Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Miscellaneous_01/26/1998_Finance & Administration Committee G F r f VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive Tequesta, Florida 33469 -0273 • (561) 575 -6200 c� Fax: (561) 575 -6203 4o,r co t� VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 26, 1998 I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Tequesta Finance and Administration Committee held a regularly scheduled meeting at the Village Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on Monday, January 26, 1998. The meeting was called to order at 9:02 A.M. by Chairman Carl C. Hansen. A roll call was taken by Betty Laur, the Recording Secretary. In attendance were the following Committee members: Chairman Vice Mayor Carl C. Hansen, Co -Chair Joseph Capretta, and Co -Chair Ron T. Mackail. Also in attendance were village Manager Thomas G. Bradford, village Clerk Joann Manganiello, and Department Heads. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Hansen requested an update on the water issues under Any Other Matters. Co-Chair Mackail made a motion to approve the agenda as amended. Co-Chair Capretta seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Carl C. Hansen - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Ron T. Mackail - for Rec_P<<<'d Pu n -r FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES January 26, 1998 Page 2 ------------------------------------ The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the agenda was approved as amended. III. COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS (NON - AGENDA ITEMS) There were no communications from citizens. IV. REVIEW OF PROPOSED WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS AND ANTENNAS ORDINANCE Village Manager Bradford explained that in 1996 Congress passed the 1996 Telecommunications Act which was broad sweeping legislation affecting local governments' ability to limit competition among the telecommunications industry. The law had an impact on local zoning authority to regulate the telecommunications industry. The law stated that local zoning requirements may not unreasonably discriminate among wireless telecommunications providers that compete against one another... local zoning requirements shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless telecommunications service. village Manager Bradford explained that Tequesta's zoning ordinance prohibits antennas and towers above 40 The third item in the law was local government must act within a reasonable period of time on requests for permission to place or construct wireless telecommunications facilities, and that since Tequesta did not allow them they could not act, which was very dangerous because someone could make a request and since the ordinance was inadequate they would have the right to construct facilities under the law. The law also provided that any City or County Council or zoning board decision denying a request for permission to install or construct wireless telecommunications facilities must be in writing and must be based on evidence in a written record before the Council or Board, which the village Manager explained would be a hearing similar to a quasi judicial FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES January 26, 1998 Page 3 ------------------------------------ hearing. Village Manager Bradford explained that the law also stated that if a wireless telecommunication facility meets technical emission standards set by the FCC it is presumed to be safe. Local government may not deny a request to construct a facility on grounds that its radio frequency emissions would be hazmful to the environment or the health of residents if those emissions meet FCC standards. The Village Manager explained that although the village had received no request to construct telecommunications facilities -- primarily towers and antennas -- because the current ordinance was inadequate to comply with the provisions of the law, a new ordinance had been prepared. The big concern in local governments was the cellular telephone towers, which could now be placed on telephone poles. The Village had had informal inquiries regarding placing towers on the water plant property on Old Dixie and at the village's garage facility. These inquiries had been denied because of the Ordinance; however, under the proposed ordinance such requests would be allowed consideration. The new ordinance set forth guidelines in which the towers and antennas would be allowed but prohibited them in residential areas; provided for setbacks sufficient to allow a tower to fall without harm to adjacent properties. Co -Chair Capretta commented that this would be a temporary measure since towers were already technically obsolete and in a few years telecommunications would work exclusively from satellites and cellular phones would have the ability to call anywhere in the world. Therefore, Co -Chair Capretta requested that a provision be added to the ordinance that when a tower was built that it must be torn down when it became inactive. Village Manager Bradford explained that the ordinance provided that if a tower or antenna was not operated for a continuous period of two years it was considered abandoned and upon notice from the Village the owner would have 90 days to accomplish removal. Co -Chair Mackail commented that the County had had controversy over FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES January 26, 1998 Page 4 ------------------------------------ aesthetically screening towers. Village Manager Bradford explained that the ordinance required the Community Development Department to treat applications as special exception uses and required notification of everyone within 1000 feet. The ordinance also encouraged stealth technology which allowed use of church towers, and towers made to look like trees. Income to the Village from fees for a tower could be $20,000 annually plus free usage for village purposes. The ordinance would require justification for a tower, which might eliminate a company placing a tower in Jupiter near the Tequesta border and another one in Tequesta. Discussion ensued regarding the fact that a company had considered placing an antenna in the St. Jude church steeple, and was given approval by the diocese. Director of Community Development Scott D. Ladd explained that the antenna would not have been visible when installed in the church steeple. Village Manager Bradford verified that one company could erect more than one tower within the Village. Co -Chair Mackail questioned compatibility of ordinances of Jupiter, Tequesta, and Martin County, to which the Village Manager responded that Martin County had a moratorium and that nothing was known about Jupiter's ordinance. Co -Chair Mackail requested that Jupiter be sent a copy of the draft ordinance. During discussion, seven different companies in the telecommunications business were named. Village Manager Bradford explained that if the Committee recommended approval of the ordinance that it would be placed on the February 12 Village Council meeting agenda, and that consideration was advisable before the Adelphia Cable TV franchise was brought before the Village since Adelphia was also in the telephone business and would need towers. Co -Chair Capretta made a motion to approve the proposed telecommunications ordinance. Co -Chair Mackail seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Carl C. Hansen - for FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES January 26, 1998 Page 5 ------------------------------------ Joseph N. Capretta - for Ron T. Mackail - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. V. STATUS REPORT ON ANNEXATION PLANS Village Clerk Joann Manganiello explained that annexation was one of the Village Council objectives for 1998 and that she, Community Development Director Scott D. Ladd and Planner Michelle Falasz had been meeting to work on this matter. The Village Clerk presented a new proposed annexation map in which the five areas targeted for annexation in 1995 had been divided into ten areas, and reviewed the former areas compared to the new areas. Village Clerk Manganiello commented that staff recommended pursuing Area 2, containing Bermuda Terrace and waterfront properties west of the North Fork of the Loxahatchee River which would have higher taxes; and that the ENCON controversy had caused Bermuda Terrace residents to be more in affinity with the village. Ms. Manganiello commented that if ENCON was successful in getting sewering and the Village made a good deal in costs and fees, those residents might want to annex. Bermuda Terrace residents were also concerned with traffic control in their streets and wanted lower speed limits. Residents with private docks wanted them to remain private, and had concerns with codes being enforced by the Village since although the County had similar codes they did not enforce them. Staff had considered phasing in compliance with codes. The village Clerk discussed Pine Tree Road, a dirt road which would require substantial improvements because of drainage problems and substandard condition. Also, there was no water service to the 16 homes on that street. The cost to install a water line, bring the road up to standard, and provide drainage was estimated at $220,000. Although the tax income from that area had not yet been determined, Co -Chair FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES January 26, 1998 Page 6 ------------------------------------ Mackail expressed his opinion that it was well worth pursuing, and recommended getting support from Tom Warner and from the County. Village Clerk Manganiello explained that the Village must go through prerequisite steps, filling out an urban annexation report and allowing the County time to respond, and explained that the County could not stop the annexation. The Village Clerk commented that the incentive for Pine Tree Road residents to annex would be getting water and gaining Village help in the ENCON situation. Ms. Manganiello proposed May 26, 1998 as a referendum date. Area 6, County Line Road east of and including the FEC Railroad, was discussed. The Village Clerk explained that staff intended to rezone the area to mixed use if annexed, that annexation of this area would square off the Village boundaries in that area and would add affordable housing to the Comprehensive Plan which was an asset in gaining grant money, and would bring school -age children into the Village. Village Clerk Manganiello reported that this area had the highest vote for annexation in the last referendum, which was believed to have come from Tequesta Hills because of their concern with police response time. Tequesta's police response time was 1.5 minutes compared to the County Sheriff's response time of 15 minutes. These residents could now be offered actual cost, which had been unknown in the previous referendum. Improvements to this area would be minimal, consisting of street signs and minor improvements to roads, for an annual cost of less than $1,000. Area 6 was described as the least costly to annex, and would provide the Village with approximately 393 additional residents. Annexation of Area 10, Waterway Village, would close in the Village's southeastern border toward Jupiter. This area had the second highest vote in the 1995 referendum. $50,000 estimated for street repairs and $175,000 to correct drainage problems over the next five years, plus minor road improvements, brought the annexation cost for Area 10 to FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES January 26, 1998 Page 7 ------------------------------------ $236,000. The Village Clerk explained the Village could pursue the Palm Beach County Annexation Incentive Program, which provides for infrastructure improvement costs to be divided three ways: 33% County; 33% Tequesta; and 33% homeowners. As an extra added incentive, the Village could offer to pay the homeowners share. This could be very enticing for the residents who voted 33%- in favor of annexation in the 1995 referendum. Many of the older homeowners had not paid homeowner association maintenance fees for years and were against annexation; however, younger families moving in had been in favor. Concerns had been that they did not want through traffic and wanted their park kept private. Another incentive for this and the other areas proposed for annexation was that they would no longer have to pay the 25% water surcharge. Annexation of waterway village would provide 191 additional Village residents. Discussion ensued. Village Manager Bradford recommended that the Village enter into an agreement with the applicable Homeowners Association or party designated by the village Attorney, which would list exactly what Tequesta proposed to do for an area and therefore prevent rumors. Co -Chair Capretta expressed his opinion that annexation would fail unless a supporter was enlisted in each area who would work to get a positive response from residents. Chair Hansen commented that he had talked to someone in Bermuda Terrace he believed would be a supporter. Chair Hansen questioned whether more attempts at annexation were needed to support a Village attempt to annex by legislative action, to which Village Manager Bradford responded that the 1995 referendum would qualify the village to go to Tom warner and Doc Meyers. Co -Chair Capretta commented that it had cost one resident $4,000 cash to convert from septic tank to sewer, and that he believed most residents would not imagine it would cost them that in cash in addition to the amount added to their tax bill. Village Manager Bradford commented that the Jupiter Courier would attack the fact that five areas FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES January 26, 1998 Page 8 ------------------------------------ had been divided to make ten areas. The voter turnout for the 1995 referendum was discussed, as well as Jupiter's aggressive policy toward annexation. Co -Chair Capretta again discussed his opinion that there must be people in each area who supported annexation and would work to campaign for annexation with the Village's assistance. It was suggested that Bermuda Terrace would be the best area to pursue; that area 10 should be pursued on a long -term basis; and that Tom Warner should be contacted to annex area one through legislation. Co -Chair Mackail recommended that no referendum be held unless the village had a chance of winning and that areas should be polled to see if there was interest. In response to Chair Hansen's question of whether the Village would have a better chance if there were something else on the ballot, village Manager Bradford explained that in September the sales tax issue would be on the ballot and that people would be negative, so that would not be a good time to place annexation on the ballot. Co- Chair Mackail commented he did not believe this was the right time for a referendum but that the village should continue to monitor the need in each area and be prepared to deal with annexation at a later date. Co -Chair Capretta suggested choosing five areas and assigning one village Councilmember to each area to start making contact with the homeowners associations, attend their meetings, get to know the people, be their contact for problems, and over time work with them and gain a feel for when the time would be right to attempt annexation. Co- Chair Mackail expressed his agreement with Co -Chair Capretta's idea. Chair Hansen stated he did not want to give up too easily, and expressed agreement with the idea presented by village Manager Bradford to draw up an agreement with each homeowners association specifically listing what Tequesta could do for their area. Chair Hansen stated he would like to proceed to. attempt annexation of at least one area. Co- FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES January 26, 1998 Page 9 ------------------------------------ Chair Mackail commented that he believed the village should continue to monitor. Co -Chair Mackail made a motion not to pursue a referendum for annexation in May, 1998. Co -Chair Capretta seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, Chair Hansen asked if he voted against the motion whether it would still go to the Village Council, to which the response was affirmative. Chair Hansen stated his feeling that at least one area should be pursued in line with the Village Council objectives, and that it should not be for nothing that work had been done to divide the five areas into ten. Co -Chair Mackail amended the motion by moving that annexation not be pursued in a May 1998 referendum but to continue to monitor areas such as 6, 2, and 10 to see if at a point in time they would be ready to annex. Co -Chair Capretta recommended that a Village Councilmemober be assigned to each area and report on their area in three months as to when they believed it would be the right time to propose a referendum. Chair Hansen expressed his opinion there was no better time than the present to proceed with annexation of Bermuda Terrace because they appreciated the Village efforts in the SNCON matter, and that support could diminish as time went on. Co -Chair Capretta commented that Chair Hansen could be right and suggested that Chair Hansen work with Bermuda Terrace residents to gain more support and that Chair Hansen bring up the matter of making a decision on a date for holding a referendum for Bermuda Terrace before the Village Council at their next meeting. Village Clerk Manganiello commented that the May referendum date did not provide time to pursue the incentive program with Palm Beach County. During further discussion, Co -Chair Capretta commented that sewers were a big issue and that the judge would make a decision on when severs would go in during April. Village Manager Bradford commented that Scott Hawkins in the Village Attorney's office should be contacted regarding the court date. Co -Chair Mackail restated his motion: That Chair Hansen work closely with the homeowners of Bermuda Terrace FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES January 26, 1998 Page 10 ------------------------------------ to get a feel for annexation and when it should be done or not, and report back to the village Council. Co -Chair Capretta seconded the amended motion. The vote on the motion was: Carl C. Hansen - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Ron T. Mackail - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. Co -Chair Mackail left the meeting at 10:20 A.M. Village Manager Bradford expressed his opinion that village Clerk Manganiello and the other staff members should continue to work on getting finalization of the Palm Beach County Incentive Program for Waterway Village and Bermuda Terrace; and also that special legislation should be drawn up for annexation of Anchorage Point and be presented to the Palm Beach County Legislative Delegation in November, 1998 by the Village Manager, Mayor, and Village Attorney. Co -Chair Capretta made a motion that village Clerk Manganiello and the other staff members continue to work on getting finalization of the Palm Beach County Incentive Program for Waterway village and Bermuda Terrace; and that special legislation be drawn up for annexation of Anchorage Point and be presented to the Palm Beach County Legislative Delegation in November, 1998 by the village Manager, Mayor, and village Attorney. Chair Hansen seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Carl C. Hansen - for Joseph N. Capretta - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES January 26, 1998 Page 11 ------------------------------------ VI. ANY OTHER MATTERS Chair Hansen requested an update on water issues. village Manager Bradford responded that Jupiter's Town Manager had called him upon receipt of the letter from the Village asking why Jupiter had not been told of the problems the Village Council had with a utility authority concept. Village Manager Bradford explained that he had told Mr. Evett that a utility authority might work if Jupiter would share decision making 50/50 with the village and share profits proportionately. Mr. Evett had responded that he thought Tequesta wanted power and control, and said he would go back to his people for a decision and report to Mr. Bradford; however, no response was received by the date the village Manager gave him as the time the Village needed to know their decision. Village Manager Bradford announced that Seacoast Utility Authority was interested in absorbing Jupiter and /or Tequesta, and a meeting was scheduled on that subject for 1 P.M. that afternoon. In response to Co -Chair Capretta, the village Manager stated that Seacoast was not willing to share revenue; whereupon Co -Chair Capretta concluded that the arrangement would never work because Jupiter funded so many things from their water department funds they would have to institute a 40W tax increase if that revenue was not available. Village Manager Bradford reported he had left word with the Jupiter Courier reporter regarding the meeting with Seacoast and if interviewed would tell the reporter that Tequesta saw some potential benefit because Seacoast was also in the sewer business and the village had been having trouble with ENCON and their franchise would expire in five years. Village Manager Bradford reminded the Committee that if the Village Council did not instruct otherwise by Friday, January 30, 1998, bonds for the RO plant would be floated; and that although the Village Councilmembers could still change their minds up until their February 12 meeting, if FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES January 26, 1998 Page 12 ------------------------------------ they did so after the bonds were floated the financial reputation of the village would be ruined. The bonds would be sold by Raymond F. James Company located in Tequesta, which would be announced in the Village newsletter to give residents first opportunity to purchase. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Co -Chair Capretta made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Chair Hansen seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Carl C. Hansen - for Joseph N. Capretta - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the meeting was adjourned at 10:29 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Betty Lzur Recording Secretary ATTEST: Jdann Manganiellio village Clerk DATE APPROVED: