04/23/1974
.' .' :{(:: . ~".:' ~,< t.' ',-.'
: " /'': ~ ".~ .,
',"",1',' ,
..- .. -.. >"', "'"
'. . '~..' " ,
,..,'
( ~.'
'. ~ "
;,1'
',' "J
;' .'
" ,l,.
'0Il"
" .
'. ,." 'i,
, ,,', . :
, . " , ., , '
'" ,
. , . " .
, , ~ ", .
. '. " """. < "
'. " ~,' .
.'
,<.' ,
, ~ " '
',.
\,"
"..::) ,
" , .,; (,'
" '::".,
" ,
"\ '
'I'. ':',
, "
",
, ,
';,,',"'".:
'"
#
CLEARWA-x'ER. OOWY'1'l'("'''lN DEWr~PMENT BOARD
e
!l:.ttetin9~zj.1 2 3 !-:l~21
Presen.t:
--------.----
Charle::s Gallo\"ay, Chairman
T.aP.\-iis Bomar
Ttml Dr.O~71, ,Tr.
H. E'Jere-t~t Hougen
1-,.. E. Palmer
.roe R. Wolfe
Brooks Ca::ter
Picot Floyd
Mich~el Paroby
Bob Ta:r- lor
Leon Hamock
-
The Chairman opflned the meeting and asked Mr. Hammock to lead
us in prayer..
Min~tes of the meeting of M~rch 26 ~ere approved.
The Cha:l.rman ssked for reports from committes chair.men.
Mr. Hammock responded with a repo~t on the financial condition
as of April 23, and projected to April 30. The report was
considered and approved.
Mr. Hammock ne~t stated that he has a lease from Mr.. Taylor,
covering the office ~pace for. one year starting May 1. He
asked for Board approval. of t'.he lease. Aft:~r some discus3ion,
a motion to approve the lease was seconded and passed.
Mr.. Floyd, City Man~ger, at this point suggested that we might
best" a year hence, consider moving it'.t'=l the new city facd.li t.y,
the old Ward building which will be ready for' occupancy about
that time. The Board ccnside~ed the proposal and passed a r.esolu-
tion to reconsider the off.er before extending the current leaoe
beyond April 1975.
Mr. Car.ter, ChaiX'man of the par.ki.ng Committee, next reported on
t.he proposal which wa~ the outcome of a recent committee meeting.
He responded to a very excellent report by a member of the City
Traffic, El1gineers group whi.cn . ind:l,cated that \'.'9 in dONntown
Cl.earwater are losing parking sp&ces for the public use at an
aotonishing rate: at thp. s~ma time e~periencing an increasing
need for more p~~king for boCh public and employee use because of
growth. He asked K~. JOg Wolfe to repo:t on a subject which too
was conaidered at the recent committee meeting.
Mr. wolfe responded with a cO!1cept of a con,nominillm type facility, )
pa~kiu9 garage, owned and opexatp.d by the Cleu~l~ter Downtown
DevAlo~ro~nt~oard. A copy of thi3 proposal is attached. After con-
sideration of many aspects of the plan, Mr. Carter was askau to
proceed with a more detailed proposa:i. for-the plan, ~d was nSlc:ed
t:oo to consult with 'the c~.t:! acJm;.nistra't.ion along these lines.
e
. '~~~1f,j~J#~~tJ;~:;,~J.:~;~f.;r~:~~~~fi;~{{~~}~8~:{,:;:.;;~' "
"':'~~,t::::?i. ," ;:'f~:"::;:::
". "
.~ ~... "~ ,. ( ., "
. .,.'; ".' \.
'.':,.'
,;<.~,:,,~".,
.'<, ,1,' "j
I"'.
',"
'.' ,
<, !',.' '.,
. ,\ . ~ .
: ~
;"(/-t
,,'.
, :",
,l "
'"
11'
--
2.
--
The Chairman called upon ~x. picot Floyd, City Mansger, to
give us a report on the current situation with rAspect to
building moratorium. Mr. F10yd stated that we do not at
thi.s time have a b'_l.i.lding moratorium, but rather we have a
plan for planned gro\'ith, or rationing of th2 Ci"cy. s ability
to handle sewer connect.ions. He introduced Mr.. pa:rcby, his
aesistant, who prosent.ed a detailed analysis of the city
sewer facilities togethe:r with a program for issuing build-
ing permits, a~ea by area. Since the area which we are con-
cerned with is that handled ,by the Marshall Street plant,
there were many questions asked which cl~aT.ed the air as to
possibilities for expanding residential dO~d.ntown permits.
Since the plJ.rpose of the rep~rt by Mr. Floyd and Mr. Paroby
was to bring us up to date regarding the possibl.e slow-downs
in the issuance of building permits in our area, the Chairman
thanked both gentlem~n for til~ir detailed reports and added
that he is satisfied that we may be assured t:hat as mora
applications are made for residential and commercial building
in the downtown area, that we ~jil1 receive proper. considera-
tion by the committee set up to ration out the sewage handling
ability of the city.
It was also added that the rationing pl~n presented takes into
consi.dcration t..~e ability of the City to serve the wa'cer .
requi.rements needs, along \'1ith sc.wage handling.
T1 h. k h i J4~.
le C a1r.man as ad for comments from t e Execut ve D~V1S10n
which relate to two bills pending in the Legiolature at this
date. Palmer responded hy reading a pr.epa~ed resolution1
which after discussion, is to be presented to the Board for
action. Palmer e:cplained that his ints:cest goes be~"cnd t.'he
Clearwater Downtown De'\'eloprnent Board" although surely includes
it, because of the ef:fec.t of the bills on now existing opc]:ating'1
<ll:!.thor.ities such as tlle Cent:r:a:!. Pinellas Transit A1xl:"hori'l:y and
m~ny ethers. He added that in his opinion p"ssage of HB3265 ,
and sa 614 would create stoppage of going institutions created \
hy the state Legislatu:t'e over recent years, and would cat..lse f
cessation of projec+;s whi.ch are in the beat interests of the
puhlic. He urged tha Boa:-:d to app:rove the resoluti.on Clud
permit it to ba sent to ~~e city administration and all 1~9is-
l~tive delegates at once.
After con13idarable discussion, a motion was made, seconded and
was passed. Mayor. Hougen abstained from the vote until he and
tha City Attorney have time to preoent the fa~ts of the villa
to the Commission.
I
The next scheduled date for maeting is May 28, 1974.
.
M. E. Palmer
Executive Director.
. . :):i<' :'( :~:; ::':E :;:::i~~.;t;7~~L:::
. '.,
'" \, ~!: ~~<'f.J:~".:,: .~.~~ ~.~
::,\;........
',' ..
. ""t.
-
e
ct
Parking committee
April 23, 19'14
CONCEPT
OF CONDOMINIUM-TYP.g. P.arl".ing .Fi\C:CI,~iTY. ()W~~BD
BY CLEA}{WAlj,f~R DOt"lll'L'O~.qE! 11~'1~I.l0P~3lil~!!
-
Aim OPEMTED
.\.lflP,roJ
ownership in this facility
Downtown Development Board,
receive the right to lease
inducement to lo~n funds to
buildiug the pa~kin9 facility. The project
as to take advantage of tax savings so
of parking to the downtown businessmen.
Unlike a condominium,
be vested in the Cl.earw~teT.
certain bondholde~s would
of the parking places as an
Downt~wn Board for
would be structured so
as to reduce the cost
~iould
but
certain
tIle
Tlle two areas
est-free income paid
fact that the parking
real estate taxation.
come from the
the lo~ns and from
possibly be e~empt
inter-
the
from
of tax savings would
by the Boa:rd on
facility could
a hypothetical
generated real estate
forth below. The cost of borrow-
$100,000 invested i~ presumed to
lot is assumed to be the
comparison..
tbe cost
$100,000
is set
the
of operat.ing
and
A comparison of
lot that had a cost of
taxes of $1500 a year
ing to the individual o~
be 8-~2%. The cost of operating
same and tberefore excluded from
the
the
For
$5,500 a year
lot and would
a 5% tax-free
paying
il'1 the
rec~ive
comparison purposes the individual would be
~he Downtown Board for spaces
to tne Downtown Board and
in rents to
loan $100,000
return.
Individual Downto.lJn
O~r..ership Q.\illership
Yearly cash outflow $ 10,000.00 $10,QOO.00
After tux cost 52% bracket 4,800.00 2,.200.00
27% bracket 7,300.00 5,950..00
This would leave the
retire the debi t in a:Oou t 30
stronger as the real estate
used is a 15 mill rate as
assessed. The example used
~O% for the business man,
Board with the ability to
The basic plan becomes
ta~ cost increases and the e~ample
most parking is presently not 100%
reauces parking coat from 54% to
depen1ing upon the tax rate assum~~.
Downto\>Jo
years.
Joe R. Wolfe
JRW:dmk
'''''-.
~
.
April 23,
1974
F~~~ia1 Statement
Cash on hand
Add receipts
Apri 1 1,
in April
$
9,291.07
5,125.96
1974
Total cash available
Less checks paid to April ;~3,
14,417.03
1. 796.~
Cash
Less
hand April 23,
payable in
1974
1\pril
12,620.61
624~~
on
checks
Est. cach on
Add c ash in
hend April 3D,
savings account
1974
$11,996.04
2~1. 4~
EBt. cash balance April 3D,
1974
$12,217.47
~ * * * * * * * *
.
SUMMARY
Budget va. Actual through April 30,
1974
Actual e~penditures thru April 30
Less debt retirement
$20,572ft5S
.!..2 ,000 .OQ.
Operations expenditures
Budget through Ap:ril 30,
1974
8,572.55
8,225.68
Overspent for operations
$
346.87
Non-recurring expenses paid thru April 30
Annual audit fee
T~ Ccmnliss ions
Dulk mailing fee
$ 350.00
747.06
30.00
'l'otal
$1,127.06
.
..,..,
,;"; .
'.:=.' :'''';''
',"', ....j I" .\~',
.,:'~ '\ ~ ,....:': t, ;~ '~~l.'
'" '