Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 01-23-2007 regular agenda — reading text

workshop agenda and requested a ruling from the Chair. The City Attomey stated during a workshop the Council does not make a decision and it is within the Chairs prerogative as to whether there will be discussion on the items. There was some discussion on whether or not the items should be discussed at the workshop or at the regular Council meeting. Mr. Minich requested a ruling from the Chair. The Mayor Pro T em expressed his belief the items should not be brought up in a workshop then voted on at the regular Council meeting tonight as Council should ha\e more time to look at it. The City Attomey stated it is not really an issue of parliamentary procedure because of the fact that workshops are really not designated in Roberts Rules of Order, but once Council is in the workshop they are. She commented what she is hearing is that if there is not proper wording of the agenda item then it does leave a question on why it is there. She said if the agenda item is presented to the City Manager and it is not requesting an action, then she would construe that simply a discussion matter and it is not an action matter until it is further defined in the regular agenda. She said having them back to back does create a problem because Council has not had time to formulate what action, if any, may be necessary. She said at this point it is up to Council whether or not to discuss the items and go forward with the agenda as it is. Mr. Tucker moved to accept the two items on the workshop agenda and move forward with the agenda. Mr. Patterson seconded motion and it carried by a vote of 4 to 2 with Holmes, Patterson, Tucker, and Pullen in favor and Hartwell and Minich opposed. 142 Council Workshop 1- 9- 07 FEES FOR STUDENT TENNIS AND GOLF TEAMS Discussion on fees for student tennis and golf teams. Dr. Pullen expressed his belief there should not be a discrepancy between what is charged for different teams, that the same fees charged to tennis team members should be charged to golf team members. He mentioned other sport teams pay a fee and questioned why the school student teams should not pay a fee. He expressed his opinion that if student teams are charged to play tennis then they should a/ so pay to play golf. He wished to know Council' s thoughts. He also noted the resolution that established it is ten }ears old and they should be reviewed periodically. Mr. Minich mentioned that the golf teams have an informal arrangement for the students to perform volunteer work at the golf course and the teams play on a course at a time when it would not displace any business. Mr. Tucker questioned whether the tennis players perform any clean up work. Mr. Minich stated the tennis players pay a fee but do not do any work, and the golf teams do not pay a fee but do volunteer work instead. Mr. Holmes questioned if a problem has been presented or any complaints made. The City Manager stated she is unaware of any problems with regard to either the tennis or the golf club but the Golf Club Administrator may be able to speak on whether there have been any issues at the golf club. Jim Frazier, Golf Club Administrator, first asked the Mayor Pro Tem his experience when he played on the Choctawhatchee High School Golf Team. The Mayor Pro Tern stated the golf team helped in various different ways plus he paid to learn tennis at the tennis center and never helped pick up balls or pick weeds and thought it was a very fair system. He said he has not received any complaints about the too different aspects. Mr. Frazier said during 2006 approximately $ 10, 000 was spent by junior golfers on the golf course, that everyone pays their fair share and the practice sessions are the time free. He only they can play did not see a problem at the golf course. Dr.Pullen commented he brought up the issue for discussion and if everyone is happy with the way it is then he will withdraw it from the regular Council agenda. FEES FOR SECURITY SYSTEMS Discussion on fees for security systems. Dr. Pullen stated he brought up the item because he has been thinking about what was done when the Ordinance was passed to start registering security systems. He felt it is a disservice to the people who take the initiative to protect themselves and rather than discouraging people to install a system that they should be encouraged to install a security system. He understood the concern with false alarms and had no objection but did not think they needed to register the systems for the Police Department to track as another employee may be needed and it would be an unnecessary expense and effort on part of the City. He suggested the current ordinance can be amended or simply be eliminated and start over. It was questioned whether there is a problem with false alarms and whether the ordinance needed to be amended. The City Manager stated there was an issue about false alarms in 2005 and the Police Chief is working on an amendment to the ordinance because there are some aspects that seem counter- productive.  143 Council Workshop 1- 9- 07 FEES FOR SECURITY SYSTEMS cant. Ted Litschauer, Police Chief, explained the ordinance which addressed several issues was set to be put into place during the 2006 calendar year. He said the primary one, false alarms, is a drain on the resources, and there is an allowance of three alarms within a 12 month period with no charge. He explained the reason the police want a registration is so they have emergency contact information and by having an annual registration it would force people to update their information. He said a registration fee is unfair because an alarm system in a home or a business is not required. He would propose that it be changed to require the registration for the information and require the annual renewal so the information is not more than one year old, but eliminate the $50. 00 initial registration fee and $ 25. 00 annual fee and retain the provision that if they fail to register there is a $ 100. 00 charge once they are notified and retain all other fee provisions in the ordinance. It was questioned why the Police Department would need information on all residents that have an alarm system as it seemed to be more work for the police department when it should be the responsibility of the alarm company to provide the contact information when they notify the Police Department about an alarm. The Police Chief explained because of the nature of police work they have automatic number indexing, automatic locator indexing on their telephone systems that has information about the people at the addresses in their computer banks for dispatch, but to have contact information in the event they are not at the home or the business is helpful so it would not tie up an officer at an unsecured location. He further mentioned that people were upset when the registration fee was initiated, so they have secured those who have already paid so it can be refunded should Council act favorably on the suggestion, and for those who have not registered they were asked to hold it and they would be notified once Council decides on the proposed revisions. The City Attomey was asked whether it would be easier to rescind the ordinance and start over or to make revisions. The City Attomey commented ideas have been discussed and with any legislation this size amendments are made to those provisions that are not working because there are many provisions that are satisfactory. She suggested they look at the parts that are not working and amend what they have. It was agreed staff should take a comprehensive look at the ordinance and bring back recommended changes that need to be made. BROOKS BRIDGE PARKING LOT PROJECT Discussion on Brooks Bridge parking lot project. Tom Murray, Public Works Director, noted the project has been in the works since FY 04/ 05 to construct a parking lot under the Brooks Bridge area on the north side of Brooks Street. He pointed out the most feasible layout involves incorporating parking by Pat's Bait and Tackle, and the parking lot for that commercial business is on State property right- of-way. He said in order to make a feasible parking lot they would have to reconfigure the parking lot and the net gain is only 11 parking spaces. He wished to seek Council' s guidance on whether they wish to place this on a regular agenda for further discussion, which staff recommends be done with the objective for canceling the project. He explained the reason is they found a feasible layout but it is an extremely costly project for a very small benefit. He noted the break down of the cost issues for the project as well as the issues on property ownership, access, the number of parking spaces, the cost per parking space, safety, utilities conflicts, and drainage. He said the City currently has $83, 500 available for the project but staff feels that could be better utilized elsewhere within the CRA area. The City Manager confirmed she reviewed and concurred with the staff recommendation. It was commented there is a parking problem downtown and a parking study is being done, and it was questioned why staff would recommend the project not go forward. The City Manager stated from staff perspective that even if the additional 19, or net 11 , spaces were added that they would be sorely underutilized as they are not within the direct pattem of traffic flow in the downtown. 144 Council Workshop 1- 9- 07 BROOKS BRIDGE PARKING LOT PROJECT cont. The Public Works Director noted the original project projection was for 25- 30 stalls, not for a net gain of 11, so the net cost has gone up. Mr. Patterson commented the