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. ...