Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout081886-Special Session 576 MINUTES City Commission, Sanford, Florida August 18, 19__ 86 The City Commission of the City of Sanford, Florida, met in Special Session in the City Manager's Conference Room at the City Hall in the City of Sanford, Florida, at 4:30 o'clock P. M. on August 18, 1986. Present: Mayor-Commissioner Bettye D. Smith Commissioner John Y. Mercer Commissioner Milton E. Smith Commissioner David T. Fart Commissioner Bob Thomas City Attorney William L. Colbert City Manager Frank A. Faison Deputy City Clerk Janet Donahoe Absent: City Clerk H. N. Tamm, Jr. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman. The Chairman announced this meeting had been called to hear a report and recommendation from the City Attorney regarding annexation. The City Attorney reported this concerns the recent newspaper articles stating Seminole County is ready to challenge or litigate again with the City. The challenge would be one of the three parcels that was adopted by this Commission in Ordinance No. 1821 at the August 11, 1986 meeting. The objections made by Seminole County relating to this parcel were the contiguousness, or lacke of contiguousness, of the parcel to the City and the creation of an enclave. As to the contiguousness, according to the County's opinion or their position was the property is not contiguous to Sanford since there is a law suit challenging the property immediately adjacent to this parcel. The City's position is that the ordinances are legislative acts of a political body and they are effective as any law is until or. unless they are successfully challenged. Concerning the enclave issue, as this item was being considered by City Staff a corridor was left open to that parcel so that it would not be annexed so that the parcel would not be'completely surround the County and by hopefully thereby avoiding the question of an enclave. The Legislature has had the opportunity several times to clarify for us and all cities in the state what an enclave is, laws have been introduced but not passed by the Legislature, and the question of an enclave is still up in the air. The outcome of litigation is always subject to question as we know from past experiences. Cases are decided on a case-by-case basis. We make arguments on the City's position, the County makes argument on the County's position, and in the end the judge makes a decision. This process is time consuming, expensive, draws as to manpower and resources with both entities. Mr. Colbert stated that both entities could use that manpower and resources in some other direction if it were possible and perhaps not square off again. Mr. Colbert recommended one of two potential courses of action, one to authorize the attorney to contact the County Attorney's office and on behalf of the City see if we can reach an agreement with the County to do one of two things that the parties, the City and the County into a stipulation agreeing to extend the time for filing an appeal of the McCall Annexation until 30 days after the Court renders a decision on the Kastner/Paulucci Annexation suit; or that the County, after filing its Petition for Certiorari, agree with the City to jointly ask the Court to require no additional pleadings until 30 days after the Court renders a decision in the Kastner/Paulucci Annexation suit. Commissioner Smith moved to authorize the City Attorney to make the proposal to the County as recommended. Seconded by Commissioner Mercer and carried by the vote of the MINUTE S City Commission, Sanford, Florida August 18, 577 19 86 Commission as follows: Commissioner Mercer Commissioner Smith Commissioner Fart Commissioner Thomas Mayor Smith Yea Yea Yea Yea Yea Commissioner Farr moved to authorize the Mayor to review peacemaking avenues with Chairman Sturm and the County Commissioners. Seconded by Commissioner Smith and carried by the vote of the Commission as follows: Commissioner Mercer Commissioner Smith Commissioner Fart Commissioner Thomas Mayor Smith Yea Yea Yea Yea Yea There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. ATTEST: A Y R 578 MINUTES City Commission, Sanford, Florida August 18, 19 86 The City Commission of the City of Sanford, Florida, met in Workshop Session in the City Manager's Conference Room at the City Hall in the City of Sanford, Florida, at 4:55 o'clock P. M. on August 18, 1986. Present: Mayor-Commissioner Bettye D. Smith Commissioner John Y. Mercer Commissioner Milton E. Smith Commissioner David T. Fart Commissioner Bob Thomas City Attorney William L. Colbert City Manager Frank A. Faison Deputy City Clerk Janet Donahoe Absent: City Clerk H. N. Tamm, Jr. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman. The first item of discussion was a request from Peterson Outdoor Advertising regarding a billboard on U. S. Highway 17 & 92. Carl Bogle, Director of Community Affairs, appeared to report his company had leased this particular portion of property last year. On April 11, 1986 they were notified that the property had been annexed into the city and to stop work. Mr. Bogle stated his company had invested quite a bit of money into this property for the installation of a billboard and would like to continue. The Commission directed Peterson Outdoor Advertising to remove their structure and, then, the Commission would be glad to sit down and talk about Outdoor's billboards with no guarantee or promises. Bill Goddard and Carol Nickel, Federation of Senior Citizen Clubs, Inc., appeared to support a request for the City to purchase a 15 passenger vehicle for the transporation of their members and clients. The Commission authorized a $20,000 budget amendment be placed on the September 8, 1986 regular meeting agenda. Storm Richards, Government Coordinator, and Patrick Gassaway, Project Manager, representatives of Greiner Engineeing Services, Inc., appeared to request clarification of the City's position relative to the status of Matthew Drive in the Southeast corner of Sanora Subdivision and reported a residential development comparable to Sanora is proposed for the property immediately to the South, with a development plan which would utilize the existing Matthew Drive as an element of circulation. Barry Lock, representing the Sanora Homeowners' Association, appeared to support objections to the opening of Matthew Drive as follows: MINUTES City Commission, Sanford, Florida 579 August 18: 19 86 SANOI~ HOMEOWNERSm ASSOCIATION Sanford, Fl. 5a??l August 1~, 1986 City ComaissXoners City of Sanford 300 I. Park Ave. Sanford, Fl. 52771 SubJ: Proposed opening of Matthew Drlwe'to a mew housin~ development so~th of Sanora community to Cornwall. The Board of Directors of Sanora Homeowners~ Association, on behalf of the one hundred thirty oae families of the Sanora community, wish to formally reEister objections to the opening, of Matthew Drive for the followin~ reasons; 1. To open Matthew Dr~ve is of ~o ~alue whatever to the Sanora community. 2. Traffic con~estion will be increased. Due to traffic back-up from the stop light at Sanford Ave. '& Airport Blvd., Sanora Bi¥~ is completely blocked duria~ the rush-hour traffic. It takes from one to fiwe minutes to ex/t Sanora onto Sanford 'Awe. even now. 3. This added traffic further endangers the liwes of our Children and older citizens in crossin~ Streets and children runnin~ out to chase a Ball etc.- Sanora, as it is, is a valuable asset to 2he San ford. Sanora has its own recreation facilities, not burden the City in that respect City of we do b. Sanora maintains a well-kept look, our yards are mowed, our landscape is well cared for, and the entrance Flth the beautifully landscaped island is, in our-opinion, the most attractive in the City. 5. In the proposed pl~_~, the main street in -the new project goes from Sanford Ave. and veers North East to junction Matthew Drive, however, if the planner would flip-flop the drawing and show the main street going from Sanford Ave through Sanora South and veer South East to Junction Cornwall ~oad, then a street, culdesac, toward Matthew would solYe everyones prob- lem. Cornwall traffic ~ay be heavy durinE rush-hour traffic, but to divert traffic through Matthew would make a parking lot out of. Sanora Blvd. durin~ this hour. 6. Please don~t destroy this quiet, peaceful conmunlty for no Justifiable reason. Bill Hutchison, attorney, representing Jack Londono, owner, appeared to support the development of the property. After discussion, the Commission recommended the developer close the proposed Cornwall entrance and open Matthew Drive. 580 MINUTES City Commission, Sanford, Florida August 18, 19 86 The City ManaGer submitted memorandum as follows: MEMORANDUM AuGust 15, 1986 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION FROM: CITY MANAGER RE: COMPUTER SOFTWARE UPDATE Carful study and review of the City's current and future automation needs - with specific attention to financial software replacement has resulted in: . Identification of specific problems with the current software. . Cost analysis for software replacement, and Identification of available software and software options. An overview of this study is contained in Attachment $1. A Florida-wide search for "packaGed" software resulted in only three packages beinG found which would "run" on the City's existinG hardware. Of these three packages, Lawson's financial packages seem to "best fit" today's needs. However, Lawson's software is brand new and "untested" in other cities which makes investment in this software a risk in both time and money. (See Finance Department comments at Attachment $2.) "Proven and tested" financial software is readily available for larger mainframes such as the BurrouGhs A-3 or IBM 38 and others. However, the cost of replacinG existinG hardware, utility billing software, retraining of data processinG personnel runs the "up front" costs prohibitively upward resultinG in this option beinG rejected by the City ManaGer at this time. A "middle Ground" approach appears to be the most cost-effective and hopefully, time-savinG solution to fulfill our financial system needs. (See Attachment $3 and Attachment $4.) RECOMMENDATION: EnGaGe the Lawson Firm for software development of only payroll and personnel systems. Then enGaGe Coopers & Lybrand to assist the City in reviewinG the decision to proceed with Lawson for financial software development or re-evaluate how to acccomplish current/future needs. This will require a needs analysis of the financial systems. The commission approved the City ManaGer's concept and directed Staff to draft a contract for approval. The City ManaGer submitted memo as follows: MEMORANDUM August 15, 1986 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION F ROM: CITY MANAGER RE: CITY BENEFIT PLAN IRS Section 125 establishes income tax treatment of qualified employee benefit plans, called "cafeteria" plans. Cafeteria benefit plans allow employees to pay such things as medical expenses, child care expenses, disability insurance premiums, and Group term life insurance premiums out of their salaries with pre-tax dollars. Employees may receive tax free reimbursement for benefits in lieu of taxable salary. The Director of Administrative Services and the Personnel Officer have just completed a study reviewinG employee benefit plans. Of those plans reviewed the "cafeteria plan" serves both the interest of the City and it's employees, but does require a third-party administrator. Several plans were reviewed as a result of this study and a "third MINUTES City Commission, Sanford, Florida August 18, 581 19 86 party" needs. Company tax". administrator selected that best fit the City and employees The administrator selected was the Public Employees Services (PESCO). The plan to be considered is called "Vista Flex- Please review the attached additional information about the PESCO Plan prior to discussion during Monday's work session. RECOMMEND that the City Commission authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with PESCO "Vista Flex-tax Plan" as sole source provider. After discussion, the Commission directed Staff to present a contract draft for' review. Bill Simmons, Director of Engineering and Planning, reported bid packages had been sent out for the Reconstruction of First Street between Park Avenue and French Avenue and bid openinG is scheduled for August 29, 1986. The City Manager submitted memo from Director of Engineering and Planning as follows: MEMORANDUM AUGUST 15, 1986 TO: City Manager FROM: Director of Engineering and Planning SUBJECT: Revised TOP Schedule and Future Sanford Water/Sewer Service Availability City Manager: We have recently submitted to Department of Environmental Regulations (DER) a letter requesting revision of our temporary operating permit (TOP) schedule for removal effluent discharge to Lake Monroe and land application of this effluent. The proposed new schedule shows completion of construction in April, 1989 vice November, 1988, and' completion of operational testinG in October, 1989 vice March, 1989. This proposed schedule revision of approximately six months results from the lost of nearly one year as result of developing new alternatives to Yankee Lake. Although we have no comment from the DER we anticipate that they will be receptive to our proposed revision. DER has identified minor revisions and additions to be incorporated into our amended 201 Plan. We anticipate no significant problem in meetinG their requests. Most work should be completed prior to the August 20 Environmental Regulatory Commission (ERC) Meeting. Restructuring of our Grants is on the agenda for the August 20 ERC meeting. Richard Smith, the DER Grants Bureau Chief, is strongly supportinG the restructuring of our Grants in order to support the revised effluent disposal plan included in our amended 201 Plan. FollowinG the ERC approval we will direct Conklin, Porter & Holmes to commence final design of all facilities required for effluent treatment, transmission, and disposal. Work is progressing well on the sludge handling facility, now under contract. Although earth work is runninG slightly behind schedule we presently see no reason for not meeting the September 1987 contract completion schedule. In view of the foregoing I feel City of Sanford is "on the way" to complete resolution of our sewer problems. I feel that it is therefore time to begin looking toward the future. We presently have approximately 500,000 Gallons per day (GPD) available capacity at our plant. This equates to approximately sixteen hundred equivalent residential units (ERU) at three hundred Gallons per day ERU. We anticipate re-rating of our plant upward by five hundred thousand Gallons per day upon completion of the sludge handlinG facility. Additional plant capacity is planned for 1990 but could be constructed sooner if required to meet development, Or to serve others, such as Lake Mary. At present we "sell" capacity to developers at the time buildinG permits are procured, by collection of sewer and water impact fees. Some developers have inquired about advanced sales in order to insure availability for their projects, however this has not been done. 5 8 2 MINUTE S City Commission, Sanford, Florida AuGust 18, 19 86 As you are aware Seminole County is presently actively sellinG future sewer and water service capacity in a number of areas around the county. The attached legal notices, with maps, show the areas of these sales, some of which appear to actually encroach upon the incorporated)limits of City of Sanford. These sales are based on sale of utility sgrvice capacity to be developed at unspecified future dates. Woul~-be developers are allowed to buy this capacity by advanced payment of full or partial impact fees. It appears unlikely that .a d~ev/~o~er could Get a refund from the County in case he changes his mind--and decides to either not develop the property or to use another utility source, if available sooner, or under more favorable conditions. To date there has been no effort to sell service capacity in areas immediately east or west of City of Sanford however I anticipate this in the future. Sanford water and wastewater service areas are shown in our 201 Plan. These have remained essentially unchanged from our 1979 Comprehensive Plan. Copies are attached. These areas include significant lands not presently within City of Sanford, but likely for future annexation. Also attached is a copy of the Sanford Urban Area Map developed for Comprehensive PlanninG. This contains a slightly larger area but is considered indicative of likely urban developement in the Sanford area. We have seen significant annexation in the recent past,, and I feel this will continue. We have at present, or within sight, capability to provide sewer and water service to much if not all of this area to match schedules likely to be requested by future developers. Our capital improvement plan already contains sewer and water infrastructure improvements which will serve much of this area. I recommend that the City of Sanford adopt the concept of providinG sewer and water service within the Sanford urban area, and to consider makinG contractural committments to provide future service in this area, predicated upon our planned future line extensions and our capacity to serve. Service should be based on annexation, or annexation whenever possible, with agreement to future annexation to "run with the land". Effluent take back would have to be a part of the contract in most cases. I feel we can offer developers close to Sanford the best service at the most attractive cost, and that we need to publicize this belief. Unlike Seminole County our financinG for construction of facilities is essentially "in place". While we have no pressing need to raise capital by sale of future service capacity, a sales contract with a consideration would be necessary and appropriate for various "business" considerations. I recommend therefore that if City Commission approves this concept that a form of contract be drafted and that the overall sale concept be implemented by resolution. The Commission directed Staff to pursue the concept as recommended. Jim JerniGan, Director of Recreation and Parks, and Ned Yancey, President of Executive Board of General Henry S. Sanford Library-Museum Board of Trustees, appeared to remind the Commission of the much needed storage area for the valuable papers in storage at Sun Bank. There beinG no further business, the meeting was adjourned. ATTEST: