Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-13-2026 Agenda1. CALL TO ORDER 2. MOMENT OF SILENCE 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Mayor Jones 4. ROLL CALL 5. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS 6. PROCLAMATIONS, AWARDS, BRIEF ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Proclamation - National Safe Boating Week - May 17 to 23, 2026 B. Proclamation - National Public Works Week - May 17 to 23, 2026 C. Brief Announcements: Monday, May 25th - Memorial Day Observance - 11am at Veterans Memorial Monday, May 25th - City Hall will be closed to Observe Memorial Day The Council Meeting originally scheduled for Wednesday, May 27th has been rescheduled for Tuesday, May 26th at 6pm 7. PUBLIC INPUT 8. CONSENT AGENDA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 2026 - 6:00 PM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA ALL AGENDA ITEMS MAY BE INSPECTED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK OR ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE Modifications for additions require a unanimous vote of City Council Presentations of proclamations, certificates and awards, and brief timely announcements by Council and Staff. No public input or actions under this heading. The heading on Regular Meeting agendas "Public Input" provides and opportunity for individuals to bring NEW INFORMATION OR REQUESTS TO CITY COUNCIL NOT OTHERWISE ON THE PREPARED AGENDA. Individuals are asked to resolve matters with staff prior to meetings. Individuals are asked to provide copies of materials for Council one week prior to the meeting if they intend to refer to specific material. City Council will not debate an issue during Public Input but may by consensus direct a Charter Officer in regard to the item if necessary or place a requested item on a future agenda. All items on the consent agenda are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion. There 1 A. Consider Approval of April 22, 2026 City Council Minutes. B. Consider Approval of April 29, 2026 City Council Special Meeting Minutes. C. Alcohol Beverage Approval - Camarena Family D. Alcohol Beverage Approval - McNeal Family E. Consideration of Alcoholic Beverage Approval for the City operated Summer Kickoff Concert with Hot Pink at Riverview Park on June 5, 2026. 9. COMMITTEE REPORTS & APPOINTMENT 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Consideration of Ordinance O-26-03 -- Petition for Voluntary Annexation -- Second Reading, Sebastian Pines B. Consideration of Ordinance No. O-26-02 Amending Article IV (Land Use Compatibility Table) to add a PUD Mixed-Use classification; Article V (Zoning District Regulations) to create Section 54-2-5.17, Mixed-Use PUD Zoning District; and Article XX to create Section 54-4-20.8, Master Plans C. Consideration of Resolution No. R-26-18, Providing for a Voluntary Annexation Agreement and Authorize the Mayor to Execute the Appropriate Documentation will be no separate discussion of consent agenda items unless a member of City Council so requests; in which event, the item will be removed and acted upon separately. If a member of the public wishes to provide input on a consent agenda item, he/she should request a Council Member to remove the item for discussion prior to start of the meeting or by raising his/her hand to be recognized. Staff Report 04-22-2026 CC Draft Minutes Staff Report 04-29-2026 SP CC Draft Minutes Staff Report Receipt Staff Report Receipt Staff Report 2026 Summer Kickoff Concert Flyer City committee reports and Council Member regional committee reports. No public input or action except City committee member nominations and appointments under this heading. Staff Report Ordinance No. O-26-03 Business Impact Estimate Staff Analysis Applicant Voluntary Application Request Location Map Staff Report Ordinance No. O-26-02 2 D. Consideration of Ordinance No. O-26-10 -- Petition for Voluntary Annexation -- First Reading, Cresswind E. Consideration of Ordinance O-26-11 -- Amendment to Police Pension Plan (First Reading) 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 12. NEW BUSINESS A. Consideration of Employment Agreement for City Clerk B. Consideration of Change Order #3 in the amount of $59,990.00 and provide twenty-one (21) additional days for Johnson-Davis Incorporated Purchase Order number for 10940 for Gardenia St. Drainage Improvements, authorize the usage of Discretionary Sales Tax Reserve Funds and provide authorization to the City Manager to execute the appropriate documentation C. Consideration of Change Order #1 in the amount of $27,700.00 for Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc.’s Purchase Order number for 11227 for Gardenia St. Drainage Improvements Construction Engineering and Inspection services, authorize the usage of Discretionary Sales Tax Reserve Funds and provide authorization to the City Manager to execute the appropriate documentation. 13. CITY ATTORNEY MATTERS 14. CITY MANAGER MATTERS 15. CITY CLERK MATTERS 16. CITY COUNCIL MATTERS Staff Report Resolution R-26-18 Proposed Annexation Agreement Staff Report Ordinance No. O-26-10 Business Impact Estimate O-26-10 Staff Analysis Cresswind Annexation Annexation Project Narrative Location Map Staff Report Ordinance O-26-11 Pension Ord Amendment Staff Report Proposed City Clerk Agreement Staff Report Johnson-Davis Change Order 3 - PO 10940 Johnson Davis Incorporated Quote Staff Report Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson Change Order 1 - PO 11227 Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson Quote 3 Council Member Matthews Council Member Dodd Council Member Nunn Vice Mayor McPartlan Mayor Jones 17. ADJOURN (All meetings shall adjourn by 9:30 pm unless extended for up to one half hour by a majority vote of City Council). NO STENOGRAPHIC RECORD BY A CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER WILL BE MADE OF THE FOREGOING MEETING. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL, BOARD OR AGENCY WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING OR HEARING WILL 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. (F.S.286.0105) IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) OF 1990, ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY’S ADA COORDINATOR AT 388-8226 – ADA@CITYOFSEBASTIAN.ORG AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THIS MEETING Zoom Information Webinar ID: 840 5728 1111 https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84057281111 Join via audio: +1 305 224 1968 US +1 929 436 2866 US 4 Regular City Council Meetings Public input is ALLOWED under the headings: Consent Agenda Public Hearings Unfinished Business New Business Public Input Public input is NOT ALLOWED under the headings: Proclamations, Awards, Brief Announcements (except for individuals giving or accepting proclamations or awards) Committee Reports and Appointments (except for committee members giving reports and applicants being interviewed for committee appointments) City Council Matters Charter Officer Matters Council may, by majority vote, call upon an individual to provide input if desired. Workshops and Special Meetings Public input is limited to the item on the agenda Time Limit Input on agenda items where public input is permitted on agendas is THREE MINUTES; however, City Council may extend or terminate an individual’s time by majority vote of Council members present. Input Directed to Chair Speakers shall address the City Council IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO CITY COUNCIL DELIBERATION of the agenda item and ALL INPUT SHALL BE DIRECTED TO THE CHAIR, unless answering a question of a member of City Council or City staff. Individuals shall not address City Council after commencement of City Council deliberation on an agenda item after public input has concluded, providing, however, the Mayor and members of City Council may recall an individual to provide additional information or to answer questions. Certain Remarks Prohibited Personal, impertinent, and slanderous remarks, political campaigning, and applauding are not permitted and may result in expulsion from the meeting. The Chair shall make determinations on such remarks, subject to the repeal provisions below. Appealing Decisions of Chair Any member of Council may appeal the decision of the Chair to the entire Council. A majority vote of City Council shall overrule any decision of the Chair. Public Input Heading on Agenda The heading on Regular Meeting agendas “Public Input” provides an opportunity for individuals to bring NEW INFORMATION OR REQUESTS TO CITY COUNCIL NOT OTHERWISE ON THE PREPARED AGENDA. Individuals are asked to attempt to resolve matters with staff prior to meetings. Individuals are asked to provide copies of material for Council one week prior to the meeting if they intend to refer to specific material. City Council will not debate an issue during Public Input but may by consensus direct a Charter Officer in regard to the item if necessary or place a requested item on a future agenda. 5 CITY OF SEBASTIAN CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE May 13, 2026 TO Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU Brian Benton, City Manager FROM Cathy Testa, Acting City Clerk SUBJECT Consider Approval of April 22, 2026 City Council Minutes EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft minutes of the April 22, 2026 City Council Minutes are presented for review. RECOMMENDATION Request changes if necessary. Consider approval of minutes. ATTACHMENTS: 1. April 22, 2026 Draft City Council Minutes FUNDING SOURCE: Expenditure required Amount Budgeted: Funding source N/A N/A N/A Additional Funds Needed: $ 0.00 6 7 . • • • 8 9 • • • • . 10 11 12 13 14 __________________________________ ____________________________________ 15 CITY OF SEBASTIAN CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE May 13, 2026 TO Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU Brian Benton, City Manager FROM Cathy Testa, Acting City Clerk SUBJECT Consider Approval of April 29, 2026 City Council Special Meeting Minutes EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft minutes of the April 29, 2026 City Council Special Meeting Minutes are presented for review. RECOMMENDATION Request changes if necessary. Consider approval of minutes. ATTACHMENTS: 1. April 29, 2026 Draft City Council Special Meeting Minutes FUNDING SOURCE: Expenditure required Amount Budgeted: Funding source N/A N/A N/A Additional Funds Needed: $ 0.00 16 17 18 CITY OF SEBASTIAN CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE May 13, 2026 TO Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU Brian Benton, City Manager FROM Ron Paul, Parks and Recreation Administrative Asst. SUBJECT Alcohol Beverage Approval – Camarena Family EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Camarena Family is having a Birthday Party at the Sebastian Community Center on July 11, 2026 and they are requesting permission to serve alcoholic beverages. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval ATTACHMENTS: 1. Payment Receipt FUNDING SOURCE: Expenditure required Amount Budgeted: Funding source N/A N/A N/A Additional Funds Needed: 19 20 CITY OF SEBASTIAN CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE May 13, 2026 TO Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU Brian Benton, City Manager FROM Ron Paul, Parks and Recreation Administrative Asst. SUBJECT Alcohol Beverage Approval – McNeal Family EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The McNeal Family is having a Baby Shower at the Sebastian Yacht Club on May 30, 2026 and they are requesting permission to serve alcoholic beverages. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval ATTACHMENTS: 1. Payment Receipt FUNDING SOURCE: Expenditure required Amount Budgeted: Funding source N/A N/A N/A Additional Funds Needed: 21 22 CITY OF SEBASTIAN CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE May 13, 2026 TO Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU Brian Benton, City Manager FROM Ron Paul, Parks and Recreation Administrative Asst. SUBJECT Alcohol Beverage Approval – Summer Kickoff Concert at Riverview Park EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Sebastian will be hosting the Summer Kickoff Concert June 5, 2026 from 6pm until 9 pm. The performers will be the band Hot Pink. There will also be food and dessert trucks. Staff is seeking authorization to have a vendor sell alcohol (beer). RECOMMENDATION Consider authorization to allow the sale of alcohol at the June 5, 2026 Summer Kickoff Concert. ATTACHMENTS: Event Flyer FUNDING SOURCE: Expenditure required Amount Budgeted: Funding source N/A N/A N/A Additional Funds Needed: 23 24 CITY OF SEBASTIAN CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE May 13, 2026 TO Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU Brian Benton, City Manager FROM Alix Bernard, Community Development Director SUBJECT Consideration of Ordinance O-26-03 – Petition for Voluntary Annexation – Second Reading, Sebastian Pines EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In accordance with Florida Statute 171.044 governing voluntary annexations, the property owners—represented by Mr. Will Collins—have requested annexation of approximately 204 acres into the City of Sebastian. The subject site is generally located south of 77th Street, east of 74th Avenue, north of 73rd Street, and west of 66th Avenue. Applications for a Future Land Use designation of Very Low Density Residential and a Planned Unit Development (PUD) residential zoning classification were submitted concurrently. These applications are proceeding following the completion of the annexation process. At first reading, Council requested the inclusion of a whereas clause in the ordinance; staff has incorporated this revision. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Ordinance O-26-03 on second reading. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance No. O-26-03 2. Business Impact Estimate 3. Staff Analysis 4. Applicant Voluntary Application Request 5. Location Map FUNDING SOURCE: Expenditure required Amount Budgeted: Funding source 25 N/A N/A 26 1 ORDINANCE NO. O-26-03 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION FOR LAND CONSISTING OF 204 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, LOCATED SOUTH OF 77TH STREET, EAST OF 74TH AVE, NORTH OF 73RD STREET AND WEST OF 66TH AVE; PROVIDING FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE CORPORATE LIMITS AND BOUNDARIES THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER’S ERRORS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the owners of the real property in unincorporated Indian River County, contiguous to the existing corporate limits and boundaries of the City of Sebastian, and reasonably compact, petitions the governing body of the City of Sebastian to be voluntary annexed into the municipality; and WHEREAS, the Sebastian City Council of the City of Sebastian, Florida finds and determines that the annexation of said parcels is in the best interest of the City; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. PROPERTY. The following described property now lying and being in unincorporated area of Indian River County, Florida, is hereby annexed into the corporate limits of the City of Sebastian, Florida and the boundary lines of said City are hereby redefined to include said real property as shown on “Exhibit 1” containing 204 acres, more or less. Section 2. LAND USE AND ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS. Land use and zoning classifications shall be consistent with the provisions of state law. Section 3. FILING. A certified copy of this ordinance shall be filed with the Clerk of Court, as well as the Chairman of the County Commission of Indian River County, Florida and with the Florida Department of State within seven days of adoption. Section 4. NOTICE. Notice of this ordinance has been posted in accordance with Section 171.044, Florida Statutes. Section 5. SCRIVENER’S ERRORS. Sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered or re- lettered and corrections of typographical errors which do not affect the intent may be authorized by the City Manager, or the City Manager’s designee, without need of public hearing, by filing a corrected or re- codified cop y of same with the City Clerk. Section 6. CONFLICT. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its adoption by the City Council. 27 2 Section 7. SEVERABILITY. In the event a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold or determine that any party of the Ordinances is invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional, the remainder of the Ordinance shall be invalidated and it shall be presumed that the City Council of the Ci ty of Sebastian did not intend to enact this ordinance without such invalid or unconstitutional provisions. Section 8. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its adoption by the City Council. The foregoing Ordinance was moved for adoption by Councilmember ___________________. The Motion was seconded by Councilmember __________________ and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Mayor Fred Jones _______________ Vice Mayor Bob McPartlan _______________ Councilmember Sherrie Matthews _______________ Councilmember Ed Dodd _______________ Councilmember Christopher Nunn _______________ The Mayor thereupon declared this Ordinance duly passed and adopted this _____ day of ______________, 2026. CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA By: _________________________ Fred Jones, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________ Catherine E Testa Acting City Clerk Approved as to form and legality for reliance by the City of Sebastian only: ______________________________ James Stokes, Esq. City Attorney 28 3 Exhibit 1 Tract 2, less the north 75 feet; Tract 3, less the west 173.30 feet and the north 75 feet; Tract 4, less the east 183.19 feet of the north 1206.27 feet, less the south 50 feet of the east 235.37 feet, less the west 100 feet and the north 75 feet; Tract 5, less the west 868.87 feet of the north 577.44 feet of the south 607.44 f eet, less the west 100 feet, and also less the south 30 feet thereof; Tracts 6 and 7, less the south 60 feet. 29 4 30 1 | P a g e Business Impact Estimate This form should be included in the agenda packet for the item under which the proposed ordinance is to be considered, and must be posted on the City’s website by the time notice of the proposed ordinance is published. ORDINANCE NO. O-26-03 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION FOR LAND CONSISTING OF 204 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, LOCATED SOUTH OF 77TH STREET, EAST OF 74TH AVE, NORTH OF 73RD STREET AND WEST OF 66TH AVE; PROVIDING FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE CORPORATE LIMITS AND BOUNDARIES THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER’S ERRORS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City is of the view that the following exception(s) to the Business Impact Estimate requirement apply that are checked off in a box below apply to the above referenced proposed ordinance, although the City is implementing the procedure required by statutory law to ensure that no inadvertent procedural issue could impact the enactment of the proposed ordinance. ☐ The proposed ordinance is required for compliance with Federal or State law or regulations; ☐ The proposed ordinance relates to the issuance or refinancing of debt; ☐ The proposed ordinance relates to the adoption of budgets or budget amendments, including revenue sources necessary to fund the budget; ☐ The proposed ordinance is required to implement a contract or an agreement, including, but not limited to, any Federal, State, local, or private grant, or other financial assistance; ☐ The proposed ordinance is an emergency ordinance; ☒ The proposed ordinance is enacted to implement the following: a. Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, relating to growth policy, county and municipal planning, and land development regulation s; b. Sections 190.005 and 190.046, Florida Statutes, regarding community development districts; c. Section 553.73, Florida Statutes, relating to the Florida Building Code; or 31 2 | P a g e d. Section 633.202, Florida Statutes, relating to the Florida Fire Prevention Code. In accordance with the provisions of controlling law, even notwithstanding the fact that, an exemption noted above may apply, the City hereby publishes the following information: 1. Summary of the proposed ordinance (must include statement of the public p urpose, such as serving the public health, safety, morals, and welfare): Ordinance O-26-03 proposes a voluntary annexation for land consisting of 204 acres, more or less, located south of 77th Street, east of 74th Avenue, north of 73rd Street, and west of 66th Avenue. By adopting Ordinance O-26-03, orderly residential development for this property will be in accordance with the regulations and processes found in the Land Development Code. 2. Estimate of direct economic impact of the proposed ordinance on private, for -profit businesses in the City: A current, Agricultural Zoning District, located in the unincorporated jurisdiction of Indian River County, will be allowed to be developed into a residential subdivision within the city limits of the City of Sebastian, offering favorable economic impact to a developer. 3. Estimate of direct compliance costs that businesses may reasonably incur: There will be no direct compliance costs to any business from the adoption of Ordinance O-26-03 as its purpose is to annex for specific properties. 4. Any new charge or fee imposed by the proposed ordinance: No new charge or fee 5. Estimate of the City’s regulatory costs, including estimated revenues from any new charges or fees to cover such costs: No regulatory costs or revenues will be generated from adoption of the Ordinance 6. Good faith estimate of the number of businesses likely to be impacted by the proposed ordinance: Developer, contractor and all subcontractors, suppliers, etc. 32 3 | P a g e 7. Additional information (if any, but may wish to include the methodology used to derive information for #1 and #2, above. For example: City staff solicited comments from businesses in the City as to the potential impact of the proposed ordinance by contacting the chamber of commerce, social media posting, direct mail or direct email, posting on City website, public workshop, etc. You may also wish to include efforts made to reduce the potential fiscal impact on businesses based on feedback from businesses. You may also wish to state here that the proposed ordinance is a generally applicable ordinance that applies to all persons similarly situated (individuals as well as businesses) and, therefore, the proposed ordinance does not impose costs only upon businesses.): No additional information 33 April 1, 2026 Re: Sebastian Pines – Voluntary Annexation Request The property owners have requested a voluntary annexation into the City of Sebastian.The subject property consists of 204 acres, more or less, located south of 77th Street, East of 74th Ave, north of 73rd Street and West of 66th Ave. The subject property i s currently vacant agricultural land in unincorporated Indian River County (IRC), contiguous to the existing corporate limits and boundaries of the City of Sebastian. The applicant has requested a very low density residential future land use designatio n which is consistent with the city’s adopted Future Land Use Element of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The property currently maintains an active agricultural use so the zoning will remain as Agriculture A-1 until such time as conceptual planning has been completed for the property. A Statement of Impact and Concurrency Analysis has been submitted by the applicant as Attachment “A”. STAFF FINDINGS 1. A petition for annexation has been executed by the owners of the subject property and is consistent with Chapter 171 F.S. The property has been found to be coterminous with a part of the boundary of the municipality. “The separation of the territory sought to be annexed from the annexing municipality….a right-of-way for a highway, road, railroad, canal, or utility; or a body of water, watercourse, or other minor geographical division of a similar nature, running parallel with and between the territory sought to be annexed and the annexing municipality, shall not prevent annexation under this act, provided the presence of such a division does not, as a practical matter, prevent the territory sought to be annexed and the annexing municipality from becoming a unified whole with respect to municipal services or prevent their inhabitants from fully associating and trading with each other, socially and economically”. The proposal is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. A. Objective 1-2.4: Annexation Studies. Consistent with Objective 1-2.2 and its related policies, the City acknowledges a need to prevent urban sprawl and disjointed urban service delivery systems. The result of adjacent properties along the same corridor being governed by two different sets of development regulations is more likely to result in a lack of coordination leading to poor urban design and a corridor that does not function as well as it should. In addition, The City desires to develop a plan for managing annexation of unincorporated enclaves, the annexation reserve areas a s well as fringe areas adjacent to the City, especially for potential economic centers within the incorporated areas. 34 B. Analysis of Area in accordance with Comprehensive Plan Data, Inventory, and Analysis A conceptual development plan has been presented that proposes Very Low Density Land Use which meets the requirements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Land Development Regulations will provide for final determination of densities and intensities allowed within the proposed development at time of site planning. C. Fiscal Impact Analysis. A fiscal analysis of the proposed project reflects the potential annual net fiscal gain to the City at final buildout = $208,000(in 2025) dollars. D. Concurrency Analysis: Level of Service (LOS) impacts have been addressed as part of the annexation request and change in Future Land Use. 1) Transportation: The applicant has provided a transportation facilities analysis which clearly depicts the amount of daily trips projected once the proposed development is complete. 2) Utilities: Indian River County is the public utility provider and utilities will be provided in accordance with the existing interlocal agreement between the City of Sebastian and Indian River County. Public utilities are available to this s ite with available capacity. 3) Drainage: The property is controlled by the Indian River Farms Water Control District (IRFWCD) and conceptual plans show additional stormwater ponds throughout the development. 4) Recreation: The proposed conceptual plan shows 1.93 acre public park plus walking trails which will meet the required 2.74 acre requirement for recreation 5) Environmental Protection: An Environmental Assessment has been provided by the applicant. Open space requirements will be defined during site plan development 2. The proposal will not have an adverse impact on the public health, safety, or welfare of the city or region. 3. The property’s legal description requires a review by the City surveyor prior to final approval. Prepared by: Alix Bernard Date: April 1, 2026 35 Sebastian Pines P a g e | 1 Justification Statement Annexation & Future Land Use Amendment SEBASTIAN PINES PROJECT NARRATIVE-ANNEXATION STUDIES Request(s): Annexation and Large-Scale Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment Submittal: June 20, 2025 APPLICATION REQUEST On behalf of the Applicant, TCGFL Sebastian Pines, LLC, we respectfully submit this application for a voluntary Annexation and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment (Large Scale) for the project known as Sebastin Pines. The subject property is a 204.42-acre site, comprised of thirty-three (33) parcels, located north of 73rd Street, south of 77th Street and east of 74th Avenue in unincorporated Indian River County, contiguous to the existing corporate limits and boundaries of the City of Sebastian. The subject site can be identified by the Property Appraisers records under following property control numbers: The subject property has an Indian River County future land use designation of Agricultural-1, 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres (“AG-1”) and is in the Agricultural-1 zoning district, up to 1 unit per 5 acres (“A-1”). The subject property is undeveloped agricultural land which is currently being used for grazing cattle. In accordance with City of Sebastian Comprehensive Plan 2040 Policy 1-2.4.1, submitted with the Annexation is Future Land Use Map Amendment application to amend the future land use designation for the subject property to City of Sebastian Very Low Density Residential - 3 du/ac (“VLDR”), in order to achieve consistency with the City’s Future Land Use Element of the adopted Comprehensive Plan 2040. A Rezoning application is also forthcoming to rezone the subject property to City of Sebastian Residential Planned Unit Development- (“PUD-R”) zoning district. Provided with the application is a Conceptual Development Plan. The proposed plan of development includes 612 single- family lots, with varying lot widths, and will emphasize open space, lakes, and community amenities to ensure a high quality of life for all residents. 32390600002000000001 32390600002000000012 32390600003000000008 32390600002000000009 32390600002000000002 32390600002000000013 32390600003000000009 32390600002000000010 32390600002000000003 32390600002000000014 32390600003000000010 32390600002000000011 32390600002000000004 32390600002000000015 32390600003000000011 32390600003000000005 32390600002000000005 32390600003000000001 32390600003000000012 32390600003000000006 32390600002000000006 32390600003000000002 32390600003000000013 32390600003000000007 32390600002000000007 32390600003000000003 32390600003000000014 32390600001005000001.0 32390600002000000008 32390600003000000004 32390600003000000015 32390600001003000002.0 32390600001004000001 36 Sebastian Pines P a g e | 2 Justification Statement Annexation & Future Land Use Amendment Project Location Graphic As part of this request, the Applicant is providing an Annexation Study in accordance with Objective 1-2.4, including statements on Impact on Public Facilities and Services, Fiscal Analysis, Environmental Impacts, Compatibility with City’s Comprehensive Plan and Compatibility with Surrounding Areas. A Conceptual Development Plan is also provided, supporting the application (Exhibit J). REVIEW CRITERIA This application requests the annexation of the subject property to incorporate from the jurisdiction of Indian River County into the City of Sebestian. With the annexation, a request is made for the subject property to apply the City’s Future Land Use of Very Low Density Residential. The Annexation application is in compliance with Statutory Requirements (Florida Statutes (F.S.) Chapter 171.044, Voluntary Annexation) and consistent with the applicable Objectives and Policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Objective 1-2.4: Annexation Studies. Consistent with Objective 1-2.2. and its related policies, the City acknowledges a need to prevent urban sprawl and disjointed urban service delivery systems. The result of adjacent properties along the same corridor be ing governed by two different sets of development regulations is more likely to result in a lack of coordination leading to poor urban design and a corridor that does not function as well as it should. In addition, The City desires to develop a plan for managing annexation of unincorporated enclaves, the 37 Sebastian Pines P a g e | 3 Justification Statement Annexation & Future Land Use Amendment annexation reserve areas as well as fringe areas adjacent to the City, especially for potential economic centers within the incorporated area. Policy 1-2.4.1: Parameters of the Annexation Studies. The City of Sebastian may require an analysis for areas considered for annexation incumbent upon the property’s complexity and based on the following: • Property owners requesting voluntary annexation will provide an annexation study unless an annexation study covering the same area has previously been completed; Response: Provided herein is an Annexation Study along with supporting documentation for the voluntary annexation request. • A future land use map amendment application will be required to be submitted concurrently with annexation requests over a land area size of greater than 10 acres; Response: A future land use map amendment application has been submitted concurrently which requests an amendment of the subject property from County AG-1 to the City’s future land use designation of Very Low Density Residential. A City of Sebastian annexation study may include but is not limited to: • Review and evaluation of Indian River County land development forecasts within the unincorporated urban area together with supportive documentation; • Analysis of area to be annexed of incorporated enclaves and subareas within the unincorporated urban area, including: ▪ Population and housing; ▪ Parks and recreation facilities; ▪ Traffic circulation system; ▪ Water and wastewater service; ▪ Stormwater facilities/Drainage; ▪ Natural water basins; ▪ Level of Service analysis; and ▪ Impact of development on state and federally listed protected species. • Protect urban population and employment trends and estimate land area required to accommodate projected residential and nonresidential activities; • Analysis of proposed land uses to determine achievement of comprehensive plan goals of sustainable land use mix; • Analysis and determination of impacts to municipal and County services including police & fire protection, utilities, transportation, parks, recreation etc., to meet standards outlined in the Comprehensive Plan; and/or • Fiscal impact analysis and determination of future capital improvements to meet such basic services such as police protection and utilities. 38 Sebastian Pines P a g e | 4 Justification Statement Annexation & Future Land Use Amendment Response: Included with this Justification Statement are the following contents in accordance with the annexation studies requirements which support the request for annexation and a future land use redesignation of Very Low Density Residential (3 du/ac). Statement 1.0 Impact on Public Facilities and Services 2.0 Fiscal Analysis 3.0 Environmental Impacts 4.0 Compatibility with City’s Comprehensive Plan 5.0 Compatibility with Surrounding Areas Attachments Exhibit A Project Narrative – Annexation Study Exhibit B Property Appraiser Cards Exhibit B Warranty Deeds Exhibit D Legal Description Exhibit E Consent Forms (Ownership) Exhibit F Applicant Entity Information Exhibit G Project Location Map Exhibit H Existing & Proposed FLUA Maps Exhibit I Existing & Proposed Zoning Maps Exhibit J Conceptual Development (Master) Plan Exhibit K IRC 2045 Cost Feasible Roadway Plan Exhibit L Transportation Facilities Analysis Exhibit M Environmental Assessment Exhibit N Survey Exhibit O Compliance with Annexation Exhibit P Fiscal Impact Analysis 1.0 Impact on Public Facilities and Services Located east of 74th Avenue, between 73rd and 77th Street, the subject site is situated in a location which supports urban development. The subject site has access to the necessary road network (existing and planned thoroughfare roads), and existing water and sewer utilities and existing drainage facilities to accommodate the proposed development. A Conceptual Development Plan has been prepared and is provided with this application. The proposed plan of development consists of 612 single-family lots with varying lot widths, a walking trail pathway providing access to multiple lakes with overlooks, a ~2-acre park and a ~6-acre amenity center. Assuming an average resident household of 2.24 residents, buildout population is projected at 1,370 residents (i.e. 2.24 residents x 612 households). Access to the site is provided via 73rd Street and 77th Street, with a functional street network provided within the community to include rights-of-way and pedestrian sidewalks. A community amenity center is proposed near the main entrance on 77th Street, along with passive parks, a 39 Sebastian Pines P a g e | 5 Justification Statement Annexation & Future Land Use Amendment public park, and a trail network that provides access to a multitude of lakes with scenic overlooks. The perimeter of the site will include 30-foot landscape buffers on all sides, and other landscape areas are planned within the site. The project will also dedicate right-of-way along 73rd Street. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, Transportation & Mobility Element, and the Governance & Implementation Element establish standards for Concurrency management and specifically, standards for Transportation, Potable Water, Wastewater, Drainage and Recreation. Level of Service standards for these facilities are defined in Sec. 54-3.9.7 of the City’s Land Development Code, and specifies that adequate provisions for these services are necessary to support new development. Provided herein is an analysis that supports that adequate traffic, utilities, drainage, and other facilities either exist or are planned in the vicinity of the site. Transportation The applicant contracted Traffic and Mobility Consultants (TMC) to conduct a Transportation Facilities Analysis for a land use plan amendment within the City of Sebastian. Below are the findings of their study: • The proposed future land use change would result in a net increase of 4,509 daily trips, of which 340 trips occur during the AM peak hour and 473 trips occur during the PM peak hour. • An analysis of existing conditions indicates that the segment of 66th Avenue from 69th Street to CR 510 currently operates in excess of its adopted capacity; however, roadway construction widening to a 4-lane facility began in 2023 and will be complete bef ore project initiation. The result of this roadway construction will mitigate the increase in trips generated from this development. • An analysis of projected conditions at the Interim Year 2029 reveals that the segment of CR 510 from 66th Avenue to 58th Avenue is projected to operate in excess of its adopted capacity under the base and proposed conditions. Widening to 4 -lanes is identified as the MPO’s #2 priority project in the 2025 Draft List of Priority Projects (LOPP) and right- of-way acquisition and construction are programmed. • An analysis of projected conditions at the Horizon Year 2045 reveals that, with the planned widening improvements, all roadway segments are projected to operate within their adopted capacity under the base and proposed conditions. • The MPO’s #6 priority project is the extension of 82nd Avenue from 69th Street to CR 510. This new road would alter distribution patterns and be a benefit to the existing transportation network. • The proposed development of the site will undergo additional review through the development process, where roadway capacity, traffic operations, access, and intersection capacity will be further evaluated in accordance with the requirements of the development approval process. The proposed development will be required to address off-site impacts through the City of Sebastian, Indian River County, and the Florida Department of Transportation. 40 Sebastian Pines P a g e | 6 Justification Statement Annexation & Future Land Use Amendment Provided with this application is the Cost Feasible Plan Map, from the 2025 Indian River County Long Range Transportation Plan (Exhibit K). Water Service and Utility The subject site shares its western boundary along 74th Avenue with the Graves Brothers property, which also marks the edge of the Urban Service Boundary in this part of the County. The project is bounded by 77th Street to the north and 73rd Street to the south. Through recent annexations and PD-TND (Planned Development – Traditional Neighborhood Design) approvals, the Urban Service Area Boundary has expanded westward from 66th Avenue to 90th Avenue in this region of the County. If this annexation is approv ed by the City Council, utilities will be provided by Indian River County pursuant to an existing Interlocal Agreement between the City of Sebastian and Indian River County. Potable Water Service and Capacity Analysis Indian River County currently has a 24-inch water transmission main at the intersection of 66th Avenue and 77th Street. The point of connection for the proposed development would be at the northeast corner of this intersection. Numerous coordination meetings have been held with the Indian River County Utility Department regarding the extension of potable water service to the subject site. The preferred alignment is to extend the County water main south along 66th Avenue to 73rd Street. From there, the water main would run west along 77th and 73rd Street to the subject site to create a looped system. IRC Potable Water Capacity The County currently has a permitted water treatment capacity of 20.1 MGD (million gallons per day), although the existing Consumptive Use Permit (CUP) allows for a groundwater allocation of 12.84 MGD ADF (average daily flow). The County has recently obtai ned a modification to the CUP, increasing the allocation to 16.23 MGD to meet projected demand through 2033. Indian River County’s public water system consists of two geographic service areas —North County and South County—each served by its own water treatment plant. According to Chapter 3B, Potable Water Sub-Element, of the County’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the two plants are interconnected, allowing either to serve the other’s service area as needed. Current and Projected Water Demand Calculations ▪ Current County Demands: 6,060,000 GPD ▪ Current Commitments Against Capacity: 232,000 GPD ▪ Total County Demands: 6,292,000 GPD ▪ Proposed Sebastian Pines Demands (612 units x 250 GPD): 153,000 GPD ▪ IRC Public Water System Current Capacity: 16,230,000 GPD ▪ Excess Capacity Including Sebastian Pines Residential Demands: 9,785,000 GPD 41 Sebastian Pines P a g e | 7 Justification Statement Annexation & Future Land Use Amendment Based on the referenced data, we believe the County’s potable water capacity is sufficient for the estimated demands anticipated by Sebastian Pines Residential Subdivision. Wastewater Service and Capacity Analysis Indian River County currently operates sewer facilities located just east of 66th Avenue at 77th Street. The proposed project will be serviced by these existing facilities. The preferred alignment for utility extension is to extend the County's sewer force main west along the public right-of-way of 77th Street to the subject site. IRC Wastewater Capacity The project will be served by the Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, which provides wastewater treatment for the portion of the mainland generally bounded by I -95 to the west, 69th Street to the north, the Indian River Lagoon to the east, and the City of Vero Beach and 26th Street to the south. The plant is located north of 49th Street in the unincorporated community of Gifford. Within the County system, the Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant is interconnected with the North County Regional Plant. Additionally, there is a limited connection to the West Regional Plant. These interconnections provide flexibility in determin ing which facilities may need to be expanded to accommodate future demand. Current and Projected Wastewater Demand Calculations: ▪ Current County Demand: 2,253,000 GPD ▪ Proposed Sebastian Pines Demand (612 units x 250 GPD): 153,000 GPD ▪ IRC Public Wastewater System Current Capacity: 4,000,000 GPD ▪ Excess Capacity Including Sebastian Pines Residential Demand: 1,594,000 GPD Before any site development approval, the City’s Land Development Regulations require evidence that adequate public facility capacity exists to support the proposed development. The Indian River County Department of Utility Services (IRCDUS) has adopted and enforces an impact fee program to ensure the long-term provision of adequate levels of service. According to Ordinance: "The fee is charged to real property owners to fund the capital cost incurred by the water and wastewater utility to provide capacity to serve new utility customers." Current Impact Fees: . ▪ Sewer: $2,796.00 per ERU ▪ Water: $1,300.00 per ERU ▪ Total Estimated Impact Fees for Project (612 ERUs): ($2,796.00 + $1,300.00) x 612 = $2,506,752 42 Sebastian Pines P a g e | 8 Justification Statement Annexation & Future Land Use Amendment In addition to impact fee payments, IRCDUS requires developers to construct and fund all necessary utility extensions to the site, including all on-site infrastructure. Once completed, the utility infrastructure must be conveyed to the County for ownership and maintenance. Stormwater Facilities: The property lies entirely within the Indian River Farms Water Control District (IRFWCD), a Chapter 298 special district responsible for managing stormwater through the operation and maintenance of a gravity-based water control system. Established under Chapter 298 of the Florida Statutes, the IRFWCD provides primary drainage and stormwater management for approximately 54,000 acres in southeastern Indian River County, Florida. The district’s system functions by gravity flow, using canals and related infrast ructure to regulate water levels and convey stormwater. The site borders the east side of the Range Line Canal. Sub -lateral G-6 runs along the northern edge of the property, while Sub-lateral A-14 borders the southern edge. Both sub laterals discharge into Lateral G, which ultimately flows into the Indian River Lagoon via the North Relief Canal. Stormwater requirements are outlined in Chapter IX (Concurrency Management) of the City’s Land Development Code and include: 1. Post-development runoff must not exceed pre-development runoff for a 25-year, 24- hour storm event. 2. The first one inch of rainfall must be retained and treated on-site. At the time of site plan submittal, all projects are reviewed for compliance with both local and state stormwater standards. These standards include requirements for on -site retention, pollutant control, preservation of floodplain storage, and adherence to minimum finished floor elevations. The proposed development must also meet discharge criteria established by the City, IRFWCD, and the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), the regional agency responsible for environmental permitting. As a result, any future development on the site must maintain pre -development discharge rates and pollutant levels. The entire property lies within FEMA-designated Flood Zone X, which is located outside the 100-year floodplain. The IRFWCD enforces more stringent post-development runoff limits than the city, capping discharge at a maximum of two inches of runoff in a 24 -hour period. This provides an added level of stormwater control beyond the City’s requirements. Before development approval, the City requires confirmation that the project, once built and operational, will comply with all applicable regulations. The City also administers a stormwater management program to ensure long-term system performance. As part of this program, the site will be subject to an annual stormwater impact fee, assessed through the property tax bill. The City of Sebastian, through Resolution No. R-24-41 adopted in August 2024, requires all residences to pay a stormwater utility fee. This fee is authorized under Section 102 -125 of the 43 Sebastian Pines P a g e | 9 Justification Statement Annexation & Future Land Use Amendment City of Sebastian’s Code of Ordinances and is established as a non -ad valorem assessment, collected by the Indian River County Tax Collector and included on the annual property tax bill. The fee is based on an Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) rate of $14.00 per month. Since the proposed project is intended to include 612 units, the expected annual stormwater utility fee revenue is approximately $102,816 (612 units × $14.00/month × 12 months/year). Recreation The City’s goal is to provide well planned, active and passive recreation and open spaces ensuring a comprehensive system of parks, recreational facilities, and open space that meets the health, safety and welfare needs of City residents and visitors and w hich enhances the natural environment of the City. Policy 6-1.1.1 Table 6-1 includes the Level of Service Standards for Neighborhood and Community Park and Recreation Facilities including 2 -acres of Neighborhood Park and 2-acres of Community Park for every 1,000 residents in the City. Per Table 6-9 of the Recreation and Open Space Element, existing supply of Neighborhood Parks is 3.04 acres per 1,000 residents and existing supply of Community Parks is 2.19 acres per 1,000 residents. Per the Comprehensive Plan, supply is currently meeting demand. Based on the projected population of 1,370 for the proposed development, the onsite demand for Neighborhood and Community Parks using City standards is 2.74-acres. The proposed Conceptual Development Plan contains a 5.98-acre amenity center, a 1.93-acre public park, and 55 acres of lakes with scenic overlooks connected by an internal trail system. These types of facilities, along with additional events and programs, will likely meet the recreation demands of the residents based on the recreation standards listed in Table 6 -10 of the Comprehensive Plan. In accordance with Policy 6-1.17, the City will enforce provisions for the mandatory dedication of land for parks and recreation or fees in lieu thereof for all development with new dwelling units. This fund is used to finance new capital improvements and manage and operate existing facilities. The estimated recreation fee collected by the City for the proposed development project is a one-time fee of $975 per unit. 2.0 Fiscal Analysis The proposed annexation of 204 acres into the City of Sebastian and amendment to the future land use designation of Very Low Density Residential will have a positive Fiscal Impact upon the various governmental entities in Indian River County. This study represents an analysis of the planned development of approximately 205 acres of vacant property located in the unincorporated area of Indian River County that may be annexed into the City of Sebastain. The development of 612 single-family residential units known as Sebastain Pines (“Project”) has the potential to generate substantive, incremental fiscal impacts for the city. The following reflect summary of findings: 44 Sebastian Pines P a g e | 10 Justification Statement Annexation & Future Land Use Amendment Expected Fiscal Impacts ▪ At build out, the Project would be expected to substantively increase the value of real property in the City if annexed. Total market value (Just Value) and taxable value would be expected to increase by 6.1% and 9.8%, respectively. ▪ Current market conditions and Florida’s property tax law would be expected to contribute to the Project’s significantly higher taxable value per capita. At build out, the Project would be expected to result in an increase in taxable value and property taxe s per capita of nearly 2-times the City’s current average. ▪ Even accounting for higher (conservative) annual capital expenditure requirements for the Project, the City would be expected to generate a fiscal surplus of $208,000, each and every year after build-out. ▪ Over a 30-year period, annexation of the Project would be expected to generate a present value fiscal surplus of more than $6,200,000 (present value). Introduction In Florida, population growth has long been an essential part of expanding economic opportunities for existing and future residents. Whether these opportunities start with the creation of new households that stimulate demand for new businesses or vice versa, the most critical decisions should center on if sufficient public infrastructure and services are available to serve both. “Economic Development” as a concept is measured in jobs and income but most importantly reflects a community’s overall quality of life that is only maintained with sufficient public (fiscal) resources to meet existing and future needs. Therefore, understanding fiscal outcomes assists communities with assessing the potential benefits on concepts of an overall “quality of life” – employment growth, the nature of jobs, economic welfare, community income and wealth, and public infrastructure and services. The primary purpose of this analysis was to estimate the fiscal impacts of developing a single -family subdivision on approximately 205 vacant acres that may be annexed into the City. Fiscal Impact Methodology Methods for calculating fiscal benefits can vary widely and there is arguably no industry standard model. However, a common approach can be described as a per person or “per capita” method. The theory behind a per capita method suggests that new businesses or residential development that attracts new employment or population growth will generally have a consistent impact based on public service needs per person or per employee. New residential development, at a basic level, is expected to generate revenues and costs at the same rate, creating the same levels of service being provided to existing residents. Assuming that new businesses or residential development creates service needs more or less than current residents can represent a bias in the information used to make important policy decisions. Thus, rates of revenues and costs can be derived for governmental units using a per capita measure as the common denominator. The fiscal impact approach involves a modified per capita approach to determine potential operating and capital costs using planned population, expected employment, and the expected relationships between households and individuals working in their place of re sidence versus 45 Sebastian Pines P a g e | 11 Justification Statement Annexation & Future Land Use Amendment working in another area. While this method can still be referred to as the “per person” or per capita approach, it uses a Full-time Equivalent (“FTE”) population. Using this modified per capita method, expected population (household population, establishme nt employment, and visitors) are converted to an FTE using a 24-hour, 7-day period representing a “full-time” person impacting the potential demands for operating and capital needs. Thus, a person residing in a home located in the City and working at a business located in the City represents a full-time person or 1.0 FTE. Whereas someone residing in a home located in the City and working outside the City represents less than a full-time person or 0.74 FTE (see Table 1). FTE population is intended to reflect the annual, permanent demands on services and infrastructure as opposed to peak demands. As a result, the estimated FTE factor for non - resident workers or visitors declines based on the assumed time spent within the Ci ty relative to a resident that both works and lives in the City – theoretically creating a full unit of demand for annual, permanent services and infrastructure. For example, as illustrated in Table 1, a day visitor, someone living in another part of the state or another county, spending 4 hours within the City has an FTE factor equal to 0.0005 or 4 hours divided by 8,763 hours. This can also be expressed as 2,184 day-visitors equal the equivalent of 1 resident that also works in the City. On the other hand, a hotel-visitor with a 5-day stay has an FTE factor of 0.01 or approximately 73 hotel-visitors equal to 1 full-time resident. The effects of both hotel- and day-visitors on the calculation of FTE populations is based on the mix of these populations, resu lting in an average number of hours as opposed to the exact values in Table 1. The FTE population model only indirectly accounts for seasonal populations that are different from hotel- and day-visitors, which also occur on a seasonal basis. Seasonal residency or “snowbirds” is a common factor in the difference between population per total housing unit and population per occupied housing unit. There will always be a natural rate of vacancy in housing because of market timing in home sales and household formation. While a vacancy rate in some jurisdictions can be higher because of a lar ger snowbird effect, it is more conservative when calculating fiscal impacts to exclude an assumption regarding a proportion of seasonal housing units. 46 Sebastian Pines P a g e | 12 Justification Statement Annexation & Future Land Use Amendment One of the more important benefits of a modified per capita approach is that revenues and costs do not need to be allocated between residential and non -residential uses. The sum of FTE population reflects a common factor with which revenues and costs can b e divided and applied back to specific uses based on the underlying population (household population, establishment employment, and visitors). For example, a single -family unit would generate the equivalent cost per FTE based on the observed population per household adjusted for how many are employed and their place of work (i.e. within the City or outside the City). In addition, a hotel use would generate the equivalent cost per FTE based on the number of establishment employment and visitors, adjusted for their FTE equivalency. Existing Revenues and Spending Per FTE Providing public sector services and infrastructure is accomplished on the basis of not -for-profit management of economic and financial resources. And each year, governmental agencies or organizations prepare for meeting service and capital needs with a bu dget that balances revenues and spending – in other words, allowable annual spending equals expected revenues. These annual budgets, however, do not reflect expected income (profit or losses) in the same way as for-profit enterprises. The annual budgetary process can make understanding the marginal impacts of new population or new development a challenge. The main challenges are as follows: 1. The use of transfers between funds to accommodate “fund accounting” reporting, 2. The use of cash balances in funds as revenues and cash forward as expenses to balance the budget, 3. The recognition of capital as an expense in the year funds are expended, and 4. The recognition of debt proceeds as revenue to also balance capital expenditures. It is very important to address these challenges when conducting fiscal impact analysis. In addition to the annual budgetary process, every governmental organization in the U.S. prepares an Annual Financial Audit or Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (formerly referred to as a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report or CAFR). While the format s and contents can vary slightly, these reports present the financial statements of the governmental entity, as well as important analysis tools like management's discussion and analysis (“MD&A”) and notes to the financial statements similar to private ind ustry. Annual Financial Audits present financial information for accounts for the financial position of the government as a whole. As required, governmental units use modified accrual accounting for their statements contained in the Annual Financial Audit and include reconciliations explaining how they made the switch from cash-basis accounting (i.e., annual budgeting) to the modified accrual basis they report. Most importantly, governmental units are required to present their consolidated financial statements in the Annual Financial Audit that essentially mimic for-profit financial statements. In particular, the Statement-of-Activities for a not-for-profit organization is equivalent to an Income Statement for a for-profit enterprise. A significant difference between this reporting and 47 Sebastian Pines P a g e | 13 Justification Statement Annexation & Future Land Use Amendment budget reporting is the treatment of capital infrastructure and equipment. On a cash -basis, capital costs are recognized within the year funds are expended. If the City spends funds to build a new City Administration building, for example, that expense is a capital item in the same year and it is generally funded through some combination of current revenues, existing cash balances, and debt proceeds or exclusively with debt proceeds. As a result, the cash -basis is faulty because it places the full burden of past and future capital needs1, funded using past and future revenues, in a single current fiscal period. The Statement -of-Activities only recognizes current revenues and accounts for capital on a depreciation and amortization basis. Thus, it matches capital spending with the life cycle of the asset. This fiscal impact analysis utilizes these governmental Statements -of-Activities to correct for the challenges with governmental budgeting and fund accounting, especially capital spending. Our position is that the reported revenues and expenses (modified cash-basis), divided by FTE population, provide the best measure of the incremental impacts from new development and new population given the existing financial structure of the City. Using Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2024 audited financial statements from the City’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (“ACFR”), Table 2 provides the current fiscal costs and revenues on a per FTE basis for all general government activities for the City. Appendi x A provides detailed calculations of City costs and revenues per FTE. 48 Sebastian Pines P a g e | 14 Justification Statement Annexation & Future Land Use Amendment In FY 2024, all general government activity (excluding business -type activity) for the City reflected an average annual gross operating cost per FTE of $888, including annual capital requirements of $114 per FTE. Capital requirements are reflected in terms of depreciation, amortization, and interest on long-term debt versus capital expenditures, consistent with the Statement-of-Activities in the ACFR. This approach more appropriately aligns cost with the life cycle of assets. For example, a building built by the City 30 years ago that is still serving the community today would still be accounted for in our analysis because its average service life is generally 50 years or more. However, the capital expenditure for that building would not be recognized, especially if its debt is paid off. Off-setting total costs, the current2 revenue sources contributed an average of $903 per FTE. As a result, the City is currently operating at a fiscal surplus of $15 per FTE or $384,000 annually (i.e., a positive contribution to net position from operations). It is important to note that this calculated surplus is based on our modified-cash accounting versus annual budgeting, so the City has a financial structure of revenues and expenditure needs that is contributing to an increase net position each year but may not necessarily realize the same increase in cash each year. This analysis does not include capital grants an d contributions (e.g., impact fees) of $5,156,156. Considering this source of revenues which is used to accommodate actual capital expenditures (not depreciation) results in a increased change in net position for the City of $5,540,644 according to the ACFR (see Appendix A). This fiscal analysis is not a reconciliation of funds and fund balances, but an estimate of annual net fiscal surplus/(deficit) on an operating basis for governmental activities. This is the current basis from which types of new development will be measured using assumptions for FTE population and various ad valorem revenue models as a baseline. Raftelis’ approach to fiscal analysis also treats business -type activities (e.g., airport, golf course) as a net transfer “below the line”, if applicable. In other words, because these activities are generally profit centers and, in theory, run like a busi ness where prices are set to meet or exceed operating and capital, a majority of these types of activities provide positive net income or negative net income. The rationale is that it is reasonable to assume that new development will generate the same excess (or deficit) business-type activity revenues on a per capita basis as existing development but is contained solely within that enterprise fund. Florida Property Valuation The intent of “just valuation” (“Just Value”) under the laws of the state of Florida is to reflect a value for real property that is equivalent to a fair market value (“FMV”). Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) Revenue Ruling (“Rev. Rul.”) 59-60, 1959-1, C.B. 237, along with Treasury Regulations § 25.2512–1 and § 20.231-1 defines Fair Market Value as: “The value of the property is the price at which such property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell, and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts.” IRS Rev. Rul. 59-60 further states… 49 Sebastian Pines P a g e | 15 Justification Statement Annexation & Future Land Use Amendment “…in addition, that the hypothetical buyer and seller are assumed to be able, as well as being willing, to trade and to be well informed about the property and concerning the market for such property.” Fair Market Value as defined for this report therefore includes the following assumptions: 1. A hypothetical buyer and seller are both willing, and thus interested in the transaction, and are able to enter into a transaction, implying a hypothetical buyer has sufficient funds and seller has sufficient rights; 2. A hypothetical buyer is prudent, implying a rational buyer, and is considered to be a “financial” and not a “strategic” buyer; 3. Even though a willing buyer and willing seller are hypothetical, they are presumed to be dedicated to achieving their individual maximum economic advantage, but absent any compulsion to buy or sell; 4. Both parties are assumed to understand the industry and other economic conditions and their effects on the subject property in a sale of a majority ownership in the subject property; 5. A hypothetical buyer is assumed to represent an independent third party; and 6. A hypothetical sale will be for cash. Fair Market Value is considered the appropriate standard of value because it reflects the value of the subject property as if traded freely in a competitive and open market between independent parties. In arriving at just valuation as required under s. 4, Art. VII of the State Constitution, the Volusia County Property Appraiser shall take into consideration the following factors (emphasis added): 1) The present cash value of the property, which is the amount a willing purchaser would pay a willing seller, exclusive of reasonable fees and costs of purchase, in cash or the immediate equivalent thereof in a transaction at arm’s length; 2) The highest and best use to which the property can be expected to be put in the immediate future and the present use of the property, taking into consideration the legally permissible use of the property, including any applicable judicial limitation, local or state land use regulation, or historic preservation ordinance, and any zoning changes, concurrency requirements, and permits necessary to achieve the highest and best use, and considering any moratorium imposed by executive order, law, ordinance, regulation, resolution, or proclamation adopted by any governmental body or agency or the Governor when the moratorium or judicial limitation prohibits or restricts the development or improvement of property as otherwise authorized by applicable law. The applicable governmental body or agency or the Governor shall notify the property appraiser in writing of any executive order, ordinance, regulation, resolution, or proclamation it adopts imposing any such limitation, regulation, or moratorium; 3) The location of said property; 4) The quantity or size of said property; 50 Sebastian Pines P a g e | 16 Justification Statement Annexation & Future Land Use Amendment 5) The cost of said property and the present replacement value of any improvements thereon; 6) The condition of said property; 7) The income from said property; and 8) The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for unconventional or atypical terms of fin ancing arrangements. When the net proceeds of the sale of any property are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determination of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any other parcel under the provisions of this section, the property appraise r, for the purposes of such determination, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds attributable to payments for household furnishings or other items of personal property. The method for indicating a Just Value for all property within a county generally involves a process of valuing a universe of properties as of a given date using standard methodology, employing common data, and allowing for statistical testing (“Mass Appraisal”). It would not be realistic for a Property Appraiser to develop individual appraisals for each parcel of improved or vacant land – there are nearly 95,000 parcels in Indian River County alone. Thus, Mass Appraisal is a process required to more manageably appraise a very large set or properties. Mass Appraisal can also have the effect of creating consistency among property classes and reducing minute individual variances that may be observed in some market transactions. For example, it is common to leverage a statistically significant number of market transactions for a residential subdivision that qualify as arms-length to indicate a FMV per square foot and apply that value to all properties within that same subdivision based on like size, configuratio n, construction quality, etc. The consistent application of observed market transactions for like property is common in appraisal practice. Generally, because residential properties can account for 80 -90% of the universe of vacant and improved parcels, they are highly homogeneous, and represent a significant volume of qualified sales, Mass Appraisal is a very effective appraisal process for the residential, home - owner market. The opposite of the same reasons above (i.e., only 10 -20% of parcels, highly unique, and limited market transactions that could be used to define a specific class of non - residential property), can make a Mass Appraisal process less effective for non -residential or for-rent residential property. This is especially evident in situations where new development does not have an existing market precedent. For the purpose of this analysis, we have valued the proposed Project consistent with the requirements of Florida Statutes using a market approach based on expected market prices (weighted) of approximately $415,000. The resulting total FMV or Market Value for the proposed Project is reasonably estimated at $253,000,000 for the bundle of property values (i.e., structure and land). Because of the timing lag that is generally observed within a Mass Appraisal process, this analysis assumes that the total Just Value assigned by the County after build-out would total $240,000,000 or 95% of Market Value (in constant 2025 dollars). 51 Sebastian Pines P a g e | 17 Justification Statement Annexation & Future Land Use Amendment Sebastain Pines Net Fiscal Calculation Table 3 provides calculated FTE population for the City and the Project based on expected uses at build-out (see Appendix A). Using a fiscal impact methodology as described above covering both potential general - government operating and capital costs needed to support the build-out of the Project, it is estimated that the Project would contribute an annual surplus each and every year of $208,000 (in constant 2025 dollars) to the City (see Table 5). This fiscal surplus is net of increases in annual operating and capital requirements to serve the new residents, employees, and visitors. Expected annual revenue generated from ad valorem taxes alone is greater than the value of expected increases in operating and capital requirements. *Note: Population estimates for the purpose of fiscal impact analysis differ than planning analysis. The City currently has roughly 11% vacant housing units (American Community Survey). Therefore, the current ratio of household population per housing unit in the City is 2.0 and the ratio of household population per occupied housing unit is 2.24 (used for planning purposes). It is more conservative in calculating fiscal impacts to assume a 0% vacancy rate for the proposed project at build-out and a per household population of 2.50. In addition, it is more likely that the new population base would reflect a more working-age population where overall City demographics include a higher portion of retired population. 52 Sebastian Pines P a g e | 18 Justification Statement Annexation & Future Land Use Amendment The main factor contributing to the positive fiscal impact of the Project is taxable property value per FTE. The strong positive contribution from property taxes compared with existing values is a result of the higher price points of the proposed development, current market conditions, and current property tax law (i.e., Florida’s Save -Our-Homes). Generally, the development of average residential products in the City today are significantly greater than the average market value of existing residential products that was built earlier (see Figure 1). 53 Sebastian Pines P a g e | 19 Justification Statement Annexation & Future Land Use Amendment Roughly 95% of the City’s tax base (Just Value) comes from the residential market. In addition, nearly two-thirds (65%) of all single-family homes in the City that have a current homestead tax exemption were built before 2004. As a result of Florida’s tax laws, those properties generate a significantly lower taxable value per home compared with new development, especially the proposed Project. Some of the market value differences are a result of larger residential units (in terms of square feet) and increases in land costs for new development. Which directly translates into higher retail prices for new residential units compared with existing products. However, property tax law does contribute a greater portion to taxable value differences. The proposed Project is therefore expected to contribute a significantly higher ratio of taxable property value per FTE compared with the existing City average. As a result, the Project is expected to generate an increase in taxable property value nearly 2 -times greater than the increase in FTE population (see Table 5). Under the premise that existing households (on a per-person basis) would require no more or no less operating and capital needs than those households proposed for the Project, this observed relationship between property value alone implies a significant positive fiscal impact would be expected. Registered Municipal Advisor Disclosure The preceding information in the financial analysis section was prepared by Raftelis for the purposes on analyzing the fiscal impact of annexing the subject site into the City of Sebastian. Raftelis is a Registered Municipal Advisor within the meaning as defined in Section 15B (e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder (Municipal Advisor Rule). However, except in circumstances where Raftelis expressly agrees otherwise in writing, Raftelis is not acting as a Municipal Advisor, and the opinions or views contained herein are not intended to be, and do not constitute “advice” within the meaning of the Municipal Advisor Rule. 54 Sebastian Pines P a g e | 20 Justification Statement Annexation & Future Land Use Amendment 3.0 Environmental Impacts An Environmental Impact Assessment Study prepared by Jennifer Acevedo at Aquatic Research Monitoring, Equipment and Deployment, LLC, was completed on the ~204-acre subject property, consisting of thirty-three (33) parcels located S of 77th Street and N of 73rd Street, to be Annexed into the City of Sebastian, Indian River County, FL, Section 06, Range 39E, Township 32S. On site uplands consist of unimproved pasture and an active orchard, both non -native upland habitat types. The City of Sebastian would not appear to have a specific upland preservation requirement. One (1) jurisdictional isolated pasture/agricultural wetland was observed on the subject property. A wetland delineation was performed in concert with this assessment and limits have been verified by St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) through the formal process (Permit Number FWD- 91036-3). Per the results of the formal determination the onsite wetland is isolated and under 0.5 acres in size. Per the Applicants Handbook Volume I, isolated wetlands under 0.5 acres in size do not require state mitigation for impacts nor demonstration of avoidance and minimization of impacts. Trees meeting the City of Sebastian standards as protected and specimen trees are present on the site. A protected tree survey will be required as part of the site’s land clearing plan. Protected and specimen trees can be used to fulfill landscaping requirements. No listed flora species were observed within the limits of the subject property. An FFWCC compliant gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) survey was conducted. Zero (0) gopher tortoise burrows were observed. Wildlife transects indicated no other listed species dens, nests, burrows, or roosting areas. The subject property contains OSW’S. These waterbodies would not appear suitable for wood stork forage. A review of St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) e-permitting online database indicates three (3) active and two (2) expired permits for the subject property. The full results and analysis of the Environmental Impact Assessment Study are included with this submittal as Exhibit M. 55 Sebastian Pines P a g e | 21 Justification Statement Annexation & Future Land Use Amendment 4.0 Compatibility with City’s Comprehensive Plan Approval of the annexation and redesignation to the City’s future land use designation of Very Low-Density Residential Development (“VLDR”), would result in a development which would be compatible with surrounding areas and will be compatible with the City’s long -term objectives and goals adopted in its Comprehensive Plan. The subject site consists of abandoned citrus groves which are now used for cattle grazing, that is no longer sustainable. Annexation and redesignation to the VLDR future land use designation provides the flexibility to allow the site owner to develop, and the City of Sebastian to provide additional housing options. Furthermore, the subject site is adjacent ±2,044-acres of land within the City of Sebastian, known as the Graves Brothers Property, with a mixed-use future land use designation including Commercial General, Commercial Limited, Industrial, Medium Density Residential, Low Density Residential, Very Low Density Residential and Conservation. Annexation of the subject site is a logical extension of the city limits and consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan objectives and goals. The following references are in direct support of annexation and the future land use amendment to the VLDR future land use designation: In accordance with Policy 1-1.1.1: Future Population. The City shall designate sufficient lands necessary to accommodate at a minimum the projected residential population growth and supporting non-residential development based on the medium population projections through the planning period. Policy 1-1.2.1 - Very Low Density Residential Development (“VLDR”). Areas designated as Very Low Density can accommodate up to 3 dwelling units per acre (“du/ac”) and shall be comprised of primarily single-family detached homes on individual lots. The Applicant has submitted an application to annex and amend the Future Land Use Map to include a future land use designation of VLDR for the 204.42-acre subject site. Based on the 204.42-acre site and a proposed future land use designation of VLDR which allows up to 3 du/ac, the subject property allows for 1613 units. The Conceptual Development Plan provided with this application proposes 612 units, or 3.0 du/ac, which is below the maximum allowance. The proposed development will include single-family detached homes on individual lots. Policy 1-4.1.3 – Land Use Trends. The City shall continue to monitor and evaluate population and lands use trends. Trends in the magnitude, distribution, and characteristics of population and land use shall serve as indicators of possible changes in land use needs. The policy implications of major trends in land use characteristics shall be evaluated on a continued basis. Land use policy shall be refined as needed in order to remain responsive to evolving problems and issues. Pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan (2040), the City was an established fishing center when it incorporated as the City of Sebastian in 1924 and is currently the largest municipality in Indian 56 Sebastian Pines P a g e | 22 Justification Statement Annexation & Future Land Use Amendment River County. According to the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR), Sebastian’s official population estimate as of 2020 is 25,658 residents that live within approximately 8,392 acres. The City’s location along the coast an d attractive amenities have made it a desirable community which has experienced continued population growth. According to the US Census Bureau, the median age in Sebastian is 53 and the median household income in the City of Sebastian is $52,243 with appro ximately 12.7% of individuals below the federal poverty rate. Sebastian’s future population growth is projected to be 34,567 residents by the year 2040 with an average growth rate of 8%. This is a population gain of about 8,909 people in the next 20 years. The City’s projected growth will continue to provide development and redevelopment opportunities for the City. The below Comprehensive Plan graphics include City Population Projections (Figure 1-3) which documents the projected increase in population through 2040 and Age Groups (Figure 1-4) data which projects the highest population growth within the age group of 65 or older. 57 Sebastian Pines P a g e | 23 Justification Statement Annexation & Future Land Use Amendment The proposed plan of development for the subject property includes 612 single-family lots, with varying lot widths, and will emphasize open space, lakes, and community amenities to ensure a high quality of life for all residents. Approval of the annexation and future land use amendment will provide housing opportunities to support the projected population increase. Table 3-3 below lists households according to the number of persons comprising a household in Sebastian and in Indian River County. 58 Sebastian Pines P a g e | 24 Justification Statement Annexation & Future Land Use Amendment Pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan (2040) Housing Element, the average household size is 2.24 people per dwelling unit according to the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR). The projected population for the proposed 612-unit development is 1,370 people based on the average household size of 2.24 people per dwelling unit. Consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Transportation & Mobility Element Goal 2-1, the subject site lies strategically in a loca tion of several existing and proposed thoroughfare roads and will provide a favorable access off of 73rd Street and 77th Street, that will allow residents to conveniently access or leave the area with little risk of delays or hindrances, and most importantly, both City and Indian River County Emergency Services will have three access points to serve the site. As outlined in the Transportation Facilities Analysis (Exhibit L), traffic impacts were based on the most intense allowable use under the existing and proposed future land use categories. For the existing future land use, Wholesale Nursery was used. For the proposed future land use, Single-Family Detached (612 units or 3 du/ac) was used. The proposed future land use is projected to result in a net increase of 4,526 daily trips, with 340 trips during the AM peak hour and 473 trips during the PM peak hour. The 2045 Cost Feasible transportation network is projected to operate at acceptable levels of service , and the project meets the requirements for traffic concurrency. 5.0 Compatibility with Surrounding Areas The subject site is boarded by the City of Sebastian on its west property line and share a border with a mixed-use property known as Graves Brothers. It is surrounded on its north, south and east sides by lands lying in Indian River County with an Agricultural (AG -1) future land use designation. 59 Sebastian Pines P a g e | 25 Justification Statement Annexation & Future Land Use Amendment The properties surrounding the subject site consist primarily of large lot single family residences and pasture lands, and the properties to the south are occupied by abandoned citrus groves and large lot single-family residences. Immediately to the west is the Graves Brothers property, an approximately ±2,044-acre Planned Development project comprised of multiple future land use designations including General Commercial, Commercial Limited, Industrial, Institutional, Medium Density Residential, Low Density Residential, Very Low Density Residential, and Conservation. The presence of this development provides a transition from the very low density on east to higher density to west. Additionally, the future roadway and utility infrastructure improvements associated with the addition of those lands into the City of Sebastian further enhance the subject sites compatibility with surrounding land use. It is evident that urban and suburban development has affected the areas agricultural viability, making the project site’s land less desirable and more difficult to operate successful agricultural ventures. Recent development and plans for road construction (and development) within the general vicinity provide evidence that urban development is encroaching within this once predominantly agricultural area, supporting the idea of land annexation into the City of Sebastian. CONCLUSION Based on the statements and analysis provided herein, along with the Exhibit attachments, the City can conclude that the requested annexation and Very Low Density Residential future land use designation is compatible with surrounding areas, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, meets concurrency criteria, will have no negative impact on environmental quality, will have a positive fiscal impact on the City, and meets all applicable Future Land Use Map amendment criteria. 60 LOCATION MAP SEBASTIAN PINESNORTH SUBJECT SITE GRAVES BROTHERS PROPERTY CITY OF SEBASTIAN PIONEER ORCHARD LLC PROPERTIES PIONEER ORCHARD LLC PROPERTIES JSP LAND LLC PROPERTIES AKBARIAN ORANGE GROVE LLC PROPERTIES 61 CITY OF SEBASTIAN CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE May 13, 2026 TO Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU Brian Benton, City Manager FROM Alix Bernard, Community Development Director SUBJECT Consideration of Ordinance O-26-02 – Amending Article IV (Land Use Compatibility Table) to add a PUD Mixed-Use classification; Article V (Zoning District Regulations) to create Section 54-2-5.17, Mixed-Use PUD Zoning District; and Article XX to create Section 54-4-20.8, Master Plans. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY An application has been submitted requesting the creation of a new zoning classification, Mixed Use – Planned Unit Development (PUD), to be added to the Land Development Regulations. This classification is intended to establish a regulatory framework specifically for mixed-use PUD projects. The proposed regulations include provisions for design guidelines, conceptual development plans, permitted and conditional uses, dimensional standards, minimum living area requirements, as well as screening, buffering, and required amenities. The application also proposes new procedures for the review and processing of Master Plans, which are typically associated with large-scale developments constructed in multiple phases over an extended period. The proposed language establishes a clear and consistent framework for the evaluation and approval of such developments, as the current Land Development Regulations do not address the Master Plan review process. At first reading, Council directed staff to revise the minimum acreage requirement from 100 acres to 400 acres and to modify the ordinance language to incorporate the term “shall” for greater clarity and enforceability. These revisions have been incorporated into the ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Ordinance O-26-02 on second reading. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance No. O-26-02 62 FUNDING SOURCE: Expenditure required Amount Budgeted: Funding source N/A N/A 63 ORDINANCE NO. O-26-02 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, AMENDING LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE IV LAND USE COMPATIBILITY TABLE INSERTING PUD MIXED USE CLASSIFICATION; ARTICLE V ZONING DISTRICTS REGULATIONS TO INCORPORATE A NEW SECTION 54-2-5.17 TO BE KNOWN AS MIXED-USE PUD ZONING DISTRICT; AND AMENDING ARTICLE XX, TO INCORPORATE A NEW SECTION 54- 4-20.8 TO BE KNOWN AS MASTER PLANS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND REPEAL OF LAWS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER’S ERRORS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Sebastian previously adopted the City of Sebastian Land Development Code which contains regulations relevant to the development of land in the City Limits; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Element of the City of Sebastian’s Adopted Comprehensive Plan Highlights encouraging mixed-use development and increased densities and intensities; and WHEREAS, the City of Sebastian’s Local Planning Agency reviewed the proposed amendment on April 2, 2026, and made a recommendation of approval to the Sebastian City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has the responsibility and authority pursuant to the City’s home rule powers as a municipal corporation of the State of Florida to determine uses that are suited for particular zoning categories and land use categories within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds the adoption of this Ordinance is in the public interest by serving to promote and protect the public health, safety, and welfare and otherwise serves a municipal purpose. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Adoption of Recitals/Advertising. The above recitals are hereby adopted as true, correct and found to be the legislative intent of the City Council of the City of Sebastian. Further, all advertising and public notice requirements have been timely made. Section 2. Textual Amendment. That the Land Development Code, City of Sebastian, Florida, is hereby amended as follows: 64 ARTICLE IV. – LAND USE COMPATIBILITY Sec. 54-2-4.2 – Future land use map (FLUM) designations and zoning districts. Table 54-2-4.2 "Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Designations and Compatible Zoning Districts" references adopted FLUM designations contained in the land use element of the City of Sebastian Comprehensive Plan and identifies corresponding zoning districts which are hereby established in order to implement the FLUM designations, respectively. TABLE 54-2-4.2(1) FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATIONS AND COMPATIBLE ZONING DISTRICTS Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Designation Corresponding Compatible Zoning Districts C Conservation C: Conservation VLD Very Low Density Residential RE-40: Residential Estate RS-20: Single-Family Residential RS-10: Single-Family Residential PUD-R: Residential Planned Unit Development LDR Low Density Residential RS-20: Single-Family Residential RS-10: Single-Family Residential PUD(R): Residential Planned Unit Development MDR Medium Density Residential RM-8: Medium Density Multiple- Family Residential RM-10: Medium Density Multiple- Family Residential PUD(R): Residential Planned Unit Development 65 MH Mobile Home Subdivisions R-MH: Mobile Home Subdivisions PUD-MH Mobile Home Planned Unit Development C- 512 Commercial CR-512 Corridor C-512: C-512 Commercial District CL Limited Commercial CL: Commercial Limited PUD(C): Commercial Planned Unit Development CG General Commercial CG: Commercial General PUD(C): Commercial Planned Unit Development MU: Mixed Use RMU Riverfront Mixed Use CR: Commercial - Riverfront CWR: Commercial Waterfront Residential RM-8: Medium Density Multiple- Family Residential PUD(R): Residential Planned Unit Development PUD(C): Commercial Planned Unit Development MU: Mixed Use MU Mixed Use MU: Mixed Use PUD(MU): Mixed Use Planned Unit Development CG: Commercial General PUD(C): Commercial Planned Unit Development RM-8: Medium Density Multiple- Family Residential RM-10: Medium Density Multiple- Family Residential PUD(R): Residential Planned Unit Development CL: Commercial Limited IN: Limited Industrial PUD(I): Industrial Planned Unit Development 66 IN Industrial IN: Limited Industrial AI Airport and Industrial Facilities PUD(I): Industrial Planned Unit Development HI Heavy Industrial IN: Limited Industrial HI: Heavy Industrial PUD(I) Industrial Planned Unit Development INS Institutional PS: Public Service CON: Conservation NOTE: (1) Manufactured housing is permitted in all residential districts within the city if the units comply with the following standards: 1. City's adopted building code; 2. State mandated criteria governing construction in coastal areas; 3. State of Florida buildings standards of F.S. chapters 320 and 553; and 4. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards of 1974 (i.e., F.S. § 320.823) The official zoning map may correct drafting and clerical errors or omissions in the prior official zoning map, but no such corrections shall have the effect of amending the code or any subsequent amendment thereto without duly noticed public hearings as provided herein. When any official zoning map is replaced, the prior map or any significant parts thereof remaining shall be preserved together with all available records pertaining to its adoption and amendment. (Ord. No. O-22-04, § 1, 5-25-2022) ARTICLE V. – ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS Sec. 54-2-5.17. Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (PUD-MU). a) Intent. The PUD-MU District is established to provide specific regulations governing the development of mixed -use planned unit developments in areas designated for mixed-use development on the comprehensive plan future land use map. The district provisions establish a voluntary management framework for negotiating innovative development concepts, which protect natural features and provide abundant amenities designed to benefit the City as well as the specific development. All planned unit developments shall be designed and administered consistent with the criteria, administrative procedures, and all other applicable provisions of this Code. 67 b) Compliance with comprehensive plan and future land use map. A mixed-use PUD shall comply with the provisions of the City’s Comprehensive Plan Policy 1-1.3.6 and the criteria set forth in this section c) Design Guidelines and Conceptual Development Plan. A mixed-use PUD shall require the creation of Design Guidelines establishing a regulatory framework for a project vision, unified design principles, list of uses, dimensional regulations, landscape requirements, and streetscape standards among other guidelines governing the site-specific development. The Design Guidelines shall be approved concurrently with the PUD zoning and in conjunction with conceptual development plan requirements in section 54-4-20.2. A Master Plan shall be provided, along with conceptual development plan for each phase, and approved with the Design Guidelines as part of the PUD zoning process described in Article XX. The approved Master Plan will establish the PUD zoning designation as established in section 54-4-20.8. d) Location and size. The subject property is a minimum of 400 acres. e) Land use mix. A mixed-use PUD shall consist of a mix of uses including a minimum of 40% of the gross acreage as non-residential uses and a maximum of 60% of the gross acreage as residential uses, provided that open space requirements shall be satisfied. This requirement shall not apply to lands which are subject to Objective 1-1.7 within the Comprehensive Plan. The specific land use mix within a PUD-MU District development shall be determined by and consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan Mixed Use Land Use designation. f) Town Center. A mixed-use PUD shall provide a Town Center area. The Town Center(s) within a mixed-use PUD shall be designed consistent with the provisions of the Design Guidelines. e) Permitted and Conditional uses. A mixed-use PUD shall include a use matrix within the Design Guidelines to specify the complete list of uses permitted, permitted with supplemental conditions, and prohibited within the site-specific development. Each Pod site plan application shall designate an underlying zoning classification to provide development standards which may not be addressed within the Design Guidelines. g) Dimensional regulations. A mixed-use PUD shall include Design Guidelines establishing specific dimensional regulations to be applied in assessing density, intensity, and other size and dimension requirements for site-specific development. The Design Guidelines shall include the below elements as well as those determined to be appropriat e by the City during review of the PUD zoning and conceptual development plan. 1) Maximum density. The comprehensive plan land use designation shall govern the maximum density permitted. 68 2) Maximum FAR. The comprehensive plan land use designation shall govern the maximum intensity permitted. 3) Maximum height. Buildings shall not exceed a maximum height of thirty- five (35) feet, as calculated pursuant to this Code. Steeples, silos, windmills, ventilators, water tanks, cupolas, other appurtenances usually required to be placed above the roof level, and structures not intended for human occupancy or use may exceed this height limitation by up to 20% with the prior approval of the City staff. Additional building height may be granted by City Council buildings provided as part of the City’s identified targeted industries as found in the Economic Development element of the Comprehensive Plan. 4) Lot coverage and open space. The maximum lot coverage and minimum open space requirements shall be established within the Design Guidelines for each land use type proposed within a mixed-use PUD. 5) Minimum lot size. The minimum lot size, lot width, and lot depth shall be established within the Design Guidelines for each land use type proposed within a mixed-use PUD. 6) Minimum setbacks. All development must comply with requirements for setbacks from wetlands and open waters established in this Code. In order to promote flexibility in the layout and design of a mixed-use PUD, the Design Guidelines shall establish appropriate minimum setbacks which clearly conform to the land use compatibility and open space policies in the comprehensive plan and are consistent with the performance criteria of this Code. Similarly, all setbacks shall be consistent with adopted fire code and standard building code. 7) Minimum living area. The minimum living area provided within each dwelling unit shall be established in the Design Guidelines; however, the minimum living area shall not be less than 900 square feet. 8) Frontage and accessibility. Every dwelling unit or other use permitted in the PUD-MU District shall have access to a public right-of-way or street either directly or via an approved private driveway, private street, pedestrian way, court, or other area dedicated to public use or private use or common element guaranteeing access. 9) Screening of mechanical equipment, utility hardware, and waste storage areas. In the PUD-MU District, all central refuse, trash and garbage collection containers, and above-ground infrastructure shall be screened from sight of adjacent roadways to the greatest extent possible or located in such a manner that will comply with the provisions of this Code or as further regulated by the Design Guidelines. 69 10) Signs. Signs in the PUD-MU District shall be permitted in accordance with the applicable regulations of the Code as supplemented within the Design Guidelines and an approved master sign plan. If deviations are proposed from the standards of Article XVI, the Design Guidelines and master signage plan shall provide for effective sign controls on the type, height, number, size and location of signs in the development and shall be designated to minimize sign proliferation and maximize the architectural integration of all signs into the development. h) Recreation. A mixed-use PUD shall provide parks and recreational lands consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code with a minimum of two (2) acres of publicly accessible recreation lands per 1,000 residents and a minimum of two (2) acres of other recreational lands per 1,000 residents based on the City’s average persons per household as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. Publicly accessible lands shall be designated at the time of PUD zoning and may be conveyed to the City. Other recreational lands shall be designated during the review of the preliminary development plan and may be located within individual development pods. i) Perimeter transition area. All proposed development on land classified PUD- MU shall comply with perimeter transition regulations as specified in the Design Guidelines, and all other applicable provisions of this Code. j) Screening and buffer yard requirements. Screening and buffer yard requirements shall comply with the Design Guidelines regulating required screening of residential and nonresidential uses as well as all other applicable provisions of this Code. k) Subdivision improvements and urban design amenities. In addition to requirements of this Code, the open space systems and design amenities incorporated in the planned unit development shall reflect best management principles and practices of urban design, including streetscape amenities and recreation facilities which promote a harmonious and aesthetic environment for residents within the proposed development. l) Conflict with other sections. Where this section or the Design Guidelines of a mixed-use PUD are found to conflict with other provisions within this Code, this section and/or the Design Guidelines, as approved by the City Council, shall be the controlling regulation. However, all development shall comply with the applicable provisions of fire, life safety, and standard building codes. 70 ARTICLE XX – PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Section 54-4-20.8 Master Plan Requirements. (A) Purpose/applicability. Master Plan approval is required in conjunction with re - zonings of four hundred (400) acres or more to the zoning districts. The review of master plan is intended to ensure coordinated design of developments. The master plan is intended to be a conceptual plan but must demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the said zoning district. (B) Submittal requirements. The following items shall be submitted: (1) Project Description (narrative) addressing the following: (a) Projection description identifying the effect on surrounding land use and verifying consistency of the proposed development with the City’s comprehensive plan and land development code. (b) A description of the applicable concurrency requirements relative to transportation, water, sewer, schools, recreation, open space, stormwater, solid waste, and public safety. (c) Proposed general development schedule and phasing plan, specifying the number of dwelling units, or the amount of nonresidential square feet to be provided during the various phases of the development. (d) The ability of the subject property or surrounding areas to accommodate any contemplated future expansion of the Master Plan, if appropriate. (C) The Master Plan shall establish the overall planning framework and development pattern for the subject planning framework and development pattern for the subject property and shall function as a conceptual guide for future detailed development approvals. The Plan shall include but not be limited to the following: (1) The location, description and acreage of the proposed land uses, including the following; (a) A conceptual vehicular circulation framework depicting the general alignment and hierarchy of primary roadways and access points. (b) A conceptual pedestrian/bicycle circulation; (c) Common uses; (d) Common Open Space; (e) Schools; (f) Government/civic; (g) A conceptual master plan permitter buffers; (h) Stormwater routing; (i) Conservation (2) Projected type, location, number, and density of all residential dwelling units to be constructed in the development 71 (3) Proposed general development schedule and phasing, showing the number and type of dwelling units, or the amount of nonresidential square feet to be provided during the various phases of the development. (4) Other items which the City may determine to be pertinent to the re view of the application. (D) Process. The review of the Master Plan includes the following steps: (1) Pre-application meeting. The applicant must attend a pre -application meeting. (2) Staff review. City staff shall review the Master Plan for conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code and must submit a recommendation for approval, approval subject to modifications necessary to meet code or denial. (3) Planning and Zoning Board. The Board. The Board considers the staff recommendations and the review criteria contained in this section and issues a recommendation to the City Council. (4) City Council. The City Council shall, upon receipt of the Planning and Zoning Board and staff recommendations, review the application and approve or deny the final Master Plan. This approval allows the applicant to sell or start designing the various components of the development. (E) Phasing. All phases within the development must stand alone and meet code independently from future phases. To ensure adequate distribution of resid ential uses throughout the development, specific conditions may be placed upon the Master plan to ensure the delivery of such mixes occurs. (F) Review Criteria. The reviewing authorities shall consider the following factors when reviewing a Master Plan: (1) Compatibility within the development and relationship with surrounding neighborhoods. (2) The nature, intent, and compatibility of common open space, including the proposed method for the maintenance and conservation of the common open space. (3) The availability and adequacy of internal and external streets and thoroughfares to support traffic to be generated by the proposed development. (4) The availability and adequacy of water and sewer service to support the proposed development. (5) The availability of on- or off-site public education and recreation facilities, drainage, flood control and soil conservation as shown in the Master Plan. (6) The benefits within the proposed development and to the general public. (7) The conformity of the development with the city's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development regulations, particularly with the purpose and intent of the districts. 72 (G) Expiration. The Master Plan approval shall establish a buildout horizon, as determined by the City Council at the time of approval, not to exceed thirty (30) years from the date of approval. The applicant shall file at least one (1) site plan or subdivision plat application within three (3) years. Approval of any site plan or subdivision plat consistent with the Master Plan shall maintain its validity through the established buildout horizon. **** Section 3. Severability. In the event a court of competent jurisdiction shall determine that any part of this Ordinance is invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance shall not be affected and it shall be presumed that the City Council of the City of Sebastian did not intend to enact such invalid provision. It shall further be assumed that the City Council would have enacted the remainder of this Ordinance without said invalid provision, thereby causing said remainder to remain in full force and effect. Section 4. Conflicts. All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. Section 5. Codification. The sections of the Ordinance shall be codified within part of the City of Sebastian’s Land Development Code and may be renumbered or re-lettered to accomplish such, and the word “ordinance” may be changed to “section,” “division,” or any other appropriate word. Section 6. Scrivener’s Errors. Sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered or re- lettered and corrections of typographical errors which do not affect the intent may be authorized by the City Manager, or the City Manager’s designee, without need of public hearing, by filing a corrected or re-codified copy of same with the City Clerk. Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its adoption by the City Council. The foregoing Ordinance was moved for adoption by Councilmember ___________________. The motion was seconded by Councilmember __________________ and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Mayor Fred Jones _______________ Vice-Mayor Bob McPartlan _______________ Councilmember Sherrie Matthews _______________ Councilmember Ed Dodd _______________ Councilmember Christopher Nunn _______________ 73 The Mayor thereupon declared this Ordinance duly passed and adopted this _____day of May, 2026. CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA By: _________________________ Fred Jones, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________ Catherine E. Testa Acting City Clerk Approved as to form and legality for reliance by the City of Sebastian only: _______________________________ James Stokes, Esq, City Attorney 74 CITY OF SEBASTIAN CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE May 13, 2026 TO Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU Brian Benton, City Manager FROM Alix Bernard, Community Development Director SUBJECT Consideration of Resolution number R-26-18 – Voluntary Annexation Agreement EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Pursuant to Florida Statute 171.044 governing voluntary annexations, the property owners, represented by Mr. Nick Shoopman, Kolter Homes, have submitted a request to annex approximately 382 acres more or less into the City of Sebastian. The subject property is generally located south of 69th Street, East of 82nd Ave, West of 78th Ave, North of Sebastian River Improvement District Ditch Sublateral C-8-E. An Annexation agreement attached, has been negotiated between the City of Sebastian and the property owners. The agreement will be presented for adoption under resolution R -26-18. Adoption of Ordinance O-26-10 shall be subject to approval of R-26-18. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Resolution R-26-18 for an annexation agreement for Cresswind. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution R-26-18 2. Proposed Annexation Agreement FUNDING SOURCE: Expenditure required Amount Budgeted: Funding source N/A N/A 75 RESOLUTION NO. R-26-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR AN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, A FLORIDA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND LUTHER FAMILY, LLC, LMNR GROVE, LLC, SHOP PROPERTIES, LLC AND GDC FLORIDA 1, LLC TO MEMORIALIZE THE PARTIES UNDERSTANDING AND AGREEMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE ANNEXATION OF 382 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, INTO THE CITY, AND WITH RESPECT TO THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF THE PROPERTY. PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR RECORDING; PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER’S ERRORS; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the owners of real property in unincorporated Indian River County, contiguous to the existing corporate limits and boundaries of the City of Sebastian, and be ing reasonably compact, petitions the governing body of the City of Sebastian to be voluntarily annexed into the municipality; and WHEREAS, the City of Sebastian City Council has found and determined that it is in the City’s best interest by annexing the 382 acres, more or less, into its municipal boundaries and by entering into this Annexation Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Each party affirms that development of the property will be in accordance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, an Annexation Agreement has been negotiated between City of Sebastian and developers on behalf of the property owners, and presented for adoption under this Resolution R-26-18. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Sebastian recognizes the need to annex properties to ensure viability and managed growth in and around the City. Section 2. The attached Annexation Agreement is in the best interest of the citizens of Sebastian. Section 3. CONFLICT. All resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. Section 4. RECORDING. This Resolution and Annexation Agreement shall be recorded in the public records of Indian River County. 76 Section 5. SCRIVENER’S ERRORS. Sections of this resolution may be renumbered or re-lettered and corrections of typographical errors which do not affect the intent may be authorized by the City Manager, or the City Manager’s designee, without need of further action of the City Council by filing a corrected copy of same with the City Clerk. Section 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This resolution shall be become effective upon adoption. The forgoing Resolution was moved for adoption by Council Member ________________. The motion was seconded by Council Member ______________ and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Mayor Fred Jones ________ Vice Mayor Bob McPartlan ________ Council Member Chris Nunn ________ Council Member Ed Dodd ________ Council Member Sherrie Matthews ________ The Mayor thereupon declared this Resolution duly passed and adopted this _____ day of _______________ 2026. CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA By: _________________________ Mayor Fred Jones ATTEST: ______________________________ Catherine E. Testa Acting City Clerk Approved as to Form and Content for Reliance by the City of Sebastian Only: _____________________________ James D. Stokes, City Attorney 77 ORLDOCS 22683936 12 Prepared by: Elesa Sowell, Esq. Shutts & Bowen LLP 300 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 1600 Orlando, FL 32801 After recording return to: City Clerk City of Sebastian 1225 Main Street Sebastian, Florida 32958 ANNEXATION AGREEMENT THIS ANNEXATION AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is made and entered into this _____ day of , 202 by and between the City of Sebastian, Florida, a Florida municipal corporation (“City”), and Kahle Ranch, LLC, a Florida limited liability company (“Kahle”), Luther Family, LLC, a Florida limited liability company (“Luther”), Shop Properties, LLC, a Florida limited liability company (“Shop”), LMNR Grove, LLC, a Florida limited liability company (“LMNR”), and GDC Florida 1, LLC, a Florida limited liability company “GDC” (collectively, “Owners” or “Developer”). City and Owners may be referred to herein collectively as the “Parties”. RECITALS WHEREAS, City is a governmental entity and Florida municipal corporation, located within Indian River County, in the State of Florida; and WHEREAS, Owners own fee simple title to certain real property located in Indian River County, Florida (the “County”), consisting of approximately 382.48 +/- acres, as more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the Property is intended to be developed as an “active adult” age-restricted single-family residential community known as “Cresswind” (the “Project”) comprised of approximately 900 single-family lots with varying lot widths, and will emphasize open space, lakes, and community amenities to ensure a high quality of lif e for all residents; and WHEREAS, the Property is contiguous to the municipal boundaries of City; and WHEREAS, City is willing to annex the Property into its municipal boundaries and said annexation would not result in the creation of any enclaves, and the annexation of the Property will be in the best interests of City and its residents; and WHEREAS, City can provide the necessary general government, non-proprietary services normally being provided to its residents, such as police protection, code enforcement, building and zoning services to the Property as needed; and 78 2 ORLDOCS 22683936 12 WHEREAS, City and Owners support the annexation of the Property into the City and the City is willing to enter into this Agreement pursuant to the authority of the Florida Constitution (including Article VIII, Section 2(b) and 2(c) thereof), the general powers conferred upon municipalities by statute and otherwise (including Chapter 166 and Chapter 171, Florida Statutes), and the City’s Charter; and WHEREAS, Owners desire to establish an understanding relating to land development upon the annexation of the Property into the municipal limits of the City, and the City agrees that it will facilitate any and all Land Development applications as allowed by law. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual covenants contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which being hereby acknowledged, City and Owners agree as follows: 1. Recitals and Exhibits. The above-referenced recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into this Agreement for all purposes. Any and all exhibits referred to in this Agreement are incorporated herein as material provisions of this Agreement. 2. Annexation. City and Owners are proceeding with the petition for voluntary annexation of the Property into the municipal limits of the City upon the terms and conditions set forth herein. Upon the annexation of the Property into the City, this Agreement shall govern the parties’ rights and obligations regarding the Property as to the matters provided for herein. 3. Land Use / Zoning. a. Concurrently with the petition for voluntary annexation of the Property, Developer has submitted applications to the City requesting a comprehensive plan amendment to assign the Property a future land use classification of Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) pursuant to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and seeking a rezoning of the Property to Planned Unit Development-Residential (PUD-R) to provide for the development of the Project under the City’s Land Development Code. The City agrees to expeditiously process the future land use and zoning applications for the Property concurrent with the request for annexation of the Property and, to that end, shall schedule any required public hearings on such matters on the same agenda before the City Council. After the contemplated future land use classification of VLDR and rezoning to PUD- R has taken effect, City agrees to cooperate with Owner in the processing of other development orders (permits) necessary for the development of the Property. It is contemplated by the parties that the full development of the Property will be undertaken in phases and extend over a number of years. Any reference in this Agreement to land use or rezoning applications or requests shall mean those contemplated in the first sentence of this Section 3(a). b. The Parties acknowledge that the City cannot contract to approve future land use or rezoning requests. The City’s only obligation with respect to future land use and rezoning requests is to process the applications expeditiously, consider all evidence presented in support of and in opposition to the applications and make decisions to approve or deny the applications based upon the legal standards that govern actions by local governments when considering future land use and rezoning proposals. In the event the City Council chooses to deny 79 3 ORLDOCS 22683936 12 such future land use and zoning applications submitted to the City or such future land use or rezoning applications are approved and overturned on appeal, then this agreement shall automatically terminate and upon the property owner’s request, the City agrees to promptly process an application for an ordinance or petition for contraction formally rescinding the proposed annexation of the Property in accordance with Section 171.051, Florida Statutes. Without limiting the foregoing terms of this Section 3(b), the Parties acknowledge that the intent is for the annexation of the Property to be contingent upon the City’s approval of the future land use classification of VLDR and PUD zoning designation contemplated in this Agreement. 4. Continuation of Agricultural Classification. Owners may use all or any portion of the Property for agricultural-related purposes until such time as all of the Property is developed. Notwithstanding any land-use designation or zoning classification assigned to any portion of the Property, nothing in this Agreement or the City’s Land Development Code is intended to impair or negate any Owner’s existing “agricultural classification” (for ad valorem tax purposes) as long as and to the extent that such Owner maintains a bona fide agriculture operation on such portion of the Property. 5. Infrastructure. The City shall not be required or obligated to install, construct or maintain any private utilities (electric, cable, gas), surface water or storm water management systems, water and wastewater facilities, roadways or other transportation related improvements for the Project (except for the maintenance of improvements dedicated to and accepted by the City in its sole discretion). All roads, driveways, parking areas, stormwater and other land and facilities within the Project shall be owned and maintained either by a community development district and/or a homeowners association. 6. Recreational Trust Fund. Developer shall pay to the City a recreational trust fund payment, which shall be comprised of the following (collectively, the “Recreational Trust Fund Payment”): (i) the sum of $700,000.00 (the “Initial RTF Payment”), and (ii) the amount of $2,000.00 on a per-unit basis for each residential dwelling unit approved and constructed within the Project (each, a “Unit RTF Payment”). The Initial RTF Payment shall be due and payable to the City within thirty (30) days after the conveyance of the Property to Kolter or such other developer, as evidenced by the recordation of a deed for the Property in the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. Each Unit RTF Payment shall be due and payable at the time of issuance of a building permit for such unit. The City shall deposit the Initial RTF Payment and all Unit RTF Payments into a segregated trust fund to be used solely for recreational purposes, including, without limitation, a civic center, park and recreational facility improvements, acquisition of land for recreational use, and related capital improvements. The Recreational Trust Fund Payment will benefit the residents of the City of Sebastian including residents of the Project. 7. Governing Law; Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. Venue for any action arising out of or related to this Agreement shall be in Indian River County, Florida. 8. Enforcement; Remedies. The Parties hereto shall have all equitable and legal remedies available under Florida law to enforce the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and the terms of this Agreement shall be specifically enforceable in Circuit Court. In the event of any 80 4 ORLDOCS 22683936 12 dispute hereunder or any action to interpret or enforce this Agreement, any provision hereof, or any matter arising herefrom, the parties shall be solely responsible for their own costs and attorney fees incurred in enforcing its rights and remedies, whether incurred at the pre-trial, trial, or appellate levels, including any fees and costs incurred in determining the amount of awardable fees. 9. Enforcement by any Party to this Agreement. a. Notice of Default; Right to Cure. In the event of default by any party to this Agreement, or said party’s heirs, successors and assigns, with regard to this Agreement or of any of its terms or conditions, the party alleging such default or breach shall give the breaching pa rty not less than sixty (60) days’ notice of default in writing in the manner provided for giving notice as set forth in Section 13. The time of notice shall be measured from the date of certified mailing. The notice of default shall specify the nature of the alleged default, and, where appropriate, the manner and period of time in which said default may be satisfactorily cured. During any period for curing the default, the party charged shall not be considered in default for the purposes of termination or institution of legal proceedings. If the default is cured, then no default shall exist, and the noticing party shall take no further action. b. Option to Institute Legal Proceedings. After proper notice and the expiration of said period to cure default, the noticing party to this Agreement, at its option, may institute legal proceeding, if the default has not been cured. c. Waiver. Failure or delay in giving notice of default or seeking enforcement of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any default. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, any failure or delay by another party in asserting any of its rights or remedies as to any default shall not operate as a waiver of any default or of any such rights or remedies or deprive such party of its right to institute and maintain any actions or proceedings which it may deem necessary to protect, assert or enforce any such rights or remedies. d. Violation. In the event of violation of this Agreement by the Owner/Developer, or any of their heirs, successors or assigns, the City shall have the right to refuse to issue further building permits, Final Development Orders, or certificates of occupancy or certificates of completion, all as the case may be, limited as to that phase of the Project, or plat of that phase of the Project where the violation is applicable, all until such time and event as all such violation(s) are corrected and that phase of the Project of the Property is brought into compliance with this Agreement, applicable law, ordinances, resolutions, and Land Development Regulations. The City shall be required to notice the violator with a written notice of the nature of the violation and afford a reasonable period (but no less than sixty (60) days) to cure the violation(s) before withholding building permits, Final Development Orders, or certificates of occupancy or certificates of completion relating to the phase of the Project and not to the violation itself. The City is authorized by this Agreement to use any form of code enforcement to assure conformance with this Agreement. 10. Non-Waiver. Failure by any Party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the terms, conditions, or provisions of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver o f such 81 5 ORLDOCS 22683936 12 terms, conditions, and provisions, and the Parties hereto, notwithstanding such failure, shall have the right hereafter to insist upon the strict performance of any or all such terms and conditions of this Agreement as set forth herein. 11. Indemnification. This Annexation is subject to various provisions contained in Chapter 171 Florida Statutes, Municipal Annexation or Contraction. A portion of the boundary of the Property is contiguous to the City. “Contiguous” is defined in Section 171.031(11)F.S. to mean ‘That a substantial party of the boundary of the territory sought to be annexed by a municipality is coterminous with a party of the boundary of the municipality.” Should there be any legal challenge to the annexation of the Property, whether based on contiguity, enclaves, Comprehensive Plan inconsistencies or otherwise, the Owners agree to assume all risk to Owners associated with the challenge. The Owners further agree to indemnify and hold harmless the City from all claims, suits, judgments, attorneys’ fees and costs in any way arising out of or relating to the annexation of the Property, including the defense of any challenge to the Annexation; provided, however, that such defense shall be with counsel reasonably acceptable to the Owners. 12. Notices. All notices and other communications required hereunder shall be in writing and shall be delivered personally, or by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, or by a nationally recognized overnight commercial delivery serv ice, fees prepaid for next day delivery. Such notices shall be deemed to have been received: (i) upon delivery, if personally delivered; (ii) upon the earlier of actual receipt or the third day after mailing, if mailed by registered or certified United States mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid; and (iii) upon the earlier of actual receipt or the next business day if sent by a nationally recognized overnight commercial delivery service, if fees are prepaid for next day delivery. The addresses for delivery of such notices shall be as follows: 82 6 ORLDOCS 22683936 12 CITY City of Sebastian Attn: Brian Benton, City Manager 1225 Main Street Sebastian, Florida 32958 With a copy to: Office of the City Attorney City of Sebastian 1225 Main Street Sebastian, Florida 32958 OWNERS Kahle Ranch, LLC Attn: Luther Family, LLC Attn: Shop Properties, LLC Attn: LMNR Grove, LLC Attn: 1030 Grandview Blvd Fort Pierce, FL 34982 GDC Florida 1, LLC Attn: 2135 Snook Drive Naples, FL 34102 or to such other address as any party hereto shall from time to time designate to the other Party(ies) by notice in writing as herein provided. 13. Entire Agreement; Amendments. This Agreement represents the entire understanding and agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. No representations have been made, either express or implied by the parties, other than those expressly set forth in this Agreement. This Agreement or any part hereof may not be changed, amended, waived, discharged, or terminated except by an instrument in writing, executed by all Parties hereto. 14. Severability. In the event that any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid or unenforceable, the provision shall be deleted from this Agreement without affecting in any respect whatsoever the validity of the remainder of this Agreement. 15. Assignment. Without the prior written consent of City, Owners may assign this Agreement to Kolter Group Acquisitions, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, or its affiliate (“Kolter”), upon the acquisition of all or any portion of the Property. 83 7 ORLDOCS 22683936 12 16. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall run with the land and shall benefit and be binding upon the Parties and all of their respective successors, heirs, assigns, representatives, affiliates, officers, directors, and members. 17. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and need not be signed by more than one of the Parties hereto and all of which shall constitute one and the same agreement. The Parties hereto further agree that each Party shall execute and deliver all other appropriate supplemental agreements and other instruments, and take any other action necessary to make this Agreement fully and legally effective, binding, and enforceable as between them and as against third parties. The individuals signing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have full power and authority to act for and bind the entity on whose behalf they have signed this Agreement. 18. Waiver of Jury Trial. THE PARTIES HEREBY KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY, AND INTENTIONALLY WAIVE ANY RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL WITH RESPECT TO ANY CLAIMS ARISING IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT. 19. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon the date of execution by the last of the Parties and its approval by the City Council (the “Effective Date”). [signatures appear on immediately following pages] 84 ORLDOCS 22683936 12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the Effective Date. CITY: CITY OF SEBASTIAN, a Florida municipal corporation By: Name: Title: Date: ATTEST: Catherine E. Testa, Acting City Clerk 85 2 ORLDOCS 22683936 12 Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: (Signature) (Print Name) (Address) (Signature) (Print Name) (Address) OWNERS: Kahle Ranch, LLC, a Florida limited liability company By: Name: Title: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF ______________________ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by means of physical presence or online notarization, this _____ day of , 2025, by , as _______________ of Kahle Ranch, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, on behalf of the company, who □ is personally known to me or □ produced as identification. (Notary Seal) NOTARY PUBLIC (Signature) NOTARY PUBLIC (Typed, Printed or Stamped) 86 ORLDOCS 22683936 12 Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: (Signature) (Print Name) (Address) (Signature) (Print Name) (Address) OWNERS: Luther Family, LLC, a Florida limited liability company By: Name: Title: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF ______________________ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by means of physical presence or online notarization, this _____ day of , 2025, by , as _______________ of Luther Family, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, on behalf of the company, who □ is personally known to me or □ produced as identification. (Notary Seal) NOTARY PUBLIC (Signature) NOTARY PUBLIC (Typed, Printed or Stamped) 87 ORLDOCS 22683936 12 Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: (Signature) (Print Name) (Address) (Signature) (Print Name) (Address) OWNERS: Shop Properties, LLC, a Florida limited liability company By: Name: Title: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF ______________________ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by means of physical presence or online notarization, this _____ day of , 2025, by , as _______________ of Shop Properties, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, on behalf of the company, who □ is personally known to me or □ produced as identification. (Notary Seal) NOTARY PUBLIC (Signature) NOTARY PUBLIC (Typed, Printed or Stamped) 88 ORLDOCS 22683936 12 Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: (Signature) (Print Name) (Address) (Signature) (Print Name) (Address) OWNERS: LMNR Grove, LLC, a Florida limited liability company By: Name: Title: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF ______________________ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by means of physical presence or online notarization, this _____ day of , 2025, by , as _______________ of LMNR Grove, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, on behalf of the company, who □ is personally known to me or □ produced as identification. (Notary Seal) NOTARY PUBLIC (Signature) NOTARY PUBLIC (Typed, Printed or Stamped) 89 ORLDOCS 22683936 12 Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: (Signature) (Print Name) (Address) (Signature) (Print Name) (Address) OWNERS: GDC Florida 1, LLC, a Florida limited liability company By: Name: Title: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF ______________________ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by means of physical presence or online notarization, this _____ day of , 2025, by , as _______________ of GDC Florida 1, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, on behalf of the company, who □ is personally known to me or □ produced as identification. (Notary Seal) NOTARY PUBLIC (Signature) NOTARY PUBLIC (Typed, Printed or Stamped) 90 2 ORLDOCS 22683936 12 EXHIBIT “A” Legal Description of the Property GDC FLORIDA 1 PARCEL: THAT PART OF THE WEST HALF OF SECTIONS 12 AND 13, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, THENCE RUN SOUTH 00° 31'19" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID WEST HALF, A DISTANCE OF 5297.07 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE AFORESAID SECTION 13; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00° 27'53" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 13, 1339.42 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 13; THENCE FOLLOWING THE SAID SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF, RUN NORTH 89° 18'18" WEST, 1356.57 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 00° 36'23" EAST, ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF A 25-FOOT WIDE DITCH, A DISTANCE OF 6624.74 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 12, THENCE RUN SOUTH 89° 48'16" EAST, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF SECTION 12, A DISTANCE OF 1345.50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. LUTHER, KHALE, SHOP PARCEL: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00°26'33" EAST, ALONG THE SECTION LINE A DISTANCE OF 439.89 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89°33'02" EAST ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF A 20-FOOT WIDE DITCH, A DISTANCE OF 1293.03 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF A 25-FOOT WIDE DITCH, RUN NORTH 00°36'23" EAST 5723.49 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST; THENCE RUN NORTH 89°48'16" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF SECTION 12, A DI STANCE OF 1305.75 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00°28'56" WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 12 A DISTANCE OF 5717.70 FEET TO POINT OF BEGINNING. LESS AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 5259.32 FEET THEREOF. LESS AND EXCEPT THE WEST 112 1/2 FEET THEREOF LESS AND EXCEPT RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR A PUBLIC ROAD OVER, ON AND ACROSS THE NORTH 70 FEET THEREOF, AS CONVEYED TO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BY ROAD RIGHT -OF-WAY DEED RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 221, PAGE 835, OF THE PUBLIC RECORD OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LUTHER FAMILY PARCEL: PARCEL B: THE NORTH 1753.54 FEET OF THE SOUTH 5259.32 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNT Y, 91 3 ORLDOCS 22683936 12 FLORIDA; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00°26'33" EAST, ALONG THE SECTION LINE A DISTANCE OF 439.89 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89°33'02" EAST ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF A 20-FOOT WIDE DITCH, A DISTANCE OF 1293.03 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF A 25-FOOT WIDE DITCH, RUN NORTH 00°36'23" EAST 5723.49 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST; THENCE RUN NORTH 89°48'16" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF SECTION 12, A DISTANCE OF 1305.75 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00°28'56" WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 12 A DISTANCE OF 5717.70 FEET TO POINT OF BEGINNING. LESS AND EXCEPT THE WEST 112.5 FEET THEREOF. SANDRA R. KAHLE PARCEL: PARCEL 1A: THE NORTH 1759.15 FEET OF THE SOUTH 3505.77 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00°26'33" EAST, ALONG THE SECTION LINE A DISTANCE OF 439.89 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89°33'02" EAST ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF A 20-FOOT WIDE DITCH, A DISTANCE OF 1293.03 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF A 25-FOOT WIDE DITCH, RUN NORTH 00°36'23" EAST 5723.49 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST; THENCE RUN NORTH 89°48'16" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF SECTION 12, A DISTANCE OF 1305.75 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00°28'56" WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 12 A DISTANCE OF 5717.70 FEET TO POINT OF BEGINNING. LESS AND EXCEPT THE WEST 112.5 FEET THEREOF. SHOP PROPERTIES LLC PARCEL: PARCEL 3A: THE SOUTH 1746.63 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00°26'33" EAST, ALONG THE SECTION LINE A DISTANCE OF 439.89 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89°33'02" EAST ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF A 20-FOOT WIDE DITCH, A DISTANCE OF 1293.03 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF A 25-FOOT WIDE DITCH, RUN NORTH 00°36'23" EAST 5723.49 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST; THENCE RUN NORTH 89°48'16" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF SECTION 12, A DISTANCE OF 1305.75 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 12; THE NCE RUN SOUTH 00°28'56" WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 12 A DISTANCE OF 5717.70 FEET TO POINT OF BEGINNING. LESS AND EXCEPT THE WEST 100 FEET THEREOF. LMNR GROVES PARCEL: 92 4 ORLDOCS 22683936 12 A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, THE BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: FROM THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, RUN SOUTH 00 DEGREES 26 MINUTES 33 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE SECTION LINE A DISTANCE OF 439.89 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL TO BE DESCRIBED HEREIN; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 02 SECONDS EAST ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF A 20 FOOT WIDE DITCH, A DISTANCE OF 1293.03 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF A 25 FOOT WIDE DITCH, RUN SOUTH 00 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 23 SECONDS EAST, 901.25 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE RUN NORTH 89 DEGREE S 18 MINUTES 18 SECONDS WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, A DISTANCE OF 1290.46 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE ALONG SAID SECTION LINE, RUN NORTH 00 DEGREES 26 MINUTES 33 SECONDS EAST, 895.71 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. LESS AND EXCEPT THE WEST 100 FEET THEREOF. 93 CITY OF SEBASTIAN CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE May 13, 2026 TO Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU Brian Benton, City Manager FROM Alix Bernard, Community Development Director SUBJECT Consideration of Ordinance O-26-10 – Petition for Voluntary Annexation – First Reading, Cresswind EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Pursuant to Florida Statute 171.044 governing voluntary annexations, the property owners, represented by Mr. Nick Shoopman, Kolter Homes, have submitted a request to annex approximately 382 acres into the City of Sebastian. The subject property is generally located south of 69th Street, East of 82nd Ave, West of 78th Ave, North of Sebastian River Improvement District ditch Sublateral C-8-E. Concurrent applications for a Future Land Use designation of Very Low Density Residential and a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Residential zoning classification have been submitted. These applications will be processed promptly following completion of the annexation. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the first Reading of Ordinance O-26-10 and set second reading for May 26, 2026. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance O-26-10 2. Staff Analysis Report 3. Request Letter 4. Location Map FUNDING SOURCE: Expenditure required Amount Budgeted: Funding source N/A N/A 94 ORDINANCE NO. O-26-10 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION FOR LAND CONSISTING OF 382 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, LOCATED SOUTH OF 69TH STREET, EAST OF 82ND AVE, WEST OF 78TH AVE, NORTH OF SEBASTIAN RIVER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT DITCH C-8-E; PROVIDING FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE CORPORATE LIMITS AND BOUNDARIES THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER’S ERRORS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the owners of the real property in unincorporated Indian River County, contiguous to the existing corporate limits and boundaries of the City of Sebastian, and reasonably compact, petitions the governing body of the City of Sebastian to be voluntary annexed into the municipality; and WHEREAS, the Sebastian City Council of the City of Sebastian, Florida finds and determines that the annexation of said parcels is in the best interest of the City; and WHEREAS, the owners of the real property described herein and the City of Sebastian have entered into an Annexation Agreement, approved May 13, 2026 setting forth certain terms under which the annexation will be governed; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. PROPERTY. The following described property now lying and being in unincorporated area of Indian River County, Florida, is hereby annexed into the corporate limits of the City of Sebastian, Florida and the boundary lines of said City are hereby redefined to include said real property as shown on “Exhibit 1” containing 382 acres, more or less. Section 2. LAND USE AND ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS. Land use and zoning classifications shall be consistent with the provisions of state law. Section 3. FILING. A certified copy of this ordinance shall be filed with the Clerk of Court, as well as the Chairman of the County Commission of Indian River County, Florida and with the Florida Department of State within seven days of adoption. Section 4. NOTICE. Notice of this ordinance has been posted in accordance with Section 171.044, Florida Statutes. 95 Section 5. SCRIVENER’S ERRORS. Sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered or re-lettered and corrections of typographical errors which do not affect the intent may be authorized by the City Manager, or the City Manager’s designee, without need of public hearing, by filing a corrected or re-codified copy of same with the City Clerk. Section 6. CONFLICT. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its adoption by the City Council. Section 7. SEVERABILITY. In the event a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold or determine that any party of the Ordinances is invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional, the remainder of the Ordinance shall be invalidated and it shall be presumed that the City Council of the City of Sebastian did not intend to enact this ordinance without such invalid or unconstitutional provisions. Section 8. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its adoption by the City Council. The foregoing Ordinance was moved for adoption by Councilmember ___________________. The Motion was seconded by Councilmember __________________ and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Mayor Fred Jones _______________ Vice Mayor Bob McPartlan _______________ Councilmember Sherrie Matthews _______________ Councilmember Ed Dodd _______________ Councilmember Christopher Nunn _______________ The Mayor thereupon declared this Ordinance duly passed and adopted this _____ day of ______________, 2026. CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA By: _________________________ Fred Jones, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________ Catherine E Testa Acting City Clerk Approved as to form and legality for reliance by the City of Sebastian only: ______________________________ James Stokes, Esq. City Attorney 96 Exhibit 1 GDC FLORIDA 1 PARCEL, COMMITMENT NO. 1205436 THAT PART OF THE WEST HALF OF SECTIONS 12 AND 13, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, THENCE RUN SOUTH 00° 31'19" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID WEST HALF, A DISTANCE OF 5297.07 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE AFORESAID SECTION 13; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00° 27'53" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 13, 1339.42 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 13; THENCE FOLLOWING THE SAID SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF, RUN NORTH 89° 18'18" WEST, 1356.57 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 00° 36'23" EAST, ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF A 25-FOOT WIDE DITCH, A DISTANCE OF 6624.74 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 12, THENCE RUN SOUTH 89° 48'16" EAST, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF SECTION 12, A DISTANCE OF 1345.50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. LKS PARCEL, COMMITMENT NO. 1698420 BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00°26'33" EAST, ALONG THE SECTION LINE A DISTANCE OF 439.89 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89°33'02" EAST ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF A 20-FOOT WIDE DITCH, A DISTANCE OF 1293.03 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF A 25-FOOT WIDE DITCH, RUN NORTH 00°36'23" EAST 5723.49 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST; THENCE RUN NORTH 89°48'16" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF SECTION 12, A DISTANCE OF 1305.75 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00°28'56" WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 12 A DISTANCE OF 5717.70 FEET TO POINT OF BEGINNING. LESS AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 5259.32 FEET THEREOF. LESS AND EXCEPT THE WEST 112 1/2 FEET THEREOF LESS AND EXCEPT RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR A PUBLIC ROAD OVER, ON AND ACROSS THE NORTH 70 FEET THEREOF, AS CONVEYED TO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BY ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY DEED RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 221, PAGE 835, OF THE PUBLIC RECORD OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. 97 LUTHER FAMILY PARCEL, COMMITMENT NO. 1698408 PARCEL B: THE NORTH 1753.54 FEET OF THE SOUTH 5259.32 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00°26'33" EAST, ALONG THE SECTION LINE A DISTANCE OF 439.89 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89°33'02" EAST ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF A 20-FOOT WIDE DITCH, A DISTANCE OF 1293.03 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF A 25-FOOT WIDE DITCH, RUN NORTH 00°36'23" EAST 5723.49 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST; THENCE RUN NORTH 89°48'16" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF SECTION 12, A DISTANCE OF 1305.75 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00°28'56" WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 12 A DISTANCE OF 5717.70 FEET TO POINT OF BEGINNING. LESS AND EXCEPT THE WEST 112.5 FEET THEREOF. SANDRA R. KAHLE PARCEL, COMMITMENT NO. 1698406 PARCEL 1A: THE NORTH 1759.15 FEET OF THE SOUTH 3505.77 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00°26'33" EAST, ALONG THE SECTION LINE A DISTANCE OF 439.89 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89°33'02" EAST ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF A 20-FOOT WIDE DITCH, A DISTANCE OF 1293.03 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF A 25-FOOT WIDE DITCH, RUN NORTH 00°36'23" EAST 5723.49 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST; THENCE RUN NORTH 89°48'16" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF SECTION 12, A DISTANCE OF 1305.75 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00°28'56" WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 12 A DISTANCE OF 5717.70 FEET TO POINT OF BEGINNING. LESS AND EXCEPT THE WEST 112.5 FEET THEREOF. 98 SHOP PROPERTIES LLC PARCEL, COMMITMENT NO. 1698412 PARCEL 3A: THE SOUTH 1746.63 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00°26'33" EAST, ALONG THE SECTION LINE A DISTANCE OF 439.89 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89°33'02" EAST ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF A 20-FOOT WIDE DITCH, A DISTANCE OF 1293.03 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF A 25-FOOT WIDE DITCH, RUN NORTH 00°36'23" EAST 5723.49 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST; THENCE RUN NORTH 89°48'16" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF SECTION 12, A DISTANCE OF 1305.75 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00°28'56" WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 12 A DISTANCE OF 5717.70 FEET TO POINT OF BEGINNING. LESS AND EXCEPT THE WEST 100 FEET THEREOF. LMNR GROVES PARCEL, COMMITMENT NO. 1698415 A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, THE BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: FROM THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, RUN SOUTH 00 DEGREES 26 MINUTES 33 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE SECTION LINE A DISTANCE OF 439.89 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL TO BE DESCRIBED HEREIN; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 02 SECONDS EAST ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF A 20 FOOT WIDE DITCH, A DISTANCE OF 1293.03 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF A 25 FOOT WIDE DITCH, RUN SOUTH 00 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 23 SECONDS EAST, 901.25 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE RUN NORTH 89 DEGREES 18 MINUTES 18 SECONDS WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, A DISTANCE OF 1290.46 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE ALONG SAID SECTION LINE, RUN NORTH 00 DEGREES 26 MINUTES 33 SECONDS EAST, 895.71 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. LESS AND EXCEPT THE WEST 100 FEET THEREOF. THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL CONTAINS A GRID AREA OF 382.48 ACRES MORE OR LESS. 99 100 Business Impact Estimate This form should be included in the agenda packet for the item under which the proposed ordinance is to be considered, and must be posted on the City’s website by the time notice of the proposed ordinance is published. ORDINANCE NO. O-26-10 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION FOR LAND CONSISTING OF 382 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, LOCATED SOUTH OF 69TH STREET, EAST OF 82ND AVE, WEST OF 78TH AVE, NORTH OF SEBASTIAN RIVER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT DITCH C-8-E; PROVIDING FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE CORPORATE LIMITS AND BOUNDARIES THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER’S ERRORS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City is of the view that the following exception(s) to the Business Impact Estimate requirement apply that are checked off in a box below apply to the above referenced proposed ordinance, although the City is implementing the procedure required by statutory law to ensure that no inadvertent procedural issue could impact the enactment of the proposed ordinance. ☐ The proposed ordinance is required for compliance with Federal or State law or regulations; ☐ The proposed ordinance relates to the issuance or refinancing of debt; ☐ The proposed ordinance relates to the adoption of budgets or budget amendments, including revenue sources necessary to fund the budget; ☐ The proposed ordinance is required to implement a contract or an agreement, including, but not limited to, any Federal, State, local, or private grant, or other financial assistance; ☐ The proposed ordinance is an emergency ordinance; ☒ The proposed ordinance is enacted to implement the following: a. Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, relating to growth policy, county and municipal planning, and land development regulations; 101 b. Sections 190.005 and 190.046, Florida Statutes, regarding community development districts; c. Section 553.73, Florida Statutes, relating to the Florida Building Code; or d. Section 633.202, Florida Statutes, relating to the Florida Fire Prevention Code. In accordance with the provisions of controlling law, even notwithstanding the fact that, an exemption noted above may apply, the City hereby publishes the following information: 1. Summary of the proposed ordinance (must include statement of the public purpose, such as serving the public health, safety, morals, and welfare): Ordinance O-26-10 proposes a voluntary annexation for land consisting of 382 acres, more or less, located south of 69th Street, east of 82nd Avenue, west of 78th Avenue, North of Sebastian River Improvement District Ditch C-8-E. By adopting Ordinance O-26-10, orderly residential development for this property will be in accordance with the regulations and processes found in the Land Development Code. 2. Estimate of direct economic impact of the proposed ordinance on private, for -profit businesses in the City: A current, Agricultural Zoning District, located in the unincorporated jurisdiction of Indian River County, will be allowed to be developed into a residential subdivision within the city limits of the City of Sebastian, offering favorable economic impact to a developer. 3. Estimate of direct compliance costs that businesses may reasonably incur: There will be no direct compliance costs to any business from the adoption of Ordinance O -26-10 as its purpose is to annex for specific properties. 4. Any new charge or fee imposed by the proposed ordinance: No new charge or fee 5. Estimate of the City’s regulatory costs, including estimated revenues from any new charges or fees to cover such costs: No regulatory costs or revenues will be generated from adoption of the Ordinance 6. Good faith estimate of the number of businesses likely to be impacted by the proposed ordinance: Developer, contractor and all subcontractors, suppliers, etc. 102 7. Additional information (if any, but may wish to include the methodology used to derive information for #1 and #2, above. For example: City staff solicited comments from businesses in the City as to the potential impact of the proposed ordinance by contacting the chamber of commerce, social media posting, direct mail or direct email, posting on City website, public workshop, etc. You may also wish to include efforts made to reduce the potential fiscal impact on businesses based on feedback from businesses. Yo u may also wish to state here that the proposed ordinance is a generally applicable ordinance that applies to all persons similarly situated (individuals as well as businesses) and, therefore, the proposed ordinance does not impose costs only upon businesses.): No additional information 103 May 13, 2026 Re: Cresswind – Voluntary Annexation Request The property owners have requested a voluntary annexation into the City of Sebastian. The subject property consists of 382 acres, more or less, located south of 69th Street, East of 82nd Ave, West of 78th Ave, North of Sebastian River Improvement District ditch Sublateral C-8-E. The subject property is currently vacant agricultural land in unincorporated Indian River County (IRC), contiguous to the existing corporate limits and boundaries of the City of Sebastian. The applicant has requested a very low density residential future land use designation which is consistent with the city’s adopted Future Land Use Element of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The property currently maintains an ac tive agricultural use so the zoning will remain as Agriculture A-1 until such time as conceptual planning has been completed for the property. A Statement of Impact and Concurrency Analysis has been submitted by the applicant as Attachment “A”. STAFF FINDINGS 1. A petition for annexation has been executed by the owners of the subject property and is consistent with Chapter 171 F.S. The property has been found to be coterminous with a part of the boundary of the municipality. “The separation of the ter ritory sought to be annexed from the annexing municipality….a right-of-way for a highway, road, railroad, canal, or utility; or a body of water, watercourse, or other minor geographical division of a similar nature, running parallel with and between the te rritory sought to be annexed and the annexing municipality, shall not prevent annexation under this act, provided the presence of such a division does not, as a practical matter, prevent the territory sought to be annexed and the annexing m unicipality from becoming a unified whole with respect to municipal services or prevent their inhabitants from fully associating and trading with each other, socially and economically”. The proposal is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 104 A. Objective 1-2.4: Annexation Studies. Consistent with Objective 1-2.2 and its related policies, the City acknowledges a need to prevent urban sprawl and disjointed urban service delivery systems. The result of adjace nt properties along the same corridor being governed by two different sets of development regulations is more likely to result in a lack of coordination leading to poor urban design and a corridor that does not function as well as it should. In addition, T he City desires to develop a plan for managing annexation of unincorporated enclaves, the annexation reserve areas as well as fringe areas adjacent to the City, especially for potential economic centers within the incorporated areas. B. Analysis of Area in accordance with Comprehensive Plan Data, Inventory, and Analysis A conceptual development plan has been presented that proposes Very Low-Density Land Use which meets the requirements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Land Development Regulations will provide for final determination of densities and intensities allowed within the proposed development at time of site planning. C. Fiscal Impact Analysis. A fiscal analysis of the proposed project reflects the potential annual net fiscal gain of $2,519,929 as outlined below Annexation to the City and approval of the proposed a ge-restricted 55-years and older residential community will result in a net positive fiscal gain, as follows: Annual Revenues: Ad Valorem Tax $1,775,899 Non-Ad Valorem Tax $337,230 Utility Service Fees $279,000 Franchise Fees $127,800 Total Annual Revenue $2,519,929 D. Concurrency Analysis: Level of Service (LOS) impacts have been addressed as part of the annexation request and change in Future Land Use. 1) Transportation: The applicant has provided a transportation facilities analysis which clearly depicts the amount of daily trips projected once the proposed development is complete. 2) Utilities: Indian River County is the public utility provider and util ities will be provided in accordance with the existing interlocal agreement between the City of Sebastian and Indian River County. Public utilities are available to this site with available capacity. 105 3) Drainage: The property is controlled by the Sebastian River Improvement District (SRID) and conceptual plans show additional stormwater ponds throughout the development. 4) Recreation: The proposed conceptual plan shows 8 acre amenity parcel plus additional open space 5) Environmental Protection: An Environmental Assessment has been provided by the applicant. Open space requirements will be defined during site plan development 2. The proposal will not have an adverse impact on the public health, safety, or welfare of the city or region. 3. The property’s legal description requires a review by the City surveyor prior to final approval. Alix Bernard May 13, 2026 Prepared by Date 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 69TH ST 65TH ST 78 T H A V 80 T H A V 84 T H A V W 8 2 N D A V 84 T H A V PINNACLE DR 63RD ST 82 N D A V CRESSWIND SITE State of Florida, Microsoft, VantorState of Florida, Earthstar Geographics Cresswind Site Map Legend Sebastian City Boundary Cresswind Site Boundary 0 250 500 750 1,000 Feet ¯ 127 CITY OF SEBASTIAN CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE May 13, 2026 TO Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU Brian Benton, City Manager FROM James Stokes, City Attorney SUBJECT Ordinance O-26-11: Police Pension Plan Amendment; defining Reemployment After Retirement. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Police Officers’ Retirement Plan currently permits the reemployment of retired police officers by the City in a non-sworn (general employee) position, without suspension or termination of retirement benefits during such period of reemployment. In order to ensure compliance with IRS guidance, the City desires to amend the Police Officers’ Retirement Plan to clarify that the reemployment of a police officer retiree in a non-sworn position with the City is a permissible in-service distribution, and such reemployment will not result in the suspension or termination of retirement benefit payments from the Police Officers’ Retirement Plan. The Police Retirement Board of Trustees met on April 21, 2026, and recommended that reemployment only occur after a thirty (30) day break in service. Because the right to a normal retirement benefit and the right to reemployment with the City are already existing in the Police Officers’ Retirement Plan, this Amendment to the Ordinance has no actuarial or other financial impact upon the Plan or the City. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the First Reading of Ordinance O-26-11 and schedule the Second Reading for May 26, 2026. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance O-26-11 FUNDING SOURCE: Expenditure required Amount Budgeted: Funding source N/A N/A N/A 128 ORDINANCE NO. O-26-11 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 58, ARTICLE III, POLICE OFFICERS’ RETIREMENT PLAN, AMENDING SECTION 58-70.4, REEMPLOYMENT AFTER RETIREMENT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SCRIBENER’S ERRORS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Police Officers’ Retirement Plan permits, generally, the reemployment of retired police officers by the City in a non-sworn (general employee) position, without suspension or termination of retirement benefits during such period of reemployment; and WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service requires a retiree from a qualified plan to demonstrate a “bona fide separation” from employment prior to reemployment with the same employer, unless such retirement plan permits “in-service distributions”; and WHEREAS, in order to ensure compliance with Internal Revenue Service guidance, the City desires to amend the Police Officers’ Retirement Plan to clarify that the reemployment of a police officer retiree in a non-sworn position with the City is a permissible in-service distribution, and such reemployment will not result in the suspension or termination of retirement benefit payments from the Police Officers’ Retirement Plan, regardless of break in service; and WHEREAS, because the right to a normal retirement benefit and the right to reemployment with the City are already existing in the Police Officers’ Retirement Plan, this Amendment to the Ordinance has no actuarial or other financial impact upon the Plan or the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitals are hereby adopted as true, correct and found to be the legislative intent of the City Council of the City of Sebastian. 129 2 SECTION 2. The Police Officers’ Retirement Plan, Article III, Section 58-70.4, Reemployment After Retirement, is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 58-70.4. Reemployment After Retirement. * * * (c) Any retiree who is retired under normal retirement pursuant to this system who is reemployed by the city in a position other than as a police officer, shall upon being reemployed, continue receipt of benefits for the period of any subsequent employment period. Former DROP participants shall begin receipt of benefits under these circumstances. Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, any retiree who is reemployed by the city more than thirty (30) days following retirement, in a position not eligible for participation in this system, may continue to receive retirement benefits during such period of reemployment, as a permissible in-service distribution, in accordance with the Internal Revenue Code and applicable Treasury Regulations. * * * SECTION 3: Any public notice or advertisement required in this Chapter to be published in a newspaper of general circulation is also permitted to be published via such other advertisement or notice method as permitted by law (e.g., publicly accessible website). SECTION 4. The provisions of this Ordinance are intended to be severable. If any provision of this Ordinance is determined to void or declared illegal, invalid, or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 5. If any ordinances, or parts of ordinances, or if any sections, or parts of sections, of the Ordinances of the City of Sebastian, Florida, are in conflict herewith, this Ordinance shall control to the extent of the conflicting provisions. SECTION 6. The sections of the Ordinance shall be codified within part of the City’s Code of Ordinances constituting the Police Officers’ Retirement Plan, and may be 130 3 renumbered or re-lettered to accomplish such, and the word ordinance" may be changed to "section," "division," or any other appropriate word. SECTION 7. Sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered or re -lettered and corrections of typographical errors, which do not affect the intent, may be authorized by the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, without need of public hearing, by filing a corrected or re-codified copy of same with the City Clerk. SECTION 8. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council. This Ordinance was moved for adoption by Councilmember ______________. The motion was seconded by Councilmember _________________ and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Mayor Fred Jones Vice-Mayor Bob McPartlan Councilmember Sherrie Matthews Councilmember Ed Dodd Councilmember Christopher Nunn The Mayor thereupon declared this Ordinance duly passed and adopted this ____ day of May, 2026. CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA By: _________________________ FRED JONES, MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________ CATHERINE E. TESTA ACTING CITY CLERK Approved as to form and legality for reliance by the City of Sebastian only: _______________________________ JAMES D. STOKES, BCS CITY ATTORNEY 131 CITY OF SEBASTIAN CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE May 13, 2026 TO Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU Brian Benton, City Manager FROM James D. Stokes, City Attorney SUBJECT City Clerk Employment Agreement EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the April 29th Special City Council Meeting, the City Council unanimously selected Jane M. Garcia as the next City Clerk and directed the Mayor and City Attorney to negotiate an employment agreement. Following those negotiations, Ms. Garcia has agreed to the proposed terms of employment. The proposed agreement provides for Ms. Garcia’s employment as City Clerk with a tentative start date of June 1, 2026, pending successful completion of all pre-employment and hiring requirements through the Human Resources Department. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Employment Agreement with Jane M. Garcia ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed City Clerk Employment Agreement FUNDING SOURCE: Expenditure required Amount Budgeted: Funding source $87,500.00 plus benefits N/A City Clerk General Fund Additional Funds Needed: $ 0.00 132 AGREEMENT FOR CITY CLERK THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this 13th day of May, 2026, by and between the City of Sebastian, a Florida Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City") and Jane M. Garcia (hereinafter referred to as "City Clerk") pursuant to the following terms and conditions. WHEREAS, the City desires to retain City Clerk as a full-time contractual City Clerk for the City of Sebastian; and WHEREAS, the City expects City Clerk to perform all the responsibilities and obligations required as City Clerk, pursuant to the City Charter, Codes and Ordinances, and applicable State and Federal regulations; and WHEREAS, City Clerk is willing to enter into a relationship with the City of Sebastian to perform the services as provided. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the City and City Clerk, hereby agree as follows: I. TERM OF AGREEMENT This Agreement shall become effective on June 1, 2026, and shall continue in effect until terminated pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. This Agreement is subject to renegotiation every five (5) years, at the request of either the City or the City Clerk. If either party wishes to renegotiate, notice shall be given four (4) months prior to the expiration date of this Agreement. If notice is not given in the time provided, this Agreement shall continue for an additional five (5) year term under the same terms and conditions. II. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS 1. The City will compensate City Clerk at a rate of $87,500.00 per year paid in twenty-six (26) equal payments. Upon completion of an evaluation, the City Council may increase the City Clerk's salary. 2. The City hereby agrees to provide and fully pay for City Clerk and her dependents (including spouse), health insurance, vision care insurance, and dental insurance offered and available to any other full time exempt employees of the City, such benefits being subject to change if said benefits are changed for other City employees. 133 Agreement for the City Clerk Page 2 of 5 3. The City shall provide and fully pay for a term life insurance policy for the City Clerk in an amount equal to one year's salary, payable to a beneficiary of the City Clerk's choosing. 4. The City Clerk shall participate in the City’s Employee Retirement Plan and contribute the amount required, pursuant to the actuarial valuation, based on the percentage contributed to the plan by the City Clerk. The contribution shall be made pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Retirement Plan, including any vesting schedule. 5. The City Clerk shall accrue vacation benefits at the same rate as provided to managerial employees of the City. Upon voluntary separation from employment with the City, the City Clerk shall be entitled to compensation as non-pensionable salary for vacation time accrued in accordance with City Council approved policy applying to managerial employees of the City at the time of such separation. City Clerk shall take at least five (5) consecutive days of vacation time off each calendar year. 6. The City Clerk shall accrue sick leave and discretionary time at the same rate provided to managerial employees of the City. Upon voluntary separation from employment with the City, City Clerk shall be entitled to compensation as non- pensionable salary for sick time accrued in accordance with City Council approved policy applying to managerial employees at the time of such separation. In addition, the City Clerk shall accrue five (5) additional days of personal leave, in addition to the four (4) days of personal leave provided for in City Policy, during the initial term of this Agreement. The 5 additional personal days shall be treated, for accrual and usage, the same as other personal leave. 7. City Clerk shall be provided disability benefits to the same degree as provided other managerial employees of the City. 8. The City shall provide payment of dues, subscriptions and educational seminars, which enhance the City Clerk's professional development and service as City Clerk, to the extent provided for in the City's budget. 9. The City shall reimburse the City Clerk for any expenses directly related to the performance of her duties as City Clerk to the extent provided for in the City's budget. 10. The City Clerk shall be entitled to the use of a City vehicle for official and necessary City business, or during a declared state of emergency by the City of Sebastian. This shall not be used for transportation to and from the residence or be taken out of State. If a City vehicle is unavailable for use when traveling more 134 Agreement for the City Clerk Page 3 of 5 than seventy-five (75) miles from City Hall for official and necessary City business, then the City Clerk shall be entitled to mileage reimbursement, in accordance with City Policy. 11. City Clerk shall be entitled to Military Leave of Absence and benefits afforded other full-time employees in accordance with City Policy and Chapter 115, Florida Statute, and applicable law. 12. City Clerk shall be entitled to all benefits contained in the City Council approved policy, as may be amended. To the extent that the City Council approved policy conflicts with this Agreement, this Agreement shall prevail. III. REVIEW AND EVALUATION A performance evaluation will be performed in accordance with any resolution adopted by the City Council. The criteria for evaluation shall be developed in conjunction with the City Clerk. Professional evaluations of performance shall be conducted with decorum and in-line with the criteria for evaluation. Post-employment, the City Council and City Clerk agree not to engage in public disparagement nor impugn the personal or professional reputation of the City Clerk to the public or the media. IV. FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT The City Clerk agrees to remain in the exclusive employment of the City and to not become employed by any other employer unless termination is affected as hereinafter provided. The term "employed" shall not be construed to include occasional teaching, writing, or consulting performed on City Clerk's time off, provided that the City Council is advised in writing of all such occasions, in advance. T he City Clerk is not subject to any residency requirements during her term of employment. V. TERMINATION AND NOTICE OF SEPARATION City Clerk shall serve at the pleasure of the City Council and may be terminated at any time, as set forth in the City Charter. Should the City Clerk be terminated without cause, she shall be entitled twenty (20) weeks compensation as defined in Section 215.425(4), Florida Statutes, as well as applicable leave payouts as set forth in City policy for managerial employees who have voluntarily resigned. Should the City Clerk resign within fourteen (14) days following a suggestion or request by at least two City Council members during a public meeting, such resignation shall be deemed termination without cause. The City Clerk may be terminated for cause as set forth in Section 3.03 of the City Charter. Cause is defined as malfeasance, misfeasance, or other misconduct including, 135 Agreement for the City Clerk Page 4 of 5 but not limited to, misconduct as defined in Section 443.036(29), Florida Statutes. If terminated for cause, City Clerk shall not be entitled to any severance pay, and she will only be entitled to such benefits or accruals as set forth in City Policy for terminated employees. The City Clerk may resign upon giving sixty (60) days notice of separation. City Clerk shall not be paid any severance payment unless otherwise negotiated , but shall be entitled to compensation for hours worked through her separation, as well as benefits and accruals as set forth in City Policy. VI. INDEMNIFICATION Subject to any limitation imposed by Florida law, the City shall defend, save harmless and indemnify City Clerk against any tort, professional liability claim/demand, or other legal action, whether groundless or otherwise, arising out of an alleged act or omission by the City Clerk acting within the course and scope of his duties as City Clerk. VII. EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK Should an employee handbook or other policy be adopted by the City, the City Clerk shall comply with the handbook or policy as applicable. VIII. GOVERNING LAW The Agreement shall be subject to and governed by the laws of the State of Florida and venue for its enforcement shall be in Indian River County, Florida. IX. NOTICES All official communication as required herein shall only be considered validly served if in writing and delivered personally or sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, with return receipt requested, to the designated addresses: FOR THE CITY CLERK: Jane M. Garcia [last known address on-file with HR] FOR THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN: Mayor City of Sebastian 1225 Main Street Sebastian, Florida 32958 with a copy to: City Attorney City of Sebastian 1225 Main Street Sebastian, Florida 32958 136 Agreement for the City Clerk Page 5 of 5 X. MODIFICATIONS No provision of this Agreement may be changed or modified except by written Agreement executed by both parties hereto. XI. ENTIRE AGREEMENT The Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties and contains all the Agreements described herein between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. Said Agreement supersedes any and all other Agreements, either oral or in writing, between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. XII. ENFORCEMENT In the event that it should become necessary for either party to retain the services of an Attorney to enforce the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party in any litigation which is brought on this Agreement shall be awarded all costs and expenses including but not limited to reasonable attorney fees. This provision shall apply to such expenses incurred at the trial and all appellate levels, without respect to who is the initiating party and shall apply to an action for declaratory relief if the party instituting it asserts specific contentions concerning the Agreement, which are filed upon the Court. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by City Clerk Jane M. Garcia and the City of Sebastian, by the Mayor with attestation by the Acting City Clerk, as of the day and year first above written. FOR CITY CLERK: _________________________________ Jane M. Garcia Dated: __________________________ FOR CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA: _________________________________ Fred Jones, Mayor Dated: __________________________ Approved as to Form, to be relied upon by the City of Sebastian only. _________________________________ James D. Stokes, BCS City Attorney ATTEST: _________________________________ Catherine E. Testa Acting City Clerk 137 CITY OF SEBASTIAN CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE May 13, 2026 TO Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU Brian Benton, City Manager FROM Jessica Graham, Procurement Manager SUBJECT Consideration of Change Order #3 in the amount of $59,990.00 as well as twenty-one (21) additional days for Johnson-Davis Incorporated’s Purchase Order number for 10940 for Gardenia St. Drainage Improvements, authorize the usage of Discretionary Sales Tax Reserve Funds and provide authorization to the City Manager to execute the appropriate documentation. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On July 10, 2024, City Council approved a contract with Johnson-Davis Incorporated to complete the Gardenia St. Drainage Improvements. Currently the project is 60% complete, but staff has uncovered issues at the Riviera Avenue road crossing. The road crossing was inspected to confirm connection to the new piping. At that time failures in the crossing as well as issues with the elevation in connection to the design drawings were found. These issues were not prevalent during the design phase of the project. The City requested a quote from Johnson-Davis to replace the road crossing at Riviera Avenue. Staff is seeking approval to use Discretionary Sales Tax reserve funds to address this failing road crossing. RECOMMENDATION On behalf of the Engineering Division, the Procurement Division recommends that the City Council approve Change Order #3 in the amount of $59,990.00 as well as twenty-one (21) additional days for Johnson-Davis Incorporated Purchase Order number for 10940 for Gardenia St. Drainage Improvements, and authorization for the City Manager to execute the change order. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Johnson-Davis Incorporated Change Order 3 - PO 10940 2. Johnson-Davis Incorporated Quote FUNDING SOURCE: Expenditure required Amount Budgeted: Funding source $59,990.00 $0 Discretionary Sales Tax Fund Reserves Additional Funds Needed: $59,990.00. 138 Procurement Division 1225 Main Street, Sebastian, FL 32958 Phone: 772-388-8231 Page 1 of 2 CHANGE ORDER FORM Change Order # 3 Project Name Gardenia St. Drainage Improvements Purchase Order # 10940 Project # A2264 Contractor: Johnson-Davis Incorporated Contact Name Doug Ipolito Address: 863 S. Kings Highway Fort Pierce, FL 34945 Contract Date July 31, 2024 By the signature affixed below, the City and the Contractor agree to the changes stipulated herein. Upon proper execution of this document, the Contractor is hereby notified to commence work. All changes stated below are hereby incorporated and made a part of the Contract identified above, and all the terms and conditions of said Contract are enjoined and in full force while executing the change(s) stipulated as follows: DESCRIPTION: On July 10, 2024, City Council approved a contract with Dickerson Infrastructure to complete the Gardenia St. Drainage Improvements. Early in the construction process the Riviera Avenue road crossing was inspected to c onfirm connection to the new piping. At that time failures in the crossing as well as issues with the elevation in connection to the design drawings were found. These issues were not prevalent during the design phase of the project. The City requested a quote from Johnson-Davis to replace the road crossing at Riviera Avenue, and expand the contract’s scope of work. A. Contract price prior to this change $674,032.00 Net increase (decrease) resulting from this change $59,990.00 New contract price including this change order $734,022.00 B. Contract time prior to this change (number of days) 189 Days Net increase (decrease) resulting from this change (number of days) 21 Days New completion date including this change 210 (June 15, 2026 AGREED: JOHNSON-DAVIS INCORPORATED: CITY OF SEBASTIAN: ___________________________ ___________________________ Clark C. Cryer, President Brian Benton, City Manager Date: ______________________ Date: ______________________ CITY OF SEBASTIAN: ___________________________ Catherine E. Testa, Acting City Clerk Date: ______________________ 139 Procurement Division 1225 Main Street, Sebastian, FL 32958 Phone: 772-388-8231 Page 2 of 2 Approvals by City of Sebastian Staff: City Manager Authorization – a cumulative amount less than 15% of the contract price or $15,000. X City Council Authorization – a cumulative amount exceeds 15% of the contract price or $15,000. CITY COUNCIL MEETING: May 13, 2026 Project Manager ___________ as to Scope of Work Procurement Manager ___________ as to purchasing Finance ___________ as to budget City Attorney ___________ as to legal 140 City of Sebastian 1225 Main St. Sebastian, Fl. 32958 Attn:Karen Miller Project:Riviera & Gardenia Drainage Improvements Re:Extend 38" x 60" across Riviera Ave. J-D JOB #:12194 J-D COR #:03 Karen, DATE:TBD 1 1 LS $59,990.00 $59,990.00 2 3 4 5 Total Amount of Change Order:$59,990.00 Total Amount of Days Added to The Contract:21 Please review and forward to the responsible parties for authorization. As always, should there be any questions or if you require any additional information please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, Douglas Ipolito CHANGE ORDER REQUEST May 1, 2026 Please find attached the breakdown for the additional cost associated with extending the 38" x 60" ERCP across Riviera Ave. The cost includes setting temporary roadway detour and cutting roadway to set wellpoint system in preparation for removal & disposal of old RCP and replacing with new 38" x 60" ERCP. Modification of the new S-6 Inlet and backfill with densities and placement of 18" of road base. Paving by others. Sod by Johnson-Davis. Install 38" x 60" from S-6 to drainage ditch crossing Evernia St. 141 * All MOT costs are included. * Density testing costs are included. * All restoration is included in our proposal. * Paving by others * Supply and placement of hay bales, rock bags, silt fence and silt screens are included in our proposal. * Bond premium is not included in our proposal. J-D Bond rate is 1.5% * Clearing and Grubbing is included in our proposal. * No additional permit fees & impact fees are expected and are not included in our proposal. * Removal and disposal of existing drainage shown to be removed is included in our proposal. * Sawcutting of existing asphalt for road cuts is included in our proposal. * Connection of the new 38" x 60" and the 12" side drain pipes to existing S-6 are included in our proposal. * J-D is not responsible for damage to completed work caused by others. Repairs to correct damage caused by others will only be undertaken upon receipt of an authorized change order for the full amount necessary to make the repairs. * J-D's proposal including all notes, terms, and conditions mentioned herein must be included in any agreement resulting from this proposal. * Unless otherwise indicated in writing, this proposal expires 30 days from the date of the proposal. This proposal may be extended for additional periods of time, at the sole discretion of J-D. * Progress payments and Final payment to J-D shall be in accordance with Florida Statute 337.11. * Retainage will be held from J-D at the same rate as the Origianl Contract. 142 CITY OF SEBASTIAN CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE May 13, 2026 TO Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU Brian Benton, City Manager FROM Jessica Graham, Procurement Manager SUBJECT Consideration of Change Order #1 in the amount of $27,700.00 for Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc.’s Purchase Order number for 11227 for Gardenia St. Drainage Improvements Construction Engineering and Inspection services, authorize the usage of DST Reserve Funds and provide authorization to the City Manager to execute the appropriate documentation. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On July 10, 2024, City Council approved a contract Johnson-Davis Incorporated (Johnson Davis) to complete the Gardenia St. Drainage Improvements. CSA #5 was issued to Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc.’s (JMT) for Gardenia St. Drainage Improvements Construction Engineering and Inspection services. The original construction inspection timeline was 21 days, but that timeline must be extended with Johnson Davis’ additional scope to replace the road crossing at Riviera Avenue. Staff is also seeking approval to use Stormwater reserve funds to address this failing road crossing. RECOMMENDATION On behalf of the Engineering Division, the Procurement Division recommends that the City Council approve Change Order #1 in the amount of $27,700.00 for Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc.’s Purchase Order number for 11227 for Gardenia St. Drainage Improvements Construction Engineering and Inspection services, authorize the usage of DST Reserve Funds and provide authorization to the City Manager to execute the appropriate documentation. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson Change Order 1 - PO 11227 2. Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson Quote FUNDING SOURCE: Expenditure required Amount Budgeted: Funding source $27,700.00 $0 Discretionary Sales Tax Fund Reserves Additional Funds Needed: $ 27,700.00 143 Procurement Division 1225 Main Street, Sebastian, FL 32958 Phone: 772-388-8231 Page 1 of 2 CHANGE ORDER FORM Change Order # 1 Project Name Gardenia St. Drainage Improvements Purchase Order # 11227 Project # A2264 Contractor: Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc. Contact Name Steven Haines Address: 3731 Oleander Avenue, # 108 Fort Pierce, FL 34982 Contract Date January 14, 2025 By the signature affixed below, the City and the Contractor agree to the changes stipulated herein. Upon proper execution of this document, the Contractor is hereby notified to commence work. All changes stated below are hereby incorporated and made a part of the Contract identified above, and all the terms and conditions of said Contract are enjoined and in full force while executing the change(s) stipulated as follows: DESCRIPTION: CSA #5 was issued for Construction and Engineering Inspection (CEI) services for the Gardenia St. Drainage Improvements. The initial construction timeframe was 3 weeks. However, with the expansion of Johnson Davis’ scope of work to include replacing the crossing at Riviera Avenue, Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc must extend their CEI services to extend to the end of the project. A. Contract price prior to this change $24,955.00 Net increase (decrease) resulting from this change $27,700.00 New contract price including this change order $52,655.00 B. Contract time prior to this change (number of days) 21 Days Net increase (decrease) resulting from this change (number of days) 28 Days New completion date including this change 49 Days (End of project) AGREED: JOHNSON, MIRMIRAN & THOMPSON, INC: CITY OF SEBASTIAN: ___________________________ ___________________________ Steven Haines, Vice President Brian Benton, City Manager Date: ______________________ Date: ______________________ CITY OF SEBASTIAN: ___________________________ Catherine E. Testa, Acting City Clerk Date: ______________________ 144 Procurement Division 1225 Main Street, Sebastian, FL 32958 Phone: 772-388-8231 Page 2 of 2 Approvals by City of Sebastian Staff: City Manager Authorization – a cumulative amount less than 15% of the contract price or $15,000. X City Council Authorization – a cumulative amount exceeds 15% of the contract price or $15,000. CITY COUNCIL MEETING: May 13, 2026 Project Manager ___________ as to Scope of Work Procurement Manager ___________ as to purchasing Finance ___________ as to budget City Attorney ___________ as to legal 145 CEI SERVICES FOR RIVIERA AVE. AND GARDENIA ST. DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS MANHOUR ESTIMATE Riviera Ave. and Gardenia St. Drainage Improvements - CEI Services Manhour & Cost Estimate Time & Expense Basis JMT, Inc. 4/30/2026 Shop Drawing Reviews Hrs/Week Total Weeks Total Hours Rate/Hr Total Sr. Project Engineer --- --- - 195.00$ -$ Project Manager --- --- - 160.00$ -$ Sr. Inspector --- --- - 105.00$ -$ Subtotal -$ Close-out Hrs/Week Total Weeks Total Hours Rate/Hr Total Sr. Project Engineer 2 2.00 4.00 195.00$ 780.00$ Project Manager 8 2.00 16.00 160.00$ 2,560.00$ Sr. Inspector 8 2.00 16.00 105.00$ 1,680.00$ Subtotal 5,020.00$ Construction (4 weeks; 28 day construction time) Hrs/Week Total Weeks Total Hours Rate/Hr Total Sr. Project Engineer 2 4.00 8.00 195.00$ 1,560.00$ Project Manager 12 4.00 48.00 160.00$ 7,680.00$ Sr. Inspector 32 4.00 128.00 105.00$ 13,440.00$ Subtotal 22,680.00$ Field Office & Utilities Budget of $0/mo for 12 mos.-$ Direct Expense Direct Expense -$ TOTAL = 27,700.00$ Notes: Based on 4 weeks of additional construction time. As-builts and geotechnical testing by others Manhour Estimate (04.30.26) - City of Sebastian.xlsx 1 of 1 146