Fort Walton Beach Council minutes — 06-22-2010 regular — reading text

Neighborhood Plan to complete the remaining phases of the Downtown Streetscape project, to complete the design and construction of parking areas along Brooks Street SE, and to complete the design and construction of new mast arm sign indicating heavy pedestrian areas downtown; and $ 52, 000 for sewer line replacement and pavement improvement.  0 1• J Regular Council. q 6 -22 -2010 CRA BUDGET TRANSFERS ( CONT) Mr. Beedie also discussed the purchase of a new mower for use specifically in the CRA area in the amount of $ 20,000 and the hiring of a full -time employee specifically for the maintenance of CRA areas for $40,000 annually. Council questioned whether there are any plans to move forward with the undergrounding of utilities on Eglin Parkway. Mr. Beedie responded it is his intent to meet with the various utility companies to develop an action plan to include costs to present to the Council. The Mayor asked for public input. Chris Gibson, 249 Brooks Street SE, discussed the length of time the undergrounding of Eglin Parkway would take and what, if any, effect it would have on businesses, and questioned whether the maintenance in the CRA area could be bid out instead of hiring an employee Mr. Nabors clarified for .Ms. Gibson, and the public, that there will be no new employee hired; rather, a current employee will be maintained and the position will be funded through the CRA. Mr. Nabors also clarified the maintenance that will be done is to maintain the public right of way in the CRA area, and not to maintain private businesses or residence in the CRA area. As there was no one else who wished to speak, public input was closed. Mr. Nabors moved to approve the revised FY 2009 -10 CRA Annual Budget to account for amendments to the Operational Budget, the Five -Year Capital Improvement Program, and the CRA Annual Action Plan. Mr. Reeves seconded motion and it carried unanimously with Holmes, gossom, Reeves, Minich, Nabors, and Rynearson in favor (Seat 6 Vacant). APPROVAL OF PLANNING ASSISTANCE FOR LDC Contract for planning assistance to achieve resolution of Land Development Code issues, and EAR response. Mr. Beedie advised the amendments to the Evaluation and Appraisal Report ( EAR) that were approved by the Council on January 12, 2010, were reviewed by the Florida Department of Community Affairs DCA), and the City has 120 days to respond to the DCA'S Objections, Recommendations and Comments ( ORC) Report. Mr. Beedie continued that because of the complex nature of the task and in order to expedite the process to revise the proposed amendments, Staff wishes to engage the services of a professional planner, Gail Easley of the Gail Easley Company, to supplement the work of the planning staff. Mr. Beedie informed that Mrs. Easley is a professional planner with over 30 years of experience in preparing EARs and EAR -based amendments to local governments through Florida, and that Mrs. Easley has proposed a not to exceed fee of $ 30,000 to 1) perform a detailed review and analysis of the EAR, proposed amendment 10 -1 ER, the ORC Report, the Comprehensive Plan, and the Eglin AFB Joint Land use Study, and prepare a detailed memorandum with findings and recommendations; 2) coordinate a joint meeting with the Municipal Planning Board, Council, and others to confirm or revise the recommended directions; 3) prepare a revised proposed amendment 10 -1 ER for review and approval by the Local Planning Agency ( MPB) and the Council; and 4) facilitate a workshop to present the revised proposed amendment 10 -1 ER to the MPB and Council. The proposed scheduled is approximately four months for completion. Discussion included the need for a consultant; that this is a specialized service; that Staff is short a planner that will probably not be replaced anytime soon; that this type of service does not need to go out for bid; and that Staff will be involved in the process and the consultant will be providing the guidance. 190 Regular Council 6 -22 -2010 PLANNING ASSISTANCE FOR LDC (CONT) Council questioned if Staff could do this work themselves and what other options are available. The City Manager responded that the current Staff has enough to do and the option would be to hire another planner at a salary of around $ 60,000 plus benefits, or $ 80, 000, and the decision was that hiring a consultant for $ 30,000 would be more cost -effective for the City. The Mayor asked for public input. Chris Gibson, 249 Brooks Street SE, advised that the City used the services of Ms. Easley in the 1990' s when the Vision Plan was first produced, and that she was very good at what she did. As there was no one else who wished to speak, public input was closed. Mr. Reeves moved to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with the Gail Easley Company of Crystal River, Florida, to evaluate and revise the proposed EAR -based amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan for a not to exceed amount of $30, 000; also, to authorize the City Manager to approve any additional meetings or workshops that are necessary to complete the revised proposed EAR -based amendment package at a not to exceed amount of $3, 300 per meeting or workshop. Mr. Nabors seconded motion and it carried by a vote of 4 to 2 with Reeves, Minich, Nabors, and Rynearson in favor and Holmes and gossom opposed ( Seat 6 Vacant). 651 POWELL DRIVE CODE ENFORCEMENT FINE SETTLEMENT Mr. Bolduc updated Council on the status of the Code Enforcement case for property located at 651 Powell Drive, and reported that as of this morning, the property is still in violation due to the non- compliance of the maintenance of the pool. Mr. Bolduc stated he received an e- mail from the owner that a contractor has been hired to clean and treat the pool, at which time the property would then be in compliance. The Mayor asked for public input. Doug Hutcheson, the attorney retained by the Brown family, owners of the property, explained that the family is in a ` catch -22' position with the insurance company, who felt the house could be rebuilt. Mr. Hutcheson stated the property has been secured and the family is doing all it can to come into compliance; the owner is in a nursing home and there are a lot of problems the family has to deal with; and their goal is to bring the property into compliance and hopefully have the fines reduced. As there was no one else who wished to speak, public input was closed. There was no action required by Council. LEGAL TEAM COSTS Mr. Reeves explained he brought this item to Council for discussion and review in regard to the attorneys representing the City, if there are any contractual agreement with those attorneys for services rendered, and the role of the City Attorney acting as a `gatekeeper' for the need for legal services. The City Attorney discussed her role as ' gatekeeper' explaining that in the event legal advice is needed for a matter not within her expertise, she would recommend legal counsel appropriate for the service, and that it is Council' s discretion whether or not to approve the recommendation. The City Attorney stressed that in no way does this limit the City Manager from finding or retaining legal counsel, and she stated that her scope of services has increased so that specialized legal services are few. The City Attorney also stressed the need for communication among herself, Council, and the City Manager, so that all parties are on the same page in regards to the scope of legal services provided.  191 Regular Council Am, . - 6 -22 -2010 LEGAL TEAM COSTS ( CONTI Discussion included the fact that at times special counsel may not provide information to a councilmember due to the circumstances of the legal issue, such as when they are representing the City as opposed to the City Council, which would be considered a conflict issue. Also discussed was the monthly retainer of the City Attorney, who advised she voluntarily placed herself on an hourly wage, and reduced that wage when the invoices became greater than the original monthly retainer. The City Attorney advised the work that she does differs from the city attorney's in neighboring cities, as her scope of work includes forfeitures and other issues. The City Attorney stated she is always available for the City Manager, Council, and Staff, and she is proud of the work she does for the City and proud that the City allows her to serve them. Mr. Holmes commented he has never been disappointed with the work of the City Attorney or her legal advice, and that she has always responded quickly and efficiently. Mr. Rynearson gave a vote of confidence for the City Attorney, stating she has always responded to his inquiries in a timely manner. Ms. gossom also stated she has been pleased with the guidance and advice she has received from the City Attorney. CITY MANAGER REPORTS The City Manager reported he attended a meeting with Senator Atwater on the oil spill and that the county and the City of Destin are carrying the burden, and that the result of the county's action was to expedite the permitting process. The City Manager stated the City of Fort Walton Beach is a few tiers back from being in the line of exposure because of its location, and the City is taking defensive action to defend the sensitive areas of the City from any influx of oil. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS The City Attorney presented background information on the City's Stormwater Utility charges, advising the City began charging user fees for the utility in October of 2008, and that the user fees are calculated, generally, on the amount of impervious surface of a property and billed accordingly on the monthly water bill. The City Attorney continued that the Okaloosa County School District has twelve educational and ancillary plants located within the City limits, and the City began charging the School District for the user fee in October of 2008. On November 17 of 2008, Jeff McInnis, the attorney for the School District, informed the City that it was his opinion that the School District should not be responsible for paying the user fees. The City Attorney stated she responded to Mr. McInnis that, in her opinion, the School District was not exempt from the stormwater utility user fee because the charge is a user fee and not an assessment or impact fee. In October 2009, Mr. McInnis contacted the City Attorney regarding a new appellate court decision that he believed supported his position that the School District was exempt from payment of the user fee, and after conducting research on the new case, the City Attorney confirmed her legal conclusion that the School District was not exempt from paying the stormwater utility charges. The City Attorney advised the City has continued billing the School District, and as of June 16, 2010, the School District has an outstanding balance of $ 24,417.02 for the stormwater