The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991 - CorrespondenceBa'00%�D OF COUNTY COMMISSIC'* RS 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 - Telephone: (407) 567-8000 January 28, 1991 Telephone: 224-1011 . Yy MITI 39 t 4 f�eer5 � Office 4 SUBJECT: NORTH COUNTY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEMS WORKSHOP Dear Resident: In the past several months, the engineering firm of Kimball/Lloyd and Associates, Inc., has been preparing a preliminary engineering report on methodologies of sewer service to your area of the County. The area currently being addressed by this project is bounded by US Highway #1 and the Indian River on the west and east, and bounded on the north and south by the northern and southern intersections of Indian River Drive and US Highway #1. The County Utilities Department is holding a workshop on this project at the Sebastian Community Center on February 14, 1991, at 7:30 p.m. You are encouraged to join us and participate in this workshop as it does directly pertain to you as a property owner in this area. If you have any questions, please contact this office 567-8000, Extension 308. Sincerely, WILLIAM F. McCAIN Capital Projects Engineer Department of Utility Services WFM/c cc: Terrance G. Pinto, Director of Utility Services (CNCWORK.WFM) at (407) B� D OF COUNTY COMMISS.'�RS 1840 25th Strut, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Telephone: (407) 567-8000 January 30, 1991 5uncom Telephone: 2241011 SUBJECT: NORTH COUNTY SEWER TRANSMISSION MAINS AND REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY Dear Resident: This letter is to notify you that the North County sewer transmission mains and associated wastewater treatment facility are complete and on line. There is a specific procedure which must be adhered to when connecting businesses and residences to the system. For information regarding these connection procedures, or any other questions concerning this project, please contact this office at (407) 567-8000, Extension 308 (for connection information), or Ernestine Williams at Extension 404 (for assessment information). Your cooperation with this project is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, 2 WILLIAM F. McCAIN Capital Projects Engineer Department of Utility Services WFM/c cc: Terrance G. Pinto, Director of Utility Services (CNCSWRMN.WFM) Telephone; (407)567-8000 . B ^A00%,RD OF COUNTY COMMISS: _ NERS 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 February 26, 1 99 1 Honorable W. E. Conyers, Mayor City of Sebastian Post Office Box 127 Sebastian, FL 32978-0127 Dear Mayor Conyers: Re: NORTH COUNTY SEWER PROJECT Suncom Telephone: 224-1011 2SULUS •it ZZ � 03AI�� I am writing you this letter to respond to some of the comments attributed to you and Ruth Sullivan by a recent newspaper article. My hope is that this letter will clear up any doubts you may have about the County Utility Department and correct any erroneous information you may have gotten from Mrs. Sullivan. Approximately five years ago a number of businessmen in the Sebastian area approached the County to see if the County could provide water and sewer service to them. These businessmen realized that they would be unable to expand their existing businesses or create certain new businesses since existing lot sizes required public sewers instead of septic tanks. The County held numerous public meetings and interest continued, which lead to the City of Sebastian, at a public hearing, granting the County a water and sewer franchise. The plan proposed by the County included a North County wastewater treatment plant and a force main running north and south generally along U.S. Highway #1. At the public hearing it was also pointed out (and your City minutes will confirm this) that the system requires payment of the cost to construct smaller lines to get to the force mains. This costs would be in addition to the impact fees and would be assessed against only the benefiting properties. Thus, there would be two charges and two assessments, i.e., the first for plant capacity and the force main and the second for getting to and connecting to the system. The first charge is the same for everybody; the second depends on how far away the property is, how many properties participate, and what the costs of that particular construction are. Mayor W. E. Conyers Page two February 26, 1991 The County also proposed a nondiscriminatory rate structure consistent with the franchise, so that all County residents on the system would pay the same rate for the same category of service. The force main and the treatment plant were to be paid for by voluntary special assessment (as was done with the State Road 60 project) with the assessed amount being the amount of the impact fee plus a financing charge. At these hearings it was pointed out that the County does not subsidize utilities through taxation --all expenses of the system are paid only through the revenues of the system. The North County system has been extremely successful, with a voluntary participation of over 5,000 ERUs. This has allowed the County to phase out over 16 package systems and numerous septic tank systems which were polluting the current water supply and the Indian River. We believe our system is technically and environmentally sound and fiscally responsible. In fact there is already enough demand from North County residents for an expansion of the system. If you have any questions, please call me and we will try to answer them. Sincerely, ✓`++ Don C. Scurlock, J County Commissioner DCS IVk CC: Mrs. Ruth Sullivan 1215 Indian River Drive Sebastian, Florida 32958 Sebastian- Inlet Marina Mayor Will Conyers Fellow Council Members City of Sebastian 1225 Main Street Sebastian, FL 32958 March 6, 1991 Dear Mayor and Council Members: I have been following with interest the growing controversy about the sewer franchise agreement with the county. While I realize each of you may have to react to political pressure from time to time, I urge the mayor and council to take whatever time necessary to learn the facts before making any rash decisions. There may be some legitimate concerns and misunderstandings about costs for these services however it is clear that public sewer availability is a necessity if we are to avoid economic stagnation and potentially damaging environmental problems. In my opinion, the County has done the City a service by using their expertise and staff to help provide this utility. In fact, most of the hard work has already been completed. For the City to reverse directions and undertake the massive project of providing their own sewer at this point, could be catastrophic. The City has not planned for such a major undertaking so the ability to provide the service in a timely manner and its potential cost (which, of course, has to be shared by the taxpayers) is undetermined at this time. I cannot understand how the City would consider trying to get out of their franchise agreement with the County when most of you admittedly have little understanding of what the cost would be to the taxpayer if the City undertook the installation of these utilities. Are you prepared to make the statement to Mrs. Sullivan and her group that the City can provide the service at a cheaper price?l This issue is about money and not the need for public sewer. "Your Full Service Marina on the Treasure Coast" 1580 U.S. 1, P.O. Box 1507, Sebastian, Florida 32958, (305) 589.4345 r s Additionally, I have concerns on how the utility issue is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan and whether or- not any representations have been made to the State or Federal Government about this matter. Has anyone from the City contacted the DER and the DNR about their positions on this issue? And what about our "Riverfront District" which will certainly need public sewer to get off the ground? A City undertaking to provide sewer could take 5 years or more. In summary, I urge the City to get including what the alternative this project before we burn what with the county. Sincerely, Thomas H. Collins President THC:jh cc: Rob McCleary Doug Scurlock Terry Pinto Bill McCain Ruth Sullivan Sebastian Sun Press.Journal all the facts together, costs will be to undertake is now a crumbling bridge P.S. Incidentally, our business which is located on River Drive has already connected to the county sewer system and we have been assured that we allowed to stay on that system irregardless of City decides. Indian will be what the ef BOAR � F COUNTY COMMISSIONS^ 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Telephone:(407)567-8000 March 13, 1991 Honorable W. E. Conyers, Mayor City of Sebastian Post Office Box 127 Sebastian, FL 32958-0127 Dear Mayor Conyers: Suncom Telephone: 224-1011 * --N WCEND UK 15 is CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Re: COUNTY WATER AND SEWER FRS Approximately six years ago it became increasingly clear to the residents of the North County area and of the City of Sebastian that the public interest would be served by having public water and sewer. The County, through the efforts of Commissioner Scurlock and Utilities Director Terry Pinto, initiated discussions with private citizens who advanced $25 per person to fund a feasibility study to be performed by a consulting engineer. There were enough voluntary payments to fund the study, which indicated that it would be feasible to construct a public sewer system. The County presented these findings to the City of Sebastian, and after numerous public hearings the City entered into a long-term franchise with the County. The franchise was necessary for the County to have the authority to provide sewer service within the City limits, and for the County to be able to borrow the money to construct the system. The main security for the repayment of the debt used system was a voluntary lien given by property owne capacity in the system. At no time was anyone fo system, and at no time did the County build capacity necessary for the people who were paying for the made clear during the public hearings in Sebastian, paid by these volunteers would pay only for the for the main transmission system. The County and into another agreement which obligated the City assessment hearings for individual line assessments to the City to the main County -installed line. This would cost. How to conduct the hearing and what manner people who would be paying for the connection line was within the discretion of the City Council. to construct the rs who reserved reed to join the in excess of that system. As was the impact fees plant itself and the City entered Council to hold connect areas of be an additional of assessing the always a matter Honorable W. E. Conyers, Mayor Page two City of Sebastian March 13, 1991 After completing the legal papers creating the franchise, after completing -the .court action validating .the County bond issue, and after selling approximately $5.6 million in County bonds; 'the County undertook the employment of consulting engineers and contractors who recently completed the plant and force main so that the plant is now ready to accept customers from the individual connecting lines built under separate assessment programs. The County Commission became aware through articles in the Vero Beach Press Journal that some Sebastian residents were dissatisfied in some manner . with how the County is proposing. connection of the customers to the main system and with the cost of the impact fee and service connections. The County read in the newspaper that the City authorized its City Attorney to investigate employing an attorney with expertise in utility matters 'to see if the "City could legally revoke the County franchise. In response to the newspaper articles, Utilities Liaison Commissioner Don Scurlock and several staff members talked with you on the telephone to ensure that the newspaper article was correct. In that phone conversation, Commissioner Scurlock indicated that he would recommend to the full Board that, the County agree to relinquish its franchise rights within the City of Sebastian if that was what the City Council wished. At the March 5, 1991, meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, the Board unanimously approved that policy, asking only that the City Council let the County know within 30 days of its decision, since the County is now in the process of hiring a consulting engineering firm to expand the North County wastewater treatment plant. If the City does remove itself from the County sewer program, it will no longer be necessary to expand the sewer plant. The County's only interest from the beginning has been to assist the City of Sebastian and the residents of the North County area in getting the utility service that they requested. The County will cooperate with the City in whatever manner the City desires. Sincerely, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS `�Aeoaf_� Richard N. Bird Chairman RNB/Vk ��t �� /a. a /�iL "Dui �6� • /�� Ae"l . Z-4 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: UTII^CSURPFAC.NJM) INDIAN RIVER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM MARCH 27, 1991 HARRY E. ASHER ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES NOEL J. McMAHONy� ENVIRONMENTAL SP C.IAL7ST DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES SURPLUS FACILITY Park Place is a 0.035 MGD design capacity tube steel extended aeration or 0.096 MGD design capacity contact stabilization wastewater treatment facility with surge control. Two blowers are included. There are no surge tank pumps. The following tanks are included: Tank Capacity Surge tank 11,300 gallons Contact tank 12,100 gallons Re -aeration tank 22,750 gallons Clarifier 22,750 gallons Aerobic digester 22,750 gallons Chlorine contact tank 2,775 gallons NJM/c .On% QUESTIONS TO ASR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ALL ANSWERS TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL IN WRITING Please list all costs for sewer and water installation including, but not limited to: 1: Engineering costs for project; 2: Impact fees; 3: Meter and associated fees and costs to meter private well water for sewer billing. Another 'Impact Fee' on this? 4: Method of assessing for sewer pipe by the foot and current cost of pipe by the foot; 5: Method of establishing assessment districts for sewer and water payment; 6. Cost of 'lift stations' to pump into high pressure sewer line installed in Sebastian; 7: Location of all high pressure lines installed or planned for Sebastian; 8. Interest rate on bonds sold by county to finance North County Sewer Project; 9. Interest rate charged by the county to residents/business- owners who finance their sewer and water installation cost; 10. Number of years allowed to finance sewer and water installation cost; 11. Any and all other costs, fees, charges by county and/or expense that is the private financial responsibility of the property owner for installation, hook-up, etc, to the county systems, including the need to hire private engineering services to bring the resident/business sewer and water to property line to tie into the county system. Are there tap -in fees? Please also inquire about the $10.50 'filing' fee collected by the county when anyone pays off sewer or water installation in full. Since the new county ordinance makes sewer and water hook- up "mandatory", rather than the promised voluntary individaul decision, the members of Indian River Property Owners Association believe it is vital to establish a written record for citizens affected by these expenses and county policies. Sincerely Rut�a��G&� livan, President Indian River Property Owners Association. AC�7C 9 3/z7/91 � 7�61 Ca- r There seems to be a great deal of confusion and misinformation circulating around the city in regard to both the county sewer system and the twin pairs of CR 512. I will take this opportunity to state my opinion on both of these issues. When I took my oath of office, I swore to perform the duties of mayor to the best of my ability, to look out for the interests and welfare of all of the citizens of Sebastian. When the Sebastian Comprehensive Land Use Plan was accepted by the State it was predicated in large part on the availability of sewers in 1991 and four laning 512 in 1991-92. The Comprehensive Plan says Sebastian is in an urban service area and provisions for water and sewer must be obtained before building permits will be issued for commercial and other developments. Granted, the impact and hook-up fees are not what we thought was in the agreement, but the county has been working on the system since 1986. It is not a mandatory hook-up system. Only the Health Department can require hook-up if they determine there is a serious hazard to health and welfare. The cost of the lift stations can be shared by multiple users and can be paid over a 10 year period. The franchise fees will go to the city, not the county, within the city limits. Now I understand that the attorney we hired has recommended that we hire an engineer! Someone needs to determine what it would cost the City of Sebastian to provide a sewer system and what rates the city would have to charge for hook-up and impact fees, along with the time it would take. In all probability it will cost us more than what is currently being offered by the county. If we opt out of the county system, we are very likely looking either at a state imposed building moratorium or loss of funding from the state, until such time as a city sewer system could be provided. If the state imposes a moratorium, where does that leave our soon to be built Police Station? If a future City Council decided it wanted other changes, where does that leave us? Can we afford to stop further development of our tax base for 5 or 10 years? The destiny of Sebastian is going to be determined by having public facilities available. 11 �0% 1#10� The twin pairs on CR 512 has become a political football. The original plan was to put all four lanes on the county owned railroad right-of-way. This made sense to me since it would eliminate the curves on 512, the hill at the crossing and the new crossing would be at grade. When a group from Sebastian objected, the county offered the twin pair concept which was approved by a Sebastian City Council after much debate and public hearings. At a joint meeting of city council and county commissioners held a couple of months ago, it was fully explained that it was neither cost effective nor as safe to four lane existing 512. The existing road bed would have to be torn up, additional right- of-way purchased and the disruption to traffic and businesses would be horrendous. With the twin pairs, construction of the new west bound leg could be completed and traffic re-routed while the existing road was widened and resurfaced. The 1990 traffic count on new CR 512 was 9900 trips per day. When the count reaches 13,000 the road is saturated and the State will declare a building moratorium. When a transportation system reaches its saturation point, no additional construction is permitted which will add a single vehicle. With the Gulf crisis winding down and the economy picking up, we might reach that magic number sooner than we think. The railroad trestle is an idea whose time has not yet come. It is ridiculous to consider earmarking our traffic impact fees for the next ten years for this project. If we are under a building moratorium, there will be no impact fees to earmark! At a recent meeting of the county transportation committee Assistant County Attorney Will Collins explained that the ideas presented regarding the change of design for 512 is not just an engineering design problem. This system would have to go through a comprehensive plan amendment for the traffic circulation of the City of Sebastian; we would have to see whether our capital improvements element can finance it; the county would have to look at the capital improvements program. It would be at least a year's process just to run this through the books and see if the Department of Community Affairs would accept a comprehensive plan amendment. Mr. Jim Davis, County Director of Public Works, also stated that the County's consultant has looked at both the tunnel under the tracks and raising the tracks and concluded it was not cost effective. 2 AN*A AIMS The county has already paid consultants. Why does the City of Sebastian need to duplicate these costs? We have other places we need to spend these tax dollars. Why do we need to spend another $100,000 for a study and wait another nine months to a year to get the study results? Then do we need to hire a drainage consultant to determine what the impacts of cutting the ridge down twenty to thirty feet would be? DOT has proven that one-way twin pairs is a very effective way to manage traffic through an urbanized area. I feel we would be better served in the long run to continue with these two projects, county sewer and 512 twin pairs, as they have already been approved and concentrate our efforts and money on alleviating the drainage problems in the city. The longer we stall, the more it costs. Both of these items have been talked about, planned for, engineered and ready to become a reality. The drainage problem has been talked about for years. I feel we would serve the public more by addressing this issue now and the let the already approved projects continue. I would sincerely hope that this council will weigh all of the ramifications of their actions if they are considering either dropping out of the county sewer system or stopping the twin pairs project, or both. They must consider the costs in time, money and loss of income for both the city and its citizens. As I stated before, the destiny of Sebastian is going to be determined by having public facilities available and in particular, by the actions of this council. 3 .. MR. Robert S. McClary, City Manager P.O. Box 780127 Sebastian, FL. 32978-0127 Dear Mr. McClary: With reference to the City of Sebastian cancelling its franchise with the County of Indian River for sewer and water, I am absolutely against it. The property owners of Sebastian have reserved 2,000 units and I hold 30 of them. When I purchased them June 1, 1989, I fully understood that the amount that I was then paying gave me access to the TRUNK line and did not include the collection system and lift station that would be necessary for eventual use. I thought that we were getting a gravity flow system until I saw letter to the editors from Ruth Sullivan that the county was really constructing the STEP system. That was late summer of 1990. Shortly after that Mr. Scurlock and Mr. Pinto held a public meeting in the Sebastian Civic Center and explained to several hundred peole that we were getting a gravity flow system and that Mrs. Sullivan was abolutely wrong. At that meeting Mr. Scurlock explained the costs that would be neccessary in addition to the connection to the TRUNK charge. Incidentally, Mrs. Sullivan has never reserved even one connection to the TRUNK. My feeling is that the five people on the Council represent all of the people of Sebastian therefor before they try to get out of the sewer and water deal with the county, they should find out how the people feel that have put up their cash to purchase the 2,000 units that they own. OVER THE PAST 18 YEARS I have aquired 41 acres of land in the city and have given five of those acres to the city and sold two to the Post Office at 38% of the appraised value just to help out the city and I know that the construction of a gravity flow sewer system and central water are the two best things that have happened to Sebastian and I do know that qualified people are running the show. Please just work out any details and let them alone for the good of Sebastian and its citizens. Yours truly, Roger M. Skillman J. CHARLES GRAY GORDON H. HARRIS RICHARD M. ROBINSON PHILLIP R. FINCH PAMELA O. PRICE JAMES F. PAGE. JR. o HILIP H. TREES WILLIAM A. BOYLES THOMAS J. WILKES THOMAS A. CLOUD BYRD F. MARSHALL, JR. J. MASON WILLIAMS, III LEO P. ROCK, JR. STEPHEN A. HILGER G. ROBERTSON DILL CHARLES W. SELL JACK A. KIRSCHENBAUM JAMES W. PEEPLES M FORREST S. FIELDS, JR. VIA TELEFAX GRAY, HARRIS & ROBINSON PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 1200 SOUTHEAST BANK BUILDING 201 EAST PINE STREET POST OFFICE BOX 3068 ORLA:`TDO, FL 32802-3068 TELEPHONE (407) 843-8880 GLASS BANK BUILDING 505 NORTH ORLANDO AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 320757 COCOA BEACH, FL 32932-0757 TELEPHONE (407) 7832218 FAX (407) 244-5690 FAX (407( 183-2297 WRITERS DIRECT DIAL PLEASE REPLY TO: Orlando April 5, 1991 a The Honorable Richard N. Byrd Chairman, Board of County Commissioners Indian River County 1040 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Chairman Byrd: THOMAS C. SHAW PAUL J. MOKRIS ALAN R. BUTTERWORTH DEBORAH 5. HERNANDEZ PAUL S. GUINN, JR. DAVID L. SCHICK JACK K. MCMULLEN ORLANDO L. EVORA SUSAN 0. TASSELL FREDERICK W. RICHARDS RICHARD E. BURKE LORI R. BENTON ANTHONY J. COTTER TRACY A. BORGERT JOHN B. 5HOEMAKER LISA J. FRANK' MALCOLM R. KIR5CHENBAUM OF COUN5EL HEHBER OT NEW YORK BAR ONLY 61 S 9101j� APR 1991 o Received Cn � nta This is in response to your letter of March 13, 1991, re- garding the County's offer to "relinquish its franchise rights within the City of Sebastian." My law firm has been retained as special counsel to the City to advise it regarding these matters. During a public hearing of the City Council this past Wednesday, April 3, 1991, the City Council authorized me to accept the offer which you extended on behalf of Indian River County. This acceptance is subject to completion of the necessary documents containing terms and conditions acceptable to the City and the County so that the agreements, ordinances, and resolutions may be rescinded in such a manner as to not impact innocent third parties. I will be contacting the Indian River County attorney in the very near future to set up a meeting time where representatives from the City can meet with appropriate representatives from the County to complete this matter in an expeditious manner in a way which protects the public. The City sincerely appreciates the County's willingness to deal with this problem. Mr. McClary, the City Manager, Mr. Hartman, our engineering consultant, and I look forward to meeting with your representatives in the very near future to complete this matter. GRAY, HARRIS & ROBINSON PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION The Honorable Richard N. Byrd Page 2 If you or anyone else at the County have any questions re- garding this matter, please do not hesitate to call on me. Sincerely Thomas A. Cloud, Esq. Gray, Harris & Robins , P.A. Special Counsel to the City of Sebastian TAC:wpc cc: Mr. Charles Vitunac, Indian River County Attorney Mr. Robb McClary, City Manager Mr. Gerald C. Hartman, Hartman & Associates 77/30:287/0 Telephone: (407) 567-6000 April 7, 1989 L - ARD OF COUNTY COMMISSI6, � ERS 1840 25th Street. Vero Reach, Florida 32960 Suncom Telephone: 224-1011 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED P-s9e/903 #160 ERNESTINE PARK 1651 11TH PLACE VERO BEACH FL 32960 SUBJECT: NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER SYSTEM INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -87 -25 -SC IMPACT FEE PREPAYMENT PARCEL I.D. NO.: 06 31 39 00002 0000 00004.0 Dear Property Owners: We are now ready to proceed with funding for the North County Regional Wastewater System. Prior to finalizing the financing for this project, we need to determine which property owners wish to prepay the Impact Fee a 1 250 per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU), or finance the fee o ,350 per ERU over a ten year period with applicable interest. Please respond May 8, 1989 whether you wish to prepay or fin the impact fee. u wish to prepay, your payment of $1,250 er ERU will be due by June 8, 1989. If you do not prepay e impact fee by that date, we will assume you wish to finance the payment of $1,350 per ERU for ten years at applicable interest. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call (407) 567-8000, extension 404. Sincerely, i y Ernestine W Manager of Department EWW:h , . Williams Project Administration of Utility Services (HSEBPRE2.EWW) PARK -#160' / s+• it ,•, e-9 ,'A 2 7 0 . . . ' 1�I� r �Ze 2,q 1 7 3% :7e . . . ' 1�I� r G BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street, Veru Beach, Florida 32960 Telephone: (407) 5678000 February 3, 1989 31 3n 39 On001 u000 00002.5 6 O PARK,EPNF8TINL• 1651. 11TP Pb vEpiI 14F.ACH FG 321)64 Suncom Telephone: 224-1011 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS IN LIEU OF IMPACT FEES Dear Property Owner: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Sebastian, Florida (the "Council" and "City", respectively) will meet on February 22nd, 1989 at 7.00 P.M. in the Cit Council Chambers at Sebastian, Flo ,aa. to hear an an a complaints o TIo ows'�"n rs o property to be assessed Special Assessments in Lieu of Impact Fees ("Assessments") and any other interested persons. The City has approved certain improvements which consist of the acquisition and construction of alterations, extensions, and additions to the sanitary sewage collection, transmission, treatment, and disposal system facilities of Indian River County, Florida (the "County"), within the incorporated limits of the City, more particularly described in plans and specifications on file with the County (the "Project"). The Assessments are being made in connection with the Project, are being made only with the written consent of the owners of the properties to be assessed, and are in lieu of the impact fees otherwise imposed by the City. A description of each property to be assessed and the amount to be assessed to each property may be ascertained at the office of the City Clerk. The Assessments shall be paid in ten (10) equal annual installments together with interest Assessment at a rate not to exceed two percent (2%) above the interest rate on bonds to be issued by the County in connection with the Assessments. If any installment is not paid when due, the entire outstanding amount of the Assessment, together with the accrued interest thereon and an -1- APa February 3, 1989 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS IN LIEU OF IMPACT FEES appropriate interest and/or prepayment charge, may be declared immediately due and payable. Any Assessment or installment thereof not paid when due shall be subject to a penalty at the rate of one percent (1%) per month or portion thereof until paid. The entire outstanding amount of any Assessment may be prepaid at any time provided that the accrued interest thereon and an appropriate interest and/or prepayment charge is paid together therewith. The Assessments shall be levied against the properties to be assessed on the basis of the number of Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs) assigned to and reserved for each such property. Any lien upon an assessed property resulting from an Assessment shall be extinguished upon the recording in the Official Records of the County of an affidavit or affidavits executed by appropriate officials of the City and the County to the effect that the applicable Assessment has been paid in full or that sufficient security has been deposited with the City or the County, as applicable, in order to insure timely payment of such Assessment. In appropriate cases, particularly for large properties, letters of credit or other security may be required in order to secure payment of the Assessment with respect to the property. At the above named date, time, and place, the Council will receive any complaints of interested persons as to the Project and the Assessments. After due consideration of any such complaints, the Council may take any action it finds to be just and right with respect to the Project and the Assessments. The Assessment is $1,350.00 per Equivalent Residential Unit. Our records show that you have reserved / ERUs. If you wish to increase the reserved units, please let us know before the scheduled Public Hearing on February 22, 1989. You may contact this office at (407) 567-8000, extension 404. Sincerely, Terrance G. Pinto Director of Utility Services TGP:h (SEBNOTIC.EWW) �Y CPM BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Telephone: (305) 567-8000 December 18, 1987 31 30 39 00001 ODUO UUOul.S PARK,ERNEST1NC 1651 11TH Pi, VERD, 13EACII Vl, 3290l) Dear Property Owner: Slay LHl.l:i 1 �: $1,10 'I Suncom Telephone: 224-1011 We are in the final stages of levying an assessment against your property for capacity you agreed to reserve at the North County Wastewater Treatment Plant. The enclosed formal document is for your review and outlines the terms and conditions under which you accept the capacity reservation. The form you signed before was only an expression of your interest to participate; whereas, the enclosed form says "yes, I want to proceed." Please sign and return the document in the enclosed, self -addressed envelope to the Indian River County Utility Services Department by December 31, 1987. Because of the legal requirements in setting up an assessment roll, you will not be eligible to participate in the proposed financing of your iinpact fees if the signed document is not returned by December 31. If you have any questions regarding the document, please contact Jeff Barton at 567-8000, Ext. 458. Sincerely', L TAAi G.ICPIri`fo,�'Director Utility Services Department Enclosures n DISTRICT NUMBER LETTER OF INTENT NAME OF PRINCIPAL PROPERTY OWNER: ADDRESS OF PRINCIPAL PROPERTY OWNER: TELEPHONE NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL PROPERTY OWNER:' PARCEL NUMBER OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: i?i I(.(.14 1 ;31 ; i�);'l�i (➢( GC) i C�=•'OG' Cit C°t 1., r '„ I rs �: flin-E'l J'd, 0(y ?)i .362 C-000ti,(:? - I (WE) WILL COMMIT TO %za NUMBER OF ERUS SIGNATURE DATE 1 .0► City of Sebastian ❑ SEBASTIA 5B963OOIDA 329580127 POST OFFICE BO1TEL.27 27OONE (305) L, Gene Harris lune 2 i , 1906 Mayor Deborah C. Kra9c aty clerk prupc.rty Uwuer: rKeWater disposal dl luug...awttrted w:', corridor, Dear Sebastian Iemeut along the U.S. 1 Is about to imp diAvi t rovertY owners otmty business a number of P the Indian Paver. CouuN rth C to hook up to Or the been funded by Iacility the system has c themselves for Uses aU:eady courtnittel ctucty meat i'' fessibili.CY - tl development i.n ILoselan,l and S,,h,.isCi;tn wio ava.i].able' r.r. comraerui; as soon as it is , lir to et ui.red if the system to ne.tr. n„nes arc' r_1 Thm re4uirl�e� if We wish c,000di.l ., SSzry t.'tonal City lin,iu n is nate pd,li. form (laser e' factl ity r�rtit riot tfr '_ict,.,nl.l'�n �f),c enc lased 1hisc ti.au business the l<ui.th Ilnt1:; (F.iilti) th. ,elms ha be e..teuduI ,,, i. ” 1. i.i t. C'itil i.val,.nt i'e._ r..m is aur prop,.ct.,. thz inevitab e r'' !Up mar: oc y is cost ERRS l and so derable hoq to det:ran the obvIOUs . also a cunslthan later this projuct I' LhCro i:, rather benefit of follow. envlr.onmeutal values that, will you connection tt°wasuus* 'I:he in property �rvinC Y` health r, luntarily t.r,.; du Cur increase rw un o required t" to Y uw may be Y,o a 4;'aarartteed benefit when y or. at a time will e,r.itm You ree may be SIR nooI }:ICU. Jhi:: your. eamnitm' .t t�,�. Lo twenty year crust. of P?r at Your uptiuo neat I:uolc-o{' n'SCd `3 period' :nay br, ass_' 1 be IlvOlrclP il1t cast pa; wc`tt wil 11 you dolay, later . es and Cu1.1. uI .,Lcuu. h{f.bcr. rat may >roceed. t �e,laJ r,nt s:�,•nt i.tl prUJec. • our pT.Ompt Commitment sn that 010•• lita P$VCJ f.O r.�it 6t1: t•!e need your id your reply 0-1 the e017 pleas' Ass., Mat .Jeffrey Barton, iudian haver. County h,0, Bax t7ti0 l')01 Vero Bea,.h, f Lorl,ln. '[baric you' l yours, 'tin�.er� Y LLr� .l Cunde`tu 1•,cono,,;tic plaunirr;t m fl -16 11' `( w,o c i L 0_i'� my 1z. CALLS MADE: Re: SEWER SYSTEM 1.:F.L.C.- Ann Jenkins - 1-904-222-9684 Referred to: MONDAY 3-11-91 2. F.H.A.--Spoke to Ron Clements - 1-904-376-3218 Referred to : 3. Ft.Pierce Office - Greg Cruthers - 1-407-686-5633 Advised me our average income ($12,465.00) is slightly over amount to consider Grants, but is so close to Cut -Off that an application should be considered. The help is in the form of a Grant, up to 50%, and a Loan at 6-7% for balance of the amount. Grant Factors= Income - Health - Safety 4. D.E.R.- Jim Watson -1-904-488-8163 City should request Inclusion Form for loan with interest rate of 3-4% Called State Revolving Loan Program r J. CHARLES GRAY GORDON H. HARRIS RICHARD M. ROBINSON PHILLIP R. FINCH PAMELA O. PRICE JAMES F. PAGE, JR. PHILIP H. TREES WILLIAM A. BOYLES THOMAS J. WAKES THOMAS A. CLOUD BYRD F. MARSHALL, JR. J. MASON WILLIAMS,D1 LEO P. ROCK, JR. STEPHEN A. HILGER G. ROBERTSON DILG CHARLES W. SELL JACK A. HIR SCHENSAUM JAMES W. PEEP LES SII FORREST S. FIELDS, JR. rB� i►, GRAY, RABBIS & RomivsoN PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 1200 SOUTHEAST BANK BUILDING 201 EAST PINE STREET POST OFFICE BOK 3080 ORLANDO, FL 32808-3068 Ow�&IiA% (407) 24IN ti e to -8880 GLASS BANK BUILDING SOS NORTH ORLANDO AVENUE POST OFFICE BOK 320757 COCOA BEACH, FL 32938-OT67 TELEPHONE (407) 783-2216 FAX (407) 783-2297 1 WRITERS DIRECT DIAL is 7 PLEASE REPLY TO: Orlando April 19, 1991 Charles P. Vitunac Indian River County Attorney 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 THOMAS C. SHAW PAUL J. MONRIS ALAN R. BUTTERWORTH DEBORAH S. HERNANDEZ PAUL S. DUINN, JR. DAVID L. SCHICK JACK H. M.MULLEN ORLANDO L. EVORA SUSAN D. TASSELL FREDERICK W. RICHARDS RICHARD E. BURKE LORI R. BENTON ANTHONY J. COTTER TRACY A. SORGERT JOHN S. SHOEMAKER LISA J. FRANK' MALCOLM R. KIRSCHENSAUM OF COUNSEL 'MEMBER OF NEW YORK BAR ONLY VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL 407/567-9323 RE: Indian River County/City of Sebastian Meeting of April 17, 1991 Dear Mr. Vitunac: I am writing you this letter as a follow-up to our meeting in your office yesterday in Vero Beach with Commissioner Scurlock, Jim Chandler, Terry Pinto, Robb McClary, Gerry Hartman and Hal Schmidt. We sincerely appreciated the opportunity to meet with you and discuss the initiation of activities necessary to transfer the utility franchises back to the City of Sebastian and create interlocal cooperation agreements between the City and Indian River County. While our discussions yesterday were of necessity conceptual, I nevertheless feel encouraged by the progress made on an outline for future agreements between the City and the County. As we stated yesterday, the City is investigating the feasibility of acquiring the GDU Water and Sewer Systems and is considering development of a city-wide water and sewer utility. As Mr. Hartman indicated yesterday, acquisition of these systems by the City is a necessary prerequisite to the City's development of its own water and sewer system. The GDU Franchise Agreements contemplated such acquisition by the City in a reasonably expeditious manner. We also discussed our willingness to investigate with the County as rapidly and as prudently as possible options related to service areas and flow treatment. We acknowledged then (and now) that the City of Sebastian has to play "catch-up" ball and act as expeditiously as possible, consistent with sound public policy. We r^, GRAY, HARRIS & ROBINSON PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Charles P. Vitunac April 19, 1991 Page 2 W understand that the County is working to expand its North County Wastewater System and needs to know the City's intentions with regard to the transfer as soon as reasonably possible, subject to prudent engineering, financial, and legal analysis. As was discussed, construction of treatment plant and transmission facilities is way ahead of the construction of collection facilities. I believe that we agreed to work together cooperatively and expeditiously to work through a transfer of the franchises, consistent with protecting innocent third parties, continuity of service, the County's legitimate concerns, and during this interim period, maintenance of "business as usual" for the County. It is our further understanding that Mr. Pinto will be our technical contact with the County and you will be our legal and financial contact with the County. We also agreed that the City would be afforded the opportunity to review and comment on system connection application during this interim period. Again, we sincerely appreciate the courtesy and cooperation which you and the County showed the City and its representatives at our meeting. Gerry will be contacting Mr. Pinto in the very near future to obtain copies of documents and plans which the County offered to make available to the City. Gerry and I will also begin work on completion of the schedule, briefing document, and draft agreements. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter. ACo Lally (/yy000urs, MOK. Cloud, Esgn'40i GRAY, HARRIS & ROBINSON, A. Special Counsel to the City of Sebastian TAC: jlm 40107-1 cc: Commissioner Doug Scurlock (via facsimile) Jim Chandler, County Administrator (via facsimile) Terry Pinto, County Utilities Director (via facsimile) Robb McClary, Sebastian City Manager (via facsimile) Charles Nash, Sebastian City Attorney (via facsimile) Gerald C. Hartman, P.E. Hal Schmidt, Jr., P.E. ka HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. engineers, hydrogeologists, scientists & management consultants May 3, 1991 HAI #91-064.00 Mr. Robb McClary City Manager City of Sebastian City Hall P.O. Box 780127 Sebastian, Florida 32978 Subject; City a: Sebastian Acquisition of the General DevOoprnent Utilities, Inc. Water and Wastewater Facilities Dear Mr. McClary: Thank you very much for your attentiveness in contacting Mr. Greg Kisela of General Development Utilities, Inc. (GDU) in Miami, requesting that representatives from Hartman & Associates, Inc. (HAI) have access to conduct an engineering survey of the existing GDU water and wastewater facilities that serve the City of Sebastian. To date, we have collected numerous reports regarding the operations of both the water and wastewater facilities from the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER), and have analyzed the operational characteristics of the water and wastewater facilities. In addition, we have obtained and reviewed the following items from Indian River County: Indian River County Comprehensive Plan, Volumes I and 11. ° Indian River Drive Sewer Study prepared for Indian River County by Kimball Lloyd, Inc., in February, 1991. ° As -built Drawings for the North County Subregional Sewer System/Contract No. 3, Indian River County Project US87-27-CCS, prepared by Masteller & Moler Associates, Inc., dated August, 1988. ° North County Regional Sewer Property Assessment Role Exhibit, Indian River County Project No. US86-22-AR, prepared by Masteller & Moler Associates, Inc., dated February, 1987. In addition, we have met with Mr. Terrance Pinto, the Utilities Director of Indian River County, to discuss the above acquisition. We have requested a number of items from Mr. Pinto, which include the existing County rate structure; the County ordinance for franchise fees; cost of service rate study; and the water, wastewater and effluent disposal master plans. However, as of this date, we have yet to receive any of these documents, which has SOUTHEAST BANK BUILDING • SUITE 1000 . 201 EAST PINE STREET • ORLANDO, FL 32801 TELEPHONE (407) 839.3955 • FAX (407) 839-3790 PRHiCIPALS: JAMES E. CHRISTOPHER • CHARLES W. DRAKE • GERALD C. HART1IAN • MARK I. LUKE • MARK A. RYNNING • HAROLD E. SCHMIDT, JR. � NAY 1991 Re Me'ved �e C" Qt11Cti Subject; City a: Sebastian Acquisition of the General DevOoprnent Utilities, Inc. Water and Wastewater Facilities Dear Mr. McClary: Thank you very much for your attentiveness in contacting Mr. Greg Kisela of General Development Utilities, Inc. (GDU) in Miami, requesting that representatives from Hartman & Associates, Inc. (HAI) have access to conduct an engineering survey of the existing GDU water and wastewater facilities that serve the City of Sebastian. To date, we have collected numerous reports regarding the operations of both the water and wastewater facilities from the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER), and have analyzed the operational characteristics of the water and wastewater facilities. In addition, we have obtained and reviewed the following items from Indian River County: Indian River County Comprehensive Plan, Volumes I and 11. ° Indian River Drive Sewer Study prepared for Indian River County by Kimball Lloyd, Inc., in February, 1991. ° As -built Drawings for the North County Subregional Sewer System/Contract No. 3, Indian River County Project US87-27-CCS, prepared by Masteller & Moler Associates, Inc., dated August, 1988. ° North County Regional Sewer Property Assessment Role Exhibit, Indian River County Project No. US86-22-AR, prepared by Masteller & Moler Associates, Inc., dated February, 1987. In addition, we have met with Mr. Terrance Pinto, the Utilities Director of Indian River County, to discuss the above acquisition. We have requested a number of items from Mr. Pinto, which include the existing County rate structure; the County ordinance for franchise fees; cost of service rate study; and the water, wastewater and effluent disposal master plans. However, as of this date, we have yet to receive any of these documents, which has SOUTHEAST BANK BUILDING • SUITE 1000 . 201 EAST PINE STREET • ORLANDO, FL 32801 TELEPHONE (407) 839.3955 • FAX (407) 839-3790 PRHiCIPALS: JAMES E. CHRISTOPHER • CHARLES W. DRAKE • GERALD C. HART1IAN • MARK I. LUKE • MARK A. RYNNING • HAROLD E. SCHMIDT, JR. sQN Mr. Robb McClary May 3, 1991 Page Two significantly impacted our schedule. Mr. Gerry Hartman of HAI, Mr. Tom Cloud of Gray, Harris & Robinson, P.A. and I met to re-evaluate the project schedule. It is anticipated that we should have a report to you on Tuesday, June 4, 1991, for your review. This should allow sufficient time for us to discuss and review the report with you, and make any corrections which are necessary, so that a final report can be delivered to the City on Monday, June 10, 1991, for distribution to the City Council. I apologize for the delay in getting this report to you; however, we feel that we should incorporate the important information that Indian River County has yet to provide to us. Although access to the two (2) sites is important, we feel the information provided in the FDER permits will suffice for this report. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call me. Very truly yours, Hartman & Associates, Inc. Harold E. Schmidt, r., P.E. Vice President HES/ch cc: Tom Cloud, GHR Gerry Hartman, HAI AWN HART1l1AN & ASSOCIATES, INC. engineers, hydrogeologists, scientists & management consultants May 3, 1991 HAI #91-064.00 Mr. Terrance G. Pinto Utilities Director Utilities Services Division Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960-3394 Subject: City of Sebastian/Acquisition of the General Development Utilities, Inc. Water and Wastewater Facilities Dear Mr. Pinto: It was a pleasure meeting with you on Monday, April 29, 1991, at your office, to discuss the City of Sebastian's acquisition of the General Development Utilities, Inc. (GDU) water and wastewater facilities. We are fully aware of the urgency required for our report to be completed in a timely manner, so that the County can proceed with the planning of their water and wastewater facilities. At our meeting, we discussed the need to obtain from the County the following items: ° Existing County's rate structure. ° County's ordinance for a franchise fee. Cost of service rate study. Master plans (water, wastewater and effluent disposal). As of Friday, May 3, 1991, we have yet to receive these documents. Please forward the above documents to my attention at your earliest convenience so that the project can be SOUTHEAST BANK BURDING • SUM 1000 . 201 EAST PINE STREET • ORLANDO, FL 32801 TELEPHONE (407) 8393955 • FAX (407) 839-3790 PRINCIPALS: JAMES E. CHRISTOPHER • CHARLES W. DRAKE • GERALD C. HARTMAN • MARK L LUKE • MARK A. RYNNING • HAROLD E. SCHMIDT, JR. completed in a timely manner. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call me. Very truly yours, Hartman & Associates, Inc. Harold E. Schmidt, Jr., P.E. Vice President HES/ch cc: Robb McClary, City of Sebastian Tom Cloud, GHR Gerry Hartman, HAI L City of Sebastian e= POST OFFICE BOX 780127 ❑ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 ❑ FAX (407) 589-5570 May 17, 1991 Mr. Gerald Hartman, HAI Hartman & Associates, Inc. Southeast Bank Bldg. Suite 1000 201 East Pine Street Orlando, FL 32801 Re: General Development Utilities, Inc., Pass -Through Rate Increase Notice and Indian River County Agenda Matter Dear Mr Ha tman: For your information and review, I am forwarding a copy of the notice the City received from General Development Utilities ("GDU") for a Pass -Through Rate Increase, with supporting documents. I felt this information may be useful to you in your analysis of the GDU system in Sebastian. Additionally, enclosed are copies of a recent Indian River County Commission meeting agenda item which recommended that the County Commissioners approve the removal of the City of Sebastian territory for certain design contracts for County water and wastewater. These items are for your information and do not need to be returned. We look forward to receiving your report. Should you have questions regarding these matters, will you please call? Sincere/ley, Robert S. McClary City Manager RSM/jmt Enclosures eN HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. engineers, hydrogeologists, scientists & management consultants March 21, 1991 HAI #91-064.00 Mr. Robb McClary, City Manager City of Sebastian 1225 Main Street Sebastian, Florida 32958 Subject: Hartman & Associates, Inc. (HAI) Engineering Letter of Engagement Dear Mr. McClary: This letter of engagement summarizes our scope of services, compensation and schedule relative to the utilities matter. 1. Scope of Services HAI will perform an investigation the existing utility facilities franchise and the advantages and disadvantages of providing water and wastewater services to the City. HAI will also delineate financial considerations, management considerations, operational considerations and associated factors concerning potential City services. We will prepare a complete briefing document for the City Council's consideration regarding the City taking back franchising duties from the County and providing independent water and wastewater services. 2. Compensation HAI will perform the above tasks on an hourly basis with a not -to -exceed fee of $10,000. Attached as Exhibit "A" is our hourly rate schedule. Other direct costs shall be billed at cost. SOMHEAST BANK BUILDING • SUITE 1000 . 201 EAST PINE STREET • ORLANDO, FL 32801 TELEPHONE (407) 839-3955 • FAX (407) 839-3790 PRINCIPALS: JAMES E. CHRISTOPHER • CHARLES W. DRAKE • GERALD C. HARTMAN • MARK I. LUKE . MARK A. RYNNING • HAROLD E. SCHMIDT, JR. .. Mr. Robb McClary March 21, 1991 Page 2 3. Schedule HAI shall provide the briefing document to the City within two and a one-half (2 1/2) weeks. Ten (10) copies of the briefing document shall be sent to the City. Witness Witness Witness A�,. W Witnes 6,4 C Attachment GCH/mg/P-1/MCCLARY l . PRO Very truly yours, Hartman & Associates, Inc. ®r, City of Sebastian ignature Date n U ��EoL ��.C✓% //Libccs T eel i Imb� G. C. Hartman Partners/Principals A^ EXHIBIT "A" HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE Division Managers/Heads (Engineer VIII) Engineer VII (P.E.) Engineer VI (P.E.) Engineer V Engineer IV Engineer III Engineer I/II Senior Scientist Project Manager Senior Engineer Inspector Engineer Inspector Senior Planner/Designer Hydrogeologist Junior Hydrogeologist Staff Planner Planning Technician Computer Time Engineering Technician IV Engineering Technician III Engineering Technician II Engineering Technician I Draftsperson III Draftsperson II Draftsperson I Graphics Manager Graphics Technician Graphics Draftsperson Secretarial Support Reproduction/Courier Support Senior Accountant Accounting Support P-P/HRLYRATE.DOC $110.00 $90.00 $75.00 $65.00 $60.00 $55.00 $50.00 $45.00 $40.00 $55.00 $55.00 $45.00 $42.00 $46.00 $46.00 $37.00 $40.00 $34.00 $32.00 $45.00 $40.00 $35.00 $30.00 $30.00 $27.50 $25.00 $45.00 $35.00 $27.50 $25.00 $21.00 $52.50 $34.00 HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. engineers, hydrogeologists, scientists & management consultants March 21, 1991 Mr. Robb McClary, City Manager City of Sebastian y N 1225 Main Street R 91991 w Sebastian, Florida 32958 A i o cell, VIA FACSEMME `�� Cult,, ,10168L95p Subject: Utilities Engineering Services Dear Mr. McClary: Pursuant to our telephone conversation enclosed, are the following: 1. List of G. C. Hartman Utility Acquisition Experience. 2. G. C. Hartman Resume. 3. Standard Form 254 (Water and Wastewater). HAI #90-064.00 Also enclosed are two (2) copies of the proposal to provide engineering services. Very truly yours, HartmanZart, erald President Enclosures G CH/mg/P-1/MCCLARY. PRO SOUTHEAST BANK BUILDING • SUITE 1000 • 201 EAST PINE STREET • ORLANDO, FL 32801 TELEPHONE (407) 839-3955 • FAX (407) 839-3790 PRINCIPALS: JAMES E. CHRISTOPHER • CHARLES W. DRAKE • GERALD C. HARTMAN • MARK I. LC KE • MARK A. RYNNING • HAROLD E. SCHMID], JR. .-, BOAxcD OF COUNTY COMMISSION. —RS 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Telephone: (407) 567-8000 May 24, 1991 Honorable Will E. Conyers City of Sebastian Post Office Box 780127 Sebastian, FL 32978-0127 Re: COUNTY UTILITY FRANCHISE Dear Mayor Conyers: r, &a,-7 Telephone: 224-1011 Some weeks ago the City of Sebastian requested that the County relinquish its franchise rights to provide water and sewer service within the City so that the City could become the utility provider. The County indicated that it had no objection to doing so if that was the wish of the Council and would cooperate in every way that it could. Our staff has met with representatives from the City, namely, Hartman & Associates, as engineers, Thomas A. Cloud, from Gray, Harris & Robbinson, as attorneys, and your City Manager, Rob McClary. Our latest communication from your representatives is dated April 18, 1991, in a letter which indicates generally that as soon as possible the City will develop plans for the transfer from the County to the City of the Utility operation. I'm enclosing a copy of that letter. During this transition period, it would be very helpful to the County to have certain information from the City so that the County Utilities Department can plan and construct the appropriately -sized capital facilities necessary for the remainder of the County program, and so that the County will know how to treat the customers who have bought capacity in the County system but who are within the City limits. In particular the County would like to know if the City will hold a public hearing to revoke the franchise. We ask this since, although the County has no objection to returning the franchise, there may be rights accruing to City customers of the County system which will need to be addressed by the City Council a the public hearing. Secondly, the County would like to know if there will be a temporary loan of County capacity. Third, the County needs to know how the County Honorable Mayor Conyers May 24, 1991 Page 2 should handle current connection requests from customers who have purchased capacity in the County system but who will become customers of the City system when the City system is ready. Finally, the County would greatly appreciate having a time table for all important aspects of the City takeover. Our planning requirements are such that an answer within thirty days would be of great help. The County will make its utility and legal staff available to the City Council at any public hearing on the franchise revocation matter, or at other meetings on the project. Thank you very much. Sincerely, /h'a�E4✓l/�ie� Richard N. Bird Chairman RNB/Cb cc: Board of County Commissioners Telephone: (407) 567-8000 June 17, 1991 Dear Customer: BOArcD OF COUNTY COMMISSI0I1^11?S 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Suncom Telephone: 224-1011 ' R R�G�"\�Eg91 JC�oF �S This is to advise you of the completion of the North County Sewer Project. In accordance with your reservation agreement (representative copy attached), the Board of County Commissioners approved the initiation of the monthly billing of base facility charges as established in the Indian River County Rate Resolution 91-31. As authorized by your reservation agreement, beginning June 1991, you will receive a bill for the base facility fees. You may refer to the Reservation Agreement, Section A-4, for a more detailed explanation. Please review the billing carefully and verify the number of ERUs billed correspond to the number of ERUs you reserved. Our Customer Service Department is available to assist you Monday - Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., at 407-567-9021. We encourage you to contact us if you do have questions. Thank you, DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES Enclosure (LK:NCSWLTR.DOC) 531203 FILED FOR RECORD rn04 AW FACE ABOVE ;"4aJ VERIFIED 1U eo 87 DEC -2 All IIs M - MASTER ' - - FROM W111611l -- WASTEWATER CAPACITY RESERVATION ".LER8OFCIRCIIITCOHA -- m01411 CIVEII CO.. ul. AND CONSENT TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SECTION A INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA (the "County"), hereby -, reserves the number of equivalent residential units ("ERUs°) set forth above of wastewater treatment plant and transmission capacity, as defined in County Ordinance 84-18, as now or hereafter amended and supplemented (the "Reserved ERUs"), for the property described — - above (the "Property"), under the terms and conditions set forth f' herein and subject to the policies -and practices of the County and Its Division of Utility services (the "Utility Division") of general _ application with respect to the reservation of wastewater treatment plant and transmission capacity in the County now or hereafter established. Terms and Conditions - 1. The County plans to construct certain wastewater treatment plant and transmission facilities in accordance with plans C.6 and specifications on file with the Utility Division (the - '- - ;. , "Project"). The County will use its beat efforts to complete the Project by August, 1989, but does not guarantee such completion date a e and will not be responsible for construction delays. Further, the 3.,3-m county does not guarantee that wastewater service will be available > M to the Property upon completion of the Project. The availability of • - wastewater service may require the construction of additional transmission lines, laterals and other facilities as well as facilities to connect the plumbing systems on the Property to the y q county's wastewater system. Construction of any such additional - U., facilities by the.County may require further special assessments against the Property and/or other costs to the Property owner. No representation is made regarding the dates �:r • on which construction of any such additional facilities will be commenced.or completed. The Property owner should examine the Project plane to determine the nature and amount of additional facilities which will be required before wastewater service will be available to the Property. The County expects to be able to have and will use its best efforts to have wastewater treatment plant capacity available for the Reserved ERUs when service is desired by the Property owner and otherwise available. If the County does not have such capacity available within a reasonable period of time after such date, the Property owner, at any time thereafter prior to such capacity becoming available, shall have the right to cancel the reservation for the Reserved ERUs by written notice thereof to the county. such cancellation shall not be effective until a written instrument so indicating has been.recorded by the County in the public records of the County. Such cancellation shall not affect the Special Assessment, as hereinafter defined, in any manner whatsoever, including without limitation, the terms _ of payment thereof. In the event of such cancellation the county hereby agrees to pay within T(6) months after the due date of the last regularly scheduled installment the of Special Assessment, regardless of any prepayment, to the owner the of Property as of the date of such payment an amount equal to the Special Assessment paid plus all interest paid thereon. The foregoing right of cancellation shall be the sole and exclusive remedy of the owner of the Property against the County in the event that such capacity is not no available. In no event shall the owner of the Property have the right not to pay the Special Assessment. 2. This reservation runs with the land and may not at any time be sold, -transferred, or assigned by the Property _ owner,. except to the County with its written consent or in connection with — the sale of fee simple title to the Property. 0004, 3. If the entire Reserved ERUs are not reasonably expected to be needed fat the Property, the County may reclaim the excess EMS (the "Excess ERUse) for resale by written instrument, the original of which shall be recorded in the public records.of the County and a copy of which shall be sent to the Property owner. Upon receipt of payment for the Excess ERUs and any impact fees and special assessments in connection therewith by the County from the purchaser of the Excess ERUS, the County shall refund to the owner of the Property as of the date the Excess ERUs were reclaimed an amount equal to the amount paid prior to the date the Excess ERUs were reclaimed for the Excess ERUs and any impact fees and special assessments in connection therewith, exclusive of interest and costs j associated therewithi provided,.however, that the County's obligation to make such refund shall be limited to the amount received from such resale. The County will be under no obligation to find a purchaser for the Excess ERUs. Any amounts received by the County from the purchaser of the Excess ERUs in excess of the amount refunded shall belong to the county. 4. Commencing with the first month following completion of the Project, the Property owner will be required to pay monthly base facilities charges established by the county. In the event the base facilities charge with respect to any unused Reserved ERUs is not paid within 30 days after becoming due and payable and after demand of the county, such unused Reserved ERUS may be reclaimed by the County in the manner set forth in paragraph 3 and the county shall be entitled to resell such unused Reserved ERUs. Upon any such resale, the County shall make a refund in the amount and manner set forth in paragraph 3, provided that the County shall deduct from the refund the amount of monthly base facilities charges due and accruing to the date of the resale of the unused Reserved ERUs. S. It is expressly understood and agreed that one of the purposes of this instrument is to prohibit speculation in wastewater treatment plant and transmission capacity. THE UNDERSIGNED, the owner of the Property defined above, for himself and his heirs, executors, personal representatives, successors and assigns, for value received, hereby irrevocably agrees to the foregoing and, pursuant to county ordinance 86-88, as amended and supplemented, further irrevocably consents to the imposition of a special assessment in lieu of impact fees with respect to the Property in the amount set forth above (the ^special Assessment^) and agrees to the terms and conditions thereof as set forth in said ordinance and the resolutions of the County now or hereafter adopted pursuant thereto. The Special Assessment shall be payable in ten (lo) annual installments together with interest on the outstanding amount thereof at a rate not to exceed two percent (2%) above the interest rate on the bonds to be issued by the County in connection with the Special Assessment. The entire outstanding amount of the Special Assessment may be prepaid at any time provided the accrued interest thereon and an appropriate interest and/or prepayment charge is paid together therewith. It is understood and agreed that failure to pay the Special Assessment, interest thereon or any other charge appurtenant thereto may result in foreclosure and loss of title to the Property. The property owner further agrees that the amount of the outstanding Special Assessment and the interest rate thereon may be increased by the County in connection with the refunding of any issue of outstanding bonds of the County secured by a -pledge of.the Special Assessment by written instrument, the original of which shall be recorded in the public records of the County and a copy of which shall be sent to the Property owner: provided that the amount of the outstanding Special Assessment and the interest to be paid thereon thereafter is no greater than that which would have been payable without such increase or decrease. +4075895032 PARK PLACE 767 P01 JUL 28 194 09:52 pARK&PLACt- 9605 South U.S. #1 • Sebastian, FL 32958 (407) 388-3342 • FAX (407) 589-5032 FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION DATE:��i/ TO: FROM: NUMBER OF PAGES (Including Cover Sheet): MESSAGE: ------------- +4075895032 PARK PLACE 767 P03 JUL 28 194 09:53 OESC�'�'i%�'T/Civ SiT.4-i9TTON A/iENUE A road right-of-way 80.00 feet in width, with the North right-of-way line having a 35.00 foot' radius curve, concave Northwest to intersect the Westerly right-of-way of U.S. Highway #1, lying in and being a part of Sections 20 and 21, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida, and being centered on the following described line: COMMENCING at the Southwest corner of said Section 21; thence North 00002'39" East along the West line of said Section 21, a distance of 1888.67 feet; thence South 89`13121" Fast, a distance of 232.41 feet to the Westerly right-of-way line of U.S. Highway #1; thence North 26'03152" West along said Westerly right-of-way line, a distance of 44.83 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING of said centerline; thence North 89013121" West along said centerline, a distance of 350.44 feet to the Point of curvature of a curve concave to the North, said curve having a radius of 70.00 feet, a central angle of 22'0313411, a chord bearing of North 78611134" West: thence Westerly along the arc of said centerline curve, a distance of 26.95 feet; thence North 67'09147" West, a distance of 76.59 feet, to the point of curvature of a curve concave to the South, said curve having a radius of 315.00 feet, a central angle of 22003134", a chord bearing of North 78011134" West; thence Westerly along the arc of said centerline curve, a distance of 121.28 feet; thence North 89'13'21" West, a distance of 295.00 feet to the point of curvature of a curve concave to the South , said curve having a radius of 418.33 feet, a central angle of 25°37'06" and a chord bearing of south 76048151" West; thence Westerly along the arc of said centerline curve, a distance of 187.04 feet; thence South 64000'18" East along said centerline, a distance of 262.19 feet to the point of curvature of a curve concave to the Southeast, said curve having a radius of 340.00 feet, a central angle of 64013131" and a chord bearing of South 31053133" West; thence Southwesterly along the arc of said centerline curve, a distance of 381.13 feet; thence South 00'13'13" East along said centerline, a distance of 437.51 feet to the point of curvature of a curve concave to the Northwest, said curve having a radius of 290.00 feet, a central angle of 68000'00" and a chord bearing of South 33046147" West; thence Southwesterly along the arc of said centerline curve, a distance of 344.18 feet; thence South 67046'47" West along said centerline, a distance of 220.02 feet to the point of curvature of a curve concave to the Southwest, said curve having a radius of 3568.37 feet, a central angle of 02"i4'43" and a chord bearing of South 66039125" West; thence Westerly along the arc of said centerline curve, a distance of 139.84 feet; thence South 65'32104" West along said centerline, a distance of 666.05 feet to the point of curvature of a curve concave to the North, Said curve having a radius of 516.87 feet, a central angle of 23658155" and a chord bearing of South 77°31132" West; thence Westerly along the arc of said centerline curve, a distance of 216.34 feet; thence South 89630'59" West along said centerline, a distance of 70.00 feet to a point on the West line of the Southeast ; of said Section 20, said point lying 384.50 feet North, as measured along said West line, of the Southwest corner of the Southeast . of said Section 20, said point being_ the point of termination of said centerline. Less and Excepting a 100.00 foot right-of-way for the Florida Fast Coast Railroad. I hardy Certify Nat the atatch and legal description aho hereon was oDaleted wm5ee my direction and w rvision, and is true, and correct to the teat of cry Innauladge and belief and seta the ninin teamicrl ata+darde Y alt iccth in rule 21101-6 adopted by the rlerida Board of Land antwyoas. Ated this 'q7--(. day of_ /01*, 2990 E. Bines V. MMXCML c9sdir1cm NO. 3690 WEATHERINCITON LAND SURVEYORS Sf/EET / OFA 4075 VIRGINIA AVE. FT. PIERCE, FLORIDA 34981 B No.�9-yO7 py.G. //577-.9 (407)461-8084 (407) 878-6376 EXHIBIT A oI 9 1 '�+•+. moo, JF•ts4 :f' , /s• -ee;,- •s „vo,ay.ri • r s •4y,;W-O C? ' � bii Vii/ • lY.> N so,L�.sr • v F '�YV 3b1J►7.7 , Fes' W." . /r,7 , P.'- vii 'm7 , oo •rie- •.� ..yf.ev.rr-v a'dw J7i4407i s 'PeYy YY.% Paw-, •J� Y#, . s• •rsr \ 4.� aoi �l y ' h OVGfA'JiYd' 1� Na✓/.%7S bS:60 b6, 8Z -in iH0.1wi A 3JH-ld AJdd Z£0968SLab+ •Cy,P�.tb. S e •. ls�oa•oo" .?lb, oo ' I I CU�P!/ENa, d j� rO.?�/•Y'yd '� zlezApke No. 7 a-aa-re'ss" GH. e 1 /y. 77' �aee Aesreu: AI SEC CA✓E �rf 579BAS1/A�/ f'/6!/LANOs e4viT 17 33C�ETC.�/ G�'"OESC�P/PT/OrL/�,�i NOT /9 5'60/C /Ey At ��00 PREPARED 8T+ WEATHERINGTON LAND SURVEYORS s r�E r. .eF2 4075 VIRGINIA AVE. FT. PIERCE, FLORIDA 34981 (4071 461-8084 1407) 878-6378 This Instrument prepared by. Fred T. Gallagher, Aetreu: P. O. Box 1900 Vero Beach, Florida Esq - 3296'. SPACE ASWE THIS LINE FOR PROCESSING DATA This Quit -Maim Ned? EXHIBIT B NELSON C. HYATT ;PACE AWvE TNI! LINE FOR M{ORDINa DATA Ezeculed this 22ndday of May A. D. 19 go . by (Fret party. to CITY OF SEBASTIAN, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Florida, whose posiof f ice address is p, 0. Box 780127, Sebastian, Florida 32978 second party: ani' rhdl inelude rinsular and plural, heha, teed (Whcrt.er and end herein the army flint ll. An and O,eond p wpardmlu or tequila.) ulem el indl.iduab, and the recceuora and wtem el eeepondom, rAere.er rile eonnca 'W'tRessetllr That file said first party, for and in conslderalion of flip sum of b10.00 in hand paid by 'ha Aaid second party, the receipt whereof is hereby achnowledoed, does hereby remise, re- lease and quit -claim unto the said second parfy forever, all flee right, Iffle, interest, claim and demand which the said first party has in and to the following described lot, piece or poresl of land, situate, lying and being Indian River Stats of Florida to -wit: In the County of Legal Description as per that Sketch and Description attached hereto as Exhibits A and B. Subject to easements heretofore granted to Southern Bell, Power & Indian e easements, restrictions nso and reservations of record.all other Grantor certifies that the property conveyed hereby is not his home- stead nor that of any member of his family, nor does he reside on any property contiguous thereto. 0 nilly PLUVV, Ll ..v,.�sy...,.. 0 To Have and to Mold lite same lopefher with all and singular the appurtenances (hereunto belonging or In anywise appertaining, and all lite estate, right, Lille. Interest, lien, equity and claim what- soever of lite said first party, either In law or equity, to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of Ilse sold second party forever. jn bitness "whereof, The sold first party hos signed and sealed Ikese presents the day and year first abo a written. Stolle sealed and delivered in presence of: iy>F3.•a- �.......... —...:...._.............................. ... _... STATE OF F6ID , COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER Ael ....�:............... C. H att Y ....... ............ I......... I IIEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized in the State aforesaid and in the County aforesaid to take acknowledgments, personally appeared NELSON C. HYATT to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrumrnt and 116 acknowledged before me that he executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal in the Cou —and State last aforesaid this 22nd day of May, Notary P blic, Stat of Florida at Large. V. ommission Expires: 12-14-92 MAILING ADDRESS POST OFFICE BOX 1900 VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 329GI-1900 May 22, 1990 FRED T. GALLAGHER ATTORNEY AND COUNSELLOR AT LAW SUITE d01 BARNETT BANK BUILDING e01 21ST STREET vERO BEACH, FLORIDA MOVED TO 3625 20th Street Suite 2A Vera Beach, Florida Fax (407) 567-3426 Mr. Robb McClary, City Manager City of Sebastian P. 0. Box 780127 Sebastian, Florida 32978 TELEPHONE 94,-3d2d AREA COVE 407 Dear Mr. McClary: At the request of Nelson Hyatt, I am enclosing Quit -Claim Deed conveying Stratton Avenue to the Cifiy of Sebas ian as per r_ ya Is approval for his development. This should now conclude that matter. It is my understanding (Z)t you will cooperate with Mr. Hyatt in coordinating the repayment to him of --impact fees and his proportionate share othe construction of Stratton Avenue and the EC crossing together with recovery of the value of the land covered by the Deed. It is my further understanding that the City will hereafter (v7y handle all traffic control matters and maintain the paving for Stratton Avenue, and that an arrangement will be worked out with Mr. Hyatt to take care of the lawn mowing and landscaping. If I am in error in any of these matters, please let me know immediately, and with kindest regards; I am Sinc ely, G �lagher dmt enclosure CC. Nelson C. Hyatt Telephone: (407) 567-8000 August 20, 1991 BOA_.D OF COUNTY COMMISSIOi.-!,RS 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Honorable W. E. Conyers, Mayor City of Sebastian Post Office Box 12:' Sebastian, FL 32958-0127 Dear Mayor Conyers: Re: UTILITY FRANCHI Suncom Telephone: 224-1011 Indian River County is committed to assisting the City of Sebastian in developing its own water and wastewater utility system. Therefore, the County feels it is important to explain several actions taken by the County recently, i.e., revising the scope of several County consulting engineers' contracts by removing the City from the area to be studied for water service, cancelling the expansion of the wastewater plant for the North County, and declining to commit to utility connections for City customers who did not already reserve capacity in the County plant. Concerning water, it is clear that if Sebastian is going to be responsible for water provision within the city, then the County Master Plans for water have to be revised. We believe this is consistent with the goals of both the City and the County and should be further evidence that the County is committed to cooperating with the City on water development. Concerning wastewater, the County had already hired an engineer to develop plans for the construction of an addition to the County wastewater system which would have provided capacity for residents of the city who had not reserved capacity under the first voluntary program which is just being completed. (You may remember that the County repeatedly urged anyone who wanted guaranteed wastewater service to reserve capacity in the first plant, since once that plant was committed it would be necessary to wait for the construction of an expansion plant.) Now that the County has been notified that the City wishes to undertake wastewater treatment itself the County will find it impossible to finance the construction of this expansion, since the source of revenue to pay for the plant, i.e., impact fees and monthly charges, is from customers who at short notice might be transferred to a City plant. Under the County Utility System no tax dollars are used and any construction is financed solely from the customers who would use the new construction. 1 Mayor Conyers City of Sebastian F.4 Page two August 20, 1991 Once it is determined that the County will be unable to finance an expanded plant, it follows that the County also is unable to accept impact fees from City residents for new service. This is why the County is unable to give utility approvals for several new projects in the City. To keep these types of problems to a minimum during the changeover of utility authority, the County requests the following: 1. The City should schedule a public hearing as soon as possible at which the franchise will be formally revoked. A precise date for the franchise ending is important for all parties. 2. The public hearing should be advertised to include the reassignment to the City of the County's right to negotiate with GDU for the purchase of the Sebastian GDU facilities. This right was assigned by the City to the County in December, 1990. 3. The public hearing should also be a forum to discuss how the interests of the following four classes of City customers or residents will be affected by this franchise revocation: (a) customers already connected to the County system, (b) customers who have reserved capacity in the County system but who have not yet connected, (c) residents who are not connected and who have not reserved capacity but who are located along lines which connect or will connect customers in categories (a) or (b) to the County system, under a mandatory line assessment program, and (d) all other residents who may need utilities before the City is able tR' provide them. 4. Finally, the answers to these foregoing questions should protect the interests of the bond holders who financed the system. On August 6, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners recommended that the issues be resolved within 30 days. Please let us know when you are able to schedule the hearing. The County staff will be available to work with your staff to develop answers to these questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Richard N. Bird, Chairman Board of County Commissioners RNB/Vk 1. CMAWL[f do., 3OS00M n. 4ARSIS OICNARO M RpEIM ION lW LLI- w, ,INCN RAY[LA O. dwICE N "•ICCtt JA MIUW • *WAS -'C-ll J. ILD11 "'ONAI A. CL.AI wvw0 I, 4AR[NA.1 JR. -. MAION K. 11M. }jj '_CO -, ROCK. JR. 6T 4041C A. 41L0CR "IRM -OM OILo C e MAwLeI w. ISLE wl-.JCILCM u bIICfT S. tl[LOf. JR. -IOtCIVIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUIT[ 1500 SOUTMCAST [AUK fU1L01N0 201 CAST hM[ STRRRT -our DTTIC[ SOK 16ff OKT •-^^. Ft 32668-6666 GLASS [ANR [UILOINO 30% NORTH ORLANDO AVCNyt .OST 6MCC ROR 32O917 Coban $ruLca. Ft 326 -oT67 TCL[►NOM! (AOtI Nf-[SSD T[L[►nON[ 1.6" TfS-[[U TAR (4071 !w-lSb ,AR (4071 tw1-41SI! w01TCRS 014CCT DIAL -1.tAS2 ICnT TO' Orlando P/ 91 DATE -.*.At C. It.. -AUL J. Now*#* ♦LAN R. SUTTtwwORTN pCSORAN f. MtANANDU -AVL S. OWNAL JAL OAVIO I. SCUMS .ACR R. Y.YyLL[N ORLANDO I. [VO/A SUSAN M TASIILL r-[D[RICK W. --GUARDS I.CNARO C. SuKR[ '.Owl R. KRNTDN •MNONT 1 COTT[w '*ACV A. 004104W JDNN e, /w0[WKKK LI{A 1'*AMR. -. LCOLW A. RIw1CNtnMVw O, COV-1tL 1-1MSl1 S7 .p by W 0." FAX cov�R sxIEHIET Please Note our New FAX # 407-244-5690 TO t e FAX #t L'a 7 -5S7d FROMs ~7k?7 L--ecvL C/M #s -,Ze,-07- OF PAGES - OFPAGES �_ ( including cover sheet) RE: facsimile .Z and CeMfIddatiAl af id for dn indt ei named abowthe reader of thl, me..a. Litt sadM noe the Intended rea4x"dt, cr the agent raspomeih2a to deLLver it to the intended rea# ant, "a are herby aor"Ied tMt any rs*iar, d Xg0Miw&y4_*. diatr{butici i or copying of this cimmma cation is psnbihited. rX this ce=02MI-rarion was reeetwd in error, please imsediately notify as by talepheme aad return the original message to us at the addtess shave via the 0.8. Possal Service- Mank yon - If any problems are encountered with this transmittal contact: evz" _,._ at extension 39-71 GRAY, HARRIS & Rowwsox CHARLES GRAY PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION THOMAS C. SHAW 0 CROON M. HARRIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW PAUL J, MOKRIS ALAN M BUTTERWORTH RICHARD M. ROSINSON DEBORAH R. IIERNA14DEZ PHILLIP R. FINCH PAMELA O. FPICE SU.TE 1200 PAUL S. 0UINN, JR. JAMES F. PAGE, JR. DAVID 6 SCHICH PHILIP H. TREES SOUTHEAST BANK OVILOINO CLASS BANK BVILDINO JACK K. M.IAVLLEN 1911JAM A. BOYLES 201 EAST PINE 911167 569 NORTH ORLANDO AVENUE ORLANDO L. EVORA SUSAN R TASSELL THOMAS A. CLOUD BYRD R MARSHALL, JR. POST OOPICE BOK 3008 POST OFFICE OOX 320787 PRCOCRICK W. RICHARDS J. MASON WILLIAM SI = ORLANDO, FL 3ee02-306e COCOA BSACXX, FL 32932-0t67 RICHARD E. BVRKE LORI R. DENTON LEO P. ROCK, JR. O. ROBERTSON OILO ANTHONY J. COTTER CHARLES W. SELL TELEPHONC (AD?)B43-B6SO TELERHONE (407) 703.2=1{ TRACY A. BOROERT JACK A. KIRSCNENSAUM PAX (407) 244-5000 PAX (407) 703.2207 JOHN B. 9MOCMAKCR LISA A FRANK' JAMES W. PEEPLES III ['ORP UT S. FIELDS, R. WRITCA�3 DIRECT DIAL MICNACL K. WILSON MARK S. WALKER MALCOLM P. KIRSCNENBAUM OF COVN8C1 PLEASE REPLY TO: 'H[H B[A OP vORK ANO CONN[CT6CiIGVi RAR.i ONLY Orlando August 28, 1991 VIA FACSIMILE 407/589-5570 Robb McClary City Manager City of Sebastian P.O. Box 780127 Sebastian, Florida 32978 RE: Proposed Letter to Indian River County Dear Robb: Enclosed herewith is my suggested draft letter to Indian River County. I am sending a copy to Charles Nash and Gerry Hartman for their comments. Please don't send this letter until we have all necessary comments to it. S' rely yours, Thomas A. Cloud, Esquire GRAY, HARRIS & TAC: jlm 40107-1 P. A. Enclosures: Draft letter to Richard N. Bird Letter to Honorable Conyers from Richard N. Bird cc: Charles I. Nash (w/enclosures) (via facsimile) Gerald C. Hartman (w/enclosures) (via facsimile) [TO BE TYPED ON CITY OF SEBASTIAN LETTERHEAD) August _, 1991 Richard N. Bird, Chairman Board of County Commissioners Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Chairman Bird: I am in receipt of your letter dated August 20, 1991, concerning Indian River County's Master Plans for water and wastewater. We certainly appreciate the explanation which you have given us regarding several actions recently taken unilaterally by the County, and we generally agree with the thrust of the issues which were also raised in the letter regarding the necessary agreements we will need to enter into regarding this matter. We have already prepared a Termination Agreement to terminate the assignment of the GDU option which is enclosed with this letter. We are also in the process of preparing a draft agreement which would amend our previous interlocal agreement in order to address the issues which you have- 1--n—your letter. A meeting has also been scheduled for September 4, 1991, in the City of Sebastian to meet with your staff -in --order to proceed with completing this matter. However, we believe it is unnecessary for the County at this time to refuse the extension of service in the County wastewater system. It is our understanding that the County's wastewater system is operating well below capacity at the present time, and the County could provide service to new connections on an interim basis to new connections within the City until the flow diversion facility is constructed. This flow diversion facility is contemplated in the draft agreement which we are preparing. This draft agreement also contemplates the City making the County whole with respect to facilities to be acquired by the City and customers to be acquired by the City so that the County does not lose any money. We look forward to discussing this and other issues with your representatives on September 4th. In the meantime, we respectfully recommend that you permit additional connections within the City. Letter to Richard N. Bird Page Two Sincerely yours, W. E. Conyers, Mayor City of Sebastian WEC: ccs Terry Pinto, Indian River County Robb McClary, City of Sebastian Thomas A. Cloud, Esquire Gerald C. Hartman, P.E. MVl• GG OB/21/1991 14,100110": (407)567.M 71 U7. 17 4YJf JUJ JJI YJ 1534 I.R.C. E.M. August 20, 1991 407 567 9323 P.02 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 2.5th Street, Vero Burch, Plorida 32960 Honorable W. E. Conyers, Mayor City of Sebastian Post Office Box 127 Sebastian, FL 92958-0127 Dear Mayor Conyers: Re: LL A1999 --.---«--« ..--...... SVnC0MTnMpl'One• 224.1011 Sp9-Vw31 Indian River County is committed to assisting the City of Sebastlan in developing its own water and wastewater utility system. Therefore, the County feels it is important to explain several actions taken by the County Concerning water, it is clear that if Sebastian is going to be responsible for water provision within the pity, then the County Master flans for water have to be revised. We believe ilda Is consistent with the goals of, both the City and the County and should be further evidence that the County is committed to eooporating with the City on water development. Concerning wastewater, the County had already hired an engineer to develop plans for the construction of an addition to the County wastewater vystwt, which would have provided capacity for residents of tha city who had not reserved Capacity undor the first voluntary program which is just being Completed. ('You may remember that the County repeatedly urged anyone who wanted guaranteed wastewater service to reserve capacity in the first plant, since once that plant was committed it would be necessary to wait for the construction of an expansion plant.) Q Now that the County has been notified that the City wishes to undertake wastewa.ler treatment itself the County will find it impossible to finance the construction of this expansion, since the source of revenue to pay for the plant, i.e., impact fees and monthly eharges,�Js from customers who of short notice might be transferred to a City plant. Under the County Utility System no tax dollars are used and any construction Is financed solely from the customers who would use the new construction. RUC 22 '91 09:19 407 589 0 P.3/3 08/21/1991 15=35 I.R.C. E.M. 407 567 9323 P.03 Mayor Conyors City of Sebastlan Page two August 20, 1991 0)100 it is determined that the County will be unable to finance an expanded Plants it follows that the County also is unable to aocept impact fees from City residents for new sprvlce. This is why the County is unable to give utility approvals for several new projects in the City. To keep these types of problems to a minimum during the changeover of utility authority, the County requests the following; 1. The City should sehodulo a public hearing as soon as possible at which the franchise will be formally revoked. A precise date for the franchise ending is important for all parties. 2. '.Che public hearing should bo advertleed to include the reassignment to the City of the County's right to negotiate with GDU for the Purchase of the Sebastian C,DU facilities. This right was assigned by the City to the Coun(y in December, 1990, 3. The public hRaring should also be a forum to discuss how tyle intorests of the following four classes of City oustomers or residents will be affected by this franchise revocation! (a) customers already connected to the County system, (b) oustomers who havo roserved capacity in the County system but who have not yet connected, (o) residents who aro not connected and who have not reserved capacity but who are located along lines willoh connect or will 00=00t customers in categories (a) or (b) to the County system, under a mandatory line easessment program, and (d) all other resident® who may need utilities before the City is able to Provide them. 9. Finally, the answers to these foregoing questions should protect the interests of the bond holders who financed the system. On August at 1991, the Board of County Commissioners recommended that the issues be resolved within 30 days. Please let uc know when you are able to schedule the hearing. Tile County staff will be available to work with your staff to develop answers to these questions. Thank you. Richard N. Bird, Chairman Board of County Commissioners T11T111 G 11 Capt. Hem's SEBASTIAN INLET MARRNA Y Home of the "World Famous- River Raw Bar Waterfront Banquet Faci[ities • Catering Service August 29, 1991 to eft Mayor and City Council City of Sebastian 1225 Main Street Sebastian, FL 32958 Dear Mayor Conyers and City Council Members: I, along with many other property and business owners in the Sebastian area are extremely concerned with the City's decision to sever the sewer and water franchises with the County. It is very difficult for me to comprehend how the City can make such a broad ranging decision when the alternatives have not been completely thought out. It is important to note that many of us in the business community have relied on the City's agreement with the County to provide these services in a timely manner. We have based our business decisions on the availability of these services. The County has held to these time tables and made the services available as agreed. The county's project to supply water has been put on hold due to the City's indecision (see attached letter from the county). Business and property owners stand to suffer potentially far reaching damages if these services are not available. Sebastian is growing at a rate where these services are needed now. I have read the report from your consultants and point out that nowhere did they guarantee that these services can be offered more efficiently or at less cost. Additionally, there are serious concerns that even they raised with the timing of the acquisition and/or building of new plants and distribution systems. To my knowledge, the consultants never even bothered to consult with the State Department of Community Affairs about how this decision might affect our Comprehensive plan filed with the state. This is a most serious over sight as the City is under State order to produce an acceptable plan that clearly shows how these basic services will be provided. Our current understanding with the DCA is that the County will provide the services. I believe there is a solution to the sewer and water problem that would be acceptable to both the City and the County. Might I suggest the following: By Car: 1605 Indlan River Drive, Sebastian, Fl. 32958 By Boat: Marker 66 on the Intracoastal Waterway Phone: (407) 589-4345 FAX: (407)589-4346 1. Sewer capacity would be purchased by the City from the County so that the City would have the right to dispose of their waste in the existing state of the art plant that has recently been constructed by the County. This plant has the ability to expand and could cover Sebastian's sewer disposal needs for some time in the future. The City could retain the option to build their own plant at some point in time provided proper notification is given to the County. 2. The County would maintain the existing forced main lines that have already been installed in the City. 3. The City, to protect City residents and businesses would take over full control of the design, bidding and installation of the system that collects the sewer from individual properties. The County has agreed to turn over all present engineering to the City free of charge. In this way, the City would have the absolute right to determine what it is going to cost for City residents to hook into the system. The City could do the billings and supervise the installation of the collection lines. 4. The County would be requested to continue with the development of the water line as previously agreed. The City would simply purchase water wholesale from the County after the main line is installed. 5. The City would design and install the distribution system for water from the main County line. The City would have full control on the design, construction and implementation of the water distribution system and, again would have the full responsibility for billing and customer relations. The City could also reserve rights to construct its own water plant at some future date upon proper notification to the County. Gentlemen, I cannot emphasize the importance of having sewer and water available in our small community. Any delays in providing these basic services would prove most costly to the tax base and the future well being of Sebastian. I urge you to work very closely with the County on a City Councilman to County Commissioner level to get this issue resolved once and for all. T H. Collins THC:jh cc: County Commissioners Rob McCleary, City Manager Telephone: (407) 567-8000 June 25, 1991 BOATON OF COUNTY COMMISSIOA .-S 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Mr. Thomas H. Collins Captain Hiram's, Sebastian Inlet Marina 1606 Indian River Drive Sebastian, FL 32958 Suncom Telephone: 224-1011 SUBJECT: NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER AND SEWER PROJECT BY THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Dear Mr. Collins: This letter is written to follow up on your inquiry as to the status of the aforementioned projects. As you are aware, the City of Sebastian has contracted the engineering firm of Hartman and Associates, to investigate the possible demise of the County's water and wastewater franchise within the city limits. As a result of this query, we have put the design on hold (approximately four months ago) of both the North County sewer expansion and the North County regional water system. This action was deemed necessary as line sizes (particularly with regard to the regional water system) are determined by the ultimate population they are to service. We anticipate some type of response from the city concerning this situation within the next month and will make decisions accordingly with regard to the continuation of both projects. If you have any further questions with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact this office at (407) 567-8000, Extension 308. Sincerely, WILLIAM F. McCAIN Capital Projects Engineer Department of Utility Services WFM/c cc: Terrance G. Pinto, Director of Utility Services (CCOLLINS.WFM) HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, IINC. engineers, hydrogeologists, Scientists & management consultants Mr. Robb McClary City Manager City of Sebastian Post Office Box 780127 Sebastian, Florida 32978 Subject: Park Place Dear lir. McClary: September 3, 1991 SEP Im Received C* Manager's Office HAI # 91-064.00 N V After our meeting with Mayor W. E. Conyers and the cresidents of Park Place (Lissrs. Jack Specialli and Robert Schlossen) I investigated :their claim that the Park Place wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) was still in operation. Upon my site investigation I found that what Mr. Specialli thought was the WWTP was actually the water treatment plant (WTP), which was currently operating. Furthermore, I found that Park Place is connected to the County's sewer system by way of a pump station and force main. Although, I could not enter and``/.pr open the access hatch to the pump station I definitely could hear wastewater flawing into the station, as well as hearing the pumps kick on. Although I am not too sure of what portion of Park Place discharges into this pump station, I can only assume that the entire subdivision does. This pump station is located on the north side of Stratton Avenue approximately midway between the entrance to Park Place and the WTP. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call Gerry or me. Very truly yours, Hartman 6r Associates, IncrP.E. ' Harold E. Sch , Jr., Vice President HES/dn/45 CC: Gerry Hartman, HAI Tom Cloud, Esquire, GH&R SOUTHEAST BANK BUILDING • SUITE 1000.201 EAST PINE STREET • ORLANDO, FL 32801 TELEPHONE (407) 8393955 • FAX (407) 8393790 PRINCIPALS: JAMES E. CHRISTOPHER • CHARLES W. DRAKE • GERALD C. HARTMAN • MARK L LUKE • MARK A. RYNNING • HAROLD E. SCHMIDT, JR. LF'-u`.-L'iyl 1E:0-1 F1-'ull RHI.HHPPI',:_F'uB1115iU1 JCHARLES GRAY GORDON H. HARRIS RICHARD M. RORIN30N PIIILLIP P. FINC14 PAMELA OPRICE JAMES I. PAGE, JR. PHILIP II. TREES WILLIAM A. BOYLES THOMAS A. CLOUD BYRD E. MARSRALW JR. J. MASON WI, LIAMj. ES LEO P. POCK, JR. C. ROBERTSON DIIG CNARLCS W. SCLL JACK A. FIRSCHENGAUM JAMES W. PEEPLE9 ]IL FORREST g FIEL09, JR. GRAY, HARRIS & AOBINSON PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 1200 SOUTHEAST BANK BUILDING GLASS BANK PU.,DINO 201 EAST PINE STREET ]09 NORTH ORLANDO AVCNUC POST OPIIC6 EO% 3006 POST OFFICE BOw ]EOIpf ORLAr;300, FI, 02809-0068 COCOA. HffiACII, FL 32939-0707 TELEPHONE (.07) 643-8800 TELEPHONE (407) 183.2318 PAX (407) 2H-6BB0 FAX (401) 703-EZB7 WRITER'S CIALCt DIAL PLEASE REPLY TO: Orlando September 5, 1991 TNCMAl C. S.. P/ UL J. MLKAIS ALAN N. OVrtERWCNIH OCRORAw S. wCANANOCZ PAUL S. OUINN. JR. DAVID L. SCHICK JACK K Mc MULLEN ORLANDO L. EVORA EVLAN O. TASSCLL .REOERICK 'A. CICwAROS RICMARO E. euRKE LORI R- BENTON ANTHONY J. COTTER TRACY A. OODOERT JOHN B. SNOEMAKEN LIEA J. PRANK' MIuuEL K. WILSON MARK 1. WALKER MALCOLM R. KIPSCNENBAUM 61 COUNSEL 'NO OGR OF uGM vOww ANO COHwECY,CVT SAPS ONLY VMI FACSIMILE 407/589-5570 Robb McClary City Manager City of Sebastian P.O. Box 760127 RS: September 4 Meeting with Indian River County Dear Robb: You asked me to prepare a letter documenting what took place At our meeting yesterday with Indian River County. This meeting took place in the Engineering Conference Room at the Sebastian City Hall complex. In attendance at the meeting were Terry Pinto, Charles Vitunac, and Harry Asher of Indian River County, and Gerry Hartman, Hal Schmidt, Jr., Dan Eckes, Bruce Cooper, you, and me for the City. The subject of the meeting was the discussion of proposed agreements to "unbuckle" the County's franchise within the City. Terry Pinto began the meeting by stating that the Indian River County North Regional, Wastewater Treatment Plant is over -committed. He also stated that their financial consultants advised the County that the County cannot finance new capacity based upon temporary, or interim, customers. The County then suggested that, rather than obligating capacity on a customer -by -customer basis, the County wants to sell capacity in bulk to the City for the City to allocate to its customers. Gerry Hartman responded by saying that we would be willing to consider such a modification to the original proposal. Gerry also requested (as we have done on at least two prior occasions) what the capital and wholesale costs of wholesale service would be with the County. Gerry also requested if the County could re -rate its plant flows to create interim capacity to bridge the gap, make tate sEF'-05•71441 16:04 FPut-1 „LFH,',IIr4PF'I= pi -IB lll5iilI QRev, H.e.RRis & RoBimsow PRO/CSSiONAL ASSOCIATION Robb McClary September 5, 1991 Page 2 Tei '�.. ql`_,=�=.=7ii P.0-1 County whole, and avoid the need for a wholesale agreement. Rather than responding to Gerry's initial request, Terry Pinto again reiterated that he could not finance interim connections. Mr. Pinto also indicated that be could not consider doing a re -rating of the plant (i.e., re -rating the value of an equivalent residential unit down to 150 gallons per day to some lower value, thereby creating additional capacity for sale). Mr. Pinto indicated that the County would not consider doing this. However, as the discussion developed, it became clear that the County has in fact already done this for the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. At this point, Charles Vitunac asked if the wholesale deal was on the table. Hartman responded by saying for some volume of capacity, but not all. Gerry also stated that rates and charges should be established on an equitable basis. Gerry also brought up the idea of a water wholesale agreement, indicating that the City might be in a position in the future to provide wholesale water to the County. Gerry again brought up the idea of talking to the Department of Environmental Regulation about utilizing unused flows at the plant. In response, Terry Pinto tried to argue a lease analogy, and Gerry responded that the lease analogy was not applicable. We have been assuming that there were 2,000 connections within the City; however, Mr. Asher of the County indicated that some 700 of the original 21000 connections purchased within the City have been turned back into the County for resale within Indian River County. Apparently, another 500 of the remaining 1,300 have not paid their first assessment. Gerry then asked the County what the bulk transmission impact fee component was under the County system. No response was forthcoming. Gerry also suggested looking at the Indian River County ERU value, and we were told that it was 250 gallons per day. Terry Pinto said that Indian River County would be reluctant to move off of the 250 gallons per day for an FRU. Gerry suggested that Indian River County could convert projected usage to historical flow and re -rate the plant capacity. Gerry referred to several examples of this occurring in the City of Melbourne, the City of Palm Bay, and the City of Orlando. We were then told by the County that the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant is rated at one million gallons per day and that the County has sold 5,200 equivalent residential units in the plant and that FDER has issued collections system permits for approximately 2,500 ERUs. At this point, it became obvious that S•EP-05-14131 16:05 FF.I H FIPH II IiAPF' i S<ROB I I IS•01 I GRAY, H.ABitTs & Roiaznsox PAOFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Robb McClary September 5, 1991 Page 3 Tii �. 9ffs9cC70 P. 0-1 the County has already moved off of the 250 gallons per day value for an ERU, and has already sold capacity on a re -rated basis at the plant. They have not had a problem with DER in this regard because only 2,500 ERUs worth of collection system permits have been issued by DER. The County then indicated that they could not provide capacity within the City for interim customers. The City then countered by suggesting that, at some point in the future, the City may be able to acquire permanent capacity for a small volume within the County plant. The other part of the proposal involved having the City remove capacity in the plant on a gradual basis, thereby reducing the flows from the City and County plant. Mr. Vi.tunac seemed agreeable to this proposal. Discussion then followed on how the buy -down of customers from the County to the City would occur. We also handed out a draft Interlocal Utility Agreement and Purchase and Sale Agreement for consideration by the County at this meeting. Gerry Hartman then set forth a summation of the meeting to the point as follows: (1) The City has submitted a draft, working document agreement, and we would appreciate comments from the County towards finalizing this agreement. (2) New customers will be treated on an equitable non- discriminatory basis within the service area. In other words, for the immediate future, customers within the City will be permanent customers of the County, subject to a buy -down by the City at a later date. (3) The interim/permanent distinction no longer applies. (4) There will be a transition of capacity and customers through time, such that: the County can be maintained whole. (5) Prior to September. 4, 1991, those City customers on the County system will be incorporated into the City's facility as a lump. It is important to note that while there are 1,300 committed ERUs of capacity in the City, only 800 have paid the assessments, and less than 10 ERUs of capacity are actually connected and being serviced by the County system. SEP -u`•-1 51 pr, FF'iml 'ii .IIAF'RI—_poBIII-il! Tii 91 .q«,, - _x_ n P. ii_ GRAx, HABRx9 & RonxNeox PROFL59IONAL ASSOCIAn ON Robb McClary September 5, 1991 Page 4 (6) Certain assets of the County that don't serve the County but serve customers in the City should be transferred to the City at some future date. (T) The City and the County should enter into an interconnect deal/flow diversion deal that allows for the sale of wholesale water and sewer capacity back and forth between the City and the County. (8) The County agreed to give us hack the GDU franchise purchase option now. (9) The Indian River County franchise will revert back to the City after the City is ready to take on the permanent capacity within the County plant. At the end of this outline, a question was raised regarding the assessment program. The parties agreed to continue their discussion regarding the assessment program to make sure we ironed out the bugs in this last remaining issue. The City also agreed to send a letter to the County to the effect that as of the September 4 date, the City customers on the County system are permanent until the City provides a permanent system for those customers in such a manner as to make the County whole. I will prepare a draft of that letter for consideration by you and Gerry Hartman. Everyone agreed at the meeting that the meeting had been very Positive and that we had made a great deal of progress toward completion of the ultimate agreement with the County. The County also agreed to move forward with the GDU franchise purchase option reassignment back to the City. Except for the assessment issue, I believe we are very close to completing the conceptual framework for an agreement between the City and the County that provides for the gradual elimination of the franchise within the City. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please don't hesitate to call on me. S'n erely yours, omas Cloud Es u' q it GRAYr HARRIS & ROBINS r P.A. TAC: jlm cc: Charles I. Nash, Esquire (via facsimile) Gerald C. Hartman, P.E. AIN City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 0 SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589.5330 0 FAX (407) 589-5570 September 6, 1991 The Honorable Richard N. Bird Chairman Board of County Commissioners 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Chairman Bird: I am writing as a result of a meeting between City and County staff held here in the City of Sebastian on September 4, 1991, regarding the water and sewer franchise. I believe that this was a very positive meeting for both the City and County and that we are very close to working out the details of a final agreement regarding the County's franchise in the City of Sebastian. The idea that was agreed to, in concept, was that, for the time being, potential customers located within the City of Sebastian who seek capacity from the County, would be considered "permanent" customers of the County's utility system. This situation will continue until the City is in a position in the future to assume responsibilities for these new customers' flows in a permanent City facility in such a manner as to make the County whole. In essence, the City will not ask the County to shunt waste water flows to a City facility and transfer a County customer (within the City) to a City customer unless the County can sell that capacity to another permanent customer. Of course, this would not preclude those in -city customers from staying on the County system but covered in a wholesale agreement between the City and County. It is our understanding that, based upon your approval, the County will sell capacity on a non- discriminatory, first come first serve basis to potential customers located within the City of Sebastian who seek capacity from the County. Honorable Richard N. Bird Paget Once again, I believe that the City and County made substantial progress towards completing the final agreement regarding the City's eventual assumption of sewer and water service in the City of Sebastian. We will continue to work closely with your staff to bring this matter to a successful completion. Sincerely yours, Robert S. McClary, City Mana r City of Sebastian RSM:sg cc: W. C. Conyers, Mayor & Sebastian City Council Daniel C. Eckis, P.E., City Engineer Bruce Cooper, Director Community Development James Chandler, County Administrator Terry Pinto, Dir. of Utilities Services Indian River County Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney, Indian River County Thomas A. Cloud, Esquire, Gray, Harris and Robinson, P.A. Gerald C. Hartman, P.E., Hartman & Associates, Inc. City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 o SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 ❑ FAX (407) 589-5570 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: September 9, 1991 TO: W. E. Conyers, Mayorr& Sebastian City Council FROM: Robert S. McClary /zllt� RE: Water & Sewer At the last City Council Meeting of September 4, 1991 I verbally advised you of the progress between the City and County on the water and sewer "unbuckling" agreements. Earlier that day the City's Legal Counsel Tom Cloud and Engineering Consultant Gerald Hartman and certain City staff met with Indian River County staff to review the proposed "unbuckling" agreements with Indian River County for water and sewer services. On September 5th Mr. Cloud wrote me and summarized the meeting. Additionally, he drafted a letter for my signature addressed to Indian River County. Also on September 4th, Mr. Cloud presented a draft of the proposed interlocal utility agreement. All of these documents are attached for your information. Should you have questions or concerns regarding this matter, please feel free to call. /sg .. kyt. aau uul e SEB` STIAN INLET MA `INA Home of the "World Famous- River Raw Bar 11 Waterfront Banquet Faeirities 6 Catering Service 5 g D� October 2, 1991Ca Mayor and City Council O-AO�FG� Oo City of. Sebastian j 1225 Main Street Sebastian, FL 32958 I 1 Dear Mayor Conyers and Council Members: I was surprised to learn that the City of Sebastian has not contacted the Department of Community Affairs relative to proposed changes in our approved comprehensive plan. I spoke with a Ms. Terri Manning at the DCA and she indicated that our plan may have to be amended if we made any major changes in the way public sewer and water will be provided to the City of Sebastian. You will recall that our Comp. plan indicates the county was to supply both of these needed services. She also indicated that if the time frame to supply sewer and water did not meet the concurrency requirements, building permits would not be able to be issued until these utilities were made available. I cannot understand how a consultant hired by our city would not at least touch base with the DCA as their input would certainly have a major impact on any decision the City would make relative to sewer and water. Ms. Manning can be reached at 904-487-4545. Sincerely, Thomas H. Collins THC:jh cc: Rob McClary, City Manager By Car: 1606 Indian River Drive, Sebastian, FL 32958 By Boat: Marker 66 on the Intracoastal Waterway Phone: (407)589-4345 FAX: (407589-4346 engineers, hydrogeologists, surveyors & management consultants November 13, 1991 HAI #91-174.00 "X .C'\ ccA 06 W ;? Mr. John V. Little r C 336 Grove Isle Circle l� Vero Beach, Florida 32962 Subject: Response to October 29, 1991 Meeting Dear Mr. Little: First, let me take this opportunity to thank you for allowing us an opportunity to respond to your initial thoughts and comments concerning the utility matters in the Sebastian area. I believe that our meeting on October 29, 1991, was very informative and provided to you some significant insights which are appropriate for consideration. It is difficult for anyone to pick up a report and be able to know all of the background, analyses, thinking and other efforts that were involved in the preparation of the report. Only the written word can be reviewed and commented upon. The attached responds to your comments and provides additional clarification to our report which I believe will be beneficial for you. Let me take this opportunity to say that it was a pleasure meeting and discussing this issue with you, and I am hopeful that you will stay involved and that we can have the benefit of your insights and discussions in the future. GCH/ch Enclosure Very truly yours, Hartman & Associates, Inc. Gerald C. Hartman, P.E. President 201 EAST PINE STREET • SUITE 1000. ORLANDO, FL 32801 TELEPHONE (407) 839-3955 • FAX (407) 839-3790 PRINCIPALS: JAMES E. CHRISTOPHER • CHARLES W. DRAKE • GERALD C. HARTMAN • MARK L LUKE • MARK A. RYNNING • HAROLD E. SCHMIDT, JR. RESPONSES TO MR. JOHN V. LITTLE'S ANALYSIS OF THE BRIEFING DOCUMENT FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF EXISTING UTILITY FRANCHISE OF PROVIDING WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA PREPARED BY: HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. IIAI #91-174.00 November 11, 1991 rn INTRODUCTION On Tuesday, October 29, 1991, Mr. Gerald C. Hartman, P.E. of Hartman & Associates, Inc. (HAI) met with Mr. Robb McClary, City Manager and Mr. John V. Little. Mr. Little is a private consultant who has reviewed the Briefing Document prepared for and subsequently accepted by the City entitled "Investigation of Existing Utility Franchise and the Advantages and Disadvantages of Providing Water and Wastewater Services for the City of Sebastian." To facilitate review, we have provided each of Mr. Little's comments with our responses directly below. Comment No. 1• A statement is made that the concentrations of trihalomethanes are "not alarming", since GDU does not practice THM control. I my opinion, such THM levels should be a concern as they are considered to be carcinogenic and should be controlled. This can be accomplished by using a disinfection process other than simple chlorination. Response: The levels are not alarming due to the fact that they were expected, similar to Palm Bay, and the same corrective improvement is expected with a combined chlorine residual. The cost for these improvements are included in the report. True, total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) should be controlled. One method of controlling TTHMs is using an alternative disinfection process, such as chlorine dioxide, ozonation and/or ultra -violet radiation, etc. However, these disinfection processes are more costly to implement and operate. Therefore, process modifications to the water treatment process are generally implemented. One such process modification is ammoniation. This process is extremely effective, very simple to implement, and is cost-effective. It would be safe to say that over 90 percent of the water treatment plants (WTPs) in the state of Florida utilize ammoniation for TTHM control, rather than instituting a new disinfection process. It would be recommended for this facility that an ammoniation system be instituted rather than a new disinfection process. Comment No. 2• The bacteria concentrations inside and outside the control residence are most likely a result of faulty sampling technique rather than system problems. Response: Although faulty sampling techniques could be one reason for violating the bacteria standards within a residence and not outside, it would be inappropriate for us to say that the Indian River County Department of Health and Resource Services' sampling procedure is faulty. Moreover, it is very possible that bacteria problems could actually occur within a residence and not be detected at a point outside (i.e., faucet) of the same residence. HES/ch R5/Sebast.Rsp -1- Comment No. 3 The copper levels should be dealt with, but cannot be resolved by simply modifying the operation of the plant. Response: True, the copper problems should be dealt with and they will. As a result of the Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for copper, monitoring, treatment requirements, etc., have been revised. The new MCL for copper is 1.3 mg/1. To comply with the Amendments to the SDWA, the utility must begin monitoring by July, 1992 and recommend treatment actions by January, 1993. In accordance with the Amendments to the SDWA, a treatment system must be on-line by July, 1996, assuming the water system exceeds the copper MCL. The source of copper in drinking water is generally due to the corrosion of interior household and building piping. In summary, the finished water is unstable and is basically an aggressive water which induces corrosion in the system. The most cost-effective method of corrosion control techniques is pH adjustment and alkalinity adjustment. Other methods of corrosion control include calcium adjustment and/or the addition of phosphate- or silica -based corrosion inhibitors into the system. It was recommended, based on our review of the monthly operating reports for the WTP, that a pH adjustment/alkalinity control system be installed at the WTP. This system would consist of a chemical storage tank, metering pumps, pH recording device and miscellaneous controls. This system would consist of a chemical storage tank, metering pumps, pH recording device and miscellaneous controls. This system will continuously monitor the drinking water and adjust the pH of the drinking water to maintain a stable water. The costs for these improvements are included in the report. Comment No. 4• The statement that the County impact fees are higher than most others in the region is misleading and is presented as a negative when such is not the case. Impact fee levels may vary greatly from system to system due to a number of factors, such as: a) The immediate need for new plant as opposed to costing existing plant. b) Ratemaking philosophy/politics. Impact fees may fully reflect plant costs or may be only partially costed to avoid high fees. The difference is then made up in monthly rates/commodity charges. Since there is no "free lunch", impact fee costing is analogous to the Fram commercial, i.e., "You pay now or you pay later." To avoid growth costs being a burden on existing customers, impact fees should be fully costed. The result is often HES/ch RS/Sebast.Rsp -2- what appears to be high charges. Such a problem should be handled by time payments (term -financing), not by artificially lower impact charges. c) Impact fee levels are greatly affected by what costs are included, i.e., treatment plant, transmission, distribution, service and metering. Again, all appropriate costs should be included, as stated above. Response: The statement that the County's impact fees are higher than most others in the region is a true statement. As Mr. Little indicated, impact fees vary greatly from system to system and are based on the need for new facilities versus upgrade and the ratemaking philosophy/politics. However, all appropriate costs should be included in the impact fees, which include treatment plant needs and collection, transmission and distribution system needs. Comment No. 5 With regard to comparing County impact fees with GDU, in addition to previous relevant comments, one would expect GDU to be lower due to the methods developers almost always use to recover up front capital costs related to utilities and site development. Such capital costs are recovered in the sales price of lots and/or houses. Often, if rate regulation is not sophisticated, such costs are recovered twice, once through lot/house sales and again through impact fees and/or monthly rates. Response: This statement is untrue, though may have occurred in other investor-owned systems in other locations. Our firm is very experienced in the financing policies of GDU, as well as numerous other private utilities. In fact, members of our firm have testified before the Florida Public Services Commission (FPSC) on impact fee and rate making issues. Based on our knowledge of GDU's financing policies, as well as discussions with the ex-GDU president, the customer was charged separately for the connection fee and not recovered twice as implied by Mr. Little. Furthermore, the FPSC as a policy allows a utility to collect up to 75 percent of the facility in service as a maximum and the utility then must carry the remaining 25 percent on their books as an investment. Comment No. 6: When a government agency acquires a privately -owned utility system, particularly if condemnation is necessary, such costs are often recovered again. Condemnation law is very much biased in favor of the system owner. HES/ch R5/Sebast.Rsp -3- rO Response: This is true; however, we proposed to invoke our franchise rights and pursue the GDU facilities through an acquisition process. We have not and do not expect that condemnation via a "quick -take" will be pursued by the City. We have recommended against condemnation proceedings in this endeavor. Comment No. 7• The statement that County rates are significantly higher than others in the region is also misleading and seems to imply that rates under City operation would be much lower. Such is simply not the case. Rates/monthly commodity charges will vary greatly between systems due to a number of factors. a) Ratemaking philosophy/politics. Rates should be fully costed. Some cities subsidize water and sewer operations from the General Fund rather than levy proper charges. b) Contribution to/from the General Fund may vary greatly. c) The monthly bill may vary greatly, depending on the level of utility tax levied. Such taxes are not reflective of utility costs, but of local politics and fiscal policy. d) System age, imbedded debt costs, level of service, quality of service, etc. Response: The statement that the County's rates are significantly higher than others in the region is an accurate and true statement. The report never implies that under the City's operation, the rates would be much lower. The remaining statements of Mr. Little's, identified as a) through d) are accurate. Comment No. 8• A proper comparison would compare County rates with pro forma rates under City operation. It is most unlikely that City rates could be lower than County rates. Most certainly, GDU rates would not be applicable under City operation, even in the short term. Response: A comparison of the County's rates with pro forma rates under the City's operation could not be done at this time, based on the data we had and were provided by the County. HES/ch R5/Sebast.Rsp -4- Furthermore, the statement that GDU rates would not be applicable under City operation, even in the short-term, is conjecture on Mr. Little's part. As previously stated, the rate making policies are dependent on a number of factors. Until the GDU system is acquired, any statement regarding rates is conjecture. Comment No. 9 The comparison between the County and GDU is not relevant and is misleading. Assuming that GDU is not the entity to provide citywide utility service, and I believe this a valid assumption considering the present status and integrity of GDU, then the comparison should have been between the City and County as previously stated. Response: It is not proper for us to respond to the status and integrity of GDU. The status of GDU is unchanged, with the exception of various municipalities and counties exercising their franchise rights or condemning the utilities, both of which result in possible sales of their utility. Furthermore, GDU is a subsidiary of General Development Corporation (GDC) and is not under the bankruptcy proceedings that GDC is at this time. Moreover, in our opinion, GDU has in the past been a fine utility that provided good service to their customers. GDU versus the County is the only actual comparison available at this time. Comment No. 10• The City would appear to have some advantage over the County in GDU system acquisition due to existing franchise provisions. I can safely state that the acquisition will ultimately be decided in court, notwithstanding franchise language. The City and County working together should be able to acquire the system in such a manner as to not negatively impact County operation. Response: We agree with Mr. Little that the City has a clear advantage over the County in acquiring the GDU system. Whether or not the acquisition ends up in court is yet to be determined. However, the City, by exercising their franchise rights, could conceivably offer GDU a value for their utility systems which the bankruptcy hearing officer may accept, or GDU may accept, both of which deletes the courts. Nonetheless, a court case may be required. Comment No. 11• The statements on pages ES -7 and 8 regarding City ownership and operation are naive at best and appear to be comparing City versus continued GDU ownership. There is little question all factors considered. that City operation would be preferable to GDU. The HES/ch R5/Sebast.Rsp -5- question before us, however, is City versus County ownership, not City versus GDU. In my considered, expert opinion, County operation is the proper option if: a) Acquisition costs can be favorably dealt with; b) Appropriate franchise language, terms, conditions, and payments can be favorably negotiated. Inquiring seems to indicate that such obstacles can be overcome. My conclusion is based in part on the following: a) In-place County business experience, plant and staff. b) County staff stability and political stability. c) Ability of County to do/pay what it takes to acquire and keep competent staff. Response: The first question is City versus GDU ownership, which we concur with Mr. Little that public ownership is preferred in this case over investor (GDU) ownership. The second real question is City versus County ownership. Mr. Little's conclusions are correct; however, this does not mean that the City can attain the same. For example, Mr, Robb McClary, City Manager, has over 15 years of utility experience and Mr. Dan Eckis, P.E. is a registered engineer in the State of Florida, who can handle the management of the utility system. Both individuals are very competent individuals and can handle the tasks associated with managing a utility of this size. As to paying and doing what it takes to acquire and keep competent staff, we cannot address Sebastian's past; however, it appears that they are moving in the right direction with the staff they hired in the last three (3) years. As to the political stability and practices of the City Council, it appears that the Council is well versed in utility matters and truly concerned as to rights of the residents of Sebastian. Comment No. 12• Past history in Sebastian generally and the airport, police and golf course specifically do not give comfort in the operation of a utility system, which is inherently so necessary to the public health and welfare. As only one example, it would be necessary to pay a competent utility director more than is currently paid the city manager. Response: There are many competent utility directors that are paid less than the city manager. We concur that reasonable salaries are necessary. The issue of earnings is not the deciding factor. HES/ch R5/Sebast.Rsp -6- Again, the past history of the City of Sebastian does not mean that the City is not capable of properly running a water and sewer utility. Comment No. 13• The reasons given for City ownership are as follows: a) Control of growth, development. etc. In my opinion, legally and philosophically, utility service should not be used as a means to control growth. Zoning regulations are the proper vehicle for such control. In a few cases, where cities have used the withholding of utility service as a means to control or eliminate development, antitrust suits have been brought, resulting in the City being the loser. b) Control of operations rates etc. Such control is desirable, but it boils down to a "what price glory" situation. In my opinion, rates under City ownership cannot compete favorably with County rates, particularly in the long term. Economics of scale is only one of many reasons. Many admittedly desirable controls can be achieved through an appropriately -drafted franchise agreement. The statements regarding the impact of an ownership change on existing GDU customers are essentially true, when comparing continuing GDU ownership with City ownership. However, the same observations hold true under County ownership. Again, there is not question that City ownership is better than GDU ownership. However, I was under the impression that bridge had been crossed and that we are now comparing City versus County ownership. Response: The above statements are opinions of Mr. Little's. For example, rates under City ownership cannot compete favorably with County rates, particularly in the long term. This statement may or may not be true, since many factors fall into play (i.e., effective operations, future regulations, etc.). At this time, it is very difficult to compare the City ownership versus the County, since until the City has arbitrated the price of the utility, or conducted the necessary 180.301, F.S. investigations, such comparisons are not well documented. Comment No. 14• The statements in Section 5, pages 6 and 7 are, in large measure, opinion not based on factual evidence. In my opinion, they appear to be telling the client what the consultant HES/ch R5/Sebast.Rsp -7- ,On% r-� perceived the client wanted to hear. In my opinion, most of the advantages of City ownership listed in Section 5, page 8 are incorrect and/or highly speculative, especially the Cost eight listed. Response: Based on our review of the legal documents and other documents provided from the County, regulatory agencies and other sources, our professional opinion regarding the City versus County ownership was developed. For example, the County did inform us that if the County took over the GDU wastewater treatment plant, it would be abandoned. The same holds true for the GDU water treatment plant. It is true that the County cannot purchase GDU under the same terms and conditions as the City. It would seem logical that the rates and capital charges would increase if the County did somehow purchase the GDU system, since they have in the past (i.e., Park Place). Furthermore, we believe that the advantages listed in Table 5-2 are an appropriate representation at this time. SUMMARY Our meeting of October 29, 1991, was very productive. We believe the key issue initially is what entity, City or County, is the best to acquire GDU in Sebastian. We believe the City is the best entity due to the ability to acquire using its franchise rights granted to it by GDU. We expect a settlement negotiation, mediation negotiation or formal arbitration to determine the price, terms and conditions. Once the above and the 180.301 F.S. investigations are complete, then any future consideration/negotiation with the County as needed at the time would be appropriate. The second and smaller, yet important, issue is how the existing 95 ERU's as manifested by a handful of wastewater connections are served. We requested the County to continue service; they do not wish to if the City of Sebastian gains the rights to purchase GDU. Therefore, a reasonable transition of the very few existing customers is necessary. The third issue is capacity availability in the County plant for the assessment program the County initiated. The collection system assessment areas were not provided treatment and disposal capacity for 100% of the affected properties. In fact, only those property owners who purchased capacity from the County up -front were assured capacity. In addition, much of the treatment and disposal capacity was sold by the County to City property owners who were not within a collection system assessment area, and these owners have been told they must build their own pump station and force main, or similar facilities, to connect to the County transmission facilities. The County sold transmission, treatment and disposal capacity amounting to 2,000 ERC's in the County system. Then they built the transmission system, plant and disposal system. They sold well over 5,000 ERC's up -front at 250 gpd per ERC in a 1,000,000 gpd plant. The County only conducted a very preliminary engineering study for the collection of sewage in Sebastian and never took the project any further. There are no detailed surveys, plans, specifications, cost estimates or assessment values established for the 2,000 ERC's sold and who had to pay what for connection. We do know that the collection systems will cost HES/ch R5/Sebast.Rsp -8- probably more than three (3) times the County impact fee. If such costs are applied to only a few properties in the County's assessment area due to the lack of available capacity, such capital costs would be unreasonably great. In order to be able to assess all of the properties in the County assessment area, the County must unconditionally commit that capacity will be available when requested by the property owners. The County has not been willing to make such an unconditional commitment at this time for its own planned assessment area. The County states that new capacity will be available only when the next increment of the plant (the next 1.0 MGD) is sold and only at the time of the capacity sale, because the County will only build enough capacity for those who buy it up -front. After this sale, then one must wait until the next sale (i.e., next 1.0 MGD expansion). The fourth issue is the situation which the original Sebastian customer 2,000 ERC's have been in and their actions. Over 800 of the original 2,000 ERC's have been turned back into the County and the County has resold them elsewhere in the service area. Approximately 700 of the remaining 1,200 ERC's have refused to pay their impact fee assessments to the County and may be considered by the County in default. Nearly 400 ERC's of the some 500 ERC's are continuing to pay their impact fee assessments or have prepaid the entire impact fee and have not or cannot connect to the County system and are paying a reserve capacity fee to the County because they are not connected. Ninety-five (95) ERC's are connected to the County system and are paying all customer charges. In summary, the connected wastewater flow from Sebastian is about 19,000 gpd. The documented inhibited demand of potential paying wastewater customers is 80,000 gpd. There are no County water facilities and no County water customers (other than the maintained Park Place system) in Sebastian. HES/ch R5/Sebast.Rsp -9- yA e 5l�5- City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 o SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 ❑ FAX (407) 589-5570 November 18, 1991 Mr. David D. Peters Director of Special Projects General Development Utilities, Inc. 2601 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33133-3461 Subject: General Development Utilities, Inc. Water and Wastewater Facilities Sebastian Highlands Division Dear Mr. Peters: The purpose of this letter is to request permission to review the General Development Utilities, Inc. Is (GDU) water and wastewater facilities that presently serve the residents of the City of Sebastian. As you are aware, based on the numerous newspaper articles and discussions with Mr. Harold Schmidt, Jr., P.E. with Hartman & Associates, Inc., the City of Sebastian is considering exercising its option under the GDU water and sewer franchise agreements (0-81-8 and 0-81-9). The purpose of the site visits is to better acquaint the City with the facilities. These site visits should take no longer than 4 -hours to complete. In attendance for the tour of GDU's facilities would be Mr. Daniel Eckis, P.E., (Public Works Director), Mr. Harold Schmidt, Jr., P.E., (Hartman & Associates, Inc.) and myself. As Mr. Schmidt stated in his letter to you of November 8, 1991, we would request that we be provided a verbal description of the treatment processes (i.e., method of treatment process utilized chemicals added, etc.) during this site visit. It is my understanding that based on your discussions with Mr. Schmidt, we can tentatively schedule a tour of your facilities for the week of December 9, 1991. Your consideration regarding this matter will be greatly appreciated. Should you have questions, will you please call? incerely, Robert S. McClary City Manager cc: W. E. Conyers, Mayor & Sebastian City council Daniel Eckis, P.E. City Public Works Director Gerald C. Hartman, P.E., Hartman & Associates Harold E. Schmidt, Jr., P.E., Hartman & Associates, Inc. IIA Z'I MA N & ASSOCIATES, INC. engineers, hydrogeologists, scientists & management consultants November 8, 1991 HAI t/91-174.00 Via Facsimile 14 1S170 Mr. David D. Peters (0 Director of Special Projects a General Development Utilities, Inc.Received 2601 South Bayshore Drive C'Ity pjtnc rs Miami, Florida 33133-3461 Subject: General Development Utilities, Inc. Sebastian Highlands Division Dear Dave: It was a pleasure speaking with you yesterday regarding the General Development Utilities, Inc. (GDU) Sebastian Highlands Division water and wastewater facilities. As you are aware, Hartman & Associates, Inc. (HAI) represents the City of Sebastian regarding utility matters. As I discussed with you, I would like to arrange a time with you and/or a representative of GDU to visit your water and wastewater facilities that presently serve the residents of the City of Sebastian. This visit would be very educational for the City and in attendance at this site visit would most likely be Mr. Robb McClary (City Manager), Mr. Dan Eckis, P.E. (Public Works Director) and me. Additionally, due to the size and simplicity of these two (2) systems, I believe 4 hours would be more than sufficient to walk through the both of these facilities. ' Dave, I understand you are very busy with all the special utility matters that GDU have undertaken during the past year, as you know I am. However, in any case, I would like to schedule this site visit within the next two (2) weeks (i.e., November 11-26, 1991). I believe you know my schedule fairly well since I will be in North Port most of the time. Although any time that is convenient with you will be fine with me. All I ask is that you give me a few days notice so that I can make the appropriate changes to my schedule. Furthermore, I understand the concerns that GDU may have regarding this site visit and therefore, no questions will be asked of the operators and/or any GDU employee regarding the operation and/or maintenance, costs, etc., of the water and wastewater facilities. We would only request that a,verbal description of the treatment process be provided (i.e., treatment process, chemicals added, etc.) during this site visit. Moreover, a duplicate copy of any photographs that may be taken during this site visit will be provided to GDU as a courtesy. SOUTHEAST BANK BUILDING • SUITE 1000.201 EAST PINE STREET • ORLANDO, FL 32801 TELEPHONE (407) 8393955 • FAX (407) 839-3790 PRINCIPALSv JAMES E. CHRISTOPHER • CHARLES W. DRAKE • GERALD C. HARTMAN • MARK L LUKE • MARK A. RYNNING • HAROLD E. SCHMIDT, JR. Mr. David D. Peters November 8, 1991 Page Two Your immediate attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions regarding this site visit, please do not hesitate to call me. Very truly yours, Hartman & Associates, Inc. Harold E. Schmidt, Jr., P.E. Vice President HES/11/C-5/Peters, hes cc: Robb McClary, City of Sebastian Dan Eclds, City of Sebastian K MEMORANDUM TO: Hal Schmidt FROM: Gerry Hartman SUBJECT: City of Sebastian, Utility Franchise DATE: November 7, 1991 HAI 1191-174.00 On Thursday evening from approximately 4:30 to 5:00, I talked with Mr. Little and discussed the overall sanitary sewer situation with him. He stated to me that he has talked to Terry Pinto and he feels that Terry Pinto and the County staff are trying to pressure the City in the utility situation, to either to do it all, or not and he feels that that is unreasonable. But still, they are trying to pressure the City and he recognizes what they are doing. I told him what we were doing and what happened at that City Council meeting, that there was a full County Commission hearing to be requested, in which we can go over the time issue with the County Commissioners of the group. Other than that one issue, it appears that all of the other aspects of the agreement seem to be pretty well taken care of. Of course, there are other details and information the County is yet to produce, but we are expecting that they will produce them as they have told us they would. At the end of our conversation, I promised Mr. Little that on Tuesday of next week I would send out "via regular mail" my comments regarding my response to his comments regarding our report. I also told him I would also forward to him a copy of the draft of our local agreement between the entities on the subject, since this is a public document after our City Council meeting. I will be forwarding a copy of everything I sent to Mr. Little also to Rob McClary. Hal, let's get together and get this information pulled together and sent in. GCH/Il/C-5/hesm.gch 4 NOY 1991 Aw%NLoN W �; November 19, 1991 Robb McClary City Manager City of Sebastian P.O. Box 780127 Sebastian, Florida 32978-0127 RE: Acquisition and Operation of GDU Facilities Dear Rob: I thoroughly enjoyed my meeting with yourself, Gerry Hartman, and Terry Pinto. I was very favorably impressed with all parties and their grasp of the situation. I noticed that temper and emotion came into play a time or two. It is unfortunate that the parties involved cannot sit down together and resolve their differences. I have read Hartman's response to my comments and enclosed a copy for your use. My analysis has not changed, therefore, I am enclosing same together with copies to Terry Pinto and Mayor W.E. Conyers. I believe my involvement should end at this point. Hope I have been helpful. Good Luck. Best Regards, �% Vt il'O, Id n V. Little cc w/enclosures: Terry Pinto W.E. Conyers ANALYSIS OF BRIEFING DOCUMENT INVESTIGATION OF EXISTING UTILITY FRANCHISE AND THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF PROVIDING WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA General Notes and/or Comments: Executive Summary - Water Service A statement is made that the concentrations of trihalomethanes are not alarming, since GDU does not practice THM control. In my opinion, such THM levels should be a concern as they are considered to be carcinogenic and should be controlled. This can be accomplished by using a disinfection process other than simple chlorination. The bacteria concentrations inside and outside the control residence are most likely a result of faulty sampling technique rather than system problems. The copper levels should be dealt with but cannot be resolved by simply modifying the gyration of the plant. Impact Fees - Rates The statement that the County impact fees are higher than most others in the region is misleading and is presented as a negative when such is not the case. Impact fee levels may vary greatly from system to system due to a number of factors, such as: a) The immediate need for new plant as opposed to costing existing plant. b) Ratemaking philosophy/politics. Impact fees may fully reflect plant costs or may be only partially costed to avoid high fees. The difference is then made up in monthly rates/commodity charges. Since there is no "free lunch", impact fee costing is analogous to the Fram commercial, i.e., "You pay now or you pay later." To avoid growth costs being a burden on existing customers, impact fees should be fully costed. The result is often what appears to be high charges. Such a problem should be handled by time payments (term -financing), not by artificially lower impact charges. c) Impact fee levels are greatly affected by what costs are included, i.e., treatment plant, transmission, distribution, service and metering. Again, all appropriate costs should be included, as stated above. With regard to comparing County impact fees with GDU, in addition to previous relevant comments, one would expect GDU to be lower due to the methods developers almost always use to recover up front capital costs related to utilities and site development. Such capital costs are recovered in the sales price of lots and/or houses. Often, if rate regulation is not sophisticated, such costs are recovered twice, once through lot/house sales and again through impact fees and/or monthly rates. When a government agency acquires a privately -owned utility system, particularly if condemnation is necessary, such costs are often recovered again. Condemnation law is very much biased in favor of the system owner. The statement that County rates are significantly higher than others in the region is also misleading and seems to imply that rates under City operation would be much lower. Such is simply not the case. Rates/monthly commodity charges will vary greatly between systems due to a number of factors. a) Ratemaldng philosophy/politics. Rates should be fully costed. Some cities subsidize water and sewer operations from the General Fund rather than levy proper charges. b) Contribution to/from the General Fund may vary greatly. c) The monthly bill may vary greatly, depending on the level of utility tax levied. Such taxes are not reflective of utility costs, but of local politics and fiscal policy. d) System age, imbedded debt costs, level of service, quality of service, etc. A proper comparison would compare County rates with pro forma rates under City operation. It is most unlikely that City rates could be lower than County rates. Most certainly, GDU rates would not be applicable under City operation, even in the short term. The comparison between the County and GDU is not relevant and is misleading. Assuming that GDU is not the entity to provide citywide utility service, and I believe this a valid assumption considering the present status and integrity of GDU, then the comparison should have been between the City and County as previously stated. The City would appear to have some advantage over the County in GDU system acquisition due to existing franchise provisions. I can safely state that the acquisition will ultimately be decided in court, notwithstanding franchise language. The City and County working together should be able to acquire the system in such a manner as to not negatively impact County operation. t_ The statements on pages ES -7 and 8 regarding City ownership and operation are naive at best and appear to be comparing City versus continued GDU ownership. There is little question. all factors considered that City oneration would be preferable to GDU. The question before us, however, is City versus County ownership, not City versus GDU. In my considered, expert opinion, County operation is the proper option if: a) Acquisition costs can be favorably dealt with; b) Appropriate franchise language, terms, conditions, and payments can be favorably negotiated. Inquiry seems to indicate that such obstacles can be overcome. My conclusion is based in part on the following: a) In-place County business experience, plant, and staff. b) County staff stability and political stability. c) Ability of County to do/pay what it takes to acquire and keep competent staff. Past history in Sebastian generally and the airport, police and golf course specifically do not give comfort in the operation of a utility system, which is inherently so necessary to the public health and welfare. As only one example, it would be necessary to pay a competent utility director more than is currently paid the city manager. The reasons given for City ownership are as follows: a) Control of growth. development. etc. In my opinion, legally and philosophically, utility service should not be used as a means to control growth. Zoning regulations are the proper vehicle for such control. In a few cases, where cities have used the withholding of utility service as a means to control or eliminate development, antitrust suits have been brought, resulting in the City being the loser. b) Control of operations, rates. etc. Such control is desirable, but it boils down to a "what price glory" situation. In my opinion, rates under City ownership cannot compete favorably with County rates, particularly in the long term. Economics of scale is only one of many reasons. Many admittedly desirable controls can be achieved through an appropriately -drafted franchise agreement. The statements regarding the impact of an ownership change on existing GDU customers are essentially true, when comparing continuing GDU ownership with City ownership. However, the same observations hold true under County ownership. Again, there is no question that City ownership is better than GDU ownership. However, I was under the impression that bridge had been crossed and that we are now comparing City versus County ownership. The statements in Section 5, pages 6 and 7 are, in large measure, opinion not based on factual evidence. In my opinion, they appear to be telling the client what the consultant perceived the client wanted to hear. In my opinion, most of the advantages of City ownership listed in Section 5, page 8 are incorrect and/or highly speculative, especially the fust eight listed. J.V. Little ENO City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 ❑ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 0 FAX (407) 589-5570 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: November 26, 1991 TO: W. E. Conyers, Mayor & Sebastian City Council FROM: Robert S. MCClary RE: Water & Sewer Utility BACKGROUND Pursuant to Resolution No. R-87-6, Indian River County ("IRC") is franchised to provide public water and wastewater services within the City of Sebastian. Since, 1981, the City also entered into four (4) other franchise agreements with private entities to provide water or sanitary sewer or both services to specified geographic areas: General Development Utilities ("GDU") under Ordinance 0-81-8 (Water) and Ordinance 0-81-9 (Sanitary Sewer), Lake Dolores Utilities under Ordinance 0-85-12 (Water & Sewer), and Sebastian Lakes Utility Company under Ordinance 0-85-16 (Water & Sewer). The franchise granted Indian River County is unique and differs from all other franchises in that the City has no ability under the IRC franchise to regulate rates and, IRC is granted additional territory automatically should any other prior franchise "expire, revert, be forfeited, canceled or otherwise come under the control of the City." The bottom line policy, established by the City Council by adopting Resolution R-87-6, is that Indian River County would ultimately be the sole provider of water and wastewater services within the City limits of the City. Indian River County, by special legislative act of May 2, 1959, was authorized to serve, either by itself or by granting franchises, the unincorporated area of Indian River County. q10 14-, RE: Water & Sewer Utility Page #2 STATUS OF IRC NORTH COUNTY PROJECT * IRC has taken Sebastian out of its master planning study for County water. * Indian River County provides water service in only one area of the City, which is Park Place. On July 11, 1989, IRC entered into a contract with Nelson Hyatt for the County take over of the utility system serving Park Place. * Sewer Plant and Base Facilities: IRC has constructed and put into operation a one MGD Plant, which was designed to serve 2,000 Equivalent Residential Units ("ERU's") in Sebastian. Additionally, the core facilities of main interceptor lines and major lift stations were constructed. Overall, for both City and unicorporated North County, IRC sold 5,200 ERU's in advance of construction of these wastewater facilities. * Sewer Collector System: IRC has not constructed any new internal lines or collector systems for sanitary sewer service in the City. However, on September 30, 1991, IRC transmitted to the City a preliminary engineering study prepared by Kimball, Lloyd, IRC's consulting engineers, dated February 19, 1991, for the Indian River Drive area of the City. * Sewer - Park Place. Indian River County has completely taken out of operation the wastewater treatment plant constructed for Park Place and has installed a lift station to serve the developments of Park Place, Breezy Village and Palm Lake. The wastewater from these developments is pumped to the IRC Hobart plant for treatment. * Water Customers. As mentioned earlier, the County's only water customers inside the City are those 147 within Park Place. * Sewer Customers. There are only 152 sewer customers: Park Place, 147, Indian River Drive, 4; and, the Sebastian Municipal Golf Course. Additionally, the City of Sebastian Police Station and the new Food Lion will be connected to the County system in the near future. CITY OWNED WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES In March, 1990, after hearing concerns expressed by property owners in the Indian River Drive area and from residents of Park Place, the City Council became increasingly concerned about the progress of the County sewer system in Sebastian. At that time, the City's involvement in the water and sewer business was limited as regulator of the IRC franchise and as the assessment and enforcement arm of the IRC Utility Department. OOON RE: Water & Sewer Utility Page #3 The City Council wanted basic information from the IRC Utility Department and on April 9, 1990, by letter addressed to IRC Utilities Director, Terry Pinto, requested IRC to provide a briefing to the City Council on the status of the North County Project. Such a briefing would include a description of how the system will work, how a customer will connect, and how much a customer should expect to pay in order to connect to the system. We also asked for a time frame in which the system would be in place and working. Mr. Pinto subsequently declined the invitation and on May 10, 1990, by letter from Mayor Conyers to then IRC Commission Chairman, Carolyn Eggert, requested the County to provide a representative to conduct a public briefing on the North County Sewer Project. Indian River County subsequently held a meeting in Sebastian but the questions about how the system will work, how a customer will connect to it, what expenses the customer should expect and when he would be able to connect to the system, to this date, have never been answered. After hearing the growing concerns of property owners and potential customers, the City appointed a special lawyer, Thomas Cloud, and a consulting engineer, Gerald Hartman, to evaluate the franchise with IRC and outline the advantages and disadvantages of the City providing water and wastewater services for the City. The result of this special engagement was a briefing document, referred to as the "Hartman Report", dated June 24, 1991. The report, among other things, recommended that the City "unbuckle" agreements with Indian River County for the franchise granted under Resolution R-87-6 and all other inter -local agreements between the City and Indian River County relating to water and sewer utilities. The report also recommended that the City pursue the acquisition of the General Development Utilities ("GDU") facilities located in the City under the terms of the two franchises granted to GDU in 1981. Since July, 1991 the City and IRC have been negotiating a new agreement to effect the "unbuckling", as recommended in the Hartman Report. IRC PROPOSAL Indian River County wants a clean and immediate break with its retail water and sewer customers within the City. The IRC proposal would put the City in the retail water and sewer business virtually upon execution of the contract and IRC would "wholesale" treatment services to the City. At the stroke of a pen, IRC would have one sole customer within the City: The City of Sebastian. The City, in turn, would provide retail water and sewer facilities and assume the meager 152 account customer base IRC currently serves. Although IRC officials initially indicated that they would cooperate with the City in providing for a smooth transition, they have dramatically narrowed the options to one: a wholesale deal without a transition period. ,.. RE: Water & Sewer Utility Page #4 CITY PROPOSAL The City of Sebastian should ultimately become the service provider for the entire City. In fact, the agreement should contain a provision that territories annexed in the future would be served by City water and sewer. The only good deal is one that will serve the best interests of the City, the County, and the affected customers, potential customers, property owners and citizens. The essence of the Hartman Report is the City's successful acquisition of the GDU water and wastewater facilities under the terms of the GDU franchise agreements. The success, in large measure, of the City venturing into the water and sewer business depends on purchasing the GDU facilities under the terms enumerated in the two (2) franchise ordinances. Specifically, the purchase price is to be based on GDU's investment of the system and exclude any contributions in aid of construction ("CIAO"). Ideally, I believe, the City would devote its efforts to acquiring the GDU facilities while the County would maintain a "business as usual" approach for the two (2) territories of Indian River Drive area and Park Place. In the future, the City would "buy" those customers from the County when it is in a position to accept customers and, to protect IRC, when the County had County customers to replace those converted to the City system. Wastewater flows from City customers could be treated at the City's own wastewater treatment facility or through a wholesale agreement with Indian River County. Since the County, as it claims, is in "high gear" in planning, engineering and constructing wastewater facilities, it seems to me that it would be in everyone's best interest for the City and County to form a partnership and determine ways that we could work together to serve the best interests of the customers and citizens. To serve the best interest of the customer, I think it would be logical to look at developing a contingency plan in the unlikely event the City is unable to acquire the GDU facilities in the expected favorable terms resulting from the arbitration process as outlined in the GDU franchise Ordinances. CITY MANAGER CONCERNS There is something wrong with this picture. With the current agreements still in place, the negotiating strength is with the County and not with the City. If the City is forced into accepting this "all or nothing" deal the City will be forced into the utility business in a most untimely fashion. We will be so busy putting out fires, we will not have adequate time to devote to the GDU acquisition. The North County Sewer Project is already off to a rocky start with a 75% failure rate of ERU "commitments". Of the 2,000 ERU's sold to potential customers within the City, 800 ERU's have been turned back in and another 700 are in default of their assessment payments. RE: Water & Sewer Utility Page #5 One of the City's first priorities will have to be the design and construction of the internal lines and sewer collector system for the Indian Drive Area. Property owners who thought the $1,250 impact fee was high should brace themselves for the collector system assessments, which may cost an additional $3,000to $5,000 per ERU. The problem, as I see it, is that the County's plan (intentionally or unintentionally) benefits the developers and large commercial customers and penalizes the residential and small commercial customer. This is particularly true since IRC planned and built the plant and interceptor facilities long before they did any planning for the collector system. Most residential or small commercial property owners cannot afford the $20,000 to $30,000 to build a lift station to tap the IRC force main but find themselves with no other alternative since HRS - Indian River County Health Unit, considers the IRC force main as "available" and therefore a connection mandatory for any expansion or new building. Undoubtably, IRC will want the City to guarantee the assessments for all reserved capacity as well as to pay the base facility charges for those reserved units. Of course, for the 152 existing customers, IRC will want large meters installed in the lift stations to measure the amount of wastewater generated from the City. At $30,000 per lift station times four (4) lift stations, the City could be forced into paying $120,000 for meters to measure sewage for the 152 existing customers. This does not sound practical to me. The Park Place deal will present some unique challenges to the City. I am sure the developer will not undo the sale to Indian River County unless he believes he can get a better deal from the City of Sebastian. Assuming the Park Place contract is assigned to the City by the County, those customers will still be paying the $10.00 per month surcharge for the ten (10) year period specified in the contract. But there is more. By the terms of this contract, IRC seems to have reserved capacity for a total of 650 units without guaranteed impact fees. In fact, the developer will be exempt from impact fees for a five (5) year period. However, as units are sold, the County will collect an impact fee at the time of resale of a Park Place unit. Will the County continue to reserve that capacity in its plant without impact fee assessment guarantees from the City or the payment of base facility charges? Will the contract assignment mean that the City will be forced to exempt the developer from paying an impact fee but at the same time be forced to pay an impact fee to IRC for new Park Place customers? Some Park Place residents expect the City use our legal resources to unilaterally undo the contract between the developer and the County, claiming it was unlawfully entered into. I would not want to see the City embark upon putting together a water and sewer system by starting with the initiation of a lawsuit. n RE: Water & Sewer Utility Page #6 The bottom line is that there is "no free lunch" and, unless the system is subsidized by General Fund or other City revenues, grants, or contributions and aid of construction (most likely all of these methods will be used to some extent) the customer will pay for the service. Lastly, if the City is forced into the retail business prematurely, our efforts will have to be devoted to completing the unfinished IRC projects and in pursuing the acquisition of GDU facilities. This means that we may be hampered into extending water service into the Highlands. A good public drinking water system should have a high priority since it would have immediate benefit to our citizens and property owners. Given the above identified factors, and a hundred more I haven't thought of, Indian River County's "wholesale" rates may look like their retail rates, only higher. I am hoping that the continuing negotiations with Indian River County can be marked with an attitude of principles above personalities where the customer is king. While the City Council has authorized a joint meeting with the Indian River Commission, both City and County staffs want to attempt to develop a joint recommendation to both governing bodies. Unless IRC is willing to find ways for the unbuckling process to work, it is certainly assuring that the City will have a most difficult time succeeding. A� N COLLINS INVESTMENT COMPANY December 3, 1991 Mr. Rob McClary, Manager City of Sebastian 1225 Main Street Sebastian, FL 32958 Dear Rob: I see where the sewer and water issue is becoming more and more complicated. As you know, my position has always been that we should allow the county to complete the sewer and water facilities as per an agreement worked out with a.prior City Council and the County Commission. Of particular concern to us at Capt. Hirams is the availability of water. We expensed considerable sums and expanded our organization based on the fact that county water would be available approximately one year after the availability of county sewer. In talking with the county we find that the main county water line will be running right by our property in the very near future. We are told that we would be unable to hook into the line due to the City's recent position to cancel their franchise agreement with the County. We felt it was very important that we go on record with the City regarding this issue as we may have devastating consequences in the event we are unable to obtain a public water supply in a timely fashion. We are operating off a shallow well and are limited in our ability to permit additional wells. We are therefore requesting that if a deal is cut with the County to break the franchise, we should be able to hook into their system on a temporary basis until the City can adequately supply water to us. I thank you for your kind attention and trust you will keep us informed on this most important issue. Sincerely, C � Thomas H. Collins THC:jh cc: t$ayor Conyers ✓City Council Members 9301 A -1-A, Suite 4 Vero Beach, Florida 32963 Telephone (407) 589-8000 FAX (407) 589-5100 General Development Ui,...,ies.Inc. A General Development Corporation Subsidiary 2601 SOUTH SAYSHORE DRIVE MIAMI, FL 33133-3461 /�I r OfC� Mr. Robert S. McClary R RJ1 City Manager City of Sebastian Q� Post Office Box 780127 Sebastian, Florida 32978 it' Re: Re: Facilities Tour Dear Mr. McClary: SOL/ 1305)859-4357 December 4, 1991 Without waiving any legal rights we may have in this matter, General Development Utilities, Inc. (GDU) has tentatively scheduled a tour of the water and wastewater facilities owned by GDU in the City of Sebastian. The tour is scheduled to begin at 10 A.M. on Monday, December 9, 1991 at the water treatment plant. Based on your letter of November 18, 1991, those in attendance representing the City of Sebastian will be Mr. Daniel Eckis, Mr. Harold Schmidt and yourself. Mr. Buddy Betschart, Division Director for the Sebastian facilites, will coordinate the tour and will be in attendance. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me. Very rly L. David D. Peters Director of Special Projects DDP:gi cc: B. Betschart C. Faucher C. Schulman, Esq. City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 ❑ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589.5330 ❑ FAX (407) 589-5570 August 29, 1991 Richard N. Bird, Chairman Board of County Commissioners Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Chairman Bird: I am in receipt of your letter dated August 20, 1991, concerning Indian River County's Master Plans for water and wastewater. We certainly appreciate the explanation which you have given us regarding several actions recently taken unilaterally by the . County, and we generally agree with the thrust of the issues which were also raised in the letter regarding the necessary agreements we will need to enter into regarding this matter. we have already prepared a Termination Agreement to terminate the assignment of the GDU option which is enclosed with this letter. We are also in the process of preparing a draft agreement which would amend our previous interlocal agreement in order to address the issues which you have raised in your letter. A meeting has also been scheduled for September 4, 1991, in the City of Sebastian to meet with your staff in order to proceed with completing this matter. However, we believe it is unnecessary for the County at this time to refuse the extension of service in the County wastewater system. It is our understanding that the County's wastewater system is operating well below capacity at the present time, and the County could provide service to new connections on an interim basis to new connections within the City until the flow diversion facility is constructed. This flow diversion facility is contemplated in the draft agreement which we are preparing. Letter to Richard N. Bird Page 2 This draft agreement also contemplates the City making the County whole with respect to facilities to be acquired by the City and customers to be acquired by the City so that the county does not lose any money. We look forward to discussing this and other issues with your representatives on September 4th. In the meantime, we respectfully recommend that you permit additional connections within the City. Sol", WEC:js C.C. Terry Pinto, Indian River County Robb McClary, City of Sebastian Thomas A. Cloud, Esquire Gerald C. Hartman, P.E. Q�Q�-' incerely Yours, Ee: W. ny s — Mayor City of Sebastian C,R.&Y, HARRIS & RomxsUN August 28, 1991 FAX COVER SHEET TO: Robb McClary FAX #: 407/589-5570 COMPANY: City of Sebastian FROM: Thomas A. Cloud CLIENT/MATTER #: 40107-1 NUMBER OF PAGES: 9 (including cover sheet) RE: City of Sebastian - Termination of GDU Utility Franchise ENCLOSURE: Letter from Thomas A. Cloud to Robb McClary dated this date along with enclosures (Resolution and Termination Agreement) If any problems are encountered with this transmittal contact: RARLENE ROGERS at Ext. 272 This facnimile message may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the Individual named above. If the reader of thia message In not the intended recipient, or the agent reaponalble to deliver it to the intended recipient, you ere hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the Orlando address via the U.S, postal Service. Thank you. PPOFE9SIONAL ASSOCIATION THOMAS O SHAW J. CHARLES OKAY PAUL •A MOK416 CORDON H. HA.RPIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW ALAN R. 9UTTERWORTH PICHAPO M. ROa1NSON DEBORAH S. HCRNANDEr PHILLIP R. "NON PAUL e• QUINN, JR. PAMELA 0, PRICE SUITE 1200 DAVID L. SCHICF. JAMEC F. PAGE. JR. SOUTHEAST SANK OVILOINO OLASS SANK BUILDING JACK L. M<MULL6N PHILIP H. TREES 506 NORTH ORLANDO AVENUE ORLANDO 1. XVORA WILLIAM A. BOYICO A, CLOUD THOMAS A, CLOUD 201 EAST PINE DIREST POS T OFPICE 90X DDDR POST OFFICE 06K 3ROY97 SUSAN 0. TA99ELL CAEOGRICK W. RICHARDS TYRO F. JR. RICHARD E. BURKE J• MASON WILLIAMS, ITALORI ORr.ANDO, Pr. 38BOR-3068 COCOA BRACE, A DRB89'076T TCOTTER LED P, POCK, JR. Q. ROPERTSON OIL* CHARIE6 W. BELL TELERHONt (407) 043.6096 TELEPHONE f407) 103-2218 ANTHONY J. TRACY A SOPOERT JOHN 0. SHOEMAKER JACK A. KIRSCHEN9AUH FAX (407) 344.6606 PAX (407) 1834297 LIRA J. FRANK' JAMES W. PEEPLES III MICHAEL K. WILSON FORREST S. FICLOC JR. WRITERS DIRECT DIAL MARK 9. WALKER MALCOLM R. KIRSCHENOAUM OF COUNSEL PLEASE REPLY TOI 'M QM QCR OF HEW YORK CONN[C}.0I<U1 GARP bN4Y August 28, 1991 FAX COVER SHEET TO: Robb McClary FAX #: 407/589-5570 COMPANY: City of Sebastian FROM: Thomas A. Cloud CLIENT/MATTER #: 40107-1 NUMBER OF PAGES: 9 (including cover sheet) RE: City of Sebastian - Termination of GDU Utility Franchise ENCLOSURE: Letter from Thomas A. Cloud to Robb McClary dated this date along with enclosures (Resolution and Termination Agreement) If any problems are encountered with this transmittal contact: RARLENE ROGERS at Ext. 272 This facnimile message may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the Individual named above. If the reader of thia message In not the intended recipient, or the agent reaponalble to deliver it to the intended recipient, you ere hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the Orlando address via the U.S, postal Service. Thank you. GRAY, HARRIS & Rojalxsox J. CHARLES DRAT PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION DOROON H HARRIS THOMAS C. SHAW RICHARD M. ROBINSON ATTORNEYS ATLAW PAVE J. MOKRIS PHILLIP R� CINCH ALAN R. BUTTERWORTH PA M CLA O. PRICE DEBORAH S. MCRNANDEZ JAMES I. PAOC, JR, SUITE ISOO PAUL S. DUINNI JIM PHILIP H. TACO$ SOUTHEAST DANK BUILDING GLASS BANK DUILDINO DAVID L. SCHICN WILLIAM A� BOYLES THOMAS A. CLOUO M FACT PINE STREET SOS NORTH ORLANDO AVENUE JACK K. MnMULLEN ORLANDO 1. EVORA MA'LL.^MI POST OrCIC6 BOX d09B POST OFFICE BOK 710)1) SVSAN O• TABBELL J. MASON WILLIAM B. III O ED FREDERICK W. NICMAPOS L LEO P. ROCK, JR. O7azexnO, PL pD.80>a-0068 COCOA BSACH, FL p¢9p¢-OT6f RICHARD L. eVPKC CW ROBERTSON GILD LORI R. DENTON ARICS JACK A.B W. BELL JACK A.. P{CHCN{AUM TELEPHONE (40 )) 04D-8000 TELEPHONE (AOT) T83-2ZI6 ANTHONY J. COTTER TRACY A. MOROCRT JAMES PC Tli PAX (AO)) 2M-5660 FAY. (AOT) 193-2207 JOAN SM OEMANLR T TELES FORR6ET E FIELDS, JR. J. LISA J. FRANK' Wfl1TCRS DIRECT DIAL MICHAEL K..IRON MARKRK S. WALKER L4 MALCOLM R. KIRSCHCNDAUM PLEASE REPLY TO: OP COUNSEL •AeMeCP Or New +ORK Orlando AND CONNECTICUT BARS ONLY August 28, 1991 VIA TELE -COPY (407/589-5570) Mr. Robb MCClary City Manager City of Sebastian Post Office Box 780127 Sebastian, Florida 32978 Ret City of Sebastian - Termination of GDU Utility Franchise Dear Robb: I have discussed the enclosed Resolution and the Termination Agreement with Charles Nash, and have made the minor changes he suggested. I have also made changes, none of which are substantive, to clarify certain points. With the changes, I recommend that the Resolution and Termination Agreement he approved by the City Council. Please call me if you have any questions. SIA - GRAY, HARRIS & RO, TAG SDT: kvr Enclosures Cc: Mr. Charles Nash (via Telecopy 407/951-3741) kvr140307.1t1EE8-28.MCCI& yt08/28/91to RESOLUTION NO. R -91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE CITY CLERK TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, TO TERMINATE THAT CERTAIN ASSIGNMENT DATED DECEMBER 12, 1990, WITH INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, A COPY OF THE TERMINATION AGREEMENT BEING ATTACHED TO THIS RESOLUTION AS EXHIBIT "A," WHEREBY THE COUNTY IS RETRANSFERRING TO THE CITY ALL OF THE COUNTY'S RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST RECEIVED UNDER THE ASSIGNMENT IN THE WATER FRANCHISE GRANTED TO GENERAL DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES, INC. BY THE CITY IN ORDINANCE NO. 0-81-8, AND IN THE SEWER FRANCHISE GRANTED TO GENERAL DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES, INC. BY THE CITY IN ORDINANCE NO. 0-81-9; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF RESOLUTIONS OR PARTS OF RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR SEVERA- BILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Whereas, the City of Sebastian, Indian River County, Florida, granted to Indian River County, Florida (the "County"), an exclusive franchise to furnish water and sewer service to the entire area within the incorporated limits of the City, including those areas in which the City had previously granted franchises; Whereas, under the Franchise, the County's franchise territory included those areas in which the City of Sebastian had previously granted franchises should any such prior franchise expire, revert, be forfeited, canceled or otherwise come under the control of the City; Whereas, water and sewer franchises were in existence between the City and General Development Utilities, Inc. ("GDU"), granted by Ordinance No. 0-81-8 and Ordinance No. 0-81-9, respectively (collectively the "GDU Franchises"); 1 Whereas, the GDU Franchises contain provisions granting to the City the right to purchase all of the facilities, together with easements, owned and used by GDU to provide services under the GDU Franchises; and Whereas, by Resolution R-90-55, the City authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to enter into and execute an Assignment whereby the City would assign to the County all of the City's right, title and interest in the GDU Franchises, with the exception of the City's right to receive franchise revenues and to regulate rates, fees, and charges under the GDU Franchises; and Whereas, on December 12, 1990, the City and the County entered into an Assignment whereby the City granted and the County accepted all of the City's right, title and interest granted to GDU under the GDU Franchises, with the exception of the City's right, to receive revenues and to regulate rates, fees, and charges under the GDU Franchises (the "Assignment"). Whereas, the City now desires to regain all rights under the GDU Franchises and the County desires to reassign to the City all of the rights acquired under the Assignment. Whereas, the City Council of the City of Sebastian has reviewed the proposed Termination of Assignment Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, and after engaging in deliberations, has determined that it would be in the best interest of the City and its citizens, and in furtherance of a valid municipal purpose 2 for the City to reacquire from the County are of the City's rights under the GDU Franchises. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Sebastian, Indian River County, Florida, that: SECTION 1. TERMINATION.OF AGREEMENT. Subject to approval by Indian River County and execution by it of the attached Termination Agreement, that certain Assignment Agreement entered into by the Mayor and the City Clerk of the City of Sebastian, Indian River County, Florida, with Indian River County, Florida, on December 12, 1990, is hereby terminated, void, and of no further force and effect. SECTION 2. AUTHORI2AT ON OF AGREEMENT. The Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to enter into with Indian River County, Florida, and execute on behalf of the City a Termination Agreement, whereby the County would reassign all rights acquired under the Assignment to the City. SECTION 3. CONFLICT. Upon execution of the attached Termination Agreement, Resolution R-90-55 shall be deemed repealed as well as any resolutions in conflict herewith. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. In the event a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold or determine that any part of this Resolution is invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of the Resolution shall not be affected and it shall be presumed that the City Council did not intend to enact such invalid or unconstitutional provision. It shall further be assumed that the City Council would have enacted the remainder of this Resolution 3 without such invalid and unconstitutional provision, thereby causing said remainder to remain in full force and effect. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE_ WE. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. The foregoing Resolution was moved for adoption by Councilman The motion was seconded by Councilman and, upon being put into a vote, the vote was as follows: Mayor W.E. Conyers Vice -Mayor Frank Oberbeck Councilman Peter R. Holyk Councilman Lonnie R. Powell Councilman George H. Reid The Mayor thereupon declared this Resolution duly passed and adopted this day of August, 1991. ATTEST: Kathryn M. O'Halloran, CMC AAE City Clerk (SEAL) Approved as to Form and Content: Charles Ian Nash, City Attorney 609/4:129/4R 4 CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA By: W.E. Conyers, Mayor Pal la ow X 3 NO -015 This TERMINATION , is made this day of 1991, by and between THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, a municipal corporation of the State of Florida, whose address is City Hall, Sebastian, Florida 32958 (the "City"), and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, whose address is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 (the "County"). RECITALS 1. The City granted a water franchise to General Development Utilities, Inc. ("GDU") in City Ordinance No. 0-81-8 and granted a sewer franchise to GDU in City Ordinance No. 0-81-9 (collectively the "GDU Franchises") to allow GDU to operate and maintain a water distribution and a sewage collection and disposal system within a portion of the City. 2. On December 12, 1990, the City and County entered into and executed an Assignment (the "Assignment"), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A," whereby the City transferred to the County, and the County accepted, all of the City's right, title and interest in the GDU Franchises, except the right to receive any and all franchise revenues and fees owed under the GDU Franchises, and to regulate rates and charges being charged and collected pursuant to the GDU Franchises. 3. The County now desires to reassign to the City, and the City desires to reacquire, all of the County's right, title and interest in the GDU Franchises. ACCORDINGLY, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and agreements set forth herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: SECTION 1. REASSIGNMENT: TERMINATION. The County hereby transfers to the City all of the County's right, title and 1 interest in the GDU Franchises which was acquired by the County under the Assignment. The Assignment is hereby terminated, void, and of no further force and effect. SECTION $. ACCEPTANCE. The City hereby accepts the reassignment by the County of all of the County's right, title and interest in the GDU Franchises which was acquired by the County under the Assignment. SECTION 3. ATTORNEY'S FEES. In any action brought to enforce the terms and provisions of this agreement, the prevailing party -shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred, including all such attorney's fees and costs incurred at all trial and appellate court proceedings as well as fees incurred in pursuit of settlement of such actions. SECTION 4. BINDING EFFECT. All of the terms and conditions of this agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their successors in interest and assignees hereof. SECTION 5. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties and supersedes all previous discussions, understandings, and agreements between the parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. Attest: Kathryn M. O'Halloran, CMC/AAE, City Clerk (SEAL) CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA BY: W.E. Conyers, Mayor Approved as to form and content: Charles Ian Nash, City Attorney Attest: Clerk ( SEAL ) 609/4:131/38 3 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By Richard N. Bird, Chairman TOTAL P.09