|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
JUNE 17, 1997 7:00 PM REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING HELD AT CITY HALL COMMISSION CHAMBERS Present were: Mayor Dave Hood, Commissioners Jeffrey J. Boyle, David L. Schecter, Ed Kelley, Carl G. Persis, City Manager Eugene Miller, City Attorney Fred S. Disselkoen, and City Clerk Veronica Patterson. A G E N D A
Item #1 - Call to Order Mayor Hood called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Item #2 - Invocation The invocation was given by Reverend Michael Ocealis, Grace Community Church. Item #3 - Pledge of Allegiance Mayor Hood led in the Pledge of Allegiance. Item #4 - Approval of Minutes Mayor Hood advised the minutes of the June 3, 1997, meeting had been sent to the Commissioners for review and asked if there were any corrections, additions, or omissions. Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, to approve the minutes as submitted.
Item #5(A)- Presentation: Casements Guild Improvements Ms. Lorraine Hulst, President of the Casements Guild, stated the Guild has been in operation for eighteen (18) years and consists of 101 member volunteers. She stated the Guild has enhanced the Casements by renovating the kitchen area at a cost of approximately $27,000, which was raised through various fund-raisers, proceeds from the Casements’ gift shop, and by donations made by the Friends of the Guild. She stated the building has been modified to make it historically correct by installing a set of French doors that enclose the porch, and she strongly encouraged the Commission to allocate funds to install air-conditioning for the entire building to control humidity. Ms. Hulst informed the Commission that Ms. Peggy MacMurray is the newly elected Guild president. She suggested that additional signage be erected to identify the Casements location and enhance the historic nature of the downtown area. She stated the Casements is one of the most important buildings in Ormond Beach and she invited the public to tour the facility.
Mayor Hood read a proclamation honoring Ms. Hulst’s invaluable volunteer service to the Guild and her tireless devotion toward improving the quality of life for all of the community.
Item #6 - Audience Remarks Citizen Information Seminar Ms. Rita Press, 875 Wilmette Avenue, thanked Mr. Fred Disselkoen, City Attorney, and Mrs. Veronica Patterson, City Clerk, for scheduling an information seminar on Tuesday, July 1, 1997, at 6:00 PM in the City Hall Training Room, to assist citizens in interpreting the agenda terminology.
John’s Island/Southwest I-95 Complex Ms. Tina Share, 1317 Overbrook Drive, explained that in 1988 a bond referendum was approved in the amount of $500,000.00 to purchase the John’s Island property, of which $250,000.00 remains unpaid. She questioned if Volusia County considers the funds paid-in-full and if Ormond Beach can use the remaining money to purchase additional geo park property. Ms. Share stated that with regard to the Southwest I-95 Complex, the developer stated he wants to fully mitigate the impact, and the citizenry wants the mitigation to occur within Ormond Beach. She stated that Mr. Clay Ervin, Planning Director, at the May 20, 1997, City Commission meeting, emphasized that staff is not depending on mitigation in Flagler County; and in order for any mitigation to qualify, it must be on site or adjacent to that particular wetland basin. She stated that Mr. Ervin further stated that the ability to proceed through the planned business development process to allow for the elimination of the wetlands requires that the mitigation be within the City or a fee paid into the Development Opportunity Fund to allow for the City to purchase additional wetlands. Ms. Share questioned if there is any way this Commission can mitigate the Southwest I-95 Complex and all future mitigations into the Development Opportunity Fund, with the geo park as the number one priority. She stated the $250,000 remaining bond money plus mitigation fees would assist in buying the John’s Island addition. Mayor Hood stated an item is scheduled later on the agenda relative to The Rivers property and this item will be addressed during that discussion.
Alcoholic Service at Jazz Matazz Event Mr. Tony James, 43 Myra Boulevard, stated that while serving as City Commissioner in 1990 he suggested prohibiting alcohol from being served on the Casements’ grounds during Jazz Matazz and that beer trucks be prohibited from parking near Granada Boulevard. He asked the Commission to consider requiring that the beer trucks park in the rear of the Casements property, and that they not be allowed to advertise their products on Granada Boulevard. Mayor Hood stated an item is scheduled later on the agenda relative to Jazz Matazz, and this item will be addressed during that discussion.
Memorial Day Event Mr. Donald O’Lone, 1304 Northside Drive, commended the Commission and staff for the Memorial Day Event held on May 26, 1997. He stated it was a "powerful" event and encouraged the Commission to continue its commitment to honoring veterans.
Mr. Dave Bates, 204 Ormond Parkway, stated the Memorial Day service was a fitting tribute to comrades and friends who gave the supreme sacrifice so that America can still be a free country. He thanked those who participated in organizing this event.
Item #7 - Consent Agenda Mayor Hood advised that the action proposed to be taken for each item on the Consent Agenda is so stated on the agenda. He asked if any member of the Commission had questions or wished to discuss any one or more of the items separately.
Commissioner Kelley moved, seconded by Commissioner Schecter, for approval of the Consent Agenda.
Item #8(A) - Columbia Medical Center - Conditional Use Permit Mayor Hood advised the applicant has requested this item be continued to the July 22, 1997, City Commission meeting.
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, to continue the public hearing to July 22, 1997.
Commissioner Schecter stated that a meeting will be held between the area residents and representatives from Columbia Medical Center on or near July 2, 1997, and he encouraged those interested in attending to contact either him or the City Clerk.
Item #8(B) - Ormond Beach First Baptist Church - Conditional Use Permit Mr. Jim Morris, attorney representing Ormond Beach First Baptist Church, stated his client accepts the Amended Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow the operation of a child care facility in its existing facilities, with the exception of condition (F). He stated the language provides that the Amended CUP shall automatically expire without further action unless a construction permit is issued. Mr. Morris explained that all of the buildings necessary to accommodate this use are already built, and he stated he spoke to Mr. Disselkoen with regard to changing the requirement for a construction permit in condition (F) to require that an occupational license for a child care facility be obtained. Mr. Disselkoen advised that the statements made by Mr. Morris were correct.
Commissioner Kelley moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, to close the public hearing on Item #8(B). The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Kelley moved, seconded by Commissioner Schecter, for approval of Resolution No. 97-114, as read by title only, with the amendment suggested by Mr. Morris and agreed to by the City Attorney.
Item #8(C)1 - Rezoning - Middle Portion of SR Perrott Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, to close the public hearing on Item #8(C)1. The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-28, on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #8(C)2 - Rezoning - Scotty’s, Wendy’s and Southern/Office Portion of SR Perrott Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, to close the public hearing on Item #8(C)2. The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-29, on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #8(C)3 - Rezoning - Regal Theaters Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, to close the public hearing on Item #8(C)3. The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-30, on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #8(C)4 - Rezoning - Cloar/Coquina Presbyterian Church Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, to close the public hearing on Item #8(C)4. The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-31, on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #8(C)5 - Rezoning - Omega 40 Health Club Commissioner Kelley moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, to close the public hearing on Item #8(C)5. The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Kelley moved, seconded by Commissioner Schecter, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-32, on second reading, as read by title only.
Mr. Disselkoen advised that at the last meeting people were present that wanted to speak to this issue. Mayor Hood asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak to the Omega 40 rezoning, and hearing none, he called for the vote.
Item #8(D) - Relative to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, to close the public hearing on Item #8(D). The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-33, on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #8(E) - Relative to Historic Districts and Landmarks Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, to close the public hearing on Item #8(E). The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-34, on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #8(F) - Relative to Historic Districts and Landmarks Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, to close the public hearing on Item #8(F). The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-35, on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #8(G) - "VIA Gardens," Historic Landmark Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, to close the public hearing on Item #8(G). The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-36, on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #9 - Relative to the Selection of Independent Auditors
Commissioner Kelley moved, seconded by Commissioner Schecter, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-37, on first reading, as read by title only.
Item #10(A) - Relative to 1997 Fourth of July Festivities
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, for approval of Resolution No. 97-115, as read by title only.
Mr. Tom Lipps, Assistant to the City Manager, explained that the proposed resolution addresses six (6) specific requests from the Chamber of Commerce, and he stated Items 1 through 4 are routine in nature and staff is recommending approval. He stated Item 5 deals with the designation of several streets as "no parking" areas, which is an administrative activity that does not require Commission approval. He stated the Chamber has been informed that the number of streets requested will be reduced to allow some parking in the area while still maintaining safe ingress and egress. Mr. Lipps expressed concern to Item 6 which requests an increase in the City’s financial guarantee to the Chamber for the operations of Jazz Matazz. He stated staff recommends that the previously approved financial guarantee program, which would have resulted in a $9,000 guarantee in lieu of the proposed increase to $30,000, be supported He stated the proposed amount is a significant increase from what has been previously negotiated and approved by the Commission and previous Chamber boards. He stated that staff does not believe this increase is necessary when considering 1) the Chamber has approximately $30,000 in cash accrued from previous events; 2) the insurance will be maintained; and 3) the stated goal of cash receipts to be received before the event occurs. Mr. Lipps stated that increasing that level of risk is a significant increase for the City; and if the City proceeds into this arena, it is staff’s recommendation to pursue a redefinition of the event so there is a greater sharing of the financial responsibility. He stated the Chamber has identified concerns with their potential risk and liability as the event has grown larger and more expensive. He stated, historically, the City has not been involved in the financial decision making of Jazz Matazz and the sharing of the risk has been limited. Mr. Lipps suggested that the overall relationship be reviewed since the City is being requested to increase its share of the risk.
Mr. Eugene Miller, City Manager, stated this City has committed $52,215 to the success of the Fourth of July and Jazz Matazz weekend event, and that allocation is a strong illustration to the City’s commitment to this event and to the community. He reiterated that an agreement exists between the City and Chamber to "phase out" the financial guarantee, and the current guarantee expected for this year is $9,000. Overriding all of the previous statements made by Mr. Lipps, Mr. Miller stated it is important that the City and Chamber meet in a business type relationship and share the authority in planning for next year’s event. He stated Jazz Matazz is the premiere event of this area, and he strongly encouraged retaining that tradition.
Mayor Hood, as the Commission’s representative on the Chamber of Commerce Board, explained the context of how this request originated and why he personally endorsed this request for this year alone. He stated the Chamber recognizes that Jazz Matazz has grown to a level that it is no longer a small, one-day event which involves $10-$20,000, and as indicated by staff, it has grown to a large event that requires approximately $90,000 at risk in capital. He stated that the Chamber is an active Chamber; however, it is still in a small community and does not have the ability to take a large loss. He stated a task force was created to review the entire Jazz Matazz issue, both short and long-term, and a recommendation was made to revisit how Jazz Matazz is being financially managed, as well as its overall scope. Mayor Hood stated if the Commission approves the $30,0000 cap on the financial guarantee, the Chamber agrees that between July 6th and September 15th task force consisting of four (4) City representatives and four (4) Chamber representatives will be formed to decide what the long-term program and the financial sharing of the risk will be. This task force will create a business plan which will be in effect for the next three (3) years. He expressed the need for interaction and participation on a more effective basis. Mayor Hood stated it is important that the City show good faith by agreeing to the financial guarantee with the understanding that this agreement is conditioned upon the joint task force deciding how the event will be handled from this year forward.
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, to amend Resolution No. 97-115, to approve the financial guarantee at a cap at $30,000; to authorize staff to participate in a joint task force consisting of three (3) City staff members and one (1) representative from the City Commission, and three (3) members of the Chamber Board and their President to form the eight (8) member joint task force.
Commissioner Boyle stated he highly respected the Chamber and this event; however, there is an agreement in effect that the City will guarantee $9,000 this year. He stated there is concern in the community that as this wonderful event has continued to grow in size and scope, the prices have increased, and the parking availability has decreased. He stated he understood the risk involved in the event, but expressed concern that the Chamber has complete control of the event. Commissioner Boyle endorsed the creation of the task force, supported that a new agreement be entered into, and recommended that the $9,000 financial guarantee, as previously agreed upon, be honored.
Commissioner Persis questioned the timing of the Chamber’s request for such a substantial increase in the City’s financial guarantee from $9,000 to $30,000. He stated he is a supporter of the Chamber and wanted the Jazz Matazz event to be successful; however, he could not support such a significant increase.
Mr. Jim Simmons, Chairman of the Jazz Matazz Operating Committee, stated a series of task force meetings and workshops were held throughout the spring months leading to this point. He stated in the event of a loss, it would cause severe financial impact to the Chamber and would bankrupt the event. Mr. Simmons stated that the entertainment budget was reduced by approximately twenty (20%) percent this year, and financial and operational controls have been instituted. He mentioned that the scope of the insurance policy is narrow, and the Chamber has not collected once on any loss due to rain that occurred during past events.
Mayor Hood questioned the location of the beer trucks as mentioned by Mr. James during audience remarks; whereby, Mr. Simmons stated the grounds committee will address his concern.
Commissioner Kelley stated that the fact that Jazz Matazz is too successful lends to the problems the Chamber is experiencing. He stated a decision must be made with regard to what role the City wants to take in future Jazz Matazz events, and he mentioned that more than half of the Chamber’s Jazz Matazz budget is for entertainment. He stated he is not opposed to increasing the financial guarantee in a one time situation. He stated it would be a travesty if the Chamber had to realize a potential loss by itself, and the City lost the goodwill that the Chamber provides.
Mr. Simmons expressed appreciation to the various City employees, as well as Mayor Hood, who have been very active and supportive in the Jazz Matazz efforts.
Item #10(B) - Firefighter Local 3499 Requests
Item #10(B)1 - Support for the Application by the City of Daytona Beach for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, for approval of Resolution No. 97-116, as read by title only.
Mr. Mike Roberts, 80 Hummingbird Lane, clarified that the request for support in no way represents the issue of whether or not the City of Daytona Beach should take over transport from EVAC, but that the City of Daytona Beach should have the right to choose which facility or which agency they would like to provide transport. Mr. Roberts stated EVAC provides an excellent level of service, but EVAC has realized that, at times, their ability to continue service has been challenged; and he voiced opposition to EVAC being the sole transport provider within Volusia County.
Mayor Hood asked Mr. Roberts if he agreed that if the City of Daytona Beach does decide to exercise their right -- that decision impacts everyone in the County. Mr. Roberts responded that issue will have to be addressed by the administrators of each agency, and he reiterated that the resolution supports the ability for the City of Daytona Beach to choose. Mayor Hood expressed concern to the resolution and stated if he supported the right of any city to backout of EVAC, that decision impacts everyone in the County, because if tax money is removed from EVAC’s budget, other cities will have to pay the difference. Mr. Roberts advised that EVAC has stated that Daytona Beach is a losing proposition because it has the largest transient transport in the County.
Commissioner Schecter clarified that this issue has been discussed at a previous City Commission meeting, and the intent of this resolution simply calls for this Commission to support the City of Daytona Beach in its request to secure a Certificate of Need. He stated it does not commit Ormond Beach to anything in the future. He stated he respectfully disagreed with the City Manager’s position as stated in his memorandum dated June 12, 1997, and urged the Commission to approve the resolution.
Mayor Hood stated that part of the fundamental problem in this County is that cities continue to fight among themselves, act on issues in a fragmented way, and continue to do things that impact other cities within the community. He stated that the last thing Ormond Beach needs to do is encourage fragmentation of fire or ambulance services, and he stated that the Volusia Council of Governments (VCOG) is reviewing unification of fire and EVAC services within the County to determine if it will provide a higher level of service at a better cost to the community. Mayor Hood stated that an analysis of the financial and quality impacts has not been provided demonstrating how this decision impacts the citizens of Ormond Beach or any city in the County, and he expressed opposition to this resolution.
Commissioner Boyle concurred with statements made by Commissioner Schecter and stated he is uncomfortable that the current emergency transport is a monopoly. He stated that if the lesson of privatization is that competition is healthy, he questioned why not allow competition through city options. Commissioner Boyle stated that the City Manager memorandum mentions that ultimately consolidation of rescue and fire services will be pursued, which he believed presents a contradiction in that if consolidation is an ultimate goal of this Commission, on one hand the City does not support the City of Daytona Beach in their efforts, but on the other it wants to approach Daytona Beach about unification of fire services. Commissioner Boyle disagreed that supporting this application will preclude the quality of future transport service, and he stated it may be an important first step toward consolidating all of the fire and rescue services.
Commissioner Kelley stated that denying the resolution does not preclude Daytona Beach from having an option, and he opposed supporting the resolution without knowing whether the effects are going to be counterproductive. He stated the value and effect to the public will be greater served by looking at a better service for the entire community.
Commissioner Persis did not agree that it is important for the City to endorse the City of Daytona Beach’s application for it to be approved by the County Council. He stated that if the City supports the efforts of the City of Daytona Beach without reviewing the facts, it insinuates that it would be right for Ormond Beach and other cities to make that same choice. He stated that he has received only positive comments about EVAC’s service, and he did not see a reason to endorse Daytona Beach’s request.
Mr. Miller stated that the Commission endorsed, and the Mayor, through VCOG, has initiated, action to start with the consolidation of fire/rescue services in Volusia County. He stated it is untimely to take action on this request tonight and recommended denial of the resolution.
Item #10(B)2 - Request for Submittal of a Grant Application for Equipment and Supplies to Attain Advanced Life Support (ALS) Status
Mr. Mike Roberts, 80 Hummingbird Lane, stated this request is not for Ormond Beach firefighters to gain additional manning or possible pay increases. He stated Advanced Life Support (ALS) is the most recognized and advanced level of pre-hospital care, and Ormond Beach is the only city on the east coast other than South Daytona that is not already ALS qualified or applying to become ALS qualified. Mr. Roberts stated that the grant application in no way commits the City to do anything and will assist the City in advancing from Basic Life Support (BLS) to ALS. He stated that thousands of dollars in funding for equipment has been received by area fire stations. He mentioned the deadline for applying for the grants is June 27, 1997, and it is a full one (1) year process before equipment is ordered.
Commissioner Schecter requested the Commission’s serious consideration of this request, and, as pointed out by Mr. Roberts, it is not a commitment to money now or in the future. He stated there is a looming deadline to make application, and this Commission has a positive history of supporting the solicitation of grants at all levels. He suggested directing the grants coordinator to assist on this grant application, if necessary.
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to approve the submittal of a grant application for equipment and supplies to attain ALS status.
Commissioner Boyle stated this application does not incur any obligation on the part of the City, and he has yet to find any compelling reason for denial of the application. He stated the only potential cost that may occur with the ALS program, assuming the new fire chief endorses the program, would be training cost and salary incentives. Commissioner Boyle expressed support for the program and stated it would be a good thing for Ormond Beach.
Commissioner Kelley, referring to the letter addressed to Commissioner Schecter from the Ormond Beach Firefighters Association dated May 28, 1997, stated he read a clear motive, although publicly denied, to increase staff. He stated grant funds are tax revenue that would be better spent in other areas, and he could not support the request.
Commissioner Persis expressed support for the request; however, he objected to the late hour of the request considering the deadline for grant submission is June 27, 1997. He requested that the firefighters work with the grants coordinator to prepare the grant documents. He stated he is in favor of starting the process, and at the time the new fire chief is hired, his position on the ALS program can be addressed and the Commission can take action at that time.
Mr. Miller stated that when a grant application is made there is always an expectation that the City will embark on the program for which it applied. He stated from an administrative perspective, a comprehensive analysis has not been conducted as to whether the City should pursue this request. He recommended a one (1) year delay in submitting the ALS grant application, and he recommended applying for BLS grant funds during this current grant cycle.
Mayor Hood stated he in favor of the grant submission; however, he is strongly opposed to making any decision with regard to qualifying for ALS without a thorough review of the financial impact of such a program. He stated ALS needs to be considered in conjunction with the unification of fire/rescue services within the County.
Item #11(A) - Memorial to Dale Buttleman Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, to name the softball quad at the Airport Sports Complex the Dale Buttleman Softball Complex.
Mr. Disselkoen advised that a formal resolution naming the softball quad will be scheduled for the next meeting.
Item #11(B) - Code Enforcement Procedures Related to Barking Dogs Commissioner Schecter stated that a memorandum was received from Mr. Randy Hayes, Assistant City Attorney, requesting additional time to research the issue in preparing comprehensive changes to Section 5-10, Code of Ordinances, relative to "barking dog" violations and for additional time to consider substantial changes to the code enforcement system to allow for the issuance of citations. Commissioner Schecter stated that Mr. Hayes’ request for additional time is reasonable, and he specifically wanted the area of continuous or frequent barking to be reviewed relative to the ten (10) minute provision. He expressed full support of the work being done by Mr. Hayes and Mayor Hood on the citation system. Commissioner Schecter stated that his comments are not directed at any particular neighbor or site in the City, and he stated there has been press that has not been favorable to a particular neighbor of his. Commissioner Schecter made a personal apology to the neighbor in regard to that press. He stated this request has evolved from several complaints received over the past few months, and as provided in the meeting packet material, over one-hundred (100) complaints were received last year on this issue. Commissioner Schecter requested input from the Commission as to whether changes should be made.
Mayor Hood asked if any member of the Commission had any comments and hearing none, he suggested that they contact Mr. Hayes if they wish to provide input at a later date.
Commissioner Boyle stated that animal control enforcement is never going be perfect in our community, and most barking dog issues get resolved without code enforcement action. He stated the memorandum provided by Chief Stewart indicated that of the complaints received, twelve (12) required initiating the Code Enforcement Board procedure, and only one (1) complaint has been before the Code Enforcement Board this year. Commissioner Boyle stated there is no guarantee that citations or the power of the County court system will be an improvement over the current procedure. He stated the last thing the crowded court system needs is to have a lot of barking dog complaints added to their docket. He stated that courts do not provide quick remedy, and he preferred to see the courts deal with nuisance people rather than nuisance animals. Commissioner Boyle stated that he has received numerous complaints on barking dogs, and he conceded that there are a lot people for whom the dog in their yard that barks is a security factor. He stated the problem in the City is the fact that it is understaffed in code enforcement, and he recommended that at least one (1) additional person be hired in that capacity.
Mr. Tony James, 43 Myra Boulevard, explained a situation that occurred in the past whereby he was annoyed by a dog that continuously barked, and he supported a stronger ordinance be adopted to enforce animal complaints.
Mr. Robin Griffis, 74 Wye Drive, stated that he did not concur that additional laws are necessary to address animal complaints, and he agreed to the comments made by Commissioner Boyle. He questioned enforcement of barking dogs, and in his case, watch dogs that protect his property. He stated he has been in contact with Commissioner Schecter, and he believes the problem has been addressed. He supported neighbor compromises rather than stricter enforcement.
Mrs. Ela Lugo, 60 Vining Court, stated she is a neighbor of Mr. Griffis and expressed appreciation that the dog barking has been kept to a minimum this week. She stated this situation could have been resolved before reaching this point and explained that many neighbors repeatedly asked Mr. Griffis for his cooperation. She expressed appreciation to Commissioner Schecter, on behalf of the Vining Court Homeowners’ Association, for his efforts in resolving this issue.
Ms. Rita Press, 875 Wilmette Avenue, suggested the Commission consider creating a mediation board to handle these types of problems.
Ms. Juliet Sanders, 60 Vining Court, stated she has spoken to Mr. Griffis about his barking dogs, loud music, and the overall noise generated from his residence and received little satisfaction. She stated mediation was attempted to no avail, and the police have responded to numerous complaints relative to the residence at 74 Wye Drive.
Mr. Al King, 199 Sandcastle Drive, supported that the parties involved in a complaint should attempt resolution prior to the complaint proceeding through code enforcement.
Mayor Hood explained that the item being considered is to allow Mr. Hayes additional time to further review proposed changes to Section 5-10 of the Code of Ordinances relative to barking dog violations, and to pursue the possible implementation of a citation system. Mr. Hayes will present a proposal on these issues at a future meeting.
Item #11(C) - Request for Proposal for City Banking Services Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, to authorize the issuance of a Request for Proposal for City banking services in accordance with the City Manager’s memorandum dated June 12, 1997.
Item #11(D) - Request for Proposal for the Granada/Bovard Master Streetscape Plan and Redevelopment Process Commissioner Schecter moved to authorize the issuance of a Request for Proposal for the Granada/Bovard Master Streetscape Plan and Redevelopment process. The motion failed for lack of a second.
The Commission took a five (5) minute recess at 8:30 p.m. The meeting was recalled at 8:35 p.m. Item #11(E) - Further Discussion Relative to The Rivers Property Mayor Hood advised that efforts to have the State pay for purchase of The Rivers property have failed. He stated a suggestion has been made to consider presenting the purchase to the electorate on the September 30, 1997, ballot, to allow the electorate to decide whether or not to authorize this acquisition and partially fund the purchase with ad valorem taxes.
Mr. Disselkoen stated that Mayor Hood provided an accurate summary, and explained that the most recent State offer is substantially less than the amount offered in the past. He advised that it appears that the option is to enter into negotiations with the property owner for the land acquisition, to obtain one (1) appraisal, and if a contract agreement is reached, present the issue back to the Commission for a decision to place the question on the ballot.
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis to authorize the process as explained by the City Attorney.
Commissioner Boyle questioned why the City would limit itself to one (1) appraisal and if the City is aware of the amount of the State’s appraisal. Mr. Disselkoen advised that the State appraisals are confidential until the matter is closed. He advised that because the purchase will be a referendum item, the City is not required by the Code of Ordinances to obtain any appraisals; however, staff is suggesting requiring that at least one (1) appraisal be prepared. Commissioner Boyle expressed concern to proceeding with this item without knowing the accurate figures involved. Mayor Hood explained that the City Attorney’s proposal is to require an appraisal that will provide the ability to determine what the contract amount should be and to present that number to the electorate.
Commissioner Boyle asked if the ballot could be worded in a manner that informs the electorate that a certain amount of State money and potentially the remaining "John’s Island" bond funds will be applied to the City’s liability. Mr. Disselkoen advised there is a restriction on the total number of words allowed on a ballot, but staff would attempt to be as comprehensive as possible in the question wording. Commissioner Boyle questioned if the City Attorney agreed that the bottom line number might be critical in whether or not the electorate supports the purchase, to which Mr. Disselkoen concurred that information is critical, and staff will provide that figure prior to requesting the Commission to consider approving a bond referendum question.
Commissioner Kelley stated that from the County’s standpoint, the City still owes money with respect to the "John’s Island" purchase. Mr. Disselkoen concurred, but advised he would argue with the County over their position because this property is immediately adjacent to what was known as "John’s Island," so this is basically a request to acquire more land for the same funds.
Mayor Hood stated that it is important that, if this item is to go on a ballot, the Commission know definitively what monies are available and what the net cost to the taxpayer is going to be. With regard to the State appraisal amount, Mr. Disselkoen advised that the State acquisition process is now over; therefore, the appraisal will be made public record, and the City will request a copy.
Commissioner Kelley stated he is generally opposed to purchasing property for the purpose of removing that property from a tax roll, and he mentioned that over $5 billion worth of property has been removed by Preservation 2000. He stated that in this instance, the most efficient way to address this may be to present the issue to the electorate to determine if the public is willing to pay for the acquisition.
Commissioner Persis stated it is imperative for the public to know what the result would be if the public votes "no" to purchase the property. Mr. Disselkoen advised that the bottom line is that the land would be developed to some degree, if the City does not acquire the property.
Commissioner Schecter expressed support to placing the purchase on the ballot and requested that a public hearing be scheduled prior to adoption on the ordinance authorizing the bonds and calling the election.
Mayor Hood addressed item #11(G) on the agenda before discussing Item (F) because most of the concern to Item (F) relates specifically to Item (G).
Item #11(G) - Harry Wendelstedt Contract Mayor Hood stated that the incremental cost provided by staff in the amount of $10,000, is approximately $8,000 more than the amount Mr. Wendelstedt currently pays for the school. He stated the ultimate decision is whether the Commission believes the community receives $8,000 a year in value from the current contract with Mr. Wendelstedt, and if it does, it appears to him that the Commission can agree to continue the contract for ten (10) years.
Commissioner Schecter expressed concern that the Commission gave staff a directive to negotiate with Mr. Wendelstedt and those negotiations did not occur.
Commissioner Boyle stated that it is well documented that there has been a lot of confusion about the figures used in the DMG study and how those figures were to be calculated. He stated one element not included in the calculations is the considerable effort that Mr. Wendelstedt and the community embarked upon to develop the fields at the Airport Sports Complex. In response to Commissioner Schecter’s remarks, he stated even if negotiations had occurred, the ultimate decision relative to the contract must be made by the Commission, and he stated the discussion item tonight serves the Commission, staff, and citizens well.
Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis to continue the Harry Wendelstedt contract for ten (10) years under the current fixed terms.
Mr. Disselkoen advised the contract length is beyond the ten (10) year period; whereby, Mayor Hood stated Mr. Wendelstedt has agreed to the ten (10) year period.
Mr. Sylvan Wells, attorney representing Mr. Wendelstedt, stated that Mr. Wendelstedt entered into a contract with the City in 1989, and that contract was renegotiated in 1993 at which time the rent was doubled. He stated Mr. Wendelstedt was assured then that he would not have to negotiate the contract again, and that is the reason the contract was for thirty (30) years with a Consumer Price Index increase for each year. He stated the contract provided that either side could terminate the contract with one (1) year’s notice. Mr. Wells stated he is attempting to solidify the contract so that both parties know their rights and obligations for a period of ten (10) years.
Commissioner Kelley stated he did not object to the ten (10) year contract term, so long as the existing contract wording does not change. Mr. Wells stated it is their clear intent not to change any item other than the contract term and "out" clause.
Commissioner Persis expressed support of, and appreciation for, Mr. Wendelstedt for the goodwill and positive economic impact that he has provided to this City. Mr. Wells stated that he commissioned Mr. Charles Christman, First Union Bank, to perform a study to determine the economic impact of the five (5) week school, and his numbers indicated that the school, through it’s roughly two-hundred (200) students and one-hundred (100) staff, generate over $750,000.
Item #11(F) - Revisiting the Leisure Services Cost of Service Study Mr. Miller stated that the validity of the Leisure Services cost of service study has been questioned, and he wanted to "clear the air" about its purpose and accuracy before moving forward and utilizing data contained therein. He suggested reiterating what the report is not, rather than what it is; and he stated a representative from DMG is present to make a brief statement and answer any questions. Mr. Miller stated that the City knows exactly what its costs are for the Leisure Services Department and what the costs are for athletic fields maintenance, and he stated it is a very simple formula to take that figure and divide it by the number of activities or programs that utilize those specific facilities. He stated the report provides valuable administrative information and is not intended to mandate policy. Mr. Miller stated, for the record to Mr. Wendelstedt, that staff did not, at any time, recommend severance of the current contract, as amended in 1993. He stated through the public discussion staff was looked upon as the person(s) recommending negotiating a $48,000 fee. Mr. Miller stated that there are two (2) directions the policy consideration may take--the first being a business approach and the second is a promotional approach. Mr. Miller explained that during the time when the decision was made to construct the site in Ormond Beach, discussion was held with regard to economic development, and possibly using the fields as a catalyst to attract a major league baseball spring training camp. He stated that has changed because the City has not realized the stadium that was conceptually envisioned. Mr. Miller stated he would like Mrs. Armstrong, representing DMG, to make a brief comment about the purpose, intent, and results of the study.
Ms. Betty Armstrong, vice-president in charge of the Tallahassee office of DMG, stated that she was not involved in the detailed development of the study, but the methodology is consistent with studies done across the nation. She stated the Commission’s previous action with regard to the Wendelstedt contract is exactly what DMG recommends and that action is not inconsistent with the study. Ms. Armstrong stated the study is a determination of what various activities costs the entity to provide based on accepted cost allocation procedures, and it does not suppose that this is necessarily the appropriate number for the Commission to establish as a fee. She stated that DMG does not set policy, but provides the tools to use for setting policy, the study indicates a recommended fifty (50%) percent recovery level, if the Commission deems it appropriate, based on policy, to have a fee based on cost of services. Mrs. Armstrong provided the Commission with the detailed calculations used in accumulating the data.
Mayor Hood disagreed with the logic stated in the report as to how the Wendelstedt fee amount was calculated. He read the following excerpt from the report "the costs of this activity (that being Harry Wendelstedt) is projected at $48,033 per year." He stated that figure was determined by taking the total number of hours that the four (4) baseball fields were utilized, and using as a ratio or percentage, the number of hours that Mr. Wendelstedt used those fields, and that calculated to thirty-five (35%) percent. Ms. Armstrong replied that his statements were not entirely correct, and stated she would demonstrate the relationship by showing a series of pictorials.
Ms. Armstrong mentioned four (4) methods used in the pricing approach, and stated in no case would the City necessarily choose only one (1) method to ascertain and establish all of the fees, because as was discussed earlier, there are different factors that come into play. She stated that unfortunately the study looked at costs, and there was not a component of the study to do what Mr. Wendelstedt was able to do in his analysis of the economic impact to the area. She stated that had DMG attempted to make it completely comparable with Ormond Beach, DMG would have tried to limit it to the impact on Ormond Beach itself, but that was not a part of DMG’s mission.
Mayor Hood stated that if those statements are true, he questioned why the report contains a sentence that says "Full time equivalent is devoted to serving needs of the umpire school with small economic return on cost investment and small benefit to the local economy." He questioned why DMG would include that statement in the report if it did not have data to make that social judgment. Ms. Armstrong stated that the information to formulate the report came from interviewing employees in Leisure Services, as well as in Administration, in an attempt to determine any known or obvious impact.
Mayor Hood asked for clarification that staff had given DMG the information that caused DMG to reach this conclusion included in the report. Ms. Armstrong stated the conclusion was based on answers to the questions, but perhaps the questions were not all inclusive to staff.
Mayor Hood concurred that DMG’s task was to provide costs, and the Commission agrees that judgments are not made inherently based on costs. He stated if the report had simply revealed what DMG determined the costs to be, based on a logical process, he and many others would not be voicing objection to the report; however, the report went beyond giving costs and made conclusive statements that involve social issues.
Ms. Armstrong stated that all of the information DMG relied on came from actual financial documents such as budgets, expense reports, and performance indicators, as well as employee interviews. Ms. Armstrong stated if the City determines to use a cost basis to establish a given fee, the benefit is that the users who actually avail themselves of the service also share in the costs. She stated that typically in the cost based fees, DMG attempts to ascertain if this service is available to the citizenry as a whole or is available to a limited few, and the charges for services should result from equitable cost evaluations. Ms. Armstrong stated that the Commission has already ascertained that the methodology it wants to use for establishing a fee for the Wendelstedt lease does not fit into the category of cost based fees. However, she stated if these calculations are used to determine the cost to other areas where the cost based approach is appropriate, it would be inappropriate in the study to take the cost through the logic of allocation that would go to the Wendelstedt ball fields and artificially allocate the cost into one (1) of the other areas.
Mayor Hood asked Ms. Armstrong to explain the process by which DMG determined the cost of $48,000 for the Wendelstedt fields. Ms. Armstrong stated that percentage demonstrates the amount of usage in terms of total usage, that explanation is not the entire picture of how the costs were accumulated. She explained it is important to point out that most of the data was gathered through interviews and timesheet analysis with the department and division heads, and with the employees who actually provide the specific fee service. She stated that the City did not include one (1) of the costs that studies typically include and that is the city-wide overhead. Mayor Hood stated the information being presented has been thoroughly reviewed, and he again asked her to explain the specific process in which DMG calculated the $48,000 fee for Mr. Wendelstedt.
Commissioner Schecter interjected that page 5 of the handout distributed by Ms. Armstrong at the beginning of her presentation explains the process in detail. He stated that although he disagreed with the numbers, he did not feel that further explanation is necessary. Ms. Armstrong summarized that the thirty-five (35%) percent figure was calculated to interpret the costs identified, but the thirty-five (35%) percent figure was not used to identify cost.
Commissioner Boyle stated that he hoped the City has learned some things about restricting itself on the leisure study to just the costs. He reiterated his position in favor of market analysis for competitive demand and to determine how the City compares to other cities. Mr. Miller stated the study took the total dollars and divided that number by the units of usage, and obviously if the units are increased, the cost per unit will decrease and that opportunity is available in many of the City’s activities. He stated this report will be used as a management tool to improve the City’s operations.
Mayor Hood expressed strong concern that the consultant prepared a report and provided conclusions about economic benefit without supporting data. He pointed out that in a letter dated June 11, 1997, the consultant made statements such as "Were the umpire school to cease to operate at City facilities, historical demand experience for these fields suggests a tenfold increase in revenues..." and "Activities in preparation for the umpire school and five-week usage period consume 1,670.5 hours of staff time...." He questioned the basis upon which those conclusions were formed, and stated the number of hours referenced defies logic. Mayor Hood stated that while it is important to know the costs, it is also important not to accept the numbers as being valid without verification.
Mr. Sylvan Wells stated that his client is concerned that the Commission may establish recreation policies based on the figures presented by staff that are incorrect. Mayor Hood stated he would be happy to meet with Mr. Wendelstedt to discuss his concerns.
Item #11(H) - Suggested Beach Management Straw Ballot Commissioner Kelley supported a straw ballot on the question of beach management and advised that the beach management straw ballot idea is also being considered by the cities of Daytona Beach and New Smyrna Beach.
Commissioner Kelley moved, seconded by Commissioner Schecter, to authorize the City Attorney to develop a straw ballot for the September 30, 1997, ballot on the question of whether or not the cities should resume beach management
Item #12 - Reports, Suggestions, Requests Beach Lighting Commissioner Boyle stated the City has codes in effect with regard to lights cast on the beach; however, it appears the rules are changing from week to week, which is causing a lot of police and code enforcement officer time being spent enforcing compliance. He suggested that since the County has control of the beach, enforcement of the lighting issue be handled by the County. He asked that this item be placed on a future agenda for discussion, to which Mayor Hood requested staff to comply.
Summary of Citizen Recommendations for Development Issues Commissioner Boyle stated that he had submitted a summary of citizens’ recommendations regarding development issues at the May 20, 1997, City Commission meeting, and he requested that Items 1 and 8 be deleted from the list. He suggested that Item 10 be combined with Commissioner Schecter’s request for a workshop to discuss The Rivers issue, and he stated that all of the items, with the exception of Item 5, could be discussed at the same workshop. Commissioner Boyle stated the citizens have expressed strong desire for the Commission to reconsider recently adopted ordinances which have relaxed the rules for development, specifically Ordinance No. 96-86, and he asked that Ordinance No. 96-86 be reconsidered at the July 1, 1997, meeting, and that a public workshop be scheduled for mid August.
Mr. Disselkoen advised that Ordinance No. 96-86 would be required to go through the Planning Board review process, and that action is not actually termed a reconsideration. He stated if the Commission wants to initiate action, the item will be referred to the Planning Board. Mayor Hood asked if there were objections to Commissioner Boyle’s proposal.
Commissioner Persis stated that each of the items on the list has merit; however, he objected to considering the items since they were not recommended by staff nor was there a consensus reached by the Commission. He questioned this process of review as not being an efficient use of the Commission’s time. He expressed support of Item 10, but was opposed to the wording of the other items, especially Item 5, which he stated implied that the Commission’s actions have been incorrect. He expressed objection to not following the formal process in considering these items.
Commissioner Boyle stated that any time that members of the public ask the Commission to publicly discuss issues, it serves the Commission’s time and City very well. He stated the issue is not the wording of the items, but what the questions are. With regard to reconsideration of recent ordinances, he stated there has been a lot of controversy, specifically with Ordinance No. 96-86 which passed on a 3 to 2 vote and applied to only one project in the City. Commissioner Boyle stated that Ordinance No. 96-86 was adopted against staff’s recommendation, and he stated that ordinance applied to a unique situation and has potentially created problems.
Commissioner Kelley supported Commissioner Persis’ comments and voiced opposition to citizens recommending the rehiring of previously downsized building inspectors. He stated the request is out of the scope of the public’s interest, and the Commission’s role is to direct policy--not to manage the City. He stated it is the City Manager’s responsibility to take the appropriate actions. Commissioner Kelley stated Commissioner Boyle’s request "shortcuts" the proper processes, and he explained that Item 5 requires that a Commissioner who voted in support of the adopted ordinance must request the item to be revisited.
Commissioner Schecter stated that he did not object to asking the Planning Board for specific recommendations relative to reviewing Ordinance No. 96-86, and he emphasized that any ordinance adopted in reference to the Land Development Code is not of a site specific nature. He stated the Planning Board is in session to review these processes, and he welcomed their comments.
Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Schecter, to place Item 5 on the July 1, 1997, agenda to determine if the item will be referred to the Planning Board. Commissioner Schecter questioned the procedure on how the Commission would refer this item to the Planning Board. Mr. Disselkoen advised that a motion is required to refer that section of the Land Development Code to the Planning Board for further recommendation. He clarified that reconsideration can only occur at the same meeting the ordinance is voted upon, and this is basically a request for an amendment to an ordinance.
Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Schecter, to schedule a public workshop in mid August to discuss all seven (7) issues and The Rivers item.
Mr. Disselkoen advised that he will be on vacation from August 6 through 17, 1997.
Barnett Bank Kiosk Commissioner Schecter stated he received a letter from Mr. Jim White, Barnett Bank, asking for reconsideration of the color stripe on the ATM machine. He stated that he spoke with Mr. White and Mr. Clay Ervin, Planning Director, and at this point, some type of compromise may be possible in reference to the striping. Commissioner Schecter asked Mr. Disselkoen to explain the process by which this item can be placed on the next agenda. Mr. Disselkoen advised that he had prepared a memo to Mr. Ervin on this issue which advised that Barnett Bank would request a rehearing of the Commission’s decision and clarified it is not an appeal, but a request for approval. Mr. Disselkoen stated that a vote item as to whether to grant a rehearing can be scheduled for the July 1, 1997, meeting.
Commissioner Persis stated this is a classic case where a business went ahead and did something that was in violation of City ordinances in hopes that the Commission would grant an exception. He stated the Commission denied the request for the striping on March 11, 1997; three (3) months later the stripes have not been removed, and now Barnett Bank is requesting a rehearing.
Commissioner Schecter stated that Barnett Bank could not be more apologetic and would like reconciliation.
Air Conditioning Improvements to South Ormond Recreation Center Commissioner Schecter stated that Resolution No. 97-109 was approved earlier tonight accepting a bid to provide air conditioning improvements in the Nova Recreation Center Gymnasium, and he asked for a plan, in writing, for the completion of the air conditioning improvements at the South Ormond Beach Recreation Center.
Inappropriate Vehicles Utilizing Wilmette Avenue Commissioner Schecter stated he received complaints relative to trucks, Votran buses, and a land/water vehicle traveling on Wilmette Avenue, even though that road is posted with "no truck" signs. He forwarded the complaints to Mr. Ted MacLeod, Public Works Director, for handling.
Mayor Hood stated that he received letters stating that City trucks are using Wilmette Avenue between North Beach Street and US#1. He requested that it be made clear to staff that they are not to violate that particular rule. Mr. MacLeod stated he has instructed staff about this very topic and recently informed them that citations will be issued, and the Police Department will be providing stricter enforcement.
Riverside Drive Commissioner Schecter stated that he received a letter from Mr. Holland, a resident of Riverside Drive, expressing pleasure to the street resurfacing; however, he was extremely upset about the signage and painting issues. The letter was forwarded to Mr. Ted MacLeod for handling.
Appreciation Commissioner Schecter stated that this has been a trying few months for this Commission in which several major issues, huge financial and capital improvement issues, and social issues have been handled. He stated he is very pleased to be a part of this Commission and looked forward to the summer as the Commission enters its workshop period.
SR40 Medians Commissioner Kelley stated that he noticed that the SR40 medians have bahia grass, and he suggested the medians would look much nicer if St. Augustine grass could be used. He requested staff to explore the costs involved to use the different type of grass.
Commissioner Persis stated that he has also received calls questioning the use of the "pasture grass," and he supported Commissioner Kelley’ suggestion. Orchard Street Sidewalks Commissioner Persis stated that Mr. Brian Deising, who submitted the petition requesting that sidewalks be constructed along Orchard Street from Division Avenue to West Granada Boulevard, is requesting a status update. Mr. Ted MacLeod is to contact Mr. Deising with a report.
Forest Hills Subdivision Code Enforcement Commissioner Persis stated that he is still receiving complaints with regard to semi-trucks illegally parking in the Forest Hills subdivision. Mr. Clay Ervin stated that Mr. Todd Herget, Chief Building Official, has contacted the owner of the property who has agreed to install the appropriate signage. If the owner does not comply, this request will be processed through the Code Enforcement Board. Windstorm Insurance Mayor Hood advised that there has been a change in windstorm insurance underwriting issues, and he requested this item be placed on the next agenda for discussion.
Item #13 - Close the Meeting The meeting was adjourned at 9:48 PM. |
|
|
