Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Workshop_01/28/2008MINUTES VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA VILLAGE COUNCIL WORKSHOP MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 2008 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Mayor Jim Humpage at 5:47 p.m. A roll call was taken by Village Clerk Lori McWilliams. Present were: Mayor Jim Humpage, Vice Mayor Pat Watkins, Council Member Tom Paterno, Council Member Dan Amero, and Council Member Calvin Turnquest. Also in attendance were: Village Manager Michael R. Couzzo, Jr., Village Attorney Trela White, Village Clerk Lori McWilliams, and Department Heads. OLD BUSINESS 1. Discussion on the Tequesta Bridge Mayor Humpage announced that input from the public and Council was needed on the bridge issue, and commented there were some options the bridge had six spans, two of which had been replaced; so the two on the west and the two on the east could be replaced. Mayor Humpage referred to his notes from a prior meeting for the following options: (1) the bridge could be replaced as it exists by changing out the other spans; or (2) repair and raise it in the existing locations by capping existing piles so it could be raised; or (3) remove and replace it at the existing level; or (4} replace the existing bridge and raise it. It all came down to the cost. To replace the existing four sections would cost $1.4 million to $1.7 million at the current time-the cost could be more when it was actually done. The price to replace the bridge in its entirety at the same level was approximately $3.25 million. The Council had no information on what it would cost to raise the bridge either by increasing the pilings on the existing structure and substructure or to construct a completely new bridge with all new substructure and super structure. Mayor Humpage advised there were people interested in raising the bridge; 77 residents were affected by the height of the bridge. The Mayor noted his job was to do what was best for the tax payers. An engineer was present tonight to answer questions, and this workshop was afact-finding venture to exchange ideas among the Council and hear input from the audience. Council Member Amero referred to a letter dated 12/6/07 from Kissenger Campo which quoted $1.4 million to repair the bridge, but adding the additional costs brought the figure up to $2.8 million. The bridge they had repaired in Pinellas County was approximately $2.8 million for 5600 square feet; Tequesta's bridge was approximately 7600 square feet, so it might cost more. No demolition costs were outlined; this was not a concrete cost--they had not included engineering or design fees which would be Village Council Workshop Meeting Minutes January 28, 2008 Page 2 approximately 15%, adding another $500,000. Council Member Amero commented it would be a huge cost to repair the bridge, and almost double to replace it at the existing height. Mayor Humpage commented the Village would be responsible for the water; they would be responsible for the cable. Council Member Amero noted there were a lot of additional costs, which would need to be budgeted, and it could take 5 years or more to replace it. Village Manager Couzzo commented he found the number hard to imagine, and recommended doing a hard analysis, advising that Brian from Bridge Design Associates and a gentleman from Kissenger Campo were present and could discuss those numbers. Council Member Amero responded there was no time for analysis, referencing a letter from February a year ago which expressed concern for boater safety due to falling debris, so something needed to be done sooner than later; the May report last year had noted five areas on the bridge that_were in severe need of repair, and time was of the essence. Mayor Humpage referenced a 2/21/06 letter from Bridge Design Associates which noted over the next 5 to 7 years the spans would continue to lose strength, so there was some time, but he did not want to get to that time--costs would continue to rise, and a game plan was needed. Council Member Turnquest commented it was hard to come up with a game plan when there was not a complete cost analysis. Mayor Humpage asked if money should be spent to look at other options. Vice Mayor Watkins expressed concern with the pilings; she felt the only reasonable reason to replace the bridge entirely was if the pilings needed replacement; or if someone could assure Council that raising the bridge would save them from the jet ski spray that was helping to corrode the underside of the bridge. There would only be one opportunity during their lifetime to do whatever was decided, and whatever was done should last 50 years. The Vice Mayor wanted to be sure they did the best thing possible for the Village and agreed with Council Member Turnquest it was incumbent upon Council to do their best. Brian Row, President of Bridge Design Associates provided a slide show of the existing conditions of the bridge. Mr. Row felt the bridge could be raised 1-2 feet and keep the foundations in place, but after 2 feet of raising the current pilings could no longer be used, and the configuration would have to be different. Anew bridge would be needed if it were raised anywhere between 2 and 5 feet. Council Member Amero asked for a cost estimate for raising the bridge between 2 and 4 feet. Village Council Workshop Meeting Minutes January 28, 2008 Page 3 Mr. Row explained to repair, replacing the remainder of the decks and some pilings, would be between $1.3 and $1.7 million -using $1.5 as a median - if they wanted to now take that repair and raise the bridge another 1 - 2 feet it would add another $250,000 to the project. Mayor Humpage asked if that was because the pilings had to be capped. Mr. Row responded there was a gap of about 12 inches between the bottom side of the deck and the sidewalk, which could be filled in and brought up to the height of the sidewalk with minimal additional weight to the existing pilings. 1-2 feet would be doable with the existing substructure and would range between $1-$2 million. which would mainly be labor costs. Mr. Row explained the spans that were already done had been designed so that they could be reincorporated into a new project. Vice Mayor Watkins asked if anyone was looking under the water at the pilings. Mr. Row advised they had not sent a diver in but based on his 25-year experience, typically the area where there were oysters or barnacles was the area of concern, and they had looked at those areas and found nothing that led them to believe they could not do repairs. The Vice Mayor asked if it would help at all with the issue of water hitting the bottom of the bridge to move up a foot. Mr. Row commented the water spray from jet skis was a possible contributing factor; there were now other materials to help with the penetration, and jet ski spray should not be the only thing to focus on in deciding whether or not to raise the bridge. Other considerations would be whether there was stopping distance, aesthetics, or whether a foot or two would do anything for the boaters. The effect if the deck were brought up to the sidewalk was discussed. Mr. Row advised there could be a more crowned bridge-the only restrictions would be sight and stopping distance. A higher hump would mean speed must be slowed; with only a one foot raise, the approach would be changed to counteract the distance, which would be an extra cost. Mr. Row advised he had addressed the bridge issues -there were ancillary issues; utility, roadways, slopes. To raise the bridge one foot he estimated 6-8 months total time. Repairing existing versus 2 feet would be the same with only 30-40 days difference if the stars were aligned and the right contractor selected. If raised more, it would have to be done span by span and curing time of 5-7 days for each pile bent changed would have to be added. Mr. Row explained that a scour was the amount of soil lost under the bridge due to the river flowing naturally or tidally; pilings created a disruption to flow which allowed soil to be washed down the river, but he had not experienced any significant issues. Mayor Humpage asked if the river was getting shallower, to which Mr. Row responded no, it was getting deeper. Joe Hall asked why there was discussion about raising the bridge; Mayor Humpage explained that Council was just discussing all the options so they could choose the best one for the Village. Village Council Workshop Meeting Minutes January 28, 2008 Page 4 Patrick O'Grady and Dave Thompson of Kissinger Campo and Associates indicated they had done past water inspections on the bridge structure and no problems with pile deterioration had been found below the tide mark. The amount of stream bed lost to scour was not enough to worry about; they had monitored the structure after the hurricanes, and the channel bottom had behaved well there. The slabs were critical and the damage was due to the jet skis. Patches in general were over concrete that was corroded and as the concrete continued to deteriorate, the patches delaminated and deteriorated. Mr. O'Grady suggested looking to the Coast Guard regarding the requirements if the bridge were to be raised, and commented he did not believe the structure had ever had a full scour evaluation, and he did not know if pile driving records existed for this structure. Dave Thompson, Structural Engineer, explained that as a follow up to their inspections they came up with replacement vs. repair costs ($3.2 million to replace at current height- based on DOT tools and on a similar project - a rough number that would need further refinement based on engineering studies). Council Member asked what the $3.2 million cost figure included. Mr. Thompson responded it was a rough number and subject to change- indicative of the bridge structure, approach road modifications, and seawall work that would be required, including new pylons and other components. In estimating the repair they did not use the most recent cost estimates, they had used previous similar projects to estimate costs for deck replacement, jacketing of the piles, etc. Mayor Humpage asked the longevity comparison of repair, changing out the existing 4 spans and the other elementary work, compared to the replacement of the bridge. Mr. Thompson responded that generally, new bridges should be designed fora 75-year service life. Repair costs would be more difficult to gauge, but proposed for the pile jackets using the cathodic system that prevents further erosion. Cathodic piles were estimated to last 20-25 years. Council Member Amero asked if repair would change the vehicle weight that could go over the bridge. Mr. Thompson responded the current limitation did not require posting; once the deck was repaired the capacities would come back up. Life expectancy on the worst deck was difficult to estimate-there had been a problem with the one that required replacement and at some time in the future there could be a similar situation- that was a concern that should be addressed. Mr. O'Grady explained the bridge was posted at 5 tons which was done as a precaution since by keeping heavy loads off it extended its life. Mayor Humpage asked if the Village needed to concern itself in repairs that were done that were failing or if they were sound enough for a year. Mr. Thompson explained that was difficult to predict, and described how internal stresses were expanded. It was difficult to gauge how quickly it would deteriorate, and it was a concern. Mayor Humpage suggested having the police boat monitor it on a schedule. Village Council Workshop Meeting Minutes January 28, 2008 Page 5 Mayor Humpage asked why the rebar could not be higher up in the concrete. Mr. Thompson responded modern design had limitations, but the rebar was most useful at the bottom of the slab where there was the most tension. Mayor Humpage asked if the bridge were repaired, the pilings encased, and slabs changed out, if it would be a 25-year bridge. Mr. Thompson advised 20 years for the pilings but there were some things that weren't affected such as the depth of the piling. Also, certain design criteria had to be met with modern design that was not in place when the original bridge was constructed such as shoulder width, crash tested bridge rails, etc. Mayor Humpage commented he understood the new slabs that had been installed were 50 years longevity and they would be placing 8 more 50-year slabs and 25-year pilings. Mr. Row explained that for the pilings that required jackets, at this point the modern technology could predict a 25-year life on the pilings that had to be jacketed. There might be a certain number of pilings that had a lesser life, and there were some piles that were not showing any deterioration, and preventative maintenance could be done on those. It was his opinion the substructure was putting it in the 30-35 year life, and the decks were the weak component in this bridge. Vice Mayor Watkins clarified total replacement of $3.2 million; asked what the repair estimate would be. Mr. Thompson explained the repair estimate was $1.7 million, and he recommended doing a more detailed study and comparing annualized cost of a new vs. replacement structure. Mayor Humpage summarized that they were looking at a repair of the substructure, replacement of the super structure, or replacement of the bridge for $1.7 to $3.2 or $3.5 million; then if they raised the bridge it would be an additional $250,000 for the first 2 feet to go higher serious studies were needed. Council Member Amero commented Bridge Design Associates had recommended a piece by piece replacement and shutting the bridge down every two years to continue repairs, and asked if that was still their recommendation. Response was that report had been written under the assumption a replacement would not be done. In that case, every two years two spans would have to looked at and at that time they should look at the other spans. The deck slabs would have to be replaced entirely based on the progression. However, if the Village decided to replace all at one time this would be a one shot deal. Council Member Amero recommended sending them back to look at a couple of different scenarios: 1) repair at current and 1-2 foot height with the unknowns addressed (engineering, demolition, retaining walls, roadway approaches, design of drainage, utility relocation, design and survey, construction phasing, and permitting costs) and a timeline to do the repair and a cost at existing and at 1-foot and 2-foot height. He explained the Vice Mayor went to Commissioner Marcus and tried to give the bridge to Palm Beach County, and they didn't want it unless it was new. Village Council Workshop Meeting Minutes January 28, 2008 Page 6 Vice Mayor Watkins expressed her opinion there would only be one shot at this and felt it was incumbent upon the Council to come up with funding needed for a study of the bridge to replace it as is or repair, and going up a foot or two, and to be sure the pilings were safe. The Vice Mayor recommended in order to come to the best decision possible that the Manager be directed to provide Council with a study, which they were going to have to fund. She wanted to be sure they had taken the time to come to the best possible conclusion for the Village. Council Member Amero agreed. Council Member Paterno commented even if the bridge were repaired the sidewalks would deteriorate. Mr. Row advised the guard rails, sidewalks, and decks would be included in the project. Regarding maintenance cost after repair--there would be components that would need ongoing maintenance-every 3 to 5 years it might cost $350,000. After replacement, the first 15 years typically no repairs would be needed Council Member Paterno advised his first concern was the safety of the residents and then cost; he wanted it done so that sa#ety was not a problem at any cost, and noted it sounded like potentially the replacement could be the same cost as the repair wi#hin the first 15 years. Mr. O'Grady commented with many repaired bridges, when inspection was done they were still listed as functionally obsolete and that would probably be the case here because the original construction did not meet current standards. Mr. Row commented the repair proposed for $1.5 million would remove the clearance and barrier problems being discussed. Mr. Row advised it was unknown what the Coast Guard and other environmental agencies would impose for a new structure, and if the bridge were replaced it would expose the Village to a totally new redesign, Coast Guard issues, environmental issues, and water beds -surrounding bridges had had to raise significantly due to these new outside requirements. Other issues that would have to be addressed included engineering studies, permitting, right-of-way acquisitions, etc. Mr. Row advised if the Village was doing maintenance and not substantially changing there would be much less bureaucracy, although the agencies would all have to be satisfied; while going to a new replacement could take 3-5 years due to permit issues. Actual construction could take one year. If doing a repair there were ways to structure the contract to minimize the time the bridge would have to be closed- bringing it down to months in lieu of years. Council Member Turnquest commented he saw an open bidding war between the two engineers. He was seeing punch, counterpunch versus repair and replace. Mr. Thompson suggested a study to determine actual costs. Council Member Turnquest commented that over a 10-15 year period, repair vs. replace came out to basically the same costs. With replacement, residents would not have to be burdened every few years; and he was concerned to inconvenience residents and businesses Village Council Workshop Meeting Minutes January 28, 2008 Page 7 with repair. Council Member Turnquest asked how long after permits were issued it would take to replace the bridge, and what could be done offsite to shorten the time. Mr. Thompson responded that new bridge construction could be speeded up by having new capstones in position; looking at the maintenance of traffic issues such as detours or staged construction; alignment of the bridge could be offset slightly to assist in the staged construction. Council Member Turnquest asked how structurally sound would it be to have one lane open when one side was being demolished safely. Mr. Thompson commented that would have to be reviewed through astudy-they would have to look at a post tension structure and make allowances, but it was important to look at this in engineering studies. Mr. Row clarified that repair of the existing bridge would not require any road closure and maintenance would be of the substructure, and it was doable to use one span only. Discussion ensued regarding power lines that could be a problem. Vice Mayor Watkins commented this could not wait five years, she didn't want to bet on the integrity of the bridge, because the Council was responsible for the safety of the residents first and foremost. Village Manager Couzzo commented if they looked at the replacement, everything done during the 0-5 years would then be thrown away, and there would potentially be some inconvenience. The analysis had gone from 4 to 2 scenarios and an analysis could be created to assist in a decision with shutting down of the bridge, cost of reassigning public safety personnel, the impact of it over time; and he agreed if this was done as aggressively as possible, it could be done in 45 days. The Manager commented they needed a spreadsheet of the costs and particulars, which staff could put together. Mayor Humpage asked the time frame to raise the bridge 2 feet, to which Mr. Row responded approximately 1 week per bend, so with 6 bends it would take an additional six weeks for cure times. Council Member Paterno noted that would add cost; Mr. Row responded the contractor should sequence it out. Mayor Humpage suggested working 24/7 to cut down the time. Mr. Row noted many things could be structured into the contract for contractor enticements. Mayor Humpage announced to the audience that the numbers they were hearing are preliminary numbers, and the engineers were not getting paid to be present they had come from Tampa and were present to help Council make a decision. He expressed his thanks to the engineers. The Mayor commented there was $90,000 in this year's budget to do the design, and consensus was needed to direct the Manager to spend some money on serious engineering in order to answer all their questions. Mayor Humpage advised the residents there would be a time when financing would have to be considered and asked residents to let Council know what they wanted. Council Member Amero indicated he felt it would be premature to proceed with spending the Village Council Workshop Meeting Minutes January 28, 2008 Page 8 $90,000 for bridge design, asking that the Manager first come back with two options- one to keep the bridge as is; the additional cost, and raising 1-2 feet. Mayor Humpage added that numbers were also needed for the amount of overtime during the period the bridge was shut down. Village Manager Couzzo commented there was an account with money in it which could be used for a cost estimate report, which would provide pros and cons for the scenarios. The Vice Mayor asked if the Village Manager needed official direction to use some of the $90,000 the funds for the study. Council Member Amero asked the engineers for an estimate; the Manager commented he did not think it would be a lot. Council Member Paterno expressed his opinion the Manager's office could supply a lot of these numbers. Village Manager Couzzo advised that his office was currently working with other utilities to relocate their lines and place them under the water, commented his office could not supply drainage design, etc., and indicated he would like to use both companies. Vice Mayor Watkins expressed her opinion the Council needed to direct the Manager to spend a dollar amount to provide a complete study. PUBLIC COMMENT Joe Baker, 73 Fairview East, asked why raise bridge at all if it did not buy anything but would just waste money; and commented Council should decide what was wanted and then go out to bid. Village Manager Couzzo advised that at the moment they were looking for help doing some of the estimating components for two scenarios, hiring professional consultants based on their professional expertise, that you didn't bid the dollars, you bid the professional qualifications. Mr. Baker commented if they didn't know a firm's professional qualifications they could go out with the same requirements for everyone to place bids. The Village Manager explained there was a State statute which required this to be done a certain way-an RFP for consultants was based on who had the best expertise in the area to do what was needed. Discussion ensued. Village Attorney White advised under State statute Chapter 287, the Competitive Negotiations Act, which applied to engineers, landscape engineers, architects, and surveyors, there was a threshold below which one did not have to use the practice; for example, if it was under $25,000 for a planning consultant one did not have to go through this process. The Village was at that threshold. They were looking for a little more information on whether to replace or repair. Once that was determined then the Village would have to go out for RFQ-Request for Qualifications--which a committee would narrow down and bring to Council to choose according to expertise in the field; then they would negotiate a price. If a price could not be reached with the first choice, it would go to the second, third, etc. Attorney White advised she was hearing that they were not quite there yet and still needed information. The question to Council was would they allow the Manager to utilize some of these experts to get this information for him. The Vice Mayor commented that she had been talking about using funds for the study. Council Member Amero asked if they were going to pay each consultant approximately $18,000 to do the study; Mayor Humpage reminded Council they had been adamant about having a second report. The Village Manager advised the cost for Village Council Workshop Meeting Minutes January 28, 2008 Page 9 a study would be much less. Mr. Baker commented he lived on the west side of bridge and wanted to minimize the time he had to go around the other side of the country club. Mayor Humpage responded if the bridge were repaired it would last 25-30 years; if it were replaced it would last 75 years. Joe Hall, 159 Country Club Drive, asked why they were talking about raising the bridge, and that this was the second meeting on the bridge and they were still at the beginning. The Mayor explained Council had requested another opinion; and raising the bridge was an issue of longevity which would create a 75-year bridge; to repair was only a 25- 30 year bridge. Brad Mayo, Bermuda Terrace, commented one of the main reasons people on the other side of the bridge wanted it raised was to accommodate bigger boats. The Mayor advised there were 77 taxpayers who had bigger boats. Mr. Mayo suggested having Martin County and Palm Beach County people chip in to help pay; and expressed his opinion that accommodating bigger boats would raise the tax base and the Village would see their $250,000 expenditure come back in a reasonable time frame. Bill Watkins, 167 River Drive, commented raising the bridge would lessen the damage to the underside of the bridge due to salt spray. Betty Nagy, Shay Place, commented since these people did not live in Tequesta it was unfair to raise taxes on residents for them to have bigger boats. Mayor Humpage responded that whatever Council decided was fair to their 77 taxpayers, if it were decided to raise the bridge that would also benefit the residents, then they could approach non-taxpayers to see if they want to help fund as long as it didn't inconvenience Village taxpayers, and it was not fair to burden the 3200 ad valorem taxpayers with what would benefit only 77. Council Member Amero advised a disgruntled resident suggested making it a toll bridge for non residents. Joe Baker commented he understood the money aspect, and he lived on west side of the bridge and if raised it would be an inconvenience to him to have to drive around. Jeff Davis, 136 Gulfstream Drive, suggested privatization, charging a user fee to utilize, and let the Village make money off of it by leasing it out. Bill Hayes, 148 Gulfstream, commented he was glad to have Jeff's idea, and asked to have different structures, using different materials to make it more structurally sound, or even a tunnel, and suggested alternatives methods be considered in the study. The Mayor reported someone had suggested building the bridge somewhere else, demolishing the old bridge, and inserting the new one all in one day. Village Council Workshop Meeting Minutes January 28, 2008 Page 10 Mr. Row, Bridge Design Associates, commented there were alternative materials but they had already been incorporated. The Vice Mayor commented they needed to be sensitive to the time frame. Dottie Campbell, 30 Eastwinds Circle, commented she owned property on Tradewinds Circle and resided on Eastwinds Circle, so she was 2 of the 77. She encouraged Council not to not change the bridge to allow more water traffic. Mrs. Campbell recommended using the money for compliance--she saw the young kids on their water craft without their safety gear. Mrs. Campbell recalled there once was a plan to have another bridge, which never happened. This bridge originally belonged to the county and Tequesta did not want it, but the county gave it to the Village because they did not want the maintenance. Mrs. Campbell urged everyone to show up and vote in the next day's election. Randy Crop, Turtle Creek, Martin County, commented he was a bridge builder, and explained that raising the bridge during new construction would not take additional time; raising during rehabilitation would take additional time. If the bridge were raised it would eliminate the jet ski spray problem. Mr. Crop cautioned to be careful on spending double fees because it was not necessary--competitive negotiations were needed. Council Member Paterno questioned if half and half could realistically be done, to which Mr. Crop responded yes, but costs would be increased more than 25%. He advised that getting the utilities off the bridge would allow construction to go much faster. Bob McClockling, Starboard Way, asked how much the longevity of the bridge would be increased with it raised 1 foot for the jet ski spray. Mr. Thompson responded there would not be a significant difference, it might improve, but it was hard to say. Brad Mayo asked if coating the concrete with epoxy would minimize the jet ski spray damage as opposed to raising the bridge, to which the response was the difficulty was sealers could retain moisture. Council Member Turnquest expressed his opinion a better cost analysis was needed on three scenarios: repair, repair with increased height, and replacement. Council Member Amero agreed with getting a better cost analysis. Village Manager Couzzo suggested the analysis cost not to exceed $5,000. Consensus of Council was to get cost analysis on repair, repair with increased height, and replacement, not to exceed $5,000. A break was taken at 7:55 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:17 p.m. Village Council Workshop Meeting Minutes January 28, 2008 Page 11 2. Discussion on Annexation Issues Mayor Humpage announced Council direction was needed, and asked what the goal was in regard to annexation. Council Member Amero responded, to square off borders, and increase the tax base. Council Member Paterno commented, efficiency. The Vice Mayor cautioned to be careful because some areas could increase costs and she was not in favor of anything that was not voluntary residential. Village Attorney White explained the annexation process. Voluntary annexation by petition was the easy method; the only other way to annex an area with registered voters in it was to have a referendum, and if it failed that area could not be proposed for annexation again for two years. Attorney White explained the process for annexing commercial land, but it was her understanding the Village was only looking at annexing residential. There was also involuntary annexation where the Village could pass an Ordinance and then it would go to Referendum in the proposed annexed area. Council Member Amero commented the only way to get those areas would be to provide an incentive. Council Member Paterno suggested using the VIP program as an incentive; and possibly not extending the lease for the County Fire Department so that the people had to pay or involuntarily annex. He wanted to approach it in a more positive way. Council Member Amero suggested raising the bridge as an incentive; annexation or a toll bridge. The Mayor commented that incentives of services that were available to residents were okay but the real issues in unincorporated pocket areas were code-landscaping, fences, etc., and this would be a dramatic impact in Bermuda Terrace. They could be given 3-5 years to come into compliance; they would save 25% on water bills by no longer paying a surcharge; the bridge was a volatile issue. The Village had made $900 at the last movie by charging non-residents and everyone had been happy. Someone who was proactive with these groups was needed to educate on Village services; the County charged these residents 2.8 mills for services that we would provide. The Mayor also wanted to be proactive by educating the people, commenting the two reasons people didn't want to come in were taxes and code problems. Council Member Paterno asked if the Village could soften the taxes by grandfathering or prorating to bring them in. Attorney White advised that would have to be looked into to see if it could be done. Mayor Humpage commented a game plan was needed, and the condos in the unincorporated section of Beach Road should be considered. The Village needed the County to step up to the plate and say they were violating County codes. Mayor Humpage suggested each Council member appoint a person and form a committee and bring back input to Council. Village Council Workshop Meeting Minutes January 28, 2008 Page 12 PUBLIC COMMENT Brad Mayo, Bermuda Terrace, agreed no one wanted to pay the higher taxes-they did not feel the services would offset the higher cost, and knew the Fire Department would respond anyway if their house caught fire. Mr. Mayo suggested by offering incentives and lightening the codes the Village would gain a better foothold; and commented there were guys who people in Bermuda Terrace would like to clean up their lots. It was a comfort to Bermuda Terrace residents to be able to have their boats in their front yards to work on for aweekend-if someone left it there too long the other residents would complain they had their own little police force. Also, they felt Tequesta had a petty and bored police force who went out of their way to do unnecessary things. Council Member Paterno asked for an example. Mr. Mayo responded, pulling kids over for no reason; telling kids there was an ordinance that they couldn't skateboard in the parking lots; targeting people they didn't like. The Village Manager asked for a list of items that he could share with the Police Chief, and the Mayor agreed. Mr. Mayo expressed his opinion a lot of the Bermuda Terrace residents would be happy to come in but have it tempered by something like a 5-year plan. Mr. Mayo asked if the 2.8 mills now paid to the County would go to Tequesta if they annexed, which was confirmed; he asked how their taxes would go up. The Village Manager responded they would pay their assessed value times the Village millage rate, less their homestead. Council Member Amero suggested a meeting hosted by County P&Z staff and give out a brochure that would break down the taxes and the offset in savings; Jupiter had done that and had been successful on every single annexation in the `90s. Mr. Mayo suggested doing this type meeting for all unincorporated areas, and commented almost everyone he talked to who Lived on the other side of the bridge wanted it raised. Council Member Paterno asked if over the last 5 years the newer people that had moved in were more for annexation, to which Mr. Mayo responded yes. Council Member Amero commented he had misspoken-Jupiter did not annex Jonathan's Landing-the reason being they had bridges and roads that needed repair and it would have been a tremendous amount of money to fix them. Mayor Humpage commented he had spoken to Waterway Village residents; they would love to come in but there were serious drainage problems. He had suggested the possibility of the Village working with them over a 5-year period and assessing them for half with them picking up the other half, and they were not unreceptive to that. Discussion ensued. Vice Mayor Watkins commented the only viable way was voluntary annexation, and everyone was going to ask what the benefit would be to them; the Village's best assets that were easy to sell were police and fire, and then the cost for the parks and recreation for which they would now be charged as non residents. Non-resident fees were only for special events and classes. Council Member Paterno commented on the cost of the parks and recreation to the Village and felt the Village could be more positively aggressive on taking care of their own by charging 100%. Vice Mayor Village Council Workshop Meeting Minutes January 28, 2008 Page 13 Watkins commented Tequesta had children here that used JCP and if Tequesta started charging to use the parks they would be opening a can of worms. Tod Mowrey, Cotleur and Hearing, talked about divisiveness among entities which caused issues and the need to determine the goal, whether voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary was easier and could be done first, and those people would talk about how great it was to become part of the Village. Mr. Mowrey suggested creative ways to help annexation-instead of looking to code enforcement, create a special district for a particular neighborhood so they could work through their neighborhood; the Village could change the zoning later if they wanted; water and sewer issues were tough. Mr. Mowrey commented Jupiter Teen Challenge looked forward to becoming a part of the Village as a voluntary annexation. Vice Mayor Watkins commented she had no problem speaking to anyone positively about this Village. She did have an issue with all of a sudden starting to charge for everything and didn't know how this would be perceived; the long time residents were used to using these facilities. The Vice Mayor commented she and her husband had lived in Bermuda Terrace. She stated she would have difficulty charging for parks and recreation. Mayor Humpage suggested since the Business Forum went well to promote something similar to open dialogue. Council Member Turnquest asked if separate communities should meet on different nights. The Mayor thought it would be more impressive to fill the Council chambers with everyone. Vice Mayor Watkins recommended the first one be done as an open house. The Mayor suggested having the Village Clerk pull up the comparisons for the residents on the Property Appraiser's site. Council Member Paterno commented Tequesta's garbage pickup cost around $12 a month and Bermuda Terrace was going to $21 a month, and all those things added up. Council Member Paterno asked if the attorney knew of anything other communities had done that worked. Village Attorney White advised they had done a brochure and community campaigns, going to homeowner associations to tell them how it would be better for them as opposed to punishing them; Lantana tried to annex across I-95 for a long time and were only able to get one piece. Consensus was to hold a meeting in March; the Village Clerk was asked to contact Council for open dates in March after the election, on a weekend or evening at 6:30 or 7:30 p.m. Joe Hall asked if Karen Marcus was trying to get Bermuda Terrace to annex into the Village, but was told no. Another areas were mentioned, which could be invited. A resident mentioned there was some animosity between Village residents and people in the unincorporated areas. Village Council Workshop Meeting Minutes January 28, 2008 Page 14 Adjournment Council Member Turnquest moved to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Vice Mayor Watkins, and unanimously carried. Respectfully submitted, ~~n~civ~ee~ Lori McWilliams, CMC