Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 10-09-2007 regular agenda — reading text

the conditions that were applied to the project. and he does not think It is fair to meet a new code that was not In effect at the time the project was approved. During further discussion. Mr. Crew was questioned about the accuracy of signage on the property as transient or office/ residential. Mr. Crew clarified that the project is office/residential and that a transient condo is considered a residential condo and that is what the sign on the property depicts. Mr. Minich stated that the applicant had reduced the height to meet the new height limitations and it was approved by Council, and all he is requesting is an extension to move forward with an already approved project. The City Manager stated she received today the City Attorney's legal opinion that Development Order or Development Agreement fees should apply in this case. She advised fees have not been applied in the past. but if the City Attorney believes that fees should apply, Staff will go back and revisit those issues as they apply. The City Attorney advised that was not the substance of her opinion; rather, the substance was that under the Code there Is either a land use application or zoning use change, or a Development Agreement modification. She stated what has been presented tonight is a Development Order, and that a ORC Review has been done, and it is her legal opinion that based on the Code and the fee schedule that at least $ 100. 00 should be pai~ for the DRC Review. Her legal opinion is that there has been a lot of misinterpretation regarding the code vs. fees. and sug ested-this is a-topic"that could-be-discussed at a future Council workshop. The City Manager advised that the fees have been paid. The CDS Director clarified that when the original site plan application was submitted, the applicant paid $ 1"00.00 fee for the ORC Review. She stressed that for site plan extensions, there Is no ORC Meeting held; therefore, there I.s no reason or justification to charge a fee for a review that did not occur. The CDS Director further explained that CRA site plans are a unique process only applicable to the CRA area, that they are conceptual site plans, not detaDed, and no fee was ever established for site plan applications. She advised that when the ORC Review process was started a few years ago, a $ 100.00 fee was added to the fee schedule. She stated that while the ORC i~: Review is an extra step in the development process, it is worthwhile as the developer and staff t. can discuss exactly what is needed. The CDS Director agreed that there Is a misunderstanding on the terms and the fee schedule, and that it is clear to those who have applied it for years. She advised that the updated Land Development Code will outline the procedures, and will be very specific in identifying the required fees. Hartwen commented that a workshop on f~ s would be beneficial in~ tlre. 2 5- 29-07 Specia1 Council ORDER OF AGENDA (CONTI Mr. Minich received clarification from the City Manager that Items 6 and 7 were placed on the.. rkshop items. agenda as requested by Mr. Miller as potential 'M:> The Mayor called for the vote to combine Items 5 and 7 and it carried unanimously with Holmes, Miller, Reeves, Garvie, Pullen, Hartwell, and Nlnich in favor. 0 Mr. Miller moved that Item 6, 'To define the resp'onslblllttes of the City Council and the relationship' of the Mayor so that activities In City Hall and In Council meetings will proceed more smoothly', be an agenda item. Dr.Pullen seconded mQtion. Mr. Miller stated his feeling that Council meetings are not conducted In an efficient manner and that to guidelines should be set, and that the authority of Mayor and Council needs to be addressed enhanc~ the efflc1ent handling of the meetings. . Mr..Hartwell stated this might be better addressed during the workshop on the Charter which is ~ planned for September. ~ . Mr. Minich also expressed his feeling this would be better addressed during a workshop meeting. M(. Garvie stated he would like the Issue discussed during a wOrkshop as soon as possible, separate from the charter discussion. The Mayor called for the vote on the moUon for Item 6 to be an item on the agenda and itfailed by a vote of 2 to 5 with Miller and Pullen in favor and Holmes, Reeves, Garvie, Hartwell, and Minich opposed. Mr. Miller moved to reverse the order of Item 3. ' Consideration of tbe Finance Director' s elJlployment and Item 4, ' Request for Council to negotiate contracts with/for termination,' the Finance Director and City Clerk.' Dr. Pullen seconded motion. . it was voted on' Mr. Mlllerstated Item 4 was an action Item from the May 22, 2007 Council meeting, Council and already scheduled for the agenda, and stressed its importance that it by the majority of should be discussed before the item regarding the employment termination of the Finance Director. The Mayor called for the vote on the motion and it carried by a vote of 5 to 2 with Miller, Reeves. Garvie, Pu1len. and Hartwell In favor and Holmes and Minich opposed. For clarification the Mayor explaIned that Items 1 and 2 !amain the same; the wording for Item 3 has been changed from reslQnation to emclovment termination: Items 3 and 4 have been reversed; Items 6 and 7 have been combined; and Item 6 has been deleted. PUBUC HEARING - ORD. 1730: SENIOR HOM:S1'EAD EXEMPTION The Mayor read the ordinance by title. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CiTY OF FORTWALTON BEACH, FLORIDA;AMENDING 4.04. 02, ENTITLEMENT, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO ESTABLISH AN SECTION ADDITIONAL HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION OF $50, 000 FOR CERTAIN PERSONS WHO HAVE ATTAINED THE D INCOMES DO NOT EXCEED $ 24, 214; AGE OF SIXTY-FIVE AND WHOSE HOUSEHOLD PROVIDING FOR AUiHORliY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Manager explained this is a constitutional amendment approved in November and if it is 2007 the ordinance must be on the Council' s desire for the exemption to occur during the taxyear, the books adopting the homestead exemption by June 1, 2007. d Regular Meeting 6/ 26/ 07 VOTING DELEGATE- FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES CONFEENCE Consideration of appointing a Voting Delegate for the Florida League of Cities Conference in August. The Voting Delegate form must be submitted to the FLOC by July 27, 2007. Mr. Minich nominated Mayor Anderson to be the Voting Delegate for the FLOC Conference in' August. Dr. Pullen nominated Virgil Miller to be the Voting Delegate for the FLOC Conference in August. The Mayor advised the vote would be taken in alphabetical order, and called for the vote on the nomination that he be the voting delegate to the FLOC Confereoce in August and it carried unanimously with Holmes, Miller, Reeves, Garvie, Pullen, Hartwell, and Minich in favor. Council agreed that the Mayor was the most highly qualified to represent the City at the League with his knowledge and experience of the past years. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Miller suggested that a log of suggestions be made for workshops scheduled in the future nd the topics. MAYOR/COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilman Minich mentioned Council has collective authority, not individual authority, and expressed displeasure over another Council member speaking for him on an issue that has not been voted on. Councilman Hartwell echoed the comments he did not like anyone speaking for him and all discussions should be in the Chamber. He commented on the flag pole height issue and expressed his concern that Pandora' s Box has been opened for high rise buildings 150' tall. Councilman Pullen commented on the vision plan and the height issue; expressed his hope that the four Charter Officers will work together as a team, and pointed out the Rnance Director has the sole responsibility for the money of the City. He mentioned at a future workshop Council should very seriously discuss how code enforcement is done. Councilman Garvie mentioned the 2nd Annual Workforce Summit he attended several weeks ago in Sandestin held in partnership with the Workforce Development Board of Okaloosa and Walton Counties, CHOICE Institutes of Okaloosa School District, Florida' s Great Northwest, Workforce Florida, Inc., and other State and Community partners. Councilman Reeves mentioned concern of employees for the City about the study undertaken to outsource possible jobs and expressed his feelings that positions for the people who work for the City are secure and if they need to downsize to look at ways other than just letting people go. He mentioned the City has a group of individuals that collectively take care of checks and balances for the City. Councilman Miller commented on the morale of the City and encouraged anyone to write to Council so they may know how they feel and gave assurance that Council Is going to maintain the benefits of the City employees. He then addressed his right of free speech when speaking with others and understanding that Council makes decisions as a collective body. Councilman Holmes mentioned the attractive medians on Miracle Strip Parkway; and commented on the many City employees that assisted with the clean up from an accident that closed Beal Parkway last week. 3  Page 1 of 1 Joyce Shanahan From: Virgil [ vmill63@yahoo. com] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 10: 28 AM To: Joyce Shanahan; Toni L Craig; Helen Spencer; Lisa Absher Subject: AgendaIWork Shop Item Dear Staff, As a follow-up to the discussion last night, would it be possible to have Lisa or Mark give the council a briefing on how the GEPF is structured and administered: How people qualify for it How many are in it How many retirees are in it Annual payout Projected payout How benefits are calculated Cost of living adjustments Any other pertinent information I am concerned that