Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 11 14 Regular 500 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS II 1405_ COMM_Regular_500_ Utilization_oC TLBD _Authority _for_Repair_oCFences Page I of3 COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 500 Consent Informational Public Hearin Re ular x November 14.2005 Regular Meeting ~ Mgr. J / Dept. . AuthorIzatIOn REQUEST: City Manager making the Commission aware of citizen request's to utilize the Tuscawilla Lighting and Beautification Assessment District Authority to repair and improve fences along the east side of Tuscawilla Road between Trotwood Boulevard and Winter Springs Boulevard, and to determine if the Commission desires to take any action on the matter. PURPOSE: This agenda item is needed to advise the Commission of efforts being made by residents along Tuscawilla Road to utilize T.L.B.D. Assessment Authority to make repair and improvements to their fences and for the Commission to determine what further action if any it desire to take on the matter. CONSIDERATIONS: The following residents have expressed an interest in replacing the current wooden fences located on the east side of Tuscawilla Road between Trotwood Blvd. and the FP&L power line easement damaged by the 2004 hurricanes with decorative brick fences utilizing the T.L.B.D. assessments. Mr. and Mrs. David Word 1221 Trotwood Blvd. Mr. and Mrs. Dave Tibbets 706 Clubwood Court Thomas E. Doss III 701 Sybilwood Circle Joan Sisto 708 Club wood Court Patty Condon 709 Sybil wood Circle Annette Pursley 735 Sybilwood Circle Wendy Bauer 725 Sybilwood Court CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS 111405_ COMM_Regu1ac500_ Utilization_oC TLB D _Authority _for_Repair_oCFences Page 2 of 3 The proposed fence improvement project would occur on 701, 703, 705, 707, and 709 Sybilwood circle. Only two of the five property owners on which the proposed project would take place have expressed an interest in the project. Five of the persons expressing interest do not live on the effected property but desire to see the fence to be repaired and improved to enhance the aesthetics of the area. As you know from our own experience, assessments have been highly litigated in Florida to the extent that the Florida Supreme Court issued specific guidelines for the lawful utilization of assessments. The City prevailed in the litigation filed against the original T.L.B.D. assessment project because the Supreme Court ruled that the City had followed the Supreme Court's guidelines. It is very doubtful that such a project could be feasible for the following reasons: 1. It is highly unlikely that a fence improvement project could meet the apportionment of benefit, and allocation of cost legal test stipulated by the Court. 2. Even if the legal test could be satisfied, which is highly unlikely, it is doubtful that the residents of Tuscawilla would vote in favor to assess themselves to repair a few property owners' private fences. In order for the proposed project to comply with the Supreme Court's guidelines, a new assessment district would have to be established incorporating only those properties that could comply with the special benefit test. In all likelihood, that test could only be applied to a small number of parcels in the immediate vicinity of the fences proposed for improvement. The apportionment of cost in this small district would result in assessment rates that would cause the project to be economically unfeasible. The only possible way to construct a fence improvement project that would be assessable to all, or most of the property owners in the TLBD would be to construct a wall that could be justified on the basis of benefiting property throughout the TLBD. A wall capable of benefiting property throughout the TLBD would be all but impossible to accomplish since it would have to encircle the entire, or most of the current T.L.B.D. Once again, even if the legal test could be satisfied, the question is; would the property owners vote to approve a project that would certainly be viewed by some, if not most of the residents of the T.L.B.D. as an inappropriate utilization of their funds to repair someone else's property? AL TERN A TIVES: The Commission has three alternatives: 1. Do nothing. 2. Make a finding that the project does not represent a level of benefit to property the Commission believes would justify further action. 3. Agenda this item for future public hearing and make a finding regarding the advisability of further consideration of the project at that time. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS I I 1405_ COMM_Regulac500_ Utilization_DC TLB D _Authority _for_Repair_oCFences Page 3 of 3 On October 19, 2005, the matter of the proposed wall extension was presented to the TLBD Advisory Board by the Urban Beautification Services Manager, with citizens from the area present. The Advisory Board chose to take no action on the matter. LEGAL OPINION: The City's assessment attorney has provided the attached opinion stating his concerns regarding the legal sufficiency of the proposed project. FUNDING: No definitive scope of work or cost estimates have been developed for this project. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Commission chose one of the following options: 1. Take no action on the matter. 2. Make a finding that the project does not represent a level of benefit to property the Commission believes would justify further action. 3. Schedule the matter for a future public hearing and make a decision the Commission would deem appropriate at that time. Staff recommends Option "2". ATTACHMENTS: 1. Assessment Opinion Letter. 2. Map of Proposed Wall Extension Area. COMMISSION ACTION: Page 1 of 2 Jan Palladino From: Traber, Chris [ctraber@ngn-tampa.com] Sent: Monday, October 31,2005 11 :18 AM To: Steven Richart Cc: Randy Stevenson; Ron McLemore; Aponte, Julio Subject: RE: Map of Trotwood - Proposed Wall Extension Hi Steven, I have looked at the Trotwood Map and based upon our discussions about this proposed project, I have the following issues: (1) [PROJECT BENEFIT] The wall extension from the wingwall (as proposed) only abuts 5 lots along Tuskawilla Road. It appears that this would only benefit 5 property owners. This is different than a normal subdivision wall project (such as the Oak Forest project) where the entire subdivision is taken into account and a methodology is created to take into effect the types of benefit. (2) [APPORTIONED COST] Since the wall extension (as proposed) would only benefit these 5 property owners, monies from the existing Tuscawilla Project should not be used. (3) [PRIVATE PROPERTY] Even assuming we could get past the first two issues, the fact that the wall is on private property presents additional issues such as the necessity of obtaining easements/agreement or purchasing the strip of land from 100% of the 5 owners as well as the practical problem of continued maintenance, etc. if subsequent property owners do not like the assessments and are not cooperative. (4) [NEW SUB-ASSESSMENT AREA] As an alternative, a sub-assessment area might be created to only contain those parcels benefiting from the wall extension, but you would have to go through all the steps of creating a new assessment area (e.g. 2 resolutions, public hearing, notices, benefit/cost analysis, etc.) and the costs of implementing the assessment area would have to be borne by these property owners unless the City wanted to contribute money to the project. Hope that helps. Please call me if you should have any more questions. Chris -----Original Message----- From: Steven Richart [mailto:srichart@winterspringsfl.org] Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 2:07 PM To: Traber, Chris Cc: Randy Stevenson; Ron McLemore Subject: Map of Trotwood - Proposed Wall Extension Chris, As we discussed, I have attached a copy of the file showing where the residents are requesting a wall extension on private property . Please get with me on Monday to discuss the position paper from you on this issue. Take care, StIVlD T. Rlchall Cltv Of Winter Springs Communltv Development Depanment Urban BeauUncaUon Services Division Manager 1126l S8 434, Winter Springs, Fl32108 (407) 327-5976 Office (321) 377-4059 Cell 162*19978*164 Nextel (407) 327-6695 Fax srichart@wintersDrinasfT.ora 10/3112005 , - I "- ~... ;:; .. I --......... I ...... ' - /_ '_'_ .~ . ~ I ~ ,.._~. / .> ...'.... / J -.~ I / ...~. n : '- '-. I ....:r ' / T / ;1 ''', ',--- ~ ,~.j .. ~---I". I I ~ / /" , ~ ~ ... 1/;" I t a/ / ... / ~ / /~. :~~----,-.... I.! ,..._,,,.....~ . I ~ ~~ -..J L:: I _j I ......j.. '" ~ - ............... I / g .___ . t. ED I (n ~~ \" 3 : /:. /--. -~/gj~ / ~ -~ ____ ..... c:J / 0 / / T'" -~ I / ~ / I.........~ ::::::::'.. I i)~ /: /~) I I ~ I /. I / / , '\ \ \. u \ " \ ~ "'-, \ /" / -......., "r~( ~ II ~ " '" -J ...........,f.. I ',,- /" ....., .'..............~ l j' / ~ [---sVbilwoodl:ircle-l I / 7'...."" ............. '- / /r............" / ~ / .....~ ............................ V // r .. g /. -..................... / / / / e /1 "j-... ~ "'I ( ~,,,-, j ~_. __)// ~_.. -:--c / ~ "f---.____II /'-' -<-. ~ ~/ I --\) / ~ I I.,.J i :E I I .....~ Ie ! 00 I ... I c _ J c? ... ,e.. l! I ~ g ~ r I . CJ __ I l~ I 6- T -\..- -1 < I ~ :. I-:I~ .. J ., tit ., ..,. ... .... ---.... '" ., Uo ." . .... 1- 1- I .. '" ~ "" #' ~ * I:'D ::::;:J .CI I:'D C CL. I:'D rn =:- - = )I:'D I:'D ICL.~ I cr- I:'D r- .. I -< "'CI~ ~ ~ I I:'D I:'D I en en -. n:I I CL. ':::::I I:'D j- / -.en i =-; ~.............. en. c:; . / !!... _ c i I:'D .. t >< / ....,....; =~. I ~. I ~ I , / (--;- I~ I- I I I ... ..