Loading...
02/03/1994 CITY COMMISSION MEETING February 3, 1994 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in regular session at City Hall, Thursday, February 3, 1994 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: Elizabeth M. Deptula Interim City Manager William C. Baker Acting Assistant City Manager M.A. Galbraith, Jr. City Attorney Peter J. Yauch Acting Public Works Director Scott Shuford Central Permitting Director Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk Mary K. Diana Assistant City Clerk The Mayor called the meeting to order. Police Chief, Sid Klein, introduced Brownie Troop 155 who led the Pledge of Allegiance. The invocation was offered by Father James Rousakis, Greek Orthodox Church of the Holy Trinity. 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 - none. ITEM #4 - Introductions and Awards Proclamation: Burn Awareness Week - February 6-12, 1994 ITEM #5 - Presentations - none. ITEM #6 - Approval of Minutes Commissioner Deegan requested on page 2, paragraph 2, the word "Taotess" be changed to "Totoff." Commissioner Berfield questioned on page 8, paragraph 3, sentence 3, the use of the word "and" and it was indicated the correct word should be "had." Commissioner Deegan questioned on page 12, second sentence whether the statement regarding Mayor Garvey and Commissioner Fitzgerald being unaware of the effort to reduce the sale of alcoholic beverages in the N. Ft. Harrison area was correct. Staff to review the tape. The minutes will be corrected to reflect changes if needed. Commissioner Deegan moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of December 2, 1993, as corrected. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #7 - Citizens to be heard re items not on the Agenda William Goodwin requested the Commission stay on track to use the Maas Brothers property for a convention center. He said he has noticed a positive change in downtown activity since allowing parking on Cleveland Street. PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM #8 - Public Hearing - Res. #94-1 authorizing placement of liens on properties for unpaid utility bills (AS) Several property owners have delinquent accounts with the utility system for amounts over $100. The Utility Customer Service Division has notified these owners of their indebtedness and the fact that the City may file a lien on their property for the amount of the delinquent account. The owners have also been notified by the City Clerk of the public hearing regarding their indebtedness pursuant to Chapter 32, Section 32.072 of the City Code of Ordinances. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to authorize the placement of liens on properties for unpaid utility bills. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The City Attorney presented Resolution #94-1 and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Resolution #94-1 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 #9 - Declare city-owned property (north 150' of SE 1/4 of Sec. 19-27-17, lying east of Patterson Road less portion deeded by city to William L. Jacobson together with north 150' of the west 1,394' of the SW 1/4 of Sec. 20-27-17) in Hillsborough County, commonly referred to as a portion of the "sludge farm" (approx. 11 acres) as surplus to city needs for the purpose of selling or exchanging (CM) During the early 1980's the City purchased approximately 915 acres in Hillsborough County for the disposal of sludge produced by its wastewater treatment plants. Funds for the purchase were provided by Sewer System revenues, Utility Revenue Bonds and Sewer Tap (Impact) Fees. In August, 1991, the City ceased operation of the land spread of sludge and the City has no further use for the property. At the September 20, 1990 Commission meeting, 57.33 acres (Parcel A) were declared surplus which excluded approximately 3 feet between the parcel and the half section line to the north. At a January 24, 1991 meeting, all of Parcel B was declared surplus, less the north 150 feet. In April, 1991, the City exchanged Parcel A with William L. Jacobson for waterfront property of equal value on Island Estates. The City also granted the same party an option to purchase Parcel B. That option expired unexercised on July 1, 1993. Other than this parcel, all of the "sludge farm" property has previously been declared surplus with the Commission declaring parcels C, D and E surplus at the January 7, 1993 meeting. Subsequent to that meeting, staff has been negotiating the sale of the 415 acres west of Patterson Road (Parcel E) with the Hillsborough County Environmental Lands Acquisition Program (ELAPP). Those negotiations are presently continuing. In March, 1993, The Centerline Group, Inc. performed appraisals of the current market value of parcels C, D and E for the City. The combined value of parcels C and D was placed at $1,300,000, approximately $5,109 per acre. The value of parcel E was placed at $2,300,000, approximately $5,542 per acre. Following this declaration of the balance of the Hillsborough property as surplus to city needs, all of the property will be advertised for sale or exchange through the public bid process. Commissioner Thomas asked if anyone can bid on property when it is declared surplus. Interim City Manager Deptula responded the process of advertising for bids is followed. Commissioner Thomas asked if a real estate agent was engaged to market Parcel E. Ms. Deptula responded an agent was hired to specifically negotiate a sale to ELAPP. Commissioner Thomas questioned why this was done. Ms. Deptula indicated the City was approached for this purpose and the Commission agreed. Commissioner Thomas said those parcels that are not actively being marketed should not be put in surplus. He recommended the City remove those parcels from surplus and keep them as an investment. The City Attorney said the declaration of surplus can be revoked. Commissioner Thomas moved to declare approximately 11 acres of city owned property in Hillsborough County, commonly referred to as a portion of the "sludge farm" as surplus to city needs for the purpose of selling or exchanging. The motion was duly seconded. Bob Bickerstaffe spoke in opposition to selling the subject property indicating the City should retain it until they can get back their initial investment. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Thomas requested the City Attorney bring back for discussion revocation of declaration of surplus on the remaining city owned parcels. He said he would like to see an agenda item listing the pros and cons of revoking the surplus status. He wants to see the citizens get the maximum return on the initial investment. Majority consensus was to agenda for discussion the revocation of the declaration of surplus for the remaining city owned Hillsborough property. Commissioner Berfield asked if the Commission would consider a long term lease and it was felt more information needed to be obtained. ITEM #10 - (Cont. from 1/20/94) Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5521-94 - Amending Sec. 44.51, to provide for increased area for attached signs in residential areas (CP) The Commission requested that staff investigate revising the sign regulations to provide for increased area for attached signs in residential zoning districts. This request was prompted by discussion of the Bayhouse condominium sign variance request. Staff recommends attached signs for residential areas be limited to multiple family zoning districts only. This would exclude single family districts, which staff believes to be better identified through freestanding signs at the entrances of the subdivisions. In considering the area allowances for such signage, staff used the Bayhouse case as a guide. The Bayhouse sign is slightly over 63 square feet in area, and the building to which it was attached is setback 265 feet from the street, making it eligible for a sign bonus that allowed a sign area increase of 75 percent. If a 40 square foot allowance for attached signs was adopted, the Bayhouse development would have been eligible for an attached sign of up to 70 square feet, making the existing sign permitted without need of variance. In the case of a 300 foot or greater setback from the street, the maximum sign bonus allowance under a 40 square foot "base" sign area would be 90 square feet; the current maximum is 54 square feet. A 40 square foot figure is provided in the draft ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Board and the Development Code Adjustment Board both recommended approval of this ordinance. In response to a question, Central Permitting Director Shuford responded a separate section of the code addresses distances from rights-of-way. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve a land development code amendment concerning residential signage. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5521-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance #5521-94 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. Public Hearing - Second Reading Ordinances ITEM #11 - (Cont. from 1/20/94) Ord. #5508-94 - Amending various sections within Chapter 45 to establish minor variances and provide for minor variance approval by the Development Code Adjustment Board (LDCA 93-24) The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5508-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5508-94 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 #12 - No item. ITEM #13 - Ord. #5512-94 - Amending Sec. 42.34 to prohibit parking, displaying or storing of motor vehicles on grass or unpaved areas zoned for multiple family or nonresidential use unless approved as a grass parking lot (LDCA 93-19) Commissioner Thomas moved to continue this item to the regularly scheduled meeting of February 17, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #14 - No item. ITEM #15 - Ord. #5522-94 - Annexation for property located at 1654 Owen Dr., Orange Blossom Sub., N 10' of Lot 17 & 60' of Lot 18, 0.22 acres m.o.l. (Alexiades, A93-26) The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5522-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5522-94 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. #5523-94 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low for property located at 1654 Owen Dr., Orange Blossom Sub., N 10' of Lot 17 & 60' of Lot 18, 0.22 acres m.o.l. (Alexiades, LUP93-35) The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5523-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5523-94 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. #5524-94 - RS-8 Zoning for property located at 1654 Owen Dr., Orange Blossom Sub., N 10' of Lot 17 & 60' of Lot 18, 0.22 acres m.o.l. (Alexiades, A93-26) The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5524-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5524-94 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. #5525-94 - Annexation for property located at 1914 Atlantis Dr., Sunset Point Estates, Blk A, Lot 22, 0.14 acres m.o.l. (Touchette, Sr., A93-27) The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5525-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5525-94 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. #5526-94 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Commercial General for property located at 1914 Atlantis Dr., Sunset Point Estates, Blk A, Lot 22, 0.14 acres m.o.l. (Touchette, Sr., LUP93-36) The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5526-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5526-94 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. #5527-94 - CG Zoning for property located at 1914 Atlantis Dr., Sunset Point Estates, Blk A, Lot 22, 0.14 acres m.o.l. (Touchette, Sr., A93-27) The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5527-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5527-94 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. #5528-94 - Establishing a reporting date of 5/15/94 re: Clearwater Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC) The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5528-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5528-94 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. #5530-94 - Vacating westerly 1.5' of the easterly 7.5' utility easement lying along the easterly side of Lot 44, College Hill Estates (Banks, V93-17) The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5530-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5530-94 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. #5531-94 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Institutional 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) The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5531-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5531-94 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 #24 - Ord. #5532-94 - 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, Z93-53) The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5532-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5532-94 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 #25 - Ord. #5533-94 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Institutional for property located at 3190 McMullen-Booth Road, Turtle Brooke Sub., Parcel A, 2.55 acres m.o.l. (Wright, LUP93-38) The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5533-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5533-94 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 #26 - Ord. #5534-94 - P/SP Zoning for property located at 3190 McMullen-Booth Road, Turtle Brooke Sub., Parcel A, 2.55 acres m.o.l. (Wright, Z93-52) The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5534-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5534-94 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 #27 - Ord. #5535-94 - Vacating north 30' of Magnolia Dr., lying south of Lot 10, Blk E, Edenville Sub., less easterly 20' (Chapin, V93-15) The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5535-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5535-94 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 #28 - Ord. #5537-94 - Amending schedule of fees, rates and charges for traffic and motor vehicles to establish a toll rate for the Jolley Trolley for the use of the Clearwater Pass Bridge The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5537-94 for second reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5537-94 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 #29 - Special Items of widespread public interest a) Community Consensus - Dr. Peter Graves Dr. Graves used overheads to present the steps of the Community Consensus Process. He said they are now at the step of reviewing the results. Dr. Graves noted the process allowed the citizens to indicate the issues and help prepare the questionnaires. He said in addition to the numerical conclusions drawn from the results, the citizens have been asked their opinions regarding the outcome. He stated the structure of the questionnaire was not as clear as it could have been and indicated this was intentional. Dr. Graves said the first question dealt with quality of life and the citizens had to choose what issues were preferred over others. He said the other questions dealt with what kind of services would enhance or maintain their quality of life and sources of funding for the services or programs wanted. The content of the questionnaire was determined from a series of public input meetings. To protect the integrity of the sampling, Dr. Graves indicated no two questionnaires were alike. The goal was to get a representative sampling of the City of Clearwater using demographic norms. Approximately 1000 completed questionnaires were returned with more being gathered than needed to assure all those scored were valid. The total consensus was based on a properly balanced representative sampling of Clearwater residents and numbered approximately 520. Dr. Graves said all valid questionnaires were used in the sub-group analysis. In having to choose between two issues, Dr. Graves indicated 200 comparative decisions had to be completed. The results are not the same as found in an opinion poll; this process gives a prioritized list of issues. The number one issue was an effective, quality police force. Dr. Graves indicated it is difficult to get a good feel for the results simply looking at the ranking of issues. He said the process sorts out the more important issues from the less important issues. He indicated the citizens agreed on a lot of issues. Discretionary funding issues were listed lower on the list. Dr. Graves said he has been asked to draw some conclusions where one might go with this survey. He believes the consensus report can serve as a stimulus for the Commission's upcoming strategic planning sessions. An optimal use of the report is to begin an understanding of the ways in which different parts of town think differently about issues. He felt this approach would strengthen neighborhoods. He said beyond the short term, it is difficult to determine the best ways the results could be used. It is estimated this data has a life span of approximately 18 months. Commissioner Thomas thanked the public for participating in the study. Commissioner Berfield pointed out the thing that impressed her most was the people of Clearwater made up the survey. Commissioner Deegan said the Steering Committee agreed they have come to the end of the road. He thanked them for the time and energy spent. Mayor Garvey also expressed her thanks to the Community Consensus Steering Community on behalf of the Commission. She said they provided the direction, ran the meetings, etc. She recognized the committee and staff members involved in the project. Ms. Deptula said the report will be used in the budget process. Commissioner Thomas moved to accept the Community Consensus Report. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Jean Montana said the report was great. She noted the report mentioned small businesses. She said small businesses on Clearwater Beach are going downhill because of actions by the Commission. Commissioner Thomas requested the report be made available to anyone who wants it. b) Water Supply Status Report - William C. Baker Acting Assistant City Manager Baker said the City has just concluded a hydrogeological study of the water supply in the Clearwater area. The entire water supply is dependent upon the hydrological cycle. Clearwater gets 50 inches of water per year from precipitation and 11 inches per year from percolation. He explained the various geological layers and how the water moves down through them. The top groundwater layer is not drinkable. The upper A zone is freshwater with a chloride concentration of around 15 parts/1,000,000. He noted the EPA safe drinking standards allow up to 250 parts chlorides. If a well in the upper A zone is pumped beyond water's capability to enter from the side, brackish water will be sucked up from a deeper level. The study was to determine how much water Clearwater can produce from the upper A zone. Mr. Baker pointed out there is a reverse osmosis process available if there is enough brackish water to implement this process. The study also looked at this. He reviewed the history of the City's fresh water supply. As City wells were pumped over the years, they increased in salinity. It was also found some wells were deeper than they should have bee. SWFWMD requested a cut back on the pumping and the City had to fine tune this pumping so not to increase the chlorides. The following are the effects of SWFWMD's 1989 Chloride Rule: 1988 - City produced 8 MGD from 25 wells and bought 6 MGD from the county; 1991 - City produced 2.9 MGD from 10 wells and bought 13.3 MGD from the county; and in 1992 - City produced 2.3 MGD from 11 wells and bought 13.5 from the county. Mr. Baker said 8 wells were rehabilitated in 1993 and the City is now pumping 4 MGD from 17 wells and buying 11 MGD from the county. Mr. Baker said the results of the study show the best water in Clearwater lies under the area within a radius of approximately 2 miles of the intersection of Old Coachman Road and S.R. 590; the former practice of constructing wells between 250 to 300 feet deep has contributed to the degradation of the water quality in the well field area; fresh water can be pumped from a single well drawing from the upper A zone at a rate of .25 MGD with no upconing of that well and up to .5 MGD with little upconing after 10 years; and the maximum yield of the strata under Clearwater is 6 MGD. The study also shows brackish water pumping will result in immediate and severe upconing and there will be no brackish water supply for the purpose of reverse osmosis. Another finding is while the concentration of production from the upper A zone minimizes the upconing of poorer quality water, it increases the likelihood of other water quality problems such as iron. Mr. Baker presented the following recommendations: (1) a plan of further study at a cost of $240,000 to confirm and more precisely identify the results of the experimental work done and to describe the appropriate water treatment process needed; (2) if further study indicates, rehabilitate two wells at a cost of $270,000 to increase our water supply to .5 MGD; and (3) at a later date consider increasing to the 6 MDG maximum by the construction of 9 wells at a cost of $2,390,000 and with water treatment facilities installed at each of the three reservoirs for a cost of $10,800,000. He said the City's investment of $510,000 could be recouped in two years. These recommendations would cause a 13 percent increase in the budget. He said somewhere along the way the City may decide to get out of the water production business when it is no longer cost effective. Commissioner Thomas questioned whether the $240,000 study would prove whether our wells can be rehabilitated. In response, Mr. Baker stated the study is to prove if another 2 MGD of water for a total of 6 MGD is obtainable. Commissioner Thomas questioned whether 25 percent of the 2 MGD is in the two inoperable wells and Mr. Baker said this is the case. Commissioner Thomas said he did not understand the payoff on the extra 1-1/2 million gallons which would take approximately a $2.3 million investment. Mr. Baker said this amount would include treating the water. The $10,8000,000 would be to treat all the facilities. In response to questions, Mr. Baker responded neither the City nor the county treat their water currently. If the county treats its water, their costs would also increase. There will be no payback for implementing all the recommendations unless the county's price goes up. Commissioner Thomas asked when desalination would give a payback. Tom Burke, Camp, Dresser & McKee, responded the payback on going to full desalination has not been completely identified, however, is being looked at in the county master water plan. In response to a question, Mr. Burke responded by the time potable water reaches $8.00/1,000 gallons we will be looking at alternate sources for water recovery. He said by the time desalination is here the City will be faced with regulatory constraints regarding the handling of the by-products of desalination. He felt within the next 4-5 years the regulatory requirements will stabilize. Mr. Baker said we will not have to worry about availability of water but it will be expensive. Commissioner Thomas said the City needs to look at stormwater recovery and get more aggressive on the building of lakes so water can be collected and reused. Mr. Baker said an agenda item will be coming forward awarding the contract for the $240,000 study. The meeting recessed from 8:10 p.m. to 8:24 p.m. ITEM #30 - Citizens to be heard re items not on the Agenda Anne Garris stated the property between the Beach Diner and the Gulf was purchased in 1950 for parks and recreation purposes and is subject to referendum for any other use. She said concerns have been expressed regarding reports on the convention center to be considered. ITEM #31 - Statement by Jay Elliott (20 minutes) A sworn statement in writing was submitted by Jay Elliott regarding his rehabilitation contract. CITY MANAGER REPORTS Ms. Deptula introduced Alan Ferri the new Community Development Manager. ITEM #32 - First Reading Ords. #5518-94 & #5519-94 and Res. #94-3 re: Annexation Incentive Program (CP) On October 1, 1992, the Commission approved six incentives to promote the annexation of properties into the City. Staff has implemented four of these, but postponed action on the remaining two while higher priority projects have been pursued. The incentives with the corresponding changes to City regulations necessary to implement them as: 1) Waive the annexation application fee for all applicants who submit a petition prior to August 1993. The annexation application fee was eliminated by the Commission on December 17, 1992 by Resolution #92-77. 2) Provide a City library card to applicants immediately following Commission receipt and referral of an annexation petition. Requires an amendment to Resolution #92-51 to permit the issuance of a library card to an owner of real property outside the corporate limits of the City following Commission receipt and referral of an annexation petition. The proposed Resolution #94-3 would repeal Resolution #92-51. This has been "informally" implemented since mid-summer, 1993. 3) Change the City Code to allow waiver of the $200 City recreation facility impact fee for all applicants who submit an annexation petition prior to August 1993. Instead, the Director of Parks and Recreation recommends a change in Section 54.22 of the code to permanently exempt the annexation of residential developments of less than 8 units from the Recreation Facility Fee which is currently $200 per unit. Proposed Ordinance #5518-94 deals with this incentive. 4) Provide residential solid waste services immediately following Commission receipt and referral of an annexation petition. Solid waste in the City is governed under Article VII of Chapter 32 of the City Code of Ordinances. Section 32.272(1) reads as follows: "All refuse accumulated in the City shall be collected, conveyed and disposed of by the City government." An addition to this section would allow the City to collect refuse accumulated on properties being annexed by the City. Proposed Ordinance #5519-94 deals with this incentive. 5) Change the code to not require city sewer connection at the time of annexation unless there is a current public health problem or it is requested by the property owner; there will be no charge for sewer on the city utility bill until it is connected. Section 32.184 requires all buildings for human habitation or occupancy located within the City to be connected to the wastewater collection system by the City. Code Section 32.195 requires the sewer connection within 90 days of notice of availability. The Finance Department has contacted the City's Bond Counsel in Tallahassee to see if the proposed change would conflict with Section 16K "Mandatory Connection" of the 1988 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds. The Bond Counsel has responded that the City would run the risk of being challenged by bond holders or auditors. Therefore, staff recommends deletion of this incentive. 6) Provide a City recreation card to applicants immediately following Commission receipt and referral of an annexation petition. According to the Parks and Recreation Department, there is no written policy on this matter, so they have begun issuing these cards. However, to formalize this action, they recommend a rule or policy such as, "Following receipt and referral of a petition to annex, petitioners shall be permitted to obtain a recreation card at the resident rate." The current recreation card charge for residents is $3. The proposed City Commission Policy Statement deals with this incentive. These incentives should foster good public relations as staff proceeds with administrative annexation of enclaves in accordance with the ELMS III legislation. According to the legislation, for unincorporated enclaves of 10 acres or less within the City's jurisdictional boundaries, the City may annex these areas through its interlocal agreement with Pinellas County. Staff recommends approval of the proposed resolution, policy change and two ordinances to implement the annexation incentives. Permitting Manager Sandy Glatthorn reviewed the incentives of the annexation program. In response to Mayor Garvey's question, Ms. Glatthorn responded the City has an interlocal agreement with the county. Commissioner Deegan asked if this is a new agreement and Ms. Glatthorn said it has been in effect since 1990. It was noted the letter sent to the county a short time ago for an interlocal agreement involved administrative annexation and was a separate issue. Commissioner Fitzgerald said the ELMS III bill expands non-voluntary annexation. Mayor Garvey introduced Boy Scout Troop 455 who were in attendance at the meeting. Commissioner Thomas felt the incentives were not significant enough. He felt the City needed to create a real economic incentive for six months, such as not paying property taxes for three years. Mr. Shuford pointed out staff is proposing the maximum they can under state law. The City Attorney said the issue regarding waiving taxes has been raised before and it was felt this would cause an inequity for the taxpayers. Commissioner Thomas requested asking the Pinellas Delegation to change the state law and to address the annexation issue face on. This issue will be discussed at a later date. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the amendments to the City Code and proposed policies to implement the Annexation Incentive Program. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5518-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5518-94 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5519-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5519-94 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. The City Attorney presented Resolution #94-3 and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Resolution #94-3 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 questioned if there is a tracking system in place to remove services if an applicant backs out and Mr. Shuford responded there is. Commissioner Thomas asked the City Attorney to come back with the steps necessary to create real incentives for annexing. ITEM #33 - Res. #94-14 - Establish fees for minor variances (CP) The Commission has approved Ordinance #5508-94 on first reading which establishes minor variances. Staff has "held" the second reading of this ordinance until staff developed an amendment to the fee schedule to provide for a fee which will cover city costs associated with the consideration and granting/denying of minor variances. As staff does not have any experience or an established track record with minor variances, it is recommended to begin with a relatively minor fee. Staff's proposal is for a $50 fee for these variances; appeals of any decision by the Development Code Administrator will be treated as regular variances and charged the $475 fee that is normally charged for all variances. Mayor Garvey questioned whether the fee of $50 is too low. Mr. Shuford responded there are not a lot of costs involved and the Commission can adjust the fee at a later date. Commissioner Fitzgerald asked if "minor" is defined anywhere in the code and Mr. Shuford responded in Ordinance 5508-94 adopted earlier. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve the proposed fee schedule for minor variances. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The City Attorney presented Resolution #94-14 and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Resolution #94-14 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 #34 - Receipt/Referral - Land Development Code Amendment re: requiring proper maintenance of fences and walls (LDCA 93-20)(CP) The Community Response Team has requested a code amendment be prepared to require that fences and walls be maintained in a structurally sound and aesthetically pleasing manner. The Team is finding it difficult to require adequate fence maintenance given current code language. The proposed amendment should provide the specificity needed to ensure adequate enforcement. Commissioner Thomas moved to receive a code amendment requiring proper maintenance of fences and walls and refer it to the City Clerk for advertising for public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #35 - Receipt/Referral - RM-8 Zoning for property located at 1551 and 1575 Druid Road, Druid Groves, Blk A, Lot 1 and vacated r-o-w to the west, Lot 2 and west 45' of Lot 3, 0.40 acres m.o.l. (Drapkin, TRE/Sokol/Shimer, Z94-01)(CP) The subject property is located on the south side of Druid Road, just to the east of the Clearwater Community Hospital. The hospital has agreements to purchase this property contingent upon rezoning to Multiple-Family Residential and obtaining a conditional use permit for non-commercial parking. The hospital is revising their existing site plan to include this property and will be submitting an application for a conditional use permit for non-commercial parking. Their intent is to develop the proposed parking in accordance with the Land Development Code, including landscape buffers along Druid Road and between the parking area and adjacent residential property. As part of this site upgrade, the hospital also plans to expand their out-patient surgery facilities. The proposed revised site plan will be available for Commission review at the time of first reading of the rezoning ordinance. The hospital has been in contact with the surrounding property owners. On January 6th, the hospital held a meeting with interested property owners to explain the proposed improvements. Mayor Garvey noted Clearwater Community Hospital wanted to rezone this property several years ago and the request was denied as it was felt it would result in an intrusion into the residential neighborhood. Commissioner Berfield asked if this request would qualify as a "spot" zoning and Mr. Shuford responded it would not. He said he was not aware of this request coming forward before. Commissioner Thomas expressed concern this could become another issue where a hospital engulfs a residential neighborhood. Commissioner Berfield asked why the applicant was requesting multi-family rather than institutional. Mr. Shuford responded multi-family is the lowest intensity zoning to allow parking. Commissioner Berfield asked if the requested zoning will allow multi-family buildings. Mr. Shuford responded it would but each lot could not be developed separately. In response to Commissioner Thomas' question, Mr. Shuford responded there are single family homes currently on these lots and the intent is to remove them. Commissioner Thomas questioned whether all receipt and referral items are automatically approved. Mayor Garvey said this process allows for notice if there are any concerns and alerts the public to the issue. Commissioner Berfield moved to receive the application for RM-8 zoning for the subject property and to refer it to the City Clerk for advertisement for public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken;, Commissioners Fitzgerald, Berfield and Mayor Garvey voted "Aye", Commissioner Thomas voted "Nay". Commissioner Deegan declared a conflict of interest and abstained. Motion carried. ITEM #36 - Other Pending Matters a) No change to Res. #92-69, requesting a change to the Countywide Rules to permit a maximum 1.0 FAR for hospitals (CP) On September 16, 1993, the Commission adopted changes to the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Land Development Code standards to be consistent with the Countywide Rules as mandated by the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) under their Consistency Program. One of the changes was to reduce the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for hospitals from 1.0 to .65. An associated resolution had been previously adopted by the Commission requesting the PPC to change the FAR for hospitals to 1.0. On January 19, 1994, the PPC reviewed and continued until February 16, 1994 the City's request to change the Countywide Rules to increase the FAR for hospitals from .65 to 1.0. The City's PPC representative, Commissioner Sue Berfield, encouraged the deferral in order for the City Commission to review proposed new language to the rules drafted by PPC staff as a compromise and cooperative effort with the Town of Belleair and Morton Plant Hospital. The PPC staff's proposed new language to the Institutional classification will permit a 1.0 FAR for hospital developments except there is a maximum FAR of .65 in a 150 foot perimeter area adjacent to another jurisdiction. In addition, when a hospital is located within two jurisdictions or in one jurisdiction but adjacent to another jurisdiction, as is the case with Morton Plant Hospital, then a master plan will be subject to approval by both jurisdictions. Further, the Town of Belleair would like language specific to their concerns with Morton Plant Hospital to be added to the Rules, restricting ancillary uses such as the hospital's energy center. While a few PPC representatives were receptive to considering Belleair's additional restrictions, several council members felt the proposed restrictions were specifically relative to only one hospital in Pinellas County (i.e., Morton Plant) and therefore were not appropriate for the Countywide Rules. Staff recommends the Commission adhere to the original request of a change from .65 to 1.0 FAR for hospitals and reject the proposed language as there will be jurisdictional and possibly legal difficulties associated with requiring an applicant to obtain approval from two jurisdictions to develop in one jurisdiction. Staff feels any valid intensity concerns associated with the development of Morton Plant Hospital can be handled through site plan review as part of the planned development zoning process. Also, staff is concerned about the precedent of developing Countywide Rules that apply to only a single circumstance. Mr. Shuford reviewed the history of the Pinellas Planning Council Program and indicated PPC rules allow a 0.65 FAR for hospitals. The City amended their code to comply but adopted a resolution to request a special exception for hospital uses in the institutional classifications. Mr. Shuford reviewed the options being considered: 1.0 FAR for hospitals in institutional classifications; 1.0 FAR with a limit of 0.65 FAR in a 150 feet wide transition area bordering another jurisdiction; 1.0 FAR with a limit of 0.65 FAR in a 200-300 foot wide transition area bordering another jurisdiction and a 1.0 FAR pursuant to a development agreement between jurisdictions. Another option included allowing variances to FAR which Mr. Shuford said the City has not done because the FAR is considered to be intrinsic to zoning. He said this could be done by amending our code. No PPC approval is needed to do this. Mayor Garvey asked if this referred to any zoning district or just public/semi-public. Mr. Shuford said it could be limited however the Commission chooses. Another option would allow a 1.0 FAR and rely on the PPC's future land use plan process. He said the PPC 1.0 FAR rule is isolated to Morton Plant Hospital. In response to a question, Commissioner Berfield said Morton Plant Hospital and the City of Belleair got together and brought this rule to the PPC. She asked if Safety Harbor would provide any protection for Clearwater where Mease Hospital backs up to Clearwater residents. Commissioner Berfield questioned if we go with a FAR of 1.0 and the PPC does not approve, what are our options with Morton Plant Hospital. Mr. Shuford said the Commission would be encouraged to continue the process to the countywide planning authority (County Commission) who would have the final say. An option would be to look into a variance procedure for hospitals in this circumstance. He said it could get complicated if the PPC requires the City to enter into a development agreement. Commissioner Berfield asked if it would be to Clearwater's advantage to use the variance procedure now. Mr. Shuford responded if we had this in place, it may give some added leverage. He recommended discussing this with the City Attorney. Mark Marquardt, attorney representing Morton Plant Hospital, stated the Commission approved this amendment in December 1992. He said the issue may have gotten off track due to concern from Belleair regarding buffer issues. He said a buffer plan has been designed and will be tied into the master plan for Morton Plant Hospital. He indicated there are probably some legal issues in terms of Clearwater giving up jurisdiction over property within its boundaries. Mr. Marquardt said the hospital would like the City to continue with the earlier resolution. The City now has a planning district for the hospital and the hospital is required to submit a master plan. He said an extensive study done about hospitals on the west coast of Florida that were surrounded by residences showed that a floor area ratio of .65 is not realistic. He believed the hospital is being mindful of the surrounding neighborhoods. Robert Kern, representing Harbor Oaks Association, said the floor area ratio should depend on a hospital's location. He felt if a 1.0 FAR goes in, the development should be in the center of the campus with a buffer zone. He said the hospital has offered Belleair a buffer zone; however, has offered nothing to the citizens of Clearwater. He expressed concern regarding the location of the energy units and the traffic noise. Mr. William Heald felt the only way the hospital could justify their expansion was to recruit patients from outside the community. He said the hospital needs clearly defined borders and buffer areas. He indicated they piecemeal their development a little at a time and did not feel this was fair to the neighborhood. He said he would like to see them be a good neighbor by stopping the expansion of their facilities. He questioned the meaning of intergovernmental cooperation. Mayor Garvey responded it is everyone working together but does not mean we will always agree with each other. She said we try and reach a compromise. Mr. Heald questioned whether intergovernmental cooperation is a mandate or just a saying. It was indicated it is a philosophy. Mr. Shuford said it is also a law. There is a special act that requires the City to go before the Pinellas Planning Council whenever there is a land use plan change in Clearwater. He indicated this has been further refined by the ELMS act. Mr. Heald noted the Belleair Commission voted to support David Healy's proposal. He said the generators at St. Joseph and Tampa General Hospitals could be heard from a good distance away. Commissioner Berfield said Morton Plant Hospital is considering buying property on the east side of Fort Harrison to address the generator concern. Mr. Marquardt said a number of the concerns expressed can be addressed through the planned development process. Commissioner Thomas asked if the Commission was just reconfirming to the PPC what they already approved. Mr. Shuford responded this is the case. Commissioner Thomas felt it inappropriate to change the rule while the hospital is in the middle of developing a master plan. Commissioner Thomas moved that no change be made to Resolution #92-69 requesting a change to the Countywide Rules to permit a maximum 1.0 FAR for hospitals. The motion was duly seconded. Commissioner Berfield asked if staff is comfortable Clearwater will be protected on McMullen Booth Road. Mr. Shuford responded Safety Harbor has development standards that will protect Clearwater. He said any land use changes would receive PPC review. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS ITEM #37 - Other City Attorney Items a) First Reading Ord. #5543-94 - Relating to public nudity; creating Section 21.13 to prohibit public nudity The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5543-94 and read it by title only. Assistant City Attorney Rob Surette stated the ordinance is patterned after St. John County's ordinance and has incorporated references to studies of secondary effects and reports from the Pinellas County Sheriff. These studies and reports are the same as used when considering the adult use ordinance. He submitted a video tape of the adult use ordinance presentation as an exhibit. He said the tape is a presentation regarding the secondary effects and contains a presentation by Det. Deemers depicting some of the activities in exotic dance clubs. The studies establish that nudity and semi-nudity offered as entertainment have an adverse impact on property values. He said the reports also indicated an adverse impact regarding increased criminal activity. He said this will lay the foundation to establish the secondary effects of nudity and semi-nudity. The importance of establishing the secondary effects studies is that cases have required that municipalities establishing anti-nudity ordinances need to have some foundation on secondary effects analysis. He said without showing that the intent of the ordinance is to address secondary effects, the ordinance can be found unconstitutional. He said he has included studies showing the secondary effects as the basis of this ordinance. He indicated the definition of nudity is modeled after St. John County's ordinance. Paul Polgar, downtown business owner, said he is appalled that the City is considering such an ordinance. He felt other communities will gain from the beach goers going elsewhere. He said as a business owner in downtown, he is aware that the vast majority of the residents in Clearwater do not care about "T" backs or are in favor of them. He summarized by saying the job of the Commission should be to bring people into downtown Clearwater and not chase them away. Neil Megnick spoke in opposition to the ordinance indicating it does not belong in the City of Clearwater. He felt it will be detrimental to the businesses on the beach. He said he did not see why people's moral judgments should be forced on others. Paul Crumrine said some people confuse nudity with sex; others view nudity as a return to innocence. He felt when government begins to regulate fashion, then all of our innocence is diminished. Michael Kimplan said the proposed ordinance represents unnecessary intrusion by the government into the private lives of citizens and would impact on tourism. He expressed concern for the attempt to legislate the dress code. Jim Harrington said he is a frequent visitor to Clearwater Beach and is not in favor of any changes in the law to limit the choice of swim attire. He felt resources could be directed at economic development. Ed Stout, business owner on Clearwater Beach, felt the ordinance would destroy the tourism on Clearwater Beach. He felt the police department did not have the manpower to control life threatening situations and that the priorities are all mixed up. Bob Bickerstaffe said new businesses replacing businesses that have gone under on the beach draw different crowds and create new trends. He indicated the proposed ordinance is designed to help the overall City during its down trend. He believed the Commission was doing the best job they could for the City. He felt it was not advantageous to continue the current trends and indicated the quality of life in Clearwater needs to come first. Jim Tracey read a petition into the record. The petitioners asked the Commission to protect their civil rights when considering passing laws that dictate swimwear styles and urged the Commission to vote against the ordinance regulating beachwear. He noted that Spring Break is approaching and there is a need to get people on the beach. He expressed concern businesses are going bankrupt and the ordinances being adopted are not helping. Pam Olson commended the Commission on an excellent ordinance. She said families have been staying away from the beach due to the "T" backs. She said the European tourists come to Clearwater because of the beaches and believed will continue to come even if "T" backs are banned. Christine Robertson expressed her gratitude to the Commission for proposing the ordinance as it affects the adult entertainment establishments as well as the beaches. She felt that standards of conduct must be established. She believed the ordinance would not have an adverse impact on tourism. Elizabeth Counts found the ordinance to be revolting. She said she grew up in Daytona and Spring Break is what makes Daytona not the family business. She said she and her friends come from Tampa to Clearwater because they can wear "T" backs. Laurie Labreck extended her thanks to the Commission for the ordinance. She read a letter to Mayor Garvey dated July 1993 from visitors to Clearwater Beach. Due to the public nudity on U.S. 19 and on the beach they no longer frequent Clearwater or Clearwater Beach. She said the ordinance is addressing the lack of clothing not regulating what people wear. She referred to a Supreme Court ruling that upheld an Indiana public indecency law. Ken Rosenow, motel owner and operator on the beach, said he is not speaking for or against the ordinance. He said those people who think businesses on Clearwater Beach will be salvaged by changing a nudity law are wrong. He said the total picture of the beach needs to be addressed. The study prepared by the Clearwater Beach Blue Ribbon Task Force needs to be studied in its entirety. He said many of his customers have written they would not be back due to the deterioration of the family attitude on Clearwater Beach. Barbara Sealand, business owner, said there are a lot of economic challenges and it is time to face up to them. She felt the majority of people learn through visualization. She said we need to be careful what we see and what we allow our children to see. She said she respects what the Commission is trying to do and feels they will make the right decision. Jana Carpenter commended Mr. Surette for the ordinance as she felt this was definitely a step in the right direction. She said she lives within a mile of the beach; however, has not been to the beach in over 4 years. She says she has a large family and expressed concern regarding the visual impact on them in seeing people basically nude. She said she would like to be able to go back to the beach. Anne Garris noted that Clearwater Beach is half residential and half commercial and there has been a struggle to keep a balance. She said maybe the reason tourism was better on Clearwater Beach 10 years ago was because it was family oriented. She felt the beach will prosper when we can be uniquely family oriented. She said the conduct on the beach is public not private. Jay Keyes said he has been involved in tourism promotion in Clearwater for approximately 20 years and the agency he worked with always promoted Clearwater as a family destination point. He indicated the family business in Daytona has been totally destroyed by the bikers, Spring Break, etc. He said it is time to get back to the family oriented beach business. Laurie Diane Kaye thanked the Commission for tabling the City Hall project and the citizens for speaking up. She expressed concern regarding the activities taking place on the beach today. She said tourists and families should not be subject to this flagrant behavior and urged the Commission to support the ordinance. Roger Meeks spoke in support of the ordinance. Jason Jacobsen felt there were two issues involved, the individual's free choice to wear what they want on the beach versus nudity for entertainment for commercial gain. He said it would be better to see people have a more accepting attitude of their bodies. Don Jennings thanked the Commission for considering the ordinance. He said he and his family have not been to the beach for several years as he is not pleased with what he has been seeing there. Jim Berfield said in listening to those in opposition to the ordinance it became very clear that there are monetary interests in not banning "T" backs. He asked the Commission to consider all of Clearwater. He found this to be a moral issue and commended the Commission for looking at it from this standpoint. He said his interest is in a better Clearwater. Commissioner Fitzgerald said he is against the ordinance as he believed there has been no need for it shown. He said his discussions with average citizens have failed to show a problem and in most instances he found favor for leaving the situation alone. He said passage of this ordinance would raise a serious issue of enforcement. He felt the ordinance would have an adverse economic impact particularly on foreign tourist trade. He said he found it a quantum leap to try and extend the adverse secondary effects of adult use establishments to apparel on the beach. He had difficulty expanding the definition of nudity to include "T" backs. He felt passage of the ordinance would take away the right of citizens to choose what to wear. He asked the Commission to examine the issue closely. Commissioner Berfield said this country is made up of laws, codes and ordinances to allow us to live together. She noted this ordinance is not being aimed at Clearwater Beach, it is for all of Clearwater. She said passage of this ordinance will not save or destroy businesses. She indicated the issue of safety is why we are losing tourist trade. She said Clearwater was built on family oriented businesses and unless we get a handle on the situation, there will not be any family businesses left. She said it is time to bite the bullet and make a stand to clean up the City and take care of the secondary effects. She believed this would not deter the European tourists from coming to Clearwater. She said each city needs to make a choice for themselves. Mayor Garvey found "T" backs and the postcards reflecting them offensive. She said this ordinance talks about more than just the beach. She believed passage of this ordinance was for the betterment of Clearwater. She said there are a number of concerns that need addressed such as police enforcement and how to get the message out. She questioned whether the City should wait in passing this ordinance until the St. John's County court case is settled. She noted the Chamber of Commerce requested this ordinance be continued until they do a study. Commissioner Deegan said he has seen no clear record to show the relationship of wearing scanty attire on the beach with criminal activity but he believes this attire must be taken into account with regard to the secondary effects. He said many see the attire on the beach as a form of sexual harassment. He said the wearing of "T" backs is not just a simple matter of getting a tan; it is the titillation that takes place of those who wear the scanty attire and those who view it. He said opinions from medical professionals have shown it is sexually abusive for children to be visually subjected to almost complete nudity. He felt there has been a downslide in what has been considered decent clothing. He said he wants to create a family oriented atmosphere and strongly supports the ordinance. Commissioner Thomas said the issue does not have to do with nudity such as in art. He said we are dealing with the secondary effects, the sexual perversion, and the criminal acts by people who go to the beach and are titillated and take it out on young children and young women. He said he is very proud of the Commission for taking this stand. He said the Commission will not stop until Clearwater is a clean family-oriented community. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5543-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5543-94 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": Fitzgerald. Motion carried. The meeting recessed from 11:05 p.m. to 11:15 p.m. ITEM: Marcus v. City of Clearwater This is a civil rights case alleging false arrest and malicious prosecution for trespass by Charles A. Marcus against Police Officer Carrasquillo and the City of Clearwater. The City Attorney is requesting authorization to retain Fowler, White for the appeal. He said he has been in contact with the law firm regarding the personnel who will be assigned to the appeal. He said the City's case will be handled by Robert Stoler, who tried the case; George Vakia, head of the firm's appellate department; and Nancy Lauten, an experience appellate attorney. Commissioner Thomas moved to retain the law firm of Fowler, White based on the people recommended by the City Attorney to handle the Marcus appeal. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM: Ali v. City of Clearwater The City Attorney presented a status report from Mark Hanley of Thompson, Sizemore and Gonzalez. He said the City has been defending the Ali claim since 1992 but, as Mr. Hanley reports, we are now dealing with two cases. The first is on appeal after a voluntary dismissal, and the second is a refiled lawsuit which was served on us last week. The appeal is from a condition imposed by the trail court that the plaintiff pay the City approximately $3,000 in costs and fees as a condition to refiling the suit. The refiled lawsuit amounts to a direct challenge by the plaintiff of the trial court's imposition of that condition--he has not made the payment, but he has refiled the lawsuit. Their best estimate is that the cost to defend both the appeal and the new suit would be $15,000. This is within the budget for outside counsel fees, but the impact of the Marcus case on the budget is that the legal department is approaching the budgeted limit on outside counsel fees with only one-third of the year gone. Information regarding expenditures for outside counsel will be discussed during the first quarter budget amendments. ITEM: Newsrack Regulation The City Attorney reported that letters have been received from the St. Petersburg Times and the Tampa Tribune threatening litigation and raised some issues relating to due process regarding the removal of newsracks. The issues that are being dealt with are the seizure of the racks without notice and a chance to be heard. Commissioner Berfield referred to a letter received from a representative of the newspaper indicating they were willing to work with the City. She mentioned they indicated our ordinance was less stringent than other cities. Mayor Garvey noted one newspaper complained they were not notified. Mr. Baker presented a photograph of a newsrack and asked the Commission to envision a child on a bike coming down the sidewalk where the newsrack is located and consider whether this creates a dangerous situation. Mr. Baker said the only newsracks removed were because of the safety factor. He said the ordinance is written so as to cite those not in violation from the safety standpoint and remove those that are. Commissioner Thomas said he would just as soon have the newspapers in court defending themselves for a flagrant violation. Mr. Baker said the newsrack sweep has been limited to the safety violations. Mayor Garvey asked if we can respond to the newspapers saying the only racks removed were the ones that were safety issues. The City Attorney said we have to deal with the issue of whether the ordinance is valid on its face. He said he would like to come back with amendments to deal with due process issues. Commissioner Berfield asked who would be sued if a child runs into the newsrack. The City Attorney said he doubts whether there was any liability on the City's part. The majority consensus was for the City Attorney to bring back an amendment to address due process. ITEM #38 - City Manager Verbal Reports - none. ITEM #39 - Commission Discussion Items - none. ITEM #40 - Other Commission Action Commissioner Fitzgerald distributed a petition form from the Mayors' Council. He said the council is asking consideration be given to supporting a resolution stopping early release of prisoners. He questioned how the Homeless Shelter was working. Commissioner Deegan stated they have had a full house since January 10, 1994. He reported the homeless task force is trying to address the problems created by some of the homeless using the STEPPS property all day long. Also being addressed are concerns regarding some really in need having to be turned away. He reported the 1st Homeless Help Fair was held a week ago Saturday. Mayor Garvey referred to a letter from the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council regarding examining current eminent domain laws and enacting legislation to address the cost of providing necessary transportation facilities. The City Attorney is to review. ITEM #41 - Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m.