01/05/1995 (2)
," ". '"'I,'.
. ,
~,: ~ ~. .
.'
:.-
i.~:I'.: .' ~: .
,; I .
. '1
c ." , c
. .~. . '
.. .
." . J
~~'J . 't ".
,.
f. +c
I c ."
.........fI":...... f,j ~'<,l. .. ~ ... .
.... T ,." + n ~' ..~. ,..' : . l:;. I . ~.. ~ >." ""',..' . , _ " ., ""
I' ~ '., ...
.~
.i
~.
,.
. .
<
COMMISSION
City Commission Minutes
,0
Date ...Jd,Ilu..a...rJ s:: /9'lS"
J-/?b/
...
:~
. ' . . ,'. '" . '. . '. ' . .
--~,~ +-.
I ,
"~
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
January 5, 1995
The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in regular session at City Hall.
Thursday. January 5. 1995 at 6:01 p.m., with the following members present:
Rita Garvey
Fred A. Thomas
Richard Fitzgerald
Sue A. Berfield
Arthur X. Deegan, II
. Also present:
Elizabeth M. Deptula
Kathy S. Rice
William C. Baker
Pamela K. Akin
Scott Shuford
Cynthia E. Goudeau
Patricia Sullivan
\
J
Ma yor IComm issioner
Vice-Mayor ICommissioner
Comm issi oner
Commissioner
Commissioner
,
. I
City Manager
Deputy City Manager
Assistant City Manager
City Attorney
Central Permitting Director
City Clerk
Board Reporter
. C:.)
The Mayor called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance. The
invocation was offered by Assistant City Manager William C. Baker.
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 - None.
ITEM #4 - Introductions and Awards - None.
ITEM #5 - Presentations
The Golden Turkey award for having the highest percentage of participants in the
Turkey Trot, was presented to the Community Response Team. The Iron Turkey award
was presented to the Engineering Department for the most miles logged in the Turkey Trot.
Skip Rogers, Turkey Trot Race Director, presented a check for $10,000 to support the
Turkey Trot Track Team.
Special Recognition was given to Josh Armstrong. Clearwater High School student
for winning the Jolley Trolley T-shirt design competition. The Jolley Trolley Corporation,
presented Mr. Armstrong with a $500 scholarship.
A Certificate of Appreciation was presented to the Miniature Art Society for their
participation in the Festival of Trees charity event in bringing the "1994 Mayor's Cup
Challenge Award" to the City. The Mayor displayed the winning Mayor's Cup.
~
mince01 b.9S.
1
01/05/95
-,
ITEM 116 - Aooroval of Minutes
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of
December 1, 1994 as corrected by the' Clerk and the special meeting of July 20, 1994, as
recorded and submitted in written summation by the City Clerk to each Commissioner.
The modon was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #7 - Citizens to be heard re items not on the AQenda
Lillian Trickel spoke in favor of the Downtown Development Soard (DDS). She said
a lot has been accomplished in the last few years.
Charles Marcus read a letter he wrote the City Manager complaining previous
comments he and his wife have made to the Commission were omitted or badly
paraphrased in the minutes. He requested a verbatim record of his letters and comments
be included in the minutes. He said he never claimed a City employee had threatened his
life but had claimed the threat came from someone who could pass as Police Chief Klein's
brother. He requested an explanation of the letter he received from Deputy City Manager
Kathy Rice.
~ "j t
'~.'."1
\ ''r":f!1.l
,.1
The City A ttorney recommended if the alleged threat against Mr. Marcus occurred
at his place of employment in Clearwater, the appropriate action would be for him to
contact the Police or Sheriff's department. She said the City Manager is responsible for
taking action only on allegations of improper action by a City employee. She
recommended Mr. Marcus contact the proper authority for criminal investigation.
Mr. Marcus questioned the Mayor's comments at the December 1. 1994 meeting,
that the Commission does not inform the public regarding ongoing investigations. The City
Attorney indicated only the State Attorney's Office or appropriate bodies such as the
Police Department conduct investigations. The Mayor said the Commission would not be
familiar with ongoing investigations and if the Commission had information regarding an
investigation, it would be unlikely they would share it with the public because it could
destroy the investigation. The City Attorney agreed that was correct.
Sharon Marcus read a letter she wrote the City Manager referring to concerns she
expressed at the December 1, 1994 meeting, regarding threats made to her husband. She
noted Ms. Rice's reply said Mr. Marcus should report the threats to the Police Department,
Sheriff's office, or State Attorney's Office department. She said the City Manager and
Mayor had indicated the Marcus' letters were not being ignored. She requested a copy of
the State Attorney's Office investigation report based on documents forwarded from the
City at the behest of Mr. and Mrs. Marcus. The City Attorney indicated the City
transmitted all information to the State Attorney's Office as requested. She advised the
Marcuses contact the State Attorney's Office to request a report.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if the Marcuses had flied charges against
anybody with the Police Department. Mr. Marcus said he had not and expressed concern
that the individual who threatened him could pass for the brother of a City employee.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if Mr. Marclls is afraid of the City's Police Department.
~
minccDl b.95
2
01/05/95
"
.'-"
,
had he filed charges with the Sheriff's office based on this fear. Mr. Marcus indicated he
,. instead approached the City Commission. Commissioner Thomas noted the Commission is
a political body. He questioned if Mr. Marcus had contacted the State Attorney's Office
with his claim of charges. Mr. Marcus said he had not. Commissioner Thomas suggested
Mr. Marcus contact the proper authority if he wants a solution to his problem. Mr. Marcus
questioned why the City took three months to respond to his concerns. Commissioner
Thomas said he would not address that issue. He recommended Mr. Marcus go to a law
enforcement agency with his charges.
The City Manager indicated a copy of the cover letter that accompanied Mr.
Marcus' documents to the State Attorney's Office would be forwarded to Mr. Marcus.
Bob WriQht noted in September 1993, the Commission for gas system expansion
into Pasco County. At the time, he oPPos!3d the expansion without a prior franchise or
interlacal agreement. Mr. Wright said the City still does not have an agreement with Pasco
County and had retained attorney Gerald Figurski to obtain an agreement. In October
1994, the Commission was informed People's Gas had gotten an injunction from the Public
Service Commission (PSC) to prevent the expansion. The Commission then approved
retaining a Tallahassee law firm for $50,000 to represent the City before the PSC. Mr.
Wright said three months has passed and suggested it is time the Commission reevaluates
the commitment to expand the gas system into Pasco County. He requested answers to
three questions: 11 where the City stands with the PSC and Pasco County expansion; 2)
the amount spent on outside attorney fees on this issue; and 3) the value of revenue bonds
approved for expansion in Pinellas County and the amount already expended.
. .?tJ?!
...~.
'.C Tom Selhorst reported a merchants' crime watch is now active in the lnfill
Commercial (CI) zone. He said the merchants were concerned with five immediate
problems: 1) the Kentuckian Motel is in the biggest drug and prostitution area of N Ft.
Harrison; 2) 100 homeless people live in the CI area; 3) a recommendation that the parking
lot at new Police Substation be lit for juvenile basketball; 4) a recommendation that
outdoor telephones be modified. so drug dealers can no longer use them for business; and
5) a request that staff work with a Florida Power consultant regarding outdoor lighting.
Mr. Selhorst noted the positive change attributed to stationing four police officers in the
substation. He indicated the merchant's association request that two more officers be
assigned there.
Mr. Selhorst referred to his skate shop business and requested an extension of the
eight-hour rule. He expressed concern that his shop on Pinellas Trail may soon be fined
$50 a day for renting roller skates at that location. The Mayor noted the roller skate issue
is beyond what the Commission can address.
Ed Kuda referred to the City's pending contract with Vision Cable. He noted the
City Commission meetings are being broadcast on Channel 35. where C-Span was
previously aired. He indicated he had helped an elderly gentleman fight Vision Cable's $11
fee to get him reconnected so he could continue viewing Commission meetings. Mr. Kuda
said he lost C-Span because it was moved to a channal he cannot receive. He said he was
tired of fighting for it and wants C-Span back. He requested the City negotiate carefully
with Vision Cable on their contract.
~
mincc01 b.95
3
01/05/95
. .. >. . , . ... ., "...... . ..,., . . . ... .. -
"-..,
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM #8 - Public HearinCl & First ReadinCl Ord. #5752-95 - Vacating the westerly 2.5' of
the east 5' utility easement lying in Lot 7, Blk. 59, Mandalay Sub. (Tehan/Summers, V94-
14)(CP)
When constructed in 1945, the applicant's detached structure was built two feet
into the easement. The City has no existing utilities in this easement. This request has
been reviewed by appropriate City departments/divisions concerned with vacations and
there are no objections. The Central Permitting Director recommends approval.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve vacating the westerly 2.5 feet of the east
5-foot utility easement lying in Lot 7, Blk. 59, Mandalay Subdivision. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5752.95 for. first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance 1/5752~95 on first reading. The
motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
(~~~~
ITEM #9 - Public Hearinq & First Readinq Ords. #5734-95. #5735-95 & #5736-95-
Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low & RS-S Zoning for property
located at 1613 & 1615 N. Betty lane, Pine Ridge Sub.. Blk. B, Lot 9 and abutting right-af-
ways of Betty lane & Parkwood St. (Charlie Harris, A94-25, LUP94-2B) (CP)
The subject property, at the southeast corner of N Betty Lane and parkwood Street,
is four blocks north of Stevenson's Creek. The Applicant wishes to annex to obtain sewer
service for his duplex, Other area property in the City has a Future land Use Classification
of Residential Urban while County property has a classification of Residential low. It is
proposed to assign this property a Future land Use Classification of Residential low, the
same as the County's classification and a zoning of RS-S, the same as other area City
properties. Staff will get back with the Pinellas Planning Council (ppe) to try to establish a
single Future Land Use Category for this subdivision (Residential Urban), and for other
subdivisions with multiple land U5e categories. Staff recommends the abutting right.of-
way of Betty Lane and Parkwood Street be annexed with the applicant's property.
The property will have a nonconforming use for Single-Family Residential "Eight"
(RS-B) zoning, duplex, and the density for this parcel. 10.7 units per acre, is greater than
the maximum density of 7.5 units permitted in the RS-B district. The residential units are
addressed on Betty lane. but lot dimensions do not meet minimum frontage requirements
for RS-B lots. If the tot is addressed on Parkwood Street, it would meet minimum
dimensions for a single family lot.
On December 13, 1994, the Planning & Zoning Board endorsed the proposed
annexation, Future Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low. and Zoning Atlas
Amendment to Single~Family Residential "Eight" (RS-a!.
~
mlncc01 b.95
4
01/05/95
.--.....
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the annexation and a land Use Plan
amendment to R.esidential low & RS-B Zoning for property located at 1613 & 1615 N
Betty lane, Pine Ridge Subdivision, Blk. 5, lot 9 and abutting rights-at-way on Betty lane
& Parkwood Street. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance 115734-95 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5734-95 on first reading. The
motion was duly seconded and upon ro\l call, the vote was:
"Ayesll: Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance 115735-95 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance 115735-95 on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded atld upon roll call. the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
c.>~
. fit;}
The City Attorney presented Ordinance 115736-95 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5736-95 on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM /I 10 - Public Hearing & First Readinq Ords. #5737-95, #5738-95 & #5739-95-
Annexation, land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Urban & RS-B Zoning for property
located at 3131 San Mateo St., Del Oro Gardens Sub., lot 11,0.17 acres m.o.1.
(Carmichael. A94-26, lUP94-30HCP)
The subject property, north of Drew Street and east of McMullen-Booth Road, is on
the south side of San Mateo Street. The applicants wish to annex to obtain City sewer
service. The lot to the east is being annexed under a separate application (A 94-23).
It is proposed to assign the applicants' property a City Future land Use
Classification of Residential Urban (Existing Countywide Classification), and zoning of
Single Family Residential "Eight" (RS-a), the same zoning as adjacent property in the City.
On December 13, 1994, the Planing & Zoning Board endorsed the proposed
annexation, Future land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Urban, and Zoning Atlas
Amendment to Single-Family Residential "Eight" (RS-a).
\ ...~
...
minccD1 b.95
5
01/05/95
-,
~ '"
..,
, . . "~.
." " ' " .. . . . _
l.".""'"
"
I
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve annexation and a Land Use Plan
amendment to Residential Urban & RS-S Zoning for property located at 3131 San Mateo
St., Del Oro Gardens Subdivision, Lot 11. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5737.95 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5737.95 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.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance 1/5738-95 for first reading and read it' by
title only. Commissioner Barfield moved to pass Ordinance #5738.95 on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Barfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
~/;&
~W
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5739-95 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance #5739.95 on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call. the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #11 - Public HearinQ & First Readino Ords. #5724-95, #5725-95 & #5726-95-
Annexation, land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Urban & RS-8 Zoning for property
located at 3137 San Mateo St., Del Oro Gardens Sub., Lot 10.0,17 acres m.o.1.
(Ottaviano, A94-23, LUP94.26)(CP)
The subject property, north of Drew Street and east of McMullen-Booth Road, is on
the south side of San Mateo Street. The applicants wish to obtain City sewer service for a
house being constructed under a County building permit.
It is proposed to assign a Future Land Use Classification of Residential Urban
(Existing Countywide Classification), and zoning of Single Family Residential "Eight" (RS.
8), the same zoning as adjacent property in the City.
On December 13, 1994, the Planning & Zoning Board endorsed the proposed
annexation, Future Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Urban, and Zoning Atlas
Amendment to Single.Farnily residential "Eight" (RS-8).
\rii
minccD1 b.95
6
D 1/05/95
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield. Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
.....1+...-,.+1.
i
..-.... ,
Commissioner Thomas noted the applicant is constructing the house under a County
building permit and questioned if the City's Building Department would become involved to
be certain the house is built to code. Central Permitting Director Scott Shuford said the
same construction codes pertain to the City and County. He said staff will check to be
certain the house complies with City zoning requirements.
Commissioner Deegan moved to approve annexation and a Land Use Plan
Amendment to Residential Urban & RS-8 Zoning for property located at 3137 San Mateo
St., DelOra Gardens Subdivision, Lot 10, The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance 1/5724~95 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5724-95 on first reading.
The motion was duty seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Nays": None.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance 1/5725-95 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5725-95 on first reading. The
motion was duly seconded and upon roll call. the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
f;~~
:~-ry
"Nays": None.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5726-95 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance 115726-95 on first reading. The
motion was duly seconded and upon roll call. the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfleld, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #12 - Public Hearinq & First Reading Ords. #5727~95. #572B~95 & #5729-95-
Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low & RS-8 Zoning for property
located at 1861 West Dr., Clearwater Highlands Unit B, Blk. B, Lot 11 and abutting r-o-w
of West Dr., 0.21 acres m.o.l. (Carroll, A94-24, LUP94-27)(CP)
The subject property, east of N Highland Avenue and south of Sunset Point Road, is
on the east side of West Drive. The applicants wish to annex to obtain City sewer service
for the existing house. Staff recommends the abutting right-of-way of West Drive be
annexed along with the applicants' property.
It is proposed to assign the applicants' property a City Future Land Use
Classification of Residential Low (Existing Countywide Classiflcation) and zoning of Single~
Family Residential "Eight" (RS-8), the same zoning assigned to subdivision lots in the City.
'W
mincc01 b.95
7
01/05/95
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
~.,~,r ...,., t<" ,
............
,
lots in the subdIvision in the City have a Future Land Use Classification of ResidentIal
Urban. Staff will follow up with an administrative rezoning of Clearwater Highlands to
establish single zuning and land use classification for the subdivision.
On December 13, 1994, the Planning & Zoning Board endorsed the proposed
annexation, Future land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low, and Zoning Atlas
Amendment to SIngle-Family Residential "Eight" (RS-B).
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve annexation and a land Use Plan
Amendment to Residential low & RS-B Zoning for property located at 1 861 West Dr.,
Clearwater Highlands Unit 8, Blk. 8, Lot 11 and abutting r-o-w of West Drive.
The City Attorney presented Ordinanl;e #5727-95 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Thomas moved (0 pass Ordinance #5727-95 on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Nays": None.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5728-95 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5728-95 on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll eal!, the vote was:
~-:J;;4
~
UAyes": Fitzgerald, Berfield. Deegan. Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5729.95 for first reading and read it bv
title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5729-95 on first reading. The
motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield. Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
trNays"; None.
ITEM 1/13 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #5730-95 & #5731-95 - land Use Plan
Amendment to Institutional & P/SP Zoning for property located at 707 Eldridge St. and 607
& 609 Railroad Ave., G. L. Bidwell's Oakwood Addition, Lots 50, 51 & 60,0.42 acres
m.o.l. (Mt. Zion United Methodist Church, LUP94.25, Z94.11) (CP~
The subject property, north of Drew Street, is uetween Railroad and Alden Avenues
on the south side of Eldridge. The church has purchased the adjacent property and wishes
to expand their facilities and add additional parking. Lots 1151 and 1/60 are vacant and Lot
#50 has a single family house. The surroundIng area is older residential with single family
and multi-family structures.
\riJ
mince01 b.S5
8
01/05/95
. .
. . ~ , ' ,
',-' ." " , . .. E . . . " ..
~'l~.J. '
...-....
The church's original two lots have a combined area of 0.28 acres. The total area
of the church's present site, including the lots in this proposal, is 0.82 acres, less than the
recommended minimum size of one acre for a Public-Semipublic District. The combined
properties meet all other dimensional requirements for the Public/Semipublic District. The
request can be viewed as making the existing Public/Semipublic District more conforming.
On December 13, 1994, the Planning & Zoning Board endorsed the proposed Future
land Use Plan Amendment to institutional and Zoning Atlas Amendment to Public/Semi8
Public (P/SP).
Commissioner Berfield questioned if a single family home occupies lot 49. Mr.
Shuford said it appears it does.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the amendment to Institutional & PISP
Zoning for property located at 707 Eldridge Street and 607 & 609 Railroad Avenue, G. L.
Bidwell's Oakwood Addition, Lots 50, 51 & 60. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5730-95 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance 1/5730895 on first reading. The
motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was~
"Ayesll~ Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
t~
"Nays": None.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance 1/5731-95 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance 1t5731~95 on first reading. The
motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald. Berfield. Deegan. Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays"~ None.
"
, .
ITEM #14 - ICont'd from 12/01/94) Second Readinq Ords. #5640894 & #5641894~ land
Use Plan Amendment to Institutional for Parcels A, B & C; MPD Zoning for Parcels A, B, C
& D; and Master Plan for various properties east & west of S. Ft. Harrison Ave. and north
& south of Pine lias St. (Morton Plant Hospital Association, Inc., et ai, LUP94-15, Z94806)
(CP)
I.
f'
;:.
..,
Morton Plant Hospital requests to rezone their Main Campus and Satellite Area as a
Master Planned Development District. They request all properties within their Planning
Area be classified with a Future Land Use Plan Classification of Institutional. Area" A"
includes all property east of S Ft. Harrison 'Ave. included in the proposed Master Plan and
presently classified as Industrial Limited. Area "B" involves one parcel at the southwest
corner of Jeffords St. and S Ft. Harrison Ave. presently classified as Commercial General.
y
mincc01 b.95
9
01/05/95
4'
.....~ .-.' . ~ , .
..........
Area lie" includes six parcels along Jeffords St. and the Heart and Vascular Center site,
presently classified as Residential/Office General. All property on the Master Plan is
proposed to be zoned Master Planned Development District.
On August 18, 1994, the City Commission passed on first reading Ordinance
#5640-94 amending the Future land Use Plan and Ordinance 115641-94 amending the
Zoning Atlas to Master Plan Development DistrJct for the subject property. The City
Commission requested several actions be taken prior to second reading; 1) incorporate the
Stormwater Plan into the Master Plan at the time of second reading; 2) provide a
comprehensive landscape plan for S Ft. Harrison Ave. to City staff for review in advance of
second reading, and incorporate this plan as approved in the Master Plan; 3) a statement
that the hospital will continue its cooperative relationship with the City's Gas System,
utilizing City gas services whenever cost effective and technically acceptable; 4) consider
City recycling services as a part of the hospital's competitive bidding process; 5} provide
exterior design and noise suppression information concerning the central utility plant to
City staff in advance of the second reading, with the design issues. as approved,
incorporated into the Master Plan; 6) provide a statement on the Master Plan that any
change in the helicopter landing site from the western end of Jeffords St. would require
Commission approval as a modification to the Master Plan; and 7} agree that Bay Ave.
should be closed at Jeffords Street.
r~:~
.~J!.f9
The Future land Use Plan Amendment was transmitted to the Florida Department of
Community Affairs (DCA) and the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) for concurrence. The
Planner's Advisory Council of the PPC recommended approval of the proposed Future land
Use Plan Amendment. On October 19, 1994, the PPC held a public hearing on the
proposed amendment and unanimously approved the proposed Future land Use Plan
Amendment. On December 6, 1994, The PineHas Board of County Commissioners, sitting
as the Countywide Planning Authority, considered the proposed Future Land Use Plan
Amendment.
On October 10, 1994, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (TBRPC) approved
the proposed Future Land Use Plan Amendment and so advised DCA. The City expects to
receive the Objection, Recommendation, Comments Report (ORC Report) from DCA.
Preliminary discussions with DCA did not indicate any major concerns or stumbling blocks.
Along its southern boundary, 8elleair borders the proposed Master Plan from S. Ft.
Harrison Ave. to Clearwater Harbor. The Countywide Planning Authority recently modified
the Pinellas County Future land Use Plan regulation regarding intensity for land classified
as Institutional. The City's Land Development Code is being amended to incorporate the
new requirements. The proposed Master Plan meets the new intensity requirements. Until
the Land Development Code Amendment is adopted. the hospital will be restricted to a
maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.65 and was noted on the Master Plan.
DCA does not consider the Master Plan to be a Development of Regional Impact
(ORI) and has issued a Clearance Letter that concludes, "the development is not required to
undergo DRI review based solely on the multi-use threshold. 11
\~
mincc01 b.95
10
o 1/05/95
, I ~ . ". . I . ' . . \ ~ . .
..........'.
Existing water facilities can supply the hospital's needs. The City will relocate its
sewage lift station from south of the hospital to the vicinity of Druid Rd. and Jeffords
Street as shown on the Master Plan. The new lift station will be adequate to provide
service for future hospital expansion and the surrounding service area. The current Jjft
station can serve present demand. It has adequate capacity to serve anticipated, short
term added demand, including the proposed Heart and Vascular Center. Existing gravity
sewers and force mains are adequate to serve projected development including that
anticipated in the Master Plan.
Drainage details are not covered in the hospital's submitted development plan. The
Land Development Code only requires a "concept plan" be submitted, leaving drainage,
building details, etc.. to be addressed in the site plan andlor construction plans. Staff is
requiring installation of a 72Ainch drainage line to replace a smaller line before issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for the Heart and Vascular Center. The line is part of the
hospital's long range drainage plan.
The project engineer has submitted a traffic circulation plan and analysis. The PPC
has also retained an engineer to evaluate traffic impact. All agree service on S Ft. Harrison
will be degraded, but should not fall below a permissible level.
Hospital staff, the project engineer, and City staff have reviewed the availability of
services and submitted the analysis to DCA. Each subproject will be reviewed
independently to assure all environmental concerns are properly addressed.
~~~ A minor plan amendment was made to the Master Plan to delineate a 1 OAfoot wide
buffer along S Ft. Harrison Avenue's east side.
The Planning & Zoning Board (P&Z) recommended including these listed conditions:
1) Include on the Master Plan, "Approval of this Master Plan does not mean the City has
concluded that this Master Plan meets concurrency requirements. Each subproject
developed under this Master Plan will be subject to separate review to assure each meets
all concurrency requirements. Each project will also be subject to all impact fees according
to regulations existing at the time of development."; 2) Prior to first reading of the
associated ordinances, the applicant will submit documentation acceptable to the City
regarding: a) generalized traffic generation and impact on existing facilities; b) proposed
methods of disposal of solid waste (including hazardous waste); c) commitment to comply
with City Code and Environmental Health regulations concerning noise/vibration generation;
d) location of the sewer lift station on the Master Plan; e) location of the heliport on the
Master Plan; f) designation of environmentally sensitive areas; and g) provision of a
statement on the Master Plan indicating future land in the vicinity, acquired by Morton
Plant, will be added to the Master Plan; and 3) Signage shall comply with Public/Semi-
Public district regulations.
Items 1t1 and 112 have been satisfied. Item 113 is covered by inclusion as Note 10
on the Master Plan.
y
minceOl b.95
1 1
01/05/95
..v... ~
.---.
Mr. Shuford said the Commission approved the Morton Plant Master Plan on first
reading in August 1994. Since then, the Plan has gone through the intergovernmental
coordination process and approvals have been obtained from the Pinellas Planning Council,
the State Department of Community Affairs, and the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council.
In August, the Commission had requested several things be accomplished before second
reading. Mr. Shuford indicated staff has received response to most of the requests. He
indicated staff still has questions regarding noise abatement from tile Central Utility Plant.
Additional material was presented today that included a commitment by the hospital to
meet the City's current noise ordinance. The hospital's acoustical engineer will crea'te a
drawing of noise contours from the Central Utility Plant building indicating decibel levels.
He suggested, the Commission may want to postpone a decision on Agenda Item #38,
regarding the preliminary site plan for the Morton Plant Central Utility Plant.
Commissioner Thomas said he was satisfied City staff and Morton Plant are dealing
with the issues on the Master Plan. He has serious reservations regarding Agenda Item
#38. He does not want anything passed until the power plant issue is resolved.
Commissioner Thomas noted the acoustical report only addresses decibels because
that is the focus of the City's noise ordinance. Wilen considering the power plant, he said
it was important to also address noise cycles per second, or frequency of sound and silent
ear damage. He requested a commitment from Morton Plant that the hospital will address
all noise issues.
t:r;;~
Commissioner Thomas felt the plans for the power plant indicate the building wlll be
quite ugly. He suggested a major retreatment of the design so the tanks cannot be seen.
He said the architectural plans have a long way to go. He recommended the building be
designed to be more beautiful and less industrial so it fits in with the community.
Emil Marquardt, attorney, said he appreciated the City Commission's patience over
the past few years in dealing with these issues. He said the hospital has complied with the
Commission's requests. He said Morton Plant has gone through the process of
determining what equipment should be located in the Central Utility Plant. He was advised
the hospital now has determined their exact equipment needs. The hospital's acoustical
engineer has said noise treatment has been considered in tile entire building. He noted
City Code does not deal with decibels. He said the Central Utility Plant will meet all code
requirements with respect to noise. Because of concerns regarding noise, Morton Plant
moved the building to the S Ft. Harrison location at an additional cost of $2.5-million. The
present energy facility is about 400 feet away from the closest residential dwelling and the
new Central Utility Plant will be over 700 feet from the nearest home.
Dave Fagen, acoustical engineer for Morton Plant, said all noise has tonal
characteristics. He said he will review all frequency bands with his calculations. He said
the noise levels are estimated to be in the 55 dBA level and possibly below. Commissioner
Thomas questioned if Mr. Fagen's equipment is only testing lower ranges rather than
considering the full hearing range. Mr. Fagen said the full range of hearing is being
y
minceD 1 b. 9 5
12
01/05/95
f"~"'.; i' . . ~
,
--\
reviewed. The hearing and speech range and the range and levels of sound leading to
speech and sleep interference are being considered. He said noise from the Central Utility
Plant will be below that level. Mr. Fagen noted new equipment is quieter and the facility is
700 feet from the nearest residence. Commissioner Thomas requested assurances that the
acoustical engineer will address the total frequency hearing range. Mr. Fagen was
prepared to indicate noise from the Central Utility Plant will not cause any harm and the
decibel levels will not be hazardous. He said the Central Utility Plant will not emit
dangerous sound levels that will ham anyone and was willing to put his promise in writing.
Commissioner Thomas said he wanted the range noted. i\
Mr. Marquardt said Morton Plant can answer what range the noise will be in and it
will be below the range that would cause anyone hearing loss. Commissioner Thomas said
he wanted to be certain the specifications for the Central Utility Plant indicate there is no
possibility for its noise causing hearing damage. He recommended continuing the item for
30 days so staff can research the issue and bring back their findings.
Mr. Marquardt said the hospital can clearly address the issue. He suggested it
would be best to address the noise issue during site plan review. He expressed concern at
delaying the receipt and referral of the site plan. He indicated the hospital will not build a
project that will damage people's ears.
Mayor Garvey recommended letting the process proceed. The report can be
brought back to the Commission for final approval.
tl;;lt Commissioner Deegan noted information on noise levels at the Central Utility Plant
was received by Commissioners today. He noted Mr. Shuford offered options to address
the issue raised by Commissioner Thomas and recommended accepting the third option to
approve the Master Plan and Central Utility Plant site plan, with the Central Utility Plant
plan to return to the Commission for final approval. He noted if the Commission does not
begin the referral process, the project will be delayed further. Commissioner Thomas said
he did not disagree with the option referred to by Commissioner Deegan.
Fred Frederick, architect representing Morton Plant, said the Central Utility Plant will
front S Ft Harrison and its total height will be 50 feet to the top of the cooling tower. He
said he had studied many ways to handle the tower. He said he is still working with
different options. He noted many energy plants use louvers on the upper stories where the
cooling towers are located. He said the presented drawing does not represent the final
closure of the design. He said layered landscaping will abut a screening wall toward S Ft.
Harrison. Commissioner Thomas said he had no problem with the design of the lower
floors but with the tanks on top and indicated he would be satisfied if the structure around
the cooling towers is louvered and tied into the architectural design of the building. Mr.
Frederick noted the building is still in design. Mayor Garvey recommended accepting the
item with conditions. Commissioner Thomas agreed as long as the conditions speak to the
cooling tower and noise abatement issues.
y
mincc01 b.95
13
o 1/05/95
"'.t.....
. . . ' I
I ~ , . . ,~ . . . ~ j
'-"
Commissioner Berfield questioned the minor amendment to the Master Plan that
deleted a ten-foot wide buffer on the east side of S Ft. Harrison. Mr. Shuford said Morton
Plant corrected the site plan to increase the buffer from five-feet.
William Heald expressed concern regarding allowing Morton Plant to mushroom
inside a residential area. He was thankful the Central Utility Plant was moved across the
road. He contacted Florida Power for insight on how the facility might look, sound, and
smell. He said the howl from St. Joseph's cogeneration system in Tampa was audible
from the front gate. He said the plant from Tampa General is audible blocks away. He
said power plants are big time noise makers. He expressed concern about the "white"
noise that will be put out on all frequencies that will drown out all other noises. He also
noted vibrations and odors from the plant may also occur. He noted in the Master Plan,
Morton Plant had objections to their own facility because of noise and appearance in 1993.
Mr. Heald encouraged an in-depth acoustic evaluation.
Robert Kern said Morton Plant has not produced any facts or figures to back the,
claims they made tonight but stated everything is under development. He said the plan is
too vague and does not indicate what the hospital wants to do. He expressed concern
that a Statement of Performance has not been completed. He said no one addressed the
vibration the Central Utility Plant will emit. He said there is a problem in the neighborhood
with vibrations now. He expressed concern with electra-magnetic interference and
questioned how that will affect O'Keefe's restaurant. He noted the smoke and vapors
from the cooling towers have not been addressed. He doubted eight palm trees are
adequate to mask the building. He said the drawing only SllOWS a couple of trees. He
("'\~ recommended approving the Master Plan and later come back with a Statement of
"q~ Performance before approving the Central Utility Plant. .
Bob Wrigllt expressed concern regarding a provision included in a statement on the
Master Plan indicating that future land in the vicinity acquired by Morton Plant will be
added to the Master Plan. He questioned if future land acquisitions will be automatically
zoned Public/Semi-Public. Mr. Shuford said that requirement is intended to make sure all
land under Morton Plant ownership would eventually be incorporated into the Master Plan.
The hospital will need to go through all processes for any zoning changes.
Mr. Wright referred to Area C, now zoned limited residential, with two story
buildings, parking lots and a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of .3. He expressed concern the
rezoning will allow an increase in the FAR to .65 which will allow multi-story buildings. He
noted when the Heart and Vascular Center was approved, the City required Morton Plant
to construct a berm between the building and residential area to protect the residences.
He questioned what protection was offered here for residents of Harbor Oaks. Mr. Shuford
said the Master Plan shows that area to be nothing but parking. Mr. Shuford said the
zoning in that area is contingent upon the site plan, Any building erected north of Jeffords
will require the hospital to first get approval from the City Commission.
Mr. Marquardt requested Mr. Shuford's third option be followed. He noted the
Central Utility Plant will not be a co-generation plant like energy facilities at the hospitals in
Tampa mentioned earlier. He said the facility will not use jet turbines like other systems.
He indicated this facility will cause no electra-magnetic problems.
y
minccOl b.95
14
01/05/95
. .
,.' ,.'
. I, .
. ,. : "
~'''''''' .~. . ,I .
....-"
Commissioner Thomas requested part of Mr, Shuford's research include a look at
the cogeneration plants in Tampa referred to earlier. Mayor Garvey noted Morton Plant is
not building a plant like those. Commissioner Thomas recommended obtaining information
from General Electric and Florida Power. He noted the City needs to get information from
sources other than Morton Plant. Mr. Marquardt indicated Morton Plant is not building a
cogeneration plant.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the Master Plan for Parcels A, S, C, & D,
the Future land Use Plan Amendment to Institutional for Parcels A, B & C; the zoning Atlas
Amendment to Master Planned Development for Parcels A, S, C & D, and the Site
Plan/Master Plan for Morton Plant Hospital, The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance 115640-95 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5640-95 on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5641 ~95 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance 115641-95 on first reading. The
motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was;
. f~ >f.i
q!jjt
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
,.
:/
ITEM #15 - (Cont'd from 11 117 & 12/01 194) Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5722w95
- Proposed changes to the adopted Park Place Development of Regional Impact
Development Order: revise development phasing from 1 phase with 3 subphases to 1
phase with no subphases; decrease office development by 7.400 sq. ft.; extend date of
development build-out from 1996 to 2000; & provide for a wider range of future uses to
include office, industrial and multi-family uses (Subject Area - Sec. 17-29-16, M&Bs
23.01, 23.013, 23.02, 23.10, 23.11, 24.01, 24.02, 24.04, 24.05 & 24.06); authorize
staff to coordinate this item with TBRPC and FDCA (Storz Ophthalmics, Inc.lBuilding
Operation Holding Co.) (CP)
This item was continued from the December 1, 1994 meeting, due to the need for
additional information and modifications from the original proposal received at the
November 17, 1994 Commission meeting. Modifications are: 1) Additional comments
from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) concerning the Notice of Proposed
Change application; 2) Addition of a provision requiring the developer to notify DCA and
TBRPC within 30 days prior to any permit pursuant to the conversion factor; 3) Map H was
revised to reflect the development entitlements allocated to each parcel and a note was
added to Map H to indicate, in case of any conversion to residential development, such
~
minceD1 b.95
15
01/05/95
. . . . . . . : ~ . L ~ , ' '.
. ... .., I \ . . .
.-.,
residential development may be located on Parcels 2, 3 and 8 only; 4) Rsvisions addressing
TBRPC and DCA comments concerning signal timing on SR 60; 5~ DCA requested addition
of a section to the proposed Development Order on mass transit to service the project; and
6) Section numbers of "added" provisions were incorrect and have been corrected.
The applicant proposes to change the existing Park Place Development of Regional
Impact (DRU Development Order in several ways: 1) Revising development phasing from
one phase with three subphases to one phase with no subphases; 2) Decreasing total
potential office development by 7,480 square feet; 3) Extending the date of development
buHd~out by four years, a cumulative extension of nine years, from 1996 to 2000; 4)
Providing for a wider range of future land uses, 'and including a conversion factor for office,
industria.1 and multi~family uses; 5) Clarifying the obligation to dedicate and construct Park
Place Boulevard; and 6) Modifying certain provisions of the Development Order to be
consistent with changes described in the Notice of Proposed Changes (NOPC).
Under the existing Development Order, the total maximum floor area to be
developed by 1996 is 1,153,000 square feet. The applicant proposes to amend the
Development Order to allow a total development potential of 1,145.530 square feet with a
build-out date of 2000.
. . ;f,:;o,
~1."f!'I
The applicant proposes to have the potential to convert Parcels 2, 3 and/or 8 from
office to multi-family residential. Proposed conversion factors include: 1} 1,000 square
feet of office equals 2.44 units of multi-family residential development; 2) 1,000 square
feet of industrial development equals 633 square feet of office development; and 3) 1 ,000
square feet of industrial development equals 1.54 units of multi-family residential
development.
Based 011 these conversion factors and the existing Future Land Use Plan
classifications, the maximum multi-family residential development allowable is 510 units,
Not included is Parcel 1 with an Industrial (lL) Future Land Use Plan classification. Staff
had recommended modifying the proposed ORt Development Order to reflect a simple
density allowance. rather than the more complicated conversion factor offered by the
applicant. Upon further review and discussion with the representative and City Attorney,
staff recognizes the need to provide for flexibility in the proposed conversion factor.
Parcels proposed for multi.family development will require zoning atlas amendments
in areas within the Park Place development to be convert.ed to residential use,
The applicant has proposed deletion of some Park Place Development Order
transportation conditions he feels no longer apply. as the road improvements have already
been satisfied or no longer apply. Staff is researching the applicant's proposal carefully in
this area, and will report to the Commission.
At its November 15, 1994 meeting, the Planning & Zoning Board recommended
endorsement of this Proposed Change.
~
minccD1 b.95
16
01/05/95
.'
-~\
Mr. Shuford indicated the City now has the opportunity to specify requirements
regarding a time table for the dedication of right.of.way and construction of the
interconnection of Park Place Boulevard and ties those requirements to the appropriate
owners from a legal standpoint.
Commissioner Deegan referred to a typo in the reference to Ordinance "1I49.B3" on
page 5 of proposed ordinance "G" and indicated it should read "#4983-90." He referred to
page 7, subsection 4.E( 1), and questioned where the dollars were for the noted
improvements. Mr. Shuford said the money is in a Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
fund. Commissioner Deegan questioned if the funds are included in a CIP designated for
these improvements. Mr. Shuford indicated they are.
Commissioner Deegan referred to "FY 1993/94" on page 8, subsection 4.E(6)
noting that fiscal year is over, Mr. Shuford indicated that reference needs to be updated
before second reading. Commissioner Deegan referred to page 9, subsection 4.E(6) and its
reference to FY 1993/94 and requested it be updated.
Bob Gabriel said he opposed the multi-family dwelling portion of the plan because of
concern regarding increased crime, He said the area now is bombarded by noise in the
evenings from police helicopters and his home has been broken into several times. He
pointed out the numerous apartment complexes already in the area. He said his property
value will decrease if multi-family dwellings in Park Place are approved.
f"';~~ Mary Druthers read from a petition signed by 76 residents of the Island in the Sun
~ Mobile Home Park on Hampton Road opposing the proposal for multi-family housing in Park
Place and added traffic to already crowded roads such as US 19N and Gulf-to-Bay
Boulevard.
The Mayor questioned if the property had already been zoned for multHamHy
housing. Mr. Johnson said most at the site was originally zoned for multi-family homes
and much of the property had to be changed to "office" to allow office and to "industrial" ,
to allow Storz Ophthalmics. For residential use to occur, the zoning for those areas would
have to be changed. This agreement allows the developer flexibility under the
development order to later request to change the zoning back to residential at which time
this issue should be raised. He noted substantial multi~family development to the north
and west of Park Place. The traffic study prepared in connection with the Park Place
project indicated a conversion to multi-family as proposed in the Development Order would
reduce the traffic from the current office zoning.
Mayor Garvey questioned when Hampton Road would be widened. Mr. Shuford
said that project was not planned for at least a year. He stated the dates mentioned in the
ordinance need to be corrected. Assistant City Manager William Baker said the widening
of Hampton Road is the City's responsibility. Money for the project is in the bank and the
plans and specifications have been prepared. The City is awaiting the acquisition of all
necessary rights-of-way.
y
mince01 b.95
17
01/05/95
11..-.--' .'~
.---
Commissioner Thomas noted a proposal for a major commercial office in Park Place.
He questioned if that development would utilize the entire remaining property. Mr.
Johnson said if that comes to fruition, the bottom portion of Parcel 1, all of Parcel 2 and
Parcel 6 would be used. The only remaining parcel where multi.family development could
occur then would be Parcel 8.
Commissioner Deegan questioned the downside of extending the development an
additional four years. Mr. Shuford said the disadvantage is the potential to "eat up" some
capacity listed in the DRI. He noted the ORI is exempt from the City's concurrency
regulations. He did not know of other properties on Gult-to.Bay that would be impacted.
He expressed no concerns for the potential loss of capacity.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the request for a Notice of Proposed
Change (NO PC) to the already approved Park Place Development of Regional Impact
Development Order and authorize staff to proceed with the intergovernmental coordination
of this item with the Tampa Bay Regional Planning council and the Florida Department of
Community Affairs. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5722-95 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5722-95 on first reading. The
motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald. Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
f~~:.t:1a
'~\If!P
"Nays": None.
ITEM #16. Variance(s) to Siqn Requlations for property located at 2290 Gulf to Bav Blvd,.
Sec. 18-29-16, M&B 23.19 (West Bay Foods, Inc./Wendy's, SV94-40) (CP)
ITEM #17 - Variance(s) to Skm ReQulatians far property located at 1835 N. Highland Ave.,
Sec. 2-29.15, M&8 31.04lMcClintock/Shanghai Express, SV95-0 1) (CP)
ITEM #18 - Variance(s) to Siqn Requlations for property located at 1264.1274 Cleveland
St., Padgett's Estates Sub., Lot 18 & part of Lot 19, and Moore, property of A.J. Sub..
Lots 28-31 (Bakriwala/Big Apple Family Restaurant/Economy Inn, SV95-02) (CP)
ITEM #19 - Alcoholic Beveraqe Distance Separation Variance for property located at 1604
S. Missouri Ave., Sec. 27-29-15, M&B 21.01 & Loveland Sub., Lots 18-22 (Barnett Bank
of PineJlas County/Walgreens Drug & Package Store, AB94.1 0) (CP)
ITEM #20 - (Cont'd from 12/01/94) Public Hearing - FY 1993194 COSG Grantee
Performance ReDort (ED)
Commissioner Thomas moved to continue items 1/ 16 through 1/20 to January 19,
1995. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
y
minccO 1 b. 9 5
18
01/05/95
- . .. ' '. .."" , , '. .
. . .
\~.'."" ' .
~~.
ITEM #21 - Public Hearina - Res. #95w 7 - authorizing placement of liens on properties for
unpaid utility bills (FN)
Property owners noted on the lien proposal listing have utility system delinquent
accounts for amounts greater than $100. As of June 30, 1994, the accounts are at least
90 days' delinquent. The Utility Customer Service Division has notified property owners of
their indebtedness and advised them the City may file a lien on their property for the
amount of the delinquent account. The City Clerk has notified the property owners of the
Public Hearing regarding their indebtedness pursuant to Chapter 32, Section 32.072 of the
City Codes of Ordinances.
Commissioner Barfield moved to approve authorizing placement of liens on
properties for unpaid utility bills. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Resolution 1195-7 and read it by title only.
Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Resolution 1195-7 and authorize the
appropriate officials to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call,
the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Barfield, Deegan. Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
The Commission recessed from 8:07 to 8:25 p.m.
t~~
,....'1__
ITEM #22 - Public Hearinq & First Readina Ord. #5754-95 - revised LDCA providing a
comprehensive revision to City's alcoholic beverage regulations (LDCA94-17)(CP)
On November 17, 1994, the City Commission passed Ordinance 115668-94 on first
reading. The ordinance was scheduled to be heard by the Commission for second reading
on December 1, 1994, but was withdrawn at staff's request. Staff wanted to revise the
ordinance to limit outdoor seating for restaurants and alcoholic beverage sales uses eligible
to be accessory uses. Staff's concern was that alcoholic beverages could be sold at
restaurants and accessory uses until 2:00 a.m. without conditional use permit review of
outdoor seating operations.
The ordinance provides restrictions for this, allowing outdoor seating for restaurants
and accessory uses as a permitted use, unless such outdoor seating is within 200 feet of a
residential zone. Outdoor seating 200 feet or closer to a residential zone will require a
conditional use permit.
With these revisions, staff recommends the Commission pass this ordinance on first
reading.
Mr. Shuford said the ordinance was pulled when staff recognized the need to
address the possible impact of outdoor seating close to residential zones. That change,
the only one of substance to the ordinance already passed on first reading, has been made.
y
minccO 1 b.95
19
01/05/95
Commissioner Thomas expressed his opposition to permitting the sale of alcoholic
beverages next to a church or school. He noted something can be done to restrict this
use.
v....;
.-.......,
Mr. Shuford pointed out a question regarding sales of alcoholic beverages next door
to churches. Mr. Shuford indicated such uses would be permitted in restaurants with no
outdoor seating. He stated if the Commission has concerns about this ability, a restriction
could be added to the ordinance requiring sales of alcoholic beverages within 200 feet of a
church or school be a conditional use. Appeals from affected property owners to decisions
reached by the Planning & Zoning Board (P&Z) will be heard by the City Commission.
Mr. Shuford indicated this ordinance is intended to streamline the review process,
making it more comprehensive and consistent. Some odd language has been removed.
The ordinance includes some compromises' but is better than current code. The
Development Code Adiustment Board, P&Z, and the Clearwater Chamber of Commerce
have endorsed the ordinance.
Commissioner Berfield referred to the third paragraph on the cover sheet that states
outdoor seating would not be a permitted use within 200 feet of a residential zone and
questioned if that use would be affected by apartments located above stores. Mr. Shuford
said residential zones are protected but a level of commercial activity is expected in mixed
use zones.
~~
Commissioner Fitzgerald referred to his opposition to increasing the separation
distance to 500 feet and measuring it from property line to property line. He referred to
paragraph 6 in Mr. Shuford's January 4, 1995 memorandum, and Questioned if that
addressed his concerns. Mr. Shuford noted Commissioner Fitzgerald's concern regarding
the establishment of an unyielding separation distance and the need to address it through
the public hearing process. This ordinance allows the P&Z to consider alcoholic beverage
uses close to each other, residential zones, churches. parks, or schools as long as
standards are met. The Commission would be the first course of appeal. Commissioner
Fitzgerald felt this part of the ordinance seems to address his concerns.
Commissioner Deegan questioned who can appeal a granted variance. Mr. Shuford
said any affected citizen is permitted to make the appeal within the 14.day appeal period
and pay the fee. Commissioner Deegan Questioned if the City wants to appeal. would it
have to pay the fee. The City Attorney indicated it would not.
Commissioner Deegan Questioned the fee for a citizen's appeal. Mr. Shuford
indicated the fee is $350. Commissioner Deegan expressed concern regarding this
amount. The Mayor indicated the fee's rate was set to discourage frivolous appeals.
Commissioner Deegan noted this ordinance is subject to a six~month trial to see how the
P&Z handles it. He recommended considering a change in the fee. Mr. Shuford
recommended a figure that would discourage frivolous appeals but not be onerous.
Commissioner Deegan recommended the fee be $50.
Commissioner Berfield questioned if that fee would be valid for the six.month trial.
Commissioner Deegan said the whole ordinance is subject to reconsideration after six
months. Mr. Shuford indicated a resolution would be required to amend the fee schedule.
~
mince01 b.95
20
01/05/95
<Y.~'... " .',
.-.....
Commissioner Thomas referred to the 14-day appeal period and recommended it be
increased to 30 days to allow citizens a better opportunity to appeal. The Mayor said ,
nearby residents are notified and have the opportunity to address the P&Z with objections.
Commissioner Thomas noted the City only notifies a small radius around the use. Mr.
Shuford said the City does not issue occupational licenses until the appeal process expires.
Commissioner Thomas said the 14-day pe"riod was established to permit businesses to
appeal a denial.
Commissioner Deegan recommended identifying this as a different kind of an appeal
by permitting a new business to operate on a temporary basis during the appeal period of
approximately 30-days. Mr. Shuford pointed out that proposal would subject a business
person to a big risk after that person went through the approval process to receive a State
liquor license and performed necessary renovations to a building to open a business.
Commissioner, Deegan concurred with Mr. Shuford's answer and recommended a 14-day
appeal and $50 fee.
Commissioner Berfield questioned if business people have a State liquor license in
hand when they apply to the P&Z. Mr. Shuford indicated the City ties its approval to the
State license requirements and includes a standard provision requiring an occupational
license to be obtained within six months of the date the item is approved. He said
applicants normally have already applied to the State for their liquor license. He indicated
the State will not issue a liquor license for a new facility until after local zoning is
approved. He said the State does not have a requirement for a transfer of ownership. The
local office works well with the City.
t.:~~ Commissioner Deegan noted outdoor seating will require a separation from a
residential zone and questioned why a separation is not also required for churches and
schools. Mr. Shuford indicated staff did not think the proximity of outdoor seating to a
church or school was an issue. He stated outdoor seating conflicts generally occur late
evening after churches and schools are closed.
Commissioner Thomas said he was not satisfied with limiting appeals to 14 days.
Looking at it from the private citizen point of view versus the applicant's, he recommended
establishing two classes of appeals to address each group. He offered a compromise of 21
days. Mayor Garvey expressed concern regarding discriminating against either the citizen
or applicant. Commissioner Deegan argued with the premise that the date of approval of
the request marks the first time it has come to the attention of the public. By that time, he
noted public hearings addressing the issue has been held and advertising in the press has
occurred. He said plenty of time exists before the hearing for citizens to examine the
procedures and their rights. He pointed out the person applying has a great deal at stake.
Commissioner Berfield questioned how citizens are notified. Mr. Shuford said
residents within 200 feet of a proposal receive a letter of notice. At the beginning of the
meeting, the P&Z chair advises what the procedures are to appeal. When people speak
against a request, the chair again refers to the appeal process after a decision is rendered.
Commissioner Berfield questioned if the appeal requires one to obtain a transcript of
the meeting. The City Clerk indicated a copy of the tape from the meeting is adequate.
y
minceD 1 b. 9 5
21
01/05/95
.. I ~ ,.' . . . . .. . I ..
'~4" . .
--..
Commissioner Deegan questioned jf Community Outreach had been contacted
regarding including public notices on the bulletin board on C-View 35. The City Clerk
indicated she had addressed that issue with the City Manager.
Anne Garris spoke as a representative of the Clearwater Beach Association which
voted to remind the Commission that the Clearwater Beach Blue Ribbon Task Force had
recommended Clearwater beach be zoned as a separate district with respect to the
alcoholic beverage ordinance and that a committee be appointed to study the beach's
special needs and to recommend appropriate distances or other restrictions. They
requested all reference .to Beach Commercial and Beach Resort be removed from the
proposed ordinance until the special needs of Clearwater beach are addressed. She
recommended a saturation point needs to be addressed. She expressed concern regarding
the number of new businesses that could open on the beach during the six~month trial
period. She recommended preventive actions. According to the Clearwater Beach Blue
Ribbon Task Force in 1991,42 alcoholic beverage establishments existed in the estimated
two miles of beach area.
Ms. Garris also made personal comments. She noted alcoholic beverage uses have
a potential for causing problems. She has worked at least 15 years to help reduce the
negative impact of alcohol on the community. She noted people who drink alcohol
frequently get loud which is detrimental to a resort community. She is thankful for the
noise ordinance.
Ms. Garris felt changes in the proposed ordinance will result in a step backward for
the community. She noted restaurants now require a conditional use permit to sell
f~;~ alcoholic beverages. She expressed concern that the State is slow in discovering
restaurants doing less than 51 % of their business on food sales. She said citizens now
have a chance to persuade the board to deny a conditional use permit but that will no
longer be an option. Citizens will have to wait until a restaurant becomes a problem before
they are able to object.
Ms. Garris referred to the Civic Center and noted alcoholic beverage, previously
forbidden, would be permitted under the proposed ordinance. She expressed concern
regarding liability problems.
Ms. Garris referred to the 500-foot distance separation and noted it has enormous
loopholes. She did not see how any applicant could fail to get a use within the 500-foot
distance. She said the requirements are not clear. She noted the Commission addressed a
concern regarding sales of alcoholic beverages next to churches and questioned how many
more "oops" might be included in the ordinance. She expressed concern about an
establishment serving alcoholic beverages in an inappropriate location and questioned how
long it would take the City to fix problems.
Ms. Garris said she would like the City Commission to say no to the ordinance. She
recommended the process be simplified for citizens.
Joe Evich, President of the Coalition of Homeowners' Associations, said the
coalition opposed approval of the ordinance. He indicated the issue is complex. He noted
\wi
minccD1 b.95
22
01/05/95
, " " ",.. . "... n' ,/ ~" . . . \, . .
'.,
no citizens have difficulty obtaining alcoholic beverages. He expressed concern with the
six-month trial period and Questioned how mistakes later will be rescinded. He questioned
what the City was trying to fix with the changes and recommended addressing the
problems by incorporating changes in the existing ordinance. He indicated he did not
understand the separation distances.
Bob Wright said he is thoroughly confused on this issue. He has sat through many
. Commission meetings when changes were discussed. He said he understood the
separation distances were to be increased and licenses harder to obtain. He indicated the
proposed ordinance appears to "have more holes than a piece of Swiss cheese" and will
make it easier to obtain an alcoholic beverage license. He noted anyone who qualifies as a
restaurant will be permitted to sell alcoholic beverages despite separation distances. He
recommended more consideration be given to the change before it is passed.
Bob Tankle said this is the most studied ordinance he has seen in eight years. He
indicated he represents 45 local condominium associations and none expressed concern
with the ordinance. He felt the ordinance is good. He suggested it would behoove the
Commission to persist and approve the ordinance.
. t;l;$
Commissioner Thomas noted when he previously questioned if the City had the
right to audit restaurants to be certain at least 51 % of sales were from nonAalcoholic
products, he was advised it did. He questioned if that right is covered in the ordinance.
Mr. Shuford said that is included in the City's rules and regulations. He noted an
establishment with a 4COPSRX license under the current ordinance is always presumed to
be a restaurant despite the floor design and the City has been burned. This ordinance does
not refer ,to any State license as belonging to a restaurant. The ordinance indicates at least
51 % of the sales must be for food or non-alcoholic beverages and additionally addresses
building design. He indicated these rules provide better control.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if the six-month trial is not tied into a permit.
would the City be subject to liability jf approved conditional uses are cancelled in six
months. The City Attorney said she did not understand the six-month trial to pertain to
conditional uses granted but to the P&Z hearing all aspects of an alcoholic beverage
application. Commissioner Deegan agreed. Commissioner Thomas indicated he wanted
that point clarified.
Commissioner Deegan noted to referrals that the ordinance will loosen regulations
and questioned if the Commission was not attempting to include the common practices
approved after a laborious hearing process under the present ordinance. Mr. Shuford
concurred. Commissioner Deegan said the City's experience has indicated these
applications are usually granted. Mr. Shuford referred to a confusion about "loopholes"
and noted much of the language in that section is taken directly from the existing variance
standards. He said conditions are more stringent in the new ordinance because only a
20Q-foot separation distance was required previously. He said the key is how well
mitigating factors are enforced when granting conditional uses.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the revised LDCA amendment providing a
comprehensive revision to City's alcoholic beverage regulations subject to reducing the
~JYiJ
minccOl b.95
23
01/05/95
. . . . . ", . . , .. .' . J ~
I . '.. '. ~ .
I'
..t........>...'. .
--....,
cost for appeal to $50 during the six.month trial and to be certain the discussed reference
to limiting use near a church and school is included before second reading. The motion
was duly seconded.
Commissioner Thomas said this ordinance has been before the Commission for the
two years he has sat on the Commission. He said this is the most thorough piece of
legislation with which he has ever been involved. He said if problems arise. the
Commission will correct them.
Commissioner Berfield referred to a statement made by Anne Garris regarding the
Clearwater Beach Blue Ribbon Task Force and questioned if the task force had
recommended the beach district be zoned separately. Commissioner Deegan, former Chair
of the Task Force, indicated they did. He noted the memorandum from Mr. Shuford
indicates those concerns were examined and references to the beach and resort districts
a~e unique. Special exceptions in the ordinance regarding those two areas separate those
two districts from the rest of the City. He noted the committee recommendation had not
been formed but he was certain staff had gathered input from beach residents and
merchants. Commissioner Berfield questioned if Commissioner Deegan was satisfied the
Task Force's request was met. Commissioner Deegan said it was met In a different
manner. He said at some point the Commission needs to recognize they. have done their
best to reconcile all of the issues they have seen.
t;~
Commissioner Berfield questioned if the Commission could have a copy of the
whole ordinance before second reading including the changes. Mr. Shuford indicated the
Commissioners' packets included that. He noted most of the ordinance adjusts various
zoning districts, plus changes to the standards for approval and the actual alcoholic
beverage use regulations.
Upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Fitzgerald, Deegan and Thomas and
Mayor Garvey voted "Aye"; Commissioner Berfield voted "Nay." Motion carried.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance 115754~95 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5754-95 on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald. Berfield. Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": Berfield.
Motion carried.
ITEM #23 - Public HearinQ - Declare surplus real property located at 410 Vine Ave., Drew
Park Sub.. Lot 6, for purpose of offering for sale at minimum public bid of $6.500 (EN)
On November 13. 1979, the City acquired the subject property, along with the
easterly 70 feet of Lot 41, Drew Park Subdivision, adjacent on the west, for $17,000. The
property, maintained by Parks & Recreation. is an unused portion of its Vine Ave.
Maintenance Facilities offices and parking area. Parks & Recreation does not foresee a
future need for the vacant lot.
~
minccO 1 b. 9 5
24
01/05/95
fi'+.<' ..\
Oc
,
. Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. (CNHS). interested in obtaining tho
site as inventory for the N Greenwood Infill Housing Program, requested the City offer the
property for sale. Lot dimensions are approximately 50 X 100 (subject to accurate
survey). Staff surveyed all departments and no interest in the property was indicated.
The minimum bid amount of $6,500 was established by an appraisal performed by
Michael R. McKinley, SRA, and dated November 15, 1994.
Cornmissioner Deegan questioned why the property was originally acquired. The
City Manager indicated at one time the City had planned to expand the motor pool that
was adjacent to this property.
Commissioner Thomas questioned why the City was selling the property for a
minimum price of $6,500 when $17,000 was paid for it. . The Mayor indicated the
minimum bid was established by a recent appraisal. Commissioner Deegan noted the
property's value has decreased. Commissioner Thomas said he was against selling
. . property at a loss. Commissioner Deegan noted the best use of property is for lnfill
housing and suggested charging the loss to charity. Commissioner Berfield indicated
$6,500 is the minimum public bid and someone may come in and bid more.
Commissioner Deegan moved to declare as surplus to City needs real property
located at 410 Vine Avenue, legally described as Lot 6, Drew Park Subdivision, for the
purposes of offering for sale in accordance with City purchasing regulations at minimum
public bid of $6,500 and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. The
l;-~ motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Barfield, Fitzgerald
{,"!Ii? and Deegan and Mayor Garvey voted "Aye"; Commissioner Thomas voted "Nay." Motion
carried.
Public Hearing - Second Readinq Ordinances
ITEM 1124 - Ord. #5681-94 - LDCA re setbacks (Amending Sec. 35.11 to establish
definitions for ItBlock" and "Blackface," Amending Sec. 42.24 to revise requirements for
structural setback requirements)
The City A ttarne y presented Ordinance 115681-94 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Ordinance 115681-94 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvoy.
"Nays": None.
ITEM 1125 - Ord. #5703-94 - Amending Municipal Code Enforcement Board procedures
The CIty Attorney presented Ordinance 115703-94 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Barfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance 115703.94 on second
and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call. the vote was:
y
mincc01 b.95
25
01/05/95
I
/
Jr!'o'r ,J". .;..
........
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #26 - Ord. #5704-94 - Amending various secs. in Ch. 7 re amusement and coin-
operated devices
The City Attorney presented Ordinance 115704-94 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass'and adopt O~dinance 115704-940n
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald. Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #27 ~ Ord. #5705-94~ Amending Sees. 28.82 & 28.86 re property address numbers
and enforcement
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5705-94 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Ordinance 115705-94 on second
and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
E~~'~
./ff'9
"Nays": None.
ITEM #28 - Ord. #5706-94- Repealing Sec. 21.03 re prohibited trees
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5706-94 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance 115706-94 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 #29 - Ord. #5708-94 - re Code Enforcement Special Master
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5706.94for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Ordinance 1/5706-940n
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #30 - Ord. #5710-94- re inoperative vehicles on public property and providing for
enforcement by Code Enforcement Inspectors & other authorized personnel
~
mincc01 b.95
26
01/05/95
, .' "..
~t.. >.~."..
-~
The City Attorney presented Ordinance # 5710-94 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance 1/5710-94 on
second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call. the vote was:
'.l
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #31 - Ord. #5714-94- LDCA re bed and breakfast inns in residential zoning districts
as conditional uses
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5714-94 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5714-94 on first reading. The
motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
" A yes ": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Gar\ley.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #32 - Ord. #5719-94- CI Zoning for Lake Belleview Addition, Blk. 2, Lots 7-24 and
to IL for lake Belleview Addition, Blk. 2, Lots 25-27 (Related to Special Zoning Study -
Lakeview Road) (City, LUP94-24, Z94-1 O)
~:;~
. liP
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5719-94 for second reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5719-94 on second
and final reading. THe motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
to A yes": Fitzgerald, Berfield. Deegan, Thomas and Ga rvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #33 - Soecial Items of widespread public interest - None.
ITEM #34 - Citizens to be heard re items not on the Agenda
David Campbell referred to earlier comments regarding Vision Cable. He said the
City has done a sparkling job with its new channel. He pointed out Vision Cable dictated
the City's occupation of Channel 35 and moved C-Span to a higller frequency, out of range
for free service. He expressed concern that Vision Cable did not advertise the switch and
thereby let Clearwater citizens down. Mr. Campbell asked that Vision Cable be
encouraged to also pick up C-Span II. He said he was willing to get a petition of viewers
who want C-Span 11, a vital free service. Vision Cable has ignored his r!3quests to this
point. He questioned if the Vision Cable contract is still in negotiation.
Mayor Garvey said the contract is being negotiated. Mr. Campbell questioned how
long negotiations are anticipated to take. Deputy City Manager Kathy Rice indicated she
did not know. The City is evaluating Vision Cablets request for a transfer due to its sale.
Mr. Campbell urged tile Commission to recognize the interest of many residen't viewers
\,JfJ
mince01 b.95
27
01/05/95
~.~~ T'J
,
who would like access to C.Span II and pressure Vision Cable to comply. He
recommended having Vision Cable correct the record regarding who bumped C.Span to
Channel 62 and scheduled the City's C-View for Channel 35. The Mayor indicated staff
will follow -up on Mr. Campbell's concerns.
Commissioner 8erfield questioned if Vision Cable is cllarging for C-Span after they
recently moved it to Channel 62. Ms. Rice said she will respond after contacting Vision
Cable. Commissioner Thomas suggested the issue relates to the wiring in some television
sets. Mr. Campbell said Vision Cable has impeded access to blocks of stations that were
once offered for the cost of basic cable. He indicated C~Span now falls in a different block
than before; one that charges a tariff.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
CONSENT AGENDA (Items #35w37) - Approved as submitted less Items
ITEM #35 - Receiot/Referral - CI Zoning for property located at 1222 N. Betty Lane and
1209-1223 Fairburn Ave., Fairburn Addition, Blk. C, Lots 1-4 & 7-12 (Homeless
Emergency Project Inc., Z94-1 6) (CP)
ITEM #36 - Receiot/Referral - LDCA ra design review board (LDCA 95-01) (CP)
f~
ITEM #37 - Preliminary Site Plan for McDonald's Restaurant located at 1860 Gulf to Bay
Blvd.; authorize ORC to approve final site plan subject to conditions (McDonald's
Corp.HCP)
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted and
that the appropriate officials be autl10rized to execute same. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
OTHER ITEMS ON CITY MANAGER REPORT
ITEM #38 - Preliminarv Site Plan for Morton Plant Central Utility Plant located on S. Ft.
Harrison Ave., between Grand Central AVe. & Pinellas St.; authorize ORC to approve final
site plan subject to conditions (Morton Plant Health Systems, Inc.He?)
The applicant proposes to construct a 18,121 square foot Central Utility Plant
facility to serve as the mechanical and engineering facility serving Morton Plant Hospital's
campus buildings. As depicted on the Master Plan. the facility will be on S Ft. Harrison
Ave. between Grand Central Ave. and Pinellas Street. The subject property is part of the
Morton Plant Master Plan considered for adoption on second reading on January 5, 1995.
The facility is a permitted use under Limited Industrial (lL) zoning designation and land use
plan categories, and will also be a permitted LIse upon final approval by the Department of
Community Affairs of the Institutional Master Plan.
The proposed facility will replace the Central Utility Plant south of the Barnard
Building, north of the Adler Building, and east of the Witt and Roebling buildings. The
proposed facility will be sized to accommodate future growth and is divided into sections:
\J
mincc01 b.95
28
01/05/95
.....'
. "
" " ." , ", ,. '.' , ',\' ,'. . . '. '. ' : .
. ,,' i ' ' . . ......' _ --. ,'.
~ '\'... . "\ :11........
,~..., ,
.........,
""'1~
,.' ..
"~':
~~
1) the engineering area; 2) the generator area; 3) the chillers' area; and 4) the boiler area.
Mechanical functions will provide primary and secondary pumps. boilers, medical
compressed air. and vacuum sources. The proposed facility will run on electricity supplied
by Florida Power Corporation. Hospital representatives have expressed an interest in using
natural gas if the cost benefit analysis results are favorable. City Gas Officials are
negotiating with the hospital on this issue.
The applicant has submitted additional information to ensure design of the proposed
facility minimizes unnecessary disturbance to the surrounding area and safeguards the
environment regarding ambient air quallty, noise, odor and vibration mechanisms. Staff
requests additional information regarding noise reduction in a Statement of Performance
that will be shared with the Commission before consideration of this site plan.
Staff also indicated the facility's appearance is important to the City Commission
and urged the hospital to design an attractive building with a friendly, non-threatening
appearance; not one that resembles a high intensity industrial facility. Copies of the
elevations have been submitted to enable the City to assess if the appearance is
complementary and not detractive to the community.
Preliminary Conditions are: 1) Signs and fencing/walls are subject to separate
review and permitting processes; 2) The requisite building permits must be procured within
one (1) year from the date of certification of the final site plan and all requisite certificates
of occupancy must be obtained within three (3) years of the date of certification of the site
plan; 3) A Unity of Title shall be recorded prior to certification of the site plan; 4) The
minimum turning radius for designated drives and fire lanes shall be 42 feet; 5) A fire
hydrant assembly shall be installed not more than 300 feet from the structure; 6) If
structure requires or has installed an automatic fire sprinkler system, a fire department
connection shall be installed a minimum of 15 feet from the structure, adjacent to a paved
drive and within 30 feet of a fire hydrant assembly; 71 Prior to certification, the Dumpster
Requirement Form must be completed and returned to the City Sanitation Department; 8)
Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the dumpster/compactor must be
visually screened, and gates must be provided with a minimum 12~foot clear opening to
the front for access by Sanitation trucks; 9) Prior to certification, a copy of the SWFWMD
permit application is to be provided to Engineering Site Plan Review; 10) Prior to the
issuance of a building permit, a copy of the approved SWFWMD permit is to be provided to
Engineering Site Plan Review; 11) Prior to certification, the final site plan must be signed
and sealed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Florida; 12) Backflow
prevention devices must be installed by the City with applicable fees being paid by the
owner; 13) Sidewalks are required adjacent to all street rights-of-way; 14) Handicap
spaces must be adjusted to meet government standards; 15) Parking stalls and/or
driveways to be adjusted to the approval of the Traffic Engineer; 16) Dimensions to be
shown an the plan to denote measurements for aisles, parking stalls, entrances. etc.; 17)
Prior to. certification, a landscape plan shall be submitted to Environmental Management;
18) Prior to the ,issuance of a building permit, a clearing and grubbing permit and a tree
removal permit (or a no tree verification form) are required; 19) Prior to certification, a copy
of the SWFWMD permit application and calculations shall be provided to Environmental
Management; 20) Prior to issuance of a building permit, a copy of the approved SWFWMD
permit shall be submitted to Environmental Management; and 21) Prior to certification, the
minccD1 b.95
29
01/05/95
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
..\....rJ:....
r:.'
" I '
'-,
,
sjte plan must reflect the use of raised curbs or protective timbers where interior
landscaped areas abut pavement.
Discussion of this item was included under Agenda Item 1114.
Commissioner Thomas moved to receive the Preliminary Site Plan for the Morton
Plant Central Utility Plant and authorize the Development Review Committee to review
the final site plan subject to preliminary conditions listed above, that the issues regarding
noise and the building's exterior design be addressed per discussion in Item 1114, and that
the final site plan for the Central Utility Plant comB back to the City Commission for final
approval. The motion was duly seconded.
Commissioner Barfield questioned if the site plan will be accompanied by the noise
report when it comes back. Mr. Shuford indicated it would. He noted the Commission's
direction that the site plan not return until after the completion of a special review and
special approval conditions regarding noise generation and the exterior design.
Commissioner Berfield noted the site plan will not come back until the Commission has the'
report. Mr. Shuford indicated that was correct.
ITEM #39 - Discussion re Clearwater Aquatic Team
t,:;.i,&
~'!f1
On October 6, 1994, the City Commission considered the Clearwater Aquatic Team
Boosters' request to refund 100%, rather than 87.5%, of monies collected from
'youngsters participating in the competitive swim program in order to cover more of the
team's expenses. The Commission directed staff to provide specific information to assist
in making a decision.
The City Manager indicated the City has invested a great deal of staff time in the
program and felt 12.5% is a legitimate return on the City's administrative costs.
Commissioner Deegan referred to two different letters from Mr. Evich dated
December 29, 1994 that deal with suggestions regarding the 12.5% and with contracts
issued by the Parks & Recreation Department for teachers. He questioned if the questions
raised in the letters are the business of the Parks & Recreation Department in dealing with
their program.
Commissioner Deegan requested the City Manager's recommendation regarding the
aquatic team's request. The City Manager indicated changing the process the City uses
with this and other programs would set a precedent. She recommended continuing the
current system and not return the $8,300 to the club. She suggested if the Commission
wishes to provide funds for the program through another source, that is up to the
Commission.
Commissioner Deegan questioned what the City Manager thought about the points
raised in Mr. Evich's letters and questioned jf they were Commission business. The City
Manager preferred to handle those matters on an administrative basis. Commissioner
y
mincc01 b.95
30
01/05/95
"
/I' ~ . .;. >-, . ~
.......
Deegan requested items not be presented to the City Commission that should be handled
by the City Manager as part of the administrative routine.
Commissioner Deegan moved to accept the City Managerl s recommendation and
deny the request for additional funding. The motion was duly seconded.
Joe Evich said Commissioner Deegan's point was well taken. He said the letters
were sent to the City Commission for their information. He agreed with the City
Manager's recommendation not to approve the additional funding. He felt the program is
valid but funding the Booster Club should not be a City issue. Commissioner Thomas
thanked Mr. Evich for researching the issue and bringing it to the Commission's attention.
Dave Smith, Acting President of the Clearwater Aquatic Team Boosters, indicated
they had requested the additional funds because the swimming program requires additional
coaches. He said the expenses incurred by the program must be made up somewhere. He
noted the volunteer parents have made an effort to raise funds. He said the 12.5% would
be a significant addition to keeping the program competitive.
l......;q
~~
Commissioner Thomas referred to the group's fund raising activities and questioned
if the swimmers compete Statewide. Mr. Smith indicated that was correct. Commissioner
Thomas questioned if the team had corporate sponsors. Mr. Smith said they have
attempted to attract corporate sponsors but most sponsorships are funded on a meet by
meet basis. He noted some team swimmers have qualified on the national level and one
has qualified for the Olympic trials. Commissioner Thomas suggested contacting him
personally regarding corporate sponsorship.
Upon the vote being taken. the motion carried unanimously.
ITEM #40 - First Reading Ord. #5723.95. Revision to City Ordinance 2.4 74, Police
Officers Pension Plan, to comply with state and IRS requirements (POI
The proposed ordinance will amend the Police Officers Pension Plan to: 1) Add
model language promulgated by the Internal Revenue Service to provide for direct transfers
of eligible roll overs from the Pension Plan to an eligible pension plan, IRA or annuity. This
language was to have been included in the Plan before the end of the 1994 calendar year;
2) Provide that not more than 65% of the assets of tile Pension Plan can be invested in
stocks; and 3) Provide that tile Police Pension Board can rely upon a finding of disability by
the Employees' Pension Plan in determining disability under the Police Plan.
Mayor Garvey Questioned why this change is being done. Ms. Rice said this is the
Supplemental Police Plan. Changes in the IRS rules necessitate changes in the plan to be
in compliance. The City Manager indicated the trustees had requested the change in the
percentage of Pension Plan assets that can be invested in stocks.
Commissioner Deegan noted the language indicates the Plan is in violation by not
including the language by the end of the 1994 calendar year. The City Attorney said the
City did not receive the change early enough to include it in the last Commission meeting
in 1994 but indicated it must be done quickly.
\, ..
~
minccO 1 b.95
31
01/05/95
" .'.. . ~, . : .,' , , .' I ' ,~ .,.
'\-,.oi(~ _ , ... . ,. >
'---'.
Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned why the proposal increases from 50% to 65%
of Pension Plan assets that can be invested in stocks. Ms. Rice said the minutes did not
reflect a reason. The City Manager said the City has no control over this Pension Fund.
The City Attorney indicated the increase was requested to provide the trustees with
additional flexibility in their investments. Commissioner Deegan said considering today's
economic situation. a higher percentage of stocks in a portfolio may be preferred and
would provide increased flexibility.
Commissioner Thomas noted the City is in the midst of Union negotiations and
pension and disability changes and questioned if approval of this item would cover new
changes in the disability program being negotiated. Ms. Rice said this does not affect
what the City is doing with the employee's pension.
Commissioner Thomas referred to the third item referring to the determination of
disability. Ms. Rice said this does not refer to the general plan. Commissioner Thomas
questioned if this action would contradict anything else the City is doing. The City
. Manager indicated it would not.
t:'~'~
''t:~
Commissioner Deegan moved to approve amendments to the Code of Ordinance of
the City of Clearwater relating to the Police Officers' Pension Trust Fund adding language
providing for direct transfers of eligible roll overs; providing that not more than 65% of the
pension plan can be invested in stocks; and providing that the Police Pension Board can
rely upon a finding of disability by the Employees' Pension Plan in determining disability
and that the appropriate officials be uuthorized to execute same. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance 115723.95 for first r-?ading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance 1t57?;.{-95 on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald. Berfield. Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
IINays": None.
ITEM 1141 - Res. #95-03 - authorizing execution of modification #1 to Statewide Mutual
Aid Agreement for Catastrophic Disaster Response and Recovery (EM)
On June 6, 1994, the City Commission adopted Resolution #94.38 authorizing
execution of the Statewide Mutual Aid Agreement for Catastrophic Disaster Response and
Recovery. The Mutual Aid Agreement was executed on June 14. 1994, and transmitted to
the Pinellas County Director of Emergency Management who has the responsibility of
getting all Pinellas municipalities to execute the agreement.
The State Director of Emergency Management has requested all parties ratifying the
Statewide Mutual Aid Agreement to now review, a pprove and ad opt Modi fication 1/1 to
that agreement. This modification: 1) makes minor changes in definition of terms; 2) limits
requests for aid under the agreement to major disasters; 3) adds a requirement for the
Assisting Party to acknowledge in writing the request for aid outlining the levet of
y
mincc01 b.95
32
01/05/95
'. It. .' . I . '. ~ '. \,., '.
f........
-.... assistance to be rendered; 4) makes the Requesting Party responsible for all expenses of
the Assisting Party, except worker's compensation; and 5) makes other minor changes in
procedures, term and format.
Staff feels adoption of Resolution 95-3 will allow the continued refinement of the
Statewide Mutual Aid Agreement as the principal terms of reference through which
Clearwater and other governmental entities will receive all forms of assistance in declared
disasters.
Commissioner Berfield moved to authorize modification #1 to the Statewide Mutual
Aid Agreement for Catastrophic Disaster Response and Recovery and that the appropriate
officials be authorized to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Resolution 1195-03 and read it by title only.
Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Resolution #95-03 and authorize the
appropriate officials to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call,
the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #42 - Other Pendinq Matters
\~;l~~ ~) Global Facility Services
Deputy City Manager Rice indicated this is a negotiated contract with Global Facility
Services (GFS) and reflects Commission comments at the December 1, 1994 meeting. She
, said the contract includes a pre-opening flat fee that allows the City full access to all
members of GFS for activities ranging from architectural review to writing the policies and
developing a budget for the Harborview Center. The budget for the center will be
approved through the regular budget process. The budget for the first year, before the
center is open, wiil be approximately $250,000 for operating and personnel costs and
must be approved by the Commission. The variables to that cost include office costs,
travel, the amount of required advertising and the phasing In of personnel. The contracts
first full year will cost between $800,000 and $900,000 in operating dollars in a budget
requiring the approval of the City Commission. All budgets concerning the Harborview
Center require the approval of the City Commission. The structure of the compensation
after opening includes a fixed fee of $6,000 and 5% of revenues over $400,000 and 20%
of the profit as an incentive to controlling expenditures.
Ms. Rice referred to a list of nine potential modifications recommended by a
Commission member to the contract and listed in her memorandum of January 5, 1995,
attached as Exhibit A to these minutes. GFS has agreed to modifications 2 -7 and 9.
Regarding modification 112, Commissioner Thomas suggested also noting revenue from
Stein Mart will not be included in the center's budget. Ms. Rice noted the second floor is
already excluded in that section. Commissioner Fitzgerald pointed out Stein Mart has areas
on other than the second floor. Ms. Rice said staff will make that clear. '
y
mince01 b.95
33
01/05/95
I, . " '. ~, , " " I. . ,.1. ..
~d
"-.
Ms. Rice referred to the fourth proposed modification on page 5 (1.7), and indicated
a definition of profit and loss will be added.
Regarding the fifth proposed modification on page 16 (3.1), Ms. Rice recommended
adding language that equipment will be budgeted and approved in the annual budget.
Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned if this referred to computers. office machines, etc.
Ms. Rice said that these items will have to be approved in GFS' budget. Commissioner
Fitzgerald questioned what happens between now and when an annual budget is
constructed that incorporates these issues. Ms. Rice said GFS will wait to buy anything
until a budget is approved. The City Manager indicated it may be included in a mid-year
budget amendment.
Ms. Rice referred to the sixth proposed modification and said staff will work with
the contractor to ensure that the language is clear regarding the Parks & Recreation and
GFS budget for routine expenses for Parks & Recreation's use and that only extraordinary
expenses will be paid by the City. She said the concern was regarding out of pocket
expenses and which budget will cover them.
Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned the total cost of the contract on an annual
basis. Ms. Rice indicated the contract's first year will be approximately $250.000 and the
second year will cost between $800,000 and $900,000. Commissioner Fitzgerald
questioned how much the contract will cost the City. Ms. Rice said GFS will develop their
budgets before they get the money.
\:,..\~~
':.;r,:;9
Commissioner Thomas indicated the money the management company will be paid
must be separated from the general expenses to operate the center. Commissioner
Fitzgerald agreed that was confusing. He referred to the total compensation of $117,850
listed under the revised structure of the compensation based on aggressive proforma
results and questioned if that sum does not include all personnel costs and all the other
things GFS will do. Ms. Rice indicated that is a second year figure. Commissioner
Fitzgerald noted someone will pay the cost for all the personnel GFS will be using. Ms.
Rice agreed the City will be paying those expenses.
Commissioner Serfield noted the first year's expenses have been estimated to be
$250,000. She questioned if the $117,850 figure is included in that amount. Ms. Rice
indicated it is not. She noted the center will not have any revenues the first year because
it will not be operating and GFS will not earn any bonuses. She said the proposed pre.
opening fee is $9,000 per month.
Commissioner Fitzgerald reiterated tllat the City is negotiating to pay GFS a monthly
$9,000 fee for the first year. He noted that fee does not include the cost of their
personnel or the expenses they will incur to get everything in operation and noted that is
how the $250,000 figure is derived. Ms. Rice agreed and noted the $250,000 figure
includes the monthly fee.
Commissioner Fitzgerald pointed out the plan to pay a $6,000 monthly fee the
second year plus personnel costs plus GFS gets a percentage of the revenues and profits.
Ms. Rice agreed. Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned what would happen if the center
"I
mincc01 b.95
34
01/05/95
. '" " , '.. \. '.' I. ~ ~ I' . r '.. " >
~ 'l ", " ~
-',
loses money. Ms. Rice noted a Commissioner's recommendation to charge a penalty or
negative incentive to the contractor in case of loss. GFS did not agree to that proposed
modification.
Commissioner Deegan noted the figure quoted tonight is very different from what
was originally submitted. Michel Sauers, GFS President, said he listened carefully to the
Commission's previous comments and staff's request that GFS absorb more of the costs.
The Commission addressed the contract.
Commissioner Fitzgerald referred to page 5 (2.1), regarding the City's agreement to
provide the funds required to carry out the management of the center. He questioned
what this section means in terms of dollars. Mayor Garvey said GFS first will develop a
budget and the Commission will approve it. Commissioner Berfield questioned what will
happen if the Commission does not agree with the proposed bud"get. Ms. Rice indicated
the City would then have to negotiate with GFS or either party could terminate the
agreement.
Commissioner Fitzgerald noted the referral on page 6 (2.1), to Exhibit Band
questioned where that exhibit was located. Ms. Rice saId currently, there is not Exhibit B.
The contract needs to indicate that GFS will prepare an operation manual by September 1,
1995, which will become an attachment. Mr. Sauers said GFS will prepare written
documents regarding how the building will be operated. Ms. Rice indicated staff will work
with the City Attorney on that language.
""$
"I~""I
" l'lJ1r
Commissioner Fitzgerald referred to page 7 (2.1.5), and questioned the meaning of
the statement, "in a manner consistent with other similar facilities. II Ms. Rice said the City
is not asking GFS to do more or less than what is done at other facilities. Commissioner
Fitzgerald said he does not know what another center's standards are. Commissioner
Deegan noted the City is buying GFS' expertise and knowledge of similar worldwide
facilities and GFS is committing to see to it that the City's center will be kept at the same
level as similar facilities. Commissioner Thomas indicated there are standards within the
industry. Mr. Sauers indicated an industry assoCiation based in Dallas, TX has established
industry standards and a basis to evaluate performance. Commissioner Fitzgerald
questioned if standards exist to which the City can refer. Ms. Rice indicated that was so.
Commissioner Fitzgerald referred to the same paragraph and the statement, "All
losses in inventory of City~owned equipment shall be documented by the Firm as soon as
such losses are discovered by the firm and the City shall be promptly notified." He
questioned who is responsible and liable for losses. Mr. Sauers said the language allows
the City to put GFS on notice if they think GFS has done a terrible job regarding security.
Ms. Rice indicated the City will own and insure all the equipment.
Commissioner Fitzgerald referred to page 8 (2.1.7), and the statement IiSupervise
and direct all employees and personnel." He questioned if that included onsite Parks &
Recreation staff. Ms. Rice said City staff is not included. Mr. Sauers agreed to add "GFS"
before the words employees and personnel.
y
minccD1 b.95
35
01/05/95
"'.
11' ~.,' ~ . ..
'--"
"'I"~
(;':f;~~"
~
Commissioner Fitzgerald referred to page 11 ( 2.1.19), and the statement "Comply
with the spending limitation imposed upon such budget, including and amendment(s)
thereto as authorized. However, if extraordinary events occur which could not reasonably
be contemplated at the time the budget was prepared, the firm may submit an amendment
to the budget to the City for review and approval by the City Commission." He indicated
this statement seems to be open-ended. Ms.' Rice indicated staff did try to address the
Commission's concern. She said if something extraordinary happens, they can deal with it
with a budget amendment like any other City department. It does not say the Commission
must approve the request. Commissioner Berfield recommended adding "or denial." Mr.
Sauers said "denial" is implied. He noted an example of extraordinary expenses could be
fixing a broken air-conditioning system. Commissioner Fitzgerald noted GFS will pay for
these items out of the City's accounts.
Commissioner Fitzgerald referred to page 12 (2.1.21), and the statement // . . .
outside counsel may be utilized and such expense shall be included as an operating
expense of the facility." Ms. Rice indicated GFS will rely on the City Attorney to review
agreements and their activities. With approval of the City Attorney, should GFS need to
use outside counsel, they will have to include the money for that expense ;n their budget
and the Commission will have to approve it. Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned how to
budget those things. Ms. Rice said the intent is to go through the City Attorney.
Commissioner Thomas indicated it was to the City's advantage to include this cost as an
expense to reduce the revenue.
Commissioner Fitzgerald referred to page 14 (2.1.27), and questioned the meaning
of the statement, "In return for the firm acting as a collection agent for the City, any
discounts on the remittance of Sales Tax shall be revenues to the firm and will not be
included in the computations of additional percentage fees." Commissioner Thomas
indicated a merchant collecting sales tax can qualify for a discount depending on how
promptly he pays the State. This statement permits the firm to keep the discount. Mayor
Garvey noted the firm would benefit by paying the taxes in a timely manner.
Commissioner Thomas said this refers to money the City would never get. Ms. Rice
referred to GFS' responsibility for any late payment fee.
Commissioner Fitzgerald referred to page 16 (4.1 I, and the phrase, "The City. . .
shalf make available to the firm at no cost parking spaces adjacent to the facility." He
questioned the number and purpose of the spaces. Ms. Rice said this refers to GFS
employees who will be parking there. She said staff can make that clear. She noted GFS
makes a great deal of money on parking and the City has some parking agreements with
Stein Mart. The City has indicated any GFS pay-to-park program first must be approved by
the Commission. Commissioner Fitzgerald noted parking restrictions at the center already
exist based on previous commitments.
Commissioner Thomas noted Clearwater has multiple parking facilities throughout
the City and recommended the number of free spaces should be limited in the contract. He
said GFS employee parking could be provided in another City parking facility because it
was unwise to have employees using all customer parking spaces. He requested a
definition of a GFS employee as well as an agreement for oftsite parking at another City
parking facility. Mayor Garvey noted tIle City already agreed to provide reserved parking
minccD1 b.95
36
01/05/95
, '.. \ : ' . . '., ~ ' , " , , 1 " . . " ., . ", .~ .
Vcr->' HC
_C.
for Stein Mart at the center. Mr. Souers noted that language is included in Stein Mart's
lease which GFS must honor and is attached to the contract. Commissioner Fitzgerald
recommended the language be specific.
Commissioner Fitzgerald referred to page 16 (5.1), and the statement. "City use of
the facility shall for the firm earn a Revenue Credit for the use of t1H3 space at the
prevailing published rate for the purpose of computing total facility revenues and incentive
fees due the Firm, except for five days for City use and for Park & Recreation regularly
scheduled recreational activities that will be credited at 60% of the prevailing rental rate. /I
He questioned what type of cost credits are being considered. Ms. Rice said when the
center hosts Parks & Recreation activities, GFS is credited at 60%. The City has use of
the center for five days per year when GFS will receive no credit. I f the Library, for
example, should have a special event too large for their facilities and want to reserve the
center, GFS would be credited the full going rate. Mr. Sauers noted GFS would still be
managing and providing support services to the center.
Commissioner Fitzgerald referred to page 18 (7.2), and the statement regarding the
management fee, and questioned if the management fee is one part of GFS' compensation
in addition to the percentage fee. Ms. Rice agreed. Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned if
" the percentage fee is figured on the basis of compensation figures on page 18 (7.3) that
list: 0% of Revenues between $0 and $400,000; 5% of Revenues over $400,000; and
20% of profits. Ms. Rice said that was correct.
:.,.:i~c
I c__
.~
Commissioner Thomas referred to page 18 (7.21. and the statement, "The
management fee shall be $78,000 annually. . . .. Ms. Rice said that number should be
$72,000.
Commissioner Thomas said he disliked Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustments on
an annual basis and recommended adjustments should be set at 50% of the CPl. Mr.
Sauers questioned if Commissioner Thomas uses any method more reliable than the CPI.
Commissioner Thomas said most contracts he accepts include CPI adjustments in five-year
increments with the first adjustment occurring after five years and based on a percentage
of the CPI. Mr. Sauers said this has not been an issue during the last few years.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if Mr. Sauers had a problem with accepting an
adjustment of 50% of the CPI. Mr. Sauers said he did not.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if the contract was annual. Ms. Rice said it is a
three-year contract with two one year option. Commissioner Thomas recommended
instituting the CPI adjustment in the contract's third year at a rate of 50% of the CPI. Mr.
Sauers requested adding a provision to permit revisiting the clause should the CPI increase
to 8% or more in any particular year. Commissioner Thomas indicated he would have no
problem revisiting the issue if the cumulative CPI in'the first three years exceeds 30%.
Consensus was that the issue will be revisited if the CPI increases to more than
10% in anyone year; no CPI adjustment is included ;n the first three years of the contract
and at the time of the first renewal, adjustments will be based on 50% of the cumulative
prior three CPls and at each renewal thereafter.
~
mince01 b.S5
37
01/05/95
....,
~... ,....
'-."
Commissioner Fitzgerald referred to facility revenues listed on page 19 (7.6) and
questioned how the utility income is computed. Mr. Sauers said GFS charges for the use
of utilities.
Commissioner Fitzgerald referred to 17.6) on page 20 and the listing, "Food sales
income," He expressed concern this may be interpreted as a reference to the restaurant.
Ms. Rice said language added to (1 A) regarding restaurants indicates the restaurants are
not included in the facility nor is any income or expenses from the restaurants'
independent operation. Commissioner Thomas said the food service is income to GFS and
recommended clear definition of this issue.
Commissioner Thomas referred to page 20 (9. 7), and questioned why the cost of
the building's utilities was excluded from GFS' expenses. Mr. Sauers said it was not
meant to be an exclusion. Ms. Rice said the cost of utilities is included in their proforma.
Ms. Rice said staff would include "utilities" in that list.
Commissioner Thomas referred to the listing, "minor repairs and maintenance, not
inclusive of expenses relating to performing capital improvements," and suggested
establishing the capital structure. Mr. Sauers said the intent is to follow the City's
accounting procedures and use the City's definition of "capital improvements."
":I('~'
I .
~'Ir;:J
Commissioner Fitzgerald referred to page 24 (9.5), and the statement, "Any and all
costs for such reports shall be included as an operating expense." Ms. Rice said if the City
requests an additional report, the City does not want GFS corning back saying they need
additional money to produce the report. GFS must include these costs in their operating
expenses. Mr. Sauers said, for example, the Commission may request the facility provide
a detailed analysis of convention center rental rates in 50 markets. He said the extra
expense for producing that report would be included as an operating expense of the
building.
Commissioner Fitzgerald referred to page 28 (12.1), and questioned the meaning of
the statement, "The City will make available to the firm sufficient operating funds pursuant
to the approved budget for the facility to the extent that such funds are not available in the
facility operating accounts." Mr. Sauers said the intent is to state the Ci ty cannot go
bankrupt on them. Should the City not provide funds for the center, GFS cannot be held in
default.
Commissioner Deegan referred to page 35 (16. 1 ), and the statement "The
Marketing Fund shall be administered jointly by the City and the firm. The, firm shall
propose the uses of the Fund and the City shall approve the uses. . . ." He questioned if
the City was not paying Mr. Sauers for his expertise and suggested leaving the marketing
up to the firm. Mr. Sauers said GFS wanted the City to approve the use of those funds.
Mayor Garvey suggested different language could require communication but not formal
approval. Commissioner Thomas felt the City should be part of the approval process.
Commissioner Deegan said the Commission will be approving the budget. He noted this
says the City will determine how the marl<eting funds are spent. Commissioner Thomas
said he had no problem with the City Manager's office providing oversight for these funds.
Commissioner Fitzgerald said he had no problem with the way it is written because it
,~
minccD1 b.S5
38
01/05/95
Consensus was to accept the change.
I" .~.
....-.,
indicates the City Manager will be involved in the process. Commissioner Deegan said
GFS' concerns could be reversed. If the center is a failure, GFS could blame the City for
GFS' inadequate marketing plan. Mayor Garvey agreed with Commissioner Deegan.
Commissioner Berfield agreed the City is hiring GFS tor their expertise. Commissioner
Deegan recommended requiring GFS to report on their marketing plan but not approve it.
Mayor Garvey questioned if this would be included when they established their budget.
Ms. Rice said this refers to a small separate fund, 10% of their additional percentage fees,
with which GFS hopes to do special things.. GFS wants to be certain they are not outside
City policy or public interest. Commissioner Deegan recommended the language read,
"shall submit for review" rather than "approve. It
Commissioner Deegan questioned where the contract indicates GFS will submit the
first marketing plan within 90 days. Ms. Rice referred to page 13. Commissioner Deegan
questioned why GFS requires 90 days. Mr. Sauers said the plan depends on funding from
other sources. Commissioner Deegan did not want GFS to wait 90 days to begin
marketing the center. Mr. Sauers said GFS can provide a contingency plan sooner.
Commissioner Deegan questioned how soon after approval of the contract would the City
see a marketing plan. Mr. Sauers said it could be presented in 30 to 45 days. The
opening date of the facility and the decision regarding restaurants will affect the marketing
plan. Consensus was to agree with 45-days if GFS agrees to start making contacts
C:,.J:A
1:V
Commissioner Berfield referred to page 34 (15.4), and the statement, It . .. this
agreement shall terminate and neither party shall thereafter have any rights or obligation
except as otherwise provided in this Agreement." She questioned the other agreements on
termination. Ms. Rice said staff is trying to say if the City chooses to close the facility,
GFS canJ10t charge the City with breach of contract. Commissioner Berfield questioned
what else is provided. Ms. Rice said if GFS is in breach of the contract, the City can stop
paying them. Mr. Sauers said it refers to GFS being in default. The City Attorney
indicated the other termination provisions are included in Article 23. Mr. Sauers requested
the ability to discuss this phrase and its meaning with GFS' attorney.
Commissioner Thomas referred to page 36 (17), first full paragraph and said he did
not consider $2,500 a normal capital improvement expenditure but an amount for repairs.
He requested the contract be more specific. Ms. Rice said the contract requires GFS to
advise the City regarding any expense over $2,500. He wanted to be certain the expense
be properly defined. Commissioner Deegan noted the definitions are included in the
previous paragraph.
Commissioner Thomas referred to the eighth proposed modification on Ms. Rice's
list of potential modifications to the contract. This modification referred to the pre-opening
fee. Commissioner Thomas indicated the pre.opening fee should not exceed $6,000 a
month. He did not think GFS' pre-opening earnings should be almost equal to the
compensation for running the facility. Mr. Sauers said the difference is based on the
amount of support and commitment GFS initially is making. He said their original budget
proposal assumed saine costs for labor would be absorbed as a City expense. GFS has
now agreed to absorb those costs as "corporate expense." He indicated GFS'
~
mincc01 b.95
39
01/05/95
~ ." . . . . . ..' " .. ,', . '. '.,.
". t
~....,.. .. .
-,
compensation should be fairly consistent throughout the terrn of the agreement. The
monthly fee is reduced when GFS has the opportunity to increase its income based on a
percentage of revenues. Commissioner Thomas said the workload prior to opening the
facility is not equal to the workload afterwards. Mr. Sauers said the load will be similar but
the type of work required will be different during each phase.
Commissioner Thomas felt $9,000 a month is too high a pre-opening fee. Mr.
Sauers indicated the initial proposal he submitted was for $9,400 and he was able to
reduce it to $9,000. Commissioner Thomas questioned Mr. Sauers's bottom Une. Mr.
Sauers stated $8,460 and noted he had analyzed the workload and fair compensation
when calculating initial fees. He said he already had responded to the City Commission~s
request that GFS accept more risk.
Commissioner Deegan felt $6,000 is not a reasonable amount and expressed
concern GFS would not perform an adequate amount of work for that fee. He stated a fee
of $8,400 would be reasonable. He felt a higher compensation for the pre-opening fee
was sensible. The Mayor noted Mr. Sauers had offered a fee of $8,460, Commissioner
Berfield questioned if Mr. Sauers would accept a monthly fee of $8,400. He indicated he
would.
The majority of the Commission agreed to a pre-opening fee of $8,400 per month.
"j"
, t;'~~.
1.'\."
Commissioner Deegan referred to the first proposed modification on Ms. Rice's list
that referred to the Compensation Language. He noted if the "aggressive level" of results
are realized, both the City and GFS will make money. He noted the facility will not always
operate on an aggressive level and most likely will be a "normallevels. II He recommended
GFS also run some risk. If expenditures are greater than revenues and there is a loss after
the first year of operation, GFS should share in the loss. He recommended establishing a
level of 20%,1 Mr. Sauers said he agreed with the concept in principle. He said the
difficulty of the proposal is that the controls are all on the City's side and many factors are
beyond GFS's control, for example, hotel and availability, competitive rates, etc. He said
facilities historically mature between the seventh and ninth year of operation and the types
of events that will be attracted during the first few years of operation are much different
than those in later years. As soon as GFS starts losing money, they will lose their ability
to provide the level of service expected by the City. He said he could not accept 20%.
Mayor Garvey said she agreed with the language as proposed by Ms. Rice with a
5% charge for loss. Commissioner Deegan questioned when the City is liable to hit an
"aggressive year." Mr. Sauers predicted in the third or fourth year. Commissioner Deegan
noted under the results tor a "normal year," the City would end with a loss.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if Mr. Sauers agrees with language proposed on
Ms. Rice's list, "After the third year of the contract, if the expenditures are greater than
the revenues for the facility such that there is a loss, 5 % of the loss will be deducted from
the monthly fixed fee. Mr. Sauers said he would agree to it under duress. Commissioner
Thomas said it takes three years before a facility can begin to show itself because of the
pre-booking issue.
..,
minceO 1 b.95
40
01/05/95
'\
Upon the voted being taken, Commissioners Barfield, Deegan and Thomas voted
"Aye"; Commissioner Fitzgerald and Mayor Garvey voted "Nay." Motion carried.
1';;:',!,
'-.
Consensus was to accept the language proposed by Ms. Rice as stated in the
previous paragraph.
The City Manager questioned if the Commission requested a clean copy of the
modified document. The Mayor said she would like a clean copy of the contract before
she voted on it. Commissioner Thomas indicated tle wanted GFS to begin working as soon
as possible. Commissioner Deegan felt the Commission can approve the contract brlsed on
what they agreed to in tonight's meeting. Commissioner Fitzgerald noted the
Commissioners had done a lot of talking tonight and said he wanted to see the modified
contract put together first. Commissioner Thomas questioned if the City Manager or
Deputy City Manager have any confusion regarding the Commission's direction regarding
modifications to the contract. They indicated they did not. Commissioner Berfield
questioned if the City Attorney was comfortable with the Commission approving the
contract based on tonight's discussion. The City Attorney said she was. Commissioner
Berfield questioned if Mr. Sauers would be willing to readdress the contract if there is
problem with language. Mr. Sauers said he would not have a problem. He said his only
question referred to the meaning of the language included in the termination issue and
indicated he will discuss that with an attorney. Commissioner Thomas noted the City
Manager is comfortable with the Commission's discussion, the Deputy City Manager
negotiated contract, and the City Attorney is comfortable with it.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the agreement with Global Facility
Services, Inc. as amended in tonight's discussion. The motion was duly seconded.
r:2:J.l. Mayor Garvey noted Mr. Sauers had requested discussing the contract with his
""./, attorney. Mr. Sauers indicated his only question pertained to page 34 regarding
termination. Mayor Garvey said she would vote against the proposal because she wanted
the opportunity to approve a clean copy of the contract before she votes on it.
Commissioner Thomas felt it was clean enough to consider.
Commissioner Deegan questioned which box on GFS1 organizational chart will be
occupied by Manny Costa. Mr. Sauers indicated Manny Costa will be the General Manager
but may not be at the facility for the full three years of the contract. Mr. Costa said the
way the program has been put together is the most unique he has seen in his 28 years in
the business. He felt the facility will be a leader in the industry once it is open. He said
the center will put Clearwater in a different face in the industry. He indicated he recently
completed a building in Florence, SC. Mr. Costa reported he is in contact with a promoter
who is willing to bring in four shows.
Mr. Sauers thanked the Commission for their patience.
The Commission recessed from 11 :46. to 11 :56 a.m.
b) Set closed attorney/client session re City vs. Scientology
~
mincc01 b.95
41
01/05/95
1\l'"~1,"7~""," " ': ,"
--...,
The City Attorney indicated the mediation has been moved back. The meeting
regarding this case was scheduled for January 30, 1995 at 1 :00 p.m.
The City Attorney referred to the meeting scheduled for February 2, 1995 at 5:00
p.m. She clarified the mesting was to address Walter Bryan not Whitacre.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS
ITEM #43 - First Reading Ordinances
a) Ord. #5753-95 - re 008 - Amending Sec. 2.150 to remove power of the board to
receive proceeds of ce~tain ad valorem tax; repealing Sec. 2.151 which authorized levy of
ad valorem tax; repealing Sec. 2.152 which provided for millage limitations - Continued for
30 days
Mayor Garvey requested this item be continued for 30 days.
Commissioner Thomas moved to continue this item for 30 days. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
. (:~~~
wY
Commissioner Thomas moved to continue the meeting past midnight. The motion
was duly seconded. Upon the voted being taken, Commissioners Berfield, Deegan and
Thomas voted "Aye"; Commissioner Fitzgerald and Mayor Garvey voted "Nay. II Motion
carried.
b) Charter Amendment Ordinances
1) Ord. #5758-95 - re: appointment of vice-mayor as mayor during mayor's
temporary absence, forfeiture of commission office, commission vacancies. commission
salary increases; deleting requirement for roll call vote; clarifying language per commission
actions
Commissioner Fitzgerald referred to two minor typos. The City Attorney said they
were corrected. The City Attorney reviewed changes made based on the discussion at the
January 3, 1995 meeting.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance 115758-95 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance #5758-95 on first reading.
Th~ motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan. Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays"; None.
2) Ord. #5759-95. re: requiring a referendum to transfer or use certain City owned
property for other than City uses
\~
minccO 1 b. 9 5
42
01/05/95
(,..,:t"
V~r--t
Mayor Garvey said she adamantly opposed to this proposal will work against this
when it comes up for election.
'j:~li. ';
c.........,
The City Attorney presented Ordinance 1/5759-95 for first reading and read It by
title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance #5759-95 on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded.
Mayor Garvey referred to Tuesday's discussion on this proposed Charter
amendments and recalled Commissioner Thomas talking of the need to save the bluff. She
suggested if the bluff is valuable, the beach is even more sacred and special to the citizens
of Clearwater. She said if a referendum is necessary to protect the bluff, one should also
be necessary to protect the beach. She suggested the proposed beach tower should go to
referendum so the citizens can speak. Commissioner Thomas suggested dealing with the
tower when it is a viable issue before the Commission. He said the City cannot sell the
beach. Mayor Garvey said the tower plan proposes to lease the beach.
Commissioner Berfield questioned if this referendum question does not pass, would
the 28-foot line still be in effect. The City Attorney indicated this amendment does not
impact the 28-foot line. This is a completely separate section. If this referendum passes
or fails, the 28-foot line remains in place. She said this is more restrictive. Commissioner
Berfield questioned if the 28-foot line is protected either way. The City Attorney indicated
it did.
Commissioner Fitzgerald said he opposed the proposal. He said he tried to make
the point at Tuesday's meeting that this is too binding on future Commission. He said this
has been a problem all along with the City's redevelopment efforts.
Commissioner Thomas said he supported the proposal because it was approved in a
referendum on the bayfront held 12 years ago. He said this ordinance will correct an error
in the legal language in the Charter and protect the bayfront. Citizens thought they had
approved that protection during the previous referendum. He said the bayfront is the
property of the citizens. Commissioner Fitzgerald suggested the citizenry of Clearwate,'
have probably changed some in 12 years.
Upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes"; Barfield. Deegan and Thomas.
"Nays": Fitzgerald and Garvey.
Motion carried.
3) Ord. #5760.95 - re: extending time frame for completing referendum petitions
and increasing time for holding an election on a charter amendment initiated by petition
The City Attorney presented Ordinance 115760-95 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance 1/5760-950/1 first reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
y
minccD1 b.95
43
01105/95
. "4 '" " ." . " , . . . , " .
(,
~!'~>n(/' :' , ~.'
--'\
,
It Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
4) Ord. #5761 ~95 - re: amending requirement for referendum approval of revenue
bonds
The City Attorney presented Ordinance # 5761 .95 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5761.95 on first reading. The
motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Naysl1: None.
5) Ord. #5762-95 - re: appointment of legal department staff by City Attorney,
establishment of Assistant City Attorney salaries by City Attorney, providing consistency
in manner of removal of City Manager and City Attorney, requiring City Attorney lives in
City
The City Attorney reviewed changes made based on the discussion at the January
3, 1995 meeting.
The Mayor referred to section 4.04, and questioned why the City Commission has
to approve the compensation for the Assistant City Attorneys. The City Manager said the
Commission has approved an established pay plan for the Assistant City Manager and
t:~ Deputy City Manager through the SAM? plan. The City Attorney indicated compensation
could be approved by confirming a pay plan. Commissioner Deegan said this language
allows for exactly what the City does for pay ranges for department heads. He
recommended the City Attorney could present salary ranges to the Commission for
approval and not changes within the rang-e. The Mayor recommended a SAM? type
concept be established. Commissioner Deegan indicated' this wording permits that.
Commissioner Berfield suggested it read "compensation plan." Commissioner Thomas said
he had no problem with the language. Commissioner Deegan expressed concern with
allowing the City Attorney the ability to set salaries at any level she chooses.
Mayor Garvey questioned how this reference reads in the section referring to the
City Manager. The City Manager said the SAM? plan establishes minimums and
maximums for every position within a range. The Commission approved the establishment
of the SAMP plan and the ranges and changes.
The City Attorney reviewed the remaining changes.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5762.95 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5762-95 on first reading. The
motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
\.J
mincc01 b.95
44
01/05/95
\
. ',"
m~~~J.:,:-l , ,
-""
6) Ord. #5763-95 - re: identifying winning candidate, creating a provision for
candidate vacancy, providing for a referendum election
The City Attorney reviewed changes made based on the discussion at the January
3, 1995 meeting.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5763-95 for first reading and read it by
title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance 1t5763~95 on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Naysll: None.
ITEM #44 - Resolutions
a) Res. #95-2 - Subordination of utility interest to FOOT for SR 55 project
The City Attorney presented Resolution #95-2 and read it by title only.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Resolution #95-2 and authorize the
appropriate officials to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call,
the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield. Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
~" .~
. (11':.
~
"Nays": None.
b) Res. #95~4 - Assessing owners of property the costs of mowing/clearing owners' lots
The City Attorney presented Resolution #95~4 and read it by title only.
Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Resolution 1195-4 and authorize the
appropriate officials to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call,
the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
c) Res. #95-6 - Subordination of utility interest to FOOT for SR 55 project
The City Attorney presented Resolution 1195-6 and read it by title only.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Resolution #95-6 and authorize the
appropriate officials to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call,
the vote was:
IIAyes": Fitzgerald, BerfieJd, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
IINays": None.
u
mincc01 b.95
45
01/05/95
" ~ \.' . .... .
" . . . . . .. .
,......
....-. ....
ITEM #45. Otrer City Attornev Item~
ITEM #46. City Manager Verba! Reports
The City Manager referred to the January 3, 1995 meeting and the Commission's
approval of an agreement with Mr. Gardeski regarding a "Gulf Boulevard" video promotion
for a grant up to $2,400 that he would repay from future revenues from franchising the
videos. She said she has taken the position that until the City has a written agreement and
the opportunity to do some reference and background checks, the City will not release the
authorized funds. She requested it be an administrative decision whether or not to release
the check based on the findings. Commissioner Thomas felt that was proper.
Commissioner Thomas moved to authorize the City Manager to make a decision
regarding the release of funds for Mr. Gardeski. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously.
ITEM 1147 - Commission Discussion Items
ITEM #48 ~ Other Commission Action
Commissioner Deeoan questioned if a decision had been made to combine
ordinances regarding annexation. The City Attorney indicated the ordinances cannot be
combined because they address different subjects. She said other jurisdictions have not
combined them.
f ;i '!"l\
~J.mr:l
Commissioner Thomas expressed concern regarding fights occurring onboard
Empress Cruise Lines. He felt the safety issue needs to be addressed. The City Manager
indicated the Police Chief will provide a report.
Commissioner Thomas referenced a letter from Mr. Baldwin and questioned if it was
possible to protect the confidentiality of those responding to the tower RFP. The City
Attorney indicated it was not. Mr. Baker indicated he had responded to Mr. Baldwin and
stated all information requested by the RFP is necessary in order for the submissions to be
evaluated. Commissioner Thomas suggested some questions could be answered during
negotiation instead of in the response to the RFP. Mr. Sal<er said language in the RFP
requests a proforma and proposed income streams. He did not think the City requested
applicants to disclose proprietary information. He said the City would like to be more
discrete when conducting the public's business but ;s not allowed to under Sunshine laws.
Mayor Garvey suggested if this issue is so important, it should be a referendum issue. Mr.
Baker said in order for the City to determine the best deal, the City needs the information
requested.
Commissioner Thomas questioned the status of staff's investigation of installing our
own cable infrastructure. Ms. Rice indicated this is still being researched.
Commissioner Thomas questioned the status of negotiations with Vision Cable. He
noted a consultant was hired to negotiate in the City's favor. He said although the
contract says the City is to get a percentage of all revenues, Vision Cable only pays on
y
mincc01 b.95
46 .
01/05/95
. , ' ,~,\
. ~ ...... , '
.....;,...c
, '.
W$_~:\'~~r~~':..~~:.~.:('< ::::~"<i'> .~~. - ~
I, ' ,
; ",
, , ". ~
'.
...tlJ
.......'
subscriber revenues. He expressed concern the City has not been paid for advertisement
revenues and requested the contract be reviewed. Ms. Rice indicated the Commission will
be provided an update. She indicated negotiations slowed due to the transfer and sale of
Vision Cable's parent company to Time-Warner.
, ,r"'-"
i
Commissioner Garvev questioned the accuracy of a letter indicating the law
regarding Mobile Home Parks was challenged in court and requested clarification. The City
Attorney said she will research the issue.
The Commission sang Happy Birthday to Bill Baker.
ITEM #49 - Adjournment
The City Commission adjourned at 12:37 a.m., January 6, 1995
ATT~ST:~ -....~ 2. /'1.,. po o.~
-~ City Clerk
t~{~
~.:tP
,'.
'to.t
\.;J
mincc01 b.95
, 47
01/05/95
';
" , ,", 1... . _'. ,,:..1 , . ~'~...'
. "+ ,." ' .' , . ~ .". . , + .' I...
COPIES:
. l\1E~10RANDU1\1 <---~._-~
~xh\bl+ A -h cC-t>"., l5A5~~~:~:
. . . \ COMMISSION
Mayor and City Commissioners
. . --1/L l)l"uJ JAN 05 1995
Kathy s. Rice, Deputy City Manager JL-::>f...A-
PRESS
Betty Deptula, City Manager CLERK I ATTORNEY
Bill Baker, Assistant City Manager
Cyndie Goudeau, City Clerk
TO:
. -.....
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Globe Facility Se.rvices - Professional Mnnagcment Services
Harborview Center
DATE:
January 5, 1995
Potential modifications to the contract between Globe Facility Services, Inc. and the City as
recol1).mended by a Commissioner are:
1. CQ11)~~osation Lan~uaee: After the third year of the contract, if the expenditures are
greater than the revenues for the facility such that there is a loss, five percent of the
loss will be deducted from the monthly fixed fee.
2.
Page 4. Section 1.4: A sentence will be added to state clearly that the restaurants are
not included in the facility nor is any income or expenses from the restaurants
independent operation to be included in the budget for the facility.
S .
Page 4. Section 1.;f( The contract years will be modified so that they are in agreement
with the terms of the conu-act on page 34 and they will be fiscal years, not calendar
years. .
,.>I;'~f.)
"'rr:t
3.
4. Page 5. Section 1. 7: A definition of profit and loss will be added.
5. . Page 16. ~ection 3.1: Such equipment will be budgeted and approved in the annual
budget.
6. Pag~ 16. Section 5.1: We will work with the contractor to ensure that Parks &
Recreation and GFS budget for routine expenses for Parks & Recreation's use and that
. only extraordinary expenses will be paid by the City.
7. 'Page 17. SeGtion 5. 1: This section will be clatified to show that the five days of CITY
use will not incur the 60% credit...only the Parks & Recreational activities . will be
included in that credit.
8. rage 18. Section 7.1: The pre~opening fee of $9,000 per month will be modified to
9.
Page 34. Section 15.1: The term of this agreement will begin after approval by the
.City Commission.
~.
c ~ ~ " :~ .
KSR:slp
.:;:- ,-' .
.. '1... ~