HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 03 27 Other - Document Presented by Micky Grindstaff
THIS WAS PRESENTED BY MICKY GRINDSTAFF AT THE MARCH 27, 2000
REGULAR MEETING, UNDER:
VI. REGULAR
A. City Manager
Requesting City Commission To Approve An Agreement Between Schrimsher
Properties And The City Relative To The Town Center.
f
I
""\
Transcripts of
PUBLIC HEARINGS and/or WORKSHOPS
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS/SCHRIMSHER
Volume IV
~-
...~
INDEX
to
PUBLIC HEARINGS and/or WORKSHOPS
City of Winter Springs /1 Schrimsher
Volume IV
1. City Commission - Regular Meetipg - October 11, 1999
2. City Commission - Regular Meeting - October 25, 1999
...... 3. City Commission - Regular Meeting - November 8,1999
~I~
4. City Commission Workshop and Regular Meeting -December 13, 1999
5. City Commission - Regular Meeting - February 14, 2000
###
---....
-j
ORLDOCS 10001340,1 LKF
",.
.
..'
lmru
Registered
ProfeaaIonaI _' .
Reporter
1
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
'.COpy
. " .
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
CITY COMMISSION- REGULAR MEETING
-----------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT OF MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 11, 1999,
BEGINNING AT 6:55 P.M. AT CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS,
1126.EAST ,STATE ROAD 434, WINTER SPRINGS,FLORIDA, AND
REPORTED BY SANDRA A. MOSER, REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL
REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF FLORIDA AT LARGE.
. . .
. 1 .
. " , - .,,-
'. '. -: ~~~~..rtl~~" " .'
Realtime ~~'BJrters,
. }tI, "~';0\~
, . ;.":>: ,,& "~:'i';~"
Inc.
Registered Professional Reporters
. , Certified Video Technicians .
1188 Fox Forrest Circle · Apopka. Florida .32712 · (407) 884-4662 · FAX (407) 884-4664
Sandra A. Dawkins, President
[H~I
Orl!nc(O"
. ' . .-
Professional Reporting SInce 1977
~i_='..
2
'"'."
" <
....
1
PRO C E E DIN G S
2
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: I SEE THE MAYOR IS
3
HERE. I'M GOING TO TURN THE MEETING OVER TO HIM.
4
THIS IS FOR ITEM B UNDER PUBLIC HEARINGS,
5
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUESTS THE
6
COMMISSION CONSIDER A SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE
7
707, ADOPTING THE PROPOSED TOWN CENTER DISTRICT
8
BOUNDARY AND TOWN CENTER DISTRICT CODE."
9
MAYOR PARTYKA: GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE, ON
10 THIS FINE COLUMBUS DAY HOLIDAY.
11 (~HEREUPON, A DISCUSSION WAS HELD OFF THE
1 2 RECORD.)
.
, 3
1 4
MAYOR PARTYKA: I APOLOGIZE FOR YOUR PATIENC~
ON THIS ONE, AND I GUESS WE WILL LEAVE IT UP TO
1 5
STAFF ON THIS NEXT. ISSUE.
1 6
MR. CARRINGTON: THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THIS
1 7
IS THE SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 707, THE
1 8
TOWN CENTER DISTRICT CODE, AND ESTABLISHING THE
1 9
TOWN CENTER DISTRICT BOUNDARY.
20
STAFF IS PRESENT AND READY TO ANSWER
21
QUESTIONS, SHOULD THERE BE QUESTIONS.
22
MAYOR PARTYKA: CITY MANAGER, WHAT IS THE
23
SITUATION ON THIS AT THIS POINT?
24
MR. MCLEMORE: I'M RECOMMENDING THAT YOU TAKE
.
25
AN ACTION TO ADOPT THE SECOND READING TONIGHT AND,
.
.
.
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1J
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
BASED ON SOME ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED, THAT
WE SCHEDULE A THIRD READING AND FINAL READING AT
THE NEXT REGULAR SCHEDULED COMMISSION MEETING.
THIS WILL NOT BE AN ADOPTION ACTION TONIGHT. IT'S
AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO MOVE THIS AHEAD. WE DO
NOTICE THAT THE FINAL ADOPTION WILL BE SCHEDULED
FOR YOUR NEXT COMMISSION MEETING.
NOW, YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT. YOU CAN JUST
NOT TAKE ACTION TONIGHT AND WAIT UNTIL YOUR NEXT
COMMISSION MEETING. I WOULD PERSONALLY LIKE TO
SEE YOU TAKE SOME AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TONIGHT.
MAYOR PARTYKA: A QUICK DETAIL. MR.
gARgAN~SE, W~~COM~ ABOARg AS, . gU~SS, OFFIC.A~
CITY ATTORNEY NOW FOR THE CITY.
MR. GARGANESE: THANK YOU, MAYOR.
MAYOR PARTYKA: WHAT IS YOUR THOUGHTS ON WHAT
THE CITY MANAGER IS SAYING? WHAT IS YOUR
RECOMMENDATION?
MR. GARGANESE: I WOULD CONCUR WITH THE CITY
MANAGER. I WOULD RECOMMEND NOT TAKING AN ADOPTION
ACTION ON THIS ORDINANCE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: USE THE MIKE.
MR. GARGANESE: I WOULD RECOMMEND NOT
ADOPTING THIS ORDINANCE THIS EVENING. SOME ISSUES
HAVE BEEN RAISED AND SOME CORRESPONDENCE WAS SENT
'.
",-,
..
.
4
1
TO CITY OFFICIALS AND MYSELF THAT WE NEED TO BE
2
LOOKING AT, SO.I WOULD RECOMMEND NOT ADOPTING IT.
3
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. COMMISSIONER BLAKE?
4
MR. BLAKE: YES, IT IS, MAYOR, FOR THIS ITEM.
5
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY.
6
MR. BLAKE: I ALSO HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT
7
ADOPTING THIS THIS EVENING. SPECIFICALLY, PRIOR
8
TO US COMING TO THIS POINT OF ACTUAL ADOPTION OF
9
THIS ORDINANCE, I BELIEVE THAT WE WERE TO HAVE THE
..'
1 0
CITY MANAGER SIT DOWN WITH SOME OF THE PROPERTY
1 1
OWNERS AND DISCUSS SOME ISSUES OF COMMON INTEREST
1 2
THAT, STILL, I THINK REMAIN ON THE TABLE.
1 3
HAVE THOSE MEETINGS YET OCCURRED?
1 4
MR. MCLEMORE: WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN AS FAR AS
1 5
WE WOULD LIKE TO. WE HAVE SENT A PROPOSED
1 6
AGREEMENT TO HIM, WHICH IS A RESPONSE TO THEIR
1 7
INITIAL PROPOSED AGREEMENT. I THINK WE HAVE A
1 8
MEETING SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY TO CONTINUE
1 9
DISCUSSIONS, AND I THINK BY AGAIN PUTTING THIS OFF
20
UNTIL YOUR NEXT MEETING WOULD GIVE US TIME TO DO
21
SOME WORK AND GET BACK TO YOU BY THE FINAL
22
MEETING.
23
MR. BLAKE: MY CONCERN WOULD BE THAT MAYBE
24
NEXT MEETING IS NOT LONG ENOUGH. I MEAN, NOT THAT
25
WE SHOULDN'T HAVE HAD ENOUGH TIME ALREADY OVER THE
.
,
.
.
5
1
LAST SIX MONTHS OR SO TO IRON SOME OF THESE THINGS
2
OUT.
3
WHAT WOULD BE ~HE PROBLEM OF PUTTING IT OFF
4
UNTIL THE SECOND MEETING, NOT THE NEXT MEETING?
5
AND, AGAIN, THE ONLY REASON I'M SAYING THAT IS
6
BECAUSE, APPARENTLY FOR SOME REASON, THE TWO
7
PARTIES HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE (INAUDIBLE) WHOSE FAULT
8
IT ISI WHETHER IT'S OURS OR SOMEBODY ELSE'S, BUT
9
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT A MEETING HAS NOT YET
1 0
TAKEN PLACE.
1 1
AND I'M GLAD TO HEAR THERE IS A MEETING
1 2
SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY. WILL THAT SINGLE MEETING
1 3
BE ENOUGH TO HAMMER OUT THE ISSUES THAT REMAIN?
1 4
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, NO, I DON'T THINK SO. WE
1 5
DON'T KNOW UNTIL WE GET THERE, BUT IF THE
1 6
SCHRIMSHERS ARE AVAILABLE WITH THEIR COUNSEL, I
1 7
DON'T KNOW THAT WE COULDN'T HAVE TWO OR THREE
1 8
MEETINGS OR FOUR MEETINGS BY THE TIME WE HAVE THE
1 9
NEXT COMMISSION MEETING.
20
YOU KNOW, I WOULD SHOOT FOR IT. I THINK
21
WE'RE GOING TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE GOING TO KNOW
22
RELATIVELY SOON IN TERMS OF OUR ABILITY TO COME TO
23
AN AGREEMENT.
24
MR. BLAKE: BUT WE HAVEN'T YET, AND THAT'S
25
PART OF MY PROBLEM. PUTTING IT OFF ANOTHER TWO
.
.
- ..-
.
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
WEEKS, .IS THAT GOING TO SOLVE THE ISSUE?
MR. MCLEMORE~ I WOULD SUGGEST WE SHOOT FOR
THE NEXT MEETING. IS THERE ANY REASON THAT
YOU-ALL CAN'T MEET TWO OR THREE ,TIMES BEFORE THIS
NEXT MEETING, THAT YOU CAN THINK OF?
MR. GRINDSTAFF: MR. MAYOR.
MAYOR PARTYKA; YES, COME ON UP, MR.
GRINDSTAFF.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.
MICKEY GRINDSTAFF,--LAW FIRM OF SHUTTS & BOWEN, 20
NORTH ORANGE AVENUE, ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32801,
REPRESENTING THE SCRIMSHER GROUP.
IN RESPONSE TO MR. MCLEMORE'S COMMENTS THERE,
WE HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO MEET FOR THE LAST SIX
WEEKS ON THIS THING. WE THINK WE CAN MEET
MULTIPLE TIMES BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT COMMISSION
MEETING.
HOWEVER, I MUST AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER
BLAKE; THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT MAY TAKE
SOME TIME, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF WHAT WE BELIEVE
WAS A STEP BACKWARD WITH THE RECENT DRAFT,
FRANKLY.
I DON'T WANT TO GET SIDEWAYS, BECAUSE I DO
THINK THAT SOME PROGRESS WAS BEING MADE. WE STILL
THINK PROGRESS CAN BE MADE, AND WE WANT TO MEET.
.
~
.
.
7
1
IN FACT, WE SPOKE WITH THE NEW CITY, ATTORNEY ON
2
FRIDAY. WE SCHEDULED THE FIRST AVAILABLE
3
OPPORTUNITY TO MEET, WHICH IS WEDNESDAY MORNING,
4
AND WE WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT.
5
I CAN'T PROMISE YOU, COMMISSIONER BLAKE, THAT
6
TWO WEEKS IS SUFFICIENT, BUT I KNOW THAT WE WILL
7
GIVE IT OUR BEST SHOT IN TERMS OF AVAILABILITY AND
8
BEING AT THE. MEETING ON TIME, WHICH I'M ASSUMING
9
WOULD OCCUR HERE, THE MEETING SPACE AVAILABLE.
1 0
MR. BLAKE: IF I MIGHT ASK YOU THIS:
1 1
PREVIOUSLY WHEN WE POSTPONED THIS ITEM TO A
1 2
MEETING AT A LATER DATE, YOU REPRESENTED, ON
1 3
BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, THAT YOU WOULD
1 4
CONTINUE TO HONOR THE STANDSTILL AGREEMENT THAT
1 5
WAS IN PLACE, THE WRITTEN DOCUMENT, BUT SINCE
1 6
EXPIRED; AND THAT YOUR VERBAL REPRESENTATION ON
1 7
THE MINUTES AT THAT PREVIOUS MEETING WOULD BE
1 8
SUFFICIENT.
1 9
WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO MAKE THAT SAME
20
REPRESENTATION?
21
MR. GRINDSTAFF: TO A DATE CERTAIN, YES,
22
SIR. NOT INDEFINITELY, BUT TO A DATE CERTAIN.
23
MR. BLAKE: I APPRECIATE THAT.
24
MR. GRINDSTAFF: TWO WEEKS OR SOMETHING, WE
25
CAN DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
-t.
' 'X':'!
.
.
8
1
MR. BLAKE: IF WE ARE TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM
2
UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING, WHICH IS, I BELIEVE, THE
3
25TH OF OCTOBER, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO STAND BY
4
THAT STANDSTILL AGREEMENT FOR THAT PERIOD OF TIME?
5
MR. GRINDSTAFF: YES, WE WOULD.
6
MR. BLAKE: OKAY.
7
MR. GRINDSTAFF: BUT BEFORE WE DO THAT, I
8
WOULD LIKE TO GET CAUGHT UP ON A FEW THINGS FOR
9
THE BENEFIT OF THE RECORD AND, I THINK, FOR THE
:1 0
BENEFIT OF SOME OF THE FOLKS THAT ARE HERE THIS
1 1
EVENING, IN ANTICIPATION OF THE SECOND READING,
1 2
AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE NEW CITY ATTORNEY.
1 3
I KNOW THAT ALONG THE WAY I THINK -- WE HAVE
1 4
TALKED ABOUT THIS A NUMBER OF TIMES. WE'VE HAD A
1 5
COURT REPORTER HERE WHO HAS TRANSCRIBED EVERY
1 6
HEARING WE'VE HAD ON THIS THING, OF WHICH THERE
1 7
HAVE BEEN MANY AND OF WHICH THERE HAS BEEN A LOT
1 8
OF PAPER PRODUCED BY HER.
19
BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN GEARED UP FOR THIS
20
SECOND READING A NUMBER OF TIMES, RIGHTFULLY OR
21
WRONGFULLY WE HAVE BEEN HAVING TO GET GEARED UP
22
FOR IT, WE WOULD LIKE TO TENDER THE TRANSCRIPTS TO
23
DATE INTO THIS RECORD AND GIVE YOU EACH A COpy OF
24
IT, AS WELL AS THE NEW CITY ATTORNEY, ESPECIALLY,
25
AND MR. MCLEMORE, AND AT LEAST BE CAUGHT UP AS OF
~
.
.
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
OCTOBER 11, 1999.
THERE'S NO NEED TO GO BACK AND REHASH ALL
THAT'S HAPPENED, BUT JUST TO KEEP IT MOVING,
BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN CARRYING THESE THINGS AROUND
WITH US FOR A LONG TIME, AND.THE COURT REPORTER
HAS BEEN NICE ENOUGH TO GET THEM COMPILED FOR US,
AND L WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. IS THAT IT,
COMMISSIONER?
MR. BLAKE: YES, SIR.
MAYOR PARTYKA: THANK YOU FOR THOSE
COMMENTS. IF YOU WANT TO STAY THERE JUST IN CASE
THERE MAY BE SOME OTHER QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER MCLEOD.
MR. MCLEOD: RATHER THAN HAVING THIS AND THEN
GO TO A THIRD READING, IS THERE A REASON THAT THIS
CANNOT JUST BE TABLED THIS EVENING TO MOVE
FORWARD, OR IS THIS ALSO -- I DID READ SOMETHING
IN REGARD TO THE KINGSBURY PROPERTY, AND DO WE
NEED TO HEAR FROM THE KINGSBURYS ON THIS SAME
ISSUE AT THIS TIME?
MR. MCLEMORE: LET US CONFER JUST A MOMENT.
MR. MCLEOD: SURE.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH,
COMMISSIONER MCLEOD, WE WOULD AGREE WITH YOU.
.
'-
.
.
1 0
1
IT'S BEEN TABLED AND CONTINUED A NUMBER OF TIMES.
2
FRANKLY, I'M NOT SURE OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE
3
SECOND VERSUS THIRD -- SECOND WITHOUT ADOPTION
4
VERSUS THIRD WITH ADOPTION.
5
WHAT'S WRONG WITH-TREATING THIS ORDINANCE
6
LIKE EVERY OTHER ORDINANCE OF THE CITY AND US AND
7
THESE PROPERTY OWNERS, LIKE YOUR OTHER PROPERTY
8
OWNERS OF THE CITY, AND SIMPLY CONTINUE THIS
9
ORDINANCE WITH THE STANDSTILL AGREEMENT. FRANKLY,
1 0
WE DON'T WANT TO
1 1
MR. MCLEOD: THAT'S MY QUESTION.
1 2
MR. GRINDSTAFF: WE DON'T WANT TO THROW
1 3
ROCKS, BUT THAT'S A CURIOUS APPROACH TO US.
1 4
MAYOR PARTYKA: LET'S WAIT FOR A SECOND
1 5
HERE. OKAY.
1 6
MR. GRINDSTAFF: IN TERMS OF TIMING, IF I
1 7
MIGHT, MR. MAYOR, WHILE THEY'RE DOING THIS --
1 8
MAYOR PARTYKA: SURE.
1 9
MR. GRINDSTAFF: LET'S DON'T FORGET THE
20
NEED FOR WRAPPING UP OF A WORKSHOP THAT HAS BEEN
21
CUT SHORT A NUMBER OF TIMES; POSTPONED, CUT SHORT,
22
AND I THINK THAT THAT MAY PLAY INTO MR. BLAKE'S
23
COMMENT ABOUT -- IN TERMS OF TIME.
24
A MEETING WITH STAFF IS ONE THING. PULLING
25
TOGETHER A WORKSHOP AFTER MEETING WITH STAFF IS
'.
',--
.
'.
.
1 1
1
YET ANOTHER. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO POSTPONE. WE
2
HAVE BEEN HERE EVERY TIME, WITH SHORT NOTICES MANY
3
TIMES.
4
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. CITY MANAGER?
5
MR. MCLEMORE: IF YOU COULD GIVE US ONE MORE
6
MOMENT, PLEASE.
7
MAYOR PARTYKA: YOU STILL HAVE THE FLOOR, MR.
8
MCLEOD. DO YOU WANT TO JUST WAIT?
9
MR. MCLEOD: I HAVE NO OTHER QUESTIONS AT
1 0
THIS TIME ON IT.
1 1
MAYOR PARTYKA: WE WILL WAIT FOR AN ANSWER.
1 2
MR. MCLEOD: I WOULD LIKE TO GET THE ANSWER.
1 3
MR. MCLEMORE: WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO, IF IT
1 4
WOULD BE OKAY WITH THE COMMISSION, IS I NEED TO
1 5
MEET WITH A STAFF PERSON FOR ABOUT FIVE MINUTES ON
1 6
THIS. IF WE COULD JUST TABLE THIS FOR A FEW
1 7
MINUTES OR HAVE A FIVE-MINUTE RECESS OR BRING IT
1 8
BACK AT THE END OF THE MEETING.
1 9
MAYOR PARTYKA: DOES THAT TALK TO THE POINT
20
OF WHETHER IT'S GOOD TO STAY ON -- IT'S GOOD TO
21
TABLE THIS WHOLE THING TO THE SECOND READING
22
RATHER THAN GO THROUGH THE SECOND
23
MR. MCLEMORE: YES. YES.
24
MAYOR PARTYKA: ALL RIGHT. TELL YOU WHAT.
25
.HERE'S WHAT WE WILL DO.
.
.
.
, 2
,
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
, 0
, 1
, 2
1 3
, 4
, 5
, 6
1 7
, 8
, 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MCLEOD: TAKE FIVE.
DEPUTY MAYOR.GENNELL: TAKE FIVE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: LET'S TAKE FIVE MINUTES.
HERE'S WHAT I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO DO. FIVE
MINUTES, WE'LL COME BACK, AND I HAVE A SPECIAL
PRESENTATION THAT I'M GOING TO SURPRISE THE
COMMISSION WiTH. I THOUGHT IT WAS KIND OF NICE
AND I HAVE ASKED SOME PEOPLE TO COME. WE WANT TO
MAKE SURE THEY'RE HERE, SO THAT PRESENTATION WILL
TAKE 30 SECONDS, BUT YOU WILL GET A KICK OUT OF IT
BECAUSE IT'S WHAT THIS COMMISSION HAS VOTED FOR
AND WE FINALLY GOT, SO IT WILL BE KIND OF FUN.
I TELL YOU WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO, WHICH IS A
GOOD POINT. WE WILL LET YOU GO AND WHAT WE WILL
DO IS WE WILL DO THE SPECIAL PRESENTATION, IF
THAT'S OKAY. OKAY?
(WHEREUPON, A RECESS WAS TAKEN.)
MAYOR PARTYKA: LET'S BRING THIS MEETING BACK
TO ORDER. ALL THE COMMISSIONERS NEED TO COME
BACK. ALL RIGHT. EVERYBODY GRAB A SEAT.
WE WILL FINISH THIS MEETING AND THIS
DISCUSSION ON THIS AGENDA ITEM. OKAY. ADRIAN,
I'M GOING TO CALL THIS MEETING BACK TO ORDER.
MR. CITY MANAGER OR MR. ATTORNEY.
MR. MCLEMORE: MR. MAYOR, DISCUSSING THE
.
......
.
.
13
1
TECHNICAL ISSUE, I THINK WE HAVE A SENSE NOW OF
2
WHAT WE DESIRE TO DO.
3
IN THE KINGSBURY PROPERTY, THIS ORDINANCE WAS
4
ADVERTISED TO INCLUDE THAT KINGSBURY PROPERTY BE
5
ANNEXED INTO THE CITY, INTO THE DISTRICT -- INTO
6
THE TOWN CENTER DISTRICT. AND SO MY REASON FOR
7
WANTING YOU TO TAKE A SECOND READING TONIGHT IS SO
8
WE EFFECTUATE, IN EFFECT, THE FIRST READING OF
9
THAT ANNEXATION INTO THE DISTRICT.
1 0
AND THEN ONCE YOU DO THE THIRD READING, THEN
1 1
YOU WILL DO THE ADOPTION OF THAT DISTRICT AS
1 2
AMENDED WITH THE KINGSBURY PROPERTY INCLUDED.
1 3
AND SO TO CONFIRM WITH EVERYBODY, I THINK
1 4
EVERYBODY IS IN AGREEMENT WITH ME ON THIS. THESE
1 5
ARE THE THREE STEPS -- OR THE TWO STEPS WE NEED TO
1 6
MAKE: ADOPT THIS AS PUBLICLY ADVERTISED TONIGHT,
1 7
WHICH WOULD INCLUDE AMENDING THE ORDINANCES -- THE
1 8
MAPS AND THE ORDINANCES TO SHOW THAT AS ANNEXED
1 9
PROPERTY RATHER THAN STILL REMAINING OUTSIDE THE
20
CITY.
21
AND THEN WE DO THE FINAL ADOPTION -- OR
22
SCHEDULE THE FINAL ADOPTION FOR YOUR NEXT REGULAR
23
MEETING WITH THAT AMENDMENT MADE BY THIS
24
COMMISSIONER TONIGHT.
25
YOU NEED TO DO THAT BY A MOTION.
..
'\.
.
.
,
14
1
MAYOR PARTYKA: SO, EFFECTIVELY, IT'S REALLY
2
THE FIRST READING OF THIS ENTIRE PIECE; IS THAT
3
CORRECT?
4
MR. MCLEMORE: IT BASICALLY ROLLS YOUR FIRST
5
READING TO THIS MEETING WITH THIS CHANGE,
6
INCLUDING THE ANNEXED AREA ON THE MAP.
7
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
8
MR. MCLEMORE~ YOU WILL DIRECT US IN YOUR
9
MOTION TO AMEND THE MAP OR CORRECT THE MAP,
1 0
CONSISTENT WITH YOUR MOTION TO INCLUDE THE ANNEXED
1 1
AREA IN THE DISTRICT, AS ADVERTISED.
1 2
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. EVERYONE
1 3
UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT IS? OKAY. LET ME
THERE'S
1 4
STILL SOME LIGHTS ON, SO THE NEXT ONE IS
1 5
COMMISSIONER MILLER? NO. YOU HAVE TAKEN OFF YOUR
1 6
LIGHT.
1 7
MR. MILLER: MY ONLY CONCERN WAS THAT THE
1 8
AGREEMENT WOULD CONTINUE WITH MR. SCRIMSHER.
1 9
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. THANK YOU;
20
COMMISSIONER GENNELL AND COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
21
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: WELL, MY QUESTION
22
MIRRORS COMMISSIONER MCLEOD'S QUESTION.
23
AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: CAN'T HEAR.
24
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: MY QUESTION MIRRORS
25
COMMISSIONER MCLEOD'S QUESTION, AND THAT'S IN
.
~
.
.
,
1 5
1
REGARD TO THE PIECES OF PROPERTY THAT MR.
2
SCRIMSHER AND MR. GRINDSTAFF DO NOT REPRESENT THAT
3
ARE INCLUDED IN THIS AREA.
4
MR. MCLEMORE: I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND.
5
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: IN OTHER WORDS, DO WE
6
HAVE ANY DEVELOPMENT PENDING TO COME IN DURING THE
7
TIME WHEN WE ARE EXTENDING THIS?
8
MR. MCLEMORE: THERE IS NOTHING PLANNED AT
9
THIS POINT IN TIME. THERE IS SOME PROPOSALS THAT
1 0
HAVE COME IN THE SHOP. THEY HAVE NOT BEEN
1 1
SCHEDULED FOR DRC ACTION YET AND WOULD NOT GET
1 2
BACK TO THIS COMMISSIONER FOR SOME TIME.
1 3
WHEN I SAY SOME TIME, PROBABLY AFTER THE
1 4
FIRST OF THE YEAR.
1 5
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: THEN THERE IS NO
1 6
DEVELOPMENT THAT'S PENDING RIGHT NOW OR SITTING
1 7
OUT THERE IN A FORMAL PROCESS FOR ANY OF THE
1 8
PROPERTY INVOLVED IN THIS TOWN CENTER?
1 9
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, THERE IS A PROPOSAL THAT
20
CAME IN THE DOOR FRIDAY AFTERNOON LATE. THAT
21
PROPOSAL HAS RECEIVED NO STAMP FROM YOU AT THIS
22
POINT IN TIME, HAS NOT BEEN SCHEDULED FOR DRC YET,
23
AND WILL BE IN THE DRC FOR SOME TIME BEFORE IT
24
GETS TO THE COMMISSION.
25
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: OKAY. SO IF WE HAVE
.
.
.
1 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1'5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
ASSURANCES FROM MR. GRINDSTAFF THAT THEY WOULD NOT
BRING FORTH ANY PROPOSED THINGS.
MR. MCLEMORE: THAT'S NOT MR. GRINDSTAFF.
THAT'S KINGSBURY PROPERTY.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: WHAT IS?
MR. GRINDSTAFF: WE FULFILLED EVERY ONE OF
OUR ASSURANCES.
MR. MCLEOD: THEIR PROPOSAL. IT'S NOT THE
SCRIMSHER PROPERTY.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT
I'M SAYING. I'M SAYING THAT HE ASSURED US A FEW
MINUTES AGO THAT, WHILE THIS IS GOING ON, THAT THE
SCRIMS HER PROPERTIES WERE NOT INTENDING ON
BRINGING ANYBODY IN; THEY WERE GOING TO ABIDE BY
THEIR STANDSTILL AGREEMENT.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: TO A DATE CERTAIN, YES,
MA'AM. PLEASE UNDERSTAND, WHATEVER HAPPENED ON
FRIDAY WAS NOT THE SCRIMSHER PROPERTY.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: EXACTLY. SO I WAS
JUST REITERATING THE FACT THAT I ACCEPT THE FACT
THAT YOU DID THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND MY ONLY CONCERN THEN IS THE ADJOINING
PROPERTIES, ARE THEY INVOLVED IN A STANDSTILL
AGREEMENT OR NOT? AND DOES IT PUT THIS PROJECT IN
JEOPARDY IF WE GO ON EXTENDING THIS AND THESE
.
.
.
1 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
MYSELF AND MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW
I'M NOT
CLEAR ON EVERYTHING THAT HAS OCCURRED AND IS
OCCURRING, BUT WE WILL BE SPENDING A SIGNIFICANT
SUM OF MONEY, POTENTIALLY, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO
MAKE SURE THAT OUR INTERESTS ARE BEING
RECOGNIZED. THANK YOU.
MAYOR PARTYKA: MR. SHURTZ, THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR COMING UP.
:.
.......
.
.
"
18
1
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: MR. SHURTZ
2
MAYOR PARTYKA: MR. SHURTZ, MIGHT AS WELL
3
STAY UP HERE.
4
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: -- IS IT YOUR
5
REPRESENTATION, AS IT IS WITH MR. GRINDSTAFF, THAT
6
WHILE WE ARE IN THIS PROCESS, THAT YOU WILL ABIDE
7
BY A STANDSTILL AGREEMENT?
8
MR. SHURTZ: I'M NOT CLEAR ON WHAT THE
9
STANDSTILL AGREEMENT PROVISIONS ARE. WE HAVE
1 0
SUBMITTED A SITE PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PIECE
1 1
THAT WE ARE INTENDING TO PURCHASE, AND THAT WAS
1 2
DONE ON FRIDAY.
1 3
MAYOR PARTYKA: JUST ONE THOUGHT HERE,
1 4
COMMISSIONER. I BELIEVE THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT
1 5
FOR MR. SHURTZ OR MR. KINGSBURY TO BE IN ANY KIND
1 6
OF STANDSTILL AGREEMENT; IS THAT CORRECT?
1 7
MR. MCLEMORE: WE HAVE NOT HAD ANY
1 8
DISCUSSIONS IN THE PAST, THAT I RECALL, WITH
1 9
MR. KINGSBURY ABOUT A STANDSTILL AGREEMENT.
20
MR. SHURTZ: AND I THINK OUR ATTORNEYS HAVE
21
SOME ISSUE WITH THE ANNEXATION OF THE PROPERTY
22
THAT PROBABLY WARRANTS FURTHER DISCUSSION.
23
MAYOR PARTYKA: ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
24
MR. MCLEMORE: THE ONLY QUESTION IS IF THAT'S
25
SOMETHING THE COMMISSION DESIRES, ARE THEY WILLING
.
"-
.
....,
.
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 9
1
TO DO IT? WHAT I'M HEARING THEM SAY TONIGHT IS
2
THAT THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND OR THEY'RE NOT
3
WILLING.
4
MR. SHURTZ: I THINK THAT WE NEED MORE
5
DISCUSSION RELATIVE TO -- YOU KNOW, WE ARE KIND OF
6
(INAUDIBLE) TO ~HIS, SO IT WOULD BE PREMATURE FOR
7
ME TO MAKE STATEMENTS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I'M
8
NOT LOOKING TO DO ANYTHING DETRIMENTAL TO THE
9
COMMISSION. I'M CERTAINLY NOT LOOKING TO DO
10 ANYTHING DETRIMENTAL TO OUR OWN INTEREST.
1 1
MAYOR PARTYKA: THAT'S FAIR ENOUGH.
1 2
COMMISSIONER, DOES THAT --
1 3
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: YOU'RE THE BUYER OF
1 4
THE PROPERTY OR YOU REPRESENT THE BUYER?
1 5
MR. SHURTZ: I AM THE BUYER.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL:' YOU ARE THE BUYER.
AND YOU'RE AWARE OF THIS TOWN CENTER DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT?
MR. SHURTZ: WE REALIZE THERE'S A PROPOSAL
UNDERWAY, YES.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: YOU KNEW THIS WHEN YOU
BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, WHEN YOU ENTERED INTO THE
CONTRACT?
MR. SHURTZ: WE KNEW THAT IT WAS AN ISSUE UP
FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS.
. .~.
"h
,1 0
.
.
20
1
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: WELL, JUST TO HELP
CLARIFY FOR YOU, THis IS A THING THAT'S BEEN GOING
2
3
ON FOR TWO YEARS. AND MR. AND MRS. KINGSBURY HAVE
4
BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF IT ALL ALONG, AND IT'S OF A
5
GREAT DEAL OF IMPORTANCE TO THE CITIZENS OF THIS
6
CITY.
7
THE CITIZENS MET ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS AND
8
GAVE THE COMMISSION THE INPUT. IN SEVERAL
9
COMMUNITY MEETINGS WE HAD CHARRETTES. SO THIS TOWN
CENTER IS A PRODUCT OF CITIZEN INPUT AND
1 1
COMMISSION WORK AND JOINT WORK OF THE PROPERTY
1 2
OWNERS, AND SO YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE
1 3
SIGNIFICANCE AND THE AMOUNT AND VOLUME OF WORK
14
THAT'S GONE INTO THIS, YOU KNOW, AND THE INTENT OF
1 5
, .
THE COMMISSION TO DO WHAT THE COMMUNITY INDICATES
1 6
TO US THAT THEY WANT TO ACCOMPLISH HERE.
1 7
MR. SHURTZ: AND WE ARE RESPECTFUL OF THAT
1 8
POSITION. WE WOULD NOT -- OUR DEVELOPMENT PLANS
1 9
WOULD NOT BE INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE FEEL WOULD
20
BE APPROPRIATE FROM WHERE YOU'RE HEADED. WE JUST
21
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
YOU KNOW, WE UNDERSTAND
22
ALL ASPECTS OF THAT.
23
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO
24
MEET WITH THEM. WE CAN SIT DOWN AND TALK AT
25
LENGTH ABOUT THIS.
'.
.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
-. 1 6
1 7
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
MR. SHURTZ: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MAYOR PARTYKA: ANYTHING ELSE, COMMISSIONER?
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: . NOT AT THIS TIME.
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
MR. MARTINEZ: WELL, AS I UNDERSTAND THIS
AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, CITY MANAGER -- AT
THIS TIME WE DO NOT NEED ANY KIND OF .EXTENSIVE
AGREEMENT WITH THESE FOLKS BECAUSE WE NEVER HAD
ANY KIND OF DEALINGS BEFORE, ,AND THEY'RE ENTERING
INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CITY AT THIS TIME.
MR. MCLEMORE: THEY HAVE A PROPOSAL WHICH
THEY SUBMITTED LATE FRIDAY. WE HAVE NOT HAD ANY
STANDSTILL DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM. AND WHAT
THEY'RE SAYING AT THIS POINT IN TIME IS THEY DON'T
KNOW WHETHER THEY WOULD DESIRE TO ENTER INTO SUCH
A STANDSTILL AGREEMENT OR NOT AT THIS POINT IN
TIME.
MR. MARTINEZ: SO THIS IS SOMETHING TO DEAL
WITH IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE?
MR. MCLEMORE: OH, YES. WE WILL BE HAPPY TO
MEET WITH THEM TOMORROW AND START BRINGING THEM UP
TO DATE ON WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT AND WHAT THE
ISSUES ARE.
MR. MARTINEZ: FURTHERMORE, YOU SAID THAT YOU
WOULD LIKE US TO APPROVE THIS SECOND READING
22
.
,
1
TODAY.
2
MR. MCLEMORE: CORRECT.
3
MR. MARTINEZ: WHICH WOULD IN ANY MANNER,
SHAPE, OR FORM INFRINGE UPON THE RIGHTS OF ANY
4
5
PROPERTY OWNER OR ANY PERSON WHO IS INTENDING TO
6
GET INVOLVED IN ANY TRANSACTION WITH THE CITY AS
7
FAR AS THE TOWN CENTER IS CONCERNED?
8
MR. MCLEMORE: WHAT YOUR ADOPTION TONIGHT
9
WILL DO IS BRING THE KINGSBURY PROPERTY, WHICH HAS
1 0
BEEN ANNEXED INTO THE CITY, OFFICIALLY INTO THE
1 1
ZONING MAP OR THE DISTRICT BOUNDARY AS ADVERTISED,
1 2
INCLUDING YET IN THE DISTRICT.
.
1 3
WELL, THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE
1 4
ATTORNEYS, OR THE DEVELOPER HAS TALKED TO YOU, WAS
1 5
THAT WHEN THIS PROPERTY -- WHEN WE HAD THE FIRST
1 6
READING ON THIS ORDINANCE, THE PROPERTY HAD NOT
1 7
BEEN ANNEXED AND, THEREFORE, THEY'RE ENTITLED TO
1 8
TWO READINGS.
1 9
SO WE ARE BRINGING THE ANNEXED PROPERTY INTO
20
THE ORDINANCE TONIGHT BY MOTION OF THE COMMISSION
21
AS A FIRST TIME OR FIRST READING. AND THEN AT THE
22
NEXT MEETING WE ARE SCHEDULED TO ADOPT THE
23
ORDINANCE AS AMENDED BY THE COMMISSION TONIGHT.
24
MR. MARTINEZ: THAT'S WHAT I SAID. YOU'RE
.
25
NOT INFRINGING ON ANYONE'S RIGHTS WHATSOEVER BY
~
.
.
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
, 2
1 3
1 4
., 5
1 6
, 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE THE SECOND READING,
WHICH WOULD BE THE FIRST READING FOR THE ~ECORD AT
THIS TIME.
MR. MCLEMORE: NO, I DON'T THINK SO.
MR. MARTINEZ: MR. GARGANESE?
MR. GARGANESE: JUST SO I'M CLEAR, I WANT TO
MAKE SURE YOUR QUESTION IS ANSWERED PROPERLY. MR.
SHURTZ, YOUR ATTORNEYS, ARE THEY RUDNICK & WOLF?
MR. SHURTZ: YES, SIR.
MR. GARGANESE: ON OCTOBER 7TH, THE DAY
BEFORE THEY SUBMITTED THEIR SITE PLAN, .RUDNICK &
WOLF, MR. SHURTZ' ATTORNEYS, SUBMITTED A LETTER
RAISING SEVERAL PROCEDURAL OBJECTIONS REGARDING
THE ADOPTION OF THE TOWN CENTER ORDINANCE.
ONE OF THOSE PROCEDURAL OBJECTIONS WAS THAT
THEIR PROPERTY WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE FIRST
READING OF THE ORDINANCE. AND THEY'RE SAYING
THAT'S A POTENTIAL DEFICIENCY. WHAT THE CITY
MANAGER IS RECOMMENDING THIS EVENING IS THAT YOU
INCLUDE THE KINGSBURY PROPERTY INTO THE ZONING
DISTRICT ORDINANCE AND HAVE A READING THAT
INCLUDES THE KINGSBURY PROPERTY.
MR. MARTINEZ: BY APPROVING THIS ITEM B
TONIGHT?
MR. GARGANESE: YES. FOR A READING, NOT
.
.
.
24
,
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
, 0
1 1
1 2
, 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
, 7
1 8
, 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
APOPTION.
MR. MARTINEZ:' NO. I KNOW. I UNDERSTAND THE
ADOPTION COMES ON THE 25TH, IF IT DOES COME.
MR. GARGANESE: YES.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
MR. MARTINEZ:
MAYOR PARTYKA:
LIGHTS ARE ON AGAIN.
COMMISSIONER MCLEOD AND THEN COMMISSIONER
GENNELL.
MR. MCLEOD: QKAY. REAL QUICK ON THE THING.
I GUESS, MR. KINGSBURY, I HAVE TO DIRECT THIS TO
YOU. THE CONTRACT THAT YOU HAVE IS A HARD, BOUND
CONTRACT AT THE PRESENT TIME?
MR. KINGSBURY: YES, SIR.
MR. MCLEOD: SO THE DEVELOPER AT THE PRESENT
TIME IS NOT IN A DUE DILIGENCE PERIOD OF YOUR
CONTRACT WITH HIM?
I GUESS THE
MR. SHURTZ: MAY I ANSWER?"
MAYOR ,PARTYKA: YES. YOU NEED TO COME UP TO
THE MICROPHONE.
MR. MCLEOD: COME BACK UP HERE.
MR. SHURTZ: OKAY. OKAY. THE ANSWER TO THE
QUESTION IS WE HAVE GIVEN MR. KINGSBURY, AS A
CONTRACT PURCHASER, NON-REFUNDABLE" MONIES.
MR. MCLEOD: IN OTHER WORDS, YOU PUT SOME
.
.
,
.
25
1
HARD MONEY UP.
2
MR. SHURTZ: WE STILL WILL BE DOING DUE
3
DILIGENCE BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME EXPECTATION,
4
ANTICIPATION, BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE MUDDY WATERS"
FOR THE ZONING ISSUES, THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE A
5
6
LONGER TIME LINE THAN WE WOULD ORDINARILY LIKE.
7
SO WE HAVE TAKEN THAT INTO ACCOUNT WITHIN THE
8
SCOPE OF THE CONTRACT, SO IT'S NOT A SHORT-LINE
9
CONTRACT. IT'S A MULTIYEAR CONTRACT. SO THAT --
10 YOU KNOW, THAT IT GOES ON AND WE CAN PRESERVE OUR
1 1
INTEREST OVER AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME. THE
1 2
MONIES THAT WILL BE GIVEN TO MR. KINGSBURY OVER
1 3
THAT TIME LINE WILL ALWAYS BE NON-REFUNDABLE
, 4
MONIES.
, 5
MR. MCLEOD: OKAY. SO YOU PUT HARD,
, 6
NON-REFUNDABLE DURING THE DUE DILIGENCE.
, 7
MR. SHURTZ: RIGHT.
1 8
MR. MCLEOD: I APPRECIATE THAT.
, 9
I GUESS I WOULD HAVE TO ASK THE SAME QUESTION
20
FOR THE TIME THAT -- I TAKE IT THAT MR. JOSHI IS
21
OUT OF THE PICTURE OF THE KINGSBURY PROPERTY?
22
MR. SHURTZ: YES, THAT WOULD BE ACCURATE.
23
MR. MCLEOD: PUT IT RIGHT OUT THERE. I
24
APPRECIATE THAT. AND, APPARENTLY, HE'S PRESENTLY
25
OUT OF THE SCRIMSHER PROPERTY, SO...
".~
.
.
26
,
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
, 0
1 ,
'2
1 3
1 4
, 5
1 6
, 7
1 8
, 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THAT IS ALSO CORRECT.
MR. MCLEOD: SEE, I'M CATCHING ON. I GUESS
AT SOME POINT THE CITY MANAGER, EITHER THIS
EVENING OR AT LEAST BY NEXT MEETING, I HOPE THAT
YOU BRING THE COMMISSION, OR AT LEAST MYSELF, UP
TO SPEED -- AND I KNOW YOU AND I HAD SOME
DISCUSSION TODAY BUT UP TO SPEED WITH MR.
JOSHI. OKAY. ."'
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. THANK YOU, MR.
MCLEOD. COMMISSIONER GENNELL.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: MR. GARGANESE
MR. GARGANESE: YES, MA'AM.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: -- HOW MUCH JEOPARDY IS
THE TOWN CENTER PLAN IN BY POSTPONING THIS TWO
WEEKS FURTHER? POSTPONING THE ADOPTION.
MR. GARGANESE: FRANKLY, I'M NOT PREPARED TO
ANSWER THAT QUESTION THIS EVENING. I'M TRYING TO
GET UP TO SPEED ON THIS ISSUE AS FAST AS
POSSIBLE.
THE ISSUE INVOLVING THE KINGSBURY PROPERTY IS
ONE ISSUE, AND THE CITY MANAGER IS RECOMMENDING
THIS COURSE OF ACTION TO AT LEAST HAVE A READING
WITH RESPECT TO THIS PROPERTY. AND I WOULD
SUGGEST, IF YOU WANT THESE REGULATIONS TO
ULTIMATELY APPLY TO THAT PROPERTY, YOU AT LEAST
.
~
.
.
27
1
HAVE A READING THIS EVENING.
2
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: BUT IN FACT -- .
3
MR. GARGANESE: I'M NOT PREPARED TO ANSWER
4
YOUR QUESTION.
5
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: THAT'S OKAY. THAT'S
6
OKAY. IN FACT, ALL ALONG AS WE HAVE DEALT WITH
7
THIS DOCUMENT IN THE 434 CORRIDOR, WE HAVE
8
CONTINUALLY REFERRED TO IT AS A LIVING DOCUMENT
9
THAT COULD WITHSTAND CHANGE FROM TIME TO TIME; IN
1 0
FACT, WOULD UNDERGO CHANGE FROM TIME TO TIME.
1 1
SO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE ADOPTED IT TONIGHT
1 2
AND THEN JUST WENT TO MAKE AMENDMENTS AND CHANGES
1 3
TO IT AS NEEDED?
, 4
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, IF YOU ADOPT IT TONIGHT,
1 5
YOU WILL NOT HAVE THE KINGSBURY PROPERTY IN IT.
1 6
NOW, I GUESS WE CAN START ANOTHER -- DO A FIRST
1 7
READING ON AN AMENDED ONE TO INCLUDE THE KINGSBURY
1 8
PROPERTY. IT'S BEEN ADVERTISED.
1 9
MR. GARGANESE: IT'S BEEN ADVERTISED.
20
MR. MCLEMORE: I SUSPECT THAT COULD BE DONE.
21
MR. GARGANESE: BUT THEN YOU STILL HAVE THE
22
ISSUE, AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND, WITH MR.
23
SCRIMSHER. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING; THAT THE CITY
24
WAS SUPPOSED TO --
25
MR. MCLEMORE: RIGHT.
.
'"
.
.
28
...--'
1
MR. GARGANESE: -- MEET WITH MR~ SCRIMSHER.
2
MR. MCLEMORE: WHAT THAT'S GOING TO DO, I
3
THINK, IN BAD FAITH, NOT ALLOW FOR -- THE MEETING
4
WITH THE SCHRIMSHERS HAS ALREADY NEUTRALIZED ANY
5
SUCH ACTION ONLY BY AGREEMENT WITH THE
6
STANDSTILL. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WOULD
7
ACCOMPLISH BY DOING THAT.
8
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: WELL, YOU HAVE
9
ANSWERED
1 0
MR. MCLEMORE: I THINK THE FAIR THING TO DO
1 1
IS WHAT WE RECOMMENDED.
12
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: ALL RIGHT.' I'M JUST
13
EXPLORING THE POSSIBILITIES HERE. THAT'S ALL.
1 4
THANK YOU.
1 5
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. THERE ARE NO OTHER
1 6
LIGHTS ON. MR. SHURTZ, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
1 7
MR. SHURTZ: THANK YOU, MAYOR.
1 8
MAYOR PARTYKA: I HAVE THREE PEOPLE THAT WISH
, 9
TO SPEAK ON THIS. ONE IS MICHAEL SCRIMSHER, ONE
20
IS MICKEY GRINDSTAFF, AND THE OTHER ONE IS ED
21
LEERDAM. DO THESE THREE PEOPLE STILL WISH TO
22
SPEAK?
23
MR. GRINDSTAFF: YES, SIR.
24
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY.
25
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.
..
'-.
.
\,
.
\.
29
1
MICKEY GRINDSTAFF, AGAIN, FOR THE RECORD.
2
DURING THE BREAK, CONSISTENT WITH OUR
3
COMMENTS THERE, I HANDED OUT TO EACH OF YOU TWO
4
BOUND THREE-RING BINDERS CONTAINING THE
5
TRANSCRIPTS OF VARIOUS COMMISSION MEETINGS AND
6
WORKSHOPS THAT HAVE OCCURRED SINCE THE FIRST
7
READING ON MARCH 8TH.
8
AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT'S IN
9
FRONT OF EACH OF YOU, INCLUDING THE NEW CITY
1 0
ATTORNEY. I APPRECIATE HIS EFFORTS TO GET UP TO
1 1
SPEED ON THIS" STUFF. THAT'S A STRONG TASK.
1 2
FIRST, THERE'S A CITY COMMISSION "MEETING
1 3
REGARDING THE TOWN CENTER, DATED MARCH 8, 1999;
CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP, DATED APRIL 1 9 , 1999;
CITY COMMISSION MEETING, DATED APRIL 26, 1999;
CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1 0, 1999;
CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING, AUGUST 9, 1999;
CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP, AUGUST 1 6, 1999; CITY
1 4
1 5
1 6
17
1 8
1 9
COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING THAT WAS CONTINUED FOR
20
AUGUST 16,1999.
21
THEN IN VOLUME THREE THERE'S THE CITY
22
COMMISSION REGULAR AGENDA ITEM C FROM AUGUST 23,
23
1999. THERE'S THE CITY COMMISSION REGULAR AGENDA
24
ITEM D FROM AUGUST 23, 1999; CITY COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETiNG, AGEND~ ITEM E FROM AUGUST 23,
25
~
.
, .
,
30
1
1999; CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
2
ITEM F FROM AUGUST 23, 1999. ONE MORE, AND THAT'S
3
THE CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING, DATED
4
SEPTEMBER 13, 1999.
5
JUST A COUPLE THINGS THAT CAME TO MIND AS
6
COMMISSIONER GENNELL WAS, FRANKLY, EXPLORING THE
7
POSSIBILITY OF WHAT WE BELIEVE WOULD BE A BAD
8
FAITH PROCEEDING AND RENEGING ON NUMEROUS PROMISES
9
MADE BY THE CITY.
1 0
THE THOUGHT COMES TO MIND THAT THE ADOPTION
1 1
OF THIS THING ISN'T NEAR AS IMPORTANT AS THE
1 2
SUCCESS OF SOMETHING. I MEAN, YOU'RE .TRYING TO
1 3
PUT A ROUND PEG INTO A SQUARE HOLE, AND UNDER SOME
1 4
SORT OF PROCEDURAL PROGRAM, WHICH WE THINK IS
1 5
FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND
1 6
THE CITIZENS OF WINTER SPRINGS.
1 7
THIS WHOLE THING HAS HAD A SHADOW CAST ON IT,
1 8
AT LEAST FOR THE YEAR OR SO THAT I HAVE BEEN
1 9
INVOLVED IN IT, AND IT'S VERY SUSPICIOUS. THIS
20
PROCEDURE -- I MUST TELL YOU THAT I'M NOT FAMILIAR
21
WITH THIS PROCEDURE. DON'T PRETEND TO BE THE
22
EXPERT THAT KNOWS EVERYTHING.
23
IT SOUNDS FUNDAMENTALLY SUSPICIOUS TO ME TO
24
BE PROCEEDING WITH AN ORDINANCE ON A SECOND
25
READING VERSUS A THIRD READING, BECAUSE ONE PIECE
.
~
.
,
.
~
31
1
IS LEFT OUT AND ONE PIECE MAY NOT B~ LEFT OUT.
2
WHAT'S THAT DO TO THE VALIDITY OF THE ENTIRE
3
ORDINANCE?
4
I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU, WE WOULD LIVE WITH THE
5
CONTINUANCE. WE WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE THE
6
MEETING, JUST LIKE WE HAVE DONE. I DON'T KNOW
7
WHAT THE IMPACT OF THE KINGSBURY PROPERTY IS. I
8 HAVEN'T LOOKED AT IT ON BEHALF OF THE KINGBURYS OR
9 THE CITY.
10' BUT FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, LET'S PLEASE JUST BE
1 1
FAIR, BE SENSITIVE TO EVERYBODY. WE'VE TRIED TO
1 2
BE. WE'VE TRIED TO BE RESPONSIVE TO THE CITY.
1 3
THE SCHRIMSHERS HAVE BEEN HERE FOR A LONG, LONG
1 4
TIME. THEY HAVE GOT AN EXCELLENT REPUTATION.
1 5
NOBODY HAS TRIED TO PULL ANY FAST ONES. WE WOULD
1 6
LIKE TO BE SURE THAT THERE'S NO SUSPICION COMING
1 7
OUR WAY.
1 8
SO I WOULD LIKE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT
1 9
YOU HAVE ON THE SCRIMSHER PROPERTY. WE WILL LIVE
20
WITH THE STANDSTILL AGREEMENT FOR A DATE CERTAIN,
21
FOR TWO WEEKS OR FOUR WEEKS, EVEN, COMMISSIONER
22
BLAKE. I THINK, GIVEN WHAT'S HAPPENED HERE
23
TONIGHT WITH THE KINGSBURY PROPERTY AND MR.
24
JOSHI'S SITUATION, WHATEVER THAT IS, I THINK TWO
25
WEEKS, FRANKLY, TO ADDRESS ALL OF THESE ISSUES
.....
.
.
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
.10
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
WITH THE SCHRIMSHERS AND KINGSBURY IS A SHORT TIME
FRAME.
AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO.PLUG THAT IN.
AND WHETHER WE'RE IN HERE TWO MORE WEEKS LOOKING
FOR SOME SORT OF ADDITIONAL READING OR CURATIVE
DEFECT -- OR EFFORT TO CURE A DEFECT. IT'S SORT
OF FRUSTRATING TO BE IN THIS THING FOR SO LONG AND
THEN BE -- I DON'T THINK ANY OF US RIG~T HERE,
RIGHT NOW, ARE REALLY SURE WHAT'S GOING ON.
AND IT'S NOT FAIR TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS.
IT'S NOT FAIR TO THE PEOPLE WHO ELECTED EACH AND
EVERY ONE OF YOU. AND I WOULD APPRECLATE YOU
TAKING THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.
THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.
MAYOR PARTYKA: GOOD. THANK YOU.
MR. SCRIMSHER, DO YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING OR
IS THAT ENOUGH? IF YOU DO --
MR. SCHRIMSHER: THAT MAY BE ENOUGH.
MAYOR PARTYKA: -- YOU NEED TO COME UP.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: MIKE SCRIMSHER, 600 EAST
COLONIAL, SUITE 100, ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32803.
I'M NOT SURE IF I WANT TO ADD TO THAT OR
NOT. I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO DEFER TO MR.
LEERDAM, SINCE HE'S GOING TO SPEAK. AND IF THERE
IS -- IF NOTHING MORE WAS SAID, I GUESS I DON'T
.
~
'.
'--
-.
"
33
1
HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY. BUT I GUESS I JUST WANT TO
2
MAKE SURE I MIGHT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK IN
3
CASE THERE'S SOMETHING THAT-IS BROUGHT UP.
4
MAYOR PARTYKA: MR. SCRIMSHER, AS AN
5
6
EFFECTIVE PROPERTY OWNER, YOU ALWAYS HAVE A RIGHT
TO SPEAK.
7
MR. SCHRIMSHER: NOT EVERY MOMENT.
8
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. YES. OKAY. MR.
9
LEERDAM.
1 0
MR. LEERDAM: THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MY NAME
1 1
IS ED LEERDAM. I REPRESENT THE JESSUP
1 2
SHORES/SPRINGS LAKE JOINT VENTURE. THE ADDRESS IS
1 3
175 LOOKOUT PLACE, SUITE 201, MAITLAND, FLORIDA.
1 4
I STILL HAVE A PROBLEM WITH A NUMBER OF
1 5
ISSUES. AS YOU MAY RECALL, IN JUNE -- JUNE OR
1 6
JULY, MY GROUP WAS REPRESENTED BY A LEGAL
1 7
COUNSEL. WE WERE DISCUSSING OUR VESTED RIGHT
18
CERTIFICATE.
1 9
AT ONE POINT THE QUESTION CAME UP -- AND I
20
DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH OUR SITE. WE
21
OWN TWO SITES, THE 16-ACRE SITE SOUTH OF THE ROAD
22
AND A 9-ACRE SITE ON THE BACK SIDE, NORTH OF THE
23
ROAD
OR WEST OF THE ROAD.
24
AT THAT TIME, OUR LEGAL COUNSEL ASKED THE
25
QUESTION -- I GUESS IT WAS TO THE CITY MANAGER,
.
',.
.
.
'.
34
1
MR. MCLEMORE -- WHAT ARE YOUR INTEN~IONS REGARDING
2
OUR SITE?
3
AS YOU KNOW, THE SOUTH PORTION OF THE SITE
4" WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE DISTRICT. WE LEFT THE NORTH
5
PORTION OF THE SITE BEGAUSE THE CITY TOLD US THAT
6
THEY WERE INTERESTED IN BUYING THE SITE. WELL,
7
THAT'S FINE. I UNDERSTAND THAT.
8
THE QUESTION CAME UP AGAIN IN JULY AND MR.
9
MCLEMORE ASSURED US THAT THE INTENTIONS WERE STILL
10
THE SAME AND HE WOULD GET BACK TO US SHORTLY.
1 1
WELL, OVER THE LAST FOUR MONTHS OR THREE
1 2
MONTHS WE HAVE MADE NUMEROUS PHONE CALLS TO THE
1 3
CITY ATTORNEY TO GET AN UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF
1 4
THE PURCHASE. AND EVEN AS OF TODAY, WE ARE STILL
1 5
WAITING. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CITY MANAGER IS
1 6
MAKING PHONE CALLS, HE IS MEETING WITH DIFFERENT
1 7
PROPERTY OWNERS, THAT ARE AFFECTED BY THE TOWN
1 8
CENTER.
1 9
I AM STILL WAITING. AND THAT'S REALLY
20
DISAPPOINTING, BECAUSE WE HAVE TAKEN THE
21
INITIATIVE. WE WANT TO TALK, BUT FOR WHATEVER
22
REASON -- I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE BIGGER
23
PROPERTY OWNERS THAT HAVE A MUCH BIGGER INTEREST
24
IN THIS TOWN CENTER DISTRICT. I UNDERSTAND. I
25
CAN LIVE WITH IT.
.
.
J.
~
35
1
BUT AT LEAST I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A CHANCE TO
2
TALK ABOUT IT. AND I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO DO
3
HERE -- THAT'S MY PROPOSAL -- IS WE EITHER GET A
4
RESOLUTION ON THE SITE BEING BOUGHT IN A CERTAIN
5
TIME FRAME; OR, SECOND, THAT WE, ONE WAY OR
ANOTHER, HAVE AN AGREEMENT (INAUDIBLE) SITE CAN BE
6
7
D~VELOPED; OR, LAST, IF THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE, I
SUGGEST THAT -- I'M GETTING A LOT OF PRESSURE FROM
8
9
MY GROUP, THE PEOPLE IN MY GROUP -- OR LAST,
1 0
PLEASE REMOVE US FROM THE DISTRICT. SO I HAVE
1 1
THREE OPTIONS.
1 2
MAYOR PARTYKA: MR. LEERDAM --
1 3
MR. LEERDAM: AND I THINK THAT THE CITY OWES
1 4
US AN ANSWER WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME FRAME.
, 5
MAYOR PARTYKA: I AGREE WITH YOU, AND I
1 6
BELIEVE THIS COMMISSION WOULD AGREE WITH YOU.
, 7
MR. CITY MANAGER, ANY ANSWERS TO THOSE?
1 8
MR. MCLEMORE: SURE. YOU WILL RECALL THAT WE
1 9
ATTEMPTED TO MOVE THIS PROJECT FORWARD FOR THE
20
ACQUISITION OF THESE PROPERTIES TO THE STATE
21
BUREAUCRACY AS THE APPLICANT. YOU WILL ALSO
22
RECALL THAT THE COUNTY DECIDED THEY DIDN'T LIKE
23
THAT AND, THROUGH CERTAIN POLITICAL MANEUVERINGS,
24
TOOK THAT AWAY FROM US AND SAT ON IT FOR I DON'T
25
REMEMBER HOW MANY MONTHS.
.
.
.
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
AND OUR CONCERN WAS IF THE COUNTY TOOK IT
OVER, BECAUSE THEX' HAVE MANY ISSUES THAT ARE FAR
BIGGER THAN THE ONES WE HAVE, THAT IT WOULD GET
LOST IN THE PAPER SHUFFLE. THAT IS BASICALLY WHAT
HAPPENED. THAT ACQUISITION OF THOSE PROPERTIES
CANNOT MOVE FORWARD UNTIL THE TRAIL REALIGNMENT IS
RESOLVED. THAT APPLICATION FROM THE COUNTY HAS
BEEN FINALLY PROVIDED TO THE STATE WITHIN THE LAST
30 DAYS -- OR, CHARLES, 45 DAYS?
MR. CARRINGTO~: ABOUT 60 DAYS.
MR. MCLEMORE: 60 DAYS. AND THERE'S BEEN
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WE COULD DO ABOUT IT;
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, OTHER THAN TO CONTINUE TO
RAISE AS MUCH CAIN WITH THE COUNTY AS WE COULD TO
MOVE THE THING ALONG.
WE HAVE DONE IT. IT HAS FINALLY GOTTEN
THROUGH THE STATE. IT HAS FINALLY I DON'T KNOW
IF IT'S GOTTEN THROUGH THE CABINET YET, BUT IT
DOES HAVE, THE REALIGNMENT, A STAFF APPROVAL AT
THIS POINT IN TIME, I BELIEVE, WITH THE GOVERNOR'S
OFFICE AND THE CABINET, IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
CHARLES, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER INFORMATION?
MR. CARRINGTON: IT HAS MOVED, IN THE REVIEW
PROCESS, THROUGH THE OFFICE OF GREENWAYS AND
TRAILS AND IT HAS A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION FROM
:.
~.
.
.
37
1
THAT DEPARTMENT. IT HAS BEEN MOVED INTO THE
2
DEPARTMENT OF ACQUISITIONS, AND THEY'RE CURRENTLY
3
REVIEWING IT.
4
AS SOON AS THEY FINISH THEIR REVIEW AND GIVE.,
5
HOPEFULLY, A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION, IT WILL GO
6
TO THE CABINET .AIDES FOR THEIR REVIEW AND IT WILL
7
BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA BEFORE THE GOVERNOR
8
CABINET FOR ACTION.
9
MR. MCLEMORE: MY POINT IS, YOUR FRUSTRATION
1 0
IS FELT BY'US. WE TRY -- WE PREFER TO STAY IN A
1 1
POSITION WHERE WE CAN HANDLE IT, BUT IT WAS TAKEN
, 2
OUT OF OUR HANDS, AND, IN THE PROCESS, HAS MOVED
1 3
VERY, VERY SLOWLY SINCE THEN.
1 4
MR. LEERDAM: BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT
1 5
YOU'RE TALKING. WITH ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS.
I
1 6
UNDERSTAND TONIGHT HERE ABOUT DIFFERENT ISSUES,
, 7
AGREEMENTS, AND AS I AM TRYING TO TELL THEM, I'M
1 8
STILL WAITING -- THIS IS THE FIRST TIME NOW THAT
1 9
I'M FINDING OUT WHAT THE STATUS IS OF YOUR EFFORTS
20
TO BUY THE SITE AND I THINK THAT'S NOT CORRECT.
21
AS YOU KNOW, I (INAUDIBLE) AS A GENERAL PARTY
22
TO A NUMBER OF PEOPLE. THEY WANT TO KNOW WHAT'S
23
GOING ON, AND I REALLY FEEL IF THE PARK IS NO
24
LONGER AN OPTION, FOR WHATEVER REASON BEYOND YOUR
25
CONTROL, THEN AT LEAST LET'S EXPLORE STEP TWO.
.~
.
.
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
, 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
, 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
IF WE HAVE TO STAY WITHIN THE DISTRICT, THEN
I WOULD APPRECIATE IF AT LEAST I WOULD KNOW ON
WHAT TERMS I CAN DEVELOP OUR SITE.LIKE YOU'RE
DOING WITH THE SCRIMSHER GROUP. WHICH I HAVE NO
PROBLEM AT ALL, BUT AT LEAST I WANT TO KNOW WHAT'S
GOING ON, BECAUSE UP UNTIL NOW WE ARE BEING HELD
HOSTAGE. WE KNOW THE REASONS. I HAVE BEEN HERE
FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS, BUT IT DOESN'T.-- THAT'S
STILL NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE PEOPLE OF MY GROUP.
AND IF THAT ALL FAILS, THEN I REALLY SUGGEST
YOU SHOULD TAKE US OFF -- TAKE US OUT OF THE
DISTRICT.
MAYOR PARTYKA: MR.--
MR. LEERDAM: THERE'S A LOT OF MONEY
INVOLVED. WE ARE ALL BUSINESS PEOPLE, AND SO I
THINK IT'S ONLY FAIR.
MAYOR PARTYKA: MR. LEERDAM, TO FOLLOW UP ON
YOUR COMMENT THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A MEETING
WITH THE CITY MANAGER TO TALK ABOUT THESE ISSUES
AND GET AN UPDATE ON THINGS, IS THAT STILL
APPROPRIATE FROM YOUR STANDPOINT, THAT WE DO THAT
SO?
MR. LEERDAM: WE ALSO WOULD
MAYOR PARTYKA: THAT YOU AT LEAST GET UP
TO -- LET'S GET UP TO SNUFF AT THIS POINT. IS
39
.
,
THAT APPROPRIATE AT THIS POINT TO SAY, WHY DON'T
~
2
YOU MEET WITH THE CITY MANAGER? I'M SURE THE CITY
3
MANAGER WOULD LIKE TO MEET WITH YOU AND GET IT
4
DOWN TO THE POINT WHERE YOU'VE DISCUSSED
5
EVERYTHING, AT LEAST YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS,
6
AND FOR HIM TO UNDERSTAND ALL THE OPTIONS ON A
7
ONE-TO-ONE BASIS.
8
MR. LEERDAM: BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THOUGH, I
9
THINK WE SHOULD MAKE A LEGITIMATE EFFORT TO COME
1 0
TO A RESOLUTION WITHIN A PARTICULAR TIME FRAME.
1 1
THAT IS REALLY MY POSITION. I HAVE NO -- SHORT OF
1 2
WHAT IS GOING ON UNTIL FOUR MONTHS AGO, BECAUSE I
.
1 3
HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT OF THE LOOP SINCE JULY. BUT I
1 4
STILL THINK THAT WE ALL SHOULD TRY TO GET A
, 5
RESOLUTION WITHIN A PARTICULAR TIME FRAME. WE ARE
1 6
LOSING OUR SHIRT.
1 7
MR. MCLEMORE: I THINK WE SHOULD STILL HAVE
1 8
THE PROPERTY PURCHASED. THERE IS MOVEMENT NOW,
1 9
AND HOPEFULLY THIS THING WILL MOVE ALONG. I
20
REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER INFORMATION I CAN
21
OFFER AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
22
MAYOR PARTYKA: IS IT WORTHWHILE FOR YOU TO
23
MEET WITH (INAUDIBLE)?
24
MR. MCLEMORE: SURE. I'LL BE HAPPY TO MEET
.
~
25
AND -- SURE, AND COVER WHATEVER WE CAN. I MEAN,
.
~
.
.
40
1
SURE, I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO.
2
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. IS THAT AGREEABLE FOR
3
RIGHT NOW? I MEAN, AT LEAST GET THAT STEP AND
4' THEN DETERMINE WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AFTER THAT?
5
MR. LEERDAM: BUT.I STILL -- MAYBE IT SOUNDS
6
REALLY PUSHY, BUT I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHEN
7 ARE WE MEETING? BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO
8
MEET NOW FOR FOUR MONTHS. I HAVE COMMUNICATED
9
THROUGH YOUR CITY ATTORNEY. I REALIZE THAT'S
1 0
PROPER.
1 1
MR. MCLEMORE: I THINK IF YOU WOULD CALL MY
1 2
OFFICE IN THE MORNING, WE WILL SCHEDULE YOU A
1 3
MEETING RIGHT AWAY.
1 4
MR. LEERDAM: THANK YOU.
, 5
MAYOR PARTYKA: STAY'RIGHT THERE, JUST IN
1 6
CASE.
, 7
COMMISSIONER MCLEOD, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
1 8
MR. MCLEOD: NO, I DO NOT HAVE A QUESTION FOR
1 9
HIM. I DO THINK, HOWEVER, IT'S INEXCUSABLE TO NOT
20
HAVE COMMUNICATED BACK FROM THE STAFF'S SIDE, AT
21
LEAST -- IF WE KNEW WHERE THIS THING WAS PROCESSED
22
OR WHERE IT WAS AT AT THE STATE LEVEL, AT LEAST
23
BACK TO THE POTENTIAL SELLER OF A PIECE OF
24
PROPERTY TO LET HIM KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON. I THINK
25
THAT'S POOR BUSINESS COMMUNICATION ON OUR PART.
.
.
.
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO YOU
WILL CALL THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE TOMORROW TO
SET UP THE MEETING.
MR. LEERDAM: I WILL.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. GOOD.
MR. MCLEOD: I DO HAVE A QUESTION, THOUGH, ON
THE PREVIOUS, MR. GRINDSTAFF.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: SIR?
MR. MCLEOD: I WOULD LIKE TO K~OW WHERE
VOLUME ONE IS.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: VOLUME ONE WAS DELIVERED ON
MARCH 8TH.
MR. MCLEOD: OH,
MR. GRINDSTAFF:
START WITH MARCH 8.
MR. MCLEOD: ALL RIGHT. JUST LIKE TO MAKE
YES. I REMEMBER. OKAY.
VOLUME TWO AND VOLUME THREE
SURE THAT'S -- I REMEMBER.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: IF WOULD YOU LIKE AN EXTRA
COPY, COMMISSIONER MCLEOD --
MR. MCLEOD: NO, THANK YOU.
MAYOR PARTYKA: THERE'S ONE MORE PERSON THAT
WANTS TO SPEAK. STILL WISHED TO SPEAK? I DON'T
KNOW. MR. FINNEGAN, WOULD YOU WISH TO SPEAK NOW?
MR. FINNEGAN: YES, I DO.
.
.
.
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
MAYOR PARTYKA: YOU GET THREE MINUTES,
MR. FINNEGAN.
MR. FINNEGAN: PAUL FINNEGAN, 1567
(INAUDIBLE) STREET, WINTER SPRINGS. IF I COULD
ASK THIS COMMISSION THE STATUS OF THE JOSHI
AGREEMENT.
LAST TIME I WAS AT A COMMISSION MEETING WE
WERE EXTENDING THE AGREEMENT BY 90 DAYS.' MR.
JOSHI WAS SUPPOSED TO THROW OR BREAK LAND ON THE
1ST. ALL OF THIS COMES TO NAUGHT. I WOULD JUST
LIKE CLARIFICATION, IS MR. JOSHI MENTIONED IN ANY
DOCUMENTS OR IS HE TOTALLY OUT OF ALL THE
DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES? THANK YOU.
MR. MCLEMORE: I THINK THAT MR. JOSHI COULD
CONCLUDE AND I'M SURE HE. IN FACT, I KNOW FROM
MY CONVERSATION WITH HIM LAST FRIDAY, THAT HE IS
REVIEWING THIS WITH HIS ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE WHAT
RIGHTS HE HAS ON THAT AGREEMENT RELATIVE TO THE
CONTRACT PURCHASE OF THE KINGSBURY PROPERTY.
SO I DON'T WISH TO STAND HERE AND TRY TO BE
HIS ATTORNEY AND SUGGEST WHAT RIGHTS HE HAS ON
THAT AGREEMENT. I'M SURE HE WILL ASSERT THOSE IF
HE DESIRES.
AND SO WE WOULD JUST HAVE TO KIND OF SIT BACK
AND SEE, BUT THAT EXTENDED AGREEMENT HAS A
.
~.h
.
.
.
43
1
DEADLINE. WHEN THAT DEADLINE PASSES, THEN HE HAS
2
NO ADDITIONAL RIGHTS AT ALL UNLESS THIS COMMISSION
3
EXTENDS IT. I BELIEVE -- I'M SPEAKING FROM MEMORY
4
NOW, BUT I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE FIRST OF DECEMBER.
5
IT WAS EXTENDED TO.
6
MR. CARRINGTON: THAT'S CORRECT.
7
MR. MCLEMORE: SO THE BALL IS REALLY IN HIS
8
COURT.
9
MR. FINNEGAN: SO HE IS STILL PART OF-IT?
10'
MR. MCLEMORE: HE DOES HAVE AN EXTENDED
1 1
AGREEMENT. THE QUESTION IS: WHAT DOES THAT
1 2
AGREEMENT ENTITLE HIM TO RELATIVE TO THIS ISSUE?
1 3
AND I'M SURE THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT OPINIONS
1 4
ABOUT THAT, BUT I WOULDN'T WANT TO SUGGEST WHAT
1 5
THOSE MIGHT BE.
1 6
MR. FINNEGAN: AS A CLARIFICATION OF THAT
1 7
SUBJECT, IS MR. JOSHI STILL MAINTAINING AN OFFICE
1 8
HERE WITHIN THE CITY HALL AND AN OFFICE AT ANY
1 9
OTHER FACILITIES HERE?
20
MR. MCLEMORE: THERE IS AN OFFICE THAT HE
21
COMES TO FROM TIME TO TIME. I BELIEVE THAT WAS
22
EXTENDED, WITH THAT AGREEMENT, TO DECEMBER 1ST.
23
MR. FINNEGAN: THANK YOU.
24
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
25
MR. FINNEGAN.
..
,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
..
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
.
.
44
OKAY. THAT'S IT IN TERMS OF OTHER REQUESTS
TO SPEAK. I'LL CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING PORTION
OF THIS, OPEN THIS UP TO THE COMMISSION.
COMMISSIONERS, WHAT IS YOUR DESIRE? I'M
WILLING TO TAKE A MOTION ON ANYTHING. COMMISSIONER
MARTINEZ.
MR. MARTINEZ: BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE
MANAGER AND THE CITY ATTORNEY ATTEST TO THE FACT
THAT NO ONE WOULD BE HARMED BY APPROVING THIS
SECOND READING AS AMENDED, AND THAT IT WILL STAND
AS THE FIRST READING FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES,
AND SINCE IT'S BEING RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, THE
CITY MANAGER, AND THE CITY ATTORNEY, I MAKE A
MOTION THAT WE APPROVE SECOND READING, ITEM B, AS
AMENDED.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: I'LL SECOND IT.
MAYOR PARTYKA: SECONDED FOR THAT. DO WE
1 9
TECHNICALLY NEED TO. READ THAT BY TITLE ONLY?
20
WOULD YOU DO THAT, PLEASE.
21
MR. BLAKE: MAYOR.
22
MAYOR PARTYKA: YES, COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
23
MR. BLAKE: I THINK WHAT WE OUGHT TO DO IS TO
24
DETERMINE WHAT THAT TITLE OUGHT TO BE, AMEND THAT
25
FIRST, AND THEN HAVE A MOTION OF THE COMMISSION TO
.
,.
.
.
"
45
1
READ BY TITLE ONLY. THAT WILL EITHER BE UNANIMOUS
2
AND WILL BE READ BY TITLE ONLY, OR WILL NOT. BE
3
UNANIMOUS AND APPROVED, THEN THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE
4
WOULD HAVE TO BE READ.
5
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. IS cTHAT A MORE PROPER
6
PROCEDURE?
7
MR. GARGANESE: AS TO WHAT THE TITLE WILL BE?
8
MR. BLAKE: WELL, WE'RE AMENDING THE
ORDINANCE, AND THIS WILL ACT AS A FIRST READING
.9
1 0
FOR A PORTION OF IT FOR SOME INTERESTED PROPERTY
1 1
OWNERS.
1 2
THE METHOD THAT WE HAVE UTILIZED IN THE PAST
1 3
IS THAT ORDINANCES ARE TO BE READ IN THEIR
1 4
.ENTIRETY UNLESS THERE IS A UNANIMOUS MOTION BY THE
1 5
COMMISSION TO READ IT BY TITLE ONLY. AND WE HAVE
1 6
NOT DONE THAT AS OF YET, I BELIEVE, FOR CERTAIN
1 7
PROPERTY OWNERS.
1 8
MAYOR PARTYKA: YOU'RE CORRECT. IT'S A
1 9
TWO-PARTER, AND THE ONE PART WITH THE AMENDMENT IS
20
A NEW PART, WHICH IS THE KINGSBURY PROPERTY. SO I
21
THINK IT'S PROBABLY APPROPRIATE TO VOTE ON THE
22
AMENDMENT, THEN YOU CAN READ IT BY TITLE ONLY.
23
MR. MCLEMORE: COULD I RAISE THE ISSUE?
24
MAYOR PARTYKA: SURE.
25
MR. MCLEMORE: I THINK THAT THE MOTION MADE
46
--
:.
......
1
BY THE COMMISSIONERS SHOULD INCLUDE ~OVING THIS TO
2
THE THIRD READING AT THE MEETING OF YOUR NEXT
3
MEETING DATE.
4
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY.
5
MR. MCLEMORE: WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION.
6
MR. MARTINEZ: NO PROBLEM WITH IT.
7
MAYOR PARTYKA: ALL RIGHT. SO TO A DATE
8
CERTAIN, WHICH IS THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING.
9
OKAY. THERE WAS A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
1 0
GENNELL. COMMISSIONER BLAKE BRINGS UP A GOOD
1 1
POINT, SO IT'S APPROPRIATE, I THINK, TO VOTE ON
1 2
THE MOTION, AND THEN WE WILL READ IT BY TITLE
..
1 3
ONLY. OKAY?
1 4
MR. BLAKE: MAYOR?
1 5
MAYOR PARTYKA: YES.
1 6
MR. BLAKE: I THINK IT'S THE OTHER WAY
1 7
AROUND. IT'S ALWAYS A GOOD IDEA TO VOTE ON IT
1 8
AFTER IT'S READ, AS OPPOSED TO --
1 9
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. YES, BUT I THOUGHT YOU
20
BROUGHT UP THE FACT THAT SINCE PART OF IT WAS, IN
21
EFFECT, THE FIRST READING
22
MR. BLAKE: WELL, WE HAVEN'T READ IT AT ALL
23
YET.
24
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. IF IT'S
.
25
OKAY WITH EVERYBODY, LET'S JUST READ IT BY TITLE
.
.
.
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
ONLY. MR. GARGANESE?
MR. BLAKE: THERE NEEDS TO BE A MOTION ON IT.
MR. MILLER: SO MOVED.
MR. MARTINEZ: SECONDED.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND?
OKAY. LET'S JUST THE TECHNICAL --
MR. MCLEOD: MAYOR.
MAYOR PARTYKA: GO AHEAD.
MR. MCLEOD: I THINK YOU BETTER PULL THE
FIRST MOTION BACK. I DON'T THINK YOb CAN PUT A
MOTION ON THE FLOOR, MOTION FIRST AND SECOND. YOU
BETTER GET RID OF THE FIRST MOTION, THEN GET THIS
MOTION, THEN BRING THE OTHER MOTION BACK TO THE
FLOOR.
MAYOR PARTY~A: ALL RIGHT. I THINK THAT'S A
GOOD POINT.
MR. MARTINEZ: I'LL WITHDRAW MY MOTION.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: I'LL WITHDRAW THE
SECOND.
MAYOR PARTYKA: SINCE THIS IS A HIGHLY UNIQUE
SITUATION, IT'S KIND OF A TWO-PARTER. WE NEED TO
GET A MOTION TO READ BY TITLE ONLY FOR THIS
PARTICULAR AMENDED ORDINANCE.
MR. MARTINEZ: IT'S ALREADY DONE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: SO THERE WAS A FIRST -- THERE
:.
......
.
.
~..... .
48
1
W~S A MOTION AND THERE WAS A SECOND;' IS THAT
2
CORRECT?
3
MR. MARTINEZ: YES.
4
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. CALL THE VOTE,
5
PLEASE.
6
THE CLERK: DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL.
7
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: AYE.
8
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MCLEOD.
9
MR. MCLEOD: AYE.
10
THE CLERK: CQMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
1 1
MR. MARTINEZ: AYE.
1 2
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
1 3
MR. BLAKE: AYE.
1 4
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MILLER.
15
MR. MILLER: AYE.
1 6
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. MR. GARGANESE.
1 7
MR. GARGANESE: OKAY. ORDINANCE NUMBER 707,
1 8
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
1 9
WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING THE TOWN
20
CENTER ZONING DISTRICT CODE TO BECOME PART OF
21
CHAPTER 20 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY
22
OF WINTER SPRINGS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND
23
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
24
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY.
25
MR. GARGANESE: AS AMENDED. SO IT'S VERY
r..
,-
"-
'.
",
.
'" -
49
1
CLEAR THAT THE TWO AMENDMENTS ARE ON --.THE TWO
2
AMENDMENTS ARE WITH REGARDS TO THE MAPS ON PAGE 2
3
OF THE DOCUMENT TITLED "TOWN CENTER DISTRICT CODE"
4
AND THE AMENDMENT TO THE MAP THAT'S WITHIN THE
5
BODY OF THE ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE KINGSBURY
6
PROPERTY, WHICH .WILL BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE ZONING
7
DISTRICT AT ISSUE.
8
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL
9
RIGHT. NOW, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION -- WELL,
10 COMMISSIONER MCLEOD, DO YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING?
1 1
MR. MCLEOD: YES. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I
12
UNDERSTAND, THEN, THAT AS THE SECOND READING, ONE
13
OF THE MAIN, PRIMARY REASONS OF THE SECOND READING
1 4
IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE RESPONDING TO THE
1 5
WISHES OF THE KINGSBURY ATTORNEY BY MAKING SURE
1 6
THAT IT'S READ IN, AS THIS IS BASICALLY ACTING AS
1 7
A FIRST READING FOR THEIR PROPERTY.
18
MR. MCLEMORE: IN EFFECT, YES.
1 9
MAYOR PARTYKA: THAT'S CORRECT.
20
MR. MCLEOD: PARDON?
21
MR. MCLEMORE: IN EFFECT, YES.
22
MR. MCLEOD: AND SO THAT IT'S NOT DOING
23
ANYTHING HERE -- WE'RE NOT TRYING TO MOVE FORWARD
24
AGAINST THE SCRIMSHER PROPERTY, WE'RE JUST TRYING
25
TO RESPOND TO ANOTHER ATTORNEY'S REQUEST OTHER
"'.
.
,
.
~"
50
1
THAN SCHRIMSHERS AT THIS POINT.
2
MR. GARGANESE: JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, IT'S
3
NOT A REQUEST OF THE CITY COMMISSION TO READ IT
4
IN. THEY WERE RAISING IT AS A PROCEDURAL ISSUE
5
THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE A DEFECT WITH RESPECT TO
6
YOUR ORDINANCE; TO MAKE IT REALLY CLEAR SO YOU
UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR LETTER STATED.
7
8
MR. MCLEOD: SO WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO IS
9
CLARIFY A POTENTIAL DEFECT?
1 0
MR. GARGANESE: YES, SIR.
1 1
MR. MCLEOD: THANK YOU.
1 2
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. THANK YOU.
1 3
COMMISSIONER BLAKE, DO YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING?
1 4
OR IF NOT, WE ARE READY FOR THE MOTION.
1 5
MR. BLAKE: I WAS WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION.
1 6
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ OFFERED
1 7
THE LAST TIME, SO I'LL GIVE HIM THE SAME OPTION.
1 8
MR. MARTINEZ: I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE
1 9
SECOND READING, WHICH IN THIS CASE WOULD BE THE
20
FIRST READING, AS AMENDED, AND TO MOVE THIS ON TO
21
OUR NEXT MEETING WHICH IS SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER
22
25, 1999, FOR ADOPTION.
23
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND TO
24
THAT?
25
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: I'LL SECOND.
51
~.
'-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9 P. M. )
20
21
22
23
24
25
t.
\...
.
"
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. ANY FURTHER
DISCUSSION? OKAY. CALL THE VOTE, PLEASE.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
MR. MARTINEZ: AYE.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MILLER.
MR. MILLER: AYE.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MCLEOD.
MR. MCLEOD: AYE.
"" GENNELL.
THE CLERK: DEPUTY MAYOR
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: AYE.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
MR. BLAKE: AYE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, LANDOWNERS, FOR COMING OUT
HERE. I KNOW THIS CONTINUES TO BE ONE TO TRY ALL
PEOPLE'S PATIENCE, BUT HOPEFULLY WE WILL GET THIS
CLOSER AND CLOSER.
(WHEREUPON, THE MEETING WAS CONCLUDED AT 8:00
.
52
-"
1
2
3
4'
CERTIFICATE OF OATH
5
6
7
STATE OF FLORIDA)
8 COUNTY "OF ORANGE)
9
10 I, SANDRA A. MOSER, REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL
REPORTER, CERTIFY THAT I WAS. AUTHORIZED TO AND DID
11 STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORT THE FOREGOING PROCEEDING AND
THAT THE TRANSCRIPT IS A TRUE RECORD.
1 2
.
,
I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT I AM NOT A RELATIVE,
13 EMPLOYEE, ATTORNEY OR COUNSEL OF ANY OF THE PARTIES,
NOR AM I FINANCIALLY INTERESTED IN THE ACTION.
1 4
15 DATED THIS 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1999.
1 6
17
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
..
'-
25
~~~I\"o.j o..,\,<\~. , e.
-
------------------------------
SANDRA A. MOSER, R.P.R.
NOTARY PUBLIC- STATE OF FLORIDA
A::r~:~ SANDRA A. MOSER
{.~ ;..' A MY C~~\M~SSION,~ ~C 733210
""',~....u EX,..IP.:S: 1>.':)'1. 1.::. 20D2
~~~/ ('Y-i~~~"" Bonde~ Tnru Notarl h.d6c Undent.'nters
"'"."1" .
.
'-
:.
-
lUlru
Registered
Prolesslonal
RepoIter
C~0.y".. Y
. ~~ lt~ -
'I
1
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
CITY 'COMMISSION- REGULAR MEETIlro.
(' ,,-
TRANSCRIPT OF MEETING H~LD ON OCTOBER 25,
1999, BEGINNING AT 5:00 P.M. AT CITY COMMISSION
CHAMBERS, 1126 EAST STATE ROAD'434, WINTER SPRINGS,
FLORIDA, AND REPORTED BY SANDRA A. MOSER, REGISTERED
PROFESSIONAL REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF
FLORIDA AT LARGE.-
;1r';;~~"'i ',r.", ,; "-~:~ ~i .
Realtime iP'Jrters,
tl'll')~\
l:':,;.V.~;'~\
Inc.
Registered Professional Reporters
Certified Video Technicians
1188 Fox Forrest Circle · Apopkd. Florida 32712 · . (407) 884-4662 · FAX (407) 884-4664
. Sandra A. Dawkins, PresIdent
Professional Reporting SInce 1977
'1~~1
Orl!!!!lO"
--
-.'_......
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
2
PRO C E E DIN G S
MAYOR PARTYKA: I GUESS ONE OF THE BIG
CONSIDERATIONS' CONTINUES TO BE "A," I GUESS, UNDER
PUBLIC HEARINGS, THE THIRD READING OF THE PROPOSED
TOWN CENTER.
MR. MCLEMORE: THAT WAS THE OTHER ISSUE I
WANTED TO BRING UP, THE DISCUSSION ISSUE, BUT
WHETHER YOU WANT TO DO IT NOW OR...
MAYOR PARTYKA: YES. WE STILL HAVE TEN
MINUTES.
MR. MCLEMORE: OKAY. WE ARE GOING TO BREAK
BEFORE --
MR. MARTINEZ: CAN'T WE DO THIS UNDER PUBLIC
HEARING WHEN IT COMES UP?
MAYOR PARTYKA: ALL RIGHT. OKAY. IS THERE
ANYTHING ELSE THAT ANYBODY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT
DURING THE WORKSHOP?
.;,
(WHEREUPON, A RECESS WAS TAKEN AND OTHER
PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD UNTIL 7:45 P.M.)
MAYOR PARTYKA: UNDER PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH
IS "V," A, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
REQUESTS THE COMMISSION CONSIDER A THIRD READING
OF ORDINANCE 707 ADOPTING THE PROPOSED TOWN CENTER
DISTRICT BOUNDARY AND TOWN CENTER DISTRICT CODE.
THERE HAVE BEEN SOME PEOPLE WHO WISH TO
.:.
'.
.
3
,
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
SPEAK, JUST FOR BACKGROUND BUT, MR. MCLEMORE, DO
YOU WANT TO KICK THIS OFF?
MR. MCLEMORE: YES. IN YOUR LAST MEETING, IT
WAS THE SECOND READING. WE DID CLARIFY AND
INCLUDE THE KI~GSBURY PROPERTY IN THAT TERRITORY
---
THAT'S IDENTIFIED IN THE BOUNDARIES.
WE, AT YOUR DIRECTION, CONTINUED OUR
NEGOTIATIONS WITH MR. SCRIMSHER. WE THINK WE HAVE
MADE SOME POSITIVE PROGRESS TOWARD POTENTIAL
AGREEMENT THAT WE COULD BOTH LIVE WITH. WE ARE
NOT CONCLUDED AT THIS POINT IN TIME. I WOULD SAY
THE DIRECTION HAS BEEN POSITIVE. THEY CAN GIVE
YOU THEIR VIEWPOINT OF THAT.
THE QUESTION IS WHETHER TONIGHT YOU MOVE
AHEAD AND ADOPT THIS ORDINANCE, UNDERSTANDING THAT
THE NEGOTIATIONS ARE NOT COMPLETE, OR AGREE TO
EXTEND A PERIOD OF TIME FOR FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS.
THE DOWN SIDE OF NOT MOVING AHEAD TONIGHT, OF
COURSE, IS THAT THERE ARE OTHER POTENTIAL PROJECTS
WITHIN THE AREA, OTHER THAN THOSE THAT INVOLVE THE
SCRIMSHER PROPERTIES, THAT COULD COME UP AT ANY
TIME. AND THIS ORDINANCE NOT BEING IN PLACE,
WHICH WE ARE TRAVELING UNDER THE ORDINANCE
DOCTRINE -- AND IF THIS WAS ADOPTED TONIGHT, THEN
WE SHOULD HAVE THIS ORDINANCE IN PLACE. THAT
.
.
.
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
DOESN'T MEAN IT WOULD BE CHALLENGED" AND I THINK
IT PROBABLY WOULD BE.
BUT, ALSO, IF-YOU-CHOOSE NOT TO GO AHEAD,
THEN I THINK AT THIS POINT IN TIME WE HAVE GOT TO
AGREE TO SOME KIND OF TIME LIMIT THAT SAYS THERE
ARE NOT GOING TO BE ANY MORE EXTENSIONS. I THINK
WITH THE MINOR ISSUES THAT ARE LEFT BETWEEN US AND
THE SCHRIMSHERS, WE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO WORK THOSE
OUT IN ANOTHER MEETING, OR EITHER WE'VE GOT TO
CONCLUDE WE CAN'T GET THERE FROM HERE.
I THINK WE ARE PRETTY WELL CLOSE TO WORKING
OUT MOST EVERYTHING. THERE MAY BE AN ISSUE OR TWO
THAT WE JUST CANNOT DEAL WITH. MAYBE WE NEED TO
BRING IT BACK TO THIS COMMISSION AND SAY, WE ARE
THERE EXCEPT FOR THIS ISSUE OR THAT ISSUE AND LET
YOU SETTLE THOSE ISSUES IN THE DIRECTION THAT YOU
THINK IS RIGHT FOR THE COMMUNITY AND THEN ALLOW
THE SCHRIMSHERS TO AGREE OR NOT AGREE.
I DON'T WANT TO BE HUNG OUT HERE FOR THE NEXT
SIX MONTHS ON ONE OR TWO ISSUES THAT WE CAN'T
BRING TO A CLOSE. AND THAT DON'T MEAN THAT WE
WILL. I'M JUST SAYING THAT'S A POSSIBILITY WHILE
OTHER THINGS ARE GOING ON THROUGHOUT THE TOWN
CENTER.
SO, REALLY, THE QUESTION HERE TONIGHT IS: DO
.
.
.
5
1
YOU DESIRE TO ADOPT TONIGHT? I THINK THERE WOULD
2
BE A CONCERN ON THE PART OF THE SCHRIMSHERS THAT
3
IF YOU DID, MAYBE THAT WOULD REDUCE OUR
4
UNWILLINGNESS TO COME TO A FINAL AGREEMENT. I
5
-
DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S TRUE.
6
I THINK POSSIBLY FROM A STRATEGIC POINT OF
7
VIEW THEY MAY FEEL THE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND FILE
8
LITIGATION. I STILL THINK, EVEN IN THAT
9
SITUATION, WE CAN CONCLUDE -- IF WE CONCLUDE WE
1 0
ARE GOING TO CONCLUDE WITHIN THE NEXT MEETING OR
1 1
SO.
1 2
SO AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IT'S REALLY A
1 3
MATTER FOR YOU TO DECIDE WHICH WAY YOU WANT TO GO;
1 4
ADOPT TONIGHT OR EXTEND THE NEGOTIATIONS FOR A
1 5
PERIOD OF TIME. I THINK THAT PERIOD OF TIME
1 6
SHOULD BE SHORT. BRING BACK TO YOU ANY UNRESOLVED
1 7
ISSUES MAYBE AT THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING, LET
1 8
YOU DECIDE THOSE ISSUES IN THE DIRECTION YOU
1 9
DESIRE TO HAVE THEM DECIDED, AND THEN ADOPT AT
20
THAT POINT IN TIME.
21
MAYOR PARTYKA: DO YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION
22
ON THIS?
23
MR. MCLEMORE: I HAVE A PREFERENCE. MY
24
PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO GO AHEAD AND ACT ON THE
25
ORDINANCE. I DON'T THINK WE REALLY LOSE ANYTHING
.
.
.
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
IN GOOD FAITH IN TRYING TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT.
I DON'T KNOW OF ANYTHING THAT WE WOULD PUT ON THE
TABLE IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS OR THREE WEEKS, _
WHATEVER IT TAKES, TO GET WHERE WE NEED TO GO.
I THINK THAT FROM DISCUSSION, YEAH, I THINK
THE SCHRIMSHERS WILL SEE THAT SOMEWHAT AS A THREAT
AND NEED TO TAKE SOME DEFENSIVE ACTIONS, BUT I
DON'T THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE.
I DON'T WANT TO START STAGING UP OTHER
PARTIES WHO WANT TO GO BRING ON ANOTHER PROJECT
AND WE'RE STILL TRAVELING UNDER THE PENDING
DOCTRINE ORDINANCE, YOU KNOW.
SO PART OF THAT, I GUESS YOUR ATTORNEY HAS TO
ADVISE YOU THAT IF WE ARE LITIGATED, ARE YOU IN
BETTER SHAPE TO WAIT IF YOU'RE LITIGATED, AND THEN
ARE YOU ESTOPPED FROM APPLYING THE NEW ORDINANCE
THAT YOU JUST ADOPTED, IF YOU CHOOSE TO ADOPT
TONIGHT AND LITIGATE IT (INAUDIBLE) BY THE
SCHRIMSHERS.
SO WE PROBABLY NEED TO GET SOME DISCUSSION ON
THAT BEFORE YOU MAKE YOUR FINAL DECISION. BUT I
WOULD PREFER THAT THE PARTIES AGREE THAT WE ADOPT
THE ORDINANCE TONIGHT AND WE SIT DOWN IN THE NEXT
TWO WEEKS AND FINISH UP OUR NEGOTIATIONS. AND
THEN IF EVERYBODY IS NOT HAPPY, THEY CAN STILL
.
.
.
7
1
LITIGATE. THAT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE.
2
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. COMMISSIONER MC~EOD
FIRST, THEN_COMMISSIONER BLAKE, THEN COMMISSIONER
3
4
MARTINEZ.
5
MR. MCLEOD: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I THINK
6 WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM OUR ATTORNEY, AREN'T WE;
7 SOMETHING ABOUT WHERE WE STAND BETTER OFF, OR WAS
8 THAT JUST A SUGGESTION OF YOURS, RON?
9
MR.. MCLEMORE: THAT WAS A SUGGESTION OF MINE.
1 0
MAYOR 'PARTYKA: ONE MORE PIECE. AND AGAIN,
1 1
THIS IS AT THE PREFERENCE OF THE COMMISSION WHEN
1 2
\ -. I'"
WE STARTED. YOU MAY WANT TO EVEN DO THIS. PUBLIC
1 3
INPUT IS COMING, SO YOU MAY WANT TO EVEN HOLD OFF
1 4
Y.OUR COMMENTS UNTIL PUBLIC INPUT, OR YOU MAY EVEN
1 5
WISH TO SPEAK NOW.
1 6
MR. MCLEOD: NO. I'LL SPEAK NOW AND THEN
1 7
I'LL SPEAK LATER.
1 8
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY.
1 9
MR. MCLEOD: BASICALLY, I THINK THAT WHAT WE
20
HAVE HERE, AND I THINK WE CAN PROBABLY SAVE A
21
WHOLE LOT OF TIME THIS EVENING, FROM WHAT I HEAR,
22
WE ARE VERY CLOSE TO AN AGREEMENT. WE'RE NOT
23
THERE YET. I THINK THAT AS LONG AS THIS HAS GONE
24
ON, I THINK WE WOULD BE FOOLISH TO MOVE ON THIS
25
THIS EVENING.
8
.
1
2
I THINK IF I WAS SITTING IN THE OTHER SEAT, I
WOULD -- THIS COMMISSION MAYBE MOVED FORWARD ON
3 THIS THIS EVENING, I WOULD HAVE TO FEEL THAT
4, PERHAPS MY HANDS ARE A LITTLE MORE TIED FROM A
.
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
NEGOTIATIONS STANDPOINT. AND IF YOU'RE IN THE
MIDDLE OF NEGOTIATION AND YOU'RE CLOSE TO THE
NEGOTIATION, AS WHAT I HEAR WE ARE, THEN I WOULD
SUGGEST THAT WE MOVE THIS THING TO -- I BELIEVE
NOVEMBER 23RD IS THE COMMISSION MEETING; IS THAT
-;,
.
CORRECT?
FIRST MEETING IN NOVEMBER IS THE 8TH. THAT'S
TWO WEEKS. IS THAT ENOUGH TIME THAT IT'S GOING TO
BE HAMMERED OUT, ALL PARTIES ARE GOING TO BE ABLE
TO GET TOGETHER ENOUGH TO HAMMER THIS THING OUT
ONE LAST TIME?
MR. MCLEMORE: AT THAT POINT IN TIME, MY
SUGGESTION IS WE MEET AGAIN, WE TRY TO RESOLVE THE
ISSUES IN A WAY THAT THE LANGUAGE IS WHERE WE CAN
LIVE WITH IT.
IF THERE'S AN ISSUE OR TWO ISSUES LEFT ON THE
TABLE, WE BRING YOU THOSE ISSUES, SAY WE ARE
UNABLE TO RESOLVE THESE ISSUES, THEN LET YOU MAKE
THE DECISION THAT YOU WANT TO MAKE RELATIVE TO
THOSE ISSUES, AND MOVE AHEAD. THAT'S MY
RECOMMENDATION. THAT'S NOT MY PREFERENCE, BUT MY
'.
.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
RECOMMENDATION.
MR. MCLEOD: I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR
BRIEFLY FROM THE OTHER PARTY AS TO -- WITHOUT, YOU
KNOW, GOING INTO THE WHOLE CAVEAT, DOES WHAT I'M
SAYING HERE MAKE SENSE? AND DOES -- BY NOVEMBER
---
8TH GIVE ENOUGH TIME FOR BOTH PARTIES TO COME TO
THE TABLE? AND ARE YOU WILLING, THEN, IF YOU
DON'T TOTALLY AGREE, THEN ON NOVEMBER 8TH THE
OUTSTANDING ISSUES WILL COME BEFORE THIS
COMMISSION TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THEM?
MAYOR PARTYKA: WOULD YOU WISH TO HAVE PUBLIC
INPUT AT THIS POINT, BECAUSE THERE ARE THREE
PEOPLE THAT WISH TO SPEAK, OR --
MR. MCLEOD: MAYOR, IF EVERYBODY IS IN
AGREEMENT, WHICH IS THE PARTIES, THEN I THINK IT'S
OVER FOR THIS EVENING AND WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.
MR. MARTINEZ: IT'S NOT OVER. THERE ARE
PEOPLE WAITING TO SPEAK.
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE THAT
COMMENT BY COMMISSIONER MCLEOD AT THIS POINT. IF
WE'RE WILLING TO HOLD OFF, LET'S SEE WHAT THEY
SAY.
MR. MCLEOD: WELL, I WOULD ASK FOR THE OTHER
PARTY IF THEY WOULD BE IN AGREEMENT OR NOT IN
AGREEMENT TO THAT.
.
.
'23
.
1 0
1
MAYOR PARTYKA: WELL, UNFORTUNATELY, THE
2
ISSUE IS WE'RE TALKING ON THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE,
.3
- - _..-
AND THERE ARE THREE PEOPLE; TWO FROM THE
4
SCHRIMSHERS AND ONE ALSO FROM RUTNICK & WOLF,
5
WHICH IS FOR A DIFFERENT PIECE OF PROPERTY. SO I
6
THINK WE UNDERSTAND THE POINT.
7
COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
8
MR. BLAKE: THANK YOU, MAYOR.
I WOULD LIKE
9
TO ASK MR. GRINDSTAFF, REPRESENTING THE SCRIMSHER
1 0
ORGANIZATION, DO YOU FEEL IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO
1 1
WORK OUT AN AGREEMENT, WITHIN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS,
1 2
WITH THE CITY BASED ON HOW NEGOTIATIONS HAVE GONE
1 3
OVER THE LAST TWO WEEKS?
1 4
MR. GRINDSTAFF: COMMISSIONER, MR. MAYOR, FOR
1 5
THE RECORD, MY NAME IS MICHAEL GRINDSTAFF, AN
1 6
ATTORNEY WITH THE LAW FIRM OF SHUTTS & BOWEN, 20
1 7
NORTH ORANGE AVENUE, ORLANDO, FLORIDA,
1 8
REPRESENTING THE SCRIMSHER GROUP.
1 9
COMMISSIONER BLAKE, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
20
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, EVERY TIME WE HAVE SET A
21
HEARING TWO WEEKS AWAY, TWO WEEKS AWAY, KEEP GOING
22
TWO WEEKS AWAY, WE COME BACK WITH SOME -- OR MAYBE
NO PROGRESS. I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THE
24
COMMISSION THAT IT WAS NOT US THAT GOT OFF TRACK
25
FOR 90 DAYS WHILE WE DEALT WITH MR. JOSHI'S
.
.
.
1 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
SITUATION.
SO WHEN MR. MCLEMORE IS TALKING ABOUT SETTING
A TIME FRAME, WE AGREE TO ANY TIME LIMIT, AND IF
WE CAN NEGOTIATE, WE CAN. IF WE REACH AN IMPASSE,
WE REACH AN IMPASSE. IF WE ARE NOT READY ON
NOVEMBER 8, WE'RE NOT READY ON NOVEMBER 8.
I THINK WHAT'S IMPORTANT HERE IS THIS
COMMISSION IS LOOKING FOR A TOWN CENTER. THEY'RE
LOOKING FOR SOLUTIONS TO THIS SITUATION. IN THE
LAST 30 DAYS WE HAVE MADE MORE PROGRESS ON THIS
ISSUE THAN HAS BEEN MADE OVER THE LAST 360 DAYS
THAT I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN IT.
AND I THINK THAT'S -- SITTING DOWN WITH
MR. MCLEMORE, SITTING DOWN WITH THE NEW CITY
ATTORNEY, TALKING ABOUT ISSUES, NOT JUST IGNORING
THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE ON A PIECE OF PAPER, BUT
TALKING ABOUT THEM, REALIZING THERE ARE CONCERNS
OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, AND COMING UP WITH
SOLUTIONS.
I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT WE ARE THERE. I CAN'T
TELL YOU WE'LL BE THERE ON NOVEMBER THE 8TH. I
CAN TELL YOU WE WILL BE THERE ON NOVEMBER 8 IF MR.
MCLEMORE WILL AGREE WITH EVERYTHING WE ASK FOR.
MR. BLAKE: SO IT IS POSSIBLE?
MR. GRINDSTAFF: IT IS POSSIBLE. HE'S GOING
.
.
.
1 2
1
TO NEED TO SEE THE GHOST FOR CHRISTMAS PAST FOR
2
THAT TO HAPPEN. IN ALL DUE RESPECT, I DO THINK WE.
3
HAVE MADE BIG PROGRESS. I THINK WE CAN MAKE A LOT
4
OF PROGRESS IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS.
5
MR. BLAKE: IF I CAN ASK YOU THIS: IF WE
6
WERE TO ENACT THIS ORDINANCE TONIGHT, DO YOU FEEL
7
THAT IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO CONTINUE THE
8
NEGOTIATIONS?
9
MR. GRINDSTAFF: NOT AFTER-- WE HAVE HAD THIS
1 0
DISCUSSION. NOT AFTER CONSIDERABLE TIME AND
1 1
ENERGY AND EXPENSE THAT IS DEVOTED TO INITIATING A
1 2
LITIGATION TO PROTECT OUR INTEREST. WE WILL HAVE
1 3
30 DAYS TO SEEK A WRIT OF CERTIORARI. YOUR
1 4
ATTORNEY WILL TELL YOU THAT.
1 5
THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT MAY LAST LONGER
1 6
THAN THAT. WE'LL HAVE 30 DAYS TO PREPARE WHAT WE
1 7
NEED TO PREPARE AND GET FILED IN SEMINOLE COUNTY.
1 8
AND THERE WON'T BE ANY NEGOTIATION GOING ON DURING
1 9
THAT PERIOD; THERE WILL BE PREPARATION OF OUR
20
PLEADINGS.
21
MR. BLAKE: LETTER WRITING.
22
MR. GRINDSTAFF: I THINK THAT IS A TERRIBLE
23
WASTE OF TIME AND ENERGY, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE ARE
WHERE WE ARE. AND IF FOR SOME REASON YOU FEEL I
I
I
LIKE THAT'S NECESSARY, I PERSONALLY THINK THAT'S AI
I
r
24
25
.
.
.
1 3
1
BIG MISTAKE.
2
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE,
3
PENDING LEGISLATION ORDINANCE AND ALL THAT STUFF,
4
BUT MR. MCLEMORE SEEMS TO FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH
5
THAT. I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU RISK ANYTHING BY
6
POSTPONING THIS THING FOR TWO WEEKS, 30 DAYS, 16
7
DAYS, ANY NUMBER OF DAYS.
8
WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE PROGRESS HERE, EVERYBODY
9
IS MAKING PROGRESS HERE, AND IF WE TRY TO PUT A
1 0
SQUARE PEG IN A ROUND HOLE, WE'RE WASTING OUR
1 1
TIME.
~
1 2
MR. BLAKE: MR. GRINDSTAFF, IF WE DID, IN
1 3
FACT, POSTPONE THIS THIRD READING UNTIL THE DATE
1 4
NOVEMBER 8TH OR 9TH, WHATEVER IT IS. WHAT IS IT?
1 5
MAYOR PARTYKA: 8TH.
1 6
MR. BLAKE: NOVEMBER 8, OKAY. IF WE DO IN
1 7
FACT POSTPONE IT UNTIL NOVEMBER 8TH, WOULD YOU AND
1 8
YOUR CLIENT AGAIN AGREE, AS YOU HAVE IN THE PAST,
1 9
TO EXTEND THE STANDSTILL AGREEMENT AND AGREE TO
20
PUT YOUR VERBAL REPRESENTATION OF THAT ON THE
21
RECORD THIS EVENING?
22
MR. GRINDSTAFF: SURE. SURE. YOU GUYS KNOW
23
THAT WE HAVE BEEN STRAIGHT UP WITH ALL THAT STUFF
24
FROM DAY ONE.
25
I
NOW, WHAT WE WOULD LIKE FOR MR. MCLEMORE AND
.
.
.
1 4
1
2
3
4-
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE NEW CITY ATTORNEY TO AGREE TO, LS LET'S MEET,
LET'S BE AVAILABLE, LET'S GET IT ON. LET'S DON'T
JUST WAIT UNTIL, LIKE, WEDNESDAY, THURSDAY, FRIDAY
BEFORE THE MONDAY MEETING TO TRY TO SQUEAK IN A
MEETING AND SAY WE'VE MET. I MEAN, LET'S MEET.
~~T'S MEET, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE ISSUES, LET'S
REVISE THE DOCUMENT, LET'S LOOK AT WHAT WE CAN DO,
AND LET'S AGREE TO AGREE OR DISAGREE BY THE 8TH.
MR. BLAKE: MR. MCLEMORE, IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT OTHER THINGS GO ON IN THE CITY
BESIDES THESE NEGOTIATIONS.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: SO HAS MR. SCRIMSHER, BY THE
WAY, GOT OTHER THINGS GOING ON BESIDES THAT.
MR. BLAKE: I UNDERSTAND THAT MR. SCRIMSHER
ALSO HAS OTHER THINGS GOING ON BESIDES THESE
NEGOTIATIONS.
WHERE WOULD YOU SEE SCHEDULING MEETINGS WITH
MR. GRINDSTAFF OR MR. SCRIMSHER OR ANYBODY IN THE
ORGANIZATION IN ORDER TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THESE
NEGOTIATIONS? WHERE WOULD YOU SEE THAT ON YOUR
LIST OF PRIORITIES OVER THE NEXT TWO WEEKS?
MR. MCLEMORE: CERTAINLY IN THE TOP FIVE. I
THINK THAT WE CERTAINLY COULD MEET THURSDAY AND/OR
FRIDAY OF THIS WEEK, MAYBE EVEN WEDNESDAY OR
THURSDAY OF THIS WEEK.
,.
,
.
.
1 5
1
I THINK THE CITY ATTORNEY AND I NEED TO GET
2
TOGETHER RIGHT QUICK, WORK ON A FEW THINGS. MAYBE
3
ONCE THIS WEEK, CERTAINLY HAVE A MEETING OR TWO,
4
OPTIONS FOR NEXT WEEK, THE FOLLOWING WEEK. COME
5
BACK TO YOU ON THE 8TH WITH WHERE WE ARE AT AND
6
WHAT ISSUES WE HAVE UNRESOLVED. AT THAT POINT IN
7
T*ME I THINK YOU WILL HAVE A SENSE OF HOW FAR AWAY
8
WE ARE OR HOW CLOSE WE ARE AND WHERE TO GO.
9
MR. BLAKE: I'M DONE.
1 0
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. THANK YOU.
1 1
COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
1 2
MR. MARTINEZ:
(INAUDIBLE. )
1 3
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. COMMISSIONER MILLER,
1 4
WOULD YOU SPEAK NOW?
1 5
MR. MILLER: I JUST WANTED ONE QUESTION FOR
1 6
MR. GRINDSTAFF AND ONE FOR, WELL, THE CITY
1 7
MANAGER.
1 8
I HAVE SAT HERE NOW PROBABLY EIGHT OR TEN
.
1 9
TIMES AND HEARD COMMENTS EXACTLY AS HAVE BEEN MADE
20
HERE TONIGHT BY BOTH YOURSELF AND THE CITY
21
MANAGER. I'M CURIOUS NOW, HOW CLOSE ARE YOU? YOU
22
MADE THE COMMENT, PUTTING A SQUARE PEG INTO A
23
ROUND HOLE. THAT TELLS ME THAT THERE'S SOME
24
SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS THAT YOU PROBABLY NEVER WILL
25
GET TO THE END OF IT.
,.
.
e
1 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. GRINDSTAFF: WELL, THE SQUARE PEG IN THE
ROUND HOLE COMMENT; COMMISSIONER, WAS PERTAINING
TO PASSING AN ORDIN"ANCE 'FOR THE SAKE OF PASSING AN
ORDINANCE. PASSING AN ORDINANCE IN THE FACE OF
WHAT WILL ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, CERTAINLY MEAN A
VERY EXPENSIVE, TIME-CONSUMING PIECE OF LITIGATION
THAT WASTES EVERYBODY'S TIME.
MR. MILLER: OKAY. HOW MANY MEETINGS HAVE
YOU HAD IN THE LAST MONTH WITH THE CITY MANAGER?
MR. GRINDSTAFF: TWO. IN THE LAST MONTH,
TWO.
MR. MILLER: HOW LONG WAS THE DURATION OF
THOSE MEETINGS?
MR. GRINDSTAFF: ONE WAS FOUR OR FIVE HOURS,
AND THE OTHER ONE WAS IN EXCESS OF TWO. I DON'T
REMEMBER; TWO TO THREE.
MR. MILLER: THAT'S SEVEN TO EIGHT HOURS.
DOES THE CITY MANAGER FEEL THAT ANOTHER SEVEN OR
EIGHT HOURS IS GOING TO SOLVE THE ISSUES BETWEEN
YOU?
MR. GRINDSTAFF: COMMISSIONER MILLER, WE WERE
PUT ON HOLD WHILE MR. JOSHI DID HIS THING FOR 90
DAYS.
MR. MILLER: I UNDERSTAND THAT. I UNDERSTAND
THAT. YOU HAVE SOME POSITIONS. I'M JUST TRYING
.
.
.
1 7
1
TO FIND OUT IF IT'S A GOOD EFFORT ON BOTH SIDES TO
2
MEET, BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE -- I WOULD NOT LIKE TO
3
"
HAVE THE CONVERSATION GO THE WAY IT JUST DID
4
TONIGHT NEXT TIME.
5
lIWELL, WE JUST HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO
6
DISCUSS THE ISSUES," BECAUSE THAT KIND OF A
7
RATIONALE -- I MEAN, I'LL BE SITTING HERE NEXT
8
MARCH AND THOSE SAME COMMENTS WILL BE BEING MADE.
9
AND AT SOME POINT IN THE INTERIM YOU BETTER REACH
1 0
A POINT THAT -- THERE IS SOME GAP THAT WE'RE NEVER
1 1
GOING TO CLOSE. AND THEN THE QUESTION COMES: DO
1 2
WE JUST MOVE ON WITH WHAT IT IS THAT MOST OF THE
1 3
PEOPLE IN THIS CITY WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE
1 4
HAPPEN, WHICH IS SOME VERSION VERY CLOSE TO WHAT
1 5
THIS ORDINANCE LOOKS LIKE; OR SHALL WE SAY, THE
1 6
HECK WITH IT AND WE WILL LOOK LIKE -- I THINK ONE
1 7
NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DESCRIBED IT AS SEMINOLE COUNTY
1 8
CHIC -- STRIP MALL CHIC, WHICH IS WHAT --
1 9
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THAT'S A BUG-A-BOOi THE
20
17-92/434 --
21
MR. MILLER: IF THIS ORDINANCE FAILS, THAT'S
22
WHAT WILL HAPPEN, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO
23
GET AT. I JUST DON'T WANT TO SEE THE ORDINANCE
24
FAIL. I'LL TURN OVER THE PODIUM AND GET ON WITH
25
IT.
..
.
.
.
1 8
1
MR. MCLEMORE: YOUR QUESTION, AS I
2
UNDERSTAND, WAS --
3
MR. MILLER: I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME S~RIOUS
MEETINGS TAKE PLACE. IF YOU-ALL SPEND 20, 30
4
5
HOURS 'IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS AND YOU HAVEN'T
6
REACHED IT, I THINK THAT WILL PROBABLY TELL US
7
SOMETHING, I HOPE.
8
MAYOR PARTYKA: I BELIEVE THAT --
9
MR. MILLER: LET'S GET IT ON AND GET IT OVER
1 0
WITH.
1 1
MAYOR PARTYKA: I BELIEVE MR. MCLEMORE STATED
1 2
THEY WILL HAVE MEETINGS TO BRING BACK TO THE
1 3
COMMISSION MEETING ON NOVEMBER 8TH WHATEVER THAT
1 4
POSITION IS AND WHETHER THAT'S A FIRM POSITION AT
1 5
THAT POINT IN TIME; IT CANNOT END ON ANYTHING
1 6
ELSE. THEN YOU WILL STATE THAT AT THAT POINT AND
1 7
WE WILL AGAIN COME TO SOME KIND OF DETERMINATION.
1 8
OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THIS
1 9
COMMISSION? OKAY.
20
MR. MARTINEZ: PUBLIC INPUT.
21
MAYOR PARTYKA: MR. GRINDSTAFF, YOU'RE STILL
22
ON THE FLOOR. WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THIS UP TO
23
PUBLIC INPUT. YOU'RE WELCOME TO STAY THERE -- IN
24
FACT, YOU'RE FIRST ANYWAY. SO IF YOU WANT TO MAKE
25
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM YOUR STANDPOINT.
.
.
.
1 9
1
MR. GRINDSTAFF: WELL, I REALLY DON'T CARE TO
2
MAKE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
I MIGHT CARE, WITH ALL
3
DUE RESPECT~ TO REBUT SOME THAT MAY BE
4
SUBSEQUENTLY MADE. IF I CAN RESERVE THE RIGHT TO
5
DO THAT, I APPRECIATE IT.
6
MAYOR PARTYKA: YOU'RE A CONCERNED LANDOWNER;
7 YOU HAVE THAT RIGHT.
8 . MR. SCRIMSHER, WOULD YOU CARE TO SPEAK NOW?
9
MR. SCHRIMSHER: SURE. MIKE SCRIMSHER, 600
1 0
EAST COLONIAL, SUITE 100, ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32803.
1 1
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY WE'VE HAD TWO
1 2
\.,. ~
MEETINGS, AND MY RECOLLECTION IS THE FIRST WAS
1 3
FOUR HOURS AND THE SECOND WAS TWO. WE WENT OVER
1 4
PRETTY THOROUGHLY THE AGREEMENT THAT WE HAD
1 5
PROPOSED ABOUT SEVEN MONTHS AGO AND ANOTHER
1 6
AGREEMENT, THE COUNTERPROPOSAL AGREEMENT, AND
1 7
PRETTY THOROUGHLY WERE ABLE -- WE DIDN'T GO OVER
1 8
ALL THE LITTLE "WHEREASES" AND STUFF, BUT AS FAR
1 9
AS THE SUBSTANTIVE PART OF THE AGREEMENTS, EACH
20
SIDE, MR. MCLEMORE AND THE CITY ATTORNEY AND
21
MICKEY AND I, WERE ABLE TO EACH ONE STATE OUR
22
VIEWS AND ASK OUR QUESTIONS BY THE TIME WE GOT
23
THROUGH THOSE TWO MEETINGS.
24
AND I THINK I FEEL LIKE
IT WOULD BE HARD
25
TO PUT A NUMBER, BUT I THINK WE MADE IT OVER
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
20
HALFWAY.
SOME OF THE THINGS WERE RESOLVED JUST BY
UNDERSTANDING, YOU KNOW; JUST BY GETTING THE
ANSWER TO UNANSWERED QUESTIONS. SO I FEEL PRETTY
OPTI-- SO WE HAD TWO MEETINGS ON THE TWO DIFFERENT
WEDNESDAYS IN THE TWO DIFFERENT WEEKS SINCE
YOU-ALL GAVE US THESE INSTRUCTIONS.
BETWEEN NOW AND YOUR NEXT COMMISSION MEETING,
THERE'S TWO MORE WEEKS TO PICK A MEETING PER WEEK
AND TO COME BACK, YOU KNOW, TO HOPEFULLY NAIL DO~N
THOSE LAST -- I THINK IT'S TRUE THAT BY THAT NEXT
COMMISSION MEETING WE WILL EITHER HAVE AGREED ON
EACH OF THEM OR WE WILL KNOW WHAT WE CAN'T AGREE
ON.
IT'S MY OPINION, FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, THAT
DELAYING THIS FOUR WEEKS MAKES MORE SENSE BECAUSE
IT GIVES YOU GUYS THE CHANCE TO HEAR WHAT, IF ANY,
UNRESOLVED THINGS THERE ARE AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT
IT, AS OPPOSED TO -- WHICH I DON'T THINK -- I
DON'T KNOW. MAYBE YOU WILL WANT TO DO THAT TWO
WEEKS FROM NOW ON MONDAY NIGHT. I DON'T KNOW.
THAT'S UP TO YOU.
BUT I THINK IT'S PROBABLE THAT WITHIN TWO
MORE WEEKS WE WILL EITHER HAVE AGREED OR KNOW
WHERE WE CAN'T, AND IT'S JUST HOW MUCH -- YOU
.
.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
KNOW, WHAT KIND OF OPPORTUNITY YOU WANT TO -- THE
COMMISSION WANTS TO LEAVE ITSELF TO BE THE BODY
THAT RESOLVES THOSE, THINGS, IF THERE ARE ANY, ONE
WAY OR THE OTHER, SO...
MAYOR PAR~YKA: OKAY. THANK YOU.
---
MR. SCHRIMSHER: I MEAN, I THINK IT'S A GOOD
REPORT AND I THINK IT'S A HUGE AMOUNT OF PROGRESS
IN A RELATIVELY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME COMPARED
WITH, YOU KNOW, THE PAST YEAR'S HISTORY.
MA YOR PARTYKA: VERY GOOD. THA'NK YOU. AND
NOW WE HAVE MS. SUE MURPHY. OH, I'M SORRY.
COMMISSIONER BLAKE WISHES TO ASK A QUESTION OF MR.
SCRIMSHER.
MR. BLAKE: I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS. DO
YOU FEEL THAT BOTH SIDES COULD COME TO US AT THE
WORKSHOP THAT'S PRIOR TO THE NEXT MEETING WITH
THAT ONE, HOPEFULLY NOT MORE THAN TWO ISSUES THAT
CAN'T SEEM TO BE IRONED OUT; THAT WE MAY BE ABLE
TO IRON THOSE OUT IN THE PROCESS OF THAT WORKSHOP
AND THE MEETING?
MR. SCHRIMSHER: YES. IT SEEMS LIKE THE CITY
NOW IS DECIDING THAT THAT IS WHEN THEY WOULD LIKE
TO HOLD THE WORKSHOPS, SO THAT WOULD, I THINK
MR. BLAKE: THE PURPOSE OF THE WORKSHOP,
REALLY, IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT, BUT I'M JUST
.
.
.
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
LOOKING FOR A WAY TO FACILITATE --
MR. SCHRIMSHER: I THINK THAT'S ESPECIALLY
TRUE IF WE GIVE YOU SO~ErHING TO LOOK AT PRIOR TO
5 O'CLOCK.
MR. BLAKE: WE WOULD CERTAINLY HOPE TO HAVE
ONE PRIOR TO 5 O'CLOCK WEDNESDAY.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: SO THAT YOU, YEAH, HAVE A
CHANCE TO READ OVER WHATEVER THAT UNRESOLVED ISSUE
OR TWO IS AND HAVE ALREADY AN OPINION OR SOME
QUESTIONS TO ASK OR A CHANCE TO GET SOME INFO IN
THE MEANTIME BEFORE THE WORKSHOP, SO THEN, YOU
KNOW, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM; EVERYBODY CAN MARCH RIGHT
THROUGH IT INSTEAD OF TRYING TO DO IT ON THE SPUR
OF THE MOMENT.
MR. BLAKE: I AGREE. THANK yOU.
MAYOR PARTYKA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MS. MURPHY, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.
MS. MURPHY: GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL MEMBERS,
STAFF. FOR THE RECORD, SUE MURPHY. I'M DIRECTOR
OF PLANNING WITH THE LAW FIRM RUTNICK & WOLF, 101
EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD, TAMPA, FLORIDA.
I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE JAMES DORRIN
COMPANY. JAMES DORRIN COMPANY IS THE -- HAS VALID
EXISTING RIGHT TO PURCHASE CONTRACTS ON ALL THE
KINGSBURY PROPERTY THAT'S INVOLVED UNDER THIS
..
.
.
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
TND.
THEY HAVE ALREADY FILED A SITE PLAN FOR
APPROXIMATELY 11 ACRES ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
THE INTERSECTION OF 434 AND TUSCAWILLA BOULEVARD
UNDER THE EXISTING ORDINANCES. WE RECOGNIZE WHAT
THE CITY WANTS ~O ACHIEVE WITH THE TND ORDINANCE.
I HAVE WORKED ON TND'S. THEY LIVE IN CHARLESTON.
THEY'RE BASED IN CHARLESTON. THEY ARE FAMILIAR
WITH THE PRODUCT. WE HAVE NOTHING AGAINST IT, PER
SEe
WE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF
THE WAY IT'S BEING APPLIED TO THE PROCESS. IT
SEEMS TO PLACE AN INORDINATE BURDEN ON FEW
PROPERTY OWNERS FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD. WE HAVE SOME
OTHER LEGAL CONCERNS ABOUT IT.
SINCE TND'S ARE TYPICALLY DONE AS AN OVERLAY
DISTRICT OR AN INCENTIVE-BASED DISTRICT WHERE YOU
HAVE ONE PROPERTY OWNER WHO'S TRYING TO DEVELOP
THIS AND PULL IT ALL TOGETHER AND THEN SELL
PLATTED LOTS, IT'S A LITTLE UNUSUAL TO HAVE IT BE
THE ONLY USE YOU CAN ALL OF A SUDDEN HAVE ON YOUR
PROPERTY.
HAVING SAID ALL OF THAT, WE WENT WITH YOUR
CITY MANAGER AND YOUR CITY ATTORNEY TODAY TO TALK
ABOUT SOME OF OUR CONCERNS AND ASK SOME QUESTIONS
2~
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
WE HAD ABOUT THIS. AND WE EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO
WORK WITH YOU TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN. WE HAVE
THIS PLAN FILED. WE ARE SEEKING OUR DRC REVIEW
MEETING FOR THE MIDDLE OF NOVEMBER.
BUT WE ARE WILLING TO, TO THE EXTENT THAT WE
CAN DO IT AND THE EXTENT THE CITY CAN BE FLEXIBLE
AND WORK WITH US, WE WILL BE FLEXIBLE AND WORK
WITH THE CITY TO TRY TO MAKE OUR USES CONFORM AND
MEET THE SPIRIT OF WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO.
RETAIL HAS ALWAYS BEEN -- ON THE TND'S I'VE
EVER SEEN OR WORKED ON, RETAIL HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE
MOST PROBLEMATIC ASPECT OF THE TND. THE HOUSING
ASPECT SELLS WELL, THE RETAIL HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE
PROBLEM AREA.
WE HAVE A SITE PLAN IN FOR A GROCERY STORE
ANCHOR SHOPPING CENTER. WE ARE WILLING TO WORK ON
SOME DESIGN CHANGES WITH THE CITY TO THE EXTENT
THAT WE CAN DO SOMETHING WE CAN LEASE, SOMETHING
WE CAN DO COST EFFECTIVELY, SINCE WE CAN'T PASS
THOSE ADDITIONAL DESIGN COSTS ON TO THE TENANT,
WHO CAN JUST GO DOWN, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE BLOCKS
AWAY AND NOT HAVE TO INCUR THOSE COSTS.
WE MAY HAVE SOME FINANCING PROBLEMS WITH SOME
OF THESE THINGS BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THIS
DEVELOPMENT. WE ARE SIMPLY ASKING THAT IF WE
.
.
.
.
.
25
1
THAT THE CITY WORK WITH US AND BE FLEXIBLE AND
2
HAVE THIS BE A GIVE-AND-TAKE PROCESS.
3
WE WOULD RATHER SPEND THE MONEY WE COULD
4
SPEND LITIGATING THIS WITH THE CITY AND TAKE THE
5
CITY AND THE MONEY THEY SPEND LITIGATING WITH US
6
AND LET'S WORK TOGETHER AND TRY TO GET THE PROJECT
7
DONE IN A WAY THAT MAKES EVERYBODY HAPPY AND
8
EVERYBODY CAN LIVE WITH.
9
MR. MCLEMORE HAD INDICATED THAT THE GROCERY
1 0
TENANT, HE RECOGNIZES THAT THOSE ARE THE TENANT
1 1
GROCERY TENANT ANCHOR SHOPPING CENTERS ARE NOT,
1 2
r
YOU KNOW, THE PRIMARY, IDEAL FORM FOR A TND, BUT'
1 3
THEY'RE NECESSARY AND NEEDED AND THAT, YOU KNOW,
1 4
WE HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY IN DESIGNING SUCH A
1 5
CENTER. LIKE I SAID, WE'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH
1 6
YOU TO TRY TO DESIGN THAT.
1 7
I THINK THERE'S SOME THINGS THE CITY CAN DO.
1 8
MR. MCLEMORE INDICATED THAT YOU COULD BRING IN
1 9
SEWER AND WATER, WHICH IS CERTAINLY AN ASSET.
I
20
THINK THERE'S OTHER THINGS YOU COULD EXPLORE
21
DOING, SUCH AS IMPACT FEES IN THE TND CENTERS
22
SINCE IT'S PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED. THERE ARE
23
THINGS -- SUCH INCENTIVES -- I THINK THE CITY
24
NEEDS TO START CONSIDERING INCENTIVES TO MAKE THIS
25
MORE ATTRACTIVE AND MORE COST EFFECTIVE AND COME
.
.
.
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
UP WITH SOME FLEXIBILITY IN THESE TYPES OF MORE
DIFFICULT PIECES OF PROPERTY THAT ARE RETAIL.
WE ARE PREPARED TO HIRE A SPECIALIST, LIKE
ANDRE (INAUDIBLE) WHO I HAVE WORKED WITH MANY
TIMES, TO COME IN AND PUT TOGETHER A SITE PLAN FOR
THIS TO SEE IF WE CAN COME UP WITH SOME KIND OF
HAPPY MEDIUM HERE THAT WE CAN ALL LIVE WITH THAT
MEETS YOUR SPIRIT AND MEETS OUR FINANCIAL AND
BUSINESS OBLIGATIONS AT THE SAME TIME. WE HOPE
THAT THE CITY WILL WORK WITH US TO DO THAT.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I JUST WANTED TO
MENTION IS THAT WE WERE TOLD TODAY THAT WE
CAN'T -- THE CITY CAN'T REALLY NEGOTIATE ANY KIND
OF AGREEMENT OR ANY KIND OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
AND FLEXIBILITY WITH US UNTIL YOU HAVE -- YOUR
CONTRACT WITH MR. JOSHI EXPIRES.
SO WE CAN'T EVEN BEGIN THIS PROCESS WITH YOU
TO TRY TO WORK OUT SOMETHING UNDER YOUR PROPOSED
NEW ORDINANCE UNTIL AFTER DECEMBER 1ST. AND I
DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO FACTOR THAT IN TO WHEN
YOU ADOPT THIS ORDINANCE, BUT WE HAVE NO CHOICE
BUT TO OPERATE UNDER THE EXISTING ORDINANCE UNTIL
AND UNLESS WE CAN COME UP WITH SOME KIND OF
FLEXIBLE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY.
SO I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT IN THE RECORD
.
.
.
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE ABOUT WHAT
WE'RE TRYING TO DO AND HOPE'THAT WE CAN ALL WORK
TOGETHER TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING EVERYBODY
LIKES.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY.
MS. MURPHY: THANK YOU.
MAYOR PARTYKA: THANK YOU. MS. MURPHY, I
KNOW SEVERAL TIMES YOU HAVE REQUESTED TO SPEAK TO
ME. WE KEPT MISSING EACH OTHER. I HAD CALLED
YOUR OFFICE A COUPLE TIMES, TOO.
MS. MURPHY: I APPRECIATE THAT. I HAVE BEEN
ON THE ROAD NON-STOP, BUT I APPRECIATE THAT. AND
MR. MCLEMORE AND YOUR CITY ATTORNEY MET WITH ME
EARLIER TODAY FOR QUITE AWHILE AND WE GOT A LOT OF
THE INFORMATION WE HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT ANSWERED.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE THAT
WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE? I HAVE NO OTHER
REQUESTS. IF THERE ARE NO OTHER REQUESTS TO
SPEAK, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC INPUT PORTION OF THIS
MEETING AND OPEN THIS BACK TO THE COMMISSION
DISCUSSION. AND COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ, UNLESS
COMMISSIONER MCLEOD, YOU HAD A SPECIFIC QUESTION
TO MS. MURPHY?
MR. MCLEOD: NO. I HAVE IT TO THE CITY
ATTORNEY, BUT MR. MARTINEZ' LIGHT WAS FIRST.
.
.
.
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
MAYOR PARTYKA: YES. COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
MR. MARTINEZ: IN THE SUNDAY SENTINEL UNDER A
COLUMN WRITTEN BY jIM ~O~ER THERE'S AN ARTICLE
THAT READS IN PART: IN SEMINOLE WE HAVE THREE
CITIES WITH ELECTIONS ON NOVEMBER 2. TWO OF THE
CITIES ARE PRETTY WELL (INAUDIBLE) OUT. THE THIRD
IS IN THE PROCESS OF MOLDING ITSELF. THAT'S US.
THIS PLACE AREN'T EXACTLY (INAUDIBLE) WHERE
CITY COMMISSION MEMBERS SPEND MOST OF THEIR TIME
SQUABBLING OVER WHICH SIDE OF THE SIDEWALK THE
FENCE SHOULD GO ON. THEN HE GOES ON TO DESCRIBE
SOMETHING ABOUT ALTAMONTE SPRINGS.
IN THE LATTER PARAGRAPH HE SAYS, THE MOST
IMPORTANT ONE IS WINTER SPRINGS. THERE THE CITY
HAS A LOT OF UNDERDEVELOPED LAND IN ITS CORRIDOR.
THAT GIVES IT THE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING DEVELOPED
ALONG THE LINES OF SEMINOLE STRIP MALLS SHIEK,
WHICH SOME PEOPLE HAVE ENVISIONED; OR BUILDING A
DOWNTOWN (INAUDIBLE) CELEBRITY ONLY WITHOUT THE
HIGH PRICE TAKING.
AND I'M SAYING TO YOU, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING
ON THIS FOR A QUITE A LONG TIME, AND WE HAVE THE
SAME DEBATES EVERY TWO WEEKS. EVERY TWO WEEKS WE
HAVE THE SAME DEBATE.
HERE WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT WAS READ FOR
.
.
.14
.
29
1
THE FIRST TIME, WAS READ A SECOND TIME, WHICH
2
TURNED OUT TO BE THE FIRST TIME AND HAS BEEN READ
3
A THIRD TIME, WHICH IS THE SECOND READING.
4
WE HAVE A MANAGER REQUESTING THAT WE APPROVE
5
-
THIS, THAT IT WILL NOT AFFECT THE NEGOTIATIONS
6
BETWEEN HIMSELF AND MR. SCRIMSHER.
I TAKE
7
EXCEPTION TO THAT REMARK BY THE LEARNED ATTORNEY,
8
BECAUSE WE DO NOT PASS ORDINANCES FOR THE SAKE OF
9
PASSING AN ORDINANCE.
1 0
AND I 'THINK THE WORK THAT WE HAVE PUT INTO
1 1
THIS HERE IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THE TIME AND
1 2
CARE THAT WE HAVE TAKEN TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE.
1 3
I'M TALKING ABOUT TWO YEARS.
FOR TWO YEARS ALL YOU HEAR IS THE SAME
1 5
THING. AND I HAVE ASKED IN THE PAST THAT WE BE
1 6
GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP THE VISION, AND
1 7
VISION BY THE CITY ADMINISTRATION, FOR THE 434
1 8
CORRIDOR. BUT THAT FALLS ON DEAF EARS.
1 9
HERE WE HAVE AN ITEM TONIGHT, THE LOCAL
20
PLANNING ZONING BOARD MAKES A MOTION THAT WE
21
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS TOWN CENTER DISTRICT
22
DESIGN CODE TO THE CITY COMMISSION, BASED ON THE
23
FINDINGS THAT OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD
24
ARTICULATE A VISION OF THE FUTURE, PHYSICAL
25
APPEARANCE, AND QUALITY IN THIS COMMUNITY THAT WE
..
.
.
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
HAVE RECEIVED FROM MEANINGFUL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
IN VARIOUS MEETINGS THAT WE DO NOT -- WE DO NEED
TO HAVE AN IDENTIFIED TOWN CENTER.
BELOW THAT WE HAVE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
IT SAYS THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDS THE COMMISSION
APPROVE THE THIRD READING OF ORDINANCE 707
ESTABLISHING THE TOWN CENTER DISTRICT CODE AND
TOWN CENTER DISTRICT BOUNDARY.
AND I'M ASKING: HOW MANY TIMES OR HOW. LONG
IS THIS COMMISSION GOING TO BE FOLLOWING UP ON
THIS SAME PROCEDURE? THIS IS NOT THE ONLY ITEM.
THERE HAVE BEEN QUITE A FEW ITEMS. AND THIS ITEM
HAS COME UP AND HAS BEEN POSTPONED AND IT HAS BEEN
POSTPONED AND IT HAS BEEN POSTPONED. AND I THINK
THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT, NUMBER OF POSTPONEMENTS HAS
BEEN ABOUT TEN IN TWO YEARS, DEALING WITH THIS
ISSUE AND MOVING IT FORWARD.
AND I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO BE SUFFICIENTLY
SMART TO SAY, WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE HERE THAT WE
SHOULD MOVE FORWARD. WE HAVE A TOWN CENTER TO
DEVELOP ACCORDING TO THE VISION OF THIS
ADMINISTRATION, AND WE SHOULD DO THAT. AND WE
SHOULD NOT PERMIT NEGOTIATIONS THAT HAVE TAKEN
PLACE RIGHT NOW TO PREVENT THOSE FROM IMPROVING
THIS HERE, SINCE THE MANAGER HAS STATED THAT HE
31
.
1
WILL WORK AND ACT IN GOOD FAITH TO MAKE SURE THESE
2
NEGOTIATION ARE SEEING THROUGH.
3 I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ~ORE TIMES WE'RE GONIG
4 TO DO THIS, BECAUSE I KNOW, AS COMMISSIONER MILLER
5 SAID, ON NOVEMBER 8TH WE'RE GOING TO HEAR SOME
6 OTHER ARGUMENT THAT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO
7 COME TO A MEETING OF THE MINDS; THAT THIS HAS
8 HAPPENED, THAT THIS HASN'T HAPPENED, THAT WE HAVE
9
TO DO THIS, THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THIS. AND WE
1 0
HAVE TO GET ON IT OR GET OFF IT.
1 1
MAYOR PARTYKA: IS THAT IT, COMMISSIONER?
12
\ -. r-
MR. MARTINEZ: YES, SIR.
.
1 3
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. THANK YOU.
1 4
COMMISSIONER MCLEOD.
1 5
MR. MCLEOD: I HEARD THE ATTORNEY MENTION
1 6
THAT, REALLY, AT THIS TIME SHE'S BEEN TOLD ON THE
1 7
KINGSBURY PROPERTY THAT SHE CANNOT, UNDER THE TOWN
1 8
CENTER, THAT HER CONTRACT WITH MR. JOSHI -- THAT
1 9
SHE CANNOT MOVE FORWARD WITH ANY KIND OF
20
NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CITY.
21
NOW, I GUESS I WOULD HAVE TO ASK MR. JOSHI
22
HERE, STRAIGHTFORWARD, IF KINGSBURY HAVE ALL
23
INTENTIONS OF SELLING THE PROPERTY TO THESE FOLKS,
24
THEN APPARENTLY THEY DO NOT PLAN TO BE WORKING
.
25
WITH YOU ON DEVELOPMENT; SO, THER~FO~E; WHY WOULD
.
.
.
32
1
WE BE STRAPPED TO CONTINUE WITH THE ~ONTRACT ON
2
THE KINGSBURY PIECE OF PROPERTY?
3
I THINK THERE'S BEEN GOOD EARNEST ~ONEY PUT
4 ON THAT PROPERTY AT THE PRESENT TIME. I'D HAVE TO
5
TURN TO THAT ATTORNEY ~ND ASK, I GUESS, ALSO, THAT
6
gYESTION. IF THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY HAVE HAD
EARNEST MONEY PUT UP BY SOMEBODY TO WORK ON THAT
7
8
PIECE TO DEVELOP IT WITH THAT, ARE WE THEN
9
OBLIGATED TO MR. JOSHI AT THIS TIME? OR IS MR.
.;,
1 0
JOSHI WILLING TO RELINQUISH THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY
1 1
FOR THE CITY TO NEGOTIATE AND TALK TO ABOUT THIS
1 2
PIECE OF PROPERTY?
1 3
MR. GARGANESE: WHAT I UNDERSTAND FROM
1 4
READING THE CONTRACT WITH JOSHI IS --
1 5
MAYOR PARTYKA: YOU NEED TO TALK INTO THAT,
1 6
MR. GARGANESE.
1 7
MR. GARGANESE: OKAY. WHAT I UNDERSTAND FROM
1 8
READING THE CONTRACT WITH MR. JOSHI, THE CITY HAS
1 9
AGREED NOT TO NEGOTIATE WITH ANOTHER DEVELOPER FOR
20
THE KINGSBURY PROPERTY. I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN
21
THIS CONTRACT THAT WOULD PROHIBIT THE OWNER OF
22
THAT PROPERTY FROM SELLING THEIR PROPERTY TO
23
SOMEBODY OTHER THAN MR. JOSHI. THEY COULD SELL IT
24
TO ANY THIRD PARTY THEY WISH TO SELL IT TO.
25
AGAIN, THE CITY HAS A CONTRACT WITH
.
.
.
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
'----
MR. JOSHI. THAT'S WHAT IS MEANT BY MS. MURPHY'S
STATEMENT THAT THE CITY IS NOT IN A POSITION AT
THIS TIME TO NEGOTIATE WITH ANYONE OTHER THAN
MR. JOSHI FOR THE KINGSBURY PROPERTY.
MR. MCLEOD: OKAY. WOULD MR. JOSHI BE
WILLING TO RELEASE THE CITY ON THE KINGSBURY
PROPERTY AT THIS TIME?
MR. JOSHI: NOT YET.
MR. MCLEOD: OKAY. THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION
VERY QUICKLY.
MR. JOSHI:
THANK YOU.
YES. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM
MR. MCLEOD:
YOU, IF I MAY.
MR. SHURTZ: PAUL SHURTZ, JAMES DORRIN
COMPANY, PALM BEACH, FLORIDA.
I THINK I WANT THE COUNCIL TO KNOW, PART OF
THE CONTEXT OF OUR CONVERSATIONS REVOLVE AROUND
HOW TO WORK WITH THE CITY. WE REALIZE THAT THE
CITY HAS A VISION FOR THE CITY, AND ALSO THAT THE
KINGSBURY PIECE IS A VERY ESSENTIAL PIECE OF THAT
VISION.
IF THERE ARE MEANINGFUL CONVERSATIONS AND
THERE IS A WAY TO HAVE US -- AND WE ARE CERTAINLY
ABLE TO PERFORM -- START YOUR PROJECT, BUILD THE
BUILDINGS OR BUILD THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT IS
.
.
.
34
1
G~ING TO ASSIST YOU IN THE REALITY OF IT, RATHER
2
THAN THE CONVERSA~ION OF IT, THAT WILL CERTAINLY
.3
- p ~--
HELP YOU TO HAVE OTHER DEVELOP~RS AND OTHER PEOPLE
4
COME IN TO DO LIKE-KIND DEVELOPMENT.
5
IF YOU TIE OUR HANDS AND YOU PASS LEGISLATION
6
PRIOR TO US BEING ABLE TO TALK WITH YOU BECAUSE OF
7
AN AGREEMENT 'THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH US, I
8
DON'T KNOW THAT THE CITY AND ITS TO ITS OWN
9
BENEFIT IS DOING ANYTHING POSITIVE. THAT'S MY
1 0
OBSERVATION.
1 1
MAYOR PARTYKA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
1 2
MR. SHURTZ.
1 3
MR. MCLEOD: LET ME ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY
1 4
THIS: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN -- WAS THE
1 5
SCHRIMSHERS' PROPERTY NOT IN THAT AGREEMENT?
1 6
MR. GARGANESE: YES.
1 7
MR. MCLEMORE: (INAUDIBLE) CAN ANSWER THAT.
1 8
MR. GARGANESE: FROM WHAT I CAN SEE, THE TWO
1 9
PROPERTIES THAT ARE PART OF THE AGREEMENT ARE THE
20
BLUMBERG PROPERTY AND THE'KINGSBURY PROPERTY,
21
PURSUANT TO EXHIBIT A OF THE JOSHI AGREEMENT.
22
MR. MCLEMORE: INITIALLY, IT WAS IN THE
23
AGREEMENT. THE INITIAL AGREEMENT WE HAD WITH
24
MR. JOSHI, THE SCRIMS HER PROPERTY WAS IN THERE.
25
MR. MCLEOD: SINCE THEY FELL OUT IN THEIR
.
.
.
35
1
CONTRACT, THIS IS A NEW CONTRACT.
2
MR. MCLEMORE: RIGHT; WHEN WE AMENDED THIS
3
AGREEMENT WITH MR. JOSHI, WE TOOK THOSE SCRIMSHER
4
PROPERTIES OUT, AND SO NOW THE CURRENT AGREEMENT
5
-
HAS ONLY THE SCHRIMSHER AND BLUMBERG PROPERTY IN
6
IT.
7
MR. MCLEOD: WASN'T THAT THE SAME EVENING
8 THAT WE FOUND OUT THAT MR. KINGSBURY NO LONGER HAD
9 A CONTRACT WITH MR. JOSHI THE NIGHT THAT THIS WAS
10. APPROVED?
1 1
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, I THINK THE PROPER THING
1 2
TO SAY HERE IS THAT IT IS IN DISPUTE. THE PARTIES
1 3
TO WHAT AGREE -- I MEAN, AT WHAT POINT THEY ARE
1 4
CORRECT, I DON'T KNOW. BUT I THINK MR. JOSHI, AT
1 5
LEAST, HAS PUT ON THE RECORD THAT HE STILL CLAIMS
1 6
TO HAVE SOME INTEREST IN THAT PROPERTY AND HE
1 7
INTENDS TO PURSUE THAT.
1 8
AND THEN YOU HAVE THE DORRIN PEOPLE SAYING,
1 9
NO, WE HAVE THE PROPERTY AND THE CONTRACT AND WE
20
HAVE THE SOLE INTEREST IN IT. SO THERE'S A
21
CONFLICT GOING ON OUT THERE I THINK WE OUGHT TO
22
STAY OUT OF AND LET THAT FOLLOW ITS OWN ROUTES,
23
AND THEN DECEMBER 1 ROLLS AROUND HERE, THE
24
COMMISSION MAKES ITS DECISION.
25
MR. MCLEOD: WELL, OKAY. MY NEXT POINT WOULD
..
.
.
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
BE -- IS THAT AT THE PRESENT TIME I KNOW WE HAVE A
CONTRACT WITH MR. J~SHI, BUT IS THERE ANYTHING
COMING FORWARD WITH MR. JOSHI REGARDING WHERE HE
PRESENTLY IS IN HIS PROCESS? IS THERE ACTUALLY
ACTIVITY THAT YOU SEE HAPPENING, MR. CITY MANAGER,
THAT'S A POSITIVE ACTIVITY AT THIS POINT?
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, I KNOW WHAT'S BEEN
REPORTED TO ME.BYMR. JOSHI. I WAS INVOLVED IN A
DISCUSSION WITH MR. JOSHI AND A MAJOR TENANT
RECENTLY WHO HAS AN INTEREST IN THIS PROPERTY. WE
DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING IN WRITING. WE DON'T HAVE A
PLAN IN FRONT OF US AT THIS POINT IN TIME, BUT I
THINK THE ONLY PERSON THAT. CAN REALLY ANSWER THAT
WOULD BE MR. JOSHI.
MR. MCLEOD: OKAY. I WOULD THEN TAKE IT THAT
MR. JOSHI DOES HAVE A CONTRACT AT THE PRESENT TIME
ON THE OTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY, THE BLUMBERG?
MR. MCLEMORE: I DO NOT FACTUALLY KNOW THE
ANSWER TO THAT.
MR. MCLEOD: I KNOW MR. JOSHI IS HERE. WOULD
YOU LIKE TO COMMENT ON ANY OF THAT?
MR. JOSHI: NOT RIGHT NOW.
MR. MCLEOD: THANK YOU, MAYOR.
MR. SHURTZ: WE WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT.
MAYOR PARTYKA: HOLD ON FOR ONE SECOND. WE
~
.
.
37
1
HAVE ONE MORE COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER GENNELL.
2
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: YES. AS HAS BEEN
3
POINTED OUT~ WE HAVE BEEN H~RE GOING OVER THIS
4
CONSTANTLY, AND WE HAVE MADE SOME PROGRESS AND
5
THAT'S VERY GRATIFYING. MY CONCERN IS THAT, FOR
6
ONE THING, THE TOWN CENTER DEVELOPMENT CODE IS
7
SOMETHING THAT WAS GENERATED-IN MEETINGS WITH THE
8
PUBLIC AS TO WHAT THEY WANT THEIR DOWNTOWN TO
9
APPEAR LIKE.
1 0
IT HAS A PROVISION IN IT FOR A DEVELOPERS
1 1
AGREEMENT WITH ANY DEVELOPER THAT COMES IN AND
~
1 2
MEETS AND COMES TO AGREEMENT WITH THIS CITY ON THE
1 3
PROCESS AND WHAT HE'S GOING TO BUILD. THE
1 4
DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT IS A PIECE OF THE WHOLE TOWN
1 5
CENTER WHICH WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON.
1 6
AND I FIND IT VERY FRUSTRATING THAT EACH TIME
1 7
WE COME IN IT'S, WELL, WE'RE NOT THERE YET. AND
1 8
NOW WE HAVE POTENTIALLY ANOTHER DEVELOPER COMING
1 9
IN WHO WILL ASSERT RIGHTS, WELL, YOU CAN'T GO
20
FORWARD WITH THIS TOWN CENTER BECAUSE WE DIDN'T
21
HAVE AMPLE OPPORTUNITY. WHEN THEY'RE DONE, WE
22
WILL HAVE ANOTHER ONE.
23
THE TOWN CENTER MAY NEVER, EVER COME TO BE
24
UNLESS WE GO FORWARD WITH, NUMBER ONE, WHAT THE
25
CITIZENS WANT US TO DO, LAY OUT .THE TOWN CENTER
38
.
1
2
3
4,
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
DESIGN GUIDELINES; AND THEN, NUMBER JWO, THREE,
FOUR, FIVE, AND SIX, EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE
DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT AS THEY COME ON LINE.
THANK YOU.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. AS A PART OF THIS
WHOLE SITUATION AS A DEVELOPER, OWNER, ET CETERA,
WHY DON'T YOU COME UP AND ADD SOME MORE
INFORMATION TO THIS IF YOU CAN.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: I JUST WOULD LIKE TO ANSWER
A COUPLE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SAID. JUST A
REMINDER, IT WAS ORIGINALLY WHEN yOU START
THROWING AROUND THINGS LIKE A TWO-YEAR TIME FRAME,
WE DO GO BACK TO THE SUMMER OF '97. YOU SEE IN
THE RECORD THERE WAS -- THE CITY AGREED WITH US
THAT WE WOULD BE LEFT OUT OF THE TOWN CENTER UNTIL
AN AGREEMENT WAS REACHED.
P&Z AGREED WITH US ABOUT WHATEVER THAT WAS A
YEAR OR SO AGO, WHENEVER THEY REVIEWED THAT WITH
US. I'M NOT SURE WE'RE REALLY EVEN TALKING ABOUT
A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ANYMORE. EVERYONE SEEMS
TO TAKE GREAT OFFENSE AT REFERRING TO IT AS A
DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT, OR REFERRING TO US AS
DEVELOPERS UNLESS IT SUITS THE OCCASION, SO THAT
IT CAN BE USED AS A NEGATIVE LABEL.
BUT ANYWAY, JUST TO POINT OUT, IN THE SAME
.
.
.
.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
39
FASHION THAT THE CITY'S HANDS ARE TIED BECAUSE OF
THIS ILL-ADVISED DNA AGREEMENT WITH MR. JOSHI TO
WORK WITH THE JAMES DORRIN COMPANY IN THE SAME
FASHION, WE WERE INCLUDED UNDER THE ORIGINAL E&A
FOR THE ORIGINAL THREE MONTHS. AND MEETINGS THAT
'----
WE HAD SCHEDULED WITH CITY STAFF WERE CANCELED
BECAUSE OF THAT.
WE WERE NOT EVER ADVISED WHETHER OR NOT THE
THREE, 30-DAY EXTENSIONS WERE ENTERED INTO UNTIL
PRACTICALLY -- IN OTHER WORDS, AS FAR AS WE KNEW,
THE ORIGINAL 90-DAY AGREEMENT BECAME THE 180-DAY
AGREEMENT UNTIL IT WAS INFORMED IN SEPTEMBER WHEN
WE WERE DECIDING TO GIVE MR. JOSHI AN EXTENSION TO
DECEMBER 1.
IT'S REALLY OFFENSIVE TO HEAR YOU STATE SOME
THINGS SO INACCURATELY. THE SUM TOTAL OF MEETINGS
THAT I HAVE HAD WITH MR. MCLEMORE AND HIS STAFF
OVER THE LAST YEAR, OTHER THAN THE TWO I HAVE HAD
IN THE LAST TWO WEEKS, IS ZERO.
SO IT'S FALSE TO SAY WE KEEP COMING UP HERE
OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND WE DON'T MAKE ANY PROGRESS
AND WE KEEP HEARING THE SAME THING. YOU'RE NOT
HEARING THAT. THERE WAS VERY LITTLE SAID BY US
SINCE MID-MARCH WHEN YOU CHOSE TO ENTER INTO THIS
AGREEMENT WITH MR. JOSHI.
'.
'.
.
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
18
, 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
SO, I MEAN, I'M TRYING TO SPEAK,CAREFULLY,
ACCURATELY. I WISH YOU-ALL WOULD PLEASE TRY TO DO
THE SAME. WE HAVE-REALLX NOT WORN EVERYONE OtiT
WITH TWO YEARS OF MEETINGS. WE HAVE HAD VIRTUALLY
NONE UNTIL THE LAST TWO WEEKS, YOU KNOW.
AND I HAVE POINTED OUT A LOT OF THINGS IN
RECENT LETTERS I HAVE WRITTEN TO EACH OF YOU ABOUT
THE FACTS DOCUMENTED IN WRITING CONCERNING SOME OF
THE THINGS THAT ARE BEING DISCUSSED HERE TONIGHT.
AND ONE OF 'THE SUGGESTIONS I MADE TO YOU WAS, IF
YOU WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE STATUS OF THE CONTRACT
OR AGREEMENT ON THE BLUMBERG PROPERTY, YOU SHOULD
ASK THEM. THEY WERE HERE EARLIER. YOU-ALL KNOW
THEIR NUMBER AND THEIR NAME, YOU COULD CALL THEM
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE STATUS. IT'S NO
MYSTERY.
MR. MILLER: MICHAEL, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO
POINT OUT THAT I HAVE SAT HERE AND YOU AND ALL OF
US HERE HAVE DISCUSSED POINT-BY-POINT-BY-POINT A
LOT OF THIS LEGISLATION AT LEAST EIGHT OR TEN
TIMES NOW.
I DON'T KNOW WHICH MEETINGS YOU'RE REFERRING
TO; MAYBE ONE-ON-ONE WITH THE CITY MANAGER. WE
HAVE GIVEN YOU A LOT OF TIME, SO I FEEL A LITTLE
BIT PUT OUT WHEN YOU TELL ME THAT YOU'VE ONLY HAD
.
.
.
41
1
TWO MEETINGS, BECAUSE WE'VE SAT HERE AND I THOUGHT
2
WE HAD ARGUED OUT AN AWFUL LOT OF DETAIL THAT
3
MR. SCHRIMSHER: I TijINK I SPOKE REALLY
4
CLEARLY THAT I HAVE ONLY MET WITH THE CITY MANAGER
5
AND STAFF -- AND I'LL ANSWER WHAT YOU SAID
6
TWICE lN THE LAST TWO WEEKS AND, PRIOR TO THAT,
7
FOUR MONTHS PROBABLY FOR A YEAR ZERO.
8
AND DISCUSSION ABOUT THE TOWN CENTER
9
MR. MILLER: WE HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON
10 THIS, THOUGH, WITH STAFF.
1 1
MR. SCHRIMSHER: I THINK WE CAN GO BACK AND
1 2
REVIEW THESE --
1 3
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSIONER.
1 4
MR. SCHRIMSHER: AND SEE EXACTLY HOW MANY
1 5
TIMES I HAVE SPOKEN AND HOW MUCH TIME I'VE SPENT
1 6
SPEAKING. WE DID SPEND A GOOD BIT OF TIME WORKING
1 7
ON THE ORDINANCE ITSELF WITH VICTOR DOVER AND
1 8
CHARLES CARRINGTON, AND THOSE WERE VERY PRODUCTIVE
1 9
AND RESULTED IN SOME CHANGES WE ALL AGREED WERE AN
20
IMPROVEMENT TO THE ORDINANCE. MR. DOVER AGREED,
21
MR. CARRINGTON AGREED, WE AGREED, AND THAT
22
RESULTED IN SOME AMENDMENTS.
23
MR. MILLER: THANK YOU FOR ACKNOWLEDGING
24
THAT.
25
MR. SCHRIMSHER: THAT DOES NOT CONTRADICT
-.
.
.
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
ANYTHING I SAID JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO, WHICH WAS
THE TIME SPENT IN MEETINGS ON THE COMPANION
AGREEMENT, NOT TIME SPENT WITH MR. CARRINGTON AND
VICTOR DOVER ON THE ORDINANCE ITSELF.
MAYOR PARTYKA: MR. SHURTZ.
MR. SHURTZ: THANK YOU AGAIN. TO TRY TO
CLARIFY AND CRYSTALLIZE SOME OF THE ISSUES, IN
TERMS OF THE CONTRACT THAT WE HAVE ON THE
KINGSBURY PIECE, WE WILL BE FORMALLY RECORDING
THAT IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS THIS WEEK, SO THAT THAT
ISSUE KIND OF GOES AWAY.
ALSO, I GET THE SENSE THAT I HEAR THE
FRUSTRATION OF THE COUNCIL.
MR. BLAKE: CAN I INTERRUPT YOU ON THAT ONE?
YOU SAY THE CONVEYANCE OF THE KINGSBURY PROPERTY?
MR. SHURTZ: EXCUSE ME?
MR. BLAKE: THE CONVEYANCE OF THE KINGSBURY
PROPERTY?
MR. SHURTZ: THE CONTRACT WILL BE RECORDED.
THE PURCHASE AND SALE CONTRACT FOR THE KINGSBURY
PROPERTY WILL BE RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS.
MR. BLAKE: THIS WEEK. DO YOU KNOW WHAT
DATE?
MR. SHURTZ: MY ATTORNEYS WILL BE RECORDING
THEM.
4
.
.
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BLAKE: I WOULD CONSIDER THAT TO BE AN
IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENT.
MR. SHURTZ: OKAY. THEN THAT'S WHY WE'RE
DOING IT.
MR. BLAKE: DO YOU KNOW WHEN?
MR. SHURTZ: THEY HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO DO
IT ,AND WE'LL DO IT ASEXPEDI~IOUSLY AS POSSIBLE.
IT'S THE CONTRACT.
MAYOR PARTYKA: IT'S JUST A CONTRACT, JUST AN
INTENT TO BUY.
MR. BLAKE: THANK YOU.
MR. SHURTZ: SO THAT'S ;NUMBER ONE.
NUMBER TWO, WE ARE SITTING HERE, WE ARE
COMING AT THE TAIL END OF A RATHER CONTENTIOUS
SITUATION. FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, I DON'T KNOW THE
AGREEMENTS THAT YOU'VE ENTERED INTO WITH OTHER
PEOPLE AND THE INABILITY TO REALIZE THE ZONING AND
THE PLAN THAT YOU HAVE FOR THE CITY. IN A WAY, WE
SEEM TO BE TAKING SOME OF THE BRUNT OF THAT. I
DON'T KNOW WHY.
WE ARE A COMPANY THAT DID A HUNDRED MILLION
DOLLARS WORTH OF NEW DEVELOPMENT LAST YEAR. SO IF
YOU WANT TO SEE SOMETHING COME UP, MAYBE YOU OUGHT!
TO SIT DOWN AND WORK WITH US. WE CAN QUANTIFY
EVERY DEAL OF THAT HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS OF NEW
44
.
1
2
3
4.
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
STARTS IN 1998. I DON'T WANT TO BE THE WHIPPING
BOY FOR WHAT ELSE HAS GONE ON PRIOR TO THIS.
MR. MARTINEZ: YOU WILL NOT BE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: PLEASE, PLEASE.
MR. MCLEOD: YOU WILL GET A BRAND NEW ROPE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. PLEASE, LET'S USE A
LITTLE DECORUM HERE, PLEASE.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THIS WILL BE VERY BRIEF.
JUST A COMMENT, ONE RESPONSE TO MR. MARTINEZ'
REMARKS REGARDING THE P&Z RECOMMENDATION.
HE WAS READING A PORTION OF THE P&Z
RECOMMENDATIONS, NOT THE WHOLE THING, WHERE THEY
WENT ON TO SAY THAT THEY RECOMMEND THAT THE TOWN
CENTER CODE EXCLUDE THE SCRIMSHER PROPERTY;
EXCLUDE, NOT INCLUDE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ,
YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY?
MR. MARTINEZ: WELL, EVERYBODY HERE HAS
KNOWLEDGE THAT THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN EXCLUDED, SO
I DIDN'T THINK I HAD TO READ IT OVER AGAIN.
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT, TO THE CITY
MANAGER, SOME TIME AGO WE REQUESTED MR. JOSHI TO
APPEAR BEFORE US, AND MR. JOSHI, I THINK, MADE A
COMMITMENT HE WOULD HAVE SOME GROUNDBREAKING BY
DECEMBER 1ST ON WHATEVER PROPERTY HE ACQUIRES TO
.
.
45
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
DEVELOP. IS THAT STILL A POSSIBILITY?
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, GROUNDBREAKING IS NOT
POSSIBLE BY DECEMBER. I THINK, AS I RECALL,
DISCUSSION WAS HOPEFULLY TRYING TO SHOOT FOR
SOMETHING AFTER THE FIRST OF THE YEAR. I THINK HE
DID TALK ABOUT, THOUGH, BRINGING HIS OWN SALES
TRAILER AND ESTABLISHING HIS SALES FACILITY
HOPEFULLY ON THE PROPERTY BEFORE THE END OF THE
YEAR.
MR. MARTINEZ: THANK YOU.
MR. MCLEMORE: I MEAN, THE AGREEMENT LAYS OUT
WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR HIM TO DO, AND HE EITHER
DOES IT OR HE DOESN'T DO IT. IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. COMMISSIONER MCLEOD.
MR. MCLEOD: REAL QUICK FOR THE RECORD HERE,
THIS COMMISSION HAS ASKED SEVERAL TIMES FOR THE
CITY MANAGER AND MR. SCRIMSHER AND HIS ATTORNEY TO
GET TOGETHER AND HAMMER THIS OUT.
NOW WE'RE BEING BASICALLY TOLD HERE BY
MR. SCRIMSHER THAT THE ONLY MEETING THAT'S
HAPPENED IS TWO MEETINGS IN THE LAST TWO WEEKS.
IS THAT SO? I THOUGHT YOU HAD OTHER MEETINGS OVER
THE LAST YEAR WITH THEIR ATTORNEY OR THEMSELVES.
MR. MCLEMORE: WE HAVE HAD OTHER MEETINGS.
AND I'LL JUST HAVE TO GO BACK AND ISOLATE THEM;
.
.
.
.
.
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
A~D NUMEROUS, NUMEROUS TELEPHONE DISCUSSIONS.
I THINK THAT RELATIVE TO THIS PARTICULAR
AGREEMENT, IF YOU ~iILL- RECALL,- WE HAD SOME VERY
LENGTHY DISCUSSIONS WITH THIS COMMISSION OVER THE
ADVISABILITY OF GOING AHEAD WITH SOME TYPE OF
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. AND I HAD VERY STRONG
OPINIONS ABOUT NOT GETTING INTO A DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT, AND I THINK --
MR. MCLEOD: WELL, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
WE ALL AGREED "NOT...,"
MR. MCLEMORE: RIGHT. AND THEN WE THEN MOVED
TO THIS NEXT PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT. AND SINCE THAT
LAST DIRECTION WITH YOUR NEW ATTORNEY ON BOARD,
WHICH I REALLY DIDN'T HAVE ANYBODY TO WORK WITH
FOR A PERIOD OF TIME HERE, I THINK WE PUT TOGETHER
A COUNTERPROPOSAL TO THEIR AGREEMENT RELATIVELY
QUICKLY AFTER ANTHONY CAME ON, WHICH ALLOWED US TO
GET TO THOSE TWO MEETINGS VERY QUICKLY.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: WE AGREE.
MR. MCLEMORE: SO I THINK THAT WE HAVE GOOD
FAITH IN EVERYTHING THE COMMISSION HAS DECIDED,
AND THAT'S BEEN KIND .OF AN EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS AS
WE'VE TRAVELED THROUGH THIS.
MR. MCLEOD: I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
THERE HAS BEEN MORE THAN TWO MEETINGS WITH STAFF
.
.
.
47
1
AND YOURSELF WITH THE SCHRIMSHERS OVER THE
2
ORDINANCE, OVER THE LAST YEAR.
3
, -
MR. MCLEMORE: OH, ABSOLUTELY.
4
MR. MCLEOD: THANK YOU.
5
-
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSIONER GENNELL.
6
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: YES, MR. MAYOR. DID
7
YOU CLOSE THE PUBLIC INPUT?
8
MAYOR PARTYKA: WE HAD CLOSED THE PUBLIC
9 INPUT, BUT THEY'RE HERE AS PART OF THE CONCERNED
10, PARTIES, AND THIS WAS IN THE MIDST OF COMMISSION
11 DISCUSSION.
1 2
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: OKAY. IF ALL THE
1 3
COMMISSIONERS HAVE SPOKEN, I'M PREPARED TO MAKE A
1 4
MOTION.
1 5
MAYOR PARTYKA: I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ONE
1 6
COMMENT BEFORE YOU DO THAT.
1 7
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: OKAY.
1 8
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. I WANT TO SAY THIS:
1 9
WE ALL ARE DREAMING OF A SUCCESSFUL TOWN CENTER;
20
EVERY ONE OF US IN THIS ROOM. WE HAVE WORKED HARD
21
ON THIS. EVERYBODY WANTS -- I SAID THIS TWO YEARS
22
AGO; EVERYBODY SHOULD BE IN A WIN-WIN SITUATION.
23
WE HAVE TALKED. THIS IS A PROJECT THAT
24
LITERALLY, POTENTIALLY, WOULD BE HUNDREDS OF
25
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. THIS IS NOT A SALE OF A HOME
,~.
~.
.
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
OR A SALE OF A BUILDING THAT LITERALLY CAN TAKE
ONE OR TWO YEARS, ONE WITH SMALL DETAILS.
FOR US TO ALLOW ANOTHER TWO WEEKS OR ANOTHER
FOUR WEEKS OF DISCUSSION IS TRULY IN THE BEST
INTEREST OF THE CITIZENS OF THIS CITY, BECAUSE IF
WE DON'T DO THAT, WE RUN THE RISK OF LITIGATION.
AND I, FOR ONE, DO NOT WANT TO GET INVOLVED IN
MORE LITIGATION.
SO FOR THE SAKE OF GOING ON AND TALKING JUST
A LITTLE BIT MORE, BECAUSE AS MR. SCRIMSHER AND AS
MR. MCLEMORE SAID, WE HAVE COME A LONG WAY IN THE
PAST COUPLE WEEKS. AND IF WE COULD KEEP THAT UP,
IT MAY GET TO A POINT WHERE WE COULD LIVE WITH
SOMETHING.
AND THIS IS A VERY, VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR
THIS CITY. AND TO ALLOW ANOTHER FEW WEEKS IS NOT
GOING TO HURT THE LONG-TERM SUCCESS OF THIS
PROJECT. IN FACT, IT MAY EVEN ENHANCE THE SUCCESS
OF THIS PROJECT.
SO I URGE AGAIN ONLY ONE SIMPLE THING WHEN IT
COMES TO A VOTE, THAT WE ALLOW THE PEOPLE INVOLVED
TO SPEAK AND MEET AND TALK SOME MORE ABOUT THIS SO
WE CAN GET ON WITH THE SHOW.
COMMISSIONER GENNELL, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.
MR. MCLEOD: WAS THAT A MOTION, MAYOR?
.
.
.
49
1
MAYOR PARTYKA: NO, NO. THAT WAS JUST MY TWO
2
COMMENTS.
3
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.
4
KEEPING IN MIND THAT THIS TOWN CENTER DISTRICT
5
CODE IS DESIGNED TO BE A LIVING DOCUMENT, IT'S
6
DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE CHANGE IF CHANGE IS
7
NECESSARY; AND KEEPING IN MINn THE LONG TIME THAT
8
WE'VE WORKED ON IT AND HOW CLOSE WE ARE AND THE
9
FACT THAT EVERYONE IS BARGAINING IN GOOD FAITH
1 0
I HAVE EVERY CONFIDENCE THAT I CAN SAY THAT ON
1 1
BOTH SIDES -- I AM PREPARED TO MOVE THAT WE
1 2
~ 0
APPROVE ORDINANCE 707 AND MOVE US ON TO THE NEXT
1 3
STEP.
1 4
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND TO
1 5
THAT MOTION?
1 6
MR. MILLER: SECOND.
1 7
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. BEFORE -- DO WE HAVE
1 8
TO READ THIS BY TITLE ONLY?
1 9
MR. GARGANESE: YES.
20
MAYOR PARTYKA: LET'S READ THIS BY TITLE
21
ONLY.
22
MR. GARGANESE: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
23
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA,
24
ESTABLISHING TOWN CENTER ZONING DISTRICT CODE TO
25
BECOME PART OF CHAPTER 20 OF THE CODE OF
.
.
.
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS,
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
MAYOR.
MAYOR PARTYKA: THANK YOU. OKAY. THERE IS A
MOTION ON THE FLOOR BY COMMISSIONER GENNELL TO
APPROVE THIS ORDINANCE. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND?
MR. MARTINEZ: THERE WAS A SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER MILLER.
MAYOR PARTYKA: SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
MILLER. OKAY; DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER MCLEOD.
MR. MCLEOD: COMMISSIONERS, I HAVE TO TELL
YOU I DO NOT BELIEVE IT WOULD BE A GOOD MOVE AT
THIS TIME TO MOVE THIS FORWARD. I THINK IT'S
HASTE -- THAT IT WILL BE A LITTLE BIT HASTY WHEN
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A TWO-WEEK PERIOD, POSSIBLY
ANOTHER FOUR WEEKS TO SEE SOMETHING HAPPEN THAT
COULD BE VERY POSITIVE.
IF WE MOVE THIS FORWARD YOU'RE GOING TO TIE
THIS WHOLE TOWN CENTER UP IN LITIGATION THAT I
THINK WILL BECOME VERY COSTLY AND VERY TIMELY.
AND FOUR WEEKS FROM NOW DEFINITELY WILL NOT BE ANY
FURTHER THAN YOU ARE TODAY. AND I THINK YOU NEED
TO REALLY RETHINK AND RECONSIDER THE MOTION THAT
WAS JUST MADE. THANK YOU.
.
.
.
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
MAYOR PARTYKA,: THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.
COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
MR. BLAKE: THANK YOU, MAYOR. LIKEWISE,
PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT A YES VOTE TO THIS MOTION,
FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, WILL KILL THE TOWN
CENTER. UNDERSTAND THAT. MAKE NP MISTAKE ABOUT
IT. A YES VOTE TO THIS MOTION WILL KILL THE TOWN
CENTER.
THREE YEARS, FOUR YEARS OF WORK, ALL THE
NEGOTIATIONS THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE. . IT TAKES
TIME. IT DOESN'T HAPPEN OVERNIGHT. TWO WEEKS AND
YOU'RE GOING TO KILL IT. WHEN YOU VOTE, I THINK
YOU REALLY NEED TO CONSIDER -- REALLY NEED TO
CONSIDER THE IMPACT THAT THAT VOTE WILL HAVE ON
434, THE INTERSECTION OF TUSCAWILLA ROAD.
IT'S NOT A TOWN CENTER ANYMORE. THEN IT WILL
BE THE INTERSECTION OF TUSCAWILLA ROAD AND 434.
WE CAN SHOW YOU PICTURES OF WHAT THAT WILL LOOK
LIKE IN THE FUTURE OF WINTER SPRINGS. YOU CAN DO
IT NOW OR YOU CAN WAIT TWO WEEKS AND DO IT THEN.
I HOPE YOU THINK VERY CAREFULLY ABOUT IT.
MAYOR PARTYKA: THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.
COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
MR. MARTINEZ: I'M SORRY. CITY MANAGER, YOU
WANT TO SAY SOMETHING?
.
.
.
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MCLEMORE: I WOULD RATHER WAIT BEFORE
YOU. . .
MAYOR PARTYKA~" COMMISSIONER MARTI.NEZ.
MR. MARTINEZ: I WOULD RATHER HEAR FROM THE
MANAGER BEFORE I SPEAK.
MAYOR PARTYKA: DO YOU WANT TO WAIT STILL?
MR. MCLEMORE: NO. I'LL GO AHEAD. MY
EMOTIONS NOW ARE RUNNING ALL KINDS OF DIRECTIONS
ABOUT THIS. WE HAVE DEALT WITH IT SO LONG. I
REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR FRUSTRATION WITH IT.
I NEED TO BE CAREFUL TO POINT OUT WHAT I SAID
EARLIER, BECAUSE I THINK IT WAS REPORTED
DIFFERENTLY. I SAID MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO
MOVE AHEAD TONIGHT WITH THE SCRIMSHER PARTIES
AGREEING TO THAT, TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE; BUT THAT
WAS WITH EVERYBODY AGREEING. WHAT YOU HEARD IS
THEY'RE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT.
MY SECOND CHOICE, NOT BEING ABLE TO GET THE
PARTIES TO AGREE, WAS TO GET A FIRM DATE THAT WE
WOULD NOT GO PAST HAVING THE COMMISSION DECIDE THE
ISSUE AT THE NEXT MEETING ON ANY ISSUES THAT WERE
OUTSTANDING.
IF THERE IS A CHANCE OF US GETTING TO THAT
POINT IN TWO WEEKS, I THINK I HAVE TO ADVISE YOU
NOT TO TAKE THIS ACTION TONIGHT. BECAUSE I KNOW
If
.'
.1'
.
r
.
53
1
IT'S GOING TO TIE US UP FOR SOME TIME AND -- BUT
2
AT THE SAME TIME, I SUPPORT YOUR SINCERE DESIRE TO
,
3
-
MOVE AHEAD WITH THIS, BUT I DON'T THINK IT WILL
4
RESULT IN US MOVING AHEAD, AND MAYBE TWO MORE
5
WEEKS IS WORTH THE EFFORT. I WILL ASSUME
6 RESPONSIBILITY 10R WHAT NEEDS TO BE ASSUMED FOR
7 THINGS NOT MOVING ANY QUICKER.
8 BUT NEGOTlATIONS ARE INFORMATION INTENSIVE.
9 AND AS YOU NEGOTIATE, YOU FIND OUT YOU NEED MORE
10. INFORMATION ABOUT THIS AND MORE INFORMATION ABOUT
1 1
THAT. AND IT JUST TAKES TIME WHEN YOU'RE REALLY
1 2
DIGGING IN, AND WE'VE REALLY BEEN DIGGING IN THE
1 3
LAST FEW WEEKS.
1 4
DISCUSSION ISSUES ABOUT WHERE DOES THE
1 5
WETLAND LINE FALL? WHAT IS THE CONTRIBUTION OF
1 6
WATER AND SEWER? WHAT'S IT WORTH TO GET SOME
1 7
ROAD? ALL THOSE KIND OF THINGS THAT ARE JUST
1 8
TREMENDOUS INFORMATION INTENSIVE WHEN YOU'RE
1 9
REALLY NEGOTIATING.
20
AND THE LACK OF ABILITY TO SIT DOWN EVERY DAY
21
AND NEGOTIATE IS NOT BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO
22
NEGOTIATE AND GET THERE. IT'S BECAUSE YOU
23
DETERMINE AT EACH NEGOTIATION ANOTHER BODY OF
24
INFORMATION YOU NEED TO TRY TO RESOLVE THOSE
25
ISSUES.
,-.
.
.
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
SO I APPRECIATE YOUR FRUSTRATION. I KNOW
YOUR SINCERITY ON THIS. IT MAY BE BETTER IF WE
WAIT TWO WEEKS AND PUT THE BURDEN ON US TO TRY TO
GET THERE AND BRING THIS THING BACK TO YOU AT YOUR
NEXT MEETING, RATHER THAN TO BE TIED UP FOR THE
NEXT SIX TO EIGHT MONTHS IN LITIGATION.
AND I'M NOT TELLING YOU WE WON'T BE IN
LITIGATION ANYHOW. I'M JUST TELLING YOU WE MAY BE
ABLE TO GET THERE IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS AND AVOID
THAT.
SO SAYING THAT, AND I SAY IT WITH ALL
SINCERITY AND FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART THAT I
KNOW HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT GETTING AHEAD, BUT IT'S
PROBABLY THE PRUDENT THING TO DO.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. COMMISSIONER -- THANK
YOU. COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
MR. MILLER: IT HAS TO DO WITH THE ENTIRE
DISCUSSION?
MAYOR PARTYKA: NO, NO, NO. COMMISSIONER
MARTINEZ HAS THE FLOOR, THEN COMMISSIONER BLAKE,
THEN COMMISSIONER MILLER.
MR. MARTINEZ: I WOULD YIELD, BUT MINE IS
VERY SHORT. BASED ON WHAT THE MANAGER SAID AND
THE STATEMENT BY THE MAYOR PRIOR TO THIS HERE, CAN;
WE HAVE SOME ASSURANCE --
.
.
.
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. LISTEN.
MR. MARTINEZ: -- CAN WE HAVE ASSURANCES AT
THIS TIME THAT THIS WILL BE 'VOTED ON IN TWO WEEKS
AND THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER POSTPONEMENTS OR
ADJOURNMENTS OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT? CAN
WE DECIDE ON THAT TONIGHT?
MAYOR PARTYKA: YOU CAN~T DO THAT. THE
8' MOTION IS CLEAR.
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MARTINEZ: EXCUSE ME:
MAYOR PARTYKA: THE MOTION IS CLEAR. YOU
HAVE TO VOTE ON THE MOTION FIRST. YOU'RE TALKING
\ '. ,.--
TO ANOTHER ENTIRE MATTER.
MR. MARTINEZ: WELL, I NEED AN EXPLANATION
BEFORE I CAN VOTE ON THE MOTION.
MAYOR PARTYKA: THE MOTION IS THE MOTION.
MR. MARTINEZ: AND I'M ASKING: CAN WE
HAVE -- AND IT WILL LEND TO MY DECISION IF I CAN
GET AN ANSWER AS TO WHETHER WE CAN HAVE A DEFINITE
DECISION ON THIS COME TWO WEEKS.
MAYOR PARTYKA: MR. GARGANESE.
MR. GARGANESE: YES, SIR.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. IS WHAT COMMISSIONER
MARTINEZ -- PROPER AT THIS POINT IN TIME?
MR. GARGANESE: IN TERMS OF THE DISCUSSION ON'
THE MOTION?
56
.
1
2
3
4'
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
MAYOR PARTYKA: YES.
MR. GARGANESE: I THINK IT'S RELEVANT TO THE
MAIN MOTION.
MAYOR PARTYKA:
MR. MARTINEZ:
MAYOR PARTYKA:
CONTINUE.
MR. MARTINEZ: HE'S FINISHED.
MR. GARGANESE: IN MY OPINION, IT'S RELEVANT
TO THE MAIN MOTION, BECAUSE IT AFFECTS HIS
DECISION ON THE MAIN MOTION.
MR. MARTINEZ: CAN I GET AN ANSWER?
MAYOR PARTYKA: HE SAID IT'S RELEVANT.
MR. MARTINEZ: I'M WAITING FOR AN ANSWER FROM
THE MANAGER OR SOMEONE ON THE STAFF.
MR. MCLEMORE: I THINK IF I COULD REPEAT THE
COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
YOU ASKED IT, NOT ME.
OKAY. MR. GARGANESE,
.
.
QUESTION.
MR. MARTINEZ: CAN WE PUT A LID ON THIS WHEN
IT COMES UP IN TWO WEEKS?
MR. MCLEMORE: THAT'S A DECISION OF THE
COMMISSION, NOT THE STAFF. THE COMMISSION CAN
AGREE THAT -- THE COMMISSION HAS THE RIGHT TO UNDO
THAT, TOO, BASED ON INFORMATION.
MAYOR PARTYKA: IF I MAY, THAT'S A SEPARATE
MOTION THAT NEEDS MORE ACTION. YOU CANNOT AT THIS
.
.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
57
POINT IN TIME --
MR. MARTINEZ: MR. MAYOR, FORGET ABOUT IT.
YOU'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO MIX THE ISSUE UP AND
WE'RE NEVER GOING TO GET AN ANSWER, SO I WITHDRAW
MY QUESTION.
----
MAYOR PARTYKA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MR. MARTINEZ. COMMISSIONER GENNELL.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: HAS ANYBODY KEPT A
COUNT ON HOW MANY TIMES WE HAVE GONE TWO WEEKS
MORE, TWO WEEKS MORE, TWO WEEKS MOR~, ANOTHER
MONTH?
MR. MARTINEZ: ABOUT TEN.
MR. MILLER: TEN OR MORE.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: IN OTHER WORDS, WE
KEEP DOING THIS EXERCISE, AND I HAVE NOT HAD ANY
ASSURANCE THAT IT WOULD -- IF I WITHDRAW THE
MOTION, WHICH I'M WILLING TO DO, IF WE COULD FIRM
IT UP FOR TWO WEEKS FROM NOW.
MAYOR PARTYKA: IF I MAY, COMMISSIONER
GENNELL, YOU CANNOT WITHDRAW THE MOTION. IT
BELONGS TO THE COMMISSION.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: FINE. I WOULD NOT
SUPPORT MY OWN MOTION, THEN. HOW DOES THAT GRAB
YOU?
MR. MILLER: I WOULDN'T SUPPORT MY SECOND.
.
\'"
.
.
58
1
MAYOR PARTYKA: WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE
2
MOTION.
3
- - ~.-
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: OKAY. THAT'S FINE.
4
BUT I'M STILL BACK AT THE SAME POINT. I DON'T
5
WANT TO GO TWO WEEKS AGAIN AND TWO WEEKS AGAIN.
6
AND I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM MR. GRINDSTAFF
7
AND MR. SCRIMSHER. IS THERE A COMMITMENT HERE TO
8
GET THIS THING PUT TO BED? BECAUSE MR. SCRIMSHER
9
DID REPRESENT TO US THAT WE ARE ONLY 50 PERCENT OF
1 0
THE WAY THERE. ANp WE HAVE DONE TWO WEEKS, TWO
1 1
WEEKS, TWO WEEKS, WE THINK, TEN TIMES. YES, I
1 2
WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM MR. GRINDSTAFF OR
1 3
MR. SCRIMSHER.
1 4
MR. MCLEMORE: COULD I COMMENT FIRST?
1 5
(INAUDIBLE) CITY
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL:
1 6
MANAGER.
1 7
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSIONER, THERE IS A
1 8
MOTION ON THE FLOOR THAT'S FAIRLY SIMPLE TO
1 9
UNDERSTAND. EITHER VOTE FOR IT OR VOTE AGAINST
20
IT.
21
YOU'RE ASKING THINGS HERE THAT, REALLY, EVEN
22
IF MR. SCRIMSHER AGREES TO IT, THIS COMMISSION HAS
23
TO ACT ON IT THROUGH ANOTHER MOTION. SO YOU
24
CANNOT DO THINGS THAT ARE PREDICATED ON ADDITIONAL
25
MOTIONS FROM THIS COMMISSION. LET'S ACT ON THE
.
.
.
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
ONE AND THEN WE WILL TAKE IT FROM THERE. IF YOU
HAVE ANY DOUBT, VOTE NO.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: MR. GRINDSTAFF.
MR. MILLER: MR. MAYOR, IF I MAY POINT OUT
SOMETHING.
MAYOR PARTYKA: PLEASE.
MR. MILLER: AN AGENDA ITEM THAT'S COMING UP
CALLS --
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSION MILLER.
MR. MILLER: -- SAMPLE (INAUDIBLE). I DON'T
KNOW THAT THIS IS --
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSIONER MILLER, YOU DO
NOT HAVE THE FLOOR. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE FLOOR.
MR. MILLER: I'M WITHDRAWING THE MOTION.
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSIONER GENNELL.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: MR. GARGANESE --
MR. MARTINEZ: WE WILL BE HERE AN HOUR.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: -- IS THE INFORMATION I
JUST REQUESTED FROM MR. GRINDSTAFF AND MR.
SCRIMS HER GERMANE TO THE MOTION?
MR. GARGANESE: IT APPEARS TO BE GERMANE TO
THE MOTION.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: THANK YOU. MR. MAYOR,
MAY I HEAR FROM THEM?
MAYOR PARTYKA: HEAR FROM WHAT? EVEN IF THEY
'.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
,1 0
1 1
12
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
60
COMMIT, THIS COMMISSION STILL HAS TO VOTE.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: WE CAN VOTE. WE CAN
DO THAT. WE'RE TRYING TO GATHER J;NFORMATION,!
MAYOR PARTYKA: MR. GRINDSTAFF, YOU MAY COME
UP.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. LET'S HOLD UP HERE.
COMMISSIONER MILLER, MR. MCLEMORE, LET'.S ALL GET
ON FOCUS HERE.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THIS IS VERY GERMANE. I CAN
ASSURE YOU FROM MR. SCHRIMSHER'S GROUP THAT WE
WILL PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH LIKE WE HAVE DONE
NOW FOR OVER A YEAR IN AN EFFORT TO RESOLVE THIS.
I CAN'T SIT HERE RIGHT NOW AND TELL YOU THAT
IT'S ABSOLUTELY GOING TO BE AGREED TO IN TWO
WEEKS. I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU, WITH ALL DUE
RESPECT, BECAUSE OF THE TANGLED WEB THAT EXISTS
REGARDING THE E&A'S, WHETHER IT'S VALID, WHETHER
IT'S NOT VALID, WHETHER THE CONTRACT PURCHASER ON
THE KINGSBURY PIECE IS AHEAD OR BEHIND OR SIDEWAYS
WITH MR. JOSHI OR WHATEVER; MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE
THAT YOU WAIT PERHAPS UNTIL THE FIRST REGULAR
MEETING IN DECEMBER AND HAVE THAT ISSUE BEHIND
YOU, SO THAT YOU HAVE A VERY CRITICAL COMPONENT;
I.E., THE KINGSBURY PARCEL, EQUALLY AT LEAST IN A
..
..
.
61
1
POSITION TO ADDRESS AS WELL AS THE SCRIMSHER
2
PROPERTY.
3
COMMISSIONER GENNELL, WILL WE MEET IN GOOD
4
FAITH AND WORK HARD? YES, WE WILL. THAT'S ALL I
5
CAN TELL you.
6
MAYOR PARTYKA: IS THAT IT, COMMISSIONER?
7
MR. GRINDSTAFF: JUST POSTPONE THE OTHER
8
ISSUE.
9
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: I-WANT TO KEEP THE
1 0
FLOOR, BUT MR. MCLEMORE HAS SOMETHING HE WANTS TO
1 1
SAY.
1 2
,.., /"
MR. MCLEMORE: WHAT I PROPOSED TO YOU WAS TO
1 3
CHANGE THE FORMAT. ABOUT COMING BACK TO YOU NEXT
1 4
WEEK AND SAYING, THESE ARE THE ISSUES
OR NEXT
1 5
MEETING AND SAYING, THESE ARE THE ISSUES WE AGREE
1 6
ON, THESE ARE THE ISSUES WE DON'T AGREE ON, AND
1 7
THEN LET YOU DECIDE AT THAT POINT IN TIME WHERE
1 8
YOU DESIRE THOSE ISSUES TO LAND, AT THAT POINT IN
1 9
TIME DECIDE WHETHER YOU GO AHEAD WITH THIS OR
20
NOT.
21
I THINK THAT FORCES US TO COME BACK TO YOU IN
22
A DIFFERENT POSTURE. I PROPOSE THAT IN ORDER TO
23
TRY AND MOVE THE PROCESS ALONG AND GET US THERE.
24
TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, COMING IN HERE
25
TONIGHT, MY PREFERENCE WAS TO ADOPT THIS ORDINANCE
'.
....
~,.
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
TONIGHT. BUT BASED ON WHAT HAS BEEN SAID AND MY
OWN PROPOSAL, I THINK IT'S PRUDENT TO GIVE IT TWO
MORE WEEKS.
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSIONER, IS THAT IT?
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: YES.
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSIONER MILLER.
MR. MILLER: MR. MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE
THE CITY ATTORNEY GIVE US A --
MAYOR PARTYKA: I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY. BUT
COMMISSIONER BLAKE HAD THE FLOOR AND IT WAS MY
MISTAKE. COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
MR. MILLER: AS LONG AS HE DOESN'T COVER MY
ISSUE.
MR. BLAKE: HAVING HEARD ALL OF MILLER'S
ISSUES, I'LL COVER THEM NOW.
MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDED MOTION
TO POSTPONE THE READING -- THIRD READING -- I LOST
THE NUMBER.
MR. MCLEOD: 707.
MR. BLAKE: 707?
-- THE CURRENT ORDINANCE UNDER CONSIDERATION
UNTIL DECEMBER 13, 1999, AND FURTHER INSTRUCT
STAFF TO BRING TO THIS COMMISSION AT THE WORKSHOP
CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 22ND -- I'M
SORRY, NOVEMBER 8TH OF 1999, DESCRIPTION OF ALL
.
.
.
"
63
1
POINTS AGREED UPON CURRENTLY BETWEEN THE AFFECTED
2
PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE CITY AND A LIST AND
3
DESCRIPTION OF ALL AREAS OF AGREEMENT OR
4
DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS
5
AND THE CITY, SO THAT WE MAY ACT UPON THEM AT THAT
---
6
MEETING AND THEN GIVE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO ENABLE
7
THEM TO BRING US, CONCURRENTLY WITH THE THIRD
8
READING OF ORDINANCE 707, AN AGREEMENT THAT WOULD
9
HAVE DUE TIME TO BE ADVERTISED AND ENTERED INTO
1 0
BETWEEN THIS COMMISSION AND THE AFFECTED PROPERTY
1 1
OWNERS SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE ENACTMENT OF
1 2
ORDINANCE 707, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE
1 3
COMMISSION, OF COURSE.
1 4
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY.
1 5
MR. BLAKE: DO YOU WANT ME TO READ THAT BACK
1 6
TO YOU?
1 7
MAYOR PARTYKA: IS IT SUFFICIENT AT THIS
1 8
POINT TO SAY THAT THE AMENDMENT IS TO DELAY THIS
1 9
ORDINANCE TO -- OR TO VOTE ON THIS ORDINANCE TO
20
DECEMBER 13?
21
MR. BLAKE: NO, THAT WAS NOT MY MOTION.
22
MAYOR PARTYKA: I'M TRYING TO GET
23
CLARIFICATION WHAT THE AMENDMENT IS.
24
MR. MCLEOD: MAYOR, I'LL SECOND THE
25
AMENDMENT. I TOTALLY UNDERSTOOD IT.
;.
.
.
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
MAYOR PARTYKA: DOES THE REST OF THE
COMMISSION UNDERSTAND IT? THERE IS SOME NO'S
HERE.
MR. MILLER: NO.
MAYOR PARTYKA: SEE IF YOU COULD DO THAT JUST
A LITTLE SIMPLER.
MR. MCLEOD: MAYOR, I THINK ALL THE ISSUES
WERE COVERED.
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSIONER, FOR THE REST OF
THE COMMISSION.
MR. BLAKE: ARE YOU ASKING ME TO REDO IT?
MAYOR PARTYKA: YES.
MR. BLAKE: OH, I THOUGHT YOU WERE ASKING THE
ATTORNEY.
MAYOR PARTYKA: NO, NO, NO. I'M ASKING YOU.
I'M SORRY. I THOUGHT YOU WERE LOOKING FOR YOUR
NOTES.
MR. BLAKE: NO.
MAYOR PARTYKA: COULD YOU RESTATE YOUR
AMENDMENT.
MR. BLAKE: YOU WANT ME TO DO IT THE SAME
WAY? THE MOTION IS TO AMEND THE MOTION TO
POSTPONE THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 707 -- I'LL USE
THE MICROPHONE THIS TIME.
THE MOTION IS AN AMENDED MOTION TO POSTPONE
.
'.
.
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 707 TO DE~EMBER 13,
1999, WITH THE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO BRING BACK TO
THIS COMMISSION ON NOVEMBER 8TH WORKSHOP, ALL OF
THE AREAS OF AGREEMENT AND ALL OF THE AREAS OF
DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS
AND THE CITY FOR FURTHER DIRECTION FROM THE
COMMISSION AT THAT TIME FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
COMPANION AGREEMENT -- ISN'T THAT THE TERM WE'VE
USED? FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPANION
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS AND
THE CITY WHICH WILL GIVE IT TIME TO BE ADVISED AND
DULY ACTED UPON SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH ENACTMENT OF
ORDINANCE 707 ON DECEMBER 13, 1999, SHOULD THIS
COMMISSION SEE FIT.
MAYOR PARTYKA: ALL RIGHT. I POSE THE
QUESTION AGAIN TO THE COMMISSION HERE: DOES
EVERYONE UNDERSTAND THAT?
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: YES.
MR. BLAKE: THE PURPOSE IS, IT GETS US TO THE
RIGHT TIME, IT TAKES CARE OF THE ISSUES AT HAND,
PERHAPS IT WILL KEEP US OUT OF COURT, PERHAPS IT
WILL MOVE US ALONG THE LINE OF GETTING TO WHERE WE
WANT TO BE, AND IT CREATES DEADLINES FOR EACH OF
THE PARTIES TO BE SURE THAT THEY'RE MEETING THEM
ON A REGULAR BASIS. BY NOVEMBER 8TH WE'RE GOING
.
.~
.
.
"
66
1
TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THOSE MEETINGS HAVE BEEN
2
HAD AND WHETHER OR NOT SOME AGREEMENT HAS BEEN
3
HAMMERED OUT, AND WE'RE GOING TO SEE THE _PRODUCT.
4
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND?
5
MR. MCLEOD: I ALREADY SECONDED IT, MAYOR.
6
MAYOR PARTYKA: ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE
7
AMENDMENT?
8
COMMISSIONER MILLER, I SAW YOUR FINGER ON
9
THAT; FOR THE AMENDMENT. THIS IS DISCUSSION ON
1 0
THE AMENDMENT.
1 1
MR. MILLER: YES. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE
1 2
THAT ALL OF THE OTHER PARTIES THAT ARE AFFECTED
1 3
AGREE.
1 4
MAYOR PARTYKA: THAT'S NOT THEIR JOB.
1 5
COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ, ON THE AMENDMENT.
1 6
MR. MARTINEZ: THIS IS WHERE WE ALWAYS GET IN
17
TROUBLE. WE TALK ABOUT TWO WEEKS, AND NOW WE'RE
1 8
TALKING ABOUT 45 DAYS. KEEP IN MIND THAT DECEMBER
1 9
13TH WILL BE OUR LAST MEETING WHEN WE ADJOURN FOR
20
THE HOLIDAYS AND WE DON'T COME BACK UNTIL JANUARY
21
2000.
22
NOW, IF WE FALL INTO THE SAME TRAP AND WE
23
CONTINUE WITH THIS DELAY, DELAY, DELAY AND PEOPLE
24
ARE NOT SATISFIED ON DECEMBER 13TH WE ARE
25
NOWHERE. WE ARE BACK WHERE WE ARE TODAY. WHY
.
.
.
61
1
POSTPONE THIS FOR SO LONG? I THINK THAT A
2
POSTPONEMENT SHOULD BE MUCH, MUCH SHORTER, AND WE
3
SHOULD COME TO A DECISION AT THAT TIME.
- .
4
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. COMMISSIONER GENNELL,
5
DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON THE AMENDMENT?
6
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: YES, I DO.
7
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY.
8
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: THE SAME FACTS THAT
9
COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ OUTLINED --
1 0
MAYOR PARTYKA: PLEASE, PLEASE, LET'S LISTEN
1 1
TO THE COMMISSIONER. LET'S LISTEN. WE ARE IN
1 2
,- ,
DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW.
1 3
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: YOU KNOW, THE CITY
1 4
MANAGER HAS TOLD US HE CAN BRING US BACK A PRODUCT
1 5
THAT WE CAN MAKE A DECISION ON IN TWO WEEKS. AND
1 6
I CAN LIVE WITH THAT, I REALLY CAN. I THINK
1 7
THAT'S NOT UNREASONABLE, GIVEN ALL THE FACTORS
1 8
GOING INTO IT, THAT HE CAN GIVE IT -- LAY IT ON
1 9
THE TABLE FOR US.
20
BUT THEN I HEARD SOMEBODY SAY WE OUGHT TO
21
WAIT UNTIL YOU GET THIS ONE AND THAT ONE ON BOARD,
22
AND NOW WE OUGHT TO GO 45 DAYS, AND PRETTY SOON IT
23
WILL BE NEXT YEAR. NO, I'M SORRY. I CANNOT
24
SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT.
25
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
68
.
1
2
3
4.
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BLAKE: THE COMMISSION WAS LOOKING FOR
DEADLINES. I THINK DEADLINES ARE POSSIBLE IF
THEY'RE DOABLE"AND THEY MAKE SENSE. WITH
ADVERTISING REQUIREMENTS THERE IS NO WAY TO HAVE
SIMULTANEOUS AGREEMENTS ANY QUICKER THAN THAT.
AND I WOULD SUGGEST THERE'S NO WAY TO STAY
OUT OF COURT AND MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT THE
SIMULTANEOUS AGREEMENTS. IT HAS BEEN WHAT WAS
REPRESENTED FOR THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF TO THE
PROPERTY OWNERS OUT THERE. AND IF WE DO NOT GO~N
THAT DIRECTION, THEN EVEN IF WE PASS IT TWO WEEKS
FROM NOW, WE ARE NOT THERE.
YOU HAVE TO KEEP THE BIG PICTURE IN MIND.
WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO GET TO? I THINK THIS IS THE
FASTEST WAY TO GET THERE. NOT THE DELAYED WAY,
THE FASTEST WAY, GIVEN WHERE WE ARE TODAY.
MAYOR PARTYKA: THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER
MARTINEZ.
MR. MARTINEZ: THE COMMISSIONER WAS LOOKING
FOR A DEADLINE. BUT NUMBER ONE, THAT CALLS FOR A
TIME SO FAR AHEAD THAT WE HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE
CHICKENS TO COME HOME TO ROOST.
I ASKED FOR TWO WEEKS AND THEY SAID THAT IT
WAS IMPROPER TO ASK THE QUESTION AT THAT TIME.
AND I'M STILL GOING LONGER THAN WHAT THE MANAGER
.
.
.
.
'.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
69
SAID, AND HE CAN BRING SOME KIND OF A PRODUCT IN
TWO WEEKS. AND IF AT THAT TIME YOU DON'T LIKE IT,
YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND MOVE AHEAD AND DO WHATEVER
YOU WANT. WE CAN MAKE WHATEVER DECISION YOU
WANT.
'--
LIKE THE MAYOR SAID, IT'S THE COMMISSION'S
CHOICE, OKAY? BUT I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD WAIT
UNTIL DECEMBER 13TH TO SIT HERE AND GO THROUGH
THIS HASSLE ALL OVER AGAIN, AND THEN POSTPONE IT
UNTIL JANUARY 2000, AND GOD KNOWS WHEN, IF EVER,
WE'RE PUT A START ON THE TOWN CENTER ROLLING.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, I'M
GOING TO SAY THIS --'OH, I'M SORRY. COMMISSIONER
MCLEOD. I DO HAVE ONE COMMENT TO SAY, BUT
COMMISSIONER MCLEOD.
MR. MCLEOD: A COUPLE THINGS. I THINK I
UNDERSTAND WHERE THE COMMISSIONER IS COMING FROM.
IT REALLY BRINGS ALL ISSUES TO A DEADLINE, IT
ALLOWS THE PROPERTY OWNERS, ALLOWS MR. JOSHI,
ALLOWS EVERYBODY TO GET UP THROUGH THE DECEMBER
MARK TO COME TO THE TABLE, AND I THINK WE WILL
KNOW WHERE EVERYBODY STANDS AT THAT TIME.
WITH THAT IN MIND, I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE
QUESTION.
MAYOR PARTYKA: IF I MAY MAKE A COMMENT.
'.
'-
.
.
',.
70
1
MR. MCLEOD: NO, YOU MAY NOT. I, JUST CALLED
2
THE QUESTION.
3
MAYOR PARTYKA:- I- THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
4
THIS.
5
MR. MCLEOD: ALL RIGHT. I'LL BE NICE.
6
MAYOR PARTYKA: I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE
7
COMMENT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE
8
THAT.
9
I WILL, JUST SO EVERYONE KNOWS HERE, MY
1 0
INTENT IS THE LONG-TERM PICTURE OF THE TOWN
1 1
CENTER. AND I SAID THIS, THAT PEOPLE SHOULD TALK
1 2
UNTIL WE GET TO A POINT WHERE THEY CAN'T TALK
1 3
ANYMORE.
1 4
I WILL VETO THIS SITUATION, AND BASED ON THE
1 5
VOTES THAT I THINK WILL HAPPEN, THIS VETO WILL
1 6
STAND UP. SO MY GOAL IS TO PREVENT ANY KIND OF
1 7
LITIGATION HERE.
1 8
AND IF WE HAVE TO GO OUT FOR ANOTHER TWO
1 9
WEEKS OR FOUR WEEKS OR WHATEVER THIS COMMISSION
20
DECIDES AT THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING, SO BE IT.
21
BUT AS LONG AS PEOPLE ARE TALKING AND WE DON'T GET
22
TO THAT POINT, OR SOMEONE ARBITRARILY WANTS TO
23
STOP THIS, IF I GET THE CHANCE I'LL VETO THIS. SO
24
THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO -- SO EVERYBODY IS AWARE OF
25
THIS.
.
.
.
71
1
COMMISSIONER MCLEOD, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.
2
MR. MCLEOD: FIRST OF ALL, I THINK IT WAS
INAPPROPRIATE FOR YOU TO SPEAK THAT YOU WOULD VETO
3
4
IT. BUT WITH THAT IN MIND, I WOULD LIKE TO CALL
5
THE QUESTION. THANK YOU.
6
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. CALL THE VOTE ON THE
7
AMENDMENT.
8
MR. MARTINEZ: NO. NO. RULES SAY THAT YOU
9
..
HAVE TO VOTE ON CALLING THE QUESTION.
1 0
MAYOR PARTYKA: I'M SORRY.
1 1
MR. MARTINEZ: STICK TO THE RULES.
1 2
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ,
1 3
PLEASE. THAT'S ALWAYS THERE.
1 4
MR. MARTINEZ: YOU WERE CALLING THE VOTE.
1 5
MAYOR PARTYKA: I MADE AN ADMINISTRATIVE
1 6
ERROR.
1 7
MR. MARTINEZ: AND I WAS,RECTIFYING IT.
1 8
MAYOR PARTYKA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. CALL
1 9
THE VOTE FOR THE QUESTION.
20
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MCLEOD.
21
MR. MCLEOD: AYE.
22
THE CLERK: DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL.
23
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: AYE.
24
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
25
MR. MARTINEZ: AYE.
72
..
1
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MILLER.
2
MR. MILLER: AYE.
3
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
4
MR. BLAKE: AYE.
5
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. CALL THE VOTE FOR THE
6
AMENDMENT.
7
THE CLERK:
. .
COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
8
MR. BLAKE:
AYE.
9
THE CLERK:
COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
1 0
MR. MARTINEZ: NAY.
1 1
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MCLEOD.
1 2
MR. MCLEOD: AYE.
.
1 3
THE CLERK: DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL.
1 4
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: NO.
1 5
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MILLER.
1 6
MR. MILLER: NO.
1 7
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. THE AMENDMENT DOES NOT
1 8
PASS.
1 9
NOW WE ARE BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION, WHICH
20
IS THIRD READING OF THE ORDINANCE OF 707.
21
COMMISSIONER GENNELL.
22
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: I WANT TO CALL THE
23
QUESTION.
24
MAYOR PARTYKA: NO. WE ARE NEXT. CALL THE
.
25
VOTE ON PASSING OF ORDINANCE 707.
.
'.
.
.
,
73
1
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
2
MR. MARTINEZ: YOU HAD TO PICK ON ME FIRST.
3
NAY.
4
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MCLEOD.
MR. MCLEOD: NO IS IT DOESN'T CARRY, A YEA IS
A CARRY. NO.
THE CLERK: DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: NO.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER> MILLER.
MR. MILLER: NO.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
\ -. ,,-
MR. BLAKE: NO.
1 3
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. THE MOTION DOES NOT
1 4
PASS. OKAY.
1 5
COMMISSIONER BLAKE, I BELIEVE, HAS THE FLOOR.
1 6
MR. BLAKE: THANK YOU, MAYOR. MAYOR, I WOULD
1 7
LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THE READING OF
1 8
ORDINANCE 707 UNTIL DECEMBER 13, 1999, WITH
1 9
INSTRUCTION TO STAFF TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSIONS
20
WITH THE AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS TO BRING BACK TO
21
US ON NOVEMBER 8TH A LIST OF ALL THOSE AREAS
22
AGREED UPON AND ALL THOSE AREAS NOT AGREED UPON IN
23
A WORKSHOP AT THAT DATE TO FURTHER FORMULATE THE
24
COMPANION AGREEMENT, WHICH WOULD THEN BE
25
ADVERTISED AND BROUGHT SIMULTANEOUSLY ON DECEMBER
74
.
1
13TH WITH THE SECOND READING OF THE ORDINANCE 707.
2
MAYOR PARTYKA: IS THERE A SECOND?
3
MR. MCLEOD: I'LL SECOND THAT.
4,
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. DISCUSSION.
5
COMMISSIONER GENNELL.
6
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: I'M SORRY. MY LIGHT
7
WAS ON FOR SOMETHING ELSE.
8
MAYOR PARTYKA: I APOLOGIZE. COMMISSIONER
9
MARTINEZ, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
1 0
..
MR. MARTINEZ: NO. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT
1 1
WE JUST VOTED NO ON THE SAME -- THE VERY SAME
1 2
AMENDMENT.
.
1 3
MR. BLAKE: NO, NO.
1 4
MR. MARTINEZ: WELL, NOW IT'S A MOTION SO WE
1 5
HAVE TO REPEAT THE VOTE.
1 6
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. CALL THE VOTE, PLEASE.
1 7
MR. BLAKE: YOU DIDN'T ASK FOR DISCUSSION.
1 8
MAYOR PARTYKA: I DID.
1 9
MR. BLAKE: I'M SORRY.
20
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
21
MR. BLAKE: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE
22
COUNCIL, ONE OF THE RULES WE DECIDED UPON WAS THAT
23
A COMMISSIONER CAN TALK AS LONG AS HE WANTS.
24
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSIONER BLAKE IS-- I
.
25
URGE THE COMMISSIONERS TO GIVE THE COURTESY TO
.
.
.
"
75
1
ANOTHER COMMISSIONER TO SPEAK. I WOULD AFFORD YOU
2
THE SAME COURTESY IF SOMEONE ELSE IS SPEAKING, SO
3
PLEASE, IF SOMEONE IS SPEAKING, LET HIM SPEAK
4
WITHOUT ANY KIND OF OBSTACLES IN THE (INAUDIBLE).
5
OKAY. COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
'--
6
MR. BLAKE: THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION IS
7
VITALLY IMPORTANT TO ALL OF (INAUDIBLE). FOR US
8
TO LOSE SIGHT OF THIS IMPORTANCE OVER TWO WEEKS OR
9
FOUR WEEKS, 45 DAYS, HOWEVER YOU DO THE MATH, I
1 0
THINK IS RIDICULOUS. I THINK IT'S S~ORT-SIGHTED.
1 1
FRANKLY, I THINK IT SHOWS A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING
1 2
OF THE GRAVITY OF WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DO.
1 3
I'M GOING TO ASK YOU, PLEASE, GIVE THIS THE
1 4
DUE CONSIDERATION IT DESERVES. THE MAYOR HAS
1 5
ALREADY SAID HE'S GOING TO VETO THE ORDINANCE AS
1 6
IT STOOD, WHICH MEANS WE'LL HAVE TO START ALL THE
1 7
WAY OVER FROM THE BEGINNING. WITH ADVERTISING AND
1 8
EVERYTHING ELSE, YOU'RE TALKING THE MIDDLE OF NEXT
1 9
YEAR.
20
THIS IS THE QUICKEST WAY OUT. IT'S ALSO THE
21
RIGHT WAY OUT. PLEASE GIVE PROPER CONSIDERATION
22
TO THIS MOTION WHICH ANSWERS ALL THE QUESTIONS,
23
TAKES CARE OF ALL THE DEADLINES THAT YOU'RE ASKING
24
FOR, MOVES THE PROPERTY ALONG, ENABLES THE CITY TO
25
HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH EACH OF THE APPROPRIATE LAND
..'.
~, .
.
.
,
76
1
OWNERS IN DUE TIME. PLEASE SUPPORT ~HIS MOTION.
2
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSIONER GENNELL.
3
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNEL~: I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS
4
MOTION ANY MORE THAN I COULD SUPPORT THE PREVIOUS
5
AMENDMENT. THE REASON IS, I CAN SUPPORT A MOTION
6
THAT MOVES THIS CITY FORWARD TO THE GOAL THAT THE
7
CITIZENS WANT AND THAT THIS COMMISSION HAS WORKED
8
FOR, AND THAT IS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE TOWN
9
CENTER GUIDELINES.
1 0
IF THE CITY MANAGER SAYS HE CAN GIVE US A
1 1
PRODUCT THAT WE CAN WORK ON (INAUDIBLE) AND
1 2
EFFECTIVELY TWO WEEKS FROM NOW, THAT'S WHERE I
1 3
WANT TO BE. IF THAT RESULTS IN SOME OTHER
1 4
AGREEMENTS, FINE. BUT I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE
1 5
THIS AND KEEP MOVING IT FORWARD AND NOT ATTACH A
1 6
MILLION DIFFERENT CONDITIONS TO IT THAT ONLY SET
1 7
IT UP FOR DEFEAT FOUR OR SIX WEEKS FROM NOW.
1 8
SO I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THIS. I'LL
1 9
SUPPORT SOMETHING THAT COMES BACK THAT HAS A
20
TWO-WEEK DEADLINE TO IT.
21
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSIONER MILLER, YOU
22
WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING?
23
MR. MILLER: NO, THAT'S ALL RIGHT.
24
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
25
MR. MARTINEZ: I AM NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THIS
.
.
.
....
77
1
MOTION, EITHER, BECAUSE (INAUDIBLE) TIME IN
2
QUESTION, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE MANAGER SAYS
3
HE CAN COME BACK WITH A FINISHED PRODUCT BEFORE 45
4
DAYS.
5
FURTHERMORE, BECAUSE THE MAYOR HAS SHOWN A
6
PREDISPOSITION TO VETO THIS ORDINANCE, AND I WOULD
7
LIKE TO GIVE HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT SO HE
8
CAN KNOW WHERE HE STANDS AS FAR AS MR. SCHRIMSHER
9
IS CONCERNED.
1 0
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. COMMISSIONER MCLEOD~
1 1
MR. MCLEOD: I CAN SUPPORT THIS FOR THE SAME
1 2
REASONS AS POINTED OUT BY COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
1 3
THIS IS VERY CRTTICAL, AND THE PROCESS IS
1 4
CRITICAL. ALL THE PARTIES CONCERNED ARE CRITICAL,
1 5
AND IT ALLOWS ALL PARTIES, BETWEEN NOW AND THEN,
1 6
TO COME TO THE TABLE FOR WHATEVER AGREEMENTS THOSE
1 7
MAY BE, TO PUT THEM ON THE TABLE AND TO WORK THEM
18
THROUGH. AND I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY
1 9
SHORTSIGHTED OF THIS COMMISSION AT THIS TIME,
20
AFTER ALL THESE YEARS OF WORKING WITH THE PROPERTY
21
OWNERS, STAFF, CONSULTANTS, NOT TO LOOK AT 40
22
DAYS, 45 DAYS, WHATEVER IT IS, TO HOPEFULLY, AT
23
THAT TIME-- I WILL BE PREPARED AT THAT TIME TO
24
HELP PUT THIS TO BED.
I
(INAUDIBLE) ANYTHING I BELIEVE SHORT OF THAT,I
i
25
.
.
.
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
'7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
IT'S GOOD FOR THIS-- YOU KNOW, FOR TWO WEEKS FROM
NOW, MAY RESOLVE ONE ISSUE, BUT I SEE THAT THERE'S.
MORE THAN ONE ISSUE THAT STANDS IN FRONT OF THIS
PARTICULAR ORDINANCE AT THIS TIME, AND IT WOULD
GIVE US TIME TO HOPEFULLY HAVE SEVERAL ISSUES
RESOLVED. AND I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT AT
THIS POINT. THANK YOU.
MAYOR PARTYKA: THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER
BLAKE.
MR. BLAKE: ALL I WANTED TO SAY WAS THAT IT'S
ONE THING TO PASS AN ORDINANCE, BUT IT'S ANOTHER
THING TO BUILD A CITY. I THINK YOUR VOTE WILL
DETERMINE WHICH YOU REALLY WANT TO DO.
MAYOR PARTYKA: THANK YOU. OKAY. GIVEN THE
FACT THAT NO OTHER LIGHTS ARE ON, CALL THE VOTE,
ANDREA.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
MR. BLAKE: AYE.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MILLER.
MR. MILLER: NO.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MCLEOD.
MR. MCLEOD: AYE.
THE CLERK: DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: NO.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
~..
"\.
!.
-'.
.
79
1
MR. MARTINEZ: NO.
2
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. MOTION FAILS.
3
DOES ANYONE WANT TO MAKE ANOTHER MOTION?
4
.-
COMMISSIONER GENNELL.
5
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: YES, I'M GOING TO MAKE
6
A MOTION. I MOVE THAT WE POSTPONE THE FINAL
7
ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 707 FOR TWO WEEKS.
8
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND?
9
MR. MARTINEZ: SECOND.
10
MAYOR PARTYKA: SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
1 1
MARTINEZ. ANY DISCUSSION?
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: ,'YES. I S IT PROPER TO
1 2
13
SAY POSTPONE OR CONTINUE IT, MR. GARGANESE?
1 4
MR. GARGANESE: I WOULD SPECIFICALLY STATE
1 5
THE DATE OF THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING, WHICH I
1 6
BELIEVE IS NOVEMBER 8TH.
1 7
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: NOVEMBER 8TH, OKAY.
1 8
MAYOR PARTYKA: ALL RIGHT. GIVEN THE FACT
1 9
THERE'S NO DISCUSSION-- COMMISSIONER MCLEOD.
20
MR. MCLEOD: I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO KNOW WHAT
21
THAT MEANS. I MEAN, OTHER THAN WE POSTPONE
22
MAYOR PARTYKA: CALL THE VOTE, PLEASE.
23
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
24
MR. MARTINEZ: AYE.
25
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MCLEOD.
.
\.
.
.
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
80
1
MR. MCLEOD: NO.
2
THE CLERK: DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL.
3
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: AYE.
4"
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MILLER.
"
5
MAYOR PARTYKA: THE MOTION IS TO POSTPONE
6
ORDINANCE 707 TO THE 8TH.
7
MR. MILLER: AYE.
8
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
9
MR. BLAKE: NO.
1 0
MAYOR PARTYKA: MOTION PASSES. ORDINANCE 1'07
1 1
IS NOW POSTPONED UNTIL NOVEMBER 8TH FOR
12
CONSIDERATION.
13 (WHEREUPON, THE PROCEEDING WAS CONCLUDED AT
14 9:~0 P.M.)
1 5
1 6
1 7
.
"
.
14
81
1
2
3
4
CERTIFICATE OF OATH
5
'--
6
7
STATE OF FLORIDA)
8 COUNTY OF ORANGE)
9
10 I, SANDRA A. MOSER, REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL
REPORTER, CERTIFY THAT I WAS AUTHORIZED TO AND DID
11 STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORT THE FOREGOING PROCEEDING AND
THAT THE TRANSCRIPT IS A TRUE RECORD.
1 2
1 3
I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT I AM NOT A RELATIVE;
EMPLOYEE, ATTORNEY OR COUNSEL OF ANY OF THE PARTIES,
NOR AM I FINANCIALLY INTERESTED IN THE ACTION.
15 DATED THIS 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1999.
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
.
,
25
\:5o-\~\O_) Ct.. \Y\~ f_
SANDRA A. MOSER, R.P.R.
NOTARY PUBLIC- STATE OF FLORIDA
"-;;'\";"'" SANDRA A. MOSER
!.f\'6.~:. MY COMMISSION # CC 733210
~\~':JJ EXPIRES: Apri112, 2002
"-.:,r.,... .'?:.., llonde~ lllrll NOllry PulIIit Unllerwlllers
~,elt~
..'.
.
.
12mTM
Registered
Profeasional
Reporter .
.. 1
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS .ORIGINAl
CITY O~ WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
CITY COMMISSION- REGULAR MEETING
TRANSCRIPT OF MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 8, 1999,
BEGINNING AT 5:45 P.M. AT CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS,
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434, WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA,
AND REPORTED BY SANDRA A. MOSER, REGISTERED
PROFESSIONAL REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE
nF FLORIDA AT LARGE.
. Registered Professional Reporters
Certified Video Technicians .
1188 Fox Forrest Circle .,Apopka, Florida 32712 · (407) 884-4662 · FAX (407) 884-4664
Sandra A.' DawkIns, President
Professional Reporl/ng SInce 1977
'IR~I
0rI!!!!t0-
_._'C...
c.
..
,.
2
1
PRO C E E DIN ~ S
2
MAYOR PARTYKA: ALL RIGHT. MR. MCLEMORE.
3
MR. MCLEMORE: YES. THERE IS A CONSENT
4
AGENDA ITEM THAT I HAVE ADDED ON RELATED TO THE
5
NEGOTIATIONS WE'VE HAD IN SCHRIMSHER. AND AS I
6
SAID, THOSE OF YOU THAT I WAS ABLE TO GET IN TOUCH
7
WIT~ THURSDAY AND FRIDAY, I WAS RECOMMENDING THAT
8
YOU WOULD AUTHORIZE ME TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT
9
WITH DEBORAH COAL TO UPDATE THE CURRENT PLAN IN
1 0
ORDER TO REVISE, AS REQUIRED, THE WETLAND PARK AND
1 1
STREETS, THE LAYOUTS THAT WERE CHANGED AS A RESULT
," ,
1 2
OF THE WETLAND INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE IN HAND.
1 3
AND WE SIMPLY GOT TO THE POINT ON THURSDAY --
1 4
WE WENT INTO THE NEGOTIATIONS ON THURSDAY HOPING
1 5
WE COULD COMPLETE IT. WE WERE THERE WELL OVER
1 6
THREE HOURS AND WERE UNABLE TO GET TO THE FINAL
1 7
PIECES OF INFORMATION WE NEEDED TO CLOSE THE
18
NEGOTIATIONS.
19
THE REASON WAS, WE COULD NOT ANTICIPATE THE
20
AMOUNT OF ACREAGE THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED RELATIVE
21
TO THE CHANGES OF THE DIMENSIONS OF THE WETLAND
22
PARK, NOR THE COST INVOLVED IN CHANGING THE STREET
23
PATTERN THAT WOULD RESULT FROM THE NEW WETLANDS
24
DETERMINATION.
25
SO WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAJORITY I HAVE
(.
.
\
~
3
-.'
1
GONE AHEAD AND STARTED THAT PROCESS., I'LL BRING
2
IT TO YOU TONIGHT FOR RATIFICATION. DEBORAH COAL
3
IS ON SITE AND WILL BE HERE THROUGH FRIDAY
-4
UPDATING THE PLAN. MR. SCHRIMSHER AND HIS PEOPLE
5
WILL BE THERE AND HAVE ~LENTY OF OPPORTUNITY TO
6
C~MMENT ON THE PLAN UPDATE IN THE HOPES THAT WE
7
WILL COMPLETE EVERYTHING IN MID-DECEMBER,
8
INCLUDING AN AGREEMENT, BEFORE WE BREAK FOR THE
9
HOLIDAYS.
1 0
.;,
BUT WE JUST SIMPLY CANNOT GET TO FINALIZATION
1 1
WITHOUT KNOWING WHERE THE NEW STREET LAYOUT AND
1 2
NEW CONFIGURATION OF THE PARK WILL BE RELATIVE TO
13
THE WETLANDS -- THE NEW WETLANDS LINES THAT WE
1 4
HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF.
1 5
SO MY REQUEST FROM YOU IS DIRECTION TO
16
CONTINUE NEGOTIATING WITH INFORMATION THAT WE
17
DERIVE FROM THE UPDATE OF THE PLAN AND HAVE ALL
18
THAT IN FRONT OF YOU BEFORE WE BREAK FOR
1 9
CHRISTMAS.
20
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. COMMISSIONER GENNELL?
21
OH, OKAY.
22
LET ME CLARIFY SOMETHING, SINCE IT'S KIND OF
23
MERGING WITH SOMETHING ELSE HERE. DOES THAT MEAN
24
UNDER PUBLIC HEARING UNDER A, THAT YOU'RE
25
SUGGESTING, BASED ON WHAT YOU'VE DONE (INAUDIBLE),
(.
".
\..
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
14
1 5
1 6
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THAT WE PO~TPONE THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THE
NEGOTIATIONS ARE STILL ONGOING AND STILL
PRODUCTIVE; IS THAT .RIGHT?
MR. MCLEMORE: YES. I'M GOING TO SAY
RELATIVE TO THAT, YOU HAVE TWO ALTERNATIVES. ONE
IS DO NOTHING AND LET US CONTINUE ON AND TRY TO
.GET THIS DONE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, OR YOU COULD
TAKE THE POSITION THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD
AND ADOPT THE ORDINANCE TONIGHT.
WE DID HAVE SOME DISCUSSION OF SOME WAYS BY
WHICH THE SCHRIMSHERS COULD PROTECT THEIR RIGHT TO
SUE WHILE WE MOVED AHEAD. THAT WAS NOT THE
ALTERNATIVE THAT WAS CONSIDERED A BETTER
ALTERNATIVE, BECAUSE IT BECOMES VERY COMPLICATED
IN TERMS OF PRESERVING THEIR RIGHT TO SUE.
THEY ONLY HAVE A LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME AFTER
YOU ADOPT THE ORDINANCE TO FILE THEIR CASE. SO I
THINK THE PREFERRED METHOD IS JUST EVERYBODY KEEP
THEIR HATS ON AND GIVE US ANOTHER 30 DAYS TO GET
THIS PLAN DONE AND, HOPEFULLY, WE WILL BE BACK TO
YOU CERTAINLY NO LATER THAN YOUR MEETING IN
DECEMBER WITH, HOPEFULLY, AN AGREEMENT IN OUR
HANDS, PLUS THE READING TO ADOPT.
MAYOR PARTYKA: SO YOUR SUGGESTION WOULD BE
TO POSTPONE?
5
.
1 MR. MCLEMOR~: I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE BEST
2 WAY TO GO, YES.
3 MAYOR PARTYKA: ALL -RIGHT. OKAY. ANY
4 COMMENTS ON THAT, COMMISSIONERS? ANYONE? OKAY.
5 THAT'S IT FOR THIS SECTION.
6 (WHEREUPON, A RECESS WAS TAKEN FROM 5:52 TO
7 8:10 P.M.)
8 MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. UNDER PUBLIC HEARINGS,
9 A, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. FROM THE
10 WORKSHOP, I BELIEVE WE ARE LOOKING FOR AMOTION TO
11 POSTPONE, OR IS THERE NOT A MOTION NEEDED?
12 MR. MCLEMORE: I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A
13 MOTION TO POSTPONE.
14 MR. BLAKE: WE NEED A MOTION TO POSTPONE TO A
15 DATE CERTAIN IN ORDER TO PRESERVE ADVERTISING.
16 AND I'LL BE GLAD TO MAKE THAT MOTION WHEN IT'S
17 TIME, BUT I SEE --
18 MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSIONER GENNELL.
19 DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: I WAS JUST GOING TO
20 MAKE THE MOTION.
21 MR. BLAKE: I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE
22 THE SECOND OR THIRD READING OF ORDINANCE 707 UNTIL
23 THE FIRST MEETING IN DECEMBER, DECEMBER 13, I
24 BELIEVE THE DATE IS; IS THAT CORRECT?
25 MR.~CLEMORE: YES, IT'S THE 13TH.
.
.
(e.
<.
,e
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
1 2
1 3
14
1 5
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MILLER: SECON~.
MAYOR PARTYKA: SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
MILLER. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
CALL THE VOTE.
CLERK: DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: AYE.
CLERK: COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
MR. BLAKE: AYE.
CLERK: COMMISSIONER MILLER.
MR. MILLER: AYE.
CLERK: COMMISSIONER MCLEOD.
MR. MCLEOD: AYE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. MOTION PASSES.
MR. BLAKE: MR. MAYOR, THERE WERE SOME PEOPLE
HERE THAT WANTED TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. DID WE
WANT TO ALLOW THEM TO SPEAK?
MR. MCLEOD: NO.
MAYOR PARTYKA: DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK?
MR. GRINDSTAFF: NO, SIR. WE ARE IN
CONCURRENCE ON THE POSTPONEMENT UNTIL DECEMBER
13TH.
WHAT ABOUT THE ADD-ON AGENDA, ADD-ON ITEM F?
IS THAT IN --
MR. BLAKE: THAT WAS ALREADY TAKEN CARE OF,
YES, SIR.
7
.
.(
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
".0
1 1
1 2
1 3
14
1 5
1 6
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 P.M. )
.
~
M~. GRINDSTAFF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MR. MCLEMORE: ONE ADDITIONAL ITEM,
MR. MAYOR. I THINK WE SHOULD BE ON RECORD THAT
THEY ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE STANDSTILL
EXTENDING TO THE 13TH.
MAYOR PARTYKA: COME UP HERE, MR. GRINDSTAFF.
MR. BLAKE: THAT'S NORMALLY SOMETHING I DO.
THAT'S MY PART."
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THAT WOULD HAVE GONE WITHOUT
SAYING.
MR. MAYOR, MICKEY GRINDSTAFF, THE LAW FIRM OF
SHUTTS & BOWEN. WE REPRESENT THE SCHRIMSHER
GROUP. ADDRESS IS 20 NORTH ORANGE AVENUE,
O~LANDO, FLORIDA 32801.
WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE POSTPONEMENT OF
THIS MATTER UNTIL DECEMBER 13, 1999, AS WAS
INDICATED BY THE CITY MANAGER, AND WE WOULD AGREE
TO CONTINUE THE STANDSTILL ARRANGEMENT AS WE HAVE
DONE FOR THE LAST SEVERAL TIMES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR EFFORTS AND
COOPERATION.
MR. BLAKE: THANK YOU.
MAYOR PARTYKA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
(WHEREUPON, THE MEETING WAS CONCLUDED AT 8:15
;.
\...
8
1
2
3
4
CERTIFICATE OF OATH
5
6
7
8
STATE OF FLORIDA)
COUNTY OF ORANGE)
9
10 I, SANDRA A. MOSER, REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL
REPORTER, CERTIFY THAT I WAS AUTHORIZED TO AND DID
11 STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORT THE FOREGOING PROCEEDING AND
THAT THE TRANSCRIPT IS A TRUE REC~~.
1 2 '
.:.
\,
;.
\ -
I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT I AM NOT A RELATIVE,
13 EMPLOYEE, ATTORNEY OR COUNSEL OF ANY OF THE PARTIES,
NOR AM I FINANCIALLY INTERESTED IN THE ACTION.
1 4
15 DATED THIS 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1999.
16
1 7
~;~c..) Q.\'(\C'\1.., e..
18
------------------------------
SANDRA A. MOSER, R.P.R.
19
NOTARY PUBLIC- STATE OF FLORIDA
20
21
22
.~'''''''' SANORA ~ MOSER
l~i'>' MY COMMISSION · CC 733210
!*:. :*! EXPIRES: April 12.2002 .
't... " Bonded"\lUNcllryP\lllliC\JndeI'WIilIfS
..Rf"
23
24
25
d' ORIGINAL
, '.
.~;.
,.
,1 .
..
'~';.' .
.', .r...
~
.'
.~;
.~:\:
';~ ~ "
'." .
. ~. - . -
. ,
" .- -
"
,'I' .'
.,..... .,"
" ',..' .
-. "
" '..
.;.'.
"
r. "" ~.
,'- .~:.,
,''f. .:",.',
:.',
, '
. I '. .
.~ .~ ~. .
. . -'..' -
"0' . . '.
, "
. 'CITY OF WIN,TER '$PRINGS, F.LORIDA
-
tl.
CITY COMMISSION:'
, '
..
. . .
--------------
'"
~: .
, ,
'.
TRANSCRiPT OF,~ORK~~OP ~ND REGUL~R-MEETING HELD ON"
.' t. '. . ~ .
-,DECEMBER 13,1~99, BEGINNING AT 5:00 P.'M. AT CITY
,COMMIssiriNCHAMBERS, 1~26EAST.STATE_ROAD 434,
;. "
'. . .
'WINTER'~PRING~, FLORIDA,AN6 RE~ORTEO ~YSA~DRA
"
,'.
.~. .
. . ~.' -.. ..
A.MOSE~~ R*GISTERED':PROFE~SIO~A~ ,REPORTER~AND
1..:"
.~'., .
. '
, ' -
. : NOTARY' PUBLIC, STATE, OF.- 'FLORID,.A. AT L,ARGE,. .:, ',,' .
- ,
". ... . .
'. '
~'". .
r- . .
'.. - . ~
... . ........ .... 1Jti",. ... .. .. .
>.Realtim~~&hers, Inc.
. ~(<d"f' " -
-~, ":
.~ ~~~1",,<;;. . .' :.
~.
,..'.'
;: . ,
. -':','
'; . ',:'.-' ::'Regl~er~ Professional Reporters.
': '," Certified Video Technicians"
I: .
12mTM ~\]l88FOX,~,orrestClr~i~ ~~Pka,Flot1da32712 .(407)884~2. F~(4b7)~.'I~1 '
=~:a, ",' ''''',' :,,,,:' SandraA~PresJdent, '. :..'. '.' -, - ~.
. A.poIlar , ,-ProfessJonaJReporttngSlnce 1977,:, .... . - -, ._._=.. .
"\;.
.
/.
~,
(.
2
1
PRO C E E DIN G S
2 (WHEREUPON, MATTERS NOT DEALING WITH THE TOWN
3 CENTER WERE DISCUSSED.)
4
MAYOR PARTYKA: IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE HERE
5
THAT ANYONE SEES THAT THEY NEED TO DISCUSS A
6
LITTLE BIT MORE?
7
MR. MCLEOD: WELL, I THINK THE FACT THAT
8
WE'VE GOTTEN THE SCHRIMSHER AGREEMENT, PERHAPS,
9
THAT IS NOW PLACED IN FRONT OF US, MAYBE WE NEED A
10
RECAP OF THAT AGREEMENT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY AND
1 1
WHERE IS HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH IT, ALONG WITH THE
12
CITY MANAGER. IT MIGHT HELP SAVE SOME TIME WHEN
13
14
WE GET INTO THE REGULAR MEETING, TO KEEP FROM
GOING BACK THROUGH THE WHOLE THING AGAIN.
1 5
MAYOR PARTYKA: I AGREE. DO YOU WANT TO
16
DISCUSS SOME OF THAT NOW, OR DO YOU WANT TO WAIT?
1 7
MR. GARGANESE: I'D LIKE TO WAIT FOR THE CITY
18 MANAGER TO COME.
19 (WHEREUPON, MATTERS NOT DEALING WITH THE TOWN
20 CENTER WERE DISCUSSED.)
21
MR. ~CLEOD: THE SCHRIMSHER ISSUE IS MUCH
22
MORE or AI IIIUI AT HAND. YOU MAY WANT TO POLL
23
THE REST OF ~NI COMMISSIONERS AND SEE WHERE THEY
24
ARE.
3
.
1 MAYOR PARTYKA: I AGREE WITH THE CONCEPT. I
2 WANT TO GET THIS OVER AND DONE WITH. WE'VE
3 BELABORED THIS ENOUGH AND I'LL DO WHATEVER.
4 OKAY. WE'LL DO THAT. THAT'S FINE.
5 LET'S GOON THEN. DO YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THE
6 SCHRIMSHER SITUATION OR DUNCAN BOWMAN SITUATION
7 FIRST?
8 MR. MCLEOD: I THINK THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO
9 MOVE BOWMAN'S MAYBE TO THE FRONT OF THE AGENDA,
10 E&H, THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD GET OUT
11 OF THE WAY. SO THAT WHEN THAT COMES UP THIS
12 EVENING, PERHAPS THE QUESTION'S BEEN ANSWERED AND
13 IT'S APT TO MOVE FAIRLY QUICKLY, AND THEN WE CAN
14 GET INTO THE SCHRIMSHERS.
15 (WHEREUPON, MATTERS NOT DEALING WITH THE TOWN
16 CENTER WERE DISCUSS$D.)
17 MAYOR PARTYKA: NOW, LET'S TALK, I GUESS,
18 ABOUT ITEM C. AND THAT'S CONSIDER A THIRD READING
.
19
20
21
22
23
24
OF ORDINANCE 707 ADOPTING THE PROPOSED TOWN CENTER
DISTRICT BOUNDARY AND TOWN CENTER DISTRICT CODE.
AND MR. MCLEMORE, YOU HAD GIVEN US A DOCUMENT
HERE ABOUT THE SCHRIMSHER AGREEMENT. I WOULD
IMAGINE YOU PROBABLY WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT
THAT.
.
i.
(.
"
~.
\II
'.
4
1
MR. MCLEMORE: I DO. THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO
2
BE A FINAL ITEM. IT IS SIMPLY TO GIVE TO YOU AND
3
SHOW YOU WHERE WE ARE AS OF TODAY. THERE ARE
4
STILL A SMALL AMOUNT OF THINGS TO WORK OUT THAT I
5
THOUGHT WE'D TALK ABOUT TONIGHT.
6
THE ISSUE COMES DOWN TO, I GUESS, ADOPTION OF
7
THE CODE AND WHETHER YOU'RE GOING TO DO THAT
8
TONIGHT. YOU CERTAINLY WILL MOVE AHEAD WITH THE
9
LARGE-SCALE AMENDMENT, WHICH WOULD BE A
10
SUBSTANTIAL STEP FORWARD.
1 1
THIS AGREEMENT WILL TAKE A LITTLE BIT MORE
12
TIME TO FINISH OUT. I THINK, AGAIN, WE'RE IN THE
13
SAME POSITION WHERE IF YOU TRY TO ADOPT THE CODE
14
TONIGHT, YOU WILL CAUSE THE NECESSARY REACTION
1 5
FROM THEIR COUNSEL BECAUSE OF THE 30-DAY FILING
1 6
PERIOD ON A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY.
1 7
I THINK WE'RE -- YOU KNOW, WE'RE 99 AND
18
NINE-TENTHS PERCENT WHERE WE NEED TO BE. I
19
THOUGHT WHAT WE WOULD DO IS GO OVER WITH YOU THE
20
ESSENTIAL PARTS OF THIS -- WE WORKED UP SOME
21
DOCUMENTS -- AND GO OVER A COUPLE OF ISSUES THAT
22
ARE STILL OUTSTANDING. THAT'S PROBABLY A GOOD 30-
23
TO 45-MINUTE DISCUSSION. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT
24
TO DO THAT NOW OR WAIT TO DO THIS LATER ON ONCE
,
.
"
,
5
1
THE MEETING'S DONE.
2
MAYOR PARTYKA: MR. MCLEMORE, JUST AS A
3
PREFACE TO THIS, IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION GOING TO
4
BE TO CONTINUE THIS?
5
MR. MCLEMORE: OUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO
6
GET YOUR DIRECTION RELATIVE TO WHAT YOU SEE IN
7
THIS AGREEMENT, THEN TO SEW THE AGREEMENT UP AND
8
BRING IT BACK TO YOU THE FIRST MEETING IN
9
JANUARY.
1 0
AT THAT POINT IN TIME YOU'LL BE DOING THE
1 1
FIRST READING, HOPEFULLY, ON THE DEVELOPMENT
12
AGREEMENT. YOU'LL BE DOING
I DON'T KNOW WHAT
1 3
READING IT WILL BE
THIRD OR FOURTH READING ON
1 4
THE CODE. AND THE NEXT MEETING, WE WILL DO THE
1 5
SECOND READING ON THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND
16
THE FINAL READING ON THE CODE. THAT'S MY
17
RECOMMENDATION.
18
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, WOULD
1 9
YOU WANT TO HAVE MR. GRINDSTAFF SPEAK AT THIS
20
POINT, JUST AS BACKGROUND?
21
COMMISSIONER MCLEOD?
22
MR. MCLEOD: I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND.
23
MAYBE I'M A LITTLE DENSE.
24
THE CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION -- ARE YOU
.
.
.
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
1 2
1 3
14
1 5
1 6
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
RECOMMENDING THAT WE MOVE FORWARD THIS EVENING
WITH THE AGENDA ITEM IN FRONT OF US, OR ARE YOU
RECOMMENDING THAT WE PUT THE AGENDA ITEM OFF UNTIL
THE FIRST OF JANUARY AND DISCUSS THE AGREEMENT?
MR. MCLEMORE: I'M RECOMMENDING THAT YOU PUT
THE ADOPTION OF THE CODE OFF TO THE FIRST OF
JANUARY, THAT WE GO ,OVER THE ESSENTIAL PARTS OF
THIS-- I DIDN'T WANT TO CLOSE THIS UP WITHOUT YOU
KNOWING PRETTY MUCH WHERE WE'RE AT AND GIVE US
SOME DIRECTION TO MOVE FORWARD OR STOP.
AND THEN ASSUMING WE'RE PRETTY MUCH ON THE
SAME PAGE HERE TONIGHT AFTER THE DISCUSSION, WE
FINALIZE THE AGREEMENT, BRING IT BACK THE FIRST OF
JANUARY FOR THE FIRST READING OF THE DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT, OR IS THIS WHERE WE TITLE THIS AT THIS
POINT IN TIME.
ALONG WITH THE -- I THINK IT'S THE SECOND
READING, IT WOULD BECOME THE SECOND READING OF THE
CODE. IT'S BEEN SO LONG NOW.
AND THEN THE FOLLOWING MEETING, THE LAST
MEETING IN JANUARY, WE DO THE SECOND READING ON
THIS AGREEMENT AND THE FINAL READING ON THE CODE.
SO ALL THAT WILL TAKE PLACE CONCURRENTLY.
BUT YOU WOULD MOVE AHEAD TONIGHT ON A
;'.
~
'.
.
7
1
SEPARATE ISSUE, WHICH IS THE LARGE-SCALE AMENDMENT
2
ON THE TOWN CENTER.
3
YOU'VE GOT TWO THINGS IN FRONT OF YOU
4
TONIGHT. YOU HAVE THE TOWN CENTER LARGE-SCALE
5
AMENDMENT, THEN YOU HAVE THE CODE. AND YOU GOT
6
THE THIRD THING IS THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
7
WE'RE SAYING THE CODE AND THE DEVELOPMENT
8
AGREEMENT NEED TO BE ADOPTED TOGETHER.
9
MR. MCLEOD: IN JANUARY.
10
MR. MCLEMORE: RIGHT. AND AFTER GETTING YOUR
1 1
DIRECTION TONIGHT ON THIS AGREEMENT.
12
MR. MCLEOD: SO BASICALLY, FOR THE MEETING,
1 3
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TAKING THE CODE OUT OF THE
1 4
AGENDA.
1 5
MR. MCLEMORE: CORRECT.
1 6
,MR. MCLEOD: AND IT WOULD SEEM TO ME, THEN,
1 7
SEEING THAT WE ALL JUST NOW GOT THIS, THAT WE
18
WOULD TAKE TIME, OURSELVES, OVER THE NEXT WEEK,
19
READ THROUGH IT, ALLOW YOU AND THE SCHRIMSHERS TO
20
CONTINUE TO NEGOTIATE.
21
AND THIS, THEN, WOULD COME ON THE AGENDA AS
22
AN AGENDA ITEM FOR JANUARY, ALONG WITH THE CODE.
23
AND THIS SHOULD BE PLACED AHEAD OF THE CODE, I
24
GUESS, SO THAT WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT WITH THE
.
.
.
8
AGREEMENT, RATHER THAN TAKING A LOT OF TIME UP
THIS EVENING DISCUSSING IT, UNLESS YOU NEED A
WHOLE LOT OF INPUT FROM THE COMMISSION.
MR. MCLEMORE: NO. I DON'T WANT TO GO
FURTHER WITH THE AGREEMENT UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND
THE ESSENTIAL PARTS OF THIS AGREEMENT. I DON'T
WANT TO FINALIZE THE AGREEMENT, BRING IT TO YOU IN
JANUARY, AND YOU SAY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO ADOPT
THIS.
SO WE NEED TO GET SOME RESPONSE FROM YOU
TONIGHT, NOT A WORD-BY-WORD, BUT,' ESSENTIALLY,
WHAT THE AGREEMENT IS.
WHY DON'T YOU HIGHLIGHT WHAT
I THINK IT WILL PROBABLY TAKE
30 MINUTES TO 45 MINUTES. IT MAY GO FASTER.
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSIONER GENNELL -- I'M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
1 5
1 6
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. MCLEOD:
THAT IS?
MR. MCLEMORE:
PRESENTATION.
MR. MCLEOD:
EVENING?
MR. MCLEMORE:
MR. MCLEOD:
MINUTES?
MR. MCLEMORE:
WE PLAN TO MAKE YOU A
YOU'RE GOING TO DO THAT THIS
YES.
AND THAT'S GOING TO TAKE 45
.
.
.
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
13
14
1 5
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
SORRY. COMMISSIONER MCLEOD, YOU STILL HAVE THE
FLOOR. I WANT TO ADD A LITTLE COMMENT THAT
COMMISSIONER MCLEOD MADE.
MR. MCLEOD: MY WHOLE THING IS, I THINK IF
YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE US A PRESENTATION, THEN WE
TAKE THE PRESENTATION AND RESPOND BACK TO YOU
QUICKLY WITH THE INFORMATION. AND IF WE'RE NOT
ADOPTING THIS THING TONIGHT, THEN LET'S TRY TO
MOVE FORWARD, I THINK.
I JUST DON'T -- WITH ALL THE AGENDA THINGS
THAT'S POSSIBLY ON THIS AGENDA TONIGHT, I DON'T
PLAN ON BEING HERE REAL LATE IF WE DON'T NEED TO
BE. AND I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE
EVERYBODY, SCHRIMSHERS AND YOURSELF AND THE CITY
COMMISSION, IS ALL IN AGREEMENT IN THE DIRECTION
WE'RE HEADING. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: IF I MAY, JUST TO ADD TO
THAT. WE JUST GOT THIS, AND WE'VE HAD COMMENTS ON
THIS MANY, MANY TIMES.
EVEN IF YOU GIVE A PRESENTATION TO US, YOU
CAN'T REALLY DIGEST THIS UNTIL YOU GET A CHANCE TO
READ IT AND REALLY UNDERSTAND IT. SO TO GET
FEEDBACK IS DIFFICULT BECAUSE, FROM MY STANDPOINT,
I NEED TO UNDERSTAND IT, READ IT THOROUGHLY BEFORE
...
~
.
.
10
1
I GET INTO IT.
2
I JUST FEEL LIKE I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER
3
MCLEOD. WE JUST GOT THIS. THIS IS VERY, VERY
4
IMPORTANT. AND I CAN'T -- FROM MY STANDPOINT,
5
IT'S HARD TO MAKE A DECISION LIKE THIS. WE
6
MENTIONED THIS BEFORE IN THE PAST.
7
COMMISSIONER GENNELL.
8
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, YOUR DIRECTION TO ME WAS
9
BRING THE AGREEMENT TONIGHT PARTIALLY, FULLY, AND
10
EXPLAIN WHATEVER ISSUES, IF ANY ISSUES, ARE
1 1
OUTSTANDING. THAT WAS YOUR DIRECTION TO ME.
12
MR. MCLEOD: I THINK WE NEED TO KNOW THE
13
OUTSTANDING ISSUES.
14
MR. MCLEMORE: AND I THINK THAT THAT TAKES UP
1 5
A MINOR PART OF THE DISCUSSION. BUT I, AGAIN,
1 6
FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT BASICALLY GIVING YOU THE
17
ESSENTIALS OF WHAT IT IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. I
18
THINK WE CAN DO THAT IN 30 MINUTES.
19
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY.
20
COMMISSIONER GENNELL.
21
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: IF I UNDERSTAND THE
22
CONVERSATION SO FAR, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE CALLED
23
UPON TO MAKE ANY OFFICIAL DECISION ON THIS
24
TONIGHT. YOU JUST WANT FEEDBACK FROM US. AND
.
'.
~
.
1 1
1
YOU'RE GOING TO PRESENT US THE HIGH POINTS, THE
2
CONCESSIONS WE'VE MADE, AS WELL AS THE CONCESSIONS
3
THEY'VE MADE, AS WELL AS WHAT OUTSTANDING POINTS
4
REMAIN UNRESOLVED; IS THAT RIGHT?
5
MR. MCLEMORE: THAT'S RIGHT.
6
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: AND THE INITIAL
7
FEEDBACK, WE GIVE YOU TONIGHT. IF WE HAVE MORE
8
9
FEEDBACK, WE CAN GIVE YOU DURING THE NEXT COUPLE
WEEKS.
10
MR. MCLEMORE: THAT'S CORRECT.
1 1
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: THAT SUITS ME FINE.
12
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
13
MR. MARTINEZ: WELL~ FIRST OF ALL, I'M NOT
1 4
TOO HAPPY WITH WHAT I HEARD. THE MANAGER SAYS
1 5
THAT WE MAY HAVE TO COME BACK AND SAY TO YOU, WE
16
DON'T LIKE THIS. SAME AS HAPPENED FIRST TIME
1 7
OUT. I THINK THAT THE MESSAGE WE CONVEYED TO YOU
18
WAS TO GO OVER THERE AND WORK ON SOMETHING THAT
1 9
WE'D BE HAPPY WITH.
20
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE AT LEAST BE
21
GIVEN SOME DIRECTION TONIGHT; HIGHLIGHTS, WHATEVER
22
IT IS YOU WANT TO TOUCH UP ON THIS AGREEMENT HERE,
23
SO WHEN WE READ IT, IT WILL BE EASIER TO
24
UNDERSTAND, AND, WHEN WE COME BACK, WE WILL BE
.
.
.
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
1 3
14
1 5
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MORE PREPARED, BETTER PREPARED, TO DEAL WITH THIS
ISSUE.
MR. MCLEMORE: I THINK SO. I THINK YOU'RE
RIGHT.
MAYOR PARTYKA: ANYONE ELSE?
IF NOT, RON, GO AHEAD.
MR. MCLEMORE: DO YOU WANT TO DO THIS NOW?
MAYOR PARTYKA: YES. YOU SAID YOU NEEDED
SOME TIME, RIGHT? YOU CAN DO IT.
MR. MCLEMORE: COMMISSIONERS, HOLD ON. DO
YOU WANT TO DISCUSS A LITTLE BIT OF THIS NOW?
MAYOR PARTYKA: UNLESS THERE'S SOME OTHER
ISSUE YOU WANT TO DISCUSS. BUT I GOT THE
IMPRESSION THAT WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE GOT
THROUGH THIS SCHRIMSHER ISSUE. THERE'S NOTHING
ELSE PRESSING ON THE AGENDA.
NOW, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I DIDN'T
SEE ANYTHING ELSE THAT ANYONE MENTIONED.
MR. MARTINEZ: ALL THESE ITEMS HERE
MR. MCLEMORE: KIP, WE'RE GOING TO NEED YOU
FOR THIS DISCUSSION.
MR. MARTINEZ: -- D, E, AND F, YOU ARE
REQUESTING THE FORWARDING OF OUR SCALE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS. I NOTICED THAT
13
.
1
SANDWICHED IN-BETWEEN HERE. THERE ARE PLANNING
2
AND ZONING MINUTES DEALING WITH PARCEL 7 AND 8.
3 IS THIS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE OR WHAT?
4 (WHEREUPON, MATTERS NOT DEALING WITH THE TOWN
5 CENTER WERE DISCUSSED.)
6
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: I THINK IT'S PROBABLY
7
IMPORTANT THAT WE GO OVER THE SCHRIMSHER AGREEMENT
8
IN PUBLIC. HOPEFULLY, WE CAN HAVE SOME MORE
9
PEOPLE IN ATTENDANCE HERE AND THEY CAN BENEFIT,
1 0
ALSO, ON THE DETAILS OF WHAT'S OUT HERE IN THIS
1 1
AGREEMENT INSTEAD OF US TRYING TO EXPLAIN IT TO
12
THEM LATER AND THEM ASKING QUESTIONS.
.'"
,"
, 3
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY.
1 4
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING
1 5
TO HAVE A DECENT NUMBER OF PEOPLE HERE TONIGHT.
1 6
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. IS THAT IT,
1 7
COMMISSIONER?
18
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: YES, THAT'S ALL. I
19
THINK IT WOULD BENEFIT THE PUBLIC TO HEAR THE
20
DETAILS OF THIS DRAFT AGREEMENT, IS WHAT I'M
21
SAYING.
22
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSIONER MCLEOD.
23
MR. MCLEOD: YES. BACK TO WHAT MR. MARTINEZ
24
HAD MENTIONED.
~'
.
.
1 1
12
,
13
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
'\..
14
1 (WHEREUPON, MATTERS NOT DEALING WITH THE TOWN
2 CENTER WERE DISCUSSED.)
3
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
4
DEPARTMENT REQUESTS THE COMMISSION CONSIDER A
5
THIRD READING OF ORDINANCE 707 ADOPTING THE
6
PROPOSED TOWN CENTER DISTRICT BOUNDARY AND TOWN
7
CENTER DISTRICT CODE.
,8
MR. GARGANESE, COULD YOU READ THAT BY TITLE
9
ONLY.
10
MR. GARGANESE: ORDINANCE NUMBER 707, AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING THE TOWN
CENTER BOUNDARY AND DISTRICT CODE TO BECOME PART
OF CHAPTER 20 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY
AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
MAYOR.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. THANK YOU.
COMMISSIONERS, AT THIS POINT I'LL TURN IT OTHER TO
STAFF, AND I BELIEVE MR. MCLEMORE ALSO WANTS TO
BRING UP SOME THINGS. AND I ALSO HAVE A COUPLE
PEOPLE THAT WISH TO SPEAK FROM THE PROPERTY
OWNER. OKAY.
HOW DO YOU WANT TO HANDLE THIS, RON?
~
.
'""-
.
'.....
15
1
MR. MCLEMORE: JUST A MOMENT, PLEASE.
2
MAYOR PARTYKA: JUST FOR EVERYBODY'S
3
INFORMATION, THIS IS DISCUSSION OF THE SCHRIMSHER
4
AGREEMENT, POTENTIAL IMPACT ON THIS.
5
MR. MCLEMORE: IT IS. AND WE 'ARE, AGAIN,
6
PROPOSING THAT WE NOT ADOPT THIS TONIGHT. WE ARE
7
PROPOSING THAT WE HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH YOU
8
REGARDING THE SENSE OF THE AGREEMENT THAT WE
9
HAVE. WE THINK THAT WE'RE PRETTY WELL AT CLOSURE,
1 0
LACKING A FEW ITEMS TO RESOLVE.
1 1
AND TO HAVE THIS COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION
12
ON THE FIRST MEETING OF JANUARY WITH THE FIRST
13
READING OF THE AGREEMENT, AND THEN THE SECOND
14
READING ON THIS. THE SECOND READING WOULD BE THE
1 5
SECOND MEETING IN JANUARY WITH THE SECOND READING
1 6
OF THE AGREEMENT.
1 7
SO AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE NEED TO HAVE
18
DISCUSSION WITH YOU RELATIVE TO THE AGREEMENT
19
ITSELF AND GET SOME ,DIRECTION FROM YOU AS TO
20
WHETHER WE MOVE FORWARD OR WHETHER WE 'NEED TO MAKE
21
SOME AMENDMENTS OR IF WE REVERSE GEARS OR WHATEVER
22
YOUR CHOICE IS.
23
MAYOR PARTYKA: WHAT'S YOUR PREFERENCE IN
24
TERMS OF THE METHOD? MR. SCHRIMSHER AND
.
.
.
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. GRINDSTAFF WANT TO SPEAK. DO YOU WANT TO WAIT
UNTIL THE CITY MANAGER TAKES HIS POSITION AND
THROWS OUT THE HIGHLIGHTS, OR DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK
NOW?
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, I THINK IT MAY BE
HELPFUL TO HIM IF WE GO FIRST. HE CAN PUT HIS
ISSUES ON THE TABLE.
I'M GOING TO COME DOWN IN FRONT, IF IT'S OKAY
WITH YOU.
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSIONER GENNELL, DO YOU
WANT TO SAY SOMETHING NOW?
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: I JUST HAVE A QUESTION
RELATIVE TO THE PIECE OF PAPER THAT'S IN FRONT OF
US. ON THE SECOND PAGE IT SAYS -- UNDER
CONSIDERATIONS, THE FIRST BULLET, IT SAYS,
ORDINANCE 707 -- WHICH IS THE ONE WE'RE
DISCUSSING -- WOULD REPLACE ORDINANCE 661.
NOW, WHAT WAS 661?
MR. GRIMMS: ORDINANCE 661 WAS WHAT THIS
BOARD PASSED, I BELIEVE, BACK IN 1997. IT WAS A
TOWN CENTER OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT.
THIS DISTRICT IS A SEPARATE STANDING
DISTRICT. IT IS NOT AN OVERLAY DISTRICT, THIS
PROPOSED ORDINANCE 707.
.
:.
.
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
1 4
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: DOES IT CHANGE THE
ORDERS ANY? DOES IT CHANGE THE PHYSICAL
GEOGRAPHICS?
MR. GRIMMS: YES, IT DOES. IT'S NOT
CO-TERMINUS WITH THE OVERLAYS ON THE DISTRICT OF
THE TOWN CENTER THAT WAS PASSED IN 1997.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: WELL, THEN, I WOULD
JUST REQUEST, INASMUCH AS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE
CONSIDERING IS GOING TO REPLACE AN EXISTING
ORDINANCE THAT WE ALREADY PASSED WHERE THERE ARE
DISCREPANCIES, I'D LIKE IT TO BE NOTED FOR OUR
BENEFIT. THANK YOU.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. RON, IT'S YOUR FORUM.
MR. MCLEMORE: OKAY.
MAYOR PARTYKA: MR. MCLEMORE, WHILE YOU'RE
DOING THAT, COULD WE HAVE EXTRA COPIES FOR PEOPLE,
FOR ANYBODY?
MR. MCLEMORE: I DO NOT HAVE EXTRA COPIES,
BUT WE'RE GOING TO PUT IT UP ON THE SCREEN.
MAYOR PARTYKA: IF ANYBODY DOES WANT, AT THE
END, AN EXTRA COPY, WE WILL MAKE THOSE AVAILABLE.
OKAY. WHY DON'T WE JUST
MR. MCLEMORE: THE FIRST THING I WANT TO DO
.
.
.
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
IS JUST FAMILIARIZE YOU WITH THESE TWO DOCUMENTS
OR THREE PAGES RIGHT HERE. THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT
REPRESENTATIONS. AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO
DEMONSTRATE HERE IS
MAYOR PARTYKA:
MR. MCLEMORE:
1$ THAT MICROPHONE WORKING?
IT SHOULD BE. CAN YOU HEAR
ME?
MAYOR PARTYKA: YES, NOW I CAN. YOU'VE GOT
TO GET UP CLOSER.
MR. MCLEMORE: THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT PAGES.
IF YOU WANT TO MARK THEM 1 AND 2, WE CAN DO THAT.
IF YOU'LL LOOK O~ THE BOTTOM ONE, IT SAYS, NET TO
DEVELOPER, 2 MILLION 059. MAKE THAT PAGE 1, AND
WE'LL MAKE THE OTHER ONE PAGE 2.
NOW, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IN THESE TWO PAGES
IS ONE INCLUDES A SECTION ON AMENITIES, AND THAT
IS ON PAGE 1. THE AMENITIES PACKAGE AT THE
BOTTOM, YOU'LL SEE, INCLUDES DEMONSTRATING THE
TRAIL, THE UNPAVED SECTION OF THE TRAIL, THE PAVED
SECTION OF THE TRAIL, CONSTRUCTING A MAGNOLIA PARK
TRAIL HEAD, AND THEN OVERALL PARK IMPROVEMENTS
THAT ARE THROUGHOUT THE TOWN CENTER.
SO THOSE AMENITIES, WE WOULD SAY, HAS A VALUE
TO A FUTURE DEVELOPER AND, FOR THAT PURPOSE, WE
ft
.
.....
.
',--
. I .:.
19
1
THINK THEY SHOULD BE SHOWN ON THE SHEETS.
2
PAGE 2 IS THE SAME THING WITHOUT THE
3
AMENITIES. THAT'S THE ONLY DIFFERENCE.
4
PAGE 3 IS A NEW PAGE 11. THAT WOULD BE IN
5
THE TOWN CENTER CODE. THAT REPRESENTS THE CHANGE
6
THAT'S THIS PAGE -- REPRESENTS THE
IN THE
7
CHANGE IN THE ACTUAL CONFIGURATION OF STREETS.
8
AND THAT IS A RESULT OF THE REVISED WETLAND
9
INFORMATION WE HAD THAT CAUSED US TO GO BACK TO
10
THE DRAWING BOARDS AND BRING THAT WETLAND
1 1
INFORMATION INTO CONSIDERATION FOR FINALIZING THE
12
CONCEPT PLAN.
1 3
AS YOU CAN SEE BY WHAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU --
14
KIP, CAN YOU THROW THAT ONE UP?
1 5
MR. LOCKCUF: WHICH ONE?
16
MR. MCLEMORE: THIS ONE.
17
MR. LOCKCUF: I HAVE TO GO AWAY FROM THIS
18
SCREEN.
19
MR. MCLEMORE: OKAY. FOR A MOMENT, IF YOU
20
WILL.
21
MR. LOCKCUF: WE CAN SHOW THIS ONE ON THE
22
CAMERA IF YOU WANT.
23
MR. MCLEMORE: OKAY. BASICALLY, THE MAP
CHANGED THIS WAY. A PORTION OF THIS AREA HERE
24
.
.
'.::
.
20
1
BECAME DESIGNATED AS A WETLAND PARK BECAUSE THE
2
WETLANDS EXTENDED IN THAT DIRECTION.
3
IF YOU'LL RECALL, ALONG HERE THERE WAS A
4
BOULEVARD IN THE ORIGINAL PLAN THAT WENT FROM THE
5
WETLAND PARK OUT TO THE EDGE OF THE DEVELOPMENT
6
AREA. THAT HAS BEEN DONE AWAY WITH AND IS NOW
7
SHOWN AS A STREET.
8
AND THERE WAS A PARK SITE DOWN HERE THAT
9
WAS -- I FORGET THE NAME OF IT -- BUT ANYHOW, IT'S
1 0
BEEN BROKEN UP INTO TWO SEPARATE PARKS, SMALLER
1 1
PARKS. THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE CHANGES THAT WE
12
WENT THROUGH.
13
THE RECONFIGURATION HAS BEEN RELATIVELY
1 4
MINOR. AND WE DID HAVE SUBSTANTIAL INPUT FROM
1 5
MR. SCHRIMSHER AND MR. SCHRIMSHER'S PLANNER AND
1 6
HIS ATTORNEY IN GOING THROUGH ALL OF THIS, AND WE
1 7
18
FELT LIKE WE CAME TO A PRETTY GOOD UNDERSTANDING
OF A GOOD PLAN THAT WE COULD START OFF WITH AND
19
LIVE WITH FOR SOME TIME.
20
THERE WAS SOME SMALL CONFIGURATION OF THIS
21
AREA HERE THAT RESULTED IN A NARROWING OF THIS
22
CHANNEL DOWN INTO THE, WETLANDS ON THIS SIDE. BUT
23
OVERALL, THE CHANGES HAVE BEEN, IN MY OPINION,
24
RELATIVELY MINOR.
.
.
.
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
1 3
'1 4
1 5
1 6
17
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
IF WE CAN COME BACK TO THE VALUES, PAGE 1,
THE DISCUSSION THAT PURSUED WAS ONE OF AN
APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION FROM THE CITY
FOR THIS LANDOWNER RELATIVE TO CONCERNS THAT THE
LANDOWNER HAD THAT THE PLAN AND, PARTICULARLY, THE
CODE COULD POTENTIALLY DO SOME VIOLENCE TO THE
VALUE OF THEIR PROPERTY.
AND THROUGH THESE PARTICULAR NEGOTIATIONS,
OUR ATTEMPT WAS TO MITIGATE, FINANCIALLY, A THREAT
OF VALUES TO THE PROPERTIES, MONETARILY.
AND WE, AS PART OF THIS, REALIZED AND WE'VE
HAD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS RIGHT FROM THE
BEGINNING, THAT IF WE DESIRED FOR THIS PROPERTY TO
DEVELOP AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE AND START TO PUT
VALUES ON THE TAX ROLLS, THEN THE CITY WOULD NEED
TO BE A PARTNER WITH A FUTURE DEVELOPER, PROBABLY
IN SOME TYPE OF INFRASTRUCTURE, IN ORDER TO GET
THE PROJECT MOVING AND TO CREATE A MOTIVATION BY
DEVELOPERS TO MOVE IN AN EXPEDITED WAY.
SO RELATIVE TO THIS AGREEMENT AND I WOULD
SAY THAT YOU SHOULD TREAT THESE PAGES AS A DRAFT
IN THE SENSE THAT THEY -- SCHRIMSHER HAS NOT HAD
AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THESE NUMBERS TO ANY
GREAT EXTENT. THEY MAY WISH TO CHALLENGE THESE
.
.
.
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
AND THEY COULD CHANGE, YOU KNOW,S PERCENT OR 10
PERCENT. BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE BOTTOM LINE,
THE CHANGES ARE NOT GOING TO BE SUBSTANTIAL
RELATIVE TO THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE CITY.
SO THESE PAGES ARE INTENDED TO INDICATE TO
YOU WHAT THE DEVELOPER'S GIVING TO THE CITY AND
WHAT THE CITY IS GIVING BACK TO OR THE
LANDOWNER AND FUTURE DEVELOPERS, AND WHAT THE CITY
IS GIVING BACK TO THE LANDOWNER AND FUTURE
DEVELOPERS, IN SUCH A WAY, HOPEFULLY, THAT ALL THE
PARTIES WIN.
WHAT WE ARE SUGGESTING IS -- IF YOU LOOK
UNDER "PARKS MISCELLANEOUS," THAT'S THE WHOLE
SERIES OF THESE LITTLE SMALL POCKET PARKS OR
LITTLE NEIGHBORHOOD-TYPE PARKS THAT ARE
DISTRIBUTED THROUGH THE AREA -- THERE IS ONE IN
CONTENTION THAT IS ONE OF THE ISSUES WE NEED TO
TALK ABOUT. WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE
LATER -- INCLUDING MAGNOLIA PARK AND SHOWING YOU,
BASICALLY, WHAT THE VALUES OF THOSE PARKS ARE
BASED ON THE APPRAISAL WORK THAT WE HAD DONE.
AND THEN YOU COME TO WETLAND PARK. AGAIN, WE
SHOW YOU WHAT THE VALUES ARE THERE. TUSCAWILLA
ROAD; THESE ARE COSTS THAT THE DEVELOPER OR THE
.
.
.
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
1 3
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
OWNER IS GIVING UP TO THE CITY. THESE ARE LANDS
THAT WOULD BE CONVEYED TO THE CITY AS PART OF THIS
AGREEMENT, AND THIS IS WHAT WE THINK, BASICALLY,
THE VALUES ARE.
THE SUBTOTAL LINE IS SOMEWHERE AROUND 1.16.
IT MAY CHANGE, IF THEY'RE CHALLENGED, BY A SMALL
AMOUNT. WE DON'T THINK THEY WOULD BE SUBSTANTIAL.
THEN WE TRIED TO REALIZE, IN TERMS OF THE
TRAIL RELOCATION IN THE NEXT SECTION, THE
DEVELOPER IS REQUIRED TO GIVE A 2-TO-1 LAND SWAP
IN ORDER TO RELOCATE THE TRAIL, IF YOU'LL RECALL,
UNDER STATE RULES. AND WE TRIED TO GIVE A FAIR
REPRESENTATION OF WHAT THAT MEANT, FINANCIALLY, TO
THE LANDOWNER. AND WHAT THE LANDOWNER GIVES AND
THEN WHAT THE STATE GIVES BACK IS ON THESE TWO
LINES.
WHERE IT SAYS "TRAIL RELOCATION," THIS IS
WHAT THE DEVELOPER IS GIVING TO SCHRIMSHER FROM
THE STATE. THAT'S WHAT THE STATE IS GIVING BACK,
WHICH IS THE EXISTING TRAIL. THOSE HAVE VALUES,
AND THEY SHOW, POTENTIALLY, A NET LOSS TO THE
LANDOWNER OF APPROXIMATELY 400,000. AGAIN, THESE
NUMBERS CAN GO UP, THEY CAN GO DOWN. BUT THEY'RE
FAIRLY REASONABLE, WE THINK, IN TERMS OF THE BEST
.
.
.
"
24
1
DATA WE HAVE, WHICH WAS THE ORIGINAL APPRAISALS
2
THAT WE HAD DONE.
3
THEN WE LOOK AT WHAT IS THE CITY PUTTING INTO
4
THIS DEAL FOR THE 1.6 THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS IN
5
THE DEAL, OR THE LANDOWNER HAS IN THE DEAL. AND
6
WHAT WE HAVE PROPOSED WAS THAT'THE CITY WOULD
7
IMPROVE TUSCAWILLA ROAD -- BACK TO THE MAP. OH,
8
WE CAN COME BACK TO THE MAP.
9
MR. BLAKE: PUT THE MAP ON ONE SIDE.
10
MR. MCLEMORE: OKAY.
1 1
MR. MCLEOD: LOOKS LIKE THEY WOULD FIT ON
12
13
THERE SIDE-BY-SIDE.
MR. MCLEMORE: TUSCAWILLA ROAD. OBVIOUSLY,
14
THIS SECTION ALONG HERE HAS TO BE WIDENED IN ORDER
15
TO ACCOMMODATE THE MAIN STREET CONCEPT. WE ARE
1 6
PROPOSING THAT THE CITY WOULD WIDEN TUSCAWILLA
1 7
ROAD AND IMPROVE IT CONSISTENT WITH THE DESIGN IN
18
THE TOWN CENTER CODE.
19
WE'RE ALSO RECOMMENDING THAT WE WOULD IMPROVE
20
ONE OF THE MAIN ROADS GOING THROUGH THIS, THAT WE
21
WOULD GO TO OUR CIRCULATION PLAN AND ADD IT AS A
22
COLLECTOR ROAD, MAKING IT ELIGIBLE FOR IMPACT FEE
23
FINANCING.
24
AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO TO A DIFFERENT
.
~,
.
,,=,
.
25
1
MAP AT THIS POINT TO SHOW YOU WHAT WE PROPOSING AS
2
THE NEW COLLECTOR ROAD FOR THE TOWN CENTER.
3
AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: COULD WE HAVE A MAP,
4
PLEASE?
5
MAYOR PARTYKA: YES. YES. PUT THE MAP OVER
6
THERE.
7
MR. MCLEMORE: THE NEW COLLECTOR ROAD ON THIS
8
PLAN WOULD COME AT THIS POINT AND GO AROUND
9
WETLAND PARK, JOIN TUSCAWILLA ROAD, AND THEN THIS
10
SECTION WOULD COME OUT AT MAGNOLIA PARK, GO OUT AN
1 1
EXIT JUST BEFORE YOU GET TO THE CITY HALL AREA,
12
AND FORM THE BASIC ROUTING OF TRAFFIC, OR THE
1 3
MAJOR ROUTING OF TRAFFIC IN THE TOWN CENTER.
14
NOW, AGAIN, WHEN THIS IS -- BY YOU
15
DESIGNATING THIS -- AND THAT'S IN THE AGREEMENT
16
THAT YOU AGREE TO DO THIS, THAT YOU AGREE TO
17
DESIGNATE, IN YOUR CIRCULATION PLAN, THIS ROAD AS
18
A COLLECTOR ROAD, MAKING IT ELIGIBLE FOR IMPACT
19
FEE FINANCING.
20
NOW, WE'VE ANALYZED THE IMPACT FEE RATES AT
21
THIS POINT IN TIME AND WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT
22
THIS ROAD CAN BE CONSTRUCTED WITH IMPACT FEES
23
WITHOUT AN INCREASE IN IMPACT FEES. WE MIGHT HAVE
24
TO DO SOME SHORT-TERM BORROWING WHILE THAT MONEY
'.
.
'<:.
.
26
1
CATCHES UP, BUT THERE'S SUFFICIENT MONIES WITHIN
2
THE IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE TO BUILD THIS ROAD OVER A
3
PERIOD OF YEARS.
4
MAYOR PARTYKA: IF I MAY IMPOSE, COMMISSIONER
5
BLAKE HAS A SPECIFIC QUESTION AT THIS POINT.
6
MR. MCLEMORE: OKAY.
7
MR. BLAKE: DO WE HAVE ANY COUNTY 1-CENT
8
SALES TAX THAT COULD BE USED AS A TRANSPORTATION
9
COMPONENT, AS WELL?
10
MR. MCLEMORE: YES, WE DO.
1 1
MR. BLAKE: HAVE YOU UTILIZED THAT IN ANY OF
1 2
YOUR CALCULATIONS?
13
MR. MCLEMORE: YES, WE HAVE.
1 4
MR. BLAKE: THANK YOU.
1 5
MAYOR PARTYKA: DO YOU WANT TO ASK
1 6
SOMETHING? YOU HAD YOUR LIGHT ON THE LONGEST, BUT
1 7
I FIGURED YOU WEREN'T REAL ANTSY ABOUT IT. YOU
1 8
WANTED SOMETHING ELSE?
1 9
MR. MCLEOD: WASN'T I MOVING ENOUGH?
20
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSIONER MCLEOD HAD A
21
QUESTION, ALSO.
22
MR. MCLEOD: I'LL WAIT IF YOU'LL COME BACK TO
23
ME.
24
MAYOR PARTYKA: YES. OKAY.
.
.
~"
.
27
1
MR. MCLEOD: I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.
2
MR. MCLEMORE: NOW, THE CONSTRUCTION OF THESE
3
ROADS WOULD ALSO INCLUDE PUTTING THE WATER AND
4
SEWER FACILITIES IN THE ROADWAY AS IT'S
5
CONSTRUCTED. AND THEN THE AGREEMENT ALSO
6
ANTICIPATES BRINGING IN WATER AND SEWER
WATER'S
7
BASICALLY ALREADY HERE, BUT BRINGING IN SEWER TO
8
THE SITE FROM THE MAIN LINE THAT RUNS DOWN HOWELL
9
TUSCAWILLA. OKAY. SO THAT'S GOT TO
CREEK
1 0
BE
1 1
MR. GRINDSTAFF: YOU NEED TO SLIDE THE PAGE,
12
RON.
13
MR. MCLEMORE: OKAY. OKAY. THIS ENTIRE AREA
14
IS SERVED -- THE SCHRIMSHER PROPERTIES -- BY
15
IMPROVING THE LINE AT TUSCAWILLA AND BRINGING IT
16
TO THE SITE.
17
IF YOU LOOK ON YOUR PAGES THAT SHOWS THE
18
VALUES AND BUDGETS, YOU'LL SEE THAT, UNDER
19
"DEDICATION TO SCHRIMSHER," THAT THE TUSCAWILLA
20
ROAD IMPROVEMENTS IS BUDGETED -- OR ESTIMATED TO
21
BE 407,000; THE COLLECTOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS,
22
1,151,000; THE COLLECTOR ROAD UTILITIES, 250,000;
23
AND THE OFF-SITE UTILITIES -- THAT'S BRINGING THE
24
SEWER TO THE SITE. IT'S NOT BUILDING THE INTERNAL
.
.
.
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
13
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
SYSTEM. IT'S BRINGING IT TO THE SITE -- IS
ESTIMATED TO BE 1.1 MILLION.
NOW, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO WITH THE
UTILITY SECTION IS TO CREATE A UTILITY CONNECTION
FEE OR INCREASE OUR CONNECTION FEES WITHIN THE
TOWN CENTER TO COVER THAT COST OVER A PERIOD OF
TIME. THAT WOULD RESULT IN AN INCREASE IN
CONNECTION FEES. AND THOSE CONNECTION FEES WOULD
BE ONLY FOR THE TOWN CENTER.
BUT WHAT IT DOES IS IT MAKES THE TOWN CENTER
READY FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN TWO YEARS. AND
THAT'S A TREMENDOUS BENEFIT TO THE DEVELOPER, AS
WELL AS TO THE CITY, IN DOING ALL OF THIS.
SO RECOGNIZING THAT SOME OF THESE NUMBERS MAY
CHANGE A SMALL AMOUNT, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD,
FAIR REPRESENTATION OF THE BASICS OF THE
AGREEMENT. WE'RE AGREEING TO DO CERTAIN THINGS TO
JUMP START THIS PROJECT, ADD VALUE TO THIS
PROJECT, MITIGATE CONCERNS OF THE DEVELOPER. AND
IT'S OUR POSITION, BASED ON THESE NUMBERS, THAT
THE CITY'S CONTRIBUTION IS IN EXCESS OF WHAT THE
DEVELOPER IS CONTRIBUTING.
AND, HOPEFULLY, THAT GETS TO THE POINT WE'RE
NOT ARGUING OVER PENNIES. YOU KNOW, WE CAN GET
.
.
.
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
1 5
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
THIS THING DONE AND GET IT OUT OF THE WAY. IT'S
SOMETHING WE NEED TO DO IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT
THE COMMUNITY REALLY VALUES AND WE DESIRE TO SEE
SOME RETURNS FROM IT WITHIN THE NEAR FUTURE.
THERE ARE OTHER SMALLER ITEMS IN THE
AGREEMENT, BUT THEY BASICALLY ALL SWIRL AROUND
THESE ISSUES.
THE OTHER ISSUE THAT I HAD RAISED -- AND I
HAD APOLOGIZED TO MR. SCHRIMSHER EARLIER, BECAUSE
I WAS TO RAISE IT IN THE MEETING WE HAD LAST
THURSDAY, I BELIEVE IT WAS, AND I FAILED TO DO
IT -- THAT PART OF WHAT THE DEVELOPER, IN MY
OPINION, SHOULD BE PROVIDING TO THE CITY IN RETURN
FOR THIS DEAL IS THE AGREEMENT TO TAKE DOWN THE
BILLBOARD THAT'S ON HIS PROPERTY THAT'S IN THE
TOWN CENTER. AND IT'S GOING TO BE GOING ANYHOW.
YOU ARE LOOKING AT AN ORDINANCE, WHICH YOU
ARE DEVELOPING NOW -- WHICH YOU SHOULD HAVE IN
FRONT OF YOU IN THE NEAR FUTURE TO PROVIDE THE
CITY WITH AN AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE AND BUYOUT
PROCEDURE TO TAKE DOWN THESE BILLBOARDS.
IT'S MY OPINION THAT TAKING THE BILLBOARD
DOWN SHOULD ,BE PART OF THIS DEAL. YOU DON'T WANT
IT STICKING UP IN THE MIDDLE OF YOUR TOWN CENTER,
.
'.
~~
.
30
1
AND I THINK IT ADDS VALUE TO THE PROJECT. EVEN
2
THOUGH IT CERTAINLY IS MONEY FLOW FOR THE
3
DEVELOPER IN TERMS OF THESE DOLLARS, I DON'T THINK
4
IT REPRESENTS A LOT OF DOLLARS. I THINK IT'S
5
SOMETHING WE NEED TO DO AS PART OF THE WHOLE
6
CLEANUP OF THE AREA AND THE WHOLE EFFORT OF
7
GETTING THE TOWN CENTER JUMP-STARTED.
8
NOW, AT ISSUE, OTHER THAN GIVING THE
9
SCHRIMSHERS AND HIS REPRESENTATIVES AN OPPORTUNITY
10
TO REVIEW THESE NUMBERS -- I THINK THEY WANT THEIR
1 1
ENGINEER TO LOOK AT THEM, CALCULATE THEM, SEE IF
1 2
THEY'RE WITHIN THE BALLPARK -- IS THIS PIECE OF '
1 3
PROPERTY "I."
1 4
THE QUESTION WE HAD RAISED WAS: DOES THE
1 5
CITY NEED TO TAKE "I"? IF YOU'LL SEE ON THE VALUE
1 6
SCHEDULE, WE SHOW IT AS THE CITY TAKING IT. THE
1 7
QUESTION WE HAVE -- AND I'VE BEEN TRYING TO TALK
18
TO YOUR DESIGNER, VICTOR DOVER, LAST FRIDAY AND
1 9
TODAY. HE'S NOT IN HIS OFFICE. HE'S IN ANOTHER
20
CITY.
21
THE THING WE TALKED ABOUT WAS THAT THIS
22
MAGNOLIA PARK IS SO SMALL, THE IDEA OF BUILDING A
23
BAND SHELL, OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE, AND BEING
24
ABLE TO HAVE A CROWD OF ANY SIZE THERE DOESN'T
.
.
.
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LOOK TO BE SOMETHING WE CAN DO. SO WE THOUGHT IN
TERMS OF COULD WE TAKE THIS PROPERTY, INCORPORATE
IT INTO MAGNOLIA PARK, AND HAVE A PARK AREA WHERE
YOU COULD HAVE THAT KIND OF THING.
THE DOWN SIDE OF THAT IS YOU DON'T HAVE THE
REPRESENTATION OF BUILDINGS HERE THAT PROVIDES
THIS WITH A KIND OF INTERNAL CITY PARK LOOK, WHICH
IS WHAT YOUR DESIGNERS WERE ORIGINALLY TRYING TO
DO.
THE OT~ER CONSIDERATION IS THERE IS, AT YOUR
OTHER PARK, CENTRAL WINDS, AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO
THIS KIND OF THING? BUT THE DOWN SIDE IS WE WOULD
NOT BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING OF ANY SUBSTANTIAL
COMMUNITY SIZE IN MAGNOLIA PARK, IN THE CENTER OF
THE TOWN CENTER, IF WE DON'T ACQUIRE SOME
ADDITIONAL LAND. SO THAT IS ON THE TABLE.
VALUE-WISE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMEWHERE
AROUND $175,000 IN VALUE, WHICH WOULD DROP OFF THE
TABLE IF WE DIDN'T TAKE IT, VERSUS KEEPING IT ON
THE TAX ROLLS AS TAXABLE PROPERTY WHERE WE'D HAVE
BUILDINGS IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
SO FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, WE NEED TO KNOW FROM
YOU, IS THIS A SENSIBLE AGREEMENT THAT YOU CAN
SUPPORT?
.
.
.
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
1 3
'4
1 5
1 6
1 7
18
, 9
20
21
22
23
24
SECONDLY, SOME DISCUSSION OF PARCEL -- IT'S
NOT REALLY PARCEL "I". IT'S JUST -- WE'LL CALL IT
PARCEL "I" FOR RIGHT NOW -- AS TO WHETHER WE
SHOULD TRY TO TAKE THIS PROPERTY OR NOT.
I DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO GIVE YOU THE
ADVANTAGE OF VICTOR'S THINKING AT THIS POINT IN
TIME, BECAUSE I JUST COULDN'T GET TO HIM.
LET ME STOP AT THIS POINT AND ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE, AND THEN WE'LL LET
MR. SCHRIMSHER COME FORWARD, AND HE HAS A NUMBER
OF ISSUES HE WANTS TO TALK ABOUT.
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSIONER MCLEOD,
COMMISSIONER BLAKE, COMMISSIONER GENNELL.
COMMISSIONER MCLEOD.
MR. MCLEOD: WHERE DID WE COME UP WITH A LAND
VALUE?
MR. MCLEMORE: WE HAD THIS PROPERTY APPRAISED
LAST YEAR.
MR. MCLEOD: THERE WAS AN APPRAISAL ON EACH
PIECE OF THIS?
MR. MCLEMORE: THE MAJOR PARTS OF IT, YES.
MR. MCLEOD: SO AM I LOOKING AT THIS RIGHT
THAT THE "AU -- WHERE IS "A" LOCATED? AND ARE WE
GOING TO GET THAT PARTICULAR MAP THAT YOU HAVE
.
.
.
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
, ,
12
13
14
1 5
16
1 7
'8
'9
20
21
22
23
24
THERE TO GO ALONG WITH OUR SCHEDULE?
MR. MCLEMORE: OH, SURE. AT THAT SIZE, IT
WILL BE VERY SMALL, BUT WE CAN REPRODUCE THIS SIZE
FOR YOU.
MR. MCLEOD: BECAUSE THIS DOESN'T MEAN A
WHOLE LOT WITH ALL THESE NUMBERS ON IT IF I CAN'T
TELL WHAT THEY GO TO.
MR. MCLEMORE: I UNDERSTAND.
MR. MCLEOD: I'M LOOKING AT "A" THERE, IF
THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE POINTING AT DOWN THERE, IS
.24 OF AN ACRE
MR. MCLEMORE: RIGHT.
MR. MCLEOD: -- AT ALMOST 50,000. THAT'S
$205,000 PER ACRE.
MR. MCLEMORE: THAT'S BECAUSE THE UPLANDS ON
THE 434 SIDE APPRAISED AT A MUCH HIGHER VALUE THAN
THE PROPERTY IN THIS AREA.
MR. MCLEOD: WHERE IS "B" LOCATED?
MR. MCLEMORE: RIGHT HERE.
MR. MCLEOD: THAT'S APPRAISED ABOUT THE
SAME. OKAY. AS AN AVERAGE $160,000 AN ACRE; IS
THAT CORRECT, TO AVERAGE THIS? 703 ACRES DIVIDED
BY 4.38 FOR PARKS?
MR. MCLEMORE: YES. CORRECT.
.
'.
'{!!.
.
34
1
MR. MCLEOD: I RECENTLY WAS LOOKING AT
2
PROPERTY IN THE CITY, A SIZEABLE CHUNK THAT YOU
3
MAY BE AWARE OF, AND BELIEVE ME, I WASN'T LOOKING
4
AT NO $160,000 AN ACRE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I
5
WAS TRYING TO CONSIDER FIGURE OUT HOW I WAS
6
GOING TO MAKE ANYTHING AT A MUCH LESSER NUMBER
7
THAN THAT.
8
SO I'M SURPRISED TO SEE WHAT THE,AVERAGE
9
NUMBER PER ACRE IS ON THIS THING, WHICH IS
1 0
ACTUALLY GOING AS A CREDIT, REALLY, THAT THEY'RE
1 1
GETTING CREDITED FOR, CORRECT?
12
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, THESE ARE CONTRIBUTIONS
13
THEY'RE MAKING TO THE CITY.
14
MR. MCLEOD: SO IT'S BASICALLY, IN MY
1 5
OPINION, AN INFLATED CONTRIBUTION.
1 6
BUT MY QUESTION WOULD BE, IS OUR CONTRIBUTION
1 7
INFLATED AS MUCH, OR ARE THOSE TRUE NUMBERS?
18
MR. MCLEMORE: I CAN'T TELL YOU THE NUMBERS
19
ARE INFLATED UNLESS YOU WANT TO TAKE THE APPRAISER
20
ON.
21
MR. MCLEOD: I UNDERSTAND. WHO WAS IT? WAS
22
IT OUR APPRAISER?
23
MR. MCLEMORE: IT WAS OUR APPRAISER, RIGHT.
24
ON OUR NUMBERS, YOU KNOW, WE CAME AS BEST WE
.
.
.
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
COULD BASED ON ESTIMATES THAT WERE DEVELOPED BY
CONKLIN & PORTER, AND THEY'RE HERE TO TALK IF
YOU'D LIKE FOR THEM TO.
MR. MCLEOD: I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE,
HOW CLOSE ARE THOSE APPRAISAL NUMBERS TO THE
SCHRIMSHERS' APPRAISER'S NUMBERS?
MR. MCLEMORE: I WOULDN'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO
THAT.
MR. MCLEOD: MY DEALING WITH A LOT OF
APPRAISERS HAS BEEN USUALLY IF I GIVE THEM A
NUMBER, I'LL FIND THAT I COME VERY CLOSE TO THAT
NUMBER.
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, OBVIOUSLY, IN THE CASE
OF THE CITY, WE DID NOT GIVE A NUMBER. WE HAD
DONE NO PRIOR WORK TO REALLY KNOW WHAT THEY WERE
WORTH. WE JUST GAVE THE INSTRUCTIONS TO DO THE
APPRAISAL.
MR. MCLEOD: THEY JUST APPEAR -- WELL,
MR. PARTYKA, SIR, YOU PRESENTLY ARE HAVING A LOT
OF INVOLVEMENT WITH APPRAISALS AND PRICES OF
PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY.
HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THOSE NUMBERS?
MAYOR PARTYKA: I WAS JUST DOING SOME
CALCULATIONS HERE OF SOME KNOWN PRICES. I KNOW
--
.
.
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
PROPERTY'S GOING OUT THERE AT -- WELL, RAW LAND IS
GOING AT $4 A SQUARE FOOT ALL THE WAY UP TO $12 A
SQUARE FOOT. I MEAN, I'M STILL REVIEWING THIS,
YOU KNOW. IT SEEMS HIGH. BUT RIGHT NOW THE
PRICING IS $4 TO $12 UP THERE. EXACTLY WHERE
WHICH-- WHAT YOU KNOW, THAT'S --
MR. MCLEOD: WELL, IT'S ACTUALLY -- WHAT
WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE IS CREDIT, IS WHAT YOU'RE
TALKING, CORRECT?
MR. MCLEMORE: YES. WE'RE BASICALLY SAYING
THAT THE SCHRIMSHERS ARE GIVING US SOMETHING,
WE'RE GIVING THEM BACK SOMETHING. ALL THIS IS TO
TRY TO MITIGATE THE CONCERNS THAT THEY HAVE THAT
THEIR PROPERTY MAY, IN SOME WAY, BE JEOPARDIZED BY
THE TOWN CENTER CONCEPT.
WE DON'T THINK THAT IT WILL. THEY THINK THAT
IT MIGHT. SO WE'RE TRYING TO WORK OUT A MUTUALLY
ACCEPTABLE AGREEMENT THAT ALLOWS US NOT TO SPEND
THE NEXT TWO YEARS IN COURT AND GET ON WITH THIS
THING AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
MR. MCLEOD: WELL, PRESENTLY, ON THE SURFACE
IT LOOKS LIKE ABOUT 2-TO-1 RATIO RIGHT NOW.
MR. MCLEMORE: I THINK YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT.
MR. MCLEOD: PLUS A LITTLE MORE. SO I WOULD
.
.
.
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
1 4
15
1 6
17
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
DEFINITELY THINK, PROBABLY, THE REMOVAL OF THE
BILLBOARD WOULD BE A REAL DEAD ISSUE. JUST THREW
THAT IN THERE.
I'LL PASS AT THIS TIME.
MR. MCLEMORE: I WOULD THINK SO.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
MR. BLAKE: THANK YOU, MAYOR. I CONCUR ON
THE NUMBERS FOR THE DIRT. IT SEEMS QUITE HIGH. I
UNDERSTAND, THOUGH, THAT TO TRADE A MILLION DOLLAR
DOG FOR TWO $500,000 CATS IS STILL AN EVEN TRADE.
THAT'S AN OLD MATH PROBLEM.
CAN YOU SHOW ME ON THE MAP WHERE WE WILL TAKE
THE SEWER LINES TO?
MR. MCLEMORE: I'LL LET KIP SHOW YOU THAT.
TELL YOU WHAT. TERRY CAN DO IT.
MR. ZAUDTKE: ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT TAKING
THEM TO THE PLAN?
MR. BLAKE: APPARENTLY, WE HAVE A TOTAL OF
ABOUT A MILLION AND A HALF DOLLARS HERE IN
UTILITIES -- I'M SORRY. A MILLION AND
THREE-QUARTERS IN -- I'M SORRY. ABOUT A MILLION
AND A HALF IN THE UTILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS.
CAN YOU SHOW ME ON THE MAP EXACTLY WHAT WE
WILL DO FOR THAT AND WHAT WE WILL NOT DO FOR
.
.
.
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
THAT?
MR. ZAUDTKE: TERRY ZAUDTKE, CPH ENGINEERS.
THE PROPOSED LIFT STATION AT THIS CORNER WILL
BE THE MAIN COLLECTOR FOR THIS WHOLE PARCEL IN
THROUGH HERE. AND THE 250,000 THAT YOU SEE ON
THERE FOR SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS IS TO PUT WATER AND
SEWER LINES UP THROUGH THE COLLECTOR ROAD ON THIS
CORRIDOR.
MR,. BLAKE: SO WE WOULD BE PAYING FOR BOTH
WATER AND SEWER NOT JUST TO THE PROPERTY BUT,
INDEED, ALL THROUGH THE PROPERTY?
MR. ZAUDTKE: WELL, ONCE WE GO AHEAD AND
BUILD THE COLLECTOR ROAD, IT MAKES SENSE TO PUT
THE UTILITIES IN THERE AT THE SAME TIME WITH IT.
MR. BLAKE: I DON'T DENY THAT IT MIGHT BE THE
RIGHT TIME TO DO IT.
MR. ZAUDTKE: YES.
MR. BLAKE: I'M QUESTIONING THAT THAT'S WHAT
WE WANT TO DO, IS TO PROVIDE WATER AND SEWER
THROUGH, REALLY, THE HEART OF THE ENTIRE
PROPERTY.
NOW, SHOW ME AGAIN FROM THAT LIFT STATION.
MR. ZAUDTKE: FROM THE LIFT STATION, I REALLY
CAN'T SHOW YOU ACCURATELY ON THIS MAP WHERE IT
tt
.
~,
.
....
39
1
GOES. BUT IT GOES ALL THE ,WAY DOWN 434 TO TUSCORA
2
AND THEN HEADS SOUTH DOWN TO THE EAST WASTE WATER
3
PLANT DOWN ON WINTER SPRINGS BOULEVARD BY SAM
4
SMITH PARK.
5
MR. BLAKE: WE DON'T HAVE LINES IN PLACE,
6
SUBSTANTIAL, TO CARRY THIS LOAD?
7
MR. ZAUDTKE: THAT'S CORRECT.
8
MR. BLAKE: WE HAVE TO PUT IN NEW LINES ALL
9
THE WAY TO THE EAST PLANT.
1 0
MR. ZAUDTKE: THAT'S CORRECT. THERE'S A
1 1
CAPACITY PROBLEM ON THE GRAVITY SEWER ON THE NORTH
1 2
SIDE OF THE P.U.D., BECAUSE THE P.U.D. WAS
1 3
DESIGNED TO HANDLE THE P.U.D. THEY HAD NO VISION
1 4
FOR ANYTHING NORTH OF 434.
15
FOR THE CITY TO GET SERVICEABILITY TO THE
1 6
NORTH PORTION OF 434, KIP HAD TO DO A STUDY WHICH
1 7
SHOWED THE ALIGNMENTS THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE
18
TO BRING NEW FORCE MAINS DOWN TO THE EAST WASTE
19
WATER PLANT.
20
MR. BLAKE: AND GOING TO THE WEST PLANT IS
21
MUCH FARTHER, I'M SURE.
22
MR. ZAUDTKE: GOING TO THE WEST PLANT IS NOT
23
DISTANCE AS MUCH, BUT THERE'S OTHER IMPROVEMENTS
24
THAT HAVE TO BE DONE TO THE DOWNSTREAM LIFT
{t
-
.-
40
1
STATIONS THERE, AS WELL.
2
THIS ST. JOHN'S LANDING HERE CURRENTLY DOES
3
GO ,ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE WASTE WATER PLANT, BUT
4
THE FORCE MAINS AND LIFT STATIONS ALONG THAT ROUTE
5
AMOUNT TO APPROXIMATELY THE SAME DOLLAR VALUE TO
6
THE IMPACT THERE.
7
MR. BLAKE: WHERE DO WE HAVE MORE CAPACITY?
8
MR. ZAUDTKE: WE HAVE ABOUT EQUAL CAPACITY AT
9
EACH PLANT. WE'VE GOT PERMITTED FOR ALMOST TWO
10
MGD AT BOTH FACILITIES, AND THEY'RE CURRENTLY
1 1
RUNNING AT ABOUT ONE MGD EACH.
12
, .
MR. BLAKE: WHAT TYPE OF AN IMPACT WOULD THIS
13
PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDOUT HAVE ON THE
1 4
EXISTING CAPACITY?
1 5
MR. ZAUDTKE: IN THE TOWN CENTER MASTER PLAN,
1 6
I THINK WE SHOWED A RANGE OF SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 300
1 7
AND 600,000 FOR THIS PARCEL HERE; OVERALL, A RANGE
18
OF ABOUT 400,000 TO 800,000 GALLONS PER DAY FOR
1 9
THE WHOLE TOWN CENTER.
20
MR. BLAKE: HOW WILL THAT IMPACT REMAINING
21
DEVELOPMENT ON 434 TO INCLUDE POTENTIAL
22
DEVELOPMENT AROUND THE CASSELS PROPERTY, THE
23
ENTIRE NORTH SIDE?
24
MR. ZAUDTKE: WELL, EVEN ON THE HIGH END, IF
.
'.
~.
,15
.
41
1
WE HAD 800,000 BEING PRODUCED HERE AT THE TOWN
2
CENTER, THAT WOULD STILL LEAVE US WITH 800 --
3
LET'S SEE. IT WOULD BE --
4
MR. BLAKE: ABOUT 200.
5
MR. ZAUDTKE: WE'RE TALKING TWO MILLION
6
GALLONS THAT WE'VE GOT CAPACITY RIGHT NOW. SO YOU
7
TAKE ABOUT 800,000, THAT WOULD LEAVE YOU WITH ONE
8
POINT --
9
MR. BLAKE: WE HAVE CAPACITY RIGHT NOW OF TWO
10
MILLION GALLONS?
1 1
MR. ZAUDTKE: RIGHT; ONE AT EACH PLANT. ONE
1 2
MGD AT EACH PLANT. WE HAVE EXCESS CAPACITY.
13
MR. BLAKE: MY QUESTION IS: IF WE'RE FEEDING
1 4
THIS DEVELOPMENT TO THE EAST PLANT, AND IT'S AT
THE HIGH END OF THE RANGE, THAT'S 800,000, THAT
1 6
ONLY LEAVES US 200,000 CAPACITY AT THE EAST PLANT?
17
MR. ZAUDTKE: IT'S CLOSER TO 800,000 FOR THE
18
WHOLE TOWN CENTER. WE'RE LOOKING AT MORE IN THE
19
NEIGHBORHOOD OF ABOUT HALF A MILLION FOR THIS
20
CORRIDOR HERE.
21
MR. BLAKE: ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE OTHER
HALF OF TUSCAWILLA WOULD BE THE DIVIDER AND THE
22
23
OTHER HALF WOULD GO TO THE WEST PLANT?
24
MR. ZAUDTKE: YES. WE'VE ALREADY LOOKED AT
.
.
'il~
.
42
1
THAT; THAT IT MAKES SENSE TO BRING THIS BACK OVER
2
TO THE LIFT STATION BECAUSE OF THE TOPOGRAPHY.
3
THERE'S A HIGH POINT RIGHT IN HERE. AND WE CAN
4
BRING THIS SERVICE AREA, BASICALLY, FROM HERE,
5
BACK OVER TO THE WEST PLANT.
6
MR. BLAKE: SO IF THE EAST SIDE IS 400,000 TO
7
600,000, THEN THAT WOULD LEAVE US SOMEWHERE IN THE
8
RANGE OF
9
MR. ZAUDTKE: ABOUT A HALF MILLION GALLONS
10
AVAILABLE AT THAT PLANT WITHOUT HAVING TO DO
1 1
FURTHER EXPANSION THERE.
12
MR. BLAKE: OKAY. DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO
13
EXPAND THAT PLANT?
14
MR. ZAUDTKE: YES, SIR, WE DO.
15
MR. BLAKE: ARE WE INCLUDING, IN THIS
1 6
CALCULATION, THE COST OF EXPANDING THAT PLANT AT
1 7
ALL, IF WE SHOULD NEED TO?
18
MR. MCLEMORE: ABSOLUTELY NOT.
19
MR. BLAKE: BECAUSE WE HAVE EXISTING
20
CAPACITY?
21
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, WE HAVE EXISTING
22
CAPACITY AND WE'RE PAYING FOR THIS THROUGH
23
CONNECTION CHARGES. WE'RE NOT USING UP EXISTING
24
FUNDS TO DO THIS.
.
.
.'
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
13
1 4
15
1 6
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
.
.
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
WE'RE CALLING IT, I WOULD TEND TO LEAN AGAINST
TAKING THAT PROPERTY AS PARK. ALTHOUGH, I DO
RECALL SOME DRAWINGS THAT DEPICTED THAT AS A
FUTURE GOVERNMENTAL SITE, WHICH MAY HAVE MORE OF A
USE FOR THE CITY OVERALL. THANK YOU.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY'. THANK YOU.
COMMISSIONER GENNELL.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: THIS MAP THAT WE HAVE
IS SORT OF DISSIMILAR TO THE ONE YOU HAVE. IT
MAKES IT A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING. BUT DO I
UNDERSTAND THIS DRAFT AGREEMENT WITH SCHRIMSHERS
WOULD INCORPORATE ALL OF OUR TOWN CENTER DESIGN
CODES?
MR. MCLEMORE: CERTAINLY.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: OKAY. WOULD THE
MCDONALDS STAY OR GO?
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, THE MCDONALDS -- THAT'S
GOING TO BE THE SUBJECT OF SOME FUTURE DEVELOPER.
WE WERE NOT CHANGING -- TAKING THAT PIECE OF LAND
OUT OF THE TOWN CODE, NOR -- THE TOWN CENTER
CODE. IT'S STILL THERE JUST LIKE IT WAS BEFORE.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: THE ROAD, AT THAT
POINT, DOES NOT GET CHANGED OR ALTERED AT ALL
THEN?
~
.
~"
~
45
1
MR. MCLEMORE: OH, YES. ALL OF THIS IS GOING
2
TO BE WIDENED, I BELIEVE -- TERRY
WITH THIS
3
STRUCTURE BUILT HERE, WHICH IS A LITTLE, SMALL
4
PARK FEATURE. RIGHT.
5
BUT THIS AREA WILL REMAIN UNDER THE CODE AT
6
SOME POINT IN TIME, SIMILAR TO A NONCONFORMING
7
USE. AT SOME POINT IN TIME WE HOPE THAT IT WILL
8
GO AWAY.
9
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: OKAY. DID YOU ALL --
1 0
SEE, OUR MAP DOESN'T SHOW WHERE THE OLD RAILROAD
1 1
BED CROSSES THE ROAD, BUT I KNOW WE HAVE ISSUES
1 2
WITH THE COUNTY AND WITH THE STATE OVER THE
13
LOCATION OF THE PEDESTRIAN OVERPASS.
14
MR. MCLEMORE: RIGHT.
1 5
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: IS THAT ADDRESSED IN
16
HERE ANYWHERE?
1 7
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, IT'S ADDRESSED IN THAT
18
THERE WILL BE ONE, YOU KNOW, AND THAT THIS ROAD
19
SECTION HERE IS WHERE IT'S CURRENTLY GOING TO BE.
20
BUT AT SOME POINT IN TIME, WHEREVER IT'S GOING TO
21
GO, IT'S KNOWN AS PART OF THE PLAN.
22
NOW, SPECIFICALLY, I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY
23
THE LANGUAGE WE PUT IN THERE, BUT IT'S PART OF THE
24
PLAN.
.
.
.
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: I KNOW THE PEDESTRIAN
OVERPASS IS PART OF THE OVERALL PLAN. I GUESS
WHAT I NEED TO ASK YOU IS: HAVE YOU COLLABORATED
WITH THE COUNTY AT ALL HAS ANYBODY TALKED -- IS
THE RIGHT HAND TALKING TO THE LEFT HAND? IS THE
COUNTY IN AGREEMENT THAT THAT ROAD LOCATION IS
WHERE THEY CAN BRING THE TRAIL TO?
MR. MCLEMORE: AS FAR AS WE KNOW, THIS IS --
THEY HAVE REVIEWED OUR PLAN. IT'S PROBABLY BEEN
SIX MONTHS NOW SINCE WE WERE WITH THE COUNTY, AND
WE WENT OVER ALL THIS WITH THEM. IF THERE'S BEEN
ANY CHANGES, I'M NOT AWARE OF IT.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: SO THAT WAS WHERE THEY
ANTICIPATED CROSSING?
MR. MCLEMORE: YES.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: IT DOESN'T PRESENT A
PROBLEM WITH THIS PROPOSED AGREEMENT?
MR. MCLEMORE: NO, NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: OKAY.
MR. MCLEMORE: WE CAN GO BACK AND MAKE A
SPECIFIC ACKNOWLEDGMENT IN THE AGREEMENT.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: I'D LIKE TO SEE
SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN THERE. I'D HATE TO COME UP
AGAINST IT LATER.
.
.
.
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
NOW, OUR MAP DEPICTS SOME FRONTAGE ROADS AND
YOURS DOES NOT. I'M JUST TRYING TO SEE WHERE THAT
ALL IS GOING. YOUR MAP DEPICTS, AND OURS DOES,
SOME MEDIANS IN 434, WHICH, I ASSUME, ARE THE
CURRENTLY EXISTING ONES.
MR. MCLEMORE: YES.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: OKAY. AND THEN WHY
DOES OUR MAP SHOW FRONTAGE ROADS AND YOURS
DOESN'T?
MR. BLAKE: IT'S THERE.
MR. MCLEMORE: YES.
MR. BLAKE: IT'S JUST NOT IN DARK LINES.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: OKAY. NOW, YOUR LINES
SHOW WHERE WATER AND SEWER IS GOING; AND OUR LINES
JUST SHOW WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO BE, THE ROADS?
MR. MCLEMORE: YES. THAT'S A ROAD MAP, A
CIRCULATION MAP.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: OKAY. NOW, I ALSO
NOTICE THAT THE MAP THAT WE HAVE ENCOMPASSES AREAS
ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 434.
NOW, THESE ARE NOT ALL UNDER SCHRIMSHER'S
CONTROL, ARE THEY?
MR. MCLEMORE: THEY ARE NOT.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: THEY ARE NOT. BUT,
.
.
.
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
YET, THIS DOCUMENT HERE IS PART OF THE SCHRIMSHER
AGREEMENT?
MR. MCLEMORE: THE PART OF THE SCHRIMSHER
AGREEMENT WILL BE ONLY THAT SECTION THAT DEALS
WITH SCHRIMSHER.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: OKAY.
MR. MCLEMORE: NOW, THE TOWN CENTER REMAINS
THE TOWN CENTER. BUT WITHIN THE AGREEMENT WITH
SCHRIMSHER, WE~RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS TO
SCHRIMSHER. '
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: OKAY. BUT IN THE TOWN
CENTER DISTRICT BOUNDARY THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE
ASKED TO CONSIDER, WHERE ONE ORDINANCE IS
REPLACING THE OTHER ORDINANCE AND BOUNDARIES ARE
CHANGING, ARE THESE BOUNDARIES HERE TO THE SOUTH
PART OF THAT ORDINANCE?
MR. MCLEMORE: YES, THEY ARE.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: OKAY. SO THIS
DOCUMENT IS REALLY MORE RELEVANT TO THE ITEM "c"
WE HAVE BEFORE US THAN IT IS TO THE SCHRIMSHER
AGREEMENT?
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, IT DEPICTS TO YOU THE
CHANGE IN CONFIGURATION OF WETLAND PARK AND THE
CHANGE OF THE ROAD AT THIS POINT IN TIME. AND IT
.
.
.
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
1 2
13
14
15
16
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
SHOWS -- IT'S SO SMALL, YOU CAN HARDLY SEE THEM,
PARTICULARLY AFTER WE REPRODUCED THEM IN BLACK AND
WHITE -- THESE LITTLE POCKET PARKS THAT ARE ALL
AROUND.
BUT THAT PART -- THERE WILL BE, IN THE
AGR~EMENT, A MAP THAT REFERENCES ALL OF THE
CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT WITH THE SCHRIMSHERS,
AND IT WILL DEAL ONLY WITH SCHRIMSHER PROPERTY.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: AT THE SAME TIME,
THEN, TO GO FROM THAT COMMENT TO THE NEXT ONE,
YOUR MAP ALSO DEPICTS PROPERTIES OWNED BY
KINGSBURY AND BLUMBERG?
MR. MCLEMORE: IT DOES.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: DOES SCHRIMSHER
CONTROL THOSE PROPERTIES OR NOT?
MR. MCLEMORE: I THINK MR. SCHRIMSHER WOULD
HAVE TO ANSWER THAT.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: WELL, THEN MY SECOND
QUESTION ALONG THAT IS: WHAT'S THE STATUS OF THE
DEVELOPER THAT WAS COMING IN, AS FAR AS I
UNDERSTOOD, THIS WEEK WITH A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
ON THE KINGSBURY PROPERTY?
MR. MCLEMORE: I DON'T KNOW THAT UNTIL I SEE
WHAT HE BRINGS IN.
.
\.
'-
.
50
1
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: WHAT WOULD THAT DO TO
2
THIS PROPOSED DRAFT AGREEMENT?
3
MR. MCLEMORE: IT WOULDN'T DO ANYTHING TO IT.
4
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: IT WOULDN'T?
5
MR. MCLEMORE: NOW, HE MAY BRING IN A
SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY HERE WHERE HE
6
7
WOULD WANT TO NEGOTIATE SOME OTHER ITEMS'. WE
8
WOULD JUST HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT WHEN HE WALKS IN
9
THE DOOR.
1 0
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: I KNOW THERE'S GOT TO
1 1
BE A LOGIC HERE SOMEWHERE, BUT IT'S JUST ESCAPING
1 2
ME. IN OTHER WORDS, HOW WE CAN BE THIS DEFINITIVE
13
ON LARGE TRACTS OF PROPERTY OVER WHICH
14
MR. SCHRIMSHER DOESN'T HAVE CONTROL IN THE
15
DEVELOPER AGREEMENT WITH MR. SCHRIMSHER? I CAN
16
SEE IT IN THIS DOCUMENT. I'M JUST CONFUSED OVER
1 7
IT BEING IN A SCHRIMSHER DEVELOPER AGREEMENT
18
DOCUMENT.
19
MR. MCLEMORE: I'M HAVING TROUBLE
20
UNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU'RE REACHING FOR.
21
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: YOUR MAP IN FRONT OF
22
YOU AND MOST OF THIS MAP HERE ENCOMPASSES
23
PROPERTIES, AS FAR AS WE KNOW, OWNED BY KINGSBURY
24
AND BLUMBERG.
.
L,;.'
.
~-
.
51
1
MR. MCLEMORE: IT DOES.
2
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: RIGHT. AND YOU, AT
3
THIS POINT, ARE DISCUSSING OUR DRAFT AGREEMENT
4
WITH MR. KINGSBURY?
5
MR. MCLEMORE: WITH MR. SCHRIMSHER.
6
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: I MEAN WITH
7
MR. SCHRIMSHER, RIGHT. SO I'M JUST CONFUSED OVER
8
INCLUDING PROPERTIES THAT AREN'T HIS IN THIS.
9
MR. MCLEMORE: BECAUSE WE HAVE TO SHOW YOU
1 0
THAT WE HAVE TO AMEND THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION PLAN
1 1
TO PROVIDE FOR THIS COLLECTOR ROAD. AND YOU NEED
12
TO KNOW -- IF I DIDN'T SHOW YOU WHAT -- IF I ONLY
1 3
SHOWED YOU THE SCHRIMSHER PART, YOU'D PROBABLY ASK
14
ME, WELL, DOES IT GO ANYWHERE ELSE? AND THE
15
ANSWER IS, YES, IT DOES. IT GOES, ALSO, HERE.
16
BUT THE AGREEMENT ONLY DEALS WITH THE
1 7
SCHRIMSHER PROPERTIES. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN WE VALUE
18
THESE COSTS AND THESE BENEFITS OF TUSCAWILLA, WE
19
ONLY VALUED THEM AT ONE-HALF.
20
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: I SEE. OKAY.
21
MR. MCLEMORE: BECAUSE PART OF THAT IS TAKING
22
PLACE OVER HERE. SO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
23
THIS AGREEMENT APPLY ONLY TO SCHRIMSHER, EVEN
24
THOUGH YOU NEED TO SEE WHAT WE NEED TO DO WITH
.
.
.
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
1 4
15
1 6
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
YOUR CIRCULATION PLAN TO MAKE THIS WHOLE THING
HAPPEN.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: OKAY. AND WHICH
BILLBOARD ARE YOU SPEAKING OF? THAT OLD WOODEN
THING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF MCDONALDS?
MR. MCLEMORE: IT'S ACROSS THE STREET FROM
MCDONALDS ON THE MOBIL SIDE.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: SO IT'S OVER THERE.
MR. MCLEMORE: RIGHT.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: AND THEN THERE'S TWO.
MR. MCLEMORE: I DON'T KNOW IF BOTH OF THEM
ARE ON THE SCHRIMSHER PROPERTY OR NOT.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: THERE IS A SIGN.
MR. MCLEMORE: THERE'S ONLY ONE THAT I KNOW
OF. AS FAR AS I KNOW, THERE'S ONLY ONE.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: A BIG, OFFICIAL
BILLBOARD SIZE?
MR. MCLEMORE: YES.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: PAST MCDONALDS WHERE
THE RAILROAD WAS ON THIS SIDE OF THE STREET. I
WAS JUST WONDERING WHICH ONE YOU MEANT.
MR. MCLEMORE: OKAY.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: THERE'S MORE THAN ONE
SIGN.
.
.
.
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
1 5
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. MCLEMORE: THERE'S TWO.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: CAN YOU GIVE ME AN
IDEA OF WHAT -- HAVE WE DEVELOPED A POTENTIAL
POPULATION FOR THE DOWNTOWN CENTER?
MR. MCLEMORE: THAT'S VERY HARD TO DO,
BECAUSE THE PLAN ALLOWS FOR SUCH FLEXIBILITY. YOU
KNOW, THE ANSWER TO THAT IS NO. ,WE HAVE SOME
IDEAS, BUT WE TRIED TO CALCULATE RETAIL AND
HOUSEHOLD IN ORDER TO COME UP WITH THE WATER AND
SEWER REQUIREMENTS.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE POPULATION IS?
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: MINIMUM. WHAT WOULD
BE THE MINIMUM RESIDENTIAL POPULATION YOU'D SgE IN
THAT AREA?
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, IT DEPENDS ON WHETHER
SOMEONE WOULD YOU KNOW, WOULD BUILD ALL
SINGLE-FAMILY OR IF SOMEONE WOULD BUILD ALL
MULTIFAMILY OR SOMEONE WOULD BUILD MULTIFAMILY IN
PART AND SINGLE-FAMILY IN PART. BECAUSE THIS IS
NOT A TRADITIONAL ZONING WHERE EVERY USE IS SPLIT
UP, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE IN THE END
WHERE THIS IS GOING TO GO.
IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE SOME RESIDENTIAL,
SINGLE FAMILY, AND SOME HIGHER DENSITY,
,
.
.....
.
''-,
54
1
MULTIFAMILY.
2
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: BECAUSE AS WE HAD IT
3
DESIGNED, THERE WAS VERY LITTLE YARD SPACE.
4
EVERYTHING WAS VERY TIGHT FOR INTENSE DEVELOPMENT,
5
WHICH WOULD LEAD ME TO BELIEVE THAT WE WOULD HAVE
6
A PRETTY INTENSE RESIDENTIAL AREA.
7
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, WE HOPE SO, BECAUSE YOU
8
NEED TO CREATE A POPULATION TO FEED THE RETAIL
9
PART OF THIS.
10
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: LET ME ASK YOU A
1 1
QUESTION ALONG THOSE LINES. SUPPOSE WE PUT THIS
12
WHOLE THING THROUGH AND WE GO ON. AND WE HAVE A
13
DEVELOPER COME TO US, AND HE COMES WAVING, I HAVE
1 4
A MARKET STUDY HERE. NOBODY'S GOING TO BUY THIS.
15
I NEED 50-FOOT LOTS.
16
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, THAT'S GOING TO BE THE
17
WILL OF THIS COMMISSION TO SEE THIS THING THROUGH
18
OVER THE YEARS.
19
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: THAT'S WHAT I'M
20
SAYING. IN OTHER WORDS, IT WILL BE THE BURDEN ON
21
THIS COMMISSION TO STICK TO THE PLAN, TO KEEP
22
THEM ~- IF WE SAID 24-FOOT LOTS, THAT'S WHAT WE
23
WANT THERE.
24
WELL, AGAIN, YOU'VE GOT TO MOVE AWAY FROM
.
\.
.
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
13
14
1 5
1 6
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
TRADITIONAL ZONING. THIS IS NOT TRADITIONAL
ZONING. THIS PLAN PROVIDES A DEVELOPER THE
FLEXIBILITY TO DO A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THINGS AS
SMALL AS 24. BUT IT COULD BE MUCH LARGER. IT
COULD BE LARGER. THERE'S A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY IN
HERE TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY.
OKAY. TERRY, DO YOU HAVE AN ANSWER?
MR. ZAUDTKE: YES. WE DID CALCULATE THROUGH
SOME -- THROUGH THE WASTE WATER FLOWS OF THE
MASTER PLAN. AND THE EAST FACILITY, IF YOU TOOK
ROUGHLY HALF OF IT, YOU WERE LOOKING AT A
POPULATION OF 2300 TO 5700, AND THE WEST FACILITY,
A POPULATION OF 2,000 TO 4,000.
SO IF YOU TOOK THE HIGH END OF BOTH OF THOSE,
YOU'RE LOOKING AT 10,000. IF YOU TOOK THE LOW END
OF BOTH OF THOSE, YOU'RE LOOKING AT AROUND 4300.
SO IT'S A WIDE RANGE DEPENDING ON HOW DENSE AND
HOW MANY STORIES AND SO FORTH; 5,000 TO 10,000.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: ' WE'RE TALKING
RESIDENTIAL NOW?
MR. ZAUDTKE: YES, RESIDENTIAL EQUIVALENTS.
THERE ARE GOING TO BE SOME CHANGES THAT MAY OCCUR
DEPENDING ON HOW THE THING BUILDS OUT, HOW MUCH
ENDS UP COMMERCIAL. BUT THAT'S A ROUGH
.
.
.
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
1 4
15
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
RESIDENTIAL EQUIVALENT. THAT'S PEOPLE.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: YES. OKAY. HOW MANY
ACRES IS MAGNOLIA PARK?
MR. LOCKCUF: .79.
MR. MCLEMORE: .79 ACRES.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: THAT'S NOT VERY BIG,
IS IT?
MR. MCLEMORE: IT'S NOT VERY LARGE.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: IS THE PERIMETER OF
THE WETLAND PARK, THE WESTERN PERIMETER, IS THERE
ANY POTENTIAL AT ALL FOR SOME KIND OF MITIGATION
IN BEING ABLE TO BUILD SOMETHING IN THERE?
MR. MCLEMORE: IN HERE?
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: YES.
MR. MCLEMORE: I HOPE NOT.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: WELL, ALL I'M SAYING
IS WITHOUT THE --
MR. MCLEMORE: THESE ARE WETLANDS.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: RIGHT. WITHOUT SOME
STRUCTURE ALONG THERE, YOU JUST HAVE, LIKE, A
ONE-SIDED PARK, YOU KNOW.
MR. MCLEMORE: I'M NOT FOLLOWING YOU.
THE IDEA WAS THAT THE WETLAND PARK WOULD BE
THE CENTER AND THERE WOULD BE PEOPLE FACING THE
.
.
.
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
,9
10
1 1
12
13
1 4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
PARK FROM ALL DIRECTIONS.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: NO. I AGREE.
WELL, NOW, I'M TALKING ABOUT FOR FUNCTIONS,
THOUGH. WHERE MAGNOLIA PARK IS -- THE WETLAND
AREA IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO MAGNOLIA PARK, WOULD
IT LEND ITSELF TO ANY KIND OF PASSIVE USE, OR IS
IT
MR. MCLEMORE: PASSIVE USE, POSSIBLY. THIS
IS -- DON'T FORGET, THIS IS THE TRAIL RIGHT HERE.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: I'M SORRY. I CAN'T
HEAR YOU.
MR. MCLEMORE: DON'T FORGET, THIS IS THE
TRAIL RIGHT HERE.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: OKAY.
MR. MCLEMORE: THIS IS THE TRAIL. IT COMES
THIS DIRECTION AND TURNS AND GOES THIS WAY.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: OKAY.
MR. MCLEMORE: THIS IS THE TRAIL AND THIS, I
THINK YOU KNOW, MAYBE YOU COULD MITIGATE IT OR
BUILD SOMETHING ON IT, BUT I DON'T THINK --
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: I'M NOT TALKING
BUILDING, NECESSARILY, BUT PASSIVE USE FOR AN
OVERFLOW IF YOU WERE GOING TO FACE MAGNOLIA PARK
FROM THE EAST.
.
.
.
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
14
15
1 6
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. MCLEMORE: PASSIVE, YES. VERY PASSIVE.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: BUT IT'S NOT
SUBMERGED.
MR. MCLEMORE: NO.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: OKAY.
MR. MCLEMORE: DEPENDS ON WHEN IT'S RAINED
LAST. YES.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: ALL RIGHT. I THINK
THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS FOR NOW. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. COMMISSIONER MILLER,
THEN COMMISSIONER MCLEOD AND COMMISSIONER
MARTINEZ.
MR. MILLER: THESE 5,000 TO 10,000 PEOPLE IN
THAT AREAj HICKORY PARK HAS BEEN NAMED HICKORY
PARK BECAUSE THERE'S A STAND OF TREES IN THERE
THAT ARE GOING TO BE LEFT; IS THAT RIGHT?
MR. MCLEMORE: CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT.
MR. MILLER: SO IF THE CITY WERE TO HAVE
FUNCTIONS, AS COMMISSIONER GENNELL WAS POINTING
OUT WHERE SHE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE
TO GET ENOUGH PEOPLE INTO MAGNOLIA PARK, IT COULD
BE DONE AT HICKORY PARK PROBABLY.
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, HICKORY PARK IS A --
.
.
.
"
59
1
LIKE I SAY, IT'S A VERY OLD STAND OF TREES, WHICH,
2
3
BASICALLY, WE JUST WANTED TO LEAVE ALONE.
MR.' MILLER: NO. I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT
4
WHEN WE WENT OVER THE ORIGINAL THOUGHT PROCESS FOR
5
THIS, IT WAS NOT MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE WERE
6
GOING TO HAVE MASSIVE PUBLIC EVENTS AT MAGNOLIA
7
PARK. I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE JUST FOR THE
8
RESIDENTS OF THE AREA OR IT MIGHT BE A BAND
9
PLAYING IN AN EVENING.
10
BUT I WASN'T ANTICIPATING -- AT LEAST, I
1 1
NEVER GOT THE IMPRESSION THAT WE WERE GOING TO
12
HAVE EVENTS WHERE WE WERE GOING TO INVITE ALL OF
13
SEMINOLE COUNTY TO,COME WITH 10,000 PEOPLE.
14
MR. MCLEMORE: I DON'T THINK WE DID INTEND
1 5
THAT.
1 6
MR. MILLER: THAT WAS NEVER THE INTENTION,
17
WAS IT?
18
MR. MCLEMORE: NO. NOR IS IT THE INTENTION
19
NOW.
20
MR. MILLER: I AGREE. WHICH BRINGS ME TO
21
YOUR OTHER CONCERN ABOUT THAT ADJACENT PIECE OF
22
PROPERTY. IF I UNDERSTOOD THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT
23
CORRECTLY -- WHICH I SUPPORT, BY THE WAY -- WE
24
WERE GOING TO HAVE SMALL EVENTS THERE.
.
.
.
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
1 4
1 5
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. MCLEMORE: THESE WOULD BE VERY SMALL
EVENTS.
MR. MILLER: IF THAT'S STILL THE MIND SET,
THEN I'M NOT SURE THAT I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF
ANNEXING -- NOT ANNEXING, BUT CONVERTING THAT
ADJACENT PIECE OF PROPERTY. I THOUGHT THE
ORIGINAL PLAN WAS KIND OF -- WAS A GOOD IDEA ABOUT
HAVING CITY FUNCTIONS, POSSIBLY, IN THERE FOR THE
LONG TERM.
AND IF WE WERE CONFRONTED WITH HAVING TO HAVE
LARGE PUBLIC EVENTS, GOD KNOWS WE HAVE CENTRAL
WINDS PARK WHERE WE CAN GET 10,000, 20,000
PEOPLE. AND IF IT WERE SOMETHING THAT WEREN'T
SUITABLE FOR MAGNOLIA PARK, THE ALTERNATIVE MIGHT
BE HICKORY PARK, JUST FOR PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE
AREA.
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD
BE HICKORY PARK, BUT --
MR. MILLER: THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER PARKS.
THERE'S TEN PARKS
MR. MCLEMORE: I THINK CENTRAL WINDS WOULD BE
THE AREA.
MR. MILLER: -- JUST ON THE SCHRIMSHER
PROPERTY.
.
.
.
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
13
1 4
15
1 6
17
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
MR. MCLEMORE: IF YOU HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, ON A
SUNDAY AFTERNOON, A CONCERT IN THE PARK, YOU COULD
EASILY DRAW A COUPLE THOUSAND PEOPLE. I DON'T
THINK YOU'RE GOING TO GET A COUPLE THOUSAND PEOPLE
IN HERE.
MR. MCLEOD: YOU COULD STACK THEM.
MR. MCLEMORE: HOWEVER, IT WAS INT~NDED TO BE
A SMALL PARK FOR PEOPLE TO ENJOY. AND THE IDEA
WAS THERE WERE BUILDINGS HERE AND BUILDINGS ON
THIS SIDE, YOU KNOW, RESTAURANTS AND THINGS I.IKE
THAT THAT WOULD LEND ITSELF TO THE VILLAGE ON THE
GREEN KIND OF IDEA.
THE ONLY QUESTION WAS, IF WE WANT TO USE THIS
FOR LARGER EVENTS, WE WOULD NEED TO TAKE THIS
PROPERTY. I THINK AT LEAST, SO FAR, I'M
HEARING ,WE DON'T WANT IT~
MR. MILLER: WELL, IT'S NOT THE FACT THAT WE
DON'T WANT IT. TO ME, WHAT ADDS TO THE
INTIMACY -- YOUR POINT'S WELL TAKEN. IF WE'RE
GOING TO HAVE EVENTS HERE, WE NEED TO HAVE SPACE
FOR 5,000 PEOPLE.
THEN WE NEED TO BEGIN -- WE NEED TO BEGIN
THINKING IN TERMS OF HOLDING LARGE EVENTS IN A
TOWN CENTER, WHICH, THEREFORE, INCREASES THE SCALE
,
~
--
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
OF EVERYTHING NOW. WE NEED HUGE PARKING AREAS.
YOU NEED PARKING GARAGES. YOU NEED ALL THE THINGS
THAT, IN THE END, ARE PROBABLY GOING TO UNDO WHAT
WE STARTED OUT TO DO.
THE ALTERNATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND, MIGHT BE
TO SCHEDULE THESE TYPE OF EVENTS SOMEWHERE ELSE.
AND IF THEY TURN OUT TO BE IN HIGH DEMAND, THEN
SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE TO BE KIND OF IN CONTROL OF
THAT BY SELLING TICKETS OR SOMETHING. I DON'T
KNOW; I'M NOT SURE I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA RIGHT
NOW TO LOOK TO EXPANDING THAT PARK TO HAVE LARGER
FUNCTIONS THERE THAN WHAT WE ORIGINALLY PLANNED.
WHICH RAISES THE LAST QUESTION. IF WE DID
HAVE A BAND SHELL THERE, HOW MANY PEOPLE COULD YOU
SIT IN AN ACRE? IF YOU JUST LINED UP CHAIRS, IF
PEOPLE SAT ON THE LAWN, COULD YOU GET 5,000 PEOPLE
IN THERE?
MR. MCLEMORE: NO, I DON'T THINK SO.
MR. MILLER: A THOUSAND? WELL, I'M LOOKING
FOR A NUMBER.
MR. MCLEMORE: MAYBE 300 TO 500.
MR. MILLER: FIVE HUNDRED?
MR. MCLEMORE: MAYBE IN THAT ARENA.
MR. MILLER: AND THEN SITTING ALONG THE -- ON
63
.
1
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET IN RESTAURANTS AND
2
THINGS LIKE THAT, MORE, OR THAT WOULD JUST BE
3
MR. MCLEMORE: I THINK THAT'S A SCALE OF THE
4
TYPE OF THING YOU'D SEE IN THAT RANGE.
5
MR. MILLER: MY THOUGHT IS, WE SHOULD STICK
6
WITH THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT. IF THAT DOESN'T WORK,
7
THEN WE OUGHT TO EXPAND THE PARK, MAGNOLIA PARK.
8
BUT I DON'T THINK TO GO UP ALONG THAT SIDE
9
ROAD THERE, I DON'T THINK THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO DO
10
IT. YOU COULD MAKE THE PARK -- COME BACK AND MAKE
1 1
THE PARK LARGER. YOU KNOW, MAYBE CUT BACK INTO
12
THE EAST
WEST SIDE OF THAT ROAD THAT'S GOING
.
~.'-
13
OFF TOWARDS
14
MR. MCLEMORE: DO YOU MEAN OVER HERE?
15
MR. MILLER: YES. JUST MOVE THE PARK BACK
16
THAT WAY.
17
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: THAT'S THE SOUTH SIDE.
18
MR. MILLER: THAT'S EAST. THE ONE THAT GOES
19
DOWN TO HICKORY ROAD; THAT ROAD. YOU COULD MOVE
20
THAT TURNAROUND ON THE END THERE. WHAT I'M TRYING
21
TO GET AT IS I, WOULD PREFER THAT THAN THE ADJACENT
22
PIECE OF PROPERTY, WHICH KIND OF DESTROYS THAT
23
CONCEPT OF A PLAZA.
24
MR. MCLEMORE: OKAY.
.
.
'.
~"-'
.
64
1
MR. MILLER: THANK YOU.
2
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY.
3
COMMISSIONERS, WE'VE GOT COMMISSIONER MCLEOD,
4
COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ, AND COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
5
AND AGAIN --
6
MR. MARTINEZ: 11 O'CLOCK.
7
MAYOR PARTYKA: YEAH.
8
GIVE A LITTLE DIRECTION TO THE CITY
9
MANAGER SO HE CAN CONTINUE HIS NEGOTIATIONS
1 0
POTENTIALLY.
1 1
COMMISSIONER MCLEOD.
1 2
MR. MCLEOD: A COUPLE REAL QUICK THINGS. ONE
13
IS: HOW MANY ACRES WAS THAT MAGNOLIA PARK
1 4
ORIGINALLY?
15
MR. MCLEMORE: I DON'T THINK MAGNOLIA PARK
16
HAS CHANGED AT ALL.
1 7
MR. MCLEOD: SURE IT HAS. IT CHANGED
'8
SIGNIFICANTLY. SO HAS THE PIECE NEXT TO IT.
'9
THERE'S NO WAY THAT IF YOUR ORIGINAL CONCEPT, FROM
20
WHAT I REMEMBER, IS SHOWING BUILDING ON "I," THAT
21
WAS GOING TO BE A MASSIVE CITY HALL BUILDING. I
22
DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO PUT THAT ON .85 ACRES
23
OF PROPERTY. I THINK MAGNOLIA PARK IS STRONG. IT
24
LOOKS LIKE YOU MOVED THE WETLANDS FORWARD.
.
.
.
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
1 4
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. MCLEMORE: IT'S THE SAME.
MR. MCLEOD: YOU MOVED IT WEST, HAVEN'T YOU?
MR. MCLEMORE: YOU CAN SEE IT ON THIS MAP.
IT REALLY HASN'T CHANGED ANY SUBSTANTIAL DEGREE.
MR. MCLEOD: WELL, THEN, THE ARTIST RENDERING
OF WHAT THE MAGNOLIA PARK WAS GOING TO BE 'TO WHAT
IT PRESENTLY IS -- NOW, EVEN IN YOUR AGREEMENT
LETTER HERE, UNDER WETLANDS -- DELINEATIONS OF
WETLAND PARK, IT SAYS THAT THE CITY AGREES THAT
IT'S (INAUDIBLE) TO USE THE FLORIDA WETLAND
DELINEATION TO AMEND THE WETLAND BOUNDARIES
CONTAINED ON PAGE 11 OF THE TOWN CENTER DISTRICT
CODE TO ACCOMMODATE IT. OKAY.
SO IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE -- AND WHAT IT LOOKS
LIKE, FROM WHAT I REMEMBER OUT HERE THAT WE WERE
LOOKING AT -- IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE IF WE WOULD
HAVE HAD THE ORIGINAL TOWN CENTER RENDERING OF THE
PROPERTY BECAUSE, I THINK, YOU KNOW, THIS WETLANDS
PARK AREA HAS CHANGED. SOME OF THE ROADS HAVE
CHANGED.
BUT THAT MAGNOLIA PARK, RON, HAD NEVER, IN MY
VISION, WAS IT EVER GOING TO BE LESS THAN AN ACRE
OF LAND. AND I HAD ALWAYS EXPECTED TO SEE THAT
THING; THAT IT WAS THREE OR FOUR ACRES OF
.
.
~-
.
66
1
PROPERTY, MINIMAL.
2
MR. MCLEMORE: ,THE CHANGE IN CONFIGURATION
3
MAINLY TAKES PLACE IN THIS SECTION RIGHT HERE.
4
THE WETLAND EXPANDED THIS WAY.
5
NOW, WE CAN GO BACK AND LOOK ON THE OLD MAP.
6
MR. MCLEOD: YEAH. IT WOULD BE NICE TO
7
I DON'T HAPPEN TO HAVE MY TOWN CENTER MAPS
SEE
8
9
AND SO FORTH WITH ME, BUT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE
TO HAVE HAD SOMETHING TO COMPARE IT TO.
10
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THERE ARE A NUMBER OF COPIES
1 1
HERE.
12
MR. MCLEOD: I THINK WE HAVE THE BIG ONE.
1 3
YES. THAT'S PROBABLY ONE RIGHT THERE.
14
MR. MCLEMORE: HANG ON JUST A MOMENT.
1 5
MR. MCLEOD: WOULD YOU SLIDE THAT UP INTO THE
1 6
PROJECTOR, PLEASE?
17
MAYOR PARTYKA: LET'S FOCUS ON THIS. ALL
18
RIGHT.
19
MR. MCLEOD: DOES IT TELL YOU HOW MUCH
20
ACREAGE?
21
MR. MCLEMORE: IT DOESN'T TELL US THE
22
ACREAGE. WE'LL FIND OUT FOR YOU.
23
MR. MCLEOD: YES. THAT WOULD BE
24
INTERESTING. BECAUSE IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN THE
.
.
.
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
13
14
1 5
1 6
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
PARK HAS, RESPECTIVELY, ALWAYS BEEN A LOT SMALLER
THAN I EVER ANTICIPATED. THANK YOU.
NOW I'LL GO TO ANOTHER THING. IN YOUR VALUES
OF TUSCAWILLA ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, THE $407,000
THERE, WHAT I'M HEARING IS THE $407,000 IS ONLY
THE AMOUNT AFFECTED ON THE SCHRIMSHER PROPERTY
SIDE, CORRECT?
MR. MCLEMORE: CORRECT.
MR. MCLEOD: ALL RIGHT. THEN WHAT IS -- WHO
IS DOING THE OTHER SIDE? IS KINGSBURY GOING TO DO
IT, OR IS THE BLUMBERGS GOING TO DO IT, OR ARE YOU
GOING TO HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY TO OFFER
THE SAME AMOUNT TO THOSE FOLKS FOR WHAT WE ARE
PROPOSING HERE?
I MEAN, 'BECAUSE WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE LOOP
AND YOU TALK ABOUT THE ROAD, YOU SHOWED IT GOING
RIGHT THROUGH THEIR PROPERTY. AND FOOLISH ME, I
ASSUMED THAT THAT MEANT 407,000, BUT IT'S NOT.
SO WHAT IS THE VALUE OF THE REST OF THIS?
BECAUSE, YES, I AGREE, IT DOES NOT DEFINITELY
TOUCH SCHRIMSHERS, BUT IT IS DEFINITELY AFFECTING
THE VALUE OF THAT SCHRIMSHER PROPERTY. OKAY.
SO I WOULD SAY THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE
INFORMATION HERE TELLING THIS COMMISSION OF THE
.
.
.
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
1 2
13
1 4
1 5
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
COST INTENTIONS OF THE BLUMBERGS' PIECE TO US AND
THE KINGSBURY PIECE, AT THIS TIME, BASED ON WHAT'S
GOING ON AS YOU'RE REROUTING THE ROADS HERE, AS
FAR AS CITY SEWER, PAVING, THE WATER.
MR. MCLEMORE: WE HAVE THOSE NUMBERS. WE
HAVE THOSE NUMBERS.
MR. MCLEOD: WE HAVE THOSE. OKAY.
MR. MCLEMORE: THEY'RE NOT ON THAT SHEET, BUT
WE HAVE THEM.
MR. MCLEOD: WELL, I THINK THEY NEED TO BE
ADDED TO THE SHEET SO THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THE
FULL PICTURE OF WHAT THIS THING IS. BECAUSE, YOU
KNOW, AS THESE IMPROVEMENTS TAKE PLACE -- I'M
STILL HAVING A HARD TIME OF $205,000 PER ACRE
AS THESE IMPROVEMENTS TAKE PLACE, THIS ACREAGE
VALUE GOES UP.
SO I GUESS I'D HAVE TO ASK YOU THIS,
MR. MCLEMORE. MAYBE THE QUESTION IS: WHEN WE HAD
ASKED TO HAVE THE APPRAISER APPRAISE THE PROPERTY,
WAS THAT RAW PROPERTY AS IT SITS TODAY, OR WAS
THAT PROPERTY AS A BUILT-OUT PIECE OF PROPERTY
WITH IMPROVEMENTS IN PLACE?
MR. MCLEMORE: THE APPRAISAL
ASK CHARLES TO COME UP FOR A MOMENT.
I'M GOING TO
BUT I
.
.
.
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
13
'4
15
16
17
18
'9
20
21
22
23
24
BELIEVE THE PROPERTY WAS APPRAISED AT VALUE IN
TERMS OF WHAT ITS ZONING WAS AT THAT POINT IN
TIME.
MR. MCLEOD: AT THAT POINT, MEANING TODAY'S
ZONING OR IN THE NEW TOWN CENTER ZONING?
MR. MCLEMORE: PRIOR TO THE TOWN CENTER
MR. MCLEOD: AS THAT GROUND SITS TODAY?
MR. MCLEMORE: -- WHICH WAS THEN COMMERCIAL.
MR. MCLEOD: AS IT SITS TODAY?
MR. MCLEMORE: YES.
MR. MCLEOD: NO IMPROVEMENTS, NO NOTHING?
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, THE APPRAISAL NOTED THE
IMPROVEMENTS THAT WERE THERE, SO THEY WERE TAKEN
INTO CONSIDERATION.
MR. MCLEOD: THAT PRESENTLY ARE THERE?
MR. MCLEMORE: THE ONES THAT WERE PRESENTLY
THERE.
MR. MCLEOD: WHICH IS NO WATER, NO SEWER?
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, THERE'S WATER AND SEWER
TO PORTIONS OF THIS ON THIS SIDE.
MR. MCLEOD: IS THIS SCHRIMSHER'S?
MR. MCLEMORE: SEWER IS NOT AVAILABLE, BUT
THERE IS WATER.
MR. MCLEOD: THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE TALKING
.
'.
\:
.
70
1
DOLLAR VALUE IS SCHRIMSHER'S, RIGHT?
2
MR. MCLEMORE: RIGHT.
3
MR. MCLEOD: SO THERE'S NO WATER AND SEWER.
4
MR. MCLEMORE: THERE'S WATER, BUT THERE IS NO
5
SEWER. THERE'S WATER ADJACENT TO THE SITE.
6
THERE'S NOT SEWER.
7
MR. MCLEOD: OKAY. SO I STILL HAVE THE
8
QUESTION, WHAT THE DOLLAR VALUE THAT WE'RE LOOKING
9
AT IS. WHERE'S THAT DOLLAR VALUE COMING FROM?
10
AFTER IMPROVEMENTS THAT THE CITY WOULD KICK IN ON
1 1
THIS THING, OR PRIOR TO THOSE IMPROVEMENTS?
1 2
MR. MCLEMORE: IT WAS APPRAISED AT ITS
13
CURRENT VALUE BASED ON ITS ZONING AND ENTITLEMENTS
14
AVAILABLE TO THE LAND AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
1 5
MR. MCLEOD: OKAY. NOW, I GUESS I DON'T NEED
16
TO GO ON WITH THIS, BECAUSE THIS REALLY, QUITE
17
OBVIOUSLY, NEEDS MORE INFORMATION BROUGHT BACK TO
18
US REGARDING THE KINGSBURY PROPERTY, OUR
19
CONTRIBUTION TO THAT PROPERTY, I GUESS.
20
NOW, WHAT I REALLY SEE HERE IS THAT WE'RE
21
PUSHING VERY TIGHTLY -- AND I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN
22
AGAINST THAT ALL ALONG. THIS LOOKS LIKE A
23
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT PUSHED VERY HEAVILY TOWARDS
24
A LANDOWNER THAT WE HAD ADVISED WE DIDN'T THINK
.
.
.
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
THAT'S WHAT WE WANTED TO GET INTO.
WE DID TELL YOU TO GET AN AGREEMENT, BUT IT
LOOKS LIKE -- YOU KNOW, I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD
BE: DO THE SCHRIMSHERS NOW PLAN TO DEVELOP THE
PROPERTY IF THIS AGREEMENT GOES FORWARD?
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, I THINK THEY'RE THE ONLY
PEOPLE TO ANSWER THAT.
THE LIST OF ENTITLEMENTS YOU CAN ONLY GET
FROM A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ARE VERY, VERY
MINIMAL IN TERMS OF USES. EXCEPT WE DID
ACKNOWLEDGE IN THE AGREEMENT WHAT WAS IN THE
GIBBS' ORIGINAL STUDY FOR APPROXIMATELY 90,000
SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL, WHICH IT WAS THEIR DESIRE
TO MAINTAIN.
I PERSONALLY DIDN'T WANT TO GET TO THIS
POINT, BUT I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE NECESSARY.
MR. MCLEOD: WELL, YOU KNOW, I'VE READ
CERTAIN PARAGRAPHS THROUGHOUT HERE. AND I
DEFINITELY AM GOING TO HAVE TO READ THIS THING.
LIKE ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS, IT'S GOING TO TAKE THREE
OR FOUR READINGS TO THROUGHLY'GET THROUGH AND
UNDERSTAND WHAT PARTY IS GIVING TO WHAT PARTY AT
WHAT TIME.
SO WITH THAT, I DON'T THINK, FOR THIS
.
.
.
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
1 5
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
EVENING -- I MEAN, TO TELL YOU WHICH WAY TO GO
RIGHT NOW, I THINK I STILL NEED TO HEAR FROM YOUR
SIDE OF WHAT ARE THE OTHER ISSUES. I SUSPECT IF
WE'RE 99 POINT NINE-TENTHS THERE, AND ONE ISSUE
THAT WAS A BILLBOARD ISSUE, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR
,WHAT THE REST OF THE ISSUES ARE. I THINK ,THE
COMMISSION HAS ISSUES READING THROUGH THIS THING.
MR. MCLEMORE: THE OTHER ISSUE THAT WE'RE
GOING TO HAVE, AND MR. GRINDSTAFF WILL BRING UP,
IS THE ISSUE RELATIVE TO THE REPRESENTATIONS OF
THE MAP.
WHAT HE WILL SAY TO YOU IS HE WANTS WORDED IN
THERE THAT SAYS -- OR LANGUAGE THAT ALL THIS ON
THIS MAP IS ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY, EXCEPT FOR THESE
SPECIFIC THINGS WHICH WE'VE AGREED TO, WHICH ARE
THE MAIN COLLECTOR ROAD AND MAGNOLIA PARK.
WE ARE SIMPLY -- THE STAFF IS NOT GOING TO
AGREE TO THAT. WE HAVE AGREED WE'LL WORK OUT SOME
LANGUAGE THAT SAYS, THE $250,000 WE SPENT TO DATE
ON LAYING OUT A PLAN IS NOT WILLY-NILLY. IT MEANS
SOMETHING. THERE IS RELATIONS OF STREETS AND ALL
THAT, THEY MEAN SOMETHING; AS WELL AS, OBVIOUSLY,
ALSO, SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED WOULD BE WETLAND
PARK.
-
.
~,
.
,-
73
1
SO GETTING TO SOME AGREEMENT ON THAT LANGUAGE
2
IS ONE WHERE WE ARE CURRENTLY SNARLED. BUT I
3
THINK WE CAN GET THERE TO THE POINT THAT WE
4
UNDERSTAND THAT IF, FOR EXAMPLE, THIS AREA IS THE
5
WAY WE HAVE IT REPRESENTED ON THIS PLAN, IF A
6
DEVELOPER COMES IN AND SAYS, WE HAVE A BETTER PLAN
7
THAT WILL WORK BETTER OR IS GOOD OR IS BETTER, BUT
8
9
WE WANT TO MOVE THIS PART TO HERE, WOULD WE CARE?
I DON'T THINK SO.
1 0
BUT IT'S A BUT-FOR KIND OF THING. IT'S OKAY,
1 1
BUT YOU'VE GOT TO SHOW US SOMETHING THAT'S GOOD OR
12
BETTER SO WE'RE CONVINCED THAT WHAT WE'RE GETTING
13
IS NOT JUST SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO TAKE AWAY
14
FROM THE OVERALL CONCEPT.
1 5
SO THOSE WORDS OF ALL THIS IS SHOWN FOR
1 6
ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO
17
ME. I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO THIS
18
COMMISSION.
19
HOWEVER, I THINK THERE MAY BE SOME LANGUAGE
20
WE CAN GET TO THAT SAYS THAT IN THE EVENT OF
21
SUCH-AND-SUCH, THEN SO-AND-SO HAPPENS. I THINK WE
22
CAN DEAL WITH THAT. BUT TO SAY THEY'RE THERE FOR
23
ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES, I DON'T BUY THAT.
24
MR. MCLEOD: I THINK I'D HAVE TO AGREE WITH
.
.
'.....,
.
74
1
YOU AT THAT POINT, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BASICALLY
2
TELL ME THAT --
3
MR. MCLEMORE: THAT THE PLAN HAS NO MEANING.
4
MR. MCLEOD: AND WE BASICALLY ARE GOING TO
5
6
BRING THESE AMENITIES TO A PROPERTY OWNER WITHOUT
A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND THEN DETERMINE TO HAVE A
7
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO BE BROUGHT IN FRONT OF US THAT
8
CHANGES THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF THE DOWNTOWN CENTER.
9
SO I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU.
10
MR. MCLEMORE: RIGHT. AND THOSE ARE THE
1 1
ISSUES THAT I MENTIONED TO YOU A LITTLE EARLIER
12
THAT I WAS VERY NERVOUS ABOUT GETTING INTO THIS
13
KIND OF AN AGREEMENT WITHOUT A SPECIFIC
14
DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY.
1 5
HOWEVER, THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT IS THIS IS
1 6
PRIVATE PROPERTY. THE CITY DOESN'T OWN IT. AND
17
18
WE'RE DRAWING LINES ALL OVER IT. IT'S NOT THE
DEVELOPER DRAWING LINES ON IT. IT'S US DRAWING
19
LINES ON IT, AND THAT HAS CERTAIN IMPLICATIONS.
20
MR. MCLEOD: ABOUT THREE MILLION THAT I CAN
21
SEE.
22
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, ACTUALLY, IT'S PROBABLY
23
ABOUT A MILLION AND A HALF.
24
IF YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBERS -- I MEAN, AS LONG
.
Ie
\"!!I,
.
75
1
AS WE'RE EVEN -- EVEN VALUE-TO-VALUE THEN, I DON'T
2
THINK THEY FEEL LIKE THEY'RE GETTING ANYTHING. SO
3
THERE'S SOME OVERAGE FOR THEIR CONCERNS.
4
BUT THOSE ITEMS THAT ARE HERE TO FILL THOSE
5
CONCERNS AND CREATE VALUE AT THE SAME TIME ALSO
6
HELPS JUMP-START THIS PROJECT. SO WE ALL ,WIND UP
7
WINNING IN THE LONG RUN.
8
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. COMMISSIONER
9
MARTINEZ.
1 0
MR. MARTINEZ: I DON'T WANT TO SAY ANYTHING
1 1
(INAUDIBLE), BUT I WANT TO MAKE A COUPLE POINTS
12
HERE. BUT ANYWAY, I CONCUR WITH COMMISSIONER
13
MCLEOD. I DID WHEN THE FIRST AGREEMENT WAS
14
SUBMITTED TO US. IT IS ~HAT IT TENDS TO LEAN
1 5
HEAVILY TOWARDS THE LANDOWNER INSTEAD OF A MORE
16
EQUITABLE SOLUTION BEING IN TERMS OF THE FIGURES
17
OR AMENITIES TO THE AREA. AND I THINK WE SHOULD
18
WORK ON THAT A LITTLE MORE.
19
I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE MANAGER -- I'LL
20
BE VERY BRIEF -- DO YOU RECALL I ASKED A QUESTION
21
EARLY LAST YEAR AND YOUR ANSWER WAS THAT THE
22
CONCEPT OF THIS PROJECT WOULD NOT BE CHANGING,
23
BECAUSE WE HAD A VISION AND WE SPENT A LOT OF
24
MONEY ON AN ARCHITECT, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, TO
.
.
.
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
1 3
1 4
1 5
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DEVELOP THESE PLANS, AND WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO
STICK TO THEM?
MR. MCLEMORE: RIGHT.
MR. MARTINEZ: NOW, I SEE, POSSIBLY, THE
START, WHICH IT USUALLY HAPPENS. FIRST, IT'S ONE
THING, THEN SOMETHING ELSE COMES UP. IT'S
DISMANTLING OF THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT BY DOING AWAY
WITH THE CIVIC CENTER THAT WAS SCHEDULED FOR
MAGNOLIA SQUARE, AS YOU KNOW.
AND I'M SURE YOU HAVE SEEN OTHER TOWN
CENTERS, SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THIS HERE. IT'S ONE
OF THE GREAT ATTRACTIONS IN A TOWN CENTER FOR
PEOPLE CAN COME AND MINGLE AND TALK TO EACH OTHER
AND SPEND A LITTLE TIME EVEN DISCUSSING POLITICS
AND WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE CITY. THEY DO THAT.
I WOULD HATE TO SEE THE CIVIC CENTER THAT WAS
SCHEDULED FOR THAT SQUARE DISAPPEAR MERELY BECAUSE
OF THE SIZE OF IT. I FEEL THAT THE ONLY WAY
YOU'RE GOING -- YOU WOULD BE ATTRACTING LARGE
CROWDS TO THAT PLACE IS IF YOU HAD A CONCERT, A
MEANINGFUL CONCERT. AND THEN I DON'T KNOW HOW
MANY PEOPLE WOULD ATTEND AS THINGS GO. YOU MAY
HAVE 200, YOU MAY HAVE A THOUSAND. WE DON'T KNOW
WHAT IT WILL BE.
-
.
..
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
1 4
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
BUT I WOULD URGE YOU TO TRY TO TAKE EVERY
STEP POSSIBLE TO TRY AND SAVE THAT CIVIC CENTER ON
MAGNOLIA SQUARE, BECAUSE IT WOULD LEND TO THE
AESTHETICS OF THE PROJECT.
MR. MCLEMORE: AND I AGREE WITH YOU.
BUT JUST KEEP IN MIND THAT THE REASON THE
CONFIGURATION CHANGED WAS BECAUSE OF THE WETLANDS.
MR. MARTINEZ: THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE
TO CONSIDER, TOO.
MAYOR PARTYKA: IS THAT IT?
MR. MARTINEZ: YES.
MAYOR PARTYKA: EVERYONE HAS TALKED AT LEAST
ONCE. COMMISSIONER BLAKE IS NEXT. I GOT YOU,
THEN COMMISSIONER MILLER, THEN COMMISSIONER
GENNELL.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: I NEVER KNOW WHEN MY
LIGHT IS ON.
MAYOR PARTYKA: I WATCH IT, BELIEVE ME.
COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
MR. BLAKE: THANK YOU, MAYOR. I WOULD LIKE
TO HEAR FROM THE SCHRIMSHER ORGANIZATION AT THIS
POINT IN TIME, HEAR WHAT SOME OF THEIR RESPONSES
ARE. THEN WE CAN ALL RESPOND, PROBABLY, MORE
INTELLIGENTLY TO SOME OF THEIR ISSUES THAT THEY'RE
.
.
""
'.'
78
1
BRINGING UP. THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO.
2
MAYOR PARTYKA: IS THAT OKAY WITH THE
3
COMMISSION?
4
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: JUST LET ME CONTRIBUTE
5
ONE THING BEFORE THAT. THEN WE CAN GET RIGHT INTO
6
THAT.
7
JUST FOR EVERYBODY'S INFORMATION, r
8
SPECIFICALLY ASKED VICTOR DOVER HOW BIG MAGNOLIA
9
SQUARE WAS, AND HE TOLD ME IT WAS AT LEAST TWO
10
FOOTBALL FIELDS
NOW, THAT WAS BACK WHEN WE
1 1
FIRST WENT THROUGH THIS -- WHICH ASSURED ME THAT
12
IT WAS A GOOD SIZE FOR TREES, PUBLIC GATHERINGS,
1 3
AND SO FORTH. SO THERE'S, SOME DIFFERENCE IN
14
PERCEPTION. WELL, IT ISN'T NOW.
1 5
MR. BLAKE: IT NEVER WAS.
16
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: LET'S HEAR FROM THE
17
SCHRIMSHERS.
1 8
MR. MCLEMORE: THE ONLY WAY TO GET THE
19
PROPERTY BACK IS TO TAKE THIS PORTION.
20
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: A PIECE OF BOTH OF
21
THEM.
22
MAYOR PARTYKA: LET'S HEAR FROM THE PROPERTY
23
OWNERS.
24
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: MR. MAYOR, AFTER
.
.
.
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
1 2
13
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
COMMISSIONER BLAKE, MY LIGHT IS STILL ON.
MAYOR PARTYKA: ALL RIGHT.
MR. GRINDSTAFF, MR. SCHRIMSHER, EITHER OF YOU
OR BOTH.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: MIND IF WE USE YOUR STUFF
HERE?
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: MR. MAYOR, WHILE
THEY'RE DOING THAT, JUST LET ME ASSURE YOU AND
EVERYBODY ELSE THAT IS CONCERNED FOR THE TIME HERE
TONIGHT. THIS IS SOME OF THE BEST TIME WE ARE
EVER GOING TO SPEND SITTING HERE IN THIS
BUILDING. SO JUST GO WITH IT, PLEASE.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.
MICHAEL GRINDSTAFF, ATTORNEY WITH SHUTTS & BOWEN,
20 NORTH ORANGE AVENUE, SUITE 1000, ORLANDO. WE
REPRESENT THE SCHRIMSHER GROUP.
HERE WITH ME TONIGHT IS MICHAEL SCHRIMSHER,
AND WE WILL ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS A FEW ISSUES THAT
WERE RAISED, AS WELL AS SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WE
HAVE.
FIRST OF ALL, WE'D LIKE TO REMIND EVERYONE,
WHILE MR. MCLEMORE MENTIONED IT, I DON'T THINK IT
GETS THE CREDIT IT DESERVES, THAT THIS PLAN HAS
CHANGED NOT BECAUSE OF ANY NEGOTIATIONS OR BECAUSE
.
:.
\"
.
80
1
WE COULD DO SOMETHING ONE WAY VERSUS ANOTHER AND
2
SOMEHOW WE NEGOTIATED A DIFFERENT DEAL.
3
IT CHANGES BECAUSE MIKE SCHRIMSHER'S CONSTANT
4
REQUESTS THAT THE CITY LOOK AT THE ACTUAL WETLAND
5
LINE WAS IGNORED FOR OVER A YEAR. IT WAS FINALLY
6
FOCUSED ON, LOOKED AT, AND WE WENT BACK AND LOOKED
7
AT THE PLAN AND, AS A RESULT, THAT DID CHANGE SOME
8
LAYOUTS IN THE TOWN CENTER.
9
SO PLEASE KEEP THAT IN MIND. THIS IS NOT
1 0
LIKE THERE WAS AN EFFORT TO REDUCE MAGNOLIA PARK
1 1
OR ANYTHING ELSE. WHAT HAPPENED WAS MAGNOLIA PARK
1 2
WAS ASSUMED TO BE BIGGER BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON
1 3
ERRONEOUS FACTS THAT THE CITY CHOSE TO IGNORE.
1 4
NOW, A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT -- I REALLY
15
DON'T KNOW WHERE TO START. WE WERE BOUNCING ALL
1 6
OVER THE PLACE WITH SOME OF THESE NUMBERS IN THE
17
AGREEMENT. I WISH MR. MCLEOD WERE HERE. WE HAVE
18
WORKED LONG AND HARD ON THIS AGREEMENT, AND I
19
WOULD LIKE TO THANK -- THIS MAY SOUND STRANGE, BUT
20
I'D LIKE TO THANK MR. MCLEMORE FOR HIS TIME AND
21
EFFORT IN THIS, AS WELL AS ANTHONY GARGANESE. WE
22
HAVE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS. I THINK YOU CAN TELL
23
BY THAT AGREEMENT AND WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.
24
OUR CONCERNS WITH THE AGREEMENT,
.
.
.
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
1 2
13
14
1 5
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. MCLEMORE, I THINK, ADEQUATELY -- OR ACCURATELY
DESCRIBED OUR DESIRE FOR MAKING CLEAR THAT THIS
MAP AND THE TOWN CENTER MAP WAS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE
,PURPOSES ONLY, AND THAT HAD TO DO WITH THE LINES
RUNNING ALL OVER THE SCHRIMSHER PROPERTY.
MR. MAYOR, YOU AND MR. MCLEOD, WITH THE
DAY-TO-DAY INVOLVEMENT WITH REAL PROPERTY,
PROBABLY HAVE A LITTLE MORE APPRECIATION FOR WHAT
THOSE LINES RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORD DO TO A
PIECE OF PROPERTY MORE SO THAN ANYONE ELSE WITH
LESS REAL ESTATE EXPERIENCE.
BUT A DOCUMENT THAT'S RECORDED INTO PUBLIC
RECORD THAT HAS LINES GOING EVERYWHERE AND HAS
PARKS DEPICTED IN DIFFERENT LOCATIONS, WITHOUT
FURTHER CLARIFICATION, MAY CAUSE US TROUBLE IN THE
FUTURE WITH PEOPLE LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY AND
WANTING TO KNOW, WHAT CAN I DO WITH THIS
PROPERTY? WHAT DO THESE LINES MEAN?
AND WHAT THESE LINES MEAN, BUT FOR WHAT IS
ACTUALLY BEING PAID FOR, WOULD MEAN THAT THIS IS A
PLAN. IT IS A PLAN THAT CAN BE ALTERED. IT IS A
PLAN THAT IS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. AND
WE'D LIKE TO POINT THAT OUT.
WITH REGARD TO WHAT'S BEING NEGOTIATED AS
@t
.
"-==
~
82
1
PAID FOR OR AS PART OF THE TRADE, WHICH WOULD
2
INCLUDE THE WETLAND PARK, MAGNOLIA PARK, AND THE
3
COLLECTOR ROAD, WE REALIZE THAT THOSE NEED TO BE
4
IDENTIFIED, SHOWN. AND WHEN THOSE LINES HIT THE
5
6
PAPER, THEY NEED TO BE THERE AND MEAN SOMETHING.
THE OTHER LINES -- FOR EXAMPLE, SOME OF
7
OH, YOU'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE -- SOME OF
THESE
8
THESE INTERNAL LINES WITH THE ALLEYWAYS OR THE
9
ROADWAYS, THEY MAY CHANGE. THEY MAY MOVE OVER.
1 0
THEY MAY DISAPPEAR. THERE MAY BE TWO OF THEM
1 1
INSTEAD OF ONE OF THEM. THIS PARK MAY GET
12
BIGGER. IT MAY GET RELOCATED. THERE MAY BE MORE
13
THAN THE PARKS YOU SEE HERE.
1 4
YOU KNOW, WHO'S GOING TO MAINTAIN THESE
15
PARKS? ARE YOU GUYS GOING TO MAINTAIN THESE
1 6
PARKS? ARE WE GOING TO INCORPORATE THEM INTO
17
VARIOUS DEVELOPMENTS THAT OCCUR WITHIN THE TOWN
18
CENTER?
19
THERE ARE A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT COME UP.
20
AND I THINK EVERYONE'S INTEREST CAN BE PROTECTED
21
WITH APPROPRIATE VERBIAGE, AND I THINK ANTHONY AND
22
I CAN WORK ON THAT.
23
BUT TO LET EVERYONE KNOW THAT, BUT FOR THOSE
24
FIXED LINES, THE REST OF IT IS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE
.
.
.
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
PURPOSES, AND THAT THE DESIRE OF THE PLAN WOULD BE
TO FOLLOW THOSE LINES AS REASONABLY AS POSSIBLE,
BUT REALIZE THAT THEY CAN BE MOVED. THAT WAS A
BIG ONE. AND, HOPEFULLY, WE CAN REACH
SATISFACTORY LANGUAGE FOR BOTH SIDES THERE.
WITH REGARD TO THE -- I'VE SAID THE PARKS AND
STREETS MAY NEED TO MOVE. THEY MAY NEED TO
EXPAND.
PARCEL "I," WE WOULD CONCUR WITH COMMISSIONER
MILLER AND COMMISSIONER MCLEOD AND WHOEVER ELSE --
VICTOR DOVER. VICTOR DOVER, THE PAID CONSULTANT
WHO IDENTIFIES MAGNOLIA PARK RIGHT HERE, DOES NOT
INCLUDE PARCEL "I" IN MAGNOLIA PARK FOR THE
PURPOSES OF SQUARING OFF THE PARK AND HAVING A
SENSE OF PLACE, LIKE COMMISSIONER MILLER WAS
REFERRING TO.
WE, TOO, AGREE THAT "I" SHOULD NOT BE PART OF
THE PARK. WE THINK THIS LITTLE PIECE HERE SHOULD
NOT BE PART OF PARK LAND AND THAT IT DOESN'T NEED
TO BE TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT THE PLANNER WANTS TO DO
OR WHAT -- IN TERMS OF THE CONCEPT FOR THE PARK.
THE COST OF THE SEWER, THE WATER, THE
COLLECTOR ROAD, AND THE ISSUE OF APPRAISALS AND
WHAT ARE THE VALUES ~- YOU SHOULD ALSO KNOW -- I
.
.
.
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
1 3
14
1 5
1 6
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO SAY IT WITH REGARD TO THIS
MOST RECENT COpy OF THE AGREEMENT -- WE WORKED --
ANTHONY, I KNOW, WORKED HARD TO GET IT, BUT WE,
TOO, GOT IT ABOUT 15 MINUTES BEFORE WE LEFT TO
COME OUT HERE TODAY.
THE NUMBERS OF THE APPRAISALS AND THE
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF DEDICATIONS TO THE ~ITY
VERSUS DEDICATIONS TO SCHRIMSHERS, WE GOT THOSE
WHEN WE ARRIVED HERE TONIGHT. SO WE HAVE NOT HAD
AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THOSE NUMBERS.
BUT JUST SITTING HERE WHILE THIS MEETING'S
GOING ON, WE HAVE A FEW THINGS THAT WE WOULD LIKE
TO MENTION.
COMMISSIONER GENNELL TOUCHED ON THE
POSSIBILITY OF MITIGATING A PART OF THE WETLAND
PARK RIGHT HERE FOR PASSIVE ACTIVITIES, PERHAPS,
IN CONJUNCTION WITH MAGNOLIA PARK. ONE THING SHE
TOUCHED ON WAS MITIGATION. WETLAND PARK, UNDER
TODAY'S ZONING, WHICH IS C-1 COMMERCIAL, COULD BE
MITIGATED. IT COULD BE MITIGATED AND DEVELOPED.
AND YES, THERE WOULD BE A COST ASSOCIATED WITH
THAT. YOU'D HAVE TO GO PAY FOR CREDITS SOMEWHERE
ELSE IN ORDER TO MITIGATE THIS PROPERTY AND
DEVELOP IT. AND IT WOULD GO THROUGH A
1.
.
.
85
1
CONSIDERABLE ONEROUS PERMITTING PROCESS.
2
THE POINT IS IT COULD BE DONE AND IT COULD BE
3
DONE PROFITABLY. THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WITH
4
MITIGATION BANKS, MITIGATION CREDITS, SOME OF THE
5
STATEWIDE PROGRAMS AND AREA-WIDE PROGRAMS.
6
THE VALUE THAT WAS ATTRIBUTED TO THIS 19.5
7
ACRES, COMMISSIONER MCLEOD, WAS ABOUT $5',000 AN
8
ACRE. THAT'S $5,000 AN ACRE CLAIMING THAT THAT'S
9
ALL THE WETLANDS ARE WORTH. BECAUSE OF ITS
10
LOCATION AND BECAUSE IT'S BEING MITIGATED, WE
1 1
BELIEVE ,THAT IT COULD BE MITIGATED COST
12
EFFECTIVELY TO YIELD A VALUE WELL IN EXCESS OF
13
.
$5,000 AN ACRE.
1 4
AND WHAT IS THAT? I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS,
15
BUT THAT'S SO CLEARLY LOW THAT WE KNOW THAT THAT
1 6
CAN BE DONE.
1 7
ANOTHER COMMENT BASED ON THE PRELIMINARY
18
REVIEW OF THESE NUMBERS, WE HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE
19
TO CALCULATE THE ACRES. WE'RE NOT SURE ABOUT THE
20
ACRES OF ANY OF THIS STUFF.
21
THE TUSCAWILLA ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, I
22
UNDERSTAND, IS ONE-HALF. AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK
23
MR. MCLEOD, ,IS THAT ONE-HALF GOING FROM HERE TO
24
HERE, ALL THE WAY UP BECAUSE IT FRONTS ON THE
.
.
.
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
1 5
1 6
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
SCHRIMSHER PROPERTY?
MR. MCLEOD: DO YOU WANT TO ASK ME OR
MR. MCLEMORE?
MR. GRINDSTAFF: OH, NO. MR. MCLEMORE. I'M
SORRY. DID I SAY COMMISSIONER MCLEOD? YOU WERE
ON THE SAME QUESTION.
MR. MCLEOD: I COULD ANSWER IT, PROBABLY.
MR. MCLEMORE: I BELIEVE WE STOPPED JUST
NORTH OF MAGNOLIA PARK. TERRY? OKAY. THE FULL
LENGTH.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THAT'S ONLY ONE-HALF OF IT.
MR. MCLEMORE: YES.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: OKAY. WE'LL BE LOOKING INTO
THAT.
THE COLLECTOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, THAT
1,151,000, IS THAT PORTION OF THE COLLECTOR ROAD
IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED ONLY ON THE SCHRIMSHER
PROPERTY?
MR. ZAUDTKE: YES.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: IS THAT A YES FROM MR.
TERRY?
MR. ZAUDTKE: YES.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: WHERE ARE YOU TALKING
ABOUT NOW?
.
.
.
-.
87
1
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THAT WOULD BE FROM HERE TO
2
HERE.
3
MR. MCLEMORE: OH, YES. ABSOLUTELY. THERE'S
4
NOTHING ON THE OTHER SIDE.
5
MR. GRINDSTAFF: NOTHING ON THE BLUMBERG--
6
OKAY.
7
AND THE ONE PAGE THAT HAS THE AMENITIES
8
ASSUMPTION, COMMISSIONER MCLEOD, I GUESS THAT'S
9
BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE AMENITIES INURE
10
ONLY TO THE BENEFIT OF THE SCHRIMSHER PROPERTY AND
1 1
NOT TO THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE?
12
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, THAT COULD BE ARGUED.
13
THEY'RE CERTAINLY ON YOUR PROPERTY. BUT YOU CAN
14
MAKE A REASONABLE ARGUMENT THAT EVERYTHING, TO
1 5
SOME DEGREE, IS GOING TO INURE TO THE GENERAL
1 6
PUBLIC.
17
MR. GRINDSTAFF: WELL, WHY ARE THE
18
SCHRIMSHERS BEING NAILED -- OR CREDITED WITH AN
19
ENHANCEMENT FACTOR WHEN EVERYONE ELSE GETS TO USE
20
THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING THE CITY?
21
MR. BLAKE: THAT'S WHY WE'RE GIVING YOU THE
22
TWO MILLION.
23
MR. GRINDSTAFF: WELL, ARE YOU? I MEAN,
24
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO. WHAT IS IT
.
.
.
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
1 2
1 3
14
1 5
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
THAT'S HAPPENING? WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S
HAPPENING.
ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT THAT WAS
UNCLEAR, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT INCREASED
CONNECTION FEES IN THE TOWN CENTER? WE WERE UNDER
THE IMPRESSION, AT LEAST BASED ON OUR DISCUSSIONS,
THAT THE CONNECTION FEES WOULD BE THOSE 'CONNECTION
FEES THAT ARE TYPICAL AND CUSTOMARY THROUGHOUT THE
CITY.
MR. MCLEMORE: NO. NO.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THAT'S NEWS TO US FOR WHAT
IT'S WORTH.
MR. MCLEMORE: WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION AT THE
TABLE.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: YOU DIDN'T HAVE IT AT THE
TABLE THAT I WAS AT.
MR. MCLEMORE: I BELIEVE, MR. ZAUDTKE, YOU
WERE THERE?
MR. ZAUDTKE: I'M SORRY?
MR. MCLEMORE: WERE YOU AT THAT MEETING?
MR. ZAUDTKE: WHICH?
MAYOR PARTYKA: YOU KNOW, COME ON UP HERE,
TERRY~ AGAIN, I WANT TO PREFACE THIS COMMENT
NOW. THE WHOLE POINT OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO
.
.
-.,-
.
.....
89
1
HERE IS NOT TO DEBATE ISSUES HERE OR TO NEGOTIATE,
2
BUT TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING OBVIOUS SO WE CAN
3
MOVE THIS ON. OKAY.
4
NOW, IF THERE'S STILL SOME ISSUES TO DISCUSS,
5
OKAY. BUT THE COMMISSION HERE, IF THERE'S
6
ANYTHING OBVIOUS, I THINK THEY'VE BEEN TALKING.
7
BUT I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A DEBATE RIGHT NOW OF
8
WHO'S WHAT. I THINK THAT'S STILL AVAILABLE FOR
9
NEGOTIATION.
10
MR. GRINDSTAFF: JUST AS LONG AS EVERYONE
1 1
REALIZES THAT WE DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO ADDRESS
12
EACH AND EVERY POINT HERE TONIGHT. IF SOMEONE
13
SAYS, HEY, BACK ON THE 13TH MR. MCLEMORE SAID X,
14
AND YOU DIDN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT. THERE ARE A
15
NUMBER OF POINTS THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT.
1 6
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: MR. MAYOR, CAN I MAKE
17
A POINT OF ORDER?
18
MAYOR PARTYKA: YES.
19
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: WE'RE ON THE PUBLIC
20
RECORD HERE FOR POTENTIAL LITIGATION. AND TO LET
21
A FACT GO ON THE RECORD, IF IT'S DEEMED TOTALLY
22
UNTRUE, AND SOMEBODY ON OUR STAFF WANTS TO REFUTE
23
IT, I THINK, ON THE RECORD, THEY SHOULD HAVE THAT
24
OPPORTUNITY.
.
.
.
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
1 4
1 5
16
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. MCLEMORE: I'M REFUTING IT.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: PARDON ME?
MR. MCLEMORE: I'M REFUTING IT.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: OKAY. I'LL EXPLAIN WHAT HE
WAS TRYING TO SAY. MICKEY WAS GONE. HE HAD TO
LEAVE FOR A NOON APPOINTMENT -- OR 12:30
APPOINTMENT. I WAS THERE, AND THE COMMENT MADE
WAS THAT CONNECTION FEES WOULD BE USED TO PAY FOR
SOME OF THESE THINGS. BUT IT WAS NOT MADE CLEAR
TO ME THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT AN INCREASE IN
CONNECTION FEES TO WHAT ARE CURRENTLY EXISTING.
SO WHAT RON MAY HAVE MEANT AND WHAT I
UNDERSTOOD HIM TO MEAN WERE PROBABLY TWO DIFFERENT
THINGS.
I KNOW THAT YOU-ALL HAVE CONNECTION FEES IN
THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS AND THAT YOU USE THEM
TO PAY FOR IMPROVEMENTS. BUT WHAT I DIDN'T
UNDERSTAND WAS THAT THERE WERE INCREASED
CONNECTION FEES THAT WERE GOING TO BE APPLIED ONLY
TO THE TOWN CENTER. AND MICKEY COULDN'T
UNDERSTAND ANY OF IT, BECAUSE HE WASN'T THERE.
MR. MCLEMORE: IF I COULD ANSWER. I THINK
THAT'S A FAIR STATEMENT FROM MICHAEL. HE MAY HAVE
MISUNDERSTOOD ME, BUT I TRIED TO GET THIS ACROSS.
.
.
Ie
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
BUT THE POINT WAS, YOU KNOW, OUR IMPACT FEES
DO NOT PROVIDE FOR LINES. THEY ONLY PROVIDE FOR
TREATMENT. SO IN ORDER TO FIND A FUNDING BASE FOR
THIS, WE NEED TO CREATE A SPECIAL DISTRICT THAT
WOULD PAY FOR LINES WE DON'T HAVE ANYWHERE ELSE IN
THE CITY. WE MAKE THE DEVELOPER PUT THEM IN.
IN THIS CASE, THE DEVELOPER IS NOT BEING MADE
TO PUT THEM IN. THEY'RE GOING TO BE FINANCED BY
IMPACT FEES. THEY'RE REALLY NOT IMPACT FEES,
BUT
MR. GRINDSTAFF: SO YOU'RE REALLY NOT PAYING
FOR IT. YOU'RE ADVANCING IT AND COLLECTING IT
FROM CONNECTION FEES.
MR. MCLEMORE: SURE.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: WOULD THAT CHANGE THE TWO
MILLION DOLLAR FLUFF THAT'S IN THESE NUMBERS?
MR. MCLEMORE: I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR
QUESTION.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: IF YOU'RE NOT PAYING FOR IT
BY GIVING IT TO THE SCHRIMSHERS, LIKE I THINK
YOU'VE LED THESE FOLKS TO BELIEVE, BASED ON THESE
NUMBERS -- IF YOU'RE NOT PAYING FOR IT, THEN
YOU'RE GOING TO JUST ADVANCE IT AND THEN COLLECT
IT BACK BY SPECIAL ASSESSMENT THROUGH INCREASED
~
.
~,
.
92
1
CONNECTION CHARGES, WHO'S PAYING FOR IT?
2
MR. MCLEMORE: I THINK THE WAY TO ANSWER THAT
3
IS WE JUST TAKE IT OUT OF THE DEAL AND LET YOU PAY
4
FOR IT, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE IT. THIS IS NOT
5
ALLOWED ANYWHERE IN THE CITY.
6
MR. GRINDSTAFF: BUT JUST
7
MR. MCLEMORE: NO. NO. NO. NO. LET ME
8
ANSWER THE QUESTION YOU ASKED. THE QUESTION YOU
9
ASKED WAS: IS THE CITY GOING TO PAY FOR IT?
10
AND THE ANSWER IS, IN THE END, THE PUBLIC
1 1
PAYS FOR EVERYTHING. SO IT'S A MATTER OF WHERE
12
YOU COLLECT THE MONEY.
13
IN THIS CASE, IF THE'CITY DOESN'T DO THIS,
1 4
THEN YOU, OR A FUTURE DEVELOPER, CAN PAY FOR IT
1 5
INITIALLY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND, JUST
1 6
LIKE WE REQUIRE EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THIS CITY.
17
OR W~ CAN CREATE A SPECIAL WAY TO MEET A
18
SPECIAL CASE HERE. THE SPECIAL CASE HERE IS WE'RE
19
TRYING TO GET THE SEWER TO THIS AREA, WHICH IS
20
BEING DEFERRED AS PEOPLE' BUILD IN THE FUTURE, BY
21
CONNECTION FEES. BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT. I
22
MEAN, IF YOU'RE OFFENDED BY THAT CONCEPT, WE DON'T
23
HAVE TO DO IT.
24
MR. GRINDSTAFF: NO. WE'RE NOT OFFENDED BY
.
.
.
93' '
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
13
14
15
1 6
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
THAT CONCEPT. WE'RE OFFENDED BY THE DISCLOSURE OF
ONLY ONE-HALF OF IT. AND THAT IS, WE'RE DOING
THIS SEWER LINE FOR THE SCHRIMSHERS. WE'RE DOING
THE SEWER LINE FOR THE SCHRIMSHERS, AND LOOK AT
THESE NUMBERS. THAT'S A MILLION ONE, A MILLION
LET'S SEE. IT'S A MILLION ONE, ISN'T IT?,
MR. MCLEMORE: THAT'S A MILLION ONE YOU DON'T
HAVE TO COME UP WITH.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THAT'S RIGHT. YOU'RE
ADVANCING IT AND YOU'RE GOING TO BE COLLECTING IT
BACK. AND YOU'RE TELLING THEM THAT THE
MR. MCLEMORE: THE SAME AS THE
MR. GRINDSTAFF: -- SCHRIMSHERS ARE ENDING UP
WITH THAT MONEY. I THINK IT IMPLIES THAT THE
SCHRIMSHERS WALK AWAY WITH A MILLION ONE BENEFIT.
I DON'T THINK THEY'RE WALKING AWAY WITH A MILLION
ONE BENEFIT.
MR. MCLEMORE: THAT'S SOMETHING THAT
SCHRIMSHER DOES NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR IF HE'S THE
DEVELOPER; IS THAT CORRECT? IT'S ALSO IN HIS
PRICING TO A FUTURE BUYER, IS IT NOT?
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THAT'S TRUE.
MR. MCLEMORE: SO DOES IT NOT BECOME A
BENEFIT?
.
tie
~
.
94
1
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THE ADVANCING OF THE MONEY
2
IS CLEARLY A BENEFIT. PLEASE UNDERSTAND, WE
3
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE ADVANCING OF THE MONEY IS A
4
BENEFIT.
5
MAYOR PARTYKA: TALK INTO THE MICROPHONE.
6
MR. GRINDSTAFF: BUT IT'S THE TIME VALUE.
7
IT'S NOT THE MILLION ONE. NOW, IF I'M NOT CLEAR,
8
MAYBE I SHOULD BACK UP AND START OTHER. BECAUSE
9
IT'S THE TIMING OF THE MONEY. IT'S NOT AN
1 0
OUTRIGHT ONE MILLION ONE WINDFALL FOR THE
1 1
SCHRIMSHERS.
12
MR. SCHRIMSHER: IT ALSO TELLS THE DEVELOPER
13
IT COSTS YOU MORE TO DEVELOP IN THE TOWN CENTER
1 4
THAN ELSEWHERE, WHICH IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOUR
15
MASTER PLAN YOU ADOPTED SAID WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.
16
YOU WERE GOING TO CREATE INCENTIVES TO MAKE IT
1 7
DESIRABLE FOR DEVELOPERS TO WANT TO DEVELOP THE
18
TOWN CENTER FIRST BECAUSE OF THE INCENTIVES YOU
19
WOULD CREATE. THIS IS A DIS-INCENTIVE.
20
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. GO AHEAD.
21
MR. SCHRIMSHER: AND WE DON'T WANT TO FORGET
22
THE REASON THE CITY IS EVEN DOING THIS; IN ORDER
23
TO ACQUIRE SUBSTANTIAL PARKLANDS, ACCORDING TO
24
THIS DOCUMENT, 30-S0ME ACRES, WHICH GENERALLY
.
.
.
-.. .-- - ," ,. -. ~. ~ .. .'. ",' ~. - .. -. - . -.. ...~ ..... . ;..~ -. -.... .-.
95
1
WOULD BE ACQUIRED EITHER BY A WILLING BUYER AND
2
SELLER ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT OR YOU-ALL
3
CONDEMNING THE PROPERTY AND TAKING IT AGAINST OUR
4
WILL, WHICH WOULD NOT BE MONEY WE WOULD EXPECT YOU
5
TO -- WE WOULD NOT EXPECT YOU TO PAY FOR THAT BY
6
TURNING AROUND AND PUTTING THE PROPERTY YOU JUST
7
BOUGHT FROM US UNDER A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
8
9
TO RE-COLLECT IT FROM FUTURE DEVELOPERS IN THE
AREA.
10
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS ARE
1 1
THE WAY THAT MANY OF THESE THINGS ARE DEVELOPED.
1 2
AND IT'S THE SAME CONCEPT, ISN'T IT, THAT THE
13
FUTURE USES PAY FOR IT?
14
MR. SCHRIMSHER: I'D LOVE TO DEBATE THIS. I
1 5
THINK WE COME AT TWO DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW,
1 6
THOUGH. BECAUSE IF IT'S COMPARED, FOR EXAMPLE, TO
17
WHEN A ROAD IS BUILT, THERE'S NO ROAD THERE. OR
18
IF THERE'S A ROAD THAT'S THERE THAT'S WIDENED, THE
19
PROPERTY OWNER HAS PAID FOR THAT PROPERTY BY THE
20
CONDEMNING AUTHORITY.
21
AND THEN AFTER THE ROAD IS COMPLETED, THE
22
CONDEMNING AUTHORITY DOES NOT CREATE AN ASSESSMENT
I
23
DISTRICT ALONG BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD TO
24
RE-COLLECT THAT MONEY FROM THE BUYERS OF THAT
~
.
.
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
1 3
14
1 5
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
PROPERTY. I'LL JUST BE PUTTING IT IN ONE POCKET
AND TAKING IT OUT OF THE OTHER.
MR. MCLEMORE: IN THIS CASE, IT'S PAID FOR
BY -- USUALLY BY GAS TAXES.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: YOU RECOGNIZE THE PUBLIC
BENEFIT OF THE AMENITY THEY JUST CREATED. AND
YES, THE BENEFIT GOES TO THE PUBLIC AND THE COST
OF IT IS PAID FOR BY THE PUBLIC AT LARGE, NOT BY
THE PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL THAT THE AMENITY WAS
JUST BUILT UPON.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THAT'S IT.
MAYOR PARTYKA: CONTINUE.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THAT'S IT. I MEAN,
MR. MCLEMORE HAD YOU BELIEVE THAT HE'S HANDING
OVER A MILLION ONE TO THE SCHRIMSHERS, AND THAT'S
THAT. YOU'RE NOT HANDING OVER A MILLION ONE TO
THE SCHRIMSHERS FOR THE UTILITY LINE. YOU'RE
BASICALLY ADVANCING THE MONE~, MAKING THE LOAN,
AND YOU'RE GOING TO COLLECT IT BACK FROM PEOPLE AS
THEY TAP INTO IT.
MR. MCLEMORE: DIDN'T I SAY THOSE WORDS?
DIDN'T I SAY THOSE VERY WORDS RIGHT AT THE FRONT
OF THIS DISCUSSION? I'M CONFUSED. MICKEY, I SAID
THOSE WORDS RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS
.
.
.
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
DISCUSSION.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THE MILLION ONE --
MR. MILLER: I BELIEVE HE ALSO SAID
MAYOR PARTYKA: HOLD IT. HOLD IT. ONE
PERSON AT A TIME. GO THROUGH THE CHAIR.
COMMISSIONERS, THROUGH THE CHAIR.
DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW, THERE'S A QUESTION
DIRECTED AT MR. MCLEMORE. HE WAS FINE.
AGAIN, NO ONE ELSE SHOULD ADD ANYTHING TO IT
AT THIS POINT IN TIME. OKAY.
MR. MCLEMORE: I MEAN, THE ISSUE OF -- IT'S A
SECOND MISREPRESENTATION THAT HAS BEEN PUT ON THE
TABLE HERE TONIGHT. I JUST WANT TO PROVIDE YOU
AGAIN THAT I VERY CLEARLY STATED THAT IN MY
PRESENTATION EXACTLY THE WAY WE WOULD PAY FOR IT.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: MAYBE WE'RE RESPONDING TO
WHAT IT SEEMS LIKE THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE
UNDERSTOOD YOU TO SAY, RATHER THAN WHAT YOU SAID.
BECAUSE WE'RE RESPONDING TO SOME OF THEIR
COMMENTS, ALSO, NOT ONLY TO YOURS.
AND THERE'S DEFINITELY THE IMPRESSION HERE
THAT WE'RE BEING GIVEN SOME SWEET DEAL AND WE'RE
BEING GIVEN ALL THIS EXTRA BENEFIT.
.
.
.
'--..
98
1
MR. MCLEMORE~ WELL, YOU MAY READ THAT IN
2
THEIR MIND, BUT I'M NOT SURE IT'S TRUE.
3
MR. SCHRIMSHER: I'M NOT READ~NG IT IN THEIR
4
MINDS. I'M JUST LISTENING TO THE THINGS THEY'VE
5
SAID. AND THERE IS -- WORDS MEAN THINGS, AND
6
THERE'S WORDS ON THIS SHEET THAT SAYS, NET TO
7
DEVELOPER, YOU KNOW; EXTRA ABOVE AND BEYOND THE
8
VALUE THAT'S COMING TO US, TO SCHRIMSHERS.
9
AND THE OTHER THING THAT MICKEY SAID
I
10
THINK HE STARTED TO SAY ANYWAY -- IS THAT WE DID
1 1
JUST RECEIVE THESE NUMBERS, AND THEY MAY BE VERY
1 2
ACCURATE, BUT WE HAVE NO WAY OF SAYING. WE WOULD,
13
OF COURSE, WANT TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LET OUR
14
ENGINEERS AND OUR CONSULTANTS REVIEW THEM TO SEE
15
IF THE VALUES ASSIGNED TO WHAT WE'RE CONTRIBUTING
16
IS A FAIR VALUE AND THE VALUE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS
17
BEING PROPOSED ARE FAIR, ALSO. THAT WILL JUST
18
TAKE SOME TIME.
19
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. THANK YOU. I THINK
20
THE KEY POINT HERE -- AND I THINK EVERYONE --
21
SEVERAL COMMISSIONERS MENTIONED IT, MR. MCLEMORE.
22
THE OWNERS -- WE DID GET THESE NUMBERS FOR THE
23
FIRST TIME TODAY. WE HAVE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO
24
REALLY DIGEST IT, LOOK AT IT, ANALYZE IT, PRO,
.
.
.
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
CONS, WHATEVER.
AND THE POINT OF THIS WAS NOT TO DEBATE THIS
RIGHT NOW, BUT TO BRING OUT ANY KIND OF OBVIOUS
THINGS THAT MAY BE WRONG OR BOTHERS COMMISSIONERS
OR BOTHERS POTENTIAL OWNERS.
BUT TO GO FROM HERE AND SAY, IS IT WORTHWHILE
TO POSTPONE THIS THING, LET THE CITY MANAGER AND
THE OWNERS OF THE LAND NEGOTIATE SOME MORE, I
THINK THAT'S REALLY THE ISSUE. AND ALSO, TO TELL
THE CITY MANAGER FROM THE COMMISSIONERS'
STANDPOINT, IS THERE ANYTHING HERE THAT REALLY
BOTHERS THEM OR A DIFFERENT DIRECTION. I THINK
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO; NOT TO GET INTO A
DEBATE HERE, BUT TO GO TO THE NEXT STEP.
ARE YOU BOTH FINISHED AT THIS POINT? BECAUSE
I'VE GOT A COUPLE COMMISSIONERS, AND I THINK WE
NEED TO GET ON AND MOVE THIS ON ONE WAY OR THE
OTHER.
COMMISSIONER BLAKE AT THIS POINT, AND
COMMISSIONER GENNELL IS LAST.
MR. BLAKE: MY QUESTION STILL REMAINS THE
SAME. THE MANAGER'S ASKING US FOR SOME DIRECTION
AS TO WHETHER OR NOT HE IS ON THE RIGHT TRACK WITH
THIS AGREEMENT. I BELIEVE WE STILL NEED TO HEAR
.
.'
.
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
THE REST OF THE STORY FROM THE SCHRIMSHER
ORGANIZATION, HAVE THEM TELL US WHAT OTHER THINGS
THEY DISAGREE WITH SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A BETTER
INDICATION OF WHETHER OR NOT THIS AGREEMENT IS
HEADED ON THE RIGHT TRACK.
SO IF YOU HAVE MORE THINGS BESIDES WHAT
YOU'VE ALREADY SAID, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THOSE.
I THINK NOW IS THE RIGHT TIME TO HEAR THOSE OUT,
UNDERSTANDING THE LIMITATIONS THAT YOU'VE ALREADY
EXPRESSED DUE TO GETTING INFORMATION LATE TODAY.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: WELL, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
TO NOTE THAT WE HAVE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS ON THE
AGREEMENT. I'VE HIGHLIGHTED THE BIG ISSUES THAT
WE HAVE WITH THE AGREEMENT.
WE HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THIS
AGREEMENT BEFORE 15 MINUTES BEFORE WE GOT HERE AND
LITERALLY SITTING OUT HERE DURING THE PUBLIC
INPUT.
MR. BLAKE: IF I CAN INTERRUPT.
DO YOU MEAN THIS AGREEMENT, THE 13-PAGE
AGREEMENT, OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE NUMBER?
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THE 13-PAGE AGREEMENT CAME
IN TODAY ABOUT 4:15. I'M NOT BEING CRITICAL OF
ANYBODY'S EFFORTS TO DO THAT. ANTHONY'S BEEN
.
~.
.
"!
.
1 0 1
1
SICK. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF EFFORTS TO GET IT
2
DONE.
3
MR. BLAKE: SO THIS 13-PAGE AGREEMENT?
4
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THIS DRAFT.
5
MR. GARGANESE: THIS DRAFT. OBVIOUSLY, THERE
6
HAVE BEEN OTHER PREVIOUS DRAFTS.
7
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THAT IS CORRECT.
8
9
MR. BLAKE: THIS IS A FINE-TUNING EFFORT.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THAT'S CORRECT.
10
MR. BLAKE: DO YOU FEEL THAT THIS DRAFT HAS
1 1
ENCOMPASSED MUCH OF WHAT YOU'VE DISCUSSED SO FAR?
1 2
MR. GRINDSTAFF: YES, WE DO.
13
MR. BLAKE: THE NEW VERSION.
14
MR. GRINDSTAFF: YES, WE DO. I MEAN, WE WANT
15
TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE LANGUAGE. WE WANT TO GET
16
THE PLANNER TO LOOK AT THE EXHIBITS. WE WANT TO
17
GET MR. FLORIO TO LOOK AT THE NUMBERS.
18
YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MR. MCLEMORE
19
AND US HAVE TALKED ABOUT IS HE WANTED' TO KNOW
20
AND RIGHTFULLY SO -- WHAT IS HE PAYING FOR?
21
WHAT'S INCLUDED IN THE TOWN CENTER? FAIR
22
QUESTION.
23
AND WE WANT TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IS BEING
24
EXPECTED OF THE SCHRIMSHERS TO GIVE UP, YOU KNOW,
,
.
.
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
1 5
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
IN EXCHANGE FOR WHATEVER THAT NUMBER IS THEY'RE
GETTING. AND WHAT IS THAT NUMBER? WHAT REALLY IS
THE NUMBER?
AND THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO GET TO. AND I
THINK WE'VE COME A LONG WAY.
MR. BLAKE: GOOD. I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT.
LET ME ASK YOU ONE OTHER QUESTION. HOW MUCH
LONGER IS IT GOING TO TAKE TO GET THIS
FINALIZED
MR. GRINDSTAFF: I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO
YOUR QUESTION.
MR. BLAKE: -- THE FEW POINTS YOU BROUGHT UP
WHERE THERE ARE SOME ISSUES THAT REMAIN?
MR. GRINDSTAFF: I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER,
COMMISSIONER. I DON'T WANT TO MISREPRESENT TO YOU
BY SAYING ANY SHORT NUMBER OR EVEN A HIGH NUMBER.
MR. BLAKE: THE CITY MANAGER'S GIVEN US A
PERCENTAGE DONE. I'M GUESSING YOUR NUMBER MAY BE
A LITTLE LOWER THAN 99.9.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: A LITTLE LOWER, BUT IT'S NOT
CLOSER TO ZERO. I PROMISE YOU.
MR. BLAKE: DO YOU FEEL THAT YOU'RE STILL
MAKING PROGRESS?
MR. GRINDSTAFF: YES, I DO. IF I HAD SOMEONE
.
.
.
103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
1 3
14
15
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
PUT A GUN TO MY HEAD AND SAID I HAD FIVE SECONDS
TO GET CLOSE WITH A NUMBER --
MR. BLAKE: FOR THE RECORD, THERE ARE NO GUNS
HERE.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THAT'S RIGHT. FOR THE
RECORD, I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, ALTHOUGH MR. MCLEOD
IS
AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: THERE ARE GUNS.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: I'D SAY MORE LIKE 85
PERCENT, 85, 90.
BUT, I MEAN, COMING FROM WHERE WE'VE COME
FROM, WE THINK THAT'S A MATERIAL ADVANCEMENT. AND
THE NEW PLAN WAS IMPORTANT. AND VICTOR'S AND HIS
STAFF'S PARTICIPATION, ALLOWING MIKE AND MR. DAVIS
TO PARTICIPATE, WAS GOOD. MR. MCLEMORE'S BEEN
HELPFUL AND ANTHONY'S BEEN EXTREMELY HELPFUL.
MR. BLAKE: SINCE THIS ACTUAL BOARD ITEM IS
THE ADOPTION OF THE TOWN CENTER ORDINANCE, IF WE
DO DECIDE, ONCE AGAIN, TO POSTPONE THAT ADOPTION
HEARING TO A FUTURE MEETING, WHETHER IT BE THE
FIRST ONE IN JANUARY OR THE SECOND ONE IN JANUARY,
WOULD YOUR ORGANIZATION AGAIN AGREE TO UPHOLD THE
SPIRIT AND LETTER OF THE STANDSTILL AGREEMENT THAT
WE'VE DONE EACH TIME?
-
.
~.,
.
104
1
MR. GRINDSTAFF: TO THE EXTENT THAT'S
2
NECESSARY, YES, SIR. YOU KNOW, WE STILL OUR
3
POSITION VIS-A-VIS THE ORDINANCE REMAINS THE SAME
4
AS OUTLINED IN THOSE STACKS OF PUBLIC RECORDS. IT
5
IS THE SAME. AND WE WOULD ABSOLUTELY LIVE UP TO
6
THE STANDSTILL AGREEMENT TO THE EXTENT IT'S
7
NECESSARY.
8
MR. BLAKE: MR. MAYOR, I SEE OTHER LIGHTS ON,
9
BUT I WOULD BE PREPARED AT THIS TIME, OR AT YOUR
10
DIRECTION, TO MAKE A MOTION TO -- TWO MOTIONS,
1 1
ACTUALLY: ONE TO DIRECT THE MANAGER TO CONTINUE
1 2
TO HAVE AGGRESSIVE DISCUSSIONS WITH -- THAT
13
DOESN'T MEAN BE MEAN ABOUT IT. IT MEANS --
1 4
MR. MCLEMORE: YOU HAVE TO BRING THE GUN NEXT
1 5
TIME, MICKEY.
1 6
MAYOR PARTYKA: EVERYONE HAS TALKED. I THINK
17
A MOTION IS APPROPRIATE.
18
MR. BLAKE: THERE ARE LIGHTS ON AND WE HAVE
19
AN AGREEMENT NOT TO DO THAT.
20
MAYOR PARTYKA: WELL, PROVIDED EVERYONE HAD A
21
CHANCE TO TALK. I MEAN, WE CAN MOVE THIS ON.
22
, 'COMMISSIONER GENNELL, EVERYONE HAS TALKED.
23
THERE IS A MOTION THAT MR. BLAKE WOULD LIKE TO
24
HAVE. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT YOU WANT TO ADD
.
.
,,-
.
~.
105
1
OR
2
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: YES, I DO. I HAD MY
3
LIGHT ON BEFORE YOU ALLOWED THEM TO SPEAK AND I
4
SAID, OKAY, GO AHEAD AND LET THEM SPEAK AND THEN
5
I'LL HOLD UNTIL AFTERWARDS. AND I WILL.
6
AND HE CAN MAKE HIS MOTION AND I CAN ,STILL
7
MAKE MY POINTS, SO IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.
8
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. THE MOTION IS STILL IN
9
ORDER.
10
MR. BLAKE: WELL, THEN, MR. ATTORNEY, AM I
1 1
GOING TO NEED TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS FOR THIS?
1 2
ONE'S GOING TO BE TO CONTINUE, TALKING AND WORKING
13
ON THIS AGREEMENT TO GET IT DONE. THE SECOND
1 4
ONE'S GOING TO BE TO POSTPONE THE ADOPTION OF THE
1 5
ORDINANCE TO A DATE CERTAIN.
16
MR.GARGANESE: YES. DO IT IN TWO SEPARATE
17
MOTIONS.
18
MR. BLAKE: THE FIRST MOTION IS TO DIRECT THE
19
CITY MANAGER TO CONTINUE TO AGGRESSIVELY HAVE
20
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE SCHRIMSHER ORGANIZATION TO
21
FINALIZE THE PROPERTY OWNER'S AGREEMENT THAT'S
22
BEEN PUT BEFORE US WITH HOPES OF HAVING IT DONE IN
23
EARLY JANUARY.
24
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND TO
.
.
.
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
1 2
13
14
1 5
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
THAT?
MR. MILLER: CAN I ASK THE COMMISSIONER TO
CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT?
MR. BLAKE: YOU CAN AMEND ANY MOTION.
MR. MILLER: WELL, INCLUDE IN THERE THAT IF
WE'RE GOING TO GET MORE INFORMATION FOR THE NEXT
MEETING, THAT WE GET IT, MAYBE, ONE WEEK BEFORE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OH.
MR. MILLER: IN OTHER WORDS, TRY TO CLOSE OUT
WHATEVER YOU'RE DOING ONE WEEK BEFORE THE MEETING
SO WE CAN LOOK AT THIS INFORMATION. YOU'LL GET A
CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT, WE'LL HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK
AT IT. WE CAN AVOID ALL THIS ABOUT I HAVEN'T SEEN
IT. YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT.
MAYOR PARTYKA: I THINK IT'S TOTALLY
APPROPRIATE, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S PART OF
THE MOTION. I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE
UNDERSTANDING ON THIS. OKAY.
,DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: CAN I HEAR THE MOTION
AGAIN?
MR. BLAKE: MY MOTION WAS TO DIRECT CITY
MANAGER TO CONTINUE AGGRESSIVE DISCUSSIONS WITH
THE SCHRIMSHER ORGANIZATION TO FINALIZE THE
PROPERTY OWNER'S AGREEMENT.
tt
~
,
107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
1 5
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: YOU HAD A DATE IN
THERE, THOUGH.
MR. BLAKE: I SAID EARLY JANUARY. WHATEVER
THE FIRST MEETING IS IN JANUARY.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: I WON'T SECOND THAT
WITH THAT EARLY OF A DATE.
MR. BLAKE: WELL, UNDERSTAND THAT THE PURPOSE
OF THE DATE IS TO GIVE THEM A GOAL TO WORK
TOWARDS. I DON'T THINK WE CAN SIT HERE AND PUT A
CONCRETE DATE THAT IT WILL BE DONE BY NOW. I
DON'T THINK YOU WANT TO TIE THE CITY MANAGER'S
HANDS GOING INTO NEGOTIATIONS THAT -- WHERE THEY
KNOW THAT HE HAS TO HAVE AN AGREEMENT BACKED UP BY
A CERTAIN DATE OR ELSE. I MEAN, IT JUST DOESN'T
WORK.
SO I THINK THEY OUGHT TO HAVE A GOAL, BUT YOU
CAN'T FIX A DATE FOR NEGOTIATIONS OF THAT SORT.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. THE MOTION STILL
REMAINS THE SAME. GO FOR AN AGGRESSIVE --
DIRECTING THE MANAGER FOR AGGRESSIVE MEETINGS TO
COME TO SOME KIND OF FINAL DETERMINATION.
MR. MARTINEZ: POINT OF ORDER.
MAYOR PARTYKA: YES.
MR. MARTINEZ: IF I RECALL THE MOTION
.
.
.
108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
1 5
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
CORRECTLY -- MAYBE SHE CAN READ THAT BACK IF IT'S
NOT CORRECT -- I THINK THAT MR. BLAKE ASKED THE
CITY ATTORNEY SOMETHING ABOUT A DATE CERTAIN.
MR. BLAKE: NO. THAT'S A DIFFERENT MOTION.
MR. MARTINEZ: WASN'T THERE A DATE CERTAIN
MENTIONED?
MR. BLAKE: DIFFERENT MOTION.
MAYOR PARTYKA: ALL RIGHT. MOTION IS STILL
THERE. IS THERE A SECOND?
MR. MCLEOD: I'LL SECOND, BUT I WANT
DISCUSSION.
MAYOR PARTYKA: SURE. OKAY. DISCUSSION.
COMMISSIONER GENNELL, DO YOU WANT TO DISCUSS
THIS ONE? OKAY.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: I'LL LOSE MY CHANCE
FOREVER IF I DON'T. YES. THE ONLY REASON THAT I'M
NOT ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT EARLY JANUARY IS I KNOW
THAT EVERYBODY HAS HOLIDAY PLANS, THE ATTORNEYS
AND PROPERTY OWNERS, ALL OF US AND THE STAFF. I
THINK THAT'S JUST NOT REASONABLE.
SO I WOULD SAY THE EARLY PART OF FEBRUARY
WOULD BE MUCH MORE REALISTIC.
MY MAIN CONCERN AT THIS POINT -- AND I
RECOGNIZE -- WHEN I MENTIONED MITIGATION, I WAS
.
.
~..,
.
109
1
JUST MENTIONING IT.
2
MR. GRINDSTAFF: IT'S A REAL THING, THOUGH.
3
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: SURE, IT'S A REAL
4
THING. IF THE STATE IS NOT, FURNISHING MONEY TO
5
ACQUIRE THOSE WETLANDS -- IF THE STATE IS
6
FURNISHING THE MONEY TO ACQUIRE THE WETLANDS,
UNLESS I'M MISTAKEN, ONCE IT'S THE STATE NATURAL
7
8
LANDS, THAT'S IT. THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY FOR
9
BUILDING, MITIGATION, OR ANYTHING. SO THAT ISN'T
10
AN OPTION, YOU KNOW.
1 1
I WAS ASKING MAINLY ABOUT THE SLOPE OR THE
12
GRADE OR WHATEVER OF THE EXISTING PROPERTY AS IT
13
WAS.
14
MR. GRINDSTAFF: COMMISSIONER GENNELL, I
15
APPRECIATE THAT. AND JUST TO CLARIFY, I WAS JUST
16
COMMENTING ON THE VALUE OF THAT LAND IN THESE
17
NUMBERS THAT END UP WITH NET TO DEVELOPER. THE
18
ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF THOSE WETLANDS IS 5,000
19
AN ACRE.
20
MY POINT WAS, BEFORE THE STATE GETTING THAT
21
PROPERTY, IT COULD BE MITIGATED AND RESULT IN A
22
NET VALUE OF GREATER THAN $5,000 AN ACRE TO THE
23
DEVELOPER. ,IT WOULDN'T BE A FULL FOUR BUCKS A
24
FOOT. YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE THE COST OF MITIGATION,
.
.
.
110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
1 3
14
1 5
16
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
RECLAMATION, WHAT HAVE YOU. BUT THERE WOULD BE,
SOMETHING SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER THAN $5,000.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: JUST TO EDUCATE ME A
LITTLE BIT FURTHER, WHEN A DEVELOPER -- WE HAVEN'T
HAD THIS COME BEFORE US BEFORE IN THIS --
ALTHOUGH, I'M TOTALLY FAMILIAR WITH MITIGATION
BANKING AND EVERYTHING -- WHEN YOU DO THAT IN A
MUNICIPALITY, DO YOU HAVE TO GO BEFORE THAT
MUNICIPALITY FOR APPROVAL TO DO THAT, OR DO YOU
JUST GO IN AND DO IT AND SHOW THEM WHAT YOU'VE
DONE WHEN YOU COME IN FOR YOUR PLAN?
MR. GRINDSTAFF: I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU DO.
MAYOR PARTYKA: HOLD OFF. HOLD OFF. I MEAN,
IT'S NICE TO KNOW ABOUT MITIGATION, BUT I BELIEVE,
AS IT PERTAINS ,TO THE MOTION, THIS HAS NO BEARING
ON THE MOTION.' SO WE HAVE TO MOVE ON, I BELIEVE.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: IT DOES PERTAIN TO THE
VALUE THAT THEY'RE ESPOUSING HERE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: WELL, I AGREE. BUT THAT'S
NOT THE MOTION. I MEAN, WE HAVE TO
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: MR. MAYOR, IF YOU
DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT, WE WON'T HEAR IT.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. THANK YOU.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: OKAY. AS FAR AS
.
.
.
111
1
2
3
4
5.
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
1 3
1 4
1 5
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MAGNOLIA SQUARE, WHETHER IT WAS PERCEPTION OR
REALITY THAT IT WAS LARGER, THE ENTIRE DESIGN HERE
IS TO ACCOMPLISH A TOWN CENTER AND ACTUALLY HAVE
IT BE A DESTINATION THAT PEOPLE WANT TO COME TO,
LOOK FORWARD TO COME TO, HAVE A REASON TO COME TO,
AND ENJOY COMING TO.
I KNOW THAT DURING THE WHOLE VISIONING
PROCESS THAT THE COMMUNITY AND THE COMMISSION AND
THE STAFF WENT THROUGH, THAT THE CENTRAL PARK
AREA, THE MAGNOLIA PARK, WAS ENVISIONED TO BE THAT
FOCAL POINT.
I AM CONCERNED THAT THE SIZE THAT WE HAVE IN
FRONT OF US RIGHT NOW IS NOT OF A SIGNIFICANT --
SUFFICIENT SIZE TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO
DO.
SECONDLY, THIS PROPOSED TOWN CENTER HAS BEEN
PUBLICIZED THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY AND BEYOND, AS
FAR AS BEING A SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY AND HAVING
THE NEW TOWN CONCEPT AND THE TOWN CENTER CONCEPT,
EVERYTHING CONCENTRATING AROUND THIS TOWN CENTER.
AND I THINK IT WOULD BE EMBARRASSING TO HAVE
SOMETHING THAT AMOUNTED TO NO MORE THAN A TOKEN
TOWN CENTER IN THE MIDDLE.
SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE CITY MANAGER, YES,
.
~
.
.
112
1
TO GO FORWARD WITH THE NEGOTIATIONS, BUT TO LOOK
2
AT SOME ALTERNATIVES FOR ENLARGING THAT TOWN
3
CENTER TO MAKE IT A MORE VIABLE CENTRAL SQUARE,
4
MORE USEFUL.
5
MR. MCLEMORE: MAGNOLIA PARK?
6
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: MAGNOLIA PARK, YES,
7
SIR. I'M NOT GOING TO SAY WHERE TO GO OR HOW TO
8
DO IT. I'M JUST SAYING THERE'S GOT TO BE OPTIONS
9TO ENLARGE IT SOME WAY.
10 THAT'S THE END OF MY COMMENTS.
1 1
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. OKAY. COMMISSIONER
12
MCLEOD.
1 3
MR. MCLEOD: ONE OPTION IS MONEY. NOW, I'VE
14
GOT A COUPLE QUESTIONS HERE. THE WHOLE THING THAT
15
WE'VE STARTED OUT WITH HERE, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT
16
WE'VE GOTTEN TO IT ON THIS THING -- I KNOW WE HAVE
1 7
A MOTION HERE, BUT THE KEY POINTS THAT HAVE NOT
18
BEEN REACHED IN, BASICALLY, THE AGREEMENT AS
19
MR. MCLEMORE SAW IT, AND KEY POINTS AS THE
20
SCHRIMSHERS AND MR. GRINDSTAFF HAPPEN TO SEE IT.
21
THOSE WERE THE POINTS THAT, FOR THE LAST HOUR AND
22
SOMETHING, WERE TO BE DISCUSSED.
23
AND I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR A RECAP OF
24
THE SCHRIMSHERS' POINTS SO THAT I'M CLEAR ON WHAT
.
.
.
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
THOSE POINTS MAY BE, YET TO ME. I MEAN, JUST
DIRECT POINTED TO THE POINTS AND THE POINTS OF
MR. MCLEMORE BEFORE WE CAN REALLY, MAYOR, DIRECT
THEM AS TO WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
,I MEAN, WASN'T THAT OUR GOAL THAT WE SET OUT
HERE TO DO? DOES EVERY COMMISSIONER HERE ,TOTALLY
UNDERSTAND THE POINTS OF BOTH PARTIES? 'MR. BLAKE
DOES.
MAYOR PARTYKA: MY IMPRESSION WAS EXACTLY
THAT. I BELIEVE THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS
DISCUSSION WAS FOR EVERYBODY TO TAKE NOTES. AND
EVERYBODY HAS VOICED THEIR CONCERN FROM THE CITY'S
SIDE, AND I BELIEVE ,THE SCHRIMSHERS HAVE VOICED
THEIR CONCERN FROM THEIR SIDE.
AND WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT BASED ON
COMMISSIONER BLAKE'S MOTION, OKAY, NOW, WE'VE
VOICED THOSE CONCERNS. NOW, GET OUT THERE AND
START TALKING AGGRESSIVELY AND SEE IF WE CAN COME
TO SOME KIND OF FINAL DECISION OR AT LEAST FINAL
POSITION. THAT'S, I THINK, WHERE IT IS.
MR. MCLEOD: MAYOR, WOULD YOU THEN, PLEASE,
HIGHLIGHT FOR ME SO I HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF
WHAT MR. SCHRIMSHER'S KEY POINTS ARE?
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY.
.
,.
.
11 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
13
14
15
1 6
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. MCLEOD: BECAUSE MR. MCLEMORE, GOING iNTO
THIS CONVERSATION, SAID WE WERE 99.9 PERCENT
THERE. THE SCHRIMSHERS SAY WE'RE 85 TO 90 PERCENT
THE'RE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: THESE ARE POETS.
MR. MCLEOD: THEREFORE, THERE'S A MAJOR
DIFFERENCE. AND IF WE'RE GOING TO GIVE'
DIRECTION AND IF, MAYBE -- AND I THOUGHT THAT,
PROBABLY, SOME OF OUR CHALLENGE WAS UP HERE THIS
EVENING -- THAT SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT, MAYBE,
MR. MCLEMORE WASN'T WILLING TO MOVE ON, IT WOULD
BE THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION TO SAY,
MR. MCLEMORE, MOVE ON THAT ISSUE. I THINK THE
SCHRIMSHERS HAVE A GOOD IDEA THERE.
ON THE OTHER HAND, IF IT WAS SOMETHING THAT
THE SCHRIMSHERS DIDN'T LIKE AT THIS TIME, AND
MR. MCLEMORE EXPLAINED WHY, THEN I THOUGHT IT WAS
PROBABLY GOING TO BE THE COMMISSION TO SAY,
MR. MCLEMORE, I AGREE WITH YOU AND, AS A
COMMISSION, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S GOING TO
PROBABLY PASS, AND MR. SCHRIMSHER, I THINK YOU
NEED TO RECONSIDER THAT AS YOU GO INTO THE
MEETING.
SO FAR, I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT WE'VE DONE
.
..
..........
I.
, -,
115
1
THAT. AM I MISSING THE POINT OF WHAT THIS
2
DISCUSSION WAS TO BE?
3
MAYOR PARTYKA: WELL, AGAIN, THAT'S GOING TO
4
BE (INAUDIBLE) TO THE FINAL VOTE HERE. AT THIS
5
POINT --
6
MR. MCLEOD: WHAT ARE WE AGGRESSIVELY TELLING
7
THEM TO DO?
8
MAYOR PARTYKA: WELL, HERE'S WHAT WE'RE DOING
9
RIGHT NOW. THE MOTION IS ON THE FLOOR, BY
1 0
COMMISSIONER BLAKE, TO AGGRESSIVELY -- KNOWING ALL
1 1
THESE DISCUSSION POINTS, THAT BOTH THE CITY
12
MANAGER AND THE SCHRIMSHERS DISCUSS THIS IN
13
AGGRESSIVE MEETINGS TO GET TO SOME KIND OF FINAL
14
DETERMINATION.
1 5
IF YOU FEEL THAT YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH
16
INFORMATION ON THAT VOTE, THEN VOTE A NO FOR THE
1 7
MOTION. OKAY.
1 8
BUT I BELIEVE YOU VOICED YOUR OPINION.
19
COMMISSIONER GENNELL VOICED HER OPINION. BUT I
20
BELIEVE IT HAS TO GO TO A VOTE TO SEE -- IF THREE
21
PEOPLE UNDERSTAND, THEN THEY UNDERSTAND. THAT'S
22
THE WAY I SEE IT.
23
MR. MCLEOD: OKAY. MAYOR, I VOICED MY
24
OPINIONS IN SOME OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE'VE
.
.
(.'
~,
11 6
1
RECEIVED THIS NIGHT ~- THIS EVENING -- AND SOME OF
2
THE INFORMATION IN THOSE DOCUMENTS, AND NOT
3
NECESSARILY BEING ABLE TO HAVE READ THE WHOLE
4
THING.
5
BUT WHEN WE STARTED THIS WHOLE THING THIS
6
EVENING, IT WAS TO ALLOW BOTH PARTIES TO EXPLAIN,
7
TO THE POINT, EXACT POINTS OF WHERE THE DIFFERENCE
8
WAS AT THIS TIME. THAT HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY
9
EITHER PARTY. IT HAS BEEN DANCED AROUND BY BOTH
1 0
PARTIES. OKAY.
1 1
AND I'M SAYING DANCED AROUND FROM UP HERE,
12
BECAUSE WE DID VOICE OUR OPINIONS ON THE
13
INFORMATION WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US. BUT OUR CITY
14
MANAGER SAID, HEY, I HAVE SOME POINTS YET THAT I
1 5
NEED TO GET OUT TO THE SCHRIMSHERS THAT THEY MAY
16
NOT BE IN AGREEMENT WITH.
1 7
AND ON THE OTHER HAND, I THINK THE
18
SCHRIMSHERS HAVE SOME POINTS THAT NEED TO BE JUST
19
PINPOINTED, NOT A LONG DISSERTATION OF WHYS AND
20
WHAT'S THE POINT -- SO THAT WE CAN GET
WHERE
21
RIGHT TO THE HEART OF IT AND THEN GIVE DIRECTION
22
TO BOTH OF THESE PARTIES AS TO WHERE WE THINK THEY
23
SHOULD HEAD. MAYBE I'M WRONG.
24
MR. MARTINEZ: I'VE GOT A POINT OF ORDER.
.
~,
.
.
117
1
MAYOR PARTYKA: YES, YOU MAY.
2
MR. MARTINEZ: LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING. I
3
THINK THAT, .ONCE AGAIN,' WE HAVE SPENT AN HOUR AND
4
A HALF ON THIS ISSUE, AND WE'RE BEATING A DEAD
5
HORSE.
6
MR. GRINDSTAFF HAS INDICATED ALREADY, OKAY,
7
THAT HE HAS HIS DOCUMENTS, THAT HE HAS NOT BEEN
8
ABLE TO PERUSE THEM PROPERLY, THAT HE DOES NOT
9
UNDERSTAND ALL OF ITS CONTENTS, THAT HE HAS TO GO
10
BACK AND LOOK AT IT, AND THAT HE HAS TO SIT WITH
1 1
THE MANAGER AGAIN AND THEY HAVE TO DISCUSS SOME
1 2
MORE.
13
SO HOW ARE WE GOING TO EXPECT MR. GRINDSTAFF
1 4
OR ANYONE TO TELL US WHAT THEIR OBJECTIONS ARE
1 5
WHEN HE STATED, HIMSELF, ON THE RECORD, THAT HE
1 6
HAS TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THIS? .AND WE KNOW --
1 7
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY.
18
MR. MARTINEZ: THIS IS A POINT OF ORDER.
19
THIS IS COMING BACK IN JANUARY OR FEBRUARY, AND WE
20
ARE GOING TO BE GOING THROUGH THIS OVER AND OVER
21
AGAIN. THIS HAPPENED MANY TIMES BEFORE. I THINK
22
WE SHOULD DISPOSE OF THIS ONE ISSUE AND GO ON WITH
23
THE AGENDA, BECAUSE WE'RE STUCK. WE DON'T SEEM TO
24
GET PAST FIRST BASE.
.
,
.
'-
!. ... - -.._-... ..-. .
118
1
MAYOR PARTYKA: THAT IS THE POINT OF ORDER.
2
I THINK, RIGHT NOW, EVERYBODY'S VOICED, UNDER
3
, '
DISCUSSIONS, THEIR CONCERNS. BUT THE FACT OF THE
4
MATTER IS THERE'S TWO MOTIONS ON THE FLOOR. IF
5
YOU fEEL IT'S NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION, VOTE AGAINST
6
IT.
7
BUT I BELIEVE
I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE AT
8
THIS POINT IN TIME TO GET THE VOTE ON THE MOTION.
9
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: I HAVE A COMMENT.
10
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. COMMISSIONER GENNELL.
1 1
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: THANK YOU,VERY MUCH.
12
MR. MCLEOD: APPARENTLY, I DON'T HAVE THE
1 3
FLOOR.
1 4
MAYOR PARTYKA: OH, I'M SORRY. I THOUGHT YOU
1 5
WERE FINISHED. I'M SORRY.
1 6
MR. MCLEOD: NO. I STILL HAVE TO EXPRESS THE
1 7
FACT THAT, YES, WE WILL BE HERE YET IN JANUARY
18
BOUNCING AROUND. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE ATTORNEY
19
HASN'T READ THIS 10n PERCENT, BUT HE HAS SAID
20
THAT, IN CONCEPT OR IN THEORY, IF THIS HAS BEEN
21
ALL THE DIFFERENT DRAFTS, BACK AND FORTH, PUT
22
TOGETHER, THEN HE IS CONCEPTUALLY IN AGREEMENT
23
WITH IT.
24
AM I WRONG TO THAT?
.
.
.
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
13
14
1 5
1 6
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24,
,MR. GRINDSTAFF: YOU'RE NOT WRONG,
COMMISSIONER. BUT MAYBE IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF
YOUR CITY ATTORNEY ADVISED YOU WHEN WE ALL GOT
THIS DOCUMENT JUST THIS --
MAYOR PARTYKA: HOLD IT. HOLD IT.
MR. MCLEOD: THAT'S NOT THE POINT.
MAYOR PARTYKA: JUST A MINUTE. LET
COMMISSIONER MCLEOD FINISH, AND THEN WE'RE GOING
TO -- I'LL MAKE A COMMENT.
MR. MCLEOD: ALL RIGHT, MAYOR. THAT'S NOT --
I UNDERSTAND YOU MAY HAVE POINTS IN HERE. I'M NOT
ASKING FOR THAT. I'M ASKING -- FOR INSTANCE, THE
CITY MANAGER BROUGHT OUT A PARTICULAR INSTANCE
THAT ISN'T IN THIS DOCUMENT.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: I CAN LIST SOME FOR YOU.
MR. MCLEOD: THAT HAPPENS TO BE THE
MR. GRINDSTAFF: BILLBOARD ISSUES.
MR. MCLEOD: -- BILLBOARD.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: WHICH WE WEREN'T AWARE OF
UNTIL TONIGHT. FAIR ENOUGH. WE NEED TO THINK
ABOUT THAT.
I
MR. MCLEOD: BUT WHAT ISSUES ARE THERE STILL
THAT YOU DON'T FEEL MAY BE-- AND I'M NOT SAYING
THAT WE'RE GOING TO HOLD YOU 100 PERCENT TO THIS.
.
.
.
1 _._.. _ _ '.
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
13
14
1 5
1 6
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. GRINDSTAFF: I THINK I CAN ANSWER THIS.
I WENT THROUGH -- X PROBABLY DIDN'T DO A GOOD JOB
OF SAYING, ,HERE ARE THE POINTS POINT-BY-POINT.
HERE THEY ARE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSION, JUST A MINUTE.
JUST A MINUTE. LET'S GET THIS SQUARED AWAY. IF
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO -- HOLD IT. IF WE'RE GOING
TO GET THIS ON, ALL I'M SAYING IS I RECOGNIZE ALL
THE ISSUES. OKAY. BUT I THINK THE MOTION IS VERY
CLEAR. OKAY.
THERE'S A CONCERN BY COMMISSIONER MCLEOD, A
CONCERN BY COMMISSIONER GENNELL. FINE. BUT THE
MOTION IS REAL SIMPLE. THE MOTION SAYS -- THE WAY
IT IS RIGHT NOW, THE MAKER OF THE MOTION SAYS,
I'VE GOT ENOUGH INFORMATION TO MAKE THE MOTION.
I'VE GOT A SECOND ON IT. I HAVE SOME DISCUSSION.
LET'S TAKE A VOTE ON IT.
IF PEOPLE FEEL IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE TO VOTE
FOR IT, THEN VOTE NO.
MR. MCLEOD: I WOULD LIKE TO WITHDRAW THE
SECOND.
MAYOR PARTYKA: THE SECOND HAS ALREADY BEEN
HANDLED. IT BELONGS TO THE COMMITTEE, SO YOU HAVE
TO VOTE ON THE MOTION.
.
.
'.
1 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
OKAY. COMMISSIONER GENNELL -- SORRY.
MR. MCLEOD" DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE?
MR. MCLEOD: NO, 'APPARENTLY NOT.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. COMMISSIONER GENNELL.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: OKAY. AS I UNDERSTOOD
THE CITY MANAGER COMING BEFORE US THIS EVENING, HE
EXPRESSED TWO SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS IN HIS MIND
THAT HE WANTED DIRECTION FROM US, IF THAT'S QUITE
RIGHT. ONE WAS THAT PARCEL THAT LOOKS LIKE "I,"
WHICH IS NORTH OF MAGNOLIA SQUARE. HE WANTED TO
KNOW OUR FEELINGS, PRO OR CON, ABOUT PURCHASING
IT -- OR INCLUDING IT OR NOT INCLUDING IT WITH
MAGNOLIA SQUARE.
SO MY ANSWER TO THAT IS PROBABLY PARTIALLY
YES, IF WE CAN GET PART OF THE SOUTH PART TO
ENLARGE MAGNOLIA SQUARE. I DON'T NECESSARILY
THINK I WOULD JUST GO AND ACQUIRE IT FOR THE
REASONS THAT YOU OUTLINED, BECAUSE IT WOULD MAKE
SORT OF A LOPSIDED CITY CENTER THERE. THAT WAS
ONE ISSUE YOU BROUGHT.
ANOTHER ISSUE YOU BROUGHT WAS THE
BILLBOARDS. I SUPPORT THE BILLBOARD ISSUE. BUT
THERE WAS ONE OTHER ISSUE THAT YOU HAD.
MR.' MARTINEZ: THAT WAS AN HOUR AND A HALF
.
.
.
122
1
2,
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
13
1 4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
AGO.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: OKAY~ THEY WERE THE
ISSUES HE BROUGHT.
MR. MCLEMORE: THOSE WERE THE TWO ISSUES THAT
I BROUGHT.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: THOSE WERE THE TWO.
OKAY. SO IT WAS --
MR. MCLEMORE: THE ILLUSTRATED PURPOSE ISSUE
WAS ONE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BRING UP, AND I
ARTICULATED
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: YES. THE ILLUSTRATED
PURPOSE. THAT'S RIGHT. THAT WAS YOUR MAIN
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THAT WAS ONE BIGGIE.
ANOTHER --
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: THAT WAS YOUR MAIN
THING. AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS THAT IF
YOU'RE TAKING A PLAT DOWN TO THE COURTHOUSE AND
RECORDING A PLAT, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND IT AS A
PLAT.
I DON'T SEE THIS AND PERCEIVE IT AS A PLAT,
PER SED I PERCEIVE IT AS A OVERALL DESIGN
GUIDELINE THAT, I THINK, WE HAVE ALL EXPRESSED IN
WRITING AND IN PURPOSE THAT IT BE SUBJECT TO
MANIPULATION AND JUDGMENT.
.
.
.
123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. GRINDSTAFF: JUST SAY THAT. THAT WOULD
BE GREAT.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: I THINK YOU ALSO SAID
THAT YOU THINK THAT YOU AND MR. GARGANESE CAN WORK
THROUGH SOME VERBIAGE TO FIND THAT ACCEPTABLE TO
BOTH OF YOU.
BECAUSE I WOULD NOT --I DO NOT -- I WOULD
NOT BE COMFORTABLE SEEING IN THERE THAT IT WAS
STRICTLY FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES. THAT WOULDN'T
SATISFY ME. IT WOULDN'T SATISFY ME NOT FOR
MYSELF, BUT FOR FOLLOWING COMMISSIONS WHO COME UP
HERE AND HAVE FUTURE DEVELOPERS COME UP HERE AND
SAY, OH, THOSE LINES DON'T MEAN ANYTHING. SEE~
THEY'RE ONLY THERE FOR ILLUSTRATION.
AND IT WOULDN'T BE TO THE BEST INTEREST OF
THE CITY TO HAVE IT WORDED THAT WAY. SO I
WOULDN'T SUPPORT WORDING THAT THAT WAY.
NOW, HAVE I OVERLOOKED ANYTHING OF YOUR
MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR CONCERNS?
MR. GRINDSTAFF: YES, MA'AM.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. I'M GOING TO STOP
RIGHT NOW, AGAIN. THIS TIME I'M GOING TO BE FIRM
ON THIS. COMMISSIONERS, THE MOTION IS SIMPLE. IF
YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE MOTION,
.
.
23
.
124
1
DELAY THE MOTION, NOT TO ACCEPT THE MOTION, FINE.
2
BUT WE ARE NOT INTO DETAILS. THIS IS NOT
3
WHAT THE MOTION IS. THE MOTION IS MADE VERY
4
CLEARLY TO GIVE DIRECTION TO THE COMMISSION TO
5
VOTE FOR OR,AGAINST, AND THAT',S ~O GIVE THE
6
DIRECTION TO THE CITY MANAGER TO AGGRESSIVELY GO
7
WITH THE SCHRIMSHERS AND HAVE MEETINGS. THAT IS
8
THE MOTION. NO MORE, NO LESS.
9
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: MR. MAYOR?
1 0
MAYOR PARTYKA: WE MUST MOVE ON.
1 1
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: LET ME TALK TO YOU,
1 2
THEN. I WILL REMIND YOU THAT THE REASON THAT THIS
13
WAS BROUGHT TO US WAS SO THAT THE CITY MANAGER
1 4
COULD -- LET ME FINISH MY --
15
MAYOR PARTYKA: I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING. I
16
DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING.
17
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: I HAVE SOMETHING TO
18
SAY.
19
-- SO THAT THE CITY MANAGE~ COULD PRESENT US
WHERE THEY WERE AT THE TIME. THEY COULD BRING
20
21
FORTH THOSE AREAS THAT WERE UNRESOLVED AND WE
22
COULD GIVE HIM DIRECTION.
NOW, YES, IF MR. GRINDSTAFF SAYS HE STILL HAS
24
SOMETHING AND THERE'S STILL SOMETHING THAT NEEDS
.
.
.
125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
1 6
1 7
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
TO BE ANSWERED, YOU MAY NOT -- IF THIS MOTION
PASSES, WHICH I'LL VOTE AGAINST IT BECAUSE I DON'T
THINK THERE'S ENOUGH DIRECTION BEING GIVEN TO THE
CITY MANAGER YET ON IT -- IF THIS MOTION PASSES,
THEN I INVITE MR. GRINDSTAFF AND MR. SCHRIMSHER
AND THE REPORTER TO HANG AROUND, BECAUSE, ,UNDER MY
SEAT, I WILL USE THE PRIVILEGE OF MY REPORT TO
FINISH THIS ISSUE.
MAYOR PARTYKA:
PROBLEM WITH THAT.
MOTION.
OKAY. CALL THE VOTE, PLEASE.
MR. MARTINEZ: YOU WILL READ THE MOTION
AGAIN?
MAYOR PARTYKA: READ THE MOTION, PLEASE.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER BLAKE STATED TO MAKE
A MOTION TO DIRECT THE MANAGER TO HAVE AGGRESSIVE
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE SCHRIMSHER ORGANIZATION AND
THAT'S FINE. I HAVE NO
BUT MAKE THE VOTE ON THE
FINALIZE THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITH HOPES OF HAVING
IT DONE IN EARLY JANUARY.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. THAT'S THE MOTION.
CALL THE VOTE.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
MR. MARTINEZ: NAY.
126
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
1 2
1 3
14
1 5
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MILLER.
MR. MILLER: NAY.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MCLEOD.
MR. MCLEOD: NAY.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
MR. BLAKE: AYE.
THE CLERK: DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: NAY.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. PLACE FOR A NEW
MOTION.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: MAY I FINISH? MY
LIGHT IS STILL ON.
MAYOR PARTYKA: NO.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: OKAY.
MAYOR PARTYKA: THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS. YOU
CAN'T LEAVE THE LIGHT ON.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: NOW MY LIGHT'S ON
AGAIN.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. WE NEED SOME ACTION.
NOW YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: THANK YOU.
MR. GRINDSTAFF?
MR. GRINDSTAFF: YES, MA'AM.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: WOULD YOU PLEASE GIVE
.
.
.
.
.
127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
1 3
1 4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ME YOUR OTHER FINAL THING THAT WAS A CONCERN.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THE ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES
THE POINT THERE -- SORT OF THE UMBRELLA OF THE
ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES COMMENT WAS THE FACT THAT
SOME OF THE STREETS, SOME ,OF THE ALLEYS, AND SOME
OF THE PARKS MAY MOVE. THEY MAY BE THERE; THEY
MAY BE MORE, THEY MAY BE LESS. THEY MAY MOVE, SO
WE NEED TO HAVE LANGUAGE THAT WORKS FOR THAT. I
THINK THAT'S PART OF THE SAME COMMENT,
ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES LANGUAGE THAT WORKS 'FOR
EVERYONE.
ANOTHER IS THE -- OURS WAS PARCEL "I."
THAT'S ONE OF YOUR ISSUES. WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT
THAT.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: WHAT?
MR. GRINDSTAFF: PARCEL "I," NORTH OF --
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: YES. OKAY.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: -- MAGNOLIA SQUARE.
WE DISAGREE WITH THIS ONE, THAT LITTLE PARK
THERE.
MR. MCLEOD: IS THAT "F"?
MR. GRINDSTAFF: YES, SIR, "F." AND SOME OF
THESE OTHERS, WE JUST WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE FOR
SOME FLEXIBILITY FOR THEM. AGAIN, PART OF THAT
.
'..
.
-
.
128
1
MOVING AROUND LANGUAGE, FLEXIBILITY STUFF.
2
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: THIS ALL TIES BACK TO
3
THE ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES.
4
MR. GRINDSTAFF: YES, MA'AM. SO FAR, YES,
5
EXCEPT FOR PARCEL "I." IT'S NOT ILLUSTRATIVE
6
PURPOSES ONLY.
7
THE OTHER ONE IS VERIFICATION OF NUMBERS ON
8
SEWER, WATER, AND COLLECTOR ROADS, AND TO
9
CHARACTERIZE THEM PROPERLY, WHAT THOSE NUMBERS
10
ARE.
1 1
WE WANT TO REVIEW THE DOCUMENT, OBVIOUSLY, TO
12
LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE THAT WE HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE
13
TO EVALUATE.
14
THE ISSUE ON CONNECTION FEES, YOU CAN LUMP
1 5
THAT INTO THE WHAT-ARE-THE-REAL-NUMBERS COMMENT.
1 6
WHAT ARE THE REAL NUMBERS?
17
TIMING -- IN THE AGREEMENT, THERE'S A STORM
18
WATER PERMITTING AND MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENTS.
19
WE'D LIKE TO HAVE SOME ADDRESS FOR THE TIMING OF
20
THOSE ISSUES OR THOSE IMPROVEMENTS.
21
MR. BLAKE: IT'S IN THERE.
22
MR. GRINDSTAFF: NO. NO. NOT FOR THOSE TWO,
23
I DON'T THINK. IT MIGHT BE.
24
MR. BLAKE: IT SAYS TWO YEARS, I THINK.
!~.'
~
ce
.
129
1
,MR. GARGANESE: WHICH IMPROVEMENTS?
2
MR. GRINDSTAFF: MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND
3
THE APPLICATION FOR THE MASTER STORM WATER PERMIT.
4
MR. MARTINEZ: ANOTHER POINT OF ORDER,
5
MR.' MAYOR.
6
MAYOR PARTYKA: YES.
7
MR. MARTINEZ: ISN'T WHAT MR. GRINDSTAFF IS
.
8
DOING RIGHT NOW THE SAME THING THAT WE'RE TRYING
9
TO GET THEM TOGETHER AND DISCUSS ALL THESE THINGS,
1 0
AND THEN COME BACK WITH SOMETHING AND FINALLY
1 1
WHY ARE WE GOING THROUGH THIS OVER AND OVER?
12
MR. GRINDSTAFF: I HAVE TWO MORE.
13
MR. MARTINEZ: POINT OF ORDER.
1 4
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. THAT WAS THE POINT OF
1 5
ORDER. OKAY. THAT WAS A GOOD POINT.
1 6
MR. GRINDSTAFF: JUST TWO MORE. AND ONE WAS
17
THE BILLBOARDS. WE HAVEN'T EVEN LOOKED AT THAT.
18
WE'RE WILLING TO LOOK AT THAT, JUST EVALUATE WHERE
19
IT IS AND WHAT THAT MEANS UNDER THE ORDINANCE.
20
AND THEN WE THINK THAT SOMEWHERE IN THE
21
AGREEMENT, AS DRAFTED, PROVIDES FOR PERIODIC
22
REVIEW. I THINK WE OUGHT TO HAVE SOME THOUGHT
ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IF THIS FAILS.
23
24
AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO EVERYONE, THIS
.
.
.
130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
13
14
1 5
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
TOWN CENTER'S BEEN AROUND A LONG TIME. IT'S
OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY. THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE
THAT KNOW ABOUT IT. AND THE CUSTOMERS AREN'T
LINING UP. MR. JOSHI HAD SOME, BUT WE HAVEN'T
SEEN THEM. AND THEY'RE NOT LINING UP FOR THIS
EFFORT. THEY MAY. WE DON'T WANT TO TAILSPIN INTO
BEING CRITICAL TONIGHT~
BUT WHAT HAPPENS IF THIS THING FAILS? WHAT
HAPPENS IF IT DOESN'T CATCH ON, WHICH EVEN YOUR
OWN CONSULTANT, MR. GIBBS, IN A RECENT ARTICLE
PREDICTS THAT A NUMBER OF TOWN CENTERS WILL FAIL.
THEY WILL FAIL BECAUSE THEY WERE HASTILY DONE.
THEY DIDN'T INCORPORATE RETAIL COMPONENTS, PROVEN
RETAIL COMPONENTS, SUCH AS SIZE, PARKING, TRAFFIC,
VISIBILITY.
I'DON'T WANT TO GET ON THE SOAP BOX,
MR. MAYOR, BUT THE POINT BEING A PROVISION THAT
SAYS, WHAT HAPPENS IF THIS FAILS? MAYBE IT'S JUST
A RECITATION OF AN ATTITUDE. IF THIS THING
DOESN'T WORK, WHERE ARE THE SCHRIMSHERS?
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: ALL RIGHT.
MR. GRINDSTAFF, THE LAST TWO OR THREE ITEMS THAT
YOU JUST ADDRESSED, ARE THOSE POINTS THAT YOU HAVE
JUST RAISED TONIGHT, OR ARE THEY STICKING POINTS
.
.
.
131
1
THAT YOU H~VE HAD WITH THE CITY MANAGER ALL ALONG?
2
MR. MCLEMORE: MOST OF THESE ISSUES HAVE
3
ALREADY BEEN RAISED.
4
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: LET ME GO DOWN AND GET
5
OUT FROM UNDER HAVING MY SAY HERE.
6
ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE NUMBERS -- NUMBERS
7
AND DATES OF WATER, SEWER, AND MASTER PLAN THING
8
AND SERVICES AND ANY OF THE DOLLARS AND CENTS AND
9
THE ACREAGE AND THIS AND THAT, I THINK WE'LL ALL
1 0
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE JUST GOT THE DOCUMENT. I
1 1
THINK THAT UNTIL THE INK IS DRY ON THE DOCUMENT,
12
THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE FROM MINUTE TO MINUTE.
1 3
I'M NOT MARRIED TO ANY OF THE SPECIFIC FIGURES ON
14
HERE, MYSELF.
1 5
AS FAR AS HAVING VERBIAGE IN THERE THAT GIVES
1 6
YOU SOME LEVEL OF COMFORT, I HAD ENVISIONED, AND
17
WE HAD SPOKE HERE -- SPOKEN ON THIS COMMISSION
18
MANY TIMES OF A LOT OF THESE THINGS, THIS WHOLE
19
434 CORRIDOR, FROM END-TO-END, BEING A LIVING
20
DOCUMENT AND, As SUCH, FROM TIME-TO-TIME BEING
21
SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND SO FORTH.
22
SO I WOULD NOT OBJECT TO THAT. THAT'S JUST
23
MY OWN FEELING. I DON'T OBJECT TO HAVING VERBIAGE
24
,
IN THERE THAT ALLOWS FOR -- THAT IS NOT TOTALLY
.
.
.
132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
13
14
1 5
1 6
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
RIGID. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO BE TOTALLY RIGID
AND THAT THOSE LINES ARE IN CONCRETE.
BY THE SAME TOKEN, I'M NOT AS CONCERNED ABOUT
THIS BEING IN CONCRETE, BECAUSE I DON'T VIEW IT AS
A PLAT.
OKAY. HAVE I ANSWERED ALL YOUR CONCERNS TO
SOME DEGREE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE?
MR. GRINDSTAFF: FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE,
PERHAPS, COMMISSIONER.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: OKAY. THAT'S ALL I
WAS TRYING TO DO, WAS JUST GIVE YOU AND THE CITY
MANAGER WHERE I WAS COMING FROM ON THAT.
I'M DONE. THANK YOU.
MAYOR PARTYKA: THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER
MCLEOD.
MR. MCLEOD: MR. GRINDSTAFF, IF YOU WILL OPEN
TO PAGE 6 OF 13 AND LOOK AT NUMBER 14, DURATION OF
THE AGREEMENT. IT SPELLS IT OUT AS A TEN-YEAR
DURATION AT WHICH TIME THE PARTIES MAY REENTER
INTO IT.
ON 15, PERIODIC REVIEW OF THE THING, I THINK
THAT'S --
MR. GRINDSTAFF: WILL WE AGREE THAT THE TOWN
CENTER ORDINANCE GOES AWAY IN TEN YEARS AND BE
~
.
.
133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
1 3
1 4
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
RE-REVIEWED? SEE, THAT'S THE PROBLEM,
COMMISSIONER, IS THAT THE ORDINANCE, THE TOWN
CENTER CODE, COMES INTO PLACE AND IT'S HERE FOR
MORE THAN TEN YEARS. THIS COMPANION AGREEMENT IS
ONLY GOING TO BE HERE TEN YEARS.
MR. BLAKE: THAT'S STATUTORY.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: BUT THE SOLUTION MAY BE TO
MAKE THE ORDINANCE HAVE SOME SORT OF SUNSET.
MR. MCLEOD: THAT'S AN ISSUE AT THIS TIME.
AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THAT'S ONE OF YOUR ISSUES
THAT YOU AND THE CITY ATTORNEY AND MR. MCLEMORE
NEED TO DISCUSS.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: RIGHT.
MR. MCLEOD: SO THAT'S A POINT. ALL RIGHT.
BUT THERE IS SOME MEANS HERE THAT MAY NEED TO HAVE
SOMETHING MORE INCLUSIVE IN IT. OKAY.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: RIGHT.
MR. MCLEOD: DO YOU FEEL THE POINTS THAT
I'VE HEARD, THOUGH, THIS EVENING THAT YOU'VE
BROUGHT UP ARE BASICALLY POINTS THAT'S ON THIS
AGREEMENT THAT'S NOT TOTALLY COMPLETE ON DOLLARS
AND. CENTS AGREEMENT -- OR INFORMATION GIVEN TO
US.
PRIOR TO WALKING IN THIS EVENING, WHAT OTHER
.
.
.
134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
1'3
14
15
1 6
1 7
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
POINTS WERE YOU WILLING TO BRING BEFORE THE
COMMISSION TO SAY, HEY, WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO HERE
YET BECAUSE MR. MCLEMORE AND OURSELVES CANNOT GET
BEYOND THIS BOUNDARY?
MR. GRINDSTAFF: I THINK THE ILLUSTRATIVE
PURPOSES WAS OUR BIGGEST CONCERN. I MEAN, IN
ADDITION TO SOME OF THESE OTHER SMALLER 'ONES. IN
THE PLAN ITSELF, THESE LITTLE PARTS, WHETHER IT
CAN MOVE AROUND, WHETHER THAT WAS REAL, A SMALLER
ONE; IMPORTANT, BUT SMALL. I MEAN, I DON'T WANT
TO BE BOUND BY NOT BEING ABLE TO DISCUSS SMALL
ISSUES LATER.
BUT RIGHT UP HERE AT THE TOP, WHERE THE TRAIL
GOES OVER BETWEEN US AND ST. JOHN'S LANDING, IT
LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A BUFFER BETWEEN THE TRAIL AND
OUR PROPERTY.
I MEAN, WHY CAN'T THE TRAIL BE THE BUFFER
BETWEEN US AND ST. JOHN'S LANDING? I MEAN,
THERE'S SOME LITTLE THINGS LIKE THAT,
COMMISSIONER, THAT WE THOUGHT WE WOULD TOUCH ON.
BUT I WANT TO HIT THE BIG ONES.
MR. MCLEOD: OKAY. BECAUSE IT DOES ALSO
MENTION -- AND I'VE HAD THIS ABOUT THE SAME TIME.
IT DOES MENTION BUFFER IN THIS PARTICULAR
.
.
.
135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
AGREEMENT ON THE NORTHERN PROPERTY SIDE BETWEEN
CASSELS AND ST. JOHN'S -- OR EXCUSE ME -- JOHN'S
LANDING.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THAT'S CORRECT.
MR. MCLEOD: AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW. MAYBE
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S NEGOTIABLE. MAYBE IT
ISN'T NEGOTIABLE.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: WELL, I THINK IF WE HAD A
CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT THAT -- I MEAN, YOU ALL
SHOULD KNOW WE JUST GOT THIS RECENT MAP ON
THURSDAY. AND THEY DID, TOO. IT WASN'T THEIR
FAULT.
MR. MCLEOD: I UNDERSTAND. BUT YOU FOLKS
HAVE BEEN NEGOTIATING FOR SIX MONTHS.
IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS THAT
THIS COMMISSION NEEDS TO KNOW THAT YOU HAVEN'T
BEEN ABLE TO GET PAST FIRST BASE WITH THE CITY
MANAGER THAT IS GOING TO HOLD UP THE
NEGOTIATIONS? THAT'S REALLY WHAT I'M INTERESTED
IN AT THIS POINT.
IF THERE ISN'T, THEN I REALLY HAVE NO OTHER
ISSUES AT THIS TIME. I WOULD TELL YOU AND THE
CITY MANAGER TO GO FINISH YOUR NEGOTIATIONS.
WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS GIVE YOU AN
.
.
.
136
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
OPPORTUNITY TO SAY HERE'S -- COMMISSION, HERE'S
THE PROBLEM. HERE'S WHY WE CAN'T COME TO THE
FINAL CONCLUSION, BECAUSE OF THIS ISSUE.
AND THIS COMMISSION, I DON'T THINK, HAS HEARD
ANYTHING ABOUT THIS ISSUE. WE KEEP GOING AROUND
AND AROUND.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: NO. I THINK THERE ARE A
NUMBER OF ISSUES BURIED BENEATH THE UMBRELLA OF
THE ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES COMMENT. I MEAN, SOME
OF THIS STUFF --
MR. MCLEOD: BUT YOU ALREADY STATED THAT YOU
AND OUR ATTORNEY CAN GET TOGETHER AND WORK OUT
MR. GRINDSTAFF: WE CAN TRY. WE CAN TRY.
MR. MCLEOD: I'VE HEARD THAT. WHAT IS
SOMETHING NEW?
MR. , GRINDSTAFF: I WOULDN'T HAVE ANYTHING
NEW, IN ADDITION TO THAT. YOU MIGHT.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: BECAUSE IN OUR CONVERSATIONS
WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY MANAGER, WE HAVE
COME TO PRETTY GOOD AGREEMENT ON MOST ISSUES.
IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALWAYS THAT THE DEVIL'S
IN THE DETAILS OF SOMEONE GOING HOME AND WRITING
IT DOWN IN A FORM THAT WHEN HE HANDS IT ACROSS THE
TABLE AND WE READ IT, THAT, YEP, THAT'S WHAT WE
.
.
"'!!,
.
137
1
ALL -- THERE'S -- YOU KNOW, SO I DON'T THINK THERE
2
IS ANYTHING LIKE YOU'RE ASKING FOR.
3
MR. MCLEOD: BUT NOW THERE'S NO MAJOR ISSUE,
4
THOUGH, IS WHAT I'M HEARING.
5
MR. SCHRIMSHER: I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. I
6
THINK THE MAIN ISSUE IS WE DIDN'T EVER GET TO
7
FINISH THAT LAST STEP, THE PROCESS OF COMMITTING
8
TO WRITING SOMETHING THAT BOTH PARTIES ARE WILLING
9
TO SIGN THAT REFLECTS EVERYTHING WE'VE DISCUSSED.
10
MR. MCLEOD: OKAY. BUT WE ,UNDERSTAND THAT.
1 1
I'M STILL LOOKING FOR WHAT IS OUT THERE THAT THIS
1 2
COMMISSION HASN'T HEARD.
1 3
MR. SCHRIMSHER: I DON'T KNOW.
14
MR. MCLEOD: VERY GOOD~ I UNDERSTAND THEN.
1 5
MR. MCLEMORE, HAVE YOU GOT ANYTHING TO THROW
16
ON THIS TABLE THAT IS GOING TO POSSIBLY BE THROWN
17
ON THE TABLE LATER HERE THAT THE SCHRIMSHERS, ALL
18
OF A SUDDEN, ARE GOING TO SAY, HEY, THAT, I DON'T
19
KNOW ABOUT, OR THAT, I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT?
20
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, I'M VERY SURPRISED TO
21
HEAR THIS ISSUE OF PARCEL "F" COME UP AGAIN. WHEN
22
WE ALL SAT AROUND THE TABLE AND MET, WE TALKED
23
ABOUT IT, AND THEIR PLANNER LOOKED AT IT. THEY
24
AGREED, WE WALKED AWAY, EVERYBODY'S IN AGREEMENT.
.
.
.
138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
NOW, ALL OF A SUDDEN, IT'S BECOME AN ISSUE
AGAIN. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT.
THE ISSUE RELATIVE TO THE TRAIL AND THE
BUFFER ZONE, WE TALKED ABOUT ALL THAT. WE
FINISHED. I THOUGHT WE HAD AN AGREEMENT. NOW
IT'S BACK ON THE TABLE AGAIN. I DON'T KNOW WHY
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT AGAIN.
THESE THINGS, I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY'RE -- WE
SEEM TO GET TO A POINT, THEN THE OLD POINTS KEEP
COMING BACK FROM A DISCUSSION. I THOUGHT WE HAD
AN AGREEMENT, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, ON THE SUNSET
ISSUE AND ON THE ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ISSUE.
SO THIS IS WHAT'S BOTHERING ME, IS WHEN WE
AGREE ON SOMETHING, WE NEED TO FINISH IT, SAY IT'S
OVER WITH. IF THERE'S SOMETHING WE LEFT OUT,
SOMETHING THAT WE INTENDED TO BRING IN BUT WE
FAILED TO DO IT, TO ME, THAT'S WORTHY OF FURTHER
NEGOTIATION.
JUST TO BRING UP OLD THINGS YOU THINK YOU'VE
ALREADY SETTLED, AND THEN COME BACK AND PUT THEM
BACK ON THE TABLE AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE EVER
GET THERE FROM HERE.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: I'LL TELL YOU. FIRST OF
ALL, MY PLANNER WASN'T AT ANY OF THE MEETINGS WITH
.
'.
.
139
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
1 2
13
,14
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
you. DICK DAVIS HAS NOT BEEN IN THOSE MEETINGS.
AND SO I DON'T THINK YOU'VE HEARD HIS OPINION OF
PARCEL "F."
AND AS, FOR THE -- YES, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE
BUFFER ZONE AROUND THE TRAIL NEXT TO ST. JOHN'S
LANDING, BUT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'VE REALLY
BEEN ABLE TO SEE THE ACTUAL DRAWING THAT CAME IN
THURSDAY OR FRIDAY OR BOTH.
I'M NOT SAYING IT'S -- AND ALSO, THIS
AGREEMENT, THIS DRAFT THAT MR. GARGANESE SENT, MAY
ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS. I HATE TO REPEAT MYSELF,
BUT IF I HAD READ IT, MAYBE I'D KNOW WHETHER IT
DOES OR NOT.
MR. MCLEOD: OKAY. THAT'S FINE~ AND MAYOR,
I'D LIKE TO STOP THE DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW FROM THE
STANDPOINT, ALL I'M LOOKING FOR IS POINTS THAT
HAVE NOT BEEN BROUGHT OUT. THIS AGREEMENT'S BEEN
BROUGHT OUT SO FAR TONIGHT. THIS HAS BEEN BROUGHT
OUT. I'M REALLY LOOKING FOR THE ISSUES THAT
NOBODY IN THIS COMMISSION KNOWS ABOUT.
AND, BASICALLY, SCHRIMSHERS SAY THEY HAVE
NONE OTHER THAN WHAT THEY'LL FIND IN HERE, IN
THESE DOCUMENTS, AND YOUR NEXT NEGOTIATIONS.
SO WITH THAT IN MIND, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A
.
.
.
140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
13
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MOTION THAT WE NOW TELL THE MANAGER --
MAYOR PART~KA: IN DUE RESPECT, SINCE WE'VE
ALLOWED THEM -- AND THE COMMISSION-- COMMISSIONER
MILLER HAS NOT SPOKEN AND WOULD LIKE TO SAY
SOMETHING. HE'S ASKED, WITH HIS LIGHT ON, FOR A
LONG, L,ONG TIME.
MR. MILLER:
MR. MCLEOD:
THANK YOU.
I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION WHEN
HE'S READY.
MR. MILLER: YOU'RE A VERY SHARP ATTORNEY,
SIR. I GIVE YOU CREDIT FOR THAT. ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT I REMEMBER
MR. GRINDSTAFF: IT HAS TO BE GOING SOMEWHERE
NOT FUN.
MR. MILLER: WHEN YOU' START GETTING INTO ALL
THIS STUFF THIS EVENING ABOUT YOUR CONCERN ABOUT
THE ROAD BEING HERE AND NOT THERE AND THAT THINGS
NEED TO CHANGE AND WHAT GUARANTEES AND ALL THAT,
I'D LIKE TO SHOW YOU THIS MAP, WHICH I'M SURE
YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH. YOU'VE PROBABLY SEEN IT A
THOUSAND TIMES.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: YES, SIR.
MR. MILLER: IT'S THE ORIGINAL TOWN CENTER
AND IT WAS PART OF THE CAUSE OF YOUR HEARTBURN
.
.
.
141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ABOUT -- OR ISSUE ABOUT WHERE IS THE WETLAND
JURISDICTIONAL LINES.
I WOULD LIKE TO READ YOU SOMETHING FROM
PAGE 10, THE PAGE JUST BEFORE IT. I'LL JUST READ
IT TO YOU. I'LL GIVE IT TO YOU LATER ON. YOU
DON'T HAVE TO TAKE MY WORD FOR IT WHAT IT SAYS
MR. GRINDSTAFF: I BELIEVE YOU.
MR. MILLER: -- RATHER THAN MAKE PHOTOCOPIES
AND HAND IT TO YOU RIGHT NOW.
IT SAYS, PARTICULAR DETAILS OF'THE
ILLUSTRATIVE BUILDOUT DRAWINGS AND OTHER SKETCHES,
ILLUSTRATIONS, DRAWINGS, AND DIAGRAMS CONTAINED
HEREIN ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT THE REQUEST OF THE
AFFECTED PARTIES, PROPERTY OWNER, WITH THE
APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE AND,
IF REQUIRED BELOW, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY
COMMISSION.
SUCH DETAILS MAY INCLUDE THE LOCATION,
DIMENSIONS, QUANTITY, CONFIGURATIONS, DESIGN,
FOLLOWING COMPONENTS TO THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
TOWN CENTER. THEN IT GOES ON TO SHOW STREETS AND
ROADS, BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES, STORM WATER
RETENTION.
YOU GO TO PAGE 2, THE INTRODUCTION. THIS IS
:.
.
.
142
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
1 2
13
14
1 5
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
THE -- YOU KNOW, THIS CAME OUT IN MARCH OF LAST
YEAR. SO I'M ABSOLUTELY FLOORED THAT YOU'RE STILL
RAISING THESE ISSUES. WE'VE ALL FORGOTTEN ABOUT
THIS.
SO MY QUESTION THAT I'M ASKING MYSELF IS:'
WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS AT THIS TIME? I MEAN, IS
THIS A TEST Of MY INTELLIGENCE TO RECALL WHERE WE
WERE A YEAR AGO? ARE YOU DOING THIS DELIBERATELY
TO SEE IF WE REMEMBER OUR OWN PLANS?
ON THE BEGINNING OF PAGE 2 IT STATES,
INTERPRETATIONS OF THE STANDARDS IN THIS CODE
SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE.
IN THE (INAUDIBLE) GENERATION, ILLUSTRATIVE
BUILDOUT DRAWINGS ON PAGE 10 OF THE CODE AND
PAGE 6 ON THE ADOPTED MASTER PLAN SHALL SERVE AS A
GUIDANCE TO THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE WITH
REGARD TO THE CITY'S INTENT FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT
IN THE TOWN CENTER. THE IMAGES CONTAINED IN THIS
CODE -- THE IMAGES -- ARE MEANT TO DEMONSTRATE THE
CHARACTER INTENDED.
IT GOES'ON.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: WHAT DO YOU THINK THE IMAGES
ARE, IF YOU COULD JUST SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE
.
.
.
143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
1 2
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
RECORD?
MR. MILLER: THE ISSUE IS THE FOLLOWING.
THIS IS AN IMAGE. WHAT I JUST READ TO YOU A FEW
MOMENTS AGO SPECIFICALLY STATES --
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THAT WOULD BE PAGE 111
MR. MILLER: -- THAT ALL -- THAT'S PAGE 11
THAT ALL THESE THINGS CAN BE MOVED AROUND IF IT
MAKES SENSE.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: EVERYTHING ON PAGE 11 CAN BE
MOVED AROUND.
MR. MILLER: THAT'S WHAT THIS SAYS. I'M JUST
QUOTING YOU WHAT THIS SAYS. WE'LL,MAKE A
PHOTOCOPY AND GIVE IT TO YOU RIGHT NOW. THIS CAME
OUT MARCH OF LAST -- I THINK IT WAS MARCH OF --
'TWO' YEARS AGO. IT WAS PROBABLY FEBRUARY OF LAST
YEAR, I BELIEVE. SO IT'S ALMOST A YEAR OLD.
SO MANY OF THESE ISSUES THAT YOU BROUGHT UP
SHOULDN'T BE BEING BROUGHT UP AT THIS POINT. YOU
OUGHT TO READ WHAT WE ORIGINALLY STARTED OUT AND
JUST ASK US TO RECONFIRM THAT, WHAT WAS IN THIS
DOCUMENT, JUST SOME CLARIFICATION ON THIS.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: COMMISSIONER, THAT WOULD
WORK. IF YOU WOULD JUST SIMPLY SAY IN OUR
COMPANION AGREEMENT THE SAME THING THAT YOU JUST
.
.
.
144
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
SAID AND HOW YOUR OPINION IS, AND YOUR CITY
MANAGER WOULD AGREE WITH YOU, WE'D BE HAPPY AS A
LARK. THERE'S A DISAGREEMENT.
MR. MILLER: IT SADDENS ME, THOUGH, THAT IT
GETS TO THIS POINT WHERE IT'S A CONFRONTATIONAL
TYPE THING. I HAD THOUGHT THAT WE WOULD HAVE TWO
OR THREE POINTS AND WE WOULD BE ABLE TO TELL THE
MANAGER TONIGHT YES, NO, YES. YOU WOULD HEAR
YOU WOULD HEAR WE'LL JUST PRESS ON SO THAT BY
JANUARY, WE'D BE ABLE TO REACH SOME DEFINITIVE
CONCLUSION OF THIS.
BUT EVERY TIME WE GET INTO THIS DISCUSSION,
IT JUST SEEMS LIKE WE PUT IT OFF ANOTHER MONTH OR
TWO. THIS EVENING YOU RAISE THESE GRIEVOUS
CONCERNS TO YOU, AND THEY'RE IN A DOCUMENT THAT'S
OVER A YEAR OLD. IT'S BEEN THERE RIGHT SINCE THE
BEGINNING, DAY ONE. SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU
TO -- WE'LL HAVE THE CLERK MAKE A COPY OF THIS FOR
YOU.
MR. MCLEMORE: HE HAS A COPY.
MR. MILLER: MR. GARGANESE, THIS IS HIS
COPY. I DIDN'T BRING
MR. GRINDSTAFF: YOU MIGHT WANT TO ASK
MR. MCLEMORE IF HE AGREES WITH YOUR
'.
.
.
145
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
13
14
1 5
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
CHARACTERIZATION. I JUST THINK THERE'S SOME
CONFUSION THERE, RON.
MR. MILLER: ANYWAY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO OPEN
THE CONVERSATION TONIGHT. MY POINT IS, I 'THINK
MR. GRINDSTAFF: I DON'T THINK HE AGREES WITH
you.
MR. MILLER: -- YOU SHOULD SIT DOWN WITH THIS
AND ASK HIM, BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS WHAT WE'RE
WORKING -- THIS IS WHAT WE STARTED OUT WORKING
FROM IN THE BEGINNING. AND SINCE THEN, YOUR
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CITY HAVE GONE THIS WAY, THIS
WAY, THIS WAY. AND NOW WE'RE AT SOME POINT OVER
IN LEFT FIELD.
BUT THIS IS WHERE WE STARTED FROM, AND WE'VE
NEVER GOTTEN AWAY FROM IT. THIS IS STILL A LIVING
DOCUMENT. IT COULD BE CHANGED. THAT WAS ALWAYS
MY UNDERSTANDING.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER
YOU,. SIR. I'M INCLINED TO AGREE WITH YOU. I
WOULD LIKE TO JUST SIMPLY RESTATE THAT WE WILL DO
EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID, SIR. WE'LL BE,HAPPY TO
PUT IT IN THERE. ALL WE NEED IS A STATEMENT TO
THAT EFFECT, WHAT YOU JUST SAID.
MR. MILLER:' I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU TAKE
.
.
.
146
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
THAT UP, AFTER THIS MEETING, WITH THE MANAGER AND
, WORK -- UNLESS YOU WANT TO ASK EVERYBODY ELSE.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: I'D LIKE TO KNOW HOW THEY
FEEL ABOUT THAT. THAT'S EXACTLY THE WAY WE FEEL
ABOUT THAT.
MR. MCLEMORE: ARE YOU ASKING ME?
MR. GRINDSTAFF: YES, SIR. I MEAN, I DON'T
KNOW. I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU THINK AND I
THINK NOW IS THE TIME TO CLARIFY THAT.
MR. MCLEMORE: WE HAD EXTENSIVE MEETINGS WITH
YOU-ALL WAY BACK THERE WHEN WE DEVELOPED THIS CODE
AND WHEN WE WERE TRYING -- YOU KNOW, WE DID MAKE
SEVERAL CHANGES IN THE LANGUAGE OF THIS CODE TO
DEMONSTRATE THAT THE CODE WAS FLEXIBLE. EXTENSIVE
DISCUSSIONS IN A WAY TO MAKE THE CODE FLEXIBLE.
TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, I'VE NEVER UNDERSTOOD
WHY WE'RE EVEN MEETING, BECAUSE IT'S ALL IN HERE,
ALWAYS HAS BEEN. OTHER THAN TO MAYBE DISCUSS SOME
ISSUES RELATIVE TO ADVANCED FUNDING OF THE
INFRASTRUCTURE OR WHATEVER TO HELP JUMP-START THE
PROJECT.
WE SPEND HOURS ON THE CODE PROVIDING FOR THAT
KIND OF LANGUAGE. THE LANGUAGE WAS CAREFULLY
CRA,FTED SAYING THOSE KIND OF CHANGES THAT SERVE
.
.
.
147
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
1 5
1 6
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
THE INTENT OF THE CODE, THE CHARACTER, ALL THOSE
KEY WORDS, NOT JUST ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES.
YOU KNOW IT'S WORDS THAT SAYS, AGAIN, THE
MONEY WE INVESTED IN THE PLAN MEANS SOMETHING.
IT'S NOT JUST LINES. IT'S LINES THAT MEAN
SOMETHING. IT'S CHARACTER. IT'S INTENT. IT'S
WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO. WE'VE ALREADY PUT ALL
THAT LANGUAGE IN THERE A YEAR AGO. I AGREE WITH
MR. MILLER.
SO WHAT WERE THE ISSUES? WHY ARE WE GOING
THROUGH ALL THIS? I ASSUME THERE WERE OTHER
ISSUES, OR EVEN WHAT'S ALREADY HERE, YOU AREN'T
COMFORTABLE ENOUGH WITH.
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSIONER -- OKAY. CITY
MANAGER, WE'VE HEARD THIS OVER AND OVER. I'M
GOING TO MOVE THIS ON.
COMMISSIONER MCLEOD, YOU WANTED TO MAKE A
MOTION.
MR. MCLEOD: I THINK I FORGOT IT. I WOULD
LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT THE CITY MANAGER DOES
MEET WITH THE SCHRIMSHERS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS TO
BRING BACK TO US A WORKABLE AGREEMENT, AND I WOULD
HOPE THAT THAT COULD'BE DONE SOMETIME BY THE
MIDDLE OF FEBRUARY.
.
.
.
148
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
1 3
1 4
15
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
IS THERE A SECOND?
I'LL SECOND THAT'.
MAYOR PARTYKA:. OKAY.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL:
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: COMPLETED AND
FINISHED.
MAYOR PARTYKA: ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
MR. MILLER: SET A DATE CERTAIN.
MR. MCLEOD: NO. I SAID I ~OULD HOPE IT
WOULD BE BY THE MIDDLE OF FEBRUARY.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: LET'S ASK FOR IT TO
COME BACK THE FIRST MEETING IN FEBRUARY.
MAYOR PARTYKA: HOLD IT. THERE'S ONLY ONE
MOTION ON THE FLOOR. IT'S SECONDED. IT EITHER
STAYS THE WAY IT IS OR WE'RE LOOKING FOR AN
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION.
MR. MILLER: I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN
AMENDMENT.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. MAKE AN AMENDMENT.
MR. MILLER: I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT WE HAVE
IT COME BACK TO US BY THE 25TH OF JANUARY, WHICH
WOULD BE THE SECOND MEETING IN JANUARY.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND TO
THE AMENDMENT?
MR. MILLER: I'M SORRY. THE 24TH OF JANUARY.
.
.
.
149
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
1 4
1 5
16
17
'8
19
20
21
22
23
24
MAYOR PARTYKA: IS THERE A SECOND TO THE
,AMENDMENT?
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: I'LL SECOND THAT.
MAYOR PARTYKA: ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT
AMENDMENT? OKAY. CALL THE VOTE FOR THE
AMENDMENT.
'THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MCLEOD.
MR. MCLEOD: NO.
THE CLERK: DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: AYE.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
MR. MARTINEZ: NAY. IT'S TOO SOON.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
MR. BLAKE: NO.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MILLER.
MR. MILLER: AYE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: THE AMENDMENT FAILS. GOING
BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION. AND YOU HAVE A
LIGHT~ COMMISSIONER,GENNELL?
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: YES. THEN I MAKE A
MOTION. WHAT'S OUR FIRST MEETING IN FEBRUARY?
MAYOR PARTYKA: NO. NO. THERE IS A MOTION
ALREADY.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: I MAKE AN AMENDMENT.
'.
.
.
150
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
1 4
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MAYOR PARTYKA: A SECOND AMENDMENT. OKAY.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: THAT IT BE BROUGHT
BACK TO US BY THE FIRST MEETING IN FEBRUARY.
MR. MILLER: 14TH.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: FEBRUARY 14.
MR. MILLER: IT'S VALENTINE'S DAY, ALSO. WE
ALSO HAVE A VERY EXTENSIVE MEETING THAT DAY ON
SOMETHING ELSE.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: NO. JANUARY.
MR. MILLER: ANYWAY, SO THAT'S THE SECOND
MEETING -- FIRST MEETING IN FEBRUARY.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: FEBRUARY 14TH. THAT'S
MY AMENDMENT.
MR. MARTINEZ:
MAYOR PARTYKA:
SECOND.
SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION ON
THE AMENDMENT? CALL THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MILLER.
MR. MILLER: AYE.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
MR. MARTINEZ: AYE.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MCLEOD.
MR. MCLEOD: AYE.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
MR. BLAKE: NO.
.
.
.
1 51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
1 2
13
1 4
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
THE CLERK: DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: AYE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. MOTION PASSES ON THE
AMENDMENT. CALL THE MOTION, THE MAIN MOTION.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
MR. BLAKE: REREAD THE MAIN MOTION NOW,
PLEASE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: READ THE MAIN MOTION. IT'S
DISCUSSIONS TO MEET WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND THE
SCHRIMSHERS AND TO HAVE IT, I GUESS, WORKED OUT BY
FEBRUARY.14TH.
MR. MARTINEZ: SAME AS THE EARLIER MOTION BUT
IT'S A DIFFERENT DATE. THAT'S ALL IT IS.
MR. MCLEOD: I SAID BY THE MIDDLE OF
FEBRUARY.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: HE SAID BRING BACK A
WORKING DOCUMENT.
MAYOR PARTYKA: LET'S GO. THE MOTION IS
THERE.
DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND THE MOTION?
MR. MARTINEZ: (INAUDIBLE) NEGOTIATIONS.
MAYOR PARTYKA: EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND THE
MOTION? CALL THE VOTE.
MR. MILLER: CAN'T SHE READ THAT?
.
.
.
152
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MAYOR PARTYKA: READ THE 'MOTION.
THE CLERK: I'M SORRY? READ THE MOTION?
JUST ONE SECOND.
COMMISSIONER MCLEOD SAID TO HAVE THE CITY
MANAGER MEET WITH THE SCHRIMSHER ORGANIZATION AND
BRING BACK A DOCUMENT BY THE MIDDLE OF FEBRUARY.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. WITH THE AMENDMENT,
IT'S NOW FEBRUARY 14TH.
MR. MARTINEZ: THAT'S THE MIDDLE OF FEBRUARY.
MAYOR PARTYKA: AGAIN, FEBRUARY 14TH.
CALL THE VOTE, PLEASE.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
MR. BLAKE: DIDN'T WE ALREADY VOTE ON THIS
MOTION AN HOUR AGO?
MAYOR PARTYKA: WE VOTED ON THE AMENDMENT.
MR. BLAKE: AN HOUR AGO. DIDN'T WE ALREADY
VOTE ON THIS MOTION?
MR. MARTINEZ: NO. IT WAS TOO EARLY.
MAYOR PARTYKA: THE MOTION IS -- CALL THE
VOTE.
MR. BLAKE: AYE.
THE CLERK: DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: AYE.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER KILLER.
.
.
.
153
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. MILLER: AYE.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
MR. MARTINEZ: AYE.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MCLEOD.
MR. MCLEOD: AYE.
MR. MARTINEZ: ,OH, LORD. THANK YOU.
MAYOR PARTYKA: IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE
REQUIRED WITH THIS? DO YOU HAVE TO VOTE TO '
POSTPONE THE READING ON THIS?
MR. GARGANESE: YES. ON THE TOWN CENTER
DISTRICT CODE ZONING ORDINANCE, YOU NEED A MOTION
TO POSTPONE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: SO I NEED A MOTION TO DELAY
THE THIRD READING OF ORDINANCE 707 TO SOME.FUTURE
DATE.
MR. MARTINEZ:
MAYOR PARTYKA:
SO MOVED.
OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND?
MR. MCLEOD: SECOND.
MR. BLAKE: MAYOR, THAT'S NOT AN ACCEPTABLE
MOTION.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. WE HAVE TO HAVE ,A FIRM,
DATE?
YES.
OKAY.
MR. GARGANESE:
MAYOR PARTYKA:
COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
154
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. MARTINEZ: WHAT DATE IS FEASIBLE?
MR. GARGANESE: WELL, MAYBE NO EARLIER THAN
FEBRUARY 14TH, BECAUSE THAT'S THE DATE THAT
MR. MARTINEZ: FEBRUARY 14TH, THE SAME DAY.
MAYOR PARTYKA: IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT?
MR. MCLEOD: I'LL SECOND THAT.
MAYOR PARTYKA: ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? CALL
THE VOTE.
THE CLERK: DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: AYE.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MILLER.
MR. MILLER: AYE.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
MR. MARTINEZ: AYE.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MCLEOD.
MR. MCLEOD: AYE.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
MR. BLAKE: AYE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. MOTION PASSES.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE ONE POINT HERE. YOU KNOW, A
LOT OF THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAD IN THIS DISCUSSION
OF THREE HOURS, ALMOST THREE HOURS, IS BECAUSE WE
DID NOT HAVE THIS INFORMATION ON TIME FOR ALL
PARTIES CONCERNED WHERE WE CAN TALK.
.
.
.
.
.
155
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
I'LL TELL YOU WHAT -- WELL, (INAUDIBLE)
COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ. AND I'M GETTING TIRED OF
THIS FOR US TO MAKE THESE KIND OF DECISIONS ,ALL.
THE TIME. THAT CAUSES A LOT OF OUR PROBLEMS HERE,
BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE INFORMATION FOR ALL PARTIES
CONCERNED AND ALL PARTIES ARE FORCED TO MAKE
DECISIONS WITHOUT LOOKING AT THINGS. WE CANNOT DO
THIS.
MR. MARTINEZ: MR. MAYOR, WE JUST STATED THAT
IF THE MATERIAL WASN'T HERE BY WEDNESDAY, THAT WE
WOULD NOT DEAL WITH IT ON THE MEETING SCHEDULED
FOR THE NEXT MONDAY.
MAYOR PARTYKA: THIS IS UNCALLED FOR. WE
STARTED WITH THIS AS A HALF-HOUR PRESENTATION JUST
TO GET OUT THE ISSUES, NOT TO GET INTO THESE KIND
OF LONG-TERM DEBATES, BECAUSE BOTH SIDES,
INCLUDING US AND THEM, DOES NOT HAVE THE
INFORMATION TO MAKE VALID DECISIONS.
I URGE YOU IN THE FUTURE, IF THIS HAPPENS
AGAIN, WE JUST DON'T TOUCH IT. GIVE EVERYBODY A
WEEK, TWO WEEKS, OR WHATEVER. WE JUST DON'T TALK
ABOUT IT. WE CANNOT DO THIS. THIS CAUSES HALF OF
OUR PROBLEMS.
THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY. THANK YOU FOR
.
.
.
156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
1 2
13
14
1 5
1 6
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
YOUR PATIENCE.
COMMISSIONERS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THE NEXT TOPIC IS RELATED.
MAYOR PARTYKA: "D." MIGHT AS WELL SIT
THERE. REQUEST THE CITY COMMISSION HOLD A PUBLIC
HEARING TO TRANSMIT THE LARGE SCALE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENT (LG-CPA-1-99) TO THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, THAT WOULD CREATE
A FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION "TOWN CENTER"
AND ADD GOAL, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES TO THE TEXT
OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE CITY'S
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (VOLUME 2 OF 2).
STAFF, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE
DONE?
. MR. MCLEMORE: TOM'S COMING RIGHT NOW.
MAYOR PARTYKA: THOMAS, THANK YOU.
MR. GRIMMS: MR. CHAIRMAN, WE'RE ON AGENDA
ITEM
MAYOR PARTYKA: "D" AS IN DOG.
MR. GRIMMS: RIGHT. OKAY. THIS IS OUR
LONG-AWAITED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, LARGE
SCALE, FOR THE TOWN CENTER. AND THIS IS ALSO PART
OF OUR FALL 1999 SUBMISSION CYCLE TO DCA. THIS
ONE INVOLVES THE TOWN CENTER, AND IT ENCOMPASSES
.
.
.
157
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
13
1 4
1 5
16
17 ,
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
THE CREATION OF FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATIONS,
TOWN CENTER FOR THE COMP PLAN, AND TO ADD SPECIFIC
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES TO THE TEXT IN OUR
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMP PLAN, VOLUME 2 OF 2.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY~ COMMISSIONER GENNELL.
DID YOU SAY SOMETHING?
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: MY LIGHT IS NOT ON.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. ANY COMMENTS FROM
ANYONE? OKAY. I'LL OPEN THIS UP TO PUBLIC INPUT
FIRST.
MR. DIMINICO.
MR. DIMINICO: YES, SIR. IN THE INTEREST OF
TIME, I'LL TALK --
MAYOR PARTYKA: NO. NO. NO.
MR.' DIMINICO: THERE WAS NO PUBLIC COMMENT ON
THE LAST ISSUE. MY NAME IS JOE DIMINICO, 95 TRUIN
TRACE.
I COMMEND YOU, MR. MAYOR, FOR WHAT YOU
BROUGHT UP. AND IF I MIGHT INDULGE THE COMMISSION
AND YOU AND THE CITY CLERK IN THE SPIRIT OF
CHRISTMAS, IN VIEW OF YOUR COMMENT, I SHOULD LIKE
TO MAKE A PUBLIC APOLOGY FOR MY ANGER AND INSULTS
THAT I'VE THROWN AROUND AS A RESULT OF YOU BEING
THE ACCOUNTABLE ELECTED OFFICIALS, HOWEVER, NOT
.
.
.
158
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
1 3
14
1 5
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
GETTING THIS INFORMATION FROM THE UNACCOUNTABLE
EMPLOYEES.
MY QUESTION IS: ON WHAT ISSUE DOES ONE
PARTICULAR PLANNER, SUCH AS MR. LEBLANC, DEAL WITH
THE ECKERD'S SIGN? WHY DOES MR. GRIMMS DEAL WITH
PARCELS 7 AND 8? AND WHY IS THE CITY MANAGER
DEALING WITH THE TOWN CENTER WHEN HE OBVIOUSLY HAS
A MYRIAD OF OTHER DUTIES TO PERFORM BEYOND BEING A
PLANNER?
IT JUST IS NOT PASSING THE MAKE-SENSE TEST.
I WANT TO SAY FROM THE PUBLIC'S PERCEPTION THAT I
HOPE THAT YOUR COMMENT THAT THIS HAS TO STOP, AND
MR. MARTINEZ'S COMMENT THAT IF YOU DON'T GET IT BY
WEDNESDAY, YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT IT, IT COMES OFF
THE AGENDA, IS SOMETHING THAT YOU WILL STICK TO.
AGAIN, I APPLAUD YOU FOR WHAT YOU HAVE JUST
PUT ON THE PUBLIC RECORD. I REALLY HOPE THAT WE
CAN STICK TO THAT. THANK YOU, SIR.
MAYOR PARTYKA: THANK YOU, MR. DIMINICO.
MAKE SURE TO FILL OUT THE SHEET. OKAY.
ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK UNDER PUBLIC
INPUT?
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THIS WOULD BE BRIEF,
MR. MAYOR. I APPEARED AT THE PZ MEETING ON
.
.
.
159
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
1 5
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
NOVEMBER -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT DATE IT WAS -- IT
WAS THE WEDNESDAY NIGHT BEFORE THANKSGIVING WHEN
THIS THING WAS HEARD -- AND EXPRESSED A FEW
COMMENTS JUST FOR THE RECORD TO STATE THAT THE
SCHRIMSHER GROUP WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF THE TOWN
CENTER COMP PLAN CHANGE AND TOWN CENTER ZONING
CHANGE WITHOUT THE COMPANION AGREEMENT THAT
ADDRESSES SOME FACTS AND SITUATIONS AND PROBLEMS
THAT ARE UNIQUE TO SCHRIMSHER, WHICH WE'VE BEEN
TALKING ABOUT NOW FOR OVER 12 MONTHS.
AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY REASON ,TO GET
BACK INTO IT. I JUST WANTED TO BE ON THE RECORD
AS THIS NEW ORDINANCE WAS WORKING ITS WAY THROUGH,
JUST TO POINT THAT OUT.
AND I COMMEND THE PZ FOR -- OVER ONE YEAR
LATER, AFTER THEY HEARD THE TOWN CENTER DESIGN
CODE ORDINANCE, TO ALSO TAKING SIMILAR ACTION WHEN
THEY HEARD THE TOWN CENTER COMP PLAN AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE AND THAT THEY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH
THE EXCLUSION 'OF THE SCHRIMSHER PROPERTIES AND ANY
OTHER PROPERTY THAT DIDN'T HAVE AN AGREEMENT THAT
DEALT SPECIFICALLY WITH IT.
SO THAT'S IT. I KNOW WE'RE WORKING ON THAT
AGREEMENT.
.
.
.
160
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
1 5
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MAYOR PARTYKA: THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE?
OKAY. I'D LIKE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION
PART OF THIS MEETING AND OPEN THIS BACK UP TO
COMMISSION DISCUSSION.
COMMISSIONERS?
MR. MARTINEZ: CAN WE HEAR FROM THE MANAGER
ON THIS?
MAYOR PARTYKA: SURE.
MR. MCLEMORE: WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO HEAR?
OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS,
TRANSMIT THIS TONIGHT.
MR. MARTINEZ: THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO HEAR.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. AGAIN, LOOKING FOR AN
ACTION HERE BY SOMEBODY. LOOKING FOR A MOTION.
COMMISSIONER GENNELL.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: YES. I MOVE TO
FORWARD THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
IS IT AN AMENDMENT?
MAYOR PARTYKA: LARGE SCALE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN.
DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: YES. (INAUDIBLE)
COMMISSIONER MCLEOD. TO MOVE IT FORWARD, TRANSMIT
IT TO DCA.
MAYOR PARTYKA: IS THERE A SECOND?
161
.
1 MR. MARTINEZ: SECOND.
2 MAYOR PARTYKA: SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
3 MARTINEZ.
4 ANY DISCUSSION? CALL THE VOTE.
5 THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
6 MR. MARTINEZ: AYE.
7 THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
8 MR. BLAKE: AYE.
9 THE CLERK: DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL.
10 DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: AYE.
11 THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MILLER.
12 MR. MILLER: AYE.
13 THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MCLEOD.
14 MR. MCLEOD: AYE.
15 MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. MOTION PASSES. THANK
16 YOu.
17 (WHEREUPON, THE MEETING WAS CONCLUDED AT
18 10:30 P.M.)
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
.
.
.,
162
1
2
3
4
CERTIFICATE OF OATH
5
6
7
STATE OF FLORIDA)
8 COUNTY OF ORANGE)
9
10 I, SANDRA A. MOSER, REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL
REPORTER, CERTIFY THAT I WAS AUTHORIZED TO AND DID
11 STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORT THE FOREGOING PROCEEDING AND
THAT THE TRANSCRIPT IS A TRUE RECORD.
12
.
.
I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT I AM NOT A RELATIVE,
13 EMPLOYEE, ATTORNEY OR COUNSEL OF ANY OF THE PARTIES,
NOR AM I FINANCIALLY INTERESTED IN THE ACTION.
14
15 DATED THIS 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2000.
16
~\o..) (1, ~Ciu.(.
/
----------------------------
SANDRA A. MOSER, R.P.R.
17
18
19
NOTARY PUBLIC- STATE OF FLORIDA
20
21
22
......:'......... SANDRA A. MOSER
(.r';&'3 MY COMMIS~ION. . CC 733210
%~-!'I EXPIRES, Apn112. 2002
'~~iii..'fr,l(...., Bonded Thru NOIIry NlIic UndIrWri.rs
23
24
"
,
I" .-
~. . .'
.. ~ .
,. - ,
i.,.,.,.
.,
:;,. .
, ,
'1: ~ .
-,
,:..'..
h '
.
;.
" ~ . ~
tmTM:
, Registered
, Prolessional
Reporter'
COpy
"
'.... ..- ..1
, .
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS'
, ..
., '
, "
-. .'. .
.' ,
" '
. ,",
. '.' ~
. '
CIT.Y OF WINTER SPRI~GS" FLORIDA ' ,
CITY ~OMMISsiQN- ~EGULAR MEETING
, "
----------------------------------------
. .' -
, "
. . . .
TRANSCRIPT OF REGULAR MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY ,14,"
2000, BEGINNING AT 5:15P.M.,AT. CITY COMMISSION
C~AMBERS, ,i12,,6E,AST STATE ROAD,434, WINTER SPRINGS, ,
FLORIDA, AND REPORTED BY SANDRA 'A. MOSER, REGISTERED
PROFESSIONAL RE~ORTER:ANDNOTARY 'PUBLIC, STATE ,OF,
FLORIDA AT LARGE. " ' ,
, .
~ -... - ,. ~ ~ .
oS ."'
. ."'
"'Realtime
, '
. ' J
.~..':~. :'.,.. ":'.: .
r' , , ,..
;"rters, Inc_:-'
, -.
'. " ~
" Registered Professional Reporters :' ".
,'. ,:': Certjfied Video Technicians' .' '
, ., .
, ,
1188 Fox Fo~~st Clrcl~' -, APOPk~, Florida 327f2- (407) 8~~2 . FAX, (407) 884~ " I~I "
:'~ ' .",: " .".,'" ~ncJ~a A. Dawkins, Pr~slcJent ...",.'. ,,',' Orl!..dO-
, " .,', 'Professional ReporttngSlnce .1977' , ' , ' '_7.:E:.. . '
, ,
.
.
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
2
1
PRO C E E DIN G S
2
MAYOR PARTYKA: HE SUGGESTED THAT THREE ITEMS
I
3
BE WORKED TOGETHER AT LEAST IN A DIFFERENT ORDER
4
THAN WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.
5
THE FIRST ONE, UNDER REGULAR ITEM D, WHICH
6
TALKS AGAIN TO THE WHOLE IDEA OF THE DOWNTOWN
7
CENTER, SHOULD BE HANDLED FIRST[ HE SUGGESTS.
8
THEN AFTER THAT, TO ADD ON ITEM F, WHICH
9
TALKS TO SCHRIMSHER ISSUES. AND THEN AFTER THAT
10
IS HANDLED~ THEN WE COULD HANDLE THE ISSUE OF
11
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM B IN ORDER OF PRIORITY.
IS
12
THAT CORRECT, MR. MCLEMORE?
13
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, I THINK THE INFORMATION
14
BUILDS UP TO THE FINAL ANSWER AS TO WHAT YOU'RE
15
GOING TO DO WITH THE CODE.
16
MAYOR PARTYKA: YES.
I AGREE.
17
MR. MCLEMORE: WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE
18
UNDERSTAND REGULAR ITEM D, WHICH IS THE OGT
UPDATE, AND BRING YOU UP TO DATE ON THE
OUTSTANDING ISSUES. AND THEN YOU CAN DECIDE WHAT
YOU WANT TO DO WITH THE CODE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: WOULD IT MAKE SENSE -- JUST
FROM AN ORDER OF DOING THIS, WOULD IT MAKE SENSE
THAT PRIOR TO PUBLIC HEARING, ALL RIGHT[ WE GO
REGULAR ITEM D[ REGULAR ITEM F[ AND THEN WE GO
.
.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
3
1
WITH THE B? HOW'S THAT AS AN ORDER?
2
MR. MCLEMORE: SURE.
3
MAYOR PARTYKA: ALL RIGHT. THAT'S THE ONLY
4
ONE WE'LL -- AT LEAST AT THIS POINT
5
MR. MILLER: SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME.
6
MAYOR PARTYKA: REGULAR ITEM D, THEN REGULAR
7
ITEM F, WHICH IS THE ADD-ON ITEM.
8
MR. MILLER: WE HAVE AN AMENDED?
9
MAYOR PARTYKA: YES. RIGHT.
IT SHOULD BE IN
10
THE PACKET, COMMISSIONER.
I JUST PICKED IT UP
11
THIS MORNING.
12
MR. BLAKE: BUT THE ITEMS ATTACHED TO THE
13
FIRST ONE AS AMENDED.
14
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY.
15
MR. BLAKE: AND THEN THE THIRD ITEM.
16
MAYOR PARTYKA: THE THIRD WOULD BE A PUBLIC
HEARING, ITEM Bi "B" AS IN BOY.
MR. BLAKE: NOW, DO WE WANT TO MOVE THOSE
OTHER ITEMS UP PRIOR TO HEARING THAT?
MAYOR PARTYKA: THAT'S WHAT I'M SUGGESTING,
YES.
MR. BLAKE: NOT THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEM BACK?
MAYOR PARTYKA: NO. SO WE'LL BRING THOSE TWO
ITEMS UP, AND THEN WE'LL GO TO B, AND THEN WE'LL
FOLLOW THE NORMAL PATTERN. OKAY.
4
.
1 MR. MILLER: SO AFTER A, THEN WE'LL INSERT D
2 AND THEN E -- I'M SORRY -- D AND THEN F, AND THEN
3 WE'LL GO TO B.
4 MAYOR PARTYKA: WHAT WE'LL DO FOR THE SAKE OF
5 DOING IT TOGETHER, MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE TO
6 HANDLE D, F, AND B TOGETHER BEFORE WE GET TO A.
7 MR. BLAKE: BEFORE WE GET TO A?
8 MAYOR PARTYKA: YES, BEFORE WE GET TO A, JUST
9 SO WE GET IT ALL OUT OF THE WAY. OKAY?
10 MR. BLAKE: OKAY.
11 MAYOR PARTYKA: THEN WE'LL FOLLOW THE NORMAL
12 SEQUENCE.
13 IS THERE ANY OTHER ITEMS? LET ME FILL THIS
14 ONE, JUST SO YOU KNOW, WITH "ADD-ON" SO YOU KNOW
15 WHAT THAT IS WITH COMMISSIONER ROBERT DALLARI
16 COMING UP.
17 (WHEREUPON, THE WORKSHOP WAS CONDUCTED, BUT NOT
18 STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORTED.)
19 MAYOR PARTYKA: IDENTIFY YOURSELF.
20 MS. SCARLATA: TERRY SCARLATA, 1006 NANCY
21 CIRCLE.
22 AS YOU KNOW, THERE ARE QUITE A FEW OF US WHO
23 ARE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT LIES IN STORE FOR THE
24 RECREATIONAL BOUNDARIES TO CENTRAL WINDS PARK.
25 TONIGHT I BRING TO YOU A PETITION WITH 109
.
.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
5
SIGNATURES FROM PEOPLE WHO WISH TO PROTECT THE
AREA ZONED FOR RECREATION IN WINTER SPRINGS AND,
IN PARTICULAR, CENTRAL WINDS PARK. I'LL BRING
MORE SIGNATURES IN THE NEXT FEW MEETINGS AS THERE
ARE STILL A FEW VOLUNTEERS CIRCULATING COPIES OF
THIS PETITION IN THE AREA.
THOUGH I APPROVE OF THE TOWN CENTER IN
CONCEPT, I AM CONCERNED THAT THIS SPECIAL DISTRICT
IS A TROJAN HORSE. ONCE YOU DO AWAY WITH THE
RECREATIONAL ZONING FOR THE 59-ACRE PARK, THERE'S
NOTHING TO STOP YOU OR YOUR SUCCESSORS FROM USING
THE LAND FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN ITS CURRENT
RECREATIONAL INTENT.
BECAUSE OF THIS CONCERN, I HAVE TRIED TO
OBTAIN A COPY OF THE PLAT TO CENTRAL WINDS TO SEE
IF THERE ARE ANY PERPETUAL DEDICATIONS TO THE
PUBLIC. I HAVE IT ON WORD FROM THE CITY
REPRESENTATIVE THAT NO PLAT EXISTS.
I HAVE TRIED TO OBTAIN THE DEEDS TO THE
PROPERTY TO SEE IF IT LISTS DEDICATIONS OR
EASEMENT RIGHTS, BUT A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST FOR
THE DEEDS ONLY NETTED A COPY OF THE WARRANTY
DEED. AS SOON AS TIME ALLOWS, I'LL PURSUE THIS IN
YET ANOTHER PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST FOLLOW-UP TO
ASK FOR THE ORIGINAL DEED.
.
.
24
.
25
6
1
I FIND IT VERY DISAPPOINTING THAT THIS DEED
2
TO CENTRAL WINDS PARK ISN'T PART OF THE FILES FOR
3
THE TOWN CENTER.
I QUESTION WHY IT ISN'T.
IF
4
YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND
5
ESPECIALLY ABOUT PROTECTING OUR CURRENT
6
RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES, YOU SHOULD INSTRUCT
7
THE STAFF TO CONDUCT A THOROUGH SEARCH TO
8
DETERMINE IF THERE IS ANY DOCUMENT THAT ALREADY
9
PROVIDES THIS DEDICATION.
IF NONE EXISTS, MAY I
10
SUGGEST THAT YOU SHOW YOUR COMMITMENT TO PROTECT
11
CENTRAL WINDS PARK BY INSTRUCTING THAT ONE BE
12
RECORDED WITH THE COUNTY.
13
I SEE IRONIES ALL AROUND WITH THIS PARK
14
ISSUE. AT ONE TIME YOU HAD AMPLE SPACE FOR
15
PARKS. YOU HAD GOOD RECREATIONAL AREAS LOCATED
16
NEAR MAJOR ROADWAYS.
I'M REFERRING TO THE MARINA,
17
STABLE AREA, AND THE LARGE PARK AREA WHICH IS NOW
18
I
THE LOCATION FOR DAVENPORT GLEN. THESE WOULD HAVE
19
BEEN EVERYONE'S FIRST CHOICE FOR A RECREATION AREA
20
BECAUSE OF THEIR PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS
21
AND, ALSO, A MAJOR ROADWAY AND, THUS, WOULD HAVE
22
GONE FAR TO CUT DOWN ON THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION
23
COMPLAINTS YOU HEAR TODAY.
THE DEMAND FOR RECREATION AREAS IS NOT GOING
TO GO AWAY AND, IN FACT, WILL BECOME GREATER AS
7
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE CITY'S POPULATION GROWS TO INCLUDE ANOTHER
10,000 PEOPLE BY THE YEAR 2010.
TO SUM IT UP, I AND THOSE WHO HAVE SIGNED
THIS PETITION ARE IN SUPPORT OF PROTECTING CENTRAL
WINDS PARK, BECAUSE WE RECOGNIZE ITS IMPORTANCE
AND VALUE TO THE CITY AS A COMMUNITY PARK OFF A
MAJOR ROADWAY. WHAT ALTERNATIVES YOU HAVE LEFT IN
WINTER SPRINGS ARE OFF THE BEATEN PATH. AND AS
DEMAND FOR RECREATION GROWS, AREAS GROW, WE'RE
SURE TO HAVE GOOD TIMES IN CENTRAL WINDS PARK --
TIMES IN CITY HALL ONCE THE PUBLIC BECOMES AWARE
OF THEIR EXISTENCE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MRS. SCARLATA. COULD YOU SIT RIGHT THERE? I JUST!
WANT TO CLARIFY A POINT OF FACT. THE DEED SHOULD
BE RECORDED. I IMAGINE WE HAVE A DEED.
CITY MANAGER.
MR. MCLEMORE: I'VE NEVER READ THE DEED. I
THINK SHE JUST SAID WE HAVE A DEED. I WASN'T HERE
WHEN THE PARK WAS BUILT.
MAYOR PARTYKA: I THOUGHT YOU SAID --
MS. SCARLATA: NO. I'M THE SAME WAY. I'M
ASKING FOR THE DEED. YOU HAVE A WARRANTY DEED,
AND IT DOES MAKE REFERENCES. LOOK AT THE WARRANTY
DEED, AND IT DOES MAKE REFERENCE TO A DEED AND
.
.
8
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
EASEMENT AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: WHAT I'M SAYING IS YOU CAN'T
GET A COPY OF THE DEED?
MS. SCARLATA: NO, I CANNOT GET A COPY.
MR. MCLEMORE: IF I CAN ANSWER. I DON'T KNOW
THE FACTS SURROUNDING THIS. I KNOW THAT MR. LE
BLANC DID TELL ME THAT AS FAR AS HE KNEW THERE WAS
NOT A PLAT OF CENTRAL WINDS PARK.
I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED BACK
WHENEVER IT WAS DONE. BUT I THINK -- I DON'T SEE
ANY REASON WHY WE WOULD WANT TO GO BACK AND
PROVIDE SOME TYPE OF INSTRUMENT THAT WOULD
DEDICATE THE PARK. WE'LL GET WITH THE CITY
ATTORNEY AND LOOK AT THIS AND SEE WHAT WE HAVE TO
DO.
.
MS. SCARLATA:
MR. MCLEMORE:
I'D APPRECIATE THAT.
SURE.
.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. VERY GOOD. GIVEN THAT
AS BACKGROUND, COMMISSIONER BLAKE HAS A COMMENT,
AND COMMISSIONER MILLER.
MR. BLAKE: THANK YOU, MAYOR. MR. ATTORNEY,
THE TOWN CENTER DISTRICT CODE IS A NEW ZONING
CLASSIFICATION, CORRECT?
MR. GARGANESE: YES.
MR. BLAKE: BUT THE UNDERLYING LAND USE
.
.
20
21
23
24
.
25
9
1
DESIGNATION ON THE PROPERTY ALSO HAS SOME BEARING
2
ON HOW THAT PROPERTY COULD ULTIMATELY, IF EVER, BE
3
DEVELOPED, DOES IT NOT?
4
MR. GARGANESE: YES, SIR.
5
MR. BLAKE: SO WHERE CENTRAL WINDS PARK IS,
6
IF THAT PROPERTY
AND I'M NOT.
I BELIEVE IT IS,
7
BUT I CAN'T SAY WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE MAP -- IF
8
THAT PROPERTY IS CLASSIFIED AS A RECREATIONAL LAND
9
USE, THEN THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO HAND-IN-HAND WITH
10
THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION; WHICH THIS TOWN CENTER
11
ZONING CLASSIFICATION DOES ALSO HAVE SQUARES AND
12
PARKS, MEANING THOSE AREAS THAT ARE UNDEVELOPED OR
13
USED FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES.
14
SO, IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT
15
HERE IS THE SIMPLE FACT THAT A TOWN CENTER
16
DISTRICT CODE WOULD BE THE ZONING FOR THE DIRT.
17
THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY, IN AND OF ITSELF, TELL
18
US WHAT THE ULTIMATE LAND USE OF THAT PARCEL COULD
19
BE UNTIL YOU GO BACK TO LOOK AT THE LAND USE AND
EVERYTHING ELSE WITHIN THE CODE.
MR. GARGANESE: THAT'S CORRECT. YOU HAVE TO
22
LOOK AT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN CONJUNCTION WITH
THE ZONING CODE.
MR. BLAKE: OKAY.
I WANT TO BE SURE WE
WEREN'T TAKING A STEP TO ZONE THE PARK WHERE WE
.
.
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
10
1
COULD BUILD SKYSCRAPERS.
2
MS. SCARLATA: CAN I JUST SAY SOMETHING?
3
BECAUSE I HAVE MENTIONED THIS.
I HEARD --
4
MAYOR PARTYKA: COULD YOU HOLD ON FOR ONE
5
SECOND?
6
MS. SCARLATA: SURE.
7
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSIONER MILLER, COMMENT?
8
MR. MILLER: OH, THAT'S FINE. SHE CAN MAKE
9
HER COMMENTS.
10
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. MRS. SCARLATA.
11
MS. SCARLATA: THE REASON WHY WE WANT THE
12
DEDICATION, IF IT'S BEING OFFERED, IS BECAUSE I DO
13
KNOW THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CAN BE AMENDED VERY
14
EASILY THROUGH THE EVALUATION APPRAISAL REPORT. I
15
THINK THAT KIND OF SNEAKS THROUGH SOMETIMES.
16
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. THANK YOU.
17
COMMISSIONER MILLER.
18
MR. MILLER: WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A
19
PRESENTATION, I THINK, FOLLOWING PUBLIC INPUT THIS
EVENING. YOU'RE AWARE OF THAT?
MS. SCARLATA: YES.
MR. MILLER: BECAUSE YOU SHOULD STAY FOR IT.
I THINK IT ADDRESSES SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT
YOU'VE RAISED HERE THIS EVENING. YOU SHOULD
STAY. EITHER THAT OR DEFINITELY PICK UP A COPY OF
11
1 THE MATERIAL.
2 MS. SCARLATA: OKAY.
3 MR. MILLER: THANK YOU.
4 MAYOR PARTYKA: GOOD. THERE ARE NO OTHER
5 REQUESTS TO SPEAK UNDER PUBLIC INPUT.
6 (WHEREUPON, OTHER AGENDA ITEMS WERE WAS CONDUCTED, BUT
7 NOT STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORTED.)
8 MAYOR PARTYKA: WE ARE NOW ON B. THIS IS
9 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM THE PLANNING
10 COMMISSION. REQUESTS THE CITY COMMISSION REVIEW
11 THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION REGARDING CONCURRENCY
12 MANAGEMENT RELATED TO THE PARKS SYSTEM.
13 STAFF DESIRES TO MAKE A SHORT PRESENTATION ON
14 THIS ITEM. YOU HAVE THE FLOOR, TOM.
.
.
.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TOM: MR. MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MAKE
SOME BRIEF OVERVIEW REMARKS HERE.
DURING THE JANUARY 24, 2000, CITY COMMISSION
MEETING, QUESTIONS WERE RAISED OR ASKED ABOUT THE
STATE OF THE CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROVIDES THAT DEVELOPERS
DEDICATE RECREATION LAND OR CASH IN LIEU. IF
LEVEL SERVICE STANDARDS ARE NOT MET AT THE TIME OF
-
DEVELOPMENT, THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT IS REVIEWED
AND APPROVED.
THE LDR'S REQUIRE THAT A DEVELOPER OF
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
-
23
24
25
.
.
12
PROPERTY OVER 20 ACRES, BUT EXCLUDING PUD'S,
CONFER WITH THE PNZ BOARD IN REGARD TO AREAS FOR
PUBLIC USE. AN AREA EQUAL TO 5 PERCENT OF THE
GROSS AREA SHALL BE DEDICATED FOR PARKS AND
RECREATION PURPOSES. IF THE LAND AREA IS LESS
THAN 20 ACRES, THE STAFF MAY RECOMMEND THAT THE
CITY COMMISSION WAIVE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC
USE AREAS.
A REVISED LDR CONSISTENT WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS PRESENTED TO THE P&Z BOARD
IN 1997 AND, SUBSEQUENTLY, REFERRED TO THE PAST
CITY ATTORNEYS FOR THEIR REVIEW AND COMMENT.
SPECIFICALLY, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUIRES 1.6
ACRES OF COMMUNITY PARK FOR 1,000 POPULATION.
CENTRAL WINDS PARK MEETS THE STANDARD UNTIL THE
POPULATION MEETS OR EXCEEDS 42,500. THE PRESENT
POPULATION OF THE CITY IS ESTIMATED TO BE 30,000.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DIVIDES THE CITY INTO
THREE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS. AND AS YOU SEE ON THE
OVERHEAD OVER HERE, THE NORTHWEST AREA, COMPRISING
OF THIS AREA, BASICALLY, THE HIGHLANDS AREA, SOUTH
CENTRAL AREA, AND THE SOUTHEAST AREA, WHICH
COMPRISES, PRIMARILY, TUSCAWILLA AREA.
THESE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS ARE DIVIDED FOR
NEIGHBORHOOD PASSIVE AND PRIVATE PARKS WITH
.
.
.
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ACREAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH UNDER A PER CAPITA
BASIS. IF LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS ARE NOT MET,
PUBLIC USE LANDS ARE TO BE REQUIRED AT THE TIME A
DEVELOPMENT IS REVIEWED AND APPROVED.
CURRENTLY, EACH GEOGRAPHIC AREA HAS PARK
ACRES THAT EXCEEDS THE PARK ACRES LEVEL OF SERVICE
REQUIREMENT. AND THIS TABLE DOES INDICATE
NUMERICALLY THAT THE THREE SECTORS -- THAT WE DO
HAVE THE LEVEL SERVICE STANDARD MORE THAN MET IN
THESE THREE AREAS.
MR. MAYOR.
MAYOR PARTYKA: ANYONE ELSE? OKAY.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS? BY ANYONE?
OH, I'M SORRY. COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
MR. MARTINEZ: NO; THAT WAS THE LAST ONE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSIONER MILLER.
MR. MILLER: I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION. YOU
MADE A COMMENT THAT, BASED ON THE CURRENT
POPULATION, CENTRAL WINDS PARK MEETS THE
REQUIREMENT UNTIL WE REACH 42,OOO?
TOM: 42,500. CENTRAL WINDS PARK DOES MEET
THE LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS SET IN THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
MR. MILLER: FOR THE ENTIRE CITY?
TOM: YES.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
14
MR. MILLER: SO ALL THE REST OF THE PARK
AREAS ARE JUST ADD-ONS OR EXTRAS?
TOM: CENTRAL WINDS PARK IS CONSIDERED A
SEPARATE FACILITY OF THE PARK FROM -- IT'S A
COMMUNITY PARK. THAT'S WHAT IT'S DEFINED AS,
APART FROM THE OTHER PARKS.
MR. MILLER: THANK YOU.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY.
CITY MANAGER, YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING?
MR. MCLEMORE: I'LL ONLY SAY THAT WHETHER THE
LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD IN THE COMP PLAN IS THE
IDEAL LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR THE COMMUNITY, IT MAY
OR MAY NOT BE, BUT AS WRITTEN. I MEAN, THE CITY
IS IN COMPLIANCE THROUGH BUILD-OUT, BOTH AT THE
COMMUNITY LEVEL AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD LEVEL.
OUR PROBLEM, AS I WAS DISCUSSING THIS A FEW
MINUTES AGO, IS WE HAVE LAND AVAILABLE. WE JUST
POLITICALLY CAN'T DEVELOP THEM. AND IF WE WERE
ABLE TO DO THAT, WE WOULD BE WELL IN EXCESS OF
WHAT'S NEEDED AND ABOVE YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
EVEN FURTHER THAN WE ARE TODAY.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. THANK YOU.
COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
MR. MARTINEZ: DO WE NEED A MOTION FOR THIS?
MAYOR PARTYKA: YES. MOTION TO --
~
1
2
3
4
5
6.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
15
MR. MARTINEZ: OKAY. I MAKE A MOTION TO
ACCEPT THE PRESENTATION.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. DO I HEAR A SECOND?
MR. MILLER: SECONDED.
MAYOR PARTYKA: ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
CALL THE VOTE.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MILLER.
MR. MILLER: AYE.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
MR. BLAKE: AYE.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
MR. MARTINEZ: AYE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: MOTION PASSES. STAFF, THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. IT'S A NICE JOB.
TOM: YOU'RE WELCOME.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. WHAT I FAILED TO DO,
AS HAS BEEN THE HABIT, IS ANYTIME THERE'S A
RESOLUTION FOR EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION FOR
PEOPLE WORKING, WE READ THAT INTO THE RECORD, SO
LET ME JUST READ THAT.
(WHEREUPON, OTHER AGENDA ITEMS WERE CONDUCTED, BUT NOT
STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORTED.)
-
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. WE'RE MOVING ON TO
SOMETHING THAT WE POOLED, AND IT'S OUT OF
SEQUENCE, BUT WE ANNOUNCED THAT EARLIER. SO THE
.
.
24
.
25
16
1
ORDER IS WE ARE NOW GOING TO REGULAR AGENDA D. WE
2
WILL THEN DO REGULAR AGENDA F, AND THEN WE WILL DO
3
PUBLIC HEARING B, IN THAT ORDER. THEN WE'LL
4
FOLLOW THE PROGRAM AFTER THAT.
5
SO STARTING WITH THE FIRST ONE.
6
REGULAR D, CITY MANAGER. UPDATING THE
7
COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF THE RELOCATION OF THE
8
CROSS SEMINOLE TRAIL IN THE TOWN CENTER, ,AND
9
OFFICE OF GREENWAY AND TRAILS $4,988,000
10
APPROPRIATION GRANT TO PURCHASE GREENS PACES IN THE
11
TOWN CENTER AND TO REQUEST DIRECTION.
12
CITY MANAGER.
13
MR. MCLEMORE: CHARLES, DO YOU WANT TO
14
PRESENT THIS, PLEASE? CHARLES HAS BEEN INTIMATELY
15
INVOLVED IN DEALING WITH THE AGENCY. . I HAVE NOT.
16
THAT'S THE REASON I'VE ASKED HIM TO PRESENT THIS,
17
AND I'LL MAKE SOME COMMENTS AS SOON AS HE GETS
18
THROUGH.
19
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY.
20
MR. MCLEMORE: DO YOU HAVE THE ITEM,
21
CHARLES?
22
MR. CARRINGTON:
ITEM B?
23
MR. MCLEMORE: ITEM D, REGULAR AGENDA.
MAYOR PARTYKA: ITEM D, REGULAR AGENDA.
WE'RE ON THE --
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
17
MR. CARRINGTON: OH, I THOUGHT YOU WERE ON
ITEM B. I'M SORRY. I HEARD -- THAT'S WHAT
CONFUSED ME.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. liD II AS IN DOG.
MR. CARRINGTON: YOU'RE ON ITEM D, REGULAR
AGENDA. ALL RIGHT. SORRY.
MR. BLAKE: THAT'S THE ONE ABOUT OGT.
MR. CARRINGTON: I'LL GET ORGANIZED IN A
MINUTE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: THAT'S ALL RIGHT.
MR. CARRINGTON: ITEM D. THERE ARE TOO MANY
AGENDA ITEMS.
MR. MCLEMORE: HERE YOU GO, CHARLES.
MR. CARRINGTON: I'VE GOT IT. I'VE GOT IT.
OKAY. OKAY. I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THE CITY
MANAGER WAS GOING TO ASK ME TO SPEAK ON THIS. BUT
I AM VERY FAMILIAR WITH IT AND I CAN EXPLAIN THE
SITUATION IN DETAIL TO THE COMMISSION.
THE CITY, IN OCTOBER OF 1998, RECEIVED
APPROVAL FROM THE OFFICE OF GREENWAYS AND TRAILS
FOR $4,988,000 OUT OF FUNDS THAT HAD BEEN
ALLOCATED BY THE GOVERNOR AND CABINET FOR
PRESERVATION 2000.
IN HEARING OUR APPLICATION, ALONG WITH 25
OTHER APPLICATIONS, THEY RANKED THE CITY SIXTH OUT
~
.
.
25
18
1
OF 25 APPLICATIONS. AT THAT TIME -- AND REMEMBER
2
THIS WAS OCTOBER OF 1998 -- THEY HAD $17 MILLION
3
TO SPEND TO ACQUIRE PARK SPACE AND GREENS PACE AND
4
OPEN SPACE THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
5
UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE INTO THE YEAR 2000 -- OR
6
FORTUNATELY, WE'RE IN THE YEAR 2000. BUT DURING
7
THAT TIME SPAN, THEY HAVE SPENT ALL BUT $3 MILLION
8
OF THAT $17 MILLION.
9
WHEN THE OFFICE OF GREENWAYS AND TRAILS
10
COUNCIL APPROVED THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS'
11
APPLICATION FOR $4,988,000, THEY CONDITIONED IT ON
12
TWO THINGS: ONE, THE RELOCATION OF THE CROSS
13
SEMINOLE TRAIL, BECAUSE IT'S DIRECTLY TIED TO THE
14
LOCATION OF THESE PARCELS. AND THE WHOLE REASON
15
FOR THIS FUNDING IS TO ENHANCE THE CROSS SEMINOLE
16
TRAIL AND OTHER TRAILS THROUGHOUT THE STATE AND
17
THE FLORIDA NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL.
18
THE OTHER CONDITION WAS THE APPROVAL OF THE
19
TOWN CENTER. OBVIOUSLY, THE REASON IT WAS TIED TO
20
THE TOWN CENTER IS BECAUSE THE RELOCATION AND THE
21
MANAGEMENT OF THE TRAILS AND THE POSITIONING OF
22
THE TRAILS WAS ALL TIED TO THE TOWN CENTER.
23
YOUR CITY MANAGER ASKED ME IN OCTOBER TO
24
EXPEDITE -- REALIZING THE FACT THAT THESE FUNDS
WERE RAPIDLY BEING DIMINISHED AND WOULD BE SPENT
.
.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
19
1
IF WE DIDN'T QUICKLY MOVE FORWARD. SO HE ASKED ME
2
TO GET INVOLVED, AND I MADE A COUPLE OF TRIPS TO
3
TALLAHASSEE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I MADE THREE
4
TRIPS TO TALLAHASSEE.
I MADE ONE TRIP UP TO MEET
5
WITH THE OFFICE OF GREENWAYS AND TRAILS AND DID
6
RECEIVE THE OFFICE OF GREENWAYS AND TRAILS'
7
APPROVAL. THIS IS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL.
8
THE NEXT STEP WAS BEFORE THE BUREAU OF LAND
9
MANAGEMENT AT THE STATE LEVEL.
I MADE THAT
10
PRESENTATION AT THE STATE LEVEL AND DID GET
11
APPROVAL OF THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT.
12
THE THIRD STEP WAS TO GO BEFORE WHAT THEY
13
CALL THE LAMAC BOARD, WHICH IS THE LAND
14
ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT COUNCIL, AN APPOINTED
15
BODY. HAD THAT MEETING ON DECEMBER THE 9TH AND
16
RECEIVED APPROVAL. THAT WAS THE FINAL STEP,
ADMINISTRATIVELY, BEFORE GOING TO THE GOVERNOR AND
CABINET -- FOR FINAL APPROVAL BEFORE THE GOVERNOR
AND CABINET FOR THE RELOCATION OF THE TRAIL.
OBVIOUSLY, WHAT WE WERE ATTEMPTING TO DO AT
THAT TIME WAS TO PUT BEHIND US ONE OF THE
CONDITIONSj THE CONDITION THAT THE TRAIL BE
RELOCATED. AND OF COURSE, THIS BODY IS DEALING
24 .WITH THE OTHER CONDITION, THAT OF THE APPROVAL OF
.
25
THE TOWN CENTER.
~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
20
UNFORTUNATELY -- AND THIS IS SPELLED OUT IN
THIS ITEM D THAT THE CITY MANAGER PREPARED -- THE
PRESERVATION 2000 MONEY SUNSETS OR ENDS JUNE THE
1ST OF 2000. THAT'S ONLY A FEW MONTHS AWAY. AND
ONCE THE PROGRAM ENDS, MONIES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN
SPENT AT THAT TIME WILL GO BACK INTO THE GENERAL
FUND.
BUT THEY HAVE CREATED A NEW PROGRAM CALLED
FLORIDA FOREVER, BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN FUNDED AT
THIS POINT. IT WILL, HOPEFULLY, BE FUNDED BY THE
LEGISLATURE, AND A WHOLE NEW GRANT PROGRAM WILL BE
STARTED, PERHAPS, IN THE YEAR 2000 OR THE YEAR
2001, DEPENDING UPON WHEN IT'S FUNDED. AND OF
COURSE, THE CITY CAN GO BACK AND REAPPLY AND
COMPETE AGAIN FOR FUNDS AND, HOPEFULLY, IF THE
TOWN CENTER MOVES FORWARD, AT THAT TIME ACQUIRE
SPACE TO ENHANCE THE TRAIL AT SOME LATER DATE.
THE WHOLE ATTEMPT WAS TO GET THE PROCESS
BEHIND US SO THAT WE COULD USE THE FUNDS OUT OF
THE PRESERVATION 2000. THE STATE REQUIRES A VERY
DETAILED SURVEY. THEY HAVE A VERY EXPLICIT SET OF
RULES OR SPECIFICATIONS THAT THE SURVEY TEAM MUST
ABIDE BY, AND IT'S VERY COSTLY AND VERY INVOLVED.
THE SAME THING WITH THE APPRAISAL. IT'S NOT JUST
THE NORMAL APPRAISAL. IT'S A VERY DETAILED
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
21
APPRAISAL ACCORDING TO STATE GUIDELINES AND
STANDARDS.
I MET WITH SEVERAL APPRAISERS AND SEVERAL
SURVEY PEOPLE. THE PROBLEM WITH MOST OF THE
SURVEY PEOPLE AND THE APPRAISERS WAS THAT THEY
WERE BOOKED AND COULD NOT MEET THE DEADLINES THAT
WE HAD TO HAVE.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE GOVERNOR AND CABINET
REQUIRES AN EIGHT-WEEK REVIEW PERIOD FOR THE
ADMINISTRATIVE AIDS BEFORE IT CAN BE PLACED ON THE
AGENDA, WHICH TOOK ME BACK FROM THE MONTH OF MAY,
AGAIN REALIZING THAT THE PROGRAM SUNSETS JUNE THE
1ST.
IT WOULD MEAN THAT I WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THIS
MATTER -- OR THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THIS
MATTER BEFORE THE GOVERNOR AND CABINET IN MAY. SO
IF YOU WORK BACK FROM THE MEETING OF THE GOVERNOR
AND CABINET THE FIRST WEEK IN MAY BACK TO MARCH,
THERE'S NOT A LOT OF TIME LEFT TO DO THE SURVEY.
IT WAS OUR EXPECTATION AND OUR HOPE TO START
THE SURVEY IN EARLY OR LATE JANUARY -- I MEAN, MID
OR LATE JANUARY SO THAT THE SURVEY PEOPLE AND THE
APPRAISERS WOULD HAVE TIME TO COMPLETE THE WORK IN
ORDER FOR US TO GET THE MATERIAL TO THE CABINET
AIDS, SO THEY WOULD HAVE THEIR EIGHT-WEEK REVIEW,
~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
22
AND THEN SCHEDULE IT FOR THE MEETING IN JUNE.
I DO UNDERSTAND FROM THE STATE THAT ALTHOUGH
THE MONEY SUNSETS, IF, IN FACT, THE CITY
AGGRESSIVELY MOVES FORWARD, GETS THE APPRAISALS,
GETS THE SURVEYS COMPLETE, GETS IT INTO THE
GOVERNOR AND CABINET AND THIS IS NOT IN
WRITING, BUT THIS IS MY UNDERSTANDING IN TALKING
WITH OGT STAFF -- THAT AS LONG AS WE HAVE A
COMMITMENT FROM THE SELLER, A CONTRACT IN WRITING,
AND ALTHOUGH WE MAY NOT HAVE CLOSED ON THE
PROPERTY AND, PERHAPS, WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE
CONTINGENCIES RESOLVED, THEY COULD SET THE MONEY
ASIDE AND IT WOULD NOT GO INTO THE GENERAL FUND.
I CAN'T EXACTLY SPEAK TO HOW THAT PROCESS WOULD
WORK.
IDEALLY, WE WOULD WORK THROUGH THE PROCESS,
HAVE EVERYTHING DONE, AND HAVE CLOSING PRIOR TO
THE PROGRAM SUNSETTING JUNE THE 1ST.
BUT IN A NUTSHELL, THAT'S THE SITUATION THAT
WE'RE FACED WITH. UNFORTUNATELY, THE $4,988,000
IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE TO US. WE WOULD MERELY GET
ENOUGH MONEY TO BUY ONE PARK, AND THAT WOULD BE
HICKORY PARK. AND THIS IS WORD FROM THE OFFICE OF
GREENWAYS AND TRAILS. BECAUSE THEY ONLY HAVE, AT
THIS STAGE OF THE GAME, A LITTLE BIT OF MONEY
,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
23
LEFT.
SO WE WERE EAGERLY TRYING TO PURSUE THE
ACQUISITION OF HICKORY PARK AND THAT CONNECTOR
LINK TO TUSCAWILLA ROAD OR TO MAGNOLIA PARK, WHICH
GIVES IT THE CONNECTIVITY TO THE CROSS SEMINOLE
TRAIL, WHICH IS IMPERATIVE IN GETTING THE FUNDS
UNDER THIS PROGRAM. BUT THAT'S THE SITUATION.
AND WE'RE TO A DECISION POINT, WHETHER WE
SHOULD PROCEED WITH THESE APPRAISALS. THE COST IS
I
ON PAGE 4 OF YOUR HANDOUT. FOR THE SURVEYS AND
MAPPING FOR THE TRAIL ALONE, THE COST IS 27,000.
FOR THE APPRAISAL, IT'S 7,625.
AND UNFORTUNATELY, THE WETLAND DELINEATION
THAT WAS PROVIDED TO US BY THE PROPERTY OWNER ON
THE SCHRIMSHERS' PROPERTY EXPIRED DECEMBER THE 1ST
OF LAST YEAR. SO THEY'RE TELLING -- THE STATE IS
TELLING ME THAT THAT WETLAND DELINEATION HAS TO BE
REESTABLISHED. I SPOKE WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES
OF IVY, HARRIS & WALLS, AND THE ESTIMATE TO DO
THAT WORK IS $10,500.
SO TRAIL RELOCATION ALONE, THE COST IS
$45,125. THEN YOU GET INTO THE SURVEY SERVICE
AGAIN FOR HICKORY PARK, ACCORDING TO STATE
STANDARDS, IS $9,000. THE APPRAISAL SERVICE IS
19,575. THEREFORE, A TOTAL ON THE HICKORY PARK OF
.
.
.
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
$28,575. SO THAT'S 45,000 PLUS $28,000 IN ORDER
TO HOPEFULLY -- NO GUARANTEES -- BUT HOPEFULLY,
GET THE MONEY NECESSARY TO BUY HICKORY PARK.
MR. MCLEMORE: THE QUESTION WE HAVE BEFORE
THE COMMISSION IS: IS IT PRUDENT FOR US TO TRY TO
SPEND THE 45,000 PLUS THE 28,000 WHEN THESE
CONTINGENT FACTORS ARE NOT IN PLACE? THE
CONTINGENT FACTOR ONE BEING A WETLAND
DETERMINATION THAT WOULD, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THEN
ALLOW US TO GO IN TO SURVEY.
I UNDERSTAND FROM THE SCHRIMSHER PROPERTIES
THAT THEY ARE DILIGENTLY WORKING ON THAT AND
POSSIBLY MAY GET A QUICK RESPONSE FROM THE COURT.
BUT ALL THIS WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN ALMOST BY TODAY
JUST TO MEET THE TIME LINE THAT'S OUT THERE.
SECONDLY, THE CONTINGENCY UPON THE TOWN
CENTER CODE AND THE RELOCATION OF THE TRAIL, I
THINK THERE'S SOME QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THAT HAS
BEEN REPRESENTED CORRECTLY TO THE CITY BY OGT FROM
THE SCHRIMSHERS' ATTORNEY AND OUR ATTORNEY. WE
CAN ONLY TELL YOU WHAT THEY'VE TOLD US IN THE
PAST.
-
WE HAVE -- THIS IS A VERY INVOLVED PROGRAM
WITH THE STATE. THEY HAVE NEVER DONE A TRAIL
REALIGNMENT BEFORE. THIS IS THE FIRST ONE IN THE
.
.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
25
1
HISTORY OF THE STATE. THEIR RULES HAVE CHANGED
2
AND THEIR REPRESENTATIONS FROM THE STAFF HAVE
3
CHANGED AND THE STAFF HAS CHANGED. BUT WE KNOW
4
WHAT THEY HAVE TOLD US TO DATE.
5
BUT EVEN, AT BEST, HOW YOU WOULD HAVE THE
6
TOWN CENTER CODE -- TO GET THE TOWN CENTER CODE
7
ADOPTED AFTER TONIGHT -- I MEAN, IF WE WAIT 30
8
DAYS ON ADOPTION OF THE .CODE, THERE'S JUST NO WAY
9
YOU CAN MAKE THIS WINDOW.
10
SO IT SEEMS TO US THAT, PROBABLY, UNLESS YOU
11
COULD REACH AN AGREEMENT TONIGHT ON THE AGREEMENT
12
WITH THE SCHRIMSHERS, TO GET TO ADOPTION OF THE
13
CODE AND/OR RELOCATION OF THE TRAIL WHEN ONE OF
14
THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH WITH THE
15
SCHRIMSHERS IS THEIR DESIRE TO CHANGE THE CURRENT
16
RELOCATION THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY ODT
AND MAY NECESSITATE STARTING A NEW APPLICATION
FROM THE BEGINNING.
WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THAT APPLICATION PROCESS.
I KNOW THE SCHRIMSHERS HAVE NOT BEEN THROUGH THAT
APPLICATION PROCESS THE WAY WE HAVE.
I APPRECIATE
WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN REPRESENTED TO THEM,
BUT THIS IS NOT AN EASY TASK TO GO THROUGH.
SO ASSUMING EVERYBODY'S STILL TRYING TO REACH
AN ACCORD AND THE SAME GOAL, IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM
,
.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
TO US THAT WE CAN MAKE THE TIME LINE AND THAT WE
MAY BE FACED WITH A POSITION -- I SAY "MAY" AND
I'M WILLING TO DISCOVER AND LOOK INTO ANY
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT I CAN BRING TO THE
TABLE ABOUT THIS PROCESS OF HOW WE CAN GET THERE,
YOU KNOW, BEFORE JUNE AND, CERTAINLY, HOW WE CAN
GET BEFORE THE GOVERNOR AND CABINET. BECAUSE
NOTHING MEANS. ANYTHING HERE UNTIL THE GOVERNOR AND
CABINET APPROVES IT.
SO WE'RE FACING SOME REAL CHALLENGES. WE
JUST WANT TO TRY TO MAKE YOU AWARE OF IT AS BEST
WE UNDERSTAND. I WOULD NOT ADVISE THE CITY TO GO
FORWARD WITH TRYING TO SPEND ALMOST $70,000 HERE
ON SOMETHING THAT, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS AT
LEAST, OR AT BEST, CHALLENGED.
THE ONLY WAY WE POSSIBLY, IN MY OPINION,
COULD HAVE DONE THAT WAS IF WE COULD HAVE COME TO
SOME ACCORD WITH THE AGREEMENT TONIGHT AND REMOVE
THE QUESTION OF THE ADOPTION OF THE CODE. AND IT
IS THE ONLY WAY WE COULD SEE ANY POSSIBILITY OF
DOING THAT.
NOW, AGAIN, WE'RE OPEN TO LEARNING AND OPEN
-
TO ANYTHING THAT WE'VE LEARNED. WE'VE TRIED TO
GET AS MUCH AS WE CAN FROM ODT IN WRITING, BECAUSE
IT SEEMS WE GET SOMETHING DIFFERENT EVERY TIME A
~
.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
-
--. ~
23
24
25
27
NEW PERSON'S ASSIGNED TO THIS PROJECT.
BUT, AGAIN, RECOGNIZING THEIR POINT OF VIEW,
THIS IS A VERY EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS FOR THEM,
ALSO.
BUT, IN THE END, THE QUESTION IS: HOW DO WE
GET TO THE GOVERNOR AND CABINET WITH OUR PROJECT
THAT HAS GONE THROUGH THE REVIEW OF THE ODT STAFF
TO THE OTHER COMMITTEE THAT HAS TO LOOK AT IT, AND
ALL THOSE STEPS THAT NEEDS TO BE HERE TO BE
WORKABLE?
SO WE'D LIKE TO HOLD THIS ITEM IN ABEYANCE
UNTIL WE GET TO THE ISSUES DISCUSSION AND THEN
DOWN TO THE CODE. BUT I THINK THAT'S ABOUT WHERE
WE ARE TODAY.
MAYOR PARTYKA: YOU MADE ONE COMMENT.
I JUST
WANT TO CLARIFY THAT. YOU SAID, SO FAR YOU'RE
FEELING IS BOTH PARTIES ARE STILL AT THE SAME
COMMON GOALS AND STILL WORKING THROUGH THAT. YOU
FEEL GOOD WITH EVERYTHING?
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, I THINK THAT WE'RE STILL
TRYING TO REACH AN AGREEMENT.
I DON'T THINK ANY
OF US WANTS TO GO SPEND MONEY OR WASTE MONEY ON
COURT IF WE DON'T COME TO AGREEMENT.
IT JUST
DON'T SEEM LIKE WE'RE GOING TO GET THERE IN TIME
TO ALLOW US TO SAVE THE BALANCE OF MONIES THAT ARE
,
.
.
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
LEFT, THAT WERE DEDICATED TO WETLANDS -- EXCUSE
ME TO HICKORY PARK.
AGAIN, THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN'T REAPPLY
NEXT YEAR, AND WE WILL. BUT WE SIT THERE AND
WATCH THE MONIES DWINDLE AWAY WHILE WE ARGUE OVER
THIS LAND. THAT'S NOT TO SAY THESE ISSUES ARE NOT
REAL, BECAUSE THEY ARE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. COMMISSIONER MILLER,
COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ, AND THEN COMMISSIONER
BLAKE.
MR. MILLER: THERE WAS A REDRAWING OF THE
WETLANDS LAST YEAR BASED ON A NEW SURVEY THAT THE
SCHRIMSHER GROUP BROUGHT FORWARD. IS THAT THE
DOCUMENT YOU'RE REFERRING TO THAT EXPIRED ON 31
DECEMBER?
MR. MCLEMORE: THAT WAS THE PREVIOUS COURT
DETERMINATION THAT THE SCHRIMSHER PEOPLE HAD DONE
THEMSELVES.
IT HAS EXPIRED IN DECEMBER.
MR. MILLER: WE DID THE ORIGINAL TOWN CENTER
PLAN BASED ON AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS RETAINED BY
THE CITY, I THINK, TO GO IN THERE AND -- WELL, I
DON'T KNOW WHO. ACTUALLY, SOMEBODY WENT IN AND
LOOKED AT THE WETLANDS, DRAFTED A LAYOUT TO
PROTECT THAT WETLAND AREA, AND, AS WE UNDERSTOOD
IT, LOOKED AT SOME POINT IN THE PASTj IS THAT
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
29
CORRECT, WHEN WE DID THE ORIGINAL WORK IN 1988?
MR. MCLEMORE: YES.
MR. CARRINGTON: IN FEBRUARY/MARCH OF 1988,
WHEN YOU FIRST CONTRACTED WITH DOVER, COLE &
ASSOCIATES, THE INFORMATION --
MAYOR PARTYKA: I BELIEVE THAT WAS IN 1998,
NOT '88.
MR. CARRINGTON: DID I SAY '88? I'M SORRY.
'98. FORGIVE ME.
IN '98, WHEN YOU FIRST CONTRACTED WITH DOVER,
COLE & ASSOCIATES. AND ON MARCH THE 23RD OF THAT
MONTH, MARCH 23 OF 1998, THEY BROUGHT FORTH THE
FINAL PLAN AFTER THE CHARRETTES AND THE TWO PUBLIC
MEETINGS THAT WORK IN PROGRESS, YOU REMEMBER, AND
SO FORTH IN THIS COUNCIL CHAMBER. AND THE CITY
COMMIS~ION APPROVED, IN CONCEPT, THIS ILLUSTRATED
PLAN THAT'S BEFORE YOU THERE, THE SKETCH PLAN.
AND AT THE TIME THAT THIS WAS DONE, AS I
UNDERSTAND IT AND AS I REMEMBER IT, MICHAEL DESIGN
& ASSOCIATES, ONE OF THE THREE CONSULTANTS
INVOLVEDj ACTUALLY TOOK A TEAM OF PEOPLE AND
WALKED THE WETLAND PARK TO DELINEATE THE LOCATION
OF THE WETLANDS, BECAUSE WE DID NOT HAVE THE CORPS
OF ENGINEERS' DELINEATION.
THAT DELINEATION WAS PROVIDED TO THE CITY AND
,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
,
30
TO THE CONSULTANTS IN NOVEMBER OF THIS YEAR, WHICH
RESULTED IN THE CHANGE IN THE CONFIGURATION OF THE
WETLANDS. AND IT IS THAT CHANGE AND THAT
DELINEATION THAT
MR. MILLER: IT WAS THE SCHRIMSHER -- WAS IT
SCHRIMSHERS WHO INTRODUCED THIS INFORMATION, OR
WAS IT THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS? WHO INTRODUCED THE
INFORMATION THAT EXPIRED, AGAIN, ON DECEMBER 31ST?
MR. CARRINGTON: THE SCHRIMSHER PROPERTIES
INTRODUCED IT TO THE CITY IN OCTOBER OR NOVEMBER
OF LAST YEAR.
MR. MILLER: AND IT EXPIRED THREE MONTHS
LATER.
MR. CARRINGTON: THE CITY HIRED DOVER, COLE &
ASSOCIATES, THEN, TO GET INVOLVED AT THE REQUEST
OF THE SCHRIMSHERS, WORK WITH THE SCHRIMSHERS, AND
REPLAN THIS AREA ON THE SCHRIMSHER PROPERTY TO
REFLECT THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS' DELINEATION OF THE,
WETLANDS AROUND WETLAND PARK.
AND YOU CAN SEE, IF YOU LOOK, THIS IS THE
LATEST VERSION. YOU CAN SEE THE CONFIGURATION.
YOU SEE THAT THE TRAIL ALONG HERE DOES NOT
ACTUALLY HAVE TO BE RELOCATED BECAUSE OF THE
THING. THIS WAS THE DELINEATION THAT WAS MADE BY
MICHAEL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, FORREST MICHAELS AND
~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
31
HIS TEAM, BACK IN MARCH OF '98 WHEN THEY DID THE
CHARRETTES -- OR FEBRUARY AND MARCH OF '98. SO
THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE.
THE WHOLE PLAN HAS BEEN REVISED. AND BASED
ON THIS NEW CONFIGURATION, NEW ILLUSTRATIONS WERE
PLACED IN THE CODE TO REFLECT THOSE CHANGES, AND
IT'S READY FOR YOUR ADOPTION TONIGHT WITH THE NEW
CONFIGURATION.
BUT KEEP IN MIND, IT DID EXPIRE DECEMBER THE
1ST. IT'S NOT A SECRET. EVERYONE KNOWS THAT. IT
NEEDS TO BE REESTABLISHED ACCORDING TO IVY, HARRIS
& WALL. IT'S NOT A MAJOR ISSUE. I THINK THE
CONTRACT PRICE THEY GAVE US WAS $10,000. I'D HAVE
TO GO BACK AND LOOK, BUT THAT'S MY MEMORY.
THEY DID TALK TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
IT'S NOT A MAJOR OR AN INVOLVED PROCESS. IT CAN
BE DONE AT THE SAME TIME THAT THE SURVEY PEOPLE
AND THE APPRAISERS ARE DOING THEIR WORK, BUT IT
DOES HAVE TO BE REESTABLISHED IN ORDER FOR THE
STATE TO ACCEPT IT.
MR. MILLER: AND WE HAD THE LAYOUT OF ALL THE
STREETS AND THE DESIGNATED USE OF THE DIFFERENT
AREAS READJUSTED TO FIT THE LAYOUT, WHICH IS NOW
EXPIRED, CORRECT, WHICH YOU SAY CAN BE
REESTABLISHED. BUT IT HAS TO BE RESURVEYED BY A
32
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PRIVATE GROUP, OR DOES IT HAVE TO BE REESTABLISHED
BY THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS?
MR. CARRINGTON: WELL, IT WILL BE DONE BY A
PRIVATE GROUP AND THEN APPROVED, AS I UNDERSTAND
IT, BY THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS. THERE'S A PROCESS.
MR. MILLER: THAT, YOU BELIEVE, CAN BE DONE
IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME?
MR. CARRINGTON: THAT'S WHAT I'M LED TO
BELIEVE BY IVY, HARRIS & WALLS.
MR. MILLER: THREE MONTHS? SIX MONTHS?
MR. CARRINGTON: OH, MUCH LESS THAN THAT.
NO. AT THE TIME THAT WE STARTED PUTTING THE
PROPOSALS TOGETHER WITH IVY, HARRIS AND THE OTHER
TWO CONSULTANTS, TINKER PAUL AND THE APPRAISER, WE
HAD HOPED TO START WORK,' AS I SAID, IN LATE
JANUARY, EARLY FEBRUARY. AND THEY PROMISED TO
HAVE -- THE CONTRACT STATED THEY WOULD HAVE THE
WORK DONE BY MID-MARCH, WHICH WOULD HAVE GIVEN US
PLENTY OF TIME TO GET THROUGH THE PROCESS AT THE
STATE.
BUT NOW WE'RE INTO FEBRUARY THE 14TH AND THE
CLOCK'S STILL TICKING. THEY CALLED ME ALMOST
EVERY DAY ASKING IF THEY CAN START WORK AND, OF
COURSE, I'VE HELD THEM BACK FOR OBVIOUS REASONS.
MR. MILLER: THANK YOU. I UNDERSTAND YOUR
.
.
.
.
.
33
1
RECOMMENDATION AND THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS
2
THAT NO FURTHER ACTION BE TAKEN UNTIL SUCH TIME
3
THAT, FIRST, THE TOWN CENTER CODE IS LAW, AND
4
SECOND, THE SCHRIMSHER PROPERTY'S COMPLETED THE
5
UPDATE OF THE WETLAND DETERMINATION.
6
I GUESS THE LOGICAL QUESTION I HAVE TO ASK AT
7
THIS POINT IS: SINCE WE'VE BEEN NICKEL AND -- NOT
8
NICKEL AND DIME -- BUT SINCE WE'VE BEEN
9
CONTINUOUSLY RESTRICTED TO A SMALLER, SMALLER
10
AMOUNT AS ALL THESE MONIES HAVE DWINDLED AWAY TO
11
OTHER PEOPLE'S PROGRAMS, WE'RE NOW AT THE 11TH
12
HOUR AND 59TH MINUTE.
I HAVE A HARD TIME
13
UNDERSTANDING WHY HICKORY PARK IS TIED WITH THIS
14
WETLANDS DETERMINATION.
15
WHEN I LOOK AT THE MAP, I BELIEVE IT'S IN AN
16
AREA THAT'S NEVER BEEN CONTESTED AS BEING NOT
17
WETLANDS.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE SCHRIMSHERS'
18
PROPERTY IS OVER HERE ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF
19
TUSCAWILLA ROAD, AND THE PARK THAT WE'RE TALKING
20
ABOUT IS SEVERAL HUNDRED YARDS TO THE LEFT OF THE
21
ROAD. AND I HAVE NEVER HEARD THAT THAT WAS AN
22
AREA THAT WAS EVER CONSIDERED TO BE A WETLANDS.
23
SO WHY ARE WE NOT DEALING WITH ONLY ONE
24
ISSUE, WHICH MAY BE THE TRAIL RELOCATION OR
25
MR. MCLEMORE: BECAUSE IT'S RELOCATION
.
.
.
34
1
(INAUDIBLE) .
2
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. LET'S ANSWER THE
3
QUESTION LOUDLY SO EVERYBODY CAN UNDERSTAND.
4
IT'S VERY CLEAR IF YOU
MR. CARRINGTON:
5
REALIZE THAT, AGAIN, THE TRAIL RELOCATION MUST GO
6
TO THE GOVERNOR AND CABINET FOR FINAL APPROVAL.
7
THESE ARE LANDS THAT BELONG TO THE PRESERVATION
8
2000 COUNCIL. THEY BELONG -- THAT COUNCIL HAS
9
BEEN SET ASIDE -- THEY OWN AND MANAGE THOSE AND,
10
OF COURSE, HAVE GIVEN A CONTRACT TO SEMINOLE
11
COUNTY TO MANAGE THOSE IN SEMINOLE COUNTY. BUT
12
THEY'RE RUN THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
13
IF YOU LOOK AT THIS MAP AND YOU LOOK AT THE
14
LOCATION OF THE TRAIL -- AND REMEMBER, AS WE
15
TALKED ABOUT IT, WE HAD TO MEANDER THE TRAIL ALONG
16
HERE IN A WHOLE NEW LOCATION TO -- THAT WAS THE
17
FIRST SUBMITTAL, THE ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL TO THE
18
STATE.
19
BUT THEN WHEN WE CHANGED THIS IN NOVEMBER AND
20
BROUGHT THIS -- OR IN DECEMBER AND BROUGHT THIS
21
NEW CONFIGURATION, THE ACTUAL TRAIL RELOCATION
22
HERE, THE OLD ALIGNMENT, THE CSX RAILROAD IS, IN
23
FACT, THE BOUNDARY. THAT DOESN'T CHANGE. SO WE
24
DON'T HAVE TO RELOCATE THIS PORTION.
25
MR. BLAKE: POINT OF ORDER.
35
~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2 O.
21
22
-
--. -
23
24
25
.
.
MAYOR PARTYKA: POINT OF ORDER.
MR. BLAKE: CLARIFICATION. THE QUESTION THE
COMMISSIONER ASKED IS DUE TO
ABOUT HICKORY
PARK~ HE NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE GRANT MONEY
FOR HICKORY PARK IS CONTINGENT UPON THE APPROVAL
OF THE FINALIZATION OF THE RELOCAT'ION OF THE TRAIL
WHICH CANNOT BE DONE UNTIL THESE OTHER THINGS
THE APPRAISAL, THE SURVEY, AND THE WETLANDS
DETERMINATION -- ARE COMPLETED. THAT'S THE ANSWER
TO HIS QUESTION.
MR. CARRINGTON: WELL, ALSO, LET ME ADD, IF I
MAY, IT'S ALSO CONTINGENT ON THE FACT THAT THE
PROPERTY THAT PRESERVATION 2000 BUYS IS FOR THE
ENHANCEMENT OF THE TRAIL.
IT HAS TO BE DIRECTLY
TIED TO THE TRAIL. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THIS LONG
LINK THAT COMES DOWN FROM HICKORY PARK, DOWN ALONG
THIS ROAD, TYING TO MAGNOLIA PARK.
SO THE KEY
THERE THAT YOU WERE ASKING FOR IS LINKAGE. IT
MUST HAVE LINKAGE TO THE TRAIL.
AN ISOLATED PARCEL OF LAND OUT IN THE MIDDLE
HERE HAS NO VALUE TO THE TRAIL. THEY HAD TO HAVE
LINKAGE. THAT WAS PART OF THE PRESENTATION TO THE
OFFICE OF GREENWAYS AND TRAILS. HOW IS IT LINKED
TO THE TRAIL? HOW DOES IT BENEFIT THE TRAIL?
MR. MILLER: THANK YOU.
It
.
.
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MAYOR PARTYKA: DOES THAT SATISFY YOU?
COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
MR. MARTINEZ: MR. MANAGER, AS I UNDERSTAND
IT, YOU'RE RECOMMENDING WE DO NOT GO FORWARD WITH
THIS TONIGHT?
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, I'M RECOMMENDING TO YOU
THAT I SEE NO HOPE FOR US MEETING A CONTINGENT TO
GET TO THE GOVERNOR AND CABINET. IF INDEED, THE
ADOPTION OF THE CODE AND APPROVAL OF THE
RELOCATION OF THE TRAIL IS ALL NECESSARY TO GET
THIS GRANT, I SEE NO WAY OF GETTING THERE IN THIS
YEAR. SIMPLY JUST WORKING AT THE APPROVAL DATE
AND WORKING BACKWARDS, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU GET IT
DONE.
MR. MARTINEZ: WELL, HOW LONG DO YOU FEEL
WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE ON THIS ROAD TO NOWHERE?
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG
IT'S GOING TO TAKE US TO FINALLY COME TO SOME
AGREEMENT OR SAY WE CAN'T COME TO SOME AGREEMENT,
YOU KNOW, WITH THE SCHRIMSHERS. THAT'S THE REASON
WE WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THIS FIRST AND TALK ABOUT
THE ISSUES THAT ARE YET OUTSTANDING, WITH THE
AGREEMENT NEXT, BEFORE YOU ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF
ADOPTION OF THE CODE.
MR. MARTINEZ: WE'RE ALMOST TWO YEARS NOW.
.
.
.
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
WE HAVE BEEN SORT OF MAKING EVERY EFFORT TO
SATISFY THE SCHRIMSHER PEOPLE IN THEIR REQUESTS
FOR AN AGREEMENT FOR DISCUSSION AND SO ON AND SO
FORTH. AM I CORRECT OR AM I WRONG?
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, WE'VE CERTAINLY GONE A
LONG WAY TO TRY TO ACCOMMODATE THEM. I WOULDN'T
SAY WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING, I MEAN, WITH OUR
NEGOTIATIONS, AND IT'S -~
MR. MARTINEZ: I'M NOT SAYING THAT.
MR. MCLEMORE: -- VERY SPIRITED.
MR. MARTINEZ: I'M SAYING THAT WE HAVE MADE
THIS EFFORT. AND THIS HAS BEEN POSTPONED ABOUT
SIX TIMES NOW?
MR. MCLEMORE: THAT'S RIGHT.
MR. MARTINEZ: WELL, HOW LONG ARE WE GOING TO
CONTINUE ON THIS ROAD? I MEAN, WHY IS IT THAT IF
WE STAND TO LOSE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AT THIS TIME,
WE DO NOT APPROVE THIS CODE AND GO FORWARD? AND
IF THEY CHOOSE TO GO TO COURT, THEY CAN GO TO
COURT.
I THINK THERE HAS TO BE A TIME WHEN WE, AS
THE CITY, HAVE TO TAKE A STAND. AND WHEN SOME
DEVELOPER COMES UP HERE AND SAYS, WELL, I'M GOING
TO TAKE YOU TO COURT, EVERYBODY HIDES UNDER THE
DESK IN THE FORUM HERE AND THEY SAY, OKAY, WE GIVE
.
.
.
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
IN. WE'RE YOURS.
I THINK THERE HAS TO COME A TIME WHEN WE HAVE
TO MAKE A DECISION AND WE HAVE TO SAY, LET'S GO
FORWARD WITH THE VISION OF THIS CITY FOR THIS
PROJECT AND LET'S DO WHATEVER HAS TO BE DONE AND
LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY.
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, I THINK THE SCHRIMSHERS
AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES CAN SPEAK FOR
THEMSELVES. THEY .REPRESENT TO ME THAT AS IT
RELATES TO TRYING TO KEEP INTACT THE GRANT WITHIN
THIS YEAR, IF A LITIGATION IS FILED AGAINST US,
WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE THAT DEADLINE ANYHOW.
SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S A JUDGMENT CALL, I THINK,
AT THAT POINT IN TIME, AS TO WHERE YOU FEEL LIKE
WE'RE AT AN IMPASSE AND WE JUST CAN'T GO ANY
FURTHER. AND WHEN BOTH PARTIES DECLARE AN IMPASSE
ON THE AGREEMENT, THEN WE HAVE TO DO WHAT WE'RE
GOING TO DO, AND THEY HAVE TO DO WHAT THEY'RE
GOING TO DO.
MR. MARTINEZ: BUT HAVE YOU DILIGENTLY BEEN
PURSUING THIS MATTER WITH THE SCHRIMSHERS SINCE
SIX MONTHS AGO WHEN WE DECIDED TO DISCUSS AND
DISCUSS AND DISCUSS IN AN EFFORT TO REACH AN
AGREEMENT? AND THEY WOULD COME BACK HERE, AS THEY
DID THE LAST TIME, AND SAID THAT YOU HAD NOT BEEN
.
.
25
.
39
1
AS AGGRESSIVE AS YOU SHOULD HAVE, ET CETERA, ET
2
CETERA. AND YOU'RE SAYING, YES, WE HAVE BEEN.
3
THEY SAY, NO, YOU HAVE NOT.
4
THEN YOU REACH A STAGE WHERE YOU ALMOST COME
5
TO AN AGREEMENT, AND THE NEXT THING YOU KNOW, THEY
6
COME UP WITH ANOTHER CURVE BALL.
7
I MEAN, HOW LONG ARE WE GOING TO CONTINUE ON
8
THIS ROAD?
9
MR. MCLEMORE:
I DON'T KNOW.
I THINK WE'RE
10
PREPARED TO SET OUT FOR YOU TONIGHT THE ISSUES AS
11
WE UNDERSTAND THEM THAT ARE YET -- YOU KNOW, THAT
12
ARE OUTSTANDING TO SEE IF WE CAN COME TO SOME
13
ACCOMMODATION OF THOSE.
IF WE CAN'T, THEN AS I
14
STATED IN THE AGENDA F, THE OPTIONS ARE: SEND US
15
BACK TO NEGOTIATE SOME MOREj NUMBER TWO, ADOPT
16
YOUR CODEj OR, NUMBER THREE, GIVE UP.
17
SO THAT'S THE DECISION THE COMMISSION IS
18
GOING TO NEED TO MAKE.
I THINK BEFORE YOU GET
19
THERE, WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THE OUTSTANDING
20
ISSUES ARE AND SEE IF THERE'S SOME HOPE FOR
21
GETTING THERE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO
22
RECOMMEND TO YOU AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
23
MR. MARTINEZ: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
24
MAYOR PARTYKA: THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.
COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
"
,
.
.
40
1
MR. BLAKE: THANK YOU, MAYOR. THE FIRST
2
QUESTION THAT I WOULD HAVE IS: WHY DID WE NOT GET
3
THE APPRAISAL AND THE SURVEY TAKEN CARE OF SOME
4
TIME AGO?
5
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, WE WERE TRYING TO DEAL
6
WITH THE CRITERIA SET BY OGT. THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE
7
TO LIVE WITH, IS THE CRITERIA THEY GIVE US.
8
MR. BLAKE:
IS THE APPRAISAL AND THE SURVEY A
9
NEW CRITERIA?
10
FROM WHAT I UNDERSTOOD, ALL THE WAY BACK TO
11
'98, THOSE WERE PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE
12
HAD TO MEET. AND AS FAR AS I ALSO KNEW, NOT QUITE
13
BACK THAT FAR, BUT CERTAINLY EARLIER IN '99, WE
14
WERE AWARE OF THE WETLAND SURVEY THAT THE
15
SCHRIMSHERS HAD. WE WERE ALSO AWARE OF THE
16
EXPIRATION DATE OF THAT.
17
MY QUESTION IS: WHY DID WE ALLOW THE WETLAND
18
SURVEY TO EXPIRE PRIOR TO GETTING -- WHAT I MEAN
19
IS, WE KNEW IT WAS GOING TO EXPIRE, YET WE DIDN'T
20
TAKE ACTION THAT REQUIRED THAT BE INTACT PRIOR TO
21
EXPIRING, SUCH AS THE APPRAISAL AND, SPECIFICALLY,
22
THE SURVEY IN MAKING THOSE APPLICATIONS -- OR
23
FORWARDING THOSE PORTIONS OF THE APPLICATIONS TO
24
THE STATE.
25
MR. MCLEMORE: AS WE UNDERSTAND, THEIR
.
~
.
.
41
1
DIRECTION IS THEY DIDN'T WANT THE APPRAISALS
2
DONE. THEY DID NOT DESIRE THE SURVEYS TO BE
3
STARTED UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE WETLAND DELINEATION
4
WAS FINALIZED.
5
MR. BLAKE: WELL, WASN'T THE WETLAND
6
DELINEATION FINALIZED UP UNTIL DECEMBER 1ST WHEN
7
THE WETLAND DELINEATION
OR THE ARMY CORPS OF
8
ENGINEERS EXPIRED?
9
MR. MCLEMORE: NO. NO. THEY WANT TO KNOW
10
WHAT THE NEW WETLAND LINE IS GOING TO BE.
11
THAT'S --
12
MR. BLAKE:
I'M CONFUSED. WHAT IS THE
13
PURPOSE OF HAVING THIS LANGUAGE IN HERE ABOUT THE
14
WETLAND SURVEY THAT WE HAVE EXPIRING DECEMBER
15
1ST? WHY IS THAT AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF
16
INFORMATION FOR US IF NOW YOU'RE TELLING ME, ALL
17
THE WAY FROM THE BEGINNING, WE NEEDED TO HAVE A
18
NEW WETLAND DELINEATION SURVEY DONE?
19
MR. MCLEMORE: DO YOU RECALL WHEN YOU
20
APPROVED THE FUNDS FOR GOING BACK AND TAKING THE
21
CORE OF INFORMATION?
22
MR. BLAKE: YES, I DO.
23
MR. MCLEMORE: WE TOLD YOU AT THAT POINT IN
24
TIME THAT THIS WOULD HAVE TO BE REVIEWED IN
25
DECEMBER AND IT MAY RESULT IN SOME CHANGING OF THE
~
.
.
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
LINES.
MR. BLAKE: YES, I DO.
MR. MCLEMORE: OKAY. UNTIL WE KNOW WHAT
THOSE CHANGING OF THE LINES ARE, BASED ON OUR
QUESTIONING OF OGT --
MR. BLAKE: THE LINES THAT WERE TO BE
CHANGED, AS IT WAS EXPLAINED TO ME, WERE THE LINES
ON THE PREVIOUS -- THE FIRST TOWN CENTER DRAWING
THAT HE HAD UP THERE, WHICH UTILIZED THE SURVEY OF
THE (INAUDIBLE) FROM THE AIR, FROM FORREST
MICHAELS' WALK THROUGH THE WOODS IN TRYING TO
DETERMINE THE WETLANDS.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE KNEW THAT THERE
WAS, INDEED, A CORPS OF ENGINEERS SURVEY THAT
EXISTED THAT THE SCHRIMSHERS HAD AND THAT WE KNEW
THAT IT EXPIRED ON DECEMBER 1ST AND THAT HAD WE
ACTED PRIOR TO THEN FOR THESE OTHER ITEMS THAT THE
STATE WOULD NEED IN ORDER TO SEND THIS FORWARD TO
THE CABINET AND GOVERNOR, THEN WE WOULDN'T BE IN
THE POSITION WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW. IS THAT CORRECT
OR NOT?
MR. MCLEMORE: I DON'T THINK THAT'S CORRECT.
-
MR. CARRINGTON: NO, IT'S NOT CORRECT.
MR. BLAKE: WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT?
MR. MCLEMORE: WE DISCUSSED WITH OGT THE
~
.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
-
--.-
23
24
25
43
ISSUE OF THE WETLANDS AND THE FACT THAT IT WOULD
EXPIRE
AND YOU CAN CORRECT ME -- THAT IT WOULD
EXPIRE IN DECEMBER. THEY WANT AN UP-TO-DATE CORPS
JURISDICTIONAL LINE BEFORE THEY WILL APPROVE THIS
BY THE GOVERNOR AND CABINET.
MR. BLAKE: SO THAT SURVEY WAS NEVER ANY GOOD
TO THEM.
MR. MCLEMORE:
IT WAS GOOD TO US IN GOING
BACK.
MR. BLAKE: THAT'S NOT MY QUESTION. MY
QUESTION WAS: WAS THAT SURVEY NEVER ACCEPTABLE TO
THEM, THE ONE THAT EXPIRED DECEMBER 1ST?
MR. MCLEMORE: NO, IT WAS NOT.
MR. BLAKE: SO WHY IS THAT A PERTINENT PIECE
OF INFORMATION TO WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE? WHY IS
IT GERMANE TO THE ARGUMENT IF IT NEVER WAS
WORTHWHILE? WHY ARE WE WAITING UNTIL THIS POINT
IN TIME, WHEN IT'S THE 11TH HOUR AND, LIKE THE
COMMISSIONER SAID, 59 MINUTESj WHEREAS, NOW WE
DON'T HAVE THE TIME TO DO ALL THE LEGWORK HERE?
WE COULD HAVE HAD THIS DONE SIX MONTHS AGO
AND BEEN READY TO GO FORWARD TO THE CABINET WITH
THE ANTICIPATION THAT WE'RE GOING TO FINALIZE THIS
TOWN CENTER ORDINANCE MONTHS AGO.
MR. MCLEMORE: LET ME TRY AGAIN.
THE
.
.
.
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DIRECTION WE HAVE FROM THE STATE WAS, WE DON'T
WANT THE SURVEY TO GO FORWARD AND WE DON'T WANT
THE APPRAISAL TO GO FORWARD UNTIL THE CORPS
JURISDICTION LINE IS REESTABLISHED.
MR. BLAKE: OKAY. STOP. STOP RIGHT THERE
FOR A MOMENT.
OF ENGINEERS?
MR. MCLEMORE: CORRECT.
MR. BLAKE: JURISDICTION LINE?
MR. MCLEMORE: RIGHT.
MR. BLAKE: WHICH WAS THE SURVEY THAT THE
11 THE CORPS II MEANING THE ARMY CORPS
SCHRIMSHER ORGANIZATION HAD HAD THAT EXPIRED.
THESE THINGS ONLY LAST FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD OF
TIME.
MR. MCLEMORE: FIVE YEARS.
MR. BLAKE: AND THAT SURVEY WAS FIVE YEARS
OLD AND, THUS, EXPIRED DECEMBER 1, 1999 --
MR. MCLEMORE: CORRECT.
MR. BLAKE: -- WHICH MEANS DECEMBER 1ST,
1999. AND PRIOR TO THAT PERIOD, GOING BACK FIVE
YEARS, THERE WAS A VALID CORPS JURISDICTIONAL LINE
ESTABLISHED.
MR. MCLEMORE: THERE WAS A LINE.
MR. BLAKE: THERE WAS A CORPS JURISDICTIONAL
LINE THAT WAS ESTABLISHED.
,
.
.
\
45
1
MR. MCLEMORE: THAT'S CORRECT.
2
MR. BLAKE: AND WE KNEW ABOUT THE EXISTENCE
3
OF THAT SURVEY AND WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED
4
PREVIOUSLY -- I KNEW EARLY '99 THAT THAT SURVEY
5
EXPIRED AT THE END OF THE YEAR.
I DIDN'T KNOW IT
6
WAS DECEMBER 1ST, BUT IT WAS THE END OF THE YEAR.
7
WHICH MEANS THAT IF WE KNEW THAT THESE OTHER
8
ITEMS: THE SURVEY, THE APPRAISAL, ET CETERA, HAD
9
TO BE BASED ON THAT CORPS JURISDICTIONAL LINE
10
SURVEY AND THAT IT WAS EXPIRING, WHY DIDN'T WE
11
TAKE CARE OF THOSE ITEMS EARLIER ON SO WE HAD
12
THOSE IN HAND TO FORWARD TO THE STATE AS SOON AS
13
WE GOT THESE OTHER DOCUMENTS TAKEN CARE OF,
14
TO WIT, THE TOWN CENTER ORDINANCE, WHICH WE
15
EXPECTED TO PASS SOME SIX MONTHS AGO, IN FACT,
16
ALMOST A YEAR AGO INITIALLY, IN PREPARATION OF
17
DOING THAT TO BE CERTAIN THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO
18
GARNER AS MANY AS OF THESE DOLLARS THAT WE FOUGHT
19
FOR AND WON RIGHT UP FRONT?
20
NOW WE'RE BACK-PEDDLING WHERE IT'S THE 11TH
21
HOUR AND 59 MINUTE MARK, AND YOU'RE TELLING US YOU
22
DON'T SEE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO GET ALL OF THESE
23
HOOPS JUMPED THROUGH EFFECTIVELY IN TIME TO ASSURE
24
THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE OUR BILL ON THE
25
GOVERNOR'S DESK QUICK ENOUGH SO THAT HE CAN SIGN
.
.
.
46
1
IT BEFORE THE CLOCK RUNS OUT.
2
MR. MCLEMORE: LET ME ANSWER IT AGAIN, AND
3
I'M GOING ON INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY ME THROUGH
4
CHARLES, THROUGH HIS MEETINGS WITH THE STATE. THE
5
STATE WANTS TO KNOW THE NEW JURISDICTIONAL LINE.
6
MR. BLAKE: DID THEY WANT TO KNOW THE NEW
7
JURISDICTIONAL LINE SIX MONTHS AGO?
8
MR. CARRINGTON: NOVEMBER THE 8TH.
9
MR. BLAKE: SO NOVEMBER THE 8TH, THREE WEEKS
10
PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE CURRENT EXISTING
11
JURISDICTIONAL LINE, THEY SAID, WE WON'T ACCEPT
12
THAT. WE WANT A NEW ONE. WE WON'T ACCEPT THE
13
DOCUMENT THAT THE SCHRIMSHERS HAVE THAT, EVEN
14
THOUGH IT EXPIRED -- HAD ANOTHER THREE WEEKS LEFT
15
ON IT, THEY WON'T ACCEPT THAT. THEY WANT A NEW
16
ONE EVEN BEFORE THAT ONE EXPIRED?
17
MR. CARRINGTON:
IT'S QUITE OBVIOUS TO
18
EVERYONE, I THINK, THAT IF IT'S EXPIRED, IT NO
19
LONGER HAS ANY SUBSTANTIVE
20
MR. BLAKE: BUT ON NOVEMBER 8TH, IT WAS NOT
21
EXPIRED.
22
MR. CARRINGTON:
I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHERE
23
YOU'RE GOING WITH THIS.
24
MR. BLAKE: WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT,
25
CHARLES, IS WE'RE NOW HERE FACED WITH A SITUATION
.
.
.
47
1
WHERE A YEAR AND FIVE MONTHS AGO -- A YEAR AND
2
FOUR MONTHS AGO WE WENT THROUGH THE HOOPS TO FIND
3
SOME GRANT MONEY THAT STILL REQUIRES --
4
MR. CARRINGTON:
"WE" BEING MY STAFF, YES,
5
SIR.
6
MR. BLAKE: THE CITY. THE CITY, CHARLES.
7
MR. CARRINGTON: YES. OKAY. THE CITY.
I
8
WORKED ON IT ALMOST EVERY WEEKEND FOR TWO MONTHS.
9
MR. BLAKE: THE CITY. AND WE WENT THROUGH
10
ALL THESE HOOPS, AND THERE WAS THIS GRANT MONEY
11
THAT THEN WAS IN EXISTENCE, THAT WE HAD FOUND
12
OURSELVES IN LINE TO RECEIVE IF WE CONTINUE ON AND
13
JUMP THROUGH THE REMAINING HOOPS.
14
MY PROBLEM IS NOW THAT MONEY'S ABOUT GONE.
15
AND, YES, WE HAD ISSUES WITH THE TOWN CENTER CODE
16
AND GETTING THAT DEVELOPED AND PUSHED THROUGH.
17
BUT THERE ARE THESE OTHER STEPS THAT WE COULD
IS
HAVE TAKEN IN ANTICIPATION OF THE PASSAGE OF THE
19
TOWN CENTER ORDINANCE THAT WOULD HAVE PUT US IN A
20
MUCH BETTER TIMING POSITION TO GET ONTO THE
21
GOVERNOR'S DESK TO GET THAT DOCUMENT SIGNED SO
22
THAT WE WOULDN'T BE LOOKING NOW AT JUST FUNDING TO
23
GET HICKORY PARK, BUT AT THE TOTAL FUNDING THAT WE
24
HAD LOOKED AT BEFORE.
25
MR. MCLEMORE:
I THINK I LAID OUT IN YOUR
~
.
.
25
48
1
AGENDA PACKAGE THAT WE WERE WAY AHEAD IN THIS GAME
2
UNTIL THE COUNTY WENT BEHIND US TO STATE
3
GOVERNMENT AND TOOK IT AWAY FROM US. WE WERE WAY
4
AHEAD.
5
AND THEN, UNFORTUNATELY, ONCE THE COUNTY GOT
6
INVOLVED, AND THEY SAT ON IT FOR SIX TO EIGHT
7
MONTHS, WE WERE SITTING THERE WAITING FOR THE
8
APPLICATION TO GET, ONE, TO THE STATE, AND THEN
9
APPROVED SO WE COULD GO WITH THIS TRAIL
10
REALIGNMENT.
11
AND THE RULES FROM OGT HAVE BEEN IN A VERY
12
EVOLUTIONARY STATE.
13
MR. BLAKE: OKAY.
I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT.
14
MR. MCLEMORE: WE HAVE HAD, I GUESS, FOUR OR
15
FIVE DIFFERENT RENDERINGS ON WHAT THE RULES ARE.
16
AND WE WERE PREPARED -- AND SEE, WE HAVE ALREADY
17
DONE ONE APPRAISAL OF THE PROPERTIES. AND NOW
18
THEY'VE CAME BACK AND TOLD US THOSE APPRAISALS
19
AREN'T GOOD ENOUGH. THEY'VE GOT TO BE DONE BY
20
THIS CRITERIA.
21
AND SO WE TRIED, AND I SENT CHARLES BACK TO
22
FIND OUT WHERE WE ARE AT THIS POINT IN TIME
23
RELATIVE TO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO TO GET THE TRAIL
24
REALIGNMENT COMPLETED. AND THAT WAS THE SUBJECT,
I BELIEVE, OF YOUR NOVEMBER MEETING, A COUPLE
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19'
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
49
MEETINGS THAT WE HAD. WHAT IS IT WE HAVE TO DO?
TELL US SO WE KNOW WHAT TO DO.
AND WE ADVISED THEM OF THE FACT THAT THE
CORPS JURISDICTIONAL LINE WAS GOING TO BE
NON-CONCURRENT IN -- OR GO OUT OF -- THE CONTRACT
WOULD BE OVER AT THAT POINT IN TIME WITH THEM IN
DECEMBER.
AND THEIR REMARKS BACK TO US WAS THEY WILL
NEED AN UPDATED CORPS JURISDICTIONAL LINE BEFORE
THEY WOULD APPROVE US TO GO TO APPRAISAL AND TO
RIGHT-OF-WAYS.
AND WE PLAYED THE DANCE WITH THEM AS WELL AS
WE COULD PLAY IT. AND I'D LIKE TO TELL YOU IT'S
NICE TO SAY, YOU KNOW, SIX MONTHS OR A YEAR AGO WE
COULD HAVE GONE AND DONE THIS, BUT IT JUST HASN'T
BEEN THAT WAY. WE'VE TRIED TO FOLLOW THE RULES
AND DIRECTION AS THEY PUT THEM OUT.
MR. BLAKE: OKAY.
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
MR. MARTINEZ: MR. CARRINGTON, I HAVE BECOME
A LITTLE CONFUSED WITH THE BACK AND FORTH ON THE
DELINEATION OF THE WETLANDS ISSUE. AS I
UNDERSTAND YOUR SYNOPSIS OF WHAT TRANSPIRED FROM
BEGINNING TO THE PRESENT, YOU SAID THAT THE
DELINEATION OF THE WETLANDS, AS PREPARED BY THE
,
.
24
.
25
50
1
SCHRIMSHER PEOPLE, ARE IN EXISTENCE, WERE NOT
2
ACCEPTABLE TO THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE.
3
MR. CARRINGTON: NO, NOT EXACTLY.
LET ME GO
4
BACK AND REPHRASE THAT FOR EVERYONE'S
5
CLARIFICATION. THE GRAPHIC THAT'S ON THE BOARD
6
THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT NOW WAS THE GRAPHIC THAT
7
WAS DONE BACK IN '98 AT THE CHARRETTE WHEN DOVER,
8
COLE AND MICHAEL DESIGN ASSOCIATES WERE HERE
9
DURING THAT PERIOD OF FEBRUARY AND MARCH.
YOU CAN
10
SEE THE CONFIGURATION OF THE WETLANDS AS
11
DELINEATED BY THE MICHAEL DESIGN TEAM AS THEY
12
ACTUALLY WALKED IN THE FIELD.
13
UNFORTUNATELY, THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
14
INFORMATION WAS NOT
15
MR. MARTINEZ: THIS WAS DONE WHEN?
16
MR. CARRINGTON: IT WAS DONE IN MARCH OF '98.
17
MR. MARTINEZ: OKAY.
18
MR. CARRINGTON: UNFORTUNATELY, THE
19
INFORMATION THAT -- THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS'
20
INFORMATION WAS NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO THE CITY OR
21
TO THE CONSULTANTS AT THAT TIME.
22
IN THE LATER DATE, WE UNDERSTOOD -- OR I
23
UNDERSTAND, THAT THE INFORMATION WAS MADE
AVAILABLE. AND AS SOON AS IT WAS MADE AVAILABLE,
THE CITY MANAGER BROUGHT BEFORE THIS BODY A
,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
51
RECOMMENDATION THAT WE REHIRE -- AND THIS WAS AT
THE SCHRIMSHERS' URGING -- REHIRE DOVER, COLE &
ASSOCIATES TO COMPLETELY REDESIGN THAT PORTION OF
THE SCHRIMSHER PROPERTY TO REFLECT THE ACTUAL
DELINEATION OF THE WETLANDS AS DEFINED BY THE
CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
THAT WORK WAS DONE IN NOVEMBER. AS A MATTER
OF FACT, THE WEEK THAT THEY DID THE CHARRETTE
HERE, I WAS IN TALLAHASSEE MEETING WITH THE BUREAU'
OF LAND MANAGEMENT. AND IT WAS AT THAT TIME THAT
THEY TOLD ME THAT THE EXPIRATION OF THE WETLANDS
WOULD BE UNACCEPTABLE UNLESS REVISITED BY THE
CORPS AND REESTABLISHED.
AT THE TIME THAT I WAS IN TALLAHASSEE, VICTOR
DOVER AND HIS ASSOCIATES WERE IN THIS WORKROOM
OVER HERE ACTUALLY PREPARING THIS PLAN THAT'S
BEFORE YOU TODAY.
SO YOUR STAFF HAS NOT DELAYED THIS THING AT
ALL. IF THERE WAS A DELAY, IT WAS RELATED BACK --
MR. MARTINEZ: I'M NOT SAYING THAT. WHAT I'M
TRYING TO SAY TO YOU IS THAT AT THE TIME OR IN
NOVEMBER, THERE WASN'T A SURVEY MAP, OKAY,
DEPICTING A DELINEATION THAT WAS SATISFACTORY TO
THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE.
MR. CARRINGTON: IT WAS, BUT IT EXPIRED
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
52
DECEMBER 1ST.
MR. MARTINEZ: THIS IS WHY THAT I SAY THAT
I'M CONFUSED, BECAUSE COMMISSIONER BLAKE WAS
ASKING WHY WASN'T THE WORK -- PAPERWORK SUBMITTED
BEFORE DECEMBER 1ST IF THE DELINEATION MAP WAS
GOOD.
MR. CARRINGTON: BECAUSE IT WAS ONLY PROVIDED
TO DOVER, COLE & ASSOCIATES IN NOVEMBER -- TO MY
KNOWLEDGE, OCTOBER OR NOVEMBER OF THIS PAST YEAR.
SO I NEVER SAW IT UNTIL OCTOBER OR NOVEMBER OF
THIS PAST YEAR.
MR. MARTINEZ: YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT '99.
MR. CARRINGTON: '99. SO IF IT EXISTED, I
NEVER SAW IT AND NEITHER DID DOVER COLE. I CAN'T
SPEAK FOR THEM.
MR. MARTINEZ: AND THE MAP EXPIRED DECEMBER
1ST.
MR. CARRINGTON: YES.
MR. MARTINEZ: WELL, THERE WAS A MAP IN
EXISTENCE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SATISFACTORY TO THE
GOVERNMENT PEOPLE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: ALL RIGHT.
MR. CARRINGTON: ALL ALONG, FOR THE LAST FIVE
YEARS, THERE'S BEEN A DELINEATION OF THE WETLANDS.
MR. MARTINEZ: WHEN WAS THE LATEST CORPS MAP
.
.
.
. _ ~ ~4--.' o. . .....__.._, ...... ..
53
1
DESIGNED, THE DELINEATION?
2
MR. CARRINGTON: WELL, IF YOU SUBTRACT FIVE
3
FROM '99, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN 1994.
IT WAS DONE
4
SOMETIME IN '93 OR '94 AND EXPIRED DECEMBER THE
5
1ST, '99.' IT'S GOOD FOR FIVE YEARS.
6
WHEN IT'S REESTABLISHED -- AND IN ALL
7
PROBABILITY THE DELINEATION WON'T CHANGE -- YOU
8
DON'T GET A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN THE DELINEATION
9
OF A WETLAND UNLESS YOU'VE HAD CONSTRUCTION OR
10
SOME ACTIVITY AROUND THE WETLANDS THAT WOULD CAUSE
11
A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE.
I DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT
12
ONCE IVY, HARRIS & WALL -- IF THEY'RE SELECTED OR
13
WHOMEVER -- DOES THIS WORK, WHEN THEY COME IN
14
HERE, I DOUBT THAT YOU'LL SEE A CHANGE AT ALL.
15
AND IF IT'S A CHANGE, IT WILL BE VERY
16
INSIGNIFICANT.
17
IT'S NOT A MATTER OF WHETHER THE ACTUAL
18
CONFIGURATION WOULD CHANGE.
IT'S A MATTER OF THE
19
FACT THAT THE STATE, IN DOTTING EVERY "I" AND
20
CROSSING EVERY liT," IS GOING TO WANT TO MAKE SURE
21
THAT THAT WETLAND DELINEATION IS STILL VALID.
22
MR. MARTINEZ: SO THE ONLY REASON WHY THE OGT
23
REJECTED THE PAPERWORK YOU PRESENTED TO THEM IS
24
BECAUSE THE MAP DELINEATION OF THE WETLANDS AT THE
25
TIME WAS SENT IN AFTER DECEMBER 1ST?
.
.
20
21
23
24
.
25
54
1
MR. CARRINGTON: NO, SIR. NO ONE HAS REJECTED
2
ANYTHING. EVERYTHING HAS BEEN APPROVED AT THE
3
COUNTY LEVEL AND ALL THREE ADMINISTRATIVE LEVELS
4
AT THE STATE.
IT'S READY TO GO TO THE GOVERNOR
5
AND CABINET FOR APPROVAL. NOTHING HAS BEEN
6
REJECTED.
7
IT'S JUST THAT WHEN WE SUBMITTED THIS TO THE
8
STATE, WHEN THE COUNTY SUBMITTED IT, THEY
9
SUBMITTED THIS DOCUMENT WITH THIS CONFIGURATION.
10
WHEN THEY ASKED ME, IN NOVEMBER, DID THIS
11
CONFIGURATION, AS SUBMITTED, ON A TRAIL RELOCATION
12
APPLICATION -- WAS THAT A CORPS OF ENGINEERS
13
DELINEATION? I HAD TO TELL THEM, NO, IT'S NOT.
14
MR. MARTINEZ: THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
15
MR. CARRINGTON: AND THEY SAID, WELL, WE WILL
16
NEED A CORPS OF ENGINEERS DELINEATION BEFORE WE
17
CAN FINALIZE THIS. THAT DIDN'T STOP IT.
THEY
18
DIDN'T DISAPPROVE IT. EVERYONE HAS APPROVED IT.
19
THEY'RE WORKING WITH US.
AND AT THE SAME TIME THAT THEY WERE TELLING
ME THIS, THE CONSULTANT WAS ACTUALLY WORKING WITH
22
THE SCHRIMSHER PROPERTIES AND WITH THE CITY IN A
CHARRETTE, IN THIS BUILDING IN LATE NOVEMBER -- OR
MID-NOVEMBER, NOVEMBER THE 9TH, TO RECONFIGURE THE
TOWN CENTER TO REFLECT THIS ACTUAL DELINEATION.
.
.
.
55
1
MR. MARTINEZ: BUT THEY DID REJECT IT THEN,
2
THE FIRST ONE THAT YOU PUT ON THE SCREEN.
3
MR. CARRINGTON: THEY NEVER REJECTED
4
ANYTHING, NO, SIR. THEY HAVEN'T REJECTED.
5
THEY'RE JUST ADVISING THAT TO MOVE FORWARD WE HAVE
6
TO HAVE AN OFFICIAL DELINEATION OF THE WETLANDS,
7
NOT ONE THAT WAS DERIVED BY SOMEONE WALKING THE
8
AREA.
9
MR. MARTINEZ: LET'S TAKE THE WORD "REJECTED"
10
AND SAY THEY DID NOT ACCEPT.
11
MR. CARRINGTON: THEY HAVE ACCEPTED AND
12
APPROVED THE APPLICATION FOR THE TRAIL RELOCATION
13
BASED ON THIS CONFIGURATION. THEY MERELY HAVE
14
ADVISED -- STAFF HAS ADVISED THAT BEFORE THIS CAN
15
BE APPRAISED AND SURVEYED, THE ACTUAL DELINEATION
16
OF THE WETLANDS WILL HAVE TO BE MADE BY A
17
CERTIFIED ENGINEER AND ESTABLISHED BY THE CORPS OF
18
ENGINEERS.
19
MR. MARTINEZ: WELL, ISN'T THAT A
20
NON-ACCEPTANCE? IF THEY TELL YOU THAT WE WANT
21
SOMETHING ELSE INSTEAD OF WHAT YOU'RE BRINGING ME,
22
ISN'T THAT AN UNACCEPTANCE?
23
MR. CARRINGTON: WELL, LET'S JUST PUT IT THIS
24
WAY:
I DO NOT HAVE TO TAKE THIS MATTER BACK
25
BEFORE THE OFFICE OF GREENWAYS AND TRAILS. THEY
.
.
.
56
1
HAVE SIGNED OFF ON IT.
I DO NOT HAVE TO TAKE IT
2
BACK TO THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT. THEY HAVE
3
SIGNED OFF ON IT.
I DO NOT HAVE TO TAKE IT BACK
4
TO THE LAND ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT COUNCIL.
5
THEY HAVE SIGNED OFF ON IT. SO AS FAR AS I'M
6
CONCERNED, EVERYONE HAS APPROVED IT.
7
IN ORDER TO TAKE IT TO THE GOVERNOR AND
8
CABINET, THERE'S TWO THINGS THAT HAVE TO HAPPEN
9
WELL, THREE THINGS THAT HAVE TO HAPPENj ONE IS THE
10
CITY HAS TO APPROVE THE TOWN CENTER. TWO, THE
11
MR. MARTINEZ: SURVEY.
12
MR. CARRINGTON: PARDON ME?
13
MR. MARTINEZ: SURVEY.
14
MR. CARRINGTON: WE HAVE TO DO A SURVEY
15
ACCORDING TO RULES AND SPECIFICATIONS OUTLINED BY
16
THE STATE, AND THEY'RE VERY DETAILED.
17
THREE, WE HAVE TO DO AN APPRAISAL ACCORDING
18
TO RULES AND STANDARDS FOR THE STATE.
19
WE HAVE CONSULTANTS READY TO GO TO WORK ON
20
ALL THREE THINGS. QUICKLY, THE DELINEATION -- AND
21
I'M TOLD THAT IT'S NOT A MAJOR, INVOLVED PROCESS,
22
BUT IT'S $10,000.
23
THE SURVEY, THE PEOPLE ARE READY TO GO TO
24
WORK ON THAT OR HAVE BEEN FOR THE LAST MONTH. THE
25
SAME THING WITH THE APPRAISAL. THE APPRAISER IS
.
.
.
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
READY TO GO TO WORK. AND ALL OF THE -- I HAVE
SENT THEIR PROPOSALS TO THE STATE. THEIR
PROPOSALS HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE STATE. AS FAR
AS THE STATE'S CONCERNED, EVERYTHING IS READY TO
GO. THE TIMING IS THE PROBLEM.
MR. MARTINEZ: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
MAYOR PARTYKA: THANK YOU. LET ME JUST SAY
ONE THING. REGARDLESS OF WHERE THINGS ARE, I
MEAN, THE FACTS ARE THAT THE CURRENT WETLANDS
DESIGNATION HAS EXPIRED AND WE NEED TO GET A NEW
ONE BEFORE IT GOES ON AND A FEW OTHERS THINGS.
THAT'S THE FACTS.
MR. CARRINGTON: YES.
MAYOR PARTYKA: WE NEED TO GET TO SOME KIND
OF CONCLUSION ON THIS SO WE CAN TALK TO THE NEXT
AREA.
COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
MR. BLAKE: THANK YOU, MAYOR. I'D LIKE TO
MAKE A MOTION TO LAY THIS ON THE TABLE.
MR. MILLER: SECOND.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. CALL THE VOTE.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MILLER.
MR. MILLER: AYE.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
MR. MARTINEZ: NAY.
. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
-
--. .
23
24
. 25
58
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
MR. BLAKE: AYE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. MOTION'S NOT PASSED.
OKAY. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THERE IS A
RECOMMENDATION BY THE CITY MANAGER TO, IN EFFECT,
DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. THAT'S HIS
RECOMMENDATION PENDING WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE
SCHRIMSHERS AND, ALSO, THE TOWN CODE.
WHAT WE CAN DO AT THAT POINT IN TIME, IF IT
MAKES SENSE -- I KNOW YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS
ISSUE RIGHT NOW, BUT MAYBE WE CAN DO IT TOGETHER
WITH THE NEXT POINT.
MR. GRINDSTAFF:
I JUST THINK IT WOULD BE
HELPFUL --
MAYOR PARTYKA: WHY DON'T YOU COME ON UP
HERE. DON'T SAY ANYTHING MORE. JUST IDENTIFY
YOURSELF.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MY
NAME IS MICHAEL GRINDSTAFF.
I'M AN ATTORNEY WITH
THE LAW FIRM OF SHUTTS & BOWEN, 20 NORTH ORANGE
AVENUE, ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32801. WE REPRESENT THE
SCHRIMSHER GROUP.
I REALIZE THE SEQUENCE THAT YOU'RE GOING IN.
I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT WE CAN,
OR ATTEMPT TO. BUT JUST TO ADDRESS SOME
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
59
SURVEY-RELATED QUESTIONS, IT MIGHT BE EASIER AND
BETTER TO DO IT NOW RATHER THAN TO WAIT UNTIL WE
GET INTO THESE OTHER ISSUES THAT ARE GOING TO COME
UP.
MAYOR PARTYKA: MIGHT AS WELL, BECAUSE YOU'RE
APPROPRIATED, PLUS YOU ALSO WANTED TO SPEAK AS AN
INTERESTED PARTY.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: RIGHT. THE WETLANDS LINE --
THE FIRST MAP -- CHARLES, IF YOU'D SHOW THEM WHAT
YOU WERE SHOWING AS THE ORIGINAL PLAN.
THE ORIGINAL PLAN WAS WRONG. EVERYBODY KNEW
IT WAS WRONG. YOUR PEOPLE, WE THINK, KNEW IT WAS
WRONG. WE CLAIMED THAT IT WAS WRONG LONG BEFORE
NOVEMBER OF 1999.
FORTUNATELY, WE HAD A COURT REPORTER WITH US
FOR THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF WHILE WE COME TO THIS
TOWN HALL, AND WE'LL BE ABLE TO TELL YOU WHEN WE
DISCUSSED THIS ENVIRONMENTAL LINE. AND THAT'S
JUST THE FACTS. NO ONE'S UPSET. JUST, THAT'S THE
FACTS. WE KNEW THAT WAS WRONG.
WE HAD A JURISDICTION LINE. IT DID EXPIRE ON
DECEMBER 1. WE, FROM THE BEGINNING, EXPLAINED
THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE EXPIRING ON DECEMBER 1 AND
NOT DECEMBER 31 AND THAT WE WOULD BE TRYING FOR
OUR OWN INTERESTS TO HAVE THAT LINE RENEWED; NOT
~
.
23
24
.
25
60
1
JUST THE TOWN CENTER IN THIS, BUT FOR OUR OWN
2
INTERESTS. WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF DOING THAT.
3
WE'RE VERY OPTIMISTIC, ALTHOUGH IT HASN'T BEEN
4
DONE YET..
5
BUT TO SUGGEST THAT THE CITY WAS UNAWARE OF
6
IT IS FLAT WRONG, FLAT WRONG. PERHAPS IT WAS
7
IGNORED, BUT THEY WERE AWARE OF IT.
8
THE IMPORTANT THING TO REMEMBER WAS WE KNEW
9
THAT WAS WRONG -- IF YOU PUT UP NUMBER TWO --
10
BASED ON THE NEW LINE, WHILE WE'RE NOT ABSOLUTELY
11
CERTAIN IT'S EXACT, IT WAS CERTAINLY MORE ACCURATE
12
THAN THE FIRST ONE, WHICH WE ALL KNEW WAS WRONG.
13
THIS MAY, IN FACT, BE RENEWED BY THE CORPS.
14
WE ARE OPTIMISTIC THAT THAT WOULD HAPPEN. BECAUSE
15
WE TRIED TO GO SO FAST WITH THIS WHOLE THING, TWO
16
WEEKS, TWO WEEKS, COME BACK IN TWO WEEKS, TWO
17
WEEKS, GET IT DONE, GET IT DONE, PASS IT, BOOM.
18
JOSHI COMES ALONG. LET'S DON'T FORGET JOSHI AND
19
THE 90 TO 120 DAYS THAT WAS SPENT PURSUING THAT
20
BUM PROPOSAL, TO PUT IT POLITELY. THE COUNTY THEN
21
GETS IN AND INTERCEDES IN THIS RELOCATION EFFORT.
22
SO TO SUGGEST THAT HERE WE ARE
I FRANKLY THINK,
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, IT'S UNFAIR TO THE STAFF,
WHO I THINK HAS WORKED VERY HARD ON THIS STUFF,
PARTICULARLY MR. CARRINGTON AND MR. MCLEMORE, WHO
61
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
WE HAVE NOT ALWAYS SEEN EYE TO EYE WITH.
MR. MCLEMORE: BUT WE WORK HARD.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: WE WORK HARD. WE'RE TRYING
TO DO IT RIGHT. AND I THINK WE ARE GETTING TO A
POINT WHERE IT CAN BE DONE RIGHT.
BUT TO SUGGEST THAT WE/RE NOW DOWN TO RUNNING
OUT OF TIME AND THAT WE ALL NEED TO BE SCOLDED
BECAUSE WE DIDN'T LOOK AT THIS THING, I THINK IS
WRONG. THERE ARE REASONS.
I SPOKE -- ANTHONY AND I SPOKE TODAY IN A
CONFERENCE CALL WITH THE LADY FROM THE OFFICE OF
GREENWAYS AND TRAILS. HER NAME WAS SAMANTHA
BROWN. AND WE TALKED ABOUT THE ISSUE OF HAVING
THE TOWN -- ACTUALLY, THERE WERE A COUPLE THINGS
WE TALKED ABOUT, ONE OF WHICH WAS, DOES THE TOWN
CENTER CODE NEED TO BE ADOPTED AND THE TRAIL
RELOCATED AS A CONDITION TO THIS GRANT MONEY?
SHE SAID TO US, NO. SHE SAID THAT IT MAY
MAKE SENSE TO HAVE THE TOWN CENTER CODE ADOPTED
AND THE TRAIL RELOCATED SO THAT YOU KNOW WHERE IT
IS. SHE DOESN'T DISPUTE THAT THAT'S A GOOD IDEA,
BUT IT WAS NOT A CONDITION FROM HER OFFICE TO HAVE
THOSE THINGS IMPOSED OR IN PLACE BEFORE THE GRANT
MONEY WAS AVAILABLE. AND I THINK YOU SHOULD KNOW
THAT.
.
.
.
.
.
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
AND HOW THOSE TWO DIFFERENCES OF OPINION GOT
THROWN AROUND THERE, I DON'T KNOW, BUT THAT'S WHAT
SHE SAID TO US. AND IF ANTHONY DISAGREES, I'D
LIKE FOR ANTHONY TO SAY SO NOW.
MR. GARGANESE: NO, I DON'T DISAGREE. I DID
SPEAK WITH SAMANTHA BROWN AND MR. GRINDSTAFF ON
THIS ISSUE. AND I'M A LITTLE UNCLEAR, AT THIS
POINT, WHAT IS REALLY REQUIRED TO GO FORWARD WITH
THIS GRANT. AS I SEE IT, YOU HAVE A COUPLE OF
ISSUES; HICKORY PARK, WHICH MS. BROWN BASICALLY
SAYS IS A STAND-ALONE ISSUE THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE
TO RELOCATE THE TRAIL
MR. GRINDSTAFF: ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE
ROAD, LIKE YOU WERE SAYING.
MR. GARGANESE:
IF YOU FOLLOW THROUGH WITH
MR. MILLER'S LOGIC, IT'S COMPLETELY ON THE
OPPOSITE SIDE OF TUSCAWILLA ROAD, IT'S REMOVED
FROM WETLANDS PARK, AND IT'S REMOVED FROM THE
TRAIL.
MR. MCLEMORE: LET ME SAY FOR THE RECORD THAT
THAT IS NOT WHAT I PERSONALLY HAVE HEARD
REPRESENTED BY THEIR STAFF.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: AND I BELIEVE YOU.
IT'S
JUST THAT WE HEARD SOMETHING DIFFERENT, AND
THERE'S SOMETHING GOING ON HERE.
.
.
.
63
1
MR. GARGANESE: THAT'S WHY I SAY WE'RE NOT
2
CLEAR AS TO WHERE THIS IS GOING.
3
MAYOR PARTYKA: ONE AT A TIME.
I WANT TO
4
FINISH UP MR. GRINDSTAFF.
5
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THAT WAS THE ONLY COMMENTS I
6
WANTED TO MAKE ON THE LINE.
I MEAN, THERE ARE A
7
NUMBER OF THINGS WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT, AND THIS
8
EVENING PROMISES TO BE INTERESTING.
9
BUT I THINK MIKE SCHRIMSHER WOULD ALSO LIKE
10
TO SAY SOME THINGS JUST ON THE LINE, BECAUSE HE
11
PARTICIPATED IN THE CHARRETTES BEFORE I GOT
12
INVOLVED AND IN THE ORIGINAL PART OF THE PLAN.
13
MR. SCHRIMSHER:
I WANTED TO
I'M MIKE
14
SCHRIMSHER, 600 EAST COLONIAL STREET, SUITE 100,
15
ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32803.
16
I WAS GOING TO ASK MS. GENNELL TO BE MY
17
VALENTINE, BUT SHE'S NOT HERE, SO I CAN'T DO
18
THAT.
I'M SORRY. AND I'M DRESSED IN RED JUST TO
19
BE IN THE SPIRIT OF THE OCCASION.
20
I JUST WANT TO SAY THE LINE -- I HAVE
21
FORGOTTEN THE EXACT DATE, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY
22
MID-DECEMBER.
I WANTED YOU TO KNOW THAT WE
23
APPLIED TO HAVE IT REVALIDATED IN OCTOBER AND THAT
24
WE'VE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THE ARMY CORPS. AND
25
IT'S -- IT WOULD APPEAR THAT IT'S GOING TO BE
.
.
.
64
1
REVALIDATED EXACTLY AS IT IS AND IT'S NOT GOING TO
2
CHANGE. YOU CAN'T TAKE THAT TO THE BANK UNTIL
3
WE'RE HOLDING THE DOCUMENT WITH THE AUTHORITATIVE
4
SIGNATURES AND DATES ON IT, BUT THAT IS WHAT'S
5
BEEN REPRESENTED TO US. SO I FEEL GOOD ABOUT IT.
6
AND PLEASANTLY SURPRISED, ACTUALLY, BECAUSE WE'VE
7
HAD THIS LINE DONE THREE TIMES AND IT'S NEVER BEEN
8
HANDLED REAL QUICKLY.
9
BUT, ANYWAY, THAT'S, I THINK, VERY GOOD NEWS
10
THAT THE DECISIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE BASED UPON
11
THE EXISTING LINE APPEAR THAT THAT LINE WON'T
12
CHANGE AND FORCE DESIGN CHANGES.
SO I THINK IT'S
13
IMMINENT THAT WE WILL RECEIVE THAT FROM THE ARMY
14
CORPS TO THE SATISFACTION OF OTHER AGENCIES.
15
AND IT'S NOT FUNNY, BUT IT'S INTERESTING AS A
16
PRIVATE CITIZEN TO SEE ONE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT --
17
IN THIS CASE, THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT -- CAUGHT
18
IN THE THROES OF TRYING TO SATISFY MULTIPLE
19
AGENCIES AND THEIR CHANGING AND SOMETIMES
20
CONTRADICTORY REQUIREMENTS TO TRY TO, YOU KNOW,
21
GET WHAT SHOULD BE -- WHAT SEEMS TO BE A FAIRLY
22
SIMPLE TASK ACCOMPLISHED.
IT JUST COSTS MORE THAN
23
IT SHOULD AND IT TAKES LONGER THAN IT SHOULD.
24
I THINK IT'S JUST -- YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY YOU
25
OFTEN HEAR FOLKS LIKE ME KIND OF BEMOANING ANY NEW
.
~
.
24
.
25
65
1
REGULATION OR ANY CHANGES IN REGULATION, BECAUSE
2
IT JUST GETS -- IT COMPLICATES EVERYTHING THAT YOU
3
TRY TO DO, SO ANYWAY.
4
MAYOR PARTYKA: THANK YOU. WELL,
5
COMMISSIONERS, WE'RE NOW AT A POINT WHERE
6
SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE. WE HAVE TO HAVE AN
7
ACTION HERE. SINCE WE DIDN'T TABLE ANYTHING,
8
SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE, WHETHER --
9
MR. MARTINEZ: MR. CARRINGTON HAS SOME
10
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HE WANTS TO TALK ABOUT.
11
MAYOR PARTYKA: DO YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL
12
INFORMATION?
13
MR. CARRINGTON:
I HAVE PERTINENT
14
INFORMATION.
I HAVE HAD NO CONTACT WITH SAMANTHA
15
BROWN, DO NOT KNOW WHO SHE IS. SHE WAS NOT IN ANY
16
OF THE MEETINGS WITH US ON OFFICE OF GREENWAYS AND
17
TRAILS.
I MET WITH THE TOP PERSON IN THE
18
DEPARTMENT.
I'VE HAD NO MEETINGS WITH HER. THIS
19
COULD BE A PROBLEM.
IT COULD BE TRUE. BUT I
20
WOULD THINK THAT HAD SHE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS
21
PROCESS, SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE MEETINGS THAT
22
I'VE ATTENDED IN TALLAHASSEE.
23
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. NOW, GIVEN THAT,
AGAIN, ALL THE BACKGROUND THAT WE HAVE HERE,
SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
-
---
23
24
25
.
.
66
COMMISSIONERS, WHAT DO WE WANT TO DO HERE?
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE
CITY MANAGER, WE CAN DELIBERATELY --
MR. MILLER: SHOULD WE MAKE A MOTION TO
TABLE?
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, I THINK YOU SHOULD
(INAUDIBLE) .
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY.
MR. MCLEMORE: OH, I THOUGHT THEY DID IT.
MAYOR PARTYKA: NO.
SO SOMETHING
IT FAILED.
HAS TO BE DONE.
COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
MR. BLAKE: MAYOR, EXCUSE ME.
I HAVE THE
FLOOR. MR. MAYOR, THE PURPOSE OF MY EARLIER
MOTION TO TABLE THIS WAS SIMPLY BECAUSE I THINK
THAT THERE IS SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT MAY
COME OUT ON THE NEXT FEW ITEMS THAT ARE RELATED TO
THIS ITEM THAT MAY HELP US DETERMINE EXACTLY WHAT
TO DO HERE.
PERHAPS YOU WOULD DISCUSS WITH THE OTHER
COMMISSIONERS WHAT THEY THINK THEY MIGHT WANT TO
DO, BUT, TO ME, IT SEEMS TO BE THE RIGHT MOVE.
MAYOR PARTYKA:
I AGREE, COMMISSIONER. GIVEN
THE FACT THAT COMMISSIONER MILLER AGREED,
COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ, ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT?
.
.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
67
1
MR. MARTINEZ:
I AGREED TO TABLE THIS FOR
2
TEMPORARILY UNTIL WE DISCUSS THE REST OF THE
3
PACKAGE. AT THAT TIME, I'LL MAKE A DECISION ON
4
ALL OF THE ITEMS.
5
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. I JUST WANT YOU TO
6
UNDERSTAND FROM THE TABLING, YOU VOTED NO.
7
THEREFORE, IT NEVER PASSED.
8
MR. MARTINEZ: I KNOW.
9
MAYOR PARTYKA: SO IF YOU WISH TO MAKE -- IF
10
WE ACCEPT ANOTHER MOTION ON THE TABLING
11
MR. MARTINEZ: WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT I
12
STIPULATED.
13
MAYOR PARTYKA: WELL, TABLING MEANS THAT.
14
OKAY. I'LL ACCEPT ANOTHER MOTION TO TABLE.
COMMISSIONER MILLER, DO YOU WISH TO MAKE A MOTION?l
15
16
MR. MILLER: MOTION TO TABLE.
17
MAYOR PARTYKA:
IS THERE A SECOND? ANYBODY?
MR. MARTINEZ: SECOND.
MAYOR PARTYKA: SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
MARTINEZ. CALL THE VOTE, PLEASE.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
MR. BLAKE: AYE.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MILLER.
MR. MILLER: AYE.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
.
.
24
.
25
68
1
MR. MARTINEZ: AYE.
2
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL
3
RIGHT. WE'LL TABLE THIS UNTIL SOME FUTURE PART OF
4
THE MEETING WHEN IT'S APPROPRIATE TO DISCUSS THIS
5
AGAIN.
6
NOW, AT THIS POINT, LET ME MOVE ON TO F.
7
THIS IS UNDER CITY MANAGER. CITY MANAGER
8
REQUESTING THE COMMISSION TO REVIEW AND PROVIDE
9
DIRECTION REGARDING THE APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT
10
WITH SCHRIMSHER PROPERTIES RELATIVE TO THE TOWN
11
CENTER DISTRICT CODE.
12
CITY MANAGER.
13
MR. MCLEMORE: YOUR DIRECTION TO US WAS TO
14
BRING YOU BACK AN AGREEMENT TONIGHT THAT WAS
15
APPROVABLE OR DELINEATE TO YOU WHAT THE
16
OUTSTANDING ISSUES ARE IN AN AGREEMENT. AND I'M
17
GOING TO ASK ANTHONY IF HE WILL GO OVER THE
18
OUTSTANDING ISSUES AS HE UNDERSTANDS IT, AND I'LL
19
BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO COMMENT ON THOSE WHEN HE
20
GETS THROUGH OR AS WE GO ALONG, WHICHEVER IS MOST
21
APPROPRIATE.
22
MR. GARGANESE: OKAY. VERY, VERY BRIEFLY, I
23
THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF THE COMMISSION WENT
TO ITEM B IN YOUR AGENDA UNDER THE PUBLIC HEARING
AND PULL A COPY OF THE TOWN CENTER CODE OUT. ON
.
.
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
69
1
PAGE 11, YOU'LL SEE A MAP -- PROPOSED MAP OF THE
TOWN CENTER.
2
3
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. WHAT PAGE IS THAT?
4
MR. MARTINEZ: ELEVEN.
MR. GARGANESE: IT'S ON PAGE 11 OF THE TOWN
CENTER DISTRICT CODE.
MR. MCLEMORE: JUST FOR YOUR INFORMATION, WE
ARE PREPARED TO PUT IT ON THE SCREEN.
MAYOR PARTYKA: DO WE HAVE THE PICTURE HERE?
5
6
7
8
9
10
MR. MILLER: CHARLES?
11
MAYOR PARTYKA: HE HAS THIS.
WHILE YOU'RE DOING THAT, CITY MANAGER --
MR. MCLEMORE: YES.
MAYOR PARTYKA: -- I HAVE A GENERAL QUESTION
ON YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS. YOU HAVE THREE POINTS.
WHICH ONE DO YOU RECOMMEND BASED ON YOUR KNOWLEDGE
OF ALL THE DISCUSSIONS AT THIS POINT?
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
MR. MCLEMORE: ON THE ISSUES?
19
MAYOR PARTYKA: YES.
IN TERMS OF WHAT YOUR
RECOMMENDATIONS ARE. YOU HAVE THREE THINGS HERE:
ADOPT CITY, ADOPT CITY PROPOSAL WITH AMENDMENTS,
DIRECT NEGOTIATION TO CONTINUE.
WHAT'S YOUR PERSONAL OPINION ON THE
RECOMMENDATION?
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, I THINK I SHOULD GET
.
.
22
23
24
.
25
70
1
SOME SENSE FROM YOU AS TO WHAT YOU UNDERSTAND THE
2
ISSUES ARE AND HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THE ISSUES.
3
THEN WE'LL KNOW WHAT TO DO.
4
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. ANYBODY WANT TO START?
5
MR. GARGANESE: I'LL JUST GO OVER WHAT WE
6
BELIEVE THE OUTSTANDING ISSUES ARE IN REACHING AN
7
AGREEMENT WITH SCHRIMSHER PROPERTIES.
8
THE FIRST ISSUE THAT WE'RE STILL TRYING TO
9
WORK THROUGH IS THE LOCATION OF SPINE ROAD.
SPINE
10
ROAD'S GOING TO BE A MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD THAT
11
RUNS THROUGH THE SCHRIMSHER PROPERTY THAT CONNECTS
12
434 TO TUSCAWILLA ROAD. WE HAVE NOT AGREED, TO
13
DATE, AS TO THE LOCATION OF SPINE ROAD.
14
MR. MCLEMORE-: KIP IS GOING TO PUT UP THE
15
THREE ALTERNATIVES.
16
CAN WE MOVE THAT GRAPHIC OVER THERE THAT'S IN
17
THE WAY OF THE SCREEN FOR A MOMENT? JUST SET IT
18
DOWN. CAN YOU MOVE -- JUST LAY IT DOWN, THE
19
EASEL.
20
OKAY. WE LOOKED AT THREE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES
21
THAT WE WOULD NAME COLLECTOR ROADS OR POTENTIALLY
THAT WOULD QUALIFY AS A COLLECTOR ROAD UNDER YOUR
IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE. BECAUSE THE IDEA WAS WHAT
WE COULD QUALIFY AS AN IMPACT FEE ROAD, WE COULD
CONSTRUCT AN IMPACT FEE. SO THERE WERE THREE
.
.
25
.
71
1
ALTERNATIVES.
2
AND NOW THE QUESTION IS: WHICH ALTERNATIVE
3
IS SUITABLE FOR THIS AGREEMENT BASED ON THE MUTUAL
4
CONSENT OF THE PARTIES?
5
SO JUST SHOW THEM VERY BRIEFLY, IF YOU WOULD,
6
KIP.
7
MR. LOCKCUFF: THAT'S NUMBER ONE, NUMBER
8
TWO. THIS IS NUMBER THREE.
I
9
MR. MCLEMORE: AND THEN, OF COURSE, EACH ONE
10
HAS A COST HORIZON. AND IT WAS OUR FEELING
11
INITIALLY THAT THE LOWER ALTERNATIVE WAS THE ONE
12
THAT WOULD BEST JUMP-START THE TOWN CENTER AND DO
13
THE MOST GOOD IN TERMS OF DOLLARS SPENT.
THAT'S
14
APPROXIMATELY A $900,000 BUDGET, OR RIGHT CLOSE TO
15
A MILLION.
16
MR. BLAKE: THAT IS THE DOTS?
17
MR. MCLEMORE: THE DOTS.
18
THE SECOND ALTERNATIVE IS THE ONE THAT GOES
19
AROUND THE EASTERN PART OF WETLAND PARK.
IT IS
20
THE ONE, I THINK, THAT THE SCHRIMSHERS PREFER.
21
AND THAT BUDGET IS ALMOST -- ABOUT 1,113,000,
22
ESTIMATED.
23
AND THEN, OF COURSE, THE OUTLYING ONE IS BY
24
AND FAR THE MOST EXPENSIVE. KIP, I DON'T HAVE THE
NUMBERS.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU REMEMBER IT.
.
.
24
25
.
72
1
MR. LOCKCUFF:
IT WAS ABOUT 1.3 SOMETHING.
2
MR. MCLEMORE: 1.3 MILLION. OKAY. AND
3
AGAIN, THE FIRST THING WAS THAT WE'VE GOT TO BE
4
ABLE TO QUALIFY IT UNDER THE ORDINANCE OF AN
5
IMPACT FEE ROAD, WHICH MEANS YOU HAVE TO QUALIFY
6
IT AS A COLLECTOR ROAD. AND ONE OF THE PARTS OF
7
THE AGREEMENT WAS, WE WOULD AGREE TO DO THATj
8
ESTABLISH IT AS A COLLECTOR ROAD IN YOUR
I
9
CIRCULATION PLAN.
10
NOW, THE QUESTION IS: WHICH ONE DO WE
11
CHOOSE? AND THERE -- YOU KNOW, THERE'S TWO
12
ISSUES. ONE IS COST, AND THE OTHER IS
13
(INAUDIBLE) .
IT WOULD BE THE ONE THAT WOULD BEST
14
SPUR THE DEVELOPMENT OR BEST KICK-START THE
15
DEVELOPMENT. AND THERE WE HAVE SOME DISAGREEMENT
16
BETWEEN US AND THE SCHRIMSHERS. AND YOU KNOW
17
THERE'S A $200,000 DIFFERENCE HERE,
18
APPROXIMATELY.
19
SO, WITH THAT IN MIND, YOU NEED TO HEAR FROM
20
THE SCHRIMSHERS ON THIS ISSUE AND MAKE A DECISION
21
AS TO WHERE YOU WANT TO GO IN ORDER TO RESOLVE
22
THIS ISSUE.
23
SO DO YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD WITH OTHER ISSUES
AND COME BACK TO THIS OR --
MAYOR PARTYKA: WHICH IS THE BEST WAY?
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
-
23
24
25
.
.
73
MR. MCLEMORE: I WOULD RATHER DEAL WITH THEM
ONE AT A TIME.
MR. BLAKE: MR. MAYOR.
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSIONER BLAKE, YOU --
COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
MR. BLAKE: I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE FOUR OR
FIVE INDIVIDUAL ISSUES?
MR. MCLEMORE: YES.
MR. BLAKE:
I THINK WHAT I WOULD PREFER IS IF
YOU CAN JUST GIVE US, LIKE, A ONE SENTENCE --
LIKE, SPINE ROAD IS ONE ISSUE, XYZ IS ANOTHER
ISSUE, WATER'S THE THIRD ISSUE, YOU KNOW, SO WE AT
LEAST KNOW WHAT FIVE ARE OUT THERE. THAT WAY WE
CAN THINK ABOUT EACH OF THESE, AND THEN GO BACK
AND
MR. MCLEMORE: THEN WE'LL GET INTO THE
DETAILS.
MR. GARGANESE:
ISSUE NUMBER TWO IS AN ISSUE
THAT THE SCHRIMSHERS HAVE TO JUST COME TO GRIPS
WITH, AND THAT IS THE SCHRIMSHERS HAVE TO VERIFY
THE COST OF THE SEWER AND WATER LINE THAT WILL BE
RUN TO THE BOUNDARY OF THEIR PROPERTY. THEY'RE IN
THE PROCESS OF DOING THAT. TERRY ZOCKEY, THE
CITY'S ENGINEER, HAS TO GET IN TOUCH WITH THEIR
ENGINEER.
.
.
.
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE THIRD ISSUE IS -- I'LL CALL IT THE SMALL
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS ISSUE. IF YOU LOOK ON PAGE 11
OF THE TOWN CENTER DISTRICT CODE, THERE ARE SIX
SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD SQUARES THAT ARE IDENTIFIED.
THE LOCATION IS THAT ISSUE, AS WELL AS SOME OTHER
ISSUES RELATED TO THE SMALL PARKS.
THE FOURTH ISSUE IS THE CROSS SEMINOLE TRAIL
REALIGNMENT. THE CURRENT LOCATION, AS YOU SEE, IS
ON THE OUTER PERIMETER OF THE DEPICTED TOWN
CENTER. THE SCHRIMSHERS WOULD LIKE TO REALIGN
THAT TO RUN ADJACENT TO WETLANDS PARK.
THE FIFTH ISSUE IS -- I'LL CALL THE
ST. JOHN'S LANDING WALL BUFFER. THE CITY WOULD
LIKE TO SEE A CONCRETE BLOCK OR BRICK WALL
CONSTRUCTED ADJACENT TO SCHRIMSHER DEV -- TO A
MULTIFAMILY OR COMMERCIAL SCHRIMSHER DEVELOPMENT
ADJACENT TO THAT SUBDIVISION.
DID I MISS ANY ISSUES?
MR. MCLEMORE: YES. THE ISSUE RELATIVE TO
THE RECAPTURING OF COSTS THROUGH THE CONNECTION
FEE, UNLESS THAT'S NO LONGER AN ISSUE.
MR. BLAKE: ISN'T THAT NUMBER TWO?
MR. GARGANESE: NO. THIS IS THE SEPARATE
ISSUE THAT REALLY ENCOMPASSES THE ENTIRE
AGREEMENTj AND THAT IS, THE CITY RESERVING ITS
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
75
RIGHT TO RECAPTURE THE COSTS RELATED TO THE WATER
AND SEWER EXTENSION. THAT'S SOMEWHAT RELATED TO
ONE OF THE ISSUES ON VALUE THAT I STATED IN TWO,
AS WELL AS THE MAJOR CONSIDERATION FLOWING IN THIS
AGREEMENT FROM THE CITY TO SCHRIMSHER.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. I'M GOING TO POSE
SOMETHING TO THE COMMISSIONERS HERE. ALL RIGHT.
MAYBE SAVE SOME TIME AND STILL GET FURTHER AHEAD.
CITY MANAGER.
MR. MCLEMORE: YES.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. THIS IS VERY
IMPORTANT. WE'VE GIVEN THE SUMMARIES OF THE SIX
POINTS HERE. OKAY. THE REASON I'M GOING TO ASK
THIS QUESTION OF THE COMMISSION IS BECAUSE WE MAY
SAVE US SOME TIME TODAY.
ONE OPTION IS -- YOU HAVE THE POINTS HERE.
ONE OPTION WOULD BE, ARE YOU COMFORTABLE IF THE
CITY MANAGER WISHES TO CONTINUE WITH THE
NEGOTIATIONS, BASED ON THESE POINTS, TO COME TO
THE NEXT STEP? THAT'S OPTION ONE. ALL RIGHT.
JUST GIVE HIM THE POWER TO CONTINUE.
THEN OPTION TWO IS, IF NOT, THEN WE NEED TO
DISCUSS, POINT BY POINT, TO GET TO THAT NEXT
CONCLUSION. SO IF THIS COMMISSION SAYS, CITY
MANAGER, CONTINUE WITH YOUR DISCUSSION, WE RELY ON
.
.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
76
1
YOUR EXPERTISE, SEE WHAT YOU CAN COME WITH TO THE
2
POINT WHERE YOU FEEL YOU CAN'T GO ANY FURTHER OR
3
YOU CAN GO FURTHER, AND THEN COME BACK TO US, AS
4
HE'S DOING IT ON A CONTINUOUS BASIS FOR THE PAST
5
SEVERAL MONTHS. AND OPTION TWO IS, LET'S HANDLE
6
THIS POINT BY POINT.
7
MR. MCLEMORE: BUT I NEED TO TELL YOU, I'M AT
8
THAT POINT WHERE I DON'T WANT TO GO ANY FURTHER
9
WITHOUT DIRECTION.
10
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. YOU ARE. ALL RIGHT.
11
NOW, LET'S TURN IT OVER.
I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER
12
MILLER IS FIRST.
13
MR. MCLEMORE: WE NEED TO GIVE YOU THE
14
DETAILS ON THESE LINES.
15
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. YOU HAVE A COMMENT
16
NOW, COMMISSIONER MILLER, OR DO YOU WANT TO WAIT
17
FOR THOSE DETAILS?
18
MR. MILLER:
I JUST WANTED TO ASK THE CITY
MANAGER A GENERAL QUESTION. DURING ONE OF THE
EARLIER MEETINGS THAT WE HAD HERE -- I'M TRYING TO
FIND IT IN THIS DOCUMENT -- BUT IT SAYS THAT ALL
THESE THINGS IN HERE ARE BASICALLY NEGOTIABLE ONCE
WE GET THE -- I DON'T WANT TO SAY SOMETHING THAT'S
NOT ACTUALLY CORRECT, BUT THERE IS VERBIAGE IN
HERE.
.
.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
77
1
AND I POINTED OUT TO THE SCHRIMSHER FOLKS A
2
COUPLE MONTHS AGO THAT THIS IS A LIVING DOCUMENT
3
WHICH CAN BE CHANGED. AND THE CITY ATTORNEY JUST
4
RAISED AN ISSUE AGAIN, WHICH SEEMS TO ME LIKE
5
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
NOT NITPICKING
WE'RE
6
TALKING ABOUT ITEMS THAT REALLY OUGHT TO BE DONE
7
AT SOME FUTURE POINT.
8
LIKE YOU MENTION THE PARKS AND THE LOCATION
9
OF THE PARKS. AGAIN, I'M BEFUDDLED.
THESE LITTLE
10
THINGS KEEP COMING UP, WHICH I THOUGHT THIS THING
11
HERE PROVIDED FOR MINOR CORRECTIONS IN THE PARK.
12
IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THIS INTO
13
POURED CONCRETE BEFORE WE APPROVE THE TOWN CENTER,
14
WHEN THAT WAS NEVER OUR INTENT. OUR INTENT WAS TO
15
CREATE A LIVING DOCUMENT. AND THEN AS YOU BEGIN
16
DEVELOPMENT, IT MADE MORE SENSE TO PUT A PARK 10
17
FEET TO THE RIGHT OR THE LEFT OR ONE BLOCK AWAY.
18
THAT WAS AN ITEM WHICH COULD BE ACCOMMODATED BY
THIS DOCUMENT.
I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO IT TONIGHT, BUT I'M
JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, IS THIS THE TYPE STUFF
THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU SAY THERE'S
ISSUES ABOUT THE SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS AND THE
LOCATIONS? WHY ARE WE EVEN DISCUSSING THIS AGAIN?
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, LET ME TAKE YOU BACK TO
.
.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
78
1
WHEN THIS WHOLE THING ORIGINALLY STARTED. AND I
2
WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THAT I DIDN'T WANT TO GET
3
INTO THIS NEGOTIATION THING TO BEGIN WITH.
I TOLD
4
YOU THAT I THOUGHT --
5
MR. MILLER: WHY ARE YOU DISCUSSING IT?
6
MR. MCLEMORE: BECAUSE THE COMMISSION HAS
7
DIRECTED ME TO DO IT AND BECAUSE I TOLD YOU THAT I
8
THOUGHT WE HAD THE LANGUAGE BUILT INTO THIS
9
ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWED FOR THE FLEXIBILITY TO GO
10
FORWARD AND DEAL WITH THESE ISSUES ON A
11
PROJECT-BY-PROJECT BASIS.
12
NOW, THE SCHRIMSHER PEOPLE DO NOT AGREE WITH
13
THAT. AND I WAS DIRECTED BY THIS COMMISSION TO GO
14
SIT DOWN AND WORK OUT SOME KIND OF AGREEMENT.
15
THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO TO THE BEST OF
16
OUR ABILITY. WE'VE ALL NEGOTIATED IN GOOD FAITH,
I THINK, AND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN
IT'S BEEN
VERY SPIRITED.
I'VE TRIED TO REPRESENT YOUR
INTERESTS, THEY'VE TRIED TO REPRESENT THEIR
INTERESTS, AND WE'VE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS.
BUT AT THE POINT IN TIME AT WHICH WE START
SPENDING PUBLIC DOLLARS FOR SOMETHING, YOU KNOW,
THAT WE ARE ACQUIRING AN AGREEMENT FROM ANOTHER
PARTY, YOU KNOW, NOW WE'RE INTO THE DETAILS. WE
HAVE TO MAKE VERY INTELLIGENT DECISIONS ABOUT HOW
.
.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
79
1
WE TURN AROUND AND REPRESENT TO THE PUBLIC HOW WE
2
SPENT THEIR DOLLARS IN THIS AGREEMENT.
3
BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS HAPPENING IN
4
THIS AGREEMENTj ONE, I QUESTION WE HAVE TO DO
5
ANYHOW. AND NUMBER TWO, IF WE DO IT, DOES IT MAKE
6
GOOD SENSE? AND DOES IT NOT ONLY MAKE GOOD
7
ECONOMIC SENSE FROM THIS COMMISSION, IS IT GOOD
8
PUBLIC POLICY?
9
SO I HATE TO DO THIS TO YOU, BUT YOU'RE GOING
10
TO HAVE TO DIG IN ON THESE ISSUES AND GIVE ME SOME
11
DIRECTION, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO GO ANY FURTHER
12
WITH THIS, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT CAN BE VERY
13
CONSTRUCTIVE UNTIL YOU KNOW THE ISSUES AND YOU
14
UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE FACED WITH EVERY TIME WE
15
COME TO THE TABLE.
16
MR. MILLER: WE'VE BEEN GOING OVER THESE
DOCUMENTS NOW FOR TWO YEARS, SOMETIMES IN MORE
DETAIL, SOMETIMES LESS.
BUT IF YOU'RE ASKING US AGAIN TONIGHT TO GIVE
YOU MORE GUIDANCE ON WHETHER A PARK OUGHT TO BE
MOVED 18 FEET TO THE RIGHT OR TWO BLOCKS TO THE
LEFT, IF YOU'RE ASKING THIS COMMISSION TO DISCUSS
EXACTLy'WHERE WE THINK THE TRAIL OUGHT TO BE, IF
YOU'RE ASKING, AT LEAST MYSELF, TO GET INTO GREAT
DISCUSSIONS IN DETAIL ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE COST OF
.
.
.
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
SEWER AND WATER ON THE PROPERTY, WHERE IT OUGHT TO
BE, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE NEED THE CITY STAFF.
I PERSONALLY AM READY TO -- I MEAN, WHAT IS
YOUR POSITION RIGHT NOW? WOULD YOU LIKE US -- DO
YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT WE SHOULD JUST PROCEED
WITH ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE AND THESE ITEMS CAN
BE WORKED OUT LATER? OR ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT
YOU HAVEN'T DOTTED EVERY "I" AND CROSSED EVERY "T"
THAT YOU NEED BEFORE WE CAN PROCEED? BECAUSE IF
THAT'S THE CASE, I THINK THIS IS A DEAD ISSUE. WE
OUGHT TO JUST STOP THIS WHOLE THING AND BUILD
WHATEVER THEY WANT TO BUILD AND PUT A WAL-MART IN.
MR. MCLEMORE: IN ANY NEGOTIATION, YOU GET TO
THE POINT WHERE YOU HAVE AN AGREEMENT OR YOU WIND
UP WITH ISSUES THAT ARE UNSOLVABLE. I MEAN, YOU
HAVE TO GO TO A HIGHER AUTHORITY TO UNLOCK THE
ISSUES OR EITHER SAY "YES" OR "NO" OR GO BACK AND
TRY SOME MORE. THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT, AND IT
WON'T GO AWAY.
MR. MILLER: JUST FOR THE RECORD, THEN, I
FEEL VERY COMFORTABLE ABOUT GOING FORWARD RIGHT
NOW AND LETTING ALL THESE DETAILS BE WORKED OUT
AFTER WE APPROVE THE TOWN CENTER ORDINANCE.
24
25
MR. MCLEMORE:
I THINK YOU CAN GIVE US SOME
REAL GUIDANCE TONIGHT AS TO WHERE YOU WANT US TO
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
81
GO ONCE YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THE ISSUES ARE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ,
YOU'RE NEXT, BUT WOULD YOU WANT TO WAIT UNTIL HE
DELINEATES THE ISSUES, OR DO YOU WANT TO SAY
SOMETHING NOW?
MR. MARTINEZ: NO. I WANT TO SAY IT NOW.
CITY MANAGER, THESE VERY SIX ITEMS THAT HAVE
BEEN READ INTO THE RECORD JUST BEFORE -- AND I
KNOW COMMISSIONER MILLER WAS KIDDING ABOUT A
WAL-MART BECAUSE
MR. MILLER: YOUR DARN RIGHT I WAS.
MR. MARTINEZ: -- WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT A
WAL-MART IN OUR BACKYARD.
BUT, ANYWAY, AREN'T THESE THE VERY SAME
POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN DELAYING THIS PROJECT FOR A
YEAR AND A HALF?
MR. MCLEMORE: A LOT OF THEM, YES. A LOT OF
THEM, YES.
MR. MARTINEZ: THESE ARE THE SALIENT POINTS
THAT HAVS COME UP TIME AND TIME AGAIN. AND EVERY
TIME WE DECIDE TO MOVE FORWARD, THERE'S AN
OBJECTION. AND THEN IT GOES BACK TO THE TABLE AND
IT COMES BACK, AND THERE'S AN OBJECTION.
ISN'T IT A FACT THAT -- AND I SAID THIS OVER
A YEAR AND A HALF AGO WHEN I ADDRESSED
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
82
MR. SCHRIMSHER HERE. I ASKED HIM TO PLEASE ALLOWS
US TO DEVELOP THE VISION THAT WE HAD IN MIND, AND
IF THE TIME CAME THAT WE HAD TO MAKE CHANGES
BECAUSE OF XYZ, THAT WE WOULD WORK WITH HIM TO
MAKE THOSE CHANGES. I SAID THAT TO HIM OVER A
YEAR AND A HALF AGO RIGHT FROM THIS PODIUM.
BUT ANYWAY, THERE APPEARS TO BE NO END TO
THIS. AND THESE SIX POINTS HAVE BEEN HERE FOR THE
LONGEST TIME AND IT APPEARS THAT THERE'S NO
SOLUTION, BECAUSE WE HAVE A VISION OF HOW WE WANT
TO DO THIS, AND THEY WANT TO DO IT THEIR WAY. AND
AS LONG AS THAT GOES ON, YOU'RE GOING TO BE
LOCKING HORNS AND YOU WILL. NEVER REACH A CONSENSUS
ON THE TOWN CENTER.
MR. MCLEMORE: IN ANY NEGOTIATIONS, IT'S A
VERY DYNAMIC PROCESS, AS YOU KNOW.
MR. MARTINEZ: I KNOW.
MR. MCLEMORE: AND THINGS COME AND THINGS
GO. AND YOU HOPE ONCE YOU SETTLE AN ISSUE, IT
DOESN'T COME BACK ON THE TABLE, BUT IT HAS. BUT
THERE'S A LOT AT STAKE FOR BOTH PARTIES.
MR. MARTINEZ:
I UNDERSTAND THAT.
MR. MCLEMORE: AND WHERE I THINK WE'RE AT IS
I WANT YOU TO SEE WHAT I THINK ARE -- AND I THINK
BOTH PARTIES AGREE THAT THESE ARE THE ISSUES NOW
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
83
THAT WE HAVE TO RESOLVE IN ORDER TO CLOSE THIS
NEGOTIATION.
BUT THESE ARE SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES, AND I NEED
DIRECTION FROM YOU ON WHAT YOUR POSTURE IS. DO
YOU WANT TO SAY, WE AGREE, WE AGREE WITH STAFF, WE
DON'T AGREE WITH SCHRIMSHER, WE AGREE WITH
SCHRIMSHER, WE DON'T AGREE WITH STAFF, OR YOU-ALL
GO BACK AND WE CAN GIVE YOU SOME INDICATION OF
WHAT WE'RE WILLING TO ACCEPT AND TRY TO COME TO
CLOSURE ON THESE ISSUES?
MR. MARTINEZ: I THINK WE CAN EXPECT
REASONABLE PEOPLE. I MEAN, YOU SAY THE
NEGOTIATIONS ARE VERY TIRING, THEY'RE A VERY
SINCERE EFFORT, SO ON AND SO FORTH.
WELL, WE CAN EXPECT REASONABLE PEOPLE TO SIT
DOWN AND NEGOTIATE FOR 18 MONTHS AND NOT EVEN
AGREE ON ONE OF THE SIX ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN
PLAGUING US SINCE THE BEGINNING. THERE'S GOT TO
BE SOMETHING WRONG HERE. AND I'M OF THE OPINION
THAT, LIKE COMMISSIONER MILLER, WE SHOULD GO
FORWARD AND, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, LET THE CHIPS
FALL WHERE THEY MAY.
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, MY --
MR. MARTINEZ: AND NEGOTIATE AFTER.
MR. MCLEMORE: MY RECOMMENDATION TO YOU WAS,
.
.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
84
1
LET'S FOLLOW OUT WHAT YOUR DIRECTION WASj THAT
2
WAS, BRING TO YOU ON THIS DATE THE REMAINING
3
ISSUES AND DO WHAT WE SAID WE WOULD DO.
THEN YOU
4
GIVE ME THE DIRECTION THAT YOU WANT US TO FOLLOW:
5
GO NEGOTIATE MOREj SAY NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO
6
NEGOTIATE ANYMOREj OR MAKE SOME 'AMENDMENTS TO PUT
7
ON THE TABLE AND SAY, WE WILL AGREE TO THIS WITH
8
THESE AMENDMENTS. NO MATTER WHAT WE DO IN THE
9
END, THIS COMMISSION HAS TO APPROVE THAT
10
AGREEMENT.
11
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. QUESTION.
12
COMMISSIONER MILLER, YOU HAVE A COMMENT?
13
MR. MILLER: YES. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I
14
JUST WANTED TO -- I FOUND THAT HERE.
I JUST WANT
15
TO READ IT INTO THE RECORD, BECAUSE, AGAIN, IT
16
DEALS WITH THIS ENTIRE DOCUMENT THAT WAS CRAFTED
17
LN 1998, TWO YEARS AGO.
AND IT SAYS, THE BUILD-OUT DRAWINGS ON PAGE
10 OF THIS CODE, PAGE 6, ADOPTED MASTER PLAN SHALL
SERVE AS A GUIDANCE TO THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMITTEE WITH REGARD TO THE CITY'S INTENT TO LAND
DEVELOPMENT IN THE TOWN CENTER. THE IMAGES
CONTAINED IN THIS CODE ARE MEANT TO DEMONSTRATE
THE CHARACTER AND INTENT FOR THE TOWN CENTER BUT
ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY.
THE
.
.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
85
1
ACCOMPANYING TEXT AND NUMBERS ARE RULES THAT
2
GOVERN THE PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT.
3
THAT LATTER SENTENCE DEALS WITH THE ACTUAL
4
WIDTHS OF THE STREETS AND THE HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS
5
AND SUCH, BUT IT DOESN'T SPECIFY WHERE THE
6
BUILDINGS ARE GOING TO BE OR WHERE THE STREETS ARE
7
GOING TO BE OR WHERE THE SEWERS ARE GOING TO BE OR
8
WHERE THE PARKS ARE GOING TO BE.
I MEAN, THIS
9
ALL
10
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THE STAFF WANTS TO CARVE
11
THOSE OUT.
12
MAYOR PARTYKA: PLEASE. PLEASE. ONE AT A
13
TIME.
14
MR. MILLER: ANYWAY, THAT'S MY -- I JUST
15
WANTED TO READ THAT. THANK YOU.
16
MAYOR PARTYKA: LET ME MAKE A COMMENT HERE.
17
JUST SO WE GET THIS FROM A POSITIVE STANDPOINT.
WE'LL TAKE A BREAK AT 9 O'CLOCK, FIVE MORE
MINUTES.
FROM A POSITIVE STANDPOINT, MR. MCLEMORE, IF
I'M CLEAR HERE, FIRST OF ALL, HEAVY DISCUSSIONS
HAVE ONLY OCCURRED IN THE PAST SIX MONTHS IN TERMS
OF ONE-ON-ONE DISCUSSIONS AFTER THIS WHOLE JOSHI
ISSUE. THAT'S, IN EFFECT, WHERE THEY GOT TO BE
SERIOUS. AND I BELIEVE YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE
.
.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
86
1
BEEN IN THE PAST TO HAVE THESE NEGOTIATIONS.
IT
2
WASN'T FORCED UPON YOU.
3
NOW, NUMBER TWO, THOUGH, HAD THIS BEEN A
4
POSITIVE EXPERIENCE UP TO THIS POINT, DID WE GET
5
TO A CERTAIN THRESHOLD, 80 PERCENT, 85, 70,
6
WHATEVER IT WAS?
7
MR. MCLEMORE:
I THINK WE MADE SOME
8
PROGRESS. WE HAVE MADE SOME PROGRESS.
9
MAYOR PARTYKA: THAT'S A GOOD START. ALL
10
RIGHT. .
11
NOW, MY QUESTION WOULD NEXT IS: BEFORE WE
12
CAN MAKE ANY KIND OF DETERMINATION AS A
13
COMMISSION, I DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT THE
14
ISSUES ARE OTHER THAN A TITLE OF THIS. AND I
15
THINK WE NEED TO HEAR FROM YOU BEFORE WE GET TO
16
THE NEXT POINT. AND THEN, AT THAT POINT IN TIME,
WE CAN SEE WHATEVER THE POTENTIAL SITUATION IS.
OKAY. SO AT THIS POINT, YOU'VE HEARD
COMMENTS FROM THE THREE COMMISSIONERS AND MYSELF.
I THINK WE NEED TO HEAR WHAT THESE ISSUES ARE.
MR. MCLEMORE: OKAY. WELL, DO YOU WANT ME TO
START DIVING INTO THEM IN DETAIL?
MAYOR PARTYKA: LET'S TAKE A TEN-MINUTE
BREAK. WE'LL COME BACK ON THIS CLOCK, TEN AFTER.
OKAY.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
87
(WHEREUPON, A BRIEF RECESS WAS TAKEN.)
MR. MILLER: LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT
COMMISSIONER BLAKE IS LATE BY FIVE MINUTES.
MAYOR PARTYKA: RICHARD, COULD YOU DO ME A
FAVOR AS A CITIZEN? COULD YOU GET COMMISSIONER
BLAKE. WE CAN'T START.
MR. MCLEMORE: I JUST GRABBED HIM.
MR. MILLER: WELL, WHAT HAPPENED? YOU LOST
HIM AGAIN.
MR. MCLEMORE: HE'S ON THE WAY.
MAYOR PARTYKA: RON, WHY DON'T YOU STAY HERE,
BECAUSE YOU'RE GIVING THE PRESENTATION.
MR. MCLEMORE: I WAS GOING TO GO SEE IF I CAN
GET HIM.
MAYOR PARTYKA: MAYBE WE CAN GET MR. PULLAT.
MR. MCLEMORE: HERE HE IS.
MAYOR PARTYKA: ALL RIGHT. LET'S CALL THIS
MEETING TO ORDER.
OKAY. CITY MANAGER, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: YOUR MIKE IS OFF, RON.
MR. MCLEMORE: I THINK THE BIGGEST ISSUE I
WANT TO GO TO -- I'LL GO TO THE TRAIL REALIGNMENT
ISSUE FIRST, AND I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE BIGGER
ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO TRY TO RESOLVE.
IF YOU'LL REMEMBER, THE INITIAL ALIGNMENT
, 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
-
--..
23
24
. 25
88
IF YOU HAVE YOUR CODE IN FRONT OF YOU, YOU'LL
SEE -- AND, KIP, YOU MIGHT WANT TO THROW THAT UP
IN FRONT OF IT, OR YOU CAN JUST POINT IT OUT ON
THIS MAP, THE ORIGINAL ALIGNMENT, AND THEN THE
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT.
MR. MARTINEZ: IT'S ON THE SAME PAGES OF IT.
MR. MCLEMORE: THIS IS THE ORIGINAL ALIGNMENT
RIGHT HERE. NO. NO.
IN THE ORIGINAL PLAN; THE
ORIGINAL TOWN CENTER PLAN. THAT IS THE UNPAVED
PORTION OF THE ORIGINAL ALIGNMENT.
OKAY. AND THE
PAVED PORTION CAME DOWN LIKE THIS. YES, IT CAME
OUT AND EXITED AT THAT POINT.
WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED BY THE SCHRIMSHERS IS
TO MOVE THE UNPAVED PORTION, THAT UNPAVED PORTION,
TO THE EDGE, THE EASTERN EDGE OF WETLAND PARK, TO
CONTINUE OUT THIS WAY ALONG WHAT WOULD BE THE
PUBLIC OR COMMON PROPERTIES, AND EXIT AT THE SAME I
I
PLACE THAT THE -- THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED FORI
THE PAVED SECTION.
THAT HAS SOME IMPACT ON ONE OF THE PROPOSED
PARKS.
I THINK THIS IS A LAKE PARK IN HERE, IF
YOU'LL SHOW THAT, CHARLES. NO. GO NORTH.
I MEAN
GO THE OTHER WAY. RIGHT HERE. RIGHT HERE.
SO THERE'S TWO ISSUES RELATED TO THIS. ONE
IS MOVING THE ALIGNMENT, THE UNPAVED SECTION, TO
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
89
THE EDGE OF WETLAND PARK. AND THEN WHAT HAPPENS
TO LAKE PARK? AND THAT'S NOT CLEAR YET. I THINK
IT WAS INDICATED THAT THAT PARK MIGHT BE CUT DOWN
IN SIZE. THAT'S AN ISSUE.
AND OUR CONCERN, OF COURSE, WAS, RIGHT FROM
THE BEGINNING, WE SAID THAT A MAJOR DESIGN
OBJECTIVE FOR OUR PLANNER, DOVER COLE, WAS HOW TO
GET AND SEPARATE THE HORSE TRAIL FROM THE PEOPLE
TRAIL SO THAT WE DID NOT HAVE THE HORSES IN THE
MIDDLE OF THE TOWN CENTER AND BE FACED WITH THE
(INAUDIBLE) BY HOUR CLEAN-UP ISSUE AND BE FACED
WITH HORSES INTERTWINED WITH PEOPLE.
AND THOSE OF YOU MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW THAT IN
THE EXISTING TRAIL IN THE CITY THAT LINK --
THERE'S BEEN CONSTANT ISSUES AND COMPLAINTS FILED
WITH THE COUNTY RELATIVE TO THE HORSE PEOPLE,
RELATIVE TO THE IMPACT THAT THE HORSES HAVE ON THE
TRAIL OUT THERE AND ON THE NEIGHBORS.
SO THE IDEA WAS WE WOULD PUSH THE HORSE
TRAIL, THE UNPAVED SECTION, AS FAR EAST AS WE
COULD. THEREFORE, THE ONLY BOUNDARY -- IT WOULD
HAVE A ONE-SIDED BOUNDARY. IT WOULD-- THE
PARTITIONS COME IN CONTACT WITH PEOPLE, AND THE
OTHER SIDE WAS SIMPLY IN THE WOODS. SO IT
MINIMIZED THE IMPACT ON PEOPLE, AND THAT WAS THE
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
90
LOGIC OF THE PLAN WAS BY SPLITTING IT, WE HAD THE
IDEAL SITUATION.
NOW, BRINGING THIS PLAN IN,. IT GIVES US MORE
AREA WHERE YOU HAVE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF HORSES
AND PEOPLE. IT REDUCES THE AMOUNT OF LAND THAT
THE SCHRIMSHERS WOULD HAVE TO GIVE UP IN ORDER TO
MEET THEIR REQUIREMENT, BECAUSE THEY WOULD, IN
EFFECT, BE PUTTING IN LAND WHICH WE ARE PURCHASING
FROM THEM IN THIS AGREEMENT.
SO WHAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED IS, IS THE
COMMISSION WILLING TO ACCEPT THE REALIGNMENT OF
THE UNPAVED SECTION AND IS THE COMMISSION WILLING
TO ACCEPT THE REDUCTION IN LAKE PARK,
UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS A POTENTIALLY VALUED
OR WHAT WE TRY TO HAVE, A VALUE-FOR-VALUE
AGREEMENTj THAT IS, WE ARE DOING CERTAIN THINGS OF
VALUE AND THEY'RE GIVING CERTAIN THINGS O~ VALUE.
THIS IS A BIGGIE IN THE EYES OF THE
LANDOWNER. AND I THINK IT'S A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE
AND ONE THE STAFF REALLY HAS NOT BEEN IN FAVOR OF.
SO THAT ISSUE NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED. AND
UNTIL THAT ISSUE IS RESOLVED, THERE'S NOTHING ELSE
WE CAN DO AS A NEGOTIATING TEAM UNTIL WE KNOW WHAT
YOUR WISHES ARE RELATIVE TO THAT ISSUE.
NOW, DO YOU DESIRE TO STOP HERE AND HEAR FROM
.
.
.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
91
1
THE PROPERTY OWNER BEFORE WE GO ON TO THE NEXT
2
ISSUE?
3
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY.
4
MR. MCLEMORE: I THINK THAT WOULD BE
5
APPROPRIATE.
6
MAYOR PARTYKA:
I WANT TO ASK ONE MORE TIME.
7
THE CHOICES, GIVE ME THE CHOICES REAL SIMPLE.
8
GIVE ME THE CHOICES.
9
MR. MCLEMORE: THE CHOICES ARE: DO YOU AGREE
10
TO THE REALIGNMENT, AS THEY PROPOSE IT, OF THE
11
UNPAVED SECTION? YOU WOULD AGREE OR YOU DON'T
12
AGREE. AND IF SO, YOU WOULD AGREE OR NOT AGREE TO
13
SOME REDUCTION IN THE SIZE OF THE LAKE PARK.
NOW, YOU COULD AGREE TO THE ALIGNMENT AND NOT
AGREE TO ANY CHANGE IN THE SIZE OF THE LAKE PARK.
SO THERE ARE REALLY THREE OPTIONS.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
COMMISSIONER BLAKE, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
DO YOU WANT TO ASK NOW OR DO YOU WANT TO WAIT?
OKAY.
MR. BLAKE: NOW, MR. MCLEMORE.
MR. MCLEMORE: YES, SIR.
MR. BLAKE: WHY ARE THEY NOT SATISFIED WITH
WHERE THE TRAIL -- THE UNPAVED TRAIL IS CURRENTLY
ALIGNED? DOESN'T THAT ACTUALLY RUN RIGHT ALONG
.
.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
92
1
WETLANDS FOR ALL BUT THE VERY NORTHERN END THERE?
2
MR. MCLEMORE: YES, IT DOES.
3
MR. BLAKE: IN THE VERY NORTHERN END, IS
4
THAT -- THAT'S ACTUALLY IN UPLANDS AT THAT POINT.
5
MR. MCLEMORE: AT THAT POINT.
6
MR. BLAKE: AND IT' RUNS RIGHT ALONG THE BACK
7
SIDE OF ST. JOHN'S LANDING.
8
MR. MILLER:, THAT'S CORRECT.
9
MR. BLAKE: OKAY. WHY IS THAT ALIGNMENT NOT
10
ACCEPTABLE TO THEM? WHAT DO THEY GAIN IN TERMS OF
11
DEVELOPABLE PROPERTY? IT DOESN'T LOOK TO ME
12
IT'S STILL ALL SINGLE-LOADED ROADWAY. WELL, MAYBE
13
NOT. GIVE ME JUST A SECOND HERE.
IT LOOKS TO ME
14
AS THOUGH THIS -- DID SOMEONE TURN THIS UP WHILE
15
WE WERE OUT?
16
MR. MCLEMORE: NO.
MAYOR PARTYKA: YES, THEY DID.
MR. BLAKE: OKAY.
MAYOR PARTYKA: YOU CAN NOW SIT BACK NORMALLY
AND TALK.
. MR. BLAKE: DOESN'T THIS ALIGNMENT OF THE
TRAIL, AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS, BASICALLY EDGE THE
WETLAND FROM THE SOUTH EDGE THERE WHERE IT
SEPARATES ALL THE WAY UP TO WHERE ST. JOHN'S
LANDING IS?
.
.
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
93
1
MR. MCLEMORE: A LARGE PORTION OF THIS
2
BOUNDARY IS THE WETLANDS.
3
MR. BLAKE: SO MY CORE QUESTION REMAINS:
4
WHAT DOES THE LANDOWNER GAIN BY MOVING THIS?
5
MR. MCLEMORE:
I THINK THE LANDOWNER NEEDS TO
6
REPRESENT THAT TO YOU.
7
MR. BLAKE:
I'M ASKING YOU, THOUGH.
I'M
8
GOING TO ASK THE LANDOWNER IN A MINUTE.
9
MR. MCLEMORE:
I THINK THAT -- I THINK THERE
10
IS SOME ADDITIONAL UPLANDS THAT HE BELIEVES IS
11
DEVELOPABLE.
12
MR. BLAKE: WHERE?
13
MR. MCLEMORE: A PORTION, PROBABLY, OF THE
14
LAKE PARK.
15
MR. BLAKE: I'D LIKE TO ASK THE SAME
16
QUESTION, MAYOR.
17
MAYOR PARTYKA: ANYONE ELSE AT THIS POINT?
18
OKAY. WHOEVER, MR. SCHRIMSHER OR
MR. GRINDSTAFF.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: YES.
MR. BLAKE: SAME QUESTION.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: WHY DO I PREFER THAT?
MR. BLAKE: OBVIOUSLY, YOU PREFER THE
REALIGNMENT.
I'M CURIOUS WHY.
I'M LOOKING FOR
SOME UNDERSTANDING HERE.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
94
MR. SCHRIMSHER: I THINK IT'S A BETTER
DESIGN. I THINK IT'S AS GOOD OR BETTER FOR THE
CITY, AS WELL AS FOR US.
THE CURRENT ALIGNMENT, IT'S TRUE, HUGS THE
WETLAND LINE. SO DOES THE NEW ONE, BASICALLY.
ALL THESE ISSUES KIND OF INTERRELATE. THERE'S A
VARIETY OF THINGS. THERE'S THE ISSUE OF ALONG
ST. JOHN'S -- AND LIKE I SAY, IT'S GOING TO
INTERRELATE WITH OTHER ISSUES.
MR. BLAKE: I UNDERSTAND.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: ALONG ST. JOHN'S LANDING,
THERE APPEARS TO BE A DESIRE ON THE CITY'S PART TO
PROTECT ST. JOHN'S LANDING FROM TOWN CENTER. AS
MENTIONED, THERE'S A NEW REQUIREMENT THAT'S
DESIRED TO CONSTRUCT A WALL. THERE IS ALSO
MR. BLAKE: IF I MIGHT, YOU DO UNDERSTAND
THAT IF THE PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO ST. JOHN'S
LANDING ARE DEVELOPED WITH SOME HIGHER THAN
SINGLE-FAMILY INTENSITY USE, THAT IT'S REQUIRED,
ANYWAY, TO HAVE A WALL BUILT?
MR. SCHRIMSHER: IF THAT'S TRUE, THEN THAT'S
NOT NEEDED TO BE IN THIS AGREEMENT AND IT'S NOT AN
ISSUE. BECAUSE, REALLY, WHAT WE WANT IS TO BE
TREATED SIMILARLY TO OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS AND
DEVELOPERS IN THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
95
MR. MCLEMORE: WE WANT IT WITH ONE CAVEAT.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: WHAT'S THAT?
MR. MCLEMORE: THIS IS AN AGREEMENT BASED ON
CERTAIN THINGS WHICH WE NEGOTIATE BASED ON A
VALUE-FOR-VALUE SITUATION, WHICH MAY BE MORE OR
LESS THAN WHAT IS A NORMAL STANDARD.
MR. BLAKE: GREAT ARGUMENT.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: I'LL TRY TO -- SO OBVIOUSLY,
THIS IS NOT A TYPICAL SITUATION.
MR. BLAKE: NO, IT ISN'T. THAT'S WHY I'M
TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: SECONDLY--
MR. BLAKE: WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, INTUITIVELY,
TO ME, IT LOOKS LIKE -- OKAY. I DON'T UNDERSTAND
WHY -- I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU. I DON'T
UNDERSTAND WHY YOU'D WANT THE HORSE TRAIL, THE
UNPAVED PORTION, AT THE DASHED LINE AS OPPOSED TO
THE SOLID LINE, TOO.
TO MY EYE, IT JUST SEEMS AS THOUGH YOU HAVE
MORE DEVELOPMENT AREA AVAILABLE HAVING IT ON THE
OUTSIDE AND COULD MAKE BETTER USE OF THE OTHER
LANDS WITH TYPES OF USES THAT MIGHT BE INTERFERED
WITH BY A HORSE TRAIL AT THAT LOCATION. THAT'S
WHAT IT SEEMS TO ME. THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING YOU.
I KNOW YOU THOUGHT THIS OUT AND UNDERSTAND WHY YOU
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
96
WANT TO MOVE IT. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: OKAY. I'M SORRY IT HAS TO
MELT DOWN THIS WAY TO THIS KIND OF DISCUSSION.
PRESSING ON, ANOTHER DISAPPOINTMENT ABOUT THE
CURRENT ALIGNMENT IS THAT, DESPITE THE FACT THAT
THERE WOULD BE, IT WOULD APPEAR, REQUIRING TO HAVE
A WALL, AND THE HORSE TRAIL ITSELF IS NOT
CONSIDERED A BUFFER, BUT THAT THERE'S AN ADDITION
TO THE HORSE TRAIL REQUIRED TO WHATEVER BUFFER
ALSO IS IN THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS' CODE. SO,
AGAIN, IT JUST APPEARS THAT THE CITY FEELS A NEED
TO PROTECT ST. JOHN'S LANDING.
MR. BLAKE: WE'RE GETTING ON BACK TO
ST. JOHN'S.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: THE PROBLEM IN THE TOWN
CENTER IS IT NEEDS A WALL, AN 8-FOOT MASONRY
WALL. IT NEEDS A HORSE TRAIL AND A BUFFER TO
PROTECT IT.
GOING ON, NO MATTER HOW YOU SLICE IT, YOU
CAN'T MAKE THE HORSE TRAIL FOLLOW EXACTLY THE
JURISDICTIONAL LINE, AND SO UPLANDS ARE TRAPPED
BEHIND IT AND THEN ARE NO LONGER CONTIGUOUS TO THE
OTHER UPLANDS THAT WERE BEING DEVELOPED.
AND LIKEWISE --
MR. BLAKE: IS THAT A LOT OF AREA?
.
.
.
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
l8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. SCHRIMSHER: WHAT'S THAT?
MR. BLAKE: WOULDN'T YOU HAVE THE SAME ISSUE
WHERE IT'S DEVELOPED?
MR. SCHRIMSHER: ALSO, IT'S A MATTER OF
CONTROL OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. IT CUTS US OFF. IT
CREATES A RIBBON OF OWNERSHIP BY A STATE AGENCY
THAT BISECTION OF PROPERTY.
IT CUTS US OFF FROM
OTHER PROPERTY WE OWN, BOTH UPLAND AND WETLAND.
MR. BLAKE: IT DOESN'T DO THE SAME IF IT'S AT
THE PREFERRED ALIGNMENT?
MR. SCHRIMSHER: AT THE PREFERRED ALIGNMENT,
IT DOESN'T, NO. BECAUSE, AS YOU CAN SEE, THE
PROPERTY IS ALREADY RINGED ENTIRELY BY A ROAD
AND/OR A TRAIL, ALL OF WHICH IS ALREADY OWNED BY
THE CITY AND/OR THE STATE.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE
SOME HORSE ISSUES IF YOU PUT THAT HORSE TRAIL NEXT
TO A ROAD.
MAYOR PARTYKA: JUST A MINUTE. HOLD IT. IF
ANYONE NEEDS TO SPEAK, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT
UNDER THIS KIND OF SITUATION. BUT YOU HAVE TO
COME UP AND SPEAK. IT MEANS NOTHING BY JUST
THROWING OUT SOMETHING.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: I SEE IT AS PRETTY SIMILAR.
THE CURRENT ALIGNMENT TAKES YOU ACTUALLY ACROSS OR
-',
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
98
NEAR TO A WETLANDS DURING ITS ENTIRE TRACK. AND
SO DOES THE NEW ALIGNMENT. IT TAKES YOU NEAR A
PROPOSED RETENTION POND, BODY OF WATER.
AS FAR AS PASSING NEAR A ROAD, I THINK THE
HORSES WHO HAVE RIDDEN ON TRAILS, I GUESS, JUST
HAVE TO CROSS ROADS.
I THINK IT ALSO SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE
CURRENT TRAIL, THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A MULTI-USE
TRAIL, THAT EXISTS DOES NOT HAVE A SEPARATE HORSE
TRAIL. YOU CAN -- THEY HAVE A PLACE TO PARK HORSE
TRAILERS AND THEY HAVE A LITTLE HORSE PATH
ALONGSIDE OF THE PAVED PATH UNTIL YOU -- JUST ON
THE SPUR.
BUT ONCE YOU REACH THE MAIN LINE AND DECIDE
WHETHER TO GO TOWARD OVIEDO OR TOWARD WINTER
SPRINGS, IF YOU'RE ON A HORSE, YOU'VE GOT TO RlrE
ON THE ASPHALT TRAIL OR TRY TO RIVE ALONG THE EDGE
OF IT IN THE DITCH OR ON THE SIDE OF THE -- YOU
KNOW, BASICALLY, ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD WITH NO
SEPARATION WHATSOEVER BETWEEN YOU AND THE KIDS ON
BIKES, KIDS ON ROLLER BLADES, LADIES PUSHING BABY
STROLLERS.
-
SO THIS IS THE ONLY PLACE IN THE WHOLE TRAIL
THAT I KNOW OF WHERE --
MR. BLAKE: JUST FOR THE RECORD, AND YOU'D BE
.
.
.
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
HARD PRESSED TO FIND SOMEBODY WHO'S ON THE TRAIL
MORE THAN I AM, ACTUALLY, BECAUSE IT'S NEAR THE
BACK OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD. I'LL TELL YOU THAT'S NOT
EXACTLY CORRECT. THERE ARE AREAS OF THE CURRENT
TRAIL WHERE HORSES AND PAVED AREA ARE ADJACENT TO
ONE ANOTHER.
BUT THE MAJORITY OF IT, THE HORSES ARE
ACTUALLY QUITE WELL REMOVED FROM THE PAVED PORTION
THROUGH ANOTHER BLAZED TRAIL THAT'S UNPAVED THAT
DOES PARALLEL WITHIN THE CORRIDOR THAT HORSES GO
ON. AND I'VE BEEN ON MUCH OF THAT. SO IT DOES --
THAT DOES EXIST.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: DO YOU ALSO HAVE A COUNT OF
HOW MANY HORSES USE THIS TRAIL IN A GIVEN WEEK OR
MONTH?
MR. BLAKE: NO.
MR. SCHRIMSHER:
IN OTHER WORDS, I THINK IN
THE TOWN CENTER, THE HORSE -- THE EQUESTRIAN FOLKS
ARE BEING ACCOMMODATED BETTER -- AS GOOD OR BETTER
THAN ANYWHERE ELSE THAT I'M AWARE OF IN THE ENTIRE
LENGTH OF THIS TRAIL.
A~YWAY, BECAUSE OF THE IRREGULAR SHAPE OF THE
WETLAND PARK, THE ISOLATED WETLAND THAT CREATES
THE WETLAND PARK, IT'S -- AGAIN, YOU CAN'T DESIGN
A ROAD TO HUG THAT LINE. AND SO, INEVITABLY, SOME
100
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
-
---
23
24
25
.
.
UPLANDS ~RE TRAPPED BETWEEN THE ROADWAY AND THE
WETLAND JURISDICTIONAL LINE.
MR. BLAKE: WHICH IS THE SAME ARGUMENT AS
IF THE TRAIL REMAINS WHERE IT IS, IS IT NOT?
MR. SCHRIMSHER: NO. WELL, SIMILAR EXCEPT
THAT THE WETLAND PARK -- IF THIS IS GOING TO BE
OWNED --
MR. BLAKE: WETLAND PARK IS THE 23.4 ACRE
MR. SCHRIMSHER: RIGHT.
IT'S TO BE OWNED BY
THE CITY AND/OR STATE. WHEREAS, THIS IS PROPERTY,
YOU KNOW, WE OWN.
SO I DON'T NEED TO HAVE ACCESS, AS PROPERTY
OWNER, CONTROL, OR BE CONCERNED ABOUT BEING --
HAVING THE PROPERTY BISECTED OR BEING CUT OFF FROM
ACCESS OR CONTIGUOUS.
MR. BLAKE: BUT YOUR PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY
BISECTED BY THE EXISTENCE OF A TRAIL AS IT IS
TODAY, ISN'T IT?
MR. SCHRIMSHER: YES.
MR. BLAKE: AND THE EARLIER DECISION, YEARS
AGO, PERHAPS BY THIS TIME -- IF NOT A YEAR AGO --
TO WORK TO HAVE THE TRAIL REALIGNED WAS AN EFFORT
NOT JUST TO BENEFIT THE CITY AND TO BENEFIT THE
TOWN CENTER IDEA, IF YOU WILL, BUT TO BENEFIT YOU
AS A LANDOWNER, AS WELL. BECAUSE OF THAT
~
.
.
i
101
1
BISECTION, WE'RE TRYING TO MOVE IT INTO AN AREA
2
THAT WOULD GIVE YOU LARGER PARCELS, MORE USABLE
3
PROPERTY, THAT WOULD INCREASE YOUR (INAUDIBLE)
4
VALUE, WOULD IT NOT?
5
MR. SCHRIMSHER: I'M SORRY IF MY EXPLANATION
6
DOESN'T SATISFY YOU. BUT, YES, EVERYTHING THAT
7
YOU JUST SAID IS UNDERSTOOD.
8
MR. BLAKE: I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND,
9
MIKE.
10
MR. SCHRIMSHER: I KNOW.
11
MR. BLAKE: WHEN I LOOK AT THIS AGAIN -- AND
12
I UNDERSTAND YOUR ISSUE THAT THIS -- THE CURRENT
13
LOCATION WOULD CAUSE A BISECTION OF YOUR PROPERTY.
14
MR. SCHRIMSHER: THERE'S ALSO THE ISSUE OF
15
SQUARING OFF WHEN YOU HAVE A WETLAND LINE, WHERE
16
DEVELOPABLE UPLANDS CAN BE -- CAN ENCROACH IN
17
EXCHANGE FOR --
18
MR. BLAKE: RIGHT.
I UNDERSTAND THAT.
19
MR. SCHRIMSHER: WHICH, AGAIN, IS AN
20
OPPORTUNITY THAT IS LOST, SO THERE IS VALUE.
21
MR. BLAKE: YOU FEEL THAT YOU WOULD HAVE,
22
NET, MORE USABLE, DEVELOPABLE LAND BY SQUARING
23
OFF -- BY BEING ABLE TO SQUARE OFF THAT WHERE THE
24
OUTER RING IS AS OPPOSED TO THE ABILITY TO SQUARE
25
OFF WHERE THAT INNER RING IS?
"
.
.
.
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. SCHRIMSHER: RIGHT. AND CONTROL OVER THE
PRIVATE PROPERTY WE CONTINUE TO OWN.
I ALSO WANT TO MENTION -- MAKE REFERENCE TO
SOMETHING MR. MCLEMORE SAID ABOUT THE LAKE PARK.
I'M NOT INSISTING THAT THAT BE SMALLER.
ONE OTHER GENERAL ISSUE THAT DEVISED THIS IS
TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO BALANCE THE CITY'S DESIRE
TO MAKE SURE THEY GET PARKS LIKE THEY WANT WITH
OUR DESIRE TO HAVE FLEXIBILITY AS TO THEIR EXACT
LOCATION, SHAPE, SIZE, WHATEVER.
MR. BLAKE: POINT WELL TAKEN.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: FOR EXAMPLE, IN THIS CASE, I
JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS WAS NOT A PARK
THAT WAS TO BE -- AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND IT,
THIS -- WHAT'S BEING REFERRED TO AS LAKE PARK ON
THE DRAWINGS I'VE SEEN IS BEING SHOWN AS PART OF A
TWO-FOR-ONE SWAP. WE'RE REQUIRED TO GIVE TO THE
STATE.
MR. BLAKE: SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT
PARK AREA IS PART OF THE ACREAGE THAT'S INVOLVED
IN THAT TWO-FOR-ONE SWAP.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT SHOWS
ON THE DRAWING I'VE SEEN THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO
TALLAHASSEE. SO, YOU KNOW
MR. BLAKE: SO THAT'S PART OF THE OTHER
.
.
.
103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ISSUE, THEN?
MR. SCHRIMSHER: CORRECT. I MEAN, IT'S NOT A
CITY PARK AS I UNDERSTAND IT. IT'S NOT CURRENTLY
A CITY PARK. IT'S PART OF THE TWO-FOR-ONE LAND
SWAP, WHICH I HOPE NO ONE -- I MEAN, WHILE WE'RE
DEBATING HOW SERIOUSLY I'M TRYING TO HANG ON TO
OWNERSHIP OF AS MUCH PROPERTY AS I CAN AND CONTROL
THE PROPERTY AS MUCH AS I CAN, PLEASE NOTE THAT
THERE IS A -- THAT IT'S BECOMING A DONUT WITH A
HUGE HOLE IN THE MIDDLE OF IT AND' A LOT OF
THINGS -- PIECES GOING ON HERE AND THERE. AND WE
HAVE TO --
MR. BLAKE: I UNDERSTAND.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: -- TRY TO ANTICIPATE.
MR. BLAKE: THAT CERTAINLY LENDS TO SOME
CERTAINLY, SOME SPECIAL CHALLENGES, BUT, ALSO, I
THINK, SOME SPECIAL OPPORTUNITIES.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: RIGHT. WELL, IF WE DIDN'T
BELIEVE THAT, WE WOULDN'T EVEN BE HAVING THIS
CONVERSATION. IF I DIDN'T THINK THERE WAS, YOU
KNOW, SOME POTENTIAL BENEFIT HERE, YOU KNOW, WE'D
JUST SAY, NO WAY, JOSE, IN THE FIRST PLACE.
-
MR. BLAKE: I'LL TELL YOU INTUITIVELY STILL,
MIKE, I HAVE SOME -- I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND,
YET, THIS MOVE.
r
.
.
If
.
104
1
MR. SCHRIMSHER:
I DO WANT TO GIVE YOU A
2
COUPLE MORE BENEFITS OF THISj FOR THE CITY, I
3
MEAN.
IN ORDER -- BECAUSE HERE'S ANOTHER ISSUE.
4
AS FAR AS I UNDERSTOOD, I THOUGHT WE HAD AGREED,
5
OF THE THREE POSSIBLE SPINE ROADS, WHICH ONE WAS
6
TO BE SELECTED.
I THOUGHT THAT HAD BEEN DECIDED.
7
AND IT HAS BEEN EXPRESSED THAT --
8
MR. BLAKE: DID YOU WANT ONE, TWO, OR THREE?
9
MR. SCHRIMSHER: THE MIDDLE ONE. THE ONE
10
WHICH IS RED.
11
MR. BLAKE: WHICH BASICALLY FOLLOWS THE HORSE
12
TRAIL, AS YOU WISHED.
13
MR. SCHRIMSHER: RIGHT. SO, AGAIN, IN ORDER
14
TO BUILD THAT -- I THOUGHT THAT HAD BEEN DECIDED.
15
IN ORDER TO BUILD THAT ROAD, YOU MUST PERMIT IT.
16
IN ORDER TO PERMIT IT, YOU MUST SURVEY IT. ONCE
17
YOU HAVE SURVEYED THAT ROAD AND ONCE YOU HAVE
18
SURVEYED THAT WETLAND, THE JURISDICTIONAL LINE TO
19
ESTABLISH THE PARK, YOU HAVE SURVEYED THE AREA
20
BETWEEN THE TWO. YOU HAVE -- YOU KNOW, YOU'RE
21
KILLING, LIKE, THREE BIRDS WITH ONE STONE. AND
22
YOU'RE TAKING --
23
MR. BLAKE: YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SURVEY
24
THAT'S REQUIRED FOR THE STATE LEVEL IN ORDER TO DO
25
THE TRAIL SWAP?
It
.
.
105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. SCHRIMSHER: WELL, THERE'S A SURVEY
REQUIRED OF THE JURISDICTIONAL LINE.
MR. BLAKE: I UNDERSTAND THAT.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: AND THERE'S A SURVEY
REQUIRED TO BUILD THE ROAD AROUND IT, IF THAT'S
WHAT
MR. BLAKE: AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WORK
THAT HAS TO BE DONE IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THE LAND
SWAP?
MR. SCHRIMSHER: RIGHT. AND YOU HAVE PUT
A -- IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT, BUT AS YOUR DRAWING
SHOWS, IT'S THREE-POINT-SOMETHING ACRES OF UPLAND
THAT IS TRAPPED BETWEEN THE WETLAND JURISDICTION
LINE AND THAT ALIGNMENT OF SPINE ROAD.
MR. BLAKE: CAN YOU SHOW THAT TO ME ON THIS?
MR. SCHRIMSHER: I CAN'T READ IT.
MR. BLAKE: IS IT A POINT RIGHT THERE?
MR. SCHRIMSHER: YES.
IT'S 3.86 ACRES. AND
SO IT PUTS TO USE BY PUTTING THE HORSE TRAIL ON
THAT PROPERTY, IT PUTS TO USE THOSE UPLANDS,
BECAUSE THE STATE GENERALLY REQUIRES, IF NOT ALL,
VIRTUALLY MOST OF THE HORSE -- OF THE TRAILS TO BE
ON A
MR. BLAKE: MIKE, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT,
SPECIFICALLY, THOSE THREE LITTLE -- THOSE THREE
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
106
INDIVIDUAL PARCELS -- PIECES OF PROPERTY THAT
LOOKS LIKE -- RIGHT THERE WOULD BE NUMBER TWO, AND
THEN GO AROUND THE CORNER? IS THAT A PIECE OF
UPLAND THERE, ALSO?
MR. SCHRIMSHER: YES. I'LL POINT THAT OUT
OVER HERE. IT, BASICALLY, IS A CONTINUOUS,
IRREGULAR-SHAPED PIECE OF PROPERTY.
MR. BLAKE: UH-HUH. ,THERE? IF THE HORSE
TRAIL WEREN'T THERE, NONE OF THAT WOULD BE
DEVELOPABLE?
MR. SCHRIMSHER: CORRECT.
MR. BLAKE: EVEN THAT BOTTOM PIECE IS NOT OF
'SIZE?
MR. SCHRIMSHER: OH, IT'S DEVELOPABLE. BUT
IN THE CITY'S PLAN, IT'S BEING TAKEN AS A PARK.
IF I STILL OWNED IT, YES, IT WOULD BE DEVELOPABLE.
MR. BLAKE: AND THE SAME WITH THAT PIECE AT
THE TOP.
IT WOULD -- WELL, ACTUALLY, ALL THREE OF
THE MAIN AREAS LOOK LIKE THERE WOULD BE ENOUGH
ROOM IN THERE TO DEVELOP.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE
HORSE TRAIL, THEN YOU KNOW THEY'RE NOT
PARTICULARLY WIDE AND THEY AREN'T PARTICULARLY
HARD ON THE TERRAIN.
AND IT'S A -- THERE IS PLENTY -- IN OTHER
~ ~........
.
.
.
107
1
WORDS, THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM IN THOSE AREAS
2
YOU'RE POINTING TO FOR ALL KIND OF PARK ACTIVITIES
3
TO GO ON. THE FACT THAT, OCCASIONALLY, A HORSE
4
RIDES THROUGH THERE DOES NOT PROHIBIT OR PREVENT
5
MANY OTHER USES TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF
6
WINTER SPRINGS TO ENJOY AND TAKE PART IN.
7
SO I SEE IT. OF COURSE, I'M BIASED, BECAUSE
8
IT'S MY OWN OPINION, BUT I THINK IT'S A GREAT
9
PLAN.
10
MR. BLAKE: LET'S LOOK BACK AND LET'S TAKE
11
ANOTHER LOOK IN THE SAME WAY WE JUST DID WITH
12
WHERE YOU'D LIKE THE TRAIL TO GO TO WHERE IT IS
13
RIGHT NOW. WHAT PIECES OF UPLAND ARE CUT OFF BY
14
WHERE THE TRAIL CURRENTLY IS?
15
MR. SCHRIMSHER: WHERE IT IS NOW?
16
MR. BLAKE: YES.
I SEE THAT ONE DOWN BELOW.
17
IT SORT OF LOOKS LIKE ITALY.
18
WHY CAN'T THE HORSE TRAIL FOLLOW THAT LINE
19
DIRECTLY? I MEAN, IS THERE
EXCEPT, MAYBE, FOR
20
THAT ONE JOG UP TOP.
BUT IS THERE ANY REQUIREMENT THAT THAT LINE
HAS TO BE STRAIGHT, OR IS IT JUST BECAUSE IT WOULD
-
--.-
BE A VERY DIFFICULT SURVEY TO DO?
MR. SCHRIMSHER: I DON'T THINK
MR. BLAKE: ( INAUDIBLE) IF I HAVE A JOG LIKE
21
22
23
24
25
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
-
--..
23
24
25
.
.
108
THAT.
MR. SCHRIMSHER:
I THINK THE PAVED TRAIL HAS
TO BE DESIGNED LIKE A ROAD WITH A SPEED LIMIT OF
20 OR 30 MILES AN HOUR, BECAUSE BICYCLES --
MR. BLAKE: BUT THAT PART'S NOT PAVED.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: CORRECT.
I KNOW.
THAT'S
WHAT I JUST WAS -- BUT I WAS GOING TO SAY, BUT A
HORSE TRAIL, GENERALLY, PEOPLE AREN'T GALLOPING.
AND AS YOU KNOW, IF YOU'VE RIDDEN A HORSE, YOU CAN
WEAVE A PRETTY IRREGULAR PATH.
MR. BLAKE:
I'VE ONLY RIDDEN A HORSE, LIKE,
TWICE.
IT WASN'T A GOOD EXPERIENCE.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: OH, OKAY. DID IT HEAD FOR
THE BARN?
MR. BLAKE: WELL, IT WOULDN'T LISTEN.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: BUT THAT'S ONLY ONE OF THE
ISSUES. THE OTHER IS THE FACT THAT IT CUTS US OFF
FROM NOT ONLY DEVELOPABLE UPLANDS, BUT THE
WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
MR. BLAKE:
I UNDERSTAND THAT ARGUMENT.
IT
CUTS YOU OFF SOMEWHAT FROM THE WETLANDS.
BUT IT'S
ALMOST -- HOW DOES THAT INJURE YOU? WHAT COST IS
THAT?
MR. SCHRIMSHER: ONCE IT'S OWNED BY THE STATE
OF FLORIDA AND USED BY THE EQUESTRIAN FOLKS, I
.
.
.
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BELIEVE -- IT'S NOT SACRED, BUT THERE WILL BE
GREAT POTENTIAL RESISTANCE TO CROSSING IT.
MR. BLAKE: WELL, THERE ARE CROSSINGS,
THOUGH, ALREADY IN PLACE NO MATTER WHICH WAY YOU
GO.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: WHEN A HORSE TRAIL CROSSES
AN EXISTING ROAD, THERE'S NO PROBLEM. BUT WHEN AN
EXISTING HORSE TRAIL -- WHEN SOMEONE WANTS TO
CROSS AN EXISTING HORSE TRAIL, IT'S DIFFERENT.
THE SAME IS TRUE -- FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE TOWN
CENTER EXISTED AND ST. JOHN'S LANDING WAS NOW
BEING PROPOSED TO BE BUILT, THAT WOULD BE VERY
DIFFERENT THAN ST. JOHN'S LANDING NOT EXISTING.
MR. BLAKE: I UNDERSTAND.
IS THERE ANY METHOD THAT YOU OR THAT WE KNOW
OF THAT COULD PRESERVE AN EASEMENT CROSSING OF
THAT TRAIL AND NOT CAUSE IT TO DIE AT THE STATE
LEVEL, LOCATING IT THERE? IN OTHER WORDS, FOR US
TO HAVE -- OR FOR YOU TO KEEP OR MAINTAIN SOME
SORT OF RIGHTS OF CROSSING PREEXISTING TO THE
TRAIL BEING MOVED TO THAT LOCATION.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: I HOPE SO. I MEAN, I THINK,
LOGICALLY, THERE SHOULD BE, BUT I DON'T KNOW
WHAT-- I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE STATE WILL SAY.
BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS COMPLICATED
.
.
.
110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THIS WHOLE PROCESS IS .THAT THEY USE P2000 FUNDS TO
BUY THIS RAILROAD BED IN THE FIRST PLACE, WHICH
GIVES IT SORT OF -- LIKE I SAY, IT'S NOT SACRED,
BUT IT'S
MR. BLAKE: I UNDERSTAND.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: IT BECOMES...
MR. BLAKE: CROSSING IS DIFFICULT. I
UNDERSTAND THAT.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: FOR EXAMPLE, THEREIN COMES
THE RULE, NOW YOU MUST GIVE TWO FOR ONE, BECAUSE
WE ARE GIVING UP -- AS FAR AS THE LAW IS
CONCERNED, THEY'RE GIVING UP VALUABLE
ENVIRONMENTAL LAND WHEN, IN FACT, IT'S REALLY A
RAILROAD BED.
MR. BLAKE: I UNDERSTAND.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: FOR THAT, THEY HAVE TO BE
COMPENSATED WITH DOUBLE ACREAGE AND GUARANTEES OF
EQUAL OR BETTER VALUES.
MR. BLAKE: BUT DON'T YOU -- EVEN IF THE
TRAIL WERE TO BE PLACED THERE, WOULDN'T YOU
MAINTAIN ACCESS TO THE WETLAND AREA FROM 434?
MR. SCHRIMSHER: FROM DOWN HERE?
MR. BLAKE: YES, SIR. YES, SIR.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: WELL, I WOULD BE BISECTED.
I MEAN --
~
.
.
.
111
1
MR. BLAKE: YES. BUT YOU ARE ALREADY SO -- I
2
MEAN, YOU'RE ALREADY BISECTED.
3
MR. SCHRIMSHER:
I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE
4
SAYING. BUT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING RIGHT NOW ABOUT
5
THE WAY I'M BISECTED NOW, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW, I'M
6
THE SINGLE BISECTION, AND IT'S THE SHORTEST
7
DISTANCE BETWEEN TWO POINTS.
8
MR. BLAKE:
I UNDERSTAND. BUT IT CREATES A
9
PROPERTY THAT IS LESS USABLE THAN IT OTHERWISE
10
COULD BE.
11
MR. SCHRIMSHER: EXACTLY. WHICH, AGAIN, WE
12
WOULDN'T BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION IF I DIDN'T
13
THINK MOVING IT WAS A BENEFIT TO OUR PROPERTY.
14
THAT BENEFIT IS SOMEWHAT NEGATED BY THE FACT THAT
15
I HAVE TO GIVE -- I HAVE TO GIVE DOUBLE ACREAGE IN
16
ORDER TO GET IT. BUT IF I DIDN'T BELIEVE IT WAS
17
STILL OF BENEFIT TO US --
18
MR. BLAKE: WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT.
19
MR. SCHRIMSHER: -- THEN I WOULDN'T DO IT.
20
MR. BLAKE: WHAT IS IT IN THAT WETLAND AREA
21
THAT WOULD BE BISECTED AWAY FROM THE REMAINING
22
DEVELOPABLE UPLAND PORTION OF THE PROPERTY? WHAT
23
IS IT UP THERE THAT YOU WOULD NEED ACCESS TO,
24
ACROSS WHERE THE TRAIL WOULD BE LOCATED, THAT YOU
25
COULDN'T DO BECAUSE OF THE TRAIL WITH ACCESS
.
.
.
112
1
COMING FROM 434 --
2
MR. SCHRIMSHER: FOR EXAMPLE, SOMEONE WHO
3
PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY --
4
MR. BLAKE: -- THE UPLAND OR WETLAND.
5
MR. SCHRIMSHER: -- IF THEY BUY THE WETLAND,
6
AS YOU KNOW, THERE'S VERY MINIMAL USE THEY CAN
7
STILL PUT IT TO. AND YET, IT'S STILL AN AMENITY
8
BECAUSE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE CASE OF MULTIFAMILY,
9
IT IS WHAT'S BEHIND THE PEOPLE'S RESIDENCES TO
10
LOOK AT INSTEAD OF MORE DEVELOPMENT.
SO TO BE
11
MR. BLAKE: DOESN'T A HORSE TRAIL SORT OF
12
INCREASE THAT BENEFIT?
13
MR. SCHRIMSHER: WELL, IF IT DOES --
14
MR. BLAKE: SOME WOULD SAY, I THINK -- I
15
THINK IT WOULD.
16
MR. SCHRIMSHER: BEAUTY WOULD BE IN THE EYE
17
OF THE BEHOLDER HERE.
18
WHAT I KEEP SEEING IS THAT PEOPLE WANT TO
19
PROTECT THEIR HOUSE, THE BACK OF THEIR HOUSE, OR
20
THEIR PROPERTY, FROM, YOU KNOW, WHAT HORSES DROP
21
AFTER THEY EAT AND THEY WANT TO
22
MR. BLAKE: YOU HAVEN'T HEARD ABOUT OUR OTHER
23
LAW?
24
MR. SCHRIMSHER: YES. AND THE DESIRABILITY
25
OF HAVING A WALL OR SOME BARRIER BETWEEN
.
.
.
113
1
2
3
RESIDENCES AND THE HORSE TRAIL. SO PEOPLE SEEM TO
BE ABLE TO TALK OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF THEIR MOUTH
AS FAR AS THE BENEFIT OF THE HORSE TRAIL.
MR. BLAKE: BUT IT WOULD BE ACROSS THE ROAD,
WOULD IT NOT BE?
MR. SCHRIMSHER: IN MY ALIGNMENT, IT WOULD
BE, I THINK, VERY EXCELLENTLY ALIGNED. BECAUSE
NOTHING -- YOU MAY NOT NOTICE,IS THERE'S A FINGER
OF WETLANDS THAT COMES UP RIGHT HERE.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
MR. BLAKE: YES, SIR. I SEE IT.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: THEN THERE'S THE WETLAND
11
12
PARK AND THE GULF BETWEEN THEM. PART OF YOU
(INAUDIBLE) REPORT THAT WITH CITY STAFF IS THAT WEI
WOULD AGREE TO CREATE -- AGAIN, DONATE, CONTRIBUTE
THAT UPLANDS THAT WOULD CONNECT THOSE TWO WETLANDS
AND MAKE THAT FINGER A CONTIGUOUS THING. AND IT
PROVIDES A GOOD OPPORTUNITY, PROBABLY, FOR A
RETE~TION POND AND A NATURAL AREA, A BARRIER
WHATEVER HAPPENS ON THE SOUTH OF IT, AND THEN
WHAT'S ON THE NORTH OF IT. AND IT PROVIDES A
GREAT PLACE FOR HORSES TO GO RIDING ON IT.
MR. BLAKE: SO ARE YOU SUGGESTING THERE WOULD
-
BE NO ROAD CROSSING OF THE REALIGNED TRAIL AT THAT
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
CONNECTION POINT BETWEEN THE WETLANDS THAT YOU
25
DISCUSSED?
.
.
.
114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. SCHRIMSHER: THERE WOULD BE TWO ROAD
CROSSINGS.
MR. BLAKE: UP ONE, CHARLES. YES, SIR.
RIGHT THERE.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: THAT'S A ROAD CROSSING.
MR. BLAKE: SO THERE STILL WOULD BE A ROAD
CROSSING.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: YES. BUT AS YOU KNOW, THERE
ARE ROAD CROSSINGS ALONG CROSS SEMINOLE TRAIL. AND
THERE'S ONE UP HERE ON TUSCAWILLA ROAD WHETHER YOU
LEAVE IT WHERE IT IS.
MR. BLAKE:
I UNDERSTAND THAT.
I WAS JUST
TRYING TO UNDERSTAND YOUR COMMENT ABOUT CONNECTING
THE WETLANDS.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: THIS?
MR. BLAKE: YES, SIR. I WAS TRYING TO
DETERMINE WHETHER O~ NOT YOU MEANT BY CONNECTING
THE WETLANDS WITH THE HORSE TRAIL, THE
INTERSECTION GOES ACROSS THE FINGER TO THAT.
WHETHER OR NOT --
MR. SCHRIMSHER: IT'S A DESIGN FEATURE THAT
VICTOR SUGGESTED, I BELIEVE, AND THAT WE AGREED
WITH, THAT IT CREATES A SUBSTANTIAL NATURAL AREA
BETWEEN TWO DEVELOPABLE AREAS THAT YOU WOULD PASS
THROUGH AND FORM, LIKE, A GATEWAY. I'M LEAVING,
.
.
.
115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
YOU KNOW, WHATEVER OFFICE -- OR WHATEVER TYPE
DEVELOPMENT IS SOUTH OF IT, AND NOW I'M
ENTERING I'M PROBABLY MORE RESIDENTIAL.
MR. BLAKE: HOW MUCH MORE DEVELOPABLE LAND DO
YOU FEEL YOU WOULD HAVE BY MOVING THE TRAIL?
MR. SCHRIMSHER: I DON'T HAVE AN EXACT
NUMBER.
MR. BLAKE: I KNOW. ABOUT.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: BUT I CAN SAY I WOULD HAVE
3.86 ACRES AT LEAST. BECAUSE LAND THAT IS
CURRENTLY BEING PLANNED TO BE INCLUDED AS PART OF
WETLAND PARK WOULD BE -- COULD BE COUNTED TOWARDS
PART OF MY TWO-FOR-ONE SWAP.
I THINK I STARTED TO SAY -- AND I DIDN'T --
MAYBE I DID SAY IT.
MR. BLAKE: MEANING THOSE PORTIONS OF UPLANDS
THAT ARE INSIDE THE RING OF WETLAND PARK.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: RIGHT.
MR. BLAKE: YOU COULD COUNT THAT AS -- IN
OTHER WORDS, WE WOULD KNOW NOW THAT, INSTEAD, THAT
LAND WOULD BE PART OF THE TRAIL.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: THAT'S RIGHT. BUT WHAT
WOULD BE THE-- I THINK WE KNOW THE ANSWER. WHAT
WOULD BE THE CITY'S NEED -- IN THE CITY'S CONCERN
WITH TRYING TO CROSS -- OR THE NECESSITY OF THAT
~
.
.
.
116'
1
UPLAND PERIMETER TO GET TO THE WETLAND PARK?
2
I DON'T THINK THERE WOULD BE -- THERE'S NOT
3
GOING TO BE A FENCE PUT UP ALONG THAT IRREGULAR
4
LINE.
5
MR. BLAKE: SEE, INTUITIVELY, I THINK ONE OF
6
MY PROBLEMS IN LOOKING AT THIS PICTURE, MICHAEL,
7
IS THAT THERE IS -- IF YOU POINT TO MAGNOLIA PARK,
8
SORT OF LOOK AT THAT AS BEING THE EPICENTER, IF
9
YOU WILL, THE HEART OF THE DEVELOPMENT, AND AS YOU
10
GO OUT FROM THERE, YOU TEND TO HAVE LOWER
11
DENSITIES. CLOSER IN, HIGHER DENSITIES.
FARTHER
12
OUT, LOWER DENSITIES. YOU KNOW, NOT JUST
13
CONCENTRIC CIRCLES, BUT YOU GET THE IDEA.
14
AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT BRINGING A HORSE
15
TRAIL, EVEN THOUGH I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE TALKING
16
ALONG THE WETLANDS AND ALONG WETLAND PARK AND
17
ACROSS THE STREET FROM DEVELOPMENT, THAT THAT IS,
18
INDEED, BRINGING THE EQUESTRIAN TRAFFIC FARTHER IN
19
INTO HIGHER DENSITY DEVELOPMENT THAN YOU MIGHT
20
HAVE OUT ON THE OUTER RING.
21
MR. SCHRIMSHER:
IT DEPENDS ON YOUR
22
PERSPECTIVE.
I SEE THAT AS A VAST IMPROVEMENT.
23
MAYOR PARTYKA:
I'M
I KNOW. NO. NO.
24
LETTING YOU FINISH. LET ME JUST FINISH SOMETHING.
25
WE'VE BEEN TALKING ON THIS FOR 35 MINUTES. OKAY.
.
.
.
117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
IT'S ON A ONE-WAY -- I DON'T KNOW. I'LL LET YOU
FINISH, BUT IT'S MORE OF A TIME SITUATION. THERE
MIGHT BE SOME OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS VERY ISSUE.
MR. BLAKE: I'M CLOSE. I'M SORRY.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: YOU COULD PHRASE IT THAT
WAY. BUT I COULD LOOK AT IT FROM THE EXACT
OPPOSITE AND SAY, IT IS A HUGE IMPROVEMENT OVER
THE TRAIL THAT THE EQUESTRIAN FOLKS ARE GOING TO
ENJOY IF THE TRAIL IS BUILT WHERE IT IS.
MR. BLAKE: YOU SAY THAT IT'S AN IMPROVEMENT
BECAUSE --
MR. SCHRIMSHER: BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WHAT THEY
HAD IS A RAILROAD BED THAT'S STRAIGHT AS AN ARROW.
MR. BLAKE: OH, YOU MEAN WITHOUT ANY MOVE AT
ALL.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: RIGHT.
MR. BLAKE: I UNDERSTAND.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: BASICALLY, A SCORCHED
EARTH. NOT EXACTLY THE MOST PRISTINE
MR. BLAKE: OKAY. I WON'T ARGUE WITH THAT.
I'LL CALL YOU RIGHT ON THAT ONE.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: AND ALSO, I DON'T KNOW WHAT
THE FIGURES ARE, BUT IF YOU JUST LOOKED AT THE
NUMBER OF USERS OF THE PAVED TRAIL VERSUS THE
UNPAVED, WE ARE NOT -- IF YOU LOOK AT IT IN THAT
.
.
.
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SENSE, WHAT WE ARE CHANGING AFFECTS A SMALL -- I'M
NOT SAYING UNIMPORTANT -- BUT A SMALL NUMBER OF
THE TRAIL USERS. AND IT'S NOT AS IF WE ARE
SENDING THEM OUT TO MARCH ACROSS A BARE ASPHALT
PARKING LOT. WE'RE STILL PROVIDING A VERY SAFE
MR. BLAKE:
I WOULD ALSO AGREE THAT THERE
WOULD APPEAR TO BE FEWER HORSES THAN THERE ARE
PEOPLE ON BIKES OR ROLLER BLADES OR WHATEVER.
MR. SCHRIMSHER:
I THINK IT WOULD BE A
NICE -- IT WOULD STILL BE A VERY, VERY NICE TRAIL;
VERY SIMILAR, IN MANY WAYS, TO THE OTHER LINE, YOU
KNOW.
MR. BLAKE: OKAY. LET ME ASK YOU ONE FINAL
QUESTION AND THEN I'LL LET THE MAYOR GO TO
WHATEVER HE WANTS TO.
WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO HAVE YOU CONSIDER
LEAVING THE TRAIL WHERE IT IS?
MR. SCHRIMSHER:
DISCUSSED.
WHAT WOULD IT TAKE? YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I CAN
POSE IT THE OTHER WAY. WHAT DOES IT TAKE FOR THE
I DON'T KNOW THAT'S BEEN
CITY TO CONSIDER
MR. BLAKE: YEAH, BUT I ASKED THE QUESTION
FIRST.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: AND I ANSWERED IT.
I SAID,
.
.
.
119
1
2
I DON'T KNOW.
MR. BLAKE: THAT'S NOT AN ANSWER. I THINK
YOU DO KNOW.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: OKAY. I THINK IT'S ALSO
IMPORTANT TO NOTE IN THE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
STATE FOLKS -- WITH OUR CONVERSATIONS TODAY WITH
THE LADY FROM THE STATE, SAMANTHA BROWN, AND
CHARLES, THEIR COMMENT WAS THAT ALIGNMENT WOULD BE
BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE
TOWN CENTER GUYS, AS OPPOSED TO HAVING SOME
RESTRICTION FROM THE STATE. THE STATE DOESN'T
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
CARE.
MR. BLAKE: IN OTHER WORDS, THE STATE'S
MERELY INTERESTED IN THE CRITERIA OF TWO FOR ONE
AND THE (INAUDIBLE) VALUE.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THAT'S RIGHT. AND
(INAUDIBLE) SAID, HOW MUCH MORE PROPERTY WOULD YOU
14
15
16
17
18
GAIN?
19
WELL, MIKE'S STILL GOT TO MEET THE
TWO-FOR-ONE REQUIREMENT, AND THE VALUE TEST HAS
GOT TO BE MET, AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COMPLY
WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. THEY'RE OKAY WITH
-
IT. NO ONE SEEMS TO HAVE A REAL PROBLEM WITH IT.
I DON'T KNOW WHY WE -- IT'S AN ISSUE. I MEAN
MR. BLAKE: THANK YOU.
20
21
22
23
24
25
r1.ii
.
.
.
120
1
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THANK YOU.
2
MAYOR PARTYKA: CITY MANAGER, I HAVE A COUPLE
3
QUESTIONS. DO YOU WANT TO GO?
4
MR. MCLEMORE:
I'LL GO LATE, BECAUSE I WANT
5
TO COMPLETE THE --
6
MAYOR PARTYKA: I'VE GOT SEVERAL QUICK
7
QUESTIONS. NUMBER ONE IS, WITH DUE DEFERENCE TO
8
COMMISSIONER BLAKE AND TAKING IT IN THE SPIRIT,
9
I'VE ROLLERBLADED, WALKED, AND RAN THAT ENTIRE
10
TRAIL, I'D VENTURE TO SAY, PROBABLY MORE THAN ANY
11
COMMISSIONER HERE. NOW, I'LL ADMIT THIS, I'VE
12
SEEN COMMISSIONER BLAKE'S CHILDREN.
I HAVE NOT
13
SEEN
14
MR. BLAKE:
I GET REPORTS.
15
MAYOR PARTYKA:
I HAVE NOT SEEN COMMISSIONER
16
BLAKE. OKAY. NOW
17
MR. BLAKE:
I HAVEN'T SEEN YOU. MY OFFICE IS
18
ON THE TRAIL.
19
MAYOR PARTYKA: NOW, THE OTHER PIECE ON THIS,
20
THOUGH, IS, SERIOUSLY, IN ALL THE TIME THAT I'VE
21
BEEN THERE, RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING, EXCLUDING
22
THE FIRST DAY, I'VE NOT SEEN A HORSE ON THE
23
TRAIL.
I MEAN, THAT'S A SIMPLE FACT. FROM OVIEDO
24
TO THE OTHER END.
25
NOW, WHETHER THEY'RE THERE OR NOT THERE, I
121
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUST DON'T SEE THAT MANY. OKAY.
MR. MARTINEZ: THEY'RE THERE EVERY TIME
YOU'RE NOT THERE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: WHICH MAY BE.
NOW, MY QUESTION IS THIS. AND THIS IS TAKEN
IN THE SPIRIT OF, AGAIN, OPENNESS AND TRYING TO
LOOK AT OTHER THINGS HERE. WE'VE WORKED ON THIS.
WE'VE SEEN TRAILS NOW. WE'VE LOOKED THIS UP AND
DOWN. MY POSITION WOULD BE, WHAT'S -- FROM THE
CITY'S STANDPOINT, WHY IS ONE BETTER THAN THE
OTHER? I LOOK AT THAT THE SAME WAY. I THINK IT'S
A WASH ONE WAY, AND THEN THE (INAUDIBLE).
NUMBER TWO -- THIS ONE'S MORE RADICAL WHAT
IF WE ELIMINATE THAT ENTIRE TRAIL THROUGH THE
DOWNTOWN AND JUST MAKE THE OUTSIDE OF IT? NOW,
THAT'S A WHAT-IF SITUATION.
BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO GET -- AND ENVISION'
THE FUTURE A LITTLE BIT. AND SOMETIMES IT MEANS
POTENTIALLY LOOKING AT OTHER OPTIONS HERE.
BUT, NUMBER ONE, I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T SEE A
DRAMATIC DIFFERENCE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER IN TERMS
OF THIS ONE OR THE SECOND ONE. _
AND NUMBER TWO, MAYBE THERE'S ANOTHER OPTION;
THE OPTION TO JUST KEEP IT OUTSIDE AND LEAVE IT
THAT WAY WHERE PEOPLE, IF THEY GO OFF THE TRAIL,
.
.
.
.
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
122
1
ACTUALLY HAVE TO WALK TWO OR THREE BLOCKS. SO,
2
AGAIN, THAT'S JUST OPENING UP DISCUSSION POINTS.
3
CITY MANAGER.
4
MR. MCLEMORE: ARE ALL THE COMMISSIONERS
5
THROUGH?
6
MAYOR PARTYKA: YEAH.
7
AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT:
I CAN GIVE YOU SOME
8
INFORMATION THAT THE CITY SHOULD CONSIDER.
9
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. WELL, AT THE
10
APPROPRIATE TIME, YOU'LL HAVE A CHANCE.
11
AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT:
IT'S ABOUT THIS TRAIL
12
AND THOSE OPTIONS AND THE VERY QUESTION YOU JUST
13
ASKED, MAYOR.
14
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. THAT'S GOOD. AS SOON
15
AS WE GET THIS, WE'LL GET YOU UP HERE, TOO.
16
MR. MCLEMORE: FIRST THING, LET ME POINT OUT
17
THAT WE KEEP CALLING THIS -- AND I'M GUILTY OF
18
THIS, TOO -- SAYING THIS IS HORSES.
THIS IS NOT
HORSES ONLY. THIS IS THE UNPAVED SECTION OF THE
TRAIL. AND THAT IS OPEN TO HIKERS AND WALKERS AND
EVERYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO HAVE A DIFFERENT KIND
OF EXPERIENCE. AND A DIFFERENT KIND OF EXPERIENCE
WAS TO ENJOY THE NATURE AND THE WETLANDS AND ALL
THAT'S OUT THERE.,
AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THOSE
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
123
PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING ROLLERBLADING AND THOSE
PEOPLE WHO WANT TO GO DOWN INTO THE CORE OF THE
CITY. THAT'S ONE THING. A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO
GO ALONG THE NATURE AND EXPERIENCE THE NATURE SIDE
OF THIS THING. THERE'S SOME BEAUTIFUL AREA DOWN
THERE. THAT'S OF TREMENDOUS VALUE, IN TERMS OF A
TRAIL, TO HAVE THAT UNPAVED SECTION THERE WHERE IT
IS.
SECONDLY, THAT ORIGINAL TRAIL SECTION WAS
ARRIVED AT WITH -- A LOT OF THE UNPAVED TRAIL
SECTION WAS ARRIVED AT WITH A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF
INPUT, ORIGINALLY, IN THAT CHARRETTE. AND THERE
WERE PARTS AND INTERESTS REPRESENTED IN THAT
INPUT, AS WELL AS NUMBER OF THEM WERE DIFFERENT
INTERESTS THAT WAS REPRESENTED IN THAT INPUT THAT
RESULTED IN THAT TRAIL, THE UNPAVED SECTION, BEING
BIFURCATED AND TAKING THAT ROUTE.
THE OTHER ISSUE RELATIVE TO CROSSINGS
I
MEAN, CROSSINGS ARE ALLOWED ON THESE TRAILS. YES,
YOU HAVE TO GO UP AND APPLY FOR IT, BUT IT'S NOT
LIKE YOU CAN'T CROSS ON THESE TRAILS. YOU CAN GET
CROSSINGS ACROSS THE TRAIL. YOU CAN'T BUILD
ANYTHING ON IT, OBVIOUSLY, BUT YOU CAN CROSS
THEM. YOU CAN GET A PERMIT TO GET ACROSS THEM.
I GUESS THE PART THAT BOTHERS ME THE MOST IS
.
.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
124
WE SAT DOWN AT YOUR DIRECTION, AND AT MY
SUGGESTION, AS WELL, AND THE STAFF, TOO, WITH
SCHRIMSHERS AND REDID THIS PLAN. WE SPENT ANOTHER
$30,000 WITH THE PLANNER TO REDO THIS SECOND
PLAN. IN THAT SECOND PLAN -- AND MR. SCHRIMSHER
CALLED HIS PLANNER FOR IT AND LOOKED AT THAT PLAN
BEFORE WE EVER SAID, IS THIS IT? WE DON'T WANT TO
HEAR ANY MORE ABOUT IT. IS THIS IT?
OKAY. WE ALL AGREE. THIS IS IT. THIS IS A
GREAT PLAN. NOT ONE QUESTION WAS RAISED, AS I CAN
RECALL, ABOUT TRYING TO TAKE THE UNPAVED SECTION
AND MOVE IT.
THEN IT CAME UP, YOU KNOW, IN THE LAST WEEK
OF WANTING TO MOVE THE TRAIL. SO NOTWITHSTANDING
THE FACT THAT, YES, WE PUT SOMETHING IN ABOUT THE
8-FOOT WALL, BUT THAT CAME UP, YOU KNOW, AT THE
END WHEN I THOUGHT WE HAD AN AGREEMENT ON THE
LAYOUT AND THE LAND USES AS PROPOSED AFTER ANOTHER
WEEK, SPENDING $30,000 WITH YOUR CONSULTANTS AND
WITH MR. SCHRIMSHER THERE DAILY AND INVOLVED.
AND I REMEMBER VICTOR SAYING, IS THIS IT?
ARE WE ALL IN AGREEMENT? YES, WE'RE ALL IN
-
AGREEMENT. LET'S JUST GO FORWARD.
NOW, NOTWITHSTANDING THE ISSUE THAT THERE MAY
BE SOME PIECES OF GROUND THAT ARE NOT USABLE WITH
fl 1
. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
- 22
--..
23
24
" 25
.
125
THIS PLAN, THE OTHER PART THAT BOTHERS ME A GREAT
DEAL IS WE ARE AGREEING TO COMPENSATE THE
SCHRIMSHER PROPERTIES FOR SOME OF THESE PROBLEMS:
ONE, THE DEDICATIONS -- OR ACTUALLY, THE WAY I SEE
IT, IS THE PURCHASE OF WETLAND PARK AND MAGNOLIA
PARK AND WHATEVER PROBLEMS ARE RELATED TO THE
EXTERIOR.
ALL OF THIS IS PARTY, OVERALL, OF US SAYING,
OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO OFFER YOU X NUMBER OF
DOLLARS, WHICH IS IN WATER, SEWER LINE, ROADS, AND
THOSE KIND OF THINGS BECAUSE OF THESE DEDICATIONS
THAT YOU NEED TO MAKE AND ALL THESE OTHER ISSUES.
ONCE THAT, NOW, IS OUT THERE, THEN THE FACT
THAT THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS AND THERE MIGHT BE,
YOU KNOW, 3 ACRES OF LAND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT A
LOT OF MONEY ON THE TABLE HERE IN ORDER TO
PURCHASE ALL THOSE PROBLEMS AND TO PURCHASE THESE
LANDS.
AND THEN WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED IS, WELL,
LET'S TAKE THE TWO-TO-ONE OFF OF THAT, WHICH
YOU'RE PURCHASING FOR US RATHER THAN THAT WHICH WE
ARE RETAINING OURSELVES.
I'VE GOT A PROBLEM WITH
THAT.
IF WE'RE GOING TO TAKE IT THAT WAY, THEN WE
OUGHT TO REDUCE WHAT WE'RE WILLING TO GIVE BY A
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
126
VALUE OF 3 ACRES OR 4 ACRES.
I'M LOOKING AT IT STRICTLY AS A NEGOTIATOR,
NOT A GOOD GUY, A BAD GUY. I'M LOOKING AT IT AS A
NEGOTIATOR FOR THE CITY. WHETHER RIGHT, WRONG, OR
INDIFFERENT, I'M SAYING THAT'S THE WAY I VIEW IT
AS A PERSON NEGOTIATING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.
WE'RE COMPENSATING YOU FOR THIS. WHY ARE WE
ARGUING ABOUT IT? IT'S ON THE TABLE. WE AGREED
TO DO IT.
NOW, IF THE COMPENSATION IS NOT EXACTLY RIGHT
OR WHATEVER, WELL, LET'S TALK ABOUT COMPENSATION.
THAT'S BEEN THE FRUSTRATING PART. I KNOW IT HAS
BEEN FOR THEM, TOO, BECAUSE WE PUT SOME THINGS IN
THERE AT THE LAST MINUTE, ALSO, SOME CHANGES.
THAT HAPPENED.
BUT THAT'S THE TRAIL REALIGNMENT CHANGING
IN THAT UNPAVED AT THIS LATE HOUR IS SOMETHING
THAT REALLY WAS STARTLING TO ME.
SO, ANYHOW, THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS, AND
WHATEVER YOU-- AND THIS IS THE HONEST QUESTION,
TOO. I NEED TO COME BACK TO MIKE OVER THERE,
BECAUSE HE MADE A LOT OF -- OR GAVE SOME
SIGNIFICANT TESTIMONY RELEVANT TO THE REQUIREMENT
FOR THE WALL, WHICH WAS PUT IN BY US IN THE LAST
COUPLE WEEKS OR SO.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
127
IF THAT WALL REQUIREMENT WAS TAKEN OUT, WOULD
YOU STILL FEEL SUCH A COMPELLING NEED TO MOVE THE
TRAIL REALIGNMENT OR THE UNPAVED SECTION? HONEST
QUESTION. NOT A TRICK.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: I'M REALLY NOT DOING THIS AS
A STRATEGY TO WIN A CONCESSION. I REALLY THINK
WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS A BETTER DESIGN. I GUESS I
CAN'T ANSWER, BECAUSE IT'S SORT OF A VARIATION ON
THE QUESTION MR. BLAKE ASKED ME. IN EXCHANGE FOR
WHAT CAN WE LEAVE THIS WHERE IT IS? AND I DON'T
KNOW THE ANSWER. SO I DON'T KNOW.
MAYOR PARTYKA: IF I MAY -- ALL RIGHT. WE
KNOW NOW THE POSITION ON THE WALL. WE KNOW THE
POSITION ON THE TRAIL. I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT
ALL OF THE VARIOUS OPTIONS. SO WE'VE DONE TWO
ISSUES. I THINK WE NEED TO GO NOW, MAYBE, TO THE
OTHERS, OKAY, SO IN TOTAL WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT.
MR. MCLEMORE: DO YOU DESIRE TO GET THE
INPUT, OR DO YOU WANT TO WAIT UNTIL LATER ON THE
PUBLIC? YOU HAD A PERSON WAITING.
MAYOR PARTYKA: I THINK WE'RE STILL IN THIS
POINT. WE'RE TRYING TO GO THROUGH THE POINTS.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: I DO ALSO -- I THINK I
SHOULD SAY, BECAUSE I TRIED TO SAY IT VERY
.
.
.
128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CAREFULLY AND GINGERLY. I REALLY THINK -- NOT JUST
KIND OF THINK -~ I REALLY THINK AND I'M SURE, FROM
MY POINT OF VIEW, WE HAD AGREED ON THE ALIGNMENT
OF SPINE ROAD. SO TO HAVE THAT AS SOMETHING TO BE
DEBATED, I WOULD SAY, IS ONE OF THOSE OTHER THINGS
COMPARABLE IN MY MIND TO CONSIDERING A REALIGNMENT
OF ONLY THE UNPAVED PORTION OF THIS TRAIL.
AND I HAVE TRIED IN THE REALIGNMENT TO CHOOSE I
CAREFULLY WHERE THAT TRAIL WOULD GO SO THAT IT
WOULD BE A COMPARABLE EXPERIENCE FOR THE USERS OF
THE TRAIL. I KNOW I FOCUSED ON THE PEOPLE ON
HORSES, BUT I ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE IT'S TRUE THAT IT'S
JUST FOLKS WHO WANT TO GO OFF ROAD IN HIKING
BOOTS, TOO. AND I WOULD SAY -- HOWEVER,
EVERYTHING I SAID WOULD APPLY TO THEM, TOO. IT
WOULD CARRY THEM ALONG A SCENIC ROUTE AND GIVE
THEM AN ACCESS TO MANY VISTAS THAT THEY MIGHT NOT
OTHERWISE NOTE BY GOING ALONG THE OTHER WAY.
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, IF WE COULD, THEN, LET'S
GO TO SPINE ROAD.
MAYOR PARTYKA: THAT'S WHAT I'M SUGGESTING
RIGHT NOW.
BEFORE YOU GO ANY FURTHER, COMMISSION
MARTINEZ HAD A QUESTION.
MR. MARTINEZ: I JUST WANTED TO ASK WHY --
.
.
.
129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. SCHRIMSHER, WHY CAN'T YOU GIVE US THE
OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP THIS TRAIL THE WAY WE SEE
IS BEST FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO USE IT?
AND IF YOUR GOAL -- OR YOUR MAIN GOAL IS
COMPENSATION, WHY DON'T YOU DISCUSS COMPENSATION
WITH THE MANAGER FOR THAT LITTLE PIECE OF LAND
BEYOND THE TRAIL AT THE POINT NEAR THE LAKE THAT
YOU ARE ARGUING ABOUT THAT'S GOING TO BE BISECTED?
I MEAN, THERE'S ALWAYS A SOLUTION TO A
PROBLEM. I THINK THAT THE QUICKEST WAY HERE WOULD
BE FOR YOU TO TALK OR DISCUSS COMPENSATION WITH
THE CITY FOR THAT PIECE OF LAND. THIS WAY IT'S
OUT OF YOUR WAY. YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT
ANYMORE. YOU GET YOUR CASH AND PUT IT IN THE BANK,
OR YOU GIVE IT TO YOUR INVESTORS, AND IT'S OVER
WITH. THEN YOU CONCENTRATE ON THE REST OF THE
LAND THAT YOU OWN THERE.
MR. SCHRIMSHER:
IF I WAS JUST TRYING TO
EXTRACT SOME MONEY OUT OF YOU-ALL, I WOULD DO
THAT. THAT REALLY WASN'T-- I REALLY WAS --
EVERYTHING I SAID I REALLY MEANT AS A TRUE
STATEMENT.
-
MR. MARTINEZ: WHY IS ,THAT PIECE OF LAND SO
IMPORTANT, THAT LITTLE PIECE OF LAND OUT THERE
THAT IS HOLDING UP THE TRAIL FROM PROCEEDING AS
. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
. 25
130
THE CITY HAS PLANNED? THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
YOU SAID BISECTING THAT LITTLE PIECE OF LAND OVER
TO THE EAST.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: HOW BIG IS THE LOT THAT YOUR
HOUSE IS ON?
MR. MARTINEZ: MY HOUSE? ABOUT -- THE HOUSE
I HAVE NOW IS ABOUT 50 BY 100.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: WELL" IS IT IMPORTANT TO
YOU? I MEAN, WE TOSS AROUND LITTLE PIECES OF OUR
LAND, AND IT'S AS IF IT'S NOT THAT IMPORTANT. BUT
IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO US.
MR. MARTINEZ: NO. NO.
IT IS. BUT I'M
SAYING, YOU WOULD BE COMPENSATED.
IT'S NOT LIKE
WE'RE SAYING, GIVE IT TO US.
MR. SCHRIMSHER: AND I'M WILLING TO ADMIT THE
GENERAL STATEMENT THAT EVERYTHING HAS ITS PRICE.
YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING'S FOR SALE AT SOME PRICE.
THERE'S EXCEPTIONS, BUT, IN GENERAL, THAT'S TRUE.
IF WE -- IF I WERE TRYING TO -- IF THAT'S
WHAT I WAS ABOUT HERE, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW
CAN I GET SOMETHING OUT OF THE CITY, I'D GO DOWN
THAT TRAIL WITH YOU.
I MEAN, I'D GO DOWN THAT
THOUGHT PROCESS WITH YOU.
BUT THAT ISN'T REALLY WHAT I WAS TRYING TO
.
.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
131
1
DO.
I HONESTLY THOUGHT
AND I STILL DO THINK --
2
I HAVE -- I'M TRYING TO DO SOMETHING THAT WILL BE
3
REALLY GOOD FOR US AND FOR YOU, THE CITY, AND FOR
4
THE TRAIL USERS.
I WOULDN'T AGREE, NECESSARILY,
5
THAT THE TRAIL ALIGNMENT, AS CURRENTLY DRAWN, IS
6
ABSOLUTELY THE BEST.
IT HAS ITS PROS AND CONS, AS
7
DO EVERY OTHER ONE.
8
MR. MARTINEZ: LET'S TAKE AWAY, THE MONETARY
9
GAIN
10
MR. SCHRIMSHER: AND THE FACT THAT WE JUST
11
LEFT THE PROPERTY VACANT AND JUST TURNED EVERYBODY
12
LOOSE AND SAID, WALK ALL OVER IT. THERE'S ALL
13
KINDS OF PRETTY PLACES TO SEE OVER THERE, YOU
14
KNOW. BUT, I MEAN, WE DO HAVE TO PICK A PATH.
15
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
16
MR. MARTINEZ: LET'S GET AWAY FROM THE
17
MONETARY GAIN THAT YOU SAY YOU'RE NOT LOOKING TO
HEIST US OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
MR. SCHRIMSHER:
IT'S NOT SAYING MONEY'S NOT
IMPORTANT TO ME. OBVIOUSLY, YOU'RE RIGHT. WE DO
WANT TO RETURN CAPITAL TO INVESTORS. BUT IT
WASN'T LIKE A PLOY I WAS USING WHEN I SAID THE
THINGS I DID.
MR. MARTINEZ: AS AN ACT OF GOOD FAITH ON
YOUR PART, SO THE CITY CAN DEAL WITH OTHER ISSUES
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
-
---
23
24
25
.
.
132
THAT ARE VERY PREVALENT HERE AND POSSIBLY SPLIT
THE PIE SO/50, YOU COULD -- YOU COULD IF YOU
REALLY WANTED TO, OKAY, NEGOTIATE THAT PIECE OF
LAND, AND THEN GO ON TO THE NEXT ISSUE. THEN THE
CITY MAY BE FORCED TO ACT IN GOOD FAITH AND GIVE
IN TO YOU ON THE NEXT ISSUE. THIS IS HOW YOU
NEGOTIATE.
, MR. SCHRIMSHER: IT'S NOT REFUSING TO DO
THAT.
I GUESS I WOULD SAY THAT IN PREVIOUS
DISCUSSIONS, HOW THE CITY VALUES SOME OF OUR
PROPERTY AND HOW WE VALUE IT, THERE WAS A PRETTY
BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO. SO IT MIGHT NOT
BE -- I MEAN, I'M NOT REFUSING.
I'M JUST SAYING I
DIDN'T COME PREPARED WITH SOMETHING IN MY BACK
POCKET, WAITING FOR YOU GUYS TO ASK ME THAT
QUESTION SO I COULD GO, ALL RIGHT, THERE IT IS,
AND HERE'S MY PREPARED ANSWER.
I JUST DON'T KNOW
THE ANSWER.
I JUST DON'T KNOW.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. THANK YOU.
LET'S GO ON TO THE SPINE ROAD ISSUE.
MR. MCLEMORE: OKAY. THE SPINE ROAD
ALTERNATIVES -- WE CAN GET BACK TO THAT ONE, KIP.
THIS IS NOT A REAL DEEP ISSUE TO STAFF.
I DIDN'T
REALIZE THAT WE HAD -- MICHAEL BELIEVES WE HAD
.
AGREED ON THE UPPER ONE. WE THINK WE AGREED ON
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
~
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
133
THE BOTTOM ONE. THERE'S ABOUT $200,000 WORTH OF
DIFFERENCE.
I THINK THE GOAL HERE IS THE GOAL IS WHICH
ONE GIVES THE BEST JUMP-START TO THE DEVELOPMENT?
WHICH ROAD, IF WE BUILD IT, WILL THEY COME? OKAY.
AND RECOGNIZING, TOO, THAT THERE IS A HIGHER
COST IN GOING THAT WAY OF A COUPLE HUNDRED
THOUSAND DOLLARS. SO I THINK, BASED, AGAIN, FROM
A NEGOTIATOR'S POINT OF VIEW, NEGOTIATING ON YOUR
BEHALF, IN ORDER TO SPEND THAT OTHER 200 OR
$250,000, I THINK WE NEED SOME FAIRLY STRONG
REPRESENTATIONS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT PEOPLE TO
TELL US THAT IT'S WORTH SPENDING THAT OTHER 200 OR
$250,000 RELATIVE TO JUMP-STARTING THIS PROPERTY.
BECAUSE THAT'S THE GOAL, IS TO BUILDING THE ROAD
TO TRY TO JUMP-START THE PROPERTY FROM A
DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE. THEREFORE, IS THERE A
REAL BENEFIT FOR SPENDING THAT OTHER 200 TO
$250,000?
MAYOR PARTYKA: COULD YOU GIVE ME, VERY
CLEARLY AGAIN, THE TWO OPTIONS ON THE SPINE ROAD.
THREE OPTIONS.
MR. MCLEMORE:
MAYOR PARTYKA:
MR. MCLEMORE:
OKAY.
YOU KNOW, SHOW ME.
THIS IS ONE THAT THE CITY
~
.
.
.
134
1
THOUGHT WE HAD AGREED TO, AND THE NEXT ONE
2
MR. BLAKE: HOW MUCH WAS THAT ONE?
3
MR. MCLEMORE: THAT'S RIGHT AT -- JUST UNDER
4
950; $970,000, AS I RECALL.
5
MR. LOCKCUFF:
INCLUDING UTILITIES.
6
I'M ADDING $200,000 TO
MR. MCLEMORE:
7
EVERYTHING INCLUDING UTILITIES. AND THEN THE
8
MIDDLE ROUTE, WHICH IS THE PREFERRED ROUTE FROM
9
SCHRIMSHERS, IS THE ONE THAT'S BEING POINTED OUT
10
TO YOU NOW, IS WHICH THEY FEEL WOULD GIVE THE BEST
11
JUMP-START TO THE PROPERTY.
12
AND THEN THE OUTER RING -- PARDON ME?
13
MR. BLAKE: HOW MUCH, PLEASE?
14
MR. MCLEMORE: A MILLION 113, SOMEWHERE IN
15
THAT RANGE.
16
AND THEN THE OUTER RING WAS THE MOST
17
EXPENSIVE AT ABOUT 1.3 MILLION, 4 MILLION -- I'M
18
SORRY -- 1.4 MILLION.
19
SO WHAT I NEED OR WHAT, FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE
20
AS POLICY MAKERS, I THINK IN YOUR INVESTMENT IN
21
JUMP-STARTING, IS IT WORTH 200, $250,000 MORE TO
22
GO TO THE PROPOSAL THAT THE SCHRIMSHERS ARE
23
REQUESTING VERSUS WHERE THE STAFF ORIGINALLY
24
THOUGHT WE WERE AT?
25
MR. MARTINEZ: HERE'S A GOOD POINT FOR YOU TO
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
135
HORSE TRADE. LET HIM GIVE YOU THE TRAIL, AND GIVE
HIM HIS SPINE ROAD.
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, THAT'S THE WAY I LOOK AT
IT.
MR. GRINDSTAFF:
MAYOR PARTYKA:
MR. GRINDSTAFF:
MR. MAYOR.
YES, MR. GRINDSTAFF.
WHEN WE WERE FIRST
INTRODUCED TO THIS CONCEPT OF DEALING WITH THE
ROAD, THIS IS THE DRAWING THAT WE HAD WITH US.
KIP. I HOPE SOMEONE REMEMBERS LOOKING AT
THIS. THIS WAS OPTION NUMBER TWO. IT WAS OPTION
NUMBER TWO WITH THOSE PROPOSALS THAT YOU MAY
REMEMBER AT THE MEETING ON DECEMBER 13TH. THERE
WAS THESE HANDOUTS THAT CAME OUT RIGHT AT THE
BEGINNING OF THE MEETING SAYING, THIS IS THE
BENEFIT TO THE DEVELOPER. THESE ARE THE NUMBERS.
IF THEY DON'T DO THIS, THEY'RE NUTS, BECAUSE THIS
IS A GOOD THING FOR THEM.
OUR MIND SET WAS OPTION NUMBER TWO. AND IT
WAS THE DOCUMENTS, WE GOT THE COPIES, AND THERE IT
IS.
NOW, THAT HAVING BEEN SAID, WE THINK, IN
ADDITION TO THAT, IT IS THE PREFERRED ALIGNMENT.
WE, AS YOU ALL KNOW -- AND YOU'VE HEARD FOR A LONG
TIME -- WE RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH A NUMBER OF
~
.
.
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
136
1
FOLKS ABOUT WHAT'S GOING TO -- THE RETAIL THAT'S
2
GOING TO COME FLOCKING TO THIS TOWN CENTER
3
PROJECT. EVEN MR. JOSHI HAD SOME TROUBLE GETTING
4
SOME RETAIL PEOPLE WITH REAL MONEY TO SHOW UP.
5
WE BELIEVE THE TOWN CENTER PROGRAM IS LIKE
6
THE CELEBRATIONS AND SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT
7
VICTOR DOVER POINTED OUT TO YOU THAT RESIDENTIAL
8
DEVELOPMENT -- IF IT'S GOING TO SUCCEED AT ,ALL,
9
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO BE HAPPENING
10
FIRST, WHICH WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO BE OUT IN THE
11
OUTER EDGES, AND IT'S THE ROOFTOPS THAT WILL DRIVE
12
THE NON-RESIDENTIAL STUFF.
IT'S THE MULTIFAMILY
13
AND SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL THAT WILL DRIVE SOME
14
OF THE OTHER THINGS.
15
BUT WE BELIEVE THAT OPTION NUMBER TWO NOT
16
ONLY WOULD -- IS SOMETHING WE WERE SHOWN EARLY ON,
17
BUT WE BELIEVE IT MAKES SENSE. AND WE BELIEVE
18
THAT'S WHY WE WERE SHOWN IT, BECAUSE IT MADE SO
19
MUCH SENSE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
MR. BLAKE: JUST A QUICK QUESTION.
IF WE
WERE TO AGREE TO OPTION TWO ON THE ROAD, ON THE
SPINE ROAD, AND WE WERE AGREE TO FOREGO THE WALL
AT ST. JOHN'S AS A SPECIAL CONSIDERATION, AND YOU
AGREE TO LEAVE THE TRAIL WHERE IT IS ALONG THE
"
~
.
.
..
137
1
OUTER EDGE, CAN WE END THIS ALL AND MOVE ON?
2
MR. GRINDSTAFF: I HEAR YOU LOUD AND CLEAR.
3
I'D HAVE TO DEFER TO MR. SCHRIMSHER.
I WILL TELL
4
YOU THAT I DON'T THINK -- I MEAN, I KNOW THESE
5
GUYS WELL ENOUGH, THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY CAME HERE
6
FOR WAS TO TRY TO EXTRACT THINGS OUT OF YOU.
7
WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT IF YOU
8
MR. BLAKE:
I'M TELLING YOU --
9
MR. GRINDSTAFF:
I HEAR YOU.
IF YOU AGREE TO
10
SOMETHING WE THOUGHT YOU'D AGREED TO AND IF YOU
11
DON'T ADD ON THE THING YOU ADDED ON FRIDAY,
12
WOULD
THIS PAST FRIDAY -- WOULD WE AGREE
13
MR. BLAKE: TO LEAVE THE HORSE TRAIL WHERE
14
YOU LEFT IT BEFORE.
15
MR. GRINDSTAFF:
I MEAN, THAT'S REALLY YOUR
16
QUESTION.
17
MR. BLAKE: TO ME, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE BACK
18
WHERE WE STARTED, AND THAT'S ALL RIGHT.
LET'S GET
19
ON WITH IT.
20
MR. GRINDSTAFF: WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE TO ME IS
21
IT'S A REAL CHANCE TO HAVE A TOWN CENTER HERE.
22
THERE'S A REAL CHANCE TO HAVE A TOWN CENTER.
I
23
MEAN, FINALLY, THERE'S A REAL CHANCE.
24
THOSE TWO OTHER ISSUES -- WELL, ACTUALLY, ONE
25
BIG ONE WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT. THAT'S THE SMALL
"-
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
138
PARKS.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. HOLD IT. HOLD IT.
BEFORE WE GO ON, YES, LET ME CLARIFY ONE THING ON
THE SPINE ROAD NOW. SO THE OPTIONS WE HAVE RIGHT
NOW IS ONE, TWO, THREE.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: WE DON'T WANT THREE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: AND WE DON'T WANT THREE. SO
REALLY, OUR OPTIONS ARE ONE AND TWO. OKAY.
EVERYBODY CLEAR ON THAT OPTION RIGHT NOW? NOW WE
KNOW THAT ONE.
COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
MR. MARTINEZ: AND WHAT I'M SAYING IS WE HAVE
TO GET AWAY FROM THIS WORD IIEXTRACTING.II WE'RE
TRYING TO NEGOTIATE.
MR. GRINDSTAFF:
I UNDERSTAND. AND WE
APPRECIATE THAT, TOO.
MAYOR PARTYKA: THIS IS INTERESTING HOW WE'RE
GETTING INTO ALL THIS FOR US BEING SIMPLE
COMMISSIONERS, NOT EXPERTS ON ANYTHING, BUT
WANTING TO DESIGN SOMETHING.
OKAY. NOW, THE NEXT ONE.
MR. MCLEMORE: I WANT TO GO NEXT TO THE
-
CONVEYANCE OF PARKS.
MAYOR PARTYKA:
MR. MCLEMORE:
OKAY.
THE SIX NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS.
.
.
.
139
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2~
23
24
25
WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT THAT MAGNOLIA PARK AND
WETLAND PARK WOULD BE CONVEYED WHEN WE REACH A
THRESHOLD RELATIVE TO DEVELOPMENT OF SPINE ROAD.
WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
BUT THEN WE GET TO THE SIX PARKS. AND OUR
POSITION WAS THAT WE WANTED TO TAKE A FEE-SIMPLE
TITLE TO THOSE SIX PARKS AND KNOW WHAT WE BOUGHT.
MR. BLAKE: DOES THAT INCLUDE THE LAKE TRAIL
PARK?
MR. MCLEMORE: YES. AND KNOW WHAT WE BOUGHT,
AND THAT THEY ARE WHERE THEY ARE.
AND THE SCHRIMSHERS HAVE RAISED THE ISSUE
THAT, WELL, BUT WHAT IF DIFFERENT DEVELOPERS BRING
IN PLANS DURING THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS THAT
REPRESENT A BETTER PARK LOCATION BY MOVING THINGS
AROUND TO PROVIDE US WITH A BETTER DEVELOPMENT?
AND FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE AND TO MAINTAIN
THAT FLEXIBILITY, THEY DID NOT WANT TO DEDICATE OR
CONVEY TO US, FEE-SIMPLE, THE PARKS. THEY WANTED
TO SAY, OKAY, WE OWE YOU X NUMBER OF ACRES OF
PARKS SOMEWHERE IN THAT PLAN. AND AS THIS THING
PLAYS OUT OVER THE YEARS, THOSE THINGS WILL BE
SITED AS THE DEVELOPMENTS COME FORWARD.
I HAVE A REAL PROBLEM WITH THAT. MY PROBLEM
IS THAT THESE PARKS WERE SITED IN ORDER TO GIVE
~
.
.
J..:::
.
140
1
THE ENTIRE PLAN A PARTICULAR LOOK, A PARTICULAR
2
AMBIENCE, AND A PARTICULAR BENEFIT TO THE PUBLIC
3
IN TERMS OF THE RIGHT BALANCE BETWEEN OPEN LANDS
4
AND DEVELOPABLE LANDS, AND THAT THOSE LINES ON
5
THAT MAP MEAN SOMETHING.
6
SO AFTER TOYING AROUND WITH THIS, WE OFFERED
7
A COUPLE OF SUGGESTIONS. AND ONE, RECOGNIZING
8
THAT THERE COULD BE A BETTER PLAN, SOMEONE MIGHT
9
COME UP WITH A BETTER PLAN. SO, INITIALLY, WE
10
SAID, OKAY, WELL, YOU CONVEY THEM TO THEM AND
11
WE'LL TAKE TITLE TO THEM. BUT WE'LL PUT LANGUAGE
12
IN THE PLAN THAT SAYS EVEN THOUGH WE'VE TAKEN
13
TITLE TO THEM, WE WOULD AGREE -- WE WOULD AGREE
14
THAT WE WOULD BE OPEN TO SOME LAND SWAP OR
15
MOVEMENT OF SWAPPING OF THE LAND BACK AND FORTH
16
BASED ON A PLAN WE AGREE IS A BETTER PLAN.
17
WELL, THAT WASN'T ACCEPTABLE.
SO WE WRESTED
18
DOWN THERE AND SAID, WELL, THEN, IN THAT CASE, ONE
19
LANGUAGE WE MIGHT BE AGREEABLE TO IS THAT WE WOULD
20
AGREE THAT THE PARKS, OR WHERE IT'S TO BE SHOWN ON
21
THIS PARK, UNLESS WE AGREE BY SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF
22
THE COMMISSION THAT THE PARKS CAN BE MOVED BASED
23
ON A PLAN WE THINK IS BETTER.
24
WITH THAT LANGUAGE IN PLACE, WE THOUGHT MAYBE
25
WE COULD GET SOME MOVEMENT, BUT, APPARENTLY,
it
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
..
141
THAT'S NOT SATISFACTORY EITHER.
SO THE THING THAT GIVES ME -- THERE'S TWO OR
THREE ISSUES INVOLVED WITH NOT TAKING IMMEDIATE
TITLE. ONE IS YOU DON'T-- IT'S A LOT MORE
DIFFICULT TO TAKE SOMETHING FROM YOU THAT YOU OWN
THAN SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE ENTITLEMENT TO ON A
SET OF RECORDS.
THE OTHER THING IS WE WERE CONCERNED AND
LOOKED AT THE ISSUE OF WHAT IF A FUTURE DEVELOPER
WHO OWNED THIS PROPERTY WENT BROKE? WOULD WE LOSE
TITLE TO THAT PROPERTY IN SOME TYPE OF COURT
ACTION?
SECONDLY, YOU HAVE THE PROBLEM THAT, IN YOUR
LANGUAGE NOW WITHIN THE DOCUMENT, YOU HAVE A
TEN-YEAR AGREEMENT. WELL, WHAT HAPPENS AFTER TEN
YEARS UNLESS WE CHANGE THE AGREEMENT? IF THOSE
PARKS HAVEN'T BEEN DEVELOPED, THEY GO AWAY UNLESS
WE PROVIDE SOME LANGUAGE THAT SAYS, NO, THEY DON'T
GO AWAY; IF AFTER TEN YEARS WE'VE GOT TO DEAL WITH
THIS TEN-YEAR ISSUE?
SO WE'RE AT THIS POINT NOW WHERE WE NEED TO
BE ABLE TO RECONCILE OR COME TO SOME ACCEPTABLE
ANSWER AS TO THE CONVEYANCE OF THESE PARKS.
MY OPINION, AGAIN, IS YOU'RE GIVING SOMETHING
OF VALUE BACK TO THIS DEVELOPER FOR THOSE PARK
......, -
..
..
i
142
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
LANDS. WELL, WHY IN THE HELL CAN'T WE TAKE TITLE
TO THEM? AND THE ANSWER IS, WELL, WE MAY WANT TO
CHANGE THEM AROUND, MAKE A BETTER SITE. IT MIGHT
BE A DEVELOPER WHO WANTS TO DO A VERY GOOD
DEVELOPMENT HERE, BUT HE WON'T BUY THIS PROPERTY
BECAUSE THAT PARK CREATES A DONUT IN THE MIDDLE OF
HIS DEVELOPMENT. THAT COULD HAPPEN.
SO THE QUESTION IS -- AND IF WE WEREN'T
GIVING CERTAIN THINGS OF VALUE IN EXCHANGE FOR
THOSE PARKS, I THINK, THAT COULD BE MORE
COMFORTABLE WITH A TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT ORDER THAT
HAS IT IN THERE THAT CREATES AN ENTITLEMENT.
YOU KNOW, BUT, IN THIS CASE, WHERE YOU'RE
SAYING, OKAY, WE WANT SIX PARKS, WE'LL AGREE FOR
SOMETHING OF VALUE TO TAKE THOSE PARKS. OH, BY
THE WAY, YOU CAN'T HAVE THEM. AND BY THE WAY, IF
THIS AGREEMENT GOES AWAY IN TEN YEARS, THEY GO
AWAY, TOO. BUT THE ROAD YOU BUILT FOR US AND THE
WATER/SEWER YOU BUILT FOR US DOESN'T GO AWAY. YOU
SEE WHAT I'M SAYING?
MAYOR PARTYKA: HOLD ON. HOLD ON. ONE AT A
TIME. WE'LL GET YOU UP HERE NEXT.
-
MR. MCLEMORE: SO THESE -- AGAIN, FROM A
NEGOTIATOR'S POINT OF VIEW, RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY,
THIS IS WHAT I'M HAVING PROBLEMS WITH IN THIS
,,- -''''-
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
143
CONCEPT, RECOGNIZING THAT THERE IS A POTENTIALLY
BETTER PLAN THAT COULD BE ON THE TABLE THAT WE
MIGHT AGREE TO. BUT THE QUESTION IS WHEN YOU GET
TO THAT POINT, DO YOU WANT TO BE THE OWNER OF THAT
PROPERTY OR NOT BE THE OWNER OF THAT PROPERTY?
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY.
MR. MCLEMORE: IF YOU'RE THE OWNER OF THAT
PROBLEM, YOU'RE IN A MUCH STRONGER POSITION TO SAY
YES OR NO. IF YOU JUST RATCHET DOWN IN TERMS OF
WHAT YOUR INTEREST IN THAT PROPERTY IS IN TERMS OF
YOUR STRENGTH IN MAKING THAT DECISION, OF COURSE
THEY RECOGNIZE THAT ON THEIR SIDE, TOO. I WOULD
RECOGNIZE THAT IT WOULD BE A LOOSER OR A LESS
LEVEL OF INTEREST IF HE HADN'T, IN MY MIND,
PURCHASED THEM. BUT PURCHASING THOSE THINGS, AND
THEN HAVING THAT DEGREE OF UNCERTAINTY, I JUST
DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.
SO, AGAIN, MY PERSPECTIVE IS, WE OUGHT TO
TAKE TITLE. WE OUGHT TO PUT LANGUAGE IN THE
DEVELOPMENT THAT SAYS WE RECOGNIZE THAT IF A PLAN
IS BROUGHT FORWARD TO US AND IS A REASONABLE PLAN
AND WE THINK IT WILL NOT DO HARM TO THE INTEGRITY
OF THIS PLAN, WE WILL AGREE TO SWAP THOSE LANDS TO
ACCOMMODATE THAT DEVELOPMENT.
THAT'S WHERE I'M AT AS YOUR NEGOTIATOR, AND
144
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THEY'RE AT A DIFFERENT PLACE. SO THIS IS ANOTHER
BIGGIE THAT WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO RESOLVE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. MR. GRINDSTAFF, HOW
ABOUT YOUR POSITION?
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THAT'S THE BAD NEWS. IT'S
THE BIGGIE. THE GOOD NEWS IS I THINK IT'S THE
LAST BIGGIE.
MR. MCLEMORE: I THINK IT'S THE LAST -- NO.
WE'VE GOT TO DO THE UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE
ISSUE.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: OKAY. I THOUGHT WE WERE
OVER THAT ONE, BUT
MR. MCLEMORE: WE NEVER TALKED ABOUT IT.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: I'D LIKE FOR YOU-ALL JUST TO
TAKE A LOOK AT THESE TWO PARKS
MAYOR PARTYKA: COULD I ASK A QUESTION BEFORE
YOU GO ON?
MR. GRINDSTAFF: -- RIGHT HERE AND RIGHT HERE
THAT COULD FORM DONUT HOLES IN THE MIDDLE OF THESE
TWO THINGS, AND ASK YOURSELF ABOUT THE
FLEXIBILITY.
YES, SIR, MR. _MAYOR.
MAYOR PARTYKA: CONCEPTUALLY, ARE WE IN
AGREEMENT THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE US PARKS IN
SOME FORM?
.
.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
145
MR. GRINDSTAFF: ABSOLUTELY.
MAYOR PARTYKA: SO WE -- CONCEPTUALLY, WE'VE
AGREED?
MR. GRINDSTAFF: SAME PARAGRAPH WITH
COMMISSIONER MILLER'S THEORY ABOUT THESE THINGS.
IF WE MOVE AROUND, WE'RE GOING TO WORK TOGETHER.
WE TRIED TO PUT A CAP ON THE ACREAGES TO PROVIDE
FLEXIBILITY.
MAYOR PARTYKA: SO CONCEPTUALLY, WE'RE
GETTING SOME LAND, RIGHT?
MR. GRINDSTAFF: ABSOLUTELY.
MAYOR PARTYKA: SO NOW THE ONLY QUESTION IS
THE DETAILS.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: AND THE AMOUNT OF ACREAGES.
WE TRIED TO ADDRESS THE AMOUNT OF ACREAGES TO
MAINTAIN THE FLEXIBILITY. AND RON, WITH ALL DUE
RESPECT, HAS BEEN UNWILLING TO BEND ON THIS. HE
WANTS FEE TITLE TO THAT PARK AT THAT LOCATION.
AND IF YOU GUYS WANT TO COME BACK AND TRADE IT
LATER, WE'LL TALK TO YOU ABOUT SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS,
WHICH MEANS YOU'VE GOT TO COME THROUGH THIS
PROCESS.
MAYOR PARTYKA: WE KNOW OUR POSITION. NOW,
WHAT'S YOUR POSITION?
MR. GRINDSTAFF: OUR POSITION IS THAT WE
146
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
-
--.-
23
24
25
.
.
COULD LIVE WITH THESE TWO. I THINK, MIKE, YOU
WOULD AGREE WITH THOSE TWO. NOW, UNDERSTAND, THIS
IS FIXED. THIS IS FIXED. THIS IS FIXED.
THIS IS
FIXED.
MAYOR PARTYKA: THAT'S FOUR.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: IT'S NOT FOUR.
THERE'S
SIX. BUT THESE THINGS THAT ARE BEING FIXED, YOU
KNOW, HE'S GOING TO PAY GOOD VALUE FOR AND FREEZE
THIS PROPERTY FOR A LONG TIME. THEY'RE BEING
FIXED. WHAT'S NOT BEING FIXED AND WHAT WE DON'T
WANT TO BE FIXED IS THIS
MAYOR PARTYKA: GO SLOW SO I CAN WRITE IT
DOWN.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: -- THIS, THIS.
MAYOR PARTYKA: WHICH IS THE NEXT ONE?
MR. GRINDSTAFF: SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD SQUARE IN
THE NORTHEAST CORNER. THESE TWO LITTLE GUYS, I
THINK, CONCEPTUALLY, ARE OKAY, BUT DON'T WANT TO
BIND THEM TO THOSE LOCATIONS. AND THIS ONE.
PICTURE YOURSELF, DEVELOPMENT THAT WANTS TO COME
INTO THAT LOCATION, AND THE GUY SAYS, WELL, WE'RE
GOING TO HAVE TO GO SEE THE STAFF AND WORK OUT A
RELOCATION OF THAT DONUT HOLE SO YOU GUYS CAN DO
THE QUALITY DEVELOPMENT THAT CREATES THE ROOFTOPS
THAT SAVES THE TOWN CENTER FROM FAILING.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
147
MAYOR PARTYKA: STAY WITH THE FACTS.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THIS ONE RIGHT HERE, WHICH
IS NOT OUTLINED, SEE THAT LITTLE DUDE THERE,
THAT'S A PARK THAT WE WANT TO TALK TO VICTOR
ABOUT. THAT'S JUST -- PICTURE THAT. HERE'S
WETLANDS. HERE'S WETLAND PARK. YOU'RE COMING UP
THE STREET HERE AND YOU ARRIVE AT WETLAND PARK,
WHY DO YOU EVEN NEED THAT THING FOR? WHY NOT JUST
ALLOW THAT LITTLE PIECE OF ACREAGE TO HANG ON AND
BE PART OF THIS PART RIGHT HERE?
SO WE WANT TO GET RID OF THAT AND WE WANT TO
HAVE FLEXIBILITY WITH THOSE UP IN HERE. THIS
NEEDS TO HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY.
AS MIKE SAID, WHAT HE'S WILLING TO DO MAY
EVEN BE BIGGER THAN THIS, MAY EVEN BE BIGGER THAN
WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, DEPENDING UPON WHAT THEY
DO. BUT WE WANT FLEXIBILITY.
AND THE WAY WE TRIED TO ADDRESS IT WAS
ALONG THE LINES OF MR. MILLER, WAS TO BUILD IN THE
FLEXIBILITY. WE RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE GOING TO
BE PARKS. WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE PLAN CALLS FOR
PARKS, AND WE'RE WILLING TO COMMIT TO MINIMUM
ACREAGES. MAYBE WE CAN SET SOME THRESHOLDS AND
SOME CRITERIA, YOU KNOW, IN THE QUADRANT. I DON'T
KNOW. MAYBE WE CAN SOMEHOW BUILD IN SOME
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
148
FLEXIBILITY. BUT IT'S BEEN SORT OF, LIKE, YOU
KNOW, JUST NO PROGRESS ON THAT POINT.
MAYOR PARTYKA: I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION AND
CLARIFICATION ON OUR MAP. WE DON'T EVEN HAVE
THOSE TWO LITTLE BLOCKS THAT YOU HAVE ADJACENT TO
WETLAND PARK.
MR. LOCKCUFF:
MAYOR PARTYKA:
ON THE BIG MAP, WE DID.
I DON'T HAVE THEM IN THE MAP
THAT YOU
MR. MCLEMORE: THEY'RE IN YOUR -- THEY'RE ON
THE OTHER PAGE ON THE SIDE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: GOTCHA. ALL RIGHT.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: HERE. HE'S COLORED IN ON
THIS MAP. THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT MAPS
FLOATING AROUND. THIS ONE HERE --
MAYOR PARTYKA: CLARIFICATION AGAIN. IF THE
LOGIC, AS YOU SAY, WITH WETLAND PARK, THE LITTLE
CORNER PIECE, THE TRIANGLE, RIGHT, SHOULD NOT BE
THERE.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THAT'S OUR POSITION.
MAYOR PARTYKA: RIGHT. MY ONLY QUESTION,
THEN, WHAT ABOUT THE LOGIC OF THOSE TWO LITTLE
PARKS FOR THE SAME LOGIC? THEY'RE ADJACENT TO A
BIG PARK.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THAT'S RIGHT. I DON'T THINK
.
.
.
149
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
WE'RE OPPOSED TO HAVING THE TWO LITTLE PARKS HERE
WITH THE STREET. BUT TO FREEZE THEM WITH A LEGAL
DESCRIPTION AT THIS LOCATION IS NUTS. AND THE
ARGUMENT IS, WELL, ALL YOU'VE GOT TO DO IS COME
THROUGH THIS PROCESS THAT'S TAKEN A YEAR AND A
HALF AND TELL US WHY YOU WANT TO MOVE IT. WE
WOULD LIKE NOT TO DO THAT. AS LONG AS THE
INTEGRITY OF THE PLAN IS PRESERVED -- WHICH WE'RE
GETTING TO A POINT. I MEAN, YOU-ALL CAN SEE, THIS
IS CLOSE TO THE TOWN CENTER ORDINANCE. IT'S
CLOSE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ,
QUESTION.
MR. MARTINEZ: AGAIN, LOOKING AT TODAY'S
BUYER'S MENTALITY, DON'T YOU THINK THEY WOULD
RATHER BUY A HOUSE AROUND A PARK LIKE THE ONE IN
THE CENTER THERE, EVEN IF THEY HAVE TO PAY A FEW
MORE DOLLARS, THAN BUY A HOUSE IN AN AREA THAT HAS
NOTHING BUT ROOFTOPS AND STREETS? I MEAN, TODAY'S
MENTALITY OF THE NATURE OF THE PEOPLE --
MR. GRINDSTAFF: I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. BUT
THE REAL QUESTION IS, COMMISSIONER -- I MEAN,_I
THINK, CONCEPTUALLY, WE ALL AGREE WITH IT -- WHERE
IS THAT PARK GOING TO BE?
HE'S SUGGESTING THAT YOU GET A LEGAL
21
22
23
24
25
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
150
DESCRIPTION OUT THERE AND YOU SAY, THIS IS WHERE
THE PARK'S GOING TO BE UNLESS ME AND MY STAFF
AGREE THAT YOU CAN MOVE IT.
MR. MCLEMORE: BY A SPECIAL EXCEPTION WITH ME
AND THE COMMISSION.
MR. MARTINEZ: IT CAN BE WORKED OUT.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: BUT GIVE US THE FLEXIBILITY.
MR. MARTINEZ: THIS IS WHAT I SAID. WE CAN
ALWAYS GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND WORK WITH
YOU, OKAY, TO SATISFY THE NEEDS OF SOME DEVELOPER
IN A CASE LIKE THIS. I SAID THAT BEFORE AND I
SAID IT A YEAR AGO.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: WHY NOT HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY
NOW? WHY NAIL THAT SUCKER DOWN RIGHT NOW? YOU'VE
GOT A PLAN THAT'S ILLUSTRATIVE. YOU KNOW HOW
MANY -- WE'RE WILLING TO AGREE TO MINIMUM ACREAGE
REQUIREMENTS. I THINK WE CAN EVEN IDENTIFY
ACREAGE REQUIREMENTS IN EACH QUADRANT SO THAT WE
DON'T TRY TO PUT ALL THE PARKS OVER THERE BY THE
HORSE PILE. WE'RE NOT GOING TO TRY TO DO THAT.
WE CAN AGREE WHERE THOSE PARKS ARE WITH THE
FLEXIBILITY.
BUT ONCE WE GET A DESIGN THAT WORKS WITHIN
THE CODE, OUR BUYERS NEED TO KNOW THEY CAN COME IN
HERE AND NOT BE PULLED THROUGH THE EYE OF THE
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
151
NEEDLE OVER AND OVER AND OVER. AND THAT'S OUR
CONCERN. AND I THINK -- JUST LOOK AT THAT ONE UP
IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER. DO YOU SEE THE ONE? I
THINK IT'S .45 ACRES.
MR. MARTINEZ: LET'S SAY THAT THAT CAN BE
NEGOTIATED, BUT THOSE TWO LITTLE PARKS BY THE
WETLAND THERE DOWN BELOW, THE ONES THAT ARE SIDE
BY SIDE, THAT ADDS TO THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE AREA
BECAUSE THEY'RE RIGHT ON THE SITE OF THE WETLAND.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: I AGREE. THE TWO LITTLE
THINGS ARE OKAY. IT'S JUST THAT WHERE'S -- YOU'VE
GOT THEM RIGHT THERE IN A SITE LOCATION SPECIFIC.
PUT THEM THERE ON THE PLAN, BUT, I MEAN, YOU DON'T
EVEN KNOW WHERE THAT ROAD'S GOING TO BE. AND
YOU'RE GOING TO GO TELL THE PARK -- YOU'RE GOING
TO GO PUT THESE PARKS -- IF HE HAS --
MR. MCLEMORE'S PLAN WORKS, HE'S GOING TO GET LEGAL,
DESCRIPTIONS OF THOSE TWO PARKS AND THAT'S GOING
TO TELL YOU WHERE THE ROAD'S GOING, BECAUSE IT'S
GOT TO GO IN-BETWEEN THOSE TWO PARKS UNLESS WE
COME IN HERE AND GET A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
THIS WHOLE THING WAS ABOUT FLEX~~ILITY,
CREATIVITY, ADJUST FOR THE MARKET. I MEAN AND
THIS PREVENTS US FROM DOING IT. WE'D LIKE TO HAVE
MORE FLEXIBILITY AND LIVE WITH THE PLAN.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
152
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. YOU MADE YOUR POINT.
COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
MR. BLAKE: WHICH--
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSIONER BLAKE, DO YOU
WANT TO HEAR FROM THE CITY MANAGER FIRST?
MR. BLAKE: NO. WHICH PARKS DO YOU NOT HAVE
A PROBLEM WITH, THEIR LEGAL DESCRIPTION, AT THIS
POINT IN TIME?
MR. GRINDSTAFF: FIRST OF ALL, FOR THE
COMPENSATION THAT'S BEING PAID, MAGNOLIA PARK, THE
BIGGIE; WETLAND PARK, HUMUNGOUS; THIS ONE HERE,
THIS CONNECTOR; THIS LITTLE DUDE'S GOING TO
CONNECT ON OUT HERE, THIS ONE, AND THIS ONE.
THIS, WE WANT TO SEE GO AWAY.
MR. BLAKE: WHAT IS SO SPECIAL ABOUT THOSE
TWO WHICH -- LOOKS LIKE SQUARE 4 AND SQUARE 5 --
THAT MAKES THEIR LOCATION DOABLE AT THIS POINT IN
TIME?
MR. SCHRIMSHER: BECAUSE THE TRAIL FIXES
THEM, THE INTERSECTION OF THE TRAIL AND THE ROAD
THAT ARE IDENTIFIED. THIS IS THE FORK IN THE ROAD
OF THE TRAIL, SO THIS CA~'T REALLY -- THIS IS A
POINT THAT CAN'T REALLY MOVE. AND THIS IS THE
ALIGNMENT OF THE TRAIL SO -- I MEAN, THIS,
THEORETICALLY, COULD SLIDE, BUT WE HAVE BEEN
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
153
YOU KNOW, THESE ROADS ARE GOING TO BE ON A FAIRLY
EVEN SPACING.
SO, I MEAN, THEORETICALLY, I DON'T THINK THE
CITY IS OPPOSED TO IF THIS ROAD WOUND UP BEING,
YOU KNOW -- BUT, IN GENERAL, THOSE CAN BE FIXED BY
THE GEOMETRY OF THE DESIGN.
MR. BLAKE: AND YOUR FAVORITE PARK THERE,
SQUARE 3, WHICH IS ACTUALLY 'A TRIANGLE? YES.'
NOW, THAT PARK -- I'VE HEARD THAT ONE COME UP ON
MORE THAN ONE OCCASION AS BEING A PROBLEM. IS IT
THE ACREAGE OR IS IT THE LOCATION?
MR. GRINDSTAFF: IT'S THE LOCATION. THIS IS
JUST AN ADDITIONAL ACRE GRAB THAT'S NOT NECESSARY.
MR. BLAKE: WELL, IT'S ON A CORNER.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: WELL, IT'S ALSO PART OF THE
MOST VALUABLE PIECE OF THE SCHRIMSHER PROPERTY.
LET'S JUST REACH OVER HERE -- WE'VE GOT THIS
BEAUTIFUL PARK. LET'S REACH OVER HERE AND GRAB
THIS AND TAKE AWAY FROM SOME OF THIS STUFF.
I MEAN, WHAT IS IT -- AND I DON'T THINK ANY
OF US -- YOU KNOW, I'VE GIVEN YOU OUR ANSWER.
YOUR ANSWER WOULD PROBABLY BE DIFFERENT THAN
VICTOR DOVER'S PLAN.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THE REMOVAL OF THAT PARK --
I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYONE HERE CAN SAY THAT IT WILL
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
154
DESTROY THE INTEGRITY OF THE TOWN CENTER. IT'S
THERE. PROBABLY BE GOOD. PROBABLY BE GOOD TO
HAVE ONE ON EVERY CORNER. BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S
ONE THAT'S THE MOST OFFENSIVE TO THE SCHRIMSHERS.
MR. BLAKE: HOW WOULD YOU PROPOSE TO PROTECT
AGAINST WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE MANAGER'S LARGEST
FEAR, AND THAT IS TEN YEARS OUT --
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THE TEN-YEAR THING IS A
CONCERN FOR US, TOO. WHAT IF YOU DON'T DO WHAT
YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO? WHAT IF THIS WHOLE PROGRAM
FAILS, AS IS HAPPENING IN SOME PARTS OF THE
COUNTRY WITH THESE CONCEPTS?
YOU'VE GOT OUR DONUT WHOLE, WETLAND PARK.
PRESUMABLY, YOU WOULD HAVE PUT IN A ROAD. THAT
WOULD BE GOOD. YOU'LL GET IMPACT FEE CREDITS.
THAT WILL OFFSET THAT. HOPEFULLY, YOU'LL PUT
SEWER AND WATER. THAT WILL BE THERE. AND YOU'LL
HAVE OUR WETLANDS AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE US
BACK THE SEWER AND WATER. I MEAN, WE'RE NOT GOING
TO GIVE THAT TO YOU, AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE
US BACK THE WETLANDS.
_ WE'RE SITTING HERE DEALING WITH A TEN-YEAR
STATUTE. THE TEN-YEAR TERM COMES FROM THE
STATUTE, THE 163 AGREEMENT. IF WE CAN MAKE IT
LONGER, WE'LL BE GLAD TO MAKE IT LONGER.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
155
MR. MCLEMORE: I DON'T THINK WE CAN.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: IF THAT'S YOUR CONCERN,
THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM WITH US.
MR. BLAKE: SO, MR. MANAGER, ARE YOU
SUGGESTING THAT IF WE CAN EFFECTIVELY LENGTHEN THE
AGREEMENT BY CONTRACT, THAT THAT WOULD ALLEVIATE
SOME OF YOUR CONCERNS AS TO THESE PARKS
DISAPPEARING FOR THE COMPENSATION THAT WE PUT UP
IN TERMS OF THE ROADS AND UTILITIES?
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, SURE. I JUST DON'T
THINK IT'S GOOD BUSINESS TO PUT SOMETHING IN THE
AGREEMENT THAT'S GOING TO GO AWAY. PERSONALLY, IT
MAKES NO SENSE TO ME. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU
JUSTIFY THAT TO THE TAXPAYERS.
MR. BLAKE: I ABSOLUTELY AGREE. BUT WOULD
YOU -- DO YOU AGREE THAT THERE ARE ISSUES HERE IN
TERMS CF THE ACTUAL SITING OF EACH OF THESE PARKS
IN TERMS OF WHAT THE--
MR. MCLEMORE: OH, I ADMIT TO YOU THAT PEOPLE
COULD COME IN WITH DESIGNS THAT ARE AS GOOD OR
BETTER THAN WHAT IS HERE. BUT WHAT YOU'VE GOT TO
BE CAREFUL OF IS, IN A PLAN, ONCE YOU TAKE A PIECE
DOWN, YOU CAN TAKE A PIECE DOWN, YOU CAN TAKE A
PIECE DOWN ALL THE TIME.
MR. BLAKE: I UNDERSTAND.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
156
MR. MCLEMORE: THE WHOLE CONCEPT GOES, IF
THOSE LINES ON THAT PLAN DON'T MEAN SOMETHING,
THEN YOU DON'T HAVE THEM AT ALL.
BUT I DO AGREE, AS LONG AS-- AND THOSE ARE
INTENDED TO BE DONUTS. THEY ARE INTENDED TO
PROVIDE GREEN SPACES IN PLACES OF INTEREST
THROUGHOUT THE AREA, BECAUSE YOU RECOGNIZE AND YOU
AGREE RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING, YOU DON'T KNOW HOW
INTENSE THE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE IN HERE.
YOU KNOW, THIS ISN'T GOING TO BE ONE ACRE PER
LOT. THIS COULD BE 30, 40 ACRES I MEAN,
UNITS. THERE'S NO TELLING WHERE IT CAN GO IF
THERE'S NO LIMITS ON IT. AND IT'S REALLY MORE
LIKE A EUROPEAN DESIGN WHERE YOU ALLOW FOR FUTURE
DEVELOPMENTS. YOU HAVE THESE DEDICATED
GREENS PACES THROUGHOUT THERE THAT GIVES IT SOME
PLACES TO GO.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: WE CAN ADDRESS THIS CONCERN.
MR. BLAKE: LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION. I
DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS POSSIBLE TO DO AT ALL OR IF
IT'S LEGAL OR NOT. IS IT POSSIBLE TO SET POINTS,
CENTER POINTS, WHERE EACH OF THOSE PARKS ARE
LOCATED ON THAT MAP AND TO REQUIRE THAT ACREAGE OF
PARKS TO BE PLANTED WITHIN A CERTAIN RADIUS AROUND
THAT POINT? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT NUMBER MIGHT
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
157
BE. 100 FEET OR 200 FEET. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE
OVERALL MEASUREMENTS ARE UP HERE.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU
MR. BLAKE: WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS
SOMETHING -- I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUADRANT ISSUE.
I'M LOOKING AT (INAUDIBLE) OF A QUADRANT ONLY
BECAUSE --
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THEN YOU'VE JUST GOT A
BIGGER HOLE.
MR. BLAKE: NO, YOU DON'T. IT'S THE SAME
SIZE HOLE. YOU'RE JUST MOVING IT. SO THAT, FOR
INSTANCE, ON THOSE TWO PARKS UP THERE, THE SMALL
ONES AT THE NORTHEAST SIDE THERE, YOU'RE
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, I BELIEVE, THAT IF YOU PLANT
THOSE TWO PARKS, THEN YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE PLANTED
THAT ROAD, EVEN THOUGH THE ROAD DOESN'T EXIST.
AND YOU'VE DEFINED WHAT THE BOUNDARIES ARE GOING
TO BE THERE.
AND I AGREE THAT'S PROBABLY NOT THE BEST WAY
TO GO SINCE WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO HAVE SOME
FLEXIBILITY IN THERE.
HOWEVER, LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE ONE THAT'S
NUMBER TWO, WHICH IS -- POINT TO IT THERE. IT'S
IN THE MIDDLE. YES. YES, THAT'S THE ONE I'M
THINKING OF. I THINK THAT THE OVERALL PLAN DESIGN
.
.
.
158
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
IS, INDEED, PLANS THAT THAT WILL BE A HOLE.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: WHAT IF IT'S RIGHT THERE OR
RIGHT THERE?
MR. BLAKE: EXACTLY MY POINT. WHICH MEANS IF
WE TOOK THE CENTER POINT OF THAT AND DREW A CIRCLE
OF SOME RADIUS FEET AND, SAY, THE CENTER POINT OF
THIS PARK -- THIS PARK HAS TO BE X NUMBER OF ACRES
AND THE CENTER OF THE PARK HAS TO LIE SOMEWHERE
WITHIN THIS RADIUS, WHICH MEANS IT COULD BE ALL
THE WAY TO ONE END, ALL THE WAY TO THE OTHER END.
I THINK WE CAN CONSTRUCTIVELY NEGOTIATE WHAT THAT
MEASUREMENT OUGHT TO BE, WHETHER IT'S 50 FEET OR
250 FEET. IT'S PROBABLY NOT 1,000 FEET. I DON'T
KNOW WHAT THE NUMBER MIGHT BE.
BUT THE IDEA BEING THAT IT GIVES YOU THE
FLEXIBILITY OF DIFFERENT SIZE LOTS OR A LARGER
DEVELOPMENT, SMALLER DEVELOPMENTS. YOU CAN PUSH
IT TO ONE SIDE. YOU CAN PUSH IT TO ANOTHER SIDE.
BECAUSE, LISTEN, EVENTUALLY, THIS PLACE PROBABLY
ISN'T GOING TO DEVELOP ALL AT ONCE. SO,
EVENTUALLY, THAT PARK'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE
DEFINED, AND PROBABLY BEFORE THE FINAL DE~ELOPMENT
IS IN PLACE. SO SOMEBODY'S GOING TO HAVE TO BITE
THE BULLET AND SAY, OH, THAT PARK'S ALREADY THERE.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: NO ARGUMENT.
159
.
1
MR. BLAKE: BY DOING IT THIS WAY, IT'S AN
2
INCENTIVE TO WHOEVER'S FIRST, THEY CAN MOVE IT
3
ALONG THIS SIDE OR THAT SIDE. MAYBE YOU CAN GET A
4
SMALLER DEVELOPMENT AND YOU'LL WANT TO BRING IT UP
5
TIGHT AGAINST THAT SIDE. THIS WOULD ENABLE
6
EVERYBODY COULD GET TO WHERE WE NEED TO BE. GIVES
7
YOU THE FLEXIBILITY. LET'S US KNOW EXACTLY WHERE
8
THE PARKS ARE GOING TO BE IN TERMS OF A CLOSE
9
AREA, STILL GIVES YOU THE FLEXIBILITY TO CHANGE
10
THE ROADS, CHANGE THE SIGNS, EVERYTHING ELSE.
11
MR. MCLEMORE:
IF I COULD COMMENT ALONG YOUR
12
LINES.
.
~-
13
MR. BLAKE: CERTAINLY.
14
MR. MCLEMORE: WHAT CONCERNS ME IS SOMEWHERE
15
IN HERE, ALL THESE PARKS ARE GOING TO BE BROUGHT
16
TOGETHER TO ONE PARK OF APPROXIMATELY 4 ACRES.
17
THIS IS NOT WHAT THIS IS INTENDED TO BE.
THIS IS
18
NOT THE INTENT TO CREATE ONE BIG PARK FOR
19
EVERYBODY.
IT'S INTENDED TO HAVE THESE
20
GREENSPACES, PLACES OF INTEREST AND BENCHES AND
21
LITTLE -- THAT PEOPLE ENJOY WALKING AROUND. THIS
22
IS INTENDED TO BE A WALKABLE COMMUNITY. AND THAT
23
BOTHERS ME.
24
AND YOU KNOW, I WOULD GO TO THE POINT OF
.
25
SAYING THAT AS LONG AS WE CAN PROVIDE SOME
.
.
.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
160
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
CERTAINTY OF THAT, THAT WE WOULD NOT TAKE
FEE-SIMPLE TITLE TO THEM, BUT WE WOULD AGREE NO
MORE. THEY DON'T GO AWAY AFTER TEN YEARS, THAT
THEY'RE GOING TO BE THERE. I DON'T CARE IF IT
TAKES 100 YEARS.
AND THE SECOND THING IS -- I FORGOT WHAT THE
SECOND THING WAS. THE MAIN THING IS THAT THEY
DON'T GET BOXED UP INTO ONE PARK AND THEY DON'T GO
AWAY.
AND BASED ON THAT, BY SPECIAL EXCEPTION,
WHICH MEANS NOT BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, BUT BY
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND THE COMMISSION, THAT A
CHANGE IN THE PLAN CAN BE MADE AS LONG AS IT MEETS
WHATEVER THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE THAT WE SET OUT;
YOU KNOW, ONE IN FOUR QUADRANTS OR WHATEVER. I
WOULD AGREE TO NOT TAKE FEE-SIMPLE TITLE
INITIALLY, WHICH WOULD TEND TO FIX THE ROADS IN A
PLACE YOU MIGHT NOT WANT TO BE.
MAYOR PARTYKA:
IS THAT IT?
MR. MCLEMORE: YES.
MAYOR PARTYKA~ I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT.
ONE IS TECHNICAL, AND I'LL DO THAT IN A SECOND.
ONE IS ON THIS ISSUE.
A COUPLE THINGS HERE. NUMBER ONE, I WANT TO
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
161
SAY THIS AGAIN. WE HERE AS A COMMISSION ARE NOT
PLANNERS AND DEVELOPERS. AND I HAVE A LITTLE
CONCERN HERE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO PLAN THIS THING
AT THE COMMISSION TABLE HERE. AND I'LL TELL YOU
WHAT
MR. BLAKE: MR. MAYOR.
MAYOR PARTYKA: NO. LET ME TALK.
MR. BLAKE: I UN~ERSTAND. BUT I JUST WANT TO
SAY THAT I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH YOU, BUT IT'S
ALREADY GONE THROUGH THAT PROCESS. AND A YEAR AND
A HALF LATER, THIS IS WHERE IT LANDS.
MAYOR PARTYKA: LET ME GET TO THE PART I'M
ON. I STILL HAVE A CONCERN ON THIS.
THE OTHER PIECE ON THIS IS, AGAIN, THIS IS
THERE'S A SCHEMATIC. WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THESE
ROADS ARE GOING TO BE, OUTSIDE OF A FEW BASIC
THINGS IN TERMS OF SCHEMATICS. WE STILL DON'T
KNOW.
I MEAN, THEY'VE GOT TO BE SURVEYED.
THEY'VE GOT TO PLAN IT OUT. WE DON'T KNOW WHERE
THESE ROADS ARE GOING TO BE. THAT'S NUMBER TWO.
THE REALISTIC SITUATION IS WE ARE NOT GOING
TO HAVE_A MASTER DEVELOPER HERE. REALISTICALLY,
IT WILL PROBABLY BE BROKEN OUT BY CHUNKS, WHETHER
IT'S 30 ACRES, 50 ACRES, 100 ACRES, WHATEVER IT
IS. MAYBE A PIECE TO CONSIDER IT IS, AS WE GET
162
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 -
-_0.
23
24
25
.
.
INTO CHUNKS OF DEVELOPMENT, AS THE DEVELOPER
WHOEVER COMES IN -- SAYS, OKAY, HERE'S ABOUT WHAT
WE WANT TO DO. HERE'S ABOUT WHERE WE SHOULD HAVE
SOME OPEN SPACE.
AT THAT POINT IN TIME, WE DEDICATE IT TO THE
CITY WHEN THE DEVELOPER, IN EFFECT, FIXES WHERE HE
WANTS IT TO BE. AT THAT POINT IN TIME
IN FACT,
IT'S LIKE' A THREE OR FOUR OR FIVE DAYS TAKEDOWN.
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, THAT'S WHAT I SAID.
MAYOR PARTYKA: THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.
MR. MCLEMORE: WE WOULDN'T TAKE TITLE
INITIALLY, BUT WE WOULD SAY WHEN THE DEVELOPER
COMES IN, BY SPECIAL EXCEPTION, HE CAN CHANGE THE
LOCATION.
MAYOR PARTYKA: RIGHT.
I DON'T WANT TO DO IT
ALMOST BEFORE.
I'D LIKE TO DO IT AFTER AS LONG AS
WE KNOW. BECAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE FOUR OR FIVE
DEVELOPERS.
MR. MCLEMORE: AND I WOULD ADD ONE MORE
CAVEAT. THIS IS WHAT I WAS THINKING OF A MINUTE
AGO.
IF THE CITY SHOULD CHOOSE TO GO IN AND
DEVELOP THE PARK INITIALLY, THEN I THINK WE SHOULD
HAVE A RIGHT TO TAKE TITLE TO IT THEN.
MAYOR PARTYKA: NOW, HERE IS THE TECHNICAL
PIECE. AT 20 OF 11 O'CLOCK, THIS MEETING WILL GO
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
163
OVER. BECAUSE BY COMMISSION STANDARDS, IT HAS TO
BE A SUPER MAJORITY OF FOUR PEOPLE. SO AT
11 O'CLOCK, IT'S OVER.
MR. BLAKE: THERE'S NO MAJORITY. WHEN
THERE'S THREE, IT'S 100 PERCENT.
OF US.
IT'S ALL THREE
MAYOR PARTYKA: NO.
I BELIEVE IT'S STILL
FOUR EITHER WAY.
MR. BLAKE: THAT RULE WILL BE MADE BEFORE 11
O'CLOCK. TRUST ME ON THAT.
MAYOR PARTYKA: MY ONLY QUESTION IS THIS:
REGARDLESS, WHETHER IT'S FOUR OR THREE, I MEAN,
WE'LL GET -- THE POINT IS, FROM A PRACTICAL
STANDPOINT, ARE WE PREPARED TO STAY HERE PAST
11 O'CLOCK?
MR. MCLEMORE:
MAYOR PARTYKA:
I HOPE YOU ARE.
IT'S VALENTINE'S DAY.
MR. MARTINEZ: WE'RE DOING PRETTY GOOD, LET
ME TELL YOU.
MR. MCLEMORE: AND WHEN WE'RE THROUGH WITH
THIS ISSUE, WE'RE DONE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: WE'RE JUST STARTING. WE
HAVEN'T COME BACK TO THE NEGOTIATION POINT. WE'RE
JUST GETTING OUT TO THE ISSUES. WE'RE NOT DONE
WITH THE ISSUES YET.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
164
MR. MCLEMORE: ONE MORE BIG ISSUE, I THINK.
MAYOR PARTYKA: WELL, I'M JUST TRYING TO SAY,
IN 15 MINUTES, THIS THING IS 11 O'CLOCK. OKAY.
AND I THINK WE OUGHT TO PLAN FOR THE NEXT
MEETING. THAT'S WHAT I SAY.
MR. MCLEMORE: I'M NOT SURE WE CAN'T CUT THIS
DEAL TONIGHT.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: I'M FAIRLY CONFIDENT WE
CAN'T CUT IT TONIGHT. BUT I THINK -_
MR. MILLER: WAS THAT CAN OR CAN'T?
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THAT WE CANNOT CUT IT
TONIGHT. I THINK SOME GOOD IDEAS HAVE COME ONTO
THE TABLE. AND I THINK WHAT'S VERY CLEAR AND
SHOULD BE CLEAR TO ALL FOUR OF YOU, IS THAT WE'RE
NOT THAT FAR AWAY.
WE REALLY AREN'T THAT FAR AWAY, EITHER __
LIKE I WAS SAYING, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO GET
THE OTHER ISSUE ON THE TABLE. I THINK YOU CAN GET
SOME GUIDANCE FROM THE COMMISSION. I THINK WE CAN
HAVE SOMETHING FOR YOU TO VOTE ON, YEA OR NAY, IN
TWO TO FOUR WEEKS; TO VOTE ON. THAT DOESN'T
NECESSARILY MEAN WE'RE ALL GOING TO AGREE, BUT
YOU'LL HAVE SOMETHING TO ABSOLUTELY VOTE ON, WHICH
WOULD INCLUDE AN AGREEMENT THAT WE CAN EITHER LIVE
WITH OR NOT LIVE WITH.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
165
I THINK THE RADIUS IDEA ON THE PARKS GOES A
LONG WAY IN CURING, PROBABLY, WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS
THE MOST INSURMOUNTABLE PROBLEM HERE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. WELL, WE STILL HAVE
TWO MORE.
MR. MCLEMORE: AND I THINK THE COMMISSION CAN
SEE THAT WE REALLY WRANGLED ON THESE ISSUES.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. WE'RE GETTING OFF THE
SUBJECT. WE KNOW YOU'RE WORKING HARD.
NOW, WE'VE GOT TWO MORE POINTS THAT WE HAVE
TO DISCUSS YET: ONE, THE VERIFICATION OF THE
WATER/SEWER SITUATION IN TERMS OF GOING TO THE
PROPERTY LINE, AND THEN THE LAST POINT IS SOME
KIND OF RECAPTURING OF THE COST OF THE CONNECTION
FEES. THAT'S STILL TWO POINTS OUTSTANDING OF THE
SIX POINTS. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE FOUR SO FAR.
MR. MCLEMORE: LET'S GO TO THE UTILITY
CONNECTION CHARGE.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY.
MR. MCLEMORE: WHEN WE BROUGHT UP,
INITIALLY -- AND THIS WAS A POINT OF CONCERN TO
THE SCHRIMSHERS -- THE STAFF'S THINKING ALWAYS WAS
THAT BY BUILDING -- PUTTING THE COLLECTOR ROAD
INTO THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF YOUR
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WE COULD BUILD THE ROAD BY
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
166
IMPACT FEES, ALLOW THE DEVELOPER TO GO AHEAD AND
BUILD AND GIVE THEM IMPACT FEE CREDITS. OR WE
COULD BUILD IT OURSELVES, AND THAT WOULD BE GOOD
INCENTIVE TO GET (INAUDIBLE) AND YOU WOULD HAVE A
SOURCE OF FUNDING.
WITH THE UTILITY CHARGES, WE'VE NEVER HAD AN
IMPACT FEE FOR BUILDING LINE EXTENSIONS. OUR
IMPACT FEE COVERS THE PLANTS. SO NO ONE IN THIS
CITY HAS EVER BEEN GIVEN AN IMPACT FEE CREDIT FOR
LINE, AND WE HAVE NO WAY, REALLY, OF PAYING FOR
THESE LINE EXTENSIONS THAT WE'RE AGREEING TO OTHER
THAN TO RECAPTURE THEM THROUGH A CONNECTION CHARGE
THAT WOULD BE IN THIS AREA ONLY.
OR WE DO IT -- WE ADD IT TO A LONG-TERM BOND
ISSUE, WHICH WE WERE THINKING ABOUT ANYHOW, TO
BRING IT TO YOU, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN EVERYBODY,
EVERY USER IN THE CITY, MAKING A CONTRIBUTION TO'
THIS PROJECT. THAT HAS, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN
BENEFITS TO EVERYBODY IN THE CITY.
SO WHAT WE HAD STATED WAS WE WANTED TO
RESERVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE THIS PAID FOR BY
CONNECTION CHARGES. SO IF WE SP~ND THE MILLION
THREE OR THE MILLION ONE, OR WHATEVER IT IS, THEN
OVER A PERIOD OF TIME THAT COST WOULD BE
RECAPTURED THROUGH THE CONNECTION CHARGES THAT
167
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PEOPLE CONNECT ONTO IT.
THAT'S BEEN A REAL AREA OF CONCERN AND
CONTENTION, AS WE'VE GONE THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS HERE
AND ONE THAT NEEDS TO BE SETTLED. IT CAN BE
FINANCED EITHER WAY. THE QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE
BEST WAY. AND THAT -- I THINK THAT HAS TO BE
ANSWERED WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF ALL THESE OTHER
ISSUES IN TERMS OF GETTING TO A FINAL AGREEMENT.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'VE LAID OUT?
MAYOR PARTYKA: I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, CITY
MANAGER, BASED ON THESE OTHER THINGS, IF YOU HAD
TO GO AND CHOOSE, HOW YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO IT AT
THIS POINT? HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO IT?
MR. MCLEMORE: WELL, AS YOUR BUSINESS
MANAGER, I'M ALWAYS INTERESTED IN TRYING TO
RECAPTURE AS MANY DOLLARS AS I CAN. YOU KNOW, TO
GET TO A GOOD AGREEMENT, I THINK THER2'S SOME
VALUE IN AGREEING TO MAKE THIS PART OF A LONG-TERM
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
OR A THIRD ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE TO HAVE A
RECAPTURE POLICY THAT YOU WOULD ALLOW CREDITS ON
FOR PEOPLE COMPLYING IN SOME SPECIAL WAY WITH YOUR
ORDINANCE. IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU'RE WILLING TO
BUILD ON MAIN STREET, THEN YOU WOULD ALLOW THEM TO
BE -- NOT HAVE TO PAY THAT CONNECTION CHARGE. OR
.
.
168
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
IF YOU DID A SPECIAL TYPE OF PROJECT THAT WE ASKED
YOU TO DO MORE THINGS THAN YOU WERE REQUIRED TO
DO, YOU WOULD GIVE A CREDIT OF THAT CONNECTION
CHARGE. THAT'S A LESS CERTAIN WAY, BUT IT HAS
SOME APPEAL IN TERMS OF GIVING AN INCENTIVE TO
SOMEONE FOR DOING SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT INSIDE
THE PLAN.
SO WITH THOSE THREE ALTERNATIVES -- AND I
JUST THOUGHT OF THIS ONE. SO WITH THOSE ON THE
TABLE, I MEAN, MAYBE YOU OUGHT TO HEAR FROM THE
SCHRIMSHERS.
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ, DO YOU
WANT TO HEAR FROM THE SCHRIMSHERS FIRST OR DO YOU
WANT TO SAY SOMETHING?
MR. MARTINEZ: NO. I'LL HEAR FROM THEM.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. AND YOUR POSITION?
OH, COMMISSIONER MILLER, YES.
MR. MILLER: THIS WILL JUST TAKE A SECOND.
.
THIS IS TO THE CITY MANAGER.
IF YOU RUN A LINE
.
DOWN THE ROAD, AND THEN THE PEOPLE WHO BUILD ON
THE PROPERTY PAY THE CONNECTION CHARGE, THAT WOULD
BE FACTORED INTO THE OVERALL COST OF THEIR PROJECT
AND DIVIDED BY THE NUMBER OF UNITS IF YOU SOLD THE
UNITS.
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, YOU WOULD SELL BONDS --
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
169
MR. MCLEMORE: RIGHT.
MR. MILLER: -- BUILD IT, AND THEN GET THE
MONEY BACK WHEN THEY HOOK UP BY THE SAME WAY.
MR. MCLEMORE: NO. YOU GET YOUR MONEY BACK
EVERY MONTH WHEN THEY PAY THE BILL. IT WILL BE
BUILT IN THROUGH YOUR RATE. AND I THINK WE'VE
LOOKED AT THIS ALREADY. IT WOULD NOT REQUIRE AN
INCREASE IN YOUR RATES TO DO IT.
MR. BLAKE: SPREAD OUT ACROSS THE WHOLE CITY.
MR. GRINDSTAFF: I'LL TRY TO BE IN A NUTSHELL
ON THI&. THIS ONE IS A BIG ONE. I THOUGHT WE
WERE OVER IT, BUT WE'RE NOT. AND I THINK -- YOU
KNOW, TALKING ABOUT WHAT ARE THE SCHRIMSHERS
GIVING THE CITY AND WHAT ARE WE DOING FOR THE
SCHRIMSHERS?
THEY'RE GIVING US THIS DONUT HOLE. THEY'RE
GIVING US THE WETLAND PARK, AND WE'RE GOING TO DO
A COUPLE OF THINGS. THEY'RE GOING TO LIVE WITH
THIS CODE. WE'RE GOING TO BUILD THEM A ROAD, BUT
WE'RE GOING TO COLLECT IMPACT FEES BACK FROM THE
PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE. WE'RE GOING TO EXTEND THE
SEWER LINE AND, NOW, THE POSSIBILITY OF TALKING OF
-
RECOUPING THAT FROM THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE.
AND MEANWHILE, WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE
SCHRIMSHERS? WE NEVER ASKED TO BE PART OF THIS
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
-
--.-
23
24
25
.
.
170
TOWN CENTER. WE NEVER ASKED TO BE THE EPICENTER
OF THE TOWN CENTER. THE CITY WANTS
THE CITY
AND ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR IT AND
ATTENDED THE CHARRETTES AND DID WHATEVER IT IS
THEY DID THERE, WANTED TO HAVE THE TOWN CENTER IN
THIS LOCATION.
ONE THING, I THINK, GOES WITHOUT BEING
ARTICULATED A LOT IS THE RISK OF FAILURE. THESE
PROJECTS ARE FAILING. NOT ALL OF THEM, BUT SOME
OF THESE PROJECTS ARE FAILING AROUND THE UNITED
STATES.
YOUR OWN CONSULTANT, MR. GIBBS -- WE
CIRCULATED AN ARTICLE AT P&Z.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT
MADE IT TO GUYS AT COUNCIL OR NOT.
SOME OF THESE
THINGS ARE FAILING. WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WHEN
THIS THINGS FAILS AND YOU GUYS ARE ALL GONE AND
WE'VE GOT THIS THING AND WE'RE COMMITTED TO THIS
TOWN CENTER, HOPING LIKE THE DICKENS THAT IT COMES
ON?
I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE
SCHRIMSHERS ARE LOOKING FOR IS, HELP US MAKE SURE
THAT THIS THING AT LEAST HAS A REALISTIC CHANCE OF
BEING JUMP-STARTED AND LET'S GO WITH IT.
IN ORDER
TO JUMP-START IT, THIS IS WHAT WE THINK IS FAIR.
WE THINK -- NOT ONLY ARE THEY GIVING UP THE LAND
171
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
AND THEY'RE ENCUMBERING THEIR LAND WITH THIS
SPIDER WEB OF ILLUSTRATIVE PLANS AND GIVING UP
THESE PARKS, THESE DONUT HOLES, WHICH MAY HAVE
RAISED THIS, THEY'RE ALSO TAKING SOME RISK.
WE'D LIKE FOR YOU TO DO YOUR PART AND GET THE
SEWER LINES -- SEWER AND WATER LINES TO THE
PROPERTY AND NOT CHARGE OUR END USERS FOR IT, FOR
THE LINES. YOU OBVIOUSLY ARE GOING TO SELL MORE
SEWER CAPACITY AND WATER CAPACITY TO THOSE PEOPLE
AND YOU'RE GOING TO COLLECT AD VALOREM TAXES. BUT
DON'T HIT THEM AGAIN WITH A SURCHARGE SO THAT THEY
COME TO US AND SAY, HEY, MR. LANDOWNER, WE'RE
GOING TO HAVE TO PAY THIS SURCHARGE TO THE CITY,
SO WE CAN PAY YOU LESS FOR THIS PROPERTY, WHICH IS
SUPPOSED TO HAVE THESE BENEFITS.
THAT WASN'T THE DEAL. IN TERMS OF THE QUID
PRO QUO -- AND THAT LITTLE THING THAT -- THAT
LITTLE MEMO THAT CIRCULATED ABOUT ALL THIS MONEY
THAT'S GOING TO THE PROPERTY OWNER. WELL, ONE
THING IS CERTAIN THAT WASN'T IN THAT MEMO WAS THE
RECAPTURE OF MOST OF IT; ONE IN IMPACT FEES FROM
ROADS AND THE OTHER ONE IN SOME TYPE OF SURCHARGE
FOR THE SEWER.
WE FELT LIKE THAT WAS A SIGNIFICANT STEP
BACKWARD, BACK AWAY FROM WHAT WE HAD ALL BEEN
.
.
172
tt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TALKING ABOUT FOR MONTHS. AND THAT WAS VERY
PROBLEMATIC AND STILL IS. THAT'S THE SCHRIMSHERS'
POSITION.
MR. MCLEMORE: OBVIOUSLY, EVERYTHING IS PAID
BY THE TAXPAYER IN SOME WAY. IT'S JUST A MATTER
OF HOW YOU COLLECT IT.
MAYOR PARTYKA: HOLD ON.
COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
MR. MARTINEZ: I TEND TO AGREE WITH THE
MANAGER ON THIS ONE, BECAUSE IT REMINDS ME OF THE
FIRST AGREEMENT THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO US BY THE
SCHRIMSHER GROUP. THE CITY SHALL, AT THEIR
EXPENSE; THE CITY SHALL, AT THEIR EXPENSE; THE
CITY SHALL -- THERE WERE ABOUT 18 ITEMS OF THE
CITY SHALL, AT THEIR EXPENSE. BUT THERE WAS
NOTHING THERE THAT SAYS, THE SCHRIMSHERS SHALL, AT
OUR EXPENSE. AND I THINK THAT I HAVE TO SUPPORT
THE MANAGER ON THIS ONE.
AND FURTHERMORE, I WANTED TO CLARIFY ONE
POINT WHEN THE MAYOR SAID WE'RE NOT EXPERTS.
WELL, I DON'T THINK ANYONE HERE PROFESSES TO BE AN
ENGINEER, AN ARCHITECT, OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. _
BUT, LIKE A JUDGE IN A COURT, YOU SIT THERE AND
YOU LISTEN TO THE EXPERTS.
WE HAVE THE STAFF PEOPLE. WE HAVE HIS
.
.
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
lS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
173
PEOPLE. WE HAVE OUR MANAGER AND OUR ATTORNEY.
AND WE SIT HERE AND WE LISTEN AND WE GATHER ALL
THIS INFORMATION THAT'S PROVIDED TO US. AND I
THINK WE'RE EQUIPPED TO MAKE -- BASED ON WHAT IS
PROVIDED TO US, WE ARE EQUIPPED TO MAKE SOME SOUND
DECISIONS.
BECAUSE IF WE ARE NOT DOING THAT, I THINK WE
ARE RAPING THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS AND ITS
BUSINESS. OKAY. I THINK THAT WE DO APPLY
OURSELVES TO THE TASK AT HAND AND WE DO OUR BEST
TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING GOES DOWN THE BEST
WAY FOR THE CITIZENS OF WINTER SPRINGS AND, IN
THIS CASE, TO ALSO SATISFY THE DEVELOPER AND HIS
ATTORNEY WHO ARE HERE. THANK YOU.
MAYOR PARTYKA: THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.
COMMISSIONER MILLER.
MR. MILLER: MY LIGHT WASN'T ON.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY.
COMMISSIONER BLAKE,
,YOUR LIGHT'S ON, BUT NOT HERE.
MR. BLAKE: WHAT PORTION OF THE DOLLARS OF
THAT SPINE ROAD COST ARE THE UTILITIES?
MR. MCLEMORE: KIP, $200,000 ON 3HOSE?
MR. LOCKCUFF: YES.
MR. BLAKE: WHICH SPINE ROAD IS THAT?
MR. LOCKCUFF: BASICALLY, ALL OF THEM. TWO
174
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
HUNDRED ON EACH OF THEM.
MR. BLAKE: SO EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE DIFFERENT
LENGTHS, IT'S ALL PRETTY MUCH THE SAME?
MR. LOCKCUFF: BEST GUESS.
MR. BLAKE: JUST USE THINNER PIPE THAT'S
LONGER. SORRY.
$200,000 FOR THE WATER AND SEWER
INFRASTRUCTURE ALONG THE SPINE ROAD -- TAKE THE
MIDDLE ONE JUST BECAUSE IT'S THE AVERAGE -- EACH
DEVELOPMENT THROUGHOUT THEN FEEDS OFF THE SPINE
ROAD; IS THAT CORRECT? WHAT ABOUT ONE ON MAIN
STREET? WHERE DOES ITS UTILITIES COME FROM? I
SAY MAIN STREET, TUSCAWILLA ROAD THERE. SEE THAT
PARCEL NEXT TO MAGNOLIA PARK? WHERE DOES IT
RECEIVE UTILITIES FROM?
MR. LOCKCUFF: MOST OF THE UTILITIES WOULD GO
IN WHEN WE BUILD TUSCAWILLA ROAD.
MR. BLAKE: SO IS THERE WATER AND SEWER ALONG
TUSCAWILLA ROAD?
MR. LOCKCUFF: THERE'S WATER PRESENTLY.
MR. BLAKE: WHAT ABOUT SEWER?
MR. LOCKCUFF: YOU P~OBABLY WOULDN'T PUT THE
SEWER DOWN THE MAIN LINE.
MR. BLAKE: WHERE IS -- IF DEVELOPMENT TOOK
PLACE ON THE PROPERTY NEXT TO MAGNOLIA -- PICK A
.
.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
175
SIDE, EITHER SIDE. DOESN'T MATTER -- WHERE WOULD
THEIR SEWER SERVICE COME FROM?
MR. LOCKCUFF: I DON'T KNOW AT THIS TIME. IT
DEPENDS ON WHAT ELSE WAS DEVELOPED.
MR. BLAKE: IS THAT OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO
PROVIDE SEWER TO THAT LOCATION, OR WOULD OUR
RESPONSIBILITY BE ONLY TO PLACE WATER AND SEWER
DOWN THE SPINE ROAD?
MR. MCLEMORE: DOWN THE SPINE ROAD.
MR. LOCKCUFF: RIGHT.
MR. BLAKE: FROM WHICH END OF THE SPINE
ROAD? IN OTHER WORDS, WHERE WOULD IT TERMINATE?
MR. LOCKCUFF: THE WATER WOULD LOOP.
MR. BLAKE: BECAUSE WATER'S ALREADY OUT
THERE, RIGHT?
MR. LOCKCUFF: CORRECT.
MR. BLAKE: WHAT ABOUT THE SEWER? WHICH END
WOULD THE SEWER COME IN FROM? WOULD IT NOT COME
FROM THE SOUTHEAST END DOWN THERE?
MR. LOCKCUFF: WHEN WE SAY 200,000 FOR SEWER,
I'M THINKING ONLY SLEEVES UNDER THE ROAD, NOT
NECESSARILY G8AVITY LINES, FORCE MAINS, NONE OF
THAT. THAT WOULD BE CONTINGENT ON THE OVERALL
SITE DEVELOPMENT.
MR. BLAKE: WHAT EXACTLY ARE WE AGREEING TO
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
176
DO?
MR. LOCKCUFF: MOSTLY OFF SITE. THE MILLION
THREE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN UTILITIES IS OFF
SITE, GETTING IT TO
MR. BLAKE: THE 200,000.
MR. MCLEMORE: NO. NO. THERE'S UTILITIES IN
THE ROAD SYSTEM AND THEN THERE'S THE COST OF
GETTING WA~ER AND SEWER TO THE SITE.
MR. BLAKE: SO THE TOTAL COST OF UTILITIES IS
ABOUT A MILLION AND A HALF.
MR. LOCKCUFF: THE HIGH END.
MR. BLAKE: TOTAL COST THAT WE WOULD PICK UP
ON THIS ISSUE. THE QUESTION IS, HOW DO WE FINANCE
THAT MILLION AND A HALF?
MR. MCLEMORE: CORRECT.
MR. BLAKE: BECAUSE THESE ARE ALL JUST
FINANCIAL QUESTIONS, WHETHER WE COLLECT IT FROM
THE PEOPLE ON THE PROPERTY WHO HAVE THE CHIEF
BENEFITS OR IF WE COLLECT IT ACROSS THE ENTIRE
CITY, CORRECT?
MR. MCLEMORE: CORRECT.
MR. BLAKE: HAS ANYBODY DONE ANY STUDIES AS
-
TO WHAT TYPE OF REVENUE AT BUILD-OUT THIS MIGHT
BRING IN AND HOW THAT WOULD AFFECT OVERALL
CAPACITY IN THE COST STRUCTURE?
.
.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1S
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
-
23
24
25
177
MR. MCLEMORE: YOU'RE TALKING CAPACITY
ANALYSIS.
MR. LOCKCUFF: WE'VE LOOKED AT THE CAPACITY,
BUT NOT REVENUES ON THE RATE SIDE.
MR. BLAKE: SO ON THE REVENUE, IF WE CHOSE
NOT TO COLLECT IT THROUGH A CONNECTION SURCHARGE
AND IF WE CHOSE NOT TO SPREAD IT AMONGST THE
REMAINDER OF THE CITY, BUT CARRY IT UNTIL THIS
PLACE CAME ON LINE, REGION-WISE, THERE'S NO
TELLING WHAT TYPES OF REVENUES MAY CONNECT?
MR. MCLEMORE: IT'S GOING TO DEPEND ON THE
DENSITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
MR. BLAKE: OBVIOUSLY. DO WE HAVE ANY RANGES
OR THOUGHTS?
MR. MCLEMORE: WE COULD CREATE SOME THOUGHTS
ON IT. WHAT WE DO KNOW AND FEEL PRETTY
COMFORTABLE WITH IS THAT IF WE INCLUDED IT IN A
LONG-TERM BOND ISSUE, IT WOULD NOT HAVE AN IMPACT
ON CHANGING RATES.
MR. LOCKCUFF: SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE
CITY.
MR. MCLEMORE: RIGHT.
MR. BLAKE: CURRENTLY. BUT IT WOULD CLEARLY
AFFECT OUR -- WELL, IT'S GOING TO AFFECT OUR RATES
SOMEWHAT.
178
.
1
MR. MCLEMORE: SOMEWHERE DOWN THAT LINE.
2
RIGHT.
3
MR. BLAKE: WHAT YOU'RE BASICALLY SAYING IS
4
WE HAVE ENOUGH SURPLUS CURRENTLY COMING IN THAT
5
THAT COVERAGE RATIO WOULD BE FINE. BUT,
6
OBVIOUSLY, THAT WOULD KEEP US FROM LOWERING RATES.
7
MR. MCLEMORE:
IF YOU LOOKED AT IT ON THE
8
I
CITY-WIDE BASIS, AND YOU'RE GOING TO SAY WE'RE
9
GOING TO FINANCE IT CITY-WIDE, AND THEN YOU LOOKED
10
AT THEIR PORTION OF THE OVERALL CITY-WIDE, AND
11
THEN LOOK AT WHAT REVENUE THEY'RE GOING TO
12
GENERATE, IT MIGHT BE AN INTERESTING THOUGHT TO
.'
~
13
FOLLOW THROUGH ON.
14
MR. BLAKE: OKAY. THANK YOU.
15
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD
16
LIKE TO SPEAK AT THIS POINT?
17
OKAY. JUST, AGAIN, ADMINISTRATIVE
18
PROCEDURE.
IT'S TWO MINUTES OF 11:00. AGAIN,
19
I'VE TRIED TO LOOK AT THE RULE.
IT SAYS SUPER
20
MAJORITY, WHETHER IT'S THREE OR FOUR -- IT DOESN'T
21
QUITE SAY THAT, BUT THAT'S OKAY.
22
WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO? COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
23
MR. BLAKE: I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO
24
EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR, PLEASE.
.
~
25
MR. MARTINEZ: SECOND.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
179
MAYOR PARTYKA: CALL THE VOTE, PLEASE.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MAR
MAYOR PARTYKA: YOU HAVE THE POSITION TO SAY
"NO" OR I'YES. "
MR. MILLER: I'M SORRY. WHO DID YOU CALL?
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
MR. MARTINEZ: AYE.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
MR. BLAKE: AYE.
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MILLER.
MR. MILLER: NAY.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. MOTION FAILS. WE NEED
TO PREPARE FOR OUR NEXT MEETING.
MR. BLAKE: MAYOR.
MAYOR PARTYKA: YES.
MR. BLAKE: WE NOW HAVE A QUANDARY THAT I
MENTIONED LONG BEFORE WE WERE DOING THE RULES; AND
THAT IS YOU CANNOT ADJOURN A MEETING __
MR. MILLER: MR. MAYOR.
MR. BLAKE: -- WITHOUT A MOTION AND APPROVAL
OF THE COMMISSION.
MAYOR PARTYKA: NO. GIVEN--
MR. BLAKE: NO, SIR. IT'S RIGHT HERE.
IRRESPECTIVE OF THE TIME OF DAY, THE RULE STATES,
COMMISSION MEETINGS SHALL BE ADJOURNED BY 11:00
.
.
.
180
1
P.M. HOWEVER -- OH, HERE WE GO.
I'M SORRY.
2
NUMBER 14. REGARDLESS OF THE TIME, ADJOURNMENT
3
SHALL REQUIRE A MOTION, A SECOND, AND A MAJORITY
4
I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THAT'S NOT GOING TO
VOTE.
5
BE POSSIBLE THIS EVENING.
6
MAYOR PARTYKA: WELL, IF WE'RE IN A
7
STALEMATE -- IN A STALEMATE --
8
MR. MARTINEZ: POINT OF ORDER.
9
MAYOR PARTYKA: -- I WILL --
10
MR. MARTINEZ: MAY I MAKE A MOTION TO
11
RECONSIDER BASED ON THE FACT THAT WE HAVE PEOPLE
12
THAT HAVE BEEN SITTING HERE ALL NIGHT, WAITING TO
13
SPEAK ON A PUBLIC ITEM, PUBLIC HEARING ITEM, AND
14
WE ALSO HAVE STAFF PEOPLE WHO ARE WAITING HERE TO
15
DEAL WITH AN AGENDA ITEM AND HAVE BEEN WAITING
16
HERE SINCE 5 O'CLOCK.
I MAKE A MOTION TO
17
RECONSIDER THE PREVIOUS VOTE.
18
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY.
IS THERE A SECOND?
19
MR. MILLER: MR. MAYOR, MY LIGHT'S BEEN ON
20
FOR A COUPLE MINUTES NOW.
I TRIED TO SAY
21
SOMETHING, BUT YOU TOLD ME I'D HAVE MY CHANCE TO
22
VOTE, SO I DID, BECAUSE I DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE
23
TO
24
MAYOR PARTYKA: YEAH.
I'M JUST SAYING, AS A
25
POINT OF ORDER, ONCE SOMEONE MAKES --
.
.
.
181
1
MR. MILLER: NO.
I UNDERSTAND. BUT, YOU
2
KNOW, IF YOU WANT TO END A MEETING, THAT'S A GOOD
3
WAY TO DO IT. SO MY POINT WAS GOING TO BE THAT
4
THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT 15, 20 MINUTES AGO
5
THAT THERE WAS TWO MORE ITEMS THAT WERE GOING TO
6
BE DISCUSSED UNDER THE SCHRIMSHER ITEM.
7
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM GOING HALF AN HOUR TO
8
FINISH THEIR ITEM, BUT I DON'T SEE ANY PURPOSE IN
9
GOING ON UNTIL 3 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING TO FINISH
10
THE REST OF THIS AGENDA THIS EVENING.
11
MAYOR PARTYKA: WE TALKED ON THOSE.
12
MR. MILLER:
I VOTE FOR A HALF AN HOUR.
IF
13
WE CAN VOTE ON THAT AND THAT PASSES, THEN WE CAN
14
GO FOR HALF AN HOUR. BUT I DON'T WANT TO GO-- WE
15
STARTED AT 5 O'CLOCK THIS AFTERNOON HERE. WE'VE
16
BEEN DOING THIS, NOW, FOR MONTHS, TRYING TO GET
17
THIS AGENDA OUT OF HERE SO WE DON'T STAY LATE.
18
BUT IT'S ALSO VERY WEARING ON US, BECAUSE
19
WE'VE BEEN HERE NOW FOR SIX HOURS. I'M LISTENING
20
TO ALL THE DETAILED INFORMATION. THIS IS NOT A
21
GOOD TIME TO DO IT THIS WAY. IF WE STARTED AT
22
6:30, IT MIGHT BE DIFFERENT. WE WOULDN'T HAVE
23
WASTED AN HOUR AND A HALF ON ALL THE OTHER THINGS
24
THAT WE DIDN'T NEED TO WASTE TIME. WE COULD HAVE
25
SPENT THE TIME ON THIS.
~
~
.
182
1
MR. BLAKE: YOU VOTED TO START AT 5:00.
2
MR. MILLER: NO, I DIDN'T.
3
MR. BLAKE: YES, YOU DID.
4
MR. MILLER: THAT'S NOT THE POINT.
5
MAYOR PARTYKA: ALL RIGHT.
6
MR. MILLER:
IF COMMISSIONER BLAKE IS THE
7
EXPERT ON ROBERT'S RULES, AND IN OUR BOOK,
8
THERE'S -- IF HALF AN HOUR IS POSSIBLE, I WOULD
9
SUPPORT HALF AN HOUR TO FINISH THE SCHRIMSHER
10
THERE'S ONLY ONE POINT LEFT, I THOUGHT.
11
MR. MCLEMORE:
I HAVE NO OTHER POINTS.
IF
12
YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM SOMEONE HERE, AND IF YOU'LL
13
ALLOW ME, I'LL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION.
14
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSIONER MILLER, WE'VE
15
HAD THE LAST THREE POINTS, SO WE'VE HIT ALL OUR
16
SIX POINTS.
17
MR. MILLER: SO A HALF AN HOUR SHOULD BE
18
ENOUGH, THEN.
19
MR. BLAKE: MAKE THE MOTION.
20
MR. MILLER: I'LL MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE
21
EXTEND THE MEETING FOR HALF AN HOUR.
22
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY.
IS THERE A SECOND?
23
MR. MARTINEZ: I'LL SECOND IT.
24
MAYOR PARTYKA: CALL THE VOTE, PLEASE.
25
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
.
.
.
183
1
MR. BLAKE: AYE.
2
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
3
MR. MARTINEZ: AYE.
4
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MILLER.
5
MR. MILLER: AYE.
6
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. 30 MINUTES.
7
MR. BLAKE: MR. MAYOR, POINT OF ORDER, IF I
8
MAY, SIR.
9
MAYOR PARTYKA: UH-HUH.
10
MR. BLAKE: WE HAVE, I BELIEVE, IF I'M
11
CORRECT, TWO OTHER PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS WHICH HAVE
12
BEEN ADVERTISED. AND, IF POSSIBLE, I WOULD
13
SUGGEST THAT WE TRY TO GET TO THOSE, AS WELL.
14
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY.
15
MR. MARTINEZ: IF WE HURRY UP, WE CAN DO IT.
16
MAYOR PARTYKA: ALL RIGHT.
17
COMMISSIONER -- RATHER, CITY MANAGER.
18
MR. MCLEMORE: THERE ARE NO OTHER ISSUES.
I
19
THINK HE HAD SOME.
20
MR. GRINDSTAFF: THERE WAS JUST ONE POINT
21
ABOUT MAYBE DIRECTING TERRY TO GET WITH JOSHI --
22
MR. MCLEMORE: OH, NO PROBLEM.
23
MR. GRINDSTAFF:
TO WORK ON THE COSTS.
24
THERE'S BEEN A --
25
MR. MCLEMORE: YES.
.
.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
184
MR. GRINDSTAFF: JUST DIRECT THAT.
MR. MCLEMORE: WE CAN DO THAT
ADMINISTRATIVELY.
YOU HAD SOMEONE, I THINK, WANTED TO SPEAK.
AND THEN, AFTER THAT, I WANT TO TELL YOU WHERE I
THINK WE SHOULD BE.
MAYOR PARTYKA:
MR. MARTINEZ:
THIS ITEM SO WE --
MAYOR PARTYKA: WE'RE GETTING INPUT RIGHT
NOW. THIS IS THE LAST PERSON. THIS IS THE ONLY
OKAY. MR. FERNANDEZ.
WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH
OTHER PERSON.
MR. FERNANDEZ: THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN.
WILLIAM FERNANDEZ, 215 --
MAYOR PARTYKA: COULD YOU HOLD OFF FOR ONE
MORE SECOND?
I THOUGHT, THIS WAS COVERED, BUT WE'RE GOING
TO OPEN THIS UP TO PUBLIC INPUT, SO JUST TO MAKE
THAT OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT.
SO COMMISSIONER -- RATHER MR. -- IT'S PAST 11
O'CLOCK. MR. FERNANDEZ.
MR. FERNANDEZ: WILLIAM FERNANDEZ, 250 PANAMA
-
ROAD EAST, WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA. PRACTICED LAW
FOR SOME 30 YEARS. I OWN A TEN-ACRE PARCEL IN THE
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS ON WHICH I HAVE THREE
.
.
.
185
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
HORSES AND TWO MINIATURE DONKEYS. I AM THE
DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE SUNSHINE STATE
HORSE COUNCIL. I AM ON THE SEMINOLE COUNTY
GREENWAYS AND TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE. I AM THE
SECRETARY FOR THE FLORIDA TRAILBLAZERS.
I WILL TELL YOU THAT THE TRAIL THAT IS
CURRENTLY IN EXISTENCE AND PUT INTO EFFECT DOES
NOT HAVE HORSE USERS, AT THIS POINT, OF ANY
SIGNIFICANT NUMBER. THAT'S BECAUSE IT IS AN
IMPASSABLE TRAIL AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS. THE
COUNTY PUT ABSOLUTELY NO FUNDING, WHATSOEVER, INTO
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EQUESTRIAN TRAIL.
THE COUNTY THEN DECIDED AGAINST THE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO PUT THE TRAIL FARTHEST
AWAY FROM THE PAVED ASPHALT ON THE NORTH SIDE AND
TRIED TO CAUSE A POLITICAL PRESSURE FROM RESIDENTS
TO PUT IT ONTO THE SOUTH SIDE, AND THEN GOT
PRESSURE FROM THE SOUTH SIDE AND WAS GOING TO PUT
IT RIGHT UP NEXT TO THE ASPHALT TRAIL. THAT'S
WHAT THE CITY -- OR COUNTY COMMISSION PASSED.
AND OUR GROUP, FLORIDA TRAILBLAZERS, WENT TO
LAMAC, AND LAMAC CAME DOWN AND TOLD THE COUNTY
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PUT THE TRAIL NEXT TO THE
ASPHALT. IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
NOW, THAT'S ONE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY THAT
.
.
.
186
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THINKS THEY'VE GOT THE FINAL SAY ON WHAT'S GOING
TO HAPPEN. AND IT DIDN'T COME DOWN THAT WAY. YOU
ALL CAN REACH AN AGREEMENT -- AND I ADMIT THAT THE
TWO PROPOSALS ARE BETTER THAN THE OLD ALIGNMENT.
BUT I'M TELLING YOU THE CITY'S GOING TO LIVE WITH
THIS. AND WE'RE TRYING TO DEVELOP AN AESTHETIC
QUALITY RIDE FOR THE USERS, RIDE AND TRAIL HIKERS
OR WHOEVER.
IF YOU PUT HORSES UP NEXT TO ROADS WHERE
BICYCLES AND ROLLERBLADERS AND OTHER PEOPLE ARE
GOING TO BE COMING DOWN THAT ROAD WITH TRUCKS,
DELIVERY TRUCKS OR OTHERWISE, YOU'RE CREATING A
SITUATION WHERE THE HORSE IS GOING TO SPOOK AND
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ACCIDENT.
IF THIS DEVELOPER STILL OWNS THE PROPERTY,
THEY'LL BE SUED. AND IF THIS CITY APPROVES IT AND
GOES ALONG WITH IT, THIS CITY WILL BE JOINED IN
THAT LAWSUIT.
THE CITY MANAGER IS CORRECT. HORSE INPUT
WAS -- HORSE PEOPLE INPUT WAS PUT INTO THIS AND
THE DESIGN OF IT. IT GIVES A BETTER QUALITY-TYPE
RIDE. IT PUTS IT AS FAR AWAY AS WE CAN, AND WE
DON'T NEED TO CARRY OUR POOPER SCOOPERS TO GET THE
POOP FOR ANIMALS. WHICH IS ANOTHER THING I WANTED
TO SPEAK ABOUT IF YOU NEED SOME DEFINITIONS IN
.
~
.
187
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THAT ORDINANCE, BECAUSE YOU'RE MAKING IT A VERY
UNSAFE RIDE IF I HAVE TO CARRY THAT POOPER
SCOOPER.
BUT, IN ANY EVENT, TO PLACE IT NEXT TO A ROAD
IN THE INTERIOR OF THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO CREATE
AN ACCIDENT SOONER TO LATE. IT'S GOING TO
HAPPEN. IT'S WAITING TO HAPPEN. IT'S NOT THE
BEST RIDE.
I CAN -- I'VE HEARD HIS ARGUMENTS AND I
DISAGREE VEHEMENTLY. AND IF IT GETS TO THE LEVEL
OF LAMAC FOR FINAL APPROVAL, THEY WILL SEEK PUBLIC
INPUT MORE THAN JUST WHAT THE CITY HAS TO SAY AND
MORE THAN JUST WHAT THIS DEVELOPER WANTS TO
NEGOTIATE. THEY WILL HEAR FROM THE FLORIDA
TRAILBLAZERS. THEY WILL HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC.
AND WE'VE GOT SOME EQUESTRIAN PEOPLE ON THOSE
GROUPS.
THIS PARTICULAR PORTION OF LAND WAS THE MOST
EXPENSIVE PURCHASE FOR THE P2000 FUNDS IN THE
STATE OF FLORIDA. IT WAS THE CONNECTING PIECE.
IT IS THE SHOWCASE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A MILLION
AND A HALF LAND BRIDGE TO GO ACROSS 434. THEY
WANT IT TO BE THE SHOWCASE AND THEY DON'T WANT TO
COME OUT WITH EGG ON THEIR FACE WITH SOME HALF
INFERIOR PRODUCT THAT'S NOT GOING TO GET USED.
.
.
.
188
1
NOW, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT USAGE.
IT'S NOT
2
USED BECAUSE THE COUNTY HASN'T DEVELOPED IT AND
3
IT'S TOO SMALL. WHEN YOU'RE RIDING A HORSE, YOU
4
WANT TO GO 10, 20 MILES. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A
5
FOUR-POINT-WHATEVER PIECE OF RIDING.
IT'S NOT
6
GOING TO HAPPEN.
7
BUT WHEN YOU CONNECT IT INTO THIS AND YOU CAN
8
GO ALL THE WAY UP AROUND LAKE JESSUP, YOU'RE GOING
9
TO PICK UP RIDERSHIP, MUCH MORE RIDERSHIP. WHEN
10
YOU PUT IN, OVER HERE AT CENTRAL WINDS PARK, A
11
PLACE TO TAKE OUR HORSE TRAILERS AND PARK AND LOAD
12
AND RIDE, YOU'RE GOING TO PICK IT UP.
13
THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN CHECK OUT FOR YOU 1980
14
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS 080-80. THE CITIES
15
CANNOT BAR OR PROHIBIT RIDING OR DRIVING OF HORSES
16
ON PUBLIC STREETS IN THE CITY.
I'M NOT GOING TO
17
SAY IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THIS AREA, BUT YOU'RE
18
SETTING UP A SITUATION WHERE IT IS MORE LIKELY TO
19
HAPPEN WHEN YOU BRING THAT TRAIL CLOSER IN.
20
HORSES ARE DEFINED AS TRAFFIC IN CHAPTER
21
316.003, SUB 57. NO LOCAL AUTHORITY SHALL ENACT
22
OR ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE ON A MATTER COVERED BY
23
THIS CHAPTER UNLESS EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED. THAT'S
24
316.007.
25
AND THE PROVISION OF THIS CHAPTER APPLICABLE
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.
189
TO PEDESTRIAN APPLIES TO PERSONS RIDING OR LEADING
AN ANIMAL UPON A ROADWAY OR SHOULDER THEREOF.
THIS -- I BROUGHT MORE IN THE CONTEXT OF THAT
ANIMAL ORDINANCE. I THINK IF YOU ENACT THAT
ANIMAL ORDINANCE AND/OR BRING IT INTO THAT CLOSER
AREA THAT YOU WANT, THAT YOU'RE STARTING TO CREATE
A LAW THAT'S TRYING TO PROHIBIT ANIMALS, AND
HORSES SPECIFICALLY. I THINK YOU WILL HAVE A
GREATER VOLUME. I THINK YOU HAVE SOME
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES OR LEGAL ISSUES THAT WILL BE
ADDRESSED.
AND EVEN THOUGH I'M RETIRED, I VOLUNTEER MY
TIME TO BRING SUCH LEGAL ISSUES EVEN IF THAT COSTS
ME MY SEAT ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD. I
THINK IT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.
MAYOR PARTYKA: MR. FERNANDEZ, YOU,
EXERCISING YOUR CITIZEN DUTIES AND CIVIL RIGHTS,
WILL NOT EVER HURT YOUR POSITION, ARBITRARILY, ON
ANY BOARD IN THIS CITY. SO I JUST WANT TO SAY
THAT.
MR. FERNANDEZ:
I APPRECIATE THAT, MAYOR
PARTYKA.
AS FAR AS THE FENCE ORDINANCE, THERE'S
ALREADY 588.11 THAT ADDRESSES FENCES. I KNOW
THERE'S BEEN A CHANGE FROM FENCES AND WALLS, AND
.
.
.
190
1
THE WALLS WERE DROPPED OUT FROM THE PREVIOUS
2
DRAFT.
3
BUT I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO RECREATE WHAT'S
4
ALREADY ON THE BOOKS. I JUST HOPE THE CITY
5
ATTORNEY'S ALREADY ADDRESSED 588.11, I BELIEVE, IS
6
THE STATUTE THAT ADDRESSES FENCES.
I'VE COVERED
7
ALL THREE OF MINE, I THINK.
8
ANY QUESTIONS THAT I CAN RESPOND TO?
9
MAYOR PARTYKA: ONE CLARIFICATION. SO YOUR
10
FEELING IS THE OUTSIDE TRAIL IS THE PREFERRED
11
TRAIL FOR YOUR HORSE TRAIL?
12
MR. FERNANDEZ: FROM A USER EXPERIENCED
13
PREFERENCE, AS WELL AS A LIABILITY STANDPOINT,
14
MOST DEFINITELY. AS WELL AS LESS OF A NUISANCE TO
15
PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO OWN PROPERTY AND LIVE IN
16
THAT AREA. OUT THERE, YOU'VE GOT SOMETHING
17
SEPARATING YOU FROM THE HOMES AND RESIDENTIAL AND
18
YOU'VE GOT -- WHAT DO YOU CALL IT
19
ENVIRONMENTALLY
WETLANDS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE.
20
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE LEAST IMPACT ON
21
RESIDENTS.
22
AND ALSO, I CAN GET YOU AN ARTICLE. TRAILS
23
INCREASE THE VALUE OF PROPERTY, AND PEOPLE WANT TO
24
LIVE ON TRAILS. THERE ARE STATISTICS. THE
25
SEMINOLE COUNTY HAS IT.
I'VE GOT IT AT MY HOUSE.
.
.
.
25
191
1
I CAN GIVE IT TO YOU. YOU'RE GOING TO RAISE THE
2
VALUE OF HOMES THAT ARE ALONG THAT TRAIL, NOT
3
DECREASE. THANK YOU.
4
MAYOR PARTYKA: THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
5
ANYONE ELSE WISHES TO SPEAK ON THESE TWO ISSUES AT
6
THIS POINT?
7
OKAY.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC INPUT PORTION OF
8
THIS AND OPEN IT,BACK UP TO COMMISSION MEETING.
9
OKAY. CITY MANAGER, YOU SAID YOU HAD
10
SOMETHING THAT YOU WANTED TO RECOMMEND. THAT'S
11
ONE. AND THEN WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE'RE
12
GOING TO HANDLE THESE SIX POINTS.
13
MR. MCLEMORE:
I'M PREPARED, AT THIS POINT IN
14
TIME, IF YOU'RE READY TO HEAR ME, TO TELL YOU WHAT
15
I THINK -- HOW WE SHOULD SETTLE THESE ISSUES AND
16
WHAT YOUR PROPOSAL TO IT MIGHT BE AND WHAT
17
SCHRIMSHER'S MIGHT BE.
18
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. WHY DON'T YOU GO.
19
MR. MCLEMORE: NUMBER ONE, ON SPINE ROAD, I
20
THINK WE CAN AGREE WITH THE SCHRIMSHERS RELATIVE
21
TO THE MIDDLE ALIGNMENT.
I THINK THE THING WE
22
NEED TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT YOU'RE GETTING A BETTER
23
JUMP-START BY DOING IT THAT WAY. THEY ARE
24
DEVELOPERS. THEY'VE PUT ON THE RECORD THEY THINK
THAT WOULD BE A BETTER ALIGNMENT FOR JUMP-STARTING
.
.
.
192
1
THE PROJECT.
2
RELATIVE TO THE TEN-YEAR TERMINATION, I THINK
3
WE NEED TO SOLVE THAT PROBLEM. TECHNICALLY, I
4
THINK MAYBE THE ATTORNEYS CAN GET TOGETHER AND DO
5
THAT. WE CAN FIND A WAY TO DO IT IN SUCH A WAY
6
THAT IT DOES NOT IMPOSE UPON YOUR EVENTUAL TAKING
7
OF THOSE PARKS.
8
ON THE CONVEYANCE OF THE PARKS, I THINK --
9
AGAIN, I FEEL THAT WE SHOULD AGREE THAT THERE IS
10
AN ABILITY THAT WE COULD NOT TAKE FEE SIMPLE ON
11
THE PROJECTS IMMEDIATELY -- THE PARKS IMMEDIATELY,
12
THAT WE CREATE SOME LANGUAGE RELATIVE TO ZONES,
13
AND THAT WE WOULD TAKE THEM BY FEE-SIMPLE BASED ON
14
A PROJECT-BY-PROJECT BASIS, AND MOVEMENT OF THOSE
15
WOULD BE CONTINGENT UPON SPECIAL EXCEPTION GRANTED
16
BY THE COMMISSION FROM THE PLAN.
17
THE TRAIL REALIGNMENT.
I THINK THE TRAIL
18
REALIGNMENT SHOULD BE LEFT ALONE.
19
ON THE WALL, I THINK WE SHOULD RETAIN THE
20
WALL IN THERE, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE
21
PROBLEMS WITH THESE FUTURE DEVELOPERS COMING WITH
22
THE LANDOWNERS ONCE YOU START TO DEVELOP. AND IF
23
WE GET THE INTENSITY -- LIKE WE SAID, IF IT'S
24
SINGLE FAMILY, IT'S NOT A PROBLEM. ONLY IF IT'S
25
COMMERCIAL AND ONLY IF IT'S MULTIFAMILY SHOULD THE
.
.
.
193
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
WALL BE REQUIRED.
MAYOR PARTYKA: QUESTION ON THE WALL. OUR
CURRENT ORDINANCE HAS A 6-FOOT, ISN'T IT; NOT
8-FOOT?
YES, IT'S 6-FOOT.
YOU HAD MENTIONED 8-FOOT
MR. MCLEMORE:
MAYOR PARTYKA:
EARLIER.
MR. MCLEMORE: NO. WELL, I SAID 8-FOOT
BECAUSE OF THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THERE, BUT I
CAN LIVE WITH 6 FEET.
MAYOR PARTYKA:
SIX IS WHAT THE ORDINANCE IS.
MR. MCLEMORE: YES. SIX IS THE ORDINANCE,
RIGHT. BUT IT ONLY -- IF IT DOES NOT APPLY TO
MULTIFAMILY, YOU HAVE A COMMERCIAL.
MAYOR PARTYKA: YEAH, COMMERCIAL. THAT'S THE
WAY.
MR. MCLEMORE: SO WE'RE NOT REQUIRING
ANYTHING WE DIDN'T REQUIRE ANYHOW. BUT THAT
SHOULD REMAIN IN THERE. I THINK, BASED ON THE
AGREEMENT WITH THESE ISSUES, THAT WE SHOULD BUILD
THROUGH THE UTILITY -- THOSE UTILITY LINES AND PAY
FOR THOSE THROUGH THE RATES THAT ARE PAID FOR
CITY-WIDE.
AND I THINK YOU CAN JUSTIFY THEM ON THE BASIS
OF THAT MILLION DOLLARS OR MILLION THREE REALLY IS
.
.
.
194
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PURCHASING ALL OF WETLAND PARK AND MAGNOLIA PARK,
AS WELL AS THOSE SIX PARKS.
I THI~K THAT'S A REASONABLE PROPOSITION IF,
IN FACT, WE CAN AGREE TO ALL THESE OTHER THINGS.
AND THAT ASSUMES -- I THINK YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE
AGREEMENT ON ALL THE OTHER ISSUES, BUT I DON'T
THINK THOSE ARE PROBLEMATIC.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. DID EVERYBODY GET
THOSE? I MEAN, I WROTE THEM ALL DOWN.
MR. BLAKE: YES.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY.
MR. MARTINEZ: ARE YOU SUGGESTING, LIKE, AS
THE CITY ATTORNEY -- I THINK THE CITY ATTORNEY
SUGGESTED THAT WE POSTPONE THIS FOR FOUR WEEKS
AND, DURING OUR CONVERSATION, YOU'LL GIVE EVERYONE
TIME TO GET THIS THING SETTLED AND POSSIBLY HAVE
SOMETHING COME DOWN FROM TALLAHASSEE THAT WOULD
ALLOW US TO P~OCEED WITHOUT DELAY?
MR. GARGANESE: MR. GRINDSTAFF SAID IT'LL BE
ANOTHER TWO TO FOUR WEEKS. I CERTAINLY WOULD LIKE
TO SEE THE CONTRACTS FROM TALLAHASSEE. SO
DEFERRING THIS FOR FOUR WEEKS, I WOULD CONCUR WITH
THAT.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, BEFORE
WE LISTEN TO MR. GRINDSTAFF, DO YOU AGREE OR
.
.
.
195
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DISAGREE WITH SOME OF THE COMMENTS OR THE
STATEMENTS THAT MR. MCLEMORE MADE? WE NEED TO GET
SOME KIND OF COMMENT FROM EVERYBODY.
COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
MR. BLAKE:
I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING EXCEPT
THE LANGUAGE ON THE WALL.
I SEE NO NEED FOR THE
WALL LANGUAGE TO BE IN THERE AT ALL.
COVERED BY THE ORDINANCE.
IT'S JUST
MR. MCLEMORE:
IN THE TOWN CENTER.
I'M NOT SURE THAT IT'S COVERED
MR. BLAKE:
IT'S A CITY-WIDE ORDINANCE.
IT'S
COVERED EVERYWHERE WHEN COMMERCIAL,
HIGHER-INTENSITY DEVELOPMENT IS PLACED NEXT TO IT.
MR. MCLEMORE:
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE
MULTIFAMILY.
I KNOW IT SAYS COMMERCIAL, BUT I'M
NOT SURE ABOUT MULTIFAMILY.
MR. BLAKE:
IT SHOULD REQUIRE MULTIFAMILY, AS
WELL.
I'LL LEAVE IT TO YOU TO DECIDE WHETHER IT'S
MULTIFAMILY. THEN, YES, THERE SHOULD BE A WALL.
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. COMMISSIONER MILLER.
MR. MILLER: I CONCUR; 6 FEET.
MR. MCLEMORE: AT 6 FEET.
MR. MILLER:
I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM
WITH THE POINTS HE RAISED.
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
.
.
.
196
1
MR. MARTINEZ:
I'M IN.
2
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AT THIS
3
POINT, MR. GRINDSTAFF, MR. SCHRIMSHER, YOU'VE AT
4
LEAST ELICITED TO THE POSITIONS.
5
ANY COMMENTS FROM YOUR STAFF?
6
MR. MILLER:
I'VE GOT A QUESTION.
7
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. COMMISSIONER MILLER.
8
MR. MILLER: JUST ONE QUESTION.
I ASSUME
9
THAT THE HOLD IS STILL ON SO THAT WE'RE STILL
10
PROCEEDING UNDER THE SAME MUTUAL AGREEMENT THAT
11
EITHER PARTY WILL UNDERTAKE ANY -- IS THAT
12
UNDERSTANDING STILL CORRECT?
13
MR. GRINDSTAFF: YES, SIR.
14
MR. MILLER: WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED THIS IN A
15
FEW MONTHS.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I
16
HAD
17
MR. GRINDSTAFF: WE HAVE NEVER ONCE BACKED UP
18
ON WHAT WE'VE SAID.
19
MR. MILLER:
I APPRECIATE THAT.
THANKS.
20
MAYOR PARTYKA: COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
21
MR. BLAKE:
I THOUGHT WE NAMED THAT THE BLAKE
22
PROVISION.
I ALWAYS THOUGHT I GOT TO BRING THAT
23
UP.
24
MR. MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO
25
DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH
.
.
.
197
1
NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE SCHRIMSHER ORGANIZATION
2
BASED ON THE DISCUSSIONS THIS EVENING.
3
TWO MOTIONS. THAT'S THE FIRST ONE.
4
MR. MILLER: SECOND.
5
MAYOR PARTYKA: SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION?
6
QUESTION: DO YOU WANT TO HEAR ANYTHING FROM
7
COMMENTS HERE OR FROM THE DEVELOPER AT THIS POINT?
8
MR. BLAKE: NO.
9
MR. MARTINEZ: NO.
10
MAYOR PARTYKA: ALL RIGHT.
11
MR. GRINDSTAFF: MAY I JUST ADD ONE THING
12
BEFORE YOU VOTE, JUST TO GET IT IN THE RECORD? I
13
DON'T KNOW IF I'VE GOT TO TOTE THIS BOX AROUND
14
WITH ME ALL OVER, ALL NIGHT LONG.
15
MAYOR PARTYKA: WHAT?
16
MR. MILLER: WHAT? OKAY. THAT'S FAIR.
17
MR. GRINDSTAFF:
I APPRECIATE THAT. THAT'S
18
MY PROBLEM.
19
MR. BLAKE: YOU CAN'T DEAL WITH THE HUMOR.
20
HE'S NOT A FUNNY GUY.
21
MR. MARTINEZ: CAN'T TAKE A JOKE?
22
MAYOR PARTYKA:
PLEASE, IT'S GETTING LATE.
23
SEE, THIS IS WHY I DON'T LIKE MEETINGS PAST 11
24
O'CLOCK.
25
CALL THE VOTE.
.
.
.
198
1
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MILLER.
2
MR. MILLER: AYE.
3
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
4
MR. MARTINEZ: THERE GOES FIVE MINUTES.
5
MR. BLAKE: AYE.
6
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
7
MR. MARTINEZ: AYE.
8
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. MOTION PASSES.
9
CITY MANAGER, YOU HAVE AGREEMENT FROM THIS
10
COMMISSION TO CONTINUE YOUR NEGOTIATIONS AND
11
DISCUSSIONS BASED ON THE COMMENTS.
12
MR. BLAKE: MR. MAYOR.
13
MAYOR PARTYKA: YES, COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
14
MR. BLAKE:
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO
15
POSTPONE THE THIRD READING OF ORDINANCE 707 UNTIL
16
THE SECOND MEETING IN MARCH 2000.
17
MR. MARTINEZ: I THINK THAT'S THE 27TH.
18
MR. MILLER: SECOND.
19
MR. BLAKE: SECOND REGULAR MEETING IN MARCH.
20
PRESERVING ADVERTISING.
21
MAYOR PARTYKA: SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
22
MILLER.
23
ANY DISCUSSION? CALL THE VOTE, PLEASE.
24
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER BLAKE.
25
MR. BLAKE: AYE.
199
.
1
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
2
MR. MARTINEZ: AYE.
3
THE CLERK: COMMISSIONER MILLER.
4
MR. MILLER: AYE.
5
MAYOR PARTYKA: OKAY. MOTION PASSES. ALL
6
RIGHT. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR ALL YOUR COMMENTS.
7 (WHEREUPON, THE MEETING WAS CONCLUDED AT 11:40 P.M.)
8
9
10
.
~~
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
-
--..
23
24
25
.
,
.
200
1
2
3
4
CERTIFICATE OF OATH
5
6
7
STATE OF FLORIDA)
8 COUNTY OF ORANGE)
9
10 I, SANDRA A. MOSER, REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL
REPORTER, CERTIFY THAT I WAS AUTHORIZED TO AND DID
11 STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORT THE FOREGOING PROCEEDING AND
THAT THE TRANSCRIPT IS A TRUE RECORD.
12
.
I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT I AM NOT A RELATIVE,
13 EMPLOYEE, ATTORNEY OR COUNSEL or ANY OF THE PARTIES,
NOR AM I FINANCIALLY INTERESTED IN THE ACTION.
14
15 DATED THIS 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2000.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
25
~ ~ \
\. 'V-., ,. t....' " ~. '\. ('"'I ~ ""'" "-
'--....\,J..c ~-'-.s '/-;;"_) \-....b.... ",\ '~e...
SANDRA A. MOSER, R.P.R.
NOTARY PUBLIC- STATE OF FLORIDA
~~-\!i\;:~. SANDRA A. MOSER
~*r~'~ :*~ MY COMMISSION # CC 733210
~~~ii.~: EXPIRES: April 12, 2002
"FI~ ,n.o" Bonded Thill NollIry Public Underwriters