Loading...
07/13/1992 CITY COMMISSION WORK SESSION July 13, 1992 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met at City Hall with the following members present: Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner Richard Fitzgerald Vice-Mayor/Commissioner Sue A. Berfield Commissioner Lee Regulski Commissioner Arthur X. Deegan Commissioner Also present were: Michael J. Wright City Manager M. A. Galbraith, Jr. City Attorney Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk The Mayor called the meeting to order at 2:53 p.m. and the following items were discussed. Three Service Pins were awarded to City employees. Employee of the Month, July, 1992 was awarded to Neil Sickler, Public Works/Engineering. Public Hearing regarding Drew Gardens Retirement Community Project and the issuance of Mortgage Revenue Refunding Bonds not to exceed $6,450,000; Res. #92-47 approving the issuance of the bonds; and Ord. #5256-92 authorizing the issuance (AS) On April 16, 1992, the Commission adopted Resolution #92-31 authorizing the analysis and review of an issue of Mortgage Revenue Refunding Bonds for the purpose of refunding in whole or in part the City's $6,450,000 Mortgage Revenue Bonds, Series 1983, for the Drew Gardens Apartment project. The City's bond counsel and financial advisor were directed to prepare the necessary documents for such financing. In a June 24, 1992 letter, the underwriter for the refunding bonds advised that the Trustee, at the direction of HUD is planning to call the old bonds on September 1, 1992 in part by proceeds made available from the sale of the Refunding Bonds. A Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) hearing is required for the Refunding Bonds under Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code to allow public comment on the proposed bond issue and was advertised on July 2 to provide the necessary 14 day notice. The City's bond counsel has prepared a TEFRA resolution authorizing the issuance of the Mortgage Refinancing Bonds and a Bond Ordinance approving the form of the financing documents by resolution. Significantly, both the resolution and ordinance contain provisions stating that issuance of the bonds do not constitute an obligation of the City. Financing documents in final form, including the bond indenture, will be available at the public hearing and second reading of the bond ordinance at the August 13 Commission meeting. Approval of the TEFRA Resolution #92-47 and adoption of Bond Ordinance #5256-92 on first reading will enable the subsequent preparation of the placement memorandum and resolution to award the bonds to meet the September 1 deadline set by HUD. Importantly, neither action will obligate or require the City to issue the Refunding Bonds. In response to questions, the City Manager stated the existing bonds are being called because of a default on the mortgage. The City's bond counsel says there is no City liability. In response to a question, it was stated HUD absorbed the default, and the bond holders are all paid. There is no stigma attached to the City as the default is on the mortgage, not the bonds. Sound System (WSO) Gerard Hoeck reviewed his suggestions for improving the sound system as follows. 1) relocate the controls so they are accessible to the Clerk. With the current gated system, if there is not enough pressure into the mike, it automatically shuts off; 2) split System - separate the two microphone systems; 3) install another power amplifier so the speaker system in the Chambers can be separated from the one in the Manager's office - commercial grade needed; 4) new lapel microphones - condenser vs. dynamic; will need to maintain a supply of batteries; possible replacement of goosenecks with condenser microphones on thinner necks; also will need to replace all lapel connectors; 5) install sound absorption material in the hallway outside the Chambers; and 6) install a hearing impaired section. Mr. Hoeck also made reference to speakers in other offices and the need for individual amplifiers. In response to questions, Mr. Hoeck stated the whole system would be transferrable to another building. The City Clerk stated the lapel microphones would be assigned to the Commission; the other microphones would be available for other boards. In response to questions, Mr. Hoeck stated the lapel microphones would be new, but not the wireless type. The microphones he recommends are the most reliable he knows of. In response to a question regarding the need for additional speakers, Mr. Hoeck stated they were just installed. Consensus of the Commission was to proceed with the system changes. Service Agreement with Florida Gas Transmission Company (GAS) Our natural gas supplier, Florida Gas Transmission Company (FGT) has become an open access pipeline by order of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). This allows other natural gas suppliers and local distribution companies (LDC), like the City of Clearwater, to transport gas over FGT pipelines. In order to reduce our gas cost and make Clearwater Gas System more profitable, we would like to convert 50 percent of our Preferred Sales Service to Preferred Transportation Service (PTS). We are currently transporting only 30 percent. Under the FERC approved transition plan, each year FGT allows the LDC's to convert a certain percentage of their Preferred Sales Service gas to Transportation Service. The 50 percent level represents the maximum that we can convert to PTS as of August 1, 1992. The increased conversion will allow Clearwater Gas System to purchase natural gas from one of our five currently contracted suppliers on the spot market. Fiscal year to date through April 1992, Clearwater Gas System has saved $215,000 by buying natural gas on the spot market and transporting the gas to our gate stations. In response to a question regarding the maximum that can be converted, Mr. Warrington stated the maximum is 50%, but will increase to 100% when a ruling is rendered, probably in the spring. He stated costs have increased. Declare property located at 25 Causeway Blvd., Clearwater Marina Slip #153, City Park Sub., Lot 10 as surplus and approve the extension of a Lease Agreement with Brad Young and Charles Pollick, d/b/a Bait House for the period 10/1/92-9/30/97, for the total sum of $30,000 plus an additional amount of 8% of monthly gross sales exceeding $10,000 (MR) Brad Young and Charles Pollick were assigned the Bait House Lease Agreement on January 12, 1988. The lease agreement extended a first option to the lessee to renew for an additional five year period, using the same terms and conditions, subject to the City and lessee negotiating in good faith a new rental rate and subject to the lessee not being in default under the terms and conditions of the lease. Mr. Young and Mr. Pollick have spent approximately $22,000 for improvements and repairs to the Bait House. The current lease agreement calls for a fixed monthly rental payment of $400 plus tax, with an additional amount equal to 8% of monthly gross sales exceeding $9,000. The Extension of Lease Agreement increases the fixed monthly rental payment to $500 plus tax , with an additional amount equal to 8% of gross sales exceeding $10,000. All other terms and conditions shall continue in full force and effect. In response to questions, the Harbormaster stated the percent of gross sales was collected 10 of 12 months, and they have made improvements to the site. He stated the rent increase was negotiated based on a five year lease. In response to a question regarding why there are annual increases regarding the agreement with Anderson Cruise Line, he stated it is a license agreement not a land lease. License Agreement to Anderson Bay Cruises, Inc., for the period 10/1/92-9/30/97, for a 1st year total of $7,200 plus yearly slip rental increases at the same percentage as other marina commercial tenants on the anniversary date of each following year of the license (MR) The license agreement with Anderson Bay Cruises, Inc. for marina slip 152 expires on September 30, 1992. The original license agreement was issued on October 1, 1982 for a nine month per year operation and included the option to renew the license each year for nine additional years. On March 1, 1989, the license agreement was amended to include a year round operation and slip rent was increased from $5,325 to $6,000 per year, payable at the rate of $500 per month. In an effort to control parking in the marina parking lot, the City has the right to designate the hours of departure of the vessel "Admiral" between 8:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. daily. Under the terms of the license agreement, the licensee will pay $7,200 per year for the first year at the rate of $600 per month plus tax and electric charges, plus an increase at the same percentage as other marina commercial tenants on the anniversary date of each following year of the license. A question was raised regarding item #6 on page 2 of the agreement regarding the ability to assign the agreement. It was stated the agreement is with Anderson Bay Cruises Inc., and if someone bought out the corporation, they would automatically get the agreement. Concern was expressed that someone else may not operate the ferry in the same manner. It was questioned whether the agreement should be limited to a specific person. The City Attorney stated such a change would impact Mr. Henderson's ability to sell the business. It was stated this paragraph could be restricted more or removed from the agreement. Public Hearing - Vacating the W 6.4' of the E 20' drainage & utility easement lying in Lot 35, Woodgate of Countryside Unit Two, less the S 0.7' and the N 21.7' (Albright V92-11) (PW) The applicant's pool structure encroaches approximately 2.2 feet into a 20 foot easement. The decking encroaches another 4.2 feet m.o.l. The applicant is requesting the City vacate the west 6.4 feet of the 20 foot easement. The City has an existing 31 inch by 50 inch corrugated metal storm pipe lying partially under the decking. The edge of pipe is approximately 3.5 feet from the pool. The depth of this pipe is approximately 6 feet. If repairs and/or replacement of the pipe is needed, the City will require approximately 10 feet of work area each side of the pipe. The City has no water, gas or sanitary sewer mains within this easement. The Engineering Division objects to the vacation due to the location of the storm pipe. The Building Official reports "the house was permitted and constructed in 1974, the swimming pool permitted and constructed in 1976. There is no record of the pool and deck knowingly being permitted to be built in the easement". Engineering is requesting this vacation request be denied. All other departments concerned have no objections. The three utility companies have no objections to the request. In response to a question regarding what the alternative is, it was stated the City would tolerate the encroachment until a problem occurs. The City Manager stated the applicant's problem is not being able to acquire clear title to the property. First Reading Ord. #5258-92 - increasing residential solid waste rates to $17.05 per month, increasing commercial solid waste rates an average of $.69 per cubic yard and adjusting miscellaneous charges to cover costs of providing the service (PW) Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM), City consultants, have completed a study and analysis of the solid waste rate structure and recommends increases to provide adequate revenues to fund the Solid Waste Complex and finance operations through 1995. Since the rates they will finally recommend are contingent upon the outcome of the curbside recycling pilot program, they have recommended an interim rate structure, based on the current level of service, sufficient to keep the solid waste system solvent until a decision can be made as to whether, or at what level of service, a City-wide residential and commercial recycling program will be implemented. CDM further recommends once the recycling decision is made, a new rate schedule be adopted to support solid waste operations based on that decision. CDM recommends an interim residential rate of $17.05. This is an increase of $1.63 per household per month. They also recommend the establishment of a residential base rate of $5.42 per household per month for all residences whether the account is active or dormant. The base charge, part of the normal monthly charge for active accounts, will be assessed against dormant accounts and is designed to cover costs of operating the system year-round and for maintaining the capability to meet demands when all accounts are activated. CDM recommends an average commercial rate increase of 19.3 percent. They have proposed a revised rate schedule which will more equitably distribute the cost of service and encourage customers to use the largest containers and the lowest frequency of pick-up feasible. Larger containers picked-up less frequently will save the customer money. The rates recommended by CDM will adequately fund the debt service for the new Solid Waste Complex planned for the Campbell Property at 1701 North Hercules Avenue. Miscellaneous service rates, such as rear yard pick-up, junk and trash pick-up by "Jaws" trucks have been adjusted to cover the cost of the service. These rates, although limited in use, are needed to meet special requirements. They are established on the basis of cost of the trip, labor, equipment usage and disposal costs. It is recommended the proposed rates be implemented effective September 1, 1992 in order that they may be included in customer billings beginning October 1, 1992. Discussion ensued regarding whether the City should consider using a private firm for solid waste operations. A concern was expressed that once the City gets rid of its equipment, it would be at the mercy of the private companies. Concern was also expressed regarding the quality of service. It was stated if the bidders provided all the services the City provides, it was doubtful the bids would be competitive. It was requested this direction be investigated. A question was raised if the new solid waste facility is going to be bonded, citing the need to include the cost of the bonds in establishing the rate increase. It was stated the indebtedness is included as part of the rate structure increase. It was also questioned whether Infrastructure funds could fund the facility. In response to a question regarding current bond rates, it was stated the return would be 5-1/2 to 6 percent. The debt service is $278,000 per year for 20 years, causing a rate increase of 32 cents. Using the infrastructure tax money would effect a $1.33 increase, or less than 10%. A concern was expressed regarding other priority projects being bumped down. Consensus was that a list of the current Penny for Pinellas project commitments and the proposed CIP commitments be supplied prior to Thursday night's meeting. Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5201-92 - relating to flood protection; amending Sec. 146.004, to revise the definition of "substantial improvement" in order to comply with Florida Law relating to the length of time in which certain costs are to be accounted for and limited in certain flood-prone areas (PLD) A change is being proposed to add a five year time limit to the definition of "Substantial Improvement" to conform with the revisions of State Statute 161.54. During the last legislative session, the State of Florida passed a bill specifying a five year time limit for determining the cumulative cost of improvement in determining what constitutes substantial improvement. Substantial improvement occurs when the cost of proposed improvements to a structure exceed 50% of the structure's market value. A structure which has reached substantial improvement must be brought into compliance with all other parts of Chapter 146, City Code of Ordinances, including raising the lowest habitable residential floor above base flood elevation. This proposed change would use a five year period for all applicable construction costs to determine when the substantial improvement limit is reached. The value of the structure at the time of the permit request is used as the baseline for determining substantial improvement. The proposed time period would include all permits issued in the five years prior to the current permit request. The proposed change will provide equal treatment of structures located in all areas of special flood hazard areas within the City as defined by federal rule in 44 C.F.D. 59.2 The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the proposed ordinance on June 30, 1992, and recommended disapproval. They felt the five year limit should apply to only the Coastal Construction Zone as defined by the State. This would include Clearwater Beach and Sand Key. The Board's consensus was to use the minimum time possible on all flood hazard areas outside Clearwater Beach and Sand Key. The time limit for substantial improvement at this time will have no effect on the Community Rating System and the City's rating. Discussion ensued regarding the different types of flood zones throughout the city and whether the five year rule should apply to all zones. Three storm categories were described with reference to their affect on the different flood zones. Concern was expressed that Island Estates and the barrier island would receive the same amount of flood damage in all storm categories. In response to a question regarding what the city's intention is with the amendment, it was stated the city desires to comply with State Law which limits improvements to a structure, if not elevated above the flood plain, to 50 percent of the value of the structure cumulative over a five year period. State Law is more restrictive than Federal Law, but it only relates its ruling to barrier islands for Clearwater, rather than all flood prone properties. Concern was expressed regarding the equal protection law which requires that properties similarly situated have the same rules applied. The program is designed to make people elevate their houses so many feet, with a long range objective to minimize the damage caused by flooding from storms. Review of the slosh map and further discussion ensued regarding the flood areas in city citing the lower bluff area, along the creeks and on the causeway. Concern was expressed that there are inland areas prone to flooding, and repetitive loss should have more stringent regulations. Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5257-92 - amending Ch. 134 & Sec. 137.005 relating to signs and sign regulations (PLD) The City's existing Sign Regulations have been in effect since October, 1985. The regulations are now proposed to be updated in order to promote standardization with Pinellas County's recently adopted Sign Regulations. There is no contemplated change to the sign amortization program: there will be a continued requirement that all nonconforming signs be made to conform or be removed by October 13, 1992. The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed and recommended approval of the new regulations subject to three modifications: 1) political signs be allowed to address any political issue, whether the issue is the subject of a referendum or not; 2) flags on multi-family zoned property be restricted to one flag per unit, rather than one flag per property; and 3) the sign size increase that is allowed for buildings set back from rights of way be measured from the new right of way line where there exists an approved road widening project. Other changes requested at the meeting were: 1), 2), 3) & 4) by Bill Jonson: 1) Include the first amendment protection clause that is part of the Countywide Code, thereby allowing any lawful noncommercial message on any sign allowed under the sign regulations; 2) Prohibit neon lighting which is not an integral part of the architecture; 3) Do not allow sandwich board signs in downtown; 4) Lessen the amount of additional sign size given to buildings that are positioned distant from rights of way; 5) & 6) by Paul Taylor: 5) Allow attached signs on the basis of 10% of the building facade and 6) Adopt Countywide Code as written, with the "10% rule" described in #5. The Development Code Adjustment Board reviewed the new sign regulations on July 9, 1992 and recommended approval of the proposed Ordinance #5257-92 subject to four conditions: 1) ensure major tenants in shopping centers located in Neighborhood Commercial and General Commercial zoning districts are not adversely impacted by the size limitations on attached signs; 2) the maximum sign size for projecting signs in the Urban Center be increased above 8 square feet; 3) the maximum allowable sign size in the Urban Center be 64 square feet in all subdistricts; and 4) a table be included in the ordinance to identify sign sizes for attached and freestanding signs and include a reference to the sign bonus provisions. One additional change has been requested by the Clearwater Jaycees: allow bus shelter signs and bench signs upon the written approval of the City Commission. The Planning and Development Director stated the public hearing notice was not published as a quarter page ad. Although staff believes the advertisement was sufficient, in order to avoid a challenge, consensus was to hold a public hearing Thursday and advertise by 1/4 page ad for 1st and 2nd readings for September 3 and 17, 1992. Verbal Reports Pier 60 Baithouse Design - A rendering of the building and mock-up of the roof were displayed. A question was raised regarding people having to pay to get into the baithouse, when they should only have to pay to access the pier. City Hall Site - Deputy City Manager Kathy Rice reviewed criteria for three properties, as previously directed by the Commission,and requested further Commission direction. She stated all three sites are in the downtown core area. Once a site is selected, the search for architects can begin. Current City Hall site - If not used for a new city hall, it was questioned if it should be sold, used by the city in another capacity, or perhaps used jointly with the county. The Art Center was approached regarding use of this site, and they are not interested. It was stated there is a concurrency problem with Pierce Street, and a unique problem with the bridge, a height limitation of 60 feet on the bayfront, and a parking garage below the bluff would require a referendum. Bilgore site - This would have to be purchased from the CRA. County approval would be needed for the CRA to sell to a government entity. There is no height restriction, it is in close proximity to the police and fire departments, and the City owns the parking. Drew Street site - This consists of seven parcels including parking adjacent to Drew. The property is currently offered for $813,000. There is no concurrency problem. Discussion ensued regarding the pros and cons of the different sites. Concerns were expressed that there would be traffic and parking problems connected with the current site. It was stated to re-skin the current building would be as costly as constructing a new one. The Maas site was suggested as a potential "city center" with a park. Concern was expressed that consideration of this site would stop negotiations with the Art Center, and affect the City's credibility. In response to a question regarding CRA funding a parking garage, it was stated they could not for City Hall; however, the park could be improved or the building demolished with CRA funds. A question was raised regarding a letter requesting the old "Chick Smith Ford" property be considered. Consensus was not to do so. The majority directed consideration of the Maas Brothers property and the current location. Cruise Ship - The City Manager requested a special meeting to discuss the item and receive direction. He stated the boat is in Tampa and they are anxious to begin. He felt all of the concerns can be adequately addressed. A required conditional use will be scheduled for the Planning and Zoning Board August 4th meeting if Commission agrees. In response to a question regarding the County Navigation Authority, the City Manager stated he believes permitting on the docks would be approved. Clearwater Marine Ways could be used as a temporary basis only due to lack of parking. Consensus was to set the meeting for July 20, 1992 at 9:00 a.m.. with the special work session previously scheduled to follow. (It was later determined this meeting was not needed.) Retail Redevelopment on Beach - The City Manager reported a person considering retail redevelopment on the Beach is interested in a City-owned parking lot immediately south of Eckerd, which basically serves the business area. They are proposing to buy the property at appraised value and incorporate the parking into a redevelopment project. The City is considering the proposition, and a site plan will be brought forward where the parking exceeds what is required. OTHER COMMISSION ACTION Mayor Garvey requested direction regarding Commissioner Berfield's request that the numbers called from her City phone not be tracked in the telephone report. Majority consensus was to honor her request. She asked the Commission if they had any objection to the North Area Council of the Chamber of Commerce making a presentation at the August 13 meeting. There were no objections. Commissioner Regulski questioned whether the Commission wanted to reconfirm or change its position regarding the Radisson request for a Marina. A conditional use was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board and City Commission approved a site plan a few years ago. Background information was requested. Commissioner Deegan questioned the status of a spreadsheet which had been requested. It was indicated it was being sent to the City Commission. He requested an update on what action was being taken regarding a citizen's complaint about Library books. The Deputy City Manager stated a letter has been prepared for the Mayor's signature. Assistant City Manager Betty Deptula stated Jim Massie, the City's Lobbyist, would be present at Thursday's meeting to give a legislative report. The meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m.