Town of Glen St. Mary 

Florida's Outstanding Rural Community of the Year-2004

July 16, 2019

The Town of Glen St. Mary held the regular monthly meeting on Tuesday,
July 16, 2019 at 7:00 P.M. at the Town Hall with Council MembersDavis, Foster, Hodges and Rhynehardt present.  Mayor Juanice Padgett presided over the meeting.  Mayor Padgett asked Mr. David Crummey to open with prayer followed by the flag salute. 

 

Note: These meeting minutes are a summarized version of the actual discussions at the meeting.  These are not verbatim transcripts.  For a complete audio recording of the discussion please contact Donna Loadholtz at glenstmary3777@glenstmary.org.

 

Minutes:  Consideration:

A)    Approval of minutes of June 18, 2019 – Workshop and June 18, 2019 - Regular Monthly MeetingOn a motion by CouncilMember Davis, second by Councilman Foster, the Board voted to approve theminutes as presented. (Vote 5-0)

 

Policy Agenda Items:

A)    2017/2018 Annual Audit – Kyla Taylor with Lyons and Lyons CPA’s – Mr. Clay Lyons of Lyons and Lyons CPA’s presented the 2017/2018 annual audit.  He pointed out several pages throughout the audit booklet explaining the balancing and summarizations for both the General Operating account and Water/Sewer Account.  The same findings of lack of segregation of duties were noted, but very common in small communities.  Mr. Lyons asked that the Council look over the audit and call him if they should have any questions about anything.  He told Council calling and asking questions would not cost extra, but is included with their services.

B)    Vote to Accept the 2017/2018 Annual Audit - On a motion by Council Member Hodges, second by Councilman Rhynehardt, the board voted to accept the 2017/2018 Annual Audit as presented.  (Vote 5-0)

C)    Discussion and Vote if Necessary, on the Crummey Cost Recovery Agreement – Councilman Rhynehardt asked if this was something we voted on.  Mayor Padgett told Council that Mr. Crummey has sold four lots to Fred Wayne Yarborough.  They say the Mayor did not tell them about cost recovery so she has asked Attorney Bense to look into this matter.  Attorney Bense stated that in looking at the agreement, Mr. Crummey has paid $18,894 for the lift station for sewer infrastructure.  It’s an infrastructure of the Town that normally the Town would recover fees for.  In this case, the property owner incurred the fees and the Agreement showed Mr. Crummey had four lots that were to be reimbursed for later on when they were developed, which they have been sold.  The Town has fees for a typical property of $1,200 for water tap fees, $600 for sewer tap fees, and $1,750 for sewer capacity fees for a new sewer line and $1,000 for water capacity fees for a new water line.  If you add those amounts up without cost recovery fees, there is not enough to actually reimburse.  Attorney Bense’s understanding that the specific costs that were paid by the Crummey’s would be something the Town would recoup through the Cost Recovery fees.  Not through the tap or capacity fees because those are for different purposes.   Mayor Padgett added the fees mentioned are for one home, that it would need to be multiplied by four, then there would be money, but that was not the intent of the agreement.   Attorney Bense stated that with that, there may be some money there, but it would be his understanding that the cost recovery fee would be the specific type of fee that the Town would use to repay the cost of infrastructure.   So here if we are just looking at two properties, there wouldn’t be enough money in the capacity fees and tap fees to actually reimburse for the amounts here.  Per the agreement, if the costs are not recouped from those specific fees within ten years, nothing gets paid back.  We want to make sure those fees are sufficient to cover the costs that are to be reimbursed.  Regardless of the amount, we are only obligated to $12,596 for the remaining four lots.  Mr. Crummey argued the Town drew up the agreement and that the Town has collected fees from his two homes for the past five years.  He feels the recovery fees would be like double taxation to Mr. Yarborough that purchased the other lots.  The engineer and designer he used to construct the lift station has told him that it can service forty more homes.  He thought it unfair to charge Mr. Yarborough for the balance.  He stated he is the only one who has “cost”, the Town doesn’t have any “cost” at this point.  He added the precedent has already been set when the Town waived his capacity fees when his first two homes were connected.  Attorney Bense responded that the two homes were connected but they were dealt with during the agreement.  The cost recovery fee is not for the Town, but for the Town to reimburse Mr. Crummey for what he did.  So, it is Attorney Bense’s position that the Town has a duty to collect cost recovery fees to have the revenue to pay Mr. Crummey.   Perhaps in this instance, the tap fees and capacity fees can be adjusted to make up the difference in whatever is not collected there.  Mr. Crummey sees it differently.  He stated the agreement doesn’t state one time on the agreement “recovery fees” and the Town signed a legal document that’s filed at the court house, owes him that money.  Now where that money comes from, that’s up the Town to figure out.  He feels it would be cheaper for Mr. Yarborough to abandon the lift station and put in his own lift station.  There was some discussion about the various fees and what should belong to the Town and not be subject for repayment of the funds to Mr. Crummey.  Mr. Yarborough then asked about other homes connecting to the lift station.  There is no easement on the portion of property that Glen Baptist owns and there would need to be an easement going towards Lincoln Avenue.   Councilman Foster stated the Town would need to have an easement there in order to be able to try to connect and serve other people on that same line.  Attorney Bense asked Mr. Crummey if his position was that the Town should collect the normal capacity fees and tap fees, if he had not actually improved this property, these would be the normal fees.  Mr. Crummey responded if he wasn’t involved, yes, they should.  Attorney Bense added that it is Mr. Crummey’s position that since Mr. Crummey was involved, that he feels that the Town shouldn’t collect the normal fees.  Mr. Crummey stated and the recovery fees, it has to be one or the other, it can’t be both.  His fees of about $3,800 per home were waived when he connected as is fee portion.  He stated again that the precedent was set because that is how it happened for him.  He told Council that once the lift station is paid for, the Town can do whatever they desire to do with the lift station.  After more discussion, Councilman Foster stated he had looked at the property previously, but decided against it after finding out what his fees would be to connect to water and sewer with the recovery costs.  Had the lift station not have been constructed, the homes on that block would have to install septic tanks.  Attorney Bense told Council we are dealing with sewer fees, not water fees.  The new property owner is prepared to pay the tap and capacity fees, but not the recovery fees.  Tap fees and capacity fees have to be paid before a building permit will be issued, which the owner is ready to get started.  Attorney Bense discussed with Council the need to decide what to charge and how to satisfy Mr. Crummey for the cost recovery, though he wasn’t sure they would be able to do that in the meeting because he is unsure what and where the fees would be paid from.  Mayor Padgett added that since 2005 the Town’s infrastructure has been paid by grants, except for the Journey lift station, which the Davis’s paid to have the lines extended out to the store.  Since Mr. Yarborough is ready to build two homes, Council continued to try to come up with a way to repay Mr. Crummey.  Attorney Bense explained taking the sewer tap fees and capacity fees along with cost recovery of $799 to come up with the funds to repay Mr. Crummey.  Councilman Rhynehardt stated that if what the Town collects on the sewer fees is $9,400. The difference is $3,196, which is the $799 per property according to Attorney Bense so that the Town is not taking water fees to repay sewer costs on these properties.  Councilman Foster stated the sewer tap are already there, so they will not have to tap into the sewer lines.  Council had a short discussion on water lines and meters to be installed, which would be coming from the water tap fees.  Mr. Crummey stated he would take the fees as the Attorney has outlined and would allow the Town to issue him a check for the next three years for $1,065.33, so the Town could budget for this amount.  Mayor Padgett stated the Town would probably jut go ahead and issue one check and get it cleared up.  Mayor Padgett asked for a motion to collect the Sewer Tap Fee and Sewer Capacity Fee for a total of $2,350 per property and because it says the Town of Glen will pay, the Town will collect and write a check for each property as we collect it, to Mr. Gary Crummey with a balance of $3,196 to be decided in our budget workshops on whether to pay it outright or finance or over the next three years.  On a motion by Councilman Foster, second by Council Member Hodges, the board voted to collect the Sewer Tap Fee and Sewer Capacity Fee for a total of $2,350 per property and because it says the Town of Glen will pay, the Town will collect and write a check for each property as we collect it, to Mr. Gary Crummey with a balance of $3,196 to be decided in our budget workshops on whether to pay it outright or finance or over the next three years. (Vote 5-0) Mr. Yarborough is ready to start building and is prepared to pay the first two fees.  Councilman Foster asked about getting an easement to go towards Lincoln Avenue.  There is a large oak tree on the property.  Glen Baptist owns the south two lots. 

D)    Discussion of the Process of Condemning the Property of 7287 W. Mt. Vernon St. (Carol Wiggins Property) – Mayor Padgett told Council that a wellness check by the Sheriff’s office found Carol Wiggins deceased Saturday night.  People have told her the home is deteriorated.  Attorney Bense told Council this is a code enforcement issue.  Article 2 of the Land Development Codes address the minimum housing standards.  They require the property owner to bring the property up to code.  Since we don’t have a property owner, the Town can post a notice on the property.  Florida Statutes states up to thirty days, to bring it up to code and make it habitable or face fines and other sanctions by the Town.  The Town could then proceed through the housing official, which is the one who has the authority to issue citations.  Fines could then start to accrue, which the magistrate could turn the fines into a lien against the property.  Part of those fines could wind up being the Town’s cost if it ends up taking action to take the building down if nobody else does.  The Town needs to do what it needs to do to make it safe and so it becomes a public nuisance at that point.  It is not specific in the Town’s LDR’s, or found in the Statutes to give the Town the authority to actually start the demolition process so the Town may have to go to the magistrate twice.  This is very similar to code enforcement procedures.  Is there someone currently going around Town doing the Town business?  Councilman Foster asked if the Town go and clean up around the house.  He said it is a health hazard to walk by there and it is on the main street for everybody to see.  Councilman Rhynehardt spoke up to say he believes the Council is rushing into this too quick.  Attorney Bense told Council they can’t just go tear the house down before giving the property owner a chance to correct the problem.  You have to go through the process.  The Town could tape off the property as a deterrent.  Mayor Padgett responded she wanted to get this going because it is going to take a while.  Attorney Bense stated the prior notices were probably only for the cleanup of the property, not to tear it down.  He added it would be a high expense to take the structure down.  Councilmen Rhynehardt and Foster both wanted to know if the Town could at least clean up under the carport.  Councilman Rhynehardt asked about another property maintenance had cleaned up in the past.  Mayor Padgett replied that family members had cleaned the other property after being noticed by code enforcement.  Mayor Padgett will instruct maintenance to go and clean out under the carport for the time being.

F)     Review Prior Month’s Expenditures (Check Register) –Council had no questions about the prior month’s expenditures.

E)     Discussion on Next Grant Cycle (Email from Grant Coordinator) – Mayor Padgett told Council this grant has to be closed out this Friday.  The next grant cycle has not been announced, but the grant coordinator has said there are things that can be done now if we want to apply for the next grant.  If you wait for the grant cycle, you only have forty-five days and you just don’t have enough time to do it all.  Mayor Padgett told Council we need to get started on it.  On a motion by Councilman Foster, second by Council Member Hodges, the board voted to go ahead and do the preliminary work for the next cycle.

 

On a motion by Council Member Hodges, second by Council Member Davis, the Town meeting was adjourned at 8:09 P.M.

This is the official site of the Town of Glen St. Mary, FL