08-28-06MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING
August 28, 2006
CITY HALL, 800 SEMINOLE ROAD
Attendance IN ATTENDANCE:
Mayor Donald Wolfson City Manager Jim Hanson
Mayor Pro Tem J. Dezmond Waters III City Clerk Donna L. Bussey
Commissioner Mike Borno City Attorney Alan C. Jensen
Commissioner Sylvia N. Simmons
Commissioner Jamie Fletcher
Call to Order/Pledge Mayor Wolfson called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag followed the Invocation, given by Mayor Wolfson.
Mayor Wolfson explained he intended to keep the agenda in order except for Item 4 C
on the Consent Agenda which needs a Public Hearing and therefore will be addressed
during Miscellaneous Business.
Mayor acknowledged that many citizens were present to speak in regards to Item 7A
and explained they should wait until the Public Hearing for that Ordinance is opened.
Further instructs were given.
Mayor Wolfson acknowledged former Mayors John Meserve and Bill Gulliford and
former Commissioner Rick Beaver who were in the audience.
Approval of Minutes 1. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Commission Meeting on August 14,
2006
Commissioner Borno noted there were ten (10) typographical errors which where
caught and were provided with blue highlighting for consideration.
Motion: To aonrove the minutes of the Regular Commission Meeting on August
14, 2006 with the ten (10) highlighted corrections.
Moved by Borno, seconded by Waters
Votes:
Aye: 5 -Borno, Fletcher, Simmons, Waters, Wolfson
Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED
Courtesy of the Floor 2. Courtesy of the Floor to Visitors
The Mayor opened the floor to visitors.
Chip Drysdale, 2051 Seminole Road, spoke regarding a permit problem. He
presented background information on his plans to renovate and his multiple,
unsuccessful attempts to get it approved and permitted. He advised he asked the City
Manager if a private inspector could be used and was told he could not due to quality
Au¢ust 28.2006 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Paee 2
concerns. He further advised that he spoke to the former Building Inspector Don Ford
and confirmed that private inspectors may be used and it has been common practice.
Mr. Drysdale distributed a copy of the Florida Statutes which addresses the situation
and asked the Commission if he could use a private "certified" inspector or engineer for
his project.
Mayor Wolfson acknowledged Mr. Drysdale's concerns and clarified some
information. He noted he heard about it, discussed it with the City Manager, and asked
the City Manager to research for justification on the delays.
Mayor Wolfson asked the City Manager to give an update on his findings. City
Manager Jim Hanson reported that our current Building Administrator is following the
Building Code and is requiring things that were not required by the former Building
Official and has caused many plans to be sent back which causes delays. He also
reported that Inspections are performed within one day therefore believed hiring a
private inspector is not necessary. He expressed concerns on quality control with using
outside inspectors.
Discussion ensued regarding the city's contracted Building Administrator.
Commissioner Simmons expressed concerns but explained that an item brought up
during the Courtesy of the Floor to Visitors was not the proper time to take action.
Mayor Wolfson assured Mr. Drysdale that they would follow up on the issue.
Alan W. Potter, 374 2°d Street, addressed Item 8A. Mr. Potter expressed concerns
about the appraisal amount of the church property for the proposed Hopkins Creek
Retention Facility and urged the Commission to not acquire the land.
Bob Gray, 350 Sixth Street, spoke regarding his permit problem. He indicated his
plans had also been sent back with multiple comments and believed more than half
were a result of the Building Administrator skipping over information that was
provided. He requested the city look into problems with the building permit process in
order to resolve unnecessary delays.
Unfinished Business 3. Unfinished Business from Previous Meeting
from Previous Meeting A. City Manager's Follow-up Report
City Manager Jim Hanson referred the Commission to his written Follow-up Report,
which is attached and made part of this official record as Attachment A. His report
addressed the following: Signage at Plaza. Street Entrance to Post Office; Traffic
Concurrency; Request for Three Way Stop at Plaza/Rose Street; and Streetlight Policy.
City Manager Jim Hanson also reported that the hurricane shutters are now being
installed on the Commission Chambers.
Consent Agenda 4. Consent Agenda
A. Acknowledge receipt of Monthly Building Department Report for June 2006
and July 2006, Monthly Financial Reports, Public Safety Report and Code
Enforcement Report for July 2006 (City Manager)
August 28, 20116 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 3
B. Approve renewal of employee Health Insurance with Aetna effective October 1,
2006 for a one yeaz period and retain the current benefits and City/employee
contribution ratios (City Manager)
C. *Approval of aUse-by-Exception for Landshazk Cafe to allow for the on-
premise consumption of beer and wine in association with a restaurant within
the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District at 1013 Atlantic Boulevazd
within the Atlantic Village Shopping Center (City Manager)
*Mayor Wolfson reminded the Commission that Item 4C has been removed from the
Consent agenda and will be acted on later as a Public Hearing Item.
Motion: To approve Consent Agenda Items 4A and 4B as presented
Moved by Waters, seconded by Fletcher
Votes:
Aye: 5 - Borno, Fletcher, Simmons, Waters, Wolfson
Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED
Committee Reports 5. Committee Reports
None.
Action on Resolutions 6. Action on Resolutions
A. RESOLUTION NO.06-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A MAINTENANCE CONTRACT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH AND THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
Mayor Wolfson read the Resolution by title only.
Commissioner Fletcher asked whether there are any areas that the city maintains that
are not on the list to be reimbursed by the Florida Department of Transportation. City
Manager Hanson believed that all the areas on the state right-of--way aze listed.
Commissioner Fletcher asked whether areas near Fleet Landing were being maintained
and whether the City is reimbursed. Public Works Director Rick Carper answered the
city is maintaining a small area North of the Kangazoo station where the Welcome to
Atlantic Beach sign is located and the City is not being reimbursed.
Commissioner Waters questioned the amount of reimbursement compared to last year.
City Manager Hanson explained there is an increase to the reimbursement which is
due to areas being added to the contract.
Motion: To aourove this maintenance agreement contract renewal with the
Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT), and that the Commission pass
Resolution No. 06-09 approving the new contract as required by the FOOT, and
authorize the City Manager to sign the Renewal Agreement.
Au¢ust 28, 2006 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Paee 4
Moved by Borno, seconded by Waters
Votes:
Aye: 5 -Borno, Fletcher, Simmons, Waters, Wolfson
Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED
B. RESOLUTION N0.06-10
A Resolution of the City Commission of the City of Atlantic Beach, expressing concern
related to the potential for adverse traffic impacts, which may be generated by a
proposed Wal-Mart, within the City of Neptune Beach adjacent to the City of Atlantic
Beach.
Motion: Approval of Resolution No. 06-10 as submitted except with a change to
add the word. "failed" before the word Kroadwav" in the fourth Whereas
statement.
Moved by Borno, seconded by Fletcher
Commissioner Waters asked the City Attorney for his opinion on adding the word
"failed". City Attorney Jensen commented "failed" based on whose opinion.
Community Development Director Sonya Doerr shared the same concern.
Commissioner Fletcher referred to the Neptune Beach traffic study.
Commissioner Borno withdrew his motion. Commissioner Fletcher withdrew his
second.
Motion: Approve Resolution No. 06-10 as written
Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Borno
Discussion ensued. Mayor Wolfson reminded the Commission that the City Attorney
cautioned them about singling out Wahnart. He expressed concern on the wording of
the Resolution and suggested replacing the word "Walmart" with "retail supercenter"
throughout the Resolution.
Motion: To amend the original Resolution No. 06-10.
Moved by Waters, seconded by Fletcher
Votes:
Aye: 5 -Borno, Fletcher, Simmons, Waters, Wolfson
Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED
Motion: To appove the amended Resolution No 06-10 which replaces the word
"Wahnart" with Kretail supercenter" throughout the Resolution
Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Borno
August 28, 2006 REGllLAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 5
Votes:
Aye: 5 - Borno, Fletcher, Simmons, Waters, Wolfson
Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED
Action on Ordinances 7. Action on Ordinances
A. ORDINANCE N0.90-06-195, Introduction and Public Hearing
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, COUNTY OF DUVAL,
STATE OF FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 90-01-172, SAID
ORDINANCE RE-ADOPTING CHAPTER 24, AND INCLUDING ALL
SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS THERETO, THIS ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY
AMENDING ARTICLE III, DIVISION 7, SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS, OF
THE CODE OF ORDINANCES FOR THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH,
FLORIDA IS HEREBY AMENDED TO ADD NEW SECTION 24-172,
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, PROVIDING FOR
RECORDATION AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mayor Wolfson explained the process for citizens to speak during the Public Hearing.
Mayor Wolfson read the ordinance by title only. He opened the public hearing.
The following citizens spoke during the public hearing on Ordinance No 90-06-195
Robert (Bob) Harris, Sr., 892 Ocean Blvd., spoke in opposition
Lizzie Byrnes, 391 Eighth Street, spoke in opposition
Former Mayor John Meserve, 2126 Beach Avenue, spoke in opposition
Former Mayor Bill Gulliford, 75 Beach Avenue, spoke in opposition
Jane Wytzka, 352 Second Street, spoke in favor
Stephen Fouraker, 387 Sixth Street, spoke in favor
Lindley Tolbert, 334 Sixth Street, spoke in opposition
Bobby Raymond, 380 Ninth Street, spoke in opposition
Brian Sezton, 320 Ninth Street, spoke in opposition
Carol Mikell, 1771 Sea Oats Drive, spoke in opposition
Larry Whitehead, 550 Sherry Drive, spoke in opposition
Jack Robbins, 1435 Linkside Drive, spoke in favor
Lynette Tyson, 110 Eighth Street, spoke in opposition
Bryan Barker, 620 Beach Avenue, spoke in opposition
Leah Barker, 620 Beach Avenue, spoke in opposition
Sharon Scholl, 2049 Selva Marina Drive, spoke in favor
Joan Carver, 46 Fifteenth Street, spoke in favor
Sue Snead, 261 Beach Avenue, spoke in opposition
David MacInnes, 373 Fifth Street, spoke in opposition
Mike Witherspoon, 679 Ocean Blvd., spoke in opposition
Jim Campbell, 2055 Beach Avenue, spoke in opposition
Bob Castro, 412 Ocean Blvd. ,spoke in opposition
R.D. De Carle, 51 Beach Blvd. ,spoke in opposition
Gabriele Polytinsky, 158 Sixteenth Street, spoke in favor
Richard Bell, 1952 Beachside Court, spoke in favor
Steve Milo, 417 Ocean Blvd. ,spoke in opposition
Au¢ust 28, 2006 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING pose
Mary Dove, 125 Donner Road, spoke in opposition
Sarah Barksdale, 377 Eighth Street, spoke in favor
Fran Beaver, 319 Twelfth Street, spoke in apposition
Rick Beaver, 319 Twelfth Street, spoke in opposition
Judy Sheklin, 1985 Brista De Maz Circle, spoke in favor
Ian Sean McAfee, 824 Sherry Drive, spoke in opposition
Margo Mudge, 1549 Ocean Blvd. ,spoke in opposition
Stephen Kuti, 1132 Linkside Drive, spoke in opposition
Joe O'Conor, 350 Eleventh Street, spoke in opposition
Jim Smith, 1958 Beachside Court, spoke in opposition
Ross Weeks, 380 Eighth Street, spoke in apposition
Pam McCrary, 226 First Street, spoke in opposition
Leslie Platock, 1640 Beach Avenue, spoke in opposition
Kirk Hansen, 2393 Ocean Breeze Court, spoke in opposition
John Fletcher, 672 Ocean Blvd. ,spoke in opposition
Bonnie Weigand, 369 Plaza, spoke in opposition
Mike Mesiano, 1375 Ocean Blvd. ,spoke in opposition
Andrew Ferguson, 1270 Ocean Blvd. ,spoke in opposition
Mary Love, 265 Third Street, spoke in opposition
Glenn Gaynon, 162 Belvedere Street, spoke in opposition
Sally Clemens, 1638 Pazk Terrace West, spoke in favor
David Dally, 723 Sherry Drive, spoke in opposition
David Boyer, 2061 Beach Avenue, spoke in favor
Amy Pritchett, 1960 Beach Avenue, spoke in opposition
Rusty Pritchett, 1960 Beach Avenue, spoke in opposition
Margaret Sherrill, 1772 Sea Oats Drive, spoke in opposition
Chuck Hyman, 239 Beach Avenue, spoke in opposition
Jill Shreit, 848 Ocean Blvd. ,spoke in opposition
Thomas Shreit, 848 Ocean Blvd. ,spoke in opposition
Tom Goodrich, 1907 Creekside Circle, spoke in opposition
Kathie McGuinness, 1629 Beach Avenue, spoke in opposition
Jana Ray 5ternfeld, 2248 Bazefoot Trace, spoke in opposition
George Mayforth, 10 Tenth Street, spoke in opposition
Jolyn Johnson, 2322 Beachcomber Trail, spoke in favor
Beth Mullaney, 315 Plaza, spoke in opposition
Steve Chavoustie, 335 Second Street, spoke in opposition
Kathy Ondrejicka,1750 Selva Marina Drive, spoke in opposition
Bonnie Hansen, 2393 Ocean Breeze Court, spoke in opposition
John Galeani, 1628 Beach Avenue, spoke in opposition
Harley Parkes, 1838 Seminole Road, spoke in opposition
Sandy Parkes, 1838 Seminole Road, spoke in opposition
Jackie Beckenbach, 2210 Oceanwalk Drive West, spoke in favor
Peter Coalson, 1610 Coquina Place, spoke in opposition
Former Mayor Lyman Fletcher, 804 East Coast Drive, spoke in favor
Penny Kamish, 193 Beach Avenue #l, spoke in opposition
Chuck Olmsted, 1670 Beach Avenue, spoke in opposition
Kelly Elmore, 1650 Beach Avenue, spoke in opposition
Mayor Wolfson closed the Public Hearing and called a recess at 10:42 pm.
Au~st 28, 2006 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Pace 7
Mayor Wolfson called the meeting back to order at 10:51 pm
Mayor Wolfson explained that many speakers expressed emotion, compassion and
anguish. He expressed sadness over what has happened to the Community over the last
yeaz and has been a loss for all. He believed this issue is the most difficult issue he has
ever been involved in but is glad to be a part of it. He shazed his opinion that this issue
has brought on divisiveness that will not be easy to bring back together. He expressed
his sadness that his neighbors, citizens and friends will have to walk down their streets
and feel anguish and torment caused by this Community Character issue. Mayor
Wolfson expressed his respect for the Save Atlantic Beach movement.
Motion: To aaprove Ordinance No. 90-06-195 on the first reading
Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Simmons
Commissioner Bomo expressed his opposition to the proposed Ordinance as it is
written. He explained some things in the Ordinance has value and can be combined
with our existing ordinance to control bulk and mass. He believed that a FAR is
dictatorial and a number can never be determined to describe the diverse community
character of homes throughout the whole city.
Commissioner Borno believed that the following factors should be incorporated in an
ordinance: Wall plane heights, side wall planes, special treatment for lawful existing
single and multifamily homes, and structures that aze damaged and destroyed.
Commissioner Borno expressed sadness to friendships being affected by this issue.
Commissioner Waters explained that the process has been going on for more than two
years and something needs to be done. He further explained that if the FAR does not
work, it can be changed in the future. He believed property values will still go up if the
ordinance is passed and expressed he does not live in Atlantic Beach for the dollaz
value of his property. He hopes to preserve the way of life the community is used to.
He provided a history of height issues and effects from past decisions.
Commissioner Simmons explained she does live in "Old Atlantic Beach" and that her
decision is neighborhood driven. She spoke to many citizens on both sides of the issues
over the past three years and have studied and considered components such as: her
house; her neighbor's houses; landscaping; pedestrian-friendly front doors and porches;
reaz detached garages five-feet from property lines; numbers that aze considerably
different than the consultants numbers; preserving and protecting the neighborhood
while still allowing for newer and larger developments; community character; and
property values.
Commissioner Fletcher explained the Community Character issue has been studied for
three years and he is ready to vote.
Mayor Wolfson explained there are many people with a misunderstanding of the
calculations and gave an example of one. He agreed that the issue can be confusing.
Mayor Wolfson read from a FCCMA White Paper, titled Florida Hometown
Democracy Initiative regarding the legislative process and was sent out by the Florida
August 28.2006 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING page g
League of Cities. This document is attached and made part of this official record as
Attachment B.
After Mayor Wolfson read the article, he noted that citizens in opposition have
indicated they represent the majority and have requested for a straw vote. He
explained, in some instances, it tramples the rights of others. He summarized the
history of the Community Character process and the concerns of the other
Commissioners regarding Community Character. He urged everyone to respect the
government process. He confirmed that he has been listening closely to citizen's
comments and has even received personal treats. He believes the fabric of the
community is at risk.
Mayor Wolfson expressed the FAR is a bit restrictive and needs to be broader. He is in
favor of some kind of limits on the community; some protection for those who believe
their rights are being trampled on and protection for those who believe they have
property rights issues that are being limited. He is interested in finding a medium. He
stated his position of wanting a .60 FAR.
Mayor Wolfson called for a Roll Call.
Roll Call Vote:
Fletcher Aye
Simmons Aye
Waters Aye
Borno Nay
Wolfson Nay
Votes: 312
MOTION CARRIED
Community Development Director Sonya Doerr asked the Mayor to address the Public
Hearing for Item 4C, which was changed to a Miscellaneous Business item, at this
time.
Mayor Wolfson agreed to take the item out of sequence and address it at this time.
Item 4C being taken 4C. *Approval of aUse-by-Exception for Landshark Cafe to allow for the on-
out of sequence. premise consumption of beer and wine in association with a restaurant within the
Commercial General (CG) Zoning District at 1013 Atlantic Boulevard within the
Atlantic Village Shopping Center (City Manager)
City Manager Hanson advised that the Community Development Board had
recommended approval of this Use-by-Exception request. Ms. Doerr referred to her
staff report and noted the space was formerly occupied by restaurants which had beer
and wine licenses, but that since the space does not hold a current Occupational License
or 2-COP license, a new Use-by-Exception is required.
Mayor Wolfson opened the floor to a public hearing on this item.
August 28.2006 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 9
Corey Fox, owner of the Landshark Cafe explained his wishes to serve beer and
wine at the restaurant.
Mayor Wolfson closed the public hearing.
Motion: Approve aUse-bv-Exception for Landshark Cafe to allow for the on-
premise consumption of beer and wine in association with a restaurant within the
Commercial General (CG) Zoning District at 1013 Atlantic Boulevard with the
Atlantic Village Shopping Center.
Moved by Borno, seconded by Simmons
Votes:
Aye: 5 -Borno, Fletcher, Simmons, Waters, Wolfson
Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED
Action on Ordinances B. ORDINANCE NO. 20-06-80, Introduction and First Reading
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA FOR FISCAL YEAR
BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 2005 AND ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2006
Mayor Wolfson read the ordinance by title only.
Motion: Approve Ordinance No. 20-06-80 as presented on first reading
Moved by Borno, seconded by Waters
Commissioner Borno explained the purpose of the ordinance.
Votes:
Aye: 5 -Borno, Fletcher, Simmons, Waters, Wolfson
Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED
Miscellaneous Business 8. Miscellaneous Business
A. Hopkins Creek Regional Retention Facility -Land Purchase (City Manager)
City Manager Hanson explained the background of this item. He advised that a public
hearing would be held tonight and that the consultants aze in the audience.
Mike Schmidt, P.E., BCEE, Vice President of Camp, Dresser and McKee,
446 Inland Way, explained he was there to address questions that have come up and to
address the last step in the long-term flood control water quality improvement project
for the city which is attached an made part of this official record as Attachment C. He
presented a slide show. His presentation addressed the plan to handle flooding and
explained that conveying the water downstream would cause flooding in Neptune
Beach. He suggested storing the water, which not only reduces the flooding but is good
in terms of protecting downstream interest, protecting water quality and making the
system consistent with Federal and State Legislation.
August 28.2006 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Pace 10
He reported the actions taken over the last decade that contributed to the decrease in
flooding. He displayed and explained the project as the most appropriate option when
considering the cost and benefits from the investment. He indicated the project will get
it down below houses and has the streets passable.
Mr. Schmitt answered questions from the Commission and explained the timeline for
the project.
Mayor Wolfson opened the floor to a Public Hearing on this item.
Stephen Kuti,1132 Linkside Drive, questioned the size of the drainage area that will
drain to the ponds.
Public Works Director Rick Carper answered that it is 53 acres
Motion: Authorize the Citv Manager to complete the purchase of the land
required for the Hopkins Creek Regional Retention Facility with Sunrise
Community Church.
Moved by Simmons, seconded by Borno
Commissioner Borno explained the reason the price of the land is high is because the
land is considered high density.
Alan Potter spoke up and presented a copy of the appraisal. He believed that the
appraisal included 8.5 acres instead of 2 acres. Mayor Wolfson reviewed the handout
and confirmed with Mr. Carper that the appraisal was based on 2 acres.
Commissioner Fletcher called the question. Commissioner Simmons seconded.
Votes:
Aye: 5 - Borno, Fletcher, Simmons, Waters, Wolfson
Nay: 0-
MOTION CARRIED
Mayor Wolfson thanked Mr. Schmidt for his work on the project.
B. Report of the Annual Actuarial Valuation for Police Officers' Retirement
System and for General Employee Retirement Systems ending September
30, 2005 (City Manager)
City Manager Hanson explained both reports were provided to the Commission in their
agenda packets and set forth the rates that the City has to contribute for the employees'
funds for the coming year.
Mr. Hanson answered questions from the Commission.
C. Reclassification of the Secretary position in the City Clerk's Office (City
Clerk)
Au ust 28.2006 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 11
City Clerk Bussey explained her recommendation as indicated in her staff report and
noted that it is the same as it was at the last meeting when action was deferred. She
explained her reasons for the request and the need for paying the position properly. She
believed since the proposed "Administrative Assistant" job description was not scored
with the Certified Municipal Clerk (CMC} designation factor, extra points should be
added and thus raise the position up another grade upon obtaining that Certification.
She explained the process and criteria for obtaining the CMC.
Mr. Hanson indicated that his recommendation has not changed from the last meeting.
Commissioner Simmons expressed that she would like to break it out into two motions.
Motion: To approve the reclassification of the "Secretary" position from a Grade
15 to a Grade 17, change the title to "Administrative Assistant to the Citv Clerk"
and place into the pay scale using normal city procedures
Moved by Simmons, seconded by Borno
Commissioner Simmons reported her research from discussions with City Manager
Hanson, City Clerk Bussey and Human Resource Manager Foster. She believed the
logical and more appropriate grade for the proposed Administrative Assistant to the
City Clerk job description would be a Grade 17. She pointed out the other similar
administrative positions are called Administrative Assistants, their classified at a Grade
17, and they do not require a college education.
Commissioner Waters wanted clarification why the Grade should not start at 16.
Commissioner Simmons explained 1) there aze factors for scoring a job 2) all other
Administrative Assistants score at a Grade 17 and 3) there are no other positions
scoring at a Grade 16 that have these administrative responsibilities.
Commissioner Waters believed the motion should be amended to include the second
part of the recommendation which he stated "In addition, create a position called
Deputy City Clerk at a Grade 18 to which the Administrative Assistant would
automatically advance upon receiving the Certified Municipal Clerk (CMC) status. He
believed that someone with a CMC is more likely to have a higher level of education or
a college degree. Ms. Bussey explained that a college degree was not a previous
requirement for the CMC, but for those people who have not started the CMC's 3-year
program, a college degree requirement will be in effect by the time they can apply for
the Certification.
Mayor Wolfson asked for clarification from Commissioner Waters whether he is
making a motion to amend. Commissioner Waters agreed that it was his intent to make
the motion and Mayor Wolfson asked for a second.
Motion: To amend the motion to include, "In addition. create a position called
"Deputy City Clerk" at a Grade 18 to which the "Administrative Assistant" would
automatically advanceJpromote to upon receiving the Certified Municipal Clerk
(CMC) status.
Motioned by Waters. Motion died due to a lack of a second.
Au¢ust 28.2006 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Page 12
Commissioner Simmons explained her reasons for not being able to justify the
advancement to a Grade 18. She believed the pay plan does not allow for advancement
to another grade without a change to the responsibilities and that the revised job
description which was graded reflected all the duties. She expressed concerns that a
Grade 18 job description has not provided.
City Clerk Bussey explained there is a mechanism in the pay plan that allows for an
advancement to a higher grade based on certifications.
Commissioner Borno explained the idea that the Deputy City Clerk position would
assume the duties of the City Clerk in her absence made him believe the position
should be graded higher, as a Grade 18, since no other Administrative Assistant
assumes the duties of their department heads.
He suggested creating the Deputy City Clerk position at a Grade 18 for advancing to
once the CMC is obtained. Mayor Wolfson pointed out that Commissioner Waters'
previous motion that was not seconded would have done that.
Motion: To amend the motion to include. "In addition. create a position called
"Deputy City Clerk" at a Grade 18 to which the "Administrative Assistant" would
automatically advance/promote to upon receiving the Certified Municipal Clerk
(CMC) status.
Moved by Waters, seconded by Borno
Mayor Wolfson asked what would happen to the Administrative Assistant to the City
Clerk if he/she received the CMC and if the Deputy City Clerk position did not exist.
Ms. Bussey replied that no extra pay would be given.
Votes:
Aye: 3 - Borno, Waters, Wolfson
Nay: 2- Fletcher, Simmons
MOTION CARRIED
Amended Motion: To approve the reclassification of the "Secretary" position
from a Grade 15 to a Grade 17. change the title to "Administrative Assistant to the
City Clerk" and place into the pay scale using normal city procedures In addition,
create a position called "Deputy City Clerk" at a Grade 18 to which the
"Administrative Assistant" would automaticaLb advance/promote to upon
receiving the Certified Municipal Clerk (CMC) status.
Moved by Waters, seconded by Borno
Commissioner Simmons asked for clarification whether the Administrative Assistant at
a Grade 17 will assume duties of the City Clerk during her absence. Ms. Bussey
clarified that was correct. Commissioner Simmons pointed out that she thought
someone understood it differently and thus was considering the Grade 18.
Commissioner Borno believed that in order for the Administrative Assistant to act as
City Clerk, they must be Certified which would mean the title of a Deputy City Clerk.
AUQUSt 28.2006 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Pace 13
Ms. Bussey confirmed that a CMC is not required to perform City Clerk duties and
pointed out that she will have her CMC effective November 1, 2006 which is the first
month following her two yeaz membership requirement.
Commissioner Fletcher indicated he was in favor of splitting the motions to get the
immediate issue of the Administrative Assistant position approved and advertised and
explained that is why he voted against amending the motion. He believes tremendous
pressure is being placed on the City Clerk's Office as well as other departments and
recognizes the need to advertise the position.
Votes:
Aye: 5 - Borno, Fletcher, Simmons, Waters, Wolfson
Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED
City Manager 9. City Manager
A. City Manager's Report
City Manager Jim Hanson indicated that he would hold his reports for another time.
Reports/Requests 10. Reports and/or requests from City Commissioners and City Attorney
City Commissioners
City Attorney A. Recommendation for appointment to the Code Enforcement Board
(Mayor)
Commissioner Waters explained that the Boazd Member Review Committee met and
interviewed applicants for the Code Enforcement Board and that some of those
applicants aze also being considered for the Community Development Board. He
reported that the consensus was to recommend appointing Juliette Hagist to fill the
current alternate member vacancy. He also reported the consensus to recommend Ray
Martin to fill the alternate member vacancy, if another vacancy occurs in the neaz
future and Juliette Hagist moves up to fill the regulaz member vacancy.
Motion: To a~uoint JuUette Hagist as an alternate member to the Code
Enforcement Board to fill the current vacancy, to aaaoint Rav Martin to fill the
neat future vacancy of the Code Enforcement Board as an alternate member and
Juliette Hagist would move uu to serve. as a regular member .
Moved by Wolfson, seconded by Borno
Commissioner Fletcher mentioned that, based on comments during the Neighborhood
Chat, he is working with the City Manager regazding rental issues. Mayor Wolfson
thanked him for taking on the issue.
Aneust 28.2006 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Pace 14
Votes:
Aye: 5 - Borno, Fletcher, Simmons, Waters, Wolfson
Nay: 0-
MOTION CARRIED
B. Report on the Proposed Lot Subdivision Ordinance (City Attorney)
City Attorney Alan Jensen referred to his Memorandum dated August 17, 2006 in the
agenda packet. He recommended that the Lot Subdivision Ordinance be placed on the
agenda for action one way or the other.
Mayor Wolfson agreed that the Commission should move forward with this and
remove the moratorium.
Motion: To discontinue consideration of anv chance to the present ordinance on
lot subdivision and put on the nett agenda a resolution which would rescind the
moratorium on lot subdivision.
Moved by Borno, seconded by Simmons
Commissioner Borno believed the Commission should not get involved with this issue
and explained his reasons for keeping the current system.
Commissioner Simmons agreed with the Commissioner Borno and added that it divides
the community on the issue unnecessarily. She expressed her interest in preserving lots
but noted that nothing has been provided that would hold up in court and therefore
enough time has been spent on it.
Commissioner Fletcher asked the City Attorney if this drafted ordinance could be
changed to still allow the process to go to the Community Development Boazd and not
have the same legal concerns. City Attorney Jensen explained the area of concern
would be on the first page, paragraph (a) (6).
Commissioner Fletcher expressed his opposition to the motion and would recommend
amending the ordinance by deleting paragraph (a) (6). He believed the process should
go through the Community Development Boazd to provide additional checks and
balances and to give people the right to go before their fellow citizens.
Commissioner Waters hoped for an ordinance that the City Attorney and Marcia Tjoflat
could live with that would put the process through the Community Development Board
and would address residential platted neighbors being prevented from subdividing lots
within those neighborhoods. He spoke in opposition of the motion.
Mayor Wolfson noted the time spent researching the issue and the findings from both
attorneys.
Further discussion ensued clarifying issues and advice from counsel.
August 28, 2006 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Pace 15
Votes:
Aye: 3 - Borno, Simmons, Wolfson
Nay: 2- Fletcher, Waters
MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Borno
- Reference Mr. Drysdale's issue and expressed the need for the city to work out
the problems.
Commissioner Simmons
- Agreed with Commissioner Borno and added that the city is in need of a
regular full-time Building Official. Mayor Wolfson asked Mr. Hanson to report
on the status of hiring a Building Official. Mr. Hanson reported the recent
history and status of the efforts and explained the reason the current building
official is being contracted for three days a week. He expressed that he is not in
favor of allowing people to use outside inspectors for permits.
- Urged the Commission to review the FDOT document that was given to each of
them which is a traffic impact analysis pertaining to the proposed Walmart in
Neptune Beach.
Commissioner Fletcher
- Expressed he is truly honored to serve.
Commissioner Waters
- Shared his opinion that many people spoke tonight and it went rather well. He
commented that the citizens in Atlantic Beach aze an extremely mature crowd.
- Reported that he attended the Big Brother and Big Sisters breakfast meeting
last week and they aze looking for mentors. He expressed wanting to encourage
people to sign up for mentoring children since he believes mentoring makes a
big difference in a child's life.
Mayor Wolfson
- Reminded the Commission the final Budget Workshop is scheduled for
Wednesday, August 30`~ at 5:00 pm.
Adjournment There being no further discussion, the Mayor declazed the meeting
adjourned at 12:31 am.
~~J
Donald M. Wolfson, Mayor/Pres g Officer
ATTE T•
Q ~~~~
Donna L. Bussey
City Clerk
ATTACHMENT A
AUGUST 28, 2006
COMMISSION MTG
August 21, 2006
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Commission
FROM: J' ans
City Manager
SUBJECT: Follow-up eport
Signage at Plaza Street Entrance to Post Office; The City received several complaints and
recommendations from citizens recommending improvements to the signage and street mazkings
for the new public entrance to the Post Office from Plaza Street. All of the recommendations
dealt with improvements on Post Office property and not on the city right-of--way. Because this
project had been proposed and promoted by the City of Atlantic Beach, and because the Post
Office timetable to get this type of improvements completed was very long, city staff offered to
move one confusing sign and paint some arrows on the traffic lanes on Post Office property.
This work will be completed by the end of August.
Traffic Concurrence; A discussion was held at the last'commission meeting about what rights
cities have in Florida under the concurrency provisions of the Growth Management Act to
approve or deny new developments that may impact traffic. The City of Atlantic Beach does
have the authority to utilize traffic data in considering the approval of developments in our
community that may significantly impact traffic. A memo outlining the powers of Atlantic
Beach under state law and our local Comprehensive Plan from Sonya Doerr dated August 16,
2006 is attached for your information.
Request for Three Way Ston at Plaza/Rose Street; At the last commission meeting a
Commissioner passed on a request from residents in the vicinity of Plaza and Rose Street for a
three-way stop to be installed. David Thompson has inspected the intersection and found that the
visibility is fine and that there aze sidewalks on the west side of Rose Street. There have not
been many accidents at this location over several yeazs. it does not appeaz that a three-way stop
is justified. The Police Department will conduct a speed study at this location with the traffic
counter and assign officers to utilize radaz equipment to determine if there is a speeding problem.
When the information is complete, it will be reported to the city commission.
Streetlight Policy; Another complaint was passed along at the last meeting concerning a request
for additional streetlights, particulazly on the west side of Mayport Road. The city created a
policy for the location of new streetlights several years ago to aid in the evaluation of similar
requests. The City currently pays about $5,000 per month for streetlights to the JEA, and new
ones can be installed on existing light poles at the city's request. Generally, the city's policy is
ATTACHMENT B
AUGUST 28, 2006
COMMISSION MTG
FCCMA WHITE PAPER
Florida Hometown Democracy Initiative
The American form of government rejects the concept of a
direct democracy (where governing decisions are put to
popular vote) in favor of a representative democracy (where
governing decisions are voted on by an elected body). A
representative democracy, with its system of checks and
balances, is simply better suited to make long term planning
and policy level decisions that impact a diverse number of
individuals and interest groups. Direct democracy through
citizen initiative can trample minority interests and ignore a
community's long-term needs and goals. It caa 6e used to
reject affordable housing measures, reject urban infill and
redevelopment initiatives, and disrupt essential infrastructure
such as water, sewer, and solid waste facilities, and roads.
Zoning and comprehensive planning powers should be vested
in the elected governing body and not subject to the whims and
caprices of a majority of the citizenry. Land use decisions
made in a representative democracy by a representative
governing -body protects the minority groups from the tyranny
of the majority....
ATTACHMENT B
AUGUST 28, 2006
COMMISSION MTG
FCCMA White Paper
Florida Hometown Democracy Initiative
Prepared by Rebecca O'Hara,
Assistant General Counsel, Florida League of Cities
and
Wendy Grey, AICP
Wendy Grey Land Use Planning
Background
The 1985 Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act,
also referred to as the 1985 Growth Management Act, require every city and county to adopt a
comprehensive plan ("comp plan") containing various "elements" relating to the community's
growth. The elements address such growth policies as, future land use, affordable housing,
conservation lands, provision of infrastructure, capital improvements, and intergovernmental
coordination.
Comprehensive planning is a dynamic process, and the Act recognizes this by providing a
process for the amendment of comp plans. Comprehensive plans may be amended two times a
year (although there are some exemptions for small map amendments and some other types of
amendments in s. 163.3187(1)). This amendment process includes review by regional and state
agencies and approval by the State Department of Community Affairs ("DCA").
Citizen involvement is built into the state mandated planning process. As part of the amendment
process, the Act requires a minimum of three public hearings: one to be held by the Local
Planning Agency, one to be held by the City or County Commission prior to submitting
amendments for state review, and one to be held by the City or County Commission at the time
of adoption of an amendment. , If a citizen believes that a plan amendment approved by a local
government is not consistent with the Act, that citizen has appeal rights under the Act. DCA's
webpage describes this right as follows:
Pursuant to Section 163.3184. F S., an "affected person" can challenge the
Department's decision that a comprehensive plan or plan amendment is, or is not,
in compliance with the Growth Management Act. "Affected persons" are (1) the
local government that adopted the plan or plan amendment; (2) an adjoining local
government that can demonstrate substantial impacts; (3) persons who own
property, reside, or own or operate a business within the boundaries of the local
government that adopted the plan or plan amendment AND submit comments
between the proposed hearing and the adopted hearing; and (4) for future land use
map amendments, persons who own property outside of the local government
jurisdiction, and that property abuts the property affected by the future land use
ATTACHMENT B
AUGUST 28, 2006
COMMISSION MTG
FCCMA Issue Paper
Hometown Democracy
March 31, 2005
map
amendment."i
The so-called Hometown Democracy Initiative (the "Initiative") proposes to amend Article II,
Section 7 of the Florida Constitution to require the adoption or amendment of a local comp plan
be approved by a vote of the citizens. If passed, this amendment will fundamentally alter the
process and nature of local land use decisions.
The Initiative: "We put our trust in the people, not politicians"
The following information regarding the initiative is from Florida Hometown Democracy's
webpage:
Florida's Hometown Democracy Amendment simply replaces county or city
commission votes to adopt or change a comprehensive plan with votes by the
citizens in a referendum election to be held at the same time as the general
election. No special elections will be necessary. If a community so desires, a
referendum could even be held by mail. Florida's Hometown Democracy
Amendment gives greater stability and certainty to comprehensive plans by
locking in existing land use categories and giving the keys to the voters. THE
VOTERS WILL DECIDE IF A PROPOSED CHANGE WILL A~IAKE THEIR
COMMUMTY A BETTER PLACE TO LIVE IF THE MAJORITY VOTES YES,
THE CHANGE HAPPENS. IF THE MAJORITY VOTES NO, THE CHANGE
DOESN'T HAPPEN.
Under the present Elections laws, voters would receive either newspaper or direct
mail Notice of the Referendum Election. It would provide fora "yes or no" vote
on one or more comprehensive plan amendments with the substance of the
amendment set out in "clear and unambiguous language." The election could be
conducted in conjunction with a general election, special election, or by mail-in
ballot. If a majority of voters casting ballots voted `des" then the amendment(s)
would be "adopted." Z
The Initiative is premised on a perception the local comprehensive planning process in Florida is
broken.
Consider the following excerpt from the group's website www.floridahometowndemocracy com:
It is well documented that developers are among the biggest campaign
contributors to local politicians. The result has been predictable: most elected
1 www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/compplanning/index.cfin
2 /www.floridahometowndemocracy.com!
ATTACHMENT B
AUGUST 28, 2006
COMMISSION MTG
FCCMA Issue Paper
Hometown Democracy
March 31, 2005
officials have never seen a development they wouldn't approve. They just can't
say no to bad development proposals. Did you know that when your city or
county commission votes on a comprehensive plan change, those officials aze
exercising the people's power? When a city or county council votes to approve a
land use change, they aze supposed to do so on the grounds that the change will
not harm the public interest, which is defined very broadly to include all those
concerns that make a place a good community: protection of public health, safety,
quality of life, the beauty of a particular place and the environment. Too often
local officials in Florida define the public interest as being the developers'
economic return. And other values for the community- quality of life, uncrowded
schools, managed population growth, clean water -are not being given any
consideration. Too often our local officials forget that they aze standing in the
shoes of the people, forget that they aze supposed to represent the entire
community when a proposed land use change comes up for vote. Land use
decisions affect people and communities more than almost any other
governmental decision.
The Initiative is backed by the Florida Hometown Democracy Political Action Committee,
The Initiative Process:
Art. XI, Sec. 3, Fla. Const., permits Florida's electors to amend Florida's Constitution by citizen
initiative. The amendment may only embrace one subject and matter directly connected
therewith.
The power to amend the state constitution by citizen initiative is invoked by filing with the
Secretary of State a petition containing a copy of the text of the proposed amendment and the
signatures of a number of electors equal to 8% of the votes cast in each of one-half of the
congressional districts of the state, and of the state as a whole, in the last preceding presidential
election. At this time, the number of required signatures is 488,722.
When the Division of Elections confirms an initiative petition has obtained 48,869 signatures,
the Secretary of State submits the initiative petition to the Florida Attorney General and to the
State Revenue Estimating Conference, Sec. 15.21, Fla. Stat.
Within 45 days of receiving a proposed amendment from the Secretary of State, the Revenue
Estimating Conference must complete an analysis and fiscal impact statement on the estimated
increase or decrease in any revenues or costs to state or local governments resulting from the
proposed initiative. The impact statement is placed on the ballot along with the proposed
amendment. Sec. 100.371(6)(a), Fla. Stat. The Revenue Estimating Conference must provide an
opportunity for any entity to submit information or analysis regarding the proposed amendment's
fiscal impact. Id.
ATTACHMENT B
AUGUST 28, 2006
COMMISSION MTG
FCCMA Issue Paper
Hometown Democracy
March 31, 2005
Within 30 days of receiving a proposed amendment from the Secretary of State, the Attorney
General must request from the Florida Supreme Court an advisory opinion regarding the
proposed amendment's compliance with Art. XI, Sec. 3, Fla. Const., its ballot title and
summary's compliance with Section 101.161, Fla. Stat., and the fiscal impact statement's
compliance with Sec. 100.371 and 101.161, Fla. Stat. Sec. 16.061(1), Fla. Stat. There is no
timeframe within which the Supreme Court must issue its opinion.
The Supreme Court's review of the proposed amendment is limited to two issues: whether the
ballot title and summary is printed in clear and unambiguous language, and whether the proposed
amendment complies with the single subject requirement of Art. XI, Sec. 3, Fla. Const. The
Court does not examine the merits of the proposal nor does it address such issues as the proposed
amendment's consistency with the federal or state constitutions.
If the amendment survives the Court's scrutiny, and the petition obtains the requisite 488,722
signatures, the proposal is then placed upon the ballot. A proposed amendment must pass by
simple majority in order to be effective.
Status of the Initiative:
On March 17, 2005, the Florida Supreme Court issued an advisory option to the state Attorney
General. As noted above, the Court reviews proposed amendments under two criteria. The
Court found that the Hometown Democracy amendment complied with the single subject test.
However, the Court also found that the amendment did not comply with the requirement in s.
101.161(1), F.S., that the substance of the amendment be printed in clear and unambiguous
language on the ballot. The Supreme Court found that the. "...the ballot summary fails to
provide an accurate, objective, neutral summary of the proposed amendment."
Therefore, the amendment is not eligible to be placed on the ballot. However, according to
information on the Hometown Democracy web site, the sponsors of the amendment have filed
for a rehearing. At this time, it appears likely that efforts to place this amendment on the ballot
will continue.
Reasons to Oppose the Initiative
There are a number of reasons for Florida's cities and counties to oppose this proposed
amendment.
The Tyranny of the Majority:
The American form of government rejects the concept of a direct democracy (where governing
decisions are put to popular vote) in favor of a representative democracy (where governing
decisions are voted on by an elected body). A representative democracy, with its system of
checks and balances, is simply better suited to make long term planning and policy level
ATTACHMENT B
AUGUST 28, 2006
COMMISSION MTG
FCCMA Issue Paper
Hometown Democracy
March 31, 2005
decisions that impact a diverse number of individuals and interest groups. Direct democracy
through citizen initiative can trample minority interests and ignore a community's long-term
needs and goals. It can be used to reject affordable housing measures, reject urban infill and
redevelopment initiatives, and disrupt essential infrastructure such as water, sewer, and solid
waste facilities, and roads. Zoning and comprehensive planning powers should be vested in an
elected governing body and not subject to the whims and caprices of a majority of the citizenry.
Land use decisions made in a representative democracy by a representative governing body
protects minority groups from the tyranny of the majority. If citizens are dissatisfied with the
performance of their elected officials, they are free to elect others to take their place.
The Tyranny of the Few:
Perhaps even worse than the potential for tyranny of the majority is tyranny of a few. Given that
voter turnout in local elections is often less than 20%, there is no certainty that land use changes
under the proposed amendment will actually reflect the will of the people. Important decisions
will be made be a small group of voters rather than a council or board that represents the entire
citizenry.
Decisions by "Sound Bite"
Both sides in a controversial land use amendment will use 30-second sound bites to influence the
public on complex land use decisions. Sure, there may well be a core group of citizens who
attempt to become educated on the issue, but the reality is that most votes will be based on
potentially misleading and inflammatory media campaigns. Imagine trying to adopt your EAR-
based amendment package (a statutorily mandated, 5-year comp plan update), which may
involve multiple land use changes and multiple portions of your comprehensive plan, only one of
which is controversial. The entire package could be rejected on the basis of one controversial
item.
Anti-Home Rule:
Proponents of the measure claim it supports local home rule. This is a gross mischaracterization.
Florida law is clear that the citizens of a municipality already have the power to amend their
city's charter to provide for citizen initiative. And, the courts have upheld the citizens' use of
charter based initiative powers to effect zoning changes. For example, this has been done in the
Town of Surfside, in the City of Winter Springs, and in the City of Miami Beach. One-size-fits-
all mandates, whether by the Legislature or by 51% of Florida's electors, are the antithesis of
home rule. This decision should be left to the citizens on a city-by-city basis.
The Price is NOT Right:
Florida's cities and ultimately their taxpayers will foot the added expense of putting every comp
plan amendment to a popular vote. Proponents downplay the added election expenses associated
with the proposal because they say the vote can be held in conjunction with regularly scheduled
c
ATTACHMENT B
AUGUST 28, 2006
COMMISSION MTG
r(:CMA Issue Paper
Hometown Democracy
March 31, 2005
elections. But every issue that's added to a ballot drives up the cost (not to mention whether it's
even feasible to add scores of plan amendments to the ballot at a general election). Likewise,
regularly scheduled elections are typically held every two years. Is it reasonable to wait two
years to effect clearly needed zoning changes?
You Can't Win For Losing:
Given the arbitrary and capricious results the initiative is likely to produce, there's no doubt
landowners who are on the losing side of a land use referendum will seek redress in the courts,
either through a state or federal takings claim or a Bert Hams Private Property Rights Act claim.
Municipalities will face tremendous liability under a land use referendum system, and will have
to pay damages as well as attorneys fees to a prevailing landowner. Because damages are not
typically insured, these judgments will have to paid out of tax revenues. Proponents of the
measure gloss over this problem by pointing out how difficult it is for landowners to prevail on a
takings claim (they don't even mention Hams Act lawsuits, which are a lot easier to bring and
win). But the costs associated with simply defending against such claims - if only to the point of
getting the case dismissed -will be staggering.
Additionally, most takings and Harris Act claims settle out of court because the local
government is able to negotiate with the landowner and adjust the land use decision to avoid the
claims. It will become virtually impossible to negotiate and settle these cases under the proposal
because even the adjusted land use decision will have to go back to the entire citizenry for a vote.
In the final analysis, cities will be forced to take an "all or nothing" position when defending
these claims, which will invariably lead to increased damages and attorney's fees.
A Parade of Implementation Horribles:
This amendment will require every single comprehensive plan amendment to be put to popular
vote, no matter the size or complexity. Even simple text changes, even amendments that are
currently exempt from state review (e.g., small scale amendments or certain capital improvement
changes) will undergo voter approval. Municipalities will be unable to predict the outcome of
their planning efforts. All of the time and expense spent by planning staff analyzing and
preparing recommendations on plan amendments will be meaningless. The endless hours spent
in public hearings on land use changes will be wasted. If all of the time and resources expended
by a local government in reaching an informed decision can be nullified by a public vote based
on headlines and sound bites, why even bother?
Likewise, decisions on needed infrastructure will be delayed because all will be subject to the
referendum requirement, including siting decisions on schools, transfer stations, and water and
wastewater facilities. Redevelopment of blighted urban areas will come to a standstill. How can
proponents in good conscience state the initiative will protect our quality of life and our
environment?
ATTACHMENT B
AUGUST 28, 2006
COMMISSION MTG
FCCMA Issue Paper
Hometown Democracy
March 31, 2005
Moreover, the measure is silent on the applicability and timing of the current statutory processes
requiring a review and compliance determination of plan amendments by the State Department
of Community Affairs. Another uncertainty is how the measure will affect existing citizen
remedies under the Growth Management Act. Assuming current DCA review and citizen
remedies remain unaffected, the measure will certainly extend the time for plan amendments
from the current 12 to 18 months by at least one or two years. Imagine finally adopting a plan
amendment after going through a lengthy and expensive administrative hearing process on the
amendment's "compliance" with Florida law, only to have the decision "undone" by a citizen
referendum. Even worse, imagine facing economic sanctions from the Florida Administration
Commission because a citizen initiative required the city to adopt a plan amendment that was
found "Not in Compliance" by the Department of Community Affairs.
In the nearly 20 years since the enactment of Florida's Growth Management Act, Florida has
experienced explosive population growth (nearly 800 people move here every day). In spite of
this, Florida's municipalities continue to offer people a quality of life that is seldom matched in
other states. This is in large part due to the Growth Management Act and how Florida's cities
and counties have implemented the Act through their local comprehensive plans. Florida's
current scheme of comprehensive planning allows local elected municipal officials to implement
policies that balance the dynamic and sometimes competing growth management pressures
within their individual communities. There will be no balancing under the proposed amendment
- only reaction. This will lead to chaos and confusion that will disrupt Florida's quality of life
for years to come.
Alternatives to the Hometown Democracy Amendment.
It appears the Hometown Democracy amendment has tapped into dissatisfaction with planning
and growth management in the state. The Sierra Club, the Florida Consumer Awareness
Network, and a number of local neighborhood and environmental groups around the state have
formally endorsed the amendment. To the extent that citizens believe local planning processes
are not responsive to public's interest, such an amendment will receive support. In addition to
opposing the Hometown Democracy Amendment, local governments may wish to consider ways
to improve citizen participation in the planning process.
One mechanism for reviewing and revising local strategies for meaningful public participation is
through the comprehensive planning process. Rule 9J-5.004, F.A.C. sets forth the public
participation requirements for local comprehensive planning. It states:
(1) The local government body and the local planning agency shall adopt
procedures to provide for and encourage public participation in the planning
process, including consideration of amendments to the comprehensive plan and
evaluation and appraisal reports.
(2) The procedures shall include the following:
(a) Provisions to assure that real property owners are put on notice,
through advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation in the area or
ATTACHMENT B
AUGUST 28, 2006
COMMISSION MTG
r'CCMA Issue raper
Hometown Democracy
March 31, 2005
other method adopted by the local government, of official actions that will
affect the use of their property;
(b) Provisions for notice to keep the general public informed;
(c) Provisions to assure that there opportunities for the public to provide
written comments
(d) Provisions to assure that the required public hearings are held; and
(e) Provisions to assure the consideration of and response to public
comments.
Governor Bush's Growth Management Study Commission noted the importance of meaningful
public involvement and made a number of recommendations in this regard3. Some of the
Commission's recommendations are listed below, along with some comments by the authors as
to how these recommendations may be implemented:
• Enhanced public notice requirements regarding plan amendments Some local
governments use on site signs and expanded mailed notice.
• The availability of any full cost accounting information regarding plan amendments
The Department of Community Affairs is proposing that the fiscal impacts of plan
amendments be evaluated. If this requirement becomes effective, this information
can be provided as part of the public notice for a plan amendment.
• Citizen involvement plans that clearly specify the opportunities for citizen
involvement. Again, local governments can use the plans developed under 9J-5.004
and update them.
• Use of the Internet to convey information to the public Public participation plans,
comprehensive plan amendments, and notice of other land use activities can be plans
can be posted on local government web sites.
• Visioning, to create a communi -based picture of the future The use of pictures and
surveys to determine how citizens would like to grow are becoming popular tools.
Both the South Florida Regional Planning Council and the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council provide these services and are a good source of information.
Conclusion:
Although the Hometown Democracy Amendment will not appear on the upcoming ballot, local
governments should assume that the amendment, or a similar version, will be back at some point.
In addition to opposing the amendment, local governments can take steps to help residents feel
more effectively involved in the local planning process.
3 "A Liveable Florida for Today and Tomorrow," Florida's Growth Management Study Commission Final Report
ATTACHMENT C (20 paw
AUGUST 28, 2006
COMMISSION MTG
~.~
~ m
~~
r
~yy,`~"r~ ..
6` ~~„
~rA
~' :.
~, ~
',
~`;
~ ~Y
A
~ ,
~`
i ~ -'ll I , i ' ill' ICI
IP
~, ,~
~~~~
• ~
{ ~?y ~.
4~ ~ ,~~
~"~, ~~ ~
~~*~
n ~ i ~ r>, ~ ~ ti, ~
~; t
i `:~
~~~:
'~
1 ? :; ;'
~°
8!
R.~ ~~ a
~~
_.
a+ a
R T ~~`i +kP+7~6 ~i r SIP; ° '. ~ '~°'T.y ~. ~t a _~ ~°j~"
1y~P ~4""a'~ ~ °~i l~Y ~ ~. --~ ;~ ~; ilk ~ i~9i~i~;b ., ;~~a,':6 ~ ,a~ ,v.w
9 ~ ~~ F ..~ Ate',
~~" t
* p~~.
~ - M ,~ a ~' ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :~u;`'`~. ;~. ,
"
r
o v+ + ~.~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~+~Z}°.A' .
iii, a ^ ~ ....~ q,. kr ~C~di' ~• ~ 1 d$ ~ .
$ ' '+ 411 ~.•Ir y° '"~ ~ '~ t I ~~ ~ `~ s.. .
~., r
:..
s .. ~ . a
• ..
.m ~~ _..i.. ~#4'a .: @,. ~ +-..~ ~,Y. .a$: :..ice"' 1a ~ - 4i ~~.
^
~ ~ Pfd, i . 1w~ :'~~ M~ y...+s. .Fd '_,r, ~ +~:~,A°•~+~~w.ee- t ~ Lv--~~~
.~+ t~ t~
f_~ 4 ...a~ .'.a '+~aa' 1 3~iw e~ ~;r x'r~,.,.'. t~ 7 ...-° ~ ~ _ ,i,~t'
~.a ai~ ^r -a' r gyRf a/+ 1j~..r ~• .+7s' ° ..o
r~lr, _ a
,.
... ,,,; ,
. ~T
- ~r ~ •. »~a ~ >a~re~s: +aaasaoaear -:
2 ~~ 'ems ~: ~" ~~~i,?~Nyi1~~8i~'" !~
F ~ e.ir.. s.K. - aeaa -:+ar +~~. aamn .nx. ~ A
.; , ,. ~"s~6illilW~i~ -~
~° . ,~:~:Pk~F , s ~~ fix. ~ ~ ~'..:. ~ ~ '~
;~, ."f+ k~.a' ~~ ?::. ^ ,re 3'k i'~:'fiNt iY .s ..~~s~+ll A.':' ~ca<
E' _ ~ ~ as ~ ,. a w.
t ~ `, ~
4~~~ M +! ~i ~ti....~
cj !4111 ~il~'~ v ~~~ a~ ~?~~. ,'"~Yr Qa,` ~ ~i+f,?il
,. ~/ ~6 SF . ,. { y Yp.. M ,F~f4
Q w ' w. ~ 7 ¢
~~ ~~ ~ ~ it ~;` ~~fl-+`yy,~' Goa ~. .~~~".~,.,~~ ~ ~~', ~+,~ a• "F~`~`~~ s '.~
F? a 9 °[
~ '~,~'~ p. .fb 11 :Awe, '~~~',"",'
*r'
~0~3~(~ ~w0~n Wn
mo<~~D ~~-c~t~D ~'D
o~3~mm cfloo~m cDm
Cnj~(D ~ON(D fl-
w
vrom O°-+~cu ~
_. ].
:~
-~ ® ® -
~~ t
~~,
>;
m "
v ~~~'~
3
m = _
=n - ~~
_~~ ~~ d
7 ~ sYr I . ~ z~ ~ 7
tQ ';> ".. Al O -
a ~ ., ~ ~
3 ~~' ~
TI ~ ? W m
Q- ~ ~ O ? O ~
m ~
t-- N ~ r R D r m ~ ~ m
~ ''~ ti~ d Q. N N ~ O
n e fl_ < ry d O pp r
v R N
~ <
v'o ~ v~' ~m m
O m .~ ~c
O
~_ T ~
a~ F~.
=7 0. ~ ~ ~
7~ ' O
~' (_Q O
r,-.
~ ~ ~
{= m ~ ~
~ = m N
:f
u O ~ N ~
z ~ ~ ~ Q
Q ~
G ~ y ~K`
~ ~ ~ E __
V
~a ~ ® ~ ® `
W ~ _..
~_
N ~
a~
o n
r ~
y.
y ~
N
~_
rt
0
3
0
a
a
w
0
~^
l
.~h
V
D
n n~
m ~'
m
n~
D
n
m
W
O
D
n v
m ~'
m
~ W
m
D ~
m cn
N
n
lD
c rn
v ~
N D ~
N A
(D fp
~ ~
O ~ W
1
~F
W
0
~ ~
0 0
~ ~
I
,'
~,:
i
l
~-~
0 0
Peak Stage [ft-NGVD]
rn v o0
0 0 0
o '/
~ v
/, o
~~
1 I---
rn v
0 0
Peak Stage [ft-NG
~ o
0 0
~ ~
min-~o~
N' ~ p 'c ~
? ~ ~ ~ ~
Q (rD O
,-.
~'
~ D
~
0 ~ ~ ~ C
O ~
m N
c~ o
3
n5
~
o'
ao co
0 0
0
vD]
0
J
L
F
i
a
r
{
f
"~
0
Z
O
Q
W
O
O
V
.Q
C
rt
n
YJ
9u
C.
cD
to
m
rt
C7
~D
rt
n
n
a~
N
A
O
v
..
0
3
3
0
a
e~
e~
a
w
0
~_
co
s
V
D
n ~
m ~'
m
~~
D
n
m
W
0
D
~ v
m ~'
m
~ W
co
v
~~
~ ~
N
m
c rn
n~ ~
~' D ~
N_ n ~
3 rn ~
-a m
o ~ w
m ~
w
O
.A
0
~---
.p
O
Peak Stage [ft-NGVDJ
v+ rn v w
0 0 0 0
P
o ,
~!
~~
,i
~~ i
,j
~i
f~
Gj
,~.
`.
~~ ~a-
~ ~ V 00
O O O O
Peak Stage [ft-NGVD]
0
0
-~--
cp
0
-~--
~1 CA ~ O ~
~~ ~ ~~ ~
3 ~ ~ ~
~. ~
~ m o
m ~ 3 o
~ ~
~
~
o
O ~
m N
m o
~
a~
0
-4--
CO
O
j
O
O
0
O
O
a
m
W
O
O
O
O
c~
y
r+
v
n
3
1
4
Q
N
O
d
O
~ r ~x xa.~ ~> `~ ~ ~.....--T'" ~. _.~... _ .assn ~ ~ ~ :;:tea. x~
~...
Xi y
s ~ ~~'~'~
O )y:i ~ } r,~ s ;,
O T ~~ 71RE K ,. ~.
fD
a ~' } ~~
...~...~..e.......- r
P y
~'
~-
::. V 1
--~
1~1
M
~?'
n
~
r, ~
a m
~,
:r:
.__ ~„
G
Q
Vl
lr]
7
~_, _
J
v
rn
J
~_
~
[O
O
Q
~
_
l:~
7
~.
~~~°,
t~~~'r ~ P
'~ f ~,~' y a ~A tir:"
4 ~ ~ h~
~i ~ ~ A~rF y"
s ~v
[ p
#~~ (~y,
tt'~yz S` ' ,~ i
~ ~ ~ ~ A .~
i ~ ` V Rj
t y
p}~ ~ .r~~. yr
'A7 i Ypp yy.. k ~
i i`•~ 1 ~ `~YT" d ~~ ~~
c~ ~':~, w n~ '
~~.~ ~-~
~~-~ '"°~
w+s` ~
€~
aj'
w:~~~.
5 ; A , .
h t +~`
~~b r4~` ?c' `€V
S~ ~,~
r ~'' ~ ~Y
. a ''adr h
L
~~
S i
~' O
C
~
Stage [ftJ
w
8
~n
s ''
-~ p
~9 v
W W
~°o ,ntlaMic Boulevard ~. ~
~ N ~~
°o~ Aquatic Drive at Pubix ~. ~
'^ ~.
~ ~,
o Ca••,ala Road !Skate ~ ~ F
~ ~ v
°p~~~mm~
~~n.irap~~~
N P A 3 rn m
~p A 3 3 Q
~ 3 ~ T
~ ~ ?~ g
m do
n> > ~ rn
3 ~
Al
N !D V Of tM1 7
to iv W in o
S S S 3
N Road Dlch ~
o CutlassDrive-
Dov~~ream
w
°`~ Cutlass Drive - Up~ream
0
c,r
`~ Daavrstream ofPlam
~- U4Y Drive
s'
~
~ Amberj~k Lane
w '
Sailfish Drive
Stanley Road Cul de Sac
o ~~atic drive Crossing - ds Q1
a
~-
cn
~ H
Fb
di
4
li
a
ome
o
ng,
qua
c ~ ~~'
~ Dnwe gs
° Saratoga !Forrestal D'Ach ~ ~.
o y
o Stormweter Pond -Aquatic ca
n^~ Gardens V ~ o
bS ~
t
~
°~, Cavalla Road I Lit Station
~
°' '
o Gavels RoadlRoyal m
~
o Palms
V m
q
n
`C
L~
~_
_~
7
N
AI
~_
7
X
3•
c
_~
A~
_rt
~•
:.:
0
7
(~
3
tb
i, ~'
. „ ~~~~
t
..W,
F. ~ t~
~j
~'~ '
R ~,
4 ~
~`
~~ ~
' ' ~~°"
~~ ~~#
~.
~~
~.
:.
~'
~~~~
. ;
~'
tJ J _
t
.~J
~ F:r=;.lAver:ve
w
0
c
v
o R;?uitd Bouleu.tM
0
O
~ f
r
c~
~~
r _ i
~~ Rtlarll:~ Cl:~.devatd
n
AquaU' Dnve at Puhlra
0
c' [.:walla R.~a.] + Sf ata i -
~„ u~a oe~.~,
Culliss Drive -
U
w - - - .
U
o Ca41a?z D7•;~ - UpafaS~l
c~ ~
f
c ~> ~
0
n ~ I ,
CJ '
~ -'- -- -
~; h;t~,~r~<hzam ct PlaZ
0
±~ fin, e
o r'.r'~- -i, L.~n,.
m ~
i
w
r S:nfhs 111!r ;~
0
-~
o Stank, Ros:1 Cul ~]e Sac
v
w
Aqugti*. •ynva Grr~yrg - c
~~
w
c DrNe
-J
c
Sar3lr-ga i F^r~e~131 Dil~h ',
u :il.>rr1~a~3ter Pc~l~]-r'=3u~lC.
0
Gsrdarr~
~, i
c Gavella Rca~ LrN Slairon
.a ~ ..'.Ila 12a9~ ± Royal ~
i`
~ F'alr•rs .
..~ ~-_ ._
Stage Ift-NG~ID}
~.. --J ~A
:Si
~ ~
-- Jn o
~E
~ ;~ T r
u >c ~ ~ ~- v
T
~ 4
rrr
~
,
~ ~_,~,
.1
.. ~ m' `. c ~~o 4
? .
L
.c
a
' o cJ m
_
~ .~ .~
1.J ~ ~.i
~. r_i n ~ t u ~ L~
; , S-)
~ .L
ti
iVi ~'.~. ~ n N vi V -• r'
3 3 o to ~;
~ a ~ Of
~
•r. ,;_
rt' -. v
n ~
~
_ g_ ~
- 0
G1
.,.,
%t
l'D
u
~+ ~
Y: ~ a
to
a,f
~ Vl
~
JF D
_ ~
,:, C
N
O
Q
m
a fl1
'~
.
~ ~- -
rn (..'
-r
_r V=e .~
1
~
~
!n .
..
a.
,
v' ~
V
Y Sv
z
~'
- ---- --__-. --- ,Jr G
N
1
S;aye [~')
y ir; v -c
4'
L
~h ~ m
w a
J .~ ~ C
j 4/ L7 .
[y a
V y
Jr n ^~ N ~
~ ~ .~ `n £
., -. t3 C, Un
~ F a
~ th .7 .
O
C V C d 1J
fD ~~
o v+ '7 .~
p
o _
~ ~ to c~
r~ ~ ~_
.D
w
n
n
J
r
r.J
LJ ~~
~.
~cS'
O
,.';.3h` C7i1vP 8t Fi~r1Y~ n
? ~'
W ~~
c~
~
{<;;• Irk^'-
m
c
~=ult.:: G'i•.- rn
~ faownslra3rri
m
;~.
c,
,>
c~+ ~,
~ ~ ~
~j C.Y
~
I
(1nyE
1
~7
a
~r
k CdnE f
,y
o i
I )
_ -
~; 51ai,Wv Rr}a~ G~,1 7e Sa: ~
Z
I .~,
~' !: rut Ufl~ - ~S !.
~~~;alr ~nve
'~ ~
4J
_, Ii~~rte~ Fl~..!in:t Aau~li_ ' p
c. Cvt: ~ ..
ti
Jr
°• $8• a•. t:~ F. ~~-_ lul Clll _it cu
$lCfi'1 A'3lt't {~'Uit:i-A ~+.+3UC I
o-
~ Gar~air;
,~
I
w ~'. 3; ~Ik~ F: ~ ~3 I iR ~IatiGr; ',
r~
~_~
4,
h ~;a•.all;t2P,a~;Hcyal ~ }
n P 31i>t s
J
4.1 ~ - - _. _. _ _,~__. .
w
y.:
-n m
*. ~'
M t'
.I ~. i..
:~ L% III
~ _ _
A 1, _
D
~~
1 ~
i~1w1
VI
i!7 ~ >~
t Q
Q
rt~
~ ~j
:; a 1L
T
D ,
!~
N i
CJ1
^~
W .
~_
0
~ a
3
0
O
in ~