08/30/1993 CITY COMMISSION MEETING
August 30, 1993
The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in regular session at City Hall, Monday, August 30, 1993 at 9:21 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
Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk
Susan Stephenson Deputy City Clerk
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
Holly Ausanio, City Clerk Department, was presented the August 1993 Employee of the Month Award.
ITEM #2 - Approval of Minutes - None.
ITEM #3 - PRESENTATIONS
a) Snair v. City - Mickey
Deborah Crumbley, of Sizemore, Thompson & Gonzales, the City's Labor Council, gave a brief history of the case which was filed in 1988. This is a class action suit alleging age discrimination
due to the age 45 restriction previously contained in the City's Pension Plan. The age restriction was removed from the Plan by a referendum. She stated approximately 119 plaintiffs
are still party to the suit. Upon direction from the Trustees and the City Commission, settlement discussions were undertaken. The City's last verbal settlement offer was $1,500,000
lump sum and Mr. Mickey's, the plaintiffs' attorney, last settlement offer was $2,200,000. Ms. Crumbley stated this settlement would not grant any retroactive credit, it would simply
end the
lawsuit. The plaintiffs assert there is a liability exposure of $8,200,000 in back pension plus damages for a potential value of $16,400,000. Ms. Crumbley indicated her firm feels
the City has a good chance of prevailing based on the merits of the case.
The Mayor stated she wished to clarify that in order to change the Pension Plan, there would need to be a referendum.
Paul Mickey, attorney for the plaintiffs, stated their last formal demand was for $2,650,000 but $2,200,000 had been mentioned in subsequent discussions. Mr. Mickey indicated he took
on this case in 1988 when AARP believed there was a problem in Clearwater regarding the age 45 restriction. The City stood by its position that the age 45 limitation was legal. He
stated he studied the law and excluding individuals from the Pension Plan simply because of age was not appropriate. He felt the City was dealing with an impressive group of employees
that had loyalty to the City although they were currently involved in the lawsuit. He stated he had learned that the EEOC had ruled the City had relied on a non-legal opinion and that
the City had not gotten an expert legal opinion regarding whether or not the age 45 restriction was appropriate.
He stated they have discovered a memorandum from former assistant city attorney Kowalski that advised the Commission there were significant questions regarding the legality of the age
45 limitation. He stated the City did not respond, doubling the possibility of damages due to willful violation. He stated the City has been operating on an opinion that the Pension
Plan was legal due to its having been enacted prior to the age discrimination laws. He stated the City felt vindicated by the Betts decision, however, congress has overturned that law.
A judge has reviewed the evidence and found enough evidence to go to jury. Mr. Mickey indicated he believed a jury would be sympathetic to the plaintiffs.
He informed the Commission he is fully prepared to try to settle the case, however, the current offer by the City is not sufficient. He reported some plaintiffs do not want to settle
as they want retroactive credit in the Pension Plan. He stated he has had a number of meetings with the class participants and one sticking point is the rule that they must be in the
Plan for 20 years. He stated this makes it remote they will ever receive any benefits from the Plan. He stated they feel there is no legal basis for the 20 year rule. He stated if
the 20 year rule is not addressed, some may be reluctant to vote for the settlement. He stated all class members have signed an agreement to abide by a settlement if it is approved
by 80% of the class.
He asked the Commission examine the issues carefully. He felt the $2.2 million was a fair figure, the distribution of which would be determined by the class's attorney. He stated
a number of the employees are still employed by the City and the lawsuit results in some tensions in that regard. He indicated the Pension Plan is well, if not over funded.
Mayor Garvey questioned the ability to change the 20 year rule without negotiating with the unions. Ms. Crumbley indicated the City is obligated to negotiate the Plan and any changes
to it are subject to those negotiations. She stated the City is making a good faith effort to change the Plan and those changes are under discussion but to say definitively that changes
have been made would result in the City bargaining from a fixed position.
The City Manager questioned if the settlement could come from the Pension Fund. Ms. Crumbley indicated it could not.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if when the Pension Plan was set up, it was done under the law. Ms. Crumbley indicated the City's Plan was and has been lawful. She stated she realized
that Mr. Mickey has alleged that the City was remiss in its review of the Pension Plan, however, city staff, in conjunction with the Legal Department, did review the Plan and sent a
letter to the EEOC stating to them that their opinion that the City's age 45 limitation was not legal, was incorrect. She stated the Supreme Court upheld staff's position and the EEOC
voluntarily dismissed their suit.
Commissioner Thomas questioned whether or not the City's contribution to Social Security for those individuals not participating in the Pension Plan was close to the amount contributed
to the Pension Plan. Ms. Crumbley indicated it was not possible to determine this as individual contributions per employee are not made to the Pension Plan.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if they had been allowed in the Plan, would they have received $8 million. Ms. Crumbley indicated that is what their actuary is stating. She stated
she believed another actuary would put it at a much lower figure.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if the City had been provided with the actuarial tables used. Mr. Mickey indicated line by line calculations had been provided.
Ms. Crumbley indicated the City has not gone to the full expense of an actuarial study as the liability and damages portion of the suit would be bifurcated. She stated if the City
is found to be liable, it would then have an actuarial study done to determine the damages.
Commissioner Thomas stated he felt there was an issue of law and an issue of fairness that should both be considered. He stated he did not see a strong case for the plaintiffs, however,
he was concerned with fairness to the employees. He questioned if there was anything that could be done to determine whether or not there was a similarity in the numbers contributed
for Social Security and Pension.
Harrison Thompson, of Thompson/Sizemore, indicated they have checked with the Finance Director and the City's actuary regarding the plaintiffs actuarial study. He stated they have
found nothing wrong with the way the figures were calculated, however, the basis used by the City would be different.
Further discussion ensued regarding possible settlement. It was indicated the Commission could hold a closed session with its attorney regarding this matter.
Ms. Crumbley indicated the City's last offer was $1.5 million to resolve all matters. The last formal plaintiffs offer was $2.65 million. She stated verbally today there is an offer
of something in between.
The City Manager questioned the date set for the trial. Ms. Crumbley indicated no date has
been set but it would probably be in early 1994.
Mr. Mickey indicated that while their last formal offer was $2.65 million, he felt optimistic that if the City was willing to offer $2.2 million, he would get the appropriate number
of votes to settle the case.
The City Manager suggested there be a closed session.
The City Attorney announced his desire to have a closed attorney/client session regarding Snair vs. the City.
Consensus of the Commission was to set this for 4:30 p.m on September 2, 1993.
b) Florida Orchestra
John Hyer, President of the Florida Orchestra, stated he was soliciting financial support for the orchestra.
Mayor Garvey requested a history of the Orchestra. Mr. Hyer indicated it is 25 years old and is a professional orchestra. He stated it is first class quality and there is no doubt
that it is one of the best in the United States.
In response to a question, he indicated there are 160 performers in the orchestra. He reported most of the audience comes from Pinellas County. The Orchestra is the resident orchestra
at Ruth Eckerd Hall and the audiences are growing. He stated they have several projects proposed, one of which is concerts in the park. He felt the Orchestra was non-controversial
and the City could not go wrong by supporting it.
He believed the Orchestra has not had the proper support in the past ten years. He stated they have been in debt but have cut their expenses enormously. He stated they have brought
in a marketing individual who has increased ticket sales by 20%. They have a three year contract with the musicians. The Orchestra needs $1.5 million and is requesting $100,000 from
the City.
Julia Flemming, indicated the $100,000 is to be used to work with Ruth Eckerd Hall, to expand the concerts in Coachman Park and to provide family services. She stated last spring a
group at Ruth Eckerd Hall implemented a new support group with over 100 members. She stated they also received a lot of support from Fun n' Sun.
In response to a question from Commissioner Deegan, the City Manager indicated $10,000 has been placed in the budget for support of the Florida Orchestra.
Commissioner Deegan requested something in writing. Mr. Hyer indicated he would get it out to the Commission immediately.
Commissioner Thomas stated the City already has a huge investment in Ruth Eckerd Hall to help the community and art programs. He stated he needed additional data before being able
to decide to commit additional funds to the Orchestra. He requested information regarding support from other cities and the County. He also questioned what the benefit was to the citizens
regarding public concerts.
Mr. Hyer indicated the Board of Directors has just adopted a five year plan which addresses the Orchestra's cash flow. He indicated the Orchestra pays rent to Ruth Eckerd Hall and
it is not costing Ruth Eckerd Hall to have the Orchestra at that facility.
It was stated it was important for the Commission to have information regarding what other cities and the County have committed to the Florida Orchestra.
The meeting recessed from 10:44 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
ITEM #4 - Renewal of contract for Digital VAX 4000 hardware & operating system software maintenance to Network Computing Corp (NCC), Charlotte, NC, for the period 10/1/93-9/30/94, at
an est. $30,200 (AS)
The City uses the VAX 4000 computer for utility billing. The system produces bills and maintains billing/service records for approximately 43,000 Clearwater utility customers.
This contract will provide service on the VAX 4000 Monday through Friday, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. with four hour response time. The equipment has been very reliable since the installation
of the hardware in July, 1990. The four hour response to failure has been requested due to the highly visible customer service position of the utility system.
Commissioner Deegan moved to approve renewal of the contract for the Digital Vax 4000 hardware and software to Network Computing Corporation for the period 10/1/93-9/30/94 at an estimated
$30,200. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #5 - Extension of contract for Unisys A-4 & A-6 computer software licenses to Unisys Corp, Tampa, FL, for the period 10/1/93-9/30/94, at an est. $37,380 (AS)
This license gives the City of Clearwater authority to use the proprietary Unisys Corporation system software that is required in order to use the Unisys A-4 and A-6 mainframe computers.
This software was leased for a period of five years at the time the computers were purchased. The lease terminated June 30, 1993 and monthly license payments are being made through
the end of fiscal year 92/93.
The A-4 is currently used only for Payroll, Occupational License, Assessments and Inventory. The City purchased a replacement Inventory System as part of the Ross Finance package,
so this application will be moved off the A-4 in the near future. Computer Information Services will be studying the benefits vs. the operating costs of maintaining Payroll on the A-4.
Until this issue is resolved, it was determined that a monthly lease would be the most beneficial as it would not tie the City to another five year lease program. The monthly lease
would allow us to
terminate the software license at any time with only one month written notice to Unisys. The cost of the software license for the A-4 computer is $19,200 per year.
The Police Department, which uses the A-6 for Computer Aided Dispatch, is about to undertake a study to determine the direction of computerization for the Department as a whole. Until
a consultant is hired and this study completed, it was not reasonable to lock the City into another five year agreement with Unisys. The license fee for the A-6 computer is $18,180
per year.
Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned what will happen to these computers now that the City is moving toward mini-computers. Laura Chase, Data Processing Manager, indicated no definite
plans had been made and final decisions will wait for the consultant regarding the Police Department computers as well as staff review of payroll. The City Manager indicated it would
be a year before a decision was requested.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concerns that he was unable to get a print-out of the names and addresses of individuals that had applied for occupational licenses. Ms. Chase indicated
the system was written 15 years ago and it was not designed as it would have been if it had been developed today. She stated staff could have written a COBAL program which would provide
this information, however, it was her understanding Commissioner Thomas' request was fulfilled differently.
Commissioner Thomas questioned why the City would pay this much money for something so archaic. Ms. Chase indicated the payroll was on this computer system. She stated she is aware
that the occupational license system is antiquated and it has been recommended this be looked into.
Commissioner Thomas stated he is still concerned that the City continues to spend money on antiquated equipment. He also stated he felt it should be studied whether or not payroll
could be done through a service such as ADP. He also suggested Florida Power has a program which could take over the City's utility billing. He stated he felt the line had to be drawn
somewhere.
Commissioner Berfield questioned what would happen if the licenses were not renewed. Commissioner Thomas questioned if could be on a month to month basis. Ms. Chase indicated it could
not.
Commissioner Thomas questioned how long it would take for staff to come back with an agreement with the County for occupational license and ADP for payroll.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if there was a way to convert the applications on the A-4 to the Ross System. Ms. Chase indicated this could be done if different software packages had
been purchased.
The City Manager questioned if staff had priced a payroll system on the Ross equipment. Ms. Chase indicated they had, however, it had been the opinion of staff that it was more important
to get the finance systems up and running and then look at payroll.
Jeff Harper, Administrative Services Director, indicated even if this had been done, payments would still be being made to Unisys as other programs are operating on this system and
staff felt it would be a major burden to do two major conversions at one time.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if staff's plan was to use this final year in order to plan additional upgrades to the City's computer systems. The City Manager indicated it was.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to extend the contract for Unisys A-4 and A-6 computer software licenses to Unisys Corporation of Tampa at an estimated amount of $37,380 for the period
10/1/93-9/30/94 and the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. The motion was duly seconded.
Commissioner Thomas again questioned how long it would take to get a quote from ADP to take over payroll. Betty Deptula, Assistant City Manager, indicated this had been looked at several
months ago and it would take 60 to 90 days to respond. Mr. Harper indicated there had been many questions regarding payrolls with the various ways of calculating overtime, call-back
pay, etc., that exist in the City's system. He stated they have contacted several vendors.
Commissioner Deegan stated he felt this was one of those things when people buy computers that life expectancy and usefulness is mis-estimated. He pointed out the current computers
will not be paid for until 1995.
Commissioner Berfield indicated she would support the license agreements for this year.
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
ITEM #6 - Extension of contract for Unisys A-4 & A-6 computer maintenance to Unisys Corp, Tampa, FL, for the period 10/1/93-9/30/94, at an est. $79,800 (AS)
The City currently uses the Unisys A-4 mainframe computer, located at Computer Information Services, for the Payroll/Human Resources, Assessments, Occupational Licenses, and Stores
Inventory systems. The Unisys A-6 mainframe, located at the Police Department, provides Computer Aided Dispatching and record keeping for the Police, as well as a testing environment
for Payroll modifications.
The contract will provide service on a Unisys A-4 Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at a cost of $28,960 and A-6 service (7) days a week (24) hours per day at a cost
of $50,840. This enhanced level of service is necessary on the A-6 to provide the minimum equipment downtime in the event of failure of the critically important function of the Computer
Aided Dispatching. The maintenance contracts include on-site hardware maintenance in the event of failure, preventative maintenance, system software upgrades, and telephone support
in the event of software failure.
Ms. Chase indicated she had misspoken in Item #5 as it will be on a month to month basis and not locked in for an entire year. She stated the maintenance contract would be locked in
for a
year.
Commissioner Berfield moved to extend a contract for Unisys A-4 and A-6 computer maintenance to Unisys Corporation of Tampa, Florida, for the period 10/1/93 through 9/30/94 at an estimated
amount of $79,800. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #7 - Purchase & installation of a relay hub and a four node WaveLAN Wireless Local Area Network from NCR Corp., Orlando, FL, for a sum not to exceed $28,820; authorize 5 year lease/purchase
through AT&T Credit Corp. (AS)
Presently, the Parks and Recreation Department has 55 micro-computers (and/or work stations) installed in 17 separate facilities serving the needs of over 85 computer users. Each of
these 17 locations currently processes data independently and has no data communications link with any other facility. Data transfer between these and other facilities is currently
accomplished by telephone, hard copy printouts (frequently requiring re-entry into another computer), or by "sneaker-net" (hand carrying a computer disk to another facility). These
existing methods are both time consuming, subject to error, and inefficient.
The NCR Corporation (an AT&T Company) has a "sole source" product called WaveLAN. WaveLAN is a wireless local area network which, by the use of directional antennas, can connect remote
sites separated by a line-of-site distance of up to five miles. No FCC license is required for WaveLAN as it operates in the 902-928 Megahertz Industry, Science, & Medicine (ISM) band.
This product is currently used by Sarasota County (7 locations), the R.P. Scherer North America Corp. of St. Petersburg (3 locations), and Charlotte County Government (4 locations)
with excellent results and plans for future expansion. WaveLAN has been under review by Computer Information Services, the Park and Recreation Department, and the Police Department
for almost two years. The product has passed a preliminary demonstration between several of our facilities.
Staff recommends the purchase and installation of this WaveLAN system from The NCR Corporation to interconnect the following sites: Parks Administration, Morningside Recreation Center,
and the Long Center (City operations). Due to topographical concerns, specifically the line-of-sight limitations caused by the 75' high Highland Avenue ridge, this installation will
require a relay "HUB" to be installed at the Sid Lickton baseball complex. This "HUB" will receive and retransmit the data signals thereby maintaining the required line-of-sight signal
integrity.
Final purchase of this system will be contingent upon the successful relay of data, via the hub, between the listed remote sites and the Parks Administration local area network currently
installed in the City Hall Annex. These three locations will form the nucleus for operational experience, training, and future expansion of this state-of-the-art data communications
system which may be able to be expanded to include other City Departments. NCR has offered a written money-back guarantee if we are not satisfied with the WaveLAN product.
The CIS Manager reported radio waves are used to connect the networks. NCR's first proposal did not work due to distance limitations. Their second proposal, which broadcasts to an
intermediate location, then rebroadcasts to the final destination, was successful. She reiterated
there is a money back guarantee should the system prove to be unsatisfactory.
Commissioner Thomas questioned the accuracy of the Long Range Plan as it stated tests were unsuccessful. It was stated because the Long Range Plan was prepared several months ago there
are changes that have occurred which Ms. Chase will present in the next item.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve a contract for the purchase and installation of a relay hub and a four node WaveLAN Wireless Local Area Network from the NCR Corporation of Orlando,
Florida, for a sum not to exceed $28,820 and to authorize a five year lease/purchase through AT&T Credit Corporation. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #8 - City's Long Range Computerization Plan (AS)
To ensure coordination of automation efforts in the City of Clearwater, the Department of Administrative Services, Computer Information Services Division, is responsible for the administration
of a long range plan for all acquisitions of computers, software and computer related equipment. The Plan includes all automation projects proposed for the next five (5) years, with
a value of $500 or more, although smaller items may be included if the department director desires. The Plan was last approved on May 21, 1992.
The purpose of this document is to provide a blueprint and strategic plan for future purchases, as well as a workable budgeting tool for City management and staff. In and of itself,
it is not binding, as all major purchases still require Commission approval.
The CIS Manager noted updates to the Plan as follows:
Pg. 21, #9330 Network Software Upgrade for General Services
Status: funds appropriated at Third Quarter
Pg. 50, #9024 Public Works/Engineering Engineer Workstations
Status: completed
Pg. 50, #9105 Public Works/Engineering E-size Plotter
Status: completed
Pg. 51, #9205 Public Works/Engineering Network Upgrade - Part I
Status: Budget amendment being requested
Pg. 39, #9005 Parks and Recreation Field Automation - Part III
Status: Commission approved 3 sites 8/30/93
In response to a question as to why there is a difference between the number of locations for the WaveLAN project for Parks and Recreation in the Long Range Plan and Agenda Item #7,
Ms. Chase stated they plan to connect only 12 of their 17 locations. The agenda item only approved the first 3 of those connections.
It was requested the Parks and Recreation Director clarify future plans for connecting Parks and Recreation facilities through the WaveLAN.
Commissioner Thomas stated he did not consider the Long Range Plan a plan, but a shopping list. He felt the Plan did not appear to have an objective or goal and did not present what
was trying to be achieved. The Plan should show which departments would benefit from interconnection of computers. He did not feel the Plan demonstrated that the City has a handle
on the computer issue. The CIS Manager responded that the Executive Summary provides the information on where the City is and where the City needs to go over the next two years. She
stated the departments do interconnect and do communicate. She felt staff has done a good job of connecting different systems with different bases. She agreed the detail portion of
the Long Range Plan document is a purchasing document.
Commissioner Deegan felt CIS was trying to integrate the City's computer systems and to present a global picture. He cited the Novell system as an example. He stated CIS is a service
department which receives input from all departments regarding their needs. He thought this to be their proper role and saw nothing wrong with the Plan being a shopping list. He congratulated
Ms. Chase on the Plan.
Mayor Garvey stated Ms. Chase had done an excellent job.
In response to a question from the Mayor, Ms. Chase indicated the Long Range Plan had been implemented prior to 1988.
Commissioner Thomas indicated he did not see an inter-relation between departments and how the City Manager will be managing the City. He felt the Plan should only be approved if everyone
truly understands where the City is at this point and where the City is going in regard to computers.
Commissioner Deegan indicated he felt the Plan showed a well thought out direction. He stated as the capital improvement projects come forward, the Commission will have an opportunity
to address the individual projects.
Commissioner Thomas felt the Commission should stop at this point and make sure they know what is being done.
Commissioner Fitzgerald indicated he was comfortable enough to move forward. He said this is a five year plan and he understands that plans change. He agreed with Commissioner Deegan
that staff is trying to interconnect the systems.
Commissioner Berfield stated she felt that Ms. Chase and her staff had done a fine job on the Long Range Plan. She suggested that the next time, a graph be prepared to clearly indicate
how the departments connect to each other.
The City Manager indicated many projects had been moved back based on anticipated
technology changes. He stated staff's job is to provide the information to the Commission in the manner it desires.
Commissioner Thomas stated he still did not see what each department wishes to accomplish with data processing services, nor does he see what the City Manager wishes to accomplish with
improved data processing. He stated there was no level of accountability.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve the City of Clearwater Computerization Long Range Plan. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Berfield, Deegan,
and Fitzgerald and Mayor Garvey voted "Aye," Commissioner Thomas voted "Nay." Motion carried.
Commissioner Thomas indicated he would be meeting with the City Manager, Ms. Chase and Mr. Harper in order to receive additional information he desires regarding the direction of computer
operations.
Commissioner Deegan suggested that the capital improvement project descriptions include at least part of the information Commissioner Thomas is looking for.
ITEM #9 - Amendments to City's Firm Transportation Service Agreement dated 10/1/91 and commensurate amendments to the General Service Agreement dated 11/16/89 (GAS)
The City's natural gas supplier, Florida Gas Transmission Company (FGT) became an open access pipeline by order of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on August 1, 1990.
This allows other natural gas suppliers and local distribution companies (LDC's), like the City of Clearwater to directly transport gas over FGT pipelines as opposed to purchasing supply
gas from only FGT.
In order to further reduce gas costs and lower customers' bills, staff would like to convert an additional 25 percent of Firm Sales Service to Firm Transportation Service (FTS) which
will allow 75 percent of the gas supply to be purchased on the open market. We are currently directly purchasing and transporting 50 percent. Under the FERC approved transition plan,
each year FGT allows the LDC's to convert a certain percentage of Firm Sales Service gas to Firm Transportation Service. The 75 percent level represents the maximum that can be converted
to FTS as of August 1, 1993.
This conversion will allow Clearwater Gas System to purchase increased levels of natural gas on the spot market from one of our four currently contracted suppliers (Citrus Industrial,
Coastal Gas Marketing, Natural Gas Clearinghouse, MG Natural Gas). The City will continue to purchase natural gas in this manner until FGT is fully deregulated by FERC Order 636 which
is projected to occur October 1, 1993. When FERC Order 636 is implemented for FGT we will immediately effect a transition to 100 percent Firm Transportation and plan to purchase natural
gas through the Municipal Gas Authority of Florida (MGAF) which will be a joint gas buying organization for municipal LDC's on the FGT Pipeline. MGAF currently has 15 municipal members
including Clearwater.
Once FERC Order 636 is implemented for FGT we believe our assurance of service (potential reliability) will improve as we will be purchasing Firm Transportation and Firm Gas through
the MGAF interlocal. Our latest projections of the cost of gas for FY 93/94 under the new deregulated world of FERC Order 636 is 29 to 33 cents/therm which is 4 to 8 cents/therm higher
than our WACOG for FY 92/93 to date which has averaged 25.0 cents/therm. FERC has implemented this deregulation on the premise of long range lower prices and improved availability of
natural gas.
Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned what risk was related to converting to the spot market. Chuck Warrington, Clearwater Gas System Directing Manager, indicated there was always some
risk on the spot market and cited the experience with Hurricane Andrew interrupting the City's supply. He indicated the City was able to recover and had a new gas supplier within two
hours.
In response to a question from Mayor Garvey, Mr. Warrington indicated this change is being made as it is less expensive to buy gas on the spot market at this time.
Commissioner Fitzgerald expressed concerns that the City would only have an absolute guarantee of 25% of the gas being available. Mr. Warington indicated the City has 100% guarantee
of the pipeline being available and it is only 25% of the gas at the other end. He stated there are many suppliers out in the market place and obtaining the gas has been no problem.
The City Manager indicated that through the consortion that has been formed, the City is moving toward firm prices as the gas commodity is deregulated.
Commissioner Thomas questioned how this would impact the consortion agreement. Mr. Warington indicated it would not as the agreement does not go in effect until a later date.
Commissioner Thomas questioned whether or not the profit margin was being maintained. Mr. Warrington indicated the margin approved by the Commission is being observed.
Questions were raised regarding the need to review these policies.
Commissioner Deegan indicated that a change has been requested in the Gas System's Mission Statement from maximizing profit to optimizing profit.
Commissioner Thomas questioned what had been referred to regarding the Commission approved margins. The City Manager indicated the Commission has set parameters for the rate that can
be charged. He further reported a rate analysis is being done and a new rate proposal will be brought forward.
Commissioner Thomas referenced a trade show in St. Petersburg at which Peoples Gas had an impressive array of natural gas items available. He felt some of these should be presented
to the City of Clearwater citizens.
Commissioner Deegan stated the City will be receiving a presentation regarding conversion
of cars to natural gas. The City Manager indicated staff is gathering information regarding the true cost of the natural gas cars to include maintenance and operation costs.
Commissioner Deegan questioned an ad he had seen in the paper regarding Peoples Gas pipeline coming down into Pasco County. Mr. Warrington indicated Peoples does own part of the Sunshine
pipeline which is the newest proposed transmission line for gas. He stated it will not be in the ground until 1995 or 1996. He further stated if the City were to wait for that pipeline
to be in place, the City would lose some of the expansion opportunities on which it is hoped to capitalize.
Commissioner Deegan questioned a backhoe incident that occurred last Thursday questioning if the pipe that was broken was the City's pipe. Mr. Warrington indicated it was. Commissioner
Deegan questioned if the City was liable. Mr. Warrington indicated it is still being investigated. He stated it was his understanding the pipe had been located several months ago and
then subsequent work on Pinellas Trail covered the markings. He stated the contractor was supposed to be continually updating the markings for the location of any utilities. The City
Manager indicated a full report will be presented to the Commission once it is received by the City.
Commissioner Deegan expressed concerns regarding a quote that indicated the County maps were not showing the City's pipeline. Mr. Warrington indicated it was his understanding their
maps did not show the location and all city utilities are not necessarily on the County maps.
Commissioner Deegan expressed concern that these were not necessarily on the maps and he asked this be investigated.
Commissioner Thomas moved that the amendments to the Firm Transportation Service Agreement dated October 1, 1991 and the amendments to the General Service Agreement dated November 16,
1989 be approved. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #10 - 2-year Contract (9/5/93-9/30/95) for purchase of cellular telephone service to GTE Mobilnet, Clearwater, FL, at an est. $75,000 (GS)
Bids were solicited and received for cellular telephone service (the City has 58 active cellular telephones using approximately 5,400 minutes of air-time per month). GTE mobilnet submitted
the only bid for this service. Six firms did not respond to the bid solicitation for various reasons.
GTE Mobilnet bid a monthly base rate of $15.00 with $.25/minute for peak usage (Monday - Friday, 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.), $.18/minute for off-peak usage (Monday - Friday 7:00 p.m. -
12:00 midnight and weekends), and $.15/minute for night usage (12:00 midnight - 7:00 a.m.).
GTE Mobilnet offers a low-usage option with a monthly base rate of $8.50. This option is for minimal air time at a higher air time rate - $.49/minute for peak usage (Monday - Friday,
7:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m.), $.17/minute for off-peak usage (Monday - Friday, 9:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. and weekends).
At no additional charge, GTE Mobilnet offers a GoPac System for use during emergencies
(hurricanes, severe storms, etc.). This system consists of 5 telephones and 1 FAX machine which are available for the City's use 24-hours per day.
Commissioner Thomas stated he preferred to approve the contract for one year only as there is no price difference. Technology is advancing rapidly and it would be more beneficial to
opt for new technology if something better is available.
Commissioner Thomas moved to award a one year contract to GTE Mobilnet for the purchase of cellular telephone service at an estimated cost of $37,500. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
ITEM #11 - Assignment of lease for Marina Building Room 8 from Bikini Buttons, Inc. d/b/a Marina One-Hour Photo to Starlight Holdings, Inc. (MR)
Mr. Eric Peterson, President of Bikini Buttons, Inc., d/b/a Marina One-Hour Photo has requested the assignment of his lease to Starlight Holdings, Inc. The Lease Agreement of Marine
One-Hour Photo covers Room 8 which contains 391 square feet and is located on the first floor of the Clearwater Marina Building. Under the terms of the Lease Agreement, the lessee must
pay room rent in the amount of $600 per month throughout the term of the lease. Starlight Holdings, Inc. will continue with the same operation of the photo shop, with the exception
that all nude postcards will be removed.
All other conditions, limitations, restrictions and obligations of the current Lease Agreement will remain in effect throughout the term of the lease which will end on November 30,
1994.
Commissioner Thomas has made a request that a personal guarantee be obtained from the Ackers who are the officers of Starlight Holdings.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if it was a normal procedure to ask for a personal guarantee. William Held, Harbormaster, indicated it was not.
Commissioner Thomas stated he felt the Commission should reconsider the policy as there should always be a personal guarantee in order to remove any risk to the City.
Commissioner Deegan questioned the City Attorney's opinion regarding this. The City Attorney indicated it would remove risk that might exist.
Commissioner Fitzgerald suggested making this a policy for future leases.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the assignment of the lease for Clearwater Marina Building Room 8 from Bikini Buttons, Inc., d/b/a Marina One-Hour Photo to Starlight Holdings,
Inc. on the condition a personal guarantee is obtained. The motion was duly seconded.
Mr. Acker suggested the personal guarantee be only for a year. He stated there was no reason to be a corporation if the personal guarantee was to be forever. He pointed out that this
personal guarantee is being requested for transfer of a lease that did not have one. He stated he
preferred the same terms as the existing lease.
Commissioner Thomas stated he felt the personal guarantee was needed unless the Ackers could provide a three year audited statement regarding their financial viability.
Commissioner Berfield questioned if there was any thought of applying for alcoholic beverage package sales. It was indicated there was not.
Commissioner Deegan indicated he was inclined to go along with Mr. Acker as this was only a transfer of an existing lease. He felt policy should be set for new leases. Mayor Garvey
agreed.
Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Berfield and Thomas voted "Aye," Commissioners Fitzgerald and Deegan and Mayor Garvey voted "Nay." Motion failed.
Commissioner Deegan moved to approve the assignment of the lease for the Clearwater Marina Building room 8 from Bikini Buttons, Inc. d/b/a Marina One-Hour Photo to Starlight Holdings,
Inc. The motion was duly seconded, Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Fitzgerald and Deegan and Mayor Garvey voted "Aye," Commissioners Berfield and Thomas voted "Nay." Motion
carried.
Commissioner Thomas moved that a personal guaranty be required of profit making organizations leasing property from the City unless they can provide certified audits for at least a
three year period proving their viability. The motion was duly seconded.
Assistant City Manager Deptula inquired as to whether this included lessees in the Atrium Building and it was stated it would.
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
A recess was called from 1:05 p.m. to 2:05 p.m.
Discussion arose regarding a letter Mayor Garvey received from someone interested in establishing an osteopathic school and expressing interest in the Maas Brothers property. The City
Manager stated he would follow up on the inquiry.
ITEM #12 - C.O.#2 and Final to Elevated Storage Tank Rehabilitation Project to Damon Construction, Inc., Tarpon Springs, FL, increasing scope of work & value of contract by $6,982.40
for a new total of $405,266.40 (PW)
The scope of this project consists of the renovation, tank access modification, standardizing and replacement of safety equipment and repainting of four elevated storage tanks. During
the renovation process, it was determined additional work was needed at the Kapok Tree Tank and Beach Tank in order to maintain the integrity of the tanks.
Due to the physical condition of a roof plate and ladder standoff on the Beach Tank and
roof hatch on the Kapok Tree Tank, these items required replacement. Also, four roof holes on the Kapok Tree Tank required repair work. The total cost for the miscellaneous steel work
is $1,380.00.
Subsequent to the removal of the existing paint, the question arose as to the possibility of problems associated with the adhesion of the proposed exterior coatings on the three 1,000,000
gallon storage tanks. Several alternatives were discussed by the City and Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM). The contractor submitted a claim for costs associated with rental equipment that
was idle for this time period. During a meeting between the City, CDM and the contractor on July 2, 1993, the City agreed that the cost of $5,602.40 was reasonable and agreed to pay
the contractor this amount.
The total cost for Change Order No. 2 and Final is $6,982.40.
The contractor had rented equipment for this job and was charged rental during the delay while this was investigated. The City Manager asked why it had taken 30 days. Commissioner
Deegan was concerned that CDM was called in after the problem was discovered.
William Baker, Public Works Director, indicated CDM was managing the project for the City.
Concerns were expressed regarding there being the 30 day delay and whether or not the problem was discovered prior to all of the paint being removed.
Commissioner Thomas felt it was reasonable to expect rental equipment to be turned back in until the work recommenced.
Commissioner Deegan moved that this item be continued to September 2, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #13 - $94,560 increase to Purchase Order #1872-91 for furnishing polyphosphate and providing chemical feed, monitoring and maintenance of a copper corrosion control fee system to
Sper Chemical Corp., Clearwater, FL, for the period 6/7/91-6/6/94 (PW)
Polyphosphate is a chemical used in the water treatment process to control the natural corrosivity of water and its reaction with metal pipes.
When the subject contract was originally negotiated, the use of polyphosphate served two main purposes, to insure conformance with EPA and DEP standards for copper residuals in sludge
generated by the wastewater treatment process and to improve the aesthetic appearance of the potable water supply by minimizing rust.
During the course of the contract, a federally mandated Lead and Copper Rule came into effect, necessitating an increase in the injection rates of the polyphosphate. Failure to meet
the standards would result in the requirement for additional extensive water treatment installation and public notification.
Also, during this period, rehabilitated wells and the pumping facility at Reservoir 2 were returned to operation, resulting in an increased quantity of polyphosphate required.
Commissioner Deegan moved to approve an increase of $94,560 to Purchase Order #1872-91 to Sper Chemical Corporation for the period from 6/7/91 to 6/6/94. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
ITEM #14 - Contract for crushed shell to Leisey Shell Corp., Ruskin, FL, for the period 10/1/93-9/30/94, at an est. $13,000 (PW)
The Public Service Division has an annual requirement for approximately 4,000 tons of crushed shell for road maintenance and repair, and also miscellaneous construction projects. This
shell is to be hauled by Norred Trucking Company under a separate hauling contract.
Commissioner Thomas moved to award a contract for crushed shell to Leisey Shell Corporation at a cost of $3.25 per ton, F.O.B. Ruskin, for the period 10/01/93 to 9/30/94 at an estimated
cost of $13,000. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #15 - Contract for type 1 Portland bag cement to Holnam, Inc., Tampa, FL, for the period 10/1/93-9/30/94, at an est. $12,000 (PW)
The Public Service Division has an annual requirement for approximately 3,000 bags of cement. The bag cement is used for numerous construction, maintenance and repair projects in the
Streets & Sidewalks, Stormwater Utility and Sanitary Sewers sections.
Commissioner Thomas moved to award a contract for type 1 Portland bag cement to Holnam, Inc. at a cost of $4.00 per bag, F.O.B. Clearwater, for the period 10/1/93 to 9/30/94 at an estimated
annual cost of $12,000. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #16 - Contract for type 1 Portland bulk cement to National Portland Cement Co., Palmetto, FL, for the period 10/1/93-9/30/94, at an est. annual cost of $33,060 (PW)
The Public Service Division has an annual requirement for approximately 600 tons of bulk cement. It is used in the cement truck.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concerns that one bid had been let for both the bag and bulk cement. He questioned if splitting the bids affected the bidding process. It was indicated
up front these items could be awarded separately. If the bid does not so specify, they can not be split.
Commissioner Thomas moved to award a contract for type 1 bulk cement to National Portland Cement Co. at a cost of $55.10 per ton, F.O.B. Clearwater, for the period 10/1/93 to 9/30/94.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #17 - Contract for hauling of rock, sand and shell to be picked up at various mines and delivered to the City by Norred Trucking, Inc., Tampa, FL, for the period 10/1/93-9/30/94,
at an est. annual cost of $55,981 (PW)
The Public Service Division has an annual requirement for approximately 4,896 tons of rock, 3,100 tons of sand, and 4,000 tons of shell. The rock and sand are used in making concrete
as well as for numerous construction projects. The shell is used for road maintenance and repair.
Commissioner Deegan moved to award a contract for the hauling of rock, sand and shell to be picked up at various mines and delivered to the City by Norred Trucking for $4.75 per ton
for rock and sand and $4.50 per ton for shell for the period 10/1/93 to 9/30/94. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #18 - Extension of contract for mowing Clearwater Airpark for a 3rd year with Greenturf Services, for the period 10/1/93-9/30/94, for a total cost not to exceed $18,700 (PW)
Greenturf Services of Tampa, Florida, being the lowest responsible bidder was awarded the Clearwater Airpark mowing contract for FY 1991/92 at the rate of $500 per mowing. There are
approximately 34 mowable acres at the Airpark. This amounts to approximately $15 per acre. Brown's Lot Mowing, who bid $495 per mowing, had withdrawn their bid. In April 1993, it
was necessary to begin mowing the newly cleared safety zone, an additional five acres. Greenturf Services agreed to mow this zone for $50 per mowing, a rate of $10 per acre. Since
that time, Airpark mowings have been $550 per mowing.
Greenturf Services has performed well under the contract and has offered to extend the contract for a third year at the same rate of $550 per mowing. The contract can be extended for
a third year without re-bidding.
Commissioner Thomas suggested this was an area for the City Manager to consider providing jobs for the youth and homeless in the community. Commissioner Deegan expressed a concern
regarding this employment being subject to extraordinary rules. The Mayor also cautioned the City needed to be careful regarding the budget and other concerns.
Commissioner Deegan pointed out the union contract would also need to be considered. The City Manager is to look at this possibility.
Commissioner Thomas moved to extend the contract with Greenturf Services for mowing Clearwater Airpark for a third year, from 10/1/93 to 9/30/94 for approximately 34 mowings at the
current rate of $550 per mowing for a total cost not to exceed $18,700. the motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #19 - Res. #93-47 - approving Pipeline Crossing Agreement with CSX Transportation, Inc. (PW)
Phase 9 and 10 water main replacement program includes a crossing of the CSX Railroad
tracks at Missouri Avenue. This crossing will allow two existing dead-end lines to be joined thus eliminating circulation problems. The CSX Railroad requires a Pipeline Crossing Agreement
and a resolution by the City approving the agreement for each crossing. The cost to the City for the agreement is a one-time $225 Construction Risk Fee, a one-time License Fee of $750,
and a one-time Preparation Fee of $50 for a total of $1,025. The City needs to have the required permit prior to construction of the crossing.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the pipeline crossing agreement RE-100303 with CSX Transportation, Inc. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Resolution #93-47 and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Resolution #93-47 and authorize the appropriate officials to
execute same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #20 - Staff report on Neon Lighting (PLD)
After receiving staff's first report on the regulation of neon lighting, the City Commission directed that further research be done into the methods by which other communities regulate
neon lighting.
The communities researched regulate neon lighting in three primary ways:
(1) Regulation through building code requirements only; no restrictions on the placement of neon lighting from architectural, zoning, or sign regulations standpoint.
(2) Administrative regulation of neon lighting from an architectural, zoning or sign regulations standpoint.
(3) Regulation of neon lighting through an architectural review board.
Many communities simply regulate neon lighting through building code requirements only. This is the same method that Clearwater utilizes. Other communities establish administrative
standards for the regulation of neon signage from primarily an architectural point of view. For instance, North Miami Beach utilizes extremely subjective administrative standards in
regulating the "architectural content" of neon lighting. Key West, on the other hand, limits the area allowed for neon signs and prohibits use of neon to outline building facades or
door or window openings. Other communities in this category, such as St. Augustine, regulate neon simply by prohibiting it in certain districts such as an historical district.
Scott Shuford, Planning Manager reviewed staff's report.
The Mayor stated an area of concern was safety. Mr. Shuford responded safety is not an issue if the Building Code is followed.
Commissioner Thomas stated an outstanding job had been done and a vast amount of data compiled. He felt the issue should be left to the Building Department. He expressed the view
that this is a tourist area and neon is an art form in merchandising.
The Mayor expressed her desire to maintain a family atmosphere.
Commissioner Deegan expressed concerns that the building code only regulates installation, not the amount. He stated it was the amount of neon being used that had brought this issue
to light. He was concerned the City may become a "Little Las Vegas". He suggested the possibility of interpreting such things as palm trees as signs and he stated he would like to
see what could be done to regulate the amount of neon used. He referenced Miami's regulations which address the cumulative amount not overpowering the building and Boca Raton's code
regulating the neon as lighting. He stated to determine whether or not something was garish or detrimental was subjective but he did feel something needed to be done to regulate the
amount of neon.
Mr. Shuford indicated that both Miami Beach and Boca Raton used design review boards. He expressed some reluctance to regulate this administratively.
Commissioner Berfield questioned if there was any information on neon regulations that had gone through the court system. The City Attorney indicated that Boca Raton had been sued
three times he was aware of. Boca Raton lost one case, settled one and he did not know the outcome of the third. He stated the neon lighting regulations worked in Boca Raton because
of its architectural heritage.
Commissioner Thomas stated he felt this was a modest problem in the City and not a runaway issue.
Mayor Garvey agreed with Commissioner Deegan's point regarding the cumulative effect of neon.
Commissioner Deegan cited the difference between use of neon at Checkers establishments and the Calypso Bay Club. He stated the neon at Checkers follows the outline of the building
while the Calypso Bay Club has neon palm trees used as decoration.
Mayor Garvey stated she did not wish to prohibit neon but she wished to determine a point at which it no longer enhances a building but overpowers it.
Commissioner Thomas pointed out the use of neon appears to be cyclical as at one point it was all over the United States then disappeared and is now being revived.
Commissioner Deegan suggested a starting point be to allow neon as something purely architectural. Mr. Shuford indicated that standard could be an administrative standard or code provision.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concerns that the Commission was being negative
regarding businesses trying to instill a festive atmosphere. He felt the neon issue should be left alone and people should be allowed to be artistic.
Commissioner Fitzgerald stated he did not wish for an architectural review board to be established to deal with this. He felt there was a difference of opinion on the Commission regarding
the impact of the neon. He agreed with Commissioner Thomas that current regulations were sufficient.
Commissioner Deegan expressed concerns that the current regulation has no control at all except from a safety standpoint.
Commissioner Fitzgerald stated he did not believe there was a major problem with neon in the City.
It was the consensus of the Commission for staff to come back with proposed regulations for neon lighting.
The City Manager asked for direction regarding where in the work plan this should be inserted. Concerns were expressed that if this were not done quickly, neon would continue to proliferate.
Staff will return to the Commission with recommendations within the 60 days.
ITEM #21 - Receipt/Referral - Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Industrial and IL Zoning for property located at 2188 & 2190 Sunnydale Blvd., Clearwater Industrial Park, part of
Lot 2, 1.24 acres m.o.l. (Sunshine Properties A93-21, LUP93-29) (PLD)
The subject property is located on the north side of Sunnydale Boulevard, approximately 1,270 feet east of Hercules Avenue. There is an existing structure on the property. The applicants
wish to annex in order to connect to the City's sewer system. Staff recommends the applicant be permitted to connect to the City's sewer upon payment of applicable impact fee and payment
or execution of a lien for sewer assessment for the property.
Commissioner Berfield moved to receive the Petition for Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Industrial, and Zoning Atlas Amendment to Limited Industrial for Part of Lot 2, Clearwater
Industrial Park, refer the request to the City Clerk to be advertised for public hearing, and authorize the Director of Public Works to permit the applicant to connect to the City's
sewer after all applicable fees have been paid. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #22 - Staff presentation re: North Greenwood Commercial District Facade Improvement Program, allocate $25,000 of CDBG funds for FY 1993-94 for program (PLD)
The program will fund facade improvements on storefronts along North Greenwood Avenue within the North Greenwood Commercial District (CNG) to promote an improved business climate.
The program will use Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to provide two types of grants: 1) Matching grants (one to one match ratio) for improvements of up to $5,000.00,
and 2) Straight grants (no match) of up to $500.00 for eligible improvements.
A total of $25,000 of CDGB funds would be reserved for this program.
Eligible projects will have to conform to the North Greenwood Design guidelines, but will not be subject to the "point" system of the Guidelines for funding decisions or grant evaluations.
The program will be administered by the North Greenwood Business Alliance Steering Committee who would be responsible for:
A) Evaluating competing grant applications that met minimum requirements;
B) Awarding grants; and
C) Insuring completion of work within parameters set by grant.
Staff support for the Steering Committee will involve taking in and reviewing applications for compliance with North Greenwood Design Guidelines (appeals of staff decisions could be
heard by the North Greenwood Design Review Committee), providing application completion technical support (including zoning and building code requirement reviews), and ensuring CDBG
funding requirements are met. Staff assistance in the design area may also be necessary.
The Steering Committee will receive a fixed percentage (five percent or some other percentage fixed by the Commission) of the grant monies, on a project-by-project basis, for expenses
and overhead.
In conjunction with the Steering Committee, staff will develop a grant application form intended to both meet CDBG requirements and to provide direction to applicants concerning approval
expectations. A budget will be required, and some architectural design work will also be required as a part of the application package. Reimbursement of associated design fees could
be considered as part of the grant, but only be awarded to projects which succeeded in obtaining funding.
Immediate staff assignments will include:
1) Determine interest of the Steering Committee to accept this responsibility.
2) Prepare an application form to meet CDBG funding and grant monitoring requirements, as well as to provide a clear, concise program goal statement and application completion instructions
for applicants.
3) Prepare a photographic inventory of eligible structures to establish a baseline for evaluating grant program effectiveness.
Mr. Shuford indicated there was a need to educate the Steering Committee regarding the design guidelines and the community regarding the project and what would be eligible for application.
He stated the photo inventory will establish the baseline to measure success. He stated a question has been raised regarding extending the target area to Betty Lane. He stated his
feeling was the program should be concentrated on North Greenwood for this cycle.
The question has also been raised regarding whether or not the program should be limited
to commercial only or if residential properties should be allowed to participate. It is his recommendation it be limited to commercial.
Commissioner Deegan pointed out that regarding the straight $500 grant, that this had not been discussed when establishing the original CDBG program. He stated this was a new element
which he endorsed.
Commissioner Berfield questioned if landscaping would qualify. Commissioner Deegan indicated building structure and landscaping in front of the building. He further reported that
in talking with Isay Gulley of Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services, that some were concerned that the building not be made attractive just on the outside. He stated his recommendation
would be that the $2,500 match from the City be used on the outside but if a portion of their money was to be used on the inside, that would be okay. He stated it needed to be carefully
spelled out that this referred to capital improvements only.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concerns regarding there being no rules attached to the $500 grant.
Commissioner Deegan indicated all applicants would have to go through the application process and the Steering Committee would decide who was eligible for the grants.
Commissioner Thomas stated he did not want there to be $50 spent for paint and $450 for labor. He stated there needed to be some level of control. He also suggested there be only
a percentage of the entire program funds allotted to the $500 grants.
It was the consensus that up to $5,000 of the program would be for these outright grants.
Commissioner Deegan agreed he preferred to keep the geographical area concentrated. Mr. Shuford indicated as applications are reviewed, cost figures will be analyzed to make sure the
costs are realistic in connection with the value of the building.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if the design review committee would be involved. Mr. Shuford indicated a committee would be determining if the application met the requirements. He
was looking at the North Greenwood Design Review Committee as an appeal board to that committee's decisions.
Commissioner Deegan pointed out that Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services (CNHS) has been designated as back-up administrator of the program should the North Greenwood Business
Alliance not continue. He also pointed out the Alliance is having a business fair and questioned if it was possible to have applications for the program ready by that time. Mr. Shuford
indicated he wanted the Commission to see the application prior to it being distributed. He stated he would at least have information regarding the program at the business fair. He
will attempt to have the application ready by the 16th of September, prior to the business fair.
Commissioner Deegan questioned the 5% administrative fee for the Alliance and Commissioner Thomas questioned the need for an architect.
Commissioner Deegan indicated a plan would have to be attached to the application.
Consensus was there was no problem with the 5% going for administration and overhead by the business alliance.
The City Manager questioned if not-for-profits would be eligible to participate. It was the consensus that the program should be limited to businesses and possibly mixed uses.
ITEM #23 - Marine Advisory Board - 1 appointment (CLK)
Commissioner Deegan moved to appoint Dr. F. David Hemerick. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #24 - Clearwater Housing Authority - 1 appointment (CLK)
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to appoint Robert Aude. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #25 - Cont. from 8/19/93) MPO request - Res. #93-51 - approving a new interlocal agreement governing the MPO; reappointing Commissioner Thomas as a voting member (CLK)
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve the new interlocal agreement and the reappointment of Commissioner Thomas to the MPO. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Resolution #93-51 and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Resolution #93-51 and authorize the appropriate officials to
execute same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #26 - Cont. from 8/19/93) 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, fees or charges
that are waived, forgone, or deferred). The City of Clearwater has defined its non-Federal match in the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS).
Commissioner Thomas expressed concern that he could not find this item in the budget and that the City is not living up to agreement. The Consortium awarded the City $258,662 and the
City budgeted $63,000 to $70,000 from its funds.
Mr. Polatty stated the housing funds are never in the line item budget but are in the annual allocation from Community Development Block Grant Funds. This is the first year that matching
funds have been required.
The City Manager stated it does not matter who administers the program as long as it is for rehabilitation. Mr. Polatty stated the County handles the primary administrative functions.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the HOME Funding agreement between the City and Pinellas County for utilization of funding to be provided under the HOME federal housing program.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #27 - Sun Bank Building - No action, continued to 9/2/93.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS
First Reading Ordinances
ITEM #28 - Cont. from 8/19/93) Ord. #5434-93 - Relating to appointive boards and committees; amending Secs. 2.063, 2.064 & 2.068 to require that members be residents of the City except
for the Community Relations Board; prohibiting city employees from membership
The Mayor questioned if there are additional boards that should be excluded. The City Attorney responded that the Firemen's Pension Fund and Police Supplementary Pension Fund could
be added.
Commissioner Deegan questioned on page 2, subparagraph c, that the Mayor/Commissioner presents recommendations for the appointments to be made by the Commission. The City Clerk indicated
the procedures contained in the ordinance are outdated and she has submitted a draft to the Legal Department to update the entire ordinance.
Commissioner Deegan felt the ordinance should be brought up to current procedures prior to adopting it. He also questioned why appointments were to be made only at the first meeting
of each month. The City Clerk indicated again, this was to due to outdated procedures. The Mayor
indicated she felt the time frame was needed in order for the Commission to provide names for nomination.
It was the consensus of the Commission the entire ordinance needs to be rewritten. They reviewed additional changes they wished to have made.
Commissioner Deegan pointed out on page 2, subparagraph f, the terms no longer begin on the date of appointment. This will be corrected in the forthcoming ordinance.
Commissioner Deegan referenced Section 2.066 (1), regarding removal of board members by the City Manager for excessive absences. He indicated he felt as these were Commission boards,
the Commission should remove members. It was indicated some boards are appointed by the City Manager. It was the consensus this be changed to removal by the appointing authority.
The City Clerk indicated she will bringing forward a recommendation regarding overall absences, not just excused ones.
Commissioner Deegan requested that in Section 2.064 regarding the number of terms, that an exception for ad hoc committees and task forces be included.
Commissioner Thomas recommended including a total 8 year term limitation for all board members. It was stated most terms are 3 years and this would cause difficulties. He recommended
6 or 9 years be the total years an individual is allowed to serve on any one board. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the term limitation should be a part of the ordinance
or a policy.
Commissioner Thomas questioned the length of term for Neighborhood Advisory Committee (NAC) members. The City Clerk indicated this board had been established in response to a HUD regulation
and that no term had been specified. She will review the record to ascertain whether or not the Commission can set term length and limitations on the NAC.
Consensus of the Commission was to have term limitations as a policy rather than part of this ordinance.
Commissioner Thomas questioned that if Section 2.067 was the area in which the length of term for all advisory boards should be specified. The City Clerk reported that the terms of
each board has been established in the ordinance establishing each board, rather than as a blanket in the advisory board code. Commissioner Thomas requested a listing of the boards
and their term lengths.
The City Attorney stated he would rewrite the ordinance and bring it back for first reading.
Commissioner Deegan moved to continue first reading of Ordinance #5434-93. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Resolutions
ITEM #29 - Res. #93-32 - Revising fee schedule for tree removal permits
The City Attorney presented Resolution #93-32 and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Resolution #93-32 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute
same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #30 - Res. #93-49 - Dedicating 45' ingress/egress easement lying across city-owned parcel of property located W of Sunshine Dr. - for sanitation complex
The City Attorney presented Resolution #93-49 and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Resolution #93-49 and authorize the appropriate officials to
execute same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
Recess from 3:50 p.m. to 3:58 p.m.
ITEM #31 - Other City Attorney Items - None.
ITEM #32 - City Manager Verbal Reports
a) Set Sign Variance Meetings
Commissioner Thomas questioned why the Commission is hearing sign variances. The City Manager reported the ordinance was changed to establish the Commission to hear sign cases. A
special fee of $50 was established for signs made nonconforming by the new sign code. There is presently a back log of 60-80 variances.
Consensus was to schedule a meeting for September 28, 1993 at 10:00 a.m. with the location to be announced at a later date.
b) (Cont. from 8/19/93) Direction re: Sign Ordinance recommended by Businesses Involved in Government, Inc.
John Meek, President of Businesses Involved in Government, Inc., stated members of their organization have developed a proposed ordinance regarding signs. He felt the proposed ordinance
struck a balance between the new sign code and the business community's need. Adoption of the proposed ordinance would benefit the City by reducing litigation due to the new sign code.
He questioned why sign variances have not been heard and why less than half of the signs meet the new code requirements. He suggested the Commission get outside legal opinions regarding
the legality of the new sign ordinance.
Commissioner Thomas stated they had done a thorough job through a comprehensive study and analysis and thanked them for their efforts. He suggested it be given to staff to analyze.
He believed the City is in legal jeopardy regarding the sign code.
Commissioner Fitzgerald indicated he supports the current sign ordinance as it was put together with a lot of citizen input. He stated the proposed ordinance is confusing as it does
not seem to include changes made last fall. He felt the recommendations regarding illuminating all house numbers in the City, while being a good idea, would be expensive to the homeowners.
He expressed concerns regarding a proposal that off site signs be allowed within 300 feet of an area being advertised. He does not agree the current sign code is constitutionally flawed.
He reiterated the current ordinance has a high degree of support from the citizens. Improvements are starting to be seen and citizens are remarking the City is looking better as a
result of the sign code.
He stated before he would consider the proposal, he would first want staff to compare it with the County ordinance. He stated he had no problem with staff reviewing the ordinance to
see how some proposals might fit in to the current one.
The Mayor pointed out changes have be made to the sign code in order to clarify and improve enforcement. She stated no sign variance meetings have been held due to lack of time.
Commissioner Deegan indicated a spread sheet had been prepared to compare the ordinance with current City Code. He stated in only one instance was the proposed ordinance recommending
a smaller sign. In all other instances, signs being proposed are exceptionally large. He stated he was opposed to relaxing the sign code and he appreciated the impact the current code
is having on the City. He concurred with Commissioner Fitzgerald regarding citizen support for the current code. He felt to compare the proposed ordinance with the County code would
require a serious amount of time and was not warranted.
Mayor Garvey reiterated her support for the current sign code. She stated it had included a 7 year amortization to give businesses an opportunity to recap their costs. She stated
she is hearing from business owners that the aesthetics are improving. She stated there have been some changes to refine the ordinance along the way, however, she did not feel the City
should change direction regarding the sign code.
Commissioner Berfield stated the difference in size from the current code and the proposed one is astronomical. She felt the lower signs required in the current code are easier to
see. She also pointed out that a lot of businesses have gone to the expense to change their signs in order to meet the current code. She said the house numbering is a different issue.
She stated she could not support the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Meek stated he was not here to present BIG's proposed sign code as this ordinance or nothing. He stated they would also like to have all existing signs grandfathered in and there
be a cap on the number of billboards. He stated there are a lot of people in the community that do not
realize the full impact of the sign code.
He referenced Commissioner Fitzgerald's concern regarding expense to the homeowners for their house numbering. He stated the current sign code is costing business owners more.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the proposed sign code by Business Involved in Government (BIG) not be pursued and that the current ordinance will continue to be refined.
Commissioner Thomas stated he had received several calls from area businesses pleading for help. He stated as a businessperson in the City, a sign is a single most important investment
made. He stated the current code is hurting the businesses in the community.
c) (Cont. from 8/19/93) Clearwater Housing Authority re: SHIP
Initially the Clearwater Housing Authority (CHA) declined the City's request that they administer the State Housing Initiative Program (SHIP) program. Since then, there have been indications
they would be willing to do this. At a previous meeting, a motion was made that Commissioner Deegan and the City Manager negotiate with CHA to come up with an agreement. This issue
was continued due to the vote on that motion being a tie vote.
Commissioner Thomas moved that the City Manager and Commissioner Deegan negotiate with the Clearwater Housing Authority to produce an agreement for the CHA's administration of the SHIP
program. The motion was duly seconded.
Commissioner Berfield questioned if Commissioner Deegan would be willing to do this. Commissioner Deegan indicated he would be happy to do so.
Mayor Garvey stated she was opposed to the motion as she felt it was inappropriate for individual Commissioners to be negotiating. Commissioner Fitzgerald agreed.
Commissioner Thomas indicated he believed there to be talents on this board and the Commission should be routinely appointing members to work in conjunction with staff and come back
to the Commission with recommendations.
Commissioner Fitzgerald felt it was inappropriate for any one Commissioner to be negotiating. He stated that was staff's responsibility.
Commissioner Deegan indicated that he and the City Manager would not have the final say regarding the agreement.
Upon the vote being taken;, Commissioners Berfield, Deegan, and Thomas voted "Aye," Mayor Garvey and Commissioner Fitzgerald voted "Nay." Motion carried.
d) Direction re: Elliott request
The Elliotts have requested to be placed on a Commission agenda in order to address the
HUD report regarding the City's rehabilitation loan program. They felt the report was filled with inaccuracies which de-credited them in the eyes of the community.
Commissioner Deegan stated that the Elliotts are taking exception to the comments in the HUD report. He indicated he has written a letter to the Elliotts asking them that this be the
end of this issue. He recommended the Commission decline the Elliotts offer to address them.
Commissioner Berfield agreed stating their problem is with HUD. She stated the City has revised its rehabilitation program and done what it can do.
Mayor Garvey agreed.
Commissioner Thomas stated the City has gone to great lengths to clean up and straighten out the rehabilitation program. He stated for the record, it should be noted to the public,
that the Elliotts were harmed in one way or another and he wished to publicly tell them he was sorry for the trouble they had with the City and to take this as an apology to them but
they should now put this issue behind them.
Consensus of the Commission was to not schedule a presentation by the Elliotts.
e) Direction re: Heidenreich request
Karen Heidenreich has requested the ability to address the Commission regarding the Stevenson's Creek project. She stated she would have a petition to support Alternate #1, which is
a culvert under Jeffords Street with an eighteen month construction time rather than the acquisition of property and extending Linn Lake which would take three years. She stated many
of the homeowners in the area have no intentions of selling their property.
Commissioner Thomas stated that when this was last discussed, this was to be a 1 to 3 year program that the Commission was to review in 1 year to determine whether or not to continue
in the same direction.
The City Manager indicated he will be bringing forward the purchase of a house on Druid Road at the Creek which will be needed regardless of which alternative is pursued.
Consensus of the Commission was there be no presentation by Ms.Heidenreich.
f) Chamber request re: Jack Russell Stadium
The Business Alliance is hosting a Business Fair on September 18, 1993 at Jack Russell Stadium parking lot. The event will give the residents of North Greenwood the opportunity to
meet with the owners of small businesses in the area. The Alliance is requesting the City co-sponsor the Fair and waive the rental fee for the use of the City's stage and all insurance
requirements for this event.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concerns regarding this setting a precedent. The Mayor
indicated she felt the Commission should be cautious when it comes to waiving fees.
The City Manager stated minimal overtime would be involved and other costs are minimal.
Commissioner Deegan moved to waive the fees and insurance requirements for the Business Fair to be held on September 18, 1993 at Jack Russell Stadium. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
g) Continuation of downtown trolley
Funding for the downtown trolley ends October 1, 1993 and Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) needs to know whether or not the City will continue to fund this operation after
that time.
Commissioner Thomas reported the dynamics have changed on the PSTA. He stated when the draft for the Jolley Trolley proposal was presented to the Board of Directors, they did not wish
to pay the $50,000 a year in maintenance for the Trolley and therefore, the non-profit will be responsible for that cost. He stated even with this, the Trolley Corporation should be
self-sustaining within 2 to 3 years.
He passed out information regarding a trolley that is used in Maine called the Molly Trolley. He stated it is half the price of those purchased by PSTA and maintenance would be easy
in the City's facilities. He also indicated it can be provided using natural gas as its fuel. He recommended the City go forward with this and obtain additional information.
Mayor Garvey expressed concern that additional information was needed and she was afraid that the stop and go activity of the trolley required a higher quality vehicle than the Molly
Trolley.
The City Manager indicated a greater issue is what direction the Commission wishes to go. He stated there is $310,000 in the budget for the Jolley Trolley, however, under the current
circumstances $50,000 more will be needed.
Commissioner Fitzgerald expressed concerns that the item on the agenda was for the continuation of the downtown trolley. He did not feel the Commission should be addressing the Jolley
Trolley operation as a whole. He stated the City is already subsidizing this as the beach trolley, the downtown portion and now the letter is stating that if the downtown portion is
to continue, PSTA will expect the City to reimburse it for its losses on Route 80, which overlaps the downtown route. He stated there were very significant costs that are going to be
related to this venture. He expressed concerns that when the project started, it was to reduce the subsidy of the City to the Jolley Trolley. He stated now additional subsidization
is being requested.
Commissioner Thomas stated the entry fee has simply gone up but the long term effect would be the same. He stated the downtown trolley should not be continued until the Commission's
direction is known. He stated he did not want the Commission to lose sight of the opportunity it has to provide a tourist transportation system. He reported PSTA has agreed to be
the conduit for the purchase of the vehicle which provides an 80% discount and the current vehicle will be leased to the Jolley Trolley Corporation for $1 a year.
The City Manager pointed out PSTA and the non-profit corporation still to be formed would be the lead agencies regarding the operation of the jolley trolley.
Mayor Garvey felt the downtown trolley route should be terminated until all the details have been worked out. She questioned the fare to be charged on the new jolley trolley operation.
Commissioner Thomas indicated the proposal is to charge 25 cents.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if the $310,000 in the budget included a subsidy for Route 80. The City Manager indicated it did not. He stated the $310,000 in the budget approximates
the current operation.
Commissioner Berfield expressed concerns the Commission had not been made aware earlier that the PSTA board was not in agreement with its paying for the maintenance of the vehicles.
Commissioner Thomas indicated it had only been discovered that they were in opposition last week.
The City Manager questioned how long it would take before the non-profit was up and running. Commissioner Thomas stated 30 to 60 days.
The City Manager felt that if the downtown route was to be out of operation for an extended period of time, it was appropriate to stop it, however, if it was only going to be out of
operation for a short period of time, the downtown route should continue.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if the Molly Trolley could be obtained more quickly than the vehicle PSTA anticipated purchasing. Commissioner Thomas indicated there was a 6 month delivery
time with the check in the mail. He stated if it is bought through PSTA, it could take 18 months.
The City Manager pointed out the Molly Trolley was a lighter duty vehicle. Commissioner Thomas stated that is why he felt all trolley issues needed to be examined. The City Manager
felt additional time was needed and he recommended discontinuing the downtown route and re-instituting the entire operation on January 1st.
Commissioner Berfield moved to discontinue the current downtown route of the jolley trolley as soon as it could be done within the appropriate PSTA time frame. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
It was pointed out that the entire trolley issue would be discussed during the budget process.
ITEM #33 - Commission Discussion Items
a) Isay Gulley request re: N. Garden Avenue property
Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services (CNHS) is attempting to relocate their offices in order to better serve their clients. A dwelling and a lot have been donated to the program,
however, the lot does not have the appropriate zoning for offices. CNHS is requesting the City allow them to occupy the dwelling under zoning in progress. Rehabilitation of the building
is about to begin and there have been problems with trespassers in the unoccupied facility.
Another concern is double payments as they are currently leasing their present location and have a mortgage payment that will begin on September 1st for the rehabilitation and relocation
to the proposed site.
The City Manager pointed out that CNHS is wishing to rehabilitate the facility prior to zoning being in place. He reported the whole area is proposed to be placed in a performance
zoning category.
The Mayor questioned if this would be setting up the City for a problem. Jim Polatty, Planning and Urban Development Director, indicated the zoning would be simple, it is the land
use plan that will be delayed while waiting on the new Downtown Development Plan. He indicated this particular area is in a periphery zone.
The City Manager questioned if building permits could be approved prior to the rezoning. The City Attorney indicated they could not.
Mr. Polatty indicated if it was possible to issue the permits under a zoning in progress. The City Attorney indicated he had never dealt with zoning in progress and the risk would
be run that the plan would not be adopted.
Mr. Polatty questioned if an emergency ordinance could be adopted. The City Attorney indicated zoning changes can not be done by emergency ordinance.
The Mayor questioned what the Commission could do. Mr. Polatty recommended the Commission move forward with the actions by the Planning and Zoning Board and the Downtown Plan would
provide the needed land use plan category.
Consensus of the Commission was to try and place this before the Planning and Zoning Board on September 14, 1993.
Commissioner Thomas indicated the difficulty for CNHS had to do with time and financial considerations. Ms. Gulley indicated they would approach the financial institutions to see if
they could get another deferment on the mortgage. She did not feel they would deny this request.
Staff will pursue this as expeditiously as possible.
Commissioner Thomas moved that the property located at 608 N. Garden Avenue, Bidwell's Oak Wood Addition, Lots 25 & 26, be received for Zoning Atlas Amendment to General Commercial
and refer the request to the City Clerk to be advertised for public hearing. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
b) Pier Pavilion Lease
The Commission directed staff to pursue a month to month lease with this tenant after expiration of the current lease on December 31, 1993.
Steven Thacker, attorney for Mr. Alexander, the lessee, has written a letter to the Commission requesting they consider extending the lease for one year, until December 31, 1994 to
allow him an opportunity to recoup the losses presently being suffered due to the renovations to Pier 60 and to allow the business ample opportunity to sell their rather substantial
amount of existing inventory.
Commissioner Deegan felt Mr. Alexander had a valid point and the request was reasonable.
The City Manager pointed out he is asking for a fixed time for the remainder of the lease. He indicated the business is suffering due to the construction at Pier 60.
Commissioner Berfield moved to extend the lease to December 31, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
c) Beach Diner Lease
The lessee has requested permission to discontinue the Information Center provided for in Section 7.(b) of his lease.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the amendment to the existing lease by deleting paragraph 7.(b). The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Fitzgerald,
Deegan, and Thomas and Mayor Garvey voted "Aye," Commissioner Berfield voted "Nay." Motion carried.
d) (Cont. from 8/19/93) Beautification Committee recommendation re: parking on front lawns
The Beautification Committee recommends adopting an ordinance to control the parking of vehicles on front lawns in residential areas. The board feels that by not having such an ordinance,
the appearance of the City can suffer and a real hardship can be experienced by the people living near those properties that have vehicles randomly parked in their front yards.
In order to alleviate any hardship to residents who have several vehicles, the board proposes that the ordinance allow parking on non-pervious areas that are specifically constructed
for parking, such as a mulched area surrounded by landscaping ties.
Commissioner Deegan recommended remanding this proposed ordinance to the Code Enforcement Review Task Force.
Commissioner Thomas stated a proposal by the City Attorney had left out dealing with parking on the grass at single family dwellings. He agreed the ordinance should be remanded to
the Task Force.
Consensus of the Commission was to remand the proposal to the Task Force.
e) (Cont. from 8/19/93) Commission Rules - Continued to 10/4/93.
f) (Cont. from 8/19/93) Minutes Production (Court Reporter)
The City Clerk stated she was aware of the problem with the timeliness of the production of minutes and that a new position of Board Reporter was being established in the City Clerk
Department. Current employees who work on the minutes have other tasks as well as minutes, whereas the Board Reporter's sole duty will be to attend meetings and produce minutes.
Commissioner Thomas recommended the individual be trained as a Court Reporter and be given high tech equipment, with the full text on disk but producing summary minutes. He felt the
disk could become the official record.
Commissioner Thomas moved that the individual hired as board reporter be a court reporter using high tech equipment and that the permanent record be the computer disk. The motion was
duly seconded.
The City Clerk stated the State does not recognize computer disks to be a permanent storage medium.
Mayor Garvey suggested the City Clerk look at the cost, determine what is best for the department, and come back with a recommendation.
Commissioner Berfield agreed with the concept but suggested the motion be amended to look at the cost but hire a court reporter.
The City Clerk stated court reporters are trained to do verbatims, not to summarize and the position was not advertised as a court reporter. A court reporter will cost the City more.
Commissioner Thomas explained that there is a new system that puts the notes on a computer screen using high tech equipment.
Commissioner Thomas withdrew his motion. The seconder agreed.
Commissioner Thomas moved that the City Manager investigate the true cost of a salaried court reporter as well as the cost of equipment to use the computer method and bring the cost
back to the Commission, retain the computer disk as a long term file and the summary minutes as the official record. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
g) Commission Salaries
Mayor Garvey suggested the Commission salaries be discussed as part of the Charter Review. She feels the policy should be changed on reimbursement to Commission members for expenses.
Commissioner Deegan stated if the Commission agrees the salaries should be adjusted, a referendum should go to the voters allowing a one time exception to the Charter that the change
go into effect prior to the next election. He stated a survey done by Human Resources does indicate the salaries should be adjusted.
Commissioner Thomas stated there is more involved than just the salary. The amount of paperwork is mind boggling and an executive secretary assigned to each Commissioner as clerical
support will make each Commissioner more efficient. He stated only those who are retired, are homemakers, or are in a financial position where their business covers the activities can
serve as Commissioners the way things presently exist. Being a Commissioner has low economic reward and high personal reward; it is a donation to the community of time and energy.
Commissioner Fitzgerald stated he is opposed to making the position a job with full time salary. Clerical assistance will not overcome the problem of lengthy meetings but he does not
know what the answer is. He agreed due to the current situation, many are precluded from service on the Commission. The length of the meetings should be addressed. He felt raising
the salary would remove the service to the community component of being a Commissioner.
Mayor Garvey pointed out that no additional money was placed in the budget to cover a salary increase or secretaries for the Commission. She felt it would be better to amend the Commission's
policy which prevents them from being reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses.
Discussion ensued regarding the perception that the Mayor has the use of City staff and an office in City Hall. She responded the office is ceremonial in nature and most of her work
is done at home. She stated the staff in the City Manager's Office is there to assist any Commissioner.
Commissioner Deegan stated the concept of an executive secretary misses the basic point regarding the salary for Commissioners that is needed in order to attract people to the office.
He stated reimbursement for travel expenses would not address this issue either. He stated he has talked to the City Hall consultant and there is an office for each Commissioner and
for one secretary for all five. He stated the discussion should center around the salary level for the Commission. He stated until an adjustment is made, people probably will not be
able to afford to serve on the Commission.
He cautioned that the salary should not be too high. He recommended a salary of $25,000 a year for Commissioners and $30,000 a year for Mayor with the understanding there be one secretary
for the entire Commission. He stated he would consider that during the upcoming budget process. He stated the Mayor is correct in that the City Manager's staff is available to all
the Commissioners.
Commissioner Thomas moved that each Commissioner receive an annual salary of $25,000, the Mayor receive an annual salary of $30,000 and a secretarial position for the Commission be
placed in the budget. The motion was duly seconded.
Mayor Garvey stated the proposed salary was too high and it was a little late in the budget process to include money for a secretary.
Commissioner Berfield suggested they look at the cost of living since the last time the salary was increased and asked if $20,000 and $25,000 sounded reasonable. She did not feel the
citizens would say the Commission did not deserve a raise. Being on the Commission has become a full time job and people that are not self employed find it impossible to serve. She
believed the low salary has eliminated a lot of qualified people.
Mayor Garvey agreed she did not feel the public would be upset that the Commission receive a raise, she questioned the amount.
Commissioner Deegan stated that anything less than $25,000 would not be appropriate.
Commissioner Thomas agreed this would be what it would take in order to make it easier for the general public to run for political office.
Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Berfield, Deegan, and Thomas voted "Aye," Mayor Garvey and Commissioner Fitzgerald voted "Nay." Motion carried.
Discussion ensued as to whether there was a way to make a one time exception to the portion of the Charter that states any raise will not take effect until after the next regular election,
which will be in March 1995.
The City Attorney responded this can not be changed without amending the Charter but they could place the effective date of January 1, 1994 for this one time only on the referendum
in November and let the voters decide. Discussion ensued as to the steps necessary to get this issue on the referendum.
Commissioner Deegan moved that the appropriate machinery be put into place to get the effective date of January 1, 1994 for the salary increase on the referendum in November. The motion
was duly seconded.
Commissioner Thomas stated this would not allow the salary to go into effect unless the public approves the raise and makes it effective at once.
The City Attorney stated it will be a fixed salary upon January 1, 1994, subsequent to that, any other salary adjustments would be under the current process.
The Mayor suggested the City Attorney present ballot language at Thursday night's meeting.
Commissioner Deegan stated he did not intend to have the approval of the amount of salary in the motion.
Commissioner Berfield questioned if the process for salary adjustment should be something the Charter Review Committee should be looking at.
Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Berfield, Deegan, and Thomas and Mayor Garvey voted "Aye," Commissioner Fitzgerald voted "Nay." Motion carried.
Recessed from 7:20 p.m. to 7:29 p.m.
h) Bradenton SWFWMD letter
This is a request from the City of Bradenton to join them in objecting to the size of the tax increase proposed by SWFWMD.
It was the consensus of the Commission that a letter be drafted by Thursday, September 2, 1993 supporting the City of Bradenton's objection.
i) Vile language on the beach
Commissioner Thomas has recommended tape recording individuals using foul language on the beach. The tapes would be used to prosecute offenders.
The City Attorney reported tapes can be made of people standing on the streets and sidewalks yelling at cars and passerbys as they can not claim an expectation of privacy.
Commissioner Thomas stated he would like to meet with the City Manager, City Attorney, Police Chief, and State's Attorney to determine the appropriate way to create the tapes as evidence
so the individuals using vile language can be prosecuted.
The Mayor stated she was not in favor of this method for addressing the vile language used on the beach.
Commissioner Thomas stated people are being degraded by vile language as they walk on the beach.
Commissioner Berfield stated she had no problem with Commissioner Thomas meeting with the individuals he mentioned.
Commissioner Fitzgerald inquired as to whether the violation is disorderly conduct. He does not want the City to get a reputation as a community where big brother is watching over
everyone. He expressed his view that this issue should be handled in a way other than through recording violators surreptitiously from a distance.
Commissioner Thomas stated community standards need to be set. He said individuals are using the most despicable language and this should not be allowed.
Commissioner Fitzgerald expressed concerns the State Attorney would think the entire Commission is supporting this action.
Commissioner Berfield stated this is simply to get input from the State Attorney, not asking him to accept the tapes.
Commissioner Thomas indicated that is what his request would be. Commissioner Berfield questioned if he was wanting the City Attorney to tell the City they could record individuals.
Commissioner Thomas indicated he wants the State Attorney to indicate he will prosecute violators with tape as evidence.
Commissioner Berfield stated she had no problem with the meeting as long as any recommendations came back to the Commission.
Commissioner Deegan recommended exploring any and all methods without focusing on one.
The City Manager questioned whether this should be city wide or just on the beach.
Commissioner Deegan moved to authorize Commissioner Thomas to meet with the City Attorney, City Manager, Police Chief, and State's Attorney on any and all alternatives to address how
to deal with the problem of vile language, especially on the beach, but also throughout the City. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Berfield, Deegan,
and Thomas and Mayor Garvey voted "Aye," Commissioner Fitzgerald voted "Nay." Motion carried.
Commissioner Fitzgerald cautioned the Commission should be careful it was not getting into a situation where the solution is worse than the problem.
ITEM #34 - Other Commission Action
a) Hildebrandt Inc. - Letter of Agreement
Hildebrandt, Inc. has submitted their proposal to perform an audit of the Legal Department.
Commissioner Deegan expressed the opinion that what is proposed is not an audit but an analysis of how the Legal Department should be operated. The Commission's intent was to have
an audit and evaluation performed. He stated the proposal from Fogarty is more of an audit but the Commission has determined to hire Hildebrandt. He requested Section 3 from the Fogarty
proposal be included in the Hildebrandt agreement.
Mayor Garvey requested the item be continued in order for her to review that section.
Commissioner Deegan moved to continue this item to September 2, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Thomas stated this is a Commission issue and not a City Manager one. He recommended Commissioner Berfield be a liaison working with Hildebrandt to bring forward a recommendation
as well as liaison during the audit process.
Commissioner Fitzgerald expressed opposition to this. He felt the City Manager and his staff were capable of dealing with Hildebrandt. His concern was there would be Sunshine Law
problems should the Commission designate Commissioner Berfield as liaison.
Commissioner Deegan indicated this would be information gathering, not decision making.
The City Attorney stated if negotiations are authorized, the Sunshine Law would apply.
Commissioner Berfield stated she could draw up something to submit to Hildebrandt that would then be submitted to the Commission. She indicated the City Manager would work with her
in order to do this and it would be in the Sunshine.
Commissioner Thomas moved that Commissioner Berfield act as the Commission's liaison on bringing back to the Commission an agreement with Hildebrandt, Inc. for the Commission to discuss
and debate whether they should endorse or not. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Berfield, Deegan, and Thomas voted "Aye," Commissioner Fitzgerald
and Mayor Garvey voted "Nay." Motion carried.
Other Commission Action
Commissioner Thomas has requested authority to request an Attorney General's Opinion regarding the procedures used in the Sun Bank (Atrium) purchase. It was stated the information
provided to the Commission had only been received today and time was needed to review it.
Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item to September 2, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Deegan questioned the response to the letter from Honeywell regarding direct bills from the Utility Company. The Assistant City Manager responded this has been forwarded
to Finance.
Commissioner Deegan inquired why the recycling bid had not yet been placed on the agenda. The City Manager reported there were difficulties with the bid and it is tentatively scheduled
for October 7, 1993.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if we were negotiating with the division to provide this service. The City Manager indicated he felt the bid would need to go back to the committee for
review. He stated some of the information has been misunderstood and the recommendation of the committee may need to be confirmed.
Commissioner Thomas indicated that a response to a memorandum he had written did not answer his questions. The City Manager indicated this was a incredibly complicated bid and there
may be missing information.
Commissioner Berfield requested an update on the cable issue. The Assistant City Manager stated this item would come to the Commission on September 16, 1993. They have looked into
working together with the County but have been told the County does not need to address the matter for three years.
ITEM #35 - Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:57 p.m.