02-20-1980 Special Meeting
.
.
CITY OF CLERMONT
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
WASTE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
A Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Clermont was
called to order by Mayor Claude Smoak at 5:10 P.M. on Wednesday,
February 20, 1980 in the Council Chambers. The following Council-
men were present: Councilman Carlisle Byrd, Dennis Thomas, and Jim
Meginley. Other City Officials present were: City Manager Forbes,
City Attorney Baird, and Deputy City Clerk Meyer.
Mayor Smoak stated that the purpose of the meeting was to clarify
the official position of the City of Clermont regarding the
disposal of the City's treated effluent, and to give those present
an opportunity to express their opinions or ask questions regarding
the various concepts proposed.
CITY STAFF PRESENTATIONS
The City Engineers, John Springstead and Bud Samps~lof the Firm of
Springstead and Associates were present. They explained that the
Compliance Schedule requires the City to study three methods of
disposing the City's treated effluent. These methods are advanced
'Naste treatment, landspreading, and the wetlands. The advantages
and disadvantages of each approach were discussed. The City utility
Director, Preston Davis was present and explained the operation
of the treatment plant. Samples of the City's treated effluent
and water from Lake Minneola were compared. There was much dis-
cussion regarding the landspreading and wetland alternatives;
feasibility of these methods during high and low water, and the
number of acres required for disposal.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mayor Smoak responded to questions on the City perculation ponds
and present disposal methods which have not effected the water
quality of the palatlakaha River for eight years. He further stated
the problem we are facing and the solution we are trying to arrive
at is how best to dispose of a community problem, not just a city
problem. The City is also asking for a temporary five year ex-
perimental permit so we can monitor what is happening in the marsh.
Questions were asked whether the City would be in a position to
turn off the valve the day it is established that the marshland al-
ternative does not work, even though it may cost the City monetarily?
The Mayor replied that the permitting process itself would require
that thi,s be done. Public comments were received and several per-
sons commended the City Council in the way they were handling this
matter. Several citizens also voiced objections to the marshland
alternative. The major objections presented were the impoundment
of the marsh, and the belief that other treatment methods would be
safer in keeping our lakes clean.
SOUTH MARSII ALTERNATIVE
The City Engineer presented the S011th Marsh Alternative or Concept
No.6, which is a marsh that lies west of 561 and south of highway
50. This marsh contains 141 acres with the only outlet into the
palatlakaha River through culverts to the north of the marsh. It
was explained that this proposal is to discharge the treated effluent
l
....
.
.
CITY OF CLERMONT
MINUTES
into the marsh and that the distribution system can be constructed
by barges without disturbing the marsh. This is a natural process
of waste treatment that should not contaminate the Chain of Lakes.
The majority of the marsh is owned by the County, the discharge
area is owned by Mr. Harmon. Mr. Harmon has agreed to allow the
~ity to utilize the marsh area. This plan will be presented to
the regulatory agencies if the Council wishes to per sue this treat-
ment method.
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilman Byrd stated that he supports the wetland proposal - Con-
cept 6. He asked to have Councilman Thomas' letter int.roduced as
a matter of record into the meeting. He stated that he was concerned
about an article in the paper in"which Councilman Thomas made many
conunents regarding the marshland alternative. The quotations in
the article disturbed Councilman Byrd in that there appears to
be some conflict of interest between his duties to the Commission
and his duties to some organization he is organizing tc make bat-
tle with the Council. Councilman Byrd stated that the City operates
under a Charter with a Council/Manager form of government, and the
Council makes the decisions, and not by intimidation. He praised
the quality of the treated water and showed samples of it in com-
parison to tap water and lake water. Councilman Byrd then stated
that the wetland system will work, and it is safe as reported in
the s.tudy, and safety controls can be built into the" s.~'stem~
Mayor Smoak asked It anyone wanted to make a statement and Council-
man Thomas replied. He stands by his report and is against using
the marshland for disposal of the City's treated effluent. He
would still like to study the Concept 6 more, but remains opposed.
He stated that landspreading would be the best alternative since
there would be no chance of polluting our lakes. City Manager
Forbes gave a report on economic considerations and the EPA inno-
vative technology program. The Chair recognized Counci.lman
Meginley. He stated he was elected to the Council to do a job in
the best interest of Clermont. He was in favor of the marshland
alternative in that it is simply mother nature assisting us in
removing nutrients from the City's treated effluent. The Council
has been trying to accomplish this in the past several years in
a manner that would be acceptable to DER and the citizens of Clermont,
without disturbing the ecology, and by incorporating a monitoring
system into the program in order to assure it is the best method
available. The Mayor then stated that if at any time any research-
er or scientist in the community can show the Council that a deli-
toriuR effect on the ground water or surface water will be created
in our C'nain of lakes by the marshland al terna ti ve, he vTould be the
first one to remove the system.
EFFLUENT DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVE
The floor was open for a motion. Councilman Byrd made the motion
to rescind persuing Concept No. 4 by this Council and t:his motion
was seconded by Councilman Meginley. The vote of the council was
unanimous and the motion adopted. The Maybr asked if there were
any other motions. Councilman Byrd moved that the City of Clermont,
the City Manager, the City Attorney, and the City Engineers contin-
'le to persue and to present to the appropriate regulatory authori ti~
the Concept of Wetland Disposal using the fresh water marsh, seconded
by Mr. Meginley. The Mayor asked for the vote. Councilmen Meginley
Byrd, and Mayor Smoak voted aye, and Councilman Thomas voting nay~
The motion was adopted.
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 P.M.
...