Loading...
04/19/1993 CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING April 19, 1993 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met at City Hall, Monday, April 19, 1993 at 9:01 a.m., with the following members present: Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner Richard Fitzgerald Commissioner Sue Berfield Commissioner Arthur X. Deegan, II Commissioner Fred Thomas Commissioner Also present: Michael J. Wright City Manager M.A. Galbraith, Jr. City Attorney Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk The meeting was called to order at 9:01 a.m. ITEM #2 - Consider approving a contract with Rowe, Rados, Hammer, Russell, Architects, Inc. for the study of either renovating the existing City Hall Annex building OR building a new facility at the adjoining site Donnell Consultants, Inc. and Rowe Rados Hammer Russell Architects, Inc. have been requested to provide a proposal for determining whether or not the Annex can be renovated or for building a new campus-style complex at the Annex property for a new City Hall. Kathy Rice, Deputy City Manager, indicated that based on the time frames that the project managers have provided they will meet the December, 1994 deadline for move-in to the new City Hall. The Mayor expressed a concern regarding the direction provided which would have the City Hall Annex renovated for administrative offices but leave the commission and certain offices reporting directly to them at the current city hall site. She stated that if we truly want consolidation all offices should be in one building. Commissioner Deegan expressed a concern regarding the proposal having two complete studies: 1) To renovate the Annex, and 2) To provide information on constructing a campus-style city hall at the annex property. He felt that the studies should determine whether the annex can be renovated and then, and only then, do an additional study. Mayor Garvey raised a question regarding if the building was found not to meet wind codes would a whole new building be needed. Mr. Rowe indicated it might be cheaper to build a new building, however it would depend on the analysis. He stated that the foundation may be sub-standard. Commissioner Deegan pointed out that there should be a "go/no-go" decision at the end of the analysis of the current city hall annex. It was the general feeling that the determination should be made whether or not the annex is feasible before additional studies were done. Mr. Rowe indicated he would propose workshops in which to tell the Commission the condition of the building. Commissioner Berfield raised a question regarding whether or not an estimate would be available at the time the decision is made whether or not the building is able to meet code. Mr. Rowe indicated a cost would not be available at that time. Mr. Rowe also indicated that they would not have the comparison cost for the analysis of a new building at that time. Commissioner Thomas questioned how long it would take to analyze the structure of the present city hall, and Mr. Rowe indicated that would be accomplished in the first week. Commissioner Thomas questioned whether the Public Works Department could do this work. Bill Baker, Public Works Director, indicated they could do a part of it. Commissioner Thomas questioned how long it would take to provide the information regarding the comparative scheme of a renovated annex and a one-story campus complex. It was indicated that this work would be completed within the second week of the project. Mr. Baker indicated that the Public Works Department could not do the concept design unless they do the entire project. Commissioner Thomas was of the opinion that some of the work should be able to be done "in house" and raised a concern regarding this not being within the normal bidding process. It was felt that there should be bids for the design and that architects are willing to give concepts on how to do the plan. The Deputy City Manager pointed out that the team of Donnell Consultants and Rowe Rados were chosen through the competitive negotiation act. Commissioner Thomas felt this was a different project. He stated that it first had to be determined whether or not the building could meet code and there needed to be a way to figure out how staff could handle more of the work. The Mayor expressed concern that staff would have to change their priorities in order to work on this within the time frame established by the Commission. Commissioner Deegan expressed there was a close relationship between this project and the project for which the competitive negotiation act was used to hire the current consultants. He was hesitant to ask staff to take on the project. Commissioner Deegan questioned why departments were being added into this concept. The Deputy City Manager indicated that these departments were not included in the original consolidation. It was stated that the consultants were instructed to add the community room to this project. Discussion ensued regarding the Traffic Engineering computer, and it was stated it is being left in this area because it is currently located in the Annex. Commissioner Thomas felt the Traffic Engineering computer should perhaps be consolidated with the County. Discussion returned to size of the building with it being suggested that the community room not be part of the project. It was suggested that the first two departments to be added, central records and traffic computer be left for now. The City Manager indicated the community room was not to be designed as a determination to be made is where it is to be located. He felt the community room should be on site with shared parking. Commissioner Thomas suggested the community room be on the second floor of the Annex. Mayor Garvey stated meeting the American Disabilities Act requirements would have to be addressed if this was done. Commissioner Thomas suggested that the Annex be for housing the City Manager and his staff. Mayor Garvey expressed a concern regarding separating the City Commission from the administrative offices. Commissioner Berfield stated the first decision that needed to be made was whether or not the Annex could be used and that this should come back in the very near future and that the Commission could then make additional decisions. Commissioner Deegan moved to accept the suggestions from the consultants on Page 1 and 2 which would provide for the conceptual schematic design study in determining whether or not the current city hall annex could be used and to go forward with the scope on those pages including the programming for the community room but deleting the parks and recreation storage. The motion was duly seconded. Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned whether this approved the total fixed fee. Commissioner Deegan indicated it only approved the fees contained on Pages 1 and 2 of the April 15, 1993 proposal submitted by the consultants. Commissioner Fitzgerald stated if the annex was found not to be desirable the Commission would then look at it from a different point of view and there was no desire to limit what was to be considered. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. It was stated that a meeting would be held with the next work session to discuss the results of this study. ITEM #3 (formerly #35 on 4/15/93) - Res. #93-24 - authorizing Joint Participation Agreement with FDOT re: construction of the Clearwater Pass Bridge (PW) The City of Clearwater has been working with the FDOT for the construction of a new bridge over Clearwater Pass since June, 1987, when the existing bridge experienced an abrupt 10 inch settlement. The City's strategy since that time has been to keep the bridge operable through a series of repairs while pursuing the construction of a new bridge with federal funds administered by the FDOT. The City has been through a lengthy and complex process involving reports, investigations, studies, hearings, etc., and is contemplating the receipt of all required permits. While the State of Florida has been very helpful and has placed funding for the new bridge in 1994, they have just now brought forward an agreement as the official contractual arrangement between the City and the State. The agreement calls for the City to accomplish the engineering design, obtain all necessary permits, and acquire necessary rights-of-way. At that point the plans are turned over to the State and the DOT actually accomplishes the construction. Upon completion of the project, the State will be responsible for structural inspection of the bridge and the City will be responsible for routine maintenance repairs, and upkeep of the bridge and roadway. The contract contains a clause 16(a) which simply states that, notwithstanding any arrangement, the Department is not required to build the bridge should funding not be made available as anticipated. Upon approval of the Resolution authorizing the execution of the agreement, the executed agreement and copy of Resolution will be sent to FDOT. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve the Joint Participation Agreement with the State of Florida for the construction of Clearwater Pass Bridge. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The City Attorney presented Resolution #93-24 and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Resolution #93-24 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 #4 (formerly #36 on 4/15/93) - Appointment of Vice-Mayor (CLK) Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to appoint Commissioner Deegan. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #5 (formerly #37 on 4/15/93) - Appointment of Commission members for regional and miscellaneous boards (CLK) Mayor Garvey suggested Commissioner Thomas be appointed to both the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) and the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) because a mass transit representative is needed on the MPO. She stated there are countywide transportation issues. Commissioner Thomas stated he concurred and he would be honored to serve on both of these boards. Commissioner Deegan stated he would continue as the representative on the Pinellas Sports Authority (PSA) and he has volunteered to be on the Chi Chi Youth Rodriguez Youth Foundation Board. Commissioner Thomas volunteered to be an ex-officio member on the Downtown Development Board (DDB). Commissioner Berfield questioned if the Mayor's Council alternate would now be Commissioner Deegan. Mayor Garvey indicated it would be whatever City Commissioner was willing to attend. Commissioner Fitzgerald indicated he would like to continue to serve in this capacity. Commissioner Deegan questioned the status of the Economic Development Council. Mayor Garvey indicated that it was dissolving and joining a larger group. She questioned the funding in the City's budget for this organization. The City Manager indicated it is being held until the status of the committee is determined. Commissioner Deegan questioned if the Commission had voted on this. It was indicated they had not. The City Manager indicated the funds were being held because the group was going through transition. Commissioner Deegan expressed concerns that the Commission was not informed regarding this. The City Manager indicated city staff has just been informed. Information will be sent to the Commission. Commissioner Berfield moved to make the following appointments of Commission members to regional and miscellaneous boards: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council - Commissioner Fitzgerald; Pinellas Planning Council - Commissioner Berfield; Metropolitan Planning Organization - Commissioner Thomas; Florida League of Cities Board of Directors - Mayor Garvey; St. Petersburg/Clearwater Economic Development Council - Commissioner Deegan; Performing Arts Center & Theater Board of Directors - Commissioner Berfield; Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council - Mayor Garvey; Mayor's Council of Pinellas County - Mayor Garvey with Commissioner Fitzgerald as an alternate; Suncoast League of Municipalities Board of Directors - Commissioner Fitzgerald; Pinellas Sports Authority - Commissioner Deegan; Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority - Commissioner Thomas; Downtown Development Board ex-officio members - Mayor Garvey and Commissioner Thomas; and Chi Chi Youth Foundation Trustees - Commissioner Deegan. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #6 (formerly #39 on 4/15/93) - Res. #93-20 - Approving easement to DOT for S.R.580 project The City Attorney presented Resolution #93-20 and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Resolution #93-20 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 #7 (formerly #40 on 4/15/93) - Res. #93-21 - Requesting county to abate taxes The City Attorney presented Resolution #93-21 and read it by title only. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to pass and adopt Resolution #93-21 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 #8 (formerly #41 on 4/15/93) - Res. #93-23 - Assessing the owners of property the costs of having mowed or cleared the owners' lots The City Attorney presented Resolution #93-23 and read it by title only. Commissioner Berfield moved to pass and adopt Resolution #93-23 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Fitzgerald, Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Garvey. "Nays": None. ITEM #9 (formerly #42 on 4/15/93) - Ord. #5386-93 - amending Article IV of City Charter, creating Sec. 4.06 to establish a department to be known as the General Accounting Office; providing for a special election to be held 11/2/93 to submit this proposed charter amendment to the voters The City Attorney presented Ordinance #5386-93 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Thomas moved to pass Ordinance #5386-93 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded. Commissioner Fitzgerald expressed concern that this was on the agenda as an ordinance. He stated previous action had been to study the establishment of a General Accounting Office. He stated this would be creating a new office and the Commission has not addressed adding personnel and whether this would be out of current resources or additional resources would be needed. He stated he did not know whether the General Accounting Office working directly for the Commission would be the best course of action. He felt the charter review procedure should be followed. He indicated the General Accounting Office in the Federal government is a huge organization with a tremendous budget. He again reiterated that the previous action had been to study the creation of this office. Mayor Garvey agreed this issue should be part of the charter review process. She stated a number of people she has talked to are opposed to it as they feel it is simply another level of bureaucracy. She stated her concerns are what are to be this office's policies and procedures and the number of people that would be needed. She stated if there is to be a referendum, detail is needed in order for her to talk intelligently about the issue. She felt this was the wrong direction to be taking and again stated it should be part of the charter review process. Commissioner Berfield questioned creation of a General Accounting Office requiring a charter amendment. The City Attorney indicated the City Manager can create departments, however, this is different as the head of this office will not be appointed by the City Manager but will be reporting directly to the Commission. He stated this is addressing the form of government and a charter amendment is needed. Commissioner Deegan stated he did not see this position as having oversight of the City Manager but rather an audit function. He stated an audit function can not give direction but can examine, report and recommend. Mayor Garvey questioned whether or not this should be a contract position rather than one established in the charter. Commissioner Thomas stated the only information the Commission receives regarding whether or not the City and staff are functioning correctly is from the City Manager and staff. Commissioner Deegan requested this go back to the City Attorney to make clear in the ordinance that this position has no oversight of the City Manager and staff. Mayor Garvey stated this begs the question regarding whether or not the proposal has been studied sufficiently. Commissioner Fitzgerald stated he would like to see the information fleshed out. He needs to be able to discuss the issue with the electorate. He questioned what evidence there was of problems that would necessitate a General Accounting Office. Commissioners Thomas and Deegan reiterated the need to change the wording to make sure there is no oversight by this position of the City Manager. The City Attorney indicated that the key was that this position would report to the Commission. He stated if the position reports to the City Manager, no charter amendment would be needed. Mayor Garvey recommended an outside study be done and a report submitted to the Commission. Commissioner Berfield questioned if this would still require a charter amendment. The City Attorney indicated there is a difference between a one time study and a permanent position. Commissioner Berfield questioned if it would require a charter amendment if the study took longer than a year. The City Attorney indicated there was no magic time frame but he had in mind, a year or shorter. He stated if the position extends into a new fiscal year, the function is then created in the budget. Commissioner Deegan indicated he would not favor a one time study as there would need to be stability in this function. He stated the Commission could pass the ordinance and prepare the information needed for the electorate in time for the election in November. Mayor Garvey recommended a one time study, with the report being sent through the charter review process. Commissioner Fitzgerald agreed that the charter review committee should be allowed to look at and analyze the proposal. Mayor Garvey pointed out a special election would cost $16,000 to $20,000. Commissioner Thomas felt the accounting office could save a couple of million dollars in a year. Mayor Garvey did not agree with this opinion. Upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Berfield, Deegan and Thomas. "Nays": Fitzgerald and Garvey. Motion carried. ITEM #10 (formerly #43 on 4/15/93) - Receipt & Referral of proposed ordinances relating to the sign code In an April 9, 1993, memo to the City Commission, City Attorney Galbraith stated, in response to a recent decision in the flag case, he has prepared two amendments, to be scheduled for receipt and referral. Recommendations were made as follows: 1. Readopt Section 44.31(1), which requires sign permits. This ordinance has been numbered as Ordinance 5382-93. The readoption is recommended because the court's ruling (unless changed upon rehearing) could be construed as invalidating the permit requirement not only for all flags, but for all signs, which was not the subject matter of the lawsuit or the intent of the court. 2. Readopt, with amendments, Section 44.08(7), relating to the exemption for flags. This ordinance will be assigned a number when the final draft is ready for first reading. 3. The overall issue of flags be given careful study by the Planning and Development department. The effect of these proposed amendments is to require a permit for all flags in excess of two which are authorized for each residential dwelling and three for each nonresidential property, eliminating the distinction between nonresidential property and public property (which currently exists). Flags not exceeding two or three, as appropriate, could be displayed without a permit. All flags above these numbers would need a permit, as any other sign would need a permit, and would count against the overall signage allowed on the property. Staff is to prepare a report examining flag displays in general and make recommendations for amendments to be included in a redraft of this ordinance, if they find a redraft is warranted. This item was discussed at the worksession of April 12, 1993 and was continued from the meeting of April 15, 1993. The City Attorney has issued a memo stating he disagrees with comments made at the worksession that the amendments proposed are an inadequate response to the court's decision. He further reported he expects to hear arguments that the ruling voids the entire sign code and that amendments to the ordinance were and are ineffective. The argument will be that the City has to start over with a new sign ordinance. The City Attorney has discussed this argument with outside counsel in the billboard case and they agree that this argument is absurd. The court stated that the general requirement for a sign permit was declared invalid "as it exists in this statutory framework". Because the exemption for two flags was declared invalid the Plaintiff would have been unable to fly even two flags without a permit and thus would have been worse off than if the City had prevailed, unless the permit requirement was also declared invalid, said the court. Immediately after making that statement, the court added that it did not suggest that the general permit requirement of the same sort would be invalid if accompanied by proper and content neutral exemptions. Commissioner Deegan questioned why this required receipt and referral. The City Attorney indicated because it is a land development code amendment. He also stated he expected one of the ordinances to come back sooner than the other. Commissioner Deegan questioned the time line for a motion for rehearing. The City Attorney indicated he filed such a motion on April 9th. He stated it could be denied at any time or it could take weeks or months before a decision is reached. He stated he is trying to avoid having to adopt an emergency ordinance. Joshua Magidson, attorney representing the Dimmitts, stated he has been involved with the sign code and the flag issue for five years. He stated significant problems still exist with the City's sign code. Ken Graves, representing Patrick Media Group, stated there are other issues that should be looked at. He stated this is the opportunity for the Commission to get full public input. He agreed with attorney Magidson that the amendments do not address the issues raised by the court. He stated this needed to be looked at in a broader perspective. Richard Davis, representing Holland/Knight, stated many issues have been raised and that the Supreme Court ruling calls for more complex consideration. He stated this provides an opportunity to revisit the issue. He recommended closely analyzing this issue with a workshop session. He stated he represents 3M advertising. John Meek, Jr., stating he represented the Clearwater businesses and citizens, requested the Commission quit spending money to enforce the sign code. He stated they are willing to work toward the letter or the law if there is a reasonable compromise. Donald Culberson stated he believed the sign code was unconstitutional. He referenced tenants in a building only being allowed one sign for all. He felt they should be allowed to have a sign for each tenant. He stated this has led to a potential of loss of tenants. Commissioner Thomas questioned the problem. It was indicated that the existing sign is too small for the occupants of the buildings. Mayor Garvey questioned if Mr. Culberson knew of the sign code when he purchased the building four years ago. Mr. Culberson indicated he did. Commissioner Deegan questioned if Mr. Culberson was talking to staff regarding the problem. Mr. Culberson indicated he has and they have been helpful, however, the current sign meets code. Brian Morris stated the real problem is whether the City can amend the ordinance. He stated it is possible the City does not have a permitting section at this time. He stated there is no doubt the visual environment has improved due to the sign code but he questioned at what cost. He urged the Commission take a closer look at the ordinance in order not to end up back in court. He stated the sign code is hurting small companies. Alan Stowell stated the 1985 sign code is not working and on its face is unconstitutional. He stated trees are being removed due to the conflict with the current sign code. He also expressed concerns regarding neon signs and that no permit is needed. Lois Cormier indicated she had no problems with the signs in Clearwater and she would hate to think that doctors are being lost to Clearwater due to the sign code. She felt the current code was too tough. Bob Bickerstaffe, representing the Clearwater Coalition of Homeowners, stated the Board of Directors had voted to approve the concept of the sign code. He stated it was his opinion they had not voted to approve it word for word. He felt the code should be withdrawn and the City should start over again. Marilyn Ginquinto stated she was a founding member of Citizens for a better Clearwater. She stated petitions have been signed and the citizens have talked to the Commission. She stated the citizens of Clearwater support the sign code. Commissioner Deegan questioned the difference of opinion between the City Attorney and some of the speakers regarding the constitutionality of the ordinance. He questioned, if the court meant the entire ordinance was unconstitutional, would it be considered contempt for the Commission to reaffirm the ordinance. The City Attorney indicated the court did not say the entire code was unconstitutional. He stated he believed the court expected the City to readopt the permit procedures and to readdress the flag issue. He stated if no permit is needed, there is no need for a sign code. He reiterated he has asked staff to take a whole new look at regulation of flags. He stated to adopt the ordinance would not be contempt of court. Commissioner Thomas indicated he has consulted with other attorneys and they concur the total ordinance is unconstitutional. He stated he believed the City was flying in the face of real danger. He indicated people are being financially hurt and the community is in disarray due to the sign code. He felt this was an opportunity to totally redraft the sign code. Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned how to determine the court's intent. The City Attorney indicated that if there is no ruling on the rehearing, the Commission can adopt the permit section and see what happens. He stated if the Commission wishes to make additional changes, they can also do that. He stated there is a need to readopt the sign permit section of the code. He stated Planning will then address the entire issue of flags and in addition, should the Commission direct, other issues in the sign code. Commissioner Deegan moved to receive and refer the land development code amendments regarding the sign code and direct the City Clerk to advertise. The motion was duly seconded. Commissioner Berfield questioned what the next step would be if the rehearing were denied. The City Attorney indicated there would be an option to petition the Supreme Court for certiori, however, he was not willing to recommend that. Commissioner Berfield questioned what type of decision was taken to Atlanta. The City Attorney indicated a summary judgment handed down without a trial. Commissioner Berfield questioned if summary judgments were handed down because of a lack of evidence on one side or the other. The City Attorney indicated it was a ruling based on the evidence in the record. He felt that summary judgments were easier to appeal than a court order. Commissioner Thomas stated he felt summary judgments were issued when the judges consider it likely that the side ruled against would loose in court. He questioned if the City could amend an unconstitutional ordinance. He stated there was a need to address the entire sign code. Commissioner Berfield pointed out the City is saying the sign code is constitutional. Mayor Garvey agreed with standing by the City Attorney's opinion. She thanked the businesses that have conformed to the current sign code. Upon the vote being taken; the motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Deegan requested immediate action be taken to address the proliferation of neon. He requested staff review this and come back with a recommendation regarding whether or not the use of neon should be limited. He also questioned neon being installed upon wood, being a fire hazard. Commissioner Deegan moved that staff investigate the situation regarding the proliferation of neon lighting on the exterior of buildings as currently controlled in the City of Clearwater. The motion was duly seconded. The City Manager requested further direction regarding whether or not this was a safety or aesthetic issue. Consensus was the investigation should address both issues as well as light spill over from neon displays. Commissioner Thomas requested an opinion from the City Attorney also be obtained regarding the ability to regulate lighting as neon is lighting and not signage. He also suggested the Building Department may need additional information as safety issues regarding neon is relatively new. Commissioner Deegan amended his motion to add the City Attorney. The seconder accepted the amendment. Alan Stowell spoke to the issue of safety stating he has researched neon and found the tubing, if attached to wood, to be a fire hazard. He stated he is concerned that no permits are required for the installation of neon. He stated he would be glad to share the information he has obtained with the City. Upon the vote being taken; the motion carried unanimously. ITEM #11 (formerly #44 on 4/15/93) - City Manager Verbal Reports The City Manager reported a letter has been received from the Florida League of Cities regarding the bill to allow an exemption from the Sunshine Law for closed sessions with an attorney. The Florida League is requesting letters be faxed to the Governor requesting the bill be signed. Consensus of the Commission was a letter should be faxed with each Commissioner's signature affixed. ITEM #12 (formerly #45 on 4/15/93) - Other Commission Action Commissioner Thomas requested the doors downstairs at City Hall be made to meet ADA standards. He stated he felt this building would continue as City Hall and he thought the doors should be installed immediately. He stated simultaneously the parking needed to be rearranged. The City Manager indicated the City Hall building was not included in the ADA plan because of the prior decisions to build a new City Hall. He stated he would like to address the entire ADA and fire code requirements at one time. Commissioner Thomas indicated he would like the issue of the doors fast tracked. Commissioner Thomas moved to immediately put in electric doors on the front of City Hall and create five handicapped parking spaces as near to a handicapped ramp as possible. The motion was duly seconded. Mayor Garvey pointed out that the doors are on the east side of the building while the ramp is on the west side. The City Manager indicated a new ramp may be needed. Commissioner Thomas indicated he still felt the doors should be as close to the parking as possible. Commissioner Thomas stated he would amend his motion that there be a ramp on the north side of the building developed to accommodate the handicapped. The City Manager requested the motion not specify five handicapped parking spaces but rather say an appropriate number. Commissioner Thomas agreed to this amendment. The City Manager expressed concerns that staff and the Commission were attempting to design the project during the Commission meeting. He requested staff be allowed to work it out and proceed. Commissioner Thomas withdrew his motion. The seconder agreed. The City Manager requested that a new motion include authorization to appropriate the funding needed as a mid year budget amendment. Commissioner Thomas moved that the City Manager be directed to expedite ADA analysis and formation of recommendations for the main City Hall building but to fast track electrical doors and a new ramp to allow access by the handicapped from a location closest to the handicapped parking as possible and the City Manager be authorized to make the appropriate amendments at mid year budget. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Commissioner Thomas moved that Vision Cable tape all worksessions, special and regular Commission meetings and furnish to the City Clerk a standard VCR tape to be stored and indexed in the Clerk Department as a public record, that Vision Cable formally advise the City of the lead time needed in order to tape these meetings and that Vision Cable confirm to the City Commission its ability to schedule same. The motion was duly seconded. Mayor Garvey expressed concerns that Other Commission Action has traditionally been to provide direction to staff. She stated lately more decisions are being made. She requested additional background. Commissioner Thomas indicated he wanted a graphic record of the Commission meetings. Commissioner Deegan questioned if the City could require that Vision do this or if the motion should be to request them to do this. Commissioner Thomas agreed to amend his motion to request. Mayor Garvey pointed out that if this was not a part of the current agreement, the City could not demand these services. The City Manager requested that the format of the tape be left open as copies made from VCR tape loose quality. Commissioner Thomas agreed to leave this open. The seconder agreed. Mayor Garvey questioned the lifespan of the video tape. The City Clerk indicated this has not been determined. Commissioner Thomas amended his motion to required that the tapes be kept for five years. Commissioner Deegan recommended the Clerk make this decision. The five year retention was struck from the motion. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Thomas recommended the City Manager enter into negotiations with Vision Cable to provide the City the right to sell advertising time during the intermissions at City Commission meetings and those funds go to the Jolley Trolley. Mayor Garvey expressed opposition to this proposal. She stated this time has been used to do short informational pieces on the City. Commissioner Deegan recommended this be left for general discussion at a later date as the City will be renegotiating with Vision Cable shortly. There was no consensus to move forward on this at this time. Commissioner Thomas expressed concerns regarding there having been no response to property appraiser Jim Smith's request to be scheduled to make a presentation to the City Commission. The City Clerk indicated a response had been sent and they have been scheduled. She will double check. Commissioner Thomas speaking regarding the proposed City Attorney audit, stated a packet of material had been presented at the last worksession which listed the best attorneys in Florida. He stated he would appreciate an interview with an attorney of each Commissioner's choosing at the next worksession. He requested that the attorneys making the presentations be prepared to make one as was done by attorney Fogarty. He stated he expected the Commission's selection to be one of the top attorneys as outlined in the listing. He also requested the Commission's recommendations have comparable credentials to attorney Fogarty. He wished the issue to be resolved within 30 days. Mayor Garvey stated she did not know if she would be able to meet Commissioner Thomas' deadline. She stated she is contacting the Florida League of Cities and the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers. Commissioner Thomas expressed concern that this is a delaying tactic. The Mayor indicated it was not. Commissioner Thomas questioned if this could not be done within 30 days. Commissioner Fitzgerald indicated he did not know if he could require an attorney to come and sit down and talk to the Commission within the next three weeks. He stated he would take Commissioner Thomas' request under advisement. Mayor Garvey stated she would work as quickly as possible. Commissioner Deegan questioned if it was necessary for each Commissioner to bring an attorney. Commissioner Thomas indicated it was not. Commissioner Deegan questioned if the City Manager had contacted any organization. The City Manager indicated he had talked to the Florida Bar, the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers, the National League of Cities and the International City Manager's Association. Commissioner Deegan also stated he would not want to limit it to the names submitted by Commissioner Thomas in the list. He stated as long as it was someone with credentials and creditability, they should be allowed. Commissioner Deegan suggested this wait until May 3rd and if there is no progress the Commission address it at this time. Commissioner Fitzgerald requested the City Manager furnish all information to all the City Commissioners. Commissioner Berfield questioned if a presentation had been scheduled by Jay Elliott. The City Clerk indicated this has been scheduled for May 3rd. Commissioner Berfield questioned a letter from Wilby Anderson comparing Florida Power's bill to the City of Clearwater's. Commissioner Deegan pointed out the part that bothered Mr. Anderson was Florida Power thanks its customers for paying its bills while the City's has a zero dollar amount must be paid within a certain number of days. He requested the computer program be corrected. Commissioner Berfield requested an update on the Sun Bank Building. The City Manager indicated an appraisal was due this week. A RFP for the management company has been prepared and sent to the Commission for comment. Commissioner Deegan questioned when responses would be obtained from the management company RFP's. The City Manager indicated approximately mid May. Commissioner Berfield recommended it be included on page 4 that the management company file the tax forms. The City Manager indicated he believed the management company actually collected and remitted the taxes but he would double check. Commissioner Berfield questioned on page 3, regarding retaining existing tenants, she questioned how the tenants currently in default would be addressed. The City Manager indicated the new company could handle this, the City could address it or the existing management company could be required to address the situation. Commissioner Berfield indicated if a new company were going to be asked to address this, it needs to be in the RFP. Commissioner Thomas felt this issue needed to be addressed immediately. The City Manager questioned if the Commission wished him to attempt to break delinquent leases or renegotiate them. Commissioner Thomas felt the existing management company should be responsible. He felt the existing company as well as the new one should bring forward to the Commission how they propose to lease out the space in the building. The City Manager requested direction as a lease has been submitted which he does not recommend approval of due to it being a bad economic deal. The Mayor felt the Manager should go back and negotiate regarding the lease. The City Manager indicated this is in conflict with Commission direction to have the building leased out within six months. He stated it is not a bad lease, however, it is not a good economic deal. Commissioner Thomas questioned if this was an existing tenant. The City Manager indicated it was not. Commissioner Deegan felt that if Faison was bringing forward bad deals, the City Manager should go back to Faison and have them renegotiate. Discussion ensued regarding the rental rate that should be used. Commissioner Thomas stated they needed to be careful on how they impact the buyers. It was recommended the City Manager bring forward some leases for the Commission to consider and then direction could be given. Commissioner Berfield requested information regarding what other Class-A buildings charge for rent. She expressed concerns that if the City's rental rate was too low, it could put other office buildings out of business. Commissioner Deegan pointed out that within 30 days the City would know whether or not the building would be sold. He did not feel that long term leases should be committed to within the next 30 days. The City Manager indicated he would forward all lease proposals he currently has. Commissioner Deegan requested clarification regarding a letter from Faison regarding providing resources to obtain tenants. The City Manager indicated this is a part of what he needs to discuss with the Commission. He indicated he did not agree that he told Faison to proceed as Faison is indicating. All the information requested will be forwarded to the Commission. Commissioner Fitzgerald expressed concerns regarding the requirement that the agenda be provided to the Commission two weeks in advance. He stated more and more things are being added for immediate consideration. Mayor Garvey also expressed concerns regarding things being brought up under Other Commission Action when the public is not aware that these items will be addressed. Mayor Garvey pointed out that Commissioner Thomas' recent appointee to the Environmental Advisory Board (EAC) lived in Safety Harbor and was not a Clearwater resident. Commissioner Thomas stated he felt this individual was the best qualified. Mayor Garvey pointed out the Charter requires residency. Commissioner Thomas requested this requirement be addressed. Commissioner Deegan pointed out that technical expertise is needed on the Environmental Advisory Committee. Commissioner Fitzgerald stated this raises questions regarding how far we would go outside the City limits. He stated there is a lot of expertise within the City limits and he felt the advisory board should be made up of the citizens of Clearwater. Further discussion ensued regarding whether individuals should be citizens of Clearwater for a board requiring technical expertise. Commissioner Thomas questioned if the Commission approved the appointment of a non-resident to the EAC, would that violate the Charter. The City Attorney indicated it would. Commissioner Thomas stated he would withdraw his recommendation for appointment to the EAC. He will ask that this be addressed as a charter amendment. ITEM #13 - Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 12:58 p.m.