|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
OCTOBER 7, 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 Joseph Stock, Ormond Beach Union Church. Item #3 - Pledge of Allegiance Mayor Hood led in the Pledge of Allegiance. Item #4(A) - Adopt Proposed Operating Millage Rate Mayor Hood explained this discussion is a continuation of the September 22, 1998, public hearing for final adoption of the fiscal year 1998-99 millage rate and budget. He stated the millage rate necessary to fund the budget is 2.98219 mills which is 3% higher than the roll back rate of 2.89533 mills. Mr. Ed Kelley, 8 Tidewater Drive, asked why a vote was not taken at the previous meeting. He questioned how the City will fund the reoccurring expenses in the future when the money is being taken from the reserves. He stated the State of Florida is considering giving an additional $25,000 exemption on property taxes and questioned how this would affect the City’s budget for next year. Mr. Kelley reported there are a lot of needs within Ormond Beach for all citizens. He stated last Tuesday at the airport recreational fields there were between 500 and 1,000 parents and children utilizing every field to capacity except two (2) T-ball fields. Mr. Nick Sileo, 220 Arlington Way, noted his concern regarding the increase in the millage rate. He stated the expenditure of funds on Arlington Way the past few weeks was foolhardy, where staff is digging swales in the right-of-way, destroying property, taking out sod, taking parking spaces, replacing the sod with poor quality sod, and leaving holes in the sides of the road, all to aid flooding or runoff control. He stated he objects to the City accumulating a savings fund; they should hold the line on taxes which was a platform used by City officials to get elected. Mr. Sileo requested the millage and budget not be passed and to approve last year’s budget figures. RESOLUTION NO. 98 - 167
Commissioner Persis moved for approval of Resolution No. 98-167, as read by title only. The motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Irvin, to adopt an operating millage of 2.96067, which is 2.26% over roll back. Commissioner Boyle stated that since there are people at this meeting who did not attend the last meeting, he would explain his reasoning for making this motion. He stated this Commission has identified a 15% general fund reserve minimum which equals $2.6 million. Commissioner Boyle stated his motion would not decrease this 15% reserve, plus there is an additional $300,000 to $500,000 in excess reserves. He pointed out that in the next fiscal year the capital expenditures will double over this year which includes over $700,000 to improve the recreation fields, insuring the children will not be neglected in the budget. Commissioner Boyle explained a bid came in too low where $160,000 had to be added for a project to accomplish it properly. He stated he does not foresee that the City would have the opportunity to match another State grant to expand the art museum, or that $250,000 will be spent for capital incentives to lure a business to Ormond Beach again next year. Commissioner Boyle stated it is wrong to go back to the taxpayer for funds when excess reserve funds exist. Commissioner Persis questioned Mr. Paul M. Lane, Finance Director, as to what the difference is between 3% over roll back and roll back; whereby, Mr. Lane replied the difference is approximately $135,000 in revenue. He stated if the City steps back to a 2.26% increase, approximately $33,000 additionally will be taken from the fund balance. Mr. Eugene Miller, City Manager, stated the motion before the Commission indicates $1,254,816 will be taken from reserves. Commissioner Boyle stated the 3% increase would take $1,221,179. Commissioner Gillooly explained that at the last meeting there was a 2:2 vote on the millage rate which deadlocked the Commission, and the Mayor was needed to break the tie. Mayor Hood stated he is not ambivalent, but is absolutely opposed to any tax increase to pay for what he considers to be an irresponsible budget brought upon by irresponsible pay increases for staff. He explained that when an 18.9% pay increase is given to a portion of staff, 8.56% for other staff, and some of that staff has declined the increase, that adds up to a pay increase that, in today’s economy, is irresponsible due to the fact the Commission acts as stewards of the public’s money and that money needs to be spent responsibly. Mayor Hood stated with a 4% or 5% increase, the budget could be balanced, including the capital projects, without increasing taxes. He noted the problem is not for this year, but will show up in two (2) to three (3) years, which is when the public will notice the policies adopted to be a prescription for financial distress. Mayor Hood stated the reserves were achieved by privatizing and making the City run in an efficient manner. He indicated reserves were not achieved to pay for operating expenses, but to deal with capital projects that Ormond Beach has essentially ignored for the last 15 to 20 years. Mayor Hood stated the City will no longer have the flexibility to use these funds for these projects if they are taken for ongoing recurring operating expenses. He emphasized he opposes this budget and the tax increase. Mayor Hood passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Gillooly to make a motion to amend the resolution to not increase taxes and take all moneys above the 15% minimum required for contingency reserve, above the funds already committed under capital projects in prior meetings, and to place these funds into the road and sidewalk programs so the half mill assessed for those projects will be sunsetted one (1) year earlier than currently planned. The motion to amend failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Boyle noted the assumption stated is that capital expenses are good and pay increases for City employees are bad. He stated the fundamental problem is a difference in philosophy. Commissioner Boyle stated City staff are the most valuable asset this City has; people are more important than anything that can be built; and it seems to be forgotten that what happened this year is a correction. He stated pay steps were put back that were taken away four (4) to five (5) years ago, after employees were told a merit system would replace it. Commissioner Boyle stated this promise was never kept. He noted a reason the reserve got so large is because the employees were underpaid and understaffed, which is what he has been saying since October 30, 1995, before he was elected to the City Commission. He indicated he was elected on a promise to act on this issue twice. Commissioner Boyle noted taking the third man off the fire trucks also added to the excess reserves. He stated it is inaccurate to blame everything on the pay increases for the employees, and the privatization which took place also eliminated jobs in order to save money. Mayor Hood indicated he is not opposed to paying public employees a fair wage. He contended they are being paid a fair wage because if it were not fair, the turnover would be higher, yet the City’s turnover rate is below the standard rate. He stated the entire capital system has done away with the antiquated personnel system that Ormond Beach had in place before 1991, which is what was recently reinstated. Mayor Hood explained for the next two (2) years under the union contract, the employees receive a 3.4% increase automatically, plus the cost of living increase no matter how valuable an employee they are.
Mayor Hood passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Gillooly to again make a motion to amend the resolution to not increase taxes and take all moneys above the 15% minimum required for contingency reserve, above the funds already committed under capital projects in prior meetings, and to place these funds into the road and sidewalk programs so the half mill assessed for those projects will be sunsetted one (1) year earlier than currently planned. The roll back millage is 2.89533. Commissioner Persis seconded the motion. Eugene Miller, City Manager, clarified the motion is to go to roll back which would increase the reserves by $135,000 and would move $640,000 out of reserve into the Transportation Fund reducing the number of years to fund the transportation and sidewalk program. Commissioner Boyle stated this is an entirely new issue, and he would be happy to discuss it at a goal setting or budget meeting next spring; but the issue before the Commission today is what is the tax rate for next year. Commissioner Boyle stated there is confusion regarding employees who stay employed by the City. He explained after an employee has worked for the City for four (4) years or more, the employee is committed to Ormond Beach; they own homes in Ormond Beach; and it is difficult to move away. He stated he is opposed to taking all the excess reserves to place in the transportation fund, but would discuss it at a later date. Commissioner Persis asked Mr. Ted MacLeod, Public Works Director, if he previously indicated that only so much can be done in a given year regardless of the amount of money available. Mr. MacLeod stated the Mayor’s motion would not affect the scheduling of the improvements, but the times in which the funds were paid back to the Solid Waste Fund. Commissioner Persis indicated he does not favor accelerating paying back the loan, but would be more concerned in accelerating the projects. Mayor Hood explained what would be achieved is eliminating one year that the public would have to pay the half mill, decreasing the payments from seven (7) to six (6) years. Commissioner Boyle asked if this concept would increase the likelihood of a greater tax increase next year with the funds taken out of reserve not being used until 2005. He asked if Mr. Lane supports Mayor Hood’s motion; whereby, Mr. Lane replied there would be financial discomfort next year depending on whether the $1.2 million from the fund balance is used. Mr. Lane indicated a tax increase would be needed in order to have that $1.2 million available to go into the budget. Commissioner Boyle asked if the Mayor’s motion would make that situation worse. Mayor Hood agreed it would, but he contended the City Commission has shown an irresponsibility in spending operating money and paying for operating expenses out of contingency reserves. He stated this would keep the Commission from having the temptation to continue to do what has been done in the past year, which is to adopt budgetary items and policy decisions that increase expenses without understanding that in the future you have to pay for them. Mayor Hood stated this enforces discipline, that if money policies are going to increase the cost to the taxpayer, the Commission needs to figure out how to pay for it. Mr. Lane stated that if the full fund balance is used, a 13% tax increase will be needed just to replace the amount in the fund balance, plus 10% to generate the additional funds needed. Commissioner Boyle noted the word "irresponsible" is a value judgment. He stated the levy for the sidewalks and streets was accepted by the public. He questioned the tax increase described by Mr. Lane and related it to a statement made previously by Mr. Miller in a January 3, 1998, News-Journal article where Mr. Miller, was quoted unequivocally regarding the pay raise voted on for the firefighters, that if similar pay raises go to the police and other employees, it would require a 45% tax increase this year. Commissioner Boyle stated if the City goes to roll back, there will still be an excess above the $2.6 million in reserve funds. He noted this article did a lot of damage. Mayor Hood stated the prognostications described were made with the assumption that they would not be funded out of contingency reserves and that there would not be the large aberration which occurred in revenue. Mr. Lane noted it was also assumed that the rest of the employees would get the same raises as the firefighters. Mayor Hood reiterated the employees had been receiving 3% or 4% increases annually, and if the City were loosing qualified employees, the turnover rate would have been greater. Mr. Miller stated decisions have already been made, and the City Commission must move ahead. He clarified that his January statement was absolutely correct, making the assumptions that the exiting revenue sources would remain and every employee would receive the same increase as the firefighters. He stated the economy is better than projected, and the other employees are not receiving the same increase as the firefighters. Commissioner Gillooly commented this article inflamed the passions of many people, and it was published only days after the shade meeting where Eugene Miller stated the Commission was not to discuss what happened inside the meeting. Mr. Miller stated staff had to submit to the City Commission a position of what the City was offering to the firefighters, and in the context of that presentation, the article originated. Commissioner Boyle stated the article inflamed the public and, through it, the City, whereby three (3) Commissioners have been subsequently sued. Commissioner Persis withdrew his second on the motion; therefore, the motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, to adopt an operating millage of 2.89533, which is 0% over roll back. The additional fund expenditure would be $135,000, with a total fund balance appropriation of $1.356 million. Commissioner Persis stated that thanks to a good economy and a healthy surplus, the City is able to fund the raises and $700,000 in capital projects. He stated his original motion of a 3% increase is reasonable, placing Ormond Beach taxes the second lowest in Volusia County. He stated he opposes Commissioner Boyle’s motion because it is not being honest with the public to make these expenditures and imply it is not costing the taxpayer anything. Commissioner Persis indicated he does not believe the public would object to the 3% increase when they recognize all they will receive. He stated next year it will be even more difficult to have an increase if there is none this year. Mayor Hood asked Mr. Lane if good accounting principles indicate fund balance as a percent of total revenue should not exceed 5% and, if this motion is adopted, the rate would be 7.66%; whereby, Mr. Lane agreed.
Commissioner Persis moved to approve Resolution No. 98-167 which adopts a General Fund tax rate of 2.98212 mills, which is 3% over roll back. The motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Irvin, to adopt an operating millage of 2.96067, which is 2.26% over roll back and the same millage as last year.
Mayor Hood asked Commissioner Irvin if she had a motion to make; whereby, she indicated she did not have a motion, but did not wish to increase taxes. Commissioner Irvin stated she will rescind her vote and vote yes to a roll back with no tax increase. Commissioner Irvin moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to adopt an operating millage of 2.89533, which is 0% over roll back.
Item #4(B) - Adopt Annual Budget ORDINANCE NO. 98 - 38
Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Irvin, for approval of Ordinance No. 98-38 on second reading.
Commissioner Gillooly moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to close the Public Hearing.
Item #5 - Approval of Minutes Mayor Hood advised the Minutes of the September 15, 1998, regular City Commission meeting and the September 22, 1998, Special City Commission meeting have been sent to the Commissioners for review and asked if there were any corrections, additions, or omissions. Commissioner Gillooly moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, to approve the minutes as submitted.
Item #6 - Audience Remarks Veteran Recognition Mr. Frank Henry, 193 Bosarvey Drive, complimented the efforts of Ms. Andrea Hall and Commissioner Irvin in recognizing the veterans who have served so nobly. He also thanked Mr. Miller and the remaining members of the City Commission. Oakridge Cemetery Mr. Henry stated a City-owned landfill abuts the Oakridge Cemetery, and he requested funds be allocated to construct a fence separating the landfill and the cemetery to deter people from dumping trash into the cemetery. Mayor Hood asked Mr. Miller to investigate the situation and report back to the City Commission at the next meeting. Insurance Premium for City Facility Usage Mr. Anthony Erlich, 96 Hilldale Avenue, expressed concern regarding the fee to be charged for liability insurance for the use of the Casements. He stated his organization, the Casements Camera Club, as well as other organizations using the Casements, will find it difficult to pay the premiums of approximately $250 per year. Mr. Erlich noted the Casements Camera Club puts on two (2) shows per year which are open to the general public at the Casements, with the Camera Club paying all expenses themselves and at no charge to the City, unlike other exhibitions in the Casements. He stated photographs of "The Cloud" sculpture in Fortunato Park were provided for possible use in promotional material by the City to attract tourists and enhance the City’s image, also at no charge to the City. Mr. Erlich stated the Club has met for 25 years, and has never had any insurance or any accidents. He asked the City Commission to amend this ordinance to relieve the club of the anticipated cost. Mr. Miller stated the City has had to pay a number of claims relating to this issue. He stated the cost was first passed on to the individual groups, but many were unable to obtain the insurance or the costs were excessive, and as an alternative, the City Commission adopted a policy that the City would insure the groups, but pass on a small part of that cost to the participants using the facility. Mayor Hood recommended revisiting this risk management issue to avoid reaching the point where the community is prohibited from using the facilities that exist. The Commissioners agreed unanimously. Mayor Hood asked Mr. Miller to place the review of this item on the agenda for the first meeting in November. Mr. Mark Estes, 5 Buckingham Drive, President, D&F Metal Detecting Club, stated opposition to the liability insurance as well. Mayor Hood repeated that this item will be discussed in full at the first meeting in November to determine if there is a more effective method of handling the problem of claims and the cost to the clubs. Mr. Estes pointed out that this fee would probably cause most clubs to have to not use the Casements and Riverbridge meeting house. John Connors’ Resignation Mr. John Connors, President, Ormond Beach Chamber of Commerce, announced he has been with the Chamber for 27 year, but has turned in his resignation with a heavy heart. He expressed his appreciation for the respect, dignity, and assistance provided to him during his tenure with the Chamber. Mayor Hood, on behalf of the City Commission, expressed his thanks to Mr. Connors for all he has done for the community and wished him the best. Commissioner Boyle echoed Mayor Hood’s remarks and extended condolences to the Connor’s family. 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 Gillooly moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, for approval of the Consent Agenda.
Item #8(A) - Request to Remove a Historic Tree Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to close the public hearing on Item #8(A). The motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 98 - 177
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, for approval of Resolution No. 98-177, as read by title only.
Item #8(B) - Vacation of Old Tomoka Road in Indian Springs Commissioner Irvin moved, seconded by Commissioner Irvin, to close the public hearing on Item #8(B). The motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 98 - 39
Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Irvin, for approval of Ordinance No. 98-39, on second reading, as read by title only. Commissioner Persis abstained from voting on this issue. He stated he recently put a down payment on a lot in the Indian Springs Subdivision.
Item #8(C) - Public Hearing Requirement for 10,000 Square Foot Floor Area Projects Ms. Rita Press, 875 Wilmette Avenue, stated she voted to amend Ordinance No. 98-40 at the last Planning Board meeting. She stated that large scale developments take several years to put together and to argue an additional few weeks will discourage a corporation from coming to Ormond Beach makes no sense. She contended that it is because Ormond Beach has high standards that corporations want to locate in Ormond Beach. Ms. Press explained that the citizen’s right to know what is being built in their City and around their homes outweighs any delay in processing a developer’s permit. She stated that a project on paper does not always show potential problems that might be recognized, which frequently are recognized in public discussion. She stated by meeting minimum standards a developer can earn the approval of City staff; however, by exceeding minimum standards, a developer can earn the approval of the citizens of Ormond Beach. Ms. Press stated Ormond Beach has a system of checks and balances; and although staff is competent, the approval of a project that has a major impact on the City for years to come, should be known to the residents of the City. She questioned how the City would know when changes are needed in the City codes without board or Commission review. Mr. Ed Kelley, 8 Tidewater Drive, stated that when all restrictions and codes are met for a building 9,999 square feet there are no restrictions, but if that building were 10,000 square feet, a public hearing would be required even though the developer has every legal right to build the building. Mr. Kelley stated this ordinance was prepared by the late Fred S. Disselkoen, Jr., City Attorney, who stated that there was nothing that could legally be done to stop construction; the only thing that would be accomplished would be scrutiny, delay, and expense. Mr. Kelley agreed the public has a right to know, but opposed micromanaging and sending the message Ormond Beach does not want economic development. Mr. Kelley urged the Commission to not approve this amendment. Mr. Paul Holub, 17 Broadwater Road, echoed Mr. Kelley’s comments. He suggested staff put a bulletin out when a project meet 10,000 square feet so the public can attend the Site Plan Review Committee (SPRC) meeting and provide input. Mr. Holub stated this amendment would be doing a disservice to a new business by adding another layer of approval, but doesn’t give any additional product. Mr. Kevin Denny, Acting Planning Director, stated a Conditional Use Permit process is typically used so the Planning Board and City Commission can review a site to determine if the use is appropriate; but if it is appropriate, there are standards to be applied which are contained in the Code. He noted staff urges the City Commission not to adopt this standard; but if it is adopted, staff requests the City Commission to look only at Planned Business Developments, and not include every development within the PBD for the 10,000 square foot rule. Mr. Denny stated there are less intrusive options than a public hearing to notify the public. Mayor Hood stated that if all of the codes are met on a project over 10,000 square feet and the developer goes through the public hearing process, nothing more can be extracted than what has been proposed; therefore, the only thing done is to add another 60 days to the process. Mr. Denny stated three (3) to four (4) months would be added to the Conditional Use Permit process and one (1) to two (2) months for SPRC. Mayor Hood stated if there are problems with the development, the proper way to handle that is to investigate the standards that apply and make those changes, rather than require a review process with no impact. Commissioner Persis asked Mr. Denny to explain the options regarding public notice; whereby, Mr. Denny explained the property may be posted or abutter letters sent out to identify an SPRC review would take place. Commissioner Boyle asked if this is presently done; whereby, Mr. Denny replied this is not done at the present time. Mr. Denny explained after letters are sent, staff could meet with the public to discuss these issues without amending the ordinance. Commissioner Irvin stated something concrete is needed to protect the City since staff and Commissioners may change. Mr. Denny indicated a Land Development Code amendment could be adopted that states for developments over 10,000 square feet, staff will notify adjacent property owners up to 300 feet, post the property, and establish a time to meet monthly to address these issues after business hours. He stated if this amendment is passed, it would require two (2) public hearings, but it can be done as part of the Site Plan Review process as a matter of course. Mr. Randal Hayes, City Attorney, stated notice requirements could be added in the Land Development Code as well. Mr. Mike Vollmar, 283 Riverside Drive and president of Ocean Design, a business in the Ormond Beach Airpark, stated Ocean Design is desperately moving towards expansion to break ground in March and may be able to occupy the building in 12 to 14 months. He stated to add a two (2) to three (3) month delay to this process would harm his company. He recommended opposing this amendment. Mr. Ron Nowviskie, Property Manager with the Root Organization located at 525 Fentress Boulevard, Daytona Beach, opposed the amendment because it would unnecessarily and unreasonably delay the already lengthy development process. He stated he considers this a veiled attack on private property rights, which trivializes the Commission’s ability to write reasonable Land Development Codes. Mr. Fred Costello, 1 Tomoka Cove, stated he wants Ormond Beach to have the toughest regulations to make development the best, but the process needs to be simple, quick, and user friendly. He encouraged the City Commission to oppose the amendment. Ms. Press stated the Industrial Park is exempt in this Ordinance. She stated if not for the historic trees and off-site mitigation, no one would have known the Office Depot or Eckerd Drug Store were being constructed, and they have a great impact on the community. Ms. Press stated that under this amendment, after staff review, it would go to the Development Review Board which meets the fourth Thursday of each month; and if there were no objections, two (2) weeks later it would come before the City Commission. Mr. Denny stated typically speaking, it takes a month from Development Review Board to the City Commission due to advertising requirements and the timing of the meetings, which would add another four (4) weeks to the process. He stated it is very unusual for a project to pass SPRC in one (1) review, and typically it takes three (3) to four (4) submittals to staff to get the project to the point where it can go to Development Review Board. He reported the process takes three (3) to four (4) months for simple projects and eight (8) to twelve (12) months for larger projects; and with this amendment, an additional 30 to 60 day delay would be added. Ms. Press pointed out that the VinYard was a perfect project on paper, yet at the public hearing it was mentioned the children’s bus stop was located on the site, and this could easily be resolved. She stated if checks and balances were not needed, the City Commission and boards would not be needed. Mayor Hood pointed out that if the City Commission had the ability to improve a project, he would approve of a public hearing, but the City Commission has no ability to legally change anything. Ms. Press questioned how the Commission would know to change the laws without public input. She stated if concerns are raised by citizens, even though a developer does not have to comply, they may comply to be good neighbors. Mr. David Spearin, 12 Appaloosa Lane, indicated that when a developer purchases land, they hope to make it into a commercially viable product, which is difficult because of the shifting regulations. He stated a landowner pays taxes on 100% of the property, but can only utilize 40% with multiple regulations. Mr. Holub agreed adjoining property owners should be notified and recommended the ordinance be amended to notify the property owners and charge the applicant the additional fee for that notification, but he recommended property owners have input through SPRC review rather than public hearings. Attorney Jim Morris stated public hearings were held to adopt the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code provisions, and it is a property owner’s responsibility to be aware of what is permitted in his immediate vicinity through the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. Mr. Morris stated there is no end to the demands made of developers at public hearings, some reasonable, most unreasonable. He recommended if the ordinance is amended to create a Site Plan Review Committee hearing for almost any building, it is necessary to establish specific particular standards and establish the burden of proof to demonstrate noncompliance of the Code provisions. Mr. Denny reported that, as proposed, this amendment would not only apply to initial applications, but any time a simple change, such as a 1,000 square foot shed were added to a large property, it would have to come back to the City Commission. Mr. Nick Sileo, 220 Arlington Way, stated that as a taxpayer, he resents the idea that a public hearing is an opportunity for citizens to come and act irresponsibly, by exercising their rights as citizens. He stated in his experience, the developers would be quite content to have no public hearings at all and have hired bureaucrats make decisions so they can do whatever they want. Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to close the public hearing on Item #8(C). The motion carried unanimously. Mayor Hood called for a five minute recess at 8:51 p.m. Mayor Hood reconvened the meeting at 8:56 p.m. ORDINANCE NO. 98 - 40
Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, for approval of Ordinance No. 98-40, on first reading, as read by title only. Commissioner Boyle stated there are many reasons why public hearings are needed. He pointed out that this is not a new rule, but a reinstatement of an old rule which existed until March 1997. Commissioner Boyle explained when citizens have notification of coming events and public hearings to attend, adjustments may be made to the Land Development Code requirement resulting from those public hearings. He stated at the present time, staff must determine if the Code has been met, and while not impuning their ability to make that determination, it is the duty of elected officials to be an important check and balance on the system. He reported the intent is not to stop the building from being constructed, but it is a democratic process. Commissioner Boyle explained city governments are under very subtle pressures for growth and development; therefore, when a project is borderline, there is a subtle pressure on staff to approve the development. Commissioner Boyle pointed out the Office Depot project where staff made a decision allowing something to occur which was not permitted nor prohibited in the Land Development Code, where, in effect, staff made a new Land Development Code with this creative idea. He stated that issue was determined to go to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, not the City Commission or Development Review Board. Commissioner Boyle stated he does not foresee big time delays or excessive costs attached to this public hearing process. He indicated the problem is the turnover and understaffing of the Planning Department. Commissioner Boyle reported he has examined the construction figures in this community prior to the rule and after the 10,000 square foot rule was relaxed over the past 18 months, and sees little difference. Therefore, he concluded good developers and projects are not being deterred from coming to Ormond Beach. He stated a full public mandate causes positive results since people will not feel alienated and the developers want these people as customers. He indicated public notice for SPRC meetings is totally useless because very often numerous meetings are needed and not usually attended by the general public. Regarding property rights, Commissioner Boyle related that no property rights anywhere are absolute, as there are restrictions on all property. He questioned if there is any parcel in Ormond Beach zoned Light Industrial abutting a residential area, particularly around the Bear Creek area, and if so, he recommended including Light Industrial zoning in this amendment. Commissioner Boyle moved to amend the motion, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, to add Light Industrial zoning to the ordinance. Commissioner Gillooly asked what guarantee the residents of Bear Creek would have that a large building will not be constructed adjacent to their property. Mr. Denny stated there are existing standards calling for a six (6) foot masonry wall along industrial property that abuts residential property as well as a 60 foot Volusia Road right-of-way in the Bear Creek area. Mayor Hood stated the question of buffers involves standards as opposed to the process. Commissioner Gillooly stated he has heard compelling arguments on both sides and expressed appreciation to all who spoke; but he indicated if he is to err, he would err on the side of public scrutiny. Commissioner Persis agreed public notice is important even if all codes are met, but the most efficient way to accomplish this is for the City, when it becomes aware a property owner wants to develop a piece of land, to send out a mailing to property owners within 300 feet. He indicated that when that letter is received, if a resident has objections, they will come to the next City Commission meeting to address the Commission during audience remarks time, which would give all an opportunity to learn the concerns. He stated it is almost dishonest to have a public hearing which suggests input is invited, yet the public’s input cannot change the vote, setting up a false pretense. Mr. Miller strongly recommended opposition to the amendment including Light Industrial which would send a strong negative effort to economic development efforts. Mr. Hayes explained the amendment, as proposed, makes a substantive change to the ordinance which would require two (2) more readings. Commissioner Boyle stated that as long as there are any residential homes abutting Light Industrial zoning, he would recommend public hearings. Mayor Hood explained the issue has nothing to do with adding buffering between residential and industrial property; the rules and regulations need to be adjusted for buffers and fences if this is the concern, and adding a public hearing will not do anything to change that. He stated the only thing that would be accomplished would be to hear the citizens, but nothing could be done to alleviate their concerns. Mayor Hood noted the law presumes that a potential property owner looks at what surrounds their property. He explained public hearings would only lead to frustrating the public who will find their concerns are not being addressed and impede property rights. Commissioner Gillooly stated he is concerned mostly with Light-Industrial regarding the Bear Creek residents, but he agreed this is not the forum for that discussion. Mayor Hood advised that to require regulations only relating to Bear Creek area would constitute spot zoning, which is illegal; whereby, Commissioner Gillooly recommended discussing buffers City-wide at a later date. Commissioner Gillooly withdrew his second to the amendment. There being no other second, the amendment died. Commissioner Boyle explained a 10,000 square foot building would be permitted "if it meets Code," but it is possible a resident could bring a piece of evidence to a public hearing that would prove the Code was not being met. He stated if it is proven to meet Code, the public is more likely to accept the project. Commissioner Irvin agreed public input is very important, and any concerned developer would listen to the public’s concerns. She stated this amendment is not to keep a developer from developing. Commissioner Persis reiterated public input is important, but his suggested process would better serve the public’s concerns. Mayor Hood indicated he opposes the amendment because it creates a major philosophical problem in that if laws are passed and staff is in charge of interpreting and enforcing those laws, where does the City Commission draw a line on having public hearings for all staff decisions.
Item #9(A) - Granada/Bovard Streetscape Overlay District ORDINANCE NO. 98 - 35
Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Irvin, for approval of Ordinance No. 98-35, as read by title only, to accept all existing sign regulations with two (2) codicils: (1) that all existing commercial signage that was approved and properly maintained be grandfathered to remain, and (2) to insure a variance procedure through either the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and/or the Development Review Board. Commissioner Persis stated there have been non-conforming signs since 1988, and the date of compliance has been extended numerous times. Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, to amend the motion to make the inside and outside Streetscape dates both December 3, 2001. Commissioner Gillooly indicated he does not think it prudent to set up architectural standards and colors while allowing the old signs to stay, even though he agreed signs are costly. Commissioner Boyle noted the Chamber of Commerce had a workshop in September 1996 where business owners indicated they had signs that would be non-conforming, and they had no way to conform. He stated a commitment was made to review and revise the sign rules by the Main Street Board; later it was noted the Planning Department would review the issue. Commissioner Boyle reported at the City Commission goal setting workshop it was stated the City Commission was to examine the issue; then the consultant, Design Studios West, was to examine the issue, yet no changes were recommended. He stated a realtor sign located across the street from his shop had an unobtrusive pole sign which blended in well, but was non-conforming. He stated that sign was replaced with a monument sign that is now conforming, but it is more like a billboard and does not fit the building or the downtown. He stated Ormond Beach will always be eclectic. Commissioner Boyle stated if a large corporation wants a variance, it is approved; yet the small business owner has different rules. He stated he has long been waiting for sign remedy that does not seem to be forthcoming. Mayor Hood stated these issues have been discussed at numerous meetings. He stated the vision has been that monument signs lend themselves to a better look. Commissioner Irvin stated she approves of Granada Boulevard being beautified, but she does not want beauty at the cost of having businesses leave the area. She stated she does not believe making the noted changes will bring anything else downtown; therefore, it may be necessary to grandfather the signs in to keep downtown alive. Mayor Hood noted he is baffled that to require a business to have conforming signs after an amortization period will keep a business from being successful, yet to add a 60-day public hearing process, will not keep the business from being successful. Commissioner Irvin stated Mayor Hood is discussing two (2) separate issues. Commissioner Boyle questioned if staff is recommending no variance procedure; that no changes be made to the current code; and the only remedy recommended is to extend the time to 2001 to have businesses replace their signs. Mr. Denny agreed this was staff’s recommendation; however, he stated if there are specific items needed to be accomplished, such as historic signs, there are methods to accomplish this. Commissioner Boyle noted that it is often stated, particularly by the Mayor, that there is too much government interference; yet with this ordinance, a blanket law is being created that will allow no variance by groups such as the Ormond Main Street Board and will be a detriment to small businesses while national businesses will probably not receive that same treatment. Mayor Hood stated there is a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 98-35 with the amendment made by Commissioner Persis and seconded by Commissioner Gillooly to extend the compliance time for the Granada/Bovard Streetscape to 2001. Commissioner Persis asked for clarification that the Commission would only be voting on his motion to amend to extend the compliance date. He questioned if this vote included eliminating sign variances in the Streetscape, and he was advised by Mayor Hood and Commissioner Gillooly that it did not. Mayor Hood summarized that a "yes" vote would adopt Ordinance No. 98-35 with the amendment that all signs must become in compliance in the year 2001. Mr. Hayes advised it would be appropriate to address the motion to amend prior to the underlying motion. He stated his understanding of the action to be taken as summarized by Mayor Hood was to address all questions in one vote. Mayor Hood stated that is correct; whereby, Mr. Hayes reiterated that, procedurally, the motion to amend must be addressed separately from the underlying motion. Mr. Denny asked for clarification on the motion. He stated staff has added language into the Code to allow sign variance and to remove the amortization dates; therefore, a vote "yes" on Commissioner Boyle’s motion to accept the ordinance as written would put in the sign variance and remove those dates. Mayor Hood stated the motion made by Commissioner Persis was to amend Ordinance No. 98-35 so there is no grandfathering in, with the compliance date extended to the year 2001. He questioned Commissioner Persis if he could assume his motion to amend included the removal of the variance procedure. Commissioner Persis clarified his motion was to eliminate sign variances in the Streetscape district, and Commissioner Gillooly clarified his second to the motion addressed that as well. Mayor Hood stated that is the motion to amend on which the Commission is now voting. Commissioner Gillooly expressed concern that Commissioner Boyle’s motion was being overlooked in this procedure; whereby, Commissioner Boyle stated his motion is being contradicted. Mayor Hood stated that the motion to amend would be voted upon first.
Mr. Denny asked for clarification on the underlying motion. He questioned if the motion to amend, a "yes" vote is voting for no variance, a 2001 amortization date, and no grandfathering, along with the architectural design guidelines, the design colors and the building colors. Mayor Hood explained the motion to amend deleted the grandfathering and the variance issue which passed on a 3:2 vote. He stated a "yes" vote on the underlying motion is voting for it, subject to the amendment that carried. Commissioner Boyle asked for clarification that his motion was for grandfathering and for a variance; the amendment took those two (2) points out; and this vote would be to put them back in. Mayor Hood disagreed and stated Commissioner Boyle’s motion was never to put those issues back in; it was to adopt 98-35 as written, which included the grandfathering, but which is now subject to the amendment which supersedes on a 3:2 vote. Commissioner Irvin asked for further clarification. Mayor Hood reiterated a "yes" vote is to adopt Ordinance No. 98-35, which has already been amended to include the year 2001 standard, and deletes the variance process and grandfathering. Mayor Hood asked that the vote be recalled for clarification.
Item #9(B) - Lot Size Reduction for Non-Residentially Zoned Child Care Facilities ORDINANCE NO. 98 - 41
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, for approval of Ordinance No. 98-41, on first reading, as read by title only. Commissioner Gillooly reported he had had several discussions with Mr. David Riccio, who is requesting this ordinance, who indicated he was not going to open a child care facility, rather he decided to open a teen club in this location. Mr. Denny stated Mr. Riccio is before the SPRC to open a 2001 Teen Club, but has future plans for a child care facility as well. He stated they are unrelated issues at this moment.
Mayor Hood called for a recess at 10:00 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:03 p.m. Item #8(C) - Nuisance Odors ORDINANCE NO. 98 - 42
Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, to approve Ordinance No. 98-42, on first reading, as read by title only. Mr. Denny requested the language "trained nose" be deleted from Section 15.00, E, 3, d, 1. Mayor Hood questioned if the motion and second includes the deletion of "trained nose" from Section 15.00, E, 3, d, 1. Commissioners Boyle and Gillooly agreed that it did.
Item #9(D) - Changing Name from "Cromwell Court" to "Archangel Circle" ORDINANCE NO. 98 - 43
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, for approval of Ordinance No. 98-43, on first reading, as read by title only. Commissioner Persis asked Mr. Dana Smith to explain the request to change the street name. Mr. Dana Smith, 5 Cromwell Court/Archangel Circle, stated a list of 25 street names were submitted to the E-911 center who must first approve the name. He stated of the list of names remaining, he chose Archangel Circle. Mr. Smith stated he owns the only house in a brand new subdivision and did not particularly like the name Cromwell, thus, the reason for the change.
Item #9(E) - Southwest I-95 Complex Replat ORDINANCE NO. 98 - 44
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, for approval of Ordinance No. 98-44, on first reading, as read by title only.
Item #10(A) - Appointing Members as Trustees to the General Employees’ Pension Fund RESOLUTION NO. 98 - 178
Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, for approval of Resolution No. 98-178, as read by title only, adding the names Charles R. Herbert and James T. Murphy.
Item #10(B) - Appointing a Member as Trustee to the Firefighters’ Pension Trust Fund RESOLUTION NO. 98 - 179
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, for approval of Resolution No. 98-179, as read by title only, adding the name Arlie Watkinson.
Item #10(C) - Appointing Members as Trustees to the Police Officers’ Pension Trust Fund RESOLUTION NO. 98 - 180
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, for approval of Resolution No. 98-180, as read by title only, adding the name Al Weingartner.
Item #11(A) - Telecommunication Tower Adjacent to Moss Point Subdivision Mayor Hood stated this item was precipitated by numerous letters the Commission received from residents of the Moss Point subdivision complaining about two (2) telecommunication towers erected adjacent to Moss Point. He stated a stop order was ordered by the City. Mayor Hood stated the City Attorney received a letter from Mr. Jim Morris, attorney for the owner of the tower and concluded there was no legal right to preclude them from completing the tower. Mr. Denny stated when the Planning and Legal Departments first investigated this issue, their focus was more on the notification process, but it has now become apparent there may be an additional problem with the site plan since the site lay out may not meet the conditions as approved by Volusia County. He stated additional time is required to determine the direction needed to be taken. Mr. Denny explained the County approved this project with a 150 foot setback from north and south property lines and 600 feet from the east and west property lines, and it appears the SPRC review did not address this issue. He stated the SPRC approved 120 feet. Mayor Hood asked if a stop work order was issued; whereby, Mr. Denny replied the project is basically complete, but the City will not issue a Certificate of Occupancy until this is resolved. Commissioner Boyle asked how far the nearest residence is to the tower; whereby, Mr. Denny answered there are one (1) to two (2) residences within 300 feet. Commissioner Boyle asked if the fall radius accounts for heavy winds, tornadoes or hurricanes. Mr. Denny explained the tower is required to meet certain building codes as far as wind loads. Commissioner Boyle stated when the County approved this project, a certain site was approved, then Ormond Beach annexed the site, and because of tree preservation considerations, the original site for the tower was moved. He asked if this new site requirement should have triggered Ormond Beach to have to go through the formal notification process; whereby, Mr. Denny answered that Ormond Beach had to honor Volusia County’s development order, and as long as the conditions of the order, not the specific site plan, are met, the City’s procedure’s cannot be implemented. Mr. Denny stated the move was 100 feet south, but on the same parcel, thus it would not trigger City notification. Mr. David Vukelja , attorney for the Moss Point residents, stated the initial application to the County was for a northern parcel and before it left the County, it started encroaching on the southern parcel; and when it came into Ormond Beach, it was moved into the southern parcel. He stated when it was in the northern parcel, Moss Point did not have to be notified because the only property owner to the south was the property owner who was asking for the tower; but once it was moved to the south, it was a different situation, and the residents should have been notified. Mayor Hood asked if there is anything the City can do legally, and what it’s basis would be. Mr. Jim Morris, attorney for the owner of the tower, responded that the construction is on a separate parcel from where the site plan was originally filed; however, prior to annexation, there was a Unity of Title Agreement requested by the City in order to unify the northern and southern parcels into one (1) site. Mr. Morris explained the tower was moved from the northern to the southern parcel as a result of SPRC requirements. Mayor Hood asked if the Unity of Title Agreement made the City lose the ability to object to the move to the southern parcel. Mr. Hayes replied the City had to honor the County’s development order. Mr. Denny explained the Unity of Title was placed in the County, which is a County staff requirement, although he has had differing opinions from County staff and Mr. Morris on this issue. Mayor Hood asked when the City Commission can be apprised of the facts and a legal decision rendered; whereby, Mr. Denny replied this can be brought back at the next meeting. Mr. Hayes stated the initial issue is the notice issue, and the County’s notice requirements would apply. He stated at 4:45 p.m. today, a different issue of a substantive nature was received, and staff has, therefore, had insufficient time to investigate it. Mr. Vukelja reported there were conditions imposed by Volusia County, and presuming those conditions were incorporated in toto by the City of Ormond Beach, then he urged the City to examine those conditions to satisfy itself they have been complied with, as well as the site plan. He stated these are relevant to the pendency of the Certificate of Occupancy; therefore, the issue is not moot and over which the City has no authority, or for which no remedies are available. Mayor Hood recommended the most efficient process to bring this issue to a point where the Commission can make a decision is for Mr. Vukelja and his clients, and Mr. Morris and his client to meet with Mr. Hayes and Mr. Denny to assure all issues are discussed and explored so the City Commission can get a report by the next meeting. Mr. Hayes advised there is an agenda meeting deadline of this Friday which requires all material be in by that time, leaving only tomorrow to work out all the details. Mayor Hood asked if the construction of the tower has been stopped; whereby, Mr. Morris stated the tower and side buildings are essentially complete. Mr. Morris pointed out his letter of September 11, 1998, with attachments, gives a fair and complete summary of his position on all the issues of which he is aware; but if there are further issues, he will respond to them. Mr. Hayes stated he will attempt to address this before the Friday deadline, but it is unlikely that will be accomplished. Mr. Morris stated his schedule will not allow a meeting tomorrow; whereby, Mayor Hood asked that this be placed on the next available agenda. Mr. Morris requested a resolution or some other formal action be prepared establishing that Mr. Vukelja is representing the Moss Point Homeowners’ Association. Item #11(B) - Pesticide Use on Recreation Fields Commissioner Boyle stated numerous birds died at the recreation field shortly after the pesticide Oftanol 2 was sprayed on the ball fields, and the issue was covered extensively in the press. He reported Oftanol 2 was used for cost effectiveness in saving $6,000 over injecting a pesticide into the ground for moll crickets. He noted the staff report recommended no change in policy due to the fact staff cannot determine what caused the illness to the birds because the carcasses were accidentally destroyed before the cause of death could be determined. Commissioner Boyle stated the alternative chemical injection would reduce health risks. Commissioner Boyle read a newspaper article by Mr. Lee Bidgood on Oftanol 2 which indicated that this deadly class of insecticide accounts for more cases of accidental human poisoning then any other class of pesticide, with children especially susceptible. He stated the article states a link was found between organic phosphate pesticides and grievous birth defects or reproductive problems and the cancer rate is four (4) time greater in homes that spray these chemicals than those that do not. Commissioner Boyle stated clearly this is a chemical that places the children at great risk when there are alternatives; therefore, he strongly recommended the City Commission urge staff to permanently prohibit the application of this chemical. Mayor Hood asked that this item be placed on another agenda for formal vote. Commissioner Gillooly asked for a moratorium on using the pesticide until the Commission has the opportunity to vote. Mayor Hood agreed and asked staff to obtain correct, scientific information, including the MSD reports, rather than relying on Mr. Bidgood’s article. Item #12 - Audience Comments On Agenda Items There were no audience comments. Item #13 - Reports, Suggestions, Requests Tree Guy Wires at Municipal Tennis Courts/Employee Response Commissioner Boyle stated the trees recently planted at the Casements adjacent to the tennis courts had four (4) guy wires with red flags extending from them which a constituent tripped over and injured herself. He stated the constituent called him to have something done to avoid anyone else being injured. Commissioner Boyle reported he called Mr. Alan Burton, Leisure Services Director, and Mr. John Miskell, Facilities Maintenance Manager, to advise them of the situation, but neither call has been returned to date. He stated he then contacted Mr. Al Legg, Risk Manager; the problem was remedied the next day, and he personally came into Commissioner Boyle’s shop to inform him what had been done to remedy the problem. Commissioner Boyle expressed concern that he did not receive a prompt response from the two prior calls and gave kudos to Mr. Legg for his prompt response. Mr. Ted MacLeod, Public Works Director, informed Commissioner Boyle that when Mr. Miskell was called, the problem was taken care of immediately. Mr. MacLeod stated Mr. Miskell notified him, and he apologized for not calling the Commissioner back. Mr. MacLeod replied he instructed Mr. Miskell to call Al Legg to let him know what was being done. Commissioner Boyle stated he was misinformed, and he would recommend being kept informed so he could brief the concerned constituent. Mayor Hood recommended these issues be dealt with through the City Manager as opposed to a public forum. Commissioner Boyle disagreed because he made two (2) phone calls to two (2) separate offices, and neither call was returned. He stated he believes this needs to be addressed publicly. Mayor Hood explained the Charter states the City Manager is the person the Commission has authority to contact, but if the matters have not been resolved after discussion with the City Manager, it can be brought to the attention of the City Commission. Commissioner Boyle explained that Mr. Miller was in and out of the office, and he did not direct any employee to do anything. He stated the issue was one of communication, and he does not believe the Commission needs to go through Mr. Miller for this type of problem. Mayor’s Absence at the September 22, 1998, City Commission Meeting Commissioner Boyle pointed out the City Commission was unaware of where the Mayor was or why he could not attend the September 22, 1998, special meeting. He stated the Commission was told at the meeting and read in the newspaper that he was in Tallahassee at the Governor’s Wildfire Conference, yet there has been word from the community that he was across town at an Easter Seals dinner. Commissioner Boyle stated staff or the City Commission received no formal notification and no effort was made to try to reschedule that meeting. He stated tonight’s hour-long debate indicated the necessity that regarding money and taxes, all five (5) City Commission members need to be present, especially considering the Commission was at a 2:2 deadlock. Commissioner Boyle noted the importance of the meeting, in that it was a final vote on a $61 million budget with the Mayor as a tie breaker. He stated this is the eighth publicly advertised meeting that the Mayor has missed in two (2) years. Commissioner Boyle asked that it be placed on the record that this absence was unacceptable to him, and it disrespected the process, the Commission, and the citizens of the City of Ormond Beach. Volusian Water Alliance Commissioner Gillooly reported he is Ormond Beach’s representative on the Volusia Water Alliance which is undergoing radical changes that will come to a significant increase in its budget. He stated he will soon have to make some decisions as a member of this organization and would like input from the City Commission; therefore, he asked Mr. Miller to send a memo to the Commission in this regard. Mr. Miller stated he has met with the Executive Committee of the Alliance, and he will provide the report as requested. Welcome to Assistant City Attorney Commissioner Gillooly extended a welcome to the City’s new Assistant City Attorney, Mr. George Lewis. Mr. Randal Hayes, City Attorney, also welcomed Mr. Lewis to the legal staff. Readdress Item 10(C) Ms. Veronica Patterson, City Clerk, clarified that on item 10(C) Mr. Ken Artin had consented to be reappointed to the Police Officers’ Pension Trust Fund, and that was apparently overlooked. Mayor Hood stated the recommendation only mentions one (1) name; whereby, Commissioner Irvin pointed out that Mr. Artin is mentioned earlier in the memo. Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, to add the name Ken Artin to Resolution No. 98-180.
Item #13 - Close The Meeting The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 PM |
|
|
