Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 11 26 City Commission Regular Minutes 90-91-5 . REGULAR MEETING CITY COMMISSION CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS NOVEMBER 26, 1990 The Regular Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, was called to order by Mayor Leanne M. Grove at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call: Mayor Leanne M. Grove, present Deputy Mayor Cindy Kaehler, present City Manager Richard Rozansky, present City Attorney Frank Kruppenbacher, present Commissioners: Arthur Hoffmann, present Philip A. Kulbes, present William A. Jacobs, present Paul P. Partyka, present The invocation was given by Commissioner Hoffmann and the pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Commissioner Kulbes. Motion was made by Commissioner Kulbes to approve the minutes of November 12, 1990. Seconded by Commissioner Partyka. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Hoffmann, aye; Commissioner Kulbes, aye; Commissioner Jacobs, aye; Commissioner Partyka, aye; Commissioner Kaehler, aye; motion carried. Public Comment: John Ferring, Baltic Lane, spoke about a resolution he drafted in regards to the electoral process for the Commission's consideration. . Helen Powell, Hacienda Village, spoke in favor of Mr. Ferring's resolution. Richard Conniff presented the "Best of Show" award, by Mark Thomas, to Mayor Grove on behalf of the Winter Springs Art Festival. The award is to be displayed in City Hall. General Agenda Resolution No. 651 expressing appreciation to the Winter Springs VFW Post 5405 for outstanding community service: Mayor Grove read Resolution No. 651 in its entirety. Motion was made by Commissioner Kulbes to approve Resolution No. 651. Seconded by Commissioner Jacobs. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Kulbes, aye; Commissioner Jacobs, aye; Commissioner Partyka, aye; Commissioner Kaehler, aye; Commissioner Hoffmann, aye; motion carried. Mayor Grove presented the Resolution to representatives of the VFW Post 5405. Resolution No. 652 expressing appreciation to the Civic Association: Mayor Grove read Resolution No. 652 in its entirety. Motion was made by Commissioner Kulbes to adopt Resolution No. 652. Seconded by Commissioner Jacobs. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Jacobs, aye; Commissioner Partyka, aye; Commissioner Kaehler, aye; Commissioner Hoffmann, aye; Commissioner Kulbes, aye; motion carried. Mayor Grove presented the Resolution to Mr. Victor Hess, president of the Civic Association. . Commissioner Jacobs's statement of 10/22/90 "Investigation of Acquisition of Seminole Utilities" (tabled 11/12/90): Commissioner Partyka read his prepared statement as follows: I am going to respond to Mr. Jacob's request for an investigation into the acquisition of Seminole Utility Company and based on unanswered questions that he had and shared those questions when he read his statement to the Commission several weeks ago. In order for me to get . Regular Meeting, City Commission, Nov. 26, 1990 Page 2 90-91-5 the best and most accurate data, I talked with Mr. Sundstrom of Rose, Sundstrom and Bentley, Mr. Pat Knipe, Managing partner of Coopers & Lybrand, the City Auditors, Terry Zaudtke of Porter & Conklin, Engineering consultants to the City, to Frank Kruppenbacher, our City Attorney and his partner Tom Lang. I talked to members of the Staff and finally I reviewed transcripts and other documents pertaining to this acquisition. As a preface to his questions, Mr. Jacobs asked if Florida Statutes Section 218.385, 218.386, or 286.23 were met. These sections refer to making the appropriate dis- closures on a business transaction. The facts are Webster & Shiffield, Bond Attorney from New York, Rose and Sundstrom gave clearance and Parker/Johnson gave clearance. The transaction had to meet the Florida Statutes or by law the attorneys could not give their clearances. Now in responding to Question 1 (Was the Commission deliberately kept in the dark about the facts surrounding Topeka's Group signed Purchase Agreement to acquire Seminole Utilities for 6.5 million dollars?) Commissioner Partyka's answer: There was no signed Purchase Agreement to acquire Seminole Utilities for $6.5 million. What then was purchased were $6.5 million in warrants for option to buy common stock in Seminole Utility. This was given by Ken Good to Topeka almost in a fit of desperation to get cash due to the financial collapse of his business empire. This was way below market value. In fact the net book value as of 12-31-89 from the Auditor's report is $10,496 million. . Question No.2: Were we misinformed about Seminole Utilities' request for a 50% rate increase when in fact no such formal request was made before the Public Service Commission? Was this a tactic to substantiate the value of the Utility? Did it unduly influence this Commission to make a hasty decision to close before ratepayers pay such increases? Commissioner Partyka's answer: To clarify this, Topeka had a filing before the Florida Public Service Commission for a 75% increase. If Topeka acquired Seminole Utility then Seminole would also be entitled to a 75% increase since it would be part of Topeka. Therefore, the information given to us on the potential increase to the Winter Springs residents was correct and therefore the Commission acted with proper data. Question No.3: If Topeka was willing to buy, and Seminole Utilities was willing to sell the Utility for $6.5 million, how come we paid 12.3 million only 14 months later after first making an offer of $7.5 million in February of 1989? How could the price have doubled in just 14 months? In fact the total price we could end up paying for the Utility could be in excess of $17 million. This represents $12.3 million plus paying the seller $2400 for every ERC over 5500 up to 7500 that could cost the City an additional $4.8 million. . Commissioner Partyka's answer: First of all, having warrants with option to buy common stock is not necessarily a willingness to sell for $6.5 million. That was a fire sale by Ken Good if his other real estate deals fell through. Secondly, we did not pay $12.3 million for the Utility, but only $10.5 million. We did buy spray . . . Regular Meeting, City Commission, Nov. 26, 1990 Page 3 90-91-5 fields for $1.5 million. Finally, the price of $7.5 million was an initial offer by the City that if gotten would have been a steal. The simple fact was Seminole turned it down and we had to go through condemnation proceedings to force the negotiations and sale price. The facts are when we filed for eminent domain and eventual condemna- tion Topeka filed papers to show that the Utility was worth between $17 to $20 million. As stated before the audited records show that the Utility was worth $10.5 million. Finally, on a similar acquisition by St. Lucie County they paid approximately $2,500 per customer on that same basis we could have paid approximately 13.1 million. In net we paid only $10.5 million dollars which was a good deal. The other issue is if this would have gone to a jury, we could have run a risk of paying more plus paying for their attorneys fees which could have been $1,000,000 plus paying for a utility between $10-$20 million. The City team negotiated our way out of a potentially very costly acquisition. Mr. Jacobs makes a mention about future fees that have to be paid to the seller. His figures are $2,400 for every ERC or equivalent residential connection (New User) over 5,500 up to 7,500. First of all these are inaccurate numbers. The City receives 2,450 for each connection and the seller will get $2,000 for connections over 5,026 up to 7,272. This period of this futures payment is 15 years. If 15 years runs out before 7,272 the agreement is over. If new customers do not come on we do not pay anything. For perspective we negotiated this on a cash flow basis for the current Utility. But the Utility has excess capacity. In the utility business excess plant capacity is an asset. Therefore, Gulfstream wanted more money because of the asset or "excess plant capacity". The City team, to its credit was able to negotiate paying for this asset when the people are connected and not before. Therefore, the City is not paying any extra costs now or in the future. Secondly, this type of future sharing is relatively common in utility acquisitions. For additional perspective, every new customer that we get in addition to providing instant revenues (connection fees) but makes the Utility more valuable and represents approximately $2,000.00 more dollars of bonding capacity. Question No.4: Was the explanation to raise the service rates of Seminole to match the west side service valid or was it used to influence bondholders to purchase? We had previously been told that the Utility was not bondable due to unfavorable conditions. With the rate increase plugged in, did that make a difference? If the Utility would have cost us say $6.5 million, the same amount Topeka and Seminole agreed on, would the rate increase have been necessary? Commissioner Partyka's answer: The rate increase was not tied to bonding. It was done to normalize utility rates throughout the City. Question No.5: How we acquired without legal authority, Tuscawilla park property, not in control of Seminole Utilities, from the Utility? And how come the Commission was not informed in a timely manner and kept up to date on this issue? Why did City management fail to inform us of a meeting held on January 11, 1990, where in fact discussion took place about the parks being included in the deal? The fact is the City Manager never brought to the Commission this important issue as the notes of the meeting clearly stated he would. Consequently, we have acquired property not consented by the City Commission. Commissioner Partyka's answer: We discussed this issue several times. First, the City Utility AcquisitionTeam was given power to negotiate a reasonable deal with Seminole Utility. This included price, land, financing, etc. with final approval by the City Commission. Many of the ongoing decisions were made on the spot with reports made to the City after the fact. If any questions or concerns came up on anything then any Commissioner could have voiced his concern or talk to the City Manager for further . . . Regular Meeting, City Commission, Nov. 26, 1990 Page 4 90-91-5 clarification. Tuscawilla Park property was brought up by Mr. Zaudtke in his report that this issue of Tuscawilla Park being part of the deal may come up eventually. No questions or issues were raised by anyone. This implied to the team that if this issue came up then they were free to take it to a logical conclusion which may be acquiring this park as part of the deal. Therefore, by implication this was consented by the City Commission. The way we got the park was during the final negotiations, Gulfstream would give the park to us and if not the City would have to pay for easements for effluent disposal. The team agreed that taking the park was not a major issue and gave the City control of effluent disposal and also the eventual disbursement of this park (including the giving of the park to some homeowners group) needless to say, I feel more comfortable with the City having it rather than the developer. In summary the Commission had been informed provided people would have read the reports or asked questions. Question 6: How could the City expect complete objectivity and due diligence on behalf of this Commission by agreeing to have the seller's investment banker and financial advisor act as the City's financial advisor for the transaction? That's akin to hiring the fox to guard the chicken coup. To further complicate the issue, the seller paid our advisor for his services! While we saved around $150,000.00 by agreeing to this un- orthodox arrangement with the underwriter, we did pay over $6 million more for the Utility than Topeka had previously agreed to. How come? Commissioner Partyka's answer: The budgeting for this was approximately $140,000. Southeastern Bonding, our advisor, was advised of the deal and quoted a fee of better than $250,000. Secondly, Mr. Akers of Southeastern was offered the opportunity to approve the deal and said he would not;therefore, Gulfstream with its limited budget and with a deal comparable to our advisor's then they concluded the deal. Therefore, since the seller was paying for the fees, they went with their own company DLJ. Finally, the seller did not pay our advisor. As stated in earlier statements our purchase price was a good deal and was not affected by the sellers underwriter. Question No.7: How come the City never got 3 independent appraisals for back-up to support the transaction, yet we relied on the seller's appraisals to justify the purchase price. By the seller's own admission, the record shows that the seller received a settle- ment which exceeded the value as set forth by the seller's own expert appraisers. Why would the City's negotiators agree to pay in ~xcess of the seller's appraised value? Commissioner Partyka's answer: This is wrong. First of all the net book value was $10.5 million. We paid $10.5 million. Using Mr. Cohen's analysis we paid approximately 20% less than we could have paid. Finally, Topeka's appraisers listed the property at a minimum of $17 million; therefore, it would seem we did not pay an excessive price. Question No.8: Why has Coopers and Lybrand, the City's auditors, refused to answer my questions, after sending 2 certified requests, concerning full and complete compliance with Florida Statutes? Commissioner Partyka's answer: In discussing this issue with Mr. Knipe, managing partner and his associate, these statutes were discussed with Mr. Jacobs verbally. . Regular Meeting, City Commission, November 26, 1990 Page 5 90-91-5 In fact, one particular conversation that Mr. Jacobs had with Coopers & Lybrand lasted almost two hours. They had stated the Florida Acquisition Statutes were met. Additionally, as stated earlier the three legal firms associated with this acquisition stated that all Florida Statutes were met. Finally, Mr. Knipe's expert opinion concludes that there was nothing improper about this acquisition or the procedures used. Question No.9: For all the work that was done on the City's behalf, how come Parker and Johnson et aI, never billed us for any City attorney services, financial advisor services or bond counsel services from January 1990 to date? And for some unknown reason announced that they would not. Why not? Remarkably, the City has received no record of any services performed by the City Attorney and bond counsel on this transaction subsequent to January 1990, when in fact we all know work was performed. It is my understanding that we were to be provided with all the documentation for work per- formed related to the acquisition of Seminole Utilities. When can we expect itemized statements and supporting documents? If they don't want to charge us that's fine, but where are the records as to who did what and when. . Commissioner Partyka's answer: Parker & Johnson set a cap on their fees as it pertains to the acquisition. This cap was $25,000. To date for services rendered from 4/89 - 1/90, the City has a 26 page itemized bill for $21,267.02, which we paid. This leaves $3,732.98 still in the budget. The City has not received a bill for work done from 1/90-4/90 (Close). But that is up to Frank Kruppenbacher to submit the bill. But it would seem to me, if they do not want to charge us, I don't want any itemized statements from them. Question No. 10: How come we paid almost $6,000.00 to Rose, Sundstrom and Bentley for research and expenses to attend the August 13th meeting to brief the Commission on the background of the acquisition, which I strongly protested. But according to Coopers & Lybrand, the City Manager refused to pay them to answer my questions about compliance with Florida Statutes? While some may dismiss these questions as trivial and attempt to make light of them, no one should ignore them as long as they remain unanswered. Too many important questions concerning the management, or should I say mismanagement of this transaction, leave one wondering if the taxpayers of Winter Springs got a good deal or a bad debt. What I cannot condone are those who in a position of appointed authority in public service failing to exercise due diligence of the public trust. Neither can I condone this same element from making decisions reserved for the elected body or withholding pertinent information from them. I feel there has been repeated attempts to hinder my investigation which made at times my inquiries an exercise in frustration and futility. . It is my opinion that this Commission may have been misled, given misinformation and or purposely misdirected as to what was relevant and pertinent to make an informed decision on the purchase of Seminole Utilities. At the time I voted for the acquisition, and perhaps all my fellow Commissioners, we thought that the information we received up to that point was true and complete. Under further scrutiny, however, that appears to not be the case. While I believe the acquisition of private utilities . Regular Meeting, City Commission, November 26, 1990 Page 6 90-91-5 are in the best interest of Winter Springs, I cannot support the manner in which it was presented to us and the possibility of paying over $17 million. Therefore, I believe it is in the best interest of the taxpayers of Winter Springs to have the Auditor General, or someone completely independent and not politically tied, take up where I left off in order to get to the truth and settle the matter once and for all. Commissioner Partyka's answer: The City paid $6,000 for fees and time due Rose, Sundstrom for work they did to prepare, including gathering papers, etc. plus expenses of travelling. This request was proper especially since the Commission agreed that they have to answer Mr. Jacob's questions. Concerning Coopers & Lybrand, even though they are the auditors for the City, what Mr. Jacobs was requesting was information beyond the scope of our auditor contract. Therefore, the City Manager refused to pay since the request was not approved by the Commission. In regard to the special letter that was given to the Commission, Commissioner Partyka read: prior to the filing of eminent domain on 6/26/89 Mr. Sundstrom wrote to Mr. Kruppenbacher on 6/19/89 about a call he received from an attorney with the law firm representing Topeka about their interest in Seminole Utilities. Mr. Sundstrom made light of this call and his reaction in part was and I quote "so what". By ignoring Topeka's potential interest and filing the eminent domain I believe Mr. Sundstrom cost the City tens of thousands of dollars in attorneys fees to defend against the intervention by Topeka and may have cost the City up to 3 million dollars in acquisition costs. . Ignoring Topeka could and may well have been disastrous in itself so why did Mr. Sundstrom tell this Commission on 10/23/89 and I quote "we learned subsequent to the institution of the eminent domain proceedings that a thing called Topeka Group etc. when in fact by his own correspondence he was aware of Topeka prior to filing the eminent domain. Commissioner Partyka's answer: The eminent domain proceedings start with submitting a "Notice of Statutory Rights". This was filed prior to 6/19/89. In response to the "Notice of Statutory Rights", Mr. Tom Cloud, the senior associate for Grey, Harris & Robinson, th e firm represent- ing the Topeka Group, called Mr. Sundstrom and basically said to Mr. Sundstrom not to represent the City of Winter Springs because their firm was representing Topeka. Insinuating that they're the big boys and Winter Springs does not have a chance. When Mr. Sundstrom reacted by saying it doesn't matter, Mr. Cloud then stated that Mr. Stubby Harris, a well known attorney would be the attorney handling the case, Mr. Sundstrom said "so what". Mr. Cloud tried to intimidate Mr. Sundstrom into not taking the case. Under the circumstances I also would say "so what" if Mr. Harris was the attorney. Consequently, after the discussion, our firm filed for eminent domain on 6/26/89. Therefore, proceedings were started with the "Notice" but not eminent domain until after the call from the firm representing Topeka. It is my belief that Mr. Sundstrom acted properly in his dealing with Topeka's law firm and was correct in his statement to the City Commission. . The next paragraph in Mr. Jacobs letter: I also have a copy of the City's application to DER for a permit to operate the Utility and a letter to Mr. Rozansky to correct the nitrate nitrogen concentration at twice permitted levels in the percolation ponds. If not corrected, 610,000 gal. per day will be deducted from the permitted capacity. . Regular Meeting, City Commission, November 26, 1990 Page 7 90-91-5 As you can well imagine this is very serious. What also is serious, this has been in violation for the past twelve months. Why didn't we know about this? Didn't the acquisition team perform a due diligence investigation of the utility that would have disclosed this violation? Commissioner Partyka's answer: On the issue of high nitrate nitrogen (N03). For background, the operating data received by Conklin Porter and Holmes, the acquisition showed that total nitrogen and not just nitrate nitrogen. The levels of total nitrogen did not seem out of kilter. Secondly, the design criteria for the plant when initially submitted to D.E.R. met the proper criteria for nitrate nitrogen which by the way is l2MG/liter. Finally, there were no D.E.R. violations on record. In net, based on the information gotten, they acted with due diligence. But the way we found out that there was a violation, is when the City voluntarily sub- mitted an application to D.E.R. breaking down all parts of the nitrogen mix. For added perspective, the D.E.R. guidelines for nitrate nitrogen levels when they reach a downstream monitoring well is to be no more than 10MG/Liter. This measure- ment is done quarterly and the City has met the guidelines every time. We therefore submitted a response to D.E.R. explaining our position. Our response has not come back. If the response is still negative, the City is able to fix the problem within 30-60 days and is relatively simple to fix. There will be no impact on our ability to handle sewage currently since we have enough excess capacity to handle a temporary 610,000 GPD deduction during the correction period. . Net, I know this statement was long and tedious but I wanted everyone in Winter Springs to be clear that my information is accurate, specific and answers all of the questions Mr. Jacobs had. To me what is disturbing, is that Mr. Jacobs could have determined the same answers as myself. Additionally, he also continued to approve every motion that came up on this acquisition. Consequently, he because of his refusal to thoroughly check the data or did not believe the information given to him, caused many hundreds of hours of staff time, and City Commission time to investigate every issue that he came up with. This does not take into account the corresponding loss of time that could have been donated to other City issues. Procedurally there could have been better ways of handling the issues. But we were dealing "for lack of a better term" with a "hostile takeover". Information was slow in coming from the seller, it was like pulling teeth. Consequently we had to make some quick decisions. But under no circumstance can I state or even imply that any- thing was done to purposely keep the Commission uninformed either by the City Manager, Staff or Consultants. Therefore, I find this allegation by Mr. Jacobs to be frivolous, and extremely irresponsible since his questions could have been handled relatively easy. It is my opinion, that Mr. Jacobs has tried repeatedly to portray the acquisition team and particularly the City Manager as evil people with the sole purpose of undermining the City of Winter Springs. As one can hear this is absolutely false. In fact my question to Mr. Jacobs is what was your motivation for this investi- gation. Is it to help this City or was it to get rid of the City Manager? I strongly urge the Commission that we put an end to this issue once and for all. In principle nothing has been done improperly on the acquisition, the team practiced due diligence and the City got a good deal!! . Regular Meeting, City Commission, November 26, 1990 Page 8 90-91-5 . Commissioner Jacobs said he would probably answer Mr. Partyka's answers in writing as a private citizen. Motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs that this City contacts the Auditor General to follow up on the allegations and questions by myself in my two correspondence to the City. Seconded by Commissioner Kulbes. Discussion. Motion was amended by Commissioner Jacobs to include any other non interested Board. Seconded by Commissioner Kulbes. . Vote on the motion as amended: Commissioner Partyka, no; Commissioner Kaehler, no; Commissioner Hoffmann, no; Commissioner Kulbes, aye; Commissioner Jacobs, aye; motion failed. Vistawilla Drive Extension - Approval of Final Engineering: Commissioner Kulbes asked the City Planner to explain her report on the opening of Vistawilla. Miss Koch explained that at the time the property north of the railroad tracks is presented to the Commission for conceptual approval of the final develop- ment plan, at that time they will need to provide traffic circulation patterns so that traffic that is not involving Tuscawilla can enter and leave the commercial property without ever coming any further into the Planned Unit Development. Also, the people from Tuscawilla can have access into the commercial center and get back to their homes without having to get out onto the highway. It is at the time that we get the final development plan for these properties that those conditions would be required of the developer. Until we see what they plan to do on those properties we can not say exactly where it will be. Also, there are some requirements from D.O.T., they have control over S.R. 434. Miss Koch explained those are the objectives and the design patterns we want to see in order to protect the residents of Tuscawilla. Commissioner Kulbes said it is his understanding that the Audubon Society has located some eagles nesting in that area. Motion was made by Commissioner Kulbes that we table this until we have an opportunity for the Audubon Society to tell us whether or not there are eagles in that area and whether or not we have to provide for their safety and breeding purposes before we give final approval to this Vistawilla Drive. Seconded by Commissioner Partyka. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Kaehler, no; Commissioner Hoffmann, no; Commissioner Kulbes, aye; Commissioner Jacobs, no; Commissioner Partyka, aye; motion failed. Rob Rosen, Broad & Cassell, Howard Siebs, Seneca Boulevard, Glenn Chiles, Wildcat Court, Gay Bass, Vistawilla Drive, and Don McIntosh, McIntosh & Associates all spoke in discussion. Motion was made by Commissioner Kulbes to defer this issue for final approval until the first meeting in January, January 14, 1991 with a Workshop in between. Seconded by Commissioner Partyka. In discussion a resident of Mt. Laurel Drive spoke and Moti Khemlani, Peggy Baker, Tuscora Drive and George Bises, Tuscora Drive also spoke. . Motion was amended by Commissioner Kulbes for final approval of this project to be given on the 28th of January. Seconded by Commissioner Partyka. . . . Regular Meeting, City Commission, November 26, 1990 Page 9 90-91-5 Motion as restated by Commissioner Kulbes that we defer final approval on the Vistawilla Road until the 28th of January 1991 and that we have a Workshop on Jan. 7, 1991, and that all the information necessary for the Staff and Mr. McIntosh to approve it be delivered to those persons by the 31st of Dec., 1990, and a final decision will be made on the 28th of January, 1991. Seconded by Commissioner Jacobs. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Kaehler, aye; Commissioner Hoffmann, aye; Commissioner Kulbes, aye; Commissioner Jacobs, aye; Commissioner Partyka, aye; motion carried. Mayor Grove called a recess at 10:00 p.m. and called the meeting back to order at 10:10 p.m. Districting Commission COrd. No. 494): Mayor Grove explained this was on the Agenda because she was not sure if this Commission wanted to make the appointments since they were the ones that instituted this action. Commission was in agreement to defer this to the new Commission. These appointments will have to be made by February 1, 1991. Appointment/Re-appointment to Code Enforcement Board - John Ferring: Motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs to reappoint John Ferring to the Code Enforcement Board. Seconded by Commissioner Partyka. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Hoffmann, aye; Commissioner Kulbes, aye; Commissioner Jacobs, aye; Commissioner Partyka, aye; Commissioner Kaehler, aye; motion carried. City Manager Richard Rozansky: Status of Park: Manager Rozansky explained that Mr. Barth has asked for a Workshop on December 17th as there are some decisions he needs from the Commission before they can proceed. Manager Rozansky reported the bins for recycling are being shipped to I.W.S. Mr. Rozansky said he is to have a meeting with representatives of I.W.S. regarding the recycling ordinance. Manager Rozansky reported the Chief has sent an officer to the lawn mower business to cite them and they will be brought to the Code Enforcement Board. Status of Senior Center: Manager Rozansky reported the building is coming along and the anticipated completion date is Dec. 15th. At the Commission Meeting on the 10th Manager Rozansky said hopefully he will have some information on the opening. He said is working on some recommendations on the operation with Mr. Whitsett. Monthly Reports have been distributed. Commissioner Kaehler wanted it noted in the minutes that the Public Works Department is spraying for mosquitoes and because of our new"quiet"truck it is not as noticeable as it was before. Attorney Kruppenbacher reported on a problem that was raised at the Code Enforcement Board Meeting regarding some residents in the Wedgewood Golf Villas. . . . Regular Meeting, City Commission, November 26, 1990 Page 10 90-91-5 Attorney Kruppenbacher also reported on an individual we have had to deal with on a Code Enforcement Board problem in the Highlands. The gentleman has asked if the City would waive the fine. Attorney Kruppenbacher recommended the gentleman come into compliance, then we will deal with the waiver issue. Attorney Kruppenbacher gave farewell wishes to Mayor Grove, Commissioner Hoffmann and Commissioner Jacobs. Commission Seat II - Arthur Hoffmann: Commissioner Hoffmann spoke about the City doing the billing and the loss factor involved with I.W.S. Commissioner Hoffmann gave his farewell wishes. Commission Seat III - Philip A. Kulbes: No report. Commission Seat IV - William A. Jacobs: Commissioner Jacobs said he has been here 9~ years, off and on, since 1978, and he has enjoyed working with the Commissioners, City Manager, Attorneys and City Clerk. He gave his farewell wishes. Commission Seat V - Paul P. Partyka: Commissioner Partyka thanked the Commissioners for all their work. Commission Seat I - Cindy Kaehler: Commissioner Kaehler brought up the issue regarding Ms. Donnelly having sat on a Board of Adjustment meeting when in fact she had resigned. Attorney Kruppenbacher explained that he finds nothing that is legally warranting any action by this Commission or any other body, State, County Local, Federal or Foreign. The issue warrants no further action. Commissioner Kaehler spoke about the need to have some kind of a timeframe for collector roads that are built in planned unit developments. Commissioner Kaehler gave farewell wishes to the outgoing Commission and Mayor and welcomed the new Commission. Mayor's Office: Mayor Grove announced the Swearing In Ceremony will be December 3rd at 7:30 p.m. Meeting was adjourned 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~J:~ Mary T. Norton, City Clerk MAYOR