The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990 11 26 Regular . . . ,. , , 1 I AM GOING TO RESPOND TO MR. JACOB'S REQUEST FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO TIm ACQUISITION OF SEMINOLE UTILITY CCMJANY AND BASED ON UNANSWERED QUESTIONS mAT HE HAD AND SHARED THOSE QUESTION WHEN HE READ HIS STATEMENT TO THE CCM-fiSSION SEVERAL WEEKS AGE. IN ORDER FOR ME TO GET THE BEST AND MOST ACCURATE DATA, I TALKED WITH MR. SUNDSTROM OF ROSE, SUNDSTROM & BENTLEY, MR. PAT KNIPE, MANAGING ~ PARTNER OF COOPERS & LYBRAND, TIm CITY AUDITORS, TERRY ZAUDTKE OF PORTER 6( CONKLIN, ENGINEER CONSULTANTS TO THE CITY, TO FRANK KRUPPENBACHER OUR CITY ATI'ORNEY, AND HIS PARTNER TOM LANG. I TALKED TO MFM3ERS OF mE STAFF AND FINALLY I REVIEWED TRANSCRIPTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THIS ACQUISITION. AS A PREFACE TO HIS QUESTIONS, MR. JACOBS ASKED IF FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 218.385, 218.386, OR 286.23 WERE MET. TIIESE SECTIONS REFER TO MAKING TIm APPROPRIATE DISCLOSURES ON A BUSINESS TRANSACTION. TIm FACTS ARE WEBSTER & SHIFFIELD, BOND ATI'ORNEY FROM NEW YORK, ROSE AND SUNDSTROM GAVE CLEARANCE AND PARKER/JOHNSON GAVE CLEARANCE. THE TRANSACTION HAD TO MEET mE FLORIDA STATUTES OR BY LAW TIm ATI'ORNEYS COULD NOT GIVE TImm CLEARANCES. NCM IN RESPONDING TO QUESTION 1 - nIERE WAS NO SIGNED PURCHASE AGRE:EMEN'l' TO ACQUIRE SEMINOLE UTILITIES FOR $6.5 MILLION. WHAT THEN WAS PURCHASED WERE $6.5 MILLION IN WARRANTS FOR OPTION TO BUY CCMoK>N STOCK IN SEMINOLE UTILITY. THIS WAS GIVEN BY KEN GOOD TO TOPEKA AI.MJST IN A FIT OF DESPERATION TO GET CASH DUE TO THE FINANCIAL COLLAPSE OF HIS BUSINESS EMPIRE. THIS WAS WAY BELC::M MARKET VALUE. IN FACT THE NET BOOK VALUE AS OF 12-31-89 FRa.t THE AUDITORS REPORT IS $10,496 MILLION. QUESTION 2 - TO CLARIFY THIS, TOPEKA HAD A FILING BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION FOR A 75% INCREASE. IF TOPEKA ACQUIRED SEMINOLE UTILI'IY THEN . . . , . 2 SEMINOLE WJULD ALSO BE ENTITLED TO A 75% INCREASE SINCE IT WJULD BE PART OF TOPEKA. nmREFORE, TIlE INFORMATION GIVEN TO US ON nm POTENTIAL INCREASE TO TIlE WIN1'ER SPRINGS RESIDENTS WAS CORRECT AND nIEREFORE TIlE Ca+tISSION ACTED WITH PROPER DATA. QUESTION 3 - FIRST OF ALL, HAVING WARRANTS WITH OPTION TO BY cc:l-M)N STOCK IS NOT NECESSARILY A WILLINGNESS TO SELL FOR $6.5 MILLION. THAT WAS A FIRE SALE BY KEN GOOD IF HIS OTHER REAL ESTATE DEALS FELL THROUGH. SECONDLY, WE DID NO'l' PAY $12.3 MILLION FOR TIlE UTILITY BUT ONLY $10.5 MILLION. WE DID BUY SPRAY FIELDS FOR $1.5 MILLION. FINALLY, TIlE PRICE OF $7.5 MILLION WAS AN INITIAL OFFER BY TIlE CITY THAT IF GOTI'EN K>ULD HAVE BEEN A STFAL. TIlE SIMPLE FACT WAS SEMINOLE TURNED IT oa-m AND WE HAD TO GO THROUGH CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS TO FORCE THE NEGOTIATIONS AND SALE PRICE. THE FACTS ARE WHEN WE FILED FOR EMINENT DOMAIN AND EVENTUAL CONDEMNATION TOPEKA FILED PAPERS TO SHCM THAT THE UTILITY WAS K>RTH BETWEEN $17 TO $20 MILLION. AS STATED BEFORE nm AUDITED RECORDS SHCM THAT nm UTILI'IY WAS K>RTH $10.5 MILLION. FINALLY, ON A SIMILAR ACQUISITION BY ST. LUCIE COUNTY THEY PAID APPROXIMATELY $2,500 PER CUSTao1ER ON THAT SAME BASIS WE COULD HAVE .PAID APPROXIMATELY 13.1 MILLION. IN NET WE PAID ONLY $10.5 MILLION DOLLARS WHICH WAS A GOOD DEAL. THE OTHER ISSUE IS IF THIS K>ULD HAVE GONE TO A JURY, WE COULD HAVE RUN A RISK OF PAYING M:>RE PLUS PAYING FOR nmIR ATI'ORNEYS FEES WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN $1,000,000 PLUS PAYING FOR A UTILI'IY BETWEEN $10-$20 MILLION. THE CI'IY TEAM NEGOTIATED OUR WAY OUT OF A POTENTIALLY VERY COSTLY ACQUISITION. MR. JACOBS MAKES A MENTION ABOUT FUTURE FEES THAT HAVE TO BE PAID TO THE SELLER. HIS FIGURES ARE $2,400 FOR EVERY ERC OR EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL CONNECTION (NE.W USER) OVER 5,500 UP TO 7,500. FIRST OF ALL THESE ARE INACCURATE NUMBERS. THE CITY RECEIVES 2,450 FOR EACH CONNECTION . . . -, 3 AND THE SELLER WILL GET $2,000 FOR CONNECTIONS OVER 5,026 UP TO 7,272. THIS PERIOD OF THIS Ftrl'tJRES PAYMENT IS 15 YEARS. IF 15 YEARS RUNS OUT BEFORE 7,272 THE AGREEMENT IS OVER. IF NE.W CUS'l'Q.1ERS DO NOT Ca.m ON WE DO NOT PAY ANYTHING. FOR PERSPECTIVE WE NEGOTIATED THIS ON A CASH FIJ:1tl BASIS FOR THE CURRENT UTILITY. Btrr THE trrILITY HAS EXCESS CAPACITY. IN THE trrILITY BUSINESS EXCESS PLANT CAPACITY IS AN ASSET. THEREFORE, GULFSTREAM WANTED MJRE MJNEY BECAUSE OF THE ASSET OR "EXCESS PLANT CAPACITY". THE CITY TEAM, TO ITS CREDIT WAS ABLE TO NEGOTIATE PAYING FOR THIS ASSET WHEN THE PEOPLE ARE CONNECTED AND NOT BEFORE. THEREFORE, THE CITY IS NOT PAYING ANY EXTRA COSTS NCM OR IN THE FtrrURE. SECONDLY, THIS TYPE OF FUTURE SHARING IS RELATIVELY CCJr.M)N IN trrILITY ACQUISITIONS. FOR ADDITIONAL PERSPECTIVE, EVERY NEW CUS'l'CX€R mAT WE GET IN ADDITION TO PROVIDING INSTANT REVENUES (CONNECTION FEES) BUT MAKES THE UTILITY MJRE VALUABLE AND REPRESENTS APPROXIMATELY $2,000.00 MJRE DOLLARS OF BONDING CAPACITY. QUESTION 4 - THE RATE INCREASE WAS NOT TIED TO BONDING. IT WAS DONE TO NORMALIZE UTILITY RATES THROUGHOtrr THE CITY. QUESTION 5 - WE DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE SEVERAL TIMES. FIRST, THE CITY UTILITY ACQUISITION TEAM WAS GIVEN PCMER TO NEGOTIATE A REASONABLE DFAL WITH SEMINOLE UTILITY. THIS INCLUDED PRICE, LAND, FINANCING, ETC. WITH FINAL APPROVAL BY THE CITY CCM1ISSION. MANY OF THE ONGOING DECISIONS WERE MADE ON THE SPOT WITH REPORTS MADE TO THE CITY AFTER THE FACT. IF ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS CAME UP ON ANYTHING THEN ANY CCMo1ISSIONER COULD HAVE VOICED HIS CONCERN OR TALK TO THE CITY MANAGER FOR FUR'l1iER CLARIFICATION. TUSCAWILIA PARK PROPER'lY WAS BROUGHT UP BY MR. ZAt1IY.l'KE IN HIS REPORT THAT THIS ISSUE OF TUSCAWILIA PARK BEING PART . . . 4 OF THE DEAL MAY' ca.m UP EVENTUALLY' NO QUESTIONS OR ISSUES WERE RAISED BY' ANYONE. nus IMPLIED TO THE TEAM mAT IF TIllS ISSUE CAME UP nIEN TIlEY WERE FREE TO TAKE IT TO A LOOICAL CONCLUSION WHICH MAY' BE ACQUIRING TIllS PARK AS PART OF THE DEAL. TIIEREFORE, BY' IMPLICATION TIllS WAS CONSENTED BY' THE crIT COMMISSION. THE WAY' WE GOT THE PARK WAS DURING THE FINAL NEGOTIATIONS, GULFSTREAM ~ULD GIVE THE PARK TO us AND IF NOT TIlE crIT ~ULD HAVE TO PAY' FOR EASEMENTS FOR EFFLUENT DISPOSAL. THE TEAM AGREED mAT TAKING THE PARK WAS NOT A MAJOR ISSUE AND GAVE THE CIIT CONI'ROL OF EFFLUENT DISPOSAL AND ALSO THE EVENTUAL DISBURSEMENT OF TIllS PARK (INCLUDING THE GIVING OF THE PARK TO SOME H~CMNERS GROUP) NEEDLESS TO SAY', I FEEL M:>RE CCMroRTABLE WITIl THE CIIT HAVING IT RATHER mAN THE DEVELOPER. IN stmARY' THE CCMttISSION HAD BEEN INFORMED PROVIDED PEOPLE ~ULD HAVE READ mE REPORTS OR ASKED QUESTIONS. QUESTION 6 - mE BUDGETING FOR rnIS WAS APPROXIMATELY $140,000. sOUTIiEASTERN BONDING, OUR ADVISOR, WAS ADVISED OF mE DEAL AND QUOTED A FEE OF BETl'ER TIIAN $250,000. SECONDLY' , MR. AKERS OF SOUTIiEASTERN WAS OFFERED THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPROVE THE DEAL AND SAID HE l>l)ULD NOT THEREFORE, GULFSTREAM WITIl ITS LIMITED BUDGET AND ~~~~~ WITIl A DEAL COMPARABLE TO OUR ADVISOR'S i lfAB DONE IT. THEREFORE, SINCE THE SELLER WAS PAYING FOR THE FEES, THEY' WENT WITH THEIR OWN COMPANY DIJ. FINALLY', THE SELLER DID NOT PAY' OUR ADVISOR. AS STATED IN EARLIER STATEMENTS OUR PURCHASE PRICE WAS A GOOD DEAL AND WAS NOT AFFECTED BY' THE SELLERS UNDERWRITER . QUESTION 7 - THIS IS WRONG. FIRST OF ALL mE NET BOOK VALUE WAS $10.5 MILLION WE PAID $10.5 MILLION. USING MR. COHEN'S ANALYSIS WE PAID APPROXIMATELY' 20% LESS TIIAN WE COULD HAVE PAID. FINALLY' , TOPEKA'S APPRAISERS LISTED mE PROPERTY .q- A . 5 MINIMUM OF $17 MILLION TIlEREFORE, IT ~ULD SEEM WE DID NOT PAY AN EXCESSIVE PRICE. QUESTION 8 - IN DISCUSSING THIS ISSUE WITH MR. KNIPE, MANAGING PARTNER AND HIS ASSOCIATE, THESE STATUTES WERE DISCUSSED WITH MR. JACOBS VERBALLY. IN FACT, 1tAt> vi ,1'..... ONE PARTICULAR CONVERSATION THAT MR. JACOBS :f!Nf) COOPERS << LYBRAND LASTED AIMOST 2 HOURS. THEY HAD STATED THE FLORIDA ACQUISITION STATUTES WERE NET. ADDITIONALLY, AS STATED EARLIER THE 3 LEGAL FIRMS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ~ ACQUISITION STATED THAT ALL FLORIDA STATUTES WERE . FINALLY, MR. KNIPE'S EXPERT OPINION CONCLUDES THAT THERE WAS NOTHING IMPROPER ABOUT THIS ACQUISITION OR THE PROCEDURES USED. QUESTION 9 - / CAP ON THEIR Jf~ IAS IT TO DATE FOR SroivrCES REQ PARKER . ZED BILL FOR $21, BUT BUT IT ~ULD SEEM TO ME, IF DON T WANT ITEMIZED STPl FRct1 THEM. JACOB'S QUESTIONS. OM FOR 'RK EXP ES OF -J. THIS AGREED THAT THEY/ HAVE TO ooPERS << LYBRAND\ --'EVEN THcJuGH THEY COBS WAS REQUESTI~ WAS II RMATION THEREFORE. TIlE CI\J REFUSED THE CI PAID $6,000 FOR FEES AND TIME tIE ROSE, DID TO PREPk;., INCLUDING GA I T WAS PROPER ESPECIALLY SINCE THE C ARE A ITORS FOR THE CITY, . \ ~ . 2 HOURS. #-A 0 W rrH ....--... -J1 ACOBS ~ COOPERS << L FLORIDA \ CQUISITION STA AIM)ST ,.. [,~ WERE ~ ONE PARTI ACQUISITION THAT THERE WAS ACQUISITION OR QUESTION 9 - PARKER << JOHNSON'S SET A CAP ON THEIR FEES AS IT PERTAINS TO THE << ACQUISITION. THIS CAP WAS 25,000. TO DATE FOR SERVICES RENDERED FROM 4/89-1/90, THE CITY HAS A 26 PAGE ITEMIZED BILL FOR $21,267r!o~ WHICH WE PAID. THIS LEAVES $3,732.98 STILL IN THE BUDGET. THE CITY HAS NOT RECEIVED A BILL FOR WORK DONE FROM 1/90-4/90 (CLOSE). BUT THAT IS UP TO FRANK KRUPPENBACHER TO SUBMIT THE BILL. BUT IT WOULD SEEM TO ME, IF THEY 00 NOT WANT . TO CHARGE US, I OON' T WANT AN'{ ITEMIZED STATEMENTS FRCJ<1 TIIEM. QUESTION 10 - THE CITY PAID $6,000 FOR FEES AND TIME DUE ROSE, SUNDSTRa-t FOR WORK THEY ~n. A v Cl,...W ,J (,- DID TO PREPARE, INCLUDING GATHERING PAPERS, ETC. PLUS EXPENSES OF . THIS .- REQUEST WAS PROPER ESPECIALLY SINCE THE C(Mt1ISSION AGREED THAT THEY HAVE TO ANSWER MR. JACOB'S QUESTIONS. CONCERNING COOPERS << LYBRAND, EVEN THOUGH THEY t1 ft. ARE THE AUDITORS FOR THE CITY, WHAT.m. JACOBS WAS REQUESTING WAS INFORMATION ov!t y BEYOND THE SCOPE OF"1m" AUDITaM"' CONTRACT. THEREFORE, THE CITY MANAGER REFUSED ~'k TO PAY SINCE THE REQUEST! WAS NOT APPROVED BY THE CCMofiSSION. SPECIAL LE'ITER (t1MI,j~.,... THE BACKGROUND - "THE EMl'tNAn!: DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS" STARTS WITH SUBMITTING A "NOTICE OF STATUARY RIGHTS" THIS WAS FILED PRIOR TO 6/19/89. IN RESPONSE TO . THE "NOTICE OF STATUARY RIGHTS", MR. TOM CLOUD, THE SENIOR ASSOCIATE FOR GREY, HARRIS << ROBINSON, THE FIRM REPRESENTING THE TOPEKA GROUP, CALLED MR. SUNDSTROM 7 . AND BASICALLY SAID TO MR.SUNDSTROM NOT TO REPRESENT THE crN OF WINTER SPRINGS BECAUSE THEIR FIRM WAS REPRESENTING TOPEKA. INSINUATING mAT THEY'RE THE BIG ,,11. BOYS AND THE WINTER SPRINGS DOES NOT HAVE A CHANCE. WHEN f4g0. SUNDSTROM REACTED BY SAYING IT DOESN'T MA'lTER, MR. CLOUD THEN STATED mAT MR. SnJBBY HARRIS, A WELL KNOWN ATTORNEY WJULD BE THE ATTORNEY HANDLING THE CASE. MR. SUNDS'I'Ra.1 SAID "SO WHAT" MR. CLOUD TRIED TO INTIMIDATE MR. SUNDSTRCM INTO NOT TAKING THE CASE. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCE I ALSO WJULD SAY "SO WHAT" IF MR. HARRIS WAS THE ATTORNEY. CONSEQUENTLY, AFTER THE DISCUSSION, OUR FIRM FILED FOR EMINENT DC:MAIN ON 6/26/89. TIiEREFORE, PROCEEDINGS WERE STARTED WITH THE "NOTICE" BUT 'If-'1"0 NOT EMINENT Dao1AIN UNTIL THE CALL FRCM. THE FIRM REPRESENTING TOPEKA. IT IS MY BELIEF, mAT ME. SUNDS'I'RG'J ACTED PROPERLY IN HIS DEALING WITH TOPEKA'S LAW FIRM AND WAS CORRECT IN HIS STATEMENT TO THE CITY CCMofiSSION . 'Opel''''' ,,,,,r,- ON THE ISSUE OF HIGH NITRATE NITROGEN (N03)' FOR BACKGROUND, THE DATA ~~9 ~~ RECEIVED BY CONKLIN PORTER THE ACQUISITION SHCMED mArJ NITROGEN AND NOT JUST NITRATE NITROGEN. THE LEVELS OF TOTAL NITROGEN DID .NOT .sun OUT OF KILTER. SECONDLY, THE DESIGN CRITERIA FOR THE PLANT WHEN INITIALLY SUBMITTED TO D.E.R. MET THE PROPER CRITERIA FOR NITRATE NITROGEN WHICH BY THE WAY IS 12M3/LlTER. FINALLY, THERE WERE NO D.E.R. VIOLATIONS ON RECORD. IN NET, BASED ON THE ALTCl) ~rr~ JNf D IL'vl..JU,. , INFORMATION GOITEN, 1}IEY A8fflI!!Ig ___ WT'I"U t\PP.~~f:P VIOMTIQ>>JS. BUT THE WAY WE FOUND OUT THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION, IS WHEN THE CITY VOLUNl'ARILY SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION TO D.E.R. BREAKING DCMN ALL PARTS OF THE NITROGEN MIX. FOR ADDED PERSPECTIVE, THE D. E. R. GUIDELINES FOR NITRATE NITROGEN LEVELS WHEN THEY , -ro r:le. REACH A DOWNSTREAM MONITORING WELL IS~NO MORE THAN Im~/LlTER. TIiIS MEASUREMENT IS DONE QUARTERLY AND THE CITY HAS MET THE GUIDELINES EVERY TIME. WE THEREFORE stJBMITl'ED A RESPONSE TO D. E. R. EXPLAINING OUR POSITION. OUR . RESPONSE HAS NOT CCME BACK. IF THE RESPONSE IS STILL NEGATIVE, THE CITY IS ABLE TO FIX THE PROBLEM WITHIN 30-60 DAYS AND IS RELATIVELY SIMPLE TO FIX. . . . f' 1M ftler . TIIERE WILL BE NO ON OUR ABILITY' TO HANDLE S~GE CURRENTLY SINCE WE HAVE ~l> ENOUGH EXCESS CAPACITY' TO HANDLE A TEMPORARY 610, 000 _~ DEDUCTION DURING THE CORRECTION PERIOD. NET, I KNCM THIS STATEMENT WAS LONG AND TEDIOUS BUT I WANTED EVERYONE IN rH-f" RM ~,.,oJ WINTER SPRINGS TO BE CLEAR THAT MY .TNQJ1TC::TTION IS ACCURATE, SPECIFIC AND ANSWERS ALL OF THE QUESTIONS MR. JACOBS HAD. TO ME WHAT IS DISTURBING, IS THAT MR. JACOBS COULD HAVE DETERMINED THE SAME ANSWERS AS MYSELF. ADDITIONALLY, HE ALSO CONTINUED TO APPROVE EVERY MJTION THAT CAME UP ON THIS ACQUISITION. !J:t.I\Jf.(.. CONSEQUENTLY, HE ~ OF HIS REFUSAL TO THOROUGHLY CHECK THE DATA OR DID NOT U\vICP BELIEVE THE INFORMATION GIVEN TO HIM, ...L MANY' HUNDREDS OF HOURS OF STAFF TIME, U.,\0C. AND CITY' CCMo1ISSION TIME TO INVESTIGATE EVERY' -wIHM- THAT HE CAME UP WITH. THIS DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE CORRESPONDING LOSS OF TIME THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONATED TO OTHER CITY' ISSUES. PROCEDURALLY, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN BEITER WAYS OF HANDLING THE ISSUES. BUT WE WERE DEALING "FOR LACK OF A BETI'ER TERM" WITH A "HOSTILE TAKEOVER". INFORMATION WAS SLCM IN CCMrNG FRa-1 THE SELLER, IT WAS LIKE PULLING TEETH, CONSEQUENTLy.... HAD TO MAKE Sa-1E QUICK DECISIONS. BUT UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE S~1"i.. CAN I _ OR EVEN IMPLY THAT ANYTHING WAS DONE TO PURPOSELY KEEP THE CCMfiSSION UNINFORMED EITHER BY' THE CITY' MANAGER, STAFF OR CONSULTANTS. THEREFORE, I FIND THIS ALLEGATION BY MR. JACOBS TO BE FRIVOLOUS, AND EXTREMELY IRRESPONSIBLE SINCE HIS QUESTIONS COULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED RELATIVELY EASY. IT IS MY OPINION, THAT MR. JACOBS HAS TRIED REPEATEDLY TO PORTRAY 'i1t(.. ACQUISITION TFAM AND PARTICULARLY THE CITY MANAGER AS EVIL PEOPLE WITH THE SOLE PURPOSE OF UNDERMINING THE CITY' OF WINTER SPRINGS. AS ONE CAN HEAR THIS IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE. IN FACT MY QUESTION TO MR. JACOBS IS WHAT WAS YOUR MJTIVATION FOR THIS IS II INVESTIGATION. WHY ~ TO HELP THIS CITY' OR WAS IT TO GET RID OF THE CITY' MANAGER? . ' . ::.. ,.... .. '. : - : : ,: . ~ . . . ...', '. ,. . .., ." " .~:'.' . .... .>_.:.' :~;:'.I~. .:' .:.:: '0,- :;', " ':;":: . : > :~, :.~ ':., '.,' q. I STRONGLY URGE THE CCMfiSSION THAT WE PUT AN END TO THIS ISSUE ONCE AND FOR ALL. IN PRINCIPLE NOTHING HAS BEEN OONE IMPROPERLY ON THE ACQUISITION, THE Pll~r'~ OU' O'LI~ . ~ . TEAM _ lilT - AND THE CI'lY GOT A GOOD DFAL!! ! ! .... -- ~ To the Mayor and my fellow Commissioners: You are well aware that I have been on record countless times questioning the validity and timeliness of the acquisition of Seminole utilities. As you know, I have expressed on numerous occasions my deepest concerns aoout the steps taken to acquire the utility. I continued to be just as vocal after the closing, and consequently started my own investigation after a number of delays in getting answers to ~y questions. . It all began when the City Attorney failed to answer my question satisfactorily about a $25,000.00 expense that was noted as a deduction from the underwriters (Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette) proceeds as a deposit. And my discovery that the city staff usurped its authority when including the Tuscawilla park property as part and parcel to the deal without the City Commissionos expressed approval. . This highly irregular delay raised serious questions and caused me to further inquire if Florida Statutes Sec. 218.385 or 218.386 and 286.23 were met. To this day I have not been given the courtesy of a reply from the city Attorney. Then I requested that the acquisition team be at the August 13th meeting to answer a number of other questions I had in addition to resolving the issue of the $25,000.00 check. In my opinion, all I got was unsatisfactory answers once again, so I \ . . . . . cGntinued my research further t~ uncover the facts. Among the facts I uncovered and questions that still remain unanswered are; 1. Was the Commission deliberately kept in-the-dark about the facts surrounding the Topeka Groupos signed Purchase Agreement to acquire Seminole utilities for $6.5 million? 2. Were we misinformed about Seminole utilities request for a 50% rate increase, when in fact no such formal request was ever made before the Public Service Commission? Was this a tactic to substantiate the value of the utility? Did it unduly influence this commission to make a hasty decision to "close" before rate payers faced such increases? 3. If Topeka was willing to buy, and Seminole utilities was willing to sell the utility for $6.5 million, how come we paid 12.3 million only 14 months later after first making an offer of $7.5 million in February of 1989? How could the price h d 1 d. . f h . D~ul~ ave oub e ~n Just 14 months? In act t e total pr~ce we ~ end up paying for the utility could be in excess of $17 million. This represents $12.3 Million plus paying the seller $2400 for every ERC over 5500 up to 7500 that could cost the city an addition $4.8 million. ~. Was the explanation to raise the service rates of \ ~ Seminole to match the West side service valid or was if used to . influence bondholders to purchase? We had previously been told that the utility was not bondable due to unfavorable conditions. With the rate increase plugged in, did that make a difference? If the utility would have cost us say $6.5 million, the same amount Topeka and Seminole agreed on, would the rate increase have been necessary? 5. How we acquired without legal authority, Tuscawilla park property, not in control of Seminole utilities, from the utility? And how come the Commission was not informed in a timely manner and kept up to date on this issue? Why did city management fail to inform us of a meeting held on January 11, 1990, where in fact discussion took place about the parks being . included in the deal? The fact is the City Manager never brought to the Commission this important issue as the notes of the meeting clearly stated he would. Consequently, we have acquired property not consented by the City Commission. 6. How could the City expect complete objectivity and due diligence on behalf of this Commission by agreeing to have the seller's investment banker and financial advisor act as the City's financial advisor for the transation? ThatOs akin to hiring the fox to guard the chicken coup. To further complicate the issue, the seller paid our advisor for his servicesl While we saved around $150,000.00 by agreeing to this unorthodox arrangement with the underwriter, we did pay over $6 million more . \ for the utility than Topeka had previously agreed to. How come? . 7. How come the City never got 3 independent appraisals for back-up to support the transation, yet we relied on the seller's appraisals to justify the purchase price. By the seller's own admission, the record shows that the seller received a settlement which exceeded the valus as set forth by the seller's own expert appraisers. Why would the City's negotiators agree to pay in excess of the seller's appraised value? 8. Why has Coopers and Lybrand, the CityOs auditors, refused to answer my questions, after sending 2 certified requests, concerning full and complete compliance with Florida Statutes? . 9. For all the work that was done on the City's behalf, how come Parker and Johnson et aI, never billed us for any City Attorney services, financial advisor services or bond council services from January 1990 to date? And for some unknown reason announced that they would not. Why not? Remarkably, the City has received no record of any services performed by the City Attorney and bond council on this transaction subsequence to January 1990, when in fact we all know work was preformed. It is my understanding that we were to be provided with all the documentation for work performed related to the acquisition of Seminole utilities. When can we expect itemized statements and supporting documents? If they don't want to charge us thats ~. \ \ ..\ 1 \ . '. .. f~ne, but where are the records as to who did what and when. 10. How come we paid almost $6,000.00 to Rose, Sundstrom. and Bentley for research and expenses to attend the August 13th meeting to brief the Commission on the background of the acquisition, which I strongly protested. But according to Coopers & Lybrand, the City Manager refused to pay them to answer my questions about compliance with Florida Statutes? While some may dismiss these questions as trivial and attempt to make light of them, no one should ignore them as long . as they remain unanswered. Too many important questions concerning the management, or should I say mismanagement of this transation, leave one wondering if the taxpayers of winter springs got a good deal or a bad debt. ... What I cannot condone are those who in a position of appointed authority in public servise failing to exercise due diligence of the public trust. Neither can I condone this same element from making decisions reserved for the elected body or withholding pertinent information from them. I feel there has been repeated attempts to hinder my investigation which made at times my inquires an exercise in . frustration and futility. It is my opinion that this Commission may have been . misled, given misinformation and or purposely misdirected as to what was relevant and pertinent to make an informed decision on the purchase of Seminole utilities. At the time I voted for the acquisition, and perhaps all my fellow Commissioners, we thought that the information we received up to that point was true and complete. Under further scrutiny, however, that appears to not be the case. While I believe the acquisition of private utilities are in the best interest of winter springs, I cannot support the manner in which it was presented to us and the possibility of paying over $17 million. . Therefore, I believe it is in the best interest of the taxpayers of Winter springs to have the Auditor General, or someone completely independent and not politically tied, take up where I left off in order to get to the truth and settle the matter once and for all. Respectfully submitted; william City Commissioner . Winter springs .../ ~ 1'-) , ~)) II II II ...-p Regular Meeting, City Conmission, April 24, 1984 Page 3 83-84-14 .1.leco~~I:'.[~'l t"lE.n,_of t~~_P].:.a.n.Y1J~'.' (~l7.t?.Y1.i_T\g_~o_~ r~.:.. Preliminat"y 1'':'a11. (exiscing TU.'iC. PUD), TL:.sc<.willa Unit 1l~: H.mager Rozansky said chis has been d:l.scussed at length: the Applicant is present. The City l'lannt2r discu[;sed the e:Lght cond:Lt:f.ons front the Staff Report d.;J.ted Feb. 2/1, 198/,. Corrunissioner Grove said she would like to clarify a statement: the Mayor made. He saie! of the residents of Tuscawilla that: were here, 1)9% \h~re <.l.ga:Lnst: and It in L,vor of. She said she woule! give the refLLdenta of 'l\,wcawilla that were in attendance, maybe S9~~ against and li. ill fdvor of, but COlTuntss:Loner Grove said she did nor.: thi.nk thac is representative of the population of ~uscawilla. Motion was made by Commissioner Linville to approve the residential portion of Tuscavi~la Un:lt 14 only, and h)V off again O{, the road going through to Oviedo. Motion failed for lack of n second. Mr. Jay ~lpert, Winter Springs Development Corp., spoke in reference to the ~ond and their traffic study. }wtion was made by Co~t6sioner Hartman to approve the preliminary plan of Tuscawilla Unit 14 as submitted vith Ul/:: reconunendations of Staff and d.e Planning & Zoning Board with the exception of Staff .Recommendation No~ I., seconded by Conunissioner Grove for discussion. There was discussion of Condition Nu. 5 of the Staff Report, dated 2J24J8~. Motion was amended by Commissioner Hartman, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs, that Winter Springs Development Corp. would put in a dirt road (Vistm~illa Drive) northward to S. R. 419 within 90 days after receipt of their raLlroad crossin?, penl\ic and pave the road after two years of receipt of their permit. Discussion. There was discuss:Lon of repairs to Winter Springs Boulevard. Mr. Charles True and Roy Dye of Winter Springs Development. Corp.. spoke about repairs to the Boulevard and ~laid if the deficiency in the road wati caused by the Utility Company, they ~wuld go in and repair it. Mr. Troy Piland spoke in discussion. Mr. Jay Alpert of Winter Springs Development Corp. said they had a long standing committement that when a signal is needed at Tuscawilla Road and Winter Springs . Boulevard, t~~t signal would be p~ovided by the Development Company. He said they are also certain that when they go through to SR 1~26 that DOT viII require a 5113on1 there. Vote on the motion as amended: Commissioner Jacobs, aye; Commissioner Grove, aye; Commissioner Hartman, aye; Cor.uni::Jsionf~r Adkins, aye; Commissioner Linville. no; motion carried. Rezoning/Amendment to t~e Land Use Plan, ~C-l to Pl~~~~-P~it Dev~lopment, ADA'1AC: Motion was Il'.dde by Commissioner Jacobs to see the Public Hearing for ADANAC for May 22, 198/.. Seconded by Commissioner Crove. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Grove, aye; Commissioner Hartman, aye; Commissioner Adkins, aye; COlnmissioner Linville, aye; Co~niusioner Jacobs, aye; n~tion carried. Amendm_~1].t to 1'LTD Preliminary Plan-,-~..inter Sprin~g Commerce Center - Dittme.!.: t The City Planner explained rhat the Applicant is asking for approval of his concept to flfllLnd the physical design of his development nnd to change the land use in nne ':H'c~a from duplexes to offices, The StLlff finds the plans are Hpprovab1e subject to five conditions in the ~;LLff Reviel,/ of March 15, 198/1 (attached to original minutes). . .... : . . .,.. ;.... . . .~-oi-u.nce ~roduCt. ~dr--c~rlfi!l JOB W!Cfl1 Bu;PPort:.'~~ .Cd'm~c1~ltOD ..~d. ~a.rdA. ..-onES: L1lJlt' nevelOJ.llMlnt. tIoniA~: . . .' .' . . _..r 'rhom.. ?~vitll. C"~ PL.~. Cl~ 01' \/Dl'l'l!:R' m~1JICO, l"LORIDA, . r . !!!ill llPOJl'I'.. ~~. ~,: ~ !l1!!'~JPA~;': 84; 2',1,2 I';~ 1'~'. !!4 .'.. . .' . -.. . .. .." . . '. Development/Unit: TUSCA'WILLA/UliIT 14 . ;'p:plicAUt! Agent.: WINTER SPRINCS DEVE1...OPl-/..ENT CO~./ J . ALPERT . Ra'1"i<d..:/.:.;~:.;:1.01l n~~q\lelt('tdt CIoJ:Y COHlrr:;SION FJ;.VIL'W!APPRfYh\L' ~II _.._"... "".~,.,,_,,","..-__ _"...__,_.......... -.. - . - . -......-".---r.-... --.".-,""',.... CITY MA11ACER/Rozan.lcy, o.nd all p..rl.le" vhO m", become identified rel<vantl 1.0 the above identified reqv.e.t for rev.cevl"cdOu, I. CITY pwnm/Elve 11 (81 p:n/ C!J'I.te ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . · . · . · . . . . . . . . . · . . . . . . . . . :',,' ./J,b [ttfl,,~,~ ,1 i ..~!lAl/) /"/;~ STAFF REVIEII-for action toward appronl of the above identified devdop- !S;'7/'!h. 'rf'1' mellt. /r'.... '~. , J~.e8fftM:ftJ.t/ 1 V 1'\ (,.".;-.; ""1. ~ t~ .... o..&~l.. .,;",LH ! SUBDIVISION, PRELIMINARY PLAN (?UD) '.. ,. RCJ:Jor"c Text. P~e J.. To: From: Re: r \ I~ PURSUANT TO nm ABOVE, 'l1lE STAff HAS COMPLETED ITS REVIEW IN CONSULTATT.O~ WITH \ " THE A.PPLICA.)ff (MEETING OF 24 FEB. 8,1.) AND FIN0S THE FO~J:...:)W!.t~C REMAINl.!1G CO!~- t, .' DInONS FOR APPROVAL OF THE IDENTIFIED DL'VELOPHEltr: ? I , 01. THE APPLICANT SHALL DEDICATE 'THE ACCE~~ RIGHTS TO~:'OR THE I ~- -:;,:::.::~~::;::::=::~'~;::':::;:::--r-- REVIE\o1E.D FOR APPROVAL BY TH.E CITY PRIOR TO PLATIll'.iG. AND; ....HE Pl..ANNINC/ZONINC BD. RECOHMENDS APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT (IDENTIFIED) SUilJECT TO THE FINDINGS OF FUR.THER STArF REVIew (REFER: MINUTES OF PL.i\.~HNGI ZONING BD. MEETING 22flm. 84, IN PROGRESS), AND; 03. THE UNDESIGNATf.D TRACT FRONTING ,nSTAWILLA DRIVE SHALt. BE DESIGNATED "CON$ER.VATION, GREEN bELT,'. WITH ')'.,[NERSlHP RETAINr:D BY THE AYI1LlCANT, A...N1)" 04. THE APPLICANT SHALt. END WINTER SPRING"; DRIVE. FOR SOHE 'OISTANCETO BE DETEIDtINF..D TO THE SATISFACTION OF TIlE Cl1"l OF WI.NTER ';PRINGS, SnORT OF TIlE OVlf.OO CITY LIMIT, AND; 05. TIlE APPLICANT SHALL EXTEND VlSTAWILT..A DR'IVE NORTHWARD TO S.'tt. 419, IN ... ~..4---. ~ )'.:cco~A.1J't'!""'S".I\"'J':SYAc-ro'~..1tf 'I'U'rC'1"1"l' OJ1"'f1l.~'n.~~ AND AS A CONDITION OF APPR.OVAl. OF' mE DEVELOPMENT (lDENTlFIE.D), AND: 06. THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE A 'BUFFF..R AREA BE"nJEEN TIlE co~ClAL AND RESIDF.NTIAL ARF.A. (LOTS 1,336) OF A DESIGN AND OTHER\.JISE TO THE SA'ns- FACTION OF THE CITY, AND 07. . TIlE DF.VELOPMENT SHALL OTHERWISE MEn nrr. R.EQUIREMENT~ OF 'I1IE CITY 'CODES. ~ ~ 'l 08. TIlF; APPLICANT SltALL MEY.T nm RFQUIREMEN'l'S OF THE CITY ENGINEER (SPECIFIED, ~ OF 1,5 'FEB. AA, ATTAon:n). 'rrrE/mn Attachments: attached; ~ Fllt~ (identifil><l),' C~~~. CO~rla1onl \ cc~. ....._~~- .."...-.....-..'-. ..-.... ....._._~... '. 2. The Remaining Property shall be developed in the following manner: PARCEL ACREAGE LAND USE UNITS l4C 31.2 Single Family 125 1.1 Seneca Boulevard 61 33.0 Single Family 198 1.4 Commercial 0.6 Service Road. 15 67.0 104.0 25.2 J.6 1.5 74.0 3.0 Commercial Single Family MUlti-Family Vistawilla Drive Fire Station 416 504 80 Multi-Family Tuscora Drive 1,480 . Lake Jessup Property 20.7 MUlti-Family 166 TOTAL 366.3 2,889 3. The acreages described within each Parcel are approximate acreages only and shall be finaiized at such time as a final survey of each parcel is obtained. Therefore, the legal descr.i.ptions set Eorth on Composite Exhibit "A" cHe subject to revisions based upon such final surveys and sound land planning techniques, it being the intent of this Agreement that this' Agreement be inclusive of all remaining undeveloped real property within the aforedescribed parcels within the Tuscawilla PUD as of the date hereof; provided, however, no boundary of any such parcel shall be expanded by more than one hundred (100) additional feet. . 4. The units set forth herein for the mUlti-family and single f~mily designations are the maximum allowable units within each such parcel and the acreanes set forth herein for the commercial designations are the maximum allowable acreages Eor co~~ercial property within each such parcel. Notw~thstanding the forcgoinc;r_ WSO,TV .'.::hall have the right to request minor revisions to such allocations and redistribute units within such parcels to acconunodate sound land planning techniques, provided the overal~ units and commercial acreages on a gross basis do not exceed those set forth above, subject to the applicable provisions of the City Codes. 4 /C/DAH 6786062AMO 06/22/90.3 . 5. The land use designaLions set forth herein are inclusive of les~ intensive uses under the City Codes for development of the Remaining Property, subject to the regulations of applicable governmental agencies. 6. Within the land use classifications set forth herein, such classlfications shctll be inclusive of all permitted uses within such land use under the City Codes and ordln~nces in effect as of the date hereof; provided, however, commercial shall include those uses set fort.h on Exhibit "D" attached hereto and expressly incorporated herein. . 7. j\ttached hereto as Exhibit "C" and expressly incorporated herein by this reference is a depiction of the Remaining Property and the land uses associated therewith. Attached hereto as Exhibit "0" and expressly incorporated herein by this reference is a depiction of Parcel 15 and the land uses associ.:lted therewith. Exhibits "e" and "D" are intended for reference only as the City and WSDJV acknowledge that the land uses shown thereon are an approximation only as to boundaries and the boundaries of such land uses may vary in order to make better use of thD Remalning Property in keeping the terms and provisions of this Au~eement; provided, however, no boundary of any such parcel shall be ~xpanded by more than one hundred (100) additional feet. The p.1rties agree that Exhibits "C" and "0" shall collectively constitute the certified map and plan of the Remaining Property in the Tuscawilla PUD. Access points and roadways show the number and approximate location of such matters, which location will be finally determined at the time of site plan approval and/or plat approval of the respective property such minor adjustments and revisions shall be permitted, provided such changes shall not result in an increase in the commercial acreage or units on such parcel, except as otherwise permitted herein or by City Codes. 8. WSDJV agrees to dedicate a one and one-half (1.5) usable acre site for a fire station located adjacent to State Road 434 1n the residential section of Parcel 15, at the location depicted on Exhibit "C". 9. WSDJV shall be entitled to transportation impact fee and other impact fee credits for the dedication, planning, development arId construction of Tuscora Drive and Vistawilla Drive, which road are determined to be collector roads and other public dedications in an omount equal to the impact fee credits permitted under the Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance or other applicable ordinances adopted or to be adopted by the City, for right-af-way, planning, design, development and construction of such roadways. . 10. The access points of the Remaining Property along State Road 434 shall be of the number and in the approximate locations 5 le/DAH 6786062AMD 06/22/90.3 . as depicted on Exhibits "C" and "0"; however, said access points shall be subject to Florida Department of Transportation requirements, guidelines and standards. 11. In the event of any conflict between this Agreement and any other ordinance, approval or similar matter regarding the Tuscaw~lla PUD, this Agreement shall control and govern the rights and obligations of the parties hereto and such approval or similar matter. 12. Any and all approval, master plans, plans, submissions and other similar matters affecting the Remaining Property are hereby automatically amended to conform to and reflect the provisions and intent of this Agreement. 13. Buffering of the Remaining Property shall be subject to the provisions of the applicable City Codes at the time of s~te plan approval. . 14. In order to develop the Rr.maining Property, WSDJV shall b~ required to comply with the applicable City Codes, it being the intent of this Agre~ment that this Agreement constitutes a revision to the approved map and master plan of the Tuscawilla PUD and that in order to develop any portion of the Remaining Property, the remaining approvals necessary consist only of site plan, final development plan or plat approval and preliminary and final engineering approval. as provided by the aforedescribed City Codes regarding Planned Unit Developments and specifically Chapter 20, Article IV, Division 2, Part A, which applies to the Remaining Property. 15. WSDJV agrees that the City l"dY, at any time, adopt a special tax district encompassing that portion of the Remaining Property and other property located adjacent to State Road 434 from the eastern boundary line of the City to State Road 419, for improvements and beautification of State Road 434. 16. WSDJV agrees to grant and convey a ten foot (lO') easement to the City over and across the southern boundary of Parcel 14C and continuing along the southern boundary of the adjacent real property owned by WSDJV in the City of Oviedo, Florida, to State Road 426, on or before thirty (30) days from the date this Agreement becomes final and is no longer subject to appeal. . 17. It is the intent of the parties that although the Petition be dismissed without prejudice, the Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter and specifically with regard to this Agreement, in order that any disputes hereunder shall be resolved by the Court, pursuant to such proceedings as the Court may deem necessary in order to accomplish the foregoing. Neither party hereto admits to any liability whatsoever with regard to 6 /C/DAH 6786062AMD 06/22/90.3 . . . the Petition and the subject matter thereof. Further, this Agreement is in no way intended to affect the appropriateness or inappropriateness of either parties' position or circumstances with regard to the Petition or the events, circumstances and ~;ubject matter thereof. In the event Llat the Court, at .:1ny time, determlnes not to retain jurisdiction over this matter, the parties hereby ,.,xpressly waive and agree not to aSSCi.:'t thr~ defenses of statute of limitations and idches in any subsequent action related hereto. 18. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be bindinG upon the City and WSDJV and its or their respective successors and assigns. 19. The rights dnd obligations of WSDJV hereunder are fully assignable and transferable, including but not limited to, in the event any portion of the Remaining Property is conveyed by WSDJV, and in surh event the City shall look solely to such transferee or assignee for the performance of all obligations, covenants, conditions and agreements pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 20. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties hereto. Any change, modification, or amendment to this Agreement shall not be binding upon any of the parties hereto, unless such change, modification or amendment is by ordinance and in writing and executed by both the City and WSDJV and adopted by the City by ordinance. 21. This Agreement shall be interpreted pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. 22. This ^9reement is intended to be performed in accordance with and only to the extent permitted by all applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. If any provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall for any reason, and to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the r~mainder of this Agreement and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby, but rather shall be enforced to the greatest extent permitted by law. 23. In the event oC any cont~oversy or dispute arising between the City and WSD~TV in connection with this Agreement, including without limitation, in Jny settlement, in any declaratory action, at trial or in any appellate proceeding, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover any and all costs and expenses associated therewith, in whatsoever nature or form, including without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees, paralegal fees, legal assistants' fees, expert witness fees and other professional fees and expenses associated therewith. 24. This Agreement and any modification or amendments hereto 7 !e/DAR 678C062AMD r:'XI'iTI-lI'J" ~l;:" .-.._._._..~._- -~-_._--_._-~-~....__..._- l..-.....~"" .fl'I PN -.. .--' -..--.....--.... .-.,_.~...._----' - .-.... -~----'-' .......-..-..-.... -~-->~~ ~._-~--~_..~->_....----._._.._._-_.. .... .... . .. . Lake Jessup ~ \ LAKl; JESSUP PROPERTY LA ND USE C:....:J SINGLE FAMILY !:L.;::z] MULTI FAMIlX i '""l COMMERCIAL c::J ROAD R.O.W. r . o - "-=",,,-- '"'""'1~"'1i' -rNT"'"II.T""'" PRCn~...,.I.'-""",. 1<;_",1\ lJ\1 L"'U , )et'.. ,1 I .'\ . ---~,;.;.;;;;::;;;;-;;;;;;;...,.. ==--=:;;;;';.':;;;;';;;;-";;:;;;;;::;_;':~',;-.-:;:;:;:":'--="i-~'..;::;_;" .-- ----.-..-...-____T ~-~~_;;;u;s;~-;.-----.:::;;;;~-;;;;.:;;--~_;~-----.~.....~..~...-.--.--... ~~ r-rT J~ C. ^ \ "i..JTT I~ ^ .1. L 'J ..(')..Y \ .iLLt-\. P.D.D. W rr. ",(1~~~ '\:..~..~... ru.r.l",\:n.f.[: :n,\: WINTE;( SPRING::; DEVELOPMENT JOINT VENT'URE ._ b_\_. _ -n .......,. _ _,."..,...lJio.....-..~l.7_\.....0IIi___.I."_~'~....,.....;.-liIol'4l"".;..-~t.",....~~~':*'"~~ .r I , If I'll; "J'r'~1"'lr'w'rl'r'll1[lr':r'11r;"f fT' \ \ ., ".' 'f! '1.111' I' . . '1 " .' I ..\~ '''::1 !i{:~'".~l r rllir~~ ;!;:1l d;'~ I:; I' !irll' 'iI'!!I~I'Iq!'!IUrr"il);PI:ll'lIl.r If! '... ,! l'~,i 'I/.,nif !:'I~:J:~:I:lfi'i'I[{[) Ii; .~ I' h'I'llrlll'lr;;'flrl~llii.r 1"riJ,J. IlIill "/ ;!, I I, '1 '''I' 1'1 "..,' ! . ~r I,' " I' '" } ;1:' :f(r'" ;I'\!I"'Ii'~rJ. :11', J~I'r f '. r- I .'t'I' lll" "'" I" 'I' ,I!." il .. , !I,~"r,..II'i!rl!dI"'d!;f!~/;'I' ,nr r ,/'1 f"''',' ",I'" Ilf' 'Id'll "'fli!, I . Ill' . i"!,' .".,,;, , 'f' II'" 1'1 " ,\ t Ii 1 nll~i1111:i1iJi;'1';i'll' ;1'llii:;~' II' I It 110 0'1 ..,:.1 I','J I J. ! 'I' I'l ')' ~J'''lr':'i''ll.rl\U.''')rlrll''Jr;'''' ~:, I r ' . I' t 1/ 11'1'" 'r I rI ,. ~ l. ,,::I'i!,..r;,ri,III'rr!i!:~iiJ;;d;n If: 1 Ii r";n,f~II!' 1:1; "ll),!:IT'ff'f }Il I, lid '1"'1 fl,llll f' r,;.!: . ~ , , If' I ,.. '.. . ,\ 'I' "',, '"'''}''Il''' I'i I' I.~ :ljiibr;qIJIIl:L!r:r<;!,~I, :l:il~ .;! I), j k[.<;:"""I;;/1.!::Ir):I!!l;f'f J.: I~ ~J\ 4'1' :fJ;lrl;;~ ~"~ r,'~.li~;~; I Ij,rllrilJ'.il'lrr.;."Hfj"dll'lil' r1 .. i -\r~ ;1;~~~) :":J::.~tl'I~1'1"1;'lP~ ~~ 1 '". "'" f I"'; t 'II" ., . :', !III' '1' '1; "I, I ,J jl',';u' I: e ", .~ JI""iJ'['! :lpr:' i'i I . , ~ ...,... .. ; ,. ~ ~ . .. t ;. ".J" , . t : \ I , " \ I , I' " I ,: ~ I: i Lj' ;;;:'.:::;i~ ~ l'~;:Ir'i:~ . . ~ l . ! l~ : I; ; I' "I' : ' : 1 t { , , ., i ~ 1 J i " I \ I ! 1 . r rt-,' \. rUff I.' ~;rf1-sl,; f~ . .r~l.,; fi(- ~ HVr [, It ~ ~..;lf~ /- ,: ,::1,..,,- ",. -, "'f';!~' :! ; t r I; ( ~ - 'F' A fI.II EXHIBIT I'D" nHmHlm;lJ~Ull~!~:IJHr: :;Ji!w~r r !f!!,P!l;:IIU;;:~ !f!: I ~jl!~;r:'1 r,!,:li{ L!'f!)l1"):i' !I,lj'l:r: 1 1,;IJ.IIIU Illr,ofr 'i'; ~,,;qr:rr:r';~l:r~ hi 11::1: ~. ':df'fff!1 Ir~\H::~li '1;I'lr r:l~ ... ,..------~:!'!i'.f':. r h Yr!'III",("fiJ Ill[ II ,.lll'ljr~I,J(I[ 'II ~ll " ~[f~;jI!J\!jljlU il/tWinl.' ~iqIPr: Vj;ff!:;!'jt'lijii,i Iii! (::I',rl;:!llT::'ll!;"I'I'fr,~/[! ~).Jrr;[r!. Ir:r/f(lj'lJ:/[lq.! ii:'1 1:' :f(llil~111:~'rl "I~'II,{olll,~"U l[1':I'!.1 .t. (frU Iff \ J[H:;'~f;i~!iiHli!II'HIKifj' i: l~nnU fi Hb~,[tnlHJillf:: iir lid "9 t': f .'u,'''.a!l . I't ! "~:',~ .r-. " U I~.tl ~ ~ I if ~ IJ n · l' rj II I' I 1 I ., "~1' 'lfir "1l[~'"'' [" I /lU'l WfTl: '\11 rW'1 r ~lllll'll/l jll'll .!lI' 'I ',', ,r I ,,' !; . Il:':~I!",;~ :j!: 'Iii!:.i!ldi rJ:f' ;: IJ I d II [~I'll~'rl'l';WJ I' !l' [:1" j;!il)I:1 j If! 'I' I I' I'. /1'1' ',11'11'\'"'1[') ~'rl;\::: 1::;.I~r,:J ':J1"J1,:HI'il/I[II:rl . ,; ~ "I ' . r ! . I ! i J'" I: I . ~ f t I" I' . " ~ r . Uj nJll!!1Hf\;i\:[ H l:H~nk~ ~ ;lf~!! flip! !: i i J" ,I j I ,: 11','), Jj I ; f\ I i! ill: I it ;: I ! ) i j i: !! .! rf I !I J j I"" " "" 'Jl'" I" , n,lrl'J:,I'I;pr:lI:I;!;f ill'!iJl':lt' 'II); ;;;~.ir II I 1.1'1l! 0.,,/./ . . t [. ! 'll'I'i ,.. / il ,. I II f i I I i I I \ I . \ I ,/\ I 1 : r'~:."", (:~lJ>-"<-'" L.,..J-\, - ) .J '''~...L;' .1', . I rl. 4 \ J! \ '~ I; I I '~ I \ ".t. ~~ i :~ . j : t' : I; I ; I ~ j' l~ ~ ~j \; . .::B; m ~~ I~.' I~\ ~ II~ I j li:~ li\:::i h.. .... I' 1! 1-... '~/: .,. ( '~ :ll~ .!;j 1 if; il:; \\ ~~l;. " i~.~l :t a. " I . "/ " . \ .' (t.L,...! ~ ~,........... ...~.. \~ : \-,' r; \,' -'. .. e."". ~ · . .. .. ..,. ~; i ;.. )" \-,. .. I" j; r '"' f.l~ I' .': '-.::.~ ;.:. i~':.';J'..t ;H~ .,,1 / .....~:'i>,~.>::.._r.,...' ';....'.'..~.':~ Ii'; ; i f.. '~1\ ~~- -- I'i. '. e, . '( '.' m., ~lj'a, (:j :'1..:\.,.,..,......\.'. ........ ./11. "'" . I. ~ Ill' .". : ::t~ - I," ."/', :: i ~ "". " . t - .. .' .;': .t.;- . ",' I .._ !:'\::I .-~ / I "';' U:.", I "I"' _oi~ 1"1 ./ r' ~.: L~ 1 b; '1'" .1; ': , . ,.,jJ ~r'. . \ . .1,';.1\ ",,' ", , 0'" " ',', 't\.~ 1:1. )l"'l · 'l" I I~"'~" i-\' ~'II :J~"'" ~ ~.: l ~/.,,. ..... ..:;:.....,."--: _ _ . l . 't'" .......'~ ..... '.. ')t, . ...... .. . . ~~"..~ ".(. ", 'if!: /-~DI"",-';;~/" .-' ._' ... , . '.. ~l.~1 ~~(_, I.. . ;...~ ;. IN~ Ill' ..". , r I ,.. '" . .. ~~ ,j J :---..... .. - oi .If .. fi .. "i!:!' :" 1:. .....'..'t ..",. ....r'..,. ... H,,:i'ti1i ;;!!: ~~ . II :::!.r;.' !':!:I' i:". -- _pdt; It ~'t: ' ~ . . ~ J . I .. ' . 'l~~ .ij . ;:; ,., , \', i~ '( l~ . -' Iirrru~.r';I,J.fi~III:.ll:.!:;:IH'lfl:i1lr:r.j fii' I 'I"l ",' 1/' ..1)'1\ 'j']I"1. II ,', 'I 1"1 .1 I I'f: J :':[1 i,:;i,/I l,j~I\JI,;:.",:;.ldlll ;f' ':'; I ,'', J I, 'I .,.." I' 1'" 'J'" , j I I' '1/ ;:~:,[~)lHi,I!:IIi':~ ~::Il,!jn,~:':;!( f n f',! I,! 'I ',J liP "l;" 11'\" p\lr:1p 1(III'll U;[J' 11:11 J fjl fl' 1'1 " I ' I I ' 'j' · r I '\I '1 I', I ,[ \ r~ll: 1:\; J:j[;;I~J ~il;i:/,;l/i!f11:11p1 Ii. !illl'I:!iH Ij:Ji/f;tl;lrJ;~r.i;!i1:;lfnj.i[[rl;jJ. ir!! I ",I '''1' I" Illllllj ".I j'r lJ "lIf' illl 11"('" '(I"I'j I.~ .. d I}J . I... ~r' l..-. I :iI(j !lI:Jl~ ; ~1~)I~li[!!: !1;!HiP;~I i1i ~ ~'t 'f.I'rlli:'11Jil'l::('jll[lJl:i'J[:r-r' .... t . . I" li,'t. , "," !" I r- III ! HijHiljIIP\i.il!r;b:i!iPI/[r;II:rl I :"r,~l, ~ .1..1!.',I.!..j' f[ r ... I; I~:.!p,:f; "'ll'rHiJ1I\[ ':lI j' !:I',':I",J;11, '; -pr'I' . J1~1 . .: !:r~l !il'liW Ifl~~ ilill~[;:\H!r I' ~ 11'/1,1 ,I ,II' ['ll'f"!" 'r": I II" rJ.' l~ I I.' I, J I "'l , !oIf;.ot1:i'JI!' ;1" 'J ,;;[1, II '1Uliil!:!Il: II~ftl'II;II'I!;\;iii . 1 .rl'i Ll,_' ."1'. ! '~:' ill I . \. , ' , \ . f . : i ~1j) . . .- .: JiW ooJ , (')> Z (.jJ -W (2; [w ~.) (~ ~., \.1-, -<. ~ @ 3 I I C;.~~:~1~ I ,.., . ...,.."I"'n,..... ,,". a.. """"' I H'\.~JI ~W. MciNTOSH Alnc,a",. ,.c. .'1=1 il~'W~ _NUllS 1\,_101 IUlMlOOG .-4 -...- ..-....... . November 21, 1990 TO: City Manager ~ Land Development Coordinator FROM: RE: Agenda Item, Vistawilla Drive Extension This is for the approval of Final Engineering for Vistawilla Drive Extension. Attached are Staff Comments on this project, selected pages from The Settlement Agreement addressing Vistawilla Drive Extension, City Commission Meeting Minutes of April 24, 1984 and . the plan for the proposed project. ffg attach. cc : Mayor Commission City Attorney City Clerk . . . . October 31, 1990 TO: FROM: RE: City Manager Land Development Manag~ Staff Review, Vistawilla Drive Extension The above referenced was held on October 30, 1990. G. Marvin and C. True represented the project. Staff members present were Artman, Dewitt, Govoruhk, Holzman, Koch, Kozlov, LeBlanc and McKinney. Please see attached Staff Comments. Jfg attach. . . . October 23, 1990 TO: Land Development Coordinator FROM: City Engineer ~~ SUBJECT: Vistawilla Drive Extension With regard to the Vistawilla Drive Extension project, it meets the engineering requirements of the City Code. /fg . . . TO: Land Development Coordinator G. E. Artman/Director of Public Works~~~ DATE: October 24, 1990 FROM: SUBJECT: Vistawilla Drive ********************************************************************* , The developer must obtain an Arbor Permit prior to any construction on this project. The Public Works Department will install all traffic regulatory signage. Cost of these signs will be paid by the developer to the City. . . . October 23. 1990 TO: RECE'lVED Staff ~ Land Development Coordinato(~ OCT 2 3 1%0 FROM: RE: w. (NT,ER ('::>.J~~'1' ''-''0, J:.I [) ~ .....' . ,uv\::. 0 LJ.L\fDEJ:ANJ'i'vJtNY Vistawilla Drive. Staff Review The above referenced will be held at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday. October 30. 1990. Your written comments on this project are needed for this meeting. These. along with the minutes of the meeting. are given to the Commission to assist them in their decision making process. ffg --------------------------------------------~------------------------------------- October 29, 1990 TO: Land Development ~dinat~r FROM: Fire Chief ~ RE: Vistawilla Drive The plans for Vistawilla Drive appear to be satisfactory for approval. . TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJ: DON LEBLANC. LAND DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR JOHN GOVORUHK. CHIEF OF POLICE OCTOBER 29. 1990 VISTAWILLA DRIVE 37-90 All markings on road-way are to be THERMOPLASTIC and conform with roadway and design standard specification issued by F.D.O.T.. All STOP signs. SPEED limit (25 MPH) and STREET NAMES as approved. to be installed by Public Works and Rail Road crossing signs if needed. . JGjeds . . " ... __..'. _0" '.... ~r2-.7.'" ' I 'I. . v /) / // A /" >l{7~~~..--- . Chief of Police . WINTER SPRINGS WATER & SEWER EAST 890 NORTHERN WAY, C-1 WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA 32708 Telephone (407) 365-3025 ~z: i6199,rJ-; TO: FROM: RE: . . LAND DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR MIKE DEWITT ~ VISTAWILLA DRIVE, STAFF REVIEW 1) Move 8" gate valve of road for isolation at station 13 + 20 to RESOLVED east side 2) Install two 8" gate valves at cross at stat ion 27 + 80 for isolation RESOLVED 3) No water services or main stub to east of Vistawilla RESOLVED 4) Move 10" gate valve from railroad right of way to station 13 + 20 RESOLVED CONTINGENT UPON CSX 5) No sanitary sewer shown RESOLVED . MEMO: 10/30/90 TO: LAND DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR FROM: BUILDING OFFICIAL~ RE: VISTAWILLA DRIVE/STAFF REVISION In review of this plan, the only requirement will be the letter of transmittal from the developer to Florida Power for the lighting plan. . . . '. :,',0,:', --.,.' , , '~ e DONRLD W. MciNTOSH RSSOCIRTES, INC. 2200 PRRIC RUENUE NORTH, WINTER PRRIC, FLOR I DR 32789 PHONE (407) 644-4068 FRH (407) 644-8318 CIUIL ENGINEERS LRND PLRNNERS/SURUEYORS TRRNSM ITTRL TO: Florida Power Corp. AU: Cecil Roberts P .O.BOH 677217 Orlando, Florida 32867-7217 DRTE: JOB NO.: RE: Nouember I, 1990 89131.0053 . Uistawilla Driue U I A: Mailed RECEIUED BY: WE ARE SEND I NG yOU....... QUANTITY OESCR I PTI ON 1 set Enoineerino Plans 1 set Plats . REMRRKS: For your use in designing the street lighting & distribution plan. ~~@~IlW!t@ NOV 0 6 1990 HC: Glenn Maruin Millard McKinney Don LeBlanc Cl.1:'t OE W1N.TER SP.mNGS &:Met Qe.v~OP.ment CooaUnatoG SIGNED: Jw~) A ) . <fOL Brian D. Rustin, P.E. . Project Manager e/mlr OF018 . . . . , November 6, 1990 TO: Land Developnent Coordinator SUBJECT: J:;;eort(: Vistawilla Drive Final Engineering Dlle.. A-P,ru/J / C D ~ Po ?J-,JJr;.. Y2- The construction plans for the completion of Vistawilla Drive from the CSX railroad north to SR 434 are in accordance wi th the approved master plan of the Tuscawilla POD. The intersection of Vistawilla Drive and SR 434 is designed for convenient and safe traffic flow. Two northbound lanes on Vistawilla Drive will facilitate outward turning vehicles to head west or east; deceleration lanes added on SR 434 will allow vehicles to enter Vistawilla Drive without impeding through traffic on the highway. The opening of Vistawilla Drive at SR 434 will be of significant benefit to residents of Tuscawilla without attracting nonlocal traffic. This connection will complete the internal collector road system of the POD in the eastern section. Via this connection residents will have easy direct access to and fran SR 434 instead of always having to use Tuscawilla Road. Importantly, when the Expressway interchange at SR 434 is opened just east of the Vistawilla Drive intersection, residents will have a quick route fram their homes to the greater Orlando area. Besides convenience and energy savings this proximity to the Expressway should enhance property values, enabling people who work anywhere in the metropolitan area to choose Tuscawilla as their residence. Further, in the future, when conunercial developnent grows on SR 434 and when the City's proposed new fire station is built north of Tuscawilla, additional benefits to residents will result, in convenient shopping and quick emergency response time. Internall y in the PUD, no local residential street needs to be impacted by addi tional traffic, since the collector road linkage of Vistawilla Drive, Northern Way, and Winter Springs Boulevard is designed to carry all traffic between SR 434 and any residential street. The Vistawilla Drive intersection at SR 434 is engineered to coordinate with the future widening of the highway as well. The City should incur no expense to modify Vistawilla Drive when SR 434 is four-laned. DOT has included a provision in the intersection permit that the developer will have to fund a traffic signal when one is warranted. Also, the developer has been advised and concurs that limited access will be permitted directly onto Vistawilla Drive. When plans are drawn up fram both the residential and ccmmercial areas between the CSX railroad and SR 434, only \ . . . Memo Land Developnent Coordinator November 6, 1990 Page 2 minimal intrusion of traffic fram those developnents will, be allowed on Vistawilla Drive. In the canmercial area particularly, the City will want to see a final developnent plan for the entire property, including provisions for internal traffic circulation wi thin the canmercial area so that there will be no need for vehicles to exit onto either Vistawilla Drive or SR 434 to travel between the businesses wi thin the camnercial developnent. Finally, provision will be made for access to the shopping area for residents of Tuscawilla to avoid the need for them to travel out to SR 434; but this access shall be designed to deter any external traffic between SR 434 and the access onto Vistawilla Drive fram the camnercial developnent. ~