05/14/2001CITY COMMISSION WORKSESSION
CITY OF CLEARWATER
May 14, 2001
Present: Brian J. Aungst Mayor/Commissioner
Ed Hart Vice-Mayor/Commissioner
Whitney Gray Commissioner
Hoyt P. Hamilton Commissioner
William C. Jonson Commissioner
Also present: William B. Horne II Interim City Manager
Garry Brumback Assistant City Manager
Pamela K. Akin City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk
Brenda Moses Board Reporter
The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. at City Hall.
Service Awards
Nine service awards were presented to City employees.
Convene as Pension Trustees
The meeting recessed from 1:09 to 1:11 p.m. to convene as the Pension Trustees.
PUR PURCHASING
Anderson Safe & Lock Co., one Secure Perfect System upgrade of hardware & software, connects all sub-stations to main station network, $29,054.90; financing to be provided under City's
Master Lease-Purchase Agreement (PD)
Skypainter Fireworks Int., 2nd & Final renewal, fireworks displays, $50,000 (PR)
Container Systems & Equipment Company, Inc., one recycling body, to be installed on item #4, $52,981 (SW)
International Truck & Engine Corporation, replacement, one 2001 International 4700 cab & chassis, $47,175 (GS)
Angelo's Recycled Materials, disposal of yard waste & construction materials, 7/21/01-9/30/01, est. $550,000 ($100,000 increase to contract awarded on 7/20/00) (SW)
Ridin Pipeline Services Inc., sanitary sewer pipeline inspection, testing & repair, 5/18/01-8/14/01, est. $250,000 (EN)
Doctor's Walk In Clinic, medical examinations, 6/1/01-5/31/02, est. $35,000 (FD)
APAC-Alabama, Inc., slag cold mix asphalt, 5/18/01-5/31/04, est. $190,000 (PW)
Vopak USA, purate & 78% sulfuric acid chemicals, 5/18/01-5/31/02, est. $50,000 (PU)
Oracle Corporation, database software licensing agreement, 6/1/01-5/31/02, increasing existing contract from $50,000 to $165,000; changing current expiration from 9/30/01 to 5/31/02
(IT)
McKim & Creed Engineers, chlorine dioxide pilot study at Marshall Street Plant, 5/18/01-5/31/02, related to item #9, est. $73,000 (PU)
In response to a question regarding Skypainter Fireworks Int., Parks and Recreation Director Kevin Dunbar said the Governor imposes fireworks bans. Because Clearwater is a water-related
community, there is a possibility that no ban would be imposed. Mr. Dunbar said the City’s contract provides that the City is not liable for fireworks that have been ordered if the
Governor places a ban on them.
In response to a question regarding Doctor’s Walk In Clinic, Purchasing Manager George McKibben said the medical examinations are for annual firefighter exams only.
In response to a question regarding Angelo’s Recycled Materials, Mr. McKibben said the yard waste and construction materials are taken to a company in Largo to be recycled. Largo is
less expensive than Pinellas County.
In response to a question regarding one recycling body from Container Systems & Equipment Company, Inc., and one 2001 International 4700 cab and chassis from International Truck & Engine
Corporation, Mr. McKibben said the vehicles are specified by the Solid Waste Department. Assistant City Manager Garry Brumback said staff was able to save $15,000 by using 2 different
companies.
In response to a question regarding Ridin Pipeline Services, Inc., Director of Public Utilities Andy Neff said this is the only contract staff anticipates this year. The contract is
for sanitary sewer pipeline inspection to identify inefficiencies. He said the contract being let on north beach is a separate contract to repair pipes.
In response to a question regarding Oracle Corporation, Information Technology Director Dan Mayer said the maintenance would go from $49,500 annually to $65,000 annually. He said the
anticipated savings next year would be approximately $35,000, however that would level off due to conversion of all database software licensing.
IT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Master License Agreement with Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., for purchase of geographic information systems software, $53,430 (Consent)
The purchase of this software is part of the City’s GIS (geographic information systems) CIP (Capital Improvement Project) approved in 1996. The software will provide a platform to
automate the city’s mapped data and increase its accessibility. This purchase will include the initial licensing to provide all user departments access to a central GIS database and
basic mapping functionality. This purchase also will include web-enabled mapping software to facilitate public access to mapped data via the Internet.
The agreement includes discounted training services and fixed pricing for additional licensed products for a period of 3 years from the execution of the agreement.
Mr. Mayer said this is a one-time purchase with annual maintenance of $35,000, which will increase as additional licenses are purchased. In response to a question, he said 40 users
are covered under this license. He said this is for software only. He said the City is establishing a partnership with the County for sharing of data, independent of software platforms.
The County and City both use Oracle.
Mr. Mayer said the cost to add users is approximately $800 apiece. He said the software the City is receiving is worth approximately $100,000, but since EZRI is advertising their brand
on the software, the City is saving $40,000 - $45,000. He said Information Technology staff would work closely with the Public Works Department to ensure compatibility issues.
Memorandum of Understanding with Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners for sharing of geographic data sets to facilitate continued development of geographic information systems,
and establish a mutual commitment to coordination of public service delivery to citizens of Clearwater and Pinellas County (Consent)
The City and the County recognize the value of continued coordination in the development of “intelligent” information systems that possess accurate data. An MOU (Memorandum of Understanding)
formally establishes a framework to facilitate the exchange of data between the organizations regardless of the type of software used by each organization’s operating departments.
The MOU establishes the terms and objectives of structured data sharing between Pinellas County and the City. It outlines reasonable limits and expectations for each organization to
prevent data sharing requests from becoming burdensome to either entity. The MOU also recognizes the need for quality control and primary ownership of data, and authorizes agency staff
to mutually create protocols for data correction and updating.
This agreement will remain in effect until either party determines it is no longer to their benefit to participate in a structured data exchange program.
Mr. Mayer said the agreement delineates between primary and secondary ownership. The City would use County data as it relates to parcel ownership. The City can request that
additional data fields be added to meet its needs. It was requested that staff keep the Commission abreast of MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) meetings regarding these matters.
Public Works Administrator Mashid Arasteh said staff has been coordinating efforts with the County Tax Assessors Office.
PR PARKS AND RECREATION
Agreement with Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. and Tarpon Springs Coca-Cola Bottling Company, for 10-year period commencing 6/1/01 (Consent)
At the May 18, 2000, Commission meeting, a contract was approved with the Public Enterprise Group to act as the City’s agent in exploring partnership opportunities. The first of these
strategic partnerships was solicited for a soft drink vendor. Proposals and presentations were provided on January 26, 2001. A total of 2 vendors submitted proposals to the City:
Florida Coca Cola and the Pepsi Bottling Group. A committee of Don Schulte of the Public Enterprise Group, Kevin Dunbar, Director of Parks and Recreation, and Jay Ravins, Assistant
Finance Director, evaluated each of the proposals. Based upon this review, the committee unanimously selected Florida Coca-Cola.
Highlights of their proposal include: 1) Guaranteed annual cash funding of $154,990 during the first 2 years regardless of volume of product sold; 2) Commission rates of 25% - 40%
paid to the City; 3) exclusive sales right for all categories as defined in the lease at all City properties, except where current leases exist; 4) vending machine locations designated
by the City; 5) equipment, personal management of equipment, custom banners, and marketing exposure on printed truck backs, marketing programs, and hospitality product, at no cost to
the city; 6) in order to promote professional behavior of all City employees, the Human Resources Department will be provided: 50 vending certificates per year per machine in employee
areas, four “enter to win” promotions at each employee vend area, a premium item for each employee of the month, and $200 annually towards the team of the quarter program. The estimated
value of these programs is $4,750 per year; 7) in the first year of the agreement, $13,500 will be provided to fund a capital improvement determined by the City; 8) co-sponsored league
support in the following areas: a) new electronic scoreboards where currently scoreboards are located. The City to own all of these boards at the end of the agreement; b) $1,500 per
year in annual product donation to be utilized for co-sponsored league events; c) $250 cash sponsorship to each of the City’s co-sponsored leagues (14 leagues for a total of $3,500 annually);and
d) additional scoreboards may be requested and will be approved based upon volume potential of the location; and 9) beach vend fronts for all beach area (including all City-owned beach
areas on Clearwater beach, Sand Key, Island Estates) and may be personalized with the City’s logo at the City’s discretion.
The estimated 10-year value of the agreement is $1,843,930 - $3,810,580, depending on volume of sales of product. An annual audited commission/incentive report that provides a compilation
of all beverages purchased, as a part of the agreement will be provided annually and attested by a Certified Public Accountant.
Currently, the City receives approximately $45,800 per year from vending machine sales. Public Enterprise Group will receive a commission on revenue generated to the City of
12% for cash revenue and 5% for non-cash revenue. This will be paid for the life of each agreement.
In response to a question, Mr. Dunbar said both Pepsi Cola and Coca-Cola evaluated City facilities, where they thought they would like to place their vending equipment, and the level
of participation. Staff felt Coca-Cola was more aggressive in their approach.
In response to a question, Don Schulte, Public Enterprise Group, said the 30,000 case number is realistic. His job is to show Coca-Cola all the available opportunities throughout the
City to return that figure. He did not feel those numbers were overly aggressive, especially compared to comparable cities. He said the City would decide where the vending machines
would be placed. He said this is not an advertising issue, but an access and distribution issue. He said approval of this item would not prohibit other products being sold throughout
the City. Coca-Cola will offer other products besides Coke.
Mr. Dunbar said this agreement is strictly for those sites where the City does not already have vendor agreements. There is a provision in the agreement that allows major event sponsors
to provide their own products, after a first right of refusal clause is executed by Coca-Cola. It was remarked that it would be nice to use the proceeds from this agreement for additional
firefighters. He said Coca-Cola based the 30,000 cases on their analysis of all City sites. They are so comfortable with the numbers that they have guaranteed that revenue to the City
for the first 2 years and guaranteed commission of $100,000 in each of the first 2 years. He was unsure how much soda the City currently sells. Mr. Dunbar reiterated that after 10
years, the City takes ownership of sports scoreboards.
In response to a question, Mr. Schulte said another category his firm is looking at to boost City revenues is the area of telecommunications technology.
It was remarked that the City is taking a step in the right direction of conducting business like a business.
Mr. Dunbar said youth leagues would use Coca-Cola but also would still be able to run their concessions during this 10-year period. He said the reason the 10-year agreement is being
suggested is that the vendor is making a large capital investment that requires a number of years to amortize to make good business sense. Mr. Dunbar said no other cities in Pinellas
County have a similar program. He said most cities have done what Clearwater has done in the past by participating in such programs on a vendor by vendor basis. He expects that once
Clearwater implements this program, other cities will be expressing interest in the program. He said no City vehicles will be used to promote Coca-Cola. Instead, the City can use 20
Coca-Cola truck “backs” to promote City events. The City can select which trucks are used for those ads. In response to a question, Mr. Dunbar reviewed the revenue numbers.
PW PUBLIC WORKS
Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #6800-01 - Vacating 3' utility easement lying along rear property lines of Lots 5-10, Acker's Sub., a/k/a 2700 Block of McMullen Booth Road (Vogel,
V2001-11)
The applicant proposes to build an office building on the subject property. Florida Power, Time Warner, Verizon and Verizon Media Ventures, Inc. have no objection to the vacation request.
The City has no utilities in the subject easement. Public Works Administration has no objections to the vacation request.
In response to a question, Public Works Administrator Mashid Arasteh said the individual lots are being consolidated into one, and office use would be on top of the easement.
Second Amendment to Agreement with SWFWMD, Pinellas County, & City of Safety Harbor for development & implementation of a Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan for Alligator Creek
Watershed, providing for time extension to 7/31/02 & reallocating existing funding (Consent)
The Commission approved the agreement between the SWFWMD (Southwest Florida Water Management District), Pinellas County, the City of Clearwater, and the City of Safety Harbor, for the
development and implementation of a comprehensive watershed management plan for the alligator Creek Watershed in October of 1994. This agreement provided funding in the amount of $1,200,000;
$500,000 for the planning phase and $700,000 for the implementation phase of the project, with a provision for an amendment to the agreement for specific project implementation cost
sharing.
In July of 1998, the Commission approved the first amendment to the agreement, which included implementation of the following projects: 1) Friendly Fillage of Kapok floodplain and
Wetland Restoration – preliminary design; 2) Cliff Steven’s Park – development of construction plans permitting and construction for the removal of accumulated sediment and development
of littoral planting zones; 3) Moccasin lake Park and channel B Improvements – development of construction plans, permitting and construction; and 4) storm sampling and water quality
model calibration.
This amendment provides a time extension and reallocates existing funding, that was not used for the development of the Watershed Management Plan (424,838) or from the preliminary design
of the Kapok Wetland and Floodplain Restoration Project ($29,783). The funding is reallocated to the Cliff Stephen’s Park, Moccasin Lake Park and Channel B Improvement projects.
The time extension will provide additional time to complete the construction of the 3 Alligator Creek projects currently under way. The reallocation of funds will reduce the City’s
share of construction costs for these projects by $54,621.
In response to a question, Ms. Arasteh said this amendment provides for moving money from the planning stage to the construction stage and costs will go down. She said Cliff Stephen’s
Park, Channel B improvements, and Moccasin Lake Park are scheduled to be completed within the next year.
It was remarked that development can have a huge impact on undeveloped areas, and that this project will hopefully restore the ecosystem in the area.
Cooperative Funding Agreement with SWFWMD to provide funding of project costs of up to $125,000 for replacement of toilets with water-conserving equivalents; approve match of City funds
in the amount $125,000 (Consent)
As part of the City’s effort to reduce the demand for potable water, co-funding from SWFWMD (Southwest Florida Water Management District) was sought to provide financial incentives
for City water customers to replace existing toilets with water-conserving equivalents. This program mirrors similar efforts in Pinellas County and the regional community with key objectives
of educating the public on water conservation, reducing indoor water use by 15 – 20% and encouraging the use of water-conserving devices. This is the first year of an anticipated 4-year
effort by the City in cooperation with SWFWMD.
City Code requires low-flow toilets for new construction. This program provides a one-time rebate to retail water customers (up to $100 per toilet) for replacing an existing toilet
with a 1.6 gallon Ultra-Low Flow Volume (ULV) model. Older model toilets use from 3.5 to 5 gallons of water per flush. The funding for this program (a total of $250,000 with both SWFWMD
and City funds) provides for an estimated 1,700 toilet rebates, which would save approximately 57,000 gallons of potable water each day.
An accompanying Agenda Item provides for funding of program administration not to exceed $76,000, as part of the $250,000 total. The program will be monitored to evaluate the actual
water savings achieved. A phone line to receive customer calls for participation in the City’s ULV Toilet Rebate program will be established. The process itself shall consist of a promotional
campaign, developing a list of participants, verification of existing toilets, having City water customers remove their existing high-volume toilet, verification that this was accomplished
and at what cost, issuing the rebate check, then preparing necessary reports.
Funding will be provided by a third quarter budget amendment, transferring $125,000 of available water revenue from the Capital Improvement Program Project #315-96740 Water Supply and
Treatment to a new project to be established, #315-96747 Flow Restrictor & Rain Sensor Rebates. Sufficient funds were budgeted for this initiative in the Water Supply & Treatment code,
therefore, the code will not be impacted. The new project code is being created to better track this initiative.
Funding for the remaining 3 years of the program has been included in the current rate study update.
Mr. Neff said this item is to request: 1) $100 rebates for toilets, and 2) approval of the City matching funds in the amount of $125,000. He said this program cannot be done cheaper
in-house. The City can piggyback on the County’s contract with a firm that provides these services to a number of other cities. In response to a question, he said staff will bring
back projects as funding is received. He said 50% of the $125,000 of City matching funds is in the budget. He does not anticipate a match from SWFWMD next year.
Contract to VoltVIEWTech, Inc. to implement, monitor, & execute the Ultra Low-Volume Toilet Rebate Program, amount not to exceed $76,000 (Consent)
This program provides a one-time rebate to retail water customers of up to $100 maximum per toilet for purchase of a 1.6 gallon Ultra-Low Flow Volume (ULV) model.
VoltVIEWTech, Inc. (VVT), currently is under contract with the City of St. Petersburg providing services to implement, monitor, and execute their Toilet Rebate Program. This contract
includes program administration, coordination of a promotional campaign, data collection, tracking, conducting installation inspections, removing the old toilet, issuing rebate checks,
and preparing reports. The contract is valid through September 2001.
VVT shall establish a phone line to receive customer calls for participation in the City’s ULV Toilet Rebate program, and shall work with customers guiding them through the process
and answering their questions.
The process shall consist, in general, of the following: 1) Coordination of a promotional campaign to educate City water customers; 2) VVT logs participants names and addresses; 3)
City water customer provides and installs the ULV toilet, then calls VVT for inspection; 4) VVT inspects within one week of customer call; 5) VVT obtains receipts for ULV toilet purchases
and removes old toilets from participants; 6) VVT provides rebate checks to participants; and 7) VVT requests reimbursement form the City and files required reports with the City.
Funding for this contract will be included in the $250,000 program total on an accompanying Agenda Item. Funding will be provided by a third quarter budget amendment transferring $76,000
of water revenue from Project #315-96740 Water Supply & Treatment to a new project to be established, #315-96747 Flow Restrictor & Rain Sensor Rebates. Sufficient funds were budgeted
in Water Supply & Treatment to cover this contract, so it will not be impacted by the funds transfer. The new project code will enable better tracking of this initiative.
In response to a question, Mr. Neff said this program has existed in St. Petersburg since the early 1990s, but other cities have been implementing the program for a number of years.
He said the $75,000 figure is a not to exceed amount. He said after staff determines the amount of interest in the program, it would be easier to incorporate the rules that prohibit
a large hotel or other entity from using up all the rebates.
First Reading Ord. #6801-01 - amending Ord. #6695-01 to correct effective dates for increasing domestic, lawn water, & wastewater collection utility rates by 7% each year from 10/1/02,
10/1/03, 10/1/04 & 10/1/05 to 4/1/02, 1/1/03, 10/1/03, & 10/1/04
Ordinance 6695-01 was passed on March 1, 2001, increasing domestic, law water and wastewater collection utility rates by 7% effective July 1, 2001, with subsequent 7% increases to become
effective July 1, 2002, July 1, 2003, July 1, 2004, and July 1, 2005, respectively.
Burton and Associates completed a Water and Sewer rate study update recommending that the rate increases subsequent to July 1, 2001, be effective April 1, 2002, January 1, 2003, October
1, 2003, and October 1, 2004. The Agenda Cover Memorandum for Ordinance 6695-01 also specified the effective date for the subsequent rate increases as were recommended by the Burton
and Associates rate study update.
The Agenda Item and discussion regarding Ordinance #6695-01 clearly indicated the staggered effective dates for the rate increases. However, the text of the ordinance was incorrect
and the error was not noticed. Ordinance #6801-01 simply corrects the error.
In response to a question, Ms. Arasteh said because of the implementation schedule, the effective rate in one year would be more than 7%.
Amendment of CIP budget in the amount of $14,106,800 to recognize current year project additions included in the 2001 utility rate study update
Ordinance 6592-00 was passed on June 15, 2000, increasing water, lawn water and sewer rates by 6.6% effective July 1, 2000. No subsequent rate increases were included in the rate study
update calculations leading to the 6.6% rate increase.
These projects were never added to the CIP (Capital Improvement Project) due to uncertainty over the ability of the Water & Sewer Utility to provide the future funding necessary to
continue them or to maintain adequate debt service coverage to comply with bond covenants.
In 2001, Burton and Associates completed another water and sewer rate study update requesting five 7% rate increases over the period July 1, 2001, to October 1, 2004. These projects
were again included in the update for fiscal year 2001. On March 1, 2001, Ordinance 6695-01 was passed increasing water, lawn water and sewer rates by 7% beginning July 1, 2001,, and
for 4 additional 7% increases at varying intervals through October 1, 2004.
The multiple rate increases have provided sufficient certainty about continuing these projects and complying with the debt service coverage requirement in the bond covenants.
Resolution 01-07 was passed on March 1, 2001, establishing the City’s intent to reimburse certain project costs incurred with future tax-exempt financing. The projects identified with
2002 revenue bonds as a funding source were included in the project list associated with Resolution 01-07.
Operating budgets for Water ($3,000), Wastewater Collection ($29,000) and Reclaimed Water ($1,750) will be amended at mid-year to include estimated lease purchase debt service costs
for the remainder of FY 2001.
Operating revenues for Water revenue, Sewer revenue, Sewer Tap Revenue, Sewer R&R Revenue and Water R&R Revenue will be amended at mid-year to provide funding for the capital improvement
projects listed, as adopted in the recent rate study: 1) Sanitary Sewer Extensions – Project Number 315-96630, funding source is Sewer Tap revenue – funding requested is $100,000; 2)
Laboratory Building – Project Number 343-96656, 2002 funding source is Revenue Bonds – funding requested is $400,000; 3) NEAPCF Improvements – Project Number 43-96658, funding source
is 2002 Revenue Bonds – requesting funding is $745,000; 4) Sanitary Collection & Transmission R&R – Project Number 315-96665, funding source is Sewer R&R Revenue – funding requested
is $1,525,000; 5) Telemetry & Electronic
Sensors – Project Number 315-96676, funding source is Sewer Revenue – funding requested is $125,000; 6) WPC Master Plan Phase II – Project Number 315-96683, funding source is Sewer Revenue
– funding requested is $133,000; 6) Pump Station Replacements – Project Number 343-96686, funding source is 2002 Revenue Bonds – funding requested is $2,000,000; 7) Clearwater Harbor
Force Main – Project Number 343-966XX, funding source is 2002 Revenue Bonds – funding requested is $1,440,563; 8) Clearwater Harbor Sewer Line Relocation (JPA) – Project Number 343-966XX,
funding source is 2002 Revenue Bonds – funding request is $1,000,000; 9) Water Supply & Treatment - Project Number 315-96740, Water Revenue – funding request is $200,000; 10) Meter/Backflow
Repair/Exchange - Project Number 315-96743, funding source is Water Revenue – funding request is $125,000; 11) Well Rehabilitation - Project Number 315-967XX, funding source is Water
R&R Revenue – funding request is $500,000; 12) Disinfection Systems - Project Number 343-967XX, funding source is 2002 Revenue Bonds – funding request is $1,400,000; 13) Clearwater Harbor
Transmission Main - Project Number 343-967XX, funding source is 2002 Revenue Bonds – funding request is $3,359,437; 14) Water Service Lines - Project Number 343-967XX, funding source
is 2002 Revenue Bonds – funding request is $500,000; 15) Forklift (Water Division) - Project Number 315-967XX, funding source is Lease Purchase – funding request is $25,000; 16) Pickup
Truck (Reclaimed Water) - Project Number 315-967XX, funding source is Lease Purchase – funding request is $29,400; 17) TV Truck (Sewer Division) - Project Number 315-966XX – funding
source is Lease Purchase, funding request is $150,000; 18) Vac Con Truck (Sewer division) - Project Number 315-966XX, funding source is Lease Purchase – funding request is $190,000;
19) Portable Generators (Sewer Division) - Project Number 315-966XX, funding source is Lease Purchase, funding request is $130,000; and 20) Pickup Truck (Sewer Division), Project Number
315-966XX, funding source is Lease Purchase, funding request is $29,400.
In response to a question, Ms. Arasteh staff is requesting the Commission’s approval, now that funding is available, to go forward with these projects. Ms. Arasteh will provide the
Commission with information regarding the 2 rate studies. The projects are for aging infrastructure improvements.
(Cont. from 4/19 & 5/3/01) Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #6782-01 - Vacating 10' drainage & utility easement lying along a line 660' east of the west property line of M&B 41.05,
Sec. 5-29-16, less south 10' (School Board of Pinellas County, V2001-07)
It was reported there are still some issue to resolve.
Consensus was to continue this item for 2 weeks. Ms. Goudeau said the title will be on the Thursday Commission agenda but will indicate this item will be continued.
PLD PLANNING
Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #6648-01, #6649-01 & #6650-01 - Annexation (& redefining boundary lines of City to include said addition), Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential
Estate & LDR Zoning, 2301 Campbell Rd., Sec. 6-29-16, M&B 34.01 & 34.011 (Judith N. Coachman, Paul A. & Carolyn L. Young)
Based on the July 2, 1981, ATA ( Agreement to Annex), the previous owners of these 2 properties entered into an agreement with the City to annex these properties in order to receive
water service from the City. The terms and provisions of that agreement are binding upon the previous owners, their successors, assigns, or any subsequent owners of these properties.
At that time, these properties were located outside the municipal boundaries of the City and did not meet the adjacency requirements for voluntary annexations. These properties are
now contiguous with the City’s boundaries. The ATA required the City to provide 60 days written notice of its intent to annex each of these properties. This notice was mailed to the
current property owner(s) on October 6, 2000, and the notice expired on December 5, 2000.
Since the execution of the agreement in 1981, the ownership of these parcels has changed. The large parcel (Metes and Bounds 34-01) is currently owned by Judith N. Coachman while the
smaller corner parcel (Metes and Bounds 34-011) is owned by Paul A. Young and Carolyn L. Young. The smaller corner parcel is developed with a single-family residential estate home while
the larger parcel is vacant. The combined area is approximately 3.65 acres.
The City is now initiating this annexation request in order to bring these properties into its jurisdiction in compliance with the terms and conditions established in those ATA agreements
of July 2, 1981.
The City has been providing water service to these properties pursuant to the agreement to annex and adequate capacity exists to serve the proposed annexation.
The Planning Department determined the proposed annexation is consistent with the following standards specified in the Community Development Code: 1) The proposed annexation will not
adversely impact public facilities and their level of service; 2) the proposed annexation is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Countywide Plan, and the Community Development
Code; and 3) the proposed annexation is contiguous to existing municipal boundaries, represents a logical extension of the boundaries and does not create an enclave.
This annexation has been reviewed by the Pinellas Planning Council staff according to the provisions of the County Ordinance #00-63, Section 7(1-3), and no objections have been received
from this office.
The Planning Department determined the proposed land use plan amendment and rezoning applications associated with these properties are consistent with the following standards specified
in the Community Development Code: 1) The proposed land use plan amendment and rezoning applications are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; 2) the potential range of uses and the
specific proposed use are compatible with the surrounding area; 3) sufficient public facilities are available to serve these properties; and 4) the applications will not have an adverse
impact on the natural environment.
Pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement with Pinellas County, review by the Pinellas Planning Council will not be required for the plan amendment.
The Community Development Board reviewed these applications at their public hearing meeting of April 17, 2001, and unanimously recommended approval.
In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said Mr. Young did not attend the CDB meeting or send a representative.
Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #6784-01, #6785-01 & #6786-01 - Annexation (& redefining boundary lines of City to include said addition), Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential
Urban & LMDR Zoning, 1601 Druid Rd., Sec. 14-29-15, M&B 43.12 & 43.16 (Charles Hammrick, Dorothy E. Hammrick, Richard L. Kamensky and Elizabeth Plecker)
This site is located at 1601 Druid Road on the east side of Lake Avenue, approximately 290 feet south of Druid Road. The purpose of the annexation is to enable the applicants to receive
City water and sewer service. The subject parcels are utilized for lumber and trusse manufacturing. Upon the annexation, the applicants propose to construct 32 units of townhouses
at this site. The site is approximately 3.178 acres. This annexation also will eliminate an existing enclave in the area.
The ability to develop the site with attached dwellings (townhouse style) requires site plan review by the CDB (Community Development Board) as a Residential Infill Project. The CDB
approved the site plan as a Residential Infill Project at their April 17, 2001, meeting contingent upon Commission approval of the annexation, plan amendment, and rezoning. The properties’
owners are aware of the need and costs to extend the sanitary sewer line to their properties.
The Planning Department determined the proposed annexation is consistent with the following standards specified in the Community Development Code: 1) The proposed annexation will not
adversely impact public facilities and their level of service; 2) the proposed annexation is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Countywide Plan, and the Community Development
Code; and 3) the proposed annexation is contiguous to existing municipal boundaries, represents a logical extension of the boundaries and does not create an enclave.
This annexation requires a review by the PPC. Following the approval of the Pinellas County charter amendment in a referendum election on November 7, 2000, the PPC is now authorized
by Ordinance #00-63, Section 7(1-3) to review all voluntary annexations including those previously executed through valid agreement. The PPC staff has reviewed this annexation and objections
have been received from that office.
The Planning Department determined the proposed land use plan amendment and rezoning applications are consistent with the following standards specified in the Community Development
Code: 1) The proposed land use plan amendment and rezoning applications are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; 2) the potential range of uses and the specific proposed use are
compatible with the surrounding area; 3) sufficient public facilities are available to serve these properties; and 4) the applications will not have an adverse impact on the natural
environment.
Pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement with Pinellas County, review by the Pinellas Planning Council will not be required for the plan amendment.
The Community Development Board reviewed these applications at their public hearing meeting of April 17, 2001, and unanimously recommended approval of all 3 applications.
Ms. Tarapani said this property was once a sawmill. This request will eliminate the nonconforming use.
Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #6789-01, #6790-01 & #6791-01 - Annexation (& redefining boundary lines of City to include said addition), Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential
Low & LMDR Zoning, 1972 E. Skyline Dr., Skyline Groves, Lot 66 (Craig & Lisa Johnson)
This site is located at 1972 East Skyline Drive, on the west side of East Skyline Drive, approximately 160 feet south of Hyvue Drive. The purpose of the annexation is to enable the
applicants to receive City sewer service. The current use of the property is single family residential and the site is approximately 0.18 acres.
The property will be served by the City’s sanitary sewer service. The property owners are aware of the need and costs to extend the sanitary sewer line to their property.
The Planning Department determined the proposed annexation is consistent with the following standards specified in the Community Development Code: 1) The proposed annexation will not
adversely impact public facilities and their level of service; 2) the proposed annexation is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Countywide Plan, and the Community Development
Code; and 3) the proposed annexation is contiguous to existing municipal boundaries, represents a logical extension of the boundaries and does not create an enclave.
This annexation requires a review by the PPC. Following the approval of the Pinellas County charter amendment in a referendum election on November 7, 2000, the PPC is now authorized
by Ordinance #00-63, Section 7(1-3) to review all voluntary annexations including those previously executed through valid agreement. The PPC staff has reviewed this annexation and objections
have been received from that office.
The Planning Department determined the proposed land use plan amendment and rezoning applications are consistent with the following standards specified in the Community Development
Code: 1) The proposed land use plan amendment and rezoning applications are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; 2) the potential range of uses and the specific proposed use are
compatible with the surrounding area; 3) sufficient public facilities are available to serve these properties; and 4) the applications will not have an adverse impact on the natural
environment.
Pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement with Pinellas County, review by the Pinellas Planning Council will not be required for the plan amendment.
The Community Development Board reviewed these applications at their public hearing meeting of April 17, 2001, and unanimously recommended approval.
In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said this property borders the Top of the World Condominium complex.
Public Hearing & First Reading Ords. #6787-01 & #6788-01 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential/Office General & Office Zoning, 812 Pinellas St., Milton Park Sub., Blk 10, Lot 13 &
S½ vacated alley adjoining on north (Thompson Executive Center Partnership Number Two)
The site is located on the north side of Pinellas Street, approximately 100 feet east of South Myrtle Avenue. The purpose of the land use plan amendment and rezoning is to allow office
redevelopment on a vacant parcel. The current use of the property is a shell rock parking lot and the site is approximately 0.17 acres.
The proposed office development requires the site plan be reviewed by the CDB as a Comprehensive Infill Project. The CDB approved the site plan at their April 17, 2001, meeting, contingent
upon Commission approval of this plan amendment and rezoning.
The Planning Department determined the proposed land use plan amendment and rezoning applications are consistent with the following standards specified in the Community Development
Code: 1) The proposed land use plan amendment and rezoning applications are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; 2) the potential range of uses and the specific proposed use are
compatible with the surrounding area; 3) sufficient public facilities are available to serve these properties; 4) the applications will not have an adverse impact on the natural environment;
and 5) the proposed land use plan amendment and rezoning represent a logical extension of the boundaries and will not result in “spot zoning”.
The site is less than 1 acre and is considered a Type A threshold land use plan amendment. The Countywide Rules require official submission to the PPC for the land use plan amendment.
The CDB reviewed this application at their April 17, 20001, meeting and recommended approval of both applications.
In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said this would be the farthest extent to which staff would recommend the office designation be applied in order to protect the residential neighborhood
to the north.
Kimpton / Markoupoulos Project Update (to be given 5/17/01)
Mr. Horne said Richard Gehring of the Kimpton group has indicated that he is conducting public input meetings tonight and tomorrow. There are no other public meetings scheduled after
Tuesday. He is looking for the Commission’s guidance to move forward.
Reconsideration of request for Island Estates Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District
There has been a request from Island Estates residents that the Commission reconsider its decision to delay initiation of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District process for
Island Estates.
Ms. Tarapani said every neighborhood requesting a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District would be treated differently. In Coachman Ridge, staff met with the Study Committee regarding
this overlay district process. Neighbors in the area were mailed notices of meetings. She said the first meeting had a turnout of approximately 45 residents. The process, the City’s
role, and the neighborhood’s role was discussed, then the group broken into smaller groups and staff facilitated a discussion about goal setting. Participants voted on the top 3 problems
in their neighborhood. At the third meeting, staff summarized input received. At every meeting, the process was reviewed and input taken. Ms. Tarapani said the fifth meeting is coming
up shortly. Staff is distributing throughout the neighborhood, the full text of the plan to every resident. She said she hopes to be able to put the results of the meetings on the
City’s web site.
It was requested that staff provide the Commission with a written description of the process.
CLK CITY CLERK
Parks and Recreation Board - 1 appointment
Ms. Goudeau said one vacancy exists on the Parks and Recreation Board. Four nominees have expressed interest in the appointment.
CA LEGAL DEPARTMENT
Second Reading Ordinances
(Cont. from 5/3/01) Ord. #6764-01 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Resort Facilities High, 1919 Edgewater Dr./Sunset Point Rd., Sunset Point Sub., Lots 6 & 7 and W15' of Lot 8 (Bay View
Hotel, Inc.)
(Cont. from 5/3/01) Ord. #6765-01 - Tourist Zoning, 1919 Edgewater Dr./Sunset Point Rd., Sunset Point Sub., Lots 6 & 7 and W15' of Lot 8 (Bay View Hotel, Inc.)
Ord. #6802-01 - Amending Ord. #6352-99 authorizing Infrastructure Sales Tax Revenue Bonds
In response to a question, City Attorney Pam Akin said Ordinances #6764-01 and #6765-01 need to be continued due to an advertising problem. Ordinance #6802-01 requires an amendment.
In response to a question, Ms. Akin said she has traditionally read the ordinance titles, however any one can read them. It was suggested that when there are numerous ordinances to
be read, the Commission take turns reading them to keep Ms. Akin from having to do so.
Resolutions
Res. #01-18 - Approving PACT leasehold mortgage and guaranty agreement
Ms. Akin said this item is to approve a leasehold mortgage and guaranty agreement between the City and PACT. The City agrees to guarantee $1 million of the $5 million bond. She said
PACT is the first guarantor and the Foundation is another, then the City. If they fail to make service payments, the City is guaranteeing the first million of debt service payments.
She said this is a similar agreement to the previous PACT agreement. The City did not own all the property but entered into a bond position, which requires when the bond was defeased,
the City would own the property. In order to facilitate their expansion, PAC is refinancing. In response to a question, Ms. Akin said she does not believe that PACT’s attorney will
be attending the Commission meeting.
In response to a question, Ms. Goudeau said with a majority vote, the Commission can move an agenda item out of order, but does not recommend placing the resolution prior to public
hearing items.
City Manager Verbal Reports
PSTA garage status report (WSO)
Assistant City Manager Garry Brumback updated the Commission on the status of the PSTA parking garage. Mr. Brumback said staff met with the major participants, PSTA, the County, the
City, and a representative from the Church of Scientology, on May 8, 2001, regarding the PSTA parking garage. An impasse was declared mid-way into the meeting. At the May 8 meeting,
PSTA indicated they do not want to sell the piece of property they own downtown. If nothing is done, the County would keep its 107 surface parking spaces; the Church of Scientology
would build 430 spaces, and the PSTA is not required to do anything other than to refurbish their existing facility, none of which will help to address the parking situation downtown.
Staff intends to discuss this matter further with members of the PSTA Board. In response to a question, Mr. Brumback said Roger Sweeney and Allen Zimmet attended the May 8 meeting.
He said the details of the Church of Scientology’s spaces have not been completed.
Mr. Horne said the Commission directed staff to work with PSTA to attempt to place the PSTA facility as close to downtown as possible. He said the Chair of the PSTA indicated he felt
the City was not participating enough in the financial aspects of the project. Mr. Horne said staff is not giving up the effort to work with PSTA, but it appears that at this point
in time, staff cannot deliver what they had hoped to.
In response to a question, Mr. Brumback said he felt the City’s $1.5 million credit and the fact the City is willing to meet the difference between additional spaces required is being
taken into consideration. It was requested the Commission be provided a comparison of the costs to PSTA under staff’s Alternative Plan #1 and their costs for a proposed terminal on
Laura Street. It was remarked that a public meeting will be held Wednesday night regarding the downtown plan and that as this location is too valuable as a parking facility to the destination
the City hopes to create, the Commission should press forward.
Discussion ensued regarding giving direction to Commissioner Hart, who represents the City on the PSTA Board. Consensus was to reaffirm the importance of having a PSTA transportation
facility in downtown if a partnership with a garage can be worked out.
Parking on Memorial Causeway (WSO)
Mr. Brumback said temporary parking on the Memorial Causeway Bridge was implemented during Roundabout construction. There also was parking at the Memorial Civic Center that is no
longer available. Mr. Brumback said businesses have indicated their desire to keep the temporary parking on the Causeway, but residents do not want it there. City policy was to eliminate
that parking by May 15, 2001, but the City has obtained
permission from the FDOT to keep it until July 15, 2001. If it needs to be extended longer, the City would require FDOT approval for an additional extension. It would take approximately
2 –3 weeks to obtain the approval and the FDOT would most probably have questions as to why the City would not want to make that parking a permanent parking lot.
In response to a question, Ms. Akin said the City could have to keep its use consistent with the Memorial Causeway park. The area is zoned for recreation use and the City Charter limits
its uses under the open space section of the Charter. Mr. Brumback said landscaping might address residents’ concerns. Mr. Horne said residents also have requested that the area be
restored to its original state. It was remarked that a Commission received telephone calls from residents objecting to the number of speeders passing by Island Estates and not being
ticketed.
Director of Marine and Aviation Bill Morris said the Marina has spent $4,000 a year to hire police aides to police the parking at and around the marina. Businesses in the marina have
complained they are losing parking spaces due to beachgoers parking in the nearby lots. Mr. Morris said he felt the temporary parking on the Causeway is needed. In response to a question,
Mr. Morris said the marina is still 274 parking space short of what is needed. He said he has moved the Post Office trucks away from charter fishing boats in an effort to free up more
spaces for customers.
Mr. Stone said staff was planning to bring to the Commission some alternatives for beach parking especially if the Marriott Seashell Resort option is not available.
Mr. Horne said staff could work with law enforcement to insure that people are better informed about their parking options. He requested the Commission consider what the City is trying
to accomplish with parking. It was suggested that landscaping be considered as a temporary fix for the temporary parking lot on the Causeway.
Consensus was to extend the use of the temporary parking lot on the Memorial Causeway to July 15, 2001.
Commission Discussion Items
PPC recommendations re Beach by Design
The PPC staff has recommended 6 conditions of approval, 5 of which are not acceptable to the City. Below is the PPC staff’s conditions (paraphrased) and the City response as to why
the condition is unworkable.
While the PPC has overall authority for insuring consistency among the multiple jurisdictions in the County, consistency does not have to mean “sameness”. The use of the community
Redevelopment District as proposed for the Beach by Design area is intended to recognize unique areas of the County and to provide for unique planning solutions. The Beach by Design
solutions are not intended to be applied Countywide nor will they be effective solutions in other cities that have their own unique redevelopment issues. The Beach Plan is customized
for Clearwater and Clearwater should be able to plan for its unique redevelopment needs within the context of the Countywide Plan. Clearwater believes that this plan is consistent with
the Countywide Plan and should be approved without conditions..
PPC Condition 1 – Recommend that the beach area remain designated as Recreation/Open Space instead of the City recommendation of Community Redevelopment District.
City Response – City agrees with this condition.
PPC Condition 2 – Recommend that Yacht Basin apartments site be designated as Resort Facilities High to reflect possible future use as hotel.
City Response – City does not agree with this condition. . To use the Yacht Basin as a hotel will require many steps in the City review process and the City prefers for the developer
to request the plan amendment when the project is ready and shows the City that all of the conditions for a resort hotel will be met (i.e. resort hotel with major flag and resort amenities
and consolidation of a substantial amount of additional property along Eastshore Drive tot he south of the Yacht Basin site). This PPC condition is premature; the City prefers to wait
and see if the developer can meet the hotel requirements.
PPC Condition 3 – Recommend that each resort hotel project be limited at 2.5 times the current density (for example 2.5 X 50 units per acre). This recommendation would supersede the
600 bonus hotel rooms pool and limit the City’s ability to approve projects that exceed the 2.5 “cap”.
City Response – This condition is a deal killer and the City does not agree with it. This condition would require that the Marriott proposal reduce their hotel rooms by approximately
50 rooms and would make the project unworkable and financial unfeasible. The City and Consultant Charlie Siemon did consider this option during the development of the Plan and concluded
that it did not provide enough incentive to attract a major resort hotel as a catalytic project on the beach. The redevelopment costs on the beach are extraordinary and density incentives
are the major key to attracting a quality hotel.
PPC Condition 4 – Recommend that the use of the bonus hotel rooms would require a detailed traffic analysis to insure that road levels of service will not be degraded.
City Response – The City does not agree with this condition. How a project affects the road network is a local Clearwater site planning issue out of the authority of the PPC. However,
the City’s consultant has prepared a detailed traffic analysis that assumes that both the Marriott and the Markoupoulos projects are built. The analysis considered several options on
room count, parking garage size/location and potential road closures. The traffic analysis demonstrated that the major road s (Mandalay Avenue, Gulfview Boulevard and Memorial Causeway)
are not degraded except for those extraordinary peak times of beach use such as Spring Break.
To improve the roads to account for a limited peak time is financially unfeasible and physically illogical. A similar analogy would be to require all malls to have enough parking for
the last minute Christmas shoppers which is an inefficient use of funds. . Further, the City is exploring other options to assist in beach traffic including a dedicated lane on Memorial
Causeway, express bus service, and expanding the PSTA trolley service on the beach.
PPC Condition 5 – Use of the bonus hotel rooms will require a hurricane evaluation plan to be approved by the Pinellas County Emergency Management Department.
City Response – The City does not agree with this condition. The City has already addressed this concern by requiring Marriott in the development agreement to close when the hurricane
watch (first notice) is posted. In addition, the hotel developers advise that hotel patrons leave upon hearing of the hurricane watch and in general, future patrons cancel reservations
upon hearing of a hurricane. The City does not believe that this condition is necessary since we have already addressed it in a binding contract with the approved developer and will
require it of all future developers.
PPC Condition 6 – Recommend that the City revise its capital improvement budget to identify the sources and construction schedule for all infrastructure improvements for the beach.
City Response – The City does not agree with this condition. There are no infrastructure improvements that are necessitated by the new hotel rooms. The infrastructure improvements
called for in the Beach Plan are streetscape and Gulfview Boulevard aesthetic improvements. There is no rational link between the use of the hotel rooms and the proposed improvements;
therefore, this condition is unneeded since it is unrelated to the hotel rooms.
Interim City Manager Bill Horne said he received a call from Mr. David Healy of the PPC (Pinellas Planing Council) requesting the City accept their compromise regarding Beach by Design.
In response to a question, Mr. Stone said he felt it unusual that such a detailed report would come back from the PPC. He said he felt many pages are commentary and not well linked
professionally to the conditions of approval. He felt the plan is being misinterpreted. He said the PPC has a set of rules that are applied countywide and consistent. He understands
their need to come through the entire document, but is disappointed that they are unsympathetic to the existing conditions and unaware of the professional expertise of staff. In response
to a question, Mr. Stone said he felt the PPC has ignored the firewalls the City put in the plan. He said staff is particularly concerned with PPC’s Condition #3. He suggested Commissioner
Hart adamantly oppose Condition #3 and attempt to get the other 5 conditions eliminated. It was remarked that the PPC’s advisory board was unanimously in favor of Beach by Design without
the 6 conditions suggested. It was remarked that Mr. Healy appears to be going against his planning council’s advice. Mr. Stone said the PPC is interpreting the use of
Beach By Design as a future application for other projects which is raising concerns. It was remarked that the PPC sits as the advisory committee to the County board of Commissioners
serving as the Countywide Planning Authority. Even if the PPC approves Beach By Design, the Countywide Planning Authority could deny it.
Consensus was for Commissioner Hart to vehemently oppose Conditions #2 and #3.
It was felt that the PPC’s recommendation regarding density should be reconsidered. It was suggested that in the future, the Commission consider including a design standard to address
that issue.
Other Commission Action
Commissioner Hart said the MPO has placed the topic of making Keene Road 6 lanes on its next meeting agenda. They are sympathetic to local impact on the community. It was requested
that staff provide the Commission with all information prior to the next MPO meeting.
Commissioner Jonson said there are also design issues regarding Keene Road. He felt the agreement between the County and the City needs to be brought back. Ms. Akin said there is
a possibility that the City will amend the Interlocal Agreement. She said an issue exists regarding the reverter and the deed.
Commissioner Jonson said he would like to revisit the special events process and improve Sportsfest. He felt Sportsfest is of little benefit to the City. He requested staff provide
information regarding the benefits the City receives from that activity. He also requested that staff provide ideas regarding recycling drinking bottles.
Mayor Aungst said Clearwater High School is playing at Legends Field in the State final tournament Wednesday night. He said everyone needs to cheer on the Tornadoes.
The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.