Loading...
01/03/1994 CITY COMMISSION MEETING January 3, 1994 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in regular session at City Hall, Monday, January 3, 1994 at 9:03 a.m., with the following members present: Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner Arthur X. Deegan, II Vice-Mayor/Commissioner Richard Fitzgerald Commissioner Sue A. Berfield Commissioner Fred A. Thomas Commissioner Also present: Elizabeth M. Deptula Interim City Manager M.A. Galbraith, Jr. City Attorney William C. Baker Acting Assistant City Manager Kathy S. Rice Deputy City Manager Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk The Mayor called the meeting to order. In order to provide continuity for research, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. ITEM #1 - Service Awards The December 1993 employee of the month award was presented to Vincent "Jim" Carino. The City Commission recessed at 9:05 a.m. to meet as Community Redevelopment Agency. The City Commission reconvened at 9:35 a.m.. ITEM #2 - Approval of Minutes - None ITEM #3 - Presentation: Performance Indicators Carole L. Greiner, Special Assistant to the City Manager, made a presentation regarding the development of goals, objectives, results oriented budget action plans and performance. Ms. Greiner reviewed the process used last year to develop the '93 - '94 budget and stated some goals were based on national standards. Ms. Greiner said the first quarterly progress reports would be turned in shortly. The progress on all action plans would be documented and reported to the Commission by the end of the January. Ms. Greiner stated that today is the deadline for City departments to submit a list of customer service indicator definitions. The deadline for determining productivity indicator definitions for each program is February. Ms. Greiner explained the productivity indicators and customer service indicators would often overlap. A written report regarding the Customer Service Indicators will be submitted to the Commissioners by the end of January 1994. A report on Productivity Indicators will be submitted by the end of February 1994. Ms. Greiner said a city steering committee, along with City staff and Commissioners, worked on the Community Consensus project with Dr. Peter Graves, to define Clearwater citizens' governmental concerns. Ms. Greiner explained that from this report, the Commission and staff will develop a strategic plan to improve City services which will become the basis for next year's budget. Ms. Greiner said the quarterly update reports and action plans were available in two three-ring binders and questioned how the Commissioners wished the report to be distributed. Ms. Deptula stated, that in many circumstances, the "customers" of various City departments are City employees and said reports would be given to the Commission at the end of the month following the end of each quarter. Commissioner Thomas suggested that one master copy be available for the Commission and another copy circulated among the Commissioners. Commissioner Thomas spoke to the accumulative issue and suggested it would be easier to read the report as it accumulates if each section was presented on a single page. Commissioner Deegan noted the report, as presented, was for the use of management to track progress and review results. Commissioner Deegan stated the Commission was looking for accomplishment of goals, not each individual action, and felt the Commission was interested in monitoring whether the results, as approved in the budget, are achieved. Commissioner Deegan said he envisioned a report with each department and its objectives and results listed on a separate page. Commissioner Deegan said the performance indicators lacked a prior commitment to a specific level of service and asked how a department could view their performance as satisfactory when no mark was established. Ms. Greiner said the staff tried to identify benchmarks. Commissioner Deegan suggested a phrase be added that "a baseline will be established within an appropriate time period by a specific date for those indicators needing a benchmark." Mayor Garvey agreed the need to establish a benchmark. The Interim City Manager explained that quarterly reports would aid Commissioners in replying to citizens' concerns. Commissioner Thomas also concurred with Commissioner Deegan about a simplified report distributed to each Commissioner with the master report available to all Commissioners for research. Ms. Deptula said the process was more complicated than envisioned and advised the Commission that the City joined FIG (Florida Innovation Group). FIG takes part in the development of a national data base on what other governments do to benchmark performance results. Ms. Deptula explained this data will help departments analyze their results by comparing them with those of other similar communities. Commissioner Deegan felt this was an important planning process. Ms. Deptula reiterated her commitment to the process. Ms. Greiner told the Commission she didn't think there would be a problem with providing summary sheets to the commission by the end of January. ITEM #4 - Citizens to be heard re items not on the Agenda Tom Sehlhorst stated he was working on an economic plan with Mr. Polatty. Mr. Sehlhorst requested added resources for Mr. Polatty, who he said was working mostly on community development. Mr. Sellers pointed out that crime and economics were of prime importance and said he lost $3,000 worth of bicycles when his place was recently vandalized. CITY MANAGER REPORTS CONSENT AGENDA (Items #5-13) ITEM #5 - See Page 4 ITEM #6 - Purchase of 15 radar units (5 moving w/dual antennas, 2 moving w/single antennas and 8 hand-held stationary units), 3 battery packs w/chargers less the trade-in of 4 MPH moving radar units to Kustom Signals, Lenexa, KS, for $26,895 (PD) ITEM #7 - No item. ITEM #8 - Purchase of irrigation parts & supplies from: Coast Pump & Supply Co., Inc., for an est. total of $53,739.10; Century Rain Aid, Inc., for $7,178.27; and Rite-Flo Supply, Inc., for $921; for the period 1/7/94-1/6/95, for an est. total of $61,838.37 (PR) ITEM #9 - Cooperative Agreement with Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) for leak detection training and equipment (PW) ITEM #10 - See Page 9 ITEM #11 - See Page 10 ITEM #12 - Sanitary sewer lien agreement (2670 3rd Ave. N, Clearwater - Allen)(CA) ITEM #13 - Sanitary sewer lien agreement (407 Dora Dr. - Callaghan)(CA) Commissioner Deegan moved to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted less Items #5, 10, and 11 and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #5 - Agreement for Professional Services with Tampa Bay Engineering, Inc. (TBE) for engineering services for the Clearwater Gas System Expansion, for a term of 3 years in an amount not to exceed $319,928, subject thereafter to renewal for 3 years and further extensions by mutual consent of the Commission and TBE (GAS) On November 1, 1993, Clearwater Gas System (CGS) solicited Request for Proposals from outside engineering firms for engineering services related to the expansion of the Clearwater Gas System in Pinellas County and Pasco County. Two (2) firms submitted Proposals, King Engineering Associates, Inc. and Tampa Bay Engineering (TBE). The selection committee unanimously selected TBE, as the top-ranked firm, based on the strength of TBE's experience in utility design, permitting, relationship with the Florida Department of Transportation, and the ability to complete the project within the required time frame. In accordance with the State of Florida's Competitive Consultants Negotiation Act, staff entered into negotiations with the top-ranked firm, TBE of Clearwater, Florida, to prepare a consulting contract for execution by the City Manager and City Commission. An agreement has been reached with TBE and is recommended for approval. Under this contract, TBE will provide professional engineering services to develop a recommended construction route; surveying; construction plans; coordination with State and county agencies; obtain all required permits; develop construction schedule, prepare estimate of construction costs; prepare AUTOCADD base mapping systems; and other services as may also be needed to accomplish CGS's expansion planning requirements. TBE will also provide construction management, inspection, record drawings, and related engineering as may be necessary to complete individual projects. Project assignments will be made as services are needed for a period of three years from the execution of the Agreement for Professional Services. The contract is structured for a three year time frame with provisions for a three year extension thereafter with the approval of the City Commission. Each year the Commission will approve budget requests to fund the proposed projects under CGS's applicable Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs). Upon City Commission approval of CGS's operating and capital budgets, the City Manager will enter into specific work order agreements for professional services with TBE in amounts up to $100,000. Notwithstanding the Commission's approval of the initial Planning Design Study, total compensation for all services shall not exceed $100,000 for any single work order unless specifically authorized by the City Commission. This contract covers two key areas, a Planning Design Study for expansion into Pasco County, and Continuing Gas Engineering Services which may involve extensions of or off of the Pasco and/or Pinellas main lines and any other associated gas system engineering work during the term of this contract. The initial not-to-exceed budget for the Planning Design Study is $169,928. The estimated budget for Continuing Gas Engineering Services is $150,000 for a total of $319,928. Any remaining budget from the Planning Design Study shall be available for Continuing Services under this contract. Commissioner Thomas asked about other bids for this project, specifically King Engineering which was listed but had no bid attached. Mr. Warrington replied that bids were taken according to the rules of the Competitive Consultations Negotiation Act (CCNA), and that King Engineering, along with others, provided the City with complete studies on qualifications. Mayor Garvey asked if this was one of those items where the City cannot ask for prices first and Mr. Warrington agreed. Mr. Warrington explained the City negotiated the fee after comparing rates in various categories with other engineering projects the City had in the Public Works Department and other sources for similar type projects. Based on these comparisons, he felt Tampa Bay Engineering's bids were right at or lower than other vendors. Commissioner Thomas asked why the only dollar numbers presented to him were from Tampa Bay Engineering when the Commission was about to approve the expenditure of almost $320,000. Commissioner Thomas said he had no other information and had to take the staff at their word that other firms would have bid higher prices. Mayor Garvey replied that other bidding engineering firms don't give prices. Mr. Warrington explained that Consultant Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA) bids were based on skills and experience and price negotiation wasn't done until the second part of the bidding process. Mr. Warrington said the City did compare the rates of King Engineering's other contracts with the City, with those of Tampa Bay Engineering. Commissioner Thomas questioned if it was true that the City had no right to request two or three engineering firms to competitively bid on work. Mr. Warrington explained that under CCNA, which is State law, the City does not negotiate price until after a firm's qualifications are accepted. Mayor Garvey explained that the City ranks the firms and then, after going to the first for price, can go to the second or third if the City doesn't like the bids provided by the top rated bidder. Elizabeth Deptula, Interim City Manager, said the Act covered contracts with engineers and certain types of architectural firms and specifically gave parameters and processes to follow: determine qualifications, rank bidders, negotiate price. Ms. Deptula said if the City could not reach an agreement with the top rated firm, the City would then negotiate with the second rated one. Commissioner Thomas felt this procedure was based on an unfair law and questioned what the City and the League of Cities had done to try and change it. Mr. Baker, Acting Assistant City Manager, said the architects and engineers requested this law for the very purpose of not being required to competitively bid on projects. Mr. Baker said the firms want the City to examine their qualifications, like one might choose a doctor, and then talk about price once the firm is selected. Mr. Baker said the City could compare which company had a "sharper pencil" by comparing work load hours but cannot, according to law, ask companies for hourly price comparisons. Commissioner Thomas asked if the Commissioners all agreed this was an unfair way to do business, would the Commission, as a body, develop language and formally request the Pinellas Delegation and the Florida League of Cities to see if they could correct this issue. Mayor Garvey replied that she needed background information before making a decision. Commissioner Thomas requested research regarding how this legislature was adopted and other background information be done. Mayor Garvey asked whether the Commission could find out what the vote of the local delegation was on this matter and ask the chairman of the delegation for information. The Interim City Manager said this legislation had been on the books for a long time and her staff could also do research and ask the engineering community how strongly they supported the Act. Commissioner Thomas suggested the engineering community would fight change in order to avoid competition and suggested the City Attorney could help with this, a legal issue. Commissioner Berfield questioned the expenditure of almost $320,000 before the City was assured expansion into Pasco County would be approved. Mr. Warrington explained approval requested was for an overall contract that would allow the City to request the engineering services to begin. Mr. Warrington said the first part of those services was "Pasco County Planning" with a budget of $169,928. Mr. Warrington explained the Planning Design Study was a three phase project which, according to the contract, could be stopped at any time. Commissioner Berfield asked when the City would get permission. Mr. Warrington replied there was a meeting scheduled for Tuesday morning, January 11, 1994, with the Pasco County Administrator. He felt an agreement could be forged and the framework for an interlocal agreement could be set up at that time. Mr. Warrington said feedback from Port Richey was positive but that New Port Richey was waiting for the Pasco County decision before committing to this project. Commissioner Berfield questioned why the contract held the engineering company responsible for obtaining all required permits and questioned why the law firm the City hired wasn't taking care of them. Mr. Warrington replied the law firm was negotiating with Pasco County, the cities, and drafting the interlocal agreements. Obtaining permits was a process requiring engineering experience and precise specifics. Commissioner Berfield thought the basis for hiring the law firm was its expertise at pulling permits. Mr. Warrington stated the law firm was responsible for obtaining City and County permits but not the DOT permits, which was a set process and the responsibility of the Engineer. Commissioner Berfield questioned the verbiage on the second page of the agreement, Section IV.A, General Considerations, and asked why it read that the City would pay to get this information for Tampa Bay Engineering who would keep it. Mr. Warrington said all the information would belong to the City after the engineering firm obtained it. Commissioner Berfield pointed out that the agreement read "to remain the property of the Engineer." Mayor Garvey said it also stated "the Engineer will furnish copies to the City upon request." Mr. Baker explained that the paragraph referred to the originals, the actual linens, but the City would get bluelines and copies for the City's purposes. Commissioner Thomas asked if there was a mandate where the Engineer must hold linen copies for 20 or 30 years and what the historical procedure was when original drawings were held outside the City. Mr. Baker replied the Engineer had no mandate but could keep the paperwork for inhouse use. Mr. Baker said the Engineer kept what they personally drew and provided the City with Bluelines and reproducible sepia which were considered "lawsuit originals" and kept in City files for seven or more years. Commissioner Thomas recommended policy be established to retain records on the location of gas lines and roadways because gas lines were accidently ruptured in the past because of inadequate mapping. Mr. Baker said a policy existed and the City had a vault in Engineering that had numerous drawings in it as well as some that were reduced for storage. The City Clerk stated that all these documents were part of required record retention and, depending on the actual document, many of Engineers's drawings were in the City Clerk's vault on microfiche and kept permanently. Commissioner Berfield asked if the City would get a copy of everything the Engineer did and Mr. Baker agreed. Commissioner Berfield questioned the last sentence which read "where such documents are to be filed with governmental agencies," and suggested that the agreement said that copies were provided only under those circumstances. She asked if the wording could be changed to read "the City shall be furnished with copies of all documents it requests." Commissioner Deegan pointed out that Section IV.B stated that anything the City wanted the City paid for. Commissioner Berfield questioned why the City should be required to pay for work twice as the City is already paying for the Engineer to perform this work. Mr. Warrington replied that the City was paying for the Engineer to do the labor but when the Engineer produced the sets of drawings on a sepia machine or a blue line machine, the City paid for this preparation. Commissioner Deegan asked if this was an "out of pocket" expense and Mr. Warrington agreed, saying this was the standard language of the City's standard contract for engineering services. Commissioner Thomas concurred with Commissioner Berfield and stated he could understand paying for a second or third copy but not for the first. Commissioner Thomas suggested the standard contract be changed to include the copying of one set of City owned documents. Commissioner Deegan said the contract provided the City with all of the copies it needed but extra copies cost more. Mayor Garvey said the agreement says "all original sketches will remain under the Engineer" and questioned Mr. Baker if that means the City won't get a copy of anything. Mr. Baker explained that the Engineer rolled his printing costs into his direct costs instead of including them in the direct service fee. Mr. Baker said the City was paying for the Engineer's thinking and work but that printing, as well as other costs, like telephones, were structured differently. Mayor Garvey asked if the City would be given copies as a part of this contract. Mr. Baker said the City would have all the copies it needed but would have to pay for the printing because that was how the agreement was structured. Mr. Baker said the City could negotiate a contract where there were no charges for copies but the Engineer would list more employees, like draftsman, on the project and charge the City that way. Commissioner Thomas asked for an estimate on the printing costs of a full set of documents. Mr. Baker estimated less that $2,000. Commissioner Thomas noted the cost was incidental and less than one percent of the gross contract and asked Mr. Baker if he thought this agreement, with the additional 1% cost, was still a better deal than the unknown prices from other engineering firms. Mr. Warrington said he thought this agreement represented the lowest and best comparable price. Commissioner Berfield pointed to Section IV.F. on page three, asking who pays for copying the City's documents. Mr. Warrington replied the City paid for everything. Commissioner Berfield asked if the City would charge the engineering firm for copies since the engineering company wanted to charge the City and noted the agreement seemed balanced in favor of the engineering firm. Mr. Baker said the City didn't want to charge Tampa Bay Engineering because it was to the City's advantage that the firm had access to this important knowledge when working for the City. Commissioner Berfield stated that this agreement for almost $320,000 should include $2,000 worth of printing and felt the City should take a stronger stand on these agreements so they don't cost more than they need to. Mayor Garvey pointed out that everything the City gets, it pays for. Commissioner Berfield stated that depended on how the contract was set up and how good the City negotiated its price. Commissioner Berfield moved that the agreement be changed so that General Considerations IV., Item A, read that the City be furnished, free of charge, with no increase in price, one set of complete documents for the City's use. The motion was duly seconded. Commissioner Fitzgerald felt the Commission members were taking the whole issue out of context and suggested the Commission review the agreement which he said covered the information Commissioner Berfield was requesting. Commissioner Fitzgerald felt it was the Engineering firm's intention to provide the information at no cost, only charging extra for additional requests. He didn't feel a change was necessary. Commissioner Berfield felt the Engineer planned to charge the City for copies of documents. Commissioner Berfield asked the Interim City Manager if the City would pay for copies of documents. The Interim City Manager replied the City would pay on a per page basis for each copy requested. Mr. Warrington stated the agreement included the labor rate by type of employee plus direct expenses, the category printing fell into. Commissioner Deegan stated he thought Section IV., Item A, read that the Engineer's projected costs included furnishing copies of documents the City required to go forward with the project and Section IV., Item B, covered copies of other documents not normally requested by the City. Commissioner Deegan questioned the motion and asked what was meant by "complete set of documents" and requested a clearer definition. Mr. Baker suggested the Commission approve the contract with the proviso that the City receive, free of charge and at no additional cost, one complete set of necessary documents (plans, specifications, and pertinent sketches). Mayor Garvey suggested that Mr. Baker was saying that the Commission doesn't need to amend the contract. Mr. Baker agreed and recommended just a proviso be adopted. Commissioner Berfield amended her motion to include "all necessary documents for the City's use." The change in the motion was accepted by the seconder. Upon the vote being taken to accept the motion to amend Section IV., A of the agreement, Commissioners Deegan, Fitzgerald, Berfield, and Thomas voted "Aye." Mayor Garvey voted "Nay." Motion carried. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the contract with Tampa Bay Engineering, Inc. for engineering services for Clearwater Gas System expansion as amended. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, and Thomas voted "Aye." Mayor Garvey voted "Nay." Motion carried. ITEM #10 - Contract for Court Street Widening (from Prospect Ave. to Missouri Ave.) to Suncoast Excavating, Inc., Ozona, FL, for $674,674 (PW) The purpose of this project is to provide widening improvements on Court Street from Prospect Street to Missouri Avenue with a major intersection improvement at Greenwood Avenue. This section of Court Street is a capacity constraining bottleneck due to its present width being only four ten-foot wide lanes and not providing for left turn storage or adequate corner radii at the Greenwood intersection. Court Street carries approximately 17,500 vehicles per day; the implementation of on-street parking on Cleveland Street will result in a significant diversion of through traffic to Court Street. The widening of Court Street will provide a five lane cross section connecting the one-way pair of Court and Chestnut Street with the widened section of Court Street at the Missouri Avenue intersection. The improvements at the Greenwood intersection will also permit northbound and southbound left turns - movements presently prohibited because of the constricted intersection. Stormwater treatment will be accomplished in a shallow dry pond located at the site of the former Utilities Annex building. The Metropolitan Planning Organization and the Florida Department of Transportation acknowledge the importance of this widening project to the Cleveland Street parking issue. In addition, this improvement will be a significant factor in any future plans to "swap" Cleveland Street for Court Street for a future State Route 60 alignment. Commissioner Thomas stated he supports this project but expressed concern that it is scheduled at the time of year with the heaviest traffic while also changing Cleveland Street to a two lane road with on-street parking. Mr. Yauch stated staff realized this was peak season and estimated about 20% of the traffic would be diverted off of Cleveland Street because of construction. Mr. Yauch said at least one traffic lane would remain open in each direction on Court Street and signal timing changes would be made as necessary to move the traffic. Commissioner Thomas suggested a four month delay, resulting in a starting date of June 1 or May 1, 1994. Mr. Baker replied the staff gave the timing of the construction a great deal of consideration. He explained the City tries to spread work throughout the year in order to get better prices. He did not feel there would be an inordinate amount of traffic back up. Commissioner Thomas asked if left turns would be forbidden at Greenwood and Mr. Yauch agreed. Mayor Garvey observed that it was to the City's advantage to complete the project as soon as possible. Mr. Baker agreed and said the project came in $100,000 under budget. Mr. Baker said he had confidence in Mr. Yauch's ability to fine tune traffic movement during construction. Commissioner Thomas stated the only way he would approve this was if east and west left turns were forbidden at the Greenwood-Court Street intersection until the project was complete. Mr. Baker agreed that no left turn would be allowed if there was only one lane of traffic. Mayor Garvey asked if that was a part of the original plan and Mr. Baker agreed. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve Item #10, the Court Street Widening from Prospect Avenue to Missouri Avenue. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #11 - Amendment to agreement with Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (CM) Staff recommends the approval of a second amendment to the existing contract with the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) terminating the Jolley Trolley service the PSTA provides on the beach effective December 31, 1993, or upon the commencement of operation of the service by Jolley Trolley Transportation Corporation of Clearwater, Inc., whichever occurs first. Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned if there would be a response to the letter from Mr. Badeau regarding compliance with ADA. Commissioner Thomas said his staff was sending letters to the City Attorney and Alan Zimmet, Attorney for PSTA, with a copy of Mr. Badeau's letter asking for their opinions. Commissioner Thomas suggested the Jolley Trolley, being a non-profit agency, may function under rules different from other transport companies. Mayor Garvey said Mr. Badeau observed, that since the City was funding the Jolley Trolley, ADA rules would apply. Commissioner Fitzgerald mentioned the need to evaluate this concern and felt that Mr. Badeau had raised a valid point. It was agreed the Jolley Trolley Corp. should respond, as well as the City and PSTA Attorneys. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve Item #11, the second amendment to the contract with the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA). The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. OTHER ITEMS ON CITY MANAGER REPORT ITEM #14 - Demolition Contract - 630 Drew St., Old Ice House (Bid to be opened 12/23/93) The structure known as the "Old Ice House" located at 630 Drew Street was declared an unsafe structure by Clearwater's Building Official on July 18, 1993, in accordance with Subpt. C, Article VII, Section 47.161, Clearwater Code of Ordinances. The owner was given until August 21, 1993, to comply with the Notice of Unsafe Building. The owner did not appeal the Building Official's Notice of Unsafe Building nor comply with the order. The case went to the Municipal Code Enforcement Board on September 9, 1993. The Board ordered that corrective action take place within fifteen days or a $100 per day fine be placed on the owner. The owner filed for a permit with a timetable to complete work, but no action was taken. Therefore, on October 12, 1993, another Notice of Unsafe Building was issued. The Notice gave the owner until November 12, 1993 to complete repairs, or the City would take action to cause demolition of the unsafe building. On November 15, 1993, a title search was ordered, as well as a request for bids for an asbestos survey. The asbestos survey found some asbestos, requiring what is known as a "wet demolition." This requires keeping the structure wet during demolition, and disposing of the asbestos materials to an approved site. The title search revealed that the owners are Robert Schoeller and Cynthia Daniel with Republic Bank as the mortgage holder. Information has been supplied to them since the beginning of the project. The Purchasing Division advertised for bids, and opened the bids on December 23, 1993. The contract was awarded to the lowest responsible bidder meeting all of the bid specification. The bid was awarded prior to City Commission approval because of the emergency nature of the project. After demolition is completed and the contractor is paid, a lien will be filed on the property for all demolition costs. The Interim City Manager reported this item was to ratify and confirm the City Manager's awarding of the contract. She stated the Commission was aware of the history of the Old Ice House. After awarding the contract, the City received a letter from Timothy Johnson, attorney representing the current owners, requesting the demolition be delayed. Mr. Johnson stated Mr. Schoeller and Ms. Daniel have owned the property for approximately three years which includes the time when it was damaged by fire. The Sunset Air Conditioning property, immediately adjacent to the east, has recently been purchased and it is Mr. Schoeller's plan to create an art gallery out of the two buildings. Mr. Johnson acknowledged Mr. Schoeller had not moved forward at an acceptable pace but assured the Commission they now had Mr. Schoeller's attention on this matter. Mr. Johnson claimed Mr. Schoeller wanted to save the Ice House because he believed it had historic and aesthetic value. Mr. Schoeller is proposing an ambitious and realistic renovation schedule for the Ice House that includes submitting construction drawings to the City no later that March 31, 1994, commencing construction no later that May 16, 1994, and completing construction by December 31, 1994. Mr. Schoeller proposes to place in escrow with Johnson's law firm, $15,221, the amount of Phoenix's bid, to be paid over immediately to the City in the event Mr. Schoeller is late by one day in either filing his construction drawings or in commencing construction. Mr. Johnson asked that if Mr. Schoeller starts construction on time, this money be paid back to him. Mr. Schoeller will award a construction contract that contains a penalty provision to pay the City $100 a day, for every day construction is not completed beyond December 31, 1994. Mr. Johnson said this schedule was worked out with Mr. Bomstein, owner of Creative Contractors, the property immediately to the west. Mr. Bomstein has complained in the past about the condition of the Ice House. Mr. Bomstein has submitted a letter encouraging the City to enter into this agreement as long as the time table is strictly enforced. Mr. Johnson suggested this binding agreement represented an opportunity to save an historic building. Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. Chodora, Assistant Director of Central Permitting, how many time Mr. Schoeller had made agreements with the City that he failed to keep. Mr. Chodora replied two, beginning with the original timetable presented after the fire in November 1991. Commissioner Thomas asked if Mr. Schoeller came to the City with plans at that time. Mr. Chodora replied Mr. Schoeller had presented a letter stating he had plans to renovate the building into a gallery but no plans were submitted. Commissioner Thomas asked if when a building becomes a public hazard, step number one was to obtain written commitment from the owner that action would be taken. Mr. Chodora agreed that this was the normal first step and was usually followed up with a schedule. Commissioner Thomas asked again for the first date Mr. Schoeller stated he would correct the problem. Mr. Chodora stated that on November 18, 1991, Cynthia Daniel wrote the City and said that the owners still intended to proceed with their original intention for the building even though the fire presented unexpected challenges but mentioned no dates. Commissioner Thomas asked about the next step. Mr. Chodora said the next step would be a request for permits. The owners came to the City with requests for permits for demolition of the fire damage and the interior of the structure in December 1991. The interior demolition, removal of all of the fire damage and some other interior partitions was completed. Commissioner Thomas asked if this was completed in a timely manner back in 1991 and early 1992 and Mr. Chodora agreed. Commissioner Thomas asked if the City tried to get the owners to do anything after that date. Mr. Chodora stated the City had several correspondences with the owners between 1992 and mid 1993 when the City started to actively pursue this matter. Commissioner Thomas asked if the owners made any other commitments to Mr. Chodora. Mr. Chodora stated after the City took the owners before the Code Enforcement Board, he received a letter from Thomas Everett Lamb Design and Development, Inc. that included a schedule for temporary shoring of the walls and dates for engineering inspections. Drawings were to be submitted by September 29; a fence with warning signs was to be installed; the east wall and chimney were to be addressed first with construction to begin on October 4, 1993. The drawings were not received until October and described temporary renovations to enclose the building and make it safe. Commissioner Thomas asked if the owners did this. Mr. Chodora said the owners made an attempt after the City's second notice, advising them they had seven days to obtain the permits and complete the work. Mr. Chodora said it was after that notice in November that the temporary measures to shore up the building commenced. A letter from the owners' engineer was received in late November stating the work had been completed but the building was still subject to wind damage because it lacked a roof. Commissioner Thomas asked if the owners had ever given the City plans to renovate or rebuild this building. Mr. Chodora said no plans for a final building were submitted. Commissioner Thomas asked if the City followed the old or new code. Mr. Chodora replied the City cited the owners under the new code on October 15, 1993 when it took affect. Mayor Garvey pointed out that Mr. Chodora was talking about October 1993, and it was now January 3, 1994 and nothing had changed. Mr. Chodora agreed, adding that after the City cited the owners under the new code sections, the owners did begin to board up some of the windows and did do some temporary shoring. Commissioner Fitzgerald asked whether the Municipal Code Enforcement Board (MCEB) $100 a day fine had been collected. Mr. Chodora replied the fine was still running. Commissioner Fitzgerald asked Mr. Johnson if this was correct in accordance with his information. Mr. Johnson stated the fine was subject to question. Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned if this was an historic building. Mr. Chodora indicated he was not aware of anything that would make it so. Commissioner Deegan questioned if the MCEB had taken action to place a lien on the property. Mr. Chodora indicated they had. Commissioner Deegan questioned other costs incurred by the City prior to bidding out the demolition contract. Mr. Chodora said he had the figures for outside costs and could estimate how many hours of staff time were expended. Commissioner Deegan asked about other outside costs and Mr. Chodora listed the title search and asbestos report. Commissioner Fitzgerald mentioned his concern that the Commission had nothing showing them what the owners planned to do with the building. Mr. Johnson replied that he could only describe it because there was nothing on paper. The plans are to internalize the Ice House with the front of the building being glass, the loading dock area and the big back room would be galleries. He only had a general idea about the plans to tie it together with the air conditioning building. Mr. Johnson explained various reasons why the work had not yet been completed and said they were trying to correct the problems of the past. He asked the Commission to look at trying to save the building. Mr. Johnson said Mr. Schoeller does have the financial wherewithal to achieve these promises. Commissioner Thomas asked the City Attorney if the City had followed all necessary steps to legally demolish the building and the City Attorney agreed explaining notice had been given to the owner and the building posed a threat to public health and safety. Mr. Chodora added the roof was missing, there was constructional deterioration of the inside columns, many windows were not boarded, part of the eastern wall was down, and it was possible for transients to access the building which posed a health and safety issue for those persons. Commissioner Thomas requested Mr. Schoeller place $100,000 in escrow and reimburse the City by January 18, 1994 for all expenses incurred by the City to this point including staff and out of pocket costs, that the development include the renovation of the Sunset Air Conditioning Building and court yard, with that project running sixty days behind the Ice House schedule, and the non completion clause in the construction contract should be $1,000 a day payable from Mr. Schoeller to the City. Commissioner Thomas said if construction did not begin in time, the $100,000 would be a fine for failure to commence and the City would proceed immediately with demolition. Mayor Garvey expressed concern that the immediate safety issue was not being dealt with. Mr. Chodora suggested that within ten working days the building be made structurally safe with the walls securely anchored against wind damage and access to the building be limited. Mr. Baker recommended immediate upgrades include the best industrial type, chain link fence that secures the building against access and that all obvious safety hazards be taken care of. There was consensus that the cost of demolition, if necessary, would be taken out of the $100,000 held in escrow, but not the expenses incurred thus far by the City. Commissioner Deegan also noted the Commission had no jurisdiction over the fine enacted by the Municipal Code Enforcement Board. Commissioner Thomas moved that the Commission postpone Item #14 until the January 18, 1994 meeting giving Mr. Johnson's client ten working days to totally secure the site as outlined by Acting Assistant City Manager Baker and until noon on January 12, 1994 to develop an agreement with the City on the procedures and penalties for proceeding with the renovation of the Ice House and the Sunset Air Conditioning Building. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Commissioner Deegan expressed some concern regarding the monies held in escrow being returned to the owner once construction is commenced. Ms. Deptula advised the Commission there would be a cost to hold the demolition contract. ITEM #15 - Environmental Advisory Committee - 1 appointment (CLK) Commissioner Deegan moved to appoint Whitney Gray. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #16 - Library Board - 1 appointment (CLK) Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to reappoint Thalia Kelsey. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #17 - Development Code Adjustment Board - 1 appointment (CLK) Commissioner Deegan moved to reappoint Otto Gans. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #18 - Other Pending Matters - None. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS Resolutions ITEM #19 - Res. #94-2 - Demolition lien (808 Eldridge Street) The City Attorney presented Resolution #94-2 and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Resolution #94-2 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #20 - Res. #94-4 - Lot clearing The City Attorney presented Resolution #94-4 and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Resolution #94-4 and authorize the ITEM #21 - Res. #94-6 - Demolition lien resolution to correct Res. #93-73 The City Attorney presented Resolution #94-6 and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Resolution #94-6 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #22 - Res. #94-8 - Amending Rule 10 of The Rules of Procedure of the City Commission relating to the conduct of its business, to provide for Citizens to be heard re items not on the Agenda during regular night meetings, before public hearings, with limitations as to number of speakers and time The City Attorney presented Resolution #94-8 and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Resolution #94-8 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. Commissioner Thomas requested a sign clearly stating the new procedure be put up in Chambers. Ms. Goudeau, City Clerk, indicated this would be done. Ms. Deptula recommended a sign regarding the new procedure also be placed in the lobby. ITEM #22a - Res. #94-10 - Authorization of City Officials to sign City checks The City Attorney presented Resolution #94-10 and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Resolution #94-10 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. The meeting recessed from 11:23 to 11:34 a.m. ITEM #23 - Other City Attorney Items - none ITEM #24 - City Manager Verbal Reports Betty Deptula, Interim City Manager, stated several meetings needed to be scheduled: 1) Bargaining session, 2) Sign variances, and 3) Strategic planning in conjunction with the Community Consensus Project. She also suggested the Commission change its rules to allow for an Executive Session after the Monday morning business meetings to allow for presentation and/or discussion regarding particularly complicated issues. There was some concern regarding the business meetings not concluding in time for a separate session. The Commission agreed to allow the Interim City Manager to schedule Executive Sessions. Ms. Deptula requested the closed door bargaining session with Deputy Manager Rice be scheduled for the afternoon of January 31, 1994 following the regular business meeting. Mayor Garvey clarified that this meeting will be held behind closed doors in accordance with State law. ITEM #24a - Schedule Sign Variance Meetings The City Clerk advised the Commission that, according to Mr. Shuford, Central Permitting Director, the current backlog of 105 sign variance cases was increasing by three or four cases per week. Commissioner Thomas suggested the Commission review 25 cases at a time every other week with the most serious cases being considered first. Ms. Rice said Central Permitting does prioritize cases. A sign variance meeting was scheduled for January 24, 1994 at 9:00 a.m.. Commissioner Thomas moved that sandwiches be brought in as part of a thirty minute lunch break this meeting. The motion was duly seconded. Commissioners Berfield, Deegan, Fitzgerald, and Thomas voted "Aye," and Mayor Garvey voted "Nay." Motion carried. Additional sign variance meetings with 25 cases each were scheduled for February 7, 1994, March 7, 1994, and March 21, 1994. All meetings to begin at 9:00 a.m.. The Interim City Manager said that Dr. Peter Graves' presentation to the Commission and the Community on the results of the Community Consensus Project was tentatively scheduled for the Commission meeting of January 20, 1994. After the presentation is given, the Commission needs to hold strategic planning sessions with Ruth Ann Bramson. It was consensus to schedule these sessions for February 16, 1994 from 2:00 until 6:00 p.m. and February 17, 1994 from 9:00 a.m. until 1:00 p.m.. The Interim City Manager advised the Commission that Denise Wilson and she would be interviewing for the Commission Secretary this week and hoped to recommend a candidate by week's end. Once this decision is made, the Interim City Manager said she would contact each Commissioner to meet individually with the candidate. The Interim City Manager reported the Human Resources Director has sent requests for information to eight firms regarding the City Manager search. Responses are due January 17, 1994. Ms. Deptula stated Mr. Laursen was finishing the salary survey. Discussion regarding the City Manager replacement would be scheduled for January 31, 1994. Ms. Rice indicated Hammer, Siler, George was not willing to update the convention center study for $20,000. She also indicated they want to use a separate firm to do the building analysis. Ms. Rice said they felt this would hold more weight with the Tourist Development Council (TDC). Ms. Rice said they would do this for $41,300 plus direct expenses which she recommended be capped in some manner. Ms. Rice said if the Commission did not want to use Hammer, Siler, George, the City would need to go out for bid on these services and the process would be slowed down. Commissioner Deegan said Hammer, Siler, George would be willing to do the update of the market analysis for $15,600 plus direct expenses which might get it under the $20,000 already authorized. Ms. Rice stated TDC personnel indicated the City needed both pieces of this to be accepted. Commissioner Deegan stated Herry had already done the analysis of the building and he wasn't willing to authorize spending another $25,000 to have another firm do the same study. Commissioner Thomas said he disagreed with the TDC requesting the City to provide another engineering study. Commissioner Thomas requested the TDC tell the City the total dollars they had collected from the City, where that money was spent, and provide the City with copies of all advertisements. Commissioner Thomas estimated the City contributed about $40 million to the TDC and suggested the City look at how that money actually was used to redevelop Clearwater's tourist industry. Commissioner Thomas requested the City Attorney provide him with the guidelines under which the TDC was created, how the TDC was to use its funds, and what level of control the City had over the use of those funds. The Mayor stated it was important to look at possible competition created by the proposed Music Amphitheater in Tampa. She repeated her non support of the Dave and Busters proposal. Commissioner Deegan answered that the Tampa proposal totally differed from what is being proposed for the former Maas Brothers site. Commissioner Thomas felt it was time to rebuild Downtown and the proposal for the old Maas Brothers building was one of the lower cost entrances into that rejuvenation. Commissioner Thomas stated he would not oppose a RFP being put out for the whole bluff at the same time the Maas project is being pursued. Commissioner Deegan moved that the City finalize and complete negotiations with Hammer, Siler, George, and Associates to do just the update of the market analysis for the conference center at a cost not to exceed $20,000. The motion was duly seconded. Commissioner Fitzgerald said he was not in favor of the proposal as he felt far too much money had already been spent getting consultants' views on this particular project. He said he was not in support of the convention center approach as it has been proposed and he has severe reservations about the entertainment portion. He agreed the whole bluff should be considered for development. Upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Berfield, Deegan, and Thomas and Mayor Garvey voted "Aye" and Commissioner Fitzgerald voted "Nay." Motion carried. Commissioner Thomas moved that the Commission ask the TDC to tell the City the total dollars they have collected from the City, where that money has been spent, and to provide the City with copies of all print and tape advertisements. The motion was duly seconded. Commissioner Deegan asked that this information be requested in a way that was neither threatening nor antagonist. Commissioner Berfield suggested the request could include the explanation that this was information the Commission required to make an informed decision. Mayor Garvey agreed and upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. The Interim City Manager reported the Chamber of Commerce is very interested in making a decision regarding the future of its property. There is a reverter clause that states if the Chamber wants to sell its property, the City is the only one to whom it can be sold. Ms. Deptula said the Chamber earmarked about $500,000 to remodel the building but were hesitant to proceed since there has been discussion of redeveloping the whole bluff. The Chamber is asking if the City is interested in purchasing the property. She indicated the Chamber has an appraisal and is willing to negotiate. Commissioner Fitzgerald felt the City should discuss this with the Chamber. Commissioner Thomas indicated the Chamber wants $300,000 for the property. Commissioner Deegan suggested the City discount any appraisal the Chamber has because the City has no need for the building. It was the consensus of the Commission that the staff gather more information and present it for further discussion. Ms. Deptula reported she received a request from the Downtown Development Board (DDB) that there be no meters for the new Cleveland Street Parking. Commissioner Deegan agreed it would be much more user friendly, but feared employees would use the free spaces. He expressed concern regarding the merchants being able to track this and suggested the Police enforce the parking limits. Peter Yauch, Acting Public Works Director, said plans were to designate spaces with two and three hour limits. It was the consensus of the Commission to limit parking to two hours. A report on this program will be given after the parking has been in place two months. It was requested the police enforcement be by foot patrol. Mayor Garvey said the Downtown Development Board was concerned that people are not aware the fine for overtime parking increased to $15. Mr. Yauch stated the parking manager was investigating a decal that would be placed on the meters. Commissioner Deegan suggested a utility stuffer be used to communicate this information to all citizens. Ms. Deptula presented the proposal regarding property needed for the City Hall project to be submitted to the Calvary Baptist Church; Deputy City Manager Rice said the church would give the City the parcel of land on Pierce Street next to their education building for $10, in consideration of an easement in perpetuity allowing the church exclusive use of the City's parking garage, on Wednesday evenings between 5:00 and 9:00 p.m. and Sundays between 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon and between 5:00 and 9:00 p.m. Ms. Rice said if the garage becomes unsafe or is torn down, the easement would cease. Ms. Rice indicated if the City does not build the garage and does not need that property, the property would revert to the church. Ms. Rice said the agreement would not preclude the use of the garage by City employees engaged in work at City Hall or the City Administration Building. Mayor Garvey asked if the public could park there. Mr. Galbraith replied the agreement was for an exclusive easement so between those hours it would be exclusively for the use of the Baptist Church with the exception of City employees engaged in work at City Hall. Mayor Garvey questioned who would enforce the easement. It was indicated the agreement does not address enforcement. Ms. Rice indicated this is to be submitted to the Church on Wednesday, January 5, 1994 and Sunday, January 9, 1994 and any comments should be submitted to her prior to Wednesday. The City Attorney recommended declaring surplus the City's interest in the garage during the hours of the easement. Commissioner Berfield asked the City Attorney if there was a problem with this agreement under the separation of church and state. Mr. Galbraith said no. Ms. Deptula reported Empress Cruise Lines still had not complied with all of the requirements put down by various City boards, had not received their license from the Coast Guard, and were not yet operating. Commissioner Thomas questioned if the City was holding up the operation. Ms Deptula indicated we were not. ITEM #25 - Commission Discussion Items a) Community Response Team/Code Enforcement Commissioner Deegan has questioned the appropriateness of the name change from Code Enforcement Division to Community Response Team. He feels the name "Community Response Team" is confusing to the community because the term was not clear. Commissioner Fitzgerald agreed the name needs to be something that clearly communicates what the team does. Commissioner Deegan noted the word "enforcement" was a little harsh but felt the word "code" should remain a part of the title. He suggested "Code Implementation Team" which would allow both education and enforcement. Commissioner Thomas thought the word and act of "enforcement" important and thought "Code Enforcement Team" a preferable title. Commissioner Deegan asked this issue be part of the discussion of the Task Force's recommendations, scheduled for January 31, 1994. Lt. Kronschnabl stated feedback from the community to the new name has been excellent. He claimed that by extending courtesy, education, and cooperation; compliance improved to over 70% and the spirit of the team improved dramatically. b) Fresh Water Supply - direction requested There will be a presentation on this item during the January 20, 1994 meeting. c) Vegetation along Memorial Causeway Waterway In a memo dated December 13, 1993, Commissioner Thomas supported trimming back the mangroves on the north side of Memorial Causeway. He also recommended trimming and clearing the overgrown sea grapes on the south side of the causeway. Commissioner Thomas does not want to cut the mangroves but a lot of other vegetation in the mangroves should be removed. He suggested the stalks of sea grapes be cut back now that the leaves have fallen off for the season. Mayor Garvey suggested money be appropriated in next year's budget for the difficult procedure of removing non native plants like the brazilian pepper trees. Commissioner Thomas asked the Interim City Manager to accomplish what she could in this year's budget. Ms. Deptula indicated the Environmental Advisory Committee is being asked to develop a mangrove management plan. Consensus was for staff to proceed with the removal of the vegetation among the mangroves and the cutting back of the sea grapes. d) Direction re: Elliott request to be agendaed In a letter to Cynthia Goudeau, City Clerk, Mr. Jay Elliott alleged that various members of City staff "provided shelter for an individual who has committed a criminal act against citizen clients of C.D.B.G." and requested the opportunity to provide evidence supporting his claim during a set agenda item. Mayor Garvey expressed concern that Mr. Elliott had been before the City Commission several times before. She questioned if the City Attorney was aware of anything new. Mr. Galbraith indicated he was not. Commissioner Thomas moved to allow an item at the next available Commission Meeting as long as Mr. Elliott agreed to appear under oath and limit his presentation to ten minutes. The motion was duly seconded. Commissioner Deegan pointed out the letter indicated Mr. Elliott had new evidence. Upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, and Thomas voted "Aye." Mayor Garvey voted "Nay." Motion carried. e) Interim City Manager Contract Ms. Deptula presented her proposed Organization Objectives for the City Manager's Office with specific goals for key results, the most important being communication. Communication improvements would include: regular meetings with Commissioners, reopening the information window on the first floor of City Hall, and information signs with the dates and description of projects when City employees work out in the community on projects lasting more that two days. Ms. Deptula noted that management of the '94-'95 budget depended strongly on the strategic plan the Commission adopts. Commissioner Thomas requested a goal be added to analyze the use of outside consultants versus asking staff to complete work. Commissioner Thomas suggested it may be less expensive to add one or two people to payroll and retain their expertise long term. Ms. Deptula agreed to do a study, reviewing three years and suggested this project might well fit under the key result of budget preparation and management. She pointed out that often, timelines are an overriding factor in determining the need to go outside. Commissioner Berfield requested Ms. Deptula add to her key result area titled Management of the City Workforce an item to let staff know the Commission supports them. Commissioner Berfield stated she was willing to accompany the Interim City Manager out in the field in order to foster a better relationship. Mayor Garvey felt this wasn't a goal for the Interim City Manager but was a Commission goal. Commissioner Fitzgerald suggested there was a difference between the roles of managers versus policy makers and accompanying Ms. Deptula might confuse employees regarding authority. Mayor Garvey expressed concern regarding Sunshine Law requirements should more than one Commission member accompany Ms. Deptula to a meeting. Commissioner Berfield suggested that one Commissioner could accompany Ms. Deptula in giving awards to let the staff know the Commission backs them. Commissioner Thomas concurred with Commissioner Berfield that there was a perceived wall between the elected officials and the working staff. Commissioner Thomas suggested Ms. Deptula invite individual Commissioners, as appropriate, during scheduled weekly meetings so, over time, Commissioners could learn and be more exposed to staff and vice versa. Ms. Deptula said it was her preference to invite Commissioners to the more social meetings instead of the business meetings she conducts with staff. Ms. Deptula stated the results of surveys indicated the staff's relationship with the Commissioners was abysmal and staff had a basic lack of understanding of the care and concern the Commission had for City employees. Commissioner Deegan agreed the Commission needed to protect Ms. Deptula's authority. He indicated employee support of the Commission was a part of Ms. Deptula's goal. Ms. Deptula stated employee relations will largely depend on bargaining strategy. The Interim City Manager noted the process of evaluating the Manager was cumbersome and difficult. Ms. Deptula proposed that formal quarterly meetings for performance updates be scheduled. She asked the Commissioners to identify the critical management skills they considered most important and to determine on which ones she needed to work. Commissioner Deegan clarified that the performance evaluation was not based on the skills a manager possesses or lacks but whether the results of goals are accomplished. Ms. Deptula presented the compensation data requested by the Commission comparing her reimbursement as Assistant City Manager with Michael J. Wright's compensation as City Manager as well as Mr. Wright's base salary history. Ms. Deptula outlined her proposal to change the organizational structure. She felt the old hierarchy was found to stifle innovation and tended to cause a filtering of information to and from the City Manager. Ms. Deptula proposed an organization where the three Management team members (the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, and Deputy City Manager) would function more according to their expertise. Ms. Deptula recommended Mr. Baker, Acting Assistant City Manager, be in charge of all projects and Ms. Rice, Deputy City Manager, be in charge of the implementation and day to day administration of the City. Ms. Deptula noted that in the past, departments were sometimes unaware of the activities of other departments, and proposed to organize the departments into four teams. The Management Team would meet with all Department Directors once a week and with each team once a week. The four teams would be: 1) Quality of Life, 2) Management Resources, 3) Public Safety, and 4) Infrastructure Resources. Commissioner Deegan commended the introduction of modern concepts and approach. He encouraged Ms. Deptula to continue using the word "team" instead of "committee." Mayor Garvey also congratulated Ms. Deptula as did Commissioner Thomas. The Commission then addressed Ms. Deptula's proposed Agreement. Ms. Deptula pointed out she lives in Dunedin and requested she not be required to move to the City, as required by the Charter, unless appointed to the City Manager position on a permanent basis. She asked that the six days of vacation she lost January 1, 1994, due to her appointment as Interim City Manager, be reinstated. It was the consensus of the Commission for Ms. Deptula to take the days as either vacation or in compensation, whichever she preferred. Ms. Deptula stated that because she was a member of the City's pension plan she would not expect the City to give her the 6% of deferred compensation normally given the City Manager. Ms. Deptula based her request for an annual base salary of $85,000 on the fact that Mr. Wright's final salary was $88,000 prior to a probable increase of three to five percent. She also requested a cash bonus of $5,000 if mutually agreed upon goals were met. Commissioner Fitzgerald referenced Section 2A under "Term" and asked if Ms. Deptula returned to the position of Assistant City Manager if her pay scale would return to its previous level. Ms. Deptula stated this was her assumption. Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned Section 2B, wondering if Ms. Deptula resigned her present position if she would automatically be returned to her previous status. Again, Ms. Deptula indicated this was her assumption. Clarifying language to these two points was requested. Commissioner Fitzgerald noted that if Ms. Deptula returned to her previous position there would be a ripple effect and he wanted to be sure all involved were aware of this. Ms. Deptula assured him they were. Commissioner Deegan stated $80,000 would be a substantial increase for Ms. Deptula and a more reasonable starting level. He also felt the $5,000 bonus was inappropriate. He felt the biggest incentive for Ms. Deptula to meet her goals was to be hired as the City Manager on a permanent basis. Mayor Garvey suggested removing the bonus and having a base salary of $82,000 or $83,000. Commissioner Thomas expressed his support of Ms. Deptula stating he had never been more pleased in the early stages. Commissioner Thomas moved to appoint Ms. Deptula as City Manager at $80,000 a year plus a $5,000 bonus and a $4,800 car allowance. The motion was duly seconded. Commissioner Deegan suggested the City wait on this decision because a search would convince all concerned that the search verified the fact that the person chosen is the best available at the time. Mayor Garvey felt Ms. Deptula was very qualified but agreed with Commissioner Deegan's position. Commissioner Fitzgerald explained this procedure was common in the military and concurred that Ms. Deptula was qualified but also felt a search was important. Commissioner Berfield stated she too thought Ms. Deptula was a good candidate and agreed that the search should proceed. On the vote being taken, Commissioner Thomas voted "Aye," and Commissioners Berfield, Deegan, and Fitzgerald and Mayor Garvey voted "Nay." Motion failed. It was the consensus of the Commission that the Interim City Manager's base salary be $80,000 and to strike Section 4B regarding a bonus. Mr. Galbraith and Commissioner Deegan suggested that in Section 4A the word "payable" be moved to after "per month." Commissioner Thomas reiterated the Commission's desire to also change Section 2A to end "at the same pay," change Section 2B to end "revert to position of Assistant City Manager," and to change Section 4A to read "$80,000." Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the Agreement with Ms. Deptula to act as Interim City Manager. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. f) Waiver of Fees for Jolley Trolley Commissioner Thomas has suggested the $ .25 fee for going over the Sand Key Bridge be waived for the Jolley Trolley. Ms. Deptula said the Jolley Trolley Company requested the City waive the fee for passage over the Clearwater Pass Bridge and she suggested if the Commission wanted to do this, the funds be taken from the general fund to pay the bridge. She stated the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) is charged $ .10. Commissioner Thomas moved to charge the Jolley Trolley a ten cent fare for passage over Clearwater Pass Bridge. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #26 - Other Commission Action Commissioner Berfield questioned a letter sent through Mr. Shuford to the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) requesting the 75% of the cases below the three acre minimum be maintained. Ms. Rice indicated that PPC had not yet taken action on this item and staff was reiterating the City's position. Commissioner Berfield asked if anyone had completed a form from the Pinellas Planning Council regarding any recommended changes. Commissioner Deegan said he tried to complete the form but did not have enough information. It was suggested Commissioner Berfield fill out the form as she is the City's representative on the PPC. The form would then be sent to the other Commission Members to see if they had additional input. Commissioner Berfield said the Marine Advisory Board minutes contained their recommendations regarding fishing areas and questioned if this item was to be agendaed. The City Clerk stated it would be on within the next month. Commissioner Deegan questioned why the Magnolia and Turner Street docks were at the bottom of the list. Mr. Baker explained the City was already moving forward on those, therefore, the Marine Advisory Board did not give them a high priority. Commissioner Deegan asked when the appointment of an Affordable Housing Advisory Committee would appear at a meeting. The City Clerk said it would appear within two weeks. Commissioner Deegan expressed concern the 30 day grace period for relocation of newsracks expired and not one that he looked at was changed. Mr. Baker stated the effective date was January 3, 1994 and said a representative from the St. Petersburg Times assured him of the newspaper's desire to abide by the code. Mr. Baker said he told the newspaper the City did not want to call them regarding violations but would prefer, instead, they obey the code in a proactive manner. He stated a training session was being set up to provide inspectors with the exact wording of the code so they could begin enforcing it. Mr. Baker said if there was a safety issue, the City could remove the rack. Mayor Garvey suggested the newspaper people be educated by the Community Response Team. Mr. Baker explained that each newspaper had been sent a copy of the code with a letter explaining the effective date. Mayor Garvey questioned if some racks were put out by contractors. Mr. Baker agreed, saying they too, had been contacted. Commissioner Thomas said the City went overboard to assure all parties were informed and felt the City should pick up the racks. Mayor Garvey repeated the issue was safety and not freedom of press. Commissioner Deegan questioned the status of enforcement on signs for which variances were denied. Ms. Rice stated the City was following up and is preparing cases to the Code Enforcement Board for those who had not complied. She will provide specific information. Commissioner Deegan distributed copies of the December 1993 Maddox Report article on Pinellas County with a section specifically focusing on the City of Clearwater. Mr. Deegan pointed out the graph ranking Pinellas County as second in the State for manufacturing jobs and said there was a lot in the report for the Commission to be proud of. Mayor Garvey added the Maddox Report was very favorable to the City of Clearwater over the last two or three years and she would like to thank them. Commissioner Fitzgerald stated the diversion of traffic on Countryside Blvd. at U.S. Hwy 19 had occurred and it seemed to be working very well. Commissioner Fitzgerald said it was appreciated that the DOT was amenable to delay this diversion until after the holidays. Commissioner Thomas suggested the City pick the top ten code violations and develop a system where all City employees in a specific week would be on the lookout for violations of one code. Commissioner Thomas suggested that once this information had been turned in, letters could be sent out advising citizens they were in violation of the "code of the week" and offered a certain time period to come in compliance. Ms. Rice indicated this could be included in the discussion of the Code Enforcement Review Task Force recommendations. Commissioner Thomas suggested now that the new bridge is about to be built and sensors were in place that the speed limit on the Sand Key Bridge be raised or curtail enforcement of speeds up to ten miles over the limit. Commissioner Thomas felt enforcement of the 15 mph limit had a negative impact on the tourism industry. Mr. Baker suggested the City ask the consultants if they could recommend raising the speed limit. Mayor Garvey said most excuses she saw for speeding were flimsy and she could not agree with a ten mile tolerance. She felt security of the bridge was paramount. Mayor Garvey expressed concern regarding Senator Kiser's response regarding the Elms Bill dealing with annexation. Senator Kiser's position is the bill did more to facilitate the annexation of people's property against their wishes than was his intent. Commissioner Thomas suggested sending another letter stating the City did not agree with Kiser's position. Commissioner Fitzgerald suggested Senator Kiser's response reflects no change in Senator Kiser's opposition to giving the City any greater control to annex. It was the consensus of the Commission that the Mayor respond in a letter. Mayor Garvey referenced Mr. Yauch's memo regarding possible realignment of Airport Drive. She indicated she was not supportive of a signal light at Hercules for Airport Drive. Mr. Baker said Mr. Yauch was writing about straightening out the "S" curve and letting Airport Drive intersect Hercules opposite an existing intersection which would be a better place for a light should one ever be needed, although he was not suggesting one. Commissioner Deegan said the problem was not signalization but that all the traffic was forced onto Gilbert and McKinley and 4,000 cars a day go onto Gilbert. Discussion ensued regarding the purpose for which the property, on which the road would be built, was purchased. Bob Bickerstaffe indicated the pilots would object to the placement of a road on this property. Mayor Garvey requested more information from Mr. Yauch. Mayor Garvey asked if advertising on magazine covers for the library was being addressed. Commissioner Deegan stated it had been referred to the Library Board. The Commission will be advised of their recommendation. ITEM #27 - Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m.