Loading...
08/29/1991 CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING August 29, 1991 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met at City Hall with the following members present: Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner Sue Berfield Vice-Mayor/Commissioner Richard Fitzgerald Commissioner Lee Regulski Commissioner William Nunamaker Commissioner Also present: Michael J. Wright City Manager M. A. Galbraith, Jr. City Attorney William C. Baker Public Works Director Mary K. Diana Assistant City Clerk The Mayor called the meeting to order at 5:01 p.m. and the following items were presented: Item #1 - Public Hearing & Second Reading Ordinance #5105-91 - Creating Sec. 136.031, adopting standards and specifications for stormwater detention facilities; amending Sec. 137.010, relating to site plans and stormwater detention requirements for development projects requiring site plan approval. Property undergoing development within the City of Clearwater has for many years been subject to stormwater detention and treatment requirements based primarily upon the extent of impact. In the case of redevelopment of property which was at the time of its initial development not subject to any stormwater requirements and therefore extensively paved or otherwise impervious, the impact of the redevelopment is often a betterment to the stormwater situation, and the developer circumstantially avoids having to provide stormwater facilities. In the City's Comprehensive Plan, it was pledged to eliminate that inequity by adopting new retrofit standards relative to stormwater requirements. This was in fact accomplished by the City Engineer in January, and redevelopers have been subject to the new requirements since that time. The subject Ordinance has been written for the purpose of specifically ordaining the actions of the City Engineer and for certain streamlining. William Baker, Public Works Director, distributed a handout depicting a parcel of property on Cleveland Street. He gave hypothetical examples as to how this parcel would be affected in the case of redevelopment under the present code. He also presented examples on how the same parcel would be affected under the proposed ordinance. This ordinance requires the developer to furnish a certain size pond or to pay the City in lieu of a pond, if there is not room for one, calculated on a square footage price of the land. In addition, the developer would have to meet stormwater quality requirements dictated by SWFWMD. The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5105-91 for second reading and read it by title only. Steve Fowler, architect, complimented the City Commission and staff for their efforts in preparing this ordinance and questioned whether the areas of existing problems and the definition of a "problem" in these areas had been clearly defined in the ordinance. He expressed concern for the developer, who is tearing down and replacing a structure with a more modern and efficient one, especially in the downtown, being penalized 3 to 4 times more than someone who is just remodeling an existing structure. In response to the above, it was indicated the existing problem areas and the definition of "problem" have been clearly defined in the ordinance. It was also indicated the City desires to save older historic buildings through restoration. Commissioner Regulski moved to pass and adopt Ordinance #5105-91 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Regulski, Nunamaker, Fitzgerald, Berfield and Garvey. "Nays": None. Item #2 - Proposed Settlement Offer from Appalachian Insurance Company on Clearwater Pass Bridge Claim. The City Attorney stated that in January 1991 the City Commission authorized litigation against the Appalachian Insurance Company relating to the claim the City had made on the damage to the Clearwater Pass Bridge in June 1987. He said this case was referred to Alan Zimmet, special counsel, and rather than file suit Mr. Zimmet contacted the insurance company and renegotiated the possibility of a settlement without trying the case. Last week, Leo Shrader, Risk Manager; Jon Marcin of Gallagher Bassett; and Mr. Zimmet negotiated a cash settlement of $400,000 to the City in release of the claim the City has against the insurance company for the incident. Mr. Galbraith said there is no assurance the City would win this suit if litigated and witness fees could be very high. Discussion ensued in regard to this being a fair offer and it was noted this offer is not the total amount of the settlement on the bridge. The City Attorney said the total damages calculated by the City were a little less than $2 million and the primary carrier, Lloyd's of London, paid $425,000, the limit of their coverage, which helped in the negotiations with Appalachian. The insurance proceeds total $825,000, the City's deductible totals $75,000 which combined almost covers the total amount of the damages to the bridge. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve the settlement offer from Appalachian Insurance Company on the Clearwater Pass Bridge claim in the amount of $400,000 and to authorize the mayor and city clerk to execute the release upon receipt of that amount from the insurance company. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. In response to a question from the City Manager, it was indicated this money would probably be put into the Bridge Fund. Item #4 - Temporary Decrease in General Service Sales Capacity with Florida Gas Transmission Company. Our natural gas supplier, Florida Gas Transmission Company (FGT) is an open access pipeline. In November 1989, we entered into a 5-year service agreement which stipulated daily quantities of gas to be used by our end users at quantities projected through the year 1995. Under this contract, we pay a commodity charge for each therm of gas taken from the pipeline and a separate "demand" or reservation charge for the total amount of therms reserved for use. Because FGT contract reserve gas quantities at amounts expected years into the future, many customers are paying excessive demand charges in the early years of their contract for the guarantee of having sufficient gas volume to meet expected growth. To compensate for this anomaly, FGT is required by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to allow local distributors to temporarily relinquish portions of its gas reserved under contract on a month to month basis. The temporarily released gas in marketed by FGT to other potential purchasers. In the event a purchaser for the excess gas is found, then the demand charges owned by the entity relinquishing the excess gas are waived. If a purchaser is not found, the demand charges must be paid by the original local distributor. Staff has decided to temporarily relinquish some of our excess daily capacity in the months of September through November which will result in a savings on demand charges of $2,800. It is in Clearwater Gas' financial interest to continue to temporarily relinquish selected quantities of natural gas through the early years of the five year service agreement as we monitor our actual and projected consumption on a monthly basis. Each time we elect to temporarily relinquish gas on a month to month basis, new service agreements must be executed. Authorization is requested for the City Manager to act administratively to enter into future service agreements which will temporarily relinquish amounts of gas which we have reserved and which reduce our demand charges. A question was raised if relinquishing some of our excess gas would interfere with our allotment and it was indicated only for 30 days. It was indicated the City is presently using less than 75 percent of its gas. Terry Neenan, Gas Superintendent, indicated the relinquishing of the gas is only temporary. Concern was expressed in regard to there being a sudden demand for the gas and it was indicated it is projected the City is not going to need the excess gas, that the City will periodically have occasions when there is excess gas to be sold and approving this agreement will allow the City to save on demand charges. In response to whether approval of this item would give the City Manager authorization to make future decisions regarding relinquishing amounts of gas, the City Attorney indicated only when it decreases the City's costs. Increases would be brought back to the Commission. Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the service agreement which temporarily decreases the General Service Sales Capacity with Florida Gas Transmission Company and authorize the City Manager by and through his authorized representative to execute service agreements for decreases in capacity allocations. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Item #4 - George Mallory Parking Agreement for a Noncommercial Parking Lot located at 520 D Street, NW corner of D Street and Hamlet Avenue, Lots 14-17 and that part of Lots 12 and 13 lying southeast of railroad right-of-way (CU91-55). On July 16, 1991, the Planning and Zoning Board approved a conditional use of a noncommercial parking lot for 53 parking spaces to be used by adjacent properties, all owned by George Mallory. One of the conditions of approval was the recordation of a Unity of Title which would tie the properties together as one development as recommended by staff. The intent of the condition was to restrict the parking lot for noncommercial purposes only and to restrict its use by the adjacent developments. The applicant's attorney submitted an alternative to the City; that being a parking agreement which would meet the intent of the condition without requiring recordation of a Unity of Title. It is the applicant's concern the Unity of Title would prohibit the redevelopment of the property to an industrial use at some later date. The applicant feels the Unity of Title is not appropriate in this case as the new parking lot is not being developed to meet the parking requirement for a new industrial development, instead the parking is being provided as the applicant would like to provide more parking for the adjacent industrial uses than what currently exists for those developments. The City Attorney indicated the purpose of the Unity of Title imposed by the Planning & Zoning Board was to ensure this property was not used as a commercial parking lot. He said the proposed agreement is a commitment by the owner the property will not be used as a commercial parking lot but will be utilized for excess parking by the properties described in Exhibit A of the proposed agreement. He said the applicant wanted to reserve the right to use this property for some other purpose at a future date. Discussion ensued regarding whether the Unity of Title should have been imposed by the Planning & Zoning Board or recommended by staff. It was indicated, if the property is used for commercial parking, it would be in violation of the conditional use. A question was raised whether the Unity of Title should be rescinded by the Planning & Zoning Board rather than having the Commission approve the proposed agreement. The City Attorney found this to be an acceptable substitution. He said going back to the Planning & Zoning Board would involve a lengthier process. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve the parking agreement for George Mallory's noncommercial parking lot and to refer it to the City Attorney for recordation. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The City Manager announced there will be a Special Bargaining Meeting immediately following the September 3, 1991 work session. The Mayor mentioned the article, "Operation Tax Reform" provided by the Florida League of Cities and results of a survey taken and felt this might be of interest to the Commission. The meeting adjourned at 5:36 p.m.