Loading...
061587-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