Loading...
09/14/1992 CITY COMMISSION WORK SESSION September 14, 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 2:26 p.m. and the following items were discussed. Three service awards were presented to City employees. Sale of City Owned Hillsborough County Property to Hillsborough County - Status Report (WSO) Assistant City Manager Elizabeth Deptula stated the City purchased the 903 acres in 1982/83 for the purpose of spreading sludge from the City's treatment plants. In 1990, 57+ acres were exchanged for a portion of property on Island Estates; another 192 acres were optioned. The City now owns about 653 acres (not including the optioned acreage) which was nominated to Hillsborough County. The City Commission authorized staff to work with Frank Blanford of Tourtelot Brothers, and we have also engaged Ethel Hammer from the Law Firm of Theodore Taub to help with a presentation to Hillsborough County. The property is contiguous to the Pinellas Preserves, about 6,000 acres owned by Pinellas County in the Brooker Creek area. It is immediately south of Lake Fern Road. Hillsborough County has actually indicated interest only in the property that is west of Patterson Road. Additional property is owned by Clearwater on the east side of Patterson. Ms. Hammer stated the City nominated the property for acquisition by Hillsborough County approximately one year ago through the ELAP program. The ELAP program was set up for the purpose of designating funds for the acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands. Ms. Hammer reviewed graphics of the property depicting its location, and the relationship of all approved developments over 100 acres in size in northwest Hillsborough County to show the pressures of development. In response to a question, Ms. Hammer stated Hillsborough County is interested in the east side of Patterson Road. This property is more environmentally stressed, most of it has been cleared, and the cypress heads are stressed as it has been drained for farming activities. Brooker Creek flows through the site, which is one of the main points used to sell the property. Hillsborough has had a very high level of interest in preserving all lands along the Brooker Creek corridor. Ms. Hammer stated the property was nominated for acquisition in 1991. After submission, a Hillsborough County staff assessment team analyzed all the properties nominated and ranked them. One of the stronger criteria used to evaluate the ELAP sites is citizen support, and the Northwest Civic Association showed great interest in the northwest county area. Most of the acquisitions so far have been in east and south Hillsborough County. After presentations, the ELAP committee did a final ranking, of which this property received an overall scoring of 56 points, a B ranking; the cutoff for an A is 60 points. ELAP's ranking was ratified by the Hillsborough County Parks and Recreation Board. The Board of County Commissioners finalized the ranking, directed staff to begin negotiations with A ranked properties and begin discussions with B ranked property owners. Frank Blanford, Tourtelot Brothers, stated the site did not rank as high as other properties because the property has been used and its natural state disturbed. All the property owners aren't necessarily willing sellers, however, as these sites are nominated by environmental groups, etc. One of four conditions of sale must be met by a B ranked property. These conditions are 1) the seller to express interest in discounting the price from that of appraised value; 2) outside financing - if SWFWMD is interested in helping purchase the property (SWFWMD has not shown any interest up to this point); 3) imminent threat of development; for example, if platted, zoned and ready to start requesting permits; 4) approved or funded restoration or resource space park plan. This is where the City could coordinate with Pinellas County because of the proximity of the Pinellas Preserve. The County could assist in the development and/or management of the property to restore it to a natural condition. This approach appears to be favored by Hillsborough County staff as they would like to see the site restored. The City Manager stated the city cannot discount land sold as surplus; therefore, there is a need to enhance the deal, perhaps by making a contribution to Hillsborough County to restore the property after the sale is consummated, and asking Pinellas County to manage it since it abuts their preserve. Another alternative is to withdraw and try to sell the property on the private market. The only interest in the land has been from people who want to put in dirt pits, which are hard to permit. In response to a question regarding the appraised value of the property, Mr. Blanford stated there is no firm appraisal price; however, Hillsborough County has indicated they are looking at spending $3.8 million in that area which may include property to the north. They have approved negotiations and are waiting for a letter from the City of Clearwater to see how they want to approach the classification depending on which of the conditions will be met. They would then do two appraisals; the City may want to do an independent appraisal. Other costs would include testing for metals in the ground or groundwater, and a survey. Discussion ensued regarding what is needed to enhance the property. It was stated they are looking for added value; they have the money to buy but not to enhance the property. An estimate for restoring the property was received at $500-$1,000 per acre. Mr. Blanford stated Hillsborough County is interest in the property as an extension of Brooker Creek. It is on SWFWMD's five year plan to acquire this whole corridor; however, they indicated they will help in the acquisition of the headwaters property, but they have not indicated any interest in helping acquire this. It would be an extension of the wildlife corridor and drainage for that part of the Hillsborough County. Pinellas County might get involved to see that this transaction occurs to avoid development. Additional discussion ensued regarding the amount that would be needed for restoration. It was stated about half of the property needs restoration, amounting to an estimated $200,000. In response to a question, it was stated there is no real disadvantage to holding the property. If it is sold, however, the sewer fund could be paid back, causing a positive impact on sewer rates, or the money could be redesignated. This amounts to about 1/2 of the $3.3 million purchase price, which could be used for an unfunded project. Ms. Hammer stated out of $100 million bonded, about $40 million has been spent. There are always ten A sites as they carry over from year to year if not acquired. The county is interested in proceeding; the City needs to determine which condition they will satisfy and proceed. Being a B site puts the burden on the City to show value in the property. Enhancing the environmental sensitivity of the site is recommended. To make the property attractive for purchase by Hillsborough consensus was to offer $250 per gross acre for restoration of the property and to approach Pinellas County regarding their managing the property in conjunction with their adjacent property. Status of Clearwater Pass Bridge - Volkert (WSO) Tom White, of David Volkert and Associates, displayed a model of what the bridge may look like. Applications for environmental permits have been submitted and are moving along well. The Coast Guard indicated they are basically satisfied with the project. The only holdup is we have to have the DER permit in hand, as others hinge on it. The DER wants some additional soil sampling data, bethnic sampling data, heavy metal testing, and more information about the bottom stability. Mr. White stated the soil sampling data, the pass bottom stability, and modeling work is information in hand. Bethnic sampling, which is determining what lives in the bottom, and heavy metal sampling data is still needed. No problems are anticipated to affect the six month to one year time frame. DNR has changed its rules and now says the project must be demonstrated to be consistent with the approved inlet management plan. There is no such plan. They do seem receptive, however, to the idea of us demonstrating on the basis of information we already have to show the gulf beaches will not be affected. In a worse case scenario, they may say we have to have the inlet management plan, which would probably delay the project and increase the expenses. The project is basically on target with the Corps of Engineers and the Pinellas County Water Navigation Control Authority and is in the design stage. Rights of way are a key issue. Acquisition of rights of way is scheduled to begin around the middle of November. Regarding the bridge plans, a report has been submitted to the DOT for review detailing the individual components, the span lengths, and the foundation type. Final design is expected to begin in the next few weeks. A question was raised as to what will be done with the dredge spoil. Mr. White stated the plan is to de-water it on the southern approach to the bridge to dry it out; then depending on what the spoil is - how much sand, silt, etc. - it will most likely be hauled to upland property for the City to use. In response to a question whether it can be given to property owners, he stated it cannot be given away; DNR considers it state property, and a private party would have to purchase it. A question was asked where the bridge road will intersect with the current roadway, and Mr. White stated the intersection of Gulfview Boulevard will raise a foot or two and will meet existing grade about 50-70 feet north of the intersection. The roadway will be just a little higher than currently by the Hilton. A question was raised regarding whether the Commission would see drawings of the entire project, including the intersection adjustments. It was indicated these were being worked on. Supplemental Agreement No. 5 to contractual agreement with David Volkert and Associates, Inc., to provide additional studies required by permitting agencies and to design utility accommodations regarding Clearwater Pass Bridge Replacement Project, increasing the amount by $111,086 for a new total of $1,153,294.34 (PW) The City's engineering consultant has advised us that the Department of Environmental Regulation has requested additional information regarding the Dredge and Fill Application for the proposed Channel Relocation. Specifically, FDER has requested additional bottom samples for the analysis of the potential presence of heavy metals and further analysis of the benthic infauna (plants and animals living in the marine floor) in the areas proposed for dredging. The consultant will work with subcontractors to obtain the necessary data and submit this data to FDER for their continued application review. We are also advised that the Department of Natural Resources is implementing a new requirement which calls for the development of Inlet Management Planning Documentation prior to the issue of any permitting associated with marine inlets. The Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR) has applied this criteria to the Clearwater Pass Bridge Project. This Inlet Management Documentation will be prepared by Dr. Bernard Ross of Hydrosystems Associates, Inc. At this time, the City proposes to relocate the existing City utility lines for sanitary sewer, potable water and gas to the new bridge structure. These utilities will be constructed at the same time as the new bridge. Because the costs of utility accommodation will not be included in the funding provided by the Federal Highway Association, and because construction management will be conducted by the FDOT, the FDOT requires that a formal Joint Project Agreement between the utility owner (City) and the FDOT be developed for utility accommodations. The proposed supplemental agreement provides for the design of the relocated utilities on the new bridge, the development of temporary utility arrangements during the construction process and formulation of joint project agreements with the FDOT. This portion of the supplemental agreement states that portions of the utility accommodation plan and design to be prepared by the City's Engineering Division. This item allows for: 1) an additional expenditure of $16,322 for further bay bottom study required by FDER; 2) an additional expenditure of $6,630 for the preparation of an Inlet Management Plan (IMP) required by FDNR; and 3) an additional expenditure of $88,134 for the design of City utility relocations. Compensation (hourly rates) for Volkert & Associates for this assignment of additional work is the same as existing and previously approved and have not been increased. In response to questions, Mr. White stated a worst case scenario if the second item is not accepted as an inlet management plan could mean an increase in expenditures at an estimated $100,000; a delay in the projects time frame would probably be 6-8 months. The inlet management plans process would be subcontracted to Hydra Systems, who have done some inlet modeling, of which the inlet management plan consists. Sidewalks on Mandalay Avenue (WSO) The Basic Plan is to remove all sidewalk east of Mandalay Avenue from Marianne Avenue to Papaya Street and replace with all new standard concrete. The contractor will leave open spaces every 25 feet near the curb for Parks and Recreation to plant palm trees. The total cost for this plan is estimated at $16,200. The Full Plan is to remove all sidewalk on the east side of Mandalay Avenue from Marianne Avenue to Papaya Street, replace with all new standard concrete with decorative pavers used as a border along the curbline and around tree wells, install palm trees as in the basic plan. In addition, two pedestrian stations, including benches, newspaper rack, planter, plantings and lighting, would be built in the parking space adjacent to the pedestrian crosswalk. Irrigation and electrical lines would be required. The total cost for this plan is estimated at $53,800. The difference in the Basic plan (routine expenditures) and the Full plan (unbudgeted capital improvements) is $37,600. In response to questions, the Public Works Director stated the pedestrian stations occupy a parking space at the first and second crosswalks, mid-block at Marco and at Baymont. The palm trees will not be damaging to sewer and water lines. The basic plan is in the current contract. There would be tree planting only from Marianne to Papaya. In response to questions, it was stated lighting will be of the gaslight type, located at the crosswalk and only on one side for now. Concern was expressed regarding whether the work would be completed before the tourist season begins, and it was suggested if the time frame does not allow it, the pedestrian stations could be delayed. It was stated irrigation and electrical are the time consuming aspects of the project. Consensus was for Public Works to bring forward an item to construct the Clearwater Beach Blue Ribbon Task Force's recommended "pedestrian stations" on one side of one block, and for Parks and Recreation to plant palm trees on both sides of the street. Discussion ensued regarding the median, and it was being recommended that plants in pots be used. A suggestion was made to use pygmy palms. Concern was expressed that standards of the Department of Transportation need to be met. It was thought the plantings need to be a type than can be run over without damage to a car. Parks and Recreation is to study the treatment of the median and after the impact of the pedestrian station and the palm trees is ascertained bring forward a recommendation. Public Hearing - Declare property located at 401 S. Prospect Ave., Coachman's Heights Revised, Blk C, westerly 110' of Lots 4-6, as surplus to City needs for the purpose of leasing to the IAFF (AS) The IAFF has requested to lease the small frame construction outbuilding next to the present Utilities building on South Prospect. That building, formerly occupied by Utilities, is vacant and in need of a tenant to provide security and upkeep through use. The IAFF does not now have a separate facility for its headquarters that is adequate to its needs and will provide the caretaking and occupancy that will benefit the property. The IAFF is being offered a nominal lease similar to the Haven House recently approved by the Commission with the Pinellas County Arts Council. The vacant Utilities outbuilding has been offered to other City-related activities. All unions were notified of houses on East End properties for disposal. The IAFF was the only union which approached staff and the only activity to express a sincere interest in using the building. The IAFF is willing to assume responsibility for the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance which could cost up to $10,000 to $15,000 and, even though a non-profit organization, has agreed to a monthly rental of $275 or a total of $16,500 for the five-year lease term. In exchange, the City will pay such taxes and fees on the property that may be due. The City Commission is requested to consider and approve the lease agreement with the IAFF for the Utilities outbuilding at 401 South Prospect which contains the major provisions: 1) term is for five years renewable for an additional five years; 2) the IAFF will perform all structural, exterior and interior maintenance; 3) City will retain the responsibility to maintain the grounds to insure proper maintenance of the City's xeriscape exhibit partially located on the leased premises; 4) the IAFF will take actions necessary to comply with the ADA; and 5) the City is responsible for all taxes and fees on the property which could be approximately $3,100 a year. A question was raised whether the IAFF would pay taxes if they are a non-profit, and it was stated they will pay it if a tax is levied. First Reading Ord. #5284-92 - Relating to utilities; amending Secs. 50.05(e)(1) and (3), 50.05(f)(1) and 50.05(g)(1) to decrease domestic water and wastewater rates (AS) In December of 1991, Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM) completed an extensive rate study encompassing both water and sewer rates. Based on their study, the Commission approved rate increases for both water and sewer, effective February 1, 1992, October 1, 1992, and October 1, 1993. In now appears that the actual 1992 cash deficit, originally estimated by CDM to be $2.5 million, is projected to be less than $600,000. Further, the 1993 budget (with original rate increases) is currently projecting a $2.0 million cash surplus, as compared with CDM's original break-even projection. Reasons for the favorable forecast include increased consumption, and reductions in the insurance reserve and pension contribution requirements. In addition, the CDM study included a 5% "inflation factor". The City has been successful in holding most line item expenditure increases to less than this amount. As a result of these favorable factors, staff is able to recommend reductions in the rate increase scheduled for 10/1/92. Ordinance #5284-92 would revise the 10/1/92 scheduled increases (6.8% water and 9.5% sewer) to 4% water and 6% sewer. The ordinance does not propose to modify the increases already scheduled for 10/1/93. However, staff intends to monitor the adequacy of the City's rate structure every six months and will likely be able to recommend a corresponding reduction in the 10/1/93 proposed rates. The proposed rate revision is still projected to generate a FY '93 cash surplus of $1.2 million which should recover the FY 92 cash deficit plus about $600,000. Staff believes this is a reasonable target given the uncertainty surrounding demand for next year and the potential impact of additional mandatory conservation measures. The Mayor requested a presentation be made at Thursday's meeting to emphasize conservation. 1991/92 Third Quarter Budget Review (AS) a. First Reading Ord. #5278-92 - operating budget b. First Reading Ord. #5279-92 - capital improvement program budget This report is based on nine months activity (October, 1991 through June, 1992) in this fiscal year, and although in some instances variances have been noted in revenues and expenditures, some amendments are not proposed until additional data can be analyzed. The General Fund revenue adjustment reflects budgeted increases in licenses and permits, charges for service, interfund other charges, and fines and forfeits, resulting in a net increase in general fund revenues of $230,043 at third quarter. General Fund expenditures are reduced by $380,244 reflecting savings across all general fund departments. Other amendments include the transfer of $200,000 in salary savings in the Police Department budget to the Capital Improvement Program to fund nine patrol vehicles for the west district. Non-Departmental division adjustments include funding of $19,247 for FY '93 social service agency requests as approved by the Commission at the September 3, 1992 Commission meeting, funding of $13,500 to establish a Special Program project to track operating expenditures on the Maas Property, and $20,000 to fund a Capital Improvement Project to provide drawings of the new City Hall. The net transfer to General Fund Surplus at third quarter is $610,287, for a total transfer for FY '91/92 of $944.828. Water operating revenues are increased by $500,000 and inventory purchases are increased by $371,000 at third quarter due to increased water consumption. Bridge fund expenditures reflect funding for the amendment to the Volkert contract for Clearwater Pass Bridge as presented to the Commission on September 17, 1992. Marina operating revenues are increased by $30,000 at third quarter due to a slight increase in projected sales. No amendment to the Parking Fund is proposed at this time. Pier 60 revenues and expenditures are amended at third quarter to reflect the effect of the Pier closing for several weeks for structural repairs, and the continued effect of the slow economy. The proposed budget amendments reflect an increase of $3,000 in the Purchasing Division budget for the purchase of a labeling machine for bulk mailings. The Graphics Division included a budget increase of $6,942 for training and software for the desktop publishing system as approved by the Commission on September 3, 1992, and the Self Insurance Fund reflects amendments to health insurance premiums reflecting the anticipated cost for health insurance, for FY '91/92. The amendments to the Capital Improvement program total a net decrease of $705,585. A suggestion was made that, in the future, the Commission receive only total budget, rather than line item budgets, for approval. Therefore, if money is saved in one area, it can be applied in another area where needed. All the Commission need do is approve the overall budget; knowledge of transfers, line item changes is not needed unless it changes the overall budget dollars. The Police Chief was commended on his budget savings; but it was questioned why some of the savings aren't used to retire some of the loan from the insurance fund for two replacement vehicles rather than spend the whole amount on nine more and use extra for new vehicles. It was stated the loan in question is for the Ross computer system and for a claim; neither are for vehicles. In response to questions, it was stated the $13,500 for the Maas site will only fund the costs through March. The surplus of $900,000 is that amount only shown through August data; if the budget is passed as is, anticipated surplus will be 12.5% of budget. The City Manager distributed a Financial Forecasting report, stating budget surplus, looking at one year from October, will have reduced the projected deficit to $1 million. Savings are projected in insurance funds, and pension contributions carry over as multi-year impact. The gap to be closed used to be $2 million, but the impact from this year will affect future years. Purchase of a combination engine and aerial ladder truck for the Fire Dept. from Saulsbury Fire Equipment Corp., Tully, NY, for $459,601 and authorize lease/purchase from the City lease/purchase vendor (FD) A replacement for the 1965 Pitman snorkel aerial truck is required. The snorkel has exceeded its useful life, has become unreliable, and is economically not feasible to continue repairing. The Pitman snorkel is an aerial ladder truck only, meaning it does not possess a water tank and requires an accompanying engine to permit pumping of water. The requested replacement unit is a "quint" type unit, meaning it possesses normal fire engine pumping capabilities and can also function as a ladder with no accompanying engine. An existing quint with a longer wheel base and ladder is currently assigned to the Beach Fire Station. It will be reassigned to the Belcher Road Station to replace the existing snorkel because its maneuvering characteristics are more conducive to the environment in the central part of the City. The requested quint unit is designed primarily for the Beach Fire Station, possessing the characteristics such as a shorter wheel base and reduced ladder overhang at the front and rear to permit maneuvering in restricted beach areas and streets. Although designed for use at the beach, the requested quint can also routinely function as an engine or ladder anywhere in the City. Bids were sought from all major fire apparatus manufacturers based on defined needs. All but one manufacturer desired to provide only their "standard custom" unit on their cab and chassis, rather than meet our specified operational needs on a commercial chassis. The bid price includes alternate payment methods. If the chassis and ladder are paid for upon receipt at the manufacturer's facility, the total price for the requested quint would be $448,959 and the City would acquire title for these elements upon payment. If the City desires to pay for the complete unit upon delivery, the bid prices would be $459,601. Based on the contract for City lease/purchase monies coming due for competitive re-bids after action on this request, it is not known at this time which payment method will be desirable or whether "splitting" the overall payment into three segments will be permitted under the forthcoming lease/purchase contract. Consequently, this request is based on the higher $459,601 figure and would automatically be reduced to the $448,959 figure if under the subsequent City lease/purchase contract it would prove to be both permissible under the contract and financially beneficial for the City. In response to a question regarding why only one bid was received, it was stated other companies didn't want to customize the equipment to incorporate special compartment size and ladder requirements of EMS. The Fire Chief stated some paramedics and firefighters were sent to Homestead to help out and to learn. The people affected by Hurricane Andrew were very grateful. The Deputy City Manager stated a squad of police officers also went to Homestead to help. Award Contract for Construction of New Gas Mains and Service Lines - Meres Blvd. Phase II to Visk Construction, Inc., Riverview, FL. at an estimated cost of $80,450 (GAS) In order to provide timely installation of new gas mains and services without increasing our staff, we propose to award this contract to Visk Construction Co. of Riverview, Florida to install 9,000 feet of four inch and 3,500 feet of two inch gas main to serve three public schools and one laundry. This contract represents the second of three phases of construction. The first phase previously completed served two new subdivisions. The final phase will be to install a two inch gas main to serve the Anclote Manor Hospital. The estimated return on investment for the entire project should provide a six year payback. The contractor will furnish all labor, equipment, and sod. The City will supply the gas-related material, such as polyethylene pipe and fittings. The material cost for this project is $50,624. Nine bids were solicited and six received. Visk Construction was the lowest and most responsive bid. In response to questions, Terry Neenan, Gas Superintendent stated the contract with Visk was previously extended until we could get the yearly one in place. Regarding why a special contract is needed for this job, Mr. Neenan stated this project is above and beyond what the annual contract would be. It is a special contract going out to Anclote Manor, and it is not in our normal daily routine of extended maintenance. Amendments to the City's Firm Transportation Service Agreement dated 10/1/91 and commensurate amendments to the General Service Agreement dated 11/16/89 (GAS) Our natural gas supplier, Florida Gas Transmission Company (FGT) has become an open access pipeline by order of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission companies (LDC's), like the City of Clearwater to transport gas over FGT pipelines. In order to reduce our gas costs and make the Clearwater Gas System more profitable, we would like to convert 50 percent of our Firm Sales Service to Firm Transportation Service (FTS) which will allow us to purchase 50 percent of our gas supply on the open market. 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 the Firm Sales Service gas to Transportation Service. The 50 percent level represents the maximum that we can covert to FTS as of August 1, 1992. In order to accomplish this we are amending our existing General Service Agreement and Firm Transportation Service Agreement with FGT. The revised Firm Transportation Agreement increases our Transportation Gas by 20 percent, the same amount as our original contract is reduced. This increased conversion will allow Clearwater Gas System to purchase natural gas from one of our five currently contracted suppliers (Citrus Industrial, Coastal Marketing, Natural Gas Clearinghouse, MG Natural Gas and Reliance Gas) on the spot market. Fiscal year to date through July, 1992, Clearwater Gas System has saved $257,890 by buying natural gas on the spot market and transporting the gas to our gate stations as compared to purchasing this gas directly from FGT. It is in the Clearwater Gas System's best interest to transport the maximum amount as allowed by the FERC transition plan so as to minimize our fuel costs. A question was raised whether there was a risk in converting, and it was stated there is a little risk in that we might have to pay a higher price for two or three days when platforms are down or gas supplies are tight. Purchase of 2 Modular Secretarial Work Stations from Pride of Florida, Polk City, FL, for $7,500 (GAS) In order to improve office efficiency, Clearwater Gas System investigated building and installing two modular secretary work stations in the administrative office area. The City's Building and Maintenance Department was called about building the modular furniture, and we were informed that they did not do modular type office furnishing. We felt that it was important that this furniture be modular rather than "built in place" to provide flexibility for the future. Therefore, with the assistance of Purchasing, we secured three quotes from outside vendors who could provide the modular furniture which included two work stations and two lateral files. Of the three vendors, only Pride of Florida could provide the lateral files. Pride of Florida was also the lowest bidder for the work stations. Clearwater Gas System initially budgeted sufficient funds for this project in the building and maintenance variable code because we anticipated building these modular work stations in-house. However, since we had to purchase these work stations from an outside vendor, we need to move $7,500 from the building and maintenance code into the Capital code "Furniture & Office Equipment." Concern was expressed regarding the dollar amount at which the Commission needs to approve such a purchase, and that the policy regarding this should be reviewed. (Cont. from 7/2/92) Public Hearing - Vacating Spruce St., between Blk 2, E of Lots 14-18 & Blk 3, W of Lot 19-21, J.H. Rouse Sub. (Jimmie V92-07)(PW) This item was continued from the July 2, 1992 meeting at the applicant's request. The applicant is requesting the vacation of Spruce Avenue lying between Seminole Street and Eldridge Street. The applicant owns the property on both sides of Spruce Avenue. The Engineering Division has no objection to the request provided the right-of-way is retained full width as a Drainage and Utility Easement. The City has water and sewer lines within the right-of-way which only serve the applicant. Should the use of the property subsequently call for building in the retained easement, the easement can be vacated upon the relocation of the utilities at the applicant's expense or converted to private lines to be the responsibility of the property owner. The Planning and Development Department recommend approval subject to: 1) the applicant closing his business on the west side of Spruce Avenue which is not zoned for the existing use; 2) replat the property or file a Unity of Title to ensure that no lot will be land locked; and 3) final reading and adoption of the vacation ordinance be held until the conditions are met. Florida Power, GTE and Vision Cable have no objection to this request. A question was raised whether the junkyard could be increased in size due to the vacation, and it was stated the ordinance will not be in effect until the conditions, which call for removal of the junkyard, are met. Ord. #5257-92 - Relating to LDC, amending Ch. 134, regarding signs and sign regulations; amending Sec. 137.005 Options for allowing freestanding signs in the beach commercial (CB) district were offered as follows: 1) separate sign allowances for CB areas north and south of the causeway - 24 square feet, 12 feet tall allowed to the north and 50 square feet, 20 feet tall to the south, 2) same sign allowances for CB areas north and south of the causeway; smaller signs than allowed in the resort commercial districts - 36 square feet, 12 feet tall and 36 square feet, 12 feet tall, and 3) same sign allowances for CB areas north and south of the causeway; same size signs as allowed in the resort commercial districts - 50 square, 20 feet tall. The purpose of freestanding signs is for property identification, not business identification. Sizes under the existing code will range from 24 square feet, in the limited office district, to 192 square feet, applying to Clearwater and Countryside malls. A question was raised regarding the use of three dimensional signs, stating the countywide sign code prohibits them. It was stated the City is trying to meet what the county does or be more restrictive. A question was raised regarding why the City prohibits such signs, and it was stated it was agreed this would be the most appropriate way to deal with those which may not be very aesthetic. Three areas which were prohibited or nearly prohibited from using freestanding signs are: the downtown core and the bayfront, North Greenwood commercial district, and the beach commercial district. The current code is designated by land use; the proposed code by zoning districts. In response to a question, it was indicated people receiving permits for face changes were told they would need to comply with the code in 1992. In response to a question regarding who is responsible that a sign being built meets code, it was stated the person for whom the sign is put up is responsible. It was stated the sign requirements are relayed to the party acquiring the permit. A question was raised regarding grandfathering, and it was stated the ordinance is proposed to be amended to grandfather those signs that are in compliance with the 1985 code. A concern was expressed that guidelines for attached building signs are bring liberalized. It was stated under the existing code there are separate provisions for window signs and what is on the wall of the building. Under the proposed code window signs would be included as part of the attached sign allowance. In response to a question, it was stated the county code treats window signs the same as the proposed amendment to the city code. Discussion ensued with a question raised whether window signs should be controlled whether or not the wall sign is increased in size. A concern was expressed regarding where the line is drawn between public and private rights. Regarding pole signs in the beach commercial district, it was stated the physical placement of the buildings on properties was cause for the prohibition of such signs. Many of the buildings in resort commercial and beach commercial are placed abutting the sidewalk. Although the uses in the two districts are identical, the building guidelines regarding setbacks and height are different. Discussion further ensued regarding how to establish uniformity on both sides of the streets on the beach. One option suggested was to allow a pole sign only on those properties with a 15 foot building setback. Three options for pole signs on the beach and the different guidelines for the different districts were discussed. Consensus was to allow pole signs in Beach Commercial if the main structure is set back at least 15 feet along 100% of the property frontage; size and height to be determined Thursday. A question was raised regarding construction signs and when they should be removed. An opinion was expressed that such signs should be allowed once the construction permit is acquired, and removed when the certificate of occupancy is issued. A concern was expressed regarding shopping centers and office buildings in that construction could be ongoing for some time. A question was raised regarding the cost of a variance for those signs in non-compliance due to the sign amortization; also, those variances requested for existing conditions which are made nonconforming due to a code change. It was felt the cost should be minimal, to cover only out of pocket costs. It was stated the cost for residential requests was lowered a couple years ago. A concern was expressed that this would encourage people to seek variances. Discussion ensued regarding what the cost should be, and it was stated out of pocket costs can vary substantially depending on the size of an ad and the number of notices to be sent to surrounding property owners. Consensus was to establish a sign variance fee of $50.00. Staff update on the Annexation Committee and Annexation Incentive Program and receive direction regarding recommendations (PLD) In Florida, an annexation must be of a voluntary nature in accordance with State Statutes. The principal reason that property owners annex into the City is to obtain City sanitary sewer service. Owners of unincorporated property within the City's planning area who are not in need of sewer service should therefore be persuaded in some way to annex. The first step is to provide information to these property owners on the differences in City and County services, fees and code requirement which would affect their properties. Implementation of an incentive program will be necessary to convince many currently uninterested parties to annex into the City. Currently, most of Pinellas County's development regulations are less stringent than those in the City and taxes are lower for unincorporated properties in the County. With implementation of the Pinellas Planning Council's Countywide Consistency Program early next year, the City and Pinellas County will have equivalent land use plan classifications with corresponding intensity/density standards within the City's planning service area, thereby, increasing the possibility of annexation of properties in the enclaves. The County will still allow wider ranges of land uses within each category, and will have less restrictive landscaping, signage and other standards. Annexation of the enclaves will benefit the City in numerous ways including an increase in the tax base and simplicity in the delineation of the boundaries of the City limits which thereby will provide a more efficient provision of City services, planned infrastructure improvements and the application and enforcement of code requirements. In an effort to develop a strong program for the annexation of unincorporated properties within the City's planning area, an Annexation Committee was organized in September 1991. The committee consists of representatives from City departments, including Planning and Development, Public Works, Public Information, Utilities, Parks and Recreation, Gas and Po,ice; six meetings have been held. As the County has not yet adopted a storm water management charge, and this charge in the City will impact owners of non-residential properties the most (the charge would be approximately $54 a month for a one acre commercial property at a rate of $3 for a residential equivalent unit per 1,830 square feet of impervious surface area), the committee decided that residential neighborhoods should be approached as the initial target areas in the annexation incentive program. Meetings with owners of 20-30 large properties or neighborhoods are anticipated within the next year. In discussion with owners of unincorporated single family properties, staff has found that most of the individuals said they would like to annex to get on City sewer, to be able to use the City's library system, and to receive City solid waste disposal services. However, disincentives to annexation include the sewer assessment and connection costs. The City requires the sewer impact fees to be paid at the time of connection, however, the City allows financing of assessment charges over a 10 year period. According to the Public Works Department, the City's covenants associated with the bond issue for the improvements in the City's wastewater treatment facilities prohibit the City from giving free service. Also, the City would not have the millions of dollars readily available to pay for the installation of all sewer lines, which also frequently includes road reconstruction and other associated repairs and improvements, if sewer assessment and hook up charges were to be waived. Five incentives are being proposed for annexation into the City: 1) Waive the annexation application fee for all applicants who submit a petition prior to August 1993. 2) Provide a City library card to applicants immediately following City Commission receipt and referral of an annexation petition. 3) Change the City code to allow waiver of the $200 City recreation facility impact fee for all applicants who submit an annexation petition prior to August 1993. 4) Provide residential solid waste services immediately following City Commission receipt and referral of an annexation petition. 5) Change the policy to not require City sewer connection at the time of annexation unless there is a current public health problem or it is requested by the property owner; there will be no charge for sewer on the city utility bill until it is connected. A request was made that this be a presentation at Thursday's meeting, and that a map showing the enclaves be provided. The City Manager stated he will be forwarding a request from neighboring cities to join a coalition to address the enclave issue this coming year. Direction regarding appointment of a City representative to the CNHS Board (WSO)(PLD) The Planning and Development Director has been a member of the board of CNHS since its formation in 1978. In 1992, the Department of Housing and Urban Development monitored the Community Development function and cited Mr. Polatty's membership on the CNHS as a possible conflict of interest. In order to avoid any possible appearance of a conflict, the City Manager has requested that all City staff resign from the boards of funded agencies. The CNHS Board has responded favorably to a recommendation made by the Director or Planning and Development that the CNHS Board position be reserved for a City Commission member if a member so desires. If a Commission member does not desire to serve, the City Commission can name either a staff member or a citizen member. An amendment is necessary to change the CNHS by-laws which state the member is a city employee. Recommended wording by CNHS staff for the change is:" "One of whom (member of the board of CNHS) shall be a City of Clearwater Commissioner or other appointee by the City Commission. In addition, one City of Clearwater employee appointed by the City Manager may serve as a non-voting ex-officio member of the Board." The board meets six times per year, and this is the minimum time commitment necessary. CNHS has an extensive committee structure to govern functions such as residential loans, finance, and economic development. City staff from Planning and Development and Administrative Services will continue to attend committee meetings to provide technical assistance. Concern was expressed that there may be a conflict with a Commissioner as a member of the committee. Consensus was that a commissioner not be an appointee and to handle as a regular advisory board. VERBAL REPORTS The City Manager announced he has stopped action on the Clipper Cove II site plan until the issue of Clipper Cove I approval has been resolved. OTHER COMMISSION ACTION Mayor Garvey questioned action on the sink hole issue. She questioned the status on the Stowell sewer line and whether the Commission wished to respond to the "Vote City" campaign. She questioned whether the letter regarding Seville Boulevard and Bennett Auto Sales is being addressed. STRAW BALLOT QUESTION RE USE OF THE BLUFF Concern was expressed that there are too many choices, which would just confuse many of the voters. Consensus was to not have a straw ballot question on the November 3 election. BORDNER SURVEY Commissioner Deegan requested this be discussed at the meeting on Thursday. The meeting adjourned at 6:14 p.m.