Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 03 23 City Commission Regular Minutes . . . 91-92-12 AMENDED REGULAR MEETING CITY COMMISSION CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MARCH 23, 1992 The Regular Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, was called to order by Mayor Philip A. Kulbes at 7:30 p. m. Roll Call: Mayor Philip A. Kulbes, present Deputy Mayor John Langellotti, present City Manager Richard Rozansky, present City Attorney Frank Kruppenbacher, present Commissioners: John V. Torcaso, present Don Jonas, present Terri Donnelly, present Cindy Kaehler, present The invocation was given by Commissioner Terri Donnelly. The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Commissioner Don Jonas. Approval of minutes of March 9, 1992: There were no additions or corrections; the minutes stand approved as submitted. Public Comment: Helen Powell, Hacienda Village, spoke about a problem with their mailbox for their homeowners association. Borrow Pits: David Brown, Attorney with the law firm of Broad & Cassel, representing Sullivan Materials as the applicant was present to speak to the Commission. He said this project was proposed by Sullivan Materials together with working with Winter Springs Joint Venture, the owner of the property for the purpose of excavating lakes and developing adjacent land uses which would provide fill material for the expressway being built in Seminole County. In addition to that it was felt that this was a viable project from the City's perspective. It promoted several things. One is that there had been an on going discussion as to the density of Parcel 15 and Parcel 14 as to the future land uses in the City. In addition there was known to be a tremendous demand for fill for the Expressway Authority. One of the benefits that would be derived not only by the City but the surrounding portions of the County, is that by removing this fill and having direct access to the expressway right of way, the traffic impact by trucks carrying fill would be diminished substantially. As a result of that, those two major items provided benefits to the City, that we then proposed initially last November to discuss with the City. We had been in the process for several months of addressing several technical concerns not only City but also addressing technical concerns of Florida Dept. of Regulation as well as St. John's Water Management District. We have come tonight to ask you for approval to operate this property as a borrow pit. The result of the borrow pit will certainly be the land will be excavated, the fill will be removed from the site and what will be left will be a lake site adjacent to single family homesites. Commercial development on SR 434 will still exist. On 14 there will be two lakes that will be dug on either side of Winter Springs Boulevard. One of the things we are doing tonight is we have furnished to the Commissioners and we have handouts for anyone that may want copies of them. . Regular Meeting, City Commission, March 23, 1992 Page 2 91-92-12 Mr. Brown said we tried to synopsize and present in a questions that have come up, the different issues by Commissioners, etc. and we have summarized that in a that is to have everybody looking at the same thing. letter format different homeowners, City staff, response issue. Purpose of We today received two letters one from St. John's Water Management District and one from DER both in advance of the next step, the next step which is usually to issue notice of intent to issue permits which those are then furnished to the agencies for board action, etc. We are only talking about what will be proposed staff recommenda- tions to the board. It is up to the board to make the final decision, but the staff has indicated that the applications that have been submitted by the engineers for this project will be recommended favorably although final review has to be completed, but it is anticipated that there will not be an unfavorable recommendation from staff but instead a favorable recommendation from staff. The letter from DER addressed both Tracts 14 and 15. St. John's Water Management District addressed it as to 14 but anticipate the same conditions on 15 as they do in 14 although the soil conditions are somewhat different. The additional soils tests that were provided as to 15 provided the necessary depth and assurance to that agency that no problems were going to be encountered which are not normal problems encountered in these types of operations. So we have gone through that step and I know that has been something that still has to be completed. We have said all along the St.John's Water Management District and D.E.R. are necessary permits for this project and absent receiving those permits that your approval is conditioned expressly on that and if it does not happen then you were not obligated and we were not entitled to proceed. . We will still have that condition but I think this Commission will have the further assurance that those permits are being processed in due course and will receive favorable recommendations from the staff. We do not anticipate and it would be unusual for the board members to become remonstrated as to these permits absent very unusual circumstances. In addition the City has had a number of questions about how do we know the lakes that are being applied for in the infrastructure development that is associated with, how do we know that that is going to be completed? . One of the things that has been discussed and quantified is the obligation of the developer to post a performance bond to assure that construction of the improvements in accordance with the plan specifications submitted to this City. That is a very unique item to be committing to. If you were to build a house or building in this City you would not commit to a performance bond that you will build the house that has been permitted by this City, but the developer has done that because of the concern of both the citizenry, staff and this Commission, that in the event con- struction of these lakes were commenced but not completed, how do we know it will get finished. So the performance bond will be posted. That performance bond is posted by an outside surety company, a third party surety company licensed to issue surety bonds. We spoke about a performance bond to assure completion of the lakes in the manner that they were designed. In addition the applicant is committing to provide a maintenance bond the details of which are based on the year involved, cost involved for a five year period. Again originally that was committed to be a three year period, but additional concerns were raised and the applicant has agreed to make the additional expenditure and that commitment for maintenance will be secured again by a bond and a surety. . . . Regular Meeting, City Commission, March 23, 1992 Page 3 91-92-12 One of the things I wanted to show - one of the key elements of this application is that the Expressway Authority and the building of the road is there is a demand for the fill that exists in this property. Absent that demand there would not be a demand for fill operation in this area to make it either necessary or economical. One of the reasons this site still exists the quality of the fill in this site is satisfactory for what the Expressway needs. The property is adjacent to the Eastern Beltway, allows access to the Eastern Beltway without visiting upon any of the public roads other than a crossing of Vistawilla Drive and a crossing here at Seneca which would be short term use and also the south of l4C will be able to get to the express- way again without having to go on any public rights of way. One of the questions that has come up in the earlier workshop was the demand for fill. It was presented that this fill was not needed and why did the City need to waste their time doing it. Ultimately whether or not the contractor for the Expressway purchases fill from this site will be an economic decision contract. You can't make a contractor buy from you. We think that the contractor should buy from these sites based on location and competitive price, but if the contractor is able to purchase the fill for a penny less, economically he will decide to purchase from the area that is a penny less. Ultimately the decision of whether or not the contractor purchases from this operation will be the contractor's decision and we have said if this fill is not used for this roadway then your permit approval is not valid because our express condition is this fill will be placed upon the Expressway right-of-way taken on the right-of-way and used in the different areas. That is what our commitment is. We are not going to use the fill for any other road or any other operation. You know exactly what the impacts are. Whereas if this fill is contained outside of this area outside of the City, you will have no control and no direction. That may still be the case because its dependent on what the contractor selects. Currently these numbers that are set forth on this chart you heard whether or not this fill was needed. The fill require- ments shown on this chart with this being Parcel 15 and these numbers being 1.4 million here and 465,000 yards at the intersection of SR 434 and the proposed Beltway and 300,000 for the south of that. Those numbers were derived from the DOT bid speci- fications list that was submitted to all contractors. That was what was submitted by DOT to the prospective bidders. Those were based on quantification that DOT provided to the contractors. That is what Hubbard and every other contractor bid on. The one area that mayor may not be needed is dependent on a design change being applied to DOT by the contractor, and that design change in that area which is adjacent or perpendicular to Winter Springs Boulevard and impacts the 14 ponds. Parcel 14 may be done with pilings as opposed to berms and overpasses. If that is the case you need much less fill. They are going to use the concrete pilings. If that occurs these quantities may not be required. These areas up here we do not know why these quantities would be diminished and as to the 14 quantity the only reason we know the demand for that would be diminished is because of the change in structural design which is being submitted to DOT for approval by the contractor. We also understand that there are other areas on the Beltway in that area which are requiring additional fill beyond that which was originally estimated. If the contractor doesn't buy the fill and doesn't use it for the Expressway we've conditioned our permit or are willing to condition our permit on the fact that our permit will no longer be valid. If they don't take it then our permit won't be valid. . . . Regular Meeting, City Commission, March 23, 1992 Page 4 91-92-12 There have been some discussions raised by adjacent landowners. We have met with them, trying to understand their concerns. I have not met with them personally but other people have. I do not believe that their concerns have been satisfied from their perspective. We believe the concerns they've raised are not technically justified. We've also offered to escrow $10,000 with their lawyers to protect them against anything that may happen to the property which they are concerned about. we had been placed in the position of trying to defeat technical questions which we do not feel are technically correct or technically justified and have not been able to persuade the landowner so we have made that monetary offer. Now that perspn will tell you that that's not enough. We can't cover all those things but technically the issue that they have represented we have not heard anything technically nor do we believe the agencies believe that would defeat that which we are trying to apply for or cause them concern that is justified from a technical point of view. We have also talked to the other adjacent landowner that is a large property owner in that area and talked to them and asked them if they have any concerns and from their point of view we have heard no concerns, they have said they have no problems with the project and in fact support the project. So we've got a division of adjacent landowners. I'm not speaking about the homeowners in Tuscawi11a. I'm speaking about the larger properties that are yet undeveloped across 434. As to the homeowners, we have met with the homeowners and again I have not met with them personally but one of the representatives of the applicant has met with them on numerous occasions to educate and also listen to their concerns and questions. The homeowners have brought forward a number of items. I believe the applicant has addressed almost all of those items in a manner which I will say is satisfactory. May not be exactly what the homeowners wanted but I believe it is a condition that helps the homeowners accomplish that which they want to accomplish. Its been productive, its been accomplished in a manner which all parties are satisified with the results. There is also some commitments that are being made with respect to an entryway off of Winter Springs Boulevard and Seneca. That assurance is being made notwithstanding the completion or the use of the 14 lake. So if 14 lake is not used because there's not a demand for the Expressway, that entryway will still be completed. Also the lots that are intended to be built around the lake north of Winter Springs Boulevard will be made part of the same restriction, Chelsea Woods and adhere to the same type of construction quality. There has been a number of questions about the financial capability or the wherewitha11 of the possibility of completing this transaction by the applicant. I would say that that has been asked as much as I have ever heard in any project. You have an applicant who is posting performance bond almost $1,000,000 as well as maintenance bonds for $100,000. Those bonds do not come by just sending a letter to your bonding company. You are required to secure that with personal guarantees as well as other cash collateral, etc. There is also the issue of the present owner of the property, Winter Springs Development Joint Venture. Winter Springs Deve1.Joint Venture is in the position of granting to the applicant the right to purchase ease- ments and licenses which are required to remove this fill. If the applicant has had those licenses and easements granted and if the permits are in place as we had dis- cussed this evening in that event the question is raised as to whether or not the ultimate owner of this property which is Home Federal S&L Association out of San Diego, if they were for any reason to be taken over by RTC or any other federal agency which may be involved in the regulation and management of the S&L's in that event that agreement would not be an executory agreement. If it is not an executory agreement, the government will honor that agreement. . Regular Meeting, City Commission, March 23, 1992 Page 5 91-92-12 In this case the agreement would be nonexecutory if it were to happen tonight; if the Federal Government came in tonight to take over that S&L and that was not completed the agreements were not completed, nonexecutory then it would be up to the government as to whether or not they would honor the agreement. That issue exists, but if that happens the City would not be in a position of nothing occurring. I think the City is much more in the position that they could then be assured of what was going to happen on this property and happen at a lesser density, not create traffic impacts from the construction of the Expressway and trucks and fill going up and down and they would know what is going to occur. I think that that is an issue that will go away based upon time and operation if it does not go away the City will not have lost anything because the operation, unless the government agrees to go forward, nothing will change differently than what we're asking you to do tonight and if the government does allow us to go forward then you are in the same position that we have asked you to. But in any event if it has completed the licenses and easements are granted back and forth between Winter Springs Development and the applicant, then its nonexecutory and the government will not set it aside. So that's an issue I have heard from different sources. I don't think that the issue will result in any manner under any circumstances in an adverse result to the City. What the government is going to do I don't know. But I know we all know what's occurred in the S&L industry. Its a fact we all have to live with. It has been raised and we have decided to address it directly so everybody under- stands it. . But as to the applicant, the applicant is removed from that as to its assurances. Its removed by a third party, a surety and an independent bonding company who in addition to the applicant commitment you have the third party financial type institution standing behind the obligation. I would suggest to you that the City does not have those type of obligations secured by other developers doing other development projects for facilities that are not being dedicated to the City. All these matters are being secured by a third party and to give you all the assurance that you expect we understand the concerns that have been raised. I think it is an extraordinary measure it is being done by a developer and it is one the City can look to for assurances that they are going to get what they've bargained for as far as approval we've asked for. We have a number of drawings which we will be glad to show. I think all of you have seen them. These lakes when they are constructed and constructed in the manner that they are being discussed and the protection of them from uses retention which avoids the dirty water that's running off the lakes, these lakes will operate in a very high quality very optimum of physical structure. These lakes most of the maintenance costs we're talking about in bonding is mowing, mowing the grass, sides, etc. Also dollars involved because part of the shore line is being mitigated for with SJWMD and DER. Most of the cost has to do with mowing the grass. These lakes will function as lakes, fish will be in them, plants will grow, all those type of things. They are being designed in that manner, and they are being designed also aesthetically, that is, there are areas around these lakes that have existing wetlands. There will be a natural shore- line. It will not be cleared down to the edge shoreline with no natural type of scenic or aesthetic look. Those lakes will be a very strong asset to this City and we would ask that you consider our application favorably. . We have a number of items which we have committed in a narrative form if anyone has any questions, we would look forward to responding to those. Regular Meeting, City Commission, March 23, 1992 Page 6 91-92-12 ~ Commissioner Kaehler said this project was brought up before Christmas and I had looked at it and thought how wonderful for the people who live in Tuscawilla to reduce the density and to give them another recreational facility. I have really really tried to make this project work in my own mind. I have done research that you can't believe. I have gone to the agencies themselves. I have spoken to people. I have spoken to experts. I have done personal research on this project trying to make this project work. My job I felt was to weigh the benefits to the people who live in Tuscawilla and the City against the potential risks, liabilities and cost factors that are involved. After extensive research, after much searching for answers, I just cannot approve something like this with a clear conscience. Therefore, to cut a lot of, we can sit here and bounce this back and forth for the next three hours and its not going to get us anywhere. Motion was made by Commissioner Kaehler to deny the permit for the borrow pits. Seconded by Commissioner Torcaso. Discussion. Attorney Kruppenbacher said I need to tell you to the extent that particular motion is challenged in court, there maybe an issue as to what is the basis for the motion. Commissioner Kaehler said I thought that I made that clear. I have weighed the risk factors vs. the benefits to the residents that live out there, and I feel that the risk factors outweigh the benefits to the homeowners in Tuscawilla and I don't think that I need to give anybody any other answer other than that. This is a policy decision that this Commission makes, and I think that that is all that needs to be said in this matter. ~ Attorney Kruppenbacher said I am just advising you that that sounds very nice but as your Attorney, the courts will look for specific details. Commissioner Kaehler said if the individuals involved choose to take this to court and choose to pursue this further, and they want detailed explanations I am sure depositions can be put forth and those answers can be given at that time. I don't think any answers that I give the parties right now are going to be sufficient to them. Attorney Kruppenbacher said what I am concerned is I am looking at a court reporter three feet in front of me. Commissioner Torcaso said this is a money making proposition for Winter Springs Development Joint Venture and Sullivan Properties. They have on their own papers here it says they are going to get a permit tomorrow from DER. They still haven't got a permit from St. John's that I can see. They are going to run trucks six days a week from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. going to be running a pumping station 24 hours a day. They are going to try to get permission from Cascell's property to put a well on their property which I don't see anything where Cascell's property approved that. I don't see any contract with Hubbard as to the Expressway and according to their own paper, if they don't have a contract with Hubbard they can't sell the dirt any place else. I go along very much in favor of denying this to Sullivan Properties. ~ Mayor Kulbes said I agree with Commissioners Torcaso and Kaehler. As the attorney for the applicant said it is strictly a business deal. Therefore the applicant has no responsibility to the homeowners in Winter Springs or in that area and they have not given any real assurances as to how they are going to protect the aquifer or the . . . Regular Meeting, City Commisison, March 23, 1992 Page 7 91-92-12 wetlands, or the ground water. They have skirted the issue on many items for instance, who is going to maintain the thing after they have completed and if the City is going to maintain, I have estimates from Public Works will be about $36,000 for the first year. There is no assurance the other residents of Winter Springs will be allowed to use those ponds so all in all, it is strictly a business deal and has no bearing on the future recreation areas for the citizens of Winter Springs. Commissioner Jonas said they have never come in here any time and say it was not a money project. They found an opportunity that they felt was a good opportunity. When a developer comes in and buys a piece of property to put 500 homes on it, you think he's gonna put 500 homes on it to lose money? Its a money making deal, that's why he's in the business. I think I have probably done as much research as Cindy; I have talked to our Staff; there has never been any applicant who has presented any project to this City that has completely 100% done everything in their power to answer every question and concern that the City had. I had a meeting with the engineer. They have done an outstanding job of trying to sell the project to the City. Our engineers met with Seminole County engineers and their statement was there was no way that they were going to go into the Hawthorn layer or effect the Hawthorn layer in any way. I live in Tuscawilla, I live four houses away from one of the borrow pits and to say that Tuscawilla is gonna be the only one in the City benefited, I don't think is a proper statement. If this project goes through and is approved I have no question in my mind and the vision that I can see for these lakes to be a tremendous benefit not only to Tuscawilla but the entire City. Commissioner Langellotti said I would like an explanation, I've been hearing a great deal about this RTC. What happens if RTC comes in and takes over. Let's assume that they do, two years from now, where does the City stand? Attorney Kruppenbacher said I don't think anybody can give you that answer. That legislation changes every year. I don't think anybody can guarantee you the answer to that question. Commissioner Kaehler said I'm not concerned if the developer makes $35,000,000 off this project. I'm not even concerned if RTC comes in, what I have done is talk to every expert that I could possibly talk to. When you have engineers, they disagree on many occasions. The point is that we have experts from the applicants who are telling us yes this project's going to work. I have had engineers tell me that their drainage projects are going to work and some of you live in areas where the drainage project didn't work. In addition there are other experts who disagree. This is not 100% guaranteed project. I also went out and saw projects that have failed. We had nice pictures of borrow pits that looked wonderful and everything was working o.k. I went out and looked at some borrow pits that didn't work. Great big holes in the ground, partially filled with water and mud, partially filled with sand and a whole lot of weeds. I don't have any guarantees here. In addition we have had experts in this City who have come in and drilled borings for wells; did all of their drilling and then we went in to sink the well, and guess what, we couldn't sink the well because Florida's geological setup varies so much from place to place. We have an expert who said sink your well here, we paid for and he was wrong. The experts that I talked to said this Hawthorn layer, once all the dirt is gone, the water pressure from the aquifer could push through and at a meeting with St. John's Regular Meeting, City Commisison, March 23, 1992 Page 8 91-92-12 . Mr. Sullivan's engineer said yes that is a possibility, but we can tap it real quick. All the water has to come from somewhere. There are no guarantees its not going to lower somebody else's water someplace else. There are no guarantees. They can't offer us any guarantees. Therefore, I have to weigh the risk factor vs. the benefits, and I don't want to take that chance. This is not a frivolous decision. This is after much much research and much discussion with the developer and their attorneys. Commissioner Donnelly said I agree with Commissioner Kaehler. Those of you who know me know that I am fiercely protective of property rights but this evening I don't know that that's an issue because the applicant is not a property owner in this instance. We haven't seen a purchase contract or an option contract or anything to suggest that the applicant has some stake in the future of this particular property. One of the questions I have, we received the 21 count list of concerns that were all answered quite agreeably. There was an agreement of a performance bond in the amount of $905,000 dollars. If the project is not completed, is the City obligated to complete the project? And what if we decide to use the money for something else, and I see a tremendous legal exposure there. I have a question of Mr. Brown. You mentioned there was another property owner who supported this project, would you mind telling me who that is. Attorney Brown answered the Schrimsher property. Commissioner Donnelly said there is another property owner directly across the street just east of the Cascell property. A borrow permit has been applied for within the last week to ten days from the County. I have here from the County tax office 1989 tax certificates that were satisfied December 1990 but at this time there are $100,976.13 in outstanding taxes on this property. . My other question is we were presented with photographs of nicely completed borrow pits and I would like to know if they were borrow pits actually completed by this applicant. The gentleman representing Sullivan said they were not. Commissioner Donnelly said I attempted to find out about past performance, (she had photographs) and asked if this was a Sullivan Properties borrow Pit? Curry Ford Road on the East/West. According to the director of Public Works Orange County this is a Sullivan project and could not tell when if ever it would be completed. Mr. Fred Drivdoll is the director or supervisor of Public Works. Attorney Kruppenbacher said there was one question posed but no answer and that was what would happen if the project was not completed and would the bond proceeds have to be used to complete the project. If the project was not completed a bond is posted to assure its completion; however, the City in terms of protecting the health, safety and welfare would either have to say that's private property and leave the condition whatever way it is or step in and solve the problem. And if you decide to use the proceeds of the bond then the reality is you would have to be the intervening entity or seek recourse against other private entities to get it done. Inevitably it would end up with people in this room asking you to solve the problem. Commissioner Kaehler asked does that bond contemplate the possibility of an artesian situation and having to plug an artesian well or does that just contemplate a project with no problems whatsoever? Attorney Kruppenbacher said it contemplates just com- pletion of the project without any unforeseen problems, is that correct? Mr. Kozlov answered correct. . Regular Meeting, City Commission, March 23, 1992 Page 9 91-92-12 . Commissioner Kaehler said in addition David, in your responses that you gave us, it does state in here, this says that St. John's Water Management District has reviewed all documentation and studies; David I submit to you that that's not true. Attorney Brown said all of 14 has been reviewed; 15 is in the process of being reviewed. It is the same system as 14 so that's the same on 14 as 15. Commissioner Kaehler said Paragraph 9 what this says here, is that St. John's has reviewed all documentations and studies, and sir they did not. Attorney Brown said that does not say that they have issued the permit. Commissioner Kaehler said but it does say that they have reviewed all documentation and studies and they have not. I called St. John's today, and I asked them, Did you go over all of the documentation and all of the studies? No ma'am we have not. Attorney Brown - to St. John's Commissioner Kaehler said to ST. John's; in addition on page 5 talking about the Hawthorn formation it does say l4C and 15 respectively. (She read the paragraph) I was told by St. John's today that they couldn't make that determination as yet until they have looked over all the documentation and I really don't think its fair that you have said something like that. . Attorney Brown said I have a disagreement with you on that point. I think that that information when you met with St. John's the key element is the boring and the depth of the Hawthorn layer. That information was provided by Sims & Associates, provided to St. John's; they indicated that if they felt that layer was a certain depth then they did not feel it would be a problem. That's what those studies show. Commissioner Kaehler said but sir that's not what you stated here. What you stated here is that St. John's has looked over everything and has no problem and this infers that they are ready to issue the permit which that is not the case. Attorney Brown said on 14 they are ready to issue the permit. Commissioner Kaehler said on 14 are the two smaller Attorney Brown said its the same technical application. Commissioner Kaehler said when I read this, and when I called St. John's today and they told me that no they had not reviewed everything, and no they had not given their blessings to 15 that upset me very badly. I can only take what I have written in front of me and ask for verification. Mayor said I think that we've discussed this a lot. I would move that the question be called. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Jonas, no; Commissioner Langellotti, aye; Commissioner Donnelly, aye; Commissioner Kaehler, aye; Commissioner Torcaso, aye; motion carried. . Effluent Reuse System: Terry Zaudtke, City's Consulting Engineer, showed a drawing of the projects. He said the Central Winds Park will be fed by an additional 12 inch line from Site 16 to Central Winds Park. He said the project has been designed and is completed and will be submitted to DER this week. He said the only holdup is there are two eagles nests and he pointed to their location. The effluent should be out to Central Winds Park by November. . . . Regular Meeting, City Commission, March 23, 1992 Page 10 91-92-12 Mr. Zaudtke said we are going to use the existing pumping system and irrigation system at Central Winds Park. In addition we have a design for irrigating portions of the power easements. Mr. Zaudtke said the City has kept active their loan application. The projects that we are currently working on have been written using state documents so we can go for a refunding if money becomes available. Commissioner Kaehler said the whole object here is to get people to put effluent water on their lawns and not drinking water. Discussion followed on using a hose bib instead of a sprinkler system, and estimated costs for hookups. Manager Rozansky said this would have to be looked at and a report will be given to the Commission. Resolution No. 680 Cablevision: Attorney Kruppenbacher read Resolution No. 680 by title only. Motion was made by Commisisoner Torcaso to adopt Resolution No. 680. Seconded by Commissioner Donnelly. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Langellotti, aye; Commissioner Donnelly, aye; Commissioner Kaehler, aye; Commissioner Torcaso, aye; Commissioner Jonas, aye; motion carried. City Manager Richard Rozansky: Central Winds Park/Scoreboards: Motion was made by Commissioner Langellotti to accept the offer from Coca Cola. Seconded by Commissioner Torcaso. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Kaehler, aye; Commissioner Torcaso, aye; Commissioner Jonas, aye; Commissioner Langellotti, aye; motion carried. Police Vehicles/Markings: Manager Rozansky said we are making some changes to the police cars. Chief Govoruhk and Officer Sexton showed the Commission their model car. Parade of Homes Signs: Manager Rozansky said each year we allow the Parade of Homes to put up signs. The signs are listed on the attachment which has been given to the Commission. Manager Rozansky reported we are starting to negotiate our franchise ordinance with Southern Bell. Manager Rozansky spoke about the letter from the School Board regarding impact fees. He said he was going to tell the School Board he is going to set the same criteria for fees for the Board as we do for the City fire, police and transportation and that they have to be vested. Manager Rozansky spoke about the letter from the Tax Collector regarding Seminole County's ability to get the garbage on the tax rolls; we have not been able to find a letter from Cablevision regarding the change in the law in reference to the franchise fee; regarding the vesting ordinance, we have contacted the Florida League of Cities and they have sent a couple small ordinances. Attorney Kruppenbacher reported the Judge has appointed Judge Edwards as mediator for the Mikes Golf Course lawsuit. He said we will be readvertising the tabled ordinance for the Comprehensive Plan for April 13th. . . . Regular Meeting, City Commission, March 23, 1992 Page 11 91-92-12 Commission Seat II - Don Jonas: No report. Commission Seat III - John Langellotti: Commissioner Langellotti suggested we have an audit of our health insurance. He said we should start the evaluation process of the City Manager. Commission Seat IV - Terri Donnelly: Commissioner Donnelly spoke about the letter from Parker Brothers and asked that the Commission not consider hiring Districting consultants. Commission Seat V - Cindy Kaehler: Commissioner Kaehler spoke about Cablevision. She said Cablevision told her that all the cities were sent letters regarding the option to choose the 5 or 7% franchise fee. Commissioner Kaehler said she has asked for a copy of that letter from Cablevision and also a copy of their audit procedure that is available to cities, but as yet has not received either one. Commissioner Kaehler said she has asked Attorney Kruppenbacher to look into allegations of violations of the personnel policy by a former city employee. Attorney Kruppenbacher said he is waiting for a response from Attorney Brown, and Commissioner Kaehler asked that we have the report by next meeting. Commission Seat I - John V. Torcaso: Commissioner Torcaso spoke about the Cablevision Ordinance and changing it to 5%. He suggested raising the percentage the City donates to employees on the Pension Plan from 4% to 8%. Mayor's Office: Mayor Kulbes spoke about a to hurricane preparedness. Deputy Fire Chief. meeting Seminole County will be having in May in reference Fire Chief Tim Lallathin introduced Dave O'Brien as Meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~r~ Mary T. Norton, City Clerk Approved: ,MAYOR