Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Regular_01/12/1995VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA Post Office Box 3273 357 Tequesta Drive Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 (407) 575-6200 Fax: (407) 575-6203 VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 12, 1995 I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Tequesta Village Council held a regularly scheduled meeting at the Village Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on Thursday, January 12, 1995. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Mayor Ron T. Mackail. A roll call was taken by Betty Laur, Recording Secretary. Councilmembers present were: Mayor Ron T. Mackail, Vice Mayor William E. Burckart, Elizabeth A. Schauer, Earl L. Collings, and Joseph N. Capretta. Also in attendance were: Village Manager Thomas G. Bradford, Village Clerk Joann Manganiello, Village Attorney John C. Randolph, and Department Heads. II. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. Councilmember Elizabeth A. Schauer gave the Invocation and led those in attendance in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Village Manager Bradford requested addition of item K under New Business, Uniform Method for Assessment of Garbage Collection Fees. Vice Mayor Burckart moved that the Agenda be approved as amended. Councilmember Schauer seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Earl L. Collings - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the Agenda was approved as amended. IV. CONSENT AGENDA ,,,. . `~"'" All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be Village Council Meeting Minutes January 12, 1995 Page 2 ------------------------------- routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Village Councilmember so requests, in which event, the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda of Business and considered in its normal sequence on the Agenda. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND REPORTS *A) Board of Adjustment; November 21, 1994 *B) Community Appearance Board; November 16, 1994 *C) Village Council Meeting; December 8, 1994 *D) Special Village Council Meeting; December 15, 1994 *E) Village Manager's Report; December 5, 1994 - January 6, 1995 VII. APPOINTMENTS *A) Board of Adjustment n *1) Consideration of Alternate Member Wayne Shindoll as a Regular Member of the Board of Adjustment, Completing the Term of Former Regular Member Al DeMott, with said Term Expiring on December 31, 1995. (Staff Recommends Approval) *B) Code Enforcement Board *1) Consideration of Appointment of Maureen W. Papp as a Regular Member of the Code Enforcement Board for a Three-Year Term Expiring on January 13, 1998. (Staff Recommends Approval) *2) Consideration of Appointment of James R. Humpage as a Regular Member of the Code Enforcement Board for a Three-Year Term Expiring on January 13, 1998. (Staff Recommends Approval) *3) Consideration of Appointment of Mark L. Hartman as an Alternate Member of the Code Enforcement Board for a Three-Year Term Expiring on January 13, 1998. (Staff Recommends Approval) Boardmember Collings requested Item 5B, Community Appearance Board, November 16, 1994, be held. Motion was made by Boardmember Collings to approve the Village Council Meeting Minutes January 12, 1995 Page 3 Consent Agenda with the deletion of Item 5B. Motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Burckart. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Earl L. Collings - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the Consent Agenda was approved as amended. V. B) Councilmember Collings stated that on page six, the Chairman had questioned the reason the Village Council had rejected the Tequesta Plaza free-standing sign, and it was explained that the Council wanted Mr. Felhaber to address the larger issue of the whole center. Councilmember Collings asked whether that issue had been addressed and what the status was. Village Manager Bradford explained that Mr. Felhaber had received two letters requesting him to come to the Village but no response had been received. Councilmember Collings requested that staff keep trying. Motion was made by Boardmember Collings to approve Item 5. Motion was seconded by Councilmember Schauer. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Earl L. Collings - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. VI. COMMITTEE REPORTS A) Public Safety Committee; November 30, 1994 Village Manager Bradford reported the Public Safety Committee had discussed consideration of the proposed Countywide Fire Rescue Mutual Aid Agreement which was ~" listed on tonight's agenda. The Committee recommended Village Council Meeting Minutes January 12, 1995 Page 4 ---------------- that the Village Council adopt the agreement which would add another layer of backup protection to that which the Village already had through mutual aid agreements with other fire rescue departments. Village Manager Bradford reported that the Committee had discussed the $12.50 surcharge on traffic violations and the fact that Palm Beach County is keeping that money which Tequesta needs for North County municipalities for dispatch services. The Village Manager commented that followup consideration was given to the Lantana code enforcement procedures including maintenance and appearance standards for maintenance, colors, and landscaping; using the Special Master as allowed by Florida Statutes; and developing a public relations campaign. The Committee recommended that the Village Council proceed with a Lantana-type plan by drafting sample ordinances for discussion purposes only to be used in meetings with homeowners associations to explain the proposed program, obtaining cost estimates to hire attorneys to be used as Special Masters, and preparing an outline for a public relations program involving the Chamber of Commerce, Explorer programs, and financial support. Vice Mayor Burckart made a motion to approve the minutes of the Public Safety Committee meeting of November 30, 1994. Councilmember Schauer seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Earl L. Collings - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. VIII. DEVELOPMENT MATTERS A) Special Exception Public Hearing and Site Plan Review for Tequesta Branch Library, 461 Old Dixie Highway North. Thomas G. Bradford, Agent for Applicant. Village Manager Bradford described the library building and site, commented that Tequesta would contribute approximately $330,000 toward the total Village Meeting January Page 5 Council Minutes 12, 1995 cost of $730,000, remarked that the Community Appearance Board had approved the building colors and the landscaping with a few changes in plants, and requested Council's approval for a Special Exception Public Hearing and for approval of the site plan for the building and signage. Village Manager Bradford clarified for Councilmember Collings that the package price included the land, and that the wording "land donated by the Dorner Trust" was incorrect. The Village Manager explained that an agenda item for tonight's meeting would allow changes to the budget so that the $330,000 needed would be available. Village Manager Bradford responded to Vice Mayor Burckart that the library would not be on the sewer system because only a force main was available and hookup would be improper, but that the Village must agree to hook up when proper hookups became available. Since the post office was in the same situation, they would share the cost of hookup. In response to Vice Mayor Burckart's concern with higher light poles, Michael Reicht, contractor for the library project, explained that the different layout for the larger parking lot at this location required larger poles with bigger lights. John Giba questioned whether this plan allowed for any expansion of the post office to the south. Councilmember Collings responded that expansion for the post office parking lot was allowed but he could not answer whether the post office building could be expanded, and it definitely could not be expanded to the south. Motion was made by Councilmember Collings to approve the Special Exception for the Old Dixie Site for the Tequesta Library. Councilmember Schauer seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Earl L. Collings - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. Motion was made by Councilmember Schauer to approve the Site Village Council Meeting Minutes January 12, 1995 Page 6 Plan for the Old Dixie Site for the Tequesta Library. Councilmember Collings seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Earl L. Collings - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. B) Consideration of Request for Waiver for Parking of Recreational/Travel Trailer Pursuant to Section X(L)(2); Appendix A, Zoning, Section X(L)(5); by Thomas and Mildred Little, 486 Dover Road. Mr. Little referred the Council to a letter from Mrs. Little's personal physician which explained that because she had suffered a stroke, Mr. Little used the motor home as a means of transportation daily for her so that she would have immediate access to bathroom facilities, etc., and that it would be in Mrs. Little's best interest if the motor home were allowed to be parked where they would normally park a car in order to have immediate access. Mr. Little explained the motor home could not be parked at the side of his house because of his neighbor's fence, that he had been a member of the Village Council with the ordinance was adopted, and no one had ever informed him of any problems with the motor home parked where he had been parking motor homes for the last twenty years. Village Attorney Randolph clarified for Councilmember Collings that in his opinion a precedent would be set if a variance were granted based on a medical hardship of the applicant, and commented he had never seen this kind of an application before the Village Council before. The Village Attorney explained that grandfathering would not apply to moveable vehicles. Village Manager Bradford responded to Councilmember Collings that there had been complaints from residents who wanted to know why the motor home was parked out of compliance with the ordinance and that the Village's new Code Enforcement Officer was diligently pursuing such situations. Village Council Meeting Minutes January 12, 1995 Page 7 Mr. Little stated that because of the way his home was situated on his lot and because the lot was curved, if he parked the motor home behind the front line of the house, which would be legal under the ordinance, that would put it directly in front of his home and it would be a bigger problem for everyone in the community. Dottie Campbell backed up Mr. Little's statements, explaining that she was also a member of the Village Council when the ordinance was passed and the Council at that time had acknowledged that there would be significant problems for people who did not have a perfectly rectangular lot or a corner lot. In response to Mayor Mackail's comments that he was relying on staff to tell him the terms of the ordinance, Deputy Building Official Steven Kennedy verified that in this case Mr. Little's lot had a radius front making the front building line on an arc which he could park behind and be in compliance with the ordinance, and which would place his motor home directly in front of his house, and that if Mr. Little's request were granted the motor home would be less conspicuous. Police Chief Roderick quoted from Section (2)(b) of the ordinance which stated that "such parked equipment shall be in the rear yard or in the side yard to the rear of a line established by the front building line adjacent to the side yard," and stated he did not believe that covered the front yard. Gary Collins remarked that he had been involved in Tequesta Country Club's code enforcement and that no action was taken until a complaint was received, and many variances were granted. He stated that ordinances should be either be complied with or the ordinance should be changed. Deputy Building Official Kennedy explained that because of the radius of Mr. Little's lot and the shape of his house that the side yard was actually in front of a part of the house because the front building line was established by the portion of the house closest to the front of the lot, and that line along the radius was the front building line. Mayor Mackail recommended this item be tabled until the Village Council Meeting Minutes January 12, 1995 Page 8 Council had a clear definition of the facts. Councilmember Schauer requested that Code Enforcement Officer Davis attend the meeting at which this item would be considered. Councilmember Schauer made a motion to postpone this matter. Motion was seconded by Councilmember Collings. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Earl L. Collings - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. IX. NEW BUSINESS A) Resolution No. 7-94/95 - Approving a Fire-Rescue - Interlocal Emergency Services Agreement for Governmental Agencies in Palm Beach County. (Staff Recommends Approval) Village Attorney Randolph read the above resolution by title only. Vice Mayor Burckart made a motion to approve Resolution No. 7-94/95. Motion was seconded by Councilmember Schauer. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Earl L. Collings - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. B) Ordinance No. 484 - First Reading - Annexing into the Village Certain Areas of Land; Providing a Legal Description of the Property Proposed to be Annexed; Redefining the Boundaries of the Village to Include said Real Property; Providing for a Referendum Election in the Village and Within the Area Proposed to be Annexed; Directing the Clerk of the Village to Publish the Notice of the Referendum; Providing for Severability, Providing for Repeal of Ordinances in Village Council Meeting Minutes January 12, 1995 Page 9 ---------------- Conflict; Providing for Codification; Providing for an Effective Date. (Annexation Area A) (Staff Recommends Approval) Village Attorney Randolph read the above ordinance by title only on first reading. At the request of Councilmember Collings, Village Manager Bradford provided an overview of the proposed annexation of the five areas to be considered, explaining that if the Village were successful in annexing all five that the Tequesta millage rate was estimated to decrease to 4.1259 mills, a 33~ tax savings for current residents and approximately $157 per year per $100,000 of assessed value for the proposed residents in these areas which would be less than 45~ per day and would provide police service with an average emergency response time of 1.5 minutes and fire rescue service services with an average emergency response time of 3.5 minutes. The Village Manager explained that Tequesta residents would vote at either precinct 2 or 14, and that residents of the Palm Beach County unincorporated areas would vote at precinct 1A and precinct 1, their regular polling places; and that during the month of February each community was scheduled to meet at the Village Hall to hear a presentation pertaining to their specific neighborhood, and to ask questions. Councilmember Schauer made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 484 on first reading. Motion was seconded by Councilmember Collings. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Earl L. Collings - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. C) Ordinance No. 485 - First Reading - Annexing into the Village Certain Areas of Land; Providing a Legal Description of the Property Proposed to be Annexed; Redefining the Boundaries of the Village to Include said Real Property; Providing ,for a Referendum Election in the Village and Within the Area Proposed Village Council Meeting Minutes January 12, 1995 Page l0 ---------------- to be Annexed; Directing the Clerk of the Village to Publish the Notice of the Referendum; Providing for Severability, Providing for Repeal of Ordinances in Conflict; Providing for Codification; Providing for an Effective Date. (Annexation Area B) (Staff Recommends Approval) Village Attorney Randolph read the above ordinance by title only on first reading. Councilmember Schauer made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 485 on first reading. Motion was seconded by Councilmember Collings. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Earl L. Collings - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. D) Ordinance No. 486 - First Reading - Annexing into the Village Certain Areas of Land; Providing a Legal Description of the Property Proposed to be Annexed; Redefining the Boundaries of the Village to Include said Real Property; Providing for a Referendum Election in the Village and Within the Area Proposed to be Annexed; Directing the Clerk of the Village to Publish the Notice of the Referendum; Providing for Severability, Providing for Repeal of Ordinances in Conflict; Providing for Codification; Providing for an Effective Date. (Annexation Area C) (Staff Recommends Approval) Village Attorney Randolph read the above ordinance by title only on first reading. Councilmember Schauer made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 486 on first reading. Motion was seconded by Councilmember Collings. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Earl L. Collings - for Village Council Meeting Minutes January 12, 1995 Page 11 ------------------------------- The motion was therefore passed and adopted. E) Ordinance No. 487 - First Reading - Annexing into the Village Certain Areas of Land; Providing a Legal Description of the Property Proposed to be Annexed; Redefining the Boundaries of the Village to Include said Real Property; Providing for a Referendum Election in the Village and Within the Area Proposed to be Annexed; Directing the Clerk of the Village to Publish the Notice of the Referendum; Providing for Severability, Providing for Repeal of Ordinances in Conflict; Providing for Codification; Providing for an Effective Date. (Annexation Area D) (Staff Recommends Approval) Village Attorney Randolph read the above ordinance by title only on first reading. Councilmember Schauer made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 487 on first reading. Motion was seconded by Councilmember Collings. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Earl L. Collings - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. F) Ordinance No. 488 - First Reading - Annexing into the Village Certain Areas of Land; Providing a Legal Description of the Property Proposed to be Annexed; Redefining the Boundaries of the Village to Include said Real Property; Providing for a Referendum Election in the Village and Within the Area Proposed to be Annexed; Directing the Clerk of the Village to Publish the Notice of the Referendum; Providing for Severability, Providing for Repeal of Ordinances in Conflict; Providing for Codification; Providing for an Effective Date. (Annexation Area E) (Staff Recommends Approval) Village Attorney Randolph read the above ordinance by title only on first reading. Councilmember Schauer made a motion to approve Ordinance No. Village Council Meeting Minutes January 12, 1995 Page 12 488 on first reading. Motion was seconded by Councilmember Collings. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Earl L. Collings - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. G) Ordinance - First Reading - Creating a Village Code Chapter to be Entitled Impact Fees; Levying Impact Fees for Police Services on New Construction Within the Village; Stating the Applicability of Such Fees to all New Construction Subject to Certain Exceptions; Providing for Determination and Review of the Impact Fee Amounts Every Other Year and for Adjustments Based on Cost Increases; Establishing a Schedule for Impact Fees; Providing for Payment of Such Fees in Cash unless an In Kind Contribution is Accepted by the Village Council; Creating Capital Expansion Trust Funds for Police Services; Requiring Deposit of Impact Fees in the Appropriate Trust Fund; Limiting the use of Amounts in Such Trust Funds; Requiring the Preparation and Maintenance of a Capital Expansion Plan for the Trust Fund; Establishing Time for Payment of Such Fees; Prohibiting Issuance of Building Permits without Payment of all Fees; Providing for Severability; Providing for Repeal of Ordinances in Conflict; Providing for Codification; Providing an Effective Date. (Staff Recommends Approval) Village Manager Bradford explained that on August 30, 1994, the Village Council had approved the Fire Rescue Impact Fee as recommended by the Public Safety Committee, which had also recommended a Police Impact Fee. At the August 30, 1994 meeting, Councilmember Collings and others had expressed concern that the level of impact fees might be counterproductive to Tequesta's desire to develop it's central business district and hence it's tax base. In response to those concerns, Village Manager Bradford had revisited the Recreation Impact Fee and determined that by virtue of making changes to the Recreation Impact Fee ., simultaneously with adoption of a Fire Rescue Impact Fee that savings would actually be realized since the Village Council Meeting Minutes January 12, 1995 Page 13 ------------------------------- Village's current Recreation Impact Fee was actually a recreation and open space fee which operated under the premise that as building increased the open space declined and therefore all development was based on the value of the land upon which the structure was proposed. The new Recreation impact fee proposed at tonight's meeting had no relation to open space, therefore only development that would generate additional population (residential only) and thereby create additional demand for recreational services would pay the Recreation Impact Fee. Councilmember Schauer clarified for the public that the impact fees for Police Services would be used for the Police Department for expenditures from the Trust Fund for capital facilities or equipment. In response to Councilmember Collings, Village Manager Bradford stated that since the proposed annexation areas were virtually built out that those areas would not be affected by impact fees unless a building were renovated at a cost that exceeded 50% of the value of the property. Vice Mayor Burckart expressed concern that all impact fees for commercial development would be eliminated and suggested a 15% commercial impact fee to allow for future mixed use developments where the blending of commercial and residential could be unclear. Deputy Building Official Kennedy clarified that fees were calculated from an established fee schedule and square footage of a building. Village Attorney Randolph explained that commercial impact fees for recreation were intentionally omitted when drafting the ordinance, since it was felt they would be difficult to support because it is residential that uses recreation facilities. Gary Van Brock asked the amount of the fees, and was told by the Village Manager that the police impact fee would be $62.98 for a single family home and $21.12 per unit for a multifamily structure, and 10~ per square foot for commercial property; the recreation impact fee was $275.60 per residential single family home, and $192.95 per multifamily unit; which worked out to be less than the current individual fees. In response to Mr. Van Brock, Village Manager Bradford explained that recreation impact fees would apply to areas provided within planned communities if the Village Council Meeting Minutes January 12, 1995 Page 14 public was not able to be use them, and that County impact fees would still have to be paid, however the overall cost would be reduced. During discussion regarding adding a commercial impact fee as Vice Mayor Burckart had suggested, Village Manager Bradford explained that the ordinance would need to be completely revised based a different methodology. Councilmember Schauer made a motion to approve the above Ordinance on first reading as read by Village Attorney Randolph. Motion was seconded by Councilmember Collings. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Earl L. Collings - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. H) Ordinance - First Reading - Levying Impact Fees for Park and Recreational Services on New Construction Within the Village; Stating the Applicability of Such Fees to all New Construction Subject to Certain Exceptions; Providing for Determination and Review of the Impact Fee Amounts Every Other Year and for Adjustments Based on Cost Increases; Establishing a Schedule for Impact Fees; Providing for Payment of Such Fees in Cash unless an In Kind Contribution is Accepted by the Village Council; Creating Capital Expansion Trust Funds for Park and Recreational Services; Requiring Deposit of Impact Fees in the Appropriate Trust Fund; Limiting the use of Amounts in Such Trust Funds; Requiring the Preparation and Maintenance of a Capital Expansion Plan for the Trust Fund; Establishing Time for Payment of Such Fees; Prohibiting Issuance of Building Permits without Payment of all Fees; Providing for Severability; Providing for Repeal of Ordinances in Conflict; Providing for Codification; Providing an Effective Date. (Staff Recommends Approval) Councilmember Collings made a motion to approve the above Village Council Meeting Minutes January 12, 1995 Page 15 ------------------------------- Ordinance on first reading. Motion was seconded by Councilmember Schauer. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Earl L. Collings - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. I) Resolution No. 8-94/95 - Providing for Amendments to the Village Budgets Adopted for the Fiscal Year Commencing October 1, 1994. (Staff Recommends Approval) Village Manager Bradford explained that the proposed changes to the budget in the net amount of $867,110 were to provide funds needed for the new library construction. Village Attorney Randolph read the above resolution by title only. Councilmember Schauer made a motion to approve Resolution No. 8-94/95. Motion was seconded by Councilmember Collings. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Earl L. Collings - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. J) Resolution No. 9-94/95 - Designating Polling Locations, Election Officials and Inspectors of Elections and Establishing Procedures for the Municipal Election/Annexation Referendum to be Held March 14, 1995. (Staff Recommends Approval) A resident questioned the language to be used in the referendum, which was clarified by the Village Manager who read the language aloud. Another question was whether if the Village voted an area in and the residents of that area voted not to be annexed would they be annexed, to which the answer was no. In Village Council ,~ Meeting Minutes January 12, 1995 Page 16 response to another resident, the Village Manager clarified that any registered voter would be able to vote on annexation. Councilmember Collings made a motion to approve Resolution No. 9-94/95. Motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Burckart. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Earl L. Collings - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. K) Uniform Method of Assessment for Collection of Garbage Fees. Village Manager Bradford outlined the process which would be required in order to remove garbage collection charges from the water bills and place them on property tax bills. The Village Manager explained that a written agreement would need to be entered into with the property appraiser and tax collector to provide for reimbursement of necessary administrative costs; the Village Council would have to adopt a resolution at a public hearing prior to March 1, 1995, which would state the intent to use the uniform method of collecting such assessments, state the need for the levy, and include a legal description of the boundaries of the real property subject to the levy. The resolution would have to be sent to the property appraiser and tax collector by March 10, 1995. Meanwhile the Village must place a notice of intent in the newspaper for 4 consecutive weeks preceding the hearing; and annually by June 1 of each year the property appraiser would provide the Village with a list of Tequesta property owners. The Village would then adopt a non ad valorem assessment roll at a public hearing between June 1 and September 15, and at least 20 days prior to the public hearing the Village must notice the hearing by newspaper publication and by first class mail (first year only) to each person owning property subject to the assessment. The mailing must state the date, time and place of the F hearing, the purpose and amount of the assessment, the Village Council Meeting Minutes January 12, 1995 Page 17 unit of measurement used to determine the assessment, the number of units contained within the parcel, total revenue the Village would collect via the assessment, and a statement reading, "Failure to pay assessment will cause a tax certificate to be issued against the property which may result in loss of title, etc." By September 15 the Village must certify a non ad valorem assessment roll to the tax collector. It was the consensus of the Village Council that the change in procedure would be in the best interest of the taxpayers and directed staff to proceed with this process. X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) Ordinance - Second Reading - Amending Chapter 18 of the Code of Ordinances: "Water° at Section 18-3(a) Relating to Minimum Monthly Service Charges for Residential and Non-Residential Meters; Amending Section 18-3(b), So As To Amend Stepped Rate Thresholds and Applicable Quantity Rates; Amending Section 18-3(d) Relating to Meter Installation Charges; Providing for Severability; Providing for Repeal of Ordinances in Conflict; Providing for Codification; Providing an Effective Date. (Staff Recommends Approval) Village Attorney Randolph read the above ordinance by title only on second reading. Frances Gibbons, 17440 SE Conch Bar Avenue, Indian Hills Subdivision, Martin County, addressed the Village Council regarding both Agenda Item X (A) and X (B). Because of the length of time required for Mrs. Gibbons' remarks exceeded the time allocated for comments by the public, even when some others present gave their time to Mrs. Gibbons, she was not able to read her comments in their entirety; therefore, at her request, a complete copy of her remarks has been made a part of these minutes as "Attachment A." Councilmember Collings clarified that an 8~ surcharge was adopted by the Village in 1990 or 1991 and that Martin County residents had paid less for water than "~~ Tequesta residents since inception of the water ,a. Village Council Meeting Minutes January 12, 1995 Page 18 ---------------- system, so the 8% surcharge was adopted to even up the amount everyone paid. Councilmember Schauer made a motion to approve Agenda Item X (A) Amending Chapter 18 of the Code of Ordinances on second reading. Motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Burckart. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Earl L. Collings - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. X. B) Ordinance - Second Reading - Amending Section 18-5 of the Village Code of Ordinances to provide for a Twenty-Five (15%) Surcharge on Water Services to Residents of Unincorporated Palm Beach County and Residents of Unincorporated Martin County; Providing for the Basis for the Surcharge; Providing for Severability; Providing for Repeal of Ordinances in Conflict; Providing for Codification; Providing an Effective Date. (Staff Recommends Approval) Village Attorney Randolph read the above ordinance by title only on second reading. Helen Kaufter, Caribbean Court, Unincorporated Palm Beach County, stated her opinion that the proposed ordinance was not valid since residents of Jupiter North of the Loxahatchee River and South of Tequesta Village boundaries were not included, and her belief that the surcharge issue was being used to force areas into annexation, since the surcharge would then go down to 9% and not to 6% paid by Jupiter residents. Village Manager Bradford explained that no surcharge was imposed on either Jupiter or Jupiter Inlet Colony because Tequesta has a franchise agreement with those communities, and that the 6% and 9% Ms. Kaufter referred to were not surcharges, but a 6% utility tax imposed by Jupiter, and a 9% Tequesta utility tax. ~~ Martin County Commissioner Janet Gettig urged the Village Council to delay adoption of the ordinance Village Council Meeting Minutes January 12, 1995 Page 19 until an interlocal agreement could be discussed and resolved, and read aloud a Resolution 95-1.1 adopted by Martin County Commissioners: "A Resolution opposing implementation of an increase in the water surcharge on customers outside of municipal boundaries by the Village of Tequesta. Whereas, the Village of Tequesta Water Department serves approximately 1400 units in Martin County, and whereas, the Village of Tequesta has five wells for water in Martin County which are used to supply all customers, and whereas the Martin County Board of County Commissioner believes that it is the responsibility of any governmental entity to act in a fair and impartial manner toward all the users of any system which is monopolistic in nature and in which certain users have no representation, and whereas the Village of Tequesta has scheduled a public hearing to discuss the implementation of a water surcharge on January 12, 1995, at 7 p.m., now therefore, be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of Martin County, Florida, that the Village of Tequesta should negotiate an interlocal agreement with Martin County as required by Section 180.191(3) Florida Statutes, prior to increasing the surcharge imposed on Martin County residents who are customers of the Village of Tequesta Water System, and any surcharge imposed on customers who reside in Martin County should be based on fair and equitable factors and should not be discriminatory or place an unfair burden on such customers; and the Village of Tequesta should not increase the surcharge in order to supplement the General Fund Revenues used to fund non-utility related items." Commissioner Gettig stated that Jonathan Ferguson was present to answer any questions. Mayor Mackail thanked Commissioner Gettig for coming to the meeting, however, stated he believed the option to institute the surcharge was legally open to the Village under the same Statute that the Commissioner believed required an interlocal agreement with Martin County to enable a surcharge. The Mayor explained that the issue here was conservation since in the near future the Village may undertake a reverse osmosis facility for approximately $10,000,000 and must provide an income stream for that purpose; and reminded the Commissioner that Jupiter's surcharge had Village Council Meeting Minutes January 12, 1995 Page 20 ---------------- been upheld by the Courts. A short discussion ensued of possibly delaying this matter until the next meeting and how many water customers would be impacted by the surcharge. Councilmember Schauer made a motion to approve Aqenda Item X (B) Amending Section 18-5 of the Village Code of Ordinances to Provide for a Twenty-Five Percent (25$) Surcharge on Water Services to Residents of Unincorporated Palm Beach County and Unincorporated Martin County, on second reading. Motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Burckart. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Earl L. Collings - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. X. C) Village Council Review of Thru-Truck Permit Ordinance. Village Manager Bradford reminded the Village Council that at the December 8, 1994, meeting, concerns with this ordinance had been brought up and that Councilmember Collings had suggested that the Village review the ordinance in its entirety. Village Attorney Randolph had provided a short written synopsis of the history behind the ordinance along with his opinion that certain suggested amendments to the ordinance would be discriminatory, but the ordinance could be amended in a manner which would be nondiscriminatory; that there was no requirement that revenues received from this ordinance be kept in a separate fund; and that mandatory routes within the ordinance could be amended if there were another access way to Turtle Creek through Tequesta. Councilmember Collings explained that he was greatly concerned because a number of businesses had banded together and were considering a restraint of trade action against the Village because of some of the specifics in this ordinance, and that he would like the opportunity to talk with the Village Attorney at length regarding this matter. ~.x,, Village Council Meeting Minutes January 12, 1995 Page 21 -------------------------- Cliff Bracht, 253 Country Club Drive, commented that Tequesta Drive and Country Club Road had been brought up to first-class condition at the expense of Tequesta residents and increased truck traffic because of construction on Island Way bridge would cause deterioration of the roads, and urged the Council to support Tequesta residents in this matter. Tim Goldsbury, 20 Tradewinds Circle, questioned why truck traffic would be increased on a newly surfaced road and expressed his pleasure in the current reduction of truck traffic and the reduced speed limit. Councilmember Collings remarked that a presumption was being made that an amendment to the ordinance would increase truck traffic when it might be reduced. Lawrence Tabat, 144 Country Club Drive, expressed concern that truck traffic might be increased and that -~ the ordinance had been brought up for review, and suggested that people who had problems with the ordinance put their concerns in writing. Mayor Mackail stated that his position was that he would not support any changes to the ordinance. Bill Treacy, 215 Country Club Drive, commented that since Martin County had not helped Tequesta that their trucks should not be allowed to increase traffic on Country Club Drive. Councilmember Collings assured Mr. Treacy that he was working very hard against increasing traffic, however had requested review of this ordinance at the request of Tequesta citizens, not Martin County residents. Mr. Treacy commented that heavy trucks were traveling Country Club Drive and should use another access. Gary Collins, 239 River Drive, speaking for the Tequesta Country Club Association, stated the Association had been very much in favor of the ordinance, the intent of which was to manage, maintain and possibly reduce the traffic on Country Club Drive, and would not support any amendment which would increase that traffic. Mr. Collins suggested that if an ordinance were unclear that it should not be continually amended but should be rewritten. Mr. Collings stated that besides the request he had Village Council Meeting Minutes January 12, 1995 Page 22 received from Tequesta businesses that he was concerned with a couple of loopholes in the existing ordinance which allowed traffic that should not exist. Stan Legnor, 123 Country Club Drive, asked since this request came from Tequesta businesses, what Tequesta business had a delivery truck over 5,000 pounds, and stated he did not know of any. D) Village Council Discussion of Items to be Considered at Next Joint Local Government Meeting Scheduled for January 18, 1995, Coordinated by Palm Beach County. Village Manager Bradford stated the meeting would be held at the Jupiter High School at 7 P.M. on January 18, and had placed this item on the agenda in order to bring the following issues to the Council's attention which would be discussed: 1) Proposed staff outline for an interlocal agreement to address regional traffic concerns. The following roads would remain two lanes and development approvals would not allow them to exceed the adopted level of service of 13,400: Church Street, Loxahatchee River Road, Southeast Island Way, North Fork Drive, Longshore Drive. Country Club Drive would remain at 10,900. Each government would amend their Comprehensive Plan to dovetail this aspect of the interlocal agreement. Palm Beach County, Martin County, and Jupiter would pursue the westerly connection through Section 28; access to Section 28 would be provided via North Fork Drive which would not connect to Southeast Island Way or the westerly connection except if at any time Loxahatchee River Road and Church Street exceeded their adopted level of service, then the interlocal agreement would allow that connection to be made; Jupiter would at the next opportunity modify its Comprehensive Plan for city lands bounded by I- 95, County Line Road, Indiantown Road and Central Boulevard such that traffic generation would not require more than two lanes on Church Street at the adopted level of service. Jupiter, Palm Beach County, and Martin County would like "~ Tequesta to commit to not close off Country Club Village Council Meeting Minutes January 12, 1995 Page 23 ------------------------------- Drive to traffic to and from Martin County. Palm Beach County, Martin County, and possibly Jupiter would drop all objections to the Tequesta Comprehensive Plan changes related to Country Club Drive. 2) Ordinance regulating commercial activities on the Loxahatchee River. The Village Manager stated that Commissioner Marcus had provided a draft ordinance against vendor boats; and also stated that he had never had one phone call or heard a complaint against such boats. The Village Manager stressed that this outline had been compiled for instruction and that the Council was not required to agree but should think about these issues before the meeting, and explained that this was a step towards closure of the traffic issues. During discussion, Councilmember Collings pointed out that a traffic count was being done while Island Way was closed; and Vice Mayor Burckart remarked that this plan would provide a higher level of protection for Country Club Drive than any other affected roadways, and that Jupiter would be approaching the Village to share the cost of a study of the interconnect across I-95 down to Indiantown Road since that would theoretically have the effect taking traffic off Island Way and Country Club Drive. XI. ANY OTHER MATTERS Mayor Mackail announced that two Royal Palm trees had been donated to the Village. X. COMMUNICATION FROM CITIZENS There were no further communications from citizens. IX. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Collings moved that the meeting be adjourned. Vice Mayor Burckart seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for William E. Burckart - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for ~~°~~ Village Council Meeting Minutes January 12, 1995 Page 24 ------------------------- Earl L. Collings - for the motion was therefore passed and adopted and the meeting was adjourned at 10:51 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Betty our Recording Secretary ATTEST: J nn Mangani to Village Clerk DATE APPROVED: VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA COUNCIL MEETING --- 1/12/95 Good Evening: My name is Frances Gibbons. I reside at 17440 S.E. Conch Bar Avenue in the Subdivision of Indian Hills, Martin County and within the Tequesta Potable Water Service Area, hereinafter referred to as the Water System. Fiscal reporting is a means to put some people to sleep, or, enlighten the knowledge of others, concerned with the well-being of community life: I trust my testimony will stimulate your interest for the latter. On the meeting agenda this evening are two proposed ordinances which will monetarily effect the customers of the Water System. The first one is agenda item X-A. This ordinance proposes changes in the step rate structure for quantity water consumption. The limits of the current steps will be substantially reduced and a fourth step will be added as follows: The limit of step 1 will be decreased from 20,000 to 12,000 gallons at the $1.44 rate per thousand. Step 2 limits will decrease from 21,000 - 40,000 gallons to 13,000 - 25,000 gallons at the rate of $2.40 per 1,000 gallons. The limits of step 3, currently over 40,000 gallons, will decrease to 26,000 - 40,000 gallons at the rate of $3.30 per thousand. The new step 4 will cost all water usage above 40,000 gallons at $4.20 per thousand. The result of the changes in the step rate structure will increase revenue by 17.3 percent and: cost water customers an anticipated $278,000 annually. The second proposed change within the first ordinance adjusts the minimum service charge single family residential customers pay (2) due to the increased rates. The changes in the first ordinance, as applicable, will effect water customers within the village limits as well as the unincor- porated Palm Beach and Martin County areas of the Water System: and, the annual anticipated cost to water customers will be over $316,000 commencing with the 1995 water bills. AND, THAT'S NOT ALL! The Village of Tequesta currently imposes an eight percent (8~) surcharge on all water bills for customers in the unincorporated Palm Beach and Martin County areas of the Water System, which annually approximates the 1994 amount of $85,.000. The second proposed Ordinance, agenda item X-B, will increase the surcharge to twenty-five percent (25$) so the village can collect additional annual surcharge revenue of $174,000, or total surcharge revenue of $256,000: and, not one cent of the proposed surcharge will be imposed on the water bills of village residents. Water customers in the unincorporated areas of the Water System should clearly understand that the twenty-five percent (25~) surcharge, if approved by the Village Council, will not only effect their water bills for 1995, but will be imposed on all future water bills until the Village Code of Ordinances is once again amended. Thus, the village has calculated increased annual water revenues over $572,000, based on current water consumption. How does the proposed surcharge equate to a customer's monthly water bill. For example, if a customer has a monthly water bill of $50.00, the customer will pay an additional $12.50 each month for the surcharge, or an additional $150.00 annually. A $100.00 water bill will cost a customer an additional $25.00 surcharge each month, or an additional $300.00 annually, and a $200.00 water bill-will cost an additional $50.00 each month or $600.00 annually -- just for the (3) of Rate Structure, Village of Tequesta, October 1994." Fiscal data mentioned hereinafter is also from public records. Is the proposed twenty-five percent (25~) surcharge legal. In 1990, Section 180.191 of the Florida Statutes entitled"Limitation on rates charged consumers outside city limits" provided for the surcharge but only within the confines of a single county. As applicable to the Village of Tequesta, the statute, therefore, provided for the surcharge on water bills for only the Water System's consumers in the unincorporated Palm Beach areas, not within Martin County. At the July 26, 1990 Council meeting, I opposed the proposed twenty-five percent (25~) surcharge to be imposed only on unincor- porated area customers of the Water System as inappropriate, and illegal as it pertained to Martin County consumers. At the meeting, Martin County District # 3 Commissioner, representing Martin County water consumers, also informed the council "In the legal opinion of our Martin County attorneys, Florida law doesn't allow the village to impose an increased surcharge." After positive consideration by the Village Council, the twenty-five percent (25$) surcharge was not imposed in 1990. In 1993, Section 180.191, Sub-section (3) was amended to read "This section shall apply to municipally owned water and sewer utilities within the confines of a single county and may apply, pursuant to interlocal agreement, to municipally owned water and sewer utilities beyond the confines of a single county." The Section's intent also identifies with "just and equitable" application which pervades the State's Statutes and Constitution for all governmental activities. Martin County's position was again conveyed to the village (4) It is and has been Martin County's position that this surcharge cannot be imposed upon customers located outside Palm Beach County without the adoption of an interlocal agreement pursuant to Section 180.191 (3) Florida Statutes (1993). We therefore request that the Village postpone any action to increase the surcharge to its customers in Martin County until this concern is reviewed and all statutory obligations are met." There is no current interlocal agreement between the Village of Tequesta and Martin County. Thus, by proposing the twenty-five percent (25~) surcharge again, the village management conveys its intolerance to operate within the law; its intent to use the surcharge as a disguised vehicle to enhance the village's annexation of unincorporated Palm Beach areas adjacent to the village, expressed in village documents and communications; and its inability to administer the Water System in a fair and equitable manner, germane to the intended purpose of the Enterprise Fund. It has been stated that the Court's affirmative Judgment for the Town of Jupiter in the recent surcharge case is the basis for the village position that they too now have the authority to impose a twenty-five percent (25~) surcharge. Are the circumstances in the Village the same as in the Town of Jupiter; have related legal documents been thoroughly read; and, is the current management cognizant of other obligations relevant to the Water System. Perhaps, a little library time is in order before the village relies solely on the controversial court decision. Subsection (2) of Florida Statute 166.041 entitled "Procedure for adoption of ordinances and resolutions provides "Each ordinance or resolution shall be introduced in writing and shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith. The subject shall be clearly stated in the title..." I believe the Section's (5) statement "providing for the basis for the surcharge." Paragraph 1 of the proposed ordinance then states --- "WHEREAS, residents within the municipal boundaries of the Village of Tequesta bear a greater financial burden in supporting the water system of the Village of Tequesta than do persons living outside the Village boundaries; and" Paragraph 2 states --- "WHEREAS, water system improvements and maintenance costs relate directly or indirectly to the necessity of serving customers outside the corporate limits of the Village of Tequesta; and" Paragraph 3 states --- "WHEREAS, there is no exact method of calculating the increased costs to the Village of Tequesta, resulting from maintenance of facilities and provision of water services to customers outside the corporate limits of the Village of Tequesta;" The first two paragraphs providing the basis for the surcharge are absolutely not factual; the third paragraph is inconsistent with paragraphs 1 and 2; and these paragraphs elicit concern why the management or governing body of a municipality would commit such statements to an ordinance document on behalf of the people whom they represent. Further, as to paragraphs 1 and 2, per capita consumption reports for the Water System indicate the residential population of the service area is 13,741 persons. The breakdown of the service area population is as follows: Area Percent Jupiter Inlet Colony 3.5) Palm Beach County 17.8) 57.8 Town of Jupiter 13.4) (6) And, based on water consumption data, 39~ of the 1994 water revenue came from consumers within the village and 61$ was from consumers outside the corporate limits. Within limited time constraints, I have also reviewed fiscal activities of the village, and specificially the Enterprise Fund of the Water System, for the fiscal years 1987-88 through the 1993-94 period ending September 30, 1994. For each year within the seven (7) year period, the total water revenues of the Enterprise Fund, ranging from $1,668,000 for 1987-88 to $2,354,000 in 1993-94 exceeded the total operating expenses of $1,437,000 for 1987-88 to $2,097,OOO;for 1993-94, including debt obligation of the Water System. Annual operating expenses included prorated contractual service expenditures charged back from the village for managerial, adminis- trative and financial activities and other provided services, such. as data processing, water billing, consultant fees, etc. I refer to the contractual services, not as questionable charges: rather, to identify them as inclusive Water System expenditures approximating a quarter of a million dollars +/- annually. Noted also was the decrease in water revenue for the 1993-94 fiscal year. Effective October 1, 1993, the eight percent (8$) surcharge revenue on water bills from customers outside the village limits, heretofore included in the Water System's revenue, is now included in the General Fund of the village for village purposes, not the Water System. For the 1993-94 fiscal year, the surcharge was $57,000 from Martin County customers and $28,000 from Palm Beach customers, or a total surcharge for the year of $85,000. .The gross.• income of the year for the Water System, was, likewise, reduced by said amount. The Enterprise Fund's gross income for the seven (7) year period (7) retained earnings of the Enterprise Fund were applied. Of the $237,000 transfer, $65,000 went to the Village Capital Program, which is separate from the Water System's and $167,000 was an advance also to the Village Capital Program. Does that mean it will be paid back. In 1993, the gross income of $439,000 was reduced by transfer of $260,000 or 59.21. Again, $65,000 went to the Village Capital Program and $195,000 was for fire-rescue expenditure. In 1992, $21?,000 or 36.27 was transferred from the year's gross income of $58?,000 and on and on! Importantly, in place during the seven (7) year period was, and currently is, a Capital Program for the Water System. Why then was substantial sums transferred each year from the Water System's gross income to the village General Fund instead of being applied to the System's Capital Program or invested for this purpose. Or why wasn't the System's income used to reduce or satisfy bonded indebtness. Remaining on the debt incurred on 1/1/85, through the issuance of $1,525,000 in water refunding revenue bonds, is $621-,000 due in 1995 and 1996 or 40~ +/- of the original amount. And, the village manager has recommended the Village Council adopt the aforementioned ordinances to increase water rates and charges, and increase the surcharge on unincorporated area water customers stating "to address the revenue and conservation needs of the Water Department." I believe he intended to say, the needs of the village. If the Council is wondering why this meeting room is not overflowing with concerned water customers, I suggest -- 1. Consumers do not subscribe to the Palm Beach Post Times in which the legal notice was published on Monday, January 2, 1995: most people do not read legal notices daily and, perhaps, missed the village notice the day (s) 3. Water customers are intimated by the complexity of the subject matter and the negative attitude towards the unincorporated area consumers -- you know, :'the water, .wasters," "the water abusers," and the "violators where the village::. police do not have jurisdiction." Subsection (3) (a) of the Florida Statute 166.041, previously referred to, also provides for the notice of a proposed ordinance at least 10 days prior to adoption in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality, to advise interested parties they may appear at the meeting and be heard with respect to the proposed ordinance. This is a minimal notification requirement: it does not preclude additional means of notification. Did the village management make a sincere effort to give all water service area customers notice of the hearing on the proposed ordinances so they would have the opportunity to be heard. The message area on the November and December water bills did not provide notice. Yet, it is the communication vehicle for the Water System and general village activities. The November water bill reminded customers of offered free irrigation audits and conservation tips: no mention of proposed increased rates or the surcharge, although there was available message area. Since I was not aware of the first hearing, I was disconcerted when learning of same from a lady while shopping at Winn-Dixie. On December 13, 1994, I stopped in at the Water Dept. and suggested to the water manager that an appropriate message for the second Village Council meeting be included on the December water bills. He concurred, at least to me, it would be a good idea. On December 30, 1994, I received our water bill: the message area was totally blank, and I got the village's message. The village newsletter, the Smoke Signals, indicates at the top (9) increased rates, monthly service charges or the surcharge, although "Smoke Signals" is published by the village manager's office. I ask again, was a sincere notification effort made by the village management: the answer lies herein. On behalf of the water consumers of southern Martin County who do not have the opportunity, for whatever reason, to communicate with the Council this evening, I request that you provide fair and equitable treatment to all consumers of the Water System by not adopting the proposed Ordinance, agenda item X-B, to impose the surcharge. Secondly, in view of the fiscal concerns I have presented this evening, I ask that the proposed Ordinance, agenda item X-A, which will substantially increase water consumption costs for consumers, be tabled to provide sufficient time for the village manager to respond to my request herein, and that of other concerned parties, for a review of the supporting documentation for requisite increased revenue consistent with the delivery of quality and quantity water; And, thirdly, should Sections 18-3 (a), (b) and (d) and Section 18-5, Chapter 18 of the Code of Ordinances of the Village of Tequesta relating to "Water" require amendment to provide requisite increased revenue for the Water System, the Sections be so amended for the equally shared responsibility of all consumers of the Water System. In conclusion, I trust the Village Council will timely address, prior to adoption, notification of proposed increased water charges on customer water bills, and in the courtesy newsletter. Thank you.