050487-Workshop Session MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
May 4,
19 87
The City Commission of the City of Sanford, Florida, met in Workshop Session in
the City Manager's Conference Room of the City Hall in the City of Sanford, Florida, at 4:30
o'clock P. M. on May 4, 1987.
Present:
Mayor-Commissioner Bettye D. Smith
Commissioner Whitey Eckstein
Commissioner John Y. Mercer
Commissioner A. A. McClanahan
City Attorney William L. Colbert
City Manager Frank A. Faison
City Clerk H. N. Tamm, Jr.
Absent: Commissioner Bob Thomas
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman.
The City Attorney appeared to discuss settlement conditions proffered by Seminole
County on pending litigation. The City Attorney submitted a memorandum as follows:
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Commissioners
City of Sanford
FROM:
William L. Colbert, City Attorney
DATE: May 4, 1987
RE:
Annexat ion Lit igat ion
The purpose of this memorandum is to advise you of the status of the pending
annexation litigation. There are three separate cases pending before the courts
on certiorari at this time. Certiorari is a legal term used to describe the
procedure whereby a court (usually a three judge panel) reviews the actions of a
lower court or quasi judicial body to see if the essential requirements of law
were met by the lower court or quasi judicial body when it acted. The steps in
certiorari, a review of the petition by the court to see if it states a cause of
action, the entry by the court of an order to show cause, a response by the lower
court or quasi judicial body, a reply to the response by the original petitioner,
oral arguments by the parties before the court and a final ruling by the court on
the merits of the case.
The three cases pending before the court involve several parcels of land
south and west of the City owned by five separate owners. They are generally
known as the Baker/White, Kastner/Paulucci and McCall parcels. The Baker/White
parcels are located in the southern section of the City south and west of the
Cardinal Industries Corporate Offices. The Kastner/Paulucci parcels are located
in the western section of the City, north of State Road 46-A and lying east and
west of Upsala Road. The McCall parcel in north of State Road 46-A and east of
Upsala Road. Copies of the maps are attached for your reference in locating the
parcels.
There are two normal methods of annexation available to municipalities under
the Florida Statutes: involuntary and voluntary. Generally speaking, involuntary
annexation is initiated by a governmental entity and voluntary annexation is
initiated by the property owner. It is important to note that, in all instances
referred to here, annexation was initiated by the property owner, not the City,
under Section 171.044 Florida Statutes (copy attached). Baker/White petitioned
on March 11, 1985; Kastner/Paulucci petitioned on August 12, 1985; and McCall
petitioned on June 6, 1986. In the normal course of events, the petitions were
reviewed, public hearings were held and the parcels were annexed by ordinance.
The status of the three cases is that petitions for review by certiorari
were filed by Seminole County within thirty days of each annexation. The court
entered a show cause order on Baker/White, the City responded and the County
replied. The case is now awaiting the scheduling of oral arguments by the court.
Show cause orders have not been entered in the Kastner/Paulucci and McCall cases
at this time.
The petitions for review by certiorari have been somewhat dormant awaiting
action by the court while the City's attention has been focused on solving its
wastewater effluent disposal problems. Last fall, Bob McMillan, Assistant County
Attorney, initiated a telephone conference and inquired whether the City would be
interested in resolving the litigation. There were several subsequent telephone
calls which led to an exchange of correspondence. A copy of my letter dated
November 13, 1986, is attached for your information. There have been additional
conversations involving the Mayor, City Manager, County Commission Chairman,
County Administrator, Assistant County Attorney and City Attorney.
I have been advised by Mr. McMillan that, on April 28, 1987, the County
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
May 4,
345
19 87
Commission formally proposed a settlement in accordance with the item attached to
your agenda as "Item 1" (a copy of his letter dated April 29, 1987, is attached).
It differs from that discussed in my letter of November 13, 1986, referred to
above.
The settlement, as proposed by the County, would result in setting aside the
two ordinances annexing the Baker/White and McCall parcels and partially setting
aside the Kastner/Paulucci annexation ordinance. If Baker, Kastner and Paulucci
were still willing to voluntarily annex into the City, the final result would be
that those parcels would come into the City by new ordinance and the White and
McCall parcels would not.
I do not know about the Kastner/Paulucci positions at this time and it would
be appropriate to talk to them before final action is taken. However, I have had
recent discussions with Mr. Baker. Mr. Baker contacted me by telephone
approximately six or eight weeks ago and inquired of the status of the
litigation. He indicated the County was being difficult to deal with and he
might want to annex additional property into the City. We discussed it briefly
and I indicated, as long as no enclave would be created, I felt the City would be
interested in annexing additional contiguous property. He said he would get back
to me.
After receiving word from Mr. McMillan of the County's action, I attempted
to contact Mr. Baker to follow up on our prior conversation and to tell him of
the potential settlement of the litigation. Mr. Baker returned by telephone call
on Saturday, May 2, 1987, and indicated he had recently been negotiating directly
with Ken Hooper, County Administrator. Mr. Baker indicated that Mr. Hooper had
agreed the County would furnish water to his site from the Lake Mary area and
would buy his sewer system. Mr. Baker said the deal was simply too good to
refuse and he expected to conclude negotiations soon and that, concurrently with
the execution of a developer's agreement with the County, he would petition to
de-annex from the City.
The outcome of litigation is never certain. Some cases are won or lost on
rules of procedure or other technical matters. Others are decided on their
merits and on the basis of facts and circumstances peculiar to a particular case.
If we could always accurately predict the outcome of litigation, the courts would
become obsolete. From a review of the facts and the law, it appears that the
Kastner/Paulucci case is strongest from the City's point of view and that the
McCall case is weakest. The decision to proceed or not is a policy decision, not
a legal one, and I will abide by any decision made by the City Commission.
The City Manager asked us some time ago to review the status of the cases
and to be prepared to move forward particularly on the Kastner/Paulucci case. We
have accomplished this and are prepared to file a motion to dismiss the petition
for writ of certiorari in that case and to argue it before the court when it is
scheduled for hearing if the City Commission so directs.
Following are several factors I feel you should consider in reaching a
policy decision and I am sure you can think of others:
1. What are the intentions of the property owners? Mr. Baker
apparently wants out. We do not know what the Kastner/Paulucci interests want to
do but their wishes should at least be considered.
2. If the annexations were voluntary initially, but now the owners do
not want to proceed, would the City, as a matter of policy, proceed in any event?
services,
place?
3. What
and the
is the impact to the City in terms of growth, demand for
ability to pay for them with and without the annexation in
4. Is the City willing to commit the staff support time and
necessary to thoroughly litigate the issues, win or lose?
funds
5. Are the City Commission and public ready to see the City and
County at legal odds again?
6. Are there other alternatives?
Once you have considered the above factors and any others that may come up,
you have the following choices:
1. Accept the County's proposal;
2. Make a counter-offer along the lines of my letter of November 13,
1986, or some other proposal acceptable to you;
3. Wait on the courts to proceed; or
4. Instruct us to file the motion to dismiss and proceed as rapidly
as possible through the court system.
Your final decision should be made in a regular City Commission meeting and
346
MINUTES
City Commission, San£ord, Florida
May ~,
19 87
should be made a matter of public record by roll call vote of the Commissioners.
As always, I am ready to answer any questions you may have and to abide by your
decision after you have weighed the facts and considered the alternatives,
There is one more item I need to bring to your attention: the
Marler/Conway/Cooper/Seigler annexation petition. It comes up again as "Item 7a"
on the regular agenda on Monday, May 11, 1987. The County is opposed to the
annexation. The property is contiguous to the City and its annexation does not
create a classic enclave. However, as we pointed out in our letter of March 6,
1987, "it may be argued that the lots remaining on the west and south forms a
finger area in serpentine patterns." If annexed, it could become the fourth item
of litigation brought by the County and is, therefore, not "compact".
The Commission authorized same to be considered at the next regular meeting.
Vida Smith, President of the Ixora Garden Club, appeared to report the donation of
$3,200.00 to the Scenic Improvement Board to be earmarked for landscaping around the palm
tree at the marina entrance.
The City Manager submitted plans for same, approved by the Scenic Improvement
Board and the Ixora Garden Club.
The City Manager submitted a memorandum from the Director of Engineering and
Planning as follows:
MEMO RAN DUM
TO: City Manager
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APRIL 27, 1987
Director of Engineering and Planning
Request for Access Easement
Mr. Faison:
In his letter of April 8, 1987, Mr. William P. Ball has requested
to be allowed to purchase as access easement along the north and west
sides of our newly acquired water well site, on Oregon Avenue, to
provide access to his existing home. Based on the sketch of the area
showing the existing dirt drive which serves his home as well as the
existing residence located on our water well site. As you will note
the access drive along the north/south property line meanders between
both properties. The access drive along the north boundary of our
property is actually located on the property lying to the north of our
line. This has apparently resulted from an off-set of the Hughey
Street/Oregon Avenue roadway, over time, toward the north. The survey
marker for the centerline of Oregon Avenue (east/west) is on the south
shoulder of the existing traveled roadway. Ultimate correction of
this discrepancy will involve cutting a new roadway along the north
boundary of our property, however, I would not recommend doing this
until it becomes necessary.
Although Mr. Ball offers to purchase the access easement, I would
recommend that the City propose that along our common boundary with
Mr. Ball we and he each establish a 12 1/2-foot access easement in
order to provide a total 25-foot access easement along our common
property line. In the spirit of goodwill I propose that we establish
a 25-foot wide access easement along the north boundary of our
property. I feel that these easements, if established, will in no way
impede our ability to utilize the site for water wells, as planned.
I have contacted Mr. Ball regarding the above proposal. He fully
concurs with the proposed dedication of 12 1/2,feet of access easement
along his property, as well as our property where the two lines are
contiguous. It is recommended that City Commission approve this
concept prior to actual preparation of necessary documentation.
The Commission authorized same to be considered at the next regular meeting.
The City Manager submitted a letter dated April 24, 1987 from the Department of
Environmental Regulation as follows:
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
May 4,
347
19 87
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
TWIN TOWERS OFFICE BUILDING
2600 BLAIR STONE ROAD
TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 32399-2400
April 24, 1987
BOB MARTINF_.Z
GOVERNOR
DALE TWACHTMANN
SECRE"TARY
Mr. Frank A. Faison, City Manager
City of Sanford
Post Office Box 1778
Sanford, Florida 32772-i778
Re: ReQuests for Inclusion on the Fiscal Year 1988
Construction Grants Priority List
Dear Mr. 'Fa~ son:
Thank you for submitting the project requests for inclusion on the Fiscal
Year 1988 construction grants priority list. Numbers have been assigned to the
projects as follows:
C!20586!40 (Step 3) - Major Sewer Sys:em Rehabilitation
C120586!50 (Step 3) - Master Pump Station Replacement
C!20586160 (Step 3) - Land Application Facilities (Phase il)
C120586170 (Step 3) - Outfall
C120586180 (Step 3) - Artificial Wetlands Advanced Treatment System
Project schedules are still being reviewed. You will be contacted regarding
the schedules by one of our project managers.
Th: draft version of the priority list will be completed in July. ,h. list
will be presented to the Environmental Regulation Commission for adoption at a
public hearing in August. Advance notice of the public hearing and a copy of
the draft I i st wi 11 be provi ded.
If we can be of assistance, please call Al Rushanan at 904/488-8i63.
Sincerely,
Gerald Hefting, Adminlstrazor
Program Management Section
Bureau of Wastewater Management and Grants
.GH/ard
cc:
William A. Simmons - Sanford
Christianne C. Ferraro - Conklin, Porter & Holmes
Engineers, ~nc./Sanford
George Prinsen - DER/Orlanao
The City Manager submitted a memorandum from the Director of Engineering and
Planning as follows:
MEMORANDUM
APRIL 28, 1987
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
City Manager
Director of Engineering and Planning
Amendment No. 15 to Conklin, Porter & Holmes Engineering
Agreement for Final Engineering Design for Combined Sewer
Separation Project
Mr. Faison:
Attached are three copies of proposed Amendment No. 15 to the
Conklin, Porter & Holmes original agreement of December 7, 1983 for
final engineering design for the sanitary sewer system combined sewer
separation project. I have reviewed the proposed amendment and feel
it is satisfactory and appropriate for execution by City of Sanford.
348 MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
May 4,
19 87
The dollar value of the amendment is not to exceed $217,171.22. The
estimated cost of the project for which plans and specifications are
to be prepared is approximately $5 Million. Based on recent
information received from Department of Environmental Regulation this
project should be grant eligible to the amount of 55% of project cost,
with possible additional grant eligibility up to 75% total eligibility
under alternative and innovative design considerations. It is
recommended that City Commission approve the execution of this
amendment in order that we may move forward with the design of this
project.
Bill Simmons, Director of Engineering and Planning, appeared to discuss the
projects, their estimated cost, and the estimated grant eligibility as follows:
Target
Date Project No. Description Total Cost
Grant
10/1/87 C120586140 *Vacuum Sewer System 6,165,000
10/1/87 C120586150 Plant Raw Sewage Pump
Station
Additional Reuse Lines
Seasonal Discharge Line
Artificial Wetlands
System
4/15/90
4/15/90
10/1/90
C120586160
C120586170
C120586180
1,890,000
5,550,000
1,447,000
7,925,000
3,390,750
704,825
2,487,650
795,850
3,582,700
The Commission authorized same to be considered at the next regular meeting.
The City Manager submitted a memorandum from the Director of Administrative
Services as follows:
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 1, 1987
TO:
CITY MANAGER
FROM:
DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
SUBJECT: RETIREES' HEALTH INSURANCE
OVERVIEW
Attachment #1 provides a list of fifty-seven (57) living retirees.
Of these, only thirteen (13) retirees are enrolled in city-provided
health plans:
Four (4) retirees under 65 are enrolled in the Florida
Municipal Health Trust Health Plan (general Plan).
Two (2) retirees over 65 are enrolled in FMHT Medicare
Supplement Part B.
Four (4) retirees under age 65 are enrolled in Health
Options (HMO).
Three (3) retirees over age 65 are enrolled in Health
Options (HMO).
~orty-four retired ..employees are not enrolled in any of the City's
health plans. All retirees over age 65 receive $186 per year from the
city. Eight retirees under age 65 currently receive health insurance
at no cost to them.
REQUESTS:
Several city retirees have requested that they be furnished the
same insurance as regular employees, to include prescriptions. All
retirees have the option of enrolling in our present HMO. Florida
Municipal Health Trust will not provide retirees over age 65 with
regular plan coverage, offering instead its Medicare Supplement Part B
coverage at a reduced rate.
We are moving to rebid the city's health plans to insure the same
coverage for retirees over 65, as well as those retirees and regular
employees who are under age 65. Attachment $2 is the Implementation
Plan. Effective date is targeted for October 1, 1987.
COST PARAMETERS:
The retirees over 65 have also requested that the city pay for
the same benefits as regular employees. There are several issues to
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
349
May 4, 19 87
consider:
Exact costs will be difficult to determine until bids are
received; however, assuming a $76 per month premium per retiree over
65, the cost to the city can be broken down as follows:
Premium cost (approx.)
Less current city
monthly contribution
76.00
15.50
Total monthly additional
cost to city per retiree
over 65
$ 60.50
As there are only five (5) retired employees over 65 currently
enrolled in the City's health plan, the additional annual cost to pay
for their premiums would be:
Additional cost per
retiree over 65
$ 60.50
Months x 12
Employees currently
over 65 enrolled in
city's health plans
x 5
Total additional
annual cost:
$ 3,630.
However, if the city pays the premium costs for all forty-eight
(48) retirees over 65, total additional cost will be:
$ 60.50
x 12
x 48
Total additiOnal
annual cost:
$ 34,848.
Impact of Proposed Legislation. Retirement System proposed
legislation mandates retiree premium subsidy payments by the City,
which would amount to a 1/2 percent increase in contribution rate by
the City to be paid to FRS now to pay for health insurance premiums
for retirees. See Attachment #3.
This 1/2 percent increase, if passed, will cause the city to pay
an additional approximately $36,797 to the State Retirement System in
FY 1987-88. Distribution of funds would be made directly to all
retirees at $2.00 per month x length of service with the city.
Another impact of this proposed legislation would be reflected in
all premium costs, active and retired employees alike. This
legislation would require that active and retired employee premiums be
commingled, resulting in projected premiums increases of 10-32%.
*Assuming a 10% increase for all premiums (active and retired
employees), costs to the city would approximate an additional $3,256
per month, or $39,072 the first year.
SUMMARY:
Staff is continuing to:
Provide up-to-date information to the City Commission
on additional costs to the City to pay all retirees the
same cash supplement for health insurance.., and is
· Currently paying the
Cost for premiums for active employees,
Cost for premiums for retired employees under age
65, and
$186 per year for retirees over age 65... and has
Begun the process of rebidding health plans to provide
equal coverage to both active and retired employees,
and has
Put Florida Municipal Health Trust "on notice" to
provide equal coverage to retirees over age 65..., and
is
MINUTE S
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
May 4,
Continuing to monitor pending state legislation and its
potential impact to the city.
If I can answer any questions regarding this rather complex
issue, please let me know.
* Cost projection for City of Daytona Beach; study performed by
risk management consultants.
The Commission authorized same to be considered at the next regular meeting.
The Commission discussed appointees to the Historic Preservation Board, and
authorized same to be considered at the next regular meeting.
The City Manager submitted a memorandum from the Director of Recreation and Parks
as follows:
CITY OF SANFORD
Recreation and Parks Department
MEMOP-,ANDUM
Date: ~,,.pri! 30, 1987 ..
=rom: Director- Jim Jernigan
To: city Manager
Subject: use of D.U.I. 's for City Clean-up
There is no reason why the court assigned public service
workers could not be available on a weekly basis each' weekend.
It will require only to bring in a couple of men with
pick-up trucks zo transport and supervlse~gorkers to and from
work sites and to see that the workers a£~'gned fulfill their
ob!igazion.
Director of Recreation recommends the crank-up immediately
of this program wi~h target areas scheduled on a weekly basis.
Target areas should be highway medians from Lake Mary Blvd.
,no,--th to Park Avenue on Highway !7-92, downtown streetscaDe.
I will work with Public Works Director ~o establish assistance
wi~h weekend supervision.
±z the courts ha,,e a surplus of those needing to work oaf
public servzce it could require two cr three supervisors.
I will schedule a clean-up campaign and Public Works and
Parks Department shall a!cernate each month ~o carry it ous.
Director recommends starting May !6th, !987 cr sooner dependinc
on the av=m_aDz__~y the D U 5 '~ from the probation office, we
shall see how far we can clean-up in an 8:00 to 12:00 noon rime
frame.
We will start with the stree~scaoe on First Street and then
work the medians on Highway 17-92 ~o the sou~h.
JR~/djb
copies: Howard Seffries, Parks Supermntendent
Bob Kelly, Public Works Director
19 87
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
May 4,
351
The Commission directed Staff to proceed.
The City Manager submitted a memorandum from the Director of Engineering and
Planning as follows:
MEMORANDUM MAY 1, 1987
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
City Manager
Director of Engineering and Planning
Consultant Contract for Update Plan Rewrite of Development
Regulations and Zoning Ordinance
Mr. Faison:
The attached proposed contract With the firm of Ivey, Bennet,
Harris and Walls has been developed in response to recent City
Commission authorization for staff to negotiate toward such a
contract. It is believed that the scope of the proposed contract,
actually a change order to our existing contract for preparation of
the Comprehensive Plan, properly and adequately reflects the needs of
the City for development of a completely updated Development
Regulations. It is recommended that this contract be approved for
execution.
The Commission directed staff to prepare specifications for the bid process.
The City Manager submitted a memorandum from the Director of Engineering and
Planning as follows:
MEMORANDUM
MAY 1, 1987
TO:
City Manager
FROM:
Director of Engineering and Planning
SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 1987 Rental Housing Rehabilitation Program (HUD)
Mr. Faison:
Federal Register Volume No. 52 No. 74 of April 17, 1987
identifies Seminole County as a potential recipient of $103,000 in
Fiscal Year 1987 HUD rental housing rehabilitation funds. Funds under
this program are similar in many ways to the Community Development
Block Grant funds the City has received, and are requesting from the
County CDBG program, but are limited to application for rehabilitation
of rental housing. While the limited amount of $103,000 would
probably not justify establishment of a program office or the
necessary administrative machinery, it would provide significant
benefit to the residents of Sanford if administered through our
existing Community Development Office. Deadline for postmark of
application for this program is June 1,. 1987.
I understand informally that there is a good chance that Seminole
County Commissioners will choose not to bother to apply for these
funds, for whatever their reasons may be. I recommend that the City
Commission take a strong position in urging Seminole County to request
these funds for use within City of Sanford. Although not a
replacement for CDBG funds, receipt of these funds would partially
offset the zero allocation of Fiscal Year 1986 County CDBG funds to
City of Sanford. We would be able to administer this program within
the existing staffing of our Community Development Office.
The Commission authorized same to be considered at the next regular meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
0 R
ATTEST:
19 87