HomeMy WebLinkAbout_1996 07 22 City Commission Regular Minutes
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COMMISSION
JULY 22,1996
The Regular Meeting of the City Commission was called to order by Mayor John F. Bush at 7:30p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Mayor John F. Bush, present
Deputy Mayor John Ferring, present
City Manager Ronald W. McLemore, present
City Attorney Frank Kruppenbacher, present (9: 10 p.m.)
Attorney Jan Albanese
COMMISSIONERS:
Larry Conniff, present
John Langellotti, absent
Cindy Gennell, present
David McLeod, present
Approval of Minutes of July 8. 1996:
Mayor Bush asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes of July 8, 1996. Mayor
Bush mentioned a typo on page 5 and also that Commissioner Ferring's name was inadvertently left
from the motion on the same page. There were no other additions or corrections. Minutes stand
approved as corrected.
PUBLIC INPUT
No public input.
CONSENT AGENDA
There was no Consent Agenda
INFORMATIONAL AGENDA
There was no Consent Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
Finance Department
A. Request approval to proceed with the Non-Ad Valorem Tax Assessment for street lighting within
the Country Club Village Subdivision. PURPOSE: for approval to proceed with the process required
to add a Non-Ad Valorem Tax Assessment to the Property Tax Statement, notice each property
owner in writing and advertise the Public Hearing:
Harry Martin, Finance Director, stated in 1995 we started the assessment for the streetlight
maintenance for Country Club Village; there are 245 lots and three Units in that subdivision. At that
time the cost to each owner was $27.00 per year per lot. This year with picking up the cost of
advertising etc., the amount was raised from $27.00 to $27.37 per year per lot.
Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to approve and proceed with the Non-Ad valorem
Tax Assessment for the street lighting within the Country Club Village Subdivision. Seconded
by Commissioner ConnitT. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Ferring:
aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye. Motion passes. .
Res!:Ular Meetin2 City Commission
Julv 22.1996
95-96-22
Pa2e 2
Motion was made by Commissioner Conniff to read Resolution 783 by title only. Seconded
by Commissioner McLeod. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Ferring: aye; Commissioner Gennell:
aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye. Motion passes.
Attorney Albanese read Resolution 783 by title only.
Parks and Recreation Department
B. Request Commission review information pertaining to exercise equipment donated to the Senior
Citizens Center. PURPOSE: to inform and update the Commission on the public response received
relative to exercise equipment solicitation for the Senior Citizens Center:
Don Wilson, Parks and Recreation Director, stated that during a Budget Workshop it is was noted
in the budget a request for exercise equipment for the Senior Center; there was discussion at that
workshop regarding donations of exercise equipment. After that Budget Workshop, Mr. Will
Wellons, reporter with the Orlando Sentinel, stated that he would put an article in the Orlando
Sentinel requesting donations of exercise equipment for the City. After the article appeared, within
the next week there were 10 or 12 items donated to the Senior Center. Mr. Wilson stated he wanted
to go on record to thank Mr. Wellons for his assistance and all the citizens who donated the
equipment.
Mayor Bush said for the audience's information, the Parks and Recreation Dept. had requested
equipment valued at about $3,300.00, so this saved the City about that amount. Mayor Bush said
if the Commission had no objection he would like to write a letter to Mr. Wellons thanking him for
running the information and informing the public of the success of the operation and also to send a
letter to the residents who donated the equipment thanking them.
Consensus of the Commission to have the Mayor send thank you letters to Mr. Wellons and
the residents who donated exercise equipment.
City Manager
C. Request the Commission set the proposed Millage Rate, announce the rolled back rate and set the
date, time and place of the Public Hearing for the tentative Budget. (September 9, 1996, at 7:30 p.m.
at City Hall) PURPOSE: to set the proposed millage rate and announce the rolled back rate and set
the date. time and place of the public hearing ofthe tentative budget:
Harry Martin, Finance Director, stated that we have been through part of the budget process and
during that process the City Manager announced that we will be preparing the budget based on the
rolled back rate. The information that came from the County, after we did calculations, shows that
our rolled back rate would be 3.6087. Our current millage rate is 3.7023, the rolled back rate
represents a tax revenue of almost 2.9 million dollars and is what we proposed in the budget.
Manager McLemore stated that this is an action that has to be taken to be consistent with the TRIM
law, adopt the rolled back rate, adoption of the tentative budget and the time and place for the public
hearing.
Ree:ular Meetine: City Commission
Julv 22.1996
95-96-22
Pae:e 3
Motion was made by Commissioner ConnitT to set the millage rate at 3.6087. Seconded by
Commissioner Gennell. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod:
aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye. Motion passes.
Motion was made by Commissioner Gennell to set the roll back rate at 3.6087 mills for the
Fiscal year 97 budget. Seconded by Commissioner Conniff. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner
McLeod: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye.
Motion passes.
Motion was made by Commissioner McLeod to set the date, time and place of the public
hearing of the tentative budget for September 9, 1996, 7:30 p.m. at City Hall. Discussion. Vote:
Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye; Commissioner
Conniff: aye. Motion passes.
City Manager
D. Request direction from the Commission regarding the financing of a proposed wall for a buffer
between Tuskawilla Road and Oak Forest neighborhood. PURPOSE: to respond to the request of
the Oak Forest Homeowner's Association request to participate in the financing of a brick wall to
serve as a buffer between the neighborhood and Tuskawilla Road:
Ken Haines, 1115 Aloha Ct., member of the Board of Directors of the Oak Forest Homeowners
Assoc., serving as the liaison to the City. Mr. Haines stated that he is present to address the problem
of the buffering and beautification of Tuskawilla Road as it relates to the entire Oak Forest
subdivision. Seminole County has chosen to four lane Tuskawilla Road, and the Commission is
aware that that decision by the County was met with tremendous resistance from all subdivisions
along the corridor and many members of this present Commission, to no avail. On numerous
occasions much discussion of the buffering of the road took place and the County stead fastly refused
to make any monetary appropriations for a buffering wall; the County has in fact contributed in a
round-about way. In negotiations that took place between the City and County the City was awarded
over $260,000 in concessions to upgrade landscaping and sprinkler systems, costs that ordinarily
would have had to been borne by the City if the City was to truly make this corridor a proud gateway
to our City. Oak Forest feels that part of those funds could and should be used to protect the
residents with a wall to be erected along our subdivision. Mr. Haines stated that the residents didn't
ask that the road be widened and the natural buffering stripped away from their homes. The residents
are not asking the City to bear the entire cost of the project, but to enter into a partnership with the
homeowners an accept a percentage of the cost. Mr. Haines stated that Manager McLemore
mentioned to him that should the Commission do this for Oak Forest the City would be legally
obligated to build walls for everyone who decides wants one; and Mr. Haines said this is not true, and
stated that each project that the City undertakes has to stand on its own merits and in the case of
Tuskawilla Road the facts and merits of erecting a wall are very compelling.
Mr. Haines discussed the history of Tuscawilla Road. Mr. Haines stated that in the last two years the
residents of Oak Forest have pleaded with Seminole County and the City of Winter Springs to protect
the safety of our children, the value of their properties and their quality of life.
Ret!Ular Meetin2 City Commission
J ulv 22. 1996
95-96-22
Pa2e 4
Mr. Haines stated that he keeps hearing about the visioning process to beautify our City and said are
we not to be considered a part of that process. In the late 70's and the early development stages of
the Tuskawilla PUD the Commissioners of that era chose not to put the safeguards that were
available to them in place to protect Oak Forest. We are hoping and exploring that the Commission
not have history repeat itself; please don't turn your backs on us and work with us in a cooperative
undertaking to protect them and their children's future.
Manager McLemore stated that he didn't think he gave legal advise on this issue, and said he might
have said it might be a difficult situation to deal with but said he didn't think he said it was unlawful
to do that.
Russ Robbins, 1009 Sapling Dr., stated that the Oak Forest subdivision has 940 homes. Mr. Robbins
stated that the natural beauty that now exists on the west side of Tuskawilla near Oak Forest Dr. and
up through Endeavor North is pristine, it also provides protection from traffic hazards for those
homes whose backyards will abut to the widening of Tuskawilla Road. The barrier not only upholds
real estate values for those home, it also upholds the values throughout Oak Forest and nearby
subdivisions. It is safe to state that the protection from traffic hazards and the upholding of real
estate values were factors of substance in the growth of Oak Forest, it also is safe to state and not
expressed, it was implied that the barrier was to be permanent. Mr. Robbins stated that it is
acknowledged that the growth will be necessary for more and better road but it is questionable
however, as how Tuskawilla Road is being widened. Unfortunately the residents of Oak Forest are
victims of a decision made in the past by a neglectful Commission, because of the lack of
responsibility Oak Forest will now loose a natural barrier and exposing residents to unsafe conditions
and noise unless a manmade buffer is built. Mr. Robbins stated that the City now has an ordinance
that protects a community where a natural buffer is removed and the ordinance states that no natural
buffer may be removed without providing a suitable replacement such as a wall. Our most important
concern is the safety of our residents, however, another fear is the loss of natural beauty that Oak
Forest currently enjoys. When we pay taxes our money is used for all budgeted projects throughout
the City of Winter Springs whether we directly benefit or not; this widening project benefits much of
the Winter Springs community and therefore a replacement buffer should be part of the widening
project. Mr. Robbins asked the Commission to consider all facts and appeals and grant the Oak
Forest Homeowners the funds to build a wall or the means to build a wall for Oak Forest; through
compromise we can resolve this to a successful conclusion.
Richard Taylor, 1007 Taproot Dr., stated that Oak Forest is a proud community and said the
homeowners are asking the Commission to consider their needs on the wall. Mr. Taylor stated that
the residents of Oak Forest are here tonight to see that the progress on the wall, the agreements that
have been made over the last three years are kept and no side stepping by new comers to the scene.
Mr. Taylor said it is incumbent on the Commission to stand by previous commitments and inform the
Commission and public of those commitments.
Joanne Krebs, 1002 Taproot Dr., stated that the Oak Forest residents are here to ask for the
Commission's decision on funding a wall for the Oak Forest residents. Ms. Krebs said the residents
Re2ular Meetin2 City Commission
Julv 22. 1996
95-96-22
Pa2e 5
of Oak Forest have been told by members of the Commission, at different times, of how the City
supported the idea ofa wall for Oak Forest. The Commission supported John Ferring's meeting with
County Chairman Randy Morris and a petition with over 900 names was delivered by John Ferring
during this meeting. At that meeting Chairman Morris refused to build a wall for Oak Forest but a
new prototype for the future and for the visioning for the Cities was born. Approximately $260,000
towards City beautification funds would be budgeted from the County. While not expressed it was
implied that City money originally budgeted for beautification could be used to help Oak Forest build
a wall in this model corridor. It was reported the Rouse Co., in their exchange for the road to the
mall, mentioned money for the wall for Oak Forest. Pat Warren, Seminole County Commissioner has
helped with the plan where part of the wall could be built using County property. Ms. Krebs stated
that she is not blaming this administration for the mistakes of their predecessors, it is clear that the
City shares in the responsibility to Oak Forest residents for allowing Bel-Aire to develop a community
without a wall knowing there were plans to widen the road, causing removal of the natural buffer and
exposing residents to noise, unsafe conditions, decrease in property value, as well as unappealing
esthetics. When planning for the future it is the City's responsibility to foresee the needs of it's
citizens. Ms. Krebs said to the Commission to think of the wall as an investment for protection. Ms.
Krebs asked the Commission to support Oak Forest residents when making a decision and to please
grant them the needed funding for the wall.
Joel Thilmony, 932 Chokecherry Ct., stated his home abuts Tuskawilla Road and is gravely
concerned that the road will be 18 feet from his property line and his house is approximately 40 feet
from his property line and said he was concerned about the safety of his children. Mr. Thilmony
asked the Commission to listen to the residents concerns when making their decision.
Thomas Petronio, 930 Oak Forest Dr., President of the Oak Forest Homeowners Assoc., gave a brief
history of the Oak Forest subdivision. Mr. Petronio stated the widening of Tuskawilla Road would
drastically change the life style of the residents of Oak Forest and came to the Commission with their
dilemma. The Commission designed by their consensus represented the deal with the County as to
their concerns and asked for assistance; the result as reported to the Commission was highly
supportive of maintaining the integrity and lifestyle with a manmade buffer zone associated with Oak
Forest bordering the Tuskawilla corridor. Mr. Petronio said most appreciative was the County's
response to augment a substantial amount of beautification dollars in reference to the median
landscaping which not only supplemented but exceeded the City's long range plans an intentions.
This as addressed to the Commission was exceeded by all City expectations and amounted to about
$260,000. We welcome the need for a planned and controlled expansion, however, it should not be
done in a destructive way but should be assisted by helping them maintain the protection and integrity
of their homes and neighborhood. This venture for those addressing this issue will not fully realize
the full effects that will have on their futuristic impact, this impact is directly related to the property
values, the safety of the next generation, the quality of life they give not only to them but to their
children. Mr. Petronio said the Commission cannot disregard the foundation of all the years of the
Oak Forest residents support given to the City to ignore their present lifestyle and future of their
children. The safeguard to protect the present and future generations were put in place many years
ago to protect Oak Forest, the City turned it's back on accepting those safeguards in the late 70's and
Ree:ular Meetine: City Commission
Julv 22.1996
95-96-22
Pae:e 6
said to please don't turn your back on the present day obligations.
Commissioner McLeod said he would like to hear from Commissioner Ferring what he had been
directed by this Commission to go to the County regarding the beautification of Tuskawilla Road,
what his role was from this Commission and said he doesn't think the Commission will find there was
anything in that role that had to do with the wall. Commissioner McLeod said he is not trying to be
a "bad guy", he just wants to lay the facts where they lay.
Commissioner Ferring said he has with him the minutes of a City Commission meeting and a County
meeting where they all met. During the course of the discussions, on numerous occasions the wall
was a subject. Not being able to resolve everything that was discussed at that particular meeting, he
thinks Commissioner McLeod said the Commission needed a representative to continue discussions
regarding the whole Tuskawilla Road project. Commissioner Ferring said he agreed to do that and
subsequently he attended a meeting of the County Commission whereby numerous subjects were
discussed, including the County's adamant position regarding a wall. We discussed landscaping, they
discussed bike paths, and several technical items regarding the actual landscaping and sprinkling; also
present were people from the MPO. There was no movement on the part of the County at that
particular meeting regarding subsidizing any cost factors for a wall. Commissioner Ferring said that
Mr. LeBlanc was present at that meeting and he wrote a report on what took place at that meeting,
which was given to all the Commissioners, subsequently when the meeting was concluded the County
Chairman, Randy Morris requested that he (Ferring) sit with him and discuss a few ideas that he had.
Commissioner Ferring said he met with Chairman Morris and Chairman Morris again stated that the
County could not because of huge tremendous costs that they could foresee in subsidizing a wall, the
County could not subsidize any monies towards a wall. Chairman Morris did say he was concerned
and said he had different ideas whereby he could help in a way that might be helpful to the City of
Winter Springs overall and during that period of time Chairman Morris put forth a proposal that
would have a certain percentage of money come to the City of Winter Springs, which amounted to
about $263,000 but said however the money must be used in designated as for landscaping upgrades
and sprinklers etc., he said it can't be used for appropriation to the wall. However, in their
discussion, Commissioner Ferring said that when doing this the City wanted the corridor to be the
benchmark ofall roads of the future in Seminole County and that is the reason Chairman Morris felt
that the money could be appropriated. Chairman Morris subsequently met with other Cities
throughout the County and proposed basically the same type of proposal. Commissioner F erring said
that Chairman Morris felt at that time, that by helping the City of Winter Springs monetarily in that
area (landscaping, sprinklers, etc.) the City could look into the direction of helping the people in Oak
Forest. Commissioner Ferring said he feels that the City can help, and feels it's the City's duty, and
feels that the Commission is here to represent the people in this City and said he has expressed that
opinion time and time again with this Commission. Commissioner Ferring said whether Mr. McLeod
feels his (Ferring's) mission to the County was not what he (McLeod) totally expected, and said he
doesn't know what Commissioner McLeod expected, Commissioner Ferring said he did everything
he was suppose to do at the meeting and the money came as an added "sweetener" that came at the
end of the meeting. Therefore, what his mission was at the County was not lost and that he came
back and reported to this Commission, the Commission received letters from the County Chairman
Resmlar Meetine: City Commission
Julv 22. 1996
95-96-22
Pae:e 7
expressing these particular figures. Commissioner Ferring said he feels in lieu of the fact that the
County came up with the numbers that we, the Commission, could possibly do something to help the
residents of Oak Forest for something that they were not accountable for. Commissioner Ferring said
that basically that has been his position that he has held from day one and said that these are people
that live in our City. Commissioner Ferring stated that he has heard people say "how does it help me
or how does it benefit me", and said the Commission has appropriated money for other parts of the
City where there is tremendous upgrading of properties to stop erosion, to stop streets from
undermining, where ordinarily it doesn't benefit the other people in the other sections of the City but
we do it and we it well because we want to help these people. Commissioner Ferring said wherever
it is possible to help the people in this City he is all for it and he thinks the Commission should come
to "grips" with responsibilities with what lays ahead for these people in Oak Forest.
Commissioner McLeod said he wished he had the comments from other meetings because this has
been brought up and stated that he attended the meetings at Keeth Elementary trying to solicit with
the County monies for Oak Forest for the wall; with regard to safety factors of the children and so
forth, trying to get the County to do something along those lines. Commissioner McLeod stated that
he has been very much for a wall there and said he is just not sure how we are going to go about
funding a wall from this Commission. Commissioner McLeod said Mr. Taylor made a comments
regarding agreements that were made and asked what were the agreements and who made those
agreements of this commission; so far this Commission has basically instructed your liaison (Mr.
Haines) to go to the residents of Oak Forest to discuss options, find out ways of funding, take a pole
of how many people want the wall and how many don't want the wall and bring that information back
to this Commission and also who is willing to pay and who wasn't willing to pay from Oak Forest.
Commissioner McLeod said that is his knowledge of what this Commission has so far directed and
said he had heard the statement that this Commission is backing up on commitments that was made
to Oak Forest.
Mr. Taylor stated that about a year or so ago, we attended a meeting where the widening was being
discussed and there were maps and so on, explaining what it would take away from Oak Forest etc.
It was at either one of those meetings or a subsequent meeting follow, we were told that the County
had money and said he believed the figure was $263,000 that would be available from the County for
beautification ofTuskawilla Road. Mr. Taylor said he can't name names but a couple of people that
was there from the County mentioned that they couldn't give us help directly but could do it through
the City of Winter Springs. Mr. Taylor said he understands that that was discussed with the City of
Winter Springs and said he doesn't know ifit was brought to a vote but the residents of Oak Forest
was led to believe that the City was with them, that the monies would eventually come from the
County, and they would in turn give us part of it. Mr. Taylor said the residents are not asking for
anything free and are not asking for gratias, they want to do their part but doesn't know what their
part has to be. The Commission doesn't seem to know what the residents part has to be but the
residents are here to try to meet in the middle and settle this.
Commissioner McLeod said so what is basically being told to me is that the $263,000 that was for
beautification and landscaping that was given to the City of Winter Springs to beautifY and upgrade
Res!Ular Meetin2 City Commission
Julv 22.1996
95-96-22
Pa2e 8
trees, the sprinkler systems and also the grass in the median was really donated by the County but the
County is not admitting that, that sounds like a governmental shifting that I'm not sure that your
County Commissioners would be fond to see that in the paper.
Commissioner McLeod said his own position as a Commissioner here never once was that brought
across by a County Official to him that that is what this money was for. To clear up another item,
it was also mentioned that during the negotiations of this Commission with Rouse Co., that monies
was to be available through the Rouse Co, for Oak Forest, that never went out and that was a
Commissioner's idea that maybe we should do that and that was not a consensus of this Commission
because they did not feel it was fair to the rest of the citizens, to the best of his knowledge.
Discussion.
Commissioner McLeod said there is an Ordinance in effect today that if Oak Forest was just being
built, there would be a wall required by the developer; we can't go back to 1970 and correct all
wrongs. Commissioner McLeod stated that the 25 foot easement that is talked about regarding the
previous Commission, let me ask why didn't the Homeowners Assoc., ask to have the 25 foot
easement donated to the homeowners Assoc. by the developer at the time. Mr. Haines stated that
the homeowners did not have a say at the time.
Commissioner McLeod said that the Commission is hearing the residents say the loses of the property
values to the homeowners of Oak Forest if a wall is not put there, and asked what is the increase in
property value and who will gain from that if the wall is put there.
Commissioner McLeod also mentioned the proposals that the homeowners gave to the Commission
from contractors, is not complete enough for their protection.
Commissioner McLeod stated that the monies, the $263,000 was never earmarked and said he has
stated this time and time again, that this Commission did not authorize another Commissioner to go
to the County and negotiate on a wall; the Commission authorized the other Commissioner to go to
the County and negotiate on beautification for Tuskawilla Road which did consist of trees and grass
and ifwe go back in the minutes of previous Commission meetings, this Commissioner pointed out
very much to the other Commissioners that he was not going there to negotiate a wall for Oak Forest.
Commissioner Conniff stated that he has concerns regarding the statement by Mr. Taylor about
previous commitments and has concerns regarding statements by Ms. Krebs. Commissioner Conniff
said that he heard very clearly what Mr. Ferring said that the monies, $263,000 was told by the
Chairman of the County Commission that the monies must be used for landscaping and fences and
not a wall and said he has a definite concern about that.
Commissioner Ferring said his mission to the County was to go there and get everything he could get
out of the County and said he got everything he could out of the County, not one member of this
Commission was assuming that he was going to come back with $263,000 and no matter how he
negotiated it, whether through the fact that they discussed landscaping, buffering, sprinkler systems
Re2ular Meetin2 City Commission
Julv 22.1996
95-96-22
Pa2e 9
or whatever, he brought back to this City $263,000. In subsequent meetings that we had with Staff
and County engineers it was indicated that part ofthat funding could be used to help the residents of
Oak Forest erect a wall. Commissioner Ferring said he went to the County and tried to get whatever
he could get and said he was able to come back with that amount of money, the least the City should
be able to do is let's appreciate it and share it with our residents and said that is the way he felt about
it. Commissioner Ferrlng said with him looking ahead, he said if possible the money could be shared
with the residents of Oak Forest and that is what he thought then and now and said he thinks the City
has an obligation to the people of Oak Forest to carry through on that.
Commissioner Gennell said she is also troubled by the perception that pervious commitments have
been made to you by the City, if a representative of this Commission has come to your homeowners
assoc. and made those representations and commitments to you, it's unfortunate. The offer from the
Mall, which was not called for in her opinion, was also not approved by at least one of the members
of your Board who spoke to her about it while it was under consideration and he said that Oak Forest
didn't want to jeopardize Chelsea Woods and the other subdivisions by taking money for a wall.
Beautification money from the County, if you look at it you will find that it is the same money that
the County is giving to all the Cities, through the gas tax money. They are not going forward with
improvements on certain roads and "X" percent they use to give a lower percent, they are now giving
a higher percent when they are doing certain road improvements.
Commissioner Gennell asked the City Manager if that $263,000 come directly to the City.
Manager McLemore said he didn't believe so, he thinks that is something that was trying to be
negotiated but the County flatly denied that, and said he thinks it is 3% is what is allowed (if he is
correct).
Commissioner Gennell said as far as why your association didn't speak up and ask for that, and said
correct her if she is wrong, but is Oak Forest a non-mandatory homeowners association. The answer
was yes. Commissioner Gennell said then there doesn't seem to her that there was a question of
when somebody took control or didn't or when the developer left because in fact it is non-mandatory.
It is not the same question we have in a mandatory association. Commissioner Gennell stated that
she is in favor ofa wall and yes it would have been nice if the County would pay for it and they can't
pay for it for the same reason we can't pay for it, just none of us has that kind of a check book. You
are all enjoying reduced taxes, lower taxes and yet expenses like these have to be paid for.
Commissioner Gennell said she wants to work with the residents and support their efforts.
Mr. Haines spoke regarding the comment that the wall does not protect youngsters because children
cut through properties all the time. Mr. Haines stated he thinks everyone is caught up in the $260,00
phrase, but call it what you will, whether or not Commissioner Ferring was assigned specifically for
that we don't care, the fact of the matter the residents of Oak Forest want the City's help anyway,
the whole point with the $260,000 was the City had planned to spend "X" number of dollars to
beautify Tuskawilla Road up and above the basic landscaping that the County usually offers/gives;
so that was found money and said in his mind the City was going to plan on spending additional
Ree:ular Meetine: City Commission
Julv 22.1996
95-96-22
Pae:e 10
money, now the City doesn't have to and so here's an avenue or means for the City to justifY helping
the residents of Oak Forest.
Commissioner McLeod asked why was the City going to have to spend more money.
Mr. Haines stated that he had heard at various meetings that the City was going to spend extra money
to beautifY extra money above what the County usually offers. Discussion. Mr. Haines stated that
the City is going to spend tax dollars to repair water standing in people's yards (which is private
property) but they are going to spend public tax dollars to repair drainage systems from 20 years ago,
the taxpayers will pay for that and is that right, it is the same issue, it may not be a wall but it is the
same issue. You are taking money and spending money on projects that doesn't benefit everyone.
Mr. Haines said every issue stands on it's own merit and thinks the city should do that, the City is
here to protect the citizens, here to work for them and here to help them.
Mayor Bush mentioned that the City has a tax for stormwater and it is paid for on the utility bill and
that is what the money is used for to fix water problems and unfortunately the City does not have a
tax for beautification.
Mr. Robbins stated that he feels that the residents have made a plea to a situation that has to be
resolved, we are willing to help and work this out and said as of tonight the residents of Oak Forest
is officially asking the City Commission to help them create the wall. Get it done, no excuses, we will
find a way to do it, ifwe have to get out there and tear down fences and haul it off ourselves to help
pay for this they would, and said find a way to make this happen. It is a high priority for the citizens
of Oak Forest and said the City will loose a lot of citizens it this does not occur.
Ms. Krebs said her statement regarding the money from the county that the City money originally
budgeted for beautification could be used to help Oak Forest build a wall and said part of that
information she got from the minutes of February 13, 1995 of the City Commission. Ms. Krebs read
a portion of the minutes.
Commissioner McLeod stated that those are abbreviated minutes and he feels if we are reading off
from the minutes he thinks we need t~e full discussion to what was voted on, how it was voted on
and maybe a total verbatim of that portion of the meeting or listen to the tapes. Commissioner
McLeod said he does know where he stood on this issue and where he has stood with Mr. Ferring
and what he has tried to make sure what was happening so that the Commission didn't end up in a
situation here "pull and tug". Commissioner McLeod said he does agree that we can go forward this
evening and understands what the residents are asking for and agrees we can go forward and said he
thinks maybe that is what we should do at this time as a body of the Commission and the residents,
lets see how we now can go forward other than what has been and hasn't been said in the past and
said he thinks we can get something resolved and said that is what he feels needs to be done.
Commissioner Ferrlng said he has his agenda that he brought forth to the County (about the meeting
that we were discussing), the agenda contains quite a few items: 1) a petition from the residents; 2)
Ree:ular Meetine: City Commission
Julv 22.1996
95-96-22
Pae:e 11
brick wall approx. 6200 running feet; 3) why wasn't an additional 6 ft. taken from the Grand Reserve;
4) how was bicycle paths going to be put into the project; 5) what happens to the alignment if path
is only on one side; 6) what is the total distance of the path, linear feet, 7) what cost savings are being
realized going to a 19 foot median, 8) how much is appropriated for landscaping, 9) does February
14th County meeting on road alignment have any bearing on the meetings we are in, 10) how far is
the County prepared to cooperate dollar wise if we can get a cheaper cost to build a wall does the
County agree, 11) what happens if no bike paths are in constructions plans and if now how will it
effect the alignment, 12) is it the County's intention if bike paths are built to extend it to the whole
Tuskawilla Road corridor, 13) what funding has been set aside for bike paths, 14) what is the total
cost factors for phases 3 & 4, 15) what cost saving factors can be utilized to help off-set the cost of
building a wall, 16) does laying irrigation tubes pose any problems, 17) will it be beneficial for both
Boards to meet again, 18) why don't we have any drawings of phase 4, 19) are all cost factors just
estimates. Commissioner Ferring said that is what he took forth to the County in complete consent
of this Commission. Those questions were put before the County and then said he went for
everything else he could get and that is how he got the $263,000.
Mayor Bush stated he wants to see a wall in oak Forest, and said he thinks the Commissions dilemma
in this issue is that even though no dollar numbers have been discussed, at some point every citizens
group in this City is going to come to the Commission and want the same treatment; their argument
will be just as good, it will be health, safety and welfare just as was brought up and it will be very
tough for the Commission to deal with as it is tonight. Regardless of everything that has gone on in
the past, we are looking at it from tonight. One of the things that the Commission has always done
in setting up the budget of the City is to make sure that the City's basic services are covered:
firefighters, police, water, roads, parks and recreation, that is what we spend your tax dollars on and
that is the main thrust of the Commission. Something like this is not budgeted and at some point the
City basically run out of money, expend our reserves or have to raise taxes. Mr. Haines brought up
the issue of the repair work on the west side concerning the drainage, we do have a dedicated tax for
that, and we all pay it, it is paid at various parts where needed. Mayor Bush said what concerns him
is Mr. Taylor brought this up, there is 26 thousand residents in the City and the Commission has to
look out for all of them the best they possibly can with the resources we have.
Mayor Bush stated that the City has a Beautification Board that has no money, they can make
recommendations but that's basically it, the City doesn't have a beautification budget so to speak.
On something like this, maybe an alternative that should be considered in discussion on this is that
we look at a beautification tax that can be voted by the citizens of the community and would address
situations that we are in tonight and give the citizens throughout the entire City the benefit in the long
run. Mayor Bush said maybe in these negotiations some kind of beautification proposal could be put
before the taxpayers of the City. With all of you and all of us working hard to sell this to the citizens
in a referendum, might be something we might want to consider.
Commissioner Ferring said the monies that the City gets on the stormwater system would no way be
able to handle all of the capital projects that we have for improvements in our City. Discussion.
Commissioner Ferring said the City is spending a tremendous amount of money to shore up property
Res!Ular Meetin2 City Commission
Julv 22.1996
95-96-22
Pa2e 12
erosion, to underdrain roads, to repave roads - that's all in capital budgets~ there should be no reason
why we cannot include this in our capital budget.
Commissioner Conniff said will all this money, maybe it is time we address this possible roll back and
not have one, it is something to think about if we are going to need the funds.
Commissioner McLeod asked to hear the City Manager's report on this, the Manager has given us
a good packet of three different issues of how to resolve the issues and see where the residents of
Oak Forest would like to fall with the three issues.
Manager McLemore said his direction from the Commission was to " R & D" this to see what options
were available to potentially deal with the situation. As part of his research, he reached out to the
City's Financial Advisor, Jim Lentz, who is present, and as part of his discussions with Lentz, Mr.
Lentz brought in a law firm Holland and Knight (who Lentz works with in these types of projects),
Attorney Kruppenbacher and he spent time with Bob Neighbors, the premier firm in the stated on
assessment districts for funding these special localized projects, to try to get a handle of what options
were available to the Commission to address this.
Manager McLemore addressed what is legal and not legal from information he received from the
attorneys (he mentioned above) and the City's Attorney. First: Spending general purpose monies of
the City on private property is not lawful, it will not stand the test of the Florida Constitution, which
says you must have a true public purpose to do something on private property, however, there is a
means by which to do this if this is on public property. Therefore, the first test is how do we get this
on public property and that can be done in one way (that the attorneys agree on) that is lawful and
that is to either do it through an assessment district which requires the property owners of that
development to pay for this project through an assessment and that allows them to do that without
involving any property owners who are not directly in benefit from it. Secondly: This could be done
with General Fund monies as long as it is on public property, then the issue becomes the advisability
of that as a public policy issue not as a matter of law~ that is the issue tonight, would that be a good
public policy to do that. Assuming the Commission decides against putting general purpose monies
into a wall even thought it may be built on land dedicated to the City by the property owners. The
other source is to do the assessment district or some blending of those two. If this were a mandatory
homeowners association, one alternative we looked at was working with the association in structuring
their own financing facility~ we are able and ready thought the City's Financial Advisor, to give them
technical assistance to do that, the cost of this to the people would be about $420 to $425, that
financed over a five year period is about $80-$85, we could help them set this up through a bank.
Discussion.
Manager McLemore said what he set out to the Commission was to be ready to provide that same
benefit to any other community also asking for this type of amenity, my recommendation was if the
City chooses to go with the assessment district, that 1: do a mail out ballot to everyone in the area,
see if there is at least 51 % of the people in the district who would agree to do this~ 2: would the
owners of the property need to be dedicated in order to put this on public property, be willing to
Resmlar Meetine City Commission
Julv 22.1996
95-96-22
Paee 13
dedicate that. With those two tests out of the way, we could establish the assessment district and the
Commission by ordinance would create the district and provide for the financing. Manager
McLemore said what ever the Commission decides to do, be prepared to offer that same to anyone
else.
Manager McLemore stated that the Commission has as their option a financing mechanism to do this,
it is used routinely throughout Florida, it can be funded 100% by the neighborhood or some portion
thereof, by virtue of public policy decision the Commission would make. The other idea is maybe the
Commission should look at a corridor plan, a beautification plan for all the corridors in the City.
Develop the cost of doing that and take it to the public in referendum form and ask the public if they
want to do this or not. The question that was asked by your Financial Advisor - If you put this issue
of putting public money into the Oak Forest wall in a public referendum, how would it come back,
there is a means to do it, it is a little complicated, you have to have engineering reports that establish
what the benefit is and you might have street "C" paying more than "A" whose is closest to the street
in getting the more benefit, but it can be structured and can be done and done fairly rapidly. All the
Commission would need to do is establish the percentage of funds that would be going into that
district.
Commissioner McLeod said he would like to hear from the citizens of Oak Forest, are they here to
ask for help with the financing. Commissioner McLeod said he thinks what the City Manager has
proposed is a way to help finance the wall but it's going to require that we sent out ballots and get
information back.
Mr. Haines said the option that is being presented, the homeowners are aware of, we have always
know that we can pay for it ourselves, that is not why we are here. We don't need the City to tell
them to build a wall and pay for it ourselves, we know that; we are here to get the City's support to
help us build a wall. Whether you help us or not we need to get a vote. I can't say that we have
100% commitment from all the residents, whether we do it ourselves or not, we still will need a vote
on whether or not the City will help us and funds a portion of it or whether we tax ourselves.
Commissioner McLeod asked the Attorney Albanese: If the homeowners, themselves (as they are not
a mandatory association) sends out a ballot to the homeowners and receives back 51 % saying yes we
would like the wall and yes we would participate in dollars for the wall; if there were people that
wanted nothing to do with the wall (as a non mandatory assoc.) could they force these people to pay.
Attorney Albanese stated that the general answer is yes however, the specific documents would have
to be reviewed.
Manager McLemore said he thinks the homeowners can do that only to the extent that they would
get a lending institution who would be willing to accept that risk.
Jim Lentz, the City's Financial Advisor, stated that the City Manager had asked him to do some
research and said he has been struggling with the issue of how to best respond to the willingness on
the part of the City to try to accommodate and build this wall in a fair and equitable manner. The fact
Res!Ular Meetin2 City Commission
Julv 22.1996
95-96-22
Pa2e 14
is, is that the residents in this room will pay for the wall one way or the other, there is no separation
between the City of Winter Springs and the people of this community. The question is the proper
allocation of funds and proper president because some day you could have an equal number of people
complaining that the City entered into this president to build a facility that only benefited part of them.
We did check the homeowners Assoc. and fortunately there is no way that you can compel people
who do not wish to join a mandatory association to pay a proportionate share of the cost of building
a wall. We estimated that the cost, if all residents....
Commissioner Ferring said point of information - Mr. Lentz is a financial advisor, he is not an
attorney, and we just heard from the Attorney saying that it can be done. Attorney Albanese stated
that it can but we would have to look at the specific homeowners documents.
Mr. Lentz stated that the cost if all homeowners decided to go forward and build the facility, it would
cost about a quarter a day per household. The homeowners could, if they decided, get together and
form a mandatory homeowners association, but the problem with that is that the people who don't
support it can't be compelled to pay for the cost of the wall~ so the cost instead of being $80 per year,
would be $160 per year (ifonly half said yes) for the people that wanted the wall. Mr. Lentz said he
wants to point out that the residents here, in one form or another, there is no free wall.
Commissioner Gennell asked the City Manager ifhe was familiar with the Municipal Services Taxing
Unit. Commissioner Gennell said there is an association called the Seminole County League of
Homeowners Associations and they are a group of non-mandatory homeowners associations that are
basically in unincorporated areas. Commissioner Gennell said it is her understanding (if it has not
been repealed) is that a neighborhood could (either with help or on it's own through it's organization)
could take a survey (the majority) to say yes they wanted this importantly enough to be taxed for it.
That would then be mandatory on that neighborhood and then they would have to go through other
legal steps. Commissioner Gennell said she had asked the County if this could be used inside a
municipal boundary since the city was providing services and stated that yes it could be done in any
neighborhood that makes the effort and goes through the steps.
Manager McLemore stated that MSTU's cannot be used in a Municipal Corporation. Commissioner
Gennell said she then wasn't given the correct information.
Manager McLemore stated if the Commission goes ahead with this in some fashion (and mentioned
in the Board Item) it will be necessary also to set up the financing mechanism for the ongoing
perpetual maintenance for this wall. The City does not do landscape type maintenance, that ongoing
perpetual maintenance district would have to be part of this and that would reflect the standard of
care that that community would want and would be figured into the cost.
Manager McLemore said in summary if the Commission directs him to put together an assessment
district he can do that and could probably have it done and go to construction in six months~ there
will be a certain amount of costs on the part of the City that the City would be contributing through
our efforts and use of Attorneys and engineers, just to set up the district and that could be the City's
Ree:ular Meetine: City Commission
Julv 22. 1996
95-96-22
Pae:e 15
contribution to this. Manager McLemore also mentioned that the maintenance and repair to the wall
would be about $15.00 per year, on going, for each household.
Commissioner Ferring stated that he agrees with Commissioner Gennell regarding the Municipal
Service Taxing Authority. Commissioner Ferring stated that he was very involved with the County,
Ms. Jean Casab, had rendered to him (prior to his taking the Commission Seat) documents that were
presented to former Manager Rozansky, which indicated that yes a municipal service taxing authority
can be established as long as it is used in certain areas to improve or to do something in a safety
factor. Commissioner Ferring said it will have to be researched because of the difference of opinion.
Commissioner Ferring said (to Lentz) as far as making a mandatory homeowners Association, it
requires 100% of every member in the development to make it mandatory. However, that is the
reason why the MSTD was put into place, to help the non-mandatory homeowners Assoc.
Commissioner Ferring stated that this is not in the form of a motion but said he had been working on
a couple of things, and out of respect to the fact that one Commissioner is absent, said he would like
to table this over until the next meeting. Commissioner Ferring said he was thinking to authorize the
City Manager to immediately survey the residents of Oak Forest to determine: 1) would the
homeowners who abut the wall, give the City the property authority necessary to construct and
maintain the wall; 2) do the homeowners who reside within Oak Forest support or oppose the City
creating an assessment district that would assess each property owner for a portion of the cost of
constructing and maintaining the wall and 3) authorize the City Manager represent in his cost
estimates that the City will be prepared to pay a portion of constructing the wall, the actual portion
of that wall to be determined when the final figures are available. Commissioner Ferring said he
would like the Commission to think about what he just stated and when there is a full Commission
then this can be decided.
Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to table this item until the second meeting in
August (August 26, 1996). Seconded by Commissioner Conniff. Discussion. Vote:
Commissioner Ferring: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Gennell: nay; Commissioner
McLeod: nay; Mayor Bush: aye. Motion carries.
Mayor Bush called for a recess at 9:20 p.m. Mayor Bush reconvened the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Parks and Recreation Department
E. Request the Commission consider approval of Staff preparing a grant application, with the
assistance of Berryman and Henigar, for future land acquisition relative to the expansion of Central
Winds Park. PURPOSE: to seek Commission approval to submit a Florida Communities Trust
Preservation 2000 Grant/department of Community Affairs application:
Don Wilson, Parks and Recreation Director, stated that the purpose in the Grant application would
be to propose a purchase price for two properties that are for sale along Lake J esup, north of Central
Winds Park. The purpose in requesting this land to convert an existing house to Recreation Offices
and fulfill one element in Central Winds Park Master Plan which would be to put board walks and
nature trails in that area. The City would have make a match if we were to receive the Grant
Re2ular Meetin2 City Commission
Julv 22.1996
95-96-22
Pa2e 16
approval, we are requesting the City consider 10%. Discussion.
Motion was made by Commissioner Conniff to approve the request to apply for the submission
to the Florida Communities Trust-Preservation 2000 Grant/Department of Community Affairs
application and to fund the assistance of Berryman and Henigar. Seconded by Commissioner
Gennell. Discussion. Commissioner McLeod asked that this property be on a purchase agreement
based on the assessment value contingent upon receiving the Grant. Motion amended to include
that the property be on a purchase agreement based on the assessment value contingent upon
receiving the Grant. Vote: Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye; Commissioner
Conniff: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye. Motion passes.
Mayor Bush mentioned that Agenda Items G and H have been pulled to be rescheduled on
August 26, 1996.
City Clerk's Department
H. Resolution 784 - Expressing appreciation to James Greene:
Motion was made by Commissioner Conniff to read Resolution 784 by title only. Seconded
by Commissioner McLeod. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Ferring:
aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye. Motion passes. Attorney
Kruppenbacher read Resolution 784 by title only.
Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to approve Resolution 784. Seconded by
Commissioner Conniff. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Ferring: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye;
Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye. Motion passes.
Parks and Recreation Department
I. Requesting Commission review information gathered relative to scheduling group picnic pavilions
in the City for exclusive use purpose and requests that a policy be set for scheduling and lor charging
a fee for exclusive use:
Mr. Wilson gave his presentation to the Commission.
Motion was made by Commissioner Conniff to approve the request by the Parks and
Recreation Dept. Seconded by Commissioner Ferring. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Ferring:
aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye. Motion
passes.
1. Attorney Frank Kruppenbacher:
Attorney Kruppenbacher reported to the Commission on the agreement signed by the former City
Manager on behalf of the City represented a document with Duke Properties. Attorney
Kruppenbacher said the City's Charter does not nor could the Staff identify to him any Code Section
that speaks to the specific issue of who has the authority to execute a contract on behalf of the City.
Some Cities have ordinances, and said he recommends that he bring back to the Commission at the
next meeting an ordinance that says only the Commission can authorize the execution of a contract,
Res!Ular Meetin2 City Commission
J ulv 22. 1996
95-96-22
Pa2e 17
less that exclusion the Commission previously adopted for up to $4,000. Attorney Kruppenbacher
said looking at the Charter and Ordinances there is no guidance, but in the description of the City
Manager's authority and in that description it states "... the City Manger shall be the Chief
Administrative Officer of the City, he shall be responsible to the Commission for the administration
of all City affairs placed in his charge by or under this Charter. He shall have the following powers
and duties...." Attorney Kruppenbacher stated that the powers and duties talks about the Manger's
ability to supervise all Departments, see that all laws and provisions of the Charter and acts of the
Commission are subject to enforcement by him or by Officers subject to his direction and supervision
are faithfully executed. Attorney Kruppenbacher said the description goes on to state that the City
Manager will perform such other duties as the Commission gives to him.
Attorney Kruppenbacher said the City passed a Comprehensive Plan that provided that you would
provide potable water and sewer outside the City limits. Manager McLemore stated that he and the
Staff has not identified that policy in the Plan. Attorney Kruppenbacher stated that the City's former
Manager believed that he was implementing the Commission's desire to expand the City limits; in
doing that he talked to different property owners surrounding the City, and he entered into this
agreement saying what he would do. Attorney Kruppenbacher stated for the record: the former City
Manager has identified to him (Kruppenbacher) that he believes he talked with Commissioners about
it, he has identified to Attorney Kruppenbacher that he believed he talked with him about this,
although he agrees that he does not have my initials on it which is his standard practice.(to initial the
documents that are given to him to review) Attorney Kruppenbacher stated that he does not recall
seeing the document. The former Manager believed that he was executing it to implement the
Commission's policy. The issue becomes did the former Manger have the authority or didn't he. The
Commission, based on objections from homeowners to a proposed project, have come and said you
do not want to have to provide water and sewer and the purpose of that is to hopefully "kill" the
zoning of the project. The issue is did Mr. Govoruhk have authority or not, the Commission does
not have anything in writing that says he didn't have authority. Now, you go to the issue of parent
authority, parent authority is where a corporate entity holds someone out as having the authority to
act, and the Commission holds their Managers out as having the authority to act. So, this developer,
based upon the current evidence, comes in and deals with the City's Chief Executive, the Manager,
and they work our an agreement and it's signed, there is no evidence that anybody's given me to
indicate that the developer knew or had any knowledge that Mr. Govoruhk was acting either without
authority or some purpose beyond his authority. You now go with that general set of facts to the law
and the Florida Supreme Court, and the Attorney read a case based on this "...it is settled that the
doctrine of equitable estoppel may be applied against the government where justice and right require
it." Carnitive to this general rule, however, is the well established proposition that an estoppel will
not be applied against the government if to do so would affectively nullify a strong rule of policy
adopted for the benefit of the public, the tension of these two principles makes up the doctrinal
context in which concrete cases are decided.
Attorney Kruppenbacher stated that he can't tell the Commission, here is the Florida Rule that says
if the Manager doesn't have, you vote on it - It's invalid; that is why we need to do the ordinance
to stop it in the future. If the Commission decides to take the position and test the concept of
Ree:ular Meetine: City Commission
Julv 22.1996
95-96-22
Pae:e 18
estoppel the Court can do one of two things; it can say we believe he was clothed with the authority,
we believe the Commission has never challenged his authority to that in the past and therefore we are
going to estop the City and it's efforts to rescind this contract; the second prong to that is (the more
dangerous one) it could that they don't get their zoning and because of the water and sewer vote, or
they get it and they have to spend another $200,000 to get water and sewer and there are then what
is called damages and those damages are contract damages so their not covered by the City's
insurance policies. The reality there is the City are going and has been put on notice by them that
they will pursue a claim, they have offered to settle for $50,000 if the City buys them out
(Kruppenbacher stated that he does not recommend that) but the City has these competing concepts.
Attorney Kruppenbacher stated that if the Commission decides that they will not provide water and
sewer, the City is put on legal notice that there will be a legal claim and said what he has reviewed
with the Commission will be looked at by a Judge. Attorney Kruppenbacher said he has not seen any
evidence that indicates, at this point, the developer had any reason not to believe that they couldn't
deal with Manager Govoruhk. Attorney Kruppenbacher stated that the City can be liable for damages
and the damages can be very large.
Commissioner Ferring said there are a lot of extenuating circumstances regarding this issue, at the
last meeting the Attorney was very strong telling the Commission that this was not a valid agreement.
Attorney Kruppenbacher said he stated that he didn't think it was valid because he doesn't believe
a City Manager has the right to enter into an agreement without Commission approval, and said he
has said that to the Commission and said he also said he didn't want the Commission to take action,
that he wanted to study the issue. Attorney Kruppenbacher said he has studied the issue and said it
may not be a valid contract and the City may still have damages.
Commissioner Ferring said this Commission made a unanimous decision to support the position that
we did take. Attorney Kruppenbacher said the Commission made a unanimous decision to oppose
the project and zoning and a unanimous decision to say the City would like not to provide water and
sewer subject to his reporting back. Attorney Kruppenbacher said he has now reported back to the
Commission the up and down side of taking the final step of saying "we are not going to provide
water and sewer". Commissioner Ferring said yes there is an up and down side, and there are
extenuating circumstances, there is a lot to be put out in discovery, if it goes into that type of
litigation, then so be it, let's put it on the table. Commissioner Ferring said he is not going to put
anything in the record that can be used against the City if we decide to go in that direction.
Commissioner McLeod stated that he heard the Attorney say that the former City Manger had spoke
to Commissioners and said to the best of his (McLeod) knowledge he would like to go on the record
that he does not remember speaking to the former City Manager regarding this particular subject, on
that particular piece of property in supplying water and sewer to them. Commissioner McLeod stated
that he does believe that the former City Manager probably did act in good faith regarding this
Commission as a body.
Resmlar Meetine City Commission
Julv 22. 1996
95-96-22
Paee 19
Commissioner Conniff stated that he also did not speak with the former City Manager on this subject,
we not have two separate issues on this one the issue of zoning and the other the issue of water and
sewer; and it looks like the developer has gone forth in good faith because he thought he had a
contract with the City. We have some Commissioners that knew of it and said he has some concern
about that.
Commissioner Ferring stated for anybody that makes a statement like that to be able to at least be
positive of what he is stating, and said he will state right now for the record, that he, John Ferring,
has never addressed this particular issue with the former City Manager. Discussion. Attorney
Kruppenbacher stated that he was told (by different sources) that more than two Commissioners
talked and were informed about this. Discussion. Attorney Kruppenbacher stated that the reality is
does the Commission think this developer who has relied on this agreement should now be told "sorry
we're not going to provide it because the Manager didn't get our approval" or does the Commission
think that he relied on it in good faith, took action on it and the City is not going to stand up and say
no, and that's the Commission's choice.
Commissioner Ferring said to reiterate his position, and it is the same position the Commission took
at the last meeting, and that is the way he feels.
Commissioner Gennell said at this point she would like to go a step further and void that agreement.
Motion was made by Commissioner GenneU to void the contract that the Commission did not
ratify, that never came before the Commission, that the Commission never seen before it came
up in this issue. Seconded by Commissioner Ferring. Discussion. Commissioner Gennell said
in discussion she would like to say that she knew nothing about any of this before this came up and
that she is not pleased about it. Commissioner Conniff said he doesn't see how the Commission can
void the contract when the City Attorney told the Commission that the developer moved forward on
this project in the good faith that the City was going to do this, that our Chief Executive Officer
agreed to, so there is no way that we can void a contract that has been acted upon. Commissioner
McLeod said he has heard what the legal advise is to the Commission, and said he has nothing to hide
and he doesn't believe any Commissioner had done anything that really was trying to hurt any
resident. Commissioner McLeod said that the names of the Commissioners that knew (that he heard
just today) was himself, Commissioner Langellotti and Commissioner Ferring; all he can say he did
not hear, and does not remember at all of talking to the previous City Manager regarding this
property. Commissioner McLeod said that the previous City Manager also would not go forward
on such an issue, he doesn't believe, without talking to some of the Commissioners and ifhe did, then
fine, regarding the issue that is in front of the Commission - The City Attorney has told the
Commission that this is a no win situation and what the Commission needs to do is allow Duke
Properties to go forward to the County with their proposal and the Commission needs to offer to
supply water and sewer and hopefully that it gets "killed" at the County level or this Commission is
looking at exposing the City to several thousands of dollars or we have the option to buy it out at
$50,000. Commissioner Ferring said we are again tossing names around and said he thinks the people
who are bringing those names out needs to come forth and said he still believes irrespective of
Reeular Meetine Citv Commission
J ulv 22. 1996
95-96-22
Paee 20
whatever is happening here, he believes that there are extenuating circumstances regarding this issue
that have not been revealed, certain assurances that possibly were there, certain information that was
never forth coming that is not there and he is not ready to "fold" and say the City will give the
developer $50,000, and said he thinks it is a clear case to go before an arbitrator or a Judge. Mayor
Bush asked what would be the City's exposure if this goes to trial. Attorney Kruppenbacher said 1)
a potential just an outright estoppel, meaning the Court says the City has to provide water and sewer;
2) the open ended damages of, if their project is not approved and they don't have water and sewer,
whatever loss of profits they claim they've lost and then also the dollars expended to date by the
developer in planning the project etc., if the project dies as a result oflack of water and sewer; if the
County turns it down based upon zoning then that issue is over with, if they turn it down because they
say the City of Winter Springs won't provide water and sewer then the City opens the door to
damages. Jim Lup, representative for the developer, stated that the application to the County
includes an amendment to the County's Compo Land Use Plan, that they be placed into the City's
utility service area based on their agreement with the City. Attorney Kruppenbacher asked Mr. Lup
that at the time they entered into the agreement with the City, who did he deal with. Mr. Lup stated
former Manager Govoruhk and some of the Staff; Attorney Kruppenbach'er then asked if there were
any discussions with any members of the Commission; Mr. Lup stated no not with the agreement, not
to his knowledge. Commissioner Ferring withdrew his second. Commissioner Gennell
withdrew her motion.
Motion was made by Commissioner Gennell that the Commission does not believe the
agreement signed by the former City Manager is binding upon the City as it does not believe
that the City Manager had authority to enter into that agreement without approval of the City
Commission. Seconded by Commissioner Ferring. Discussion. Commissioner Ferring
withdrew his second. MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Motion was made by Commissioner ConnitTto extend the meeting past 11:00 p.m. Seconded
by Commissioner GenneU. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Ferring: aye; Commissioner Conniff:
aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye. Motion passes.
Mel Glickman, 703 Aberdeen Ct., stated that he would like to know how many contracts of this type
were signed by the City Manager without the Commission approval.
Carl Chippone, 456 McGregor Rd., spoke regarding the contract that was signed by the former City
Manager.
Attorney Kruppenbacher introduced Attorney Sandy Weinberg, for Tampa, FL, Mr. Weinberg is the
Attorney that the City retained to review the matters regarding the Oviedo Mall, specifically he was
requested to investigate and report back regarding three issues: 1) what if any civil remedies are
available to the Winter Springs City Commission if any and does Mr. Weinberg have any
recommendations regarding those if there are any; 2) the issue of whether or not what is
recommendation is regarding criminal activity and 3) the issue of whether or not Mr. Weinberg can
advise the Commission on the issue of ethics involving the mechanics of ethics under the Florida Bar
Re2ular Meetin2 City Commission
Julv 22.1996
95-96-22
Pa2e 21
and the conduct of the lawyer in that particular.
Attorney Weinberg gave his presentation. Attorney Weinberg stated he was retained to evaluate and
make recommendations if any regarding potential civil claims and maybe criminal issues stemming
from the Oviedo Mall project issue that arose starting last year. Attorney Weinberg stated that he
is present to give the Commission his best advise on the information and materials that were provided
to him by Commissioner Ferring and Attorney Kruppenbacher. We were told that an Orlando Law
Firm had arranged for a secret funding of a law suit which was represented to them to be harmful in
some respect to the City of Winter Springs~ a lawsuit in name was brought by the Tuscawilla
Homeowners Assoc., but apparently was being funded (at least in part) by a rival developer of a rival
ofa mall site. Attorney Weinberg stated that he was told that it was believed that as a result at least
in part of this secretly funded lawsuit that the City lost out on an agreement that the City reached with
the developer of the Oviedo project, which in addition of a number of things it resulted in the loss of
almost a million dollars to the City as a result of the actions of this law firm and the rival developer
(they believed). That kind of conduct, as it was described to him, by Mr. Kruppenbacher and
Commissioner Ferring, certainly is conduct that raises serious ethical and legal questions that he
thinks justified the investment of some dollars to take a look into this issue. At the outset I would
have told Commissioner Ferring and Mr. Kruppenbacher if he believed it was a waste of time. We
have researched, in some depth, the potential civil actions - researched the question as to whether
there were criminal implications, it is very apparently some serious ethical issues concerning the
conduct of the rival developer and the law firm. Mr. Weinberg stated that he looked into the ethical
issues: as far as criminal issues are concerned, that is not the responsibility of this City or this
Commission, it is the responsibility of either the U.S. Attorney's office or the State Attorney's office,
it is very unlikely that either the U.S. Attorney's office or the State Attorney's office would based on
the facts (that he knows) would be interested in investigation or prosecuting this. There is a State
Statute that prohibits someone instigating litigation by the payment of funds~ the possible punishment
is a misdemeanor, it's a statute that is rarely used~ as far as being applied to a situation like this, it
would be rare, there is very little president, and he suspects that the State Attorney's office would
not be interested in it. But, that's not to say that it's very questionable conduct that an entity should
be secretly involved in the funding of a lawsuit like this, but said if he was the State Attorney he
would not prosecute this. As far as the ethical considerations are concerned, again, the City did not
have an Attorney/Client relationship with the Ackerman law firm, whatever the Ackerman did or
didn't do, the City was not the Client, but as any citizen in Florida you have the ability to either as
a Board or as individual members to file a complaint or grievance with the Florida Bar if you believe
that any sort of unethical conduct has taken place, it's the Bar's responsibility if they believe it should
be investigated, to investigate it. There are a few issues that are implicated with regard to the ethical
issues, the main issue has to do with the representation of multiple clients, in this case the Ackerman
firm apparently had an attorney/client relationship not only ultimately with the Tuscawilla
Homeowners Assoc., but also with the Waterford Group (rival development group), there is a
specific rule, 4-1. 8F that speaks to that, the Clients must consent, there must be no interference with
personal judgement, and in this case there seems to be some dispute as to who knew what. There
have been depositions taken in the follow on lawsuit that continued between the T.H.A. and the
Rouse Group and City of Oviedo, and in those depositions where all this came out Mr. Khemloni was
Resmlar Meetin2 City Commission
Julv 22.1996
95-96-22
Pa2e 22
questioned about this and Mr. Ross (Ackerman lawyer) was questioned and their accounts seemed
to be somewhat conflicting as to what representations were made. If you believe Mr. Khemloni, he
didn't know who it was that was funding the massive litigation that went over the space of about a
year including the expenditure of $50,000 for an expert; if you believe what Mr. Ross said there was
some disclosure. Mr. Weinberg said it seems to him a little hard to believe that there wasn't some
disclosure to the homeowners group as to who it was footing the bill for this litigation; if there was
no disclosure MR. Weinberg stated that he thinks the Bar would be somewhat interested on how it
was and why it was that there was no disclosure by the lawyers.
Mr. Weinberg stated that in any event, again, he doesn't believe that those are the issues that this
Commission should be most concerned about; what the real issue is whether or not the City has a
cause of action and if the City does have a cause of action whether that cause of action is worthwhile
pursuing. Mr. Weinberg said his responsibility as a lawyer to any client is to give them advise as to
what kind of cause of action and to give advise as to whether it is worth pursuing; there has to be
justifiable economic reason to bring a lawsuit. We did research the potential causes of action and
there is a cause of action which has to do with the interference with the perspective economic
relationship and the result of conspiracy to interfere with that relationship. There are certainly in this
case a detrimental effect to the City of Winter Springs, that would be the loss of what would
amounted to be the settlement agreement that had been entered into which included the million dollar
payment with the City of Oviedo and the Rouse Group. If the City brought a litigation like that, the
City would be required to establish that without the conduct complained of, the Oviedo Mall would
have gone forward as contemplated which included of course, the issue of the termination of the
conservation easement that the City had that needed to be crossed by the northern entrance to this
Mall that was being proposed, which the City was agreeing in essence, to give up in return for certain
things including the million dollar payment. There were significant issues as to whether the T.H.A.
would have engaged (independently) in the efforts to block the termination except for this secret
payment. Certainly there were apparently many residents in this Assoc., that were concerned about
the violation of the conservation easement and that in essence was the issue that was the basis of the
lawsuit that was initially brought by the T.H.A. We would have had to prove that the Seminole
County Commissioners would have voted in essence differently than they did except for the fact of
this litigation; they would have to approve the project in essence, if recalled, they voted against the
project 3 to 2, as a result of the County voting against the project there was ultimately a settlement
reached between the homeowners Assoc., the City of Oviedo and the Rouse Gp. and in essence what
the agreement was, was that there would be a "fly over" instead of the northern entrance which left
out the entrance that was needed (the conservation easement). Mr. Weinberg said he can't predict
what the County Commissioners would say, but would say it would be difficult to prove that in fact
that they would have voted differently, except for this secretly funded litigation. Mr. Weinberg stated
as he understands it, there were many citizens in the homeowners group that were against the project
and voiced opposition to the project and made that clear to the County Commission.
Mr. Weinberg stated that his best opinion at this time is that he wouldn't recommend that the City
brings a suit because he believes that even if the City was successful in establishing the elements of
interfering with a business relationship, you would have a serious question as to damages. If the City
Re2ular Meetin2 City Commission
Julv 22.1996
95-96-22
Pa2e 23
was the Rouse Gp. and came to me seeking advise, I would tell you that you would have a lawsuit
and I suspect at some point the Rouse Gp. and others involved will sue the law firm and will sue the
Waterford Group not only for interference with a business relationship, probably for antitrust
violations; the City does not have the benefit of that because the City is indirectly involved. If they
(Rouse) brings a lawsuit, the City might want to consider whether or not it would be advantageous
somehow to at least consider joining into that, but at this point on the City's own, he believes it
would not be a wise investment of the City's money. Mr. Weinberg said there were other issues that
were looked at one being anti-trust implications, and in order to have an anti-trust case you need to
have an anti-trust injury and said the City doesn't and therefore, the City does not have standing to
bring an anti-trust case, in his opinion. As far as legal malpractice is concerned, the City is not the
client, therefore there was no privity and you need privity in order to bring a malpractice action and
the City does not have that. One could argue that the lawsuit that was brought somehow was a
fraudulent misrepresentation because in fact Tuscawilla Group really wasn't bringing a lawsuit it was
the rival group, and said he thought that would be very difficult. As far as malicious prosecution is
concerned, the City would have to show that there was no bonafide cause whatsoever that the T.H.A.
had to bring the lawsuit and said he doesn't believe one could ever show that in light of the language
of the conservation easement, which arguably was at least in part for their benefit. With regards to
defamation, he said he didn't hear enough, to render an opinion.
Mr. Weinberg stated that is his oral report and if there is more that the Commission wants, he would
be happy to address it, but said he thinks he has very thoroughly addressed the issue for the City.
Commissioner Ferring thanked Mr. Weinberg for his presentation and said to clarify what was
supplied to Mr. Weinberg as far as information, was all documentation and all minutes of meetings
and contracts that was a matter of public record.
Commissioner Ferring said in respect to Mr. Weinberg's statement regarding the fly-over bridge and
settlement agreement with the homeowners assoc., that wasn't the case, the case was the settlement
of the fly-over bridge was made with the developer and Seminole County and City of Oviedo,
subsequently that agreement was pursued by another lawsuit, by the T.H.A. against that particular
issue. There was no northern easement to be crossed in that particular issue, the lawsuit was
reentered into even though the easement was not an issue. Commissioner Ferring said what he is
looking at is the Ross Firm, he is not interested in the T.H.A. as far as that is concerned, what he is
looking for is the fact that the law firm (Ackerman) coming into the picture and influencing this
Commission to vote the way they did, whether or not we suffered a monetary loss as a result of that.
Mr. Weinberg said he answered that, the City would need the Seminole County Commission as it
existed, at a minimum, to say that except for the fact that the T.H.A., Ross, or whoever, made the
presentations that they made, they would have other wise supported the project; the problem that you
are going to have with that is there are a lot of people that was not enthusiastic about having a mall
of any kind much less a northern access so what that does is it makes your potential damages
"speculative" which makes the bringing ofa lawsuit (Weinberg's opinion) not a wise financially sound
decision to make at this time. Mr. Weinberg stated that if the Rouse Group files a lawsuit, then he
would suggest to the City Attorney at that point, take a look at wether or not to join it or "piggy-
Reeular Meetine Citv Commission
Julv 22.1996
95-96-22
Paee 24
back" on it, but at this point if you are by yourself, he doesn't think it is worth it.
Commissioner McLeod said to Mr. Weinberg, that he is basically telling the Commission that he
wouldn't take this on contingency. Mr. Weinberg said absolutely not and he doesn't believe any
respectable lawyer or law firm would.
Motion was made by Commissioner McLeod to place this on the agenda for a vote and that
the City no longer pursue the Homeowners Association or the law firm nor the Mall regarding
and lawsuits for recovery at this time. Seconded by Commissioner Gennell. Discussion.
Commissioner Ferring said before the Commission rushes into any decision on this, we have spent
a lot of time on this and the Commission deserves at least a chance to digest what Mr. Weinberg has
said and said his main concern now is not individuals but the law firm. Mr. Weinberg clearly stated
that there has been unethical practices involved here and to close the door on this in the event the
Rouse Group decides to go ahead with litigation, he thinks the Commission is selling themselves
short. Commissioner McLeod said his motion stated "at this time" . Vote: Commissioner Conniff:
aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye. Motion
passes.
Mayor Bush called for a recess at 11: 15 p.m. Mayor Bush reconvened the meeting at 11 :20 p.m.
L. Commission Seat III - John Langellotti:
Mayor Bush stated that Commissioner Langellotti left a note stating that he would like to appoint
Edith Beacher to the B.O.W.S. Board.
Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to appoint Edith Beacher to the B.O.W.S. Bd.
Seconded by Commissioner ConnitT. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner
McLeod: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye. Motion passes.
M. Commission Seat IV - Cindy Gennell:
No Report.
N. Commission Seat V - David McLeod:
Motion was made by Commissioner to reappoint Jim Lup to the Commerce and Industry
Development Board. Motion dies for lack of a second. Discussion. Commissioner McLeod
stated he would have another appointment at the next meeting.
Commissioner McLeod stated regarding Item E, to contact the sales person to see if the Client will
sell based un the grant before putting the consultant on contract.
Commissioner McLeod asked if the Oak Forest Homeowner Assoc. coming back to the Commission
in August on the issue regarding the wall. Manager McLemore stated that it will be back before the
Commission at the second meeting in August, August 26, 1996.
Resmlar Meetin2 City Commission
Julv 22.1996
95-96-22
Pa2e 25
Commissioner McLeod stated that it is his understanding by this Commission, if the Commission is
to ask a City employee questions or for information, the Commissioner is to go through the City
Manager for permission to do that, is that not the guidelines that we've been asked to go under. (The
Commissioners agreed to that statement) Commissioner McLeod then asked Commissioner Ferring
is he contacted Mr. Harry Martin for information without the Manager's approval. Commissioner
F erring stated that he had the Manager's approval. Commissioner McLeod then asked the City
Manager if that was the case. Manager McLemore stated that he was not aware of that being the
case in the incident that Mr. Martin reported to him. Manager McLemore stated that Mr. Martin
brought forward a complaint to him that Mr. Ferring called him (Martin) at home and asked for
certain information and asked Mr. Martin not to say anything about that and to keep that information
secret from the Manager and this was within the last two weeks. Commissioner Ferring said he never
spoke with Mr. Martin at home in the last two weeks. Manager McLemore stated that his obligation
is under the Charter and the Code of Ethics and that is to make the Commission aware of any
situation like this, not to recommend any action but simply make the Commission aware.
Commissioner McLeod said this is pretty serious, and the fact that Commissioner Ferring basically
initiated the rule, and stated he hopes that Commissioner Ferring hasn't broken it, but the real
problem becomes the fact that if the rule was broken is one issue; the second real delicate issue that
he has was that Mr. Martin was asked not to tell the City Manager and stated that if that is the case
he thinks this needs to go further than this Commission and thinks it needs to go on to the State
Ethics Committee to investigate and issue a reading on this. Commissioner McLeod said all he is
asking is questions and Commissioner Ferring has stated that it is false and now it should be found
out if Mr. Martin has brought something to the City Manager that is not true, if that is the case then
he thinks Mr. Martin should loose his job. Commissioner Ferring said all he can say is let Mr. Martin
come forward and make those accusations.
O. Commission Seat I - Larry Conniff:
Commissioner Conniff stated that he will not be at the next meeting.
P. Commission Seat II - John Ferring:
Commissioner Ferrlng asked Manager McLemore if he did not give him an open line to speak to Mr.
Martin regarding budgetary figures and did the Manager not say that he had no problem with him
speaking with Mr. Martin on anything regarding the budget. Manager McLemore stated that he
believes that was after the time that is being discussed. Commissioner Ferring said it was before that
time. Manager McLemore stated that the issue to him is not that Commissioner Ferring asked Mr.
Martin certain questions, the issue was that you asked Mr. Martin certain questions and you asked
Mr. Martin to keep that a secret from him, he has a problem with that; Manager McLemore stated
that he cannot manage a City with elected officials going around and trying to get his Department
Heads into collusion to be insubordinate to him and the rest of this Commission. Commissioner
F erring said he has a problem with it also, and that is why he makes a point of speaking to the
Manager regarding to speaking to any of the City Staff Commissioner Ferring said whatever
conversation took place between him and Mr. Martin, Mr. Martin might have misinterpreted whatever
the situation is, but stated that he had an open door policy with the Manager as far as speaking with
Resmlar Meetin2 City Commission
Julv 22. 1996
95-96-22
Pa2e 26
Mr. Martin about anything as far as financial figures were concerned and said he doubts if the
Manager can try and tell him that he didn't do that. Manager McLemore stated that Commissioner
Ferring did talk to him about talking to Mr. Martin about certain information, this particular item
Commissioner Ferring did not specifically talk to him about on the information that Mr. Martin told
him about in his belief until after the incident took place. Commissioner Ferring said he thinks that
Mr. Martin may have taken it out of context about me saying don't say anything to the City Manager.
Commissioner Ferring said that he told Mr. Martin that he had permission to speak to him from the
City Manager.
Commissioner Ferring stated that he would like to have placed on the agenda for the next meeting
the issue of the Wedgewood Golf Villas for further information as to what we are going to do, we
had a workshop and could take no action~ this has to be settled one way or the other. Manager
McLemore stated that it will be on the agenda for the next meeting.
O. Mayor's Office - John F. Bush:
Mayor Bush mentioned a letter from Mr. Rayon Mt. Laurel Drive, concerning his water bill.
Manager McLemore stated he has addressed that issue.
Mayor Bush asked about the situation on Colt Drive. Acting Police ChiefPeiper stated that he and
the Code Inspector has discussed the situation and was advised by the Code Inspector that there has
been some action taken to repair pot holes and surface damage to the road but the drainage is still an
issue that they are continuing to look into.
Mayor Bush stated that many residents in Winding Hollow have questions about the proposed park
and asked Mr. Wilson to keep the homeowners informed on some of the plans that have tentatively
been addressed by the Commission as well as some of the recommendations that Mr. Wilson has
made. Mr. Wilson stated that the situation is the residents were given information by the developer
that there was going to be a park developed and would have a certain amenities in that park which
is not true. The City is going to develop a park there but there has been no definite decisions made
or any master plan or conceptual plan approved. Mr. Wilson stated that he has told the residents
(whom he as talked to) that they will be going through a community process of having a citizen
committee to work with them to develop a master plan (which would be presented to the Commission
prior to anything being done). Mayor Bush stated an update would be appropriate because it seems
to be the most pressing concern they have with the City. Mr. Wilson said with the Commission's
permission, he will draft a letter (with Manager's approval) that he will send to the Homeowners
Assoc. letting them know what steps they are going to go through.
The meeting adjourned at 11 :45 p.m.
Respectfully SU~
~":'J..uJ~.
'M;go4i Hopki ,
City Clerk