022387-Regular Session212
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
February ~,
19 87
The City Commission of the City of Sanford, Florida, met in Regular Session in
the City Hall in the City of Sanford, Florida, at 7:00 o'clock P. M. on February 23, 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.
The Commission thanked and commended Johnny Haddock, Refuse Superintendent, and
Christy Johnson, Civil Service Secretary, for their efforts as co-chairmen of the successful
drive of the 1986 City of Sanford United Way Campaign Fund.
The City Manager submitted a memorandum from the Director of Engineering and
Planning as follows:
MEMORANDUM FEBRUARY 18, 1987
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
City Manager
Director of Engineering and Planning
Outleasing of City Residence for Security Purposes
Mr. Faison:
Bids have been received from five (5) City employees desiring to
occupy the City owned residence on our new waterwell site. Bids are
as follows: Robert B. Ripley - $325 per month; Cheryl Whyte - $300
per month; Robert G. Herman - $260 per month; James Reynolds - $250
per month; and Charles W. Turner, ~III - $226 per month.
It is recommended that the attached lease between City of Sanford
and Robert B. Ripley, be approved for execution.
It is anticipated that proceeds from this lease will be used to
defer costs of initial repair and maintenance, including system check-
out, window glass replacement, repair to "disappearing stairway",
costs of interior paint materials, and other maintenance and repair
for which the City may become responsible. Net income from this lease
sould be assigned to the water utility trust fund since that was the
source of funds for purchase of the waterwell site.
On recommendation of the City Manager, Commissioner McClanahan moved to authorize
the Mayor to execute said lease between the City of Sanford and Robert B. Ripley for the
term of one year beginning March 1, 1987. Seconded by Commissioner Thomas and carried by
the vote of the Commission as follows:
Commissioner Eckstein
Commissioner Mercer
Commissioner Thomas
Commissioner McClanahan
Mayor Smith
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
John Morris, Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission, appeared before the
City Commission and presented a review of the 1986 accomplishments and 1987 planned
activities.
The Commission commended the Planning and Zoning Commission for their accomplish-
ments of 1986 and for their ambitious program for 1987.
The City Manager submitted a memorandum from the Director of Engineering and
Planning as follows:
MEMORANDUM FEBRUARY 18, 1987
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
February 23,
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
City Manager
Director of Engineering and Planning
Seminole County Transporation Impact Fees
Mr. Faison:
Recommendation - While a Countywide Transportation Impact Fee is
considered necessary to provide adequate road improvements
necessitated by Growth, the presently framed County Ordinance and
proposed Interlocal Agreement leaves much to be desired. It is
therefore recommended that City of Sanford move forward with an
ordinance to establish a moratorium on new impact fees for a period of
3 to 6 months to allow time and provide an incentive for the City and
County to agree on a mutually acceptable Ordinance and Interlocal
Agreement. Because of prespective timing of County Ordinance adoption
it is recommended that first reading for our Ordinance be on February
23, 1987.
Summary - The proposed Transportation Impact Fee has been
developed by the County over the past 18 months with very little
interaction with City of Sanford until the last few months, by which
time the basic study data, assumptions, and projections had been
firmed up. Staff concerns relative to apparent discrepancies in data
and population projections which were presented to the County have
gone essentially uncorrected and in most cases unresponded to. There
is Great concern about the accuracy of results and projections based
upon questionable data. I understand that both Casselberry and Winter
Springs are movinG forward with impact fee moratorium ordinances to
allow time for further study on various aspects of the Transportation
Impact Fee. It is recommended that the City of Sanford similarly move
forward with a moratorium ordinance in order to allow time, with
County cooperation, to validate or correct the foundation data of the
County impact fee study and to resolve other issues relative to the
Interlocal Agreement and Ordinance.
Background - Rapid growth projected for all of Seminole County
clearly justifies some form of transportation impact fee in order for
growth to pay for its share of road improvements to be required. This
impact fee should include development within the entire County, not
just the unincorporated areas, since all residents of the County,
present and future, will utilize the various roads of the County
arterial and collector network. Studies leading to the development of
the proposed Ordinance and fee structure have been ongoing for over a
year but have, until recent months, been progressing with little or
not input or involvement by Sanford, and I assume the other
municipalities. In the Fall an Impact Fee Review Committee was
established by the County, however, no municipal representatives were
included. The Central Florida Homebuilders Association has hosted a
number of luncheon meetings to which representatives of the cities and
County were invited regarding the subject of impact fees. These
meetings were valuable for the limited exchange of ideas, however,
there have been no perceptible "course changes" as a result. Recent
events as summarized in the followinG paragraphs show, I feel, that
much work remains to be done before the adoption and implementation of
a Countywide Impact Fee which is fair, equitable, defensible, and
based on best available data and projections.
On February 4, 1987 the Impact Fee Review Committee, Chaired by
Roger Neiswender, held a marathon meetinG (2:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M.),
attempting to work out a final recommendation to County Commission
regarding the proposed impact fee. They did not achieve this
objective, however, several recommendations were adopted. It was
recommended that the implementation target, following ordinance
adoption, be 60 days vice 10 days, in order to allow cities and the
County to try to work out differences and enter into interlocal
agreements. There was considerable concern expressed that if this was
not done that "the development community" would be caught in the
middle. It was also recommended that adoption of the ordinance be
delayed until mid March in order to allow this Committee time to
complete its work. Representatives of five cities who happened to be
present in the audience were asked for any comments they might have
regarding the ordinance. All five, including Altamonte Springs,
Winter Springs, Casselberry, Lake Mary, and Sanford were "negative"
regarding their perception of the likely City position regarding
adoption of the impact fee in its present form. Mr. John Howell,,
Esquire, representing the Central Florida Homebuilders voiced strong
legal opinion that the County's proposal to unilaterally apply impact
fees within incorporated areas was not legally defensible. (John has
taken that position previously, also.)
213
19 87
214
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
February 23,
87
On February 5 there was a meeting of city attorneys with the
County consultant attorney for the impact fee ordinance. Attorneys
for all cities except Longwood voiced strong concerns regarding the
ordinance and proposed interlocal agreement as they are now drafted.
Bill Colber called particular attention to his concern that a similar
prior meeting in early January he had understood commitment from
County representatives to redraft both the ordinance and the
interlocal agreement to provide for strong city participation in the
technical review process, but that one month and several drafts later
he has seen no move to implement that commitment. (I consider that
provision to be critical.) Attorney for Winter Springs indicated
considerable concern for the proposed impact fee as a whole and stated
that an ordinance ws being prepared by Winter Springs to specifically
prohibit implementation of the County transportation impact fee within
Winter Springs. Other objections from the Various cities included the
following:
Concern for quality of underlying data and land use
projections.
Appropriateness of inclusion of certain roads in the program
as either arterials or collectors.
Unresponsive time schedule for improvements.
Large size of collector districts.
Heavy emphasis of construction in the less developed
sections of the County (especially north section). This
concern included both impact fees and gas tax revenue
expenditures.
Concern that certain road improvements were politically
driven.
Concern that city collection of the impact fee, as proposed
by one alternative of the interlocal agreement, would be
complicated and subject to disagreement regarding
appropriate fee, with no provision for city administrative
cost recapture other than by an "add on" fee.
City Attorney's letter of February 12, 1987 delivered Draft No. 7
of the proposed Ordinance and Draft No. 4 of the proposed Interlocal
Agreement, recently received from the County consulting attorney.
These are the drafts Montye Beamer mentioned on February 16.
Section 4.11 of the revised draft prescribes a Municipal Road
Impact Fee Advisory Committee. This is progress, however, the Draft
Ordinance leaves much to be desired relative to the functioning
responsibility and authority of this Committee. We have primarily
been pursuing the creation of a "technical" committee to principally
address the technical aspects of the Ordinance and its underlying
plans, requirements, socioeconomic analysis, and land use projections.
Discussions with representatives of several other cities indicate
great concern for the "skewing" of road improvements more heavily into
the north area of the County at the expense of the southern section.
While there may definitely be technical consideration relative to this
concern it is more likely to be politically oriented. This type of a
split agenda could lead to real workability problems for the Advisory
Committee. It is therefore recommended that the Technical Advisory
Committee be given a more directly technical charter and membership
with possibly the "political" aspect being addressed by a separate
committee.
It is recommended that this Committee not be placed under the
control of the County Administrator. Any member of the Committee, as
well as the designated representative of the County Board of
Commissioners, should be able to call a meeting.
The charter of the Committee should be to provide recommendations
directly to the County Board of Commissioners as well as to the County
Administation.
Ordinance should specify that the County Board of Commissioners
will give due consideration to the recommendations of the Technical
Advisory Committee and give reasonable response in cases where the
Committee recommendations are not adopted.
Recommend that a time-table for Committee meetings be established
which recognizes the various functions to be accomplished including
amending, revising and updating of the study, ordinance, appendix,
construction schedule, and designated roads, etc. I feel that a
number of meetings will be required and that the review will need to
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
215
Febru~r. 23 19~
start a number fo months before the due date for the ordinance annual
update.
I note that the porposed effective date in this most recent draft
is left blank rather than the 60 days after enactment recommended by
the County's Impact Fee Advisory Committee and discussed among the
attorneys.
Draft 4 of the Proposed Interlocal Agreement has incorporated the
option for cities to collect fees only on residential improvements
with all others to go directly to the County. Because of the
complexity of the fee structure this is an improvemetn, and will
likely be the alternative recommended by staff whenever agreement is
reached on other matters. The new draft also provides for
reimbursement to the city of administrative costs incurred in fee
collection but only provides for this under the option where the city
collects all fees. This reimbursement provision needs to be expanded
to include some percentage for collection of residential fees.
Although previously requested the Draft Interlocal Agreement contains
no language or commitments relative to the Technical Advisory
Committee. It is recommended that this feature be included so that
the Ordinance and the Interlocal Agreement have a better interlock.
The briefing by Montye Beamer on February 16 contained no new
information. Most prior staff concerns and objections remain
unanswered.
The City Manager, also, submitted a letter from the City Attorney, dated February
18, 1987, as follows:
Stenstrom. h..IcIntosh. Julian. Colberl. F.
~ornevs and Counsellors at Law
Dou~as Stens¢om Kenne~ %1 Mclntosh Ned N. d~ia2, d~
%~illiam L. Colbe~ ~mnk C.%%i~am Cla~on D. Simmons
Thomas E.~hi~am Rob¢~ K. Mmlntosh
S~te ~ S~ ~ank
Fo20~ce ~ox1330 Sa~ord, Flo~da 32W2-1330 (305)322-2171
February 18, 1987
Frank A. Faison, City Manager
City of Sanford, Florida
Sanfor~ City Hall
Pos~ Office Box 1778
Sanford, Florida 32772-1778
Dear Frank:
I have been tracking the County's.proposed transportation impact
fee ordinance. The Ordinance is now in its seventh draft and in
its presen~ form still provides areas of concern. It appears
that the item will come up for adoption soon whether or not the
cities concur or enter into interloca! agreements concerning its
implementation.
Several cities are considering whether or not to legally
challenge certain aspects of the Ordinance. Winter Springs and
Casselberry have begun the adoption process of an ordinance which
would propose a moratorium on the imposition of transportation
impact fees within their cities for 90 days while additional data
is gathered and evaluated. I have consulted with thezr attorneys
and .prepared a similar ordinance for consideration by the Sanford
City Commission.
There are several interesting legal questions raised by the
proposed ordinance (the power of a non-charter county to enact an
ordinance effective within an incorporated municipality, and
double taxation), as well as the va!idity~of underlying data and
assumptions that wen5 into the creation cf the districts and
priorities of construction. The outcome of litigation can never
be known, but additional time might result in working out the
areas of concern to everyone's satisfaction, additional data on
which to base a decision, or a joint effort on the part of those
adversely.affected to brin~ abou5 change.
Sincerely,
' JULIAN,.
STENSTROM, ~lcINTOSH,
COLBERT & WHIGHAM, P. A.
Wz__zam L. ~ozDer~
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
February 23,
19__
87
On recommendation of the City ManaGer, and on motion by Commissioner Mercer,
seconded by Commissioner Thomas and carried by the vote of the Commission~as follows:
Commissioner Eckstein
Commissioner Mercer
Commissioner Thomas
Commissioner McClanahan
Mayor Smith
Ordinance No. 1856, entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 1856
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Naye
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANFORD, FLORIDA,
ESTABLISHING A SIX-MONTH MORATORIUM ON ALL
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES; ESTABLISHING A
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY; PROVIDING
FOR SEVERABILITY, CONFLICTS AND EFFECTIVE AND
TERMINATION DATE.
was introduced and placed on first readinG.
The Commission next considered the proposed Architect Contract for the Cultural
Arts Center Rehabilitation, discussed at the February 16, 1987 Workshop Session.
Commissioner McClanahan moved to table action regardinG the rehabilitation of the
Cultural Arts Center. Seconded by Commissioner Eckstein and failed to carry by the vote of
the Commission as follows:
Commissioner Eckstein
Commissioner Mercer
Commissioner Thomas
Commissioner McClanahan
Mayor Smith
Yea
Naye
Naye
Yea
Naye
Commissioner Mercer moved to authorize the execution of the architectural contract
between the City of Sanford and Burke and Bales Associates, Inc. for design and preparation
of construction documents of the Cultural Arts Center with deductive alternatives for bid
Seconded by Commissioner Thomas and carried by the vote of the Commission as
process.
follows:
Commissioner Eckstein
Commissioner Mercer
Commissioner Thomas
Commissioner McClanahan
Mayor Smith
Naye
Yea
Yea
Naye
Yea
The Commission next considered the "value engineerinG" requirement for the
effluent disposal facilities, discussed at the February 16, 1987 Workshop Session.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the addition to the Conklin, Porter and
Holmes Contract No. 13 (for design of the treatment plant effluent filtration, disinfection,
storage, pumping and transmission facilities) in the amount of $23,450 for required value
engineerinG from the firm of CRS Sirrine. Seconded by Commissioner Mercer and carried by
the vote of the Commission as follows:
Commissioner Eckstein
Commissioner Mercer
Commissioner Thomas
Commissioner McClanahan
Mayor Smith
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Petition for Annexation was submitted from the City of Sanford for a portion of
that certain property lyinG at the Southeast corner of the intersection of vacated Seaboard
Coastline Railroad RiGht-of-Way and Upsala Road, more particularly described as follows:
All South 1/2 of Northeast 1/4 of Northeast 1/4 of Northeast
1/4 South of Railway in Section 33, Township 19 South, RanGe 30
East, Seminole County, Florida.
MINUTES 21 7
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
February 23:
Commissioner McClanahan moved to authorize the City Attorney to prepare the proper
ordinance to annex said property. Seconded by Commissioner Mercer and carried by the vote
of the Commission as follows:
Commissioner Eckstein
Commissioner Mercer
Commissioner Thomas
Commissioner McClanahan
Mayor Smith
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
consideration of annexation.
Commission as follows:
Petition for Annexation was submitted from James Marler, Marion D. Conway, Alva L.
Conway, Cecil I. Cooper, Jr., Ruth D. Cooper, and Bryan S. Seigler for a portion of that
certain property lying between Airport Boulevard and Bevier Road and lying between West
Third Street and Jewett Lane, more particularly described as follows:
All of Lot D/ AND, Lot 1, Lot 2, and the North 1/2 of Lot 3,
and the Soth 1/2 of Lot 6, and all of Lot 7, all of Lot 8, and
the North 1/2 of Lot 9., WEST HAVEN SUBDIVISION, according to
the plat thereof as recorded in the Public Records of Seminole
County, Florida, as recorded in Platbook 11 on Page 92.
On recommendation of the City Attorney, Commissioner McClanahan moved to table
Seconded by Commissioner Thomas and carried by the vote of the
Commissioner Eckstein
Commissioner Mercer
Commissioner Thomas
Commissioner McClanahan
Mayor Smith
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Petition for Annexation was submitted from Arthur E. Grindle, Trustee and Phyllis
A. Grindle, Trustee and A. E. Grindle, Trustee for a portion of that certain property lying
East of and abutting S. R. 17 & 92 and lying between Collins Drive and Flea World, more
particularly described as follows:
The Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 East of State Road, and
the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 East of State Road (Less
the North 891 ft.) and the West 30 ft. of the North 891 ft. of
the Northeast 1/4 of t.he Southwest 1/4 South of State Road,
Section 14, Township 20 South~ Range 30 East, Seminole County,
Florida.
On recommendation of the City Manager, Commissioner Mercer moved to authorize the
City Attorney to prepare the proper ordinance to annex said property. Seconded by
Commissioner Thomas and carried by the vote of the Commission as follows:
Commissioner Eckstein
Commissioner Mercer
Commissioner Thomas
Commissioner McClanahan
Mayor Smith
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
On motion of Commissioner McClanahan, seconded by Commissioner Thomas and carried
by the vote of the Commission as follows:
Commissioner Eckstein
Commissioner Mercer
Commissioner Thomas
Commissioner McClanahan
Mayor Smith
Items were approved as follows:
~ 1.
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Request for payment of statements from Conklin, Porter and Holmes for
engineering services performed from 1/9/87 through 1/30/87 as follows:
Sanford Incremental Sewer Collection System Rehabilitation
State Grant No. 586100, CPH Job No. S0602.15 ............. $ 1,522.59
Sanford Core Sewer Collection System Rehabilitation
19 87
218
MINUTES
City Commission, San£ord, Florida
February 23, 19 87
EPA Grant #C120586080, CPH Job No. S0602.16 .............. 2,011.46
3. Separation of Storm and Sanitary Sewer - Amendemnt 10,
cP. Job No. S0602.20 .................... 2,415.77
CPH Job No. S0602.24 ......... 1,263.96
5. Effluent Filtration, igig gggigg2 Agg & g;
and Transmission Facilities, Amendment ~13,
CPH Job No. S0602.25 ............... 28,882.94
6. Wastewater Effluent S~ ~i~i;~ ~;i~;
CPH Job No. S0602.26 ..................................... 10,452.99
TOTAL $46,549.71
2. Request for payment of statements from Southern Resources Mapping
Corporation for surveying services as follows:
1. Effluent Distribution Piping System Invoice No. 2965 ..... $37,526.00
2. Airport and Golf Course areas Invoice No. 2966 ........... 12,790.00
TOTAL $50,316.00
'" 3. Request for payment of statement from Jammal and Associates, Inc. in the
amount of $100.00 for quality control and material testing at the Wastewater
Treatment Plant, Sludge Handling Facility.
~ 4. Request for payment of statement from Wharton-Smith, Inc., Pay Application
No. 7, in the amount of $135,741.83 for the Sludge Handling Facility.
5. Approval of Minutes for February 9, 1987.
The City Clerk reported the Planning and Zoning Commission reported no
recommendations from their meeting of February 5, 1987.
Melvin Russell, 2034 Jefferson Avenue, appeared with a petition of 76 signatures
requesting the City "take proper action to make Lake Gem a viable lake", stating the area is
an 'eyesore' and "constitutes a health hazard to the surrounding area". The petition stated
the lake required "dredging and increased deepening in order to hold sufficient water to
prevent the forming of green scum which now covers it due to it's shallow condition. It
could then be stocked with fish from a state hatchery and become a source of delight and
recreation for neighborhood children and senior citizens."
The Commission asked for recommendations from Staff.
The next item of business was the consideration of a request from Steve Laughlin
to use an unpaved portion of Holly Avenue Right-of-Way for off-street parking for five
dwelling units at 718 West First Street.
The City Manager submitted a memorandum from the Director of Engineering and
Planning as follows:
MEMORANDUM FEBRUARY 12, 1987
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
City Manager
Director of Engineering and Planning
Steve Laughlin, Request for Right-of-Way Use Permit
Mr. Faison:
By his letter of February 9, 1987, Mr. Laughlin has effectively
requested a right-of-way use permit from the City to use the unpaved
part of the right-of-way of Holly Avenue which abuts his property for
off-street parking. The property which has a legal description of Lot
6, Block 2, Tier 10, E. R. TRAFFORD'S TOWN OF SANFORD contains a total
of five dwelling units on the 49.6' x 104.2' lot. Mr. Laughlin
proposes to provide seven (7) off-street parking spaces, compared with
the ten (10) required by present City Code. He proposes to provide no
parking spaces on his own property. Review of the print provided by
Mr. Laughlin indicates the possible capability of providing up to four
(4) 10' x 20' spaces on his property, stacked in pairs, but with the
required removal of much of the existing vegetation.
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida February 2 3,
219
A right-of-way use permit, if granted, would not be permanent in
nature, and could be revoked at any time chosen by City Commission.
There is precedent for this type of permit in the past. Examples
include Gregory Lumber on Maple Avenue and the Florida Hotel on 5th
Street. If granted, a site plan review should be required, with
paving to be required.
On recommendation of the City Manager, Commissioner McClanahan moved to approve
the permitted use of the right-of-way with stipulations as follows:
A right-of-way permit is not permanent in nature, and can be revoked at
any time chosen by the City Commission.
Approval of site plan review with paving requirements.
Seconded by Commissioner Thomas and carried by the vote of the Commission as follows:
Commissioner Eckstein
Commissioner Mercer
Commissioner Thomas
Commissioner McClanahan
Mayor Smith
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Commissioner Mercer moved to approve the request from Sanford Rotary Breakfast
Club to close Seminole Boulevard between Myrtle Avenue and Hood Avenue and Park Avenue
between Fulton Street and Seminole Boulevard from 6:30 P.M. March 27, 1987 until 5:00 P.M.
March 28, 1987, and to use the South parking lot at City Hall and utilize the restrooms in
the downstairs lobby of City Hall for their annual Rotary blue Ribbon Classic Antique Auto
Show.
Seconded by Commissioner Thomas and carried by the vote of the Commission as follows:
Commissioner Eckstein
Commissioner Mercer
Commissioner Thomas
Commissioner McClanahan
Mayor Smith
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
The City Manager submitted a memorandum from the Director of Engineering and
Planning as follows:
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
City Manager
Director of Engineering and Planning
St. Johns River Flow Monitoring Contract
FEBRUARY 11, 1987
Mr. Faison:
As a part of justifying our proposed wet weather effluent
discharge to the St. Johns River, downstream of Lake Monroe, FDER is
requiring that a Water Quality Based Effluent Limitation Study be
conducted. FDER is participating with City of Sanford in conducting
this Study which will include flow monitoring, and extensive water
sampling and testing. A major part of the responsibility for this
program assigned to City of Sanford is to arrange for the river flow
monitoring by USGS.
Working together with FDER and USGS the attached contract has
been prepared for the first year of what could be a two year
monitoring program. The annual cost will be $19,000, however,
discussions with USGS and St. Johns River Water Management District
indicates potential for partial funding by each of those agencies
commencing in October 1987, although that is not assured.
It is requested that City Commission authorize execution of this
contract on February 23, 1987.
Commissioner McClanahan moved to authorize the execution of the St. Johns River
Flow Monitoring Contract with the Geological Survey, United States Department of the
Interior, in the amount of $19,000 annually for a possible two year monitoring program.
Seconded by Commissioner Thomas and carried by the vote of the Commission as follows:
19 87
2 2 0 MINUTE S
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
F eb_r u arJ~ 23:
19 87
Commissioner Eckstein
Commissioner Mercer
Commissioner Thomas
Commissioner McClanahan
Mayor Smith
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
On motion of Commissioner Mercer, seconded by Commissioner Thomas and carried by
the vote of the Commission as follows:
Commissioner Eckstein
Commissioner Mercer
Commissioner Thomas
Commissioner McClanahan
Mayor Smith
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Requests for payment of statements were approved as follows:
1. ',.~ Invoice dated February 3, 1987 from Donald W. McIntosh Associates, Inc. in the
amount of $18,800 for surveying services for Wastewater Effluent Irrigation
Systems.
2. ,~ Invoice dated February 3, 1987 from Conklin, Porter and Holmes Engineers, Inc. in
the amount of $6,632.39 for engineering services from January 10, 1987 through
January 30, 1987 for the Sludge Handling Facility.
3.,~ Invoice dated February 5, 1987 from Stenstrom, McIntosh, Julian, Colbert and
Whighan, P.A. in the amount of $4,902.25 for professional services rendered during
the month of January, 1987.
4. N Invoices dated January 31, 1987 from Orlando Paving Company in the amounts of
$99,089.99 and $135,424.34 for Street Resurfacing Phase I.
5. '~ Invoice dated February 10, 1987 from Ivey, Bennett, Harris and Walls in the
amount of $2,845.43 for consultant planning services rendered during the month of
January, 1987.
Petition for Annexation was submitted from Robert N. Barbour, Bernard C. Barbour,
Shirley M. Barbour, Mary Jane F. Barbour, and Sherwood E. Barbour, Jr. for a portion of that
certain property lying at the Northwest corner of the intersection of Jewett Lane and Meisch
Road, more particularly described as follows:
Block 29, M. M. SMITH'S SUBDIVISION, as recorded in the Public
Records of Seminole County, Florida, in Plat Book 1 on Page 55.
On recommendation of the City Attorney, Commissioner. McClanahan moved to table
Seconded by Commissioner Thomas and carried by the vote of the Commission as
consideration.
follows:
Commissioner Eckstein
Commissioner Mercer
Commissioner Thomas
Commissioner McClanahan
Mayor Smith
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
The Commission next considered the request from Great Sutton Shows, Inc to hold a
carnival in the parking lot of the Pinecest Shopping Center on South Orlando Drive March 10
through 15, 1987.
After discussion regarding traffic problems, Commissioner Mercer moved to deny
Seconded by Commissioner Thomas and carried by the vote of the Commission as
said request.
follows:
Commissioner Eckstein
Commissioner Mercer
Commissioner Thomas
Commissioner McClanahan
Mayor Smith
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Commissioner McClanahan moved to remove from table the consideration of purchasing
2200 acres for a effluent spray disposal site located on S. R. 46 East of Sanford, tabled
at the meeting of November 10, 1986. Seconded by Commissioner Thomas and carried by the
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
221
February 23, 19 87
vote of the Commission as follows:
Commissioner Eckstein
Commissioner Mercer
Commissioner Thomas
Commissioner McClanahan
Mayor Smith
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Commissioner _M_~~.moved to authorize negotiations with the owners of the 2200
acre track with no prede.termined findings, and appoint Mayor Smithl-City Manager Frank A.
Faison, and Director of Engineering and Planning, Bill Simmons, as the negotiating team to
meet with the owners. Seconded by Commissioner Me~D~: and carried by the vote of the
Commission as follows:
Commissioner Eckstein
Commissioner Mercer
Commissioner Thomas
Commissioner McClanahan
Mayor Smith
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Commissioner Mercer moved to exercise a 6-month Option-to-Purchase, without cost
to the city, of 1700 acres located East of the City on Highway 46. Seconded by Commissioner
Thomas and carried by the vote of the Commission as follows:
Commissioner Eckstein
Commissioner Mercer
Commissioner Thomas
Commissioner McClanahan
Mayor Smith
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
The City Manager submitted a tabulations of bids as follows:
CITY OF SANFORD
Recreation and Parks Department
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 12,1987
From: Director
To: City Manager
Sub]eot: Bid #86/87-27
Fencing Lee P. Moore Park - L.W.C.F. Grant
Director of Recreation recommends low bidder meetin~ specifications
"All Fence Company~ Winter Park in the amount of $20,968.00.
Total amount budgeted ..... S27,061.00
BID TABULATION
BID TITLE Chain I. ink Fenclno ral~m~orl~eeo~Ul~llU~xl~rmiau~ OPENED BY: Walt Shearin
BID NUMBER 86/~7-27 ~,*~u~.~u,~m,~mmezr~ TABULATED BY' Jim Dernigan
OPENING DATE 2/10/87 TIME 2:00 ~m ,,,,~~,~,~,a~ VERIFIED BY:. ltoward ~effries
POSTING TIME/DATE FROM: / 'UNTIL / PAGE 1 OF [ PAGE(S}
Lee P. I
BIDDERS
TERMS
Baseball Moore Pk Co~mn'ence Complete': Total
A. Aabot Wholesale 6,793.00. ~6~495.00 2/16/87 3/6/87 -~3,288.00
American Steel Fenc 5,990.00 L5,720.00 2/20/87 3/13/87 ~.1,710.00
AL1 Fence 5,970.00 L4,998.00 10 days 21 days~ ~~
Barfie]d Fence 8,290.00 [7,5,90.00 '5' days 3 weeks 15~880.00
[~erkins Fence 7,553.00 ~1,998.00 10 days 30_~_0_~19,551.00
No No
P~cmJer Metal lnc. Bid Bid
t£MA~4g.$: ClI~CLED ['III[CE IiqDICA'I'E$ A~AkD
r4 .....~r- ~ 27,063.00
222
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
February_ 23,
19__
87
CITY OF SANFORD
RECREATION & PARKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 12, 1987
TO: City Manager~/
SUBJECT: Bid ~86/87-26
RE: Lee P. Moore Park - LWCF Grant
This bid involved a miscellaneous list' of park equipment.
Director recommends low bid except as noted by each item.
A)
4 sets of bleachers to Hunter-Knepshield as low
bidder and meeting specifications ................. S2,906.00
B)
(12) Twelve picnic tables to Landscape Structures
as low bidder and meeting specifications ......... S1,543.00
c)
(8) Eight park benches to Landscape Structures
as low bidder and meeting specifications ........
S1,160.00
D)
(3) Three picnic grills rD Hunter-Knepshie!d as
low bidder and meezing specifications ..........
!)
Hasher & Associates bid $693.00 however
they did nor meet specifications in that it
only provided 600 sq. inches of cooking
surface plus gauge of s~ee! was !! gauge and
specifications called for !0 gauge.
$ 717.96
2)
Miracle Equipment Bid the grills at $712.80
but failed to meet specifications because
specs recuired 10 gauge s~ee!. Their grill
was !! gauge.
E)
Baseball backstop to Miracle Equipment Cc. as low
bidder and meeting specifications ............... $1,327.20
F)
Player benches to Landscape Structures as !ow
bidder and meeting specifications ...............
S 394.00
G)
Soccer Goals rD U.S. Games Co. as low bidder
and meeting specifications .....................
S 625.40
Total amount of bids awarded ............... $8,673.56
Total amount budgeted .................... $ 10,952.00
BID TABULATION
I}IDIII[E Playground Equipment ~^,u,~aur,z~,o,~-'r~nmu~,~,m.wrm~ OPENED ~Y: Walter Shearin
OPENING DATE 2/10/87 ~IM5 2:00 p,n ....~m.~,~m,~ VERIFIED BY: ltoward deffries
POSTING TIME/DATE FROM: ; / UNTIL .... / 1 .PAGE ' OF ~ PAGEIS)
C.. ~.' ~. ~.. ~.
tlIDDERS TERMS 4 s'e~s 12' $ Dark 3 picnicI l baseba I 4~l~er 1 soccer GRAND
.. bleacher2 D~R~,~ b.e.n~hes ~ril. ls backstop bench~s 9Del TOTAI,
liunter Knepshi~ld 1,852,08 ,231.04 1,359.02 5!14.68 658.5¢ 9,239.32
[J.S..Gan,es 3,822.84 ..... __ 772.00 i -- ~
llasner & Assoc. -- 1,632.00 1,230.00 693.00 1,360.00 438.00. 640.00
]liracle Equipment 3,014.5'6 1,952.40 ~1510.32 712,801~ 611,40 1,148.76 10,834.14
I)omiuica Recreatio~ 3,'338.00 1,728.00 1,267.20 82~.00 [,483.00 548.00 877.00 10,]11.20
I'i1[ terson-WJ 11 Jams __ ... __ ...___ 775.00 1,756.00 -- 8]3.00
l.andscape Structure 3,979.0.0 },543.00_ ~1 ....... ?,076.00
Bids awarded $8,67~.56 Total
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
223
February 23, 19 87
CITY OF SANFORD
Recreation and Parks Department
MEMORANDUM
Date: Februar.v 12 ~ 29~7
From: Director /
TO: City Manager ~//...
Subject: Bid# 86/87 - 23
Handball Courts - Lee P. Moore Park
Funded by L.W.C.F. Grant
Director of Recreation recommends Big Oak Construction as low
bidder meeting specifications for construction of handball courts for
Lee P. Moore Park in the amount of $11,500.00.
Total amount budgeted ......... S!5,500.00
Copy: Walter Shearin
AtTachment - 1
BID TABULATION
BID lilLE llnndball Courts ram~z~r~o~c~.m~.zz~.~sca~ OPENED [~Y: Walt Shearin
BID NUMBER 86/87 - 23 Ilaua~lv~.~[m~,l~u*~c;rl TABULATED BY: 0ira Jernsgan
OPENING DATE 2/10/87 TIME 2,00 pm a,a,~~noa~,~,~ne VERIFIED BY' ltoward 0effries
~ 1 1
POSII~G TIME/DATE FROM; /__ U~IIL / ~.PAGE OF PAGE{SI
BIDDERS TERMS Uanaball
~,,~ Commence ComPlete:
Bill Corso Const. 12,985.0( 3 wks
Big Oak Const. ~"~"~'"~'~)2/10/8711,500.00 3/10/87
Shoemaker Const. 14,466.00 2/16/87 3/30/87
~1FtdARI$: CISCL[D l~[lCg INDICATES A~ARD
7004R£V. 11-5-1t~ 10 Requests - 3 Received
224
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
February 23, _
19 87
CITY OF SANFORD
RECREATION & PARKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
TO:
DATE: February 12, 1987
Director~'
SUBJECT:
Bid ~86/87-24
Picnic Shelter Buildin9
Director of Recreation recommends low bid meeting specifications
to Hasner and Associates Park & Recreational Systems, Inc. of
Melbourne, Florida in the amount of S13,450.00.
Please note that RCP Shelters of StuarT, Florida bid
$11,760.00 but failed to meet specifications in that:
A)
RCP Shelters could not furnish s~eel beam
construction.
B)
RCP had an additional add on cost of $300.00 for
shop drawing and $750.00 for Western Cedar Roof decking.
Total amount budgeted ......... $27,780.00.
Copy: Walter Shearin
Attachment - !
BID TABULATION
BID TIILE Picnic Shelter Buildinq r^,u~x~r~,~m-~m~n,~z~,~mm, mm OPENED ~Y: Walter Shearin
BID NUMBER 86187-24 naum~taa.nm, .~.,m~a. JU,.~,~:;r~ TABULATED BY:, .qim 3ernigan
OPENING DATE 2/10/871I~ 2:00 ~m ~..,~m~.~,~m~.~ VERIFIED BY:~ Ho;~ard Jeffries
POSTING TIME/DATE FROM: / UNTIL /,~.PAGE [ OF [ PAGEJSI
BIDDERS TERMS Picnic .,
NO
Central Recreation Bid
Hunter Knepshield 15,483.00 30-45 da',s
llasner & Assoc. ( 13,450.09 130-40 da',s
Dominica
Recreation
~_~,v~o.vy ~ ~ . ..... .
t: & W 13id
R.C.P.
Shelters il,760.00 35-45 da,,s
iiI:klAt~,¥,.s: CI, I/.CLg, D I~RICg IRDICATI!S AWARD
';OO4REV, 11-5-85 § requests - 6 received
MINUTES 225
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
Febru_ary 23,
19 87
MEMORANDUM
February 18, 1987
To: City Manager~~ ~ ~~~~
From: Utility Director //~i
Re:
Bid Opening #86/87-29
Utility Building Fencing Project
Mr. Faison-
On February 12th at 3:00 P.M., bids were opened for a fencing
project at the Utility Building located at 412 W. 14th
Street.
The project consists of the removal and relocation of
approximately 150 ft. of existing fence and the installation..
of approximately 150 ft. of new fence.. The completion of
the project will result in an expanded storage area for
utility materials.
Bid~ packages were mailed out to 12 vendors with 6 responses.
Listed below is the bid summary.
VENDOR
BID AMOUNT
1) A-Aabot Wholesale FeDce, Orlando
2) Ail Fence, Inc., Winter Park
3) American Steel Fence Comp., Orlando
4) Barfield Fence Comp., Longwood
5) Perkins Fence, Sanford
Premier Metal, Orlando
S2,046.00
S2,380.00
S2,!40.00
S2,!10.00
$2,622.50
NO BID
It is recommended that the bid be awarded to the lowest
bidder meeting specifications, %~hich is A-Aabot Wholesale
Fence for the amount of $2,046.00. This project will be
paid from account number 2-45-406392 which has $3,018.00
budgeted.
BID TABULATION
t~lD TIILE Utility Building Fencing Pro4ect
POSTING TIME/DATE FROM: / UNTIL /~PAGE OF ' PAGEiS)
BIDDERS TERMS' FENCE COMMENCE COMPLETE
~_~ {~ 2/1~6/~ 2/20/~7
l0 days 21. days
Ali Fence $2,380 after re¢ after orcJer
American $2, 140 2/18/87 2/24/87
5 days
Barf~eld $2,110 after P.(. '' 1 week
5 days within
Perkins $2',622.5 after awa;~ded 5 days
Premier N O B I D
12 requests 6 responses
226
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
February 23,
19 87
MEMORANDUM
DATE'
TO:
FROM:
RE:
February 18, 1987
city 3.;
Assistant Public Works 'Director
Uniform Bids
Frank,
Attached is the tabulation sheet for the uniform bid.
indicated by a circle around the bid amount.
.recommended
The/low bids are
The vendor (Caravan from Auburndale) that has some of the low bids did
'not include 'emblems in his uniform prices. Recommend that vendor be
disqualified for not meeting specifications, r ....
Recommend accepting low bid meetina specifications from Barker Uniforms.
Total unit price for a uniform set is below the Pudgeted amount. Budgeted
unit price is $67,38, low bidder's unit price is $65.20.
BID TABULATION
tIDTI/LE Worker Uniforms r^msgm*~u~at"°r--'oem~m"'nz't~'v'~m'~w'm OPENED BY: Walt Shearin
lid NUMBER 86/87-28 i~u~aau~.~ul~,m,,,~*ir~ TABULATED BY: }Jerry Herman
)PENING DATE 2/17/87 TIME 2:00 p.M..,~,~gmm~mna~l~miu~.~ VERIFIED BY:
'OSItNGIIME/DATEFROM: / UNTIl / .... PAGE OF ' , PAGE(SI
I ' III II)D) II(E~ II(F) 0~I~
BIDDERS ~lMUt 8 T-Shirt g~g~t Long $1eev Short
sh~r~ Trousers ' 3~nk~t Jacket Coveralls :l~blem
[~.ncr, Lake ~ 2-8 w~ ~ P~ts 9.95 ea. 11.25 ea, 10;50 pr. 18.95 ea. t4.95 ea. 18.95'ca. [1'55 19,369
4.45 aa ea.
av~, Aub~n~le' 4 w~ 5.36 ea R 6.}1 ca. W 7.38 ea. 10.56 pr. 18,63 ea. ]3.13 ea. 17.19 ea. N.B.
3 6.50 ea. G 7.fi6
' ' ~ 2.75 [9,963
1{, Or'l~w~o 2-3 w~ 4.95 ea. 8.89 ea. 10.49 ea. 9,90 pr. 19.75 ea. 15.35 ea. ~ lg.05 ca, es
8.75 ea. ' ~.38
B~)I~, Orl~do 30 ~ys 4.20 ea. ~/o Flap 9.75 ea. ll. O0'pr. 22.50 ea. 15.95 ea. 19.00 ea. ea [8,808
MINUTES
City CommiSsion, Sanford, Florida
227
February 23,
19 87
On recommendation of the City Manager, Commissioner Thomas moved to accept low bid
meeting specifications as follows:
1. ~. Fencing for the Lee P. Moore Park - L.W.C.F. Grant in the amount of $20,968.00
from All Fence Company.
2. '~ Seven (7) items of park equipment for the Lee P. Moore Park - L.W.C.F. Grant
totaling $8,673.56 from vendors as follows:
a. (Four) 4 sets of bleachers from Hunter-Knepshield .
b Twelve (12) picnic tables from Landscape Structure; [[[~[[[[[[~[[ $ 2,906.00
· 1,543.00
c. Eight (8) park benches from Landscape Structures ................ 1,160.00
d. Three (3) picnic grills from Hunter-Knepshield .................. 717.96
e. Baseball backstop from Mircle Equipment Co ...... · ................ 1,327.20
f. Player benches from Landscape Structues ......................... 394.00
g. Soccer Goals from U.S. Games Co ................................. 625.40
3. ~ Handball Courts for the Lee P. Moore Park - L.W.C.F. Grant in the amount of
$11,500 from Big Oak Construction.
4. ~ Picnic Shelter Building for the Lee P. Moore Park - L.W.C.F. Grant in the amount
of $13,450.00 from Hasner and Associates Park and Recreation Systems, Inc. of
Melbourne, Florida.
5. ~ Fencing project at the Utility Building located at 412 West 14th Street in the
amount of $2,046.00 from A-Aabot Wholesale Fence, Orlando.
6. ~ Uniforms for Public Works and Utilites workers in the amount of $16,679.67 from
Barker Uniforms, Orlando.
Seconded by Commissioner McClanahan and carried by the vote of the Commission as follows:
Commissioner Eckstein
Commissioner Mercer
Commissioner Thomas
Commissioner McClanahan
Mayor Smith
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
The Commission requested the City Attorney to report on the congregate living
facilities at the next regular meeting.
Commissioner Mercer moved to endorse City Planner, Jay Marder's letter to the East
Central Florida Regional Planning Council, stating their Comprehensive Plan was a poor plan,
and to submit a resolution to the East Central Florida Regional Planning Countil supporting
Seconded by Commissioner Thomas and carried by the vote of the
Mr. Marder's comments.
Commission as follows:
Commissioner Eckstein
Commissioner Mercer
Commissioner Thomas
Commissioner McClanahan
Mayor Smith
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
The Commission authorized discussion at a future Workshop Session of the City's
policy regarding trees in the right-of-way and sidewalk maintenance and repairs.
The Commission requested the City Attorney to report on the status of the
annexations suits with the County.
After discussion, the Commission requested the City Attorney to prepare an
ordinance prohibiting U-turns in the City of Sanford.
Commissioner Mercer reported terms-of-expiration and vacancies on several City
Boards, and the Commission authorized same to be discussed at a future Workshop Session.
Commissioner Thomas reported discrepancies between the ordinance and policy for
lot mowing, and the Commission authorized same to be discussed at a future Workshop Session.
The City Manager reported having received, this date, a letter from Richard Smith,
Bureau Chief, Department of Environmental Regulations, stating between his department and
the Federal Department of Environmental Protection Agency, combined effort to partially fund
2 2 8 MINUTE S
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
February 23,
19N
87
the combined sewer overflow in the City of Sanford.
The Mayor appointed Commissioner Mercer as Acting Mayor during the weekend of
February 28 through March 1, 1987 while she is in Washington, D. C.
Joseph Kantor, Westcott-Development, Inc., appeared to appeal the denial of site
plan by the Planning and Zoning Commission on February 19, 1987.
The Commission authorized same to be discussed at a Special Meeting at 4:15 P. M.
on March 2, 1987.
There bein9 no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
ATTEST:
--" - ~ A Y O R