Loading...
08/02/1993 CITY COMMISSION MEETING August 2, 1993 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in regular session at City Hall, Monday, August 2, 1993 at 9:03 a.m., with the following members present: Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner Arthur X. Deegan, II Vice-Mayor/Commissioner Richard Fitzgerald Commissioner Sue A. Berfield Commissioner Fred A. Thomas Commissioner Also present: Michael J. Wright City Manager M.A. Galbraith, Jr. City Attorney William C. Baker Public Works Director James Polatty, Jr. Planning and Development Director Mary K. Diana Assistant City Clerk Gwen J. Legters Staff Assistant The Mayor called the meeting to order. In order to provide continuity for research, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. ITEM #1 - Service Awards - none. The Employee of the Month Award for July 1993 was presented to James Pyatt, Building & Maintenance Supervisor, General Services Department. The City Attorney announced an attorney/client session to discuss litigation regarding Pick Kwik/Nostimo v. City of Clearwater and the meeting adjourned at 9:09 a.m. for this session. The meeting reconvened at 10:25 p.m. ITEM #2 - Approval of Minutes Commissioner Deegan moved to approve the minutes of the special meeting of June 28, 1993, as recorded and submitted in written summation by the City Clerk to each Commissioner. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. DISCUSSION ONLY ITEM #3 - Presentations re: City Attorney Audit a) Hildebrandt, Inc. Chuck Santangelo stated his firm has been in existence for 20 years and summarized his firm's approach. His firm examines the organizational structure, budget, relationship to outside counsel and performance measures. He said the audit would cost approximately $35,000 to $40,000, charged on an hourly basis. He indicated there are several full-time attorneys on staff. Commissioner Deegan asked the relationship between legal/technical competence versus administrative/managerial ability when assessing staff. Mr. Santangelo responded he is a management consultant and is not in a position to judge an attorney's legal ability or competence. He said the report will be submitted in generic fashion and will focus on performance. In response to Commissioner Deegan's question regarding how productivity and service are measured, Mr. Santangelo stated the assessment is made based on the quality of work, timeliness, accuracy and if the work is done at the proposed cost. Regarding the quality of work, he stated customers will usually rate service according to whether it was timely and met their needs. Mr. Santangelo stated in response to questions from Commissioner Berfield that individual legal ability will be addressed in the report to the Commission and, if necessary, any substantive matter will be addressed at that time. He said members of the firm write extensively for national legal publications. In response to a question from Commissioner Thomas, Mr. Santangelo stated his firm probably would not have responded to a request to assess individual staff performance. He said their proposal is to determine if the department is providing the best service possible. Commissioner Thomas felt productivity and performance should be a part of determining competency. He expressed concern the firm's credentials listed corporate law departments and did not list any work of a similar nature to what is being requested by the Commission. Mr. Santangelo said he thought the references submitted were appropriate and would provide any additional information that is desired. b) Florida Center for Public Management Joseph Lazar outlined his proposal for evaluating the effectiveness of the Legal Department. He suggested a time frame that would have minimal impact on the Department's routines. He said he uses a total systems approach to determine interrelationships that affect the Legal Department and their advice to the Commission. He would be examining the entire City organizational structure to facilitate his understanding and to promote advisory work with the Commission; review management and administrative issues through surveys; talk to Commissioners, City department heads, etc.; and conduct interviews with the legal staff. After reviewing the results, a formal debriefing and responses to Commission questions would follow. In response to questions from Commissioner Berfield, Mr. Lazar stated his firm has no attorneys on staff; however, his advisors recommend attorneys to assist clients when necessary. Commissioner Thomas expressed concern the proposal appears to relate to the overall government body and did not focus on the Legal Department. Mr. Lazar said his firm has 20 years of experience in strategy planning in State government, and when legal expertise is needed, it is obtained through the state. He said the legal aspect is one of many variables involved in accomplishing management review. Commissioner Fitzgerald felt it would be difficult to analyze the Legal Department without an attorney on staff. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not to bring this forward Thursday night. Majority consensus was to place it after the "Citizens to Be Heard" portion on the agenda. ITEM #4 - No Item ITEM #5 - Presentation - Cable Franchise Donald Williams stated the firm has been in business for 13 years, working with cable/data networks for cities, counties and colleges. He said the changes in the telecommunications industry over the past few years have been remarkable in terms of technology and regulation/deregulation. Mr. Williams indicated his firm specializes in getting the best possible service for the best cost and referred to the pricing chart. He said the cost is broken down per task not to exceed a certain cap and there are a variety of tasks from which to choose. He proposed a series of tasks and a workshop to bring the City up to date on the latest developments in the industry and to make sure the public's expectations have some bearing on what will happen. He outlined various surveys representing the community's needs; how a cable system can be used for video, connecting networks and satellite services and whether or not the past performance of the cable operators was consistent with the terms of the contract. Regarding how cable operators provide service, he stated his firm works with engineers from Vision Cable to determine the performance parameters, gathers information on the required system of the community and creates a proposal to submit to the cable company. The cable company would be given time to prepare a proposal of their own to submit to the Commission. The consulting firm would examine the cable company's proposal, focus on what kind of system would provide the best service to the City in the future and look at their compliance with standards. He stated very few cities go through the denial process and the City could expect a battle if denial is considered. Ms. Deptula stated the City of Pinellas Park and Pinellas County have indicated an interest in coordinating working with the City of Clearwater to share the cost of this analysis. Mr. Williams said it would be worthwhile for the City to pursue coordinating the work with others due to a cost savings. Mayor Garvey indicated Pinellas Park and Pinellas County could reimburse Clearwater when their renewals were due so not to hold up Clearwater. Mr. Wright stated the information could be shared with other governmental bodies seeking commonalities while recognizing there could be differences. Mr. Williams stated there could be substantial differences when reaching outlying areas. Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned how long the analysis will take. Mr. Williams responded it could be accomplished within a year depending on the cable operator and the local governments involved. He said response time from cable operators has varied due to them occasionally asking for time extensions; however, there are new regulations regarding time extensions. He said there are 14 months left until the end of the current contract. In response to a question from Commissioner Fitzgerald regarding the costs involved, Mr. Williams said each task has a separate cost and it is not known which tasks will be selected. Accomplishing all the tasks listed in the proposal would cost approximately $58,000. Forming a consortium would increase the total project cost, but would save money for the individual agencies. In response to a question from Commissioner Thomas, Mr. Williams stated Ed Armstrong is Vision Cable's attorney and is not engaged by Rice, Williams Associates. Mr. Williams said he is not an attorney, but specializes in political economics and his consulting firm does work for governmental bodies. Commissioner Thomas questioned the deadline for renewal and Mr. Williams said he has not yet seen the City's contract. Discussion ensued regarding the renewal process and Mr. Williams stated renewal is regulated under Federal law. After the RFP is issued, there are four months to come to terms. He said scheduling is difficult and the parties normally agree to extend the time until the process is completed. He indicated the four month term begins when the RFP is issued to Vision Cable. Commissioner Thomas raised a question regarding the fastest time in which an audit could be accomplished. Mr. Williams stated a compliance audit takes about a week; however, it could take up to a year to come to an agreement between parties. Commissioner Thomas questioned if the renewal process was automatic and asked if it could be opened for bids, or if bidding is allowed only if the franchisee violates the contract. He asked if the City has the right to propose alternatives prior to the expiration of the current contract. Mr. Williams stated Federal law requires that all cable franchises be non-exclusive and any cable operator may propose a system. Vision Cable is judged on past performance and not competitively with other applicants. Commissioner Thomas questioned if the City can seek a second cable system to create a competitive atmosphere. Mr. Williams said this is allowed and stated the first franchisee often becomes more competitive to prevent a second system from being constructed. Commissioner Thomas questioned if it is normal for a second system to pay a front fee for the right to submit and whether or not such a fee would cover the cost of the audit. Mr. Williams said he is not certain indicating application fees vary. He said he would have to do additional research. Commissioner Thomas expressed concern tying into a consortium would hold up the process and would not be wise in view of the fact that only 14 months remain on the contract. Mayor Garvey felt Rice, Williams could provide information that would be useful to other cities who could reimburse Clearwater a certain percentage of the cost. In response to a question from Commissioner Fitzgerald, Mr. Williams stated 50 to 60 towns have sought a second cable system. He said overbuilds bring competition to the cable industry and are based on density of the homes in the area, percentage of penetration, how revenue streams look and if there is room on the poles to support a second system. He said overbuilds established in the past have lasted. He stated overbuilds work when there are service problems with the first operator and competition is the underlying reason a second system comes into play. He said when the first operator cuts their rates, it becomes difficult for the second operator to compete. However, City governments with their own electric service and fiber optics can make overbuilds work. Commissioner Thomas questioned if the City has the right not to renew. Mr. Williams stated if the cable provider failed to meet the contract, was given the opportunity to perform and failed, or refused, the City would have the opportunity to deny renewal. The denial process would then go to an administrative hearing. Commissioner Thomas felt the way to get the best deal as far as cost, service and technology would be to hire an audit company or to start the bidding process for a second company. Mr. Williams stated every city usually gets a better deal when using consultants. He did not have any further information regarding soliciting a second operator; however, said he could provide information after initial consultation begins. He stated the Clearwater component of the market is large and he felt Vision Cable would try to solve any problems that might arise. He said, depending on the tasks selected, a contract could be signed in a year or less. In response to a question from Commissioner Deegan, Mr. Williams offered the City of Titusville as an example of a city that got a better deal by hiring consultants. He said, depending on the negotiations, consultation fees and franchise fees are sometimes paid by the cable provider; however, felt Vision Cable would not agree to this. Ed Armstrong, attorney representing Vision Cable, said they have enjoyed good relations and given excellent service to the City of Clearwater and looked forward to renewing the contract as quickly as possible. He stated the contracts of the other cities proposed for the consortium do not expire at the same time and he would not like to see the renewal delayed. Commissioner Thomas questioned Commission policy relating to hiring outside consultants. He referred to his hiring a consultant for the Maas Brother building. He questioned why this required solicitation of additional proposals and the consultant for the cable service does not. Commissioner Fitzgerald said it is inappropriate for an individual Commissioner to seek outside proposals on Commission matters. He indicated there are procedures in place whereby proposals are submitted based on the same criteria. The Mayor stated it was questioned if outside consultants should be considered. She did not say this proposal would be automatically accepted. Commissioner Thomas felt it is the responsibility of the Commission to bring in outside information and commended Commissioner Berfield for bringing this proposal forward. However, he again questioned the legality of doing this. The City Manager stated this firm was selected by a sister city to do similar work and it was suggested to use their competitive process to piggyback with them. He said Commission direction was received by majority vote to have this firm address the Commission. Commissioner Thomas moved to accept the proposal of Rice, William Associates to be the City's consultant with regard to the City's cable contract. The motion was duly seconded. The Mayor pointed out there was competitive bidding by another city and this firm was selected by them. The City of Clearwater is piggybacking with them. Commissioner Fitzgerald stated he has not decided whether or not a consultant is needed and favored hearing other proposals. He did not feel it was appropriate to decide the issue based on one presentation. Commissioner Deegan questioned annual revenue to the City represented by this franchise. Ms. Deptula stated the franchise fee is set at three percent, or $300,000 per year. It was suggested in the past the City could go to five percent, or about $500,000 for a 15-year contract. Commissioner Deegan stated this could amount to several million dollars and felt obtaining professional help is warranted. Upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Berfield, Deegan and Thomas and Mayor Garvey voted "aye;" Commissioner Fitzgerald voted "nay." Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 12:10 p.m. for the Pension Trustees and CRA meetings to be held. The meeting reconvened at 3:38 p.m. CITY MANAGER REPORTS ITEM #6 - Extension of contract for insurance actuarial services with Coopers & Lybrand for FY ending 9/30/93, for a total fee not to exceed $10,000 (AS) Last year, the City engaged Coopers & Lybrand to perform the annual audit, the insurance actuarial valuation and the financial statement preparation under a single contract, for a total fee of $139,500. The City experienced some problems last year, primarily in the firm's financial statement preparation. These problems did not involve the insurance actuarial work, which was performed by a separate division of Coopers in Atlanta. A separate agenda item recommends an extension of the audit services agreement with the Tampa office of Coopers & Lybrand. Because the actuarial work is unrelated to the audit, and because there is a possibility that the City might wish to continue one without the other, staff recommends a separate contract with the Coopers actuarial division, for a fee not to exceed $10,000. Like the audit services fee, this represents no increase from the fee charged for these same services last year. Staff has been pleased with the actuarial services received in the past from Coopers & Lybrand and recommends approval of the extension contract. Dan Deignan, Assistant Director/Administrative Services, stated the firm wishes to retain their relationship with the City. Two separate contracts are being proposed to provide flexibility. In response to questions from Commissioner Fitzgerald, Mr. Deignan stated the audit extension is for the current year, ending September 30, 1993. The City Charter requires contract renewal every five years. This proposal is for the third year, with two more renewals allowed. Mr. Deignan stated he is satisfied the past problems with the firm have been worked out and their performance has been acceptable. Mr. Deignan said, in response to a question from Commissioner Berfield, if renewal is approved, the City can monitor the firm's work and there are enough safeguards to avoid problems. In response to Commissioner Deegan's question, Mr. Deignan stated the Community Redevelopment Agency audit is included with the City audit and an annual detailed statement is sent to the Department of State. Commissioner Berfield moved to approve an extension of the contract for insurance actuarial services with Coopers & Lybrand for FY ending 9/30/93, for a total fee not to exceed $10,000. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #7 - Extension of contract for audit services with Coopers & Lybrand for fiscal year ending 9/30/93, for a total fee not to exceed $84,500 (AS) In 1991, as required by City Charter, the City undertook an RFP for external auditors and selected Coopers & Lybrand. Coopers & Lybrand have recently completed their second audit. The initial contract anticipated extension for a total of five years, based on mutual consent of both parties. The proposed fee of $84,500 for the required fiscal and compliance audits is identical to the fee paid for these same services last year. Some problems were experienced during the most recent audit, related to the additional statement preparation work that Coopers undertook last year as City staff installed the new Ross financial system. Staff has been satisfied with their audit services and recommends approval of the extension contract. Commissioner Berfield moved to approve extension of the contract for audit services with Coopers & Lybrand for fiscal year ending 9/30/93, for a total fee not to exceed $84,500. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #8 - Purchase of Fire Dept. uniforms from Martin's Uniforms, Inc., Tampa, FL, for the period 8/5/93-5/31/94, for an amount not to exceed $29,000 (FD) The City is required by union contract to furnish uniforms for Fire Department personnel. Martin's Uniforms, Incorporated, of Tampa, Florida, was awarded the competitively bid uniform contract encompassing all fire departments situated within Pinellas County by the Pinellas County Fire Chiefs Association, through May 31, 1994, under the Pinellas County Co-op bid. Based on the anticipated annual need to replace worn or damaged uniforms and to outfit new employees, this contract should be for an amount not to exceed $29,000. Commissioners Deegan questioned if uniforms are necessary for all Fire Department employees. Ms. Rice stated the IAFF contract requires the City to provide uniforms. Staff is to investigate. Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the purchase of Fire Department uniforms from Martin's Uniforms, Inc., Tampa, FL, for the period 8/5/93-5/31/94, for an amount not to exceed $29,000 under Pinellas County Co-op Bid #92-B-156. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #9 - Service Agreement with Municipal Gas Authority of Florida (MGAF) for the buying of natural gas as a joint action agency and the related Florida Gas Transmission Company Guaranty Agreement (GAS) The Municipal Gas Authority of Florida (MGAF) is a joint action gas buying agency formed under the authority of Chapter 163, Florida Statues, by Municipal Interlocal Agreements. Clearwater Gas System became a MGAF member through adoption of the MGAF Interlocal Agreement by Resolution 92-75 on December 3, 1992. The Gas Authority currently consists of 15 municipally-owned local distribution companies (LDC's) and Gas Districts: City of Chattahoocee, City of Clearwater, City of Crescent City, City of DeFuniak Springs, Geneva County (Alabama) Gas District, Florala (Alabama) Gas District, Fort Pierce Utilities Authority, Lake Apopka Gas District, City of Leesburg, City of Live Oak, City of Madison, Okaloosa County Gas District, Palatka Gas Authority, City of Perry and City of Sunrise. The advantages of participating in this joint action group are the ability to buy larger quantities of gas at a lower price and on more favorable terms and to shift excess gas to other LDC's within the group, or market it to large industrial customers along the Florida Gas Transmission pipeline. In order to purchase gas within the MGAF group, a service agreement is needed. Under this agreement, the City of Clearwater is transferring its pipeline capacity rights to MGAF so that MGAF can purchase gas and arrange for the transportation of the gas to Clearwater. This contract is for 25 years and has a three-year termination clause, which would allow Clearwater to terminate this contract at the end of each three year time period. This fall, when MGAF begins purchasing the City's gas and related transportation, authorization of natural gas related payments to MFAG will be needed. This cost will be recovered from the City's gas customers. Florida Gas Transmission (FGT) previously required the City of Clearwater to show credit-worthiness; however, now requires payment be guaranteed through MGAF which does not have the authority nor the assets to guarantee payments of each of its members. Therefore, each municipal member of MGAF will be required to execute a Guaranty Agreement before their capacity and billing rights may be conveyed to MGAF. This Guarantee Agreement has been reviewed by counsel and is a standard format used by FGT for other joint action agencies. The advantages of a joint action buying group will benefit Clearwater in the future in light of the deregulation brought about by the Federal Energy Regulation Commission's Natural Gas restricting order. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve the Service Agreement with the Municipal Gas Authority of Florida (MGAF) for buying natural gas as a joint action agency and the related Florida Gas Transmission Company Guaranty Agreement. The motion was duly seconded. In response to Commissioner Berfield's question, Mr. Warrington indicated when producers are allowed open access to sell their product, there will probably be a 20-25% increase in the cost of gas which will be passed onto customers. The City Manager anticipated the cost of gas to increase. He said by joining into a purchasing consortium and buying as one entity, gas can be bought less expensively than standing alone. He said we are entering into an unknown era. Commissioner Thomas asked how much of the gas is bought in the spot market and Mr. Warrington said the City has been staging into a deregulated environment over the last four years and the City is allowed to transport up to 50 percent of the total purchase to the spot market. He said he will be bringing forward an item to allow the Gas System to buy a greater percentage of the gas through the open market. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. The City Manager pointed out that during the budget discussion of the Gas System, fueling, expansion, etc. will be discussed. Commissioner Thomas asked if there will be discussion regarding conversion of City vehicles to gas. Mr. Warrington stated a proposal will be brought forward to address this. He indicated a number of Gas System customers have fleets of vehicles using compressed gas. Mr. Warrington said the budget proposal proposes to bring someone onboard to do marketing programs. Refueling would be the first issue to be addressed. ITEM #10 - Extension of contract for periodical subscriptions and serial standing orders with Ebsco Subscription Services, Birmingham, AL, for the period 10/1/93-9/30/94, for an est. $65,000 (LIB) The City employs Ebsco Subscription Services to maintain the Library System's 600 periodical subscriptions and 275 annual and semi-annual reference serials. Estimated expenditures for FY 93/94 are $65,000 plus Ebsco's 4.9 percent service charge. The total varies each year with publisher price fluctuations and subscription additions or cancellations initiated by the Library Commissioner Thomas questioned if others were invited to bid. Arlita Hallam, Library Director, stated the last bid was in 1980/1981. She pointed out Ebsco Services is on the state's list of approved vendors. She said the City has been satisfied with their services and staff has found bidding every year to be impractical. In response to Commissioner Thomas' question, she did not know if the state has recently reviewed their bid list. Commissioner Thomas requested additional data from staff. Commissioner Thomas moved to continue this item to the meeting of Thursday, August 5, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #11 - Contract for marina building improvements to Anderson & Birchard Design/Build Group, Inc., for $74,873; transfer of $16,857 from unappropriated retained earnings of the marina fund into CIP 93483 (MR) The plans for marina building improvements were reviewed with the City Commission at the work session on February 16, 1993. Fowler Associates Architects, Inc., was placed under contract to design the plans for marina building improvements. The plans call for construction on the crow's nest, installation of picket rails, installation of wood siding, wood shutters on the second floor, and roofing. The bid opening was held on June 11, 1993, with 22 bids solicited and 5 received. Anderson & Birchard Design/Build Group, Inc. submitted the lowest, most responsive and responsible bid at $82,530. An alternate item to use aluminum railing in lieu of galvanized railing was selected, which reduced the total price by $7,657, for a new total cost of $74,873. Fowler Associates Architects, Inc., estimated the total cost of the project at $70,250, with City employees doing some of the work. This CIP was originally budgeted at $45,000 and, to date, Fowler Associates has been paid $4,995. Savings from the Marina Roof Replacement CIP totalling $18,016 were transferred to this project. Subject to approval of the contract on August 2, 1993, work is estimated to start on August 9, 1993 and be completed on November 5, 1993. Bill Held, Harbormaster, said the 40-year-old building with the proposed improvements will be an asset to the beach. Commissioner Thomas requested that the proposed design allow for the entrance to the building to be more clearly marked. He found the signage to be critical and asked that it be addressed. He questioned how signage is to be used to enhance the businesses on the property. Mr. Held indicated the building entrance will be clearly identified. Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned if the cost increase is due to the expanded plans and Mr. Held indicated it was. He said funds are available. Commissioner Thomas felt vinyl siding would be more durable and require less maintenance than the proposed wood siding. Mr. Held said the proposed red cedar siding will be pressure treated, will be aesthetically pleasing and will hold up well. Commissioner Berfield questioned if staining the wood is proposed and Mr. Held said the wood will be stained every four to five years. He did not see a high maintenance problem and indicated this type of treated lumber is frequently used for docks and is estimated to last ten to fifteen years. Mayor Garvey felt vinyl siding would not be in keeping with the tropical seascape theme of the beach. In response to a question, Victor Chodora, City Building Official, indicated cedar will last approximately 30 years. Staff was requested to obtain information providing the differences between wood and vinyl and maintenance costs. A request was made to have the architect present to present this information. Commissioner Thomas moved to continue this item to the meeting of Thursday, August 5, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #12 - Transfer of $5,000 from Recreation Facility Impact Fees into CIP 93279 to allow for the purchase of materials for construction of 3 boat storage racks at the Clearwater Community Sailing Center (MR) The $5,000 in transferred funds will be used to purchase materials to construct three small sailboat storage racks at the Clearwater Community Sailing Center. The Marine Services section will do most of the construction, which will require a building permit. The design of the racks will be consistent with the Sailing Center building design. The three boat racks will be located just inside the north fence of the Sailing Center. Each boat rack will be capable of storing six small sailboats, for a total of eighteen spaces. Currently, there are 16 boaters on the waiting list for boat storage at the center. Members of the Sailing Center Committee have requested boat storage racks and assisted City staff with the design and location. The proposed racks will be another source of revenue for the City. Each space in the racks will be rented for $25 per month, plus tax, which will bring in a total of $450 per month, or $5,400 per year with 100 percent of the spaces rented. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the transfer of $5,000 from Recreation Facility Impact Fees into CIP 93279 to allow for purchase of materials for construction of three boat storage racks at the Clearwater Community Sailing Center. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #13 - Amendment to the agreement with the School Board of Pinellas County, providing for continuation of the School Resource Officer Program, for the 1992/93 school year, at Clearwater High School and Countryside High School (PD) Under the terms of the original three-year agreement on August 28, 1991, between the Pinellas County School Board and the City of Clearwater, the City will provide law enforcement and related services to Clearwater and Countryside High Schools during the regular school year. The assigned officers will provide instruction in law education, serve as resource persons, conduct investigations, provide security and maintain the peace, make arrests and provide support services as necessary. This amendment increases the reimbursement to the City (retroactive to October 1, 1992) from $23,644 base salary to $25,606 base salary per School Resource Officer. Payments are to be made in quarterly installments. The amendment increases assigned police officer coverage from nine and one-half months to ten months. The submission of this item was delayed pending the results of negotiations between the Police Chiefs, the Pinellas County Sheriff and the Pinellas County School Board, the agencies affected by this amendment. In response to a question from Commissioner Thomas, it was indicated the police officers are provided for in next year's budget. Commissioner Thomas felt this program is necessary to the schools. Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the subject amendment to the agreement between the City and the School Board of Pinellas County, Florida, providing for continuation of the School Resource Officer program, for the 1992/93 school year, at Clearwater High School and Countryside High School. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #14 - Change Order #1 to the Northeast Wastewater Residuals Handling Facility contract with Walbridge Contracting, Inc., Tampa, FL, increasing the contract amount by $9,299 for a new total of $4,607,550 (PW) The purpose of this change order is to compensate the contractor for new work he has been directed to perform and to provide the City with a credit for work deleted from the contract as follows: a) install aluminum handrail on roof of new residuals building and install a two-inch gate valve on potable water line for $5,687; b) apply cement stucco in place of hardcoat plaster to interior walls of residual and generator building for $4,614 and c) credit the City ($1,002) for the installation of a six-inch tapping saddle and valve installed by the City Water Division, for a total increase of $9,299. These changes result in a net increase of $9,299 resulting in a new total contract price of $4,607,550. There is no increase in the contract time. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve Change Order #1 to the Northeast Wastewater Residuals Handling Facility contract with Walbridge Contracting, Inc., Tampa, FL, increasing the amount by $9,299, for a new total of $4,607,550. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Commissioner Berfield expressed concern with amendments to contracts increasing costs over what was originally approved. Public Works Director, Bill Baker, stated it is not unusual for multi-million dollar contracts to have changes amounting to a small percentage of the total contract. He stated change orders are tracked and reported to the Commission periodically and the percentage of change orders has been small. He said there are often change order reductions that the Commission does not see. Commissioner Berfield expressed concern with amendments to major projects caused by new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rulings. She questioned if EPA approval is obtained before contracts come before the Commission and Mr. Baker said the EPA occasionally passes new rulings; however, this is not done arbitrarily. He agreed to the change proposed by the EPA and it was indicated this change had been initiated by a citizens' support group. The City Manager indicated unfunded mandates are a concern to the City. Commissioner Berfield suggested this be addressed in the legislative package. Commissioner Thomas stated unfunded mandates are a major topic in the legislature. He called for the City to take a stand and to draft a resolution to the Florida legislature and state agencies. Mr. Baker stated the project was mandated by the EPA; however, the change was proposed by the City. ITEM #15 - Amend Purchase Order 6991628 to Tanktec Inc., in the amount of $2,995 for a total revised cost of $12,734.95 due to increased contaminated soil analysis and disposal, and contaminated water disposal (PW) During the site preparation for the future solid waste facility (Campbell Property), the demolition contractor encountered a heating oil tank. Soil contamination was visible in the area immediately adjacent to the tank. Due to contamination at this location and the potential for it to spread if no immediate action was taken, four quotations were solicited and received for tank removal, closure and disposal of contaminated soil. Tanktec, Inc. was awarded a contract comprised of $2,195 for tank removal and testing, $800 as a minimum for soil disposal and $65 per ton for soil disposal above the $800. During removal of the tank, several small holes were found in the tank bottom, indicating it had been leaking prior to discovery. The contractor was authorized to proceed with the removal of the contaminated soil, based on the belief the contract would not exceed $10,000. The soil was transported to Kleensoil International, in Palmetto, Florida, for thermal destruction. Commissioner Thomas indicated the State has a fund that pays to do this type of removal in the private sector and questioned if there is any such provision for the public sector. Mr. Wright said although the City has had some sites which were eligible for funding, this project did not qualify. Commissioner Berfield moved to ratify and confirm the City Manager's authorization to amend Purchase Order 6991628 to Tanktec Inc., in the amount of $2,995 for a total revised cost of $12,734.95 due to increased contaminated soil analysis and disposal, and contaminated water disposal. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. In response to a question from Commissioner Thomas, Mr. Baker stated seven to nine acres of the eleven acre site will be used for the project. ITEM #16 - Receipt/Referral - Ord. #5357-93 - Amendments to Ch.49, Housing Code (PLD) The proposed changes will allow the City to increase effectiveness in enforcing the Housing Code. The following is a summary of the changes: 1) Section 103.21 defines unfit, unsafe and nuisance structures; 2) Section 103.2.2 sets time limits requiring a structure to comply with the Housing Code and adds a paragraph limiting the time a structure can remain boarded up; 3) Section 103.2.4 sets the guidelines in determining when a structure is a minor or major violation; 4) Section 105 is deleted, which eliminates hardship as the reason for appealing the City's decision; 5) Section 106.1 defines the appeal rights of the structure's owner; 6) Section 106.2 sets up the procedure to take the case to the Municipal Code Enforcement Board (MCEB) and take corrective action; 7) Section 106.4 gives the City Manager the ability to defer corrective action if an owner/occupant is applying for a rehabilitation loan from Community Development; 8) Section 308.3 clarifies the number of occupants served by a single bathroom facility in a rooming house and 9) Section 308.8 clarifies the definition of a rooming house. Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned if this item should go before the Code Enforcement Task Force. Deputy City Manager Kathy Rice to review. Commissioner Thomas asked if this item is in response to removal of dilapidated and abandoned buildings. City Attorney Galbraith indicated an ordinance will be coming forward to address abandoned houses. He said the current code relates to unsafe structures. Commissioner Berfield expressed concern regarding the rental of rooms in single-family residential zoning districts and there being no clear definition of "family." The City Attorney felt the definition of "family" should be addressed in the land development code; however, he felt a definition would not solve the problem. Staff will follow up. Commissioner Deegan moved to receive the request and refer it to the City Clerk to be advertised for public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #17 - Receipt/Referral - Land Use Plan Amendment to Public/Semi-Public and P/SP Zoning for property located at 601, 605 & 607 Orange St. and 604 & 606 Bay Ave., 0.50 acres m.o.l. (Church of the Ascension LUP93-26, Z93-10) (PLD) The application covers two parcels adjacent to the land presently owned by the Church of the Ascension. One of the parcels is located at the southeast corner of Turner Street and Orange Avenue. The other is on the west side of Bay Avenue, 170 feet south of Turner Street. The Church of the Ascension wishes to utilize these properties in its operations, and is requesting the appropriate zoning to do so. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to receive the application for the Land Use Plan Amendment to Public/Semi-Public and P/SP Zoning for property located at 601, 605 & 607 Orange St. and 604 & 606 Bay Ave., 0.50 acres m.o.l., and to refer the request to the City Clerk to be advertised for public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #18 - Receipt/Referral - Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Industrial and IL Zoning for property located in Pinellas Groves, part of Lot 11, Sec. 12-29-15, 0.70 acres m.o.l.; and to authorize the Public Works Director to permit the applicant to connect to City sewer after all applicable fees have been paid (Kehoe A93-20, LUP93-27) (PLD) The property is located on the north side of Range Road approximately 820 feet east of Hercules Avenue. There are two existing buildings on the eastern portion of the property, and a building and garage on the western portion. No construction is proposed between now and completion of annexation proceedings. The applicant wishes to annex to obtain City sewer service, and would like to connect immediately to the system. Since there is no new construction involved with this existing use and intergovernmental coordination (Pinellas Planning Council or State) required, staff recommends the applicant be permitted to connect to the City's sewer upon payment of applicable impact fee and payment or execution of lien for any sewer assessments for the property. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to receive the request and to refer it to the City Clerk to be advertised for public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #19 - FY 1993-94 HOME Funding Agreement with Pinellas County for utilization of funding to be provided under the HOME federal housing program (PLD) On June 3, 1993, the City Commission approved a three-year extension of the cooperation agreement between the City and Pinellas County to utilize HOME funds. The agreement entitled the City to a pro-rata portion of the HOME funding through the Pinellas County HOME Consortium. The funding is to be prorated according to the amount the federal government establishes for each participating entitlement community in the consortium. For fiscal year 1993-94, the Pinellas County Consortium was awarded $1,284,000. Of this amount, $192,600 was deducted for the local community Housing Development Organization, $258,662 for the City of Clearwater, $151,704 for the City of Largo and $681,034 for Pinellas County. These funds must be matched at the local level from non-federal sources. Matching fund requirements range from 30 percent for new construction to 25 percent for rental assistance and moderate/substantial rehabilitation (matching contributions may be in the form of cash from non-federal sources, real property, infrastructure improvements or taxes and fees of charges that are waived, foregone, or deferred). The City of Clearwater has defined its non-federal match in the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS). Commissioner Thomas referred to a memo reflecting $75,000 in matched funds and questioned if these matching funds were reflected in any of the HOME documents. He questioned whether any of the $258,662 of the HOME funding allocated to the City could be used for new housing. The City Manager suggested continuing this item to Thursday's meeting as all of the Commission had not received the above referenced memo. Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item to the meeting of Thursday, August 5, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #20 - Receipt/Referral - Land Development Code Amendment to allow temporary signs under certain circumstances, amend Sec. 44.08 & 44.54 LDCA 93-03 The City Commission has requested a revision of the sign regulations to provide for temporary signs for new businesses, businesses having name changes and for businesses having their signs damaged in isolated storm events or through acts of vandalism. A draft ordinance has been prepared to address these concerns. At the July 1, 1993 City Commission meeting, a question was raised regarding the Countywide sign code requirements for banners and other temporary signage. The Countywide code prohibits the permanent use of banners and other similar signage, but does allow temporary signage of this sort for special events and circumstances at the discretion of the local government. Allowing banners for grand openings and in the case of isolated storm damage or vandalism (as well as widespread storm damage and major public works projects as currently permitted) would be allowable under the Countywide sign code, as long as the time period for which such signage is permitted is of a duration that could reasonably be considered temporary in nature. Mayor Garvey stated it has not been resolved whether or not freestanding banners and/or balloons should be included. Commissioner Berfield questioned whether 30 days is sufficient time to erect a sign that has been damaged and it was felt this time frame was reasonable. The City Manager stated emergency provisions can be made in the case of a disaster or emergency. Commissioner Fitzgerald felt if there was an emergency each case could be addressed on an individual basis. Commissioner Thomas questioned if the issue of temporary signs was not addressed in the latest revision of the sign code intentionally. Mayor Garvey responded some issues were deliberately omitted. The Mayor asked how this amendment coordinates with the County's ordinance and Kathy Rice said temporary signs are allowed for special events and circumstances at the discretion of local governments. James Polatty, Planning and Development Director, said certain temporary signs are allowed at the City's discretion. Mayor Garvey said she is uncomfortable with banners and balloons. Commissioner Thomas said it is extremely difficult for new business to be successful indicating balloons are more attractive and creative in design than portable signs. Commissioner Thomas moved to receive the request and refer it to the City Clerk to be advertised for public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #21 - Community Relations Board - 2 appointments (CLK) Commissioner Thomas moved to appoint Sheila Cole for the at-large position. The Mayor pointed out this position calls for a member who resides in the unincorporated area of the County, under the City of Clearwater jurisdiction. Commissioner Thomas withdrew the motion. In response to a question, the City Manager stated the at-large position encompasses the area of unincorporated Pinellas County north of Ulmerton Road. Commissioner Thomas moved to appoint Dana Hall to fill the vacant seat. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. There were no additional names submitted. Commissioner Berfield moved to continue appointment of the at-large position to the meeting of August 16, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #22 - Marine Advisory Board - 1 appointment (CLK) Commissioner Thomas moved to appoint William Donovan. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #23 - Neighborhood Advisory Committee - 1 appointment (CLK) Commissioner Thomas moved to appoint Tina Pimenidis. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. City Manager Verbal Reports ITEM #24 - Employee Service Awards Survey On May 18, 1993, a survey memo was directed to all City employees asking their preference regarding having an annual awards banquet instead of the current procedure. Out of 744 responses, 411 employees preferred the banquet. Projected "years of service" awards for calendar year 1993 include 280 employees and calendar year 1994 awards include 247 employees. Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned if all employees, or only the award recipients would be attending the banquet. He stated there is a potential for having 1,600 people for dinner and expressed concern regarding the cost. While Commissioner Fitzgerald did not have a problem with the concept of the awards banquet, he requested information regarding who would be invited. Commissioner Thomas did not feel the results of the survey were conclusive because the vote did not represent 50 percent of the voters. He has received comments from some employees preferring to have acknowledgement from within their own divisions and supported putting the award process at divisional head level unless years of service were significant. He felt more research was needed. Mr. Wright felt the service award issue would be a project for the Labor Management Group to address. Commissioner Thomas moved to refer this item to the Labor Management Group. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #25 - Magnolia Drive and Turner Street Docks In a memo to the City Manager dated June 30, 1993, Public Works Director William Baker submitted photographs of the Magnolia Drive Dock as it was on February 20, 1992 and of the Turner Street dock. During the storm of March, 1993, the Turner Street and Magnolia Drive docks experienced extensive damage. The Turner Street dock experienced extensive damage to the deck structure, while the piling, columns and roof structure appear to be reusable. The storm completely removed the Magnolia Drive dock except for the existing piles, causing the need to replace the complete structure, including the piles. The Magnolia Drive dock is to be replaced in the same footprint and the Turner Street Dock will be restored to its original configuration. A letter of objection to replacing the Turner Street gazebo was submitted by Viewpoint On The Bay Condominium Association president, John Crochet. He expressed concern that late-night noise and rowdy behavior is upsetting to the residents of the adjacent condominiums. The City Manager asked direction regarding this issue due to the differences of opinion of the various groups involved. Commissioner Thomas felt a public hearing on the issue should be held with notification of the hearing to everyone who might be impacted. The City Manager suggested bringing this issue forward in October with sufficient advertising. Commissioner Berfield recommended the date of the public hearing for this issue get coverage on Vision cable during Commission breaks. Commissioner Deegan expressed concern in going overboard for this issue due to only one negative letter being received. Mayor Garvey questioned the need for a public hearing. Consensus was to proceed on the path of replacing and restoring the Magnolia Drive and Turner Street docks as recommended by the City Manager. ITEM #26 - Tropic Hills fence - Request for direction The fence was removed on June 8th. The decision to remove this fence on June 8 was occasioned by a need to determine what cost benefit ratios applied to the continuous maintenance of the fence. The fence was 32 inches high and had been described as a safety feature relative to "toddlers", yet the fence had never been on more than three sides of the ponds; the side immediately adjacent to the contiguous homeowners had never been fenced; the former Public Works Director's recollection of the initial fence construction was that those homeowners did not want the fence along their property; and the fence had never offered protection for any property other than those on the opposite side of Driftwood Avenue, a public road offering a much greater hazard to a roaming toddler. A petition has been received requesting that the fence be reinstalled. Of the 32 residents comprising the perimeter of the pond, 15 signed the petition and 17 did not. Of the Of the 18 homes within the perimeter and on the opposite side of a street separating the homes from the ponds, 8 signed the petition, 10 did not. Of the 14 homes immediately adjacent to the pond and comprising the group that has not enjoyed any protection from the pond in the past, and presumably was the reason it was not initially installed there. Because the fence was only 32 inches high, had no top rail, made mowing more difficult, caught and held blowing paper and trash, created an industrialized appearance in a residential neighborhood, and was not in existence along the most significant length of the ponds, it was determined to be ineffective, unattractive and a continuing expense with an unworthy cost-benefit ratio. I can assure you that if we believed for one moment that the fencing had even a subtle effect on a real hazard, the cost benefit decision would have involved a lifesaving parameter and would have engendered different results. The City Manager said the residents are upset and asked that the fence be replaced. Commissioner Deegan indicated a lot of people want the Tropic Hills fence restored citing safety and security concerns. Discussion ensued regarding whether to consider replacing what previously existed which was a fence on three sides or to erect a fence around the entire pond. Commissioner Thomas expressed concern regarding the City's liability in fencing all four sides as he felt this could indicate a safety issue. Commissioner Fitzgerald said he did not advocate fencing retention ponds and expressed concern by doing so could cause a domino effect. He said statistics do not indicate this is a problem. He expressed concern the residents on the original unfenced side of the pond would object to a fence on their side as this would affect the back of their property. The City Manager suggested erecting the fence 5 feet from the water indicating the majority of residents surrounding the unfenced portion of the pond mowed the grass down to the water. Questions were raised if a fence higher than 30 inches should be erected due to safety concerns and at what age children should be considered responsible for themselves. Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item to the regularly scheduled meeting of September 16, 1993. The motion was duly seconded. Questions were raised regarding property ownership in regard to placement of the fence; whether the footprint should be the same as the original fence; and if the City erects a fence, would the homeowner association assume liability. It was indicated additional research was needed by staff. Commissioner Berfield withdrew the motion on the floor. The seconder withdrew his second. ITEM #27 - Broker's Agreement - Snell Isle Properties The City Manager stated he had been approached by Frank Malowany, President of Snell Isle Properties in Tampa, regarding the development of the Maas Brothers property an d requested Commission direction. Mr. Malowany said he represented out-of-town interests who wanted to either lease the existing structure or develop the site. However, before he exposed his client, he wanted to protect his financial interest with a finder's fee agreement. Commissioner Thomas found it inappropriate to move forward with another consultant until a report is received on the feasibility of an entertainment complex on the site. Commissioner Deegan said it is important to remain open to other proposals and to not support a finder's fee. Majority consensus was to not discourage potential developers from coming forward but not to support a finder's fee. ITEM #28 - Special Meeting regarding the Sun Bank Building A special meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) was scheduled for August 9, 1993, at 2:00 p.m. to consider the sale of CRA property in conjunction with the Sun Bank building. If necessary, immediately following, a special meeting of the City Commission will be held to consider the sale of the Sun Bank building. Other Commission Action Commissioner Berfield questioned whether the tape recordings of the Commission meetings could be designated as the official minutes. The City Attorney responded the tapes are part of the official record. Discussion ensued in regard to a court reporter doing the minutes. This will be discussed during the meeting of Thursday, August 5, 1993. Commissioner Berfield said she has a conflict with the Joint Planning & Zoning Board meeting scheduled for August 17. Commissioner Thomas indicated he also could not attend. This meeting will be rescheduled. She said she received a letter regarding Seville Boulevard and the proposed development by ZOM. The City Manager said there has been a lot of discussion regarding the access issue and he hopes to agenda this item for August 19. He said ownership of the road is not clear. Consideration was requested for having the Commission meet on the property so they can see the large amount of trees to be removed. It was pointed out the developer promised to take care of the access issue. Staff is to track for the meeting of August 19, 1993. She referred to a letter regarding SWFWMD's tax increase proposal and indicated a need to respond. The first public hearing by SWFWMD will be held on September 14. Staff is to provide additional information and track for the meeting of August 19, 1993. She asked Mr. Wright to check when the Jazz Holiday/alcoholic beverage issue has been agendaed. He suggested adding language (Coachman Park) to the existing ordinance to address this expeditiously. It was felt allowing alcohol at Jazz Holiday should be tested first. The City Attorney said an ordinance could be amended or repealed. It was felt proposing an ordinance without debate first would send a wrong signal to the citizens. Staff is to track for August 19, 1993. Commissioner Deegan said he has received numerous calls from Pierce 100 regarding the proposed Cruise Line. He found it to be against public welfare to prolong the decision whether it would dock there and asked whether the Commission wanted to reconsider. It was pointed out it would only dock there temporarily and would move to Pier 60. Commissioner Deegan moved to remove from consideration the possibility of the cruise ship being located at the Pierce 100 location, but at the same time, to let the cruise line know the City is still interested in a cruise ship as a recreational activity, if it is in the right place and that place is still to be determined. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Commissioner Thomas said comments have been received from the Code Enforcement Task Force indicating they preferred more independence in reviewing the code. The City Manager said he directed staff to take a passive role. He referred to the Cleveland Street parking proposal and suggested going to 8-1/2 foot lanes rather than 11 foot lanes. He felt this would eliminate the opportunity for accidents. Concern was expressed making any changes to the original proposal at this time would jeopardize the City's chances of DOT approval. Consensus was to leave the proposal as is. Mayor Garvey questioned if there were any changes being proposed to Rowe Rados' scope of work. Commissioner Berfield said a memo had been received from the Historic Preservation Board asking that consideration be given to including an archive room in the new City Hall. The Mayor stated the firm is to put together their proposal by August 12 and they want to have any Commission comments by that time. The City Manager indicated he was not aware of any changes. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m.