06-18-1990 - Regular
,
I .
~'-'
..."
..
CITY COUNCIL OF EDGEWATER
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 18, 1990
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Mitchum called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. in the Community Center.
ROLL CALL
Mayor David Mitchum
Councilman Dan Hatfield
Councilmember Gigi Bennington
Councilman Russell Gold
Councilman Thomas Fish
City Attorney Josel Alvarez
City Manager Elly Johnson
City Clerk Susan Wadsworth
Chief Lawrence Schumaker
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Excused
Present
INVOCATION. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Reverend Harvey Hardin, retired Methodist minister, delivered the invocation.
There was a pledge of allegiance to the Flag.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Special Meetina & Public Hearina of May 30. 1990 - Councilmember Bennington moved
to hold these until the next meeting because they're not really legible and she'd
like them to be redone. Councilman Gold seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED
5-0.
Reaular meetina of June 4. 1990 - Councilman Hatfield moved they accept the
minutes of the meeting of June 4th. Councilman Fish seconded the motion. Motion
CARRIED 5-0.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Mayor Mitchum advised there's a three minute time limit unless Council rules
otherwise.
John Siburn, Connecticut Avenue, asked for an explanation of the item on the
agenda regarding 1.85% excise tax on gross receipts. Mr. Johnson explained under
State Law the City is allowed to adopt an ordinance and the money goes to the
Firemen's Pension Fund the same as certain funds go to the Police Pension Fund.
Mr. Siburn stated he's in favor of the firemen getting all they can. He asked
if they pay anything from their salaries. Mr. Johnson replied they pay the same
as the Police do now. Mr. Siburn asked if it's invested so the fund will grow.
Mr. Johnson replied yes, it's put in an investment fund approved according to
State funds.
Georae Ewina, 2923 Royal Palm, stated this is a Council meeting and not a
Manager's meeting and he wants to emphasize that. He stated 4 of the 5 elected
officials do not have the privilege of whispering to the City Manager or the City
Attorney while in session and they should all be seated together. He proposed
the City Manager and City Attorney be seated on the floor or at the end to be
separate from the 5 Council and then all members can direct their questions
directly to the City Attorney and City Manager. He stated with the set up they
have now they're violating good government. He suggested it could be enacted
now instead of making it an issue in this Fallis election. He asked them to make
the change. He stated all other City Councils in the State don't have this
arrangement and they're separate from Council. Mayor Mitchum advised the time
limit was up.
Art Lloyd, 3130 Victory Palm, distributed copies of questions to Council. He
stated they want to obtain answers to the following as taxpayers and are
requesting the Mayor and Council as elected officials to provide written answers.
He read the following: 111. Please provide a complete breakdown of estimated
costs, i.e., impact fees, special assessments, hook-up charges, etc. for the new
gravity sewer system and wastewater treatment plant for homeowners who would
prefer to make an up front payment for these items. 2. When the old gravity
'-'
.....,
CITIZEN COMMENTS (Continued)
Art Lloyd (Continued) sewer system was installed in other parts of Edgewater,
how was the system funded? Please provide a breakdown of the costs to all
taxpayers at that time in Edgewater. 3. When the current wastewater treatment
plant was built, how was the plant funded? Please provide a breakdown of costs
to all the taxpayers of Edgewater at that time. 4. In the 201 report of 1986,
Dyer, Riddle, Mills & Precourt, Inc. stated both the water plant and wastewater
treatment plant could be expanded. Why do they now state they need new plants?
5. Have taxpayers who do not have a sewer system payor have paid taxes for the
maintenance and upkeep of the current sewer system and the wastewater treatment
plant? If yes, please provide a breakdown of the costs to these taxpayers. 6.
Why have the estimated construction related and other costs in the 201 report
addendum of May 1990 escalated from the estimated costs in previous 201 reports?
7. When will the design for the new sewer system and the wastewater treatment
plant be made available for examination? 8. Please provide the monetary amount
and what the payment was for that the City has paid by each year from 1985 to
the present to Dyer, Riddle, Mills & Precourt, Inc. as recipients of such funds.
9. Do our local newspapers require clearance from the City Manager to publish
citizen's comments at Council meetings? Has the City Manager requested this
authority from the Council? Does any news release have to be cleared by him
and initialled by him before the media will publish same? 10. Why did the Mayor
and City Council refuse to recognize the petition presented in a Council meeting
which requested a referendum vote by the people for a general obligation bond
to pay for the CIP by an ad valorem tax.1I He requested a prompt reply to the
questions. The letter was signed by A. Lloyd, President, United Taxpayers of
Edgewater.
Mr. Lloyd then read the following letter dated June 18, 1990: IICity Ordinance
#81-0-28, sub. 2, In view of the above captioned ordinance it is respectfully
requested that this ordinance be reviewed for possible revision. This ordinance
calls for Roberts Road to be designated as an East-West route for commercial
traffic in Edgewater. The new elementary school is slated to open in the latter
portion of this year. Since almost all of the children will be walking to this
school it is clear that the safety aspect for all students will be greatly
enhanced with the deletion of Roberts Road as an East-West thoroughfare as
currently defined in said Statutes. II The letter was signed by A. Lloyd,
President, United Taxpayers of Edgewater.
J;m Inman, 2948 Travelers Palm, distributed copies of a Statute to Council. He
stated at the May 21st Council meeting he called Council's attention to 119.07
regarding charges that were made on copies of documents for the public. He said
he's waited for two meetings and it's still not addressed. He read 119.02 of
the Statutes regarding penalties when officers know or are aware of a situation
and don't do anything about it, with punishments as outlined in Statute 775.082
or 775.083.
John Gross, 621 N. Riverside Drive, requested a public hearing regarding the
situation with several million dollars involved that affects every person in
Edgewater. He said he wants to show them what is happening as far as the City
is concerned and held like everything out in the open. Mayor Mitchum suggested
he put it in writing to Council and let them see what he's talking about. Mr.
Gross said there's a question about the property and the City should take an
interest and work together as it's conducive to make it better for all concerned.
He added it will take an hour or so. Mayor Mitchum again asked that he put the
proposal in writing. Mayor Mitchum advised the 3 minute time limit was up.
Harrv Jones, 3035 Tamarind, Chairman of the Merit Board, asked to address the
City Manager. He stated there's a personnel committee meeting from 10 until noon
each Monday and he's interested in what the committee's duties are. Mr. Johnson
replied that before he appointed the committee, held told them about it at their
meeting and it1s no different now than it was then. He explained they're review-
ing personnel rules and regulations and will have a proposal and at that time
it will be sent to the Merit Board for review and comments. He added when it
goes through the process, it will be presented to Council as updated personnel
rules and regulations, and it's bringing it up to date with new Federal laws and
to comply with the three union contracts. Mr. Jones said he didn't realize at
that time that a committee was to be established. He asked about a member of
the Merit Board but not the chairman. Mr. Johnson replied at the review process
he'll lead it, and he was told there was an election coming up and they didn't
2 Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18, 1990
--.
"wi
CITIZEN COMMENTS (Continued)
Harry Jones (Continued) know who the Chairman would be. Mr. Jones asked if it's
a closed meeting. Mr. Johnson replied it's open door but it's a staff committee
and they're not open in that sense. Mr. Jones asked if other people could sit
in. Mr. Johnson replied they don't come under the Sunshine in that respect.
CONSENT AGENDA
Self-Insurance Comm;ttee's recommendat;on to pay $2,555.18, w;th $500.00
deduct;ble, on cla;m ;nvolv;na Pol;ce un;t and un;nsured dr;ver: Self-
Insurance CommHtee' s recommendat;on to pay $1,020.00, w;th $1,000.00 deduct;ble,
for developer's costs ;ncurred re: ;ssuance of bu;ld;na perm;t: and Parks &
Recreat;on D;rector's request to ao out for b;ds for f;sh;na p;er extens;on at
Veterans Park when all necessary perm;ts are approved - Mayor Mitchum asked if
they want to remove anything. There were no comments. He requested a motion
to close and accept the consent agenda. Councilmember Bennington so moved.
Councilman Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 5-0.
NEW BUSINESS
None
ORDINANCES, PUBLIC HEARINGS, AND RESOLUTIONS
F;rst Read;na:
Ord. 90-0-26 Proh;b;t;na the theft of recycl;na conta;ners and any mater;als
des;anated as recyclable - Mayor Mitchum read the Ordinance. He stated this is
first reading. ORD. 90-0-26 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDGEWATER, FLORIDA, PROHIBITING THE THEFT OF RECYCLING CONTAINERS AND ANY
MATERIALS DESIGNATED AS RECYCLABLE BY THE CITY OF EDGEWATER; PROVIDING FOR
DEFINITION OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS; PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES; CONTAINING A
REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Councilman Fish stated they need to take steps to protect their investments and
their interest and he moved they accept 90-0-26. Councilman Gold seconded the
motion. Councilmember Bennington asked about the penalties for unauthorized
collection under section 3 which says it shall be to the extent provided by law.
City Attorney Alvarez replied it would be State law dealing with the Solid Waste
Management Act. Councilmember Bennington asked the extent of the punishment.
City Attorney Alvarez replied it should be a misdemeanor which is a standard $500
or 6 months in jail. Motion CARRIED 5-0.
Ord. 90-0-27 Levy;na 1.85% exc;se tax on aross rece;pts of all prem;ums collected
on property ;nsurance pol;c;es ;nsur;na property w;th;n the corporate l;m;ts to
be placed ;n F;remen's Pens;on Fund - Mayor Mitchum read the Ordinance. Ord.
90-0-27 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDGEWATER, FLORIDA,
LEVYING AND IMPOSING UPON ALL INSURERS, NOW OR HEREAFTER ENGAGING IN OR CARRYING
ON THE BUSINESS OF PROPERTY INSURANCE, AN EXCISE OR LICENSE TAX IN ADDITION TO
ANY TAX NOW LEVIED, OF 1.85% OF THE GROSS AMOUNT OF RECEIPTS OF ALL PREMIUMS
COLLECTED ON PROPERTY INSURANCE POLICIES INSURING PROPERTY WITHIN THE CORPORATE
LIMITS OF THE CITY OF EDGEWATER; PROVIDING FOR WHEN SAID TAX SHALL BE DUE AND
PAYABLE; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Councilman Hatfield moved they accept Ordinance 90-0-
27. Councilman Fish seconded the motion. Councilman Gold expressed concern that
any tax or fee levied on a business will eventually be passed on to the consumer
and it's almost a hidden tax. He said another concern is to single out one
department to have one contribution to the pension fund and not all employees
are receiving the same type of benefit and he thinks they should all be treated
equally in calculation of retirement and he'll have to oppose it on that basis.
Mr. Johnson explained State Statute allows the City to do this and because of
the nature of the firefighter's job, extra coverage is required. He added it
won't change the premium and it's standard throughout the State. He stated they
also collect for the Police Pension Fund for their special benefit due to the
nature of their work. Councilman Gold stated it's still a hidden tax and
eventually the consumer will have to pay and they're not doing it for all the
departments. Councilmember Bennington asked if it will affect all property, and
not just commercial, and anyone with property insurance will pay 1.85 on the
premium. Mr. Johnson replied yes. Councilmember Bennington stated it will go
to a special fund for the firemen, and asked if there's an excise tax on it now.
Mr. Johnson replied there's a tax now that goes to the Police and certain types
go to Fire. Councilmember Bennington asked if it's a premium on all insurance
policies. Mr. Johnson replied no, just specific ones and they changed the other
recently that covers Police officers. Motion CARRIED 5-0.
3 Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18, 1990
'-"
....,
CITIZEN COMMENTS (Continued)
Harry Jones (Continued) know who the Chairman would be. Mr. Jones asked if it's
a closed meeting. Mr. Johnson replied it's open door but it's a staff committee
and they're not open in that sense. Mr. Jones asked if other people could sit
in. Mr. Johnson replied they don't come under the Sunshine in that respect.
CONSENT AGENDA
Self-Insurance Committee's recommendation to pay $2,555.18, with $500.00
deductible, on claim involvinq Police unit and uninsured driver: Self-
Insurance Committee's recommendation to pay $1.020.00, with $1,000.00 deductible,
for developer's costs incurred re: issuance of buildinq permit; and Parks &
Recreation Director's request to qO out for bids for fishinq pier extension at
Veterans Park when all necessary permits are approved - Mayor Mitchum asked if
they want to remove anything. There were no comments. He requested a motion
to close and accept the consent agenda. Counci lmember Bennington so moved.
Councilman Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 5-0.
NEW BUSINESS
None
ORDINANCES, PUBLIC HEARINGS, AND RESOLUTIONS
First Readinq:
Ord. 90-0-26 Prohibitinq the theft of recyclinq containers and any materials
desiqnated as recyclable - Mayor Mitchum read the Ordinance. He stated this is
first reading. ORD. 90-0-26 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDGEWATER, FLORIDA, PROHIBITING THE THEFT OF RECYCLING CONTAINERS AND ANY
MATERIALS DESIGNATED AS RECYCLABLE BY THE CITY OF EDGEWATER; PROVIDING FOR
DEFINITION OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS; PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES; CONTAINING A
REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Councilman Fish stated they need to take steps to protect their investments and
their interest and he moved they accept 90-0-26. Councilman Gold seconded the
motion. Councilmember Bennington asked about the penalties for unauthorized
collection under section 3 which says it shall be to the extent provided by law.
City Attorney Alvarez replied it would be State law dealing with the Solid Waste
Management Act. Councilmember Bennington asked the extent of the punishment.
City Attorney Alvarez replied it should be a misdemeanor which is a standard $500
or 6 months in jail. Motion CARRIED 5-0.
Ord. 90-0-27 Levyinq 1.85% excise tax on qross receipts of all premiums collected
on property insurance policies insurinq property within the corporate limits to
be placed in Firemen's Pension Fund - Mayor Mitchum read the Ordinance. Ord.
90-0-27 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDGEWATER, FLORIDA,
LEVYING AND IMPOSING UPON ALL INSURERS, NOW OR HEREAFTER ENGAGING IN OR CARRYING
ON THE BUSINESS OF PROPERTY INSURANCE, AN EXCISE OR LICENSE TAX IN ADDITION TO
ANY TAX NOW LEVIED, OF 1.85% OF THE GROSS AMOUNT OF RECEIPTS OF ALL PREMIUMS
COLLECTED ON PROPERTY INSURANCE POLICIES INSURING PROPERTY WITHIN THE CORPORATE
LIMITS OF THE CITY OF EDGEWATER; PROVIDING FOR WHEN SAID TAX SHALL BE DUE AND
PAYABLE; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Councilman Hatfield moved they accept Ordinance 90-0-
27. Councilman Fish seconded the motion. Councilman Gold expressed concern that
any tax or fee levied on a business will eventually be passed on to the consumer
and it's almost a hidden tax. He said another concern is to single out one
department to have one contribution to the pension fund and not all employees
are receiving the same type of benefit and he thinks they should all be treated
equally in calculation of retirement and he'll have to oppose it on that basis.
Mr. Johnson explained State Statute allows the City to do this and because of
the nature of the firefighter's job, extra coverage is required. He added it
won't change the premium and it's standard throughout the State. He stated they
also collect for the Police Pension Fund for their special benefit due to the
nature of their work. Councilman Gold stated it's still a hidden tax and
eventually the consumer will have to pay and they're not doing it for all the
departments. Councilmember Bennington asked if it will affect all property, and
not just commercial, and anyone with property insurance will pay 1.85 on the
premium. Mr. Johnson replied yes. Councilmember Bennington stated it will go
to a special fund for the firemen, and asked if there's an excise tax on it now.
Mr. Johnson replied there's a tax now that goes to the Police and certain types
go to Fire. Councilmember Bennington asked if it's a premium on all insurance
policies. Mr. Johnson replied no, just specific ones and they changed the other
recently that covers Police officers. Motion CARRIED 5-0.
3 Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18, 1990
'-
....
ORDINANCES. PUBLIC HEARINGS. AND RESOLUTIONS (Continued)
First Reading:
Res. 90-R-38 Changing Council agenda deadline to be close of business Monday
preceding regular meeting - Mayor Mitchum read the Resolution. RES. 90-R-38 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDGEWATER, FLORIDA, AMENDING
SECTION 2, OF RESOLUTION NO. 83-R-28 BY PROVIDING THAT ITEMS FOR THE AGENDA MUST
BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CITY MANAGER BY CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON THE MONDAY
PRECEDING THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OR IN THE EVENT THAT SAID MONDAY FALLS
ON A NATIONAL HOLIDAY, ITEMS FOR THE AGENDA SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE
CITY MANAGER BY CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON THE TUESDAY PRECEDING THE REGULAR CITY
COUNCIL MEETING; REPEALING ALL RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Councilman Fish moved they accept 90-R-38 and give it
a try. Councilmember Bennington seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 5-0.
Res. 90-R-39 Endorsing the one cent sales tax to be voted on November 6. 1990
Mayor Mitchum read the Resolution. RES. 90-R-39 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDGEWATER, FLORIDA, ENDORSING THE PROPOSED ONE CENT SALES
TAX; REPEALING ALL RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECT-
IVE DATE. Councilman Hatfield moved they adopt Resolution 90-R-39. Mayor
Mitchum passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Gold and seconded the motion. Mayor
Mitchum stated that if this tax is passed it will possibly help areas that would
otherwise be affected by raising property taxes and everyone will pay this tax.
He pointed out it will mean $18 million for the City in the coming years and
we've lowered the millage the last three years and held like to again this year.
Councilman Fish asked if the split between municipality and County has been
determined. Vice Mayor Gold replied it1s 53 and 47, approximately. Councilman
Fish said it's 53 to the County and 47 to municipality. Councilmember Bennington
stated 2.87% will come to us according to this breakdown. Mr. Johnson agreed.
Councilmember Bennington said if it's passed, the next 6 months weld get $410,166
for our share, but she doesn't want to discuss it because it's limited to capital
improvements to spend it on, which is good, but the improvements then have to
be maintained, and where would they have to get that from, possibly ad valorem.
She said if it passes, then they can look at how they can apply it, such as CIP.
Mayor Mitchum pointed out a lot of improvements are entailed in capital improve-
ments. Councilman Hatfield pointed out there's $32 million ready to go in
capital improvements and this is a unique way to fund it and we're scrambling
to secure funds, so he'll support it as a way to generate money that won't all
come out of Edgewater pockets, some will come from tourists. Mayor Mitchum
explained it's $18 million over 15 years. Councilman Hatfield pointed out the
citizens can vote for or against it.
Vice Mayor Gold stated he understands there's a strong possibility the next
legislature will enact another 1 cent State-wide sales tax and if so, and this
passes, it will be 8 cents and this will be one of the highest states in the
nation. He added they have the capital improvements, whether itls to help
Florida Shores with sewer, or stormwater management, and he'll go along with it.
Motion CARRIED 3-2. Councilmember Bennington and Councilman Fish voted NO.
Vice Mayor Gold returned the gavel to Mayor Mitchum.
Res. 90-R-40 Requesting Board of Trustees of Internal Improvement Trust Fund to
approve extension of fishing pier at Veterans Park for use as public park and
requesting a lease agreement for sovereignty submerged land - Mayor Mitchum read
the Resolution. RES. 90-R-40 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDGEWATER, FLORIDA, DECLARING ITS INTENT TO REQUEST THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND TO APPROVE EXTENSION OF A FISHING PIER AT
VETERANS PARK FOR USE BY THE PUBLIC FOR RECREATIONAL AND/OR PARK PURPOSES;
REQUESTING A LEASE AGREEMENT FOR SOVEREIGNTY SUBMERGED LAND; REQUESTING A WAIVER
OF ALL FEES PERTAINING TO THIS APPROVAL; REPEALING ALL RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT
HEREWITH AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Councilmember Bennington moved
they adopt 90-R-40. Councilman Fish seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 5-0.
Mayor Mitchum requested a motion to go from regular meeting to public hearing.
Councilman Fish so moved. Councilmember Bennington seconded the motion. Motion
CARRIED 5-0.
4 Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18, 1990
...,..
..""
PUBLIC HEARING:
Attorney William F. Hathaway's request to appeal land Development & Reaulatory
Aaency's May 9. 1990. decision denyina site plan extension for Perry Barrett
property. SW corner of U.S. 1 and Roberts Road - William F. Hathaway, 500 Canal
Street, New Smyrna Beach, represented Mr. Perry Barrett. Mr. Hathaway stated
they're appealing the LDRA decision of May 9th where Perry Barrett, the owner
of the property on the southwest corner of U.S. 1 and Roberts Road, sought an
extension of a site plan granted to the previous property owner. He read from
page 1636. of the Code, Ordinance 715.06, addressing site plan expirations. He
reviewed the chronological sequence of events starting March 23, 1989, when the
prior owner, Mr. Carder, received approval for a shopping center at that inter-
section. He added that in December of that year Perry Barrett, the present
owner, purchased the property from Mr. Carder, and 16 days after purchase he
applied to Volusia County for a road impact fee calculation which he had to do
to receive a building permit from the City of Edgewater. He said on December
26th he requested the fee calculation, and the City wouldn't issue a building
permit because he hadn't paid the County's road impact fee and neither would
budge. He stated the City did issue him a building permit number, A2124, on
December 29, 1989, so he could go to the County and tell them he's going through
the site plan process. He sa i d then he went back to the County and a month
passed and he got a letter from the Building Department January 24th advising
him the County Use Permit is required to ingress and egress the site. He said
also on January 24th he received from the Building Department a tree removal
permit to grade the property in preparation for the building and removing the
trees that interfere with the building he's going to put on it.
Mr. Hathaway continued with the sequential events: On March 6, 1990, he heard
from the Volusia County Development Analysis Division and on March 13th he was
advised by telephone that his road impact fee for this project would be $29,468,
and he realized the one year period within which to get his building permit is
about to expire. He said on March 19th he submitted to the Building Department
a request for site plan extension which under 715.06 is the procedure for a one
time extension so long as there are extenuating circumstances and it's for a
period of no greater than 6 months. He stated that a week later he was told by
the Planning Department that he's not eligible for the extension and the reason
given is that he's not filed for his extension in a timely fashion although it
was filed prior to the expiration of the site plan.
Mr. Hathaway stated on April 3, 1990, he wrote to LDRA requesting to be placed
on the agenda because the Planning Department refused to allow the items to be
placed on the agenda for consideration because they said it was non-eligible.
Mr. Hathaway stated 715.06 is on page 1636.3 of the ordinance book, which
indicates there are 1,635 pages before that, and they're not dealing with a
Philadelphia lawyer, he's a contractor. He said they were told he had to seek
an extension within the one year and it was within the one year. He said 715.06
reads that the site plan shall be null and void one year from date of approval
unless the building permit has been issued, and the year would have expired March
23, 1990, and in this case he doesn't know if he had a building permit but did
have a building permit number which he had to have to go to the County.
He stated when you get a building permit for something of this nature it has a
significant impact and it was compounded because Roberts Road was involved and
at that time the county maintained it and he was notified the City may take over
the maintenance and it would change the fees. He said he understands it's now
the City's responsibility and there may have been a delay at the County level
and it was extenuating circumstances beyond his control and he was diligent in
his efforts to go on, including the tree permit.
Mr. Hathaway stated they had the cooperation from the Building Department along
with their assistance regarding the fees.
Mr. Hathaway stated the second sentence, extension up to 6 months can be granted
by Planning and Zoning Board and he felt he should apply to LDRA since it refers
to an entity no longer in existence. He said he does want an extension and it
is for one time so they both meet those parts of the test. Mr. Hathaway stated
in paragraph 2, the site plan has not a 1 ready exp i red and Mr. Karet of the
Planning Department said if only he'd come 30 days before expiration, February
22nd instead of March 29th, it would have been timely and it runs 30 days prior
to expiration. He pointed out that's Mr. Karet's interpretation of the ordinance
5 Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18, 1990
......
....,
PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued)
Attorney W;ll;am F. Hathaway's request to appeal land Development & ReQulatory
A enc 's Ma 9 1990 dec;s;on den;n s;te lan extens;on for Perr Barrett
property. SW corner of U.S. 1 and Roberts Road Continued) and if he'd been there
February 23rd and filed for the extension then he wouldn't have been heard until
April 7th by the LDRA according to their schedule. He corrected it to be April
12th which was beyond the expiration date of the one year. He said if you file
prior to the expiration of the one year, you're timely.
Mr. Hathaway pointed out no changes to site plan have occurred and on March 23,
1989, LDRA fully considered the matter and granted site plan approval and he went
through all the procedural steps to get to the next step of getting a building
permit .
Mr. Hathaway referred to paragraph 3, the reasons being submitted in writing at
least 30 days in advance and it doesn't say in advance of the one year or in
advance of the hearing, so when there's ambiguity in the ordinance, they should
not construe it against the applicant, he should be given the advantage because
the ordinance is not clear in its interpretation. He said in this instance it
says the developer presents in writing to the Planning Department 30 days in
advance and it was in advance of the hearing which was held May 9th after he
filed for the extension March 19th. He stated because of the duality of the
permitting process it should allow for a 6 month extension and all he's seeking
is a one time extension beginning from March 23rd and it should warrant extenu-
ating circumstances. He asked if there's any harm to the City by allowing him
to get this extension or does he have to go back to square one. He added he
doesn't feel it's any fault of his that he didn't get the building permit nor
is it the fault of the City.
Mr. Hathaway stated they're seeking relief to proceed in a timely fashion as
shown on this ordinance by being granted one 6 month extension and he thinks
under the ordinance he's entitled to it. He asked Council to give this their
attention.
Councilman Fish stated he understands Perry Barrett has done business for some
time now and has been through these processes and it' strange that he wouldn't
be aware of this process. Mr. Hathaway stated there are more than 1,600 pages
of ordinances and this is subject to interpretation and it's the usual under-
standing is to get a one time extension if it goes beyond the year. He said
it's subject to interpretation and is ambiguous and should be in favor of the
c it i zen.
Councilman Gold stated if the request had been in, that doesn't have a bearing
if the LDRA d i dn I t get at it unt il a month 1 ater. Mr. Hathaway stated they
contend it's 30 days in advance. Councilman Gold stated held referring to if
it had been in the 30 days, the LDRA wouldn't have acted on it, and his concern
is even if it was in on time and the board did not meet 2 months for some reason,
the request would have been in on time. Mr. Hathaway explained paragraph 1
states the site plan hasn't expired and LDRA would act on it either way after
it expired.
Councilmember Bennington stated he'd omitted the section regarding the developers
submitting in writing to the Planning Department 30 days in advance and it was
submitted to Dennis Fischer in the Building Department. Mr. Hathaway explained
Dennis Fischer conveyed it to the Planning Department and he dealt with him
because held worked with him.
Councilmember Bennington stated she didn't know a tree removal permit allowed
site preparation and grading, she thought it was just to remove trees. She added
that in the chronological order nowhere does it address the fact that while Mr.
Carder had it, he was in negotiation with the County and the County was trying
to get 10 feet for the bike path, and she understands because he didn't turn over
this 10 feet was one reason Mr. Carder couldn't get road impact fees and they
were in a deadlock. She said she feels Mr. Barrett was well aware of this and
a year to sit on a site plan is extensive. Mr. Hathaway explained when he purch-
ased the property he acted in a timely fashion taking into consideration he had
to deal with the County and City and he granted a 20 feet wide easement for water
and sewer along that corridor. Councilmember Bennington said it's 10 feet the
County was deeded from Mr. Carder. Mr. Hathaway explained it's for the benefit
of the City. Mayor Mitchum explained it's at the request of the School Board.
6 Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18, 1990
..
....",
PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued)
Attorney William F. Hathaway.s request to appeal Land Development & Reaulatory
A"ency.s May 9. 1990. decision denyin" site plan extension for Perry Barrett
property. SW corner of U.S. 1 and Roberts Road (Continued)
Councilmember Bennington stated she understands a building permit number doesn't
mean you have a building permit. Mr. Hathaway agreed that's correct but he had
it in hand to show what comes first the City or County and they appreciate the
City's granting him the number. Counci 1 member Bennington asked how other
developers handle this issue when the City won't give them the building permit
and the County has a problem. She referred to a list of 5 projects given to
Dennis Fischer by the County and asked the staff how this building permit process
works. Councilman Hatfield questioned if this is proper in a public hearing.
Mayor Mitchum replied yes, and then they'll solicit public input.
Mr. Mark Karet, Director of Planning and Zoning, stated a tree removal permit
is not a building permit but it's to remove trees from a site. Councilmember
Bennington asked if it involves grading and site preparation. Mr. Karet replied
no. Mr. Karet added a building permit number is not required from the County
to get road impact fees and if you go to the County with a site plan they'll
calculate it on an informal basis. He said there was a question about a delay
and some individuals had been delayed and they could be counted before the turn
of the year and if you approached them that day they'd calculate the fee for
you. He added they want permit numbers to prove they got building permits prior
to January 1st when they were talking about increasing the impact fees, but
subsequent to that they delayed that position. He added they weren't required
at the time he refers to and the rest referred to are the people that were
delayed. He said he has no idea how he got a building permit number and there
was no authorization to give him that number.
Mayor Mitchum explained the public hearing is for the participants in this and
not for the pub 1 i c and the hear i ng' s for Mr. Hathaway and Mr. Barrett to
petition. Councilman Hatfield asked about Mr. Karet's statements during a public
hearing. Mayor Mitchum clarified he's one of the participants.
Perry Barrett stated he recently purchased the home at 120 N. Riverside Drive,
and has been in business since 1977 and has been a residential builder and calls
the Bu il ding Department and before he purchased th i s he ca 11 ed the Bu il ding
Department and was told he had one year and was told within the year you have
to apply for a site plan extension in writing. He again said City Hall told him
he had a year to do it and he believed them, and he still believes they're in
the right because they applied in a timely fashion.
Mr. Barrett stated regarding the 10 feet, he talked to the County about the 10
feet to get a road permit and nobody will talk to you from the County. He said
they went to the County to get the road impact fees and the County told them
they have to have a building permit number and they got the number December 29th
and didn't get it back until March. He said they're following this to the "T"
and it will cost him interest money and another delay and it's senseless to shoot
the project down. He added he's just asking for a 6 month extension to get a
bui lding permit.
Mayor Mitchum suggested a motion to go back to the regular meeting. Councilman
Hatfield so moved. Councilman Fish seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 5-0.
Mr. Johnson stated he agrees with Mr. Barrett and Mr. Hathaway but the points
need to be made clear that the conflict is not between staff and them and some
of Mr. Hathaway's comments implied that, but the board made a decision and
they're appealing the decision and it should be considered on that basis only.
Councilman Hatfield requested an opinion from the City Attorney on item three
regarding the reasons to be in writing 30 days in advance of what? City Attorney
Alvarez replied in advance of expiration of the one year, and they've heard two
arguments, one from Mr. Hathaway, and he disagrees with the issue that the
ordinance is ambiguous. He stated he's not advocating any particular position
at th i s stage and they I re not adversar i es but he does support the staff's
interpretation. He added that in 715.06, there are two basic principles to
follow in construing Statutes, one is to construe the entire Statute, you don't
take a section out of context and interpret it, you interpret all sections of
the Statute together in a manner which will give harmony and a logical con-
c 1 us i on to the ent i re scheme. He sa i d if you take the suggested i nterpret-
7 Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18, 1990
'-
......
PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued)
Attorney W;ll;am F. Hathawayls request to appeal Land Development & ReGulatory
A enc IS Ma 9 1990 dec;s;on den;n s;te lan extens;on for Perr Barrett
property. SW corner of U.S. 1 and Roberts Road Continued) ation that it's before
the expiration or in advance of the hearing date, that's not logical, and in
715.06 where dates are mentioned it says site plan shall be null and void 1 year
from date of approval so the one year time expand is from date of approval. He
stated the dates of meetings of any board are not cast in stone and they can be
changed because of a quorum or holiday or other conflicts and there are a number
of reasons why it could change, and when the ordinance is drafted you don't take
as a red mark a variable to get a fixed date which is one year, otherwise, 30
days, which is in the ordinance in advance of the year every time there's a
request for an extension you would have to go to a computer to figure the 30 days
and that's what the developer would have to go through to figure it out. He
added you cannot read into the Statutes what isn't there and there's no way to
read in that the year's date is the date of reference. As to the conditions,
1) the site plan has not already expired, so he meets that condition, 2) no
changes to site plan were made, so he meets that a 1 so, or he hasn't heard
otherwise, 3) it1s 30 days in advance of one year1s expiration, 4) assuming 1,
2, and 3, are met, are there extenuating circumstances beyond the developerls
control? He said that1s something Council needs to consider based on what they
heard and staff didn't argue on that because of the County and the current time
table. He said #3 re: at least 30 days, it doesn't say on the 30th day before,
but at least 30 days, so if you act on the last day, you act on your own peril.
He said he doesn1t have an answer to the law on tempered with mercy regarding
the 30 day period. He said the harm to the City staff needs to be addressed in
terms of the ordinance and the time table and they're to follow the ordinance
and it was stated Perry Barrett was told he has one year to do it and maybe in
good faith he didn't realize there was a 30 day cut off. He again said as to
ambiguity, he disagrees, there was no ambiguity and he had time to file.
Councilman Hatfield asked if they go back to the estoppel issue if a City
employee gave him the information that he had one year to do that. City Attorney
Alvarez replied he doesn1t recall this argument being presented at the board
meeting and the facts behind the argument are not sufficient to develop, but
perhaps Mr. Karet can address it. Councilman Hatfield requested Mr. Karet1s
input. City Attorney Alvarez asked if he was aware of the 30 day limitation
and the one year. Mr. Karet replied he wasn't aware of it, and if held come to
the Planning and Zoning Department held have been told a site plan is good for
one year, but if he asked about his own site plan, he has heard no evidence
presented at LDRA that it was ever addressed. Councilmember Bennington asked
if Mr. Barrett contacted him, or was it Mr. Geil. Mr. Karet replied in most
instances it was Luis Geil. Councilmember Bennington stated the zoning text is
minimal and Luis Geil deals with the City on an ongoing basis and he'd have
knowledge of this. Mr. Karet agreed Mr. Geil is as knowledgeable of the Code
as he is. City Attorney Alvarez asked when the applicant was first aware or
realized that an extension was needed. Mr. Karet replied to his knowledge, there
was discussion between himself and Mr. Geil regarding expiration of site plans
but he cannot say if it was in regard to this particular site plan.
City Attorney Alvarez asked if it was in the 30 days. Mr. Karet replied he
cannot recall.
City Attorney Alvarez noted there's a recommendation from LDRA, and he asked if
there's any other harm. Mr. Karet replied site plans expire because conditions
change and ordinances change and the conditions changed for the School Board
where it was just discussed then and not the reality it is today and that may
impact that site. He added there was discussion by DOT about a turn lane at U.S.
1 and Roberts Road and that may be impacted by this development, and we have a
new wet-lands ordinance which mayor may not affect this property, and a new tree
ordinance and storrnwater ordinance. He pointed out this will give the City a
chance to rev i ew these ord i nances and the site plan in reference to the
ordinances and they could take advantage of the changing conditions and apply
the new ordinance to his site. City Attorney Alvarez asked if any other
applicant applied, would they have to go through the whole process. Mr. Karet
replied it depends, and he doesn't know if Mr. Barrett will use the same design
professional Mr. Carder used and if the soil testing is available, that would
be a jump start on the process.
8 Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18, 1990
'-'"
..".,
PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued)
Attorney William F. Hathaway's request to appeal land Development & Reaulatory
Aaency's May 9. 1990. decision denyina site plan extension for Perry Barrett
property. SW corner of U.S. 1 and Roberts Road (Continued)
Mr. Hathaway stated the public purpose issue was spoken of by the City Planner
and he doesn't know how this would defeat the public purpose concept. He stated
no changes to site plans have occurred but because of changed conditions he wants
changes to the site plan and he's suggesting changes to the site plan and maybe
that's the real reason why he wants it to go back to LDRA. He added it's good
for one year and it's good for one 6 months extension if you have no change to
the site plan and it's the same as it was in March, 1989. He stated he's within
the 6 months and is seeking 6 months from the date of expiration and would have
an 18 month window to get a building permit. He said the public purpose is con-
trary to what the ordinance is because you can't have a change to the site plan
and you have up to 18 months if the extension is granted. He stated he should
be given the consideration in light of language in the ordinance as the ordinance
stops in sentence 3 with 30 days in advance and he did apply for the extension
prior to the expiration of the one year and then was denied hearing on this
matter and should be granted relief. He thanked Council for their consideration.
Mr. Johnson stated Mark Karet's responses to Council were if there could be some
reasons why it could be reconsidered, and Mr. Karet and he met with Mr. Carder
to discuss the site plan and it wasn't 10 feet they wanted, it was 15 feet of
the project at that time. He added if it had been required, they would have told
Mr. Carder he could have changed that site plan, he was aware of it and knew it
would change the site plan and he'd have to come back in. Mr. Karet agreed that
was correct.
Councilmember Bennington moved to sustain the LDRA board action based on the
staff and our City Attorney agreeing with staff on the interpretation of the 30
days prior to expiration date. Councilman Fish seconded, adding it appears Mr.
Barrett was represented by Mr. Geil in this matter who is knowledgeable of these
things and if there's an error made, perhaps it was made on the part of Mr. Geil
He added we have these ordinance and they need to uphold them and stand behind
them. Councilman Gold sympathized with Mr. Barrett and his problems, adding this
is a 22 catch all but they have the laws, rules and regulations and he feels they
should be enforced. Motion CARRIED 5-0.
Second Readina:(Public Hearina)
None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Waters Risk Manaaement report with recommendations on insurance review and audit
Mr. Johnson distributed copies of a report prepared by the Finance Director for
Council's later review.
Mr. Hayden Knowlton, of Waters independent risk management consulting firm,
stated they're not represent i ng nor are they aff i1 i ated wi th any insurance
company. He said they were hired last year and have done a risk management
audit, toured the City, spent a day with the Finance Director and other staff,
and went through agreements and contracts and risks they have and how it IS
managed. He noted several items in the report have been completed. Council-
member Bennington stated the report was very thorough and self-explanatory and
she was very impressed with it. Mayor Mitchum agreed it's an excellent report.
Mr. Knowlton stated a follow up would be to market the City's specifications and
list the properties with updated values and vehicles to get a proposal for
insurance to be sent to insurance agents in the area, and after receiving
proposals, you can decide if you want to go back to insurance if it's affordable
or take a large deductible and incorporate some of the suggestions in the report
in the polices as requirements which will give them a much better program and
they'll come back in September with those recommendations.
Councilmember Bennington asked the most overall most important item they need
to address in the audit. Mr. Knowlton replied the largest item is the fact they
have been without insurance for 4 years and claims are running $6-$7,000 a year
when you could be paying over $100,000 in premiums. He added the financial
statement criticized them about a year ago about being uninsured but they are
not insurance for workers compensation or property because a property claim could
be tremendous and the property insurance is relatively low compared to the
limits. 9 Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18, 1990
"-:
.....
UNFINISHED BUSINESS (Continued)
Waters Risk Manaaement report with recommendations on insurance review and audit
(Continued) Mr. Johnson stated the specifications will address the umbrella
policy over and above a certain level to have an excess coverage, such as over
$250,000 it would be covered by a special policy called an umbrella. Mr.
Knowlton stated they sent a draft specification to Mr. Munoz this week with an
option of $50,000 or $100,000 as deductibles.
City Attorney Alvarez asked what would happen in September, will we receive
proposals. Mr. Knowlton replied they'll be received August 31st. City Attorney
Alvarez asked if they already sent the proposals out. Mr. Knowlton replied
they'll be due August 31st. City Attorney Alvarez asked if they'll meet with
the Committee. Mr. Knowlton explained they presented the proposal to the City.
City Attorney Alvarez stated they have certain items to take into account when
sending out the proposals and they need to look at the market to see if they want
to look at a policy paying from the first dollar or a deductible or continue with
self-insurance which has saved the City $1 million dollars and have the umbrella
for catastrophic loss. Mr. Knowlton explained they asked for a fully insured
proposal and $50,000 and $100,000. City Attorney Alvarez suggested an umbrella
for an aggregate in excess of $1 million to cover it. He also suggested the
Committee meet and discuss these proposals before he sends them out.
Councilman Hatfield asked about the proposals time frame in comparison to the
budget. Mr. Johnson rep 1 i ed that wi 11 be cons i dered and they can make the
adjustments at a later date or it can corne out of the insurance fund. Mr.
Knowlton explained they don't if it will stay the same or drop or increase and
workers compensation dropped 25% in the State effective October 1st. Councilman
Hatfield asked that be considered in the budget. Mr. Johnson agreed.
Councilmember Bennington moved to accept the report and continue with the
proposals as was discussed tonight. Councilman Gold seconded the motion. Motion
CARRIED 5-0.
Public Works Director's request to waive bid procedure and purchase used 1984
Boom Truck for $10.000 (Tabled June 4. 1990) - Councilmember Bennington moved
to remove it from the table. Councilman Gold seconded the motion. Motion
CARRIED 5-0.
Mr. Johnson stated they re-evaluated the memo, it's been rewritten and it will
be charged to storrnwater to be used in that department, and if used elsewhere,
it will be a charge to that department. He said a charge for equipment going
from one fund to another will be established and it's their recommendation to
purchase it out of this fund.
Councilmember Bennington asked the City Attorney's opinion regarding the storm-
water ordinance. City Attorney Alvarez distributed copies of his opinion. He
read a portion of the memo:.."shall be used for the purpose of paying the cost
of storrnwater drainage facilities to be constructed in the various storm drainage
basins and paying the cost of operation, administration and maintenance of the
storrnwater system of the City of Edgewater." He added: "..the fees and charges
paid shall not be used for general or other governmental or proprietary purposes
of the City except to pay for the equitable share of the cost of accounting,
management, and government thereof." He continued: .."Other than as described
above, the fees and charges sha 11 be used solely to pay for the cost of
operation, repair, maintenance, improvements, renewal, replacement, design,
right-of-way acquisition, and construction of public storrnwater drainage
facilities and costs incidental thereto." He said based on that language the
expenditures have to be directly related to storrnwater drainage facilities.
City Attorney Alvarez questioned if the purchasing procedures of Section 9-22
in the Code had been followed or if this purchase falls within one of the
specific exceptions. He said if it's exempt, what exemption does it come under.
City Attorney Alvarez stated his opinion is the purchase of the truck for the
purposes in the May 22nd, 1990, memo is impermissible and it will have to be used
exclusively for the operation and maintenance of drainage facilities. He added
that "solely" does not allow for pro rata share. He pointed out one way of doing
it is if the general fund paid for the truck then a rent can be charged
10 Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18, 1990
w
..."
UNfINISHED BUSINESS (Continued)
Public Works Director's request to waive bid procedure and purchase used 1984
Boom Truck for $10.000 (Tabled June 4. 1990) (Continued) against the stormwater
fund if it's used for the stormwater facility. He noted another alternative is
for Council to amend the ordinance. He again stated it's not clear about the
purchasing procedure if it's been followed or exempted and on what basis. Mr.
Johnson recommended they not purchase it because he disagrees with the City
Attorney. He noted now the stormwater department has 2 or 3 vehicles that were
purchased and belonged to Public Works and they're using it and not being
charged. He added he asked Council to waive the bid procedure as they did in
the past with used equipment, and it's an excellent buy but he'd rather not buy
it than go through problems and they can withdraw it.
Mayor Mitchum suggested they could buy it somewhere else. Councilman Fish asked
if there's an alternative funding source since it's a good piece of equipment
and it appears they can't get the truck from those funds, but perhaps it could
be from the general fund. Mr. Johnson suggested they could calculate hours for
the equipment and bill it to stormwater if Council will approve its being paid
from the Street Department. He added they did this in the past with a Police
car approved as a used piece of equipment. Councilman Fish stated he had no
problem with waiver for a used piece of equipment. City Attorney Alvarez asked
where in the Code there's exemption for a used piece of equipment. Mr. Johnson
replied it's happened in the past and they made an exception. City Attorney
Alvarez said the only exception he recalls is piggy-backing on another bid.
Councilman Fish moved they reject the Public Works Director's request to waive
and purchase, wh i ch is a lternat i ve 2. Counc il member Benn i ngton seconded the
motion. Motion CARRIED 5-0.
Mayor Mitchum said he agrees with the City Attorney's opinion but wouldn't like
to lose this equipment. He asked if they could get bids or bring it back if they
waive the bid process. Mr. Johnson explained they've held it for 60 days now.
City Attorney Alvarez said waiver of the bid process is specific in the Code,
one is a sole supplier, such as no one else has the truck and no other is in the
area. Councilmember Bennington suggested they could construe a 1984 is a sole
source and there's no other around. Mayor Mitchum disagreed because there's a
lot of used equipment around.
Report on status of bike path on 30th Street/Roberts Road - Mr. Johnson intro-
duced Mr. Gates Castle, the new City Engineer. He stated they received the plan
from Dyer, Riddle, Mills & Precourt and are asking Council to use the term side-
walk instead of bike path. He said it's temporary until work is done on 30th
Street and staff recommends Council change priority and a sidewalk on Roberts
Road/30th Street be #1 priority for this year and continue working on 442 and
with the County, who's purchasing rights of way on Park Avenue, and with others
Mrs. Gillespie will be coming forward with. He said they'll proceed with specif-
cations and come back with bids which should be within 60 days and have it built
prior to children going to school in November. He said there's a lot of traffic
there and it needs to be done. He noted the plans show they're meandering around
po 1 es and pipes unt il they do the f i na 1 work severa 1 years down the road.
Councilman Fish asked the width of the sidewalk. Mr. Johnson replied 5 feet
because of closeness of the pavement and there will be no restrictions, it will
be a sidewalk. He added he wanted it wider but there were problems with drainage
and other things and they feel this is the best approach and it will be asphalt.
Councilman Hatfield moved they accept the City Manager's recommendation and make
Roberts Road the first priority and to go for bids. Councilmember Bennington
seconded the motion, thanking him for the report. Motion CARRIED 5-0.
Draft ordinance re: peddling. soliciting and canvassing within City limits
Councilmember Bennington stated she and the City Attorney worked on this and it's
the one from the last meeting that was changed to reflect our City. With no
comments from Council, she moved to direct the City Attorney to draw this up in
ordinance form and bring it back. Councilman Fish seconded the motion. Motion
CARRIED 5-0.
COUNCIL/OffICERS REPORTS
City Attorney - City Attorney Alvarez responded to George Ewing's earlier
comments. He stated it's irrelevant where he sits but when he talks to a Council
member he's functioning in his capacity as legal counsel to this body and the
privilege of attorney/client relationship has been recognized the same as priest/
penitent and doctor/patient. He added it's his ethical obligation to advise
11 Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18, 1990
....
....,
COUNCIL/OFFICERS REPORTS (Continued)
City Attorney (Continued) Council and he can't predict what will come up on the
floor and if he feels a need to confer with a client, he'll do so. He added the
last time he talked to the Florida Bar there was no prohibition against it. He
said he doesn't want it interpreted as gossiping or misconstrued, and if it has
been, he apologizes.
City Manaaer - Mr. Johnson had no report at this time.
City Count; 1
Councilmember Bennington stated the Charter Review Committee met Wednesday and
will meet again this Wednesday to tie up all input they've received and will get
the proposed Charter amendments to Council for the July 2nd meeting. She said
at that time she'd like Council to request a workshop and special meeting with
the Charter Review Committee to discuss it and address any questions they have.
Councilmember Bennington stated with the questions raised by Mr. Lloyd and the
Charter coming up for election referendum she thinks they need a newsletter sent
out that explains the CIP, the special assessment process that will take place
and how it works, and the Charter and the amended changes proposed, in a clear,
concise prepared manual so people can understand it. She added it will help
address rumors also. She asked Council to consider hiring a temporary in house
public relations officer to write up this newsletter and for the duration of the
CIP to help with the program and with P.R. work since that's a problem area.
Councilmember Bennington stated Roberts Road was brought up by Mr. Lloyd and with
Mr. Barrett and she'd like a legal opinion because she's told the road from u.S.
1 to the tracks belongs to us. She asked if its ours, and if it's done right,
and can the County tell us to take it or do we have a say in it. City Attorney
Alvarez explained there are certain procedures but he doesn't know the facts of
this situation. Mayor Mitchum suggested the City Attorney could research it and
give them an opinion. Councilmen Fish and Gold agreed.
Councilmember Bennington stated it was brought to her attention by several
business owners that there appears to be a problem with issuing occupational
licenses and fire hydrants with more than one turned down for an occupational
license for an already existing building because they didn't have a fire hydrant
within 150 feet of the property. She said she understands the people weren't
told there's an appeal process available, or in the process of being set up, if
there's an objection. She stated Council needs to decide how they're going to
handle it. Mayor Mitchum stated he received a call from Harbor Lights about this
and he'd like clarification and it seems to be the same as with Sea Treasure.
He added they make growth pay for itself but inadequate facilities already in
place seem to show a previous lack of good planning. He pointed out there's
inadequate fire protection but it's not up to an individual business owner to
provide fire protection for the City. He asked the City Manager to bring back
something on this and perhaps have a workshop. Mr. Johnson explained the problem
isn't if it's new or old, but it's the Life Safety Code and the responsibility
that Code places on certain individuals. He suggested the City Attorney might
be asked for an opinion on the Code. He pointed out they're not providing fire
protection for the City, but for the business as a requirement of the State,
and they'll report at the next meeting. He explained he wasn't told about the
appeal process because it wasn't initiated yet but they hope to have it shortly,
and several have signed commitments of when it's available. Mayor Mitchum said
fire safety isn't grandfathered in and there are certain things that have to be
borne by the developer but they want clarification of this situation. Council-
member Bennington said she has no problem with new development or anyone pulling
a permit to expand, but with going into an existing building that has had an
occupant. Mayor Mitchum said the problem in the past was lax enforcement and
the new Fire Chief isn't lax.
Mayor Mitchum stated the way Council is seated is virtually the same as other
cities and the County and the Titusville City Council is the same.
QUESTIONS FROM PRESS
None.
12 Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18, 1990
. . ,
.....
......
. .
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Mayor Mitchum advised there's a three minute time limits unless otherwise wished.
Georae Ewina stated he didn't insinuate anything with the comments but thinks
it's an unorthodox seating arrangement. He said New Smyrna Beach has an
excellent seating arrangement. He said there are 5 elected officials and when
they talk to Council they should be looking at those 5 elected officials. He
said the majority of councils sit together and it's a Council meeting and not
a Manager's or Attorney's meeting and they're addressing the City Council.
Doris Hill, 112 Lincoln Road, stated she has a problem hearing them and only
hears the Mayor and City Attorney. Mr, Johnson explained they start tomorrow
working on the ceiling and then they'll do the sound systems.
Jim Inman, 2948 Travelers Palm, stated they've been battling the sound system
8 years and improvements were a little better but you still can't hear a lot of
what's going on.
Mr. Inman stated the Fire Chief's vehicle is a red and white sedan and he
questioned where he got it because he was told it belongs to the City and it's
a used vehicle. He asked the year of the vehicle. Mayor Mitchum stated it was
a new vehicle under State bid. Mr. Johnson explained it was approved in the
budget earlier last year. Mr. Inman asked the date of the hearing. Mr. Johnson
replied during budget hearings it was approved and purchased through State bid.
Tom Owens, 1864 Travelers Palm, stated regarding fire hydrants, it would be a
good idea if the City Aatorney would look into the fact of levels of service
under the Comprehensive Plan and make sure they modify the distance between fire
hydrants that do not set a level of service and new developments that the City
will have to take tax dollars and go into existing areas to make fire hydrants
the same distances. Mr. Johnson explained they're not talking about the
Comprehensive Plan, but at the State adopted Life Safety Code required under
State law. Mr. Owens said he understands some may be modified under local levels
for the Life Safety Code and if the Comprehensive Plan adopts the Life Safety
and it can be modified they should check the services.
Mr. Owens stated regarding City vehicles and equipment, if they had an authorized
City motor pool anyone in any enterprise gets their vehicle from the City motor
pool and they could lease the vehicles from the pool and spread the cost over
a larger area.
Mike Rasimas, 302 S. Ridgewood Avenue, asked if the Police Chief reports to the
City Council. Mayor Mitchum replied no, he's a Department Head and reports to
the City Manager. Mr. Rasimas said he's having problems and didn't know who to
report them to.
ADJOURN.
Mayor Mitchum suggested a motion to adjourn. Councilman Gold so moved. Council-
man Hatfield seconded the motion. Meeti adjourned
Minutes submitted by: J1.
Lura Sue Koser t LJ.{}-
YOR
r
T
~
ATTEST:
L. r/;ih.-
CITY CLE
App 0 ed this 2.. day of
. ~ ~*--
13
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18, 1990