Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 02-09-2010 Special-BRP, Merrill Lynch lawsuit — reading text

AGENDA CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH SPECIAL MEETING February 9, 2010 5: 00pm CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. ACTION - DISCUSSION ITEMS 2. 1 Discussion — Recommendations and Findings of the Business Retention Panel ( BRP). Synopsis: The chairperson of the BRP will present the report. ( Barry Stafford, BRP Chairperson) 2. 2 Action — Council consideration of the City pursuing a lawsuit against Merrill Lynch for General Employee Pension Fund losses. Synopsis: The Attorneys seeking the lawsuit, Beggs & Lane, will present the basis for said suit. ( Finance Director /City Attorney) 3. ADJOURNMENT Any person who decides to appeal any decision made with respect to any matter at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. ( Chapter 286.0105 F.S.) The City of Fort Walton Beach adheres to the American with Disabilities Act and will make reasonable modifications for access to this meeting upon request. Please call City Clerk Helen Spencer at 850 -833- 9509 to make a request. For Hearing Impaired dial the City Hall TDD # 850- 833 -9925 or 1- 800 -955- 8771 ( TDD) or 1- 800 -955 -8770 ( Voice). Requests must be received at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting in order to allow the City time to provide requested service. City Council Special Meeting February 9, 2010  CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING February 9, 2010 Special Meeting Agenda Approval of Agenda Agenda Item Number: 1  CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING February 9, 2010 Special Meeting Agenda Discussion Recommendations and Findings of the Business Retention Panel ( BRP) Synopsis: The chairperson of the BRP will present the report Agenda Item Number: 2. 1  CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Chairman and Members of the Ad -Hoc Business Retention Panel Date: February 2, 2010 Subject: Final Recommendation Report of the Business Retention Panel 1. BACKGROUND: 1. 1. On June 23, 2009, City Council adopted Resolution 2009 -24 establishing a Business Retention Ad -Hoc Panel ( BRP) with a mission statement " to identify obstacles and improve and stabilize the local opportunities the City may consider to ultimately economy and provide an action report on said measures to the City Council ". 1. 2. The ultimate goal of the BRP is to develop a Final Recommendation Report to the City Council which identifies and recommends actions the City can implement to " support economic recovery, help City residents' access resources to allay the recession' s impacts, and improve the City' s overall business climate ". 1. 3. The Business Retention Panel is comprised of a cross section of the City' s local Represented industries sharing first -hand experience with the City' s business practices. a Downtown are the chief executive officer of Emerald Coast Association of Realtors, of a large employer within the Commerce and restaurant proprietor, president West Florida' s Small Business Technology Park, director of the University of Administration, investment bank manager, and owner of an engineering firm. The BRP held a total of seven public meetings. On December 10, 2009, the BRP directed into Staff to Final a consolidate the Panel' s recommendations from the seven meetings Recommendation Report for review and approval by the BRP at their January 28, 2010, meeting. 2. SUMMARY OF BRP ACTION ITEMS: 2. 1. After consideration of public comments regarding issues critical to business retention and expansion, the Business Retention Panel respectfully requests that City Council consider the following actions: 2. 1. 1. Expand the category for expedited and minor projects in order to increase Staff - level review and approval authority. This will reduce the time and cost for site plan review and project permitting.  2. 1. 1. 1. Preparing items for Board review requires time and resources which cost both the developer and the tax payer. The City Engineer and Staff should have final review authority for items such as re -plats and minor conditional use permit requests. 2. 2. Amend the City' s Land Development Code ( LDC) to remove the development review authority of the Community Redevelopment Agency ( CRA). 2. 2. 1. Neither the interlocal agreement nor State statutes provides for the CRA' s development review authority. The CRA' s mission is the prioritization of the CRA Plan' s work program in order to provide capital improvement projects to revitalize the CRA area and ultimately increase property values. The CRA derives its private sector development project review authority from the City' s Land Development Code ( LDC), not statute, and reviews projects for compliance with the LDC. The result is a subjective, disjointed, and costly process. It adds time to a development application that has little or no value added. 2. 3. The City Council should sunset the Community Redevelopment Agency Board of Commissioners as a citizen' s advisory committee to City Council. 2. 3. 1. The City Council should perform the functions of the CRA Board. The CRA special district is an important tool for revitalization by reinvesting in the area to increase property values, but the CRA Board has become something larger than originally intended by having the ability to review plans for development. The CRA Board, as currently structured, has served to slow down or even inhibit development in the City. 2. 4. The City should review its policies and practices with respect to the need to acknowledge the right of private property owners in regards to their properties. 2. 4. 1. City Council should review the activities, the ordinances, the membership, and the qualifications for said membership for the Historic Sites and Structures Advisory Board. 2. 5. The City should implement plans in the Land Development Code to offer flexibility and incentives for redevelopment upon certain conditions. 2. 5. 1. The updates to the new Comprehensive Plan provide for such incentives, generally. Changes to the LDC should include specifics for the City' s bonus system. In addition, the LDC should not treat redevelopment the same as new construction. Special development review criteria should be developed for infill redevelopment. 2-  2. 6. Maximize the incentive potential of the CRA to encourage private reinvestment with proper cost/benefit analyses. 2. 6. 1. The economic stimulus programs within the CRA should be increased to provide further incentives for costly infill development —when the potential tax return warrants the initial investment. 2. 7. Re- evaluate the adopted comprehensive fee schedule to allow for incentives and fee waivers or reductions for new development and redevelopment. 2. 7. 1. Criteria should be established so that a new, relocating, or expanding business can qualify for fee waivers or reductions when the economic return warrants such an incentive. The criteria should be based on qualitative cost/benefit analyses such as increased taxes, and additional money generated through construction activity, jobs created. 2. 8. The City Council should review the existing sign ordinance, which establishes that all nonconforming signs must conform to the City' s sign ordinance by July 12, 2011. 2. 8. 1. While it is important for signs to eventually conform to the City' s sign ordinance, the current economic recession makes this a financial hardship for businesses at the present time. The City Council should consider extending the date for compliance. incentives program that encourages 2. 9. The City Council should adopt an economic industries to relocate within the City limits. part of its Economic City will consider an incentives program as 2. 9. 1. The Implementation Plan in the near future. The program should provide incentives for businesses to relocate within City limits under certain criteria. The criteria