Village Council Workshop

Village of Wellington 12300 Forest Hill Blvd Wellington, FL 33414 Action Summary - Final Monday, July 13, 2015 3:00 PM Village Hall Village Council Workshop Bob Margolis, Mayor John Greene, Vice Mayor Matt Willhite, Councilman Anne Gerwig, Councilwoman John T. McGovern, Councilman Village Council Workshop Action Summary - Final July 13, 2015 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Margolis called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. 2. REVIEW OF COUNCIL AGENDA Mr. Schofield presented the Agenda for the July14TH Council Meeting for discussion and review. A. 15-523 FOLLOW-UP PRESENTATION BY MONICA KALLAS REGARDING LABELING OF GMOs Mr. Schofield introduced the item. He stated that he received a second request from Ms. Kallas asking to continue her discussion regarding GMOs. He reminded Council about their policy regarding responding to presenters. Council indicated that they expected a new presentation and suggested having another perspective presented, i.e., farmer. Council consensus was to limit the presentation to five minutes. Mr. Schofield stated that Ms. Kallas would be limited to present information that was not previously presented to Council. Ms. Cohen stated that her impression was that Ms. Kallas was looking for a resolution in support of their efforts from the Village but she would contact the City of Margate to obtain insight on the process they took regarding their supporting resolution. Council asked staff to provide a draft of all presentations in advance for informational purposes in the future. B. 15-493 PRESENTATION OF CHARTER REVIEW TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS TO VILLAGE COUNCIL Mr. Schofield introduced this item. This item is for discussion and direction regarding recommendations made by the Charter Task Force for proposed changes to the Village Charter. Councilman Willhite asked to move the discussion of this item to the end of the Agenda Review meeting. This item was discussed at the conclusion of the Regular Agenda items. C. 15-500 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR WELLINGTON COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 9, 2015 Mr. Schofield introduced the approval of the Minutes of the Regular Wellington Council Meeting of June 9, 2015. There were no changes recommended. D. 15-330 AUTHORIZATION TO: 1) RENEW THE VILLAGE’S EXISTING ANNUAL MINOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS; AND 2) UTILIZE AN EXISTING PALM BEACH GARDENS CONTRACT, AS A BASIS FOR PRICING, FOR PUBLIC WORKS MINOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS Mr. Schofield introduced this item. This item is for the authorization to: 1) renew existing annual minor construction contracts (ITB# 024-13/DZ) with Village of Wellington Page 1 Village Council Workshop Action Summary - Final July 13, 2015 multiple vendors; and 2) utilize an existing Palm Beach gardens contract (#2014-031PW) as a basis for pricing for public works minor construction projects. This contract was for the renewal of three contractors noting that one contractor has been difficult about maintaining prices while another did not want to renew. Mr. Barnes explained that the item was to provide minor sidewalk repairs noting that and on occasions they have used the same vendor for restoration and minor repairs to pathways. In response to a question regarding staff not recommending the renewal of two of the vendors, Mr. Barnes explained that staff was not renewing one of the vendors as Mr. Schofield previously mentioned and the other vendor was non-responsive to staff’s request to renew. He also noted that the vendors listed were not in a specific order because of the request for multiple line items and depending on the scope of work; the actual unit price would be reviewed. Mr. De La Vega added that the contract was a unit priced contract which was used on a project by project basis and depending on what the line item was, the unit pricing was part of the bid. He explained that the Public Works Department would look at the unit price from of all the vendors and determine on a project by project bases, depending on what line item was needed, which vendor had the best price. Councilman Willhite asked for the amount of projects and the amount that each of the 3 (three) vendors would be making during the year. In response, Mr. De La Vega stated that he did not have the information. He explained that staff’s routine procedure was if the project went over $25,000, the project would be listed. The projects that were less than $25,000 were not listed on the agenda item because Council’s approval was not needed. Councilman Willhite said that if staff provides local preference and differentiates by county, the Village’s preference was to give the local business the first choice. He stated that that he did not want to hear that staff divided the item so that 1 (one) local vendor was obtaining only 1 (one) contract and the rest of the vendors were obtaining the others. Mr. Schofield explained that whatever work the vendor was doing staff would look for the best price. He pointed out that, with the local preference, the local vendor has the opportunity to match the lowest bid price, within the 5% amount. If the local vendor did not want to match the lowest bid price, then staff would move to the lowest bid. In response to a question raised whether this procedure was done on a case-by-case basis, Mr. Schofield responded that it was done on a case-by-case basis. Mr. De La Vega reiterated how the local preference was conducted. Councilman Willhite asked Mr. Fleury to provide Council with the amount of projects, the cost of each project and which vendors have been considered for the projects. There were no changes recommended. E. 15-334 AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD ANNUAL PUBLIC WORK CONTRACTS TO MULTIPLE VENDORS Village of Wellington Page 2 Village Council Workshop Action Summary - Final July 13, 2015 Mr. Schofield introduced the item. This item is for the authorization to award annual public work contracts to multiple vendors for canal cleaning, installation of drainage pipes and structures and swale reconstruction. Councilman Willhite thought that if the Village was going to have the western community businesses submitting bids, staff needed to make sure that they were benefitting because that was the purpose of the Village’s Local Preference procedure. Mr. De La Vega said that the list was not from top to bottom; and there was not a primary or secondary awarding, they were all even, except for the local preference businesses. Councilman Willhite asked for the amount of projects and the amount that each of the 3 (three) vendors would be making during the year. Mr. Fleury stated that he would provide the information to Council. Mr. De La Vega stated that a list of the projects over $25,000 was included with this item and staff would provide a list of projects that were below the $25,000 amount to Council. There were no changes recommended. F. 15-331 AUTHORIZATION TO RENEW A CONTRACT WITH PALM BEACH AGGREGATES, LLC FOR THE SUPPLY AND DELIVERY OF ROAD BASE AND DRAIN ROCK Mr. Schofield introduced the item. He explained that this was authorization to renew a contract with Palm Beach Aggregates, LLC for the supply and delivery of road base and drain rock in the amount of approximately $150,000.00 annually. This would exercise the first renewal option wi th Palm Beach Aggregates, LLC, the primary awardee, through September 30, 2016 with no price increases. There were no changes recommended. G. 15-470 AUTHORIZATION TO RENEW AN EXISTING AGREEMENT WITH PFM ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC. (PFM) TO PROVIDE THE VILLAGE WITH INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES Mr. Schofield introduced the item. This item is for the authorization to renew an existing agreement with PFM Asset Management, LLC. to provide the Village with investment management services in the amount of $48,000 annually. Ms. Quickel stated that the item was a contract renewal which expired on September 30, 2014 with three additional one year renewal options. The request was to renew for one additional year. In response to a question raised whether the Village was satisfied with PFM Asset Management particularly since some of their investments had not done well, Ms. Quickel stated that PFM Asset Management has provided very good service and explained that part of the challenge was with the Village’s construction program for the new Tennis facility and the Community Center in which the Village shortened the term to cover the expenditures for those projects by approximately 13 million dollars. She explained that amount was matched with renewals and currently they were working on extending the duration of the term. Village of Wellington Page 3 Village Council Workshop Action Summary - Final July 13, 2015 Mayor Margolis pointed out that PFM could be the best firm in the world but if they were making recommendations where the returns on the invested money was not being seen, it may be time to look at other firms. Ms. Quickel said that she understood Mayor Margolis’ concern. In response to a concern about PFM, and whether it was time to give other firms the opportunity to provide business, Ms. Quickel explained that nine companies responded to the initial bid and all of them were qualified to perform the service. She said that at this point in time it was too late to put the service out for bid for this year but she would add to the bid list for next year. Council consensus was to place this on next year’s bid list. Ms. Quickel indicated that this would be added to the FY 2016-2017 bid list. There were no changes recommended. H. 15-471 AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD A CONTRACT FOR THE SECTION 24 OBSERVATION TOWER RAILING REPAIR PROJECT Mr. Schofield introduced this item. This item is for the authorization to award a contract to Roof Painting by Hartzell, Inc. for the Section 24 Observation Tower Railing Repair Project in the amount of $47,872.00. Mr. Barnes presented the contract for the Section 24 Observation Tower railing repair project. In response to a question raised by Councilman Willhite Mr. Barnes explained that an outside engineer was hired to prepare the specifications for the new coating system. Once he obtained the product’s warranty, he would provide Council with a copy. Council expressed concern about having to replace this every four years and thought there could be a better product. They questioned whether the original materials that had been used met the specifications in the contract. Council also questioned the length of the warranty on the new product. In response to Council’s questions and concerns, Mr. Barnes said that the current product was no longer under warranty and several different factors could have been the issue why the current product was being replaced. The replacement product would not have the same maintenance requirements. He advised Council that he did not know the length of the warranty for the new product, but would provide that information to them. Mr. Barnes also addressed the material used, and explained that the specifications were reviewed and the consulting engineer and construction manager had signed off on the work. Currently staff does not believe that there was a defect but the issue could be revisited if that was Council’s request. Mr. Fleury addressed the past procedure of the installation and welding of the kick plates. He explained that the added kick plates should not have been on there and it was not possible to obtain access to the rear portion to treat it. It was his opinion that area rusted because of the welding in the field but records of the added plate were not found. He said that the existing railings were approximately seven years old and he has tried to obtain the shop drawings but none have been found. The current project was top notch and an industrial coating would be applied after striping to the bare metal. Village of Wellington Page 4 Village Council Workshop Action Summary - Final July 13, 2015 Mr. Fleury also addressed Council concern about having to do this procedure every four years, and that perhaps a better design was needed. He explained that if the railings would have been made of high grade aluminum, the issue would not have come up for several years but currently the price was for that type of railing would be more than $150,000 for the entire project. He thought that by striping down the existing railings and applying a good quality paint job which would include powder coating to the specifications provided by the bridge design consultant, the railings would last another ten years. Furthermore, Mr. Fleury stated that his plan was to start budgeting for each floor per year in a renewal or replacement fund in order to install the aluminum railings in the future. Responding to a question whether this was being done for esthetic or safety reasons, Mr. Fleury said it was being done so that no one would tumble or fall out due to the railings. He explained that staff has tried to patch, paint, sand the railings but anyone could get cut on the rusty metal. Mr. Fleury reiterated that he hoped to get 10 years out of the new product that would be applied to the railings. He has tried to handle the upkeep and maintenance in house in order not to spend additional funds but that was not working. Council questioned whether this should be delayed to further research this issue or was there a sense of urgency to get it done. Mr. Fleury explained that when he saw the price of $47,000 quote by the vendor and who would be monitoring the process, he decided to move forward with the project and continue to use the railings. He said that by the end of the ten years, enough funds would be budgeted for the aluminum or stainless railings which were the materials that should have been installed initially but were not because of their high cost. Mr. Schofield explained that there were a number of construction problems with the project and staff has been monitoring the problem for a number of years. He explained that staff continuously tried to sand, grind and paint the areas. He stated that this project was not one of the regular maintenance projects and reiterated that the process would hold up for approximately ten years. He noted that time period would allow the Public Works Department time to prepare for a scheduled replacement project with aluminum railings. He explained if one or two floors were done during this year, the rest of the floors would need to be repainted. Currently the railings do not look bad because staff paints them continuously due to the original primer coating would not protect the metal. Once the metal starts rusting it was very hard to stop it. Council questioned whether a comprehensive review of all structures should be done. Mr. Fleury explained they had received good news the previous week regarding the mitigation area that the Village was in full compliance with SFWMD. Regarding whether a comprehensive review was needed, Mr. Fleury explained that with the work that staff was currently doing; there was not a large amount of items that would need maintenance besides the day-to-day maintenance Councilman Willhite suggested having more directional signage since the rear portion of the park was very remote. He also suggested adding emergency telephones as well as other safety items that had been discussed in the past. Village of Wellington Page 5 Village Council Workshop Action Summary - Final July 13, 2015 There were no changes recommended. I. 15-483 AUTHORIZATION TO UTILIZE AN EXISTING ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA CONTRACT AS THE BASIS OF PRICING FOR THE SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE, DELIVERY AND SERVICE OF FLYGT PUMPS Mr. Schofield introduced this item. This item is for the authorization to continue utilizing a sole source contract between Xylem Water Solutions USA, Inc. (formerly ITT Water and Wastewater USA Inc.) and Orange County, Florida as a basis for pricing for the purchase, delivery and service of Flygt pumps in the amount of approximately $200,000. There were no changes recommended. J. 15-489 RESOLUTIONS ADOPTING PRELIMINARY TRIM RATES FOR WELLINGTON AND THE ACME IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AS FOLLOWS: A. RESOLUTION NO. R2015-48 (ADOPTING THE PRELIMINARY AD VALOREM MILLAGE RATE FOR WELLINGTON FOR TRUTH-IN-MILLAGE ("TRIM") PURPOSES WITHIN THE JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES OF WELLINGTON) A RESOLUTION OF WELLINGTON, FLORIDA’S COUNCIL ADOPTING THE PRELIMINARY AD VALOREM MILLAGE RATE FOR WELLINGTON FOR TRUTH-IN-MILLAGE (“TRIM”) PURPOSES FOR THE MUNICIPALITY’S FISCAL YEAR 2015-2016 BUDGET WITHIN THE JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES OF WELLINGTON; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. B. RESOLUTION NO. AC2015-10 (ADOPTING THE PRELIMINARY NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT RATE FOR ACME IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR TRIM PURPOSES) A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE ACME IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ADOPTING THE DISTRICT’S PRELIMINARY NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT RATE FOR TRUTH-IN-MILLAGE (“TRIM”) PURPOSES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. C. RESOLUTION NO. R2015-49 (ADOPTING THE PRELIMINARY NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT RATES FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND RECYCLING SERVICES FOR TRIM PURPOSES A RESOLUTON OF WELLINGTON, FLORIDA’S COUNCIL ADOPTING THE PRELIMINARY NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT Village of Wellington Page 6 Village Council Workshop Action Summary - Final July 13, 2015 RATES FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND RECYCLING SERVICE FOR TRUTH-IN-MILLAGE (“TRIM”) PURPOSES WITHIN THE JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES OF WELLINGTON; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mr. Schofield introduced this item. This item is for the approval of the following resolutions setting TRIM rates for ad-valorem taxes and non-ad valorem assessments for solid waste and recycling in Wellington and ACME’s non-ad valorem assessment as required by law. He described the three resolutions: (1) Ad valorem millage rate proposed (2) Non-ad valorem assessment for the Acme Improvement; and (3) Non-ad valorem assessment for solid waste collection and recycling Ms. Quickel said that staff had met with each Council member to review the budget. Staff will present a PowerPoint presentation at the Council meeting to review the proposed budget. Ms. Quickel stated that Council was provided with the revised 2015-2016 Annual Budget Overview book and a copy of the Press Release that was sent a few weeks ago. She stated that the millage rate that Council would approve tomorrow night would be the amount that would be listed on the notices that would be sent to the residents on August 20, 2015. Ms. Quickel provided the highlights of each of the resolutions. She indicated that staff was proposing a millage rate of 2.45 for the Ad Valorem which is the same as the current year’s rate and above the rollback rate of 2.24 mills; the preliminary Non-Ad Valorem assessment rate for Acme remains the same as last year at: $230.00; and the preliminary Solid Waste Collection and Recycling service Non-Ad Valorem assessment rates were being proposed at $140.00 for curbside service and $105.00 for containerized service which is a reduction of $20.00 for each service from the current year. Mayor Margolis asked Ms. Quickel to explain in detail the different rates and the total tax bill that the residents pay at the Council meeting the following night. Ms. Quickel stated that she would provide in-depth details regarding the tax bill in her presentation. Mr. Schofield explained that Wellington’s taxes are approximately only 15% of their total tax bill. Councilman Willhite asked Ms. Quickel to provide Council with five projects with the amounts that could be removed from the budget if the adopted millage rate was less than 2.45. Ms. Quickel said that she would provide Council with the information. Mr. Schofield explained that a budget was prepared to make a recommendation with a roll back millage rate. He stated that a very important reminder was that even though the revenues were higher by $1.5 million, there was a government inflation rate and staying at the current rate, required an expenditure of an additional $1.9 million to stay even. Furthermore, Mr. Schofield said that a list of community add-on projects would be provided and reiterated that once the TRIM rate was established, Council would not be able to go any higher afterward. There were no changes recommended. K. 15-524 DISCUSSION OF THE DESIGN OF THE NEW WELLINGTON COMMUNITY CENTER Village of Wellington Page 7 Village Council Workshop Action Summary - Final July 13, 2015 Mr. Schofield introduced this item. This item is for discussion and Council direction regarding the design of the new Wellington Community Center. At this point in the meeting Councilwoman Gerwig explained that she would have to recuse herself due to a potential conflict because she works with the architect that was handling the project. She noted that she had not supported the design/build process. Ms. Gerwig then left the Conference Room. Mr. Barnes announced that the members of the design team would be presenting this item. The following members of the design team were present: Song & Associates: Young Song, Jill Lanigan and Perry Douglas; and Pirtle Construction: Jeff Miles. Ms. Lanigan presented the PowerPoint summarizing the currently approved Wellington Community Center design which had been approved by the Wellington Building Department and the Wellington Architectural Review Board. She presented four potential additions to the design. She provided additional insight from the current design compared to the proposed enhancements that relate to the building: • Extension of the porte cochere at the front entry drop off • Additional lobby element on the north portion of the building • Extension on the second level of the balcony; to extend the length of the banquet room They also recommended that Council consider the following: • Create an entrance along Country Club Drive; closer to the Wellington Amphitheater Mr. Miles explained that Pirtle Construction heard Council’s concerns from the June meeting and was presenting the design elements in order to work together and make the best facility possible so that they could move forward. He recapped the cost of each proposed enhancement to include a “not to exceed amount”: • Entry Canopy Extension: $115,000 • North West Lobby: $130,000 • Balcony at Lake Side: $300,000 Total amount: $545,000 The additional recommendation for Council to consider: • Parking Lot Modification: $350,000 In response to a request to explain the current timeline, Mr. Miles explained that work stopped on the building three weeks ago but the demolishing of the old building and other projects have continued; they believed that this would result in a five to six week delay. He explained that the short delay would be possible if the Village’s Building Department collaborated with them because of the changes to the foundation if the balcony enhancement was added to the project. Council voiced their concerns that architectural changes had been made from what they had approved in July 8, 2014 compared to what was now being presented as the final design which they neither knew about nor expected. They explained that if Councilman Willhite had not brought the change in design to their attention, a building would have been built that was different Village of Wellington Page 8 Village Council Workshop Action Summary - Final July 13, 2015 than what they approved which they felt was below Wellington’s standards. Council also pointed out that they were now being shown enhancements which they thought had been included in the design and price they had originally approved. However, if they wanted to include those enhancements it would now cost them almost $500,000. Council asked the design team how the design that they had been approved had changed to what was now being presented. Mr. Douglas explained that the differences went through the programmatic development of the construction documents and the pricing as the project started to progress. Ms. Lanigan pointed out that the porte cochere always stopped at the curb edge which was in line with the design criteria, and there was never an exterior balcony that extended down the length of the banquet hall. Ms. Song also responded to some of Council’s questions regarding the changes made to the plan and the proposed costs. She explained that she worked on this project from its inception noting that they had been the lowest bid. She further explained that designs go through processes and there were four to five different stages of design development. She said they did their best to fit in everything the Village wanted, but they had to keep in mind that everything had to fit within the budget. Although Ms. Song thought that the building would be fine without the three elements, she felt it would be better with them. She said that was the point they were at and that a decision had to be made. In response to Council’s question whether they needed to have the discussion of adding enhancements prior to adopting the TRIM rate, Mr. Schofield indicated that Council had to do that. He then explained that the design/build process was selected because it was a much more controllable process. He concurred that what Council had approved and agreed to pay for was significantly different than the current design. He said that in the design/build there are no changes, once the team is given the go-ahead to start. Council again voiced their concern how they could now be at this point with changes and additional costs being presented. Mr. Miles explained to Council that the design met with the design criteria program and there was some lack of communication with some of the design criteria which have some costs associated with them, He said that their effort is to communicate to them that this is a not to exceed price. Council asked what financial contributions the design team would be willing to give in order to provide the original enhancements approved by Council. They noted that some interior changes had been made which should have offset the costs. Mr. Miles explained that the project’s deviation log lists all the credits for the items not being used during the design phase was shared with staff. He stated that as a team they wanted to impress Council and wanted to build a relationship and provide a facility that would be phenomenal for the community. Mr. Douglas noted that the Village was also getting a separate 2300 square foot boat storage which was in addition to the 26,000 square foot community center. He noted the boat storage was larger than what was in the design criteria. Ms. Song added that this was not a black and white issue and explained Village of Wellington Page 9 Village Council Workshop Action Summary - Final July 13, 2015 changes that had been made to offset some of the floorplan changes. She said that they were getting a very good building and that many things were changed out for more functional items, and perhaps they should have communicated those things. She said that the important thing for Council to keep in mind was that they were getting a great building. Ms. Song said that everyone wanted to have a great community center. Council indicated that this was their one chance to get this building right, and noted how pleased they were with the Tennis Center that had been built. Council requested that the design team regroup and come back with the best possible prices they could provide for the enhancements, architectural features and all the little items that were shown on the initial drawing. In response, Mr. Miles explained that the prices for the four enhancements were listed at the “not to exceed” price, and were the best prices available. He said that they were comfortable with those numbers as they were very conservative and they have contingencies built it. Council requested that they still try to look at providing better pricing. Mr. Douglas asked if there were any other additional renderings that Council wanted to view at the following night’s Council meeting. Council requested that a rendering of the boat house was needed since it was added and was part of the design. Mr. Schofield said that this item would be moved to the Presentations section after the Charter Amendments. At this point in the meeting, Councilwoman Gerwig rejoined the meeting and Mayor Margolis called for a five minute break. 15-493 PRESENTATION OF CHARTER REVIEW TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS TO VILLAGE COUNCIL Mr. Schofield introduced this item. This item is for discussion and direction regarding recommendations made by the Charter Task Force for proposed changes to the Village Charter. Ms. Cohen explained that this was a presentation to Council with the various items that were considered by the Task Force along with their recommendations. She thought Council might want to schedule a workshop, and have public meetings, after which two readings of the authorizing ordinances would be required which would need to be submitted to Ms. Rodriguez for placement on the March 15, 2016 election ballot. Council discussed this item and raised questions about how housekeeping items could be addressed in the Charter, what items could be addressed without having to do a referendum, items in the Charter that they would like to see addressed, and the protection for the Equestrian Preserve Area. Ms. Cohen thought it would be helpful for Council to meet with the Charter Review Task Force. She said they could go through each section of the Charter with them so that the Task Force could explain why they did or did not recommend certain changes. Council also thought it was important for them to conduct several workshops Village of Wellington Page 10 Village Council Workshop Action Summary - Final July 13, 2015 so they could discuss those recommendations made by the Task Force that they wanted to move forward, discuss their own recommendations, and come to a conclusion as to what ballot questions to include. They also supported holding public meetings to garner the community’s input. Staff will begin working on trying to schedule the meetings. Mr. Schofield advised Council that once the ballots are finalized, Council could expend money on education, but they could not do anything to convince the voters to support or not support a ballot question. Council will not discuss the recommendations at the Council meeting, but will only outline the next steps. 3. WORKSHOP None 5. MANAGER COMMENTS Mr. Schofield presented the following updates: 1. Insurance: He will be meeting with the Gehring Group and FMIT to discuss changes to the insurance coverages. He said there is a memorandum covering that, and he would be available to meet with any council member who would like to meet individually with him. 2. Saddle Trail Park Improvements: There is an issue regarding the cost estimate for fire protection for the Saddle Trail Park improvements. He said that he will be meeting with each Councilmember regarding that. He explained that there was an estimate done changing the level of fire protection which was discovered by Mr. Riebe. He noted that will impact some of the things that is done. 3. Sign Ordinance: Mr. Schofield noted that a small town called Gilbert, Arizona had tried to regulate a church directional sign. He noted that because of that there was a change to how the Supreme Court views signage which probably puts Wellington’s and almost every other sign code in the country in some jeopardy. Ms. Cohen stated that was one of the topics that had been discussed at the Florida Municipal Attorneys Association Annual meeting that she had attended. She said that it will gut a lot of sign ordinance around the country noting, as it will impact any content-based regulation. Ms. Cohen pointed out that Wellington’s sign code includes a section on Project Graduation and Gas Stations and there are limits as to what could be said on certain signs. She said that all of that will be gone. She noted that she had sent out a memorandum on this to Council. Ms. Cohen further explained that this will also include political signs, directional signs or ideological signs and when an exemption is made for those types of signs, the only way you know it is that type of sign is by reading the content. Ms. Cohen pointed out that before the Village issues any code violations or approves or deny a particular signage request, staff needs to carefully review that to make sure they are in compliance with that decision. She pointed out that the Village can continue to regulate shape, size, setbacks and things of that nature. She said that this only came out in June, and municipalities all over the country will be dealing with this and rewriting sign ordinances. Village of Wellington Page 11 Village Council Workshop Action Summary - Final July 13, 2015 4. September K-Park Meetings: Due to some issues with staff availability, Mr. Schofield said that they would like to change the K-Park Town Hall meeting to September 1st. 5. Request for Tree Removal Along C-12 Canal: Mr. Schofield said that there is an issue, which will be included in the Weekly Issues, concerning a resident living along the C-12 Canal that was requesting that staff remove a fichus tree because the roots were causing a problem to their pool deck. Staff surveyed the area and the estimate to remove the tree is for $6700 because of the extensive machinery needed for the removal. No reply or commitment has been provided to the property owner and in order to remove it, the bank would have to be reconstructed. It was determined that the tree is about 20 years old and was there before the resident moved in 10 years ago. Council raised concern that this would set a precedent for other residents, and consensus was not to take any action until a decision was made regarding the work on the canal clearing and tree removal rather than to do selective tree removal. A question was raised whether the resident could put in a claim stating that the roots damaged their pool. Ms. Cohen said that could happen. Mr. Schofield stated that before they reach that point, there were other methods that could be taken, i.e., root barriers which was almost the cost to remove the tree. 6. Meeting with Village Lobbyists: Mr. Schofield explained that because the Legislature had a special session, Mr. Chris Coker was not able to come and provide a presentation to Council but he would be available on July 20 to meet with Council and asked for them to check their schedule and call him to coordinate a meeting. He added that Council’s list was needed by August. 7. Local Preference Policies: Mr. Schofield said that there was a change due to a change to the local preference policies relating to federal funding. He said that local preference cannot be utilized when using federal funds. In addition, if state funds are being used for 50% or more of the project there are no local preferences that are allowable. He noted that the Village is compliant with that and the only place the Village uses federal funds is in their FEMA and emergency management work. 4. ATTORNEY'S COMMENTS Ms. Cohen said that Council received emails regarding a proposed civil rights ordinance and she needed direction to prepare a draft ordinance. She noted that several municipalities have passed the ordinances. Council consensus was to have a presentation on the issue. Mr. Schofield stated that he would contact Judge Rand Hoch of the Palm Beach County Human Rights Council to schedule the presentation for Council. She reminded Council that a Shade Session was scheduled for the next day at 6:00 p.m. 6. OLD BUSINESS None Village of Wellington Page 12 Village Council Workshop Action Summary - Final July 13, 2015 7. COUNCIL COMMENTS None 8. ADJOURN There being for further business the meeting was adjourned. Village of Wellington Page 13