Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012 04 23 Consent 205 Requesting Approval of City Commission Workshop Meeting March 28 2012COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 205 Apri123, 2012 Regular Meeting Informational Consent X Public Hearings Regular City Manager ALLL Department REQUEST: Requesting the City Commission Approve the Wednesday, March 28, 2012 City Commission Workshop Minutes. SYNOPSIS: One of the responsibilities of the City Clerk is to provide the Mayor and City Commission with a submittal of all Meeting Minutes, as soon after a City Commission meeting as possible; so, that it is a reminder to the Mayor and City Commission, as to what transpired at their most recent meeting, and also provides a record of the actions and directives of the City Commission, for the future, and which becomes the official record. If the City Commission is in agreement with what the City Clerk provides in these Minutes, then the City Commission would be asked to Approve the Minutes, as submitted. Should the Mayor and /or City Commission feel something is not appropriately documented in these Minutes, then a Motion would be appropriate to have the Minutes changed to reflect what the majority of the City Commission would prefer. CONSIDERATIONS: This Agenda Item includes the Minutes from the Wednesday, March 28, 2012 City Commission Workshop. Even though these Minutes are being submitted by the City Clerk, (with proofing by the Deputy City Clerk), and signed by the City Clerk, no other party has required that changes be made to the Minutes before being submitted. Consent 205 PAGE 1 OF 2 - April 23, 2012 FISCAL IMPACT: There is no specific Fiscal Impact to this Agenda Item. COMMUNICATION EFFORTS: This Agenda Item has been electronically forwarded to the Mayor and City Commission, City Manager, City Attorney /Staff, and is available on the City's Website, LaserFiche, and the City's Server. Additionally, portions of this Agenda Item are typed verbatim on the respective Meeting Agenda which has also been electronically forwarded to the individuals noted above, and which is also available on the City's Website, LaserFiche, and the City's Server; has been sent to applicable City Staff, eAlert/eCitizen Recipients, Media/Press Representatives who have requested Agendas /Agenda Item information, Homeowner's Associations/Representatives on file with the City, and all individuals who have requested such information. This information has also been posted outside City Hall, posted inside City Hall with additional copies available for the General Public, and posted at five (5) different locations around the City. Furthermore, this information is also available to any individual requestors. City Staff is always willing to discuss this Agenda Item or any Agenda Item with any interested individuals. RECOMMENDATION: The City Commission is respectfully requested to Approve the Wednesday, March 28, 2012 City Commission Workshop Minutes. ATTACHMENTS: A - Wednesday, March 28, 2012 City Commission Workshop Minutes Consent 205 PAGE 2 OF 2 - April 23, 2012 CITY COMMISSION MINUTES WORKSHOP WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2012 - 6:00 P.M. CITY HALL — COMMISSION CHAMBERS 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434, WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA Mayor Charles Lacey Deputy Mayor Gary Bonner - Seat Three Commissioner Jean Hovey - Seat One Commissioner Rick Brown - Seat Two Commissioner Cade Resnick - Seat Four Commissioner Joanne M. Krebs - Seat Five CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP — MARCH 28, 2012 PAGE 2 OF 12 CALL TO ORDER The Workshop of Wednesday, March 28, 2012 of the City Commission was called to order by Mayor Charles„ Lace at 6:00 m. in the Commission Chambers of the Municipal Building (City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434 Lacey p• p g� y � Winter Springs, Florida 32708). `-- City Manager Kevin L. Smith mentioned they had been advised that there would be a Planning Technical Advisory ommittee (PTAC) meetin on Thursda ,Aril 12, 2012 and that Mr. Randy Stevenson, A1CP, ASLA, ry g y p � Director, Community Development Department would be attending this Planning Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC) meeting. Next, Manager Smith advised the Mayor and City Commission that a letter would be sent tomorrow, to Seminole County Public Schools' School Board related to the City Commission Appointing Mayor Lacey to the Public Schools Facilities Planning Committee (PSFPC) Lastly, Manager Smith noted that the next Advisory Board/Committee due to present to the Mayor and City Commission was to be the Board of Trustees, at the April 9, 2012 City Commission Regular Meeting; but, as both the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson were unable to attend the April 9, 2012 City Commission Regular Meeting, the Board of Trustees' presentation would be rescheduled. Roll Call: Mayor Charles Lacey, present Deputy Mayor Gary Bonner present Commissioner Jean Hovey, present Commissioner Rick Brown, present Commissioner Cade Resnick, present Commissioner Joanne M. Krebs, present City Manager Kevin L. Smith, present City Attorney Anthony A. Garganese, present City Clerk Andrea Lorenzo- Luaces, present Mayor Lacey briefly addressed tonight's Workshop and the Agenda. PUBLIC INPUT No one spoke at this time. REGULAR AGENDA REGULAR 600. Community Development Department REQUEST: The Community Development Department requests that the City Commission hold a second public workshop to review additional information regarding the Tuscawilla Units 12112A W all. Mr. Brian Fields, P.E., City Engineer, Public Works Department introduced the Staff in attendance and also showed some presentation slides and commented on factors related to this Workshop and the Tuscawilla Units 12112A Wall. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP - MARCH 28, 2012 PAGE 3 OF 12 Mr. Terry Zaudtke, P. E., DEE, Executive Trice President, CPH Engineers, 1117 East Robinson Street, Orlando, Florida: addressed the Mayor and City Commission on the structural elements of the Tuscawilla Units 12112A � :' Wail. Mr. Steve Richart, Urban Beautification Division Services, Community Development Department reviewed Option 1, option 2, and option 3 for everyone's consideration. Mr. Christopher M. Traber, Esquire, Nabors Oiblin & Nickerson, P.A., 2502 Rocky Point Drive, Suite 1 060, Tampa, Florida: spoke for the Record, and noted that his firm serves as Special Assessment Counsel to the City p p ' . of winter S p g rin s t�ri -: ;- Continuing, Mr. Traber commented, "I will just digress a little bit on the scenario that we looked at in terms of why not just pay for the Wall from the existing pot of money sitting there from the Tuscawilla Assessment areas. We've already got the procedures in place, the funding mechanism is there, and really as Steven (Richart) pointed out, you've got to analyze it based on those two (2) Florida requirements. I think a lot of people can probably correctly argue that there is some special benefit to having these walls repaired because everyone in the Tuscawilla area drives right by them, versus someone over at the Town Center that may never drive by them. So, there is sort of an argument for a small special benefit that may exist to the entire area. The problem is when you get to that second prong, can you look at the history of the funding in the area, where we've made the other property owners or builders when they first were built, fund those walls out of their own monies or what the builders pass on to them via the cost of the houses. That could create a potential legal problem for the City going forward if you suddenly decide to not only have those people pay for their own walls but then have them pay for someone else's wall. Now that's not to say that you couldn't have a scenario to eliminate that risk. one of the things you could do, while unlikely because of the dollars involved here, would be to put everyone on the same page on day one (1) and that is, perhaps buy those other walls into the Tuscawilla area; compensate those HOA's (Homeowner's Association's) for the walls and then create a Maintenance and Capital Fund going forward, to keep all those walls at the same level of maintenance going forward; then everyone would be paying sort of for the same benefit going forward, but you'd have to come up with the funds to purchase those other walls. obviously that may create some real estate issues and other political issues but I mean legally you could do it under that scenario, at least, it would put everyone on the same page." Deputy Mayor Gary Bonner noted, "Your statement about the legal challenge -- is that based on any precedent or Case Law that you are aware of or is that your assumption as an Attorney who specializes in this area ?" Mr. Traber replied, "More the latter. In other words, our recommendation would be that would pose a litigation risk to the City. In the end, it's the City's decision whether or not they want to incur that potential risk or do something safer. But in my legal opinion, it presents a risk." Deputy Mayor Bonner commented, "okay, it is your legal opinion as a specialist in this area ?" Mr. Traber responded, "Yes." Discussion. Mr. Richart commented, "We'd like to see the Commission authorize a non - binding Straw Ballot to the lot owners on this issue and the results could be brought back to the City Commission at a Regular Meeting. And on that (Straw) Ballot, we'd like to have one item that would say — `As the citizens, we would approve doing this' or `Reject it' . So, we could find out what the community feels about this issue. We've done this in the past with several of our programs. It's given us really good feedback. We'd like to suggest that for this issue." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP — MARCH 28, 2012 PAGE 4 OF 12 Manager Smith remarked, "If I could just summarize what we presented and add a little bit more information to what we presented from Staff tonight. Obviously, the first thing that we wanted to do is to give you all the information, the audience, the information that we promised from the previous meeting to include the Survey and so on and so forth. And then obviously that would lead to the question of `What do we do with it ?' And that's why we tried to put some options in place just for discussion purposes. Certainly there are probably a multitude of additional options that can be considered but just for the purposes of starting a conversation. As you looked at the results of the Survey, you saw that some eighty percent (80 %) of the wall was either in the right -of -Way or touching on the right -of -way. That presents a problem to the City from the .. standpoint of typically, we don't want things in our right-of-way, for a variet of reasons. The biggest one being p g y gg liability." Continuing, Manager Smith remarked, "In my opinion, and in consulting with Staff, it's in the City's best interest to cure that deficiency to remove that wall. As Brian (Fields) articulated earlier, it's a cost in the neighborhood of thirty -two thousand dollars ($32,000.00) to do so. So, one option, and again you know I like to present all options, good or bad, one option would be to remove the wall and for the City to incur that cost. As we talked about potential other options including repairing and replacing the wall in Assessment Programs, I thought it reasonable that if we were going to spend thirty -two thousand dollars ($32,000.00) of City funds to demolish the wall, then we could take that same funding and apply it towards any other options that we may all consider tonight." Further comments. Discussion followed on not being able to go onto private property; and possible Code Enforcement issues; and if the wall needed to removed, the City would need to get the permission from the property owners. Tape 11Side B With additional remarks, Deputy Mayor Bonner noted, "In the scenario where the wall is replaced, would the wall be replaced where it is located or would it actually be replaced into the Easement? What would be normal protocol as opposed to this situation ?" Mr. Fields stated, "I would recommend, if the wall were replaced from the Engineering standpoint of replacing it in its current location, and obtaining the documentation legally to have that be part of what would normally be an HOA (Homeowner's Association). To move the wall to a different location, I think you introduce new issues that create higher costs. The most efficient location is to put it back where it was. You've got irrigation, trees, sidewalk issues." Further comments followed on Easements and fences. Mr. Fields explained, "Walls in new Subdivisions are typically built in a tract that is dedicated and owned and maintained by an HOA (Homeowner's Association). That is the ideal way to put in a new wall, that is outside of somebody's property; it's a landscape tract or entirely within an Easement that's dedicated to and maintained by an HOA (Homeowner's Association)." Deputy Mayor Bonner then said, "So, that would be special property as it were that belongs to the HOA (Homeowner's Association), where the wall resides, or the City could dedicate an Easement to that purpose ?" Mr. Fields stated, "You could do that here." Discussion ensued on Easements and right -of -ways and that presently, Winter Springs Boulevard has some infrastructure constructed in medians and right -of -ways and the long term maintenance responsibilities belong to the Tuscawilla Lighting and Beautification District and should be perpetually maintained. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP - MARCH 28, 2412 PAGE 5 OF 12 Commissioner Rick Brown commented, "My understanding always was, when you go through major repair or rebuild, that is the opportunity and the obligation then to make sure that it meets the new Code. Is that not correct ?" " then asked "So how could we do repair in the r i g ht-of-way, Mr. Fields stated, Yes. Commissioner Brown t e , p � maintaining the old Code standards and not bringing up to Code ?" Manager Smith commented, "We wouldn't, C ode standards for those portions that we would repair." Manager Smith added we would bring it up t o the new C o p p g , "The one hundred and fifty feet (150')." Mr. Fields further explained by saying, "What we'd replace would be �a brought up to current Code. The repairs would be to use the term `Cosmetic' repairs. If you did a structural'"`"'" repair, it would have to be brought up to Code. "' Continuing, Mr. Fields noted the differences and remarked, "Cosmetic repair would improve the appearance of the wall; would not improve the structural integrity to meet those items that Terry (Zaudtke) listed in bullet points; would make the wall look better; would be maybe more weatherproof. It could extend the aesthetic life of the wall, but would not help it withstand that wind load per current Code." Mr. Fields further said, "We've identified a hundred and fifty feet ( 150) that we felt like did cross the threshold of being hazardous. The remaining hasn't reached that in my opinion. But, we would continue to monitor it." Mr. Zaudtke explained, "The addition of those columns and changing the footing would be structural repairs. Cosmetic repairs would be the tuckpointing that I talked about on the one wall, cutting out the mortar and then re- doing the mortar. And then, where the tops of the parapets have been pushed out to the expansion, you' have to go in and remove one of the bricks in the soldier row to prevent that from continuing to push, and then cosmetically would rebuild what was there. You wouldn't do a structural repair there." Commissioner Joanne M. Krebs commented to Mr. Fields, "It is never going to get any better than what it is today ?" Mr. Fields replied, "No." With further remarks, Commissioner Krebs asked Mr. Richart how much the oak Forest wall cost? Mr. Richart thought it was over a million dollars and added, "I'd have to look exactly." Related to Option Z, Mr. Richart remarked, "What this would do, it would allow us to budget five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) per year to come in and do maintenance and cosmetic repairs - I know that Davenport Glen had some cosmetic repairs done; Glen Eagle recently in the last couple years had cosmetic repairs. And that's essentially stuff like filling the grout, replacing loose bricks, regrouting stuff in. Again it wouldn't be anything structural; however, there would be some component of the grout bonding with other bricks and stuff; the grout would bond but it wouldn't affect the structural integrity of the wall. It would be more cosmetic. It would be cleaning and sealing the wall. I feel like cosmetically, it would extend the visual life of the wall and bring it back to looking pretty decent. However, `Would it extend how long it would stand', probably not. The question is `How long will it stand ?' Well, we don't know. I'd like to think you could get - many years out it. Part of this plan would be to get an Assessment Program initiated; get the maintenance started and see where that takes us. And as we go along, each year we could say `Okay, well next year we might need to replace that section' and at that time, we could deal with an upgrade or a replacement." Furthermore, Mr. Richart noted, "If an Assessment Program is initiated and this area is given over to an Assessment District for maintenance, it would become the Assessment District's responsibility to pay for that and it could be insured. The wall could be put under the Insurance Policy; so, that if a tree fell on it or something happened, that would be covered under that Policy, then it could be insured and replaced. I do not believe the Insurance companies do a structural evaluation on these wails. Could be wrong, I haven't seen that before. The way it sits now, if a tree falls on the wall or something happens where we couldn't get a claim against `Whomever', then the wall wouldn't be repaired unless the City stepped in." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP — MARCH 28, 2012 PAGE b OF 12 Manager Smith stated, "Going back to Option 1, that was to demolish the wall at a cost of thirty -two thousand dollars ($32,000.00). Option 2, we felt like we would take that thirty -two thousand dollars ($32,000.00) that the City needed to expend to cure the deficiency and utilize that thirty -two thousand dollars ($32,000.00) to address the most deficient areas of the wall, the most dangerous areas of the wall; the hundred and fifty feet ( 150') that Brian (Fields) talked about. So, those one hundred and fifty feet (150'), mostly on the turn -outs, we would use the thirty -two thousand dollars ($32,000.00) in City monies to demolish and rebuild that wall. At that point in time, we're done with the City funding from this standpoint; however, there is an ongoing ` maintenance aspect and that's where Steven (Richart) is suggesting that we would institute an Assessment , Program similar to what other programs we do in TLBD (Tuscawilla Lighting and Beautification District) for the ongoing maintenance. That is essentially Option 2." Commissioner Krebs then remarked, "On the part of the wall that is on City property, if we were to remove it and if the citizens decided they wanted a wall, where would it go? And how would you acquire that property? Does it have to be acquired? Can it go on an Easement? Do you need permission? How do you get there ?" Mr. Fields responded and said, "From the Engineering standpoint, like I said, recommend building it in the same place. You're going to dig out a footing, put back the footing in the same place. Minimal, incidental impacts, if that can be legally done - I guess that would be the question. And if that's our goal, is there a way that can be done and remove at least to the Commission and the Attorney's satisfaction, the liability that would be with that in the right -of- way." Commissioner Krebs inquired, "Leave it in the right -of- way ?" Mr. Fields replied, "Yes, if either by taking that land and transferring it and essentially adjusting the right -of -way or having some other instrument to create the ownership obligation..." Mayor Lacey stated, "...I don't think you meant to leave it in the right -of -way -- leave it where it is and make it something else." Mr. Fields commented, "Yes, exactly." Next, Commissioner Krebs said, "Like we did with the lake ?" Mr. Fields replied, "Yes, adjust the property lines around the wall but don't physically move the wall location." Further discussion followed on Assessment related costs and wall damages. Ms. Joyce Sundrnan, 991 Sleeping Rock Court, Winter Springs, Florida: commented on damage from a vehicle to the wall abutting their home and related Insurance issues. Discussion ensued. Mr. Richart remarked, "Options 1 and 3 would actually require at least the same amount of tree removal to come in and demo, you would get into the trees there; and then Option 3 to rebuild - you would definitely take out many trees that you wouldn't take out with Option 2. Option 2 would be the minimal. Now the good thing is, we have a new Tree Ordinance that would allow us to remove a tree that affects the structure without the replacement credit. So, that would aid us in dealing with this issue." Commissioner Krebs said to Mr. Fields, "where the wall is on our property and were you to work that so that it became part of the home owners property -- when we did that on that lake, there was a cost." Mr. Fields explained, "There was a large cost with that. we re- platted that property. That's the most expensive way. That gives the property to the individual home owner times twenty (20). If you handled it that way, it'd be an exercise in cost. There may be a way to have a narrow strip of land dedicated. You normally dedicate it to an HOA (Homeowner's Association). CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP - MARCH 28, 2012 PAGE 7 OF 12 If there is no HOA (Homeowner's Association) here, you'd have to find some other entity to just to dedicate that one tract which is a much simpler process. So, that's why changing the actual right -of -way line could be difficult, could be costly, and maybe there's another legal instrument that could remove the liability and not change the ' right -of -way line." in ri ht -of -wa s with City Attor Antho . Gar Discussion followed on vacating g y y y y anese. g Mr. Fields commented, "You could reach the point where we just looked at options and they weren' there and y ou did not have to move it onto the Easement entirely. If we just didn't find a satisfactor wa to leave it in its �`�' y y .] �`Y Y current location, then we could move it a few feet back into the Easement." Commissioner Krebs noted, "And if you were to do it the way we did with Fruitwood Lake, what kind of costs are we looking at doing it that way ?" Mr. Fields replied, "Twenty --five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) to re -plat. It's twenty (20) lots that have to change and get joined with those new portions of land and you have to get signatures from all banks and lien holders. And, it's just a long complicated process that I'm not sure I would recommend." Continuing, Commissioner Krebs asked, "And it could take how long ?" Mr. Fields responded, "It took about two (2) years - it's a twenty (20) part re -plat that needs everybody's signature including their Mortgage companies which in some cases had two (2), three (3), and four (4) signatures with it, and property gets sold or transferred, and as you're going along, you have to update it." PUBLIC INPUT Mayor Lacey recognized Seminole County Commissioner John Horan who was in attendance. Mr. Gary W. Brook, 1631 Wood Duck Drive, Winter Springs, Florida: commented that the wall in this community was always considered an individual home owners responsibility; and noted he was grateful for the City's interest; and his opinion was that the wall should be repaired or upgraded and suggested the City Commission consider Option 2. Mr. Jon Lee, 997 Sleeping Rock Court, Winter Springs, Florida: asked to review the options. Discussion. Mr. Lee then mentioned that he thought it was the City's responsibility and said that he would only be willing to pay eighty ($80.00) to one hundred dollars ($100.00) dollars a year to maintain the wall; and thought there would be a lawsuit against the City should the City go with Option 3 and charge just the Unit 12112A home owners the proposed costs under this Option. Ms. Virginia Cassady, 1629 Wood Duck Drive, Winter Springs, Florida: explained that her residence was three (3) houses down from the wall; mentioned she was an Attorney, and thought it would be "legally challengeable if you tried to assess all of the properties within the TLBD (Tuscawilla Lighting and Beautification District)" and thus thought any costs would fall on the home owners in Units 12112A. Ms. Cassady also commented that Option 2 was probably the best choice; noted her concerns with wind load issues; and thanked the Mayor and City Commission for their selfless contributions. Mr. Milton A. "Al" Elgin, Jr., 994 Sleeping Rock Court, Winter Springs, Florida: agreed with Option 2 and thought that that the Assessment should be distributed evenly amongst all the Unit 12112A home owners. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP — MARCH 28, 2012 PAGE 8 OF 12 �� INA Mayor Lacey asked, Is it at our discretion whether that is a tiered approach or does the test require us to tier it so � people further away have less responsibility. 93 Mr. Trabor spoke for the Record and stated, "When we — move forward with the project, we would look at the actual h sical layout of the parcels and just see what would be the best...` p y Y p Tape 2/Side A t r . zrt PP Continuing the discussion, Mr. Trabor added, "...Platted lots; there's another methodology we could use. We could look at Benefit Units like we did in Tuscawilla. There's a number of methodologies that we could legally use." Mr. Tim Jones, 1600 White Cloud Court, Winter Springs, Florida: thought that the one hundred and fifty feet (150) of wall which may be unsound, should be re- built; and questioned why the thirty -two thousand dollars ($32,000.00) was the same amount to repair or tear down the wall. Mr. Fields explained, "The firm number to demo is thirty -two [thousand dollars] ($32,000.00). When we looked at the replacement, we said we're really looking at up to thirty -two thousand [dollars] ($32,000.00) for this replacement section. The area they need to replace are at the turn -outs. They're higher walls, a little more complicated, a little more column work. We applied a higher unit price with that and also to essentially, to have it equal to the demo, we considered it up to be thirty -two thousand [dollars] ($32,000.00) for the re -build portion." Mr. Jones further addressed the City Commission and noted his preference for option 2 and thought that it would not benefit the area if the wall was taken down. Mr. John Doran, 1612 Wood Duck Drive, Winter Springs, Florida: mentioned that he thought this was a Public Policy concern and that the problem was created in 1953; commented on certification concerns; and thought the City needs to solve this issue fairly for the City overall. Mr. Horan also mentioned that the one hundred and fifty feet (150) did not have to be replaced exactly and that the properties on the corner just needed some kind of a visual buffer from Winter Springs Boulevard; said he did not think any of the walls in the Tuscawilla community were built to current Code and that all other walls as they deteriorate, would probably be coming back to the City Commission for consideration; and that the City Commission should consider setting some standard for this and future wall issues. Mr. Ted Johnson, 1107 Pheasant Circle, Winter Springs, Florida: spoke on behalf of the Tuscawilla Homeowner's Association and that option 2 was the best choice with some tweaks. Additionally, speaking as a resident, Mr. Johnson asked about wind velocity and the openings in the wall. Mr. Zaudtke addressed the wall openings and stated, "We did address that question. We did an evaluation of the open space on the wall. It is eighteen percent (18 %). In order to get credit in the Code, it would have to be more than sixty percent (60 %) open to be considered an open wall. Then they'd lessen the factor on the wind loads. Otherwise, it's considered a full load." Mr. Johnson then commented on a possible Straw Ballot and asked what might be included. Mr. Richart spoke on suggested wording that he would prefer. With further comments, Mr. Richart added, "If there's anything substantive we would definitely go back." Mr. Richart then said that "The tiering language - `Would the residents support tiering "' would be on the proposed Straw Ballot. Lastly, Mr. Johnson asked if readjusting the lines that define the right -of -ways might be done during this process, so this issue does not have to be readdressed again, at a later time. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP - MARCH 28, 2012 PAGE 9 OF 12 Mr. Jack Rutherford, 1634 Winter Springs Boulevard, Winter Springs, Florida: thanked the City Commission for considering this; spoke of the thirty -two thousand dollars ($32,000.00); suggested he might be in favor of Option 2 or Option 3; and thought the thirty -two thousand dollars ($32,000.00) should be reconsidered during any re- building phase; and suggested that a thirty (30) year old wall that needs re- building or replacing is a realistic time frame and hoped the City would put in some kind of wall there. =Wt 1 Mr. Jon Lee, 997 Sleeping Rock Court, Winter Springs, Florida: again addressed the Mayor and City Commission and asked if the wall was re- built, would it be re -built on the right -of -way line? Mr. Richart responded by saying, "You don't have to. That would be the most equitable place to rebuild it." Mr. Lee then asked how the City could ask the residents of Unit 12112A to be assessed for re- building the wall. Discussion followed on Assessments and special benefits. Ms. Joyce Sundman, 991 Sleeping Rock Court, Winter Springs, Florida: noted that she supported Option 2; that a vehicle previously damaged part of the wall abutting her home; that she and her husband had a Contractor do some pintucking on their part of the wall; thought that a wall benefitted their community; and noted her concerns with tiering and did not think a one -time Assessment Fee was a necessary option, and that the wall could be repaired. With further comments, Commissioner Brown stated, "I think we have always tried to be fair and represent the will of the citizens that live in our City." Discussion followed on the Oak Forest Assessment area, to which Commissioner Krebs asked that Staff explain the process and payment options further. Mr. Richart explained, "The annual Assessment, the way that that would work, is again, it comes on your annual Tax Bill. Those of you who have mortgages — it would be worked into your mortgage. Your mortgage company would account for that and you essentially -- it would be broken up into your monthly payments. Those who do not have mortgages would pay it at — when your tax bill is due, that amount between eighty and one hundred and sixty dollars ($80.00 - $160.00), if it was tiered, based on where you were located." Continuing, Mr. Richart commented on the "One -time establishment cost" and said, "It's twenty -seven thousand dollars ($27,000.00) and that is to set up the assessment area. That's for all the due diligence, all the legal. There's a white paper on the tiering and the methodology of how it's all set up so it could be defended legally in Court — the Assessment area. So, that twenty -seven thousand dollars ($27,000.00) goes to the Consultants, the Attorneys and the Management Consultants that come in and set up the Assessment area. It has to be done, there's no way around it. That's a one -time cost. Now the City would have the option to break that up into payments or different segments or bill it all at once. That's something we could bill separately. It's something that could be billed as a one -time assessment on your tax bill. We would have the flexibility to do that anyway that we wanted to. If the City wanted to carry that cost for a couple of years and - make that payable in payments, that could be done as well; that's very negotiable." Additionally, Mr. Richart remarked, "Those are the two (2) scenarios. We could treat that one -time establishment cost as a capital component or we could treat it as a maintenance component, however we wanted to do it." With further discussion, Mr. Richart said, "Usually these type projects have a larger capital component and that's normally rolled into the capital cost; so, it's normally financed into the capital costs. It's a small number, generally compared to the project that's done." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP - MARCH 28 2012 PAGE 10 OF 12 Deputy Mayor Bonner remarked about the support he heard for option 2 this evening, and said, "I have heard 107XZL some concern about a one -time establishment cost." Deputy Mayor Bonner continued, "Based on some concern about that, maybe an alternate way to sort of roll that in so it is not a bump as it were up front financially and then J spread that out a little bit. That is what I am hearing." Ms. Pamela Carroll, 855 Dyson Drive, hinter Springs, Florida commented on a previous Dyson Drive Straw Ballot and suggested that if a Straw Ballot is done, to fully make sure that there is adequate information to explain;;�� such details as tiered assessments; and thought if the wall was removed property owners might have some issues � g � p p Y ' g regarding their yards being very open. Further discussion ensued on the difference between Equivalent Resident Units (ERU's) and Benefit Units, and related rates. Mr. Richart added, "The reason the three (3) tiered system works so well for Oak Forest is because they had that --- beautification component; the noise issue, and the light issue — the noise issue from Tuscawilla Road; and the light issue - the further you get away from the wall, the less benefit you would have from that. So, that's how they set it up, the three (3) different factors that it involved in that Assessment." Additionally, Mr. Richart noted, "I don't know how much the noise and light abatement applies to this. This is something we have to get into - if this is approved to go forward and we create an Assessment area. we have to see what works, what system works. It could be a totally different system than we talked about tonight. It could be an ERU (Equivalent Resident Unit), which would allow us the ability to make it all one (1) cost." Mr. Richart then further commented on the turn -outs. Mr. John Horan, 1 612 Wood Duck Drive, Winter Springs, Florida: again addressed the Mayor and City Commission on the clip areas and suggested that the City Commission consider using ninety thousand dollars ($90,000.00) and having the City pay the one -time Assessment Fee. Mr. Arsenio Calle, 110 Arrowhead Court, Winter Springs, Florida: commented on the City using City monies to pay for just one (1) area of the City. Mr. Traber spoke for the Record and remarked, "Certainly, around the State, we do these projects all over. Sometimes there are monies contributed to a project to alleviate some unfairness; circumstances where there is a benefit to the public in addition to the benefit to the local citizenry. There's also a requirement that those funds that are used, be for a public purpose." Discussion. Commissioner Cade Resnick commented on the thirty -two thousand dollars ($32,000.00) the City is offering to use for the wall issue and said, "The citizens are asking for more than that. That is what I am hearing this evening and respectfully to the citizens in using those monies, other than liability and responsibility, asking for much more than that, could be an issue that we have to take to more than just these local citizens." Furthermore, Commissioner Resnick noted, "The cost of how we are going to go about replatting this or re- working these lines. who are we going to ask to fund that? If we are not doing it the expensive way - we're just doing a land swap or how would we consider that, because that is additional monies that we would have to come up with some way. So, those are my two (2) major concerns as we are moving forward here." Commissioner Krebs asked about the cost of the Assessment District and if the assessed area had to pay or if the City could pay. Mr. Traber spoke for the Record and remarked, "It, more often than not, is wrapped into the Assessment area and the assessed properties do pay for it; so that the burden is not on the tax payers. Again, if a City or County contributes funds, it defends the contribution of those funds under a variety of ways, legally that we talked about earlier." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP — MARCH 28, 2012 PAGE 1 i OF 12 Commissioner Krebs then stated, "I would really like to know what avenue we would take to transfer - that property that the wall sits on, if we were to leave it where it is — what avenue we would take and the cost of that avenue to transfer that. That I would need to know before I could make a decision on something like this. We have to have all of the numbers so we know, and so do they." Mr. Traber explained, "If you contribute funds, you have got to have a reason or Public Policy reason as to why those funds are contributed; and a legally available revenue source." Mr. Trabor suggested that Ad Valorem or other taxes could be used and that there are various revenue sources that could be used for a project such as this. Commissioner Krebs asked, "Is there still an ongoing cost that Oak Forest pays for an outside agency to handle the Assessment District ?" Mr. Richart stated, "Yes - every year." Commissioner Krebs added, "So, that also has to be included... Mr. Richart stated, "...Yes - it's including the twenty -five hundred [dollars] ($2,500.00) for the ongoing cost." Mayor Lacey closed the "Public Input " portion o_ f 'the Agenda Item. Further discussion. Tape 2/Side B Discussion followed on Easements and possibly asking for a commitment letter from the six percent (6 %) of the property owners that have a part of this wall on their property. Deputy Mayor Bonner suggested that property owners be contacted to see if they would donate a portion of their property if part of the wall was on a portion of their property. Commissioner Krebs commented that it seemed like most people in attendance at this Workshop preferred Option 2 and "I would like to see option number 2 — cossed out better than what we have here. And then, once we have that, also probably to your point, check with those home owners that have the pieces on their property where we could find out whether or not - like you, a letter of intent. I think once we have that we can look at — then we can actually formulate the question." Commissioner Krebs noted she would like to proceed this way, and "Let's get the facts." Deputy Mayor Bonner and Commissioner Resnick agreed. Mr. Richart remarked, "I believe these areas that are on private property would be demolished and re -built to Code under option 2. Mr. Fields added, "There are eight (8) properties - of the six percent (6 %), the private property owners, five (5) of those have sections of the wall that would be recommended for replacement. So, we certainly have no problem contacting all eight (8), explaining to them what option 2 is, what the intent would be and coming up, the best we can with some costs to represent that, if and when a Straw Ballot is sent out." i w. 5y Manager Smith pointed out, "Relative to option 2, I'd recommend that we go back, contact the property owners affected on the lots that Brian (Fields) referenced; cost out the data as appropriate; bring back an Agenda Item to you all with that information and proposed Ballot language for approval to send out that Ballot, and go from there." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP - MARCH 28, 2012 PAGE 12 OF 12 �nreeyrr: a ��SSr Commissioner Krebs then said to Manager Smith, "Can we find out what the most economical way to — whether it be transference or you said something about a whole lot — tract? Can we also find out what those options are for us ?" Manager Smith responded, "We absolutely will include that in our analysis that will come back to you all." ,. -.. Mayor Lacey asked Manager Smith what Commission meeting he would have this information. Manager Smith was not able to suggest an exact City Commission Meeting date when the information requested would be available for the City Commission. Commissioner Krebs then asked that eAlerts be sent to interested citizens advising them which upcoming City Commission meeting will further address this issue. Manager Smith said, . "Certainly we will do it as soon as possible." Furthermore, Mayor Lacey said to Manager Smith, "Can we commit to having — a special notice on the Website for people to check — they will come to the City's Website and they will see that this issue is on the Agenda ?" Manager Smith replied, "Absolutely." Commissioner Krebs then suggested that something be added to the Board, to which Manager Smith responded by saying, "Certainly, communication is key." ADJOURNMENT Mayor Lacey adjourned the Workshop at 8:30 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ANDREA LORENZO- LUACES, MMC CITY CLERK APPROVED: MAYOR CHARLES LACEY NOTE: These Minutes were approved at the , 20 12 City Commission Regular Meeting. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP — MARCH 28, 2012 PAGE 2 OF 12 --ee CALL TO ORDER The Workshop of Wednesday, March 28, 2012 of the City Commission was called to Order by Mayor Charles,, Lace at 6:00 m. in the Commission Chambers of the Municipal Building (City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434 " Y p• p g � Y Winter Springs, Florida 32708). , City Manager Kevin L. Smith mentioned they had been advised that there would be a Planning Technical Advisory ommittee PTAC meeting on Thursday, 12 2012 and that Mr. Rand Stevenson AICP ASLA, rY � ) g Y, p � Y « _ Director, Community Development Department would be attending this Planning Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC) meeting. Next, Manager Smith advised the Mayor and City Commission that a letter would be sent tomorrow, to Seminole County Public Schools' School Board related to the City Commission Appointing Mayor Lacey to the Public Schools Facilities Planning Committee (PSFPC) Lastly, Manager Smith noted that the next Advisory Board/Committee due to present to the Mayor and City Commission was to be the Board of Trustees, at the April 9, 2012 City Commission Regular Meeting; but, as both the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson were unable to attend the April 9, 2012 City Commission Regular Meeting, the Board of Trustees' presentation would be rescheduled. Roll Call: Mayor Charles Lacey, present Deputy Mayor Gary Bonner present Commissioner Jean Hovey, present Commissioner Rick Brown, present Commissioner Cade Resnick, present Commissioner Joanne M. Krebs, present City Manager Kevin L. Smith, present City Attorney Anthony A. Garganese, present City Clerk Andrea Lorenzo - Luaces, present Mayor Lacey briefly addressed tonight's Workshop and the Agenda. PUBLIC INPUT No one spoke at this time. REGULAR AGENDA REGULAR 600. Community Development Department REQUEST: The Community Development Department requests that the City Commission hold a second public workshop to review additional information regarding the Tuscawilla Units 12/12A Wall. Mr. Brian Fields, P.E., City Engineer, Public Works Department introduced the Staff in attendance and also showed some presentation slides and commented on factors related to this Workshop and the Tuscawilla Units 12/12A Wall. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP - MARCH 28, 2012 PAGE 3 OF 12 Mr. Terry Zaudtke, P.E., DEE, Executive Vice President, CPH Engineers, 1117 East Robinson Street, Orlando, Florida: addressed the Mayor and City Commission on the structural elements of the Tuscawilla Units 12 /12A Wall. Mr. Steve Richart, Urban Beautification Division Services, Community Development Department reviewed Option 1, Option 2, and Option 3 for everyone's consideration. Mr. Christopher M. Traber, Esquire, Nabors Giblin & Nickerson, P.A., 2502 Rocky Point Drive, Suite 1060, Tampa, Florida: spoke for the Record, and noted that his firm serves as Special Assessment Counsel to the City of Winter Springs. qty "Y' +'�RFtiN Continuing, Mr. Traber commented, "I will just digress a little bit on the scenario that we looked at in terms of why not just pay for the Wall from the existing pot of money sitting there from the Tuscawilla Assessment areas. We've already got the procedures in place, the funding mechanism is there, and really as Steven ( Richart) pointed out, you've got to analyze it based on those two (2) Florida requirements. I think a lot of people can probably correctly argue that there is some special benefit to having these walls repaired because everyone in the Tuscawilla area drives right by them, versus someone over at the Town Center that may never drive by them. So, there is sort of an argument for a small special benefit that may exist to the entire area. The problem is when you get to that second prong, can you look at the history of the funding in the area, where we've made the other property owners or builders when they first were built, fund those walls out of their own monies or what the builders pass on to them via the cost of the houses. That could create a potential legal problem for the City going forward if you suddenly decide to not only have those people pay for their own walls but then have them pay for someone else's wall. Now that's not to say that you couldn't have a scenario to eliminate that risk. One of the things you could do, while unlikely because of the dollars involved here, would be to put everyone on the same page on day one (1) and that is, perhaps buy those other walls into the Tuscawilla area; compensate those HOA's (Homeowner's Association's) for the walls and then create a Maintenance and Capital Fund going forward, to keep all those walls at the same level of maintenance going forward; then everyone would be paying sort of for the same benefit going forward, but you'd have to come up with the funds to purchase those other walls. Obviously that may create some real estate issues and other political issues but I mean legally you could do it under that scenario, at least, it would put everyone on the same page." Deputy Mayor Gary Bonner noted, "Your statement about the legal challenge - is that based on any precedent or Case Law that you are aware of or is that your assumption as an Attorney who specializes in this area ?" Mr. Traber replied, "More the latter. In other words, our recommendation would be that would pose a litigation risk to the City. In the end, it's the City's decision whether or not they want to incur that potential risk or do something safer. But in my legal opinion, it presents a risk." Deputy Mayor Bonner commented, "Okay, it is your legal opinion as a specialist in this area ?" Mr. Traber responded, "Yes." Discussion. Mr. Richart commented, "We'd like to see the Commission authorize a non - binding Straw Ballot to the lot owners on this issue and the results could be brought back to the City Commission at a Regular Meeting. And on that (Straw) Ballot, we'd like to have one item that would say — `As the citizens, we would approve doing this' or `Reject it'. So, we could find out what the community feels about this issue. We've done this in the past with several of our programs. It's given us really good feedback. We'd like to suggest that for this issue." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP — MARCH 28, 2012 PAGE 4 OF 12 Manager Smith remarked, "If I could just summarize what we presented and add a little bit more information to what we presented from Staff tonight. Obviously, the first thing that we wanted to do is to give you all the information, the audience, the information that we promised from the previous meeting to include the Survey and so on and so forth. And then obviously that would lead to the question of `What do we do with it?' And that's why we tried to put some options in place just for discussion purposes. Certainly there are probably a multitude of additional options that can be considered but just for the purposes of starting a conversation. As you looked at the results of the Survey, you saw that some eighty percent (80 %) of the , wall was either in the right -of -way or touching on the right -of -way. That presents a problem to the City from the standpoint of typically, we don't want things in our right -of -way, for a variety of reasons. The biggest one being liability." Continuing, Manager Smith remarked, "In my opinion, and in consulting with Staff, it's in the City's best interest to cure that deficiency to remove that wall. As Brian (Fields) articulated earlier, it's a cost in the neighborhood of thirty -two thousand dollars ($32,000.00) to do so. So, one option, and again you know I like to present all options, good or bad, one option would be to remove the wall and for the City to incur that cost. As we talked about potential other options including repairing and replacing the wall in Assessment Programs, I thought it reasonable that if we were going to spend thirty -two thousand dollars ($32,000.00) of City funds to demolish the wall, then we could take that same funding and apply it towards any other options that we may all consider tonight." Further comments. Discussion followed on not being able to go onto private property; and possible Code Enforcement issues; and if the wall needed to removed, the City would need to get the permission from the property owners. Tape I /Side B With additional remarks, Deputy Mayor Bonner noted, "In the scenario where the wall is replaced, would the wall be replaced where it is located or would it actually be replaced into the Easement? What would be normal protocol as opposed to this situation ?" Mr. Fields stated, "I would recommend, if the wall were replaced from the Engineering standpoint of replacing it in its current location, and obtaining the documentation legally to have that be part of what would normally be an HOA (Homeowner's Association). To move the wall to a different location, I think you introduce new issues that create higher costs. The most efficient location is to put it back where it was. You've got irrigation, trees, sidewalk issues." Further comments followed on Easements and fences. Mr. Fields explained, "Walls in new Subdivisions are typically built in a tract that is dedicated and owned and maintained by an HOA (Homeowner's Association). That is the ideal way to put in a new wall, that is outside of somebody's property; it's a landscape tract or entirely within an Easement that's dedicated to and maintained by an HOA (Homeowner's Association)." Deputy Mayor Bonner then said, "So, that would be special property as it were that belongs to the HOA (Homeowner's Association), where the wall resides, or the City could dedicate an Easement to that purpose ?" Mr. Fields stated, "You could do that here." Discussion ensued on Easements and right -of -ways and that presently, Winter Springs Boulevard has some infrastructure constructed in medians and right -of -ways and the long term maintenance responsibilities belong to the Tuscawilla Lighting and Beautification District and should be perpetually maintained. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP - MARCH 28, 2012 PAGE 5 OF 12 Commissioner Rick Brown commented, "My understanding always was, when you go through major repair or o- rebuild, that is the opportunity and the obligation then to make sure that it meets the new Code. Is that not correct ?" Mr. Fields stated, "Yes." Commissioner Brown then asked, "So, how could we do repair in the right -of -way, maintaining the old Code standards and not bringing up to Code ?" Manager Smith commented, "We wouldn't, we would bring it up to the new Code standards for those portions that we would repair." Manager Smith added, "The one hundred and fifty feet (150')." Mr. Fields further explained by saying, "What we'd replace would be brought up to current Code. The repairs would be to use the term `Cosmetic' repairs. If you did a structural repair, it would have to be brought up to Code." Continuing, Mr. Fields noted the differences and remarked, "Cosmetic repair would improve the appearance of the wall; would not improve the structural integrity to meet those items that Terry (Zaudtke) listed in bullet points; would make the wall look better; would be maybe more weatherproof. It could extend the aesthetic life of the wall, but would not help it withstand that wind load per current Code." Mr. Fields further said, "We've identified a hundred and fifty feet (150) that we felt like did cross the threshold of being hazardous. The remaining hasn't reached that in my opinion. But, we would continue to monitor it." Mr. Zaudtke explained, "The addition of those columns and changing the footing would be structural repairs. Cosmetic repairs would be the tuckpointing that I talked about on the one wall, cutting out the mortar and then re- doing the mortar. And then, where the tops of the parapets have been pushed out to the expansion, you'd have to go in and remove one of the bricks in the soldier row to prevent that from continuing to push, and then cosmetically would rebuild what was there. You wouldn't do a structural repair there." Commissioner Joanne M. Krebs commented to Mr. Fields, "It is never going to get any better than what it is today ?" Mr. Fields replied, "No." With further remarks, Commissioner Krebs asked Mr. Richart how much the Oak Forest wall cost? Mr. Richart thought it was over a million dollars and added, "I'd have to look exactly." Related to Option 2, Mr. Richart remarked, "What this would do, it would allow us to budget five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) per year to come in and do maintenance and cosmetic repairs - I know that Davenport Glen had some cosmetic repairs done; Glen Eagle recently in the last couple years had cosmetic repairs. And that's essentially stuff like filling the grout, replacing loose bricks, regrouting stuff in. Again it wouldn't be anything structural; however, there would be some component of the grout bonding with other bricks and stuff, the grout would bond but it wouldn't affect the structural integrity of the wall. It would be more cosmetic. It would be cleaning and sealing the wall. I feel like cosmetically, it would extend the visual life of the wall and bring it back to looking pretty decent. However, `Would it extend how long it would stand', probably not. The question is `How long will it stand?' Well, we don't know. I'd like to think you could get - many years out it. Part of this plan would be to get an Assessment Program initiated; get the maintenance started and see where that takes us. And as we go along, each year we could say `Okay, well next year we might need to replace that section' and at that time, we could deal with an upgrade or a replacement." Furthermore, Mr. Richart noted, "If an Assessment Program is initiated and this area is given over to an Assessment District for maintenance, it would become the Assessment District's responsibility to pay for that and it could be insured. The wall could be put under the Insurance Policy; so, that if a tree fell on it or something happened, that would be covered under that Policy, then it could be insured and replaced. I do not believe the Insurance companies do a structural evaluation on these walls. Could be wrong, I haven't seen that before. The way it sits now, if a tree falls on the wall or something happens where we couldn't get a claim against `Whomever', then the wall wouldn't be repaired unless the City stepped in." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP - MARCH 28, 2012 PAGE 6 OF 12 2 Manager Smith stated, "Going back to Option 1, that was to demolish the wall at a cost of thirty -two thousand dollars ($32,000.00). Option 2, we felt like we would take that thirty -two thousand dollars ($32,000.00) that the City needed to expend to cure the deficiency and utilize that thirty -two thousand dollars ($32,000.00) to address the most deficient areas of the wall, the most dangerous areas of the wall; the hundred and fifty feet (150') that Brian (Fields) talked about. So, those one hundred and fifty feet (150'), mostly on the turn -outs, we would use the thirty -two thousand dollars ($32,000.00) in City monies to demolish and rebuild that wall. At that point in time, we're done with the City funding from this standpoint; however, there is an ongoing maintenance aspect and that's where Steven (Richart) is suggesting that we would institute an Assessment „ Program similar to what other programs we do in TLBD (Tuscawilla Lighting and Beautification District) for the ongoing maintenance. That is essentially Option 2." Commissioner Krebs then remarked, "On the part of the wall that is on City property, if we were to remove it and if the citizens decided they wanted a wall, where would it go? And how would you acquire that property? Does it have to be acquired? Can it go on an Easement? Do you need permission? How do you get there ?" Mr. Fields responded and said, "From the Engineering standpoint, like I said, recommend building it in the same place. You're going to dig out a footing, put back the footing in the same place. Minimal, incidental impacts, if that can be legally done - I guess that would be the question. And if that's our goal, is there a way that can be done and remove at least to the Commission and the Attorney's satisfaction, the liability that would be with that in the right -of- way." Commissioner Krebs inquired, "Leave it in the right -of- way ?" Mr. Fields replied, "Yes, if either by taking that land and transferring it and essentially adjusting the right -of -way or having some other instrument to create the ownership obligation..." Mayor Lacey stated, "...I don't think you meant to leave it in the right -of -way - leave it where it is and make it something else." Mr. Fields commented, "Yes, exactly." Next, Commissioner Krebs said, "Like we did with the lake ?" Mr. Fields replied, "Yes, adjust the property lines around the wall but don't physically move the wall location." Further discussion followed on Assessment related costs and wall damages. Ms. Joyce Sundman, 991 Sleeping Rock Court, Winter Springs, Florida: commented on damage from a vehicle to the wall abutting their home and related Insurance issues. Discussion ensued. Mr. Richart remarked, "Options 1 and 3 would actually require at least the same amount of tree removal to come in and demo, you would get into the trees there; and then Option 3 to rebuild - you would definitely take out many trees that you wouldn't take out with Option 2. Option 2 would be the minimal. Now the good thing is, we have a new Tree Ordinance that would allow us to remove a tree that affects the structure without the replacement credit. So, that would aid us in dealing with this issue." Commissioner Krebs said to Mr. Fields, "Where the wall is on our property and were you to work that so that it became part of the home owners property - when we did that on that lake, there was a cost." Mr. Fields explained, "There was a large cost with that. We re- platted that property. That's the most expensive way. That gives the property to the individual home owner times twenty (20). If you handled it that way, it'd be an exercise in cost. There may be a way to have a narrow strip of land dedicated. You normally dedicate it to an HOA (Homeowner's Association). CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP - MARCH 28, 2012 PAGE 7 OF 12 If there is no HOA (Homeowner's Association) here, you'd have to find some other entity to just to dedicate that ., one tract which is a much simpler process. So, that's why changing the actual right -of -way line could be difficult, could be costly, and maybe there's another legal instrument that could remove the liability and not change the right -of -way line." Discussion followed on vacating right -of -ways with City Attorney Anthony A. Garganese.` Mr. Fields commented, "You could reach the point where we just looked at options and they weren't there and you did not have to move it onto the Easement entirely. If we just didn't find a satisfactory way to leave it in its current location, then we could move it a few feet back into the Easement." Commissioner Krebs noted, "And if you were to do it the way we did with Fruitwood Lake, what kind of costs are we looking at doing it that way ?" Mr. Fields replied, "Twenty -five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) to re -plat. It's twenty (20) lots that have to change and get joined with those new portions of land and you have to get signatures from all banks and lien holders. And, it's just a long complicated process that I'm not sure I would recommend." Continuing, Commissioner Krebs asked, "And it could take how long ?" Mr. Fields responded, "It took about two (2) years - it's a twenty (20) part re -plat that needs everybody's signature including their Mortgage companies which in some cases had two (2), three (3), and four (4) signatures with it, and property gets sold or transferred, and as you're going along, you have to update it." PUBLIC INPUT Mayor Lacey recognized Seminole County Commissioner John Horan who was in attendance. Mr. Gary W. Brook, 1631 Wood Duck Drive, Winter Springs, Florida: commented that the wall in this community was always considered an individual home owners responsibility; and noted he was grateful for the City's interest; and his opinion was that the wall should be repaired or upgraded and suggested the City Commission consider Option 2. Mr. Jon Lee, 997 Sleeping Rock Court, Winter Springs, Florida: asked to review the Options. Discussion. Mr. Lee then mentioned that he thought it was the City's responsibility and said that he would only be willing to pay eighty ($80.00) to one hundred dollars ($100.00) dollars a year to maintain the wall; and thought there would be a lawsuit against the City should the City go with Option 3 and charge just the Unit 12/12A home owners the proposed costs under this Option. Ms. Virginia Cassady, 1629 Wood Duck Drive, Winter Springs, Florida: explained that her residence was three (3) houses down from the wall; mentioned she was an Attorney, and thought it would be "legally challengeable if you tried to assess all of the properties within the TLBD (Tuscawilla Lighting and Beautification District)" and thus thought any costs would fall on the home owners in Units 12/12A. Ms. Cassady also commented that Option 2 was probably the best choice; noted her concerns with wind load issues; and thanked the Mayor and City Commission for their selfless contributions. Mr. Milton A. "Al" Elgin, Jr., 994 Sleeping Rock Court, Winter Springs, Florida: agreed with Option 2 and thought that that the Assessment should be distributed evenly amongst all the Unit 12/12A home owners. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP — MARCH 28, 2012 PAGE 8 OF 12 Mayor Lacey asked, "Is it at our discretion whether that is a tiered approach or does the test require us to tier it so people further away have less responsibility ?" Mr. Trabor spoke for the Record and stated, "When we — move forward with the project, we would look at the actual physical layout of the parcels and just see what would be the best... Tape 2 /Side A a. sQ Continuing the discussion, Mr. Trabor added, "...Platted lots; there's another methodology we could use. We could look at Benefit Units like we did in Tuscawilla. There's a number of methodologies that we could legally use." Mr. Tim Jones, 1600 White Cloud Court, Winter Springs, Florida: thought that the one hundred and fifty feet (150) of wall which may be unsound, should be re- built; and questioned why the thirty -two thousand dollars ($32,000.00) was the same amount to repair or tear down the wall. Mr. Fields explained, "The firm number to demo is thirty -two [thousand dollars] ($32,000.00). When we looked at the replacement, we said we're really looking at up to thirty -two thousand [dollars] ($32,000.00) for this replacement section. The area they need to replace are at the turn -outs. They're higher walls, a little more complicated, a little more column work. We applied a higher unit price with that and also to essentially, to have it equal to the demo, we considered it up to be thirty -two thousand [dollars] ($32,000.00) for the re -build portion." Mr. Jones further addressed the City Commission and noted his preference for Option 2 and thought that it would not benefit the area if the wall was taken down. Mr. John Horan, 1612 Wood Duck Drive, Winter Springs, Florida: mentioned that he thought this was a Public Policy concern and that the problem was created in 1983; commented on certification concerns; and thought the City needs to solve this issue fairly for the City overall. Mr. Horan also mentioned that the one hundred and fifty feet (150) did not have to be replaced exactly and that the properties on the corner just needed some kind of a visual buffer from Winter Springs Boulevard; said he did not think any of the walls in the Tuscawilla community were built to current Code and that all other walls as they deteriorate, would probably be coming back to the City Commission for consideration; and that the City Commission should consider setting some standard for this and future wall issues. Mr. Ted Johnson, 1107 Pheasant Circle, Winter Springs, Florida: spoke on behalf of the Tuscawilla Homeowner's Association and that Option 2 was the best choice with some tweaks. Additionally, speaking as a resident, Mr. Johnson asked about wind velocity and the openings in the wall. Mr. Zaudtke addressed the wall openings and stated, "We did address that question. We did an evaluation of the open space on the wall. It is eighteen percent (18 %). In order to get credit in the Code, it would have to be more than sixty percent (60 %) open to be considered an open wall. Then they'd lessen the factor on the wind loads. Otherwise, it's considered a full load." Mr. Johnson then commented on a possible Straw Ballot and asked what might be included. Mr. Richart spoke on suggested wording that he would prefer. With further comments, Mr. Richart added, "If there's anything substantive we would definitely go back." Mr. Richart then said that "The tiering language - `Would the residents support tiering "' would be on the proposed Straw Ballot. Lastly, Mr. Johnson asked if readjusting the lines that define the right -of -ways might be done during this process, so this issue does not have to be readdressed again, at a later time. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP - MARCH 28, 2012 PAGE 9 OF 12 Mr. Jack Rutherford, 1634 Winter Springs Boulevard, Winter Springs, Florida: thanked the City Commission for considering this; spoke of the thirty -two thousand dollars ($32,000.00); suggested he might be in favor of Option 2 or Option 3; and thought the thirty -two thousand dollars ($32,000.00) should be reconsidered during any re- building phase; and suggested that a thirty (30) year old wall that needs re- building or replacing is a realistic time frame and hoped the City would put in some kind of wall there. ot Mr. Jon Lee, 997 Sleeping Rock Court, Winter Springs, Florida: again addressed the Mayor and City -' Commission and asked if the wall was re- built, would it be re -built on the right -of -way line? t= Mr. Richart responded by saying, "You don't have to. That would be the most equitable place to rebuild it." Mr. Lee then asked how the City could ask the residents of Unit 12/12A to be assessed for re- building the wall. Discussion followed on Assessments and special benefits. Ms. Joyce Sundman, 991 Sleeping Rock Court, Winter Springs, Florida: noted that she supported Option 2; that a vehicle previously damaged part of the wall abutting her home; that she and her husband had a Contractor do some pintucking on their part of the wall; thought that a wall benefitted their community; and noted her concerns with tiering and did not think a one -time Assessment Fee was a necessary option, and that the wall could be repaired. With further comments, Commissioner Brown stated, "I think we have always tried to be fair and represent the will of the citizens that live in our City." Discussion followed on the Oak Forest Assessment area, to which Commissioner Krebs asked that Staff explain the process and payment options further. Mr. Richart explained, "The annual Assessment, the way that that would work, is again, it comes on your annual Tax Bill. Those of you who have mortgages — it would be worked into your mortgage. Your mortgage company would account for that and you essentially - it would be broken up into your monthly payments. Those who do not have mortgages would pay it at — when your tax bill is due, that amount between eighty and one hundred and sixty dollars ($80.00 - $160.00), if it was tiered, based on where you were located." Continuing, Mr. Richart commented on the "One -time establishment cost" and said, "It's twenty -seven thousand dollars ($27,000.00) and that is to set up the assessment area. That's for all the due diligence, all the legal. There's a white paper on the tiering and the methodology of how it's all set up so it could be defended legally in Court — the Assessment area. So, that twenty -seven thousand dollars ($27,000.00) goes to the Consultants, the Attorneys and the Management Consultants that come in and set up the Assessment area. It has to be done, there's no way around it. That's a one -time cost. Now the City would have the option to break that up into payments or different segments or bill it all at once. That's something we could bill separately. It's something that could be billed as a one -time assessment on your tax bill. We would have the flexibility to do that anyway that we wanted to. If the City wanted to carry that cost for a couple of years and - make that payable in payments, that could be done as well; that's very negotiable." Additionally, Mr. Richart remarked, "Those are the two (2) scenarios. We could treat that one -time establishment cost as a capital component or we could treat it as a maintenance component, however we wanted to do it." With further discussion, Mr. Richart said, "Usually these type projects have a larger capital component and that's normally rolled into the capital cost; so, it's normally financed into the capital costs. It's a small number, generally compared to the project that's done." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP- MARCH 28, 2012 PAGE 10 OF 12 Deputy Mayor Bonner remarked about the support he heard for Option 2 this evening, and said, "I have heard some concern about a one -time establishment cost." Deputy Mayor Bonner continued, "Based on some concern about that, maybe an alternate way to sort of roll that in so it is not a bump as it were up front financially and then spread that out a little bit. That is what I am hearing." «l Ms. Pamela Carroll, 865 Dyson Drive, Winter Springs, Florida: commented on a previous Dyson Drive Straw°.''. Ballot and suggested that if a Straw Ballot is done, to fully make sure that there is adequate information to explain such details as tiered assessments; and thought if the wall was removed, property owner's might have some issues 'r regarding their yards being very open. Further discussion ensued on the difference between Equivalent Resident Units (ERU's) and Benefit Units, and related rates. Mr. Richart added, "The reason the three (3) tiered system works so well for Oak Forest is because they had that — beautification component; the noise issue, and the light issue — the noise issue from Tuscawilla Road; and the light issue - the further you get away from the wall, the less benefit you would have from that. So, that's how they set it up, the three (3) different factors that it involved in that Assessment." Additionally, Mr. Richart noted, "I don't know how much the noise and light abatement applies to this. This is something we have to get into - if this is approved to go forward and we create an Assessment area. We have to see what works, what system works. It could be a totally different system than we talked about tonight. It could be an ERU (Equivalent Resident Unit), which would allow us the ability to make it all one (1) cost." Mr. Richart then further commented on the turn-outs. Mr. John Horan, 1612 Wood Duck Drive, Winter Springs, Florida: again addressed the Mayor and City Commission on the clip areas and suggested that the City Commission consider using ninety thousand dollars ($90,000.00) and having the City pay the one -time Assessment Fee. Mr. Arsenio Calle, 110 Arrowhead Court, Winter Springs, Florida: commented on the City using City monies to pay for just one (1) area of the City. Mr. Traber spoke for the Record and remarked, "Certainly, around the State, we do these projects all over. Sometimes there are monies contributed to a project to alleviate some unfairness; circumstances where there is a benefit to the public in addition to the benefit to the local citizenry. There's also a requirement that those funds that are used, be for a public purpose." Discussion. Commissioner Cade Resnick commented on the thirty -two thousand dollars ($32,000.00) the City is offering to use for the wall issue and said, "The citizens are asking for more than that. That is what I am hearing this evening; and respectfully to the citizens in using those monies, other than liability and responsibility, asking for much more than that, could be an issue that we have to take to more than just these local citizens." Furthermore, Commissioner Resnick noted, "The cost of how we are going to go about replatting this or re- working these lines. Who are we going to ask to fund that? If we are not doing it the expensive way - we're just doing a land swap or how would we consider that, because that is additional monies that we would have to come up with some way. So, those are my two (2) major concerns as we are moving forward here." Commissioner Krebs asked about the cost of the Assessment District and if the assessed area had to pay or if the City could pay. Mr. Traber spoke for the Record and remarked, "It, more often than not, is wrapped into the Assessment area and the assessed properties do pay for it; so that the burden is not on the tax payers. Again, if a City or County contributes funds, it defends the contribution of those funds under a variety of ways, legally that we talked about earlier." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP — MARCH 28, 2012 PAGE 1 1 OF 12 Commissioner Krebs then stated, "I would really like to know what avenue we would take to transfer - that property that the wall sits on, if we were to leave it where it is — what avenue we would take and the cost of that avenue to transfer that. That I would need to know before I could make a decision on something like this. We have to have all of the numbers so we know, and so do they." Mr. Traber explained, "If you contribute funds, you have got to have a reason or Public Policy reason as to why those funds are contributed; and a legally available revenue source." Mr. Trabor suggested that Ad Valorem or other taxes could be used and that there are various revenue sources that could be used for a project such as this. Commissioner Krebs asked, "Is there still an ongoing cost that Oak Forest pays for an outside agency to handle the Assessment District ?" Mr. Richart stated, "Yes - every year." Commissioner Krebs added, "So, that also has to be included... Mr. Richart stated, "...Yes - it's including the twenty -five hundred [dollars] ($2,500.00) for the ongoing cost." Mayor Lacey closed the "Public Input" portion of the Agenda Item. Further discussion. Tape 2 /Side B Discussion followed on Easements and possibly asking for a commitment letter from the six percent (6 %) of the property owners that have a part of this wall on their property. Deputy Mayor Bonner suggested that property owners be contacted to see if they would donate a portion of their property if part of the wall was on a portion of their property. Commissioner Krebs commented that it seemed like most people in attendance at this Workshop preferred Option 2 and "I would like to see Option number 2 — cooted out better than what we have here. And then, once we have that, also probably to your point, check with those home owners that have the pieces on their property where we could find out whether or not - like you, a letter of intent. I think once we have that we can look at — then we can actually formulate the question." Commissioner Krebs noted she would like to proceed this way, and "Let's get the facts." Deputy Mayor Bonner and Commissioner Resnick agreed. Mr. Richart remarked, "I believe these areas that are on private property would be demolished and re -built to Code under Option 2. Mr. Fields added, "There are eight (8) properties - of the six percent (6 %), the private property owners, five (5) of those have sections of the wall that would be recommended for replacement. So, we certainly have no problem contacting all eight (8), explaining to them what Option 2 is, what the intent would be and coming up, the best we can with some costs to represent that, if and when a Straw Ballot is sent out." 1 Manager Smith pointed out, "Relative to Option 2, I'd recommend that we go back, contact the property owners affected on the lots that Brian (Fields) referenced; cost out the data as appropriate; bring back an Agenda Item to you all with that information and proposed Ballot language for approval to send out that Ballot, and go from there." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP — MARCH 28, 2012 PAGE 12 OF 12 Commissioner Krebs then said to Manager Smith, "Can we find out what the most economical way to — whether it be transference or you said something about a whole lot — tract? Can we also find out what those options are for us ?" Manager Smith responded, "We absolutely will include that in our analysis that will come back to you all." : a Mayor Lacey asked Manager Smith what Commission meeting he would have this information. Manager Smith was not able to suggest an exact City Commission Meeting date when the information requested would be available for the City Commission. Commissioner Krebs then asked that eAlerts be sent to interested citizens advising them which upcoming City Commission meeting will further address this issue. Manager Smith said, "Certainly we will do it as soon as possible." Furthermore, Mayor Lacey said to Manager Smith, "Can we commit to having — a special notice on the Website for people to check — they will come to the City's Website and they will see that this issue is on the Agenda ?" Manager Smith replied, "Absolutely." Commissioner Krebs then suggested that something be added to the Board, to which Manager Smith responded by saying, "Certainly, communication is key." ADJOURNMENT Mayor Lacey adjourned the Workshop at 8:30 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ANDREA LORENZO- LUACES, MMC CITY CLERK APPROVED: MAYOR CHARLES LACEY NOTE: These Minutes were approved at the 1 2012 City Commission Regular Meeting. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS FLORIDA 0 I. � z v c o n Incorporate 1959 CITY COMMISSION MINUTES WORKSHOP WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2012 — 6:00 P.M. CITY HALL — COMMISSION CHAMBERS 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434, WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA Mayor Charles Lacey Deputy Mayor Gary Bonner - Seat Three Commissioner Jean Hovey - Seat One Commissioner Rick Brown - Seat Two Commissioner Cade Resnick - Seat Four Commissioner Joanne M. Krebs - Seat Five CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP - MARCH 28, 2012 PAGE 2 OF 12 CALL TO ORDER The Workshop of Wednesday, March 28, 2012 of the City Commission was called to Order by Mayor Charles Lacey at 6:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of the Municipal Building (City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida 32708). City Manager Kevin L. Smith mentioned they had been advised that there would be a Planning Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC) meeting on Thursday, April 12, 2012 and that Mr. Randy Stevenson, AICP, ASLA, Director, Community Development Department would be attending this Planning Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC) meeting. Next, Manager Smith advised the Mayor and City Commission that a letter would be sent tomorrow, to Seminole County Public Schools' School Board related to the City Commission Appointing Mayor Lacey to the Public Schools Facilities Planning Committee (PSFPC) Lastly, Manager Smith noted that the next Advisory Board/Committee due to present to the Mayor and City Commission was to be the Board of Trustees, at the April 9, 2012 City Commission Regular Meeting; but, as both the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson were unable to attend the April 9, 2012 City Commission Regular Meeting, the Board of Trustees' presentation would be rescheduled. Roll Call: Mayor Charles Lacey, present Deputy Mayor Gary Bonner present Commissioner Jean Hovey, present Commissioner Rick Brown, present Commissioner Cade Resnick, present Commissioner Joanne M. Krebs, present City Manager Kevin L. Smith, present City Attorney Anthony A. Garganese, present City Clerk Andrea Lorenzo - Luaces, present Mayor Lacey briefly addressed tonight's Workshop and the Agenda. PUBLIC INPUT No one spoke at this time. REGULAR AGENDA REGULAR 600. Community Development Department REQUEST: The Community Development Department requests that the City Commission hold a second public workshop to review additional information regarding the Tuscawilla Units 12/12A Wall. Mr. Brian Fields, P.E., City Engineer, Public Works Department introduced the Staff in attendance and also showed some presentation slides and commented on factors related to this Workshop and the Tuscawilla Units 12/12A Wall. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP - MARCH 28, 2012 PAGE 3 OF 12 Mr. Terry Zaudtke, P.E., DEE, Executive Vice President, CPH Engineers, 1117 East Robinson Street, Orlando, Florida: addressed the Mayor and City Commission on the structural elements of the Tuscawilla Units 12/12A Wall. Mr. Steve Richart, Urban Beautification Division Services, Community Development Department reviewed Option 1, Option 2, and Option 3 for everyone's consideration. Mr. Christopher M. Traber, Esquire, Nabors Giblin & Nickerson, P.A., 2502 Rocky Point Drive, Suite 1060, Tampa, Florida: spoke for the Record, and noted that his firm serves as Special Assessment Counsel to the City of Winter Springs. Continuing, Mr. Traber commented, "I will just digress a little bit on the scenario that we looked at in terms of why not just pay for the Wall from the existing pot of money sitting there from the Tuscawilla Assessment areas. We've already got the procedures in place, the funding mechanism is there, and really as Steven (Richart) pointed out, you've got to analyze it based on those two (2) Florida requirements. I think a lot of people can probably correctly argue that there is some special benefit to having these walls repaired because everyone in the Tuscawilla area drives right by them, versus someone over at the Town Center that may never drive by them. So, there is sort of an argument for a small special benefit that may exist to the entire area. The problem is when you get to that second prong, can you look at the history of the funding in the area, where we've made the other property owners or builders when they first were built, fund those walls out of their own monies or what the builders pass on to them via the cost of the houses. That could create a potential legal problem for the City going forward if you suddenly decide to not only have those people pay for their own walls but then have them pay for someone else's wall. Now that's not to say that you couldn't have a scenario to eliminate that risk. One of the things you could do, while unlikely because of the dollars involved here, would be to put everyone on the same page on day one (1) and that is, perhaps buy those other walls into the Tuscawilla area; compensate those HOA's (Homeowner's Association's) for the walls and then create a Maintenance and Capital Fund going forward, to keep all those walls at the same level of maintenance going forward; then everyone would be paying sort of for the same benefit going forward, but you'd have to come up with the funds to purchase those other walls. Obviously that may create some real estate issues and other political issues but I mean legally you could do it under that scenario, at least, it would put everyone on the same page." Deputy Mayor Gary Bonner noted, "Your statement about the legal challenge - is that based on any precedent or Case Law that you are aware of or is that your assumption as an Attorney who specializes in this area ?" Mr. Traber replied, "More the latter. In other words, our recommendation would be that would pose a litigation risk to the City. In the end, it's the City's decision whether or not they want to incur that potential risk or do something safer. But in my legal opinion, it presents a risk." Deputy Mayor Bonner commented, "Okay, it is your legal opinion as a specialist in this area ?" Mr. Traber responded, "Yes." Discussion. Mr. Richart commented, "We'd like to see the Commission authorize a non - binding Straw Ballot to the lot owners on this issue and the results could be brought back to the City Commission at a Regular Meeting. And on that (Straw) Ballot, we'd like to have one item that would say — `As the citizens, we would approve doing this' or `Reject it'. So, we could find out what the community feels about this issue. We've done this in the past with several of our programs. It's given us really good feedback. We'd like to suggest that for this issue." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP — MARCH 28, 2012 PAGE 4 OF 12 Manager Smith remarked, "If I could just summarize what we presented and add a little bit more information to what we presented from Staff tonight. Obviously, the first thing that we wanted to do is to give you all the information, the audience, the information that we promised from the previous meeting to include the Survey and so on and so forth. And then obviously that would lead to the question of `What do we do with it ?' And that's why we tried to put some options in place just for discussion purposes. Certainly there are probably a multitude of additional options that can be considered but just for the purposes of starting a conversation. As you looked at the results of the Survey, you saw that some eighty percent (80 %) of the wall was either in the right -of -way or touching on the right -of -way. That presents a problem to the City from the standpoint of typically, we don't want things in our right -of -way, for a variety of reasons. The biggest one being liability." Continuing, Manager Smith remarked, "In my opinion, and in consulting with Staff, it's in the City's best interest to cure that deficiency to remove that wall. As Brian (Fields) articulated earlier, it's a cost in the neighborhood of thirty -two thousand dollars ($32,000.00) to do so. So, one option, and again you know I like to present all options, good or bad, one option would be to remove the wall and for the City to incur that cost. As we talked about potential other options including repairing and replacing the wall in Assessment Programs, I thought it reasonable that if we were going to spend thirty -two thousand dollars ($32,000.00) of City funds to demolish the wall, then we could take that same funding and apply it towards any other options that we may all consider tonight." Further comments. Discussion followed on not being able to go onto private property; and possible Code Enforcement issues; and if the wall needed to removed, the City would need to get the permission from the property owners. Tape 1/Side B With additional remarks, Deputy Mayor Bonner noted, "In the scenario where the wall is replaced, would the wall be replaced where it is located or would it actually be replaced into the Easement? What would be normal protocol as opposed to this situation ?" Mr. Fields stated, "I would recommend, if the wall were replaced from the Engineering standpoint of replacing it in its current location, and obtaining the documentation legally to have that be part of what would normally be an HOA (Homeowner's Association). To move the wall to a different location, I think you introduce new issues that create higher costs. The most efficient location is to put it back where it was. You've got irrigation, trees, sidewalk issues." Further comments followed on Easements and fences. Mr. Fields explained, "Walls in new Subdivisions are typically built in a tract that is dedicated and owned and maintained by an HOA (Homeowner's Association). That is the ideal way to put in a new wall, that is outside of somebody's property; it's a landscape tract or entirely within an Easement that's dedicated to and maintained by an HOA (Homeowner's Association)." Deputy Mayor Bonner then said, "So, that would be special property as it were that belongs to the HOA (Homeowner's Association), where the wall resides, or the City could dedicate an Easement to that purpose ?" Mr. Fields stated, "You could do that here." Discussion ensued on Easements and right -of -ways and that presently, Winter Springs Boulevard has some infrastructure constructed in medians and right -of -ways and the long term maintenance responsibilities belong to the Tuscawilla Lighting and Beautification District and should be perpetually maintained. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP - MARCH 28, 2012 PAGE 5 OF 12 Commissioner Rick Brown commented, "My understanding always was, when you go through major repair or rebuild, that is the opportunity and the obligation then to make sure that it meets the new Code. Is that not correct ?" Mr. Fields stated, "Yes." Commissioner Brown then asked, "So, how could we do repair in the right -of -way, maintaining the old Code standards and not bringing up to Code ?" Manager Smith commented, "We wouldn't, we would bring it up to the new Code standards for those portions that we would repair." Manager Smith added, "The one hundred and fifty feet (150')." Mr. Fields further explained by saying, "What we'd replace would be brought up to current Code. The repairs would be to use the term `Cosmetic' repairs. If you did a structural repair, it would have to be brought up to Code." Continuing, Mr. Fields noted the differences and remarked, "Cosmetic repair would improve the appearance of the wall; would not improve the structural integrity to meet those items that Terry (Zaudtke) listed in bullet points; would make the wall look better; would be maybe more weatherproof. It could extend the aesthetic life of the wall, but would not help it withstand that wind load per current Code." Mr. Fields further said, "We've identified a hundred and fifty feet (150') that we felt like did cross the threshold of being hazardous. The remaining hasn't reached that in my opinion. But, we would continue to monitor it." Mr. Zaudtke explained, "The addition of those columns and changing the footing would be structural repairs. Cosmetic repairs would be the tuckpointing that I talked about on the one wall, cutting out the mortar and then re- doing the mortar. And then, where the tops of the parapets have been pushed out to the expansion, you'd have to go in and remove one of the bricks in the soldier row to prevent that from continuing to push, and then cosmetically would rebuild what was there. You wouldn't do a structural repair there." Commissioner Joanne M. Krebs commented to Mr. Fields, "It is never going to get any better than what it is today ?" Mr. Fields replied, "No." With further remarks, Commissioner Krebs asked Mr. Richart how much the Oak Forest wall cost? Mr. Richart thought it was over a million dollars and added, "I'd have to look exactly." Related to Option 2, Mr. Richart remarked, "What this would do, it would allow us to budget five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) per year to come in and do maintenance and cosmetic repairs - I know that Davenport Glen had some cosmetic repairs done; Glen Eagle recently in the last couple years had cosmetic repairs. And that's essentially stuff like filling the grout, replacing loose bricks, regrouting stuff in. Again it wouldn't be anything structural; however, there would be some component of the grout bonding with other bricks and stuff; the grout would bond but it wouldn't affect the structural integrity of the wall. It would be more cosmetic. It would be cleaning and sealing the wall. I feel like cosmetically, it would extend the visual life of the wall and bring it back to looking pretty decent. However, `Would it extend how long it would stand', probably not. The question is `How long will it stand ?' Well, we don't know. I'd like to think you could get - many years out it. Part of this plan would be to get an Assessment Program initiated; get the maintenance started and see where that takes us. And as we go along, each year we could say `Okay, well next year we might need to replace that section' and at that time, we could deal with an upgrade or a replacement." Furthermore, Mr. Richart noted, "If an Assessment Program is initiated and this area is given over to an Assessment District for maintenance, it would become the Assessment District's responsibility to pay for that and it could be insured. The wall could be put under the Insurance Policy; so, that if a tree fell on it or something happened, that would be covered under that Policy, then it could be insured and replaced. I do not believe the Insurance companies do a structural evaluation on these walls. Could be wrong, I haven't seen that before. The way it sits now, if a tree falls on the wall or something happens where we couldn't get a claim against `Whomever', then the wall wouldn't be repaired unless the City stepped in." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP - MARCH 28, 2012 PAGE 6 OF 12 Manager Smith stated, "Going back to Option 1, that was to demolish the wall at a cost of thirty -two thousand dollars ($32,000.00). Option 2, we felt like we would take that thirty -two thousand dollars ($32,000.00) that the City needed to expend to cure the deficiency and utilize that thirty -two thousand dollars ($32,000.00) to address the most deficient areas of the wall, the most dangerous areas of the wall; the hundred and fifty feet (150') that Brian (Fields) talked about. So, those one hundred and fifty feet (150'), mostly on the turn-outs, we would use the thirty -two thousand dollars ($32,000.00) in City monies to demolish and rebuild that wall. At that point in time, we're done with the City funding from this standpoint; however, there is an ongoing maintenance aspect and that's where Steven (Richart) is suggesting that we would institute an Assessment Program similar to what other programs we do in TLBD (Tuscawilla Lighting and Beautification District) for the ongoing maintenance. That is essentially Option 2." Commissioner Krebs then remarked, "On the part of the wall that is on City property, if we were to remove it and if the citizens decided they wanted a wall, where would it go? And how would you acquire that property? Does it have to be acquired? Can it go on an Easement? Do you need permission? How do you get there ?" Mr. Fields responded and said, "From the Engineering standpoint, like I said, recommend building it in the same place. You're going to dig out a footing, put back the footing in the same place. Minimal, incidental impacts, if that can be legally done - I guess that would be the question. And if that's our goal, is there a way that can be done and remove at least to the Commission and the Attorney's satisfaction, the liability that would be with that in the right -of- way." Commissioner Krebs inquired, "Leave it in the right -of- way ?" Mr. Fields replied, "Yes, if either by taking that land and transferring it and essentially adjusting the right -of -way or having some other instrument to create the ownership obligation..." Mayor Lacey stated, "...I don't think you meant to leave it in the right -of -way - leave it where it is and make it something else." Mr. Fields commented, "Yes, exactly." Next, Commissioner Krebs said, "Like we did with the lake ?" Mr. Fields replied, "Yes, adjust the property lines around the wall but don't physically move the wall location." Further discussion followed on Assessment related costs and wall damages. Ms. Joyce Sundman, 991 Sleeping Rock Court, Winter Springs, Florida: commented on damage from a vehicle to the wall abutting their home and related Insurance issues. Discussion ensued. Mr. Richart remarked, "Options 1 and 3 would actually require at least the same amount of tree removal to come in and demo, you would get into the trees there; and then Option 3 to rebuild - you would definitely take out many trees that you wouldn't take out with Option 2. Option 2 would be the minimal. Now the good thing is, we have a new Tree Ordinance that would allow us to remove a tree that affects the structure without the replacement credit. So, that would aid us in dealing with this issue." Commissioner Krebs said to Mr. Fields, "Where the wall is on our property and were you to work that so that it became part of the home owners property - when we did that on that lake, there was a cost." Mr. Fields explained, "There was a large cost with that. We re- platted that property. That's the most expensive way. That gives the property to the individual home owner times twenty (20). If you handled it that way, it'd be an exercise in cost. There may be a way to have a narrow strip of land dedicated. You normally dedicate it to an HOA (Homeowner's Association). CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP - MARCH 28, 2012 PAGE 7 OF 12 If there is no HOA (Homeowner's Association) here, you'd have to find some other entity to just to dedicate that one tract which is a much simpler process. So, that's why changing the actual right -of -way line could be difficult, could be costly, and maybe there's another legal instrument that could remove the liability and not change the right -of -way line." Discussion followed on vacating right -of -ways with City Attorney Anthony A. Garganese. Mr. Fields commented, "You could reach the point where we just looked at options and they weren't there and you did not have to move it onto the Easement entirely. If we just didn't find a satisfactory way to leave it in its current location, then we could move it a few feet back into the Easement." Commissioner Krebs noted, "And if you were to do it the way we did with Fruitwood Lake, what kind of costs are we looking at doing it that way ?" Mr. Fields replied, "Twenty -five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) to re -plat. It's twenty (20) lots that have to change and get joined with those new portions of land and you have to get signatures from all banks and lien holders. And, it's just a long complicated process that I'm not sure I would recommend." Continuing, Commissioner Krebs asked, "And it could take how long ?" Mr. Fields responded, "It took about two (2) years - it's a twenty (20) part re -plat that needs everybody's signature including their Mortgage companies which in some cases had two (2), three (3), and four (4) signatures with it, and property gets sold or transferred, and as you're going along, you have to update it." PUBLIC INPUT Mayor Lacey recognized Seminole County Commissioner John Horan who was in attendance. Mr. Gary W Brook, 1631 Wood Duck Drive, Winter Springs, Florida: commented that the wall in this community was always considered an individual home owners responsibility; and noted he was grateful for the City's interest; and his opinion was that the wall should be repaired or upgraded and suggested the City Commission consider Option 2. Mr. Jon Lee, 997 Sleeping Rock Court, Winter Springs, Florida: asked to review the Options. Discussion. Mr. Lee then mentioned that he thought it was the City's responsibility and said that he would only be willing to pay eighty ($80.00) to one hundred dollars ($100.00) dollars a year to maintain the wall; and thought there would be a lawsuit against the City should the City go with Option 3 and charge just the Unit 12/12A home owners the proposed costs under this Option. Ms. Virginia Cassady, 1629 Wood Duck Drive, Winter Springs, Florida: explained that her residence was three (3) houses down from the wall; mentioned she was an Attorney, and thought it would be "legally challengeable if you tried to assess all of the properties within the TLBD (Tuscawilla Lighting and Beautification District)" and thus thought any costs would fall on the home owners in Units 12/12A. Ms. Cassady also commented that Option 2 was probably the best choice; noted her concerns with wind load issues; and thanked the Mayor and City Commission for their selfless contributions. Mr. Milton A. `Al" Elgin, Jr., 994 Sleeping Rock Court, Winter Springs, Florida: agreed with Option 2 and thought that that the Assessment should be distributed evenly amongst all the Unit 12/12A home owners. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP — MARCH 28, 2012 PAGE 8 OF 12 Mayor Lacey asked, "Is it at our discretion whether that is a tiered approach or does the test require us to tier it so people further away have less responsibility ?" Mr. Trabor spoke for the Record and stated, "When we — move forward with the project, we would look at the actual physical layout of the parcels and just see what would be the best... Tape 2 /Side A Continuing the discussion, Mr. Trabor added, "...Platted lots; there's another methodology we could use. We could look at Benefit Units like we did in Tuscawilla. There's a number of methodologies that we could legally use." Mr. Tim Jones, 1600 White Cloud Court, Winter Springs, Florida: thought that the one hundred and fifty feet (150') of wall which may be unsound, should be re- built; and questioned why the thirty -two thousand dollars ($32,000.00) was the same amount to repair or tear down the wall. Mr. Fields explained, "The firm number to demo is thirty -two [thousand dollars] ($32,000.00). When we looked at the replacement, we said we're really looking at up to thirty-two thousand [dollars] ($32,000.00) for this replacement section. The area they need to replace are at the turn-outs. They're higher walls, a little more complicated, a little more column work. We applied a higher unit price with that and also to essentially, to have it equal to the demo, we considered it up to be thirty -two thousand [dollars] ($32,000.00) for the re -build portion." Mr. Jones further addressed the City Commission and noted his preference for Option 2 and thought that it would not benefit the area if the wall was taken down. Mr. John Horan, 1612 Wood Duck Drive, Winter Springs, Florida: mentioned that he thought this was a Public Policy concern and that the problem was created in 1983; commented on certification concerns; and thought the City needs to solve this issue fairly for the City overall. Mr. Horan also mentioned that the one hundred and fifty feet (150') did not have to be replaced exactly and that the properties on the comer just needed some kind of a visual buffer from Winter Springs Boulevard; said he did not think any of the walls in the Tuscawilla community were built to current Code and that all other walls as they deteriorate, would probably be coming back to the City Commission for consideration; and that the City Commission should consider setting some standard for this and future wall issues. Mr. Ted Johnson, 1107 Pheasant Circle, Winter Springs, Florida: spoke on behalf of the Tuscawilla Homeowner's Association and that Option 2 was the best choice with some tweaks. Additionally, speaking as a resident, Mr. Johnson asked about wind velocity and the openings in the wall. Mr. Zaudtke addressed the wall openings and stated, "We did address that question. We did an evaluation of the open space on the wall. It is eighteen percent (18 %). In order to get credit in the Code, it would have to be more than sixty percent (60 %) open to be considered an open wall. Then they'd lessen the factor on the wind loads. Otherwise, it's considered a full load." Mr. Johnson then commented on a possible Straw Ballot and asked what might be included. Mr. Richart spoke on suggested wording that he would prefer. With further comments, Mr. Richart added, "If there's anything substantive we would definitely go back." Mr. Richart then said that "The tiering language - 'Would the residents support tiering ' would be on the proposed Straw Ballot. Lastly, Mr. Johnson asked if readjusting the lines that define the right -of -ways might be done during this process, so this issue does not have to be readdressed again, at a later time. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP- MARCH 28, 2012 PAGE 9 OF 12 Mr. Jack Rutherford, 1634 Winter Springs Boulevard, Winter Springs, Florida: thanked the City Commission for considering this; spoke of the thirty -two thousand dollars ($32,000.00); suggested he might be in favor of Option 2 or Option 3; and thought the thirty -two thousand dollars ($32,000.00) should be reconsidered during any re- building phase; and suggested that a thirty (30) year old wall that needs re- building or replacing is a realistic time frame and hoped the City would put in some kind of wall there. Mr. Jon Lee, 997 Sleeping Rock Court, Winter Springs, Florida: again addressed the Mayor and City Commission and asked if the wall was re- built, would it be re -built on the right -of -way line? Mr. Richart responded by saying, "You don't have to. That would be the most equitable place to rebuild it." Mr. Lee then asked how the City could ask the residents of Unit 12/12A to be assessed for re- building the wall. Discussion followed on Assessments and special benefits. Ms. Joyce Sundman, 991 Sleeping Rock Court, Winter Springs, Florida: noted that she supported Option 2; that a vehicle previously damaged part of the wall abutting her home; that she and her husband had a Contractor do some pintucking on their part of the wall; thought that a wall benefitted their community; and noted her concerns with tiering and did not think a one -time Assessment Fee was a necessary option, and that the wall could be repaired. With further comments, Commissioner Brown stated, "I think we have always tried to be fair and represent the will of the citizens that live in our City." Discussion followed on the Oak Forest Assessment area, to which Commissioner Krebs asked that Staff explain the process and payment options further. Mr. Richart explained, "The annual Assessment, the way that that would work, is again, it comes on your annual Tax Bill. Those of you who have mortgages — it would be worked into your mortgage. Your mortgage company would account for that and you essentially - it would be broken up into your monthly payments. Those who do not have mortgages would pay it at — when your tax bill is due, that amount between eighty and one hundred and sixty dollars ($80.00 - $160.00), if it was tiered, based on where you were located." Continuing, Mr. Richart commented on the "One -time establishment cost" and said, "It's twenty -seven thousand dollars ($27,000.00) and that is to set up the assessment area. That's for all the due diligence, all the legal. There's a white paper on the tiering and the methodology of how it's all set up so it could be defended legally in Court — the Assessment area. So, that twenty -seven thousand dollars ($27,000.00) goes to the Consultants, the Attorneys and the Management Consultants that come in and set up the Assessment area. It has to be done, there's no way around it. That's a one -time cost. Now the City would have the option to break that up into payments or different segments or bill it all at once. That's something we could bill separately. It's something that could be billed as a one -time assessment on your tax bill. We would have the flexibility to do that anyway that we wanted to. If the City wanted to carry that cost for a couple of years and - make that payable in payments, that could be done as well; that's very negotiable." Additionally, Mr. Richart remarked, "Those are the two (2) scenarios. We could treat that one -time establishment cost as a capital component or we could treat it as a maintenance component, however we wanted to do it." With further discussion, Mr. Richart said, "Usually these type projects have a larger capital component and that's normally rolled into the capital cost; so, it's normally financed into the capital costs. It's a small number, generally compared to the project that's done." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP- MARCH 28, 2012 PAGE 10 OF 12 Deputy Mayor Bonner remarked about the support he heard for Option 2 this evening, and said, "I have heard some concern about a one -time establishment cost." Deputy Mayor Bonner continued, "Based on some concern about that, maybe an alternate way to sort of roll that in so it is not a bump as it were up front financially and then spread that out a little bit. That is what I am hearing." Ms. Pamela Carroll, 865 Dyson Drive, Winter Springs, Florida: commented on a previous Dyson Drive Straw Ballot and suggested that if a Straw Ballot is done, to fully make sure that there is adequate information to explain such details as tiered assessments; and thought if the wall was removed, property owner's might have some issues regarding their yards being very open. Further discussion ensued on the difference between Equivalent Resident Units (ERU's) and Benefit Units, and related rates. Mr. Richart added, "The reason the three (3) tiered system works so well for Oak Forest is because they had that — beautification component; the noise issue, and the light issue — the noise issue from Tuscawilla Road; and the light issue - the further you get away from the wall, the less benefit you would have from that. So, that's how they set it up, the three (3) different factors that it involved in that Assessment." Additionally, Mr. Richart noted, "I don't know how much the noise and light abatement applies to this. This is something we have to get into - if this is approved to go forward and we create an Assessment area. We have to see what works, what system works. It could be a totally different system than we talked about tonight. It could be an ERU (Equivalent Resident Unit), which would allow us the ability to make it all one (1) cost." Mr. Richart then further commented on the turn-outs. Mr. John Horan, 1612 Wood Duck Drive, Winter Springs, Florida: again addressed the Mayor and City Commission on the clip areas and suggested that the City Commission consider using ninety thousand dollars ($90,000.00) and having the City pay the one -time Assessment Fee. Mr. Arsenio Calle, 110 Arrowhead Court, Winter Springs, Florida: commented on the City using City monies to pay for just one (1) area of the City. Mr. Traber spoke for the Record and remarked, "Certainly, around the State, we do these projects all over. Sometimes there are monies contributed to a project to alleviate some unfairness; circumstances where there is a benefit to the public in addition to the benefit to the local citizenry. There's also a requirement that those funds that are used, be for a public purpose." Discussion. Commissioner Cade Resnick commented on the thirty -two thousand dollars ($32,000.00) the City is offering to use for the wall issue and said, "The citizens are asking for more than that. That is what I am hearing this evening; and respectfully to the citizens in using those monies, other than liability and responsibility, asking for much more than that, could be an issue that we have to take to more than just these local citizens." Furthermore, Commissioner Resnick noted, "The cost of how we are going to go about replatting this or re- working these lines. Who are we going to ask to fund that? If we are not doing it the expensive way - we're just doing a land swap or how would we consider that, because that is additional monies that we would have to come up with some way. So, those are my two (2) major concerns as we are moving forward here." Commissioner Krebs asked about the cost of the Assessment District and if the assessed area had to pay or if the City could pay. Mr. Traber spoke for the Record and remarked, "It, more often than not, is wrapped into the Assessment area and the assessed properties do pay for it; so that the burden is not on the tax payers. Again, if a City or County contributes funds, it defends the contribution of those funds under a variety of ways, legally that we talked about earlier." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP — MARCH 28, 2012 PAGE 11 OF 12 Commissioner Krebs then stated, "I would really like to know what avenue we would take to transfer - that property that the wall sits on, if we were to leave it where it is — what avenue we would take and the cost of that avenue to transfer that. That I would need to know before I could make a decision on something like this. We have to have all of the numbers so we know, and so do they." Mr. Traber explained, "If you contribute funds, you have got to have a reason or Public Policy reason as to why those funds are contributed; and a legally available revenue source." Mr. Trabor suggested that Ad Valorem or other taxes could be used and that there are various revenue sources that could be used for a project such as this. Commissioner Krebs asked, "Is there still an ongoing cost that Oak Forest pays for an outside agency to handle the Assessment District ?" Mr. Richart stated, "Yes - every year." Commissioner Krebs added, "So, that also has to be included... Mr. Richart stated, "...Yes - it's including the twenty -five hundred [dollars] ($2,500.00) for the ongoing cost." Mayor Lacey closed the "Public Input" portion of the Agenda Item. Further discussion. Tape 2 /Side B Discussion followed on Easements and possibly asking for a commitment letter from the six percent (6 %) of the property owners that have a part of this wall on their property. Deputy Mayor Bonner suggested that property owners be contacted to see if they would donate a portion of their property if part of the wall was on a portion of their property. Commissioner Krebs commented that it seemed like most people in attendance at this Workshop preferred Option 2 and "I would like to see Option number 2 — costed out better than what we have here. And then, once we have that, also probably to your point, check with those home owners that have the pieces on their property where we could find out whether or not - like you, a letter of intent. I think once we have that we can look at — then we can actually formulate the question." Commissioner Krebs noted she would like to proceed this way, and "Let's get the facts." Deputy Mayor Bonner and Commissioner Resnick agreed. Mr. Richart remarked, "I believe these areas that are on private property would be demolished and re -built to Code under Option 2. Mr. Fields added, "There are eight (8) properties - of the six percent (6 %), the private property owners, five (5) of those have sections of the wall that would be recommended for replacement. So, we certainly have no problem contacting all eight (8), explaining to them what Option 2 is, what the intent would be and coming up, the best we can with some costs to represent that, if and when a Straw Ballot is sent out." Manager Smith pointed out, "Relative to Option 2, I'd recommend that we go back, contact the property owners affected on the lots that Brian (Fields) referenced; cost out the data as appropriate; bring back an Agenda Item to you all with that information and proposed Ballot language for approval to send out that Ballot, and go from there." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP — MARCH 28, 2012 PAGE 12 OF 12 Commissioner Krebs then said to Manager Smith, "Can we find out what the most economical way to — whether it be transference or you said something about a whole lot — tract? Can we also find out what those options are for us ?" Manager Smith responded, "We absolutely will include that in our analysis that will come back to you all." Mayor Lacey asked Manager Smith what Commission meeting he would have this information. Manager Smith was not able to suggest an exact City Commission Meeting date when the information requested would be available for the City Commission. Commissioner Krebs then asked that eAlerts be sent to interested citizens advising them which upcoming City Commission meeting will further address this issue. Manager Smith said, "Certainly we will do it as soon as possible." Furthermore, Mayor Lacey said to Manager Smith, "Can we commit to having — a special notice on the Website for people to check — they will come to the City's Website and they will see that this issue is on the Agenda ?" Manager Smith replied, "Absolutely." Commissioner Krebs then suggested that something be added to the Board, to which Manager Smith responded by saying, "Certainly, communication is key." ADJOURNMENT Mayor Lacey adjourned the Workshop at 8:30 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: i • _,' fl i RENZO- LUACES, MMC CITY CLERK APPROVED: Ilf I NOTE: These Minutes were approved at the April 23, 2012 City Commission Regular Meeting.