03/17/1994 (2)
;t:J2l~:: ;;:' t;'.< /;:.' ,'.,.;:'
*,~'::';l<~I., ',~.. . ';
F:
."\'! ,je
. "
,.
t"1''y; .
. "" ,.!. .~. . , >
.: ~ '. ~',
l'l'" '.> .' t.u
. '
~ J~ . ~'
I..
.\ :
"
'.
,
t:
(< ,~
!'f
. .'
.ii
"
~' <~,I'
'"I'
}- '/
t l.. p.
, "
~:..:.I.t
~, . !
I'
" )
td~
> . ~ . I
>' ~.~ ."..~ . L ),......1 c
. .
, ... '~ " .
./'
.::
. '>:'.'
:.'~ t ~:;:. ..~ ,:
(L.. ,. . .
'oU ~C. ~,;,~'.r , , .
u,~;\~(..,,,-"'~r 4: i.
~:' tL~'~i'i .... . '.;. I ~
:~.l'''[":('''''':'' .
~~l~r:.:'i,:<:'.; . .':
~~';y~t"'" ..'
. ~YJr.ui~.t~:;.:L::~,~'0':. '. :
~!!!ti'h,"~"~' ,"'-
I \~''''~J~~.~'''.';' :.:' .
'~,,:;l'....,r,"~. ....-
'i~~?'~~?'~' .'. : I"
",
./ ;
'\.
..
C.O'M,MISSION
City Commission
I ~....
, .'
DATE
,~II~L9#
'.'e_
II....
*;~~~ \ .
, 'i:r.r:
.""" .
'~,,:.
~~lr{':' ~ :
~if-.:
c ;.;.~t...; c .
...~~.:..C.I~~._ .
!I\&!.F.": '.
. f!J.!.",.,
. .:'i:~{~~..' 4
~...~,:
. ~~~:~:.,:
f ~)J-'" .
~"''''.;....~...
'; r~/<
.' ,''U,i';o - ,
" tfi~~.,;.
,~I.'
-, .':"',.: ,"
i'--:-.~ .
c /~~";' ~ ,~~ \
~"I I
+~~
6? ~ 4-1
"
';:~ l' ~.
I .l
'~. ~
,c
, .
" ,
~ .-' ~.,. .
, .
. ~ F>.;'...
, I."~ '~. j
...,. ~ i ,
.'........., .
.,'
.'
:>~:
I, .
~~.' '.
~". "." ,
,,'4'.
"
.,
, I
I,
, .
,.1
....j...'. I'
, '
,i . ~ .
. r_,: . . c,
, ('>1:
, ,
. .,f
.: ",
ACTION AGENDA - CLEARWATER CITY COMMISSION MEETING - March 17, 1994 (6:00 P.M.)
Welcome. We are glad to have you join us. If you wish to speak ple'ase wait to be recognized, then
state your name and' address. Persons speaking before the City Commission on other than Public
Hearing items shall be limited to 3 minutes. No person, shall speak more than once on 'the same
subject unless granted permission by the City Commission. ANY PERSON WITH A DISABILITY
REQUIRING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING,
SHOULD CALL 813/462-6684.
1.
2.
3.
4~
6.
6.
Pledge of Allegiance
Invocation
Service Awards
Introductions and Awa'rds
Presentations
Approval of Minutes - 1/18/94, 1/20/94 &
2/7194
Citizens to be heard re items not on the
Agenda (maximum of 10 speakers pre-
registered with City Clerk)
1. Mayor.
2. Pastor Sue Gamelin, St. Paul's Luthern
Church.
3. 2 awards presented.
4. None.
5. None.
6. Continued.
7. Jav Elliott questioned when he could expect
a response to his 2/3/94 sworn statement. .
The Mayor indicated it was being prepared.
Jav Keyes suggested the submerged land
next to "Bird Island" be considered for an
entertainment/convention center.
7.
(:"8.
"
Presentation: Drew Street Status Report
8. Approved strategy of ending current effort
at Highland Ave.; west portion of Drew to
be part of PD&E- study for Memorial
Causeway Bridge.
, . ,
Not Before 6:00 P. M. w Scheduled PUblic Hearings
(1 ) Presentation of issues by City staff.
{2l Statement of case by applicant or
representative (5 minutes).
(3) Commission questions.
(4) Comments in support and in opposition;
whether as an individual or as a
spokesperson for a group (3 minutes).
(5) Commission questions.
(6) Final rebuttal by applicant or repr,esentative
(5 minutes).
(7) Commission motion to determine
disposition
PUBLIC AEARINGS
, '
9. Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5536-
94 ~ Amending Sec. 42.26, to establish
maintenance standards for fences and walls
(CP) To be Cont. to 4/7/94
9. Cant. to 4/7/94
l, 3/1 7/94
1
\.
10. Ord. #5545-94 - Annexation for property 10. Ord. #5545-94 adopted.
, located at 3001 Sunset Point Rd., Sec. 4-
29-16, M&B 23.03, 0.63 acres m.o.1.
(Roetzer, A93-301
11. Ord. #5546-94 - Land Use Plan 11. Ord. #5546-94 adopted.
Amendment to Residential Urban for
property located at 3001 Sunset Point Rd.,
Sec. 4-29-16, M&B 23.03, 0.63 acres
m.o.1. (Roetzer, LUP93-41)
12. 9rd~ #5547-94 - RS-6 Zoning for property 12. Ord. .#5547-94 adopted.
located at'3001 Sunset Point Rd., Sec. 4-
29-16, M&B 23.03, 0.63 acres'm.o.l.
(Roetz,er, A93-30)
13. .Ord. #5548-94 - Annexation for property 13. Ord. #5548-94 adopted.
located, at 2991 Gulf to Bay Blvd., William
Brown's Bayview, part of Lots 1 & 2, and
Lot .18 less portion p~eviously annexed,
consisting of approx. the north 278' of
subject property, 2.66 acres m.o.1. (Wilder
Corporation of Delaware, A93-29)
14.. Ord. #5549-94 - Land Use Plan 14. Ord. #5549-94 adopted.
e' Amendment to Residential Low Medium for
J:~~ . property located at 2991 Gulf to Bay Blvd.,
William Brown's Bayview, part of Lots 1 &
2, and Lot 18 less portion previously
annexed, consisting of approx. the north
278' of subject property, 2.66 acres m.o.l.
(Wilder Corpora~ion of Delaware, LUP93-
42) 1,
15. Ord. #5550-94 - RMH Zoning for property 15. Ord. 115550-94 adopted.
located at 2991 Gulf to Bay Blvd., William . I
Brown's Bayview, part of Lots.1 & 2, and
Lot 18 less portion previously annexed,
consisting of approx. the north 278' of
subject property, 2.66 acres m.o.1. . (Wilder
Corporation of Delaware, A93-29)
16. Ord. #5551:-94 - Amending Sec. 40.367 to 16. Continued to 4/7/94.
delete certain setback and building
separation requirements in the Beach . .
Commercial zoning district (LDCA94-04)
(CP) To be Cant. to 4/7/94
17. Ord. #6552-94 - First Quarter Budget 17. Ord. #5552-94 adopted. .
Amendment - operating
18. Ord. #5553-94 - First Quarter Budget 18~ Ord. #5553-94 adopted.
. Amendment - CIP
. C_.'..3/17/94. 2
, '
"
~
Public Hearing - Second Reading Ordinances
, ,
.. ~.' ~ .,. \ . ~ ,
: F",,':'-~: ..
,
I. : I
., '
'..
.' ~.
, "
, '
,
. . '~'. '. ., ~
. :', ~, . I
:. /
n . ," , .
; ~ '~.'+ :!~(:'~,:I.. ,.' .', 'i. I
. 1""'\..., ,18a (Cant. from 3/3/94) Ord. #6325-93 -
\,' ' Establish reclaimed water rates 'and define
II irrigation area tt
18a Ord. #5325-93 adopted as amended.
19. - Special Items of widespread public interest - None.
20. - Citizens to be heard re items not on the Agenda - None.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
CONSENT AGENDA (Items #21-37) - Approved as submitted less #s 29. 30 & 32.
The following items require no formal public hearing and are subject to being approved in a single
motion. However, any City Commissioner or the City Manager may remove an item from the Consent
Agenda to allow discussion and voting on the item individually. .
21.
22.
C'P'"
. .
'f 24.'
, 26.
("'3/17/94
23.
Declare personal property surplus to needs
of City, authorize disposal through sealed
bid sale (AS) .
Purchase of c~lorine in 1-ton cylinders from
Van Waters & Rogers"Inc., Tampa, FL, fOI'
the, period 3/18/94-2/28/95, for an est.
$133,620 (AS)
Joint Proieet Agreement with PinellBs
County to relocate natural gas mains during
improvements to Tampa Road, from East
Lake Road to Curlew Road, at an est. labor
cost of' $70,000 (GAS)
Purchase two Peterbilt/Rapid Rail side-
loading refuse vehicles from Peterbilt of
Central Florida, Winter Garden, FL, for
$208,800; financing to be provided under
city's master lease-purchase agreement
with Security Capital Corp. (GS)
Purchase & installation of nine ice machines
from Gulf Ice Systems, Pensacola, FL, for
$27,220.25 and a one~year maintenance
agreement for $1,890 for a total cost of
$29,110.25 (GS)
Contract for roof replacement at Fire
Station No. 50 to Pro-Spec Roofing of
Florida; Tarpon Springs, FL, for $ 37, 183
(GS)
Purchase of one 1994 Chevrolet Cargo Van
from Ferman Chevrolet, T,ampa, FL, for
$13,900.01 (GS)
25.
27.
3
.'
;~I/\!;;;'~. .
t:;., \~'. ,: : .
"
..: ;
. .
"
,
"
D:,''-;'\..'
~ -. ',~~~~:~' ~ ,::~~~...
:. . i . .
. <f, _:
. . I' ~ ~
~ .,'
. "",'. . 28. Increase consulting contract with Wittner & .
\:. . Compa'ny' by $9,000 for a total of $18,600,'
for" the period 1 f1/94-1 2131/94, for
developing' a RFP for: health insurance;
$2,500 group 'life insurance; SAMP
employees life insurance; police and fire
statutory life insurance; reviewing RFP
results; negotiating with finalists; and
managing transfer to new carrier (as
neededHHR)
. 29. Agreement with Pinellas County Sheriff to
provide latent fingerprint examination and
related services as well as crime scene
services including evidence & property
storage'to the Police' Dept. for the period
1/1/94-12/31/94, for $303,806.12 (PO)
30. Contract for automated information & data
management consulting services for Police
Department to John Dorsey & Associates,
Lathrup Village, MI, at a not-to-exceed cost
of $114,270 (PO)
31 . Contract for Flagler Drive Sanitary Sewer
, Replacement to Suncoast Excavating. Inc.,
Ozona, FL, for $223,368.50 (PW)
C~.:..~3? . Supplemental Agreement No.1 'to
agreement for professional services with
HDR Engineering Inc.. for Highland Avenue
Widening, for $263,824 (PW)
33. Contract for development & installation of a
recycling data management system to
Logistics Systems Engineering, Annapolis,
MD, at a cost not to exceed $71.976 (the
system records customer participation &
. l
route management data for the citywide
residential recycling program)(PW)
34. Receipt/Referral - LDCA re nonconformities
tLDCA94-05)(CP)
35. Receipt/Referral - land Use Plan
Amer"!dl11ent to Commercial General and CG
Zoning for property located at 509 Bayview
Ave., Town of Bay View e/k/a McMullen
Bayview Sub., Blk 3, Lots 1 & 2 and south
1/2 'of vacated street abutting north side of
the lots (Meador, LUP93-43, Z93-54)(CP)
36. Sanitary Sewer Lien Agreement. 1705
Lucas Drive (Davis) (CA)
37: Sanitary Sewer Lien Agreement - 1912 East
Skyline Drive (Buenaga) (eA)
l'>3/17/94 . .
29.
Approved.
30.
Approved.
32.
Approved.
. .!
'I'
4
;:'.' ["~'~'~'I' .
, ,
\'
. ,
I j'.
., I"
I'
. .' ~
OTHER ITEMS ON CITY MANAGER REPORT
c~
38.
Joint' Profect Agreement with FDOT to 38.
relocate natural gas mains during the
widening project of East Bay Drive, from
Highland Ave. to Belcher Rd., at an est.
$3401000; Res. #94-23 - authorizing
execution of JPA (GAS)
. Summer Youth Employment Program ',~~\ 39.
a) Goals
b) Contract
Chamber of Commerce Property 40.
No item. 41.
City Hall Discussion 42.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
Other Pending Matters 43.
a) Ratify/Confirm payment of $150,654.85
for consultant fees to Donnell Consultants
Inc. for additional services and expenditures
,rendered for design of City Hall (AS)
b) Renovation to Bayfront Mart (Maas
Brothers)
(.f""
, .. j
~~" j
c) Stein Mart Lease
,d) Affordable Housing Advisory
Committee - appointment to
Banking/Mortgage industry seat
Approved. Res. #94-23 adopted.
a) Accepted as amended.
b} Approved as amended.
Staff to continue to work with Chamber.
No item.
Approved building. City Hall Annex on
Bilgore site & renovate existing City Hall
subject to approval ,at referendum.
a) Ratified & Confirmed. "
b) Consensus for staff & consultant to
proceed with establishing estimate of
expense and getting quotes from at least 3
General Contractors.
c) Pulled.
dl Appointed Linda Byars.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS
44. First Reading Ordinances
a} Ord. #5556-94 - Relating to offenses,
repealing Sec. 21 .05 ra disr,obing in public
b) Ord. #5561-94 - Relating to offenses,
repealing Sec. 21 .08 ra false reports of
bombing
c) Ord. #5559~94 - Relating to city owned
real estate; creating Sec. 2.665 to provide
. that conveyances of city owned real
property contain a use restriction with right
of reverter to city
45. Other City Attorney Items
a) Authorization for Alan Zimmet to defend
counterclaim of City v. Church of
Scientology Flag Service Organization
. without a $5,000 cap
C,:, 3/17/94
'44.
5
a) Ord. #5556-94 passed 1 st reading.
bl Ord. #5561 ~94 passed 1 st reading.
c) Ord. #5559-94 passed 1 st reading.
45.
a) Authorized.
L
. f
. f:
i
,
~?j:Si<'~,::,y>,'i;; .':.... '.
,/ '.-' ~!
.j:"
jo
t~';' "
. ".
... ." .1
,~}~\';'.~.:
\)~,'''~J-')
, ,.
"
. J' .: r. '
" ~,.;
'.
J'
Y:, : :
l" .
, '.
1:\ c",;
, ~ c . "
.....~J.. I
., .
.;
, J,
, ,
/{~.~ . , .' " .
11~L;"(k\t\:L+' i~;ii',:;;t': / .~. '"
"
'. "
~; 5 ":, ~ CC
.~ I ,'1~::" .: (~.
l.,
, ,'f ~
"
.J,.
~\
'lc,;",:'46.
City Manager Verbal Reports
46. None.
47. a) Continued.
b) Continued:
c) Continued.
48., None.
49. 12:-27 a:m. (3/18/941
. "'f
I,~ I
,.
".
" '>"I
. i 1
..
!.'j
"J
-,
. .'
"
47.
,
Commission Discussion Items
a) Environmentally Se'nsitive Land definition
b) Legal Department Audit
, c) Accessory uses in Resort Commercial
Zones
'j,.,
, ':
48. Other Commission Action
e ,
49.
Adjournment
, ,
"
'c':":\""
", I;
! .' ~;
. "
, . I:
", , .~:
...
.,
.'.
'i.
, , ~ '. ~
":.'C''r.~
.,".' i "
'/ .........
".
,i
'. !
'.
1 '
"
fl.'.
:.~ ( .;
. '
,I
'.\:> .f
. .
,.
, ,
: ~
>~l>3/17/9'4
6,
, '
"
"
~ '
ip<"
~ 'c .;
, '.' .
, :
"
, ,
, .
:\ <
:. . '
.',
~ . i. , ,
f-"::.., . L l~ l ,J ~ " ' '
c<.>
",':-!'~j.:/.';",;:,;".:'<':::Y': ',.;,
c, .
(~"
"'-: .
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
March 17, 1994
The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in regular session.at City Hall,
Thursday, March 17, 1994 at 6:00 p.m., with, the following members present:
. "
Rita Garvey
Arthur X. Deegan, II
Richard Fitzgerald
Sue A. Barfield
Fred A. Thomas
Mayor/Commissioner
Vice-Mayor/Co m missioner
Commissioner'
Commissioner
Commissioner
. '
Also present:
Elizabeth M. Deptula
Kathy S. Rice
William C. Baker
M.A. Galbraith, Jr.
Peter J. Yauch
Scott Shuford
Cynthia E. Goudeau
Interim City Manager
Deputy City Manager
Acting Assistant City Manager
City Attorney ,
Acting Public Works Director
Central Permitting Director
City Clerk
. C".
. L' , ~
"
l. . I
. . '
The Mayor called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance. The
invocatiol1 was offered by Pastor Sue Gamelin of St. Paul's Luthern Church.
In order to provide continuity for research, the items 'will be listed in agenda 'order although
not necessarily discussed in that order.
ITEM #3 - Service Awards
Two service awards were presented to City employees.
ITEM #4 - Introductions a'nd Awards - None.
ITEM #5 - Presentations - None.
ITEM #6 - Aoproval of Minutes
Mayor Garvey 'requested the minutes be continued as she had not had the chance
to read them.
, Commissioner Berfield moved to continue approval of the minutes of the regular
meetings of January 18, 1994 and January 20. 1994 and the special meeting of February
7, 1994, to April 4, 1994.. The motion' was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
(;
""'"",.
minCC03b.94
3/1 7/94
1
,
.j
" ,',\
. )
.1
'j
t
. j
, ~ . . c J"
.
, ,
. , .:'
.. I ~ 1 .
. . " ~ .
t., .
'.
,
., ,"
c'-
ITEM #7 - Citizens to be heard re items not on the Agenda
Jay Elliott questioned when he would receive a response to his February 3rd sworn
written testimony. Mayor Garvey indicated she was working on a response.
Jay Keyes indicated he still supported the idea of an entertainment/conference
center. He suggested the submerged land adjacent to, llBird Island'" be considered. He
stated it would be an attraction unequaled on the west coast and all parking could be on
the mainland. . . .
.1
I
ITEM #8 - Presentation: Drew Street Status Report
William Baker, Acting Assistant City Manager, indicated when the Drew Street
project was last discussed, staff was left in a quandary regarding the preferred alternative
as it was apparent that due to economics, the one way pair would be a part of that
alternative. He stated staff went back to Florida Oepartment'of Transportation (FDOT) and
came up with a plan to have the terminus of the project at Highland Avenue.
Mahshid Arasteh, representing the FOOT, stated at the last presentation in
November of 1993, questions were asked regarding the effect of a new Memorial
Causeway Bridge study on the proposed one way pair. She stated a report was prepared
and presented to the Federal Highway Commission with a change of the terminus of the
Drew Street project to Highland Avenue. She stated this change has been accepted and
does effect the schedule and PD&E studies will have to be' reworked.
i
'j
(..'
Jim Kennedy of Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, the City's engineering
consultants on this project, stated the one way pair opt,ion is now gone. HEt stated the
reports will be revised in the next four months. A public hearing will be held in August.
The study will be finished and location design approval will be requested in November.
In response to a question from the Mayor, Mr. Kennedy indicated they could return
to the Commission before or after the public hearing, whichever was the Commission's
desire.
Commissioner Thomas asked how the Drew Street. widening project could be fast
tracked. Mr. Kennedy indicated the project was proceeding about as quickly as it could.
He stated the money from FOOT for right of way acquisition would not be in their budget'
. until 1998. There would be no need to fast track the construction.
Mr. Baker indicated the plans and specifications could be ready to go in case the
monies were moved up in order to obtain the right of way more quickly.
The Mayor questioned what would be accomplished by only widening to Highland
Avenue as she felt the majority of the congestion was in the downtown area.' Mr. Baker
indicated that was not the case and the east end of the project is where the major traffic
problems are located. He said this does not mean that the western end of Drew Street
would go unattended but it would wait for the bridge study.
(~,
minCC03b.94
3/17/94
2
I'
." I. . I
" '
:," .
, ,
....
,,~ :
..;
'.'
, I
r:,:;
r
Commissioner Deegan disagreed tl1'at all the problems were on the east end. He
stated the City now has a bottleneck west of Osceola Avenue due to Drew Street being
made one lane from that point on. He stated this would create a bottleneck at Highland
Avenue if the, west end were not addressed in the bridge study.
Mr. Baker indicated widening of Drew Street would not stop at that point, it would
just be the terminating point of this part of the project. '
Commissioner Thomas questioned if money saved by splitting the issue could result
in the acquisition of the right of way earlier than 1997. Ms. Arasteh stated that most of
the right of way acquisitions were in the eastern part and there would not be that much
money saved. '
It was the consensus, of the Commission t.hat the FDOT and Post, Bucl<.ley, Schuh &
Jernigan would hold the public hearing prior to coming back to the Commission regarding
the recommended location design.
Mayor Garvey questioned how they would know the impact on businesses and
homes if there has been no preliminary engineering. Commissioner Berfield indicated it
, was not a discovery that widening would impact these individuals. ,
'1
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the strategy presented of terminating the
,current Drew Street widening project at Highland Avenue. The motion was duly
seconded.
, (.""
.'
Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned when the remainder of Drew Street would' be
. .
addressed. Mr. Baker indicated staff was currently in the process of engaging a consultant
for a feasibility study for the bridge. A PD&E study of the bridge would address the
downtown end of Drew Street.
Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned if it was a given that Drew Street would be a
location of the bridge access. Mr. Baker indicated even if it is not a part of the alignment
of the bridge"it will be effected by the bridge. Mr. Baker indic,ated the questions regarding
the western portion of Drew Street will be answered by the time the right of way monies
for the east half are available.
,
I
J
,
;
\.
The Mayor questioned why Highland Avenue was chosen as the terminus. Peter
Yauch, Traffic Engineer, indicated it was the most logical place as it was a major
intersection along the corridor.
, Commissioner Deegan questioned if the monies available were appropriate for the
PD&E study. Mr. Baker reviewed the history of the project stat1n'g the Commission
decided to spend up to $4 million in order to get the Drew Street widening started. He
stated the PD&E study costs between $700,000 to $800,000 and tonight's action will
allow the plans and specifications to be developed at a cost of approximately $ 1/2 million:
He stated at that point the Commission could decide to designate some of the funds
, toward the right of way acquisition. .
l/
minCC03b.94
3/17/94
3
.. [,",1 '.
;', ~ ./':t ,>
1 " I
"
, ,
I
. 1\'
"
! :,::1
" .
1... ,.;. .
. '. ,
'(:'
Co'mmissioner Deegan stated he presumed some of the left over funds were to
carryover to the new Memorial Causeway Bridge PD&E study which will include the
western portion of Drew Street and he understood this to be a purpose of the motion.
Commissioner Thomas stated it was his opinion that once this PD&E study was
done, it should not be real expensive for the next step. Mr. Kennedy indicated the PD&E
study is, 0 process which a project must to through and the cost is a function of the length
of the study and the dollars would not be effected much. He stated the PD&E study is a
long difficult process.
. The City Clerk restated the motion to be, approve the strategy presented to
terminate the current Drew Street widening project at Highland Avenue and that the
western portion of Drew Street will be addressed as a part of the new Memorial Causeway
Bridge PD&E study.
Upon the vote being taken on the motion, it carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM #9 - Public Hearina & First Readina Ord. #5536-94 - Amending Sec. 42.26, to
establish maintenance standards for fences and walls [CP)
,Commissioner Deegan moved to continue this item to April 7, 1994. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C"; Public Hearina - Second Reading Ordinances
ITEM 1f10 - Ord. #5545~94 - Annexation for property located at 3001 Sunset Point Rd.,
Sec. 4-29-16, M&B 23.03, 0.63 acres m.o.!. (Roetzer, A93-30)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5545~94 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5545-94 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Barfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #1,1 - Ord. #5546-94 - land Use Plan Amendment to ResidentialUrban for property
located at 3001 Sunset Point Rd., Sec. 4-29~16, M&B 23.03, 0.63 acres m.o.1. (Roetzer,
lUP93-41 )
. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5546-94 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5546-94 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
l/
minCC03b.94
3/1 7/94
4
.. ,
,
1
"
,
:j
<,
. ~ I.
. . ~, .' ~.
.'.fj
"Ayeslt: Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
I'
I'
j.,
i':
1.'
'.f..
ITEM #12 - Ord. #5547-94, - RS-6 Zoning for property located at 3001 Sunset Point Rd.,
Sec. 4-29-16, M&B 23.03, 0.63 acres m.o.l. (Roetler, A93-30)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance 115547-94 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5547-94 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Barfield, Deegan, Thomas and Grlrvey.
ttNays": None.
ITEM #13 - Ord. #5548-94 - Annexation for property located at 2991 Gulf to Bay Blvd.,
William Brown's Bayview I part of Lots 1 & 2, and Lot 1 8 less 'portion previously annexed,
consisting of approx. the north 278' of subject property, 2.66 acres m.o.1. (Wilder
. Corporation of Delaware, A93-29)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5548-94 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance 115548-94 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly, seconded and upon roll call, the vot,e was:
4;';\1 '
~i
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM /I 14 - Ord. #5549-94 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low Medium for
property located at 2991 Gulf to Bay Blvd., William Brown's Bayview, part of lots 1 & 2,
and Lot 18 less portion previously annexed, consisting of approx. the north 278' of subject
property, 2.66 acres m.o.1. (Wilder Corporation of Delaware, LUP93-421'
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5549.94 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5549-94 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
It Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None. .
ITEM #15 - Ord. #5550-94 - RMH Zoning for property located at 2991,Gurf to Bay Blvd.,
William Brown's Bayview, part of Lots 1 & 2, and Lot 18 less portion previously annexed,
consisting of approx. the north 278' of subject property, 2.66 acres m.o.l. (Wilder
Corporation of Delaware, A93-29)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5550-94 for second reading and read it by
l...
minCC03b:94
3/1 7/94
5
~::'i ,...... ,:<, ~'.,'." , .
,>,'" ,
'.f
_,' ~ t '.....
f '. (~ ~,
i,~, 1."
} J '
, 'j
1,
, ,
". 't,
0.'
'..
,title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5550-94 on
s~cond and final reading. The motion' was duly seconded a~d upon roll call, the vote was:
llAyes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
. ,
t1Nays": None.
ITEM #16 - Ord. #5551-94 - Amending Sec. 40.367 to delete certain setback and building
separation ,requirements in the Beach Commercial zoning district (LDCA94-04) (CP)
ITEM #17 - Ord. #5552-94 - First Quarter Budget Amendment - operating
Commissioner Thomas moved to continue this item to April 7, 1994. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
. , ~
, The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5552-94 for second reading and read it' by
title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5552,-94' on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon rollcall, the vote was:
. "
t1~yesll: Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #18 - Ord. #5553-94 - First Quarter Bu~get Amendment - CIP
C,:,.!:)
J
~D. .'
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5553-94 for second reading and read it by
title ol1ly. Commissioner Berfleld moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5553-94 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call"the vote was:
"Ayesll: Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, J"homas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #18a - CCont. from 3/3/94) Ord. #5325-93 - Establish reclaimed water rates and
define "ir'rigation area"
Tom Burke, Camp Dresser & Mckee (CDM), the City's consulting engineer, stated
they have prepared three estimates on which to base the rate for reclaimed water. These
calculations are based on: 1) total area; 2} pervious area: and 3) irrigated area. He stated
the power costs have been recalculated based on the input from the facilities regarding
their actual water usage.
It is the recommendation to charge the rate based on pervious area, which would
be $13.77 per per~.rjous acre. per month.
> i
(....
minCC03b.94
'3/17/94
6
,I
,,":
. . , ~
.'\1.
:' ~ ,"
,i. '.,J..
c
Commissioner Deegan questioned why the recommendation is to base the charge
on pervious area. Mr. Burke indicated that the irrigation patterns can be changed on the
property.
. ,
Commissioner Deegan questioned if the City has been providing this water for some
time, if the City had actual operating costs to provide this water. Mr. Baker indicated.that
while the City can indicate how much electricity is being used, it can not say how much is
being used for a particular pump.
,
',I
I
I
,I
Commissioner Deegan suggested the charge could be estimated for the first year.
Mr. Baker agreed as long as $70,000 was recouped.
Commissioner Deegan questioned why the City would not meter the water. Mr.
Burke indicated it would increase operating costs by $5,000 to $10,000. Mr. Baker stated
the City would not have the history to know what to charge and would have to go into an
accounting and tracking system to establish the charge.
Commissioner Thol,Tlas questioned if there were other customers capable of hooking
into the system. Mr. Baker indicated there were.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if there was a way of reducing the costs by
allowing the facilities to use their meters. Mr. Baker indicated the City would want them
to use City meters.
(~.,
Commissioner Deegan questioned what other cities do. Mr. Burke indicated their
reclaimed water systems are heavily subsidized and more of them are beginning to go to
meters. He stated as the City's system expands, it too, would go to meters.
Ed Armstrong, attorney representing Countryside Country Club, stated they felt
refinements were still possible. He stated they beHeved Countryside Country Club was in
a'different position due to an agre~ment with the City. He stated the State's policy i's to
encourage the use of reclaimed water. He pointed out there are several agencies that do
not charge for reclaimed water. He stated the ordinance should be amended to retlect if
additional users are placed on the system, the rate would be recalculated.
'1
. ,.
I
I.
Mr. Baker stated that. no one gives reclaimed water away but many pay for it
through their sewer customers. Mr. Armstrong agreed it is the policy of these agencies to
have the sewer system subsidize reclaimed water.
Bill Young, president of the Clearwater Country Club. stated they are the only
facility on the Marshall Street line and he felt the City was able to make them use the
water in order to get rid of it.
Commissioner Fitzgerald declared a conflict of interest as he is a member of one of
the country clubs.
c...
minCC03b.94
3/17/94
7
. ,
~.;t'-(/~" ~
:: L,
~ ' "
It .:
;. '
. .
('
Mayor Garvey, questioned if the golf courses did not use the water, could the City
dispose of it. Mr. Baker ii,dicated it could.
Mr. Young stated they had no problem with paying for the reclaimed water but felt
meters Were not the way to go as they would be inclined to cut back to save money. He
stated the golf courses are the best way to dispose of the effluent.
, Mr. Baker stated there was a time when it was a benefit to the City for the golf
courses to use the reclaimed water. He stated however, the City spent $50 million
im'proving their wastewater treatment plants and the effluent can now be discharged into
the Bay. He stated staff's recommendation .is,that the facilities pay their minimum fair
share for getting the reclaimed water.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if Countryside Country Club were saying they did.
not want the water. Mr. Armstrong indicated they wanted the water and were willing to
pay a reasonable charge. .
Commissioner Thomas ;questioned what that would be. Mr. Armstrong indicated
$10,000 to $12,000 a year. Commissioner Thomas noted this was only 1/3 of the
estimated annual charge to the country club. '
Howard Groth indicated utility users should not 'be charged for providing reclaimed
water to golf courses. He stated there should be a reasonable charge.
(,;,j.
I ~' ~~. c
Dale Reich, representing Countryside Country Club, stated he appreciated
Commissioner Deegan's approach and there was a need for accurate numbers. He stated
they are willing to pay their fair share to get the water. He had hoped they could have
worked with the City to provide the accurate figures.
The City Attorney' pointed out there was a need to change the effective date of the
ordinance. He suggested there be an amendment the rates be reviewed periodically.
. Commissioner Thomas questioned if there was the possibility of providing a cholce
that they pay a metered rate'or a cost per acre. Mr. Baker indicated it would be possible
to do that and it would have to be monitored to see if the calculations were accurate. He
again stated they would want the facilities to use a standard Clearwater meter.
Commissioner qeegan indicated he did like providing an option. He stated he
believed the water should be metered because eventually there will be citywide reclaimed
water and at that point, the system will be metered.
Mr. Baker stated that all are agreeing there should be a fair rate. The question is,
what is fair? He stated the $20,000 for elec~rjcal cost is based on the information
provided by the golf courses. He stated the $10,000 in maintenance is an estimate, it .
could be reduced to $5,000 but then there would be a risk of not covering all maintenance
possibilities. He stated the $40,000 for administration, billing, etc. are the actual costs
associated with the reclaimed water process.
l>
minCC03b.94
3/1 7/94
8
~ , .,
~(':i~;';'~,' ~ ,',T' ,.
L,.... ~ 'f"
.
., ' ~
','! <
. ,
.'
I
i':.,
(':-
".
Commissioner Deegan pointed out the $70,000 is a "far cry" from the $198,000
upon which the rate was first based. He stated it has been boiled down to a minimum
amount. He felt this would become an enterprise system and cost accounting would be
set up for accurate figures.
Mr. Burke indicated he appreciated the'difficulty the Commission was having in this
matter. I-Ie stated' the numbers will n'ot get any better. The simplest system is to charge
per acre. He stated the next" step would be to set a minimum charge and that would
eventually point toward a metered system. He agreed the rates should be looked at
annually.
1,
i
."1
.'
Discussion ensued regarding whether there should be a per acreage charge or if the
system should be metered.
Commissioner Deegan indicated the cost to be recovered is $70,000 which would
equate to 12 cents per 1,000 gallons of reclaimed water. He stated if they fall shy of'
meeting the $70,000, the rate could be adjusted. Mr. Burke stated if the purpose is to
recover the $70,000, it would be better to go with the per acre charge because if the
charge is based on a metered rate, the users could simply reduce their use and the
$70,000 would not be recovered. .
The Mayor questioned which rate Mr. Burke would recommend and he indicated the
$1 3.77 per acre for pervious area.' I . .
'~'"
, .r, ..~~
. '
. Commissioner Thomas questioned a statement made at the last meeting regarding
the State of Florida stepping in shortly to mandate that all reclaimed water be disposed of
and the City would then be forced to give it away. Mr. Burke indicated he felt the
. mandate would be imposed within the next two ,years. Mr. Baker indicated the City's
previous studies had shown it would cost $60 million to deliver reclaimed water to every
citizen. This was not found to be feasible. He stated the City may opt to put the effluent
directly in the ground but it would not be forced to give the reclaimed water away.
Commissioner Thomas moved to amend Ordinance 5325-93 in,Section 5(g) to add
the following sentence: This rate shall be reviewed annually and revised as necessary to
recover the operating and maintenance costs of the reclaimed water system in a fair and
equitable' manner. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the'vote being taken;
Commissioners Thomas, Berfield and Mayor Garvey voted "Aye," Commissioner Deegan
voted "Nay, II Commissioner Fitzgerald abstained. Motion carried.
.J
I
. I
.,
. 'j
Commissioner Thomas moved to amend Ordinance 5325-93 wherever irrigated area
appeared to change to pervious area. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote
being taken; Commissioners Thomas, Berfield and Mayor Garvey voted II Aye,"
Commissioner Deegan voted "Nay," Commissioner Fitzgerald abstained. Motion carried.
Commissioner Thomas moved to amend Ordinance 5325-93 to have a rate of $10
per acre of pervious area per month. There was no second.
(~,'
;,
,
,.
minCC03b.94
3/1 7/94
9
. . . .
'. ~' '~ ..... L ,
"
~ ' '. ~ ~.
.
.',
..
. : ~ ~ . ,
~ '
~. ~~, :'f~~
1, . :' , " i'
f.t . . ~. : "\
.r
. .:
,,:'::\'~i
, .
('.1
. . Commissioner Berfield moved to amend Ordinance 5325-93 in Section 5(g) to have
a rate of $13.77 per acre of pervious area per month. The motion was duly seconded.
Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Thom'as, Berfield and Mayor Garvey voted
"Aye," Commissioner Deegan voted "Nay," Commissioner Fitzgerald abstained. Motion
carried.
, ,
Commissioner Berfield moved to amend Ordinance 532'5-93 to make the effective
date May 1, 1994. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken;
Commissioners Thomas, Berfield and Mayor Garvey voted '~Aye," Commissioner Deegan
voted "Nay, tr Commissioner Fitzgerald abstained. Motion carried.
,.,1
.J
.,..1
!
The City Attorney presented Ordinance 1/5325-93 for second reading as amended
and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Ordinance
#5325-93 as amended on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and
upon roll call, the' vote was:
"
"Ayest1: Berfield, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": Deegan.
.1,
.j,
'j;
Abstain: Fitzgerald.
Motion carried.
("
, .
.
ITEM 1/19 - Snecialltems of widespread public interest - None.
The meeting recessed from 8:20 p.m. to 8:37 p.m.
ITEM #20 - Citizens to be heard re items not on the Agenda. None.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
CONSENT AGENDA (Items #21-37) - Approved as submitted less items 29, 30 & 32.
I
.. I
'l.'
, , r
ITEM #21 - Declare personal oropertv surplus to needs of Citv. authoriz,e disposal through
sealed bid sale ~ Ust of property attached to these minutes as Exhibit A (AS)
ITEM #22 - Purchase of chlorine in 1'-ton cvlinders from Van Waters & Rogers, Inc.,
Tampa, FL, for the period 3/18/94.2/28/95, for an est. $133,620 (AS)
. .
ITEM 1/23 - Joint Proiect Agreement with Pinellas County to relocate natural Qas mains
durinQ Imorovements to Tamoa Road, from East Lake Road to Curlew Road, at an e'st.
labor cost of $70,000 (GAS)
ITEM' #24 - Purchase two Peterbilt/Raoid Rail side-loadinQ refuse vehicles from Peterbilt of
Central Florida, Winter Garden, FL, for $208,800; financing to be provided under city's
master lease.purchase agreement with Security Capital Corp. (GS)
"
,
L.J
minCC03b.94
3/17/94
,
10
. . . ~ ;
;, >, -l
}l~ ':.::' f' " ',~ \
~ .. ~ ~ .
..... :c.:
'.'
"
r-,
'l
"
ITEM #25 - Purchase & installation of nine ice machines from Gulf Ice Systems, Pensacola,
FL, for $27,220.25 and a one~year maintenance agreement for $1,890 for a total cost of
$29,110.25 (GS) ,
ITEM #26 .' Contract for roof reolacement at Fire Station No. 50 to Pro~Spec Roofing of
Florida, Tarpon Springs, FL, for $37,183 (GS)
ITEM #27 - Purchase of one 1994 Chevrolet Carao Van from Ferman Chevrolet, Tampa,
FL, for $13,900.01 (GS)
ITEM #28 - Increase consultinQ contract with Wittner & Comoanv by $9,000 for a total of
$18,600, for the period 1/1/94-12/31/94, for developing a RFP for: health insurance;
$2,500 group life in~urance; SAMP employees life insurance; police and fire statutory life
insurance; reviewing RFP results; negotiating, with finalists; and managing transfer to new
carrier (as needed)(HR)
ITEM #29 - See Page 12
ITEM #30 - See Page ,13
ITEM #31 - Contract for Flaaler Drive Sanitary Sewer Reolacement to Suncoast
Excavating, Inc., Ozona, FL, for $223,368.50 (PW)
ITEM #32,. See Pag~ 14
C'"
ITEM #33 - Contract for development & installation of a recycling data management
system to Logistics Systems Engineering', Annapolis, MD, at a cost not to exceed $71,976
(the system records customer participation & route management data for the citywide
residential recycling program)(PW)
ITEM #34 - ReceiotfReferral . lDCA re nonconformities (lDCA94-05HCPl
ITEM #35 . Receipt/Referral - land Use Plan Amendment to Commercial General and CG
Zonina for orooertv located at 509 Bayview Ave., Town of Bay View a/k/a McMullen
Bayview Sub., Blk 3. Lots 1 & 2 and south 1/2 of vacated street abutting north side of the
lots (Meador, lUP93-43, Z93-54HCP)
I
ITEM #36 - San;tarv Sewer Lien AQreement, - 1705 Lucas Drive, Lot 29, Block 5, Virginia'
Groves Terrac,e 3rd Addition (Davis) (CA)
ITEM #37 - Sanitary Sewer Lien Aareement . 1912 East Skyline Drive, Lot 57, Skyline
Grove Subdivision (Buenaga) (CA)
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted less
Items 29. 30 and 32 and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
I',
(/
minCC03b.94
3/1 7/94
11
, '
~::: c . I'
, I
..-j<
'"~/, ':"~"~ "., '.: .:~.I. ',.
c , c ,~
,; \.,
: ~~. ~.j.:, .1
: ,
'I
('~
ITEM #29 ~ Agreement with Pinellas County Sheriff to provide latent finQerorint
examInation and related services as well as crime scene services lncludino evidence &
property storeoe to the Police Dept. for the period 1/1/94-12/31/94, for $ 303, 806.12 (PO)
. The Pinellas County Sheriff's office has been supplying latent fingerprint
examination services to the Police Department since the 1989-90 fiscal year. In January
of 1993, a second' contract for crime scene services and evidence storage was also
entered into. Negotiations have been ongoing to combine the services into one contract.
The total cost of the combined contract if $303,806.12. $58,139.98 for,latent
fingerprint services, which is an increase of $1 3,614.34 over the previous single contract
price. The' increase includes a 4:09 percent increase or $1,837.23 in personal services
costs, for the one full time latent examiner identified in the previous contract. An
additional $11,380.62 reflects the services of another examiner working part time on
Clearwater cases. Additional assistance is necessary to reduce the backlog. The latent
services part of the contract only include actual personal services costs.
The previous crime scene contract stipulated a maximum increase of 4.25 percent
for the second and third years. At $245,666 the increase is 2.36 percent.
. The contract provides for the processing of 2000 crime scenes. Any processing
provided in excess of this amount, will result in a charge of $122.83 per scene.
"
The Police Department has been pleased with the services provided. Although this
agreement is renewable for two additional years, the rate increase of 4.25 percent pertains
only to the crime scene services. The latent services section is directly related to, the
amount of personal services that are required to service Clearwater's needs. If future
proposed contracts exceed the terms of this agreement, they will be brought before the
Commission for approval.
, ti, c,
,,' I.: '.
,.+"
Chief Klein indicated this.is the second year of the contract and the two have been
combined into one.
Bob Wright. who had asked this item be pulled from the consent agenda, stated he
had wanted it to be clarified regarding the contract and now that it was explained that the
two con'tracts were combined, he was s,atlsfied. <
Commissioner Thomas questioned if these contracts had proven to be more,
economical than doing these services in-hollse. The Chief indicated they have exceeded,
expectations.
, Commissioner, Berfield moved to authorize the City. Manager to enter into an
agreement with the Pinellas County Sheriff to provide latent fingerprint examination and
related services as well as crime scene services, including evidence and property storage
to the Clearw'ater Police Department, for a period of one year, from 1/1/94 and concluding
c'
minCC03b.94
3/17/94
12
.,~ I I:
, ':i .
, '
, If
'\
!.' .
\"/ f .
",'
.\.~: "
I '. l' "' ~'.:,
o
12/31/94, for a total cost of $303,806.12 which is the minimum sum due for all services
t~ be rendered and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #30 - Contract for automated Information & data management consulting services
for Police Deoartment to John Dorsey. & Associates, Lathrup Village, MI, at a not-to-
. exceed cost of $114,270 (PO) ,
, Although significant progress has been made in the level of computerization in
many areas, the automation of the public safety functions of 'the City does not meet
current needs. The consultant will evaluate the Police Department's,existing information
and data management systems and develop a comprehensive plan for a fully integrated
police information system. Further. the firm will assist with the acquisition of hardware,
software, and support services necessary to implement a new, state of the art computer
aided dispatch system.
All firms submitting proposals were reviewed by a committee of 'managerial
personnel from various city departments. John Dorsey and Associates was rated the
. highest. The firms were rated according to experience and ability, past. performance, ,
qualifications of key personnel, understanding of the project scope, soundness of
approach, and fee.
(':;'~
,.r ~
. f ~
'.
'. Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned whether ther~ was in~house capability to do
this study. . Chief Klein indicated this is the single' most important decision to be made for
the next decade and there is no one within the City system that has the expertise needed.
':
Mr. Dorsey indicated the project will include three phases: 1) strategic planning; 2)
systems development; and 3) impleme,ntation..
Commissioner Fitzgerald asked if the City would be able to use equipment it
currently has. Mr. Dorsey indicated he would maximize the use of existing equipment.
Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned how long it would be before the strategic plan
was available. Mr. Dorsey indicated 2 1/2 to 3 months. He stated the entire project
would take 1 5 months.
Commissioner Berfield questioned if Mr. Dorsey had been advised of the new Police
Department headquarters. Mr. Dorsey indicated they ha'd and would be able to. assist in
that planning. '
Commissioner Thomas questioned if there was any aspect that would not be
analyzed. Mr. Dorsey indicated there was not.. '
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to award a contract for automated information and
data mt;inagement consulting services 'for the Police Department to John Dorsey &
l/
minCC03b.94
3/17/94
13
, .
;~ .'J~I~"";; ":: :,:. .
4 .,.
It
. ,
, .
'i ,
. ,
."
,':' j'.
. '.:~'" , . . ,
. 'i:. ~".':" T. ~ . '" . . .
\ ~~;
"
c.
,
Associates of Lathrup Village, Michigan, at a not-to~exceed cost of $114,270 and that the
appropriate offi~jals be authorized to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously.
t
I
ITEM #32 - Supplemental Aqreement No.1 to aqreement for professional services with
HDR Engineerinq Inc.. for HiQhland Avenue WideninQ. for $263,824 [PW}
.j
. The City entered into an agreement with HDR Engineering Inc. for the professional
design services for the widening of Highland Avenue. The design was completed in June,
1993 for a four lane widened'roadway section from Gulf to Bay Boulevard to Palmetto
Street, a five lane widened roadway section from Palmetto Street to Sunset Point Road
and a four lane widened roadway section from Sunset Point Road to Union Street.
;.
: ;
."
Since the completion of the initialdesign. Pinellas County has announced plans to
, implement a multi-lane construction of Keene Road, north from Gulf,to Bay Boulevard.
Pinellas County has also delayed plans for the widening of Highland Avenue. south of Gulf
to Bay Boulevard. As a result. the Commission has directed staff to alter the design of the
Highland Avenue Widening project to a general three lane.roadway section from Gulf to
Bay Boulevard to Sunset Poin,t Road.
" ,
Ii:'.,
,-"
,
Therefore, the supplemental agreement is needed to modify the existing
construction plans to accommodate this three lane improvement along Highland Avenue.
The proposed modification includes preparing revised construction plans to alter the
pavement sections. modify the drainage systems, revise various utility accommodation
,designs, negotiate a permit modification with the regulatory agencies, revise pavement
'marking and traffic control plans, miscellaneous survey services, and preparation of final
specifications and bid documents. '
HDR estimates that all costs to complete the proposed widening of Highland
Avenue, including professional fees, is $4.7 million. This is compared to the original
design construction and 'right of way acquisition estimate of at least $7.1 million. This
downsizing represents a cost saving of at least $2.4 million.
Bob Wright requested clarification regarding .the cost savings of this project. Peter
Yauch, Traffic Engineer, stated there will be a savings of approximately $2.4 million due to
the lessening of the widening project.
,; ,
Commissioner Deegan moved to approve Supplemental Agreement No.1 to the
agreement for professional services with HDR Engineering Inc., for Highland Avenue
Widening, for $263,824 and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
~'
C'
minCC03b.94
3/1 7/94
14
. ,
.~... .
.h.. ~
. ,
>, r J;;
~~
. "
OTHER ITEMS ON CITY MANAGER REPORT
ITEM #38 - Joint Project AClreement with Florida Deoartment of Transoortation (FOOT) to
relocate natural Q8S mains durina the widening oraiect of East Bav Drive, from Highland
Ave. to Belcher Rd., at an est. $340,000; Res. #94-23 ~ authorizing execution of JPA
(GAS) . ,
, !
, '
.The FOOT has a project to widen Eas't Bay Drive from Highland Avenue to Belcher.
Road that will require the relocation of existing gas mains. This Joint Project Agreement
(JPA) will provide for the relocation of existing gas mains hy the State's general contractor
for the' project.
('"
- ,
The gas materials for this project will be provided by the Clearwater Gas System
from existing inventory and will include 1,058 feet of 2-inch PE gas main, 520 feet of 4-
inch PE gas main, 8,392 feet of 8-inch PE gas main, 1,116 feet of steel casing pipe and
various other gas fittings. These materials will be issued from the appropriate inventory
codes and charged to the CIP for Line Relocation-Capital. The estimated cost of these
materials is $68,000 and has been previously approved.
Having the general contractor relocate the existing gas mains wiU allow for this
work to be done in a timely manner and relieves the Gas System from any penalty
payments because of delays to the project. All restoration costs are also saved as the
general contractor is responsible for these costs under this agreement.
, The JPA provides for labor only at an estimated cost to the Clearwater Gas System
of $340,000. "
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve a Joint Project Agreement with State of
Florida pepartment of Transportation to relocate natural gCls mains during the widening
project of East Bay Drive from Highland Avenue to Belcher Road at an estimated cost of
$340,000. The motion was duly se~onded and carried unanimously.
, The City Attorney presented Resolution #94~23 and read it by title only.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Resolution #94-23 and authorize the
appropriate offjcial~ to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call,
the vote was:
. ~
UA'{es": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #39 - Summer Youth Employment ProQram
a) Goals
Goals for the 1994 City of Clearwater'Summer Jobs Program have been submitted
for Commission approval and are attached to these minutes' as Exhibit B.
l_
minCC03b.94
3/1 7/94
15
:,;' f~':
\' . t.
f'T~' I '.
c
..",
.. .;.~:~
;..'
c,.,
, ,
, ,
",'1-
Ii
Commissioner Deegan indicated he was pleased that Goal 2 added a '75 %
satisfaction rating. He questioned, in Goal 1, the carryover of unspent funds from the
1993 Summer Jobs Program which was $42,000. This would result in'8 total of
$172,000 for this year's program. He indicated he would prefer to cap this year's
program at $150,000 and to consider other possible uses for the remaining unspent funds.
, I
(
, '!
. f'
"
\
c'l
Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned if this would cause any problems. Eleanor
Breland, Human Relations Director, indicated it would not.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concerns regarding there only being 100 jobs this
year when there were 130 last year. He was concerned that $30,000 was now going to
someone else to administer the program. Ms. Breland indicated the same individuals will
be administering the program but. they are hiring additional staff in order to have a smaller
counselor to student ratio.
Commissioner' Thomas still expressed concern that staff was being incraased
versus money going to the participants. . He questioned why .one of the measures of
success was that half of the participants be between 17 and 23 years of age. Ms. Breland
indicated this was Commission direction.
Commissioner Thomas felt that individuals in 8th grade, not those in highschool,
should be targeted.' Kathy Rice, Deputy City Manager, pointed out there are a number.of
youths in college that need summ'er jobs. Commissioner Thomas also disagreed with one
of the measurements being that a survey was filled out. He felt the measurement'should
be what they learned and whether or not they can obtain and hold a job. Ms. Rice
indicated there would be better follow up regarding the success of the program.
I
. .1
Ms. Breland indicated there have been some examples of individuals who could not
accept jobs due to the impact on all of the public assistance their, family receives. Ms.
Rice indicated the purpose of the program was to provide youth with employment
opportunities that would prepare them for when they are able to leave home and function
on their own. This will provide work experience, references, etc.
, \
Commissioner Thomas stated this was the third year of the program and he did not
see any data which showed the children had learned anything.
Commissioner Deegan stated that based on the information, it could not be
concluded that the program was a failure, however, different data did need to be collected
in order to determine the success of the program. '
'J
i
I
'\
!
, ,
Commissioner Thomas questioned what would be considered a successful program.
Commissioner Deegan stated 3/4 of the students saying the program helped them and 3/4
of the employers and families indicating positive results.. .
Commissioner Thomas sta,ted no one receiving the ,funds would say anything bad
about the program. Commissioner Deegan pointed out the families and employers were
'asked as well. Commissioner Thomas questioned whether there was a follow up system
minCC03b.94
3/17/94
16
. ~~::;~~~~.~.~~:.~&> illl~\~;""; '.: r.; 'f:I:: !:.;..." ~..: .;';,.
. . ' > ~
~
,....,.
('"
~' .\
..',1
,c.
'. ,
, '" , ..
. 0 ~ . .
, .
to track youth in the program to, see if they have successful achievements in the job
market. Ms. Breland indicatod there was no such program as this would be extremely
expensive. .
Commissioner Thomas again expressed concerns that students being given the
funds would not comment negatively about the program. He did not feel it was a success
for the individual participants to indicate this was a good progra'm.
, ,
I
". i
. 1
.,
Commissioner Deegan pointed out the students would have to earn the $1 ,OOQ, it
was not going to just be given to them. He stated there will be employment interviews in .
this year's program. Ms. Rice pointed out that less than 10% of the students were
negatively terminated in last year's program.
Commissioner Deegan agreed that a longitudinal study would be more than could
be handled in the City program. He indicated that was not the function of the program.
He stated its purpose was to help the youth start to learn regarding the work market.
Commissioner Thomas indicated he would support the program if the jobs were in
the City and tangible results could be seen. Ms. Breland indicated the. City's program
,targeted private sector work in order not to duplicate federally funded programs that
provide city jobs.
Peg Connell,' representing Pinellas Private Industry Council, indicated they will be .
commissioning a three year evaluation of a summer program and they could investigate
piggybacking an evaluation of this program. She stated it was their experience that the
age group of 17 to 23 were difficult to recruit due to the lower hourly, wage. She stated
she would like to see the goals dropped to this 'age group being 30% of the participants
and their salary level be raised. She stated the major thrust from the federal government
is to work with young people to prepare them for when they graduate from highschool.
Commissioner Deegan indicated he felt longitudinal studies were difficult to do. He
re-emphasized the City is not a social service agency. He stated the City's program is
trying to help young people learn employment skills. He agreed the hourly wage of the
older youth should be increased. He stated employers are more satisfied with the older
youth and that is the reason for the 50% target.
. Mayor Garvey indicated she felt the program has been successful and that $1,000
per student is not pocket change.
I
Commissioner Berfield pointed out the cost of the program is $1,000 per student,
however, the actual wages earned are less. Ms. Rice indicated the $1,000 does include
payment for such things as workers compensation, social security, etc. She will get the
exact costs per student to the Commission.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concerns regarding $30,000 going to
administration that had previously gone to the students. Commissioner Deegan pointed
out this was for counseling.
minCC03b.94
3/17/94
17
. '.~; -,.: . ':'''1~~i";~)~'~}~( '~':\'}..., "0
. ,.... . J
, :;
" '
'f~
;~., /~.~:).~ : ~.r r..... ~ :.
~. . 'it
, ,
" I
" ,
I,
" '
~. h " . .' 'c :. t
!'
f
.
c).
Bob Bickerstaffe indicated he felt the program was a good idea, however, he felt
the youth should be working withif) the City structure in the trades, as he felt the youth
were the source of future city employees.
Commissioner Deegan moved to accept the goals as presented with the change in
Goal 1 that the cost not exceed $150,000. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the
vote being taken; Commissioners Berfield, Fitzgerald, Deegan and Mayor Garvey voted
"Aye," Commissioner Thomas voted "Nay." Motion carried.
I
'1
,)
h) Contract
The Pinellas Private Industry Council, also known as Worl< Force, has submitted a
contract for administration of the Summer Youth Employment Program. The services
provided will be: full payroll services for yout~s employed in the program; intake screening
and placement services to process and place you~hs in private sector positions; orientation
employability skills training and counseling.services to youths selected to partldpate; and
to coordinate and schedule a motivational activity that is aimed at encouraging youths to
remain in school, seek employment and/or further their education and training.
, "
C~"'"
. .
, They will be responsible for scheduling 1 00 youths to work for up to 30 hours per
week, at the rate of $4.25 per hour in private sector jobs between June 20, 1994 and
July 29, 1994. The youths must be residents' of the City of Clearwater and 80% of all
youths participating in the program will reside in the North/South Greenwood areas or in
the Condon Gardens area. At least 10% of-all youths participating in the program will not
exceed the 80% median income levels for Pinellas County. .
Commissioner Deegan expressed concern the letter reviewing the contract indicates
Work Force will be providing the same services as last year. He indicated this was not
true and the letter should be amended 'to say they will be "providing the following
, services. "
He also expressed concern regarding the reference to 10% of the youths
participating not exceeding the 80% median income levels. He requested this be
rephrased in a positive fashion.
,
I
I
,.1
He expressed concerns that the agreement sounds as if the contractor is going to
perform all the flJnctions of the program. He requested "and that the City" be added as
the City will be performing some of the activities:
,
.,
I
r
Ms. Rice questioned whether or not the Commission wished to have the hourly rate
for older youth to be increased. It was the consensus to do so.
Commissioner Deegan also expressed concerns regarding imme~iately handing over
all the funds to Work Force. He requested the agreement be amended to be on a
reimbursemel)t basis. Ms. Rice indicated she would have a budget and schedule of
payments prepared and sent to the Commission by memorandum.
t
\...,
minCC03b.94
3/17/94
18
~ 'i., .
, "
" .
.1
"- , I.
. .
, .
1
, .
(\
Commissioner Berfield pointed out there would be a need to change the goals based
on the change to the percentage of participants from the 80% median income level.
Commissioner Deegan moved to approve the agreement with the amendments
regarding a cap of $150,000; the rephrasing of the percentage of participants from the
80% median income level; adding the City as a participant in the agreement; increasing the
hourly wage for the older youth; and providing for payment to Work Force on a
reimbursement basis. The motion was duly seconded.
Commissioner Berfield requested next year's program be considered for in-house
administration. Ms. Rice indicated that and other avenues will be investigated.
Upon the vote being'taken; Commissioners Berfield, Deegan, Fitzgerald and Mayor
Garvey voted "Aye," Commissioner Thomas voted "Nay." Motion carried.
ITEM #40 - Chambor of Commerce Propertv
The Chamber of Commerce has inquired regarding the City's interest in purchasing
their property on the bluff, immediately adjacent to the Clearwater Main Library. The
. Chamber is at a point where they need to either relocate or make major investments in
renovations. to the building on the property.
C"
..:'')
,-
. ,
The Chamber has priced the property at $385,000 with the land having a value of
$220,000 and the building, $165,000. The property was given to the Chamber by the
City in 1963 at no cost with a reverter that the property would revert to city ownership'
should the Chamber discontinue its functions there. Therefore, staff does not believe the
land has a marketable value.
Four possibilities that have been discussed with Pete Woodham, Executive Director
of the Chamber, are: 1) straight sale, wherein the City purchases the property for
something less than the Chamber's asking price of $385,000; 2) an exchange of
properties whereby the Chamber becomes the owner of City Hall at a price to be
determined and with a credit for the Chamber property; 3) purchase of the Chamber
property for a price to be determined which is to be applied as rent for some number of
years on City Hall; or 4) an arrangement whereby the City pays oft any property related
debt owned by the Chamber, renovates the building at city expense, becomes the owner
of the property and leases the renovated building back to the Chamber.
I
I
,!
. Ms. Deptula reported the Chamber has requested discussion on this item be
postponed.
Commissioner Deegan requested it be discussed as there may be some ideas to
which the Commission is totally opposed and it would be a waste of staft's time to pursue
those issues. 'Others agreed it needed to be determined if there were certain things the
Commission did not wish staff to pUrfiue.
C'.'
minCC03b.94
3/1 7/94
19
, I
"'J' ,
/!", ;
. I
Ji, .
",c..' ,,'
~ .... ~ , . ,'..
"
rr
Commissioner Thomas stated there were two issues, if there was any interest in
renting or selling the City Hall property, also if there was any interest in buying the
Chamber property. He indicated he had no interest in doing anything regarding City Hall at
this time. He would consider buying the Chamber property for $165,000 which would' be
the cost of the building and then rent the building to whomever.
Commissioner Deegan agreed with part of Commissioner Thomas' proposal stating
there should beno doUars for the land, however, an appraisal needed to be obtained on the
building. '
Commissioner Fitzgerald stated if the Commission has no intent to consider
development of the total bluff, then the Chamber could make the commitment and invest
in the current facility. He felt it would be short sighted not to have control of the entire
bluff. He stated he did not think the Chamber would accept $165,000.
Commissioner Deegan stated development of the bluff was not the only reason to
consider obtaining the p~operty but also the possibility of a fixed bridge from Memorial
Causeway.
Commissioner Thomas was more concerned regarding the bridge issue. He
questioned whether the City had any ability to take back what it would need for right of
. way. The City Attorney indicated that as long as the Chamber is using the property as.a
chamber, the City could not evoke any reverter. He also pointed Ollt the City has
, subordinated its reverter clause.
~~j!",
. \.t.;. \
Commissioner Thomas questioned whether or rrot there was any estimate regarding
how much of the property would be needed for the bridge. Mr. Baker indicated essentially
all of the property would be needed.
Commissioner Thomas expressed con'cerns that if the City were silent and the
Chamber invested money in the building, the land would be more valuable and the City
would wind up paying more for the property, plus attorney fees. The City Attorney
indicated the City would have to pay fair market value for the property.
Commi~sioner Thomas questioned when the feasibility study for the new fixed
bridge would be brought forward. Mr. Baker indicated in approximately six months.
j.
I
Commissioner Berfield questioned if they renovated the building, would they have
to come into compliance with all existing codes. The City Attorney indicated they would.
Vic Chodora, Building Official, stated they would have to bring the building up to
code, including ADA requirements.
Commissioner Thomas questioned whether or not they would have to meet parking
requirements. Scott Shuford, Central Permitting Director, indicated there is a lot of
flexibility regarding parking in the downtown area and that only if there was a change of
use or expanded floor area, would it trigger the need to meet parking requirements.
t
[
l',
"
minCC03b.94
3/1 7/94
20
"
f{',;" .',',
. ,
;',(/::<':: ,:<
." '.
,
:"f
I)
"
r
Commissioner Deegan stated he did not want staff to spend time determining the
value of City Hall. Mayor Garvey indicated she would consider leasing the current' City
Hall facility. Commissioner Thomas stated there was no problem with looking at the value
of City Hall in that there would be no harm in learning what the building is worth.
Commissioner Fitzgerald felt the Commission should know all of its options.
Mayor Garvey stated the Commission also needed to dete'rmine what it saw as the
'value of the Chamber property. Commissioner Thomas indicated he was interested in
having the property under the control of the City. He requested information regarding
what the Chamber can and can not do with the building.
Ms. Deptula indicated staff will proceed to obtain an independent appraisal, provide
infor!"Tlation' regarding what they can and can not do with the building and what codes
would be triggered by the renovation.
Commissioner Berfield questioned from where the funds to construct the building
. had come. Mr. Baker indicated the City had property which it sold and proceeds from that
,sale of approximately $50,000 went to the Chamber for the building.
, :
,Commissioner Thomas questioned what it cost to construct the current facility.
I
.j
,
ITEM #41 - No item.
ITEM #42 - City Hall Discussion
'. <.~
Donnell Consultants Incorporated, in association with Rowe Architects
Incorporated, has submitted five concepts for the new City Hall.
A-1 would call for a 70,000 square foot building on the Bilgore site with a parking.
garage and renovations to the existing City hall at a cost of $9.180,000.
A-2 would provide for a 90,000 square foot office building on the Bilgore site 'and a
larger parking garage at a cost of $11,290,000.
Concept.B would provide for a 70,000 square foot building on the bluff site,
redecoration of the existing City Hall and a parking garage at $9,000,500.
L
'Concept C is a 70,000 square foot office building on the Kravas site using parking
in the Garden Avenue garage and remodeling the existing City Hall for $9.065,000.
Concept C-2 is a 90,000 square foot building on the Kravas site again using parking,
in the Garden Avenue garage at a cost of $10,345,000. .
An alternate to all these plans would be to upgrade the mechanical systems to
institutional quality. This would increase the cost to alternates A, B, and C of $475,000.
To concepts A-2 and C-2, the increase would be $600,000.
l)
minCC03b.94
, 3/17/94
21
"' '
"
7',"~,' ."".';~:~; f
~.~' ~"'::~, :. 1 I, . .
......+. <
c "'
. ' ,
.' ,
j.' ':.
, !
/1 ;..,
, .,~ j J, ~
" ~.
"" ,
.r
Commissioner Thomas indicated tl,ere were actually two issues, what to do abo'ut
City Hall and the utilities building. '
Interim City Manager, Betty Deptula, has expressed concerns regarding employees
continuing to work in the utilities building as it is in poor condition.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if Ms. Deptula felt something should be done
about the utilities building even if construction on City Hall started rightaway. She
indicated that was her belief.
Commissioner Thomas questioned whether or not it would be better to move the
individuals or make the necessary repairs as once the employees are moved, the City.
would want to sell the building.
Commissioner Deegan stated other options should also be explored and he
. questioned whether or not plans to move annex employees tiad begun to be investigated.
Ms. Deptula indicated they had..
Commissioner Thomas questioned whether or not the utilities building had always
been a city building. Mr. Rowe reported,the City built the facility in 1960, however, there
had been a second floor addition and modifications to the facade. Ms. Deptula indicated
she would come back with information regarding moving the employees and/or renovating
the building.
C.
, ."
,
c "
Commissioner Deegan questioned the contamination from the adjoining gas station.
Ms. Deptula indicated this has been mitigated. '
,).
Regarding City Hall, Commissioner Thomas indicated he felt option A was the only
viable proposal. He questioned if the current City Hall is rehabilitated, would there truly be
a need for the new fire exit upgrade. Mr. Rowe indicated the Fire Marshall would require
it. 'Commissioner Thomas Questioned whether or not the City would be legally required to
have" the additional fire exit. He indicated he preferred the new city facility on the Bilgore
site combining the parking garage with those spaces needed for the Police Department.
Mayor Garvey felt the Bilgors site was the site for a consolidated City Hall but she
felt it should be totally consolidated and the Commission should not be in a separate
building. She felt the current City Hall could be leased to other individuals.
Commissioner Deegan indicated he did not want to vacate the current City Hall. He
preferred everything on the bluff site or an annex on the Bilgore site.
Mr. Rowe stated an additional option was to move the chambers to the new
building and then the additional fire exit would not be required. Commissioner Deegan did
not like the idea of having the chambers in the new building and the Commission's offices
in the old. '
: ~
. 'I ;
~~.
minCC03b.94
3/1 7/94
22
. ,
:;:~),:,~ ':, . ,
,I
, /'j
j..
> .'. t ~'
~. ~ ',.: .
. .
r'
Commissioner Berfield stated she preferred to have the City Hall on the current site
but as she' did not see the support for it, she would opt for Option A-1. '
Commissioner Fitzgerald indicated he would not support any concept that did not
achieve total consolidation. He expressed concerns that the City had not followed through
on using the Sun Bank Building as City Hall which would have cost only $6.4 million. .
Commissioner Thomas stated that was a mis-statement as it would cost $3 million to
make the necessary changes to the building for it to be used as a City Hall. Commissioner
Fitzgerald stated the cash flow during the incremental filling of the building would have
paid for the renovation. Commissioner Thomas stated that because the City had
purchased the building without estoppel letters, tenants would have left and the cash flow
would not have been there. Commissioner Fitzgerald reiterated his belief the City had a
solution that would have cost less.
Mayor Garvey stated she would only support complete consolidation on the Bilgore
site.
, '
Commissioner Thomas moved to pursue concept A-1,' that of the 70,000 square
foot office building' on the Bifgore site with a parking garage and renovations to the
existing City Hall with an additional review of the necessity of the fire exit at the current
,City Hall facility and that the alternate to upgrade the mechanical systems to institutional
quality be added. The motion was duly seconded.
('"
Commissioner Berfield requested, clarification regarding A-1 and which'departments
would remain in the current City Hall. It was indicated that the City Manager's Office, the.
City Commission, the chambers, the City Clerk Department, the Legal Department,
Community Outreach, Community Redevelopment Agency, and Economic Development
would be in the current City Hall facility.
Commissioner Deegan questioned why Commissioner Thomas preferred the Bilgore
site to the current bluff location. Commissioner Thomas stated he felt all city services
would then be in that area and he had not b'esn comfortable with "scrunching" the total
project on this property. .
Commissioner Deegan questioned whether or not this was to be put to'referendum. '
" [;
C.ommissioner Thomas amended his motion to include this would be subject to
approval at referendum.
Commissioner Berfield expressed concerns regarding the time frame involved.
Commissioner ,Thomas felt the negotiations regarding selling of the East End
property would mandate the necessity to have the new City Hall and that would be
concluded by the time a referendum could be held.
Mayor Garvey expressed concerns this should be a decision the, Commission makes.
. .
t:
~:)
minCC03b.94
3/1 7/94
, Ii
i
I
23
. I
:. ..
, r'
. , .
~
'.,
;' (;'"
, .:.;~,
, />0;'
,.
I.
Li
.,-1
'. .
.~
J< .,
Commissioner Fitzgerald indicated he would not support the motion, however, 'he,
was in favor of a referendum. , .
Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Berfield, Deegan and Thomas voted
11 Aye, It Com missioner Fitzgerald and Mayor Garvey voted .. Nay. It Motion carried.
I
I
, r
I
. J'
1
The City Clerk was requested to provide for a referendum as soon as possible.
Mr. Rowe agreed a referendum should be done and stated the study regarding the
Police' Department should be done within that time frame.
Mayor Garvey questioned when the study should be completed. Mr. Rowe
indicated within sixty days.
ITEM #43 - Other Pendino Matters
, a) Ratify/Confirm payment of $150,654.85 for consultant fees to Donnell Consultants Inc.
for additional services and expenditures rendered for design of City Hall (AS)
On January 7, 1993, the Commission approved a contract in the amount of
$246,000 with Donnell Consultants Incorporated as project management consultant for
the City of Clearwater City Hall Project utilizing the design/build ,method. Thus far, the
City has been billed $153,421, leaving a balance of $92,579.
Additionally the Commission approved services outside of the contract which total.
$150,654.85. A mid-year budget amendment will provide funding for these costs with a
transfer of $150,654.85 with the appropriation of available infrastructure tax funding
from .the Special Development Fund to CIP 315-94601, Consolidated City Hall.
Commissioner Fitzgerald requested clarification regarding the total cost. Ms.
Deptula indicated the original contract had been for $246,000 and we were now adding
another $150,000 that had not been a part of that contract.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if this included ttw work for the Police
Department. Mr. Baker indicated that the Police Department work was a $54,000 lump
sum payment and was an additional work order.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if staff was pursuing a process other than the
original design/build process. Mr. Rowe indicated it was. Mayor Garvey thought the
design/build process was the least expensive. It was indicated this is a third method being
considered ,and should save additional funds. .
Commissioner Fitzgerald requested the Commission be provided an outline of '
expenses from the beginning of the project to now, inclu~ing the Police Department.
Commissioner Thomas expressed confusion regarding the $150,000 in addition to
the original contract. Mr. Baker indicated that the contract allows the Commission to
minCC03b.94
,
!
, .l
3/17/94
,24
:. l \
, I
. r .1. . <. ~~
: . \ l
I','.
~:~:~::'>:-~cc.' .
, / .' .. .
... Or I. ~ ., ~
~
~:...,.l
assign supplementary work to Mr. Rowe and Mr. Donnell. Commissioner Thomas stated it
was his interpretation that the supplementary work was coming out of the $2'50,000 and
he did not realize it was an addition to that amount.
Commissioner Deegan pointed out when the original contract, was put tog other,
there had been no thought of doing the additional things that have been requested.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if there were any other contracts for the City
that would provide for additional work items. Ms. Deptula indicated the contract with
Camp Dresser & McKee (COM), the city's consulting engineer, allows for this.
Commissioner Deegan pointed out it was the Commission that changed what they
wanted to be done and staff has kept the Commission, advised.
Commissioner Thomas moved to ratify and confirm payment of $150,654.85 to
Donnell Consultants Incorporated for additional services and expenditures rendered for the
design of City Hall. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
b) Renovation to Bayfront Mart (Maas Brothers)
/E;;i"
..~1.
Mr. Baker stated that the Commission has tentatively approved a lease with Stein
,Mart. This lease requires certain things to be done within certain times.. He stated by May
15th, the CiW must be out of Stein Mart's way in order for them to complete their work
and open in August. He stated this will require a very tight time frame and he asked Mr.
Rowe to e~plain the complexities of this 'issue.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concerns that the lease had been approved two
weeks ago and has not been signed. He stated that results ,in a moving date.
Commissioner Deegan questioned why the lease had not been signed. The City Attorney
indicated drafts have been going back a'r'd forth between Stein Mart and city staff.
. Mr~ Rowe indicated it is only possible to meet the dates required by having a
project management architectural engineer hire the general contractor. He stated they
have been working on this for almost a week and a general contractor needs to be
selected by March 28th. He indicated an asbestos abatement firm is going to examine the
building to determine how much has to be done. Their estimate will be back by March
28th.
I.,
, Commissioner Thomas expressed concerns that it was his understanding asbestos
was only on the ground floor. It was indicated it has been found elsewhere. Mr. Rowe
.stated there are multiple ceilings in the' buildings which covered up some of the asbestos.
This is still being investigated and. the scope of the asbestos removal is not known yet.
C.ommissioner Deegan questioned if it was possible to divide the work into two
parts and only do that which was needed for the second floor. Mr. Rowe indicated the
lease requires a total new air conditioning system and while the second floor unit could be
separate, the City would still need to do additional work in the building..
, C.'
minCC03b.94
3/17/94
25
. .;
('..',
. .
Commissioner Deegan questioned if Mr. Rowe could provide' a general contractor.
Mr. Rowe indicated he could make recommendations on three general contractors based
~n fee, etc. but not a formal bidding proces~.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concerns regarding the estimate of cost. ~r.
Rowe indicated there is a new bottom line as the air conditioner is $316,000 over what
the City had estimated.
. I
i'~~~ /:l.~~.: :\." :.
f "'" , ,
<.1 ,;,," ~ . ~ :
JI
~. i .
,I'
',,~ . t
"
. "
, ,
~.. I
"
. , '
,.
; I
:- .' ~ I .
f ':~,: ,l, I J I .
, .\ ' ~..
,
" T ~. .,.... j < _~ 1 T
.,~
Commissioner Deegan questioned if asbestos can be removed from the bottom floor,
if Stein Mart has occupied the facility. Mr. Rowe indicated this was not possible.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if there was some work that could be done past,
May 15th. Mr. Rowe indicated the work being addressed is only that required for the
second floor. He stated the order for the air conditioners and the chillers need to be
placed by April' 15th.
Commissioner Thomas pointed out the Heery study had reduced the cost of the air
conditioning by having nine separate units designed to last ten years. Mr. Rowe indicated
thLs was not what he had outlined.
Commissioner Thomas questioned why renovations could not proceed on the one
floor and the City continue work in the remainder of the building after they hand, that floor
over to Stein Mart. Mr. Rowe indicated there were some things that needed to be done
such as fire separation between the floors before the area can be provided to Stein Mart.
, Mr. Rowe pointed out emergency action is needed for hiring the general contractor
just to provide the work needed for Stein Mart. '
Commis~ione'r Fitzgerald questioned if that was for the one floor. Mr. Rowe
indicated it was. He stated right now the estimate he is coming up with is $451,000 over
the City's estimate.
. Commissioner Thomas questioned the cost for reskinning the building, cleaning out
the Stein Mart floor, the air conditioning system for Stein Mart, the asbestos removal, and
a separate electrical for Stein Mart. Mr. Rowe indicated the exact costs have not been
determined as yet.
Vie Chodora, Building Official, indicated staff had prepared an estimate of cost at
,$1.7 million. He stat~d included .in that was $402,000 for repair of the parking deck
which now will not be needed. This may cover the extra cost for the air conditioning.
Mr. Baker questio'ned if Mr. Rowe had found any additional costs other than the air
conditioning. Mr. Rowe indicated not so far, but they have not finished their work. '
I Commissioner Deegan pointed out Mr. Rowe is indicating he does not know the
bottom line cost until he finishes his investigation. Mr. Rowe indicated he needed an
, additional week, but he needed authorization to hire a general contractor.
l/
minCC03b.94
3/1 7/94
26
, ,.
, j
~:1}:i;'~:',\'::'~?/:~' .::~,
.., . ,
/'
}.
. ,
/:/--:;;;
. ,
_ "
, ,
"
-
,'.
.' ,
l T'
'i
~.:tl~' :'. ~; .
, ".
'c
'. ,
~1,. ~ .
'\,' '.. r., ,T
. :~: C. . {' . ; I
..""\ .-
r
....,.
"
Commissioner Deegan 'agreed with hiring the general contractor as long as there
was some competition. Mr. Baker indicated it was their' intent to find three contractors;
tell them the scope of the project, the extremely tight time frames and return to the
, Commission with three quotes.
Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned-if the cost would be only for the one floor. Mr.
Baker indicated this would not be known until later in the investigation. '
Commissioner Deegan questioned the roof being done by the August 1st date. Mr.
. Baker indicated ,t was staff's intention to meet that time frame...
Commissioner Thomas questioned how much expenditure would be authorized
tonight. Mr. Rowe indicated he did not have that figure b~t he would have it next week.
It was the consensus of the Commission for staff to move forward to determine the
renovations to the building and to proceed to get three quotes from general contractors.
c) Stein Mart Lease - The final lease is not prepared; No Action.
The meeting recessed from 11 :58 p.m. to 12:10 a.m.
, . '[
. ,
,
: t;.
: . ',r. ~ to
. \
Commissioner Deegan 'moved to continue the meeting beyond midnight. The
motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Berfield; Deegal:1
and Thomas voted ItAye, II Commissioner Fitzgerald and Mayo'r Gar"vey voted "Nay. II
Motion carried.
d) Affordable Housing Adviso~y Committee ~ appointment, to Banking/Mortgage industry
seat
Commissioner Thomas moved to appoint Linda Byars. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS
ITEM 1144 - First Readinq Ordinances
I
'. l;
.t'
a) 'Ord. #5556-94 - Relating to offenses, repealing Sec. 21.05 re disrobing in public
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5556-94 for first reading and read, it by
. title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance 115556-94 on first reading.
The motion wa~ duly seconded and up'on roll call, the vote was: .
, IIAyes": Fitzgerald, Barfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
,"Nays":, None.
,I'
"('
. ,
~/ .
minCC03b.94
3/17/94'
27
"
.\
. .... " . :~ . '; ~r:(.~, \ :..
i;~r).:Y";';"" ,,' .,
.; . ",'
"
.i ,,'
. ,
. ,
, "
.
l.', ' . ",
~,' < , , .
>,' ~ I ..... '
.,
, ;
. '
.,
,i 'l:":':~:~ L. , :,' .:
I -:;.;."~"'-I
;t .('
t. \
..0
" ".t.
b) Ord. # 5561-94 - Relating to offenses, repealing Sec. 21.08 reo false reports of bombing
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5661-94 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance #5561-94 on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
I. ~
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
c) Ord. #5559-94 - Relating to city owned real estate; creating Sec. 2.665 to provide that
, conveyances of city owned real property con'tain a use restriction with right of reverter to
city ,
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5559-94 for first reading and read it by
title only. . '
,- .
. . ~
Mayor Garvey suggested the Charter Review Committee consider this ordinance. .
Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned the need for it.
:.1
. ,'J
. i
<:':
Commissioner Thomas stated he requested this ordinance be brought forward in
order that city properties being disposed of, not go off the tax roll. He stated the tax base
in Clearwater is in jeopardy.
Mayor Garvey felt it simply added more bureaucracy to the procedure.
Commissioner Fitzg6rald qU,estioned if this included trading or giving away the
property.
Commissioner Thomas cited the East End, property as an example, stating he did
not want it sold to someone and somewhere down the line' iUs sold to another
organization that takes it back off the tax roll.
Commissioner Fitzgerald expressed concern that if the County should buy property
from the City, it "Yould be placed in the position that it could never sell it to another
nonprofit. organization.
!'
Commissioner Thomas stated it was a way of getting control of city property and
,once it is back on the tax'roll, it stays on the tax roll. Commissioner Deegan stated a
reverter clause could be included in the deed that a nonprofit could not sell to another
nonprofit. Commissioner Fitzgerald felt this would make it difficult for the City to sell its
property. '
Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance 1t5559~94 on first reading.
{j
minCC03b.94
3/17/94
"
28
"
., f
.),
. t {
...:.--
~>1~~:~'~f;:~.t.C'O.:' I;"~ :.':~:..< ~.\ '
. "t "', i ,
/~ ~J.\~:~.fC ~"
'j
1-,
'.
'i ". .; I . ~
" ,
"
i
"
~ ..i
. ,
, ,
"
:'/: ,':,""
,. , ' >.':;..J ! ~.;' ': .
,,'
; :' \-
~ .'
, .1.,':
"
o
Commissioner Berfield questioned what impact this would have on the city's
property in Hillsborough County. It was requested the ordinance be amended at second
reading to indicate the property must be within Pinellas County or the city limits.
Upon roll call the vote was:
ttAyestt: Berfield, Deegan and Thomas.
, 'I
. ;~.
j
,j
"Nays": Fitzgerald and Garvey.
" .
ITEM #45 - Other City Attornev Items
a) Authorizatio'n for Alan Zimmet to def~nd counterclaim of City 'v. Church o'f Scientology
;,:', . . Flag Service Organization without a $5,000 cap
In view of the counterclaim by the Church of Scientology and removal of the case
to federal court, the "cap" of $5,000 in attorney's fees for handling this case is no longer
appropriate. The case will now require more pretrial discovery and research than would
have been necessary othe'rwise.
. ..
Motion ,carried.
;. }
d
'Authorization is requested for attorney Alan Zimmet to defend 'the counterclaim
~igorously without regard to a $5,000 ncap". Mr. Zimmet estimates the budget for
1Il( handling this case will now be $15-20,000 in costs and fees. Be'cause the actual cost to
.[& .' the City will be driven to a great extent by the extent to whiph the other party desires to
spend time, this estimate may be subject to revision from time to time.
CommIssioner Deegan moved to authorize Alan 2immet to defend the counterclaim
of City v. Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization at a cost up to $20,000. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously: , .
ITEM #46 - Citv ManaQer Verbal Reports - None.
ITEM #47- Commission Discussion Items - Continued to 4/4/94.
a) Environmentally Sensitive land definition
b) legal Department Audit
c) Access,ory uses in Resort Commercial Zones
{'::'; .
~I
ITEM #49 - Adjournment
':' The meeting adjourned at 12:27 a.m, 1311B19~
A1;TEST;~~ c... ~...p.,. Hayol.'/Commissioner
mlnCCD . '
, .' City Ch~rk , 29
ITEM #48 - Other Commission Action '- None.
4
I';
, t
.,
.,
;:,;',::{i?"" :~" :'.' . ..
. "
, . {. ~ .
C,"
c:
, "
.'
. ,. r
"
CLEARWATER CITY COMMISSION <e.:><\)\\J~-\-A d I
Age~da Cover Memorandu m Q. c.. ~/I '7/ ~ t./. Item II ....
. Meorlng.Oato:
~~
Subject: Declaration of Surplus Personal Pror~rty and Disposal Authorization
Reeom menda tion/Motion:
Declare the list of personal property surplus to needs of the City of Clearwater
and authorize disposal through sealed bid sale, in accordance \vith Sec. 2.622, Surplus
Sales over $5000.~Code of Ordinances
BACKGROUND:
General Services/Fleet Administration has removed ~hefollowing items from service'and
reconmended declaration as surplus and disposal. Each item has been inspected by the Fleet
Administrator and Director of General Services. .
S/N
lGBJC34J5CV12098
JYA50MOOFAOOL905
JYA50MO01FA003078
JYASOMO08FA001912
JYA50MOOFA003041
lM2K116C5F}~01400
1CYGCH388FT080014
lCYGCP385lfI080128
86333-5.86
1424
00569480
48824
.G808358
152807
~U3480185
fU510673
479871
506079
553210
N/A
N/A
. ,
~ and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same.
NUMBER
6600.240
1132.298
1132.295
1132.296
1132.299
2080.158
2080.160
2080.177
1691. 641
6600.188
6600.236
1341. 78
1341.7
1691.765
2051.49
1331.90
YEAR
1982
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1987
1986
1974
1985
1982
1980
1989
1990
1989
MAKE/~lODEL
Chevrolet Utility Body Truck
Yamaha Scooter
Yamaha Scooter
Yamaha Scooter
Yamaha Scooter
Mack Front Loader .
Crane Carrier Front Loader
Crane Carrier Fron t Loader
Broyhill Beach Cleaner
International Fork Lift
Gravely Mowing Tractor
Little Giant Nounted Dragline
Babcock Allat Grader
Sar 10 MO\ver
Homelite Saw
Homelite Saw
Ingersoll-Rand T-30
Ingersoll-Rand T-30
Ingersoll-Rand T-30
5 HP Compressor
Oberdorfer Pump
l'
}
Reviewed by: Originating Oept.: Costs: $0.00 Commission Action:
Legal N/A' Admin. Services Total o Approved
Budgel (u.J o Approved w/condilions
Purchasing 11- User Dept.: D'Denied
Risk Mgmt. N A Current FY
CIS N/A Funding Source: o Continued to:
L' ACM Advertised: o Cap!. Imp.
Other Dir. General
. -" o Operallng Attachments:
..,:on ,:0 Date:
Submitted by: Paper: o Other
?1fDt - (]9 Not required
Affected parties Appropriation Coda;
. rn Notlfied
City Manager o Not required ~ None
1371. 3
1979
;,
'.
.",,,
,/
I'
tf,'"
j.~~I:!~~,;~ .~.\'~c~ ~:1lV~~i;,.it',"~: \.~:;' : ~ '
~"\~jt~~~~;:.~~~e,"".:~~~ ~'>J:-~..i', :~
~r.'k"~' .' >.i .:' I ..'. ' " , , ,
Jf,~~~,,"~:',:::"";:,?::;:,~,:FY't:,' ':' '. ',.
t." , .", ': ,:
~.. ,: ~ ~ ~,
, ,q l, '
f ~.' c' :~~
-.'},
i
: <i.f I
.'" "
,1. t I
;'
, '.
. t I'"
.'.
1" ~ ". '.,
"
..~ =-1
'1
(
,1'
, .~
/,
;',' ,
., .
J
'.".c
,'{ :
',"f( <;,.,
4 \\ .....~. ~ \. ~, t .' .: > . t., . ~ .! . 1 .
i,:,('\>;'..<:",:',:~;<:::::\. ..(: '!.....;..,'
r};~ii;i;"~lv!~l;h;,;'::i,~;,;;~, ~;~ ;"~.;.
'1
, ~ . i
, ,
.,~ ~.
"
I,
,',
,
I >,"
:~.~:.',.~:i I.
~ ~ . .
I.
I
~ . ~ . ".'
, :/
". ,i
}f:~.: .!
~ :" ~'. '. c'
"'. iT"
,t. ,":
I c.... ~
~ ~:. \
:; .~
" "
\~~.;; ~ .';
.-e..')l\.,-\ 1; ,tA~
, ,
ce,311 'J /?L/
~, .
. .
"
".
;Declaration of SUrplus
. Page ~ I . .
2;~'Grade'r Buckets
l'-,Topp~r for small pickup
1 - ..Loader attachment for small tractor
1,.- Backhoe attachment for ,small tractor
'1
"
~: ~
J' ;.
. . ~
'.!,
, '
All items will be sold to the highest bidder at Tampa ,~1achinery :Auction,' Tampa"
Florida; the,County Cooperative. Auctioneer of record. Proceeds will be returned
the ~epartment
to
" ~
that. origin~~ly owned the.property.
~i: ,r
J. .
,',}-.
. ~ <
"
.,'.
. I
,/
}..'
"
. ,
"
'"}.;
. "
~ ' .
. ,
. .'~~:" J
" .I
:';'1
~ " ..
.;~. t
~\ I.,
l:
~ . ~ ,
"
.'
. I
'.
;.
".
.' J
j ,.
'f
. I',
!,.",' .
".
"
. .
"
e:
,'.
~ ~ ~ ~ '.
O'
.'1 '
!'
. ~ c
.:.
,
.r,
c.;
'.'l.
"! "
, .
'}
"
.,
"
'{'
i' .
.,
I::.
,.
'./
.'.
. "
. "
. I
\.
,..
'.f
I'
'j
"
'i
" .
, '
,e
, .
'1' .
"
.., .
il ..
,
"
?~'.<.
~j..
'\
e/
, ,
. ,
,,'
"
. '.
, : ~
"
.'
. ",
", .
" .
,I.T
'"
"
,'l{(\'(.~'r.<"I'''''V: "'" . e,'. .
"~~cJ<~ ~~T" ~ .; 11 ';. ~.q;\ '\~':'':f ~ l j~ ~ .,;,r.~t
~l;l~~:f.:';\'~:~:t'~~\': )'!}: l:i u':;'f.J<i 9.r ~
!'~'1"(~\I,,"L.:"'~': \~..l~~." {;;:. .1':~:";:!._J.:~8~
City of Clearwater. Summer Jobs Program
1994 GOALS
___-ex\~\~~l+ B CC- ?jl17L./1
3q~ f1r
, '
y r<.;.',' ~,: ~.::
" ,
"
, )
,'r
Ie" j
, ,
','
,
).
"
, .'
. I ','
r;
'-I"
"
MISSION STATEMENT:
To provide summer jobs in private industry for targeted youth groups.
GOAL #1.
To provide 100 summer Jobs for targeted youth over a six-week period .In local prl
Industry at. a cost. not to exceed $130,000 plus any additional unspent funds' from the .
summer Jobs program.
Measures of Success:
~50% of youth participating will be within the age range of 17 through, 23 years of age.
-No more than 10% of youth participating will be negatively terminated. (Negative terminations will
be defined as administrative terminations due to such reasons as poor work performance, poor attitude;
poor conduct on the job.) ,
~At least' 90% of youth participating will live in the targeted geographical areas' (North Greenwood,
South Greenwood, or Condon Gardens areas).
-At least 10% will be from economically disadvantaged households whose incomes do not exceed 50-
, 80% of the Pinellas County Median famiiy incomes.
-The 100 job sites will be in at least 75 business locations.
GOAL #2.
To achieve a 75% satlsfactlon ratlng (SaUsfactory or Higher) 1rom employers part~clpl
C:) In' and parents/guadlans of youth participating In. the Summer youth Program.
Measures of Success:
-Completed surveys from at least 75% of all employers participating in and parents/auadians of youth
, ,participating in the summer jobs program '
-Returned surveys indicate at least a 75% satisfaction rating
,
GOAL #3.
To obtain program evaluations from at least 75% of all summer youth participants and also from at least 75%
of the parents/guardians of youth participating .in the summer jobs program. '
Measure of Success:
-Completed youth surveys returned equal at least 75% of all summer participants. .
-Completed parenVguardian surveys returned equal at least 75% of the total number of all summer
youth' participants. . . ' .
,GOAL #4.
To Implement all (11) of the Juvenile Welfare Board (JWB) recommendations. based
'their evaluation of' the 1993 Summer Jobs Program. (Page 13 of the JWB Evaluat
R'epo rt)'
Measure of Success: ,
-Number of recommendations imple'mented
Il' 'J
~,
.See following page
~'{:{~:~',~~,~/~~ ::wx,:;,:' ":::~
i:~\ .' . . , '
. ~,l J.
I !)
. "
. ~ > 1 .
':'J, ,
"
'J
, .
, . ..\.- I
;'::":', ~~ '," ,
. 'If ."
"
~r;.;).:..< "; .'~., .' "f. ' "
'. "
, ,
,
" ,
, '
~ .; "
}e "
. ' ,
, '.'
"
(: ".. "I' r
"
, ,
,'.
',1 .
. r"
. j'
, "
"
~j,\ ...., ~,~ ~:,~;. ,~....,,'.. )+
I '
, ~, I
For Informallon~1 purposes,' the eleven JWB recommendallons Bre listed, below:
-e..'~ \.; t~ ~l +- g
C~ 3/t~/~tf
~,
\~;:~t>l
'L
Includo evaluators during the planning process tn order to decide what Information
should be collected, by whom, and how It will'be maintained.
~~
\.
2.
Determine the Mission of the Summer Youth Employment Program. ..
, ,
3 . Establish explicit goals for the program.
4. For each Program goal, develop, clear, measurable objectives to bo included In any
contract the City sets up with a provlder.
s: Defino tho popi.lIatlon to be served by the Program, I.e., younger or older youth or some
. combination of all youth. '
. 6. Include .s' ~easure of youth sa,lisfacllon with the program as part or the data collecHon.
7. collect. and analyze Information about youth who applied but did not enroll In the
Program and for Program dropouts.
, ,
8. . Set mInimum service parameters, such as number of youth to be served, number of
employers to participate, number 01 hours ot pre-employment training lor
youth/employers. '
. ,
,
9. Determine the amount and content or pre-employment training, who should provide the
, training, .who should participate, an~ some' form of evaluating the effectiveness of the
trafnlng~ "
,,' 4)>
':~}
1,0. Define the tIme frame for the City to receive lnrormatlon about the program.
Determine who will provide necess~ry reporting and a,ny final r,eport.
11 . If the, CUy decides to use an outsido evaluator. incll;lde the evaluator in all the 'steps.
"
I '
c)
J '
"
, .
I,.
'.," i
I.;
Ie
~,:: : j :
, '
'FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHE~ LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAST NAME- fiRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME
r' rrrZcJEfUH-b -,' RIC.Hl\nh"
, , MAILING ADDRESS
'C \ 1'/ bF." C!.L.EF\R W f\"T E'R.
CITY "
CLE'A~WP,~R 3-1b IS
DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED
"" A R. Q.\4 (j
NAME 01' IIOAIW, COUNCIL. COMMISSION, AUTHORllY. OR COMMI1TEE
"
!\ ~-::-n.tJ>
C w=:A N..W PI'T"E R Q,\ CO ~'.\ rvll S ~, L'IJ
TIlE 1l0AIl.D, COUNCIL, COMMISSION. AUTHORITY OR COMMITIEE ON
WIIICIII SEll. VE IS A UNIT OF:
Vi (,ITY 0 ('OUNn' 0 OTlII:R I.OCAL AGENCY
NAME OF l'Ol.fTICAL SUUtJIVISION:
C I T'I (.) ~ (!,LEi:\' RoW '-'IT E 1\?
MY "OSIllON IS:
i':l Q."801. c+7 +g
COUNTY
PI1.J Co L.I-A ~
~. ELE('lWE 0 APPOINTIYE
. ,
WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B
This form is for use by nny person serving ntthe county, city, or other locnl Icvel of government on an appointed or elected board,
council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non.advisory bodics who are presented
with a voting connict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. .
.". ,I . .
, Your responsibilities under the law wilen faced' \vith n measure in which you have n connict of interest will vary greatly depe~ding
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form
before completing the revcrse side and filing the' form. ' ,
", INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
. . '
, ',' A person holding electivc or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ADST AIN from vOling on a mcasure
which inures to his sp,ec1al private gain. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure
which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained (including the parent
orgn~i2alion or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he is retained); to the special private gain of a relative; or 10 the special
. private gain of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agcncies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S.. and
officers of independent special tax districls elected on a.one-acre, onc.vole basis are not prohibited from vOling in that capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, father-in-Jaw, mother.in.
law, son.in-Iaw, and daughler~in-Iaw, A "business associate" means :my person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner. joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the
corporation ore not listed on nny national or regional stock exchange). .
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from YOling in the, situations described above, you must disclose the eonniet:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to. the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on
which you are abstaining from voting; alld
WITHIN 1'5 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this fonn with lhe person responsible for
recording the minutes of the meetin!;, who should incorporatc the form in the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Allhough you must. abstain from yoting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters, However,
you must disclose the nature of the connict before making nny attempt to [nOuenee thc decision, whether orally or in writingnnd,
whether made by you or. at your, direction.., ..' ., . ",..... -"'--', . " . .." ,.".._, n...
'IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY AlTEMPTTo' INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH'
1 . ,THE ,VOTE WLL BE TAKEN: , . ,', . .
I. . . " . ,. '. .' I .' : . I; .~... ." ~ .. I ~ ~ 1 ( ~ ..
(' . ,.;.:,y~u".'~ust compiete. ~nd ,file thi~ f~;m (be~o'r,e milking iny nlt~mpt to in~uenee the decision).. with the person ~~spo~sh;l~ fo~:
f: }~r r~~~rplng the ,J'!lm~~~ ort.he.,m.e~ung. wh? .wl,llmcorp.orate ~he.form In. t1,le mll\Ul,~s." ,~., ,', '." "', :; .,' ':".: I ,:: /I,:1~: /., :
" ','~ A copy of the form muslheprovided immedi:llelytotheothcrmembers ofthca~ency,', :, " ' .' ,:i:::"';..,'/~J\.;...,.,
L ...~~e fonn mu;t be.read publicly at the next meeting nfter lhe form is filed. ' . ~ . _
~. .- ... . . . " , 1,0, r' '.
~. . ~ ~
.~ ~~ FORM 8D .10.91 PAGE I
, "r<
I en) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
; ~ inured to my special private gain:
-..:... inured to the special gain of my business associate,
_ inured to the special gain of my relntive,
. _ inured to the special guin of
whom I am retained: or
_::_; inured to the special gainof .
is the parent organization or subsidiary. of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conOicling interest in the'measurc is ns follows:
OR.t:lll\JF\NC.t= .,#. '0 '3 :lS - qo EST PI T.?;, LIS HI N &. };:~E' CL PI 1(\1\ E b
,by"
.: .
,
i{ci'{'f;: '~::~'," "
>'~' ;
, .
, ,.
, .
" '
.,.
,1
'I
" .
I .
.(~~,: ~
J.
. i' i', ..,'.
. ,
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
· You must disclose orally the nature of your connict in the measure before participating.
· You must completc the form and liIe it within IS days after the vote occurs with the pcrson responsible for recording the minutes of
the meeting, who must incorpornte the form in the minutcs. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other
, members of the agcncy, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting nfter the form is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
. . I,
RlC.HAft1:> A. 'r I Tz.GE:Q.A L.t> ,hereby disclose that on
MAO..C~
17
, 19!/.L: .
,which;
. I
WF\TE"~ RATES ~
,x A MF\
ME {'r1 BER
OF . COUNTRY GIbE"
c.ou 1-.)1" K. Y
CLu..B
I
owe:
(.1'>"\
. ,
. Oi= ,......IE
USE R.S, Cf=R.E'Q.Lf\IME."b. t.v A TEl<
/:\ F j= E CT E:D
~r
TH 15 QA 1)1 N PI N c.. E: I
'.
,; "
, .
, .
, "
M cu\.ct :J. r I i '1' '1 ~
Date Filed
s~J:.~ tl. ~~
I
('.NOTICE: UNDER,PROVIS'lONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES g1l2.317 (1991), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED
, DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED DYONE OR MORE OFTHE FOLLOWING:.
IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION iN
, SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000.
,
CE FORM 80.10-91
" .