HomeMy WebLinkAbout11061991 City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 D FAX (407) 589-5570
AGENDA
SEBASTIAN CITY COUNCIL
WORKSHOP MEETING
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1991 - 7:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA
ALL PROPOSED ORDINANCES AND INFORMATION ON ITEMS
BELOW MAY BE INSPECTED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK,
CITY HALL, 1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
4. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS (ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS)
5. ANNOUNCEMENTS
6. PUBLIC INPUT ON AGENDA ITEMS
7. WORKSHOP ITEMS
91.301/
91.071
Indian River County Water and Sewer Utility
Franchise Negotiations (City Manager
Recommendation dated 10/31/91, Cloud Letter dated
10/24/91, Draft Znterlocal Utilities Agreement)
91~302/
91.071
Indian River Drive Sanitary Sewer Study (Staff
Recommendation dated 10/25/91, Asher Letter
dated 9/30/91, Proposed Gravity Only Layout, City
Engineer Memo dated 10/18/91)
91.069
91.144
91.286
91.303
91.304
91.043
90.290
10.
11.
Police Department On-Site Sewage Disposal System
(Staff Recommendation dated 10/25/91, City
Engineer Memo dated 10/23/91, HRS Septic Tank
Permit Application, HRS Letter dated 10/10/91,
Proposed Layout Sketches, Cost Estimates,
Schuessler Letter dated 3/1/91)
Review Proposed Electrical Service for New Police
Station (Staff Recommendation dated 10/29/91,
Director of Community Development Memo dated
10/25/91)
Yacht Club Dock Restoration and Expansion (City
Manager Recommendation dated 10/31/91, Riomar
Letter dated 9/26/91, Sketch)
Discuss Waiver of Bid Procedure to Purchase_
Twenty-Five Golf Carts on Sole Source Basis -
Club Car Corp. - $50,525 (Staff Recommendation
dated 10/10/91, Golf Course Manager Memo dated
10/9/91, Club Car Letter dated 10/10/91)
Discuss Golf Course Bond Refunding (Staff
Recommendation dated 10/16/91)
Review Proposed Charter Amendments (City Clerk
Recommendation dated 10/31/91, City Attorney
Memo dated 10/31/91 [Proposed Amendments], City
Attorney Letter dated 2/20/89, Potter Letter
dated 2/7/89)
Review Status of GDC Negotiations (City Manager
Recommendation dated 10/31/91, City Manager
Letter dated 10/31/91 w/ Attachments)
8. MAYOR'S MATTERS
9. COUNCIL MATTERS
A. Vice Mayor 0berbeck
B. Councilman Holyk
C. Councilman Powell
D. Councilman Reid
CITY ATTORNEY MATTERS
CITY MANAGER MATTERS
2
19..
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)
13. ADJOURN
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE CITY
COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING (OR
HEARING) WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY NEED TO
ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH
RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL
IS TO BE HEARD. (286.0105 F.S.)
3
City of Sebastian
POSt OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 [] FAX (407) 589-5570
SUBJECT: Indian River County Utility
Franchise
Approval For submittal By:
city Manager
Agenda No.
)
)
Dept. Origin: City Manager
Date Submitted: 10/31/91
For Agenda Of: 11/06/91
Exhibits: Cloud Letter To
Vitunac dated 10/24/91
Draft Interlocal
Utilities Agreement
EXPENDITURE
AMOUNT
APPROPRIATION
REQUIRED:
BUDGETED:
REQUIRED:
S.UM/dARY STATEMENT
The latest negotiation session with Indian River County on water
and sewer franchise matters was held on October 16, 1991. As a
result of that negotiating session, special attorney Thomas A.
Cloud prepared a new draft of a proposed interlocal utilities
agreement between Indian River County and the City. Mr. Cloud
and the City's special engineering consultant, Gerald Hartman,
will be present at the regular workshop meeting of November 6,
1991 to review the progress of negotiations between the city and
the County.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Review status of Indian River County negotiations for water and
waste water utility franchise matters.
HARRIS & ROBINSON'
ATTORNI~YS AT LAW
Orlando
October 24, 1991
MIA~FACS IMILE.
407/,567-932~3
Charles P. Vitunac
Indian River County Attorney
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
REt Interlocal Utilities Agreement between Indian River
County, Florida and the City of Sebastian, Florida
Dear Charles:
Please forgive my delay in transmitting the redraft of the
above referenced Agreement; I had to complete a brief to be
submitted to Tampa by the first part of this week. For your
benefit, I am enclosing a "clean" copy and a "black-lined" copy of
the Agreement. i have tried to cover the changes which we
discussed in our meeting.~
Those changes
are as follows=
I have provided for a cancellation date of six months
fro__q~.m~he date of executioD=~'the A~re~mest. T~0d
of txme -~oincide~with the period o£ time in our
franchise option agreement with GDU in which they have to
turn over the facilities to us. Since this is only two
months longer than the period of time mentioned by
Commissioner Scurlock in the meeting, I hope this will be
acceptable to the County.
Charles P. vitunac
October 24, 1991
Page 2
(2)
I have reinserted the language previously deleted
regarding the customer classes and the transfer of
customers, with some minor changes as were discussed in
the meeting. The only change not discussed in the
meeting relates to the turnover of collection systems
referenced in paragraph 8. I have added some.clarifying
language to that which indicates that, while the City
pays the cost of reconnection, it is not to pay for the
collection systems.
(3)
I have inserted language related to the rates and meter
billing which I believe is consistent with what was
discussed in the meeting.
(4)
I have inserted language in paragraph 2 relating to the
i/~mediate cancellation of that part of the franchise
related to the GDU franchise area; I believe this was
discussed and agreed to in the meeting.
(5) The new Agreement calls for the preparation of three
exhibits. Exhibit "A" will spell out the City's service
area which wall include all the Ci~y.limi~s ~k
Plac~C_9 (~e? ~iscus~ion below). Exh_i~it "S'
~i_~, ~ogether With a depiction
connection between the two wastewater sysuems.
"C" will contain the rate, as well as a composite
breakdown ~f.the rate. . ~ and Associates will
prepare Exhlbxt ~", and ~t ~s my understanding that the
Cou~q~9~ will prepare Exhibit "B"~ and Exhibit "C".~__
(6) With respect to Park Place, I cannot at this time
recommend that the~sume the" purchase and sale
agreement- None of ~s were attached to the
draft I received. Furthermore, there are several
ambiguities in the agreement. Therefore, at this time,
I have left reference out of the Agreement to the
assumption of the Park Place agreement. I believe
Commissioner Scurlock indicated at the meeting that this
would be okay with the County.
Charles P. vitunac
October 24, 1991
Page 3
I believe that Robb M¢Clary has scheduled a time when we can
bring this Agreement to the City Council at a workshop in early
November. It would be extremely helpful if we could have all the
exhibits ready to discuss with the City Council at that time. I
will do whatever I can to help expedite this matter. Please c~ll
me if you have any questions concerning this matter.
Sincerely yours,
~~omas A~d, Es~ire
GRAY, ~u~RRiS & ROBINSON, P.A.
$£~ned £or ~r. Clou~ in hi~ ~b~enu-
to prevent ~elmy.
TAC:jlm
40107-1
CC:
Robb McClary
Gerald C. Hartman
· C~' T-.:.'.'- 1991 ].4:55 FRIDt'I GR~"(, HARR I S&ROB I I ISOI 1 - ~-'~--'-'~
INTER.LOCAL UTILITIES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
INDIAN I IVER COUNTY FLORIDA
AND
CI'I OF SEBASTIAN FLORIDA
THIS AGREEMENT, made this ~ day of
, 1991, by
and between
TNDIA/~ RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision
of the State of Florida, the address of which
is 1840 25th Street, Veto Beach, Florida
32960 (hereafter COUNTY)
and the
CITY OF SEBASTIAR, a municipal corporation of
the State of Florida, the address of which is
Post Office Box 127, Sebastian, Florida 32978
(hereafter CITY), and its successors and/or
assigns,
W I TN E S S E T H~
That for and in consideration of the premises and other good
and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufkiciency of which
is hereby acknowledged, the COUNTY and the CITY agree as follows~
1. ~. The following are true statements'.
1.1. The CITY granted a water franchise to General
Development Utilities, Inc. (GDU) in CITY Ordinance 0-81-8 and
granted a sewer franchise to GDU in CITY Ordinance 0-81-9 (col-
lectively the GDU franchises) to allow GPU to operate and main-
tain a water distribution and a wastewater collection and dis-
posal system within a portion of the CITY.
1.2. On Januaz'y 14, 1987, by CITY ReSOlution R-87-6,
the CITY gave the COUNTY a 30-year exclusive franchise for the
provision of water and wastewater services within the rest of the
City.
1.3. An interloeal agreement entered into b~tween the
CITY and COUNTY and e£fective July 3, 1987, required the CITY to
assist the COUNTY in assessing property owners for the construc-
tion of collection systems in the City limits.
1.4. At construction financing for a wast~water plant
and main lines, the COUNTY issued revenue bonds in the amount of
$6,075,000 on October 15, 1989. Part of the security for the
pa~ent of these bonds was the revenue from ~ assess-
ments for reserved connections withih the City.
1.5. The COUNTY has constructed a wastewater treatment
plant, major collection lines, and certain force mains from
plant through the unincorporated area into the city and beyond
and was ready to provide service for CITY customers on or about
March 5, 1991.
1.6 Approximately 95 CITY equivalent residential .
units are now receiving wastewater service from these facilities.
1.7. On December 12, 1990, the CITY and COUNTY entered
into and executed an assignment whereby the CITY tra~sfe£red to
t~e COUNTY, and the COUN~ accepted, all of the CITY's right,
title, and interest in the GDU franchises, except the right to
receive any and all franchis~ revenues and fees owed under the
GDU franchises, and except the right to regulate rates and
charges being charged and collected pursuant to the GDU fran-
chises.
1.8. The CITY on or about February 27, 1991, deter-
mined that it would be in the CITY's best interest to consider a
revocation or cancellation of the franchise given to the COUNTY
in paragraph 1.2 and perhaps provide its own water and wastewater
service.
1.9. On March 5, 1991, the COUNTY unanh~ously agreed
to relinquish its franchise rights within the CITY if that was
what the CITY wished.
1.10. On March 13, 1991, the COUNTY sent a letter to
the CITY offering to relinquish its franchise rights.
1.11. 0n April 5, 1991, the CITY conditionally
accepted the COUNTY'~ offer, subject to completion of the neces-
sary documents containing terms and conditions acceptable to both
parties so that agreements, ordinances, and resolutions may be
rescinded in such a manner as to not ~%pact third parties.
1.12. On March 27, 1991, the CITY hired a utility con-
sultant to prepare a feasibility study concerning whether the
CITY should provide its own water and wastewater systems.
1.13. The feasibility study prepared by the CIT~I's
consultants was presented to the CITY on June 26, 1991, and
recommended that the CITY go ahead with its own utility service.
1.14. Based on the announced intention of the CITY to
develop its own utility systems, on or about August 6, 1991,
COUNTY cancelled plans for expanding the COUNTY's North County
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
1.15. The CITY is taking the necessary steps to regain
all of its rights under the GDU franchises in order to
potentially acquire GDU's water and wastewater systems %o enable
the CITY to develop a City-wide water and wastewater utility.
Modification of the COUNTY's franchise is also a necessary
prerequisite to the CITY's development of its ow~ water and
wastewater system.
1.16. The COUNTY has agreed to cooperate witt~ the CITY
as long as the interests of the COUNTY utility system, the bond
holders, and the CITY customers who have reserved capacity in the
system are all protected.
1.17. The COUNTY and CITY staff men%bets have met on
several occasions to work out interim plans to effect %he separa-
tion of the utility systems and have re¢on~ended the provisions
of this agreement as an acceptable way to satisfy the concerns of
all parties.
2. C/~NCELL~TION OF COUNTY FPQkNCHISE. Effective six (6)
calendar months from the date of execution of this Agreement (the
"Cancellation Date"), the parties hereby agree to and do cancel
the existing franchise and all of the rights granted to the
COUNTY by the CITY under CITY Resolutions R-87-6 and R-87-7, and
under the intergovernmental Agreement between the CITY and the
COUNTY which was effective February 3, 1987; provided, however,
that the CITY and COUNTY agree and do l~ereby cancel the existing
franchise and all of the rights granted to the COUNTY by the CITY
under said resolutions and a~reement with respect to th~-
tory covered by the GDU~ranchis~.s, said cancellation to take
effect immediately. Upon the Cancellation Date, the CITY's
retail water and wastewater service area shall be as depicted on
Exhibit "A" attached to and incorporated in this Agreement.
3. ~ONTINUANC~ OF ~RESENT .S~RVICE. Up to and until the
Cancellation Date, the COUNTY will allow available permanent
capacity of the COUNTY system~o be purchased by....custom~ers within
the City_limits pursuant to the terms of the existing franch£se._~
On and after that date the COUNTY will sell available permanent
capacity for connections within the City only to the CITY itself,
which may in turn make this capacity available to customers
within the City.
4. ~EASSIGNMEN~ OF R!GH__~$_~ P__J~U CjL~E GDU.--2AC--~L-~ITI~S' The
assignment by 'bhe CITY to the COUNTY by CITY Resolution R-90-§5
of all right, title, and interest in GDU's franchises given in
CITY Ordinances O-81-8 and O-81-9 are hereby reassigned to the
CITY effective the date of this agreement. Tha~ A~reement
between the CITY and COUNTY entered into on December 12, 1990, is
hereby terminated. The parties a~ree that the effect of this
termination and reassignm%ent, together with the immediate partial
cancellation referred to in paragraph 2 hereof is to allow the
CITY to exercise its option to purchase the GDU facilities and
provide water and wastewater service in the territory covered by
the GDU franchises.
5.1. ~ - Units within the CITY which are
connected to or which have reserved capacity in the COUNTY waste-
water system before January 1, 1992, and which have a collectioB
system available to them, even if the physical connection to the
unit has not been made.
5.2. ~ - Units within tile CITY which have
reserved capacity in tile COUNTY wastewater system before
January 1, 1992, but which do llOt have a collection system
available.
5.3. ~l~s II.I U~i~ - Units within the CITY other
than Class I and II Units.
5.4. "Utility Service" shall be used to include rate
setting, custome~ connections, meter installation, meter reading,
billing, bill collection, customer relations, customer com-
plaints, collection system construction, ~elated repair work, and
all other necessary, customary, and convenient activities per-
formed by a utility company other than the treatment of waste-
water. Utility service shall not include repair and maintenance
of the COUNTY;s lines, force mains, or pump stations shown on
Exhibit "B". These shall be the responsibility of the COUNTY.
6.1. Effective on the Cancellation Date, the COUNTY
will cease to be the utility service provider within the City and
will become instead only the treatment, transmission, and
effluent disposal (hereinafte~ ..treatment") provider for all
wastewater generated for all Class I and II Units and for the
number of Class III Units for which tile CITY has purchased or
does purchase permanent capacity in a COUNTY wastewater treatment
plant.
6.2. Effective on the Cancellation Date, tile CITY
shall become tile utility service provider for all classes of
customers within the service area depicted on Exhibit "A" hereof
and shall, as part of this duty, provide collection systems for
Class I customers in a manner such that the interests of the
class II customers will not have been lla~ed by the revocation of
tile COUI~TY franchise. The COUNTY agrees to develop a non-
discriminatory, cost-of-se~wice rate to be charged to the CITY
for treatment of the wastewater which rate shall take into
account the fact that the CITY is the utility service provider
for all classes of units within the CITY. The rate and
components which make up this rate are depicted in ~xhibit "C"
attached to and incorporated in this Agreement. The CITY
reserves the right to become a wastewater treatment provider also
for any or all units within the CITY subject only to the rights
of the COUNTY as desczibed in paragraph 5. The points of
interconnection between the CITY's and COUNTY's wastewater
systems are depicted on Exhibit "B" hereof. To bill for the
rates hereunder, the COUNTY shall install at its initial expense
(to be recouped in the non-discriminatory, cost-of-service rates)
meters in the pump stations to calculate usage.
6.3. upon installation and acceptance, the metering
equipment shall become the property of the provider, and the
provider shall be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and
replacement of the meter. The provider shall read the meter for
billing purposes. The metering equipment shall.meet the
standards of the American Water Works Association ("AWWA") for
accuracy, which is plus or minus five percent (5%). The
purchaser may request an accuracy test by the provider without
charge once during any twelve (12) month period. The purchaser
may witness the test. Additional testing may be requested by the
purchaser at the provider's established cost for such tests,
Copies of the test results will be provided to the purchaser
within thirty (30) days of the test. There will be no charge for
tests that discover an inaccurate meter. If an inaccurate meter
is found, a~ defined by the AWWA, bill adjustments will be made
for one-half (1/2) of the preceding period since the last
accuracy test.
6.4. As a bulk customer of the COUNTY wastewater
system, CITY understands that it will have to comply with COUNTY
policies on the quality Of wastewater put into the COUNTY system
and othe~ customer reasonable, technical standards adopted by the
COUNTY countywide.
?. ~RANSFER OF UNI_T~. The COUNTY agrees that on the
request of the CITY it will transfer to the CITY for trea~l~ent
purposes also Class I and Class II Units and any Class III Units
for which permanent capacity has been bought, whenever tt~e COUNTY
has a COUNTY customer available to purchase tile capacity used or
reserved by the units which are requested to be transferred. The
COUNTY will use good faith efforts to procure a replacement cus-
tomer for the capacity, and, upon receipt by the COUNTY of the
COUNTY impact fee current at that time from the new customer, the
COUNTY shall remit to the CITY the impact fee originally paid by
the customer who is to be transferred to the CITY. This sum of.
money may be used by the CITY to finance the City operated
r~placement capacity needed to provide wastewater treatment for
that transferred unit. Units so transfe=red shall not be charged
an additional capacity impact fee by the CITY.
8. ~LLEQTIQN SYSTEM~. The COUNTY and the
CITY both acknowledge that certain collection systems may be dis-
connected from the COUNTY system entirely, transferred to the
CITY without charge for the collection facilities, and
reconnected to a new CITY system, said reconnecti0n to be at
CITY'S expense, when all units on the system to be reconnected
are City customers, either by transfer or otherwise. The COUNTT
will cooperate in making these transfers.
9. C~TY PURQ~HASE .OF .CAp. AC.~TY.iN. COUNTY PLANT. COUNTY
agrees to sell capacity to the CITY under standard COUNTY poli-
cies and rates. The pzesent COUNTY policy is to expand waste-
water treatment plant facilities when financially and technologi-
cally feasible, and when consistent with the Utility Master Plan,
provided that reservations are co~mmitted which will fund the
expansion. Part of the reservation includes the requirement to
pay the COUNTY monthly base facility charges.
10. DI~SCIJ~I}~.R QF THIR~ PART~ .~ENE.FiCIA~. This agree-
ment is solely fo~ tt%e benefit cf the formal parties herein and
no right or cause of action shall accrue upon or by reason
hereof, to or for the benefit of aDy third party not a formal
party hereto. Nothing in this agreement expressed or ~plied is
intended or shall be construed to confer upon or give any person
or corporation other than the parties hereto any right, remedy,
or clai~ under or by reason of this agreement or'any p=ovisions
or conditions hereof; and all of the provisions, representations,
covenants, and conditions herein contained shall inure to the
sole benefit of and shall be binding upon the parties hereto and
their respective representatives, successors, and assigns.
11. TERM OF AGREEmENt. The agreement shall be in effect
for 30 years. The termination of agreements, resolutions, and
ordinances specified in paragraphs 2, and 5 hereof shall not be
affected by termination of =his Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, COUNTY and CITY have entered into this
agreement on the date first above written.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Attest~ BO;LRD OF COUNTY COM~{ISSIONERS
By~
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk.
Attest~
Clerk
CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA
By~
~ayor
Attacba%ents: Exhibits "A," "B," and
~E"' cOPY;,
.Additions Underlined
n b · "A"
INTERLOCAL UTILiTiES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA
AND
CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA
THIS AGREEMENT, made this .. day of ....... , 1991, by
and between
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision
of the State of Florida, the address of which
is 1840 25th Street, Veto Beach, Florida
32960 (hereafter COUNTY)
and the .-
CITY OF SEBASTI~{, a municipal oorporation of
the State of Florida, the address of wlxich is
Post Office Box 127, Sebastian, Florida 32978
(hereafter CITY), and its successors and/or
assigns,
WiTNESSET~
That for and in consideration of the premises and other good
and valuable consideration, the receipt and suff'iciei%cy of which
is hereby acknowledged, the COUNTY and the CITY. agree as followsz
1. ~. The followil%g are t~ue s~atements~
1.1. The CITY granted a wator franchise to ~eneral
Developmen= U~ilities, Inc. (GDU) in CITY Ordinance 0-81-8 and
granted a sewer franchise to GDU in CITY Ordinance O-81-9 {col-
lectively the GDU franchises) to allow GDU to operate and main-
tain a water'distribution and a wastewater eolleation and dis-
posal system within a portion of the CITY.
1.~. On January 14, 1987, by CITY Resolution R-87-6,
the CITY gave the COUNTY a 30-year exclusive franchise lot the
provision of water and wastewat~r services witt~in the rest of the
City.
1.3. An interlocal agreement entered into between the
CiTY and COUNTY and effective July 3, 1987, required the CITY tO
assist the COUNTY in assessin~ propertY owners for the construc-
tion of collection systems in the City limits.
1.4. At construction financing for a wastewater plant
and main lines, the COUNTY issued revenue bonds in the amount of
$6,075,000 on Octobe~ 15, 1989. Part of th~ security for the
payment of these bonds was the revenue from ~ assess-
ments for reserved connections within the City.
1.5. The COUNTY has constructed a wastewater treatment
plant, major collection lines, and certain force mains from the
plant through the unincorporated area into the City and beyond
and was ready to provide service~f.o_r_CITY customers on or about
March 5,'1991.
1.6. Approximately 95 CITY equivalent residential
units are now receiving wastewa%er service from these facilities.
1.7. On December 12, 1990, the CITY and COUNTY entered
into and executed an as~ig~u~ent whereby the CITY ~ransferred to
the COUNTY, and the COUNTY accepted, all of the CITY's right,
title, and interest in the GDU franchises, except the right to
receive a~y and all franchise revenues and fees owed under the
GDU franchises, and except the right to regulate rates and
charges being charged and collected pursuant to' the GDU fran-
chises.
1.8. The CITY on or about February 27, 1991, deter-
mined that it would be in the CITY's best interest to con~idsr
revocation or cancellation of the £ranchise given to the COUNTY
in paragraph 1.2 and perhaps provide its own water and wastewater
· service ·
1.9. On March 5, 1991, the COUNTY unanimously agreed
to relinquish its franchise rights within the CITY if that was
what the CITY wished.
1.10. On March 13, 1991, the COUNTY sent a letter to
the CITY offering to relinquish its franchise rights.
1.11. On April 5, 1991, the CITY conditionally
accepted the COUNTY's offer, ~ubj~ct to completion of the n~ces-
sary documents containing terms and conditions acceptable to both
parties so that agreemonts~ ordinances, and resolutions may be
rescinded in such a manner a~ to not impact third parties.
1.12. On ~arch 27, 1991, the CITY hired a utility con-
sultant to prepare a feasibility study concerning whether the
CITY should provide its own water and wastewater systems.
1.13. The ~easibility study prepared by the CITY's
uonsultant~ was presented to the CITY on June'26, 1991, and
recommended that' the CITY go'ahead with its own utility sorv£ce.
develop its own utility systems.~ on or about August 6, 1991,
COUNTY cancelled plans for expanding the COUN~f's North County
Wastewater Treatment Plan~.
1.15. The CITY is taking the necessa~ steps to regain
all of its rights under the GPU franchises in order to
potentially acquire GDU's wa~er and wastewater systems to enable
th~ CITY to develop a City-wide water%and wastewatsr utility.
Modification of the COUNTY'S franchise l~ also a necessary
pre~equi~ite to %h~ CITY's development of i=s own water and
was~ewater system.
1.16. The COUNTY t~as agreed to cooperate ~ith the CITY
aS 1On~ as the interests of the COUNTY utility system, the bond
holders, and the CITY customer~ who have rese~ed capacity in the
system are all protected.
1.17. The COUNTY and CITY staff me,ers have me% on
several occasions to work out lnter~,plan~ to effect the separa-
tion of the utility systems and have recon~ended the provisions
0f this agreemen~ as an acceptable way to satisfy the concern~ of
all parties.
2. Q~CEL~TION ~ COUNTY ~C~ISE. Effective ~
calendar months from the date~ex~cu~on O~ this Aqreemen~~
,'C,~ncel!atlQn DDte"]~the parties hereby agree to and do cancel
the existin~ franchise and all of the. rights granted to the
COUNTY by th~ CITY under CITY Resolutions R-87-6 and R-87-7, and
under the Intergover~nental Agreement between th~ CITY and the
COUNTY which was effective February 3, 1987; provided, howeve~
that the CITY and COUNTY agree and do hereby cancel the existing_
£ranchise and all of the rights ~ranted to the COUNTY by the CITY~
u~nde~ sa~d resolutions a~d agreement with respect tg the terri-~_
~or¥ covered by the GDU franchises, said cancellation to take~
effect l~media~ely, Upon the Cancellation Date, the CITY's
retail water and wastewater service area shall be as depicted on
Exhibit ,[~,,attached to and incorporated in this AgrpemPn~,--_
3, ~_Q~LTJNUANCE O~PRE.~E~_T SF~RV_y~Q~. Up to and untilA~he
_C~Bcella%ionDate~ the COUNTY will allow available pe~anent
capacity of the C0~TY system to be purchased by customers within_
the City l~its pursuant to the te~s of the existing franchise.
On and after that date the CO~TY will sell available pe~anmn=
capacity for connections within the City only to the CITY itself,
which may tn turn make this capacity available.to customers
wi=bin the City.
4. ~~~~ UR~AS~ ~DU FAC~S, The
assig~ent by ~he CITY to the CO~TY by CITY Resolution R-90-55
of all right,'title, and interest in GDU's franohises given in
CITY Ordinances O-81-8 and 0-81-9 ar~ hereby reassigned to the
CI~ effective the date of this agreement, Tliat Agreement
between the CITY and CO~TY entered into on Dece~er 12, 1~90, is
hereby te~inated. Th~ Da~ties aqree that ~e.ef~Pc~.Of, thi~
re,iDa%ion and reassiq~en~, toqethpr with the i~ediate parti~
Gance~ationreferred to l~ara~:aDh ~ hPre~ is t~
~o e.~e~cise its_DDtion .to purchase th~ G~U ..~ac~lipies and
~~~....and was~ewater.s.9~i~9 in t.~ territQ~ covered
the G~U franchise~.~
5.1. ~ - Units within the CITY which are
connected to or which have reserved capacity in the COUNTY waste-
water syste~ before Janua~ 1, 1992, and which have a collection
~ystem available to them, even if %he physical connection to the
uni= has not been made.
4
1501
5.2. ~_ - Units within the CITY which have
reserved capacity in the COUNTY wastewater system before
January l, 1992, but which do not have a collection system
available.
5.3. Class iii Units - Units within the CITY other
than Class I and ii Units.
5.4. "Utility Service" shall be used to include rate
setting, customer connections, meter installation, meter reading,
billing, bill collection, customer relations, customer com-
plaints, collection system construction, related repair work, and
all other necessary, customary, and convenient activities per-
longed by a utility oompany other than the treatment of waste-
water. Utility service shall not include repair and maintenance
of the COUNTY's lines, force mains, or pump stations shown on
Exhibit "B". These shall be the responsibility of the COUNTY.
6.1~ Effective~the COUNTY
will cease to be the utility service provider within the City and
will become in~tead only the treatment~ ~ransmi~sion~and_~
~fflDen~ .di~posa~.(hereiqaft.e~ "tre~t~en~"-~pr°vider for all
wastewater generated for all Class I and II Units and for the
number of Class III Units for which the CiTY has purchased or
does purchase pen, anent capacity in a COUNTY wastewater treatment
plant.
6.2. Effective~n~the Canoellation.Date~the CITY
shall become the utility service provider for all classes of
customers within the service area depicted on Exhibit "A" hereof
and shall, as part of this duty, provide collection systems for
Class I customers in a manner such that the interests of the
Class II customers will not have been har~ed by the revocation of
the COUNTY franchise. The COUNTY agrees to develop a non-
discriminatory, cost-o~frservice rate ~o be charged to the CITY
for treatment of the wastewater which rate shall take into
account the fact that the CITY is the u~ility ~ervice provider
for all classes of units within the CITY, The rate and
components which make up this rate are depicted in Exhibit "C"
attached to and incorporated in this Agreement, The CITY
reserves the right to become a wastewater treatment provider also
for any or all units within the CITY subject only to the rights
of the COUNTY as described in paragraph 5, The..pol~s of
ir~ter¢.onne_ctio~bet~een the~TY's.aD-~dCO~ITXj~I~
sy.ste~..s aredeDiuted on Exhibit "B" hereo~, T° bi~% for~tlke__
~ate~he~eu~de~, the C~UNTY sha.~l ineta!l at its initial exDe~e
{to be reoouDed in the non-discriminatory~ co~-pf-se~ice rates~
me=ers in =he p~ stations to calculate usage.
6,3, Upon installation and acceptance, the metering._
eq~ipment shall become the propertyof the
~er shall be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and
~Dlacemen~ ~f th9 meter. The Drovide. r shall, read the me~e~
,b~llin~ purposes, The metering e~ipmsntshall mee~
standards of.~he ~sriuan Water works As~o~iatiOn {"A)D;~
~cgurac~ which is plus or minus five pergent L~
char~ once duri~ any twelve (12) mqnth,period, Thp,,.~urchaser
~ay witness the t~et. Additional testing maybe requ~stp~ by
~urchaser at the~ovid~r's established cost fpr such
~ie~ of the %est results will be provided to the purchaser
w~hi~ thirty (30) days of the test. There will be no chargelfOr~
_~e~ts~sth~t ~is~over~an~ inaccurate meter. If an inaccurate meter __
i~a~~ined by the AWWA, b_i~.
~=~Lh~_2).of the urece4in~ Derio~ S. iDge the l~st_
6.4. As a bulk customer of the COUNTY wastewater
system, CITY understands that it will have to comply with CO~TY
policies on the quality of wastewater put in=o the C0~TY system
and other customer reasonable, technical standards adopted by
COUNTY count~ide.
7, TRANSFER QF UNIT~, The COUNTY agrees that on the
request of the CITY it will transfer to the CiTY for treatment
purposes also Class I and Class II Units and any Class III Units
for which permanent capacity has been bought, whenever the COUNTY
has a COUNTY customer available to purchase the capacity used or
reserved by tha units which are requested to. be transferred. The
COUNTY will use good faith efforts to procure a replacement cus-
tomer for the capacity, and, upon receipt by the COUNTY of the
COUNTY impact fee current at that time from the new customer, the
COUNTY shall remit to tha CITY the impact fee originally paid by
the CUStomer who is to be transferred to the CITY. This sum of
money may be used by the CITY to finance the City operated
raplacement capacity needed to provide wastewater treatment for
that transferred unit. Units so transferred shall not be charged
an additional capacity impact fee by the CITY.
8. ~Q_F__C~LL~CTIONSYSTEMS. The COUNTY and the
CITY both acknowledge that certain collection systems may be dis-
connected from the COUNTY system entirely~ transferred to the
- ~ e for..the colle~ipn fac.i.l, itie~ an.d~
reconnectmd to a new CITY system, said reconneotion to be at
CITY'S expanse, when all units on the,system to ba reconnected
are City customers, either by transfer or otherwise. The COUNTY
· will cooperate in making~transferP_.
9. C!TY~RCj_{~EDF CAPAC.!TY IN..QOUNTY RLANT, COUNTY
agreas to sell capacity to fha CITY under standard COUNTY poli-
cies and rates, Tha present COUNTY policy is to expand waste-
water tr'eatment plant facilities when financially and technologi-
cally feasible, and when consistent with the Utility Master Plan,
providad that reservations are commi=ted which will fund the
expansion, Part of the reservation i~cludes the requirement to
pay the COUNTY monthly base facility charges.
10. D}S~LAIMER Q~ THIRD PARTY BEN~FJ~ARI~. This agree-
ment is solely for the benefit of the' formal pa=ties herein and
no sight or cause of action 8hall accrue upon or by reason
7 ~
hereof, to or for the benefit of any third party not a formal
party hereto. Nothing in this agreement expressed or ~plied is
intended or shall be construed %0 confer upon or give any person
or co~poration other than the parties hereto any right, remedy,
er claim under or by reason of this agreement or any provisions
or conditions hereof; and all of the provisions, representations,
covenants, and conditions herein contained shall inure to the
sole benefit of and shall be binding upon the parties hereto and
their respective representatives, successors, and assigns.
11. ~E~RM QF AGREE~T. The agreement shall be in effect
for 30 years. The te~ination of agreements, resolutions, and
ordinances sp~cifled in paragraphs 2, and 5 h~reof shall not be
affected by termination of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, COUNTY and CITY have entered into this
agreement on the date first above written.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Attest~ BOARD OF COUNTY COM~I$SIONER~
Jeffrey K. Barton, Cl~rk
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
Attest~
Clerk
CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA
By~
Mayor
Attachments~
Exhibits "A," "B," and "C"
SUBJECT:
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 u SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 [] FAX (407) 589-5570
.:. ~.. Jarl r<iver' r',,,ive
Sanit. ar'v Se~,,er" Stud,?
Approved For Submittal
City Manager ~'
EXPENDITURE
REQUIRED:
AMOUNT
BUDGETED:
Date Submitted ~,", ;~'' ~
., ~. -._.~,--: j. . .
For Agenda Of
Exhibits-' ftar'r'y Ashe~~
L.e'tt.rer:~ 4 Shts_
F::'r~c~r.~osed ~'r"avi'ty
c)n] y L_.ayc:,ut. ,, ....... :~, s
Bart:mn Memo,'~ )Datecl 10/29/91
APPROPRIATION
REDUIR~D:
SUMMARY STATEMENT
~fly f"'~:Vi~2t4 O~ tJ'"~E¢ i~'E;~[:)clr't :i.f~. dc:)cL[fft~:tr"~te:ed by {'f'[y memo dated
issues ic:lenti~Led in 'the r'epor't as .follow-s:
a c::c)mbir-~at:L~n Gmavity and [..o~ pr, essur'e
syst~am il (:::c.,:s-{: (::i :i.-f: f er'er~c:e c,.i: 2~300 ,~000 ovep
~ ,, l)E,t(L¢l'"tTiJ, r]~::, 'the type:'
RECOMMENDED ACTION
'~ .......... L'~n~ IZngr" ~ memo date::;d I 0/.1. c:,z -, ]. ar'i::~
R~,V:[E:{'v'~ (:hE' ~.:.DC..~ L. ,~ ..........
d:L.~::.cuss ~,,¢:i, th st.a~4: qu,:,.~:.t:i, or'~s ar- c:c:-~c:er"n~ that ape
a~-~c:,c: :i. ated ~,~J.'th 'the ~'kuc'Jy .
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Telephone: (407) 567-8000
September 30, 1991
Mr. Robb McClary
City Manager
City of Sebastian
Post office Box 780127
Sebastian, FL 32978
SUBJECT:
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
224 101
SEWER ASSESSMENTS FOR SERVICE IN AREA OF CITY OF ~-'
SEBASTIAN BOUNDED ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH BY THE SEBASTIAN
CITY LIMITS, ON THE WEST BY US 1 AND ON THE EAST BY THE
INDIAN RIVER.
Dear Mr. McClary:
Attached for your review is a copy of the preliminary design and
cost estimate prepared by Kimball Lloyd, Inc., to provide
wastewater service to the above-referenced area within the City of
Sebastian.
In order to serve the area,
proceed with the assessment
facilities.
it will be necessary for the city to
for construction of the collection
Please advise if we can be of any assistance in this matter.
Very truly yours,
/_
HEA:rb
CC:
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles Vitunac, County Attorney
County Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Terrance G. Pinto, Director of Utility Services
Attachment
(RCITYSEB.HEA)
PROPOSED LIFT STATION NO.2
NO. ~
XISTING LIFT STATION
(NEW PUMPS)
PROPOSED LIFT STATION NO. 4.
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 [] FAX (407) 589-5570
DATE:
October 18, 1991
TO:
FROM:
Robert S. McClary
City Manager
Daniel C. Ecki~
City Engineer'
RE: Indian River Drive Sewer Study
The Indian River Drive Sewer Study was prepared by Kimball
Lloyd on February 19, i991, to study the cost of a
sanitary sewer collection system in the geographic area that
is located east of U.S. ~1 to the Indian River south from the
intersection of Indian River Dr and U.S. ~1 to the North
intersection of Indian River Dr and U.S. ~1. Please note
that this r~port do~s no'~ include the area between U. S.~i~
and ~e F~ Railroad. The c"ost analysis investigated the use
o-]r--~ ¥~-aav~ity 'Sew~ c--6]o lection system and a low pressure
system on a per street basis. Each street was analyzed for
both gravity collection system and the low pressure system.
The Cost of the low pressure system included the maintenance
costs over a twenty year period at an 8% inflationary rate.
Each street was then grouped into a sub-area which would be
served by one lift station. Sub-areas within the Indian
River Drive Study area consisted primarily of the gravity
collection system. Some areas did warrant a low pressure
system which resulted in a cost savings. For comparison
purposes, a gravity only alternative was considered by the
report. The cost difference between installing the
combination low pressure and gravity system as compared to a
gravity only system was approximately 7%, as based on present
worth cost analysis.
Summary Table IV-1 Summary of Costs indicates that
the difference would be approximately $300,000 over the
twenty year study period as compared to a four mill ion
dollar capital expenditure.
Exhibit iV-2 Gravity Where Practical Alternative, was
reviewed by this office to determine if the proposed
collection system would be adequate to provide service to all
of the property owners within the study area.
Modification to their exhibit would need to be made prior to
their preparation of the construction drawings to reflect the
current property owners. A brief description of my
recommended modifications are as follows:
1. Revision to the Harrison street collection 1 ine
both east and west of Indian River Drive, to serve all
properties in the area.
2. The el imination of Fells·ere Street~Collection Line·
Extension both north and south of Martin Avenue, to serve
all properties in that area.
Elimination of sewer line extension and relocation off of
Indian River Drive by the Vic's Pizzeria·
#
-[he el imination of the collection system off of Main
Street and add a proposed extension off of Indian River
Drive to the Mobile Home Park.
The real ignment of the collection system for- the proposed
resort hotel across from Hurricane Harbour.
'9.
The extension of the sewer' collection system passed
Oyster Bay both on Indian River Drive and North Central
Avenue.
The relocation of the proposed 1 ift station number 2 to
the median of Davis Street
The reduction of sewer, pun to the Cemetery on North
Central Drive.
The actual cost analysis was based on a 20% contingency to
cover unknown costs. The report did note the heavy
pavement section of Indian River Drive which consists of six
inches of asphalt on 12 inches of concrete. Unit costs were
established by local projects that were done in this area
from a collection system in the City of Veto Beach and a low
pressur'e system from the County's Rockridge system~ the
review of the unit costs appear to be accur'ate# However~ the
quantities would have to be ;'-~evised to re.~lect the
modifications that should be consider'ed prior-to the
preparation of the construction drawings. The report
indicates that the City should make recommendations to
the county as follows:
1) ]-he ultimate selection of the type of sewer collection to
be utilized, either the combination of gravity/low
pressure alternative or gravity only system.
2) The County has also indicated that the City should
determine the metlnod of assessment for it's portion of
the study area.
As City Engineer~ 'the cost savings of approximately 7% to
install a pressure system as compared t.o a gravity only
system is not warranted and that a g?av, itY only collection,
s~vstem shoulcl be instal_,led., There is more maintenance
associated with the l o~ pressure system and it would require
more mate~ials: equipment~ manpower and parts. The report
did indicate that the low pressure system is based on the
installation of grinder pumps for the existing residential
areas but the cost did not include additional pumps as new
areas 'are developed. --
HARTMA2N & ASSOCIATES, INC.
engineers, hydrogeologists, scientists & management consultants
MEMORANDUM HAI//91 - 174.00
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Robb McClary
Dan Eekis
Gerry Hartman .~.~- .
Hal Schmidt
October 29, 1991
SUBJECT: Riverside Sanitary Sewer System
Rob and Dan, thank you for the fax of Dan's comments on the very recent assessment program
which the County forwarded to the City.
The documents we have are a preliminary draft of a potential program. It appears these are
the latest documents or the cost numbers which have not been presented on a more finalized
basis. We would appreciate the opportunity to receive a copy of this information.
It is good for us to provide preliminary comments to the County relative to their plans
associated with sanitary sewer service within the City. Very importantly, we need to
communicate and coordinate with the property owners and business concerns in the area on at
least two or three occasions to ensure that the overall program is well explained to our
potential customers, that they have an input in formulating the program, and that customer
accommodation can be facilitated in this manner. Excellent communication and coordination
with business interests and property owners in the area is essential to gaining public acceptance
and proper participation in an assessment program. Moreover, in many cases, the public and
the various engineers for the various property owners do have beneficial comments and
beneficial insights which facilitate customer accommodation and minimize the overall cost to
the customer for wastewater service. Of course, this is our goal in service to the citizens of
Sebastian.
We recommend that the plans and program proposed by the County be left out for public
review for a week prior to our coordination meeting and properly noticed to those concerned.
After our public notification meeting, we would have another one-week period before we have
a utility accommodation and coordination meeting, then one other one-week period, and then a
final utility facilities layout and finalization meeting. Of course, this involves approximately
one (1) month of utility coordination, but we believe it is necessary in order to have the best
program for the City.
Following these coordination efforts, then a final mark-up set of drawings can be made for the
County consultants' finalization associated with the project. If the County's consultants do not
have a set of plans with plan and profile layouts, then it might behoove the City to have such
plans prepared so that the final utility accommodation can be made.
SOUTHEAST BANK BUILDING * SUITE 1000 · 201 EAST PINE STREET · ORLANDO, FL 32801
TELEPHONE (407) 839-3955 ° FAX (407) 839-3790
PRINCIPALS: .lAMES E. CHRISTO! ItER · CHARLES W. [)RAKE GERALD C, HARTMAN · MARK I. LUKE · MARK A. RYNNING · HAROLD E. SCHMIDT,
MEMORANDUM (Continued)
October 29, 1991
Page Two
The work which we received from the County was very preliminary in nature, very conceptual
in nature, and would not be to the level of detail necessary to ensure that customers are being
served and to ensure that the assessment area is prepared in a manner that would benefit all
parties concerned with the minimized cost burden.
Several major issues have to be considered. Those include:
1. Mandatory connection.
Mandatory assessment on each parcel based upon benefit.
County capacity for assessed parcels.
Note that it does not make any sense and we are concerned about our ability to show the
benefit to the parcel if plant capacity is not available for all required land parcels for the needs
as demonstrated by those parcels for the program. We are concerned about this key element of
the assessment program and look forward to your discussing this key element or our
participating in such discussions in the future.
The above just reflects a few of our thoughts and comments on the faxed materials which you
forwarded to us.
As a second item, we believe it would be good to sit down with the business leaders in the
community after the City Council workshop to discuss our approach and our activities with the
County.
End of memorandum.
GCH/ch
C7/Sebast. mem
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 o SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 o FAX (407) 589-5570
SU~JECT '.
On site Se'wage Disposal for
the municipal Police Station
Approved For Submittal By:
City Msnegor
)
)
.)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Agenda No.
DopE. Origin
DaLe Subm~EEod
10-25-91
For Agenda Of 11-06-91
EXPENDITURE
REQUIRE~:
AMOUNT
~UDGETED!
Exhibits! Engr's meJno dated 10/23/91
HRS Septic Tank Permit, HRS letter dated
10/10/91, Sketch of'Proposed'Layouts,
Cost Estimates of both layouts, Glen
S~h,,~]~!~ letter dated 3/1/91
APPROPRIATION
REQUIRED!
SUMMARY STATEMENT
Aop!J.cation for an on site sewage disposal system was nde by Mosby and
AssOciates the Engineer of Record for the proposed Police Station. The
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) denied the permit
because of the availability of se~sr from I. R. C. Alternatives for a
pumping station w~re considered for all .City Hall buildings including the
Police Station and for the Police Station only at a cost of $42,600 and
and $17,700, respectively. Staff has contacted HRS for a meeting to
further discuss the possibility of an on site sewage disposal system.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Review the Enclosed information and discuss the alternatives available
to the City and Direct Staff Accordingly.
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 [] FAX (407) 589-5570
DATE: October 23~ 199.1,
TO:
FROM:
Rober't S. McClar'y
City Mana~.i~ er' ~
Dan:i, el C, Eckis, ~'
City Enginee"/F'ub~ Dir-ector"
RE: Municipal Police Station San'i, tary Sewer' System..
The site plan constpuction dpawinc]s +ol .... lihe Pol ice Station
wer~e ppepaned by Mosby and Associates~ Inc. As pant o+ thiep
scope o~ ~.or'fl.::~ an on-site sewage dispersal per'mit was to be
obtained ~r'om ti~e Depaptment of Health and Rehabilitative
Set'vices ("HRS"). The c. opy o~ Mosby's tpansmitta] and
application ~as made on October' 9~ i99].~ and ar'e enc]osed
your' r'evie~.
HRS r, esponded the -Fo]loewi'ri.q, day,~ on October* .1.0~ with sevepa]
comments that would not per'mit the on-site sewa~ie disposal
system, Speci~ic:a]]y~ Items 3~4 and 5 addressed the
pr"oximity o~ an exist:i.n~.~ sewep main whicin is adjacent to the
si~e, Pep Chapter' 10D-6 o{ the F]onida Administpative Code~
the City would be r-equ:i.r"ed to make connection to this se~er-
main since the estimated +]ows ar'e in excess o+ 600 ea]'lons
pep day and the system has adequate capacity to accept the
se~a(ae +rom the ppoposed +ac:i.] i'[:.y.
~-tur, ing the site plan des:[.9~n~ Randy Mosby and the City did
meet with the Hea]th Depaptment and it was agpeed that a
temporally on site sewage disposa] system could be p~ovided
~op the po] ice ~tation until the cent~'a't wastewater~
col l ectior'~ system WOL~]d be constpuc~ed. The centr-al
waste~,,.ater, collection system cons:i, sted o+ ad,']acent, pr, oper"ty
owner's wh~ had collectively agr"eed t.o pay ~or" the
installation o~ the c,~]]ection system and a r',egiona]
i i~tstation, :i. ncludin~:; Caf"1 ,jul ian and David Fisher', Sta~
did contac, t. the pr'ooeP'Ey o~a-~er's to deter'mine ~hen the
cc)11ection system could be instal'led, Since their
deve]opments are n[:t. scheduled to be~in ~of appr'ox:i, mately
i/2 to 2 year's sta~ ~elt that :Lt would not be economicai ly
.~eas:Lb]e ~or' the City to insta! 1 the City's pot~tion o~ the
co'i 'f ect:i, or~ system anti pay :,.C ?'~.: ,::)'F t. he '; J.~tstation cost
Ther'.e~or-e, a col lecl:,i, on main and smal] gninder' pump
l i~tstat:i, on was cons:Lder'ed to ser-ve t. he ent:Lr-e City
~aci] ity including the ~o] lowing:
City
2) En~_ine:emir"~c..~ and City Counc..il Buildin~;~
3) Buil d.in~.)) i]epal~tmep, t .~
4.) ,~:'c~l icc..:., Annex Building!
5) Poiic:e Statior'~
6) Exter'ior" !"estl~ooms
A po~tion o~ the ~r'avi'ty systat, em wou]d be constl~'uc't:ed at this
time amd cc~nnect to a modified manhole to b~ used
]i~t-~tation which would pump to the exi~.tin~t ~or'c:e main.
]'hen~ :i.n the ~utut"'~ when the centpa'l e;aste~ater" collection
system is installed~ the City ~ou]d r'emove the gr'inder' pumps~
make minor" modi~ication~, to the li4~tstation/manhote ar'id
ppovide a ~)r"avity ~Iow system '~o~~ the City .i:o the r"e~iona]
l i~tst, ation. Tl"lr~ cost ~ol~ this ir'Istal!ation was estimated to
be appr'ox:i, mate]y ~4-2,600. An a'ttemnat, e des:i.~n~ ~ith anly the
F'ol ic~, Station c:rmnected to the ~r,:i.r~der" pumps~ ,~ould cost
apppoximate't y 4~1'? ~'100. The system ~4oul d ~::~,~, a mod:i. 4 led mar"~ho't
~!"~:Lch wauld be d~si~;~ned for- ~r-avity 4:ta~ .t-~m ~;r'av:Lty became
avai 1 ab1 e.
Final ly sta-F~ has contacted Glen Schuesler' ~;ith Indian River"
County E!"~v:i. ponmenta'i Health I]epar"tmer-~t '~'.',(:-~ discuss a t e'!:'tep
that Randy Mosby had ser"~t on Mar. ch ].
i~'equestir'tg that a tempor'amy septic tac.,k pet"mit be .i. ssued with
the under'standir"~':.,:~ 'EhaL .it wou'ld be abandoned anti t.:i.e .i.r"~'~:o the
pub] ic sewer" co't'!ector" syst. em when it became available. Oup
meetin.q 'i.s scheduled r'~ext ~eek and my yet'hal t-.epc::,r-t shou]d be
ava:Liable 4or" the C:i, ty Cc:)uncil Wor".kshc.)i:) meet:i.n~l scheduled
Novembep 6th,~ ],99].,,
~, STATE OF FLORIDA: '."".':'*' '
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES '",:
^...,c^.,o. co.s..uc. o.
'. ~.'~,~, ~ ' ,, .... ,. "" "
' ' , Authority: Chapter 381, FS ~
Date of Application October ~, 1991 Permit Application NumberkQ~
..................................................................... PART I- APPLICATION ....................................................................
Name of Owner City of Sebastian
Telephone Number (40.7.)
127. Sebastian, FL
589-5330
Mailing Address of Owner 1225 Main Street,, ,?,,,O. Box
Owner'~ Agent Mosby & Associates, IIBc. Builder
Agent's Mailing Address 1507-P-Otb Street, .Ve~..o. Beach, FLTelephone No. (407)
~6perty Street Address 1225 Main Street, Sebastian, Florida
Lot~Nb.' TraC%loBck No. SubdivisionSchool Park Subdiv. Date Subdivided
NOTE: IF NOT IN A SUBDIVISION ATTACH A METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION
32978-0127
569-0035
Thi,~ Application is for: New System X , , Repair Existing System
Type of Sewage Flew Sewage Flow
Establishment (Gallons per day) Based On
Police Station
670 0.1 gal/ftZ/day
' ! ic) TOTALFLOW= ~
'Ty~e of No. Bedrooms Heated or Cooled Area No. DWelling
Residential (each dwelling unit) (each dwelling unit) Units
N/A .,
Exact Directions to Property North on U.S. ~fl to Sebastian
lot next to Sebastian City
AUDIT CONTROL NO.
Applicant's Signature
HRS-H Form 4015, Feb 85 (Obsoletes previous editions which may not be used)
ft2
west
on main
Sewage Flow
(Gallons per day) ,'! '.~,
street vacant
ST^TE OF FLORIDA
_D _F_ AR ,TMENT HEALTH AND REHABIUTATIVE
ENvII~ONMENT&L HiALTH
IK]O 2?TH ~IT~I[E? SuN-CoY ~10-~1~1
veto BI~CH, t~k ~
October 10, 1991
Attn: Randy L. Mosby, P. E.
1507 20th Street
Veto Beach, FL 32960
RE:
Sebastian Police Department
Onsite Sewage Disposal System Application #1-0834
Dear Mr. Mosby:
This department has reviewed the above referenced application
and the following comments shall apply:
A well completion report must be submitted by a
licensed well driller for each well to be abandoned.
As-built drawings of the existing potable water system
must be submitted to the Department of Environmental
water system capacity can accommodate the proposed
facility. Expansion or changes to the existing system
cannot be made without DER approval.
There is an existing sewer main adjacent to the site.
This must be shown on the site plan.
Per Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, a
municipal or investor-owned sewerage system shall be
deemed available for connection
a. For estimated sewage flows exceeding 600 gallons
per day, a sewerage system shall be considered
available if a sewer line, force main, or lift
station exists in a public easement or right-of-way
which abuts the property or is within 100 feet of
the property.
b. The sewerage system has adequate hydraulic capacity
to accept the quantity of sewerage to be generated
by the proposed establishment.
HR~-Indlan River County Public Health Unit
Mosby & Associates, Inc.
Page two
If the existing sewerage system is unavailable for
connection, a letter must be submitted to this department
from the Indian River County Utilities Department
explaining why.
6. Floor plans of the proposed facility must be submitted.
The estimated sewage flow will be determined based on
ths floor plans.
7. Please depict on the plans the location of the existing
onsite sewage disposal system which serve~ the EMS
station.
8. A plan review fee of $75.00 is required prior to site
plan release.
Please respond to these comments for further ~ite plan
review.
If you have any questions, please call this office.
sincerely,
city of Sebastian
'~ City of Sebastian SHEET
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 o SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TYP_E EST IMATE
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 [] FAX (407) 589-5570 I~""' Pt-e ]. J- mi. nary
PF~OJECT ~//~t~~/~-'j4~' ~"/~-/~'~ 0 Final
PROJECT NO. ESTIHATOR CH~CKED BY DATE
-- -
QUANTITY LABOR
DESCRIPTION NO. UNiT fi~ PER TOTAL
UNITS MEAS UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL COST
~/~~,~,~ { ~ ~ /~ lZ, o~ .........
~ ~ )~~ .......... //~ ,/~
......................... ~/.~
City of Sebastian SHEET I
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 o SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TYpE EST I MATE
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 [] FAX (407) 589-5570 [~ Pre ].
0 Final_
PROJECT NO. ESTIHATOR CHECKED BY DATE
QUANTITY LABOR (HH} [$) HATER[AL
OESCRIPTION NO. ONIT ~ PER TOTAL
U,.~TS ,las UU~, TOT~U UU~T ZOZ~C COST
......
~ '~c > ~' ~p~ 4~- /~.~ //,/~ .....
/ ~
7z ~ ~ ~.,~,~~/,~L ~' ~ ~J/, ~ ......
I
MOSBY AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINIEr"R~;
Harch 1, 199~1
Hr. Glenn Schuessler
Indian River County
Environmental Health Department
111 - 36th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Subject: Sebastian Development Project, Inc.
Sebastian, Florida
Engineer's Project No.. 90-485
1507 20TH STREET
P.O. BOX 6368
VERO'bEACH. fLORiDA 3296!
407.569.0035
Dear Mr. Schuessler:
Enclosed is one (1) signed and sealed copy of the proposed site
plan for the subject project. The proposed owner of the subject
project is Sebastian Development Project, Inc.(SDPI) with the
principle of this company being Mr. David Fisher. SDPI, along
with the City of Sebastian, Julian ~onsolidated inc., a twenty
(20) acre proposed residential development located to the north
of the subject project, the Presbyterian'Church and the other
properties bordering the east right-of-way of the proposed Cross
Street Extension are currently in negotiations to Jointly con-
struct a master wastewater collection system and lift station.
In fact this item will be discussed at the March 6, .1991
Sebastian City Council workshop meeting. Even though the details
of the proposed wastewater collection system are not shown on the
enclosed drawings, 'SDPI intends to partake in the construction of
the System and tie into the public wastewater system. SDPI has
already reserved the required ERU's from Indian River County'
Utilities.
As you are aware, the City of Sebastian is currently under design
of the new Sebastian Police Department and the construction time
schedules for both projects are almost simultaneous, it is
imperative for both projects that an agreement can be reached.
If for some reaso~n the wastewater system cannot be constructed
within the construction time periods for both projects it will be
requested that they be permitted a temporary septic tank permit
with the understanding that they agree t'o tie into~ PUblic sewers
when they become available.
Mr. Glenn Schuessler
March 1, 1991
Page 2
As you are aware, as part of the City of Sebastian's site P1an
review process, the City requires a letter from you stating that
you have reviewed and approved the site plan.
It is requested that you provide a letter to Mr. Bruce Cooper
that you understand and approve the project. We realize that if
we are required to install a temporary septic tank and drainfield
system for both the Sebastian Development Project, inc. and the
Sebastian Police Department we will have to provide you with the
necessary construction drawings for your further review and
approval.
ShouLd you require further information, please call..
R~ndy
!y ~our~,
Mosby, P
RLM:bes
-CC
Mr. Dave Fisher
Mr. Robert S. McClary
Mr. Bruce Cooper
Chairman Stlanley Krulikowski and Fellow Members
Sebastian Planning and zoning Commission
of the
DAT['E .~
TO:
FROM:
C ,PY
FOR YOUR I~*~FO,rRMATION
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 [] FAX (407) 589-5570
Novernber' ':: 1991
Robel,*t ,:). McC] al,*y
City Manager* /~ .
Daniel C. Eckis~ I:::',
C i t y E n g i n eel'" / F'ub '1 :i. c No~'- k s l] :L i'"e c:'t:, o r*
Mayor* Ac:t i c~n i't:ems
1)
tn r"efer'ence to A1 Va/ar'dj, I met. with him al't:, his home on
Geor'gia Blvd. We discussed 'kwo dr'aJ, na~:;e pr*obi ems
associated' with his ppopepty which ocr:ur'ed ~:pom the
Eortstr-Ltct~or3 O{ a r/ew home west of his pr*opeF'ty, t..Ipon
the completion t:he swale did have a high spot whJ.(::h held
watel'- back on Idr". Va'la~*d'i's ppoper'ty. At t. he t:[me o{
gpad:[ng the 9pound was satupated and wet and was
imposs:i, ble to gr*ade, l]ur'ir~9 my visit t. her'e was no water*
standing and this appear'ed to be a minoF' pr"oblem, The
secorld pr"oblem was water- star'~d:i, n9 ir~ the r-eaF' pr*ol::)er*ty
alone the alleyway. An attempt was made ear'l ier" in the
yeap to gpade the al'leyway to dr*ain, Because o{ high
el evatic)ns water' continues to stand. I]LtPing the
(:onst~%~ction o{ the h~me adjacent, to A1 Va]ar*ali's he)use
the r-'eap of the ppoper'ty was built up high c&t,.tsir]9 a
steep er-ade within the fight of way. Ther-e is a
possibil ity that idr'. Val ar'dj's 1 et [:OLt] d be dr*ained to
the east, This would r*equii'-e that eval t.tatior'~s o.~ the
entir'e alleyway be completely sur'veyed and deter'mined :i..t:
this is possible. The al'ley :i,s in a depict'able condition
and needs to be r*epaved. It is possible that. the entir'e
al l eyway can be sloped t.o the one side t:.o pick Ltp
dpair'~age that is coming fr'om the (::ommer*cial pr'oper'ties
and tlqen into a swale t.o a positive out{al I. "rhel'-e may be
a possibility that a side lot dr*ainage pipe may have to
be ;i, nstal led in opdeF' t(~ cot'ivey water' to the {l'-ont st, wale
which is adequately dr*ained. Since both these pr*ob]ems
ar'e Iflinop and mc)der-ate they have been i]oted and added
into the comput, ep and wil I be addr'essed at th,e time we
can make a decision as to the status of the alleyway
beh :i. nd the (;of~mer"(;:: :i. a'l s~tr':i,p.
W., Mossel'-at~ at 132 Acaclemy Br"ive :i.s e;.,'l::)er'ienc:i, n9 water*
pr*obi ems in his fr*on't" yar*d. I have t:.~er'scma'lly made
telephone ccmta¢:t with the Mosser',s arid they have
descr*ibed their" dpa:i.r~age pr"oblem to file. The engineer*:i_ng
Technician~ Tim Smith w'i. l l make a -~ield investigatior'~ and
note the extent of the pr, ol:~lem and the possible r'emedy
3)
which wi11 then be added :into our c~)mputer base
~of drainage r.:c~mp'laints.
Rober-t. Gpay at 502 R¢ll lng Hill - drainar.~e complaint.
watep standing in his ~r"~)nt yapd. It is a mc~derate
pr~blem swale needs to be cut and culver't adjacent '~';.o his
pr()perty on the east side needs to be lo~er'ed,.;'T'l"li5 was a
ppevic]us dpainage c:omplaint. ~rom other houses on the same
block adjacent 'E~ 502 and wepe investigated and
i d e n t i f i e d ' ac c: or'd i n g 1 y. ~
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 o SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 L~ FAX (407) 589-5570
November 5, 1991
CERTIFIED MAIL
p 725 469 967
Mr. James B. Harrell
Urban Forestry Coordinator
Florida Division of Forestry
3125 conner Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650
Dear Mr. Harrell,
The City of SebaStian is pleased to accept the small Business
Administration Grant Award of $20,000.00 for the 1991 program
year. our SBA Tree Planting Program Application {DACS Number
SBA-55) was submitted to Florida Forestry with the approval
of City Council on July 5, 1991.
The issue of tree planting in Lake Hardee Park, the subject
of our grant application, is so great that even after
submission of the application, residents of the City of
Sebastian continue to request additional trees at the site.
The award will be a considerable boost to the CitY'S funding
level and public morale.
Again, we thank you for your consideration of our application
and the notice of the grant award. Once we receive the small
Business Tree planting Program Grant Agreement, I will
present it to the Sebastian City Council for final approval
and signature. We look forward to the date at which we may
initiate this activitY, and will gladly prepare any reports
to your office that you request indicating our progress
during the fiscal year.
sincerely,
Robert S. McClary ~'~"
City Manager
RsM/CAH/gk
harrell.doc
cc, District Manager Paul PalmiottO, okeechobee
W.E. conyers, Mayor and Sebastian City Council
Dan Eckis, City Engineer
Bruce Cooper, Director of Community Development
District
BOB CRAWFORD
COMMISSIONER
R CEIV .F_F[1 NOV
Florida Department of
Agriculture & Consumer Services
The Capitol
Tallahassee
32399-0810
October 23, 1991
PL~AS£ R~POND To:
Mr. Dan Eckis, City Engineer
City of Sebastian
Post Office Box 780127
Sebastian, Florida 32978-0127
Dear Mr. Eckis:
Congratulations! I am pleased to inform you that your National Small
Business Tree Planting Program Application (DACS Number SBA-55) has been
approved by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) to receive a grant
award of $20,000.00 for the 1991 program year. This grant, with your
matching contribution of $15,450.00, will result in a total project funding
level of $35,450.00.
To confirm your acceptance of the SBA grant award, please reply by
certified mail to:
Mr. James B. Harrell
Urban Forestry Coordinator
Florida Division of Forestry
3125 Conner Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650
Upon notification of your acceptance, a Small Business Tree Planting
Program Grant Agreement will be mailed to you. The agreement must then be
signed and returned to the above address within sixty days. Failure to
meet this deadline will constitute forfeiture of the award, and the grant
will be awarded to another applicant.
Please remember that project costs incurred prior to the effective
date of the grant agreement are inelisible for reimbursement.
Again, congratulations, and I will be looking forward to reports of
your progress as the National Small Business Tree Planting Program is
implemented.
BOB CRAWFORD ! /
COMMISSIONER OF AOR~CULTURE
cc: District Manager Paul Palmiotto, Okeechobee District
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 r~ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 [3 FAX (407) 589-5570
SUBJECT: Police Station
Electrioal service
Approved For submittal By:
city Manager
Dept. of origin: city Manager
Date submitted= 10/29/91
For ~genda Of= 11/06/91
Exhibitst
- Cooper Memo Dated 10/25/91
~MOUNT
APPROPRIATION
EXPENDITURE
REQUIRED=
BUDGETED=
REQUI~D:
~UMM~RY STATEMENT
On October 17, 1991 we held a pre-construction conference for the
police station. Representatives of the architect, the contractor,
and the City were present. One item of discussion was the
electrical service. During post bidding clarification meetings
between the contractor and architect, it was discovered that the
Barth construction Company bid did not include the FPL charges
for electrical service as may be required by the specifications.
However, the construction drawings indicate that the contractor
is to run conduit only. The FPL charges for underground
electrical services with a pad mount transformer are
approximately $7,000. Should we install an overhead service,
there is no charge. However, the city, through its site plan
review process, requests other developers of new projects to
install underground electrical service. Staff has come to a
tentative agreement with Barth Construction that the contractor
would pay for 50% of the cost of the pad mounted transformer and
the city would pay for 50% of these costs.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Review the proposed electrical service for the new police
station.
Robert S. McClary
October 25, 1991
Page 2
Of course, the easy solution is to have the electrical
service overhead at no additonal cost but, please keep in
mind that the City of Sebastian through its site plan review,
requests of all other new projects to place their service
underground. In order for us to set an example and for
aesthetics, the service should be placed underground.
Considering there is only approximately $500.00 difference
between the two types of underground service that can be
provided the ideal system would be to utilize the pad mounted
transformer. In determining who should pay the cost for this
electrical service, I believe the following factors should-be"
kept in mind:
1. The plans conflict with the specifications and do not
clearly indicate the contractor to provide all cost for
the underground service.
2. Even though the contractor did not qualify his bid, it is
not uncommon for the owner to provide all associated cost
for the electrical service. If I am not mistaken, i
believe that during one of our preconstruction bid
meetings that we did relay this concept to the bidders.
After discussing this item with you and in order to come up
with an amicable solution, it has been determined that %he
City will pay for 50 percent of the cost for the pad mounted
transformer and the contractor will be responsible for all
cost associated for the service from the transformer to the
electrical room.
BC/gk
elecps.doc
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 c~ FAX (407) 589-5570
SUBJECT: Yacht Club Piers
Approved For Submittal By:
City Manager
Dept. of Origin: City Manager
Date Submitted: 10/31/91
For agenda of: 11/06/91
Exhibits: ....
- Riomar Letter, Dated 9/26/91
- Eckis Sketch, Dated 10/20/91
EXPENDITURE
REQUIRED:
AMOUNT
BUDGETED:
aPPROPRIaTION
REQUIRED:
SUMMARY STATEMENT
At its Regular Meeting of October 9, 1991, the city Council
deferred action on a proposal from Riomar Engineers and
Contractors, Inc., for the design and permitting of improvements
at the Sebastian Yacht Club. Currently, there are two (2) 44 foot
long finger piers at the boat ramp and a 350 foot long fishing
pier. The finger piers need redecking in the immediate future,
the fishing pier needs redecking in the foreseeable future, and
staff is recommending an extension on a 45 degree angle of the
north fishing pier to allow more tie-up space for boaters who are
waiting to unload their vessel onto a trailer. These improvements
would require permits from the State of Florida and the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Review proposed improvements at the Yacht Club.
420 Fourth Avenue
Indialantic, FL 32903
RIOMAR
Engineers and Contractors, Incorporated
September 26, 1991
P.O. Box 991
Melbourne Beach, FL 32951
(407) 729.8000
City of Sebastian
Engineering Department
P.O. Box 780127
Sebastian, Florida 32978-0127
Attn: Dan Eckis, P.E.
Re:
Permitting Services
Sebastian Yacht Club Dock Restoration/Expansion
Riomar Reference Number P91133
Dear Dan;
As per your request, Riomar Engineers & Contractors, Inc. is
pleased to present this proposal for professional engineering and
permitting services for the above referenced project. The property
is located in Indian River County, Section 31, Township 30 South,
Range 39 East. This proposed project consists of the following
services:
PERMITTING SERVICES
Prepare and submit a State of Florida Joint Application
Permit and permit sketches to the Florida Department of
Environmental Resources, Florida Department of Natural
Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the
proposed expansion of an existing loading/unloading
docking facility and for the replacement of existing
decking material.
Prepare, submit and pursue approval of the following permits:
(1) State of Florida Joint Application for Permit.
This proposal is limited to the permitting as described. As the
project proceeds into construction, a new proposal will be provided
to cover services that may be needed based on the amount of
development activity. Those services which are available upon
request are a follows:
(1) Construction services such as; quantity takeoffs, cost
estimates, bid preparation and review, etc.
(2) Monthly draw request analysis, site inspection, and
certification.
(3) On-site inspections as required by State and Federal
Agencies for final certification.
(4) Preparation of record drawings as required by various
agencies.
Engineering Services
Riomar Reference Number P91133
September 26, 1991
Page (2)
We have prepared this proposal based on the following assumptions:
Any surveys, soil testing fees, etc. that may be required
for this permit will be considered a direct expense to
the City of Sebastian and not a part of this proposal.
All application fees will be considered a direct
expense to the City of Sebastian and are not--a p~rt-of
this proposal.
Any significant off-site improvements required to gain
permit approval, other than those described herein, are
not included in this proposal.
This proposal is valid for thirty (30) calendar days
from date shown hereon, and subject to change there-
after.
Our fees for the above described services will be as follows:
PERMITTING
HOURLY NOT TO EXCEED $2,000.00
INVOICE PROCEDURES AND PAYMENT; RIOMAR Engineers and Contractors,
Inc. shall submit invoices to the Client for work accomplished
during each calendar month. For Engineering Services provided on a
Lump Sum basis, the amount of each monthly invoice shall be
determined on a percentage of completion basis, the percentage of
the total work (provided on a lump sum basis) accomplished during
the invoicing period. Such invoices shall also include, separately
listed any reimbursable costs.
REIMBURSABLE COSTS as described below are not included in the lump
sum fee. These include out-of-pocket expenses, the cost of which
shall be charged at actual cost plus an administrative charge of
10% and shall be itemized and included in the invoice.
Typical out-of-pocket expenses shall include job related mileage at
twenty (20) cents per mile, long distance telephone calls, mailing
charges, printing and reproduction costs.
Engineering Services
Riomar Reference Number P91133
September 26, 1991
Page (3)
The client, as owner or authorized agent for the owner, hereby
agrees that payment, as provided herein, will be made for said
work within ten (10) days from the date the invoice for same is
received by the Client at the address set out herein and, in
default of such payment, hereby agrees to pay all costs of
collection, including reasonable attorney's fees.
The Client hereby acknowledges that any revisions, deletions or
additions to the scope of the project as described her~in will'-be
invoiced according to our standard rates. No work outside the
limits of this proposal will be commenced without prior client
consent.
The Client also hereby acknowledges that unpaid invoices shall
accrue interest at eighteen percent (18%) per annum after they
have been outstanding for over thirty (30) days. Upon cancellation,
abandonment or suspension of the project by the Client prior to
completion of services to be performed, RIOMAR Engineers and
Contractors, Inc. shall be paid for all work accomplished to date.
If you want us to proceed, please return a retainer in the amount
of $500.00 along with an executed copy of this proposal. We would
like to thank you for this opportunity to provide this proposal
and we look forward to working with you on this project.
CMN/uw
Sincerely Yours,
RIOMAR Engineers and Contractors, Inc.
Engineering Manager
ACCEPTED BY
DATE:
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127
SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
(407)589-5490
Jos,.. ~"/~7'-d.~'
SHEET NO,
CALCULATED BY
CHECKED BY
~CALE
DATE
· . /'J~5-0'
1 J
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 13 SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330
FAX 407-589-5570
SUBJECT:
Golf Carts
Approved For Submittal By:
City Manager
Agenda No.
Dept. Origin
Date Submitted
10-10-91
For Agenda Of
Exhibits:
Club Car Letter
DeLarme Memo
EXPENDITURE AMOUNT
REQUIRED: 50,525 BUDGETED: 50,525
APPROPRIATION
REQUIRED:
SUMMARY STATEMENT
In order to replenish our golf cart'fleet in an orderly and cost efficient
manner the Council approved a cart replacement program. This program calls
for the replacement of 25 new carts this year at a cost of $50,525.00 as
budgeted. The Club Car Corp. is a sole source representative of their
product. Therefore a waive of bid is requested to purchase these carts
in order to maintain a continuity in our fleet.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Institute the process to purchase 25 new Club Cars on a sole source basis.
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 1:3 SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589*5330
FAX 407-589-5570
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
October 9, 1991
Robb McClary, City Man~,e5~ ~
Jim DeLarme, Pro/Man~
Purchase of twenty five (25) New Golf Carts
The Council approved the purchase of twenty five (25) new carts as part
of a cart renewal program. In order to maintain continuity in our fleet
I would like to purchase twenty five (25) new Club Carts. The Club Car
Company is the only source for fleet sales, therefore they are the sole
source for their product.
I would like to procede with the purchase of these carts under a sole
source purchase. Attached is a letter from the Club Car Co. stating
that they are the sole source for fleet sales and also the price struct-
ure breakdown for the purchase of these carts.
3120 Southeast Dominica Terrace · Stuart, Florida 34997 * Branch Office (407) 286-9904 · Fax (407) 286-9910
West Palm Beach, Florida (407) 659-3881 . Boca Raton, Florida (407) 368~8370
October 10, 1991
Mr. Jim Delarme
Sebastian Municipal Golf Course
101 East Airport Road
Sebastian, Florida 32958
Dear Jim:
In response to your request for a replacement program
your golf cars at Sebastian Municipal Golf Club, I have put
together a program specifically designed for your Club. This
program is based on us considering all factors such as:
Condition of present cars; Value of present cars today;
Value of cars in the future; Battery life, plus additional
factors that have not been mentioned.
You indicated that the City's intent was to start a
replacement program in 1992. Based on replacing one-third of
the cars each year over the next three (3) years beginning
in 1992, your last change-out cars will be seven (7) years
old. My suggestion would be to replace twenty-five (25) cars
in 1991, same in 1992 and thirty-six (36) cars in 1993, with
this making your last cars only six (6) years old.
The price breakdowns are estimated as follows:
25 CARS 25 CARS
NOV 1991:
$2,799.00/CAR
- 778.00/TRADE
$2,021.00/CAR
OCT 1992: $2,925.00/CAR
- 775.00/TRADE
$2,150.00/CAR
36 CARS
OCT 1993: $3,050.00/CAR
- 625.00/TRADE
$2,425.00/CAR
Additionally, if you could take delivery of cars in
September of each year, you potentially could save
approximately $100/car, since historically we have had price
increases after this time frame. The City would be given its
normal thirty (30) day terms with prior credit approval, so
the invoice could be paid in mid to late October of each
year.
Mr. Jim Delarme
Page Two
Thank you for your continued support of CLUB CAR and should
you have any questions, or require any additional
information, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Tom Marble
Sales/~. Florida
TM:jj
3120 Southeast Dominica Terrace · Stuart, Florida 34997 · Branch Office (407) 286-9904 · Fax (407) 286-9910
West Palm Beach, Florida (407) 659-3881 · Boca Raton, Florida (407) 368+8370
April 10, 1991
M_r. Jim Delarme
Sebastian Municipal Golf Course
101 East Airport Road
Sebastian, Florida 32958
Dear Jim:
Per our recent conversation, please find herein the
information requested with reference to how CLUB CAR Sales
are handled in Florida.
- CLUB CAR East Florida Branch Office, located in
Stuart, Florida handles all fleet sales/leases for
all golf clubs in its area of responsiblity. The
Branch Office covers to Titisville to the North and
South to Key West, Florida, plus the Bahama Islands.
- The dealer network under this Branch handles private
type car sales and performs the required parts and
service for all Branch sales/leases. The same pro-
cedure is accomplished through all of our Branch
Offices located in Florida.
- The competitive nature of our business in Florida,
plus the prices quoted to The City of Sebastian, will
not allow anyone else associated with CLUB CAR the
opportunity to bid on your requirements.
- CLUB CAR, INC. in Augusta, Georgia is the sole manu-
facturer of CLUB CARS and this Branch Office is the
only representative of CLUB CAR fleet sales for the
area described. The dealer network previously ment-
ioned does not qualify for fleet type sales, only for
private type car sales, services, etc.
Mr. Delarme
Page Two, Continued:
Thank you for your continued interest in CLUB CAR and its
product. We look forward to a continued excellent business
relationship with you and The City of Sebastian. Should you
have any further questions, or require any additional
information, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
Don Barth
Sales - E.Florida
DB:hp
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [~ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 [] FAX (407) 589-5570
)
)
)
)
)
) ] l:d its: NOt
)
)
)
, Finance (MLH)
10/16/91
11/06/91
Refur~ analyses of the city's Golf Course Revenue Bonds Series 1985,
indicate significant savings could be generated by r ,ef~ding the bonds.
Refunding, simply described, is like refinancing a home when the interest
rates have dropped enough to make refinancing attractive. Presently,
refunding could save the City nearly $25,000 in annual debt service payments
enabling the City to use those savings for other purposes. Alternatively, the
City could choose to keep the payments at their existir~ levels and receive
over $200,000 up front, net of the costs as described below. These proceeds
might be used towards golf course or clubhouse improvements, a swimming pool
or tennis courts, etc. The process involves engaging a bond lawyer to handle
the legal affairs, and an underwriter to market the issue. The cost of the
bond counsel would approximate $25,000 including out of pocket costs, and the
total cost of issuance to the underwriters will approximate $100,000.
ACTION
Interest rates are at a very low level presently and are subject to movement
with the economy. Rec~nd pursuing refunding of the bond issue to take
advantage of this greatly reduced financing cost, and proceed to interview
bond counsel and underwriting firms to present to counsel for determination.
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 D SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 D FAX (407) 589-5570
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL BY:
City Manager: ,,
Agenda No.
Dept. O~igin
City Clerk
Date Submitted
10/31/91
For Agenda Of 11/6/91
Exhibits:
NashMemodated 10/31/91
NashLetterdated2/20/89
Potter Letter dated2/?/89
EXPENDITURE AMOUNT ~P~PR~TI~
REQUIRED: BUDGETED: REQUIRED:
SUMMARY STATSMENT
At the February 6, 1991 Workshop, the City Attorney and City Clerk
~ed certain amendments to charter provisions which are in
conflict.
The City Attorney has suhnitted his suggested amendments and amendments
reccmm~nded by the City Manager and the City Clerk for City Council
review.
RE~ED ACTION
Review the proposed charter amendments and direct the City Attorney to
draft an ordinance to place all or any of the revisions on the ballot for
voter consideration on March 10, 1992.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Mayor Conyers and Members of the Sebastian city Council
Charles Ian Nash, City Attorney
October 31, 1991
Recommended Charter Revisions
REPORT TO SEBASTIAN CITY COUNCIL
REGARDING RECOMMENDED CHARTER REVISIONS
As requested, I have worked with the City Clerk to compose
recommended revisions to the Sebastian City Charter. If you find
all or any of the following recommendations to be in the best
interest of the City of Sebastian, the procedure necessary to
implement revisions would be the passage of an Ordinance to place
revisions on the ballot for the consideration of the voting
residents at the March, 1992 election.
I would recommend making the following revisions to the
Sebastian City Charter:
1)
Repeal Paragraphs 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6 of Section 1.02
of the Sebastian City Charter regarding limitations on the
authority of the City of Sebastian to regulate the Sebastian
Municipal Airport. As expressed in the written legal
opinions provided to the City of Sebastian by special
airport counsel William Potter and by myself, it is my
opinion that these charter provisions are unconstitutional,
preempted by provisions of federal and state law, and/or
unenforceable. (See copies of the opinion letters attached
hereto.)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
The second full paragraph of Paragraph 10 of Section 1.02 of
the Sebastian City Charter should be modified to remove the
limitation on rental fees to be paid by the golf course
facility for the benefit of the Sebastian Municipal Airport
as outlined in the specific resolutions cited in that
provision and to remove the construction of the term
"necessary administrative services." It is my opinion that
general administrative services should encompass more than
police and fire protection. Furthermore, the fees
enumerated in the specified resolutions may need to be
revised in the future due to future economic conditions or
changes to bond covenants that may be adopted if the current
revenue bonds are refinanced or otherwise replaced.
Change the term "councilmen" to "council members" throughout
the Sebastian City Charter.
Change the term "councilman" to "council member" throughout
the Sebastian city Charter.
Change the term "council" to "City Council" throughout the
Sebastian City Charter.
Revise Section 2.06 to provide for the mayor to sign all
contracts and other legal documents on behalf of the City as
directed and authorized by the City Council. I would
recommend using the following language:
"Sec. 2.06. Mayor; Vice-Mayor.
(a) The Mayor shall preside at all meetings
of the City Council, and shall have a vote
upon all matters coming before the City
Council, but shall have no veto power. The
Mayor shall have the power to preserve peace
and order, and shall be recognized as the
legislative head of the City government for
all ceremonial purposes and by the Governor
of the State of Florida for purposes of
military law. The Mayor may sign all
contracts, bonds, debentures, franchises and
official documents on behalf of the City as
directed and authorized by the City Council,
which shall also be attested by the City
Clerk.
(b) At the first meeting following the
general election, the City Council shall
elect from among its members (other than the
Mayor) a Vice-Mayor who shall act as Mayor
during the absence or disability of the
- 2 -
Mayor. The senior member of the City Council
shall act as Mayor during the absence or
disability of both the Mayor and the Vice
Mayor."
This change would allow your chief administrative officer, the
City Manager, the ability to sign these types of agreements on
behalf of the city due to the fact that the Mayor may not always
be available. See my recommendation in Item No. 9 below.
7) Revise Paragraph (a) of Section 2.12 to read as follows:
"(a) Meetings. The city Council shall meet
regularly at least once a month at such times
and places as the City Council may prescribe
by resolution. Special meetings of the City
Council may be held on the call of the Mayor ·
or the Vice Mayor or of three or more council
members. Whenever practicable, each member
shall receive at least twelve (12) hours'
advance notice of any special City Council
meeting called. If at least three council
members deem the special meeting to be an
emergency meeting, the twelve (12) hour
advance notice requirement shall be waived.
All City Council meetings shall be public
meetings, except as otherwise permitted by
law."
8)
9)
I would recommend that Section 2.16 be revised as follows:
"Sec. 2.16. Standing oommittees.
(a) Standing committees of the City Council
may be appointed by the City Council. The
membership, powers and duties of such
committees shall be as provided by the
resolution of the City Council.
(b) Periodic reports to the City Council
shall be made by the standing committees as
to the accomplishments and future activities
contemplated by each standing committee, as
directed by the City Council."
I recommend that a new Paragraph (g) be added to Section
3.04 of the Sebastian City Charter to authorize the city
Manager to sign all contracts, bonds, debentures, franchises
- 3 -
zo)
and official documents on behalf of the City, which shall
also be attested by the City Clerk. This will allow City
documents to be signed by your chief administrative officer
who is generally available on a full time basis. This
authority would be concurrent with the authority granted to
the Mayor. The new Paragraph (g) could read as follows:
"(g) The city Manager, as authorized by the
City Charter, the Sebastian Code of
Ordinances, or by the direction of the City
Council, may sign all contracts, bonds,
debentures, franchises and official documents
on behalf of the City, which may also be
attested by the City Clerk."
It is my opinion that Section 4.06 of the Sebastian City
Charter be revised to reflect the fact that election
precincts and polling places are established by the .-
Supervisor of Elections for Indian River County. Therefore,
I would recommend that Section 4.06 be revised to provide
for the city Council to establish election precincts and
polling places in the event that the Supervisor of Elections
for Indian River County fails to do so. The proposed
Section 4.06 could read as follows:
"Sec. 4.06. Elections - precincts and
polling places; designation of
sa~e o
(a) The establishment of election precincts
and polling places, including the designation
of the number, boundaries and location of
same, for the purpose of holding municipal
elections, shall be established by the
Supervisor of Elections for Indian River
County, Florida. In the event the Supervisor
of Elections for Indian River County,
Florida, fails to perform such duties, or in
the event the authority of the Supervisor of
Elections for Indian River County, Florida,
to perform such duties is revoked or
rescinded, such authority shall be held by
the City Council.
(b) In the event that neither the Supervisor
of Elections for Indian River County,
Florida, nor the City Council establishes an
election precinct and polling place for the
City of Sebastian with respect to any
municipal election, then the election
precinct shall be the entire corporate
- 4 -
12)
boundaries of the City of Sebastian and the
polling place shall be the Sebastian
Community Center."
It is my opinion that Section 4.07 be revised to read as
follows:
"Bec. 4.07.
Elections - How arranged; inspectors
and clerks.
The City Council, in conjunction with
the City Clerk, shall make all necessary
arrangements for holding all city elections
and shall declare the results thereof. The
City Council shall adopt a resolution, upon
the calling of an election, stating therein
where the same shall be held, and naming the
different offices to be filled, or questions
to be decided, and shall cause the notice of
the election to be published in accordance
with State law."
In my opinion Section 4.08 of the Sebastian City Charter
needs to be revised due to the fact that the Supervisor of
Elections for Indian River County selects the canvassing
board for City elections that are held concurrently with the
County elections. Provisions should be made in Section 4.08
for establishing a City canvass board and providing
procedures for conducting the canvass of election returns
for City elections that are held at times when County
elections are not also being held. The following provision
has been recommended by your City Clerk and City Manager:
"Sec. 4.08. City Canvassing Board; canvass of
electlon returns.
(a) If the Supervisor of Elections for
Indian River County, Florida does not appoint
a canvassing board to canvass the ballots
cast in a municipal election involving the
City, then the City Clerk shall appoint a
City Canvassing Board to be composed of three
individuals; one member shall be the City
Clerk and the remaining two members shall be.
appointed by the City Clerk. The City Clerk
shall act as chairperson of the City
Canvassing Board.
(b) When a City Canvassing Board has been
constituted, the City Canvassing Board shall
meet at a place and time designated by the
- 5 -
chairperson as soon as practicable after the
close of the polls of any municipal election
involving the City, at which time, the City
Canvassing Board shall proceed to publicly
canvass the absentee electors' ballots and
then publicly canvass the vote as shown by
the returns then on file in the office of the
Supervisor of Elections for Indian River
County, Florida. The City Canvassing Board
shall prepare and sign a certificate
containing the total number of votes cast for
each person or other measure voted on. The
certificate shall be placed on file with the
City Clerk.
(c) The City Council shall hold a special
meeting to be held on the first Monday
following the election for the purpose of
receiving the certificate of the canvassing
of the returns by the Supervisor of Elections
for Indian River County, Florida, or the City
Canvassing Board, as the case may be. The
city Council shall then declare the results
of the election and enter them in the minutes
of the special meeting. Any oath of office
required to be administered to the newly-
elected Mayor and Council Members shall be
administered at such special City Council
meeting or at the next city Council meeting
where the newly-elected Mayor or Council
Members are in attendance."
13)
It is my opinion that Section 4.09 of the Sebastian City
Charter be revised to read as follows:
"Sec. 4.09. Smme - Ballots.
The ballots shall conform to the form of
ballots prescribed by the general election
law of the State."
Ann Robinson, the Supervisor of Elections for Indian River
County, suggested that the Sebastian City Charter be modified so
that the Sebastian City council would be empowered to fill any
vacancies in office, regardless of when and why, to avoid the
considerable expense that the City would incur if it were to hold
a special election to fill any such vacancy. I told Ms. Robinson
that I would convey her recommendation to you.
- 6 -
I realize that you will have questions concerning the
recommendations contained herein and I look forward to working
with the city Clerk and other members of City staff to respond to
your questions.
City Attorney
- 7 -
.... ASH & FALLACE, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
February 20, 1989
930 S. H,~tBoR CITY BLVD.
Su:T~- 505
i~I~Y~BOUI~W~, i~Y~Oi~IDA 32901
(407) 984-3300
FAX (407) 951-3741
Honorable Richard B. Votapka, Mayor
Members of the city Council
city of Sebastian
Post office Box 780127
Sebastian, Florida 32958-0127
RE:
Sebastian Municipal Airport Referendum
Our File #88-2920
Dear Mayor Votapka and Members of Council:
I am writing this letter in response"to'your .request for a'.. ' '- .........
written opinion concerning legal-issues:surrounding the.-. ' ~ -'<-'..
Referendum initiated by the citizens' Airport Watch... Pursuant-to:-_:.
your direction, I have written to Mr..Gregory S. Walden,--Chief
Counsel for the Federal Aviation Administration, and asked for
his written opinion as to whether passage of the Referendum, as
proposed, would jeopardize the title to the airport land
currently held by the City. In addition, I asked Mr. Walden for
his opinion as to whether or not any provisions of the proposed
Referendum violates the United States Constitution or provisions
of Federal law. I have also engaged the services of Mr. William
Potter, an attorney practicing in the area of aviation law, and
have asked for his written opinion as to the validity of the
provisions in the proposed Referendum when compared to the
following:
1. the Federal Aviation Act of 1958;
2. the Surplus Property Act of 1944;
3. the United States Constitution, specifically, the
Commerce Clause, the Supremacy Clause, and the Equal Protection
Amendment;
4. the provisions of the Quit Claim Deed which conveyed
the property occupied by the Airport from the United States to
the city of Sebastian;
5. the grant assurances and agreements for airport
improvement programs, as published in Volume 53, Number 22, of
the Federal Register; and
Honorable Richard B. Votapka, Mayor
Members of the city Council
city of Sebastian
February 20, 1989
Page Two
6. the Airport and Airway improvement Act of 1963, as
amended by the Airport and Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion
Act of 1987.
In their written responses, both Mr. Potter and Mr. Walden
explained the significant problems associated with the Referendum
proposals concerning landing fees and noise restrictions. In
addition, Mr. Potter discussed actions required by the Referendum
which appear to be in violation of the Surplus Property Act as
well as other actions which will trigger the reverter clause in
the Quit Claim Deed. I have provided copies of these letters to
you.
I have received a copy of correspondence from.Mr. ~Stanley.J .........
Green, General Counsel for the General~'Aviation~Manufacturers -~-.~'
Association, directed to Mayor.Richard B.' Votapka, which --
discusses the landing fee and noise regulation.proposals in the
Referendum as well as the proposed restriction on.accepting grant
money. Although Mr. Green represents an interested party, I
believe that his comments should be carefully considered.
In preparing this opinion, I have relied upon the following:
1. Article I, Section 10 of the United States
Constitution;
2. Article I, Section 10, Article II, Section 3, Article
5, Sections 1, 2, and 6, Article VII, Section 12, Article VIII,
Section 2, Article X, Section 10 of the Florida Constitution;
13.
(1987);
chaPters 125, 166, and 775 of the'Florida Statutes
4. Opinion of the Attorney General of the State of Florida
No. 81-76;
5. the Charter of the City of Sebastian, Florida;
6. Chapters 1 and 17 of the Code of Ordinances of the City
of Sebastian;
7. Resolutions R-85-44, R-86-4-A, R-88-16, and R-88-69 of
the City of Sebastian;
8. Quit Claim Deed between the United States of America
and the city of Sebastian, dated January 29, 1959;
Honorable Richard B. Votapka, Mayor
Members of the City Council
city of Sebastian
February 20, 1989
Page Three
9. Joint Participation Agreement between the State of
Florida Department of Transportation and the city of Sebastian,
dated February 28, 1978;
10. Application for Airport Master Plan for Sebastian
Municipal Airport, dated January 1985;
11. Grant Agreement between the Federal Aviation
Administration and the city of Sebastian, dated March 6, 1986;
12. Plan For Financing For $2,050,000 For Recreational
Facilities Revenue Bonds - Series 1985;
13. Sebastian Municipal Airport Master Plan,' dated
December, 1988;' .~-~,.~,~-.~_-~/ .3 .....
14. Leases between the City of Sebastian and J. & S ......
Aviation, Inc., Golden Horn Aviation,'.Inc., IFly Florida,~'~Inc.,''-',' .~ '-'
John Valentine, and Mid-Florida Schutzhund Club; and ...... .-
15. a Sublease between Fly Florida, Inc. and Sebastian Aero
Services.
ISSUES PRESENTED
1. Does the Amendment to Paragraph 7 of Section 1.02 of
the Charter of the City of Sebastian, as proposed by the
Referendum, impede the City's ability to manage and operate the ·
airport pursuant to covenants contained in the Quit Claim Deed?.
2. Are the self-supporting provisions of Paragraph 7.1 of
the Charter Amendment in conflict with any existing ordinances or
resolutions of the City?
3. Do the provisions of Paragraph 7.2 of the Charter
Amendment unlawfully restrict the exercise of the governmental,
corporate, and proprietary powers of the city of Sebastian as
provided in the Florida Constitution and the Municipal Home Rule
Powers Act?
4. Do provisions of Paragraph 7.3 of the Charter Amendment
severely and adversely affect the city's ability to receive a
grant or other form of financial assistance from the State or
Federal government or any other public, quasi-public, or private
entity?
Honorable Richard B. Votapka, Mayor
Members of the city Council
city of Sebastian
February 20, 1989
Page Four
5. May the City impose a minimum penalty of not less than
one.thousand dollars ($1,000) against the owner or operator of an
aircraft which is in violation of an airport noise regulation as
provided in Paragraph 7.4 of the proposed Charter Amendment?
6. May the City require that an aircraft owner or operator
pay a fine for the violation of an aircraft noise ordinance
within fourteen (14) days of the date of violation?
7. Do the landing fee provisions contained in Paragraph
7.5 of the proposed charter Amendment conflict with existing City
ordinances or resolutions?
8. Do the revisions to Paragraph 10 of Section 1.02 of the
Charter, as proposed'bylthe Referendum,-~iol'ate~-any~iexisting~'~'~'~'~~
ordinances or resolutions of the City or conflict with the intent
and purpose of the Quit Claim Deed?
9. Do the noise limitations and landing fees, as proposed
by the Referendum, provide a basis for a cause of action against
the city of Sebastian by the existing Lessees at the Sebastian
Municipal Airport?
RESPONSE
1. The amendatory language in Paragraph 7 of Section 1.02
of the Home Rule Charter of the City of Sebastian, as proposed by
the Referendum, significantly impedes the City's ability to
manage and operate the Airport pursuant to the covenants between
the City and the United States, particularly with regard to
Paragraph 2 of the Quit Claim Deed which requires that, "... all
structures, improvements, facilities and equipment in which this
instrument transfers any interest shall be maintained for the use
and benefit of the public at all times in good and serviceable
condition ..."
2. The self-supporting provisions of Paragraph 7.1 of the
Charter Amendment directly conflict with Sections 7 and 12 of
Resolution' R-86-4-A of the City of Sebastian.
3. The provisions pertaining to financing in Paragraph 7.2
of the Charter Amendment unlawfully restrict the city of
Sebastian's exercise of its governmental, corporate, and
proprietary powers as provided by Article VIII, Section 2 of the
Florida Constitution and the Municipal Home Rule Powers Act,
codified as Chapter 166 of the Florida Statutes (1987).
Honorable Richard B. Votapka, Mayor
Members'of the City Council
city of Sebastian
February 20, 1989
Page Five
4. The provisions of Paragraph 7.3 of the Charter
Amendment severely and adversely affect the City's ability to
receive a grant or other form of financial assistance due to the
restrictions imposed by Paragraph 7.1 of the Charter Amendment
which would preclude the City's use of its full taxing authority
to provide guarantees for any financial assistance.
5. It is highly unlikely that a court of competent
jurisdiction would uphold a municipal ordinance which requires
the payment of a minimum penalty of not less than one thousand
dollars ($1,000.00).
6. The City may not enact an ordinance which purports to
regulate the time in which a violation of a municipal ordinance
can be heard by a court'of competent jurisdiction.--'~'r~ --~'~ ..... '~ ....
7. The landing fee provisions contained in Paragraph.7.5
of the Charter Amendment directly.conflict with~Section_17-4 of ~:.- '~.-~''.~-~
the Code of Ordinances of the City of Sebastian,'-which prohibits .
"touch and go" airport movements. ~
8. The revisions to Paragraph 10 of Section 1.02 of the
Charter, as proposed by the Referendum, are in direct conflict
with Sections 7 and 12 of Resolution R-86-4-A of the City of
Sebastian.
9. The noise limitations and landing fees proposed by the
Referendum provide a basis for a cause of action for the current
airport leaseholders based upon the theory of interference with
obligation of contract.
ANALYSIS
Paragraph 7 of Section 1.02 of the city Charter now requires that
a referendum election be held before the city of Sebastian can
... lengthen or relocate any runway; construct any new
runway, new taxiway, or any airport terminal, allow a
control tower, install any additional taxiway or runway
lights, except lights on the existing primary runway
(designated as 4-22); or install any navigational aid
or instrumentation for the primary purpose of promoting
or accommodating jet aircraft traffic ...
This restriction on the City's management of the Airport is
limited by this provision to new construction. The Quit Claim
Deed between the United States and the city of Sebastian does not
Honorable Richard B. Votapka, Mayo?
Members of the City Council
City of Sebastian
February 20, 1989
Page six
require the City to engage in new construction. However, Section
2 of the Quit Claim Deed does require that the City shall
maintain the existing airport facilities "in goOd and serviceable
condition, to assure sufficient operation." The proposed
Amendment to Paragraph 7, as presented in the Referendum,
provides that a referendum must be held if the city desires to
,,strengthen or otherwise make improvements to any runway which
are not necessary for the maintenance of the facility in good
repair." This clause provides the basis for a cause of action on
the part of any taxpayer of the City of Sebastian to challenge
any type of City maintenance of the airport facilities on the
grounds that such activity is not necessary for maintenance of
such facility in good repair. This would cause the City to
defend each and every such suit with evidence from recognized
experts indicating-that-~the~,needed repair Was,~-~in,fact,---~ ........ ~--~'~'-'~
necessary. Such litigation could delay needed maintenance
whereby a runway or other facility could deteriorate to the point
of being unsafe.
Resolution R-86-4-A of the City'of Sebastian was adopted.on - '..~ -.
February 16, 1986. Sections 2 and 3 of that Resolution require
that the Sebastian Municipal Golf Course shall pay the Airport
Fund a user fee for the use of the 154 acres of airport property
which is..occupied by the golf course. Section 7 of the same
Resolutionprovides that in addition to the annual payments, the
city shall, as further consideration for the use of airport
property for a golf course, provide police and fire protection
and necessary administrative services to the Airport for no
charge. The Referendum proposes, in Paragraph 7.1, that, to the
extent not directly barred by Resolution R-86-4-A, all facilities
shall be constructed ... maintained ... operated,
managed and regulated solely and exclusively with
actual revenues directly derived from or generated by
fees, charges, rents, commissions, concessions, or
other required payments imposed or established by the
city in connection with the use of such airport
facilities.
The Referendum also proposes to add an Amendment to Paragraph 10
of Section 1.02 of the City Charter which defines the term
"necessary administrative services," as used in Paragraph 7 of
Resolution R-86-4-A to mean "solely those administrative services
necessary to provide police and fire protection to such Sebastian
Municipal Airport." This interpretation of Section 7 of
Resolution R-86-4-A significantly reduces the existing
consideration provided on behalf of the golf course to the
Honorable Richard B. Votapka, Mayor
Members of the City'Council
City of Sebastian
February 20, 1989
Page Seven
Airport Fund. The proposed Paragraph 7.1, when analyzed in
conjunction with the proposed Amendment to Paragraph 10, is in
direct conflict with Section 12 of Resolution of R-86-4-A which
provides that, "This Resolution may be amended only with a letter
of concurrence or a letter of no objection from the Federal
Aviation Administration, its successors or assigns." The Federal
Aviation Administration has not issued such letter. The
Sebastian Municipal Golf Course is required, under the terms of
the Quit Claim Deed, to provide consideration in the amount of
fair market value for the use of the Airport property. Failure
to do so would constitute a violation of the covenants between
the city of Sebastian and the United States of America.
The City of Sebastian, as a municipality incorporated under the
laws of the State of Florida, has the governmental, corporate,
and proprietary powers to enable it to conduct municipal
government, perform municipal functions, and render municipal
services, pursuant.to authority.~granted by..ArticleVIII, Section
2 of the Florida Constitution and-the. Municipal Home Rule Powers~. '
Act, provided that the exercise of such powers are not expressly
prohibited by law." Section 166.111, Florida Statutes (1987) - '~' ....
provides, among other things, that a municipality may borrow
money and contract .loans without the necessity of a referendum.
Section t66.121, Florida Statutes (1987) allows the governing
body of a municipality to issue revenue bonds without the ...............
necessity of a referendum. The Referendum provisions contained
in the proposed Paragraph 7.2 would not permit the City of
Sebastian to borrow any money, contract any loan, or issue any
bond or other certificate of indebtedness without first receiving
approval to do so through a local referendum.. In State v. City
9~ Miami, 379 $o.2d 651 (Fla. 1980), the Supreme Court of the
State of Florida found a similar restriction on the exercise of
municipal powers to be unconstitutional. In that case, the City
of Miami issued revenue bonds for the construction of a
convention center garage. A proceeding was brought challenging
the City's issuance of these bonds based upon a provision in the
Miami City Charter which required a local election in connection
with the issuance of revenue bonds and which further prohibited
the lease of a portion of the facility to be financed by bonds
for more than thirty (30) years. This restriction in the Miami
city Charter'had been adopted prior to the enactment of the
Municipal Home Rule Powers Act. The Supreme Court rejected the
challenges to the City's action and found that these Charter
provisions constituted limitations on the borrowing and leasing
powers of the City of Miami which were granted to it by the
Municipal Home Rule Powers Act. The Court further stated that
Honorable Richard B. Votapka, Mayor
Members of the city Council
city of Sebastian
February 20, 1989
Page Eight
Neither the Municipal Home Rule Powers Act nor the
Florida Constitution requires an election to approve
the issuance of revenue bonds which do not pledge ad
valorem taxes. Therefore, an election is not necessary
to approve the financing of this convention center
garage, but rather the City Commission may approve it.
Two years later, the District Court of Appeal of Florida for the
Third District had the occasion to review a similar restriction.
In that case, the plaintiff sought an injunction to halt the
enforcement of a Miami municipal ordinance granting cable
television rights to two private companies within the City. The
Plaintiff based his suit on a section of the Miami city Charter
which required that such an ordinance had to first be submitted
to a referendum. The Court cited the State v. city of Miami case
in reaching its conclusion that a referendum was not required.
It is 'clear from the reasoning of.this decision_that ~.. ...........................
the subject charter provision must also fall under the
Municipal Home Rule Powers Act (Section 166.021,
Florida Statutes [1979]) as constituting an
unauthorized restriction on the power of the City of
Miami to grant franchises on its property to private
persons; such franchises, like leases of City property
or the issuance of revenue bonds, may be approved by
the city Commission without submitting same to a
referendum. In any event, it is clear beyond dispute
that the subject charter provision has been struck down
by the Florida Supreme Court as having been nullified
by the Municipal Home Rule Powers Act.
Rolle v .... ~it¥ of Miami, 408 So.2d 642 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1982).
The Supreme Court of the State of Florida has not issued an
opinion as to whether or not restrictions on the exercise of
municipal powers may be placed in a city charter after the
adoption of the Municipal Home Rule Powers Act. The District
Court of Appeal for the Fifth District of Florida, however, has
ruled that the electors of the city of Orlando could propose
amendments to the city Charter which would prohibit the City from
constructing a coal fired elect'rical generating plant, Gaines v.
The City of Orlando, 450 So.2d 1174 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). This
'case is, however, distinguishable from the Sebastian Referendum
proposal on two points. First, the proposed Orlando Referendum
dealt only with the issue of whether or not to build a sizeable
capital project. In Sebastian, the capital project is already
here. Further, the Sebastian capital project (Airport) carries
with it additional obligations on the part of the City to various
Honorable Richard B. Votapka, Mayor
Members of the city Council
city of Sebastian
February 20, 1989
Page Nine
leaseholders and the United States government. Second, the City
of Sebastian is not within the jurisdiction of the District Court
of Appeal for the Fifth District of Florida. The District Court
of Appeal for the Fourth District of Florida, which has
jurisdiction over the city of Sebastian, has not ruled on this
issue. It is, therefore, highly unlikely that the proposed
Paragraph 7.2 would survive a challenge in a court of competent
jurisdiction based upon the opinion of the Supreme Court as
expressed in State v. city of Miami.
In Paragraph 7.3, the Referendum proposes to restrict the City's
acceptance of any grant or other form of financial assistance
unless the City Attorney can issue an opinion that the acceptance
by the city of such a grant or other form of financial assistance
would not ,,prevent, limit, or otherwise frustrate the regulation,
operation, or governance by the city of the Airport according to
provisions of this Paragraph 7." An analysis of this proposed
Paragraph, in conjunction with the-~self-supporting provisions of ....
the proposed Paragraph 7.1, would not allow the City to utilize
revenues from any other sources in order to guarantee the payment
of a revenue bond. The purchasers of such bonds normally seek
some form of guarantee from the municipality in the event that
the revenue from the capital project financed by the bond is not
sufficient to repay the bondholders. For example, the existing
bond obligations for the Sebastian Municipal Golf Course are
guaranteed by a pledge of the City's utility taxes. Therefore,
the provisions of the proposed Paragraph 7.3 and 7.1 would
effectively remove the City's ability to issue future revenue
bonds for improvements at the Airport. This restriction is
particularly distressing in view of the comments contained in
Section 7.5 of the Master Plan for the Sebastian Municipal
Airport. That Section describes the funding methodologies for
Phases I-III. According to the Plan, Phase I expenses are
primarily designed to bring the existing airport facilities to a
good and serviceable condition. In analyzing the debt service
requirements, the planner stated that, "It is evident that the
City of Sebastian would never be able to make or propose
improvements on their (sic) own." These proposed Charter
Amendment provisions would, therefore, severely and adversely
affect the City's ability to meet its obligations under the Quit
Claim Deed.
A municipality may, pursuant to the broad Home Rule Powers
granted by Chapter 166, Florida Statutes (1987) "exercise any
power for municipal purposes, except when expressly prohibited by
law." A city council, acting as a legislative body of a
municipality, may prescribe the penalties to be imposed for
violations of municipal ordinances. Section 165.19, Florida
Honorable Richard B. Votapka, Mayor
Members of the City Council
city of Sebastian
February 20, 1989
Page Ten
Statutes (1973) provided "that for no one offense made punishable
by the ordinances and laws of said city or town shall a fine of
more than $500.00 be assessed, nor imprisonment for a period of
time greater than 60 days" be imposed. This Section was,
however, repealed by Chapter 74-192, Laws of Florida. No other
statute has subsequently been enacted which expressly authorizes
the imposition of penalties by a municipality. Nevertheless,
sections of Chapter 775, Florida Statutes (1987) clearly indicate
that municipalities can continue to enact ordinances with penal
sanctions. Section 775.08(2) provides that the term
"misdemeanor" shall not mean a conviction for any municipal or
county ordinance. Subsection (3) states that, "Nothing contained
in this code shall repeal or change the penalty for a violation
of any municipal or county ordinance." Section 775.082(5)
provides that, "Any person who has been convicted of a non-
criminal violation may not be sentenced to a term of imprisonment
nor to any other punishment more severe than a fine, forfeiture,
or other civil penalty, except as provided ...' by ordinance of
any city or county."
While in existence, Section 165.19 limited a municipal ordinance
penalty to $500.00 or imprisonment for a period of time not to
exceed 60 days. These same restrictions apply to misdemeanors of
the second degree pursuant to Sections 775.082(4) (b) and
775.083(1) (e). Further, Section 125.69, Florida Statutes (1987)
provides that violations of county ordinances shall be prosecuted
in the same manner as misdemeanors and upon conviction shall be
punished by a fine not to exceed $500.00 or imprisonment in the
county jail not to exceed 60 days.or by. any combination of such
fine and imprisonment. .On the other hand, the maximum fine which
can be imposed upon conviction of a misdemeanor of the first
degree is $1,000.00. The maximum fine for the conviction of a
felony of the third degree is $5,000.00. See Section 775.083,
Florida Statutes (1987).
In 1981, Mr. Charles P. Vitunac, the then City Attorney for the
City of Veto Beach, requested an official opinion from the
Attorney General of the State of Florida as to the limitations on
the exercise of a municipality's authority to impose penalties
for violations of municipal ordinances under its Home Rule
Powers. In his response, the Attorney General stated
in accordance with the dictates of Section 2(b),
~icle VIII, State Constitution, and the Municipal
Home Rule Powers Act, Chapter 166, Florida Statutes,
limitations on or the severity of penalties imposed by
municipal ordinances is left to the sound discretion of
the legislative body of each municipality. Any abuse
Honorable Richard B. Votapka, Mayor
Members of the City Council
city of Sebastian
February 20, 1989
Page Eleven
of that discretion would become a matter subject to
judicial resolution. It would appear, however, that
the limitations fixed in Chapters 316 and 318, Florida
Statutes, and for convictions of misdemeanors of the
second degree in Section 775.082(4) (b) and
775.083(1) (e), Florida Statutes, or as was formerly
provided in Section 165.19, Florida Statutes (1973),
should serve as guidelines in establishing the
appropriate penalties for violations of municipal
ordinances, unless and until the Legislature should
determine otherwise.
opinion of the Attorney General of the State of Florida
No. 081-76, October 13, 1981. Section 1-10 of the Code of
Ordinances of the city of Sebastian provides that where no
specific penalty is provided, a violation of the Code of
Ordinances shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $500.00 or a
term of imprisonment not exceeding 60 days.
Paragraph 7.4 of the proposed Charter Amendment requires the City
to enact a penalty ~for violation of an airplane noise regulation
of "not less than $1,000.00." It is highly unlikely that a court
of competent jurisdiction would uphold such a penalty.
Paragraph 7.4 of the proposed Amendment to the Charter also
requires that the city assess a penalty against the owner or
operator of any aircraft within fourteen days following each
instance in which the aircraft is used in violation of an
aircraft noise regulation. The requirement that a penalty be
imposed within fourteen days is clearly procedural in nature.
Article V, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution provides that
only the Supreme Court of this State shall adopt rules for
procedure in all courts. Further, the City is precluded by
Article V, Section 1 of the Florida Constitution from maintaining
its own court. For these two reasons, the fourteen day
requirement contained in Paragraph 7.4 of the proposed Charter
Amendment is unconstitutional.
Paragraph 7.5 of the proposed Charter Amendment requires the City
of Sebastian to enact a fee of no less than $5.00 for aircraft
operation at the Airport. This same Paragraph requires that this
fee be imposed for a cycle of activity known as "touch-and-go."
Touch-and-go operations are specifically prohibited by Section
17-4 of the Code of Ordinances of the city of Sebastian. This
Paragraph of the proposed Charter Amendment attempts to
legitimize and tax an aircraft operation which has been deemed
illegal by the city Council since the enactment of Ordinance
0-79-6 on September 10, 1979.
Honorable Richard B. Votapka, Mayor
Members of the city Council
city of Sebastian
February 20, 1989
Page Twelve
The city of Sebastian has negotiated leases with at least four
companies for the purpose of doing business at the Airport. At
the time that these leases were negotiated, the Lessees were well
aware of the City's obligations to maintain the Airport
facilities in a safe and operable condition, as required by the
Quit Claim Deed with the United States of America. Further, at
the time that the leases were negotiated, there were no
limitations on the City's power to borrow money or issue revenue
bonds in order to meet its obligations under the Quit Claim Deed.
The Lessees decisions to enter into their various leases with the
City were, in all probability, based in part on'the belief that
the City would meet its obligations to maintain the Airport. As
described previously in this analysis, the City's ability to
manage its Airport would be significantly affected should the
Charter Amendment be adopted as proposed. Therefore, an issue is
raised as to whether or not the adoption of these provisions
would impair the contracts (leases) entered into between the
various Lessees and the City. The Florida Supreme Court, in the
landmark case of Humphreys, et al v. stat~, ex. tel. Palm Beach
County, et al, 145 So 859, 861 (Fla. 1933) stated that
This Court has long since held that all the laws which
subsist, at the time and place of the making of a
contract, and where it is to be performed, enter into
and become a part of the contract made, as if they were
expressly referred and incorporated in its terms,
including alike those laws which affect its
construction, validity, enforcement, or discharge.
Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution of the United States
and Article I, Section 10 of the Florida Constitution provide
that no law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be
passed. No landing fees or airplane noise restrictions existed
at the time that any of the present leases were negotiated
between the City of Sebastian and the Airport Lessees. it is
logical to assume that the various Lessees analyzed potentigl
airplane traffic at the airport in making their business
decisions to enter into their various leases. The landing fee
and airplane noise provisions contained in Paragraphs 7.4 and 7.5
of the proposed Charter Amendment would, to some degree, restrict
the amount of airplane traffic at the Airport to a level below
that which currently exists. It is possible that such reduction
in air traffic could serve as a basis for a cause of action for
the Lessees to claim that the enactment of such Charter Amendment
is an impairment of their existing contract with the City. A
final determination as to whether or not the contracts were
impaired would be a factual matter to be decided by a court of
competent jurisdiction.
Honorable Richard B. Votapka, Mayor
Members of the city Council
city of Sebastian
February 20, 1989
Page Thirteen
The proposed Charter Amendment requires that the city impose
landing fees and' noise restrictions on aircraft operations. The
city has not conducted any studies to justify either of these
restrictions although the Sebastian Municipal Airport Master Plan
contains a provision that a noise abatement study be conducted as
soon as possible. The Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration has prescribed standards for the measurement of
aircraft noise and sonic booms and published regulations for the
control and abatement of aircraft noise. In so doing, this field
has been preempted by the Federal Government and is not subject
to state or local control. Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal~
Inc., 411 U.S. 624, 36 L Ed2d 547 (1973). It is highly unlikely
that a court of competent jurisdiction would uphold the proposed
restrictions in the absence of such studies. I suggest that you
review the letters written by attorneys Potter and Walden for a
more complete discussion of this issue.
My office has attempted, on two occasions, to contact Mr. John
Evans, attorney for citizens Airport Watch, in order to discuss
the questionable provisions of this proposed Charter Amendment.
Unfortunately, Mr. Evans did not return our telephone calls.
In summary, it is my opinion that the proposed amendments to the
Home Rule Charter of the city of Sebastian are subject to
challenge upon numerous grounds. I firmly believe, should these
Amendments be enacted as written, that the City will likely find
itself in the position of defending numerous suits from parties
who have been adversely affected by the imposition of these
restrictions.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide this opinion to the
governing body of the city and remain available to respond to
your questions.
NASH & FALLACE, P.A., ATTORNEYS
FOR ~F~ITY OF SEBASTIAN
Charles Ian Nash
City Attorney
CIN/nch
L/~.w Ol"lelCt".'.,/, Ole
POT"r~, H¢Cr. ELn.a,~D c°,: /v[~-,~U:S, 12
%VI i.l. IAlq C, PoT-r~cl~
L.'i. Ii,'roN ,Ps. ]~IcCI.I:I.LAN£~, dl/.
February 7, 1989
ITII(iJT UNION I),'.Nll ]|UILI}INII
(,q,O'7) 0~J-4 * :2700
lAX: (40?~
Charles lan Nash, Esq.
930 South Harbor City Boulevard
Riverside Center, Suite 505
Melbourne, Florida .32901
Re: Sebastian Municipal Airport
Our File No. 89-081
Dear Mr. Nash:
You have retained me to render an opinion as to the
validity of certain proposed amendments to the Charter of the
City of Sebastian relating to the municipal airport owned and
operated by the City. Specifically, you have asked me to
review these proposed amendments in the .light of applicable
federal statutes, federal Constitutional provisions, the provi-
sions of the quit-claim deed whereby the City acquired title to
the Airport and the provisions of any federal grant agreements
effecting the Airport.
I have inot addressed any issues relating to the validity
of the proposed amendments under the Florida Constitution, the
Florida Municipal Home Rule Powers Act, the provisions of any
lease~ agreements between the Airport and private parties or the
provisions of any bond covenants affecting the Airport. It is
my understanding that you will address these issues.
In examining the proposed amendments, I have considered
their validity relative to the following:
1. The Federal Aviation Act of 1958;
2. The Surplus Property Act of 1944;
The United States Constitution, specifically the
Commerce Clause, the Supremacy Clause and the Equal
Protection Amendment;
Charles Ian Nash, Esq.
February 6, 1989
Page 2
The provisions of the quit-claim deed recorded in
Official Records Book 62, Page 255, Public Records of
Indian River County, Florida, which deed conveyed the
property from the United States to the City of
Sebastian;
The grant assurances and agreements for airport
improvement programs, which assurances are published
in Volume 53, Number 22 of the Federal Register; and
The Airport and Airway Improvement A~ct of 1963, as
amended by the Airport and Airway Safety and Capacity
Expansion Act of 1987.
in rendering these opinions, I have relied upon
following assumptions of fact:
the
it is my understanding that no formal noise compatabi-
lity studies, safety studies or other studies rela-
tive to the capacity of the airport and its compatabi~
lity with the surrounding area have been conducted;
I understand that the 'airport has from time to time
received grants from the Federal Aviation Administra-
ation ("FAA") under the Airport and Airway Improve-
ment Act, as amended; and
3. i understand that the golf course is located on
airport property and that revenues f£om the golf
course are deposited in the airport Revenue Fund,
after provision for such other payments as are
required under the terms of the bonds which were
issued to finance construction of the golf course.
The proposed Amendments to the City Charter can be briefly
summarized as follows:
Paragraph 7.1 of Section 1.02 would require the City
to use only airport revenues to operate, would main-
tain and improve the Airport;
Paragraph 7.2 of Section 1.02 would prohibit borrow-
ing any funds for maintaining, operating or improving
the airport without a referendum;
Charles Ian Nash, Esq.
February 6, 1989
Page 3
paragraph 7.3 of Section 1.02 would prohibit the City
from seeking a grant from the state or federal
government to improve the airport without an opinion
from the City Attorney that the acceptance of such
grant would not conflict with Paragraph 7 of Section
102 of the Charter, as amended;
Paragraph 7.4 of Section 1.02 would require the City
to enact a noise regulation to restrict use of the
airport to aircraft producing noise of less than
sixty five decibels. That proposed paragraph would
also impose a $1,000.00 penalty for violation of this
rule and would require that the penalty be deposited
in the general funds of the City;
Paragraph 7.5 of Section 1.02 would require the City
to adopt a landing fee of at least $5.00 per aircraft
operation, including each "touch and go" as
operation; an
6. Paragraph 7.6 of Section 1.02 wou~d $,~uire ~he city
~Q impomm -11 the,e restrictions on anyone acquiring
rights in the airport after their adoption; and
7. Paragraph 10 would be added to Section 1.02 of the
Charter and would provide that any revenues from the
golf course in excess of those needed to operate the
golf l course would not be used to operate, maintain or
develop the airport.
The airport was conveyed to the City pursuant to the
authority granted by the Surplus Property Act of 1944. The pro-
visions of the Surplus Property Act which are, in my opinion
relevant to your concerns are as follows: '
1. Subsection (2) (A) of Section 1622 of the Act provides
that no property disposed of in the Subsection shall
be used, leased or disposed of for other that airport
purposes without the written consent of the Adminis-
trator of the FAA, which shall be granted only if the
FAA Administrator determines that the property can be
used for other than airport purposes without mate-
rially adversely affecting the development and the
operation of the airport.
Charles Ian Nash, Esq.
February 6, 1989
Page 4
Subsection (H) of that section proVides that in the
event any terms upon which the property is disposed
of are not complied with, all of the property shall,
at the option of the United States, revert to the
United States.
3. Section 1622(B) provides that the Administrator of
the FAA shall have the sole responsibility for deter-
mining compliance with' the terms of any deed
conveying this property.
The quit-claim deed itself contains several salient provi-
sions. The deed provides that the City, by accepting the deed,
agrees that the transfer of the property is subject to the
restrictions set forth in the deed. The deed also provides
that the property transferred shall be used for "...public
airport purposes for the use and benefit of the public, on
reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination ..." The
deed also provides that the entire landing area shall be main-
tained for the use and benefit of the. public at all times in
good and serviceable condition, to assure its efficient opera-
tion. The deed furthe£ provides that no property transferred
by the deed shall be used, leased, sold or disposed of by the
City for other than airport purposes without the written
consent of the A~ninistratOr of the FAA, which consent shall be
granted only if the Administrator determines that the property
can be used or disposed of for other than airport purposes with-
out materially and adversely affecting the development, improve-
ment, operation or maintenance of the airport. The deed further
provides that, by accepting the deed, the City agrees that in
the event of violation of any the conditions of the deed, the
property shall revert, at the option of the FAA, to the federal
government following 60 days demand to cure such default.
The grant assurances published in the Federal Register
cited above contain several provisions that may be relevant.
Section 22 requires the grant recipient to make the airport
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 grant recipient may pro-
hibit or limit aeronautical use only if the action is necessary
for the safe operation of the airport when necessary to serve
the civil aviation needs of the public. The assurances also
Charles Ian Nash, Esq.
February 6, 1989
Page 5
require that the airport maintain .fee and rental rates consis-
tent with the foregoing requirements which will make the air-
port as self sustaining as possible under the circumstances.
The grant assurances require that all revenues generated by the
airport will be expended by it for the capital or operating
costs of the airport and other local facilities which are owned
and operated by the airport and which are directly and substan-
tially related to the actual air transportation of passengers
or property or for noise mitigation purposes 'on or off the
airport. The grant assurances further require that the airport
have an up-to-date airport layout plan and that any changes or
alterations in the airport be in conformity with the airport
layout plan.
The Airport and Airway Improvement Act requires, among
other things, that the airport to which grant money has been
given be available for public use on fair and reasonable terms
and without unjust discrimination.
There are a number of cases wherein the courts have
addressed the rights of the airport to regulate, in the
interest of noise abatement, the types of aircraft which may
use an airport. Prior to addressing the proposed amendments,
it would be useful to review some of the more relevant cases.
In the case of British Ai_rway s Board vs. The Port
Authority.. of New York and New Jersey, 558 F. 2d 7~'-'(~nd Cir.
1977), the court held that'-airport proprietors have the power
to regulate the types of aircraft which may use an airport so
long as these regulations do not unjustly discriminate among
aircraft or unduly burden interstate commerce. This case,
commonly known as Concorde i, recognized the the Port Authority
of New York and New Jersey could establish a temporary ban on
the use of the Concorde, and even permanently ban aircraft used
by only a few carriers, provided that the regulation was
"reasonable, non-arbitrary and non-discriminatory." The court
went on to say:
"It is clear to us that the Port Authority is vested only
with the power to promulgate reasonable, non-arbitrary and
non-discriminatory regulations that establish acceptable
noise levels for the airport and its immediate
environment. Any other conduct by an aiport proprietor
Charles Ian Nash, Esq.
February 6, 1989
Page 6
would frustrate the
tionally burden the
558 Fed 2d at 84.
statutory scheme and unconstitu-
commerce Congress sought to foster."
Concorde I was followed by the Concorde II case. See
British "~ir'Way~ Board vs. Port Authority of"New York and New
Jersey, 437 F. Supp. 804 (SbNY 197"7), affirmed as modified 564
Fed. 2d 1004 (2d Cir. 1977). In the Concorde II case, the Port
Authority,s interim ban on the Concorde,~ ~ich had'been imposed
pending promulgation of a non-discriminatory nDise regulation
concerning that aircraft, was overturned because of the delay
in developing such a regulation. The court held that "...the
failure of the Port Authority to develop that regulation was
unreasonable, discriminatory and unfair and an impingement on
commerce and on the national and international interests of the
United States."
In the case of Santa Monica Airport Association vs. Thm
City of Santa Monica, 48i '~~. 'Supp. 927 (CD Cal 197~') affirmed
659 Fed 2d i'00 (gt~ Cir. 1981), the City of Santa Monica
enacted an ordinance imposing a night curfew banning certain
touch-and-go, stop-and-go and low approach operations, preclud-
ing helicopter flight training and low approach operations, pre-
cluding jets and imposing sanctions for take-offs or landings
exceeding a single event noise standard. Each of these
ordinances was challenged on the ground that such regulations
had been preempted by the federal government and on equal pro-
tection grounds and as an impermissable burden on interstate
commerce. The court upheld all of the ordinances except the
ban on jet aircraft. The court struck down this regulation as
an undue burden on interstate commerce. The court structured a
three-step test to determine whether a regulation constituted
an undue burden on interstate commerce which essentially
balanced the burden imposed against the local interests support-
ing the regulation.
In the case of United States vs. State of New York, 522 F.
Supp. 255 (NDNY 1982) 'affirmed 70~Fe~ 2~ '9~-'(2a Ci~. 1983),
cert. denied 104 S. Ct. 1907 (1984), the United States sought
to enjoin an 11 P.M. to 7 A.M. curfew on all aircraft opera-
tions at the Republic Airport. In an opinion awarding the
United States a preliminary injuction, the court held that the
curfew was overbroad, unreasonable and arbitrary because it
Charles Ian Nash, Esq.
February 6, 1989
Page 7
extended to all aircraft, regardless of the degree of accompany-
ing emitted noise. No effort had been made to tailor the curfew
to legitimate local noise concerns.
In the ease of United States vs. Count of Westchester,'
571 F. Supp. 786 (SDNY
· e
owner of the Westchester Airport, lmplemented a mandatory
curfew which precluded all airport ·operations between 12
midnight and 7 A.M. 'The court found this regUlation to be
unreasonable, arbitrary, disciminatory and overbroad because it
banned all night operations, regardless of accompanying emitted
noise.
The foregoing cases reflect efforts by airport proprietors
to control access as a result of noise problems, airfield space
problems and ground access problems. In the case of noise-
based limitations, airport proprietors have tried several diffe-
rent courses. One course is to limit the number of aircraft
operations. A second has involved establishment of a ceiling
on permissable noise using a cumulative noise impact method-
ology. Another course has been to require and encourage the
use of quieter aircraft, thereby minimizing cumulative noise
without unnecessarily restricting passenger, cargo or general
aviation activity. The United States government, through the
Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Ac~inis-
tration, has frequently joined in challenges to access and
capacity limitations.
The proposed paragraph 7.1 of Section 1.02 would not, on
its face, constitute a violation of any statutory or constitu-
tional provision nor would it violate the terms of the quit-
claim deed. That is to say, neither the statutes nor the terms
of the deed affirmatively require the City to spend non-airport
revenues to support the airport. However, the terms of the quit-
claim deed and the Surplus Property Act of 1944 do require the
City to maintain to the property for "...public airport uses
for the use and benefit of the public...- and to maintain the
landing area for the use and benefit of the public in "good and
serviceable condition . ,, Thus, if the effect of the pro-
posed amendment would '~e to leave the airport without suffi-
cient funds to maintain the airport and, specifically, the land~
ing areas, in good and serviceable condition, the effect would
be to force the airport to violate the Surplus Property Act of
1944 and the terms of the quit-claim deed. If, on the other
Charles Ian Nash, Esq.
February 6, 1989
Page 8
hand, the airport generates sufficient revenues without resort
to the City general fund, then the charter provision would not
render the City in violation of the deed covenants or the provi-
sions of the Surplus Property Act of 1944.
Similarly, proposed Paragraph 7.1 of Section 1.02 would
not, on its i face,, violate the provisions of the deed or the
Surplus Property Act. I do, however, have doubts as to the lega-
.lity of the delegation of this legislative function under the
Florida Constitution and the Florida Municipal ~ome Rule Powers
Act. I understand that you are researching that~issue. Although
Paragraph 7.2 would not, on its face, violate the statute or
the quit-claim deed, the effect of the amendment could well be
to force the City to violate the terms of the statute and
deed. . If, by refusing to permit borrowing funds for the main-
tenance of the airport, the airport is unable to maintain the
airport as required by the deed and Surplus Property Act, the
City runs the danger of the property reverting in accordance
with the terms of the deed and statute.
Paragraph 7.3 of Section 1.02 would, again, not-, on its
face, violate the terms of the statutes or any federal constitu-
tional provisions or the terms of the quit-claim deed. However,
once again, if the effect of the inability to seek grant monies
would be to render the City unable to properly maintain the
airport, the effect would well be to force the City to violate
the terms of the Surplus Property Act and the quit-claim deed.
Paragraph 7.4 of Section 1.02 is, in my opinion, subject
to substantial challenge on several grounds. I believe that
there are questions under the state law as to the ability of
the City to impose a $1,000.00 penalty and its ability to
require that that penalty be deposited in the general funds of
the City. However, I will leave it for you to address these
questions of state law. Under federal law, however, I believe
Paragraph 7.4 is also subject to attack. Since there has been
no noise study or study of any nature as to compatibility with
the current use of the airport, its capacity and its safety, I
believe that paragraph 7.4 would be subject to attack as
unjustly discriminatory under the Equal Protection Clause and
as an undue burden upon interstate commerce. In particular,
since the proposed Charter Amendment relates to single event
noise rather than cumulative noise impact, under the reasoning
of the Santa Monica case, the Concorde II case and the
Westchester case cited above, I think i~ i~uite likely that
Charles Ian Nash, Esq.
February 6, 1989
Page 9
the Courts would find this proposed amendment to be arbitrary
and overbroad because it is unsupported by any empirical data
to demonstrate a noise problem and to evaluate the. reasonable-
ness of the proposed limitation. To my knowledge, no studies
have been conducted to demonstrate the effect of the noise regu-
lations on air commerce and to ensure that the impact of the
regulation on air commerce is reasonable in relation.to the
noise abatement obj ec rive and nondiscriminatory as between
classes of airport users.
Paragraph 7.5 of Section 102 requires the City to adopt a
landing fee of least $5.00 per operation and includes each
"touch-and-go" as an operation. My concerns for the validity
of this proposal are similar to my concerns for Paragraph 7.4.
Once again, there has been no data generated to support this
fee as reasonable an~ nondiscriminatory. There has been, to my
knowledge, no evidence generated to justify the fee in relation
to the revenues, to be generated and the costs to be offset by
such revenue. Again, under the reasoning of the above-cited
cases, I feel the proposed Charter Amendment is subject to
attack as arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory in viola-
tion of the Equal Protection Amendment and the Commerce
Clause. Moreover, it appears to violate those provisions of
the Surplus Property Act which require that the airport be used
for "public airport purposes for the use and benefit of the
public on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimina-
tion...'' Similar provisions are, of course, contained in the
grant assura,nces above quoted which require that the airport be
available as an airport for public use on fair and reasonable
terms to all types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical and
which permit limitation only when the action is necessary for
the safe operation of the airport. Without the development of
a study to support the need for such a fee structure and to
analyze the impact of such a fee structure on various users, I
believe that the proposed amendment will not withstand a
challenge.
Paragraph 10 which is proposed to be added to Section 102
is, in my opinion, in conflict with the Surplus Property Act of
1944, as well as the provisions of the quit-claim deed. More-
over, this proposed amendment would conflict with the grant
assurances above-cited. The property was deeded by the federal
government to the City for use as an airport. When the City
was permitted to use a portion of the property as a golf
course, the Administrator permitted such use only upon the
Charles Ian Nash, Esq.
February 6, 1989
Page 10
express condition that the excess revenues be used to support
the airport. Moreover, the grant assurances require that all
revenues generated by the airport be expended by it for the
capital or operating costs of the airport and other local faci-
lities that are owned and operated by the Airport and which are
directly related to air transportation. Thus, it is my opinion
that the diversion of these revenues from the airport would be
in direct violation of the grant assurances, the quit-claim
deed, and the Surplus Property Act.
In summary, it is my opinion that the'proposed Charter
Amendments are subject to challenge upon numerous grounds.
Some of these issues could result in reversion of the airport
to the federal government. If there are legitimate noise,
safety or capacity problems to be addressed at the airport, it
is essential that the necessary evidence be gathered to analyze
the scope of these problems and to devise solutions that will
be reasonable and nondiscriminatory when balanced against the
impact of these regulations upon the aeronautical users of the
airport.
Given the
concerning the
likely, that the
restrictions and
ma nner.
WCP/cb;rsh
frequently voiced statements from the FAA
need for increased airport capacity, it seems
FAA will take action to resist any access
fee structures which are not,lanced in this
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 [] FAX (407) 589.5570
SUBJECT: GDO Negotiaions
Approved For submittal By=
city Manager
)Agenda No.
)
) Dept. of origin= city Manager
)
) Date submitted= 10/31/91
)
) For Agenda Of= 11/06/91
) Exhibitst
) - McClary Letter to GDC, Dated
) 10/31/91 with attachments
)
)
EXPENDITURE
~MOUNT
APPROPRIATION
REQUIRED=
BUDGETED:
REQUIRED:
SUMMARY,STATEMENT
On October 28, 1991 Deputy city Attorney, Richard A. Torpy and I
met with GDC representatives in Port St. Lucie to review a
proposed settlement agreement which had been prepared by GDC. In
response to this negotiating session, I have sent a letter to
Ralph (Cap) Cain, which summarizes the results of that meeting.
Of course, all parties at the negotiating session were aware that
any tentative agreement would be subject to ratification by GDC
management, the creditors committee, the bankruptcy court and the
Sebastian city Council.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Review status of GDC negotiations.
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 r~ FAX (407) 589-5570
October 31, 1991
Mr. Ralph (Cap) Cain, III
General Development Corporation
1673 Southeast Niemeyer Circle
Port St. Lucie, FL 34952
Re: Settlement Offer
Dear Mr. Cain:
This letter is in response to our settlement conference on
October 28, 1991 in Port St. Lucie. Representing GDC at this
meeting were yourself, George Kulczycki, and Steven E. Goldman
Esquire, Representing the City were Richard E. Torpy Esquire and
myself. As a result of that meeting, I have made hand written
revisions ..to Exhibit "A", Exhibit "A - 1", and Exhibit "A - 2".
There are no revisions to be made to Exhibit "B".
Exhibit "A" is to be modified as follows:
Item 1. Add, "Unit 10"
Item 2. Add, "Unit 1"
Item 3. Add, "Unit 10"
Item 4. The description of Schumann Lake, is to include both
Tract "S", Tract "R", the area covered by water, the "Island",
and all other property up to the adjacent property lines of Unit
9, Unit 16, and the GDU "Utitilies" site to the north.
Mr. Ralph (Cap) Cain, III
October 31, 1991
Page #2
5. Add, ,'Unit 11"
6. The acreage, value, etc. may change slightly as Exhibit
"A - 1" is revised.
7. Remaining "Park" land, may change as Exhibit "A - 2" is
modified.
Items 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are OK as is.
Item 13, Change Unit "2" to unit "1"
Item 14, is OK as is.
Item 15, Change Block "1" to Block "12"
Item 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 are OK as is.
Exhibit "A - 1" has two (2) additions: Tract "I" Unit 17 and
Tract "X", Unit 17. We recognize there may be additional
modifications for residential lots which may have remained
residential and not converted to drainage.
Exhibit "A - 2" has changed by deleting Tract "A" Block 409,
Sebastian Highlands Unit 9. This site was listed as ,,Park" but
was actually conveyed to GDU and GDU Facilities are in place on
this site.
other changes discussed at our meeting included:'
1. Closing costs, but no property taxes, w.ould be split 50-
-50 between GDC and the city estimated at $8,000 ($4,000 each
party).
2. "I" is in, and "N"
Unit 17.
is in, but
is out, in Sebastian Highlands,
Tract "B" is out in Sebastian
3. Tract "H"
Highlands, Unit 1.
4. Tract "R" is in, and Tract "T" is out and Tract "S"
stays in, in Sebastian Highlands, unit 16.
Mr. Ralph (Cap) Cain, III
October 31, 1991
Page #3
5. GDC will pay all taxes due on all parcels calculated
to time of closing. In exchange, GDC will be allowed to complete
road and drainage developments in Units 16 and 17 under the terms
of the 1979 agreement, which allows street and drainage
improvements to be built per the subdivision regulations at the
time of plat recordation. Additionally, should GDC replat these
portions of Unit 16 and 17, due to providing right-of-way for
Fleming Street extended or to dedicate residential lots which may
be converted to drainage tracts, GDC may develop road .and
drainage improvements under standards established in the 1979
agreement.
6. "Hardee Park" will be included in the properties deeded
to the City.
7. "Fleming Street extended" - GDC agrees to replat a
portion of Unit 16 prior to construction or, if sold, to require
the buyer to replat this portion of Unit 16 prior to
construction, to include a right-of-way to extend Fleming Street
from Chesser's Gap to the east boundary of Unit 16 (Block 517).
It is the City's intent to ultimately extend Fleming Street from
this point to U.S. #1.
I understand that Steven E. Goldman, Esq., will prepare another
draft of the settlement agreement, which will include these
changes.
Should you have questions or comments, please feel free to call
me.
Sincerely,
RSM/jmt
cc:
Richard E. Torpy, Esq. (with attachments)
Steven E. Goldman, Esq. (with attachments)
George Kulczycki, GDC, Operations Manager (with attachments)
0
r.~
Z
~ -,%
0
,-t
o
,-t
,0
,,-4
0
c)
cD 0 0 0
0
0
0 ~
0
0 o
0
$4 ,
~o
0
0
W,4£I : TO
f, HHT- B'~'.,'-.¢,0wnunlt..~ 0Ferat ions 06-1_~-91 81:14P~,1 407'_~52302,9-~ 133559Z~_ N 5 .~
"EXHIBIT A-l"
DESCRIPTION
Tract B, Unit 14
Tract C, Unit 8
Tract A, Unit 13
Tract B, Unit 13
Tract D, Unit 13
TRACTS AND LOTS CONVERTED TO DRAINAGE
(Park)
(Park)
Total Acr~ag~
7.42
8.01
3.99
10.08
26.81
Tract H, Unit 17
Tract I, Unit 17
~Unit 17
Tract M, Unit 17
Tract R, Unit 17
, 1'7
3.76
33,28
2.80
2.10
2.44
Tract S, Unit 17
~Tract O, Unit 17
i .91
8.50
111.10
Residential Lots
Unit 11, Block 555, Lots 10 to 15
Unit 11, ~lock 587, Lots 2 to 7
Unit 16, Block 545, Lots 12 to 17
Unit 16, Block 612, Lots X0 amd 11
Unit 17, Block 449, Lots 1 to 11
Unit 17, Block 451, Lots 1 to 4
Unit ~7, Block 462, Lots ll.and 12
Unit 17, Block ~70, Lots 4 to 19
Unit 17, Block 578
Unit 17, Block 579
Unit 17, Block 580
Unit 17, ~lock 582
Unit 17, Block 584
Unit 17, ~lock 586
Unit
Lo~a 1 to 16; 19 and 20
Lots 12 to 14 and 19, 20, and 21
Lots 1 to 3; 19 and 20
Lots 6 to 11 and 18 to 23
Lots 13 to 16
Lots 6, 70 8 and ~9, 20, 2!
Lots ~ and 5
Unit 17, Block 596, Lots 12 to 15 and 18 to 22
Unit 17, Block 598, Lots 14 tO 17
Total of 119 residential lots converted to
drainage .....................................
29.00
TOTAL ACREACE
140.10
"EXHIBIT A-2"
PUBLIC SERVICE ("PS") ,rRAC_~TS
Bloc
2.49i acres
Block 211 ("Park")
Block 267 ("Park")
_ Block 264 (,,park")
_ Block 300 ("Park")
SH 10- Tract A
SH 10- Tract B -
SH 10- Tract C
SM 10-
SH 11- Tract A - Block 282 ("park")
SH 11 Tract C - Block 372 ("Park")
- ("park")
SH 11- Tract D -
SH 11- Tract E - Block 347 ("Park")
SH 14- Tract B - BlOCk 507 ("Park")
SH 15- TraCt O - Block 488 ("Park")
("Park")
SH 17- Tract A -
sH 17- Tract Q ' Block 604 ("Park")
TOTAL
2.24~ acres
1.15± acres
2.27! acres
1.68i acres
4.42~ acted
3,81f acres
2.93~ acres
5.79i acres
4.62~ acres
3.55± acres
1.72! acres
47.18~ Acres
EXHIBIT "B" - ODC LIABILITIE~
CLAIM
01/29/91 03/14/91 05/21/91
CITY G.D.C. CITY
ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE
1. Unit 16 Street & Drainage
2. Unit 17 Street & Drainage
3. Elkcam Waterway (Seawall &
(Water Control Structure)
4. Wentworth Ditch - Realignment
5. Construction Contingency (10%)
6. Unit 11 Stormwater Retention
Lake (Collier Waterway) Not
Constructed
7. Emergency Reapirs To Date
8. Improperly Aligned Drainage
Ditches (Estimate)
9. Repair Englar Bridge Over
Collier Waterway in Unit 16
$ 220,700 $ 64,509
1,364,472 739,222
$ 73,700
1,364,4o0
1,531,250 230,400 1,531,250
lO3,834 - o -.- '1o3,800
322,000 - 0 - 307,000
695,10o - 0 - 695,100
15,40o 15,400 71,200
197,500 - 0 - 100,000
10,000 10,000
i0,000
TOTAL
$ 4,460,256
$ 1,059,531
4,256,450