HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 10 28 Consent Item C
COMMISSION AGENDA
ITEM
c
REGULAR
CONSENT X
INFORMATIONAL
October 28. 1996
Meeting
MGR //J1/ IDEPT /)j/
Authorization
REQUEST: Public Works/Stormwater Utility Division Requesting Authorization to Execute
Amendment SO for Consulting Engineering Services with Conklin, Porter &
Holmes Engineers, Inc.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this Board item is to request authorization for the execution of
Amendment 50 for a Review of the Stormwater Utility Ordinance and Development
of a Mitigation Credit Policy with Conklin, Porter & Holmes Engineers, Inc. at a cost
of $13,304.00.
CONSIDERATIONS:
This study is needed to begin to implement the recommendations that were made by
stormwater legal and rate experts retained by the City to review our stormwater ordinances,
resolutions and rate structure. Robert Nabors ofthe law firm Nabors, Giblin, & Nickerson
of Tallahassee reviewed the legal aspects while Duncan Rose of Government Services Group,
L. C. covered the rate structure. These experts were retained to evaluate our position in
response to receipt of a draft law suit by a resident who is also an attorney. Their report is
included as Attachment #2.
The scope of work includes reviews of the mitigation credit, the impact of any new
drainage studies on the capital improvement program, the capital and major maintenance
expenditures to date, and a rate evaluation. The engineering firm of Dyer, Riddle, Mills &
Precourt is being used as a subconsultant due to their expertise in mitigation credit
computations.
October 28, 1996
Consent Agenda Item C
Page ..2
ISSUE ANALYSIS:
This study will provide recommended improvements to the stormwater utility
program which will solidify our position for any potential legal challenges.
FUNDING:
The cost for Amendment 50 is $13,304. Sufficient funds are available in the
consulting engineering line code (4412-53180) for this study. It is estimated the funds would
be expended in 90 days from date of approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that authorization be given for the execution of Amendment 50 for a
Review of the Storm water Utility Ordinance and Development of a Mitigation Credit Policy with
Conklin, Porter & Holmes Engineers, Inc. at a cost of$13,304.00 payable from the Stormwater
Utility Consulting Engineering line code (4412-53180).
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE:
The study will be completed within 60 days of approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Amendment 50 for Consulting Engineering Services with CPH.
2. Review of Storm water Utility Structure by Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson and GSG
COMMISSION ACTION:
Attachment No. 1
AMENDMENT 50 TO AGREEMENT
DATED
NOVEMBER 27, 1984
FOR
STORMW ATER UTILITY ORDINANCE REVIEW
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
AND
CONKLIN, PORTER & HOLMES - ENGINEERS, INC.
This Amendment dated , 1996, by and between the City of Winter Springs
(hereinafter called the OWNER) and Conklin, Porter & Holmes - Engineers, Inc. (hereinafter called
the ENGINEER), is mutually agreed upon and declared an authorized Amendment to an Agreement
dated November 27, 1984, between the parties, herein setting forth the scope, terms and conditions
of the services herein authorized. The appropriate provisions of the November 27, 1984, Agreement
apply as fully as if repeated herein.
SECTION 1
GENERAL
1.1
The ENGINEER shall provide all services required to complete the review of the
stormwater utility ordinance and the development of a mitigation credit policy. The
ENGINEER shall perform professional services as hereinafter stated in accordance
with good engineering practices. This is a joint project with Dyer, Riddle, Mills &
Precourt (DRMP) being utilized as a subconsultant.
SECTION 2
BASIC SERVICES OF THE ENGINEER
2.1
The ENGINEER will serves as the CITY'S professional representative in those phases
of work to which this Amendment applies, and will give consultation and advice to
the CITY during the period of performance of services.
SECTION 3
SCOPE OF SERVICES
3.1
Task 1
Project Initiation and Ordinance Review
Project Team shall meet with City Staff to initiate the project and discuss staff
concerns. The City's stormwater utility ordinance shall be reviewed for technical
completeness in light of the recent Supreme Court decision. (CPH/DRMP)
3.2
Task 2
Data Collection and Meetings with SJRWMD
Determine mitigation credit values by credit class. The project team shall meet with
SJRWMD and other jurisdictions as necessary to identify those practices and facilities
which reduce a land area's contribution to need for stormwater facilities. Three
meetings are anticipated, the first of which will focus on defining components of
stormwater management which are appropriate to the development of a mitigation
credit framework. (CPH/DRMP)
3.3
Task 3
Select Example Projects for Analysis
From the meetings on the above task, ten representative parcels shall be selected for
the purpose of determining stormwater utility obligation in terms ofERU's, without
regard to mitigation. (CPH/DRMP)
3.4
Task 4
Define Mitigation Components
Algorithms and required inputs for computing mitigation credit components shall be
established. Weighting factors for the various components shall be recommended
based upon relative importance in reducing contribution to need, and benefit area
deficiencies. A procedures document will be prepared to aid City staff in properly
assigning credits to properties whose owners appeal the utility fees. (DRMP)
3.5
Task 5
Apply Mitigation Credits to Selected Projects
:Mitigation credit computations shall be applied to the ten representative parcels. The
examples shall be evaluated in terms of ease of data acquisition, equity of application,
and impacts to the proposed revenue stream. (CPR)
3.6
Task 6
Meetings with City Staff
A final meeting with City staff will be required to solicit City staff revisions. The
mitigation credit policy shall be revised based upon the results of this meeting.
(CPHfDRMP)
3.7.
Task 7
Review New Drainage Studies
Review current published studies on Gee Creek, Soldiers Creek, Little Lake Howell
Basin that have been prepared since the publication of the Master Plan. Re-evaluate
capital improvements based on these studies. (CPR)
3.8
Task 8
Master Plan Overview
Overview of the existing Master Stormwater Plan based on the existing capital
improvements plan. Re-evaluate capital expenditures to date (adjust the value of
future capital projects if necessary). Re-evaluate capital costs based on recent bids
and construction costs. Identify the basin in which each capital improvement will
occur. Include the cost for major maintenance items and identify a future cost for
major maintenance items on an annual basis per basin based on information provided
by the City. Include the cost for all other maintenance items and administration costs
for the entire City on an annual basis. The city staffwill identify the number ofERUs
in each basin. Estimate the amount of mitigation that would occur in each basin based
on ownership and basin treatment information provided by the City. We will not
provide an evaluation of the capabilities of each drainage system. (CPR)
3.9
Task 9
Rate Evaluation
Provide OWNER with recommended rates based on the capital and maintenance
expenditures identified in 3.8 above. Only the dollar amounts generated in Task 3.8
will be used to perform the analysis. Therefore, the level of detail and accuracy is
directly related to this task. Information pertaining to the ownership, maintenance
responsibilities and monetary aspects of privately owned stormwater facilities will be
provided by the OWNER. The OWNER will be provided with a value for each, i.e.,
capital and maintenance components based on the best available information. This is
not intended to be a complete rate study for the stormwater utility system. It is an
evaluation of the existing rate structure and recommended parameters in order to
place the stormwater fee for the City of Winter Springs in perspective with the tasks
and projects identified for the stormwater system. (DRMP)
SECTION 4
SUPPLEMENT AR Y SERVICES OF THE ENGINEER
4.1
If authorized in writing by the OWNER prior to the rendering of such services, the
ENGINEER will furnish or obtain under subcontracts, supplementary services of the
following types which will be paid for by the OWNER.
4.2
Additional services due to significant changes in the scope of the project or its design
including, but not limited to, changes in complexity, character, or due to time delays
in initiating or completion of the work as described herein.
4.3
Additional services in connection with the project including services normally
furnished by the OWNER as described in Section 5 herein and services not otherwise
provided for in this Amendment.
4.4
Preparing to serve and serving as an expert witness for the OWNER in any protest,
litigation, or other proceeding involving the project.
4.5
Additional engineering services required by revisions to regulations (after the date of
this Amendment) as applicable to the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, the St. Johns River Water Management District, or other regulatory
agency requirements.
SECTION 5
THE OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES
5.1 The OWNER will:
5.1.1 Advise the ENGINEER of his requirements for the project and designate a person to
act as the OWNER'S representative with respect to the work to be performed under
this Amendment, and such person shall have complete authority to transmit
instructions, receive information, interpret and define the OWNER'S policies and
decisions pertinent to the work covered by this Amendment.
5.1.2 Guarantee access to and make all provision for the ENGINEER to enter upon public
and private lands as required for the ENGINEER to perform his work under this
Amendment.
5.1.3 Provide data requested that is reasonably available on the existing utility systems,
population and projects, land use and planning information.
5.1.4 Examine all studies, reports, sketches, and other documents presented by the
ENGINEER and render decisions pertaining thereto within a reasonable time so as
not to delay the work of the ENGINEER.
5.1.5 Obtain approval of all governmental authorities having jurisdiction over the project,
and such approvals and consents from such other individuals or bodies as may be
necessary for completion of the Project.
5.1.6 Furnish, or direct the ENGINEER in writing to provide at the OWNER'S expense,
necessary additional services as stipulated in Section 4 of this Amendment, or other
services as required.
5.1.7 Provide such legal, accounting, and insurance counseling services as may be required
for the project, and such auditing services as the OWNER may require.
5.1.8 Give prompt written notice to the ENGINEER whenever the OWNER observes or
otherwise becomes aware of any defect in the Project.
SECTION 6
PAYMENT
6.1 PAYMENT
6.1.1 Compensation paid ENGINEER for services described herein and rendered by
principals and employees assigned to the Project will be computed by multiplying
Direct Personnel Expense (defined in Paragraph 6.2.3 herein) times a factor of 2.0
plus all reimbursable expenses. The fee for the scope of services described in Section
3 shall not exceed $13,304.00 without further written authorization.
6.2 REIMBURSED EXPENSES AND DEFINITIONS
6.2.1 Expenses for items not specifically valued herein are to be reimbursed to the
ENGINEER at the actual cost thereof Said expenses shall include transportation and
subsistence of principals and employees, when traveling in connection with the
Project, toll telephone calls, telegrams and similar project-related items.
6.2.2 The OWNER will make prompt monthly payments in response to ENGINEERS'S
monthly statements without retention for all categories of services rendered under this
Amendment and for reimbursable expenses incurred.
6.2.3 Direct Personnel Expense used as a basis for payment shall mean the salaries and
wages paid to principals and employees of all classifications engaged directly on the
project, plus the cost of fringe benefits including but not limited to, social security
contributions, worker's compensation, health and retirement benefits, bonuses, sick
leave, vacation and holiday pay applicable thereto. For purposes of this Amendment,
Direct Personnel Expense shall be considered an amount equal to 1.48 times
applicable salaries and wages.
6.2.4 Charges for the services rendered by principals and employees as witnesses in any
litigation, hearing or proceeding in accordance with Paragraph 4.2.3 will be computed
at a rate of$400.00 per day or any portion thereof (but compensation for time spent
in preparing to appear in any such litigation, hearing or proceeding will be computed
in accordance with Paragraph 6.1.1 and 6.2. I herein).
6.2.5 If this Amendment is terminated during prosection of the services prior to completion
of the services of Section 3, payments to be made in accordance with Paragraph 6.1.6
and 6.2.1 on account of that and all prior work under this Amendment shall be due
and payable, and shall constitute total payment for services rendered. In addition,
upon termination, the ENGINEER shall be paid for any Additional Services
authorized and rendered under Section 4.
6.26 The ENGINEER shall promptly begin work on the services authorized by this
Amendment upon receipt of notice to proceed from the OWNER.
SECTION 7
GENERAL CONDITIONS
7.1
Since the ENGINEER has no control over the cost oflabor, materials or equipment,
or over any construction contractor's method of determining prices, any opinions of
probable construction cost which may be provided in the services of this Amendment
are made on the basis of his experience and qualifications and represent his best
judgement a design professional familiar with the construction industry, but the
ENGINEER cannot and does not guarantee that bids or the construction cost will not
vary from opinions of probable cost prepared by him. .
7.2
The OWNER and the ENGINEER each binds himself and his partners, successors,
executors, administrators, and assigns to the other party of this Amendment and to
partners, successors, executors, administrators, and assigns of such other party in
respect to all covenants of this Amendment. Nothing herein shall be construed as
creating any personal liability on the part of any officer or agency of any public body
which may be a party hereto, nor shall it be constructed as giving any rights or
benefits hereunder to anyone other than the OWNER and the ENGINEER.
SECTION 8
8.1
The ENGINEER agrees to prosecute the work in a timely manner until the Project
is completed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have made and executed this Amend-
ment the day and year first above written.
OWNER:
City of Winter Springs
ATTEST
By:
Ron McLemore
City Manager
City Clerk
Date:
ENGINEER:
Conklin,Porter &Holmes- Engineers,Inc.
~
By:
Terry
Senior
5 V; V,R
MIEND50. PRO/tnz
Date:, 1'{) / IOJ9~
, a
~te?j /tH#1~~ '/,p7!fft;
:Jl.'/~ tJLL/~,~~M~~/~
EXHIBIT A
MANPOWER SCHEDULES
CONKLIN, PORTER AND HOLMES ENGINEERS, Total Total
INC. Principal Proj.Eng. Engineer Technician Secretary Man-Hours $/Task
Per Task
Hourly Rate($/Hour) $91.00 $62.00 $56.00 $41. 00 $30.00
Task I-Project Start-up and Ordinance Review 0 2 1 0 0 3 180
Task 2-Data Col.lMeet wI SJRWMD 1 3 3 2 1 IO 557
Task 3-Select Example Projects for Analysis 1 4 4 2 0 11 645
Task 4-Define Mitigation Components 1 0 1 0 0 2 147
Task 5-Apply Mitigation Credits to Selected Proj. 1 2 12 4 6 25 1231
Task 6-Meetings wI City Staff 1 2 2 0 1 6 357
Task 7-Review New Drainage Studies 2 4 16 0 1 23 1356
Task 8-Master Plan Overview 4 2 16 8 2 32 1772
Task 9-Rate Evaluation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Labor 11 19 55 16 11 112 6245
EXPENSE
Reprographics 125
PhonelFax 25
Mileage 25
TOTAL EXPENSE 175
TOT AL LABOR AND EXPENSE 6420
DYER, RIDDLE, MILLS & PRECOURT,INC. Total Total
Principal Proj.Eng. Engineer Technician Secretary Man-Hours $/Task
Per Task
Hourly Rate($/Hour) $125.00 $100.00 $55.00 $46.00 $32.50
Task I-Project Start-up and Ordinance Review 0 3 7 0 0 10 685
Task 2-Data Col.lMeet wi SJRWMD 0 2 4 2 1 9 544.5
Task 3-Select Example Projects for Analysis 1 4 12 2 0 19 1277
Task 4-Define Mitigation Components 0 4 24 0 4 32 1850
Task 5-Apply Mitigation Credits to Selected Proj. 0 I 0 0 2 3 165
Task 6-Meetings wi City Staff 1 2 2 0 1 6 467.5
Task 7-Review New Drainage Studies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Task 8-Master Plan Overview 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Task 9-Rate Evaluation 1 4 12 0 2 19 1250
Total Labor 3 20 61 4 10 98 6239
EXPENSE
Reprographics 600
Phone/Fax 20
Mileage 25
TOTAL EXPENSE 645
TOTAL LABOR AND EXPENSE 6884
EXHIBIT B
PROPOSED TIME SCHEDULE
I
City of Winter Springs Stormwater Utility Ordinance Review I
November December I January
ID Name Duration , Schoduled Stilrl 11/3 I 11/10 I 111 1 7 I 11/24 1211 I 12/8 I 12115 I 1 2/22 I 12/29 I 115 I 1/12 I 1/19
1 Projecllnitiation 3d t 1/4f96 8:00am Iilil
..::%
I -.------.--..-.-..----
--.----.------ -----_._-,-----
2 Data Colloction , Sd 11171968:00am ~l
..--.--.-." .~. --.-----..------.----.;----- ._---~ ___n___.__ ._. _._ __.........__. _ _
3 Examplo Ptoiects I 6d 11114/96 8:00am I i'.::;;,;',;:;;;;;;! I
----- .____.~__-.o.-____ ----.--.--.----.-.
4 Define Mitigation Components ! 8el 11/22/968:00am 1:.:-~:'.:q;~f~::~;.~iX~~:<~i4:J
I
--_._-~--- ---- -----...------
5 Apply Mitigation Credits 5d .12l4/96 8:00am I{<",;';:>I
-------. ~d- --.---- _._----~. ---
6 Mootin~s wilh City StMt 12111f96 8:00am f:;>>;~;.:-!(:I
I
----.--.--. --_._- ----- -.-..-.--.--.----.-.---
7 Revlow New Drainage Studies fjd 11122/96 8:00am -
______.O~.._ ________ 1--___....__ ._0______..-..--- ___ _._
8 Master PJan Ovorview 5<1 12/2196 8:00am .. ~
0-.-___----.---- ---- --_______ __h_ I j
9 Rala EV:llulltion 6d 1 2/9/96 a :OOam - I
.' .
i
I
I
(1/
"-
(1/
tJJ
t;J
c{
a.
(0
r~
CD
~
(0
m
CD
r-
lSl
~
o
a.
c(j
:::
~
Cl
:::
o
~
""
LfI
~
(0
m
I
CD
lSl
I
I-<
U
o
Proj ect:
O:lllj: 10!Af9fi
Uill';,;,-,;"\'<:",,d;;):,::?::l
.....
Critic.,1
Noncrilieaj ===.E_......==
Progross ..----
j',iiiustorlU ~
Summar,! ..
Roiieu Up <';-
-
10/8/968:00am
~/
Attachment No. 2
NABORS, GIBLIN & NICKERSON, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
BARNETT BANK BUILDING. SUITE BOO
31S SOUTH CALHOUN STREET
TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 32301
SARAH M. BLEAKLEY
WARREN S. BLOOM
HARRY 1'. CHILES
MAUREEN McCARTHY DAUGHTON
VIRGINIA SAUNDERS DELEGAL
KIMBERLY L. F"RANKLIN
L. THOMAS GIBLIN
MARK G. LAWSON
STEVEN E. MILLER
MARK T. MUSTIAN
ROBERT L. NABORS
GEORGE H. NICKERSON. JR.
STEN T. SLIGER
JOSEPH B. STANTON
GREGORY T. STEWART
JOHN R. STOKES
WILLIAM D. TYLER
MICHAEL L. WATKINS
JEAN E. WILSON
TELEPHONE (904. 224-4070
TE:LE:COPY (904) 224.4073
THE POINTE:. SUITE 1060
2502 ROCKY POINT DRIVE
TAMPA. FLORIDA 33607
IBI3' 281-2222
TELECOPY (813' 281-0129
SIGNATURE: PLAZA. SUITE 1060
201 SOUTH ORANGE AVENUE
ORLANDO. FLORIDA 32801
("07) "26-7!59!5
TELECOPYI"07) "26-8022
May 15, 1996
Via Facsimile and
Federal Express
Frank C. Kruppenbacher
City Attorney .
City of Winter Springs
340 North Orange Avenue
Orlando, Florida 32801
Re: Review of Stormwater Utility Structure
Dear Frank:
This letter will summarize the review by our Firm and
Government Systems Group, L.C. ("GSG") of the .existing stormwater
management program of the City of Winter Springs (the "City") and
recommend revisions to the fee structure and ordinance. Duncan
Rose, President of GSG, met with City Manager Ron McLemore and
Public Works Director Kip Lockcuff at the end of April 1996 to
review the rate structure of the. existing stormwater utility fee.
Additionally, we have reviewed the allegations in the draft
complaint for declaratory judgment submitted to you by Gary E.
Massey and Ordinance No. 521 including the implementing rate
resolutions dated September 28, 1992 (Resolution Nos. 686 and 687) .
Although both GSG and our Firm feel that the existing
stormwater utility fee structure is generally sound, our joint
recommendation is that certain rate structure and ordinance
revisions can be unilaterally implemented to enhance the fee's
legal defensibility. Such revisions are of increasing importance
because the City is embarking upon a stormwater utility capital
program of approximately $1.1 million over the next five years.
Our joint recommendations for rate structure and ordinance
revisions include the following:
Frank C. Kruppenbacher, Esquire
May 15, 1996
Page 2
Rate Structure
1. An examination of the nature and function of the proposed
capital improvements and their relationship to property within the
City's three basins. is required to determine whether the
anticipated capital projects are sufficiently uniform within the
boundaries of the City to justify a uniform fee or whether a basin
allocation approach is necessary.
2. The method of calculation of t~e mitigation credit is
unclear and must be clarified as to both its application and method
of calculation.
3. We see no reason to use an enterprise fund approach to
the utility, with its depreciation requirements and its capital
consumption orientation. Setting up the structure as a special
revenue fund is much simpler and achieves the same II only for
stormwaterll limitation intent without the attendant costs of
administration and without creating confusion to staff and lay
citizens of the proprietary fund approach.
4. We suggest the City consider creating two or three
residential IIsub classes II or tiers to distinguish between smaller
and larger single family parcels. This will become an increasingly
significant issue when the City adopts a capital improvement fee,
with its attendant higher rate.
Ordinance Revisions
1. The language and provisions of the ordinance are unclear
as to whether the nature of the charge is a fee or an assessment.
Clarification will assist in defending any challenge to the
validity of the stormwater charge.
2. Because of the uniform assessability of .most improved
property to City water and sewer service, the fee concept is the
most logical billing alternative. However, the enforcement
mechanisms under the ordinance are unclear. Certain provisions
provide for the recordation of a lien upon a delinquency. The use
of a lien to collect delinquent charges embraces a special
assessment concept because no forced sale of homestead property can
occur II except for the payment of taxes and assessments
thereon. ., II Art. X, ~ 4, Fla. Const. If this lien enforcement
mechanism is retained, the charge can be structured to meet the
legal sufficiency tests for both a valid fee and a special
Frank C. Kruppenbacher, Esquire
May IS, 1996
Page 3
assessment. However, the ordinance provisions should be clarified
with appropriate legislative findings.
3. If the fee model remains the predominate billing
mechanism, consideration should be given to structuring provisions
for fee collection consistent with the "interlocking utilities"
doctrine. This doctrine is based on a line of three cases1 which
require utilities to be either financially or physically
interlocked so that one utility service (e.g., water) can be "shut
off" for non-payment of another utility services (e. g. ,
wastewater) . However, the court in Edris v. Sebrinq Utilities
concluded that electric and water services were not so interlocked
as-to permit the "shut off" of one for non-payment of the other.
Because a stormwater utility and a water/sewer utility are
generally not so "complementary" or "so interlocked that neither
can be effective without the other" to permit cessation of service
for non-payment, the City should consider providing for a priority
application of proceeds from a combined utility fee billing. This
processing system would first apply combined utility proceeds to
stormwater, then to solid waste, and finally to water and sewer.
Such a priority application of fee income, combined with a lien
recordation, will collectively enhance enforceability.
4. Both the ordinance and the implementing rate resolution
should take advantage of the court decisions which recognize the
significance of the legislative findings in construing the validity
of a fee and special assessment. For example, in Sarasota Count v
v. Sarasota Church of Christ, 667 So.2d 180 (Fla. 1995), the
Supreme Court recently clarified that "as to the existence of
special benefits and as to the apportionment of the costs to those
benefits should be upheld unless the determination is arbitrary."
rd. at 1.84.
If you, Mr. McLemore, and other members of the City staff
desire to implement these rate structure and ordinance revisions,
we suggest that GSG provide a proposal on a lump sum or hourly
basis to implement the above stated recommendations. Under such an
engagement, the revised ordinance and any implementing resolutions
would be prepared by our Firm as subcontractor to GSG.
1 State v. City of Miami, 27 So.2d 118 (Fla. 1946) i Edris v.
Sebrinq Utilities Comm'n, 237 So.2d 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970), cert.
den'd, 240 So.2d 643 (Fla. 1970) i and Sebrinq Utilities Comm'n v.
Home Savinqs Assoc. of Fla., .508 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) .
Frank C. Kruppenbacher, Esquire
May IS, 1996
Page 4
If you have any questions, or desire any further information,
please feel free to call me at any time. Thank you for your
consideration of our Firm. I look forward to seeing you in the
near future.
Very truly yours,
ru7.~
Robert L. Nabors
RLNjadg
cc: Ronald McLemore, City Manager
Kip Lockcuff, Public Works Director
OCT 17 '96 04:14PM KRUPPENBRCHER & RSSC
Attachment No. 3
P.2/2
,.'
~
Law Offices
KRUPPENBACHER & ASSOCIATES
A Professional Association
Frank Kruppenbacher
340 North Orange Avenue
P.O. Box 3471
Orlando. Florida 32802.3471
Telephone (407) 246-0200
Facsimile (407) 426.7767
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Kip Lockcuff
FROM:
Frank Kruppenbacher
DATE:
October 17, 1996
RE:
Seminole County/City of Winter Springs. Interlocal Utility Construction Agreement
Per our discussion, the above. referenced agreement should be approved with the following
changes:
1. Section 1 q. Purpose. Please add, "The City shall onlv be liable to pay that. . . "
2. Section 7. Liability. Please add the following sentence at the end of Section 7:
Nothing herein shall be construed as waiving the City's sovereign immunity pursuant
to Federal and/or Florida law, nor shall it be construed as waiving the liability of any
contractor or third party to the City or County.
By copy of this memo, I am a.cIvising Susan Dietrich, Assistant County Attorney for Seminole
County of the changes we are making.
Should you have any questions, please call me.
cc: Ron McLemore
Susan E. Dietrich, Esq.
Assistant County Attorney for Seminole County