Loading...
04-17-2006 - Regular CITY COUNCIL OF EDGEWATER REGULAR MEETING APRIL 17, 2006 7:00 P.M. COMMUNITY CENTER MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Thomas called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Center. ROLL CALL Mayor Michael Thomas Present Councilwoman Debra Rogers Present Councilman Dennis Vincenzi Present Councilwoman Harriet Rhodes Present Councilwoman Judith Lichter Present City Manager Kenneth Hooper Present City Attorney Paul Rosenthal Present City Clerk Susan Wadsworth Present INVOCATION, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE There was a silent invocation and pledge of allegiance to the Flag. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to be approved at this time. 3. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/PLAQUES/CERTIFICATES/DON ATIONS There were no presentations at this time. 4. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilwoman Lichter reported on the special WAV meeting that was held. The WAV project, Plan 8, will go on. The voters in this County voted for united water concerns and a united approach to the use of water in the future. They are trying to cooperate with all of the cities. County Councilman Hayman will be chairman of the WAV group for the next year. She will be the secretary and they will proceed Page 1 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 with the thinking, planning and getting going on the first project which will probably be taking some of the use of the property and building a plant on the west side by the St. John’s River. She spoke of having one aquifer in Volusia County. This project will not be completed for ten years. Councilwoman Lichter attended the Planning & Zoning Board meeting as a listener with the presentation of the new amendments for the planned development growth or controlling growth. She spoke of there being so much to learn. She hopes to do the job they need to do that they use their own staff and own help and sit down and hold a workshop with the Council and maybe Planning and Zoning. Councilwoman Rogers had nothing at this time. Councilman Vincenzi had nothing at this time. Councilwoman Rhodes had nothing at this time. 5. CITIZEN COMMENTS The following citizens spoke: Dot Carlson , 1714 Edgewater Drive, representing ECARD, stated she would like to have the opinion of the Councilmembers on the study for a toll road through Volusia County. Mayor Thomas informed Ms. Carlson she had to be more specific about which proposal she was talking about due to there being several proposals. Ms. Carlson stated the County Council just approved the study for a toll road. The Orlando Expressway Authority has asked Volusia if they want to participate in the study for a toll road. Mayor Thomas asked if she knew where it was going, from where to where. Ms. Carlson informed him part of it was supposed to parallel and connect with SR 415 and SR 44. She didn’t feel they needed a study on it. Where they are putting the road through is a wildlife corridor and this area was supposed to be saved. They say there won’t be any exits but in the future, as Bill Long said, this Council Page 2 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 may say no to exits but they don’t know what a future County Council could say they need exits for development. Councilwoman Lichter informed Ms. Carlson County Councilman Jack Hayman was present. She suggested maybe he could give a brief overview. She wasn’t going to comment on something she really didn’t know in particular detail. Jack Hayman , 3003 Travelers Palm Drive, County Councilman, stated the County Council endorsed the Orlando Regional Turnpike Authority’s request to endorse their study of the toll road connector they referred to as the eastern connector. He commented on their reasons for endorsing this. He spoke of the County Council’s concerns about the wetlands and the environmentally sensitive areas. They stated unequivocally none of it should be disturbed and there should be no net loss and no degradation in the quality or quantity of those areas. County Councilman Hayman commented on looking at where we will be in fifteen, twenty and twenty-five years with transportation. He commented on the study done in 2003 being prohibitive as well as the route that was selected being prohibitive. He asked the Orlando Toll Authority to look at the impact on the routes they proposed as well as the impact on the region. He spoke of looking to move eighteen-wheelers from the central part of the state to make connectivity with I-95. He commented on the eighteen- wheelers on I-4 now that would exit or wouldn’t even take I-4 and come on the toll road when they got to I-95 somewhere between SR 44 and SR 442, we would have a lot of them coming off the roadway on I-95. He feels this is unacceptable. On one hand they are saying do the study and on the other hand they are saying it is unacceptable. He further commented on growth and visitors and the impact on roadways. They believe they need to do a very comprehensive study and it will be an update of 2003. It will be much more recent and current information. He spoke of walking the land and it being prohibitive to try and put a toll road of that magnitude through that traverse terrain. The study will cost in the neighborhood of $45 million. This is not being paid by Volusia County but by the Orange County Toll Authority. Councilwoman Lichter asked County Councilman Hayman to keep the City Council informed since it will have such an impact on our roads. Page 3 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 County Councilman Hayman hopes to see this settled through the MPO process. He spoke of Edgewater being well represented on the Metropolitan Planning Organization. He spoke of having dialogue with City Manager Hooper. He is confident this toll road probably will not pass muster. He believed what is before them is to decide what we are going to do with our traffic in the mid, the near mid and long time frame. We don’t have a comprehensive plan that is as comprehensive as it should be. The roads to think about are SR 415 all the way to International Speedway Boulevard, SR 442 from the east to west of this County, Interstate 95, Interstate 4, 17 and 11 over on the west side. We have somewhere in the neighborhood of 500,000 people. He spoke of the change in the demographics we are going to experience and there are many more miles of road that we are going to have to have or some real good public transportation, which is the most desirable part. We have our work cut out for us. John Cordeiro , 1515 Pine Tree Drive, stated he received his water bill and his electric bill this week and his water bill is more than his electric. He feels there is something wrong with the way the City is being run when his water bill is more than his electric bill. Mr. Cordeiro stated he attempted to attend the Planning & Zoning Board meeting Wednesday night. He got disgusted and had to leave. It seems like Pelican Cove Homeowners Association has a little problem and they came here to try and get the Planning & Zoning Board to help them. It seems like the chairman of the Board asked Mr. Fuller if his name was on the deed like if his name wasn’t on the deed it was none of his business and to shut up. He thought that was pretty bad and couldn’t take it any longer. He feels they should get rid of the P & Z Board and get people in there that will work and research every item they vote on. Mayor Thomas had a feeling it would be a long meeting tonight so he planned on taking a break every hour. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. Public Hearing, Matthew Markofsky requesting an amendment to the Coral Trace RPUD (Residential Planned Unit Development) Agreement, cont. from 2/27/06, Item 6A Page 4 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 City Manager Hooper made a staff presentation. City Attorney Rosenthal provided Council with direction from their legal parameters on this. In this particular case, this is not a rezoning before Council. This is a development agreement, which the City previously entered into, which has in it a provision, which caps the density of this particular project at 200 dwelling units. It also has a provision in it which says the agreement may only be amended by the mutual consent of the City and the developer which is also consistent with provisions of the Land Development Code which addresses zoning agreements and requires mutual agreements to amend any zoning agreements. The Land Development Code calls this a legislative act. They would describe it more as a matter of contract in that the City has entered into a contract with the developer. They do not consider this quasi-judicial because there is no rezoning before the Council. The zoning is currently RPUD and will remain RPUD and there is no request for a rezoning. The Council has entered into a contract. They have very broad discretion in terms of whether they wish or don’t wish to modify a contract. This would not be a scenario like they have talked about in the other case where competent substantial evidence is presented and their hands are somewhat tied about doing something else if they disagree with the evidence. Staff recommendation and the P & Z recommendation in this case doesn’t carry necessarily the same type of legal weight as it might require under other circumstances. City Attorney Rosenthal stated they have also looked at the question of the plat, which was approved by the Council, which does have in it the dark green area and is identified in the plat and in all the plan approvals before the Council as future development. No explanation in that particular plat or plan as to what that future development might be other than that obviously it was land which was not being developed. He assumed there was some type of indication that there was some future intention of the developer to come back before Council and ask for some additional development rights with respect to the particular piece of property. The granting or approval of the plat was not a granting of any additional development rights. This is a case where the PUD gave 200 units. As he understands it the 200 units have been used up. There is land, which may be available for future development should the Council decide to give additional development Page 5 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 rights to the RPUD project at a later date. It’s not a situation where they are under any legal obligation. It is basically a mutual agreement. Mayor Thomas opened the public hearing. Councilwoman Lichter questioned an agreement being a legal agreement. She stated they have in there the twenty-two extra lots. They met the requirements they asked them to in terms of the water problem. It seems to her that it was in the original plan. City Attorney Rosenthal informed her the original agreement does not have the twenty-two lots. The original agreement caps the number of lots at 200. They are asking the Council to modify that agreement to allow the 222 lots. The plans the Council approved were designed based on a development of 222 lots but did not grant any development rights with respect to the additional twenty-two lots. The developer may have some discussion with Council as to what their expectations or understandings were based on their discussions with Council or the approvals the Council has granted them. Councilwoman Lichter stated she believed that this Council, not the previous, also stated that if they met the water requirements, the water worries onto Mission Road, then those twenty-two would be acceptable. City Attorney Rosenthal stated the agreement the City has is the written agreement signed by the City and the developer, which caps the number of lots at 200 and says it can’t be orally modified. It can only be modified by a written document mutually agreed upon between the Council and the developer, which is why they have this proposed written agreement before council tonight because they would not be able to act upon the plat in the absence of the amendment to the written agreement. Mayor Thomas had problems with the drainage from the very first. He has been onsite and visited it several times. In the Comp Plan in the conservation element, Page 6-32, Objective 1.3 Police 1.3.1, the City shall cooperate with adjoining jurisdictions and the St. John’s Water Management District to preserve the portion of the environmental sensitive Turnbull Hammock immediately adjacent to the western City limit through coordination of the County’s land acquisition program. He believed that was in the Turnbull Hammock system and it was a floodplain. You can go to the back of Magnolia Village where the water is Page 6 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 trickling out of the weir down the ditch and you can look and it is eye level. He spoke of five feet of fill being put in where they built those houses. He suggested they go through a wet season to see if it works. Twenty-two more houses is going to put more runoff off the roofs and off the driveways into that system. If it looks like it is going to be acceptable, then they can come back next year and apply. He is scared of the potential flooding they will have on Mission Road and the potential problem at the weir at SR 442. Councilwoman Rogers stated initially when this was brought to them, she made a comment about the development agreement stating it would not exceed 200 single-family homes. That development agreement was back on October 20, 2003. She then questioned what impact would these ponds have with these additional twenty-two houses. In their packets, they have a copy of a letter dated May 11, 2004 from St. Johns and they also have a letter that Darren Lear requested from direction of the City Council at the last meeting regarding this situation with Coral Trace and this letter was signed by David King from Quentin Hampton. They wanted to find out if the stormwater problems would be a problem. Would these additional twenty-two homes cause a problem? The engineer is stating it didn’t. The plat that was initially filed for Coral Trace did indicate these two pieces of property, Tracts K & L, both of those tracts they mentioned in the plat that those were going to be used for future development. She expressed concern with the City being sued if they don’t approve this. She mentioned everyone being aware of an error in the development agreement but it was mentioned in the plat, Tracts K & L, for future development. City Attorney Rosenthal stated as in any action anyone could always elect to sue the City. When he looks at the issues, the standard he uses if he is going to provide Council with a legal opinion that tell them they must act in a certain manner and do not have any discretion to act in another manner. That has to reach a very high level of certainty for him to provide them with that legal opinion. This case clearly does not even come close to reaching that level of certainty or he would provide the Council with that advice. Based on what he has seen, his opinion is they do not have any development rights beyond the two hundred based on the word of the development agreement. He was not a participant and not involved in the discussions. Page 7 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 He would not describe the development agreement has an error. It has the number 200 in it. That is what everybody signed. If they calculate the 3.5 dwelling units per acre times the number of acres you get 222, you don’t get 200. Someone made a decision to go forward and sign a document that says 200. He has looked at the development agreement and he feels it is clear enough that it says 200. That is not to say reasonable people can’t disagree on that. He thinks each of the Council needs to make their own decisions as to what they think it means or what they think is appropriate for the City based on those past actions. City Manager Hooper stated he thought the word error probably refers to the plans. The engineer and the first hearing he described that. Those were supposed to be 200 fifty-foot lots. The original plans were designed as fifty-five lots. That is when they came back and shrunk to the fifty-foot lots and that left ten percent more capacity for the drainage and that is how they get the 200 to 222. The error wasn’t on the plat as much as on the engineering plans. Councilwoman Rogers stated now she is going back on what she initially thought when this first came. The development agreement from October 20, 2003 said 200 homes. She was under the impression the plat mentioning Tracts K & L and the possibility of the future development that they would be on the hook because of that. She understands they are not. The development agreement says 200 homes and that is all she needs to know. Councilman Vincenzi stated he has maintained from the beginning that even though he doesn’t like RPUD’s, this is an RPUD agreement that was negotiated at 200 lots. Whether it was a mistake on someone’s part or not the number listed in the agreement is 200. They would not be coming back for a change in that number if it didn’t need approval. Whether he’s got rights to develop it or not, he doesn’t think it comes into the argument. He is going to base his decision on the fact that the RPUD was negotiated for 200 lots, that’s what they’ve got and that is what they are going to stick to. Councilwoman Rhodes agreed with Councilwoman Rogers. She last time also thought they were going to be on the hook. People do business with this city and they have a right to Page 8 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 expect that when they do business with this City that if the City says something or does something, they have the right to expect that that will be honored regardless of who is sitting on the Council or who is in the City Manager’s seat. The developer honestly thought they were getting 222 homes and the City honestly thought they were getting 222 homes so therefore they should honor that intention. On the other hand, this puts twenty-two more homes, forty-four more cars on the road. More people are drinking water and using up our finite resources but she thinks when it comes down to the bottom line on this, she has to go with honor. Mayor Thomas asked for public comments. The following citizens spoke: Chris Challis , Cobb & Cole, 150 Magnolia Avenue, Daytona Beach, representing Coral Trace Associates LLC, commented on Councilwoman Lichter’s comments about handshake deals and the importance of those. As a lawyer, he could tell them handshake deals are worth about what a handshake deal costs you go get. Public policy is best done with some measure of consistency regardless of personnel changes. This City is an ongoing entity. We are all better served with a measure of consistency. Mr. Challis stated City Attorney Rosenthal spoke of the development agreement and he wanted to make sure he was clear and agreeing with him that he is not standing before the Council saying for a dead bank certainty he bet his paycheck they have development rights to go start turning dirt tomorrow on Tracts K & L. He suggested the plat that Councilwoman Rogers mentioned has some meaning. The note and the notations on the plat that talk about reserve for future development have some significance. He commented on an engineering error that designed larger lots than what were called for. Fifty-foot lots were shown in the development agreement. If you increase those lots to fifty-five foot lots you wind up eating up the rest of that development area. That error was caught and rather than go back and undo everything that had been done up until that point, at the City’s request they proceeded with the 200 units at the fifty-foot lots and noted their agreement by the plat notation that says reserved for future development. To do any more than that, would have created some entitlement rights that would have required them to go back anyway. In order to avoid going back and redoing the Page 9 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 entire thing from scratch, the best way to note that they had an agreement at that time was to put something that City Attorney Rosenthal notes doesn’t have true legally binding authority perhaps and that is reserved for future development. He isn’t prepared to concede the entire point to City Attorney Rosenthal on that but he feels they are all better served if they aren’t talking about cities on the hook and forcing issues and filing suit. He felt City Attorney Rosenthal and Councilwoman Rogers made a good point about the density. He feels there is more value and more importance to that calculation than might have been suggested previously. They have 63.7 acres. The development agreement clearly calls for 3.5 units per acre. If you multiply that out, it results in 222 units. Twenty- two units are the exact difference they are asking for. This is not a baiting switch. He hoped Council understood that. This is not a scenario where they have discovered some additional developable acreage, some raw virgin land on the side, sales have been really good so why don’t we go back and see if we can squeeze more houses on here. That isn’t the case at all and no one is claiming that. These are two tracts that the City has permitted their construction drawings and have stamped them as approved for the installation of the road to serve those lots as well as all of the other infrastructure have all been designed and permitted by the City and constructed by the developer to serve those lots in anticipation and an understanding that this was the agreement the parties had reached. They don’t expect the City would abrogate its zoning authority through a handshake and that is why they had to come back tonight. The developer has complied with the terms of the development agreement. The engineering stormwater he knew was a very big concern and he felt Council was right to look at that issue and to continue this until tonight. This is not a problem that the ditch failure on Beck’s Grove Road was a failure of that ditch and that is not a conveyance they build, designed or had anything to do with. The developer has paid $100,000 to the City to help fix that problem and they did so willingly without obligation. They have met with the Magnolia Homeowners Association and talked with them about their concerns too. This is not the case of a greedy developer trying to come in and force something down the City’s throat. He isn’t here to tell the Council they have to approve this. He is proud to be here on behalf of the developer who is a good community citizen who has done what it said it would do. It did not try to go back and undo everything. It relied on the Page 10 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 City’s handshake agreement that they would at the appropriate time be able to come back and if this was an appropriate development that the City would consider that and consider approving the 22 lots that have been from the beginning of the project contemplating design and permitted by all the regulatory agencies for development. Mike Visconti , 316 Pine Breeze Drive, commented on the safety of traffic and there being only one way out. He brought up the original plan when they came in. They spoke about sixty-five foot lots and it was agreed on fifty-foot lots because of 200 homes and they got the 200 homes. Now they come in and want twenty-two more lots. When he listened to the original proposal, it was 200 homes. He thought at that time 200 homes was too many for that area. He commented on the streets in Florida Shores and there being eighty-foot lots. There are more people in that area than are in Florida Shores. He felt there should be another way out of there. He doesn’t know how the Fire Department approved this layout for one way out. He spoke of there being eighty homes in Meadow Lake, where he lives, and there being two ways out. He felt another twenty-two homes means another forty-four cars. He feels it is a boggle traffic situation there and felt someone should look into this and it should be cleared with another outlet there. He mentioned the developer coming in with fifty- foot lots and being approved for the fifty-foot lots with 200 homes. Dominic Capria , 606 Topside Circle, felt it was an open and shut case. If the developer wanted 222 homes he would have went after it originally. Not agreed to the 200 and then come back. The density problem is one of their problems. It seems to him like the motion was made for 200 homes and agreed by Council for 200 homes. In order to change that, he believed the motion would have to be rescinded by the motion maker and rescinded by the person who seconded it and do it all over again and he didn’t see this happening. Matthew Negedly , 540 Coral Trace Blvd, expressed concern with the infrastructure already being in place and Coral Trace already paid for it. The City already showed up, inspected it, approved it, and cashed the check for the permit. Ray Signary , Newby Management, 3310 U S Highway 301 North, Ellenton, Florida, speaking on behalf of the trustee, the Page 11 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 estate and the residence of Magnolia Village, stated they have a concern with the differential in grade elevation of four to five feet and the potential impact that will have on the lower area adjacent to it. They are also concerned with the drainage swale that was created and drains into the existing water collection system for stormwater along Old Mission Road. What they are looking for is very simple. A document from a professional engineer that can certify that this development with a higher elevation will not create flooding for their two hundred and some senior citizen families that have been existing prior to this construction and also that the water collection system will not negatively impact upstream or downstream. If they can get those two documents, they have no problem supporting additional sites under a Planned Unit Development. Without it they have very serious concerns. With the difficult of getting insurance these days, which is nearly impossible, his becomes an even bigger issue for our customers. Matthew Markofsky , Coral Trace Associates, addressed the comment made by City Attorney Rosenthal that they have RPUD agreement, which was dated 2003, which they were not the owners of the property in 2003 but they were the owners in 2004. When they came before the Council, he was there when they got the plat approved. During that time, it was understood they would eventually get the twenty-two lots to develop. Before the approval of the plat, they submitted to the City a complete set of construction plans, which had 222 lots and including all their permits for 222 lots. They approved those engineering plans. They built their subdivision based on 222 lots. They have the infrastructure in the subdivision for 222 lots. As far as discussions regarding water, sewer, transportation for 222 lots and the road’s capacity, FDOT, FDEP, the Army Corp, St. John’s every single one of these governmental agencies has approved this subdivision for 222 lots along with the City that has issued a permit to develop 222 lots. They had the understanding that they would be building 222 homes in this subdivision. He understood the previous owner signed the RPUD agreement. As far as the plat goes, that was signed by them. As far as the construction plans go, those were permitted by them and on this plat, it says that Tracts K & L are reserved for the developer for future development according to the Land Development Code. Further down in the plat, it says their RPUD agreement is pursuant to the Land Development Code, which allows for the fifty-foot by one hundred fifteen foot lots. He Page 12 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 understands there was an error and it was 200 lots in the RPUD agreement. As far as their understanding and they have three or four different documents, after that that was approved by the City for 222 lots. Forget handshake deal, he has something in writing that is recorded in the official records of Volusia County. Not only is the infrastructure in and they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and his attorney said they could clear the lots. They have. They have cleared the lots, put in the water, put in the sewer and put in the drainage. These people who are buying these lots have a homeowners document that suggests it will be 222 lots. They have recreational facilities, they have private roads, and it’s a gated community. The City approved these homeowner’s documents, the City’s attorneys looked at them, reviewed them and commented on them. Everything was approved. These people have expectations to get the 11 or 12% economy scale that those other twenty-two homes would be sharing in. Mr. Challis stated their permits say there is going to be four feet of fill on this subdivision. Their permit says the drainage works, the historical drainage, and they have contributed that money. Whether it worked or didn’t work, the City drainage, it works now. He was just out there two hours ago and it is bone dry. He understood it wasn’t the rainy season but their subdivision is developed and approved for certain twenty-five or one hundred year floods and hurricanes and that is why they have to have thirty acres of lakes onsite. There is a certain requirement to get this drainage for 222 lots. Not only does the drainage work for that, it works for the commercial owner in front of him. His twenty-two acres are draining into his lakes as well. The whole thing works, it’s all permitted and it all works. Mayor Thomas asked for rebuttal from the Council. Councilwoman Lichter commented on her handshake remark and explained by that she means honor. In the old days a handshake would be an honor. The City Council has the honor and should uphold their honor with what they proposed to them and what they okayed to them. The point is they have built already and have laid it out already. She spoke of St. Johns agreeing to 222 homes and she would not vote against their request. She asked if they are going to put it in in phases or are they planning on opening them all up at one time. Mr. Markofsky stated the twenty-two homes Page 13 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 would be developed in a single phase. Councilwoman Lichter stated a handshake was enough for her. Her vote of yes and the Council she was on vote of yes also means she will continue with that vote. Mayor Thomas commented on there being three drainage ditches, Mr. Rosen’s swale, the joint effort between the City and Coral Trace and Magnolia Village. From what Mr. Wadsworth has told him, the original Magnolia Village canal went across Mission Road and will flow north and then come back. On ours it will have a Y and will flow down west of Mission Road to the south. He spoke of having three installed now. He met with Mr. Challis this week and had a nice conversation with him. He is concerned with them building right to the lot line and it dropping straight off. He questioned what if the next people come in behind him and want to put in four feet of fill. He informed him they couldn’t do that. His contention is let’s go through a wet season and see if our ditches work. If they work properly, they will come back and say everything is cool and that they have the right. That is money in the bank. If they give them the okay now and they have problem with this, where are we going from there. Mr. Challis stated he wasn’t an engineer and he does need a primer on flood plain engineering and compensating storage. As he understands the fill that is put there is a requirement to deal with floodplain issues and they are required to deal with the stormwater that is created from that fill with their stormwater management system. All of that goes into the letter that the approval of the permits issued by St. John’s, the ERP and he also has a letter from th April 10 from St. John’s to Coral Trace confirming that following their site visit that the site has been developed and the stormwater system is being constructed in accordance with their permits. Mayor Thomas asked what would be wrong waiting five months after a wet season to see if everything works efficiently and then come back. Attorney Challis stated they have designed their project appropriately and thorough review by the City, the State and the Federal Government who are all charged with protecting the environment, just as this body is as well. They have approved their project. He understood the concerns of the folks from Magnolia Village, but the failure that occurred as a result of failure to maintain that public ditch, it is not their ditch. That Page 14 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 ditch was not constructed by them designed or otherwise, they haven’t done anything with that ditch ever. He appreciated the City went out and fixed that. Much to their credit they have paid the City $100,000 to help the City fix that ditch. He doesn’t know if he would request to be held up with a conveyance that is not of his doing and there isn’t much they can do about it. They have developed this project in accordance with the laws and regulations that are appropriately protective of the environment. Councilwoman Rogers felt her questions have been answered by the letter from the City’s engineer. She is listening to the comments from the public and Mr. Negedly’s comments that talked about this project being permitted. It was permitted for 222 even thought the development agreement said 200. The infrastructure is in place for 222. She wouldn’t have approved this initially but that doesn’t mean there has been a mistake made and it doesn’t mean they need to penalize these people. She has been going back and forth and has been torn over this. She mentioned Tracts K & L and they were listed on the plat and it said reserved right. What she understands from the City Attorney, that is not going to put the City on the hook as far as if a lawsuit were to come about. If she was a developer and she had a document that said reserved for future development, she would push it. She spoke of 222 homeowners sharing the cost of fees as opposed to 200. That is probably the icing on the cake for her. She questioned how much money they are talking about. A lot of these people are going to be seniors on a fixed income and now they are being told you have to pay more of the homeowners fee because they had an error on a development agreement and our plat said the correct thing as far as reserve Tracts K & L for future development. She is going to have to say they need to let the developer do the other twenty-two homes. Mr. Challis felt it spoke well of the development and the developers that they don’t have homeowners in there complaining that they haven’t lived up to their obligations to them and that they have a bone to pick with them tonight or the infrastructure or anything they have done to service those units thus far is failing in some way as such that they don’t want to see the additional units installed either. He felt that spoke very well of Coral Trace Associates. Page 15 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 Councilman Vincenzi stated it looked like they had their three votes. He commented on mention being made of the ditch on Beck’s Grove Road and how the developer is so nice to fix it and put in $100,000. That solution came about because water was running off from their development onto someone else’s property and the City was good enough to work with them to find a solution to correct it. He hasn’t been out there since it has been corrected. He questioned if the work was done. Mr. Challis stated he believed it was nearly complete but didn’t believe it was fully complete. Councilman Vincenzi didn’t think Mr. Markofsky was being such a nice guy by offering to fix a problem they created. He felt that was what they should do and they did do. Councilman Vincenzi commented on the commercial property in front still being undeveloped and this water draining off this property into the storm system Coral Trace has. He asked what the effect will be when this property is developed and paved and the buildings are there. He also expressed concern for Magnolia Village in the back. Mr. Challis informed him there is a requirement that there will be no change in the stormwater output from that system pre or post development as to the front parcel. Councilman Vincenzi asked what they plan to do when it is developed and if the system would be modified if it needs it. Mr. Challis informed him the system is already designed to accommodate that project at build out. They do not own the front piece so he didn’t have the plans. Mr. Markofsky confirmed they are not the owners of that commercial development. They share a St. John’s permit but they have to meet requirements. They are going to modify their St. John’s permit. They have given them authorization but they have to go to FDEP, St. John’s and do their entire permitting through the City and they have requirements to keep certain drainage onsite, just like they had their requirements. They have no site plan approval, no nothing. They have to go through the whole process. There are stub outs that they have created for the drainage that go into their lake that are easements on their property line. Everything has to be done as if it is a solo, stand alone deal. Councilwoman Rhodes asked if the gentleman from Magnolia Village could provide with the assurance their engineering certification. She is asking them to provide the Page 16 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 information requested so if something happens in the future they know where to go. Mr. Challis stated he would be happy to facilitate. It is not their engineers that have designed that ditch. Councilwoman Rhodes stated it has to be in their permitting. Mr. Challis informed her it is not in their permit because the permit runs to their outfall. He is happy to work with the City Engineer to make sure that documentation gets to Magnolia. Councilwoman Rhodes stated somewhere there has to be certified engineering for that. Mr. Challis stated his client’s engineers aren’t the ones responsible for making that certification. He believed it was the City’s engineers who were responsible for doing that but he would be happy to facilitate anyway he can. Councilwoman Rhodes feels developer is a dirty word in this City. All of them that live here are sick and tired of waiting in traffic or hearing our resources are being limited because new people are moving in here. Ninety- eight percent of the people in this City, it was developed by somebody. It didn’t just spring out of nowhere. The developer wants his rights, the people that have lived here for a long time want their rights but they don’t want to give the same rights to people that want to live here. They have to be careful to control the growth. She spoke of the people that are here now compared to 30 years ago. She feels they should have stopped growth then. Development and developers are not necessarily bad and they can as a City get huge rewards from them because this is the promise land. Our City has high value and for us to hold it in high value as a City Council is so important. When you hold it in low value, that is when you have uncontrolled growth. You can’t just say we’re locking the doors and nobody is coming in. She informed Mr. Challis if they provided the information to Magnolia, she would make the motion herself that he gets his twenty-two houses. Mr. Challis informed her he would be happy to commit to doing that. Councilwoman Lichter stated Magnolia Village has had water problems, not only from that drain but that whole area down Mission Road. The County doesn’t necessarily take care of their drain system as well as we do. Magnolia Village is in the County and not Edgewater. They have water coming from all directions that affects their property. Page 17 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 Charles Miller , Magnolia Village resident, stated he understands the discharge pipe from their retention ponds flows to Old Mission. It has been engineered effectively. There is a 38 X 60 inch pipe that is there installed at the entrance to the swale, which is a ditch and to the exit of the swale which channels the water discharged for overflow along the western side of Old Mission Road. He suggested perhaps the City could get behind the County to retrench the western swale along Old Mission Road because the outfall from that pipe right now is going to have to go up hill to get to SR 442. Mike Roddy , 1750 Persimmon Circle, resident Magnolia Village, stated he has lived in Magnolia Village for twelve years. He watched the water level through every one of the hurricanes and the system they had installed was adequate to take care of all that water without any flooding problems. Now they have a new situation. We have eighty acres of land where the trees were removed and it was raised five foot above where it was. Now they have a neighbor that is five foot higher in elevation than Magnolia Village. They have been doing a pretty good job. Edgewater has put in a nice drainage system. He believed the system Coral Trace has is adequate. If the water can’t get out across Mission Road and that is where the County becomes involved and it can’t get over SR 442 to be discharged south of them they could still have a problem. Water will flow from the highest point to the lowest point. If you stop that, the water level will rise behind it to go somewhere and they don’t want it to go to Magnolia Village. The County has a very good track record of trying to take care of the ditches but so far right now both sides of Old Mission Road have got to be retrenched. That water will go down to SR 442 and it all has to go across to the south of Old Mission Road then it has to go through a weir and through spillage over to the south side of SR 442 where it is spilled into a woods area. There is a weir that will control the amount of water that goes through a concrete opening that goes under SR 442. There is a question of whether that weir is going to be enough blockage that is going to back up on both sides of Old Mission Road which will result in some problems for Magnolia Village. DOT has been told a couple times to make sure that their weir can handle all the water that is going to be flowing down both sides of Old Mission Road. He wanted to be sure Volusia County and DOT are going to play an important part in whether they have a problem or not. Page 18 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 Mayor Thomas closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Rhodes moved to amend the PUD to reflect the extra twenty-two houses provided that Mr. Markofsky get with his lawyer or whoever he needs to get with to provide Magnolia Terrace, Magnolia Village the documentation they need to ensure them the engineering is certified and that they have recourse, second by Councilwoman Lichter . City Attorney Rosenthal asked how staff would verify compliance with those additions. Councilwoman Rhodes stated the man from Magnolia Village would let them know. Mr. Challis stated he would be happy to copy the City on the correspondence and otherwise if they would like he was sure they would be happy to independently verify that. The MOTION CARRIED 3-2. Mayor Thomas and Councilman Vincenzi voted NO . B. Public Hearing, Matthew Markofsky requesting replat approval for an additional 22 lots to be located within the Coral Trace Subdivision, cont. from 2/27/06, Item 6B City Manager Hooper made a staff presentation. City Attorney Rosenthal informed Council based on the last motion if they are gong to approve the plat, they should condition the approval upon satisfaction of the conditions associated with the PUD amendment. Mayor Thomas opened the public hearing. Councilwoman Rogers again commented on the letter they have from an engineer that states these problems aren’t as they are hearing. She commented on this project affecting another project, such as with Oak Leaf Preserve and Mission Oaks. Coral Trace was approved a long time ago and they have these issues now through these people that are coming out with Meadow Lake saying they are having problems. Her concern is they need to pay attention to this engineering in the future because this is not going to stop, especially with all the development west of I-95. There are reasons why they want to make changes in the Land Development Code and there are reasons why they want to make the lot width minimum be seventy-five feet. These are old things and they have to forward. Page 19 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 Mayor Thomas closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Lichter moved to make an affirmative vote for replat approval for Coral Trace Subdivision and that replat approval should include the PUD qualifications they just entered into in 6A, second by Councilwoman Rhodes. The MOTION CARRIED 3-2. Mayor Thomas and Councilman Vincenzi voted NO . There was a fifteen-minute recess at this time. The meeting recessed at 8:15 and reconvened at 8:30 p.m. st C. 1 Reading, Ord. No. 2006-O-10, City of Edgewater requesting amendments to the data and analysis, and the Goals, Objectives and Policies within the Future Land Use, Conservation and Coastal Elements of the Comprehensive Plan City Manager Hooper made a staff presentation by explaining the Comprehensive Plan process. City Attorney Rosenthal commented on this being a legislative process. He also informed Council these are only allowed to be adopted twice a year. The number you can do during the course of a year is limited. City Attorney Rosenthal read Ord. 2006-O-10 into the record. City Manager Hooper went over the proposed changes to the Future Land Use, Conservation and Coastal Elements. Councilwoman Vincenzi asked City Manager Hooper to explain Exhibit A and the purpose of crossing out the gross and where it will be explained, which City Manager Hooper did at this time. Councilwoman Rogers commented on Comp Plan Amendments being able to be submitted twice a year to the Department of Community Affairs, where it sits for 90 days. She asked what happens if they change the Land Development Code and they have the terminology of net density and this hasn’t been approved yet. She asked if they are caught in the middle. City Manager Hooper commented on the process being started. By eliminating the word gross, they are leaving Page 20 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 the definition in the Land Development Code. That is where they will be winding up. Councilwoman Rogers commented on having a time lag. They are starting this and if they change it in the Land Development Code, she questioned how enforceable it would be for them later on. City Manager Hooper informed her neither are enforceable until they do both. Councilwoman Rogers questioned what it would do with some of these developments that are coming in west of I-95, north of SR 442 and they haven’t completed the process? She asked if there is something they do now. City Manager Hooper informed her yes, it is being handled in the PUD document. The developers will be agreeing to that. Councilwoman Rogers feels they need to make a notation of that so they don’t let this fall through the cracks. City Manager Hooper informed her it is in there. Mayor Thomas opened the public hearing. The following citizen spoke: Chris Balmer , 148 William Street, expressed concern with the Planning & Zoning Board needing more time to study the issue of gross and net. He also understood VCARD wrote a letter stating the same thing. It sounds like the first step in a two-step process is going to occur anyway. Councilwoman Rhodes didn’t think that would change anything just to take out the word gross and use the word acreage. That gives you the availability in the Land Development Code to be flexible either way. City Manager Hooper stated at the Planning & Zoning Board there was some discussion over changing the low-density residential number. The low-density residential number today is between one and five units. Mr. Lear identified it was discussed and approved at the Planning & Zoning Board to go from one to four. This document does not reflect that but if Council is interested in that they need to talk about that. Councilwoman Rhodes asked if this is approved can they approve it with the stipulation that it be changed in there so they don’t hold up the process. City Manager Hooper explained it has not been advertised in that manner. He wanted to point out that was a discussion and Planning & Page 21 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 Zoning recommended Council review that. It is not on the table tonight because it is not advertised. If they want staff to look at that and bring it back, it needs to be discussed. City Manager Hooper further commented on researching why it is one to five anyway. It is one to five because that is the only way Florida Shores would fit. The whole Comp Plan was developed around Florida Shores and its gross density was at 4.3 units to the acre. He commented on the County’s density being 1.4 and ours being 1.5 so it looks like there is a change when a property annexes into the City but they are both low density residential. He informed Council if they wanted him to work on that, he would do that. Councilwoman Lichter asked when this would be ready, in two weeks. City Manager Hooper informed her yes. Councilwoman Rhodes asked if they could make it one to three. City Manager Hooper suggested they work on the three in front of them tonight. If they want to add the other, in the end instead of transmittal, they will continue it for a couple of weeks and bring it back and advertise it properly. Mayor Thomas closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Rhodes moved to approve Ord. 2006-O-10, City of Edgewater requesting amendments to the data and analysis, and the Goals, Objectives and Policies within the Future Land Use, Conservation and Coastal Elements of the Comprehensive Plan, second by Councilwoman Rogers . The MOTION CARRIED 5-0 . st D. 1 Reading, Ord. No. 2006-O-11, City of Edgewater requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to include 17.63+ acres of property located southwest of the Edgewater Lakes Subdivision Phase 1a (Northstar Lane) as Public/Semi-Public with Conservation Overlay City Attorney Rosenthal read Ord. 2006-O-11 into the record. Page 22 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 City Manager Hooper made a staff presentation. Due to there being no comments, Mayor Thomas opened and closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Lichter moved to approve Ord. 2006-O-11, City of Edgewater requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to include 17.63+ acres of property located southwest of the Edgewater Lakes Subdivision Phase 1a (Northstar Lane) as Public/Semi-Public with Conservation Overlay, second by Councilwoman Rhodes . The MOTION CARRIED 5-0 . st Reading, Ord. No. 2006-O-12, Trajan Joe E. 1 Sfera requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change 10.1+ acres of property located west of US1 and south of 4100 S. US1 from Commercial with Conservation Overlay to High Density Residential with Conservation Overlay City Attorney Rosenthal read Ord. 2006-O-12 into the record. City Manager Hooper made a staff presentation. Staff as well as the Planning & Zoning Board recommends denial against high density residential west of U.S. #1. Councilwoman Rhodes agreed with staff and the Planning & Zoning Board. She will never trade commercial for high density residential. Joe Sfera , 1710 Industrial Street, asked for a continuance on this due to not being ready yet. They moved down here five years ago and three years ago he approached the City and asked what would happen in Edgewater with development and they were informed there would be development. They bought land all over the place just to develop it. He spoke of having land on Old Mission Road and U.S. #1. He is trying to figure out which is the best way to go ahead and make it easier for Edgewater. He spoke of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on the building on Industrial. He again asked for a continuance. Page 23 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 City Manager Hooper stated if he was going to withdraw, he would be eligible to submit on the next round of Comp Plan amendments. Mr. Sfera asked about it taking about six months. City Manager Hooper informed him yes. City Attorney Rosenthal asked Mr. Sfera if he was withdrawing his application. Mr. Sfera spoke of selling land to Bert Fish with the idea they were going to build a hospital. They have land on the other side to put down offices, which the City okayed. He did a lot of research and spoke of nobody wanting to rent due to there not being enough residential people. He commented on the parcel being twelve acres but two is being left for commercial and they would like to put town homes on the other ten. He spoke of Kayat being on one side of them and Chaps being on the other side and both of these businesses being closed. Councilwoman Rhodes asked Mr. Sfera what he wanted the City to do. Mr. Sfera informed her what he had in mind to do was to keep the two acres in the front to be commercial. Councilwoman Rhodes then asked Mr. Sfera if he wanted to continue with what they had in front of them. Mr. Sfera stated he is going to withdraw because he wasn’t sure what the Council’s answer was going to be. He is trying to make it right. He was asked to be at the meeting. They are trying to make two acres commercial in the front and in the back put in town homes. He needed to withdraw because he didn’t have the right answer and he didn’t know what the City would tell him. City Manager Hooper explained what he thought Mr. Sfera wanted to do was withdraw and have Council waive his application fee next time. Councilwoman Lichter suggested Mr. Sfera work with Mr. Lear or the Economic Development Board to find out what might be most appropriate. Mr. Sfera asked Council to keep in mind. If they keep two acres in the front commercial is fine. In the back is going to be town homes with a pool and shuffleboard courts. Mayor Thomas asked Mr. Sfera to speak to staff. City Attorney Rosenthal stated they needed a clear statement from him in the record that he has withdrawn the application and if that is the case no vote of the Council would be needed because the application would no longer be Page 24 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 before them. Mr. Sfera informed him okay. City Attorney Rosenthal stated he thought they just heard the application was withdrawn. Mr. Sfera stated all right, thank you. Councilwoman Lichter questioned him having to go a step further in terms of the application fee or if he could work with Mr. Lear to give him some help with the property. City Manager Hooper informed her he has been doing that and will continue. He informed Council it would come back to them in about six months. st F. 1 Reading, Ord. No. 2006-O-13, Targator Partners, LLC requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land use Map to include 2.67+ acres of land located along Falcon Avenue, west of Riverside Bank as High Density Residential City Attorney Rosenthal read Ord. 2006-O-13 into the record. City Manager Hooper made a staff presentation. This has been in front of Council before. The first time as a plan amendment but remodified by the Department of Community Affairs as a large-scale amendment. Councilwoman Lichter asked if this was the entrance where the light is where you go into Pelican Cove West. City Manager Hooper pointed out where the property is located. Councilwoman Lichter asked if there was a reaction from Pelican Cove West neighbors in terms of separation between this and their properties. City Manager Hooper informed her he wasn’t aware of anything. Mayor Thomas asked about this being like apartments. City Manager Hooper informed him single-family town houses. Mayor Thomas asked how many units. Mr. Howard informed him twenty-two units. Mayor Thomas asked if they would be rental or purchase. Mr. Howard informed him they would be purchased. Tim Howard , 3028 Willow Oak Drive, managing member, Targator Partners, informed Council this was the third submission to DCA. He went over the events that led up to this having to be submitted three times. He wrote a letter Page 25 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 in January of this year and he has yet to have a response. Mayor Thomas asked who didn’t respond. Mr. Howard informed him he sent it to the Planning Director. He has his St. John’s Water Management District permit, his DEP permit, and a development agreement with the City and he can’t do anything more on this project until DCA comes back. He is looking at at least another four months before he finishes the process. He further commented on interest rates going up. He wasn’t able to answer the cost of construction of the town houses because of costs escalating. He couldn’t get bids because he didn’t know when he was going to start so he couldn’t price the project. Councilman Vincenzi asked Mr. Howard who was holding his plans up. Mr. Howard informed him he has had to wait until this spring submission because you can only submit twice a year. Both submissions were wrong last year. This is very costly to him. Councilman Vincenzi stated so it really doesn’t matter what they do. Whether they vote on this or not tonight he can’t do anything until DCA comes back with their comments. Mr. Howard stated they are going to have to vote on it in order to send it to DCA. They met with representatives of DCA so they know what needs to be done. It needs a large-scale amendment and the proper wording. Councilwoman Lichter stated staff is recommending approval of this. Mr. Howard informed her it has been approved every time. The submission was wrong. City Manager Hooper further explained what has occurred. Mr. Howard stated this has been very frustrating. He has worked with the City very well but the City is really testing his patience. Councilman Vincenzi asked Mr. Howard if the City is holding him up or if DCA is holding him up. Mr. Howard informed him the City because it wasn’t submitted right last fall. He doesn’t do the submission. He has asked to review the submission this time. There was further discussion regarding this being kicked back from DCA. Page 26 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 Mr. Howard requested City Attorney Rosenthal review his before final submission. Due to there being no comments, Mayor Thomas opened and closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Rogers moved to approve Ord. 2006-O-13, Targator Partners, LLC requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land use Map to include 2.67+ acres of land located along Falcon Avenue, west of Riverside Bank as High Density Residential, second by Councilman Vincenzi. The MOTION CARRIED 5-0 . City Manager Hooper informed Council this completes their action on the Comp Plan. These would be transmitted. If they want to wait and re-advertise that one particular addition of going to four units to the acre, low density residential is between one and four verses one and five. They can bring that to Council in two weeks. If they wanted to do that at their next amendment, they could do that. They could do it either way. City Attorney Rosenthal asked City Manager Hooper if the Planning and Zoning Board has held a public hearing. City Manager Hooper informed him yes, they added that as their recommendation with these comments. Mayor Thomas asked City Manager Hooper if he wanted a consensus from Council whether to do it or not. City Manager Hooper informed him whether they want him to add that and bring it back. He informed Council it would be a two-week delay on this transmittal. It was the consensus of Council for City Manager Hooper to add the low density residential as between one and four instead of one and five and bring it back to Council in two weeks. nd G. 2 Reading, Ord. No. 2006-O-07, establishing user fees to non-residents for public safety services for motor vehicle accidents City Attorney Rosenthal read Ord. 2006-O-07 into the record. Page 27 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 City Manager Hooper made a staff presentation. Councilwoman Lichter stated she was gong to vote in favor of this but wanted to make an amendment that they try it for a period of time. She didn’t think they should leave it open ended. City Manager Hooper informed her it has a sunset provision of eighteen months. Councilwoman Lichter stated she is willing to give it a try. Councilwoman Rogers stated she voted no last time and she is going to stay with that. She isn’t into trying and seeing anything. She thinks whatever the decision is they need to stick with it rather than try it and if they don’t like it they can change. Her biggest concern is the insurance companies may come back and say they aren’t going to pay this and they may have issues trying to get the money from the insurance company. Councilwoman Rhodes stated she loves that they did this and that they are looking all the time for some way to save a buck. She thinks this is counter-productive and at some point it is going to be a wash. She voted no last time and will do so again this time. Mayor Thomas opened the public hearing. The following citizens spoke: Robert Overton , 631 Starboard Avenue, stated he spoke against this the first time when it came up. He feels there are a couple of things that haven’t been considered. They don’t know if the insurance companies are going to pay. He views it as a case of double dipping. The Police and Fire Departments are already being paid to provide this service. If they turn around and bill the insurance companies for performing the same service, they are double dipping in his opinion. Mr. Overton stated the Chief at the first reading said this would generate about $30,000 in revenues. It probably would if the insurance companies will pay. He didn’t know if they would have to sue the insurance companies in order to get them to pay. If they are foolish enough to pay and enough other cities adopt a similar amendment, then what we will see is an increase in insurance rates. They will not see a decrease in their tax base but they will see an increase in our insurance rates. He feels it will reduce Page 28 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 the Council’s ability to actually monitor the money coming in for the City and the expenditures of those dollars. He thinks they are doing the citizens of Edgewater a great disservice by implementing this ordinance at this time. He suggested they wait until they see the result in other communities that have already adopted the policy. Mike Visconti , 316 Pine Breeze Drive, stated he spoke against this the first time it came up. He is paying taxes in Edgewater for Police and Fire services. He can’t see one of his friends or relatives come here and get into an accident and have to pay the Police to be there. He feels they are giving the insurance company a windfall and once they bill the insurance company the premiums will be raised. He asked how much in property taxes you need to add to the property base to raise $35,000? He was informed it was about $1.50 per person. He would rather give the City $1.50 than pay it on his tax bill and save anybody that comes into the City from paying for Police protection for getting into an accident. He hoped the Council was against this. Ferd Heeb , 115 N. Riverside Drive, stated it becomes a vicious circle. Nobody in Oak Hill can go anywhere without going through Edgewater. Just about everybody in Edgewater to get anywhere has to go through New Smyrna. Matthew Negedly , 540 Coral Trace Blvd, applauded the Chiefs for coming up with some alternative funding and wanting more revenue. He also sees issues with this that would open a can of worms. Mayor Thomas closed the public hearing and entertained a motion. Councilwoman Rhodes moved to deny, Ord. 2006-O-07, establishing user fees to non-residents for public safety services for motor vehicle accidents, second by Councilwoman Rogers . The MOTION CARRIED 3-2. Councilwoman Lichter and Mayor Thomas voted NO . There was a ten-minute recess at this time. The meeting recessed at 9:26 p.m. and reconvened at 9:36 p.m. 7. BOARD APPOINTMENTS Page 29 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 A. Library Board: 1) Nomination by Councilman Vincenzi to fill vacated seat due to the expired term of Irene Mackie, who seeks reappointment Councilman Vincenzi nominated Irene Mackie. Councilwoman Rhodes moved to reappoint Irene Mackie to the Library Board, second by Councilwoman Lichter. The MOTION CARRIED 5-0 . 2) Nomination by Councilwoman Rhodes to fill vacated seat due to the expired term of Marie Goodrich, who seeks reappointment Councilwoman Rhodes moved to reappoint Marie Goodrich, second by Councilwoman Lichter . The MOTION CARRIED 5-0 . 8. CONSENT AGENDA There were no items to be discussed on the Consent Agenda at this time. 9. OTHER BUSINESS A.Agreement – staff recommending approval of a Memorandum of Agreement between the City of Edgewater and Pet Society, Inc. for volunteer assistance with the operation of the Animal Shelter City Manager Hooper made a staff presentation. Mayor Thomas asked about providing Worker’s Compensation to the volunteers and questioned how much this would cost. City Manager Hooper informed him they would get a quote, which is usually a nominal fee. Anybody doing City work on City property, by requirements they have been covered in the past and they continue to cover that. Page 30 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 Mayor Thomas stated it seems to him like we are buying a house and then we are giving it to somebody. He asked what checks and balances they have to make sure these people that they are giving this house to maintain it in a good facility so our investment is not run down. City Manager Hooper stated it is really us maintaining. Mayor Thomas again asked what the checks and balances are. City Manager Hooper stated we own the house. They are staffing and providing volunteers. If the City is unhappy with it, they can terminate the agreement. We own the facility and are agreeing to appropriate what it takes to maintain it and they provide volunteer workers. Councilwoman Rhodes mentioned and the City is providing the Director for the facility. Councilwoman Lichter informed the Council the City is going to receive all the money that Pet Society raises. Right now the City has received quite a bit of it. Four times a year they will be responsible for showing the City how much they have raised as a non-profit group. City Manager Hooper explained there isn’t a real check and balance. If they are unhappy with the program, they can end the program. He used the CAPS as an example. He spoke of the Pet Society supplying the volunteer labor. If the City is unhappy with that, they end the contract. That is the ultimate check and balance to it. Mayor Thomas stated then our checks and balances is the Coordinator. City Manager Hooper informed her the Animal Shelter Director works for the City and she runs the facility. Mayor Thomas stated when you run an animal facility and you have animals it has to be maintained very closely and they tear up a lot of stuff. He wants to make sure our initial investment is not deteriorated. City Manager Hooper stated it’s not. That’s what she does. That is our check and balance that she is the director. A city employee total funded by. Hopefully we wind up that this is a balance that fees, that adoption fees, animal tag fees, will provide the operations of the system. Councilwoman Rogers questioned this being an Enterprise Fund. City Manager Hooper stated set up similar. It will operate off of the revenue it generates. It is not an Enterprise Fund today. The goal is that we implement a good enough tag system, adoption fees and so forth. Between that and the money the Pet Society brings in, it Page 31 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 should be self-supporting. Councilwoman Rogers asked if the Director will be handling the checking account with the inflows and outflows or will this be handed through the City. City Manager Hooper informed her it would be handled through Finance. Finance Director Williams handles all of the dollars. City Manager Hooper further commented on software purchased by the Pet Society. They buy all of the food. Councilwoman Rogers asked what happens if the City is having to put money into this because the expenses are a lot more than what they anticipated. She also expressed concern with the Workers Compensation. City Manager Hooper commented on getting a quote and this being addressed every year at budget. Councilwoman Rogers asked if they should add something in the agreement that if the shortfall is a certain amount they need to review the agreement. City Manager Hooper informed her this agreement brings the City volunteer help. Councilwoman Rogers stated it also makes the City incur expenses. City Manager Hooper informed her they are going to incur those regardless. When you’ve got a shelter that has been approved by the voters and the City built it, they have to be able to fund whatever it takes to operate that shelter. If it starts to do those things, they will look at the rates. They have other incomes and other methods that they will look at. Councilwoman Rogers stated she doesn’t want to see any funds coming from other City funds to this fund. She wants to see that it is paying for itself. She doesn’t want to have any transfers from the General fund to this fund. City Manager Hooper informed her they would see that in the budget. In order to take any General Fund it would have to be approved by Council. They are going to try and run it as an Enterprise Fund. Day one it will not be self- sustained. They will have several programs of education, licenses to talk to veterinarians so they charge to get these programs up and running are going to take some time, which they are starting now without the shelter. Councilwoman Rogers asked what kind of money they are talking about that the City has to put out. City Manager Hooper stated the education is the director visiting the vets, working with the programs and trying to get those done as well as the Pet Society members also doing the same function so they are volunteering their time. At this Page 32 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 point, they haven’t been in operation long enough to tell them from a budgetary point what this overall operation will cost. Councilwoman Rogers felt it would be nice to have some figures in front of them. She mentioned looking at other pet societies figures and books and use that as an estimate. City Manager Hooper again stated this agreement does not cost them money. This agreement brings volunteer labor. Councilwoman Rogers stated but it is going to obligate them. City Manager Hooper informed her they were already obligated the day the voters said to build the facility. Councilman Vincenzi stated he isn’t going to vote for this the way it stands because there are no figures associated with it. They have no idea what this is going to cost and somebody has to have some idea of what it is going to cost to run. City Manager Hooper stated he could tell them what the shelter would cost but that’s not the Pet Society. The Pet Society is volunteering labor to help the City. Councilman Vincenzi stated so nobody has any idea what kind of staffing this is going to take and how many of those positions are going to be taken by volunteers and how many are going to be paid. City Manager Hooper stated they have had the temporary shelter open for three months and to date it has cost nothing. They have Amy’s salary. The Pet Society has volunteered all of the food and all of the labor help. Councilman Vincenzi stated so it has cost something because you have the salary of the animal director. He commented on the cost of $35,000 to design the shelter. City Manager Hooper informed him that was coming out of impact fees. Councilman Vincenzi stated and there have been no City employees involved with helping to maintain this. City Manager Hooper informed him you’ve got the two workers where that is part of their daily function. The rest of it, if you care to go on the weekends, is staffed solely by volunteers. Councilman Vincenzi stated he isn’t necessarily opposed to it. He was opposed to voting for it for the same reason. There’s not enough information to make a good decision on it. Page 33 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 Councilman Vincenzi stated this contract is going to obligate the City. It outlines city responsibilities and Pet Society responsibilities. It also says the City is responsible for it, which means if the Pet Society goes away one day, the city has to run it themselves totally. City Manager Hooper didn’t disagree. Councilman Vincenzi asked how much that is going to cost. Councilwoman Rhodes stated that is going to happen whether they are there or not. Councilman Vincenzi stated you cannot vote on something blind, not knowing how much money you are even estimating you are going to be allocating in the budget. Councilman Vincenzi stated City Manager Hooper has said repeatedly there is no extra money in the budget. You can’t cut taxes unless you cut services. He questioned where the money is going to come from and how much it is going to cost? If he could get a reasonable estimate on that regard, he would seriously consider voting for it. City Manager Hooper agreed to give this to him when they present the budget. They aren’t at this point. This is a volunteer agreement that says ex-number of people are going to work their time at the shelter. Councilman Vincenzi asked how you can vote and approve something you have no idea. He then questioned no one having any idea how many people this is going to take to run. City Manager Hooper stated they would see it in the budget. This is working with volunteers. Councilman Vincenzi stated they have to sit down and plan it somehow. City Manager Hooper informed him that is part of the budget process. Councilman Vincenzi asked why it couldn’t be planned before hand and then come back with a good estimate. City Manager Hooper informed him he could bring them back but they would get their budget in two to three weeks. Councilman Vincenzi feels it is irresponsible to vote on it without knowing any information on it. Councilwoman Rhodes stated they voted on $35,000 for City Attorney Rosenthal without knowing what it was before he did it. They do it all of the time. Councilman Vincenzi stated but he is providing a service. Councilwoman Rhodes Page 34 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 stated volunteers are providing service to the Animal Shelter that was voted on by the voters. Worker’s Compensation is not going to cost as much for twenty volunteers as it would to pay one employee to work there yearly. The voters said build the building. Whether there are volunteers there or whether you are paying somebody to be there, you still have the building. You are going to have to do all of the things you said you would do. You are going to have to maintain it whether there are volunteers there or not. They have volunteers in every department in this City. We appreciate them and they do a great job. They have never once said all right show me what CAPS is going to cost us. Councilman Vincenzi stated that is different. Councilwoman Rhodes stated it is not different. Councilman Vincenzi stated because you have an established police force. Councilwoman Rhodes stated and we have an established Animal Control Department and an established humane society that was voted on by the voters. Councilman Vincenzi stated that is a totally different operation. Councilwoman Rhodes commented on the volunteers in the different departments in the City. In not one of those areas was it ever said show me what the budget is for this before we accept your help. All they want to do is be volunteers and that is all that is being asked of the Council to let them do that. It is going to cost more if there are no volunteers. It doesn’t matter what they cost because if they aren’t there it costs more. Councilman Vincenzi stated he wasn’t asking what the volunteers are going to cost. He wanted to know what the operation is going to cost to run. Councilwoman Rhodes stated it is going to cost whatever it costs and the City is going to have to pay for it because the voters voted for it and they don’t have an option. Councilwoman Vincenzi stated they voted $500,000 to be allocated to build a shelter. Councilwoman Rhodes stated so build it and let it run to the ground. Councilman Vincenzi stated they were told when everybody was campaigning it was going to be no cost, no kill then it is going to be low cost, low kill and nobody has any idea what it is going to be now. Councilwoman Rhodes stated and you won’t know until it gets going but you didn’t know those things about every other department in the City and there was never an objection until now. Councilman Vincenzi stated it doesn’t change his mind. Page 35 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 Councilwoman Lichter stated when you are against something you can be against it for many reasons. Eventually the Shelter obviously wishes to pay for itself. That is a goal of the shelter. There are ways that can be done but they can’t be done when you don’t have a building or volunteers. They have animals now to take care of. There are about 40 volunteers doing various things. Eventually there will be a hospital room, which will be a fund raising enterprise. Cities all over are helping non-profit groups. She spoke of it being very low kill. Men and women are making every effort to place every animal and try to educate. They are going to do all the things this City requires of an animal shelter. She feels the City is very lucky they have such a volunteer group for three years that the City hasn’t had to buy any food for the animals in this community. The people in this community are bringing bags of food to the local grocery stores and the Pet Society picks it up once a week. They are doing the best they can in a very temporary situation. She spoke of the Pet Society working on more fundraisers. They are just looking for an agreement to be able to provide this for the City and be recognized as the group that is doing that. She didn’t think this was too unreasonable. Mayor Thomas stated he believes in the humane treatment of wildlife and animals. His goal tonight is never against it. It is just to have some checks and balances installed. Dealing with animals you can skyrocket your costs. He saw on the plans there was a surgical room planned and you are talking a bunch of money. He is worried about the escalation of the cost that arises. Councilwoman Lichter informed him that animal room and the equipment would be donated. Mayor Thomas stated he was concerned about the escalating costs. Never in his mind, would he think about not helping the pets and the ones that are stranded and need some care. He is worried about the future costs for the citizens of Edgewater. Councilwoman Rogers stated she is fully aware that they are going to be in the process of doing the budget for the City but at the same time, this says Major Responsibilities of the City. It is obligating the City. We do not have any budget amounts for this. They need to have something written down. She didn’t think it is that hard to find a pet society that operates similar and use that as a place where they can at least start. They need the numbers. City Manager Hooper informed Council if they wished they Page 36 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 could take out Item 4 and delete it. Councilwoman Rogers stated no because the worker’s compensation is a concern. She didn’t know how a quote is going to come in and provide them. She questioned what kind of estimate they are going to get for twenty volunteers. She needs to know and doesn’t feel comfortable with this. As far as, yes we have people that deal with Menard Park that do the gardening over there, she didn’t know where there was a paid City employee working over there with them. There will be a paid City employee working at the Pet Society. Right now, the City is having to incur that expense. Councilwoman Rogers stated the City has a lot of issues going on. She spoke of not having a City Hall. They are going to sign an agreement that is going to obligate the city to some responsibilities and they don’t even know what the figures are going to be. She agreed they needed to have the figures. She felt this needed to be continued until they had something more concrete to look at. Councilwoman Rhodes commented on the City paying $30,000 to $40,000 per year to the Humane Society before the City broke its contract with them to have animals from this City euthanized, which is how the Pet Society came about. She stated the voters voted to construct a building. It doesn’t make sense to build a building and then not maintain it. She worked for a non-profit organization for fifteen years. They had a lot of volunteers and paid worker’s compensation, which was very, very low for volunteers. These people have worked so hard for this and they deserve this. If they don’t give it to them, what are they telling them? She further spoke of paid employees costing more than volunteers. Volunteers are invaluable. Chris Balmer asked for public comment. Mayor Thomas informed him there was no public comment on this. Mr. Balmer informed him they told them they had to wait until the item came up on the agenda. City Manager Hooper informed him it is not a public hearing, but he could invite public comment. The following citizens spoke: Chris Balmer , 148 William Street, thanked the volunteers of Edgewater. He is a volunteer himself. The cost of employees salaries because they will have to pay worker’s Page 37 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 comp for them also it is going to be much cheaper with volunteers than workers comp. It is absolutely going to be cheaper for volunteers to work for free. He feels they need to be applauded for what they do every day for the City. Jim Brown , 141 Oak Ridge Avenue, stated the people voted for an animal shelter to be run by volunteers. That states that they want the volunteers to run it at whatever it costs for the volunteers to do so. He feels they need to pay attention to that. By voting for it, they are inferring they want the animals taken care of and don’t care what it costs. Carol Stoughton , 2740 Evergreen Drive, stated no one is questioning the many hours and the kindnesses of the animal shelter volunteers. The people voted and thought they voted for a shelter at a certain cost, not at whatever it could cost to run. They voted for a $500,000 building. No one ever said what the cost would be to staff it or to run it. She feels cost is a critical issue, especially with the taxes and the rate we are at right now. When she moved here six years ago, we were the lowest taxes practically in Volusia County. Now we are the highest. Mike Visconti , 316 Pine Breeze Drive, felt the animal shelter was a wonderful idea. Somebody’s got to run it for the volunteers. Who are the volunteers going to answer to? Councilwoman Rhodes informed him Amy is the director. Mr. Visconti asked if she was going to volunteer all of her services. Councilwoman Rhodes stated she is a City employee. Mr. Visconti asked about calling in a veterinarian to help if an animal gets hurt and questioned who is going to pay the veterinarian? Councilwoman Lichter stated the Pet Society has covered quite a few of the bills right now. Mr. Visconti stated he has been a volunteer since 1995 but he has somebody above him that he answers to and he gets paid. Councilwoman Rhodes informed him Amy gets paid. Mr. Visconti again questioned if somebody is going to run the shelter for the volunteers to answer to. Councilwoman Rhodes again informed him Amy. Mr. Visconti asked Amy if she is a volunteer. Everyone in the audience informed him she is a paid, City employee. Page 38 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 Dominic Capria , 606 Topside Circle, stated he is not against the animal shelter but it seems like they are getting off track. It seems like some of the Council is for and against and he didn’t think this is what the picture is. The picture is what is it going to cost us? What is so difficult about coming up with a figure? He feels since we have other volunteers, they should be able to come up with a figure based on that. He spoke of it being a tough campaign. He spoke of there being costs. He doesn’t think they should wait until they go over the budget to come up with a figure. Councilwoman Rogers moved to continue this decision until they have something more concrete. They need figures. Councilman Vincenzi seconded the motion . The MOTION CARRIED 4-1. Councilwoman Lichter voted NO . Councilwoman Rhodes stated she had no problem with putting this off for two weeks and getting the figures. Other than that, what other option do you have? If somebody could tell her that in two weeks, she would appreciate that. Councilwoman Lichter stated she didn’t know what they expect the Pet Society to do. What they’ve been doing she guessed. They have been working from morning until night for the animals of this City without even a Thank you from the City or an agreement that says we agree to let them do it. Councilwoman Rhodes stated it is only continued. They didn’t vote it down. Councilwoman Lichter stated she knew that but they came tonight with their shirts on and they have been sitting here all night. They start at 7:30 a.m. at the shelter. How they feel, they will go back and have a board meeting and talk about it. They met Saturday and had about forty people there that were very enthusiastic about the jobs they were going to do in the future and they will make their own decision. Councilman Vincenzi stated maybe in the meantime City Manager Hooper and the Animal Services Director could come up with a good estimate. Councilwoman Lichter stated on what. Councilman Vincenzi informed her on exactly what it would cost to run an animal shelter, the size and type of operation that is being planned. Page 39 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 Councilwoman Rhodes stated if it is too much, what do you do then? Councilman Vincenzi stated you have to decide whether you want to do it or not. Why hide the cost? It is going to come out sooner or later. Councilwoman Rhodes stated that’s not the issue. Councilman Vincenzi stated it is the issue. It has been the issue all along. There has been deception all along, hiding the facts. Get it out in the open and let the people make a good informed decision. B.Construction Services – staff recommending authorization for the Mayor or City Manager to execute an agreement with Antinori Management Group, Inc. for construction management and services for the Edgewater Animal Shelter at a cost not to exceed $500,000 City Manager Hooper made a staff presentation. Councilwoman Lichter commented on the difficulty in finding a location. She also commented on City Manager Hooper and staff working very hard. Mayor Thomas felt they needed to go along with it. On the ballot it said they could have an interest rate not exceeding 7% and they got it for 4%. He asked City Manager Hooper to show them the money they saved on the percentage of that would go back for that. Councilwoman Rogers felt that was a good thought. She commented on the difference in the percentage offsetting some of the costs. City Manager Hooper informed her it could only be used for construction. He further commented on an assessment being set every year. The assessment has to bring in the debt service it pays. When the interest payment is lower, that means the millage will roll back lower and quicker than had been anticipated. Councilwoman Rogers stated she does love animals. The voters approved $500,000 to build this facility. There is breakdown of what the costs are going to be above and beyond the $500,000. To her it’s almost as if the voters approved something blindly. She spoke of being in the process of approving having this building built. That goes with what the voters voted for. The voters didn’t vote for all these other costs because they didn’t know about it. This evening they had this agreement in front of them that they just continued and again they don’t have a handle on Page 40 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 it. They don’t have any costs. It was brought to her attention today that in Seminole County they have a Pet Society. Seminole County funds that, the City of Sanford does not. She questioned Volusia County being in the process of doing budgets. She asked if it is possible to get some money from Volusia County to pay for some of this. Councilwoman Rhodes stated you build a building for $500,000. It costs you ex-amount of dollars to staff it. You decide those costs are too high so then you decide that you don’t do anything or you let somebody else do it, what is the point of building a building if you don’t have it in place to staff it. The voters voted to build this building. She couldn’t believe the voters didn’t think that there was going to be some staff. They thought it would be staffed by volunteers. They are trying to staff it with volunteers and that isn’t going to work either. Before she votes to spend the taxpayers money on this animal shelter, she needs to know they are going to do what the voters want done, which is to staff it with volunteers. What is the point of this building if at some point in time they are going to decide it costs too much? Councilman Vincenzi stated that is a question he has posed since the beginning. He felt the picture that was put forth was very foggy. Nobody ever gave any specifics about how it would be done except the Pet Society is going to run it. You can say people are going to assume the City is going to run it but that isn’t necessarily the case. He wants it out in the open. Councilwoman Rhodes stated it has been out in the open for three years. For three years, the Pet Society has taken care of the animals in this City and saved the City $120,000 that they would have had to pay to the Humane Society. Councilman Vincenzi stated he has never seen the City come up with any type of cost estimate. Councilwoman Rhodes stated he isn’t saying to the Pet Society either gee thanks for saving us $120,000. Mayor Thomas stated he didn’t think they had a choice. The voters voted to build a building. They need to build a building and then they need to tweak out the agreement later. Councilwoman Rhodes stated it seems pointless to build a build a building they aren’t going to use or they have the potential they might not use. Why would you not go back to Page 41 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 the taxpayers and let them know the City will build the building and let it sit vacant and see if it is okay with them. This doesn’t make any sense to her. She stated they have to build this building. That is what the taxpayers wanted. If we sit up there and don’t staff it that is the most ridiculous thing she has heard. Mayor Thomas stated he was hearing just tweak out an agreement with checks and balances and let the public know. Councilwoman Rhodes stated nothing has ever been hidden. Any cost that it has cost has never been hidden. Any time you wanted to know, you could have asked. Councilwoman Rogers stated people have asked. Councilman Vincenzi stated he has asked and never gotten an answer. Councilwoman Rhodes stated it hasn’t cost any money. Councilman Vincenzi stated he is talking about future operations. He has asked for it and never gotten an answer. Councilwoman Rhodes stated they saved the City $120,000 and she suggested they use that until it runs out and then they will go with something else. Councilwoman Rhodes moved to approve for the Mayor or City Manager to execute an agreement with Antinori Management Group, Inc. for construction management and services for the Edgewater Animal Shelter at a cost not to exceed $500,000, second by Councilwoman Lichter. The MOTION CARRIED 4-1. Councilwoman Rogers voted NO . Councilwoman Lichter asked approximately how long it would take to build. City Manager Hooper informed her the contract when they met with Mr. Antinori is 150 days from notice to proceed, which will happen very quickly. They are looking at about five months. There was a ten-minute recess at this time. The meeting recessed at 10:30 and reconvened at 10:40 p.m. C.City Manager Services Agreement – discussion concerning renegotiating the City Manager’s Agreement City Manager Hooper made a presentation regarding his contract. Page 42 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 Councilman Vincenzi stated he is the one that requested the review of his contract. He has a number of issues he would like the Council to consider. He commented on rumors, one of them being he is out to fire City Manager Hooper because he wants his job. That definitely isn’t true. The other rumor that has been going around is that the Council is out to fire him. He is going to put forth his recommendations about issues he feels are important and he is going to leave it up to City Manager Hooper to think them over if they get approved by Council. If they don’t get approved, they are back to square one. That is okay with him because he will just go with what the majority wants. Councilman Vincenzi feels this is good management practices. He wants City Manager Hooper to know he isn’t happy about certain things and he is bringing it out in the open for discussion. After they are done discussing, he is going to come up with a number of points they have discussed and he is going to ask the Council to vote on it. If the majority agree with a certain recommendation, he will probably ask City Attorney Rosenthal what needs to be done in order to implement it, what kind of time frame in order to make it legal and they will go from there. Councilman Vincenzi stated one of the main issues he has with the arrangement right now is the fact that City Manager Hooper is the City Manager but he is also owner of PEC. The problem he has with that is potential conflicts of interest or appearances of inappropriate behavior. Being a City Manager, he feels he deals with a number of developers that are in the City. Being in the position he is in, he has power or influence over these developers. The potential is there for abuse of power. One of the conditions he wants to put forth in the new agreement, if they decide on a new agreement, is City Manager Hooper has to decide if he wants to be City Manager or part owner of PEC. That doesn’t mean he can’t be an owner or partner in PEC. That means the City will have nothing to do with PEC. He will be the City Manager. He will be full time. He will do the duties of a City Manager but where it comes to dealing with developers and doing any type of dealing that is not City related he doesn’t want the City to have any part of that. That brings up a number of issues, like the pay. Right now he is a contract employee. The firm he is part owner in is an engineering firm. They don’t technically provide City Manager services. Since City Manager Hooper has been Seminole County Manager, he has Page 43 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 experience and was hired on a number of years ago. The contract that was approved and he thought he was part of the committee that ratified it and approved it said he is a contract employee and he works for PEC. It is just like being a consultant or contract employee and the City pays PEC and not City Manager Hooper. He has problems with that. He thinks there is liability issues and accountability issues that can be circumvented with that type of arrangement. He didn’t think there was any other city that has that type of arrangement in Volusia County. Councilwoman Vincenzi then commented on qualifications. Everybody knows City Manager Hooper does a good job. He didn’t think anybody would disagree with that. He asked if anybody knew what type of degrees City Manager Hooper has. Someone in the audience asked if it mattered. Councilman Vincenzi stated yes. Someone in the audience told Councilman Vincenzi to tell them. Someone in the audience stated if he does a good job he does a good job. Councilman Vincenzi stated that’s not true. He could be a kindergarten graduate. Mr. Card asked Councilman Vincenzi if he was asking for public comment. Councilman Vincenzi stated he just wanted to know if anybody knows what kind of degree to raise a hand or shake your head. Councilwoman Lichter stated he knows what type of degree he has. City Manager Hooper stated he knows. Councilman Vincenzi stated he was hired eight years ago. He assumed he handed in some type of resume at that time. He asked City Manager Hooper if that was true. City Manager Hooper informed him yes. Councilman Vincenzi stated on that resume it has experience and education and he questioned if it has ever been verified. Someone in the audience stated he has been here eight years. Councilman Vincenzi stated so what. Councilman Vincenzi stated any time anybody applies for a job with the City they run through an application, references, if a degree is required, the degree is verified. He didn’t think any of this had been done for City Manager Hooper. He thinks that is something that needs to be done. Councilman Vincenzi stated the fact that City Manager Hooper is involved with PEC and is three days here, two days not here on average. City Manager Hooper informed him Page 44 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 it varies from week to week. Councilman Vincenzi stated his point is Edgewater needs a full time City Manager. He has done a decent job. He feels some of the problems they have encountered recently may be a result of the fact that he isn’t here all the time. He is getting $99,000 a year and it’s for flexible work. It’s part time work basically. If you extrapolate that out, assuming he works three or four days a week that $99,000 turns into $120,000 or $130,000 per year, which is pretty good pay for the time he puts in. He feels with the rate Edgewater is growing and the problems they will encounter in the near future, we do need a full time City Manager and we need somebody that is going to be concentrating on Edgewater issues, not concentrating half the time on Edgewater, a third of the time on PEC and the rest of the time on something else. Councilman Vincenzi stated this is not City Manager Hooper’s fault but the Council’s fault. In his contract, it calls for evaluations yearly. He put in a request for a copy of any evaluations he has had and he has never been evaluated. So has he done a good job? It appears so but nobody really has even criteria to evaluate his performance. He has a number of recommendations he would like to put forth to correct those issues. Councilwoman Lichter stated she has been on the Council eight and a half years. When she came on board with that particular City Council, which no one here sitting was on the first one, City Manager Hooper was hired as a temporary Manager in the beginning. Kevin Grace was hired as full time and although he was a very fine gentleman, that didn’t work out particularly well and the City Council hired City Manager Hooper back again full time, with all the reference and all the things you have to go through to hire a City Manager. The next group she was on after two years and got elected was Councilman Vincenzi, Mr. Brown, Councilwoman Rhodes, Don Schmidt and never again was that subject brought up in the one year that Councilman Vincenzi stayed on there before he ran for County Council. Was the subject of evaluation brought up? Any problems brought up. Any complaints brought up. Up to this point, none of this has been brought up. In the course of eight and a half years, she has been involved in many Volusia County meetings. She has met delegates from all of the cities but she also met all of the managers and she doesn’t know his degrees, except that he is an engineer, but she knows degrees don’t mean everything with people. She knows people with degrees Page 45 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 that can’t get from A to B and she knows people without degrees that can get there very fast and are multi- millionaires and can direct big projects. All she knows is the activity and actions of a man. She can compare City Manager Hooper to the other managers in the other cities and we have a superb Manager in Edgewater. We have a superior Manager. His staff respects him, works well for him and is a bit shaken by all of this potential problems that seem to be going on with his employment that she thought were put to an end a couple of months ago when the subject was brought up. In terms of his contract, we get him for a price that is a bargain. If he was a City employee hired by us and recommended by the retired group that recommend other city employees they would be paying him the perks, all the extra compensations, the health benefits, etc. It is in his contract and it is stated that he must do the job. Some people take seven days to do a five day job and some people can truly do that in three or four days. There are some weeks he is here seven days and there are some weeks he is only here three. It is his first priority because our City is run well. Some of these things that Councilman Vincenzi brought up, she didn’t know why at this time they are being brought up. Evaluations could have been brought up by him before now. We have three employees the Council hires, the City Clerk, the City Attorney and the City Manager. She felt the performance of all three, didn’t warrant anyone saying of when the person should be evaluated. She felt they are particularly lucky to have a manager that is an engineer and so good in finance. He spent more years as County Manager in Seminole County than anyone she knows lasts in that kind of position. She sees nothing wrong personally with this particularly setup. She feels it is unique but she didn’t know if we were the only city that does it. She spoke of one community, Holly Hill, hiring their Fire Chief as City Manager. She has a son that is Phi Beta Kappa and he is a doctor, a real doctor and sometimes she doesn’t think he can get from A to B. She knows people that don’t have degrees and aren’t Phi Beta Kappa that function particularly well in life, relate to people, have a positive attitude and can accomplish any task they start out to do. She is proud he is our Manager and she doesn’t want to push him into a corner for any reason. He has adapted to some of the changes or ideas more than she thought. He is always there if you have a question to ask him. She couldn’t speak more highly. She is for leaving it as is. If they have an evaluation, if that is what they Page 46 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 decide, she would like to ask who is going to do it, what are the criteria, etc. As far as making him, when you have already asked him that question, leave his engineering firm, decide if he is going to leave his firm or leave us. They don’t know how lucky they are to have him. Mayor Thomas stated the only real problem he has is City Manager Hooper being employed by PEC and not a full time Manager. We are the only city in Volusia County that doesn’t have a full time City Manager. He thinks he is very capable but he wants him here full time. He spoke of a resident that contacted him on Saturday about the smell at the Wastewater Plant. He tried to go through the chain of command. He tried him first and went right on down. He felt this was a pretty significant problem. Nobody ever returned his call that afternoon. He finally called the guy back and informed him the only guy working in the City of Edgewater on Saturday was the Mayor. He thinks we need him full time. Councilwoman Rogers would like to see City Manager Hooper become a full time employee for the City. She knows that somebody that does forty hours worth of work at one job may be able to do somebody else’s job in twenty hours. She is a candidate for that and does it all the time. She would like to see him be full time. She doesn’t know how many hours he spends at the City but she didn’t think he was missing anything. She expressed concern with the relationship with PEC. This is probably her biggest concern, the potential conflict of interest. She requested City Manager Hooper ask City Attorney Rosenthal to give an opinion on that and he did give an opinion and his opinion is that he didn’t felt there was a conflict of interest but in the future to not sign agreements, like he signed last September, that would make someone think there was a conflict of interest. The City Council was asked to give City Manager Hooper permission to sign an agreement between the City and PEC. She noted in the City Manager agreement that it is spelled out that the City Manager would not sign any agreement between PEC and the City. An agreement was signed and executed and the Council gave that approval. Whether that was an oversight or not, she brought it to City Manager Hooper’s attention who brought it to the City Attorney’s attention. Because it was approved by City Council, she believed that was why he didn’t deem it to be a conflict of interest but they caught it and said they would deal with that down the road. Those are her two Page 47 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 biggest concerns, the employ, how much time he is spending and the conflict with PEC. She would think if he doesn’t sign any more agreements between the City and PEC and if PEC doesn’t do any work for the City, as long as he is doing his job she didn’t feel he needed to say he is here forty hours. Who’s to say he didn’t work six hours one week and twenty the next. It happens all the time. There is no one checking his time clock and saying he is putting in ex-number of hours. Really what is the bottom line, he is doing his job. Her concern was PEC and she still thinks there is a conflict of interest. What Councilman Vincenzi said about the potential conflict of interest, the power or influence over developers. That is a concern. She feels City manager Hooper has done a very good job. If she didn’t work for herself, she would like to work for this City under City Manager Hooper and learn things. As far as the qualifications and the degree goes, she is somebody that went to school at night and worked during the day. She started off as a Accounting Clerk in her early twenties and then eventually a full charged book keeper. By the time she received that degree, it meant a lot to her but it didn’t mean a lot to the people she worked for because she knew the job. The degree was a finality to her to say she accomplished it but it is very hard to work up to that. The job training she received while on the job was invaluable. If you don’t have a knack for it, that degree isn’t going to do it for you. She felt City Manager Hooper had the knack for being a City Manager. Councilwoman Rhodes stated she thought she recalled way back when seeing City Manager Hooper’s resume when she took office the first time. She personally did not check his references but the job that he does tells everything. She agreed the contract the City has with PEC is unique. It may not be in any other city in this State. We bought land at ParkTowne and that was unique. We did that because it was in the best interest of the City. Because we contract with PEC, she asked Liz to get her the salaries and benefits of the other City Managers in Volusia County. She went over the salary and benefits of the City Manager in Holly Hill. When we had budget problems in Edgewater and they were trying not to raise taxes, every department cut its budget by 20%. She commented on City Manager Hooper cut his salary by 20%. He is dedicated to this City and has been ever since he came on board. She spoke of getting a huge bargain because of doing business this way. He is part owner of PEC and every time they have had a PEC Page 48 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 contract in front of them, that has always been stated for the record. She spoke of not wanting the City to do business with PEC and understanding this. She stated he is a full time City Manager. Maybe he is here three days a week but he is working twelve to sixteen hours on those three days. If he worked here five days a week, eight hours a day, you still wouldn’t be able to get him on a Saturday because he would be fishing. He is entitled to some free time and some time off. It’s unreasonable to expect that he would be on call twenty-four seven. No they have never had a formal evaluation of City Manager Hooper. They could have at any time. She would like to know one time that City Manager Hooper did something the Council didn’t tell him to do. She didn’t see how they could blame him. She mentioned a seminar she attended about Councils and Managers and how they interact and how you build consensus and it is one of his jobs to build consensus with the Council. He does an excellent job of that in Council meetings as well as outside of Council meetings. She is amazed because all of the things that were brought up are things that could have been brought up, answered or discussed at any time so it doesn’t get to a point where the employees of the City are on pins and needles due to not knowing what their work situation is going to be. He works at the pleasure of the Council and they work at the pleasure of him. If he wasn’t doing his job, she would be the first one up here saying it. She cannot find any conflict unless it would be that PEC does work for this City. As far as being influenced with developers, it doesn’t matter who your manager is. Your manager is going to have influence over developers. That is just the nature of the game as well as the Council having influence over developers. She stated when she first ran for office, the first thing she did after deciding to run was she went in and sat down with City Manager Hooper. He didn’t know her and he didn’t really need to speak to her at all but he did. They did this contract with City Manager Hooper because this is the best way to get experience and a high level of competency for the least amount of money. She spoke of being good stewards of taxpayers’ money. If we want to pay more and get less, then let’s get rid of City Manager Hooper but that would be dumb. She feels he does an excellent job. Councilman Vincenzi stated after everybody is done, he would like to throw stuff out to vote on. Page 49 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 Councilman Vincenzi’s first recommendation was to not contract with PEC anymore. They need to contract with City Manager Hooper. His pay needs to go directly to him. City Manager Hooper asked Councilman Vincenzi if he had an amount he was talking of. Councilman Vincenzi questioned if he was talking about what they would pay him. City Manager Hooper informed him yes. Councilman Vincenzi stated that is to be negotiated. City Manager Hooper stated so we like to play that. He thought a while ago they wanted to talk about all the numbers. Councilman Vincenzi told him sure if they want to. City Manager Hooper told him to go for it. Councilman Vincenzi stated he has no problem paying him something that is comparable to other cities of this size, such as New Smyrna. He suggested $107,000 per year, a car, and benefits, just a standard package. City Manager Hooper informed him that value is about $140,000 to $150,000 when you add what he is doing. Councilman Vincenzi stated to have a dedicated, full time City Manager, to him it’s worth it but that remains to be talked about. Councilman Vincenzi stated the full time City Manager, not part time and eliminate any potential conflicts of interest, which means no dealing with PEC. He stated City Manager Hooper has been in violation of his contract a couple of times by not reporting work that is being done in cities in Volusia County around here. That has to stop. Councilwoman Rhodes stated but only if we are doing work with PEC. Councilman Vincenzi stated no. The contract says he needs to report work that PEC is doing in any city in Volusia County, not just Edgewater. Councilman Vincenzi stated to eliminate problems he would like to put forth a recommendation that basically he is a full time manager. He is either full time manager or he is PEC. No problem, no conflict of interest, that’s it. A nice straight simple relationship. Councilwoman Lichter stated she has made a decision. She will not discuss it anymore. She feels they have a terrific deal and she likes it like it is. She spoke of being able to get a hold of City Manager Hooper on a Sunday if he has been fishing on a Saturday. The man does have a right to take one day per Sabbath to do what he wants. The Page 50 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 bottom line, the City has the best manager in Volusia County with the best deal for our citizens. Mayor Thomas stated there is no doubt that he can do the job standing on his head. It’s simple to him. He wants him full time and would be willing to pay full time. He feels he is very good. To rebut what Councilwoman Rhodes said, that we are getting a bargain. He doesn’t shop at the bargain store and believes in having quality goods and paying for quality goods. He believes they last longer and they are better. Yes, he deserves some time off. He called him Saturday afternoon at 5:00 p.m. and he got a call back today at about 2:00 p.m. He usually returns his calls before that and he felt that was a very important matter. He wants to deal with City Manager Hooper, not PEC and he would be willing to pay him a good salary because he thinks he is very good at what he does. Councilwoman Rogers stated City Manager Hooper does receive reimbursement for the use of his vehicle. He receives $99,850 per year, which is paid to PEC so the City doesn’t have to pay social security, which is 7.65%. If they are sitting there doing recommendations, her recommendation is the conflict with PEC doing any work for the City. How City Manager Hooper is paid, whether to him or to PEC, isn’t a big deal. To call him full time, the term sometimes sticks. He is doing the job. They don’t really know how many hours a week he works. Her biggest problem is the PEC. Councilwoman Rhodes mentioned City Manager Hooper having an extraordinary relationship with Volusia County and with other counties around us. He gets a lot of things done that a lot of City Managers can’t or won’t do. It is her opinion, if the Council thinks that paying PEC is a bigger deal and if they would rather not pay PEC we are going to lose City Manager Hooper. If that is more important to the Council to have a person’s name on the check instead of the company, they are getting a bargain and a bargain is you get more bang for your buck and that is what they get. If they think they want a new City Manager and they want to go through that and pay somebody more that knows way less about this City than City Manager Hooper and still has to do what the Council tells him to do, then go ahead. To her it’s not. It is more important to her that City Manager Hooper manages this City than whose name is on the check. Page 51 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 Mayor Thomas opened the meeting up for public comment. The following citizens spoke: Pat Card , 3019 Willow Oak Drive, stated he has heard people say this is a truly unique situation. What that tells him is you’ve never heard of leasing employees. Actuaries are leased today. Professional engineers are leased today. People who are professionals are routinely leased. He leases all of the employees in the Chiles academy today and the reason is because you spend about 35% to 40% routinely in extra benefits that go to people. This is not unique. It is unique to Council because they haven’t heard it before. Leasing employees is not unique and that is what the Council is doing. They are leasing an employee from an engineering firm full time. What is full time? He asked Mayor Thomas if he is going to have him here from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. He then asked if they want him twenty-four seven. He asked City Manager Hooper what the going rate is for a consultant like him. Mr. Card estimated between $250 to $300 per hour. City Manager Hooper informed him that is close. For twenty-four seven pay him that. Otherwise lease him the way they have, save the City some money and ask him each time and ask the City Attorney if there is in fact a conflict of interest. It is amazing to him how suspicious some people on the Council are of the ethics of other people, especially our City Manager. Over the years in business he has found that people who always feel that a certain group of people lie, cheat or steal are people who don’t always not lie, cheat or steal in front of us. He found that liars expect other people to lie and cheaters expect other people to cheat and people who are thieves expect other people to be thieves. If they are really suspicious of City Manager Hooper, then he is suspicious of Council. Chris Balmer , 148 William Street, asked the Council to help him figure it out. He is just trying to understand. No to high density east of U.S. #1, where they plan for it. Yes to high density behind Riverside Bank where they said no in the plan. No to $140,000 in free developer money. No to free help. No to a voter approved item. Yes to pay an attorney at every meeting. Yes to pay for a full time City Manager but oh yeah, don’t raise my taxes. He asked Councilman Vincenzi if he had spoken to any other Councilmembers prior to tonight’s meeting that he is about to ask for. Councilman Vincenzi informed him no. Mr. Page 52 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 Balmer applauded Councilman Vincenzi for bringing up three issues as they relate to this City and its Manager’s contract. One of which he knew about and served on the Committee that approved it and or recommended it. Two issues that are Council’s obligation to check, i.e. his resume and evaluations. He thanked Councilman Vincenzi again for pointing out what the City’s Councils past and present faults were and are. He asked if anybody can tell him of one time that there has been a conflict because of his position as City Manager and PEC. Mike Visconti , 316 Pine Breeze Drive, stated he has been coming to Council meetings since 1993. After Randy Allman was Mayor, City Manager Hooper came in. He was here for a while and then Kevin Grace was here. Kevin Grace left after three or four months and City Manager Hooper came in. He has been to eighty five percent of the Council meetings and he speaks his peace every time he comes up there. He informed City Manager Hooper that today he should be proud of Edgewater. Edgewater has grown in the thirteen years he has been here. He feels he is an asset to Edgewater. He hasn’t seen any finer City Manager than Mr. Hooper. What an asset we have in Edgewater. He thanked City Manager Hooper for all the work he has done and he felt he has done a wonderful job. Tim Howard , stated when he came to Edgewater in 1999 and had a contract to buy 450 acres, which is now Edgewater Lakes, having been a lender all his life he relied on the direction of the experts in the City of Edgewater. He went through a period of negotiations with Planning & Zoning and City Manager Hooper and they reached agreements. He valued his knowledge. He never felt pressured to use an engineering firm that he was affiliated with. With the subsequent projects he has brought before the Board, the same holds true. As far as the developers that have come to this town, he has been a gem to deal with and represents the City very well. He didn’t think in any of the cases he has been involved that there has been any detriment to the City. He thinks the City will make a big mistake by letting City Manager Hooper go. Carol Stoughton , 2740 Evergreen Drive, stated she would like clarified as to whether or not City Manager Hooper has an engineering degree. City Manager Hooper stated that answer as he knows and she knows, is no, he is not a professional engineer. He has been to school for Page 53 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 environmental sciences and degree technology. The only thing he hasn’t sat for is the PE registration. Never tried it and always went into management. Ms. Stoughton stated however he is not an engineer. City Manager Hooper stated not a professional engineer. Ms. Stoughton asked if he has ever stated on any applications for employment that he had an engineering degree when he worked for Seminole County. City Manager Hooper stated at Seminole County he was going through engineering school at the time. There was an application that would have put him in through engineering technology. Ms. Stoughton stated she researched and had at home. City Manager Hooper informed her like normal. Ms. Stoughton stated he did attest to the fact that he did have an engineering degree. On both applications he couldn’t remember what year he graduated. To her, she thinks that is falsifying records. Ms. Stoughton then asked City Manager Hooper if he is in any way associated with business dealings with our current City Attorney. City Manager Hooper informed her no. She then asked him if he at any time advise the Council, which is why the City is being sued, over the high rise development and did not correctly give the format for the vote when if it had been done properly and had Mr. Rosenthal been here, it is the City Manager’s position to let the Council know what the wording is going to be and because he didn’t do so, from what she hears, the City is being sued. City Attorney Rosenthal asked City Manager Hooper not to answer that question because we are in litigation. Ms. Stoughton stated had they had proper statements to protect the Council and the town they could have saved some taxes in this litigation. Ferd Heeb , 115 N. Riverside Drive, stated over his career he has had an opportunity to work with some of the top City Managers, County Managers, School Board Supervisors, etc. and he found City Manager Hooper to be one of the top talents in the field. He has known City Manager Hooper since he came on board and he came on board in a time of turmoil that was created by a Council. He has done an excellent job. Whether he is employed full time as a City employee or as a contract employee, he is going to do the same job. He is doing a great job for the City now and isn’t going to work any harder if they put him on the payroll. It is going to cost the City more money but he isn’t going to work any harder because he is working as Page 54 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 hard as he can now to serve this City. They are looking at a situation where they have a bargain. He doesn’t know why City Manager Hooper works for the price he does. That is his business. He stated a City Manager with his qualifications in a City this size is an easy salary of $125,000 and with benefits you are probably looking at $175,000. So you are talking about paying $75,000 more than they are paying him now for the same job, which he feels doesn’t make sense. On this issue of conflict of interest, which is sometimes a perception, but as he understands it we have a legal opinion that there is no conflict of interest. City Attorney Rosenthal stated his opinion related to his execution of a particular document, which was authorized by the Council and that is the only issue, which he has addressed to the Council. Mr. Heeb stated the Council is going to make the decision on every contract that is signed. Whether City Manager Hooper is involved or not there will be a question of whether there is a conflict of interest. There is no conflict of interest in this City doing business with his firm, as long as the Council approves it. He thinks they are beating a dead horse and they need to leave this alone. The City has an excellent City Manager. He urged the Council to keep him. David Ross , 2803 Needle Palm Drive, stated he has no relationship with City Manager Hooper other than to often disagree with him but respect him. Don’t put yourself in a corner and lose this man. It doesn’t make sense. They will be doing this City a disservice. If they have a personal problem with him, handle it on a personal level and keep it out of the political arena. Jim Brown , 141 Oak Ridge Avenue, stated he had the pleasure of serving on the Council for six years and working with City Manager Hooper. In that six years, he taught the previous Council and he will teach the current Council how to do the right things. He never in the entire six years gave bad advice to our City that we got sued. They never got into trouble and the City progressed. He feels what they have is a problem of trust. Some of the Council doesn’t trust City Manager Hooper. He feels they should do so. He has never checked the records, given bad advice. He is not in any way conflict of interest. He has brought everything forward. They knew as a Council if his company was involved with it, the public knew about it. There was Page 55 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 never anything hidden. He feels the Council needs to think about what they are doing. City Manager Hooper is the best thing that has happened to this City and he feels the Council needs to keep him. Dominic Capria , 606 Topside Circle, stated he didn’t think this Council was trying to terminate City Manager Hooper. He thought they were asking for certain things and they have the right to do that. There is no question that City Manager Hooper is doing a terrific job. One thing that has been in his crawl for a long time is when City Manager Hooper was hired it was the only thing that went against his grade. He stated Councilwoman Lichter was against it at the time too. The City Council terminated the City Manager and on the same night City Manager Hooper was in the audience and Nikki Clayton was in the audience and both of them were hired the same night. As far as City Manager Hooper doing the job, definitely, no question about it. If we have to pay more money, he is also for that. Yvonne Bice , 217 N. Riverside Drive, stated she has never worked with City manager Hooper but if ever she needed to talk to him she could usually get a hold of him. People have been complaining about the money that it would cost their tax dollars to support a pet facility. She knew when she voted for the $500,000 it was going to cost her more. Everybody here thinks it is great to spend their tax dollars to spend more so they can get City Manager Hooper here full time. She has never had trouble with him being here and has always been able to get a hold of him if she needed to. She didn’t expect him to work Saturday and Sunday. She feels the Council is making a big mistake to even bring most of this stuff up. To her it is just a vendetta. Matthew Negedly , 540 Coral Trace Blvd, stated they talked tonight about how the Council is his boss. Anything that he does wrong is a reflection of Council’s leadership. Likewise, the Council’s constituents are their bosses. He asked Council to think of how many phone calls they have had by their bosses asking them to replace City Manager Hooper. Build trust or go home is a saying. Let’s build trust. The Council has almost 40 of their bosses still present at almost midnight. Every comment has been keep him. Page 56 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 John Cordeiro , 1515 Pine Tree Drive, asked City Manager Hooper if it was true that Seminole County gave him the opportunity to leave or they were going to fire him. City Manager Hooper informed him yes. Mr. Cordeiro stated so that means that the Council that was here before didn’t do their homework to hire him. They should have gone to Seminole to find out why they wanted to get rid of him. He has been coming to these meetings for four years and he is not controlling him. He has this thing of control and controls people’s minds. He controls the P & Z Board, the Economic Development Board and he used to control the Mayor and the Council but things have changed now. He spoke about when he used to work for Eastern Airlines and being a strong union man. Mayor Thomas asked for a gentleman in the audience making comments to be escorted out if he says anything again. Mr. Balmer stated that comment didn’t come from him. He pointed out it came from somebody in front of him. Councilwoman Rhodes asked what he was talking about. Mayor Thomas stated he heard somebody say go home. Mr. Balmer pointed out it was somebody in front of him. Mayor Thomas stated he didn’t want to hear it again. Mr. Cordeiro stated he has been coming to meetings for four years and there are a lot of things he sees that other people don’t see. He didn’t understand how someone could have so much control over everyone and they think he’s the greatest because he doesn’t think so. He has watched so many unethical, corrupt things. He feels the ex-mayor and City Manager should be in prison. If they got the State Attorney to do a full investigation of a lot of things that have gone on in this City, some people would be behind bars now. Mike Visconti , 316 Pine Breeze Drive, stated Councilwoman Rhodes brought up a point before and he didn’t think anybody understood what she said. Twenty percent of City Manager Hooper’s payroll he gave up. He asked if anybody knew how much the twenty percent was. He gave up $20,000. He stated he didn’t have to give up the twenty percent but he did and this is the type of Manager he is. He again thanked him for his service to the City. Page 57 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 John Cordeiro , 1515 Pine Tree Drive, stated he had to say one thing for City Manager Hooper’s attorney. These are his opinions. Did he have proof no? City Attorney Rosenthal informed him he was the City’s attorney, not City Manager Hooper’s attorney. Mr. Cordeiro stated he doubted that. Mayor Thomas entertained a motion. Councilman Vincenzi made a motion to change Mr. Hooper’s contract to contract with Mr. Hooper and not PEC. Mayor Thomas stated before we vote on that, he asked City Manager Hooper if he was willing to do that. City Manager Hooper informed him he wasn’t going to answer until they voted. Mayor Thomas stated he was trying to save some time. City Manager Hooper wished him luck. Due to no Councilmember seconding the motion, Mayor Thomas passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Vincenzi and seconded the motion . The MOTION FAILED 2-3. Councilwoman Lichter, Councilwoman Rogers and Councilwoman Rhodes voted NO . Councilman Vincenzi made a motion to require Mr. Hooper to be here full time and that he would either be the City Manager or PEC, one or the other. Councilwoman Rhodes asked the Council if they do two jobs. Everybody on the Council does more than one job. She thinks everybody on the Council does a really good job on the Council and she is sure they do a good job at whatever else they do. Mayor Thomas clarified the motion that Councilman Vincenzi would like for Mr. Hooper to be a full time City Manager working here five days a week, a forty-hour week. Councilman Vincenzi stated he needed to be here full time every day to deal with City issues. Mayor Thomas stated if he worked sixty hours one week then he would be allowed to work twenty hours the next week. Something like that. Just a full time employee to give him comp time off. He asked Councilman Vincenzi if that is how he wanted it. Councilman Vincenzi stated again you are Page 58 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 going to run into problems but basically the issue he has is he is not here all the time when he is needed. He is in Orlando dealing with PEC issues two days a week, sometimes more, sometimes less. He needs to be here and available. Councilwoman Rhodes informed Councilman Vincenzi they needed him to tie break a vote at the last meeting and he wasn’t there. She asked him why he is expecting more out of City Manager Hooper than he expects out of himself. Councilman Vincenzi informed her if she didn’t want to vote for it, then don’t vote for it. Councilwoman Rhodes stated she’s not. Councilman Vincenzi stated he wants him here full time. Councilwoman Lichter asked Councilman Vincenzi if he wanted a nine to five man. Councilman Vincenzi stated he didn’t want nine to five. Councilwoman Lichter stated eight to four thirty. Councilman Vincenzi stated if they want to get a definition of it, they can look at what other City Managers do and then they can define the matter better. Due to no Councilmember seconding the motion, Mayor Thomas passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Vincenzi and seconded the motion. Mr. Negedly called a point of order and stated there was already a motion and a second. Councilman Vincenzi asked who seconded it. Mr. Balmer agreed there was also. City Attorney Rosenthal informed him they already voted on that one. Mr. Negedly since then he said work for PEC or be full time. It was seconded by Mayor Thomas. This is the third time he is passing the gavel. Mr. Balmer stated that was correct. City Attorney Rosenthal stated he didn’t personally hear a second. City Attorney Rosenthal suggested City Clerk Wadsworth repeat the motion. City Clerk Wadsworth stated the motion was to require Mr. Hooper to be here full time and no PEC. Mr. Negedly stated the first one was no contract with PEC. There was already a second motion with a second. The MOTION FAILED 2-3. Councilwoman Lichter, Councilwoman Rogers and Councilwoman Rhodes voted NO . Councilwoman Rogers stated the first item, just to clarify what the motion was. It wasn’t so much the City dealing Page 59 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 with PEC. It was either they contract with Ken Hooper or they contract with PEC. The second item was dealing with full time employee verses the part time employee. The third item she thought was going to come that didn’t come had to do with whether or not the City would contract with PEC for engineering services. Right now what we have is a contract with PEC for a leased employee. Councilwoman Rhodes informed her she could make that motion. City Manager Hooper informed her the City has both, a continuing contract that is for engineering services that comes back to Council. Councilwoman Rogers made a motion to have a term in the contract that the City will not contract with PEC for engineering services, second by Councilwoman Rhodes . City Attorney Rosenthal stated that particular issue wouldn’t necessarily be in his contract but that would be an issue as to whether or not the Council votes or doesn’t vote. They could leave his contract as it is and they are under no obligation under his contract to enter into an agreement to provide any services with PEC. He suggested they be careful because he has not looked at the continuing services contract. He would want to make sure the Council doesn’t inadvertently terminate a contract, which the Council has approved and by a vote breached that contract because that is not with Mr. Hooper. That is with PEC. Councilwoman Rogers stated those contracts that are in force, they wouldn’t touch those. They are just talking about future ones. She stated she needed to clarify that for the record. City Attorney Rosenthal clarified the motion as being the Council should not enter into any further contracts with PEC for engineering services in the future. Councilwoman Rogers confirmed. Councilwoman Rhodes agreed with that, not that she thinks Mr. Hooper has ever been doing anything wrong. She agreed because it makes things cleaner. Councilwoman Rogers stated and it removes the possibility of the public calling them up saying this is a conflict of interest. The MOTION CARRIED 5-0 . Mayor Thomas stated there is one other item they need to discuss and that is his evaluation. If that is in his Page 60 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 contract, they need to do that every so often. Councilwoman Rogers suggested they do it when they do their goals. Councilwoman Rhodes felt they did it tonight. Mayor Thomas stated in the contract it says yearly. When he worked for the State they had written evaluations. Councilwoman Rhodes told him to write something up. Mayor Thomas asked if the City has written evaluations. City Manager Hooper informed him we have forms. He informed the Council he could get each of them a form. They used to do that a long time ago. They went to Council but never seemed to come back. It kind of just went away. City Attorney Rosenthal stated they can write it in a contract but nobody can make each of the Council fill out the form. Mayor Thomas stated if it is in there they need to do it. He asked Council if they wanted to start a year from this date. Councilwoman Lichter pointed out the date in the contract was blank. City Attorney Rosenthal stated he thought it implied anniversary date, which would be January th 24 of each year. He read the language in the contract. D. Amendment #3 to the City Attorney Contract – staff recommending approval of the Third Amendment to the Agreement with Foley & Lardner, LLP and authorize execution by the Mayor City Manager Hooper made a staff presentation regarding the change to the contract dealing with travel time. Councilwoman Rhodes stated her thought was that this is a whole lot of travel time. She asked if they can find somebody locally because all of the attorney’s are involved with other cities and other developers so it presents a conflict of interest. Maybe they could look into getting an attorney that didn’t have to travel so far and cost so much money for travel. She informed City Attorney Rosenthal this was no reflection on him because she felt he was terrific. Councilwoman Rogers stated the mileage is only $1,400 per year. City Attorney Rosenthal stated it is the hourly rate too. Their agreement has them basically giving two free trips, which was done early on on a getting acquainted basis. They were never asking them to come to the meetings so it wasn’t a problem. They were pretty much doing everything by e-mail, phone or mail. Page 61 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 Councilwoman Lichter commented on the different levels of attorneys in their office. They are going to be having Mr. Nick Palmer. City Attorney Rosenthal stated Nick is the only other person with a suit in the Chambers right now. Councilwoman Lichter stated Nick is going to be attending eighteen Council meetings at a much lower rate because of his position in the firm than City Attorney Rosenthal. She didn’t know Mr. Nick Palmer at all. City Attorney Rosenthal stated he hasn’t had a chance to introduce him. Mayor Thomas asked Mr. Palmer to stand up. Councilwoman Lichter stated perhaps he will do very well and they won’t need to spend $225 per hour but $175 might be enough. She personally is not going to vote for a full time attorney. She felt Paralegal Robin Matusick did an excellent job. She thought there were odd times and odd situation when things get a little hairy. She feels with experience the Council will learn some of those things and know when they can make a call or go through Robin to make a call. She felt this was $34,000 that should not just be thrown out and spent fast. After she votes no, and she informed City Attorney Rosenthal this is no reflection on him, she thinks they should give serious thought to someone that gets paid less in the firm. City Attorney Rosenthal informed her there isn’t anyone. Councilwoman Lichter stated she meant have the lesser-paid person in the firm come to more meetings. City Attorney Rosenthal stated that is Mr. Palmer. His goal would be to primarily send Nick and City Attorney Rosenthal coming to six. Hopefully they won’t have every agenda that requires his background and expertise. Mayor Thomas asked Mr. Palmer how long he has been out of the University of Florida law school. Nick Palmer, Foley & Lardner, informed him two years. City Attorney Rosenthal stated there is nobody in his office that would substitute and have the experience level he has to be here. He is not interested in coming here from an evening standpoint and traveling because he has other evening commitments and family commitments and from a professional standpoint it doesn’t make sense. From a historical perspective, when they were initially hired, the presentation was he had another young attorney in the law firm, Scott Cookson, who was the City Attorney, who was Page 62 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 about the same experience level as Nick is now. They said they would give the City Scott Cookson. City Attorney Rosenthal trained him and was available to answer the more difficult questions but from the standpoint of making everything cost effective and functioning, Scott was going to be the person. They are content with the old system, where they didn’t come. If they want them to come, they are more than willing and he has discussed with Nick and Nick is wiling to come. It won’t be perfect every time if he is there or if Nick is there or if nobody is here. That is the City’s call and they are more than happy to do whatever they would like them to do. City Attorney Rosenthal commented on Mary Solik attending the next meeting. Councilwoman Lichter asked if she is an assistant also. City Attorney Rosenthal informed her Mary is a partner in the law firm. Councilwoman Rhodes moved to approve the Third Amendment to the Agreement with Foley & Lardner, LLP and authorize execution by the Mayor and to cut City Attorney Rosenthal’s attendance down as much as possible . City Attorney Rosenthal stated he would be happy to work with City Manager Hooper. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Rogers . The MOTION CARRIED 4-1. Councilwoman Lichter voted NO . 10. OFFICER REPORTS A. City Clerk City Clerk Wadsworth informed Council the agenda packets are now available on the Internet. B. City Attorney City Attorney Rosenthal stated he provided Council with a copy of a memo he sent to City Manager Hooper and Mr. Lear regarding the Planning & Zoning Commission action with respect to the Land Development Code amendments. He believed the schedule had those Land Development Code amendments coming to Council for a first reading and public nd hearing at the May 2 meeting. The Planning & Zoning Commission at their meeting did not take action on the Page 63 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 proposed amendments. They didn’t recommend approval or denial. They sent Council a request that indicates they should give them additional time to study and review. They have looked at the issue. It is their opinion that in the absence of a recommendation from P & Z for either approval or denial, they cannot proceed with consideration of an ordinance amendment the Land Development Code. The City code and State Statutes requires that the Land Development Code amendments go to the Planning & Zoning Commission for review and recommendation. The City’s code is silent as to what happens if the P & Z declines to provide Council with a recommendation. However, the Florida Statutes have another provision, which requires that the local planning agency, which in this case is the designated P & Z, must respond to Council and give their advice within a reasonable time. If they fail to act within two months from the date the Council refers the matter to them, then at that point in time the governing body or in this case the Council is in a position to proceed. There isn’t real clarity as to exactly how you count the two months. He recommended if they are counting the two months, they do it from the date of the P & Z meeting, which would be the most conservative approach. The reason he suggested the most conservative method of calculating is because if you don’t take the most conservative, their action can be invalidated. His opinion is they can’t do what they wanted nd to do on May 2. He suggested the Council should respond to the question of the P & Z. If they have a disagreement with them on this they can communicate that to them. If they fail to get a recommendation and want to proceed, staff could then proceed to schedule consideration of an th ordinance for any time after June 12. Councilwoman Lichter commented on attending the meeting in the audience. She felt the Council would also need time to study the document. She felt two months was a long time. C. City Manager Hooper City Manager Hooper felt they needed to respond to the Planning & Zoning and say if they are going to have a work session. If they are not, let staff work with them and do a work session for them. Councilwoman Rhodes stated she hated the thought of another work session but felt that is what they should do. Page 64 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006 It was the consensus of Council to hold a work session with the Planning & Zoning Board. 11. CITIZEN COMMENTS/CORRESPONDENCE The following citizen spoke: Chris Balmer , 148 William Street, stated he hoped to always show the Mayor and the Council respect although they might not always agree on every item and every action but he has always held them in very high regard. He has never heckled. He does not heckle and he doesn’t appreciate being called out in the meeting that he was going to be thrown out for a comment he didn’t make. That isn’t something he would do. Mayor Thomas stated he didn’t think he made it. He thought the guy in front of him made it. He apologized. Mr. Balmer apologized because he thought Mayor Thomas looked at him. Mayor Thomas stated he was looking in the direction he thought the comment came from. A. Tentative Agenda Items There were no Tentative Agenda Items to be discussed at this time. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Councilwoman Rhodes moved to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m. Minutes submitted by: Lisa Bloomer Page 65 of 65 Council Regular Meeting April 17, 2006