HomeMy WebLinkAbout11041992 City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 [] FAX (407) 589-5570
AGENDA
SEBASTIAN CI?Y C0 NClI,
SPECIAL MEETING/WORKSHOP
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1992 - 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.
THE PURPOSE OF THE SPECIAL MEETING PORTION IS FOR FINAL
ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
RESOLUTION NO. R-87-27:
* RESOLUTION NO. R-92-40 - GOLF COURSE RATES
* RESOLUTION NO. R-92-43 - CWA CONTRACT AMENDMENT
* RESOLUTION NO. R-92-45 - SEBASTIAN LAKES
AGREEMENT ADDENDUM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
AGENDA MODIFICATIONS (ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS...} -
Items not on the written agenda may be added only
upon unanimous consent of the Council members present
(Resolution NO. R-Sg-59).
6. PROCLAMATIONS AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS
92.300
PUBLIC HEARING, FINAL ADOPTION
The normal order of business for public hearings
(Resolution No. R-88-32) is as follows:
* Mayor Opens Hearing
* Attorney Reads Ordinance Or Resolution
* Staff Presentation
* Public Input
* Staff Summation
* Mayor Closes Hearing
* Council Action
Please Note: Anyone wishing to speak is asked to go
to the podium and state his/her name and address for
the record prior to addressing the Council.
A. RESOLUTION NO. R-92-40 - Golf Course Rates
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, PERTAINING TO GREENS FEES AND GOLF
CART FEES AT THE ~KJNICIPAL GOLF COURSE; PROMULGATING
A NEW SCHEDULE OF GREENS FEES AND GOLF CART FEES;
PROMULGATING A NEW SCHEDULE OF ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP
FEES; AUTHORIZING THE GOLF COURSE MANAGER TO MAKE
ADJUSTMENTS TO THE HOURS AND CONDITIONS UNDER CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES; AUTHORIZING THE GOLF COURSE MANAGER TO
ADJUST THE SUMMER FEE SCHEDULE WITHIN THE SPECIAL
RANGE FOR MARKETING PURPOSES; AUTHORIZING THE GOLF
COURSE MANAGER TO ADJUST THE RATION OF TEE-TiMES
RESERVATIONS BETWEEN MEMBERS AND NON-MEMBERS;
PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF RESOLUTIONS OR PARTS OF
RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
PUBLIC INPUT ON AGENDA ITEMS
2
92.301
92.024
92.302
92.303
10.
9. CONSENT AGENDA
Ail items on the consent agenda are considered to be
routine and will be enacted by one motion. There
will be no separate discussion of consent agenda
items unless a member of City Council so requests; in
which event, the item w£11 be removed and acted upon
separately.
RESOLUTION NO. R-92-43 - Communications Workers
of America Contract Addendum (City Manager
Recommendation dated 10/26/92, R-92-43, Contract
Addendum, PT and FT Step Plans)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, RATIFYING AMENDMENTS TO THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
SEBASTIAN AND THE COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA,
FOR THE PERIOD FROM OCTOBER 1, 1992 THROUGH AND
INCLUDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1993; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF
RESOLUTIONS OR PARTS OF RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT
HEREWITH; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
RESOLUTION NO. R-92-45 - Sebastian Lakes
Agreement Addendum (Staff Recommendation dated
10/29/92, R-92-17 and Current Agreement, R-92-45
- New Agreement Forthcoming)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, RATIFYING AMENDMENTS TO THE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN AND SEBASTIAN
LAKES ASSOCIATES, A COPY OF WHICH IS ATTACHED TO THIS
RESOLUTION AS EXHIBIT "A" AND INCORPORATED HEREIN BY
THIS REFERENCE; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OR RESOLUTIONS
OR PARTS OF RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Bid Award - Holiday Decorations - Clark Sales
Display, Inc. of Tavares - $4,845 Annually - Four
Years (Staff Recommendation dated 10/28/92, Bid
Tabulation Form)
Do
Reimbursement of Annual Water Quality Management
Conference Expenses for Councilmember Carolyn
Corum (City Manager Recommendation dated
10/29/92)
PRESENTATIONS - None
3
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
92.216
92.304/
91.235
92.220
92.262
92.305
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MATTERS
A. Mr. Frank Oberbeck
B. Mrs. Carolyn Corum
C. Dr. Peter R. Holyk
D. Mr. George G. Reid
E. Mayor Lonnie R. Powell
CITY ATTORNEY MATTERS
CITY MANAGER MATTERS
COMMITTEE REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS
WORKSHOP ITEMS
Wentworth Ditch Relocation (Staff Recommendation
dated 10/27/92, City Engineer Memo dated
10/27/92, Community Development Director Memo
dated 10/28/92, Sebastian Elementary PTA Memo
dated 10/16/92)
Golf Course Expansion Commission Appraisal (City
Manager Recommendation dated 10/28/92, Hanson
Appraisal Proposal dated 10/19/92, Armfield-
Wagner Proposal dated 10/22/92, Jones Conceptual
Drawings dated 10/29/92 [Under Separate Cover])
Channel 68 Marina ~ Richard Fey (Staff
Recommendation dated 10/29/92, Fey Letter dated
10/28/92, Jones Survey dated 9/16/92, DER Notice
dated 10/19/92)
Permitting Skydiving Activities at the Sebastian
Municipal Airport and Leasing Airport Property
(Staff Recommendation dated 10/29/92, Report of
FAA Rulings, City Attorney Letter dated 10/28/92)
Barber Street Sports Complex Expansion - Engage
Services of Mosby and Associates, Inc. -
Preparation of Master Plan (City Manager
Recommendation dated 10/28/92, Mosby Proposal
dated 10/28/92)
4
16.
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)
17. 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.)
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330
SUBJECT: Modification of Golf Course Rates
Approved for Submittal By:
City Manager __
No.
Dept. Origin Finance (MLH)
Date Submitted: October 21, 1992
)
)
)
)
For Agenda Of
October 28, 1992
Exhibits: Resolution R-92-40, Comparison
of existing and proposed rates prepared by
MLH dated 10/27/92.
Expenditure Amount Appropriation
Required: -0- Budgeted: -0- Required:
$1jlVlIVIARY STATEMENT
The City is required under the Golf Course bond covenants to establish, fix and
maintain such rates and charges for the use of the golf course facilities as shall always
provide gross revenues in each year sufficient to be at least equal to 100% of the annual
debt service on all outstanding bonds coming due in such year and 100% of the
operation and maintenance expense and a~.y reserve deposit requirements. Section
12.5-3 of the City Code states that modifications of golf course rates shall require a
resolution of the city council after one public hearing.
The finance department is charged to ensure that compliance with the bond indenture is
maintained and to perform a "revenue test" to concur that modifications to rates are
sufficient to satisfy the above described revenue requirements. Our analysis indicates
that rounds of play are down resulting in reduced income from cart fees and other
revenues. Golf course revenues in Fiscal '92 were down some $30,000 from the prior
year. The following historical data demonstrates the changes in three major revenue
line items:
89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93
.,.Actual Actual Actu. al Budget
Cart Fees 472,666 474,266 442,237 485,000
Greens Fees 331,799 339,903 343,505 340,000
Memberships 213,296 231,893 244,032 245,000
More detailed analysis indicates that summer or "off-season" play is the major source
of the reduced revenues. The entire reduction is reflected in the cart rental fees which
correspond directly to rounds played, both members and non-members. While
members pay only for cart rentals (membership fees aside), it was found that members
could play competitors' golf courses for only a very small differential, and non-
members apparently were enticed by overall reduced fees of other courses. Reduced
rounds of golf result in reduced pro-shop sales, club rentals, driving range fees, etc.
At first glance, raising of the rates may appear to be the instant solution. However,
that is likely to increase the disparity between our summer rates and competitors
summer rates, possibly resulting in further reduced summer play.
Discussions with the Golf Course Pro/manager, City manager, and finance staff
resulted in a concensus that summer play needs to be stimulated and promotions
necessary to recapture the City's summer golf play market share increased. The
resultant recommendation is based on changes in several items including resident and
non-resident membership fee increases, very modest increases of in-season dally rates,
a range of rates in the summer that can be modified at the pro/manager's discretion to
be competitive with the surrounding courses, and a change in the mix of tee-time
reservations between members and non-members.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt Resolution R-92-40 establishing rates for the Sebastian Municipal Golf Course.
RESOLUTION NO. R-92-40
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, PERTAINING TO GREENS FEES AND GOLF
CART FEES AT THE MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE; PROMULGATING A
NEW SCHEDULE OF GREENS FEES AND GOLF CART FEES;
PROMULGATING A NEW SCHEDULE OF ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP FEES;
AUTHORIZING THE GOLF COURSE MANAGER TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS
TO THE HOURS AND CONDITIONS UNDER CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES; AUTHORIZING THE GOLF COURSE MANAGER TO
ADJUST THE SUMMER FEE SCHEDULE WITHIN THE SPECIAL RANGE
FOR MARKETING PURPOSES; AUTHORIZING THE GOLF COURSE
MANAGER TO ADJUST THE RATION OF TEE-TIMES RESERVATIONS
BETWEEN MEMBERS AND NON-MEMBERS; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL
OF RESOLUTIONS OR PARTS.OF RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT
HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Section 12.5-3 of the Code of Ordinances of the
City of Sebastian provides that modifications of golf course
rates shall be established by resolution of the City Council
following one public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the costs of maintaining the Sebastian Municipal
Golf Course and its premises have increased since the adoption of
Resolution No. R-91-39.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
SECTION 1. ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP RATES. Commencing December 1,
1992, the annual membership fees for the Sebastian Municipal Golf
Course shall be as follows:
92/93 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP FEES
Sebastian Resident
Membership Fee
Family $ 775.00
Single $ 625.00
Non-Resident
Membership Fee
Family $ 1150.00
Single $ 950.00
Family membership means a married couple residing together and
all dependents living at home under the age of twenty-one (21)
years.
Proof of residency is required to obtain Sebastian Resident
rates. All new memberships are sub3ect to a two hundred
($200.00) initiation fee. (This fee is non-refundable.)
Bag Storage (Single Per Bag)
(Double Per Bag)
S 40.00
$ 80.0O
Foot Locker $ 15.00
Ail of the above are subject to sales tax. Renewal of an
existing membership is due on or before December 1, 1992.
2
SECTION 2. MEMBER DAILY RATES. Member rates, including
greens fees and golf cart fees, for the Sebastian Municipal Golf
Course are hereby established as follows:
MEMBER
NOV. 15th, 1992 to APRIL 14th 1993
18 HOLES 9 HOLES CONDITIONS
S 8.00 $ 4.00 Ail Day
APRIL 15th to NOV. 14th 1993
$ 6.00 $ 3.00 All Day
WALKING CONDITIONS
NOV. 15th 1992 tO JAN. 14th 1993
9 and 18 Holes
JAN. 15th to APRIL 14th 1993
18 Holes
9 Holes
APRIL 15th to NOV. 14th 1993
Weekdays 9 and 18 Holes
Weekends and Holidays 9 and 18 Holes
After 1 p.m.
After 1 p.m.
After 2 p.m.
Ail Day
After 1 p.m.
3
SECTION 3. NON-MEMBER DAILY RATES. Non-Member rates,
including greens fees and golf cart fees, for the Sebastian
Municipal Golf Course are hereby established as follows:
NON-MEMBER
NOV. 15th to DEC. 14th 1992
18 HOLES 9 HOLES CONDITIONS
$ 19.00 S 12.00
13.00 10.00
7.50
$ 155.00 Ten Play Card
7 a.m. to 1 p.m.
After I p.m.
After 3 p.m.
All Day
FLAG CARDS
$ 13.50
Ail Day
WALKING
S 10.00 $ 7.50
After 1 p.m.
DEC. 15th 1992 t__o JAN. 14th 1993
S 23.00 S 17.00
17.00 14.00
12.00
$ 195.00 Ten Play Card
7 a.m. to 1 p.m.
After 1 p.m.
After 3 p.m.
Ail Day
WALKING
$ 14.00 $ 12.00
After 1 p.m.
JAN. 15th to APRIL 14th 1993
S 28.OO -__
21.50 $ 18.50
14.50
$ 260.00 Ten Play Card
7 a.m. to 1 p.m.
After 1 p.m.
After 3 p.m.
All Day
WALKING
19.50
$ 14.50
After 1 p.m.
After 2 p.m.
4
APRIL 15th to NOV. 14th 1993
18 HOLES
RANGE
$ 10.00 - 13.00
14.00 - 17.00
10.00 - 13.00
7.00 - 10.00
10.50 - 13.50
WEEKDAYS
9 HOLES
RANGE
S 7.00 - 10.00
8.00 - 11.00
7.00 - 10.00
ALL SPECIAL CARDS
18 HOLES
$ 7.00 - 10.00
WALKING WEEKDAYS
9 HOLES
S 3.00 - 6.00
16.00 - 19.00
9.00 - 12.00
WEEKENDS AND HOLIDAYS
$ 9.00 - 12.00
$ 10.00 - 13.00
WALKING WEEKENDS
S 6.00 - 9.00
GROUP RATES
WEEKDAYS
$ 9.50 - 12.50
WEEKENDS & HOLIDAYS
$ 13.50 - 16.50
LEAGUE 19 HOLES)
$ 6.50
CONDITIONS
7 a.m. to 8 a.m.
8 a.m. to Noon
After Noon
After 5 p.m.
All Day
CONDITIONS
Ail Day
7 a.m. to 5 p.m.
After 5 p.m.
After 1 p.m.
5
All of the above are sub3ect to sales tax.
cart fee only.
Ail replays are at
Club Rental
Range Balls
Junior Bucket
Handicap Fee
$ 7.50 (9 Holes) $ 15.00 (18 Holes)
1.00 Sm. Bucket 2.00 Lg. Bucket
.25 " " .50 " "
$ 12.00 Per Person (Yr. Beginning 12/1/92)
Special Green Fee Exceptions: A P.G.A. Member and Certified
Greens Superintendent may play November 15, 1992 to April 14,
1993 one (1) time and April 15, 1993 to November 14, 1993 one (1)
time.
Sebastian Resident Card
$ 15.00
This card provides a 20% discount on all non-discounted fees for
the above period.
SECTION 4. ADJUSTMENTS. The hours and conditions set
forth in Sections Two and Three may be ad3usted at the discretion
of the Golf Course Manager, due to amount of play and area
competitive conditions. The Golf Course Manager is authorized
to establish the rate within the approved range due to amount of
play and area competitive conditions.
SECTION 5. TEE-TIME RESERVATIONS. The ratio of reserved
tee times between members and non-members will be changed from
two members tee-time reservations to one non-member reservation,
to one member tee-time reservation to one non-member reservation.
The golf course pro/manager may ad3ust this ratio for marketing
purposes to stimulate additional play or to reflect changing
conditions.
6
SECTION 6. REPEAL. Ail Resolutions or parts of Resolutions
in conflict herewith are repealed.
SECTION 7. SEUERABILIT¥. In the event a court of
competent jurisdiction shall hold or determine that any part of
this Resolution is invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of
the Resolution shall not be affected and it shall be presumed
that the City Council of the City of Sebastian did not intend to
enact such invalid or unconstitutional provision. It shall
further be assumed that the City Council would have enacted the
remainder of this Resolution without said invalid and
unconstitutional provision, thereby causing said remainder to
remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 8. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall take
effect immediately upon its adoption.
The foregoing Resolution was moved for adoption by
Councilman
Councilman
the vote was as follows:
Mayor Lonnie R. Powell
Vice-Mayor Frank Oberbeck
Councilmember Peter Holyk
Councilmember Carolyn Corum
Councilmember George Reid
The motion was seconded by
and, upon being put to a vote,
7
This resolution was duly passed and adopted by the City
Council of the City of Sebastian, Indian River County, Florida,
at its regular meeting on the day of ,
1992.
CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA
ATTEST:
by:
Lonnie R. Powell, Mayor
Kathryn M. O'Halloran, CMC/AAE
(Seal)
I HEREBY CERTIFY that notice of public hearing on this
Resolution was published in the Veto Beach Press Journal on the
day of , 1992, that one public hearing was
held on this Resolution at 7:00 p.m. on the day
of , 1992, and that following said public
hearing, this Resolution was passed by the City Council.
Kathryn M. O'Halloran, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
Approved as to Form and Content:
Charles Ian Nash, City Attorney
8
GOLFRATE.XLS
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE
Rate Comparison
Fiscal Year End 91/92 to Proposed 92/93
Membership Fees:
Sebastian Resident:
Family
Single
Actual Proposed
91/92 92~93
Change
Non-resident:
Family
Single
700.00 775.00 75.00
550.00 625.00 75.00
Bag Storage:
Single per bag
Double per bag
1,000.00 1,150.00 150.00
800.00 950.00 150.00
Foot locker
40.00 40.00 0.00
80.00 80.00 0.00
Member Daily Rates:
Nov. 15 to April 14:
9 holes
18 holes
15.00 15.00 0.00
April 15 to Nov. 14:
9 holes
18 holes
4.00 4.O0 0.00
8.00 8.00 0.00
Miscellaneous:
Club Rental:
9 holes
18 holes
4.00 3.00 -1.00
8.00 6.00 -2.00
Range Balls:
Small bucket
Large bucket
7.5O 7.5O 0.00
15.00 15.00 0.00
Junior Golf:
Small bucket
Large bucket
0.75 1.00 0.25
1.50 2.00 0.50
Handicap fee (per person)
0.25
0.50
new
new
12.00 12.00 0.00
GOLFRATE.XLS
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE
Rate Comparison
Fiscal Year End 91192 to Proposed 92193
Non-member Daily Rates:
Nov. 15 to Dec. 14:
9 holes:
7 a.m. to 1 p.m.
after 1 p.m.
after 3 p.m.
Actual Proposed
91/92 92/93
Change
18 holes:
7 a.m. to 1 p.m.
after 1 p.m.
11.50 12.00 0.50
9.50 10.00 0.50
7,00 7.50 0.50
Flag Cards (all day):
18.50 19.00 0.50
12.50 13,00 0.50
Walking (after 1 p.m.):
9 holes
18 holes
13.00 13,50 0.50
Dec. 15 to Jan 14:
9 holes:
7 a.m. to 1 p.m.
after 1 p.m.
after 3 p.m.
7.00 7.50 0.50
9.50 10.00 0.50
18 holes:
7 a.m. to 1 p.m.
after 1 p.m.
16.50 17.00 0.50
13.50 14.00 0.50
11.50 12.00 0.50
Walking (after 1 p.m.):
9 holes
18 holes
22.50 23.00 0.50
16.50 17.00 0.50
11.50 12.00 0.50
13.50 14.00 0.50
GOLFRATE.XLS
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE
Rate Comparison
Fiscal Year End 91/92 to Proposed 92/93
Non-member Daily Rates:
Jan. 15 to April 14:
9 holes:
7 a.m. to 1 p.m.
after 1 p.m.
after 3 p.m.
Actual Proposed
91/92 92/93
Change
18.00 18.50 0.50
14.00 14.50 0.50
18 holes:
7 a.m. to 1 p.m.
after 1 p.m.
28.00 28.00 0.00
21.00 21.50 0.50
Walking:
9 holes (after 2 p.m.)
18 holes (after 1 p.m.)
14.00 14.50 0.50
19.00 19.50 0.50
April 15 to Nov. 14:
Weekdays:
9 holes:
7 a.m. to 8 a.m.
8 a.m. to noon
after noon
Range:
Low Change
High Change
18 holes:
7 a.m. to 8 a.m.
8 a.m. to noon
after noon
after 5 p.m.
9.50 7.00 -2.50 10.00 0.50
10.50 8.00 -2.50 11.00 0.50
9.50 7.00 -2.50 10.00 0.50
Special Cards - all day
12.50 10.00 -2.50 13.00 0.50
16.50 14.00 -2.50 17.00 0.50
12.50 10.00 -2.50 13.00 0.50
9.50 7.00 -2.50 10.00 0.50
Walking:
9 holes- all day
18 holes- all day
13.00 10.50 -2.50 13.50 0.50
Weekends & Holidays:
9 holes - 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.
18 holes:
7 a.m. to 5 p.m.
after 5 p.m.
5.50 3.00 -2.50 6.00 0.50
9.50 7.00 -2.50 10.00 0.50
11.50 9.00 -2.50 12.00 0.50
Walking weekends (after 1 p.m.):
9 holes
18 holes
18.50 16.00 -2.50 19.00 0.50
11.50 9.00 -2.50 12.00 0.50
8.50 6.00 -2.50
12.50 10.00 -2.50
9.00 0.50
13.00 0.50
GOLFRATE.XLS
Non-member Daily Rates:
April 15 to Nov. 15:
Group Rates:
Weekdays
Weekends & Holidays
League (9 holes)
New Offers:
SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE
Rate Comparison
Fiscal Year End 91192 to Proposed 92~93
Actual
91/92
Low
Range:
Cl~ange
High Change
12.00 9.50 -2.50 12.50 0.50
16.00 13.50 -2.50 16.50 0.50
6.0O 6.5O O.5O
Ten Play Cards:
Nov. 15 to Dec. 14
Dec. 15 to Jan. 14
Jan. 15 to April 14
Sebastian Resident Card
155.00 new
195.00 new
260.00 new
15.00 new
Prepared by Michael L. Hudkins, CPA
Finance Director, 10/27/92
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 [] FAX (407) 589-5570
SUB~ECT~ CWA Contract
Approved for Submittal By:
City Manager
) Dept. of Origin: City Manager
)
) Date Submitted 10/Z6/92
) For Agenda Of: 11/04/9Z
).
) Exhibits:
) - Resolution R-92-43 - Contract Addendum
- Part-Time Step Plan
- Full Time Step Plan
EXPENDITURE
REQUIRED:
AMOUNT
BUDGETED:
APPROPRIATION
REQUIRED:
SUMMARY STATEMENT
The Communication Workers of America ("CWA") and the City have
recently completed negotiations for the third year of a three (3)
collective bargaining agreement. The CWA met on October 22, 1992
and ratified the proposed addendum by vote of 30 yes and 3 no.
The proposed addendum is within the guidelines established by
City Council in executive caucus.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Move to approve Resolution R-92-43 adopting an addendum to the
collective bargaining agreement between the City of Sebastian and
the Communication Workers of America.
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 [] FAX (407) 589-5570
October 26, 1992
Via: Fax
Mr. Michael L. Grieco
CWA Representative
3313 W. Commercial Blvd.
Suite 114
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309
Re: Proposed Contract Addendum
Dear Mike:
Enclosed is a copy of a proposed City Council Resolution,
Resolution Number R-92-43, which would ratify an addendum to the
collective bargaining agreement between the Communication Workers
of America ("CWA") and the City of Sebastian. A copy of the
addendum along with the proposed pay plans for both part-time and
full time positions are also enclosed. I plan to place these on
the City Council Agenda of November 4, 1992 for ratification by
the Sebastian City Council.
Should you have any questions or concerns about the proposed
Resolution, contract language, or step plans, will you please
contact me at your earliest possible convenience? By copy of this
letter, with attachments, I am asking CWA Representative, Daryl
Thompson to also review these documents.
Sincerely,
~McClary
City Manager
RSM/jmt
Enclosure
30/
RESOLUTION NO. R-92-43
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, RATIFYING AMENDMENTS TO THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN AND
THE COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA, FOR THE PERIOD
FROM OCTOBER 1, 1992 THROUGH AND INCLUDING SEPTEMBER
30, 1993; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF RESOLUTIONS OR PARTS
OF RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND PROVIDING' FOR
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, on December 12, 1990, the City of Sebastian entered
into a three year agreement with the Communication Workers of
America, for wages, benefits and other conditions affecting
employment of all regular full. or part-time employees with the
City included in the Public Employees Relations Commission
Certification #6§0, issued on October 15, 1984~ and
WHEREAS, the referenced agreement commenced on October 1,
1990 and runs through September 30, 1993; and
WHEREAS, during the third year of the agreement, wages and
one other article may be reopened at the option of each party;
and
WHEREAS, the City and the Communication Workers of America
have negotiated wages and other articles to be effective during
the third year of the referenced agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City and the Communication Workers of America
have reached tentative agreement on the amendments to said
contract.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION 1. The document entitled "Addendum to Collective
Bargaining Agreement between City of Sebastian and Communication
Workers of America" attached hereto and made a part hereof as
Exhibits "A", is hereby adopted.
SECTION 2. Ail resolutions or parts of resolutions in
conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
SECTION 3.
upon its adoption.
ATTEST:
This Resolution shall take effect immediately
CITY OF SEBASTIAN
by:
Lonnie R. Powell, Mayor
Kathryn M. O'Halloran, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
(S E A L)
The foregoing Resolution
Councilman
Councilman
the vote was as follows:
was moved for adoption by
The motion was seconded by
and, upon being put to a vote,
Mayor Lonnie R. Powell
Vice Mayor Frank Oberbeck
Councilmember Carolyn Corum
Councilmember Peter Holyk
Councilmember George Reid
The Mayor thereupon declared this Resolution duly passed and
adopted this day of , 1992.
Approved as to Form and Content:
Charles Ian Nash, City Attorney
ADDENDUM TO
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SEB~S~ INDIAN. ~I,,VER
COUNTY. FLORIDA AND THE COMMUNICATION~OF AMERICA
FOR THE CONT~ COMMENCING 10-1-90 THROUGH AND
~N~LUDING SEPTEMBER $0, ,199,~
THIS AGREEMENT shall amend the Contract between the CITY OF
SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, and THE COMMUNICATION
WORKERS OF AMERICA, dated October 1, 1990, through and including
September 30, 1993, and, as amended, shall state as follows:
1. For fiscal year 1992 - 1993, the City's step pay plan
shall be increased by 4% across-the-board for both part-time and
full time employees. The pay plans, as revised, for part-time
and full time employees are attached here and identified as
schedule "A" and schedule "B", and by this reference incorporated
herein.
2. The amendments described hereinabove shall take effect
on October 1, 1992, and shall continue for the balance of the
Contract. Except as expressly amended hereinabove, remaining
provisions of the Contract shall continue in full force and
effect without change or modification. Should any provision
contained within the Contract be inconsistent with or contrary to
the amendments expressly set forth hereinabove, the amendments
expressly set forth hereinabove shall control to the extent of
such inconsistency.
COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA
By:
Michael L. Grieco
DATED:
CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA
By:
Lonnie R. Powell, Mayor
DATE:
ATTEST:
Kathryn M. O'Halloran
City Clerk
SCHEDULE "A"
C.W.A. STEP PLAN JOB CLASSES
Part-Time Positions
Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 1993
Effective October 1, 1992 to September 30, 1993
Job Title 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Desk Clerk, Cart Attndt, tier Asst 1
Hourly rate per step
Account Clerk I, Maint. Worker I
Hourly rate per step
Clerical Asst II, Communications Tech
Hourly rate per step
Mechanic,
Maint. Worker II, Bldg. Maint. Tech
Hourly rate per step
Account Clerk II, Maint. Worker III
Administrative Secretary
Hourly rate per step
Chief Comm. Tech, Code Enf. Officer
Asst Greens Supt., Heavy Equip. Oper.
Foreman, Administrative Asst,
Hourly rate per step
Engineering Tech,, Computer Operator
Hourly rate per step
Bldg Maint Supt, Vehicle maint. Foreman
Cemetery Sexton
Hourly rate per step
Building inspector II
Hourly rate per step
Street and Drainage Supt.
Hourly rate per step
Golf Course Starter/Ranger
Hourly rate per step
Golf Course Head Starter/Ranger
Hourly rate per step
6.01 6.38 6.74 7.10 7.47 7.83 8.20 8.56
6.28 6.65 7.01 7.37 7.74 8.10 8.47 8.83
6.55 6.92 7.28 7.64 8.01 8.37 8.74 9.10
6.83 7.20 7.56 7.92 8.29 8.65 9.02 9.38
7.37 7,74 8.10 8,47 8.83 9.19 9,56 9.92
7.92 8.29 8.65 9.02 9.38 9.74 10.11 10.47
9.02 9.38 9.74 10.11 10.47 10.84 11.20 11.56
9.84 10.20 10.57 10.93 11.29 11.66 12.02 12.39
10.11 10.47 10.84 11.20 11,56 11.93 12.29 12.66
12.29 12.66 13.02 13.38 13.75 14.11 14.48 14.84
4.42 4.76 5.11 5.45 5.79 6.14 6.48 6.82
5.20 5.54 5.89 6.23 6.57 6.92 7.26 7.60
CWA93B.XLS
SCHEDULE "B"
C.W.A. STEP PLAN JOB CLASSES
Regular Full-time Positions
Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 1993
Effective October 1, 1992 to September 30, 1993
Job Title 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Desk Clerk, Cart Attndt, Cler Asst 1
Hourly rate per step
Account Clerk I, Maint. Worker i
Hourly rate per step
Clerical Asst II, Communications Tech
Hourly rate per step
Mechanic,
Maint. Worker II, Bldg. Maint. Tech
Hourly rate per step
Account Clerk I1, Maint. Worker III
Administrative Secretary
Hourly rate per step
Chief Comm. Tech, Code Enl. Officer
Asst Greens Supt., Heavy Equip. Oper.
Foreman, Administrative Asst.
Hourly rate per step
Engineering Tech., Computer Operator
Hourly rate per step
Bldg Maint Supt, Vehicle maint. Foreman
Cemetery Sexton
Hourly rate per step
15,870 16,640 17,389 18,158 18,907 19,656 20,426 21,174
7.63 8.00 8.36 8.73 9.09 9.45 9.82 10.18
16,432 17,202 17,950 18,720 19,469 20,218 20,987 21,736
7,90 8.27 8.63 9.00 9,36 9.72 10.09 10.45
16,994 17,763 18,512 19,282 20,030 20,779 21,549 22,298
8.17 8.54 8.90 9.27 9.63 9.99 10.36 10.72
17,597 18,346 19,094 19,864 20,613 21,382 22,131 22,880
8.46 8.82 9.18 9.55 9.91 10.28 10.64 11.00
18,720 19,469 20,218 20,987 21,736 22,506 23,254 24,003
9.00 9.36 9.72 10.09 10.45 10.82 11.18 11.54
19,864 20,613 21,382 22,131 22,880 23,650 24,398 25,168
9.55 9.91 10.28 10.64 11.00 11.37 11.73 12.10
22,131 22,880 23,650 24,398 25,168 25,917 26,666 27,435
10.64 11.00 11.37 11.73 12.10 12.46 12.82 13.19
23,837 24,586 25,355 26,104 26,874 27,622 28,371 29,141
11.46 11.82 12.19 12.55 12.92 13.28 13.64 14.01
Building Inspector II 24,398 25,168 25,917 26,666 27,435 28,184 28,954 29,702
Hourly rate per step 11.73 12.10 12.46 12.82 13.19 13.55 13.92 14.28
Street and Drainage Supt.
Hourly rate per step
Golf Course Starter/Ranger
Hourly rate per step
Golf Course Head Starter/Ranger
Hourly rate per step
28,954 29,702 30,451 31,221 31,970 32,739 33,488 34,237
13.92 14.28 14.64 15.01 15.37 15.74 16.10 16.46
12,563 13,291 13,998 14,706 15,434 16,141 16,848 17,555
6.04 6.39 6.73 7.07 7.42 7.76 8.10 8.44
14,186 14,914 15,621 16,328 17,056 17,763 18,470 19,178
6.82 7.17 7.51 7.85 8.20 8.54 8.88 9.22
CWA93B.XLS
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 [] FAX (407) 589-5570
SUBJECT= PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
THE EXISTING SEBASTIAN LAKES
AGREEMENT (RESOLUTION # R-92-45)
Approved For Submittal
City Manager
) Agenda Number: ~.0~¢
)
) Dept. Origin: Community Development
)
) Date Submitted: 10/29/92
)
) For Agenda Of: 11/O4/92
)
) Exhibits:
) 1. Resolution # R-92-17 Existing
) Agreement
) 2. Resolution # R-92-45 (New
) Agreement will be distributed as
) soon as it is received)
EXPENDITURE
REQUIRED,
AMOUNT
BUDGETED,
APPROPRIATION
REQUIRED:
SUMMARY STATEMENT
City staff met with Sebastian Lakes representatives on October 14, 1992 to
resolve and conclude any and all concerns regarding our agreement on their
time extension for their Planned Unit Development Conceptual Plan.
It was apparent from previous discussions, that the developer was hesitant
to construct Roseland Road Extension in its approved location (Tract B)
due to the following:
Indian River County will be extending the sewer force main from its
present location at Chesser's Gap west to the new high school site.
This will enable Sebastian Lakes to connect to the sewer force main
and abandon their existing treatment plant.
The construction of Roseland Road under the current agreement
contemplates the location at Tract B and the likelihood of rezoning
the existing Commercial General land west of the road to Residential
Medium. Roseland Road would then serve as a buffer between the
commercial and residential uses. With the current economy, the owner
would like to further analyze the market and maybe go back to the
original S curve road alignment and retain their current 17.57 acres
of Commercial General land.
Page 2
In order not to have this agreement and project go into a stalemate
situation and to have Laconia Street constructed immediately with certain
restrictions, staff and Sebastian Lake owners representatives would
recommend that the City Council ratify the following changes to our
agreement~
Sebastian Lakes will build Laconia Street immediately with a temporary
connection at C.R. 512 as depicted in Exhibit 1. This connection
would only allow right turn in from C.R. 512 and right turn out from
Laconia.
Sebastian Lakes will dedicate an additional 20 feet to the existing 60
foot right-of-way of Tract B to ensure the City has a 80 foot
right-of-way for the extension of Roseland Road.
Sebastian Lakes would have the ability to come back to the City, after
further market analysis, to possibly relocate Roseland Road in order
to create a larger commercial tract of land but, not to exceed the
17.57 acres that they presently have of Commercial General.
Once Sebastian Lakes constructs Roseland Road, the existing connection
to C.R. 512 by Laconia Street would be terminated with a cul-de-sac.
RECOMMEND~ ACTION
Move to approve Resolution R-92-45,
RESOLUTION NO. R-92-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE CITY
CLER~ TO SIGN, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, AN AGREEHENT WITH
SEBASTIAN LAKES ASSOCIATES, A FLORIDA GENERAL PARTNER-
SHIP, IN A FORM IDENTICAL TO T~E AGREEMENT ATTACHED TO
THIS RESOLUTION AS EXHIBIT "A", WHEREBY SEBASTIAN LAKES
ASSOCIATES WOULD DEDICATE CERTAIN STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY
TO THE CITY AND PROVIDE FUNDS NECESSARY TO EFFECT
CERTAIN ROAD IMPROVEMENTS IN EXCHANGE FOR AN 18-MONTH
EXTENSION OF THE CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS SEBASTIAN LAKES;
PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF RESOLUTIONS OR PARTS OF
RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING
SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council and Sebastian Lakes Associates, a
Florida general partnership, desire to enter into an agreement
whereby Sebastian Lakes Associates would dedicate certain rights-
of-way and provide funds for certain road improvements in
accordance with the provisions of the proposed agreement, a copy
of which is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "A", and
incorporated herein by this reference, in exchange for an 18-
month extension of the conceptual development plan for a planned
unit development known as Sebastian Lakes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the proposed
agreement provided to them by City staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that entering into
the proposed agreement will serve a public and municipal purpose
by providing much needed road improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
Section 1. AGREEMENT. The Mayor and the City Clerk of the
City of Sebastian, Indian River County, Florida, are hereby
authorized to sign, on behalf of the City, the agreement between
Sebastian Lakes Associates end the City of Sebastian, a copy of
which is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "A", and
incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2. CONFLICT. All resolutions or. parts of
resolutions in conflict herewith ere hereby repealed.
Section 3. SEVER&BILiTY. In the event e court of
competent ~urisdictton shall hold or determine that any part of
this Resolution is invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of
the Resolution shall not be affected and it shall be presumed
that the City Council of the City of Sebastian did not intend to
enact such invalid or unconstitutional provision. It shall
further be assumed that the City Council would have enacted the
remainder of this Resolution without said invalid and
unconstitutional provision, thereby causing said remainder to
remain in full force and effect.
Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall take
effect immediately upon final passage.
The foregoing Resolution was moved'for adoption by
by Councilman and, upon being put to a
vote, the vote was as follows:
Mayor Lonnte R. Powell
Vice-Mayor Frank Oberbeck
Councilman Peter R. Holyk
Councilwoman Carolyn Corum
Councilmen George G. Reid
2
The Mayor thereupon declared this Resolution duly passed
and adopted this day of ~/~ . 1992.
ATTEST:
K~hr.y~ ~. O~Halldrah; CMCFAAE
City Clerk
(SEAL)
ApprT'~~rm and Content:
Charles Ian Nash, City Attorney
3
THIS A~EME~T, made this~'~'~ day
1992,
by and between the CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, a Florida municipal
corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "City'), and SEBASTIAN
LAKES ASSOCIATES, a general partnership organized and operating
under the laws of the State of Florida (hereinafter referred to as
'Associates").
WHEREAS, the City approved, in Ordinance No. 202-8, the
Conceptual Development Plan (the 'Plan") submitted by Arrowhead
Lakes Estates, a Florida general partnership, for a planned unit
development currently known as Sebastian Lakes (the
"Development'); and
WHEREAS, the City, in Ordinance 0-88-45, approved an amendment
to the Plan at the reguest of Associates, successors in interest
to Arrowhead Lakes Estates; and
WHEREAS, Associates failed to complete development in
accordance with the Plan within eighteen (18) months as regutred
by the Land Development Code of the City; and
WHEREAS, as a result of Associates' failure to complete
development, the Plan is subject to revocation by the City; and
WHEREAS, Associates desires to extend the Plan for an
additional eighteen (18) months; and
WHEREAS, the City is agreeable to extending the Plan for an
additional eighteen (18) months, subject to certain conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises ~nd 'the
mutual covenants contained herein, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Dedication of Street RiQhts-of-Wav.
(a) Associates hereby agrees to dedicate the following
street rights-of-way to the City:
(i) An eighty foot (80') wide right-of-way for the
extension of Roseland Road, from. County Road 512 to Laconia
Street, which Associate~ and'the Cit~ anticipate will be partially
vacated and moved somewhat fzom its existing location, subject to
a proper design of its connecting intersections with County Road
512 and existing Roseland Road, and rededicated as Tract B toward
the west between the now-exiSting Tract B and the Sewage treatment
plant as shown in attached Exhibit "A'; and
(ii) An additional right-of-way for Laconia Street
to effect an eighty foot (80') wide right-of-way south of Roseland
Road and a sixty foot (60') wide right-of-way north of Roseland
Road plus sufficient right-of-way for a cul-de-sac on the northern
portion of Laconia Street ms shown in attached Exhibit #A".
(b) Associates agrees to negotiate' with Indian River
County for a future access to the County Library site in addition
to the existing entrance from County Road 512.
(c) Within sixty (60) days of the execution of this
Agreement by both parties (and adoption by final City Resolution),
Associates shall deliver to First Union National Bank, Sebastian
-2-
office, as escrow agent the deeds and instruments necessary to
effect dedication of the above described rights-of-way to the
City. Said deeds and instruments shall be fully executed and
acceptable to the City and the City Attorney as to form and
substance, and shall be delivered to the City by the escrow agent
upon acceptance of the bid for the improvements described in
Paragraph 2(a) in accordance with Paragraph 4 hereof.
2. Street Improvements.
(a) Obl.ioations of Associates.
(i) Associates hereby agrees to provide the funds
necessary to effect the following improvements to Laconia Street:
(1) Adding twelve (12) feet of pavement to
the existing pavement of Laconia Street to create a twenty-four
(24) foot two lane road;
(2) Construction of a cul-de-sac at the north
end of Laconia Street;
(3) Overlaying the current twelve (12) foot
wide lane of Laconia Street to provide an even riding surface; and
(4) Construction of a twentyufour (24) foot
wide two (2) lane road in'the Roseland Road extension ri~ht-of-way
dedicated pursuant to Paragraph l(a)(1) above.
(ii) Associates further agrees to perform
inspections during construction of the improvements described in
Paragraph 2(a) and to approve progress payments for the work
described in Paragraph 2(a).
-3-
expense,
Street.
(b) Oblioetlons of the City.
(i) The City hereby agrees, at its sole cost and
to improve the existing northbound lane of Laconia
Such improvement shall include:
(1) Correction of any base failures;
(2) Correction of any drainage problems; and
(S) Any and all other repairs necessary so
that Laconia Street may be overlayed with a new asphalt mat when
the street is widened to two lanes.
(ii) The City hereby agrees to permit one (1) curb
cut for ingress and egress to and from the commercial parcel on
Laconia Street, and a second such curb cut later upon submission
of a site plan, if reasonably acceptable to the City, and two (2)
curb cuts for ingress and egress to and from the commercial parcel
on the Roseland Road extension if a turning or third lane is
constructed by Associates at its cost for the curb cuts on
Roseland Road.
(iii) The City hereby agrees that it will reasonably
support Associates' request to the County for two (a) curb cuts on
County Road 512 to provide ingress and egress for the commercial
area.
(iv) The City hereby agrees that it will reasonably
support Associates' request for County transportation impact fee
Credit based on the construction described in Paragraph 2(a) and
-4-
all other improvements made by Associates which m~y be considered
for this purpose. ASsociates will apply to the County as soon as
possible after the execution of this Agreement.
3. Enoineerin~. Deslan and Construction Bu~eet.
(a) Within forty-five (45) days from the execution of
this Agreement by both parties (and adoption bY final City
Resolution), Associates shall, at its sole cost and expense,
prepare and deliver to the City all of the plans and documents
necessary to effect the improvements described in Paragraph 2(a),
including the following:
(i) Any and all necessary surveying, design,
construction drawings, bidding and contract documents;
(ii) A completed application with St. John's River
Water Management District for approval of the improvements
described in Paragraph 2(a);
(iii) A budget for the improvements described in
Paragraph 2(a), consisting of estimated construction costs,
including inspection, contract administration and testing, and
including an allocation of ten (10%) percent of ~he total budget
for construction contingencies; and
(iv) Any and all other documents and permits
necessary to effect the improvements described in Paragraph 2(a).
(b) The City Engineer shall review the materials
submitted by Associates pursuant to subparagraph (a) above and
shall report on their acceptability within fifteen (15) days of
-5-
their receipt. In the event the City Engineer finds any'of the
said materials to be insufficient, inaccurate or otherwise
unacceptable, the City Engineer shall inform Associates in writing
of such insufficiency, inaccuracy or unacceptability and
Associates shall have fifteen (15) days from receipt of said
written notice to correct the materials and resubmit them to the
City for approval.
4. Payment an~ Bid Procedures.
(a) Upon final approval by the City Engineer of the
materials described in Paragraph 3(a), Associates shall place
escrow with the escrow agent the entire amount budgeted in
accordance with Paragraph
(b) Upon notification of said funds in escrow, the City
shall bid the improvements described in Paragraphs 2(a) and 2(b)
in accordance with the bidding procedures established in Section
2-64 of the Code of Ordinance of the City.
(c) If the bids received by the City for the improvements
described in Paragraph 2(a) are wi%bin the approved budget, meet
bid specifications as determined by Assocla%es and the City, and
are otherwise acceptable to the City and Associates, the City
shall proceed with the construction of all the improvements and
the escrow agent shall pay for the 'construction of the
improvements described in Paragraph 2(~,) and return any unused
funds to Associates upon completion of same.
-6-
(d) If the bid received by the City for the imprOVements
described in Paragraph 2(a) from the lowest responsible bidder
exceeds the approved budget, and if such bid is nevertheless
acceptable to Associates, Associates shall pay the difference
between said bid price and the approved budget within fifteen (15)
days of receiving written notice from the City, and the City shall
thereupon proceed with the construction of all the improvements
and the escrow agent shall pay for the construction of the
improvements described in Paragraph 2(a) and return any unused
funds to Associates upon completion of the same. If such bid
price from the lowest responsible bidder exceeds the approved
budget, but is not acceptable to Associates, the escrow agent
shall return the escrowed funds to Associates on demand.
5. Extension of Conceptual Development Plan. The Plan
shall be extended for an additional eighteen (18) months once the
following shall have occurred: (a) this Agreement shall have been
fully executed by both parties and formally adopted by final City
Resolution, (b) the bid received by the City for the improvements
described in Paragraph 2(a) shall have been approved pursuant to
Paragraph 4 hereof and (c) the deeds and instruments necessary to
effect the dedications described in Paragraph l(a) hereof shall
have been delivered to the City.
6. Time. Time is of the essence of this Agreement and each
and every provision hereof.
-7-
7. Existinu Oblioations. It is the intent of the 'parties
hereto that this Agreement shall supercede Section II of Ordinance
202-8 as revised by Ordinance 0-88-45. All ordinances or parts of
ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. Completion
of the work described in Paragraph 2(a) hereby relieves
Associates, its successors and assigns, of any further obligation
to contribute land or money for off-site or on-site improvements
whether for transportation, parks or other purposes; provided,
however, that nothing contained herein shall be construed
relieve AssoCiates from the obligation of constructing those
improvements which, because of the particular design
characteristics. of the Development, are required by the City's
Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan.
8. ~_~. In the event As~oclates fails to observe and
perform any provisions of this Agreement to be observed or
performed by Associates, the City m~y, 'at any time %hereafter,
without limiting the City in the exercise of any right or remedy
at law or equity which the City may have by reason of such default
or breach:
(a) Initiate action to revoke approval of the Plan;
(b) Initiate proceedings to determine whether the
property comprising the Development should be rezoned; and
(c) Pursue any and all other remedies now or hereafter
available to the City under the laws or judicial decisions of the
State of Florida.
-8-
9. SavinQs Clause. The invalidity oF unenforceability of
any particular provision of this Agreement shall not affect the
other provisions hereof, and this Agreement ~hall be construed in
all respects as if such invalid or unenforceable provisions were
omitted.
10. Inter~retatlon of Aareement. This Agreement shall be
construed, governed and enforced in accordance with and by the
laws of the State of Florida, and venue for any action to enforce
or to interpret this Agreement shall be Indian River County,
Florida.
11. Bindina Effect. All of the terms, covenants, warranties
and representations contained herein shall inure to the benefit of
and 'be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors and
assigns.
12. AttorneY's Fees an~ Costs. If any action is commenced
by any of the parties to enforce any terms, covenant or condition
of this Agreement or to obtain declaratory relief at law or in
equity, the prevailing party shall be entitled to all costs and
expenses of said action (including a reasonable attorney's fee) at
trial and all appellate levels, from any of ~he other parties (or
its/his/their successors or assigns) who opposed the prevailing
party.
13. ~. All notices or communications required or
permitted hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed to be
delivered when personally served or three (3) days after deposit
-9-
in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, registered or
certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the parties
at the following addresses or at such other address as may have
been theretofore specified by written notice delivered in
accordance hereof:
TO THE CIT~:
WITH A COPY TO:
TO ASSOCIATES:
WITH A COP~ TO:
CiT~ OF SEBASTIAN
Attention: City Manager
P. O. Box 780127
Sebastian, Florida 32978
CHARLES IAN NASH, ESQUIRE
City Attorney
930 S. Harbor City Boulevard
Suite 505
Melbourne, Florids 32901
SEBASTIAN LAKES ASSOCIATES
c/o THE ST. PAUL CORPORATION
10 East Baltimore Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Attention: Wayne E. Olson
JOHN WHITE II, ESQUIRE
1645 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
Penthouse
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
14. Entire and Sole Auree_me~.. Except as specifically
stated herein, this Agreement and the Exhibits referenced herein
constitute the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes
all agreements, representations, warranties, statements, promises
and understandings not specifically set forth in this Agreement or
in the documents delivered in connection herewith. Neither party
has in any way relied, nor shall in any way rely, upon any oral or
written agreements, representations, warranties, statements,
promises or understandings not speclfi=ally set forth in this
Agreement or in such documents.
-10-
15. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed
simultaneously in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be
an original, but ali of which together shall constitute one and
the same instrument.
16. A~9_~_~D-~. Neither thfs 'Agreement nor any term hereof
may be changed, warred, discharged or terminated orally, but only
by an instrument in writing signed by the party against which
enforcement of the change, waiver, discharge or termination is
sought.
17. lt~. The headings in this Agreement are for
purposes of reference only and shall not limit or otherwise affect
the meanings hereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereupon set their hands
and seals the day and year first above written.
ATTEST:
Kathr~ M..O'Malloran
CMC/AAE, C~ty Clerk
(SEA )
CITY
Charles ~'an
City Attorney
-11-
SEBASTIAI~ LAKES ASSOCIATES
ATTEST:
Wayne E. 01son, as the
Vice President of The St. Paul
Corporation, its Managing Par%net
Secretary /.
(CORPORATE SEAL)
8655W/clc
2095/2390
3/05/92-4
-12-
10/29/92 14:59 ~i' 407 951 3741 FP,.ESE, NASH et ~l ~ 02
RESOLUTION NO. R092045
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, RATIFYING A~ENDMENTS TO THE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN AND SEBASTIAN LAKES
ASSOCIATES, A COPY OF WHICH IS ATTACHED TO THIS
RESOLUTION AS EXHIBIT '*~'AND INCORPORATED HEREIN BY THIS
REFERENCE; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF RESOLUTIONS OR PARTS
OF RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND PROVIDING FOR
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, on March 31, 1992, the City of Sebastian entered into
a certain agreement with Sebastian Lakes Associates, a Florida
general partnership, whereby Sebastian Lakes
dedicate certain street rights-of-way to the City and provide funds
necessary to effect certain road improvements in exchange for an
18-month exten~ion of the conceptual development plan for a planned
unit development known as Sebastian Lakes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the agreement in Resolution
No. R-92-17; and
WHEREAS, due to financial considerations, Sebastian Lakes
Associates has requested that the city agree to certain amendments
to the a£0reme~tioned agreement;
WHEREAS, the City and Sebastian Lakes Associates have reached
tentative agreement on the amendments to maid agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION 1. AGREEMENT. The document entitled "Addendum to
Agreement between City of Sebastian and Sebastian Lakes
A~sociates", attached hereto a~d made a part hereof a~ Exhibit "B',
i~ hereby adopted.
SECTION 2. CONPLICT. All resolutions or parts of
resolutions An conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
1~/29~92 14:59 '{~ 487 951 374!1 FRESE, NASH e~ al , ~ 0~
~ SEVSRABILITY. In the event a court of
competent jurisdiction shall hold or determine that any part of
this Resolution is invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of
the Resolution shall not be affected and it shall be presumed that
the City Council of the City of Sebastian did not intend to enact
such invalid or unconstitutional provision, it shall further be
assumed that the City Council would have enacted the remainder of
this Re~olution without said invalid and unconstitutional
provision, thereby causing said remainder to remain in full force
and effect.
~ EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall take
effect immediately upon final passage.
CITY OF SEBASTIAN
ATTEST:
by:
Lonnie R. Powell, Mayor
Kathryn M. O'Halloran, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
[SEAL]
The foregoing Resolution
Counoilmember
councilmember
the vote was as follows:
was moved for adoption by
. The motion was seconded by
and, upon being put to a vote,
Mayor Lonnie R. Powell
Vice Mayor Frank Oberbeck
Councilmember Carolyn Corum
Councilmember Peter Holyk
Councilmember George Reid
10/29/92 15:00 '~' 407 951 3741 FI~$E, NASH et al ~ 04
The Mayor thereupon declared this Resolution duly passed and
adopted this __ day of , 1992.
Approved as to Form and Content:
charles Ian Mash, City Attorney
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 D SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 [] FAX (407) 589-5570
SUBJECT: Bid Award for Holiday
Decorations
Approved For Submittal By:
City Manager
Agenda No.
Dept. Origin
Date Submitted
)
.)
)
)
)
)
)
Finance {LWN)
10-28-92
For Agenda of
11-04-92
Exhibits: Bid Tabulation
EXPENDITURE
REQUIRED: $ 4,845.00
ANOUNT
BUDGETED: $ 4,000.00
APPROPRIATION
REQUIRED:
SUMMARY STATEMENT
Two bids were received for the holiday decorations which are displayed through
out the City for the holiday season. The low bidder, Clark Sales Displays Inc.,
has provided this service to the City annually for the last six years. They also
alternate the decorations yearly to give us a variety and the decorations are
very well maintained by the vendor and always took like new. Clark Sales is
proposing a four year lease at $4,845.00 per year. Adequate funds are available
in the General Fund.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Move to award the bid for holiday decorations to the lowest and best bidder,
Clark Sales Display, inc., of Tavares, Florida, in the amount of $4,845.00
annually for the next four years.
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 ri FAX (407) 589-5570
SUBJECT: Relmbrusement of
Conference Expenses for
Carolyn Corum, Member of
City Council
Approved For Submittal By=
City Manager ~~
Dept. of Origin= city Manager
Date Submitted=
For Agenda Of=
Exhibits
11/04/92
REQUIRED Approx.
EXPENDITURE= $500
BUDGETED
AMOUNT: $1,000
APPROPRIATION
REQUIRED=
SUMMARY STATEMENT
On October 28, 29, and 30, 1992, Councilmember Carolyn Corum
attended the 1992 Annual Water Quality Management Conference
sponsored by the St. John's River Water Management District and the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. The conference was
held in Orlando. Ms. Corum will be making a report to the City
Council under her matters. Section 2.05 of the City Charter reads
in part: Section 2.05 (2) ("expenses. When it is deemed desirable by
the entire city Council that the Mayor or any member of the City
Council attend any function on City business, their expenses will be
allowed in accordance with F.S. Section 112.061.")
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Move to allow expenses of Carolyn Corum at the Annual Water Quality
Management Conference held in Orlando, Fl., October 28 - 30, 1992.
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 r~ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 o FAX (407) 589-5570
SUBJECT: Wentworth Ditch
relocation
Approved for Submittal By:
City Manager ~~
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
).
)
)
)
)
Agenda No.
Dept. Origin
Date Submitted
ENG/P~
10-27-92
For Agenda of 11-04-92
Exhibits: City Eng Memo
10-27-92 Community Develop.
Director Memo, Sebastian
Elementary School PTA Memo
EXPENDITURE
REQUIRED:
AMOUNT
BUDGETED:
APPROPRIATION
REQUIRED:
SUMMARY
Three meetings have been held with property owners along
the Wentworth Ditch to discuss the relocation. All three
meetings have produced approximately 40 to 50 residents who
are concerned about the loss of privacy from the
vegetation removal and the proposal to plant wax myrtles
placed ten feet apart. The most recent meeting finds the
County agreeing to plant the trees based on the County
Forester's recommendations for maximum buffering and
raising the berm wherever possible greater than three feet.
The County is also requesting a temporary construction
easement from the residents so the existing ditch can be
filled in. The County and the City will be contacting FPL
to request pole relocations after the ditch has been moved.
The community Development Director has recommended a change
to the City's fence ordinance to allow the installation of
an 8 foot high fence along the Wentworth Ditch.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Move to accept the county's plan for the relocation of
the "Wentworth" ditch and direct staff to contact the
County forester's office for wax myrtle planting and FPL
and other utilities for pole relocations. Direct the City
Attorney to revise the fence ordinance to allow the
installation of an eight foot high fence for the property
owners along the Wentworth Ditch.
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 r~ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 o FAX (407) 589-5570
MEMORANDUM
DATE;
October 27, 1992
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
Mayor and City Council
Robert S. McClary~ ~ ~
City Manager v~, r~
RE:
Wentworth Ditch Relocation
As you are well aware the County has had several meetings
with property owners regarding the relocation of the
Wentworth Ditch. The most recent meeting was held on
Thursday, October 22, 1992. In attendance at that meeting
were Roger Caine and Jim Davis from Indian River County along
with their representative from Kimball Lloyd, Wayne
Westerman. Also in attendance was Robert S. McClary, City
Manager and myself, along with 42 citizens. Several of the
citizens voiced their opinions and concerns regarding the
most recent plan as follows:
1) The residents feel that there will be a loss of privacy
when the vegetation is removed.
2) That the road will encroach on their privacy,
3) The new buffer will not provide the same level of privacy,
4) The bike path on the north side will encroach on their
privacy.
5) They would like a higher buffer with wax myrtles closer
than 10 feet, and
6) Utility poles should be removed once ditch is relocated.
The County has agreed to the following:
!) Preserve existing vegetation to the best of their ability.
2) Increase the slope and height of berm wherever possible
(3.0' Min)
3) Plant the wax myrtles based on County Forester's
recommendations to effect maximum screening.
4) Contact FPL regarding the utility pole removal after
relocation.
The City has been requested to also contact FPL with regards
to the relocation of the poles.
The County will require a temporary construction easement to
effect the ditch relocation. I£ the residents will not grant
the easement and the County cannot access private property,
then the residents may have an unfilled ditch on their
property after relocation.
ditch3.doc
cc- James W. Davis, P.E.
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 D SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 s FAX (407) 589-5570
MEMORANDUM
DATE .-
TO,
FROM,
REFERENCE ..
October 28, 1992
Robert McClary
City Manager
Bruce Cooper ,~
Director of Community Development
Fences on CR-512
With the upcoming expansion of CR-512 and the concerns
raised by the adjacent property owners regarding their lost
of privacy, I would recommend the existing ordinance limiting
residential fences from six (6) feet in height, to eight (8)
feet in height. I brought this suggestion to the Planning and
Zoning Commission and they unanimously agreed that this
amendment would be appropriate.
Without this amendment, all of the property owners
adjacent to CR-512 would be required to obtain a variance
from the Board of Adjustment and pay a filing fee of $100.OO.
There would be no guarantee that the board would approve a
variance but, staff would recommend granting due to the
special conditions of their property.
Therefore, I would recommend that Section 20A-5.9.C of
the Land Development Code be amended to read as follows,
Ail residential properties abutting CR-512 may construct
an eight (8) foot high fence along their rear lot line and
along their side lot lines within twenty (20) feet of the
rear lot line.
512fence.doc
Sebastian ~lementarlr School PTA ~..~ .~9.~,~
October 16, i 2
Dear Mr. Oberbeck,
We are officers of the Sebastian Elementary School PTA and
we represent over 225 parents and teachers. We are concerned
about plans to create a bike path for our school children on the
south side of Rte. 512, directly abutting the highway. A
significant number of our children ride a bike or walk to our
school. These children, because of their age, are fairly
impulsive and less aware of traffic dangers than are adults.
We think they need special protection to ensure their safety.
In examining plat maps of Rte. 512, the south side will have
significant commercial development, with traffic entering and
exiting about every 50 feet in some places.in order to access
businesses. This creates a significant hazard for a child riding
a bike on a path on that side of the street. The north side
of 512, however, will have far less development since there is
much less land available for that type of commercial development.
That side of the street, in our opinion, would be much safer
for a bike path for our children.
An additional concern is that the bike path as planned would
abut against the highway with no barrier. One false move by
a child riding a bike, and she or he would be in the path of
a car. We would like to suggest that the bike path be separated
from the highway. Many towns have such paths separated by a
large grassy strip and a curb, for example.We understand that
this may cause some consternation by some property owners adjacent
to this area. However, we think that the consequences of being
hit by a car are just too great to risk and outweigh such consterna-
tion.
We hope that this issue is seriously considered. We see the
bike path as planned to be a direct threat to the health and
lives of the children of our school and our community. We think
the proposed solution would minimize risk.
~onnie Sla~de
President
Vicki Tozzo%'o~ ~
1st Vice President
Shaun Rogers
Secretary
Klm Massung
Treasurer
Dee Blossom
2nd Vice President
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 [] FAX (407) 589-5570
SUBJECT: Golf Course Expansion)
Commission Appraisal )
Approved for Submittal
city Man~ ~_
Agenda No.
Dept. of Origin= City Manager
Date Submitted 10/28/92
For Agenda Of= 11/04/92
Exhibits=
- Hanson Appraisal Proposal Dated,
- Arm£ield-W&gner Proposa~ Dated,
~0/22/92
- Conceptual Drawings by Peter Jones
Dated, 10/29/92
EXPENDITURE
REQUIRED= $5,500
AMOUNT
BUDGETED=-0-
APPROPRIATION
REQUIRED= $5,500
SUMMARy STATEMENT
At its Regular Workshop Meeting of September 2, 1992, the City
Council received the final Golf Course Expansion feasibility report
from the Professional Golfers' Association ("PGA"). The PGA report
concluded that there is sufficient unmet demand to justify an
expansion of the municipal golf course. Further, the report
concluded that it is financially feasible to expand the golf course
on a self supporting basis. A number of issues were reviewed during
the September 2, 1992 City Council Meeting and staff was directed to
look at the land issues that were discussed, in particular, Collier
Place PUD and the Saint Sebastian PUD.
There are a number of objectives which could be met should the City
expand its municipal golf co~rse. Specifically, should the city
expand the golf course by adding nine (9) holes to the east on the
Saint Sebastian PUD property and nine (9) holes to the west on the
Collier Place PUD property, the following factors could be taken
into consideration:
1. An expansion of the golf course would mean more
availability of this fine community amenity. Currently, only one (1)
in three (3) building lots in the City is built upon. As our
community and surrounding area continues to grow there will be
additional demands and additional needs for municipal golf
facilities as documented in the PGA report.
2. An expansion onto both properties would mean upscale
residential developments with golf course frontage lots. These lots
would lend themselves to a deed restricted type community with
mostly privately maintained streets and infrastructure. With higher
valuations and lower burdens on infrastructure maintenance, these
types of subdivisions have a positive impact on the City's tax
base.
3. The City should be able to acquire the property at below
fair market value prices. The construction of golf holes will make
the surrounding residential properties much more valuable and
therefore provide an incentive for the owners to sell the property
to the City at a lower price.
4. The expansion of nine (9) holes onto the Collier Place PUD
would maintain the City's transportation plan to extend Wimbrow
Drive from Main Street to Roseland Road.
5. An expansion of nine (9) holes onto the Saint
Sebastian PUD would complement the proposed Airport Community
Compatibility and Master Plan. The golf course and airport are
currently good neighbors. An expansion of golf holes under the
approach of runway 2-7 would provide a compatible land use as
required by Florida Statute.
6. A golf course expansion would be very compatible with the
sensitive environmental issues of the existing wetlands on the Saint
Sebastian PUD and the jurisdictional lines of Collier Creek in the
Collier Place PUD.
In order to determine the feasibility of a nine (9) hole expansion
onto each property, the property owners and the City jointly
commissioned Peter Jones, Architect, to prepare conceptual plans.
The total cost was $3,000 - $1,500 City and $1,500 property owners.
Copies of these conceptual plans are included as exhibits to this
memorandum. The next step is to determine a fair market value of the
properties in question. An evaluation of the fair market value
should include four (4) options:
A. Purchase the entire 158 acre tract of the Collier
Place PUD for expansion of eighteen (18) holes,
B. Purchase of seventy (70) to eighty (80) acres on
the Collier Place PUD for the expansion of nine (9) holes,
C. Purchase of approximately 150 acres of the Saint
Sebastian PUD for the expansion of eighteen (18) holes, and
D. Purchase of approximately seventy (70) to eighty
(80) acres on the Saint Sebastian PUD for the expansion of nine (9)
holes.
The properties would be assessed on the basis of raw land only plus
an estimate of the enhancement of the property value with the
construction of nine (9) holes of golf course on each property.
The City solicited proposals from two (2) State Certified Real
Estate Appraisal firms. We requested these firms to quote a fee and
to provide a profile of their qualifications. Both firms quoted
precisely the same fee of $5,500, which includes appraisals of both
properties as outlined above. Both firms appear to have sufficient
experience and credentials. However, the firm of Armfield-Wagner of
Vero Beach, appears to have more on - point experience and seems to
have a better understanding of the engagement.
The fiscal 1993 budget does not provide an appropriation for these
appraisals. However, there are sufficient reserves in the Golf
Course Enterprise Fund to cover these costs.
RECOMMEND~ ~CTION
Move to approve the engagement of Armfield-Wagner Appraisal &
Research, Inc. of Vero Beach to perform property valuation
appraisals for possible golf course expansion onto the Collier
Place PUD and / or the Saint Sebastian PUD in the amount of
$5,500 as outlined in their proposal dated October 22, 1992.
ARMFIELD-WAG1NER APPRAISAL i RESEARCH, INC.
PETER D, ARMFIELD, MAI. ST. CERT. GEN. REA ~0000524
RIChaRD 1. WAGNEr, MAI. ST. cert. GeN. rea e0000608
DANiel D. FULLER. MAI. ST. CERT. GEN. REA
1940 10TH AVENUE, P, O, BOX 791
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32961-0791
TELEPHONE (407) 562-0532
FAX 407-778-1 121
october 22, 1992
Mr. Michael L. Hudkins, CPA
Finance Director
City of Sebastian
Post office Box 780127
Sebastian, Florida 32978-0127
Dear Mr. Hudkins:
I will be able to provide to the City of Sebastian appraisals
of portions of Saint Sebastian PUD and Collier Place. I understand
the use of the appraisals will be for decision making regarding
acquiring land from these parcels for expansion of the Municipal
Golf Course.
Market Value of the property would be appraised based on its
value considered as a part of the whole parcel. In addition, an
opinion of enhancement in value to the remaining property will
be made. This will consider the view and locational factors
that would accrue to potential lots considering the City's plan
of golf course development.
The fee for this work would be $5,500 and it would take six
weeks to complete.
Please write if you would like me to proceed with this work.
Sincerely,
St. Cert. Gen. REA #0000524
PDA/cso ~850
ARMFIELD-WAGNER APPRAISAL & RESEARCH, INC.
PETER D. ARMFIELD. MAI. -¢;t. CERT, GEN. REA e0000524
RICHARD L, WAGNER, MAI, ST. CERT. GEN. REA ~'0000608
DANIEL D. FULLER. MAI. ST, CERT. GEN. REA '~0000567
1940 10TH AVENUE. P. O, BOX 791
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32961-0791
TELEPHONE (407) 562-0532
FAX 407-778-1 121
October 23, 1992
Mr. Michael L. Hudkins, CPA
City of Sebastian
Post Office Box 780127
Sebastian, Florida 32978
Dear Mr. Hudkins:
In response to your request for additional information I have
included summary qualifications for myself, Virgil Tetsworth, MAI,
and Daniel Nelson either one or both of whom would be assisting
me in completing this assignment.
I have, in the past, completed appraisal assignments involving
PUDs including Marbrisa, Moon River, and lands associated with
the Indian River County's Sandridge Golf Course. I have also
completed appraisal and evaluation work on the subject parcels
in the past.
I believe that we are particularly qualified because we maintain
data base of sales in this county (and have for the past 15
years) and limit our practice to Indian River County. We
provide appraisal service to the lenders in Sebastian.
If your assessment is close, we would hope that some consideration
would be given to the fact that we are involved in our local
communities, including Sebastian.
Please call if you need any additional information.
Sincerely,
P er D. 4~mfield, MAI
St. Cert. Gen. REA #0000524
PDA/cso #850
QUALIFICATIONS OF THE APPRAISER
PETER D. ARMFIELD
Graduate University of Florida
Master of Business Administration, 1972
Bachelor of Business Administration, 1970
Florida Resident Since 1953
Registered Real Estate Broker, Florida
Professional MembershiDs
Member Appraisal Institute (MAI) - Appraisal Institute
Senior Residential Appraiser (SRA) - Appraisal Institute
Realtor Member - Vero Beach Board of Realtors
State-certified General Real Estate Appraiser, #0000524
Work Experience
1984 - Instructor of Appraisal Course for the Society of
Real Estate Appraisers
1981 - Present President, Armfield-Wagner Appraisal &
Research, Inc., Vero Beach, Florida
1979 - 1980
Staff Appraiser, Armfield, Sherman & Associates
Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants
Vero Beach, Florida
1979 - 1982
Instructor of Appraisal and Real Estate
Courses, Indian River Community College,
Ft. Pierce, Florida
1976 - 1978 Employed with John S. Sherman, Jr. as Staff
Appraiser, Vero Beach, Florida
1976 - Real Estate Sales, Fayetteville, North Carolina
Engaged in the valuation of Real Estate in Indian River
and St. Lucie Counties since December, 1976.
Qualified as an expert witness for real property valuation
in the Circuit Courts of St. Lucie County and Indian River
County, Florida.
,..i,.~ ARMFIELD-WAGNER
QUALIFICATIONS OF THE APPRAISER
Peter D. Armfield
Page 2
Real Estate_A~raisal Made ~Qr the FollowinG:
city Federal Savings & Loan of Palm Beach
Savings of America
Florida Federal Savings & Loan
United Savings of America
Florida First National Bank of Vero Beach
Sun Bank
Lomas & Nettleton
Ford Motor Credit
Merrill Lynch Relo.
Gulf & Western Corp.
City of Vero Beach
Indian River County
Gulf Oil Corporation
Exxon Corporation
St. Lucie County
Equitable Relocation
American Hospital Mgmt. Corp.
Attorneys and Individuals
Church of Latter Day Saints
Kentucky Life Insurance Co.
American Petrofina Corp.
Federal National Mortgage Assn.
Fl. Dept. of Natural Resources
Barnett Bank
Tropicana Corporation
T~es of ~ppraisa~s
Residences
Commercial
Offices
Shopping Centers
Service Stations
Light Industrial
Condominiums
Mobile Home Parks
Travel Trailer Pks.
Health & Rec. Clubs
Airplane Hangars
Insurable Value
Vacant Land
Residential
Landlocked
Subdivision
Commercial
Industrial
Wetlands
Casualty Loss Estimates
Warehouses
Leased Property
Citrus Groves
Improved Pasture
Golf Courses
Social Clubs
Motels
Citrus Packing Houses
Articles
"Unusual Appraisal Assignments - Problems and Solutions", by
Peter D. Armfield winning articleinthe 1981manuscript competition
sponsored by the Society of Real Estate Appraisers Foundation;
published in the Real Estate Appraiser and Analyst - Spring,
1982.
"Casualty Loss Valuation" by Peter D. Armfield, published in
the Appraisal Journal of the American Institute of Real Estate
Appraisers, October, 1982.
"Computers in Appraising - Strategies for Success" by Peter
D. Armfield and Stephen Armfield, winning article in the 1983
manuscript competition sponsored by the Society of Real Estate
Appraisers Foundation.
ARMFIELD-WAGNER :
QUALIFICATIONS OF THE .APPRAISER
VIRGIL TETSWORTH
Education
Florida State University, B.S. Degree with major in
Geography, 1978 to 1982
Florida State University, Graduate School with major in
Geography, 1982 to 1983
Appraisal Courses
society of Real ~state Appraisers
Course 101 - An Intro. to Appraising Real Property, (1984)
Course 102 - Applied Residential Property Valuation, (1986)
American Institute .of Real Estat~..~ppraisers
Course 1-Al - Real Estate Appraisal Principles, (1987)
Course 1-A2 - Basic Valuation Procedures, (1987)
Course 1-BA - Capitalization Theory and Tech Part A, (1987)
Course SPP - Standards of Professional Practice, (1988)
Course 1-BB - Capitalization Theory and Tech Part B, (1988)
Course 2-1 - Case Studies in Real Estate Valuation, (1989)
Course 2-2 - Report Writing and Valuation Analysis, (1989)
Professional Memberships
Member Appraisal Institute, (MAI), #9033
Registered Florida Real Estate Salesman, #0446191 (1985)
State-certified General Real Estate Appraiser, 1991 #0000433
Work Experience
Staff Appraiser, Armfield-Wagner Appraisal & Research,
Inc., Vero Beach, Florida
July 1984 to Present
City Planner, City of Port Orange,
Port Orange, Florida
July 1983 to July 1984
Professional Experience
Appraisal work completed on residential properties,
condominiums, commercial and industrial properties for
lending institutions, relocation and individuals.
..... , ~ ............ ARMFIELD-WAGNER
OUALIFICATION~....OF THE AppRAISSR
DANIEL A. NELSON
Bachelor of Business Administration in 1977 from Stetson University
with a Degree in Accounting.
Appraisal Qourses Successfully ~Qmpleted
Society of Real Estate Appraisers
Course 101 - Principals of Residential, 1978
Course 201 - Principals of Income Property, 1979
American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers
Course 1B-A - Capitalization Theory and Techniques,
Part A, 1985
Course 1B-B - Capitalization Theory and Techniques,
Part B, 1985
Standards of Professional Practice, 1986
Case Studies in Real Estate Valuation, 1987
Valuation Analysis and Report Writing, 1987
Professiona~..Membershi~ & Affiliations
Registered Real Estate Broker-Salesperson, 1980, #BL 0312098
State-certified General Real Estate Appraiser, #0000897, 1991
Candidate -MAI, Member Appraisal Institute, Appraisal Institute
Work Experi.~nce
Staff Appraiser, Armfield-Wagner Appraisal & Research, Inc.,
Veto Beach, Florida
1982 to Present
Staff Appraiser, Security Federal Savings and Loan,
Veto Beach, Florida
1977 to 1982
Types Qf A~praisals...Comp~eted
Vacant Land
Residential
Condominiums
Multiple Family
Multiple Family Land
Commercial Land
Light Industrial Land
Offices
Retail Commercial
Restaurants
Shopping Centers
Subdivisions
Golf Courses
Motels
Light Industrial
Warehouses
Airplane Hangars
Leased Property
Mobile Home Parks
Citrus Groves
Engaged in the valuation of Real Estate in Indian River, Brevard,
and St. Lucie Counties since October, 1977.
ARMFIELD-WAGNER -.,,,
.. RNAISAL
SERVICE, INC.
R. L. Leichtenoer~. MA/
President
State-Certified Gen_ Appraiser #$OJ.'~' ': ;:
R. L Hasse[
Secretary. Treasurer
State-Certified Gen. Appraiser #0S22772
October 19, 1992
City of Sebastian
P.O. Box 780127
Sebastian, FL 32978-0127
ATTN: Mr. Mike Hudkins
Finance Director
SUBJECT:
St. Sebastian PUD
Collier PUD
Dear Mr. Hudkins:
We believe you want the sites appraised as follows:
St. Sebastian PUD - This property contains approximately 100
acres of vacant land. I understand you would like this parcel
appraised "as is" and as developed with a golf course.
Collier PUD - This property contains approximately 150 acres of
vacant land. I understand you would like this parcel appraised
"as is".
Please be advised that we would perform appraisals on both of the
above captioned properties for a total fee of $5,500. We would
require approximately four weeks to complete the appraisals.
We appreciate the opportunity to bid on these assignments.
Sincerely,
~erg, MAI
President
St. Cert. Gen. REA# 0000910
/pa
APPRAISERS ' CONSULTANTS ' ANALVST$
2~iS V¢, Nc',;' llc:v'.-'~'. ,?,'¢:-_:t.;,:. ,,- 7~,'lc]b< ur:'~-: l:-~:.,:-~:,:~ :.,:~!' ',.;
f N$ON
PPRAISAL
SERVICE, INC.
Fi. L. Leicmenberg, MA;
President
Srate-Cerfifieo' Gen. Appraiser #0000~ I £
P,,. L Hasse/
Secretary- Treasurer
State-Gerfified Gen. Appraiser #0000972
October 23, 1992
City of Sebastian
P.O. Box 780127
Sebastian, FL 32978-0127
ATTN:
Mr. Mike Hudkins
Finance Director
SUBJECT:
St. Sebastian PUD
and Collier Pud
Proposal Package
Dear Mr. Hudkins:
In accordance with your request of October 22, 1992, we are
forwarding information concerning Hanson Appraisal Service, Inc.,
qualifications of Robert L. Leichtenberg and Allen L. Workman,
who will be the appraisers for the subject property as well as a
partial list of properties we have appraised that are similar to
the subject.
Both Mr. Workman and I have had extensive
appraising vacant land, PUD's and subdivisions.
Thank you for your consideration of our proposal.
Since/~y,
St. Cert. Gen. REA ~0000910
experience in
/pa
APPRAISERS , CONSULTANTS * ANALYSTS
"~.' ~ V.'. '::~:'," ;h'?,":'~: :'.',', ...... ' ' >',,'~.i'-:~:::':~, :-'i:~:-, '.: ''
, ';:.:'::;':' :'-;:77 -27, ;-:'";7 ?':.?'~ :-:." 7 "':7',,.' ':.-:-'.~
RAISAL
SERVICE, INC.
R. L. Leichtenber~, MA/
Pre$ioent
Sta~e-Cerfi/ied Gen. Apcraise'
R. L Hasse/
Secreta~_ - Treasurer
State-Certified Gen. Appraiser
HANSON APPRAISAL SERVICE, INC
Hanson Appraisal Service, Inc. was formed in 1978 by Nils L.
Hanson, MAI, SRPA. Mr. Hanson sold the company to a group of his
employees in 1986. After insuring the orderly transfer of
ownership, control and quality of work product Mr. Hanson retired
from the company in September of 1988. The principles in the
company are Robert L. Leichtenberg, MAI, who serves as President
and Chief Executive Officer, and Robert L. Hassel,
Secretary/Treasurer whose principle corporate responsibilities
center around the financial aspects of the corporation, and also
serves as the Residential Manager.
Hanson Appraisal Service has ten appraisers plus a support staff
of four. The corporation headquarters are located on New Haven
Avenue in West Melbourne in the Executive Office Building. Most
of the appraisers are either candidates or are in the process of
becoming candidates for membership in leading appraisal
organizations. The firm utilizes the latest computer technology
and subscribes to a wide range of data and information services.
Having completed over 20,000 appraisals, the firm's inhouse data
bank is extensive and detailed. The extensive data base coupled
with the staff size allows the firm to complete high quality,
accurate reports within reasonable time frames. The firm has
completed appraisal assignments for most kinds of property,
including marinas, hotels, time share facilities, large
industrial properties, subdivisions, multifamily projects,
offices, shopping centers, etc.
APPRAISERS * CONSULTANTS ' ANALYSTS
i~t}.':,;;,, i.~07~ 725-1407 F.;3.; r.;OT;
¢2.¢0¢
Robert Leichtenberg is a member of the Appraisal Institute
holding the prestigious MAI designation, in addition he is a
State Certified General Appraiser. He has extensive appraisal
experience with commercial and residential properties. Prior to
relocating to Brevard County in 1984, Mr. Leichtenberg was an
active appraiser in the New Jersey/New York metropolitan area.
At that time the majority of his work was with residential
properties. Before beginning his appraisal career in 1982, he
spent ten years in real estate sales and real estate sales
management. Working with Sterling Thompson and Associates
Realtors from 1972 to 1982, he rose from the position of salesman
to executive vice president for this eighteen office company that
employed approximately 300 sales people. He helped form Sterling
Mortgage Company including supervision of the mortgage processing
computer checklist and marketing to investors the closed
mortgages.
Mr. Leichtenberg has a wide range of experience with a large
variety of property types. Although he does not specialize in a
particular property type he has completed many appraisals on
marinas and boatyards as well as residential projects both single
family and multifamily. Mr. Leichtenberg has authored several
marketing and feasibility studies over the last several years
drawing on both his knowledge of property values and his
extensive real estate background. The studies include a
supply/demand study with five year projections on marinas, a
study of the age and income qualified market for upscale adult
congregate living facilities, a study of the mature housing
market in Brevard County, a feasibility analysis for a
residential subdivision with a golf course amenity as well as
appraisals on several subdivisions featuring golf courses. He
also collaborated with the Residential Department on the analysis
of price discounting affects on the marketing time of
condominiums and recently completed an analysis of Interstate
influenced commercial land detailing historical price increases.
Mr. Leichtenberg has qualified as an expert witness in Florida
Courts, as well as Federal Courts and in Courts in New Jersey,
New York and Ohio in Real Estate Valuation matters. Presently,
Mr. Leichtenberg devotes the majority of his time in presenting
testimony in court and reviewing and supervising the Commercial
Appraisal Division.
Mr. Hassel, the corporation's secretary/treasurer is also a
candidate for designation with the nation's leading appraisal
organization and holds a Florida Brokers License. He is a State
Certified General Appraiser. As a resident of Florida since
1960, he has experienced first hand the state and county growth
over the last three decades. Prior to spending the last eight
years appraising commercial properties, Mr. Hassel utilized his
management and financial analysis ability for a local medical
group whose number of practitioners tripled during his tenure.
Prior to his medical office management he had an extensive
banking career. Starting as an installment loan collector and
teller in Punta Gorda, Florida. Mr. Hassel held positions of
increasing responsibility until he left banking in 1976 as an
Executive Vice President and board member for a well known local
bank.
His appraisal experience has been varied as to property type and
size covering a broad spectrum of properties. He has extensive
experience in Rental Apartment and Condemnation appraisals,
although he does not limit his practice to them. Mr. Hassel has
testified as an expert witness in state and federal courts.
Presently, Mr. Hassel devotes most of his time doing corporate
financial records, commercial appraisals, and reviewing and
supervising the Residential Appraisal Division.
E~cate includin~ the followir~: sir~le fatal ]y
r~s~, azUre/s, a~artmm-~cs, restaurants, subdixdaions,
se~vi~e staticr~, retail sta2res, r~-]~d~ ' '%l~s, offices,
~ Banks, Saviros & karo, Mz~gage Broke~,
Various Mani~ties, Brevard O2unty, D.O.T., State of
Florida, Attorneys, Private Prc~ ~, and Oil
~, FL 32904
Sinoe 1984
APPRAISERS · CONSULTANq'$
_,,., ~"i c" :.'- \:,:. 7(""~ ii',.~-': /'d.";;:~,. "~,; I . :. ' :'"~'.... , l
r'q~. :,. ,_;
R. L. Leichtenberg, MA/
SO'N President
' State-Certified Gen. Apcraiser #00009
Secretao,- Treasurer
S ER ~I0 ~ f]ll~,t ~ State-Certified Get?. Appraiser #00009
-' S F LEN . W
LICENSES
State-Certified General Real Estate
Appraiser #RZ 0001258
Florida Real Estate Commission Li-
censed Real Estate Salesperson
EDUCATION AND
EXPERIENCE
PROFESSIONAL
ASSOCIATIONS:
APPRAISAL EXPERIENCE
APPRAISAL COURSES
PRESENT AFFILIATION
BS, U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado
1964
20 Years U.S. Air Force
Physics Teacher
Post Graduate studies in education,
management and administration
MAI Candidate the Appraisal Institute
Have prepared or assisted in the prepara-
tion of various Real Estate appraisals
including: residences, office buildings,
retail stores, medical facilities, resi-
dential and commercial developments,
restaurants, special use properties,
condominiums, industrial complexes, riv-
erfront and oceanfront properties, envi-
ronmentally sensitive property and con-
taminated land.
ADDraisa~.I~stlt~t~
101, Introduction
Property
to Appraising Real
201, Principles of Income Property Ap-
praising
Standards of Professional Practice Parts
A & B
2-1 Case Studies in Real Estate Valuation
Hanson Appraisal Service, Inc.
Melbourne, Florida 32904
27]~ V,' ]<,~'.'.' i-i~:',',:'~ ,,%v('r;i]~' ' ?'h'~ '~'L]r~'~
[~',:~-;~' :,:."7 7'2=.-1-4G7 }'"/-3; (407':
Indian River Colony Club (Both club and golf course)
Vacant land in Merritt Island - Residential and commercial
73 acres
438 acres of vacant land north of the Barge Canal
Southlakes Subdivision, Palm Bay
Approximately 225 acres in Sabal Hammocks PUD
Turtle Bay Subdivision
1,271 acres of vacant land north of the Beeline in Orange Co.
1,163 acres of vacant land north of the Beeline in Orange Co.
724 acres of vacant land in Lake County
40 acres of vacant land in Merritt Island
2,485 acres of S.N. Knight Land in Merritt Island
Carolwood Subdivision
Suntree Lakes Subdivision
35.08 acres of vacant land in Rockledge
Vacant residential land in Palm Shores
SUBJECT= REQUEST FROM MR. RICHARD
FEY REGARDING CHANNEL 68 MARINA
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 [] FAX (407) 589-5570
) Agenda Number, ~'
)
) Dept. Origin= Community Development,
) (BC)~
Approved For Submittal By:
City Manager // ~~
Date Submitted:
For Agenda Of:
Exhibits:
,,, 10/29,~92
11/04/92
1. Letter dated 10/28/92 from Mr.
Fey
2. Letter from Bruce Cooper dated
8/25/92
3. Survey by David Jones dated
9/16/92
4. DER notice for comments dated
10/19/92
EXPENDITURE
REQUIRED=
AMOUNT
BUDGETED~
APPROPRIATION
REQUIRED,
SUMMARY STATEMENT
At its regular meeting of August 12, 1992, the City Council approved Mr.
Fey's request to construct tie poles (pilings) ten (10) feet from his
north riparian rights line subject to the following,
1. Mr. Fey will relocate the dolphin poles for the Simbar Boat within 6
months.
2. During the construction and renovation of the dock facilities, Mr. Fey,
at his own expense, shall replace both channel marker poles with
appropriate signage located directly east of the boat ramp.
3. All vessels that are moored at Channel 68 shall be a minimum of 10 feet
from its north riparian rights line.
At that time, staff investigated the concerns regarding the actual
placement of the existing dock and the vessels moored on the north side.
As requested, Mr. Fey had an independant survey prepared to determine the
actual placement of the dock. Mr. Fey's survey does in fact indicate the
dock on an acute angle with the north side of his rear property line.
Page 2
The surveyor has indicated the riparian rights line on a 90 degree angle
with the rear property line (bulkhead) which indicates a 17.1 setback for
the dock at its closest point to the north side. At the time staff
presented the scenario of the riparian rights line and its relation with
the dock, staff utilized and extended the north property line, from west
to east, indicating an approximate 5 foot setback. Staff has penciled in
this same scenario on Mr. Fey's survey which confirms staff's theory, at
that time.
I have checked with the D.N.R. legal division and surveying section to
determine their definition of riparian rights line and its proper
location. Mr. Bill Robinson (legal) and Simeon Smith (Public Land
Surveyor Supervisor) have informed me that the actual determination of the
location of riparian rights is a civil matter between the adjoining
property owners but, Mr. Smith did state Mr. Fey's survey utilizing a 90
degree rule is reasonable and standard for this type of waterway.
Utilizing my theory and extending the side property lines on the same
angle is commonly utilized in a deadend channel with lots surrounding the
curve of the deadend.
The City Council needs to determine the following:
Whether or not to accept the alignment of the riparian rights line as
depicted by the survey of David Jones dated September 16, 1992.
2. Allow the existing dock facility in its present location.
Grant Mr. Fey's request to allow tie poles wihtin one (1) foot of the
riparian rights line.
The Florida Department of Environmental Regulations has requested comments
from the City of Sebastian as adjacent property owners regarding Mr. Fey's
request for the following:
1. Deck addition with a 100 sq. ft. building for fuel facilities.
2. Tie poles within one (1) foot of both riparian rights lines.
3. Channel markers and marine identification sign.
4. To conduct a maintenance dredge of Mr. Fey's submerge lease area.
Staff will defer any comments depending on the City Council's action.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Review the request of Mr. Fey and determine appropriate action.
CHANNEL 68 HARINA, Inc.
P.O. Box 0936
Roseland. Fl, 32957
(407)589-2628
Mayor Lonnie Poweli & City Council,
Due Lo the recent findings regarding my properly,
Channel 68 Marina, 806 Indian River Dr., Sebastian, I am
respectfully back before you for one additional request.
The following brief history of my situation with the
aforementioned property will help you better understand my
situation.
In 1990. ! purchased what was formally known as the
"Riptide Marina" from Mr. Coulter, Mr. Coulter sold me the
property ~,'ith approved plans and permits from The Army Core
Of Engineers, DNR, and the City, for the expansion of the
existing facility.
With the approved plans and permits, I constructed and
extended the dock to approximately 226' in length.
The extension was based on all plans and permits depictin~
the dock at a 90 angle with my rear property line.
Recently, I came before you to request permission, as an
adjacent property owner, to allow the installation of
tiepo{es wi{h ~ minimum 10' setback. At that time there
were questions ~ui~ed regarding the location of the dock in
relation to the Rapari~n Rights Line. As requested by the
city, I had an independent survey of the dock and the
expansion. This survey confirms that the dock is not at a
90 an~le ~ith my rear property line, and that the closest
part of the dock is 17.4' from our ~ommon-Ruparian Rights
Line.
My request is as follows; t-Allow the existing dock to
remain in its present location.
2-Construct Tiepoles 1' from
the Raparian [(ights Line.
3-Allow the mooring of vessels
up to the llap~rian ~ights Line.
Even if this request is granted, I will still be seeking
civil r~medii's.
I hav~ been a businessman in this community for eight
years. In the two years lhat I have owned this marina,
have tr~ed to improve lhis facility in keeping with the
riverfront district. Since my engineer has informed me thal
Ibis addiliona} nine foot request would not be injurious
Boat traffic for your ramp, I respectfully requesl the above
mentioned be ~ranled.
Sinct~ our {asr meeting, I have relocated all boats out
of the Raparian Rights 'Line. with the exceplion of "The
Simbar"Charter Boat. They have, however, been notified
your six month extension.
Thank y~ll for yol~r ti~ and consideration in this
matter.
Sin~'erly,
Richard Fey, Pres.
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 ~ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 u FAX (407) 589-5570
August 25, 1992
CERTIFIED MAIL
P360 591 916
Hr. Richard Fey
14405 8Otb Avenue
Sebastian, FL 32958
Reference, ..Channel 68 Marina
Dear Mr. Fey:
At its regular meeting of August 12, 1992, City Council
approved your request to allow the placement of tie poles
with a 10 foot minimum setback from your north riparian
rights line. This approval was based on information
provided by you and your engineer of record. The City
Council also directed staff to investigate the location of
the existing boats that are moored on the north side and
determine any encroachments that may exist within the
setback (10 feet) and our. riparian rights of the yacht club
property.
After careful review of a survey by Masteller, Moler & Reed,
Inc. dated 8/2/90, a site plan prepared by the same firm and
a field inspection of the property, I have concluded the
following:
1. The survey (dated 8/2/90) indicates an existing dock,
approximately 231 feet in length and the dock
projecting out to the east is not on a 90 degree angle
with your bulkhead (rear property line).
2. The site plan that was prepared for your dock extension
indicates that the existing dock was on a 90 degree
angle with your bulkhead and indicates all of the
proposed improvements to meet the 25 foot setback from
the north riparian rights line.
3. A field inspection was conducted and both property
corners on the north side were found and staked. A
"Line of Site" observation was made and determined that
several boats (Simbar, Miss Fey Lady) are encroaching
into the City's riparian rights. This inspection also
indicates that your new dock extension encroaches into
the 25 foot setback by approximately 20 feet.
Mr. Richard Fey
August 25, 1992
Page 2
In my opinion, the site plan that was prepared by Masteller,
Moler & Reed did not take into account the proper angle of
the existing dock thereby, the new dock extension extends
closer to the north and is approximately 5 feet from the
furthest northeast portion of the dock to the north riparian
rights line.
Based on the above findings and previous direction from the
City Council and to have a correct set of plans, I have no
alternative but. to require the following within 30 days
from receipt of this letter,
An accurate as-built-drawing prepared by a registered
land surveyor depicting the existing location of the
docking facilities and interval measurements every 20
feet between the north riparian rights line and the
existing dock facilities.
Based on our information afforded to us at this time
regarding your existing location of your dock
facilities and confirmation from your as-built-survey,
you will need to obtain the City Council's approval to
allow your existing dock facilities to remain within
the 25 setback.
All watercraft that is moored at your facility must
maintain a minimum of a 10 foot setback from your north
riparian rights line.
If you have any questions concerning this
not hesitate to call me at 589-5537.
Sincerely,
D~ecto~ of Community Development
BC/gk
rfey.wp
matter, please do
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Central District · 3319 Maguire Boulorard, Suite 232 · Or~nd~ Florida 32803-3767
La~n Chiles, Governor Carol M. l~n:~er, $ec~l:xry
October 19, 1992
NOTICE
C, IT¥ CLERK'S
OFFICE
File Number:
31-209091-4
Application Name: Richard Fey
The Department is currently processing the attached publication. If you have any
comments on, or objections to this pro~ect, please submit them in writing to this
office on or before
November 10, 1992
Please refer to the applicant's name and file number in any correspondence to help
facilitate processing. Questions concerning this project should be addressed
to Tamv Neinqarden /
cc: Riverview Park
Sebastian Yacht
Rec)*:le~l ~ Paper
'~ ~..~ ,.. ~,~ )vi Joint Application .-':". ...... "'
,, :.' , ,.. ..~ ~, D t
- ' '-' -~ a'Z".-.v.~
. ., for Works in the Waters of Florid ,-: ,, .~: ~..:
'- ./..,. , 'r · . C- ,' /
CIR4¢6I.:I~]~IPo~ lhe Army (Corps)/FIorida Department of Environmental Rogulal!bnT(D. ER)/
Departmenl o¢ Natural Resources (DNR)/Delegatod Ware? Marmgement District (Delegated WMD)
Type or Print Legibly
Corps Application Number (olhc~al u'Se only}
1. Applicant's Name and Address
Name ,, Ri~chard Fey
DER Appticakon Number (oltici¢, use only)
~ Nsm~. F~'~ hi, me (If inO*~Oual}; Co~p~:xlfo Hm'r,~; Name o~
Street 1673 North U.S. Hiohway No.
City Seba S t lan
Telephone ( '407 )__388r2717 (Day)
1. Suite A-5
State Florida
40C~ .... 58~-666Q
Zip 329~,8
(Nighl)
2. Name, Address, Zip Code, Telephone Number and Tcde. el Applicant's Authorized Agent
Name ~ Mosby;~R.a.~ndy L.
i.,d Nun~ ~r~ N~me
Corporate Name; Name el Govt. Agent7 Hosb~ & Associates, Tnc~
1507 - 20th Street
Street
Veto Beact~
Telephone f~ 407 $ 569-0035 (Day)
State Florida
3. Name of Waten~ay at Work Site: Indian River (Class III)
Zip 32960
(Night)
Street Road or Other Location d Wor~_
incorporated City .% Town
Se,eden ~ Township
Section Tcwnship
Section Township
india~ River County
C'ouhty(ies)
Indian River Drive.
City of Sebastian
31S
Range
Range
Range
39E
Coordinates in Center of Project:
Latitude 2 7 o 4 8
Lot ~ Block
--' Federal Pr~ecl~ Only:
00 " Longitude 8.0 ,, 27 .....
Prat Bk
Subd
Direc~onstob~ateSite: S.R. 512 to Indian Riv r Dr'v '
River Drive ~ mile]___ ___----
Names, Addresses, and Zip Codes of Adjacent property Owners Whose Property Also Adjoins the Water (Excluding Applicant).
Show Numbers or Names.of These Owners on Plan Views. If More Than Six (6) Owners Adjoin.the Project, You May Be Required
lo Publish a Public Notice ior the DER. .
1. See Attached 2. See Attached 3. See Attached
(North) __ (Ea.st,) .... ( ~West k , . --
4. see Attached
($outh3~
G, Prupo:~nd Us(I (Check One or n'~oro tm
Pu~ ~ C~merc,~ ~ N~ ~rk
'7. ~si~ ~ Duration (~ ~ ~h~ule)
" 5Yr~ lOYr~ ~er(S~)
Gene~ ~ or ~em~i~ R~u~
DER Gener~ Pe~ F~ Rule 17.312.
Pnvam S, ng~e Fam,~¥ [-~ Mum Fnm,ly ~
AMeral~on d E~s~ng Wcxks ~. M~.ntenance~-~
Other (Exl~aun)__
DER Ex~np~on FAC Rule 17-312. Sec~on 40.% RS.
To~l, Ex'lent of Wod< in JurisdictionaJ Open Waters or Wetlands: (Use edditx:maJ sheets ~ .provide co"nl:~e brea~own d each
cmegcx'y il more space is needed.
~ Wgthi~ C. cxps Judsd~c~on:
F4: NONE Sq. ~
~~: 3 8,0 2 5 ~, FL
~ ~in DER JuriStic:
~: NONE ~. EL..~
NONE A~es 'NONE Cu. Yds.
,87 ,~zes ___18.5. 4 Cu. Yds.
NONE
NONE Cu.~&
E3cav~on: 38,0~5 ~. FL ~~ ,N~ ' .~.-----~854 Cu. Y~
E,xc. avab~ Walerward d MHW 1854 cu. ~ (1~ ~ I~ DNR)
none ~.~ NONE ~ ~ ,
NONE ~.~ ...... NONE '~~
67 to be removed
a ~~~r~l¢~u~:.. 139 to be added
_,.,. ~roposeo~_~
'~Num~ro ~'~xis~in~ ~ T~Num~d M~ Pill.s
L~n~h Proposeo Duu Width 10
Num~d~Pi~ Exist.27 '~~
Num~ d ~ng~ Piem ~ ~ ~
~ a~ d a~ure ~r ~1~ & ~M~ ~xisting
U~ d ~e Marina
4332
Height above MHW 3_ 2+---_
Height abcTve MHW q ~? _.+
WK~h ~ Hdgm
w-a the doc~ng facil~ provide:
I_N, m3board Slips
Fu~ing F,-~,il~es
Sew'age Pump.out FadlitJes
Other Supplies or S~rvices Required lc~ Boating (F_.~uding re~mshmen~ ba~t and tacJ,Je)
Seawail leith N / A m Seawall mamfi~ N / A "
Rip,ap reveu'nent leng~ N/A IL ~ope N~A~ H: N/~V
Riprap at toe d seav~l ~ng~ N/A ~ ~ope ~ H: ~ V
N/A
SL-'m d riprap
No Yes Number
~ ~ ~ pumps
~ ~ 1 static
Toe wia'th .__.._~
TOe wiC~ ~ N/A
Type d riprap or ,se~3w~l maleriaJ
Other (See I~em ~0).
10, Descn~ion of Work (be sDecd~c: use aOdmonaJ sheets as necessary).
Project Purpose:
1. To provide safe dockage for up to 50~ ~o~g vessels
2. To provide public with access to fueling and sewerage pump out
facilities
3. To provide safe passage to marina from intracoastal waterway
11.
~mid~ E~ion, andSedimemat~nC0nt~sP~sed: Turbidity control measures such as
the use of turbidity curtains shall be incorporated in order to contain
waters discharged back to t'he Indian River'from the proposed spoil site.
& limits of dredging. ...
12.
When permits
D~eACjvity~ P~~ ~mmence
One.Year
TotaJ~meR~uimd~Conm~
are iss,u~Complm~ithin 1 year
l&
previous Applications for this Project have boon:
A. Den~ (dae)
3/20/89
B. I~sued (da~e)
C. Other ~ease ~x~J~in)
DER Na
31-157402-4
Corps Na
85ITK-21065 '
14.
Difleren'dale bc-~veen exi~ng work and ~oposed v, ork on l~e dr-'e.vings.
Certific:atJon, Applic,~on is hereby made I~ a pen-nit or permits to authoriz~ ~ aclJvities described herein.
A. I Co~fy That: (Please ~heck appr~p6ale space) '
be undertaken, as described in t~e ~ legg ckx;ument
2. I am not [~ the record owr~. lessee, o~ reco,-d easement hdder of the property c~n which the proposed project is ~o be under.
taken, as d-~cnbed in I~e attached k~jal dcx:zJment, t:~ I will have, before undedaking the propoc, ed work, the requisite property
interest. (Plea.se explain what the interest-w'~-.be and how it will be acquired.)
Attach legal d~scdpfJon of p'ropert7 or c:ocy of deed to the property on which project ts to occur (must I~ pro%,lded}
E I understarxJ I rr'~3y have Io prov~b~ .any additJonaJ inio~maliorC&'~ta that may be r",ecc.~W to. prcMd~ reasonable
evidecx~ that ~e proposed project ,MIl comph/ v,4th the applicable State Water QuaJity S'ta~dards or other envi¢
bo~ before consm.ct~ and Cer the project is comCeted.
C. In addition, I agree Io provide entry Io the' pro,ct ~e Io~ inspeclors with proper identiCxT, atJon or documents as required by law from
the environmentaJ a.c~rx:ics Io~ ~e purpc-ce d iCng tim site. Further, I agree to provide entry to the project ~e Ior such ins~
to monilo{' permitted ',',ofk., i~ a permit Ls .granted.
D. This is a Jdnt AP¢~ and is not a Joint Peru% I hereby acknoMeok2e the obligation and responsibility lo~ obtaJr~ng all d the_
required ¢.ate. lederaJ cx' IocaJ permits before cornmer'cen3ent of construction. I aJso unders~nd tha! b64ore commencement of thcs
proposed projec"L i rnus~ be granted separate permits ~ author'Lzatio~s Irc, r'n the U.S. Cc~ps of Engir¥gers. ~e U.S. Coas~ Gua/d.
Dec,3r0T~nt of Environmerc, ai RegulalJon, Be Delegated Water Management ~ (where applicable), and ~e De~ of Natural
true. complele and accurale, i lutlher certdy Ihal I pOSSess the authom
aulhonzed agenl H Ihe apPl,cant. I unOerstand Ihat knowingly ma.~,jn
v,olal,on H Secl,on 403.161. F.S. and Chapter 837, F.S.
Randy L. Mosby
u
AN AGENT MAY SIGN ABOVE IF APPUCANT COMPLETES THE FOLLDWlNG:
I am lamd,ar w,lh the ,ntormal,on con. ned ,n lh~s apglcal~on, and thal io Ihe besl H my knowledge and bahai. SUCh ,Normal,on ,s
to undertake ~e pro~ act~ or ~ ~ng ~ Ihe duly
~t~enl or re r~n~l~on ~n Ibis ap~J~llOn ,S a
~ laJse
I
.02/21/92
Dale
I hereby designale and authorize the agent limed above to act on my beh~ as my agent in the pracesdng d this perr~ applica-
lion arxfl to tumish on request, supplemental ir~orrnalJon in support d ~ app6catk~.
Richard Fey
Typed/Printed Name H Applicant
(Corporate Tc~e if ap~ic..able)
' ' D gnalur e',~/~l~piicant
02/21/92
Date
NotariT~tion:
Sworn ~ subscribed beiom mi al Indian River County,
th~ 21st 'day d February .19 92
Notary Puhlk, State of Florida
b~y Co,'r~nissi~ E--.piras Nov. 5, 1993
My ccx-nmission ex,res:_ So,,4~ Ti:,,, Troy F.i..
Florida .
For your InformaUon: ~ 370.0.34. FIodda ~ requires ~ all dredge and fill equipment ~. used. lea.seal, rented
operated in ~e s~te sh~ be registered with It~ Deparm"ent H Na~u~ Resoum..e~ E~ore selecting your conuac'.~' or equipment
may wish to de/em~ine if this requirement has been ~ F-~ turme~ in/onTmtion, ~ the Ch~ d the Bureau cf Sa/twaief LJc_.enses
and Permits. De~ d Na~JraJ Resources, 3900 Com~ Baule,-a~d. TaJlahassee, Ror~l~ 32399. Tdephone Na (904) 487-3122
This ia not a requirement for a permit from the Department of Errdroamental Regulation..
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that. Whoever, in ~y;manner within the judsd~:~on d ~ department or agency d The Un,led Stales
kno,~ngly and W~lllulty laJsi'fies, conc..e, aJs, ~' co. rs up by any trick, SChen"~ ~ device a ma.ledaJ [3c:I or makes arty laJse. 5clJtJou~ or fraudulent
S~3,1J~T~n~S ~ represemalJons or makes or uses amy l~Jse w,fiting or document knowing s~rne tn con~n ar~y raise.. ,Sc-ljt)ous or Iraudulenl
statement or entry, sheil be fined not more than SlO,OCO or imprisoned not more ~ five years, or both.
16. P',eas~ sul~ this ccm~ kxr'n, ~ a~ drawings and ~e co'n~ DER p-~ng lee (see Fee S:~ule in F.A.C Ruie 17-4,050(4Xc).
copy a.r~ch~ to the appropriate DER (:x Deleg~ed WMD c:tfice. ~ jurisd~on over the project she.....
P'~ 4 ~ 4
AIRPORT
STIA
R38E
R39E
-I,.
DR
/
/
i
I
MONTE
L .......... ~~ ~H~ l
~ ' i IIII II L II III ~ ~ II
II IIIIII I I IIIIIII , III II I IIII
il
II
ASSOCIATES, INC
lgg2 '
IIII I I I I1~ II [ IIIII
'~ ,, ~ ". ~:~ ~ ' I .
........... ......... .517:-- ...........
~ '' .......... ,'=: ' · ...... ,,;,, F ......... ~d~~ .....
'
4
12.
imm
J
J
REAR ELEVATION .
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 ~ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330
Permitting skydiving activities
at the Sebastian Munlciep air-
port, leasing airport property.
Approved for Submittal By:
City Manager ~
Dept. Origin Finance (MLH)
Date Submitted: October 29, 1992
For Agenda Of November 4, 1992
Exhibits: Report of FAA rulings, other
airport procedures, and letter
from attorney as to skydiving activities.
Expenditure Amount
Required: -0- Budgeted:
Appropriation
-0- Required:
SUMMARY STATEMENT
Previously, the council has entertained a request from Skydive Sebastian, Inc. and Clay
Price, et al, to allow skydiving activities at the Sebastian Municipal Airport. Mr.
Price was negotiating with J&S Aviation for the purchase of that business, however the
intent was to provide a fixed base for parachuting activities as well as traditional Fixed
Base Operator (FBO) activities. The ability to be allowed skydiving was a condition of
the offer. The parties have been unable to come to terms sufficient to consumate the
purchase/sale of the business and Mr. Price requests to enter into a new lease as a basis
of operations for Skydive Sebastian, Inc.
The report indicates, and the attorney's letter concurs that skydiving is an aeronautical
activity recognized by the FAA and the City of Sebastian may not deny, or in any way
discriminate against a group that wishes to use the airport for parachuting activities.
Council has directed staff to research other communities as to policies, procedures, and
sentiments concerning skydiving. The report, in summary, indicates skydiving
operations have brought economic development in their communities and the operators
seem to peacefully co-exist with the management and the community. The City can
promulgate rules and regulations concerning safety issues, operations, and set insurance
standards etc., as long as those rules and standards do not discriminate against any one
aviation activity.
RECOMMENDED 6,CTIQN
1) Move to permit skydiving activities at Sebastian Airport subject to operational and
safety rules and regulations as promulgated by the City and the Airport management, as
may now exist or as amended from time to time.
2) Direct staff to continue leasing negotiations with Clay Price and Skydive Sebastian,
Inc. with the intent to lease a tract of property consistent with the AJqx)rt Master Plan
as proposed, for the purpose of operating a skydiving activity.
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 D SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Robert S. McClary, City Manager
Michael L. Hudkins, Finance Director
DATE:
October 22, 1992
SUBJECT: Parachuting at Sebastian Airport
Per your instructions, I have reviewed information, polled various
municipal airport managers, polled various skydiving operations, attended
a national board meeting of the United States Parachute Association
(USPA) held in Orlando the last Sunday in September, obtained several
letter rulings from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) pertaining to
restrictions on skydiving, and obtained Order 5190.6A promulgated by the
FAA of the Department of Transportation (DOT).
The polls (unscientific) revealed somewhat of a love-hate relationship. The
management of the Zephyrhills airport indicated frustration and ill feelings
toward the skydiving operations and suggested avoiding it if at all possible.
He also confessed it is impossible to avoid it in most cases because the
FAA has complete sovereignty concerning aeronautical matters of which
skydiving is specifically covered. He indicated his consolation was that
they were paid well in their lease agreements, fuel flowage fees, and
access fees when parachutists landed outside their designated drop zone.
(FAA letter ruling Nov. 27, 1991 to Meriwether County, Greenville, GA
indicates that a specific access fee such as this is intended solely for
parachutists and is discriminatory; as such the county is failing to comply
with federal grant assurances and was placed on an official state of non-
compliance until the issue is resolved.) It should be noted that the
"Skydive City" operation at Zephyrhills is of the largest skydiving
operators in the world. The management of Skydive City indicated no
problems with the City and that their operations have spawned several
industries employing many people as well as bringing in significant
business and tourist dollars to the local economy in restaurants, motels,
etc.
Both the airport management and the skydiving operators at the City of
DeLand indicated not only satisfaction with one another, but enjoy
somewhat of a symbiotic relationship. The skydive operations bring in not
only significant customers for restaurants, motels, camping operations, and
so forth, significant other businesses have been generated around the
skydiving industry, most notably a parachute manufacturing operation
which sells their products nationally. The businesses of the City in turn
offer products, services, and promotions tailored to skydiving enthusiasts
to generate interest in spending their money in DeLand and feeling
welcome.
Palatka and the Palatka Paracenter have both indicated they get along
wonderfully. The airport manager indicated the parachutists were very
professional and very cautious keeping him well informed of skydiving
activities and utilize the unicom (radio tuned to the local Fixed Base
Operator [FBO] frequency) to avoid conflicts with other air traffic.
All operators and airport managers indicated that no special operating
restrictions were placed on the skydiving operators other than the
consideration of notification of activities. Only one city required "special"
insurance of any of the operators by any of the polled airports. The City
of DeLand requires each jumper to be covered with liability insurance for
a minimum of $10,000 (this may violate order 5190.6A of the FAA). It
should be noted that many skydivers that belong to the USPA are covered
under a similar type policy. General liability policies, otherwise known as
"trip and fall" polices, are required of all skydiving operators as are all
other commercial aviation activities. The face amounts of coverage varied
from $100,000 to $3,000,000, and all of the cities were named as
additional insured. Only the City of DeLand indicated they had a special
ordinance dealing with skydiving. The airport manager at DeLand has
generously provided me a copy of this ordinance, however the ordinance
deals with aviation generally making reference to skydiving in one
paragraph and there appears to be little substantive language in that
paragraph.
Most of the cities indicated that although all skydiving operations do have a
fixed base facility, they are generally not required to do so. The FAA
does not allow arbitrary limitations or restrictions on one aeronautical
activity unless there is a clear safety issue. If, for example, flight
instruction is permitted to be operated without a fixed base facility, then
other aeronautical activities may not be diseriminately denied to operate
without a fixed base facility. In all of the cities I polled, the skydiving
operations paid a rental fee for either a facility or drop zone. In one case,
skydiving operators are required to pay a fuel towage fee of 4 cents per
gallon if they provided their own fuel. The airport had a similar charge on
fuel towage to FBO' s.
When the town of Gardiner, NY proposed an ordinance to regulate small
airports and parachute jumping centers the FAA objected on the grounds
the ordinance would regulate parachute jumping, aircraft operations, and
aircraft noise. As such, the ordinance was interpreted by FAA to be an
unconstitutional exercise of the town's powers because it (1) was
preempted by federal regulation of the airport and (2) it would impose an
undue burden on interstate commerce. The FAA cites it is well-settled the
exclusive responsibility for safe and efficient management of navigable
airspace has been delegated to the FAA by Congress (City_ of Burbank v.
Lockheed Air Terminal, 411 U.S. 624, 626-27 [1973]).
In another letter ruling by FAA to Meriwether County, Greenville, GA,
May 6, 1991, the FAA stated that while they do agree that the sponsor has
the right to establish rules and regulations for its airport, they should be
broad enough to be applied to all commercial activities at the airport. We
also agree that the sponsor has the right and privilege to set fees and the
hours of operation for any activity to be conducted at the airport, but they
should not be arbitrarily applied to one activity. The airport should be
made available as an airport for public use on fair and reasonable terms
and without unjust discrimination to all types, kinds, and classes of
aeronautical uses. The rules and regulations submitted were developed
only for skydiving operations which precludes the admission of any other
aeronautical activity on the airport without revising the rules to cover that
activity.
The Alabama Department of Aeronautics requested the FAA to do a safety
study in an attempt to ban parachute jumping at St. Elmo Airport. Based
on the ensuing study the FAA stated that with proper precautions,
parachute jumping can be accommodated at the airport. In a letter ruling
of October 3, 1990, the FAA has determined that parachute jumping must
be accommodated at the St. Elmo Airport but that the ADA (Alabama
Department of Aeronautics) can require reasonable limitation and liability
insurance to ensure safety of operations and protection from legal suits.
In addition to safety precautions, the FAA noted that the ADA may
designate reasonable time periods for. jumping and specific area for drop
zones, jumpers or their organization agree to pay a reasonable fee that is
not unjustly discriminatory, and jumpers hold a general liability insurance
policy that names the State of Alabama/ADA as an additional insured
party, with the amount of insurance to be reasonable and not unjustly
discriminatory.
When Homestead General Aviation Airport of Homestead, FL attempted
to restrict skydiving within a five mile radius of the airport due to
proximity to Miami Terminal Control Area and high incidence of
instrument Flight Rules (IFR) traffic, the FAA responded by a letter ruling
of August 30, 1985 as follows. The FAAf/nds no inherent public or
aviation safety hazard nor other General Aviation incompatibility with
sport parachuting operations conducted within the defined area and
terminating with parachutist lands onto the Homestead General Aviation
Airport. We shall closely monitor the performance of the XS1 (designator
for Homestead Airport) airport management's ADAP commitments, and
will investigate if FAA Order 5190.3 enforcement action will be required.
For non-routine off-airports exhibition jumps, the FAA will consider each
site waiver on an individual basis.
I have found sport parachutists and the United States Parachute Association
specifically to be eager to work within the confines of each governmental
unit's procedures to allow them pursuit of their sport. It appears they go to
extremes to satisfy local sentiments to be good neighbors and promote
goodwill in their endeavors. I think this is evidenced by the fact that sport
parachuting has attempted to pursue their sport through regular channels in
Sebastian for nearly 12 years. It is also apparent that after exhaustive
attempts have failed through "diplomatic eharmels" the USPA seeks to
enforce their rights as guaranteed by the FAA as evidenced by the letter
rulings, etc. and they seem to have a well filled war chest to affirm their
rights. Enclosed is a letter addressed to me from the USPA for your
review.
The following is an excerpt from Order 5190.6A, Airport Compliance
Requirements by the Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation:
4-8. RESTRICTIONS ON AERONAUTICAL USE OF AIRPORT.
a. Safety and Efficiency
(1) While the airport owner must allow its use by all types, kinds,
and classes of aeronautical activity as well as by the general public (passengers,
visitors, etc.), the obligation agreements do provide for exceptions as discussed in this
paragraph. When complaints are t'fled with FAA regarding restrictions imposed by the
airport owner in the interest of safety and/or efficiency, assistance of the appropriate
local Flight Standards and Air Traffic representatives should be obtained in determining
the reasonableness of the restrictions. It may be appropriate to initiate an FAA airspace
study to determine the efficiency and utility of the airport when considering the
proposed restriction. In all cases the FAA will make the final determination of the
reasonableness of the airport owner's restrictions which denied or restricted the use of
the airport.
(2) In the interest of safety, the airport owner may prohibit or limit
any given type, kind, or class of aeronautical use of the airport if such action is
necessary for the safe operation of the airport or necessary to serve the civil aviation
needs of the public. This allows the imposition of reasonable rules or regulations to
restrict use of the airport. For example, they may prohibit aircraft not equipped with a
reasonable minimum of communications equipment from using the airport. They may
restrict or deny used of the airport for student training, for taking off with towed
objects, or for some other purpose deemed to be incompatible with safety under the
local conditions peculiar to that airport. Agricultural operations may be excluded due
to conflict with other types of operations or lack of facilities to safely handle the
pesticides used in this specialized operation. Also, designated runways, taxiways and
other paved areas may be restricted to aircraft of a specified maximum gross wight or
wheel loading. Likewise, use of airport facilities by the general public may be
restricted by vehicular, security, and crowd control regulations. In cases where
complaints are filed with FAA, Flight Standards and Air Traffic should be consulted to
help determine the reasonableness of the airport owner's restrictions. It may be
appropriate to initiate an FAA airspace study to determine the efficiency and utility of
the airport when considering the proposed restriction. In all cases the FAA will make
the final determination of the reaSOnableness of the airport owner's restrictions which
denied or restricted use of the airport.
b. Parachute Jumping. Parachute jumping is an aeronautical 'use and
request to airport owners from parachute jumping clubs, organizations, or individuals
to establish a drop zone within the boundaries of an airport should be evaluated on the
same basis as other aeronautical uses of the airport. Any restriction, limitation, or ban
against parachute jumping on the airport must be based on the grant assurance which
provides that the sponsor may prohibit or limit an aeronautical use *for the safe
operation of the airport or when necessary to serve the civil aviation needs of the
public* (see paragraph 4-8a). Amount the reasonable limitations on parachute jumping
that an airport owner might require are:
(1) The airport owner designate reasonable time periods for jumping and
specific areas for drop zones.
(2) Jumpers (or requesting organization) agree to pay a reasonable fee that is
not unjustly discriminatory.
O) Jumpers hold a general liability insurance policy that names the airport
owner as an additional ensured party, with the amount of insurance to be reasonable
and not unjustly discriminatory. The airport owner is not required to permit this
activity if, in his judgment, it creates a safety hazard to the normal operations of
aircraft arriving or departing from the airport, nor is the airport owner required to close
the airport to provide a safe environment for the parachute jumpers. In cases where
complaints are filed with FAA, Flight Standards and Air Traffic should be consulted to
help determine the reasonableness of the airport owner's restrictions. It may be
appropriate to initiate an FAA airspace study to determine the efficiency and utility of
the airport when considering the proposed restriction. In all eases the FAA will make
the final determination of the reasonableness of the airport owner's restrictions which
denied or restricted use of the airport.
UNITED
STATES
PARACHUTE
ASSOCIATION®
1440 DUKE STREET · ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
Tel: 703/836-3495 ·
Fax: 703/836-2843
Dear DZ Owner,
To establish a drop zone on an airport, FAR 105.17 requires
prior approval from the airport management. Also, the FAA must be
notified in accordance with FAR 105.23.
Some airports receive funding from the federal government as a
result of various legislative actions, and therefore are subject to
certain other obligations to skydivers and other aeronautical users.
· - Enclosed are several documents that ·others have found helpful
· ..~when explaining the FAA's position regarding skydiving on federally
funded airports. We ~e]ieve you will find them valuable in helping you
and your local and regional FAA personnel understand more about the
issues. Often, your local FAA officials can work faster and more
iectively when they are provided with prior FAA documentation.
A brief overview of the enclosed:
'1. A memorandum from USPA involving matters of airport access
to help FAA and airport officials understand the current environment
and how USPA views its role. "
2. A PARACHUTIST article concerning the FAA's current view of
skydiving's compatibility on multi-use airfields.'
-..'~,. The sidebar describes the recommended procedures for prevent-
ing and dealing with compatibility'problems. Please follow these steps
to make it easier for USPA to assist you. (The acronym "GADO" now
refers to FSDO, or FAA Flight Standards District Office.)
· . 3. FAA Order 5190.6A. This booklet explains what is expected
of the sponsor of a federally funded airport. Of particular interest
are paragraphs 4-8 (page 16), where jumping is classified as an
aeronautical use of the airport; and 4-13 (page 20), where "fair and
· reasonable terms" are discussed.
4. A six-page memorandum from the South Florida FSDO explain-
ing why it is safer for everyone when skydivers jump over and land
onto an established airport.
5. A two-page letter dated October 3, 1990 from E]ton Jay at
the FAA Airports District Office (ADO) to the Alabama Department of
Aeronautics explaining that liability concerns are not a reason for
denying skydivers the use of a federally funded airport.
6. Two letters from Samuel Austin at the Atlanta ADO to Ben-
jamin Hume, Administrator for Meriwether County, Georgia:
a. The first, marked May 6, 1991, reports favorable results
after an FAA study of skydiving at Roosevelt Memorial Airport. This
letter can be a helpful mode] for your ADO.
b. The second, marked December 2, 1991, points out and dis-
cusses discriminatory policies imposed by Meriwether County on the
skydivers. Several key statements contained here further clarify the
FAA's position.
7. Two letters from the FAA paper trail concerning problems at
St. Mary's County 'Airport:
a. A letter from Robert Jenkins of the Dulles FSDO, dated Feb-
ruary 26, 1.992~ following his investigation of operations at the air-
port, describing and commenting on interactions between airplanes and
skydivers.
b. A letter dated March 20, 1992 to the St. Mary's County Ad-
ministrator urging the County.to reconsider its position requiring the
skydivers to exit and ]and away from the'airport.
8. April 5, 1991 letter from Clint Vincent to Ray Ferrell
regarding the 1991 USPA drop zone survey. It provides information
about how many 'DZs jump on airports, and how many of them are federal-
ly funded.
The purpose of this packet is to help DZs help themselves when
negotiating these problems. USPA recommends that you seek the advice
of legal counsel to best use these documents.. USPA does not hold
self out as legal counsel in these matters.
Be sure to carefully record 'and date ali statements from offi-
cials and others influencing the issue, no matter how insignificant
each may seemi Include the names of witnesses. It's also helpful to
have copies of all relevant correspondence on file at USPA Head-
quarters.
You may request further assistance from USPA Headquarters, but
only after the steps outlined in the article b~ Larry Bag]e~ have been
followed and the responses received by all parties. The USPA staff can
be a great resource, but their availability is limited. One reason for
preparing this packet is to prevent duplicating Headquarters' efforts
in every case.
These documents are a result of the efforts of other drop zone
operators trying to secure and maintain their drop zone on the air-
port. You can help by providing similar documents to add to this file
for use by future DZs.
Additional copies of this packet are available for $15 each
from USPA Headquarters, 1440 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314, (703)
836-3495; 836-2843 (fax). Check, money order, Visa and MasterCard ac-
cepted.
UNITED STATES PARACHUTE ASSOCIATION
MEMORANDUM ON MATTERS OF CONCERN INVOLVING AIRPORT ACCESS
The United States Parachute Association ("USPA") represents.
the interests of sport parachutists at a national and international
level. It is composed of 20,006 members, organized into fourteen
regional conferences throughout the United States. The USPA is a
division of the National Aeronautic Association. It is also the
official skydiving representative of the Federation Aeronautique
Internationale in the.United States.'
The USPA has two principal purposes. The first is to promote
safe and responsible parachuting. The second is to speak for its
members on matters of aviation policy that affect parachutists.
,Bothof these purposes.can,be served onl~ if the USPA is able to
work closely with the Federal Aviation Administration-on matters
the affect parachuting. ~.~., ,~.,~.-~ ,.~.. .......
· Perhaps the most pressing issue now facing the USPA concerns
access to airports. In recent years local airport authorities and
municipal and county governments have imposed regulations that
effectively exclude parachutist~ from using many local airports.
The USPAbelieves the restrictions that are imposed are frequently
arbitrary and discriminatory, and often violate FAA policies.
Although parachute jumping, as a sport, has been around since
the early years of aviation, in the last twenty years it has grown
substantially. There are now more than. 200 parachuting clubs in
the United States.
2
compared to other aeronautical activities, skydiving places
modest demands on the federal and private sectors. Skydivers do
not require sophisticated equipment or major ground support
facilitie~ to conduct their jumps. They generally avoid major
airports and jump away from areas where they might interferewith
commercial or general aviation traffic. Nevertheless, .skydivers
too often find that their use of airspace in even minimally
intrusive'~ respects is resented by commercial,' corporate, and
general aviation interests. These interests often dominate county
governments'and local airport authorities.. They use their power
on a'local level to impose restrictions andprohibitions that make
itimpo~sible for skydiving clubs to operate.
~'~-~ S. TheUSpA3d°es'not dispute that itsmembers ~aveanobligation
toShare'airspace with other.users'underconditionS'~hatassure'the
safety of all concerned. Indeed, one of the key purpos6s of 'the
USPA is to promote safety. But' unfortunately, many of the
restrictions that are imposed on parachutists by local interest
groups are not intended to promote the safe useof airports by all
users. Rather they are intended to exclude parachutists all
~ge~hDr. in violation of the Federal Aviation Act and other
l~islation that holds that the nations airspace should be open to
all aeronautical users.
When" parachutists are denied access to local airport
facilities, the FAA is often the only place they can turn for
protection. We feel it isvery important for the USPA to develop
a good working relationship with the FAA on both a'national and
3
local level. Because skydivers are not always aware of the extent
to which their activities may interfere with other legitimate
aviation uses, it is imPOrtant that they learn to look to the FAA
for guidance on how they can carry on their activities without
imposing a burden on commercial or general aviation or air traffic
control. On the other hand, because skydivers have only a small
voice in the aviation community, it is easy for FAA personnel to
0verlook-'their interests or to exaggerate the safety risks and
inconvenience 'that skydiving activities may pose. We believe the
USPA and the 'FAA should try to understand one anOther's concerns
and to learn to work together to resolve problems concerning
airport access. ' ..... :"' ," .... ' ...
Problems involving the' denial~ of 'airport':.' access to
parachutists usually fall into one of two categories, First are
cases in which FAA offici'als have determined that 'parachuting
activities do not POse a safety threat or interfere wlthother uses
of the airPOrt. Notwithstanding such findings, local governments
and airport operators may attempt to override the FAA's
determination by imposing stringent conditions that effectively
exclude parachutists from using the airport. These cases usually
involve the issue of preemption of the FAA's regulatory authority.
A second· class' of cases involves circumstances where FAA
officials investigate parachuting activities at a local airPOrt and
determine that Particular restrictions bythe operator or the local
government are permissible. In a few of these cases there may be
questions about whether the FAA exceeded its statutory authority.
4
More often, the USPA's concern is to ensure that the parachutists
were given a full and fair opportunity to present their side of the
story to the FAA and that the FAA consider the parachutists'
position seriously before making its decision.
Preemption of FAA Re~ulatorv Authority
By Local Governments and Private Owners
Under the .Federal Aviation Act, the federal government is
"declared to possess and exercise complete and exclusive national
sovereignty in the airspace of the United States.'~~ This.authority,
in turn, is delegated to the Federal Aviation Administration..'
Court decisions have consistently held that the power of local
governments to regulate aeronautical activities, including
parachuting, is limited to matters of purely local.~oncernthat do
not interfere with the FAA's sole authority to,,regulate.parachuting
andother uses of airspace.~
-. The policy o£the federal government, as expressed in boththe
Federal Aviation Act' and the Airport and Airways Improvement
~49 U.S.C. §1508 (a).
'49 U.S.C. §§ 1348' (a), (c).
'See, e.g., City of Burbank..
624 (1972) (United States Supreme
Lockheed Air Terminal, 411 U.S.
Court invalidated local noise
regulations on the grounds that .they interfered with the FAA's
.right to regulate the use of airspace); Blue Sky Entertainment.
IncJ~J Town of Gardiner, 711 F. Supp. 678, 694 (N.D.N.Y. 1989)
(United States district court invalidated local restrictions on
parachute jumping on the grounds t~.at they interfered with "the
pervasiveness of federal law in the area of parachute jumping").
'49 U.S.C. §1302 (c).
5
Programs Act5 is that any airport that receives federal funds "will
be available for public use on fair and reasonable terms and
without unjust discrimination.". Indeference to thispolicy, local
governments and . private operators 'who want to discourage
parachutists from using their airports rarely prohibit parachuting
entirely. Instead,. they impose burdensome restrictions on
parachutists to exclude them in practice, but not in theory.
A good example of how local governments discriminate against
parachutists is a dispute now in litigation between a Georgia
skydiving organization and the local county board of commissioners.7
The FAA had investigated skydiving activities at the county airport
and determined that~..they, could "be...accomplished with a high
degree of safety.,'....The county responded bypassing ordinances that
restricted parachuting activities on weekends to the hours of 10:00
a.m. to dark on Saturdays and 1:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Sundays.
Parachutists were also required to file proof of liability
insurance in advance with the county clerk, and aircraft carrying
skydivers were required to follow a specific traffic pattern.
It is obvious that local governmental regulations like these
subvert the federal policy of nondiscriminatory access to airports
'49 U.S.C. § 2201 (a) S; 49 U.S.C. § 2210 (a) (1), (2).
'49 U.S.C. § 2210' (a) (2).
'Freefall Ranch, Inc. v. Meriwether County, U.S.D.C., N.D. Ga.,
No. 3: 91-CV-35-GET.
'Letter from S~muel iF. Austin, Manager,[ Atlanta Airports
District Office, to The Hon. L. Carl Garner, chairman, Meriwether
County Board of Commissioners, dated July 7, 1989.
6
and the role of the FAA as the arbiter of that policy. Indeed, a
federal district court has already issued a temporary restraining
order enjoining the county from enforcing its ordinance on the
grounds that the regulation of aeronautical aCtiv, ities is a field
that is preempted by the FAA.
In cases like these, the USPA is anxious to'work with the FAA
to prevent the usurpation of the FAA's powers by'l°cal governments
and private operators. The USPA can promote"liaison between the
skydiVers who'are involved and FAA official~ who'~'maY!beConcerned,
particularly. officials in the FAA's Washington headquarters. We
can' also ·provide information about 'similar' incidents in other parts
of the country and suggest solutions 'that"might resolve the
contrOversy. In cases where the FAA initia~e~'i'~'~'iion t° Prevent
local governments from 'overstePping their sphere°~'"'&Uth°rity, the
USPA stands' ready to·Provide whatever technical' expertise and
administrative" support" the ' FAA~ might need~'' "~"We believe it is
'important that local governments 'and private oPerators be given a
clear signal that they cannot circumvent the federal policy that
airports should be available to all users on a nondiscriminatory
·basis.
7
FAA Review of Skydiving Activities
Different concerns arise in cases where local restrictions on
skydiving activities are reviewed by FAA officials and found to be
reasonable for the safe operation of the airport. The USPA does
not question the FAA's right to impose restrictions on
parachutists, or to approve restrictions imposed by others, in the
interest of safety or good order. Our concern is that the
parachutists be giyen.a fair .opportunity to present their case and
that the. parachutists' position be given serious consideration by
the FAA before restrictions are imposed.
.An example of this situation is a matter involving a
California airport .that prohibited skydivers from landing anywhere
on the airport grounds. The FAA sent observers to determine
whether the restriction was justified on safety grounds. Although
the ..skydiving organization had been told that it would have a
chance to present its case, the FAA district office issued a letter
opinion approving the restrictions without any. input from the
skydivers. Only after the decision was appealed to the Federal
Circuit Court did the FAA agree to reconsider the matter following
a full hearing.'
In cases like this, the USPA's believes that principles of
simple fairness require that parachutists be given an opportunity
to state their case before they are burdened with restrictive
regulations that may beunnecessary. FAA officials frequently have
~reStar, Inc. v. FAA, No. 90-70565
withdraWn, further proceedings pending.
(9th Cir.); appeal
8
a background in military, commercial, or general aviation. They
are rarely skydivers, it is natural that they may be inclined to
view skydiving as an activity that interferes with other aviation
uses. We believe it is important that skydiversbegiven a chance
to ~xplain their side of the story.
In situtations where the FAA is contemplating restriction of
skydiving 'activities, the USPA again can promote liaison between
the FAA and the skYdivers, in many cases, compromise solutions
mightbefeasible that would ensuresafe operationS~With0utunduly
burdening the parachutists. In some cases,"th~-~SPAmay be able
'to support the FAA and explain to skydiving groupswhyrestrictions
'may be necessary. Our hope .is that the FAA and 'the USPA will try
~' tO'wOrk 'together', .and not assume that their interests are OppoSed.
ConclUSion -. ~.~., ....
The 'united States 'Parachu%e AssOciation represents the
interests of America's sport parachutists2 An important part of
the USPA's function is to prevent the unjust discrimination against
parachutists, particularly in matters involving access to airports.
An even more important mission is to promote parachuting safety and
the safety of aviation in general.
The USPAbelieves that there is no essential'C°nfliCtbetween
its goals and those of the FAA as they relate tothe regulation of
aviation in general and parachuting in particular~ Our hope is
that closer cooperation between the USPA and the FAA may promote
an environment in which parachutists can enjoythe freedom to carry
9
out their activities without interfering with the rights of other
aviation users.
Dated-. May~ , 1991
RespectfUlly submitted,
THE UNITED STATES PARACHUTE
ASSOCIATION
Executive Director
USPA OFFICIALS MEET WITH FAA BRASS
"Parachute Jumping is an Aeronautical Use"
A report to the membership on skydivlng's rights and
privileges at federally funded airports--and USPA's action to
protect those rights
.by Larry K. Bagley, USPA President
C urrently, we are forced to jump on ing the first part of the letter from the FAA
private property..." How many office .of airports programs dated Sep-
times have you heard that said tember 19, 1978 naming "parachute
'when asked where the skydivers jump? jumping as an aeronautical use."
:Unfortunately,.tt Js being said all ~oo often ,, However, that letter,, meant to augment.,
and it is getting to be even more so the FAA order 5190.6, goes on to say that an
Last January 1, speaking as USPA's
president, and USPA Director of Training
Mike Johnston met with Bill Southerland
and Bill McHugh at FAA Headquarters in
Washington, DC, to discuss what USPA
feels is a growing problem in the skydiv-
ing community.
· FAA order 5190.6, a massive 165-page.
document .antifled "Airports Compliance
Requirements," dictates -how federally
funded airports will be operated and is
presenUy being rewritten by
Southerland's staff. 'It states that .one of
the obligations of owners of public air-
ports developed with federal funds is to
make available "all facilities and services
on fair and reasonable terms without un-
just discrimination."
That all sounds great, especially read-
airport might require some "reasonable
limitations on parachute jumping" includ-
ing:
· Requiring "jumpers [to] hold a gen-
eral liability insurance policy.., with the
amount of insurance to be reasonable
and not unjustly discriminatory vis-a-vis
the insurance requirements applicable to
other jumpers and users of the airport,"
and
· "Stating that the airport owner is not
required to permit this activity if, in his
judgment, it creates a safety.hazard
Bagley pointed out to the two FAA offi-
cials that their own order recognizes what
most skydivers already know: "Most
public airport owners*** lack the guid-
ance required to develop ·meaningful
standards." Johnston was successful in
explaining the insurance woes all sport
aviation activities are having; at any price,
it is impossible to get DZ insurance.
Southeriand accepted our concerns as
bona fide and invited USPA to submit
comments on FAA order 5190.6 before its
final version is printed sometime in mid.
summer. He also explained the proce-
dures a skydiving operation should follow
if it has been denied permission to land
on an airport and it feels the FAA order is
not being complied with:
1. Contact the FAA airport's district
office (not the flight standards or general
aviation district offices) with the specific
complaint;
2. KnOw that the local flight standards
.district office will be used to determine
restrictions imposed in the interest of
safety;
3. Take the complaint to the regional
airports division office, if the skydiving
operation is still not satisfied.
Although the process sounds expen-
sive both in terms of time and money, we
must all accept the fact that selling sky-
diving 1o ~on-skydivers is a very difficult
challenge.~ ·
What's Ahead?
Your Association will continue to moni-
tor the problem and work for better solu-
tions:
· USPA hopes to have some effect on
the rewrite of FAA order 5190.6. Allowing
the airport owner to require insurance as
the only liability protection is not reason-
able in today's "sue-happy" world.
TOP VIEW
I_ 2 MILES ~ ~ I
EXTREME
OPENING ZONE
PATTER~
WINDOW
GROUND LEVEL RUNWAY
SIDE VIEW
FAA Advisory Circular 90-66 uses this diagram to explain how "operations conducted by parachutists.., relate to traffic pat/ems."
· USPA plans to educate airport own-
ers and the non-jumping aviation commu-
nity about skydiving activities through
such groups as the Aircraft Owners and
Pilots Association (AOPA) and the Ameri-
can Association of Airport Executives. An
advisory circular being drafted by the
FAA entitled "Recommended Standard
Traffic Patterns for Airplane Operations
at Airports Without Operating Control
Towers" shows very graphically how a
skydiving operation safely relates to air-
port traffic patterns.
· USPA stands firmly on the premise
that "elimination is not a solution." We do
not believe the airspace above any airport
should be restricted for any one faction of
the aviation community. Many airports
across America are safely and produc-
tively allowing skydiving operations on a
daily basis.
Air traffic control has always been
based on "first come, first served," which
proves-every time a jumper lands on
one of these airports--that air traffic con-
trol still works successfully and efficiently
on that proven, traditional, tested aero-
nautical principle. II
About the Author
Now in his fourth term
as USPA President,
Lam/ Begley operates
the Utah Sky Ranch
drop zone outside Salt
Lake City, With nearly
4,000 jumps jn his tog-
book, he is s USPA
rated Instructor in tradi-
tional and Accelerated
Freefall methods of instruction. He is $ former
air traffic controller and is a licensed pilot with
multiple ratings.
How to Safeguard Your Center
at a Federally Funded Airport
1. Be a good neighbor; run a safe, clean, professional
operation. Insure that your public appearance does not
· create an excuse for hostility from the community, the
airport manager or the other airport users.
2. Educate the airport manager, especially if he has s
tendency to believe that your skydiving operation is not
compatible with other aeronautical uses of the airport.
Explain the basic mechanics of a skydiving operation to
him: climb to altitude, jump run, spotting, canopy opening
and emergency procedures, canopy descent and landing.
Dispel his unnecessary fears. Negotiate a mutually accept-
able plan of operation. Be prepared to accept reasonable
rules to share the facilities and air space. ·
3. To obtain FAA assistance, ,contact the FAA Airports
District Office chief. First, ask if the airport in question is
federally obligated. 'If it is, find Out the terms under which it
receives funding -and the status of future projects. If your
airport is federally obligated, request the ADO chief to send
· a compliance officer to the airport to explain that skydiving
is an aeronautical use which'is guaranteed access to the
airport facilities.
4. Once the Airports District Office inspectbr has in-
formed the airport manager/owner that the airport is not
complying with airport usage requirements, the airport
must respond in writing. Airport management will either
notify the ADO that they will begin complying or will state
the reasons why they feel that compliance would be unsafe.
5. If the airport uses safety as a reason for denying usage
of the airport, the ADO is required to have a General
Aviation District Office do a safety analysis. It is a good idea
to do your homework with the GADO so they can make a
fully informed evaluation.
6. If the GADO determines that safety will not be compro-
mised, the ADO will go back to the airport and try to
pursuede them to comply.
7. If the GADO analysis is unfavorable or if the airport still
will not comply, the next step is to contact the Airports
Regional Office and the Flight Standards Regional Office
and request an investigation.
8. If the Regional Office is unable to resolve this problem
in your favor, the next step is to contact Flight Standards at
FAA Headquarters.
,.
If these steps don"t work, contact usPA Headquarters
staff who are standing by to provide assistance and guid-
ance. NOTE: the FAA has emphasized that the first steps
must· be taken by the indivi~lual drop zone.opel'ator in..
pursuing his airpq, rt usage rig~ts.~ ' ' ~ '"' ' , ,~',...,.,,? ....
Skydive
2.
Educate Ihs
eime~ reneger
that doesn't work
Skydive
AD~
eiport mn~g~
J , Skydive
doesn't support you
suppo~s you
effiee inveafiSetee
ff Regional
doesn't support you
FAA HQ
inve.~lates
6.
Rel~eat
stag 4
step 4
US. Department
of Tronsporlation
r-~deral Aviation
Aclmlnistration
Memorandum
South Florida FSD0 - Miami
Post Office Box 592015
Miami, Florida 33159
Subject:
From:
To:
INFORMATION: Response to October 29, 1984,
Letter Concerning Sport Parachute Safety in
da Area/
Mana~r, Mi/ami FSDO-65
AUG 8 0 19B5
ReDly IO
A,m. oi: Riley
'Ext. 2220
Southern Region Headquarters (AS0-260)
Manager, Airports District Office , Orlando'
Air Traffic Manager,'Miami ATCT ..... .~,::.-
Air Traffic Manager, Miami IFSS
Chief, ATC Operations, .1942 (ISS) ...
Board of County Commissioners of Dade County, Florida
Director, Dade County Aviation Department
Executive Director, United States Parachute Association
President, SKYDIVE, Incorporated
This memo is in response to an October 29, request that this .,
office analyze the effects 'of sport parachutingoperations,in.Dade'
County airspace. This airspace use analysis ~as"lncluded ~n ,evaluation
of the applicable regulations and of the special"-considerati.ons-~
concerning sport parachuting in the vicinity of .'the Miami Termina~
Control Area, and also. identifies IFR-dedicated"airspace and remaining
uncontrolled airspace areas suitable for sport parachute operations.
This study includes a review of current FAA policies and guidance
concerning the use of Federally obligated airports.
Specific guidance and applicable regulatory requirements for sport
parachuting operations may be found in FAR Parts 91 .and 105. Additional
guidance concerning traditional static line parachute training.methods,
equipment, and off-airport "congested area" demonstration jump criteria
may be found in FAA Advisory Circular AC 105-2A. FAR Parts 91 and 105
identically specify the flight visibilities and Cloud clearance
requirements for all VFR users of the airspace, whether they be aircraft
or parachutists. The essential, underlying principle common to all of
these regulations is the basic Visual Flight Rule "see and be seen"
..concept of midair collision avoidance and VFR traffic separation.
Special additional safety considerations, beyond those of the general
VFR Part 91 requirements, exist for sport parachute operations.
Parachuting operations through controlled airspace are authorized and
conducted on a regular basis throughout the National Airspace System;
however, potential IFR traffic delays and air traffic control
specialist's workload are reduced when parachute operations are
conducted into uncontrolled airspace and away from heavily IFR-traveled
airways and radar vector routes. Although sport parachuting aircraft
require relatively small lateral segments of airspace in which to climb
and maneuver, they do regularly require more extensive vertical blocks
of airspace than the more "enroute" type operations, simply due to the
rapid altitude changes involved in parachuting.
To provide for air traffic control advisories to both the enroute and
parachuting aircraft pilots to assist them in maintaining visual
separation while in controlled airspace, FAR 105.14(i) and (ii) require
the pilot of the parachuting aircraft to establish radio communications
with the FAA air traffic control facility having jurisdiction over that
controlled airspace no less than five (5) minutes prior to any jump, for
the purpose of receiving information about known air traffic in the
vicinity of the jumping activity. This requirement strongly encourages
the pilot of the parachuting aircraft to participate in any radar.air.
traffic'advisoryservice available. The Regulation further states, in.
Part 105.14(iii).that both the pilot of the parachuting aircraft and the
parachutists on that aircraft receive and/or are made aware of this
traffic information. Additionally, such parachuting aircraft are
required under FAR 105.14(2)(i) to maintain a continuous watch on the
appropriate air traffic Control frequency from the time radio
communications are first established until the aircraft advises ATC that
Jumpingactivity'is"ended from that flight, and further under FAR
105.14(2)(b) ito advise ATC when the last parachutist reaches the ground.
FAR'105.23..reqUires"advan~e notice and*submission of the information
outlined in FAR 105.25(1) through (8) for Parachute operations into any
airspace. Parachute jumps made in violation of these, requirements
'seriously Jeopardizefligbt'safety by denying transient pilots the
information needed to vigilantly "see and avoid''and maintain safe
visual separation. Compliance with the FAR 105~23/.25 requirements is
normally accomplished by the issuance of a. NOTAM (Notice to Airmen)
filed through the local Flight Service Station. However, proper
publication of the FAR 105.25 information in the. Airport Facility
Directory and depiction of the parachute symbol on the appropriate
aeronautical charts would also satisfy the FAR 105.23 requirements.
Since pilot traffic scan vigilance is at a maximum during airport VFR
traffic pattern entry and departure, pilots would most readily identify
parachutes in flight in the immediate vicinity of an airport
Similarly, since parachutists are familiar with airport VFR traffic
pattern rules and locations, and enjoy, nearly unrestricted 360 degree
visibility, the descending parachutist would most readily identify
aircraft using these known patterns. Contrary to older technology
parachute designs, main and auxiliarycanopies currently in use are of a
"ram-air" type, which are highly maneuverable and gliding parachutes.
These very high performance parachute systems allow the descending
parachutist to identify potential conflicts with other aircraft at
altitudes well above aircraft in the traffic pattern, then select
appropriate nonconflicting landing approaches and maneuver accordingly
to maintain proper visual separation from the aircraft traffic. This
combination of ease of mutual identification and visual separation
between aircraft and parachutists at airports and greatly improved
parachutist maneuverability enables simultaneous aircraft and sport
parachuting operations at General Aviation airports to be both a safe
and compatible use of such airports.
Potential conflicts between aircraft and parachutists can exist,
however, when parachuting operations are conducted in poorly defined,
unpublished areas. Flight Information Publication (FLIP) chart
parachute symbols placed adjacent to airports from which parachutists
operate greatly .assist the transient pilots in exercising appropriate
vigilance near such .airports. In turn, the appropriate NOTAM or
published area and, although they are' still considered "noncertificated
airmen' by the FAA, be briefed on a regular basis concerning VFR
visibility,. FAR ~1/105 cloud clearance requirements, traffic scanning
techniques, and their own VFR "see and be seen# responsibilities. An
additional special requirement concerning' parachute Jumps made between
sunset and sunrise is outlined in FAR 105.33, .wherein all parachutists
on such Jumps are required to display a source of light visible for a
minimum of three (3) statute miles for the entire duration of the
parachutist's descent. It may be noted that this requirement for three
(3) mile visibility is consistent with the three (3) mile flight
visibility requirement of FAR 105.29{b), and is designed to.serve the
same purpose: to ensure that visual separation betweed'~aircraft and.
parachutists can be maintained, day or night...,,'iThe additl~al' SafetY:
considerations described herein supplement the basic Vis'il Fltght~R~les
and serve to. further emphasize the 'see and be.seen' nat~.of sport
parachuting. ' ....
Attached is a Miami Terminal Control Area Chart ~hat was used in the
preparation of local airspace use analysis. Local IFR protected
airspace boundaries were constructed on the TCA Chart excerpt in
accordance with FAA Handbook 8260.3b, which defines Terminal Instrument
Approach Procedures (TERPS) and certain other airspace management
criteria. In addition to the standard TCA .and Tamiami/Homestead
transition area boundaries, there are two (2) prominently outlined types
of IFR-dedicated controlled airspace boundaries depicted southwest of
the Biscayne Bay VORTAC that are of special interest. Protected
airspace boundaries are Victor Airways V 157 to the west of the. .
Homestead area, V 3 to the west through north, and V 35 to the' east are
depicted by red lines.. The airspace designated .by Miami Approach
Control to the Homestead AFB Ground Controlled Approach (GCA) facility.
for IFR control of military and other transient traffic at or below
2,500 feet }iSL' is depicted by a black line
On a weather, traffic,' and controller workload permitting basis,
nonroutine "demonstration' type jumps into any controlled airspace could
be .coordinated on an individual basis. However, extensive IFR terminal
arrival and departure traffic operating at iow altitudes (below 10,000
feet MSL) use both the TCA and the aforementioned depicted areas on a.
4
daily basis. Although there are no mandatory requirements to segregate
parachuting operations from these controlled airspace areas, nor any
established separation minima other that the maintenance of visual
separation, the potential IFR traffic delays and increased ATC workload
generated by parachuting through these airspace segments would indicate
that it is in the best interest of all concerned to conduct routine
parachuting operations outside of these specially depicted areas.
Optimally, routine sport parachute operations should be conducted so as
to avoid IYR-dedicated airspace to the extent practical, involve'the
minimum number of air traffic control airspace sectors possible to
reduce controller coordination, avoid exit over or into "congested
areas' (IAW AC 105-2A), and terminate on uncontrolled airports. In the
highly constrained Dade County airspace structure, these optimum
conditions aresimultaneously satisfied only in a relatively small area
northwest of the city of Homestead. This optimum sport parachuting area
is a pentagonal area defined by the eastern and Southern boundary of the
V .3 protected .airspace (solid red line), the northern boundary of the'
Homestead AFB.GCA dele§ated airspace {solid black line) andKrome-Avenue
(dashed red line),east of which is considered a 'congested" area and
contains numerous large vertical obstructions. Sport parachuting
operations conducted in the defined pentagonal area completely avoid
IFR-dedicated airspace and permits efficient single-frequency radar
traffic advisory service within a single sector ofMiamiApproaCh
ControlAirspace. Exits by parachutists in the defined area would occur
over almost entirely unpopulated terrain, and allow landing in
uncontrolled airspace, at swell equipped'andlightedfacility;the
Homestead GeneralAviation Airport (XS1). ThisDade County managed'
public airport lies almost directly centered in,he Optimum'parachuting
area and, due to its rela.tively large .acreage, simple design, and
extremely:low traffic count, isalmost'ideally'suitable for the landing
of parachutists. ~. '.
Sport parachuting operations have; in'fact, been conducted for well over
a decade from XS1. The current sport parachuting center at XS1 is
SKYDIVE, Incorporated, and has operated under its present management
since 1978. Numerous FSDO on-site safety inspections of aircraft,.
parachute equipment, operations and appropriate certifications have
consistently sho~n this present parachuting center to be aware of and in
full compliance with all applicable Federal Air Regulations. Indeed,
this parachute center has maintained an excellent safety record, in
spite of a major handicap to their operation; parachutists have been
disallowed the use of airport property for landing. Instead, they have
used:various "drop zones" in the vicinity of the airport that, although
were properly filed by NOTAH, did not provide the equivalent level of
visibility and safety 'that FLIP publication of the parachute symbol at
and landing of parachutistson the airport would provide. SKYDIVE,
Incorporated has, since its incorporation in 1977, conscienciously and
professionally attempted to secure parachutist landing ri§hts from the
airport management in accordance with the FAR 105.17 requirement that
prohibits landing of parachutists on airports without prior airport
management approval. 'To date, the airport management has denied this
approval.
This office has received several requests from the SKYDIVE, Incorporated
management to inspect their operation and to analyze and comment on any
possible operational changes that could be implemented to further
promote the safety of sport parachuting in the South Florida area, and
specifically requesting our analysis of the "integration' of parachute
jump operations into the other General Aviation uses in the XS1 area.
SKYDIVE, Incorporated had, on its own initiative, coordinated a "Letter
of Understanding" (formatted similarly ton Letter of Agreement) with
the Homestead AFB GCA dated April 29, 1982, and updated on November 30,
1984, for the purpose of selecting a parachuting NOTAM area, altitudes,
and operating times that did not conflict with the Homestead GCA ATC
operations. This office finds such professional and safety conscious
initiatives commendable and, since the completion of this local airspace
use analysis, has found ,that the agreed NOTAM area ,does indeed lie
totally within the optimum 'sport parachute airspace and does not
adversely impact on air traffic flow in the Miami Approach Control
airspace, the'Homestead GCA delegated .airspace, or on uncontrolled VFR
operations at XSI.. The'NOTAM area used since 1982 is ,defined as a 1.5
nautical mile radius about the Biscayne Bay VORTAC R-241 at 23.0 DME,
and appears on the TCA chart excerpt as the small circular area centered
southeast of and encompassing XS1 within the pentagonal optimum sport
parachuting airspace area. Starting with the February 14, 1985,
revision to the Airport/Facility .Directory, this ,parachute.drop zone
will be regularly published, and coordination is currently underway to
publish ~he parachute symbol on the.appropriate FLIP ,aeronautical charts
..~at the BSY R.241/023._.. ,:.. ;~;~.~. ~...~,.,.~,~:~:?~.~.~,;;:~,~,~ .,~ ~,! .:....,.,.?~ ,,,, ~,..~.,~ .
,-'' . . ~ '.~'l, ,~ ~ · "l
' aP ',-c, ........ ....... · '.' ....... .
During Our. Ysts, i~t~i.was mde ,that the 'XSl~airp~r~management,
the Dade County lvtation.,Depart~ent (DCAO) had elected ~o,impose a
restriction .on .sport parachuting operations using air~pace .wlthi~ five
(5) miles of the X51 airport boundary, threatening:termination of and
eviction from the SKYDIVE, Incorporated leasehold on XSl if any
parachute jumps were made within this five (5) mile "prohibited" area.
The FAA does not support the arbitrary establishment of any such
airspace restrictions, nor has the FAA authorized any outside.agencies
to officially designate "restricted" or "prohibited" airspace areas. In
the specific case of sport parachuting at X51, the FAA has found, quite
to the contrary, that ALL of the optimum sport parachuting airspace in
Dade County lies WITHIN five (5) miles of XS1 property. Sport parachute
operations are considered legitimate "aeronautical uses" of Federally
obligated airports such as XS1, in accordance with FAA Handbook 5190.6,
Airport Compliance Requirement, and discrimination against any such
types of use is contractually'prohibited under the four.(4) ADAP
'Sponsor's Assurances" agreements executed by Dade County between 1962
and 1968 with the receipt of Federal Grant monies forthe development of
X51. Since no public or flight safety hazards are evident that would
justify.Prohibition of sport parachuting operations onto XS1, this
office shall strongly recommend to the DCAD that they desist from
attempting to exercise airspace management authority and.to grant
parachutist landing rights onto XS1 in accordance .with FAR 105.17.
For nonroutine "off-airport" exhibition parachute jumps, the primary
references for guidance in determining the appropriate requirements are
FAA Handbook 8440.5A, Chapter 10 and the similar Advisory Circular
AC 105-2A. Both references identically define the circumstances under
which "congested area" Certificates of Waiver or Authorization (FAA
Forms 7711-2) must be filed prior to making exhibition jumps as
described by FAR 105.15. This office recommends that persons or
organizations planning to conduct such jumps follow the following steps:
a. Reference AC 105-2A to determine whether the planned jump
will require FSDO issuance of a "congested area" waiver.
be
Verbally coordinate in advance with the Miami Approach
Control area supervisor to discuss potential air traffic
safety conflicts and suggested operating restrictions.
When required for 'congested area" jumps, file the FAA
Form 7711-2 in triplicate with the local Flight Standards
District Office (FSDO).
d. Secure prior airport management approval for jumps
conducted onto any airport, in accordance with FAR
To request'authorization for.jumps to be-made in
accordance with FAR 105.19 or FAR 105.21, submit the
information required by FAR 105.25 in a timely manner
with the appropriate ATC facility, to include the filing
of a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM);
Check local civil ordinances for permit requirements.
The FAA seeks to ensure the safety of the public and of all users of the
National Airspace System without undue restriction. This office has
thoroughly examined the issues raised in the October 29, 1984, letter
requesting this analysis, and finds no inherent public or aviation
safety hazard nor other General Aviation incompatibility with sport
parachuting operations conducted within the defined area and terminating
with parachutist landings onto the Homestead General Aviation Airport.
We shall closely monitor the performance of the X51 airport management's
ADAP commitments, and will investigate if FAA Order 5190.3 enforcement
action will be required. For nonroutine "off-airports" exhibition
Jumps, the FAA will consider each site waiver on an individual basis.
This office appreciates your cooperation and professional safety-
consciousness in this matter, and we are pleased to be able to cooperate
with your .efforts to further improve flight safety.
Attachment
u. $. DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION
AIRPORTS DISTRICT OFFICE
FAA Building, Jackson Int'l Airport
120 North Hangar Drive, Suite B
Jackson, Mississippi 39208-2306
Telephone: (601) 965-4628
October 3, 1990
Mr. George A..Garzon, Director
Alabama Department of Aeronautics
555 South Perry Street, Suite 308
Montgomery, .Alabama 36130-0101
Dear Mr. Garzon:.,
We received a letter dated February .28,' 19901, '(coPY enclosed)
from the United States Parachute Association requesting that we
reevaluate our concurrence with the Alabama Department of
Aeronautics (ADA) determination to ban parachute jumping at the
St. Elmo Airport.
Pursuant to their request a.safety and compatibility study to
determine if parachute..jumpingWouldbecompatibl'~ with the
other aeronautical activities at'the alrP0rt was~Donducted.
Based on this study, we have reevaluated our position and
determined that, with proper procedures and precaution6, such
as local notice to airmen, use .of the CTAF frequency, and
normal visual vigilance, parachute .jumping can be accommodated
at the airport ..... .,. ,,~
We understand the ADA's concern regarding liabilitYj but..
parachute jumping is an aeronautical activity and must be
accommodated unless it will interfere with the safe operation
of the airport. (Our study did not indicate that safety would
be compromised.)
In addition to the safety precautions noted in the previous
paragraph, you also may require the following:
1. Designate reasonable time periods for jumping and
specific area for drop zones.
2. Jumpers or requestihg organization agree to pay a
reasonable fee that is not unjustly discriminatory.
PARTNERS IN CREATING TOMORROW'S AIRPORTS
Jumpers hold a general liability insurance policy
that n~4n. es the State of Alabama/ADA as an additional
insured party, with the amount of insurance to be
reasonable and not unjustly discriminatory.
-In summary, we have determined that. parachute jumping must be
accommodated at th~ St. Elmo Airport but that the ADA can
require reasonable'limitation and liability insurance to ensure
safety of operati6~s ~nd protection from legal suits.
By copy. of this letter, we are advising the United States
Parachute Association and Mr. N. Gregory Hughes, attorney for
Mr. John E. Cutts, of our determination.
Sincerely,
Original $igaed by .....
ELTON' ~-. JAY
Elton E. Jay
Principal Engineer. --,-
Planning and Safety ~
Enclosure
-CC: -'~. ....
Mr. N. Gregory .Hughes
Mr. Mike Johnston .~..,~.-..-..
PARTNERS iN CREATING TOMORROW'S AIRPORTS
FecJL-' ~I ~,vio::orl
Adm~nJstro~iGn
'~.r. Pcnjamin L. Fume, Administrator
: ~.=ri%~ther Count},
P.O. ?c~< 428
.'Z-reenville, GA 30222
Atlanta Airports .District.Office
1680 Phoenix Pa. rkway. Suite 101
Atlanta. Georgia. 30349-
AY'O 1991
Dear ~.~. Hume.':
f~ r~,~uested, we have reviewed the rales .ar~ 'regulatlons for PDosevelt
.'.~r, orial Airport, transntitted by y6ur letter of Harch 21,. 1991. Wedo not
,."o;:~,Jr wir. h the proposed rules and r _egulatiohs. We do agree that the
.'....~.--~o.r ,~s the right to establish rules e_nd Yec~-'-lations for its
;,¢.-....'~ver, they should be broad enough-'to be apPlied.;.~o.all.-;proposed
,.~,~,~rcial activities at the airport. We al.so agree that th~ sponsor has
t:bc ~*io~ht e.r~ pr~viiege to set fees ar~ the hours of 0per~tion for any
· -.'ctivity to be ¢ ~.ucte~ at the airport, but they should not be arbitrarily
applied to one activJ,':y. The airport should be made available as an
aJrrx~rt for Dublic use on fair and reas~u~ble terms ahd without unjust
di:-'.crimina, tion to all types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical uses.
/~,~e -.'~le~ and r _equlations submitted .for our'review were developed .0~y for
' .~kydivinc, operatio.ns. This precludes 'the admission of any other
aeronautic&l activity, on the airport without the .revising'.of'.the~rules to
cc~:,~r that. activity. Enclosed is ~ copy of...s~ggested ~gUide fo~ airport
,~..,, and regulations for ybur assistance in developing guidelines for }~Tur
ai .rpc2t.
~y letter dated Jul}, 7, 1989 (copy en~lose~), we advise~ that sk"ydivin£~
could be cor~ucted at Roosevelt ~orial kirport with .a-high Aegree of
safety, ~rovided it. ~s.cor~ucted .unde,r controlled conditions. .We a~ked the
Feder&l Avi~:i6n Acm~Ln[stration Georgia Flight Standards Distr~ct Office to
?eva!idate :he determination as stated in thai letter. . .An on-site
.~u~;~.~ l!ance ~as conducted on March' 24,' 1991~' and no safety iDroble-~s. .were
;:._ witJ,:'olding our decision regarding the cc~p. laint filed by Freefall
~.anch, per.:-~ing tl.e resolution of .the issues discussed in t~is '-letter.
~],.?a, .? ~dvise this office within sixty {60) days of the action to be taken
this regard.
-.'-incez el,.,,,
,..a;[,e. F. Austin
.~nager
~ Enc:!osures
'¢:: ~ ?reefa] ~ Pzu]ch, Inc.
'.:'~....Lukc E~usins,: Georgia Fx2r~
PARTNERS IN CREATING TOMORROW'S AIRPORTS
,,~! Tlc irlq~'v T,
Federal Aviation
Administration
X[ROX '!
D]SIRIBUTE
CHECK FILES------
FILE
RETURN ---..-
HOLD ------
'O ER I. c
' iNiTiAL. o__.
:.Ir. T.~njamin L. }tume. Administrator
Heri~ether County
P.(.~. ~oz 428
Greenville. GA 30222
I)~ar Mr'. flume:
DEC 2 1991
1680 Phoenix Parkway. Suile
Atlanta, Georgia 30349-5421
Poference is made to your letter of October 15, 1991.
c()ncernin9 the on-going compliance issue at tho Roosevelt
Memorial .Airport. Warm Springs. Georgia. and the three
issues addressed therein.
1. Many airports (including the Fulton .. County
Airport ]. - establish a ,square. footage for hangars and other
'~." buJldi'no~'"'f'n"';%hefr minimum standards. This
....... the pr0tgc{~on'.',of 'the airport owner, as for any potential
......commercia!-operators. Your amendment appears to .be fair and
reasonab].e in addressing this issue.
., 2. There are numerous types of commercial activities
that can and do operate out of public airports wit.~h no
facilities. We have soon many cases where flight training
'and maintenance are operated out of the trunk of a car.
Aircraft rental and sales can be conducted from one's home
with only a tie-down' needed at the airport. Also.
cropdusters are noted .for their lack of facilities. While
it is not dosirabl~ to allow off-airport commercial
operations, these entities .should pay their fair share.
You[ letter states that the only service your airport could
~,f for a c,:opduster is a "tie down" and tho use o£ the
airport for "landing and taking off." You further state
"... we cannot exact a fee-for that." To the contrary, the
,':ounty is obligated .to charge a fair and reasonable fee to
anyone who uses the airport for a commercial activity.
Your lease 'agreement appears to adequately address
commercial activities through a fuel flowago foe. a percent
o~ gross sales, and. a lease rate for unimproved property.
we are c,mcerned, however. ,with the content of paragraph 6.
'!'his par'~araph, o requires an 'access foe of $3.000. It appears
that this is intefided solely for parachutists since it
~furs .to th8 "retrieval of any and all customers of tenant
wh,., ]uad,...e:-tgnt]y lan(] upon the airport's operations area."
'' i:--<-.: .... l,in~r~t~ tha't this:requirement is discriminatory.
2
3. With regard to the curfew, our Flight Standards
District Office [FSDO) has visited your airport twice. Both
visits were made. unannounced, on a weekend and on both
occasions the FSDO determined the parachuting operation to
be safe. They found the parachutists to be complying with
all applicable regulations. Further. they determined, due
to the level of activity, that the parachute operations
could be operated simultaneously with other operations
without derogating safety. As far as we are concerned, the
FSDO's determination is sufficient.
The current curfew is substantially different from the one
agreed to'lin the lease of September 26. 1989. The former
curfew allowed daylight operations seven days
also allowed night jumps twice per month. The current
curfew substantially limits weekend hours--the ·busiest days
for a parachuting business. ' '.,', "- ....... .
You are correct in that your grant assurances require that
the airport be operated efficiently and non-exclusively.
The findings of. the FSDO. however, have shown that the
airport: ,can be.,..'operated safely and!,efftcten~y without
restrict.ions~':~ The use of the airport'by~paraCh~tists does
not preclude o~her users · Efficiency does"no~,~>dictate a
· curfew. In the absence of a safety problem, we find the
____continued imposition of a curfew to be·discriminatory ·
It is our opinion that the county is failing :to 'comply ·with
its federal grant ·assurances. We 'have given the county
ample opportunity to resolve this issue 'to no avail. We
will. therefore, place the county in an official state of
non-compliance on December 31. 1991 unless this zssue is
completely resolved.
If you have any questions, please advise.
Sincerely.
Samuel F~ Austin
Manager
cC :'
Office of |ntermodal Programs. Georgia IYYF
Feilem!
Memorclndum
Su=~ect- ~ ~.i=~=r: St~veill&nce at Sc. ~ary'a
Com~t~ Airport. (2W&), Leonas~ecowr., ~:"ylamd
Da~a -~e~r~a~ 26, ~992
CM~r!e, ~h~ and ~e~aticnm Tnepector, Bob Jenkina ~r~ive~ a~ 5~. Mary'=
, . ~;~. '..'.''~., .-.:.. ,.,:,' x" · "
Che aoUCheaec va.~7i~ to LO ~ots. .'..
P~ee~l~, c~ doo~ on the oBeracio=e ~Sa~ opene~ and a ymli~ colored ~een
elevem pa~achuclste ence~a~ ~he A~rCr~FC, ceeb o~ a~d d~parced ~he airport
· een ~o exic the el=~af~ ~ ~m~c~n~ :~ar~ :he ~irpo=~. Ail of =he
ex~p~ one lande~ on ~he ea~ s~8c o~ ~he ~ay in the vlci~ic2 o~ the safe~7
en~ oE ~he a~rpor;. As ~hls Jumper dri~e~ ac~oz~ ~hm =um~ ac a height o~
wm~e ~o~ ~o be in ~plAan~e vi~h the ~A~.
XC l&n~ed, taxied c~ ~he r~p an~ vas rmmp checked Eo~ airman and aire~af~
and ~he pilo~ vere foun~ ~o.be l.n compliance .Wit..H ~AEe.. .....
0S:2~
the ~ourceen r~.Checka
~rinz~ra~ che~ke ~ll pilot, versacad q~a~io~e ~e~ard~ thei~ op~r~io~m
emp~s!s on parachuce pack~& procedure, an~.~"~'"~ai opera~ procedurea vith
~a~'a County Ai~or: are
us D~m~m~t
of Transpodaflon
Federal Av~Uon
Adm~s~atk~n
Wast%-x3ton Aiports Disbict Offce
101 W. Broad Street, Sate 300
Fa~s Ch~c~ VrCia 22046
Te~phon~ (703) 285-2572
Fa,,c. (703) 285-23G
March 20. 1992
Mr. Edward V. Cox
County Administrator
P. O. Box 653
Leonardto~m, Maryland 20650
Dear Mr. Cox:
This letter is to bring to your attention a complaint we have received
regardin§ parachute jumping at the St. Mary's County Airport, Leonardt°wn,
Maryland.
As a recipient of Federal funds and as part of the grant agreement entered
into by the County with the U. S. Government, the County has agreed to keep
the airport open to all classes of aeronautical uses.
We have been provided a'copy of a March 13, 1992, letter signed by the
Acting Chairman'o~the'St~ 'Mary's County Airport Commission withdrawing
permission for-the 'Skydiving'Center to J~ump over or onto the airport. This
letter indicates=that such action will become effective within 30 days that
is April 9, 1992. This letter cited Federal Aviation Regulations, Part
105.17.
Parachute jumping is an aeronautical use and any restriction, limitation,
or ban against jumping on the airport must be based on the grant assurance
that the sponsor may prohibit or limit "for the safe operation of the
airport or when necessary to serve the civil aviation needs of the public".
We have been in contact with the Flight Standards District Office. This
office has jurisdiction and responsibility for determination of compliance
with safety regulations in the St. Mary's County area. They have advised
me that an .airport surveillance inspection was conducted at the airport on
February 22, 1992. They also advise me that they did not find any
violation of Federal Aviation Regulations, Parts 65 and 105. While this
conclusion reflects the results of only one investigation and there may be
a need for more investigation prior to a final decision, there does not
appear to be sufficient evidence to support the action contemplated by the
March 13th letter.
Enclosed are three letters from The Skydiving Center addressed to the
Manager (Mr. Robert B. Mendez) of this Airports District Office. Please
review these complaints and provide us with the information you may have in
response to the alle§ation!. When we have received this information, we
will consult with the FSDO~ and advise you of a final conclusion.
In the meantime, rather than risk the strong possibility that the County
would be in noncompliance with its grant assurances, we strongly urge you
to instruct =he Airport Commission to rescind the March 13th letter.
Please le= me know if you have any questions.
Sincerel~,
Ca~..~- ~,' ul ' vico, Supervisor
Planning and Prograu~ning Section
Enclosures
/
cc: Kevin Gibson, Vice President %/
The Skydiving Center
AEA-600, with incoming
AASr300, with incoming
Mr."Bob~Jenktns', ~i~h incoming
Washing=on FSDO
....... UNITED
STATES
PARACHUTE
® ASSOCIATION®
1440 DUKE STREET · ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
Tel: 703/836-3495
Fax: 703/836~2843
October 14, 1992
Mike Hudkins
City Finance Director
1225 Main St.
Sebastian, FL 32958
Dear Mr. Hudkins:
The United States Parachute Association represents more than 22,000
skydivers here in the United States and overseas. We are the official voice
of the sport in the United States, and have been recognized by the FAA and
other government agencies as the spokesman for our particular aeronautical
discipline.
The USPA has two principal purposes. The first is to prcmote safe and
responsible parachuting. The second is to speak for its men, rs on matters of
aviation policy that affect skydivers. Both of these purposes are served by
the USPA working closely with the Federal Aviation Actninistration on matters
that affect skydiving.
Many years a9o the Federal Aviation A~inistration determined officially
that skydiving is an "appropriate aeronautical use", which therefore must be
permitted to utilize the facilities of any airport which has received federal
funding. The denial of access to these facilities by the airport owner is,
therefore, contrary to Federal Aviation Administration regulations and policy;
and puts the airport owner at the risk of losing such federal funding.
Under the Federal Aviation Act, the federal 9overnment is "declared to
possess and exercise complete and exclusive national sovereignty in the
airspace of the United States." This authority, in turn, is delegated to the
Federal Aviation Administration. Court decisions have consistently held that
the power of local governments to regulate aeronautical activities, including
parachuting, is limited to matters of purely local concern that do not
interfere with the FAA's sole authority to regulate parachutin9 and other uses
of airspace.
Airport operators may limit access to an airport when they determine
that there is a safety hazard involved. We believe such determinations
concernin9 skydiving are often inappropriate, particularly in view of the fact
that over 92~ of all skydiving activities co-exist amicably and very safely on
~, alongside all other forms of aviation.
Founded in 1957 as the Parachute Club of America, the United States Parachute Association is a volunta~/,
non-profit, non.regulatom/association dedicated to the safe enjoyment of the spo~ of parachuting.
~ 35 Years
PCA-I~$PA ~
In addition, skydiving activities provide substantial in~act on the local
econon~, through hotel rentmls, restaurants, the smle of fuel and other
related services.
The USPA's general position is that FAA AC 150/5190.1A, AC 150/5190.2.A,
Order 5190.6A as well as Order 5190.1A provide.for equal access t~ airport
facilities for skydiving operations. We believe that the use of Sebastian
Municipal Airport by the local skydivers would not be inconsistent with your
future plans for the airport and therefore we support their efforts to j~
there.
If we can provide any further information for you or assist you in any
manner, please contact us.
Very truly yours,
cl int Vincent
Director of Training
v/ll
CC:
Charles C. Price
Bankes Brazell, Conference Director
Paul Sitter, Chairman, Governmental Relations Ccem.
~A~¥ B. F~sr t
VINCENT ~, T0~Y, ~R.
Rw~ E. To~e
J, PATRICK ANDERSON
LAU~ L.
OF COUNSEL
~-xRESE, ]~ASH ~ TORPY, P.A.
AT~PORNEYS AT L~.w
930 S. HARBOR CItY BL~,
Su~T~ 505
ME~o~, F~D~ 32901
(407) 984-3300
F~ i407) 951-3741
Robert S. McClary
city Manager
city of Sebastian
P.O. Box 780127
Sebastian, FL 32978
Re: Sebastian Airport
october 28, 1992
Dear Mr. McClary:
This letter is in response to your inquiry with regard to the
permissible level of regulation that may be imposed, by the City
of Sebastian, upon skydiving activities based at the Sebastian
Municipal Airport. In short, based upon my review of case law,
F.A.A. regulations, and discussions with other airport managers,
it is my opinion that the city of Sebastian may not deny, or in any
way discriminate against, a group that wishes to use the airport
for parachuting activities. Any regulation that would seek to
restrict or prohibit parachuting activity from the Sebastian
Municipal Airport would only be valid if they were based on well
documented safety concerns.
The regulation of parachute jumping is within the exclusive control
of the Federal Aviation Administration. Blue Sky Entertainment,
Inc., v...TQwD of Gardiner, 711 Fed. Supp. 678(ND) New York, 1989.
Accordingly, the City of Sebastian may not engage in any activity
which would result in the regulation of parachute activity from
the Sebastian Municipal Airport. F.A.A. regulations, however,
indicate that regulations of parachuting activity are proper if
there are well documented safety concerns. At this time, I have
reviewed the Sebastian Municipal Airport Community Compatibility
Study, Master Plan, and Environmental Assessment. That report does
not give any indication that parachuting activity from the airport
would be unsafe.
If the city has a safety concern with regard to sky diving
activity, then, prior to restricting this type of activity, it
Robert S. McClary
City Manager
October 28, 1992
Page -2-
would be necessary for the City to commission the appropriate study
of airport activity, with the specific intent of revealing whether
or not it would be safe to conduct sky diving activities. Without
this type of information, the City would not be able to support any
prohibitions of sky diving activity.
As an alternative, the City may wish to negotiate with the parties
who desire to begin sky diving operations and obtain appropriate
hold harmless and indemnification agreements from these parties.
At this point, from the correspondence received from Sky Dive
Sebastian, Inc., it is apparent that they are anxious to discuss
terms of operating a sky diving club from the Sebastian Airport,
and it appears that they would be willing to agree to any
reasonable request by the City to ensure the safe operation of
their club. Therefore, I would 'recommend that the City ask for a
proposal from this organization regarding the specific intention.
As soon as we receive this proposal, I will look at the specific
desires related to their activity, and give you a more detailed
opinion with regard to the City's need, or ability, to regulate the
activity desired.
If you have further questions with regard to this matter, please
let me know.
Sincerely,
FRESE, NASH & TORPY, P.A.
Richard E. Torpy
RET/lbg
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589-533O D FAX (407) 589-5570
SUBJECT~ Barber Street Sports
Complex Expansion
Approval For Submlttal By=
City Manager=
Dept. of Origin= City Manager
Date Submitted=
For Agenda Of= 11/04/92
Exhibits= Mosby Proposal dated
EXPENDITURE
REQUIRED=
AMOUNT
BUDGETED=
APPROPRIATION
REQUIRED~
SUMMARy STATEMENT
Randy L. Mosby P.E. of Mosby And Associates, Inc. of Vero Beach,
Florida performed all engineering work for the Barber Street Sports
Complex. This firm provided their professional services (valued at
over $16,000) as a donation to the City of Sebastian, to the youth
of the community, and in memory of Mr. Mosby's father, Fred L.
Mosby. Further, Randy Mosby has agreed to make several revisions to
the existing site, again as a donation to the City.
As a result of the settlement agreement with General Development
Corporation the City acquired considerable real property within the
community. One such tract is located at the intersection of Barber
Street and Tulip Street directly south of the Barber Street Sports
Complex and consists of approximately 7.3 acres. With the
acquisition of this tract it is appropriate that the City review its
plans for the Barber Street Sports Complex since this tract could
easily be an extension of that project. Specifically, the existing
plans call for an 80 yard multi-purpose football/soccer field
situated next to the Creative Playground and North of Tulip Street
and South of Fields 1 and 2. This area would be better utilized for
tennis courts, basketball courts, shuffle board and horseshoe pits
rather than a mutli-purpose field. The new 7.3 acre tract, which is
an entire block, would accommodate several multi-purpose/football
soccer fields and has sufficient room for the fields to have the
proper North/South orientation plus necessary amenities such as off
street parking and restroom facilities. There has also been some
discussion about using the existing building as a youth gymn and
Barber Street Sports Complex Expansion
Page #2
recreation center and some discussion about this site being used for
a future community center. Further,' since the original Barber
Street Sports Complex design, a new youth soccer league has been
organized. Further, the Panthers Football Association wishes to
expand its program to a "pop warner" league which would require a
100 yard field (the current field at Schumann Park is 80 yards).
The first step towards the development of this property would be to
develop a conceptual plan with a Master Plan layout, with some
preliminary design of drainage, traffic circulation, etc. In
addition to the engineering, a topographical survey estimated to
cost between $1500 and $1800 would be needed.
The City has engaged the professional services of Mosby And
Associates, Inc. for numerous projects. We have found Mosby And
Associates, Inc. to be competent, professional, and competitive. It
is unrealistic to expect that Mosby And Associates, Inc. could
continue to donate all the engineering necessary for City owned
youth oriented recreation facilities. However, Mr. Mosby has
assured me that he would provide such services at the lowest
possible expense to the City. The engagement of an engineer for
this project would be under the threshold limits requiring the
selection process outlined in Chapter 287 of the Florida Statues.
R]~COMMENDED ~
Move to approve the proposal by Mosby And Associates, Inc. of Veto
Beach, Florida for preparation of a Master Plan for the Barber
Street Sports Complex Expansion as outlined in their letter dated
October 28, 1992