoenaed in their capacities as the former "technical personnel...who are no longer employed by the City." All inquiries shall be answered by my clients in their capacities as former employees of the City and their answers will be on behalf of the City of Winter Springs. 2) My clients will respond to written questions only. Such questions must fairly relate to the matters set forth in Resolution 2021-09. Any questions which are not related to the subject of the "investigation" or which are worded in an argumentative or suggestive fashion will not be responded to. 3) Since the City Commission elected to issue subpoenas and conduct an investigatory hearing (which was completely unnecessary with regard to my clients as mentioned above), we expect rules of decorum to apply to the proceeding as they would any investigatory hearing. As such, we do not expect any commentary from any member of the Commission regarding my clients or their answers. If this occurs, we will deem this to be a termination of the investigatory phase of the meeting and dismiss ourselves from the meeting. 4) My clients are busy professionals with numerous other commitments, who are attending this "hearing" on their personal time. Mr. Smith and Mr. Fields have allotted two (2) hours for attendance. In other words, they plan on leaving by the earlier of the time that they have answered all questions as provided for in section 2) above or 8:30 p.m. I cannot repeat enough that my clients both would have gladly met with anyone about these issues in order to have helped in any way that they could. It is the fact that the City Commission elected to hold a "hearing" and issue subpoenas to my clients that make the imposition of the foregoing rules necessary. I appreciate that the City Commission may not be able to meet collectively to generate the written questions which are required for my clients. However, I would welcome receipt of questions from individual Commission members (preferably routed through your City Attorney) in advance of the meeting so that we can have an efficient and productive exchange of information. Respectfully submitted, Darren J. Elkind, Esq. DJE/cal Enclosure #053438 cc: Anthony A. Garganese, City Attorney, agarganese6a�orlandolaw.net Written answers to questions provided for the record by Former City Manager Kevin Smith 1. Why did the 3.5M dollar Jessup reuse plant not work? First, a few things are important to note: • The Lake Jesup(U) Plant was a Treatment Plant for Water Augmentation Purposes. • It did not cost$3.5M. It, in fact, cost roughly half that amount. • The overall Project had two related but independent parts: o The Lake Jesup Treatment Plant(U) -the one the WS Commission is thinking of o The Oak Forest Pumping and Storage Facility(OF) • I'd estimate that each cost somewhere between $1.5M -$2.OM Second, my direct understanding is that it did work. No professional engineer or other appropriately qualified professional has ever told me otherwise. 2. Why was the 3.5M dollar Jessup reuse plant not used? It was used. The Oak Forest Facility provided 3M gallons of reuse storage and significant overall system improvements to the City's current reuse system. It helped move reuse from the West Wastewater Plant to homes on the east side of town,significantly improving the pressure and reliability of the system Th U Facility provided irrigation to Central Winds Park(the City's huge and premier sports park). At that time the distribution lines phase of the project was not yet begun. 3. When did you know there were problems with the 3.5M dollar Jessup reuse plant? The plant did not have problems,other that some minor clogging issues with the intake lines due to the water quality in Lake Jesup, which were addressed. 4. When did you learn of the above? I am not aware of any problems, other than the intakes as discussed above. I do not recall the dates. 5. What actions did you take to address the failed 3.5M dollar plant? There was not a failure of the plant. 6.Are you aware of and have you ever read the Reclaimed Water Augmentation Study dated 9/20/2005? If not,were you aware it existed? If yes,do you remember if there were any attempts on your part to determine if the timeline was being followed in relation to reclaimed water? Yes, I am aware of the Study. I have read some of it. Due to several factors, it was decided that the City would not to move forward with implementation of residential distribution lines. Those factors included: • Difficult fiscal conditions. The Reclaimed Water Augmentation Study dated 9/20/2005 was issued when the economy was doing well and we were in the midst of a "building boom". By the time we got to the construction of the Lake Jessup intake plant,the economy was in a recession and development had slowed significantly. The City already owed approximately $50M in overall debt and the expansion of the reclaimed distribution system would have cost approximately an additional $14M. Borrowing that much money at that time would not have been a prudent course of action. It can be argued that we didn't have the money to even build the$3.5 Project. However, due to a $1.2 grant from the Water Management District and utilization of the State Revolving Fund Loan Program (with its favorable rate and terms and conditions),we were able to build the project with fiscal prudence. Senior city staff brought an agenda item to the City Commission in 2011 outlining the financial situation and explaining the manner in which the Lake Jessup plant would be funded. • The purpose of the Lake Jessup plant was not primarily to provide additional irrigation water, but to DECREASE the amount of groundwater being pumped and to offset it with water from Lake Jessup. Significant debt to expand the reclaimed system was not warranted because we had instituted significant conservations measures (creation of a new Water Conservation Coordinator position, consumer education efforts, etc.)that proved not only successful, but enormously so. See chart below: INFO ATI O NAL AGENDA ITEM 200 CITY COMMISSION AGENDA I FEBRUARY24, 2020 REGULAR MEETING City of Winter Springs Annual Potable Water u1se 2,000 100 so so 70 — 60 t � a p 1,400 50 cc r'CI p'r _ 4 4 1,200 � 30 1,000 20 10 800 0 —.:Total Water Pumped CUP Permitted Capacity Annual Rainfall Inches • We were approx. 30% below the CUP in 2014 alone. (I left at the beginning of 2019) • The drop in usage deferred both the short term need and arguably the long term projected need to expand the reclaimed water system. • Attention should be paid to the ongoing conservation efforts being undertaken by the City. 7. During your discussions pertaining to proposed development projects during your tenure was the Consumptive Use Permit(CUP)or reclaimed water ever discussed or brought to your attention? Yes, of course. All new development has to demonstrate that there is sufficient water available to serve the project. This concept is call "concurrency." I am not an expert in this area and as City Manager I was not personally involved in the discussions on individual development projects. 8. During your tenure what department and specifically which individual were you dependent upon to inform you of any issues related to development projects as they pertained to the Consumptive Use Permit(CUP)or reclaimed water? Utilities/Public Works Dept. 9.What, if any,was your involvement with the$3.5 million Lake Jesup Surface Water Plant? If none, were you aware the facility existed? Have you ever visited the Lake Jesup Surface Water Plant? City Manager oversight and strategy on the funding of the project. Yes, I have visited it.Again, the Lake Jessup plant was only part of the$3.5 million project. The Oak Forest pumping and storage facility was the other element of the project which together with the Lake Jessup plant caused a net total,after grants, of approximately$3.5 million. 10. Did you ever make any inquiries or take any action to determine why the$3.5 million Lake Jesup Surface Water Plant did not work? No professional engineer or other appropriately qualified professional has ever advised me that the plant did not work. It is my belief and understanding that the plan worked. There were adjustments that needed to be made with the intake system, but otherwise the plant worked. Same correction on project costs as above. 11. Do you know who was responsible for the design of the$3.5 million Lake Jesup Surface Water Plant? Do you know who was responsible for the construction of the$3.5 million Lake Jesup Surface Water Plant? CPH Engineers designed the project. I don't remember the contractors on the project. Note that there were different contractors for the U portion and the OF portion (to the best of my recollection). Same correction on project costs as above. 12. Had you known of the serious issues surrounding the $3.5 million Lake Jesup Surface Water Plant what actions would you have taken? The premise of the question does not appear to accurately reflect the actual facts. However, if there were any pertinent problems at the City of any type during my tenure, I would have addressed them. Same correction on project costs as above. Are you aware of and have you ever read the Reclaimed Water Augmentation Study dated 9/20/2005? Yes If not, were you aware it existed? If yes, do you remember if there were any attempts on your part to determine if the timeline was being followed in relation to reclaimed water? No— I had no involvement in the preparation, review, and approval of the study, and it was never part of my duties to determine if the timeline suggested by the study was being followed. It should be noted that this was a feasibility study and not a master plan. During your discussions pertaining to proposed development projects during your tenure was the Consumptive Use Permit (CUP) or reclaimed water ever discussed or brought to your attention? CUP—No The current or future availability of reclaimed water was discussed as part of most development projects. Depending on the project and the location, development projects were generally required to do one of the following with respect to reclaimed water: 1) connect to the existing reclaimed water system for irrigation; 2) connect to the potable water system for irrigation, but to construct and utilize a separate irrigation piping and service system designed to reclaimed standards, for future connection to the reclaimed water system; or 3) use another non-potable source of water for irrigation, such as an irrigation well or retention pond. During your tenure what department and specifically which individual were you dependent upon to inform you of any issues related to development projects as they pertained to the Consumptive Use Permit(CUP) or reclaimed water? As City Engineer, I reported to the Public Works/Utility Director. If I had questions regarding reclaimed water I would typically speak with the members of the City's utility department. What, if any,was your involvement with the $3.5 million Lake Jesup Surface Water Plant? If none, were you aware the facility existed? Have you ever visited the Lake Jesup Surface Water Plant? I had no involvement with the study, planning, design, permitting, construction, startup, operations, post-construction analysis, or any other aspect of the water plant itself. My involvement was limited to the sitework (paved access, parking, drainage, landscaping, etc.). I have been to the site. Did you ever make any inquiries or take any action to determine why the $3.5 million Lake Jesup Surface Water Plant did not work? I have no knowledge of the plant not working. Do you know who was responsible for the design of the $3.5 million Lake Jesup Surface Water Plant? Do you know who was responsible for the construction of the $3.5 million Lake Jesup Surface Water Plant? CPH was the design engineer for the water plant. I do not remember the name of the construction contractor. Had you known of the serious issues surrounding the $3.5 million Lake Jesup Surface Water Plant what actions would you have taken? I had no knowledge of the specific issues in question or their potential seriousness. As a City employee, if I became aware of any serious issue on any matter, I would inform my supervisor. 1. Why did the 3.5M dollar Jesup reuse plant not work? I have no knowledge that the plant does not work, or whether it is being utilized currently. 2. Why was the 3.5M dollar Jesup reuse plant not used? I do not know the extent to which the plant was utilized. 3. When did you know there were problems with the 3.5M dollar Jesup reuse plant? I did not know there were any specific problems. In 2018, I became aware that the Public Works/Utility Director brought in a new engineering consultant to evaluate a number of city facilities to include the Lake Jesup plant. I do not know what the results of that study were. 4. When did you learn of the above? In 2018, I became aware that the Public Works/Utility Director brought in a new engineering consultant. 5. What actions did you take to address the failed 3.5M dollar plant? I have no knowledge that the plant failed. COMMISSION AGENDA Informational ITEM 301 Consent x Public Hearings Regular June 12, 2017 KS KL Regular Meeting City Manager Department REQUEST: The Utility Department requests the City Commission adopt the 2017 Water Supply Plan. SYNOPSIS: The 2017 Water Supply Plan fulfills the State requirement to update the 2007 Water Supply Plan pursuant to the Central Florida Water Initiative approved by the surrounding water management districts in 2015. CONSIDERATIONS: This agenda item is needed to meet the requirements of the Central Florida Water Initiative (CFWI) approved by the St. Johns, South Florida, and Southwest Florida Water Management Districts. The City previously retained CPH to prepare a Water Supply Plan that was adopted in 2007. The CFWI directive requires the City to provide an updated version for a 20 year planning period. The adoption of this plan meets that requirement. The plan, prepared by CPH as previously authorized, includes proposed modifications to the Potable Water Element of the Comprehensive Plan and the Capital Improvements Plan, growth projections, demand projections, alternative water supply needs, mapping,updating the potable water service area, and coordination with the St. Johns River Water Management District. The City is well positioned over the 20 year planning period to meet water supply needs including allocation reductions due to the previous investments in the reclaimed water system including augmenting the reclaimed water system from Lake Jesup which is our designated alternative water supply. Water conservation efforts continue to show benefits Consent 301 PAGE 1 OF 2-June 12,2017 as current overall demand has been remained relatively flat and even trended downwards some years over the last decade. Staff is comfortable that staying below the Consumptive Use Permit limit of 1.514 billion gallons of potable water per year thorough 2029 is manageable by using available resources such as the Lake Jesup Reclaimed Water Plant for reclaimed water augmentation, irrigation audits, community outreach and education. After adoption, the 2017 Water Supply Plan and meeting minutes will be forwarded to the St. Johns River Water Management District. FISCAL IMPACT: There are no costs to adopt the 2017 Water Supply Plan. The plan cost $35,770 to prepare. COMMUNICATION EFFORTS: This Agenda Item has been electronically forwarded to the Mayor and City Commission, City Manager, City Attorney/Staff, and is available on the City's Website, LaserFiche, and the City's Server. Additionally, portions of this Agenda Item are typed verbatim on the respective Meeting Agenda which has also been electronically forwarded to the individuals noted above, and which is also available on the City's Website, LaserFiche, and the City's Server; has been sent to applicable City Staff, Media/Press Representatives who have requested Agendas/Agenda Item information, Homeowner's Associations/Representatives on file with the City, and all individuals who have requested such information. This information has also been posted outside City Hall, posted inside City Hall with additional copies available for the General Public, and posted at six (6) different locations around the City. Furthermore, this information is also available to any individual requestors. City Staff is always willing to discuss this Agenda Item or any Agenda Item with any interested individuals. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Commission adopt the 2017 Water Supply Work Plan and authorize the City Manager and City Attorney to execute any and all applicable documents. ATTACHMENTS: 1. SJRWMD Notification Letter(2 pages) 2. 2017 Water Supply Work Plan(152 pages) Consent 301 PAGE 2 OF 2-June 12,2017 Cil,of Winter Springs—Water Supply Plan Page No. 1-2 years of the ten-year Work Plan as appropriate. No capital improvements were identified in this Work Plan. The Work Plan must be approved by the Department of Community Affairs(DCA)and SJRWMD. Winter Springs has prepared this Work Plan to provide the information necessary to meet the criteria set forth by the 2015 CFW I RW SP. The Work Plan addresses supply and demand for City service area through the year 2040, which is an 23-year planning period. The Work Plan will be reviewed on an annual basis and updated to coincide with the update of the Regional Water Supply Plan by the St. Johns River Water Management District(SJRWMD). 1.2 Overview 1.2.1 The Work Plan incorporates and continues the progressive plan that the City has been implementing since they purchased the private utilities in 1984 and 1990. The City Work Plan is based on seeking economical and environmentally sound solutions for water supply. The main components of the Work Plan revolve around the following four basic areas: Development and optimization of Groundwater supplies ■ Expansion of reclaimed water systems ■ Water conservation program including conservation rate structures ■ Evaluation of alternative water sources. 1.2.2 On a priority basis,the City will continue to invest and expand the existing reuse system when and if required. The City will also continue the water conservation program. The Water Supply Plan recommends continuation of the planning related to alternative water supply development. An alternative water supply is a secondary option to meet the water needs for any major changes in the Planning and Zoning that are not currently in the program. Thus, the City will be prepared for unseen circumstances. The reclaimed system was originally created in the City to dispose of wastewater effluent. Over several years of use, reclaimed water has also become a method alleviate potable water/groundwater withdrawals and increase the ability of the City Potable Water System to serve City of Winter Springs—Water Supply Plan Pacie No 1-5 developable land is slowly being consumed within the City limits of Winter Springs. Based on this information and a continuation by the City of the residential reclaimed water system and conservation programs, It appears that the City will not need additional groundwater or other potable water sources to meet their needs through 2040. This assumes that: 1) The CUP value will be frozen at 4.14 MGD and that further additional allocations will not be available. 2) The City will continue to maintain the reclaimed water distribution system. 3) The City will continue to maintain the Lake Jesup Reclaimed Water Augmentation Project. 4) The City does not have a projected need to participate in a surface water treatment facility that produces a potable quality water. 5) The City will pursue the option of a 'secondary level" of treated water for distribution in conjunction with the reclaimed water. Several options are being investigated: a. The continued use of the reclaimed supply. b. The continued use of Lake Jesup as an augmentation and supply source water. c. Connecting to the Tri-Party System (Sanford/Lake Mary/Seminole)for"secondary level' water as a source water (Lake Monroe). d. In conjunction with 2, supply"secondary level"water to Oviedo, Seminole County, and/or Casselberry through a looped reclaimed water distribution system. 1.4 Overview of Potable Water Suppliers in Winter Spring Winter Springs is located in Seminole County in Central Florida.A potable water service area map is included as Figure 1-1.Within the incorporated area of Winter Springs,potable water is supplied to customers by the City of Winter Springs utilities system(s),self-supply water suppliers(individual wells),Seminole County Environmental Services,the City of Casselberry and the City of Longwood. Figure 2-2 shows the relationship of the Winter Springs Service Area with the surrounding communities. 1.4.1 Winter S rin s Utilities The City of Winter Springs owns and operates three water treatment plants within its corporate limits. These facilities have been interconnected to form one system and are covered by one SJRWMD Consumptive Use Permit(CUP). City of Winter S do s—Water Supply Plan Page No.3-7 3.4 Groundwater Contamination and Land Use An additional consideration in selection of future water supply source locations and considerations for existing well locations is the potential for past and future contamination of the aquifer by organic pesticides,solvents and other hazardous chemicals and the potential forwaterquality degradation. Regarding contamination, an uncertainty which exists is how rapidly the groundwater will migrate outward from a contaminated site. Since the direction of groundwater flow is to the northeast toward Lake Jesup in this particular part of the County, it is recommended that any new wells be located upgradient, if possible, from known pesticide application and industrial areas where hazardous chemicals are frequently handled or utilized. Therefore, land use surrounding a water supply site should be a major consideration in selection of new sites and in evaluating the potential for contamination of existing sites. The City should implerrent a wellhead protection plan and identify all potential sources of contamination for the existing wells. 3.5 Potential Future Sources of Water In general, the groundwater supply is sufficient in both quality and quantity in the Winter Springs area. It is anticipated, based on the population projections and the existing well capacity,that new wells will not be required. Significant changes in the population growth or contamination/quality degradation of existing supplies may necessitate additional supply sources some time in the future. Location of future well sites and use of existing well sites will most likely be restricted in use by potential contamination sources and setback requirements rather than by the quality and quantity of water, although the quality and quantity of water available from any well is always unpredictable. We recommend that any new wells be constructed to produce capacities of between 1200 and 2400 gpm. Larger capacities than 2400 gpm tend to produce lower water quality and excessive drawdown levels. Wells less than 1200 gpm capacity tend not to be economical. The City has a significant residential reclaimed water system, which currently serves 1,720 customers. It is planned by the City to continue expansion of this system. This is a significant alternate source of water and it has been demonstrated that potable water demand can be reduced in Winter Springs by the use of reclaimed water. The City has a permitted secondary non-potable source of water, Lake Jesup,to supplement the reclaimed water supply.All reclaimed water will be fully used and other sources will be used for augmentation to meet the peak demands. City of Winter Springs—Water Supply Plan Pace No.4-11 4.6 Reclaimed Water Supply There are four (4) facilities that can supply reclaimed water and/or augmentation water into the reclaimed water distribution system. They are: 4.6.1 Lake Jesup Augmentation The Lake Jesup Augmentation Supply site is part of the City of Winter Springs CUP and is located on the south shore of Lake Jesup directly west and adjacent to the Central Winds Park facilities. This facility predominantly will supply flow to the Central Winds Park irrigation system during peak demand periods as it is the closest user to the source. The Lake Jesup Augmentation Supply consists of an intake structure which extends into Lake Jesup as the water source; an intake pumping system that feeds into a filtration system;a 250,000 gallon storage tank;a 500 gpm jockey high service pump for low flows; and two(2) - 1500 gpm high service pumps for larger demands. The site plan is shown in Figure 4- , 4.6.2 West WRF Reclaimed Water The West WRF Reclaimed Water supply is located at the West Water Reclamation Facility north of SR 434 on Casselberry Lane.This wastewater treatment facility has a current flow of approximately 1 MGD AADF.The West WRF produces Public Access quality reclaimed water and is permitted by FDEP. It is currently permitted for 2.012 MGD of capacity. It predominantly supplies reclaimed water to the western part of the City. The reclaimed facilities include: a 300 gpm(20 Hp)jockey pump; two (2)—650 rpm (40 Hp)high service pumps;two(2)—950 GPM(60 Hp)high service pumps;and,a 2.0 MG ground storage tank The electrical system for the pumps and controls are provided from the operations building. The West WRF has a generator for emergency power back-up. The site plan is shown in Figure 4-6. 4.6.3 East WRF Reclaimed Water The East WRF Reclaimed Water supply is located at the East Water Reclamation Facility south of Winter Springs Boulevard and west of Sam Smith Park. This wastewater treatment facility has a current flow of approximately 1 MGD AADF. The West WRF produces Public Access quality reclaimed water and is permitted by FDEP. It is currently permitted for 2.2 MGD of capacity. It predominantly supplies reclaimed water to the eastern part of the City. are placed on the property to inform the general public and District enforcement personnel of such use. Such signs must be in accordance with local restrictions. (c) Irrigation of, or in preparation for planting, new landscape is allowed any time of day for one 30 day period provided irrigation is limited to the amount necessary for plant establishment. (d) Watering in of chemicals, including insecticides, pesticides,fertilizers, fungicides, and herbicides when required by law, the manufacturer, or best management practices is allowed anytime within 24 hours of application. (e) Irrigation systems may be operated anytime for maintenance and repair purposes not to exceed ten minutes per hour per zone. 10.All submittals made to demonstrate compliance with this permit must have the CUP number 105763 clearly labeled on the submittal. 11.This permit will expire on April 10, 2027. 12.The combined maximum annual withdrawals of surface water from Lake Jesup plus groundwater from the existing free-flowing artesian well, as described in the application, In supplement the City of Winter Springs reclaimed water system must not exceed: 87.60 million gallons (0.24 million gallons per day average)in 2008, 87.60 million gallons(0.24 million gallons per day average)in 2009, 113.15 million gallons(0.31 million gallons per day average)in 2010, 102.20 million gallons(0.28 million gallons per day average) in 2011, 273.75 million gallons(0.75 million gallons per day average) in 2012, 262.80 million gallons(0.72 million gallons per day average) in 2013, 430.70 million gallons(1.18 million gallons per day average) in 2014, 419.75 million gallons(1.15 million gallons per day average) in 2016, 587.65 million gallons(1.61 million gallons per day average)in 2016, 573.05 million gallons(1.57 million gallons per day average) in 2017, 726.35 million gallons(1.99 million gallons per day average) in 2018, 715.40 million gallons(1.96 million gallons per day average) in 2019, anri 813.95 million gallons (2.23 million gallons per day average) in 2020 through 2027. 13.The permittee may use flow from the free-flowing artesian well(District GRS ID 104913), as described in the permit application, to supplement the reclaimed water system whenever the demand for reclaimed water exceeds the quantity of treated wastewater available from the City's waste water treatment facilities. The free-flowing artesian well may not be pumped or otherwise used to produce more than its free flowing rate at anytime.The well must be. allowed to flow into Lake Jesup when flow from the well is not being used to supplement the reclaimed system. 14.The permittee must Ensure that all supply line and distribution connections that augment and distribute the reclaimed service are metered, including the artisan well flow both into the system and into Lake Jesup via the bypass. 15.The permittee must maintain all flow meters. In case of failure or breakdown of any meter, the District must be notified in writing within 5 days of its discovery. A defective meter must be repaired or replaced within 30 days of its discovery. 16_The permittee must have the flowmeters checked for accuracy every 3 years within 30 days of the anniversary date of permit issuance, and recalibrated if the difference between the actual flow and the meter reading is greater than 5%. District Form No. EN-51 must be CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 0 u v, Incorporated ' 1959 ' '~GAD WE�J�C CITY COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MRNDA►Y, JUNE 12, 2017 - 5:I5 P.M. CITY HALL—COMMISSION CHAMBERS 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434,WINTER SPRINGS,FLORIDA Mayor Charles Lacey Deputy Mayor Pam Carroll - Seat Three Commissioner Jean Hovey - Seat One Commissioner Kevin Cannon- Seat Two Commissioner Cade Resnick- Seat Four Commissioner Geoff Kendrick- Seat Five CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS,FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING-JUNE 12,2017 PAGE 2 OF 16 CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of Monday, June 12, 2017 of the City Commission was called to Order by Mayor Charles Lacey at 5:15 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of the Municipal Building (City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434,Winter Springs, Florida 32708). Roll Call: Mayor Charles Lacey,present Deputy Mayor Pam Carroll,present Commissioner Jean Hovey,present Commissioner Kevin Cannon,present Commissioner Cade Resnick, absent Commissioner Geoff Kendrick,present City Manager Kevin L. Smith,present City Attorney Anthony A. Garganese,present City Clerk Andrea Lorenzo-Luaces,present A moment of silence was held. The Pledge of Allegiance followed. Regarding the Agenda and any possible Agenda Changes, Mayor Lacey inquired, "Commissioners, may we adopt the Agenda without objection?" Commissioner Kevin Cannon stated, "No objections." Mayor Lacey remarked,"No objection,it stands adopted." AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS 100. Not Used INFORMATIONAL AGENDA INFORMATIONAL 200.Community Development Department REQUEST: The Community Development Department is advising the City Commission of the status of current development projects within the City. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS,FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING-JUNE 12,2017 PAGE 5 OF 16 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Commission adopt the 2017 Water Supply Work Plan and authorize the City Manager and City Attorney to execute any and all applicable documents. No discussion. CONSENT 302. Utility Department REQUEST: The Utility Department requests the City Commission's authorization to execute task order #4 with CPH, Inc.in the amount of$100,700.00 for the Winter Springs Wastewater Master Plan, FISCAL IMPACT: The cost for the study is $100,700 which will be funded by the Utility Enterprise Fund. A supplemental appropriation of $100,700 from fund balance to the consulting line code will be required. COMMUNICATION EFFORTS: This Agenda Item has been electronically forwarded to the Mayor and City Commission, City Manager, City Attorney/Staff, and is available on the City's Website, LaserFiche, and the City's Server. Additionally, portions of this Agenda Item are typed verbatim on the respective Meeting Agenda which has also been electronically forwarded to the individuals noted above, and which is also available on the City's Website, LaserFiche, and the City's Server; has been sent to applicable City Staff, Media/Press Representatives who have requested Agendas/Agenda Item information, Homeowner's Associations/Representatives on file with the City, and all individuals who have requested such information. This information has also been posted outside City Hall, posted inside City Hall with additional copies available for the General Public, and posted at six (6) different locations around the City. Furthermore, this information is also available to any individual requestors. City Staff is always willing to discuss this Agenda Item or any Agenda Item with any interested individuals. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Commission; authorize the execution of Task Order#4 with CPH, Inc. in the amount of $100,700 for the Wastewater Master Plan, approve a supplemental appropriation of$100,700 from Utility Enterprise Fund to the consulting line code,and authorize the City Manager and City Attorney to execute any and all applicable documents. There was no discussion on this Agenda Item. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS,FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING—JUNE 12,2017 PAGE 16 OF 16 Deputy Mayor Carroll commended the Senior Center Staff and Manager Smith for allowing the Legal Aid Society to offer an Advanced Directives program at the Senior Center. Lastly, Deputy Mayor Carroll referenced the July 4`h event and was looking forward to seeing everyone there. PUBLIC INPUT Mayor Lacey opened "Public Input". No one spoke. Mayor Lacey closed "Public Input". Before adjourning, Mayor Lacey spoke of the upcoming July 4' event and mentioned that the next City Commission Regular Meeting will be held on Monday,July 1 Oth, 2017. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Lacey adjourned the Regular Meeting at 5:32 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: A ORENO-LUACES, MMC CITY CLERK APPROVED: - 4ZA6�-- - MAYOk-CMARLtS LA4etY NOTE: These Minutes were approved at the July 10,2017 City Commission Regular Meeting. COMMISSION AGENDA CONSENT INFORMATIONAL X ITEM104 PUBLIC HEARING REGULAR February 14, 2011 MGR /DEPT Meeting A thorization REQUEST: Finance Department providing an update on funding for Phase I of the$4.2 million expansion of the Reclaimed Water System. SYNOPSIS: On August 23,2010 the City Commission approved construction on a$4.2 million expansion of the Winter Springs Reclaimed Water Infrastructure(Phase I)with the understanding that initial funding would be provided from the Water and Sewer Fund Reserve until such time that a commercial loan was secured. CONSIDERATIONS: Reclaimed water use is a growing practice and Florida currently leads the nation in using reclaimed water generated by domestic wastewater treatment facilities (663 million gallons per day in 2007). By the year 2010,the official State goal is to reclaim one billion gallons of wastewater per day. Using reclaimed water has many advantages including (i)reduced demand for surface and ground water, (ii)reduction or elimination of wastewater discharges which can pollute surface water,(iii)recharge of ground water, and(iv)reduction in investment for developing new water supplies.Using reclaimed water offers an environmentally sound means of both wastewater and water resource management in Florida. Reclaimed water use not only reduces environmental impacts due to discharge of wastewater to surface waters,but also helps conserve potable water supplies by providing an alternative affordable water to meet irrigation, commercial, and industrial needs. In addition,many water-use land application activities(golf course, agricultural, and residential irrigation; groundwater recharge, etc.)ultimately return water to ground water, especially in north and central Florida(Gurpal S. Toor and Donald P.Rainey). Winter Springs has been producing and selling reclaimed water since 1996 to a limited number of customers. Currently, the City is selling 100% of its supply during the summer dry months but not without challenges; usage of reclaimed water during the day and evening hours fluctuates greatly making supply demands very difficult to predict.There are areas in the City where storage and line pressure are becoming a concern. When pressure in the line is not adequate, irrigation is not effective which is one reason additional infrastructure upgrades are required at this time. A second compelling reason to proceed with this project is related to the St. Johns River Water Management District grant awarded to the City. The grant pays 30%of the reclaimed water augmentation construction costs up to $1,280,000. The$4.2M the City would need to spend to maximize the grant is required to be completed by April 2012. It is anticipated that the Oak Forest Pumping and Storage and Lake Jesup augmentation facility will cost in the $4,200,000 range. In the interim,approximately$1,200,000 net need foi this project is proposed to be funded from available resources,which is approximately$4.8 as of September 30, 2010. This will not violate the City's fiscal policy which requires 25%reserves or approximately$2,100,000 to remain in the Utility Enterprise Fund. Phase I Phase I of the project is needed to provide reclaimed water storage and pumping for the Lake Jesup Reclaimed Water Augmentation project. It consists of a three-million gallon pre-stressed concrete tank,electrical control building,and three high-service pumps. The site design allows for a future three million gallon storage tank and two additional high-service pumps. Upon completion,this facility can be put into service immediately as it is not dependent upon the augmentation facility to be constructed at Central Winds Park.Water Pumping and Storage Improvements began in November 2010 with Beach Construction of Gainesville winning the award of$1,562,000. Phase II This phase of the project is primarily the expansion of distribution lines to service areas of the City that currently do not have reclaimed water available. Phase H is not expected to begin in the near future;preliminary review indicates the 2008 rates will not be sufficient to support the phase II expansion at this time. This concern will be discussed in detail at a future Commission meeting. In an attempt to minimize the cost of financing this project the City contracted with Public Resources Management Group, Inc.to review the 2008 rate study and issue a letter of reaffirmation stating current rates will support the proposed financing for phase I of the Reclaimed Expansion Project. The review of the rate study is nearing completion and has determined that our preliminary debt service coverage ratio is approximately 1.30%(parity debt requirements are 1.10%). The next step in obtaining financing is to determine the optimal financing structure and identify lenders that may be interested in investing in the project. The City has engaged PFM (Public Finance Management) to seek out and secure the most efficient commercial borrowing instrument available. This will be facilitated by a competitive bid process to lending institutions that are interested in providing long-term debt financing. The current recommendation for structuring the financing is a"wrapped structure"(attached)which assumes a$3.45 million project fund and 20-year bank loan. Simply stated"wrap structure" means a loan that when added to the existing debt structure(with varying maturities)will produce level payments over the next 20 years. FISCAL IMPACT: The Water and Sewer Fund will self fund approximately$1,100,000 of the Reclaimed Project for 2 months from its cash on hand. This interim financing will be reimbursed from the loan proceeds back to the Water and Sewer Fund once available(Early April). COMMUNICATION EFFORTS: This Agenda Item has been forwarded to the Mayor and City Commission; City Manager; City Attorney/Staff; placed in Press Packets; placed in the City Hall (Lobby) City Commission Meeting binder; and will be available on the City's Website, LaserFiche, and the City's Server. Additionally, information related to this Agenda Item has been sent to media/press representatives who have requested Agendas/Agenda Item information, all Homeowner's Associations on file with the City, all individuals who have requested Agendas/Agenda Item information, Department Directors; and also posted outside City Hall; posted inside City Hall with additional copies available for the general public; and posted at five (5) different locations around the City. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Commission receive this finance update on the Lake Jesup Reclaimed Project. ATTACHMENTS: PFM loan analysis 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS City of Winter Springs,Florida Utility System Revenue Bonds,Series 2010 Bank Loan 20 Year Tenn(24 months int only) (Wrapped Structure) Report Page Sources and Uses of Funds . . . . . . . 1 Bond Summary Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 BondPricing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Bond Debt Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Aggregate Debt Service . . . . . . . 6 Net Debt Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Project Fund . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Sep 10,2010 12:41 pm Prepared by DBC Finance (Finance 6.017 Winter Springs:WATRSEWR-2010) SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS City of Winter Springs,Florida Utility System Revenue Bonds,Series 2010 Bank Loan 20 Year Term(24 months int only) (Wrapped Structure) Sources: Bond Proceeds: Par Amount 3,827,625.00 3,827,625.00 Uses: Project Fund Deposits: Deposit to Project Fund 3,450,666.69 Other Fund Deposits: DSRF 351,957.45 Delivery Date Expenses: Cost of Issuance 25,000.00 Other Uses of Funds: Additional Proceeds 0.86 3,827,625.00 Sep 10,2010 12:41 pm Prepared by DBC Finance (Finance 6.017 Winter Springs:WATRSEWR-2010) Page 1 BOND SUMMARY STATISTICS City of Winter Springs,Florida Utility System Revenue Bonds,Series 2010 Bank Loan 20 Year Tenn(24 months int only) (Wrapped Structure) Dated Date 10/01/2010 Delivery Date 10/01/2010 First Coupon 04/01/2011 Last Maturity 10/01/2030 Arbitrage Yield 4.085477% True Interest Cost(TIC) 4.292613% Net Interest Cost(NIC) 4.435274% All-In TIC 4.262607% Average Coupon 4.435274% Average Life(years) 10.625 Duration of Issue(years) 8.495 Par Amount 3,827,625.00 Bond Proceeds 3,827,625.00 Total Interest 1,803,694.14 Net Interest 1,803,694.14 Total Debt Service 5,631,319.14 Maximum Annual Debt Service 365,589.56 Average Annual Debt Service 281,565.96 Underwriter's Fees(per$1000) Average Takedown Other Fee Total Underwriter's Discount Bid Price 100.000000 Par Average Average PV of 1 by Bond Component Value Price Coupon Life change Serial Bonds 3,927,625.00 100.000 4.435% 10.625 2,909.00 3,827,625.00 10.625 2,909.00 All-In Arbitrage TIC TIC Yield Par Value 3,827,625.00 3,827,625.00 3,827,625.00 +Accrued Interest +Premium(Discount) -Underwriter's Discount -Cost of Issuance Expense -25,000.00 -Other Amounts Target Value 3,827,625.00 3,802,625.00 3,927,625.00 Target Date 10/01/2010 10/01/2010 10/01/2010 Yield 4.292613% 4.262607% 4.085477°% Sep 10,2010 12:41 pm Prepared by DBC Finance (Finance 6.017 Winter Springs:WATRSEWR-2010) Page 2 BOND PRICING City of Winter Springs,Florida Utility System Revenue Bonds,Series 2010 Bank Loan 20 Year Term(24 months int only) (Wrapped Structure) Maturity Bond Component Date Amount Rate Yield Price Serial Bonds: 10/O1/2030 3,827,625 4.232% 100.000 C 3,827,625 Dated Date 10/01/2010 Delivery Date 10/01/2010 First Coupon 04/01/2011 Paz Amount 3,827,625.00 Original Issue Discount Production 3,827,625.00 100.000000% Underwriter's Discount Purchase Price 3,827,625.00 100.000000% Accrued Interest Net Proceeds 3,827,625.00 Sep 10,2010 12:41 pm Prepared by DBC Finance (Finance 6.017 Winter Springs:WATRSEWR-2010) Page 3 BOND DEBT SERVICE City of Winter Springs,Florida Utility System Revenue Bonds,Series 2010 Bank Loan 20 Year Term(24 months int only) (Wrapped Stmettue) Period Bond Total Ending Principal Interest Debt Service Balance Bond Value 10/01/2011 76,552.50 76,552.50 3,827,625 3,927,625 10/01/2012 283,767 76,552.50 360,319.50 3,543,858 3,543,858 10/O1/2013 179,604 177,192.90 356,796.90 3,364,254 3,364,254 10/O1/2014 189,724 168,212.70 356,936.70 3,175,530 3,175,530 10/01/2015 204,459 158,776.50 363,235.50 2,971,071 2,971,071 10/01/2016 217,036 148,553.56 365,589.56 2,754,035 2,754,035 10/01/2017 218,245 137,701.76 355,946.76 2,535,790 2,535,790 10/01/2018 237,320 126,789.50 364,109.50 2,298,470 2,298,470 10/01/2019 245,935 114,923.50 360,858.50 2,052,535 2,052,535 10/01/2020 259,007 102,626.76 361,633.76 1,793,528 1,793,528 10/01/2021 192,783 89,676.40 282,459.40 1,600,745 1,600,745 10/01/2022 145,172 80,037.26 225,209.26 1,455,573 1,455,573 10/O1/2023 152,430 72,778.66 225,208.66 1,303,143 1,303,143 10/01/2024 160,052 65,157.16 225,209.16 1,143,091 1,143,091 10/01/2025 168,054 57,154.56 225,208.56 975,037 975,037 10/01/2026 176,457 48,751.86 225,208.86 798,580 798,580 10/01/2027 185,280 39,929.00 225,209.00 613,300 613,300 10/01/2029 194,544 30,665.00 225,209.00 418,756 418,756 10/01/2029 204,271 20,937.80 225,208.80 214,485 214,485 10/01/2030 214,485 10,724.26 225,209.26 3,827,625 1,803,694.14 5,631,319.14 Sep 10,2010 12:41 pm Prepared by DBC Finance (Finance 6.017 Winter Springs:WATRSEWR-2010) Page 4 BOND DEBT SERVICE City of Winter Springs,Florida Utility System Revenue Bonds,Series 2010 Bank Loan 20 Year Term(24 months int only) (Wrapped Structure) Period Annual Bond Total Ending Principal Interest Debt Service Debt Service Balance Bond Value 10/O1/2010 3,827,625 3,827,625 04/01/2011 38,276.25 38,276.25 3,827,625 3,827,625 10/01/2011 38,276.25 38,276.25 76,552.50 3,827,625 3,827,625 04/01/2012 38,276.25 38,276.25 3,827,625 3,827,625 10/01/2012 283,767 38,276.25 322,043.25 360,319.50 3,543,859 3,543,958 04/01/2013 88,596.45 88,596.45 3,543,958 3,543,858 10/O1/2013 179,604 88,596.45 268,200.45 356,796.90 3,364,254 3,364,254 04/01/2014 84,106.35 84,106.35 3,364,254 3,364,254 10/01/2014 189,724 84,106.35 272,830.35 356,936.70 3,175,530 3,175,530 04/01/2015 79,388.25 79,388.25 3,175,530 3,175,530 10/01/2015 204,459 79,388.25 283,847.25 363,235.50 2,971,071 2,971,071 04/01/2016 74,276.78 74,276.78 2,971,071 2,971,071 10/01/2016 217,036 74,276.78 291,312.78 365,589.56 2,754,035 2,754,035 04/O1/2017 68,850.88 68,850.88 2,754,035 2,754,035 10/01/2017 218,245 68,850.88 287,095.88 355,946.76 2,535,790 2,535,790 04/01/2018 63,394.75 63,394.75 2,535,790 2,535,790 10/01/2018 237,320 63,394.75 300,714.75 364,109.50 2,298,470 2,298,470 04/01/2019 57,461.75 57,461.75 2,298,470 2,298,470 10/01/2019 245,935 57,461.75 303,396.75 360,858.50 2,052,535 2,052,535 04/01/2020 51,313.38 51,313.38 2,052,535 2,052,535 10/01/2020 259,007 51,313.38 310,320.38 361,633.76 1,793,528 1,793,528 04/O1/2021 44,838.20 44,838.20 1,793,528 1,793,528 10/O1/2021 192,783 44,838.20 237,621.20 282,459.40 1,600,745 1,600,745 04/01/2022 40,018.63 40,018.63 1,600,745 1,600,745 10/01/2022 145,172 40,018.63 185,190.63 225,209.26 1,455,573 1,455,573 04/01/2023 36,389.33 36,389.33 1,455,573 1,455,573 10/01/2023 152,430 36,389.33 188,819.33 225,208.66 1,303,143 1,303,143 04/01/2024 32,578.58 32,578.58 1,303,143 1,303,143 10/01/2024 160,052 32,578.58 192,630.58 225,209.16 1,143,091 1,143,091 04/01/2025 28,577.28 28,577.28 1,143,091 1,143,091 10/O1/2025 168,054 28,577.28 196,631.28 225,208.56 975,037 975,037 04/O1/2026 24,375.93 24,375.93 975,037 975,037 10/O1/2026 I76,457 24,375.93 200,832.93 225,208.96 798,580 798,580 04/01/2027 19,964.50 19,964.50 798,580 798,580 10/01/2027 185,280 19,964.50 205,244,50 225,209.00 613,300 613,300 04/01/2028 15,332.50 15,332.50 613,300 613,300 10/01/2029 194,544 15,332.50 209,976.50 225,209.00 418,756 418,756 04/01/2029 10,468.90 10,469.90 418,756 418,756 10/O1/2029 204,271 10,468.90 214,739.90 225,208.80 214,485 214,485 04/O1/2030 5,362.13 5,362.13 214,485 214,485 10/01/2030 214,485 5,362.13 219,847.13 225,209.26 3,827,625 1,803,694.14 5,631,319.14 5,631,319.14 Sep 10,2010 12:41 pm Prepared by DBC Finance (Finance 6.017 Winter Springs:WATRSEWR-2010) Page 5 AGGREGATE DEBT SERVICE City of Winter Springs,Florida Utility System Revenue Bonds,Series 2010 Bank Loan 20 Year Term(24 months int only) (Wrapped Structure) $3.45 MM Bank Period Loan;20 Aggregate Ending years;wrap Series 2000 Series 2001 Series 2002 Debt Service 10/01/2011 76,552.50 220,202.50 467,395.00 1,149,048.75 1,912,198.75 10/01/2012 360,319.50 211,702.50 480,295.00 1,151,017.50 2,203,334.50 10/01/2013 356,796.90 218,387.50 476,645.00 1,151,505.00 2,203,334.40 10/01/2014 356,936.70 224,562.50 472,307.50 1,149,527.50 2,203,334.20 10/01/2015 363,235.50 215,100.00 482,267.50 1,142,731.25 2,203,334.25 10/01/2016 365,589.56 220,900.00 475,707.50 1,141,137.50 2,203,334.56 10/01/2017 355,946.76 220,950.00 478,312.50 1,148,125.00 2,203,334.26 10/01/2018 364,109.50 220,725.00 474,750.00 1,143,750.00 2,203,334.50 10/01/2019 360,858.50 220,225.00 480,250.00 1,142,000.00 2,203,333.50 10/01/2020 361,633.76 224,450,00 479,500.00 1,137,750.00 2,203,333.76 10/01/2021 282,459.40 1,443,125.00 477,750.00 2,203,334.40 10/01/2022 225,209.26 1,978,125.00 2,203,334.26 10/01/2023 225,208.66 1,978,125.00 2,203,333.66 10/01/2024 225,209.16 1,978,125.00 2,203,334.16 10/01/2025 225,208.56 1,978,125.00 2,203,333.56 10/01/2026 225,208.86 1,978,125,00 2,203,333.86 10/01/2027 225,209.00 1,978,125.00 2,203,334.00 10/01/2028 225,209.00 1,978,125.00 2,203,334.00 10/01/2029 225,208.90 1,979,125.00 2,203,333.80 10/01/2030 225,209.26 1,978,125.00 2,203,334.26 5,631,319.14 21,443,455.00 5,245,180.00 11,455,592.50 43,775,546.64 Sep 10,2010 12:41 pm Prepared by DBC Finance (Finance 6.017 Winter Springs:WATRSEWR-2010) Page 6 NET DEBT SERVICE City of Winter Springs,Florida Utility System Revenue Bonds,Series 2010 Bank Loan 20 Year Tenn(24 months int only) (Wrapped Structure) Period Total Interest Net Ending Debt Service Adjustment DSRF Debt Service 10/Ol/2011 76,552.50 -24,034.86 14,379.14 38,138.50 10/01/2012 360,319.50 -12,017.43 14,379.14 333,922.93 10/01/2013 356,796.90 14,379.14 342,417.76 10/01/2014 356,936.70 14,379.14 342,557.56 10/01/2015 363,235.50 14,379.14 348,856.36 10/01/2016 365,589.56 14,379.14 351,210.42 10/Ol/2017 355,946.76 14,379.14 341,567.62 10/01/2018 364,109.50 14,379.14 349,730.36 10/01/2019 360,858.50 14,379.14 346,479.36 10/01/2020 361,633.76 14,379.14 347,254.62 10/01/2021 282,459.40 14,379.14 268,080.26 10/01/2022 225,209.26 14,379.14 210,830.12 10/01/2023 225,208.66 14,379.14 210,829.52 10/01/2024 225,209.16 14,379.14 210,830.02 10/01/2025 225,208.56 14,379.14 210,829.42 10/01/2026 225,208.86 14,379.14 210,829.72 10/01/2027 225,209.00 14,379.14 210,829.86 10/01/2028 225,209.00 14,379.14 210,829.86 10/01/2029 225,208.80 14,379.14 210,829.66 10/01/2030 225,209.26 366,336.59 -141,127.33 5,631,319.14 -36,052.29 639,540.25 4,955,726.60 Sep 10,2010 12:41 pm Prepared by DBC Finance (Finance 6.017 Winter Springs:WATRSEW11-2010) Page 7 PROJECT FUND City of Winter Springs,Florida Utility System Revenue Bonds,Series 2010 Bank Loan 20 Year Term(24 months int only) (Wrapped Structure) Dejx.sit to Project Fund t PROJEC i J Scheduled Date Deposit Interest Principal Draws Balance 10/01/2010 3,450,666.69 215,666.67 215,666.67 3,235,000.02 11/01/2010 215,666.67 215,666.67 3,019,333.35 12/01/2010 215,666.67 215,666.67 2,803,666.68 01/01/2011 21,566.67 21,566.67 2,782,100.01 02/01/2011 215,666.67 215,666.67 2,566,433.34 03101/201I 431,333.33 431,333.33 2,135,100.01 04/01/2011 388,200.00 388,200.00 1,746,900.01 05/01/2011 647,000.00 647,000.00 1,099,900.01 06/01/2011 431,333.33 431,333.33 668,566.69 08/01/2011 215,666.67 215,666.67 452,900.01 09/01/2011 215,666.67 215,666.67 237,233.34 10/01/2011 21,566.67 21,566.67 215,666.67 11/01/2011 215,666.67 215,666.67 3,450,666.69 0 3,450,666.69 3,450,666.69 Arbitrage Yield: 4.0854767% Value of Negative Arbitrage: 71,913.87 Sep 10,2010 12:41 pm Prepared by DBC Finance (Finance 6.017 Winter Springs:WATRSEWR-2010) Page 8 CDM. Smith Memorandum To: Lena Rivera, P.E., D.WRE Date: June 6, 2018 Subject: Lake Jesup Reclaimed Water Augmentation Facility-System Evaluation The purpose of this Memorandum is to provide the City of Winter Springs (City)with an evaluation of the operational issues at the Lake Jesup Reclaimed Water Augmentation Facility (Facility).While some of the comments relate to specific design elements of the Facility,the intent of this Memorandum is not to provide a detailed review of the design.The primary intent of this Memorandum is to document CDM Smith's evaluation of the Facility and develop recommendations which are expected to improve the Facility's overall performance. Comments related to the Facility were based on a site visit conducted on April 18, 2018 as well as the following documents: ■ Hand-Written Water Quality Data collected during the startup and commissioning of the Lake Jesup Reclaimed Water Augmentation Facility(dates range from April 4,2013 to July 30,2013) ■ City of Winter Springs Lake Jesup Reclaimed Water Augmentation Facility Record Drawings (as prepared by CPH Engineers, Inc.and dated June 14,2013) ■ City of Winter Springs Lake Jesup Reclaimed Water Augmentation Facility Project Manual (as prepared by CPH Engineers,Inc.and dated April 2011) ■ City of Winter Springs Lake Jesup Reclaimed Water Augmentation Project Supplemental Planning Document(as prepared by CPH Engineers,Inc.and dated April 2011,with amendments on May 20,2011 and June 30,2011) ■ Lake Jesup Water Quality Report(samples collected on December 20,2010 and analyzed by Flowers Chemical Laboratories,Inc.) ■ Letter from Mr.William C.Goucher,P.E. (CPH Engineers,Inc)to Mr.Kipton Luckcuff,P.E. (Public Works Director) regarding Lake Jesup Reclaimed Water Augmentation Facility CPH Project No.W04141 (dated March 23,2010) This Memorandum is submitted in partial fulfillment of Task Order No.4 authorized on April 6, 2018. Facility Overview-Per the Lake Jesup Reclaimed Water Augmentation Facility Record Drawings,the Lake Jesup reclaimed Water Augmentation Facility Project Manual,and the site visit,the Facility generally consists of the following major components: Evaluation Memo-Final.dou Lena Rivera, P.E.,D.WRE June 6,2018 Page 2 ■ Intake Catch Basin-Concrete structure with two (2) 3-foot long weirs at an elevation of 0.05 ft ■ Influent Pump Station-Concrete structure with two (2)submersible pumps,each designed to deliver 700 gpm at 100 feet TDH (Flygt Model NP 3171.180HT) ■ Pre-Screening System-Two (2) automatic self-cleaning screens,each designed to remove all particles larger than 80 microns from the units'feedwater (Amiad Model EBS 10000) - The system includes provisions which will allow the installation of two (2) additional automatic self-cleaning screens in the future ■ Microfiber Filtration System-One (1) automatic self-cleaning microfiber filtration unit (Amiad Model AMF-370K),designed to remove all particles larger than 3 microns from the unit's feedwater-The system includes provisions which will allow the installation of two (2) additional automatic self-cleaning microfiber filtration units in the future ■ Microfiber Filtration System Flush Water System-One (1) skid-mounted system, complete with two (2) flush water pumps (Goulds Model 22SV6GK4F20,each designed to deliver 88 gpm at 370 feet TDH),to provide pressurized water to the microfiber filtration system to effectively remove accumulated solids from the system ■ Compressed Air System-One (1) compressed air system complete with a compressor sized to deliver 6 cfm at 125 psig and a 50-gallon receiver ■ Residuals Pump Station-Concrete structure with two (2) submersible pumps,Flygt Model NP 3153.181HT ■ High Service Pump Station-One (1)variable speed vertical turbine pump designed to deliver 500 gpm at 228 feet TDH (99 psi)and two (2)variable speed vertical turbine pumps designed to deliver 1,500 gpm at 228 feet TDH (99 psi) -The station includes provisions which will allow the installation of one (1)additional 1,500 gpm pump in the future ■ Sodium Hypochlorite Storage and Feed System-One (1) 1,000-gallon double-wall sodium hypochlorite storage tank;two (2)pre-chlorination metering pumps (Grundfos Model DME 60),each designed to deliver up to 40 gallons per hour;two (2)post-chlorination metering pumps (Grundfos Model DME 60),each designed to deliver up to 40 gallons per hour ■ Ground Storage Tank-Partially buried,cast-in-place,rectangular concrete tank with a nominal storage volume of approximately 240,000 gallons Specific concerns identified from a review of the system are identified and described below. Source Water Quality-The City of Winter Springs Reclaimed Water Augmentation Study prepared by CPH Engineers,Inc.and dated September 2005 (included as Appendix B of the City of Winter Springs Lake Jesup Reclaimed Water Augmentation Project Supplemental Planning Document) described the efforts undertaken to define the quality of the source water.These Evaluation Memo-Final.doa Lena Rivera, P.E.,D.WRE June 6,2018 Page 3 efforts consisted of analyzing six(6)years of daily water quality data,from 1997 to 2002, collected from seven (7) different locations within Lake Jesup.Water quality data (pH,total suspended solids,total dissolved solids,chloride and sulfate concentrations)were obtained from the St.Johns River Water Management District.Each parameter was analyzed to determine its monthly average,annual average,and seasonal variation. Parameters noticeably absent from the source water quality evaluation include total organic carbon,dissolved organic carbon,heterotrophic plate count,total coliform,and fecal coliform. While these parameters,except for fecal coliform,do not have specific Florida Department of Environmental Protection limitations identified in the City's operating permit(Permit Number FLA011067),they can have a detrimental effect on the operation of filtration equipment. If present,organic material can adsorb onto and/or embed into filtration equipment;the result of which is an increase in the resistance to fluid flow(i.e.organic fouling).From an operational perspective,this equates to reduced production and/or an increase in operating pressures. Similarly,if biological organisms are present in the source water,they can attach to filtration equipment and establish colonies.The result of such actions is again an increase in the resistance to fluid flow and a corresponding decline in production and/or an increase in operating pressures (i.e.biological fouling).Due to the specific materials of construction and internal configuration of the Amiad Model AMF-370K microfiber filtration system (i.e.polyester thread wrapped around 3,640 Noryl cassettes),the equipment is susceptible to organic and biological fouling. Process Selection and Process Evaluation-Several documents provided to CDM Smith presented information related to the selection and evaluation of the treatment process.These documents included: ■ City of Winter Springs Reclaimed Water Augmentation Study prepared by CPH Engineers, Inc.and dated September 2005 (included as Appendix B of the City of Winter Springs Lake Jesup Reclaimed Water Augmentation Project Supplemental Planning Document) ■ City of Winter Springs Lake Jesup Augmentation Preliminary Engineering Report prepared by CPH Engineers,Inc.and dated December 2008 (included as Appendix C of the City of Winter Springs Lake Jesup Reclaimed Water Augmentation Project Supplemental Planning Document ■ Letter from Mr.William C.Goucher,P.E. (CPH Engineers,Inc)to Mr.Kipton Luckcuff, P.E. (Public Works Director) regarding Lake Jesup Reclaimed Water Augmentation Facility CPH Project No.W04141 (dated March 23,2010) ■ City of Winter Springs Lake Jesup Reclaimed Water Augmentation Project Supplemental Planning Document(as prepared by CPH Engineers,Inc.and dated April 2011,with amendments on May 20,2011 and June 30,2011) The apparent inconsistency between these documents regarding the recommended treatment process for this application is of interest.Beginning with the 2005 document,CPH Engineers, Inc.stated the"treatment process required on Lake Jesup water would not be a difficult Evaluation Memo-Final.dou Lena Rivera, P.E.,D.WRE June 6,2018 Page 4 one...many chemical parameters can remain unchanged...suspended solids would have to be reduced so that the chlorination processes can properly remove ('kill')the bacteria that may exist in the surface water."The document emphasized that the treatment process for the proposed augmentation facility must be suitable for batch (i.e.on/off) operation,easily started, produce usable water that can be immediately available for distribution,and able to withstand extended downtime.The conceptual treatment process recommended in 2005 consisted of.low service supply pumps,filtration(specifically focused on fabric covered disk filters and/or membranes),transfer pumps,storage,disinfection,and high service distribution pumps. Citing prior filtration experience,CPH Engineers,Inc.explicitly stated that plastic disk screens, stainless steel filter screens,pressure stainless steel screens,dyna-sand,and gravity sand filters were not recommended for this project. In stark contrast to the 2005 document,CPH Engineers,Inc.recommended a high-rate ballasted flocculation (i.e.Actiflo)process in 2008.The document stated"...we recommend an Actiflo treatment unit for this project.It offers flexibility in flow capacity; it can be started and stopped (depending on demand)with minimal consequences on treatment quality;and,it has been proven effective on treating surface water to the required'Public Access'treatment levels required for augmentation of the reclaimed water."The conceptual treatment process recommended in 2008 consisted of.intake structure,intake pump station,2 mm bar screen, high-rate ballasted flocculation,filtration (as an option in the future),storage,high service pumping,and residuals management.The fundamental reason for modifying the recommended treatment process (i.e.from simple filtration as recommended in 2005 to high-rate ballasted flocculation as recommended in 2008)was not identified in the document. As described in the March 23,2010 letter from Mr.William C.Goucher,P.E. (CPH Engineers, Inc.)to Mr.Kipton Luckcuff,P.E. (Public Works Director),CPH Engineers,Inc.,in conjunction with Amiad Filtration Systems,conducted a series of field tests to evaluate various filtration system configurations.The primary objective of the field tests was to determine the degree of pre-filtration and filtration necessary to meet the project requirements (i.e.produce water that contained less than 5 mg/L of total suspended solids).While details of the testing effort were not specifically presented in this letter,CPH Engineers,Inc.clearly documented the practical results of the testing.Ultimately,CPH Engineers,Inc.concluded that pre-filtration with 80- micron screens (Amiad Model EBS 10000)followed by filtration with 7-micron cassettes (Amiad Model AMF-370K)would produce water with a total suspended solids concentration less than 5 mg/L.The letter does not include actual field-testing conditions [i.e.date(s) of testing,water quality(surface,pre-filtered,and filtered),filtration rates,operating pressures, etc.]. The most recent document related to the selection and evaluation of the treatment process was the City of Winter Springs Lake Jesup Reclaimed Water Augmentation Project Supplemental Planning Document(as prepared by CPH Engineers,Inc.and dated April 2011,with amendments on May 20,2011 and June 30,2011).Changes from the March 2010 recommendations included modifications to the degree of filtration provided by the pre- filtration process (200/20-micron vs 80-micron) and the capacity of each pre-filtration unit (700 gpm vs 466 gpm).The overall treatment process remained consistent with the March 2010 recommendations and included two-stage filtration and sodium hypochlorite disinfection Evaluation Memo-Final.doa Lena Rivera, P.E.,D.WRE June 6,2018 Page 5 system,with a goal to reduce the total suspended solids concentration of the surface water to below 5 mg/L,and the capacity of the microfiber filtration system with a capacity of 700 gpm. Ultimately,the design of the Facility was based on two-stage filtration and sodium hypochlorite disinfection process. Specifications-Based upon information provided by City staff during the site visit,CDM Smith limited its specification review to Section 11601-Automatic Self-Cleaning Filters and Section 11602-Automatic Self-Cleaning Microfiber Filters. ■ Section 11601 -Automatic Self-Cleaning Filters-This specification required the installation of two (2) automatic self-cleaning filters with a screen size of 80 microns for the following conditions of service: system flow rate of 700 gpm,system operating pressure range of 30-40 psi,and a maximum source water total suspended solids concentration of 80 mg/L.In addition,Section 11601-1.07 clearly defined specific performance requirements for the automatic self-cleaning filters.Specific performance requirements included: maximum filtered water total suspended solids concentration of 20 mg/L(provided the feed water to this system contains no more than 80 mg/L of total suspended solids);minimum flow rate of 466 gpm per unit; and no more than 1 percent of the average daily flow rate could be consumed for flushing purposes each day.In the event the installed system did not comply with the specified performance requirements, the manufacturer was required to modify the equipment until the performance requirements were met.If required,such modifications were to be completed at no additional cost to the City. Section 11601-3.02.13 required the manufacturer to perform"at least three series of tests...at the design flow rate with analysis of the influent water TSS and filtered water TSS to assure the filter meets the required performance criteria."Specific details of the test procedure,test conditions,data collection forms,or acceptance documentation were not included in Section 11601. Section 11602 -Automatic Self-Cleaning Microfiber Filters-This specification required the installation of one (1) automatic self-cleaning microfiber filters with a cassette size of 7 microns for the following conditions of service:system flow rate of 700 gpm,system operating pressure of 30 psi,and a maximum source water total suspended solids concentration of 20 mg/L.While Section 11602-1.04.13 indicated the system must produce water with a total suspended solids concentration less than 5 mg/L,Section 11602 did not include language commonly associated with a performance specification. This specification also required the installation of a flush water system to maintain the productivity of the automatic self-cleaning microfiber filter.Section 11602-2.02.G required"a two-pump centrifugal pump skid of sufficient capacity and pressure to ensure proper flushing of the microfiber filters."No additional details regarding the flush water system were provided. Section 11602-3.02.13 required the manufacturer to perform"at least three series of tests...at the design flow rate with analysis of the influent water TSS and filtered water Evaluation Memo-Final.docx Lena Rivera, P.E.,D.WRE June 6,2018 Page 6 TSS to assure the filter meets the required performance criteria."Specific details of the test procedure,test conditions data collection forms,or acceptance documentation were not included in Section 11602.More importantly,Section 11602 did not identify or define the process to address deficiencies in performance in the event performance deficiencies were encountered during the acceptance testing process. Startup and Commissioning Data-The City provided CDM Smith with a series of pages that contained hand-written data collected during the startup and commissioning of the Lake Jesup Reclaimed Water Augmentation Facility.Dates associated with the data ranged from April 4, 2013 to July 30,2013 and these data are summarized in Table 1.Time-series plots of total suspended solids,turbidity,and chlorine residual are presented in Figures 1,2,and 3, respectively.A table of the complete data set,as well as a copy of the hand-written data provided to CDM Smith,is included in Appendix A.Details regarding the data collection process (i.e.instruments/methods utilized,instrument calibration records,etc.)were not provided. Operating conditions (i.e.flow,pressure,etc.) of the Facility during this period were not provided.A process schematic indicating specific sampling locations was not provided. Table 1: Lake Jesup Reclaimed Water Augmentation Facility-Startup and Commissioning Data Total Minimum 8 12 3 1.2 Suspended Maximum 140 50 20 11.5 Solids(mg/L) Average 44 29 13 3.3 Count 18 14 15 48 pH Minimum 7.18 7.37 7.51 6.94 Maximum 9.01 9.11 9.07 8.61 Average 8.16 8.42 8.45 7.73 Count 14 12 13 46 Turbidity Minimum 6.20 6.07 2.12 1.02 (NTU) Maximum 65.90 21.00 11.00 22.10 Average 16.52 10.66 5.26 3.48 Count 14 12 13 46 Chlorine Minimum 0.04 Residual Maximum 10.10 (mg/L as C12) Average 2.17 Count 32 With no data to suggest otherwise,CDM Smith assumed the following: data associated with "Lake Jesup Raw"reflects the feed water to the pre-filtration system (Amiad Model EBS 10000); data associated with"Lake Jesup Filter#1"reflects the effluent of the pre-filtration system (Amiad Model EBS 10000)/feed water to the microfiber filtration system (Amiad Model AMF- 370K); data associated with"Lake Jesup Filter#2"reflects the effluent of the microfiber filtration system (Amiad Model AMF-370K); and data associated with"Lake Jesup Final (Distribution)"reflects the filtered and disinfected water entering the reclaimed water distribution system (i.e.after storage). Evaluation Memo-Final.docx Lena Rivera, P.E.,D.WRE June 6,2018 Page 7 As the City of Winter Springs Lake Jesup Reclaimed Water Augmentation Facility Project Manual did not identify specific project requirements for pH,turbidity,and chlorine residual,CDM Smith focused its review on total suspended solids data.Please note,no additional operational data(i.e.flows,pressures,etc.) collected during the startup and commissioning of the Facility were provided for review.CDM Smith believes a review of such operational data would provide additional insight into the operation of the Facility.CDM Smith welcomes the opportunity to review such operational data should it become available.A review of the total suspended solids data revealed the following: ■ Two of the eighteen(11 percent) raw water total suspended solids concentrations measured during the startup and commissioning of the Facility exceeded the maximum raw water total suspended solids concentration identified in Section 11601 (80 mg/L). ■ The maximum raw water total suspended solids concentration measured during the startup and commissioning of the Facility(140 mg/L)was 175 percent of the maximum raw water total suspended solids concentration identified in Section 11601 (80 mg/L). ■ The average raw water total suspended solids concentration measured during startup and commissioning(44 mg/L)was 55 percent of the maximum raw water total suspended solids concentration identified in Section 11601 (80 mg/L). ■ Nine of the fourteen(64 percent) Filter#1 effluent total suspended solids concentrations measured during the startup and commissioning of the Facility exceeded the maximum total suspended solids concentration allowed by Section 11601 (20 mg/L). ■ The maximum Filter#1 effluent total suspended solids concentration measured during the startup and commissioning of the Facility(50 mg/L)was 250 percent of the maximum total suspended solids concentration allowed by Section 11601 (20 mg/L). ■ The average Filter#1 effluent total suspended solids concentration measured during the startup and commissioning of the Facility(29 mg/L)was 145 percent of the maximum total suspended solids concentration allowed by Section 11601 (20 mg/L). ■ Fourteen of the fifteen (93 percent) Filter#2 effluent total suspended solids concentrations measured during the startup and commissioning of the Facility exceeded the maximum total suspended solids concentration allowed by Section 11602 (5 mg/L). ■ The maximum Filter#2 effluent total suspended solids concentration measured during the startup and commissioning of the Facility(20 mg/L)was 400 percent of the maximum total suspended solids concentration allowed by Section 11602 (5 mg/L). ■ The average Filter#2 effluent total suspended solids concentration measured during the startup and commissioning of the Facility(13 mg/L)was 260 percent of the maximum total suspended solids concentration allowed by Section 11602 (5 mg/L). ■ Five of the forty-eight(10 percent) final (distribution)water total suspended solids concentrations measured during the startup and commissioning of the Facility exceeded the maximum total suspended solids concentration requirements for this project. Evaluation Memo-Final.doa Lena Rivera, P.E.,D.WRE June 6,2018 Page 8 ■ The maximum final (distribution)water total suspended solids concentration measured during the startup and commissioning of the Facility(11.5 mg/L)was 230 percent of the maximum total suspended solids concentration allowed for this project. ■ The average final (distribution)water total suspended solids concentration measured during the startup and commissioning of the Facility(3.3 mg/L)was 66 percent of the maximum total suspended solids concentration allowed for this project. As indicated by the data presented in Table 1,neither filtration system produced water that complied with the specified requirements.As presented above,the total suspended solids for Filter#1 effluent averaged 29 mg/L throughout the startup and commissioning process, 145 percent of the maximum concentration allowed by the specifications (20 mg/L).Similarly,the total suspended solids for Filter#2 effluent averaged 13 mg/L throughout the startup and commissioning process,260 percent of the maximum concentration allowed by the specifications (5 mg/L).These data were collected at a time during which the source water total suspended solids concentration averaged 44 mg/L,only 55 percent of the maximum design value (80 mg/L).CDM Smith suspects the 75 percent reduction in total suspended solids between Filter#2 effluent(13 mg/L) and the final (distribution)water(3.3 mg/L)was due to sedimentation within the ground storage tank and/or dilution from water sources with reduced total suspended solids concentrations. April 18,2018 Site Visit-Upon arrival,City staff presented CDM Smith with an overview of the Facility and its history.City staff reported the following: ■ The Facility operated during the summer of 2017 but has not operated since that time. ■ The Facility has not met the 5 mg/L total suspended solids requirement since startup. ■ When operated,the Facility produces approximately 300 gpm instead of 700 gpm as required. ■ Per the original design,the flush water pumps were to draw water from the clearwell. During the commissioning of the Facility,it was found that these pumps could not draw water from the partially buried ground storage tank as installed.As a result,the Contractor installed a 2-inch polyethylene line to convey pressurized water (approximately 80 psi)from the reclaimed water distribution system to the inlet of the flush water system.While this modification allowed the flush water system to operate,the flush water pumps rapidly cycled on and off when called to run.City staff suspect this rapid cycling contributed to the premature failure of one of the flush water pumps. ■ One of the flush water pumps was removed and sent out for repairs.The remaining pump is only capable of developing 90 psi of pressure instead of 130 psi as required by the microfiber filtration system. ■ A bypass around the microfiber filtration system was installed during the dry season of 2017.When utilized,700 gpm of 80-micron filtered water can be produced by the Facility; however,the total suspended solids concentration of the 80-micron filtered water is Evaluation Memo-Final.doa Lena Rivera, P.E.,D.WRE June 6,2018 Page 9 greater than the 5 mg/L concentration allowed by the Facility's operating permit.As a result,the Florida Department of Environmental Protection prohibited the use of this bypass. ■ In 2017,rainfall associated with Hurricane Irma caused the water level of Lake Jesup to rise above the 100-year flood elevation.This resulted in the partial submergence and subsequent flooding of the local control panel for the intake pump station.The City is currently in the process of replacing the control panel in its entirety. ■ The intake catch basin was modified to allow the withdrawal of water during times at which the water level within the lake is below the original elevation of the intake weirs. Specific details of the modification were not discussed. ■ The presence of algae in Lake Jesup is noted throughout a majority of the year.Issues related to algae are more prevalent during summer months and less prevalent during winter months.City staff indicated the field testing conducted by CPH Engineers,Inc.and Amiad Filtration Systems occurred during the winter months.As such,City staff suspect the quality of the source water utilized for field testing purposes was not representative of typical conditions and overestimated the performance of the filtration systems. ■ Additional instrumentation and controls may enhance the operation and maintenance of this Facility.Specific items referenced included:pH,total suspended solids,pressures of various process streams,pump run times,and discharge valve controls. ■ The absence of concrete pads under the existing high service pumps has contributed to excessive vibration of the equipment. ■ The ground storage tank has a vertical crack along the west side of the structure. Independent Comments Related to the Facility Based upon the information presented above,CDM Smith offers the following comments: ■ While not specifically regulated for this Project,organic and biological parameters should have been included in the source water quality evaluation due to their potential to adversely impact the treatment process. ■ A properly designed filtration and disinfection system can meet the goals of this Project (i.e.700 gpm with less than 5 mg/L of total suspended solids);however,it is unclear if the equipment currently installed at the Facility can meet these goals.Please note,as this is an existing filtration and disinfection system,other processes will not be evaluated at this time. ■ The performance testing documents which referenced field testing efforts focused strictly on water quality(i.e.total suspended solids concentration and particle size distribution). Physical operating conditions (i.e.filtration rates,operating pressures,etc.)were not discussed.When referenced,production capacities of individual units were referenced as "estimated." Evaluation Memo-Final.doa Lena Rivera, P.E.,D.WRE June 6,2018 Page 10 ■ CDM Smith believes Sections 11601 and 11602 were written for specific pieces of equipment(i.e.Amiad Model EBS 10000 and Amiad Model AMF-370K,respectively). While both specifications identify specific performance requirements for each piece of equipment(i.e.production capacity and product water total suspended solids concentration),the specifications did not provide language to enforce the performance requirements. ■ Process flow and process instrumentation drawings were not provided. ■ Based upon the data collected during the startup and commissioning of the Facility, neither filtration system produced water that complied with the specified total suspended solids requirements identified in their respective specifications.No flow data was provided,therefore,the ability of the filtration system to produce 700 gpm of water is not known.While required by Sections 11601 and 11602,no performance testing documentation was provided. ■ A comprehensive hydraulic evaluation of the flush water system is warranted.While definitive statements regarding potential flush water system modifications should only be made after the hydraulic evaluation is completed,CDM Smith suspects one or more of the following items will be confirmed once the evaluation concludes. • The existing flush water pump is not properly sized/designed for the current installation (i.e.total dynamic head/drive type). • The existing control valves (i.e.Bermad/Cla-Val) are not properly configured for the current installation. • The existing alarm setpoints are not appropriate for the current installation. Additional troubleshooting efforts related to the Amiad Model AMF-370K unit will be unproductive until deficiencies associated with the flush water system are resolved. The installation of additional instrumentation and controls features will greatly enhance troubleshooting efforts associated with the Facility as well as future operation and maintenance efforts.Specific instruments include total suspended solids analyzers and numerous pressure indicating transmitters. ■ Concrete pads should be installed under the three (3)vertical turbine high service pump. Recommendations The performance of the existing system can be improved;however,the degree of improvement cannot be determined at this time.A systematic series of recommendations for the City's considerations are provided below.Recommendations are generally presented in the order of recommended implementation;however,some recommendations may allow concurrent implementation. ■ Based on discussions with the filter manufacturer and the City,it is not believed that the current treatment system can deliver the required 700 gpm meeting the water quality Evaluation Memo-Final.dou Lena Rivera, P.E.,D.WRE June 6,2018 Page 11 requirement of 5 mg/L total suspended solids.Prior to implementing costly repair of the existing system,a desktop evaluation to determine the cost to upgrade the existing system or replace it with alternative treatment technologies is recommended. ■ Repair of the intake pump control panel is required to restart the facility.This repair should be completed as soon as possible. ■ Several recommendations for repair of the existing system are listed below if this option is selected in the desktop evaluation. ■ CDM Smith can work with Amiad Filtration Systems and the City to test and troubleshoot the filtration system and develop a list of recommended activities to repair or modify to improve performance.CDM Smith anticipates this testing will span several days during which Amiad will:inspect the internal and external condition of both Amiad Model EBS 10000 units,inspect the internal and external condition of the Amiad Model AMF-370K unit,inspect the condition of the flush water system,and perform any necessary/remedial maintenance on the equipment.Once Amiad is satisfied that all equipment is in good working order,the City(with assistance from Amiad)would place the Facility into operation to perform a functional test of the entire system.Numerous operating parameters would be monitored throughout the functional test including but not limited to:filtration system feed flow,flush water system flow,pre-screening system inlet pressure,pre-screening system outlet/microfiber filtration system inlet pressure, microfiber filtration system outlet pressure,flush water system inlet pressure,flush water system outlet pressure,source water total suspended solids concentration,pre-screening system outlet/microfiber filtration system inlet total suspended solids concentration, microfiber filtration system outlet total suspended solids concentration,distribution system total suspended solids concentration,and distribution system chlorine residual. Such information would be reviewed and analyzed to determine how each system performs relative to the specified requirements ■ Concurrently with the filtration system testing,ancillary systems can be tested including the air compressor,flush pump station,chemical metering pumps,high service pumps, etc.,and the existing instruments can be calibrated. ■ Following completion of system testing,a comprehensive list of required improvements can be developed. ■ Required upgrades that are currently known include replacement of the flush water system and the intake pump station control panel.Structural repair of the clear well and installation of concrete pads under high service pumps are also required. ■ Potential additional upgrades to improve system operation will be identified following additional system testing and may include the following: • Implement a periodic chemical cleaning regime for the Amiad Model AMF-370K unit to improve its production rate. Evaluation Memo-Final.doa Lena Rivera, P.E.,D.WRE June 6,2018 Page 12 • Relocate the sodium hypochlorite injection location to a point upstream of the filtration equipment to limit biological activity within each filtration unit. • Install finer screens in the two Amiad Model EBS 10000 units and/or finer cassettes in the Amiad Model AMF-370K unit to reduce the total suspended solids concentration of the water produced by each unit.Please note,the installation of finer screens and/or cassettes is expected to increase the headloss across each of the filtration systems.This may result in a corresponding decrease in the production rate of the Facility.A detailed hydraulic evaluation would be required as part of this concept. • In the event the recommended/remedial actions identified during preliminary discussions with Amiad Filtration Systems and the finer screens/cassettes do not result in acceptable total suspended solids concentrations,consider the use of alternate filtration processes (i.e.bag/cartridge filtration).Such processes could be utilized as a stand-alone replacement to the Amiad Model AMF-370K unit or as a polishing step.If the City desires to pursue this concept,CDM Smith strongly recommends the City conduct a comprehensive pilot test to verify performance, identify critical design parameters (i.e.degree of filtration required,pressure requirements,and filtration rate requirements),and estimate filter replacement frequency.Please note,the installation of a new filtration process,either as a stand- alone process or as a polishing step,will impact the hydraulics of the existing Facility. In addition to a comprehensive pilot test,a detailed hydraulic evaluation would be required as part of this concept. We look forward to continuing to work with the City to improve the performance of the Lake Jesup Reclaimed Augmentation Facility.Please contact us with any questions or comments on the above information. Evaluation Memo-Final.dou m O N C ci p 00.Y .Y ci N f0 fY LL LL LL m • • • • • • • • J'® \ {� • N c0 N • � • O N m N 0 Q N N • \ • n co 016 • 4 0 N CJ co Ln\ LL so • • • O co • • 0p N • ! • m E 0 ho N Q u N L N Ln CL c LL W � N � m E N U O 4, O N Co I1 CL N C C Q 7 7 W W N ® Q • - to • N L L m N N �i +� +� O J LZ LZ E E E E ® E E X X X f6 f6 f6 m O N n l0 ON O 00 l0 ON O m (J/Sw)sp!IOS papuadsnS Ip}Ol m O N C c-I W 0 7 ci N Yk YL � ate+ (2) ro C KLL LL LL m • • 4 • • ate+ •• • m Ln L O U • f0 L.L � m p i • _ •= o n ca `^ •• •j • Q0 v •• • • p Q i m O +J N r4 N L! Q� E M U rn Q ON Q0 N Ln v v f0 J • • •• • m O N ci m O N rq n O O O O O O O O m MIN)Al!p!Ganl m O N C c-I O \ Y 00 7 72 LL • • m • • o •• • •• ry ca � _0 • • V) • a1 • DC • • • n 14 a1 • • o C • N .L �• \ O • u U U m-i O LL r-4 Lr) C -i O o co � C co v o E dA m � o Q N r4 L N Q� \ 0 a) E rn ci U r4 v Q0 Ln Q N v v m J p N c-I m 0 N n N O 00 Q0 'T N O N c ci \ m (11D se 1/2w) lenplsab aulaol4D LAI,/ 'AMT P4 4-4-1 A�, ?AA 2 e4 -L,4-k3 &4A K"bo Z-1 3.4 -3 L-4 CS L 3 00 2-6 00 4 2-t--� K� I WA2, f U C) NA ELC 8-to AAA 2-'PLZA 2(-�O f Cy C, 3-o -2 1 Vp 6 A-� '7 (-7- 13 Qm 30 4F A.�7 iti aZ Trw,� emLl_• � 1 S`• to l-� —� IL to 0.48 (. IZl3 Qom. I0 30 30 I U20 Z c-C $2 g 2Z 12.7 13 cc 4+ fLl-k lZ-c3 11- F q-2u-t3 A � o G-t�-t3 ao �-cz-t3 3 LA,, Y°�. (���7) :3.0 '`Z.•sl Z•1 Z G-I�-l3 Ate,, 2 Cv•o t� ac Z-fct 3 �D%w- �—r�.c3 12-0 F s7 3, (Y Cam) f � GO-Z� (P-7 2 _ 3 20_0 IT-13 CL.C) o� -Z1— f'-L 7U 13 �_� � A l(•s Z - G ti-�3 mot' low 2-4 4 — I D AA- G-p-i3 3 ZA (v f ��) .2-0 7-44 4 4 2-o© — �0 3-to ( _ U `L`T'I� ,.K �M.a 2-co 2.3s 4F 1` 7-71 f c 3 �O i o) G-Zr,-t 3 "A^ 3G at 1 L :Z- 4-7 t,. A7-38 4S 4r 4-4 Zb Lr IC .7-v,--t 3 2 3-7-7 i- S f3 -r W •.. 2 -0 7 C3 (' �' - - -tir � aN 2•o 1-tat 3 I0It 2 t, C3 C3 Sri 2.-34 3 f•� 7 4G 2•r( 0 T) co TO L "Z•G4 1•54 �-13-13 U -E^• � % �v � a Z2 2-tom . 4-4 � �� z ' � ?-ti t3 ,0 4 -S� Z•c: I � G-310 V � M.. so 2, (5 — f.35 0.32) 2,14 0 7-2T-(3 2•4 -T':40 ) -7 3 7 'O «3 Ati .4 •.a t3.3s Ica• 2- Cre r) l-2.3-[3 -? ,� -qp 6_4 O.Fo) 2-0 7,61 417 7� 3r 3-2-4 (8 s) 3� "7 2 -6 7 .67 2_ 2 2_