|
Description |
Palatka City Commission 1-12-06 |
||
|
Date |
1/12/2006 |
Location |
Palatka City Commission |
|
|
|||
|
Time |
Speaker/Item |
Note |
|
|
Test |
Testing System |
||
|
CALL TO ORDER |
Mayor Flagg called the meeting to order. |
||
|
Invocation |
Reverend Bob Bronkema, Pastor, First Presbyterian Church of Palatka |
||
|
Pledge of Allegiance |
Mayor Flagg |
||
|
Present Also Present |
Present: Mayor Karl N. Flagg; Commissioners Mary Lawson
Brown, Allegra Kitchens, James Norwood, Jr., and George E. Sanders. |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg welcomed Commissioner Kitchens to the Commission and said they look forward to working together. |
||
|
APPROVAL OF MINUTES 12/15/05 |
Commissioner Sanders moved to accept the minutes as read. Commissioner Kitchens seconded the motion, which passed unopposed. |
||
|
PUBLIC COMMENTS |
There were none. |
||
|
RECOGNITION |
Mayor Flagg said he wanted to recognize and wish Vice Mayor Mary Lawson Brown a Happy Birthday, and presented her with a birthday card. |
||
|
CONSENT AGENDA |
|
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Kitchens moved to approve all items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion, which passed unopposed. |
||
|
REPORTS OF DEPARTMENTS AND COMMITTEES |
Mr. Leonard Freeman, 422 River St., Chairperson of the 5-year Downtown Redevelopment Planning Team, reported on the scoring results of the Developers Interviews. He noted the results had been tallied and presented to the City Commission and public. He said the results would be taken back to the Team, which will meet on the 23rd, for the Team to formally produce a recommendation for the Commission. He noted that although there were two very different kinds of proposals and presentations, it was interesting that they created scores that were almost identical. Mayor Flagg thanked Mr. Freeman for his leadership and also expressed his gratitude to the Team, and said they look forward to the formal letter from the Team. |
||
|
Palatka Municipal Airport |
Glenn Ball, Airport Supervisor said he had given the Commission and staff a list of projects that are completed or in progress as of this date. He said Georgia Pacific and FDOT would clean three partially obstructed drainage culverts that move water from the airport north to Georgia Pacific property. This has been a major concern of theirs. Along Highway 100 there is a project going on where they are waiting for a final approval from FDOT St. Augustine to remove trees on approaches to Runway 17/35. This tree removal would allow useable runway length to increase from 3,500' to 4,500'. The company that will be cutting the trees down would not charge for the work. One issue is determining how they are going to cut the trees down without obstructing the traffic, and he is working on that. Taxiways A & B paving rehabilitation Taxiway C lighting rehabilitation is also being done. The windsock is being replaced and the installation of a segmented circle and fencing along Hwy. 100 that will be relocated are scheduled to take place in approximately two weeks. The drainage pipes and conduits on airport property are being reviewed for their condition replacement needs by EMS, an engineering firm out of Altamonte Springs. This process will correct years of neglect and solve the drainage issues along with the work previously mentioned along Hwy. 100 to the Georgia Pacific property. They are looking at building some new T-hangers. The demand is high; many people want come to Palatka and base their airplanes there because of the rates and location. Some of them may have seen a big black airplane flying over the City; it is called the TDY Catalina, and he was flying it. He is trained to fly in the plane for air shows and also as a member of its flight crew. They are trying to get the plane based here. There are many things that need to be done, and many improvements are planned. |
||
|
|
Mr. Glenn said about two months ago he received a letter from the FDOT affirming funding for the new terminal operations building in the amount of $650,000.00. They are seeking additional funding from the Federal Aviation Administration and through Congressman John Mica's office. He said the plans are for an 8,000 sq. ft. facility. |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg thanked Mr. Ball for his update. |
||
|
PUBLIC COMMENTS |
Mayor Flagg said he did receive two speaker cards related to item 3a and said tonight the Commission is only receiving the scoring results from the 5 Year Downtown Redevelopment Planning Team. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Kitchens said asked to allow these people to speak. |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg said a speaker card was filled out by Deborah Welky Miles, 414 River Street, saying she wanted to go on record saying that, based on her previous experience with Brefrank, she would like it noted that Brefrank has a track record of contributing to festivals as well as the community-at-large and that they can be trusted. |
||
|
|
Ruth Burk, 510 Mulholland Park, said she wanted to know if she could get assurance in writing that her buildings on St. Johns Ave. are not being included in the Riverfront Project before the Commission accepts a developer. She said she has fears. She said she had sent Elite and the Commissioners a very brief letter. She thanked Commissioner Sanders for his call. She owns three buildings on the south side of the two-hundred block of St. Johns Ave. In her letter she asked the developers why the drawings of the Riverfront Project include St. Johns Ave. up to Third St. She asked if there is a Phase III planned, and if it goes all the way up to Fourth St. She didn’t hear from anyone except Vestcor. Before the Commission votes on a plan, she has requested in writing why a Federal Grant gave EDSA the right to draw her properties all the way up to Third St. and to the Riverfront Development. She also wanted to know why Elite and Vestcor drew her properties into their plans when she is a private citizen and taxpayer. She said it looks like the Commission is voting private property into a Riverfront Development and taking away her civil rights as a citizen. She said since the waterfront zoning has gone up to Fourth St. her properties have multiplied more than ten times in value. She is all for the Riverfront Development but she wants clarification of the boundary lines of this Riverfront Development and assurance that her properties are not included. This has bothered her so much it has affected her health. She said Mr. Bush has assured her, and she thanked him for talking to her, but then he walked into a meeting with the State Representative and said he wanted to go for eminent domain. She said she does not want to have her properties be deemed blighted. |
||
|
|
Mr. Bush said what he told her is the City does not come in and do involuntary annexations of personal property. |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg said in dealing with whatever the selected developers are for this community, there will be multiple public hearings and there will be a developer agreement that will be scrutinized not only by this Commission but also by the public. He said nothing would happen without the knowledge of this community. |
||
|
|
Mr. Holmes said the development agreement will specifically set forth the terms of and describe the development that is going to take place. He said this would be adopted at an open meeting. |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg said it will discuss specifically the boundaries, and if her property shows up on that agreement, then is when she should loose sleep, but at this time, her property is not noted in any legal descriptions as far as any of the developers are concerned. The drawings she is referring to were designed just to show that the Riverfront Development does have an impact on downtown revitalization and development. Mayor Flagg said the developers and the City want to see the redevelopment spread up the business district and throughout the downtown area. The developers would not control that; the property owners downtown would be in control of that. |
||
|
|
Ms. Burk said the CEO of Vestcor called her and left a lengthy message and it was a good message. |
||
|
|
Mr. Holmes said the City does not own her property, so they cannot make any promises to anyone about her property. He said the City would have to somehow acquire her property in order to pledge it or offer it to anyone for development purposes. The only way they could do this is to buy it from her or take it by eminent domain, but there has not been any hint, suggestion or thought to his knowledge of taking anyone’s property by eminent domain. As long as she owns the property the City cannot include it in any plan that is binding upon her. The concept the developer is talking about is a vision for them and to the best of his knowledge the City did not play a roll in helping them develop that vision. That is what the Public Hearings are going to be about, from now until there is an agreement with developers. |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg asked Ms. Burk if the minutes of this meeting would be sufficient for what she needs? Ms. Burk said she guessed and hoped it would. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Kitchens said she was going to bring this up under Commissioner Comments; the subject of eminent domain is very near and dear to her heart. There was a Supreme Court decision saying a local government can take private property for a private developer but they left it up to the discretion of the states to formulate laws preventing that. She said she has been in touch with Representative Joe Pickens’ office and they are working on a bill addressing eminent domain that would prevent that. About a week or two after the Supreme Court decision, the US House of Representatives passed an emergency resolution saying that any municipality that took local private property for a private developer would loose all public funds immediately and never have them in the future. Commissioner Kitchens said she hopes the Florida Legislature comes up with something good, but what she would like to see the City pass an ordinance addressing eminent domain, saying they will not take private property for private development. Taking private property for an airport, hospital or maybe for a federal highway is what she thinks the Constitution intended. She would like to see the City research the issue and pass an ordinance to protect the citizens of Palatka immediately, even before the Florida Legislature passes their law. She would like the City Attorney to do some research on this and come up an ordinance |
||
|
|
Commissioner Brown said this is one of the things Florida League of Cities is working on. She said the League has attorneys that are working on it and Mr. Holmes could contact them. Commissioner Kitchen reiterated she would like the City Attorney to look into this. Mayor Flagg asked Mr. Bush to get the information from the League of Cities to the City Attorney so he can brief the Commission on which direction it needs to take. |
||
|
REQUEST TO REMOVE STOP SIGNS |
Mr. Philip Leary, 520 River Street, said since December, the situation with the stop sign on River Street has deteriorated. It has been over 30 days since it was placed, and as he pointed out in a letter to the Commission dated January 4, 2006, the stop signs were put there inconsistently with adopted city policy growth management objectives under the city’s transportation element of the growth management plan. This leaves the City with some liability. The only vehicle accident that he can find that occurred in the last 20 years on River St., at least within the section of the city dock area up to the railroad tracks, was an accident that occurred the Saturday after the stop signs were put up. The stop signs are inconsistent with similar types of road facilities. St. Johns Ave. from Palm Ave. south to the railroad track, which is a much more narrow road, has a high residential population, a higher speed limit and no stop signs and this is consistent with what River St. is designed for. He does not know if the City has received as many phone calls as they have heard horns blaring, but the litter, noise and the speeding has not stopped. People use the stop sign as a mechanism to move to see how fast they can go from the stop sign to the next block. One out of eight cars runs the stop sign and it has created a truly inconsistent traffic hazard. He presented the Commission with a petition signed by residents along River St. in the 300, 400, 500 and 600 blocks and another petition of over 100 names of people in the general vicinity of Palatka and some just outside the City limits who oppose the stop signs and request they be removed. It is his opinion as a professional planner that clearly the city’s policy says that stop signs cannot be used for stopping speeding or reducing speed. He said the traffic count has been reduced more than 25 to 30 percent since Crill Ave. has opened, and it probably will continue when more people recognize that they can use Crill Ave. He would be happy to work with the city staff, police department or whoever the city would like in coming up with some recommendations, and has some ideas on things that have been done in other communities that could address this. He is not saying the speed limit should be raised but it does need to be looked at and be consistent with other similar roadways in the city that are providing the same type of transportation service. He would like to see this issue resolved tonight. He does understand there are other residents that support the stop signs,who are worried about traffic safety. He does not think residents on Emmett St., Kirby St. and the other parts of the South Historic District really have a lot of understanding of what transpires on River St. and what these stop signs have created. He asked that the Commission move to have the stop signs removed tomorrow. |
||
|
|
Mr. Mark Miles, 414 River St. said he has personally witnessed a reduction in vehicular speed since the stop signs were erected. They did what they were intended to do but, because the speed limit had not been enforced in the past, for whatever reason, if the city plans to remove the stop sign tonight the city needs an alternate plan and wants to know what that plan may be. There are children that cross River St. that play on the riverside and it is a very dangerous situation. He thinks 25 miles an hour is appropriate on that street. It is a safety issue. He did not sign the petition and was not made aware that there was a petition. He encouraged the Commission to leave the stop signs because they are doing a good job and he is satisfied with them. |
||
|
|
Nancy Becker, 613 Kirby St. said she is the new president of the Southside Historic District but she was not here to represent them. She lives in the neighborhood and walks her dog at least three times a day down by the river. When she first heard about the stop signs she was not against it because she has almost been hit many times by the speeders on River St., so she was open minded about having the stop signs there. Her daughter lives on Dodge St. She has seen a great change in speeding and admits there are people who blow their horns, and that has to be annoying, but is has been a pleasure to be able to walk down that area without having the speeders. There were a few days of screeching of tires and people almost hitting one another but as they got used to it has alleviated lots of speeding. As the Jutras project progresses she would like to see another stop sign erected closer to the railroad tracks. |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg noted a speaker card was filled out by Deborah Welky Miles, 414 River St. saying for the record to please keep the stop signs on River Street. |
||
|
|
Christy Sanford, 312 Dodge St. said she walks her dog at least twice a day by the river and drives to the Ravines. At first she did hear honking and can imagine how annoying that was, but hasn't heard it in a long time. She thinks things are very polite and orderly now but does not know what happens in the middle of the night, which could be a real problem. She has not heard that addressed. As to the petition, this is the first she has heard of it; it has not come before the South Historic Neighborhood Association, but they do have a meeting next Monday night. |
||
|
|
Mr. Leary said he wished Mr. Miles would have the stopped
sign moved down to his corner because that would suit them. Mayor Flagg asked Mr. Leary, for the
record, if that would solve the problem.
Mr. Leary said it would solve the problem of the noise and the impact
on his private property for his family. For the record, they are opposed to
any stop sign on River St. and the City should be also, because the city’s
own public policy is totally inconsistent with this. Essentially, the city is
breaking their own law by having the stop signs there. He said they also get
the results of all those folks walking their dogs down River Street, but that
is another issue. The reason speeding has been reduced is that the traffic
has been reduced; if you reduce the traffic by 25 or 30 percent you’ll reduce
the speeders by 25 or 30 percent. When
Crill Ave. was closed the majority of the traffic was dumped onto River
Street, but now it is open and flowing freely. It has alleviated a tremendous amount of
that traffic from River St. |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg said noted the City is still in a testing period on this issue. Mr. Leary said it has been more than 30 days since the signs went up. They are letting the South Historic Neighborhood Association tell them what should happen on River St. Mayor Flagg said in defense of the Southside Historic District, they did not ask for the stop sign. |
||
|
|
Police Chief Gary Getchell read a memo that was given to
the City Commission in reference to traffic calming on River Street (on
file). He said they have found that as a matter of practice and policy, this
City, has used stop signs to restrict or reduce speed. There are many
intersections throughout the north and south sides that have stop signs
erected for that purpose, which were erected before he came here. This is the
first stop sign that he knows of, where the Police Department has been
involved in its placement during the last 4 1/2 years since he has been here,
which has been erected for this purpose. There have been issues raised
regarding whether this is legal or not. An Attorney General’s opinion makes
it is very clear that the city can regulate traffic on county owned roads or
county maintained roads in the City, and this is a county maintained
road. They can’t regulate traffic, but
can enforce laws, on any State or Federal Highway. His concern is that they
have utilized stop signs for the purpose of calming traffic in the past, and
whatever decision the Commission makes will not only affect the stop sign on
River St., it may affect every three or four way stop in the city, if the
stop signs were erected for the same reasons. It is his understanding, based
on the Attorney General’s opinion, that the Florida Uniform Traffic Control
Manual is nothing more than a guideline. The City can adopt practices,
policies and procedures that add value or safety in a particular
neighborhood. There are municipalities and counties all over the state that
have erected stop signs for the same purpose.
As a department, they are neither for nor against this stop sign or
any other stop sign. He believes this is a matter for the City Attorney to
explore. If they remove the stop sign because it violates the Uniform Traffic
Control Manual, then there are other intersections that may be affected by
this. If the City, by matter of policy
or practice, adopts verbatim the Florida Uniform Traffic Control Manual, he
thinks the speed limits on various roads including River St. will be
affected. There is an 85% rule when
it comes to determining the appropriate speed limit for any given street.
Prior to the stop sign being erected, the average speed was between 35 and 40
miles an hour when they were writing tickets. They measured speed this past
weekend, and of the 139 cars whose speed was measured, the average speed was
33 mph. They would like to have some more time to do speed calculations over
there, but believe that they have netted a reduction in speed of well over 5
miles per hour. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Brown asked if there was a reason for picking the intersection of Dodge & River Street. Chief Getchell said when working with the Southside Historic District and the City Roads Dept., that was the site that was chosen. Commissioner Brown asked if the sign could be moved to another corner and not affect their traffic count. Chief Getchell said he thinks the variables change when they move it; his suggestion remains seeking a legal opinion on moving or removing it. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Brown said she thought that last time when the Leary’s came to talk to the Commission it was said it was a test that was being run for 30 days, and that after the 30-day period or test that they would come up with some determination of what would happen after the 30-day period. She lives on a very busy corner with stop lights and people trying to beat the stop light, and she understands the trash problem. She also understands the speeding issue, because when you have kids and animals you don't want them to get hurt. If a legal opinion will give them an opportunity to look at other alternatives for slowing the speed down, she favors that. She thought Mr. Leary had some good suggestions, and suggested opening up communication so that they might reach a compromise that would address the speeders, but not disturb the people that live along the street. |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg said in speaking with the Public Works Director, Planning Director, Police Chief and City Manager, it was understood that the stop signs would be permanent. There was a testing period and he knows the 30 day number came up, but that did not come from the Police Department. They recognize River Street it is not a South Historic District street. He said it is an area that takes on a lot of individuals who are coming and going, whether they are coming from the west or even north and southerly to get to East Palatka or to the downtown area, so they have to take all of those things into consideration plus work with the neighborhood, as well as this specific neighbor. They do have to look at the entire picture and see if we can fix it. He noted Mr. Leary has indicated his willingness to work in a professional capacity as a planner along with City’s planner, public works and police dept. They don’t want to set precedence wherein they put up a sign just to take it down again. He notes Mr. Leary is on record as stating it is very annoying at that intersection. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Kitchens said Mr. Miles commented about the small children that live at the three addresses and indicated they cross River St. She is concerned with any small child that crosses any street without an adult accompanying them. She thinks this is a safety issue. She asked how many people live in the South Historic District and how many were actually at the meeting that discussed the traffic problem. |
||
|
|
Chief Getchell said he did not have the numbers of how many people live in the District, but as to how many people were at the meeting, there was more than one meeting. He never attended the meetings when this item was discussed, but his personnel attended them, and they brought a request back. He received numerous calls from the leadership of the historic district wanting to why it was taking so long for the sign to be erected, as they couldn’t get them from the supplier in the aftermath of the hurricanes. The signs had been ordered through the City Lot, but it just took a long time for them to get here. There was a solid interest from the Historic District, but whether they were all in attendance, he couldn’t say. He relied upon the notes coming to him from the officers that were there. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Kitchens said she had heard a figure of how many were in attendance. Some residents contacted her and said they were not at the meeting, and were also opposed to the stop sign. She said Mr. Leary had brought up the fact that there had been a 25 to 30 percent decrease in traffic since the Crill Ave. underpass had been opened and she believes it closed in March of last year, so she would like to know if the Chief could get her this information, extend the test period, and present it at the end of 30 days. She would like to know how many citations were issued in 2004 first and compare that with the citations that were issued in 2005. She said perhaps the underpass closure was the main catalyst that caused the increase in speeding on River Street. She asked if the PD received as many complaints of speeders in 2004 as they did in 2005. Chief Getchell said he could not give her an exact answer, but he has been receiving complaints of speeding on River Street since they day he came here. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Kitchens said she is familiar with the other stop signs on Kirby St. and various places in Palatka and she is not sure why they were put there; there is no problem with them and as far as she knows. She believes the stop signs on the Northside were erected as part of the Weed & Seed program in trying to slow down drug traffic. She said she has not heard any complaints about the other signs and she does not believe problem of people blowing their horns at 2 o'clock in the morning and waking people during the night exists in those areas, but she’d like to know if the speeding increased due to the closing of the Crill Avenue underpass. Mayor Flagg said the issue right now is that Mr. Leary would really like the signs down at midnight. |
||
|
|
Mrs. Pauline Leary, 520 River St. said the Police Chief said he needed a legal opinion to make a change, and asked whose legal opinion they sought when they decided to place the signs there. Chief Getchell said as a manner of custom and practice the City has put signs at intersections and it is his interpretation of the laws that City has right as a municipality to regulate traffic. There are opposing views on this. One of the things he has to concern himself with as police chief is, if they make this decision as a matter of fact or law, then in essence it may make all the other stop signs illegal, and if they issue traffic citations at those intersections and people take them to court, then those citations will be thrown out. His concern is not necessarily about the stop sign at Mrs. Leary’s intersection. He would just like this to be explored, as he is not an attorney. Mrs. Leary said the noise is unreal. |
||
|
|
Mr. Leary said, in respect to the Chiefs comments, he did not make his analysis based just on the FMTC manual. He made it based on the city’s adopted growth management plan and the transportation element that is included in it, which was adopted by ordinance and is a law. This stop sign is inconsistent with the city’s adopted comprehensive plans, and the study that the PD did on Saturday and Sunday is totally invalid from any traffic planning or engineering standpoint. What you measure is the A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic during the weekday, which is from 7 A.M. to 9 A.M. in the morning and 4 P.M. to 6 P.M. in the afternoon on workdays Monday thru Friday. The traffic on Saturday and Sunday decreases 50 percent over what it is during the week. Mr. Leary said he thinks the Commission needs to hear from the City Planning Director with respect to the growth management plan and the City’s adopted ordinance. Of the 106 speeding citations that were issued in 2005, he thinks Commissioner Kitchens is right, it is simply a ratio of traffic counts that moved from Crill Ave. to River St. that caused a significant increase in traffic of 25 to 30 percent. He said the Chief may not have the statistics, but he is there nearly every day and he sees the police officers that are on Dodge St. and for the hour or thirty minutes that they are there, one out of six to one out of eight vehicles going through the intersection runs the stop sign. This has created a very hazardous situation, which is obvious by all the accidents that have occurred since it went up. The US and state constitutions and certainly the statutes give them certain property rights. The corner of his house sits 50 feet from that stop sign. He invited everyone to come sit on his porch between 6 A.M. and 10 A.M.; he will even fix them breakfast. Afterwards they will be happy to make a motion to remove them. He offered his consulting services as a professional planner to work with anybody to address the speeding on River St. at no charge. This has been a 30-day nightmare for his family. |
||
|
|
Planning Director Adam Mengel said he provided a memo and some background documents to the Commission packets in reference to River St. and Dodge St. He cannot give the commission an opinion that the stop sign is consistent with the comprehensive plan so he must conclude that it is not inconsistent. He said there is no language that is specific to stop signs within the traffic circulation element. There are some general policies that reference different classifications of roadway system service standards and there are some various methods for traffic calming that are adopted within the plan. There is no specific mention of stop signs included within the plan. He welcomes any questions from the commission regarding his interpretations of any items within the adopted city plan. In reference to Mr. Leary’s comments on River St. being an urban collector within the city street system, he said it probably was not designated that way, but he does feel it is functioning in that manner. It is signed with a 25 mile per hour speed limit and urban connectors typically don't have a 25-mile per hour speed limits. Usually an urban collector that links an arterial to a local street would be something higher than that. Copies of the MUTCD were also included in the Commission packets and Woody Boynton, Public Works Director was available to provide a review of those items. Mr. Mengel referenced Section 2B.05 of the MUTCD noting the section that states STOP signs should be used if engineering judgment indicates that one or more of four listed conditions exist, and speeding was one of them. He said an important emphasis to make is that guidance is present within the MUTCD and that the engineering judgment is what is used in dictating where these signs may be placed. Chief Getchell very correctly emphasized this in his presentation. |
||
|
|
Woody Boynton, Public Works Director, concurred with Mr. Mengel that the MUTCD is a guideline, and there are standards that are used throughout it for roadways. He said the Chief noted in several instances that some of the signs are not up to standards but they are slowly changing those out. He said the guidelines are just that. They were approached by the police chief who had an issue with traffic calming on River St., and in their engineering judgement, they supported his recommendation that a stop sign would in fact assist in controlling or calming traffic on River St. and therefore they put it up. He said they did not indicate any specific time for a trial date to go, they just put them up to see if they would in fact have an effect on traffic calming on River St. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Brown asked if there was a reason for picking this particular intersection. Mr. Boynton said that was the recommendation from the South Historic District, which was the main priority and also, that particular road is somewhat midway to the tracks on River Street. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Kitchens noted that Mr. Mengel referred to River Street as a collector road, and asked if that would make a difference in the other locations the Chief referred to as to the possibility of having to remove those stop signs, also. Mr. Mengel said he was not sure he was in a capacity to really answer that. It would be a different situation and he could not give a legal opinion. Commissioner Kitchens said a lot of signs that were put up on the north side of town had to do with weed and seed in helping to stop the drug trafficking or at least slow it down and she asked if that is a different category than the reason these signs were put up. Mr. Mengel said the intent is probably to lower the ‘pass through’ and that would be the same for both instances. Mayor Flagg said those stop signs predated weed and seed and are not related to slowing down the drug trade. Commissioner Brown said they put the stop signs out there because there were a lot of kids playing around there. Chief Getchell said those stop signs did predate Weed & Seed and his arrival. In talking to staff at the police department, they were erected to stop speeders. He said he learned that before Florida Furniture was opened, on River St., that coming out of Laurel, at one point every intersection had a stop sign on it to reduce speeding from the people leaving from Florida Furniture. He does not think they are there anymore and his staff said they had been removed because of the complaints. Apparently, they put them up for speeding and take them down for complaints. Commissioner Kitchens said they did put up a stop sign at Laurel and River; she thought they were only up for three days before they were taken down. Commissioner Brown said they didn't have them at every corner of Laurel. |
||
|
|
Tamara Delaport, daughter of Mrs. Pauline Leary, said she is upset because they do not live on River St. and no one knows what her mother has to go through. They spend weekends with her, and it is ridiculous. She asked who measured the distance, because the distance from the city dock to her mother’s corner is not half way between the point that people begin to speed; the halfway point would be at least another block down. She asked if her entire family and the few neighbors on that corner needed to put the police department on speed dial and call them every time people screech their tires, holler at them, blow their horns, leave trash, beer bottles and spread confetti in the street and their yard. She asked if the police were going to come over and arrest and ticket the people for blowing the horns and throwing trash in her mother’s yard. She said it is terrible because you can't sleep at night. She was born and raised here all of her life, and there were a lot more kids in the neighborhood when she was young. She knows traffic has picked up, but they never got hit. She said they never went across the street without their parents, who also walked them down to the city docks. When they got older they were just careful. She doesn't know of any child that has ever been hit. Their family should not have to put up with the brunt of all this; they have lived there for forty years. This is just not right, in her opinion. |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg said they do not deserve whatever the consequences have been since the placement of those signs, and the Palatka Police Dept., Palatka Planning Dept. as well as the Public Works Dept. have not said that the stop signs are the solution. |
||
|
|
Mrs. Delaport said that people do not realize what it is like for them. There are speeders, but not so many to necessitate these signs and all the distress her mother has to live with, plus loss of sleep from the hollering and honking. If her mother is outside they holler at her about why she wanted these signs put up; They did not put it there and it was not their idea. They did not want it or ask for it. They are fine with the way River St. has always been. She wants to know who is going to take the time and come and give someone a ticket for blowing their horn and throwing bottles in their yard at night and putting trash all over the road. Her mother has to live with all the stress and discomfort it causes from these people who do not have any sense. They have lived there all their lives with only a handful of people that are driving a little too fast. |
||
|
|
Mr. Daniel R. Ziem Sr., 401 Olive St. said they had stop signs put in on the north side down on 4th St. and Madison, Olive and Bronson in November. He said the neighborhood association voted to put these signs up because that is what they wanted and hopefully they will get the lateral streets of Madison, Olive and Bronson the same way. He said narrowing of the street is not going to slow the traffic down. He was over on River St. today and watched 16 vehicles go by and out of 16 only 5 stopped. He said there are other avenues they might want to try like a blinking light. |
||
|
|
Mr. Vickers, 207 N. 18th St. said the chief said something about not being able to remove signs because of a legal issue, but then said they removed stop signs at Florida Furniture because of complaints. Mayor Flagg said Chief Getchell did not live in Palatka during that time; he was merely providing an example of what has happened in the past. He is not legally accountable for what happened prior to him becoming the Chief. Mr. Vickers asked, if it was legal at that time for the City to remove the signs because of complaints about the signs, why is it now illegal for him to remove the signs? Mayor Flagg said this Chief is a different Chief than the one who supervised those signs going up and then down. Mr. Vickers said it is the same situation. Mayor Flagg noted the Chief is not on trial. |
||
|
|
Ray Hall, 7300 Crill Ave., said she knows the PD has limited resources, and suggested they put a speed trap there and it will stop because speed traps work. That would be a much simpler solution. If people received a few tickets that would slow them down. |
||
|
|
Mr. Greg Leary, 111 Cherry Lane, said he noted the chief mentioned there had been about 106 citations issued, but the radar-monitoring device monitored 936 cars with an average speed of 33. |
||
|
|
Chief Getchell said when they monitored the speed last weekend it was 33 mph. The 106 citations were those written in 2005. They were told this item would not be agendaed until after the Historic District met on the 18th. When they found out last Thursday that Mr. Leary was going to be here tonight, they threw together a radar unit over the weekend as they wanted to be able to come in here and talk about some things if this item was going to be agendaed. As to the length of the study, they simply will not have enough information on this until at least the end of February. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Kitchens said we have a huge amount of people that are against this sign and there is one individual that is suffering physically from lack of sleep and nervous stress. She said she would like to hear the City Attorneys opinion or interpretation. |
||
|
|
Mr. Holmes said he thinks that the place for the stop sign should be a decision made based on traffic engineering and judgment with the comp plan as a guideline, but not necessary a blueprint. The comp plan is not going to tell you where to put a stop sign. He is not qualified to address the traffic studies, traffic calming or violations. There are many factors, but a popular vote doesn't or shouldn't dictate whether you put the sign on one corner or another; otherwise, they will need to go ahead and revise the whole system of traffic control, and then you will end up with chaos. This is a traffic or enforcement issue that requires some judgment and some data that he does not have. As a matter of law, he is opposed to putting a sign up, taking it down, moving it to a different corner and going through that disruption because of particular complaints, because at some point in time you will create a problem. Unless they are prepared to take the sign down permanently, he would hate to see it taken down, moved and then have to start that same learning curve all over again before a decision is made on location or even if any stop sign will be placed in River Street. If the test period has been deemed sufficient, they should make a decision, but if not, they should leave the sign in place until it is seemed sufficient. He fails to see how narrowing the street isn't going to add some liability to the city. From a legal standpoint he does not think the comp plan tells the city they can't have a sign there, period. There are consulting engineers around that might be able to give the city an opinion on placing a stop sigh there, but he would like the city to have enough of a test period so that everybody is comfortable when the data is in, and then take one action – either take it down, leave it up or move it but just one time. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Kitchens asked, if they decide to remove the stop sign and give this woman some relief, are they going to create legal problems all over Palatka? |
||
|
|
Mr. Holmes said by removing this stop sign they may create some kind of specific precedence and interpretation that they will have to apply across the board. If he understands the statement correctly, that statement was based upon the statement that maybe the other signs were put up in what is allegedly a violation of the comp plan or in a fashion that allegedly violates the comp plan, and this one does too, but as he said he does not think the comp plan strictly controls where you put a stop sign. He thinks there are a whole lot of issues involved other than just whether it is a collector street or just a local street. He would like the opportunity to look at the references in Chief Getchell’s memo and the other stop signs, and the rules by which they were placed. Initially his impression is that he does not think removing this stop sign is going to force the City to take a bunch of other stops signs down. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Brown said this is a test, and if they take a ‘test sign’ down, it shouldn’t affect the rest of them. Mr. Holmes said if you determine you can't have a sign there because it violates a particular comp plan rule, then he believes Chief Getchell’s position was that maybe some of these other signs would theoretically violate that same comp plan rule. He believes the Chief’s point was that the comp plan does not strictly say where you put the sign, but if this Commission says it does, they will have to take the other signs down, too. Commissioner Brown said the other stop signs seem to be working, so she does not see where they put that practice in jeopardy by taking this sign down, if this sign is just a test. Either it works or it doesn't. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Norwood asked as to the results of the meeting that was suppose to happen between the South Historic Neighborhood Association, Mr. Leary, Mr. Bush and Chief Getchell. Mr. Bush said he went into that meeting with the expectations that the neighborhood association had unanimously come out and said they want a stop sign here. He said they discovered going in that there were differences of opinion among residents of the south historic district. They even invited the County, because they maintain the road, and they deferred the decision to the City. Since this is a test, their position was and is that they wanted to determine if the signs had the effect that was intended, to calm traffic, and that they would be willing to look at alternative traffic calming devices for that road. He said he told Mrs. Leary that they were getting together again on the 18th, and that he wanted to hear further from the group. They also said they would bring alternative traffic calming methods to the Group for them to review, and would further discuss the stop sign at that time. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Norwood asked if there is a more appropriate speed limit than 25 mph for that street. Chief Getchell said when he was talking about that it was in relation to a matter of law. From a traffic engineering standpoint, there is what they call the “85-percentile rule,” which is what establishes a speed limit for a particular road. If 85% of the automobiles are going at a certain speed on an average, that would be the recommended speed limit. He agrees there is more information that needs to be collected, and they did not know they were going to come here tonight until Mr. Leary put himself on the agenda, so they did the best they could with the time line that they had. He said basically what they found in those two days was that 33 miles per hour was the average speed. If they measure speed in the early morning or late at night and they find that the speeds are higher, that is going to change the numbers significantly. If the decision is based on matters of law and things like the comp plan, and not on what the Commission thinks is the right thing to do, then the uniform traffic control manual is the “Bible” on this and they would have to reassess speed limits and those types of issues. Commissioner Norwood asked if they have thought about putting warning signs about half a block away to warn people that they are approaching a stop sign. Chief Getchell said there are warning signs already in place. |
||
|
|
Evelyn Motes, 309 River St. said she was not in favor of the stop signs in that location to begin with. She attended the neighborhood meeting when everybody decided that was where they were going to be. A policeman also attended the meeting and he agreed, but she thought he didn't know what to do because here were all these people saying they wanted them at the corner of Dodge and River. She said the traffic has really slowed down. They have lived there for 25 years and they have been run into several times backing out of their drive. They want some kind of control and they need the speeders slowed down. She wanted bumper strips but no one would listen to her. Her husband is afraid to sleep in the downstairs bedroom because he is afraid cars are going to run into their home and kill them. She was against the stop signs at Dodge, and would like to see them at Laurel and River St. |
||
|
|
Albert Stoddard, 330 River St. said in the year and a half that he has lived in Palatka, one accident did effect him on River St. A driver going about 50 miles an hour lost control of their car, hit the telephone pole in front of the Hoffman house and almost came through his front porch. He said people are speeding on River St. and his opinion is that the average speed is 50 miles an hour. His house is quite close to River St. and he could not imagine if a stop sign was put in front of his house. He was at one of the meetings that the City Manager and a representative from the police dept. attended, which was the December meeting. At one time he was all for it and thought it was a great idea, but after putting himself in Mrs. Leary’s shoes, he is not so certain. He did not want it moved to his corner. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Sanders said if they remove the signs, they may create more problems than they are solving. He does not see any gain in moving the signs from one block to another, which does not solve the problem at all. They need to give the study some more time, and then decide if it comes down or stays. He would hate to put up with some of the problems that Mrs. Leary has had to put up with. They should make a decision after the trial is complete, but do not remove the signs and put them on another block because they will create another problem. |
||
|
|
Mr. Bush said at the January 18th meeting they would be looking at other traffic calming devices. He invited everyone from the South Historic District to attend. His recommendation is to go forward with the meeting and share ideas, because there are alternatives. Mr. Leary suggested, rather than having a lot of people do this, instead the Commission should appoint a committee of professionals to look at the issue. What they are talking about is letting people who don't even live on River St. dictate to them that they should have a stop sign there. Mr. Bush said the south side historic district came in and made the recommendation for the stop sign. The commission is not saying the stop sign is going to stay there; this is a test. |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg said the burden could not rest on the residents. He concurred that there needs to be representation and everything needs to be done in a public setting. At the same time, the Planning Director, the Police Chief, the Public Works Engineer and the City Attorney are professionals, and whoever else is needed to constitute a committee should meet at a time certain on this. He is not sure that the Southside Historic District or Association can issue an opinion on the stop sign being up or down. Tonight they need to give Mrs. Leary some peace of mind and say how they can either shorten the test period or say when that test period is going to consist of and conclude, and pray Mrs. Leary, her immediate family and all others who are affected by the consequences of the sign will bare with the City and work with them during that period. The decision should be made at the end of the test period, and needs to be made based upon the recommendation of professionals. |
||
|
|
Mr. Holmes said it is perfectly legitimate for the city to react to complaints of citizens, whether that be at the Southside neighborhood meeting or just a bunch of people calling. It is appropriate for the city to look to the citizens for suggestions, and this is what sounds like will happen. A suggestion was made to put a stop sign in at a certain location and everything to that point was fine. At that point they decided after the sign was placed they were going to make a decision on whether it stayed there based upon planning and engineering criteria, whether is it having an effect on speeding, and the overall good and bad of it being there. If the city makes a decision on that basis, he is comfortable with that format. He is not comfortable with the format of popular opinion on whether to take it down, leave it or move it. You can't put traffic signal devices in a town based upon who wants it at what location and not take into consideration planning, traffic engineering or traffic control. To rush through the test and say now get it done as quickly as possible, even if the information you get isn't good information, you accomplish nothing at that point. |
||
|
|
Mr. Bush said there should be some type of traffic calming device on River St. If they sit down with the group and look at alternatives, there may be something in there. They would not make the final decision but at least they could talk about some alternatives and come back to the commission with those. |
||
|
|
Chief Getchell said, as a professional police chief, he has never been in favor of using a stop sign as a traffic-calming device. That is something this city has used in the past. When they met with the Southside Historic District they did present what they believed to be the best solution right on down to the worst solution to solve this particular issue. What they have found when they are trying to calm issues of speeding, noise or excessive traffic and they talk to the public about what their alternatives are, in 9 out of 10 instances they choose stop signs. Traffic calming devices are by nature intrusive. Weed and Seed discussed this. If they do keep the stop sign there, it is only a temporary solution. On River St., because of how it is designated and how it is connected throughout the City, due to pending growth, they will have significant speeding, pedestrian safety issues and increased accidents if they don't look at a more permanent means of reducing the issues there. A portion of River Street may be designed for that level of traffic, but the road leading into it off of 15th St. is not. There are many planning issues that need to be considered, and not just on behalf of the PD. As traffic in the City and on the outskirts grows, they will see and feel the impacts. He has heard the complaints, and what they know is that there will be issues for the first 45 to 60 days after they are erected, but if you leave them up over a period of time they usually go away because people get used to them. River St. needs a more permanent solution than these stop signs. Commissioner Brown asked if he could bring a recommendation to the next meeting on a more permanent solution. Chief Getchell said he could, but he prefers Mr. Leary’s suggestion. There has been talk of possible alterations to the road whether it be permanent or temporary. Many issues are far beyond his realm of knowledge and would require the opinions of traffic and planning engineers. They need to come up with a collective recommendation. |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg asked Mr. Leary if he was willing to meet with the City Planner and Police Chief as a Planner. Mr. Leary said he has talked with the City Planner and he has talked with Mr. Boynton a time or two but this is a very confusing situation for him from the standpoint that the City Planner said that is an urban collector, which is different than all the other local roads and all the other roads designated by the city comp plan. He disagrees with Mr. Holmes because the city comp plan is an adopted law and it's an ordinance. It may not address that specific stop sign, but it does talk about urban collectors. He said it is ridiculous and unacceptable that his mother has to suffer for two more weeks. |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Kitchens moved to remove the stop signs on River Street at Dodge Street effective immediately. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. |
||
|
Roll Call Vote |
A roll call vote was requested and taken, with the following results: Commissioner Brown, yes; Commissioner Kitchens, yes; Commissioner Norwood, no; Commissioner Sanders, no; and Mayor Flagg, yes; The motion passed to remove the stop signs, with 3 in favor and 2 against. |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Brown moved to have City Professionals get together and come to the Commission with a plan to correct the speeding on River Street. Commissioner Kitchens seconded the motion. Commissioner Sanders said if he understands correctly he thought the study was going to continue on until the 26th and there was also a meeting on the 16th, but what they have done tonight is voted to take the sign down, yet the study has not been completed. He felt this was completely out of order. |
||
|
Roll Call Vote |
A roll call vote was requested and taken, with the following results: Commissioners Brown, Kitchens, Norwood, Sanders and Mayor Flagg, yes; Nays, none. The motion passed. |
||
|
Public Hearing - Resolution |
The Clerk read a resolution entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PALATKA, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE CITY OF PALATKA'S POTABLE WATER WELLS FACILITIES PLAN DATED 2005; AUTHORIZING THIS PLAN TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; AND AUTHORIZING DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO AUTHORIZED CITY EMPLOYEES. |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Norwood moved to adopt the resolution as read and presented. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. |
||
|
|
Public Works Director Woody Boynton said this is an overview and Phase I of the process and is designed to show that the City is fiscally responsible to carry its debt share of the water plant improvements. Once this is submitted and approved by the DEP, they will move into phase II, which is the construction aspect; they are currently working on the construction design. |
||
|
Point of Information |
The City Clerk said as a point of information, the Finance Director would like to them to note that there was a change to the Footnote on page 11, in reference to item C, column FY with an asterisk besides the number showing a negative 686.847, and read the foot note into the record, as follows: “If the city receives the grant for 85% of the cost of the project, the deficit will be taken care of.” |
||
|
|
Mr. Bush said they actually show a deficit on the page showing the financials as a projection. They had to plug in the cost of the improvements at 100% per the instruction from the DEP. They have shown that they are not able to meet the cost of the City’s share of the installation, but that is more than offset by the 85% grant. After discussion, Mr. Bush said he would re-word it to make it read better. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Kitchens asked Mr. Boynton if this is the start of the project that would reduce the amount of trihalomethanes in the city water that was referred to in the letters sent out to water users. Mr. Boynton said Commissioner Kitchens was correct. Commissioner Kitchen said at the bottom of page one it says is a rate increase is necessary as a result of this project, and asked if this was going to be reflected on water bills, and how much the increase would be. Mr. Bush said he it was his understanding that with an 85% grant, a rate increase was not anticipated. Mr. Boynton said currently as constituted there is no rate increase planned, but as they all know, construction costs are quickly increasing. The longer they delay, it could mean the City’s share of that 15% increases just because the overall cost of the project increases. If constructed under today’s estimate, they will not need an increase. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Kitchens noted said the Median Household Income (MHI) for the entire system shows $19,953, and asked if that is the median income for citizens of Palatka who are currently receiving water service. Mr. Bush said those figures are provided by the State of Florida, and that is for the citizens who currently receive water service. |
||
|
Roll Call Vote |
There being no further discussion, a roll-call vote was taken, with the following results: Commissioners Brown, Kitchens, Norwood, Sanders and Mayor Flagg, Yes; Nays, none. Resolution No. 8-1 was declared adopted. |
||
|
ORDINANCE |
Closing Hotel Street east of River St. - 1st reading - The clerk read an ordinance entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALATKA FLORIDA, CLOSING, VACATING, AND ABANDONING THAT PORTION OF HOTEL STREET LOCATED SOUTHEASTERLY OF RIVER STREET AS DESCRIBED HEREIN, WITHIN THE CITY OF PALATKA, FLORIDA; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Norwood moved to pass the Ordinance on first reading as read. Commissioner Sanders seconded the motion. |
||
|
|
William L. Townsend, Esquire, spoke on behalf of his clients, Alan and Suzanne Jacob. They are requesting the closure of Hotel Street east of River Street, which is referred to on the platted map referred to as Dick’s Map as already being closed; however, a recorded record of that closure can’t be located. He has outlined their position in a memorandum to the Commission (filed). His clients own the property on both sides of the road. As a matter of interest there is no such thing as Dick's map, and he gave a brief history of Dick's Map. He said his clients have been paying city taxes on this property since at least 1989; why it wasn't being picked up on the tax roll they can't really explain, since by deed it was privately deeded over to them and considered part of their property for all the prior owners back to at least 1951. He submitted those exhibits with his memorandum (filed). The Planning Board unanimously recommended closure of this roadway; he does not see this as very controversial issue. He has attached a Grant of Easement to the city to maintain the drainage structure to his memorandum (filed). He said they were informed that there was a drainage pipe that ran across this property from a drain that is on River Street down to the river, and requests permission to change the wording of the grant of easement, specifically, he’d like to change “drainage pipe” to “drain” throughout the memorandum so it will actually reflect what is there. |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg asked what benefit there would be for the property owner to close the street when they have to maintain a drainage structure. Mr. Townsend said there would be no benefit at all to the property owner; it's a benefit to the City. This was a condition brought up because there is a drain on River St. along the curb. There is a device that goes under and becomes a standpipe of sorts, for lack of terminology, but regardless it wouldn't make a difference if this was closed. By closing this and going through the formal procedure and making it a record. Whether this portion of Hotel Street was previously closed or not, they need to clear up the record so that there is no question of its closure and the status of the property. Mayor Flagg said with it being open it is public property, and the City has to maintain the easement, and asked again what benefit would come from its closing. Mr. Townsend said the easement is for the drain and not the whole property. |
||
|
|
Mr. Holmes asked for clarification as to the change of drainage pipe to drain. Mr. Townsend said he wanted to take the words “drainage pipe” out and substitute with “drain” because it is a mixed combination of pipe and drain. The way the easement is drawn, so long as the city approves it like it is, the drain could be moved around to whatever area the city would approve. He said it would be contingent upon the city approving it and upon meeting its requirements for drainage. |
||
|
|
Mr. Holmes said a pipe is defined and the width of it is easily determined, but when you say drain instead of pipe it is a lot less specific in terms of width, size and all those sort of things. He said his question and concern, and he is not voicing an objection, is that the easement wouldn't be necessary if the street weren’t closed, and at this time the city hasn’t closed the street and still owns it, and the drain is within the street so the City now maintains it. Once they close the street, the Jacobs are giving the City back the right to maintain its drain on a location they have just given up. Mr. Holmes said in paragraph 2 of the Grant of Easement it says, “Grantor and Grantee pledge to mutually cooperate in operating their adjacent properties and using the Easement herein, in ways that do not interfere with the operations of either and each party shall make reasonable adjustments, during any construction period and following, to ensure that this mutual cooperation.” Mr. Holmes asked what happens if Mr. Townsend’s clients decide to build a structure in the location of the property that is being vacated. A structure would be inconsistent with a drain running through the same area unless you do something underground. Mr. Townsend said Grantor and Grantee mutuality pledge. He said in the case of any construction by the Grantor they are pledging to the Grantee to cooperate in ways that do not interfere with the operations of the Grantee and that includes maintenance of the drain. At the time that he drew this up, he assumed it was a pipe and he did not know until 5:20 this afternoon that 12 feet of this is pipe and the rest of it is actually a surface drain, and that is what they are looking at as far as being able to maintain. |
||
|
|
Mr. Holmes said what he is saying is, the concept is defining an easement, but there could be some issues with details, but that may not be for a long time. If you have a drain that is above ground and Mr. Townsend’s client decides to build where the drain is, theoretically he assumes that the mutual cooperation pledge, which is pretty generic and says that both the City and the Jacobs are going to cooperate to try and work around it, but they could mean doing something subterranean. There is no defined pathway that they say will stay clean and unobstructed. They are saying they are giving back a drain across the entire land; it is not a defined easement, say 10 feet wide, 5 feet wide, or 8 feet wide, which they can all agree is going to stay unencumbered, clean or clear. What they are saying is they are to cooperate so that the drain is allowed to continue to function, but it might have to be moved or altered. |
||
|
|
Mr. Townsend said it couldn’t be moved without permission from the City. His clients own both sides of the street, so if the street is closed they could have a solid piece of land. Paragraph 1 of the Grant of Easement states, “Grantors may move the situs of the existing drainage pipe,” but he wants the wording changed to “existing drain, in a manner that meets the approval of the Grantee whether within the described lands or other lands owned by Grantors or their successors.” The concept is to keep the drain open, and that the city has a right to get to and maintain it, and the owners can't keep them out. What it is asking is that the city will not unreasonably withhold cooperation on moving it so long as it can meet all the intended purposes of the drain. |
||
|
|
Mr. Holmes asked Mr. Townsend if he had any objection to adding the phrase, “at grantors expense,” after the word “may” in the first paragraph, so the first paragraph would read, “Grantor may, at Grantor's expense, move the situs. . .” Mr. Townsend’s said he did not have a problem with that and that was his clients’ intent. Commissioner Kitchens asked if the grant of easement would follow the property and obligate future owners. Mr. Townsend’s said it would; that is their intent and he is willing to add language that would say this would apply to Grantor's heirs. Mr. Holmes suggested language that simply says, “for purposes herein, Grantor shall mean, Grantors, their successors and assigns.” Mr. Townsend agreed. Commissioner Brown asked if the easement applies to a certain amount of footage. Mr. Townsend said it is a relatively small drain with a small flow. Mayor Flagg noted they are talking about servicing the drainage needs, and not the size of the drain. Mr. Townsend said he will take direction from the Commission and work with city staff o this. |
||
|
|
Public Works Director Woody Boynton said when they first looked at this they did ask for a certain width to be assigned to the drainage swale or pipe that extends down to the drain. You can't get a piece of equipment down on two feet if that all it is wide; you have to be able to get a piece of equipment down there to maintain it. If it continues to be a swale, which they can maintain by hand with personnel and labor crews, you may be able to get away with as little as 5 feet. They are willing to work with the owners as they move forward, but in the interim, for what they have there, the City would need to designate a 10 foot easement to accommodate for the entire swale width, which would limit the City to using hand crews only; you couldn’t put a piece of equipment in there. He feels comfortable that they can maintain it with a 10 foot easement using hand crews, but initially they did request 10 feet on each side of the drainage pipe, or 20 feet. If he had to, he could reduce that to 10 feet if they can move the easement as the drainage apparatus moves. They need the ability to control the location of the easement. |
||
|
|
To answer the question, Mr. Bush said the City has primarily 10- and 15-foot easements in similar situations. Commissioner Kitchens asked if that allows for the use of vehicles and equipment to maintain those easements. Mr. Boynton said his concern is getting a backhoe in there; 10 feet would be tight, but he can probably make it work. Commissioner Kitchens asked, if this stops being just a swale and it gets moved and becomes something else, would they still be able to maintain it with a 10-foot easement? Mr. Boynton said he can make it work with a 10-foot easement |
||
|
|
Mr. Holmes said instead of putting a specific width of 10 feet in the easement, so that you don’t have to define where the 10 feet begins and ends, he asked if Mr. Townsend could revise his paragraph 1, where it refers to moving the situs of the easement, to add a new paragraph that says “Said drainage easement shall be defined to include sufficient space to facilitate reasonable maintenance.” Mr. Townsend said he could and would add it as a separate paragraph, and will provide Mr. Holmes with a revised easement for his review. Mayor Flagg said, in light of all the changes that are being made to the easement, he believes this should be continued to a time certain. Mr. Holmes said if they can agree on the concept they can proceed, because the Jacobs can’t grant the City an easement until the street is vacated. Mr. Townsend said they have taken this route because they thought it would be easier and cheaper than the alternative routes that are available to them. He thinks he and Mr. Holmes are in agreement on this; he asked that it proceed through first reading as the Grant of Easement is a condition of the ordinance. |
||
|
|
Mark Miles, 410 & 414 River St., said he owns property adjacent to this parcel and has some ongoing concerns and questions. It is rumored that the current zoning for the existing boathouse marina property would allow for unlimited density in an 85-foot height restriction, and asked if that is so. He asked what the property would be zoned if this action goes through; if it is DR zoning, that allows for unlimited density with an 85’ height restriction, and he has grave concerns for the potential for this property. He said he does not know why this issue has not come before the 5yr. Downtown Redevelopment Planning Team because it will certainly impact the downtown, boathouse marina and all the property around that whole area. The 5 Year Downtown Planning Team should have studied this and should have the opportunity to give the commission their opinion and any recommendation they deem necessary. All of this could be addressed between now and the second reading. He would like these questions answered this evening. They should be very careful with this drainage easement. He has cleaned out the storm drain on the curb that they are referring to, which leads to the pipe, that leads to the swale, that leads to the river, because it is a major carrier of storm water on River St. and it gets clogged up quite easily with leaves and so forth. It is a high volume leader off of the River St. storm drain that ultimately does cross the street, perhaps in a smaller pipe, but it is a significant storm drain for that whole area. They need to protect the easement for that amenity for all the citizens. |
||
|
|
Albert Stoddard, 330 River St., passed out some maps to the Commission, saying he’d like to answer Mayor Flagg’s question as to why this is being done. He said if you look at the map, the boathouse marina is currently DR zoning, and according to the Municipal Code it does allow high density development, he thinks up to 85 feet, with 25 foot wide minimum lots and unrestricted densities. He believes that there is an underlying assumption that this property is going to be built upon and he does believe that is the intention of the eventual buyers of this property. In these boom times there is a lot of development and rezoning going on and there is actual development and real estate speculation occurring now. He believes this is part of the latter. If the right-of-way for Hotel St. is vacated, then the current owners are allowed to consolidate their properties. He asked if zoning can be split through the middle of a property, and asked if a zoning line through the middle of the property can be maintained. He expects that, after this goes through, the Commission will see an application to change the zoning on this property to DR; he asked how that would benefit the City. He understands that all right-of-ways along the river frontage of River St. are public access or platted right-of-ways; he knows for a fact that the public does use that public access regularly for fishing. He marked the map the way he did because he does believe there is significant development pressure from the north, northeast and the southeast. Although this may be rumor, it is his understanding that it was actually mentioned in the verbal bids by Vestcor that they were interested in developing the frontage along River St. He does not believe the Planning Board really appreciated the potential precedent that would be set by closing this right-of-way, because it opens the door to the closing of the rest of the road right-of-ways along River Street. The City is losing control over the rate of development in that area because there will be huge incentives in the future for these land owners to sell their riverfront property. In the future there may well be condos all along the river frontage with the view of simply garages and dumpsters on a drive down River Street. He does not see where the benefit is for the citizens of Palatka, except perhaps a short-term tax gain. He hopes the Commission will consider these things because the decision they make tonight on this could have big future implications, and will have an important effect on the appearance of one of the more scenic parts of the city. He said perhaps the Commission would consider preserving all of the right-of-ways along the river portion of River St. for future green space and public access, as many waterfront communities throughout Florida have done. |
||
|
|
Christy Sanford, 312 Dodge St., said as she understands it this is a different situation in that these people have been paying taxes on this property all along. She is assuming that the ends of Dodge St., Kirkland St. and Morris St. are public property and will stay that way. Mr. Bush said Mr. & Mrs. Jacob contend that they own this already. This could have been a mistake a surveyor made years ago, which was picked up and placed on a deed and picked up by the tax assessors office. Although they have been paying taxes on it, there is nothing in the record that shows this road was ever closed. Streets are closed by ordinance. The City has all the ordinance books, and there is no record of that street ever having been closed. Ms. Sanford said she would like the Commission’s assurance that this is not going to set precedence; she can see that this is a different situation. She moved to the Southside because they have public river access. |
||
|
|
Jacob Hoffman, 326 River St. said he knows there are a lot of steps that have to be taken before any buildings can be built there, but this looks like the first salvo and he opposes it. |
||
|
|
Ray Hall, 7300 Crill Ave. said her father once owned the property in question and he told her that the street had been closed and half was given to the Boathouse Marina. She said back in those days things were probably not done as legally as they should have, but she can remember this and this had to be in the 1940's or 50's. She knows they have no record on this. |
||
|
|
Suzanne Jacob, 117 Hotel St. said she lives in the same house that Mrs. Hall lived in back in the 40's and that is exactly when it showed up on the first deeds, in 1944 that came out of the circuit court when it was a foreclosure. She said it was also on a deed from the Board of Public Instruction and every deed since 1944. She said as to the comment on having the ordinance books back to the beginning, she cited the compilation of ordinances in 1920, because she understands that is when somebody sat down and went back to 1853 and read through pen and ink script minutes of the meetings and pulled out ordinances, gave them a number and put them into an ordinance book. They missed Osceola St. and Tecumseh St. and they probably missed River St. |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg asked if there is verifiable proof that the taxes on this property have been legal. Mr. Townsend said the Chief Deputy from the property appraisers office has submitted a letter saying the Jacobs have been assessed for taxes on the property since 1989. He said he does not think that adjacent property owners are being taxed on other streets that dead-end off River Street, or the Commission would be hearing from them, also. Regarding the zoning, he thinks many people who oppose this are under the assumption that by consolidating this it somehow consolidates all the zoning, but the DR zoning ends on the north side of Hotel Street. Mr. Mengel said the DR zoning included, by design, the marina property which, according to the property appraisers records, didn't include the full width of the closed Hotel Street, so actually the southern boundaries of the DR zoning, when it was adopted, ran to the southwesterly boundary of Hotel Street. Mr. Townsend noted he stood corrected, but the rest of the property is zoned R1AA. |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg said he is not personally interested in setting a precedence that would close any of the other streets. He asked if taxes being paid on this property by the Jacobs is authentic enough proof that they are just doing a housekeeping issue here, and that it is actually already closed. Mr. Holmes said the fact that the taxes have been paid basically means that the property appraisers office has for some reason determined to assess taxes to the Jacobs, as someone included it in the property in the parcel that the Jacobs owned. He said it could have been because of someone’s misinterpretation of a map or for a lot of reasons. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Kitchens said that when the county had new maps drawn, the mapper was pulling deeds and probably saw the deed notation that said to go with the adjoining closed street. She said the property appraisers office is not set up to do an in-depth title search and they probably checked a couple of deeds back and saw where it said ‘together with closed street,’ and they assumed that because it was on the deed that the street was indeed closed, so at that point they altered their map and assessed the additional footage to the Jacobs. She believes that is what happened from the property appraisers standpoint, unless the property appraiser can give a better explanation. She was a deed worker for 36 years in this area. She does not remember working with that but she does remember researching deeds. Mr. Holmes said if the City were to ask the Property Appraiser, he would probably ask Commissioner Kitchens. Commissioner Kitchens said the most of the city ordinances that vacate streets give the city an easement without requiring the moving of the street or easement. The city retains easements for ingress, egress, utilities or whatever they might need without saying they might move it in the future. Mr. Holmes said since he has been city attorney, the City has only retained an easement if there were some utility that was underground that had to be maintained. The City has vacated streets and not retained easements. Mr. Mengel said he has provided a legal description describing whatever portion or in some cases all of that portion of the vacated right-of-way for utility purposes. As to whether or not there were other utilities in this location, Mr. Mengel said there were none except the drainage utilities. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Brown asked if this was going to have an impact on the other streets that run into the river. Growth is coming, and it's not so much as that someone would want to develop, but they may need the streets for some other reason; she asked if this action tonight will make it hard for the City to say no to closing the other streets. Mr. Holmes said the distinction Mr. Townsend cites between this and the other streets that are located along the riverfront, is that this street is included in someone’s deed. He said he has not been asked to research the title issue or the property issue. If this property has been within the Jacobs’ deed for more than 30 years and they have paid taxes for more than 15 years, it would seem there is a distinction between this particular street and others to the southeast. He is assuming that those other streets are not included within somebody’s deed and taxes have not been paid on them, but he does not know that for a fact. Mr. Townsend said if you look under exhibit B in the memorandum, which goes back to the deed between the School Board of Putnam County, Deed Book 197, page 1 dated April 27, 1951, they will see that it is the same description and deeded to Clyde and Laurie Middleton. There are other deeds included. Mr. Holmes said he notes that the language in the deed says, all estate, right, title, interest claim demand or equity held by the Grantor in and to the closed street on the southerly side of said water lot, but while that admittedly conveys anything the Grantor has, it doesn't say the Grantor has anything. Mr. Townsend said this is a deed of bargaining sales and not a quit claim deed; at the time in 1951, he happens to know that this carries guarantees with it. Mr. Holmes said he has not researched the title and would not want to offer an opinion as to whether or not they have a title but if as to the question of the distinction between this parcel and the the streets to the southeast that also access the river, his answer would be, there would seem to be a factual distinction in that they have a deed going back to 1951 that says it was being conveyed to them, and that they paid taxes for 15 years. He said whether or not that's a distinction that should be the bases of a decision to vacate a street could be argued. |
||
|
|
Mr. Stoddard said this is an awful position to be in, as it is his understanding that the property in question, on both sides of the right-of-way, are under contract for sale, and that sale is contingent upon the city vacating this street. Mr. Holmes said he does not think that is a relevant issue. Mayor Flagg noted there is a Planning Board recommendation. |
||
|
Roll Call Vote |
There being no further discussion on the motion, a roll-call vote was taken, with the following results: Commissioners Brown, Kitchens, Norwood, Sanders and Mayor Flagg, yes; Nays, none. The Ordinance was declared passed on first reading. Mayor Flagg said as it relates to the grant of easement for the second reading, he expects Mr. Townsend and Mr. Holmes will have the specific language worked out prior to the next meeting. |
||
|
Recess |
Mayor Flagg called for a five-minute recess at 9:31 p.m. |
||
|
Reconvene |
Mayor Flagg reconvened the 1/12/06 Regular City Commission Meeting at 9:43 p.m. and returned to the Orders of the Day. |
||
|
ORDINANCE NO. 06-01 AMENDING |
Ordinance amending the Charter to hold regular city elections in even-numbered years - The Clerk read an ordinance entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALATKA, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTIONS 21 AND 46 OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF PALATKA TO AMEND THE DATE FOR REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE ORDERLY TRANSITION OF EXISTING TERMS OR CURRENT MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION; PROVIDING THAT THE REVISED CHARTER SHALL BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Sanders moved to adopt Ordinance No. 06-01 as read and presented. Commissioner Norwood seconded the motion. |
||
|
Roll Call Vote |
There being no further discussion on the motion, a roll-call vote was taken, with the following results: Commissioner Kitchens, Norwood, Sanders, Brown and Mayor Flagg, Yes; Nays, none. Ordinance No. 06-01 was declared adopted. |
||
|
ORDINANCE NO. 06-02 AMENDING |
Ordinance amending Chapter 26, Elections - The Clerk read an ordinance entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALATKA, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF PALATKA, BY REVISING SECTION 26-1 TO AMEND THE ELECTION PRECINCTS; REVISING SECTION 26-4 TO AMEND THE DATE OF PRIMARY ELECTIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Sanders moved to adopt Ordinance No. 06-02 as read and presented. Commissioner Kitchens seconded the motion. |
||
|
Roll Call Vote |
There being no further discussion on the motion, a roll-call vote was taken, with the following results: Commissioner Norwood, Sanders, Brown, Kitchens and Mayor Flagg, Yes; Nays, none. Ordinance No. 06-02 was declared adopted. |
||
|
ORDINANCE NO. 06-03 REZONING |
Ordinance rezoning 2515 Husson Ave.- The Clerk read an ordinance entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALATKA, FLORIDA PROVIDING THAT THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF PALATKA, FLORIDA BE AMENDED AS TO THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY IN SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Norwood moved to adopt Ordinance No. 06-03 as read and presented. Commissioner Sanders seconded the motion. |
||
|
Roll Call Vote |
There being no further discussion on the motion, a roll-call vote was taken, with the following results: Commissioner Sanders, Brown, Kitchens, Norwood and Mayor Flagg, Yes; Nays, none. Ordinance No. 06-03 was declared adopted. |
||
|
ORDINANCE NO. 06-04 REZONING |
Ordinance rezoning 624 Elmwood Ave. - The Clerk read an ordinance entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALATKA, FLORIDA PROVIDING THAT THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF PALATKA, FLORIDA BE AMENDED AS TO THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Kitchens moved to adopt Ordinance No. 06-04 as read and presented. Commissioner Sanders seconded the motion. |
||
|
Roll Call Vote |
There being no further discussion on the motion, a roll-call vote was taken, with the following results: Commissioner Brown, Kitchens, Norwood, Sanders and Mayor Flagg, Yes; Nays, none. Ordinance No. 06-04 was declared adopted. |
||
|
ORDINANCE NO. 06-05 REZONING |
Ordinance rezoning 3920 Weaver Road - The Clerk read an ordinance entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALATKA, FLORIDA PROVIDING THAT THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF PALATKA, FLORIDA BE AMENDED AS TO THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY IN SECTION 02, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Brown moved to adopt Ordinance No. 06-05 as read and presented. Commissioner Kitchens seconded the motion. |
||
|
Roll Call Vote |
There being no further discussion on the motion, a roll-call vote was taken, with the following results: Commissioners Kitchens, Norwood, Sanders, Brown and Mayor Flagg, Yes; Nays, none. Ordinance No. 06-05 was declared adopted. |
||
|
ORDINANCE NO. 06-06 REZONING |
Ordinance rezoning 807 South Moody Road - The Clerk read an ordinance entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALATKA, FLORIDA PROVIDING THAT THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF PALATKA, FLORIDA BE AMENDED AS TO THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Norwood moved to adopt Ordinance No. 06-06 as read and presented. Commissioner Kitchens seconded the motion. |
||
|
Roll Call Vote |
Commissioners Norwood, Sanders, Brown, Kitchens and Mayor Flagg, Yes; Nays, none. Ordinance No. 06-06 was declared adopted. |
||
|
ORDINANCE NO. 06-07 REZONING |
Ordinance rezoning 1716 and 17718 Napoleon Street - The Clerk read an ordinance entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALATKA, FLORIDA PROVIDING THAT THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF PALATKA, FLORIDA BE AMENDED AS TO THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY IN SECTION 42, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Brown moved to adopt Ordinance No. 06-07 as read and presented. Commissioner Kitchens seconded the motion. |
||
|
Roll Call Vote |
There being no further discussion on the motion, a roll-call vote was taken, with the following results: Commissioners Sanders, Brown, Kitchens, Norwood and Mayor Flagg, Yes; Nays, none. Ordinance No. 06-07 was declared adopted. |
||
|
ORDINANCE NO. 06-08 REZONING |
Ordinance rezoning 2000 Madison Street - The Clerk read an ordinance entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALATKA, FLORIDA PROVIDING THAT THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF PALATKA, FLORIDA BE AMENDED AS TO THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY IN SECTION 37, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Norwood moved to adopt Ordinance No. 06-08 as read and presented. Commissioner Kitchens seconded the motion. |
||
|
Roll Call Vote |
There being no further discussion on the motion, a roll-call vote was taken, with the following results: Commissioners Sanders, Brown, Kitchens, Norwood and Mayor Flagg, Yes; Nays, none. Ordinance No. 06-08 was declared adopted. |
||
|
ORDINANCE NO. 06-09 REZONING |
Ordinance rezoning 1220 Westover Drive - The Clerk read an ordinance entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALATKA, FLORIDA PROVIDING THAT THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF PALATKA, FLORIDA BE AMENDED AS TO THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Brown moved to adopt Ordinance No. 06-09 as read and presented. Commissioner Sanders seconded the motion. |
||
|
Roll Call Vote |
There being no further discussion on the motion, a roll-call vote was taken, with the following results: Commissioners Brown, Kitchens, Norwood, Sanders and Mayor Flagg, Yes; Nays, none. Ordinance No. 06-09 was declared adopted. |
||
|
REVISION TO PERSONNEL RULES & REGULATIONS |
Section 04.0 Overtime, to remove provision for compensatory time off, with exceptions. |
||
|
|
Mr. Bush said the Commission has received copies of the section that dealt with compensatory time (filed). He said this change will essentially eliminate ‘comp time’ with one exception, and noted there was something missing in the language under the section referring to the Fire Dept., which he would need to revise. Per impact bargaining, compensatory time off will be allowed for those 3 hours per week that firefighters get per the difference in the fair labor standards in the hours that they work. He said the added language should state that comp time should be taken within one year and, if it falls within the last quarter of the year, then it can be carried over and taken in the first quarter of the following year. |
||
|
|
Ronnie Collier, representing the Professional Fighter of Palatka said the collection of comp was due to the rule on standby hours, not the 3 hour rule. |
||
|
|
Mr. Bush said Mr. Collier was correct in that it says, “Standby hours pay will be compensated by receiving pay or compensatory time off, the choice being left to employee.” This is the only circumstance that compensatory time shall be given. Mr. Bush said the only thing that was not on there, which he would like added, is the fact that it has to be taken during the that fiscal year, but if it is accrued in the last quarter of that fiscal year, you have the first quarter of the next fiscal year to take it. |
||
|
|
Ronnie Collier said that was their understanding, and they also understand if it is not taken than it can be cashed out at the end of the year. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Kitchens said under section 04.1, under intent, the last sentence says, “If he/she is on a vacation day and they are called in on their day off and their hours are more than their scheduled hours then he/she will be paid at straight time and their vacation day will be debited from their account.” She asked if the word ‘debited’ should have been ‘credited.’ She said if they are on vacation and they are called into work a regular 8-hour day, she understands the vacation goes back into their vacation account. She asked if they work longer than an 8-hour day and they are over the 40 hours, do the get time and a half for that? |
||
|
|
Ruby Williams, Finance Director, said ‘debit’ was the correct wording. She said if they have a vacation day that they take off and they work overtime, and they are called in during their vacation day, the City still debits their account for their vacation day and they are paid for 8 hours for that day. They are actually being paid for a vacation day and a workday. Commissioner Kitchens asked Mr. Holmes if Federal Law regulates whether you have to pay over time and would that be okay under Federal Law under overtime rules? Mr. Bush said as to overtime, it is time actually physically worked; vacation is time you are not physically working, and the same goes for sick leave. Commissioner Kitchens said if they are physically working an 8 hour day and they actually work a 10 hour day and are getting paid for vacation and a 10 hour day, does that take the place of where the Federal Law says you have to get paid overtime. Mr. Bush said you have to physically work the hours; anything over regular hours is paid at time plus one-half. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Norwood asked if this a bargaining unit as well as management, and whether this is a signed letter to the contract, or is the City opening up the contract? Mr. Bush said this is a change to the personnel rules and regulations, which impacts the working conditions of the bargaining unit, and therefore he is required under the contract to impact bargain. It is a negotiable item because the way the contract is structured, it says they will abide by the personnel rules and regulations of the City as approved by the Commission. |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Norwood moved to approve the City Managers recommendation to revise the Personnel Rules & Regulations, Section 4.0, Overtime, to remove Compensatory Time Off with exceptions, to include the additional language that they impact bargained. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. |
||
|
Roll Call Vote |
There being no further discussion, a roll call vote was take, with the following results: Commissioner Brown, Kitchens, Norwood, Sanders and Mayor Flagg, Yes; Nays, none. Motion passed. |
||
|
FIREFIGHTER ISSUES |
Ronnie Collier, Professional Firefighters of Palatka Local 2992, said they brought an issue before Mr. Bush three months ago, and they are losing their patience on a resolution to these issues. Some of these issues are not that big separately, but combined they are significant. They have brought issues to him in the past, like the Fire Chief having illegal material on his computer, and nothing has been done. They'd like some quick resolution. He requests the City show the Chief the same type of compassion he shows his men. An example is Firefighter Connell, who lost his temper and said something he shouldn't have. He was put on administrative leave and subsequently fired, when there were other options. Mr. Bush backed him up on this, which they have no problem with. They want to know their issues don't fall on deaf ears. He is asking the City treat this department head like this department head has treated his men; this is only fair. All employers should treat their employees the way they would want to be treated. They would like a time frame as to when they will receive an answer. |
||
|
|
Mr. Bush said they have known for some time that there is an internal investigation underway. They've just come through the holidays, and Chief Venables was given time to present a response. Both of the gentlemen he's hired to conduct the investigation will be in his office tomorrow. Mr. Holmes asked if all the people who signed the letter of complaint intended to a consent of a disclosure of their names as complaining parties. Mr. Collier said yes. Their first intention was to take it to the Florida State Fire College, Tom Gallagher, and boy scouts if necessary. It is embarrassing to them. Mr. Holmes said he has to make a determination from the public record aspect of this; he needs to know if they intended their names be disclosed as making the complaint, and he does not believe that Mr. Collier can speak for these people, under the statute. He asked if Mr. Collier could secure their signatures if asked. Mr. Collier said they all would give permission. Mr. Holmes said he asks this under the Whistleblower's Act; he wants to make absolutely certain that everyone has consented to have their names released in conjunction with this. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Norwood asked if there is a provision in the contract for employee grievances if an employee feels they have been mistreated. Mr. Collier answered yes. Commissioner Norwood asked if they had followed procedure. Mr. Collier said they couldn’t follow procedure on some of these things. Commissioner Norwood said a discharged employee can follow the grievance procedure, and asked if the course had run on Firefighter Connell’s grievance; Mr. Collier said it had. |
||
|
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS |
There were none. |
||
|
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS |
|
||
|
Vice Mayor Brown |
Said she brought forth information from the Florida League of Cities as to their Municipal Training Calendar. She will leave it with the Clerk so that they can all look at it to determine if staff would benefit from some of this training. |
||
|
|
Said she received a letter from Rural Business Development on grants that can be obtained on 1 - 6 percent loans on repairing houses, and she asked that the press release the contact information so that people will be informed about the program; she will also leave the information for the Commissioners. |
||
|
|
Business Incubator – Commissioner Brown said she has been talking about this for some time. This is where people are aided in starting up their own business. There is money available from the Department of Agriculture to help with the building and other items. They need a “letter of need” prepared by Mr. Bush, Chief Getchell and the likes so that they can train people on how to start up businesses. The SBA has loans for this program, also. She has pulled together some folks that can help get this started, and intends to bring in more folks to help with a 'youth build' program, which trains youth to repair and build houses. She'd like to have those letters sent off as soon as possible, which would get this off the ground. They'd also like to have 'satellite' buildings owned by other people who will give reduced rental rates to those starting up buildings. This program gives these folks office space, managerial staff and an accountant to help them started. There is a piece of property at the corner of Olive and 11th Street that would be suitable for this program. This was the location of Dr. Long's office at one time, and also a drug store. They could use matching similar to what they used for the waterfront. She will have more written information for them by the next meeting. |
||
|
|
There are people in the community that have been through a similar program, and this venture can benefit from their experience, successes and failures. She will bring back the information on the program to facilitate the letters. Consensus of the Commission to direct Mr. Bush and Chief Getchell to draw up letters. Mayor Flagg noted they would need the information in order to draw the letters up. Commissioner Brown said she will be looking for help from everyone on this. |
||
|
Commissioner Kitchens |
Said the Planning Board asked her if she would bring this issue to the Commission. They are concerned about the short length of time Mr. Mengel has between when he receives information for the Planning Board and when he is required to bring it to the Planning Board. Sometimes he brings them information he has received an hour prior to the meeting. They need more time than that to consider changes or new information. |
||
|
|
Mr. Mengel said he has spoken to Mr. Bush about this issue, and they have set time lines that they intent to adhere to. Mayor Flagg said they need to post public notice of agenda deadlines. They want to accommodate the public, but they do need to draw the line somewhere. |
||
|
Commissioner Norwood |
Said he noticed that when they were talking about stop signs, they kept talking about a group who was deciding what was going where. He believes there are measures in place to stop one group from dictating what happens in Palatka and they need to adhere to those measures. |
||
|
Mayor Flagg |
Said he appreciates all the support and prayers he received on the recent loss of his dear sister, and noted how good it was to have a City family to fall back on. |
||
|
|
Congratulated Commissioner Kitchens on a successful first meeting, and welcomed her on board. |
||
|
Adjourn |
At 10:23 p.m. upon a motion by Commissioner Brown. |
||
Produced
by FTR Log Notes™
www.ftrgold.com