Loading...
05/10/1994 CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING May 10, 1994 The Charter Review Committee met in the City Commission Chambers at City Hall, third floor, 112 S. Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, Florida, on Wednesday, May 10, 1994 at 6:05 p.m. with the following members present: Gerald Figurski, Chairman (arrived 6:48 p.m.) Joe Evich Anne Garris Kenneth Hamilton (arrived at 6:10 p.m.) Al Lijewski Curlee Rivers Tony Salmon Karen Seel (arrived at 6:15 p.m.) Les Smout Absent: Jerry Lancaster, Vice-Chairman Also present: Kathy Rice, Deputy City Manager Jeff Harper, Director Administrator Services Margie Simmons, Assistant Finance Director George McKibben, Purchasing Manager Dan Katsiyiannis, Internal Audit Manager Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk Member Salmon called the meeting of the Charter Review Committee (CRC) to order. Deputy City Manager Rice introduced staff in attendance to address committee questions regarding Sec. 2.01(d)(1) limitations on total indebtedness of the city and city purchases in excess of $10,000. Margie Simmons distributed a handout. She said the city issues debt for equity reasons so that a capital purchase is paid for over a number of years rather than all at once. She explained debt ratings are important to keep the interest rate down. If the city limits its debt too much, the rating agencies rate bonds lower. She said it is better to keep a large debt margin to look more favorable to issue debt if there was a catastrophe. In response to questions, Ms. Simmons said the city's current debt limitation is 2.4% and the city has not done a bond issue that is not insured. Reviewing the current city's legal debt margin of $757,980,567, Ms. Simmons indicated the city is well within its 20% debt margin. In response to whether the city's total indebtedness included general obligation bonds, Ms. Simmons indicated it includes all city debt. A question was raised why the charter did not reference general obligation bonds under limitations. Ms. Simmons said it is assumed as part of the "total indebtedness." It was felt this section was not clear. Ms. Simmons said most municipal charters only limit the GOB debt. A question was raised as to what debt other than revenue, refinancing, improvement bonds reflected in the charter and general obligation bonds was included in the total indebtedness of the city. Ms. Simmons responded enterprise fund revenue bonds, community redevelopment agency tax increment revenue bonds and notes, mortgages and contracts. A question was raised if there would be a problem if the charter just reflected total indebtedness of the city and Ms. Simmons said it would not change the interpretation. She noted the city has only .01% in GOB outstanding at this time. She reviewed the legal debt margins of other governmental entities. Discussion ensued in regard to the legal indebtedness limitation for the City of Clearwater being approximately $750,000,000. A question was raised if we reach this limitation, how would the millage rate be impacted. It was indicated this would be difficult to determine because only one-third of the revenue in the general fund is direct ad valorem taxes. It was indicated, historically, the indebtedness of the city has been similar to what it is now. It was indicated the city is in good financial shape and it was felt a reduction from 20% to 15% in the current assessed valuation of all real property was not significant. The committee felt this would reduce the city's financial exposure. Deputy City Manager Rice said the city is nowhere near the indebtedness limitation and found no need to change the current percentage. Concern was expressed the city did not go into debt in the future as growth has declined. Internal Auditor Dan Katsiyiannis said the other cities reviewed do not consider enterprise fund debts with respect to the indebtedness limitation. He said user fees are responsible or security for paying on the debt. He suggested if the percentage is reduced, it be applicable to the general obligation debt. It was indicated before bonds can be issued the city needs to prove it has revenue coverages to pay for them and certain requirements have to be met. If the bonds can not stand on their own and if they are not needed, the city will not issue them. If the bonds go into default, the only thing affected is the security that is pledged and other assets can not be moved against. In response to a question, Ms. Simmons responded utility and revenue bonds are not backed by the city. She noted the financial statement includes all the revenue streams. $10,000 Purchase Limitation Purchasing Manager George McKibben reviewed the city's current purchasing policies which are established by ordinance. In response to questions, Mr. McKibben indicated the city processes approximately 120 bids a year plus 20 construction items and raising the limit of purchases requiring commission action to $20,000 would reduce bids going to the commission by 50-75%. Discussion ensued in regard to the bid process being a lengthy procedure resulting in missed manufacturers ordering cut-off dates, vendors not holding prices, etc. Staff is recommending to allow the commission to set the maximum award allowed without commission action in the purchasing ordinance. Discussion ensued in regard to sometimes having difficulty in obtaining three bids. However, obtaining three bids is preferred and items are sometimes rebid. Concern was expressed the charter does not specifically address the purchasing of real property just the disposal. In response to a question, it was indicated deleting the words "the commission" from subsection (d)(2) regarding purchases in excess of $10,000 would allow the commission the flexibility to set the limit by ordinance. It was noted the purchases are already approved in the budget and if items are bought off the state contract, bids are not required and items can be ordered immediately. A request was made to add language to give preference to a local bidder if all things are equal. Deputy City Manager Rice indicated a lot of state bid contracts are used and there are not always local vendors bidding. Mr. McKibben said preference is given to local bidders if the bid is equal. Ms. Rice suggested addressing local bidders in the purchasing ordinance rather than in the charter. Staff recommended allowing the commission to set the maximum award allowed without commission approval; however, would like an exemption from the $10,000 bidding in a declared emergency. Discussion ensued in regard to the City Manager declaring an emergency and afterwards seeking ratification from the commission. In response to questions, it was indicated buying from state contract reduces the amount of paperwork and time and there are no requirements to award directly to a qualified small business or woman and/or minority owned. It was noted it is difficult to prove discrimination. A question was raised what is Pinellas County's purchase limitation and it was indicated $10,000. This limitation is established by ordinance. (d) Surplus property. Discussion ensued as to the intent of this subsection. Questions were raised whether all leases of city property have to be declared surplus after a three-year term and every three years thereafter. The charter reads municipal real property declared surplus may be leased for a maximum of 15 years. A question was raised what happens after a 15-year period, can leases be renewed or have to be rebid. Cited were the city marina, the Head Start and the pier pavilion leases. A recommendation was made to add language indicating "for periods no longer than 15 years but with the option to renew." Chairman Figurski believed the language regarding real property being leased for a maximum of 15 years was for the purpose of one commission not binding another for a long period of time. A question was raised if the marina property should be addressed in an individual section in the charter. Staff to provide legal opinions to the committee regarding this issue for the next meeting. Richard Twining suggested to maintain control of city property, the city lease the land for a very long term, such as 40 years, taking in cash an amount equivalent to the value of the land as a lease premium. He felt a business would not want to invest in unimproved property if there is a 15-year limit on lease of city property. A question was raised whether some leases should be categorized industrial and it was felt there was no important need for change. Discussion ensued in regard to each lease being individually negotiated and structured. A question was raised if staff had a problem with addressing the marina or the pavilion property in the industrial section. Ms. Rice saw no problem with this from a staff prospective; however, noted there have been problems with interpretation.  Legal staff to address. A question was raised as to the number of leases the city has that are for over a three-year term. Staff to provide. It was questioned whether leases should be addressed under surplus property. A question was raised if it would be realistic to define a lease involving capital improvements greater than a certain amount as an industrial lease and it was felt it was. In response to a question, Ms. Rice indicated the city's travel policy has always tracked the State Statute. Article IX. Fiscal Management Procedure Ms. Simmons said this section provides that revenue bonds for projects in excess of one million dollars shall be put to referendum except for public health, safety, or industrial development. She said this provision is vague requiring interpretation and causes a problem. Having to validate bonds to prove this may cause a lost opportunity of obtaining low bonds. She indicated staff is suggesting to raise the limit. The city's Bond Counsel suggests adding a provision that bonds be issued in accordance with the Florida Constitution. A question was raised if staff had decided on a bond amount that should go to referendum, would $10 million be appropriate. Ms. Rice said staff has not decided, they feel it should be more than a million but less than $20 million. The $40 million advanced wastewater treatment required by EPA was cited as a necessary project that could have been voted down if it had to go to referendum. A suggestion was made to add language "if it is mandated by federal or state government." It was felt this language was also vague. Concern was expressed in using bond counsel's recommended language as it was believed they have a vested interest. Staff to research. Discussion ensued in regard to the city's travel policy. Ms. Rice indicated there had been questions regarding commission's local and out-of-town travel. It was noted commission policy is there is no reimbursement for local travel. She said there have been no real problems regarding commission travel. Member Salmon moved in Section 2.01(d) Limitations (1), to delete the language "which for the purpose of this limitation shall include revenue, refunding and improvement bonds." The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Hamilton said he would like to allow staff to speed up the bid process to function more efficiently. Member Hamilton moved to amend Section 2.01(d)(2) to read "All purchases in excess of $20,000 shall be awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible vendor, selected after receiving sealed, competitive bids from no less than three qualified vendors whenever practical." Recommendations included raising the purchase limit to $25,000 and leaving it at $10,000 letting the commission set the limit. Concern was expressed the purchase of real property was not addressed in this subsection. The motion was duly seconded. Discussion ensued in regard to the commission being able to set a limit more restrictive than the charter. Member Hamilton withdrew his motion. The seconder concurred. Member Hamilton moved to amend Section 2.01(d) Limitations (2) to read "All purchases in excess of $10,000, but less than $25,000, shall be awarded to the lowest and most responsive and responsible bidder, selected after receiving sealed competitive bids from no less than three qualified vendors whenever practical; provided, however, all purchases in excess of $25,000 shall be awarded by the commission. No contract or purchase...". The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The meeting recessed from 7:57 p.m. to 8:01 p.m. Section 2.01(5) Member Garris referred to a 1982 news article regarding the bayfront hotel that was proposed to be built below the downtown Maas Brothers store in Clearwater without going to referendum. All the approvals were received from the commission; however, there were financial problems and the project was not completed. She said in 1983 there was a referendum regarding the bayfront to amend the charter to provide that except for municipal property designated for the Bandshell Site, municipal property located west of Osceola Avenue between Drew and Chestnut Streets and the Memorial Causeway may not be developed for other than open space ... without approval at a referendum election. She said she did know the ordinance actually specified below the 28 foot line. She said it was important in 1983 that the bluff be protected from development. Concern was expressed no one really knows the exact location of the 28 foot line. She felt any development west of Osceola Avenue should go to referendum and recommended deleting the reference to the 28 feet. Discussion ensued in regard to leaving the reference to the 28 feet in the charter as it provides protection for the bayfront. It was felt there was no need to reopen the issue. Member Evich moved that Section 2.01(5) remain unchanged. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Chairman is to contact Assistant City Manager Bill Baker regarding the location of the 28-foot line. Section 2.02 Qualifications Member Salmon noted the model charter recommends no residency requirements and other city charters recommend 6 months to a year. Member Hamilton moved that Section 2.02 Qualifications remain unchanged. The motion was duly seconded. Member Garris felt candidates should be residents of the city longer than a year. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. Member Seel suggested adding "continued residency." It was felt this was not necessary as the charter addressed this. Referring back to Section 2.01(d) Limitations, Member Salmon said recommendations have been made by citizens' groups which included adding a paragraph limiting the percentage of city owned non-used property that can be off the tax rolls at any one time; excluding commissioners from CRA membership; limiting the allowable transactions between the city and the CRA so they cannot circumvent the charter; and not purchasing any real property nor constructing any new building costing in excess of $2 million without first obtaining two appraisals, submitting construction costs for bid and submitting purchase or construction to referendum. Chairman Figurski indicated State Statutes determines what properties are on the tax rolls. In response to a question, it was indicated if the city leases property to a profit making organization, taxes are paid. Discussion ensued in regard to limiting the percentage of city owned non-used property that can be off the tax rolls at any one time. It was felt the city and the commission should monitor this. Consensus was not to explore. Discussion ensued in regard to transactions between the CRA and the commission. Concern was expressed regarding the CRA selling property for less than the appraised value. Bob Wright expressed concern in selling property for less than what the city paid for it and the CRA borrowing money from the city paying no interest. He suggested when surplus real property is transferred to another government entity, it be for the appraised value after advertised public hearings and the finding of a valid public purpose for the transfer. He believed the CRA should pay the going interest rate on city loans. A question was raised whether the CRA is established by State Statute and what defines its composition of the members. Member Hamilton said he did not want to preclude the commission from having the ability to transfer real property for less than appraised value. Member Evich expressed concern regarding fiduciary responsibilities in having the same members on the commission as the CRA. A question was raised if there are any other similar agencies within the City of Clearwater. Discussion ensued in regard to the commission not purchasing any real property nor constructing any new buildings costing in excess of $2 million without first obtaining two appraisals, submitting construction costs for bid and submitting purchase or construction to referendum. It was questioned whether this is covered under the State Statute. Member Evich moved that the purchase and/or construction of real property or buildings when costs exceed $2 million shall not occur without obtaining two appraisals and must go to public referendum. A question was raised as to what was trying to be accomplished or prevented. The Sun Bank Building purchase was cited. Another question was raised regarding whether there should be a $500,000 dividing line for appraisals. Concern was expressed in having to go to referendum often in order to do the business of the city. Member Evich withdrew his motion. Concern was expressed in regard to going to referendum on projects that are necessary and being voted down by the citizens. Anne Garris left the meeting and indicated her preference for term limits. Meeting dates. Discussion ensued in regard to upcoming meetings of the Charter Review Committee. Meetings were scheduled for Thursday, May 19, 1994 at 4:30 p.m. and Thursday, May 24, 1994 and Tuesday, May 31, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. Locations will be determined at a later date. Section 2.03 Election and terms Member Salmon saw no urgency in creating term limits indicating there have been no career politicians in Clearwater. He believed there should not be a need for term limits in the City of Clearwater. It was indicated it takes time for a commissioner to become experienced and understand what goes on. Discussion ensued in regard to term limits. It was felt the City of Clearwater does not have the problem with single member districts and incumbency which is a reason for term limits. Member Salmon noted the model charter does not recommend either way. It was felt public sentiment favors term limits. Recommendations included two four-year terms, four three-year terms and four year terms. A question was raised if a former commissioner and/or mayor could run after a break in service. It was indicated they could. Member Evich moved to amend Section 2.03 by adding the language "No one commissioner, including the mayor-commissioner, shall serve more than twelve consecutive years as mayor-commissioner and/or commissioner." after the second sentence. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Members Evich, Lijewski, Rivers, Salmon, Seel, Smout and Figurski voted "aye;" Member Hamilton voted "nay;" Members Garris and Lancaster "absent." Motion carried. Member Hamilton noted he voted against the motion because he is opposed to term limits. Discussion ensued in regard to when term limits would become effective if placed on the ballot and approved. Member Evich moved that term limits, if approved at referendum, would become effective at the next municipal election. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2.04 Compensation and expenses A suggestion was made to add the language "pursuant to Florida law" at the end of the paragraph. It was indicated this would not address intown travel. It was felt the commission should be compensated for all their travels. The Chairman is to check the Florida Statutes regarding intown travel expenses. Discussion ensued in regard to salary increases for the commission. It was noted the positions are parttime and the salaries should not get to the point where they are professionally attractive. They should remain political palatable. It was felt the concern of the citizens when the commission discussed salary increases previously, was they tried to circumvent the charter in regard to the effective date of the increase. It was felt the size of the increase proposed was also an issue. It was believed the salary amount should not be specified in the charter. Discussion ensued regarding the charter being set up to let the Commission determine the annual salary to become effective at the next regular election. The model charter noted a high salary makes the commission think of themselves as managers as opposed to policy setters. It also suggests the salary be sufficient not substantial. Concern was expressed if the recommended salary is too high, it will become the only issue on the ballot. A recommendation was to have a provision that the commission receive the same increases as the unions once a salary is established. Comparing the salary figures for approximately six cities between 70,000 to 150,000 in population, the average is $16,000 for mayor and $13,700 for commissioner. Member Smout said he went back to 1980 salaries and used a 4% per year compounding which came to approximately $18,000 for commissioner and $21,600 for mayor. It was questioned whether commission increases should be tied to union raises. Member Evich moved to recommend to the commission as a referendum item that the salaries be raised to $18,000 for commissioner and $21,600 for mayor. The motion was duly seconded. Consensus was that there should be a salary increase but not to include the salary amount in the charter. The motion was withdrawn. Member Hamilton expressed concern regarding a news articles written by a committee member about the CRC. He said he was misquoted. He questioned whether the CRC is dealing with a member of the press or another committee member. He requested discussion at the next meeting. The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.