Loading...
02/13/1995 CITY COMMISSION MEETING February 13, 1995 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in regular session at City Hall, Monday, February 13, 1995 at 1:01 p.m., with the following members present: Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner Richard Fitzgerald Commissioner Sue A. Berfield Commissioner Arthur X. Deegan, II Commissioner Absent: Fred A. Thomas Vice-Mayor/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 Patricia Sullivan Board Reporter The Mayor called the meeting to order. The invocation was offered by William C. Baker, Assistant City Manager. The Mayor led the Pledge of Allegiance. 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 Six service awards were presented to City employees. Catherine Yellin, Marine Department, was presented the February 1995 Employee of the Month award. The Commission recessed to meet as the CRA and Pension Trustees at 1:15 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 1:34 p.m. ITEM #3a - Swearing-in of 11 Police Officers The Oath of Office was administered to eleven Police Officers. ITEM #3b - Swearing-in of Americorps members The Oath was administered to 15 Americorps members. The City Commission recessed from 2:14 to 2:25 p.m. ITEM #4 - Approval of Minutes Commissioner Deegan moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of January 30, 1995, two special meetings of January 30, 1995, and special meeting of January 23, 1995, as recorded and submitted in written summation by the City Clerk to each Commissioner. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #5 - Presentations - None. ITEM #6 - Citizens to be heard re items not on the Agenda - None. CITY MANAGER REPORTS CONSENT AGENDA (Items #7-9) - Approved as submitted. ITEM #7 - Contract for Harbor Drive Storm Drainage R&R Improvements to MTM Contractors, Inc., Pinellas Park, FL, for $104,952.50 (EN) ITEM #8 - Drainage and utility easement - lying southerly of and adjacent to Lot 25, Blk. E, Avondale Sub. (Lafferty & DeLario)(CA) ITEM #9 - Drainage and utility easement - lying northerly of and adjacent to Lot 25, Blk. E, Avondale Sub. (Arlene & Clifford Smith)(CA) Commissioner Berfield 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 #10 - Beach Town Meeting Follow Up - Redevelopment Plan/Streetscape - Mandalay & Baymont Due to Commissioner Thomas’ absence, this item was continued to February 27, 1995. ITEM #11 - Discussion re LED signs (CP) Central Permitting Director Scott Shuford attended a recent National Electric Sign Association (NESA) Conference in Atlanta and reported via memorandum that LED signs are becoming more common. The Countywide Sign Code restricts LED signs, except as temporary signage to accomplish a particular purpose. If the Commission wishes to follow the intent and letter of the Countywide Sign Code, LED signs would not be allowed unless restricted to an infrequent message change. Mr. Shuford recommended the City permit freestanding or attached LED signs, as long as the message for these signs does not change more often than eight times per day. The Mayor questioned how the limitations on the message change would be enforced. Mr. Shuford agreed enforcement may be difficult, but noted staff wanted to stop continuous message changes. Commissioner Deegan requested an interpretation of the word “changing” and questioned if a constantly scrolling sign is considered to be “changing.” Mr. Shuford said that is correct. Mr. Shuford said no limitations are proposed for interior LED signs. Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned if the message length had to fit on the board at one time. Mr. Shuford said scrolling a message would not be permitted. Commissioner Deegan questioned if there had been any requests for LED signage. Mr. Shuford said the concept has been discussed. He did not know of any specific LED sign requests. Current code allows the message to change three times a day. Mayor Garvey suggested initiating a trial period or pilot program to get an idea of the effect of these signs. Commissioner Berfield questioned if the County has allowed any LED signs. Mr. Shuford said he did not know of any. He indicated existing LED signs were erected prior to establishment of the Countywide sign ordinance. The Mayor expressed concerns regarding the difficulty of enforcement. Mr. Shuford wished to bring this forward with the comprehensive changes to be made to the sign code. Commissioner Fitzgerald expressed concerns with “opening Pandora’s box.” He noted the Countywide ordinance originally prohibited changing LED signs. Commissioner Deegan noted LED signs were permitted as long as they did not change more than three times a day. The Mayor questioned why eight changes should be permitted. Mr. Shuford said if a business owner was interested in this type of sign, it would be more practical if more frequent changes were permitted. He noted eight changes per day would not resemble a flashing, animated sign. The Mayor pointed out the needs of a restaurant for a changing sign differ greatly from the needs of a shopping center with multiple stores. Commissioner Berfield questioned how the City currently enforces the limit of three changes per day. Mr. Shuford said there are no such signs in the City so it is not a problem. Commissioner Deegan suggested staff monitor signs for which permits are requested and report their findings. Mr. Shuford pointed out the signs are expensive and therefore, he did not believe the requests for them would be frivolous or frequent. Commissioner Deegan said he could see a benefit to businesses who can afford the signage. Consensus was to bring back this recommendation as part of other proposed sign code changes. ITEM #12 - Approve ranking of engineering firms for the City's "Engineer of Record": 1) Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc.; 2) HDR Engineering, Inc.; 3) Tampa Bay Engineering, Inc.; 4) McKim & Creed, Inc.; authorize negotiations with top ranked firm (EN) On October 1, 1994, the City’s current “Engineer of Record” contract with Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM) expired. Under a Request for Qualifications (RFQ), the City advertised for a full service professional engineering consultant firm versed in all aspects of civil/mechanical engineering and able to meet the City’s growing engineering related needs. The City Manager received 15 response qualification packages that were evaluated according to the RFQ guidelines and included an analysis of individual firm technical ability, fullness of resources, experience, permitting expertise and availability. The analysis culminated in “short-listing” four consultants: 1) Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc.; 2) HDR Engineering, Inc.; 3) Tampa Bay Engineering, Inc.; and 4) McKim & Creed, Inc. On January 13, 1995, the four firms made oral presentations to the selection committee. The ranking resulted from the selection committee’s decision, based on each firm’s oral presentation. Upon Commission approval of the ranking, staff will negotiate and bring forth a separate agenda item outlining suggested contract concepts for Commission approval prior to any furtherance on this item. A contract including City Commission recommendations will be presented for Commission approval at a later date. Commissioner Berfield questioned if CDM could have rebid. The City Manager said they could have rebid. Assistant City Manager William Baker indicated CDM chose not to bid. Commissioner Deegan noted the Commission’s acceptance of the ranking without reviewing the proposals indicates the Commission’s confidence in the staff. Commissioner Deegan moved to approve the Consultant Selection Committee’s ranking of prospective engineering firms for the City’s “Engineer of Record”; 1) Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc.; 2) HDR Engineering, Inc.; 3) Tampa Bay Engineering, Inc.; and 4) McKim & Creed, Inc.; and authorize negotiations with the top ranked firm in accordance with the Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #13 - Sailing Center Business Plan The Sailing Center is under the direct management of the Harbormaster, who is assisted by the Assistant Harbormaster. A Sailing Center Coordinator and Recreational Leader work on-site. In FY 1994/95, projected revenue is $29,000, projected donations are $6,000 and projected expenditures are $110,680, leaving a difference of $75,680. The difference between the revenues and the expenditures is funded by the City’s General Fund. Recreational impact fee funds will be requested for any new construction. Harbormaster Bill Held reported a software package was used to develop the business plan. The 18 member Sailing Center Committee and Marine and Sailing Center staff worked on this plan. Mr. Held noted the Center is located on Sand Key and the building’s first floor has office space, a maintenance room, boat storage, restrooms and showers. The second floor has rental space for meetings and receptions. Currently, rentals are limited to Friday and Saturday nights. Mr. Held noted in Fiscal Year (FY) 1993/94, the Sailing Center taught 292 students in sailing classes and five in Resort Sail classes. Other classes for which fees are collected are: Watercolor Painting; Yoga; and Line Dancing. A membership program was established and facility hours were extended without an increase in staff. Plans are being developed to increase revenue/donations and to “Close the Gap” between revenue/donations and expenditures. Donations to the Sailing Center from the Windjammers of Clearwater, local citizens and other organizations are anticipated to continue. The Sailing Center’s objective is to be propelled into a prominent position within the sailing community and be in a position to expand within five years. The plan to reach this objective includes: 1) Continuing the campaign to promote the Center and take full advantage of the facility; 2) doubling the fleet used for instruction and the membership program by FY 1999/2000; 3) increasing the number of contract instructors to meet demands; 4) increasing staff by one part-time employee to support and sustain growth and meet demands of increased room rental and classes; 5) increasing revenue of $29,000 and donations of $6,000 in FY 1994/95 to $53,000 in revenue and $8,500 in donations in FY 1999/2000 to “close the gap” from 31.6% to 47.2%; and 6) developing plans for a floating dock. The marketing strategy consists of increasing the number of sailing students, appealing to building rental customers, reaching sailing organizations, and demonstrating the City can provide a quality facility with excellent customer service. Students will be attracted via: word of mouth; summer activity flyers; the City’s Video Bulletin Board; Parks & Recreation publications; distribution of Sailing Center pamphlets to organizations; and contacting television stations regarding local interest stories. Mr. Held reported caterers are recommending the Sailing Center for wedding receptions, etc. The Sailing Center provides educational and recreational opportunities to people of all ages. Sailing activities include: boat launching & retrieving; boat storage; club membership program; basic sailing classes; resort sailing program; intermediate sailing classes; advance sailing classes (planned); scholarship program; Junior Jammer program; and regattas. Non-sailing related activities include: watercolor painting; yoga; line dancing; meetings & seminars for City departments and non-city organizations; and building rentals for meetings, parties and receptions. Mr. Held said the Sailing Center had three regattas last year and has scheduled five for this year. A Sailing Center Committee, made up of highly qualified members of the sailing community, meets monthly and acts as advisors for the operation of the Sailing Center. The Committee assists the Sailing Center Team in making appropriate decisions and in taking effective action. Mr. Held noted the need for an additional part-time employee to carry out the business plan’s goals and objectives. Some projected demands are: additional room rentals; sailing instruction; increased customer relations; increased regattas; repair and maintenance of larger fleet of vessels; assist with Sailing Center’s marketing; and assist with the supervision of Sailing Center instructors. The present staff of two full time employees is stretched thin running a seven-day a week operation. Mr. Held said a part-time employee would permit Sailing Center to open the building for rental on evenings other than Friday and Saturday. The Sailing Center plans to develop new methods to increase revenue and enhance customer service by: 1) developing plans for a floating dock; 2) increasing the number of sailing regattas; 3) increasing instructional class revenue by $2,000 annually; 4) conducting at least one fund raising activity each year (other than Carlisle Classic); and doubling the fleet of Sailing Center vessels used for instruction and the membership program by FY 1999/2000. Mr. Held reported the Marine Advisory Board has strongly endorsed that the floating dock be made permanent. Mr. Held indicated information on spring sailing classes and other activities at the Sailing Center will be presented on C-View, Channel 35. Mr. Held introduced Ted O’Brien, Vice-Commander of the Windjammers. Mr. O'Brien indicated staff had done a lot with only two members. He said Mr. Held is cooperative and sensitive to the needs of the public. Mr. Held introduced Laurie Schultz, Sailing Center Coordinator. Commissioner Deegan offered congratulations to Mr. Held, staff and volunteers for developing the Sailing Center’s business plan. He noted all Enterprise funds go through the process, which is a learning experience. He said the process is also risky because it raises questions. He expressed concern with Mr. Held’s conclusion that the “Sailing Center can never pay for itself.” The City Manager indicated the Sailing Center is not an enterprise fund but a general fund. Commissioner Deegan said the Sailing Center will be supported by the general fund until it can be self-sustaining. He hoped someday that would be possible. Commissioner Deegan expressed concern that the income from launching fees and boat storage was level in the five-year projection. He hoped income from these fees would increase in the next five years. He indicated he was glad to see a permanent dock was being considered. Commissioner Deegan expressed concern regarding the charge for employee time of $10 an hour straight time and $15 an hour, overtime. He felt the minimum charge should be $12.50 per hour. He requested the City Manager review how these two employees handle their flex time. The Mayor questioned the normal employee charge for other City buildings. Mr. Held indicated the rates are $10 and $15. He suggested these rates need to be increased Citywide. The Mayor thanked Mr. Held and staff for the excellent report. ITEM #14 - Res. #95-18 - Awarding sale of $10,720,000 Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series 1995, to William R. Hough & Co. (FN) Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series 1995, will finance the construction and related furniture and equipment needs of the Police Station portion and one-half of the parking facility of the municipal services/public safety and Police complex. On October 6, 1994, the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit validated this issue. Florida’s Supreme Court affirmed the issue on January 9, 1995. This issue was advertised for competitive public sale scheduled for 2:00 p.m. on February 13, 1995. Each bidder has the option to bid insured or uninsured bonds. The winning bidder is determined by taking this option (cost of bond insurance if elected) into account. Out of bond proceeds, the City can fund a debt service reserve of approximately $880,000 or purchase a debt service reserve surety bond and reduce the bond issue’s size. The decision will be made with the assistance of the City’s Bond Counsel and Financial Advisor and will be based upon factors including requirements imposed by the surety bond issuer, arbitrage regulations, interest rate projections, the possibility of refunding at a future date, etc. Finance Director Margaret Simmons distributed copies of the Preliminary Official Statement and bids received. She indicated the sale was competitive and had seven bidders. The lowest rate was 6.0279%. All proposals were bid with insurance which makes the bonds AAA. It was decided to do a debt service reserve surety which lowered the principal amount of the bonds. The City purchased an insurance policy rather than putting $880,000 into a debt service reserve. The City Manager said staff had originally estimated the sale at $12.5-million but the total is down to $10,720,000. Ms. Simmons indicated the bonds are for the Police facility and half of the parking garage. Commissioner Deegan questioned what the insurance policy is. Ms. Simmons said there are two insurance policies. One is to purchase a debt service reserve fund surety bond. Instead of putting $880,000 into an account to guarantee the City would pay off the debt, the City purchased an insurance policy. David Thornton, of Raymond James and Associates, said the policy costs 2.5% X $880,000 or $22,000. Commissioner Deegan questioned if that is a one time charge. Mr. Thornton indicated it is. Commissioner Deegan questioned if the term of the policy covers the entire length of the bonds. Mr. Thornton indicated it does. Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned if the bonds are for 30 years. Mr. Thornton indicated they are. Commissioner Berfield moved to award the sale of $10,720,000 Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series 1995, to William R. Hough & Co., who submitted the best bid in accordance with the terms of the Notice of Bond Sale and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The City Attorney presented Resolution #95-18 and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Resolution #95-18 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. Absent: Thomas ITEM #15 - Res. #95-15 - authorizing execution of railroad reimbursement agreement with FDOT and CSX Transportation, Inc. (EN) The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is upgrading the railroad crossing signals on Turner Street from flashing signals to flashing signals with gates. This upgrade requires a future maintenance agreement of the railroad grade crossing control devices. The three-party Agreement provides for CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSX) to install grade crossing traffic control devices at the Turner Street location. Upon completion, FDOT will reimburse CSX for all actual costs attributable to the project. The City is not involved financially in this part of the agreement. The City and CSX will each be responsible for 50% of the annual cost of CSX’s operation and maintenance of the devises. The City will be responsible for $1,058.50 of the total maintenance cost of $2,117. The first maintenance payment will be due in the 1995/96 budget year. Clearwater has reimbursement agreements for 17 other railroad crossing locations within City limits. Commissioner Berfield moved to authorize the execution of a railroad reimbursement agreement with the FDOT and CSX. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The City Attorney presented Resolution #95-15 and read it by title only. Commissioner Deegan moved to pass and adopt Resolution #95-15 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan and Garvey. "Nays": None. Absent: Thomas ITEM #16 - Appointment of Commission member to represent the Commission as the Canvassing Board for the 03/14/95 General & Special Election (CLK) Section 101.5612 Florida Statute provides for testing the tabulating equipment to ascertain if the equipment will correctly count votes. It further provides that the Canvassing Board shall convene at this time or the Board may appoint one of its members as representative. The test, open to the press and public, is conducted by processing a pre-audited group of ballots so punched as to record a pre-determined number of valid votes for each question. The test is repeated on election day before the start of the ballot count and again, immediately after the completion of the ballot count. Tests will be conducted at the Election Service Center, 14255 49th Street N, Building 2, Suite A, Clearwater, March 9, 1995 at 2:00 p.m., March 14, 1995 at 11:30 a.m., and March 14, 1995, after completion of the official ballot tabulation. Commissioner Deegan moved to appoint Commissioner Fitzgerald to represent the City Commission on the Canvassing Board. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. a) Confirm time of March 15, 1995 Canvassing Board meeting The City Charter requires the City Commission to meet as the Canvassing Board within 24 hours of the closing of the election polls. The Canvassing Board meeting was scheduled for 12:00 noon, March 15, 1995. ITEM #17 - Other Pending Matters a) Status Report & direction re Tower, Pavilion & Life Guard Station Due to Commissioner Thomas’ absence, this item was continued to February 16, 1995. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS ITEM #18 - Other City Attorney Items a) Discussion re proposed ordinance prohibiting solicitation of property posted with "no solicitation" signs The City Attorney received complaints from a Clearwater resident about the annoyance caused by uninvited solicitors. The City Attorney requested Assistant City Attorney Rob Surette to draft an ordinance prohibiting uninvited solicitors from soliciting on the premises of a private residence when the owners or occupants have exhibited an expectation of privacy from such solicitations by posting or placing “No Solicitation” signs on their property. According to the draft, a violation could result in a fine of up to $500, imprisonment for a term not exceeding 60 days, or both a fine and imprisonment. A Police Officer can arrest a violator of an ordinance only when the Police Officer observes the violation being committed. By the time the Officer responds to the scene, the violator may no longer be on the premises. It is possible the Officer cannot immediately act against the violator. The Officer could prepare a Police report containing the identity of the violator and statements from the resident and witnesses to be submitted to the State Attorney’s Office for prosecution. Commissioner Berfield questioned if the ordinance also could apply to businesses. The City Attorney could not think of why it could not. Commissioner Deegan thought it was a good idea. The City Attorney said this item would be agendaed for first reading at the next Commission meeting. b) Discussion re proposed ordinance prohibiting possession of alcoholic beverages on park property and creating a new definition of alcoholic beverages Section 116.89, Code of Clearwater, prohibiting the possession of an alcoholic beverage in any form in pubic parks was repealed when City ordinances were recodified. Although Section 6.31 prohibits possession of opened containers of alcoholic beverages in public parks, it does not address unopened ones. Consequently, Police Officers cannot prevent a vagrant from sitting on a bench while holding a sealed container of an alcoholic beverage. Section 22.59 creates a prohibition against the possession of alcoholic beverages in any form on park property with certain exemptions. An amendment to Section 6.21 is included to create a definition of “alcoholic beverages” consistent with the definition of alcoholic beverages contained in Section 561.01(4)(a), Florida Statutes. Mayor Garvey questioned who raised this concern. The City Attorney indicated the Police Department had. Commissioner Berfield questioned if the ordinance could be directed to someone who had poured an alcoholic beverage into another container. The City Attorney noted the last sentence in the definition states that one can determine a liquid is alcohol by experience. Commissioner Berfield questioned if the liquid would have to be tasted. The City Attorney indicated the identification could be made by smell. Consensus was to go forward with this ordinance. Assistant City Attorney salary adjustments The City Attorney indicated she will soon address her goal to develop and establish a pay plan for the Assistant City Attorneys. In the interim, she requested the salary adjustments for the Assistant City Attorneys be handled in the same manner as Department Directors until the new pay plan is in place. Commissioner Deegan agreed this suggestion was in line with the proposed change to the Charter. Consensus was to permit the City Attorney to handle salary adjustments for the Assistant City Attorneys in the same manner as Department Directors until a new pay plan is developed and established. Outside legal counsel The City Attorney requested the City Commission approve short term outside legal counsel for cable negotiations regarding the proposed transfer of Vision Cable’s ownership. She said intense legal issues must be addressed regarding the transfer. She estimated the cost at under $10,000. Commissioner Berfield moved to approve outside legal counsel not to exceed $10,000 in cost for cable negotiations regarding the proposed transfer of Vision Cable’s ownership. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #19 - City Manager Verbal Reports The City Manager reported a memorandum from the Clearwater Free Clinic requested the City remove three trees from their parking lot. The City’s estimated cost for this project would be $1,200. The City Manager noted the Free Clinic is not an agency the City routinely funds. She expressed concern about approving the project because the City routinely receives similar requests. The Mayor questioned if these trees are ones the City would allow to be destroyed. The City Manager indicated the trees can be removed because they are not healthy. She expressed concern with setting a precedent. Commissioner Berfield questioned if there were liability issues. The City Attorney indicated liability issues could arise. Commissioner Fitzgerald expressed concern with setting precedent. He said it would be a nice favor but suggested the Commission look at it in a much broader sense. He recommended caution in extending this assistance because the City soon could be overwhelmed with requests. Mayor Garvey expressed reservations with the request. She said she supported the Free Clinic but questioned how the City would meet the next agency’s request. Commissioner Berfield agreed. Consensus was to deny the request out of concern that a precedent not be set. Special Closed Meeting for bargaining A Special Closed Meeting for bargaining was scheduled for February 16, 1995 at 4:00 p.m. ITEM #20 - Commission Discussion Items - None. ITEM #21 - Other Commission Action Commissioner Deegan reported a resolution was drafted at a Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) board meeting regarding an option available to the County Commission to impose a 5% local option gas tax in addition to current gas taxes. PSTA is faced with declining revenues and lost $1/2-million in federal funding this year. Besides diminishing funds, PSTA is mandated by the Federal government to provide transportation for the disadvantaged unable to use fixed routes. Commissioner Deegan said the PSTA legislative issues committee agreed State legislators will not help in this area until the local community reacts. He said the community can review the local option gas tax. He noted no one likes taxes but pointed out certain mandates must be implemented. The committee realized cities also have unfunded mandates regarding ADA requirements. The present 6% local option gas tax was implemented through an interlocal agreement between PSTA, the County, and County municipalities. If this local option gas tax is increased, a similar interlocal agreement will be required. Commissioner Deegan stated the board never considered the tax to only fund PSTA. He indicated the proposal had been presented incorrectly. The County Commission did not consider the proposal seriously when it was presented as something solely for bus transportation. Commissioner Deegan said the same thing happened at the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) meeting where he was able to cast the request in the proper light. He said the idea was presented to these two bodies prematurely. Other PSTA board members also are returning to their municipalities to see if the various city commissions and councils are interested in supporting this local option gas tax as a source of funding unfunded mandates. He said PSTA board members would review the feedback to see if there is local support. If enough cities indicate an affirmative answer, PSTA will ask the MPO to join in a request to the Board of County Commissioners in the correct way. The Mayor, a former PSTA board member, strongly supported seeking alternate revenue sources. She said PSTA serves more than the disadvantaged. Many cannot afford or do not want to own a car. Automobiles are more harmful to air quality than buses. She noted PSTA is ruled by many federal mandates while supported by fewer federal dollars. Commissioner Fitzgerald did not favor a local option gas tax. He said people have indicated they are not interested in additional taxes. He said this is a case where the federal government is providing the City with guidance and mandates and not providing the means to reach those goals. If that is the case, he said the federal government will have to review its rules and regulations establishing mandates if they cut funding. He did not think the community supported establishing an additional local option gas tax. Commissioner Berfield questioned what the next step would be if Commissioner Deegan advises the PSTA board that Clearwater is interested in looking at some form of a local option gas tax. Commissioner Deegan said that would depend on feedback from the other local municipalities. He said if the majority expresses interest, PSTA would take a resolution to the MPO, asking them to join the PSTA in approaching the County. He pointed out the interlocal agreement would have to be approved by the City Commission. Mayor Garvey questioned if the taxes would go to the cities or be dedicated to mass transit. Commissioner Deegan said an interlocal agreement would direct some funds to the City. He referred to the City’s need to meet ADA requirements. Commissioner Berfield questioned if the agreement is approved by all municipalities, would the proposal return to Clearwater for discussion or would the City be locked into an agreement. Commissioner Deegan said details would be worked out at that point. Mayor Garvey questioned if the County could decide that all funds from the local option gas tax go to mass transit. Commissioner Deegan did not think that was so. Commissioner Berfield questioned how the money would be divided and distributed. Commissioner Deegan indicated the distribution would be on a per capita basis. Commissioner Berfield noted the City has moved quickly with ADA upgrades and questioned if this proposal would make a huge difference in the budget. The City Manager noted many projects still need to be done although the City is probably further ahead on upgrades than other cities. Mayor Garvey said she would support an increase in the local option gas tax for mass transit. Commissioner Deegan said the reason part of the funding is dedicated to ADA requirements, is because raising the local option gas tax just for mass transit would have a poor chance of passing. Commissioner Berfield questioned if the City could use its funds for the Jolley Trolley. Commissioner Deegan believed that would be permitted. Mayor Garvey noted communities have the option on how the funds are spent. The majority supported reviewing an increase in the local option gas tax to fund PSTA and municipalities’ unfunded ADA mandates. Commissioner Deegan referred to his February 10, 1995 memorandum, regarding Mr. Kennedy’s concerns regarding speeding on Landmark Drive between SR 580 and Curlew Road. City Engineer Rich Baier indicated he had written a memorandum on this subject before Commissioner Deegan. Commissioner Deegan suggested additional alternatives need to be reviewed as Mr. Baier’s response was unsatisfactory to the citizen. Commissioner Fitzgerald said this has been an issue for at least two years. He said he spoke with Mr. Baier and with area residents. He indicated speeding and accidents continue on Landmark. He felt the root cause of resident dissatisfaction was with the way accidents are investigated. He said citizens have complained the use of “blue forms” does not result in citations. He expressed concern that installing stop signs may cause liability problems for the City. Commissioner Fitzgerald noted concern for individuals living on the road who are afraid their houses will be hit. He said Mr. Baier is reviewing suggestions that have included restriping the road where it narrows to two lanes and installing speed bumps. He sympathized with people in the area but expressed concern that stop signs may create different hazards. Commissioner Fitzgerald noted Landmark Drive is a north-south street without impediments. He said there is no simple solution. Mr. Baier indicated he reviewed technical journals regarding the use of regulatory signs to enforce and control traffic. He stated the road does not meet the requirements for installation of a stop sign. Large judgements have been made against municipalities (outside Florida) because of substandard reasons for sign installation. Mr. Baier said the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is explicit regarding the use of regulatory signs and states that stop signs should not be used for speed control. Speed can be controlled through strong commitment to enforcement of the speed limit. Most offenders are youthful drivers who live in the area. Mr. Baier suggested guardrails could be used to redirect traffic to the road. Raised pavement markers at the transition may better direct traffic. He noted there is evidence of cars leaving the road and skid marks. He noted the dangers of installing a stop sign on a four-lane road. The Mayor stated traffic signals would have to be approved by the MPO. Commissioner Deegan said residents are concerned the records are inaccurate and do not list all accidents. He agreed residents expressed concern regarding use of the blue form. Mr. Baier said stop signs would not have stopped the accidents. Commissioner Berfield noted stop signs installed on Harn Boulevard slowed traffic. The Mayor pointed out the stop signs on Harn Boulevard were installed to divert traffic, not control speeding. Commissioner Deegan said residents are complaining they cannot communicate with the City and have expressed frustration that they have no where to turn. Mr. Baier said he intends to speak with Mr. Kennedy regarding his concerns but noted Mr. Kennedy had hung up during their last conversation. He said he would try to contact Mr. Kennedy and review the options. Commissioner Deegan said for two years the residents have been told the Police will look at the problem. What the City is currently doing is not working. He said there must be a way of dealing with the problem. Mr. Baier said there must be a commitment to speed enforcement. Commissioner Deegan stated some residents believe the extra traffic on Landmark is due to construction on McMullen-Booth Road and questioned if stop signs could be installed as a temporary measure. Mr. Baier pointed out that Landmark is a major collector road, not a residential street. Commissioner Deegan questioned if temporary stop signs had been installed on Druid Road W. The City Manager said the stop signs were installed in several places with plans to evaluate their placement after a period of time. Mr. Baier said no stop signs placed on Landmark would meet MUTCD warrants. If the Commission directs that a stop sign be installed, he suggested the best place would be on the north end of the stretch where the road has already narrowed to two lanes. He said the stop sign may help eliminate cut through traffic. Commissioner Deegan encouraged that action. The Mayor spoke against the installation of speed bumps. Mr. Baker questioned if guard rails should be considered. Commissioner Deegan said that suggestion had not been discussed with Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Baier said if he can speak with him, he will address guard rails. He suggested if stop signs are installed that they be temporary and evaluated in two or three months. Mayor Garvey suggested installing the signs for a trial basis. Commissioner Berfield questioned if it was felt that most traffic was made up of young neighborhood people. Mr. Baier said the citations indicate they are heavy users of the street, especially in relationship to evening events at the high school. Commissioner Berfield questioned if there is strong enforcement during those times. Mr. Baier indicated the Police will commit to enforcement on four or more days a week along Landmark. Commissioner Berfield questioned if Mr. Baier had spoken with the high school’s Resource Officer. Mr. Baier indicated he had not. Commissioner Deegan questioned if it was inconsistent that the 35 mph speed limit was not reduced along the road’s two lane section. Mr. Baier said 35 mph was an appropriate speed for the road as it was designed. Mayor Garvey noted the number of drivers travelling over the speed limit. Mr. Baier said 85% of the drivers are travelling at the speed limit. He noted more speeders would be caught on a road designed for a speed limit higher than what is posted. Mr. Baier said the design speed for Landmark is 40 mph. He said according to data, a group of people is using the road as a drag strip. Commissioner Deegan questioned if the speed should be set at the 85 percentile. Mr. Baier said there would be no problem doing a speed study. He said Mr. Kennedy wants the speed limit to remain as it is or be lowered. Commissioner Deegan said Mr. Baier’s memorandum indicates a study has already been completed. Mr. Baier said none was completed; he had used an incorrect term. Commissioner Deegan questioned if Mr. Baier felt the frequency of accidents and presence of skid marks warrants a study. The Mayor recommended staff return with recommendations. Bob Bickerstaffe suggested installation of signs that flash at speeders as a reminder. He felt this technology was better than stop signs and would require less Police enforcement. Mr. Baier indicated the City has that equipment and said he would mention it as an option when he spoke with Mr. Kennedy. Commissioner Fitzgerald reported Chamber of Commerce members expressed concern regarding the appearance and attractiveness of City gateways at a recent meeting. The overpass at US 19N and SR 60 was described as dirty and unkempt and a suggestion was made to put a “Welcome to Clearwater” sign on the overpass. He recommended reviewing all City gateways to see if they can be made more attractive. Commissioner Fitzgerald referred to concerns regarding evacuation plans during repairs on Memorial Bridge. Mr. Baier indicated a crane will be available to lower the bridge in case of emergency. Mayor Garvey questioned when Gulf to Bay Boulevard would be resurfaced. Mr. Baier indicated the section east of Court St. will be resurfaced next year. The section from Court St. to Sky Harbor is scheduled for FY 1997/98. He sent a proposal to FDOT requesting their agreement to reimburse the City for interim repairs. ITEM #22 - Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m.