12/16/1993 CITY COMMISSION MEETING
December 16, 1993
The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in regular session at City Hall, Thursday, December 16, 1993 at 6:01 p.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
Scott Shuford Central Permitting Director
James M. Polatty, Jr. Economic Development Director
Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk
The Mayor called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance. The invocation was offered by William C. Baker, Public Works Director.
In order to provide continuity for research, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order.
ITEM #3 - Service Awards
Three service awards were presented to City employees.
ITEM #4 - Introductions and Awards
Proclamation: Miniature Art Month - 1/94.
ITEM #5 - Presentations
Turkey Trot Awards were presented: Iron Award for most miles to the Public Works Department and Golden Turkey Award for largest percentage of departmental participants to the City
Commission.
ITEM #6 - Approval of Minutes
Commissioner Deegan pointed out on page 6 of the November 18 minutes, the word "irregardless" should be "regardless". He also requested it be verified on page 30 of the
November 18 minutes, in the second to last paragraph, whether the Traffic Engineer referred to an additional 14 cars or 14 seconds per light cycle.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve the minutes of the special meeting of November 9, 1993, as recorded and submitted in written summation by the City Clerk to
each Commissioner and the regular meeting of November 18, 1993 as corrected. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM #7 - Public Hearing - Declare city-owned real property located at 1307 N. Garden Ave. (S 1/2 of Lot 21 & W 15' of the S 1/2 of Lot 22, Enghurst Addition to Clearwater) as surplus
for purpose of conveying title to the Clearwater Housing Authority for donation to Homeless Emergency Project, Inc., with a reverter clause (ED)
The Community Development Department funded a CDBG Rental Rehabilitation first mortgage loan on this property on December 12, 1985 in the amount of $7,000. The owner was Elizabeth
Barnes, a widow, who borrowed on her primary residence to provide one-half the funds needed for the property rehabilitation. Amortizing repayment of the CDBG loan was to begin in 2006
following Ms. Barnes repayment of the mortgage she gave on her residence. On August 26, 1987 title transferred to Donnell Barnes by Quit Claim Deed.
Mr. Barnes subsequently defaulted under terms of the mortgage by failing to pay ad valorem taxes, failure to keep the property insured and failure to maintain the improvements. To
protect its security interest, the City foreclosed the mortgage in the amount of $10,402.04, including interest due, court costs and payment of back taxes; and received a Certificate
of Title from the Circuit Court on June 29, 1993.
The City Housing Inspector has found the structure to have numerous housing code violations and the 55' x 65' lot substandard. The property has been boarded and posted by staff. A
residential appraisal report completed by a state certified appraiser on July 1, 1993 values the property, in its present condition, at $7,100. It is believed the structure cannot be
economically rehabilitated by private interests.
Homeless Emergency Project, Inc. has expressed interest in obtaining the property and using it for a homeless residence. The City Charter does not permit the donation of land to a
non-governmental entity. Therefore staff is proposing to convey the property to the Clearwater Housing Authority for ultimate donation to Homeless Emergency Project, Inc. If the Homeless
Emergency Project dissolves, then all assets go to another non-profit agency that would provide similar services.
The Housing Authority Chairperson has been authorized by the Housing Authority Board to transfer properties in such cases.
Mayor Garvey expressed concerns regarding donating a house that is in bad condition. Mr. Polatty indicated if the structure is torn down, there will then be an unbuildable lot.
Mayor Garvey questioned whether or not allowances had been made in the North Greenwood area for substandard lots. Mr. Polatty indicated there had been but this one was even smaller
than that.
Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned if there was any way to tie this with other homeless projects. Barbara Green of Emergency Homeless Projects stated this will be transitional housing.
Mayor Garvey questioned the difference. Ms. Green indicated that emergency housing is allowed for 30 days with transitional housing allowed for 6 to 18 months.
Commissioner Thomas questioned how Homeless Emergency could rehab the project economically if the private sector could not. Ms. Green indicated they use volunteer labor.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if the building would be brought up to code. Ms. Green indicated it would be and that not all the labor would be volunteer.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if this had been done before. Ms. Green indicated it had at 606 Hart Street and that structure is now working as a group home.
Commissioner Deegan questioned a recommendation in the item for a reverter clause and questioned whether or not it could revert to another nonprofit organization. Mr. Polatty responded
it would depend on how Homeless Emergency is dissolved. The City Manager indicated he had requested that if the property ceases to be a homeless emergency project, the property would
return to the City. The City Attorney indicated the key to this would be how the documentation is worded that the limitation is on providing similar services.
Howard Groth of the Clearwater Housing Authority questioned what happens to Clearwater Housing Authority's ownership of the property. Mr. Wright indicated the Housing Authority is
acting as a conduit and once the property has been deeded to Homeless Emergency Project, the Housing Authority is out of the loop.
Mayor Garvey expressed concerns regarding the house not being brought up to code for an extended period of time.
Commissioner Thomas pointed out that the new ordinance regarding substandard housing is extremely tight and the timeframe cannot be dribbled out.
Mayor Garvey requested staff make sure the rehabilitation is done as quickly as possible.
Commissioner Deegan moved to declare city-owned real property located at 1307 N. Garden Avenue as surplus for the purpose of conveying title to the CHA for donation to Homeless Emergency
Project, Inc. (HEP) with a reverter clause to the City if use is abandoned
by HEP within 5 years, and to authorize such conveyance. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #8 - Public Hearing - Vacating N 30' (1/2 r-o-w) of Magnolia Drive lying south of Lot 10, Blk E, Edenville Sub. less the easterly 20'; direction that upon receipt of a r-o-w easement
from the applicant, an ordinance be prepared (Chapin V93-15)(PW)
The applicant would like to build a pool along the side of the existing house. In order to meet setback requirements, the right-of-way would have to be vacated. The City has existing
12-inch water, 8-inch sanitary sewer and existing storm mains within this right-of-way.
This request was reviewed by various city departments and divisions concerned with vacations. The Engineering Department recommends that the north 30 feet of right-of-way be vacated
and retained full width as a Drainage & Utility Easement less the easterly 20 feet. All other departments concerned have no objections.
Florida Power and Vision Cable have no objections provided it be retained full width as an utility easement. GTE has no objection to the request.
The Public Works Director reviewed the comments submitted and recommends the right-of-way be vacated, provided it be retained full width as a Drainage & Utility Easement and that the
applicant convey a triangular tract of property consisting of approximately 200 square feet located in the southeast corner of said Lot 10 for the purpose of accommodating a future cul-de-sac
at the southern terminus of Evelyn Avenue.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the vacation of the north 30 feet (1/2 right-of-way) of Magnolia Drive lying south of Lot 10, Block E, Edenville Subdivision less the easterly
20 feet, with it being retained as a drainage and utility easement and that the City Attorney, upon receipt of a right-of-way easement from the applicant, prepare a vacation ordinance
for a future Commission meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #9 - Receive public comment re: FY 92-93 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Grantee Performance Report (ED)
The Grantee Performance Report is the principal administrative report documenting the City's expenditures of CDBG funds to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
It serves as the basis for program monitoring for compliance and for financial audits. HUD also compiles statistics regarding the effectiveness and benefits of the program for information
contained in these reports. All CDBG recipients are required to hold a public hearing to receive public comment on the Grantee Performance Report. Public Hearings are scheduled for
December 14, 1993, for the Neighborhood Advisory Committee and December 16, 1993, for the City Commission.
Mr. Polatty requested this item be continued. He stated new regulations have been developed and an audit on the report is still being performed.
Lois Cormier stated the public hearing had been poorly advertised. She expressed concerns regarding a particular home on Harbor Drive that was built on environmentally sensitive land.
She stated the house never should have been built there. She reported the Neighborhood Advisory Committee invited Ms. Lafferty, owner of the house, and Bill Baker to explain what had
happened regarding the flooding at this residence. She stated otherwise there have been no complaints.
Mayor Garvey pointed out that on page 4 of the report, it states a public hearing was held on December 18th. Mr. Polatty indicated this was a typographical error.
Commissioner Deegan requested that before final action on the report, the Commission receive the comments by the Neighborhood Advisory Committee. Mr. Polatty indicated the Neighborhood
Advisory Committee recommended approval with no comments other than Ms. Cormier's. He stated there is a long history regarding the property on Harbor Drive.
Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item to January 6, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #10 - Amendments to FY 92-93 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Final Statement (ED)
Staff has reviewed the CDBG expenditures for 1992-93 in preparation for the Grantee Performance Report. Several areas of expenditure should be reclassified to conform to the requirements
of HUD. Nevertheless, all funds were spent in accordance with Commission decisions and HUD regulations. These reclassifications are detailed in the amended Final Statement. A public
hearing is required to consider amendments to Final Statements.
HUD requires that eligible expenditures in support of new construction be classified based on the activity, rather than the end use. For example, some infill housing activities must
be classified as acquisition and disposition, instead of infill housing development as previously stated. Both acquisition and disposition are infill housing support activities. Direct
city funding of surveys and appraisals remains a city infill housing activity. This reclassification also increases the benefit to low and moderate income persons. Other expenditures
not classified under the national objective benefiting low and moderate income persons are classified under another national objective.
Previously, acquisition of land for the Pinellas Habitat for Humanity was classified under the general category of infill housing and should be reclassified as acquisition. Other expenditures
to be reclassified include Homeless Emergency Project's rehabilitation of a house at 606 Hart Street from a Homeless Facility category to the Public Facility category. Likewise, the
Religious Community Services' replacement of flooring at 1125 Holt Avenue should be reclassified from Homeless Facility category to the Public Facility category.
Mayor Garvey questioned if there had been a change in regulations. Mr. Polatty stated it was more a change in understanding.
Commissioner Deegan questioned what is a final statement. Mr. Polatty indicated it is the Commission's proposed expenditures of CDBG funds.
Commissioner Berfield moved to amend the 1992-1993 CDBG Final Statement to reclassify or rename activities, to transfer certain Infill Housing expenditures, and to increase the estimate
of benefit to low and moderate income person. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #11 - Amendments to FY 93-94 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Final Statement (ED)
The City of Clearwater's 19th year of CDBG funding was approved by the Commission on July 15, 1993. The 19th year entitlement award was $1,018,000 and program income is expected to
generate $120,000 for a total budget of $1,138,000. This program amendment will increase the revenue from $1,138,000 to $1,148,996. A public hearing is required to consider amendments
to Final Statements.
Of the 33 requests for funding originally received from 26 separate agencies, these amendments do the following: add revenue of $10,996; delete one allocation requested by Community
Housing Resource Board; fund 3 new programs, including demolition, foreclosure funding, and SHIP administration; add $7,800 for Community Pride Child Care; and amend 2 programs by adding
police officers as eligible recipients in the Infill Housing Program and funding architectural renderings as part of the North Greenwood Facade Program. No changes are proposed to Public
Service expenditures, which are capped at a maximum of 15% of the total revenue by Federal regulations (15% of the sum of the 1993-94 grant plus the 1992-93 program income). The budget
for Public Services approved by the Commission is $180,489.
Discussion of changes and amendments (bolded) to the Final Statement are as follows:
Demolition: The Commission discussed the necessity to aggressively demolish dilapidated houses in Clearwater. The Final Statement must be amended to allow use of CDBG funds. The related
demolition policy is proposed to govern demolitions using CDBG funds. The demolition account is proposed to be funded at a level of $30,000 and the Rehabilitation line item reduced
by a like amount. The description of the demolition activity would be as follows:
DEMOLITION: City of Clearwater, P. O. Box 4748, Clearwater, Florida 34618 and Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Service, Inc., 1002 N. Greenwood Avenue, Clearwater, Florida 34615. Provide
funds for demolition of units on lots to be used in the infill housing program (+ $30,000)
Police Housing: The Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services Board has requested the City establish a program to encourage police officers to reside in the North Greenwood community.
The following program change is proposed to meet the recommendation of the CNHS Board. All police officers will be eligible for the City's Infill Housing Program, regardless of income.
A maximum of four Clearwater police officers per year can become eligible for the housing
program with the waiver of the income limits. No change in any program activity is needed. This is a policy change in the Infill Housing Program by the Commission.
North Greenwood Facade Improvement Program: Funding of $10,000 is proposed to be added for architectural renderings. The Steering Committee of the Business Alliance met and decided
architectural renderings should be made available for free. This is a similar service that is provided to businesses in some Main Street programs. The change to the description of
the activity would be as follows:
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: Clearwater Chamber of Commerce, North Greenwood Business Alliance, 128 N. Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, FL 34617. Funds to be provided to establish a North Greenwood
Commercial Facade Improvement Program. Funds under this program to be provided for match and straight grants to business owner to rehabilitate the facade of their businesses. An additional
amount not to exceed $2,500 per business and a total of $10,000 for architectural renderings/sketches of proposed improvements. ($25,000) + ($10,000) = $35,000.
SHIP Administrative Funds: The Housing Authority has requested additional assistance to administer the SHIP program for the first year. A total of $4,600 has been requested to pay
administrative fees to Tampa Bay Community Development Corporation (TBCDC) to administer the Citywide component of the program and to Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services to administer
the program in the CNHS neighborhood. The total SHIP goals would be divided between both agencies, which effectively would increase the housing assistance in the City by the corresponding
SHIP goal. The $4,600 increase would be for both housing rehabilitation and new housing and would be allocated by the Housing Authority between the CNHS and TBCDC. The changes to the
descriptions of the activities would be as follows:
SPECIAL ACTIVITIES BY A SUBRECIPIENT: Clearwater Housing Authority, 210 South Ewing St., Clearwater, FL 34617. Funding will provide for activity delivery costs to provide housing
opportunities for low to moderate income persons and families to purchase houses in the City of Clearwater. + $2,300.
REHABILITATION: Clearwater Housing Authority, 210 South Ewing St., Clearwater, FL 34617. Funding will provide for activity delivery costs to administer the SHIP program to provide
housing opportunities for low to moderate income persons and families for rehabilitation program intake, screening, and loan processing for owner occupied housing rehabilitation and
emergency home repair for homeowners in the City of Clearwater citywide. + $2,300.
Deletion of Community Housing Resource Board Expenditure: The Community Housing Resource Board sent a letter to staff to revoke their application for Community Development assistance
for this Fiscal Year. Based on this request, the proposed activity should be deleted.
Foreclosure: Funds of $15,000 are to be provided to be used to fund disposing of property acquired either through the Housing Rehabilitation Program or the Infill Housing Program.
This
amendment will implement the CDBG Foreclosure Policy under consideration by the Commission.
DISPOSITION: City of Clearwater, P. O. Box 4748, Clearwater, Florida 34618 and Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Service, Inc. of 1002 North Greenwood Avenue, Clearwater, FL 34615.
Funds to be provided are to be used to fund the costs of disposing of property through foreclosure acquired either through the Housing Rehabilitation Program or the Infill Housing Program.
+ $15,000
Community Pride Child Care Center, 1235 Holt Avenue: The Commission approved in concept the desirability of adding funds to make further renovation improvements available at the Center.
This additional allocation would change only the amount of CDBG assistance Community Pride would receive. The changes to the description of the activity would be as follows:
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS: Community Pride Child Care Center, 1235 Holt Avenue, Clearwater, FL 34615. This program provides child care opportunities to children primarily
from the North Greenwood Neighborhood. Funds provided to be used to renovate the buildings located at 1235 Holt Avenue and 211 So. Missouri Avenue. ($18,546) + $7,800 = $26,346.
Rehabilitation is proposed to be reduced by $46,304. This is a reasonable reduction given the $360,700 balance of HOME funds dedicated to rehabilitation.
Additional income of $10,996 is proposed to be added as carry-over of prior year unobligated funds from 1992 - 1993 fiscal year. The carry-over projects include subrecipients who did
not utilize part of their CDBG funding and choose to return it to the City. These returns include $2,587 from RCS, $50 from Ervin's All American Youth Club, $2 from the Boy's Club,
$1,357 from Community Service Foundation, and $7,000 from CNHS.
Jim Polatty reported the Neighborhood Advisory Committee had recommended approval of the amendments with one qualifier regarding the waiver of the income restrictions for police officers
to participate in the Infill Housing Program. The Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services had requested this amendment to the plan as there is a desire to have police officers locate
in the North Greenwood area. The Neighborhood Advisory Committee agrees but does not feel police officers should be allowed to bump any of the applicants already in the process. He
stated there are approximately 60 people on the waiting list with 25 having qualified for participation in the Infill Housing Program.
Mr. Polatty further reported the SHIP program is being administered by the Clearwater Housing Authority, however, the Housing Authority is not keeping any of the money for administration
but is passing it through to Neighborhood Housing Services and Tampa Bay Community Development Corporation who are performing the actual housing improvements.
Commissioner Deegan requested confirmation that the Housing Authority was still administering the program. Mr. Polatty indicated they were.
Lois Cormier indicated the Neighborhood Housing Committee had considerable discussion regarding the lifting of income restrictions in order to encourage police officers to live in the
North Greenwood area. She stated they were concerned, as Mr. Polatty had indicated, that police officers not be allowed to bump any of the existing applicants. She expressed concerns
that the program had been set up to benefit low and moderate income individuals and that many police officers did not meet this requirement. While she wants to encourage police officers
to locate in the North Greenwood area, she was not in favor of lifting the restriction.
Mayor Garvey stated she shared Ms. Cormier's concerns but felt there was a over riding benefit of having the police officers in the area.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concerns regarding the police officers participating in the program all locating in proximity of each other. He stated he would support the amendment
only if there was a separation requirement.
The City Manager requested staff be allowed to return with a policy regarding this within the next 60 days.
Commissioner Deegan pointed out on one page the carry over funds are referred to as unobligated and on another page, they are referred to as unexpended. He questioned the difference
between the two terms. Michael Holmes, Community Development Division, stated the contracts for the subgrantees are only good for one year and if funds are unexpended in that year,
they become unobligated in the next year.
Mr. Polatty pointed out that under former regulations, once funds had been obligated to a project, they stayed in that project forever. He stated once the Grantee Performance Report
has been accepted, there will be another agenda item which will address all of these funds and will be rolling over and reobligating them.
Commissioner Deegan expressed concerns regarding the unexpended $426,000. Mr. Polatty indicated this was due to the rehabilitation program being shut down for a major portion of the
year.
Commissioner Deegan felt before the amendments were submitted, decisions regarding use of those funds should be made. Mr. Polatty indicated when the funds are
allocated to the City for rehabilitation, those funds do not have to be rolled over because the City is the grantee of the CDBG funds. He stated the additional agenda item is intended
to bring everything to the current year and it will show everything left over and how it is proposed to be spent.
Commissioner Deegan expressed additional concern regarding, under the description of the use of funds, carry over is listed as $10,900 when there is actually $426,000 that have not
been expended. Mr. Polatty indicated it would be less than that due to the City administration and rehabilitation costs coming out.
Commissioner Deegan was still concerned that if it is known the City has over $400,000, the report should be submitted indicating that. Mr. Polatty indicated it was not uncommon to
amend the CDBG Final Statement several times throughout the year. He indicated this is the way the system works.
Mayor Garvey pointed out a future agenda item will give a full report of the accounts. It was suggested this item be continued. The City Manager indicated this will cause some delay
in funding to the agencies affected by these amendments.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if this meant the entire year's allotment would not be able to be released and it was indicated just those amounts addressed in the amendments would be
affected.
Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned the impact of delaying approval of the amendments. Mr. Polatty indicated it would delay the beginning of the demolition program, that Community Pride
could not be reimbursed for the $7,800 and that there would probably be no actual delay in other projects.
Commissioner Deegan felt documents should not be sent to HUD that contradict each other.
Commissioner Deegan moved to continue the 1993-94 CDBD Final Statement amendments to the meeting of January 6, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Deegan requested, regarding the North Greenwood Facade Improvement program, that in order to be consistent with the facade improvement program for the downtown area, the
amount per business not exceed $2,000 rather than $2,500. Consensus of the Commission was to make this change before the amendments were adopted.
Mayor Garvey welcomed Girl Scout Troop 715.
Public Hearing - Second Reading Ordinances
ITEM #11a - (Cont. from 12/2/93) Ord. #5325-93 - establishing City's reclaimed water rate system & to recover city's costs for reclaimed water service from the benefiting properties
Attorney Timothy Johnson, representing Countryside Country Club, stated there were concerns regarding the rate being proposed. He stated there had been no opportunity to have this
fully explained. He stated the rate equates to 48 cents per 1,000 gallons of water and that in other communities, the rate charged is 1/10 of that. He stated the Country Club acknowledges
it should pay its fair share and he requested a 60 day delay in order to meet with staff.
Mayor Garvey pointed out that the ordinance does not take affect for 90 days. Mr. Johnson expressed concerns regarding passing the ordinance with an incorrect rate.
Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item to the first meeting in March, 1994. The motion was duly seconded.
Commissioner Deegan stated the effective date could be changed when the ordinance is adopted.
It was requested the Commission be provided a copy of the agreement between the City and Clearwater Country Club.
The City Attorney requested the effective date be amended tonight in order for people to know at what point the rate would go into effect.
Commissioner Berfield withdrew her motion and the seconder agreed.
Commissioner Thomas moved to amend Section 3, to make the effective date 90 days from today or March 16, 1994. The motion was duly seconded.
Commissioner Thomas asked if the Commission decides in March to change the effective date, could it be amended again. The City Attorney indicated it could.
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Thomas moved to continue second reading of Ordinance #5325-93 until March 3, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #12 - Ord. #5494-93 - Relating to appointive boards and committees, repealing Secs. 2.431 & 2.432 re: establishment of firefighters relief and pension fund established in 1939 which
no longer exists, and a board of trustees for such fund
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5494-93 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5494-93 on second and final reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #13 - Ord. #5495-93 - Annexation for property located at 1728 W. Manor Ave., Clearwater Manor, S 30' of Lot 28 & N 45' of Lot 29, 0.22 acres m.o.l. (Johnson, A93-24)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5495-93 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5495-93 on second and final
reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #14 - Ord. #5496-93 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low for property located at 1728 W. Manor Ave., Clearwater Manor, S 30' of Lot 28 & N 45' of Lot 29, 0.22 acres m.o.l.
(Johnson, LUP93-33)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5496-93 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5496-93 on second and final reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #15 - Ord. #5497-93 - RS-8 Zoning for property located at 1728 W. Manor Ave., Clearwater Manor, S 30' of Lot 28 & N 45' of Lot 29, 0.22 acres m.o.l. (Johnson, A93-24)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5497-93 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5497-93 on second and final reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #16 - Ord. #5498-93 - Annexation for property located at 3030 Tanglewood Dr., Tanglewood Estates, part of Lot 2, and adjacent land to north, 1.02 acres m.o.l. (Looney, A93-25)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5498-93 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5498-93 on second and final reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #17 - Ord. #5499-93 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Estate for property located at 3030 Tanglewood Dr., Tanglewood Estates, part of Lot 2, and adjacent land to north, 1.02
acres m.o.l. (Looney, LUP93-34)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5499-93 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5499-93 on second and final reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #18 - Ord. #5500-93 - RS-2 Zoning for property located at 3030 Tanglewood Dr., Tanglewood Estates, part of Lot 2, and adjacent land to north, 1.02 acres m.o.l. (Looney, A93-25)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5500-93 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5500-93 on second and final
reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #19 - Ord. #5501-93 - Annexation for property located at 1409 Regal Rd., Solar Crest, Lot 22, 0.19 acres m.o.l. (Frazier/Posey, A93-23)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5501-93 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5501-93 on second and final reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #20 - Ord. #5502-93 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low for property located at 1409 Regal Rd., Solar Crest, Lot 22, 0.19 acres m.o.l. (Frazier/Posey, LUP93-32)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5502-93 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5502-93 on second and final reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #21 - Ord. #5503-93 - RS-8 Zoning for property located at 1409 Regal Rd., Solar Crest, Lot 22, 0.19 acres m.o.l. (Frazier/Posey, A93-23)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5503-93 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5503-93 on second and final
reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #22 - Ord. #5504-93 - Vacating 60' r-o-w of Phillies Drive, lying between Seminole St. & Palmetto St (City V93-14)(PW)
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5504-93 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5504-93 on second and final reading.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #23 - Ord. #5510-93 - Relating to the DDB; amending Sections 2.141, 2.143, and 2.147 through 2.150; repealing Section 2.154
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5510-93 as amended for second reading and read it by title only.
A proposed amendment to the ordinance was presented which would add to Section 2.147, subsection 4, at the end of the sentence: "or shall be an officer of a corporation which is located
in the downtown area".
Commissioner Deegan stated he would prefer the word "district" be used rather than "area". The City Attorney indicated the downtown area is a defined term and used throughout the ordinance.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concerns regarding an officer of a corporation being allowed to serve on the board as the president of a corporation can appoint anyone as an officer.
Mayor Garvey referred to a letter from Elise Winters, DDB member, taking issue with the change. She stated board members are elected by the property owners and she suggested the qualifications
for board membership not change.
A letter from Lillian Trickel, property owner and DDB member, was read into the record which also opposed the change.
Mayor Garvey expressed concerns the proposed amendment still prohibits employees of downtown businesses from serving on the board and she requested they return to the original language.
Commissioner Fitzgerald stated the letter speaks to the question of the opinion of the DDB. He questioned whether or not this would in some way limit the participation of those individuals
that have been valuable in the past. He stated this restriction will not generate the
most participation in the downtown area. He stated the current membership qualifications have worked in the past and they will work in the future. He requested the section be left
as it is.
Commissioner Thomas stated the DDB had not been effective and is only now beginning to show signs of leadership. He stated the board that was just elected would stand, but felt it
was time for property and business owners to take responsibility to make the DDB effective.
Commissioner Berfield stated at first reading she did support the amendment to change the qualifications for membership. However, Ms. Winter's letter had valid points and while she
would like to support the amendment, she is now having difficulty in doing so. She stated she knew of one property owner who physically could not serve on the board and many employees
have served the downtown area very well. She agreed owners should take part but believes there will be difficulty in getting people to run for the DDB offices. She felt this issue
could be readdressed at a later date once it is determined how the DDB is progressing.
Commissioner Deegan expressed concerns regarding exaggerated statements that if this amendment passed, it would destroy the DDB. He stated they were trying to come to an ordinance
that all could agree with. He stated three people have spoken in opposition to the change and that the DDB, CRA and Commission are trying to work together. He stated he would hate
to see that relationship ruined by this change and recommended leaving the section as it is, with no change.
Commissioner Thomas stated a reason to support the amendment was due to the spending of DDB dollars for salaries. He stated as long as the owners are not on the board, there will be
no care in managing how the money is spent. He stated the changes in the ordinance now require money to be spent on promotion. He suggested a cap on the percentage of the revenues
that could be spent for salaries.
Commissioner Berfield stated there would be no guarantees that the owners would handle the money any differently.
Mayor Garvey stated as a point of clarification the DDB now has a contract employee. They also have goals and objectives and are not operating "willy-nilly". She stated the property
owners voted to continue the board as it is. She disagreed with the statements that nothing has happened in the downtown and felt alot had been accomplished. She stated we are here
to work with the DDB and she again requested the language be left as it is.
Commissioner Thomas stated the DDB has nothing to show for its 20 years of existence and $3 million in revenue.
Commissioner Berfield suggested this be addressed when there is a joint meeting of the two boards.
Commissioner Deegan moved that Section 2.147, subsection 4, be amended to the original wording with any necessary grammatical changes being made. The motion was duly seconded.
Clarification regarding the effect of the motion was requested. It was stated there will be no changes in the qualifications for service on the DDB.
Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Berfield, Fitzgerald, Deegan and Mayor Garvey voted Aye, Commissioner Thomas voted "Nay". Motion carried.
Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5510-93 as amended on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded.
Lois Cormier spoke concerning allowing the meetings to be advertised in the paper rather than notices going to all the property owners. She stated she did not feel the City was adequately
notifying the public of meetings and she requested the language be left as it currently exists.
Commissioner Berfield stated that if the notices of the meeting are mailed, there will be no public notice. Commissioner Fitzgerald suggested changing the "or" to "and". Commissioner
Deegan pointed out this was an attempt to conserve funds.
Ms. Cormier agreed with the change to "and". She stated she found some of the discussion offensive in that some of the comments were tearing down the DDB. She stated what hurt the
downtown area were the malls and parking meters. She stated she has seen the DDB work and work and the Commission has been working against the DDB. She stated they have had good people
and they have worked hard.
Bob Bickerstaffe stated the main decline of downtown occurred after the convention center was torn down. He stated no matter how hard the boards work, unless there is a reason to come
downtown, downtown will stay as it is.
Mayor Garvey questioned Commissioner Deegan's conversations with Chairperson Henderson and questioned if it was appropriate to leave the "or" in the section regarding notice by mail
or publication in the paper. Commissioner Deegan indicated that was appropriate.
Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned if Commissioner Deegan was opposed to the change to the word "and" and Commissioner Deegan indicated he was.
Mayor Garvey pointed out that the regular meetings of the DDB are the same each month and that is on the fourth Tuesday.
Upon roll call vote, the vote was:
"Ayes": Berfield, Deegan, Fitzgerald and Garvey.
"Nays": Thomas.
Motion carried.
The meeting recessed from 8:06 p.m. to 8:19 p.m.
ITEM #24 - Special Items of widespread public interest - None.
ITEM #25 - Citizens to be heard re items not on the Agenda
Ray Smiley expressed concerns regarding Commissioner Thomas' comments regarding the Glen Oaks Golf Course and the Chi Chi Rodriguez Foundation lease for that property. She stated Chi
Chi Rodriguez Youth Foundation has done a great job with the children and the lease should be renewed.
Jane Gregory wished good luck to departing City Manager Michael Wright. She expressed concerns regarding the proposal by Commissioner Thomas regarding the Glen Oaks Golf Course. She
felt there was no better use for the golf course as it benefits the children. She also disagreed with the proposal for a convention center at Maas Brothers. She stated there should
be a major department store at that location. She also requested the Commission work with each other not against each other. She requested the citizens of Clearwater come to meetings
and make their presence known.
Bob Bickerstaffe stated the Commission in general is doing a good job. He stated a question had merely been asked whether there was a better use for the Glen Oaks Golf Course. He
stated, regarding a convention center, he has stated over and over again that if we had one, that would have made the City successful. He felt the plans for Maas Brothers were excellent.
He felt the Commission was representing the people in doing the job they were to do. He requested staff be used more than outside consultants. He stated there are many people in the
community that are supporting the Commission.
Patricia Lafferty spoke stating she is a participant in the Infill Housing Program. She stated she closed on her home on July 30th and that on August 25th there was alot of street
flooding. A storm drain in front of her property overflowed and the garage flooded. All of her possessions which had been brought down from Tarpon Springs had been placed in the garage.
She stated she had flood insurance however, they have refused to pay the claim as she did not have content insurance.She stated she also put a claim in with John Eastern, the City's
insurance company, who also refused to pay the claim, stating it was an act of god. She stated everything she owned was under water. She spoke with Ms. Gulley of CNHS who told her
she would send a letter to Jim Polatty, Economic Development Director. She stated the claim was sent to Mr. Polatty on December 2nd but no response has been received. She stated she
is not sure who to contact. The City Manager's Office is to get the information to the Commission and to contact Ms. Lafferty.
Shirley Moran thanked the Commission and Clearwater for their cooperation and support for the Holiday on the Islands. She stated she could not say enough about city staff regarding
their cooperation and assistance. Mayor Garvey thanked Ms. Moran for the event.
Tom Sehlhorst stated he had a plan he would like staff to consider that within 90 days would have 100 new businesses and less crime in a specific target zone. Mayor Garvey questioned
if Mr. Sehlhorst had a written proposal. Commissioner Thomas indicated staff has met with Mr. Sehlhorst and is working on something to present to the Commission. He stated it will
be brought forward.
Bob Wright stated the fresh water supply is one of the most critical issues of this time. South West Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) regulations being considered would curtail
or eliminate fresh water being used for irrigation. He suggested the City turn over its well fields to the County and negotiate a new contract to protect Clearwater and consider limitation
of once a week lawn watering from January to March and there be tighter enforcement of watering violations. He expressed concerns regarding watering of city property. He requested
the fresh water supply be agendaed for discussion.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
CONSENT AGENDA (Items #26-29) - Approved as submitted less #26.
ITEM #26 - See Page 19.
ITEM #27 - Construction Contract to Kamminga & Roodvoets, Inc., Tampa, FL, for installation of a sanitary sewer main in Dora Drive, for $22,308 (PW)
ITEM #28 - Receipt/Referral - Land Use Plan Amendment to Institutional and P/SP Zoning for property located at 3190 McMullen-Booth Road, Turtle Brooke, Parcel A, 2.55 acres m.o.l. (Wright,
LUP93-38, Z93-52)(CP)
ITEM #29 - Receipt/Referral - Land Use Plan Amendment to Institutional and P/SP Zoning for property located at 701 N. Missouri Ave., New Country Club Addition, Lot B, Lot 12 less road
on west, and N 135' of unplatted Blk C west of the 1/2 section line, 0.97 acres m.o.l. (City, LUP93-39, Z93-53)(CP)
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted less Item #26 and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
ITEM #26 - Purchase portions of 3 lots on NW corner of Greenwood Ave. and Engman St., S 100' of Lots 6, 7, & 8, less road, Blk C, C.E. Jackson's Sub., for public parking lot, for $38,000
and related environmental audit, closing fees and demolition costs est. at $5,506, for a total of $43,506 (ED)
In September of 1988, the North Greenwood Commercial District General Development Plan was developed by the North Greenwood Economic Task Force, Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services
and the Neighborhood Re-Investment Corporation. This plan was to revitalize the North Greenwood business district. The plan included development of a new parking lot either in the
vicinity of Palm Bluff or LaSalle Street.
In 1989, the Commission adopted the Penny for Pinellas interlocal agreement and $300,000 was earmarked for the North Greenwood business district revitalization plan. In FY 1990/91
the Public Works Department began implementing the plan with new sidewalks, additional trees, shrubbery and signage. Florida Power provided additional and enhanced street lighting.
In February 1993, the North Greenwood Merchants Association again proposed two parking lots. The northern parking lot is to be developed at the corner of Engman and North Greenwood.
The second lot is proposed to be south of Palm Bluff. This agenda item implements only the northern parking lot recommended by the North Greenwood Merchants Association.
The Chief of Police is concerned that an unattended parking lot on North Greenwood Avenue will create police problems. He recommends the following conditions be included in the development
of the lot: 1) the entire property should be enclosed by a fence, including a 6 foot fence along the west property line. The fencing along the North Greenwood and Engman Street frontages
shall be 4 feet in height and integrated into the landscaping; 2) the entire lot should be well lighted; 3) the police shall have the ability to close the parking lot access at both
the North Greenwood and Carlton entrances and restrict access to the interior of the parking lot at two points; and 4) the lot shall be closed at 9:00 p.m. every night. Businesses interested
in using the lot after 9:00 p.m. shall apply to the Police Department for permission.
This property is zoned North Greenwood Commercial (CNG), contains approximately 14,500 square feet of land, and has been appraised at $38,000 as of September 29, 1993. The valuation
includes an estimate of $3,500 to demolish a boarded residential structure on Lot 8, the corner lot. The seller, Al Bridges, has requested $38,000 for the parcel, exclusive of demolition
costs. Additional purchase expenses include the estimated $3,500 to demolish the structure, approximately $2,000 to perform a Phase I commercial environmental audit, including asbestos
survey and soil/groundwater tests, with the report requiring no clean-up expense by the City, and closing costs of $6 to record the deed.
The parking lot is to be owned and operated by the City, is to be free of charge, and construction is to be accomplished by the City's Engineering Division.
The City Manager stated it had been requested this item be continued. Mr. Polatty reviewed the history of this proposal and stated continuation is being requested in order to receive
input from the North Greenwood area.
Commissioner Berfield moved to continue this item to January 6, 1994. The motion was duly seconded.
Mayor Garvey questioned if the item was for the purchase only. It was indicated it was. She questioned who would be maintaining the lot and staff responded the City would have that
responsibility.
Commissioner Fitzgerald expressed concerns regarding the fence enclosure stating it should be made as attractive as possible and the City should not create an unattractive situation
or maintenance problem.
Commissioner Thomas stated he concurred and the whole area should be reviewed prior to the fence being erected.
Howard Groth indicated CNHS has been involved regarding this. He stated Ms. Gulley is to obtain the input from the area. He stated he has spoken to Chief Klein regarding his concerns
and they can be worked out. He encouraged the item be approved this evening.
Upon the vote being taken to continue this item; Commissioners Berfield, Deegan and Fitzgerald and Mayor Garvey voted "Aye", Commissioner Thomas voted "Nay". Motion carried.
OTHER ITEMS ON CITY MANAGER REPORT
ITEM #30 - Authorize implementation of Community Development Demolition Program (ED)
The proposed demolition policy addresses the presence of condemned and dilapidated structures.
The following demolition procedures are now in place. A building is condemned and ordered demolished after inspection and finding by the Central Permitting Department that it is in
such poor shape that it cannot be safely repaired, based on the Unsafe Building Abatement Code. The owner is notified via certified US Mail of the condemnation order and of any appeal
rights and procedures.
After receiving a demolition order, an owner may voluntarily demolish the property or appeal the demolition order and risk non-voluntary demolition.
1) Voluntary Demolition - The owner of a condemned building seeking demolition may hire a private contractor to perform the work, or may cooperate with the City by signing a waiver consenting
to the demolition of the building and relinquishing the right to a public hearing. Central Permitting arranges for the demolition work by a contractor provided through the City. The
City places a lien for the costs of the work against the property.
2) Appeal and Non-Voluntary Demolition - The owner of a property may appeal a demolition order within ten days of its receipt to the Building/Flood Board of Adjustment and Appeals.
If the owner's appeal is unsuccessful, Central Permitting arranges for the demolition work, and again the City places a lien for the cost of the work against the property.
Compliance with the Standard Housing Code (SHC) is not addressed in this policy. Demolition ordered under the SHC follows a similar procedure, but may also result in the imposition
of fines by the Municipal Code Enforcement Board (MCEB). Fines result in liens against all property and assets of the owner, and are separate from the City liens resulting from demolition.
Condemnation and demolition through the SHC procedures is somewhat more time consuming, and is not often used, although any resulting demolition lien would be handled the same as the
above demolition liens. Those liens imposed by the MCEB as fines and penalties are not addressed in this policy.
Many owners are unable or unwilling to spend the necessary funds to clear demolition liens. Title insurance procedures require that any outstanding liens of this type are satisfied
at the time of sale or transfer of a property, to prevent the liens from transferring to the new owner. The result is often that properties remain unsalable and unused until expiration
of the liens.
The proposed policy is included in the proposed amendment to the FY 93-94 CDBG Final Statement. The City would allow use of up to $30,000 of CDBG funds, not more than $5,000 per site,
to pay demolition expenses. These funds will be paid directly to the demolition contractor when property is owned by a qualified non-profit housing provider, or to the City general
fund to pay off existing liens for demolition when a property is sold or given to a qualified non-profit housing provider. Any City demolition liens against the property greater than
this amount would be forgiven, providing the vacant property is used for the construction of new affordable housing units as provided in the Community Development Housing Programs and
Policy, adopted July 12, 1993.
Because CDBG monies would be the funding source for this program, it is recommended that only homes that have been vacant for a minimum of one calendar year be approved for demolition
assistance. Otherwise, the program would come under a very complicated and labor intensive set of federal regulations (e.g., one-for-one replacement, relocation of residents, etc.)
Commissioner Berfield moved to authorize implementation of the Community Development Demolition Program. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #31 - Staff Report re: Nonconforming Residential Density Issue (CP)
At the conclusion of the North Fort Harrison/North Myrtle Avenue Zoning Study, the Commission directed staff to look into the effects of making nonconforming densities "grandfathered"
situations. The issue came up because the rezoning of property in the N. Ft. Harrison area to a RS-8 classification from a RM-8 classification resulted in the "loss" of density for
properties developed with duplex, triplex and multi-family uses in the event the properties are damaged or destroyed in excess of 50% of their appraised value.
The city code requirements concerning nonconformities utilize a strict, but relatively standard set of regulations. Many communities set such strict standards in order to encourage
removal of nonconforming uses and to promote relatively rapid conformity with the regulations.
Other communities opt for a different approach, grandfathering existing nonconforming density for uses after their destruction if reconstruction occurs within a period of one year or
less. This approach allows the status quo to be maintained by allowing reconstruction of nonconforming uses and densities if done in a relatively short period of time. This type of
ordinance is set up to "maintain" the non-conforming uses and densities rather than to encourage their removal.
Staff is seeking direction from the Commission as to whether the Commission desires staff to proceed with one of three options: 1) current code requirements which establish strict
standards for nonconforming densities and uses (not allowing such uses to be reconstructed); 2) a "maintenance" type of nonconforming use and density regulation, which allows reconstruction
within a one year period within existing footprints and without requiring conformance to other code requirements; and 3) the "middle" approach, which would allow reconstruction of existing
uses and densities within one year, but require conformance to all other code requirements, including setback, parking and landscaping requirements.
Staff has looked into the impact of "liberalizing" the current nonconforming residential density regulations on various areas of the City. It would appear that the N. Ft. Harrison
Avenue area has the largest proportion of mixed single family, duplex, triplex, and multi-family uses of any area in the City. There are areas along Drew Street and in the North and
South Greenwood area in which there is a mixture of densities in single family classifications.
Staff would suggest that if the Commission is interested in pursuing more of a "maintenance" type of nonconforming use and density regulation, provisions should be made to require that
such uses, when reconstructed, meet or conform to existing setback, open space and parking requirements. This is a middle approach, allowing reconstruction of nonconforming densities
and uses, but requiring conformance with other code requirements. This is the same approach that staff has suggested, and the Commission has accepted, concerning redevelopment projects
on the barrier islands.
Mr. Shuford reviewed the three options. He stated they are suggesting the middle approach as they do not believe it will result in problems with compatibility.
Mayor Garvey questioned if this would apply throughout the City and Mr. Shuford indicated it would.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concerns that this would not solve the problem that was brought up during the discussion of the N. Ft. Harrison Corridor. He supported, if a structure
was lost, rebuilding to the original footprint.
Mayor Garvey stated the other side of the issue is the value to the next door neighbors.
Commissioner Thomas felt people's financial security would be removed if the middle approach is adopted. He stated this only deals with destruction in natural disasters.
Commissioner Berfield questioned how this would come into play with the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC). Mr. Shuford indicated it would not, as how to deal with nonconformities, is
left up to each community.
Commissioner Berfield questioned if with the middle approach, there would, in perpetuity, be a nonconformity. Mr. Shuford indicated the middle approach would reduce the extent of that
nonconformity as there may be some loss in density due to not being able to meet the other requirements.
Mayor Garvey questioned if this was the situation on Clearwater Beach. Mr. Shuford indicated it was.
Commissioner Fitzgerald stated he agreed with the middle approach as it protected the neighborhoods.
Commissioner Deegan stated he felt those supporting the middle approach were doing so based on the grounds that adjoining property owners are complaining. He stated he was inclined
to go with the maintenance procedure.
Mayor Garvey stated the City needed to be considered as a whole and this would go beyond the neighborhoods.
Commissioner Thomas stated the issue was that the zoning was changed in one neighborhood and it was only asked that area be studied. He suggested when there is a zoning change, people
be allowed to rebuild if there are natural disasters.
Mayor Garvey again stated there have been many rezonings throughout the City and this issue needs to be considered on a citywide basis.
Commissioner Berfield questioned whether or not the nonconforming properties were nonconforming before the zoning was changed to single family. Mr. Shuford indicated they were in the
amount of density. He stated the big issue was not being able to build back at multi-family.
Commissioner Berfield questioned what the status would be if the properties had stayed in RM-8 zoning and they were destroyed. Mr. Shuford indicated they could build back their density
but would have to meet all other land development code regulations.
Commissioner Berfield stated, in that case, the density was the only difference created by the rezoning. Mr. Shuford agreed.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if Commissioner Berfield was agreeing with the possibility of the properties not being able to be rebuilt if they were destroyed. Commissioner Berfield
stated her point was that if the properties had remained RM-8 and had been destroyed,
they still would have had to have met all the other requirements. She stated the only issue is the density and the middle approach gives them the density.
Commissioner Thomas questioned, if with the middle approach, they had 4 units and were destroyed, would they be able to rebuild them. Mr. Shuford indicated they would, if they could
meet the other code requirements.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if this goes back to the status quo before the change in zoning. Mr. Shuford indicated it did.
Commissioner Berfield moved to direct staff to implement the middle approach which would allow reconstruction of existing uses and densities within one year but require conformance
to all other code requirements including setback, parking and landscaping requirements. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #32 - Authorize Community Development Division to initiate foreclosure proceedings against delinquent borrowers upon the recommendation of the Community Development Manager and
with the approval of the Community Development Loan Committee; authorize Community Development Manager to contract with independent legal counsel to perform such action with the concurrence
of the City Attorney (ED)
The Community Development Division has developed collection and foreclosure guidelines for dealing with delinquent housing rehabilitation or purchase loan accounts. Under these guidelines,
borrowers are given the opportunity to resolve delinquency problems and avoid foreclosure and loss of their home.
When borrowers are unable to cure mortgage defaults or to make other suitable arrangements to correct delinquency of their loans, they are referred to the Community Development Loan
Committee for consideration. The Committee may recommend that foreclosure action be initiated and refer the matter to the City Attorney for disposition.
It may be necessary to refer some foreclosure actions to outside legal counsel to avoid scheduling conflicts and delays. Delays add to the loss of Community Development funds, and
can result in abandoned properties being subjected to vandalism and deterioration.
Approval of this item will allow the Community Development Manager to contract with independent legal counsel to initiate and perform foreclosure actions, when such action has been
approved by the Community Development Loan Committee and the City Attorney's office determines that it is unable to process such requests in a timely manner.
The proposed policy will be included in the proposed amendment to the FY 93-94 CDBG Final Statement. An allocation of $15,000 is proposed.
Commissioner Thomas moved to authorize the Community Development Division to initiate foreclosure proceedings against delinquent borrowers upon the recommendation of the Community Development
Manager and with the approval of the Community Development Loan
Committee; and to authorize the Community Development Manager to contract with independent legal counsel to perform such foreclosure action, with the concurrence of the City Attorney.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #33 - Lease agreement with Jolley Trolley Transportation of Clearwater, Inc., a non-profit corp., for a portion of the Memorial Civic Center at a rental rate of $1 per year (CM)
A $1 per year lease has been negotiated with the Trolley Corporation for the use of the hall space, north of the auditorium, in the Memorial Civic Center. The lease format is generally
the same as used for other city leases.
The lease provides for the Corporation to make renovations in the area to construct offices, counters and merchandise displays as well as construct walls and doorways to secure the
area after business hours. All renovations and improvements are to be appropriately permitted and must comply with all city codes.
Citizens will continue to have access to the Branch Library and the Chamber Welcome Station from the hall during the hours the office is open. At such time as the lease is terminated,
the Corporation is responsible for removing their improvements and returning the facility to the current appearance and condition.
Mayor Garvey questioned an item in a December 14th letter from Bill Kirbas, requesting $2,500 for new graphically exciting signs. Mr. Kirbas indicated these would be new bus stop signs.
Commissioner Thomas indicated the recommendation is to have miniature trolleys on these signs.
Mayor Garvey questioned whether or not the lease contained the net provisions. Betty Deptula, Assistant City Manager, indicated a portion of the utilities will be paid by
the trolley corporation. Commissioner Thomas indicated as the corporation is nonprofit, there should not be concern regarding taxes.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve a lease agreement with Jolley Trolley Transportation of Clearwater, Inc., a non-profit corporation, for a portion of the Memorial Civic Center
at a rental rate of $1 per year. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #34 - Two year loan of $15,000 (with simple interest calculated at City's average cash pool rate) to Jolley Trolley Transportation of Clearwater, Inc. to provide funding for office
space renovations, passenger shelter construction and new trolley service signage (CM)
On November 19, 1993 the Commission approved a funding agreement to provide $360,000 annually to the non-profit corporation, Jolley Trolley Transportation of Clearwater, Inc., to provide
trolley services on Clearwater Beach and Sand Key, and from the Beach to Island Estates and downtown.
Mr. William Kirbas, the corporation president, presented a business plan which included the City providing a loan of $15,000 to finance the start up costs for the service. These costs
include: 8,000 for renovations and construction; $1,300 for construction of a concrete pad and benches for a passenger waiting area; $2,500 for new graphically exciting signs; and $3,200
for office fixtures and equipment.
The Corporation has requested a two year pay back of the loan, with simple interest at the City's cash pool rate. The loan agreement is similar to the agreement approved by the Commission
for the loan to the Clearwater Shuffleboard Club to construct improvements to city facilities used by the club membership.
Ms. Deptula pointed out the allocation of the funds had changed somewhat but remain within the requested $15,000.
Mayor Garvey questioned the change in starting time referenced in Mr. Kirbas's 12/14 letter and whether this would conflict with PSTA schedule.
Mr. Kirbas indicated this addresses office hours only as they need time to adjust to unexpected circumstances.
Commissioner Deegan moved to approve a two year loan of $15,000 (with simple interest calculated at the City's average cash pool rate) to Jolley Trolley Transportation of Clearwater,
Inc. to provide funding for office space renovations, passenger shelter construction and new trolley service signage. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #35 - Other Pending Matters
a) First Reading Ord. #5515-93 - extending term of franchise agreement with GTE, Florida, by six months to 6/30/94 (CM)
The franchise agreement with General Telephone Company (GTE) expires December 31, 1993, at the end of a fourth six-month extension adopted by Ordinance #5430-93. The franchise agreement
permits GTE to use city rights-of-way for the placement and operation of its systems. In return, the City receives a 1% franchise fee based on GTE local service revenues. That fee
base yielded revenues to the City of $182,888 for FY 1990, $196,500 for FY 1991 and $211,368 for FY 1992.
The City has held discussions with GTE and both have presented initial draft franchise agreements. Examination of the positions and the change in personnel within the City and GTE
precluded successful discussions before the expiration of the franchise agreement. As discussed with the Commission, staff has issued an RFP for revenue audits of franchises and help
with negotiation of the GTE franchise. The RFP was reviewed the week of December 9.
Ordinance #5515-93, upon adoption, would extend the term of the present franchise agreement with GTE for six months, from January 1, 1994 to June 30, 1994. GTE has indicated its agreement
in the term extension.
Commissioner Thomas moved to extend the franchise agreement with GTE. The motion was duly seconded.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if the progress anticipated for the week of December 9 had been made. Kathy S. Rice indicated it had with a firm being selected and a contract to be
brought forward. She stated GTE has lost a series of personnel and they are also waiting for the results of a Texas Court case.
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5515-93 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5515-93 on first reading. The motion was
duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
b) Clarification of 11/9/93 motion for Sign Variance Case #93-23, Camelot Motel, 603 Mandalay Ave., Eunice Hubbard (CP)
On November 9, 1993 the Commission made a motion to approve the sign variance application for Camelot Motel (SV93-23). Staff requests clarification whether it was the
Commission's intent to approve the requested area of 67.8 square feet, or a lesser area, 48 square feet, as was discussed at some length.
It was explained, the motion by Commissioner Thomas at the meeting was to approve the variance as requested, however, subsequent discussion centered around the sign being limited to
48 square feet and the Mayor restated the motion as such.
Staff is requesting clarification regarding what the Commission intended to approve.
Commissioner Fitzgerald stated they approved one side of the sign with only the address on the back side. Several commissioners agreed that it seemed to be that they approved 48 square
feet, rather than as requested.
Commissioner Fitzgerald indicated there had been alot of discussion regarding whether or not the back side should be included in the variance and Commissioner Thomas reiterated that
the discussion was for replacing the facing on a preexisting sign with the street number being the only thing allowed on the back side.
Eunice Hubbard, applicant, presented a picture taken from a helicopter which shows the bend in the road which obscures her sign. She stated it was her understanding she was granted
to keep the frame of the sign as is.
Commissioner Thomas questioned the square footage of the existing sign and it was stated it was 67.8 square feet.
Commissioner Thomas stated it was his understanding they were going to allow her to replace the facing that was blown out with no sign on the back side and only the property address
showing there.
Commissioner Deegan agreed that with other signs, when there has been difficulty in seeing it, they have allowed a variance. He recommended leaving the sign the way it is but only
as signage on the front side.
Commissioner Deegan moved to allow the 67.8 square feet on the south side of the sign with only the address appearing on the north side. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Deegan stated there had been a request during the discussion of the sign variance, that if possible to place signs on Mandalay Avenue regarding directions to food and lodging.
The City Manager indicated Traffic Engineering has not responded as of yet.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS
ITEM #36 - Other City Attorney Items
a) Dunedin Pass project outside attorney agreement
At the time the Commission heard presentations by prospective firms for the Dunedin Pass project, a sub-presentation was made by Deborah Getzhoff relating to the legal aspects of the
project. The Commission indicated a desire to hire Ms. Getzhoff for legal services, separately from the employment of Coastal Technology as the project engineers. Ms. Getzhoff has
familiarized herself with the structure of the City's proposed action plan, i.e., Phase I, II and III categories of work to be approved in sequence with Commission authorization necessary
for each phase. A letter agreement calls for Ms. Getzhoff to perform the services for an hourly rate of $170. Any other direct cost or expense would be in addition to the hourly rate
and would be detailed in a monthly invoice for payment. While the actual cost will depend upon the actual hours and expenses, Ms. Getzhoff has estimated the phases as follows: Phase
I - between $12,000 to $18,000 and Phases II and III - between $28,000 to $40,000.
As is already the case with Coastal Technology, a separately negotiated fee would be necessary for services involved in litigation.
Commissioner Deegan moved to approve an agreement with Deborah Getzoff of the law firm of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal and Banker, P.A., for the provision of legal services
relative to the Dunedin Pass project for an hourly rate of $170, and which is estimated to be between $12,000 and $18,000, plus out-of-pocket expenses for Phase I of the project. The
motion was duly seconded.
Commissioner Fitzgerald commented on the whole project, stating this is beginning to be a very expensive process. He was also concerned that the whole exercise was headed to having
to litigate heavily and it will become even more excessively expensive. He stated he can not support the legal services.
Mayor Garvey indicated she had a similar concern and was also concerned regarding separately negotiating a fee for litigation. She stated mother nature will end up taking care of the
problem.
Commissioner Thomas stated he supported the motion as they are striving to save Clearwater Harbor. He stated there has been enough testimony that Clearwater Harbor is dying and he
is supporting this due to the environmental concerns and water quality of Clearwater Bay.
Mayor Garvey stated there has also been testimony that the intercoastal water quality is improving and that dredging could cause more damage.
Commissioner Fitzgerald indicated so far he did not believe any information conclusively showed that Dunedin Pass would improve the environmental quality of Clearwater Harbor. He felt
the money should be used to address run-off into the harbor as that has more impact.
Commissioner Thomas agreed that run-off needed to be addressed and he felt the City should be more aggressive in pursuing that avenue but he indicated Dunedin Pass is becoming putrid.
Upon the vote being taken; Commissioners Berfield, Deegan and Thomas voted "Aye", Commissioner Fitzgerald and Mayor Garvey voted "Nay". Motion carried.
b) First Reading Ord. #5529-94 - repealing Ord. #5386-93, as amended, which proposed a city charter amendment relating to the creation of a new city department and provided for a special
election to be held on 1/11/94; canceling the special election
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5529-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance #5529-94 on first reading. The motion was duly
seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
c) Res. #93-79 - to county commission re: annexation policy
The City Attorney presented Resolution #93-79 and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Resolution #93-79 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.
Mayor Garvey requested a letter be prepared to be sent to the City of St. Petersburg and others with enclaves. It was requested all five commissioners sign the letter.
ITEM #37 - City Manager Verbal Reports
a) Island Estates property
The City has been contacted by a real estate agent who has a client interested in purchasing a portion of a .961 acre parcel that is adjacent to city owned property currently under
the permitting process for construction of additional marina slips.
The party is interested in purchasing only a portion of the available lot, however, the current owners are unwilling to sell only a portion. Therefore, the real estate agent is questioning
if the City would be interested in purchasing the portion of the property not needed by his client in order to expand the marina site.
The real estate agent has indicated the interested party wishes to construct a key west style office building on "their" portion of the property.
Commissioner Thomas indicated he was unaware that the City was planning to build a marina. The City Manager indicated the City is in the permitting process.
Commissioner Thomas questioned whether or not there was enough parking for the use. Mr. Wright indicated he believed the requirements had been met.
Commissioner Deegan stated he did not feel there was justification to purchase the property, especially for a 1/4 of a million dollars.
Commissioner Thomas moved that staff not pursue purchase of this property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
b) CNHS request re: impact fees
A letter has been received from Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services (CNHS) requesting relief of the impact fees due for their proposed office site.
The fees are as follows: $250 for development fees; $5,670.95 for transportation impact fees; and $250 for general service impact fees.
The City Manager indicated, in the past, the City has paid these fees but has not waived them.
Mayor Garvey questioned whether or not monies had been set aside. Mr. Wright indicated there had been for housing services. Commissioner Deegan stated this does serve housing. A
question was raised regarding whether or not there were any funds in the CDBG program that could be used for this.
Betty Deptula, Assistant City Manager, stated a different funding source is the interest on the 4% of the traffic impact fee for administration. Commissioner Deegan questioned where
that money usually went. Ms. Deptula indicated into a special development fund earmarked for transportation.
Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned the source of the funds. Ms. Deptula indicated it was interest on the administrative fees received. Mr. Wright indicated if the Commission wished
to pay the impact fees, it could.
Commissioner Thomas moved to take the funds as described by Assistant City Manager Betty Deptula and to give them to CNHS for payment of the impact fees. The motion was duly seconded.
Mayor Garvey pointed out this would be more of an accounting move, rather than actual distribution of funds to CNHS.
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
The City Manager reported staff is requesting direction regarding a running event for which a request has been made to close a street. This direction is being requested in light of
a memorandum from Commissioner Thomas requesting that no more streets be closed for special events.
Mayor Garvey expressed concerns regarding how many times the streets had been closed on last minute requests. Commissioner Thomas agreed that too many events pop up throughout the
year requesting a closure of the streets. The Mayor pointed out the Commission is aware of those special events of which it approves at the beginning of the year and those should be
the ones that have street closure approval.
The City Manager stated unless he hears otherwise from the Commission, street closure requests will be handled in the usual manner.
Commissioner Deegan felt there are enough closings but they should be brought to the Commission on a case by case basis.
The Mayor felt the Commission, at some point, should establish those major events for which the Commission is willing to close the streets and that no other approvals be given.
Commissioners Deegan and Thomas stated they would support a denial of this request. Commissioner Thomas felt it should be established up front that any exceptions to the Commission's
approved list of street closing would come to the Commission.
Lois Cormier stated the supporters of the Dianetics Run were passing out flyers at Turkey Trot. She stated to all of a sudden inform them that they can not have the street closure,
looks like discrimination.
Commissioner Thomas expressed his concern that the request came in at the last minute and it is not discriminatory. Ms. Cormier indicated this event has occurred every year and the
street has been closed for that.
The City Manager reported the application for this special event was filed in a timely manner. The Parks and Recreation Department was processing it when Commissioner Thomas' memo
was received requesting there be no more street closures and that is why this came forward for direction.
Commissioner Fitzgerald felt that as this has occurred before and been allowed for a number of years, it was not a totally unusual event.
Commissioner Deegan felt that if the street closure had been allowed before, it would be unfair to say no at this time. He indicated his purpose was to prohibit proliferation of the
street closures. He withdrew his objection as did Commissioner Thomas.
Commissioner Deegan stated he felt it was still valid to indicate to staff they do not want alot of street closures throughout the year.
It was requested that a copy of a list of street closures be provided to the Commission and this be discussed at a future worksession.
The meeting recessed from 10:09 p.m. to 10:19 p.m.
ITEM #38 - Commission Discussion Items - None.
ITEM #39 - Other Commission Action
a) appoint Commissioner to Jolley Trolley Corp.
Commissioner Deegan moved to appoint Commissioner Berfield. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
b) City Attorney evaluation - Public report
Mayor Garvey stated that in reviewing the minutes from last year's evaluation, she has come to the conclusion that the City Attorney is doing a good job. She stated he does the work
requested, he has the knowledge needed, he tries to make sure what he presents to the Commission is appropriate and fits with the community, is what the community needs and is defensible.
She stated he is financially conservative and stays within the budget and has cost
control. She stated overall she gave him a very good rating and felt he had done an excellent job during the past year.
Commissioner Berfield reported she met with the City Attorney and expressed some of her concerns with him. She indicated he had shared his thoughts with her. She stated they do have
some differences of opinion. She felt she could not judge his legal ability and did not attempt to do so. She stated he addressed the concern she had and he expressed his views to
her about things he would like to see, such as meeting more frequently with the Commission.
Commissioner Deegan indicated he met with the City Attorney and had informed him that his view of an evaluation was looking at results, not personality traits or skills. He stated
he determined four areas of responsibility of the City Attorney taken from the Charter.
One - processing paperwork. Commissioner Deegan indicated he gave the City Attorney some examples of him being terribly slow in getting ordinances being asked for, to the Commission.
He stated the City Attorney seems to refuse to be willing to put down time or dates for tracking items, even when specifically asked to do so. He indicated he was also very unhappy
regarding the advertisement of the map for the adult use ordinance prior to the Commission seeing it and finally, in the area of paperwork, he was unhappy with the handling of both the
purchase and sale contract of the Sun Bank Building. He stated he felt it was a big mistake not to have a deposit in the sale contract and he faulted the City Attorney for not assuring
it was there even though the City Attorney's answer is that he was directed to sell the building under the same codicils as which it was purchased.
Two - legal matters (such as court cases, etc.). Commissioner Deegan stated there have been some successes mainly by the City Attorney's assistants and there have been some unfavorable
results. He stated he believed the City Attorney has a tendency to want to settle too quickly and he is afraid of people when they threaten first amendment suits. He stated he would
prefer someone more willing to fight a battle, especially when it is to help defend expressed community standards.
Three - responsibility to keep the Commission current regarding federal and state statutes. He stated he expects the City Attorney to be more proactive and in his meeting with the
City Attorney gave him some examples of where he thought the Attorney should have been more proactive in bringing things to the Commission due to recent legislation.
Four - giving the Commission advise and follow-up on things being asked for. He stated he was especially dissatisfied with the City Attorney's interpretation of the Sunshine and Public
Records Law and stated even after two formal answers from the Attorney General, that were exactly opposite, the City Attorney indicates he still disagrees with those opinions. Commissioner
Deegan indicated he would be happier following the Attorney General's advise. He did compliment Mr. Galbraith that within the last two months, there seems to have been a surprising
turn around in the time in his reply to memos and requests.
He stated finally, there is an area of general expectation. He stated he felt the kind of City Attorney the City of Clearwater needed was someone who can find ways to do what the
Commission thinks they should do for the good of the City rather than often telling them why they cannot do it.
He stated he did not discuss management duties with the Attorney as this was being audited by the Hildebrandt study. However, with general comments, Commissioner Deegan indicated he
was dissatisfied with the City Attorney's attitude. He stated an example of this was that Mr. Galbraith asked no questions and made no comments regarding the individuals being interviewed
for doing the City Attorney Department audit. He stated this showed a lack of concern.
He indicated the Attorney also had a proclivity to sit and read journals and other materials during meetings and not concentrating on the issues at hand. He expressed an example of
the Attorney being reticent to take advantage of training sessions such as setting of goals and standards and that he did not submit goals with the budget although he knew these goals
were to be submitted with the budget and he only did so upon being told the budget would not be accepted without them.
He stated overall he would prefer a City Attorney that is more proactive, is much more intent on what the Commission is doing, more willing to commit to response dates and is more helpful
in assisting the Commission to do what they think they should do for the City and one whose advise he feels can be accepted.
He stated in light of all that, he would welcome a letter of resignation from Mr. Galbraith.
Commissioner Fitzgerald stated there is obviously a difference of opinion regarding the performance of the City Attorney. He stated he felt the Attorney was doing excellent overall.
He stated his major strengths are his loyalty and his concern for the City and its citizens and his loyalty to legal principles. He stated Mr. Galbraith was not a "yes" man and he
was glad he was not. He stated the City Attorney performs well under pressure and is a strong supporter of the Sunshine Law. He has found the Attorney to always be available for advise
if asked. He stated the City Attorney shows concern for city staff and his staff.
He reported the City Attorney has the respect of others in his field. He felt the Attorney maintains his composure and he profits from his mistakes and works hard despite adverse work
situations. He stated he trusts Mr. Galbraith and finds him to be an honest and honorable man. He did not feel the Commission could blame the City Attorney for its short comings.
Commissioner Thomas stated he agreed with everything that had been said. He said he found the City Attorney willing and able to work with the Commission and truly to be honorable and
honest and have the best interest of the City at heart. He said he found no character flaws in Mr. Galbraith.
In evaluating the City Attorney's performance, Commissioner Thomas approached it from the question of would he hire him, not would he fire him and he looked at specific issues with
which he was familiar.
Commissioner Thomas stated he did not like how the Sun Bank Building was purchased or the problems that occurred during the sale. He stated when he saw the hoops through which the
City had to go in order to sell the property, he wondered how the City could have been bought the property without the same. He stated the explanation given was that the City Attorney
was following the Commission's orders. His response to that is the City Attorney still had a legal responsibility to see to it that the client was advised at all times.
He stated there were serious flaws in the buying of the property and then when the property was sold, the City Attorney did not know of the contracts in force and the City is now paying
fees to the management firm. He stated the Attorney indicated he had been ordered by the City Manager not to worry about it. He stated it was a flawed deal. However, he felt a person
could not be judged on one deal. He stated he interviewed the Attorney as if he was going to hire him and asked if he had analyzed how a law firm performs. He stated the Attorney's
response was not really but he needed one more attorney but did not ask for one because of funding.
He asked the Attorney if he had looked at the paralegal issue and he felt the Attorney was not in tune with that as private practices are using paralegals extensively. He was concerned
the Attorney was not more aware of paralegals.
Commissioner Thomas stated he would not manage a law office the way the City Attorney has. Regarding productivity of the Legal Department, he stated it was less than good. He stated
he believes there needs to be serious productivity improvement. He stated he felt Mr. Galbraith was a good attorney but likened him to swiss cheese, that is with solid parts and blank
holes.
He stated he would not have Mr. Galbraith as the head of a law office but would have him as a senior law officer. He stated he was not trying to demote or demean Mr. Galbraith. He
stated he felt the Commission has done a lousy job in working with the Attorney and this has been going on for years. The Attorney cannot be faulted for that. He felt the Charter Review
Committee should review if the City Attorney should report to the Commission or to the chief executive officer. It is his personal opinion that the Attorney should report to the CEO.
He stated he is not giving the Attorney an A or a F but he is not satisfied at all.
He stated if the Commission continues to work with Mr. Galbraith, the Commission needs to work with him and look at the reporting system. He did not think Mr. Galbraith has a handle
on being the head of the Legal Department.
Mr. Galbraith indicated he agreed with most of what had been said and he agreed the swiss cheese analogy was appropriate but he felt the blank holes were getting smaller. He stated
he has tried to work diligently to do the best job he can for the City and will continue to work accordingly.
c) City Manager evaluation - Public report
Mayor Garvey reviewed ten items on which she rated Mr. Wright.
One - knowledge. She felt Mr. Wright had vast knowledge of City management.
Two - leadership. She felt a morale survey showed that the City Manager cares about employees and he is well aware of what is going on.
Three - management of city programs is done well.
Four - budget cost control. She cited there had been no millage increase during Mr. Wright's tenure.
Five - decision making. She stated Mr. Wright illustrates this at every Commission meeting.
Six - planning and organizing. She stated there have been some problems but there has been reorganization to get the best of city employees.
Seven - creativity. He shows positive efforts in this regard.
Eight - cooperation. She stated he is always cooperative with the Commission, the County, citizens and staff.
Nine - communication. She stated he is always willing to work with others.
Ten - adaptability. She stated this is one of Mr. Wright's strong points.
She cited the Labor Management Committee and the Community Contact meetings as positive steps taken by Mr. Wright. She gave him a very high rating.
Commissioner Thomas stated he did not review the City Manager and therefore had no comments.
Commissioner Fitzgerald stated he had met with the City Manager although he was leaving. He felt this was unfortunate and a loss to the City. He gave Mr. Wright an excellent rating.
He felt Mr. Wright's financial management was one of his strongest attributes and he had improved the budget process and held the line on taxes for three straight years. He also cited
that Mr. Wright had improved employee relations. He stated Mr. Wright had worked hard to improve the planning function and had brought forward ordinances to make Clearwater a better
place. He also stated Mr. Wright had worked hard to improve the operation of the City as a whole, thought he was successful and gave him an excellent rating.
Commissioner Deegan stated he did not meet with Mr. Wright. He stated apparently Mr. Wright could not live with the situation here. He indicated Mr. Wright knew that he had not won
Commissioner Deegan's confidence and has resigned and he felt that was best for the two of them. He stated Mr. Wright does have much to bring to the job of City Manager. Commissioner
Deegan was sorry Mr. Wright did not use these traits as Commissioner Deegan would have wanted him to.
Commissioner Berfield stated she met with Mr. Wright several weeks ago however, he has resigned and that has put the matter to rest.
Mr. Wright had no comments.
d) City Manager replacement process
Commissioner Deegan stated he felt a national search should be done but that did not mean people on staff or in the area were not the best people. Commissioner Fitzgerald indicated
he felt a national search should be done. Commissioner Thomas stated he preferred a local Tampa Bay search first. He felt the Commission should appoint an interim City Manager from
staff. Commissioner Berfield stated she had stood firm on a national search and that people on staff and in the area need to see who is available. Mayor Garvey questioned whether or
not a firm should be hired to do the work for the City.
Commissioner Deegan stated it was too important not to have it done professionally. He questioned if this was a contract matter. Mr. Galbraith indicated the Commission had alot of
flexibility and the City Manager stated this was not a competitive negotiations issue. Commissioner Deegan questioned if the City could ask two or three other firms similar to the letter
that had been received from Slavin and Associates giving their proposal to do this work. He stated letters would be sufficient with no personal presentations being required. Commissioner
Thomas requested that information regarding which city managers the firms had placed in the last 24 months be made available.
Mr. Wright indicated the Human Resources Director would provide the information.
Commissioner Deegan stated the Commission needed to decide what would happen in the interim. He stated the Commission has not formally accepted Mr. Wright's letter of resignation.
He stated if Mr. Wright plans to be in the office until January 14th, it is important to appoint an interim city manager that can be his understudy until he leaves. He stated this
interim city manager would have all the authority of a city manager.
Mayor Garvey questioned if he had a recommendation. Commissioner Deegan stated that the Deputy City Manager, Kathy Rice, has indicated she is not interested on a full time basis, however,
Betty Deptula, Assistant City Manager, has indicated an interest. He felt it would be appropriate to appoint Ms. Deptula as interim to give the Commission an opportunity to observe
her.
Commissioner Deegan moved to appoint Elizabeth Deptula as Interim City Manager. The motion was duly seconded.
Mayor Garvey questioned not considering Ms. Rice. Commissioner Deegan indicated the appointment of Ms. Deptula is nothing against Ms. Rice but merely an opportunity for the Commission
to observe Ms. Deptula in the capacity of City Manager.
Commissioner Thomas stated this was a valid point and he re-emphasized the interim position would have total authority of a full city manager.
Mayor Garvey questioned if Ms. Deptula would accept the nomination.
Upon the vote being taken, the motion to appoint Ms. Deptula as Interim City Manager carried unanimously.
Ms. Deptula indicated she appreciated the offer and accepted the challenge the Commission had offered her.
Commissioner Deegan indicated remuneration would need to be discussed.
Commissioner Berfield questioned the effective date and asked if it would not be more advantageous for Mr. Wright to leave at the end of the calendar year. Commissioner Deegan indicated
Mr. Wright had set his last day in the office as January 14th. The Mayor felt Ms. Deptula needed some time to work with the City Manager as understudy.
Mr. Wright indicated he was very proud of Ms. Deptula and Ms. Rice being his assistants. He stated he had practiced a great deal of delegation and sharing of information and that only
a short period would be needed with Ms. Deptula. He did indicate, however, she would need more help in the office.
Commissioner Deegan questioned what date would be appropriate. Mr. Wright indicated he was open to suggestions. Commissioner Deegan suggested the last day of the year. Mr. Wright
said that would be fine as long as he was paid through the first two weeks of February.
Mayor Garvey felt if they were paying him, they could use his services. Mr. Wright indicated he appreciated the confidence but it was time for him to go. He stated staff is in flux
and they need to know to whom to look for direction.
Commissioner Thomas stated he agreed with Mr. Wright. Mr. Wright requested they accept his resignation as of February 4, 1994, with that being his last day on the payroll but his last
day of work being December 30, 1993.
Commissioner Thomas moved to accept the terms of Mr. Wright. The motion was duly seconded.
Mr. Wright requested they pay out the agreement as a lump sum during this calendar year.
Commissioner Thomas moved to amend his motion to include the lump sum payment being made this year. The seconder accepted the amendment. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried
unanimously.
Commissioner Berfield questioned whether or not all Commissioners had received a copy of the memo regarding newsracks from the City Attorney. It was indicated they had. She questioned
what action the Commission wished to take about the City Attorney Evaluation. This will be discussed at a later date.
Commissioner Deegan referenced a memorandum to Ms. Rice from Hammer, Siler George and indicated he felt their prices were too high to update their study of the Maas Brothers facility
as a convention center. He questioned whether or not Mr. Klagis could do the update. Mayor Garvey suggested a proposal be requested. Commissioner Thomas expressed a concern as Mr.
Klagis is on Mr. Seaton's payroll and Mr. Seaton has a prejudice against the project.
Commissioner Berfield indicated this would be the same situation as someone working for a Commissioner doing the City Attorney audit.
Commissioner Thomas questioned whether or not there were any other experts in the field. The City Manager indicated there were.
Mayor Garvey expressed concern regarding the cost being too high. Commissioner Deegan suggested Hammer Siler George be requested to perform only the market research report.
Commissioner Berfield suggested that staff find out from the tourist development council exactly what information they would consider to be the appropriate update.
Commissioner Deegan reiterated he is only talking about the update of a market research report. Commissioner Fitzgerald expressed concerns that the old report was not site specific
in any way.
Commissioner Thomas questioned the need to do both the market update as well as an engineering analysis. Commissioner Deegan pointed out that the engineering analysis has been done
by Heery and that is not needed.
Commissioner Fitzgerald stated that Hammer Siler George would have to look at it in order to draw the study together.
Mayor Garvey suggested staff call Hammer Siler George regarding doing only the update of the market analysis. Ms. Rice indicated she would also call TDC to find out exactly what they
expect in the report.
Commissioner Thomas suggested giving a blanket approval to spend up to $40,000. Commissioner Deegan felt the report would not be worth $40,000 and he suggested $20,000.
Commissioner Thomas moved to authorize spending up to $20,000 to have an update of the market research report for the convention center being specific to the Maas Brothers site being
done by Hammer Siler George. 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 Deegan questioned a memo regarding the assistant city attorney pay plan and questioned if what had been provided was the extent of what had been done since a year ago.
The City Attorney indicated he had not seen the memo. Commissioner Deegan questioned if he was prepared to bring forward a plan for the assistant city attorneys pay. Mr. Galbraith
indicated he did not have it available tonight. It was stated that the SAMP plan for the assistant city attorneys would be discussed when the City Attorney's salary was discussed.
Commissioner Deegan expressed concerns regarding slow mail from the Police Department citing an example of a memo taking from December 7 to December 16 to get to the Commission.
He questioned what had happened regarding the meeting with the church regarding the property needed for the City Hall project. Ms. Rice indicated they had an excellent meeting and
there were some agreements. She stated they were looking at a fee simple deed and then an agreement regarding the parking garage being available on Wednesday nights and Sunday mornings
and evenings. She indicated the attorneys thought they could come up with appropriate language and she could meet with the deacons after January 5th. She stated they will need to make
a formal presentation to the church.
She distributed a preliminary compressed timeframe for the remainder of the city hall project. She indicated staff is working on the design criteria and if approved, will be sent to
the top ranked design build firms. She stated they have six weeks to respond. She stated the Commission will be asked to approve the contract the week of May 16. Design and construction
would begin June 1 and there would be a 16 month process. She stated everyone would be moved out of the current City Hall in January of 1995. She stated we are generally in good shape
and she believes staff can accomplish what the Commission wants.
Mayor Garvey questioned whether or not the plan was to leave the Commission Chambers here. Ms. Rice indicated it was not, that it would be on the second floor of the new building.
Commissioner Thomas indicated he did not agree with that plan. Ms. Rice indicated there had been discussions regarding filling in the second floor of the current City Hall and redoing
the Chambers.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concerns spending millions of dollars to totally redo the current City Hall. He felt it merely needed to be cleaned up and could be continued to be used
as the Chambers and offices. Ms. Rice indicated if this was Commission consensus, staff would need to stop what they are doing as the plans currently are to have the Chambers on the
second floor of the new building.
Commissioner Deegan indicated this has already been discussed and the Commission had decided to go with the current plan.
Commissioner Fitzgerald indicated he was opposed to the whole project.
Commissioner Berfield stated she would prefer to have the Chambers in the current building but practically it needed to be in the new building.
It was the consensus for staff to go forward.
Commissioner Deegan questioned a letter from David Campbell requesting the taping of all meetings. He felt it was the Commission's policy that no meeting should not be broadcast and/or
taped. He expressed concerns regarding Vision Cable shutting the cameras off when the CRA meetings begin and he requested they be asked to keep the camera on for the CRA meetings.
Commissioner Deegan reported a call from a citizen with a complaint regarding a magazine cover having an advertisement for a doctor in Palm Harbor. Ms. Rice indicated she would get
a response but she was aware these magazines were donated by the particular physician.
Commissioner Thomas reported that at the MPO, they did a complete review of the Pinellas Trail. He stated the Clearwater section is in a stalemate in the legal departments and a suggestion
was brought forward and that was to build the trail as far as they can until they have a problem. On that portion where the City can, repave the streets and have bicycle paths on the
streets and listed as an adjunct of the trail.
Mayor Garvey requested more information. Commissioner Deegan questioned what would be done in the mean time. Commissioner Thomas indicated the plan is currently stuck in the County
legal department and he felt the Trail should go ahead and be built where easements were not involved.
Commissioner Deegan stated if it cannot be solved, the City will have to find another route. It was suggested city staff talk to county staff regarding the possibilities.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concerns regarding having written a letter about the goals for recycling stating they were not valid goals and then during a conversation with Mr. Brumback,
finding out that Mr. Brumback did not write the goals. Ms. Rice indicated she had written the goals and had spoken with Mr. Brumback about them. She stated the concern that had been
expressed to her by Commissioners Thomas and Deegan was that there needed to some revenue goals. She indicated she had met with Mr. Brumback this morning and decided some of those goals.
Commissioner Thomas expressed his concern that Mr. Brumback had agreed to put his job on the line if he were able to run the recycling business. He felt that by Ms. Rice writing the
goals, that violated that caveat. Ms. Rice apologized for misunderstanding the direction of the Commission but she felt they had requested goals based on the St. Lucie county contract.
Commissioner Thomas indicated his concern was that Mr. Brumback should have been writing the goals and then held responsible for them. He requested Mr. Brumback write his own goals.
Ms. Deptula requested that discussion be agendaed for the January 3 meeting regarding a letter of understanding, goals and objectives for her to meet during the 4 to 6 month timeframe
in which she would be Interim City Manager. She also requested a provision be included that should she not be chosen as the permanent City Manager, she be allowed to return to her Assistant
City Manager position prior to the new City Manager taking office. Consensus was to agenda this.
Commissioner Thomas stated he felt all Commission members should be meeting with Ms. Deptula between now and January 1st.
Commissioner Berfield and Mayor Garvey wished Clearwater Happy Holidays and Happy New Year.
ITEM #40 - Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 12:30 a.m. (12/17/93)