The URL can be used to link to this page

01-08-2007 - Regular CITY COUNCIL OF EDGEWATER REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 8, 2007 7:00 P.M. COMMUNITY CENTER MINUTES CALL TO ORDER 1. 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 Clerk Susan Wadsworth Present INVOCATION, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE There was a silent invocation and pledge of allegiance to the Flag. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Special Meeting of August 31, 2006 Councilwoman Lichter moved to approve the August 31, 2006 minutes, second by Councilwoman Rhodes . The MOTION CARRIED 5-0 . Mayor Thomas moved Item 9A up on the agenda. A. Agreement for Legal Services – staff recommending approval of the Agreement with Doran, Wolfe, Ansay & Kundid to provide services as City Attorney with authorization by the Mayor City Manager Williams made a staff presentation. Mayor Thomas entertained a motion. Page 1 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 Councilwoman Rogers moved to approve the Agreement for Legal Services with Doran, Wolfe, Ansay & Kundid to provide services as City Attorney with authorization by the Mayor, second by Councilman Vincenzi . The MOTION CARRIED 5-0 . 3. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/PLAQUES/CERTIFICATES/DON ATIONS A. Presentation by the Edgewater Public Library Board in reference to the purchase of property adjacent to the Library Jean Haughwout , Chairwoman, Edgewater Library Board, stated her purpose for coming before the Council this evening was to make them aware of an opportunity for the City of Edgewater and for the Edgewater Library. The Library is at a point where there is no more room for books plus there is a need for more computers and quiet reading space. The space available for meetings could be used but that would force the Library to discontinue the public use of the building for various meetings. Growth and expansion to the west is forcing them to grow at a rate faster than they were three years ago. A home on the west side of Banyan Tree Drive, one of the highest pieces of property in Florida Shores, has been offered to them by the Tomazin family. Mrs. Tomazin is the daughter of the late Jeanette Dudley, who was a member of the Library Board for many years. This home is located directly to the north of their parking lot on Banyan Tree Drive. Even if the Library did not use this property, it would been an excellent investment for the City to have this property to add to its inventory. The Library Director told them that Edgewater’s Library has the best location of any library in the County. It is a safe location for children as well as easy access for local residents. Upon obtaining the additional property, the Friends of the Library would initiate a building fund drive to raise money for available matching grants. This would be step one of a long-range plan, an optimal opportunity for the City and the Library. They realize funds are limited but hope they can squeeze out enough money to purchase this property. The owner of the only other home on this block has given them a verbal commitment that he will work with them when he is ready to sell in the next year or two. Banyan Tree Drive could be Page 2 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 vacated and they would have ample room for future expansion and could remain in their current location. The members of the Library Board are excited about this once in a lifetime opportunity and are confident they will make every effort to find a way to secure the necessary funds to make it a reality. As Chairwoman of the Library Board, she asked the Council to authorize City Manager Williams to begin negotiations and make an offer on this property in order to secure the property for the City and the Library. Ruth McCormack , Head Librarian and Branch Manager of the Edgewater Public Library, stated eighteen years ago when the Edgewater Library Advisory Board chose the site for the present Library they wanted a location that would be centrally located and convenient for all of the City’s residents and visitors. The site selected has been referred to many times as it has been tonight as one of the most ideally located libraries in Volusia County. They are located on one of the primary roadways near the main commercial district and they are within the City’s largest residential area. Because of the convenient central location, their library has grown at a dramatic rate. She then presented vital statistics with regard to the library. All of the numbers tell them that Edgewater has a library that is well used, accessible and convenient. It is inevitable that their facility will need to expand if they are to keep pace with the needs of the community. As property costs rise over the coming years, construction of a new library on an affordable site might result in a facility far from the ideal location they now enjoy. To ensure all residents continued accessibility to the library services they offer she respectfully urged the Council to move forward in pursuing the purchase of adjacent properties. Councilwoman Rogers stated in light of the fact that they just came through a very serious budgeting period most people would probably think they shouldn’t be looking for opportunities to spend money. She spoke of the library being very small and having to drive elsewhere to get books and information she needs. With that in mind and the fact that they are looking to get matching funds and grants and they are obviously very organized, her recommendation was that they definitely need to pursue this. There have been some opportunities that have been pursued in the past by the Council that she didn’t agree with. This is definitely one she does agree with. She commended the people that Page 3 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 have spend so much time and effort to continue to provide the services that they do. She is extremely pleased they have this opportunity in front of them. This is prime property and is adjacent to the library. The fact that there have been so many opportunities that have slipped through the City Council’s in the past, she doesn’t want this opportunity to slip through this City Council. She stated they don’t have a City Hall but she will be very happy that they will have the wonderful library system. They have to start somewhere. They have to go forward and they have to put their priorities in order and a library is definitely one of her top priorities. Councilman Vincenzi stated he appreciated the presentation. It was very informative and he felt the packet that was provided was very informative too. He would venture to say that nobody likes libraries more than he does except maybe the people in the audience. He felt this was a very worthwhile venture. The only obstacles would be money, obviously. He commented on going to the library as a kid. He feels it is something necessary for a small town. It is getting smaller because the town is getting larger and more people are moving in to town. He feels it is great the community appreciates it and uses it as much as they do. He felt if there was anyway to do it and work it out, he would want to do it. Councilwoman Rhodes stated her grandson was going to be two next month and he is having his first library experience tomorrow. She feels this is the sense of community they all would like to promote in this City. Absolutely money is going to be an issue but they are going to have to find a way. To not do it, would be penny wise and pound- foolish. She didn’t think they needed to do that and expressed her full support. Councilwoman Lichter asked City Manager Williams if the purchase of the property would have to go to the voters, like other items have in the past. City Manager Williams informed her it would not. Councilwoman Lichter asked the price of the properties. City Manager Williams wasn’t sure at this point. Councilwoman Lichter stated some money no doubt is going to be available when they open up the industrial park for sale. The price may not be right tonight or may need renegotiation but there will be some extra moneys Page 4 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 available. She came from a big City where there was a large central library. She spoke of having a mobile system that went around with books. Unless they went to the big City that is how they read their books. She was a kindergarten teacher and understands the necessities of gong to the library and the programs. She felt if she knew the price of the property and when they sell the industrial park land that something no doubt can be worked out. It is a worthwhile project. Councilwoman Rhodes mentioned partnering with the County in some fashion to make this happen. Councilwoman Lichter asked if they were partners with the County somehow in the beginning. She asked if there was a connection with the County. Ms. McCormack stated the building currently belongs to the City of Edgewater as does the property. The County has contracted to provide the library services from that building. They provide the maintenance on the building, interior and exterior as well as the personnel, the books, materials and equipment to a great extent. They have a local Friends of the Library that subsidizes that as far as equipment and materials are concerned. She knew at this point in time the libraries have had a huge cut in their budget because of the tax roll back and at this point in time for purchase of property there would be nothing forthcoming from the County. She was certain of that. Councilwoman Rhodes stated maybe they could change their mind. Mayor Thomas commented on help he had received at the library by Ms. McCormack. He cannot say enough and is glad they have this in Edgewater. He thinks they need to give City Manager Williams the okay to start negotiations with the Tomazin’s and come back when they get a workable plan. Mayor Thomas entertained a motion. Councilwoman Rhodes made a motion to give City Manager Williams direction to open up some negotiations and see what can be worked out, second by Councilwoman Lichter and Councilman Vincenzi . The MOTION CARRIED 5-0 . 4. CITIZEN COMMENTS Page 5 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 The following citizens spoke: Mike Visconti , 316 Pine Breeze Drive, commented on the library. He stated in 1995 that whole corner was for sale for $500,000 and the City at that time let the ball roll by and now we have the Best Western there, the CVS Pharmacy. That would have been a good place for City Hall right in that corner. He asked the Council not to let this one pass them by. Mr. Visconti commented on the Charter Amendment to restrict he building heights to 35 feet all began because of high rises and condos along the river. The petitions were signed to stop the high rises. He believed it got out of hand with the 35 feet Charter Amendment restricting the height across the board. It included residential, industrial, commercial and professional buildings. He has said in the past that they have elected the officials and he has said the officials do what is right for the City. Because of his personal views, he has been attacked by the newspaper by someone who didn’t see it the way he saw it. All this amendment did was divide our beautiful City. Right now they must all abide by the results. He takes pride living in Edgewater and he will continue to do what he believes is good for the City. He has been accused of calling the citizens of Edgewater stupid and telling them to keep their mouth shut. He has been accused of sending out fliers and they have also attacked his business. He has never intended or never will call the citizens of Edgewater stupid. They have their rights to believe in what they believe in and do what they believe in and whoever wins, wins. This particular vote was very close and he believes it divided the City. Now that the damage is done it is time to move on. He agreed with City Manager Williams and the Council to honor any commitments or contracts that were signed before the election. He agreed to have a referendum in the near future to exempt the 35- foot restriction on all commercial industrial and professional buildings. Edgewater needs this tax base. He feels the citizens may have seen the impact that this Charter Amendment has made and it should be changed for the good of Edgewater. Andy Anderson , Pine Tree Drive, concurred with everything that had been said tonight in support of more room for library space. He thinks it is a great endeavor. He is also an animal lover. He has had animals nearly all his Page 6 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 life. He had a suggestion as to how to get the money for the library expansion. To put the Animal Shelter, if possible back on the ballot to be re-voted on and this time inform the people what it is going to entail as far as operation costs. The veterinarian, the staff, which he thinks will run probably about $150,000 a year plus the maintenance of the building. He thinks the City ought to have a priority list. Put down the things this City needs the most and then the things it needs less on the bottom of the list. He thinks in view of the fact that they already have a shelter on Glencoe Road that all of the communities have been using for years as well as Edgewater, a shelter of our own is entirely unnecessary. It is expensive and it is going to cost to maintain. He stated a half a million dollars is a lot of money particularly in view of the fact that this City is so much in debt now. Dot Carlson , 1714 Edgewater Drive, representing ECARD, agreed with Mr. Visconti. They had a debate and she said the citizens could vote yes for what the City put on the amendment and vote yes for theirs but it didn’t happen. They are going to have to work with it. She read the articles Mr. Visconti was referring to and she assured Mr. Visconti none of them were from her. When she puts something in the paper she wants her name on it every time. He is right. She feels the citizens did know what they were voting for. At least she hoped so. According to the paper it says that maybe they didn’t know what they were doing when they voted for it. If they didn’t does that mean they didn’t know what they were doing when they voted for Council. She feels the citizens are informed. Agnes Woodard , 223 Flagler Avenue, stated the previous comments have opened up what she wanted to say about the 35-foot height amendment and the articles they have seen in the paper in the past week. Councilwoman Lichter made the comment that the 35-foot height amendment is a killer and that they saw that the Economic Development Board is still concerned about the affects of this. She proposed that they develop a public design workshop program. It would entail involving the citizens, volunteer at the earliest possible moment about new zoning, re-zoning, development proposals. They would start out with a preliminary group that would get information from the City. This in turn could be divulged to all of the citizens that would attend a meeting that would be held. The results of it would be that they would get to ask questions, the City would get to Page 7 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 give the answers. They could make suggestions and it would be a win-win situation for everybody and maybe it would eliminate any undesirable surprises they have come up across this year. Give everybody a chance that is interested in becoming involved. It doesn’t cost anything. The only thing that would be required of the City would be providing them with the information and the answers to their questions. Dominic Capria , 606 Topside Circle, stated at the last meeting he asked a question on if they have hired any new employees of the animal shelter. He spoke to City Manager Williams on the break and he was of the opinion they did. He was told by his district representative that he misunderstood. He asked if they hired any new employees. The paper said they are talking about it but did they. They have an election coming up next November. He feels they are going to have problems if they don’t solve the problems now. He stated they have what they call term limits in the City Charter. Term limits says that after two consecutive elections you can’t serve again. He stated they have four years term and two years terms. Some like Councilwoman Lichter and Councilman Vincenzi have served two, four, six, eight years and only one for year term. He asked if the same Councilmembers in districts two and four can run again under the term limits or can they not. He would like to have the answer on that one at the next meeting. He would like the answer if they hired employees under the animal shelter. Councilwoman Rhodes stated she has had one two-year term and this is her second four-year term. Councilwoman Lichter was on one before that. Councilman Vincenzi was on the same time she came on. If they cannot run again then she should not have been able to run again. Mr. Capria confirmed she was saying they were able to run again. Councilwoman Rhodes informed him yes. Councilman Vincenzi asked if they were having a discussion about this now or do it later. Mayor Thomas informed him they would do it later. Councilman Vincenzi suggested they discuss it under City Council Reports. Mr. Capria asked if he would get an answer on the other one. City Manager Williams was prepared to answer it. Page 8 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 City Manager Williams stated what Mr. Capria was referring to in the discussion they had was at the start of this fiscal year they had two animal control officers and one animal services administrator. They had one animal control officer leave the City. That position was refilled. They had the second animal control officer transfer from the Animal Services Department back to the Police Department because she is a certified police officer. That position has been frozen. They still have one animal control officer and one animal services administrator and one animal control position that is frozen. They have just started discussion to release the freeze on hiring and pursue that. Mr. Capria stated a year ago even though they didn’t have an animal shelter they had these two animal control officers in place. City Manager Williams stated they have had the two animal control officers in place for the last ten to fifteen years. Mr. Capria stated without an animal shelter. City Manager Williams informed him that was correct. Mr. Capria felt it didn’t make sense. Carol Ann Stoughton , 2740 Evergreen Drive, stated when she went around collecting signatures on the petitions, Mr. Visconti signed the petition. She wanted him to recall that. He evidently forgets that he signed the petition but this over and done. It has been voted in and it is the way it is going to be. The 35-foot has nothing to do with the dilemma of debt that the City has been in over the past four or five years. She asks every year and last year it was $46 million. She didn’t know what the debt is now. Even though they don’t like her asking she is a taxpayer and she pays $2,500 in taxes and many people pay a lot more. As far as the cookie cutter stores and the Targets, that was not voted down because of their voting against the high rise. That was St. John’s that said they couldn’t have it where it is. Ms. Stoughton stated as far as the library goes, she went to a small school and they never had a library in their town. They used the facilities of the high school. She was one who spoke up for the people at the library who do a fantastic job however, rumor has it now that each home is going to cost $250,000 to purchase. There is $500,000 and then you have the animal shelter. No one knows where money is coming from to buy anything. It isn’t because the people voted down the fact that they don’t want high rises Page 9 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 because their town is in debt. Our town is in debt because of past mismanagement and because of fiascos of going into buying property and having ParkTowne Industrial Center. She asked if Mr. Hooper’s services are still being used with Professional Engineering. She heard gossip around town that the City still uses his services. She feels it is best to downsize the administration. She suggested they look around and see what it is costing in each department. She informed City Manager Williams he was there before and did a great job but he knew what was going on. She feels at this point in time in our town they need and hope this audit will show where the moneys have gone. Why is it all taken blame because the people of the town knew what they were voting on and voted it down? It didn’t just happen. It has been going on for a long time. John Cordeiro , 1515 Pine Tree Drive, stated he wanted to talk about the Economic Development Board. He has been in the City now for five years and he has attended their meetings and he hasn’t seen much success. He feels they need some help because he doesn’t see much going on with new businesses moving here. He feels they need to set up a new agenda or a new way to approach businesses out of the State. The City has to help because the City has to throw some crumbs out to make it enticing for these companies to come here. He gave up attending the Economic Development Board meetings because he feels they are never going to be successful. He feels something has to be done. He would be willing to help. He has some ideas. Nobody listened to him for four years and he was just a big troublemaker. Everything he said came true and more came true. More was exposed then what he used to say. City Manager Williams commented on the City’s debt schedule he provided. Councilwoman Rhodes would like for Ms. Stoughton to have a copy of it. 5. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilwoman Rogers spoke on comments from citizens on the street. She has received calls regarding the 35-foot height amendment and the Economic Development Board. Deciding to run for a City Council position, she looked for the opportunity to be a leader and make decisions. They do spend time reviewing information, going to various places looking at sites and meeting with people. She feels even though some of the decisions they make are not always Page 10 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 popular, that everyone honestly tries to do the best they can. Regarding the 35-foot height. Initially the group came to the City Council and asked the City Council to put this on a ballot. It didn’t go down. The group did what they are legally able to do. They went out and got their petition signatures. It was placed on the ballot and the vote occurred. That should be the end of it. They shouldn’t be haggling and going backwards and going back and forth about something that is done. To have the Economic Development Board as far as she is concerned attack the City Council and the parties that put together the 35-foot height petition, she feels is ludicrous. The City has been around for a long time. This 35-foot height amendment wasn’t out there before. Nothing came across to commercial or industrial properties. These properties didn’t come to them in the past and they haven’t come to them now with a 35-foot that needed to come into play. They don’t have businesses coming to them saying they are going to bring jobs and that they will need more than 35- feet. They haven’t had anything with the exception of a WalMart Distribution Center. Years ago, west of I-95, a WalMart Distribution Center was trying to come into the City. It would have brought a lot of jobs. She didn’t know all the facts and wasn’t here at that time but listening to citizens tell her that was a great opportunity to bring jobs to the City and the fact that the City did not approve that. Here we are and people are fighting about the 35-foot height. She is hearing somebody say perhaps they did approve it. If they did approve it, it didn’t happen. They have had these opportunities out there but nothing has happened and now they have a 35-foot height in place. Is it really going to hurt the City? It wasn’t there before and the City didn’t grow. She commented on the vacant buildings on U.S. #1 that are sitting there that are decaying and looking decrepit. She feels Mr. Visconti’s building looks lovely. She would like to see more businesses like that and people taking pride. She asked why they are trying to create something way out west when where they are at right now presently it is a mess. Councilwoman Rogers commented on having a lot of sirens in this City. She hears sirens all day. She was gone for most of Christmas break and she got to sleep through the night. She didn’t hear sirens. She asked Chief Taves if this could be looked into. She asked if the sirens need to blow and make the noise they do at the levels they do almost twenty-four hours. She can’t sleep and her dogs are Page 11 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 howling. She has had some neighbors call her up and leave messages on her recorder. Councilwoman Rogers stated something she would like to be given to the new Attorney that was previously done by our previous attorney and that was some various questions regarding the animal shelter and whether or not it should be put back on the ballot. She feels this is something that they need to look at. Granted, that is something that was voted on by the citizens of this City but what was initially put on that ballot, everything has changed. Every time she turns around the rules and the way they are trying to get it to work, they are manipulating the system. She is up there and they are supposed to be leaders. She doesn’t feel like a leader because information is given to them and if they don’t do what staff recommends, she hears about it. She doesn’t feel like a leader. She feels like a puppet. She questioned if they are supposed to be the leaders and shouldn’t they be respected as such whether the decision is what they like or don’t like. She wants to be respected as a leader so they need the information given to them and if they don’t go with what staff recommends they don’t need to be shot down because of it. She feels the library is a no-brainer. They need the library and she knows there will be people that will be upset because they are going to go for it. Should they be knocked because of it? No. Councilwoman Rogers stated an incident occurred in December. A homicide to be exact within the City of Edgewater. Nothing in the paper about it other than a suspicious death. She would like to see something done about that. She didn’t understand why. She would like to know what is going on with that. She has had two citizens ask her what is going on. She feels something needs to be done about that. Councilwoman Rogers feels something needs to be done about e-mails sent to the City that are directed at certain Council people informing other Council people of behaviors that are in appropriate and not professional. She doesn’t want to see the Council people being attacked even if it is valid. They are still putting in their time and are trying to do the best job. Even though people may not like them or like what they do, they aren’t getting paid a huge amount of money for what they are doing. She is doing this because this to her is the best way for her to learn about Page 12 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 city government and be a part of it. She wants to know about the City. She lives in the City. She wants to be a part of the future. Councilwoman Rogers stated they needed to look at the 35- foot height and drop it. They need to look at the animal shelter and bring it back because it is a problem and it has been manipulated. The Attorney review over what was previously given to them from the previous attorney, the memos and the questions. They are leaders and need to go forward. They need jobs in this City. They need industrial and they need commercial. She is trying to go forward, which is what she feels they need to do. Councilman Vincenzi stated he thought they were heading towards some type of agreement with the animal shelter where they would build a shelter for the cost approved by the voters and it possibly would have been managed and run by a licensed veterinarian that would offer services to the City for animals in town that were brought to the center. To him that is still a viable option however, it seems like every day new problems come up with either the shelter or the property associated with it. The newest problem is the fact that there is legally no access to that property. This was something that was brought to his attention a week ago. When the City purchased the property that the animal shelter is supposed to be on, they really don’t have a legal right of way to build a road however there is an easement or access road. If they were given this information before it might have been a totally different story as to whether that property would have been purchased from the County. Now they are stuck with it. They either have to make due with a small easement that they can’t build a road on. They can have a dirt path that has been filled and probably stabilized that you can get trucks through there. What should be built back there is a road with good access. The person that owns the property that could donate property for an easement that is entirely up to him. He didn’t feel he should be forced or coerced in any way to donate property if he doesn’t want to. If he wants to that is another story. The gentleman that brought up the idea of putting it back on the ballot, he thought it was Mr. Capria that brought it up, everything about the animal shelter has changed. The location, the cost, potentially building it, not building it, staffing it and whatnot. He thinks this is something that needs to be done again and done right. This would be a topic for future Page 13 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 discussion. People need to look at it again with all the facts totally informed and then decide if they want to go ahead with it. This would probably be a good opportunity for the Pet Society or the City or whoever wants to run it to put forth true estimates of what it is going to cost to build a facility that will be adequate for the City. People can look at it and decide if they want to pay for it and allow people to borrow the money and then go forward and do it right. Councilman Vincenzi then commented on the height amendment. They have heard many people talk about that. Most of it has been negative but the fact remains people voted for it, it’s on the books, and it’s been legally processed. The group that requested to have it put on the ballot did their homework, did the leg work, got the petitions, they satisfied all the conditions they needed to meet and the Council looked at it and said they did what they had to do and they were entitled to have it put on the ballot. It was put on the ballot and people voted for it and it is part of the Charter. The only way it is going to be not part of the Charter or amended in any way, is if it goes back to the voters again or if they try to put another amendment, similar to the one that failed, on the ballot in November. If people vote for it, that is fine. If they don’t vote for it, it is done. He has had people come up to him that have told him that the City Council didn’t do its job. They should not have allowed that ballot to go on there because they should have required ECARD to have that amendment on the ballot do some kind of impact study to justify its existence and to find out what impact it would have had on the City. There is no requirement anywhere for that group to go through anything like that. They did exactly what they were supposed to do. The City Council did exactly what it was supposed to do. They allowed it to go before the voters. The voters voted for it and it is done. If anyone is trying to divide the City, it’s the people on the Economic Development Board because they keep mentioning it over and over again about how this is going to kill the City. He asked if there are any buildings in the City that are over three stories? City Manager Williams wasn’t aware of any. Councilman Vincenzi stated all of a sudden since the 35- foot height amendment has been placed into the Charter this is going to be the thing that is going to kill Edgewater. Nobody has been knocking on Edgewater’s door to come into Page 14 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 the City to provide jobs with businesses as long as they can have a building over 35-feet. The only buildings that were approved in Edgewater were the two condos, which sparked this whole thing. As far as an economic impact on this City, he feels it has some potential problems, some problems where if a hospital wanted to come in and build a facility, they may not want to do it because of the height limitation. He feels that is something that should be presented to the voters again. As far as businesses and economic development and that is killing Edgewater because of the 35-foot height limit, he feels that is a bunch of bull. There have been two companies and they are going to take care of that tonight in ParkTowne. They want to build buildings that are higher because their business needs it in an industrial area. That is fine by him and he felt the other Councilmembers would say that also. Citizens don’t want tall buildings mixed in with residential areas and they said so even if it was a slight margin and that is all there is to it. The other comment a person made to him after a meeting was there wasn’t an overwhelming majority of the people that voted for it so it isn’t a mandate and they shouldn’t be abiding by that. That is a bunch of bull too. If fifty percent of the people vote for it plus one they win and that is all there is to it. He feels they should move on and try to look for a way to put an amendment on the ballot again to counteract just the negative affects it will have for the City as far as services, such as a hospital or school. Just explain it to people, even beg if you have to, to try to get them to see reason and hopefully it will pass. If it does, great. If it doesn’t they are stuck with it. Councilman Vincenzi then commented on term limits. He has been inquiring about the decision the previous City Attorney made. When reading the Charter and trying to interpret it, the section on Term limits, he asked around and City Clerk Wadsworth said that she foresaw a potential problem coming up in the next election and she wanted to get a legal opinion as to whether Councilpeople that have been in two terms, whether two or four year terms, could run again. So she initiated the request to the attorney to read over that section on Term Limits and to interpret it. The Attorney came back and said something to the effect that it says two consecutive terms and the terms start in 2001. People voted on it in 1999 and the terms start in 2001, two consecutive terms and that is the limit but it doesn’t specify two year or four year so the Attorney said Page 15 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 he believed that the intention of it was to have two consecutive four-year terms. He didn’t necessarily agree with that. He was going to bring it up at the next meeting or the one after not to have the current City Attorney review it and interpret it but to have it petitioned to a higher authority and have it determined in any court by a judge who will read the document, investigate it and give a legal decision as to whether Councilpeople that have had a two year and a four year term can run again for the second four year term or whether their term limits are up after the two year and four year consecutive term. He believed that could go on a future meeting for discussion also. If there is going to be an issue about it with the next election, it needs to be determined. The Charter needs to be interpreted properly because the Charter is the Bible for the City. That is what the City Council has to enforce and it needs to be interpreted legally, not arbitrarily. Councilwoman Rhodes commented on the Economic Development Board asking for a meeting with the City Council last week and only Mayor Thomas showed up. She felt this wasn’t really a meeting with the Council. She thought they were looking for direction and leadership from the Council. She suggested they set up another meeting with them an hour before their regular meeting. She felt they were looking for some help. Councilwoman Rhodes commented on the Citizen Committee for Planning & Zoning that was mentioned by Ms. Woodard. She stated they have a citizen board for Planning & Zoning in the City. She asked if the public is allowed to ask questions during those board meetings. City Manager Williams informed her they were. Councilwoman Rhodes commented on the WalMart Distribution Center. They had three sites. The City courted them like crazy. The end result was WalMart said the City didn’t fit their demographic. They tried very hard. Councilwoman Rhodes commented on the animal shelter. That property was not bought for an animal shelter. It was bought for the water plant for Hacienda. City Manager Williams explained it was an old water plant that the County owned that was servicing Hacienda. It was going to be used for future pumping station, reclaimed storage and so forth for the southeastern service area. They do realize there was seventeen acres there. Page 16 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 Councilwoman Rhodes stated it was incidental that the animal shelter went there because it couldn’t go out at the landfill. City Manager Williams confirmed that was correct. Councilwoman Rhodes stated that is why she was saying the property was bought without the access. When the property was bought they didn’t need the access. Councilwoman Rhodes stated she got the best Christmas present ever. The day after Christmas she got a new granddaughter, Zoey. Everybody is doing fine. Councilwoman Lichter commented on the comment made by the lady about the citizens seeking more information, a Committee of citizens, etc. When the newspaper calls you and asks you what are your goals for the coming up year, she mentioned four things but one thing was put in there. Sometimes she thinks they ought to get this show on the road. She thinks sometimes the Council meetings should be held in other places where a different crowd comes out. She feels they should have workshop meetings explaining things. She thinks they should try to get citizens on a more personal level with their City Councilpeople down there. She stated on New Year’s Eve someone made the comment to her about the 35-foot limit. They thought it was just for condos. Everybody doesn’t follow through from beginning to end to understand something. Part of the leadership that Councilwoman Rogers was talking about she felt is explanations. She felt the citizens voted for that. She thought they meant it for residential. She wasn’t sure the part the City added was very clear. She felt they had a responsibility to make it clearer. Not just with one meeting but perhaps getting the show on the road or having people come in. Yes there was a group of people that do not vote in the City. That is part of what happens. She agreed with Councilman Vincenzi that when the vote is there, the vote is there and that is the end of it. Councilwoman Lichter stated Deborah Green is the conservation person in charge for the Water Authority. She wants to award for Menard Park, which has a waterless garden and Edgewater Landing Garden Club takes care of that garden. They have been awarded an award on a County level for that. She asked City Manager Williams if they could put something on the agenda in March to award that award. Deborah would come to help with that occasion. She thought Page 17 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 they came in second because they were missing a tree that got blown down. Councilwoman Lichter commented on the National Advancement for Colored Persons she attended for the City on New Year’s Day at the Mt. Carmel Baptist Church in New Smyrna. Councilwoman Lichter stated there is a new law out on a national level that FEMA is now involved in. They found out in New Orleans that many people lost their lives because they wouldn’t leave their homes because of their pets. The new law was presented by a democratic and republican from California and that law will be in effect now. It has been voted on in the Congress and the Senate. Every County and State has to provide for shelters for people and animals. That there has to be transportation provided. There are also other requirements. She was sure Chief Daly and the firemen would be working on that. That will be required by the State of Florida and they feel that will save lives. Councilwoman Lichter felt there seemed to be some type of misunderstanding about the land with the shelter. It will not cost more money. It will be very similar to the YMCA where the City builds the building and the vet takes it over and finished it and provides the services with a non- profit group helping. It will be an economic means to meet the needs of the voters and not more than $500,000 will be spent that was voted on. She respects the vote of the 35- feet although she sees it’s positive points but she certainly sees it’s negative points. She feels when a vote is taken and has met its requirements that it should also be recognized. Mayor Thomas concurred with Councilwoman Rogers and Councilman Vincenzi about the 35-foot height cap. Everybody knew that the petition was going around and there was a small core of people that went out there and got 1,700 signatures and it wasn’t easy. They were very passionate about their goal. Several times they almost got arrested for trespassing and they did not quit. They got it passed and the voters voted for it. He is tired of the whining. They voted on it and that is the way it is going to be. If they feel passionate about that it should be overturned then they need to get out there and get 1,700 signatures and put it on the ballot and then they will vote on it again. They are going to deal with it. There is a Page 18 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 bunch of cities that are looking at Edgewater and wishing they were Edgewater. He commented on Edgewater doing something about growth. He feels we live in a safe community. He grew up in Orlando before I-4 and Disney and it was a nice safe place. Now every time you turn on the TV in the morning they are murdering one a day over there. They are going to surpass his deer kill this year on people. Not counting the rapes and all of the other stuff. He likes the charming, little Edgewater community. Mayor Thomas then commented on the animal shelter. The voters voted on that too in 2002. They said $500,000 is going to go to that. He is going to get something done about that. He is going to be pushing. He stated City Manager Williams has come up with a creative, innovative plan that he feels will work. He commented on other cities asking him how it is working. They are looking at us. We are going to be the innovative, creative community and they are going to follow our lead. He can’t believe five years later and that thing isn’t built. They are going to do that. There was a fifteen-minute recess at this time. The meeting recessed at 8:12 p.m. and reconvened at 8:27 p.m. 6. CONSENT AGENDA There was nothing to be discussed on the Consent Agenda at this time. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS nd A. 2 Reading, Ord. No. 2006-O-45, Sid Peterson requesting annexation of 79.18+ acres of land located south of the Taylor Road and Glencoe Road intersection City Attorney Ansay read Ord. 2006-O-45 into the record. Mayor Thomas entertained a motion to continue this item. City Manager Williams informed him they needed the motion nd to include the date of April 2. Councilwoman Rhodes moved to continue Ord. 2006-O-45 until nd April 2, second by Councilwoman Lichter . Page 19 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 Mayor Thomas asked why they had to postpone it that far. City Manager Williams informed him to coincide with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. By specifying the date, they save money in re-advertising costs and that is what the applicant has requested. The MOTION CARRIED 5-0 . nd B. 2 Reading, Ord. No. 2006-O-46, Glenn Storch requesting annexation of 20.28+ acres of land th located south of Two Oaks Drive and north of 27 Street City Attorney Ansay read Ord. 2006-O-46 into the record. Mayor Thomas entertained a motion. Councilwoman Lichter moved to continue Ord. 2006-O-46 until nd April 2, second by Councilwoman Rhodes . The MOTION CARRIED 5-0 . C. Res. No. 2007-R-01, acknowledging property owners’ rights to construct buildings in excess of 35-feet pursuant to vested Planned Unit Development (PUD) Agreements City Attorney Ansay read Res. 2007-R-01 into the record. City Manager Williams made a staff presentation. Mayor Thomas explained there are some developers that th purchased property prior to the November 7 election in the ParkTowne Industrial Center. When they purchased it and signed the PUD agreement, that gave them their vested rights. The consensus of Council was that they felt those vested rights should be taken into consideration. Councilwoman Rogers was in agreement with what the property owners rights are. They have those rights. Councilman Vincenzi stated that sounds reasonable to him. He questioned if this was just PUD’s that were signed and agreed on or if it also included the Industrial Park. City Manager Williams informed him this included the Industrial Park. He then commented on the exhibit that seeks to Page 20 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 establish the number of existing PUD agreements out there and the development agreement as ParkTowne as well. Councilwoman Rhodes agreed. If they sign a contract with somebody they need to live up to it. Councilwoman Lichter agreed with the thirteen. She stated there is some kind of an agreement because they have a structure within the industrial park. She asked if that carries forth to future buildings also. City Manager Williams stated this exempts. Councilwoman Lichter stated this exempts in total. It’s not just a matter of grandfathering in past ones but it is exempting the industrial park. She wanted to make it clear what they were voting on. City Manager Williams informed her that was correct. Mayor Thomas stated let’s say they violate the PUD agreement and they don’t start their building on time or whatever, then there contract is null and violated. City Manager Williams stated yes, with the existing PUD’s. With the discussion centered around the ParkTowne Industrial Center, that development agreement is executed on behalf of the City and the property owners at that time. With some of the residential PUD agreements out there, if they expire or they attempt to amend the PUD agreements, then they adhere to the Charter Amendments. Councilwoman Rhodes read where it says vested rights shall not preclude the City from requiring compliance with the height amendment as a condition to amend an approved PUD agreement. Councilwoman Rogers wanted to clarify something that the previous attorney went back and read that she wanted the new attorney to read. It has to do with Edgewater Harbor. It has to do with when they approved the fifty-foot height for the townhomes. She had made a comment in public that it would go with whatever the rules was at the time. She was encompassing the fact that they were looking at changing the Land Development Code as well as the Charter. She thinks Edgewater Harbor may have a problem because of the statements she made. She then commented on River Oaks, the 190-foot tall condo that still hasn’t begun. They haven’t started anything yet. She would think that they need to be very careful in how they approve this and perhaps have some language to clarify that River Oaks 190- Page 21 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 foot tall condo if it is something that can just go on and on. They need to put an end to that. City Manager Williams stated the lawsuit with River Oaks has not been finalized at this point in time. Obviously there are some issues that are still looming with that lawsuit. Councilwoman Rogers asked since it has not been finalized, do they have vested rights? City Manager Williams stated he would think they have vested rights. Councilwoman Rogers then asked if vested rights terminate at some point if they haven’t taken action. City Manager Williams stated upon expiration of the RPUD agreement. The question that remains is whether or not the clock has started ticking as a result of that lawsuit not being settled. Councilwoman Lichter questioned if they are in court, doesn’t that stop the clock. City Manager Williams stated he couldn’t give a direct answer. Councilwoman Lichter asked if that was the issue. City Manager Williams informed her that was one of the issues. With regards to the Edgewater Harbor PUD agreement, the City has addressed that issue. Not having the PUD agreement in front of him, it does stipulate that it has to coincide with the Land Development Code that may be amended from time to time. However the PUD agreement granted them up to fifty feet. Something he can certainly establish dialogue with City Attorney Ansay and research. It is his understanding they have a PUD agreement in place that gives them up to fifty feet. Should that PUD agreement expires then the new rules take affect. Councilwoman Rogers stated then perhaps the resolution they have in front of them that they need to postpone this decision or putting it in until after they have received the legal advice of the City’s current Attorney on both of those issues and make statements regarding both of those so they don’t have any ambiguity in the future. City Attorney stated the one issue she needed to address before the evening was out was how the resolution affects the on-going litigation in the Zeller/Greene suit. She has not reviewed the PUD agreements in place for the two projects just mentioned. There is language in there that in the event that PUD agreement expires or otherwise terminates, that those vested rights even if they are declared here are gone. She felt the City had that escape Page 22 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 valve that if it is legally determined later on that those PUD agreements are terminated by virtue of the time clock expiring or any other non-compliance that the vested rights would not exist. Councilwoman Rogers felt they needed to have whatever legal counsel’s findings are written and put into the record as well so that if these different developers come back and file some suit against the City that they have legal grounds for why they did what they did. City Manager Williams stated regardless of whether or not the time clock has started with for instance River Oaks that can be determined after the resolution is passed. If the time clock has started and the PUD expires, then they will have to conform to the Charter Amendment limiting heights and that isn’t something that would affect the approval of the resolution. City Attorney Ansay stated similarly with all of the projects referenced, if two years from now something were to happen that would cause one of those PUD agreements to become invalid again they have that power then by virtue of the language to declare those vested rights no longer exist. She felt they maintain that power on an on-going basis the way it was drafted. She felt this gave them an extra level of protection. Mayor Thomas opened the public hearing. The following citizens spoke: John Evans , City of Titusville, representing Oscar Zeller and Julian Greene in ParkTowne Industrial Park litigation, stated they believe this resolution goes a long way towards establishing appropriate vested rights for the property owners within the Industrial Park. They have some legal issues they need to be resolved. They spoke with City Attorney Ansay and they believe they will be able to resolve those in the very near future to everybody’s satisfaction but he didn’t want to leave them with the impression it was going to be dismissed tomorrow because of the resolution. It goes a long way towards resolving those issues. He expressed their support of the resolution. Councilwoman Lichter asked Mr. Evans if they pass this resolution it does not hinder Mr. Evans deciding they might Page 23 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 drop the lawsuit. Mr. Evans informed her that was correct and felt it was a positive step. Dominic Capria, 606 Topside Circle, stated Edgewater Harbor, vested rights, which they naturally have and the PUD, he understands they owe the City $2.5 million. He asked if that would terminate their vested rights if they aren’t paying? City Attorney Ansay stated she would have to see the development agreement but presumably in most development agreements there are provisions related to issues like that that would probably cause a problem but she hasn’t read it. Mr. Capria asked if they have paid anything. City Manager Williams stated what Mr. Capria is describing is he brought th back during the December 4 Council meeting a letter where staff has sent Mr. McMillan telling him he owes us for reservation of water & sewer impact fees. He has been permitted via the Department of Health and the Department of Environmental Protection for 600 units, which was his original PUD agreement prior to the amendment. The PUD clearly states he would pay 100% of those impact fees so they have sent him that letter telling him they would do th so. At the December 4 meeting he described he has submitted a site plan and that they would be holding review of the site plan pending the payment of those impact fees. To date he has not paid those impact fees. However, he has been in and they have discussed those impact fees. He has described to them that he may potentially be amending his permits to indicate his reservation of capacity for the 450 units which is what he is approved for in his PUD agreement and he would be paying his impact fees based off of that. To date, no check has been received. Mr. Capria again asked if there is a certain time limit where it would terminate the agreement or not. Mayor Thomas informed Mr. Capria City Attorney Ansay would have to look at the PUD agreement in order to answer Mr. Capria’s question. Councilwoman Rhodes stated every PUD agreement they have has a time limit in it. In order to extend that they have to come back to Council and have it amended. You always have the option to not extend it. City Manager Williams felt in this case City Attorney Ansay needed the opportunity to review the PUD agreement. The Page 24 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 expiration date is approaching with regards to that PUD agreement. Councilwoman Rhodes asked if they had amended that once already. City Manager Williams informed her yes. Mayor Thomas stated they can’t expect her to look at every PUD agreement so they are going to have to specify the ones they want her to analyze. Carol Ann Stoughton , 2740 Evergreen Drive, felt it was a good point that Mr. Capria brought up. She didn’t know what the normal motive is in collecting moneys from these people. She felt they were long over due and maybe that would be a good place to put the animal shelter. Just confiscate the property if they haven’t paid their debt. If you are talking about $2 million, let’s get on the ball and get after these people that don’t pay. How much did the City spend to go in and look over all of this? She felt the Council should try to condemn or take the property. Councilwoman Rhodes stated they don’t owe the money until they start to build. Ms. Stoughton stated they haven’t come up with the money they were supposed to come up with. They were supposed to come up with the money up front sometime. How long do you give these people to come up with the money after they send the guys out there to check on all of that stuff? She felt it is something to check on to see how efficiently they are progressing to either get these people to build or not build and get their money up front. If they don’t come up with money, then they hit the road. Mayor Thomas felt they were straying from the point of the resolution. Dave Ross , 2803 Needle Palm Drive, asked if vested rights are for people that have already purchased the property prior to the amendment with regard to ParkTowne. He stated Councilwoman Lichter said it is for all future property owners and that the entire complex is exempt. He asked if this was correct. Councilwoman Rhodes informed him that was correct. Just ParkTowne is exempt. Mr. Ross stated the original explanation was that the people that bought property prior to the amendment have vested rights. He asked if there is still property in Page 25 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 ParkTowne that the City owns that has not been sold. City Manager Williams informed him yes. Mr. Ross asked if the future owners of that would be considered to have vested rights and be exempt. Councilwoman Rogers informed him it depended on the agreement. City Manager Williams stated when they had this discussion it centered around present property owners and future. He described at that time that they had just received an appraisal on the vacant property, 83+ acres that indicated that value was at $70,574 per acre. He suggested at that time that council take the stance that ParkTowne Industrial Center is exempt for all present and future owners. Mr. Ross stated the current City Attorney was asked if they thought that would be legal and City Manager Williams said he didn’t think it would hold up in court and now he is telling him he said it will hold up in court. He asked if this was correct. His concern is that they as a Council are trying to rewrite the amendment for some reason without legal grounds to do it or without voter acceptance of those grounds. He knows ECARD has agreed to this but that is not legal grounds. He feels everything in ParkTowne should be exempt but that isn’t what the voters voted on. He feels there needs to be a full explanation to the public on what is going on between Council and ECARD and the ParkTowne people who don’t own any property out there yet. Mr. Ross stated he also heard off of the Council the night it was voted to approve the RPUD for the twin towers that there was an agreement that if they approved the RPUD that he would drop the lawsuit. He didn’t know why it hadn’t been dropped and he didn’t know why that statement had been made to the public if it wasn’t part of the deal. Debbie Vince, Trinity Materials, stated the ParkTowne property is governed by a declaration of covenants and restrictions, similar to a homeowners’ agreement. City Manager Williams stated when they brought this before Council they described no matter what direction they take they have exposure. He felt it boiled down to who they want suing them at this point. They shut this lady down and she has incurred losses and damages and he felt it was very clear, and he wasn’t putting words in her mouth, but if he recalled the conversations they had, it was to the tune of about $100,000 a day that she would be suing the Page 26 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 City for for damages for shutting her down. Council developed a consensus to establish these vested rights to allow these folks to pursue their development and continue without incurring any losses. It was a stance to try to mitigate the exposure they had. They are still not without exposure because the Charter Amendment clearly stipulates that a court of competent jurisdiction is the one that has to determine the vested rights. That is why Council took the stance it was taken. They wanted to recognize the existing PUD agreements including the development agreement that exists on all the property in ParkTowne for all present and future owners to establish these vested rights to try and mitigate our exposure from lawsuits. City Attorney Ansay stated a PUD agreement or development agreement runs with the land. When they talk about who the owners are from a legal perspective that is somewhat irrelevant. When you are granting rights, you are granting rights that are vested via that agreement. Unless that agreement says it can’t be assigned, it is often common for developers to get property under contract, negotiate a PUD agreement. They aren’t the ones that are going to build it. They put a deal together and then they sell it. She again stated it runs with the land. They are talking about the properties that correspond with the 13 PUD agreements are the ones that are vested, be it the current owner or someone else down the line, as long as it is not otherwise prohibited by that agreement from assignment, they are going to get that vested right. Mayor Thomas closed the public hearing and entertained a motion. Councilwoman Rhodes moved to approve Res. 2007-R-01, acknowledging property owners’ rights to construct buildings in excess of 35-feet pursuant to vested Planned Unit Development (PUD) Agreements, second by Councilwoman Lichter . The MOTION CARRIED 5-0 . 8. BOARD APPOINTMENTS A. Animal Control Board Page 27 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 1) Nomination by Councilwoman Lichter to fill a vacated seat due to the expired term of Donna Wagner who seeks reappointment Councilwoman Lichter nominated Donna Wagner for reappointment. Councilwoman Rhodes moved to approve Councilwoman Lichter’s nomination, second by Councilman Vincenzi . The MOTION CARRIED 5-0 . 2) Nomination by Councilwoman Rogers to fill a vacated seat due to the expired term of Karen Mason who seeks reappointment Councilwoman Rogers stated she has reviewed the application for this position and this is on the Citizen Code Enforcement Board. She was informed it was for the Animal Control Board. Councilwoman Rhodes informed her she had one of each. Councilwoman Rhodes asked Councilwoman Rogers if she would like to put it off until the next meeting. Councilwoman Rogers informed her she would like to. Councilwoman Rogers made a motion to put this off until the next meeting so she could review the applications, second by Councilman Vincenzi . The MOTION CARRIED 5-0 . B. Citizen Code Enforcement Board 1) Nomination by Councilwoman Rogers to fill a vacated seat due to the expired term of Ben Wagner who seeks reappointment Councilwoman Rogers stated she has reviewed the applications and she was very impressed with one individual. You don’t often see applications that are typed or where someone has signed up for one board, which tells her that is their passion. Councilwoman Rogers nominated Alice Haldeman . She further commented on speaking to Ms. Haldeman, who has been trying to get on the board since September 2003. Page 28 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 Councilman Vincenzi seconded the nomination . The MOTION CARRIED 5-0 . 2) Nomination by Councilman Vincenzi to fill a vacated seat due to the expired term of Linda Johnson who seeks reappointment Councilman Vincenzi nominated Linda Johnson to be reappointed . He then asked if any board usually comes up with their own recommendation instead of just a request from the individual to be reappointed. He didn’t see that in there. Councilwoman Lichter stated it isn’t required because it is the Council’s decision to maket he phone call and talk to the people. The Nomination was seconded by Councilwoman Rhodes . The MOTION CARRIED 5-0 . 9. OTHER BUSINESS A. Agreement for Legal Services – staff recommending approval of the Agreement with Doran, Wolfe, Ansay & Kundid to provide services as City Attorney with authorization by the Mayor This item was discussed earlier on the agenda. B. Agreement for Special Counsel – staff recommending approval of a Fourth Amendment to Agreement for Retention of Special Counsel on an as-needed basis with Foley & Lardner, LLP (rather than as City Attorney) with authorization by the Mayor City Manager Williams made a staff presentation. He stated this is to provide those services outside the scope of the current contract that you just executed with Doran, Wolfe, Ansay & Kundid, the new City Attorney for representation on such issues like on-going litigation, representation for issues of bond counsel and issues of legal documents surrounding any debt issuances that we may do, representation on real estate matters including ParkTowne and representation on matters where the new city attorney may have potentially have a conflict. If you would like to address any of those areas where our new firm does not Page 29 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 represent us please feel free, otherwise staff would request that Council approve the amendment authorizing Foley and Lardner to remain on as special counsel as needed. Mayor Thomas stated he thought there was going to be some discussion so they would go in roll call order. He asked Councilwoman Rogers if she had any questions or discussion. Councilwoman Rogers stated her first concern was Foley & Lardner being located out of Orlando. The law firm we will now have representing us, Mrs. Ansay’s group, they’re out of Daytona Beach. She asked City Attorney Ansay if they had worked with Foley & Lardner before? City Attorney Ansay stated not the current City Attorney but that she had worked with the firm before. Councilwoman Rogers commented on why she wasn’t for this recommendation for a lot of reasons. Some she feels have been mislead or misleading legal advice in the past and would like to look further and perhaps find a law firm that could handle these extra services. One that our current attorneys would also feel comfortable with and she felt they needed to put this off and seek further legal counsel. City Manager Williams stated he wanted to point out one question that may help facilitate Council’s discussion, with regards to ongoing issues, for instance ParkTowne, several years of transactions and items to research if they decide that they walk away from Foley altogether, at least consider keeping them on staff to get them through some of these items that they have many, many years of experience working from a cost perspective because any new firm that they bring into this picture is going to spend a tremendous amount of time and we’re going to spend a tremendous amount of money in allowing them just to research and get up to speed on these issues. Councilman Vincenzi stated they know how he feels about Foley & Lardner and they have had discussions about them and he’s not happy with Foley & Lardner and that is one of the reasons he suggested they go out and seek new legal counsel. He feels that the new attorney, whatever they feel they don’t have the expertise to handle, they should be able to find a firm that can handle issues that come up and it should be with their knowledge because they should Page 30 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 be involved in all City affairs. He was not in favor of 9B, agreement for special counsel, retaining Foley & Lardner for special services. Councilwoman Rhodes asked how would that work if City Attorney Ansay can’t do something. Would she find an attorney that she could work with and would it be her choice or is it going to be the Council’s choice? Councilman Vincenzi stated they could bring back a recommendation. Councilwoman Rhodes asked what’s going to be the policy on that and if they could do that without an RFP? Councilman Vincenzi stated we’re hiring her firm. Councilwoman Rhodes stated but we did it with an RFP. That is what she is trying to find out. She feels they should be able to hire any attorney they want to for any job they want to but they can’t so that was what she was trying to find out. Councilman Vincenzi stated we hired her. If she can’t handle it, or her firm doesn’t have the expertise to handle it, then she can go out and find an attorney that can handle it. Councilwoman Rhodes stated that’s what she was asking her and City Manager Williams doesn’t think you can do it. City Manager Williams stated he thought they were entering into separate professional services agreements for whatever issue that may be out there and that’s why you have a special counsel proposal but he was going to let City Attorney Ansay answer that. City Attorney Ansay stated she’d be the first to say she wouldn’t necessarily want any exclusive responsibility for picking a lawyer for the City. She feels that’s a very personal service and so to the degree that the City has a need for counsel in an area that they are not representing the City in, the City needs to make the final call, if there was some setup where she could provide input as to names and that kind of thing, that they can do. There is, interestingly in Florida law, no specific requirements that you issue an RFP for purposes of retaining lawyers. Page 31 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 Lawyers are exempt. It’s not like engineers and other professional services where you have to go out and comply with statutory procedures with notice and that kind of thing. So that’s one issue. She felt one thing that she knew of personally because it came up this week that City Manager Williams didn’t mention is that Foley is currently at least she thought on one if not two ongoing litigation matters involved and they’ve been handling them. She didn’t know that it’s Paul Rosenthal. She thought they may have another attorney in the firm, Mary Solik, but when they talked about her transition because they do handle litigation they’re handling the new suit that was filed and when they talked about the transition those were areas for instance where they thought it would be more cost effective because they were almost finished or otherwise wrapping up then for the City to pay them to come up to speed, they have to file pleadings with the court to get them substituted as counsel and get them off the case officially things like that that would actually cost the City money, that was the call they made in that instance just figuring it made more financial sense. On terms of the real estate work, which primarily consists of ParkTowne, once that’s through there would be no other transactional work, might not be of course things could come up as sellers they would have but again they don’t do real estate in the way that Foley does in terms of the transactional work so be it not them, it would have to be someone else. Councilwoman Rhodes stated we don’t have to use them. City Attorney Ansay stated right, exactly. There are many lawyers in Volusia County and quite frankly in Southeast Volusia that do real estate work but there is a tremendous amount there and quite frankly she is still coming up to speed on it but again if Council decides they want someone else she could work with them and help in that regard. Councilwoman Rhodes stated because we have this agreement doesn’t mean we have to use Foley & Lardner City Attorney Ansay stated right. Councilman Vincenzi stated this second agreement says retain Foley & Lardner as special counsel. Page 32 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 City Manager Williams stated that’s right. For those issues we direct them to represent the City on that are outside the scope of services here. Councilwoman Rhodes stated special counsel, whenever you want to use them. Councilman Vincenzi stated he didn’t want Foley & Lardner. He doesn’t like them. City Manager Williams stated many, many ongoing issues. Councilman Vincenzi stated if they’re handling something like one or two lawsuits that are in progress and ongoing them he’ll compromise and say keep them for those one or two issues but any future new issues he doesn’t want any dealings with them. City Manager Williams stated he understood where Council was coming from and if they feel like they can get the interests that we need, he pointed out that when they issued these letters of interests, they didn’t have a whole lot of people running through the door to represent us. Councilwoman Rhodes stated a lot of people wanted to be our attorney. Councilwoman Lichter stated she thought that City Attorney Ansay is an excellent firm. She knew them from the Water Authority. If there is something that is in progress with Foley & Lardner, if it’s in progress, if they’ve been in court, if they’ve done research, she agreed with Councilman Vincenzi that they should keep them. If it is a new subject and City Attorney Ansay’s firm doesn’t handle it, if it’s a new real estate or new something they don’t handle, she feels they should go for a different lawyer then Foley & Lardner. That would be her recommendation. A nearby lawyer, a lawyer that City Attorney Ansay might suggest 3 of them to them, someone she has worked with in the past on those matters, real estate or whatever it happens to be. She has not been particularly satisfied with our previous legal representation but she doesn’t think you change horses in the middle of a case, in the middle of a stream if it’s in court or something. She feels they should finish those up as quickly as they can. Anything new that comes along that City Attorney Ansay’s firm does Page 33 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 not handle, let’s get her help in selecting someone she has worked with in the past. That would be her recommendation. Councilwoman Rogers stated very well and she agreed with that. Mayor Thomas concurred with that. Councilwoman Rhodes also concurred. Mayor Thomas entertained a motion. Councilwoman Lichter made a motion that for all purposes stated in their contract, they deal with Carolyn and her firm. That Foley & Lardner only represent us in the cases they have already started, done research in and are in court and anything that Carolyn’s firm does not handle, that they ask her advice for a name of a few lawyers. City Manager Williams stated that motion only referenced litigation. For instance, with all the bad feelings with ParkTowne and the ongoing issues, he asked Councilwoman Lichter if she was describing they no longer want Foley & Lardner to represent them. Councilwoman Lichter stated she was asking City Attorney Ansay if her firm could handle those things they have discussed tonight or if that wasn’t in her domain. City Attorney Ansay stated certainly anything related to the land use issues, the litigation associated with ParkTowne, if they are talking about strictly the lawyers that transact real estate and do the documents to transfer that real estate, should you sell it, should you sell portions of it, that is something they don’t do and something they don’t want to do. Councilwoman Lichter stated so now they have a little slip here that doesn’t fit into what she said. She was talking about real estate and ParkTowne and asked how involved we are with them and what part of it Carolyn can handle. Is there a part of it they can’t handle? City Attorney Ansay stated right, the transactional part. Drafting the documents to transfer out real estate they would not do. Mayor Thomas asked City Attorney Ansay if she was going to recommend somebody she could work with. City Attorney Ansay stated if Council would want to switch to another law Page 34 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 firm other than Foley, she could certainly give them a name. Councilwoman Lichter asked how deep they are into that situation. City Manager Williams stated they have represented us from day one with every real estate transaction that he knows that has taken place out there. Councilwoman Lichter stated so that is the decision now they have to make with real estate. City Manager Williams stated do whatever Council’s pleasure is but he pointed out to Council that if they have to go back and research, they are going to spend a tremendous amount of money. Councilwoman Lichter stated she was going to put the new attorney on the spot. She asked City Attorney Ansay if she thought it would be wise financially and in generally good legal practice to stick with whom we have on real estate matters. City Attorney Ansay stated she couldn’t answer the question as to financially because the Council has to determine who they want to work with. If they are only looking at the financial issue, clearly keeping Foley on to handle the ParkTowne work is going to be the most cost beneficial. Councilwoman Lichter stated and the work can go on for how many years. City Attorney Ansay stated it depends what the City ultimately decides to do. Councilwoman Lichter stated for now perhaps they could vote that and if circumstances change and their attitude changes and circumstances at ParkTowne changes, that could be changed. Mayor Thomas stated the way he has the motion. Councilwoman Lichter stated she has left out real estate. Councilwoman Rogers stated she had something to say along this. The real estate, how many acres do we have left in ParkTowne for sale, twenty? City Manager Williams stated 83+. Councilwoman Rogers stated that would be the only reason why they would need Foley & Lardner to represent Page 35 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 them on those future sales because they could not. They have been around since the very beginning. Her experience in the past working in law firms is that once something is researched and billed if it sits dormant and you aren’t acting upon what you have researched and two years goes and three years goes, you end up having to go back and research it again because things change. People don’t remember it. Therefore we are going to be billed for it anyways. What was researched, the findings of that, would have already been given to the City. The City should have files and records with that information and here they would have to pay Foley to go back and refresh themselves on what they previously researched and we would be charged verses hiring another law firm to review what they previously researched. They may have another take on it. No two attorneys are alike. Therefore what was initially proposed have them complete what lawsuits and issues they are working on currently. They only need to worry about the real estate and the contracts on the 83+ acres we have futuristically to be sold. They can come up with a list of attorneys. They can run them past you. You can give us a list of attorney. We aren’t selling anything right now. We are trying to but do we have anybody beating down the door trying to buy from us. City Manager Williams informed her we had two and that was a discussion item tonight under his reports. Mayor Thomas stated they have a motion on the floor to retain Foley & Lardner for the litigation that is in progress and to the real estate matters in ParkTowne, the way he understood the motion. He asked Councilwoman Lichter if this was correct. Councilwoman Lichter informed him she had eliminated, did not include, the real estate. She thinks for the moment that is how she would put the motion and she thinks that part could be changed. She thinks whatever they have started plus the real estate, if they aren’t going to charge us for traveling here, that is another expense, that she would leave it in there. If they vote that down, then it will come out of there. That is how she would leave it. Mayor Thomas stated so the litigation matters and the real estate with ParkTowne. Page 36 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 Councilwoman Lichter stated yes because she thinks they are going to wrap that up pretty rapidly. Mayor Thomas asked if there was a second. Councilwoman Rhodes seconded the motion. Mayor Thomas stated there is a motion on the floor and a second. He asked for roll call. The MOTION CARRIED 3-2. Councilwoman Rogers and Councilman Vincenzi voted NO . 10. OFFICER REPORTS A. City Clerk Wadsworth had nothing at this time. B. City Attorney City Attorney Ansay stated she appreciated the Council placing their confidence in her. She looked forward to representing the City of Edgewater. She hopes to dialogue individually with the Council. She is always available and she felt it was beneficial particularly with issues that are legal in nature and potentially or even currently in litigation, if there are questions she has she could talk to them before Council meetings. City Attorney Ansay stated they are currently under a deadline to respond to the complaint filed by Mr. Zeller th and Mr. Greene. They have until the 16 of this month. The comments that were made by Council as well as comments and conversations she had earlier today with counsel for the plaintiff of that lawsuit were that they are very happy that the resolution on tonight’s agenda was being considered by the City but as stated earlier, that in and of itself does not make their lawsuit go away. They don’t believe that alone grants them what they feel needs to be solidified in terms of their vested rights. Unfortunately, they aren’t going to run out tomorrow and dismiss the lawsuit because of the action the Council has taken, which was in a sense to say they declare and find that they have vested rights. They believe that given what can be ambiguous language in the Charter Amendment that arguably a court of law has to make the determination that they have vested rights. That is Council doesn’t have that authority. She differed. She felt there was a very strong Page 37 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 language made to her made based on the Charter language that they do have the authority to make that determination. They can’t make it without a legal basis but they do have that authority. What they need to resolve is how the City would like to proceed in responding to the litigation and trying to address this question of whether or not they have the authority to make the determination they made in the resolution and that be enough so that they don’t have other property owners saying the resolution was nice but now they have to sue them to so they can get a court to say those vested rights really do exist. She recommended to Council to respond to the complaint as they are required to do by th the 16 and that they either work out with the plaintiff’s a method by which they would amend it so they would specifically in there ask the court to grant some sort of declaratory decree that this Council has the authority to make a determination whether vested rights exist that not every case has to come to court or alternatively they respond to their complaint and they in themselves file a counter petition and say yes judge they are asking you to do all of these things. We think they have vested rights. We think that the measure is constitutional but we also want you to tell us we have the authority under the amendment to enact the resolution they did and make these determinations. The whole point being on a go forward basis they want to be in a position where they do not have to sit and wait and see if every property owner is going to file suit because they are questioning whether the Council has that authority. If a court rules they do it is shut down and it is over from that point forward and property owners can rely on it. The City doesn’t have to continue to incur costs as every property owner files litigation. She needed direction from Council that when they respond to their complaint that they are acknowledging they have vested rights, which essentially they have done tonight by the resolution. They are going to take a position that they believe they are going to defend the Charter Amendment in that they believe it to be legal, constitutional, and not contrary to State Law and also that they think Council has the authority to make those decisions. All of the Councilmembers concurred. Councilwoman Lichter had a question on when they discuss legal matters. Maybe it is only a court case or something particularly going on. It seemed like that was the one Page 38 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 time they didn’t have to act with the rules of Sunshine. She asked when that type of thing kicks in. City Attorney Ansay stated there is a very limited exception to Florida Sunshine Law that allows local governments to meet outside of the Sunshine for two purposes. The first is for purposes of settlement negotiations and discussion. The second is for litigation expenditures and budgeting. It is very, very narrow. Amazingly the law doesn’t provide for them to meet in executive session to just get the attorney’s strategy on the lawsuit. They have to do that technically in the public eye. Councilwoman Lichter stated it is much narrower than she thought. City Attorney Ansay commented on many cities and many city attorneys violating that rule every day. They take a very strict approach to it. The law is very clear and the authority on it is very clear. To violate the Sunshine is a criminal issue she doesn’t want to be involved with and she doesn’t want to the Council to be involved with. They take it pretty seriously. C. City Manager City Manager Williams thanked the Council for approving City Attorney Ansay’s contract and to thank their firm for responding to the Letter of Interest. If they had not done so, they would be in a very vicarious position at this point in time. He reiterated City Attorney Ansay’s point that Council reach out to her or himself in advance of the meetings to discuss any potential agenda items to issues they have. 1) ParkTowne Industrial Center Phase II Land Purchase City Manager Williams stated he has attached a memo to the agenda packet, which identifies where we were with ParkTowne Industrial Park, where we have come and the issues they are facing at the present. The Council had set a goal for him to initiate the sale of the remaining acreage of ParkTowne and in an effort to do that one of the first things they had to do was establish a price if you will, to have the property appraised to see what the value is in an undeveloped state. That is the process by which they looked at this. If they were to put in the Page 39 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 infrastructure they would have to price it at one value. If they didn’t what is the value at? Loveless or Ponce Agency and Robert Loveless did the actual appraisal and the appraisal came in establishing the estimated market value at $70,574.00 per acre or $5.9 million. Throughout this he has had a number of inquiries from folks that have been interested in the remaining acreage and at the time of the printing of the agenda they had one firm letter of intent by NAI Real Vest and he has attached that. As of this morning, we have received a second offer, which leads them to the end discussion is that he needs Council to provide him direction on establishing the minimum price they want to sell the property for and whether or not they want him to issue an RFI, Request for Inquiries, for those folks that may want to come out and offer a purchase on the property or do they want him to pursue an auctioneer service to evaluate a bulk sale. The attached appraisal or the attached letter of intent provides for a cash offer of $3.6 million on the remaining 83+ acres, which is well below the market value. He asked Council to keep in mind that they are asking somebody to take the development rights, the infrastructure costs. In trying to achieve their goal, what is their goal? Is their goal to at least get out of debt with what is remaining on the books and what would that free up. He provided that in a memo. If Council were to look at this and say move forward and further negotiate and sell this property, if they were to close this fiscal year it would free up $676,000 going into the next budget, significant money. With that, he needed Council direction. Councilwoman Lichter stated they are sitting there with one offer and she didn’t know the second offer. City Manager Williams informed them the second offer was before them. Also the representative from NIA Real Vest, John Wickert was there if they had any questions of him. He has been so gracious to go out and market this property and has found a cash buyer. Councilwoman Lichter stated she didn’t like making decisions when she gets. City Manager Williams stated he wasn’t asking them to make a decision on the sale. He was asking the Council to provide him direction if they want him to go out for an RFP or do they want him to go out and pursue. Page 40 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 Councilwoman Lichter stated she would want him to negotiate the price we were offered. They are talking $2.3 million less then what we are asking for. She doesn’t know if they are supposed to be talking business or not and she was going to tell him to go back and ask for another million dollars and she doesn’t like the six months, three would be enough. If this is the kind of matter you can talk about in another room she would be very happy to do that. She doesn’t want to make a decision until she reads the new one. City Manager Williams stated what they need is for Council to establish a minimum price and give him direction as to whether or not they want him to issue an RFP to solicit potential investors to come in and make offers to bring back to Council for them to decide which one is best or do they want him to pursue an auctioneer to evaluate a bulk sale. Councilwoman Rhodes asked him why he couldn’t do all three. Councilwoman Lichter stated she doesn’t want to look desperate in the sale of this land because she thinks we have a good product. Councilwoman Rogers stated and she doesn’t want to sell something for $2.3 million below what the market price is. If she had $3.6 million and the City would be willing to sell her that land, sure she would do it and then turn around and sell it for the market price. So she isn’t for that. City Manager Williams stated if they issue an RFP they are going to send this out and it will say they have 83 acres they want to sell. At some point he needs the Council to say this is our bottom line. Make your best offer and they will bring it back to Council and they determine that. Councilwoman Rogers stated normally if someone is looking to sell a home, they get an appraisal and they use that as their starting point and City Manager Williams said they have a market value of $5.9 million. That is their starting point. City Manager Williams asked if Council wanted to provide any additional input on that. He stated they are asking somebody to come in here and they are saying they are going Page 41 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 to sell this land and again keep in mind what the goal is. He isn’t telling them they should sell it for less but they are asking them to put in the infrastructure and the roads. The reason why we aren’t doing that is because it is too costly to do that. Councilwoman Rogers stated they shouldn’t have been doing it in the first place. Councilwoman Rhodes stated that is another ship that sailed. At $4.5 million we would recoup Base Leg so she feels at the very least that should be the very least they would accept. Councilwoman Rogers feels they need to start at the market price because somebody is going to come back and try to dicker them down and they need to start at the $5.9 million. Councilwoman Lichter asked how long ago they did the appraisal. City Manager Williams informed her they just received it in October or November. Mayor Thomas agreed with Councilwoman Rhodes. They are going to have of having to put in the infrastructure, water, sewer and roads. Councilwoman Rhodes stated you get as much as you can but you get no less than $4.5 million. City Manager Williams stated he wasn’t saying they are going to take that price. He thinks they are establishing the minimum amount and if someone comes in and offers $8 million then they have the opportunity to do that. Mayor Thomas stated they needed a consensus. City Manager Williams stated on the RFP or auctioneer. Councilwoman Lichter stated in essence that is what she said, another million more. Mayor Thomas stated so City Manager Williams needs a consensus of $4.5 million. Mayor Thomas asked Councilman Vincenzi. He stated that sounded good to him. City Manager Williams asked that that be put into a motion. Page 42 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 Councilwoman Rhodes made a motion that the least amount of money they accept for ParkTowne be $4.5 million for the 83+ acres they have left . City Manager Williams asked if they wanted him to do an RFP or an auction. Councilwoman Rhodes stated and she wanted City Manager Williams to investigate both of them and see which would be the more cost efficient and more likely to get us more money. Councilwoman Lichter stated and she wanted to reconsider six months. Mayor Thomas stated there is a motion on the floor. Councilwoman Lichter suggested they do one part at a time. Councilwoman Rhodes made a motion that $4.5 million be the least amount of money they accept for the 83+ acres left in ParkTowne, second by Councilwoman Lichter . The MOTION CARRIED 4-1. Councilwoman Rogers voted NO. Mayor Thomas informed Council now they needed a motion to do an RFP or an auction. Mayor Thomas suggested the RFP. Councilwoman Rhodes stated she didn’t know enough about the auction to be knowledgeable about it. She asked if they could have some information about it. City Manager Williams stated he knew of one or two cities that have done it but he didn’t have a whole lot of information for Council at this point. Councilwoman Rhodes asked if they could put this part off until he can get them some more information. Councilwoman Rogers felt an RFP would be wiser than an auction. At auction people will be standing there with money trying to bid. She feels they stand a better chance with an RFP. Mayor Thomas asked Councilwoman Rogers if she was making a motion. Councilwoman Rogers informed him yes. Mayor Page 43 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 Thomas stated they had a motion on the floor for an RFP. Councilman Vincenzi seconded the motion . The MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 2) Tentative Agenda Items There were no Tentative Agenda Items to be discussed at this time. 11. CITIZEN COMMENTS The following citizens spoke: Carol Ann Stoughton , 2740 Evergreen Drive, thanked City Manager Williams. She finally got what she has been asking for for a long time. If it was read correct, the City is in debt for $45,150,094. City Manager Williams stated every time they make a payment that number would change throughout the year. Ms. Stoughton stated she understood but she wanted it out and hopefully it would make the newspaper. She didn’t know where we stand with other cities of our size. She stated with this debt, is our current operating expense like employees and maintenance included in that. City Manager Williams informed her totally separate issue. When you look at the budget, you have personnel expenditures, operating expenditures and debt expenditures. Ms. Stoughton stated it is more money that is all she wants to get at. She asked if they are still using Professional Engineering Consultants. Ms. Stoughton stated with regard to who was responsible for getting us involved in the ParkTowne Industrial Center. Finally, let’s get out of it. She asked if that wiped out the ten-year debt we are paying on that of over $333,300 per year when the property is sold. She asked who was responsible for shutting down the concrete plant just prior to the election. City Manager Williams informed her that was him. Ms. Stoughton stated that promoted a can of worms that never should have been done. City Manager Williams stated that was at the advice of our attorney obviously trying to work through the height amendment issue and the effects it has on our City. Ms. Stoughton asked if she would be privy to that information that the attorney told Page 44 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 him to do that. City Manager Williams stated that was why th they had the December 11 workshop. Ms. Stoughton asked if she could have a copy of that he advised him to shut it down. City Manager Williams informed her it was verbal. Ms. Stoughton stated maybe if that wasn’t done they wouldn’t have these people having to waste time and expenses and lawsuits. It is a shame someone made that decision. She informed City Manager Williams he could answer the question about P.E.C. Mayor Thomas banged his gavel and informed Ms. Stoughton she was done. Ms. Stoughton stated she didn’t get an answer. City Manager Williams stated yes, we still have on-going projects with P.E.C. and they are working on our stormwater master plan. Yes, there are existing projects out there. Councilwoman Rhodes asked what the other question was. Ms. Stoughton informed her if the debt would be wiped out for $333,000 for ten years. Councilwoman Rhodes stated that that was the Base Leg Drive debt. City Manager Williams stated that was Base Leg Drive. They discussed that at great length during the budget workshops that that was something the City was obligated for. He felt with the decision that Council has just made, assuming that we can attract somebody here to make us an offer and we get $4.5 million, they should be able to pay off the remaining debt and potentially pay for the debt associated with Base Leg Drive. Dave Ross , 2803 Needle Palm Drive, stated he understood from the Attorney that she thinks the City has a right to be an RPUDee and an RPUDer at the same time. In other words, the City has the right to sign our own RPUD agreement. He feels if they are going to sell this property with those in there and rights given to the buyer, they better have that judge that they are recommending say the City has the right to be the “ee” and the “er” at the same time. He can see a huge can of worms. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Councilwoman Rhodes moved to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:47 p.m. Page 45 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007 Minutes submitted by: Lisa Bloomer Page 46 of 46 Council Regular Meeting January 8, 2007