HomeMy WebLinkAbout061587-Workshop Session406
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida June 15 ~
19 87
The City Commission of the City of Sanford, Florida, met in Workshop Session in
the City Commission Room of the City Hall in the City of Sanford, Florida, at 4:00 o'clock
P. M. on June 15, 1987.
Present:
Mayor-Commissioner Bettye D. Smith
Commissioner Whitey Eckstein
Commissioner John Y. Mercer
Commissioner Bob Thomas
Commissioner A. A. McClanahan
City Attorney William L. Colbert
City Manager Frank A. Faison
City Clerk H. N. Tamm, Jr.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman.
follows:
The first item of business was the presentation of Service Awards to employees as
Five Years
Ten Years
Fifteen Years
Neil McLeod
Agostino Fontana
Guy Brewster
Donna Cameron
Greg Lemieux
Terry Henry
Gerard Ransom
Mark Morgan
Jeff Monson
Howard Jeffries
Jan Henry
Larry White
Kristie Strine
Carl Higgs
William Horn
Douglas Sutton
Althea Cooper
Marcelle Capewell
Charles Turner III
Robert Ripley
James Reynolds
Kelley Wells
Mike Horn
S. T. Williams
Paul Bibby
William Magnet
Lawrence Hagen
Rick Holloway
Ron Nance
Horace Tucker
Harold Johnson
Robert Dickerson
Mike Hoening
Twenty Years
Edward Hayden
Ralph Russell
Larry Helman
Franklin Culbreth
Jerry Thomasson
Janet Donahoe
Gary Winn
Tom Bernosky
Ron Neel
Roy Picklesimer
orris Sjoblom
Johnny Miller
Ronald Partridge
Richard Cohen
Twenty-five Years
James Jernigan
Willie Robinson
The City Manager submitted a memOrandum from the Director of Engineering and
Planning as follows:
MEMORANDUM JUNE 11, 1987
TO:
City Manager
FROM:
Director of Engineering and Planning
SUBJECT: Impact Fee Advisory Committee
Resolution #1440 of January 10, 1986 created a "Future Growth Advisory
Committee" for the City of Sanford. A specific impetus for creating
this Committee was to deal effectively with the revision of water and
sewer impact fees, and to provide an appropriate forum for discussion
and imput by various interested parties. The Committee was effective
and instrumental in the adoption of a fair and equitable Water and
Sewer Impact Fee Ordinance.
We will shortly be starting the annual review of the water and sewer
impact fee. We are also moving toward conducting a transportation
impact fee study and are considering studies for a potential public
safety (Fire and Police) Impact Fee. The "Open Space Contribution"
included in our development regulations needs to be revised and put
into proper format to meet present statutory and case law requirement
for impact fees.
In order to properly address the various upcoming impact fee
considerations I recommend that an Impact Fee Advisory Committee be
established, similar to that utilized by Seminole County. The
Committee should be advisory in nature and provide recommendations
directly to the City Commission. The Committee should consider and
review the assumptions utilized in initial and annual review impact
fee studies. Such consideration and review of assumption should
MINUTES 4 0 7
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
June 15,
19 87
include but not be limited to, estimates of population and socio-
economic data; changes in construction methods and materials, right-
of-way acquisition and construction costs; projected requirements for
infrastructure including timing of same, and appropriate improvements
to maintain the levels of service adopted by City Commission in the
Comprehensive Plan. The Committee will have to work closely with and
be guided by the Comprehensive Plan, especially the capital
improvement element.
It is recommended that this Committee consist of eight to twelve
members with generally equal representation from the "development
community" and non-development oriented citizens. Staff support
should come primarily from the Department of Engineering and Planning.
It is recommended that this Committee be chartered by resolution and
that the resolution cancel and supersede Resolution #1440.
The Commission directed the City Attorney to prepare the proper resolution for
said committee to be considered at the next regular meeting.
The Commission next discussed the restructuring of the General Henry Shelton
Sanford Museum and Library to become an advisory board rather than a governing board by
dissolving the Board of Directors and the Board of Trustees, and combining with the Historic
Preservation Board of the Library, and to limit the terms of office a member may serve on
the new board.
The Commission directed the City Attorney to prepare the proper resolution to be
considered at the next regular meeting.
The City Manager gave a brief summary of prior discussions of a proposed swimming
pool.
The Commission directed the City Attorney to prepare the proper resolution to
support a request for the School Board to apply for a Peogh Grant for partial funding of a
proposed swimming pool at Seminole High School.
Police Chief Harriett appeared to review public safety impact fees, and requested
the City of Sanford to be more competitive for the salary ranges of sargeant, lieutenant,
and communications operator.
The City Manager reviewed the proposed salary schedules as discussed in the FY
1987/88 Budget.
Kim Smith, Director of Administrative Services, submitted a survey of Annual
Salary Classifications.
The City Manager submitted a letter, dated June 12, 1987, from the City Attorney
as follows:
Stenstrom, McIntosh. Julian. Colbert high m. 17. X.
)~ttorneys and Cotmsellors at Law
Douglas Stcns~rom Kenneth ~: Mclntosh Ned N. Julian, Jr.
%qlliam L. Cc]bert Prank C.%'higham Cta~ton D. Simmons
Thomas E.%rhiEham Robert ttMclntosh
StYe 22 Sun Bank
rost Office Box1330 Sanford, l:iorida 32,-72-1330 (305)522-9-171
June 12, 1987
Frank A. Faison, City Manager
City of Sanford
Post Office Box 1778
Sanford, Florida 32772-1778
408
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
June 15,
19 87
Re: Appointment of Special Prosecutor
Dear Frank:
The City Commission, in its regular meeting on Monday, June
8, 1987, tabled consideration of a request to the Governor
for the appointment of a special prosecutor to look into
the Yankee Lake matter. The reason for tabling the item
was to ask our office to review it and to make a
recommendation to the C~ty Commission on whether or not to
proceed.
A review of the cases (there were actually two of them) is
in order. The Cityt after being advised it could not
purchase the Yankee Lake property, filed suit against
Nicholas Pope, Trustee, et al, to acquire it by eminent
domain proceedings on November 8, 1985. We indicated a%
that .time it would be "blazing a.new trail" and could be a
long and expensive proposition. On December 23, i985, the
Court permitted Seminole County to enter the case at its
request. There were nine counts to the suit as ultimately
filed:
III.
Co~ission in closed meetings);
tV. Sunshine Law Violation
Advisory Board meetings);
V. Sunshine Law Violation
discussion);
VI. Sunshine
contract);
VII. Violation
Constitution;
VIII.
and
IX.
Law
of
Violation of
Eminent Domain;
Sunshine Law Violation (the 2:00 A.M. vote);
Sunshine Law Violation (Decision making
(Decision
(Contract
Violation (Decision
Article VII, Section
Section t25. 3401, Florida Statutes~
Violation of Section 125.355, Florida Statutes.
by C oun ty
making in
modification
to modify
10, Florida
The court ruled against the City on the basis of a
procedural Motion to Dismiss, not on the merits of the
case, and on March 27, 1986, it denied the City's Motion
for Rehearing. The City. had thirty days in which to appeal
the decision to the Fifth District Court of Appeals or it
had the option of refiling the suit and at a regular
meeting on April 28, 1986, elected not to proceed further°
The other case was filed on January 27, 1986, against the
City, the Commissioners and the City Manager by Reathrow
Land and Development Corporation. It was a tort case for
damages in the sum of $28,000,000 for alleged tortious
interference with a business relationship. The case never
went to hearing on the merits and was dismissed by the
court on July 10, 1986, based on a join~ motion of the
parties. The motion provided than the case would be
dismissed with pre3udice (not be able to be filed again)
and each party would pay its own costs and fees.
The information available now is substantially the same as
that known by or available to the City Commission in the
Spring of 1986 when the decisions described above were
made. To ask the Governor's office to act now without new
information or additional evidence does not seem
appropriate or in the best interesns of the City and the
taxpayers who ultimately bear the cost of all governmental
action.
In my opinion, an investigation would open old wounds
instead of solving problems, divert energy and manpower
from solving current problems to rehashing old ones, would
incur additional legal fees, sell newspapers and polarize
the community without providing real or substantial benefit
to the City.
It is human nature to be tempted with the benefit of 20/20
hindsight to second guess prior actions but decisions once
made can seldom be reversed. Yankee Lake is not available
to Sanford now but other opportunities have presented
themselves as both viable and cost effective. It is time
to get on with life. Although it is legally permissible
for the City to join with others in asking for an
investigation, for the reasons described above and in the
absence of new information or additional evidence, it does
not seem practical and I therefore do not recommend it.
MINUTE S 4 0 9
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
June 15,
If I may be of further assistance, please call me.
Sincerely,
STENSTROM, McINTOS~, JULIAN,
COLBERT/4-~IG~AM, P. A.
/pc
Art Davis appeared to report his request to the Governor for a special counsel or
prosecutor regarding the Yankee Lake inquiry.
The Commission directed the City Attorney to inquire of the status from the State
Attorney office and from the Governor's office, and report at the next regular meeting.
The City Manager submitted a memorandum from the Director of Engineering and
Planning as follows:
MEMORANDUM JUNE 12, 1987
TO:
FORM:
SUBJECT:
City Manager
Director of Engineering and Planning
Easterly Extension of City Water Main Along North Boundary
of Airport
Mr. Faison:
At their last meeting, the City Commission denied approval of
City participation in a requested water main extension for Sanford
Auto Auction. This extension would have extended our water service
capability to the vacinity of the intersection of Cameron Avenue and
State Road 46, a distance of approximately 7300' beyond our present
termination of service at Brisson Avenue. The proposal which was
denied was for City to contribute labor and equipment with the
developer to contribute the cost of material for an 8" line. Upsizing
to 10" diameter was recommended for provision of future additional
service in the area.
Sanford Airport Authority has recently acquired and is requesting
annexation for the parcel of land in the southwest quadrant of
Beardall Avenue and State Road 46. This property lies along the
proposed alignment of the new water line and would require
approximately 5300' of the proposed 7300-foot extension in order to
provide service. Although not yet requested by Airport Authority it
is reasonable to anticipate that water service for that property will
be requested. Installation of a line as far as Beardall Avenue would
also provide City of Sanford with the capability to offer water
service, at a 25% surcharge, to outside of City customers along
Beardall Avenue, as well as further to the east along State Road 46.
Groundwater quality in that area is generally marginal and if service
is reasonably available we may anticipate a considerable growth in our
water customer rate base.
The cost estimate presented in my May 5 memo, copy attached,
showed a cost to the City of $30,113.54 for an 8" water main from
Brisson Avenue to Cameron Avenue and $35,241.83 for a 10" water line.
Sanford Auto Auction would have paid approximately $45,000 for
materials. In view of the above information, it is recommended that
City Commission consider approval of City funding for that portion of
labor, equipment and overhead associated with the extension to
Beardall Avenue, and the upgrade from 8" to 10" line for the entire
distance, with the developer paying the complete cost east of Beardall
Avenue as well as 8" material cost from Brisson Avneue to Beardall
Avenue. Estimated cost to City would be $24,188.09, estimated cost to
developer would be $56,728.80.
19 87
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
June 15,
19 87
Garnett White appeared to report his plans for a RV park 1320 feet East of the
proposed Auto Auction property and would be willing to contribute $75,000 to the City,
subject to rezoning by Seminole County, if the City would provide his property with water and
service, and would execute proper annexation papers. Said contribution to include all
impact fees.
The Commission asked for more information, and authorized each request to be
considered separately at the next regular meeting.
The City Manager submitted a memorandum from the Director of Engineering and
Planning as follows:
MEMORANDUM JUNE 11, 1987
TO: City Manager
FROM:
Director of Engineering and Planning
SUBJECT: Seminole County Expressway Route Selection
On June 10 I attended a joint meeting of the three Advisory Committees
to the Seminole County Expressway Authority. (Citizens Advisory,
Environmental, and Technical Committees.) The stated purpose for this
meeting was to attempt to reduce the number of recommended routes for
the expressway, north of State Route 434 to I-4, to no more than three
alternatives. A new design analysis report was provided to the
various committee members and presentation was given regarding the
content of this new report. Attached are several maps from this
report, including an overall map of the route alternative being
considered by the committees as well as the expressway authorities and
detailed information regarding some of the proposed interchanges along
various routes.
After some discussion the three committees, voting jointly, agreed to
the following recommendation:
Eliminate segments 48 and 69 (routes around west end of Lake
Jessup, and through Seminole Community College Property)
from further consideration.
Eliminate segments 52 (through Timacuan) from further
consideration.
Prefer the Narrow Lake Crossing, shown as segment 52/53/56
as most desirable routing with segments 56 and 52/53 as
relatively equally acceptable alternatives for routing
northward to County Route 46A, thence northerly and westerly
to I-4 along the abandoned Seaboard Coastline right-of-way.
Consider segment 68 (the Wide Lake Crossing) as a more
expensive alternative to the Narrow Lake Crossing,
connecting onward to segment 56 and 53.
Routes recommended to be eliminated are crossed out on the
attached map.
The three Advisory Committees will meet again jointly on June 17 to
select a single recommended alternative to be presented to the
Expressway Authority on June 24.
Both recommended alternative routes pass through parts of the City of
Sanford. Aside from the much discussed concerns of dividing the City,
I see major potential adverse effect on the City resulting from right-
of-way reservation to protect the selected route pending construction.
I understand that the Expressway Authority will probably move for
early reservation of the entire right-of-way for the selected route,
although construction in some cases may be as much as 10-years, or
more, away. Since construction is to start at the south end, such
delay would most likely occur in the vicinity of Sanford. I believe
such right-of-way reservation would do much to stifle growth along the
right-of-way, as well as totally prohibiting it within the right-of-
way. This could contribute greatly to urban decay as well as stifling
growth just at the time that Sanford is beginning to experience
significant growth. Present expressway financing projections indicate
that even in the year 2005 gross toll revenues are generally equal to
or less than 50% of projected annual debt service. Net revenues
available for debt service, especially in the earlier years will show
~ewer
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
June 15,
411
19 87
even greater shortfalls against debt service requirements. I feel
that complete financial feasibility, including commitments from all
projected fund sources other than tolls, should be in place prior to
the reservation of right-of-way. To do otherwise could do irreparable
damage to the City of Sanford as well as property owners both inside
of and adjacent to the reserved right-of-way.
The Commission stated both recommendations were unsatisfactory, and the expressway
is not wanted in the City of Sanford.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
ATTEST:
MAYOR