Loading...
03-12-01 v ✓ V O o MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ATLANTIC T T BEACH CITY COMMISSION HELD IN CITY HALL,800 SEMINOLE E E ROAD AT 7:15 P.M. ON MONDAY,MARCH 12, 2001 • S S PRESENT: John Meserve, Mayor Richard Beaver, Mayor Pro Tern Mike Borno Theo Mitchelson Dezmond Waters, Commissioners AND: James Hanson, City Manager M S Alan C. Jensen, City Attorney 0 E Maureen King, City Clerk T c I O Y O NEN N D S 0 COMMISSIONERS The meeting was called to order by Mayor Meserve at 7:15 p.m. The Invocation, was given by Commissioner Borno followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 1. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting held • February 26, 2001 The minutes were unanimously approved as presented. 2. Courtesy of the floor to visitors: Pat Pillmore of 995 Camelia Street inquired or commented on the following items: (1) Commented that the right merge lane under construction from Mayport Road onto Atlantic Boulevard appeared to be narrow and inquired if a bike path would be included. City Manager Hanson suggested that she review the plans at the Public Works Department, (2) hoped the dock would be included in the first phase of Dutton Island construction, and(3) inquired when construction would begin on the improvements to the intersection of Plaza and Mayport Road. Mayor Meserve indicated that as of this time a definite date had not been set. Bob Totter of 275 11`h Street inquired or commented on the following items: (1) Commented on the need for voting districts in Atlantic Beach and presented demographics supporting his position, (2) commented on the Government Corner column in the recent issue of Tideviews and (3) inquired regarding the type of material which would be used to resurface 0 the tennis courts (Item 4B). Scott Owens of 1911 Creekside Circle praised the efforts of the Selva M S O E T C Minutes Page -2- I 0 Y March 12, 2001 ONE N • COMMISSIONERS N D S 0 Marina Streets Committee and thanked them for their work. He urged the Commission to accept their recommendations (Item 5C). Jay Solomon of 485 Saturiba Drive also thanked the Selva Marina Streets Committee and stated that he was happy to see some action finally being taken regarding the streets and drainage problems in his area. A. Arbor Day Proclamation Mayor Meserve read the Proclamation in its entirety, proclaiming March 31, 2001 as Arbor Day in the City of Atlantic Beach. 3. Unfinished Business from Previous Meeting A. Follow-up report from the regular meeting of February 26, 2001 (City Manager) City Manager Hanson summarized his written report and commented on the following: • Meeting with YMCA and Join Together Jacksonville -Joint funding for Feasibility Study for Community Center City Manager Hanson reported that he met with representatives from the YMCA and Join Together Jacksonville on Wednesday, March 7th to discuss the need for a community center, as well as joint funding of a feasibility study. He indicated that the meeting was well attended and the representatives agreed that a community center was needed, especially one that would provide good, positive programs for teenagers. It was reported that the feasibility study would cost approximately $25,000, and each agency agreed to investigate funding sources for the study. City Manager Hanson hoped to have information regarding funding the study in two weeks. City Attorney Legal Opinion - Continued Use of Purvis and Gray for Audit Services City Attorney Jensen summarized his opinion and stated that it would not be legal for the city to exclude the company from bidding on future audit contracts, but procedures could be adopted and followed to insure equitable distribution of contracts among qualified auditing firms. • City Attorney Jensen advised the city to consider setting up a procedure for future selection of auditing firms. The opinion is attached and made part of this official record as Attachment A. M S O E T C Minutes Page -3- I o Y March 12, 2001 ONEN • COMMISSIONERS N D S 0 4. Consent Agenda Mayor Meserve requested that Item 4B be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. A. Acknowledge receipt of monthly reports from Occupational License, Public Works and Recreation Departments (City Manager) BEAVER X BORNO X X MITCHELSON X X Motion: Approve Consent Agenda Item A as presented. WATERS X MESERVE X There was no discussion and the motion carried unanimously. B. Award Contract to Whalen Tennis Company of Florida for resurfacing five tennis courts at a cost of$12,120 pursuant to BEAVER X the specifications of Bid No. 0001-9 (City Manager) BORNO X X MITCHELSON X Motion: Approve Consent Agenda Item B as recommended. WATERS X X MESERVE X Parks and Recreation Director Johnson explained that the bid was for • resurfacing five existing tennis courts with a product called Plexipave and he was not aware of how the original surface was chosen. It was pointed out that Plexipave would not change the existing surface. There was no discussion and the motion carried unanimously. 5. Committee Reports: A. Nancy DeCandis with report from Cultural Arts Board Nancy DeCandis, Chair of the Cultural Arts Board, requested Commission consideration to extend the contract of First Night Executive Director Kim Armstrong until the organization's 501(c) 3 designation was approved. Ms. DeCandis reported that First Night activities would be held this year. Commissioner Borno inquired concerning a time frame for the approval. City Attorney Jensen indicated it would take approximately ten days for the incorporation to be processed and received from Tallahassee. It was his understanding the IRS procedure could take from 12 to 15 months before formally approving the 501(c) 3 status. However, during this time, First Night could operate as a 501(c) 3 corporation. City Attorney • Jensen further reported that other First Night organizations had received this status and he did not anticipate a denial of the request. Mary Jenkins, President of the First Night Board of Directors, stated that M S O E T C Minutes Page -4- i o v March 12, 2001 ONE N • : COMMISSIONERS N D S 0 Mary Jenkins, President of the First Night Board of Directors, stated that it had been recommended by First Night International that a Board of Directors who would accept fiduciary and legal responsibilities needed to be in place before filing for the 501(c) 3 status. She indicated that there were three citizens on the Board who were very experienced with First Night but not with the fiduciary and legal matters. Commissioner Borno inquired concerning the reluctance to submit the 501(c)3 incorporation. Discussion ensued concerning this matter and Ms. Jenkins indicated that the Board's recent efforts concentrated on setting up a steering committee for this year's event, but they would now turn their efforts to the incorporation process. Commissioner Borno suggested extending the contract for sixty days. Discussion ensued concerning the length of the extension, and Ms. DeCandis suggested that it be extended through the First Night event or until the 501(c) 3 status is received. Commissioner Waters inquired as to the relationship the city would have with the new corporation. Ms. DeCandis stated that this was a concern, • but the Mayor and City Manager assured her the city would support First Night and provide a liaison to the meetings. Commissioner Mitchelson provided background information concerning the city's relationship with First Night and stated the city had supported the event monitarily, but it was always the city's intent that First Night become incorporated and independent from the city. He felt the city would continue to support the event. BEAVER X BORNO X X Motion: Extend Kim Anderson's contract to be Executive MITCHELSON x Director for First Night from February 28, 2001 until January WATERS X X 1, 2002. MESERVE X Mayor Meserve suggested the motion be amended to include "or until the corporation is formed to the point they can assume the function as the employer. Amendment to the motion: Include the following "or until the BEAVER X corporation is formed to the point they can assume the BORNO x x MITCHELSON X function as the employer,whichever comes first". WATERS X MESERVE X X Discussion ensued and Commissioner Mitchelson inquired if a time • certain was implied in the motion that took into consideration a time period after the corporation papers were received in order to make the transition. Mayor Meserve stated that it was his intent for the contract to be extended until the corporation paperwork was received back from M S O E T C Minutes Page -5- I o Y March 12, 2001 ONE N IIICOMMISSIONERS N D S S 0 Borno felt the First Night organization should complete the paperwork for the 501(c)3 designation, submit the documents and when it comes back they should stand on their own, have their own employee and run their own organization. The city could then contract with them to hold the event, which could be covered during budget discussions. Commissioner Waters stated that he was unaware of the financial situation of First Night and felt it was best to extend the contract to the January 1, 2002 date. It was reported that First Night had $39,000.00 in funds. There was no further discussion and the amendment to the motion carried by a four to one vote with Mayor Meserve and Commissioners Beaver, Borno and Mitchelson voting aye and Commissioner Waters voting nay. The main motion carried unanimously. B. DeJean Melancon with report from Recreation Advisory Board Mr. Melancon was not present. The written report was accepted as • submitted. No action was taken. C. Commissioner Borno with Report of the Selva Marina Streets Committee Commissioner Borno recognized the members of the Selva Marina Streets Committee and thanked City Manager Hanson, Public Works Director Kosoy and Susan Dunham for all of their work culminating in the report. Commissioner Borno read the report in its entirety while Bob Kosoy coordinated a Powerpoint presentation showing the need for the proposed improvements in the area. The report is attached and made part of this official record as Attachment B. Keith Falt of 1840 North Sherry Drive, who served on the committee, praised the efforts of everyone involved. He felt the committee worked well together and had come up with a good, logical proposal to the city. He urged the Commission to move forward with their recommendation. Bill Mayhew of 1870 North Sherry Drive, who served on the committee, also supported the recommendation. He indicated that his 0 neighbors also supported the proposed improvements. Discussion ensued and a public hearing was set for Monday, April 2, 2001 at Atlantic Beach Elementary School, if the facility was available. M S O E T C Minutes Page -6- i o Y March 12, 2001 ONEN • COMMISSIONERS N D S 0 Mayor Meserve indicated that all affected property owners would receive a copy of the report and a notice of the meeting. Mayor Meserve thanked the committee members for their work. Commissioner Beaver left the Commission Chambers at this time. 6. Action on Resolutions: A. Resolution No. 01-05 A RESOLUTION ENCOURAGING THE ENACTMENT OF STATE LEGISLATION REQUIRING THE USE OF SAFETY BELTS, AND PROVIDING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WITH THE AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THE OFFENSES AS PRIMARY VIOLATIONS (Commissioner Mitchelson) BORNO X X MITCHELSON X X Motion: Adopt Resolution No. 01-05. WATERS X MESERVE X There was no discussion and the motion carried unanimously. • (Commissioner Beaver was not present for the vote) B. Resolution No. 01-06 A RESOLUTION FOR ASSISTANCE UNDER THE FLORIDA INLAND NAVIGATION DISTRICT (FIND) WATERWAYS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (for construction of a fishing and viewing pier on Dutton Island) (City Manager) BORNO x x MITCHELSON X X Motion: Adopt Resolution No. 01-06. WATERS X MESERVE X There was no discussion and the motion carried unanimously. (Commissioner Beaver was not present for the vote) Commissioner Beaver re-entered the Commission Chambers at this time. 7. Action on Ordinances: A. Ordinance No. 90-01-170 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 24, ZONING AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS,ARTICLE III, ZONING REGULATIONS, DIVISION 7, SUPPLEMENTARY • REGULATIONS, SECTION 24-167, SITE PLAN REVIEW, TO PROVIDE FOR STORMWATER DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE M S O E Minutes Page -7- I 0 Y March 12, 2001 ON E N III COMMISSIONERS N D S 0 Mayor Meserve read the ordinance by title only. BEAVER X BORNO X X Motion: Adopt Ordinance No. 90-01-170 on final reading. MITCHELSON X WATERS X X Mayor Meserve opened the floor for a public hearing and invited MESERVE X comments from the audience. No one spoke for or against the ordinance, and the Mayor declared the public hearing closed. There was no discussion and the motion carried unanimously. 8. Miscellaneous Business: A. Public hearing and action on an application for a Use-by- Exception filed by David and Rebecca Henry to operate a cabinet shop at the corner of Mayport Road and Jackson Road (City Manager) Motion: Accept recommendation of the Community BEAVER X X Development Board and approve the use-by-exception filed BORNO X X • by David and Rebecca Henry to operate a cabinet shop at the MITCHELSON X corner of Mayport and Jackson Roads in the CG Commercial WATERS x MESERVE X General District. (Subject to the conditions that(1)the business hours of operation be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., only, (2) that all parking, setback and landscaping requirements of the code be met, and (3) that the driveway entrance to the parking lot be from Jackson Road only with no curb cuts on Mayport Road, (4) that the exception be granted to the applicant only and (5) for this location only). Mayor Meserve opened the floor for a public hearing. No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to the use-by-exception request. Commissioner Borno confirmed that the following stipulations were included in the motion: that the exception be granted to the applicant only and for this location only. Community Development Director Worley responded that those requirements were implicit in any use-by-exception recommendation from the Community Development Board and were always part of the Board's recommendation. There was no further discussion and the motion carried unanimously. BEAVER X BORNO X X 41, B. Action on an application to operate a tattoo business at 1195 WATERS MITCHEL SON X X X Mayport Road (City Clerk) MESERVE X Motion: Approve the application to operate a tattoo business M S O E T C Minutes Page -8- 1 0 Y March 12, 2001 ONEN IIIII COMMISSIONERS N D S 0 at 1195 Mayport Road. Commissioner Borno inquired if all required Health Department documents had been received. City Clerk King confirmed that they had been received. There being no further discussion, the motion carried unanimously. C. Appointment to the Pension Board to fill the unexpired term of Cindy Anderson (Mayor) Mayor Meserve nominated Robert Lipscomb to fill the unexpired terms of Cindy Anderson on the General Employee and Police Pension Boards. BEAVER X X BORNO X X Motion: Approve the appointment of Robert Lipscomb to fill MITCHELSON X the unexpired terms of Cindy Anderson on the General WATERS X Employees and Police Pension Boards. MESERVE X There was no discussion and the motion carried unanimously. • D. Authorize the Mayor to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with Atlantic Beach Elementary School to use part of the school grounds for recreational and educational purposes (City Manager) Motion: Authorize the Mayor to execute a Memorandum of BEAVER X Understanding with Atlantic Beach Elementary School to use BORNO X MITCHELSON X X part of the school grounds for recreational and educational WATERS X X purposes. MESERVE X Commissioner Mitchelson requested that a correction be made to Exhibit B, Item 2, to remove "daylight savings time" and replace it with "eastern standard time." Commissioner Borno requested that a correction be made to Section 7, Signage of the agreement to remove "City of Jacksonville" and replace it with "City of Atlantic Beach". It was agreed to make these minor changes in the wording of the agreement. Commission Beaver stated that under Section 3, Maintenance of the agreement, the city would be responsible to maintain improvements installed on the property. He then referenced Exhibit C Improvements by the City, which included sod, and expressed concern that it would be • misunderstood that the city would be maintaining the fields. He stated that it was his understanding that the School Board would continue to mow and maintain the fields since the sod would be installed after the grading was finished. It was suggested that "Sod for field areas" in M S O E T C Minutes Page -9- I o Y March 12, 2001 ONEN • COMMISSIONERS N D S 0 Exhibit C be changed to "Sod for disturbed areas". Discussion ensued and it was agreed that to avoid further delays, Commissioner Beaver's concerns would be addressed in the cover letter included with the agreement. There was no more discussion and the motion carried unanimously. E. Authorize the Mayor to sign all paperwork for the 2001 Law Enforcement Block Grant(City Manager) BEAVER X X BORNO X X Motion: Authorize the Mayor to sign all paperwork for the MITCHELSON x 2001 Law Enforcement Block Grant. WATERS X MESERVE X There was no discussion and the motion carried unanimously. F. Authorize staff to enter into negotiations with Ivey Harris and Walls to assist in the completion of the Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report BEAVER X • Motion: Authorize staff to enter into negotiations with Ivey BORNO X X Harris and Walls to assist in the completion of the MITCHELSON X X WATERS X Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report. MESERVE X Commissioner Borno inquired as to a deadline for submittal of the Comprehensive Plan to the state. Community Development Director Worley explained that there was no specific deadline, however,there were voluntary amendments to the Comprehensive Plan which could not be carried out until this process was completed. There was no more discussion and the motion carried unanimously. G. Authorize the City Manager to sign the Class 10 Ballot accepting the Chapter 11 Plan of Liquidation in the GRIT bankruptcy BEAVER X X BORNO X X Motion: Authorize the City Manager to sign the Class 10 MITCHELSON X Ballot accepting the Chapter 11 Plan of Liquidation in the WATERS X GRIT bankruptcy. MESERVE X City Manager Hanson provided detailed background information on the • bankruptcy. He explained that accepting the Chapter 11 Plan of Liquidation would not reduce the city's liability, but would result in the city receiving the maximum reimbursement from GRIT assets. He indicated that the amount of GRIT assets and the city's share of those M S O E T C Minutes Page -10- 1 0 Y March 12, 2001 ONE N • COMMISSIONERS N D S 0 indicated that the amount of GRIT assets and the city's share of those assets were unknown at this time, but the City Attorney had recommended that the city accept and sign the ballot. Commissioner Mitchelson stated that it was his understanding the city would also be responsible for a pro-rata share of all of the losses and inquired if this was correct. City Manager Hanson confirmed this as correct, and stated it was felt there would be enough funds remaining in the GRIT balance after its losses were paid to give the city a credit toward its own losses, and any remaining balance would be paid by the city. There was no further discussion and the motion carried unanimously. 9. City Manager Reports: City Manager Hanson reported on the following items: • Reported there would be a luncheon for Scott Maddox, President • of the Florida League of Cities, on Monday, March 19`h at noon at the Sea Turtle Inn. • Reported that the City now owned Regulus Drive and he would ask the City of Jacksonville to abandon the right-of-way. He indicated the City of Atlantic Beach would now raise the street to control flooding problems in the area. 10. Reports and/or requests from City Commissioners and City Attorney There were no reports or requests from the City Commissioners or City Attorney. There being no further discussion or busi It. to ome before the Commission, the Mayor declared the me" .__ .dyourned at 9:00 p.m. Ili Att \��, es•rve Mayo ' '-sidi : Officer ATTEST: • Maureen King (� Certified Municipal Cle`r CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH • CITY COMMISSION MEETING March 12, 2001 AGENDA Call to order Invocation and pledge to the flag 1. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Commission Meeting of February 26, 2001 2. Courtesy of Floor to Visitors: A. Arbor Day Proclamation 3. Unfinished Business from Previous Meeting A. Follow-up report from the regular meeting of February 26, 2001 (City Manager) 4. Consent Agenda: ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE CITY COMMISSION AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION IN THE FORM LISTED BELOW. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY • SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COMMISSION ON THESE ITEMS A. Acknowledge receipt of monthly reports from Occupational License, Public Works, and Recreation Departments (City Manager) B. Award contract to Whalen Tennis Company of Florida for resurfacing five tennis courts at a cost of$12,120, pursuant to the specifications of Bid No. 0001-9 (City Manager) 5. Committee Reports: A. Nancy DeCandis with report from Cultural Arts Board B. DeJean Melancon with report from Recreation Advisory Board C. Commissioner Borno with report of the Selva Marina Streets Committee 6. Action on Resolutions: A. Resolution No. 01-05 A RESOLUTION ENCOURAGING THE ENACTMENT OF STATE LEGISLATION REQUIRING THE USE OF SAFETY BELTS, AND PROVIDING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WITH THE AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THE OFFENSES AS PRIMARY VIOLATIONS (Commissioner Mitchelson) B. Resolution No. 01-06 A RESOLUTION FOR ASSISTANCE UNDER THE FLORIDA INLAND • NAVIGATION DISTRICT(FIND) WATERWAYS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (for construction of a fishing and viewing pier on Dutton Island) (City Manager) Amended agenda—Items 5C and 8G added Page Two AGENDA March 12, 2001 4111 7. Action on Ordinances: A. Ordinance No. 90-01-170 - Public Hearing and Final Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 24, ZONING AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, ARTICLE III, ZONING REGULATIONS, DIVISION 7, SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS, SECTION 24-167, SITE PLAN REVIEW, TO PROVIDE FOR STORMWATER DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE 8. Miscellaneous Business: A. Public hearing and action on an application for a Use-by-Exception filed by David and Rebecca Henry to operate a cabinet shop at the corner of Mayport Road and Jackson Road (City Manager) B. Action on an application to operate a tattoo business at 1145 Mayport Road(City Clerk) C. Appointment to the Pension Board to fill the unexpired term of Cindy Anderson (Mayor) D. Authorize the Mayor to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with Atlantic Beach Elementary School to use part of the school grounds for recreational and educational purposes (City Manager) E. Authorize the Mayor to sign all paperwork for the 2001 Law Enforcement Block Grant (City Manager) F. Authorize staff to enter into negotiations with Ivey Harris and Walls to assist in the completion of the Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report (City Manager) G. Authorize the City Manager to sign the Class 10 Ballot accepting the Chapter 11 Plan of Liquidation in the GRIT bankruptcy(City Manager) 9. City Manager Reports: 10. Reports and/or requests from City Commissioners and City Attorney Adjournment If any person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at any meeting,such person may need a record of the proceedings,and,for such purpose,may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,which record shall include the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Any person wishing to speak to the City Commission on any matter at this meeting should submit a request to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. For your convenience,forms for this purpose are available at the entrance to the Commission Chambers. Every effort is made to indicate what action the City Commission is expected to take on each agenda item. However, any agenda subject,regardless of how the matter is stated on the agenda,may be acted upon by the City Commission. • In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 286.26,Florida Statutes,persons with disabilities needing special accommodation to participate in this meeting should contact the City Clerk by 5:00 PM,Friday, March 9,2001. MI ATTACHMENT A MARCH 12, 2001 COMMISSION MEETING • ALAN C.J NSE' Attorney at Law 935 North Third Street Post Office Box 50457 Jacksonville Beach,Florida 32240-0457 Telephone (904)246-2500 Facsimile (904)246-9960 )-Mail: AJenaenLaw®aol.com March 9, 2001 MEMO TO: James R. Hanson, City Manager FROM: Alan C. Jensen, City Attorney (2JC RE: Continued Use of Purvis& Gray for Auditing City Finances You have requested by your Memorandum of February 27, 2001, that I check into any laws that deal with selection of the City auditors and to determine if it is legal for the City to exclude a certain auditing firm from bidding on any future audit contracts for the City. I have reviewed the Florida Statutes on point, searched for applicable case law, and even spoke briefly with • representatives of the Florida Municipal Attorney's Association_ In my opinion, it would not be legal for the City exclude a specific auditing firm, such as Purvis and Gray, from bidding on any future audit contracts. However, procedures can be adopted and followed to insure an equitable distribution of contracts among qualified auditing firms. §11.45, Florida Statutes, applies to the required municipal audits and sets forth various procedures. The City can establish an auditors selection committee and competitive auditors selection procedures, or it may choose to follow the procedures set forth in $11.45. I have enclosed a copy of that statute for your review. In the procedure set forth in §11.45, a committee is appointed to select an auditor and then the selection is made according to the procedure outlined therein. The City must first obtain auditing firms which are qualified, taking into account their capabilities, adequacy of personnel, past record, and experience. The committee also would adopt procedures for evaluating the various firms, shall have discussions with those firms, and may require public presentations by no further than three (3) firms regarding their qualifications, approach to the audit, and ability to furnish the required services. The next step in the procedure would be for the committee to select at least three (3) firms deemed most highly qualified after considering various factors, including the ability of professional personnel, past performance, willingness to meet time requirements, location, work load, and the volume of work previously awarded to the firm by the City with the object of effecting an equitable distribution of contracts among qualified farms, provided that distribution does not violate the • principle of selection of the most highly qualified firms. • James R. Hanson, City Manager Memorandum of March 9, 2001 Page 2 It may be advisable for the City to adopt certain standards or procedure for selection of auditing firms in the future. I understand from Nelson that some cities already have a rotation schedule among auditing firms and that the firms are likely to have five or six year contracts, and then the next firm comes in for five or six years, etc. Obviously, any request for proposals could be tailored in such a fashion to eliminate the problem of one auditing firm saving too many years in a row. If I can provide any further information or assistance in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact me. • Cc: Nelson Van Liere, Finance Director(via fax) • • Page 1 Citation Found Document Rank l of 1 Database FL ST S 11.45 West's F.S.A.§ 11.45 FL-ST-ANN WEST'S FLORIDA STATUTES ANNOTATED TITLE M.LEGISLATIVE BRANCH; COMMISSIONS CHAPTER 11.LEGISLATIVE ORGANIZATION,PROCEDURES,AND STAFFING Copr.©West Group 2001. All rights reserved. Current through End of 2000 2nd Reg.Sess. 11.45.Definitions; duties: audits; reports (I)As used in this section,the term: (a) "County agency," for the exclusive purposes of this section, means a board of county commissioners or other legislative and governing body of a county,however styled, including that of a consolidated or metropolitan government, a clerk of the circuit court,a separate or ex officio clerk of the county court,a sheriff,a property appraiser,a tax collector, a supervisor of elections, or any other officer in whom any portion of the fiscal duties of the above are under law separately placed. Each county agency is a local governmental entity for purposes of subparagraph(3)(a)5. (b) "Financial audit" means an examination of financial statements in order to express an opinion on the fairness with which they present financial position,results of operations,and changes in financial position in conformity with generally • accepted accounting prnroiples and an examination to determine whether operations arc properly conducted in accordance with legal and regulatory requirements. Financial audits must be conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and governmental auditing standards as adopted by the Board of Accountancy. (c) "Governmental entity"means a state agency,a county agency,or any other entity,however styled, that independently exercises any type of state or local governmental function. (d) "Local governmental entity" means a county agency, municipality, or special district as defined in s. 189,403, but does not include any housing authority established under chapter 421. (e)"Management letter"means a:statement of the auditor's comments and recommendations. (f) "Operational audit" means a financial-related audit whose purpose is to evaluate management's performance in administering assigned responsibilities in accordance with applicable laws, administrative rules,and other guidelines and to determine the extent to which the internal control, as designed and placed in operation,promotes and encourages the achievement of management's control objectives in the categories of compliance, economic and efficient operations, reliability of financial records and reports,and safeguarding of assets. (g) -Performance audit"means an examination of a program, activity, or function of a governmental entity,conducted in accordance with applicable government auditing standards or auditing and evaluation standards of other appropriate authoritative bodies. The term includes an examination of issues related to: I. Economy,efficiency,or effectiveness of the program. 2. Structure or design of the program to accomplish its goals and objectives. 3. Adequacy of the program to meet the needs identified by the Legislature or governing body. • 4. Alternative methods of providing program services or products. 5. Goals,objectives,and performance measures used by the agency to monitor and report program accomplishments. Copr. West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works • ?LSTS 11.45 Page 2 6. The accuracy or adequacy of public documents,reports,or requests prepared under the program by state agencies. 7. Compliance of the program with appropriate policies,rules,or laws. 8.Any other issues related to gove one nuiJ entities as directed by the Legislative Auditing Committee. (h) "Political subdivision" means a separate agency or unit of local government created or established by law and includes,but is not limited to,the following and the officers thereof: authority,board,branch,bureau,city,commission, consolidated government,county, department,district,institution,metropolitan government,municipality,office,officer, public corporation,town,or village. (i) 'State agency"means a separate agency or unit of state government created or established by law and includes,but is not limited to,the following and the officers thereof: authority,board,branch,bureau,commission,department,division, institution,office,officer,or public corporation,as the case may be,except any such agency or unit other than the Florida Public Service Commission within the legislative branch of state government. (2)The Auditor General shall make financial audits and performance audits of public records and perform related duties as prescribed by law or concurrent resolution of the Legislature. The Auditor General shall perform his or her duties independently but under the general policies established by the Legislative Auditing Committee. (3)(a)1. The Auditor General shall annually make financial audits of the accounts and records of all state agencies, as defined in this section,of all district school boards in counties with populations of fewer than 125,000,according to the most recent federal decennial statewide census,and of all district boards of trustees of community colleges. The Auditor General shall, at least every other year, make operational audits of the accounts and records of all state agencies, as • defined in this section. The Auditor General shall, at least once every 3 years,make financial audits of the accounts and records of all district school boards in counties with populations of 125,000 or more. For each of the 2 years that the Auditor General does not make the financial audit, each district school board shall contract for an independent certified public accountant to perform a financial audit as defined in paragraph (1)(b). This section does not limit the Auditor General's discretionary authority to conduct performance audits of these governmental entities as authorized in subparagraph 3. A district school board may select an independent certified public accountant to perform a financial audit as defined in paragraph (1)(h) notwithstanding the notification provisions of this section. In addition, a district school board may employ an internal auditor to perform ongoing financial verification of the financial records of a school district, who must report directly to the district school board or its designee. The Auditor General shall, at a minimum, provide to the successor independent certified public accountant of a district school board the prior year's working papers, including documentation of planning, internal control, audit results, and other matters of continuing accounting and auditing significance, such as the working paper analysis of balance sheet accounts and those relating to contingencies. 2. Each charter school established under s. 228.056 shall have an annual financial audit of its accounts and records completed within 12 months after the end of its fiscal year by an independent certified public accountant retained by it and paid from its funds. The independent certified public accountant who is selected to perform an annual financial audit of the charter school shall provide a copy of the audit report to the district school board, the Department of Education, and the Auditor General. A management letter must be prepared and included as a part of each financial audit report. The Auditor General may, pursuant to his or her own authority or at the direction of the Joint Legislative Auditing Committee,conduct an audit of a charter school. 3. The Auditor General may at any time make financial audits and performance audits of the accounts and records of all governmental entities created pursuant to law. The audits referred to in this subparagraph must be made whenever determined by the Auditor General, whenever directed by the Legislative Auditing Committee, or whenever otherwise required by law or concurrent resolution. A district school board,expressway authority,or bridge authority may require that the annual financial audit of as accounts and records be completed within 12 months after the end of its fiscal year. If the Auditor General is unable to meet that requirement,the Auditor General shall notify the school board,the expressway • authority,or the bridge authority pursuant to subparagraph 5. 4. The Office of'Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability within the Office of the Auditor General shall Copr.fir West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works • FL STS 11.45 Page 3 maintain a schedule of performance audits of state programs. In conducting a performance audit of a state program,the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability, when appropriate,shall identify and comment upon alternatives for accomplishing the goals of the program being audited. Such alternatives may include funding techniques and,if appropriate,must describe how other states or governmental units accomplish similar goals, 5. If by July 1 in any fiscal year a district school board or local governmental entity has not been notified that a financial audit for that fiscal year will be performed by the Auditor General pursuant to subparagraph 3.,each municipality with either revenues or expenditures of more than$100,000,each special district with either revenues or expenditures of more than$50,000,and each county agency shall, and each district school board may,require that an annual financial audit of its accounts and records he completed, within 12 months after the end of its respective fiscal year, by an independent certified public accountant retained by it and paid from its public funds. An independent certified public accountant who is selected to perform an annual financial audit of a school district must report directly to the district school board or its designee. A management letter must be prepared and included as a part of each financial audit report. Each local government finance commission,board,or council,and each municipal power corporation,created as a separate legal or administrative entity by interlocal agreement under s. 163 ,01(7), shall provide the Auditor General, within 12 months after the end of its fiscal year, with an annual financial audit report of its accounts and records and a written statement or explanation or rebuttal concerning the auditor's comments,including corrective action to be taken. The county audit shall he one document that includes a separate audit of each county agency. The county audit must include an audit of the deposits into and expenditures from the Public Records Modernization Trust Fund. The Auditor General shall tabulate the results of the audits of the Public Records Modernization Trust Fund and report a summary of the audits to the Legislature annually, 6. The governing body of a mtunicipality,special district,or charter school must establish an auditor selection committee • and competitive auditor selection procedures, The governing board may elect to use its own competitive auditor selection procedures or the procedures outlined in subparagraph 7. 7. The governing body of a noncharter county or district school board that retains a certified public accountant must establish an auditor selection committee and select an independent certified public accountant according to the following procedure: a-For each nonchartcr county, the auditor selection committee must consist of the county officers elected pursuant to s. I(d),Art. VIII of the State Constitution,and one member of the board of county commissioners or its designee, b.The cornmtttee shall publicly announce,in a uniform and consistent manner,each occasion when auditing services are required to be purchased. Public notice must include a general description of the audit and must indicate how interested certified public accountants can apply for consideration. e. The committee shall encourage firms engaged in the lawful practice of public accounting who desire to provide professional services to submit annually a statement of qualifications and performance data. d. Any certified public accountant desiring to provide auditing services must first be qualified pursuant to law. The committee shall make a finding that the film or individual to be employed is fully qualified to render the required services. Among the factors to be considered in making this finding are the capabilities, adequacy of personnel, past record,and experience of the firm or individual. e. The committee shall adopt procedures for the evaluation of proleeeional services, including, but not limited to, capabilities, adequacy of personnel,past record,experience. results of recent external quality control reviews, and such other factors as may be determined by the committee to he applicable to it;particular requirements. I The public must not be excluded from the proceedings under this subparagraph, g. The committee shall evaluate current statements of qualifications and performance data on file with the committee, • together with those that may be submitted by other firms regarding the proposed audit, and shall conduct discussions with, and may require public presentations by,no fewer than three firms regarding their qualifications, approach to the audit,and ability to furnish the required services. Copr.V West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S.Govt. Works ATTACHMENT B MARCH 12, 2001 COMMISSION MEETING • SELVA MARINA NORTH STREET STUDY COMMITTEE PRELIMINARY REPORT 3/12/01 This report is intended to report the findings and recommendations of the Selva Marina Street Study Committee. It is the Committee's recommendation that the Mayor and Commission of Atlantic Beach accept ownership of the private streets in the Selva Marina Subdivision from the previous developers of that subdivision with the understanding that several improvements are to be made to the streets, drainage structures, water and sewer lines and other improvements, and that the costs for those improvements be shared between the homeowners in the subdivision on an assessment basis and the City of Atlantic Beach. A summary of the subjects studied by the Committee, the Committee's findings for needed improvements, answers to a number of legal questions, and how the costs are to be shared are in the following report. 4110 The Selva Marina Subdivision was developed by the Sevilla Development Corporation between 1978 and 1980. It is located in north Atlantic Beach on the east side of Selva Marina Drive (old Sherry Drive),just to the north of Saturiba Drive. There are 133 single-family lots in the subdivision. The streets were never dedicated to, or accepted by, the City of Atlantic Beach. No homeowners association was ever created although the developer issued a ten-year maintenance bond for the streets, which expired in 1990. Problems with the construction of the streets were apparent as early as 1983 when the City commissioned a report prepared by the engineering firm of England & Thims, Inc, which recommended numerous improvements to reconstruct the streets and install drainage systems to meet current City standards. The total estimate of costs at that time was $254,795. The City did not take any action to accept the ownership of the streets at that time. City staff estimated the cost of the improvements identified by the 1983 study to be over $1,000,000 in 1998. There were additional efforts to convince the City Commission to accept ownership of these streets and to make improvements in 1992 and 1998. The City Commission formed at least one committee, although again no action was taken to solve the situation. The streets have continued to deteriorate since they were installed and a group of homeowners in the area again approached the City Commission in 2000 requesting that something be done to solve this long-standing problem. As a result, the Mayor and Commission appointed the present committee with the following charge: • • • To embark upon a series of meetings, some on site,to become knowledgeable about the various problems and issues • To identify needed actions, including possible legal issues involving ownership of the right-of-way as well as what capital improvements (resurfacing, restructuring, regrading) are needed in both the short and long term • To identify a range of possible funding options to be presented for public consideration. These options could include investment from the City, assessments of the property owners, delayed improvements, or any combination of funding sources and timeframes. • To present the range of funding options to the Mayor and Commission. The Committee members that have been appointed by the City Commission are listed in Attachment A to this report. The Committee has met eight times. Their study has been conducted to consider the simplest, safest (from a public safety stand point), most practical, affordable and legal solutions to the tasks assigned. The first meeting of the Committee was held on site with Public Safety Director David Thompson. The Committee considered the size, location and conditions of the roads as well as concerns about some trees that may be • impediments to proper response from fire trucks, garbage trucks or other large vehicles that needed access. Between meetings, Committee members were also asked to obtain copies of the lot surveys from all of the 133 homeowners in the subdivision. With help from the staff, the Committee developed questions related to the location of utilities and their condition, methods of road repair, and the extent of and solutions to the drainage problems. In one of the meetings, the Committee met with the City's Finance Director to understand how the assessment process works under Florida Law and how past assessments have been done in Atlantic Beach. In another meeting, the Committee met with City Attorney Alan Jensen and Guy Bond, a specialist attorney brought in to consult on property matters. Their report dated February 16, 2001 (Attachment B), answers the legal questions that were raised by the staff and Committee through previous discussions. The Committee's recommendations to the City Commission are based upon the advice of legal counsel as outlined in the February 16th memorandum. One of the most important parts of the Committee's recommendation is what is NOT being recommended. While the 1983 England & Thims report recommended straightening out the streets and removal of 81 trees, the actions were considered at the time (and still are) unduly destructive of the beautiful wooded character of the neighborhood. The streets have been in existence for over 20 years with a very low history of traffic accidents. The winding nature of the road and limited visibility causes motorists to drive very slowly. With this mind, and upon • the recommendation of the Public Safety Director, road realignments and the resulting removal of a number of large trees will not be necessary. However, 12 trees have been identified for • removal. Most of these have been hit numerous times by garbage trucks and other large vehicles because of their proximity to the driving surface and most are in very bad condition. The City's Arborist, Early Piety, has also looked at each of these and concluded that they should be removed. Most importantly, the recommendations for improvements made by this Committee will not result in a degradation of the neighborhood. Quite the opposite, they are expected to increase the property values, reduce or eliminate the flooding complaints that have plagued the neighborhood since it was built, and provide for maintenance in the future. A list of specific improvements that will be needed in the neighborhood,the costs of those improvements, and other related costs is attached to this report and labeled Attachment C. Also included on that list are the Committee's recommendations as to how these costs should be shared between the homeowners and the City. Total costs are estimated to be $604,440. The costs to be paid by the homeowners totals $250,200. The total cost per lot, assuming that the assessment is done a per lot basis and all lots are assessed, will total $1,881. A considerable amount of discussion went into the allocation of costs between the City and the homeowners. The reasons for the distribution, in order that they appear on the attachment, are as follows: • Survey Work,Legal Expenses and Taxes; Florida Law does not allow for these costs to be charged to the property owners under the assessment process. Therefore, the • City must pay these costs if the project is to continue. • Water Lines; The Committee has recommended that the cost of the water line replacements that would be necessary because of the street reconstruction should be split evenly between the City and the homeowners. While the City had accepted the water system at the time of the construction of the subdivision in 1980, the system did not totally meet City standards for necessary valving and other items. Also,the extensive work estimated to be needed for the water lines would not have been needed if the streets were not being reconstructed. The main issue was the relative lack of cover between the water lines and the streets above and a concern by the Public Works Director that the grinding of old asphalt will cause for numerous breaks in the City lines. • Sewer Lines; The Committee's recommendation for the City of Atlantic Beach to pay the total cost for the repairs needed for the sewer system. The City had accepted these sewer lines originally and the repairs that are needed result only from the aging of the system that the City has maintained. These repairs would be needed even if the streets were not being reconstructed at this time. • Storm water; The total storm water costs are estimated at $160,000. Approximately $50,000 of this amount is estimated for the replacement of a 12-inch storm line that was installed when the subdivision was originally created. The remaining portion of . the money is needed to construct swales, detention areas and install other storm drainage structures that have never existed in the subdivision, but that are needed to • correct the flooding problems. The Committee's feeling was that the City should pay for the item that needed maintenance and that the homeowners should pay for the installation of new storm water facilities. • Street Light/Tree Removal; The $6,000 expenditure for street lights is for the purpose of adding new lights when JEA replaces their electric system in this area. Because this is an addition that was never constructed in the subdivision, the homeowners feel that it is appropriate for this amount to be included in the assessment. The cost of $2,500 is estimated to remove 12 trees needed for street safety. There was little discussion about this being allocated to the owner's column. • Streets; The $200,000 price for the street reconstruction and resurfacing is split between the City and the owners with two thirds of the cost allocated to the City ($133,300) and one third to the owners ($66,700). While the streets may not have been constructed to meet City standards at the time they were built, the City has used gas tax funds to pay for the resurfacing of other City streets. The feeling of the Committee members was that they should be entitled to the same resurfacing funds as other publicly owned streets and the cost paid by the homeowners in this category is reasonable because the streets will require more than just resurfacing. The additional costs to nail the streets down and provide for a proper base should be paid by the homeowners and that cost was estimated to be one third of the total. • A critical question addressed by the Committee was who to assess. While there are 133 lots in the subdivision, 14 of those do not have frontage on the private streets. Instead, they front on Selva Marina-Drive or Saturiba Drive, which are already owed and maintained by the City. One argument considered was that those owners that do not front private streets would not receive as much as a benefit from the City ownership of the streets and related improvements as other property owners. However, it is the Committee's recommendation that all 133 owners be assessed equally. All of the owners will receive benefits from the City's ownership and related improvements because of increasing property values in the entire subdivision. The Committee also considered whether the assessment should be made on a per lot basis or on a frontage foot basis. In looking at the layout of lots, it is immediately apparent that a per foot basis would be unfair. Several of the lots front on cul-de-sacs and have a much narrower frontage than others. Each property owner would however receive approximately the same value from the improvements. Consequently, the Committee felt that it would be unfair to charge a higher amount to some owners than others. Attachment D to this report is a drawing of the lots in the subdivision. In summary, this report is to recommend that the Mayor and Commission accept ownership of these private streets upon the condition of the sharing of needed costs as recommended herein. A principle that the Committee considered from the very first meeting was that any recommendation made must be fair to the City, to the residents and owners of the Selva Marina 4110 • Subdivision, as well as to the taxpayers of Atlantic Beach. The Committee feels that the recommendations provided herein are fair to all concerned. Further, it will provide a permanent solution to the problem of private streets in this area. The City of Atlantic Beach has studied this issue on at least three occasions in the past and would inevitably be asked to do so again in the future until a permanent solution is in place. -Arm r9 / 1._ (�. .+ yr Mike Borno, Chairman D.• . on s aters, III l / .76:144.___7 14.61/ 111°. _ i-..... AlAtk L .! .„,,,t/ i it,.,i) Keith Fa' / •anne Gab $ it-4 Glenn Jo! son •jfj1,9 • 1 -1'. , /' -j. C- )---"' / Jerry Maddy Bill Mayhe Debra Moss 0 ATTACHMENT A i • • CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH SELVA MARINA STREETS COMMITTEE NAME AND ADDRESS PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS Keith Falt 247-0714 kfaltkvworldnet.att.nct 1840 N. Sherry Drive Atlantic Beach,FL 32233 • Jeanne Gabrynowitz 247-0896 1907 N. Sherry Drive • Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 Glenn Johnson 242-8629 glennQjaol.co 367 19t Street iatm Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 Jerry Maddy 249-8868 jdmandscm( ,aol.corn 1915 Creekside Circle Atlantic Beach,FL 32233 411/ Bill Mayhew 242-8629 - • 1870 N. Sherry Drive billmav2ra),aol.com Atlantic Beach, FL 32233. Debra Moss 246-4783 SURFI NUTO.aol.corn 1855 Hickory Lane Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 Commissioner Mike Bomo 246-9383 pabO,leadinz.net Commissioner Dezmond Waters 241-2984 Susan Dunham, Recording Secretary 246-3591 sdunharn(ulmsn.com • ,n I,n on n ATTACHMENT B ALAN C. JENSEN Attorney at Law • 935 North Third Street Post Office Box 50457 Jacksonville Beach, Florida 32240-0457 Telephone (904) 246-2500 Facsimile (904)246-9960 E-Mail: AjensenLaw®aol.com MEMORANDUM DATE: February 16, 2001 TO: J Selva Marina Streets Committee FROM: Alan C. Jensen, City Attorney C. Guy Bond, Esquire RE: Legal Questions For Selva Marina Project Responses to list of legal questions for Selva Marina Project dated February 6, 2001: A. Street Ownership/Developers 1. How can the developers convey title to the privately owned streets to the City? We have been advised that the current owners will voluntarily convey those streets to the City provided that they not incur any expense in doing so. If this is true, the best way to obtain ownership is by deed. There are different forms of deeds, each providing a different level of assurance from the grantor as to his ownership and outstanding encumbrances. In a Warranty Deed, the grantor warrants that he owns the property and that no one else has any claim to it. We, of course, will ask for a Warranty Deed. However, it is likely that the grantor will agree only to give a deed that does not contain any warranties of title. We recommend that the City not make an issue over that because we will obtain appropriate title assurances from a title insurance company to replace the deed warranties. 2. Do the developers have any obligation for maintenance of the streets or drainage systems? We have concluded that it is likely the current owners of the streets have a legal obligation to pay to maintain the streets. We could take them to court and likely obtain a judgment against them for the amount needed to do the necessary repairs. However,it is our understanding that these companies have been inactive for some period of time and that they have no assets. A judgment against a company with no assets is worthless and we would have wasted the City's money obtaining such a judgment. Additionally, if we approach the current owners of the streets with the • threat of litigation, it is unlikely that they will voluntarily convey the streets to us. If that were to happen, the only way we would obtain title to these streets would be by the process of eminent domain and by incurring the expenses and costs that would go along with that. Accordingly, we Selva Marina Streets Committee Memorandum of February 16, 2001 111 Page 2 believe that it is in the City's best interests to approach the current owners of the streets seeking their cooperation in obtaining a voluntary conveyance of the streets and to avoid the delays and expenses that would come with litigation. 3. Is there any obligation to pay back taxes on the private streets? If so, would the City take on the obligation if it accepted ownership? We have been advised that there are several years of ad valorem taxes which have been assessed against the streets but which have not been paid. These taxes will not go away simply because the City obtains title to the streets and, unless dealt with, the City could be responsible for paying the taxes. Florida Statutes §196.28 provides a process to cancel past due or current property taxes. In our case, this would require a resolution by the Jacksonville City Council, obviously a political process. This is something that would have to be done at the appropriate time. 4. What is the total estimated cost related to transfer of the titles to the City, including surveys, legal, or other items? We do not believe that the cost of the City of obtaining title to the streets, including surveys, legal expenses and other items, will exceed $2,000.00. This assumes a cooperative • relationship with current owners of the streets and a favorable outcome of the resolution presented to the Jacksonville City Council to cancel all of the property taxes. B. Street Ownership/Homeowners 1. If some portions of the paving are on the homeowners'property, how should the City acquire proper title? [Assume 2' to 6' "slivers" of property along the road frontages of 8 lots in the area] The City could acquire proper title to portions of the paving which are on homeowners property either by the homeowner voluntarily conveying that portion of the property to the City, or the City taking those portions for a valid public purpose by eminent domain. An alternative would be to request that the homeowner grant a perpetual easement over that portion of his property on which the paving is located for the City to improve and maintain the road, install any necessary utilities, and the like. 2. What is the total estimated cost related to transfer of the titles to the City, including surveys, legal, or other items? The total estimated cost related to transfer of the titles to the City, including surveys, legal, and other items, would depend upon the number of properties involved, whether the homeowners were cooperating with the City, and whether title was taken or the alternative of an easement was used. Surveys would be necessary to identify the exact property involved, whether the property is • to be deeded by the homeowner, taken by eminent domain, or a perpetual easement is to be granted. Surveying work should not exceed approximately $300.00 per lot involved. The Selva Marina Streets Committee Memorandum of February 16, 2001 Page 3 • preparation of documents, either deeds or easements, would probably not exceed $100.00 per lot, and then recording fees would be nominal. If the City is required to take certain properties by eminent domain, other costs would be involved which could become substantial, including real estate appraisers, legal fees for the City and the property owner, and the like. The total of these costs is difficult to estimate unless and until we can identify all properties involved and which homeowners will cooperate with the City. C. Easements for storm drainage 1. Some drainage improvements should be made, including replacing an old 12"pipe that runs partially across private property, and building some berms/swales at the ends of several cul de sacs that do not presently exist. How would the City get easements to construct/maintain these drainage structures? Obtaining easements would again depend upon whether the private property owners would cooperate with the City or not. The property owners could convey temporary construction easements and then permanent maintenance easements for the drainage improvements, or again the City could take the easements by eminent domain. • 2. What would the total estimated cost be for the acquisition of the easements? The total estimated cost for the acquisition of the easements would depend upon the number of easements required and the whether or not the property owners cooperate with the City. In the event of cooperation from the property owners, surveying work would be necessary to identify the area of the easement with precision, and $300.00 per lot would be an approximate cost of the surveying work. Preparation of the documents in that event would not be that expensive, again probably a maximum of$100.00 per lot, and recording fees would be nominal. If the easements have to be acquired by eminent domain, the same costs as above would be included, together with real estate appraisers and attorney's fees for the City and the property owners. 3. If the drainage improvements contemplated would directly improve the homeowners from whom the easements are needed, would it be proper for the City to refuse to make the improvements until the easements are donated? As it relates to easements needed from a particular property owner whose property will be directly improved, I think it would be appropriate for the City to request an easement and have that easement prior to making the improvements. However, if the drainage improvements would improve a large area, including several homeowners, and easements were only needed from some of those, and the City was of the opinion that the drainage improvements should be done, it would probably not be proper for the City to refuse to make the improvements until those particular easements were donated. In that event, for the benefit of the entire area, which would be a valid public purpose, easements could either be donated or taken by eminent domain. • Selva Marina Streets Committee Memorandum of February 16, 2001 • Page 4 D. Other Questions 1. Can the City include legal, survey and any other property/easement acquisition costs in an assessment of property owners for street and drainage improvements? Attached hereto is a copy of §170.01, Florida Statutes. Subsection (1)(k) includes a provision for the payment of all or any part of the costs of any such improvements can be collected by a special assessment, which would certainly include survey work, but may not include legal and property/easement acquisition costs. There is a case law to the effect that under this particular provision of the statute, it is improper to include in the assessments the attorney's fees, engineering costs, and other expenses incidental to acquisition of the necessary property/easement. Once these costs are more specifically defined and identified, a better determination can be made as to whether they can be included in the assessments. 2. If the City uses the assessment method of paying for a portion of the costs, should assessments be levied on all homeowners in the subdivision, only those that have driveways on private streets, or only those that have no access to a public street? §170.02, Florida Statutes, is as follows: "170.02. Method ofroratin p g special assessments. Special assessments against property deemed to be benefited by local improvements, as provided for in §170.01, shall be assessed upon the properties specially benefited by the improvement in proportion to the benefits to be derived therefrom, said special benefits to be determined and prorated according to the foot frontage of the respective properties specially benefited by said improvement, or by such other method as the governing body of the municipality may prescribe." It would not seem fair and equitable for these assessments to be on a foot frontage basis in certain units of Selva Marina, since many of them involve cul de sacs. The lots on the cul de sacs may have very few front feet as opposed to a property a couple of lots down which would have a substantial amount of foot frontage. Both properties, however, would be receiving the same benefit. Another method of assessment, which would appear to be fair and reasonable, is a per lot basis. Every lot in the affected units of Selva Marina would be assessed equally. Certain lots could be considered as exempt if they face on public streets only and drain to those public streets. However, even these lots would benefit by the improvements, such as increased property values. The committee probably needs to review each of the units in Selva Marina affected and make its recommendation to the City Commission, taking into account the foregoing. As long as the City 1111 Commission makes its final decision based on a review of the facts and circumstances of the entire project, and does not act in an arbitrary and capricious manner, its decision should withstand any legal challenge. A t :. • v-.. - _.___,._..- __ - - - -. II MUNICIPALITIES Title 12 a.` I . Cross References "- Community development districts,special assessments,see§ 190.011. I 170.01. Authority for providing improvements and levying and collecting special assessments against property benefited . :.'c (1) Any municipality of this state may, by its governing authority: r=y;a.:.t (a) Provide for the construction, reconstruction, repair, paving, repaving, ?r": hard surfacing, rehard surfacing, widening, guttering, and draining of streets, .•.-,$-- .,. __.. boulevards, and alleys; for grading, regrading, leveling, laying, relaying, pay ing, repaving, hard surfacing, and rehard surfacing of sidewalks; for construct- ,.=:x' ing or reconstructing permanent pedestrian canopies over public sidewalks; "`'-' ° , and in connection with any of the foregoing, provide related lighting, landscap- ° ing, street furniture, signage, and other amenities as determined by the govern -- s:,, ing authority of the municipality; ` " (b) Order the construction, reconstruction, repair, renovation, excavation, grading, stabilization, and upgrading of greenbelts, swales, culverts, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, outfalls, canals, primary, secoriagr7 and tertiary- r3raains, water bodies, marshlands, and natural areas, all or part of a comprehensive = stormwater management system, including the necessary appurtenances and structures thereto and including, but not limited to, dams, weirs, and pumps; - 7 477' (c) Order the construction or reconstruction of water mains, water laterals, ;,:i. ....: alternative water supply systems, including, but not limited to, reclaimed water, x'. • aquifer storage and recovery, and desalination systems, and other water distri- bution facilities, including the necessary appurtenances thereto; (d) Pay for the relocation of utilities, including the placement underground of • electrical, telephone, and cable television services, pursuant to voluntary agree- .?•••:" ment with the utility, but nothing contained in this paragraph shall affect a utility's right to locate or relocate its facilities on its own initiative at its own s•• • 1 expense; �'- (e) Provide for the construction or reconstruction of parks and other public rcs :,•:`'- recreational facilities and improvements, including appurtenances thereto; (f) Provide for the construction or reconstruction of seawalls; ''y• ` _. (g) Provide for the drainage and reclamation of wet, low, or overflowed `~ lands; •<'- (h) Provide for offstreet parking facilities, parking garages, or similar facili- - y, ties; ` (i) Provide for mass transportation systems; 'i i- (j) Provide for improvements to permit the passage and navigation of water- .1., craft; and IA- (k) Provide for the payment of all or any part of the costs of any such improvements by levying and collecting special assessments on the abutting — adjoining, contiguous, or other specially benefited property. ;. .' However, offstreet parking facilities, parking garages, or other similar facilities _ and mass transportation systems must be approved by vote of a majority of the _ 242 ^'li . p 1 as , 9 T .. 1,,,,:f` • .' SUPPLEMENTAL LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS § 170.01 • Ch. 170 ;'` affected property owners. Any municipality which is legally obligated for , , 1, providing capital improvements for water, alternative water supplies, including, • but not limited to, reclaimed water, water from aquifer storage and recovery, I. and desalination systems, or sewer facilities within an unincorporated area of the county may recover the costs of the capital improvements by levying and =?.., collecting special assessments for the purposes authorized in this section on the specially benefited property; however, collections of the special assessment shall not take place until the specially benefited property connects to the capital . `' improvement. ja`% (2) Special assessments may be levied only for the purposes enumerated in this section and shall be levied only on benefited real property at a rate of assessment based on the special benefit accruing to such property from such 5 ; improvements when the improvements funded by the special assessment pro- . • vide a benefit which is different in type or degree from benefits provided to the , community as a whole. (3) Any municipality, subject to the approval of a majority of the affected • "' property owners, may levy and collect special assessments against property • . benefited for the purpose of stabilizing and improving: • -.-•.:.:•,:-,..-; ' ` .,g' (a) Retail business districts, • (b) Wholesale business districts, or 0 - . (c) Nationally recognized historic districts, or any combination of such districts, through promotion, management, market- ing, and other similar services in such districts of the municipality. This subsection does not authorize a municipality to use bond proceeds to fund 0'. • - ;^ ;. ongoing operations of these districts. 'i . °.r` Amended by Laws 1987, c. 87-103, § 1, eff. June 30, 1987; Laws 1991, c. 91-45, § 39; i Laws 1992, c. 92-156, § 1, eff. April 9, 1992; Laws 1994, c. 94-344, § 2, eff. June 3, a •x • ''1994; Laws 1995, c. 95-323, § 4, eff. July 1, 1995. g t¢ Historical and Statutory Notes 1:i1r Derivation: Laws 1967, c. 67-552 became law without 4:1-= Laws 1983,c. 83-337,§ 1. Governor's approval. ''*, :: Laws 1983,c. 83-204,§ 32. Laws 1978, c. 78-360, allowed municipalities • a'" Laws 1982,c. 82-198,§ 1. to levy special assessments for the construction 1.;x,7'' Laws 1979,C. 79-164,§ 32. of off-street parking facilities, parking garages, l' Laws 1978,C. 78-360,§ 1. or similar facilities. Laws 1967,c. 67-552,§ 1. Laws 1979, c. 79-164, a reviser's bill, correct • - _ :r:. Laws 1959,c. 59-396,§ 1. • Comp.Gen.Laws 1927,§ 3022. ed a typographical error. • "'�= Laws 1923,c. 9298,§ 1. Laws 1982, c. 82-198, § 1, inserted "provide _ • •"{• ` ` Laws 1959, c. 59-396, added the reference to for mass transportation systems" in the penulti- i *" '. "widening, guttering and draining of streets," mate sentence, and inserted ", and mass trans- , r and added the reference to ordering the con- portation systems," in the last sentence. .:j .: struction or reconstruction of sanitary sewers, Prior to the 1983 amendments, the section as a ' storm sewers and drains, and necessary appur- it appears in Fla.St.1982, Supp.provided: • • ?;.`; tenances thereto. "Any city, town, or municipal corporation of 1 Laws 1967, c. 67-552, added provision for this state, hereinafter referred to as the 'munici- 1 `i water mains, water laterals, water distribution pality,' whether organized under the general and reclamation of wet, low or overflowed law, or under special act, or having a charter 1 . <' lands. adopted by vote under an enabling act, (herein- • 243 .3 ti: i` S. • ATTACHMENT C SELVA MARINA COSTS TOTAL CITY OWNERS Survey Work $6,000 $6,000 $0 Legal $5,000 $5,000 $0 Taxes $14,940 $14,940 $0 Water Lines $130,000 $65,000 $65,000 Sewer Lines $80,000 $80,000 $0 Stormwater $160,000 $50,000 $110,000 Street Lights $6,000 $0 $6,000 Tree Removal $2,500 $0 $2,500 Streets $200,000 $133,300 $66,700 1111 Total $604,440 S354,340 $250,200 .1.133=S1,881 • • — _ — — — — l PROPOSED C=' _. �_(�'_ _ DITCH — — — —I I 1 ', I l • 2e 1 I PQOPOs:• e'e5Mr ! -E�cis T. ^.'E A J I c.tiaT. . -ACT. 1 :+- .7 p..p I eLPT r Jl II I to 11 7 to i I 9 8 rs: 7.// m:: ,4 (\P U 12 1 1 5 1 1�1 '4' '' P V) I I 9 8 II 8 9 ' G 3 I G Z7 W 8 4 9 12 U i� J OW 5 2' �w 7 2� 111 isi v �� -" OU N 1 �� 3 �,10 II 14 13,E p ` 12 II �U 4 I 1W 3 8 9 t 'r \,, 1 \ /9 rH 5�REE�I 24 TN Srg6t 1 �+� If/ I q \' y 2 13 12 I 2 3 4 5 I 2 1 1 3 15 PRc?06& 29.E`,MT++- t.-- A. I w 14 W W 4 8 7 / 3 28 ,i 14 9 t11 / _ vIl lel z a¢ IB ii 2-7 k 1y Io unnirs of STUDY O W Q IIII � I � \/ �' C_) ; ' -L 20 t 26, Icp I In O 42 Ill - f� 4 13 2 y 7 Oe H tx Q DALE CAVE (�Cl 3W Q W 2III !' 24 17 IZ v (� 6 cn W II 2 Is 13 Y 2 Q Z cn .\V c) I W 3 10 'd - y J DC 0 , ail22 19 4- j Ill Ill ,,. 21 20 5 \O VI V 2 42-- Pig* P 1 ee4 ..• s 8 9 EVALUATION OF PAV/NG,'ORA/NAGE 8 ROADWAY GEOMETRY /A • 0----- SELVA MAR/NA UN/TS/O //6 1 ice_ SFr