12/17/1991 CITY COMMISSION MEETING
December 19, 1991
The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in regular session at City Hall, Thursday, December 19, 1991 at 6:00 p.m., with the following members present:
Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner
Sue Berfield Vice-Mayor/Commissioner
Lee Regulski Commissioner
William Nunamaker Commissioner
Richard Fitzgerald Commissioner
Also present:
Michael J. Wright City Manager
M.A. Galbraith, Jr. City Attorney
Cecil Henderson Assistant Public Works Director
James Polatty, Jr. Planning and Development Director
Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk
The Mayor called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance. No Minister was present to offer the invocation.
In order to provide continuity for research, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order.
ITEM #3 - Service Pin Awards.
1 service pin was awarded to a City employee.
ITEM #4 - Introductions and Awards - None.
ITEM #5 - Presentations
a) Recycling Goals were reviewed by George McKibben.
b) Agreement with the Community Service Foundation establishing the Utilities We Care Fund (AS)
As many people find it difficult to pay for basic services in the event of temporary financial emergencies, the Utilities Customer Support Office recommends the creation of the Clearwater
Utilities We Care Fund wherein Clearwater utilities customers will be given the opportunity to donate to a financial assistance fund. If the program is approved, a leaflet will be included
with the Clearwater utility bills offering three options to customers who wish to donate.
The Community Service Foundation will administer the fund as outlined in the Agreement. Eligible recipients will receive assistance as one payment
annually in an amount not to exceed $100.00. The City will be responsible for collecting and forwarding funds to the foundation, publicity and conducting inspections to assure proper
operation of the fund.
The City will contribute $5,000 from miscellaneous social service agency funding which is budgeted in the 1991/92 General Fund Non-Departmental Department. A $5 administrative fee
for each check issued to qualified recipients by the Foundation will be charged to the We Care Fund. Other miscellaneous expenses of approximately $1,500 necessary for the establishment
of the Fund include: an estimated $850 for the utility bill stuffers and a $.15 per donation form or check charge for items processed by the City's bank. The operation budget for the
Utilities Customer Support division includes sufficient funds for these miscellaneous costs. The Fund can be expected to raise between $7,000 and $10,000 in its first year of operation
with 800 or 2% of the City's Utility customers participating.
Carole Greiner, Customer Support Manager, reviewed the program. In response to a question, she indicated donations would be tax deductible. The flyers will be sent out in the next
utility bills.
Discussion ensued regarding the fees to be charged to the fund and whether or not this needed to be stated differently in the Agreement. It was stated the fee will only be charged
when a check is issued.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the agreement with the Community Service Foundation to establish and administer the Clearwater Utilities We Care Fund and approve, for initial
capitalization, a contribution to the Utilities We Care Fund in the amount of $5,000 from the General Fund. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
c) Turkey Trot Awards.
Steve Miller, Parks and Recreation, presented Turkey Trot T-shirts and Award cups to the City Commission. He presented the Golden Turkey Award for the Department with the most employees
participating to the Library Department.
d) Letters of Commendation.
Police Chief Sid Klein read and presented a letter of commendation to Officer Wayne Spitaleri for his efforts in rescuing a man from a submerged car on November 29, 1991.
Fire Chief Bob Davidson read and presented letters of commendation to Fire Lieutenant John Donaldson and Fire Fighter Charles Daniels for their efforts in rescuing a man from a submerged
car on November 29, 1991.
Mayor Garvey reported City Employees donated over sixty food baskets for the holidays.
ITEM #6 - Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 21, 1991 and December 5, 1991 and Special Meeting of December 2, 1991
Commissioner Regulski moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of November 21, 1991, and December 5, 1991, and special meeting of December 2, 1991, as recorded and submitted
in written summation by the City Clerk to each Commissioner. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #7 - Citizens to be heard re items not on the Agenda.
William Sterrett thanked the Commission for the work they are doing. He stated he was proud of Clearwater.
Bob Clark requested an apology from the Pinellas County Courts.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM #8 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5159-91 - Vacating the 10' drainage and utility easements lying along the easterly and southerly boundary lines of Sec. 21-29-15, M&B 44.11
(Fairwinds Properties Inc. V91-13)(PW)
The applicant has an existing building which was built into the easement. The City has no existing utilities within these easements. There are no objections from City departments
or the three utility companies to the applicant's request.
Janet Reardon, attorney representing the applicant stated they will grant a new easement.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve the vacation of the 10 foot drainage and utility easements lying along the easterly and southerly portion of M&B 44.11 within Sec. 21-29-15.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5159-91 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Nunamaker moved to pass Ordinance #5159-91 on first reading. The motion was
duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Regulski, Nunamaker, Fitzgerald, Berfield and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #9 - (Cont. from 11/21/91) Variance to Sign Regulations for property located at 20505 US19N, Sec. 17-29-16, M&B 32.01 & 32.02 (Trizec Properties, Inc./Gayfers/Pugh, SV91-21)(PLD)
The applicant is seeking a variance to permit three existing attached signs to remain after the October 13, 1992 amortization period. These signs
are identical in area (342 sq.ft. apiece) and approving the applicant's request would authorize a total area variance of 674 sq.ft.
The applicant, as a major tenant in a shopping center, is allowed one business identification sign not to exceed 1.5 sq.ft./lineal feet (L.F.) of building width, with a maximum allowable
size of 128 sq.ft. In addition, the applicant is permitted up to two additional signs for additional primary entrances, such signs not to exceed 1.5 sq.ft./L.F. with a maximum surface
area of 112 sq.ft. The applicant does have three primary entrances on the north, east and west sides, and is thus entitled to one sign of 128 sq.ft. and two signs of 112 sq.ft., or
a total surface area for the three signs of 352 sq.ft. The actual surface area of the three signs is 1,026 sq.ft., which is 674 sq.ft. over the total allowable surface / existing area.
In the applicant's request, he has cited the difficulty in maintaining the aesthetic integrity of the three sides of his building if the signs are removed and replaced with smaller
signs. The structure is brick, and the signs have been up for over ten years. The applicant feels that the imprint of the letters, due to weathering, will be impossible to cover and
thus, destroy the aesthetics of the structure.
The signs do not appear to be out of proportion to the structure. However, the problem of dealing with the imprint of the letters due to weathering is one which has been successfully
handled by this shopping center and others in cases of tenant changes. Therefore, staff does not recognize this argument as a legitimate hardship.
The Gayfers store is setback a considerable distance (350 ft.) from the existing right-of-way (S.R.60). Staff developed a table which establishes a relationship between building setback
and attached sign area for major tenants in shopping centers. Using this table, the Gayfers sign facing S.R.60 could be approved. However, staff cannot recommend variance approval
for the signs which face east and west since these signs are primarily for identifying the store once traffic is on the site.
Ronny Pugh, representing the applicant, stated the signs have existed since 1973, are in proportion with the building and are of subdued colors. He also stated the wall would be difficult
to repair if the signs have to be removed.
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not all three signs should be allowed to remain with some feeling being expressed that the east and west signs do not cause difficulty as they
are seen only from on site.
Concerns were also expressed that there would be difficulties if the imprints of the current lettering could not be removed. It was stated that signs have been removed from other mall
buildings at this site, as well as others, and there has been no difficulty with imprinting. It was cautioned that if the imprint argument is considered viable, there will be many more
requests of this nature.
Mr. Pugh suggested the North sign be allowed to remain as well as the West sign. He is concerned people entering the mall parking lot from the North would not be able to see the Gayfers
sign.
Commissioner Regulski moved to approve the variance for all three signs based on the 300 foot and 800 foot setbacks being unique. There was no second to this motion.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve a variance of 214 square feet surface area for the north-facing business identification sign to permit continuation of same after October 13,
1992, subject to: 1) The variance applies only to the north-facing business identification sign (facing S.R.60); and 2) All other signs on the business shall be brought into compliance
with City Sign Regulations by October 13, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #10 - Variances to the Sign Regulations for property (Daffodil Boutique) located at 700 S. Gulfview Blvd., Bayside Sub. No.6, Unit B, Blk E, Lot 13 together with 15' vacated road
on south and Bayside Shores, Blk C, Lots 11 & 12 (Best SV91-23)(PLD)
The applicant has an existing 19 foot 8 inch high business identification pole sign located at 700 South Gulfview Boulevard at the south end of Clearwater Beach. The sign panel was
destroyed by the April 25th storm. The applicant is proposing to alter this non-conforming sign to bring it into conformity with CR 28 Zoning District Regulations. The applicant's
property is in a CB (Beach Commercial) District and is permitted one business identification sign but pole signs are prohibited. The applicant states she will remove the existing attached
sign as a condition of variance approval; this sign is mounted on a mansard roof/wall and is regarded as a conforming wall sign. She intends to reduce the height of the pole sign to
16 feet 2 1/3 inches with a surface area of 56 square feet.
The applicant contends her property is not visible to tourists coming from Sand Key because of the curvature of the road from Sand Key Bridge. She also contends the same is true with
people approaching her business premises from the west. She further asserts that on the opposite sides of both Gulfview and Bayway Boulevard properties have pole signs to attract business.
Businesses on the opposite sides of the road are hotels and motels, and are within the area zoned CR 28 (Commercial Resort) District which allows pole signs with a 56 sq.ft. surface
area.
Staff is recommending denial of this request as there is nothing unique about the property that distinguishes it from surrounding CB zoned properties. The property is in close proximity
to another zoning district (CR 28) which has less stringent signage requirements, but this is a relatively common occurrence throughout the City. Should the Commission decide to grant
the request, staff suggests the following conditions be met: 1) The applicant shall obtain the requisite sign permit within six months of the date of this public hearing; 2) The only
business/property identification signage allowed for this property shall be the freestanding sign provided for in condition 3
below; all wall signs shall be removed prior to the issuance of a certificate of compliance for the freestanding sign; and 3) The proposed freestanding sign shall be a ground sign limited
to 6 feet in height and 24 square feet in area.
Should the Commission decide to grant this request they may wish to direct staff to revise the code to permit ground signs (or other freestanding signs) in the Beach Commercial district
when properties are setback from street rights-of-way.
Scott Shuford, Planning Manager, indicated businesses on the opposite side of the street do have the ability to erect pole signs. He stated however they are recommending denial as
there is nothing unique about this beach commercial property. In response to a question he did indicate this property did have more setback than others in the area.
Dwayne Best, representing his wife who owns the boutique, distributed pictures of the property. He stated the pole sign is 20 feet from the road and is designed to be compatible with
the building. He stated this is not a typical beach commercial property as it only has fifteen percent lot coverage. They are requesting the same signage as would be allowed across
the street in a CR-28 zone.
Discussion ensued regarding the need for the pole sign with it being indicated that the existing sign on the building is more visible than the pole sign would be. Staff recommends
that if the pole sign is allowed, the attached sign be removed.
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the Commission wished to consider changes in the signs permitted in the beach commercial zone.
Commissioner Nunamaker moved to continue this item until staff brings forward further information regarding signs in the beach commercial zone. The motion was duly seconded.
Discussion ensued regarding what information the Commission was requesting from staff.
Commissioner Nunamaker withdrew his motion. The seconder withdrew the second.
Commissioner Regulski moved to deny the variance but to instruct staff to investigate and study beach commercial signs. The motion was duly seconded.
Discussion ensued regarding the impact on the current applicant and what timeframe was being requested for consideration of these signs. It was indicated staff intends to bring forward
a number of changes to the sign code in the spring. Consensus of the Commission was for this to come back as a separate item prior to the other sign code changes.
A suggestion was made that the variance be continued rather than denied. Commissioner Regulski did not wish to change his motion.
Upon the vote being taken upon the motion, the vote was; Commissioners Regulski and Fitzgerald and Mayor Garvey voted "Aye", Commissioners Nunamaker and Berfield voted "Nay". Motion
carried.
It was stated staff would come back at the January 16, 1992 meeting with requests for direction regarding signage in the Beach Commercial zoning.
ITEM #11 - (Cont. from 12/5/91) Declare properties surplus for the purpose of deeding the land and granting easements to FDOT for the widening of S.R. 580 (PW) To be Cont.
Documents from the Florida Department of Transportation regarding payment for utility relocation have not been received.
Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Park Place - Notice of proposed change to an approved Development of Regional Impact (DRI) located between Drew Street, Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, US19 and Hampton Road and Second Readings
of Ordinances to rezone and change the land use plan designation of said property.
The Commission approved the modification of the Development Order (Ordinance #5142-91) on first reading at its November 4, 1991 special meeting. The rezoning and Land Use Plan Amendment
ordinances passed first reading at the August 15, 1991 meeting. All three ordinances are to be amended on second reading.
There are two separate but related actions required to permit industrial/research and development land uses in the Park Place DRI; 1) approving a change to the development order as
part of the Notice of Proposed Change hearing to allow: a) the substitution of 200,000 sq.ft. of industrial development for 300,000 sq.ft. of office development and b) the extension
of the build-out date for the project from 1991 until 1996; and 2) amending the zoning and land use classification for the property.
The Commission, by its action on November 4, 1991, agreed that the proposed changes do not constitute a substantial deviation from the original DRI since: a) Service impacts are lessened
from the original level of development allowed under the original DRI approval; and b) The applicant has demonstrated reasonable progress, given market conditions, in proceeding with
the continued development of the site. The Planning and Zoning Board has accepted staff's determination that no substantial deviation is created by the proposed changes.
The applicant has submitted a Notification of Proposed Change to a previously approved DRI. Florida Statutes require that this submittal be made
to the local government, the regional planning council, and the state land planning agency for review to determine if the change will create a substantial deviation to the original development
order.
The original development order for Park Place permitted a project with a maximum floor area of 1,253,000 sq.ft. to be developed in three phases, with build-out in 1991. The applicant
now proposes to develop the subject site with retail, office and industrial uses. The applicant also proposes to change from three phases to one phase, Phase A, with an extension of
build-out date from 1991 to 1996.
The only infrastructure/service issue of concern for this development is traffic generation. Other services, including fire protection, solid waste disposal, and water/sewer services
are judged adequate for this site. The applicant maintains the proposed change in land use and floor area is not substantive with regard to traffic generation because the overall floor
area of the project is reduced and because the traffic generation potential of industrial uses is less, on a per square foot basis, than office uses. The applicant has submitted a traffic
analysis that supports this claim. The Planning and Development Department staff generally concur with the applicant in this assessment and feel that this component of the proposed
change does not represent a substantial deviation.
Regarding build-out date, staff feels reasonable progress has been made toward completion of the original development order. If the build-out date is extended, there would be some
implications for the off-site improvements required by the original development order. Certain road improvements have been completed and others are in construction. The applicant proposes
to pay to the City the total amount required for Phases II and III, together with interest as required in the development order within 180 days after the effective date of the amendments
to the development order.
James Polatty, Planning and Development Director, indicated that basically the change in the DRI replaces office development with industrial development. He reported representatives
of Metropolitan Life are requesting a continuance to negotiate a few remaining items between the parties. He also reported that on December 18, 1991, additional changes had been submitted
as a result of negotiations between the applicant and the Regional Development staff. The December 18th memorandum includes all the changes that were contained in a December 13th memo
as well.
Timothy Johnson, attorney representing the applicant, stated they would request that the land use plan amendment ordinance be changed to have an effective date the same as the development
order.
Gordon Schiff, attorney representing Metropolitan Life, stated that although the land use plan and zoning ordinances do not touch on the major issue, they are requesting a continuance
on all matters. He stated if the hearing goes forward tonight they will be placed in the uncomfortable position of objecting to the change. He stated he feels the differences of opinion
are a matter of clarification that can be worked out within the next two weeks.
In response to a question, he indicated Metropolitan Life owns 34 acres of the DRI and while they are not opposing the application, they do feel the development order needs some clarification.
Timothy Johnson stated this matter has been set for six months and it is important that these items be completed prior to the end of the year. He stated there is a 45 day period following
passage of the ordinance in which there is an ability for parties to appeal.
Discussion ensued regarding the conflict and what actions to take. It was stated the major issue was the development order and it was preferred to conclude action on the land use plan
and zoning ordinances prior to discussing the development order. It was stated the land use plan amendment and zoning would not go into effect until the DRI ordinance becomes effective.
ITEM #12 - Second Reading Ord. #5113-91 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Industrial for a portion of Phase II and all of Phase III of Park Place DRI, located between Drew St. and Gulf-to-Bay
Blvd., and between US19 and Hampton Rd. (Building Operation Holding Co., LUP91-04)
Commissioner Regulski moved to amend Ordinance #5113-91 as follows: 1) In the next to the last line in the title, delete "AND COMMERCIAL/TOURIST FACILITIES."; 2) In Section 1, delete:
Property Land Use Category
See Exhibit A attached hereto. From: Residential/Office - Parcel A
(LUP 91-04) Commercial/Tourist Facilities - Parcel B
To: Industrial - Parcels A and B
and substitute:
Property Land Use Category
See Exhibit A attached hereto. From: Residential/Office
(LUP 91-04) To: Industrial;
3) Substitute revised Exhibit A; 4) Substitute the revised location map; and 5) to change the effective date in Section 3 so that the ordinance is to become effective as of the effective
date of Ordinance #5142-91. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5113-91 as amended for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Regulski moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5113-91 as amended
on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded. Upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Regulski, Nunamaker, Fitzgerald, Berfield and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #13 - Second Reading Ord. #5114-91 - RD Zoning for property subject of Ord. #5113-91 (Building Operation Holding Co., Z91-01)
Commissioner Regulski moved to amend Ordinance #5114-91 as follows: 1) In the 7th and 8th lines in the title, delete "GENERAL OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL CENTER (CC) DISTRICTS" and substitute
"GENERAL OFFICE (OG) DISTRICT."; 2) In Section 1, delete:
Property Land Use Category
See Exhibit A attached hereto. From: General Office (OG) - Parcel A
(Z 91-01) Commercial Center (CC) - Parcel B
To: Research, Development and Office
Park (RD) - Parcels A and B
and substitute:
Property Land Use Category
See Exhibit A attached hereto. From: General Office (OG)
(Z 91-01) To: Research, Development and Office
Park (RD);
3) Substitute revised Exhibit A; 4) Substitute the revised location map; and 5) to change the effective date in Section 4 for the ordinance to be effective as of the effective date of
Ordinance #5142-91. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5114-91 as amended for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Nunamaker moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5114-91 as amended
on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded. Upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Regulski, Nunamaker, Fitzgerald, Berfield and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #14 - Second Reading Ord. #5142-91 - Relating to Park Place, amending Ord. #3205-83, the development order for Park Place, as amended by Ord. #3287-83; providing findings of fact
and conclusions of law; providing for amendments to conceptual plan and phasing of the development; determining the amendments are not a "substantial deviation" from the approved development
order; determining the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan of the city
James Polatty, Planning and Development Director, indicated that the major change is to move additional square footage into Phase I for the Storz development. He stated that the Storz
company will construct part of the internal road and the rest of that road will be constructed at a later date.
Timothy Johnson, attorney representing the applicant, stated the revised site plan clarifies that the access road will continue through the project. He reviewed the amendments proposed
to the ordinance.
In response to a question regarding the 480,000 square feet of office, Mr. Johnson indicated that 120,560 of the office is the existing Metropolitan Life development. An additional
120,000 square feet is allocated to Metropolitan Life and the balance is owned by Building Operation Holding Company and American Cyanamid.
In response to another question, Mr. Johnson indicated that of the 150,000 square feet of retail, 55,278 is already constructed being the Key West Grill and again, holdings of Metropolitan
Life. 95,000 square feet are owned by Metropolitan Life and Building Operation Holding Company. He reported that in the development order regarding payments for improvements that Building
Operation Holding Company will pay for those improvements. He stated Metropolitan Life has met all the conditions that have been imposed upon them.
Gordon Schiff, attorney representing Metropolitan Life, stated that under the old Phase I, Metropolitan Life had a proportionate payment which has been fully paid. Their concern is
for potential additional payment requirements for Metropolitan Life, which would not be fair, as they have met their obligations.
In response to a question, Mr. Johnson indicated the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council staff has agreed to the five year extension.
Extensive discussion ensued regarding requirements to be placed upon future developments and what requirements would be made of Metropolitan Life. Mr. Johnson indicated that should
Metropolitan Life come in for development on their own, they would be subject to certain obligations. He stated that all payments required by this amendment will be made by the applicants
or building permits will not be issued.
Mr. Johnson reviewed the payments and/or improvements that will be required stating that all these requirements will be met. He further stated they would agree to make all payments
necessary within ten days after the effective date of the ordinance.
Mr. Schiff indicated that Metropolitan Life has a separate interest from the applicant and they have no objections to the changes as long as Metropolitan Life has no potential for additional
payments or requirements. He requested that Metropolitan Life's remaining development rights be addressed and recognition that Metropolitan Life has fully mitigated its obligations.
He indicated the only time the remainder of the internal road would be paved was if Metropolitan Life constructed something that necessitated access and they would pay for that portion
for the Metropolitan Life property.
Discussion ensued regarding the need to complete the internal road and further development potential.
In response to a question, Mr. Johnson indicated that Metropolitan Life is not requesting deletion from the DRI, merely clarification.
Discussion ensued regarding the need to address these concerns. It was the consensus of the Commission that this was an internal matter to be settled between Metropolitan Life and
Building Operation Holding Company and any other owners involved in the DRI.
Commissioner Nunamaker moved to amend Ordinance #5142-91 as follows:
1. On page 1, in the third "whereas" clause, insert "August 19" in the blank space. Also, delete the phrase, "from three phases, as approved, to one phase," and delete the phrase, "to
provide a timetable based upon increases in P.M. peak hour traffic instead of time."
2. On page 1, in the fourth "whereas" clause, insert "December 19" in the blank space.
3. On page 2, amend Subsection B.1 of Section 2 to read:
1. Revising the Conceptual Plan for Park Place to provide for 200,000 square feet of floor area for industrial use and a reduction of the approved floor area for office use by 300,000
square feet to 803,000 square feet;
3A. On page 2, amend Subsection B.3 of Section 2 to read:
3. Amending the phasing of the development;
4. On page 2, amend Subsection B.4 of Section 2 to read:
4. Amending all Development Order conditions based on phasing;
5. On page 2, in Subsection B.5 of Section 2, insert "90" in the blank space, and delete the last "and."
6. On page 2, in Subsection B of Section 2, insert a new paragraph 6 to read as follows, and renumber paragraph 6 as 7:
6. Eliminating the requirement for a transportation management plan; and
6A. On page 2, amend Subsection C of Section 2 to read:
C. A comprehensive review of the impacts generated by the proposed amendments, together with all previous amendments, has been conducted by the City's departments, the Tampa Bay Regional
Planning Council ("TBRPC") and the Department of Community Affairs, State of Florida ("DCA").
6B. On pages 2-3, amend Subsection D of Section 2 to read:
D. The proposed amendments, together with all previous amendments, do not increase the external traffic impact of the development, nor do they create additional impacts on other public
facilities, including water, wastewater, drainage, solid waste, recreation and mass transit, from the original projections set forth in the Amended Application for Development Approval.
6C. On page 3, amend Subsection C of Section 3 to read:
C. The proposed amendments, together with all previous amendments, do not create a reasonable likelihood of additional impact, or any type of regional impact not previously reviewed
by the regional planning agency, over those treated under the Development Order. The proposed amendments, therefore, do not constitute a "substantial deviation" from the Park Place
Development Order, pursuant to Chapter 380.06, Florida Statutes.
6D. On page 3, delete Subsection F of Section 3, and reletter the subsequent subsections. (Note: Subsection F states, "The proposed amendments are consistent with the report and recommendations
of the TBRPC.")
7. On page 4, in Subsection D of Section 4, insert the following at the end of the subsection [* footnotes added]:
Phase A shall be divided into three subphases as follows:
Subphase Maximum Floor Area In Square Feet
Retail
Commercial Office Industrial Total
A1 150,000* 480,000** 200,000 830,000
A2 198,000 198,000
A3 125,000 125,000
Total 150,000 803,000 200,000 1,153,000
*Includes 55,278 square feet existing as of 12-19-91.
**Includes 120,560 square feet existing as of 12-19-91.
8. On page 4, following Subsection D of Section 4, delete Subsection E and insert new Subsections E, F, G, H and L to read as follows, and amend and redesignate the remaining subsections
as follows:
E. Section 4.D. of the Development Order is amended to read as follows:
The Developer agrees to acquire land, or to pay the City for land required to be acquired by the City, to provide ingress and egress to the west of the Project. Specifically, access
to the west shall interconnect with the existing easement at the north end of M&Bs 19 1, 20, 20 1 and 20 1A (Bennigan's, Chi Chi's and Perkins) to the U.S. 19 frontage road and through
the Bennigan's site to the existing traffic light at State Road 60. Said ingress and egress shall be secured by fee simple acquisition, right of way easement, or other appropriate mechanism
by either the Developer or the City. The cost of constructing such connection to the adjoining property to the west, in addition to any other contributions for on site or off site
road improvements, will be the responsibility of the Developer according to a schedule to be established with the preliminary site plan approval of Subphase A1. [This access has been
acquired and constructed.]
F. Section 4.E. of the Development Order is amended to read as follows:
Prior to the approval of the initial final site plan for Subphase A1, funding commitments for construction from the governmental entities responsible for construction of the following
transportation improvements shall be made or, in the alternative, the Developer shall assume the financial responsibility for its proportionate share of the cost of construction of the
transportation improvements.
[Substantial revision; see Ordinance 3287-83 for present text:]
1. At the U.S. 19/Drew Street intersection construct a grade separated interchange. This improvement has been committed to in the current Florida Department of Transportation Adopted
Five Year Work Program and is scheduled for Fiscal Year '95/'96. In lieu of the funding commitment or the proportionate share of the construction cost, the following commitments may
be made:
a. Extend Druid Road between Belcher Road and Edenville Road. The completion of this improvement will provide a parallel reliever access for State Road 60 and Drew Street. [This
improvement has been completed.]
b. Extend and widen Drew Street as a four lane divided link (four through lanes and turn lanes as are appropriate) between U.S. 19 and McMullen Booth Road. [This improvement has
been completed.]
c. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy after the development generates 525 p.m. peak hour net external vehicle trips, the Developer shall provide up to $125,000
to the Florida Department of Transportation for the construction plans of the U.S. 19/Drew Street grade separated interchange. [As
of 12-19-91, the development generates 296 p.m. peak hour net external vehicle trips.] These funds shall be provided in order to obtain a commitment for the construction of the U.S.
19/Drew Street grade separated interchange during Subphase A2.
2. Construct access points to Park Place on Hampton Road as needed. Exclusive turn lanes and a traffic signal(s) may be needed. The cost of these improvements shall be the sole responsibility
of the Developer. Pursuant to subsection 4.Z., the Developer shall pay the total cost of these improvements and the City shall assume the responsibility for constructing these improvements.
3. At the S.R. 60/Clearwater Mall Drive II intersection construct two eastbound to northbound exclusive left turn lanes. The cost of these improvements shall be the sole responsibility
of the Developer. Pursuant to subsection 4.Z., the Developer shall pay the total cost of these improvements and the City shall assume the responsibility for constructing these improvements.
[This improvement has been completed.]
4. Install or renovate, as appropriate, traffic signals at the south project entrance and S.R. 60 and at Hampton Road and S.R. 60. The cost of these improvements shall be the sole
responsibility of the Developer. Pursuant to subsection 4.Z., the Developer shall pay the total cost of these improvements and the City shall assume the responsibility for constructing
these improvements. [This improvement has been completed.]
5. Construct an exclusive left turn lane on S.R. 60 approach and an additional through lane in each direction on S.R. 60 at its intersection with Hampton Road. The cost of these improvements
shall be the sole responsibility of the Developer. Pursuant to subsection 4.Z., the Developer shall pay the total cost of these improvements and the City shall assume the responsibility
for constructing these improvements. [These improvements are under construction.]
6. Construct additional lanes on State Road 60 from U.S. 19 to McMullen Booth Road. [This improvement is under construction.]
7. At the Belcher Road/S.R. 60 intersection, construct an additional through lane and additional exclusive left and right turn lanes on all approaches. The through lanes shall be
continued to the next intersection or some logical terminus in accordance with proper design practice. Pursuant to subsection 4.Z., the Developer shall pay its proportionate share of
the cost for construction of these improvements.
8. At the U.S. 19/S.R. 60 intersection, construct an eastbound to southbound exclusive right turn lane and in the westbound direction construct one additional exclusive left turn
lane. Pursuant to subsection 4.Z., the Developer shall pay its proportionate share of the cost for construction of this improvement.
9. Improve Drew Street to a four-lane divided arterial from U.S. 19 to N.E. Coachman Road, and add turn lanes at all signalized intersections in between. This improvement is committed
to in the Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Improvement Program as being constructed in Fiscal Year 1992-93.
G. Section 4.F. of the Development Order is amended to read as follows:
Prior to the approval of the initial final site plan for Subphase A2, funding commitments for construction from the governmental entities responsible for construction of the following
transportation improvements shall be made or, in the alternative, the Developer shall assume the financial responsibility for its proportionate share of the construction of the transportation
improvements:
[Substantial revision; see Ordinance 3287-83 for present text:]
At the U.S. 19/N.E. Coachman Road (State Road 590) intersection construct a grade separated interchange, provided, however, such facility shall not remain a condition of approval if
TBRPC's transportation policies are amended or the Developer, at the initiation of Subphase A2, agrees to prepare and submit traffic condition information documenting that the improvements
are no longer necessary to mitigate regional impacts.
H. Section 4.G. of the Development Order is amended to read as follows:
Prior to the approval of the initial final site plan for Subphase A3, funding commitments for construction from the governmental entities responsible for construction of the following
transportation improvements shall be made or, in the alternative, the Developer shall assume the financial responsibility for its proportionate share of the cost of construction of the
transportation improvements.
[Substantial revision; see Ordinance 3287-83 for present text:]
1. Construct additional access to Park Place on Hampton Road as needed. Exclusive turn lanes and a traffic signal(s) may be needed. The cost of these improvements shall be the sole
responsibility of the Developer. Pursuant to subsection 4.Z., the Developer shall pay the total cost of these improvements and the City shall assume the responsibility for constructing
these improvements.
2. Install and/or relocate additional traffic signals in the project area at Drew Street and the north project entrance, Drew Street and Hampton Road, the two south project entrances
and State Road 60, and State Road 60 and Hampton Road. These improvements are to be made in phases as is appropriate, but in their entirety by Subphase A3. The cost of these improvements
shall be the sole responsibility of the Developer. Pursuant to subsection 4.Z., the Developer shall pay the total cost of these improvements and the City shall assume the responsibility
for constructing these improvements. [These improvements are completed except for Drew Street and the north project entrance, and Drew Street and Hampton Road.]
3. Expand Hampton Road to a two lane divided link (two through lanes with turning lanes as appropriate) from State Road 60 to Drew Street in phases related to points of access on Hampton
Road, but in its entirety by Subphase A3. The cost of this improvement shall be the sole responsibility of the Developer. Pursuant to subsection 4.Z., the Developer shall pay the total
cost of these improvements and the City shall assume the responsibility of constructing the improvement. This improvement is scheduled by the City of Clearwater for its '92/'93 Fiscal
Year.
4. At the U.S. 19/Sunset Point Road intersection construct a grade separated interchange, provided, however, such facility shall not remain a condition of approval if TBRPC's transportation
policies are amended or the Developer, at the initiation of Subphase A3 agrees to prepare and submit traffic condition information documenting that the improvements are no longer necessary
to mitigate regional impacts.
* * * * *
L. Section 4.I. is hereby repealed.
9. Amend the former Subsection F, now Subsection I, to read:
I. Not later than ninety days after the effective date of this ordinance, Developer shall pay to the City the sum of $383,393.00, together with interest at the rate of ten percent
per annum from December 8, 1983. This payment, together with the previous transportation mitigation payment made pursuant to the Development Order, is in full satisfaction of Developer's
obligations under Sections 4.E.2 through 4.E.5, 4.E.7, 4.E.8, 4.G.1 through 4.G.3, and 4.Z of the Development Order as amended by this ordinance.
9A. Amend the former Subsection G, now Subsection J, to read:
J. The build-out year is hereby extended by five (5) years through 1996. This results in an extension of the build-out of Phase I by 11 years, from 1985 to 1996; an extension of the
build-out of Phase II by 8 years, from 1988 to 1996; and an extension of the build-out of Phase III by 5 years, from 1991 to 1996.
9B. Delete the former Subsection H, now Subsection K, and reletter subsequent subsections.
9C. Amend the former Subsection I, now Subsection L (relettered from M as a result of the preceding amendment), to read:
L. The amendments stated herein, together with all previous amendments, do not constitute a substantial deviation, pursuant to Chapter 380.06, Florida Statutes.
10. Amend Section 5, the effective date section, to read:
Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect 45 days after copies have been transmitted to the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council and the Florida Department of Community
Affairs, unless this ordinance is appealed, in which event this ordinance shall not take effect until such appeal has been decided.
The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Regulski, Nunamaker and Fitzgerald and Mayor Garvey voted "Aye", Commissioner Berfield voted "Nay". Motion carried.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5142-91 as amended for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Nunamaker moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5142-91 as amended
on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded. Upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Regulski, Nunamaker, Fitzgerald and Garvey.
"Nays": Berfield.
Motion carried.
Public Hearing - Second Reading Ordinances
ITEM #15 - Ord. #5145-91 - Rezoning for Loehmann's Plaza, Lots 1 & 2, located on NW corner of NE Coachman Rd. and US19N (Wal-Mart Z91-02)
James Polatty, Planning and Development Director, indicated that one of the conditions for approval of this rezoning and site plan was a cross-access easement for Lot 4. Lot 4 was
originally advertized as part of the rezoning but was never officially made a part of the application. The proposal tonight
was to delete Lot 4 however, staff now understands that the owners of Lot 4 will join the application. At issue is the proposed site plan only showing one access to NE Coachman. The
Commission is being asked to consider going back to the existing two curb cuts which assures access for Lot 4 with the one to the west being right-in, right-out only. This will be a
site plan amendment to show the curb cuts.
Staff is concerned that throughout this rezoning there have been meetings with residents of the area. The residents are unaware of this additional change.
Discussion ensued regarding the need for the two accesses and how they would be designed in order not to conflict with traffic on NE Coachman Road.
Concerns were expressed regarding the ability to control the right-in, right-out only turning movements.
Trish Muscarella, representing Brandon Nu-West, the owners of Lot 4, stated they would like to be included in the application. She stated the only two items of discussion are the accesses
and her client's requests to have input regarding the parking design on the property. She stated there have been many meetings and various options reviewed but the Florida Department
of Transportation has not agreed to any of the alternatives and has indicated that the site is vested only with the existing accesses. She stated her client is willing to agree to and
requests as a condition of approval of the rezoning the existing accesses and input regarding the parking design.
Timothy Johnson, attorney representing Wal-Mart, the contract purchaser of the property, stated they concurred with Ms. Muscarella's presentation. He stated the two accesses are the
only ones that will be approved by the Florida Department of Transportation.
Ms. Muscarella requested condition #12, approved at the December 19th meeting, be amended.
James Polatty, Planning and Development Director, indicated this was not needed as condition #12 only addressed the cross-access easement and not the number of accesses.
The City Attorney stated that the amendment which had been submitted to the Commission would no longer be needed as Lot 4 is now agreeing to become a part of the application.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5145-91 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Regulski moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5145-91 on second and final reading.
The motion was duly seconded. Upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Regulski, Nunamaker, Fitzgerald, Berfield and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #16 - (Cont. from 12/5/91) Ord. #5153-91 - Relating to city charter; proposing amendment to Sec. 8.04 relating to nominations of candidates for city commission, to provide that
qualifying fee and petition cards are to be received by the City Clerk not less than 46 days, rather than 35 days, prior to date of election; providing for special election to be held
in conjunction with regular city election in order to submit proposed city charter amendment to voters
Commissioner Regulski moved to amend the ballot question on page 2 to read as follows: The City Charter currently requires candidates for City Commission to qualify by paying fees
and filing petition cards with the City Clerk no later than 35 days prior to a city election. Ordinance #5153-91 proposes to amend the City Charter to require candidates to qualify
by paying fees and filing petition cards not later than 46 days, rather than 35 days, before an election. Shall the amendment to the City Charter be approved? The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5153-91 as amended for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5153-91 as amended
on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded. Upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Regulski, Nunamaker, Fitzgerald, Berfield and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #17 - (Cont. from 12/5/91) Ord. #5154-91 - Relating to Administration of City, creating Sec. 21.04 regarding departments of City, repealing Ch. 28 re: same
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5154-91 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5154-91 on second and final reading.
The motion was duly seconded. Upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Regulski, Nunamaker, Fitzgerald, Berfield and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #18 - Ord. #5155-91 - Vacating 10' drainage and utility easement lying along S 10' of Lot 28, Sun Tree Estates, less Westerly 10' (Suban V91-11)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5155-91 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5155-91 on second and final
reading. The motion was duly seconded. Upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Regulski, Nunamaker, Fitzgerald, Berfield and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #19 - Ord. #5156-91 - Vacating portion of 4' utility easement lying within Northerly 2' of Southerly 4' of Westerly 25' of Lot 8, Blk B, Crest Lake Sub.(McLeay V91-12)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5156-91 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5156-91 on second and final reading.
The motion was duly seconded. Upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Regulski, Nunamaker, Fitzgerald, Berfield and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #20 - Ord. #5158-91 - Relating to elections, amending various sections within Chs. 30, 31, 32, 34 & 35, to conform the code to the city charter and to applicable provisions of Florida
law; repealing Ch. 33
Discussion ensued the need to set a time limit on a candidate's ability to appoint a campaign treasurer and what that time limit should be.
Commissioner Regulski moved to amend Ordinance #5158-91 on page 3, in Subsection (e) of Section 31.02 to delete the first sentence and substitute the following: Each candidate shall
appoint a campaign treasurer and designate a campaign depository not more than 180 days before an election, as a prerequisite to obtaining the petition cards from the city clerk. The
motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Regulski, Berfield and Mayor Garvey voted "Aye", Commissioners Fitzgerald and Nunamaker voted "Nay". Motion carried.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5158-91 as amended for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Regulski moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5158-91 as amended
on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded. Upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Regulski, Berfield and Garvey.
"Nays": Nunamaker, Fitzgerald.
Motion carried.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
CONSENT AGENDA (Items #21-37) - Approved as submitted less Items #21, 24 & 33.
Agreements - Approved less #21 & #24.
ITEM #21 - See page 23
ITEM #22 - Renewal of agreement with the School Board of Pinellas County providing for continuation of the School Resource Officer program at Clearwater High School and Countryside High
School (PD)
ITEM #23 - Renewal of agreement with the School Board of Pinellas County providing for the joint use of facilities (PR)
ITEM #24 - See page 24
Bids & Contracts - Awarded less #33.
ITEM #25 - Purchase of a Supervisory Control & Data Acquisition (SCADA) System from Fisher Control International, Inc., Marshalltown, IA, for $136,637.93; purchase through City's Master
Lease Program with AT&T Credit Corp. (GAS)
ITEM #26 - Contract for roof replacement at the Marina Building to Southern Roofing Co., Clearwater, FL, for $64,471 (GS)
ITEM #27 - Extension of elevator maintenance contract to Control Elevator Systems, Spring Hill, FL, for the period 2/1/92-1/31/93 for $12,000 (GS)
ITEM #28 - Contract from roofing repair for the Fleet Maintenance Facility to 7-M Construction Co, Oldsmar, FL, for $14,485 (GS)
ITEM #29 - Purchase of a GTE Norstar Electronic Telephone System with StarTalk for the Library Department from GTE Communications Corp., Tampa, FL, for $29,849; financing to be provided
under the City's Master Lease Purchase Agreement with AT&T Credit Corp. (LIB)
ITEM #30 - Purchase equipment maintenance services from Xerox Corp., Tampa, FL, for the period 1/18/92-1/17/93 for an est. $18,396 (PIO)
ITEM #31 - Contract for modifications to South Beach Pump Station 14 to Kimmins Contracting Corp., Tampa, FL, for $219,001 (PW)
ITEM #32 - Contract for structural repairs to the Sand Key Bridge over Clearwater Pass to Misener Marine Construction, Inc., Tampa, FL, for $675,235 (PW)
ITEM #33 - See pages 24 & 25
Citizens & Staff Requests - Approved.
ITEM #34 - Gas installation finance program to allow financing of residential customer housepiping over a two or three year period at no interest (GAS)
ITEM #35 - Request of Suncoast Aviation, Inc. (Airpark's FBO) to sublease the maintenance hangar with associated tie downs, office space, and common ways to Suncoast Flying Services,
Inc. (PW)
ITEM #36 - (Cont. from 12/5/91) Direction to use the format of the proposed Countywide Sign Regulations for the City's revised sign regulations and providing for "grandfathering" of
signs erected legally since 10/13/85 which are made nonconforming under the revised sign regulations (PLD)
CITY ATTORNEY
Agreements, Deeds & Easements
ITEM #37 - Drainage and Utility Easement over portion of property in S 100 feet of the N 200 feet of the W 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 18-29-16 (Trefz)
Commissioner Regulski moved to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted less Items 21, 24 and 33 and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #21 - Fourth Amendment to Paragraph 18 (b) & (c), Clearwater Ferry Service, Inc. License and Agreement (MR)
In August of 1989, the City entered into a License and Agreement with Clearwater Ferry Service to operate a commercial ferry service in Clearwater Harbor from the Drew Street dock.
The ferry did not start full service to all points until September of 1990.
Mr. Phil Henderson, owner of the Clearwater Ferry Service, Inc. has submitted the first year of operation report. In the report Mr. Henderson has also included several proposals for
consideration. Some of the proposals have been incorporated into this amendment. Any signs on the ferry service dock must comply with city ordinances. Mr. Henderson had requested
that the city provide free ferry service from Drew Street to service points at an estimated cost of $37,800 a year. He has since withdrawn that request.
Paragraph 18, (b), is requested to be amended to read: "Operator may transport passengers to and from the City Marina but no origination of passengers departing the marina are allowed
until after 2:00 p.m. daily."
Paragraph 18, (c), is being requested to be amended to read: "Operator may transport walking groups staying at nearby hotels from the marina. Groups, not in walking distance from
the marina, booking trips on marina fishing boats, will be allowed into the marina by the Ferry Service providing that the City Harbormaster has approved each occurrence."
A question had been raised at the worksession regarding making the agreement more liberal. It was indicated it was felt the agreement was acceptable.
Commissioner Regulski moved to approve the fourth amendment to Paragraph 18, (b) and (c), to the Clearwater Ferry Service, Inc. License and Agreement and that the appropriate officials
be authorized to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #24 - Purchase of claims services (workers' compensation & liability) for FY 10/1/91-10/1/92 and Revocable Trust Agreement for handling of self-insurance funds with Johns Eastern
Company, Inc. (AS)
At the Commission meeting on September 27, 1991, the Commission authorized purchase of claims service from Johns Eastern Company for the fiscal year 1991/92. Attached to that agenda
item was a specimen contract for handling the City's liability and workers' compensation claims. That contract has now been adapted and refined for use by the City and incorporates
several changes requested by City staff.
The contract also incorporates a revocable trust agreement which provides for the servicing agent to hold the City's funds as the City's Trustee. This agreement will provide additional
protection to the City if the servicing agent were to cease business for any reason while holding City funds.
A concern was expressed that there is no provision in the agreement that the company provide indemnity.
Commissioner Regulski moved to approve both the contract with Johns Eastern Company for the purchase of claims service, workers' compensation and liability for the fiscal year October
1, 1991 to October 1, 1992 and the revocable trust agreement for the handling of the self-insurance funds with the addition that the company be required to carry employee dishonesty
insurance coverage in the trust agreement in an amount up to the funds which the City has with the company. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #33 - Purchase 9 diesel generators from Rudy's Rentals for $19,224 (PW)
Long-term power outages at traffic signals were a result of the April 25, 1991 storm. Future strategy was discussed at storm follow-up meetings and it was decided to provide ten emergency
generators at signalized intersections in the event of another long-term power outage. The exact intersections would be determined at the time of the crisis. The generators would be
purchased with emergency operations funds and maintained by Public Works/Transportation Group.
Of the bids received, the two low bids did not meet specifications. The bid by Cummins S.E. Power provided a gas generator instead of diesel and the alternate bid by Rudy's Rentals
did not provide a generator with adequate wattage requirements.
Discussion ensued regarding the need for the generators with it being indicated this was a substantial amount of money to spend on something that may be used only once or twice over
several years.
The City Manager reported that while it is hoped that the City would never need the generators, they would have been invaluable during the April
25th storm as this would have freed up public safety personnel for other duties than directing traffic. He stated it would not be easy to find rental units available in an emergency
situation.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to award a contract to purchase nine diesel generators, at a cost of $19,224.00 from Rudy's Rentals which is the lowest most responsive and responsible
bid submitted in accordance with the specifications and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners
Regulski, Fitzgerald, Berfield and Mayor Garvey voted "Aye", Commissioner Nunamaker voted "Nay". Motion carried.
OTHER ITEMS ON CITY MANAGER REPORT
ITEM #38 - First Reading Ord. #5162-91 - approving a new schedule of phased water & sewer rates to be effective 2/1/92 (PW)
The current water and sewer rates were approved by the City Commission in July, 1988. Since that time several significant changes as summarized in the study by Camp Dresser & McKee,
Inc. (CDM) have occurred:
? Water purchases from Pinellas County have increased from 63% to 80% of our usage;
? Total water consumption has decreased approximately 13% from 15.48 MGD to 13.45 MGD;
? System debt service has increased from 14% of revenues to 27% of revenues; these costs have increased from $3,972,675 in 1988 to $7,334,438 in fiscal 1991 and are primarily related
to costs of the new mandated wastewater treatment plant construction.
? Chemical and electrical costs for wastewater treatment have increased 34% from $0.315 to $0.422/1000 gallons.
Current ordinances allow the City to adjust the water rates periodically to recover any increased costs to supply water due to the changes in the wholesale rate the City pays to the
County for water. This "pass through" procedure results in changing the actual water rates. Two County-instigated rate increases have been "passed through" to our customers and are
not reflected in our printed Code of Ordinances. The language in the proposed Ordinance 5162-91 includes all changes to date.
The sewer rates which were adopted in 1988 included a phased, multi-year schedule which provided for annual increases the last of which was effective on October 1, 1991.
The Water and Sewer Rate Study analyzes two approaches to the increases: 1) a flat increase of approximately 13% for water and approximately 22% for sewer effective February 1, 1992
and continue at the same rate through September 30, 1994; and 2) the recommended phased increase as follows:
2/1/92 10/1/92 10/1/93
Water 6.6% 6.8% 7.7%
Sewer 7.2% 9.5% 13.2%
A modification to the existing lawn water rate structure is recommended in order to encourage further conservation. The City staff concurs with the consultants' recommended three year
phased approach.
Tom Burke of CDM reviewed the proposed increases. He stated the City of Clearwater is currently at the low end of rates charged for utilities. He reported if the rates are not increased
a deficit will result. In response to a question regarding why the City is continuing to have a minimum charge, it was stated it was felt to go to a totally new basis for the rate structure
would be too disruptive. A future consideration could be phasing in charges for every gallon of water used.
The City Manager concurred saying that to assess a base charge and for all water used would have a double impact on low and single family users.
It was stated that as rates go up, use of reclaimed water for irrigation becomes more attractive. In response to a question, it was indicated that water use is creeping back up to
normal levels prior to watering restrictions.
Commissioner Regulski moved to approve the new schedule of phased water and sewer rates to be effective February 1, 1992. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken;
Commissioners Regulski, Fitzgerald, Nunamaker and Mayor Garvey voted "Aye", Commissioner Berfield voted "Nay". Motion carried.
It was pointed out that only sixteen cents per dollar of the fees charged goes to labor with the rest being for County water charges, debt payment and capital improvements.
In response to a question, Commissioner Berfield stated she voted against the increase because she felt someone should be asked to review this division as had been done in the Gas Division
to identify savings and other enhanced revenues prior to a rate increase.
The City Manager stated the circumstances in the Gas Division are completely different from Utilities. It was also stated that a major portion of the debt service is due to State and
Federal mandates.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5162-91 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Regulski moved to pass Ordinance #5162-91 on first reading. The motion was
duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Regulski, Nunamaker, Fitzgerald, Berfield and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #39 - Ord. #5160-91 - extending the term of the franchise with GTE, Florida by six months to July 1, 1992 (AS)
The franchise agreement with the General Telephone Company (GTE) which permits GTE to use the City rights-of-way for the placement and operation of its systems expires January 1, 1992.
The City receives a 1% franchise fee based on GTE local service revenues. For 1990, that fee base yielded revenues of $182,888 to the City.
The City has been working with GTE to develop a clear, mutually acceptable basis for discussions leading to a new franchise. Delays have been experienced in obtaining all of the information
necessary to these discussions. Staff and GTE agree that discussions are not possible before the first of the year and may require at least six months to complete. A new franchise
can be in place by July 1, 1992, assuming successful negotiations.
Ordinance #5160-91 extending the term of the present franchise agreement with GTE six months from January 1, 1992 has been developed for Commission approval. The General Telephone
Company has indicated its agreement in the term extension and has supplied a letter of agreement to that effect.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve a six month extension of the GTE Franchise Agreement. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5160-91 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5160-91 on first reading. The motion was
duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Regulski, Nunamaker, Fitzgerald, Berfield and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #40 - Res. #91-44 - establishing the creation and operation of a City-Wide Wellness Program (AS)
Due to increasing medical and insurance costs, many individuals and groups are engaging in "wellness" programs designed to help individuals increase and maintain physical health.
Fitness activities such as aerobic and strength building exercises are the basis of most recognized wellness programs. Physiological values are monitored in voluntary screenings to
judge progress toward personal wellness goals. The physical activities are complemented, where needed, by courses such as smoking cessation, diet modification, weight loss and stress
management, among others.
An ad hoc City Wellness Committee has been working since April of this year to determine if a wellness program for the City is desirable and feasible. The long-term benefits of successful
wellness programs are improved
employee morale, lower average cost per medical benefit claim and a healthier work force. Many of the facilities and activities needed to support such a program are available at low
or no cost to City employees.
Six factors important to the long term success of the program were identified by the Committee: (1) Commission and Management support and encouragement; (2) a central point of responsibility
or coordinator; (3) an on-going wellness education and publicity activity; (4) a flex time work rule policy to allow fitness activities during the work day; (5) health screening and
program tracking activities; and (6) eventual funding and construction of changing/work-out facilities convenient to the workplace. The Committee concluded that a phased program could
be implemented with the first five factors being addressed immediately.
If the resolution is approved, staff will develop the initial program on a volunteer, part-time basis to start in late January. A follow-up progress report will be made available to
the Commission as the program takes shape.
The City Attorney presented Resolution #91-44 and read it by title only. Commissioner Regulski moved to pass and adopt Resolution #91-44 with Section 4 amended to read as follows:
"A policy to allow flex time for fitness activities during the workweek shall be developed consistent with present flex time policies and practices", and authorize the appropriate officials
to execute same. The motion was duly seconded, upon roll call the vote was:
"Ayes": Regulski, Nunamaker, Fitzgerald, Berfield and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #41 - Res. #91-46 - establishing new fees for non-residents to participate in City recreation programs and activities (PR)
On August 18, 1988, the Commission approved a formula for the purpose of computing fees non-residents pay for Parks & Recreation Department programs. While the Parks & Recreation Department's
budget has increased slightly, there has also been an increase in budgeted revenue as well as the population estimates for the City. These factors all contributed to keeping the non-resident
fees constant over the past three years. However, based on the formula used, the projections for FY91-92 result in new fees for non-residents.
The recommended non-resident fee structure is as follows:
Current Proposed Difference
1. Annual Individual Card $ 49.00 $ 51.00 + $2.00
2. Fall Individual Card $ 30.00 $ 31.00 + $1.00
3. Annual Family Card $122.50 $127.50 + $5.00
4. Fall Family Card $ 75.00 $ 77.50 + $2.50
5. Single Season Fee $ 25.00 $ 30.00 + $5.00
It is estimated these proposed changes will generate an additional $11,000 in net revenue to the City. The recommended fees will be effective January 1, 1992.
The City Attorney presented Resolution #91-46 and read it by title only. Commissioner Nunamaker moved to pass and adopt Resolution #91-46 and authorize the appropriate officials to
execute same. The motion was duly seconded, upon roll call the vote was:
"Ayes": Regulski, Nunamaker, Fitzgerald, Berfield and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #42 - Res. #91-47 - increasing the basic rental fee for the Sailing Center building, amending the personnel charges, adding a cleaning deposit and increasing the deposit for reserving
the center (MR)
Resolution #90-49 established the rental fees for certain public buildings. This resolution was passed by the Commission and went into effect on January 1, 1991. The basic rental
fee for public buildings (including the Sailing Center) was set at $70.00 per use x number of days, plus hourly charges for personnel and utilities.
Due to the fact the Sailing Center building is like no other city building for rent, staff recommends the basic rental fee for private and commercial usage be increased to $150.00 per
use x number of days. In addition to the basic rental fee, private and commercial renters would also pay for hourly charges for utilities and personnel and for equipment usage. A requirement
for an off duty police officer is necessary. The city rate for the police officer will be the current overtime rate charged by the Police Department. A cleaning deposit of $50.00 shall
be paid in advance to assure that the premises is returned in a clean and undamaged condition. The cleaning deposit will be refunded if the building is returned in an acceptable condition.
The deposit to reserve the Sailing Center building is also increased to $50.00.
Commissioner Nunamaker moved to approve the increase in the rental fee for the Sailing Center. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Resolution #91-47 and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Resolution #91-47 and authorize the appropriate officials to
execute same. The motion was duly seconded, upon roll call the vote was:
"Ayes": Regulski, Nunamaker, Fitzgerald, Berfield and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #43 - Res. #91-48 - authorizing Finance Director to establish bank accounts as necessary to administer City's Minimum Premium Group Health
Insurance Program with CIGNA and to wire transfer funds as necessary to Citibank to fund the program (AS)
On September 27, 1991 the Commission approved the group health insurance program with CIGNA Healthplan of Florida for calendar year 1992. This group health insurance program requires
the City to establish an "Imprest" account at CIGNA's bank. The City will then be required to wire transfer funds to this account as claims are paid by CIGNA but no more than once a
week. This arrangement will permit the City to keep the funds longer, rather than paying them out in the form of insurance premiums.
This resolution will authorize the Finance Director to implement this minimum funding program.
The City Attorney presented Resolution #91-48 and read it by title only. Commissioner Nunamaker moved to pass and adopt Resolution #91-48 and authorize the appropriate officials to
execute same. The motion was duly seconded, upon roll call the vote was:
"Ayes": Regulski, Nunamaker, Fitzgerald, Berfield and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
Other Pending Matters - None.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS
First Reading Ordinances
ITEM #44 - Ord. #5161-91 - Proposed Charter Amendment relating to allowable uses of municipal or other public property along the bayfront area to be submitted to voters on the 3/10/92
election
Commissioner Nunamaker moved to amend Ordinance #5161-91 to read as follows: On pages 2 and 3, amend the ballot question as follows: The City Charter limits the use of municipal and
other public property below the 28 foot elevation line, West of Osceola Avenue, East of Clearwater Harbor, between Drew and Chestnut Streets, and the Memorial Causeway or lands contiguous
thereto, to open space and public utilities. Ordinance #5161-91 proposes to amend the City Charter to allow city-owned recreation facilities on such property. Shall the amendment to
the City Charter be approved? The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5161-91 as amended for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5161-91 as amended on first reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Regulski, Nunamaker, Fitzgerald, Berfield and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
Resolutions
ITEM #45 - Res. #91-41 - Urging the Florida Legislature to support establishment of a trust fund for the modernization of municipal records management, utilizing a funding mechanism
similar to that used for counties
The City Attorney presented Resolution #91-41 and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Resolution #91-41 and authorize the appropriate officials to
execute same. The motion was duly seconded, upon roll call the vote was:
"Ayes": Regulski, Nunamaker, Fitzgerald, Berfield and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #46 - Res. #91-49 - to the Florida legislature objecting to the 1991 amendment to the law relating to the disposition of civil penalties received by county courts and urging restoration
of the disposition schedule as it applied to municipalities before 7/1/91
The City Attorney presented Resolution #91-49 and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Resolution #91-49 and authorize the appropriate officials to
execute same. The motion was duly seconded, upon roll call the vote was:
"Ayes": Regulski, Nunamaker, Fitzgerald, Berfield and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
Other City Attorney Items - None.
City Manager Verbal Reports - None.
Other Commission Action
Commissioner Berfield wished all a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Mayor Garvey requested Commissioners review the attendance record of their appointees to the Maas Brothers Task Force and see if they need to make new appointments. She wished all
Happy Holiday.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.