Loading...
01/14/1993 CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING Goal Setting January 14, 1993 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met at the Moccasin Lake Nature Park Center, Thursday, January 14, 1993 at 1:02 p.m., with the following members present: Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner Richard Fitzgerald Vice-Mayor/Commissioner Sue Berfield Commissioner Arthur X. Deegan, II Commissioner Mayme W. Hodges Commissioner Also present: Michael J. Wright City Manager Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk Discussion began regarding downtown issues and the need for a new city hall and community room. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the community room should only be considered on currently owned city property. Concerns were expressed regarding locking into that specifically. The first question was whether or not the Commission agreed there was a need for the community room and it was the consensus that all agreed there is a need for a community room at least the size of the current one at the City Hall Annex. Discussion returned to whether or not only city owned property should be considered. It was suggested that city owned property be looked at first but it was felt alternatives needed to be left open. For example, if a building was already constructed that would meet the need, it would eliminate the need of construction cost. It was also the concern that one of the goals is to get as much city owned property back on the tax roll as possible. An opinion was expressed that property bought for redevelopment purposes should not be used for the community room. It was agreed that a policy would be for staff to look at all presently owned property before other properties are considered for the community room. The next topic of discussion was State Road 60 (SR60). It was suggested a conclusion could not be drawn until the conclusion of the one way pair study currently underway in connection with the Drew Street project. It was stated it was felt the Commission could go ahead and express what they would prefer to have on Cleveland Street. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the City having control of SR60/Cleveland Street and providing on street parking would provide an impetus for redevelopment of downtown. Differences of opinion were expressed regarding the effectiveness of this. No consensus was reached regarding this issue. The next topic of discussion was the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA). Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the CRA should be sunset. It was stated that in order to sunset the CRA, enough money to pay off any obligations would have to be assured. An opinion was expressed that it was not felt the CRA was contributing what it should and that the Downtown Development Board (DDB) should have a more important role. Further discussion ensued regarding sunseting the CRA with some indication that there was a feeling that the CRA can do more than the DDB and that if may be better to sunset the DDB. A concern was expressed that the City of Clearwater's CRA is different from most CRAs established as the common CRA addresses only three or four blocks whereas the City of Clearwater's CRA encompasses 150 acres. An opinion was expressed that the CRA had accomplished much in the downtown area and that sunseting would not be in the best interest of the City. An opinion was also expressed that the DDB, operating as the public relations arm of downtown development, had been beneficial over the last three years. A concern was expressed that the tools that had been developed are appropriate but that nothing has been accomplished by them. It was felt that the property inventory should have been completed. It was stated the DDB changed its mind regarding the inventory and did not decide regarding following through on that project. A concern was expressed regarding the DDB using its funds to oppose the referendum question which would have placed the Florida Gulf Coast Art Center on the Maas Brothers site. It was felt this was inappropriate and the DDB should be answerable to the Commission. It was stated the DDB is elected by the property owners and is an independent body from the Commission and the only power the Commission has over the DDB is the ability to repeal the ordinance which established the board. Further discussion ensued regarding what authority the Commission had over the DDB. Again, it was stated that while the Commission may not agree with some of their decisions, it is within their purview to disagree with the Commission and that the power of the City over the DDB was to cease their existence. It was stated that the joint meetings which have been established should be used to make sure that the two boards are in sync and to improve the interchange between the two groups. A suggestion was made that before the CRA acts on items before it that it have the endorsement of the DDB. It was stated the DDB does have ex-officio members on the CRA and that while the goal should be to approve communication, there were reservations regarding binding the CRA to having DDB input prior to action. It was suggested the DDB be given the opportunity to provide input to CRA decisions. Further discussion ensued regarding how to ensure the DDB has the opportunity to review items coming before the CRA and to provide input. It was suggested that staff come up with a recommendation on how to do this. An opinion was expressed that the DDB acting as a PR group was too limiting and that the DDB was currently considering an individual to recruit businesses to fill vacant spaces downtown. It was stated that at a previous meeting of the CRA and DDB, there had been discussion of forming a group of people to accomplish this. It was the consensus that at the next joint meeting with the DDB, these items would be discussed. The next topic was an ordinance regarding sidewalk cafes and musicians. It was stated this should move forward and that what was anticipated was the elimination of some of what people are calling "anti-fun" ordinances. It was requested an opinion be obtained from the City Attorney regarding whether or not those businesses currently in downtown could use their sidewalks as an open extension of their current facility. The next topic for discussion was the East End project. It was stated that staff is talking to the developer that has submitted a proposal. It was stated this would be coming forward at a future worksession. Discussion turned to transportation issues with the first topic being traffic congestion. It was stated that the citizens survey indicated this was a major problem. It was stated that the progress on the computerized system has continued and that while there are still some trouble spots, there does seem to be some lessening of the congestion. It was stated the City needed to publicize its efforts to deal with the congestion problem. A suggestion was made that the City do what it can to make sure Clearwater gets its fair share of any dollars for road programs. It was directed that staff find out the process that should be used and to be prepared to act to secure funds as soon as possible. It was also stated the projects already on the transportation improvement list should be identified and prioritized. Commissioner Fitzgerald indicated he had been asked to chair the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council's transportation committee and they will be trying to pull together a regional transportation plan. The direction provided was reiterated that staff is come back with a listing of priorities and the process to obtain funding. The next topic of discussion was the high rise bridge and that it had been identified as a priority. Concerns were expressed that this was a state road and they had not considered a high-rise bridge. Questions were asked regarding how the bay bridge had been approved so quickly and it was stated alot of work was done up front to address funding and environmental issues. It did not have to wait for approval of federal funds. It was the consensus that regarding a high level fixed bridge to replace Memorial Causeway to start the process of asking how to get it prioritized and the Commission could commit funds if the state is willing to consider this as a project. The next topic of discussion was mass transit. Discussion ensued regarding the need to support the development of a system that will benefit Clearwater and there should be a transportation link from Tampa airport to the beach. It was stated it was felt the downtown trolley trial period has shown that there would be riders on a tram system to the beach. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not it should be a trolley or a tram with some concerns being expressed that the tram is open to the weather. It was stated that the Clearwater Beach Blue Ribbon Task Force's recommendation for this was not that this be free and not necessarily publicly funded. Discussion ensued regarding car pools and that incentives be explored in the business community to encourage car pooling. Discussion returned to the trolley with concerns being expressed that the current trolley on the beach is unable to meet the 30 minute schedule. It was stated that while there was no disagreement in shooting for the 30 minute time frame for the beach trolley, that some of the Commissioners were not ready to make a decision regarding a permanent route to downtown. Concerns were also expressed that this would be getting into the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) area and the City may have to reimburse them for any loss in revenue. It was stated the downtown trolley item would be revisited at the end of the trial period. It was stated the problem with these ideas are that they are still married to the roadway. Alternatives need to be explored that would eliminate the use of the roads. Examples of monorails or ski-lift type of operations, as well as, the ferry to the beach, were suggested. It was the consensus that a goal would be to explore various alternatives for moving people back and forth to beach. Environmental issues were discussed next with recycling being the first topic. It was stated that a report would be forthcoming and it should be discussed at that time. The next topic was the water supply. Desalination was discussed with it being suggested that information be obtained on how the Key West desalination process works. It was also suggested the report produced by the County as a result of their trip to study this, be obtained. It was stated the basic goal would be to depend less on County water. A question was raised regarding reclaimed water and it was stated that this was not felt to be practical until it could be shown to be cost effective. It was stated that ultimately, this will have to be dealt with and that once the public understands that potable water will not be available for irrigation, they will be more accepting of reclaimed water. It was the consensus that the goal would be to continue to seek sources of revenues to establish a reclaimed water system. The next topic was Dunedin Pass. It was stated a response had been received from County administrator Marquis indicating the County did not wish to participate in obtaining the permits for opening this pass. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not this should be pursued with concerns being expressed that the City might be spending $400,000 and not obtaining the permit and there was a reluctance to commit to this at this time. There was some concern expressed that the County administrator had not taken this item to the full commission prior to responding. It was stated Mr. Walther of Coastal Tech has been scheduled to discuss his opinions regarding the viability of opening this pass with the City Commission at a future worksession. The next topic was stormwater. It was stated there are a couple of management projects under discussion. A question was raised regarding Swiftmud participation. It was stated that the challenge that was given to the City Manager was to work with Dunedin, Largo, etc. to come up with a regional plan. It was stated a goal to be included is to make sure there is a downtown plan for stormwater. It was also requested that staff provide information regarding what plans they have for stormwater management for the next two years. The next group of items to be discussed are neighborhood issues with redevelopment of the beach being the first topic. Discussion ensued regarding efforts to be made in this regard and it was stated a suggestion was made that specific blocks be identified for redevelopment status and that a redevelopment plan be kept at a high priority. A concern was expressed that the property owners on the beach had not come forward with suggestions and it was stated that while this is the case, the Commission should not just wait for their input. It was suggested that areas that would benefit from grouping together for redevelopment be identified and that benefits be provided for such projects. Consensus was to set a goal to identify specific areas that could be set aside as redevelopment districts. Sand Key was discussed as the next topic. It was stated the issue regarding the property needed for parking for beach renourishment had been addressed. It was stated that issues remaining were landscaping and underground wiring. Under ground wiring is being investigated however, it is more expensive and it would be in the water table. It has been determined that landscaping will be a part of the Gulf Boulevard improvement project. A question was raised regarding a bike path being included. It was stated that the State requires extra width to be dedicated for a bike path but they are not marked as bikers have found this to be more beneficial than a marked lane. It was stated the City will ensure that landscaping and a bike lane are a part of the road improvements. The north Ft. Harrison area was the next topic of discussion. It was indicated that a special study is being done regarding this area. A question was raised regarding what role staff had in finding people to participate in the redevelopment plan. It was stated that staff had established a goal of 50 housing units in the area but it was unknown what businesses should be relocated. It was stated that affordable housing could obtain HUD monies for development and that it would be necessary to identify a builder that would provide the affordable housing. A question was raised regarding how the City would let the development community know that the City wants 50 affordable housing units. It was stated that developers interested in this would be getting with the City. It was stated there is a goal of 50 homes by the Challenge 2000 fund and a question was raised regarding whether a new goal was needed or just to affirm the current one. It was suggested that not all the affordable housing be done with public monies. It was stated the Challenge 2000 fund is using loans from banks and consensus was to reaffirm support of the affordable housing goal. The Countryside Community Center was discussed next. It was indicated this seems to be moving along and that at mid-year, there will be some monies committed for the design of the facility. The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m.