Loading...
07/15/1996 .!_. '. '. <I::), ," .' i I .' .';. .< .............. ". ~...,.. . ~ .' ... 'T . T . , ",' ..' :.... "c', ';.,t.... ,0 .~..'I::. v'.~ f COMMISSION City Commission Minutes I '0 Date.. Ju4J-1-S-,J9'1~ -+- / Lj L/ 9 u ,"" ; ""J' <.~,.... . I.J Mayor/Commissioner Vice~Mayor /Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner City Manager Deputy City Manager City Attorney Central Permitting Director Engineering Director City Clerk Board Reporter CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER July 15, 1996 Present: Rita Garvey J. B. Johnson Robert Clark Ed Hooper Karen Seel Elizabeth M. Deptula Kathy S. Rice Pamela K. Akin Scott Shuford Rich Baier Cynthia E. Goudeau Patricia O. Sullivan ',' The Mayor called the meeting to order at 9:40 a.m. ITEM #2 - Adopt tentative millage rate of 5.1158 mills for FY 1996-97 and set Public Hearings on the Budget for 9/5/96 & 9/19/96 In accordance with the TRIM Bill process, the City Commission must adopt a tentative millage rate prior to finalizing and adopting the Budget. The tentative millage rate is included in TRIM Bill notices sent to taxpayers in early August and cannot be increased without a special mailing. The millage rate may be decreased prior to adopting the final Budget. The City Manager's recommended millage rate of 5.118 mills is the same as the current year's rate. If adopted, all advertising requirements will list a tax increase of 1.2% over the rolled back rate of 5.0547 mills. According to State definition, the rolled back rate is the millage rate that, exclusive of new construction, property added due to geographical boundary changes, and structural additions and deletions, will provide the same ad valorem tax revenue as levied the prior year. A rate of 5.0547 would have to be adopted to avoid an advertised increase and would generate $211,015,290, requiring a $254,030 reduction in the recommended budget. The City Manager said the typical homeowner pays the City $383.69 annually in property taxes which is approximately 25% ot the propertyls total tax bill. The roll back rate would lower the City's portion of each tax bill by $4. She spoke against a suggestion to increase the tax rate and lower fees, noting some properties do not pay taxes and fees pay for services received. She indicated the City Commission had not directed staff to make cuts and institute an austerity budget. She felt the proposed budget concentrates on established priorities. msp07a.96 1 07/15/96 ,") The City Manager reported the City Commission will need to consider $200,000 worth of needs that have not been budgeted. She recommended funding a secretary for the Development Director and a position to concentrate on downtown events and promotions. She noted the maintenance needs of the SPJC (St. Petersburg Junior College~ athletic fields. This week, the information kiosk will be installed in Clearwater Mall but City Hall services in Countryside Mall have not been budgeted. The mall requires the position to be staffed during all mall hours. The County has indicated a willingness to assist with funding. The City Manager noted the soelal services' budget is only $62,000 while $ 25 7 ,000 in requests were submitted. The day the budget was printed, staff received information from the State that the City would receive $206,000 more than anticipated. These funds can be used to cover the described needs, to roll back the rate, or to increase the surplus. She said after taking $500.000 to construct the Clearwater beach pool, the surplus fund will be close to 14%. The Mayor expressed concern the millage rate is established prior to budget discussions. She noted some important issues may not have been addressed. She expressed concern regarding decreasing staff levels at the Long Center, needs related to the Development Director position, maintenance of the SPJC soccer fields, etc. Commissioner Johnson expressed concern funding requested by departments was higher than City Manager recommended amounts. The City Manager said departments have been asked to budget a 2 % reduction for salaries as staffing levels are not always at full employment. Historically. salary costs are 1.5% to 2% lower than funded. Departments may have to delay filling positions longer than they have in the past which l..:) could cause difficulties for smaller departments. ,; Commissioner Johnson questioned if the City Manager recommended increasing the millage rate. The City Manager recommended approval of the same rate. She suggested meeting additional needs with the $200,000 of State funding. She said it may be time to increase the $62,000 level for social services. The City Manager was comfortable setting the, millage rate at its current level. Commissioner Hooper moved to adopt a tentative millage rate of 5,1158 mills for FY (fiscal year) 1996/97 and set Public Hearings on the Budget for September 5, 1996, and September 19, 1996, to be held no earlier than 6:00 p.m. The motion was duly seconded. Commissioner Seel questioned if the City typically sets the millage rate without discussing the budget. The City Manager said that is correct. The millage rate is due to the Property Appraiser today. Commissioner Seel expressed concern the City is living off its savings account which has decreased by 34%. The City Manager said those funds are used to fund one time capital expenses and not operating expenses. The Mayor noted the City adds programs to the budget every year but insists the millage rate remain the same. She recommended setting the rate higher now and lowering it once the budget has been reviewed. Commissioner Seel pointed out the City is building projects without budgeting operating expenses to support them. She questioned how projects will be maintained in the future. 1'-" msp07a.96 2 07/15/96 . . , . , ' . J .' < .' " ".' " ,") Commissioner Clark questioned if a $206,000 windfall from the State is typical. Budget Director Tina Wilson said the State normally provides the City with estimates of this payment by the second week of June. The estimate was late last year also. Staff proceeds with the budget by estimating this payment. Ms. Wilson said the City probably will receive a similar amount next year, Commissioner Clark questioned the consequences of a recession on this funding. The City Manager said a recession would affect many more numbers in the budget than this. She said if Penny for Pinel/as funding does not pass, the City has already identified infrastructure needs that will have to be funded by other means. In answer to a question, Ms. Wilson reported a millage rate increase to 5.2558 mills would represent a 3.2% increase and an additional $415,000. Commissioner Johnson expressed concern the City Commission would find ways to spend any additional funds. Upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Clark, Hooper and Seel voted "Aye"; Commissioner Johnson and Mayor Garvey voted "Nay.1t Motion carried. ITEM #3 - Public HearinQ - Develonment Agr~ement with James A. and Hazel E. Vogel, for property located on E side of landmark Dr., approx. 650' S of Enterprise Rd., Sec. 33-29- 16, M&B 22.011, to authorize development of up to 34 Single Family Residential Units for a gross density of 5 units per gross acre and up to 14.1 60 sq. ft. of Office Floor Area (Maximum 0.3 Floor Area Ratio); no structure shall exceed 30' in height (A96-21) I,~) The Vogel family owns approximately 8.04 acres on the East side of the landmark Drive extension. The City is constructing the landmark Drive extension to the planned lake Chautauqua Park, South and West of the subject property. The Vogel family and City jointly are contemplating a development agreement that belleiits both parties. City benefits include: 1) obtaining a 30-foot right-of~way section to the City allowing the landmark Drive extension to be centered; 2) residential and office property being annexed into the City; and 3) landscape buffering being provided along landmark Drive, Benefits to the property owners in the form of City concessions include: 1) the City's construction of the Landmark Drive extension allowing access to the subject property; 2) reduction of 10 feet in the proposed residential subdivision internal right-of- way width from the standard 60-feet requirement; 3) reduced width for corner lots; and 4) reduced "corner side It setback for corner lots of 10 feet versus the standard 25 feet. Residents of surrounding subdivisions view Itcentering" of landmark Drive as important, Staff feels concessions requested by the developer are relatively minor, generally paralleling Pinellas County development standards, On June 18, 1996, the Planning & Zoning Board unanimously recommended approval. Central Permitting Director Scott Shuford said most of the changes in the agreement relate to legal terms. A setback table was added on page 11. The placement u msp07a.96 3 07/15/96 . \ . .', , . . ...... . ~ . ' . i.' . I~ of drainage pipes protects the City and is repeated on page 13. He referred to the language in the middle of page 9 which indicates the City will build the landmark Drive extension to meet anticipated volume. Mayor Garvey noted one version of the plan shows the development's entrance will be directly across from Saber Drive. Mr. Shuford said the entrance's location has not been finalized. The agreement limits the development to 34 residential units. Access to Saber Drive will not be sought. In answer to a question. Mr. Shuford said the plans are not consequential to the agreement. Written language takes precedence over the drawings. Commissioner Seel questioned who would be responsible for constructing a "left in, right out" driveway. Mr. Shuford said if such a driveway is required. the developer will provide it through routine requirements. Marcus Vernon, representative for the Vogels, said the agreement is good. He said access language addresses restrictions, not who would build the driveway. He suggested there may not be a reason to directionalize access. He said this issue would be addressed at the site plan stage. Mr. Vernon indicated the plans are incorporated by reference in the agreement. If a conflict arises between the site plan and development agreement, the development agreement controls. If the development agreement is silent. the site plan controls. ., ',"~ v :;!''!IJ Commissioner Seel questioned if Mr. Vernon anticipates any surprises. Mr. Vernon said the permitting process could result in some surprises. He did not anticipate any regarding critical issues. Mr. Shuford said Central Permitting and the Engineering departments agree. He said the Commission is apPrDving the development agreement, not the site plan. The site plan is just the concept. - Commissioner Clark moved to approve the proposed development agreement between the City and James A. Vogel and Hazel E. Vogel. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #4 - Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 10:23 a.m. ATTEST'_ 0()')\,,~ c. Ji..... J1.~. City Clf!rk IJ msp07a.96 4 07/15/96