Loading...
08/10/1998CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF CLEARWATER August 10, 1998 Present: Timothy A. Johnson, Jr. Chair Douglas Hilkert Vice Chair Richard Fitzgerald Committee Member Pat Greer Committee Member (arrived 4:12 p.m.) Judy Mitchell Committee Member Jackie Tobin Committee Member Mayme Hodges Committee Member Grant Petersen Committee Member (arrived 4:12 p.m.) Pam Akin City Attorney Bob Keller Assistant City Manager-Economic Dev. Alan Ferri Director Clearwater Housing and Urban Dev. Mary K. Diana Assistant City Clerk Brenda Moses Board Reporter Absent: William Justice Committee Member Carolyn Warren Committee Member The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. at the Adler Room in the Main Clearwater Library. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. Item 2 - Approve Minutes from Meeting of July 20, 1998 Member Hodges requested sentence 8 of the last paragraph on page 3 be changed to “...during general elections...” Member Mitchell moved to approve the minutes as amended. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Item 3 - Set Dates for Additional Meetings See page 7. Item 4 - Continuing Discussion re Article II, Section 2.01(d)(4), (5), (6) Section 2.01(d)(4)(ii) Assistant City Manager Bob Keller said this section deals with real property declared surplus that must be sold to the party submitting the highest competitive bid above the appraised value, subject to limitations. It causes problems for economic and community development. Foreclosed properties the City wants to convert back into productive housing have a value significantly less than the appraised value, or sometimes no value. Should the property be deeded to a nonprofit agency, placing a value on it becomes prohibitive for the nonprofit to accept ownership and redevelop it. In a totally built out community, for the City to do the type of business development it wants, requiring the City to sell to the highest bidder results in the City’s inability to add an incentive package or forces the City to use the property for a use it does not want. He suggested it be in the purview of the Commission to dispose of the property by a majority vote. Staff recommends this provision be eliminated. Housing and Urban Development Director Alan Ferri said deleting this provision would alleviate the City’s problems regarding existing problems in North and South Greenwood, an area designated by the federal government as a neighborhood revitalization strategy area. There are 450 vacant buildable parcels of land in that area. Some parcels have already experienced demolition or have liens on them. It has been difficult to foreclose on these properties because of the disposition clause regarding selling to the party submitting the “highest and best” offer above appraised value. If this section were eliminated in the Charter, the City could use federal resources to begin foreclosure proceedings on those properties, giving title to nonprofit and for profit developers. Due to the success of the in-fill housing program, property values have become inflated, which impacts the ability to sell those foreclosed properties. In response to a question, the City Attorney said the City cannot abate real estate taxes on properties, but with the proposed changes, the City can give properties to someone if they agree to maintain and pay taxes on it. Section 2.01(d)(4)(i) Member Tobin moved that Section(d)(4)(i) read: “Prior to the sale, lease for a term (including options to renew) longer than five years, donation or other transfer of any municipal real property, the real property must be declared surplus and no longer needed for municipal public use by the Commission at an advertised public hearing.” The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Section 2.01(d)(4)(ii) Member Tobin moved that Section 2.01(4)(d)(ii) read: “Except as otherwise provided herein, real property declared surplus shall be sold, donated, leased for a term (including options to renew) longer than five years or otherwise transferred to the party whose proposal meets the terms set by the Commission and who will use the property in accordance with the Commission’s stated purpose for declaring the property surplus, if any.” The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Section 2.01(d)(4)(iii) Member Tobin moved that Section((d)(4)(iii) be changed to read: “Surplus real property may be transferred with or without consideration to another governmental entity after an advertised public hearing has been held and a finding by the Commission of a valid public purpose for the transfer.” The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Section 2.01(d)(4)(iv) Member Tobin moved that Section 2.01(d)(4)(iv) be changed to read: “Surplus real property may be exchanged for other real property having an acceptable value as determined by the Commission at an advertised public hearing.” The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Section 2.01(d)(4)(v) The City Attorney said this section allows the City to lease properties identified as recreation/open space for an existing use, not necessarily to the same party. Under the existing provision, the City was unable to lease those properties without a referendum. Consensus was not to change this section. The Chair made suggestions to shorten the section to read: “No municipally owned real property identified as recreation/open space on the City’s comprehensive land use plan map as existed on November 16, 1989, (or as may be amended thereafter), may be sold, leased for a new use, donated, or otherwise transferred without prior approval at referendum, except the Commission may dedicate rights-of-way from properties identified as recreation/open space. Recreation/open space property may be leased for an existing use, without referendum, unless such lease is otherwise prohibited by Charter or ordinance.” In response to a question, the City Attorney said people are sensitive to issues such as recreation/open space property. The Mayor said people did not realize the provision was referring only to leasing, not selling the property. It was remarked the Chair’s suggested changes fall under non-substantive changes. Consensus was to leave this section as is. Section 2.01(d)(4)(vi) It was remarked this provision provides public access to the waterways and the harbor. Suggestions were made to designate certain areas as street-ends and to include a provision the City provide adequate policing of these rights-of-way or easements such that their use by the public does not constitute a nuisance. Discussion ensued regarding the City’s obligation for policing rights-of-way and what is considered a nuisance. Concern was expressed policing of these areas would put an additional burden on the City. The City Attorney noted this provision is not uncommon for waterfront communities. A provision allowing the commission to terminate or limit rights-of-way was suggested. It was noted the commission makes the determination whether or not a public nuisance exists. It was indicated almost anything can be changed with a referendum and it would be redundant to add the requirement of a referendum regarding vacation or termination of rights-of-way. Consensus was to leave this section as is. Section 2.01(d) 4)(vii) The City Attorney said this provision is unclear regarding the renewal of a second 30-year lease. If the initial term is 5 years with a 30 year renewal, that is all one is entitled to. It was suggested this language be revised if the City wants to allow a lease for up to 60 years. This section was intended to permit a longer lease term to an individual. Member Hilkert moved to delete Section 2.01(d)(4)(vii). The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Members Johnson, Hilkert, Greer, Mitchell, Tobin, Hodges, and Petersen voted “Aye”; Member Fitzgerald voted “Nay.” Motion carried. Member Fitzgerald indicated he was involved in expanding the current provision and believed problems will be created in trying to explain its deletion. Section 2.01(d)(4)(viii) It was remarked when property is leased, a reverter clause is not necessary as the property is given back at the end of a lease. In response to a question, the City Attorney said this provision may have been intended to address the sale of property. Member Hilkert moved to delete Section 2.01(d)(4)(viii). The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Section 2.01(d)(4)(ix) The City Attorney said the Attorney General’s opinion states if there is no provision on purchasing, the City is bound by State law, which is more restrictive than this provision in the Charter. In response to a question, the City Attorney said a dollar limitation must remain in the provision. Consensus was to leave this section as is. Section (d)(5) The City Attorney said this section involves the entire bluff, below the 28 foot line. It was remarked the “bandshell site” was an area that is now the bottom level of the current Harborview Center. This provision requires a referendum for marinas, additional parking, restaurants, and anything other than open space and public utilities. In response to a question, the City Attorney said the land the City owns immediately contiguous to the Memorial Causeway includes the parking lot on Pierce Street. It was not known if it was built prior to the adoption of this provision. In response to a question, the City Attorney said the term “public health, safety, and welfare” is broad enough to cover economic development in that area. She said the bond counsel’s interpretation of the City’s bond provision does not allow for a new main library since it does not fall under the “public health, safety, or industrial development” category. Consensus was to leave this section as is. Section 2.01(d)(5) No changes. Section 2.01(d)(6) It was noted this section was discussed at a previous meeting. Section 2.01(d)(7) In response to a question, the City Attorney said the intent of this section was to ensure City-owned property remains for City use, from the street to the waterfront as opposed to the 28 foot mean sea level elevation. This provision does not allow the City to lease property for other than City facilities. Although a marina qualifies under this section, there is a requirement for a referendum from a previous section. It was remarked Section 2.01(d)(5) deals with use while under City ownership and 2.01(d)(7) deals primarily with disposition of property. In response to a question, the City Attorney said should the City decide to move City Hall and then want to sell the property, a referendum is required. Consensus was not to change this section. Section 2.02 It was noted this section was discussed at a previous meeting. Section 2.03 A suggestion was made to consider how this board’s previous recommendation affects special Commission meetings. It was suggested changing the wording “at the next regularly scheduled meeting to “at the next meeting.” Member Hilkert moved that the last paragraph of this section read “Newly elected Commissioners shall take office and be sworn in at the next Commission meeting after the election.” The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. It was suggested recommending to the Commission they consider elimination of term limits. Concern was expressed in recommending eliminating something that is so new and has not yet taken place. Member Tobin moved that the Charter Review Committee recommend the Commission eliminate term limits. The motion was duly seconded. Discussion continued regarding a recommendation of undoing a provision that passed by such a large margin and an opinion was expressed to eliminate it now would undercut the credibility of the committee. It was noted this provision created a situation regarding Commissioner Clark’s re-election which needs to be addressed. A suggestion was made to increase the length of a term from 3 to 4 years. Concern was expressed within the next five years, there will be five new Commissioners. It was felt voters should have the right to re-elect or not to re-elect a candidate. Upon the vote being taken, Members Tobin and Hodges voted “aye”; Members Johnson, Hilkert, Fitzgerald, Greer, Mitchell, and Petersen voted “nay.” Motion failed. Discussion ensued regarding language to address Commissioner Clark’s situation. He took office as a result of a special election and is permitted to run for re-election the next time his seat comes up for election, but would only be permitted to serve 60 or 90 days, then be removed. It was requested the City Attorney provide language regarding this matter. Section 2.04 It was felt the length of time for passage of annual salary increases should be shortened. It was suggested a salary adjustment tied to the CPI (Consumer Price Index) be considered. It was noted in the corporate world, there is no longer a process for incorporation of cost of living adjustments to salaries. It was remarked the County Commissioners receive automatic salary increases and/or decreases based on population. Consensus was to leave this section as is. Set Dates for Additional Meetings Discussion ensued regarding in what format the recommended charter changes should be presented to the Commission. The City Attorney felt the committee may want the Commission to look at each concept before the ballot questions are developed and how the recommended changes will be grouped. It was requested a marked up version of the Charter including substantive and non-substantive changes be prepared a week in advance of the September 14th meeting. Discussion ensued regarding setting additional meetings. Consensus was to schedule meetings on September 14 and September 28, 1998 and to cancel the meeting on September 21, 1998. Item 4 - Set Agenda for August 31, 1998 Consensus was not to set a specific agenda, but continue review of the Charter as time allows. Item 5 - Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 5:32 p.m.