Fort Walton Beach Council minutes — 02-09-2010 special — reading text

at, MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF THE CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH, FLORIDA BUSINESS RETENTION PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND MERRILL LYNCH LEGAL ACTION FEBRUARY 9, 2010 INTRODUCTION A special meeting of the City Council of Fort Walton Beach, Florida, was held on Tuesday, February 9, 2010, at 5: 00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, with the following members present: Mayor Mike Anderson Councilmen: Mike Holmes, Dennis Reeves, Bill Garvie, Bobby Nabors, Bill Patterson, and Dick Rynearson Absent: Virgil Miller Also Present: Robert Mearns, City Manager; Helen Spencer, City Clerk; Toni Craig, City Attorney; Department Directors and Media CALL TO ORDER The Mayor called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone. He requested anyone who wished to address Council to approach the podium after being recognized, then state his or her name and address for the record. PLEDGE The Mayor led in the Pledge of Allegiance. The Mayor mentioned Mr. Miller is absent due to a relapse and asked everyone to keep him and his family in their prayers. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Garvie moved to approve the agenda as the business of the day. Mr. Patterson seconded motion and it carried unanimously with Holmes, Reeves, Garvie, Nabors, Patterson, and Rynearson in favor (Miller absent). BUSINESS RETENTION PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations and Findings of the Business Retention Panel (BRP). Michael Beedie, Engineering Services Director, introduced the members of the Business Retention Panel and stated the Chairman will present the final recommendations of the Panel. Barry Stafford, BRP Chairman, gave a brief overview of recommendations from the Panel which included increasing staff authority for approval and removing development review authority of the CRA to reduce the time and cost for site plan review and permitting; acknowledge the property rights of individuals; and extending the July 12, 2011 sign ordinance compliance date. 80 Special Council 2 -9 -10 BUSINESS RETENTION PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS cont. In response to the question on whether the Panel made a recommendation to do away with the CRA, Mr. Stafford explained the Panel is in favor of having a CRA, it was the process and they questioned the need for the Board when everything comes before City Council. The City Attorney noted the staff report used the word " sunset" which means it would close out the CRA Board and she sees that as doing away with the CRA. Tom Rice, BRP Vice -Chairman explained having the Board review plans has slowed down He said the CRA is an important tool and the recommendation is not to do away with projects. the CRA but to have City Council establish themselves as the CRA as a way to streamline the process. There was some question on whether other CRA Boards are governed by Council. The City Attorney stated the City' s CRA is not a model CRA; there are other CRA Boards that are completely independent, not advisory, and they are the final authority. There was some discussion on whether or not City Council sitting as the CRA Board would speed up the process. The City Attorney said there are some provisions that could be overcome but action may have to be delayed until the next Council meeting. There was a question on the recommendation that singles out the Historic Sites Board and property rights and whether the Historic Sites Board is the only Board that touches on property rights. Mr. Stafford expressed his thought that every Board touches on property rights. Mr. Rice discussed the ordinance regarding the demolition of a building 50 years or older that could take up to 90 days, and he mentioned that it is possible to rezone a person' s property without their request. Mr. Stafford thanked City Council for the opportunity to sit on the Panel. The City Attorney noted there is a recommendation regarding the sign ordinance and mentioned there is a Settlement Agreement with Lamar Signs that requires a review every two or three years; and it is not as clear for non -conforming signs. She said there has been no legal conclusion on any of the recommendations. Mr. Reeves moved to accept the Final Recommendation Report and direct staff to develop an action plan to implement those recommendations selected by City Council, at a future meeting, for further consideration. Mr. Garvie seconded motion. Mr. Rynearson thought it more appropriate for Council to have the meeting before staff develops the action plan. Mr. Reeves and Mr. Garvie accepted that as an amendment to the motion. i The Mayor called for the vote on the motion, as amended, and it carried unanimously with Holmes, Reeves, Garvie, Nabors, Patterson, and Rynearson in favor (Miller absent). MERRILL LYNCH LEGAL ACTION Council consideration of the City pursuing a lawsuit against Merrill Lynch for General Employee Pension Fund losses.  Special Council 2 -9 -10 81 MERRILL LYNCH LEGAL ACTION cont. The Finance Director introduced Gregory Miller, attorney with Beggs & Lane, who will go over the analysis of potential damages incurred by the City as a result of Merrill Lynch' s actions. Gregory Miller, attorney with Beggs & Lane, described his background experience as well as the experience of the other firms of Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Eschner & Proctor and Ledbetter & Associates involved in a lawsuit against Merrill Lynch and Michael Callaway on behalf of the Fort Walton Beach Firefighters Pension, and other pensions around the State. He gave some background on what occurred with Merrill Lynch and the examination by the SEC on potential conflicts of interest. He went over the preliminary damage assessment of the City' s fund with a conservative under performance estimate of $1. 315 million, without compounded damages; mentioned their review of the contract to determine if there is a soft dollar arrangement and whether there is a mandatory arbitration clause or a trial clause found there is no arbitration clause which leaves the option open on how best to go forward; that the dollar figure puts it over the limit where arbitration is not in the best interest of the City and they would recommend litigation on anything above $ 1 million. He described how they have been taking on these cases in the State of Florida on a contingency fee basis and would leave a contract for the City to review. In response to the question on why the City may not want to consider litigation, the City Attorney replied the only reason may be because of the amount of funds the City may lose on a contingency arrangement as compared to some other type of an arrangement for fees, and another issue is absolute recovery as this is not a class -action lawsuit. She stated that Beggs & Lane had received an old contract to review and suggested the City may want to ask them to give review of a specific contract as there may be some other provisions in that contract. There was reluctance expressed by Council to make a decision this evening on whether to pursue a lawsuit and it was agreed to defer the issue as an action item to the February 23rd Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT Being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5: 56 p.m. MAYOR: hd p L I 0* ATTYST: r/ I f tom / 1G% / ' ' ddm