Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

las vegas car accident attorney

VIEWS: 11 PAGES: 12

									                                                       Minutes of the
                                                 Crystal River City Council
                                                  Regular Council Meeting
                                              Monday, April 12, 2010 @ 7:00 p.m.
                                                Council Chamber, City Hall



1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Kitchen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

Council Present: Mayor Ronald E. Kitchen, Jr.; Vice Mayor Jim Farley; Councilmember Phillip W.
Price; Councilmember Paula Wheeler; Councilmember Maureen McNiff

Absent: None

Mayor Kitchen offered the Invocation and the Civil Air Patrol, West Citrus Cadet Squadron led in the
Pledge of Allegiance.

2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA

Motion to adopt the Agenda was made by Councilmember McNiff; seconded by Vice Mayor Farley.
Motion carried unanimously.

3. PRESENTATIONS
    A. Civil Air Patrol –West Citrus Cadets………………………………….……………………Keith Shewbart

The spokesperson for the Cadets stated they came to the Council meeting to show their appreciation for
the support of the Council and the City. They are grateful for the use of the building. They use this
building to perform training for air space education, cadet programs and emergency services. These are
the three missions of Civil Air Patrol. He also extended thanks to Mayor Kitchen for his support during
their promotion events and stated that he has assisted the cadets and it is a great honor to have him
available for these functions. He went on say that CAP has been in Citrus County for 34 years and they
appreciate the opportunity to learn what it takes to be leaders for the future. A gift was presented to the
City, a glass globe with the space shuttle circling the earth etched on the inside. Key chains with the same
etching were given to each Councilmember.

Mayor Kitchen expressed his thanks and offered encouragement to these Cadets. He explained that he is
representing the citizens in Citrus County when he says he appreciates the time and dedication this group
has shown.

4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
    A. Recommendation on the Moored Boat Situation………………………………..City Manager Houston
Mr. Angeliadis provided the background information in the absence of City Manager Houston.

Background: [Agenda Sheet
Requested Motion: N/A. Discussion Item.
Summary: City Council has held several discussions related to a boat which was recently moored to pilings in a
cove just south of the Kings Bay Bridge. Since this issue arose, staff has researched the Land Development code
(LDC) and other City Code provisions to see if any were applicable to this situation. At the last Council meeting, it
was agreed that staff would present their final conclusions on this matter with respect to potential City regulatory
action.

In the way of background, the owner of the boat approached the City Manager to inquire about potential permitting
requirements prior to new pilings being installed and the boat being moved to those pilings. At that time, he was
directed to County staff since the cove is within County jurisdiction and no dock connecting to shore was
contemplated, and there was uncertainty on whether permitting would fall to the County or the City. County staff
subsequently advised the City Manager that they had informed the owner that he needed to follow-up with the city
since it was their conclusion that the City would have final permitting authority, since the adjacent shoreline was in
the City. The owner did not re-contact the City and proceeded with installation of two new pilings, without securing
building permits for the installation of those pilings.

As indicated, this is a somewhat unique circumstance inasmuch as there is no dock involved and the LDC does not
specifically address mooring facilities of this nature. As a result, staff has been unsure what, if any, basis existed for
regulatory action to be taken against the owner of the boat to have the boat removed or relocated.

In researching this matter further, it was determined that:

  1.  The owner of the boat was involved in two corporations, one of which owned the small parcel adjacent to the
      moored boat and the second which owned the four lots and common areas on the peninsula just north of the
      cove in question.
  2. The small parcel adjacent to the moored boat is not sufficiently large to meet the lot standards in the LDC.
  3. Section 4.02.01 (C)(6) of the LDC establishes that in situations where two (2) or more adjacent lots are under
      the same ownership and one (1) or more of those lots fails to meet the lot area standard set forth in the LDC,
      the lots shall be combined to create a lot that does conform to the lot area standards applicable to the zoning
      district in which the lots are located.
  4. When the small parcel is combined with the adjacent lot, it brings the total property within a previously-
      approved subdivision plat which encompasses the four lots and common area just north of the cove in
      question.
  5. The Property Appraiser’s Office has advised the city that action was taken previously to unify the title of the
      small parcel in question with the adjacent lot. The owner of the boat refutes that this action was initiated, in
      contradiction to the conclusion of the Property Appraiser’s Office. Regardless of the action taken by the
      Property Appraiser’s Office, the lots would be combined under the LDC provision identified in #2 above.
  6. By installing new pilings and creating a mooring facility adjacent to the small parcel, the owner in effect
      amended the subdivision plat previously approved inasmuch as the original subdivision plat did not include
      mooring facilities or docks in that area of the subdivision.
  7. At this point, the owner needs to file an amended subdivision plat reflecting the proposed mooring facility
      and the City needs to approve or reject that amended plat.
  8. In the interim, the owner needs to remove the boat and the two pilings which were installed without a permit
      since they violate the existing subdivision plat.
  9. Failure to remove the boat and the two pilings would put the owner in violation of the LDC and subject to
      code enforcement action.
  10. A secondary issue which exists is whether the LDC allows a mooring piling to be erected as a principal
      structure. Since the lots in question are vacant, the mooring piling cannot be considered an accessory
      structure. Section 5.01.07 of the LDC allows docks as principal structures under certain circumstances. The
      structure which is currently erected clearly does not fall within the definition of “Dock” contained in Section
      1.07.00 of the LDC, and therefore cannot fall within any of the principal structure exceptions.

Council should be aware that it is likely that the owner will challenge any adverse determination, and the uniqueness
of the situation leaves open some potential for an interpretation of the City’s LDC by a Court. The matter has been
extensively discussed between City staff and the City Attorney, however, and it is believed that these determinations
are supported by the provisions and the spirit of the LDC.

Staff Recommendation: Staff believes that the determinations summarized herein are valid and recommend that
the owner be put on written notice of these determinations, and to remove the boat and the two pilings and/or submit
a revised subdivision plat for the City’s review within thirty (30) days from such notice. Should the owner fail to

       April 12, 2010 Regular Council Meeting                                                      Page 2 of 12
comply, it is recommended that code enforcement action be initiated. It should further be noted that a revised plan
would only deal with the site of future dock/mooring facilities. It would be staff’s position that such facilities could
not be put into use until there were primary structures (residences) on-site.
Funding Information: N/A                                End of Agenda Sheet]

Council Discussion:
Mayor Kitchen stated that this may go to court and it will be the court’s decision as to what the City’s
intent was. Background states that this has been discussed by City staff, attorney and it is believed that
these determinations are supported by the provisions and the spirit of the LDC. Mayor Kitchen asked the
City Attorney if that was correct. Mr. Angeliadis confirmed that it was. Mayor Kitchen then asked if he
feels that we have a defendable position. Mr. Angeliadis again confirmed that he does.

Motion to move forward with staff’s recommendations was made by Councilmember Wheeler;
seconded by Vice Mayor Farley.

Councilmember Wheeler asked if the notice will be given to remove the boat and the pilings. Mr.
Angeliadis stated that was correct and would also include amending the site plan. Ms. Wheeler asked
what would happen if they do not comply. Mr. Angeliadis stated that it would fall under Code
Enforcement and a fine will be imposed.

Motion carried unanimously.

5. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA

    A. Approve Minutes of Waterfront Advisory Board / Council Joint Workshop held March 22, 2010

    B. Approve Minutes of Regular Council Meeting held March 22, 2010

    C. Approve Supplemental Agreement No. 1 to the Agreement with DRMP for Design Services Related
       to the Cutler Spur Improvements Project, at a Cost of $33,888

Background: [Agenda Sheet
Summary: A report on the status of the Cutler Spur roadway improvements project was presented to City Council
during the meeting of February 22 nd. As discussed within that report, the Southwest Florida Water Management
District (SWFWMD) has determined that a full Environmental Resource Permit will be required for this project,
which had not been anticipated up to this point in the project design. The project engineers (DRMP) have submitted
a proposal (copy attached) to perform the necessary permitting and drainage analysis required to meet this
permitting requirement as additional services beyond the scope of the original agreement. The projected cost
($33,888) contained within this formal agreement is consistent with their original estimate, which was provided
within the 2/22 report. Council determined at the conclusion of the February 22nd report that the City would proceed
with having the additional permitting work completed.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Supplemental Agreement for engineering
services.

Funding Information:
       Project Cost:                $33,888
       Funding Source:              31541-63002 Cutler Spur Project
       Amount Available:            $2,039,888                                     End of Agenda Sheet]

Motion to adopt the Consent Agenda was made by Councilmember Price; seconded by
Councilmember McNiff. Motion carried unanimously.




     April 12, 2010 Regular Council Meeting                                                       Page 3 of 12
6. PUBLIC INPUT
    (Time Limit of Three Minutes)

After third and final call with no response, Mayor Kitchen closed the Public Input.

7. PUBLIC HEARING

    A. Consideration of Approval of Ordinance No. 10-O-07, LDC Language Regarding Pilings and
       Mooring on Final Reading

Motion to read Ordinance No. 10-O-07, LDC Language Regarding Pilings and Mooring on Final
Reading by title only was made by Councilmember McNiff; seconded by Vice Mayor Farley.

Motion carried unanimously.

    AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CRYSTAL RIVER, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
    LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PERTAINING TO MOORING FACILITIES, CHAPTER 1,
    GENERAL PROVISIONS, SECTION 1.07.00 ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS; AND
    CHAPTER 5, ACCESSORY, TEMPORARY, AND SPECIAL USE SITUATIONS, 5.01.07
    DOCKS, BOAT DAVITS, BOAT LIFTS, BOAT COVERS, AND BOATHOUSES,
    PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING
    AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Background: [Agenda Sheet
Requested Motion: Approve Ordinance 10-O-07 for final reading relating to amendments to the Land
Development Code – Chapter 1 (General Provisions), Section 1.07.00 (Acronyms and Definitions), and Section
5.01.07 (Docks, Boat Davits, Boat Lifts, Boat Covers, and Boathouses).

Summary: Boat docks, docking and mooring facilities are considered accessory structures within the Land
Development Code (LDC). In an effort to better regulate the siting of such facilities, it is necessary to strengthen the
LDC by adding language to Section 1.07.00 (Acronyms and Definitions) and Section 5.01.07 (Docks, Boat Davits,
Boat Lifts, Boat Covers, and Boathouses).

Chapter 1, General Provisions, Section 1.07.00 (Acronyms and Definitions) is being amended to include a definition
for Mooring Facilities as follows:
         Mooring Facilities - Any device that is fixed in the waters, submerged lands or unsubmerged lands directly
adjacent to upland property located within the municipal boundaries of the City of Crystal River, which a vessel can
be made fast, including buoys, chains, ropes, piles, spans or dolphins, and is considered an accessory structure.

Chapter 5 (Accessory, Temporary, and Special Use Situations), Section 5.01.07 (Docks, Boat Davits, Boat Lifts,
Boat Covers, and Boathouses) is being amended to include language for mooring facilities, as follows:

          (A). Docks (including docking and mooring facilities), boat davits, boat lifts, boat covers, and boathouses
shall be permissible as accessory structures, except as set forth in Section 5.01.07(B) below. All docks, boat davits,
boat lifts, boat covers, and boathouses shall meet the requirements set forth in Sections 5.01.07(C) through (O).

Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance 10-O-07 on Final Reading

Funding Information:
       Project Cost:                N/A                         End of Agenda Sheet]

Additional Recommendation: Mr. Angeliadis suggested one change in Chapter 5, Section 5.01.07 (A) to
read: Docks (including docking and mooring facilities), mooring facilities, boat davits, boat lifts, boat
covers, and boathouses shall be permissible as accessory structures, except as set forth in Section 5.01.07
(B) below.


     April 12, 2010 Regular Council Meeting                                                      Page 4 of 12
Public Hearing:
     Phil Jannarone, 1405 SE 5th Ave., Crystal River, 34429
Mr. Jannarone again suggested that we leave this door open for the boat owner for negotiations. He must
think he has a legal standing to do this and may be willing to move his boat.

Mayor Kitchen replied that it appears that he has no interest in moving his boat.

Motion to approve Ordinance No. 10-O-07, Revised LDC Language Regarding Pilings and
Mooring on Final Reading with the amendment as suggested by the City Attorney was made by
Councilmember Wheeler; seconded by Councilmember McNiff.

Council Discussion:
Councilmember Price asked if we are preparing an ordinance to address one incident. He cited an
example in the past where the City was sued for doing just that.

Mr. Angeliadis stated we are only amending an ordinance already on the books. This encompasses more
than just this situation; it includes buoys, chains, ropes, etc. We are clarifying the ordinance we already
have in place.

Motion carried unanimously on a roll call vote.

8. CITY ATTORNEY

9. CITY MANAGER

    A. Consideration of Approval of Ordinance 10-O-05, CRA Board Composition Change on First
       Reading

Motion to read Ordinance No. 10-O-05, CRA Board Composition Change on First Reading by title
only was made by Vice Mayor Farley; seconded by Councilmember Price. Motion carried
unanimously.

    AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CRYSTAL RIVER, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
    LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF CRYSTAL RIVER CODE OF
    ORDINANCES, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING CHAPTER 8, ENTITLED COMMISSIONS
    AND   AGENCIES;   PROVIDING    FOR  CODIFICATION, CONFLICTS   AND
    SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Mayor Kitchen and Mr. Angeliadis provided the background on this item.

Background: [Agenda Sheet
Requested Motion: Approval of Ordinance #10-O-05 on First Reading, and setting the required Public Hearing for
April 26, 2010.

Summary: The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Board submitted a letter (copy attached) in January
requesting that Council pass an ordinance to address what they perceived to be a discrepancy in the current
ordinance that establishes the composition of that Board. Specifically, they requested that the composition of the
Board be modified from having seven (7) regular members and two (2) alternates to having nine (9) regular
members. Subsequent to that request, other concerns were raised that Council directed on February 8th be
addressed in the ordinance revision. Council further directed on February 8th that the revised ordinance be
submitted to the CRA Board for their approval before being brought back for Council consideration.

The attached ordinance incorporates the following changes:

     April 12, 2010 Regular Council Meeting                                                  Page 5 of 12
       Number of Board members increased from 7 to 9
       Language related to residency requirements modified to track state statutory language
       Establishes that individuals will be appointed to profession-specific seats when possible (“reasonable
        effort”)

The proposed ordinance was reviewed and approved by the CRA Board on March 24, 2010.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval.

Funding Information: N/A                             End of Agenda Sheet]

Public Hearing:
There was no one to speak for or against this ordinance.

Motion to approve 10-O-05, CRA Board Composition Change was made by Councilmember Price;
seconded by Councilmember McNiff.

Motion carried unanimously.

    B. Consideration of Approval of Resolution No. 10-R-18, Budget Amendment for Planning Department
       to Appropriate Funding for Training Costs in the Amount of $1200

Acting City Manager Deanna Rowe provided background for this item.

Background: [Agenda Sheet
Requested Motion: Approve Resolution #10-R-18 moving budget funds from the Director’s Salary line to the
Travel and Per Diem line to cover the cost of training for Planning and Community Development Dept. employees.

Summary: The new Planning Director has identified training opportunities for the person who administers
Business Tax Licenses that will assist her in better performing her job. There is salary savings projected in the
Planning & Community Development Department due to the fact that the Director position was vacant for a portion
of the year. Staff is requesting that a portion of the available salary savings be moved to Travel and Per Diem and
Education to cover the cost of allowing the employee to receive training that was not anticipated when the FY 2010
budget was developed. Staff development and training were priorities established by the City Manager at the time
the new Planning Director was hired.

Staff Recommendation: Approve the transfer of funds to cover the cost of training

Funding Information:
       Project Cost:               $1,200
       Funding Source:             01515-11000 Executive Salaries
       Amount Available:           $4,800                                      End of Agenda Sheet]

Council Discussion:
Mayor Kitchen asked what benefit the City will see from this training.

Ms. Gorman explained that she has been trying to put processes into place for programs we have. She has
noticed that the Permitting Clerk has not received training. Business license tax serves three purposes as
far as their office is concerned:

    o   It gives peace of mind to our citizens to know that professional business establishments have
        proper licenses. The training will help Ms. Black know what type of State certifications and/or
        licenses are needed for new establishments.
    o   It gives us an opportunity to speak with the person about our codes and a chance to educate and
        assist them.

     April 12, 2010 Regular Council Meeting                                                  Page 6 of 12
    o    As we move forward with our sign process, she will be bringing back a request to Council later to
         register all signs. This will be an opportunity to start that process.

Mayor Kitchen found this interesting as he has been told in the past this is not a license but a tax. He has
always been told that it is not up to us to determine if they have proper licensing, but that this is a tax for
doing business in the City. Are you saying that you will have a network that you will be involved in to
determine the proper licensing?

Ms. Gorman stated that if someone came to Ms. Black now and asked if a doctor or dentist had proper
licensure, she would have no way of knowing. After training, she will have copies of all their paper work
in their file.

Mayor Kitchen asked, as an example, if a contractor comes in to start a business, are you saying that we
will we now request their contractor’s license. We have never done that in the past.

Ms. Gorman explained that if they open an establishment, they will have to show their license. She hopes
to have software where she can also look it up.

Mayor Kitchen asked if he was correct, that this is only for a new business that has to make changes to a
building for their office. If it is a new business in a strip mall and no changes are made, how would that
work? Ms. Gorman stated that if it is a turn-key operation, she would only ask about their signage. She
added that we are not here to hinder businesses.

Councilmember Wheeler noted that Ms. Black has been here for 12 years. She is pleased to see someone
taking her credentials one step further. Councilmember McNiff agreed. She believes that it is important
to stay current in your field.

Mayor Kitchen complimented Ms. Gorman for her pro-active approach since she started with the City.

Motion to approve Resolution No. 10-R-18, moving budget funds from the Director’s Salary line to
the Travel and Per Diem line to cover the cost of training for a Planning and Community
Development Department employee was made by Councilmember Wheeler; seconded by Vice
Mayor Farley. Motion carried unanimously.

    C. Presentation of Report on the Time/Cost Requirements of Developing a CFI Grant Request related
       to Reclaimed Water Reuse and Consideration of Approval for Budget Resolution No. 10-R-19, for
       an amount of $9,000

Mayor Kitchen provided the background for this item.

Background: [Agenda Sheet
Requested Motion: Approve Resolution #10-R-19 authorizing the City Manager to engage the necessary services
to prepare a Cooperative Funding Initiative (CFI) grant funding application pertaining to the possible transmission
of treated effluent to the Progress Energy energy generation plant complex, and appropriating $9,000 from the
Unappropriated Fund Balance of the Water/Sewer Fund to cover the cost of those services.

Summary: The Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) operates a grant funding program
(CFI) to assist local governments in pursuing projects that create sustainable water resources, provide flood
protection, and/or enhance water conservation efforts. The CFI grants basically fund 50% of such projects, with the
applicant agency providing the remaining 50%.

The City recently had a feasibility study completed to evaluate several alternatives for reclaimed water reuse, with
the intent of moving away from the current practice of disposing of that effluent through a sprayfield operation.
That study identified the alternative of transmitting the effluent to the local Progress Energy energy generation plant


     April 12, 2010 Regular Council Meeting                                                      Page 7 of 12
complex for their use in lieu of groundwater withdrawal in its flue gas desulfurization system that is currently under
construction as the most advantageous approach to reclaimed water reuse.

SWFWMD staff has been involved in the City’s exploration of this approach to reclaimed water reuse, and has
indicated that the city has a high chance of being successful if a CFI grant application is submitted for its December,
2010 application cycle. In order to submit an application, the city has to:

        Modify its current permit for effluent disposal to add the industrial site as an additional reuse site
        Negotiate a multi-year user’s agreement with Progress Energy that will address initial investment costs for
         all involved parties and future operating costs/rates

It is anticipated that these activities will involve some engineering support from the firm of Hoyle, Tanner &
Associates (which performed the feasibility study) through their current continuing services agreement, and
utilization of the City Attorney beyond what is provided through the current retainer agreement, which provides for
25 hours a month. Approval is being requested for up to 40 hours of engineering support (@ $150/hr) and for up to
15 hours of additional legal support (@ $200/hr). Services will be used on an as-needed basis at the hourly rates
shown, rather than on a fixed-fee basis. This results in a not-to-exceed figure of $9,000.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval.

Funding Information
       Project Cost:                not to exceed $9,000
       Funding Source:              41650-99000 Water/Sewer Reserves
       Amount Available:            $1,185,719                                    End of Agenda Sheet]

Motion to approve Resolution No. 10-R-19 authorizing the City Manager to engage the necessary
services to prepare a Cooperative Funding initiative (FFI) grant funding application pertaining to
the possible transmission of treated effluent to the Progress Energy energy generation plant
complex and appropriating $9,000 from the Unappropriated Fund Balance of the Water/Sewer
Fund to cover the cost of those services was made by Vice Mayor Farley; seconded by
Councilmember McNiff.

Council Discussion:
Vice Mayor Farley noted that Council was given a pretty extensive presentation with this scenario being
the best option. Council agreed that they understood the options and were ready to vote on this topic.

Motion carried unanimously.

    D. Presentation of Projections of FY 2010 Revenues, and Setting a Budget Workshop for April 26th at
       6:00 p.m.

Mrs. Rowe provided the background for this item.

Background: [Agenda Sheet
Requested Motion: Setting a Budget Workshop for 6 pm on Monday, April 26th

Summary: A FY 2010 projection of General Fund revenues has been calculated as of March 31, 2010(attached).
Based on the current levels of revenue, we anticipate receiving $4,016,821, which is lower than budget by $38,785.
This represents less than 1% of the original budget of $4,055,606.

Staff had originally planned to have the second budget workshop in May, but as a result of other workshops and
council travel it is now being requested that Council set this workshop for April 26 th at 6 pm. These revenue
projections, as well as FY 2010 expenditure projections, will be discussed at that time.

Staff Recommendation: N/A



     April 12, 2010 Regular Council Meeting                                                      Page 8 of 12
Funding Information:
       Project Cost: N/A                              End of Agenda Sheet]

The scheduling of Workshops were discussed and had to be moved around due to conflicting schedules.

Motion to approve setting a Budget Workshop for 6:00 p.m. on Monday, May 24th and Business
Enterprises for 6:00 June 14 was made by Councilmember Wheeler; seconded by Councilmember
McNiff. Motion carried unanimously.

Council Discussion:
Councilmember Price asked if we were receiving any revenues, franchise fees or municipal service taxes
from the newly annexed area. Mrs. Rowe stated that we have not as yet. Progress Energy has been
contacted as well as the County. Her understanding is that the County would be sending the addresses to
Progress Energy. We are working on this.

Motion carried unanimously.

    E. Consideration of Alternatives for Audit Services
Ms. Rowe provided the background for this item.

Background: [Agenda Sheet
Requested Motion: Discussion Item
Summary: The City’s current contract with James Moore and Co. for audit services covered FY’s 2007, 2008, and
2009. The RFP stated that the contract could be extended for up to three additional years if so determined by
Council. This item is being brought forward at this time to allow Council to determine whether they would like to
extend the contract currently in effect with James Moore & Co. or direct staff to seek new proposals for this service.
Staff has checked with James Moore & Co. to determine their cost to perform the FY 2010 audit, and were advised
that the price for that audit would be $42,000. The cost of the FY 2009 audit was $44,450, inclusive of the costs
incurred for additional work on the fixed assets.

Staff Recommendation:        N/A – Selection of the auditors is Council’s decision.

Funding Information:
       Project Cost:       N/A – FY 2011 Budget item           End of Agenda Sheet]

Council Discussion:
Councilmember McNiff asked how much the additional cost was. She was remembering $9,000. Mrs.
Rowe replied that she thought it was closer to $5,000.

Councilmember Wheeler asked if Ms. Rowe was comfortable working with this firm. Mrs. Rowe stated
that she was. She has no problem in working with them.

Mayor Kitchen stated he would like to go out for an RFP. He believes it is always good to re-bid every
time contracts come due.

Councilmember Price stated he agreed. He noted that the last two years they charged extra for services
we could not do in house. He would be more comfortable with a firm fixed price. He is uncomfortable
with being charged extra for assets we cannot account for.

Vice Mayor Farley and Councilmember McNiff stated they agreed and would like to go out for RFP. Ms.
McNiff added that she thought the price they were quoting is on the high side.

Council consensus was given to go out for a RFP.


     April 12, 2010 Regular Council Meeting                                                     Page 9 of 12
10. CITY COUNCIL

11. COMMITTEE REPORTS

    A. Vice Mayor Farley – Waterfronts Board
        Mr. Farley reported that Ms. Gorman provided information from a seminar at the last meeting and
        the Board members were interested in having a Face Book Page for marketing purposes. After
        some discussion and opinion from Mr. Angeliadis, there was no consensus to go forward at this
        time.

    B Councilmember Wheeler - KCCB
        Mrs. Wheeler reported that they are continuing to distribute and read books at the primary
        schools. They have been advised that they have received a grant for cigarette butt litter. She
        believes they are interested in using Citrus Ave. and possibly Hunters’ Spring to use that grant
        money. They are also involved in the Great American Clean-Up. Inverness is having theirs on
        the 17th of this month. They are inviting everyone including Council to be apart of that.

    C. Councilmember Wheeler - TDC
        Mrs. Wheeler reported they are currently working on the budget and they anticipate revenues
        being slightly down. They have a great business at their Trade Shows and their PR firm is doing
        a great job keeping the website current and working with the TDC. They have also changed their
        forms and procedure to request funding for projects. She will relay that info to the City Manager
        so that if any Councilmember is interested, they can get the info from him.

12. COMMUNICATIONS

    A. Notification of CRA Board Member’s Resignation

Background:
A letter has been received from the CRA Board notifying Council that they have received a resignation
letter from Daryl Seaton and would like to appoint the next candidate on the list to the Board. The next
candidate is Charles Slider.

A motion to accept the resignation of Daryl Seaton with regrets was made by Councilmember
Price; seconded by Councilmember McNiff. Motion carried unanimously.

Motion to approve the appointment of Charles Slider to the CRA was made by Councilmember
Price; seconded by Councilmember Wheeler. Motion carried unanimously.

    B. CRA’s Annual Report

Mayor Kitchen noted that Council has received the CRA’s Annual Report. He has some questions
regarding it but will hold them until the next Budget Workshop to discuss at that time.

13. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
    A. Mayor Kitchen

         1. Events and Activities
o   15th - Leadership Citrus will be here.
o   17th – Volunteer Fair at the Mall.
o   24th - Mayor’s Ball for the benefit of the Dream Society

    April 12, 2010 Regular Council Meeting                                          Page 10 of 12
o   10th – Attended the Deployment Ceremony at the Armory. He learned that Florida is one of the few
    states that support their National Guard. There was great family and community support.
o   10th Holocaust Event in Beverly Hills. He shared that one person was there that was in a
    concentration camp at age 12. David Bergman spoke and gave a presentation of what happened to
    him and his family. After he came to the U.S. he enlisted in the Armed Services and served our
    country.
o   He received a letter from the Partner’s for a Substance Free Citrus thanking him for being on their
    panel.
o   He presented a Civics Discussion at the CRPS and answered well thought out questions from the
    second grade class. They presented him with a Key to CRPS with their signatures on the back from
    all the students.

    B. Councilmember Wheeler
        1.    City Clean-Up Days
When did we stop having Clean-Up Days? Is this a budgetary concern? Being on the KCCB, she has
learned of many cities doing this. Are we doing a good enough job with our pickup? She asked if
everyone would look around to see if there are areas that might need some additional clean-up and if we
need to designate a day for a specific area.

Vice Mayor Farley would like to see more code enforcement taking place by identifying some of the
houses that have garbage piled up.

Mr. Lettow, Public Works Director, noted that Waste Management used to have two Clean-Up Days per
year. The last time we held a Clean-Up, very little was picked up. Over the last couple of years we have
cleaned the City up quite a bit. We should schedule one for probably May.

    C. Vice Mayor Farley
       1.    Music in the Park
The next event will be a Tribute to Las Vegas Female Singers.

        2.    Tea Party
Mr. Farley stated that he will be a speaker at the Tea Party scheduled for this Saturday. He will be
addressing the topic Being Involved in Local Government.

    D. Councilmember Price
        1.    Relay for Life
Mr. Price reported that he represented the City at the Relay for Life at the High School. This event was
well represented.

        2.    Code of Ordinances
Mr. Price asked about the Codification of Codes and how often we update. City Clerk noted that we
normally codify twice a year. Since there were so few ordinances last year, we only codified once. All of
2009 have been sent to MuniCode and they should be getting the next supplement back to us soon.
(Note: Status was checked 4/13/10 and we were told the next supplement will be to the City by the end of
the month.)

    E. Councilmember McNiff

        1.     Attendance at the Next WRPC
Ms. McNiff asked for another Councilmember to take her place at the upcoming WRPC meeting. She
will be out of town and this will make two meetings in a row she has missed. She does not want them to


    April 12, 2010 Regular Council Meeting                                          Page 11 of 12
think that Crystal River is not interested in participating. Since no one was available to attend this
meeting for her, Ms. McNiff will notify them of her absence and will explain the circumstances.

14. PUBLIC INPUT
      (Five Minute Time Limit)

     Phil Jannarone, 1405 SE 5th Ave., Crystal River, 34429
Mr. Jannarone stated that Mr. DuBall had asked him to inquire if a sidewalk could be extended down
through the new annexation area when funds start coming in. This would be the only area of Crystal
River without sidewalks.

Mr. Price agreed. He stated that as soon as this property was annexed, they should have started paying
the franchise fees and municipal service taxes. He would like to have the money and we need to
thoroughly check into the process and progress of collecting it. He believes this would be a worthy
project.

Mayor asked if he was speaking of sidewalks on U.S. 19. He noted that this may be the State’s right-of-
way. We would have to check into this.

Councilmember Wheeler stated she would like to see sidewalks and the sewer system go in at the same
time.

      Vice Mayor Farley
Mr. Farley asked about the status of the red-light cameras. The City Attorney explained the status of two
bills being considered. Mayor Kitchen added that the big controversy is the economics of it. It is not
considered a criminal act with a fine and points against your license; it is strictly a civil penalty.

Mrs. Wheeler stated that collecting money is nice; but we are really more interested in safety. She has
read that lengthening the time of the yellow light deters accidents. We should investigate having FDOT
extending the time of the yellow light. Mr. Farley stated he thought just the opposite would be true.

      Gail Jannarone, 1405 SE 5th Ave., Crystal River, 34429
Mrs. Jannarone referred back to the Clean-up discussion. She noted that volunteers used to meet at the
gazebo and be given gloves and liter sticks. They divided up areas and worked along the right-of-ways,
etc.

15. ADJOURNMENT

Mayor Kitchen adjourned the meeting at 8:32 p.m.

                                                CITY OF CRYSTAL RIVER


                                                ________________________________________________
ATTEST:                                         RONALD E. KITCHEN, JR., MAYOR


___________________________________________
CAROL HARRINGTON, CMC
CITY CLERK




    April 12, 2010 Regular Council Meeting                                           Page 12 of 12

								
To top