10-15-90 v CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
SPECIAL COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1990, 7:30 P.M.
Call to order
1. Marlene Brown, Comptroller of Pic N' Save, requests the late fee for
said company be removed from the Occupational License for FY October
1990. Also requesting that in the future, for proof of date received
for non-timely licenses filed, the mailing envelope should be saved
by the City Clerk's Office.
2. Noe, Eakin & Foody, attorneys for Ira Bratcher requests the City
Commission direct the contractor of Section H to work in another area
of said project while St. Johns River Water Management District
considers a proposal submitted to same for consideration. (Paul
Eakin, attorney)
3. Financial advisor's report and consideration to proceed:
1. acceptance of Burton & Associates report, Sept. 26, 1990
2. refunding certain current debt
3. approving suggested finance team
4. Phase III & IV of contract with Burton & Associates
4. Any other business
Adjournment
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF ATLANTIC BEACH CITY COMMISSION HELD AT
7:30 PM ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1990, IN CITY HALL, ATLANTIC BEACH
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Gulliford. Present in addition
to the Mayor were Commissioners Cook, Edwards, Tucker and Weldon. Also
present were City Manager Leinbach, Finance Director Royal and City
Clerk King.
At the request of the Mayor, Item 2 was taken out of sequence and acted
upon first.
2. Noe, Eakin and Foody, attorneys for Ira Bratcher, requesting the
City Commission to direct the contractor of the Section H project to
work in another area of project while St. Johns River Water Management
District considers a proposal submitted to same for consideration.
Attorney Paul Eakin stated that the Bratcher family lives on Tenth
Street. They own twelve lots on Tenth Street and six lots on Ninth
Street, as well as some lots on Camelia Street. Mr. Eakin said water
and sewer lines had been installed on Ninth and Tenth Streets some years
ago by Mr. Bratcher and approved by the city. In order to dig the
ditches as proposed by the project, some of the water and sewer lines
would have to be taken up. Mr. Eakin explained that Mr. Bratcher was
proposing an alternate plan to install curb and gutters instead of
ditches along his properties. He realized this plan would have to be
approved by the St. Johns River Water Management District and he
requested the City Commission to instruct the contractor to work in
another area of the project in order to allow the engineer time to
prepare the plans and review of same by the Water District. Mr. Eakin
assured the City Commission that this review by the Water District would
not cause a delay in the overall construction of the Section H project.
Commissioner Tucker pointed out that Mr. Bratcher owned property on only
the north side of Ninth Street and she inquired how the installation of
curb and gutter on the north side of the street would affect the overall
drainage in the area.
Buck Snellings of the engineering firm of Connelly and Wicker, said he
had been working on the proposal to eliminate the roadside ditches on
Tenth Street and felt there was enough property to create the same
volume of ditches along the easterly right-of-way on Orchid Street. He
had not had an opportunity, however, to closely review the Ninth Street
proposal.
Billy Howell, Section H Project Manager, said in the planning stages of
the Section H project the city held several public hearings and a cost
of $31.84 per front foot was established. Mr. Eakin reported Mr.
Bratcher received a quote of $4.00 per foot for curb and gutter and
based on the information he had received, he felt curb and gutter could
be cheaper than digging ditches and would save the city the time of
having to dig up and relocate the utilities on Ninth and Tenth Streets.
Page Two
Minutes of Special Commission Meeting
October 15, 1990
Bill Layton, Director of Land Development Engineering with Bessent,
Hammack & Ruckman, the engineers for the Section H project, the "V"
bottom ditches were bid at $3.00 per foot which was lower than the bid
Mr. Bratcher had apparently received for curb and gutter. Mr. Layton
referred to the ditch which was proposed on Orchid Street to compensate
for the elimination of ditches on Ninth and Tenth Streets. He indicated
that this ditch would be about one foot deep and could hold water for
thirty-six hours if required, which, in his opinion, would saturate and
cause damage to the sub grade of the street. For this reason all the
ditches were designed to be below the grade of the street.
Commissioner Weldon asked what further steps they would consider taking
in the event the Water District did not approve the proposed plans and
Mr. Eakin indicated he had not discussed alternate plans with Mr.
Bratcher.
City Engineer Bob Kosoy, said he had had indications the review of the
plans by the Water District could take up to ninety days. He also
pointed out that this project had been bid out and awarded to Barco and
that regardless of additional quotes, parts of the project could not be
contracted out to another contractor.
Billy Howell said the time frame was important because the project was
already running behind schedule and further delays would result in
penalties to the contractor. A further consideration would be that if
the contractor had anticipated being finished using certain equipment
and could otherwise move this equipment to another job, having to keep
this equipment on the site would result in additional expense to the
contractor. He felt Mr. Bratcher needed to be willing to pay the
additional cost, if any, which resulted from his redesign. Mr. Eakin,
however, said since it was impossible to know what costs would be
involved he would not expect Mr. Bratcher to "sign a blank check."
Mayor Gulliford also said he felt the matter of the utility lines on
Ninth and Tenth Streets needed to be researched to see that they were
properly permitted and accepted by the city.
Commissioner Cook inquired who would be responsible if additional
expenses should be incurred. Mayor Gulliford responded that the motion
provided that no additional expense could be incurred for the city and
in the event no one else was willing to pay, the deal would be off.
Commissioner Weldon inquired whether, in the event the Water District
approved the proposal, the city would have the authority to reject it.
The City Attorney pointed out no approval was being granted this
evening. Mr. Bratcher was just being given thirty days to pursue the
alternate plan. As with all changes to the original plan, it would then
have to come back to the City Commission in the form of a Change Order
for final approval.
Page Three
Minutes of Special Commission Meeting
October 15, 1990
After a complete discussion of the matter Commissioner Weldon moved to
grant Mr. Bratcher's request for additional time to pursue alternative
drainage plans provided plans are submitted to the city and Bill Layton
of Bessent, Hammack & Ruckman, and the St. Johns River Water Management
District no later than fifteen days from this date and that resolution
would take no longer than thirty days from this date, subject to
agreement by the contractor, and provided this would result in no
additional cost to the city. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Tucker.
Mr. Howell asked for clarification as to where work on the project was
to be stopped and it was determined work would be stopped on both sides
of the street on Tenth Street, the north side of Ninth Street, and in
front of Mr. Bratcher's property on Camelia Street.
The question was called and was unanimously approved on roll call vote.
Before proceeding to other agenda items, Mayor Gulliford afforded others
in the audience an opportunity to bring questions or concerns before the
Commission.
Jane Bennett and Ms. Bryant presented pictures to demonstrate the depth
of the of the ditches on Camelia. Mr. Howell explained the depth of the
ditches was measured from the crown of the road. Some of the properties
were built up and where property was two feet above the road grade, a
two foot ditch was actually four feet below the elevation of the
property. He said they were aware of the problem and were attempting to
resolve the matter.
Ms. Bennett also presented a petition from the residents of Camelia
Street to the Commission expressing concern about the safety hazard the
ditches presented and asking that the city do something to alleviate the
problem. Mr. Leyton was asked to review the problem areas and report
back to the City Commission at the meeting of November 12, 1990.
Ms. Bennett said she had been authorized to speak on behalf of Joseph
Williamson who owned property on Jasmine Street. She reported he would
be willing to sell two lots for use as a retention pond. However, it
was felt the property was designated as wetlands and could not be used
for this purpose.
A resident of West Fourth Street inquired why some streets had curb and
gutters and others had ditches. Billy Howell explained decisions
regarding the drainage were made during the public hearing process.
In response to a question from another resident, he explained the
different types of drains and reminded the residents no assessments were
made for streets or drainage as the city was paying for this. Judy
Causey, 276 Camelia Street, complained of the retention ditch in front
of her home which she was told would be twelve feet wide and Mr. Leyton
was asked to check into this.
Page Four
Minutes of Special Commission Meeting
October 15, 1990
A question was also raised about the maintenance of the ditches and the
expense involved. Mayor Gulliford reported that at this time the city
did not own the proper equipment but may have to consider purchasing
such equipment.
At this time Mayor Gulliford called a five minute recess.
Mayor Gulliford reconvened the meeting and directed attention to Item
No. 1 on the agenda.
1. Marlene Brown, Comptroller of Pic N' Save, requests the late fee
for said company be removed from the Occupational License for FY 90/91,
also requesting that in future, for proof of date received for
non-timely licenses filed, the mailing envelope should be saved by the
City Clerk's office.
Mayor Gulliford confirmed that each Commissioner had received a letter
from Pic N' Save requesting that the delinquent penalty on their
occupational license renewal be waived. Ms. Brown indicated that the
payment had been mailed on time but the Post Office had been 'tardy in
their delivery.
Commissioner Cook moved to waive the delinquent fee. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Edwards.
Discussion ensued regarding whether payment should be received by the
due date or whether a postmark by the due date would be considered
timely payment. Since the envelope had not been retained there was no
way to determine when Pic N' Save had mailed the payment. The question
was called and the motion carried on a 4 - 1 vote with Commissioner
Tucker voting Nay.
In further discussion it was determined a policy should be established
to determine whether "payment" meant that the city must have receipt of
payment or whether a postmark by the due date would be acceptable.
After further discussion it was decided to put this matter on the agenda
for the next regular meeting when a policy would be established.
3. Financial advisor's report and consideration to proceed:
a. acceptance of Burton and Associates report, September 26, 1990
b. refunding certain current debt
c. approving suggested finance team
d. Phase III and IV of contract with Burton and Associates
Mike Burton of Burton and Associates introduced Mike Kuhn of the firm of
A.G. Edwards & Sons. Mr. Burton presented a letter with recommendations
and reviewed this material in detail with the City Commission. He
explained that refunding the existing water and sewer debt would result
in savings to the City in the neighborhood of $52,000. He recommended
refunding these issues, not only for the savings but to facilitate the
issuance of new money debt by allowing the city to pledge the total
Page Five
Minutes of Special Commission Meeting
October 15, 1990
system revenues to any new money debt issues. He explained the savings
which could be realized by phasing water and sewer capital improvements
at a maximum cost of $5 million per year 1991 through 1993 as opposed to
one $15 million issue, and the benefits of moving ahead with the first
refunding issue before the end of this year.
James Gollahon, Vice President of A.G. Edwards & Sons, reviewed the
city's outstanding debt on each of the Buccaneer, Oak Harbor and City
systems. Proposed refunding would be at a lower interest rate and would
combine the three water and sewer systems as one issue which would be
split into three parts to allow for comparisons with the current
funding.
Mr. Gollahon also provided an exhibit illustrating the benefits of
issuing three $5 million bond issues over 1991, 1992, and 1993 versus
issuing one $15 million bond issue in 1991 which, he said, would allow
the city to take advantage of the arbitrage rebate exemption available
to small borrowers. He suggested spreading the total financing for new
money and refunding over thirty years to level out the debt service.
This would allow the city to pay for the new improvements over the
expected life of the sewer plant. The city could pay the bonds off
early if it so desired but not before the first call date which would
probably be eight years. A typical penalty for paying off the debt
early would be about 2% in the eighth year, 1% in the ninth year, and no
prepayment penalty after the tenth year.
Mr. Gollahon explained in some detail "window refunding" whereby the
refunding debt could be extended to twenty or thirty years and the new
debt of later issues would fill in the one to twenty year window. This
would reduce the interest expense and, even with the new borrowings,
would minimize the annual cash flow which directly impacts the rate
structure for future revenues.
Commissioner Weldon asked Mr. Burton to what year he would recommend
moving the refunding. Mr. Burton responded the refunding would go out
probably in years twenty to thirty and the new money to expand the
system would be in the years one to twenty, thus lessening the total
payments.
Commissioner Weldon referred to Mr. Burton's letter of October 15 and
inquired what funds would be used to pay the refunding debt if total
system revenues would be used to pay off new money debt. Mr. Burton
explained at some length how this would work and said a rate increase
would probably be necessary to generate sufficient revenues to cover the
additional debt. He said by pledging total system revenues, the city
would be able to get better terms on a new loan.
Commissioner Edwards inquired what kind of rate increase might be
necessary and Mr. Burton said that would be the first task of the rate
study.
Page Six
Minutes of Special Commission Meeting
October 15, 1990
Commissioner Cook asked why the City Commission could not have been kept
informed of progress being made by the financial advisors since they
were authorized to proceed with the work. The City Manager responded
that it had taken until now to review the city's current debt service
and come up with the recommendations now being presented. The Mayor
pointed out in the Buccaneer or Oak Harbor issues, the city had not had
any input in the selection of the any of the financing team and he asked
Finance Director Royal to provide each Commissioner with a copy of the
charges involved in those issues.
Mr. Gollahon said their objective would be to clean up the old debt so
the city could borrow new money at reasonable rates and allow the city
to move forward with the improvements to the system. Mr. Burton said at
this time they were seeking authorization to proceed with Phases III and
IV of their contract. The bond counsel, underwriters, engineers and
auditors needed to be selected and authorized to proceed. Mr. Burton
said their report on Phases III and IV would be submitted to the city
before they would be asked to approve the issuance of the bonds.
Commissioner Weldon moved to authorize Burton and Associates to proceed
with Phases III and IV of their proposal dated July 24, 1990. The
motion was not seconded and discussion continued.
Discussion ensued and Mayor Gulliford said he felt Phase IV should be
completed before Phase III was undertaken and Mr. Burton said both
phases needed to proceed simultaneously. Under Phase III, in the event
no bonds were issued there would be no payment due Burton and Associates
for that phase of the agreement. Mayor Gulliford said he wished to
confirm that work would commence under Phase III once authorization was
given, but payment would be limited to $3,000 to cover incidental
expenses in the event no bonds were issued.
Mr. Burton said the other members of the financing team, which would
include bond counsel, underwriter, engineer and auditor, needed to be
selected. The engineer's report would be required to be in the official
statement to the bond buyer to verify that the sewer system will be able
to operate to support the revenues. The other members of the financing
team would only be paid for their services when and if the bond issue
closed.
Public Services Director Bob Kosoy and Community Development Director
Tom Bowles presented a draft of projected capital improvements based on
future needs. Tom Bowles spoke to the matter and said the list of
improvements had been compiled in cooperation with Harry McNally and Tim
Townsend and it was the opinion of the staff that items A through G were
essential and needed to be undertaken immediately. He estimated the
improvements would cost in the neighborhood of $10.6 million.
Commissioner Tucker moved to authorize Burton & Associates to move ahead
with Phase IV at a cost not to exceed $17,900 and Phase III at a cost
Page Seven
Minutes of Special Commission Meeting
October 15, 1990
not to exceed $3,000 with the condition a report on Phase IV be
presented to the City Commission on November 12. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Weldon and on roll call vote, was unanimously
approved.
The City Manager asked how the City Commission wished to proceed to
select the financing team. Mr. Gollahon said they were representing the
city in the capacity of financial advisor and would not act as
underwriter but had made recommendations in that regard. Mayor
Gulliford inquired whether the city was bound by the Consultants
Competitive Negotiation Act or any other criteria in the selection of
the finance team and the City Attorney responded that he was not aware
of any such provision.
Mayor Gulliford referred to Mr. Gollahon's letter of October 5 and
pointed out that in his opinion the fee quoted by Gee & Jenson was very
high. Mr. Burton said the engineer's report would include a certain
amount of project definition and the fact two bond issues were involved
he felt the fee may be reasonable.
After further discussion the Commissioner Weldon moved to authorize the
City Manager to analyze the proposals and negotiate agreements with the
various firms on the finance team and present recommendations at the
next meeting of the City Commission. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Cook and was unanimously approved.
Before adjourning the meeting Mayor Gulliford said he had personally
seen the deplorable condition of the vacant lot adjacent to the Royal
Palm Theatre and asked that the Code Enforcement Officer be directed to
notify the owners and if necessary, have city crews clean the lot and
place a lien against the property.
Commissioner Cook reported that Louis MacDonell had complained to him
about "For Sale" signs being placed on city property all over town. The
City Manager was instructed to check into this and see that the law is
being enforced equally for all.
There being no further discussion, the Ma or declared the meeting
adjourned at 10:20 PM.
A AA/OA/ASI
Wi liam I. Gul ifor.
Mayor/Presiding Of .
ATTE ST:
7d7b,c024--,,/ /4,1„:„, 7
Maureen King, City Cl4k
OCTOBER 11 , 1990
WE THE HOMEOWNER ' S OF ATLANTIC BEACH, WHICH LIVE ON CAMELIA STREET,
T
E T
_-_-_ _= ..�__---,�..�_.._.�...^--_ _— -. __;. _ _.! --- .�-=-•==��3 P I ION TO THE
CITY COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR OF ATLANTIC BEACH ABOUT THE DITCHES THAT
ARE BEING INSTALLED IN OUR STREET. AS TAX PAYERS IN SECTION "H" ,
WE DEMAND THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS TO OUR COMMUNITY ARE NOT TO OUR
SATISFACTION. WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT THEIR IS ANOTHER ALTER-
NATIVE TO THIS PROBLEM. WE DO UNDERSTAND THE ENVIRONMENTAL REG-
LATIONS THAT THE CITY IS HAVING TO DEAL WITH. WE ARE PLEASED WITH
THE HARD WORK AND THE EXPENSE THAT THE CITY IS DOING SUCH A GOOD
JOB ON THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THIS AREA. BUT WE WERE NOT AWARE OF
THE DECISIONS THAT WERE MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND BY THE MAYOR
OF OUR SECTION OF THIS DEVELOPMENT MADE ON OUR STREET. WE ARE
OBJECTING WITH THE DEVELOPMENTS MADE TO OUR STREET. WE ARE ASKING
THE COUNCIL AND MAYOR TO CONSIDER CHANGING THESE DITCHES ON OUR
STREET. WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE SAFTEY OF OUR CHILDREN AND
GRANDCHILDREN, AS YOU WELL KNOW, NO MATTER HOW MUCH SUPERVISION,
CHILDREN WILL PLAY IN THESE DITCHES, AND WE ARE SPEAKING ABOUT
FOUR FOOT DITCHES . WE HAVE SIGNED THIS PETITION UNDER OUR OWN FREE
WILL AND KNOW THIS CAN BE RESOLVED WITH THE HELP OF OUR MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL TO BETTER OUR COMMUNITY AND POTENTIAL HOMEOWNERS OF
ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA.
/
Atceh :Pr
'114. ' i.1 . ��. -�•.V=(,.
r I
Alic w�