HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 828 City's Water System
RESOLUTION NO...nB..
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA, PROPOSING
THE CREATION OF A ZONE FOR THE EXTENSION AND EXECUTION OF
CERTAIN OF ITS CORPORATE POWERS BEYOND ITS CORPORATE LIMITS TO
THE AREA MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED
HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN; PRESCRIBING REASONABLE
REGULATIONS FOR ALL PERSONS OR CORPORATIONS LIVING OR DOING
BUSINESS WITHIN THE SAID AREA TO CONNECT WHEN A V AILABLE, WITH
THIS CITY'S WATER SYSTEM, CONSTRUCTED, ERECTED AND OPERATED BY
THE CITY UNDER CHAPTER 180,. FLORIDA STATUTES; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; CONFLICTS; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida has deemed it
necessary and desirable for the promotion of the public's health, safety and welfare to extend and
exercise its corporate powers to the area more particularly described in Exhibit" A" hereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I - The City of Winter Springs, Florida, pursuant to Chapter 180, Florida
Statutes, hereby proposes the construction and extension of the City's water system for the
purpose of enhancing the public's health, safety and welfare, to the territory proposed and
described in Exhibit" A" attached hereto and incorporated herein. The projected cost of said
extension is $76.350.00 .
SECTION II - Any objections to the provisions of this resolution shall be in writing and
filed with the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida.
SECTION III - That all resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict with this resolution
are hereby repealed.
SECTION IV - That if any section or portion of a section or subsection of this resolution
proves to be invalid, unlawful, or unconstitutional, it shall not be held to invalidate or impair the
validity, force, or effect of any section or portion of a section or part of this resolution.
SECTION V - This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this Ii" day of .~ ' 1997.
ATTEST:
~{mk~L
Tinklepaugh
SURVEYING SERVICES INC.
EXHIBIT IIA"
DESCRIPTION
A tract ofland being a portion of Section 34 & 35, Township 20 South, Range 30 East, Seminole
County, Florida; being more particurlarly described as follows:
Begin at the intersection of the South line of Oviedo Farms as per plat thereof as recorded in Plat
Book 6, Page 86 and the Northerly right of way line of the Seaboard Coastline Railroad and run
Easterly along the aforesaid South line of Oviedo Farms to the Southerly right of way line of Old
Sanford ~ Oviedo Road; thence run Easterly along said right of way line to Northwest corner of Lot
6, Entzminger Farms # 2 as per plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 9; thence run Northerly
to the Northwest corner of Lot 1, of the aforesaid Entzminger Farms # 2; thence run Easterly along
the North Line of Lots 1 thru 5, Entzminger Farms # 2; to the Northeast corner of said Lot 5; thence
run Southerly along the East line of Lot 5 to the Northwest corner of Lot 11, Entzminger Farms #
2; thence run Easterly to the Northeast corner of said Lot 11; thence run Southerly to the Southeast
corner of said Lot 11; thence run Westerly along the Northerly right of way line of the aforesaid
Seaboard Coastline Railroad to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
T97B97
1104 E. ROBINSON STREET · ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32801
TELEPHONE (407) 422-0957
FAX (407) 648-1036
. ~
Regular Meetini City Commission
AUiUst 11, 1997
96-97-20
Page 7
customer has not responded in 60 days, the City will then notify the proper property owner (if that
happens to be a rental unit). Mr. Lockcuff said the notification will be for the non-respondents.
Commissioner McLeod then asked, for the property owners that did not receive notification of the
reclaimed water service, due to their properties being rented during the previous projects~ would we
then refund the $150 service~ Commissioner McLeod asked if there should be a time frame, because
someone could come back in two years and said they never received notice. Discussion.
Commissioner McLeod said he feels there should be a time frame or a property address tied to this,
for alternative #3. Commissioner McLeod said he feels there should be a 120 day time period.
Discussion.
Commissioner Blake asked if the discussion was regarding property owners who did not receive
notification of previous projects and said that number totals II. Mr. Lockcuff stated yes.
Commissioner ConnitT called the motion as amended: Motion approving the Utility Director's
recommendation of Alternative #3 and adding a 120 day time frame period(Commissioner
Langellotti, (who seconded the motion) agreed to amend his second). Vote to call the amended
motion: Commissioner Blake: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Gennell:
nay; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye. Motion passes to vote on the
motion.
Vote on the motion: to approve the Utility Director's recommendation of alternative #3
adding a 120 day time frame period. Vote: Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner
McLeod: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Blake: aye; Commissioner
Gennell: aye. Motion passes.
Mayor Partyka recognized Matthew Guglimello, sitting in on the Commission meeting, working on
his communication merit badge for boy scouts.
Utility Department
G. Requesting approval of Resolution No. 828 Authorizing the creation of a zone for a water line
extension on Old Sanford/Oviedo Road. PURPOSE: to request approval of Resolution No. 828
proposing the creation of a zone for recovering costs associated with the extension of the C
water system on Old Sanford/Oviedo Road which includes unincorporated areas of Semi
County:
Kip Lockcuff, UtilitylPublic Works Director, gave his presentation.
.--
vw
Commissioner Blake asked about the properties D through I and M, and said it appears those
properties are not in the City. Mr. Lockcuff said that is correct. Commissioner Blake said if they
are not in the City, why do we want to give them water and sewer, when in the normal course of
business, we utilize our substantial water and sewer capabilities as one of the true benefits of
becoming part of our city. Mr. Lockcuff said this is only for water, and the purpose is to have them
share in the cost, rather than have them stay in the County and have the water line go in front of
them (for fire protection) and not have to pay anything; so we are trying to go through an assessment
process so that everyone has their fair share. Discussion. Mr. Lockcuff stated that the cost is not
.. , . .
Regular Meeting City Commission
August 1 L 1997
96-97-20
Page 8
connection fees, it is strictly construction costs, there will be an additional connection fee that they
would have to pay. Attorney Kruppenbacher said they would not be authorized to connect to the
City's system without paying the appropriate fee that spreads the construction costs across all of
them. Attorney Kruppenbacher said the Commission could make a condition of connection with
annexation. Commissioner Blake said he does not have a problem with going forward with this if
the City is collecting the fees, but before anybody can connect, he absolutely wants to see in this,
a requirement that they (property owners) have to annex the property into the City.
Attorney Kruppenbacher said this process contemplates you doing this, under Chapter 180 and the~
we have to come back to the Commission with an Ordinan~and the requirement of anneption can
e built into that next process. . W~ VJ ~ ~ ~ ~
Motion was made by Commissioner Blake t approve esolution 828 subject to the
amendments that were discussed. (Fire protection nd an tion of properties not in city to
be included in Ordinance) Seconded by Commissioner McLeod. Discussion. Vote:
Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Blake: aye;
Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye. Motion passes.
Mayor Partyka called a recess at 8:05 p.m. Mayor Partyka reconvened the Regular Meeting at 8: 15
p.m.
City Manager
H. Requesting the Commission address the Mayor's veto of July 21, 1997, regarding
Telecommunications Tower Ordinance No. 645. PURPOSE: to have the Commission address the
Mayor's veto of the Telecommunications Tower Ordinance No. 645:
Mayor Partyka read a letter addressed to the Commission (by the Mayor) regarding his reasons for
Vetoing Ordinance 645. "....(1) They (towers) should have a minimal impact on our visual
environmental quality of life. (2) They (towers) should provide the communication needs for our
citizens. (3) We should make informed decisions based on good factual and creditable data. Mayor
Partyka stated that the Commission needs to answer all three statements positively to pass a sound
ordinance and all other considerations are secondary..."
Attorney Kruppenbacher said if there is a motion to pass this ordinance, there needs to be a 4/5's
vote to pass the motion.
l\1.otion was made by Commissioner Blake that this Commission votes to adopt again
Ordinance 645, the communications tower ordinance, that when originally brought to this
Commission, back in January of this year, in its original form, had a motion and a second on
the floor, at which time he (Blake) asked that it be retracted because the original ordinance
would allow (by his calculations) an excess of 40 towers in the City; after going through
workshops where the Mayor has had an opportunity to have input on this ordinance and
chose more to hurry up for adjournment, he believes that the mayor had more than ample
time to research each of these issues and have input on the finished product, as this
Commission previously passed, subject of course to the Mayor's pending veto; and this is the