12-04-2006 - Regular
,
..
o
CITY COUNCIL OF EDGEWATER
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 4, 2006
7:00 P.M.
COMMUNITY CENTER
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
o
Vice Mayor Vincenzi called the Regular Meeting to order at
7:00 p.m. in the Community Center.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Michael Thomas
Councilwoman Debra Rogers
Vice Mayor Dennis Vincenzi
Councilwoman Harriet Rhodes
Councilwoman Judith Lichter
City Manager Jon Williams
Assistant City Attorney Nicholas Palmer
City Clerk Susan Wadsworth
INVOCATION, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Excused
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
There was a silent invocation and pledge of allegiance to
the Flag.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi announced that Mayor Thomas' father
passed away this morning and asked everyone to keep him in
their thoughts. He was sure he would appreciate it.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There were no minutes to be approved at this time.
3. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/PLAQUES/CERTIFICATES/DON
ATIONS
A. Chief Taves presenting a plaque to John Conley
for "Officer of the Quarter".
Police Chief Taves asked Officer Conley to come forward.
He commented on what Officer Conley had done to earn this
recognition and expressed his appreciation for a job well
Page 1 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
o
o
done by presenting him with the plaque for "Officer of the
Quarter" .
4. CITIZEN COMMENTS
The following citizens spoke:
Debby Vince, representing Trinity Materials, stated she
would like to discuss the ParkTowne situation. They are
currently under construction and have taken all the matters
of the City and done everything they were asked. They were
issued permits etc. and they were shut down last week as a
result of the Charter Amendment. She asked Council to
recognize their vested rights in the matter and hopefully
they can resolve this without pursuing litigation. She has
already got $1 million invested in this project.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi felt everyone on the Council was aware
of the situation but he thought City Manager Williams was
working to resolve the issue. Ms. Vince stated she and
City Manager Williams have reached a temporary solution in
the meantime. She would like Council to resolve this in a
timely fashion because she is going to reach a point where
she can't continue and then it will be a costly situation
for their corporation.
Councilwoman Rhodes asked what the temporary solution was.
City Manager Williams stated he and Ms. Vince have come to
an agreement that they would be allowed to continue their
construction up to the point where they begin to violation
the height amendment with regards to the passage of the
restriction limiting heights in the Charter. They believe
that is about six weeks down the road. They have scheduled
a workshop to discuss the effects of the height amendment
and they will be asking Council to consider providing
direction to Foley & Lardner or our legal counsel at that
time to seek a declatory judgment on the determination of
vested rights with existing PUD agreements. They hope they
will be able to find a solution prior to the point with
which they begin to violate that height amendment.
Councilwoman Rhodes asked if that is doable. She didn't
feel a lawyer or judge would render a decision about that
in six weeks.
Assistant City Attorney Palmer stated he wasn't too
familiar with this situation specifically. He stated the
Page 2 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
o
o
Vice Mayor was served today with the first case involving
the Charter Amendment height cap. He didn't think they
could get an order from the court that quick. He briefly
touched on what would be discussed at the special meeting
next week. The way the Charter Amendment is set up it
provides for two categories, buildings that would be exempt
from the Charter amendment and buildings that would have
some type of vested rights under the Charter Amendment.
The way the Charter Amendment is drafted it isn't a city
function to determine vested rights. Only a court could
determine vested rights. There would have to be litigation
of some kind whether instituted by the City or developers
to have some type of judicially determined set of vested
rights. In this case there is an exemption in the Charter
Amendment for existing or currently being constructed
buildings which might need to be addressed more
specifically in this case. He hasn't seen the entire facts
of this.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated so in six weeks she won't be
able to continue to build because that question won't be
answered. Assistant City Attorney Palmer stated he didn't
know the answer because he hasn't seen.
Councilwoman Rhodes clarified that there would not be an
answer to this question in six weeks by a judge. Assistant
City Attorney Palmer informed her if this case doesn't fit
an exemption under the Charter Amendment, which the City
could make, the City could decide if this is an exemption
then this might go away in six weeks.
Councilwoman Lichter felt that should be discussed at the
workshop. Councilwoman Rhodes stated she thought Assistant
City Attorney Palmer said it wasn't a City function to do.
City Manager Williams stated it is not a staff function.
Assistant City Attorney Palmer stated he tried to explain
there are two categories, things that are exempt from the
Charter Amendment and there are things that have vested
rights under the Charter Amendment. He presented examples
of exemptions.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated she is trying to get
satisfaction for Ms. Vince within six weeks, within the
time she needs to have it without her losing her shirt.
City Manger Williams
direction they take.
felt they had exposure either
If they take the position that this
Page 3 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
o
o
violates the height amendment and they issue a stop work
order on this project, they are going to sue the City for
damages and to determine if they have vested rights. If
they make the determination that is an existing PUD
agreement and all other ones are existing, they still have
exposure. They could take a stance as a Council as to
whether or not they have vested rights and still petition
the courts for a declatory judgment. They are continuing
to research that currently. It is something that clearly
needs to be addressed.
Councilwoman Rhodes wanted to make sure they could do that
one way or the other without waiting for the legal system
to wait through the mess.
Ms. Vince stated she is not building a habitable structure
that exceeds the 35-foot height limit. She is building a
concrete plant and you do not occupy a concrete plant. It
isn't normally issued a certificate of occupancy. It is
normally issued a certification of completion. Every day
this plant is delayed they face $100,000 in losses.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi asked her if she was being delayed now.
Ms. Vince informed him right now they are continuing but in
five and a half weeks then they are going to cross this
bridge. Councilwoman Rhodes stated she is trying to assure
she will not be delayed.
Councilwoman Lichter stated within the time by their
workshop, will City Manager Williams have some utterances
form our legal help of what this might fall under? They
cannot make a decision that night because it is a workshop.
City Manager Williams stated City Attorney Rosenthal is
going to be conducting the workshop at that point. He
thought they would hear that the language that exists in
the Charter Amendment that was written and approved is too
ambiguous to make a decision therefore the court needs to
issue an opinion. It also clearly states that the
applicant should be the one seeking the courts opinion
however he suggested Council direct the applicant to
petition the courts because he felt they limit their
exposure in terms of shutting folks down and then allowing
the courts to go through and issue an opinion and then
ultimately you are sued for damages.
Councilwoman Lichter stated vested rights were what she was
trying to hook her hanger on. It seems to her they have
Page 4 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
o
o
vested rights and that is what she would like Assistant
City Attorney Palmer to address, that terminology. They
started a project, they worked with the City on a project
and they got more than a handshake on a project and she
didn't know how they could stop them in the middle of a
project. If they have vested rights, if that is the
determination, she didn't know why they had to wait for a
vote on it.
Councilwoman Rogers asked Ms. Vince when she received
notification from the City that they had to stop work. Ms.
Vince stated after they were already under construction.
Councilwoman Rogers asked for a date. Ms. Vince stated
last Wednesday she got a stop work order on the job.
Councilwoman Rogers asked how many other projects are they
going to have get going or be in the process and then they
stop them. As soon as the voting occurred, they should
have been pulling those jobs and letting the people know
ahead of time. She feels they need to be proactive and
make sure no one else comes in to them like this lady is.
City Manager Williams felt that was why he felt Council
needed to take the position to ask the court because that
is part of the complexity of the problem. He commented on
having individual projects and having to go through each
one on an individual basis. If they take the position that
they want an opinion on whether or not all projects that
had an existing PUD agreement as of November 7th do they
have vested rights. If the court will issue that opinion,
he feels they will be covered.
Councilwoman Rogers stated what she always understood
vested rights is they have a PUD but permits aren't pulled
when a PUD agreement has been accepted and in this case a
permit has been pulled and they are into construction.
City Manager Williams stated the permit was issued November
14th, which was after the point with which the Charter
Amendment was approved.
Ms. Vince stated she had in writing where she was
guaranteed a development order prior to the vote.
all the documents into the Building Official, etc.
had no clue this was even occurring until they got
work order.
They had
They
the stop
Page 5 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4,2006
o
o
Vice Mayor Vincenzi informed Ms. Vince that they would be
discussing this at a workshop very soon and they would get
it resolved.
Ms. Vince stated she would be there as well.
Councilwoman Lichter confirmed the meeting would be open
for public comment. City Manager Williams informed her it
would.
Councilwoman Rogers felt it was important that they knew
the day the permit was pulled. From listening, November
29th the stop. When the permit was pulled it shouldn't have
even been allowed if they were going to let them start and
stop. That's a waste.
Ms. Vince stated she had a million
they stop her from continuing on.
sitting on the ground right now.
dollars in damages if
She has a $500,000 plant
Vice Mayor Vincenzi stated he didn't think anybody wanted
to stop her. They want to make sure they are proceeding
correctly. Ms. Vince stated they reached a tentative
agreement to give the Council the time to do what they need
to do but she asked them to recognize their vested rights
because of where they are in the process. Vice Mayor
Vincenzi stated they would direct City Manager Williams to
set up the process for discussion very quickly.
Dominic Capri a , 606 Topside Circle, stated that was very
interesting and asked if the meeting was next Monday. He
stated he saw the clock wasn't running for three minutes
because that was a lot more than three minutes.
Mr. Capria stated there was an application he saw about a
month ago for the second hiring for the animal shelter. He
asked if that application was fulfilled and if so how much
and who was hired.
Mr. Capria stated hopefully they would give them a brief
example on what is going on for the future animal shelter.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi asked City Manager Williams to address
that at a later date. City Manager Williams agreed to
address it at the next Council meeting. Vice Mayor
Vincenzi asked City Manager Williams if he could get in
Page 6 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
o 0
touch with Mr. Capri a before that. City Manager Williams
had no problem with that.
Pat Card, 3019 Willow Oak Drive, asked when they are
expecting the transportation study to be completed. Mr.
Lear stated in the next couple of months.
Mr. Card stated if the study comes forward and there is a
need for a north/south alternative to U.S. #1, there appear
to be three alternative places for it to run; an extension
of Airpark Road down to the area around Volco Road right
along the backside of Florida Shores; an extension of Cow
Creek to Glencoe Road and hook it up to Pioneer Trail; and
go right down through the middle of Turnbull Hammock. He
asked Council to keep in mind they will be looking at two
projects tonight that will affect this.
Carol Ann Stoughton, 2740 Evergreen Drive, felt Mr.
Capria's questions should be not only answered to him by
phone but she felt the entire audience and public should
know. She felt when they ask questions they should be
answered right here, right now.
Ms. Stoughton stated there are problems at times when they
can't answer them or don't want to answer them. She would
like her questions answered now. She asked how much money
and employees time they spent by putting the signs on the
garbage trucks. She asked if they belong to the Citizens
for Home Rule or any group and asked how much they paid to
go against certain matters that were on the ballot. She
asked who approved spending additional money to put these
questions in the water bill. She didn't think the
taxpayers should pay for man-hours and items they don't
approve of. She asked how much they spent putting this in
the water bills and putting the signs on the garbage
trucks. The people spoke and the people had their opinion
but she didn't feel it should be done without the people
approving it.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi preferred that City Manager Williams
didn't answer that right now due to it being the policy of
the current Mayor not to answer questions posed during
Citizen Comments.
Ms. Stoughton asked why they are there. They don't get
answers at the end and they don't get them now.
Page 7 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
o
o
Vice Mayor Vincenzi asked City Manager Williams to research
that and get back to Ms. Stoughton.
Ms. Stoughton stated someone approved it and someone knows
and she would like to see it covered in the newspaper if
they would cover it.
Ray Paulding, representing Florida Realty Holdings & U.S.
Paverscape, property owner in ParkTowne, stated they are
within 21 days of apply for a permit to construct a
manufacturing plant with similar requirements in the
ParkTowne project. He stated they do attempt to follow
through with their plans to build this facility and bring a
good business to this City and he would like to have some
form of record here to have some form of notice given as a
property owner there. This all developed without their
knowledge and they would like to have a better form of
reporting or record keeping as to these Code or Charter
revisions. They purchased the property under the covenants
of the ParkTowne Industrial project and they do fully
intend to build this facility and to proceed within the
fullest extent of the law. He will be at the workshop next
Monday. If there is any change in that status as to next
Monday, he would like to have some form of information as
to what is going on.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi informed him he could leave his
information with City Clerk Wadsworth and she would notify
him.
Karen Smith, 131 Arthur Avenue, asked if Edgewater has a
noise ordinance and if there is actually any enforcement of
said ordinance.
City Manager Williams agreed to follow up with her.
s. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilwoman Rogers had nothing at this time.
Councilwoman Rhodes wished everyone a Happy Holiday.
Councilwoman Lichter commented on the Veterans Day program
being one of the best-attended programs she has witnessed
and spoke at in the last fifteen years. There were
representatives and they stood behind their wreaths from
World War II, Korea and this year there was a large
Page 8 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
o
o
consistency and group of Vietnam veterans that have joined.
City Manager Williams stood behind our wreath. The fly
over was excellent. The theme was to support the living
military in Afghanistan and Iraq and the men and women that
are in nursing homes as well. Not only to honor the dead
but let's get behind the living.
Councilwoman Lichter made a special thank you from a lady
that lives on India Palm to Donna Nichols. Donna works in
Terry Wadsworth's office. The day before Thanksgiving the
lady called her with a problem and she called Terry's
office. It had to do with the reclaimed water and the
lady's bill had doubled in one month and she was upset.
She called Donna and she got one of the technician's out
there to take a look at it. In five minutes, he corrected
the problem. She was a very happy lady when she called her
back and wanted to give a special thank you to Donna
Nichols in Terry's office.
Councilwoman Lichter commented on the Water Authority. On
a County level, one water plan got wiped out. She spoke of
having the Water Authority of Volusia, which represents
thirteen of the seventeen cities. There has been trouble
since Daytona Beach got a new City Manager. There has been
a law case in the records in court because they haven't
paid their dues from last year and somehow they have
managed with the two cities that they provide water for,
South Daytona and Daytona Beach Shores, to get something
going with all the Managers. Even our Manager has been
involved. Every Manager has been involved. What has come
out of these talks is very much a watered down Water
Authority. It goes back to the Water Alliance, which is a
planning organization and to an implementation
organizations. She will not be voting against a watered
down WAV. She thinks any organization where you still can
meet together and talk together is important to hold on to.
On Wednesday, they are going to be looking at the fourth
amended water coordination plan. They are going over the
language. If they all agree the language is all right that
the Managers have come up with and that is watered down. A
City can come in or go out. It isn't going to implement
plans it is just going to have plans and there will in ten
years be water wars. Meanwhile she will vote for this so
they can still talk to each other and perhaps work
together. If they can all agree with what the attorney
presents to them, that will mean in 60 days from Wednesday
there will be a vote. It takes 11 positive votes to keep
Page 9 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
o
o
something. However something else could happen Wednesday.
Eleven cities could vote to disband WAV totally, which will
mean there will be a void of no organization to represent
the cities that want to participate. It is an important
date and she will be voting for the language. She will not
vote against disbanding totally, even if it just becomes
for now a planning organization. It looks to her that
Volusia County isn't quite ready to understand what
cooperation and give and take and the things that are going
to happen ten years from now and that is a sad statement.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi wished everyone a Happy Holiday.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Law Enforcement Trust Funds - staff requesting
approval to use the "Trust Funds" in the amount
of $3,426.60 for storage and disposal fees
incurred from the confiscation of illegal video
slot machines found within the City of Edgewater
Councilwoman Rhodes moved to approve the Consent Agenda,
second by Councilwoman Lichter.
The MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 .
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
A. 1st Reading, Ord. No. 2006-0-45, Sid Peterson
requesting annexation of 79.18~ acres of land
located south of the Taylor Road and Glencoe Road
intersection
Assistant City Attorney Palmer read Ord. 2006-0-45 into the
record.
Development Services Director Darren Lear made a staff
presentation.
City Manager Williams stated in the absence of the Mayor he
would like for him to let the record reflect his support
for this project.
Sid Peterson, applicant, authorized representative for the
land owner, David McAllister, stated they have worked very
closely with staff in trying to put together a land use
they believe fully complies with the new Land Development
Page 10 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
o
o
Regulations. Right now this becomes an enclave inside the
City. He assumed it would be in everyone's best interest
that this be taken into the Edgewater community and he
hoped they agreed with them that they have a good plan to
come into the City with. He was available to answer any
questions.
Councilwoman Lichter asked Mr. Peterson what would be
allowed in the County right now compared to what they are
anticipate putting in. Mr. Peterson stated right now that
is agriculturally zoned A-3. The most you could get in
there right now would be 18 units.
Councilwoman Rhodes asked Mr. Peterson why they want to
come into the City. Mr. Peterson informed her it was
always planned to come into the City because right now the
City has a sixty-foot easement that was granted to them by
Mr. McAllister some years ago to extend their services.
The only thing they would be asking for in the site plan is
they would like to tweek that sixty-foot right-of-way
towards the southern end of the property. The sixty-foot
easement is in existence now and the City of Edgewater has
a right to use it. It has been in the long-range plan.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated she hears all the time that
people come into the City because the County won't let them
do what they want with their land. She asked County
Councilman Jack Hayman, who was present at the meeting, if
the County would be likely to rezone this so he could have
the same amount, the same density, he is going to try to
get coming into the City.
County Councilman Hayman stated the County would look at
the Comprehensive Plan of the City as well as the County.
It is presently zoned agriculture. If they look back a few
years, the whole area was zoned agriculture or forestry
because that is what it was all about in those days. Even
back then there was always an agreement of sorts during his
tenure as Mayor of this City. Mr. McAllister who was the
owner of the property was attempting to work out an
annexation agreement with the City to bring in and partners
with others a golf course community in that whole area. It
didn't come to fruition for a lot of reasons.
County Councilman Hayman stated the County is in a quandary
because this is an enclave. They don't want enclaves and
the City doesn't want enclaves and it isn't fair to the
Page 11 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
o
o
property owners who have that property to try to develop an
enclave because it took fire services and public safety
matters it's not fair. On Thursday's agenda for the County
Council, they are going to be looking at a piece of
property that is located south of SR 442 in the
unincorporated area, not far from the Florida Shores Truck
Center. He mentioned Cow Creek and Eel Road being
maintained by the County. Eel Road is an unpaved County
maintained road and he wants to create a commercial
business district. They are probably going to say no. At
least he is because it doesn't make sense.
County Councilman Hayman stated the other interesting thing
about this to help illustrate the problem that the
McAllister property has, it makes sense what they are
doing. If you look at one of the reasons the County staff
is recommending no, you get the services. The County and
Edgewater are saying Edgewater is going to provide fire
services. He spoke of the County doing the law enforcement
part of it and the response time for a County Officer to
arrive being 19.3 minutes. He spoke of these being some of
the things you deal with with enclaves.
County Councilman Hayman felt what they see here is a
reasonable thing and the best thing from a safety
standpoint. In focusing on concurrency, this property is
situated right next to one of the City's main utility
facilities and this property is situated strategically
along a corridor which is going to be developed and is
under consideration for an additional north/south parallel
artery to 1-95 and u.S. #1. He feels this is a given for
Edgewater and feels they should support it entirely.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated the specific reason she had for
asking the question was that land could stay in the County
and probably impact our City every bit as much as it is
going to but the City would get no tax revenue. So often,
she hears people say why do you annex land. We annexed a
majority of Hammock Creek. New Smyrna annexed a portion of
it and if they hadn't done it, New Smyrna probably would
have annexed the whole thing. They would have gotten the
tax revenue from it but the impact on this City would still
be the same.
County Councilman Hayman stated there is an agreement
between New Smyrna and Edgewater that goes back to when
Page 12 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4,2006
o
o
Turnbull settled here, he thought on the southern
extremities of the boundary between the two cities.
There are different pressures when political initiatives
take place that change some of these agreements. If you
look at the note, the Indian River Boulevard and 1-95
intersection, they need to look at that in their strategic
plan. He spoke of when they worked on getting SR 442
expanded and going further west to develop the intersection
as a wonderful business, commercial and residential note.
He feels this is what it should be. He felt this was the
right thing to do and he wholeheartedly endorsed what they
were trying to do.
Councilwoman Lichter commented on learning everything she
knows about Edgewater politics from County Councilman
Hayman and she respects him more than anyone. She also
mentioned County Councilman Hayman being Chairman of the
WAV group. He has spoken as an individual and that is how
she has to look at that. He can't speak for the County
Council and she feels he made that point clear. When
Planning & Zoning member get up to speak they ask them to
speak as individuals and say they aren't speaking from the
Planning & Zoning standpoint.
Due to there being no comments, Vice Mayor Vincenzi opened
and closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Rogers expressed concern for the north/south
road. They don't have the transportation study complete.
They don't have anything on the drawing board. They have
development after development that has already been
approved in this City. The developments haven't even
begun. They haven't even seen the traffic and here they
are looking at something else that is going to bring in a
multitude of vehicles. We don't have the roads in place.
When you drive through parts of Georgia, you will come
across large massive amounts of vacant roads. They do it
the right way. They do the roads, then they do the
development. We are backwards. We do the development,
then we do the roads and then the people have to suffer.
Then the people that live here have to pay the taxes. She
isn't against annexing this property but she is against
doing it at this time. They need to get the roads in
place. If these people want to get this property annexed,
they need to help them get the roads in place. She
commented on U.S. #1 being a mess and it is going to get
worse. She mentioned Hammock Creek being on the board and
Page 13 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
o
o
~
Reflections, which has already been approved. They have
Edgewater Harbor, Worthington, Julington. We have a ton of
subdivisions that she has asked the City Manager's staff to
give them an update listing of the developments that have
been approved in this City and the status of those
developments. They don't have it yet. She knows they are
working on it. Councilwoman Rhodes confirmed they had the
information.
Councilwoman Rogers stated in talking about this, they have
a lot already on their plate and they have to look at what
they have now. They can't blindly keep approving and
approving. The people that live here now have to drive
these roads and they are making it worse for them. Annex
later, not now. We have too many problems with our
transportation.
Councilwoman Lichter stated people that buy property have
an investment. They want to come into our City for good
reason. These are reliable people. She felt the idea of
roads gets taken care of through the permitting process.
She sees nothing wrong with their getting going with the
project. Agriculture people are selling their land.
Agriculture use isn't what it was. She feels if the owners
of land can make the money they should from their property,
they have a right to do so. She thinks these things take
care of themselves in time and they have complied with
everything they should. She spoke of areas within the City
that are in the County. She has always said they should
square their sets and not have County within the City. She
sees nothing wrong with the annexation part.
Councilwoman Rogers moved to deny at this time the
annexation of the first reading of the Ordinance 2006-0-45.
The motion DIED due to the lack of a second.
Councilwoman Lichter moved to approve Ord. 2006-0-45, Sid
Peterson requesting annexation of 79.18+ acres of land
located south of the Taylor Road and Glencoe Road
intersection on first reading, second by Councilwoman
Rhodes.
The MOTION CARRIED 3-1. Councilwoman Roqers voted NO.
Page 14 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
o
o
~
B. 1st Reading, Ord. No. 2006-0-46, Glenn Storch
requesting annexation of 20.28~ acres of land
located south of Two Oaks Drive and north of 27th
Street
Assistant City Attorney Palmer read Ord. 2006-0-46 into the
record.
Development Services Director Lear made a staff
presentation.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi asked about the piece of property next
to the yellow border that is all wooded. Mr. Lear informed
him that is owned by the Ford's. This applicant does not
own that property.
Glenn Storch, Law Firm of Storch, Morris & Harris, stated
he also represents Sid on the last item that was discussed
and informed Councilwoman Rogers they are looking at the
north access point. This is part of the solution.
Councilwoman Rogers stated looking at it and having it
complete are two different things. Mr. Storch stated they
are working on making this part of a segment of that. The
Planning Board was very much interested in that.
Mr. Storch stated they are asking for consistency and
compatibility. They are trying to bring this in as part so
it is part of the City so it is consistent with the rest of
the City. They have had to go back and redesign this based
on the new Land Development Code and they can fully comply
with the new Land Development Code and bring this in as
part of the City exactly what they want to see.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi opened the public hearing.
The following citizen spoke:
Dot Carlson, 1714 Edgewater Drive, stated there are gopher
tortoises on the property. There is a little water thing
in there. She wasn't sure if they applied for St. John's.
She asked them to keep in mind what is on the property.
There is scrub jay out there also.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi asked if there would be environmental
surveys and such done. City Manager Williams stated part
of the preliminary plat review calls for an environmental
analysis for wetlands threatening endangered species, etc.
Page 15 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
(.)
o
.
Ken Baxter, President, Majestic Oaks Homeowners
Association, asked how they get in and out of this piece of
property. It looks like it is landlocked. Vice Mayor
Vincenzi informed him they haven't submitted any plans yet.
He asked Mr. Storch if he could address that.
Mr. Storch stated they don't have the plans finished yet
but there will be via existing public street access points.
Mike Stull, Edgewater, asked if the two easterly existing
roads out of Majestic Oaks would run all the way to 27th
Street.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi asked what the existing roads are right
now. Mr. Stull informed him Three Oaks Drive and Leaning
Oaks Drive.
Mr. Baxter asked if there was anyway that could be
incorporated into Majestic Oaks. They do maintain the
property. They spend money to take care of the entrance.
Mr. Storch stated that is something they would love to talk
to the Majestic Oaks people about. They never thought
about that but he felt that was an excellent idea. They
would be glad to talk to them.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Lichter moved to approve Ord. 2006-0-46, Glenn
Storch requesting annexation of 20.28+ acres of land
located south of Two Oaks Drive and north of 27th Street,
second by Councilwoman Rogers.
The MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 .
There was a ten-minute recess at this time. The meeting
recessed at 8:00 p.m. and reconvened at 8:10 p.m.
Councilwoman Lichter asked if they could move 9E up on the
agenda.
No one on the Council had any problem with moving this up
on the agenda.
9E. Little League Baseball Agreement - staff
recommending authorizing the Mayor or City
Page 16 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
r
.
Q
o
Manager to enter into an agreement with Southeast
Volusia Little League Inc. to operate the
baseball program in the City of Edgewater
Leisure Services Director Jack Corder made a staff
presentation.
Due to there being no comments, Vice Mayor Vincenzi opened
and closed the public hearing.
City Manager Williams stated Mayor Thomas wanted his
support known for the Southeast Volusia Little League and
he wished them well in their endeavors. He reported on
also meeting with the Board as well. They are an extremely
passionate group and he felt they would succeed with great
success.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi entertained a motion.
Councilwoman Lichter moved to authorize the Mayor or City
Manager to enter into an agreement with Southeast Volusia
Little League Inc. to operate the baseball program in the
City of Edgewater, second by Councilwoman Rhodes.
The MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 .
C. 1st Reading, Ord. No. 2006-0-42, Gregory Lee
requesting an amendment to the Official Zoning
Map to include 96.24~ acres of land located south
of SR 442, east of 1-95 as BPUD (Business Planned
Unit Development) and approval of the associated
BPUD Agreement for Indian River Crossing
Assistant City Attorney Palmer read Ord. 2006-0-42 into the
record.
Development Services Director Lear made a staff
presentation. He pointed out in the PUD that the applicant
may reduce the number of multi-family units and increase
the square footage of commercial in direct relation to the
generation of the average daily trips, which he feels gives
some flexibility back to the City.
Rick Merkel, Professional Engineering Consultants, for
applicant Gregory Lee, Gordon Development Group, LLC,
commented on the property. In 2001, the City amended the
Comprehensive Plan, as part of the Evaluation & Appraisal
Page 17 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
~
.
Q
o
Report, was action by the City to give this property the
land use designation of mixed use and conservation overlay.
The request tonight is to amend the zoning of the property
from the current Volusia County designation of Transitional
Agriculture and Highway Interchange Commercial to the
City's Business PUD District. The zoning application is
consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and Future
Land Use Designation. The adopted Development Code it is
also consistent with within the area of net developable
acreages and the height limitation of 35 feet. It is
consistent with the flood plain protection ordinance and
the provisions in there for compensating storage. It is
also consistent with all other aspects of the Land Use
Development Code. Also for approval is the BPUD agreement,
which has included in it a number of provisions. He would
be glad to answer any questions.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi asked Mr. Merkel about wanting to
rezone the three colored areas. Mr. Merkel informed him
that is the entire land. It is a composite of those three
colored pieces of property, which encompasses the 96 acres.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi asked about the red or purple area
being listed as 50 acres. Mr. Merkel informed him that
would be the commercial component. Vice Mayor Vincenzi
asked about the green area being listed as 46.24 acres.
Mr. Merkel informed him that is the multi-family area but
collectively only 50 acres of the composite land is upland
and developable.
Gregory Lee, applicant, clarified the Exhibit was attached
to their original application which preceded the Land
Development Code change that actually reduced their
buildable envelope to 30 acres on the commercial side and
20 acres on the residential side. The text of the
agreement is accurate and he felt the staff report
reflected the limitations on their buildable area.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi asked Mr. Lee to go over the
limitations, which he did at this time.
Councilwoman Lichter asked if the blue part was the pond
that nothing could happen with. Mr. Lee stated yes, this
is just a rezoning. This was a diagram not intended to be
a site plan. They have to come back for that. They wanted
to give everyone a basic conceptual view.
Page 18 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
o
o
,
Councilwoman Lichter asked what a portion on the map was on
SR 442. Mr. Lee informed her it was the existing Chevron
station.
Councilwoman Lichter asked if the widening of 1-95 or the
bridge touched his land. City Manager Williams informed
her it would just affect the overpass but would create some
issues with getting off of 1-95 during the construction
phase. They would mark that during the construction phase.
Councilwoman Lichter briefly informed the applicant of the
widening of 1-95 and the bridge being changed to get off of
the highway.
Councilwoman Lichter asked how cars would get into the
businesses. Mr. Lee informed her they have an access point
off of SR 442 and they have an access point off of Cow
Creek Road for the residential component. Councilwoman
Lichter asked Mr. Lee to point them out. Mr. Lee informed
her they haven't been designated because they haven't had a
site plan yet. He believed there were two or three access
points built into the agreement. Councilwoman Lichter
asked how they would get to the houses. Mr. Lee informed
her they would separate the residential component on the
back end and have secondary access for the residential
component likely off of Cow Creek Road.
Councilwoman Lichter asked what Mayor Thomas' comments were
on this one. City Manager Williams informed her he did not
provide any comments about this one.
Councilwoman Lichter asked if it was wet there. City
Manager Williams wasn't familiar with the amount of
wetlands that currently exist on the property. Mr. Lee
commented on the results of some preliminary studies that
were done. There is a conservation overlay on site and
they are going to preserve every bit of that that they
possibly can.
Councilwoman Lichter asked about there being other houses
further down on Cow Creek Road. Mr. Lee informed her there
were a few houses back there.
Councilwoman Rogers stated of this land, there is also a
lot of sand on a sand ridge too that backs up closer to 1-
95. Mr. Lee didn't know of a sand ridge right now. The
Page 19 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
,
.
o
Q
preliminary studies they had focused on the wetlands and
uplands and didn't designate a sand ridge area.
Councilwoman Rogers stated in purchasing the property he
must have purchased from separate property owners. She has
walked all that property back to 1-95 and there were
several owners. Mr. Lee stated they have the property
under control. They have not closed on the land. He
wasn't aware of any multi-owners, other than the gas
station.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated they have a density of 12 units
per net acre. She asked if that is going to be like six
two story or four three-story. She didn't like the
density. Mr. Lee stated right now that is the existing
density on the site. They are trying to provide as much
flexibility as they can with multi-family verse single
family. If the commercial precedes the residential piece,
they may not know that answer for two or three years. They
are trying to be able to develop multi-family or single
family. If they were to do single family it would probably
be a town home type product. With the height restriction,
he thought the most they could do would be a garage with a
two-story product on top of that.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated since this was a PUD and a
rezoning, they could change it. They didn't have to keep
that density. City Manager Williams stated they are coming
in under the existing. Mr. Lear stated their existing
future land use is what gives it the density. They would
have to go back and change the land use.
Councilwoman Rhodes again stated she didn't like the
density.
vice Mayor Vincenzi stated he didn't like the density
either. He suggested maybe they needed to talk about that.
Due to there being no comments, Vice Mayor Vincenzi opened
and closed the public hearing and entertained a motion.
Councilwoman Lichter stated since the Mayor is not here and
she felt this vote was important on that area, she was
going to make a motion but if it passes, she wanted to know
on the second reading that with the Mayor's vote it could
change.
Page 20 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
o
Q
.
Councilwoman Lichter moved to approve Ord. 2006-0-42,
Gregory Lee requesting an amendment to the Official Zoning
Map to include 96.24+ acres of land located south of SR
442, east of I-95 as BPUD (Business Planned Unit
Development) and approval of the associated BPUD Agreement
for Indian River Crossing, second by Councilwoman Rhodes.
The MOTION CARRIED 4 -0.
D. 1st Reading, Ord. No. 2006-0-43, Joseph Alison
requesting an amendment to the Official Zoning
Map to include 27.69~ acres of land located south
of Airpark Road, west of Silver Palm Drive as
RPUD (Residential Planned Unit Development) and
approval of the associated RPUD Agreement for
Elegant Manor Estates
Assistant City Attorney Palmer read Ord. 2006-0-43 into the
record.
Development Services Director Lear made a staff
presentation.
Daniel Johns, 5889 S. Williamson Blvd., Project Engineer,
representing owners of the developmentt was available to
answer any questions.
City Manager Williams stated Mayor Thomas would like the
record to reflect that he would like for the applicant to
address any wetlands that exist on the property and express
his concerns over that. He would like the opportunity to
walk the property with the approval of this ordinancet in
between this and the second reading. Mr. Johns had no
problem with Mayor Thomas walking the property and agreed
to go with him. Vice Mayor Vincenzi wouldntt mind doing
that also if his schedule permits.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi opened up the public hearing.
The following citizens spoke:
Pat Cardt 3019 Willow Oak Drivet stated the Council
approved the development at Glencoe so they closed that off
otherwise they are going to have the big road north and
south going right through the middle of their development
on Glencoe Road. If they approve this one they are going
to close off Airpark Road. He asked where that leaves for
Page 21 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
o 0
a north/south to go? Right through the middle of Turnbull
Hammock.
Dot Carlson, 1714 Edgewater Drive, stated Airpark Road runs
north and south and SR 442 runs east and west. She thought
that would be southwest of what used to be the horse ranch.
She was concerned about the wet in there. It is getting
close to the swamp area if it is where she thinks it is.
She would also like to walk the property too if Mr. John's
is amenable.
Ferd Heeb, 115 N. Riverside Drive, stated suppose two
months from now engineers walk in with a traffic study and
tell them they think the corridor should run Airpark Road
south to Halifax and they approve this. He recommended
they defer this until they get the traffic report and see
what their traffic plan is going to be. When they know
that then they won't be stubbing their toes where they
approved this. It's only a couple of months. He is
waiting to see what it is says because he has ideas of what
he feels the Council should do for the City to develop a
traffic plan. If they don't develop it now, they won't get
the funding to get it done. He mentioned the developments
that are on the horizon not to mention that thing on the
outside of 1-95.
Carol Ann Stoughton, 2740 Evergreen Drive, commented on
trailers that are being wiped out because of a road going
through on Saxon Boulevard in Deltona. The town has to buy
up these properties if they own the land. She felt they
should know. She isn't against developers or building but
she felt they should know where they are going with our
roads. She questioned how many houses are coming to
Edgewater and how much land is going to be built on until
they do some type of survey as to schools, roads, drainage.
She understood someone was digging out off of Mission Road.
She felt sorry for the people living in Magnolia Village.
She commented on the poor people in Mission Oaks and the
floors they went through. She commented on Mission Oaks
Road never being widened. She thought County Councilman
Hayman knew that because they don't want to spend that
money. She further commented on the need for schools and
roads. She felt there needs to be more consensus of let's
look and see and not jump.
Mr. Lee stated the PUD agreement does provide for
concurrency testing for traffic element within the City
Page 22 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
o
o
that they will have to meet. They will have to be in place
before the project can be built.
Mike Stull, Edgewater, stated he looked at this property
ten or eleven years ago to buy and it was an extension of
Florida Shores that was going to be three more blocks of
Florida Shores. The pond is already dug. It was already
dug and filled so there shouldn't be much wetlands on the
property.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Lichter stated if they are talking north/south
road, the City isn't planning that type of road to be
complimentary or parallel to 1-95. She asked about this
being a State road.
City Manager Williams explained we are participating in a
transportation study with Port Orange, New Smyrna and
Volusia County and they are looking at alternative routes
for a north/south corridor. With regards to what type of
road it would be, he was sure the City would be
participating in some sort with regards to SB360 and
proportionate fair share. He was sure there would be some
obligation on the City's behalf in producing or funding an
alternate route.
Councilwoman Lichter stated just because a study comes
forth doesn't mean that is when the road will get built.
That could be three to four years after that. She asked if
they will by accepting this particular project block off
all potential of a north/south. She doesn't want to see
U.S. #1 stores get knocked out.
City Manager Williams felt that was a tough question to
answer because they are looking at several different
alternative routes. Obviously this project is there and
developed and as Mr. Heeb pointed out they are looking at
condemnation of property if that is the best choice of
routes going forward. There again, that may not be the
best choice. It may shift a little bit further west or
east. He couldn't define that would be the best route that
by allowing that project to go through they close off the
potential for that road to go through there is the best
choice.
Page 23 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
o
o
Councilwoman Lichter stated it is a very difficult dilemma.
City Manager Williams stated very difficult.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated it seems to her if after a
traffic study or after this is finished and that is the
best route, then would they still want to build if they
knew a road was coming through there.
Mr. Lee stated he thought when they are talking about this
kind of collector road, if they tried to figure this thing
out, they are looking at something no one has a five year
work program on let alone being able to identify properties
that are or are not in the way. He doesn't see this
happening in our lifetime.
Councilwoman Rhodes felt Mr. Heeb had a good point.
Councilwoman Rogers stated in being consistent with what
she said in reference to the first reading they had this
evening for an annexation of the 79+ acres, she is going to
have to say for the reason she said then she is still going
to say it now. It has to do with traffic. Here they are
building. No roads. Everyone that lives here is
congested. As time goes on she will be part of this
Council and they won't remember she tried to say no. They
are going to remember the Council said yes. And here they
are clogged. She commented on driving to Orlando and not
liking it. This City, it is going to hit, real fast and
hard. It does take time to get the roads in order but does
that mean they need to deal with the residents the way they
are now by ignoring their needs and looking at the needs of
developers and the needs of the City with this proposed tax
money. They have already approved a ton of developments.
Where is the money? Show me the money. She doesn't see
it.
Councilwoman Lichter stated she doesn't see this like the
first one. This is a north/south corridor that is a
potential for parallel road to 1-95. They have all
established the needs to be a north/south. If the delay is
only until February and this comes out, the man has the
opportunity to sell his land to the State/County/City to
make more money. She can see postpone it until then but
she doesn't see it in the same vein as the other one.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi entertained a motion.
Page 24 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
o
o
Councilwoman Rogers moved to deny the first reading of Ord.
No. 2006-0-43.
Assistant City Attorney Palmer asked to interject before
making a second or a vote. If it is the Council's will to
deny this application tonight, he recommended they
entertain a motion to continue and direct staff to bring
back a notice of denial that specifically states the basis
for denial. There is a new Statute that just went into
affect that requires cities when denying development
permits that they also issue a written notice of denial and
staff would need time to work on that. If it was Council's
wish to deny this at this time, he recommended a motion to
continue it with the direction that staff prepares such a
notice.
Councilwoman Lichter would like to add to the motion if
possible or if Councilwoman Rogers agreed the thought that
when the traffic survey comes in in terms of north/south
that this be continued or brought up again for
reconsideration. That the main reason they are voting
against it at this time is because they think it is a
possible corridor in the planning that is being done for
north/south. She felt that might take care of the
situation. She wants it looked at again as well as to
state the reason at the moment is it is a possible
north/south corridor.
Councilwoman Rogers agreed to what Councilwoman Lichter
wanted to see added.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi asked Councilwoman Rogers if she wanted
to modify or withdraw her motion.
Councilwoman Rogers made a motion to deny the first reading
of Ord. 2006-0-43 but in that to add to it that after they
receive the transportation study in February based upon the
decision of the north/south road that they can bring this
back up for reconsideration.
Assistant City Attorney Palmer stated for the record if the
intention is to bring it back in February that the motion
be to continue it. If it is truly to deny it at this
point, he felt staff would like the extra time to put
together the appropriate notice that is required by law.
Page 25 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
o
o
Councilwoman Rogers stated but then the suggestion would be
to bring it back to a date certain but they can't be
certain they would have the traffic study because they
should have had the traffic study in January and now they
are being told February so then what do they do?
Councilwoman Rhodes suggested they bring it back in
February and if they don't have it they just continue it
again.
Councilwoman Rogers questioned how that would be legally.
Assistant City Attorney Palmer informed her one option
would be to continue it until the next meeting and in the
denial order state as a basis for denial the City has not
received the traffic study and would like to evaluate that
traffic study before acting further on this project. That
would be his recommendation.
Councilwoman Rogers stated then that would be their basis.
City Manager Williams stated they could make a motion to
continue it pending the results of the traffic study and
leave it open ended, which would leave it up to staff to
bring it back to Council at that time and describe what the
suggested routes are as a result of the study.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi asked Councilwoman Rogers if it is was
her intention to continue it. Councilwoman Rogers stated
that is her intention now.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi stated so right now the motion on the
floor is what. City Clerk Wadsworth stated to continue
until the traffic study comes back. Councilwoman Rogers
stated right.
Councilwoman Rogers made a motion to continue Ord. 2006-0-
43, second by Councilwoman Rhodes.
The MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 .
E. 1st Reading, Ord. No. 2006-0-44, City of Edgewater
requesting an amendment to the Official Zoning
Map to include 17.63~ acres of land located
southwest of Edgewater Lakes Subdivision Phase 1a
(Northstar Lane) as p/Sp (Public/Semi-Public)
Assistant City Attorney Palmer read Ord. 2006-0-44 into the
record.
Page 26 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
o
o
Development Services Director Lear made a staff
presentation.
Due to there being no comments, Vice Mayor Vincenzi opened
and closed the public hearing and entertained a motion.
Councilwoman Rhodes moved to approve Ord. 2006-0-44, City
of Edgewater requesting an amendment to the Official Zoning
Map to include 17.63+ acres of land located southwest of
Edgewater Lakes Subdivision Phase 1a (Northstar Lane) as
p/Sp (Public/Semi-Public), second by Councilwoman Lichter.
Councilwoman Rogers stated she would have to say no because
it has to do with the animal services facility and they
have an issue with what it is going to cost and they don't
know those items yet. She feels they should continue this
until they have that resolved.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi also said no and agreed with
Councilwoman Rogers.
The MOTION TIED 2 - 2 .
Vice Mayor Vincenzi asked for a recommendation. Assistant
City Attorney Palmer stated the recommendation would be to
either make a motion to continue to a future date or both
being motions to continue to a future date to look at the
date when certain issues are resolved.
Councilwoman Rogers asked City Manager Williams when they
would know these figures. City Manager Williams informed
her whether or not the animal shelter is located there is
irrelevant to a change in the official zoning map to
include this property as public/semi public. They have a
need here for potable water and reclaimed water storage.
They co-locate departments and facilities wherever possible
to achieve a savings. He presented examples of departments
that share locations. Whether or not they put the animal
shelter here, it is irrelevant to the discussion as to
whether or not they rezone it to include a designation of
public/semi-public.
Councilwoman Rogers stated but to take the time to rezone
something right now for even that purpose, they don't know
what that is going cost. They don't even know if they are
going to do it at this point.
Page 27 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
o
o
City Manager Williams stated it is still irrelevant. They
have a need there for potable water and reclaimed water
storage. Councilwoman Rogers stated then it is irrelevant
that they rezone it right now since they don't have
anything there. To her it is a moot point and they should
just hold steady until they know where they are going.
Councilwoman Lichter stated they are operating a temporary
shelter there now.
Councilwoman Rhodes asked about the water storage.
Councilwoman Rogers again asked when they will have the
figures and when they will know.
City Manager Williams stated if the animal shelter is not
there, they are going to have tanks there and utilities
operations there and they are going to have to have this
zoned to reflect the public/semi-public use. He wanted
Council to be aware of that.
Councilwoman Rogers again asked when they are going to have
the figures. City Manager Williams stated they will be
discussing options with the animal shelter but he didn't
think that was relevant to the discussion they were having
here regarding the change to the official zoning map.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated this is the first reading and it
didn't passed. She asked about the second reading.
Assistant City Attorney Palmer stated the item would not
come up again for second reading if it failed at first
reading.
Councilwoman Lichter asked if this vote could be postponed
until the Mayor comes back.
Councilwoman Rogers stated it just got voted.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi stated they voted but they did not
resolve anything.
Assistant City Attorney Palmer stated a further alternative
would be similar to what he recommended before. Even
though it is City owned property and the City is the
applicant, the Statute would likely still apply. They
could continue it until the next meeting and direct staff
Page 28 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
o
o
to prepare a denial notice based on the reasons they have
discussed tonight.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated it is their property but they
have to tell themselves. She felt that was too far out
there for her.
Assistant City Attorney Palmer stated there might not be
anybody else that has standing to sue so it might not be an
issue.
Councilwoman Lichter stated this was submitted to
and they approved the use with no qualifications.
asked if that would have to be done again?
the State
She
City Manager Williams didn't think they would have to
resubmit to the State.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated the point is, this rezoning
failed. It has to be zoned something. City Manager
Williams stated there is a State Statute.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi stated it didn't fail. Councilwoman
Rhodes stated it didn't pass, which means it failed. Vice
Mayor Vincenzi stated they have voted that way on other
things and it hasn't failed.
Assistant City Attorney Palmer stated they could also
entertain a motion to deny the rezoning and continue it
until the Mayor is present and they have five votes to
determine the outcome.
Councilwoman Rogers asked how they could do that when they
just voted. Assistant City Attorney Palmer stated they
could make a motion to make a new motion based on the
discussion after the previous failed motion.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated since this did not pass it needs
to come back to them with another zoning.
City Manager Williams asked Assistant City Attorney Palmer
to describe the State Statute that is currently on the
books and whether or not it applies to this. He reiterated
to Council when they look at their properties, regardless
of what they put on it, if it was a Police and Fire Public
Safety Building, this property would need to be rezoned to
reflect Public/Semi-Public use. The emotions that are
Page 29 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
o
o
centered around the animal shelter are really irrelevant in
the discussion because they do have a need for potable
water storage tanks and our utility operations there and it
is no different then what they do with any other properties
the City owns in trying to co-locate facilities and provide
those cost savings.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated she thought they understood that
and questioned how they get past the motion that did not
pass. City Manager Williams thought the State Statute that
is on the books prevents them from denying this without a
notice of denial for what reasons they are describing. He
asked what basis they are denying it on.
Assistant City Attorney Palmer stated technically agreeing
it is probably an academic discussion that the City owns
the property and the City is acting on this vote. The
Statute, as far as he knows, doesn't make any specific
exemption that would not require; provide an exemption to
the City. Having said that, whether anyone would have
standing to challenge that that is a question he didn't
know.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated if they do the denial letter to
themselves, then what do they do? They still have the land
and it's not zoned. City Manager Williams stated they
would violate their own zoning laws.
Assistant City Attorney Palmer stated it would continue
with the current zoning. As a general principle of law,
the City would be required to zone the property at some
time consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Lear stated according to the State Statutes and the
City's Land Development Code, if they have a future land
use designated in the City, you have to give it a City
zoning designation. He suggested they pass the City zoning
designation with a condition or recommendation that at a
later date they approve the site plan.
Councilwoman Rhodes questioned if that ship had sailed
already. They already had a vote.
Assistant City Attorney Palmer stated the motion to approve
failed. They have researched this issue in the past and
the general rule is a failed motion to approve does not
constitute denial. This was pertinent in the condominium
Page 30 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
.
o
o
case. If the Council's intention were to deny it, which he
didn't know their intention based on the Council's votes
would be to entertain a motion to deny. Like they
discussed before, it would be their recommendation to
continue this until a future meeting.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated if they continued this to a
future meeting, what if the motion to deny fails. The
Mayor is there and that changes the vote. Then what
happens?
Vice Mayor Vincenzi stated someone else puts out another
motion. Assistant City Attorney Palmer stated to approve.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi stated until it gets approved.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated or something happens. Vice
Mayor Vincenzi stated or until something happens.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi opened the public hearing.
The following citizens spoke:
Carol Ann Stoughton, 2740 Evergreen Drive, stated Mr. Lear
does a very good job. She asked if he lived in the City.
Mr. Lear informed her no. Ms. Stoughton stated she lives
in the City and she felt the vote was cast and the vote
should stand. She voted for the animal shelter being a
$500,000 outlay. That is not what they have. They have
help now and the help is $50,000 a year. She feels the
Council should consider going in with the Glencoe Animal
Shelter where they have plenty of land and they can
contribute and payoff what they want to have animals taken
over there. They voted for it. It is over. It's done.
It hasn't been built. The Council just put it up as a
motion. If Councilwoman Rhodes and Councilwoman Lichter
didn't like the way it is, it was voted and that is the way
it should stand.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated it's not about the animal
shelter. It is about that the City owns a piece of
property that needs to be zoned.
Dominic Capria, 606 Topside Circle, stated it seems like
the Attorney is saying to give reasons for the denial,
which would be Councilwoman Rogers and Councilman Vincenzi.
He felt they gave reasons when they voted and suggested
they put those reasons into effect.
Page 31 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
o
o
Vice Mayor Vincenzi stated it didn't fail yet.
didn't pass.
It just
Mr. Capria stated he understood that. He also understands
now why he didn't get an answer when he asked about the
animal shelter.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi stated the easiest solution would be
for someone else to make a motion to continue it.
Councilwoman Rogers stated no, make a motion to not pass.
Mr. Capria stated either way. Either for or not.
City Manager Williams stated the Comprehensive Plan
consists of the proposed designation of Public/Semi-Public,
is compatible with the future land use designation of
Public/Semi Public with conservation overlay, which was
adopted by Council on September II, 2006. When it comes to
Comprehensive Plan consistency, he suggested Council take
that into consideration.
Councilwoman Lichter stated that was what she asked City
Manager Williams today. If they hadn't voted on this
situation already. She can also see the possibility of
making a motion to continue this situation until they can
come forth with a plan concerning the services offered at
the animal shelter, which will not go over the amount of
money that has been pledged. She knows that Pet Society is
trying in the background and doing a very good job of
getting pledges for the difference in money. The situation
has been brought up about the services. She feels there
are ways to still have an animal facility on that property.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi stated they are going off the subject.
Councilwoman Lichter suggested maybe they postpone this
until City Manager Williams can come up with some thoughts
on that subject.
City Manager Williams again pointed out the zoning of this
property is totally irrelevant to whether or not the animal
shelter is there.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi informed him he thought they all
understood. He feels one of the Councilmembers has
questions and does not feel comfortable passing it. He
sees no problem with postponing it if someone wanted to
make motion.
Page 32 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
o
o
Councilwoman Lichter made a motion that they postpone it to
the time where it is proper for City Manager Williams to
come up with some other thoughts and ideas for funding or
direct the answers to Councilwoman Rogers' question. She
would like to postpone it to that point.
vice Mayor Vincenzi asked if they needed a date. Assistant
City Attorney Palmer stated there is no legal requirement
for a date. The only thing is that by providing a date in
the motion would not require the City to re-advertise. If
they don't have a date certain it can be continued until
then but the only requirement would be that it be re-
advertised and Robin would take care of that.
vice Mayor Vincenzi asked for a second.
Councilwoman Rogers seconded the motion.
Councilwoman Rogers stated she was going to say yes but at
the same time she wants to say yes because she feels at
some point when the figures are given to them it is going
to end up going back to the citizens to vote on the
increase because the cost of the animal shelter is going to
be higher than the cost that was initially voted upon.
Councilman Vincenzi stated he was going to vote yes but he
understood the use is irrelevant. The animal shelter is not
relevant to this topic. He is voting yes to postpone it
because another Councilmember has questions about it and he
doesn't see any problem with postponing it for a short
period until those questions can be answered.
The MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 .
Councilwoman Rogers stated on the agenda request, it
clearly states Proposed Use: Animal Services
Facilities/future potable and reclaimed water storage. So
it does say animal services facility.
F. 2nd Reading, Ord. No. 2006-0-34,
amendments/modifications to Ord. No. 99-0-08,
Ord. No. 2000-0-14 and the Police Retirement plan
Assistant City Attorney Palmer read Ord. 2006-0-34 into the
record.
Page 33 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
o
o
City Manager Williams made a staff presentation.
Gary Conroy, 3107 Queen Palm Drive, City Employee for 16
years, Chairman, Police Pension Board, stated he was
available to answer any questions.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi opened the public hearing.
The following citizen spoke:
Ferd Heeb, 115 N. Riverside Drive, stated pass it. This is
a very voluminous, complicated document and this will be
about the third amendment to it. He suggested Council
request the City Attorney or whoever is going to draft this
that they restate the plan incorporating the amendments.
It makes it a lot easier to work with.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi asked City Manager Williams if that was
something he could look at.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi closed the public hearing and
entertained a motion.
Councilwoman Rhodes moved to approve Ord. 2006-0-34,
amendments/modifications to Ord. No. 99-0-08, Ord. No.
2000-0-14 and the Police Retirement Plan, second by
Councilwoman Lichter.
The MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 .
G. Res. No. 2006-R-11, revising the order of
business regarding Council proceedings to include
a section that relates to presentations,
proclamations, plaques, certificates and
donations; and for board appointments
Assistant City Attorney Palmer read Res. 2006-R-11 into the
record.
City Manager Williams made a staff presentation. They will
be bringing forward a possible revision with regards to
Citizens Comments, which he further commented on.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi opened the public hearing.
The following citizens spoke:
Page 34 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
o
o
Carol Ann Stoughton, 2740 Evergreen Drive, stated they
voted and they won and they can speak and they don't have
to give pieces of paper like they do in the County. They
only had one meeting in October and one meeting in
November. When you go to the County they have a lot more
on the agenda. If she wants to speak or someone else wants
to speak they don't get answers anyway and therefore they
want to get up and speak and now they don't want
limitations with having to put a piece of paper there or
someone can't speak on this or someone can't speak on that.
Again they are trying to take away their rights to come
before the Council. She is going to get up and she isn't
going to give a piece of paper. They didn't vote on that
and eventually they will get questions answered and maybe
they won't be there. She still wanted to know what the
City's current debt is.
vice Mayor Vincenzi informed he they weren't voting on that
tonight. Ms. Stoughton stated she knew. She was just
asking. She still doesn't get answers on half of the stuff
she asks. She did it before with Mr. Hooper and now she is
asking, are we still in the same debt and they want to keep
incurring and building and hiring people. It's a sin. Let
them get up and speak and maybe they will get answers.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated at the risk of incurring the
rath of City staff and everybody else, she thinks when
citizens get up and ask questions they should get answers
and they should get them that night and if they don't have
them that night they should get them to them. She informed
Ms. Stoughton she has been told at least four times what
the debt is at the Council meetings. Nobody has ever tried
to hide anything. That is why she thinks going forward
when people ask questions they should get answers. If you
are going to get up there and ask the same question, the
answer is the same.
Councilwoman Lichter stated she would like to keep the
three minutes, not five. She felt well-organized can be
three minutes from the audience because it's a repetition
week after week but they still have the right to get up and
speak for three minutes. She also felt it should be at the
beginning and at the end. She didn't feel it was fair that
people should have to wait around until 11:00 or 12:00 to
say their peace.
Page 35 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4,2006
o
o
.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi informed her they weren't voting on
that. They were voting on something different.
City Manager Williams asked for a point of clarification
with regards to that. He agreed and for the sake of staff
and what they are trying to provide here obviously in terms
of fairness for lack of a better word. They saw that the
room was filled with approximately 50 people tonight and
they have no idea of knowing what potential questions are
going to come up in advance. They would find some validity
in being able to submit something to them in advance in
order to do the proper research. They aren't there to hide
anything from any of the residents. That question has been
answered many times and has been issued with the issuance
of the Comprehensive Financial Report that is a requirement
by law. Those items are there. They obviously can't force
them to pick them up and read it. They would advocate that
every resident take the time to read the Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report. It is an extremely interesting
document and it will provide a tremendous amount of
information.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi entertained a motion.
Councilwoman Rhodes moved to approve Res. 2006-R-ll,
revising the order of business regarding Council
proceedings to include a section that relates to
presentations, proclamations, plaques, certificates and
donations; and for board appointments, second by
Councilwoman Lichter.
The MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 .
8. BOARD APPOINTMENTS
There were no Board Appointments to be discussed at this
time.
9. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Lien Reduction - Roberta McCarthy, property owner
of 405 Erskine Drive, requesting a lien reduction
from Code Enforcement cases totaling $10,000
Fire Chief Tracey Barlow made a staff presentation.
Page 36 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
o
o
.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi asked if Ms. McCarthy agreed to the
$1,000 lien reduction. Fire Chief Barlow informed him she
had agreed and had already satisfied the $384 in citations.
This evening she advised him she was trying to coordinate
the demolition to occur as early as next week.
Councilwoman Rhodes wanted compliance and commented on the
amount of calls she has received on this property for a
long time. Fire Chief Barlow stated when he assumed the
responsibilities over Code Enforcement several years past
he also adopted numerous very lengthy outstanding cases
whereas our liens exceeded the value of the property and he
brought them before the Council in order to bring the
property into compliance and to reestablish residency on
there so we benefit from the taxes, water & sewer sales on
that property.
Councilwoman Lichter asked where Erskine Drive was. Fire
Chief Barlow informed her it was at the north end of town
between U.s. #1 and Riverside Drive.
Councilwoman Rogers' concern was that whenever the liens
and notices were sent, weren't they sent to the address of
record? Would they have been returned? Do they have
returned mail sitting in a file somewhere? In her letter
she is indicating she didn't know. Fire Chief Barlow
stated there are numerous ways they can issue notice. He
believed the notice of record, which still showed that as
her current residence as she was at another residence
because of hurricane damage. Traditionally what they do is
if they know the address of the property owner at the time
they will send a certified letter there. They will also
post the property and post City Hall. They are required by
Statute to do two notice of postings.
Councilwoman Rogers questioned problems with the property
dating back to before or after the hurricane. Fire Chief
Barlow informed her after the hurricane. The majority of
the damage was sustained from the hurricane. She left the
property in care of a family member. Unbeknownst to her
the family member did not communicate that to her in
California.
Councilwoman Rogers asked how much of the City's time has
been spent dealing with this. She asked if the $1,000
would reimburse the City for the time we have spent. Fire
Chief Barlow stated they don't have any man-hours. The
Page 37 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
o
o
..
$1,000 will exceed their reimbursement for the minimal man-
hours they have in this.
Councilwoman Rogers commented on the time the Code Board
spends reviewing these cases. Fire Chief Barlow stated in
past cases they appear to be satisfied with the fact that
Councilwoman Rhodes has illustrated, just to bring the
property into compliance and to recoup the cost the City
has into this case. He confirmed the Code Board was okay
with the lien reduction.
Councilwoman Lichter stated she doesn't believe in putting
people in debtor's prison. She feels their goal is to make
the property acceptable and proper and at least cover costs
and she has managed to do this. She will be in favor of
voting yes on this.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi entertained a motion.
Councilwoman Lichter moved to accept Code Enforcement's
recommendation and Code Officer's recommendation to lower
the fine of $10,000 to 41,000 on the property of Roberta
McCarthy, 405 Erskine Drive.
Councilwoman Rhodes asked if they should add to that after
it is brought into compliance. In other words, if you
don't do it you don't get to pay $1,000 and walk away.
Councilwoman Lichter questioned if they had to lower that
price in order for Ms. McCarthy to do it. Fire Chief
Barlow informed her their staff recommendation is $1,000
pending the property is brought into compliance. The next
step would be to demolish the structure, bring the property
into compliance, reduce the lien and she can move on with
reestablishing residency. Councilwoman Lichter stated you
can tack the amendment onto the motion.
vice Mayor Vincenzi asked Councilwoman Lichter if that was
how she wanted to modify her motion. Councilwoman Lichter
informed him yes.
Councilwoman Rhodes seconded the motion.
The MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 .
Page 38 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
o
o
.
B. Financial Support - Act Corporation requesting
funds to help them continue to provide mental-
health services in the face of other budget cuts
for a one-time cost of $11,144
City Manager Williams made a staff presentation. This was
an unbudgeted expense.
Councilwoman Lichter stated when she was on the Senior
Advisory Board she visited ACT several times. There is
nothing as good a program as that. However, where do they
have that $11,000 placed that they could get. City Manager
Williams stated they would not forgo any other approved
expenditures. It would be an over budgeted item and
hopefully they would have some cost savings from other
items throughout. They had no contingencies within the
current budget. With the pressure to lower the taxes and
go forward with this year's budget, they eliminated any of
those. This was an unforeseen expense as there are others
that occur regularly and will most likely continue to occur
throughout the City.
Councilwoman Lichter stated there may well be a lowering
unhappily of the WAV contribution if the present director
is not kept on. If the goals aren't the same, there maybe
something there unhappily. She asked how they pledge what
they don't have. City Manager Williams informed her they
would overspend. Hopefully they would have cost savings in
other areas to free up this money but they would overspend.
If they decide to help fund this program to help them
through the recovery efforts, they would find the money.
vice Mayor Vincenzi stated from some other area.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated but they would go over budget.
City Manager Williams stated they would clearly go over
budget as it's approved right now.
Councilwoman Lichter asked City Manager Williams to explain
again where he was going to get it. City Manager Williams
informed her he is going to hope they achieve cost savings
in other areas of the budget to allow for them to spend
this. If all of the revenues and all of the expenditures
come in as they budget, they would dip in the Fund Balance
to address this expenditure.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi opened the public hearing.
Page 39 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
.
#
o
o
The following citizens spoke:
Linda Small, 1629 Willow Oak Drive, suggested they don't
approve it. It's not in the budget. The budget is so
tight it squeaks and she informed City Manager Williams he
knew that. She feels this is a lot of money.
Jack Hayman, Volusia County Councilman, disagreed with Ms.
Small. He understood the physical constraints of the City.
They will be looking at this at their meeting on Thursday.
He is confident he and his colleagues will approve this
request. He commented on there being a crisis in Volusia
County. One of the crisis is the problem with the mental
health and those with debilitating problems associated with
mental disease and they are filling our jail. He commented
on the jail being expanded because the system is not
accommodating people with mental disorders so they have to
accommodate them through incarceration. It costs far more
to incarcerate somebody. Right now it is about $65 per
day. They have people in beds that don't belong in those
beds. They belong in a special facility, with special care
and attention and special medications that are prescribed
to them under the supervision of the property physicians.
They found it costs more to do it this way. What they are
doing today, putting them in a jail. He spoke of putting
them on a bus and sending them somewhere else. We may not
have the money in our accounts because things are tight.
He submit that if they don't improve on this and don't
actuate ACT or an organization like that and if they don't
get the people out of the correctional facility in Volusia
County, it is going to cost them many times more. He
represents a government that also taxes the citizens of
this City and they went back to roll back rate and have a
very tight budget. They are going to find some way to deal
with this because if they don't they are going to pay it on
the other end five times over. He encouraged Council to
favorably consider this.
Carol Ann Stoughton, 2740 Evergreen Drive, she disagreed
with County Councilman Hayman. She feels it is a County
problem or a State problem. She agreed with Ms. Small.
She is a nurse. $11,144 isn't going to do anything for
anyone. They don't know how much they are in debt or how
much the budget really is. How can they spend money they
don't have. She is a nurse. These people belong in
facilities. The County should drum up money to build
Page 40 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
o
o
nursing homes, or assisted care facilities or mental places
for people. $11,000 is a lot of money when someone has
taxes of $23,600 in this town. She doesn't make the salary
that these people have and are making as their Councilman
or County people. They are making $40,000 or $50,000.
$11,000 will do nothing. She say no. Let's take care of
our people in our town first.
Councilwoman Lichter stated this is for our people. County
Councilman HaYman wanted to respond. Vice Mayor Vincenzi
informed him he was opening the door to all sorts of
problems because everybody is going to want to get up
again. County Councilman Hayman commented on the crisis
intervention training that is part of this. He knows
Edgewater has many crises particularly in the family
nature, which manifests themselves from this type of
behavior.
Ms. Small stated she respects Mr. Hayman and she knows his
reputation in the town. She feels like he cannot come up
there and tell them what the County Council is going to
approve and not approve when it comes before him. She
feels he is using his position to influence the council.
There is no money in the budget and it is about the City of
Edgewater. There is another crisis beside mental health
and it is called taxation. That is what they have to keep
focused on. It's not that she doesn't have feelings for
people that have mental issues. They are talking about the
money. We don't have it.
City Manager Williams clarified the County representatives
appeared at the same luncheon and communicated that it was
a position of the County Manager to request assistance from
the County totaling $200,000 to address this issue. It is
a concern from the fact that if these folks are put back on
the streets we will be engaging them with our Police and
Fire Services so there would probably be some costs
associated with that, which is what ACT Corporation's
concern is.
Dot Carlson, 1714 Edgewater Drive, agreed with County
Councilman HaYman and Ms. Small. This is crime prevention.
She was aware of ACT and has attended some of their
meetings. If you can stop a crime because of a mental
problem then that saves the taxpayers money. They may not
have the money but some place they might be able to dig up
some. She even wants the animal shelter built. They have
Page 41 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
o
o
.
developers coming in. Get it from them. If they are going
to cause us mental stress, get it from the developers.
vice Mayor Vincenzi closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Rogers stated we don't have the money. At the
same time, as time goes on and they go further into the
fiscal year they may have some cost savings. She doesn't
want to kill this because the City doesn't have money but
because there is a possibility of them getting money in
some other ways for certain things they had previously
approved that may not come through. We may have the money
in the future. This letter indicated to them that they
have this on the agenda at the next Council meeting. She
asked when the moneys are due to ACT. City Manager
Williams felt they had a clear need to have the money now.
Councilwoman Rogers stated and they don't have it now. If
they can do this in the future, she would say let's do
that. She doesn't want to close the door and say no
because they don't have the money. If it is something in
the future, she would want to consider it but they would
have to see where they are at.
Councilwoman Lichter stated she definitely doesn't want to
close the door. She mentioned by saving a penny you might
lose a buck. She feels if there is a possibility the
statement should go that they should support the concept of
ACT and that they are in a bind at the moment with money
but they are going to reevaluate the situation in a couple
of months and see if they can try to send a portion of it
when some money frees up. She thinks it is a very
important thing. She stated the groups she has observed at
ACT were getting their act together. They were helping
them cope. She didn't really see those that Councilman
Hayman was talking about that were in such a state as that.
It looked like they were helping them with interaction with
people, job possibilities, and daily things. She wasn't
sure the ACT members she saw were in that condition. She
would like to see a spokesman come to tell them more about
the program and what they actually do. She feels it would
be interesting.
City Manager Williams thought the folks at ACT would
certainly welcome a maybe in terms of the request for
funding however they won't be able to define whether or not
that will happen until they close the fiscal year next year
or when they get into the later stages, next august or mid
Page 42 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
o
o
.
September. He didn't know how that helps them at this
point.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated to say it is a County problem or
State problem, she pays County and State taxes so it looks
like she is going to pay for it one way or the other. She
asked if they could use any of the Law Enforcement Trust
Fund money.
Police Chief John Taves stated he didn't believe Law
Enforcement Trust Funds were established for purposes like
this. What they do give to them is crisis intervention
training. They send officers over there for training that
is free of charge to the City. If ACT is to go away, they
still need to train their officers and would need to pay
that cost somewhere along the line. He commented on taking
three people to ACT this past weekend due to suicidal
tendencies. ACT is an important thing for them in Law
Enforcement. They deal with them and they train them how
to deal with these situations.
Councilwoman Rhodes again asked if Police Chief Taves had
any money in their budget that they could give to ACT.
Police Chief Taves stated from the Law Enforcement Trust
Funds, he didn't know the exact total right now.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated she wasn't asking him to give
all of it. Just some of it. City Manager Williams agreed
to research it.
Councilwoman Rhodes doesn't agree with waiting and seeing
if they have left over money somewhere. She thinks if they
are going to do this, you give us some money and it has to
come out of the Reserve Fund. She asked what that would do
to the Reserve Fund. City Manager Williams informed her
that wasn't a significant amount of money with regards to
the total Reserves. It is a minimal impact. Councilwoman
Rhodes asked if it would put them below the Charter
requirement. City Manager Williams didn't know for sure
but he didn't believe so.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi does not like to touch the Reserve Fund
unless it is truly a justifiable expense for the City,
meaning an emergency of some kind. If City Manager
Williams could identify some area where to get the money
from, he would be willing to vote for it. If he couldn't,
he would lean against it.
Page 43 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
o
o
.
Councilwoman Lichter clarified he meant other than the
emergency fund. Vice Mayor Vincenzi stated other than the
Reserve Fund.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated City Manager Williams said he
couldn't define that until the end of the year so they have
to assume that since that couldn't be defined, the only
other place there is money is the Reserve Fund. If Vice
Mayor Vincenzi wasn't willing to take it out of there, then
don't vote for it.
City Manager Williams stated obviously they believe that
there will be savings in other areas of the budget that
would allow them to be able to fund this. That is looking
down the road. He can describe that there have been other
incidents already within the fiscal year that they have had
to spend money that are unbudgeted. That is the
consequence of eliminating excess revenues with the
pressure to reduce taxes. As those items come before him
during the daily operations, they have to make the decision
to spend the money.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi entertained a motion.
Councilwoman Lichter made a motion that at this time they
consider half the amount of money requested to give to ACT.
Councilwoman Lichter again pointed out she would like to
hear from a representative from ACT. The City gives a good
sum of money to SCORE. City Clerk Wadsworth stated they
didn't give anything this year. Councilwoman Rhodes stated
they only give them less than $2,000.
The MOTION DIED due to the lack of a second.
Councilwoman Rhodes made a motion to put this off until the
next meeting so they can research and investigate some
places to get this money because she feels this is
important, second by Councilwoman Lichter.
Councilwoman Rogers stated she wants to say no because they
don't have the money but she wants to say yes and hope they
can find it.
The MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 .
There was a ten-minute recess at this time.
Page 44 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4,2006
o
o
.
C. Purchase of Additional Water Capacity - staff
recommending approval of Volusia County's request
for an additional 200,000 gallons per day water
capacity in exchange for an equivalent monetary
value of wastewater capacity per the terms of the
1999 Interlocal Water and Wastewater Agreement
between the City of Edgewater and volusia County
Director of Environmental Services Terry Wadsworth made a
staff presentation. City Manager Williams stated by
exchanging wastewater capacity, he believed it was in the
City's favor of doing so because the cost of design and
capacity on a wastewater plant is more than it is at a
water plant.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi opened the public hearing.
The following citizens spoke:
Dominic Capri a , 606 Topside Circle, stated when it happened
the last time and they sold water to the County, they went
ahead and charged the developments that they were selling
it to less than what we were paying. That aggravated him.
He remembered coming to the Council meeting complaining
hoping they would reduce theirs. The County ahead, because
of his complaint, raised the rates that they sold the water
to. He hopes this doesn't happen again.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Lichter stated she called Mr. Wadsworth today
to find out if our CUP had been passed. They have been
negotiating with St. John's for a long time because they
are tightening up and through various arrangements and
compromises it looks like we will be getting additional
capacity. Her concern as a member of WAV is their eventual
giving that much additional water and if they can really do
it. She believes they can do it for the developments
mentioned. She thinks at some point with the way Oak Hill
is developing and the water needs they are going to have in
the future, that they are going to have to really think of
where they draw the line. It does appear we are okay now.
We have an agreement with them. They do for us and we do
for them. It depends on that number how much we get from
St. John's and how fast Oak Hill is planning to grow. They
are not part of a water group and haven't been. She would
Page 45 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
<.)
o
.
like a place to reevaluate in the future as developments
come in that they don't automatically say yes.
Mr. Wadsworth stated the agreement does provide that we can
say no. There is nothing automatic about us granting
capacity to the County. If it was going to put us in
jeopardy, they would turn that request down. They will
probably be coming back in the next few months because the
County wants to renegotiate the interlocal and clean up
some of the boundaries due to the annexations and the
language that is in there. The Council had ample
opportunity at that time to review the documents and any
changes or wording they wanted changed in there is
certainly open for discussion.
Councilwoman Lichter stated they want an additional
than the original contract. She knew they could do
but she wasn't sure if in a few years they could do
additional 200,000 gallons per day. Do they always
say yes if it is going to impact our water supply?
Wadsworth informed her no.
200,000
this
another
have to
Mr.
Councilwoman Lichter wanted the next time they come in with
a big development to be able to say no if it is going to
hurt us. Mr. Wadsworth stated they have that right under
the current agreement and they can carry that forth into a
new agreement.
City Manager Williams stated it is his understanding that
Oak Hill is currently addressing the question of what their
future water needs will be at build out.
Councilwoman Lichter commented on attending some of their
meetings on the subject.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated if they don't say yes, then what
are the County's options. Mr. Wadsworth stated they could
build a water plant and probably the developments that are
creating the growth and the need for it they would probably
burden them with the cost of constructing those
improvements. It would probably be relatively hard for
them to sink any wells in that location. They would
probably have to look at some alternative treatment
methods. That is one thing WAV was doing for the County as
a whole, to look at what we need to do to minimize
groundwater withdrawals. They sat down with the County
years ago to come up with this concept to get rid of the
Page 46 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
o
o
.
small package plantsl make the environment better and to
make more regional sources of supply.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated if they did built a water plant
their water would be coming from the same place we would be
selling them water froml the aquifer. Mr. Wadsworth stated
it could be if they wanted to go that far west but the
aquifer like we are drawing from doesn/t exist that close
especially along the coast and the U.s. #1 corridor. They
would have to look doing some advanced means of treatment.
It would be a different technology.
City Manager Williams stated an important point to consider
with this agreement is the exchange for wastewater
capacity. Councilwoman Rogers stated that is what she was
going to say. Water verses wastewater. The wastewater is
more expensive so it is a no-brainer there.
City Manager Williams stated when they look at the overall
great is good for everybody from a duplication of services
standpoint I this is the best type of agreement to bring
forward.
Councilwoman Lichter stated it is good now but if something
happens in the future and Oak Hill expands westl they have
to think of Edgewater citizens first. WAV as it was
originally intended would have helped a situation like
this. She wants to make sure they can say no at some point
if they have to.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi again opened the public hearing.
The following citizens spoke:
Linda Small I 1629 Willow Oak Drivel asked if Volusia County
could build a wastewater plant and if that exceeded the 35
feet. Councilwoman Rhodes and Vice Mayor Vincenzi informed
her they already have one in Oak Hill.
Carol Ann Stoughton I 2740 Evergreen Drivel asked how many
people they have coming into the town in the next ten
yearsl 201000? Councilwoman Rogers stated approximately.
That is if the properties get sold with their tax bills.
She feels that they should take care of themselves first.
She hated to say this but who cares about the county? They
have to care about our City. They pay County taxes of
which she thought were too high in the first place and she
Page 47 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
.
,
C)
o
didn't feel they get the services they should get. She
feels they should take care of our own people, in our town
and our own future needs. To heck with everybody else. It
may sound good but it is a sales pitch for the County.
They aren't looking out for us. The County should give the
City back some of the money tax wise they get from the City
and then maybe they will think about giving them some
water.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated they give us wastewater, which
is far more valuable.
Councilwoman Rogers stated they could increase the ratio
three to one.
vice Mayor Vincenzi closed the public hearing and
entertained a motion.
Councilwoman Lichter moved to approve Volusia County's
request for 200,000 gallons per day additional water
capacity in exchange for an equivalent monetary value of
wastewater capacity per the term of the 1999 Interlocal
Water and Wastewater Agreement between the City of
Edgewater and the County, second by Councilwoman Rogers.
The MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 .
D. Renewal of Interlocal Agreement - staff
recommending approval of renewing the Interlocal
Agreement between Port Orange, Edgewater and New
Smyrna Beach concerning joint dispatch and
records management
City Manager Williams made a staff presentation.
Due to there being no comments, Vice Mayor Vincenzi opened
and closed the public hearing and entertained a motion.
Councilwoman Rhodes moved to approve the renewal of the
Interlocal Agreement between Port Orange, Edgewater and New
Smyrna Beach concerning joint dispatch and records
management, second by Councilwoman Lichter.
The MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 .
E. Little League Baseball Agreement - staff
recommending authorizing the Mayor or City
Page 48 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
.
,
Q
o
Manager to enter into an agreement with Southeast
Volusia Little League Inc. to operate the
baseball program in the City of Edgewater
This item was discussed previously on the agenda.
10. OFFICER REPORTS
A. City Clerk wadsworth had nothing at this time.
B. Assistant City Attorney Palmer had nothing at
this time.
C. City Manager
1) Edgewater Harbor
City Manager Williams referred to a letter dated November
13, 2006 describing to Mr. McMillan that they owe us a
little over $2.4 million in water & sewer impact fees.
Pursuant to the PUD agreement, they are required to pay for
the reservation of each of those dwelling units upon the
issuance of Department of Health and DEP permits. Those
permits have been issued. The capacities have been
reserved and we have not received a check. The City has
notified them that it is our intention to collect the
money, describe to Council that they haven't collected the
money and to notify the Council that they have submitted a
site plan and that they are withholding the review of that
site plan pending the money being received. They have
responded with a letter dated November 29th indicating they
don't believe they owe that amount of money and that it was
an understanding that those payments could be paid in
phases with the timeline for construction. The City
disagrees with that and they have requested a meeting and
they are going to sit down and discuss that with them.
Ultimately they are going to probably want to come back
before the Council to address the situation.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi asked if they had that in writing or if
it was another handshake. City Manager Williams informed
him it is in the PUD agreement.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi asked why they are saying it can be
done with payments. City Manager Williams informed him
there are letters they attached to their response dated
June 2005 and October 2005, which they believe confers that
Page 49 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
.
,
o
o
they have the ability to pay in phases. He has read both
of those letters and do not see where those references are
made at all.
Assistant City Attorney Palmer stated they have talked
about this issue before with City Attorney Rosenthal and
Mary Solik in his office and they are of the opinion that
the City has the right not to review the site plan at this
time until they fulfill the requirements of the agreement.
City Manager Williams wanted to let Council know the
approach they are taking and if they are okay with it. If
they aren't he would like them to describe a different
approach they would like to take.
It was the consensus that Council was okay with City
Manager Williams approach.
2) Legal Services
City Manager Williams stated they issued an advertisement
for letters of interest back on October 8th for legal
services. They have had two submittals. One from a firm
located in Daytona Beach and one from our current firm who
has a desire to remain on board as special counsel only.
Through confirmation of a conversation today with Mr.
Rosenthal, Foley & Lardner has expressed that they are no
longer interested in staying on as the City's general
counsel. They have one proposal that would provide general
counsel services to them. He has provided Council with a
legal comparison of both Foley & Lardner and Doran, Wolfe
Ansay & Kundid, the firm that has responded. Due to the
fact they have only had one response, he is moving forward
with providing a contract on January 8th for council to
execute for legal services. He has had conversation with
Ms. Ansay today and she has described she would be willing
to meet with each one of the Councilmembers on an
individual basis if they so desire and that she would be
attending the December 11th workshop to discuss the height
amendments. He asked Council if they were okay with him
moving forward with a contract to bring back. He asked for
Council's pleasure and discussion.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated they only got one response to
the RFP and Foley & Lardner, it sounds like they are just
dumping them. She feels it is pretty much self evident.
Page 50 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
.
,
(.)
o
Assistant City Attorney Palmer stated the partnership in
his firm has elected not to reapply for the position of
City Attorney but has outlined in Paul's letter they are
flexible in terms of timing. Anyway they can assist with
the transition they would be happy to. If there are any
projects that it makes sense for them to stay on, instead
of shipping them off to a new firm which would incur
additional expense, they would be happy to continue on with
those projects. There is a list of specialized services
they think their firm has expertise in and if those
services are needed they would be happy to provide those in
the future.
City Manager Williams stated the firm that submitted the
proposal is a full-service firm except for the areas of
real estate law and labor services. We do use Foley for
some labor services right now. Most of those services are
provided by Akerman & Senterfitt out of Orlando, which they
have a desire to keep them for their labor services as
well. From the real estate transactions and the ParkTowne
Industrial Center, with the complexity that go along with
that project, they would like Council to consider keeping
Foley on board for real estate transactions.
Councilwoman Lichter stated she knows this firm. They
represented the Water Alliance and the WAV Group and the
people that is their main lawyer was Carolyn Ansay. They
are a very reliable firm and they are well known.
It was the consensus of Council for City Manager Williams
to move forward as stated.
City Manager Williams stated he would move forward with a
contract. He asked if the Council wanted him to schedule
individual meetings prior to the January 8th meeting. A
representative from the firm will be hear for the December
11th discussion to try to get them up to speed and they can
try to engage the two firms and start talking about
transition and how they move through that in an efficient
manner. vice Mayor Vincenzi stated that would be fine.
3) Residential Projects as of November
14, 2006
City Manager Williams stated this was a request of
Councilwoman Rogers to bring back a list of what has been
approved and the stages with which the projects are in.
Page 51 0[53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4,2006
.'
t
,
o
o
The report is dated as of November 14th. They have provided
a format. What they are requesting Council to do is look
at it and provide them some comments as to whether or not
they like this format. They can certainly make some
changes to it and then they would be providing this to
Council on a quarterly basis or sooner if they would like.
Councilwoman Rhodes would like to see the address or
locations of the properties.
City Manager Williams asked Council if they would like it
monthly or quarterly.
It was the consensus of Council to provide it quarterly
unless there are major changes.
4) Tentative Agenda Items
City Manager Williams informed the Council the next regular
meeting was scheduled for January 8th. They have a fairly
light agenda for that time frame. He commented on the
proportionate fair share for transportation. That is
something they are certainly going to reach out on an
individual basis and sit down and discuss with Council that
ordinance that is consistent with SB 360 which will define
the way with which they deal with development throughout he
City, County and State. That is going to be an important
item to get approved.
City Manager Williams informed Council of the workshop to
be held on December 11th to discuss the effects of the
height amendment. He spoke of representatives he felt
might attend. If there are any items the Council would
like to have addressed beforehand, he asked them to
communicate that to him discuss so City Attorney Rosenthal
and Assistant City Attorney Palmer could start the
research.
Vice Mayor Vincenzi asked what time the workshop would be
held. City Manager Williams informed him 6:30 p.m.
City Manager Williams introduced Donna Looney. He
commented on Debby Sigler retiring. He has approved
Looney to step in as the Interim Personnel Director.
are going to evaluate a possible restructuring of the
department. They aren't going to permanently replace
Sigler at this point until they have the chance to
Page 52 of 53
Ms.
They
Ms.
Council Regular Meeting
December 4, 2006
"
~
.,
o
o
reevaluate the structure of the department with the
intention of saving money.
11. CITIZEN COMMENTS
There were no Citizen Comments at this time.
12 . ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to discuss, Councilwoman
Rhodes moved to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 10:35
p.m.
Minutes submitted by:
Lisa Bloomer
Page 53 of 53
Council Regular Meeting
December 4,2006