Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07241991 City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 o SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 s FAX (407) 589-5570 MINUTES SEBASTIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 1991 - 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA ALL PROPOSED ORDINANCES AND INFORMATION ON ITEMS BELOW MAY BE INSPECTED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, CITY HALL, 1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA. Mayor Conyers called the meetinG to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Invocation was Given by Henk Toussaint, St. Sebastian Catholic Church. 4. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor W.E. Conyers Councilman Peter Holyk Vice Mayor Frank Oberbeck Councilman George Reid Absent: Councilman Lonnie Powell (excused) Also Present: City Manager, Robert McClary Attorney Patrick Anderson City Engineer/PW Director, Dan Eckis Chief of Police, Earle Petty Golf Course Manager, Jim DeLarme City Clerk, Kathryn O'Halloran Deputy City Clerk, Sally Maio Regular City Council Meeting July 24, 1991 Page Two 5. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS (ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS) None. PROCLAMATIONS AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS 91.186 A. 91.187 91.188 91.085 91.089 Proclamation L "National Night Out 1991" - 8/6/91 Mayor Conyers read the proclamation and presented it to Julio, Pauline and Terry Carosi, active members of Neighborhood Watch and Police Department Community Service volunteers. Proclamation - National Orqanization o__qn Disabilities L "Calling On America" Campaign - 7/26/91 Mayor Conyers read the proclamation and stated he would transmit it to the appropriate parties. 7. PUBLIC HEARING, FINAL ACTION None. 8. PUBLIC INPUT ON AGENDA ITEMS Ron Harsh requested and was authorized to address .item 91.191 during its discussion. 9. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes - 7/10/91 Regular Meeting, 7/17/91 Workshop w/P & Z Sebastian Panther Youth Sports Association - Request for Community Center - Fund Raising Spaghetti Dinner - 7/27/91 - 3 p.m. to 10 p.m. - Waive or Reduce Security Deposit to S100 and Waive Rental Fee (Staff Recommendation dated 7/17/91, Panthers Letter dated 6/24/91, Application) Teens Against Boredom Use of Old Library Building (City Manager Recommendation dated 7/16/91) Direct City Attorney to Draft Ordinance to Amend Land Development Code Section 20A-10.2.B.1 Re: Appearance of Buildings (Staff Recommendation dated 7/18/91, P & Z Minutes 3/7/91) 2 Regular City Council Meeting July 24, 1991 Page Three Mayor Conyers read the consent agenda in its entirety. Councilman Reid removed item D. MOTION by Holyk/Oberbeck I move we approve items A, B and C of the consent agenda. At the request of the City Clerk, it was clarified that approval of item B would reduce the security deposit to $100. ROLL CALL: Mayor Conyers Councilman Holyk Vice Mayor Oberbeck Councilman Reid aye aye aye aye MOTION CARRIED 4-0. Item D Councilman Reid expressed concern for the length of time needed to draft and adopt an ordinance to amend the Land Development Code and whether the city could possibly declare a moratorium on building design until such time. The City Manager said Council can adopt an emergency ordinance to be in effect for a limited time while the permanent ordinance is being drafted. Discussion followed. J.W. Thompson, 125 Main Street, Sebastian, member of Planning and Zoning Commission, said the commission will address the Marker 68 Marina restaurant at its next meeting. (August 1, 1991) The City Manager said an emergency ordinance can be adopted at a special meeting prior to the August 7, 1991 workshop. Council concurred. 3 Regular City Council Meeting July 24, 1991 Page Four MOTION by Reid/Holyk I move we direct the City Attorney to draft an emergency ordinance to amend the Land Development Code as was discussed and to be presented at the special meeting of August 7, 1991. ROLL CALL: Councilman Holyk Vice Mayor Oberbeck Councilman Reid Mayor Conyers MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 10. PRESENTATIONS aye aye aye aye 11. 12. 90.290 None. COMMITTEE REPORTS~RECOMMENDATIONS None. OLD BUSINESS GDC Chapter 11 Bankruptcy (City Manaqer Recommendation dated 7/15/91, GDC Letter dated 7/10/91, Draft Letter dated 7/24/91 to GDC w/ Attachments) The City Manager reported on his negotiations with General Development Corporation and requested authorization to sign and transmit the July 24, 1991 letter to them. (Letter attached) MOTION by Oberbeck/Reid I move that we go ahead and authorize the City Manager to forward the settlement offer to General Development Corporation. ROLL CALL: Vice Mayor Oberbeck Councilman Reid Mayor Conyers Councilman Holyk aye aye aye aye MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 4 Regular City Council Meeting July 24, 1991 Page Five 91.190 91.191 13. NEW BUSINESS A. City Clerk Request for Waiver of Bid Procedure for Purchase of NCR Novelle Network Software to U_~rade System - $6500 (Staff Recommendation dated 7/17/91, City Clerk Memos dated 6/27/91 and 6/17/91, NCR [Mouring] Letters dated-6~/14/91 and 5/28/91) The City Clerk presented her request and the City Manager stated there were capital improvement funds available if approved. MOTION by Oberbeck/Reid I move we approve the request of the City Clerk with regard to the network software. The City Clerk responded to various City Council members' concerns. Mayor Conyers recognized Edra Young, Pauline Carosi, Dan Katman and Dan Robinson. ROLL CALL: Councilman Reid Mayor Conyers Councilman Holyk Vice Mayor Oberbeck aye aye nay aye MOTION CARRIED 3-1 (Holyk - nay) Golf Course Alarm System Upgrade - $25.00 Month~ Maintenance Increase - Approve Five Year Contract with National Guardian - $4_~_800 (Staff Recommendation dated 7/16/91, GC Manager Memo dated 7/9/91, National Guardian Proposal,- Sebastian Alarm Proposal) Ron Harsh, 550 Bay Harbor Terrace, Sebastian Alarm, gave a revised proposal and recommended that Council purchase two systems rather than lease one alarm system for the Golf Course. Council discussion took place relative to lease vs. purchase and the need for a system which identifies people utilizing it. 5 Regular City Council Meeting July 24, 1991 Page Six 91.192 91.045 MOTION by Holyk/Reid I move not to approve a five year extension with the upgrade as is stated in item B of our agenda. ROLL CALL: Councilman Reid Mayor Conyers Councilman Holyk Vice Mayor Oberbeck MOTION CARRIED 4-0. aye aye aye aye Mayor Conyers called recess at 8:23 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:33 p.m. Ail members were present. 14. MAYOR'S MATTERS Mayor Conyers announced the Sebastian Panthers Youth Sports Association fundraising spaghetti dinner on July 27, 1991 at the Community Center and expressed dismay at Robert Brodie trying to recruit teens at the Teen Center to picket City Hall. A. CR 512 Signs (No Backup) Mayor Conyers inquired whether City Council, as a body, should formally request placement of signs on CR 512 by the County as requested previously by Councilman Reid. Discussion followed, however, no further action was taken. Following a brief discussion, the City Manager encouraged Council to retain the policy whereby each Councilman can express an opinion in a letter on city stationary, however, a disclaimer be included that states it does not express the opinion of the city. B. CR 512 Twin Pairs (No Backup) Mayor Conyers reported on the Indian River County Transportation Planning Committee meeting minutes of July 10, 1991 which he had distributed to Council for review and endorsed the CR 512 twin pairs. He said the County has requested Council's intent in regard to the twin pairs. A lengthy discussion followed. 6 Regular City Council Meeting July 24, 1991 Page Seven Vice Mayor Oberbeck withdrew from the Indian River County Transportation Planning Committee. Mayor Conyers said he'd be glad to volunteer unless another Council member would like to. MOTION by Oberbeck/Holyk I move that this Council take a position of "NO" as far as the twin pairs within the City of Sebastian in particular 512. Councilman Holyk reported on his investigation of records relative to CR 512 alternative studies and prior City Council action on the twin pairs. He said a conclusive study should be conducted and that the City should make absolutely clear to the County that Resolution No. R-88-77 does not support the twin pairs and that the city has reservations about the Keith & Schnars study. In response to Councilman Holyk, the City Attorney said R-88-77 can be amended. ROLL CALL: Mayor Conyers Councilman Holyk Vice Mayor Oberbeck Councilman Reid MOTION CARRIED 3-1 (Conyers - nay). nay aye aye aye Mayor Conyers said the motion needs to be transmitted to the County and inquired what action Council wants to take on the bridge concept. MOTION by Holyk/Oberbeck I move that any further discussion of the railroad bridge, who is going to fund it, what it is going to look like, what it's going to cost is going to wait until we resolve exactly what that roadway's going to look like since we've just said no to a twin pairs. ROLL CALL: Councilman Holyk aye Vice Mayor Oberbeck aye Councilman Reid aye Mayor Conyers aye MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 7 Regular City Council Meeting July 24, 1991 Page Eight 91.193 15. COUNCIL MATTERS A. Councilman Reid Councilman Reid recommended, with Council concurrence, that the City Manager be directed to lay the groundwork for water and sewer in regard to personnel and space requirements well ahead of time to alleviate any "emergency" situations; requested that discussion of stormwater drainage problems be placed on the next workshop and asked for backup from staff relative to establishing a taxing district (this item will be on the August workshop at the request of Vice Mayor Oberbeck from a previous meeting); requested discussion of home occupational licenses at the workshop; inquired when the City Council would address garage sale regulation; and recommended that Council look into public parks being used for sales of merchandise other than handmade goods. B. Councilman Powell Absent. C. Councilman Hol~k Councilman Holyk requested that the resolution regulating adjournment of meetings be placed on the workshop agenda for possible amendment to allow each member to speak at each meeting; commended the senior league team members for their achievement; and requested that discussion of Resolution NO. R-88-77 be placed on the workshop agenda for possible amendment. D. Vice Mayor Oberbeck RESOLUTION NO. R-91-25 - Designating First Sunday in July as POW-MIA Day (R-91-25) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, DESIGNATING THE FIRST SUNDAY IN JULY OF EACH YEAR AS POW-MIA DAY. Vice Mayor Oberbeck requested that the resolution be adopted so that he may forward copies to various veterans groups and proceeded to read the title. Regular City Council Meeting July 24, 1991 Page Nine MOTION by Holyk/Oberbeck I move we adopt Resolution No. R-91-25. ROLL CALL: Vice Mayor Oberbeck Councilman Reid Mayor Conyers Councilman Holyk MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 16. CITY ATTORNEY MATTERS aye aye aye aye 17. 18. None. CITY MANAGER MATTERS The City Manager scheduled, with the concurrence of Council, an executive caucus on Tuesday, July 30, 1991 at 9:00 a.m. (Prior to issuance of these minutes, the caucus has been rescheduled to Thursday, August 1, 1991 at 9:00 a.m.) iNTRODUCTION OF BUSINESS BY THE PUBLIC (Which is Not Otherwise on the Agenda - By Resolution No. R-89-30 Limit of Ten Minutes for Each Speaker) None. Councilman Reid officially commended the City Planner for the excellent 3ob she has done thus far. 19. Mayor Conyers adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. Approved at the , 1991 Council Meeting. W.E. Conyers, Mayor Kathryn M. O'Halloran, City Clerk 9 City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 ~n SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-,5330 ri FAX (407) 589-5570 A G E N D A SEBASTIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 1991 - 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA ALL PROPOSED ORDINANCES AND INFORMATION ON ITEMS BELOW MAY BE iNSPECTED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, CITY HALL, 1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. INVOCATION - Henk Toussaint - St. Sebastian Catholic Church 91.186 91.187 4. ROLL CALL 5. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS (ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS) 6. PROCLAMATIONS AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Proclamation - "National Night Out 1991" - 8/6/91 B. Proclamation - National Organization on Disabilities - "Calling On America" Campaign - 7/26/91 7. PUBLIC HEARING, FINAL ACTION - None 8. PUBLIC INPUT ON AGENDA ITEMS ~/91. 188 91.085 ,/9~1. 089 ~0. 290 · ~1. 190 ,/~91. 191 91.192 91.045 10. 11. 12. 9. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes - 7/10/91 Regular Meeting, 7/17/91 Workshop w/P & Z Sebastian Panther Youth Sports Association - Request for Community Center - Fund Raising Spaghetti Dinner - 7/27/91 - 3 p.m. to 10 p.m. - Waive or Reduce Security Deposit to $100 and Waive Rental Fee (Staff Recommendation dated 7/17/91, Panthers Letter dated 6/24/91, Application) Teens Against Boredom Use of Old Library Building (City Manager Recommendation dated 7/16/91) Direct City Attorney to Draft Ordinance to Amend Land Development Code Section 20A-10.2.B.1 Re: Appearance of Buildings (Staff Recommendation dated 7/18/91, P & Z Minutes 3/7/91) PRESENTATIONS - None COMMITTEE REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS OLD BUSINESS GDC Chapter 11 Bankruptcy (City Manager Recommendation dated 7/15/91, GDC Letter dated 7/10/91, Draft Letter dated 7/24/91 to GDC w/ Attachments) 13. NEW BUSINESS 14. Ac City Clerk Request for Waiver of Bid Procedure for Purchase of NCR Novelle Network Software to Upgrade System - 86500 (Staff Recommendation dated 7/17/91, City Clerk Memos dated 6/27/91 and 6/17/91, NCR [Mouring] Letters dated 6/14/91 and 5/28/91) Golf Course Alarm System Upgrade - $25.00 Monthly Maintenance Increase - Approve Five Year Contract with National Guardian - $4,800 (Staff Recommendation dated 7/16/91, GC Manager Memo dated 7/9/91, National Guardian Proposal, Sebastian Alarm Proposal) MAYOR'S MATTERS A. CR 512 Signs (No Backup) B. CR 512 Twin Pairs (No Backup) 2 gl.lg3 15. COUNCIL MATTERS A. Councilman Reid B. Councilman Powell C. Councilman Holyk D. Vice Mayor Oberbeck 1. RESOLUTION NO. R-91-25 - Designating First Sunday in July as POW-MIA Day (R-91-25) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, DESIGNATING THE FIRST SUNDAY IN JULY OF EACH YEAR AS POW-MIA DAY. 16. CITY ATTORNEY MATTERS 17. CITY MANAGER MATTERS 18. INTRODUCTION OF BUSINESS BY THE PUBLIC (Which is Not Otherwise on the Agenda - By Resolution No. R-89-30 Limit of Ten Minutes for Each Speaker) 19. ADJOURN ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING (OR HEARING) WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE HEARD. (286.0105 F.S.) 3 City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 ri SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 r~ FAX (407) 589-5570 SUBJECT: Sebastian Panthers Youth Sports Association - Use of Community Center Fundraiser Spaghetti Dinner APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL BY: City Manager: ) Agenda No. ) ) Dept. Origin ) ) Date Submitted ) ) For Agenda Of ) ) Exhibits: Cit~y Clerk~ 7/17/91 7/24/91 Panthers Letter 6/24/91 Application EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: AMOUNT BUDGETED: APPROPRIATION REQUIRED: SUMMARY STATEMENT The Sebastian Panthers Youth Sports Association has applied for use of the Community Center for a fundraising spaghetti dinner on Saturday, July 27, 1991 from 3:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and is requesting that the rental fee and supplementary $25 fee for use of the kitchen facility be waived and that the $250 security deposit be waived or reduced to $100. City Council, on January 23, 1991 and March 13, 1991, approved rental fee waivers and reduced the security deposit to S100 for Sebastian Panther Youth dances. RECOMMENDED ACTION Review the request and take appropriate action. Sebastian Panther Youth Sports Association P. O. Box 781624 Sebastian, Florida 32978-1624 City Cour~ci. lmen Attn. : Lincia 1225 Main Street Sebastian, F! 32958 Dear Councilmen:: i am writing to you on Os~ha].f c:.f t. he Sebast~.ar': Pan'~'.her Youth Dermission t:,o use ~.he Community Cen':~,r for a fund raising on Sa'turday Jutiy 27, 199i 1:rom 3:00 F'M to 10:00 I unders'~.anci that ~here i~ a $250.0C) dec. Jos:{ r'.~L~i, red when reserving the Cen{er. As you are aware, a].l of c)ur funds to support th J.~:. youch pro, ram are ob'~ainmd 'f r.:~m fund raisin~ activiCies~ donations, sponsorships and votun{eers. Under tr~ese circumstances, we would hope that the City of Seba~{ian woulci work with us on the large deposi{ of $250.00. i'f i{ is not possible to waive the deposi.{, would a 0eposit <~: $100.C)0 be accep~ab].e? In addztion, we are also requesting permission {o use the kitchen facilities. . p ~. 6.: ~, ..>... c a ','. ] our F'Ltr]d Raising Co-Ord j..nator, J 2.: 1 Frost. ,.. ~.: 1 car~ be reached during the day at. 3SE::.-3:];5S and Xn t. he e'-,/en;i, ngs st. 3SE:-2;392. I appreciate any h:::;,i p y(::)u ,:::ar"~ ge.. v ':: ~--:''~; ~ .............. ¢-,, . ,.:~ .. ,]. ~>'t.r C..E.Y 6.'. 5; .n Ka reF': }:;::~ r- ::) w r': --- B .'.::) o r ': 6-~ S e c r e 1':. a, ....... ,. CITY OF SEBASTIAN RENTAL PERMIT APPLICATION COMMUNITY CENTER ,~ YACHT CLUB Number of Person, constituting group or organization: Requested Date Time Day: From Please answer YES or NO: 1) Are kitchen facilities required? 2) Are you a resident of Sebastian? 3) Will decorations be put up? 4) Will there be an admission or door charge? 5) Will alcoholic beverages be served? ~ (a) If answer to #5 is yes - permittee's proof of age ~ (b) If alcohol is to be served, permission is required by the City Council. Your request will be presented to Council on f Amount of Rental 7% Tax: Security Deposit: $ Total Rental: Name of Permittee: Address of Permittee: Telephone No.: ~'5~q~ Date of Application ~~--~t. Make checks payable to: CITY OF SEBASTIAN APPROVED/DISAPPROVED City Clerk TO BE FILLED IN BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Security Deposit paid on by Check (date) in the amount of or Cash Rental Fee paid on .by Check # initial (date) in the amount of or Cash initial Alcoholic Beverage Request heard at the Council Meeting on (date). Request APPROVED/DENIED. Fee Waiver Request heard at the Council Meeting on (date). Request APPROVED/DENIED. Key Pickup Date Key Return Date Security Deposit returned by City Check # amount of on Amount kept for damages (if applicable). \ws-form\rentapp in the (date). City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 [] FAX (407) 589-5570 SUBJECT= Teens Against BoredOm Approved For Submittal City Manager Dept. of Origin=City Manager Date Submitted: ~ For Agenda Of: ~ Exhibits: None EXPENDITURE REQUIRED= AMOUNT BUDGETED= APPROPRIATION REQUIRED= SUMMARY STATEMENT On January 23, 1991 the City Council granted conditional use to Teens Against Boredom (TAB) to use a City building located at the intersection of US #1 and Main Street. This building most recently housed a County Library. The Police Department reports no concerns or objections to an extension of time for (TAB) to occupy this building. Additionally, the City is in negotiations with General Development Corporation ("GDC") and expects to acquire additional properties as a result of these negotiations. Once the negotiations are completed, the City may have additional options to evaluate in providing a facility for area teen-agers. However, negotiations are not complete and it may be several months before they are finalized. Therefore, it would be appropriate to extend the use of this building to (TAB). RECOMMENDED ACTION Move to approve an extension of six months for Teens Against Boredom to occupy the City owned building at US #1 and Main Street known as the old library building, subject to vacation upon notice by the City. City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 [] FAX (407) 589-5570 SUBJECT: LDC Section 20A-10.2.B.1. Amendment APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL BY: City Manager: ,~ t C. ~ ) Dept. Origin City Clerk ) ) Date Submitted 7/1 /91 ) ) For Agenda Of 7/24/91 ) ) Exhibits: P & Z Minutes 3/17/91 Page Two EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: AMOUNT BUDGETED: APPROPRIATION REQUIRED: SUMMARY STATEMENT The City Council, at its July 17, 1991 workshop on the Riverfront Study, moved to place on the July 24, 1991 consent agenda, direction to the City Attorney to draft an ordinance to amend Section 20A-10.2.B.1. of the Land Development Code to give the Planning and Zoning Commission more input on building design. We have attached the March 7, 1991 Planning and Zoning minutes as was discussed at the July 17, 1991 workshop. RECOMMENDED ACTION Move to direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance to amend Section 20A-lO.2.B.1. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 7, 1991 PAGE TWO A MOTION TO APPROVE THE HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE FOR ANTHONY COSTANZA AT 7~1 VOCELLE WAS MADE BY MR. WADSWORTH SECOND MR. AHONEY PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. OLD BUSINESS; 2OA10.2B.1 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. SHIRLEY STARTS THE DISCUSSION SINCE THIS WAS HER REQUEST. AFTER SOME DISCUSSION BACK AND FORTH REGARDING REMOVAL OF THESE LAST SENTENCES MRS. KILKELLY MADE A MOTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MEMO DATED FEBRUARY 11, 1991 THAT WE DELETE 20AlO.2B.1 LAST SENTENCES ON HARMONIOUS OVERALL DESIGN SECOND BY MR. THOMPSON, BRUCE COOPER STATES HE HAS NO PROBLEM WITH DELETING BUT WOULD WANT AN ATTORNEY OPINION BEFORE IT GOES TO COUNCIL MOTION IS WITHDRAWN AFTER MORE DISCUSSION A MOTION TO REWORD THE SECTION TO STATE WHEN DEEMED TO BE VISABALLY OFFENSIVE BY COMMUNITY STANDARDS MADE BY MRS. KILKELLY SECOND MR. THOMPSON PASSED 6-1 WITH MRS. O'CONNOR VOTING NO BECAUSE SHE FEELS IT IS TOO RESTRICTIVE. A MOTION TO ASK STAFF TO INCORPORATE THIS WITH THE OTHER UPCOMING LDC CHANGES WAS MADE BY MR. THOMPSON SECOND MRS. KILKELLY PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. CHAIRMANS MATTERS: ASKS FOR CLARIFICATION FROM BRUCE ON THE LETTER TO MR. HUMPHREYS. BRUCE EXPLAINS WHY IT WAS GIVEN TO THE COMMISSION. ASKS BRUCE IF EVERYONE IS BEING REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE RESIDENTIAL LANDSCAPING CODE. BRUCE STATES HIS INSPECTORS SHOULD BE CHECKING THE HEIGHTS OF NEW PLANTINGS TO BE SURE THEY MEET THE CODE STAN FEELS RESIDENTIAL SHOULD BE INCLUDED iN THE LANDCLEARING PERMIT PROCESS FOR A TREE SURVEY TO BE DONE. CHAIRMAN STATES HE FEELS IT IS TIME AGAIN TO SIT DOWN AND RETHINK THE HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE REGULATIONS. MEMBERS MATTERS: MRS. KILKELLY - ASKS BRUCE IF THE ST SEBASTIAN PUD EXTENSION WAS GRANTED - BRUCE STATES YES AND NO - COUNCIL ASKS THE ATTORNEY TO DRAW UP THE NECESSARY PAPERS BUT HAVE NOT TAKEN FINAL ACTION. MR. WADSWORTH TALKS ABOUT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND SPEAKS REGARDING THE SEWER DISCUSSION. STATES HE FEELS PLANNING AND ZONING SHOULD ADVISE THE COUNCIL WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE OUR OWN SEWER AND WATER FRANCHISE. A MOTION TO RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL IN VIEW OF THE SESSION AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 6, 1991 AND THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO TAXPAYERS THAT THEY LOOK INTO PULLING OUT OF THE FRANCHISE - BY WADSWORTH SECOND MR. MAHONEY - UNDER DISCUSSION MR. THOMPSON SAYS HE FEELS ONLY THE RATE SCHEDULE SHOULD BE CHECKED AS FOR SEBASTIAN City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 r~ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) $89-5330 [~ FAX (407) 589-5570 SUBJECT= GDC Chapter 11 Bankruptcy approved For Submittal By= City Manager Agenda No. Dept. of Origin=City Manager Date Submitted= 07/~5/9~ For Agenda Of= 07/24/91 Exhibits= GDC Letter Dated 7/10/91 Draft letter Dated 7/24/91 to GDC with Attachments EXPENDITURE REQUIRED= AMOUNT BUDGETED: APPROPRIATION REQUIRED= 8UHMARY STATEMENT General Development Corporation ("GDC") has made a counteroffer to the City in an attempt to settle the City's claim with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The counteroffer is contained in a letter signed by Ralph (Cap) Cain, III, Assistant Vice President for Community Affairs with GDC. While this counteroffer is more acceptable than previous discussions with GDC it is short of meeting the City's expectations. In response to this counteroffer, I have drafted a response which outlines the provisions of GDC's counteroffer which are acceptable as well as those that are not acceptable. Please note that this draft letter is not signed and is subject to modification by the city Council. However, the draft letter does reflect my recommendations to the City Council in pursuing negotiations with GDC. RECOMMENDED ACTION Review and approve draft letter to General Development Corporation outlining a proposed settlement to the city's claim which was filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court. General Development Corporatmn OPERATIONS CENTER 1673 S.E. NIEMEYER CIRCLE PORT ST, LUCIE, FLORIDA 34952 (407) 335-5640; 335-9324 FAX (407) 335-5926 Ralph (Cap) Cain, IIi ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT COMMUNITY AFFAIRS July 10, 1991 Robert S. McClary Sebastian City Manager P. O. Box 780127 Sebastian, Florida 32978 Dear Mr. McClary: In response to your proposal to settle General Development Corporation's obligations, GDC management presents the following Letter of Intent for your review and formal approval by the City Council of Sebastian. It is mutually understood by both parties a written agreement will need to be finalized for approval by GDC management, the Creditor's Committee and the bankruptcy court. The terms and conditions are as follows: GDC will deed to the City of Sebastian all parcels of land listed in Exhibit A. (Copy attached). GDC will provide easements on the Shiloh Youth Ranch Property and Boy Scouts of America property. Ail taxes, interest payments, penalties, special assessments, and all cost associated with transfer of ownership on the properties listed in Exhibit A will be the responsibility of the City of Sebastian and must be paid before the transfer of title can be completed. It is understood by both parties all obligations formally GDC's and listed on Exhibit B will be the responsibility of the City of Sebastian's. Ail Performance Bonds posted with the City for the items listed will be released upon consummation of a formal agreement. The City of Sebastian will either withdraw its claim or file a notice of satisfaction with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court and release General Development Corporation and its successors from any and all obligations set forth in the claim. -2- Upon completion of your review, please confirm to me, in writing, the City's concurrence and proposed schedule for approval before the City Council. Any questions you may have, please give me a call. Ralph Cain, III RC,III:nkn bcc: L. Rutherford G. Pfersich J. O'Neal "EXHIBIT A-i" TRACTS AND LOTS CONVERTED TO DRAINAGE DESCRIPTION Tract 5, Unit 14 Tract C, Unit 8 Tract A, Unit 13 Tract B, Unit 13 Tract D, Unit 13 (Park) (Park) Total.~:r~a~e 8,01 3.99 10.08 26.81 Tract H, Unit 17 Tract I, Unit 17 Tract K, Unit 17 Tract M, Unit 17 Tract R, Unit 17 3.76 33.28 2.80 2.10 2.44 Tract S, Unit 17 Tract O, Unit 17 1.91 8.50 '1'11.10 Unit 17 Unit 17 Unit 17 Unit 17 unit 17 Unit 17 Unit 17 Unit 17 Residential Lots ~nit il, Block 555, Lots l0 to 15 Unit 11, ~lock 587, Lots 2 tO 7 Unit 16, Block 545, Lots 12 to 17 Unit 16, ~lock 612, Lots X0 and 11 Unit 17~ Block 449, Lots i to 11 Unit 17, Block 451, Lots 1 =o 4 Unit 17, Block 462, Lo~s 11 and 12 ~lock $70, Lots 4 :o 19 Block 578, Lots I =o 16; 19 and 20 Block 579, Lots 12 to 14 and 19, 20, and 21 Block 580, Lots I to 3; 19 and 20 Block ~82 Block 584 ~lock )86 'Block 589 Unit 17, ~lock 596 Unit 17, Block 598 Lots 6 to 11 and 18 to 23 Loss 13 to 16 Lots 6, 7, 8 and 19, 20, 21 Lots ~ and 5 Lots 12 to 15 and 18 to 22 Lots 14 to 17 Total of 119 residential lots converted to drainage ..................................... 29.00 TOTAL AC~AGE 140.10 "EXHIBIT A-2" PUBLIC SERVICE ("PS") TRACTS SH 8 - Tract C - Block 223 ("Park") SH 8 - - Block 193 ("Park") SH 9 - Tract A Block 409 ("Park") SH 10- Tract A - Block 211 ("Park") SH 10- Tract B - Block 267 ("Park") SH 10- Tract C - Block 264 ("Park") SH 10- - Block 300 ("Park") SH 11- Tract A SH 11- Tract C SH 11- Tract D SM 11- Tract E SH 14- Tract SM 15- TraCt G SH 17- Tract A SH 17- Tract Q - Block 282 ("Park") - Block 372 ("Park") , ("Park") - Block 347 ("Park") Block 507 ("Park") Block 488 ("Park") _ ("Park") - Block 604 ("Park") TOTAL 8.24Z acres 1,90± acres .37± acres 2.49~ acres 2.245 acres 1.15± acres 2.27± acres 1.68± acres 4,42± acted 3.81± acres 2.93± acres 5.79± acres 4.62~ acres 3.55± acres 1.72± acres 47.18~ Acres City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 o SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 D FAX (407) 589-5570 July 24, 1991 Mr. Ralph (Cap) Cain, Iii General Development Corporation 1673 S. E. Niemeyer Circle Port St. Lucie, Fi 34952 Re: Settlement Offer Dear Mr. Cain: Thank you for your letter of July 10, 1991 outlining an offer to settle the City's claim with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court and to nullify the 1979 Agreement between the city and General Development Corporation ("GDC"). It is mutually understood by both parties that a written agreement will need to be finalized for approval by GDC, the Creditor's Committee, the Bankruptcy Court, and the Sebastian City Council. I offer the following comments in response to your paragraphs numbered 1 through 4 of your July 10th letter: 1. I have included revised exhibits "A","B" and "C". These exhibits include all parcels listed in your July 10th letter. Additionally, the following tracts are included in my exhibits: a) Tract "X", Unit 17, Sebastian Highlands. This is a tract converted to drainage in unit 17, previously approved by you, and identified as a drainage tract in George Kulczycki's letter and exhibits of November 28, 1990. I presumed that this was an oversight and should be included. b) "Hardee Park". You had previously agreed to deed the balance of Hardee Park to the City and I presume this, too, was an oversight. c) "Fleming Street extended". Under this proposal, Fleming Street would be extended from Chesser's Gap through GDC Settlement Offer July 24, 1991 Page 2 unit 16 to Easy Street as outlined in a letter by Mosby & Associates, the City's consulting engineer, dated January 23, 1991. You had previously agreed to replat this portion of Unit 16 prior to construction or, if sold, to require the buyer to replat this portion of Unit 16 prior to construction, to include the realigned right- of-way to extend Fleming Street. i presume that this was an oversight and should be included. d) Per my letter to George Kulczycki dated June 10, 1991, all of Schumann Lake, including the "island" and area covered by water and other real property situated adjacent to the property lines of Unit 9, Unit 16, and the "utilities site" to the North, is all owned by GDC. Since the "lake" is an integral part of the drainage system, it must be conveyed to the City as a drainage structure. Therefore, my revised exhibit includes all of Schumann Lake as well the "island". Your July 10th letter also included Tract "S", which is access to the Schumann Lake "island" for Kildare. However, excluded Tract "R" and Tract "T". The City will withdraw its request for Tract "T" in the event you include Tract "R". Tract "R" is situated at the corner of Schumann and Kildare and is the only available access to the culvert sections under Schumann Drive. (e) Tract "I" and Tract "N", in Unit 17, are included in my exhibit but excluded from your July 10th letter. On April 7, 1991 you agreed to include Tract "I", since it is "wetlands". I presume this was an oversight and should be included. We ask that Tract "N" be included as well. f) Main Street "entrance tracts". We had asked for Tract "B" and Tract "H" in Unit 1. Tract "H", due to its narrow and irregular shape, is not buildable but would be used by the City as bike path or access to a large PUD to the North. You had previously agreed to convey Tract "H" on April 19, 1991. However, the City is willing to exclude Tract "B" if GDC is willing to include Tract "H". The Shiloh Youth Ranch and Boy Scouts of America easement assignments are included in my attached exhibit. The City will not pay any taxes, interest payments, penalties, special assessments, or other costs associated with transfer of ownership on the properties listed in the exhibits. This shall be the responsibility of GDC which will be required to provide good title to all properties and free of any encumbrance whatsoever. Most of the tracts listed are ones which were converted to drainage and which GDC Settlement Offer July 24, 1991 Page 3 you would be ~ to dedicate as rights-of-way under the Land Development Code. According to the City Attorney, a replat is required for Unit 17 since tracts and residential building lots were converted to drainage and the 1979 agreement would not exclude a replat for drainage easements or rights-of-way. GDC's obligations under the terms of the 1979 Agreement would cease and the 1979 Agreement would be nullified in addition to the City either withdrawing its claim or filing a notice of satisfaction with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. Under no circumstances will the city of Sebastian assume GDC's obligations or responsibilities of the 1979 Agreement. Further, since the 1979 Agreement, which you have breached, is to be nullified, all future development within the City will be strictly in accordance with the City's Land Development Code. This letter has been reviewed and ratified by the city Council at its regular meeting of July 24, 1991. Please review this letter at your earliest convenience and confirm to me, in writing, GDC's concurrence with the provisions herein outlined. Sincerely, Robert S. McClary city Manager RSM/sg "ESSENT~q%L CONTI~CT ELE~.ENTG" EXHIBIT A -~1 119 Residential Building Lots, Units 11, 16 & 17 SH (See attached "Exhibit A-1 Details) - Tract "0", Unit 17, SH - Tract "H", Unit 17, SH - Tract "X", Unit 17, SH - Tract "B", Unit 17, SH 8.49 Acre *# 3.76 Acre '4 .26 Acre ** ~XHIBIT A - 2 Shiloh Youth Ranch Easement .83 Acre ***4 BSA Easement .86 Acre @ $14,000/Acres ***4 '4 EXHIBIT A - 3 - Tract "K", BLK 588, unit 17 SH - Tract "M", BLK 599, unit 17 SH - Tract "R", BLK 613, Unit 17 SH - Tract "S", BLK 616, Unit 17 SH 2.84 Ac. '4 2.16 Ac. '4 2.84 Ac. '4 1.91 Ac. '4 EXHIBIT A - 4 Two (2) Residential Building Lots '4 Lot 19, Block 364, Unit 11 SH Lot 12, Block 365, Unit 11 SH EXHIBIT A- 5 - Tract "P", BI/{ 560, Unit 16 SH 1.60 Ac.# Revised: 04/02/91 Second Revision: 04/17/91 Third Revision: 05/21/91 Fourth Revision: 07/15/91 EX~IBIT A-~ "Fleming Grant Line" Drainage - Tract "Y", Blk 121, Unit 4, SH - Tract "O", Blk 65, Unit 2, SH -Tract "I", Blk 12, Unit 1, SH "GDC Owned - FPL Easement" - Tract "F", Blk 14, Unit 1, SH - Tract "E", Blk 17, Unit 1, SH - Tract "D", Blk 21, Unit 1, SH - Tract "C", Blk 41, Unit 1, SH 1.26 Ac. 2.2 Ac. 2.0 Ac. 1.45 Ac. 2.91 Ac. 2.89 Ac. 2.19 Ac. **% **% **% **# **% **# **% EXHIBIT A - 7 "Ha. rdee Par~ - That portion of Hardee Park not yet dedicated to the City. 6.50 +_ Ac. * ..~.DC Offer 03/14/91 ** GDC 0~fer 04~99/91 *** GDC Offer 03/26/91 # GDC 0..~er 07/10/91 Revised: 4-2-91 Second Revision : 04/16/91 Third Revision 05/21/91 Fourth Revision: 07/15/91 "EXHIBIT A" R~hibit..~ - 1 Details Block LOt No.'~ 11 555 11 587 16 545 16 612 17 449 17 451 17 462 17 570 17 578 17 579 17 580 17 582 17 584 17 586 17 589 17 596 17 598 10 to 15 2 to 7 12 to 17 10 & 11 i to 11 1to 4 11 to 12 4 to 19 I to 16 & 19 and 20 12 to 14 & 19, 20 & 21 i to 3 & 19 & 20 6 to 11 & 18 to 23 13 to 16 6, 7, & 8; & 19, 20 & 21 4 & 5 12 to 15, & 18 to 22 14 to 15 Total number of residential lots converted to drainage: 119 Also included are three (3) parcels, Tract "0", "H" (park site), and "X", Unit 17. Also included is Tract "B", Unit 17. Note: Ail of the above properties included in GDC Offer of 07/10/91 except Tract "X". Revised 07/15/91 EXHIBIT ~B" - GDC LIABILITIES CLAIM 0112~1~1 03114191 CITY G.D.C. CITY ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE 1. Unit 16 Street & Drainage 2. Unit 17 Street & Drainage 3. Elkcam Waterway (Seawall & (Water Control Structure) 4. Wentworth Ditch - Realignment 5. Construction Contingency (10%) 6. Unit 11 Stormwater Retention Lake (Collier Waterway) Not Constructed 7. Emergency Reapirs To Date 8. Improperly Aligned Drainage Ditches (Estimate) 9. Repair Englar Bridge Over Collier Waterway in Unit 16 $ 220,700 $ 64,509 $ 73,700 1,364,472 739,222 1,364,400 1,531,250 230,400 1,531,250 103,834 - 0 - 103,800 322,000 - 0 - 307,000 695,100 - 0 - 695,100 15,400 15,400 71,200 197,500 - 0 - 100,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 TOTAL $ 4,460,256 $ 1,059,531 $ 4,256,450 ,EXHIBIT C" E~hibit..~ - 1 Barber Street Sports Complex: Lot 4, Block 208, Unit 10 Lot valued @ $8,000 Reco~%~ended *# 8,000 ~xhibit C - ~ Airport Drive East, Lot 2, Block 12, Unit 1, SH Lot valued @ $8,000 *# 8,000 Exhibit C - 3 Commercial Tract - Barber Street & Tulip Ail of Block 268, Unit 10, SH Approximately 7.31 acres - zoned Commercial Limited (CL) 7.31 Acres 05/21/91 Recommendation 7.31 Acres @ 65,000 Acre *# 475,150 Exhib~ C - 4 Fleming Street Extended Also, see Mosby letter dated 1/23/91 marked "Exhibit C-4" 18 affected lot @ $4,000/lot is $72,000 *# 72,000 Note: Exhibit C-4 - GDC Agrees: Replat prior to construction of this portion of unit 16 or if sold to require buyer to replat prior to construction. E~hibit C - 5 WITHDRAWN This Exhibit formerly consisted of tracts in the portion of Unit 16, Sebastian Highlands, which is platted but not constructed. The tracts will be re-evaluated when GDC or its successor constructs this portion of Unit 16. Revised: 2/14/91 Second Revision: 04/02/91 Third Revision: 04/16/91 Fourth Revision: 05/21/91 Fifth Revision: 07/15/91 "EXHIBIT (Continued) Exhibit C - 6 Schumann Lake "Island". Also included: Reco~ended 05/21/91 SH 16 - "Island" 13.36 ~ acres*# $ 187,040 SH 16 - Tract "R" - Blk 559 .36 ± acres* 5,040 SH 16 - Tract "S" - Blk 559 .71 ± acres*# 9,940 SH 16 - Tract "T" - Blk 559 .95 ± acres* 13,300 Note: @ $14,000/Acre TOTAL 15.38 ~ Acres $ 215,320 The real property containing Schumann Lake (the water, banks, headwalls, etc.) must be added since it has previously been dedicated by GDC as a drainage right-of-way or otherwise conveyed by GDC. Exhibit C - 7 Other Drainage Access tracts in Unit 17, Sebastian Highlands SH 17 - Tract "T" - BL 606 Sch%hman Waterway & Empress .18 ± ac.# 2,520 SH 17 - Tract "U" - BL 597 Schuman Waterway & Empress .27 ± ac.# 3,780 SH 17 - Tract "V" - BL 599 Sch~an Waterway & Empress .34 ± ac.# 4,760 SH 17 - Tract "W" - BL 595 Schuman Waterway & Empress .28 ± ac.# 3,920 TOTAL 1.07~ Ac.$14,980 Exhibit C - 8 - WITHDRAWN This exhibit formerly consisted of SH 13 - Tract "C" - Blk 326 ("Commercial") 5.36 + acres Revised: 2/14/91 Second Revision: 04/02/91 Third Revision: 04/16/91 Fourth Revision: 05/21/91 Fifth Revision: 07/15/91 "EXHIBIT C" (Continued) Recommended Exhibit Q - 9 Public Service. ("PS,.)Tract~ SH 8 - Tract "C" - Blk 223 ("Park") SH 8 - - Blk 193 ("Park") 8.24 + acres *# $ 115,360 1.90 + acres # 26,600 SH 9 - SH 10 - SH 10 - SH 10 - SH 10 - Tract "A" - Blk 409 ("Park") Tract "A" Tract "B" Tract "C" - Blk 211 ("Park") - Blk 267 ("Park") - Blk 264 ("Park") - Blk 300 ("Park") .37 ± acres # 5,180 2.49 + acres # 34,860 2.24 ± acres # 31,360 1.15 ± acres # 16,100 2.27 + acres # 31,780 SH 11 - SH 11 - SH 11 - SH 11 - SH 11 - SH 13 - SH 13 - SH 13 - SH 14 - Tract "A" - Blk 282 ("Park") Tract "B" - Blk 282 Tract "C" - Blk 372 ("Park") Tract "D" - (No Blk #)("Park") Tract "E" - Blk 347 ("Park") Tract "A" Tract "B" Tract "D" (Deep Swale) (swimming Hole) (River) Tract "B" - Blk 507 ("Park") 1.68 ± acres # 23,520 .37 ± acres # 5,180 4.42 ± acres # 61,880 3.81 ± acres # 53,340 2.93 ± acres # 41,020 3.99 + acres *# 10.08± acres *# 14.07± acres *# 5.79~ acres *# 55,860 141,120 196,980 81,060 SH 15 - Tract "G" - Blk 488 ("Park") 4.62± acres # 64,680 SH 17 - SH 17 - SH 17 - SH 17 - Tract "A" Tract "I" Tract "N" Tract "Q" - (No Blk #)("Park") 3.55± acres # - (No Blk (wetlands) 33.73± acres * - Blk 589 3.96± acres - Blk 604 ("Park") 1.72~ acres # TOTAL 113.38 Acres 49,700 472,220 55,440 24,080 $1,587,320 EXHIBIT C - 10 "Entrance" Tracts - Main Street SH 1 - Tract "B" SH i - Tract "H" 1.70± acres 1.03± acres ** $ 23,800 14,420 2.73 Acres $ 38~220 * GDC Offer 02/14/91 ** GDC Offer 04/09/91 *** GDC Offer 03/26/91 # GDC Offer 07/10/91 Note: Calculated @ $14,000/Acre Revised: 2/14/91 Second Revision: 04/02/91 Third Revision: 04/16/91 Fourth Revision: 05/21/91 Fifth Revision: 07/10/91 City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 [] FAX (407) 589-5570 SUBJECT: Upgrade of NCR Computer System APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL BY: City Manager: ~C~ ) Agenda No. ) ) Dept. Origin ) ) Date Submitted ) ) For Agenda Of ) ) City Clerk~\~ 7/17/91 7/24/91 2 Letters from NCR Exhibits: 2 Memos from City Clerk EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $6,500 AMOUNT BUDGETED: APPROPRIATION REQUIRED: SUMMARY STATEMENT This was a request to the City Manager for his consideration. The last requested update to the City Clerk's computer equipment (hardware) was granted at the Regular City Council Meeting of June 14, 1989 in the amount of $4,976. Attached please see the necessary self-explanatory backup for your consideration. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1) Purchase NCR Novelle software to upgrade the computer system in the Office of the City Clerk. 2) Waive bidding requirements for continuity of standardization of equipment. City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 D SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 [] FAX (407) 589-5570 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Robb McClary, City Manage,r~ Kay O'Halloran, City Cler~ .~//Y Upgrade of City Clerk's NCR Computer System June 27, 1991 Please refer to my memo to you dated June 17, 1991 and also the letter from Bob Mouring, Network Specialist, NCR, that I referred to in my memo to you. We have been having difficulties with our system by late after- noon most days. These are small annoyances and we have, to this date, not lost any data. My main concern is that if we do not update our system we might come to a complete standstill. Mr. Mouring is most specific in the fact that by mid July we will be unable to run the new software we have purchased. I am requesting, again, the amount of $6,500 for the upgrade. I honestly feel that $6,500 is an investment and an expenditure that would not only enable the City Clerk's office to continue functioning in an efficient manner but would be beneficial to all departments of the City as well as the citizens. Your cooperation would be appreciated. KO:is City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 ~ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 o FAX (407) 589-5570 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: A Robb S. McClary, City Manager Kathryn M. O'Halloran, City Clerk'~'"~ Update of Computer System - City Clerk's Office June 17, 1991 This memo comes to you in the request for $6,500 approximately. You and I have discussed this item and I was unable to give you a qualified, intelligent answer at that particular time. In addition to the attached, please see the letter from Bob Mouring of NCR to Sally Maio. As you can see from the fourth paragraph our computer system will be "FULL" by mid July, 1991. The City Clerk's office utilizes the computer to the utmost and the end result is that all citizens, council and departments receive the full benefit. I sincerely believe it is imperative to up-grade the system as soon as possible to keep %his office functioning in efficient manner ~t has es%ablished. Your continued cooperation in this mat%er is sincerely appreciated. attachments June 14, 1991 I~pt. r · Phcme # Sally Maio City of Sebastian 1225 Main Street Sebastian, FL 32978 Dear Sally, This letter is in response to your request for further information regarding your current system, and your MuniMetrix' Clerk Index. software. In particular, the "not enough memory" problem that you are experiencing while trying to use the new features included in the latest release of the MuniMetnx" software. Let me begin by assuring you that your computer has plenty of "memory," both work- ing memory (random. access memory, or RAM), and siorage capacity, (the hard disk drive). Your system has, 3 million_ .bytes (a computer term for a character) of "memory" of which the programs are omy using 640 thousand of thc 3 million available. The limitation of using only the first 640K (K---102.4 characters) is impos~ by the software,'.not your computer system. The system also has. a disk d~ve with the capacity, to store 70 milhon characters. At this time, approximately 20 million are in use leaving 50 million for future use. The problem stems, from the way that the memory is being used by your computer programs. At the present time, of the 640K usable memory, 312K is required by DOS and the network software, leaving 328K for use by all other programs, such as MuniMetrix'. Today (Friday 6/14) I discuss.ed your "out of memory" problem with Bruce Rector of the MuniMetrtx company in California. He pointed out that 325K memory is sufficient to. run their "base.' software but not the new features and functions of Release 3. You are expe, nenc- lng this now. What is more important, Bruce warned me that their next software release will requJ_re 20K more memory than it does now. With the next release of MuniMetrix", (due date of mid July), you will not be able tO run the soltwas'e at all. The "base' program (335K) will require more memory than is available (328K). Next, le! me discuss the possible solutions, both pro and con. First, you could stay on the current version of MuniMetnx~'. Pro: It works. Con: You are unable to use new features. MuniMetrix will not want to support an old software release for very long. Second, you co.uld remove one of the computers from the network to free up some memory. Pro: MunilVlemx~' will work, at least through the next release. Con: Choosing the person who will lose network access. This is a short term solution at best. Third, install a "state of the art" network. Pro: Will use all of your computer's resources to overcome the problems you now face. Will serve you well into the future. Con: The Novell system will cost money and network downtime to install. As usual Sally, if you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to call. Robert H. Mouring III NCR CORPORATION Wesl Palm Beach District May 28, 1991 Kay O'Halloran, City Clerk City of Sebastian 1225 Main Street Sebastian, FL 32978 West Palm Beach District Customer Service Division Network Specialist Robert H. Mouring III 407-655-8050 601 Clearwater Park Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Dear Kay, I would like to take this opportunity to continue to keep you informed as to the current operational state of your office's computer network. Some of the conditions that your staff is starting to experience is due to the increased complexity of the computer programs that are being used, and the overall increased workload that has been placed on the system in the years since it was installed. Due to the circumstances that prevailed when I took responsibility for your office network, the software that is currently running your office was chosen based on it's price, not performance or ability to expand. Sally Maio is running Munimetrix' Clerk Index program which has required more and more of the computer's memory to run with each updated version that she receives from Munimetrix. Her computer will cease to be able to run your office network and the Clerk Index program together in the near future. The solution to this upcoming problem is to upgrade the Network Operating System to one that will fully utilize the computer hardware that you already have. The Novell Network software is designed to run in a part of the computer's memory that is not used by the Munime- trix programs or any other programs that your office currently uses. Additional benefits that Novell Netware will provide, include complete network security which seems to be of increas- ing concern to Governmental Agencies. The Novell system will communicate with the "work- station" computers using coaxial cable at a rate 50 times faster than the current system. Novell also provides complete printer sharing capability. This feature alone, which will allow your staff to "print at will" instead of having to coordinate with each other, will provide an increase in office productivity of 10 to 15 percent minimum. Lastly, the Novell Network, properly installed, will not result in any time lost to re- training any of your staff. The computer programs that your staff use now will continue to operate unchanged, except for an increase in speed. The operation of the Novell Network, except for it's new features, will be totally "transparent" to you and your staff. If I can be of further assistance, or answer any questions that you or your staff may have, please don't hesitate to call. Robert H. Mouring III Ciearwawr Park Road Palm Beach. Florida ~34¢)1 'l'ch'phm~c Sale? 407 fi55-R051) 'l'elephonc ~ervicc'. I R00 262-77~2 qx/qo SEBASTIAN ALARM P.O, Box 78-2031 SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 (407) 589-4138 WORK ORDER/INVOICE 104~ )RDER TAKEN BY · PHONE [] Time/Material [] Service Contract [] Warranty [] Other JOB I~iAbIFE~O, ' ............. INVO~C~ DATE JOS ~H(~'~ CHECKMARKS DENOTE: /.~"/ ~'.~/ / · ~ DESCRIPTION OF WORK .................. BE DONE COMPLETED -. ' .................. Dire~ Conne~ ................... Keyswitch ...... ~BOR Magnetic ~°nta~ .............. TOTAL ~BOR S~ibration Q~. MATERIAL UN~ PRICE" Dual Tech, Smoko Dete~ors ............ - , ~ ~.~ ,, ...... ~ ........ ~ ' Horns i J Strobe Light m Access Control Sig~ture (T~le) Date SEBASTIAN ALARM P.O, Box 78.2031 SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 (407) 589.4138 ~043 ~' DATE, JOF OROE~ ~ WORK ORDERED BY ORD'I~R TAKEN SY P~E ~ Tlme~aterial ~ Se~lce Co~ ~ Wa~n~ D ~her JO~ L~ATION INVOICE CATE ...... JOB P~E'" :wo.~,o ~wo,~ //~/~~ ~..~.~....~.....~...~..~..~ ............................................................. Dig',~l Commun~tor ........ .......... ~"'""?'"~~' ' ~ Keyswit~ ~ ~BOR ~GE ffi O~ H~. RA~ AM~ ....... ~TERaL UN~ PRICE AMOU~ Shoc~ibration ................. ~~~, ~,, : ................. ~ ....... ~~ , , Dual Toeh. ' ~,crow~v~ ,~. ~ ~;;~ , Switch Mats Detemors ......................... ' " Smoke Pull Stations ..... ..................... ', : ~' Heat Sensors Horns Sirens ............ ' ...... ' Stro~ Light Supe~iso~ I hereby ac~nowl~ge the satistamo~ completion of the a~ve described TOTAL LABOR work, with the following exceptions: TAX TOTAL . , RESOLUTION NO. R~91-2§ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, DESIGNATING THE FIRST SUNDAY IN JULY OF EACH YEAR AS POW-MIA DAY. WHEREAS, the first Sunday in July of each year is designated and will be observed as POW-MIA Day; and WHEREAS, it is of the utmost importance that the families of the POWs and MIAs not be forgotten; and WHEREAS, a great many families all over the United States of America are unable to end their graving process and start anew; and WHEREAS, this Resolution is dedicated to those families who have anguished trying to locate their loved ones who are listed as missing in action. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Sebastian, Indian River County, Florida, that the first Sunday of July is to be designated POW-MIA Day. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this community recognize, honor and support the fam±lies and loved ones of the POWs and MIAs. RESOLVED THIS 24TH DAY OF JULY 1991. ATTEST: By: CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA W.E. Conyers, Mayor Kathryn M. O'Halloran, CMC/AAE City Clerk COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING CR 512 additional study of widening alternatives US #1 to Sebastian Elementary School Davis: County staff recently attended a city council meeting in Sebastian. At that time we presented some design information on a grade separated interchange at the FEC Railroad and CR 512. After our presentation the City moved to request additional studies on the CR 512 project. Particularly to -- I think the concern was, we didn't look at all the alternatives, that perhaps some more alternatives should be investigated, and basically, I believe that is the recommendation to this committee, and then whatever your recommenda- tion would be, we would take on to the Board of County Commissioners. Male: I don't £hink that was what we were looking for from the City of Sebastian. I understood what we were looking for was a committment to the railroad bridge in that the City would step in behind it and be willing to fund it. I don't get the feeling from your letter that they addressed it at all. Davis: I had to step out of this meeting last month at the end of the meeting -- I guess I really didn't get the end of the discussion on that. Oberbeck: Unfortunately I was absent from the meeting but I will address your question. As it was presented to th council, the question was What was the City's position with regard to endorsing the 512 improvements. We as a council elected to endorse the program west of the elementary school which we've been referring to as the western phase of 512 improvements to 4 lanes. The thing that the City of Sebastian is concerned with is from that point east to US 1. Trying. to create some kind of a separation of vehicular and train traffic and the vehicles in the area and the proximity of the track and US #1 is what forced our problems of backing up on US1. We felt, and the public felt, that that not enough of a review had taken place with regard to how to create a separation and still main- tain the city's intersection. As you've said, and this letter indicated, there are many, many different suggestions brought out by various people in the com- munity and people outside the community but yet, the emphasis has continued to be put on the twin pairs, which the majority of our council felt was not a benefit to the community. It would create an inter- section within a close proximity to each other, Oberb'eck: continuing to back up traffic on US 1 -- every time a train goes through it would be major jams up there. What we're saying is, as a council, How about looking into all possible alternatives, rather than pushing-- and as Doug just said, lets not waste money on something and then turn around and tear it apart a couple of years later because we didn't do the right thing. Lets look at all the options. Male: I think Staff had covered that quite well earlier. I think what we were looking for was, if there is no way we can go along with a railroad bridge, then why are we holding this thing up? And since we couldn't get anything from the City saying yes, we want a railroad bridge, or yes, we are willing to fund it, or whatever, then we've got absolutely no committment from the city council regarding the railroad bridge. Scurlock: This has been a very complicated project. I think a couple of things need to be clarified. One of which was the comment that the initial analysis-- and there were consultants hired to do an analysis--so there was time spent looking at alternatives, and the comment that well, the county bought the ROW and therefor they're locked into the program, is absolute fluff. The fact of the matter is, we bought the ROW, it was a total package and most of the ROW is not in this area. The majority of the ROW had to be acquired anyway, so that was not the driving force, never was, isn't today. Theres been a number of studies done to look at it, so this isn't something that hasn't been looked at, which raises a concern. As a Commissioner I happen to be here today sitting in for Maggie. I have no problem, as a Commissioner, looking at it again. But By God, I hope we can agree on who the Hell is going to look at it and whether or not the Sebastian City Council is going to abide by whatever the recommendation comes from. In fact, I would almost like to say, you hire the consultant you hire him so that there is 100 per cent happiness in your minds, so that you're going to get an independent look, because I dontt want to do another study and if it comes out not the way people want it to come out, politically or otherwise, we're going to do a study to study a study to study a study and we just keep going on. Oberbeck: Doug, I don't believe that the study, and if i'm wrong correct me, has ever taken place with regard to a separation of traffic. Have you ever considered clover leafs, have you ever elevated clover leafs in that area or alternative routes to get the people off the 512 intersection. I mean, has there been studies Davis: We had a study initially that was presented in 1986-87 offering three alternatives--- Oberbeck: At that po~ntour population has doubled since 1986--- Scurlock: No question about it. Oberbeck: The issues have changed in our community. Scurlock: No question, Frank, and the other question is, too, do you have 25 million dollars to build this sophis- ticated clover leaf system or is that just a pie in the sky? You'd better work within the resources that are available. Oberbeck: I'm very much aware of the resources. I've been sitting on this committee for the last couple of years but I'm also taking the position that you took with regards to SR 60. Are we spending money, are we wasting it, can we approve it later on? The railroad crossing seems to be an acceptable method of removing and separating the vehicles. As far as the Citys position on it, i believe that the council would endorse that particular program. But what we're asking for is are there other alternatives? Scurlock: i~.t~ink we looked at the railroad crossing and said that the improvements that we're planning now are compatible with a future crossing. That we wouldn't have to tear up the whole road again. Is that correct? Davis: Yes. Scurlock: So that aspect was looked at in terms of the rwin pairs, that the improvements that at least were planned would still be compatible when there is the 7 or 8 million dollars to build this bridge across it. That--- Oberbeck: Okay. Would we not be better off 4 laning or 6 laning the existing 512 and eliminating the amount of distance required to elevate that railroad? Scurlock: Staff has done that analysis and said "no". The twin pair concept is what they recommended. Two consulting engineers has recommended that, and now we are on to the recommendation now to hire another third engineering firm to come in and do another independent analysis of whether the twin pair concept is good or bad. Oberbeck: Again, the position that the council has taken is the wishes of the general public, the business people of the community. It has been relayed to this committee, to the newspapers and everyone else involved. We don't feel that the twin pairs are going to settle the problems of the City of Sebastian. We feel that its going to create a bigger problem for the City of Sebastian. Scurlock: Thats where I get back to if we hire another consulting engineer, whoever that happens to be. I want to make damn sure if we do that, that the City of Sebastian and their council is going to accept the recommendation. Or whether we are going to get back to the same thing of saying well, we don't like that one either, so--- Oberbeck: I can't assure you of the votes of the city council .... Male: We spoke with Robb McClary a month ago and I think the point was that the city council was in favor 3 or 5 years ago but the council has changed entirely and now they're not. Oberbeck: Theres been some questions with regard to the view of the city 5 years ago,too, as far as the information afforded them at that time, as Jim Davis elaborated on that at the meeting when he attended the council meeting. Some of the people there voted off the top of their heads without being fully informed. But the fact is, the council as it exists right now, I cannot assure you that they're going to accept the program no more than you can assure me that the county commission is going to accept the recommendation either. Scurlock: You can get them on record where they say 'yes, in fact we will' Oberbeck: When the information is afforded to them I'm sure that you will get an opinion. Scurlock: My concern is that Sebastian is an absolutely important part of this community, and if we continue to have an attitude of we're never going to move ahead, that growth is going to be impacted. Because at some point we're going to exceed transportation levels .... Oberbeck: Thats okay, Doug, because growth was our problem to begin with. Scurlock: ---and if we haven't decided to do something, you're going to be under concurrancy, saying no more building permits are going to be issued, and thats my concern. Oberbeck: I am a builder, and I'll be honest. I'm not totally set back with that because thats what caused the problem, was growth. If we had to stop and reorganize to continue on with a better program, it wouldn't offend me--and I do it for a living. Scurlock: So you're for a moratorium in the north county? Oberbeck: I didn't say I was for a moratorium. I said if that condition ever arose, I may be able to live with it. Male: So Sebastians angle right now is to stop on the twin pairs? Oberbeck: Only the eastern portion. Davis: There is another concern that if we go ahead with the western portion are we locking ourselves into certain alternatives on the eastern portion because we've already implemented the western portion? Oberbeck: The western portion would start at the point where the twin pair would meet it anyway. Davis: Well, there may be some alternatives that would allow the western portion to terminate further west than where it is currently going to terminate. Oberbeck: You're coming up with alternatives. Why don't you bring them to the City of Sebastian so we know what they are. Davis: Well, to be honest with you, the thought just occured to us after the meeting when we walked out of there. Oberbeck: This has been the problem. This is what we are trying to resolve. The thought occurred after the meeting. Davis: Well, Oberbeck: You just brought up a fact that we've never heard in the City of Sebastian. So theres another alternative. Scurlock: Theres always going to be alternatives Frank, you know that. Oberbeck: Fine. What we want is a basic alternative to the twin pairs and we'll all be happy. Scurlock: What you want is you don't want the twin pairs? Oberbeck: You've got that right. Scurlock: Okay. Then why do all these studies just to take a position 'we don't want the twin pairs'? Oberbeck: We're looking ..... Scurlock: No, thats not what you guys did. Oberbeck: We've never been given an option .... Scurlock: Yes, you're given an option right now. And the option is instead of saying 'do another study', go on record Scur'lock: that you're opposed to twin pairs period. Why do another study if you're opposed to it? If the City of Sebastian is not going to accept the twin pair concept, if an engineering firm came back and said thats still the best option. Why not say that. Just say it. Oberbeck: I can only speak for myself. I cannot speak for the entire council. Scurlock: Oberbeck: Scurlock: Oberbeck: Ig the City of Sebastian -~ absolutely opposed period to the twin pair concept? If so .... I'll ask it tonight under vice mayors matters. I mean, that just seems to me thats the best approach to take and then once we know that, the commission can make a decision of whether or not they're going to listen to that and go away from the rwin pair concept and get another alternative. Save us a lot of money .... Again, we're only referring to the eastern portion. Or are you accepting our recommendation to proceed with the western portion? Davis: Oberbeck: Well, our feeling is that if we implement the western portion we're going to end up with a roadway that transitions from 4 lanes down to 2 lanes right in front of the elementary school. Thats going to lock us into certain alternatives east of the elementary school to blend in with that 4 lane section. If we don't imple- ment the western portion then other alternatives may open up. Theres a couple of other links that could connect in there, particularly the one through Chessers Gap that might make some more alternatives available. We keep coming up with these alternatives. This is what we're after. Scurlock: Oberbeck: Male: Frank, you'll always have alternatives. You're a builder. But this is coming to us by the county engineer. This is what we've been asking for. This is news for the city council. Tell us what all we can do. I have to say, if we knew as a committee that Sebastian is totally against the twin pairs, it would make it a lot easier to approach .... Female: Male: Thats not the issue we even discussed--- Exactly. Female: --- four months ago we decided to say Hey, we're going to study this to see if twin pairs is compatible with Fema 1 e~: a railroad bridge. Thata all this commission had decided to do. In my estimation, thats what we've done. And I'm sure its compatible. Its as compatible as can be and I would vote to go forward--- Male: Yeah. And I think Stan said the study of ten years--- Female: thats what this commission had decided to do and I think thats been satisfied. Now we've got a totally new issue and the new issue is that Sebastian doesn't like the plan period. Which is not where we started from. Scurlock: Thata always been the issue. That has always been the issue. Twin pairs or not twin pairs. That has always been the issue and the railroad bridge and all that stuff is just'an added little thing. But the bottom line is twin pairs or no twin pairs. Female: The problem is that US 1 is too close to the railroad in that location and if you're talking about twin pairs not working there because of the back up, I'm telling you that the whole road system isn't working and the main cross over in Sebastian shouldn't be in that location period. Oberbeck: Theres another alternative. Female: It should be at 510--- Oberbeck: Theres another alternative. Female: ---thats the only place you have adequate crossings. But that wouldn't work because that cuts your city out of the traffic flow. Davis: We have looked in depth up to this point in time at four alternatives. We looked at widening the existing roadway at a grade crossing. In other words, not bridging the the railroad and the existing roadway. LLoyd & Associates did an in-depth study of tunneling under the railroad tracks at the request of FEC Railroad, and thats documented. In the study that went to the railroad, I believe we sent a copy to the city and its in our file. The third alter- native was the twin pairs. The 4th alternative was to build a roadway in the new railroad ROW, a 4 lane facility, and basically eliminate the crossing at the existing 512 roadway. So there were four alternatives in depth that we looked at and we have documentation. We have studies from 1987 to this point in time. You know, we have made those alternatives known to the city. So theres been four alter- natives heavily looked at. For people to say we haven't looked at grade separated crossings, thats not the case. We have done that in depth and its documented as well as the other three alternatives, but we didn't feel they were cost effective and we didn't feel, with our resources, we could implement them. Scurlock: Oberbeck: Scurlock: Davis: Scurlock: Davis: Scurlock: Davis; Anyway, as one individual and as a Commissioner, if the City of Sebastian is opposed absolutely to the twin pair concept, I think its a lot easier to make that known and then we can deal with it, as opposed to just doing another study and another study because that doesn't get us anywhere. And I think the commission, from what I've seen, is committed to listening very heavily to what Sebastian has to say. They've done that over and over again. But we're getting to the stage that I have a concern about for the future growth of Sebastian if we don't do some things. And hopefully they'll be compatible with us having flexibility in the future. We may be in a situation where its moratorium time. And although you don't care if you go maybe, I think there are others in the community that are concerned about moratoriums. And if you're talking about some of these projects taking 18 months to implement, an 18 month moratorium is not something I think most of the people---its not one or two days---to build an infrastructure like we're talking about is months, if not years. And I don't think people can handle 18 month moratorium in the north county. Doug, I will present it tonight to the council and you'll. probably read the answer in tomorrow mornings newspaper. We've done that before. What else do we need to do? The request that came from the city was that this Phase II of ~the project go back into study. Quite frankly, we've discussed how would we write a scope of work. Do we write a scope of work to leave it wide open to a consultant, to come up with all the alternatives he can possibly come up with, or do we try to narrow it down to--- How much money is currently in the impact fees in that zone? Theres about 2.5 million dollars in that zone. And to leave it totally open, as Frank was suggesting, look at absolutely every alternative, what kind of study costs would there be? It would be hard for me to project. I would say at least --if you're going to have a consultant look at every single alternative--I think there needs to be some narrowing of alternatives.. There needs to be some preliminary phase of the study to define alternatives and then before the consultant investigates each alternative specifically and does a lot of work on each alternative, we almost need to narrow the list down. And maybe the city and county staff can work together to narrow the list and take that list of alternatives to the council and get them to endorse the preliminary list. And then a Phase i1 of the study would be for the consultant to do detailed studies of those alternatives. Scurlock: And how long would such a study take? Davis: I would say six months. The cost, I would say, $70 to 100 thousand dollars if we get a comprehensive study. Now, you can go with a less than comprehensive study. Scurlock: I'm hearing you don't want that. Davis: You know, if you have a ROW acquisition considered then an appraiser needs to be on board to look at the values of the land affected. You need a roadway engineer. You may need a bridge structural person to look at grade separation. The railroad is considered, so you might need some railroad consultants. It could get quite expensive or it could be a $10,O00 study that is a broad brush study and does not look at all the alternatives and we .... Scurlock: Well, we've done two or three of those, right? Davis: Well, we did a $15,000 study that looked at traffic counts and basically it was more of a traffic engineering study. It didn't look at other things. Oberbeck: You know, you could spend all this money on studies and it comes back and either party doesn't like it, then what do we do? Scurlock: Thats my point, Frank. I'm not trying to be tough. I'm just saying that to spend $100,000 for another study, if in fact, five city council people are absolutely opposed to twin pairs, let~ get to the bacon and lets cut it and have breakfast. I mean Oberbeck: The question as presented, and again I have to apologize for not making the last meeting, the question as presented to council was 'whats your position on the twin pairs' Do we go ahead with the western portion and hold up the eastern portion. What do we do. And that is basically how we voted, as our letter indicates. The question was, do we wait on the eastern portion till all study$ are in. Scurlock: I normally don't even serve on this committee but today I do. She sure gave me a good one, didn't she? Female: Theres no point in us discussing this any more. If you're definitely against the twin pairs, we need to know that. Male: i think the reason that question wasn't raised quite that way, Frank, is because it hadn't occurred to us there was the possibility that council was just basically opposed to the twin pairs. Oberbeck: The question will be presented tonight. Scurlock: Yes, I think thats really it. Sitting in, thats exactly Scurlock: the way it came down is that the twin pairs were still viable, that we don't want to do anything to not allow us in the future to be able to get over the railroad crossing and I think that was really from the Commission standpoint, what we were talking about but then I started reading between the lines of another study and i'm just the way I am, I call a spade a spade and either you've got to do it or not and thats a beginning point. Davis: At the city council meeting when they took the vote, the members of the city council did say that the door was still open for the twin pairs, that they wanted to look at all the alternatives. And I heard that specifically because my ears perked up when I heard that. Not because I'm leaning toward that particular option, its just because thats the project we already have in engineering and we're so far along there. But it was specifically said at the city council meeting about two weeks ago, that the twin pair option is still a viable option. Male: Number one, we get this answer: Are they diametrically opposed to twin pairs. If so, they should tell us now, number one. Number two, while we are waiting for that, in the interim, it seems to me that the staff ought to come back with a recommendation as to whether it is reasonable, feasible, to go ahead with the western portion, given the uncertainty of the eastern portion. Because we now have serious doubts about that. Davis: Well~ it narrows the options. It narrows the alternatives if we go ahead with Phase I, the western phase. If we don't go ahead with Phase I, a few more alternatives may, I think, open up. Male: That being the case, then, the views expressed by Sebastian so far, sounds like it should be held up for now. Female: Because we've really never talked in phases until very recently. Davis: But'see, certain things are happening in Sebastian today, like the Food Lion at Chessers Gap thats going to demand roadway improvements very shortly. So for us to hold up on the western may create a concurrancy problem for some of the things you've got going right now. Scurlock: That gets back to my concern. Doing nothing isn't the option. Oberbeck: This is the first time I've been made aware of the fact that the western portion would be impacted in any way by the decision on the eastern portion. I'll go along with being told that we're going to continue with the western portion until we resolve the problem with the eastern portion. Female: The problem with the eastern portion was a compatibility Female.: problem, not a stopping problem. It was never a stopping problem in my mind. It was being compatible with future plans and that doesn't stop the twin pairs. You don't build 4 lane roads going nowhere. Oberbeck: Apparently there are alternatives, so even if we continue with the twin pairs, if they elect to do so, then we tie in, or 4 lane the northern portion and continue to leave the current 512 open for our southern traffic. Another alternative. Davis: Then you'd still have a twin pairs. Oberbeck: Oh yes, you would. Davis: It would be a bi-directional twin pairs and the intersection at US 1 would not work because you've got full movements at each intersection. See, by segregating the eastbound and westbound movement, you can tie the signals together and co- ordinate the movements, but if you don't split the directions, then twin pairs is not a twin pairs. Scurlock: I think we'll have our answer tonight on that issuu. We know to date that what we're doing and what we're planning to do right now if we move ahead with twin pairs, we can build a future crossing and thats compatible. But if we're not going to do the twin pairs then I think, Bob, you hit it right on the head with the things we need to do. Male: I'd like the position of the city council about the railroad bridge. I think thats what started this whole thing. They don't want the twin pairs then put in a railroad bridge and we had everybody other than elected officials in Sebastian, down here begging for a railroad bridge. I think what I was looking for last time was a committment from city council that they endorsed this. We've not seen or heard that they have. And that they have some idea or source of funding for it. Scurlock: Do we have an answer on that issue? Davis: Well, thats what we presented at the council meeting was the design issues of the railroad bridge. And we've been waiting for Chief Engineer Stokely of the railroad to give us some information on how high we could raise the railroad. AT one time he made a comment, he thinks 5 or 6 feet. Another time he made a comment maybe up to 9 feet. But we just talked to him again this week and he hasn't worked on that yet. So we are sort of waiting for his input as to how high we can raise the railroad. Thats a key issue. What kind of elevation can we get by raising the railroad. We know that as we cut the road down, we have to have 14 feet of clearance beneath the railroad bridge. We are already into the ground water table about 5 feet. By getting into the ground water table, you're going to have to do some underdrain drainage work. So the issues are complex and its a Davis: expensive project. Male: Not to diminish the complexities of it, to me the issue is money. If the City of Sebastian would back it and fund it .... Davis: The city doesn't have the revenue to fund it. Scurlock: The city doesn't have th~ revenue. What you're looking at is impact fees and based on the current generation of impact fees, it will take 14 years to generate enough money to do it--if the project holds constant in cost. Thats not me, that$ just numbers. Put the calculator to it. Male: If you try to raise that 9 feet, you'll impact every railroad crossing for miles. Davis: Well, thats why the railroad needs to study how high we can raise it. They looked at Main Street crossing and the Old Dixie crossing. Male: To get your grade elevation you'd probably have to go to Titusville. Scurlock: The way I heard it, it effects at least the one crossing and maybe more. Its only money. Davis: Thats why we looked at tunneling under the railroad about a year ago. By getting that deep under the railroad, we couldn't get back to US 1 and we were under sea level and it just wouldn't work. Scurlock: Sebastian tunnel. Male: That could solve the traffic problem -- you could dump the people out on the island. ( Discussion of amphibious vehicles ) Davis: One concern that we have had is that we have looked at alternatives and the documentation is there. But people keep saying we haven't looked at alternatives. Its just not true. Our files are always open. Anybody can walk up to the 3rd floor and sit down with me, my door is open, and I can go through what we've done. But no one has taken --one council person, I think Mr. Holyk --did come up and meet with us and we went through it. But none of the other people don't really want to spend the time, I guess, to do that. Scurlock: If you forgot the bridge and if we get a position either the twin pairs is a go -- we know its compatible with the bridge-- but if its a no go in Sebastians mind, then its commission time to make a decision. Do we accept that and if we accept it, then we're not going to do twin pairs? Then we're going to do a design to go around about some other way? Huh? Female: If you're not talking about that potential you're talking about improving some other major roadway in Sebastian to alleviate traffic? Scurlock: Absolutely. Davis: Right. And thats why maybe we shouldn't go ahead with with Phase I to the west. Female: Because you may be talking about a loop instead. Scurlock: Thats right. And as I understand the most critical element right now is the intersection at US 1 and 512 and also Barber Street in terms of service level, the number of trips that are there. We're getting close to exceeding those. All right. You're going to go up there and come back and we'll probably read it in the paper. We've done it before. We stand adjourned.