1993-05-28 Cook to CC May' 28 , 1993
MEMO to City Council
From: John R. Cook
City Attorney
re: Meeting with county attorney
As you will recall , at the joint meeting of the City and
County on May 6 , we agreed that I would meet with the County
attorney within 14 days to discuss the issues involving the
Beachwater franchise, and the comprehensive plan litigation.
The primary areas of concern we had, were that the County and
OBWA entered into this franchise without any notice or
participation by the City, and the resulting agreement granted a
service area which overlaps our 201 service area; and it also
permitted, with County consent , an extension of service outside the
granted service area, into the unincorporated County. Together with
this , was the issue of the OBWA consumptive use permit at SFWMD ,
which also did not address the City ' s service area .
In meeting with John Cassels on May 17 , I presented these
concerns , and he stated the County would agree to :
1 . Remove the language from the franchise that would permit
OBWA to extend service, be it water or wastewater , beyond the
described service area;
2 . Meet with Burton Conner for OBWA to discuss their
amendment of their consumptive use permit with SFWMD to reflect an
agreement with the City concerning their service area; and also to
discuss possible adjustment of the boundary of the service area;
and wastewater issues . (You may be aware that SFWMD has issued a
letter this week indicating the use permit for OBWA would not be
finalized until an agreement with the City was reached)
In the comprehensive plan suit we have pending with DCA, most
of the issues in that controversy were settled in principle between
Mr . Cassels and Mr . Morrell , except the issue of our claimed 201
service area. Without a settlement of that issue , we have taken the
position that all issues remained open for litigation before the
hearing officer , and still maintain that position.
a
r
Apparently however, although the county had never before
agreed, Mr . Cassels stated to me on May 17 that the county Would
amend their comprehensive plan to reflect a recognition of our 201
service area as it exists within the City and in the unincorporated
County as well .
Each of these areas of agreement remain subject to the
drafting of language acceptable to both sides , and Mr. Cassels is
working on the franchise agreement , and Mr . Morrell is working on
the comp . plan language. If you read the Okeechobee News report
about the May 27 County Commission meeting, you will see that any
reference by Mr . Cassels in that article to the agreements I ' ve
noted herein seem to be conspicuously absent . At this point , not
having talked to him, I will assume they are not backing off on our
oral agreements .
There are however, additional matters that fit in with the
negotiation of these issues . You will recall that I stated the City
was operating under certain time constraints in our objections to
the franchise agreement . In addressing these , we forwarded to the
County what we call a chapter 164 letter (attached) , which is a
necessary legal notice that we must send. The purpose of it is to
place the County on notice of our intent to seek legal action. In
response, the County must schedule a meeting within 30 days of the
letter to discuss our claims . The legal effect of the letter is to
stay, or postpone, for a period of 45 days , any statutory time
limit we may face in the filing of a suit .
We are carefully monitoring these time elements to protect our
legal rights and remedies , and will not hesitate to file any
appropriate pleading necessary to do so . If such a suit were
prepared, it would be done in a manner to clearly notify the County
that while we felt it necessary to prepare the paperwork to protect
our rights and remedies , they should not consider it in a
threatening way, as we fully intend to proceed with the settlement
along the lines outlined above .
Finally, to set out a time frame in which all this is supposed
to occur , we expect to reach agreement by the first week of July .
After that , the time starts running again on our remedies , and we
may have to proceed in court . Any settlement is subject to a public
hearing on the issues , with ten day advance public notice of the
meeting.
Kindest Regards , I
John . Co
JRC/ 1 f