03/04/2002
PRELIMINARY
I
!
. (WS) AGENDA
I
j ",
.','1'
, '
I ,,' ,
J
,;
-t. .
1
..1
.1.
"
0'1
~ i
;i
J, '
~ "
MEETING
.. 03/04/02
, .
::' ".", '
,
: ~ .'
r' ",., '
j.. .'. .'
..( .
"
, '
,/ '
i
'j'
\. " ,
i. .
1',: ,',
1'-191
i . r , l r I . . ~ " .' ' , ' ". . ' ~ " . '. . ..' , ,
PRELIMINARY AGENDA
Clearwater City Commission Work Session - 9:00 A.M. - Monday March 4,2002
Convene as Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA):
1, Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes: 02/04/02
3. CRA Rules
4. Approve the Development Agreement between the Community Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Clearwater and The Balk Company, Inc. for a residential
townhome development proposal fronting on Cleveland Street.
5. Approve the Interlocal Agreement between the Community Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Clearwater and the City of Clearwater regarding the The Balk Company, Inc.
residential townhome development proposal fronting on Cleveland Street, and authorize
the payment of $386,771 in various development, impact, and stormwater fees to the
City over a three year period in fiscal years 2001/02 through 2003/04.
6. Executive Director (Assistant City Manager) Verbal Reports
7. Other Business
8. Adjourn
Convene as Pension Trustees:
1. Call to Order
2, Approval of Minutes: 02/04/02
3, Approve the assumption study report prepared by PriceWaterhouse Coopers and
approve changes to the assumptions used in calculating the expected liabilities for the
Employees' Pension Plan per the report as follows: increase the expected rate of
return on investments from the current 7% to 7.5%, increase the expected salary
increase rate from the current 5% to 6%, adjust the expected employee turnover rate to
the table recommended in the report which is based upon historical experience, change
the mortality table to the 1994 Group Annuity Reserving Table from the current 1983
Group Annuity Table, adjust the expected retirement rates to the table recommended in
the report which is based upon historical experience (adjusted to be more conservative),
and make no changes to the expected disability rates.
4. Other Business
5. Adjourn
Reconvene Work Session
PUR PURCHASING
1. Purchase to replace - one 2002 Chevrolet Silverado 3500H D cab and chassis from
Maroone Chevrolet for $25,177.00. GSS/Fleet
2. Purchase to replace - one 2002 Che!vrolet Tahoe utility vehicle from Maroone Chevrolet
for $24,787.00, GSS/Fleet
3. Purchase to replace - one 2002 Chevrolet Express 12 passenger van from Garber Auto
Mall for $21,321.00. GSS/Fleet
4. Purchase as additional - 2002 G3WD Gradall hydraulic excavator from The Gradall
Company for $184,652.70, GSS/Fleet
5. Purchase to replace - two (2) 2002 Chevrolet Silverado 3500 HD cab and chassis with
utility body from Maroone Chevrolet for $52,690.00. GSS/Fleet
6. Purchase to replace and one addition - eight (8) 2002 Chevrolet 2500 HD pickup trucks
from Maroone Chevrolet for $188,877.00. GSS/Fleet
03-04-02 WS Agenda.doc
1
Revision 1: 03/01/02
7. Purchase to replace - one 2002 Dodge Grand Caravan mini van from Hill-Kelly Dodge
for $20,993,00. GSS/Fleet
8, Work Order for Pump station refurbishment from McKim & Creed Engineers for
$51,300.00. Eng Group
ED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
1, Approve the Interlocal Agreement between the Community Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Clearwater and the City of Clearwater regarding The Balk Company, Inc.
residential townhome development proposal fronting on Cleveland Street.
2. Res 02-15 - amending the boundaries of our existing State Brownfields Area to
geographically coincide with the adopted State Designated Enterprise Zone,
CGS CLEAR'WATER GAS SYSTEM
1, Approve the first amendment to the Interlocal Agreement dissolving the Municipal Gas
Authority of Florida; approve Settlement Agreement with CC Pace Resources, Inc,
Consent
PR PARKS AND RECREATION
1. Approve co-sponsorship and waiver of requested City fees and service charges for FY
2002-2003 special events including six annual City events; one one-time City event
(The NRPA Congress Social); sixteen returning City co-sponsored events; and one
new City co-sponsored event (Holiday Boat Parade) at an estimated gross cost of
$421,500 ($107,220 representing cash contributions and $314,280 representing in-kind
contributions) for the purposes of departmental budget submittals. Consent
PW PUBLIC WORKS
1. Authorize lease purchase financing of two 2002 GMC Sonoma extended cab pickup
trucks to be included in the City of Clearwater Capital Improvement Program for FY
2001/2002, and award a contract to Garber Auto Mall in Green Cove Springs, Florida,
in the amount of $29,534.00 in accordance with Section 2.564(1)(d), Code of
Ordinances, Florida Sheriffs Association and Florida Association of Counties Contract
#01-09-0905. Consent
2. Award a contract to Azurix North America Underground Infrastructure, Inc. in the
amount of $400,000 for sanitary sewer line rehabilitation at various locations
throughout the City of Clearwater, using the Manatee County Agreement For Sanitary
Sewer Line Rehabilitation Contract dated September 7, 2000 in accordance with Section
2.564(1 )(d), Code of Ordinances. Consent
3. Declare as surplus for the purpose of granting a perpetual utility easement to Florida
Power Corporation at a 589 square foot, more or less, portion of City-owned property in
the Northeast 1/4 of Section 10, Township 29 South, Range 15 East, as more
specifically described in the conveying instrument.
4. Approve the transfer of $185,200 from the Parking Fund, Unappropriated Retained
Earnings, to the Beach Parking Garage Construction Fund to reimburse the project
for monies expended on the preliminary design and feasibility work completed by
Parsons Engineering Science, Inc, Consent
03-04-02 WS Agenda.doc
2
Revision 1: 03/01/02
. . ~ I . ..' " . , .. ~ . ,6,
5, Florida Power - maintenance of street lights (PW-Eng) WSO
6 Stevenson Creek Watershed Management Plan (PW-Eng) WSO
7, Countywide Transportation Impact Fee Amendments (PW-Eng) WSO
8. Presentation of plaque to Paul Bertels from Metropolitan Planning Organization
HSG HOUSING
1. Res 02-18 - approving the modifications to the City's State Housing Initiatives
Partnership (SHIP) Local Housing Assistance Plans for State Fiscal Years (FY) 1997-
2000 and FY 2000-2003 which the Commission approved at the October 18, 2001
Commission meeting.
CA LEGAL DEPARTMENT
Second Reading Ordinances
1, Ord #6936-02 - vacate the 15 foot sanitary sewer easement lying over the 15 foot
vacated alley which lies within Block 3, "Plot of the Wallace Addition to Clearwater", as
recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 6 of Official Records of Hillsborough County, Florida of
which Pinellas County was formerly a part (AKA 601-639 South Fort Harrison Avenue)
(V2002-01 White/Publix)
Resolutions
1, Res 02-16 - Assessing a lien against 1109.5 Tangerine Street in the amount of
$4,251.44 for the costs of demolition incurred in removing a dangerous structure without
the consent of owner.
2. Res 02-17 - Assessing a lien against 1113 Tangerine Street in the amount of
$5,954,13 for the costs of demolition incurred in removing dangerous structure without
consent of owner,
Agreements, Deeds and Easements
Other City Attorney Items
1. Authorization to hire outside counsel for Stverak v. City of Clearwater.
City Manager Verbal Reports
1, Display of flag legislation (Goudeau)
Commission Discussion Items
1, County Billboard Settlement (Jonson)
2. Update on Billboard legislation (Jonson)
3. Tampa Bay Partnership Update (Jonson)
Presentation(s) for Thursday Night
Other Commission Action
Adjourn
03-04-02 WS Agenda.doc
3
Revision 1: 03/01/02
. ,', " "'" ' , . ..", , It' . , ,'. .. . , " ~ ,r ~. .. " " ' , "., . . 1,., 1Il
~ Clearwater
o
Interoffice Correspondence Sheet
To:
Mayor and Commissioners
From:
Cyndie Goudeau, City Clerk
CC:
Bill Horne, City Manager; Garry Brumback, Asst~ City
Manager; Ralph Stone, Asst. City Manager; Pam Akin, City
Attorney
Date:
March I, 2002
RE:
Revisions to Agenda Packet for March 4, 2002
The following changes/additions are provided:
. Revised Preliminary Agenda (Revision 1: 03/01/02)
. CRA - CRA minutes 2/4/02 for approval - included
#4 Updated Agenda Cover Memo and Exhibit M included
#5 Updated Agenda Cover Memo included
. Pension - Pension minutes 2/4/02 for approval - included
. ED - #1 Updated Agenda Cover Memorandum included
. PW - #6 Stevenson Creek Presentation - Slide handout included
#7 Countywide Transportation Presentation - handout
included
#8 Presentation of plaque - added item
. Legal ,- Other City Attorney - added
#1 Authorization to hire outside counsel for Stverak v.
City of Clearwater
. City Manager Verbal Reports added - #1 Display of flag
legislation
. Commission Discussion Items added:
#1 County Billboard Settlement;
#2 Update on billboard legislation;
#3 Tampa Bay Partnership Update
memo to com for 03-01-02 WS revs & adds. doc
1
'. . '. :' '~'_ ~-' '..... :'.',~ ;'M '#~ r'l' ,,~ ,....~.~ ;~ ~."..:"..l: -.,;". ,,'R~t,J~' ."f':'....:i::::l... t :'f~ ..::-..-l.'. ~.. \,..:.,....:;'..-,..,t';.'..t!.. ..".. _ '
Stevenson Creek
Watershed Management
Plan
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~\,~~:;i,;r~,~.'.:Yi.:t",;.;,~"ti~.;..~~'Jt~I.:;,:":';;,:";. ,.' I '. "~'~" ,~,.".~.~,
..~~ ~(~~.~:. ,,> .~J..~'~:,~~..~1!~~:~,:..~,<:~~~~~~:'~J'., :'. "'~" ~ .' '\.'t. ",' . ....~
... '." .. . " ",... . .... ~t' '.
':~ ~:~~-~., .; <'. ,,",':- i'~':::\.:,'~~~~ '.'; , 'rl' .,..:"" ~, : ~.. :,": :;' ,.",..
~. .,::1,,- ., ',," .,.'t\',.it'~.~"f..,. ,,'.. """;';":,:.:'::',.,':',:
t~'J ...,'ll',," ~...."- ., 'Al.I!.;",~i""",J,:,.1
L,' ...,:1 ,,\;:...\', '\'.....,.,:..,...;,'of' ,,oF"", . t', ~ ," ":r... I'. " . " "
. I~,;: ..!:,.;, . ('(''>).' l,;:""... ,\~,'~...,..,'" , .
~l~:::~.~.~..~:~;!...,..~! : .~,-'~~ ~,.!~.. .c"\.~,~: ~._.' .' .
. .~" ,,' " . ,."." ", ",.' ','.
"\i) Public, Works 'Administration i<::';:'K'~.";;{
.. , ' , ',' " " , '. ,."" " ':i:,r.'i'"
, ',StQrmwater.Man~gerj1ent ,,'t~t?~..\~~:
'T,I"~:")I'..~ c~:,,~'r/ ~:~ii'l'{4''''1 'ij." , '
.~ {~. .~ .~1':~f~r,;,~*L' '.~,l. ,.(.;':"~~~"1'<.\ .t'l ~,'.: ",
'c< "..)1 "'!t.f'''{l','1-' /;;}' 'h If;l .", ~" ; ,
"'.;.(~!;~. ~ .t\\,';f;./,,: . ~~'(,..:ti..,<.,,: .~' .; 1. ~.; J
.' '
\
?, \
~,
,\
[, U C.
\ \
...:..
Il~,
TH' E.P!. ^'1'~'
...', _ __ ''; 'A_. ..;..\\ I.~. .
; ....
"
.' r.' ,.
, 198,9. ~'Comprehens,i.v~.,
. . ...,. "'PI~.n ,.,,' .' "
, " , ',"'.'
..M_~rch" 2QQQ '>.CQm,m.l$'s.1.Qn '. , '
, . ... ... ..... .'f\~{lfQV~J. ......... .. .
.~.AJI.gu,~t2QQ1,<~"C'Qmpl.~ti}d.'" '.' "
, '. - ," ,.... .' .. .~ ': .': " : ";, ~.' .-:, ' ... ,.' '.. ' ' ','
. ",
'. \. " .' .-
'. ..
f '
-._---- .----.-,
i
i
I
-...-----....------- .--...-----..,-.--.--..- ..._"., ....-~....-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
',1 .. ..,,' , .,.'. . . t. .~'.\\:~l""~/".' ....;,.' ~~"~'''..':f., ~~... ,,,,,;,,::/. .~"\""~";.."'1',1'';1.'' _~.t.ft.t...',.:, :", \"";. ", ~ .t'~ n'
r-.' ..
I
I
, "
. ~ .
, MAINTENANCE IMPRqVEMENTS
;t.;"
----.- -.---.-------.--.. ..,
,
. ,
":~:;. i(>'G,';:>t. ': ::\ F '\.~\.:' '~'. }':":, :.~> '
, " ":, ..' . .
.':':~ Assessmentof.ExJ$~il1g ,.,. ',':..' , "
, .... ... . ',' ,.', .,... - , "
,,'CQoditiQns,.', ".: ':,'".,"
. ' Of"~ ' ..... - .
. ......CQ.mpy.t~rMQdeU?_9Qf Basin. ...... '..
'.',' :,,:~. >F~rQPQ~Q(J.hn.prQv~m.t}nt:s",' ,;.',," .,'
.. " .). ,,' .
".1", ' .."
, .
, '
- " . ,
I
I
.. 0, 0 _ ..... '..., .1
, " . , , ,', . . , . .. ..,', > .,,'. '~ . .'1 '. ..,.. '!, ,~. t '; .,~...t .....\~ :.1., .~ ~1,' , '. .' .' t.' . '~ ' i I : . , . ' ,
I
.I
~
,
....
,
I
,I,
,
1 I
.;.
,~..,
I,' J
I
...
,
/~
-..,---.-..
,t...'
,
.1,
,
\\
. '"';-',
l<U C'
'-,)
;
Thank You
," " , , I ( '. , ' ""' r ~ 11 . I ~' .. . . ' r, . . ,...," : 0, . ." ~ . '. . , .. , " , .'....'
P L0 1
Traffic Impact Fee Update
March 4, 2002
Paul Bertels
The Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) approved the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) staff recommendations on the following items:
. Allow funds to be used for projects encouraging multi-modal travel.
. Allow for other data sources to be used to document trip generation
characteristics.
. Change text in the ordinance to reflect source of current population data,
. Continue to support no-fee zone concept.
There are four items that the TCC will address a recommendation on at the March TCC
meeting based on input from the various City Commissions and City Councils. They are
as follows:
. The impact fee formula. The choice of one of the three official options or one of
the two options brought up by the TCC members. The three official options are as
follows:
A. Update the construction cost component of the formula from $1,688,197 to
$2,216,466 that results in an approximate 30 percent increase in impact fees.
B. Update the construction cost and adds right of way cost in the amount of
$554,197 which results in an increase of 64 percent in impact fees.
C. Update the construction cost without the right of way component and adjust the
reduction factor to provide for a 15 percent incremental increase over the next
two years,
The TCC members brought up two other options that could be considered; one is
to leave the existing fee structure in place. The second option is to eliminate the
impact fees entirely. This second option is based on the fact that only $4 M dollars
was generated countywide last year in impact fees. It is necessary for the City
Commissions and City Councils to give their staffs guidance on this issue.
. Fee schedule rates, Some of the land use categories have been proposed for
changes in trip rates. These reflect refinements in the database developed by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers. There are also some additional categories
being proposed.
. Modify section 150-39 regarding land development prior to 1986. Essentially this
involves removing any reference to when a structure was built. Any existing
structure will get credits regardless of when it was built and the 1986 reference
would be eliminated.
. Permit impact fee revenue to be expended on non-adjacent districts for projects
that benefit the district from which the fees were collected.
CS for CS for SE 150
First Engrossed (ntc)
1 A bill to be entitled
2 An act relating to the United States flag;
3 creating s. 256,15, F.S.; providing that it is
4 unlawful to prohibit the display of the flag of
5 the United States; providing an exception;
6 providing penalties; providing an effective
7 date.
8
9 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
10
11 Section 1, Section 256.15, Florida Statutes, is
12 created to read:
13 256.15 Display of U.S. flag; prohibition unlawful;
14 penalty.--
15 (1) It is unlawful for any person to prohibit the
16 display of the flag of the United States unless the display
17 would constitute a threat to the health or safety of any
18 person.
19 (2) A violation of this section constitutes a
20 noncriminal violation. The first violation shall be punished
21 by fine in an amount not to exceed $500. A second or
22 subsequent violation shall be punished by fine in an amount
23 not to exceed $10,000.
24 Section 2. This act shall take effect upon becoming a
25 law.
26
27
28
29
30
31
1
CODING:Words st~icken are deletions; words underlined are additions.
Florida Senate - 2002
CS for SB 148
By t~e Committee on Comprehensive Planning, Local and Military
AIfalrsj and Senator Geller
316-837-02
1 A bill to be entitled
2 An act relating to to homeowners' associations;
3 amending s. 720.304, F.S.; providing that any
4 homeowner may display a United States flag;
5 amending s. 720.3075, F,S.; prohibiting
6 associacion documents from placing certain
7 restrictions on the display of a United States
8 flag; providing for retroactive application of
9 the act; providing an effective date.
10
11 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
12
13 Section 1, Section 720.304, Florida Statutes, is
14 amended to read:
15 720.304 Right of owners to peaceably assemble; display
16 of flag.--
17 (1) All common areas and recreational facilities
18 serving any homeowners' association shall be available to
19 parcel owners in the homeowners' association served thereby
20 and their invited guests for the use intended for such common
21 areas and recreational facilities, The entity or entities
22 responsible for the operation of the common areas and
23 recreational facilities may adopt reasonable rules and
24 regulations pertaining to the use of such common areas and
25 recreational facilities. No entity or entities shall
26 unreasonably restrict any parcel owner's right to peaceably
27 assemble or right to invite public officers or candidates for
28 public office to appear and speak in common areas and
29 recreational facilities.
30 (2) Any homeowner may display one portable, removable
31 United States flag in a respectful manner, regardless of an~
1
CODING:Words stxicken are deletions; words underlined are additions.
Florida Senate - 2002
316-837-02
CS for SB 148
1 declaration rules or requirements dealing with flags or
2 decorations.
3 llltzT Any owner prevented from exercising rights
4 guaranteed by subsection (1) or subsection (2)may bring an
5 action in the appropriate court of the county in which the
6 alleged infringement occurred, and, upon favorable
7 adjudication, the court shall enjoin the enforcement of any
8 provision contained in any homeowners' association document or
9 rule that operates to deprive the owner of such rights.
10 Section 2. Subsection (3) of section 720.3075, Florida
11 Statutes, is amended to read:
12 720.3075 Prohibited clauses in association
13 documents,--
14 (3) Homeowners' association documents, including
,15 declarations of covenants, articles of incorporation, or
16 bylaws, may not preclude the display of one portable,
17 removable United States flag by property owners. However, the
18 ,flag must be displayed in a respectful manner way al.Ld nLay be
19 subject to reasol!able standards for size, placemel!t, al.i.d
20 safety, as adopted by tlJ.e honLeoW'!!ers' association., consistent
21 with Title 36 V.S.C. chapter 10 an.d any local ordinances.
22 Section 3, This act applies retroactively regardless
23 of any declaration rules or requirements of a homeowners'
24 association dealing with flags or decorations.
25 Section 4. This act shall take effect upon becoming a
26 law.
27
28
29
30
31
2
CODING:Words strickel! are deletions; words underlined are additions.
~~ ' " t, I I' ' .. \I I .'
Florida Senate - 2002
316-837-02
CS for SB 148
1
2
3
4 This
that
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
STATEMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES CONTAINED IN
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR
Senate Bill 148
committee substitute differs from the bill as filed in
it:
creates s. 720.304(2}, F.S" to allow homeowners to
"display one portable, removable U. S. flag in a
respectful way regardless of any declaration rules or
requirements deal1.ng with flags or decorations";
amends s. 720.3075, F.S., to delete the authority of
homeowners' associations to set "reasonable standards"
for flag size, placement, and safety; and
stipulates that the act applies retroactively;
3
CODING:Words strickeI~ are deletions; words underlined are additions.
Pinellas County Billboard Settlements
Summary - updated FebIllary 26, 2001
1. In 1991 - cooperative effort to develop a county sign code to include removal of
excessive signage - Council of Mayors, PPC, and BeC
2. In 1999, approximately 225 Billboards were to be removed from unincorporated
areas of Pinellas County at the expiration of a 7-year am0l1ization period.
3. Two Billboard Companies (Viacom and Eller) sued to stop the enforcement. The
third major company, Lamar, did not file suit.
4. The County choose to attempt a negotiated settlement.
5. Now, Lamar and Viacom have draft agreements with the County.
a. Lamar has three billboards within the Clearwater Planning Area Ollt of 30
to be removed county wide
b. Viacom has three billboards within the Clearwater Planning Area out of
27 to be removed county wide
c. No Eller information is available to the public yet so can't comment on it.
6. Removal Schedule
a. Lamar
1. 3 in 2002
11. 3 in 2004
111. 21 in 2012(change from 2007)
iv. 3 in 2025
b. Viacom
i. 10 in the next three years (2002, 2003, and 2004)
ii. 14 over a period beginning in 2007 and ending 2017
Ill. 3 in 2025
7. Concerns:
a. Average (median) removal will be almost three times as long (IS the
original ordinance investment recovery period (almost 20 years instead of
7).
b. Annexations count as removals
c. No priority for scenic roads, or enclaves within billboard th~c cities --
companies decide order of removals
d.Nonconforming billboards can be rebuilt on US 19 to extend their life -..
currently can't rebuild most
e. More billboards can be added to US 19 (unincorporated arcus only) using
less restrictive spacing - more clutter and distractions
f. Illegal actions not related to amortization are forgiven
County BB impact 020226
Printed 2/26/2002 8:46 AM
-
8. Conclusions
a. No Clearwater area enclave removal likely until 2012 - this was my
original goal
b. Overall the public interest appears to have been subordinated to private
interest.
9. Agreement Recommendations (in priority order):
a. No illegal actions forgiven (unless they are related to amortization).
Otherwise rewards illegal actions.
b. Don't allow rebuilding or relocation of existing Ilollconfonning
billboards on Highway 19. Otherwise there will be no ultimate progress to
reduce clutter on this road currently "protected" by state statue. The
safety of the traveling public is at stake.
c. Until one half of the billboards are removed, an annexation should be
counted as a removal on a 2 for 1 basis. Otherwise no billboard actual
removals are likely to occur for years.
d. Prioritize removals on scenic roads (like Belcher) and in enclaves within
cities that do not have billboards.
e. Shorten the median removal time frame to no more than double the
original investment recovery period.
f. Drop the allowance to relocate on Federal Aid Primary highways with less
restrictive spacing requirements.
10. Legislative priorities
a. Aggressively fight legislative initiatives that would reduce local choices to
enhance the quality of life in Pinellas.
b. Even the billboard industry this year is not pushing to change the
legislative language from last year that exempted Pinellas fr0111 the
legislative take-a-way.
County BB impact 020226
Printed 2/26/2002 8:46 AM
. ',",' . ~'.. I . ~' . :. ".fJ. ~ .... " . t"'. '." .,'
~ ~, . . M , : ' 'I '" \ , , . ., ", t, " '., " .! ~ ' .
-
'0
.... II)
.8E
-Q)
=E
mQ)
~~
cO)
:J<(
0_
U~
II) 0
~E
Q) Q)
.5 0:::
a.
salON (,)
SlOZ: C')
....
ra
~ LOOZ
~
~ 900l
'0
Q)
TISCXll
(f)
t>lOZ:
EZOZ:
llOZ:
~ lOZ:
OlOZ:
6~Ol
e~Ol
HOZ:
9~OZ:
S~Ol
t>~oz:
~~oz:
l ~Ol ~ ~ ~
al
~ ~oz:
O~Ol
600l
900l
:;'l"#.
8
-
r--~
N~
~gf!.
~
~~
~~
g
~"#.
al
~~
Ol
~~
g
~~
Ol
~"#.
g
~"#.
g
~"#.
al
r--~
Ng
tD~
N
lD~
&
N
lD~
&
N
lD~
&
N
lD~
~
lD"#.
o
N
lD"#.
o
N
Ri
~
~ saloN ~
~ P'OOl C? <D ~
C N
Q)
E
Q)
~
0)
<(
....
Q)
a.
.8'0
o Q)
-~
cuE
'0 Q)
1-....
>-
c
m
0..
E
o
u
!
as
rooz;
lOOl C? C') ~
-
C')~
01jl"O
C? > ~
o 0
E E
~ ~
QI-
~ 5i
III 0
:; ~
~ QI
u~
(Q
:;
E
::>
U
i
ftI
-'
Q
M~;fl.
8
-
~~
<Q
~ o~
Ol
co
~~
co
~~
co
~~
co
~~
<Q
~~
Ol
co
Ilt-~~
co
~~~
<Q
~gj~
a;
~N~
I'-
'f"-'~~
I'-
~~~
I'-
?-~~
<0
~~~
<0
~~~
LO
~~~
LO
~:::~
~
~~
C")
~~
C")
m
~~~
C")
~Ol~
~
IOLO~
Ol
,...-C-C
N ~ ~
o 0
E E
~ ~
01-
.~ 5i
(Q ~
:;~
E Ql
B~
(Q
:;
E
::J
U
~
u
C'lI
:;
01
01
01
01
01
01
oJ
01
oJ
01
01
oJ
01
oJ
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
~1il
~ g
e! ~
QI C
.~ QI
III (.)
~ 8-
<3 .~
III
- :;
"C E
AI :>
.!::l U
ii
c
ll:
-
AI
>.
Q
c
-
...
.!!
jjj
(l;Ir--"#.
IllS
OU;~
co
QUi~
co
Q~~
co
Q~~
co
Olii$
co
OU;~
co
Q~~
co
"'u;*
co
...~&;
co
~~f:i
co
~~~
co
~!q~
co
N~';ft.
N a;
~~~
'<I'
,..~~
'<I'
~~~
C')
~N~
C')
....~s
M
o~~
N
Q~g;
N
""'~';ft.
~
...,. ~ o~
N
C>>Q)';ft.
'<I'
...""
&0 ~ ~
o 0
E E
tl! e!
~c
'iii ~
iii:;~
- ~ QI
(:.U~
III
:;
E
::>
U
--..
~
QJ
.c
-
5
I"-
~
o
c
.!a
QJ
....
QJ
.c
-
II)
III
~
QJ
.0
'0
'3
o
.c
II)
....
QJ
.0
E
:J
C
(J)
;S
(J)
0..
III
.c
....
QJ
0-
....
o
~I~~~
~~~~
III
5
0..
<( it
~~c
.0,0
:E<(z
x__
w:oro
...........- <5
c3i11-
Ow
1::_
QJ C
E 0
-1::
::l QJ
C E
m-
:6=>
.... C)
QJ C
.J:: 0
'Oro
a. a..
<<
LL. u..
C c
o 0
zz
-
.-
,
co
.c
o
U)
~
~
>-
..0
Ri
>
o
E
QJ
-=-
1"-.-10
-
.-
,
co
.c
o
(f)
~
~
>-
..0
Ri
~
E
~
-
;:6'-18
--0...
m";"<(
i'imu..
:Ei'i2
.ri:co
_xl-
C)~
.5 ....
-g .~
~o::
- QJ
Illiii
~.2
E 0
QJ C
......<(
~ 0 E
sZe
'0 -
:J QJ
.... >
V1 0
a.. ~
<( 0::
u..
1"-0*
(")~..-
10
Ol~~
2
II)(J)-
-c-C
.... ~ QJ
ro 0 0
.8Ew
:= ....41 a..
.0 -
_ III
= III >
ro '0 0
-I-E
~ 41
{!. 0::
-
0..
c:(
lI.-
.-
....
.2
u
e
ra
0..
c:(
ll.-
e
o
Z
N
...
.2
~
~~
.-
v
a:-
c:(
lI.-
..-
'-
.2
1:1
e
III
0..
c:(
lI.-.
e
o
Z
N
....
.2
~
v~
'-v
1:1
41
'OUi
:J 41
1ii >
C ....
o 41
o'tii
~-
o e
- 41
(/) e
- 41
"5,0..
';::-
~ ~
- E
l3 OJ
>0::
~
<
ffi
<0
~
~
"0
QJ
-
e
'c
a..
~
g~
~ ~~
> :J>o
0:: e .0
QJ ~'O
'0 0 41
'0 "O~
C ~ ~
~ 0....
0.. 0 OJ
<(_0..0
LL~-;1i)
E .~ > :J
00:: roE
-=Q1::e
..- ni -e 0
+.2.gai
o..geE
<<(05
lI.--~
c 0.. QJ .B
o<(E>-
cu..5~
E E e ....
eeo&.
- -..J!l E
N..-mQJ
II II i;-
.J!lRiE~
~~~"N
o E .... (5
~~~~
::E~E
III 0 QJ 0
E l6 QJ 0
.55~5
~~~~~
o . . . .
z<(couO
~
o
III
-
e
41
E
OJ
E
QJ
III
'E
~
as
. , -.' " ,-, I' 1 " . . <. ." . ,'.' "", I \', ' # '". . ~'". j"" ' ,.., ""1 ~ V' " .,~' ,..~~.: /" .
County Board of Commissioners Meeting
February 26, 2002
Partial Transcri pt
Commissioner Robert Stewart:
I just want to say, with no disrespect to Jim Bennett and his statTwho worked very hard
to develop the best possible settlement with the industry, that what they proposed here
today, to me, is a totally unacceptable agreement. I would hope strongly that this
board would give it a resounding rejection to it on March the 12tJ1.
I first got involved in this process in 1991 and was the Vice Mayor and Chairman of the
City Council in St. Petersburg when this issue came up, we looked to the County and
Commissioner T9dd and Commissioner Rainey and the others who sat here for leadership
with regards to a county wide ordinance on reducing the visual pollution in Pinellas
County. And the Board of County Commissioners did take a leadership role in 1991 and
1992. As you have heard here today the decision was in seven years the boards would
come down although there was the potential for it to last up until 1 0 years. We knew at
the city level and you must have known at the County level that that was going to be a
battle royal. The industry was not going to give up and roll over and was going to fight
us tooth and nail at the city level, at the county level and at the state level. They have
done that and have done that very very effectively.
Now ten years ago, I must tell you, that this is not where we wanted to be when we
started out on this mission. I think it is significant that you didn't hear from one
individual, not one person in the county, who favors this ordinance. The whole idea
when it was developed was not a brainstorm of elected officials; it was a reflection of
what the county citizenry wanted in the way of a better community - a better quality of
life. If these ordinances are approved we will walk out of here and we will say, in effect,
yes we will have billboards, yes we will have more billboards on US 19, on Ulmerton, on
Roosevelt, on Gandy Blvd, and on Gulf-to-Bay. We will continue to take down some
billboards, but it wlll be over the next 23 years. This agreement is full, full, of
concessions: relocation rights, annexation boundaries, vested rights to relocate and
rebuild, the removal schedule, height restrictions, ability up to embellish up to 10% for
increased size. This was not what was intended in 1991 and 1992. I was there and I
can assure you of that. I hope that when we finally come to make some decision on this
on March the twelfth, this Commission will reflect what the public's request and interest
was at that time.
Commissioner Barbara Sheen-Todd
Mr. Bennett, may I ask you a question? Commissioner Stewart referenced the City of St.
Petersburg. What did they do ultimately with billboards?
Mr. James Bennett (Asst. County Attorney)
Grandfathered billboards.
Commissioner Barbara Sheen-Todd
Mtg Feb 26 02 BB Stewart Latvala Todd and Harris
Printed 3/3/2002 3:39 PM
" , ...,~ .. ,.". . I' . . " ,j"/' \. 1 , .. , .. .' , . '.., , " ' ,.'. . '. . " . ' . t' ' .
So they are all there. And that is the problem. As Chair, I am not taking a position that 1
support or oppose this ordinance, but I wish to remind the Commission that one of the
difficulties that we have is that when this ordinance was originally conceptualized, it was
with the idea that we would in truth have a countywide initiative. That has not happened.
Several cities including the city of St. Petersburg have grandfathered in billboards. As I
understand it this is a first attempt to find a way to deal with the litigation issues as well
as the sign code.
Mr. Bennett:
In the case of Clearwater, they did reach a settlement at least with one of the companies,
and they were a city that did amortize. There was an understanding at that time that the
decision as to whether to amortize or not was going to be a decision made individually by
each city because each city would have to buy into the consequences of what you are
seeing now - potential litigation and actual litigation. It was understood at the time that
that was doing to be an individual decision by every city. Some have amortized:
Clearwater, Dunedin, Seminole, and Oldsmar. Some have not.
Commissioner Barbara Sheen-Todd:
Ijust think it is important to point out that some cities have not, and have just
grandfathered them in.
Commissioner Susan Latvala:
I think it is important that the other side of the story be told too. While I wasn't a
Commissioner in 1992, in the time that I have been here, the last year and a half, this
issue has not been on the radar screen with any of the citizens that I talk to. When
we started this process, when we decided as a body to try and mediate a settlement with
them as opposed to spend thousands and thousands of dollars of court costs and maybe
years of time and then maybe ultimately loosing and all the billboards would stay up for
ever when we made that decision there has been lots of press since then - several
newspaper articles and the public has had every opportunity to become aware of it. The
only people that I have heard from and I assume you get the same emails and letters
are the people that are opposed to it - the people who make their living by having a
billboard or two that they own. The income that they receive from it is how they
support their families. I don't believe that this is an issue of great concern to our citizens.
We have many issues that are. I feel very strongly that taxpayers dollars should be spend
providing services to the community and not on lawyers' fees. I am very supportive and
proud that we made that decision to try to mediate a settlement. A lot of hard work by a
lot of people and attitudes willingness to be good citizens went into making these
agreements become what they are. I will strongly urge all of you to support this
agreement. The alternative is not pretty. You asked what happens if it is voted down,
well we go to court and we could ultimately loose. Obviously we could win also. That is
a 50-50 shot I guess when you go in. But how many dollars and how many years will go
into it in the meantime. And how much of our time and energy will be spent on whether
on whether a billboard should be directed to someone's business as opposed to some of
the other important issues that we have on our plate.
Mtg Feb 2602 BB Stewart Latvala Todd and Harris
Printed 3/3/2002 3:39 PM
Commissioner Calvin Harris
I think when we first decided that we were going to try to mediate; one of our concerns
was the cost of trying to settle this in court. But also in the back of everybody' s mind
was the amount of time that would go to this single issue. Even while we talked about
billboards, we have never talked about things like a countywide trash pickup or how we
are going to beautify highways where we take down billboards. Whether we are going to
enforce litter laws or there are going to be trash receptacles in the unincorporated areas. I
thought when I came here from citizens was that we were spending too much time
suing citizens and spending too much of their tax dollars going to court.
.
Mtg Feb 26 02 BB Stewart Latvala Todd and Harris
Printed 3/3/2002 3:39 PM
City of Clearwater Pl'Oposcd Resolution
Whereas, City of Clearwater ordinances required the removal of nonnconforming
billboards (except along federal-aid primary highways) after a seven year amortization
periods, and
Whereas, these amortization periods huve cunently expired und the City has completed
an agreement with one billboard compuny that resulted in the removal of their billboards
frOln the City; the City is pursuing legal enforcement action against the other remaining
billboards within the eity, and
Whereas, within the Clearwater planning area there are billboards located within
unincorporated areas, some of which are on small enclaves, that result in an inconsistent
visual character for the greater Clearwater area, and
Whereas, the City of Clearwater participated with the Pinellas Mayors Council and
Pinellas County in the development of a model sign code for the entire county, and
Whereas, the City of Clearwater modified its code to be consistent with this code and
encouraged the adoption of this code for the unincorporated portions of the county in
1991 and said code included a seven year am0l1ization of billboards not located on
Federal Aid Primary highways; and this ordinance was subsequently adopted by the
Board of County Commissioners in 1992, and
Whereas, the billboard companies have failed to comply with the removal provisions of
the county code, and
Whereas, the Board of Commissioners is currently considering negotiated agreements for
the removal of these billboards which would phase these billboards out over a period of
time ending in 2017, and
Whereas, these draft agreements have no provisions for priority removals on scenic roads
or small enclaves adjacent to city streets without billboards, and
Whereas, the draft agreements place no higher priority for removals of billboards
adjacent to cities that have pursued internal amortizations programs (vs. those that have
decided to grandfather existing billboards), and
Whereas, the billboards within the greater Clearwater area will likely be reJTIoved toward
the end of the phase out schedule because aJUlexations count as removals,
Therefore be it resolved, that the City of Clearwater respectfully request the Board of
Commissioners to adjust agreement removal schedules to place higher priority for roads
that are classified as scenic roads or are adjacent to cities with active enforcement of
internal amortization programs.