CCMtg11-06-06WSMin-, LONGWOOI) CITY COMMISSION
~~ Longwood City Commission Chambers
175 West Warren Avenue
Longwood, ]Florida
WORK SES~SIOrT MINUTES
VVITF[
BARRINGTON RESIDENTS
NOVEMBER: 6, 2006
6:00 P.l'VI.
Present: Mayor John C. Maingot
Deputy Mayor Dan Andes°son
Commissioner Mike Holt
Commissioner H.G. "Butt>h" Bundy, Jr.
Commissioner Brian D. S:~ckett
Teresa S. Roper, Acting City Attorney
John J. Drago, City Administrator
Sarah M. Mirus, City Clerk
Carol Rogers, Director of Financial Services
Ryan Spinella, Executive Assistant
Tom Smith, Division Manager of Streets/Fleets
Absent: Richard S. Taylor, Jr., Ci1.y Attorney (Excused)
1. CALL TO ORDER. Mayor Maingot called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.
2. BUSINESS.
A. Discuss subdivision design plan, with Barrington residents.
Mayor Maingot said his letter was copied: to all of the residents so everyone was
informed. He stated he read their manuscript and timeline. He said they were
concerned with moving forward with this project this evening and look at what
the residents have to present.
Judi Coact, 1695 Grange Circle, said it was her understanding this meeting was to
go over a list of questions that were presented to Commissioner Bundy at a
meeting by a group that has been working to move the front entrance forward.
She .inquired if the list was passed along to the Commissioners.
Mayor Maingot said they would address those questions after presentation of their
beautification program.
Ms. Coact said they did not request 1;his meeting to bruig in and present plans they
have received. She stated they have received more than one plan, but-they would
CC 11-06-06/347
like to straighten out the: issues to move this project forward before they approve __
having this done. She advised these were the questions presented to ';
Commissioner Bundy and the reason they requested to hold this meeting. ~
Commissioner Sackett said it was his understanding there would be questions, but
he also thought they would see projects: He stated it was his understanding there
was a strong desire to move this forward.
Deputy Mayor Anderson. said he would be happy to go through the questions then
discuss where they go from there.
Ms. Coad said Allen Weber would be discussing question two on the list.
Mayor Maingot reviewed question two; Written agreement of property that
Barrington residents are responsible for and that City is responsible for upon
finalization of agreement. He said the .answer was The City does not enter into
written agreements. .
Allen Weber, 1786 Grange Circle, said it was agreed upon on June 22, 2005 with
Commissioner Bundy, Mr. Drago, Carol Rogers, himself, and Judi Coad that the
owners of Barrington would take over maintenance of the signature area, the
island and the residents' side of the wall. He said they also needed an agreement
that the. City of Longwood would maintain their property in the same manner the
residents will be maintaining their area and the wall. He stated they wanted
everything to be the .same.
Mayor Maingot said the City would continue to maintain the. retention areas with
or without an agreement. He stated the front entrance and the mowing in the front
has been done by the City for the benefit of the homeowners. He affirmed in other
instances the homeowners pay for this as part of the maintenance project.
Ms. Coad reiterated this Commission had said if they chose not to go forward
with enhancing the front entrance, the City would continue to mow and irrigate,
and as it deteriorated they would just start to plant grass. She said what they are
asking was ,regarding part of the block wall. on City property to the retention pond.
She stated they were just asking if they spend the money to maintain the
residents' side of the wall that the City would continue to do so with the wall on
the City's side. She declared they had been threatened by the City to tear it down.
She said the. second point at the same meeting: of June 22na it was. discussed that
there would be an engineer reviewing the wall. to see where the weaknesses were
and repaired. She inquired if this was done and. said they would like something in
writing from the City. She stated they wanted this to go forward and be a nice
entrance to their homes.
Deputy Mayor Anderson said hearing the answer that the City does not enter into
agreements was not helpful and they needed more context. He stated the City does
enter into all kinds of agreements, but. perhaps it is the kind of agreement they
were being asked to enter into. He raised questions regarding the retention pond to
CC 1.1-06-06/348
the back of the subdivision whether it was owned by the City and who was
maintaining it. He inquired if there 'was ciizal ownership of the entrance to the
~' subdivision.
Commissioner Bundy said there was also a. City owned retention pond at the front
of the subdivision.
Mr. Drago advised that this retention pond goes to Danbury Mills..
Deputy Mayor Anderson said he would like to establish what the parcels of
property are and what they were talking about. when moving forward.
Mr. Drago advised the wall. and the front retention pond belong to the City. He
said he was hearing that if the retention pond backs up to the wall, the residents
want assurance from the City regarding the maintenance of that area.
Mayor Maingot inquired if the City followed through with the agreement
following their meeting.
Mr. Drago said the wall was looked at and. the City grouted all the grout areas on
the road side. He said, given its current condition, it was as good as it was going
to be short of tearing it down and starting, over.
Deputy Mayor Anderson said he just heard the City owns the wall, so there was
no share. The City took responsibility of the wall when accepting ownership. He
stated this being the case, the City c<~uld choose to maintain the wall or elect to
remove the wall. He said he understands the residents would like the wall. to
remain there in the future plans.
Mr. Weber advised this started by the resi<ients receiving notice a. couple of years
ago that the wall was not up to Code and the City was going to tear it down. He
said he made contact with County engineers and showed them the letter. They
told him the City could not tear down the wall because it does not pass Code, it.
would have to be deemed unsafe. He stated that was why they had the meeting
with Commissioner Bundy and Mr. Drago. He said that was where the
engineering study came in.
Ms. Roper said she did not understand the County's reasoning without talking to
them.
Deputy Mayor Anderson said they needed to focus on the end picture of where
they wanted to arrive and whether there was a path acceptable to the City and the
homeowners to get to this end result.
Commissioner Bundy said the key was on 'the ownership and the residents would
be taking ownership through the assessment program. He stated the ownership
~ they were talking about was whether the City would take ownership of the wall
CC 11-06-06/:349
next to the retention area. He said there was a consensus reached at the meeting, _
but there was no written formalized agreement.
Commissioner Holt said they were simply requesting this information be placed
in writing.
Deputy Mayor Anderson said in the absence of any agreement, the City maintains
a contract with a mowing company to mow the City right-of--ways 46 times a
year. He stated they should demand this property be treated the same as any other
property in the City. They are asking for an agreement for something different and
better than what the City was currently doing. He said they needed to determine
which portions to upgrade.
Ms. Coad said their biggest concern was that the City takes on maintaining the
wall and mowing the grass.
Commissioner Holt suggested the City come into an agreement with the scope of
work they will do with the homeowners and place this in writing by the
beautification agreement.
Mayor Maingot said what occurred in the past does not predicate what will occur
in the future. He stated they needed to move forward and did not see a problem
with documenting the wall will be maintained properly.
Deputy Mayor Anderson said they could place the scope of the work in detail in
the agreement. `J
Mr. Drago inquired if the intent was for the residents to maintain the
entranceways. .
Ms. Coad responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Drago said if the residents were going. to maintain the entranceways they did
not need the City assessment mechanism to do this.
Deputy Mayor Anderson said they were going to pay for the maintenance through
the assessment program.
Mr. Drago said they would need to see the design plan.
Commissioner Sackett inquired if the August 2005 over 60% vote was now
nonbinding.
Ms. Coad said the Barrington owners were requesting that there be no re-vote on
passing the beautification program based on more than 60%. She said 43 owners
out of 56, which is a 77% total of the owners, passed that proposal in August
2005. She said the owners in Barrington accepted the program and the City
Commission needed to pass the tabled petition to move this project forward. She ~
said the proposal was to bill in the rears as the project was completed.
CC 11-06-06/350
Deputy Mayor Anderson said he would not have a, comfort factor moving forward
until they know what is being agreed to. He stated he would like to have a re-vote.
Mayor Maingot said they would want to make sure the residents were on board
with the costs.
Ms. Coact said the rules seem to change every year for them.
Deputy Mayor Anderson said then they get the plan and the neighUorhood is
happy with the plan and the costs involve~3, then they: should move,forward.
~~,
Commissioner Sackett said things were tabled procedurally and he inquired if the
vote would still stand.
Ms. Roper said if everything was done correctly the vote would stand. She said
they were saying to define the program. anal they would still need to vote on what
that program would be.
Mr. Drago said at the .last workshop with JBarrington, the assessment attorney was
asked if they could accept the 60% vote treat went prior to this new plan. The
attorney's recommendation at that time w~~s no. He said Barrington was going to
come up with their plan and the costs.
Deputy Mayor Anderson reviewed the procedure of the plan being presented and
~- then the official letters will go out. to the residents. The official process would
start at that time.
Mr. Drago affirmed the residents weal be required to vote again. He said the letter
does state the dollar amount.
Commissioner Bundy said the letter that uieluded the dollar amount was not the
vote letter. He declared the letter sent out for them to vote to enter the program
had no dollar amount listed. He said otcr ordinance states if they get 60% approval
rate then we will set up the program. He stated they tabled sending it forward to
the Tax Collector to be collected. He; said :he would like clarification from the
assessment attorney that he is comfortable with this. He affirmed there were two
letters being discussed.
Commissioner Holt left the meeting at 7:0.4 p,m.
Mr. Drago said the preference would'. be to see. the final plan with cost. He stated
the contract could then be more defitutive.
Commissioner Bundy said the City Attorney needed to look into the legality of
matters.. He stated they should provide the Barrington homeowners with a copy of
the agenda packet so they will have most of their questions answered. He pointed
~, out they changed. the answer to question number two.
CC 11-C16-06/.351
3. ADJOURN. Mayor Maingot adjourned the meeting at 7:0'8 p.m.
AI /~
O
ATTEST,:
ti Rio
Sarah M. Miri~~j; CMC
City Clerk
..
CC 11-06-06/352