11/17/1994 CITY COMMISSION MEETING
November 17, 1994
The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in regular session at City Hall, Thursday, November 17, 1994 at 6:02 p.m., with the following members present:
Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner
Fred A. Thomas Vice-Mayor/Commissioner
Richard Fitzgerald Commissioner
Sue A. Berfield Commissioner
Arthur X. Deegan, II Commissioner
Also present:
Elizabeth M. Deptula City Manager
Kathy S. Rice Deputy City Manager
William C. Baker Assistant City Manager
Pamela K. Akin City Attorney
Scott Shuford Central Permitting Director
Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk
The Mayor called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance. The invocation was offered by Reverend Thurman Rivers of Skycrest United Methodist Church.
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
One service award was presented to a City employee.
ITEM #4 - Introductions and Awards - None
ITEM #5 - Presentations
a) Jolley Trolley Presentation
Bill Kirbas, President of Jolley Trolley Transportation of Clearwater, Inc., gave an overview of the FY 1993/94 budget noting it covered a nine month period from January 1 to September
30, 1994. The significant variances in the budget included a shortfall in fares. The budget was based on the operation of three trolleys but only two operated during the first six
months of 1994. Advertising revenues represented a positive variance. A negative variance resulted from labor costs that were higher than anticipated. Money was saved on insurance
premiums. One of the trolleys required rehabilitation and cost more than anticipated. All in all, he felt the Jolley Trolley had a good year in spite of earlier problems.
Mr. Kirbas referred to the FY 1994/95 budget and stated the estimated revenue of $522,270, includes the City's subsidy of $360,000. The estimated expenses amount to $350,136. The Jolley
Trolley Corporation anticipates purchasing $11,500 in capital equipment. The $15,000 loan from the City has been repaid early, with interest. He estimated by the end of the new fiscal
year, the Jolley Trolley will have working capital of $15,601 and a sinking fund of $46,000.
Referring to the business plan, Mr. Kirbas said the sinking fund drops $50,000 in December 1994. He said that money represents funds the Jolley Trolley has in reserve generated from
income the Jolley Trolley has accumulated plus a portion of the City's subsidy. The money will be used as a down payment on two brand new trolleys.
Mr. Kirbas said the Jolley Trolley will have significant revenue from advertising. The new trolleys should be operating by March 1, 1995, at which time labor and tax expenses as well
as advertising and fare revenues will be increasing. He said the budget is based on conservative projections.
Mr. Kirbas said a deposit of $50,000 will be made on two trolleys at the time of order and will be funded from a sinking fund established for that purpose. Two additional trolleys will
not provide the level of service the Jolley Trolley wishes to provide. He felt the present schedule of service every half hour was too long. Two additional trolley's would lower the
wait to fifteen minutes. He said the Jolley Trolley Corporation wants to petition the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) to place an order for an additional four trolleys through
federal funding. The principal and interest on the trolleys purchased will be paid by the corporation over a 12-month period. He noted some advantages of the City owning the trolleys
include sales tax and vehicle registration exemptions.
Mr Kirbas indicated the Jolley Trolley is in the process of ordering four two-way radios and some office equipment as needed. He hoped the waiting time would be cut to eight minutes
if the additional four trolleys are purchased.
Mr. Kirbas said the Jolley Trolley has received many compliments on the Jolley Trolley's token sets. He indicated there is a market for them through distributors and collectors. Several
distributors have expressed an interest in ordering the tokens . Tokens will be sold in sets of eight and in packets of four. Sets of the tokens were distributed to the Commission
and staff. Blank cards will be sold to encourage children to visit merchants and purchase tokens to match the cards. He said plans are to sell the token packets to businesses and encourage
them to give complimentary tokens to their patrons.
Mr. Kirbas said other ways the Jolley Trolley intends to increase revenues is by providing charter service for groups and selling tee-shirts. He indicated a contest for students at
Clearwater High School to participate in a $500 contest to design a tee-shirt will be held. Mr. Kirbas said the Jolley Trolley hopes to become self sufficient.
Commissioner Fitzgerald noted in FY 1993/94, the Jolley Trolley had anticipated income of $60,000 from fares while actual income was $25,502. Based on these projections, the Jolley
Trolley anticipates 240,000 riders per year or 20,000 patrons a month. He noted the highest numbers indicated in the FY 1994/95 business plan were 5,000 to 7,000 passengers. He questioned
from where the extra ridership would come to increase the level to 20,000 per
month. Mr. Kirbas said the projections were conservative and based on three trolleys running full time. He hoped the Jolley Trolley would secure more trolleys. He said their statistics
on ridership was based on two trolleys. The numbers were projected out to three trolleys operating for the first six months and five trolleys for the remainder of the fiscal year.
Commissioner Fitzgerald felt the level of Jolley Trolley's ridership was not clear. He noted the projected ridership for October 1994, was 3,300 passenger fares and questioned the ridership
numbers. Mr. Kirbas said he would forward to the Commission ridership figures for October 1994.
Commissioner Fitzgerald referred to the goal of ordering two additional trolleys and questioned if they would be paid for in a 12-month period. Mr. Kirbas said they would pay for the
trolleys from all Jolley Trolley revenues. Commissioner Fitzgerald expressed concern regarding the City's subsidy. He complimented Mr. Kirbas' goal to attain complete independence
from the City as soon as possible. Mr. Kirbas said if the Jolley Trolley did not feel they needed additional equipment to improve their service, they would have requested the City to
reduce their subsidy this year by $60,000.
Mayor Garvey asked if the Jolley Trolley is requesting a commitment from PSTA. She noted they have different federal rules regarding vehicles. Mr. Kirbas said he discussed the necessary
requirements with Mr. Sweeney from PSTA. Mr. Sweeney requested a resolution and justification from the Jolley Trolley Corporation by November 20, 1994, so the PSTA board can act on
it in December. Mr. Kirbas noted the first two trolleys are not being ordered through federal funding.
Commissioner Fitzgerald noted the repayment of the $15,000 loan to the City was welcomed but questioned if the funds came out of the City's basic subsidy. Mr. Kirbas said the money
came out of all the Jolley Trolley's funds, which are commingled. Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned other sources of funds for the trolleys. Mr. Kirbas indicated there are other ways
to obtain the funding if the Jolley Trolley cannot find a common basis to purchase the trolleys through the City.
Commissioner Deegan expressed surprise at the amount of money spent on the rehabilitation of one trolley. He thought the trolleys from PSTA were to be in "tip-top" condition. Mr. Kirbas
indicated the third trolley needed an estimated $25,000 in work and was purchased on that basis. The actual cost came to $34,728.
Commissioner Thomas clarified if the reason for recommending using the City as a vehicle to finance the trolleys was to avoid paying sales tax and lowering other costs. Mr. Kirbas said
savings in State sales tax are estimated at $15,000 and money would be less expensive to borrow through the City. City Manager Elizabeth Deptula said the City has not committed to financing
the trolleys and cautioned against involving the City in liabilities it has tried to avoid. Mr. Kirbas said the Jolley Trolley wishes to proceed in the least expensive manner. The
Mayor hoped when the Jolley Trolley goes to private funding, the City would be out of it.
Commissioner Thomas believed the City had subsidized two trolleys through PSTA for $310,000 per year and an additional subsidy of $50,000 was to cover the Jolley Trolley's maintenance
costs. Referring to the pro forma, he noted by March 1995, there will be five
trolleys in Clearwater and nine by the end of the year. Mayor Garvey questioned if the last four trolleys would be available that soon. Mr. Kirbas said that depended on how quickly
federal funding is approved. Mayor Garvey noted that usually takes a year and a half. Mr. Kirbas said PSTA indicated the equipment would arrive by the fourth quarter of 1995. Commissioner
Thomas noted the Jolley Trolley Corporation will have nine trolleys on the road by December 1995 at the same cost as the two the City had previously subsidized. He said he did not recall
anyone else repaying a City loan early and commended the Jolley Trolley Corporation for their efforts.
Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned who will put up the money for the two new trolleys. Mr. Kirbas said the Jolley Trolley Corporation would. He indicated his request to the City was
for help to lower expenses. The Mayor noted Mr. Kirbas was just making a presentation tonight.
Commissioner Berfield commended her fellow members on the Jolley Trolley board for the tough times and problems they have faced. She indicated board members invested a great deal of
personal time to make the Jolley Trolley successful and noted the board has acted out of concern for the City and City funds.
Mr. Kirbas introduced board members Robert Rowe and Albert Sakey and Bob Henion, Jolley Trolley administrator. Mayor Garvey asked how to obtain additional information about the Jolley
Trolley. Mr. Kirbas said they are listed in the telephone book under "Jolley Trolley" and their phone number is 445-1200.
ITEM #6 - Approval of Minutes
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of November 3, 1994 as corrected. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the minutes of the special meeting of November 3, 1994, as recorded and submitted in written summation by the City Clerk to each Commissioner. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #7 - Citizens to be heard re items not on the Agenda
Susan Lewis, representing Clearwater Beach hotel/motel owners, expressed concern regarding how the tourism tax is spent. She presented a petition with approximately 85 signatures recommending
tourism taxes be spent to promote Clearwater Beach. She requested the City's legal staff to assist in retracting Clearwater Beach from the Tourism Development Council. The Mayor indicated
the Commission will be discussing this topic on November 29, 1994.
Walter Bernalski, an employee of Britt's Cafe on Clearwater Beach, spoke in support of outdoor cafes. It was noted this issue is on tonight's agenda ( Item #12).
Joe Evich said he missed the Jolley Trolley's presentation but wished to commend the Commission on taking back control of the trolleys for the same amount of money the City was giving
the PSTA. He noted the Jolley Trolley board is all volunteer. He felt once the
Harborview Center is fully occupied and the high speed rail reaches Pinellas County, the Jolley Trolley will provide an important transportation link. He congratulated the Jolley Trolley
Corporation for their success.
Mike Frangedis, Clearwater Beach Business Association, referred to the November 2, 1994 special meeting noting the beach merchants have not received any response regarding beach issues.
The City Manager reported the Commission will be discussing each of five topics, one at a time, beginning November 29, 1994, culminating with a report to the citizens at a Town Meeting.
She indicated some action will be taken to address beach concerns in the interim before the final report is issued.
Mr. Frangedis felt it was important the merchants be included in beach discussions. Ms. Deptula suggested scheduling the discussion after 1:00 p.m. on November 29, 1994. She reported
the first topic to be discussed will be tourism.
Mr. Frangedis expressed concern the beach meeting only lasted from 7:00 to 9:20 p.m. He indicated business owners were disappointed because regular Commission meetings last much longer..
The Mayor noted the beach meeting was scheduled from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. and the rules for the meeting were established in advance.
Commissioner Fitzgerald recommended informing the business owners of those items that staff is being directed to address. Ms. Deptula reported those items include the suggestions
for international signs and training for those who issue parking tickets. Commissioner Fitzgerald expressed a need to communicate a positive response to the citizens that positive actions
are occurring in the interim. The City Manager reported staff would be preparing something tomorrow and would be asking the newspapers to help communicate.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM #8 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ordinances. #5715-94, #5716-94 & #5717-94 - Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Commercial General & CPD Zoning for property located at 2201
Sunset Point Rd., (Walgreens Drug Store) located in the SE /14 of Sec. 1-29-15, Pinellas Groves Sub., part of Lot 1, 2.0 acres m.o.l.; accept a 2% fee in lieu of land dedication to meet
Open Space/Land Dedication Ordinance and return Final Site Plan to Commission for approval on 2nd reading (Finkenbinder/Sun Bank of Tampa Bay, c/o R.K.M. Development, A94-21, LUP94-29)(CP)
The applicant proposes to construct a 15,525 square foot Walgreens Drug Store with a two-lane drive for prescriptions pickups and an attached liquor store on a 1.24 acre incorporated
parcel and a two acre unincorporated parcel. The applicant requests Commercial Planned Development (CPD) zoning because of the irregular shape of the property. The conceptual site
plan includes a 2.27 acre Walgreens site addressed to Belcher Road, and a .97 acre outparcel at the westernmost portion fronting Sunset Point Road. Two access drives are proposed from
Sunset Point Road and one is proposed from Belcher Road. The proposed outparcel is to be developed in the future under the General Commercial numerical and dimensional code requirements.
Both parcels are proposed to be combined through annexation and a Declaration of Unity of Title for both the Walgreens store and the outparcel.
On April 1, 1993, the Commission approved the incorporated site for a Shell gasoline station with a convenience store; the proposal was never constructed. At that time, an agreement
was made with Pinellas County to landscape a raised turning median in the County right-of-way; this agreement no longer exists, and does not apply to the subject site plan.
Harry Cline, attorney representing the owners and applicants, presented an overview of the development. He said he represented Sun Bank, owner of the smaller incorporated parcel where
previous plans for a gasoline station were not pursued. He stated their intent is to annex a two acre parcel and combine it with the smaller lot to develop a Walgreens. He indicated
the two acre parcel is presently zoned commercial and could be developed as such in the county. He found the proposed development to be a better use of the property indicating it will
provide a 200 foot vista along Belcher Road. He noted the CPD process is site specific to the development plans. He indicated this development is compatible with the adjoining neighborhood
and will stabilize the area. He said the impact of the development will be minimal. The requests made by neighbors at the Planning & Zoning Board Meeting were incorporated into the
plans.
Commissioner Berfield questioned the number of access points to Sunset Point Road on the previous site plan. Mr. Cline said that plan had only one access. This development is on a
larger parcel and has two planned accesses on Sunset Point Road. Mr. Shuford noted the accesses must be approved by Pinellas County.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve the annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Commercial General and CPD (commercial planned development) Zoning for the subject property; accept
a 2% fee in lieu of land dedication to meet the Open Space/Land Dedication Ordinance and return the Final Site Plan to the Commission for approval on second reading subject to the following
conditions: 1) Permitted uses shall be as listed: a) indoor retail sales; b) restaurants with no outdoor seating, outdoor entertainment, or outdoor speakers; c) medical clinics/laboratories;
d) business/professional offices; e) business services; f) personal services; g) indoor commercial recreation/entertainment; h) nonprofit social or community services; i) art galleries/studios;
j) veterinary offices; k) one alcoholic beverage sales establishment, package sales; and l) alcoholic beverage sales, consumption on premises for restaurants only; 2) All perimeter landscaping
shall be provided on both parcels prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any parcel; 3) Dumpster location(s) for the outparcel shall be limited to the eastern one-third
of the outparcel site; 4) Loading operations shall be prohibited between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.; 5) Final conceptual site plan approval by the City Commission contingent
upon conditions; and 6) All site lighting shall be directed downwards and away from any residential areas. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5715-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass Ordinance #5715-94 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 #5716-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass Ordinance #5716-94 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 #5717-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass Ordinance #5717-94 on first reading. The motion was
duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
ITEM #9 - Variance(s) to Sign Regulations for property located at 701 N. Hercules Ave., R. H. Woodley Sub., Blk 1, Lot 3 (Harris Investment/Clearwater Professional Center, SV94-06)(CP)
The subject property is on the east side of Hercules Avenue., south of Palmetto Street. The requested variance would permit the existing freestanding sign to remain. The applicant
requests the following variances: 1) an area variance of 21.4 square feet from the permitted 24 square feet; 2) a height variance of 2.5 feet from the permitted 8 feet; and 3) a variance
of two message panels from the permitted two message panels to allow a freestanding sign with four message panels.
Ron Woodley, representative of the applicant, verified pictures of the property presented to him by Mr. Shuford. He noted the mound under the sign is built up with landscaping and causes
a distraction from the sign's height. He said the sign has an antique look and is constructed of panels linked by chains. He stated the sign's true square footage is less than 45.24
square feet. Mr. Woodley said the sign is attractive and not distracting. The Mayor said she saw no justification to approve the variance.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if the square footage requested includes the panels and "frame." Mr. Shuford noted the sign is unique because of the gaps between the panels. He indicated
the air space is counted when calculating the sign's size. He noted the size of the requested variance is substantial. Commissioner Thomas questioned if the air space between the bottom
panel and the ground was also counted. Mr. Shuford indicated it was not. Commissioner Thomas questioned if the 4 X 4 frame is included in the sign's total size. Mr. Shuford indicated
it is. Commissioner Thomas questioned the square footage of the frame and the air space.
Commissioner Fitzgerald said he understood the rationale for counting the air space because it is similar to solid space on other signs. He noted the sign code did not intend to allow
the creation of air spaces to permit larger signs. The City Manager calculated the area of each panel and reported only the sign's panels are included in the overall square footage.
The frame and air space were not counted.
Commissioner Thomas said Hercules Avenue has a large right-of-way and noted this sign is set well back from the road. He noted the sign is difficult to see by traffic traveling north
to south. He felt a hardship exists and did not object to the sign.
Commissioner Berfield moved to deny the variance requests for the subject property. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan
and Mayor Garvey voted "Aye;" Commissioner Thomas voted "Nay." Motion carried.
ITEM #10 - Alcoholic Beverage Distance Separation Variance for property located at 1969 Sunset Point Rd., Pinellas Groves, SW 1/4 Sec. 1-29-15, part of Lots 1 & 2 (K. D. Sauder Trust/Barney
Oldfield's/Skatzka, AB94-07)(CP)
The applicants are requesting an alcoholic beverage separation variance for a new 4-COP alcoholic beverage license designation to permit on premise consumption and package sales of beer,
wine, and liquor. The proposed restaurant, "Barney Oldfield's," is located at the Time Plaza Commercial Center. Due to the proximity of the proposed establishment to a residential
area, a variance to the separation distance is required.
The allowable capacity of the 3,836 square foot restaurant is determined by the Fire Marshall to be 136 seats. The applicants intend to provide a jukebox and pre-recorded music and
with no live entertainment proposed. The applicants intend to share the 80 on-site parking spaces with other retail uses and no additional spaces will be required. The proposed hours
of operation are: 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., Monday through Saturday, and 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. on Sunday.
On October 18, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously approved the request subject to the following conditions: 1) the applicants shall obtain the requisite occupational license
within six months of the date of this public hearing; 2) the applicants shall obtain the necessary alcoholic beverage separation variance from the City Commission; 3) no customer accessible
display areas for package sales shall be allowed; and 4) no outdoor speakers or outdoor entertainment shall be allowed.
Although this establishment is within 300 feet of a residential zone, it is separated by a 110 foot right-of-way from Sunset Point Road and adjoins commercial properties on the east
and south sides.
Jim Skatzka said he and his wife plan to construct the establishment. He has 18 years of experience in the restaurant business and currently has an establishment in Michigan. He indicated
they want to run a nice, sports-oriented restaurant serving good food.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve a distance separation variance of 120 feet to allow alcoholic beverage sales 180 feet from a residential zone for the subject property. The motion
was duly seconded.
Commissioner Berfield questioned the location of the nursing home in the area. Mr. Shuford indicated the nursing home is directly across the street from the proposed
establishment. Commissioner Berfield questioned if the neighbors had been advised of these plans. Mr. Shuford said they were advised but none offered comments. Commissioner Berfield
questioned if a 2:00 a.m. closing time was usual. Mr. Shuford said if there is no obvious concern by neighbors, the City does not restrict the hours of operation beyond the State legal
limits. He said the Planning & Zoning Board generally places restrictions on operating hours on establishments directly abutting residential properties or having outdoor activities.
Commissioner Deegan referred to the proposed new rules for alcoholic beverage regulations and questioned how they would affect this separation request. Mr. Shuford said the request
would not be allowed based on caps that will limit the percentage of floor area of a shopping center devoted to the sales of alcohol to under 15%. This request is for 23% of the center's
floor area. Mr. Shuford said in terms of distance separation, this request could be considered as a conditional use by the Planning & Zoning Board. They would need to determine something
unique about the property that would warrant granting a conditional use permit, such as the separation caused by the width of Sunset Point Road. Mr. Shuford said there would be no variance
required under the new rules.
Commissioner Deegan noted the new ordinance draws a circle of 500 feet and questioned if that would require the establishment to obtain a greater variance. Mr. Shuford said the wider
range permits a better overview of the area to be considered. A variance from that distance is not required if the Planning & Zoning Board considers the site as one that would warrant
granting a conditional use permit. No variance is associated with it. Something unique would need to be determined.
The Mayor questioned if the new regulations should be supported or not.
Commissioner Thomas referred to the proposed ordinance and questioned if Sunset Point Road's width negates the land across the street from consideration. Mr. Shuford said if the roadway
is 100 feet or greater in width, the establishment would not be subject to the variance procedures. The applicant would have to demonstrate conditions unique to the property that warrant
granting a conditional use permit. If separated by a right-of-way greater than 100 feet in width, that added demonstration would not be required.
Commissioner Deegan noted approval of this request would be under the present rules and regulations.
Upon the vote being taken on the motion on the floor, the motion carried unanimously.
ITEM #11 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ordinance #5722-94 - Proposed changes to the adopted Park Place Development of Regional Impact Development Order: revise development phasing
from one phase with three subphases to one with no subphases; decrease office development by 7,480 square feet.; extend date of development build-out from 1996 to 2000; and provide for
a wider range of future uses to include office, industrial and multi-family uses (Subject Area - Sec. 17-29-16, M&Bs 23.01, 23.013, 23.02, 23.10, 23.11, 24.01, 24.02, 24.04, 24.05 &
24.06); authorize staff to coordinate this item with the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (TBRPC) and the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) (Storz Ophthalmics, Inc./Building
Operation Holding Co.)(CP)
Staff requested this item be continued. Commissioner Thomas moved to continue Item #11 until the regularly scheduled meeting of December 1, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
ITEM #12 - (Cont'd. from 08/04, 09/15 & 10/06/94) Public Hearing & First Reading Ordinance. #5658-94 - Amending Sec. 35.11, to establish definitions for "Outdoor Cafe," Sidewalk Vendor,"
and "Vendor Stand;" amending Ch. 41, creating a new division 12 to establish requirements for locating and operating outdoor cafes and sidewalk vendor operations (LDCA 94-13)(CP)
The Commission expressed interest in allowing outdoor cafes and sidewalk vendors to operate in pedestrian-oriented zoning districts and directed staff to prepare an ordinance that will
allow for the orderly operation of these facilities.
To encourage the establishment of these uses in areas where off-street parking is unavailable or limited, it is proposed no off-street parking is required for outdoor cafes or sidewalk
vendor operations. Staff does not believe a parking shortage will result since outdoor cafes must be associated with indoor restaurant uses meeting parking requirements and vendor operations
should primarily attract pedestrian-oriented clientele.
The Planning & Zoning Board (P&Z) recommended approval of the outdoor cafe portion of the ordinance with some changes but recommended dropping all reference to sidewalk vendors because
of concerns about the effect of vendor operations on beach business; the Board favored existing regulations allowing vendor operations in Downtown Clearwater.
Staff proposes developing a marketing plan outside the ordinance that will provide property owners and merchants with a mechanism to accept or deny vendor locations immediately abutting
their properties and businesses. With this control option, the government Liaison Committee enthusiastically supported vendors on Downtown sidewalks. Limiting vendors to public parks
was also discussed.
Mr. Shuford said the Downtown Partnership indicated they would support downtown vendors if some control over the vendor's location and operation could be established. He said the draft
of a marketing plan has been developed by the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Executive Director, Peter Gozza. The intent of the marketing plan is to limit conflicts between merchants
outside the confines of the ordinance. Sidewalk vendors located on public property will be required to obtain prior approval from the governmental entity and property owner adjacent
to the vendor.
Mr. Shuford referred to Section 41.221(3) and noted concerns raised regarding the parking issue had been addressed by clarifying the section to read "the area devoted to outdoor cafe
use shall be exempt from the parking requirements of Section 42.34 of this code up to a maximum of 25% of the total seating capacity of the cafe or area of operations from the calculations
for the transportation impact fee."
Mayor Garvey expressed concern a simple idea has gotten very complicated.
Mike Frangedis, of the Clearwater Beach Business Association, said many beach business owners are disgusted with the way things are going. He spoke in support of outdoor
cafes indicating they will be beneficial. He spoke in opposition to vendors and vendor stands indicating they will create a flea market type atmosphere. Mr. Shuford clarified the proposed
ordinance being considered would not permit sidewalk vendors on Clearwater Beach but only in Downtown. Outdoor cafes would be permitted in both places.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if the Downtown vendors must be associated with or approved by the business the vendor cart abuts. Mr. Shuford said the City cannot request this; however,
the ordinance requires a food vendor to be associated with a Downtown restaurant located within 600 feet.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if a merchant next door to a restaurant could allow an independent food vendor to set up in front of that merchant's business for a fee. Mr. Shuford said
the City is not trying to regulate arrangements between businesses. He said the standards established in the marketing plan would address this.
Commissioner Thomas felt if sidewalk vendors are not allowed on the beach, they should not be permitted Downtown. Mr. Shuford said the Downtown merchants have indicated they see the
possibility of their businesses attracting new business based on increased pedestrian interest created by the vendor stands. He said if the Commission passes this on first reading,
staff will come forward with a detailed marketing plan that will address potential conflicts.
Commissioner Thomas expressed concern regarding locating push cart vendors in other than a specific zone such as Station Square Park. He noted sidewalks may not be wide enough to permit
outdoor cafes' use of public sidewalks. Mr. Shuford said the ordinance specifically addresses those concerns by limiting outdoor cafes to sidewalks at least eight feet wide. The cafes
would need a fence erected to confine the cafe's activities to a limited portion of the sidewalk, freeing at least five feet for pedestrians. He said a restaurant's private property
adjoining a sidewalk can also be used for outdoor seating. Mr. Shuford said the ordinance provides an incentive of a parking credit to encourage this type of use.
Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned if nonfood operators on Clearwater Beach could use the sidewalk in front of their businesses for outdoor food operations. Mr. Shuford said such a
use would be illegal because outdoor cafes are required to be associated with a restaurant. Commissioner Fitzgerald expressed concern in what the ordinance may be creating.
The Mayor noted vendors in Philadelphia are located on every corner. She said litter was scattered everywhere and she did not want this to happen in Clearwater.
Mr. Shuford said if the Commission is concerned with Downtown vendors, he would suggest restricting them to public park areas. He noted discussions with the Downtown government liaison
committee indicated a preference for sidewalk vendors. He said a marketing plan could target desirable vendors.
Mr. Frangedis indicated opposition to outdoor cafes on public sidewalks if they are an obstruction. In response to Commissioner Deegan 's question, Mr. Frangedis envisioned outdoor
cafes being located on the restaurant's property. He said restaurants without adequate space would have to find another way to increase business. He felt allowing sidewalk
vendors would take away business from merchants who pay taxes and have been in their location for years. He found this to be unfair.
Mr. Frangedis questioned why Downtown businesses are permitted to display merchandise outside when beach merchants are not. He requested both be treated the same. He said he would
like to see Downtown look more professional and the beach look more resort oriented.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if Mr. Frangedis had read the proposed ordinance. Mr. Frangedis said he had not. Commissioner Deegan noted the concerns Mr. Frangedis expressed are covered
in the ordinance.
Commissioner Deegan encouraged the Commission to deal with the ordinance as presented. He noted sidewalk space requirements are the same for outdoor cafes located on the beach and Downtown.
He preferred including all sidewalk vendor requirements in the ordinance and spoke in opposition to a marketing plan. He recommended controls over where these outdoor cafes can be
located be included in the ordinance. The City Attorney expressed concern regarding allowing the property owner to approve uses of the public sidewalk in front of a business. She noted
the City owns the sidewalks and suggested there may be another way to approach this. She recommended establishing a devise that would allow the City to regulate the location of sidewalk
vendors rather than the business owners regulating the vendor in front of their property.
Commissioner Deegan recommended including the regulations and/or controls in the ordinance. He referred to Section 41.222 (3) and questioned how a sidewalk vendor is affected by transportation
impact fees. Mr. Shuford said vendors would probably not be required to pay such a fee but wanted to include it should an unusual circumstance trigger the requirement. Commissioner
Deegan asked how the transportation impact fee is computed. Mr. Shuford said it is based on the use and square footage required.
The Mayor again noted the ordinance is much more complicated than first envisioned. She referred to Section 41.221 (1) (c) and expressed concerns regarding the referral to wind resistance
requirements. She questioned what outside umbrella, table, etc. could meet wind resistance limits. Mr. Shuford indicated the intent was to have furniture that is easily dismantled
and put away during a large storm. He said awnings and canopies would have to meet wind load requirements.
Commissioner Deegan noted the ordinance excludes vendors from the beach by not mentioning the beach as a zone where they would be permitted. He questioned if the possibility of having
Key West like activities at Pier 60 was precluded by the ordinance. Mr. Shuford said the Pier 60 property is zoned open space/recreation which permits special events as approved by
the City Commission such as vendors, mimes, acrobats, etc.
Commissioner Berfield expressed concern City sidewalks are not wide enough to permit outdoor cafes. She questioned how the City can decide who can use the public's right-of-way for
certain things. She noted complaints at a Downtown Development Board (DDB) meeting regarding the appearance of sandwich boards. She liked the idea of locating sidewalk vendors in
the park. She felt vendors located on sidewalks up and down the street would not be aesthetically pleasing. She indicated calls she received from Downtown business owners were
opposed to vendors on public sidewalks. Commissioner Berfield felt the beach sidewalks are not wide enough to handle pedestrians and outdoor cafes. She agreed that restaurant owners
with adequate space should be permitted to have outdoor seating. She expressed concerns that outdoor cafes encroaching on public sidewalks represent a safety hazard she could not support.
Commissioner Thomas felt restaurant owners should be able to have outdoor cafes on their own property. He spoke against outdoor cafes occupying public sidewalks. He opposed vendor
carts anywhere but in Station Square Park, one area previously approved. The Mayor suggested vendor carts could be permitted in Coachman Park. Commissioner Thomas felt each location
should be approved individually. He said he did not support the proposed ordinance as it did not cover the total picture. He questioned if a restaurant with adequate land could have
a connected outdoor cafe. Mr. Shuford indicated that use would require adequate parking be provided. He noted the key feature of the ordinance exempts a percentage of an outdoor cafe's
total seating from parking requirements.
Commissioner Deegan said he thought the intent of the ordinance was to streamline procedures by allowing the development code administrator to handle as much as possible. Commissioner
Thomas said he opposed vendor carts anywhere in downtown but in Station Square Park. He said other parks should be looked at.
Commissioner Fitzgerald suggested not approving the ordinance and recommended it go back to staff for additional work. He said Mr. Shuford should now have a fair idea regarding Commission
objections based on tonight's remarks.
Commissioner Thomas spoke in favor of outdoor cafes on private land separated from the public by fencing. He felt these type cafes should be relieved of some parking restrictions.
Commissioner Fitzgerald indicated he basically agreed but expressed concerns about someone building a small restaurant with mostly outdoor seating to avoid parking requirements. Mr.
Shuford noted only 25% of the restaurant's total seats would qualify for the parking exception.
Mayor Garvey felt the Commission was not comfortable with the ordinance as presented and suggested continuing this issue until January. The City Manager suggested staff come back with
concepts and pros and cons.
Commissioner Berfield said she opposes outdoor cafes on public sidewalks. She spoke against doing away with all parking requirements. She spoke against permitting vendor carts on the
beach and felt Downtown vendors should be limited to Station Square Park. She questioned how vendors currently apply for permission to operate in Downtown. Mr. Shuford indicated current
vendors were approved by the Community Redevelopment Agency.
Commissioner Deegan said the Downtown Clearwater Association ((DCA) favored vendor carts in specific locations. He said the DCA wanted to do away with the anti-fun ordinances. He felt
vendors operating pushcarts will not be making much money. He believed the ordinance would provide adequate protection for pedestrians walking past outdoor cafes. He questioned how
many beach sidewalks are wider than five feet. He felt the City Manager's suggestion to return to the Commission with concepts represented the best approach to addressing the issue.
Consensus was to bring back a list of issues associated with this ordinance for City Commission discussion on January 17, 1995.
Mr. Shuford questioned if the Commission wants any revisions to be reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Board and Development Code Adjustment Board (DCAB) prior to coming before the Commission.
Consensus was to bring it to the Commission first.
The City Commission recessed from 8:30 to 8:45 p.m.
ITEM #13 - (Cont'd from 09/01 & 10/20/94) Public Hearing & First Reading Ordinance. 5668-94 -
Amending various sections within Chapters 35, 36, 40, 41 & 42, revising alcoholic beverages sales regulations, establishing new definitions, creating a new appeals process, establishing
a new "nightclubs, taverns, and bars" use & establish conditional use standards (LDCA 94-17)(CP)
At several meetings, the City Commission provided staff with direction on revising the City's alcoholic beverage regulations. Staff completed an ordinance they feel complies with Commission
direction. The ordinance has been reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Board and Development Code Adjustment Board and recommended changes and additions.
Mr. Shuford noted changes were recommended to streamline the permitting of the more innocuous uses and provide additional requirements for conditional use permits. He said the changes
would affect staff workloads. As an example, he noted the December 13, 1994 Planning & Zoning Board (P&Z) agenda. He noted if this ordinance is adopted on second reading, the number
of conditional use permit requests addressed at that meeting would be reduced from thirteen to six.
Mr. Shuford referred to the new definitions listed in Section 35.11. He noted "nightclubs, taverns and bars" are now defined as any facility licensed by the State for on premise consumption
of alcoholic beverages not otherwise defined as a restaurant. He noted language was added to the City's definition of a restaurant to prohibit package sales and provide that at least
51% or more of gross sales receipts are for the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages and permit no more than 15% of the gross floor area be devoted to waiting areas, lounges, or entertainment
areas.
Mr. Shuford referred to Section 36.065 and noted a significant change is proposed in the appeal process. Based on Commission direction, this provision allows appeals for conditional
use decisions rendered by the Planning and Zoning Board not to go to a Hearing Officer but to come to the City Commission. He noted Civic Center has been added to the ordinance to allow
consideration of alcoholic beverage sales uses for fund raising events.
Mr. Shuford referred to Section 41.053 which addresses supplementary standards for conditional use permits.
Commissioner Deegan referred to Section 41.053 (19.1) and suggested changing the word "permitted" to "authorized." Ms. Shuford said that language is used throughout the
supplementary standards but will be changed to "allowed" for consistency. Commissioner Deegan recommended adding "by the Planning and Zoning Board" after "allowed."
Mayor Garvey questioned if it was possible to consolidate the regulations. Mr. Shuford stated that would be difficult. He referred to Section 41.074, the alcoholic beverage use table,
suggested by the Planning and Zoning Board to clarify the City's regulations.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if a conditional use permit would be allowed if all supplementary standards are met. Mr. Shuford indicated this is so. Commissioner Deegan suggested
adding the word "and" after (19.1) (a) through (e) because all conditions must be met. Mr. Shuford said staff would make certain other parts of the ordinance were consistent with that
recommendation.
Mr. Shuford referred to (19.1)(b) addressing the separation issue. He explained this section gives the Planning and Zoning Board authority to determine if an overconcentration of alcoholic
beverage uses exists in a particular area.
Commissioner Deegan referred to the words "inappropriate" and "potential" and questioned if using this broad language in the ordinance could cause problems for the City. The City Attorney
recommended removing the word "inappropriate" and leaving the word "concentration." Mr. Shuford indicated it was difficult to include these recommendations unless a standard measurement
technique is used. He noted between 90% and 95% of variances were granted using that technique and indicated the City runs into difficulty denying a use based on past approval actions.
He noted specificity cuts both ways. If the Planning and Zoning Board denies a permit, the appeal comes to the Commission who will see the same information and determine if the permit
is justified.
Commissioner Deegan expressed concern that too many permit requests will be approved. He noted the Commission had recommended the Planning and Zoning Board hear these requests for a
six month trial period. Mr. Shuford thought the six month trial period was for the appeal process. Commissioner Deegan expressed concerns regarding the precision of the language used.
The City Attorney noted the difficulty in identifying concrete language without specific measures that would allow needed flexibility. The Mayor noted a potential for problems either
way.
Commissioner Fitzgerald supported streamlining the regulations. He expressed concern with the 500 foot separation distance. He noted the earlier illustration with Item #10 of what
would happen if the separation distance was extended from 300 feet. He questioned the rationale that determines that a 500 foot separation distance is better than 300 feet. He also
expressed concerns with basing distance separation on measurements from property line to property line. Mr. Shuford noted the Planning and Zoning Board recommended retaining the current
measurement technique from the edge of the use area to the property line of the "protected use."
Mr. Shuford reviewed the philosophy of the 500 foot separation distance. He said the intent is to provide a wider range of review area for alcoholic beverage sales. He said that distance
does not preclude the board from considering an alcoholic beverage use within that 500 feet. He said an applicant must specifically address each issue and show how they meet the standards
of approval.
Commissioner Fitzgerald felt the current requirements were being extended and would cause a rise in the number of questions when the intent was to reduce questions. He expressed concerns
at the more restrictive situation and indicated he could not support a 500 foot separation distance and the property line to property line way of measuring. Mr. Shuford pointed out
the ordinance is a result of a number of Commission meetings. He noted requests like Item #10 are not unusual and felt these regulations will make the City more "user friendly." Mayor
Garvey questioned if distance was a key factor.
Commissioner Deegan indicated it was and spoke in favor of the 500 foot separation distance. He noted individuals within the 500 feet would now have to justify they meet specific standards
before only one board. He said staff indicated there was little difference between a 300 and 500 foot separation. Mr. Shuford said the separation distance allows the City to review
a snap shot of uses within that distance. He agreed there was little difference in the number of establishments affected when a 500 foot separation was compared with 300 feet, property
line to property line. He noted the Commission had indicated their preference for the 500 foot measurement.
Commissioner Berfield referred to the alcoholic beverage separation request for property across from Clearwater High School. She noted Planning and Zoning Board members did not deny
the request. Mr. Shuford said that request represented the key event that triggered this updated ordinance. He said under current regulations, the proximity of the school could not
be considered if standards are otherwise met. The request then came to the Commission and was denied. The Commission had questioned why the request ever came before them.
In response to Commissioner Thomas' question, Mr. Shuford said if the alcoholic beverage use area is less than 15% of the building's total floor area and a hotel has 100 or more rooms,
the hotel could be constructed as a permitted use. If the lounge area comprised 16% to 20% of the building's floor area, the hotel could be constructed as a conditional use with approval
by the Planning and Zoning Board. Commissioner Thomas questioned how the hotel's meeting rooms impact the square footage issue. Mr. Shuford said they are not measured.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if Walgreens built on the Plaza property at Hercules Avenue and Gulf to Bay Boulevard, would they then qualify for alcoholic beverage package sales under
the proposed ordinance. Mr. Shuford said package sales could be permitted with approval of a conditional use permit from the Planning and Zoning Board who would be justified to deny
the request based on its proximity to the school. Mr. Shuford pointed out if more property was purchased and the store had a floor area of 25,000 square feet or more with package sales
comprising 5% or less of the floor area, sales of alcoholic beverages would be a permitted use.
Commissioner Thomas referred to Section 42.34 (e) and noted one parking space is required for every 100 square feet of restaurant space. He asked if enforcement of these regulations
pertained to Downtown. Mr. Shuford indicated Downtown and Clearwater Beach are separate zones with separate parking requirements.
Commissioner Thomas requested consideration of permitting delicatessens on Clearwater Beach to sell package beer and wine. Mr. Shuford indicated he and the City Attorney have concerns
regarding drawing the distinction between convenience stores and delicatessens. He said the definitions he presented attempt to draw that distinction: a "convenience store" means any
retail establishment offering for sale grocery and household items, newspapers and magazines, gasoline and other auto produces, incidental sales of cooked food or site-prepared food
ready for serving off-premises, and similar items, and "delicatessen" means any retail establishment that is primarily devoted to the selling of cooked food or site-prepared food ready
for serving on the premises of off-premises, with only incidental sales of grocery and non-food items. Mayor Garvey suggested looking beyond the beach area with these suggestions.
She expressed concerns regarding the definition. Mr. Shuford said he shared that concern.
Commissioner Deegan noted the definition of delicatessen refers to an establishment serving site-prepared food ready for serving on or off the premises. Mr. Shuford said a deli could
be classified as a restaurant or as a tavern, nightclub, or bar with a conditional use permit. He said the regulations have attempted to limit package sales on Clearwater Beach. He
said delicatessens would require a conditional use permit to have package sales.
Commissioner Deegan noted if there is a certain percentage of on-site food consumption, the establishment would be classified as a restaurant, not a delicatessen. Mr. Shuford expressed
concern regarding the take-out component of a delicatessen because a restaurant cannot have package sales. Commissioner Deegan recommended adding language to Section 41.053 (f) to clarify
this situation.
Commissioner Deegan questioned whether the ordinance would allow on site consumption of alcohol. Mr. Shuford said there is still the ability to classify the deli as a restaurant or
nightclub with conditional use approval.
Discussion ensued in allowing package sales and on premise consumption in a small scale establishment.
Commissioner Thomas said there is a need for take-out food on the beach and wanted to ensure there is the ability to take out alcoholic beverages with take-out food. Mr. Shuford said
if a delicatessen is defined as a place where one can eat-in and take-out food, the same language should be included under "nightclubs, taverns and bars," so they are able to do both
in the beach commercial district.
Commissioner Berfield questioned what makes a restaurant different from an eat-in delicatessen. Mr. Shuford said restaurants cannot sell package alcoholic beverages. Commissioner Berfield
questioned if a small restaurant could be considered a delicatessen. Mr. Shuford said delicatessens would be required to obtain a conditional use permit. He said if a restaurant is
licensed to sell alcoholic beverages but does not meet the City's definition of a restaurant, the City will classify it as a "nightclub, tavern and bar," a limited classification on
Clearwater Beach. He said the issue is complicated.
Commissioner Thomas said he was comfortable with the ordinance with the added language. He indicated this provision will make it profitable for a merchant to be in the
delicatessen business. Commissioner Fitzgerald indicated he had no problem with the delicatessen issue.
Consensus was to include language in two separate sections of the ordinance permitting delicatessens to sell alcoholic beverages
Commissioner Deegan referred to Section 41.053 (c) (1) regarding passenger vessels. Mr. Shuford said the Planning and Zoning Board recommended adding this language. Other recommendations
were that the Hearing Officer appeals procedure be retained and the alcoholic measurement technique be from property line to use area. These recommendations were not included because
they were in direct conflict with Commission direction. Staff included their recommendation for an exception to the 500 foot separation distance for vessels that served alcoholic beverages
only after the ship was underway.
Commissioner Deegan referred to the minutes from the Marine Advisory Board meeting that indicated the cruise line serves alcohol while at the dock prior to getting underway. Mr. Shuford
stated that practice would be inconsistent with the Empress Cruise Line's conditional use permit and separation variance. Commissioner Deegan requested the Harbormaster inform the Marine
Advisory Board this is a misinterpretation of the City's intent. He noted Section 41.053(a)(1) does not only refer to cruise ships but any passenger vessel. Mr. Shuford said once the
boats are underway, the City would not regulate their use activity.
Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned if a boat owner sitting on his boat at the marina could drink a beer. Commissioner Deegan pointed out the ordinance references selling alcoholic beverages.
Mr. Shuford noted boats taking passengers out to the Gulf would not be affected by the 500 foot separation if no alcohol was sold at the dock. Boats selling alcoholic beverages at
the dock would be required to obtain a conditional use permit.
Mayor Garvey questioned if the fee for a charter boat includes the cost of alcoholic beverages. Commissioner Deegan said as long as the charter does not serve alcohol dockside, the
"sale" would not need to be addressed. He felt the ordinance addresses charter boats not serving alcohol until they are underway or located within 500 feet of a protected area.
Commissioner Thomas felt serving alcohol at the marina is a nonissue as there are no nearby residences. Commissioner Berfield pointed out there are residences within 500 feet of the
Clearwater Marina. Mr. Shuford recommended adding language to the ordinance to address sales on passenger vessels licensed by the State to sell alcoholic beverages. It was felt this
was a good recommendation.
Commissioner Berfield questioned the Planning and Zoning Board's rationale to include this section. Mr. Shuford said the Planning and Zoning Board wanted to be certain boats that were
underway would not be subject to the added restrictions of the 500 foot separation issue. Commissioner Thomas said he could not see anything wrong with allowing small fishing boats
to serve beer at the dock. Commissioner Deegan recommended dropping the last half of the sentence to read "...on a passenger vessel on which alcoholic beverages are served only after
the vessel is underway." Commissioner Thomas recommended the ordinance just address cruise ships. Mr. Shuford recommended language be included to limit restrictions to vessels licensed
by the State to sell alcohol.
The majority consensus was to accept Mr. Shuford's recommendation.
Commissioner Deegan referred to Section 41.071 (2) and noted Commission direction was that change of ownership should require a conditional use permit. Mr. Shuford agreed that had been
the direction but noted the Commission had also suggested certain uses be "permitted uses." He said a change of ownership would not necessarily trigger any additional review if the
uses are "permitted uses." He said accessory uses are limited to a percentage of a retail center's floor area and are "permitted uses" and would not require review. Establishments
having conditional use approval to sell alcoholic beverages would be required a change of ownership review.
Commissioner Deegan indicated the accessory use language seems to include "nightclubs, taverns and bars." Mr. Shuford noted the Holiday Inn could have a lounge as a permitted use that
may not qualify as a restaurant as long as the total area where alcoholic beverages were sold did not exceed 15% of the building's total floor area limit established for an accessory
use.
Commissioner Deegan referred to the Dock of the Bay. Mr. Shuford said the City would address this type of use with code enforcement efforts addressing the noise and nuisance ordinances
and, if need be, pulling the occupational license. He said after the problems have stopped, if the floor area where alcoholic beverages are sold is limited to 10% of the floor area,
the business could be reestablished with a different operator as a permitted use. He noted the Commission is giving up an element of control with this ordinance and would be relying
upon the business judgement of the operators. He felt there would be an element of risk.
Commissioner Deegan felt if the new owners had to listen to complaints against the previous owners, they may be cooperative. Mr. Shuford said staff will do a thorough review to identify
problems in certain areas.
Commissioner Berfield questioned if an occupational license is issued to an individual or a business. Mr. Shuford said the occupational license is usually in the name of the business.
Commissioner Berfield questioned if a business could reopen under another name. Mr. Shuford said the City's occupational license enforcement would prevent that from happening.
Commissioner Berfield felt the owner of a strip shopping center is responsible for the tenant. She questioned what to do if the person causing the problem is the owner. Mr. Shuford
said this problem would be pursued through the City's code enforcement measures.
Commissioner Deegan referred to Commission's direction to prohibit "grandfathering" conditional use permits for businesses which were required to have, but did not obtain, a separation
distance variance. Mr. Shuford said it was recommended this be addressed through administrative procedures.
Commissioner Deegan requested ordinances be dated so the most current draft is apparent.
Commissioner Deegan recommended the City Manager track the trial period of the ordinance so the Commission can see if it is satisfied with the way it is implemented. Mr. Shuford said
staff would present the Commission with a six-month update. He noted it was a
big step for the Commission to change from a procedural oriented approach to a streamlined one.
Bob Tankel, attorney representing Surf West, Inc., noted it is obvious Clearwater is a tourist destination. He commended the good balance established in this ordinance that will protect
the public from unfettered sales of alcoholic beverages and prohibition. He expressed concerns regarding unintended consequences of the current ordinance. He noted one restaurant on
Clearwater Beach gives beer away because it has no license to sell beer or wine. He said if that restaurant can be licensed under the new ordinance, the tax base will be increased.
He felt this ordinance will increase jobs and City revenues. He recommended its passage.
Bob Bickerstaffe noted the Commission started out to streamline and simplify the rules regarding sales of alcoholic beverages. He said the property line to property line method of measurement
has been used since Walgreens requested a permit to sell alcoholic beverages across from a school. He suggested if the Commission wants to set a distance between alcoholic beverage
sales and a school, he recommended establishing a distance between the building where the alcohol is sold and a boundary established on the school property. He felt the property line
to property line measurement can only be worked out through a complicated series of percentages. He felt this new ordinance increases bureaucracy. He said the present alcoholic beverage
regulations are difficult to police. He recommended developing within the community the respect of the business people that the City is seriously regarding the enforcement of the code.
He requested the Commission make the ordinance clearly understandable.
Mike Frangedis, of the Clearwater Beach Business Association, said as a tourist destination, the community competes with other communities. By not being tourist friendly, the area is
losing tourists. He said people in the community are losing interest. He noted many Clearwater Beach establishments give away alcoholic drinks. He recommended permitting the sales
of alcoholic beverages at restaurants serving food would increase tax dollars. Mr. Frangedis referred to the discussion of alcoholic beverage sales on boats and recommended that every
boat allowed to sell food be permitted to sell alcoholic beverages. He agreed it was important that liquor not be sold near schools. He felt stopping children from drinking alcoholic
beverages starts in the homes.
Mayor Garvey noted a majority consensus regarding delicatessens. She noted no major opposition to the ordinance other than some minor changes. She said she wants to see the amended
proposal before passing the ordinance on first reading and recommended continuing this item until December 1, 1994. Commissioner Deegan noted the ordinance will not be passed until
after the new year if first reading is delayed. He noted the Commission has worked on this proposal for a long time and noted minor cleanup is necessary. Mayor Garvey felt this ordinance
represents a significant step for staff.
Commissioner Thomas recommended passing the ordinance on first reading and staff making the necessary changes before second reading. He felt it was critical to get the process started.
He questioned if any establishment can give away beer. Mr. Shuford felt that practice was probably a violation of City code. Commissioner Thomas requested the Community Response Team
address this issue.
Commissioner Fitzgerald felt the property line to property line measurement would lead to problems with a large shopping center. He believed the measurement should be from the facility
to the establishment. Commissioner Thomas noted current regulations require measuring from building to property line.
Commissioner Deegan said he was satisfied with measuring from property line to property line. He expressed concern for the children at a school or recreational area noting they are
often outside the buildings. Commissioner Thomas agreed with measuring from property line to property line. He did not see a problem with this issue. Commissioner Berfield spoke in
favor of measuring from property line to property line. Mayor Garvey was opposed.
Majority consensus was the measurement should be made from property line to property line.
Bob Bickerstaffe recommended addressing the cruise line in a separate ordinance.
Commissioner Deegan moved to approve the Land Development Code amendment revising the alcoholic beverage regulations with the following amendment: (1) clarify the issue concerning all
conditional use standards of approval being met; (2) add language in Section 41.053 (19.1)c. as follows: "licensed by the state to sell alcoholic beverages"; and (3) establish the same
provisions for deliicatessens serving alcoholic beverages for consumption on premises as for those selling alcoholic beverages in package sales.. The motion was duly seconded.
Commissioner Deegan recommended addressing nebulous language like "inappropriate." The City Attorney said staff would review this language.
Mayor Garvey said she would vote against the ordinance because she did not see an overwhelming need to pass it before the ordinance is amended.
Upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Berfield, Deegan, and Thomas voted "Aye;" Commissioner Fitzgerald and Mayor Garvey voted "Nay." Motion carried.
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5668-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance #5668-94 as amended on first reading. The motion
was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Berfield, Deegan and Thomas.
"Nays": Fitzgerald and Garvey.
Motion carried.
ITEM #14 - Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. #5683-94 - LDCA re Wetland Area Setbacks (Amending Sec. 42.28 to require vegetative buffer setbacks adjacent to "Jurisdictional Wetlands"
under jurisdiction of the State of Florida)(LDCA 94-21)(CP)
Mr. Shuford reported Ed Mazur had requested this item be continued. The City Manager indicated staff concurred with that request. Commissioner Thomas moved to continue Item #14 until
the regularly scheduled meeting of January 19, 1995. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #15 - Special Items of widespread public interest - None.
ITEM #16 - Citizens to be heard re items not on the Agenda - None.
The Commission recessed from 10:31 to 10:39 p.m.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
CONSENT AGENDA (Items #17-18) - Approved as submitted.
ITEM #17 - Receipt/Referral - Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low & RS-8 Zoning for property located at 1613 & 1615 N. Betty Lane, Pine Ridge Sub., Blk B, Lot 9; also
abutting right-of-ways of Betty Lane & Parkwood Street (Charlie Harris, A94-25, LUP94-28)(CP)
ITEM #18 - Receipt/Referral - Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Urban & RS-8 Zoning for property located at 3131 San Mateo St., Del Oro Gardens Sub., Lot 11, 0.17 acres
m.o.l. (Carmichael, A94-26, LUP94-30)(CP)
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
OTHER ITEMS ON CITY MANAGER REPORT
ITEM #19 - Agreement with Pinellas County School Board & the Commission re City notification of and involvement in the approval process for School Board construction projects, including
landscaping removal/installation and the erection of signs (CP)
Commissioner Deegan referred to a letter to the Commission from a citizen about the School Board not protecting trees at the construction project. He questioned how the Commission can
be more forceful in having the School Board understand they must follow the City's ordinance protecting trees. Mr. Shuford said the School Board has been forthright with their plans
and have made adjustments to accommodate staff concerns. Commissioner Deegan questioned if any Commissioner had looked at the site the citizen complained about. The City Manager said
the concern was expressed regarding Paul D. Stevens School and indicated she wants to see the site. Commissioner Thomas said he wrote a letter to Dr. Hinesley requesting he look into
the complaint and reply.
Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the agreement with the Pinellas County School Board and the Commission regarding City notification of and involvement in the approval process for
School Board construction projects, including landscaping removal/
installation and the erection of signs. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #20 - Receipt/Referral - LDCA re temporary commercial parking lots (LDCA 94-27)(CP)
On October 6, 1994, the City Commission directed staff to develop a code amendment to allow greater flexibility in the use of the temporary commercial parking lots on Clearwater Beach.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if the term "backout" parking was used to denote forbidden parking spaces. Mr. Shuford indicated this was the case. He questioned if there are many commercial
establishments on the beach where there are no sidewalks with a parking lot immediately accessible by driving over the rights-of-way. Mr. Shuford expressed concerns regarding unsafe
traffic maneuvers. Commissioner Deegan felt it was not logical to permit people to park in such a space to shop and then prohibit drivers from paying and parking there. Assistant City
Manager Baker found it improper to lease City right-of-way. Commissioner Deegan noted the ordinance indicated driving across the right-of-way. Mr. Shuford said backing into traffic
is not a maneuver the City wants to encourage.
Commissioner Thomas noted this type of maneuver is presently being done and recommended the maneuver not be permitted. Mr. Shuford said staff did not want to encourage additional use
beyond what has already been established for the non-conforming parking spaces.
Commissioner Deegan questioned what was non-conforming about that use. Many beach establishments have parking on private property accessed by crossing the City's right-of-way. Mr.
Shuford indicated parking spaces where a wide apron exists for access would be permitted. Commissioner Deegan said the intent of the ordinance is to allow property owners to have a
temporary parking lot on their own property. Mr. Shuford said the sentence will be corrected to read, "In no case shall parking spaces wholly or partially owned by the City of Clearwater
be used as part of a temporary commercial parking lot."
Commissioner Berfield moved to receive the Land Development Code Amendment regarding temporary commercial parking lots and refer to the City Clerk for advertising. 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 #21 - Other Pending Matters
a) (Cont'd from 11/14/94) Amendment & Extension to Lease Agreement for Pier Pavilion of Clearwater, Inc. to operate on a month-to-month basis, with 60 days notice of termination, with
a flat monthly rental rate of 7% of gross sales (MR)
The 1993 special report for the Pier Pavilion of Clearwater, Inc., conducted by CPA Cherry, Bekaert & Holland, shows that the Pier Pavilion paid the City a fixed rent of $50,000 (12
X $4,167 per month) and 10% of $717,883, with a $4,167 credit toward the cost of the bath house. The total percentage amount paid for 1993 was $17,621, plus tax. This amount was
paid on April 26, 1994, and added to FY 1993/94 revenue for a total yearly payment to the City of $67,621.04.
The Fashion Resort at Pier Pavilion was closed at the end of August, 1994, because Mr. Alexander, the tenant, was gearing to close the entire Pier Pavilion operation on December 31,
1994. According to Mr. Alexander, the Fashion Resort portion of the Pier Pavilion accounted for approximately 30% of the total gross sales.
When contacted by staff regarding questions from the City Commission, Mr. Alexander stated he is not interested in a fixed flat monthly rent unless it is in favor. He expressed concerns
with weather and other charges he must bear during the time frame of a month-to-month short term Lease Agreement. He indicated he had no way to forecast revenue to the City for the
Pier Pavilion in 1995.
Seven percent of 1994 gross sales of $537,006.94 would equal $37,590.49. The revenue from the Pier Pavilion may be higher in 1995 because Big Pier 60 was not open during January through
late April 1994. Weather also will be a deciding factor on what revenue to expect from the Pier Pavilion.
Actual revenue the City received from the Pier Pavilion over the past six fiscal years is: FY 1988/89 - $121,607.04; FY 1989/90 - $129,208.70; FY 1990/91 - $37,657.04; FY 1991/92 - $103,517.04;
FY 1992/93 - $96,119.04; and FY 1993/94 - $67,621.04.
Commissioner Thomas said he was satisfied that the proposal now contained numbers on which to base an opinion.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the amendment and extension to the lease agreement for Pier Pavilion of Clearwater, Inc. to operate on a month-to-month basis, with 60 days notice
of termination, with a flat monthly rental rate of 7% of gross sales. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
b) Harborview Center Construction Cost Update for Phase 1 & 1A and proposed budget for Phase 2
On April 7, 1994, the City approved a contract with Rowe Architects, Inc. and Biltmore Construction Company for the renovation of the former Maas Brothers building to accommodate leasing
the middle floor space to Stein Mart, Inc. The Phase 1 contract included architect fees of $285,000, contractor fees of $160,605, and construction costs of $2-million.
As the project progressed, the Commission indicated a desire to extend the project to include the lower and upper floor renovations. On June 14, 1994, cost-saving work items and plans
for a new exterior were presented to the Commission. Estimated construction costs totaled $1,225,000. The architect and contractor agreed to perform under terms of their existing services
contract.
Approval of this agenda item will establish the Phase 2 construction budget for the completion of the entire project for $4,227,000 and includes $379,000 for Phase 2 architectural
fees and $390,000 for Phase 2 general contractor fees, totalling $4,996,000 and authorizes payment of $267,000 for the Phase 1A architectural and general contractor fees.
Funding in the amount of $2,059,620 is available in the Harborview Center project. The balance of $2,936,380 will be provided from the unappropriated balance of Penny for Pinellas funds
available through FY 1999/2000. Because this funding is not immediately available, current funds will be provided through a loan from the Central Insurance Fund to the Special Development
Fund.
Mr. Baker said approval of a construction budget and an extension to the contracts with the architect and contractor is being requested. He said Phase 1 and Phase 1A work was completed
and folded into those costs were several items not identified at the time the Commission authorized the construction budget. He said during construction several items were found that
needed to be addressed. Staff was able to work in these items because of the control the City has over each step using this method of building. Mr. Baker reported everything was accomplished
under budget. If the Commission wishes to complete the project, he strongly recommended doing it now.
The City Manager indicated the funding arrangements of this project need to be discussed. She referred to a memo from Budget Director Tina Wilson indicating the total funding available
in Phase 1 and Phase 2 that has been approved is a little over $6-million. She said an additional $2,936,380 needs to be funded. Ms. Wilson recommends appropriating the money from
the infrastructure projects. The money will be available between now and the year 2000. She said the money would be borrowed from the City and repaid with interest. No money would
be taken from any established projects or Capital Improvement Projects. She noted when money is taken from an uncommitted fund, the City is lessening their options.
Commissioner Fitzgerald observed in the November 8, 1994 election, Charter Amendment #3 was approved limiting spending to $5-million without two public hearings being required. He noted
this item for funding is just slightly below the $5-million limit and does not trigger the two public hearing requirement. Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned if the ten year Penny for
Pinellas program expired in 1998. Ms. Deptula reported the last time the City will get money from the Penny for Pinellas program will be in FY 1999/2000. She said no assumptions or
recommendations are based on the possibility of an extension of the program.
Commissioner Fitzgerald expressed concern when the Harborview Center project started it was much smaller and is now costing the City $10-million or more, including the cost of the land.
He noted other costs not tabulated in the cost of the Harborview Center include the 50% rebate for three years worth of rent that Stein Mart will receive for the purposes of constructing
their floor. He expressed concern that numbers are being juggled significantly and money is being taken from other projects. Ms. Deptula said the identified funding sources represents
money that has not been committed at this point. Commissioner Fitzgerald noted money was being taken out of accounts other than the infrastructure fund. Ms. Deptula said the money
for the Harborview Center is already in the budget, approved through the FY 1994/95 budget process. Commissioner Fitzgerald noted use of these funds will reduce the City's potential
revenue from savings accounts. He expressed concerns regarding lost flexibility in revenues and unknown ramifications.
The City Manager said any time the City spends money interest is lost. She questioned if the Commission's priority is to finish the project now. She reported the City's level of reserves
is more than adequate. Money spent for this project has not been allocated to other projects. She noted the question is if the City Commission wants to spend this money on this project
or one for reclaimed water. She said if the Commission wishes to complete the Harborview Center, now is the time. Commissioner Fitzgerald expressed concern if going to a conference
center is the right decision.
Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned when the City would see a return on this investment. Ms. Deptula said the firms interested in managing the Harborview Center have not yet made their
presentations. She said it is believed the Center is better than a "break-even" proposition.
Commissioner Fitzgerald noted today's question is whether the City wants to invest an additional $5-million into the Harborview Center. Mr. Baker said the money the City is now considering
spending would not be lost. He stated the worst thing that could happen is the conference center failing and the space being used for retail sales.
Commissioner Fitzgerald expressed concern that no fiscal analysis was completed on the project and questioned how the City will return to the citizens what is being invested. He referred
to the recommendation to borrow money for the project from the City's central insurance fund and transfer it to the special development fund and questioned the impact of those actions.
He indicated the plan is to collect interest at the cash pool rate. He questioned if there would be an impact on the City's insurance fund. He noted the plan to take $2.9-million
out of the insurance fund and questioned how much money is in the fund. Deputy City Manager Kathy Rice indicated approximately $6.8-million was in the fund last year.
Commissioner Fitzgerald expressed concern about the Commission's piecemeal approach to the project. He said the Commission was led to believe this would be a $2-million project. He
noted the cost increased to $6-million and is now up to $9-million. He questioned when the cost would stop increasing. He felt the project's true costs have been masked because of
the piecemeal approach. He questioned if the City will be cutting into its revenue streams and impact future City projects. He referred to Rowe Architects, Inc.'s November 10, 1994
construction cost update and noted the number of exclusions from the construction costs estimates for kitchen leasehold equipment and furnishings, landscaping, legal fees, etc., and
questioned who would pay these fees. Ms. Deptula said whatever deal is struck for the restaurants will come back to the City Commission for approval.
Commissioner Fitzgerald noted the update includes approval of the atrium. He expressed concern the Commission has gotten itself into a position of spending nearly $10-million in unprogrammed
expenses. He felt the Commission is stuck with the project and believed it would be a drain on the City's finances. He noted the management contract was not accounted for. He said
the consultants that indicated the project would make money were not objective as they want the contract to manage the Center.
Mayor Garvey questioned if the Commission stops the project now, what would be accomplished. She noted the building cannot be sold until it is completed.
Commissioner Fitzgerald felt the Commission got dragged into the project and reached decisions without thinking it through. He noted the project is now much more expensive than was
anticipated. He said he did not understand why no citizens were present to protest. Mayor Garvey agreed Commissioner Fitzgerald gave a good historical perspective on the development.
Commissioner Thomas said he did not think the Commission was dragged into the project but knew what they were getting into. He noted he voted against the Stein Mart lease because he
thought the City could get more money. He said when a project is started, one has to try to make the most of it. He said he believes the project will be a giant cash register for the
City. He noted the management firm being considered views the Center on a stand alone basis. He estimated the Center will generate a positive cash flow of between $0.5-million and
$1-million per year. He recommended this cash flow be designated for the projects Commissioner Fitzgerald referred to earlier.
Commissioner Thomas felt the atrium issue needs to be addressed tonight. He recommended the final design be a joint effort with the management firm the City hires. He said the building
is turning into a beautiful architectural piece. He believed there was no end to the possibilities of what will happen to the City because the Commission finally did something exciting.
Commissioner Thomas said he approved of the atrium as long as it is energy efficient and easy to maintain. He recommended the structure be designed to include a future monorail station.
Commissioner Thomas noted his conversation with the architect regarding the top floor restaurant and the staircase on the north corner wall. He felt code could be met by having double
exit signs going out of the restaurant directing to the corner staircase.
Commissioner Thomas said he is thrilled and impressed with the project. He estimated the project will take three years to be a success. He said Clearwater will be the only City in
the country with a profitable trade show/conference center.
Commissioner Deegan disagreed that the Commission was dragged into the project. He said the Commission made a conscious decision to use the design/build route for this project. He
noted this building method represents a different way of doing business since many expenses are not addressed up front. He agreed with setting up a special enterprise fund for profits
from the Center. He said he fully expected the Center to be a cash cow generating money for the City. He commended the City Manager for lowering the project costs to under $5-million
and said that figure had nothing to do with the recently passed Charter amendment. He indicated the City Manager and staff worked hard to pare back the expenses.
Mayor Garvey felt at this point it would be foolhardy not to finish the project.
Commissioner Thomas moved to approve an extension of existing contracts with Rowe Architects, Inc. and Biltmore Construction Company in the amount of $4,996,000 consisting of $4,227,000
construction costs, $379,000 architect/engineering fees and $390,000 general contractor fees for the completion of the Harborview Center project and ratify the expenditure of $110,000
architect/engineering fees and $157,000 general contract fees for the completion of
the Phase 1A work ($1,225,000 construction costs) previously authorized, and approve an interfund loan in the amount of $2,936,380 from the Central Insurance Fund, bearing interest at
the cash pool rate, to be repaid from Penny for Pinellas collections in fiscal years 1998 and 2000.
Mayor Garvey indicated she may not vote for the item if the monorail and atrium are included in the motion. Commissioner Thomas noted the atrium is part of the issue and agreed to amend
his motion by deleting the reference to the monorail.
The motion was duly seconded.
Commissioner Deegan noted the Commission has been collecting information for several months regarding the Harborview Center and referred to recommendations dated August 1994. Ms. Deptula
said those recommendations had been addressed. Commissioner Deegan referred to Item #2 which recommends the operating budget for the fund be established in mid-year 1994/95 and noted
those dates were no longer accurate. Ms. Deptula stated those recommendations were approved as part of the budget and agreed the time table had slipped.
Mayor Garvey questioned when the Commission decided to include the atrium in the design. She said she was uncomfortable with including it without discussion.
Dean Rowe, of Rowe Architects, Inc., said without the atrium, there will be a perception that the building's upper level is not accessible. The atrium allows escalators to be installed
in an area where all visitors can experience the water view. He said the atrium will help populate the building. He felt it was an essential element. Without the atrium, the building
will be dependent on an additional three elevators to transport people up and down.
Commissioner Deegan questioned if the atrium in the model was changed. Mr. Rowe indicated the model was exactly the same as before and no change had been made.
Upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Berfield, Deegan and Thomas and Mayor Garvey voted "Aye;" Commissioner Fitzgerald voted "Nay." Motion carried.
c) Summer Youth Employment Program RFP Draft
Commissioner Deegan referred to suggestions he made in a memorandum to Human Relations Director Eleanor Breland on October 31, 1994. He hoped to see a recognition of the suggestions
he made. He referred to the sample agreement used last year and saw no reason to use a form that has been changed. He questioned why the program's mission would change from one year
to the next. Ms. Rice indicated staff had tried to address the comments in Commissioner Deegan's October 31, 1994 letter by indicating a yearly reaffirmation of the mission. Commissioner
Deegan recommended including the mission statement in the Request for Proposal (RFP) after the first sentence. He recommended specifying the age group and areas targeted.
Commissioner Deegan noted it would be easier to discuss documentation if all the pages were numbered.
Commissioner Deegan referred to the first page of the RFP and recommended the participants be interviewed by the employer. Ms. Rice said she thought that was covered and will make it
be more specific in the proposal.
Commissioner Deegan referred to the RFP and questioned if the reference to placements referred to the number of teens or the number of employers in the program. Ms. Rice said she would
clarify that placements refers to employers.
Commissioner Deegan referred to the RFP and questioned the reference to placements in special public sector positions. He thought the program was directed to the private sector. Ms.
Rice said she would clarify the language.
Commissioner Deegan referred to the RFP noting the requirement to submit an end of program report. He questioned what needs to be included in the report. Ms. Rice said staff will make
it clear.
Commissioner Deegan referred to the RFP and questioned why youth should be paid for attending orientation sessions. He agreed participants should be paid for work but noted the City
is trying to teach youth how to apply for a job and felt no employer pays anyone to find out how to apply for a job. Ms. Rice said the program had an extensive orientation program after
acceptance to teach the youth job behavior and how to dress. She said this is part of the job placement experience and will be paid for. Commissioner Deegan noted the RFP states, "prior
to enrollment."
Commissioner Deegan referred to the agreement and noted it was for a one-year contract with a possible two-year renewal. He said the recommendation from WorkForce was for two years
and questioned why the City extended the agreement. Ms. Rice said staff wanted more control by not making the renewal automatic. Commissioner Deegan recommended the contract be for
one year with a one year renewal should the City wish to release a new RFP. Ms. Rice said staff wished to review the contract every year for renewal without having to release a new
RFP.
Commissioner Deegan referred to the evaluation of proposals and questioned the administration costs of the program. He questioned how much the City paid for the program to be administered
last year. Ms. Rice noted last year's administrative costs included counselors. Commissioner Deegan pointed out the need to tell applicants what is meant by the term "administrative
costs" and establish limits on direct costs, indirect costs, support services, etc.
Commissioner Deegan referred to the submission of proposals and noted they requested three references. He suggested requiring two additional references from private employers. Ms.
Rice said the City will contact additional references beyond what is supplied by the applicants. She said the request was to provide staff a starting point for evaluation. She said
staff would take the recommendation into account.
Commissioner Deegan referred to the Agreement and questioned why "the Contractor" was crossed off in (d) since some of the following issues are to be addressed by the contractor. Ms.
Rice said the word should not have been crossed out.
Commissioner Deegan referred to (d2), the need to establish explicit goals for the program. He recommended the goals should not be established at a later time but should be included
with the RFP. He felt the RFP was not ready for release.
Commissioner Deegan referred to (d4), the request to define the population to be served. He said the age of the participants should be established in the Mission statement or among
the City's goals and not determined later. Ms. Rice said last year, 50% of the participants were 16 years old and above. She questioned if last years's breakout of older team participants
was acceptable. Commissioner Deegan said the goal was for at least 50% of the participants to be 17 - 23 years old and noted the final percentage of older participants was 49%. He
noted the emphasis was to be on older youth. He said at least 50% of the program should be focussed on 17 - 23 year old youth. Mayor Garvey suggested including 16 year old youths.
Commissioner Deegan said the Commission had a discussion after the first year of the program and noted how easy it was to place the younger youth. He said the program needs to help
the older participants who are ready to enter the marketplace. Ms. Rice noted some participants were 16 year old school dropouts. She recommended including 16 year old drop outs in
the preferred group. Commissioner Deegan noted the City is trying to teach the participants to land and hold a job.
Commissioner Deegan referred to last year's goal that at least 10% of the participants will be from economically disadvantaged households. He recommended the program be available to
more City residents and not kept at low income. He noted a lot of today's youth are in trouble. Many, including some from well-to-do families, need some help. He suggested the majority
of the slots should be for low income residents.
Commissioner Thomas said if that change is made, he will support the program. He said the United State's educational system spends 84% of total education dollars on society's lowest
segment. He suggested the system is focused on the wrong end.
Commissioner Deegan said the focus of the program should be on disadvantaged youth but that 10% of the slots should be open for everybody.
Ms. Rice referred to the youth diversion programs the City sponsored last summer and noted some were very successful. She questioned if the Commission wanted to include those programs.
Commissioner Deegan said no and indicated that is part of a different program.
Commissioner Deegan referred to page 2 of the agreement sample (9) regarding defining a time frame. He noted the RFP set a 60 day time limit. He noted (10) also is already addressed
in the RFP. He noted the word "Contractor" should not be scratched in paragraph #2. He referred to paragraph #3 and questioned why the City would pay $50,000 up front. He said there
is no way an organization will require that large of a cash advance in February. Ms. Rice said she would work out the language.
Commissioner Deegan referred to the last sentence in paragraph #5 and suggested that line makes renewal almost automatic. He recommended it say that "...both parties must decide to
extend this agreement."
Commissioner Thomas noted last year the program only directed $85,000 to the youth and felt the administration fees were too heavy. Ms. Rice said after the first program's first
year, staff was aware of the need to provide counseling support. Commissioner Thomas felt $55,000 was too much to spend for administration. He questioned the cost for City's staff
to administer the program. Ms. Rice said she would bring back an amended draft to the next City Commission meeting
d) Set dates for Strategic Planning
The City Manager requested a Strategic Planning Session be set. The meeting was scheduled for January 12, 1995 from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at the Solid Waste Complex.
Commissioner Thomas moved to continue the meeting past midnight. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Berfield, Deegan, and Thomas voted "Aye;" and
Commissioner Fitzgerald and Mayor Garvey voted "Nay." Motion carried.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS
ITEM #22 - Resolutions
a) Res. #94-101 - Demolition Lien - 639 Bryant Street - Sec. 21-29-15, M&B 44.30
(Critchley)
The City Attorney presented Resolution #94-101 and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Resolution #94-101 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.
b) Res. #94-102 - Demolition Lien - 1306 Pennsylvania Avenue - C. E. Jackson's Sub., Blk 2, part of Lots 9 & 10 (Stanley)
The City Attorney presented Resolution #94-102 and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Resolution #94-102 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.
c) Res. #94-103 - Demolition Lien - 915 LaSalle Street - Palm Park Sub., unnumbered block, N 1/2 of Lot 28 (Rutledge)
The City Attorney presented Resolution #94-103 and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass and adopt Resolution #94-103 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.
d) Res. #94-106 - Assessing property owners costs of mowing or clearing owners' lots
The City Attorney presented Resolution #94-106 and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Resolution #94-106 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 #23 -- Other City Attorney Items
a) First Reading Ord. #5732-94 - Amending Sec. 2.564(2) to increase the City Manager's purchasing authority
The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5732-94 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance #5732-94 on first reading. The motion was duly
seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey.
"Nays": None.
b) Legal Services
The City Attorney requested permission to retain two attorneys. She requested hiring David Cardwell to assist the City with the East End project. She corrected the scope letter to
indicated his assistance is to the City, not to the CRA, and will not exceed $30,000.
Commissioner Deegan indicated he spoke to the City Attorney regarding this request and said he could not approve this request until he received a corrected copy of the scope letter.
He noted the scope of work as identified was written some time ago and does not reflect the Commission's discussion. He did not think this delay would hold up the work. The City Attorney
said as long as she had Commission's approval to allow Mr. Cardwell to begin some work in the meantime, she will return with a refined scope. There was no objection to Mr. Cardwell
beginning work.
The City Attorney referred to the Fisherman's Wharf property the City is in process of condemning and noted Janice Scott has been recommended. The estimated attorney's cost is $50,000
through trial but is subject to change. The City Manager pointed out Ms. Scott is married to Jim Massie, the City's lobbyist.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if this was the best attorney for the job. The City Attorney indicated she interviewed other attorneys and felt, based on the City's needs, Ms. Scott
is the best choice as she has had experience with DOT and eminent domain.
Commissioner Thomas moved to authorize retaining David Cardwell of Holland & Knight for the East End project with the understanding that the scope of service will be brought back to
the Commission and authorize retaining Janice Scott of Massie & Scott of Tallahassee to assist the City in the eminent domain lawsuit at the rate of $135 per hour, no billing for travel
time, at an estimated cost of $50,000 through trial. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #24 - City Manager Verbal Reports
Ms. Rice referred to the legislative update and noted St. Petersburg is trying to add an additional member to the PSTA board. Commissioner Thomas said it was important to oppose St.
Petersburg's position. He noted St. Petersburg already has two members on the PSTA board while Clearwater has one. He felt upper Pinellas County overfunds and underreceives services
from PSTA. Ms. Rice suggested the City could ask for another member. Mayor Garvey suggested it may not be appropriate for St. Petersburg's two members to be elected officials. Commissioner
Deegan indicated the City Attorney in St. Petersburg ruled against the interpretation that both members should be elected. Commissioner Thomas recommended the Commission go on record
opposing St. Petersburg's proposal.
Commissioner Thomas recommended the City of Clearwater opposes the City of St. Petersburg's attempt to add an additional member to the PSTA board. The consensus was to draft a resolution
supporting the Board as is. Ms. Rice said staff would present a resolution to the Commission by the next meeting.
The City Manager referred to follow-up information she is sending to those who responded to the RFP for the Harborview restaurants. Information will go out tomorrow and next week.
Commissioner Thomas recommended including a graphic of the building. Ms. Rice said a graphic could be included in the second mailing.
ITEM #25 - Commission Discussion Items
ITEM #26 - Other Commission Action
Commissioner Deegan noted the City's High Speed Rail Task Force lacks one appointment. He noted the appointment will result in four members who also serve on the County's task force
regarding the High Speed Rail. Commissioner Deegan expressed concern that bringing High Speed Rail to Clearwater may not be the first priority of these four members. Mayor Garvey said
her appointment came highly recommended from the League of Women Voters.
Commissioner Deegan noted members of Clearwater's task force stated point blank at the last meeting that they were more interested in the high speed rail for Pinellas County. Mayor
Garvey questioned if Commissioner Deegan was asking her to withdraw the appointment's name. Commissioner Deegan said he was not because three other members are in the same position.
He recommended the Commission stay in touch with their appointees to reinforce the Task Force's mission.
Commissioner Deegan moved to approve Sue Humphries as a member of Clearwater's High Speed Rail Task Force. The motion was duly seconded.
Commissioner Thomas felt the Commission should pledge that their representatives support Clearwater or ask them to resign.
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if the Commission agreed with his last statement. Commissioner Fitzgerald said he was confident that the people he appointed are very much for the City
of Clearwater.
ITEM #27 - Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 12:35 a.m. (November 18, 1994)