Loading...
05-19-1983 - Workshop ~ o u .~ .. I < CITY OF EDGEWATER CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP May 19, 1983 Minutes Mayor David Ledbetter called the Workshop to order at 3:00 p.m. in the Community Center. ROLL CALL Mayor David Ledbetter Councilwoman Gigi Bennington Councilman Neil Asting Councilman Jack Spencer City Attorney Jose' Alvarez City Clerk Nancy Blazi Police Chief Earl Baugh Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Also present: Mr. William Cross, Briley, Wild Associates. This workshop was called to discuss Pelican Cove West. Mr. William Cross advised that he needed to leave the meeting at 4 p.m. as he had another meeting in Ormond Beach at 5 p.m. Mr. J. C. Carder, owner and developer of Pelican Cove West, and his attorney, Mr. Paul Katz, arrived to the meeting at approximately 3:10 p.m. Mr. Katz noted that the meeting was called to attempt to resolve some of the issues pertaining to Pelican Cove West. He outlined several of the points to be clarified: (1) Engineering; they question additional drainage which mayor may not be necessary with respect to the entrance road. (2) Cash bond; (a), is that bond necessary? Presently have $71,000 setting up and he does not feel this amount is necessary to secure additional performance. Suggested reduction of the bond. (b) Potential of replacing that cash bond with a letter of credit from a local bank, as security. He has one which he would like to discuss with the City Attorney to get approval as to form. (3) Interest earned on cash bond placed to date. He remarked that they had-over $90,000 posted with the City for over four months. (a) Has that money been placed in an interest-bearing account? (b) If so, to whose credit is the interest credited. It is their feeling that the interest belongs to them, because the money belongs to them. He stated that other municipalities' subdivision ordinanceshave addressed the question by specifically setting forth in the ordinance that any interest earned on cash bonds belongs to the developer. He referred to a recent court case which held that when money was placed up as a bond the money did not belong to the City, and the developer was entitled to the interest on that. And (4) The money which was placed with the City under the recreation requirements of the subdivision ordinance. This is a legal issue which should be resolved. Counc~lman Asting asked that Mr. Terry Wadsworth be present~at the meeting. There were several questions he wanted answered about the punch list. He asked Mr. Cross and Mr. Katz if those items had been taken care of. Mr. Cross responded that he thought all of them had been corrected. They haven't made the final inspection. The pump station is in operation. Mr. Wadsworth would know about item 8. Mr. Cross explained the storm drainage plans as originally submitted and as shown on the revised plan. Mr. Carder will put in pipe when he decides what to do with the area pulled out of phase 1. Mr. Cross said his concern for the City is that in case there is an erosion problem, the ditch is not in and the pipe is not in, and the City takes over the street the City should not have to have the responsibility of correcting something because it wasn't put in in the first place. He recommends that Mr. Carder leave some of his performance bond up; if he doesn't want to fix it the City could take the money and fix it. Mr. Katz asked if he was primarily concerned about the road; Mr. Cross responded that that was correct, and that they would give some guarantee that the pipe would go in. o o Mr. Carder said that he felt $5,000 would be ample. When you accept the subdivision you accept the road for maintenance. Any damages due to drainage problems would be taken care of by the $5,000. There was discussion of the letter of credit. Mr. Katz said they could satisfy the City Attorney on form as to how documentation should be made. Mr. Alvarez said that they are asking to replace actual cash with a guarantee from a bank. Mr. Cross agreed that in some cases this is better protection than a bond. Councilman Asting asked about the tract of land to the west of Falcon Avenue and was advised that it was excluded from the plat. He questioned Terry Wadsworth as to items on the punch list and if, in his opinion, it was satisfactorily corrpleted. Mr. Wadsworth replied that they still had final inspection to do. It was mainly just cosmetic and no major problems. Mr. Katz asked that the City release the $71,500 of the cash bond, if they are satisfied that the only item left is the question of the drainage system of the road, or at least reduce it to the $5,000 figure. Mr. Cross suggested that they go through the final inspection on Monday. Mr. Katz wished to have all the problems resolved so that they do not have to come back before Council. Oouncilman Spencer reminded him that this is just a workshop, but if all the engineering and other problems are worked out he felt the $71,000 should be released, less the amount recommended by Mr. Cross for drainage problems with the letter of credit. Councilwoman Bennington agreed. Mayor Ledbetter asked if they planned to allow a sum for handling charges; Mr: Katz responded that the fee for review of subdivisions was their handling charge. Councilman Asting recommended waiting until they get the letter from the engineers; Mr. Cross said he would send a letter Monday saying that it is all done and recommend that they accept the subdivision, and at that time they could release the bond money, recommending they retain $5,000. Councilman Asting and Mayor Ledbetter were in agreement with this proposal. Mr. Katz asked that the bond money be released with the interest, less the fund retained for drainage problems. Mrs. Blazi said that the City has never paid interest in the past. Mayor Ledbetter recommended that this matter be handled by the City Attorney. Councilman Spencer said that this may require an ordinance change, if it has not been the policy of the City to pay interest. Attorney Katz argued that if it is just policy there is no ordinance and no ordinance change would be necessary. City Attorney Alvarez urged them to consider the recreation money. Mr. Katz said that he was advised that there have been other developments since the institution of that ordinance which did not put up recreation money. Mrs. Blazi said she would have to check with the Planning Depart- ment. Mr. Carder said he knew for a fact that they I (Shangri-La) did not. They designated their septic pond as the recreation area. Attorney Katz said in his opinion the recreational impact fee touches at the heart of the American system, i.e. using private .property for public payment. If the City wants a park they should buy a park. If the City wants to provide that each subdivision shall provide for recrea- tion for its residents, then they could make that a part of their su~ division ordinance. Mr. Katz cited cases which ruled that the 5% recrea- tional fee is invalid. The most recent case was heard by the Florida Appellate Court on 3/23/83. Mr. Alvarez said he did not think it had gone to the Supreme Court yet. He and Mr. Katz have discussed the legal rami- fications of impact fees; it is a new frontier of law. The courts are still trying to find a fair method of dealing with this question which is fair to developers and municipalities. Mr. Carder asked why a change could not be made and apply it to each permit. Mr. Alvarez said this subject would soon be before the Planning Commission. The ordinance will be changed in that direction, but to move too swiftly we might find that the Supreme Court does something contrary to what the 4th District did. City Council Workshop, May 19, 1983 - 2 - o o r / . Mr. Katz felt that the main problem with the City Ordinance pertaining to recreational impact fee is that the ordinance does not take into account the type of subdivision, and its true impact on the recreational needs of the City. City Attorney Alvarez remarked that when the present City Ordinance was enacted the City did not have the benefit of the most recent court decisions. This is an area which is just developing and he suggests that they wait 30 days to find out if the 4th District stays with their decision. Then the City should reevaluate the ordinance in light of recent decisions. Attorney Katz said they needed to make a decision as to whether the present ordinance under which the money was exacted is valid. He suggested that the City needed an engineering study to determine what the impact would be regarding recreation. Mr. Cross felt this would be in the realm of a pro- fessional planner. Mr. Carder stated that they were going to have their own recreation area for the subdivision. He explained the facilities they now have at Pelican Cove East. Pelican Cove West will have 4,000 to 6,000 sq. ft. rec. hall, maybe a swimming pool and recreational area. He feels this should be taken into consideration. They are privately owned and will be turned over to the Homeowner's Association. This will be started in the next few months. There was continued discussion about the lots in Florida Shores, which subdivision predated the ordinance. Councilwoman Bennington asked how much of the recreational money they wanted back; Mr. Katz said all of it, plus interest. He said they would be willing to leave $5,000 for drainage and would agree to transfer the $7500 recreational money over to the bond. CounciIman Spencer said that he was not in agreement to transferring the $7500 recreational impact fee over to a letter of credit. Mayor Ledbetter recalled that it was on the advice of the city. attorney that Council drew up the recreational ordinance. They were not in agreement with Mr. Katz that the present ordinance is invalid. Both Councilman Spencer and Council- man Asting complimented Mr. Carder on his homes. To summarize Mr. Katz said the $5,000 would remain with the city to cover any drainage problems, and the bond money would be released after Council final approval to accept the subdivision; this would go before Council on June 6. Mrs. Blazi was asked to look into the financial arrangements reo the bond money to be certain it is in an interest-bearing account. Mr. Alvarez said that if the money is in a non-interest bearing account there was nothing to be concerned with, but if it is in an interest-bearing account then it becomes an issue. The last item to be determined is if the City's recreational impact fee is valid. Councilman Asting made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Councilman Spencer. The meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m. Minutes submitted by Joan Taylor City Council Workshop, May 19, 1983 - 3 -