Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025 07 14 Regular 501 - Objection Memo provided by Applicant AttorneyM E M O R A N D U M To: Winter Springs City Commission (“City”) From: Tuskawilla Retail Partners II, LLC (“Developer”) Date: July 14, 2025 Re: Objection to Regular Agenda Item 501 on the July 14, 2025 City Commission Meeting Agenda (the “Reconsideration Request”) Background Information: This memorandum is provided by Developer in objection to the City’s Reconsideration Request that has been improperly advanced and set for hearing by the City Commission on July 14, 2025. The Reconsideration Request relates to certain Tree Mitigation Fees imposed upon Developer’s project (Item 404, approved by the City during the June 23, 2025 City Commission meeting) which were paid in full pursuant to a prior Development Agreement between City and Developer dated March 10, 2015 (the “Development Agreement”), and states as follows: The City Commission’s lawful vote on June 23, 2025 (the “Approval Vote”) deemed that tree mitigation fees associated with Arbor Application ARBOR-2025-0210 had been satisfied pursuant to the Development Agreement’s terms, which clearly stated that such fees had already been paid for the Developer’s Project (as the same is defined therein). The Approval Vote was appropriately conducted, fully valid under City law and approved by Commissioners Diaz, Bruce, and Caruso. Importantly, the Mayor did not cast a vote in the Approval Vote, as there was no tie vote of the Commission – pursuant to Section 4.05 of the City Charter, the Mayor only votes in that circumstance. Also importantly, no motion for reconsideration was made during the June 23, 2025 hearing. The Reconsideration Request improperly seeks review of the Approval Vote via a motion for reconsideration initiated by the Mayor after the original hearing has concluded and, alternatively, rejection of the Approval Vote via a mayoral veto. Under the City Charter, the Mayor does not have the authority to take either action. As such, we respectfully urge the Commission to: • Affirm the validity of its June 23, 2025 vote; • Reject the mayor’s unauthorized attempt at a veto; and • Decline any effort to reopen the item as no proper motion to reconsider was made following the procedures under the City Charter and Roberts Rules of Order. Legal Bases for Objection: A. The Reconsideration Request Does Not Meet City Requirements Pursuant to the City Charter, any challenge to the Approval Vote must proceed via a properly filed motion to reconsider—not via unilateral mayoral action. Section 2-27(d) of the City Charter and the Commission’s Uniform Rules of Procedure adopt Robert’s Rules of Order as the procedural standard. Per Robert’s Rules of Order: • A motion to reconsider must be made by a commissioner on the prevailing side of the original vote, • It must be made during the same meeting as the original vote, • It must be seconded, and • The vote to reconsider must pass by majority before the item can be reopened. As such, the proper way to revisit the Approval Vote is by a motion to reconsider, governed by the City Charter and Roberts Rules of Order as follows: 1. A commissioner who voted in favor of the Approval Vote (meaning Commissioner Diaz, Bruce or Caruso) must make a motion to reconsider the Approval Vote 2. The motion to reconsider must have been made during the same meeting as the Approval Vote was taken; 3. Debate must remain focused on whether to reopen the Approval Vote; 4. The motion must be seconded; and 5. The vote to reconsider must pass by majority before the item can be reopened. No motion for reconsideration was made during the June 23, 2025 hearing during which the Approval Vote was taken. In contrast, the Reconsideration Request was filed by the Mayor days later, and no motion was made by Commissioner Diaz, Bruce or Caruso during the June 23, 2025 hearing as is required. As such, the Reconsideration Request does not meet the requirements of the City Charter, and therefore is invalid. B. The City’s Approval Vote Did Not Constitute an Ordinance or an Ordinance Change, and thus the Mayor Does Not Have Authority to Veto the Approval Vote Under the City Charter, the City operates under a council-manager form of government. Under Section 4.05, the Mayor only votes in the event of a tie vote of the Commission, and his veto power only extends to the adoption of an ordinance by the City Commission. Under Charter Section 4.15, an ordinance is a formally adopted legislative action that must follow specific procedures, including readings and public hearings: Charter § 4.15: “An ordinance is an official legislative action of the city commission which has the full force and effect of law and is required to be codified.” The Approval Vote was not an ordinance, but rather a discretionary approval of a specific development application decided upon by the Commission sitting in its capacity as a quasi-judicial body, not in its legislative function wherein it adopts ordinances that apply/impact the City at large. Clearly, the Mayor has no right to veto the Approval Vote per limitations placed upon him by the City Charter. The Approval Vote was also not an ordinance change. The Reconsideration Request claims that the Approval Vote “effectively amended” the Arbor Ordinance without following formal ordinance procedures. This assertion is incorrect. The Approval Vote did not amend or repeal any section of the Arbor Ordinance. Rather, it was a case-specific quasi- judicial decision concerning Item 404 of the June 23, 2025 Commission agenda, which included an individual Arbor Application (ARBOR-2025-0210) and discretionary mitigation fees. These do not require the enactment of a new ordinance, nor do they trigger the requirements of Charter Section 4.15. Undoubtedly, the Charter does not permit the Mayor to unilaterally nullify or veto a Commission decision such as the Approval Vote. Any assertion to the contrary is legally indefensible and administratively destabilizing. As the Charter grants no veto power to the Mayor for decisions such as the Approval Vote, the Reconsideration Request’s attempted veto fails. C. The Mayor Must Uphold the Commission’s Final Decisions The Mayor is legally obligated to uphold the Commission’s final decisions under Charter Section 4.05, and any implication that the Commission’s action was illegal or unethical without due process violates Charter Section 2.29’s prohibition on slanderous or impertinent language. The City Charter places a duty on all elected officials to engage in respectful, non-defamatory conduct: Charter § 2.29: “No member shall…use slanderous or impertinent language at any meeting of the commission.” The Reconsideration Request publicly, falsely and prematurely claims that the Commission acted unlawfully and improperly “repealed” an ordinance without citing any legal finding or due process. Such accusations are inappropriate and potentially defamatory under Section 2.29. The Mayor’s public declaration undermines the legitimacy of a duly enacted Commission vote and violates the City Charter. Conclusion and Request for Action: We respectfully request that the City Commission: 1. Affirm the validity of its June 23, 2025 vote regarding Agenda Item 404 and the Arbor Application ARBOR-2025-0210 contained therein; 2. Reject the Reconsideration Request as legally void and contrary to City Charter Section 4.05; 3. Reject the mayor’s unauthorized attempt at a veto; and 4. Preserve the integrity of the Commission by upholding standards of decorum outlined in City Charter Section 2.29.