Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 07 1989 Airport issues divide councilVolume li, Number 6 April 7, 1989 Airport El issues ■ ■ ■ ivide council By George Ricker charter amendments, relating to the airport, and to Airport issues dominated the beginning of the defend the city in any litigation arising out of the Sebastian City Council workshop Wednesday, and the adoption of those ordinances. same 3-2 split, that was evident in the last regular Kicking off the discussion of airport -related council meeting on March 22, also was apparent at matters, Votapka read a letter from Steve Johnson of this week's meeting. Sebastian Aero Services, which he had just received. Vice Mayor Robert McCarthy was joined by newly Johnson's letter explained he could not be at the elected Councilmen Lloyd Rondeau and Robert council meeting because he was out of the country on McCollum in authorizing City Manager Robb business. McClary to request proposals from local engineering It went on to note that removal of the lights on consultants to prepare plans and specifications for runway 4/22 will create a safety hazard. The runway slurry -sealing runway 4/22, striping the runway and lights were in place when he leased his property at the removing the runway lights. , airport, Johnson's letter said, and their removal would Both Mayor Richard Votapka and Councilman damage his business. Frank Oberbeck opposed the motion. The council then turned its attention to a review of The council also reviewed an ordinance that will the proposed ordinance to disband the airport advisory eliminate the airport advisory board, and scheduled it board. for first hearing at next Wednesday's regular council McClary advised the council that he would like to meeting. Other revisions were made to the ordinance, see the language in the ordinance modified to bring i which will place both the airport manager and airport the airport manager and airport director under the director under the control of the city manager, control of the city manager's office. In addition, the council discussed the hiring of special legal counsel to aid the city in drafting the ordinances, required by the recently adopted city See Airport Page 3-A Airport (from 1-A) "I think the appointment of the airport director b the City . Council is inconsistent with the city council/city manager form of government," -he said. Adding he also had concerns that the proposed ordinance might contain language that was contrary to the recently adopted charter amendment, he suggested that language might need to be modified. Furthermore, McClary said he would like to retain the flexibility to appoint an existing employee of the city as airport director, He. stated he. was not suggesting the consolidation of the airport manager and airport director. McCarthy criticized the city attorney for not changing the language of the ordinance, placing the. airport director under the control of the city manager. He.said he thought Nash had failed to follow the instructions he had been given at the March 22 council meeting. McClary disagreed. "The city attorney was instructed to draft an ordinance to eliminate the airport advisory board," he said. "I am now suggesting some other changes in the language of the ordinance." Nash explained that since the existing ordinance placed control of the airport manager with the City Council, it had seemed logical to place the airport director under the City Council's control as well. Votapka suggested the city manager and city attorney be given another week to hammer out the language of the ordinance and bring it back to the council. However, McCarthy, Rondeau and McCollum all said they felt the language could be worked out while the ordinance was before the council, and the first reading of the ordinance could be scheduled for the .next council session. "I don't see why this is taking so long," McCarthy Observed. Oberbeck noted it had taken the city much longer to accomplish other things, and he didn't see why there was suddenly such a big rush to hire an airport director. After further discussion, the language of the ordinance was modified to have the airport director and airport manager report to the city. manager and to allow McClary the flexibility to hire an existing city employee as airport director. McClary's request for authority to seek requests for proposals from consulting engineers also generated .some heated discussion from the council. He explained the City Council had originally instructed City Engineer Horry T. Johns to prepare the plans and specifications for slurry -sealing the airport runway, but since Johns was resigning his Post, McClary said he thought it appropriate to hire an engineering consultant to do the work. Votapka expressed regret over Johns' decision to y resign and apologized for not asking his opinion of applying slurry seal to runway 4/22 at the previous regular council meeting. He asked whether Johns would like to offer an opinion on the project. Johns said, "It all depends on what the council wants to accomplish..As an engineer, I am looking at life -cycle economics. Doing a slurry seal on pavement that old won't do much good. "If all you want is to do something that will last for two or three years, it may help, but it adds nothing to the structure of the runway. It is normally used when you have pavement that is in good condition." Rondeau said he had been contacted by a contractor in Vero Beach, who had suggested his firm could apply a slurry seal that met Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) specifications for $48,000 to $50,000. Saying the council was supposed to be dealing with McClary's letter, requesting authority to obtain requests for proposals from consulting engineers, McCarthy said he didn't understand why they were getting off on other issues. Oberbeck noted the council had already chosen to override the recommendation of the only engineering study that had been done on the runway and had ignored its own city engineer. ,He asked Johns what condition the ends of the runway were in. Johns said the ends f the runways were badly deteriorated, and it would do no good whatever to apply a slurry seal to them. McCarthy argued airports are inspected annually, and Sebastian's had passed all of those inspections. He added no one on the airport advisory board, or at the airport, had ever asked to have the runways paved. Airport Manager John Van Antwerp took issue with that statement. He reminded McCarthy that he had asked to have funding placed in this year's budget to have plans and specifications developed for.the overlay of runway 4/22. Van Antwerp's request was denied by the City Council during budget hearings last fall. . McCarthy said, "This was a study you were. asking foil" "No, it was to have plans and specifications . prepared so the project could be let out to bid," Van Antwerp countered. McClary noted he was asking for authority to seek proposals from consulting engineers to develop plans and specifications on applying slurry seal to the runway. He said, as part of that process, he would expect the engineer to recommend replacing any pavement on the airport runway that had deteriorated. Votapka, who is an engineer himself, said he felt, at a minimum, the City Council should authorize a consulting engineer to do a comparative study and recommend whether the city should apply slurry seal or an asphalt overlay to the runway. "We should have a study done before we begin making engineering decisions at this table," he said. "I personally think slurry seal will be a waste of money." McCarthy suggested the council give McClary the authority to go ahead. The city manager asked the council to put that in the form of a motion. He said for his own protection, and so that the direction of the council would be clear, he wanted the authorization in a motion on which there was a recorded vote. Turning to the question of hiring special legal counsel to aid the city on matters relating to the passage of the airport referendum, McClary said if it was the City Council's desire to do so, he would urge that the counsel be hired in time to aid the city in drafting the necessary ordinances. "We should have specialty legal counsel draft the ordinances, which are called for by the charter amendments," he said. McClary noted he had received a schedule of fees and a statement of qualifications from the Washington, 'D.C., law firm of Cutler & Stanfield, and had distributed that information to the members of the council prior to the.meeting. He noted the material had just been received Tuesday, and he had been unable to place in the hands of the council any earlier. McCarthy suggested the City Council review the material and place the item on next week's regular meeting agenda. The letter from Eliot Cutler notes the firm would bill the city for any expenses related to the matter in question and would charge an hourly rate of between $65 and $275 an hour. A cover letter from McClary offered this explanation of the hourly rate. "I also asked Mr. Cutler to elaborate on the range Sebastian Sun Week of April 7,1989 Pg. 3-A of rates from $65 to $275 per hour," McClary wrote. "He explained that the $65 per hour rate is for a paralegal, and that his associates range from $110 to $195 per hour. The $270-per-hour rate applies only to a partner in the firm. He estimated that the 'blended' rate would be in the neighborhood of $160 to $170 per hour." Noting that Cutler & Stanfield are not licensed to practice law in the stale of Florida, and only could represent the city in court by either receiving special permission from the court or by hiring a Florida attorney to assist with the case, Votapka suggested the city should seek proposals from attorneys who currently practice in the state. Oberbeck agreed with the mayor. He said in view of the rates quoted, he thought it would be better to seek other proposals. "These guys make almost as much as plumbers," he quipped. McCarthy said he would like the question of whether to retain the firm on the next council meeting agenda. He noted they had helped to draft the referendum language. He added he saw no need for the city to go to bid to hire an attorney. McCarthy said -he had raised that question before the previous City Council had agreed to flare Melbourne Attorney William Potter to draft an opinion, and had been told it wasn't necessary. Nash agreed with McCarthy. "The City Council should not have to go to bid to retain legal counsel," Nash said. He observed he had disagreed with the position McCarthy had stated previously, but agreed with his current position. McCarthy suggested that the city has 90 days to pass ordinances, establishing landing fees and noise limits as required by the charter amendments, and 21 of those days have already passed. "I think we should get someone on board who knows aviation law and knows the referendum," he said.