|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 7:00 PM Present were: Mayor Dave Hood, Commissioners Jeffrey J. Boyle, Thelma Irvin, Frank Gillooly, Carl G. Persis, City Manager Eugene Miller, City Attorney Randy Hayes, and Veronica Patterson, City Clerk. 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 Clarence Drake, Alliance 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 August 11, 1998, and August 18, 1998, meetings have been sent to the Commissioners for review and asked if there were any corrections, additions, or omissions. Commissioner Gillooly stated that on the minutes of August 18, 1998, there was an original motion on the floor for approval of Resolution 98-141 which was subsequently twice amended and finally tabled. He pointed out the original motion was never voted upon. Mayor Hood concurred and noted Commissioner Gillooly’s comment do not change the minutes. Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, to approve the minutes as submitted.
Citizen Life-Saving Efforts Chief Barry Baker, Fire Department, presented a Certificate of Commendation to Ms. Becky Montgomery and Mr. Jody Davis, for saving the life of a coworker. Chief Baker reported on August 3, 1998, Ms. Montgomery and Mr. Davis performed CPR on a coworker who was in cardiac arrest. Chief Baker strongly encouraged the community to take a CPR course. He explained Ormond Beach has recently partnered with Daytona Beach Community College to offer a more expanded program—four (4), six (6), and eight (8) hour programs are now offered. He stated that Ms. Montgomery and Mr. Davis’ efforts exemplify that CPR does save lives. On behalf of the City Commission, Mayor Hood congratulated Ms. Montgomery and Mr. Davis for their heroic action. Item #5 - Audience Remarks No audience remarks were offered. 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 Boyle asked Item #6 (I) and Item #6(K) be discussed separately. Commissioner Persis asked Item #6(J) be discussed separately. Mayor Hood reported Item #6(F) is being withdrawn. Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, for approval of the Consent Agenda, minus Items #6(F), (I), (J), and (K).
Item #6(I) - Clear Zones at the Ormond Beach Municipal Airport RESOLUTION NO. 98 - 149
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Irvin, for approval of Resolution No. 98-149, as read by title only. Commissioner Boyle registered his opposition to this Resolution due to reasons previously stated regarding the airship agreement.
Item #6(J) - Relocation of City Utilities Along Williamson Boulevard RESOLUTION NO. 98 - 150
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Irvin, for approval of Resolution No. 98-150, as read by title only. Commissioner Persis stated this bid is an example of excellent cooperation between Volusia County, Ormond Beach, and Halifax Paving, Inc. which will earn Ormond Beach a savings of $242,000. He expressed appreciation to staff members who aided in realizing this savings for Ormond Beach. Mr. Miller explained this was a very complicated project and pointed out Ted MacLeod, Public Works Director, Judy Sloane, City Engineer, and Tim Sheahan, Public Utilities Director, played a vital part in working out this very detailed contract.
Item #6(K) - Mooring Rates for Airships RESOLUTION NO. 98 - 151
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Irvin, for approval of Resolution No. 8-151, as read by title only. Commissioner Boyle again registered his opposition to this Resolution due to reasons previously stated regarding the WDL agreement. Mayor Hood explained this Resolution has nothing to do with the WDL Lease Agreement but charges any company that moors an airship at the Ormond Beach Airport. Mr. Fred Baughman, Economic Development Director, explained this establishes a rate for airships that are not located on a leased parcel of land, thereby excluding WDL. He stated there have been at least three (3) companies that have requested mooring space at the Airport this year.
Item #7(A) - Traffic Citation Increase Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, to close the public hearing on Item #7(A). The motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 98 - 26
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, for approval of Ordinance No. 98-26 on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #7(B) - Waterford Subdivision Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, to close the public hearing on Item #7(B). The motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 98 - 33
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, for approval of Ordinance No. 98-33, on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #8(A) - Amending the List of Specimen Trees ORDINANCE NO. 98 - 34
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Irvin, for approval of Ordinance No. 98-34, on first reading, as read by title only.
Item #8(B) - Granada/Bovard Streetscape Overlay District ORDINANCE NO. 98 - 35
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Irvin, for approval of Ordinance No. 98-35, on first reading, as read by title only. Commissioner Boyle explained the only disagreement he has with this ordinance regards the business signage. He stated the proposal is to leave the signage regulations in place which ignores a clear public mandate to provide a variance mechanism for business signage in the downtown area. Mr. John Connors, president of the Ormond Beach Chamber of Commerce, reported the Chamber of Commerce has held numerous workshops, seminars and forums to discuss this issue. He explained businesses have invested a large amount of money in signage to promote their businesses and this community, believing their signs were conforming, but Ormond Beach has since changed its sign codes making some non-conforming. He stated the business community has requested that signs in the entire community which are in good working condition be grandfathered in and the businesses not be found to be in non-compliance. Mr. Connors reported that the Planning Department had previously agreed to meet with the Chamber of Commerce to work out these details, but this has not taken place to date. Commissioner Irvin stated she had approved of the recommendations with the understanding that the downtown businesses would be allowed to assist with implementation of the plans. She stated the needs of small businessmen are vital to the community and must be considered. Commissioner Gillooly stated his opposition to the Ordinance due to the numerous styles that are allowed. He indicated that if all the businesses are grouped with a single style, they would be attractive, and mixing the styles may not be aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Kevin Denny, Acting Planning Director, reminded the Commission that on January 28, 1998, a sign variance memo was presented, and no changes were suggested by the Commission. Regarding Commissioner Gillooly’s concerns, he stated the consultant does not anticipate that differing styles in close proximity would be a problem in Ormond Beach because there is not a large area of vacant property available. Mr. Denny emphasized, however, that if this is a concern, a change can be made to address that concern. Commissioner Boyle made a motion to amend the approval of Ordinance No. 98-35 to be contingent on deleting the signage provisions, and to sending those provision back to the Planning Board to consider the variance procedures noted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Irvin.
Mayor Hood advised there is no need to call a vote on the underlying motion since the motion to amend adopts the Ordinance except for the signage provisions. Mr. Randal Hayes, City Attorney, concurred. Item #8(C) - Category 7, Airship Operations, at the Ormond Airport ORDINANCE NO. 98 - 36
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Irvin, for approval of Ordinance No. 98-36, on first reading, as read by title only.
Item #8(D) - Water and Sewer Rates ORDINANCE NO. 98 - 37
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Irvin, for approval of Ordinance No. 98-37, on first reading, as read by title only. Mr. Paul M. Lane, Finance Director, explained the two (2) issues that are driving this proposed rate increase are the Nova Road relocation and the need to increase the level of renewal and replacement funding. He indicated that with a 5% increase, Ormond Beach water rates are still the lowest of the Volusia County coastal cities, and with the stormwater, garbage and recycling included, Ormond Beach is second lowest. Mr. Lane stated there is a need to fund the depreciation of the system, and he explained that the wear and tear on the system accrues at a rate of close to $2.1 million per year, assuming a 40 year life span for pipelines and treatment systems. He explained the current level of renewal and replacement funding is $800,000 per year, which means the City is currently funding $.38 on the dollar; and with a 5% increase, an additional $500,000 per year would be earned, increasing the funding to $.68 on the dollar. Commissioner Boyle asked if there is a sunset provision in the ordinance; whereby, Mr. Lane answered there is not. Commissioner Boyle asked if increased revenue from growth had been factored in. Mr. Lane explained that a certain level of increased growth is needed to address the operating cost each year, and this rate increase is essentially being dedicated to renewal and replacement funding. Mr. Lane explained that, an increase will eventually have to be considered to fund the operating nature of the system. Commissioner Boyle asked if the earnings noted are considered conservative, to which Mr. Lane agreed they were. Commissioner Boyle asked how the water and sewer costs could be equal if there is a 33% premium on sewer costs. Mr. Lane explained that there is a large contingency, the North Peninsula, outside the City that is strictly water and pays a 150% surcharge. Commissioner Boyle noted that as of October 1, 1997, the total cash on hand was $1.5 million, but at the end of the five (5) year period, the cash replacement will be doubled to $3.1 million. Mr. Lane advised that in considering the long term, estimates are weaker in the out years. Mayor Hood stated staff cannot perfectly time revenue with expenses, and as a result, a certain amount of reserve is needed to insure sufficient cash reserve available for unexpected expenses. Commissioner Boyle stated this is a major policy shift. Mr. Lane agreed it is a policy shift, but one toward a good business practice. Commissioner Boyle indicated the 5% increase seems excessive and asked Mr. Lane to explain the increases in water rates since 1995. Mr. Lane replied there was a 3% increase in 1990 for operating purposes and, a 5% increase in 1994. He stated in 1996 the City funded the debt service for the reuse system. He advised a 5% increase would be mild compared to 1987-88 when there was a 52% increase. Commissioner Boyle added that a $3 charge for stormwater was also applied, which is the highest in the area. Commissioner Persis stated the 5% increase now would be prudent financially, and he is assured the City is not wasting funds since it is known that the needs will arise in the next few years. Commissioner Boyle indicated he cannot support doubling the replacement fund. He agreed the funds will eventually be needed, but he advocated collecting the funds when they are needed rather than asking current citizens to pay for future needs. Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, to postpone the water rate hike one (1) year until the City has a clearer picture of the needs. Mayor Hood explained that in past years drainage, street, water and sewer replacement problems were not undertaken; and because of the savings in privatization and competitive bidding, the City was able to save $3.5 million annually which enabled the City to fund these problems which were neglected for 20 years. He stated it is more prudent to avoid a situation where the taxpayer would face a 15% to 30% increase, which could happen if the City is not prepared for the inevitable expenses that will need to be funded. Mayor Hood noted this money is targeted for renewal and replacement, not operational expenses. He suggested the City Commission re-examine the situation every three (3) years to determine if the 5% increase should be continued or eliminated. Mayor Hood stated the City needs to start paying for needs on a continuing basis to cover legitimate expenses, and if this is not done, fundamentally, it would be mortgaging against the people who will live in Ormond Beach in the future to pay for the things the residents living here today are using. Commissioner Persis quoted the report which reads "if the annual funding level is not increased, a projected capital budget renewal and replacement shortfall of approximately $1.8 million will result by fiscal year 1999-2000." He stated he does not want to have a shortfall which will create a need to raise the taxes even higher in 1999-2000 to meet that expense. Commissioner Gillooly clarified that in June 2000, the Nova Road relocation, at a cost of $3.2 million, will have to be funded and to postpone this increase would create a situation where that cost would have to be dealt with all at one time. Mr. Lane agreed the cost would more than likely have to be debt financed if there is no increase. Commissioner Gillooly asked how Ormond Beach compares to other cities in Volusia County when the stormwater fee is added to the water bill; whereby, Mr. Lane responded that Ormond Beach would be second lowest. Mr. Miller endorsed the report prepared by Mr. Lane and Mr. Bentkofsky. He explained this is a stand alone fund that is not commingled with other funds. Mr. Miller stated that when there is no investment back into the system, over a period of time, it becomes very vulnerable to crisis situations. He stated there are mandates that must be met by regulatory agencies such as the Clean Water Act, and if funding is not available to meet the standards when they are mandated, a bond issue must be issued, which is costly. Mr. Miller stated this increase is being proactive to avoid this type of situation, and it is in the best interest of the residents. Commissioner Boyle withdrew his previous motion to amend and moved to amend the Ordinance to provide for a three (3%) percent increase in water and sewer rates. Commissioner Irvin seconded the motion. Commissioner Boyle stated the 3% increase would provide $2 million in reserves as opposed to the $3 million proposed. Mayor Hood stated the actuary recommends a five (5%) percent increase, and the City Commission needs to have the courage to do what needs to be done. Commissioner Gillooly indicated that since the increase would allow Ormond Beach to stay at the bottom of rates charged in Volusia County and there are anticipated expenses, he also opposes the motion to amend.
Mayor Hood questioned if Commissioner Persis’ original motion, which included the 5% water and sewer rate increase, would include a sunset in three (3) years with all money to be directed to capital, not operational, costs. Commissioner Persis agreed that it did. Mayor Hood asked if there was a second to that motion; whereby, Commissioner Gillooly seconded the motion.
Item #9 - Emmons Cottage Mr. Joseph Porta, 134 Seton Trail, asked why a survey was conducted; whereby, Mayor Hood explained that at the last City Commission meeting, the Commission was considering options regarding the move, and it was recommended the community be asked for input once again. Mr. Porta stated in June it was agreed by the City Commission to move the cottage as expeditiously as possible. He questioned the validity of the survey and related that most people would like the cottage moved, but some are reluctant because of the cost. Mr. Porta expressed his opinion that the cottage looks worse than it did when it was originally brought into the parking lot and asked that it be moved. Mr. Russ Nicastro, 6 Mimosa Trail, stated his opinion that he does not believe the parking lot should have been chosen as the site for the cottage in the first place, but since the cottage is now there, it makes no sense to move it again. Commissioner Persis explained that when the cottage was moved, it had to be moved at that particular time to save the cottage. He stated the City Commission voted to have it placed in the gardens, but because of certain factors this could not occur, and the current location was chosen. Mr. Nicastro asked why the City is considering moving the cottage; whereby, Mayor Hood explained many residents opposed the location and asked that it be moved. Commissioner Boyle also explained that when the City agreed to fund the move, the Commission assumed the cost would be $2,000 to $3,000 at the most. Mayor Hood explained that the question now is whether to move the cottage to the middle of the parking lot using City funds or leave it where it is now located. Ms. Donna Schoder, president of the Art Museum Board, reported the reason no further work has been done on the cottage is because it is unsure whether it will be moved, and moving the structure could damage the work. She stated she believes the cottage is very presentable; the landscaping has been maintained; and the cottage is in the least obtrusive place so as to not damage the gardens and take up as few parking spaces as possible, yet still provide the community with a garden center that will enhance the children and the adult programs. She reported the Art Museum Board unanimously recommended keeping the cottage where it is now, and they believe the cost of moving is excessive and not the best use of taxpayers’ money. Ms. Rita Press, 875 Wilmette Avenue, pointed out that when the City Commission voted to move the cottage, the cost was unknown. She noted there are numerous items where the $12,000 could be spent that would better benefit the City and recommended the cottage not be moved. Ms. Muriel Nicastro, 6 Mimosa Trail, stated the cottage is tucked into a corner and fits into the landscape. She stated moving the cottage again may destroy it, and when it is completed, it will be a fine addition to the Museum. Ms. Nicastro stated the cost of moving it is excessive. Commissioner Gillooly expressed dissatisfaction that this relocation was originally to have been at no cost to the City, which could not be accomplished due to lack of groundwork. He stated he cannot, in good conscience, spend any money to move the building. Commissioner Gillooly pointed out that many people in the survey indicated the cottage should not be moved because of financial reasons, which is a legitimate reason and needs to be weighed against aesthetics. Commissioner Boyle agreed the survey of 33 people is not conclusive, yet through previous discussions and contacts in the community, it is evident that people are divided over this issue. He reiterated that when the vote was taken to move the structure, he had no idea the cost would be so excessive, or he would not have approved it. He stated he favors leaving the cottage where it is located, but in respect for those who have a site line problem with the cottage, he recommended the City could be creative with $1,000 or less to place vegetative screening on the Seton Trail side of the building. Commissioner Irvin stated she finds it difficult to pay $12,000 to move the structure 20 feet. She agreed that many worthwhile items could be funded with the $12,000. She stated that while she has many reservations, if she votes yes, it would be because the Commission had voted to move the cottage, but not at the taxpayers’ expense of $12,000. Mayor Hood stated he opposed the move because the $12,000 cost is a waste of taxpayers’ money. He recommended, however, that the City commit $3,000 or less from the park budget for vegetative screening so the greenery is visible rather than the building. Commissioner Irvin advocated the City Commission and staff taking a closer look at issues, so situation does not happen again. She repeated that if she votes yes, it would only be because the Commission did vote before a large crowd of people to move the cottage previously. Mayor Hood stated that while the Commission had voted previously to move the cottage, that vote had been a compromise, and no one had any idea the cost would be $12,000. He stated it would be imprudent to fix one mistake by making another. Commissioner Boyle explained there was a time certain deadline when this cottage would have been lost, and in that context, the Commission moved too hastily; but he is of the opinion this is a unique situation that will not come up again. Commissioner Persis asked how the $12,000 figure was derived; whereby, Ms. Judy Sloane, City Engineer, advised two (2) professional contractors came on site and gave estimates. Mayor Hood asked that the vote be called on whether the Emmons Cottage would be moved at a cost of $12,000.
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, to spend up to $3,000 from the General Fund Reserve to landscape the Emmons Cottage.
Item #10 - "Duplex" and "Two (2)-Family Dwelling" Definition Commissioner Boyle stated he is disappointed the Commission did not get a recommendation for a Land Development Code change from staff or the Planning Board on this issue. He stated the main concern is not regarding buildings being converted to duplexes, but new structures being built as duplexes. Commissioner Boyle explained there was a process in place; the applicant was denied by the Planning Board and City Commission; yet he still built a duplex. He stated the structure on Hand Avenue made a mockery of the system, and this should never happen again. Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Irvin, to start the procedure to revise the building codes to disallow an applicant from building a structure with multiple front and back entrances, no entrance to the structure from the attached garage, with identical floor plans, and with only one door between the identical floor plans. Commissioner Irvin stated the definition is clearly stated, and she agreed with staff that the Land Development Code does not need to be changed—the code just needs to be enforced. She stated the house on the corner of Hand Avenue and Bostrom Lane does not meet the building codes of Ormond Beach, and she agreed this should never happen again. Mr. Kevin Denny, Acting Planning Director, explained that if there is more than one (1) kitchen in a single-family dwelling, it is an unpermitted kitchen. He stated the structure in question does meet the code, but no matter how a code is written, someone can always find a loophole to beat the code. Mr. Denny stated he spoke to Mr. Todd Herget, former Chief Building Official, before he left the City’s employ, and he did not recommend adding aesthetics language to the Standard Building Code in that it does not address the issue. He stated this can be very arbitrary and can cause even more problems and might be seen as an invasion of private rights. Commissioner Boyle reported he has been inside the building on Hand Avenue, and unequivocally, it has two (2) kitchens. Mr. Denny stated that when permitted, it had one kitchen and one family in residence. Commissioner Boyle explained that when the owner of the property originally came to the City, the Building Department gave permission to build a duplex erroneously. He stated the error was noted and then the owner was assisted in constructing a building that would meet code. Commissioner Boyle stated if this can not be handled with building codes, it should be sent back to the Planning Board to try to find a creative solution that will eliminate this loophole. He stated he does not accept that all laws have loopholes. Mr. Denny clarified that the owner came to the Building Department where a zoning map was erroneously read. He explained that the Planning staff found the error, but no one assisted the owner for a duplex. He stated Ormond Beach’s definition of a duplex is no different than the majority of municipalities in Florida. Commissioner Boyle asked if it were true the owner needed two addresses to meet federal guidelines for health benefits for a member of his family; whereas, Mr. Denny stated this was an issue, but the gentleman currently has only one address.
Item #11 - Audience Comments On Agenda Items Item #12 - Reports, Suggestions, Requests Joint Jurisdiction with Volusia County on Beach Approaches Commissioner Boyle related that Police Chief Larry Mathieson assured the Commission that Ormond Beach has joint jurisdiction with Volusia County on the beach approaches. He stated, however, a citizen had called dispatch and was told the County Sheriff would have to handle the problem on the beach approaches. Commissioner Boyle asked that this be clarified. Commissioner Boyle stated he has had a number of calls regarding a gentlemen in various states of undress on the Amsden and Neptune approaches, and he asked that this situation also be handled. Mayor Hood asked that Chief Mathieson take care of these problems. Bird Poisoning Commissioner Boyle reported that on August 11, 1998, Commissioner Gillooly mentioned a problem regarding dead birds at the Nova Recreation fields, and Mr. Miller indicated he would provide a staff report explaining the incident. He questioned if a report exists, and if the City Commission would be receiving the report. Mr. Miller stated Commissioner Gillooly requested a report, and he provided the report to him; whereby, Commissioner Boyle asked why the other Commissioners were not provided copies of the report. Commissioner Boyle recommended the entire Commission be copied on issues of this nature in the future. Mayor Hood concurred. Neglect of Zone 2 Historical Architectural Guidelines Commissioner Irvin read a letter from Mr. Royden Pearson, 75 Lincoln Avenue, which stated that on July 29, 1998, he sent a letter to Mr. Dana Smith, Chairman, Historic Landmark Preservation Board, regarding design standards or guidelines, but has had no response to the letter. Mr. Pearson stated there has been an interest in the few remaining historic areas, yet this interest is in the more affluent areas of the City. He asked if there is a way of requiring design guidelines when a builder presents plans to construct a new house. The letter stated that with a house scheduled to be demolished at 70 Lincoln Avenue, there is an urgent demand for design standards to be established, and that a new house constructed at 96 Lincoln Avenue was not constructed in character with the historic nature of existing houses. Mr. Pearson’s letter urged Ormond Beach to take a stand on preserving the last of the remaining historic area. Volusian Water Alliance Commissioner Gillooly reported the Volusian Water Alliance has plans to increase their funding by double in the near future. He stated that because of the Sunshine Laws, he is unable to discuss these matters with the other Commissioners; therefore, he requested Mr. Miller prepare an informational packet to be presented to the City Commission to keep them informed on this issue. Item #13 - Close The Meeting The meeting was adjourned at 8:32 PM. |
|
|
