HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 09 09 Regular Item O
COMMISSION AGENDA
ITEM 0
REGULAR X
CONSENT
INFORMATIONAL
September 9. 1996
Meeting
MGR. fJ.'1 IDEPT.
Authorization
REQUEST: The City Manager requests the Commission to provide the City Manager
directions relative to the request of the Oak Forest Property Owners Association
for the City to participate in the finances of a wall to buffer the subdivision from
Tuskawilla Road.
CONSIDERA TION:
On July 22, 1996, the commission had considerable discussion on this issue, and
decided to table the matter until the September 9, 1996 meeting. The City
Manager provided alternative methods of financing the wall for the Commission.
RECOMMENDA TION:
1) The Commission decide what, if any, action it desires to take regarding
participation in the project.
2) The City Manager's recommendation remains the same.
(see attached board item "D" from the July 22, 1996 meeting)
ATTACHMENTS:
Commission Agenda Item D of July 22, 1996
COMMISSION ACTION:
t~ . ~_"
~
. ~.
"..
COMMISSION AGENDA
ITEM D
REGULAR X
CONSENT
INFORMATIONAL
July 22. 1996
Meeting
MGR. if 11M /DEPT
y
Authorization
REQUEST: City Manager requesting direction from the Commission regarding the financing
of a proposed wall for a buffer between Tuskawilla Road and Oak Forest
neighborhood.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this Agenda Item is for the Commission to respond to the request
of the Oak Forest Home Owner's Association request to participate in the
financing of a brick wall to serve as a buffer between the neighborhood and
Tuskawilla Road,
CONSIDERA TIONS:
The four laning of Tuskawilla Road will result in the loss of the current tree and
vegetative buffer between Oak Forest Country Club and Tuskawilla Road.
The homeowner's desire to replace the tree and vegetative buffer with a brick
wall estimated to cost approximately $350,000 or about $58 per linear foot.
The City Manager was asked to work with Mr. Ken Haines of the homeowner's
association to discover alternative measures for financing the wall. In response to
this direction the City Manager has discussed this matter with the City Attorney,
the City's Financial Advisor and the Bond Attorney from Holland and Knight
Supporting the City's Financial Advisor.
Page 1
.. -.,..
I .
t .......
ISSUE ANALYSIS:
Issue 1.
Can the City lawfully participate in the financing of the wall if it is to be
the private property of the homeowners or homeowner's association?
Answer:
As determined in the attached letter from the City Attorney, the answer to
this question is clearly, no.
Issue 2.
What other lawful options exist for financing the wall?
Answer:
As demonstrated in the letter from the City's Financial Advisor, Jim Lentz
there are two alternatives as follows:
1)
The City "build" and "maintain" the wall on public property through a
construction and maintenance assessment district made up of the benefited
property owner's of Oak Forest.
The advantages of this approach are as follows:
a) It is lawful.
b) It does not raise the equal protection issue since tax payers not
benefiting from the wall are not being taxed to pay for it.
c) The construction cost can be spread over several years making the
annual payment for construction very small (on average, less that $100
per year).
d) The maintenance district would provide for the perpetual care of the
wall again isolating this cost only to the benefitting property owner's.
The disadvantages of this approach are as follows:
a) The legal and administrative cost involved in putting the district
together.
b) The complexity involved in apportioning the cost in accordance with
the benefit in a defensible manner.
2) The second alternative is for the wall to remain on private property and the City's
financial advisor assisting the property owner's association in arranging its own
independent private financing with a lender.
The advantages of this alternative is that it would not have to meet the legal
requirements of a public benefit districts making it far less complex to organize
and administer.
Page 2
"
!: .......
Issue 3
Answer:
~
The disadvantage of this approach is that the property owner's association from
our understanding is a volunteer association and as such may not have legal
standing to enter into a debt instrument on behalf of the property owner's.
Could the City make a cash contribution to the public assessment district to
reduce the amount of the assessments to the property owner's7
Yes, however considering the small amount of payments involved on the part of
the homeowner, the question is whether such a contribution would be worth the
political and legal risk that could be raised. If the Commission were to do this for
the Oak Forest residents, it should be prepared to provide any other groups
desiring to build a wall constructed as a buffer to a road in like manner.
Another approach the Commission may want to consider is establishing a
beautification program incentive that would apply equally to all existing
neighborhood's on thoroughfares.
This incentive program would establish a common design theme and
specifications for the entire City, and provide for a % incentive contribution to
neighborhood's that were willing to create an assessment district for roadway
related enhancements that meet City design standards.
There are several advantages to this approach as follows:
1) Everyone is treated the same way as a result of the establishment of a
unilateral policy,
2) The incentive would hopefully result in beautification projects throughout
the City that realize a common design theme throughout the City and
uniform standards,
3) The utilization of general fund revenues for the incentive would be based
upon the premise that, to a certain degree, everyone benefits from the
beautification of our major thoroughfares, while in tandem, assessments
from assessment districts recognizes that these improvements have
specific benefit to certain property.
The disadvantages of this approach are as follows:
1) The City would have to commit to raising general fund revenues to
provide the incentive contribution to all neighborhoods on thoroughfares.
2) The City would have to bare the initial expense of developing common
design theme and specifications, and administering the program.
Page 3
; i
Issue 4 ·
Do all of the other neighborhood's along Tuskawilla Road have brick walls
similar to the wall proposed by the homeowner's association?
Answer:
No, some neighborhoods have nothing. Others have only wood slatted fences.
Others have brick and block wall representing various degrees of architectural
quality.
Issue 5
What would the annual cost of the "maintenance" assessment district be to the
homeowner's?
Answer:
This would be difficult to determine at this time. It would be based upon the
renewal and replacement cost calculated by the designer of the wall and the
desired level of maintenance.
A reasonable guess would probably be in the range of $15 per year per property
owner.
In conclusion, it appears that the best alternative is the creation of an improvements and
maintenance public assessment district 100% paid by the homeowner's, of Oak Forest.
FUNDING:
The City would not have out of pocket expenses in the project unless it should choose to
make a cash contribution to the project, or unless it should desire to develop a City wide
program as discussed herein.
RECOMMENDATION:
1) If financing can be arranged through the property owner's association it is recommended
that the Commission direct the City Manager and City Financial Advisor to work with
the property owner's association in structuring a private financial instrument to construct
the wall.
2-A) If financing cannot be arranged through the property owner's association it is
recommended that the Commission authorize the creation of an improvement and
perpetual maintenance assessment district to construct and maintain the wall paid for by
the property owner's of Oak Forest contingent upon the following conditions:
a) That 51 % or more of the property owner's agree to the assessment district as
evidenced through an informal mail ballot, and
b) that all property owner's abutting the road will agree to convey the necessary
right of way to construct and maintain the wall.
2-B) If the assessment district is chosen, it is recommended that the Commission not make a
cash contribution to the project unless it is willing to establish a unilateral policy that
would apply equally to every neighborhood in like manner.
Page 4
...
"
IMPLEMENTA TION SCHEDULE:
The district could be put together and validated in four to six month's.
Construction would probably take approximately 30 days.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) July 5, 1996 Memo from City Financial Director, Jim Lentz
2) July 15, 1996 Letter from City Attorney, Frank Kruppenbacher
COMMISSION ACTION:
Page 5
mL'15.1996 12: 17PM
NO. 542 P.2/4
~
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
July 5, 1996
TO:
Ron McLemore
FROM:
Jim Lentz
SUBJECT:
Wall at Tuscawilla (Project)
Thank you for showing me the site of the proposed project You
requested I examine the financial impact of this project, ways to fmance
it, and provide a recommendation of the best alternative. I have listed
the three options you have in order of least favorable to most favorable.
Option A: City finances project with general Cunds of the City.
Option B: City creates assessment district to finance project and issue
tax-exempt bonds.
Option C: Homeowners finance, construct, and own project.
Option A: City finances project with general funds of the City.
1. The non-ad valorem financial resources of the City are limited,
thereby an increase in ad valorem taxes would be necessary to offset
the cost of the project. If an increase in taxes are necessary, then the
question is, would this. project be approved by a City wide
referendum? In view of voters current predisposition to vote down
requests for tax increases, we think passage is unlikely. Also,
referendums are not cheap.
iut.A5.1996 12: 18PM
NO. 542 P.3/4
~
..
2. ,Moving in this direction sets a precedent in which the City puts itself
in a position of having to mitigate' the impact of all such road
additions, extensions, or improvements at the City's e%pense.
3. City would have to acquire right of way for wall.
4. City would be responsible for maintenance of the wall.
Conclusion: Least favorable, for reasons outlined in above. If you
attempted this option and the referendum failed, City Council members
may find they have paid a significant political price for the failure on
both sides of the issue..
Option B: City creates assessment district to finance project and issue
tax-exempt bonds.
1. City would have to acquire right of way for wall.
2. City lVould independently assess the impact to each homeowner.
The reasons for the project is two-fold, aesthetic and noise
abatement. Homes that are further away from the project would be
impacted less than those closer to the project. I would think the City
would be in the uncomfortable position of making such
determinations.
3. City would be responsible for maintenance of the wall.
4. Project cost would be increased for independent assessment impact,
bond counsel and my fee's. Since the issue lVould be small, those
expenses would be very bigh, thereby eliminating most of the tax-
exempt financing benefit.
Conclusion: This option is doable and eliminates most of the financial
burden on the City, however, adds cost to the project and requires city
participation in all phases. Again, however, the project may extract a
heavy political price.
-.
iut.15.1996 12:18PM
NO. 542 P.4/4
-..
Option C: Homeowners fmance, construct, and own project.
Homeowners in affected area decide the following items:
· Do they want the project?
. Size and scope of project
· Cost allocations within effected area, if any.
· Type of Homeowners Association Assessment they would prefer -
one to five year assessment.
Conclusion and Recommendations:
This option provides the homeowners with the most control over the
project and City involvement is limited to providing cooperation to the
Homeowners Association.
The project cost approximately $300,000 and assuming all homeowners
are affected equally, the one time assessment for each homeowner is
$300 or $25 per month for one year. Should the homeowners elect to
pay over a fIVe year period, then the annual cost would be $80 per year
or less than $7 per month. It is my opinion banlts would be very
interested in providing the financing to the Homeowners Association. I
would be pleased to provide contracts at those banks if the homeowners
would like.
Should you have any questions, please let me [(DOW.
".
'.
JUL 15 '96 04:04PM KRUPPENBACHER & ASSC
P.2/2
"
'..
Law Offices
KRUPPENBACHER & ASSOClATES
A Professional Association
Frank Kruppenbacher
340 North Orange Avenue
P.Q, Box 3471
Orlando, Florida 32802~3471
Telephone (407) 246-0200
Facsimile (407) 426-7767
July 15, 1996
VIA~aCSlMILE
Ronald W. McLemore
City Manager
City of Winter Springs
1126 East S.R. 434
Wmter Springs, FL 32708
Dear Ron:
Per your request, the following opinion is rendered:
Based upon the facts you presented. I do think it legally inappropriate for the City to expend
public dollars for the erection of a wall on private property_
Should you have any other questions, please let me lmow,
:z
Fr?i~
Signed in Mr. Kroppenbacher's absence
to avoid delay in mailing
FCK:lmc
;.
..;..:.,
~,
~
Oak Forest Homeowner's Association, Inc.
Of Winter Springs
P.O. Box 3574
Winter Springs, Florida 32708
July 15, 1996
Dear Mayor and Commission:
As you are aware the Oak Forest Homeowners Association is seeking support from
the City Commission in forming a partnership with the homeowners of Oak Forest
to construct a brick wall along our subdivision. This is necessary due to the
scheduled destruction of the natural buffer currently protecting the community and
residents along the road.
The Association has worked hard over the past six months at the direction of the
Commission to gain community support for this project. We feel the homeowners are
willing and eager to do our share in seeing this project move forward. But we need
your help.
Enclosed for your consideration are three estimates at today's prices to construct a
brick wall in front of the Oak Forest subdivision, along with results of preliminary
discussions with the County to vacate their right-of-way to make room for the wall. I
also included a letter which was sent to all the property owners in Oak Forest back
in early February of this year.
Thank you in advance. I will see you on Monday night.
7~ tk~
Oak Forest ~omeowner's Association, Inc.
of Winter Springs
P.O. Box 3574
Winter Springs, Florida 32708
February 8, 1996
Dear Oak Forest Property Owner:
As you may already know, the County has begun the widening of Tuskawilla Road
south of Red Bug Road and within the next few years will be widening in front of
our own community. As a property owner whose back yard borders the road, you
need to be concerned as this project approaches for a couple of reasons. First of all,
the existing natural barrier protecting the rear of your homes will be destroyed to
make room for the two south bound lanes. This will leave the rear of your property
virtually just a few feet away from the road. Picture for a moment, a four lane
highway with cars traveling at speeds between 45 and 55 mph that close to your
property line. For those with young children playing innocently in the backyard,
their safety could be at risk from veering automobiles.
Secondly, the Board has contacted numerous property appraisers and Realtors in
the area who have conceded that property values may fall as much as 10 percent
when the natural barrier is removed, leaving the rears of homes exposed to the
roadway. Eventually we will see an assortment of fences and other barriers
constructed by homeowners to protect their property. This will not be a pretty
picture.
Don't misunderstand, this letter is not intended as a scare tactic by the Oak Forest
Homeowners Association. These concerns are real. As property owners whose homes
abut Tuskawilla Road, YOUl stand to lose the most. I have been fighting this
widening project since its inception four years ago. I plan to continue until we find
an amicable solution for all Oak Forest residents.
Other OFHA Board members and I have been communicating with our City
Commission regarding this dilemma and have looked to them for help and support.
A solution to our problem would be to construct a brick wall along Oak Forest
boundaries protecting you from motor vehicles and decreasing property values.
This, if it was to happen would be an enormous undertaking to accomplish. We have
already looked to Seminole County for help for which we were denied, and are now
looking to the City and Oak Forest residents for their support.
Page 1
-.
'.
,
You, as a property owner along the road, hold the key to getting this project ofT and
running. You see, if this wall is to be built, you would be required to grant an
easement along your rear property line for the construction and maintenance of the
wall. This would be necessary mainly because the wall could not be constructed on
County property.
If all homeowners along the road were to approve, the next step would be to try for
joint funding between the City of Winter Springs and all property owners in Oak
Forest. Of course, all of this would need approval from the City Commission and
property owners via a referendum vote to tax ourselves for a specified period of time
to raise the funds necessary to build the wall. These are just a couple of many
hurdles to overcome if we are to move forward.
I am confident that the majority of property owners in Oak Forest will realize the
need for the wall, and the benefits it would bring for all property owners in Oak
Forest. The Association's goals and responsibilities are to look out for it's residents,
keep our community safe, enjoyable, and an attractive place to live.
This letter is intended to alert you on this impending crisis. Please call or write me,
or any other OFHA board member regarding this issue. I can be reached at home in
the evenings at 695-7907. My address is 1115 Aloha CT. You can also reach me on
the internet - (k haines@ aol.com ). Please, we need to know your thoughts, opinions
and where you stand on this issue. The clock is ticking and time is running out. We
must get moving now.
7[el~J2
Ken Haines
O.F.H.A Director
cc: O.F.H.A Board of Directors
Mayor Bush
City Commission
City Manager
Page 2 of2
F'ROf1 .:.
PHOi .E ~ IIJ.
.jl..lr1, 14 1996 ~.2; ZiPr.\ :=3
KEM OR,~dinU M
1n)S(rJ f711 \\ n rc[fl :
I'" it .
'1" 0'1 M /IV ;:) "'I ~SQ~ I!I' \
I In I tJ - I.... 4!
I !l I
UbbvL:n.i L1 L':J r!V
Hay 3C. 1996
SUSJECT:
Ccmmi.ssioner Pat. Warren. District 1
Jerry M~Collum, P.E.. Coun~y Enginee~
Tuskawilla Road Project. - Phase IV ~
Oak Forest. Subdivisi.:m - Wall ~lithin County Right-ot-i'jay
---~._-------_._-~------
TO:
FROH:
--..--.-..-.-
The following information is being provideC. in writinq indioat.ing what
.3,ct..ions could occur wi thin the Count.y's r1gh't-of-way in relationship to the
residen~s of oak Forest Subdivision using this arQa for the oonstruetion of a
wall. pursuant. to our discussions, the followinq are highlighu of our
discussions:
1. From the Grand Reserve Subdivision that was recently constructed
northwa.rd through the Oak Forest Subdivision, ,the wall c:ould be
located within the Count.y's right-of-way. A small exception would be
in che area of the first five housas no~ of Trotwood aoulevard due
to the tightne~s of the right.-of..way at this point.. The reason ,\.ge
can do this is that: (A) an ol~ d~dic:ation ot right-af-way exi5~S
from Oak Forest subdivision to the County; dnd (2) at the publie
Hearing for the Tuska'\-1illa Road Projee~ - Phas~ IV. we vlere
instrUcted to retain as many trees as ~o~~1ble; therefCl~. there is
a larse area that will not be dis't.urbed by me Couney. Also. wi t.hin
this section, there is an approximate ~ight to ten foot cleared area
with power pol~s locat.ed adja<:ent to t.he right-of-way line. It
should be noted that the right-of-way south of che Grand Reserve
Subdi vision is too narro'to/ too have the ~oJal1 placed on the County
right.-of-way.
2. In oreer t.o allow the wall to be located \n thin our ri9ht-of-~Y. the
wall design would have to ac~ommodat.e the power poles. As we
discussed, the wall could be constructed ~n th~ Coun~Y right-of-wav
adjacent to the property line (withi~ a distance of approxin\ately two
feet). There would have t.o be 3~pro~imatelY 3 foot crut-outs in the
wall on each side af the util~tY poles. At.taehed is a rough ske~ch
showing the concept of the locat.10r. of tl'l.e wall and the cut:.-outs
necessary for the poles.
I . ~'_" .
'.
0;
...
Commizsioner Pat Warren, District 1
Tuskawilla Road Project - Phase IV
Oak ~orest Subdivision - Wall within coun~y Right-of-Way
May 30, 1996
Paqe 2
I would'suqgest that Engineering Division staff contact. representatives from
the City of Winter Springs and find ou~ exactly what. plans (type of design) they
are considQring for the wall in this area. By coordinat.ing this item. ~.,e will be
able to ascertain .the actual amount of area needed for cons'trUction af the wall. '
Once this has been accomplished, I would recommend we consider vacatinq a small ~?
portion (approximately two feet) of the County's right.-of-way to the ~t3 ,l.y I
owners adjacent to the v1all so the wall would lie upon pr1vst.e property as opposed
to public prope~y. Also, as ~-re discussed, cooperat.ing with the residents and
representatives from the City of Winter Springs would in no way imply that the
County ,muld assume any maintenance for the wall.
I trust this information reflec~s the overall con~ent of our conversations
and I believe we can ,",ork with the residents and representa:~ives of the C1ty of
Winter Springs to successfully accomplish this project. If you have any
questions. please feel free to con~ac~ me.
JH/dr
Attachment (sketch)
cc: Ron H. Rabun. County Man~ger
Lonnie N. Groot. Deputy County At~orney
John C. Moore. Jr.. Procuct1on Manager (Major Projects}
Jerry Hat-thews. project Manager
r'1
Q..
E:
0...
('II
[>J
..
-;:t
lSl
I,D
U'
U'
M
'<:t
M
C
J
.....,
(0
('IJ
f'J
'<:t
uJ
<.0
'.0
n
r-
0
-;:t
0
Z
W
Z
0
I
0...
z
W
ll::
ll::
'I
:3
@
f-
II
0-
OC
!4J
iSi
'-'1
01
E:
~
U
.. ..
;:=;"
0::
~
"
~\;
".
v ' "C
'1
o
o
~. ::-~,<~ ~ jJ
. '
I~ " ~" .,.:. \\ ~
I
"
I
,
1
-
~
fZ.).
r ~ C- ~ ,,'^ ~(' )
\.. ~~' J
C L) Jl 0 vJ \;, <: (C', ,- ~ <.-
c:. _ ...., .. ..... \,1'" <C.' "'-
-t/>o '" "l.......'^"
P \ C-
V \'Cv-J
..
-------
H..~"c" ""fi.
:'R~w
A
<)
L..,~ ____-
S---.> ~) 1J 1 \(l$) L) f)
'" '". I
~ '\ ~!)~--:
, ~ '\ :,----
2 .(00" \; \. if:;
fo" v...-\I !,
j\: .
! !
i
i
(~~ ~:
-'j
r-;
r---.
.-'
I
s c.. c. " .' v_
'------.-:--
T
,
~-~
\: ..t . ~. _ \I(
l~~ '''{~':-::j...h /
A
~
N
R () vJ \-...~~
-) -
l..' ..&- I ~ -<. -< .~
< ..,l
r Q ._> ,.. .....\,. J
o uy I~I~OJ~ /-
\N ..,I .,.
(\. H ~ " .~ ..,... ... , ~ '..,
~ r< ~" ~.. t l.
S;~e ..+
Q)
~ ~ ..( '" "
f o'~
\.IV'- I'
c:.- hej'"
f 0 \ ~ ~ lA.J c>. \ \
L.... ~ (, _ -\
,;I
, .
---------.- - - -'--
PROPOSAUCONTRACTAGAEEMENT
MARTIN BRICK COMPANY
325 NORTH STREET
LONG\NOOO,FLORlDA 32707
(o107) 831-1050
To: RUSS ROBBINS :JOlt: 6/26/96
OAK FORREST
TUSKAWlLLA RD. Job N~m4: OAK FORREST
69c}-5916
Loccdon: TUSKAWlLLA
Altn: TOM Phone.' FAX 695-0607
W, hutby' submit ,plcificlltion5 Qncl f.!ltimcllB (er:
O,uontrty
UJM
Dt",ip1ion
U..it Prict
e.l~n~ion
6130
L. FT.
BID ON 6 FT. HIGH WALL WITH FOOTER
$385,220.00
COLUMNS EVERY 20 FT.
INCLUCES TWO e:tm:;:ANCE WALLS DESIGN TO BE DEiER~INED,
FOOTER SIZE 36'" BY 10" WITH 3 # 5 REBAR
LABOR AND MATRERlAlS
\0101
$385,220.00
All maluioJ i" 5luCl,dnt..d 10 b& ~ "pcc:i1iecl. Soli ''''0,,1< to ~e .:omplt1td ill .;: WC,k"'''hlik.. m",nnu Cll;>:o,dinglo ,"anci",'" F',"ctiC:,,".
Any (dl<<ration!! 0' dtvio.tion from o.boVf. sp4.cifico.tio.H W1!l be f.X&C:Ult:l cnly UpOI'l 'N.;llel'l Ordtr5 alld w;lI b,c.:lmq M utro. dlorgll
OltH o.ncl o.bollt tht u'imo.tt. All o.g,umtnu c:enliSt"t YpOll 5t,ikH, Qccidtnl5, or d.lo.y: b\lyond ou, -:ontrol. O.nu to c:o.r,,] r.".
tllrno.do Qnd 0'11'1., ncc.~o.ry iIl511,QIICC. Our wOlku~ o.,t illi~y .:ovtlld byWorkt"s Co,...,p'n~Qtlo" III suro.lICCI.
TIIi~ Ptopo.~o.l i,s contigtlllll':)on (l.cc(~o.ble ancl yt".fto.blt p,oJe~ fjllo.nci"9. ~
NOTE: Thi" p'opo~ClI rnay be wit,,-d,owlI by liS if
Il~ o.':Ct~CO within TIlir1y (30) da')'" Submft1cd by. .
RUSS PICAFlC
PlEASE SIGN AND RETURN ORIGINAL UPON ACCEPTANCE.
UPON EXEOJTION OF THS PROPOSAL THIS DOCUMENT BECOMES A CONTRACT,
The dbov. ~ric,,~, SP4cifieotio"5 o.nd conditio", Q'G. !lC.ti5oCtOry o.nd o.'G. huC!by o.C:CtptC!d, Yoo orC! oulhori:ud to. de the
WOl'~ 5f)lIc:ifiul. MOfl,hly prOS,.,5 pC.ymtfll, ,ho.lI b. dut on dlt IIl1lh (or 0.11 wo,1I aCCOl'I'pli,htd in tht p,.vious month, including
"II "'orad mo.ttriol~. r:ine>l pQ)IrTttllt dut llpOh compl4tiol1, In Ihe tVt"t \1'\1 Cll'I'lOll"t hu<<ill ,nOlOfI'l i, ;~Ol pc.id
whtl'l ~(, intuut at (he highU1 o.t tho. highCl51 Ilgo.l rate pu o.l'Il'Ium ,hall o.ccufTlulatc 01'1 tll" tOlQ.i :lUt.
All eo.,,, of cCllIe~ioll 5ho.II bl paid by Iht C""OI"lU including "0."'1'\0.1:,1, o.1'o.,n4.." fillS,
Ac" pt. d by Cli 111I
Allthoriud Sign 0.111 PI: 00.1&:
AcCtptcd by Mo.nin Brick COmllo.flY
Authorizld Si9notur.: D~t.:
Ro:t>t~ D. ,~M!!'! C~M/~EQ
S~ :'::0 36, '3C Hnr
20d Z08
'0) <': a:r i'lll::i\:lW 0';t?I:::~.!..0t'
JUrl-20-1':l96 0q:?q
699 2181 P.02
.'
.,
;..
'JUNE 20, 1996
FROPOSAL
GHJ CONSTRUCTION, INC.
P.O. BOX 621055
OVIEDO, FL 32762-1055
(407) 699-2181
,TO: O.~ FOREST HOMEOWNERS ASSOC.
C/O TOM PETRONIO
PROJECT: OAK =OREST/
RECONSTRUC~ION Of
PERiMETER SUBDIVISION
WALL
---------------------------------------------------------
THIS PRCPOSAL IS FOR r-1ATERIAL AND LABOR TO CONSTRUCT
.n.. 3RICK WALL ~..ND FOOTEF<. AS PER SPECIF!CATIONS BELOW:
WALL DETAIL:
-7' HISH ABOVE FOOTER
-1 COURSE/6" BLCCf<, 21 COURSES/6" BRICK, 1 COURSE/ROWL,JCK
-~5 VERTICAL REa~/4' O.C. IN WALL
-PILASTERS/1' SQ.-6C'O.C.-WITH 1/#5 REBAR, ON THE 3ACK OF
WALL
-1'6" SQU&~E COLUMNS 60' O.C., WITH :/#5, AND A STh~DARD
3RICK CAP
-2'SQUARE COL~~S WITH STANDAP,D CAP 250' O.C. +1-
-DURAL WIRE EVERY OTEER COURSE
-BUFF MORTAR TO BE USED
-FOOTER/2'6" WIDE-l' DEEP, WITH 3/#5 REBAR
~TERIAL AND I.AEOR/~'mLL, FOOTER &< ENTRANCENAY.. $ 57.99 L. F
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN ABOVE LINEAR FOOT
PRICE. (FIGURED ON APPROX. 6000 L.F. T/-)
TRASH REMOVAL..... _ . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 4 , 500 . 00
ACID WASH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ 7 ,200.00
:ONCRETE p~~p 1 COLt~S .............. ... $1,900.00
PERJ."1I T S ................................. $ 1, 800 . 00
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS PROPOSAL.
COMPACTION TESTS IF NEEDED, SURVEYS, PLANS, SID~WALK,
LANDSCAPING, SIGNS, WATER METER, ELECTRICAL WQKK, SOD,
CONCRETE P\JMF FOR FOOTS?, TRACTOR WORK TO BAC?(FILL FOOTER
A~~R WALL I~ COMPLETED OR T~$ING DOWN OF EXISTING FENCE.
I
~~.,.-ttA- S
tf> 3 ~~)oo 0
J~OOO
(J 37u,ooo
~.I .
..
"
LEMIEUX, , INCORPORATED
170 Tradew~nds Rd.
Winter Springs, fl. 32708
Phonp.: 695-2307
DATE
May 20, 1996
JOB
Wall
LOCATION Oak Forest
FIRM .'
Oak Forest Homeowner Assoc.
~ ATI'Nc Rus3e11 Robins - Phone 699-5816
32708
.-
ADDRESS 1009 Sapling Drive, Winter Springs, Fl.
CLASS
OF WORK
-----
TYPE OF WORK AMOUNT OF BID
Ia. bor and ma. terials to COMplete approximately 6,130 ft x 50.89 per
foot of a 6' wall according to plans and specifications per attachments $311,965.71
**THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE AN ENTRANCE WALL FFA TURE, SURVEY A.ND LAND**
**CLEARING AND PERMITS**PRICES GOOD ONLY THROUGH
MATERIALS AMOUNT OF BID
BID AMOUNT
DATE SUBMITTED: May 20, 1996 I TAXES
SUm-HTTED BY: Lemieux, Inc. TOTAL BID
RECEIPT OF PAYMENT
MEMO
1 At"!}!' T
I
I
I
I
~--
I
i
I
I
REC'D i
I
-=r'
I
I
r
BALANCE DUE
RECEIVED BY:
DATE: