01-22-2007 - Regular
CITY COUNCIL OF EDGEWATER
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 22, 2007
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 Jon Williams Present
City Attorney Carolyn Ansay 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/CERTFIICATES/DON
ATIONS
A. Janet Miller, President/CEO Act Corp., requesting
financial support for $11,144 (cont. from
12/4/06, Item 9B)
Janet Miller, Interim President/CEO Act Corp., commented on
the memo she sent to the City Manager Williams with regard
to the financial crisis situation ACT Corp. has experienced
over the past year. Because some of the actions they have
taken are taking longer and there aren’t immediate results,
they still find themselves in need of assistance. She
further commented on their request for assistance. She
Page 1 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
asked Council to please help them address this community
asset.
Mayor Thomas commented on being at the VCOG meeting where
Ms. Miller previously spoke. He thought all of the other
cities have either pledged or paid their money to ACT. He
feels this is a worthwhile cause and they need to do it.
Councilwoman Lichter pointed out that Edgewater and New
Smyrna were about the same due to both cities populations
being similar. She asked if the amounts that have been set
were set by ACT or if it was based on what has been given
in the past. Ms. Miller stated it is based on the
population of the cities.
Councilwoman Lichter commented on attending ACT meetings
over the past nine years. They may have the same
population as New Smyrna but Edgewater doesn’t have the
same tax base. She feels they should definitely give
something and she asked City Manager Williams if that is
the amount they could give. She asked if it should be
divided and if our tax base should be taken into
consideration.
City Manager Williams stated when the City Managers
discussed a formula to come up with funding, it was decided
that population was the best mechanism to determine how
they allocate each city’s portion.
Councilwoman Lichter questioned if they had the $11,144.
City Manager Williams informed her Council approved two
additional police officers for FY2007. To date those
positions remain unfilled. He suggested if Council chooses
to fund it that they look at the savings from October,
November, and December, reallocate those moneys and they
fulfill the pledge and they have enough money should they
so choose.
Councilwoman Rogers doesn’t like the idea when they planned
to hire two additional police officers to take one of those
positions away with the needs of the City. Mayor Thomas
informed her they weren’t taking it away. It is the three
months that they haven’t been here that they already
approved them and the money has not been spent.
Page 2 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
Councilwoman Rogers commented on taking money from one
place and shoving it to the next. City Manager Williams
stated they are reallocating it.
Mayor Thomas stated they better learn how to do that
because of their expenditures.
Councilwoman Lichter stated in a sense it is almost the
same objective because the two police officers might not be
as needed if they take care of the problem before it
happens. If the Chief is willing, she would be for it.
Councilwoman Rhodes asked where Daytona was on the list.
Ms. Miller informed her she hadn’t heard from Daytona. She
initiated contact with Mr. Chisholm again today.
Councilwoman Rhodes pointed out Deltona had only given
half. Ms. Miller stated not all the cities did do their
per capita amount but that was the request that was voted
upon by the City Managers/County Managers.
Councilwoman Lichter asked if it would be better to divide
it into two different times and give part now and part
later. City Manager Williams informed her that would be a
question for Ms. Miller in terms of her funding
requirements.
Councilwoman Lichter asked Ms. Miller if it would be as
effective that way. Ms. Miller informed her it probably
could be. The advantage of the City giving the dollars to
them in total is that they can leverage those dollars to
get the match from the County.
Councilman Vincenzi stated ACT Corp. is one of those
organizations everybody hears about, nobody knows what they
do but as soon as it disappears everybody notices. He
feels this is a worthy cause. He would vote to donate the
entire amount.
Councilwoman Lichter made a motion to give the ACT Corp.
the requested financial amount they have asked for of
$11,144 which subject matter was continued from 12/4/06,
Item 9B, second by Councilman Vincenzi.
The MOTION CARRIED 4-1. Councilwoman Rogers voted NO
.
Page 3 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
Councilwoman Rogers voted no because of what the City is
going through budget wise. She could not vote with a clear
conscience on this knowing they have issues currently
within the City and that is where her loyalty stands.
4. CITIZEN COMMENTS
The following citizens spoke:
Dot Carlson
, 1714 Edgewater Drive, President, on behalf of
ECARD, stated she was present to monitor any discussion of
the lawsuit filed against the City over the recently
adopted Charter height amendment. As sponsor of the
amendment, it is ECARD’s intention to join the City as an
interverner in the case and their attorney has communicated
their intention to defend with the City Attorney. They are
convinced the Charter amendment is completely lawful and
fully expresses the will of the citizens of Edgewater and
that the Council is empowered and obliged by the City
Charter to defend it against a legal challenge. Since the
plaintiff’s proposed development in this case is admittedly
full vested and therefore not impacted at all by the new
height cap, they must conclude their intention in pursuing
this lawsuit is to challenge the height cap. They question
whether or not they have legal standing to pursue the suit
and that at the very least they will waste thousands of
taxpayers’ dollars in doing so.
Ms. Carlson commented on a photo Council received of a
damaged gopher tortoise. Mayor Thomas asked when it was
taken and where. Ms. Carlson informed him the photo was
taken in Titusville and was sent to her by Ray Ashton. She
feels they need to do to stop incidental takes in the City
of Edgewater. It is being done in other cities and
counties. This is cruel. This gopher tortoise died
instantly. The ones that are buried alive do not die
instantly.
Mayor Thomas asked Ms. Carlson if she was aware that the
State already has laws in effect and the County is coming
up with another set of laws, more stringent. Ms. Carlson
informed him she knew. Mayor Thomas commented on needing
to enforce the law.
JoAnne Sikes
, 125 E. Palm Way, stated she was there to
speak for support for the library, for buying the property.
It is an opportunity she hopes the city does not pass by.
Page 4 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
She knows finances are not always there. They built that
library with grants. They might think about getting grants
and purchase and rebuilding. She feels they need to do
something now before the buildings cost more in the future.
She hoped the Council would consider this. The library is
their children’s future. They worked hard to get it. They
solicited all over the City and stood on street corners to
get the grant. She would be willing to do that again to
fight to keep the library and give a place for it to grow.
If it wasn’t a busy library that would be different but it
is with one of the largest children’s programs in Volusia
County. The children going to that library are Edgewater’s
future.
Dominic Capria
, 606 Topside Circle, stated since they
terminated the high paying job of $50,000 at the animal
shelter, he was of the opinion they are going to go back to
the volunteers who he feels do a great job. He found there
was an application to hire another person again depending
on experience anywhere from $17,000 to $42,000. He would
like to ask why.
Mr. Capria then asked about the debt schedule and the
$500,000 for the animal shelter that the voters voted for.
It looks like they have spent $30,000 on deletions, which
leaves them $470,000. He asked if he was reading it wrong.
City Manager Williams wasn’t sure where Mr. Capria got his
information on the application that is out there. They
have authorized to fill an animal control officer’s
position. His figures and Mr. Capria’s don’t quite add up.
Mr. Capria informed him he got the application on the
desktop at City Hall. City Manager Williams was only aware
of the animal control officer position that is out there.
City Manager William stated as far as the debt service, he
informed Mr. Capria he was correct in what he was
interpreting. The City incurred $500,000 more debt and
every year they make debt service payments or principle
payments and that was the principle payment associated with
that debt so it is paying that debt down each year.
Mr. Capria stated so they are saying that debt service
principle is going to get lower every year. City Manager
Williams stated they have $550,000 in the bank that they
are holding.
Page 5 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
Carol Ann Stoughton
, 2740 Evergreen Drive, commented on the
debt schedule. Most people here don’t realize that this
City over the past six years has been in serious financial
debt. First showing $69 million and now we are $45
million. The $500,000 that has been allocated to the
shelter is only $470,000 in there as she sees it. The
sheet was provided by City Manager Williams after the last
regime of the last Mayor and under the last regime of the
last City Manager. They knew there was a lot going on and
nobody would give them answers. She feels the people
should know that we are not a solid City to go out and
purchase this, add on to this, build that. We are still
paying for stormwater drains and still paying Mr. Hooper’s
firm. She feels someone should come along and demand an
attorney general audit and investigation as to what has
been going on over the past five or six years.
Ferd Heeb
, 115 N. Riverside Drive, commented on a community
he stayed in in Lake Worth that was very similar to Florida
Shores. They had a major north/south corridor on each side
and east west side streets and it is a long corridor. They
had a similar problem that we are facing daily, which is
increased traffic in these residential areas and speeding.
The way they solved it is they installed engineered speed
bumps. He had to drive in and out of that community three
or four times a day for four or five days and they were not
an inconvenience. All of these communities are being faced
with the same problem in Florida.
Mr. Heeb stated he has the impression that the citizens of
Edgewater when they voted down the exception to the 35-foot
height limit were sending this government a message that
they didn’t want to trust decisions to the Council. They
have appointed themselves as the City’s Planning & Zoning
Committee. He recommended the City put on the ballot to
start with the hospital. He gets the impression people
want to look at each item that would exceed the 35-feet.
5. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilman Vincenzi had nothing at this time.
Councilwoman Rhodes would like the Police Chief and City
Manager to look into the speed bumps.
Councilwoman Lichter stated she received a call from a
gentleman in Florida Shores who was very concerned about a
Page 6 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
large truck that was in front of his home on the City
right-of-way for a considerable length of time and a
gigantic boat in the driveway. She went and took a look at
it and it did seem excessive to her and a problem. She
reported it to Assistant City Manager Liz McBride and she
assumed she was going to tell Code Enforcement. He was
afraid to call Code Enforcement because of the
repercussions in terms of this particular neighbor. He
thought he had to divulge his name. She asked when they
call if they have to divulge their name. City Manager
Williams informed her no.
Councilwoman Lichter stated a while back they had a plan
where if police officers happen to be going down a street
and they saw that there was such an obvious infraction for
a length of time they might be able to call it in as well
as other City employees and Code Enforcement. She asked if
this was still in effect. City Manager Williams informed
her they still participate. Councilwoman Lichter felt this
should be known to the Council too if they just came on
board. It’s not just on a complaint that violations have
to be followed through on. It can be done by other people.
She feels that will broaden the base to help with the
problem.
Councilwoman Lichter stated in 60 days the final decision
will be made on the Water Authority. At last Wednesday’s
meeting, a very important presentation was made and a
particular draft document that was worked up by all the
Managers. They presented a new document. The end result
is that there are several verbiage changes that were
suggested from the Managers reconstruction of WAV.
Previously she was on the Water Alliance and that was just
planning, not implementation. The WAV Group has up to now
been not only planning but planning for implementation.
They have gone through a very extensive study with an
engineer and listed the projects after months of planning
them. However, there are some managers in a couple of
cities that think it is premature in the set up of things
for the Water Authority to think it is going to be a water
provider, that it should still go more to the planning type
of regression. That is what the Managers came up with.
More flexible in that all cities would not be involved with
all projects and have to kick in some money. What is
presented by the Managers would be in her opinion, but she
voted for it because she doesn’t want to see the Water
Authority go totally away, a watered down Water Authority.
Page 7 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
However it is still a water authority with the potential in
the future of having more strength. In the 60 day time
period that is involved, she will put the newest draft once
our attorney, who is also the attorney for the Water
Authority, the verbiage will be up to date, all complete
and what she has to vote in 60 days yes or no on. She
would put it in the City Manager’s office for everybody to
look at. It provides flexibility. There will be two kinds
of members, those that will be involved directly with the
project and those that will at that moment have a different
status, they will not have to kick in money. Yes it will
be cheaper and the formula will not be the same. She will
vote for it because she doesn’t want to see it go away. It
is still communication and still very much going to
emphasize conservation. It will be an umbrella group with
St. John’s if a group needs to apply for federal money.
Some cities will pull out because they don’t think it is
strong enough and they are working on their own projects.
She feels they shouldn’t pull out because there is nothing
else in its place. She informed Council that if they
needed to talk to City Manager Williams he is familiar.
This will be voted on in March.
Councilwoman Rogers stated in light of a recent article
that came out in the newspaper and also to make some
comments regarding Mrs. Sikes comments regarding the
library. She finds it interesting that the library we have
currently was built with grants. The property that they
are going to be potentially looking at, at the last Council
th
meeting on January 8, the lady that got up and spoke
regarding the library indicated that the Friends of the
Library are going to work together to put together a
building fund drive and that they will be looking to
receive matching funds. Those are the types of things she
heard and it was to be a long-range plan. The article in
the newspaper almost sounded as if the City Council
approved something and they didn’t know how much something
was going to cost and they blindly approved it. They
didn’t blindly approve anything other than to allow the
City Manager to begin negotiations and make an offer. The
gentleman that was interviewed and the statements that were
made in the newspaper were inaccurate.
Councilwoman Rogers then followed up on Mr. Heeb’s comment
about the hospital. After their brief meeting with the
Economic Development Board, that did seem to be a concern.
She spoke with Mr. Lott as well as the gentleman that
Page 8 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
represents Bert Fish and she told them if Bert Fish wants
to do something in this City, why are you stopping. Go
forward, come back, talk to the Council and then they will
go back to the citizens for that specifically. She didn’t
think the citizens would turn something like that down.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
There were no items to be discussed on the Consent Agenda.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
st
NOTE: The 1 Readings of Items 7A through 7F were held
nd
November 6, 2007. The 2 Reading is now scheduled for
February 5, 2007. These items are listed on the agenda for
continuance to a date certain to save the cost of re-
advertising in the newspaper
.
nd
A. 2 Reading, Ord. No. 2006-O-35, Mark Karet, agent
for Edgewater Airpark, LLC, requesting an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land
use Map to include .60+ acres of property located
at 1840 Airpark Road as Commercial (small scale
comprehensive plan amendment)
City Attorney Ansay read Ord. 2006-O-35 into the record.
Councilwoman Rhodes moved to continue Ord. 2006-O-35 until
February 5, 2007, second by Councilwoman Lichter
.
The MOTION CARRIED 5-0
.
nd
B. 2 Reading, Ord. No. 2006-O-36, Mark Karet, agent
for Edgewater Airpark, LLC, requesting an
amendment to the Official Zoning Map to include
.60+ acres of property located at 1840 Airpark
Road as B-3 (Highway Commercial) (rezoning)
City Attorney Ansay read Ord. 2006-O-36 into the record.
Councilwoman Lichter moved to continue Ord. 2006-O-36 until
February 5, 2007, second by Councilwoman Rhodes
.
The MOTION CARRIED 5-0
.
nd
C. 2 Reading, Ord. No. 2006-O-38, Tom Valley, agent
for PC Capital, LLC, requesting an amendment to
Page 9 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to
include 3.67+ acres of land located east of Old
County Road, north of Pearl Street as Medium
Density Residential (small scale comprehensive
plan amendment)
City Attorney Ansay read Ord. 2006-O-38 into the record.
Councilwoman Rhodes moved to continue Ord. 2006-O-38 until
February 5, 2007, second by Councilwoman Lichter
.
The MOTION CARRIED 5-0
.
nd
D. 2 Reading, Ord. No. 2006-O-39, Tom Valley, agent
for PC Capital, LLC, requesting an amendment to
the Official Zoning Map to include 3.67+ acres of
land located east of Old County Road, north of
Pearl Street as R-4 (Multi-Family Residential)
(rezoning)
City Attorney Ansay read Ord. 2006-O-39 into the record.
Councilwoman Lichter moved to continue Ord. 2006-O-39 until
February 5, 2007, second by Councilwoman Rhodes
.
The MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
nd
E. 2 Reading, Ord. No. 2006-O-40, Tom Valley, agent
for PC Capital, LLC, requesting an amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to
include 1.1+ acres of land located east of Old
County Road, north of Pearl Street as Medium
Density Residential (small scale comprehensive
plan amendment)
City Attorney Ansay read Ord. 2006-O-40 into the record.
Councilman Vincenzi moved to continue Ord. 2006-O-40 until
February 5, 2007, second by Councilwoman Rogers.
The MOTION CARRIED 5-0
.
nd
F. 2 Reading, Ord. No. 2006-O-41, Tom Valley, agent
for PC Capital, LLC, requesting an amendment to
the Official Zoning Map to include 1.1+ acres of
land located east of Old County Road, north of
Page 10 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
Pearl Street as R-4 (Multi-Family Residential)
(rezoning)
City Attorney Ansay read Ord. 2006-O-41 into the record.
Councilwoman Rogers moved to continue Ord. 2006-O-41 until
February 5, 2007, second by Councilman Vincenzi
.
The MOTION CARRIED 5-0
.
st
G. 1 Reading, Ord. No. 2006-O-44, City of Edgewater
requesting an amendment to the Official Zoning
Map to include 17.63+ acres of land located
southwest of Edgewater Lakes Subdivision Phase 1a
(Northstar Lane) as P/SP (Public/Semi-Public)
(rezoning) continued from 12/4/06, Item 7E)
City Attorney Ansay read Ord. 2006-O-44 into the record.
Development Services Director Darren Lear made a staff
presentation.
Mayor Thomas opened the public hearing.
The following citizens spoke:
Karen Mason
, 1847 Coco Palm Drive, stated in an effort to
save time, she wanted to beg the Council to go forward. It
is four years to this point just to change the land. There
are many citizens that want this built that want these
animals taken care of. She asked everybody in the audience
who was in favor of getting the shelter built and urging
the Council to move forward to please stand up. They asked
that Council take the direction that was voted on four
years ago and move on it.
Dot Carlson
, 1714 Edgewater Drive, representing ECARD,
agreed that people voted on it and this should be done.
This is a very needed thing.
Leo Towsley
, 2828 Unity Tree Drive, wondered when it would
be built. It has been two years since it was voted on. He
didn’t vote for it.
Mr. Towsley stated they were told when it came up for a
vote that it was supposed to be run by all volunteers and
then they hired the Animal Services Director at $50,000 a
Page 11 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
year. He asked what would happen now since she is gone and
they do build it. Will it be ran by volunteers or are they
going to wind up paying someone to take care of it again?
Councilwoman Lichter stated right now volunteers are
running it. Mr. Towsley asked what would happen in the
future. They were told this from the very beginning, which
is why he thought everybody voted on it. They were told
everything was supposed to be all volunteers and then they
turn around without saying anything and hire someone to run
it. He asked if this is something they are going to get
stuck with paying somebody or more people eventually or
more volunteers or no volunteers. He mentioned the Animal
Services Director being fired over a volunteer complaining
of her actions. He commented on the City wanting to bring
in a veterinarian. He questioned what veterinarian is
going to want to step up shop where the shop is being run
by volunteers who if they complain to the City Manager is
going to lose their whole job. He asked what is happening
there because of the price going up.
Trish Whitaker
, 3124 Pine Tree Drive, ex-volunteer for the
Animal Shelter, stated she was told some of the
Councilmembers don’t want the animal shelter so they are
planning on putting it up for a vote and that is another
reason is it taking as long as it is. As far as where the
shelter is heading, they want to know by the volunteers.
They discussed with the Mayor about the plan with the
veterinarian. As far as she knows it is a good plan and a
solid plan. The veterinarian will be paid not by the city.
She asked where it is heading.
Mayor Thomas felt they had strayed way off the subject.
They need to vote on the rezoning. He agreed to talk about
the animal shelter later.
Mayor Thomas entertained a motion.
Councilwoman Rogers stated this item that is in front of
them tonight is as the Mayor has indicated, rezoning. She
has been instructed that they are more or less obligated to
do the rezoning because this property is not just for the
animal shelter proposed to be built. It is also for the
utilities and they need to get that on the ball. City
Manager Williams confirmed that was correct.
Page 12 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
Councilwoman Rogers stated and they cannot deny or put that
off any longer unless they had, according to legal terms,
substantial evidence to put that off. Therefore to vote on
this tonight, put aside in their mind the animal shelter
issue and go back and think it is because of the reclaimed
water facility that is at this site.
Councilwoman Rogers addressed Ms. Whitaker. She mentioned
that she heard here were some Councilpeople. She stated
the citizens voted for something awhile back, the $500,000.
What the citizens voted for the citizens should get but a
lot of things have changed. In the next few weeks they
will be taking about this more. She at this point with the
$500,000 that should have been spent and what should have
been done and it’s not been done, she isn’t in favor of it.
She was probably one of those that rumors ran around. If it
would have been done according to the way the citizens were
told it was to be done, she would be for it. That is not
what has happened. This land cost the City money. If you
take a percentage of this land and allocate the money that
was used to purchase this, then you would start ticking
along and realizing that the $500,000 some of it has been
spent. She has asked for quantified breakdowns of that.
They haven’t gotten that yet. She has a good idea what it
is she is just waiting for the ball to drop and waiting for
the rest of the things to occur as it should. Recently she
received a phone call about an article in the Hometown News
this weekend where a veterinarian had told Mayor Thomas
that they would need to have an additional $1.5 million
spent on a facility adjacent to the proposed animal shelter
in order to accommodate him for his proposed management
services that he would be providing to the shelter. She
hasn’t heard any of this other than what she read in the
paper and what a citizen called and was asking her. She
was trying to say stay tuned, it’s coming. She wanted to
explain her position. If they hear rumors and they want to
get the facts, call the person directly and then maybe by
them explaining themselves they will know it is a little
different than what they heard.
Councilwoman Rhodes moved to approve Ord. 2007-O-02, City
of Edgewater requesting an amendment to the Official Zoning
Map to include 17.63+ acres of land located southwest of
Edgewater Lakes Subdivision Phase 1a (Northstar Lane) as
P/SP (Public/Semi-Public), second by Councilman Vincenzi
.
The MOTION CARRIED 5-0
.
Page 13 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
st
H. 1 Reading, Ord. No. 2007-O-02, Bishop Thomas
Wenski requesting an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to include
9.97+ acres of property located at 2310 S.
Ridgewood Avenue as Commercial with Conservation
Overlay (small scale comprehensive plan
amendment)
City Attorney Ansay read Ord. 2007-O-02 into the record.
Development Services Director Lear made a staff
presentation.
Cynthia Raleigh
, Baker Hostetler LLP, for Diocese of
Orlando, supports staff’s recommendation and they were
available to answer any questions.
Mayor Thomas opened the public hearing.
Councilwoman Lichter asked about the properties that were
down a little further. Mr. Lear informed her it was just
south of Riverside Bank.
Councilwoman Rhodes asked if they want to build a church
there does it have to be zoned commercial. Ms. Raleigh
informed her there were no development plans at this time.
Councilwoman Rhodes informed her she knew and was asking
Mr. Lear. Mr. Lear informed her it was permitted in the
proposed designation they would see after this it would be
permitted.
Councilwoman Lichter asked about the height. Councilwoman
Rhodes stated that is covered in the Charter. She
commented on churches not paying taxes. She feels if it is
zoned commercial and they decide down the road to sell it,
does that benefit the City tax wise whereas if they don’t
zone it commercial and they don’t sell it. If it’s not
zoned commercial and it is zoned public/semi-public and
they don’t build a church there, that land value is less
than if it was zoned commercial. Mr. Lear informed her as
long as they own it they don’t pay taxes. Councilwoman
Rhodes stated but the zoning is going to go with the
resale. If they sell it in the future what is to our
benefit is that it is zoned commercial. Mr. Lear informed
her it takes an extra step out of the way. If they went to
public/semi-public right now and they sold the land to
Page 14 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
someone that wanted to develop it commercially they would
have to come back to Council. Councilwoman Rhodes stated
but if they built the church, would it not be better to
zone it public/semi-public. Mr. Lear stated it would be
permitted in commercial. City Manager Williams stated the
best decision is to zone it commercial rather than zoning
it public/semi-public.
The following citizens spoke:
Kathleen Sayre
, 11 Silver Circle, was opposed to this being
changed to commercial property at this time without knowing
if they are going to do something. She would like to know
if they are planning on selling it and what type of thing
they would be putting in there. Her property abuts this in
the back and she wouldn’t want something like loud speakers
and lights in her neighborhood. She would have no problem
with it if they put a church in there. She didn’t feel they
should change it until they know what they are going to do.
Ms. Sayre pointed out where she lived on a map.
Charles Martin
, Sea Gull Court, stated his main question
was on the listing they said they are going to have some
sort of a conservation corridor and asked what that meant.
He asked how much of the property is going to be in the
conservation corridor. Mr. Lear explained with the
conservation overlay they are required to do an
environmental study on the property.
Councilwoman Rogers stated he is talking about a buffer, an
area where they aren’t going to build, like a 100 feet from
the boundary line. Mr. Martin commented on the retention
area and the area that drains into that lake. He wanted
Council to be aware before anything else goes too much
further. Councilwoman Rogers stated it currently says they
don’t have a plan so they don’t know what is going to go
there. Mr. Lear stated they are required a fifty foot
setback when adjacent to residential zoning or use. In
that buffer they are also required a certain amount of
shrubs and tree and possibly a masonry wall depending on
what plan they bring in.
City Manager Williams stated they have provisions in the
Land Development Code that Mr. Lear had just pointed out
that helps provide a buffer.
Page 15 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
Councilwoman Lichter stated it seems to her highway
commercial is basically on U.S. #1. Mr. Lear stated that
is why they have the request in front of them tonight due
to the frontage along U.S. #1.
Councilwoman Rhodes felt it should be commercial due to
U.S. #1 being all commercial. It’s got to fit.
Mayor Thomas closed the public hearing and entertained a
motion.
Councilwoman Lichter moved to approve Ord. 2007-O-02,
Bishop Thomas Wenski requesting an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to include 9.97+
acres of property located at 2310 S. Ridgewood Avenue as
Commercial with Conservation Overlay, second by Councilman
Vincenzi
.
The MOTION CARRIED 5-0
.
st
I. 1 Reading, Ord. No. 2007-O-03, Bishop Thomas
Wenski requesting an amendment to the Official
Zoning Map to include 9.97+ acres of property
located at 2310 S. Ridgewood Avenue as B-3
(Highway Commercial) (rezoning)
City Attorney Ansay read Ord. 2007-O-03 into the record.
Cynthia Raleigh
, Baker & Hostetler, stated they agree with
staff’s recommendation on this one as well but they also
want to stress there are no development plans at this time.
The diocese owns the property and it has no plans to sell
it either right now. Any development that is going to
happen on the property has to comply with code and setbacks
that were mentioned by Mr. Lear. They are going to take
into consideration the neighbors of the property.
Due to there being no comments, Mayor Thomas opened and
closed the public hearing and entertained a motion.
Councilwoman Rhodes moved to approve Ord. 2007-O-03, Bishop
Thomas Wenski requesting an amendment to the Official
Zoning Map to include 9.97+ acres of property located at
2310 S. Ridgewood Avenue as B-3 (Highway Commercial),
second by Councilman Vincenzi
.
The MOTION CARRIED 5-0
.
Page 16 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
There was a ten-minute recess at this time. The meeting
recessed at 8:20 p.m. and reconvened at 8:30 p.m.
st
J. 1 Reading, Ord. No. 2007-O-01, amending the Land
Development Code to include language pertaining
to the Proportionate Fair Share Program to
mitigate transportation impacts on development
City Attorney Ansay read Ord. 2007-O-01 into the record.
Development Services Director Lear made a staff
presentation, which consisted of a Powerpoint Presentation.
Mayor Thomas stated so what the legislature has told them
is no pay, no grow.
Councilwoman Lichter stated maybe they should hear from Mr.
Wadsworth at a different meeting because there are certain
dates that apply to water compliance, etc and plans and
different dates that cities have to submit. She would like
to be brought up on the water situation too.
Mr. Lear informed Mayor Thomas he had those dates.
Mayor Thomas stated the legislature has put it in and the
City has to comply with it.
Due to there being no comments, Mayor Thomas entertained a
motion.
Councilwoman Rhodes moved to approve Ord. 2007-O-01,
amending the Land Development Code to include language
pertaining to the Proportionate Fair Share Program to
mitigate transportation impacts on development, second by
Councilwoman Lichter
.
The MOTION CARRIED 5-0
.
8. BOARD APPOINTMENTS
A. Animal Control Board:
1) Nomination by Councilwoman Rogers to
fill a vacated seat due to the expired
term of Karen Mason who seeks
reappointment (continued from 1/8/07)
Page 17 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
Councilwoman Rogers moved to reappoint Karen Mason, second
by Councilwoman Rhodes
.
The MOTION CARRIED 5-0
.
2) Nomination by Councilman Vincenzi to
fill a remaining term due to the
resignation of Pam Black
Councilman Vincenzi moved to nominate Robin Feger, second
by Councilwoman Rhodes
.
The MOTION CARRIED 5-0
.
3) Nomination by Councilwoman Rhodes to
fill a vacated seat left by Debrah
Brazzell who is not interested in
reappointment
Councilwoman Rhodes moved to nominate Barbara Eldridge,
second by Councilman Vincenzi
.
The MOTION CARRIED 5-0
.
9. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Property Exchange (Land Swap) – staff
recommending approval of an exchange of equal
size property within ParkTowne Industrial Center
between the City of Edgewater and McCracken
Properties, LLC, with execution by the Mayor
City Manager Williams made a staff presentation.
Councilwoman Rhodes felt this was a win-win situation.
Councilwoman Lichter asked if that had to be recommended by
Planning & Zoning. They aren’t involved with land swaps.
This is the first one she has seen in nine years.
Mayor Thomas entertained a motion.
Councilwoman Lichter moved to approve the exchange of equal
size property within ParkTowne Industrial Center between
the City of Edgewater and McCracken Properties, LLC, with
execution by the Mayor, second by Councilwoman Rogers
.
Page 18 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
The MOTION CARRIED 5-0
.
City Manager Williams informed Council he wanted to discuss
an additional property swap and ask Council to authorize
Mayor Thomas to execute a property swap at some point in
the future once the costs are determined for related
infrastructure to provide access to these properties that
McCracken Properties LLC owns. He pointed out where the
infrastructure ends. The City sold Mr. McCracken these
pieces of property and they should have provided associated
roadway network and utility infrastructure. With that
comes some cost and the City did not make any provisions
for that cost. What Mr. McCracken is willing to do is he
is willing to exchange an equal amount of property at the
appraised value of $70,574 and the estimated cost today is
about 2.2 acres and he will install the roadway network and
related infrastructure and turn it back over to the City.
In an effort to save some time and to allow him to proceed
with his project, he asked Council to authorize the Mayor
to execute the property swap at some point in the future
once the infrastructure is in place. They will determine
that cost and bring back an agreement and he can sign it
and they will update Council on that.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated the answer is yes. City Manager
Williams informed her he needed that in the form of a
motion.
Councilwoman Lichter stated if this was an ordinance, it
would have to be listed and the public would be allowed to
come. Since it is not they are going to make that
determination anyway. City Manager Williams informed her
they are only going to authorize the Mayor to execute the
exchange. Councilwoman Lichter stated she would be in
favor of it.
Mayor Thomas entertained a motion.
Councilwoman Rhodes moved to authorize the Mayor to
complete a land swap once the infrastructure is in place,
second by Councilwoman Rogers
.
The MOTION CARRIED 5-0
.
Councilwoman Lichter asked what would happen with the FIND
fill land that is five football fields. City Manager
Page 19 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
Williams informed her they have identified it as a
potential site for a park but there is no definitive plans
in place at this point in time.
B. Edgewater Harbor PUD Agreement – discussion of
the Project and pending issues
City Manager Williams informed Council of an e-mail
communication he had received from Kevin Donaghy outlining
some various obstacles that he feels like the City has
placed in front of his project therefore causing
unnecessary delays. He felt this was something that needed
to be addressed by the Council. The real issue at hand is
they have come to a gentleman’s disagreement over the
impact fees and the manner in which they will be paid. He
has provided them with an update prior to this point. He
thinks the PUD agreement specifies specifically how those
impact fees will need to be paid. Council was advised of
staff’s interpretation of the PUD agreement. At such time,
they provided City Attorney Ansay an opportunity to bring
herself up to date with regards to the PUD agreement.
Today they still have a difference of opinion on the way in
which those impact fees need to be dealt with and paid. He
allowed Mr. Donaghy an opportunity to come before Council
and address it and then Mr. McMillan will provide some
dialogue with that as well.
Hawk McMillan
, Managing Member, Edgewater Harbor, stated
they have 60 acres on the south border of the City that
they are trying to develop and they need clarification of
the City’s position with regards to the Edgewater Harbor
project. They have been diligently working on this project
and to date have spent $8,524,000 and they have become very
concerned with regards to the City’s changing
interpretation of the PUD agreement between the City and
Edgewater Harbor. He would like clear answers from the
Council on whether or not the City wants this project to go
forward and if the City is willing to act in good faith
consistent with their agreements and prior course of
dealing. Respectively Edgewater Harbor needs answers to
the following questions. Will the City review their site
development plan, which has been completed and submitted to
the City has of November 22, 2006. Allow Edgewater Harbor
to develop their project in phases as set forth in the PUD
agreement. Page 2 in the original and revised PUD
Agreement allows them to pay their water & sewer impact
fees upon approval by phase. Previously when they had
Page 20 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
submitted their site development plan to the City for the
first phase of the mid-rise condominium project the City
allowed the project to be developed in phases per the PUD.
Review and approve the site development plan prior to
requiring water & sewer impact fees and after approval of
the site development plan only require the impact fees for
the phases being developed. None of the language regarding
the impact fees changed from the original version of the
PUD agreement to the amended version PUD agreement. They
are only looking for the same treatment they received
before. That is not what is happening. The disagreement
that City Manager Williams is talking about is a major
disagreement and they are here today because they have a
major disagreement with City Manager Williams. City
Manager Williams has told Edgewater Harbor the following.
Their site development plan will not be reviewed prior to
Edgewater Harbor paying wastewater and sewer impact fees.
This is different from their prior course of dealing.
Wastewater & sewer impact fees have to be paid for all
phases of the development, 450 units, before the site
development plan will even be reviewed. City Manager
Williams has publicly stated that Edgewater Harbor owes
$2.6 million for wastewater & sewer impact fees, when the
figure is based over the development of 580 units, not the
450 units awarded here on April 3, 2006 for Edgewater
Harbor. According to the calculations received from City
Manager Williams on January 3, 2007 the impact fees for 450
units should be $1.7 million less the $100,000 received by
the City. This is a minor difference of only $1 million.
City Manager Williams’ position now is even if they reduce
their reservation of water & sewer down to the phase I
development of 142 units they will be required to pay the
wastewater impact fees for the entire project. When they
were first before the City, the City required payment of
the first phase of their development. Then it was 154
units and required impact fees of $539,000. The first
phase of their revised project is 142 units. City Manager
Williams and his staff calculated impact fees for them on
January 3, 2007. According to the e-mail City Manager
Williams handed them the water and sewer impact fees for
142 units is $529,000 less the $100,000 already paid. He
then referred to the e-mail in the package from Donna
Nichols to Liz McBride calculating the impact fee for
$529,000, the net amount of $429,000 if the PUD was
followed and consistent with their prior dealings with the
City. $429,000, not $2.6 million. This is a major
difference. He was glad to be back in front of the Council
Page 21 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
as this issue needs to be settled and settled now.
Edgewater Harbor has worked in good faith and with
diligence to develop this project. This is a different
project than the one they had before and they require a
different DEP application for reservation of water & sewer.
When they were before the City previously, they obtained
their commitments on their site development and then
applied for reservation with DEP. The City has to sign
their application with the DEP. To them this just looks
like a stall tactic to put them back behind their
construction deadline. He then presented a history of the
project dating back to the Fall of 2003.
Mr. McMillan commented on the hurricanes that occurred in
2004 and how they seriously impacted every real estate
development, including Edgewater Harbor, with regard to
construction costs. Because of that he came back to
Council on April 3, 2006 with a revised proposal for their
PUD. They believe it was a better project that better
suited the City, both from an affordability and feasibility
perspective and a project with a lower overall residential
height, which seems to be the direction the Council has
been going to. They took their height from 95 feet to 50
feet. Their current project submittal has their height at
only 41 feet, which is only six feet over the 35 feet the
City is looking for. They dropped it down an additional 9
feet. They dropped from 580 units to 450 units. They
agreed at that meeting, at the insistence of Councilwoman
Rogers, to despite their previous agreement that they would
take the cost sharing agreement that was supposed to be the
City with Boston Whaler for $500,000. They were satisfied
with the revised PUD agreement despite having their project
on multiple occasions being called the lesser of two evils,
which at times gave him cause for concern. As he stands
before the Council today, it causes him much greater
concern. It is important to note the revised PUD agreement
also calls for the project to be developed in phases. The
language regarding sewer and water impact fees is identical
in both the original and the revised PUD agreements. On
rd
the aftermath of the April 3 meeting, they spent over
$300,000 on design, engineering, legal fees, management
time and expenses working on their marina application. In
order to establish how many slips the City could have,
Edgewater Harbor paid to have the entire shoreline of the
City of Edgewater surveyed. They paid for it. He knows of
no other developer who has ever done that in his twenty-
eight years of doing this. They are talking concurrency.
Page 22 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
They paid for that. He commented on who they hired and
people they met with from St. John’s. They continue to
th
press forward with their applications. On March 28 they
attended a St. John’s meeting and they started doing
extensive redesign and reengineering of their project
according to the amended PUD agreement.
Mr. McMillan stated he wanted to talk about what he calls
thnd
the $32,900,000 extortion. On May 10 and May 22,
Edgewater Harbor’s attorney Kevin Donaghy met with Darren
Lear and City Manager Williams for the first time. They
have been doing this for two and a half years and never had
heard a word about this in two and a half years. Spending
all this money, going along and all of a sudden they are
told they had gotten 29 wet slips and 300 dry slips and
they were told they needed to pay the City $100,000 per
slip to purchase them. He spoke to a gentleman who has two
marinas in Jacksonville and a dry slip there runs about
$60,000 to $70,000. The $100,000 the City was telling him
they had to pay, they forgot they had to build it, which
would cost $6.5 million. If they were to build it at
$22,000 a forty foot slip and then pay the City $100,000,
they would negatively lose about $20 million. He didn’t
think anybody in the world thinks that makes any sense.
Then they were told they could pay the City a lease fee of
$3 per foot, whether it was rented or not forever. That is
$120 a slip forever and the City would be in charge of the
marina they own. He went to the bank and asked if there
was any way possible anyone would finance him to go build
$6.5 million marina and that the first thing that has to be
paid is the $3 per forty-foot slip, $120 a month whether it
is rented or not to the City. They just about laughed him
out of there. There is no way. He listed the surrounding
towns they have contacted and nobody is doing that. It has
never been done before. He appreciated that City Manager
Williams wanted to bring in a little less than half a
million dollars per year for the City but there is just no
way. Economically you cannot do it. $32,900,000 that is
ten times the cost of the land. You can buy a completed
dry slip for $60,000 or $70,000 much less paying the City
$100,000 and then having to build it for $22,000 a piece.
He has never even heard of anything like that. They
decided to press forward. At the same time the City is
being sued by another developer here. He didn’t want to do
that. They became a lot more skeptical. They were sort of
worried the City was looking at the project as being evil
and they were throwing up any road block they could come up
Page 23 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
th
with. On the 30 they had another meeting and confirmed it
would be $3 per foot whether the slip is rented or not
forever. He was told yes. This effectively gutted any
chance they had of building this dry stack marina. They
tried to go forward and they redesigned the commercial
portion of the project to move some of the commercial to
U.S. #1 and relocate some of the residential to the eastern
portion of the site. They were scheduled to go before the
th
Council on August 7 with a revised master plan. On the
th
afternoon of August 7, Darren Lear and City Manager
Williams called them to inform them that any discussion of
their project was going to be a discussion of lawsuits and
that the climate of the castle was not right for obtaining
amendments for the Council. Unfortunately he made the
mistake of listening and withdrew their request. They
decided they would take their design back exactly to where
it was before if that was the case. They spent an
additional million dollars to complete their site
development plan. Their plan was completed and they turned
it in in November and there it sits. It is a completed
site development plan consistent with the PUD agreement and
consistent with the original master plan. Mr. Lear, in his
November letter informed them that the City had changed
positions and that they needed to pay $2.6 million in
impact fees. That figure was given to his bank. They had
a million dollars more money to be giving the City for
impact fees but the figure of $2.6 million, which was
figured on 580 units, not the 450 units they had, and was
rd
given to them on April 3 was given to his bank and they
decided not to give them the other million dollars. They
took that away because he owed the City $2.6 million
th
according to the City. On December 4, City Manager
Williams publicly stated Edgewater Harbor owes the City
$2.6 million and they would not review the site plan. The
incorrect pronouncements of the City’s attitude cost
Edgewater Harbor its financing. They attempted once again
rd
to resolve this issue. They had a meeting on January 3
and talked about the new position on impact fees. They
reiterated this was not their previous course of dealing
and that the project was to be done in phases, all per the
PUD agreement. Site development plan was reviewed prior to
requiring impact fees and they stated their concern that
the City was trying to take this away from them. He had
two attorneys do research. These impact fees, they could
state they run with the land. He could give the City $1.9
million and they could turn down his project and keep the
money. He isn’t going to do that. He doesn’t have it to
Page 24 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
give to the City for the City to keep it and turn down his
project. It’s not right and it’s not fair. He stated what
he wanted to know was they discussed and said they would
only reserve 142 units and they would take their chances.
If they don’t have any more when they finish the 142 and
want to go to the next phase they will wait until they get
it or they will share in the cost of what it takes to bring
it to there again. That is what they were told at that
meeting. They were taking a risk and they were willing to
take that risk. They know how much water and sewer the
City has. If they lose okay that is fine. His project his
first 142 units will be paid off and he will wait. He
stated the fee for 142 units was calculated at $529,000.
They have already paid the City $100,000. He wanted to pay
$429,000 and he wanted to know if the City turns down his
project if they are going to give him back his $529,000.
He feels this is only fair. They are consistent with the
450 units. They are consistent with everything the City
agreed upon. They have tried to make it exactly the way
the City wants it to be and he feels that is only fair. He
further commented on the difference between the original
project and the revised project. He then mentioned having
to go back to DEP because it is a different project. He
wanted some good faith. He feels like that is only fair.
The City invited them here. The City put it out for bid.
He goes two and a half years and they never say a word
about charging him anything for his dry stack marina for
the slips. Nobody else is doing that. He has spent
$8,524,000 trying to push the project. They are either
going to go forward and if they will do what they have
asked to look at this in phases, to work with them, let him
pay them as they go, he will pay the $529,000 and they will
start this project. That is what he wants to do. They
can’t tear him up at the banks and give them a wrong
number, blow him out there and then say no, give us the
$1.7 million and they may not even give him the project and
keep his money. He wants to go forward and build this
project. If they can’t do it and they can’t settle this
his only alternative is to file suit for damages and for
equitable stoppable and for termination of vested rights
with regard to their entitlements under the PUD agreement
and to seek his attorney fees and costs. If that is the
case, that is where he will be spending the $1.7 million.
He knows it will be a long fight. He feels like it is only
fair. He really wants to build this project. He spent
three and a half years of his life at it. It cost him a
Page 25 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
marriage. He wished the City would be fair and honest in
dealing with them.
City Manager Williams informed the Mayor and Council they
have heard one side of that story. What they have heard
clearly is it is the City that has placed these hurdles in
front of this development. He then went back to the RFP.
This project was awarded to Mr. McMillan and his design
team. That is a very critical component right there is the
design team, based off of what advantages would be brought
to the City. Since then, his design team has changed
rather drastically and he has his new engineer present
tonight, which was never approved by this Council. If you
look at the amendment it clearly stipulates who that design
team and project engineer is. That is probably problem
number one that slowed the process down. Problem number
nd
two is Mr. McMillan didn’t describe to them that on May 2
rd
or May 3 when Mr. Donaghy came in to meet with Mr. Lear
and himself, Mr. Donaghy and Mr. McMillan have acknowledged
the fact that those boat slips have value because Mr.
Donaghy offered the City $40,000 a year for the City to
turn over 332 boat slips out of 414 we have been allocated.
That to him demonstrates there is a finite number of boat
slips as a value to that. Prior to him being the City
Manager, he was instructed by a previous City Manager to go
out and research the cost for leasing boat slips and to
pursue what kind of revenue streams that would bring back
to the City. Mr. McMillan has described to Council that
there is a value to the dry stack storages of $60,000 to
$70,000. They had been advised at that time that they were
worth $100,000 and they did present to him that if he
wanted to purchase those that was the value they understood
it was or since the had requested the City turn over those
boat slips for an indefinite period of time, they said they
would be happy to pursue some sort of lease obligation
where the City receives some sort of benefit for the
betterment of the whole City and go forward. As he has
described it fell on deaf ears and then shortly thereafter
he made the decision to terminate Katie Gierok from his
design team and bring in the new gentleman and then they
have before them the different revisions that have gone on.
When he describes the August meeting in which he and Mr.
Lear supposedly approached him and requested that he take
that item off the agenda. It wasn’t anything he or Mr.
Lear had approached him on. It was a member of his design
team had dropped off the RFP with which the project was
originally awarded to the City of Edgewater and they had
Page 26 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
made that determination to remove it for fear of what kind
of political unrest it may cause and what kind of negative
light that may shed on that project. They did have a
number of different conversations regarding the impact
fees. When the DEP permits and the Department of Health
permits were issued they were issued for 600 units and that
is what the calculation has been paid on. The reason being
they are occupying space within the City’s water plant and
the County’s wastewater plant for 600 units. As it states
in the PUD agreement, impact fees are due upon the issuance
of that permit. The issue he is describing is there were
some previous discussions with the former City Manager with
regards to phases and different things of that nature. He,
today when they had conversation, acknowledged the fact
that he may not be here some day or the Council may not be
here some day and he acknowledged to him that the only
thing they have left to go back on is the PUD agreement.
The PUD agreement is silent to the fact of how you deal
with those impact fees and the payment of such impact fees.
That is what they have to go on. He can’t go back on what
kind of agreement he may have had with Mr. Hooper or
anything of that nature. That is where they have asked
City Attorney Ansay to review the agreement.
City Manager Williams stated then they had the meeting. He
came in and they start talking about wanting to do this in
phases and would the City be interested in allowing them to
pay for impact fees on 142 units. It’s not something he is
very comfortable with because clearly they have 600 units
reserved at our water and wastewater capacity. That throws
up some flags as to why all of a sudden they are willing to
go back and pay for 142 units. They are trying to amend
their DEP Permits. They left communication with Mr.
Donaghy and Mr. McMillan that they would support payment
for 450 units and that they would need to still go back and
change their DEP permits and bring it back in line with
what is approved in the PUD agreement. That is where they
have gotten to in a very quick time frame and why they have
settled on this agreement.
Mayor Thomas commented on a discussion he had with Mr.
Hooper about the Manatee Protection Plan with regard to the
manatee slips were awarded to the City. He asked him how
they are going to give them out. Mr. Hooper had the figure
of $100,000 and City Manager Williams didn’t come up with
that.
Page 27 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
Councilwoman Rhodes stated she thought he was saying Mr.
Hooper had him research the figure when he was Finance
Director. Mayor Thomas asked City Manager Williams if he
came up with the figure. City Manager Williams informed
him he came up with the $3 lease from what his research
indicated to him.
Councilwoman Rhodes remembered when that happened and she
told Mr. Hooper do not give those away because that is a
source of income and she knew it was a valuable source of
income.
City Manager Williams stated they know that other cities
are pursuing a non-ad valorem assessment on these boat
slips as a potential revenue source. Mayor Thomas informed
him the $100,000 figure was before his time.
Councilwoman Lichter stated this developer came in to them
in good faith in the beginning. He had one of the most
beautiful projects she ever saw. Maybe it was a little too
high but it was gorgeous. She knows economic situations
made a change. It took in commercial as well as the
structures and it was beautiful. She didn’t understand
what City Manager Williams was saying about the water being
reserved. If they go to 142 units from 600 obviously you
don’t need to save and say you can’t use that much water.
It frees up a lot of water. City Manager Williams informed
her right now they have permits issued for 600 units. They
have to amend their permit. With regards to the comment
that was made about the impact fees when Mr. McMillan
brought that up he clearly told him that day it would not
be his intention to ever keep his impact fees should his
project not proceed forward and that the City would look at
executing some sort of agreement where if that project
didn’t go forward that those impact fees would be returned
to him. The real big deal is they have 600 units reserved
right now and that is space that is coming out of the
City’s water plant. If another development comes along,
they have to say there is water usage allocated for 600
units.
Councilwoman Lichter commented on phases and believed they
had done other projects in phases such as Edgewater
Landing. She asked if that was a smart way to build in
phases. City Manager Williams stated if Council is
considering allowing them to proceed under some sort of
phase, he would probably suggest they look at a performance
Page 28 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
bond of some sort to be put into the PUD agreement to
guarantee that after 142 units they don’t walk away from
the project.
Councilwoman Lichter stated there was also some connection
with Boston Whaler with this project and the smells. This
project is much lower now than it was in the beginning.
She asked if they paid Boston Whaler for that? City
Manager Williams felt that was a silent issue as it relates
to this development at this point in time.
Councilwoman Lichter felt there had to be a way other than
court that something could be worked out so the City
doesn’t get hurt but that a person that has invested $8
million might be able to continue with the project. It is
going to cost the City a lot to go to court and they don’t
know how things turn out in court. She would think the
word is try to work out something. City Manager Williams
stated they attempted to do that this afternoon and were
unsuccessful in getting that done.
Councilwoman Rhodes asked what assurance they have if they
do back off the impact fees and allow him to pay his impact
fees for the 142 units, that they will finish the project.
They need some assurance that that will occur. She
informed Mr. McMillan he wasn’t going to get the boat slips
for free. City Manager Williams stated $60,000 to $70,000
would be a great price. Mr. McMillan stated he would give
them back to the City and that they could have them. He
spent the $300,000 to get them for the City. It is his
gift back to the City. They won’t make any claim on them
if the City will work with them.
Councilwoman Lichter didn’t want to negotiate the case here
tonight. She didn’t think that was right. She thinks this
is something City Attorney Ansay needed to look into.
Mr. McMillan stated he would like Mr. Donaghy to address a
few things City Manager Williams said.
Kevin Donaghy
, Edgewater Harbor, stated with regard to the
phasing of the project, City Manager Williams is correct in
that neither of the PUD agreements specifically state that
the water & sewer impact fees for the entire project have
to be paid at the time if they reserve them in phases. It
does state the project can be done in phases. There is a
slight ambiguity there. They would look at the prior
Page 29 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
course of dealing. Under the previous course of dealing
this City with the same PUD agreement reviewed the project,
reviewed their site development plan application in phases
and required them to pay it for the first phase, for the
154 units. That is what they expected would be the same
course of dealing for the revised project.
Mr. Donaghy stated with regard to Gierok Engineering, they
consulted the City Attorney who said if they wanted to
change engineers they needed to send the City a letter.
That is it and that is what they did. City Manager
Williams is correct. They did offer $40,000 or $50,000 per
year to the City after this discussion on boat slips. What
he failed to mention was they had been to a meeting with
th
St. John’s on March 28 where St. John’s indicated that if
they wanted to have a chance at this succeeding that they
had to do something to mitigate water damage on the
intracoastal. They basically said not to tell them they
were going to put up 300 dry slips and 29 wet slips and
there wouldn’t be some impact on the water. They were
looking for some mitigation. He suggested they could kill
two birds with one stone. They would allocate a portion of
the revenue from the dry stack facility to be allocated to
the City to be specifically used for mitigation of
intracoastal pollution. Those slips were allocated to
Edgewater Harbor in the PUD agreement and there was no
discussion at all regarding fees. Maybe there should have
been but there was not. Every other fee to this City is
laid out there in detail. $500,000 per year, which is what
the rental rate offered that would dwarf the purchase price
of the land. That was not overlooked. Edgewater Harbor was
granted those slips. Apparently Mr. McMillan is willing to
entertain an agreement. They can’t make it economically
feasible based on what has been proposed to them. They
would like to go forward with the project. They just want
some assurance. They would like the prior course of
dealing. The impact fee portion of the agreements did not
change so they feel they should be entitled to the same
treatment from the facility. There was a different City
Manager in there. The agreement was silent and interpreted
this way so they expected it would be interpreted the same
way. The agreement is not silent on the point that this
project was going to be developed in phases.
Councilwoman Rhodes didn’t think anybody had a problem with
that. She thought they had the problem with they need the
assurance. They need something that tells them this
Page 30 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
project will be finished. Mr. McMillan asked about their
assurances after 2 ½ years of spending all that money and
then he comes in and the City wants $32,900,000. He asked
how they thought he felt about that. When they talk about
what a slip is worth, they have to build it. If it is
$100,000, you at least have to take out the cost of
construction. Councilwoman Rhodes stated she said they
could negotiate that. Mr. McMillan stated he doesn’t want
them. They are too high. They aren’t worth what the City
is asking for them.
Councilwoman Lichter asked City Attorney Ansay if this
should be discussed in this manner tonight and if that was
alright. City Attorney Ansay stated it is very difficult
to operate as a government body and do business at the same
time when you are subject to this type of scrutiny. She
stated the PUD agreement basically provides that if the
City and the developer have any differences of opinion,
they are required to first try and work it out with staff.
That has happened. If not able to work it out, they file a
formal appeal with this body, which is essentially what
they are seeing tonight is their formal appeal to try to
get this issued resolved with the City tonight. Mr.
McMillan stated to be treated the same way they were. They
want to pay it by phases. They just want to pay the impact
fees for phase one. The City has the site development
plan, which they have had for a couple of months. He wants
the City to review it. Once they work out the differences
in it he wants to be given some reasonable period of time,
120 days, to start building the project once the Council
approves it. Councilwoman Rhodes stated they are trying to
do that.
City Manager Williams stated they reached out to these
folks today and they tried to find some solution today but
the conversation got so heated they could not communicate.
Councilwoman Lichter stated sometimes when those things
happen they need an arbitrator or another party. WAV is
dealing with Daytona Beach in the same type of thing.
Councilwoman Rogers stated a lot of information. One
question that is in her mind is the discussion between the
450 units and the 580 units. Did you not say that the
calculation of what you were told that was due to the City
was calculated using 580 units. Mr. McMillan stated 600
actually. Councilwoman Rogers stated 450, 580, 600. Six
Page 31 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
hundred units is what it is in the PUD, 450 is what you are
doing. They have a lot of numbers. Mr. McMillan informed
rd
her they changed that PUD on April 3 to 450 so 450 should
be the only figure they should be talking about.
Councilwoman Rogers stated once that occurred, then our
capacity here should have went down to 450 instead of the
600 and that would be part of what Mr. McMillan is trying
to come to them and say. City Manager Williams stated that
is what they have said to him and that is why he is now
before Council. They have said they have reserved 600
units in our water plant and 600 units reserved at the
County’s wastewater plant. Councilwoman Rogers stated but
rd
then at the April 3 meeting it went to 450 and then he has
been told his calculation is based on the 580 or the 600.
City Manager Williams stated the discussion they had with
him the other day was to pay us for the 450 units and
modify his permit. He wants to pay for 142 units.
Councilwoman Rogers stated and then as the attorney
indicated she believed he agreed the impact fees to be paid
up front, that is not in the agreement. She asked if that
was correct.
Mr. Donaghy stated the agreements are the same. The
impact, it does state in the PUD agreement that the water
and sewer impact fees are to be paid at the time of
reservation. This is a different project. There is
currently reservation based on the old project. That
probably should have just been rescinded. They have to
make a new reservation. They offered in early January,
they talked to City Manager Williams and said if they need
to they would only reserve 142 units and he informed them
that they would be at their peril if when they finish that
portion of the project and there wasn’t capacity available
that they would have to wait until capacity was available
or that they would have to pay their proportionate fair
share. They indicated if the City would not let them pay
for phase 1 if they had a reservation for 450, they would
reduce their reservation with DEP to 142 units and then
they would put another reservation in for phase 2.
Councilwoman Rogers informed him the whole reason they are
going to do that is because of the cost and because they
are wanting to pay as they go and then as the City Manager
explained the possibility of what he is trying to instruct
them as Council is to look at a performance bond. She
asked Mr. Donaghy how they feel about a performance bond.
Mr. Donaghy informed her they hadn’t really addressed that
before. He informed they were looking to be treated the
Page 32 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
same way they were before. They were able to pay it in
phases and the agreement speaks to it says the City of
Edgewater acknowledges this can be developed in phases. It
is on Page 2. Councilwoman Rogers stated what has happened
is this has changed so frequently. They don’t want to see
something start and not get complete. She thinks that they
aren’t going to come to a resolve this evening on this. She
believes they need to discuss this further and then Mr.
Donaghy needs to be thinking heavily about a performance
bond and about getting something like that to them. She is
going to need some kind of guarantee.
Mr. Donaghy stated Mr. Kurt Wimpee, engineer, would like to
address a little bit on the DEP issue also. Mr. Wimpee
stated there currently exists DEP applications for six
hundred whatever units from the previous phase. Those are
more or less null and void because this is a different
project. It has been redesigned. Those don’t carry on to
a new project. They have to reapply no matter what. They
have proposed to reapply with reservation for the 142
units. Therefore they will not be holding back capacity
for the City’s plants. He feels that may be part of the
confusion. Councilwoman Rogers asked where they are
wanting to build the 142 units. Mr. Wimpee informed him in
the same place. It’s just Phase 1 is 142 units. They
would only reserve capacity for water and wastewater for
the 142 units. When Phase 2 comes through they would go
back through DEP and reserve again for Phase 2 and so on.
Councilwoman Rogers asked what happens if there is another
hurricane or they have money problems or whatever. The
City of Edgewater would be left with all this land down
there in Phase 1 and nothing else. Mr. Wimpee informed her
that really didn’t have anything to do with the impact
fees. Either way that could happen. Acts of god you can’t
account for. Councilwoman Rogers informed him she was
being sarcastic. Mr. Wimpee stated that is always a
possibility. He knew Mr. McMillan was quite a responsible
developer and is wanting to see this project through. He
needs the City’s help to go forward with DEP applications
for just Phase 1 at this time. They are willing to forego
the reservation for all the other phases at this time so
they wouldn’t prevent the City from having capacity in
their plants.
Councilwoman Rogers stated that changes everything. Why
would they want to build and sell and hope they are going
Page 33 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
to achieve a certain amount of money per unit if they have
no dock slips to offer these people if they grant it back
to the City. You are being sarcastic. Mr. McMillan stated
he wasn’t being. He looks at the cost the City is throwing
at him and it is impossible. He cannot build it with what
the City is asking. The best thing he can possibly do is
give it to the City. He believed the City had 450 after
they surveyed the coastline. He would be happy to give the
City back that if he can keep his 29 wet slips for people
to come up to use the commercial development in the front.
He isn’t sticking them in the front. He is 400 feet back.
He is still keeping the 10 acres along the river for
commercial development. He just isn’t going to put in the
dry stack marina. It is economically unfeasible. He can’t
do it. He did the work for the City. They talk about
concurrency on this. He paid concurrency on this and he
will give it to the City.
Councilwoman Rogers suggested Mr. McMillan, City Manager
Williams and Mr. Lear try meeting again. She wants to see
this project go forward. She doesn’t want to see that land
sit there doing nothing. Mr. McMillan stated let him go
build it in phases. They are getting impact fees up front.
They are going to build it and the City is going to get
more tax dollars and they can go from one place to the
next.
Councilwoman Rhodes asked if Phase 1 was towards U.S. #1.
Mr. McMillan informed her Phase 1 is about 400 feet back.
In Phase 1 they will be completing about 75% or 80% of the
infrastructure for the whole project. They are
frontloading the cost dramatically with Phase 1 as it is.
They have to put in all the roads, they have to run the
water, they have to run the sewer. They have to do the
retention ponds. They have to do the landscaping. They
have to do all of the things the City is requiring and that
is frontloading the cost and they are at where they figure
they will make a little bit of profit off of Phase 1 and
they will have about 80% of the infrastructure completed
for the whole project.
Councilwoman Rhodes asked Mr. McMillan if they complete
Phase 1 and don’t do anything after Phase 1 and he walks
away. Mr. McMillan stated he would be a fool.
Councilwoman Rhodes instructed him to sell the City back
the property for what he paid for it. Mr. McMillan
informed her no way. Councilwoman Rhodes informed him then
Page 34 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
he could do his Phase 1 and as long as he keeps going he
doesn’t have to worry about it. She asked why he didn’t
want to do that. Mr. McMillan informed her he was a victim
of cancer and he might get it again. He has been fighting
this battle for a long time. If he gets through the first
phase and he decides he can’t go on, he could sell it to
another developer or sell the front ten acres who will
build what he said would be there. He might sell it to a
developer like Paul Holland who builds commercial stuff on
the front and knows how to do it very well.
Councilwoman Rogers stated the fact that they are going to
do 75% or 80% of the infrastructure with Phase 1 helps.
Mr. McMillan stated now his land is down to nothing so why
in the world would he not continue. Councilwoman Rogers
stated if they end up granting the City back the slips, how
is the City going to have right of way to get to those
slips to maintain them. Mr. McMillan stated they could
sell them to everybody else at $100,000 a pop. He knows
there would be a lot of them being pulled. City Manager
Williams stated those slips belong to the City of Edgewater
and are not his to give back. Mr. McMillan told them they
needed to go up and buy or condemn some property further
north of his where it isn’t class II shellfish waters. He
is across from class II shellfish waters and that is why
two and a half years have gone into it and that is why they
still can’t get there from here. If they go about a mile
further north they are out of it. If they get to some
property there they could build a dry stack marina without
having these problems they have because of the class II
shellfish waters.
Mayor Thomas called a ten-minute recess. The meeting
recessed at 9:40 p.m. and reconvened at 9:50 p.m.
Mr. Donaghy stated City Manager Williams made a comment
before the break that they did not have the rights to the
slips. It is in the PUD agreement and that is not their
opinion. They believe they would have vested rights to the
dry stack slips and to the wet slips. It was in the
original PUD agreement. It was part of their proposal and
there was never any discussion of fees. Whether they work
something out and abandon that position but they do believe
that even though they are within the City of Edgewater that
they would have vested rights to them and that they would
not have to pay for them.
Page 35 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
Mayor Thomas stated Mr. McMillan a while ago said he gave
them back and he said thank you and they have that on the
record. Mr. Donaghy stated if they worked it out fine.
Their position is they do have vested rights. Mr. McMillan
stated he said if they gave him what he was asking for he
would give them back. Mr. Donaghy stated maybe that is the
direction they will go.
Mayor Thomas asked if they could talk with the City Manager
and City Attorney and then come back to Council. He likes
the project and the idea on the river. He will not give
the boat slips away. He is hearing a consensus of okay for
the phases.
Mr. Donaghy asked City Manager Williams when he would like
to set up that meeting.
City Manager Williams stated when they talk about phases he
wanted some direction from Council as to do they want him
to pursue some sort of performance bonds. Mr. McMillan
informed him there is nobody that will issue performance
bonds on phases of a project. How about putting in 80% of
the infrastructure on the first phase. Nobody is going to
build ¾ of a house and walk away. Somebody else will
finish it. He is putting 80% of the infrastructure in on
the first phase. If that isn’t assurance he doesn’t know
what is. He bought the land. He spent the money. He is
going to put in 80% of the infrastructure on the first
phase. If it’s not him it will be somebody else. He
promised them.
Mayor Thomas stated he has seen this Council work before
and they aren’t against making compromises.
Mr. McMillan stated let’s make a compromise and if they can
work this out and go forward he will happily give it back
to them. He will relinquish his rights to the boat slips
if they can go forward.
City Manager William stated they are wiling to sit down and
talk as long as Mr. McMillan can conduct himself in an
appropriate manner. They will certainly be willing to do
that.
City Attorney Ansay stated with some assurance she thinks
they know what Mr. McMillan wants in terms of their moon
and the stars and she thinks she knows what the City wants.
Page 36 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
If they are going sit back down and yell and scream at each
other as to what they want but not compromise, she feels
they should lay it out tonight. Mr. McMillan stated let’s
lay it out right here tonight then. City Attorney Ansay
stated this is part of the problem. What they need to do
is sit down and talk about what exactly the City wants and
they need to tell them where they are willing to give and
they will tell him potentially where they can recommend to
the City to give. That is what they attempted to do today.
If they can’t do that, they might as well let the Council
make a decision tonight.
Mr. McMillan informed City Attorney Ansay unfortunately
they had a bad connection. Every time they spoke it was
clicking. City Attorney Ansay informed him her connection
was clear. She heard everything he said. Mr. McMillan
stated they needed to sit down face to face and he promised
them they wouldn’t have any problem.
City Manager Williams felt one of the things they would
like to pursue in just laying some of the ground work is if
they bring back an amendment to the PUD agreement that they
clean up a lot of the things that have gone awry with the
previous two, design team and so forth and so on,
permitting issues as well. He feels this side of the table
attempted to do that today.
Councilwoman Lichter asked City Manager Williams how they
bring back the other design team. This is a different
design team. City Manager Williams stated what they are
saying is they need to the agreements to recognize the
current design team. That is probably one area they need
to start with some assurance is that it isn’t going to
change from this design team to another design team.
Councilwoman Rhodes asked what difference it makes to the
City. Can’t he have any design team what he wants. City
Attorney Ansay stated she didn’t know what previous opinion
they were given from the City Attorney but the purchase and
sale agreement actually made a big deal of the design team.
That was one of only three assurances that the purchases
were given is that the design team would stay the same. It
clearly appears it was pretty important to the City then.
Councilman Vincenzi didn’t feel that was important as long
as it is a reputable person, what is the difference.
Page 37 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
City Manager Williams stated as they go back to the drawing
board with these gentlemen, the clock is ticking on this
PUD agreement for an April expiration. Maybe Council’s
consideration to issue an automatic six-month extension to
this PUD agreement pending successful negotiations and it
could be brought back.
Councilwoman Rhodes felt there should be a date on them.
They aren’t going to drag this out forever. City Attorney
Ansay felt if they are going to sit down and talk about
where they go from here it is certainly legitimate to give
an extension and the agreement does provide that the city
has sole discretion for doing so. There is a time clock of
rd
April 3. She didn’t necessarily know if it was important
that they do that tonight. Hopefully if they can work out
some sort of a resolution and they have to do an amendment,
when they do that amendment they will be able to knock it
rd
out hopefully before the expiration date of April 3 and
include in that that additional time frame that will give
the additional time to get things going.
City Attorney Ansay hoped that by the first meeting in
March they could come back and have recommendations for
Council and hopefully be on the same page.
Mr. McMillan asked when they could sit down and get
together. City Attorney Ansay informed him they would get
with him.
Councilwoman Rhodes made a motion that they allow City
Manager Williams negotiate with RM. McMillan and the
Attorney sand the design team and clean up the language in
the PUD and get this negotiated by March 5th, second by
Councilman Vincenzi
.
The MOTION CARRIED 5-0
.
OFFICER REPORTS
10.
C. City Clerk
City Clerk Wadsworth had nothing at this time.
D. City Attorney
City Attorney Ansay reported on the status of the
Zeller/Green lawsuit related to the ParkTowne property.
Page 38 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
They filed our response to their complaint wherein they as
Council directed at the last meeting essentially agreed
they had certain vested rights as was evident in the
resolution the Council passed where they defended
essentially that the height amendment is not illegal or
invalid and where they counter position saying to the court
they want them to tell the City that on a go forward basis
they have the authority to make these decisions. One of
the things plaintiffs are saying is that this Council
doesn’t have the authority to make a determination that
certain folks are vested. In the interim she received
contract from counsel for ECARD seeking to intervene in
that lawsuit. What that essentially means they want to
throw their hat in the ring so they too can attempt to
defend the height amendment. Under the Florida Rules of
Civil Procedure, the court is going to let them intervene.
It is subject matter in which they have standing to bring
that case. They are the ones who got it on the ballot so
they have rightful place in the suit if they want to be
there. They are asking for the City not to object and
consent to them being in the game. Before she did that she
wanted to run that by Council and seek their permission to
say to the court or at least represent to ECARD that they
can say to the court that the City has no objection to
their intervening. They have expressed to her that again
their concern is to intervene for purposes of upholding the
height amendment. That they in no way at this point have
any intention of taking an adversarial position to this
Council in its determination that the Zeller/Greene
property is vested. That isn’t their goal in the fight.
They just want to see the amendment upheld. That is what
she was seeking authority on tonight.
Mayor Thomas asked City Attorney Ansay if she needed that
in the form of a motion. City Attorney Ansay informed him
consensus was fine as long as they are all okay with that.
Council gave their consensus.
City Attorney Ansay then reported that a lawsuit had been
filed against the City in the name of Hoenstein. A person
has filed a trip and fall case. Apparently notice was
submitted, Statutory notice, which is required before you
sue a governmental entity for a personal injury. It was
submitted earlier last year. They apparently are alleging
they tripped and fell on a manhole cover and the suit is
actually being handled by Mr. Roper through the insurance
Page 39 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
carrier because they had to previously submit notice back
before she was City Attorney the case was assigned to Mr.
Roper. The insurance company is paying all the legal fees
and will provide a defense to the City.
Councilwoman Lichter asked where the person tripped. City
Attorney Ansay didn’t know the address. City Manager
Williams informed her it was in Terra Mar Village. They
tripped over a manhole cover. City Attorney Ansay stated
she didn’t know the extent of the damages. It was filed by
a law firm out of Orlando. This is just something she
wanted to bring to Council’s attention.
City Attorney Ansay stated she just got going and she
wanted to put the Council on notice. She had planned a
trip for several years, her cousin is getting married, and
she personally won’t be here for the next Council meeting.
It isn’t a sign of times to come. She will be at every
meeting and will schedule her future vacations around
Council meetings. This is something she has had planned
for several years. Mr. Ciocchetti will be here and he is
well aware of everything that is going on.
Mayor Thomas informed City Attorney Ansay he was served
today on another one and he has given it to City Clerk
Wadsworth.
C. City Manager
City Manager Williams recalled at the last meeting they had
a presentation by the Library Board reference the purchase
of property located at 1822 Banyan Tree Drive. Council
directed him to pursue negotiations and establish a cost
and they have done that. When they concluded that meeting
during last month, they approached the homeowners and asked
them if they would split the appraisal fee and that was the
first step toward determining what the purchase price of
this property would be. They have done so and both buyer
and seller have agreed to do that. It was appraised at
$158,000 so that is where they began their negotiations for
the property. They sent through Jean Haughwout a contract
that would allow them to purchase the property for
$158,000. They counter offered at $200,000 and we
recountered at $179,000 and they recountered at $189,000
and signed a contract at that price. He further commented
on what is included in the $189,000. The seller has agreed
to pay title insurance and document stamps. Right now they
Page 40 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
have no estimated use of the property so they have pretty
much decided they would demo the property and they have
estimated demolition costs to be about $10,000. The total
cost for purchase and demo is $199,000. He went back in
the budget and looked at potential funding sources for how
they proceed with this. He commented on the three options
he has provided to Council with regard to freezing
positions, the shuffleboard courts and pursuing debt
issuance. One of the things staff would like to suggest is
that they consider the property to the north, if they
pursue a debt issuance. They feel like that would be a
beneficial purchase as well and to include the property
directly to the east of it and they could possibly look at
expanding that facility at some point in the future to
satisfy maybe a City Hall or so forth. They would like for
Council’s consideration on the conditions with which the
employees working in here and how far $200,000 would go to
upgrade the facilities. Due to the fact they are limited
on our spacing, they are forced to build a room in the back
of this facility to accommodate for some records storage
and they are going to stop renting the facility out for
community functions because of the damage they incur and it
really isn’t a profitable source of income for us. They
have also looked at grant opportunities. It is a
possibility the ECHO grant could be a funding source. It
is their understanding that Volusia County library system
applied and received a $500,000 grant last year and they
have applied for a $500,000 grant this year. It is a very
competitive grant and they don’t know for sure that land
purchases are eligible. They will also pursue state grants
and look at those as well. He has had conversations with
County Councilman Hayman and has requested the County’s
assistance for the purchase of this property and associated
properties. They have not heard a response back at this
point in time. He looked for direction from Council on
whether or not they want to pursue one of these funding
sources for the property or how would Council like them to
proceed.
Councilwoman Lichter questioned if this should be on an
agenda that is public so they have a chance for input on
it. City Manager Williams stated it is Council’s
discretion but the funding sources aren’t going to change.
Councilwoman Rhodes asked why they are adding money to the
Shuffleboard Courts. She knows they need to be rebuilt but
that was supposed to come from FEMA money so why are they
Page 41 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
adding tax money to that. City Manager Williams commented
on the increase in construction costs. Councilwoman Rhodes
feels if the animal shelter has to live within their budget
then the shuffleboard courts might have to live within
theirs. He wasn’t sure how much of a shuffleboard court
they could get built for $247,000.
Councilman Vincenzi asked City Manager Williams if he was
looking for guidance now. City Manager Williams informed
him there are time lines associated with the contract. He
thought they owed the owners whether or not they are going
to pursue it with one of the funding options.
Councilwoman Rogers stated one of these options has a
contract price of $189,000. She stated appraised value is
$158,000. If they are looking at buying two properties
adjacent to this, by paying more than what this is worth
then what you are doing is potentially increasing the
prices of the homes adjacent to us that they are going to
put out their money for. This is not a smart thing to do.
They need to hold to the appraised value. She is for the
library but she isn’t for paying more and she isn’t for
making properties adjacent to it increase in value when
there really is no value. That is stupid.
Councilman Vincenzi felt it sets a bad precedent.
Councilwoman Rogers stated artificially increasing a value
because that is what these people want, well here’s the
appraised value. Councilwoman Rhodes stated but if you
have signed a contract. City Manager Williams stated they
have not signed the contract. Councilwoman Rogers stated
most contracts will have that as a contingency in them.
City Manager Williams stated the contract has been written
subject to Council’s approval. They do need to notify them
th
by February 15 whether or not they are going to proceed.
Councilwoman Rhodes felt Option 1 was not an option. Take
that off the table. Option 2 is an option because she
feels FEMA should pay for the shuffleboard courts. That is
what the plan was and that should still be the plan.
Because you pursue Option 2 doesn’t mean Option 3 is out of
the picture. City Manager Williams asked what he should
tell these folks. Councilwoman Lichter stated tell them to
get the price right. City Manager Williams confirmed the
sellers were present but he didn’t know if they wanted to
put them on the spot as to whether or not they would take
Page 42 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
$158,000. He could reapproach them and see if that is
something they want to do. Councilwoman Rhodes stated as a
rule you usually pay a little more than the appraised
value. Councilwoman Rogers stated she never has.
Councilwoman Rhodes told her good for you. Councilwoman
Rogers stated most people don’t. Councilwoman Rhodes
stated she was just saying in the scheme of things. She
suggested $160,000 and agreed with Councilwoman Rogers that
that price is too high.
Councilwoman Rogers stated with Option 2, she wasn’t for
taking any money from the shuffleboard courts. She
recalled way back when the hurricane occurred. The
shuffleboard courts and the building was knocked down
within 72 hours and cleaned up and the reason for that was
so the FEMA money would come in to play. First she heard
100% reimbursement, then she heard 90% reimbursement then
she heard 80% reimbursement then 50% reimbursement. Way
back when the reason that was given to her was that they
weren’t rebuilding the shuffleboard courts exactly where it
was at. Today she comes to understand the reason why the
shuffleboard courts had to go to Rotary Park had to do with
the flood zone. Because of that that is when they got
limited money from FEMA. She was sure there was more to it
than that. Either way she isn’t into cutting in to the
shuffleboard court money.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated the shuffleboard court was
nowhere near worth $474,000. It was worth the $247,000
that FEMA reimbursed us. Councilwoman Rogers asked who
gave them the construction cost figure. City Manager
Williams informed her Leisure Services Director Jack Corder
did. Councilwoman Rogers asked if this is the contract
they had that did the Kennedy Park Gazebo. City Manager
Williams informed her it hadn’t been awarded to any
contractor. Councilwoman Rogers stated somebody had to
give them that estimate based upon something.
Leisure Services Director Jack Corder stated the cost
estimate had the ones for the courts themselves, the 16
courts that are lighted, came from Nidy Corporation who is
a shuffleboard court company that does that. The cost for
the racquetball courts was an estimate from a local
contractor as was the building.
Councilwoman Rhodes suggested they take the racquetball
courts out. City Manager Williams stated that was the
Page 43 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
whole facility that was destroyed. Mr. Corder explained he
was just basing it on direction Council had given him at
the time to move forward.
Councilman Vincenzi felt the first thing City Manager
Williams needed to do was go back and talk about the price
again. The second thing City Manager Williams needed to do
was find out exactly what is in the shuffleboard court
estimate and rework that too. Let him know exactly what is
included in it. City Manager Williams informed him he
could give them that tonight. Councilman Vincenzi didn’t
want it tonight.
Jean Haughwout
stated she thought the owners would rather
not talk about negotiation at a public meeting but if City
Manager Williams and Mayor Thomas could meet with them she
felt they could work something out if they could find the
funds to work it out.
Dominic Capria
, 606 Topside Circle, stated like
Councilwoman Rogers said it was 75% FEMA. Then the State
came in with another 5% and another 15% for a total of 90%.
As he remembered it was like $500,000. Now all of a sudden
it is $247,000 and includes other things other then the
shuffleboard court. He didn’t think this was fair.
Carol Ann Stoughton
, 2740 Evergreen Drive, would like to
know if the City has ever imposed a fee like they were
talking about with Mr. McMillan as far as a performance
fee. She asked if that had ever been assessed to anyone
before.
Councilwoman Rhodes informed her it had been. Ms.
Stoughton asked who it was assessed to. Councilwoman
Rhodes couldn’t remember but she remembered they couldn’t
get it.
Ms. Stoughton stated in other words they would want that
builder to have a performance contract bond in order to
proceed with this project.
Mayor Thomas asked Ms. Stoughton if she was talking about
the shuffleboard courts. She informed him she was talking
about Mr. McMillan.
Ms. Stoughton stated if a man is going to come in and go
for infrastructure and everything else that is involved and
Page 44 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
he bellies up somebody else is going to come in. She
doesn’t know why they didn’t try to work with the man.
Councilwoman Rhodes informed her they are.
Ms. Stoughton stated the St. John’s River Water Management
District has never given an approval, to her knowledge, to
do any work for docks or dredging of any kind so therefore
he doesn’t even have the ability right now to put any slips
in. She felt maybe the City should check on that too.
City Manager Williams stated Coral Trace posted a
performance bond just to answer the question.
Councilwoman Rogers stated she heard what Ms. Stoughton was
saying but they have done some work on the seawall all
along that whole area on the river. That seawall is done.
Ms. Stoughton stated she spoke to Mr. McMillan and he said
that St. John’s has not ever given an okay for anything to
be done there.
Mayor Thomas stated they strayed from the library property.
They need to make a decision.
Councilwoman Lichter stated a suggestion came forth that
City Manager Williams negotiate in private.
Councilman Vincenzi stated it had to come back at a future
meeting. The price has to be negotiated. They need a
breakdown of Option 2 and then Option 3 is still on the
table too. He didn’t feel Option 1 was a possibility.
Mayor Thomas stated the police officers are too important.
Councilwoman Rogers stated in the interim that Friends of
the Library pursuing the matching grants. Councilwoman
Rhodes stated Mr. Corder is looking into grants as well.
She feels Option 3 will take too long. She feels they need
to do something in the middle. If they want to do that to
reimburse or whatever, then do that.
Mayor Thomas thinks Option 2 is going to be just like the
animal shelter. When are they going to build it? They
need to start getting these things built.
City Manager Williams stated they are very close to getting
the permit from St. John’s on the shuffleboard court and
its associated that if that is a potential funding source
they are going to have to make a decision pretty quick.
Page 45 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
Councilwoman Rogers wanted to know what was going on with
the shell. She is looking for money.
City Manager Williams stated Council pretty much said they
didn’t want to give it away. He thought they were waiting
for someone to come forward and make an offer on it.
Councilwoman Lichter stated why don’t they just do what
they discussed. Let City Manager Williams negotiate in
private with the homeowners.
Leo Towsley
, 2828 Unity Tree Drive, stated the land in
ParkTowne that they use for the spoilage when the dredge
the river, instead of making a park out of it, sell the
land to commercial builders. Who wants to go to a park in
the middle of a commercial zone? There is enough land
there. City Manager Williams informed him we don’t own the
containment site. Mr. Towsley asked who owns it.
Councilwoman Rhodes informed him the Florida Inland
Navigation District.
Ruth McCormack, Library, clarified the grants are normally
construction grants and they come after you have raised
local moneys. That is what the Friends of the Library
would begin after the purchase of the property. A long
range of fund raising. When they get their half the
matching grants come from the State level. There are other
avenues for purchasing property but they have met with Mike
Knievel, the Director of the Libraries, when they were
proposing bringing this to the City and he flat out told
them they wouldn’t get any assistance from the County on
the purchase of the property.
City Manager Williams stated a good point they should
consider is what their position is going to be with the
property to the north. From the staff’s perspective this
is a valuable piece of property but it doesn’t lend itself
for much in the way of expansion if they aren’t in the
position to buy the property. If they buy this piece, that
piece should be in their cross hairs.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated she talked to City Manager
Williams today for a long time and they could have City
Hall there. At some point in the future, maybe it could be
three stories, with the library taking the top story of it.
They could rent out office space or have City Hall with
Page 46 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
plenty of parking. That is an option at some point if they
want to do it. Just buying the land doesn’t mean they have
to do it. In her opinion when you buy land you can’t go
wrong. If it doesn’t fit in with your plans then you sell
it. You don’t demolish the house first though.
City Manager Williams stated they needed to think about the
property to the north and the property to the east and what
that affords the City to do especially if they are going to
look at Option 3. He is kind of hearing that is their
option. If it is not their intention to focus on those
other properties as well, he didn’t know that this affords
the library what they just talked about much opportunity to
expand.
Mayor Thomas asked City Manager Williams if he had
direction. City Manager Williams informed him he had
direction on go back and renegotiate. They wanted him to
renegotiate on the property to the north and the property
to the east and then they look at that as one.
Councilwoman Lichter felt they should concentrate on the
library at this time. The property to the north and the
property to the south will still be there. Somebody will
own the house and for the right price they will sell it in
the future. Right now they have to deal with where can
they get the money when they promised shuffleboard courts,
they need police officers. If City Manager Williams felt
he could negotiate another price she is for what the
library asked for and not more.
City Manager Williams asked if they had a price that was
acceptable. Councilwoman Rogers stated the appraised
value. City Manager Williams stated the appraised value is
it. Mayor Thomas stated from what he heard they want him
and City Manager Williams to work something out and bring
it back to Council.
Mayor Thomas asked City Manager Williams if he had
direction and he informed him he did.
City Manager Williams commented on the Statement of
Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the
period ended December 31, 2006 and presented Council with
an update on their finances.
Page 47 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
City Manager Williams then went over the quarterly
development services report outlining Building Department
activity and status of commercial and residential projects.
He expressed a concern with only issuing five single-family
residence permits for this fiscal year. It doesn’t look
real well going into a mid-year budget review. That will
have some consequences as it relates to the growth of the
tax base.
City Manager Williams then presented an update on the
amphitheater roof.
City Manager Williams asked Council as they have talked
about the effects of the 35-foot height amendment if it is
their intention to explore putting a ballot question on the
November 2007 election to address Public, Semi-Public and
industrial uses. If that is Council’s intention they need
to start the process now and get the ball rolling. He
suggested they consider hiring a political consultant to
help with the educational campaigns. If that is something
they would like him to look at he would go back and prepare
a budget for the cost of a political consultant and provide
Council with some of those numbers.
Councilwoman Lichter felt it should be written in a manner
that the public could understand. She felt they should
present examples.
Councilman Vincenzi and Councilwoman Rhodes would like to
pursue it.
City Manager Williams stated through this process he has
learned what may be clear to the Council is not clear to a
number of other folks. That is why he has opened up the
discussion tonight.
City Manager Williams commented on the status of the animal
shelter. The Council authorized the issuance of a legal ad
soliciting interests from local veterinarians who want to
come in and partner with the City. Those responses are due
nd
to the City on February 2 and once those responses are
received within City Hall they will set up a special
meeting devoted to the animal shelter and at that point in
time give them all the proposals, options and costs and so
forth associated with that.
Page 48 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
Councilwoman Lichter had a question on the shuffleboard
courts. She just wanted to consider the shuffleboard
courts and not the added projects.
City Manager Williams stated the project worksheet was
written around the shuffleboard courts, the racquetball
courts and the associated infrastructure over there. He
will look at that. He apologized for not clearly
specifying what it was for.
Mayor Thomas questioned why they wouldn’t replace
everything that was destroyed. City Manager Williams
stated that is what the project worksheet was written
around that and that funding was allocated base off of
that.
1. Tentative Agenda Items
There were no Tentative Agenda Items to be discussed at
this time.
11. CITIZEN COMMENTS
The following citizens spoke:
Chris Balmer
, 148 Williams Street, commented on the dry
stack slips. He knew Mr. McMillan was willing to give them
back so generously but the reality is if they lose those
the City doesn’t want to build them. That is really a loss
to the citizens of Edgewater because those are public dry
stacks. They aren’t just for the residents of that
development. By giving those back to the City, because he
can’t afford $100,000 for one, which he agreed was too
high, it is really the citizens that lose out. When they
talk about negotiating with him he hopes they aren’t just
saying great they have 400 slips but the City isn’t going
to build them. It is just like the sand in ParkTowne. It
would just upset a lot of people. We have assets we can’t
sell and raise money.
Mr. Balmer then commented on hearing about the racquetball
courts for the first time tonight. He is all about
building the shuffleboard courts but maybe they could hold
off on the clubhouse and the racquetball courts. He
commented on the racquetball courts at Whistle Stop and
people using them all the time. In these type of economic
situations, he wasn’t for cutting firemen and policemen.
Page 49 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
Maybe taking on debt isn’t the right answer at this point.
Maybe if they can trim a little elsewhere it will work.
Leo Towsley
, 2828 Unity Tree Drive, asked what made the
City think they could take the money from Mr. McMillan’s
dry docks if it is on his property and he is building them,
why does the City feel. Councilwoman Rhodes informed him
those are the City’s. The water slips belong to the City.
Mr. Towsley was referring to the dry docks where they stack
them. Councilwoman Rhodes informed him they aren’t taking
that away from him.
Mr. Towlsey stated if he bought the land adjacent to the
water. Councilwoman Rhodes informed him it doesn’t work
that way. The City of Edgewater has 450 slips, she
believed, under the Manatee Protection Act that were
allocated. They aren’t going to give them to anybody.
City Manager Williams stated this was prior to class II
waters and prior to the Manatee Protection Program and
prior to the City being allocated 414 slips. Councilwoman
Rhodes stated it isn’t in the agreement that he gets those
for free. Mr. Donaghy agreed and stated Mr. McMillan will
pay. Councilwoman Rhodes agreed that needed to be
negotiated.
Mr. Towlsey stated if he would have gotten the approval a
couple of years ago when he was going for it he would have
been able to keep it. Councilwoman Rhodes stated it
doesn’t matter if you own property along the river then you
have whatever slips you are entitled to but the City owns
property along the river so we are entitled to a certain
number of slips. He is commercial and we are a City and he
is making money off of the City’s slips. She felt that
didn’t make sense. The taxpayers ought to be making money
off of the City’s slips. Mr. Towsley stated then the
taxpayers should be building the slips. Councilwoman
Rhodes stated they might. Maybe they could sell the slips
to somebody else and maybe they build them and pay the City
for them. She didn’t think they should give them away to
anybody. Mr. Towsley agreed but felt the City should help
at least build them if they are getting the money to help
the revenue because he is putting up everything else down
there too. Councilwoman Rhodes stated he is making money.
The City isn’t making a dime. She suggested they wait and
see what happens.
Page 50 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
Mayor Thomas stated they are ours. Under the Manatee
Protection Act to save the manatees they only allow so many
boats on the river, so many boat docks in a certain area
and the State gave us allocated and then it is up to the
City to allocate so many. They aren’t just giving them
away.
Councilwoman Rogers stated Mr. McMillan made mention about
the land or about the water being class II shellfish
waters. That also presents problems and additional costs.
Frank Morris
, 1382 Tatum Boulevard, thought he was supposed
to be on the agenda. He was notified by the City he was
going to be on the agenda. He was on the agenda last month
for the first reading and then it was separated one parcel
from five acres to two parcels of two and a half acres on
Oak Trail. He wondered where he stood.
City Manager Williams agreed to research this.
Councilwoman Rhodes apologized and stated somebody made a
mistake.
Mayor Thomas asked Mr. Morris if he received a letter that
he was on the agenda for tonight. Mr. Morris informed him
yes. Mayor Thomas apologized.
Mr. Morris stated he just wanted to know where he stood.
All he wanted to do was separate the five acres to two two
and a half acre parcels. He stated the Council tabled it
and said they were going to walk the land and get back with
him.
City Manager Williams stated it was probably an oversight
and he agreed to research it tomorrow and give Mr. Morris a
call.
Mr. Morris asked if he had to wait until next moth. He
asked where he stood on his property. They were talking
about they wanted to restrict the builders associations but
they are almost forcing him to go to builders because he is
allowed to have one house per acre and he wanted to make it
harder on himself. He wondered where he stood. He
questioned having to come back before the Council again.
City Manager Williams informed him that was correct. He
agreed to look at this to see what he could do. He briefly
commented on this case.
Page 51 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007
Mr. Morris stated all he is doing is separating the land
from five acres to 2 ½ acres to make it harder on himself
because he is already in the City. He has no intentions of
doing anything except dividing the land into two parcels.
Councilwoman Rhodes informed him when the County gets back
to them they will get back to Mr. Morris.
City Manager Williams stated the Council continued it and
as soon as they can get it back they will have the
discussion they are having here tonight.
12. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to discuss, Councilwoman
Rhodes moved to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 10:45
p.m.
Minutes submitted by:
Lisa Bloomer
Page 52 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
January 22, 2007