MEMORANDUM

 

 

 

 

To:                   Mayor Allen Green

Vice Mayor Mary Martin

Councilman Dennis Kennedy

Councilman Robert Pohlmann

Councilman George Steindoerfer

 

From:              Kenneth W. Parker, City Manager

 

Subject:         Agenda Commentary for Regular City Council Meeting of

December 9, 2008

 

Date:               December 2, 2008

 

 

This is the last meeting of 2008.  With the approaching New Year, we anticipate challenges as well as opportunities.  I believe we have the team in place that can meet the challenges and take advantage of the opportunities.  I want to take this opportunity to wish you and your entire family a Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and the very best during the holiday season.

 

A.  OPENING

 

Item 1 -           Pledge of Allegiance

Item 2 -           Silent Invocation

Item 3 -           Roll Call

 

 

  1. SPECIAL RECOGNITION AND PROCLAMATIONS

 

Item 4 -           Recognition of Student Government Day Participants

 

At this time, Council will recognize the students that participated in Student Government Day on December 5, 2008.

Item 5 -           IACP Law Enforcement Challenge Award

 

The Port Orange Police Department was selected as the first place winner in the IACP/National Highway Safety Administration Law Enforcement Challenge in the category of Impaired Driving.  The award was presented at the IACP’s Annual Conference in San Diego on November 11, 2008. There were 560 total applications submitted and judged by a panel of traffic safety professionals.

 

On August 15, 2008, the Port Orange Police Department was awarded first place for their participation in the Florida Law Enforcement Challenge which includes the DUI Sustained Enforcement Program. The Port Orange Police Department received five in-car video cameras valued at $20,000 for their participation. This program is sponsored by the Florida Department of Transportation and reaffirms the Department’s commitment to fully enforce Florida’s impaired driving law.

 

 

At this time, Council will recognize the Impaired Driving Special Category Award presented to the Port Orange Police Department by the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

 

Item 6 -           Sunshine Safety Council’s Presentation of “Excellence in Community Service” to the City of Port Orange

 

At the 25th Anniversary Celebration, the Sunshine Safety Council commended the City of Port Orange in the area of Excellence in Community Service.  This award to the City of Port Orange represents the highest distinction from the Sunshine Safety Council in the area of community service.  The City of Port Orange competed for this award with approximately 200 eligible businesses, manufacturers, and other entities located in Volusia and neighboring counties.

 

 

  1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Agenda)

 

Item 7 -           Safe Drinking Water Act – Dr. Thomas Coleman

 

Dr. Thomas Coleman, Director of the Public Health Department, will make a presentation to Council regarding the Healthy Water Fee Proposal.

 

City Manager’s Comments:  This would mean an increase in our operating budget.  Although there is merit in having the Health Department provide the service locally, this is a fee that utilities in other counties are not paying.  DEP provides this service to those utilities.  If the Health Department does not provide the service, DEP is required to do so.  This is an excellent example of an unfunded shift.  The Volusia County Health Department has been delegated the authority to provide this service.

 

When the State budget was cut, the funding from the State to provide the delegated service was reduced as well.  Therefore, in order to continue providing the delegated service, a revenue source had to be developed.  What will happen?  We will be dealing with DEP Orlando rather than Volusia County Health.    It is a convenience issue.  Therefore, I must recommend to the City Council that the City, at this time, not adopt the safe drinking water fee that is being proposed by the Health Department and allow the program to be regulated by DEP rather than the Health Department.   However, we should work with the Health Department to obtain funding from DEP to continue providing the service to local governments in Volusia County.

 

  1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Non-Agenda – 15 Minutes)
  2. CONSENT AGENDA

 

Item 8 -           Validation of Sole Source Vendors for Standardization Purposes

 

 

Public Utilities infrastructure consists of a very elaborate and complex system of pumps, motors, generators, and other equipment necessary to operate and monitor the city’s wells, remote pumping stations, and lift stations as well as our water treatment and sewer/reclaim plant facilities.  In accordance with City policy and procedures, the department implements competitive bid and purchasing practices whenever possible.

 

In some instances, however, it is neither possible nor practical to obtain competitive quotes due to the specialized nature of certain equipment and services.  When these circumstances occur, it is often due to the fact that specific parts, materials, and accessories must be purchased from either the original manufacturer or an authorized distributor.  Equipment standardization is another very important consideration.  For example, the City operates more than 120 lift stations.  It is simply not practical nor is it feasible for in-house mechanics and operators to be trained and skilled in the repair and preventative maintenance of multiple brands and models of pumps and motors. 

 

Few vendors are utilized on an annual basis for specific products and services that exceed $25,000. Staff recommends the waiver of bid procedures and validation of the following vendors as a sole source for standardization purposes.

 

  • Barney’s Pumps – suppliers of parts and services for pumps at water and sewer treatment plants, reclaim lakes, remote pumping stations, wells, and lift stations
  • Data Flow Systems – supplier of parts and service for all telemetry control equipment supporting lift stations, wells, and both plants. 
  • Diamond Quest – supplier of parts and service for all security control equipment at treatment plants and remote storage and pumping facilities

 

Staff recommends Council approval to waive bid procedures and validate Barney’s Pumps, Data Flow Systems, and Diamond Quest as Sole Source Vendors for standardization purposes.  

 

Item 9 -           Change Order No. 5 -        Miscellaneous Modifications to the Public Safety Building

 

This is a request to approve Change Order No. 5 as detailed in the supporting documents. They include five changes to the Public Safety facilities identified as:

 

  • PR-06R1.  Change in walls, doors, cabinets, and ceiling layout as requested by the user - $12,993 and 3 additional days
  • PR-07R1.  Changes to secure holding facilities, including floor drains, plumbing, doors, locks, walls, floors, and ceilings as requested by the user - $22,171 and 5 days
  • PR-08 – Provide power to the roll up doors in the service building - $12,918.  Originally designed for manual operation were revised late in the design process to be motorized per the user’s request.  Electrical connections were not included in the design documents.  This price reflects the additional electric for all doors.
  • PR-88.  Clearing for sanitary force main and demolition of driveway - $3,466.  Clearing:  Additional clearing for installation of the 2” force main within the water plant was required due to a revision of the location.  Driveway:  Approximately 30’ of drive approach curbing was not identified for removal.  It has been determined that replacement of the curb is necessary.
  • PR-03.  Provide hardware and sunscreens - $14,996.  Sunscreens:  In Hall Construction’s effort to expedite the pricing of the additional, sunscreens were not included within the pricing for the build out proposal.  Hall Construction requests this be added to the proposal.
  • Hardware:  The build out proposal included an allowance for hardware.  The final pricing, a $67 add on, has been received.  The difference between the final and proposed price is requested. 

 

Funding will be from Account No. 314-1000-580-6200, Project No. CNE 006.

 

Staff recommends that Council approve Change Order No. 5 in the amount of $66,544 and eight days for five changes to the Public Safety Building identified as PR-06R1, PR-07R1, PR-08, PR-88, and PR-3.

 

Item 10 -        Requested Approval of SHIP Program Down Payment Assistance for Mr. Javier Gamboa

 

The State Housing Initiatives Partnership program is a grant that is funded by the State in an effort to assist low and moderate-income individuals with housing needs. 

 

Javier Gamboa has been approved for assistance through the City’s contractor Mid-Florida Housing Partnership. In addition to approval, Javier has attended classes on credit counseling and home ownership, as well as met all State regulations for assistance.

 

All contracts and closing statements will be subject to approval by the City of Port Orange Legal Department prior to award of assistance and property closing.

 

Staff recommends that Council authorize a loan up to $60,000 and acceptance of second mortgage and promissory note for the purchase of real property.

 

Item 11 -        Requested Approval of SHIP Program Down Payment Assistance for Mr. David Nist

 

The State Housing Initiatives Partnership program is a grant that is funded by the State in an effort to assist low and moderate-income individuals with housing needs. 

 

David Nist has been approved for assistance through the City’s contractor Mid-Florida Housing Partnership. In addition to approval, David has attended classes on credit counseling and home ownership, as well as met all State regulations for assistance.

 

All contracts and closing statements will be subject to approval by the City of Port Orange Legal Department prior to award of assistance and property closing.

 

Staff recommends that Council authorize a loan up to $60,000 and acceptance of second mortgage and promissory note for the purchase of real property.

 

Item 12 -        Building Activity Report and Monthly Development Activity Report for October and November, 2008

 

The attached Staff Reports include the Development Activity Report for November, 2008, and the Building Activity Report for October, 2008.  These reports provide information on proposed development and projects under construction, commercial code enforcement activity, and monthly building permits and inspection updates.  Staff recommends that Council accept these reports for October and November, 2008.

 

Item 13 -        Renewal of Service Contract with Halifax Humane Society

 

The service contract with Halifax Humane Society provides care, treatment, impound and disposal of animals picked up in the City of Port Orange.  The contract establishes fees charged for impoundment, collection of redemption fee procedures and billing procedures. The Halifax Humane Society has submitted a 2009 Amendment to Services Agreement increasing the rates as follows:

 

2008 Contract – Rate of $44.24 plus $11.92 per day for the first three days and $13.33 per day thereafter.

Decapitation of rabies suspect animals - $33.33

Animal Control requested euthanasia of wild animals - $13.33

 

2009 Contract – Rate of $46.23 plus $12.46 per day for the first three days and $13.93 per day thereafter.

Decapitation of rabies suspect animals – This service will no longer be provided by the Halifax Humane Society.

Animal Control requested euthanasia of wild animals - $13.93

 

Staff recommends that Council renew the service contract with the Halifax Humane Society for January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009.

 

Item 14 -        Engineering Services for the Design of Yorktown Boulevard, Center Section

 

Letters of Interest and Statements of Qualifications were received from firms for the Engineering Services for the Design of Yorktown Blvd., Center Section.  Seven submittals were received.  A short list was determined and oral presentations were heard from the three firms that were short listed.  Upon the conclusion of the oral presentations, a final ranking was determined.  That ranking is:  1) Zev Cohen & Associates, Inc.; 2) Kimley-Horn & Associates Inc.; and 3) Upham Inc.  Staff requests that Council approve this final ranking and authorize staff to negotiate a successful contract with the firm that was ranked as number one by the Committee, Zev Cohen & Associates Inc.

 

Item 15 -        Bid Award – Schedule 40 Fittings – Warehouse

 

The City identified miscellaneous schedule 40 fittings that are used in bulk and frequently at the warehouse.  Bids were received from nine bidders.  The lowest unit of measure was Ferguson; however, several items that they were low on are more infrequently used which brought their extended total to the highest overall.  Coast Pump & Supply was the lowest extended total overall bidder.  Staff recommends that Council approve this bid award to Coast Pump & Supply for their bid as was submitted.

 

Item 16 -        Bid Award – Irrigation Materials - Warehouse

 

The City identified miscellaneous irrigation supplies that are used in bulk and frequently at the warehouse.  Bids were received from 5 bidders.  The lowest unit of measure overall was received from Florida irrigation Supplies.  Staff recommends that Council approve this bid award to Florida irrigation Supplies for their bid as was submitted.

 

Item 17 -        Ford Meter Brass – Warehouse

 

The City identified several Ford Meter Brass Items that are used frequently and in bulk at the warehouse.  Bids were received from three bidders.  The highest percentage off the Ford Meter Brass Catalog was offered by Ferguson.  Staff recommends that Council approve this bid award to Ferguson for their bid as was submitted.

 

Item 18 -        Bid Award – Annual Wrecker Service

 

Bids were solicited and received for the Annual Wrecker Services within the City.  Between the prebid conference date and the bid opening date, inspections were made of the facilities of those firms that attended the mandatory prebid.  The reports compiled were based upon those inspections are available for your review.  The following is a synopsis of the report:  Universal Towing’s storage facility did not meet the requirements set forth in the bid.  Daytona Wrecking’s equipment did not meet the conditions set forth in the bid.  Fryer’s Wrecking did comply with all requirements as did A & A Automotive, the City’s current contractor.

 

Four bids were received.  Based upon the Franchise Fee being paid to the City, Universal Towing has the highest amount of $10,500/monthly; Daytona Wrecking second with $6,928.51; Fryer’s third with $5,367.89; and A & A Wrecking fourth with $5,034.50.

 

The Council may elect to afford to A & A Wrecking a three percent local preference since their primary place of business is located within the City boundaries and has been so for several years; however, even affording them with the three percent does not make them the highest responsive, responsible bidder.  A & A Wrecker has been a very valued and responsive contractor for the City over the past few contracts and having their storage facility located here in Port Orange does make it convenient for both the Police Department as well as our citizens.

 

Based upon the requirements specified in the bid document of a five mile radius from the City’s boundaries, along with the inspection report submitted, it is staff’s recommendation that the annual wrecking services contract be awarded to Fryer’s Wrecking Services with their bid of $5,367.89 monthly and an annual payment of $64,414.

 

  1. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

Item 19 -        Second Reading – Ordinance No. 2008-38 – Second Amendment to Royal  Palm PUD

 

Staff recommends approval.

 

Item 20 -        Subdivision Replat – Royal Palm, Phase III

 

This is a request to approve the Subdivision Replat for Royal Palm, Phase III, as recommended by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission’s recommendation for approval is subject to resolution of the two outstanding comments referenced in the attached staff report.

 

Planning Commission Recommendation:  The Planning Commission recommends approval, (6-1 McMasters dissenting), of the Subdivision Replat for Royal Palm, Phase III. The replat will adjust the lot lines for eight lots, create 26 new cottage-home lots, and eliminate two existing patio home lots and 32 existing townhome lots.  The 2nd Amendment to the Master Development Agreement for the Royal Palm Planned Unit Development outlines the dimensional requirements for the cottage home lots, which are being created with the replat. 

 

Second reading of the 2nd Amendment is scheduled for the December 9th City Council Meeting.  The 2nd Amendment was approved by the Planning Commission on August 28th and at first reading by the City Council on November 11, 2008.  

 

Staff Recommendation:   Staff recommends approval.

 

Item 21 -        Final Plat & Plans – Westport Square Phase II Replat

 

This is a request to approve the Final Plat & Plans for the Westport Square Phase II Replat as recommended by the Planning Commission.  The Planning Commission’s recommendation for approval is subject to resolution of the three outstanding advisory comments (attached).  The replat will divide 12.26 acres into two lots of 11.12 acres (Kohl’s) and 1.14 acres (vacant outparcel).  The outstanding comments are advisory in nature but must be addressed prior to recordation of the plat.

 

Planning Commission Recommendation:      The Planning Commission recommends approval (5-0, McMasters excused, Booth late) of the Final Plat and Plans for the Westport Square Phase II Replat.

 

Staff Recommendation:   Staff recommends approval.

 

  1. PUBLIC UTILITIES

 

Item 22 -        Second Reading – Ordinance No. 2008-39 – Amending Section 74 of the Code of Ordinances Relating to Utilities

 

Staff recommends approval.

 

City Manager’s Comments:  Between First and Second Reading, we continued our review of each section of the Ordinance.  There were two adjustments that would have required the Ordinance to be amended and placed back on first reading.  Rather than bringing forward an amendment to Ordinance No. 2008-39, we are requesting that this Ordinance be removed from the Council Agenda.  A new Ordinance (Item 24) incorporates the two changes.  We will cover those changes in more detail under item 24.

 

Item 23 -        Second Reading – Ordinance No. 2008-40 – Amending Chapter 11 of  the Land Development Code Relating to Utilities

 

Staff recommends approval.

 

Item 24 -        First Reading – Ordinance No. 2008-41  - Amending Section 74 of the Code of Ordinances Relating to Utilities

 

 

The attached proposed amendments to our Code of Ordinances, Section 74- Utilities was initially begun to address our basic fundamental shift in the growth and development of our Reclaimed Water System.  Based on a Concurrency Evaluation Report presented to you last year which identified our decision to control the expansion southward of our reclaimed water system these revisions will help to guide us in the continued growth, development, and management of this valuable resource for years to come.  A Reclaimed Water Service Availability Map contained in the LDC will now help to guide all of our future decisions. 

           

During our over haul of this utility section of our code we also have strove to eliminate many of the old ambiguities and existing inconsistencies between our LDC, our Fire Code, our Building Code, and our Fee Resolution.  We hope that you agree with what we have done.

       

Planning Commission Action:  The Planning Commission recommended approval  6-0, to amend Section 74 regarding Utilities.

 

Staff Recommendation:   Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Code of Ordinance Section 74 – Utilities, as recommended by the Planning Commission.  

 

Second Reading:               January 20, 2009

 

  1. FINANCE

 

Item 25 -        Resolution No. 08-68  - Revising Utility Service Fees, Deposits, Rates, and Charges

 

During the past few months, our Utility Consulting Engineers (Quentin L. Hampton Associates, Inc.) and City Staff have reviewed water and sewer impact fee revisions and a new energy usage fee.  The energy usage fee reallocates energy cost from consumption charges to a stand-alone fee based exclusively on energy-related expenditures.  This stand along energy fee is allocated to utility customers based on water, sewer, and reclaimed water consumed.  Please see the attached resolution for detail.

 

Staff recommends that Council approve the attached resolution revising Development fees, rental unit utility deposits usages, charges, and implement a new energy charge, thereby replacing and superseding Resolution No. 07-90.

 

 

  1. PUBLIC SAFETY

 

Item 26 -        First Reading – Ordinance No. 2008-42  - Amending Sections 70-31, 70-34, and 70-36 of the Code of Ordinances Relating to Vehicle Parking

 

Sec 70-31 Definitions

 

The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:

 

Parkage shall mean that space between the private property line or survey line of the property owner and the paved or graded portion of the public street adjacent thereto, including that area between a sidewalk and street

 

Sec 70-34 Parking restrictions generally

 

(c)  Any motor vehicle remaining in a parking area longer than the posted time allowance shall be considered to be illegally parked, and any motor vehicle remaining in one position more than 24 hours in an otherwise unrestricted restricted area shall be considered to be illegally parked.

 

Sec 70-36 Stopping, standing or parking prohibited in specified places

 

(a)  Except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic, or in compliance with law or the directions of a police officer or official traffic control device, no person shall:

 

(1)  Stop, stand or park a motor vehicle or trailer:

 

c.  On any sidewalk or on a crosswalk

 

Staff recommends that Council approve the attached ordinance amending Sections 70-31, 70-34 and 70-36, Code of Ordinances pertaining to vehicle parking.

 

Second Reading:   January 20, 2009

 

 

  1. ADMINISTRATION

 

City Manager’s Comments:  We have received telephone calls from individuals who were confused about the Assessment Districts.  Each of the Districts that are being brought forward are ones that either the property owner has agreed to or are required as a condition of approval from DCA related to Riverwalk.  The Districts do not apply to any other property owners in Port Orange. 

 

Item 27 -        Resolution No. 08-60 – Expressing City’s Intent to Use the Uniform Method for Collecting Non-Ad Valorem Special Assessment for Capital Improvements for Yorktown Boulevard Northern Extension Lying West of Dunlawton Avenue

 

A special assessment for funding capital improvements for Yorktown Boulevard Northern Extension, west of Dunlawton Avenue, may be necessary.  The attached Resolution places the County Property Appraiser on notice and preserves the City’s right to use the uniform method of collecting non-ad valorem special assessment revenues in 2009 and thereafter for the Yorktown Boulevard Northern Extension improvements.

 

Staff recommends that Council approve the attached resolution expressing the City’s intent to use the uniform method of collecting non-ad valorem special assessments for capital improvements for Yorktown Boulevard Northern Extension, west of Dunlawton Avenue.

 

City Manager’s Comments:  Included in the Development Agreement was a provision that allowed the property owner to utilize special assessments to assist in financing the Yorktown improvements.  This Resolution preserves that right for that portion of Yorktown that crosses his property to be financed through a special assessment.  This is the section of road that would be constructed between School House Drive and the bridge over Tributary 1 of the B-19 Canal.  Only his property would be affected by this Resolution.

 

A second segment property owner could utilize the Special Assessment mechanism should they desire.  This is the segment between Tributary 1 and Willow Run. However, he has not indicated that he desires to use this financing technique to construct his required segment of roadway.

 

This would allow Yorktown to be extended from Horizon Elementary School to Willow Run Boulevard.

 

Item 28 -        Resolution No. 08-61 – Expressing City’s Intent to Use the Uniform Method for Collecting Non-Ad Valorem Special Assessment for Capital Improvements in the Port Orange Business Park

 

A special assessment district to fund capital improvements and related costs for the Port Orange Business Park, located on Williamson Boulevard, has been created by the City Council.  The attached Resolution provides notice to the Volusia County Property Appraiser and preserves the City’s right to use the uniform method for collecting the non-ad valorem special assessment revenues in 2009 and thereafter for Port Orange Business Park improvements.

 

Staff recommends that Council approve the attached resolution expressing the City’s intent to use the uniform method of collecting non-ad valorem special assessments for capital improvements in the Port Orange Business Park.     

 

City Manager’s Comments:  The property owner has requested that this right be preserved. This is the business park on the east side of Williamson Boulevard.  By preserving this right, the ultimate buyer can choose whether to pay for the infra-structure through the Special Assessment process or in upfront cash payment. 

 

Item 29 -        Resolution No. 08-62 – Expressing City’s Intent to Use the Uniform Method for Collecting Non-Ad Valorem Special Assessment for Capital Improvements in the Riverwalk Project

 

A special assessment for capital improvements in to Riverwalk Project Area may be necessary as a secondary pledge to Tax Increment Financing (TIF) revenues.  The attached Resolution places the Volusia County Property Appraiser on notice and preserves the City’s right to use the uniform method of collecting non-ad valorem special assessment revenues in 2009 and thereafter for capital improvements in the Riverwalk Project Area.

 

Staff recommends that Council approve the attached resolution expressing the City’s intent to use the uniform method of collecting non-ad valorem special assessments for capital improvements in the Riverwalk Project Area.     

 

City Manager’s Comments:  In our MOU with the private developer, the City preserved the right to use a special assessment to construct certain public improvements within the Riverwalk area.  This continues that preservation of right.

 

Item 30 -        Resolution No. 08-63 – Expressing City’s Intent to Use the Uniform Method for Collecting Non-Ad Valorem Special Assessment for Capital Improvements in the Transportation Concurrency Exception Area

 

One of the requirements for establishing a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) is to demonstrate a financial commitment to implement Transportation System Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies and enhancements that ensure mobility within and around the TCEA.  This is in lieu of strict application of transportation level of service (LOS) standards as part of the transportation impact analysis of new development.  As part of the amendments creating the Port Orange Town Center TCEA, the City foreshadowed the use of special assessment revenues to fund various mobility strategies and enhancements should Tax Increment Financing (TIF) revenues, developer obligations and other financial sources provide insufficient revenue.  The attached Resolution places the County Property Appraiser on notice and preserves the City’s right to use the uniform method of collecting non-ad valorem special assessment revenues in 2009 and thereafter for the Port Orange Town Center TCEA.

 

Staff recommends that Council approve the attached resolution expressing the City’s intent to use the uniform method of collecting non-ad valorem special assessments for mobility strategies and enhancements required as part of the Port Orange Town Center Transportation Concurrency Exception Area.  

 

City Manager’s Comments:  As part of the TCEA approval process, the City indicated that it may desire to use the Special Assessment process to make some of the required transportation improvements.  This preserves the right to use a Special Assessment to meet the requirements of the Transportation Concurrency Exceptions Area (TCEA).

 

Item 31 -        Discussion – Woodhaven CDD

 

Let me pose a question to the City Council.  Does the City Council desire to withdraw its property from the Woodhaven CDD?  You have seen correspondence between Mr. Poole and the City Manager concerning this item. 

 

Should the City Council desire to not have its property included within the boundaries of the CDD, the City Council would have to petition the CDD Board requesting that the CDD Board amend its boundaries and allow the City’s property to be removed.  If the CDD Board agreed to the City’s petition, it would still require the State of Florida to agree to have the property removed from the CDD since the CDD was created by the State of Florida, not the City of Port Orange. 

 

I asked Margaret what type of fees we could anticipate having to pay to have the property removed from the CDD.  Since the process of removing property from the CDD is the same process as creating the CDD, we could anticipate paying the City $1,500 and the County $1,500.  Those are fees that are required to be paid under the statute.  The remaining funds would be legal and other related fees.  Those fees could be as much as $17,000.  Those are rough estimates. 

 

Is there a financial impact on the City property being included in the CDD?  In our opinion, there is no financial impact on the City whether the property is inside the CDD or removed from the CDD.  A lien cannot be placed on the City-owned property by the CDD.  The City owned property cannot be assessed by the CDD.  There will be other publicly dedicated and owned parcels inside the CDD once the development begins.  For example, there will be streets, sidewalks, and path systems that will be included in the CDD.  A lien cannot be placed on those properties.  There will be utility easements for the City’s water, sewer, and reclaimed water lines.  Those are normally located within the public rights of way.  In other words, the CDD cannot assess or lien any of the public property within the CDD boundaries. 

 

The CDD does not have any rights to make improvements on the city owned property without the City’s authorization and approval.  Even if the City granted permission for the CDD to make improvements on City owned property, the CDD cannot lien or assess the City for improvements made by the CDD on the City owned land.  

 

As you are aware, public roads and utility lines will be constructed by the CDD.  The utility lines will become the property of the City of Port Orange.  Williamson Boulevard will be dedicated as a public road.  There probably will be other roads within Woodhaven that will be dedicated to the public.  Those are publicly owned properties that cannot be assessed or liened by the CDD.  There will be public recreational properties located inside the CDD boundaries as well.  Those properties are not subject to assessment or liens either. 

 

I have asked Margaret whether ownership of the 225 acres of property inside the Woodhaven CDD provided the City with any voting rights in regard to selection of the CDD Board. In fact, the City’s ownership may qualify the City as an elector.  I will allow Margaret to advise the City Council on the elector issue. 

 

In the final analysis, it is a preference issue, not a legal issue or a financial issue whether  the 225 acres of City owned property remains inside the CDD or not.  As you will recall, a CDD is a legal local government.  Ultimately, its Board will be elected by the electors living within the CDD boundaries.  Although I have been assured that there is no legal or financial conflict with the City property being located within the boundaries, there is always the potential of political conflict with a large tract of land owned by the City of Port Orange being located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the CDD.  The withdrawal is more of a policy question to avoid potential conflicts between elected bodies than it is a financial or legal issue. 

 

One final note:  I have requested information from the City of Daytona Beach about LPGA. It is a CDD.  I am asking whether the Tennis Center and the LPGA Golf Course are located within the boundaries of the LPGA CDD.  As I understand it, both the USTA Tennis Center and the LPGA Golf Course are city owned properties.  If they are located within the boundaries of the CDD, that would be an excellent comparison.

 

 

K.  COUNCIL COMMENTS

 

Item 32 -        Comments/Concerns from Council Members

 

At this time, Council Members may discuss various matters of concern.

 

Kwp/rlg