My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 08/24/2015 Minutes
Laserfiche
>
City Clerk's Public Records
>
Minutes
>
City Commission Minutes
>
City Commission Minutes Archives
>
2015 City Commission Minutes
>
CC 08/24/2015 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2023 3:35:33 PM
Creation date
3/2/2016 2:25:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
City Clerk - Doc Type
Minutes
City Clerk - Date
3/2/2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
CASSELBERRY CITY COMMISSION <br />Minutes of August 24, 2015 — Regular Meeting <br />Page 18 of 20 <br />Mr. John Casselberty, 700 South Lost Lake Lane, stated he believed the lot in question had <br />belonged to a family member but was sold in the 70's or 80's and then split and he wanted to <br />make the Commission aware that it was a half lot and not a whole one. He also suggested the <br />City may want to consider trying to trade for a lot that was contiguous to the previously <br />acquired parcels. <br />Mr. Larry Littrell, 124 North Lost Lake Lane, expressed conceals about the process that had <br />been followed for consideration of this issue, stating that he felt some poor decision making <br />had occurred. He stated that the Commission should have given him and the other taxpayers <br />in the City their due respect by giving notice and allowing for proper vetting of the item on <br />the agenda. <br />Discussion: Discussion briefly ensued regarding the calculations used for determining the average cost per <br />square footage and the proposed offer amount for the property; the City's purpose in acquiring property as part <br />of the future vision for the City; the timing of the availability of the property proposed for acquisition; the pre - <br />auction and auction dates; and the value of the subject parcel as part of the expansion of the Lake Concord <br />Park (City Center) project. Ms. Reischmann suggested that a Commission motion on this item should also <br />include a waiver of the procedural requirement that the agenda be amended to add an item such as this, in light <br />of the need to move quickly in order to participate in the auction bidding process. In response to questions <br />from the Commission, Mr. Newlon advised he had become aware of the availability of the property by auction <br />in the past week; however, the timing of the auction only became known to him today, at which time he <br />realized he needed direction from the Commission right away about whether to pursue this opportunity. <br />MOTION: Vice Mayor Solomon moved to waive the City's purchasing requirement for an <br />appraisal prior to acquisition of real property; waive the Commission's <br />procedural rule requiring an amendment to the agenda prior to taking action <br />on an item not previously on the agenda; authorize the City Manager to <br />proceed with pursuing acquisition of the property located at 161 Quail Pond <br />Road, Casselberry, Florida by auction, for a purchase price not to exceed <br />$150,000. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Aramendia. <br />Discussion: A brief discussion ensued during which it was agreed that the waivers of the two procedures was <br />due to the need to act quickly in order for the City to avail itself of the benefit of the auction process, but that <br />for future situations the normal procedures should be followed. <br />Motion carried unanimously by voice vote 5 -0. <br />15. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT <br />Advised that since the ruling on the Reid vs. Gilbert U.S. Supreme Court case regarding signs, some circuit <br />courts were now applying that case to their rulings. She reminded the Commission that this was a case <br />determining that a city's sign code was content - based, even though it had to do with the regulation of non- <br />commercial signs. She added that the case was being applied in other contexts, such as panhandling, and she <br />anticipated that there would be more challenges to any kind of regulation that could be considered speech. She <br />noted that she just wanted to make the Commission aware of this potential issue. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.