|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
OCTOBER 28, 1997 7:00 PM Present were: Mayor Dave Hood, Commissioners Jeffrey J. Boyle, David Schecter, Ed Kelley, Carl G. Persis, City Manager Eugene Miller, City Attorney Fred S. Disselkoen, and City Clerk Veronica Patterson.
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 Joe Putting, Tomoka Christian 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 October 1, and October 7, 1997, meetings have 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.
Presentation of Key to the City Mayor Hood presented the Key to the City to Daniel Harrell for his rescue of Mr. Donald VanDeWater, an 85 year old gentleman who suffered a cardiac arrest at The Trials swimming pool. Mayor Hood expressed his appreciation, on behalf of the City, for Mr. Harrell’s heroic actions. Item #5 - Audience Remarks Resignation of Commissioner Schecter Mr. Tony James, 143 Myra Boulevard, expressed his appreciation to Commissioner Schecter for stepping down rather than trying to get his education while serving his constituents. He asked that his public apology to Commissioner Schecter for his comments at a City Commission meeting regarding a misunderstanding concerning the return of a telephone call be noted for the record. Southwest I-95 Partnership Ms. Harriet Damesek, 4 Sandpoint Circle, informed the Commission that the Code Enforcement Board assessed no penalty to Southwest I-95 Partnership for violations of Land Development Code regulations including an unpermitted twenty-four (24’) foot access road through a Class II wetland, thereby destroying it, and the removal of numerous trees. She stated the Southwest I-95 Partnership consists of Paul Holub, Charles Lichtigman, and Devon Tower. She advised there is a Consent Order which gives the partnership ninety (90) days to plant thirteen (13) to twenty-four (24) trees, depending upon caliper, on HLT and/or Southwest I-95 property. She stated the partnership may select the trees with the City Landscape Architect’s approval. Ms. Damesek stated that in May, the City Landscape Architect estimated that mitigation should be one-hundred (100) trees of five (5") inch caliper. Ms. Damesek asked when and why the tree replacement count changed; if the trees will be checked to see if they are surviving and for how long; who will do the checking; if the trees will be replaced if they die; and whether HLT property is separate from Southwest I-95. Ms. Damesek stated the partnership has thirty (30) days to provide a wetland mitigation plan for the area destroyed by the unpermitted access road, but the Consent Order does not give a completion date for mitigation, or note who will monitor this or for how long. She stated that penalties come into play only if the tree replacement doesn’t occur within ninety (90) days or the mitigation within thirty (30) days. Ms. Damesek stated the Consent Order benefits the developers and not the City residents. She stated the developer has nearly one (1) year from the time the violations occurred to make corrections for the tree removal and an indeterminate amount of time for wetland mitigation. Ms. Damesek stated the City needs much stronger code enforcement and meaningful penalties for violations along with timely assessment of those penalties. She stated for violations as severe as these, there should be no exceptions and no negotiations. Commissioner Boyle stated he is also troubled by two (2) questions raised by Ms. Damesek: the violations on the access road occurred in February, 1996, and the developer has almost one year for the correction, and the difference in the number of trees required to be replaced in the May memo as opposed to the number in the Development Order. Commissioner Boyle asked the City Manager for a detailed explanation on how the tree replacement number had been calculated and to have the relevant portions of the Land Development Code sited. Mayor Hood asked that this item be placed on an agenda and a memo be supplied with the answer to the questions that have been raised. Understaffed Police Department Ms. Terry Steininger, 172 Fairway Drive, stated she was burglarized on October 19, 1997, at which time her keys and other items were stolen. She stated that when the police officer arrived, she informed the officer that she would not stay in the home until the locks were changed, but asked that her home be patrolled. She was informed that due to a lack of manpower, he could not commit to the patrol. Ms. Steininger stated her house was again burglarized that night using the keys that were stolen earlier. Through her investigation, she noted there are in excess of 5,800 residents and 93 businesses located beachside, with only one (1) police officer patrolling from midnight to 6 a.m. Ms. Steininger asked the Commission to investigate this severe understaffing problem and remedy it quickly. Mayor Hood asked Mr. Miller to place this item on an agenda along with a report from the Police Chief. Police Chief Selection Ms. Helen Ann Simmons, Shadow Lakes Boulevard, expressed her disappointment that Commander Hedges was not able to test for the Police Chief’s position. Item #6 - 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 Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, for approval of the Consent Agenda.
Item #7(A) - Bear Creek, Phase III Mr. Clay Ervin, Planning Director, advised the Development Order in Resolution No. 97-203 and Exhibit #C, states there will be 167 homes, and both should read 165 homes. Commissioner Kelley moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to close the public hearing on Item #7(A). The motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 97-203
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, for approval of Resolution No. 97-203, as read by title only. Commissioner Persis stated his concern regarding a buffer. Mr. Maurice Berry, III, representing Zev Cohen & Associates, stated that they are willing to provide more landscaping than the Code requires. Mayor Hood stated that he would like to see something more definitive; whereby, Mr. Ervin advised this development must come back to the Site Plan Review Committee in which the Landscape Architect is a member. Mr. Ervin stated he will inform the Landscape Architect of the Commission’s concerns and will make sure these concerns are satisfied.
Item 7(B) - Parking For Shared Uses In The Granada/Bovard Streetscape Overlay District Commissioner Kelley moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to close the public hearing on Item #7(B). The motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 97 - 63
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-63, on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #7(C) - Color and Design Standards Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Schecter, to close the public hearing on Item #7(C). The motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 97 - 65
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-65, on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #7(D) - Office of the City Manager Commissioner Kelley moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to close the public hearing on Item #7(D). The motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 97 - 66
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-66, on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #7(E) - Final Plat Approval of Phase III, Unit 3B of Breakaway Trails Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, to close the public hearing on Item #7(E). The motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 97 - 67
Commissioner Kelley moved, seconded by Commissioner Schecter, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-67 on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #8(A) - Lost or Abandoned Property ORDINANCE NO. 97 - 68
Commissioner Kelley moved, seconded by Commissioner Schecter, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-68 on first reading, as read by title only.
Item #8(B) - Priority of City Liens ORDINANCE NO. 97 - 69
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-69 on first reading, as read by title only.
Item #8(C) - Calling for a Special Primary Election in Zone 2 ORDINANCE NO. 97 - 70
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-70 on first reading, as read by title only.
Item #9(A) - Revised Sidewalk Master Plan Funding Schedule RESOLUTION NO. 97 - 204
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, for approval of Resolution No. 97-204, as read by title only. Commissioner Persis commended Mr. Fred Disselkoen, City Attorney, for his work on soverign immunity and sidewalks. He questioned what communications had occurred with the residents on Orchard Street. Mrs. Judy Grim, City Engineer, advised she had contacted Mr. Brian Deising and supplied him with a drawing of the location of the sidewalk which noted approximately how much property was needed from each property owner as well as identification of the property owners involved. Ms. Grim stated Mr. Deising is scheduled to pick this information up on Thursday. She stated the sidewalk easement sample document is also available for Mr. Deising; and at this point, staff is awaiting further word from Mr. Deising. Mr. Disselkoen asked if approval would include the format of the deed indicated; whereby, Commissioner Schecter and Commissioner Boyle answered affirmatively.
Item #9(B) - Option Agreement for the Purchase of "The Rivers" Property RESOLUTION NO. 97 - 205
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, for approval of Resolution No. 97-205, as read by title only.
Item #9(C) - Removal of Historic Tree RESOLUTION NO. 97 - 206
Mr. Jim Morris, representing Dr. David Yoon, owner of the property, stated that the tree in question is between an existing home and the Halifax River. He stated numerous trees will be preserved on the site, and he provided pictures of the tree as well as drawings showing the location of the house on the proposed site plan. He stated the root base of the tree has been oxidized, which means the root structure of the tree is diminishing. He explained that the property is 100 feet in width, and the house plan has approximately 8,000 square feet of living area. Mr. Morris stated that if the house were built by staff’s recommendation, that of moving the house to within fifteen (15) feet of the tree to save it, since the canopy of a tree and root structure correspond, the canopy and root structure would have to be pruned affecting the pool deck as well as the home to the west. He stated the home value would be in excess of $1 million, and the tree would naturally lean at a significant angle toward the home. Mr. Morris contended that once the roots and branches would be pruned, little would be left of the tree, leaving no practical reason to save the tree. He stated there is also the added risk of putting the property owners in danger of property damage and/or danger to their lives. He stated that it is reasonable to expect that the tree is at the end of its life span. He further stated that the practical difficulty of removing such a large tree would damage the property. He stated the ordinances are designed to maintain an aesthetic aspect, but he contended the tree cannot be seen from the street. He stated the tree has no ecological value, and if it could be preserved, the Yoon’s would like to preserve it; but from a design standpoint, there is no way to achieve this. Mr. Morris stated the pool is planned to be unscreened, but if the tree stays, the falling leaves would mandate that the pool be screened which would destroy the architecture of the building as well as create additional imposition on the view of adjacent property owners. Mr. Morris stated it is his understanding that the neighbors do not object to the removal of the tree. He stated the Yoon’s are willing to work with the City within the perimeters dictated by the Landscape Architect on mitigation. Mr. Peter Glover, 483 North Beach Street, stated he lives immediately south of the Yoon’s property and his objection had been if the house would be built close to the river, it would block his view. Mr. Glover stated that he and Dr. Yoon agreed that if the house is built no closer to the river than where the tree is now located, he would not object to the tree being removed. Mr. Disselkoen advised the City cannot enforce any private agreement between the parties, and he clarified that the City’s setbacks will allow building closer to the river. Commissioner Schecter asked when the property was purchased. Mr. Morris stated it was purchased February, 1996. Commissioner Schecter asked if the owners were aware when they purchased the property that the tree was on the property and City ordinances protected the tree. Mr. Morris stated they were aware of the tree but not the ordinance, and the Yoon’s bought the property because it afforded a good view. He reminded the Commission of the considerable tax advantage to the City after the present house is demolished and the new house is built. Mr. Ben Butera, architect for the Yoon’s, stated he has experience with building houses on the water’s edge in this area, and he attempts to be site sensitive. He stated the orientation of the lot is important because of the desire for the morning sun shining on the pool area, and the tree would shade the area. Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, for approval of Resolution No. 97-206, as read by title only. Commissioner Boyle stated the tree has been identified as a healthy live oak tree, over 100 years old. He stated this tree could legitimately live a few more centuries, using the Fairchild Oak as an example. Commissioner Boyle reminded the Commission that property rights are not absolute in that there are restrictions on every property in the community. Commissioner Persis questioned if the tree is healthy and what its probable life span is. Mr. Bill Butler, the City’s Landscape Architect, stated that in his professional opinion, the root pruning will not significantly damage the tree due to the fact that the tree is a live oak which is a very sturdy breed. He stated the tree is not in decline, and it has a good high canopy, which will not shade as much as a lower story tree and will allow sun in the morning and broken shade the rest of the day. Mr. Butter stated that by pruning the branches, the tree will be a better symmetrical tree and will eliminate the appearance that it is leaning. Mr. Butler stated surface roots are not a problem; and since it is on a raised area, there should not be concern regarding fill over the roots. Mr. Butler stated that if the tree is pruned according to the regulations in the Land Development Code, the tree should live for tens to hundreds of years. Commissioner Schecter expressed his appreciation to Mr. Butler for his thorough staff report, and he explained that Mr. Butler is just defending the Code put in place by the City Commission. Commissioner Persis asked Mr. Butera if the house and pool could be shifted forty (40’) feet closer to the street. Mr. Butera stated that this would impact the design of the house and make it inset with the two remaining houses. Mr. Burtera stated that since the tree is on a mound, if the house was built at the elevation required, the tree would have to be circumvented by a wall, with drainage, and the wall would have to be in the size and proportion of the tree structure and root structure which will also impact the house. He further stated that trimming the tree at its present height is a concern to the neighboring property. Commissioner Kelley stated that when he built his home he tried to save as many trees as possible, only to have Hurricane Gordon destroy thirteen (13) trees, one of which he spent over $20,000 to save by changing the design of the house. He stated that even if a change is made in the design of the house, it does not insure the tree will survive. Commissioner Kelley stated the lot in question has many other trees which offer the foliage that is needed; therefore, he supported taking the tree down. Commissioner Persis asked if the ordinance is suggesting that only trees for the public interest need to be saved; whereby, Mr. Disselkoen advised that the nature of the tree, where the size and age of the tree deems it to be a historic tree, determines that it shall not be removed unless approved by the City Commission.
Item #10(A) - Skateboard Park Mr. Alan Burton, Leisure Services Director, stated that skateboarding and inline skating are very challenging and legitimate sports that are coming more into the view of public concern. Mr. Burton showed pictures of different skateboard parks throughout the country with different levels of difficulty in the elements. He stated liability is an issue and the use of safety equipment for heads, elbows and knees is essential. Mr. Burton stated he is researching adding a skateboard court to the park system to enable users to mix and match courts within a park system such as tennis, basketball, bacce, horseshoe, and shuffleboard courts. He suggested placing a skateboard facility in a community park because these parks are larger, and have greater supervision, and greater accessibility. He stated that by doing this, the City would diversify its facilities and change the public’s view of a park and park system. Mr. Burton stated the number of interested people is not high compared to other groups, but it is high enough that it needs to be taken into consideration. In an attempt to reallocate resources, Mr. Burton advised that staff is recommending converting two (2) tennis courts into a skateboard park. He suggested doubling the night play on the tennis courts. He stated this would provide a unique facility for the youth in the community. Mr. Burton recommended a "middle-of-the-road type facility" be built and funding for it provided in the budgetary process. He stated engineering concerns also need to be addressed. Commissioner Boyle questioned the cost of building two lighted tennis courts; and Mr. Burton stated that depending upon where they are built, the courts could cost anywhere from $30,000 to $60,000. Mayor Hood questioned the average usage of the tennis courts. Mr. Burton stated that both courts are being used at night, but in the daytime they are not used a great deal (4-12 players in the summer and 8-16 players in the winter). Commissioner Schecter asked Mr. Burton if the community was involved in the site plan being proposed. Mr. Burton stated there was little community involvement due to time constraints. Commissioner Schecter suggested those who spoke before the Commission previously be consulted to find out if their needs are being met. He stated the proximity to the residents’ homes at the Nova facility is a deterrent; therefore, he requested two (2) or three (3) options be recommended as alternative sites. Mr. Burton agreed public participation in the planning process is important. He stated he did consider alternate sites, but considering construction would need to be done in a timely fashion, the choices are limited. He stated a community park would be best and Ormond Beach has three (3) such parks: Nova Recreation Complex (best option), Central Park (the total cohesiveness of this park does not lend itself to a skateboard park), and West Ormond (which is in the embryonic stage). Mr. Burton ruled out the Airport Recreation complex because it is not accessible to the youth who would be using the park. Commissioner Boyle echoed Commissioner Schecter’s concerns. He stated the youth have proved that there is a mandate to build this facility, but he also is opposed to the location. Commissioner Boyle suggested a location near a fire station where paramedics are available. He also expressed concern regarding removing a capital asset the City already enjoys to replace it with another asset. Commissioner Boyle stated the sound and noise level involved in a skateboard park would dilute the enjoyment of the nearby tennis players, but he does agree with the fee setup. He recommended amending the six (6) foot height limit so a private enterprise could come into the community to build an expert level skate park. Commissioner Kelley echoed Commissioner Boyle and Commissioner Schecter’s concerns regarding the location. He suggested another area of the Nova Recreation Complex might be better suited to a skate park. Commissioner Persis stated there is considerable growth in interest in skateboarding as well as inline skating. He stated his opposition to converting the existing tennis courts which he is convinced would cause conflict between the tennis and skateboarding groups. He also opposed the fees suggested. Mr. Miller stated the $10 fee for Ormond Beach residents is to process a photo identification which would be valid for a period of one (1) year. Commissioner Persis stated the people pay taxes for this purpose, and there is very little upkeep involved in a skateboard park. He stated that if these parks are not provided, these people will be disturbing business and shopping center users because it is now unlawful to skate anywhere. Commissioner Kelley noted the $100 fee is for nonresidents. Commissioner Persis stated that if Ormond Beach children have out of town friends who want to skate with them, Ormond Beach should allow them to use the park without making them pay a $100 fee. Mr. Burton explained that when you have a unique facility such as this, there is a real possibility that a large amount of nonresidents would come in and would preclude Ormond Beach residents from using the facility. He stated the $100 fee puts Ormond Beach taxpayers first. Commissioner Persis stated skateboarders have a way of policing themselves politely. He suggested asking the Police Athletic League (PAL) to help supervise the area, eliminating the need to pay for supervision. Commissioner Persis stated that asking for medical information and photo identification cards creates added unnecessary bureaucracy. He stated New Smyrna Beach has built a skateboard facility, and suggested Mr. Burton contact Liz Yancy in New Smyrna for assistance. He disagreed with waiting until FY 1998-99, stating a park could be started by April, 1998. Mayor Hood stated there is a consensus that a detailed proposal needs to be provided. He asked that public input be solicited with any meetings advertised at all the schools in Ormond Beach. He stated the proposal needs to look at alternate locations as well as show details on capital and operational costs. Mayor Hood stated everyone else in the City is charged for baseball, soccer, the senior citizens center, The Casements, the Performing Arts Center or any other facility in the City; therefore, an equitable fee is warranted. He stated to run a skateboard facility without a release signed by the users would be suicidal considering the liability issue. Mayor Hood asked that this be brought back to the Commission at the November 18th meeting so it can be decided on by the end of 1997. Mr. Donald Hopkins, 15 Wildwood Trail, stated petitions have been submitted to the City Clerk opposing taking out two (2) of the Nova Recreation tennis courts. He added that state-wide tennis tournaments could not be held with only four (4) courts. Mayor Hood stated the Commission is asking staff to look at several options, and tennis will be considered. He advised there will be an opportunity for the public to speak at the time the detailed proposal is addressed. Item #10(B) - Future Annexations Commissioner Schecter urged Commission support for a task force to study growth and annexation in Ormond Beach, stating task forces have been successful in the past. He stated all those who want to provide input should be able to do so. He suggested a timeframe starting December 1, 1997, to May, 1998, with specific recommendations then bought to the Commission. Commissioner Boyle agreed there is a concern and a problem, but he is totally opposed to the formation of task force. He stated he is suspicious as to the timing and its true source, and the last thing this City needs is for a "hand-picked group of select citizens" to tell the Commission what it needs. Commissioner Boyle reminded the Commission that at the 1996 Goal Setting Workshop the City Manager warned about appointing task specific citizen boards, stating that the trend is to move away from such boards. He stated the City Commission is directly elected by the people, and the City has appointed staff and boards already in place to deal with the question of annexation, with any such annexation having advertised public hearings at every step. He stated the system is working, and it does not preclude vigorous and numerous annexations to the City. He stated two (2) new Commissioners will be seated in the next four (4) months; therefore, he recommended allowing the new Commission to first discuss annexation policy at its 1998 Goal Setting Workshop, and if at that time there is any question as to policy direction or public mandate, then a town meeting could be held with all the citizens invited to give input. Commissioner Kelley stated the City must take a serious look at annexation. He stated the property owners outside of Ormond Beach may or may not desire annexation, and it is not up to the Commission or the citizens to determine that. He recommended taking a proactive look at annexation with the property owners who want to annex in order to promote positive growth. Commissioner Schecter stated a task force is not a new idea, but one that has been viable for a number of months and there is no underlying agenda. He stated there would be no "hand-picking." He explained he recommended there be six (6) invited representatives, invited by each Commissioner, but that anyone would be welcome. Commissioner Schecter stated that the boards in existence to handle this issue have a large number of other issues facing them. Commissioner Persis expressed agreement with Commissioners Boyle and Kelley. Commissioner Boyle stated he does not believe it is the best time for such a task force. He stated that although he agrees with Commissioner Kelley, the debate tonight is not whether the Commission agrees on annexation, but whether a task force should be appointed. Mayor Hood stated he feels the community would miss an enormous opportunity to square its borders and dictate how it will look from the west if annexation is not seriously addressed. He stated the City has failed miserably in communicating what annexation truly is, when citizens feel annexation means uncontrolled growth. Mayor Hood stated the western border is essentially owned by Consolidated Tomoka Land Company who has already gone to the City of Daytona Beach to investigate annexing into Daytona Beach. He stated they can annex into Daytona Beach or develop according to Volusia County standards. Mayor Hood stated that the biggest legacy this Commission will have is if the west is developed under either Daytona Beach or Volusia County standards as opposed to Ormond Beach’s standards; whereby, citizens will berate this Commission for years to come for allowing that to happen. He stated he is not sure a task force will solve the problem, but he is convinced that if Ormond Beach cannot get together on a vision within the next six (6) months to one (1) year, the opportunity will be lost. Mayor Hood questioned if Ormond Beach is going to be in control of how the western border is developed or if will the City aggregate control to someone else. He stated he is willing to wait until the new members of the Commission are seated before a decision is made. Mayor Hood advised he favors a facilitator or a mediator to bring the differing viewpoints together and come to a conclusion. He stated the biggest goal of 1998 is to deal with this issue. Item #10(C) - Police Chief Selection Process Mayor Hood explained that at the last meeting of the City Commission it was requested that this item be placed on an agenda for discussion. He stated that at that time Mr. Miller explained the process which had been taken to de-politicized the process of choosing a Police Chief. Commissioner Boyle stated that in asking for this discussion it was not intended to challenge the Charter process that exists in that it is a legitimate process and needs to continue to function as it is now doing. He stated the Police Chief issue has become a growing public concern; therefore, there are a few points that require explanation on both sides of the issue. Commissioner Boyle stated few of the general public have an understanding of how the Charter process works, and there have been concerns expressed to the elected officials that need to be put on record. He stated that all appointments are properly delegated to the City Manager with no input in the process by the elected officials, and the process serves the City well. Commissioner Boyle stated that some of the points the public brought to the attention of the Commissioners is that Chief Stewart, prior to his hiring and during his tenure, made it clear that he would have at least two (2) candidates trained and ready to take his place when he stepped down. Commissioner Boyle stated Chief Stewart kept this promise, and because of this frequently repeated promise, there was an expectation of this community and within the Police Department that the next chief would be coming from within the ranks. He stated Chief Stewart had a concept of police work involving partnership with the community which also raised the expectation of a local chief. He stated there is also a problem with the perception of the public using a five (5) member task force who screened over 180 resumes from around the nation. Commissioner Boyle stated two (2) Commissioners expressed misgivings to the City Manager about delegating to a task force, but the Commissioners were not part of the process and simply communicated constituent concerns. He stated the City Manager has every right to do this, and he believes the process has been objective; however, the problem is public perception. He further stated people are questioning how resumes from a nationwide search compare with local candidates who have known excellence and a great rapport with the community. He stated continuity is also a concern in that when a City the size of Ormond Beach gets a highly skilled candidate, the chances are that, after a three (3) to five (5) year period, that candidate will move on to a larger City, thus this process may insure that the process will have to be repeated in three (3) to five (5) years. He stated that in that the Police Department is a quasi-military organization, the tradition in the United States is to promote from within the ranks, and this allows a much higher comfort level for the citizens. See Item #11 for further discussion.* Item #11- Reports, Suggestions, Requests Kurt Massfeller’s Passing Commissioner Boyle stated the City recently lost Kurt Massfeller, "one of our most treasured citizens," who will be missed by the City as well as by Commissioner Boyle personally. Bear Creek Phase III Commissioner Kelley stated the residents at Bear Creek have expressed concern that if WDL Airships locates at the Industrial Park, their flight pattern may be over Bear Creek creating a possibility for an accident involving hydrogen. He explained helium is used in airships, not hydrogen. Mayor Hood asked that staff meet with the residents of Bear Creek, provide the facts, and allay their fears. Stand Against Drugs Commissioner Persis stated the schools are making a public stand against drugs every day starting with tobacco, and he thanked everyone who supported "Red Ribbon Week." Commissioner Kelley stated his daughter was selected to represent Volusia County at the Governor’s Conference on Teen Smoking. Continuation of Item #10(C) - Police Chief Selection Process Mr. Nick Triantafellu, 84 Ormond Shores Drive, commended the Commission for doing a good job. Mr. Triantafellu advocated a Police Chief be promoted from within the ranks rather than hire a new Chief every few years from out of town, stating this is a costly process. Mr. Robert Nathan, 3 Whipper-In Circle, stated that he retired as a police photographer in Suffern, New York, where they never went outside looking for a Police Chief. He stated that it was the duty of the existing Police Chief to be sure there was a back up when he left. He opposed spending funds to find people who want to use Ormond Beach as a stepping stone and to ruin the morale of the Ormond Beach Police Force. Mr. Joe Porter, 134 Seton Trail, stated he retired from the New York City Fire Department which also hires its officers from within the ranks. He stated in that process there is a great amount of respect for the Chief because he came from the ranks. He stated the Fire Commissioner was appointed, thus was not respected by those under him. Mr. Porter stated that the job gets done better if you have people who know the capabilities of those under you, and he urged the City Manager to promote from within the ranks. Ms. Tina Share, 1317 Overbrook Drive, stated that she asked that a Chief be promoted from within the community before the process started for the position of Police Chief. Since that was not done, she implored the City Manager to do something now so that when this Police Chief leaves, which she is convinced he will, the deserving people who are here and ready to step up to the position will be considered. She asked the Mayor and Commissioners to do something so this will not happen again. Mr. Tom Burks, 422 South Halifax Drive asked where the top four (4) candidates were from. Mr. Miller stated the four (4) candidates interviewed are from North Miami Beach, Metro Dade, Norman, Oklahoma, and Jefferson County, Kentucky. Mr. Burks stated the North Miami/Metro Dade area is a totally different culture with different law enforcement techniques from Ormond Beach, and he is opposed to hiring someone from that area. He stated the committee and Mr. Miller were not focusing on the fact that Ormond Beach is a small community. Mr. Burks opposed the process followed because a Chief that is compatible with our community should be sought, and he urged Mr. Miller to reconsider his choice. He stated that while he liked Chief Stewart, he was not here as much as he should have been and in his absence Richard Hedges ran the department. He stated that Mr. Miller would do a great disservice to the rank and file of the Ormond Beach Police Department and to Richard Hedges if he doesn’t retire him as a Police Chief, and to do otherwise would take away all incentive to excel within the Police Department. Mr. Burks stated he fears big morale problems will occur with officers loosing or leaving their jobs, causing tremendous turmoil within the Department. Ms. Joan Bennett asked if women are being considered for Police Chief. Mayor Hood stated that he is sure they were treated the same as any other applicant. Ms. Bennett objected to the fact that Ormond Beach has only one black police officer. Mr. Joseph Thompson, 356 Chardon Road, stated the question of the selection of a Police Chief is moot since the Charter gives direction on how it is supposed to work. He suggested if the Commission is not satisfied with the process, a Charter change should be considered to be placed on the ballot for a vote in the upcoming election. Mr. Thompson pointed out that Mr. Miller is only doing the job that is spelled out in the Charter. Mayor Hood reiterated that the Charter states Mr. Miller has full authority to hire and fire, and the City Commission agrees that they do not have the jurisdiction or the political ability to dictate to Mr. Miller who to hire and fire. Mr. Bill Ball, 110 Alanwood Street, stated that since the City Manager appointed the two (2) Commanders as Acting Police Chief, they must be qualified. He questioned why these men were not extended the courtesy to at least be considered in the final selection process. Mayor Hood stated they were allowed to apply with everyone else. Mr. Ball reiterated his dissatisfaction with the method by which they were eliminated from consideration. Mr. Gordon Currie, 1 Cypress View Trail, expressed his support for the City Manager and the selection process. Mr. Tony James, 143 Myra Boulevard, opposed the hiring of a Police Chief from out of the area because of the expense involved, and he stated there are police on the Ormond Beach Police Force that are well qualified to take the position of Police Chief. He urged Mr. Miller to reconsider his decision. Item #12 - Close The Meeting The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 PM. |
|
|
