HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987 - PolicyAskAsw A7 C '�F�,z
2, Dopy v. w Glu
THOMAS C. PALMER
ATTORNEY AT LAW
P.O. BOX 145, 1627 U.S. HWY. OP1, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958
305-589-7550
December 22, 1987
TO: Bruce Cooper
Building Official
Re: Mandatory Connections to Water Service. (Private Utility).
I enclose a copy of a judicial opinion in a case style Rodney L.
and Michelle Geirsdorf, et al. -v- City of Port St. Lucie, Florida,
No. 84 -623 -CA -25, St. Lucie County, Florida.
This case makes no distinction between land owners who had
water service and those who did not. The language of this case
suggests very strongly to me that a City may not compel mandatory
hook-ups to water service, period. This applies to persons who
are just constructing their homes and who do not have any well
installed.
Of course, it is most often in a landowner's best interest
to elect to hook up when building a new house. You can advise them
in those cases where water service is "available" so they can make
an intelligent election. It is generally considered that having
water service from a utility improves the value of real property,
especially for resale purposes.
Summary: According to the attached opinion, a City may not compel
any propoerty owner to mandatorily hook-up to water
service unless there is a genuine health problem involved
in a specific case or cases.
This opinion does not address municipally owned systems or
combined water and sewer service systems.
Thomas C. Palmer
encl: as specified.
cc: L. Gene Harris, Mayor
General Development Utilities. Inc.
PORT MALABAR. SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS, JULINGTON CREEK
SILVER SPRINGS SHORES. DIVISIONS
5240 BABCOCK STREET, N.E.. PALM BAY, FLORIDA 32905
December 21, 1987
Tom Palmer, Esquire
City Attorney
City of Sebastian
P.O.Box 127
Sebastian, FL 32958
Dear Mr. Palmer:
(305)723-2077
Re: Rodney L. and Michelle Geirsdorf,
et al, vs. the City of
Port St. Lucie, Case 084-623
As we discussed, per our telephone conversation, last Friday (12/18/87) our
current problem with connection to the central water system in Sebastian is
with the homes being constructed after the water lines are in place.
I have attached a copy of the referenced Port St. Lucie case as you requested.
Please advise as to action to be taken by the City to require connection by
these builders.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES, INC.
Port Malabar, Sebastian Highlands,
Julington Creek, Silver Springs Shores
Buddy Eetschart
Division Director
BB:pjl
Att.
pc: J. Reece
Fi le
A General Development Subsidiary
RODNEY L. AND MICHELLE GEIRSDORF,
et al,
Defendants, Appellants,
Cross -Appellees,
VS.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY,
FLORIDA
CASE NO. 84 -623 -CA -25
THE CITY OF PORT ST. LUCIE, FLORIDA,
Plaintiff, Appellee,
Cross -Appellant.
Is) 01);gU
Appellants are homeowners within the city limits of the
City of Port St. Lucie, Florida. By Ordinance 61-8 (1961), the
City of Port St. Lucie granted to General Development Utilities
the exclusive franchise to construct and operate a public water
system within the city limits. Section 8 of.that Ordinance Pro-
hibits the use of individual water systems where the public
water system is available. All persons owning improved proper-
ty where the public water system is available are required to
connect to the system. The ordinance allows the continued use
of the individual water systems for irrigation purposes only.
Appellants' houses all have individual water systems that
were in operation prior to the public water system being -availa-
ble.' Appellants were advised by Appellee, City of Port St.
Lucie, that water service was available, but Appellants refused
to connect to the system. The Code Enforcement Board of the
City of Port St. Lucie began proceedings against each Appellant
for violation of Section 8 of Ordinance 61-8. Appellants were
found to be in violation of said section and an order of enforce-
ment was entered. Appellants appealed to this Court the orders
of enforcement.
Appellants have raised two points on appeal:
(1) That the Code Enforcement Board of the City
of Port St. Lucie does not have jurisdiction over the
subject matter (Section 8, Ordinance 61-8) and conse-
• 4)j
quently cannot compel connection to the public water
system, and
(2) That Section 8 of Ordinance 61-8 is invalid..
The Court finds that both points raised by Appellants are
meritorious. At the time of Elie Code Enforcement Board's act-ione
in this case its jurisdiction was set out in Florida Statute
§162.02 (1982):
"...enforcing the technical codes in force
in counties and municipalities, including
but not limited to, occupational license,
fire, building, zoning and sign codes."
Section 8 of Ordinance 61-8 is not a portion of any tech-
nical code of the City of Port St. Lucie and does not come
within the jurisdiction of the Code Enforcement Board. It is
fundamental law that if.the jurisdiction of the Code Enforce-
ment Board is improperly involved Elie proceedings held subse-
quently cannot stand.
The Court also finds that the City of Port St. Lucie had
no authority to enact Section 8 of Ordinance 61-8. The City
does not contend, nor has there been any proof, that Appellants'
private water systems constitute any kind of health hazard.
The exercise of police power by a municipality must be
reasonable and have a clear relationship to the health, welfare,
or safety of the city's residents. A landowner will not be
required to sacrifice his rights without a showing that there
is a substantial need for the restriction in the interest of the
public health, safety or welfare.
The Court finds that Section 8 of Ordinance 61-8, rather
than being a valid exercise of the City's police power, is
instead a heavy-handed, unreasonable effort to promote the eco -
noetic welfare of General Development Utilities.
"There is no case law in Florida which directly deals
with this issue, however, in City of Midway v. Midway Nursing
and Convalescent Center, Inc., 195 S.E. 2d 452 (Ga. 1973) the
Georgia Supreme Court confronted the issue of whether a city
had the authority to compel the use of its water system. The
Court examined the argument of the City of Midway that its or-
dinance was to promote and protect the health of its citizens
and rejected it.
The same reasoning used in Midway applies here. There
is no showing that the individual water systems of Appellants
are inadequate or unsafe. In fact, the City of Port St. Lucie
admitted in each hearing that Appellant's water could be assumed
to be potable.
This Court holds that the Code Enforcement Board lacked
jurisdiction to compel Appellants' connection to the General
Development Utilities water supply. however, even if it had,
the Court further holds that Section 8 of ordinance 61-8 of the
City of Port St. Lucie is invalid.
This opinion assumes that the property owners will have
to pay for the cost of connecting their property to the water
supply system of General Development Utilities. It is possible
that as long as a check valve system is used and there is no
charge to the property owner such a connection might"be justi-
fied on the basis of a potential future emergency. However,
one must always remember the argument about aluminum and fluo-
ride in public water systems causing alzheimer's disease and
kidney stones respectively. Some of our fellow citizens might
prefer other sources of water.
Lastly, it should be pointed out that when one of the
property owners brought the clerk and the file to this court
he "ad libed" that lie had heavy fines levied against his pro-
perty thus preventing him from selling his home. At the oral
argument of the case the counsel for the Defendants said this
was incorrect.
In the future each elected public official and each
public employee should remember Section 21 of Article 1 of the
Florida Constitution which states:
"Access to Courts:
The Courts shall be open to every person for
redress of any injury, and justice shall be
administered without sale, denial or delay."
Section 17 recites:
"Excessive punishments - excessive fines, cruel
or unusual punishment- are forbidden."
For the last- forty years the writer has wondered if pre-
venting citizens from getting into the Courts by heavy handed
fines would cause each elected official and each public employee
to be liable under Title 41 Section 1983 of the Civil RiGhts
Act?
This Federal law states:
Every person who, under'color of any statute,
ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of
any State or Territory, subjects, or causes
to be subjected, any citizen of the United
States or other person within the jurisdic-
tion thereof to the deprivation of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Con-
stitution and laws, shall be liable to the
party injured in an action at law, suit in
equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
Perhaps fines should be levied only after a Court finds
the Defendant responsible? Is an ounce of prevention worth
a pound of cure?
The decisions of the Code Enforcement Board of the City
of Port St. Lucie in each of Appellants' cases are reversed.
DONE AND ORDERED in Saint Lucie County, Fort Pierce,
Florida this (3 �% ! day of JV 61;:y' ut., L , 1906.
7:50783
:4 PI q
r1 N�
v
ERNON N. SIDAWAY, III
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Riverhouse Professional Building
Suite 102, 200 S. Indian River Dr.
Fort Pierce, FL 33450
May 22, 1986
David B. Douglass
Court Administrator
Room' 401
St. Lucie County Courthouse
Fort Pierce, Florida 33450
Re: Rodney L. and Michelle Geirsdorf, et al,..
vs. The City of Port St. Lucie, Florida
Case No.: 84 -623 -CA -25 co
Dear Mr. Douglass:
(305) 465.3236
(Home E 011lce)
On March 13, 1986, Judge Nourse signed an Order in the above -
styled cause reversing the decisions of the PSL Code Enforcement
Board. On March 28, 1986 Roger Orr on behalf of the Appellee, City
of Port St. Lucie, filed a Motion for Rehearing. This was apparently
never ruled on by Judge Nourse before he left the bench May 1st.
As I understand Rule 9,330 of the Florida Rules of Appellate
Procedure this motion is simply to be ruled on by the judge without
the necessity of a hearing. In reviewing Mr. Orr's motion I find
nothing in it that was not raised in the briefs or at oral argument.
One of my clients is attempting to sell his home and the deci-
sion of the Code Enforcement Board is showing as a lien on the pro-
perty. He is supposed to close by May 30th.
I would appreciate it if this motion could be ruled on by a
circuit judge and an order entered prior to May 30th. I have en-
closed proposed order.
Very truly your ,
Ernon N. Sidaway, IIff—
ENS:ara
Enclosure
NON N. SIDAWAY. III
ITiORNEY AT LAW
tX 2W(1 j )SZr, DI }OX
1IXXXV,M&"W iK
I Flo,cn. Florltln 31/50
130SI 1053235
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IDI AND FOR ST. LUCIE, COUNTY,
FLORIDA
�-�--�a3cn-as
RODNEY L. AND MICHELLE GIERSDORF, et al.,
Defendants, Appellants,
VS.
CITY OF PORT ST. LUCIE, FLORIDA,
Plaintiff, Appellee.
STIPULATION
COME NOW Appellants, RODNEY L. and MICHELLE,
GIERSDORF, WALTER REINHARDT, GERALD and BEVERLY M. BRUNNELLE,
FREDERICK BUSSARD, EMANUEL CASELLA, DOUGLAS M. and MARILYN C.
RINEAR, ANDREW F. and KATHERINE SALVO, FRANK SAUNDERS, and
ALFRED G. and CHRISTINE STANCO, by and through their under-
signed attorney and Appellee, City of Port St. Lucie_, Florida,
by and through their undersigned attorney, and stipulate to
a stay the final orders rendered August 14, 1984, and
attached hereto, pending review and final determination by
this Court. 11 _
1U. "
200 South Indian Rive r.
Suite 102
Fort Pierce, F1. 33450
ORDER
21ty Attorney
Port St. Lucie, F1. 334
THIS CAUSE coming before the Court upon Stipulation of
the parties hereto, it is therefore,
ORDERED that the final orders rendered by the Code
Enforcement Board, City of Port St. Lucie, Florida, on August
14, 1984, and attached hereto, are stayed pending review and
final;deterinination by this Court.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort- Pierce, Florida, this
day of mer, 1984.
f� �l
CIRCUIT JUDGE
COLE ETIFORLrErr BOARD
C11Y OF PORT Sr. UXU_
SLUE OF FLORITA
CASE No, CED 84-93 0MT1I OF Sr. IIJCLE
3E: vICdATICN OF PORT sT, L11CIE CITY COLE sEcricti ordinance 61-8, Section 0
liclatLcn Address: 1911 Carvalho Street, Port St. Lucie, Florida 33452
lien Against: Lot 6,'Block 586, Section PL 13
ha Cada Enforcement Board has heard tesc=aT at the Cade Enforce mt: Viclarim Hear,
:aLd the
n Fnrra..�nr �rorg Au umo �STiiDii`I 1-9 e�'t1CT�.based cu: the evidEnr-, the Code
CCNCWSICrIs OF LAW, ACID ORI:Z;R_.
FUMMGS 'OF.. Ft=
That Alfred G. and Christine Stanco, 1911 Carvalho Street, Port St. Lucie,
Florida, are in violation of Ordinance 61-8, Section 8, requiring that all
persons owning improved property fronting on a street wherein water dis-
tribution service is available shall connect the improvements upon such
premises in the manner as provided by the ordinance. The defendant has
a dwelling house on his lot fronting water distribution service which
is available and has failed and refused to pay the necessary connection
charges for the connection to said service.
CCNCIII5IC 1S QF UJI
The Code Enforcement Board has jurisdiction in the applicability of the
aforementioned code violation, the alleged violator committed the viola-
tion and an order of enforcement is warranted. If the order of enforce-
ment is not complied with by October 8, 1984, a fine of $25.00 per day
shall be imposed.
. QiII�IZ
is tba.OrdOX.of this BOard.that ALFRED G. AND CHRISTINE STANCO
fly with SQCtical . 8, Ordinance - shall
Pett' -St. Lucia,. or or Cit?
ctober 8 1984 •D G. AND CHRISTINE
earn not caip y wi tsxne specL-- s pay a t-Jne
or
ar day n
the violaticu c[r-irn,eg to east.
Alfred G. and Christine Stanco does nor camly within the
Office a� aha . Clarfc 'Y or. �s Omar snalL Ee recorded in. the public records of
uti tat¢ a ltan of the Circuit CC= in and. for St_ LLlcia, ani mce recorded shat
_ against. the does
nocY Wcrl-wbi-ch t5a. vioTaticri exists, if coaled by the
br tha viol==. lator does noc c" the l-md, upo¢ aaY real. = perscnal prcpertl
'¢ �lYing, Alfred G. and Christine Stanco
Pfirprnt Kellvl'.tne tar wt� sha]lnotLE7City Clerk's
l _ � tna properc and no¢rj- oa=a
uld a. disD=a.rn
arise. c
ora theme re li
ccx. ana, either' Darty may request a. further hear
E AM OR0�*=1A±jj_daY Of August 19 94
EST:
!'-3 6
11�7J ?!;!7iIJ 759380-
:-,:
IN Tim CIRWIT Cowl CP .111E
NINMEMI JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN Atat rm 8r. ImiE m NIY .: )
FLCRIDA
•'•` CASE ID. 86-96 CA •17 •���
DOLMAS M. MCCAM.
rrr ` 11RS Ciii CI I'OR Sr IJICIE ' . r'„ .�
1k ., , n t 1;1 .;ter ...t ! Y• , , ( r � l; ,, � . .�,'1� ! 't
IN
•'qi� f .�.. ..Ili
J•; �tl f{i ��,•!�
ba,rleg reTleeed the file to this .mailer eed•llndlq m ..:., ,
,,ytdsf it) M /ln.l erdv er nen fleet eaddr of a lover tribunal or
a^a` to reeiw. most the subjeet matter baviq been pntrleeely herd on
`�11 S '. (g. t. � '..♦ Ip .. .. 1 w 1 '� 7 F.iF .• 1 . r t - . a. ! 1'.af�
rr� !A`srlbeerabto Wrper! J 8m1lha Clrwlt JedNa 1l to
{ 1 r., ,..[;^t a Vl j'Jafl•IS - •. f '�1.
♦a'1,�^(•11!I rrra ' ' t. math ,r (
}t'j 'I "y{''''S11•r:
that lhU•eppekl to dla.d seed. wt tbwt p1r+J1ra1N.
3f .i' , of • Jeettelabh.t ren. j "!: • a A:,. tty N
i'
a5.. " DRi •.mal 08[lO20) et Cbwehobee. rlerlda this 28th dq e! Alprll. , 1�
I
1986. . �1• r i `.,a )'' ` 1 r t r t' 1% i ! Ire' i1. f y Mfr - i" ' 1 F
1 '
.. .1' W ..n. .
1 All
Omit Jedp 1 „
a'. Coal.• lumia6.d tel
s 2t18 c11T e! Pbrt lit. Leele J ` l,' ,�':
,. ;: ; •' a
1
{ � 1 I -.i - I t' It b I•
f �'II ) , I I I ,•' �r) �/��tl 1 malts
1r
'1
i -t1} t r d3 Vn'V sj,.-1a%p� .(lii'f'.ilp
pp(5(t'tp}y,'A e /
.,J''IAif' It ��.w: L>' ` .., 5•;.l:.aCll 5 d
I
i
AMC OF CAPITALIZED ASSETS
FRANCHISE SYSTEM W TER AND SEWER UPILITYI
SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA ,
As of February 22,-1909 ,
"nitary Cystem
Sanitary Sewar Lines !183,293
Wall Pointing and Lift Stations 149 29
Bawer System
Sewer Plant
Water Treatment Plant
Water Line Distribution
Wells
Electrical Systam
Lift Stations, Sewer and
Water Plants
EnSineerina and Permitting
Sewer Plant
Water Plant
Sanitary Sewers and Lift Stations
Park Ponds
Caoltslirad Construction Period Intareat
Nine month construction period
at U.5% interest
TOTAL CAPITALIZED A3Sk3
ALLOWANCE FOR DEPRECIATION
TONAL CAPITALIZED ASSETS, NET
See Accompanying Acpountants' Attestation'Report
94,610
73,990
164,101
13,245
11,035
13,434
15,000
28.000
5390,590
348,146
12,000
67,469
76,768
034,973
QEORQE R. Sxwxia,Jn.,P.L. GrtiA'nlPudG�,fndugfdryl'
•
N= TU_ STATrM tfr OF CAPITALIZED 603M0
FRANCHISE SYSTEM WA'T'ER AND SEWER UrILPPY11':
SEBASTIAN FLORIDA
As of. Fe ruary'22��909
1 ,
Note I
The assets of ttie utility are reported at cost, including capital$sed construction
interest costs, and are being depreciated over a 30 year life, using the straiSht-
line method of depreciation. The report allowance of $55,665repreaonto 2 yeers
depreciation,
0
Gaoeoe fl. Sxwrtta,.Jn.,Ec%• G+tigidPudfio.��at+,.„tan(
a
Y(
e
JUI'I V1 00 1.J01J. 11HIL DUACO C14 UVOJ �rUJ „
' HSif A.AA
Tarn1b
gigolo,
A, a 48094
'arnlhl$LOA r .
U'L'InAddreee: P.O. Box 88
IrarmIrAtm LU 48359
n 680HQ33 R. §HA.MIZi JR., R Cl' Certified Heb/,o J000unraar
48401 W9$T XIQHT MIL{ MOAO) LIVONIA,MICHIOAN 4ele• AREA CCPK I21G) 47A•91000
MAILING APORKAN
1'.. 0. BON as
FARMINGTON, MICHIGAN 440&4
NELSON HYATP
D/E/A VILLAGES OF LAKE DOLORES CPAaK P ncc�
Igo$
STATENRN'r OF REVENUES AND EXPENSES
REVENUES
Nov, 55@ ,930.
Dec. 58@ 930.
$1,650,
1,740. 0 3,390,
EXPENSES
Paid to Florida Power 6 Light 29561,
Office Expanse 136. 2,691.
NET REVENUE 0 693.
George R. Shnmie, lr:
Certified Public Accountant
Parcel ID # '/26/gnta..ea_oo...,ty.3)vk
Park Place Water Plant Site DOCUMENTARY STAMPS
DEED 8•%o
! NOTE S
S ' sv C 0 U N T Y D E E D JEFFREY K. BARTON, CLERK
' 0 J INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
This Deed made this 16da .m pRl L Z r �
Y of _f"I , 1993, by U m m
7J T m m
and betweenZ '.Ta n
p
a -m 0
.o
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA political
a m n F G
subdivision of the State of Florida, 1840 25th MISM, m
Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960, COUNTY,➢ p
S.Ci. M Ti
and �n 0, p
O
the CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, a municipal i A z
corporation existing under the laws of the State of
Florida, the address of which is Post Office Box
127, Sebastian, FL 32978, CITY,
W I T N E S S E T H i
That COUNTY, for and in consideration of the sum of $10.00 and
other good and valuable consideration to it in hand paid by CITY,
receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged has granted, bargained, and
sold to CITY, its heirs and assigns forever, the following
described land lying and being in Indian River County, Florida:
EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
This deed is subject to whatever rights Nelson Hyatt may have
in the property by virtue of a warranty deed, dated January
18, 1990, recorded in 0. R. Book 859, Page 1327, of the Public
Records of Indian River County, Florida.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the COUNTY has caused these presents to be
executed in its name by its Board of County Commissioners, acting
by the Chairman of said Board, the day and year aforesaid.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Atl:est By
R Richard N. Bird, Chairman
.,..: Approved by BCC 4/6/93
JeffreyK'.''Ba ton, Clerk p�
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
The Pregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 1993, by Richard N. Bird and Jeffrey
K. Barton, aFY Chairman and Clerk of the Board of county
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, a political
subdivision of the State of Florida, on behalf of the said County.
They are personally known to me and did not take an oath.
RETURN TO
FRES€, NASH & TORPY, P.A.
030 S. HARf3pR CITY BLVD.
�I WFE 505
MELBOURNE, FL 32901
Notary` PtiLlic
printed name: P/IxRIc14 0,E96-0 64'"
Commission R PATRICIA DAr:1?1,:.L'3
Notary Public, 8t^t:
My comm. expires AuveM 28, 19M
No. AA 695578
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
BY TERRENCE P. O'BRIEN
ASST. COUNTY ATTORNEY
�O
W
W
W
en
V
O
O
�D
-J
t�
c�
b
4-
Cn
O
07i2Oi93 12:24 2 407 951 3741 FRESE.NASH et al ia 02
�m
Lq-K E OB LoQES W i¢•TE,2 f- W�W >ALA � :'S
~• RECORD VERIFIED
3EFrnF.y v. : r^'i , 0 VThis Instrument vas
s Prepared byr
CLGRK GIPG'.:IT CDUI91'
v"s •' IrinlArt nlvs, DOCUMENTARY STAMPS If rS
rM law OIIIw N
JEFFREY K. BARTON. CLERK FRE13 T. GALLAGHER
F.0, a.. 1•DO
warranty Deed INDIAN RIVER COUNTY vaeo u/tetr, rsaueA 32961.1903(STATUTORY FORM—SECTION 6119.01 F.S.)
0410 IILblp"f rr.
Made this
18th
day of
January,
1990 . �rtwrrn
NELSON HYATT,
a/k/a NELSON
C.
HYATT,
of the County of
Indian
River
, Stan of
Florida
gnome,', and
INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, a
political subdivision of the State
of Florida,
whole port office address 1. 1840
25th
Street, Vero
Beach, Florida
37.960,
el the County of
Indian
River
, Slole of
Florida
, otantce•.
1011n►earth, That sold granter, for and in tensideralion of the turn of
____________________________Ten and no/100_____--__________-__-_-__
--------------------------- Dollar f.
and other good and valuable considerations to said granter in hood paid by said grantee, the receipt whe,..l is hereby
ocknawledgod, has granted, bargained and sold to she said granite, and grantee', heir and assiaos larva. the /ellowlnq
described fend, slluole, lying and being In County. Florida, to -wit,
Those two parcels of land as particularly described
in Exhibit A attached hereto.
Subject to easements, restrictions and reservations of record and taxes
and assessments subsequent to December 31, 1989.
This Deed is being given by Grantor to Grantee pursuant to that certain
Agreement by and between the parties hereto dated July 11, 1989, pertain-
ing to the County takeover of the utility system, and is further being
given upon the specific condition contained in Paragraph 4 entitled
"Right of First Refusal wherein the Grantee obligated itself to recon-
vey said property described in Exhibit A hereto at such time as said
property is no longer being used by Grantee in its utility operation
or at the and of ten (10) years from the date of said Agreement, which-
ever first occurs. I£ after the expiration of said ten-year period.
the Grantee still requires the use of said property. Grantee shall,
at that time, pay to Grantor the fair market value for said property.
and said grantor deet hereby fully warrant the 60. fe sold land, and will defend th. some a9omst she lawful rinima M all
persons whomsoever.
e "Granter' and "gra751ee" are used to, ing.l., or plural, as <onnat roaubes.
.311 W)SRIP158 irhrrrnr. Grantor hes hereunto sof groRysdwhond orrd scar the day and year first abase —roan.
Signe eoled and dellvered in our pfe/encel
f'n1� (Seal)
NelSo C.'Flyat
— .-- 150.11
To ts—'11
I^•� rr_
\'iIUn3C
STATE OF FLORIDALt•-1f1�t tA1101ney
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER CuunY
I HFREeY CERTIFY that on this day bolero me, on officer duly a.Dtill.d to (oke ocknowtedq,nents, personally opp..,od
NELSON HYATT, a/k/a NELSON C. HYATT,
to me known to be the parson described In and he caecut0d the foregoing inrl.vmnnr and eco newl<dgod be/ere me that
he eeocuted the tome.
WITNESS my hand and official soot in the County and SI asl,ale,eseid this 18th day of January,
19 90
My commladen espbes, a Nelery public
NOTARY PU7LIC. STATC OF rt.ORIDA.
rl♦ COIA..Ile5luN cxr111ES1 Dec. Ir. t9aa. -
r.....:."..,....,. C:G'_' -Y A77--Z.:-'."S
IN S1:- 1
Vero Duch, Florida 327co
Cr
C<
UC
CT
C...
Y 4I9IIIX3
VOIU0IJ 'A1Nf100
k13AM NVIONI NI JNIA1 (INV S3UOV 616'£ `JNINIV1N00
'`JN1NN1038 d0 114I0d 31-11 Ol 1333 £117'669
30 30NVISIO V 31411 3UOV -Ob OIVS 3141 9NOIV M „££ ,St, -O N
Nnu N3H1
'3N11 3UOV - OV 03NOI1143W
- 3UQJV 31-11 Ol 133.4 LO'06£ 30 3ONVISIO V M „LZ ,t7l .68 S
NIIU N3 H1
'OVOki
031VO1030N11 NV 30 IN3W3AVd -10 U31N3O 3H1 WOUJ 1333
ZI 3 „ZI ,00.92 N `JNIAI 1NI0d V 01 133-1 L£'699 JO
3714V1SIO V 3„21,00.9Z S 'AVM--1O-1H`Jlkl 1S3M 31-11 `JNO1V
Nf1U N3/)i
'(3OIM 133.4 001) AVMIIVk! 1SVOO 1SV3 V01k101-1 3H1 d0
3NIl 1S31M 31-11 OL 1334 06'801 JO 3ONV1S10 V 3 „Lt,.60.68 S
Nn Il N3141
JN INN1039
d0 1NIOd 31-11 01 1333 66'112 JO 3ONV1S10 V L3VUI 383V
-04 01VS3tJOJV 3H1 JO 3NII 1SV3 31-11 'JNO1V 3 .££ ,Sb .0 S
Nna ONV
1SV3 6£ 30NVU 4H1f10S 1£ dlHSNM01 'OZ NOIl33S
JO t,/I 3S 3H1 JO 4/I MN 31-11 JO U3NUOO 3N 31-11 1V 30N3WWO3
N01ldI80S30-lV03-1
anis Sllv7d ua1,vm 3XSVM
VOIaO-IJ 'A1Nno3
U3AIU N VIONI NI DNIA-1 'S3k1OV Lt,'O SNIVINOO
'`JNINN 1938
JO 1NIOd 31-11 Ol 133-1 8E'81t7l M„10 ,6Z .00 N
NIIU N31-11 '1NIOd V 01 1333 0£1 1S3M
NnH 1431-11 '1NlOd V Ol 1333 691 3 „10,62.00 S
NnH N3H1 1NIOd V 01
.1334 ASI£1 JO 3ONV1S10 OUV NV '„SS,SZ.LO -1O 315NV
'IVU1N37 V 11'Jf10UF41 ' 3Aun:) OIVS 31-11 ONO -1V 1111S
NnN N31-11 'ONINN1038 JO
1N10.1 V Ol 133.4 01,V6 30 33NVISIQ OUV NV '„6S ,6I .SO
30 3"1JNV -IVUIN37 V F10f10?ltll '3AUnD 31-11 ONOIV
NnU N31-11 ' H1UON 31-11 01 3AVON00 3Auno
S(l1OVU 1003-£I'V101 V JO 'JNINNI938 31-11 ONV 13381S
10.LSlilO JO 3141I 1SV3 31-11 Ol 1333 OO SZ 1SV3
NnU N3H1 '1NIOd V 01 133-1 00 -SZ 133U1S 101SIUS
JO 3NIlU31N3O 31-11 ONO -IV 3 „10,62.00 S '1Vld OIVS
3111 Ol ONIO8033V 'Nnkl (INV 'VC11MOIJ 'A1Nno:) N3AIU
NVIONI JO SQUO03U of -land 31)1 JO 9t7 39Vd '8 MOOS LVld
NI 03OU003H 'LI 11Nf1 SQNVIH`JIH NV11SV63S 30 IV -Id
7111 NO NMOHS SV '133HIS 1O1S1U8 QNV 3nN3AV NOliVU1S
30 N01103SH31NI 31AIl8311930 3H1 1V 3ON3WWOO
NOI1dIHO 30 '1V93-1
awls anlvga aa.svy
£0 [a Ip Ra HSVN'3S38d TIL£ TS6 L0I $ SZ:ZT £6i0Z/LO
- ,-
November 30, 1993
CITY OF SEBASTIAN WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEM
PROJECTED UTILITY CONNECTION COSTS BASED ON NOVEMBER, 1993 RATE STUDY
1. PROJECTED COSTS OF CONNECTING TO AN EXISTING WATER SERVICE
LINE AND/OR EXISTING SEWER LATERAL ALREADY INSTALLED FROM
THE MAIN TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
Water Meter Installation Charge 5/8" x 3/4" meter $ 130.00
Water Deposit (Refundable after 2 years)* $ 50.00
Water Impact Fee *(see below) $1,100.00
Water Inspection Fee $ 25.00
TOTAL WATER CHARGES $1,305.00
Sewer Deposit (Refundable after 2 years)* $ 60.00
Sewer Impact Fee *(see below) $1,650.00
Sewer Inspection Fee $ 25.00
TOTAL SEWER CHARGES $1,735.00
TOTAL $3,040.00
2. PROJECTED COSTS OF CONNECTING TO AN EXISTING WATER AND/OR
SEWER MAIN FOR A STANDARD RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER WHERE NO
SERVICE LINE OR LATERAL HAS BEEN INSTALLED FROM THE MAIN TO
THE PROPERTY LINE.
Water Meter Installation Charge 5/8" x 3/4" meter $ 130.00
Water Deposit (Refundable after 2 years)* $ 50.00
Water Impact Fee *(see below) $1,100.00
Water Service Connection $ 400.00
Water Inspection Fee $ 25.00
TOTAL WATER CHARGES $1,705.00
Sewer Deposit (Refundable after 2 years)* $ 60.00
Sewer Impact Fee *(see below) $1,650.00
Sewer Service Connection $ 500.00
Sewer Inspection Fee $ 25.00
TOTAL SEWER CHARGES $2,235.00
TOTAL $3,940.00
Note: Plumber's fees are not included for running a water or sewer service from the house to the
service line or lateral at the property line. The plumber's fees are to be paid on an individual basis
by each homeowner and will vary depending upon actual field conditions for each site. Refer to
the attached sheet for various plumbing costs.
3. PROJECTED COSTS WHERE NO WATER MAIN OR SEWER MAIN IS
PRESENT
Where no sewer or water mains are available, the cost of installation will be determined
based on the contract amount of the job as prorated over the area of development, in addition to
the charges shown above for Item 1.
* The City may elect to spread the cost of impact fees over the course of 10 years to the existing
lot owner.
* Deposits will be refunded, without interest, only if the customer has had a good credit history
(no delinquent bills) over the course of two consecutive years.
CITY OF SEBASTIAN UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
Plumbing Costs to be paid by Residential Homeowners to Connect to
the City Water and Sewer System
1. Installation costs of 30 linear feet of 3/4" SCH 40 PVC pipe
from the water meter to the existing house plumbing range from
$60.00 to $140.00.
2. Installation costs of 30 linear feet of 4" SCH 40 PVC sewer
pipe from the property line to the septic tank range from
$180.00 to $240.00. (cleanouts are not included).
3. Abandonment costs of a 950 gallon septic tank range from
$200.00 to $300.00.
4. Lawn Restoration costs range between $50.00 and $100.00.
Please note that the costs are based on a typical 30 linear foot
run for the water and sewer service and abandonment costs are based
on a current minimum size 950 gallon septic tank. Costs will vary
depending upon actual field conditions for each site. Each
individual customer must choose their own plumber and request an
estimate to do the work.
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 ❑ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 ❑ FAX (407) 589-5570
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: April 20, 1993
TO Robb McClary, City Manager
FROM: Richard B. Votapka, Utilities Director
RE Park Place Surcharge on Water Bills
There are currently 164 customers on the Park Place Water System as
shown on the Indian River County billing statement. By virtue of
the Interlocal Utilities Agreement between Indian River County and
the City of Sebastian, all customers pay a monthly $10 surcharge on
their water/sewer bill. This charge amounts to $1,640 per month or
$19,680 per year which is payable to Mr. Nelson Hyatt, the owner of
Park Place.
The County Take -Over Agreement consummated with Nelson Hyatt was
dated July 11, 1989. Article 7 of the agreement state that "The
surcharge shall be collected by the County for ten (10) years only
or until $777,000 has been paid, whichever comes first, and funds
so collected shall be remitted quarterly to seller.... the surcharge
shall be $le per ERU." "The closing shall take place on or before
August 1, 1989." To the best of his knowledge, Harry Asher,
Assistant, Indian River County Utilities Director said the County
started billing the customers on September 1, 1989. The last bill
to include the surcharge would therefore be September 1, 1999.
Based on this information, there would be six (6) years and four
(4) months (76 months) of surcharge billing remaining from May 1,
1993 to September 1, 1999. Total surcharges at the present
customer base for the next 76 months would be $124,640.
Page 2
Memorandum to
Robb McClary
April 20, 1993
Jeanette Dale, secretary for Nelson Hyatt, gave me the following
information regarding customer connections on a yearly basis:
YEAR NO. OF CONNECTIONS
1986
12
1987
20
1988
25
1989
27
1990
34
1991
20
1992
14
1993
9 -
TOTAL
161
Clubhouse
1
Total 162
(from Jan. to April)
There is a discrepancy of two connections between the County's
records and those of Park Place. Regardless, the number of
connections on a yearly basis from 1991 to the present seems to be
on the decline. I would imagine that the decline is certainly
reflected by the overall economy. Assuming that growth will
increase over the next six years, possibly an estimated growth
would increase by 4 mobile homes each year above the preceding
year. Therefore, a projected number of connections would be as
follows:
Per Year
Total
Surcharge Per Year
Based
on Avg. Connections
1993
18
182
173 x
S120/year-$
20,760
1994
22
204
193 x
$120/year-
23,160
1995
26
230
217 x
S120/year-
26,040
1996
30
260
245 x
5120/year-
29,400
1997
34
294
277 x
5120/year-
33,240
1998
38
332
313 x
$120/year-
37,560
1999
42
374
353 x
$120/year-
42,360
TOTAL
SURCHARGE $212,520
Over
76 months
tiYP-tCAL SARK Pl hGE- 31LL 4I i't�93
Z-0f,A 1,�, Co. UTL�Z�ES Pte.
Aecou✓Z w
62033-62700
2116 E LAKEVIEW DR O� Vsncc
1292 1295 3 WA
rlwNws wtecvr SW
Rewowo- Rcwu"ih CS
ST
PARK PLACE SURCHARGE
TOTAL DUE
a.rr _ e.Yci.e
50-12
16.45 CW67M)
24.04 C5ave2)
2.43 cCITt oc ss-ZAS-nA61 P ZJ Cc tsr P*X,
1.65 C Pvsv%C u-nLr `( 7Ax. — c-r-zv oC S64A4'now)
10.00
54.57 62033-62700
L h ccc. u o.
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: July 7, 1993
FROM: Nancy Veidt, Clerical Asst.
TO: Richard Votapka, Utilities Director
SUBJECT: Policy regarding Monthly Bill after Shut Off of Water
Below is the information on various water companies in the area
regarding their billing policy
Florida Cities Water - Barefoot Bay - Charge a Base Facility Charge
of $13.28 per month (includes both water and sewer). This is
charged to the owner of the property.
City of Vero Beach - There is no charge to shut off service and no
monthly charge while the service is off.
City of Melbourne - There is no monthly charge once service has
been turned off.
Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority - there is no monthly charge when
the service has been turned off.
City of Cocoa - There is no monthly charge when the service has
been turned off.
City of West Melbourne - There is no monthly charge when the
service has been turned off. They do have a vacation plan
wherein they charge $10.00 to turn off the meter and $10.00 to
turn the service back on when the customer returns. There is
no monthly charge while the service is off.
General Development Utilities - Bill a Base Facility Charge each
month to a homeowner who has requested permanent shut off.
Indian River County - Charges a billing and Base Facility Charge
for water and sewer service after the service has been turned
off.
Martin County Utilities (Stuart) - There is no monthly charge when
service has been turned off.
Page Two of Two
July 7, 1993 Memo re: billing
City of Titusville - There is no monthly charge when service has
been turned off.
Orlando Utilities - There is no monthly charge when the service
has been shut off.
Okeechobee Utilities - Charge an "Availability Charge" when the
service has turned off. In the City of Okeechobee it is $3.10
per month for water and $8.95 per month for sewer. In the
County it is $3.88 per month for water and $11.91 per month
for sewer. They also charge a $10.00 disconnect and a $10.00
reconnect fee in the City of Okeechobee, in the county it is
$12.50.
Regular City Council Meeting
July 28, 1993
Page Thirteen
MOTION by Damp/forum
I move that Resolution No. R-93-32 be adopted by
the City Council.
The Utilities Director addressed City Council
concerns.
ROLL CALL: Mrs. Corum - aye
Mrs. Damp - aye
Mr. Freeland - aye
Mayor Powell - absent
Mr. Oberbeck - aye
MOTION CARRIED 4-0 (Powell - absent)
93.233 D. Review Utilities Policies Re: Water/Sewer Shut -
Off (Utilities Director Transmittal dated
7/20/93. Utilities Director Memo dated 7/20/93)
The Utilities Director gave a brief presentation on
shut-off policy alternatives and City Council
discussion followed.
TAPE II - SIDE II (9:35 p.m.)
Discussion continued on the financial feasibility of
alternative shut-off policies. The Utilities
Director recommended a vacation rate and final shut-
off when residents discontinue service. Discussion
of uses of franchise fees followed. It was the
consensus of City Council to direct staff to come
back with a policy incorporating a means by which to
discontinue billing when service is terminated.
16. INTRODUCTION OF NEW EUSINESS BY THE PUBLIC (Which is Not
Otherwise on the Agenda - By Resolution No. R-93-19
Limit of Ten Minutes for Each Speaker)
George Reid, 202 DelMonte Road, Sebastian, discussed
the utility shut-off policy and promises made by
candidates relative to banning adult entertainment
bars. Vice Mayor Oberbeck said adult entertainment
issues are being addressed by the Police Department.
17. Being no further business, Vice Mayor Oberbeck
adjourned the regular meeting at 10:05 p.m.
13
H E H 0 R A N D U H
DATE: July 20, 1993
FROM: Richard Votapka, Utilities Director 'Ed ✓
TO: Mayor Powell and the City Council Through City Manager,
Robb McClary
SUBJECT: City of Sebastian Billing Policy in Regard to Shut Off of
Water/Sewer Service
The current policy of the Indian River County Utilities Department
concerning shut off of service is as follows:
1. INVOLUNTARY SHUT OFF FOR A DELINQUENT ACCOUNT
If a utility bill remains unpaid after the due date shown on
the bill (20 days following the billing date), a "delinquent
notice" is sent to the customer on the 10th day following the
due date. If the bill still remains unpaid by the date shown
on the delinquent notice, the Utilities Department will turn
off the service at the meter for the delinquent account and
lock the valve. The customer will continue to receive minimum
monthly bills which will include a billing charge, base
facility charge, taxes, and a penalty. Once charges have
accrued past or equal to $350.00, a lien is placed on the
customer's property.
2. VOLUNTARY SHUT OFF FOR A TEMPORARY PERIOD
If a customer voluntarily requests shut off of service for a
temporary period, as many people do who return to the northern
states for the summer, the County will shut off the valve at
the meter and lock it. The County continues to bill the
customer the minimum bill each month which includes the
billing charge, base facility charge, and taxes. For
residents in Palm Lake Club, the minimum monthly bill is
calculated as follows:
Page 2 of 4 pages
July 20, 1993 memo to Robb McClary
a. Billing Charge (water) $2.00
b. Base Facility Charge (water) 9.20
C. Billing Charge (sewer) 2.00
d. Base Facility Charge (sewer) 13.50
e. Payment in Lieu of Franchise Fee (6%) 1.60
f. Utility Tax (4%) 1.07
Minimum Monthly Bill $29.37
For residents in Park Place, the minimum monthly bill is
calculated as follows:
a.
Billing Charge (water)
$2.00
b.
Base Facility Charge (water)
9.20
C.
Billing Charge (sewer)
2.00
d.
Base Facility Charge (sewer)
13.50
e.
Payment in Lieu of Franchise Fee
(6%) 1.60
f.
Utility Tax (4%)
1.07
g.
Surcharge
10.00
Minimum Monthly Bill
$39.37
Once the resident returns, the County restores service at the
customer's request by removing the lock on the valve and
turning the valve on at the meter. The fee for turning off
and restoring service is $18.00. It is charged once the
customer returns and makes formal request for restoration of
service.
3. VOLUNTARY PERMANENT SHUT OFF
If a customer notifies the County that he/she will be moving
to a new address and requests permanent shut off of service,
Indian River County Utilities Department will shut off the
valve at the meter and lock it. However, the County will
continue billing the customer until such time as the service
is transferred to a new owner. In some cases, the customer
has not sold his or her home or it is involved in an estate
proceeding which could take several years before a transfer to
new ownership is made. Meanwhile, the customer or customer's
estate is accruing hundreds of dollars of utility bills for
non-use of the water/sewer service.
Just recently a situation has arisen whereby a customer
thought she had finalized her account with Indian River County on
Page 3 of 4 pages
July 20, 1993 memo to Robb McClary
May 1, 1993 when she moved from Palm Lake Club to Lantana, Florida.
The County transferred her account to the City. The City has been
billing her a minimum monthly bill. The customer has called to
inform the City that she was only renting the residence; she was
not the owner. However, the application for service was in her
name. Unfortunately, the customer's name will not be changed until
such time as the landlord changes the service to his name. Then he
will start receiving the monthly minimum bill.
Currently, there are 25 customers who are known to be seasonal
residents and 4 customers who have moved since the City assumed
operations of the Park Place and Palm Lake Club water and sewer
systems. The City presently has a total of 195 customers on the
Park Place system.
I have had my secretary, Nancy Veidt, conduct a telephone
survey of 12 water and sewer utilities from Titusville to Stuart to
learn what their policies were in regard to voluntary shut off.
Out of the 12 water and sewer utilities, only Florida Cities Water
in Barefoot Bay, General Development Utilities, Okeechobee
Utilities, and Indian River County charge for billing and a base
facility charge once the service has been turned off at the request
of the customer. The other utilities do not charge the customer
after the service is shut off. Copies of the telephone survey
results are attached.
We also checked with Florida Power and Light Company, Southern
Bell, and Falcon Cable as to their policies. All of them do not
charge a monthly bill once their service to the customer is
disconnected. However, all three do provide options for
"temporary" shut off for seasonal residents. The customers can pay
their minimum monthly bill in the case of Falcon Cable or a reduced
bill for Florida Power and Light and Southern Bell. Florida Power
& Light bills a $6.00 minimum monthly charge. Southern Bell bills
at 1/2 its normal rate effective for a minimum of one month and a
maximum of 9 months. In all cases, the three utilities charge a
reconnect fee when the customer returns.
I, as Utility Director, am notifying City Council that the
City has inherited the standard operating policies of Indian River
County. I have received complaints from several Park Place and
Palm Lake Club residents once they are informed of the policy for
seasonal and permanent shut off.
Page 4 of 4 pages
July 20, 1993 memo to Robb McClary
I am asking Council to confirm its acceptance of these
policies or revise these policies for the City of Sebastian. The
Council could choose to reduce seasonal shut off rates by half as
Southern Bell does, not charge for any water or sewer service, or
continue with the present policy. In regard to voluntary permanent
shut off rates, Council could choose to eliminate charges once
service is requested to be shut off by the customer, continue with
the present policy, or require a reduced monthly charge until a
transfer of the customer account is made.
Council can revise the involuntary policy also if it wishes.
However, I am more concerned with the voluntary shut off policies
at this time and hope to resolve the policy issue on this matter
before our next round of billings which will occur in the second
week of August.
CITY OF SEBASTIAN
UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
DATE: January 7, 1994 TIME: 9:23 a.m.
[ ] CONFERENCE WITH
[x ] TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH Joe Reggis of ERA Realty (388-0779)
SUBJECT: Mandatory Connection of New Home to Existing Water Main
RESUME OF CONVERSATION: Joe called to ask if a person building a
new home on Barber Street, where a water main had been installed in
the right-of-way, had to connect to the main. I told Joe that our
Utilities Ordinance required connection, but an opinion by a former
City Attorney stated that the City did not have to enforce a new
resident to connect to a private system. Now that the City owns
the GDU system, I told him that I would have to have an opinion
from Charles Nash, City Attorney. Unfortunately, he was out of
town this week.
I spoke with Interim City Manager, Kay O'Halloran, about this on
Friday afternoon. She directed me to have Attorney Nash render an
opinion. I called Joe back in the afternoon. He said that in the
interim his office had learned that an FHA (Federal Housing
Authority) loan requires a new home to connect where an existing
water main is available.
ORIGINATED BY:
COPY TO:
memo/@eg9ie
�Ii11'71iir D/KC7--
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 a SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330
FAX 407-589-5570
January 10, 1994
Charles I. Nash, Esquire
Frese, Nash & Torpy, P.A.
930 S Harbor City Blvd., Suite SOS
Melbourne, FL 32901
RE: Mandatory Connections to City Water/Sewer System
Dear Charlie: _
As per Interim City Manager Kay O'Halloran's directive, I have
been authorized to request that you issue a legal opinion as the
City Attorney in reference to mandatory connections to the City's
water system. Prior to the City's acquisition of the General
Development Utilities Sebastian Highlands Water and Wastewater
systems on December 17, 1993, the City maintained the policy that
a new residential or commercial structure constructed along GDU's
water system was not mandated to connect.
Former City Attorney Thomas Palmer issued his opinion on
December 22, 1987 based on a Circuit Court decision in a case known
as Rodnev L. and Michelle Geirsdorf et al vs. Cit of Port St.
Lucie. Florida (copy of opinion attached). Attorney Palmer opined
that the City of Sebastian, as a municipality, was not compelled to
enforce property owners to connect to a private utility system.
Now that the City has acquired the former private utility of GDU,
it is totally under public ownership. Therefore, my questions to
you are as follows:
1. Under Sections 102-32 and Sections 102-33 of Article II "Water
and Sewer Connections" in the Utility section of the Code of
Ordinances, does the City now have the authority to require
mandatory water connections for all new structures constructed
along the City water system? It is my understanding that the
City does possess the authority by State statute to require
new structures to connect to the sewer system.
2. Does the City have the authority to mandate existing
residences, commercial, institutional, industrial, etc.
structures to connect to the City water/sewer system if the
City notifies the owner that the service is available?
Page 2 of 2
January 10, 1994 Letter to Charles Nash, Esquire
3. What is your legal interpretation of the word "available" in
Sections 102-32 and 102-33 in the Code of Ordinances? Is
there some definition in a State statute that exists?
4. Can the City require the owners of new structures to pay an
impact fee at the time or prior to receipt of the certificate
of occupancy if water and/or sewer is not available but will
be available sometime in the future?
I would appreciate receiving your legal opinion as soon as
possible now that you have returned to the office to face new
challenges for 1994.
Sincerely,
Richard B. Votapka, P.E.
Utilities Director
RBV/nsv
CC: Kay O'Halloran, Interim City Manager
Marilyn Swichkow, Finance Director
THOMAS C. PALMER
ATTORNEY AT LAW
P.O. BOX 145, 1627 U.S. HWY. 11, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958
305-589.7550
December 22, 1987
TO: Bruce Cooper
Building Official
Re: Mandatory Connections to Water Service. (Private Utility).
I enclose a copy of a judicial opinion in a case style Rodne
and Michelle Geirsdorf, et a1. -v- City of Port St. Lucie, F
No. 84 -623 -CA -25, St. Lucie County, Florida.
This case makes no distinction between land owners who had
water service and those who did not. The language of this case
suggests very strongly to me that a City may not compel mandatory
hook-ups to water service, period. This applies to persons who
are just constructing their homes and who do not have any well
installed.
Of course, it is most often in a landowner's best interest
to elect to hook up when building a new house. You can advise them
in those cases where water service is "available" so they can make
an intelligent election. It is generally considered that having
water service from a utility improves the value of real property,
especially for resale purposes.
Summary: According to the attached opinion, a City may not compel
any propoerty owner to mandatorily hook-uo to water
service unless there is a genuine health problem involved
Ln a specific case or cases.
This opinion does not address municipally owned systems or
combined water and sewer ser*rice systems.
Tomas ?almer
enc-': as specified.
Cc: L. Gene Harris, Mayor
j -=T7
ES $ 102.34
burden upon the applicant. Au requests ror waiver shall be ;made with the submittal of the
initial application.
(e) This section shall apply to all applications tiled on or az er September 1992.
(Ord. No. 0-92.16, $ 7, 9-23-92)
Secs. 102-11-102.30. Reserved.
ARTICLE M WATER AND SEWER CONVECTIONS
Sea 102-31. Individual sewage disposal systems prohibited.
The use of individual sewage disposal systems and(or septic tanks, grease traps and dry
wells by any person in the area where central sewage collection ser -rice. is available is hereby
prohibited.
(Code 1980, $ 27.40)
Cross references—Buildings and building regulations, ch. 26; sanitary facilities re-
quired, $ 26-37; septic tanks as minimum requirements for sewage disposal, permits, location,
150-1.
Sec. 102.32. rudMdual water systems prohibited.
The use of individual water systems, other than fpr irrigation purposes, by any person is
the area where water distribution service is available is hereby Prohibited.
(Code 1980,§ 2741)
Cross reference—Buildings and building regulations, cIL 26.
Sec. 102.33. Connection required_
The owner of impraved real property wherein either sewer collection service or water -
distnbutioa service, or bout servires, becomes available, shall cause the connections of such
available services to the in_. avements om the premises within 30 days of receipt of notif4catma
that the utility- has inafa liar+ the necessary- meters_ The city council may extend this 30 -day
period for good cause upon written request by the owner.
(Code 1980, 9 27-421
Sec. 102.34. -Notice; time for compliance: meter installation_
(a) lack entity Providing either sewer collection services or water distribution service, or
both services, tp real grope cif within ;.he city, shall, aotiry both the city and the owner of _ _al
?racer -y when such ser vics has become available, s •x r ting, -hat the utility service a avail-
able ror use by :he : es- _ parcel of -esi proper. �y. Tae written notice shall notify .he owners
of the :•eat grope -n-7 chat the utility service s available and snail list the appiicable connec on
cess and csarVs. -)LD iicadon lar service and payment of the connection csarges musc be made
:a the atilitr 'ry the owner aac lacer :!:an d0 days iron_ 7he dace ar receipt or the aodce of
availabilic, of se: -vice -
31100.: To- : r2. .
City of Sebastian
1225 Main Street ❑ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 ❑ FAX (407) 589-5570
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: November 23, 1993
TO: Richard Votapka
Utilities Director
FROM: Bruce Cooper
Director of Community Developme
REFERENCE: Sewer and Water Hookups
Please be advised that the City of Sebastian is currently not
requiring any new development to hook up to a water system such as
General Development Utilities,,if it is available. This decision
was based on Attorney Tom Palmer for the City of Sebastian
regarding a case in West Palm.
Since the City of Sebastian will be taking over General Development
Utilities here in the immediate future, please advise if the City
of Sebastian Building Department should do anything different from
its present practice.
Below are some questions that should be reviewed:
1. Although Section 102.32 of the Code of Ordinances requires the
use of individual water systems, other than for irrigation
purposes, by any person in the area where water distribution
services are available is hereby prohibited, the City has not
enforced that section based on Attorney Tom Palmers decision
in 1987.
2. Currently, if sewer is available based on H.R.S. requirements,
then a septic system would not be permitted. "What is the
definition of available'17 What if the sewer line was 300 or
500 feet away from a lot? Would that be available?
3. I think the City would need to define what is available also
for water service area.
At this time, the Building Department will continue its current
practice until otherwise notified by your department.
a< �
Thank you.
I
Co y O1 _VIo/94 H -r to C. Nosh +0 ()nice Cocpel-
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 25, 1994
TO: Richard Votapka, Utilities Director
FROM: Nancy Veidt, Clerical Assistant
SUBJECT: Automatic Billing of Accounts when Tenants Turn Off
On customer accounts where tenants request a shut off and there is
no request received to turn the utilities on in a new customers
name, I am under the understanding that these accounts should
revert back to the owner. The owner should be billed for the base
facility charges even though the actual service is turned off.
When the account is set up for the owner, should an $18.00
administrative charge be billed? My assumption is that we would
collect the $18.00 when the service was actually reinstated by a
new customer, but I am not sure of the policy. Also, should we
bill the owners for security deposits? These people have never
applied for service with the utilities department, therefore we do
not have a security deposit or service agreement with them.
MEMORAADUM
DATE: February 28, 1994
TO: Policy File
FROM:
Richard
Votapka,
Utilities Director
%lt$✓
SUBJECT:
Charges
for meter
re -reads
City of Vero Beach - No charge for meter rereads
Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority - No charge for meter rereads
City of Okeechobee - Charge $20.00 for standard scheduling
By appointment the charge is $30.00
There is no charge for discrepancies of
10,000 gallons or more
Orlando Utilities Commission - One free re -read per year.
Additional re -reads are $25.00.
Florida Cities Water (Barefoot Bay) - No charge for meter re-
reads
City of Cocoa - No charge for meter rereads
West Melbourne - No charge for meter rereads
Palm Bay Utilities - No charge for meter rereads
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 a SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 ❑ FAX (407) 589-5570
V P1 J R -A A -D 'U P!
DATE: April 6, 1994
TO: Policy File
FROM: Richard B. Votapka, Utilities Director /-S✓
SUBJECT: Policy Suggestions for Mandatory Connections For Existing
Homes
Ron Briskie suggested two policy ideas in regard to mandatory
connections to the water and sewer system as follows:
1. If an existing house, which has its own well and septic tank,
is sold, then the new owner must connect to the City's water
and sewer system, providing that water and sewer are
available.
2. If a building permit application is made for modifications or
additions to an existing house that has its own well and
septic tank, than the owner must connect to the City's water
and sewer system providing that water and sewer are available.
City of Sebastian
1225 MAIN STREET o SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 o FAX (407) 589-5570
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 10, 1994
TO: Marilyn Swichkow, Finance Director
Richard Votapka, Utilities Director
FROM: Joel L. Koford, City Managegf/,
SUBJECT: Change in Policy - Utility Charges
Effective immediately, the following change in policy is in effect.
Based upon a recent State of Florida Supreme Court decision, the City of Sebastian cannot
charge and collect fees for water or sewer service unless the service is actually performed.
Also if a resident desires to discontinue water service and the permitting agencies of the
State will issue the appropriate permit, we cannot refuse the request. Once the service is
disconnected we cannot charge for water service, or any form of administrative costs
(ie base facility charge).
Based upon the foregoing, 'you must be prepared to refund, (if the customer requests a
refund) for the period we have charged and collected fees when a water service was not
provided. We do not have to refund any monies for the period the system was owned by
GDU.
The Supreme Court found that there is no basis for a mandatory water service under current
law except for reasons of health and safety, and to require a customer to pay for the
availability for service circumvents the Florida State Constitution provisions addressing
taxation. In other words, the Court held that there was not statutory or constitutional
authority to require property owners to pay a fee on the basis that municipal service is
available, and the current law does not provide a basis for a municipality to assume this
authority. It was termed "a creative effort", but not acceptable.
/Jmt
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 ❑ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 ❑ FAX (407) 589-5570
MEMORAADUM
DATE: November 9, 1994
TO: Policy, Billing, and Law - Water Files
FROM: Richard B. Votapka, Utilities Director
SUBJECT: Florida State Supreme Court Decision Affecting Mandatory
Water Connections
City Manager Joel Koford informed me today that a recent Florida
Supreme Court decision ruled that a municipality and other local
government (county) cannot mandate customers to connect to the
public water system even if it is available.
Mr. Koford said that existing customers can disconnect from the
City's water system, if they wish to do so. If existing customers
disconnect, the City can no longer charge them for a base facility
charge. Once a citizen disconnects from the City supply, the City
must stop billing at the address it has on record.
For those customers now paying a base facility charge, although
they are not connected, are entitled to be refunded any charges
that were incurred.
Only when the customer asks for a rebate back is when the money
shall be paid to the customer.
I shall inform Bruce Cooper, Community Development Director, that
his office shall no longer have the Building Department employees
tell any prospective home builders that water is necessary.
November 10, 1994 Update - At the 9:00 a.m. Staff Meeting, Mr.
Koford said that he is currently conferring with the City Attorney
to see what other ramifications may result with regard to the
Utilities'Department based on the recent Supreme Court ruling. He
will be sending a memo soon to both the Utilities and Finance
Departments.
275 Zane Ave.
Sebastian, F1
September 14,
Mr. Joel Koford
City Manager
Sebastian, Fl. 32958
Dear Mr. Koford:
32958
1994
SE41994 �.,,,
Recel Wed
City OH ce
At the present time I am no longer a customer of the City of
Sebastian water department, although I am paying a monthly
service charge because the water line runs in front of -my house.
The water line to my house has been disconnected although the
meter {which I paid for} still is in place. I have installed a
well and pump to provide water to my house. This was approved
and permitted by the Indian River County Health Department.
Because of a letter written by former City Attorney Thomas
Palmer, I question whether or not I should be paying this monthly
fee. In this letter he specifically stated that the City could
not aid GDU in forcing people to hook up to a private water
system. He did not address what the city could do if they owned
the water system. Councilman Overbeck has stated publically that
he knows of no Florida law that allows a city to force a private
party to hook up to a municipal water system.
I have neighbors who have City water in front of their house and
have never hooked up or paid any fees for the water being there.
If I still should be paying a monthly fee, I think this opinion
should be backed by competent legal opinion. This was referred
to former city attorney Nash, but he did not chose to render an
opinion.
I have of ftered to pay the City of Sebastian one quarter in
advance but I refuse to pay a billing charge of $2.25 per month
when I will not be billed and I have been refused. I personally
think this billing charge is a deliberate way to antagonize
people. I am sure other utilities figure this charge in on their
bills, but they do not itemize it on the actual bill. I am
willing to pay 11.25 pluas 1.13 Utility tax in advance quarterly
until I hear whether or not I legally have to pay. If it is
ascertained that I do not have to pay, I would expect full refund
of all my utility payments made to the city of Sebastian.
May I hear from you.
Sin era y,
Ed Mique on
Lookup IDIOlp
03/06/95 CUSTOMER BALANCE PCS/NSV/TTY3
Account: 0000066377-00 EDWARD J MIQUELON Selection: CS
%Y, cG,,
www r�.-�-.1-•-d i -v Eo: 1'll c�w� e•,� �-�, 12� 19`15
1 k 1's L. k S d" 11 fJavr Vv.,rr.� Ia-I / h-
a o-Karl-t&z lo- t 5- C'hj he w�.-5�� 30c 1 K04. -A ,
7Z
L
L
0
J
V)
C�
V)
LL
0
7Z
LL
0
LL
IL
ram
goo
7Z