Loading...
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.