Exh 3AAgenda #3A
September 11, 2000
September 6, 2000
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jim son
__-----Oita "-,
SUBJECT: Follow- Items
The following are responses to questions and requests for additional. information that were made
in recent City Commission meetings.
Retention Pond on East Side of MaYport Road; It was previously reported to the City
Commission that the JTA was considering acquisition of a piece of property directly to the south
of the Best Western site on the east side of Mayport Road for construction of a retention pond in
connection with the Wonderwood Extension. City staff had suggested alternate sites to JTA
engineers which would not front on Mayport Road, but they concluded that they were not
feasible. The JTA has now requested comments from the City on the proposed retention pond
layout. A copy of their drawing is attached for your information. Copies of the plans have also
been sent to the adjoining property owners on the north and south sides fronting on Mayport
Road.
Speeding on Seminole Road; The City Police Department placed a speed measuring device in
the 2000 block of Seminole Road to determine the instances of speeding beginning on August 22
and extending over a period of 74 hours. During that period there were 9,113 vehicles traveling
across that section of Seminole Road with an average speed of 31 mph. About 2.4% of the
vehicles were traveling over 40 mph and no more than 0.1% was traveling in excess of 50 mph, or
about 1 every 6.7 hours. The Police Department has concluded that most of the vehicles traveling
along Seminole Road are going at reasonable speeds and excessive speeds are infrequent.
However, the Police Department will continue to utilize radar and cite speeders in the azea.
Maintenance of Ball Field at Russell Park; During the last year, the Atlantic Beach Athletic
Association resodded the baseball field at Russell Park and the City paid for a portion. of the
project with budgeted funds. The increased maintenance cost on this grass was discussed with_the
City Commission during a recent budget review session when staff indicated that the City may
need to buy a special "reel" mower. Two prices have since been received from contractors for
mowing the field twice per week for 81/2 months of the year and once a week for the remaining
Agenda #3A
September 11, 2000
portion of the year. The prices range from $20,000 #o $31,200 per year. The City's present
mowing contractor that cuts RusseIl Park has indicated that the savings from the existing contract
by splitting out the ball field would only be $1,200 per year. In the past, the grass has been cut
only once per week and utilizing a conventional mower. The cost to purchase the special mower - -
is estimated at $5,500, which is less than the $6,500 budgeted at the request of the Recreation
Committee. However, the City's cost for manpower, benefits, mower maintenance and gas is
estimated to be an additional $4,000 per yeax to mow at the required frequencies. Consequently,
to achieve the level of maintenance utilizing proper equipment as requested by the ABAA, the
least expensive alternative will be for the City to purchase the mower and mow the field with our
own personnel. This workload can be absorbed in the upcoming budget because of the addition
of maintenance personnel in the Recreation Department. The purpose of the additional personnel
was to upgrade the levels of maintenance at various City park facilities, although the manpower
needed for this additional level of service at the ball field was not known at the time the budget
was presented to the Commission. Unless directed to do otherwise, we will plan on purchasing
the mower and maintaining the field as requested.
Contract for Atlantic Blvd Median Maintenance Eztended; City staffis extending the
contract with Turf Masters for maintenance of the Atlantic Blvd medians on a monthly basis for
$2,327 per month. When the project was advertised for bid several weeks ago, only one bid was
received which was higher than staff estimates. The bid specifications are being revised after
several discussions with lawn care vendors. One of the changes will be to have a contract begin in
January, rather than September, which will make it much easier for the landscape contractors to
bid. January is typically one of the least busy times of the year for them. Once the bid specs are
revised and new bids received, the annual contract will be brought to the City Commission for
approval.
Invitation for Media One to Attend Citv Commission Meeting; At the last meeting,
Commissioners asked staff to invite Ann Murphy of Media One to attend the Commission
Meeting on September 11`x. Ms. Murphy is scheduled to be out of town on that day and asked
that she be allowed to address the Commission instead at the next regular Commission Meeting
which will be on September 25~`.
Letter from Alan Potter Concerning Proposed Utilit~Rate Increases; Mr. Potter's letter
dated August 28, 2000 which was distributed to the City Commission at the last regular meeting
(copy attached) contained several inaccuracies. The first is in the second paragraph which states
"If the 14% rate increase is enacted by the City Commission, the increase in revenue will exceed
$800,000 per year". Mr. Potter attached a copy of page 97 from the proposed budget to support
this conclusion. That page shows the total revenues for each City fund, including water and
sewer. However, these fund totals also include several other revenue sources which are not
effected by rate increases including grants, interest earnings, assessments and other charges. To
calculate the amount that would be received by a water and sewer rate increase one would use the
information contained on pages 106 and 111 of the proposed budget. These appropriate revenues=
are included in the following chart in the column Iabeled `Budget 2000-01". They total
$4,592,744 for the proposed budget year and 14% of that figure is $b42,984,
Actual Budget
1997-98 2000-01
Minimum Water (p.106) $715,649 $734,727
Excess Water (p.106) $974,364 $987,192
Sewer Service Base Charge (p.l l l) $1,318,119 $1,359,064
Sewer Service Volume Charge (p.l l l) $1,484,143 $1,511,761
Total $4,492,275 $4,592,744
Agenda #3A
September 11, 2000
A second inaccuracy in Mr. Potter's letter was the implication made in the fourth paragraph that
water and sewer revenues were under budgeted because they were less than actual revenues
reported in the 1997-98 year. While the total revenues for each fund were budgeted at an amount
less than the 1997-98 year, the difference is in interest earnings (present interest rates are lower)
and several other factors. In fact, revenues from the water and sewer rates are budgeted at
slightly higher amounts than in the 1997-98 year. Again, see the above column comparing 1997-
98 with 2000-01.
Third, Mr. Potter stated that "The budget presentation obviously omitted the City Manager
reported $540,000 increase in revenues that resulted from the drought of 2000." No statement
about the amount of additional revenues received as a result of the drought earlier #his year was
made by myself either at the budget hearing or at any previous Commission Meeting. A chart
was presented showing the actual volumes of water sales per month for the last several years
compared with the budget estimates for the upcoming fiscal year. A copy of that chart is
attached. The volumes included in this chart are for millions of gallons and not dollars. Had the
information been reported, the following would have been a more correct assessment of the
additional revenues received by the additional water and sewer sales;
1999 2000
March
- Water $120,383 $139,695
- Sewer $210,505 $238,982
April
- Water $142,541 $147,938
- Sewer 236 633 $253,464
Total Sales for
Two Months $710,062 $780,079
Agenda #3A
September 11, 2000
The above information was included in the utilities sales reports that were distributed to the City
Commission for March and April of this year. The increased revenues to the City for that two
month period over the same months in 1999 totaled approximately $70,000.
lla` Street Parking Petition; Chief Thompson met with residents in the 11~' Street area to
discuss the petition for no parking signs that had been submitted late last month. Some additional
no parking signs are warranted and will be installed by the City. No action is required from the
City Commission. For additional information, see the attached report on this from Chief
Thompson.
Federal Legislation Concerning Local Zoning Authority; A question was raised in the last
Commission Meeting about possible Federal Legislation that would limit the ability of local
governments to control zoning. See the attached memo from George Worley dated September 5,
2000 far more information on this.
_._--
W g ~' ~ ~ Agenda #3A~
~ U
2 ~ " _ Q September 11, 2000 N
" 3~ Q -
~ ~ ~
.. " 2 o W ~~
~~ ~ ~~~
~ W v1 ~ ~ ..1 x O • 2'~ ~ W 3~ Q I'~~L
e ~ U ~_ ~ " w w S OWg
m w ~ 2 ~~ ~ N~ ~ 4 d Ql~ N h ~~ ~
~ 2 ~ ~ W ~ ® ~ W $ M w W~Q
~ ui mo~ ~_ $ ~ V~ ~~ ~x~ ~~ ~ ICJ ~ OOY°l 3 Z~ O
w~i a.~~ IOW a a gw~
I\ vm x o \ -x
f(Ol, 'OSl7 ~02L'SY 3 .iZ,fYJO S 9 ~~
\ W x 3xll 3 x x (fdl,L'6617 WIl'SX 3 .fE,HfJO S x~ ~(, ~ ~ ~ U
i ® ~ ~ ( ~.
x G w E® N O 3
x .~. F-
ry C
x ~ e ~ V
,y~
_ _ dp9 _ - v- - '"'-
w ~__-- -._- _-- -___,l x ~ w ~ ~ ~ Q
x I I u u ~ ~ '~ ti
I ~
t ti
~' y ~ i " I x x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'
I n ,~ w
$ i ~^W
~ ~• I i ~ ~
m
~ ~ ° 9 I 9 ~ '~ ~ ~
a1 WW
V) Q6 W ~~~ q ~M I VI ~ 7'L~' I ~ W`b ~~ y ~ Y ne
SS _ ~i ~
~ 4 ~ 0 2 I $~~ ~„ 8
to ¢1 n~ N
ti I x
=o wW ~ ~ro~"1 I Rf ~ ~~ ~ $ 3.
J Iv W ~ 4 xJJJJ ~ m ~= ~
~iQ i~ z 0. ~ QWWWW O ~I w !` ,.•
~~ ~ n W W~q~ a " i Q x~ ~
R I k1 W~ a'"nU'"
zz V ~ C~mx ~ I ~ YWi
x ~d " a~
w ~ ; ; ONW l~.vJ ~'~'r
n
0 2 a ~ ~ x~ t
w ? I ~ E ,1 11 N M QY
GG6.. ~ nl ~. W o ~ ,~ ~ I
C
i
C $ C`
I x 4
'~~ U j ~ i Xy, n~ h W ~"yg $ X
m e ~E a o Q~ "
~~~ ~ ~ "1 ~ ~ c ~ ~ S 2 ~i I y Q ~ ~ ~
I ~~~ ~y
J 4~ ~ 10 C ~®"~ .®4 P ®~ X II ~ Q
~$ ~~ ~` x ~d 6 i o 1 I ~ a ti ~ a d O i w ~6 a
D I o-~ "
;mow x3~ ~., g ~ " ~ o ® o a ~ ~~a W ~~ 53
~ ~ 3 E ~ ~ I `
~ ~~ o
~ o
~.; b9Q`,v so x
- ... .
......M wu0py 'X3 i .............. uvr 'X3 .......................M OOE 'X - ... .......... ..w X ..... ...M uw~y
1 yl
........... W .. .............. ~ <
~ N3N35 '!MS 'X3•••••-• ............•y3M35 'NYS ~!OOZ 'X3• ••.. •. •-••••••b3 'NYS 'X3• ••. A _........ .... •. •. b3
x x x x x ~ _ _
2 - - __C > >
~ ~ to to
8
!n e G !n u7 reass'sa or r M YJ0 3A7, YJOS `~•~
a
w _
-~ _ X1YM30lS'15lX3 _ ~ (h ~ XiYM30 15!'X3 _ _ ~- - i YM3015'1SIX3
- - - - - - - - - ~ 11 d'0'3 '1SIX3 ti O d r d'0'3 '1
W 4
LN C a ~ '` ~ ~ ~ " Hg "
x'I,.W g ~ x ~~ ~ ~ WW ~ ~ w ~
,- 2 jF ~ ~2 Q ~ d =W ~ j ~ ~
.a
__.___. _. _._ " ~_____ ,a~_"F_ ____ 0~-__. 8-* -__.-_+ •__._aW ;_ . ~ --fn 1N3d3nYd d0 3NR N31N30 ___.______.
Agenda #3A
September 11, 2000
August 28, 2000
__
__ _ _._
City Commission _ _ _____ _
City of Atlantic Beach
800 Seminole Road
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
Re: Proposed Utilities Rate Increase
City of Atlantic Beach
Dear Commissioners:
A fourteen percent increase in the Atlantic Beach water and
sewer utilities rates has been proposed by the new City Man-
ager and the Public Works Director.
If the fourteen percent rate increase is enacted by the City
Commission, the increase in revenue will exceed $800,000.
per year.
A slide show presentation to the City Commission indicated
no significant change in the amount of water sold and waste
water treated. Likewise, no significant change in revenue
received over the past several years. However, the "operating
costs" had steadily increased over the same period of time.
Additionally, (on Page 97 of the proposed Annual Budget)
the "Estimate 1999-2000 tote( water and sewer Revenues" is
LESS than the "Actual .1997-1998 Revenues" and LESS than
the "Actual 1998-1999Revenues". The Budget presentation
obviously omitted the City Manager reported $540,000.
INCREASE in revenues that resulted from the drought of 2000.
It is my opinion that the Public Works Director and the City
Manager should prudently and competently examine the
escalating "operating costs" and eliminate wastes therein
befiore imposing higher utility rates on the "captive customers".
Res ~~~~~¢~~~
A " W. Potter, Sr.3
3 4 Second St., Atlantic Beach
{904) 249-9954
r
Public Works Administration
Street & Road Maintenance
Local Option Gas Tax
Water Utility
Sewer Util'[ty
Sanitation Utility
Storm Water Utility
Bond Construction
Fleet Maintenance
Pubtic Works
Combined Summary Expenditures
___
PROPOSED
ACTUAL ACTUAL _ ESTIMATE BUDGET INCREASE
1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-2001 DECREASE _
• Revenues: •
- General Fund Resources
Local Option Gas Tax
.Water Utility
Sewer Utility
Sanitation Utility
Storm Water Utility
Bond Construction
Internal Service Charges
Total Revenues
Expenditures:
•
•
Total Expenses
Resource Allocation
Agenda #3A
September 11, 2000
604,119 804,526 1,007,907 631,955 (375,952)
477,632 512,460 542,190 548,159 5,969
2,299,960 2,274,465 2,223,747 2,265,312 41,565
3,528,754 3,473,615 3,523,939 4,214,823 690,884
1,102,172 1,129,568 1,198,867 1,203,444 4,577
511,577 983,545 298,785 837,450 538,665
486,883 475,982 400,000 300,000 (100,000)
471,207 521,962 563,678 639,409 75,731
9,482,304 .10,176,123 9,759,113 10,640,552 881,439
283,799 306,929 348,071 394,373 46,302 .
604,119 804,526 1,007,907 631,955 (375,952)
85,227 237,417 392,469 1,651,959 1,259,490
2,122,766 2,449,978 3,169,913 2,127,724 (1,042,189)
3,102,412 3,645,613 5,784,120 3,868,476 (1,915,644)
1,072,640 1,056,769 1,093,488 1,215,576 122,088
391,746 559,393 597,335 1,274,520 677,185
1,002,303 1,627,423 1,326,997 6,617,081 x,290,084
245,036 221,389 215,607 245,03fi 29,429
8,910,048 10,909,437 13,935,9D7 18,026,700 4,090,793
Personal Services 1,473,777 1,548,143 1,546,654 1,630,461 83,807
Operating Expenses 3,659,879 4,247,606 4,151,513 4,553,075 401,562
Capital Outlay 1,284,885 2,406,011 5,799,358 9,489,316 3,689,958
Debt Service 1,283,019 1,350,625 1,699,760 1,681,889 (17,871)
Transfers 1,208,488 1,357,052 738,622 671,959 (66,663)
Total Expenses 8,910,048 10,909,437 13,935,907 18,026,700 4,090,793
97
Agenda #3A
September 11, 2000
Annual Consumption by Month
__ __
120
110
~.. 100
o ~,
~ ~
o _° 90
•- ~
__ ~
80
70
60
m a~ a~ ~' ~'' ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ u
c 'Q .~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ L ~ ~
~ G
`` ~-
z o
Month
'-~- 1998 1999 -~- 2000 ~ 2001
Agenda #3A
September 11, 2000
STAFF REPORT
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
__
__
_ __
AGENDA ITEM:
DATE:
SUBMITTED BY:
11`" Street Parking
September 5, 2000
David E. Thompson, Chief of Police/DPS
BACKGROUND: A petition was received regarding parking problems on 11`'' Street,
East of Ocean Blvd.. The petition requested "No Parking" on the
right-of--way on 11~' Street. I met with neighbors at that location on
Friday, September 1, 2000 at 5:00 p.m., and we walked around the
area and discussed concerns and possible solutions.
The roadway is narrow, and it will not accommodate parking on both
sides of the roadway safely. When vehicles park on both sides of the
roadway, it provides very little space for large emergency vehicles to
pass through.
There is sufficient space to accommodate parking on one side of the
street. We discussed the practical aspects of parking at that location,
and we agreed that it would be better to allow parking on the South
side of the street, while prohibiting parking on the North side of the
street. This should assure sufficient roadway for emergency
vehicles, while allowing some limited parking at that location. The
group consensus was to proceed with this solution.
We also discussed the placement of signs, and 1 told them that the
City will erect signs on appropriate sign posts at that location.
Although some citizens inquired about posting signs on trees, it was
pointed out that the City Code prohibits attaching signs to trees. We
also discussed marking the pavement instead of using signs, but there
is no usable curbing at that location that would work for that
purpose.
RECOMMENDATIONS: No Action Needed by the City Commission
The Police Department will authorize "No Parking" signs on the
North side of the roadway
ATTACHMENTS: None
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
AGENDA JrT'EM NUMBER:
Agenda #3A
September 11, 2000
MEMORANDUM
__ TO: Jim Hanson, City Manager
FROM: George Worley, Community Development Director . ~-z ~~
DATE: September 5, 2000
RE: Takings Bills
At the last regular City Commission meeting Commissioner Borno expressed concern for
an issue addressed in the August 21, 2000 Nation's Cities Weekly newsletter. The issue involves
two takings bills proposed in Congress. The bills are H.R. 2372, "The Private Property
Implementation Act of 1999," introduced by Rep. Canady (R-FL), and S. 1028 "The Citizens
Access to Justice Act of 1999," introduced by Sen. Hatch (R-UT). Both bills would adversely
impact local government authority by permitting landowners or developers to bypass state and
local courts and take their land use grievances directly to federal courts.
These bills doubly impact municipalities in Florida because of our Home Rule principles.
The bills will allow a property owner or developer who is denied a zoning or development related
permit to by-pass local administrative appeals, state administrative appeals and state courts of
appeal and take their claims directly to federal appeals court. The bills would allow the local
decision to be up-held or over-turned in federal court far from the community effected by such
decisions. Because the bills do not directly attack the ability of local jurisdictions to make land
use decisions they have the appearance of protecting property owners rights. However, the ability
to over-turn local decisions at federal level potentially nullifies the police powers of local
governments.
There exists an elaborate, layered array of appellate actions available to property owners
or developers who are denied the use of their land by local land use decisions. These have proven
to provide protection to both the property owner and the local government. They provide a well
balanced forum for appeals the gives just regard to both the principles of Home Rule and the
guiding language of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution with its protection of private
property rights. Modifying or replacing this established process without firm evidence of misuse
is tantamount to repairing something that is not broken.
I believe the City of Atlantic Beach should actively oppose adoption of both the House
and the Senate bills. I will. assist in preparation of letters to House and Senate members on behalf
of the City Commission if they so desire. For additional information, I have attached a reprint of
an article from the National League of Cities Website.
Agenda #3A
September 11, 2000
"Excerpt from the National League of Cities Website"
TAKINGS
Background
Two takings bills, aimed specifically at local government authority, would permit landowners to
bypass state and local courts and procedures and take their land use grievances directly into
federal court. The bills are. H.R. 2372, "The Private Property Implementation Act of 1999,"
introduced by Rep. Canady (R-FL), and S. 1028 "The Citizens Access to Justice Act of 1999,"
introduced by Sen. Hatch (R-UT). Both bills would permit an award of attorney's fees to any
prevailing plaintiff. In a nutshell, these bills seek to federalize land use law because, if enacted,
local land use decisions would be made increasingly by the non-elected federal judiciary, not by
local communities.
This legislation would also overturn existing law which requires that state courts review local land
use decisions before a case is "ripe" for federal court. This rule of law was first laid out by the
U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Williamson County Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of
Johnson City in 1985. The Williamson County case stated that in order to present a ripe taking
claim in federal court, a taking claimant must: (1) present a "final decision regarding the
application of the regulations to the property at issue" from "the governmental entity charged with
implementing the regulations"; and (2) demonstrate that the claimant requested "compensation
through the procedures the State has provided for doing so." In other words, a property owner
must first make every effort to resolve land use disputes through the local public hearing, review
and appeals process before going into federal court. The proposed legislation would essentially
eliminate both prongs of this established Supreme Court ripeness test.
NLC Position and Policy
NLC has specific policy which "opposes federal regulations, statutes or amendments which place
restrictions on state and local government actions regulating private property or requiring
additional compensation beyond the continually evolving judicial interpretations of the Fifth
Amendment of the United States Constitution." (National Municipal Policy § 1.06(J). Local
elected officials adopt ordinances, approve building permits and grant zoning variances, not for
the purpose of infringing on property rights, but rather for the opposite reason, to protect the
property rights of all members of the community.
Because the bills propose bypassing of local procedures and state court review, there would be an
adverse impact on local governments. First, there would be more frequent and more expensive
litigation against local governments because, by circumventing administrative procedures at the
local level, land use disputes would be in court at a far earlier point in the process. In addition, the
bills would force local governments to defend challenges to their land use decisions in distant and
more expensive federal courts. This would result in an enormous financial burden on smaller
communities that do not have the resources to allocate to costly federal court litigation. In sum,
Agenda #3A
September 11, 2000
these bills place a huge unfunded federal mandate on cities and towns across America. Second, '
this Legislation would seriously undermine the ability of local elected officials to protect public
health and safety, safeguard the environment, and support the property values of all residents of a
community. By granting developers a number of significant new procedural advantages inland
use litigation, the bills would provide developers and. other claimants greater leverage to challenge
local land use planning regulations. Local elected officials would be forced into he position of
either having to approve a project or face daunting legal expenses. Developers would have little
incentive to resolve their disputes with the neighbors or negotiate for a reasonable settlement
outside of the courtroom. "
Finally, the proposed legislation would circumvent the careful and open processes that have been
established under state law to assure that other property owners have an opportunity to make
their case, and that all the facts of the situation have been thoroughly examined. By-passing the
local hearing and appeals process would effectively undermine the ability of interested citizens to
comment upon and influence land use decisions which are important to the fufure of their
communities.
H.R. 2372 has survived a markup and vote in the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the
Constitution and is awaiting full Judiciary Committee action. The Senate is watching the House
bill's progress and therefore has not scheduled S. 102$ for action, but this bill will move quickly if
the House bill receives a favorable vote in the House Judiciary Committee.