Loading...
04/06/1999 - Briefing SessionBRIEFING SESSION WITH CITY COMMISSION CITY OF CLEARWATER April 6, 1999 Present: Brian J. Aungst Mayor/Commissioner Ed Hooper Vice-Mayor/Commissioner J. B. Johnson Commissioner Robert Clark Commissioner Ed Hart Commissioner Also Present: Michael J. Roberto City Manager Richard L.Hedrick Deputy City Manager Bob Keller Assistant City Manager Keith Ashby Chief of Staff Pamela K. Akin City Attorney Richard Gehring Planning Consultant Charlie Siemon Planning Consultant Sue Diana Assistant City Clerk The session was called to order at 2:05 p.m. at Morningside Recreation Center. Richard Gehring said this meeting was an extension of the previous briefing session of March 30, 1999, which set an indept foundation regarding the direction in which the City is going. He said today’s session would be focused on vision discussion. Mr. Gehring indicated the Commission is being invited directly into a strategy process where goals are being set and detailed projects and schedules are emerging. He indicated it has been two years since the last vision process. He said there are 78 initiatives, the focus of One City. One Future. Discussion ensued in regard to the Clearwater Beach Districts and it was indicated many of the beach elements of the plan have been changing the dynamics of the road design and the final configuration of the roundabout. The design stage of the bridge is underway and will be coming back to the commission. The Gulfview corridor is a beach component and it was determined it should contain a parking element. The policy position on the bluff has been rather restrictive and the level of commission commitment in the plan needs to be determined. A decision whether to move forward with the RFP process on strategic parcels such as the Marina or the bluff should be made now so the plan emerges with the commission being a participant in the strategies. Mr. Gehring believed the beach to be the primary area of action with three times the value of the downtown. He said there are 38 beach projects. The downtown is complex but will not receive as much economic attention as the beach. In the downtown core, there are 24 projects with a lot of attention being given to the bluff. There has been positive discussion regarding a potential test by referendum for a major private redevelopment plan in this area. He noted there are nine proposed programs in the Greenwood area with a major one being the future of the Phillies. It was noted there has been significant investment in five separate districts of the Gulf to Bay Corridor Improvement program. Focus needs to be on available resources and timeframes. Capital projects have been reviewed, program implementation structures have been put together. Mr. Siemon has drafted a beach and downtown plan. He said there have been a number of internal and external meetings regarding these elements. All the elements have to mesh and be accomplished concurrently with the ongoing operations of the city. It was questioned whether everything being discussed today is part of One City. One Future. It was felt the city should stick to those projects agreed upon in Penny for Pinellas. It was noted the Marina was not in the plans. Mr. Gehring said the marina project emerged in the planning process. He said they were asked to deliver a project and want to know if they are in line with the City Manager’s expectations. City Manager Roberto said the commission had a vision they wanted to accomplish which required jump starting some economic efforts. This included organizational changes and reprioritizing Penny for Pinellas projects. He said the obligation of the commission is for current and future projects. He noted the Stevenson Creek project will be at least two years in getting started due to permitting, planning and designing. The city is also trying to obtain additional funds from the federal level. The City Manager said in June they will be looking at how Strategies for Success will fit into the 2001 budget so that it can become the framework of all the goals and objectives for the city. He said today he would like to get revalidation from the commission on the direction the city is taking. Concern was expressed One City. One Future. and Penny for Pinellas has nothing to do with eminent domain to help facilitate a big project and emphasis is being placed on things that are not part of what was originally agreed upon. Deputy City Manager Hedrick said the commission tailored the Penny for Pinellas list to accomplish projects. It was noted the commission never discussed a commercial venture on the marina site. Concern was expressed a lot of proposed projects are going beyond what was discussed by the commission and it was felt the city should focus on the funds available and do those projects agreed upon. Mr. Gehring indicated a lot of Mr. Siemon’s recommendations were not perceived as Penny formulated. He said the commission needs to determine if they are worth pursuing. In response to Mr. Gehring’s question, as to what the commission wants to see in 5-8 years, it was indicated to see the commission keep its word on Penny for Pinellas projects. It was felt One City. One Future. was an umbrella plan that may or may not change every week. It is difficult to see 14 years in the future without a plan. An opinion was expressed it was the City Manager’s job to bring projects to the table and the commission’s job to determine the best fit. Concern was expressed in committing to a vision without knowing the budget for 1999/2000. Assistant City Manager Keller said certain fundamental building blocks need to be in place before the city can take advantage of development opportunities. Deputy City Manager Hedrick said there are basics that need to be done and then the action plan can be set. It was indicated when the commission prioritized project, operational costs were not taken into account. Discussion ensued in regard to the order of the projects. It was felt that before the bridge was open, the traffic flow and parking issues need to be solved. It was felt the projects were listed in the right order as it would take a year for the roundabout and a couple of years for the parking. Discussion ensued in regard to being able, through technology, to have a way to indicate when the new parking garages on the beach are filled before the first car goes over the new bridge. It was felt One City. One Future. is a living document and the commission needed to be flexible in meeting the opportunities and challenges as a result of this document. Mr. Gehring found the Penny list to be dynamic indicating it is changeable after holding a public hearing. The City Manager believed the downtown creates an economic opportunity and referenced the IMR property. Mr. Gehring felt that the beach was an investment opportunity and anything done on the beach to stimulate redevelopment would have a lot of impact. Downtown investment would have a slower return and less impact. He asked the commission whether the bluff should remain sacred. Discussion ensued in regard to providing non-building costs as well as building costs to give an entire picture of a project. Discussion ensued in regard to the Penny list. It was indicated although the commission needed to honor their commitments, it was felt not all the projects could be done as originally designed as it has been shown the projected costs were unrealistic. It was felt the commission needed to react in a positive way to the vision. They should not tie their hands with a limited scope. The projects should be reviewed and reprioritized if necessary. It was felt the commission should review all alternatives and get more detail before a project is brought forward. The commission and citizenry want to see the plan strategy in order to make a choice. Assistant City Manager Keller said the commission has given a pretty specific vision, just not one of content. Consensus is to be flexible, opportunistic, and fiscally responsive and let the elected officials in from the beginning be part of the discussion before it goes to the citizenry. It was hoped other revenue sources could be found so the commission could honor their commitment regarding Penny for Pinellas. Discussion ensued in regard to private investment opportunities. The City Manager indicated the city may need to partner with other entities or invest in other properties. It could be staff time or money. He cited IMR indicating the city would get back their investment in three years. Assistant City Manager Keller indicated decisions regarding zoning strategy, willingness to accumulate land, use of tax increment funds and a decision regarding the bluff need to be made. He felt there was incredible economic interest in the downtown. Mr. Siemon agreed with Mr. Keller indicating the city needs to move forward with these decisions so not to miss any economic opportunity. There has been an energy created with the bridge and roundabout projects. The change in downtown started when the city decided to build the new bridge. The city needs to create a climate of certainty. Discussion ensued in regard to focusing on development on the east side of Osceola Avenue. It was noted the difficulty for development in this area are different property owners trying to maximize their profits. It was felt the emphasis should be put on strategies. The plan has to have flexibility allowing for additions and deletions as necessary. Currently staff’s plate is full and there is a need to prioritize for staff to know where they are going. The strategies need to make sense to them so they can place their budget, manpower and efforts in that direction. The City Manager felt that N. Fort Harrison needed to be addressed because it is the northern entrance into the city. He suggested doing analyses and studies on it in 2001. Mr. Hedrick expressed concern that the fair amount of momentum that has been created has slowed down. He noted a lot of the housing stock and downtown buildings are aging and the city needs to do something to stimulate the economy. He understood the concern for the budget but indicated to be successful you sometimes need to make upfront investments. Concern was expressed in staff undergoing a complete reorganization and the amount of work being thrown their way. It was noted staff is starting to show an obvious strain. Mr. Gehring indicated it is not realistic to do the additional initiatives with the current staffing. He said either expectations need to be lowered or resources need to be addressed. The City Manager indicated staff has been involved with the day to day issues and have not been doing realistic long range planning. He noted the majority of the budget is spent on public safety. He said the commission needs to clarify its priorities. It was noted a major issue is parking which will be addressed in the near future. Parking alternatives will be discussed and fully explained to the public before moving forward. Concern was expressed budget figures are not received soon enough. It was requested staff come forward with their wish list before they know the millage rate. The City Attorney indicated there is a perception that the commission is not ready to move forward. She felt this may be a communication issue. It was noted that integrity and trust are important values and more important than any skills. The city needs to have the trust of the community, the stakeholders and the media and it needs to be able to trust them as well. It was remarked that there should be no surprises; that the commission be kept informed before moving forward on any project. The meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m.