THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND
City Council Meeting Agenda
Chairman: Michael F. Minozzi, Jr.
City Council: John A. Arceri, Heyward E. Boyce, Terri DiSciullo, Vickie Kelber,
S. Jeannette K. Patterson, E. Glenn Tucker
City Manager: A. William Moss
City Clerk: Laura Litzan City Attorney: Rich Yovanovich
Regular Meeting Monday, August 4, 2003, 6:00 PM
Frank E. Mackle Jr. Community Park,1361 Andalusia Terrace
Marco Island, Florida
Notice: Formal action may be taken on any item discussed or added to this agenda. Any person who decides to appeal any decision made by the City Council with respect to any matter considered at this meeting or hearing will need a record of the proceedings and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be heard.
1. ROLL CALL
2. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Greg Niles, Community Development Director
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
(A) Council Minutes for July 21, 2003 (Regular Meeting)
5. BUSINESS
(A) ORDINANCE - First Reading - An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 22, Article II, Fire Prevention and Protection Code.
(B) DISCUSSION - Education Initiatives.
(C) DISCUSSION - An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 54, Article IV (Boat Docking Facilities) of the Marco Island City Code.
(D) DISCUSSION - Award of Contract - Audit Services.
(E) DISCUSSION - Proposed Date of Public Hearing for Acquisition of Florida Water Services Assets.
6. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND DISCUSSION
7. FUTURE AGENDA
8. PUBLIC COMMENT (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA)
9. ADJOURN
We encourage our citizens to participate in the governing of Marco Island. Public comments are appreciated. We respectfully ask our citizens to be courteous, and to respect the rights of others to petition City Council and express their opinions. We also ask that Public comment be limited to four minutes.
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Meeting Date: August 4, 2003
Agenda Item: 5(D) Prepared By: William P. Harrison
Date: July 16, 2003
Agenda Section:
Business: Contract Approval
Subject: Department:
Audit contract with Purvis Gray & Company Finance
BACKGROUND: In 1998, the City of Marco Island took competitive bids for audit services and awarded the contract to Purvis Gray & Company. Auditors and retained by, and work directly for, the City Council. The engagement letter for this year’s audit has been received and is recommended for approval by the Council. Approval of the contract with authorize the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City.
Next year, we will be preparing a Request for Proposals and taking competitive bids for a new audit contract. Our plan is to allow the current auditors, Purvis Gray & Company, to again bid on the contract. The issue of auditor rotation becomes important when both the auditors and senior staff in the Finance Department have been in place for a number of years and issues such as a fresh approach to municipal finances are important. With the recent resignation of the city’s Accountant and the limited tenure of the Finance Director, we do not feel that auditor rotation will be an important issue.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approval of the contract for audit services with Purvis Gray & Company for the audit of the City’s financial records for the year ending September 30, 2003.
Reviewed by Department Director Reviewed by City Manager
Council Action: Motion by: Second by:
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Meeting Date: August 4, 2003
Agenda Item: Prepared By: K. Greg Niles
5(B)\\ Date: July 29, 2003
Agenda Section: Discussion
Business:
Subject: Educational Initiatives Department: City Council
BACKGROUND:
On June 16, 2003 Councilwoman DiSciullo requested, and City Council agreed to continue dialogue on educational initiatives that were introduced by Councilwoman Patterson on June 2, 2003.
Building upon information provided to Council at their meeting of June 2, 2003, Councilwoman Patterson would like to advise Council of recent legislative changes contained in Senate Bill 30-A, entitled an "Act Related to Quality Education", which became effective July 1st. Councilwoman Patterson has made arrangements to have Mr. Steve Syfrett address Council on the new legislation and potential opportunities related to school construction and student funding. Mr. Syfrett has extensive experience in the construction of school facilities, and is well versed in the genesis of SB 30-A.
In addition, Councilwoman Patterson has asked Mr. Larry Stanert to attend this meeting. Mr. Stanert previously served as Chief Business Officer for the Miami/Dade School District, and most recently is a member of Governor Bush's "Sterling Committee on Education." Barring other engagements, Mr. Stanert will be in attendance, and prepared to respond to Council's questions.
A synopsis of SB 30-A is attached and a complete copy of the Bill (130 pages) is available for review at City Hall and at the state’s web site (address attached).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Discussion.
Reviewed by Department Director Reviewed by City Manager
Council Action: Motion by: Second by:
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Meeting Date: August 4, 2003
Agenda Item: 5(C) Prepared By: Kelly Michele Smith
Date: July 15, 2003
Agenda Section: Discussion
Business:
Subject: An ordinance to amend Chapter 54, Article IV (Boat Department: Community Development
Docking Facilities) of the Marco Island City Code
BACKGROUND:
At their June 20, 2003 meeting, the Marco Island Planning Board voted 5-1 to approve the proposed boat dock ordinance upon second reading. This ordinance has been considered at several Planning Board meetings which took place between April and June 2003. Several changes to the existing boat dock ordinance have been proposed. Areas that have been modified are indicated by strikethrough and underline in the accompanying proposed boat dock ordinance and noted below:
Summary of Proposed Ordinance Amendments:
Section 54-100. Intent and Purpose
· Added language referencing reasonable access for vessel, seawall, and dock maintenance.
· Added new paragraph relating to overlay areas
Section 54-101. Definitions
· Added the following definitions: associated infrastructure, marginal dock, riparian rights, sovereign submerged lands, and sovereign submerged land lease.
· Modified the following definitions: marginal dock, riparian line, and seawall support piling.
· Updated definition of personal watercraft (PWC) to match definition in beach ordinance.
Section 54-102. Smokehouse Bay Overlay District
· Creates new overlay which prohibits new boatlifts, PWC lifts, boat covers and boat houses at multi-family developments within Smokehouse Bay. (This topic is discussed in further detail below)
Section 54-110.1. Conditional Use
· New section which allows new boat houses as a conditional use after October 1, 2003. (This topic is discussed in further detail below)
Section 54-111. Dimensional Standards
· Section 54-111.(a)(2): Creates the same protrusion allowance for all lots on waterways less than 100 feet in width. The current ordinance provides separate, more restrictive protrusion allowance for lots on a waterway which is less than 65 feet in width.
· Section 54-111.(a)(4): Changes the way protrusion is measured. In the current regulations, protrusion is measured from the outer edge of the seawall except for shoulder lots where protrusion is measured from the property line. The new method measures protrusion from the face of the seawall, except where the property line extends into the waterway, in which case protrusion is measured from the property line. This change was recommended by the Planning Board to address the growing number of property owners who install new vinyl seawall panels in front of an existing seawall instead of replacing the seawall entirely. Under the current regulations, this property owner would be required to
include the width of the new vinyl panel in the protrusion allowance.
· Section 54-111.(a)(5): Changes the way the width of the waterway is measured. Waterway width is currently measured from the face of the seawall to the face of the seawall across the waterway. The proposed change to the ordinance uses the platted property lines to establish the waterway width. This change was deemed appropriate by the Planning Board because of the growing trend of installing new vinyl seawall panels in front of the existing seawall instead of replacing a seawall entirely. Under the current regulations, a property owner could be penalized for the actions of the property owner across the waterway because the waterway width of a typical 100-foot wide canal would measure less
than 100 feet in this case.
· Section 54-111.(b)(1): Changes the setback requirement to a standard 15% of the seawall length except shoulder lots and adjacent riparian lines. This change clarifies the setback requirement and eliminates the need for a distinction between end-of-canal versus bends in the waterway.
· Section 54-111.(b)(1)d: Clarifies setback application pursuant to recently upheld official interpretation of setback requirement.
· Section 54-111.(c)(5): Changes the maximum height of seawall support pilings from 12 inches to 4 feet in height above the seawall cap.
Section 54-112. Additional requirements
· Section 54-112(b): Clarifies existing language.
· Section 54-112(d): Added language recognizing anchorage sites identified on official US Coast Guard navigational charts as permitted mooring locations for livaboards.
· Section 54-112(g): Added associated infrastructure.
Section 54-115. Boat dock extension
· Section 54-115(b)(1): Added requirement that the petitioner demonstrate justification (need) for the extension requested in addition to compliance with applicable review criteria. The current boat dock extension regulations only require that the Planning Board and/or City Council consider the review criteria in approving or denying a boat dock extension request.
· Section 54-115(b)(2): Added a requirement that the petitioner of a multi-family, commercial, PUD and/or DRI boat dock extension be responsible for meeting all public notification requirements.
· Section 54-115(b)(3): Clarifies the submittal requirements for a boat dock extension application and also requires a complete application package be submitted prior to the scheduling of the required public hearing.
· Section 54-115(c): Added a statement that the site plan approved for a boat dock extension is binding.
· Section 54-115(f)(2): Added a general criteria for sufficient water depth.
· Section 54-115(f)(7): New statement that relaxes this review criterion for multi-family developments and public marinas.
Section 54-116. Boathouses
· Provides review criteria for approval or denial of a conditional use petition for a new boathouse.
Detailed Discussion:
The Smokehouse Overlay was discussed in great length at several Planning Board meetings. The originally proposed language restricted the protrusion length available through a boat dock extension to a total 40-foot protrusion into the waterway and also provided additional design criteria for boat dock extensions for multi-family properties within Smokehouse Bay. These design criteria mirrored the boat dock extension recently approved for Bayfront Place. Upon further discussion, the Planning Board decided that the proposed overlay did not satisfy the concerns of the property owners in this area who spoke out at the public hearings for the Bayfront Place boat dock extension. Various versions of the overlay were discussed, however, ultimately the prohibition of boatlifts in this area was the only regulation a majority of the Planning Board felt
was appropriate. At least one Planning Board member expressed concern that the water quality of the bay would be adversely affected if boatlifts were prohibited. Staff does not support the creation of an overlay for this area because it is viewed as unnecessary. Staff is also concerned that the prohibition of boatlifts will make it difficult or impossible for these property owners to obtain the DEP permit required for new boat dock facilities or modifications to existing facilities within this waterway.
Another major change to the existing boat dock ordinance is the addition of boathouses as a conditional use. In 1998 the City Council approved an ordinance prohibiting new boathouses. The current boat dock ordinance adopted in 2000 incorporated this prohibition and also provided review criteria to accommodate the repair and replacement of existing boathouses. The proposed change to allow boathouses as a conditional use was requested by a few property owners who spoke in support of this change. The consensus of the Planning Board was that new boathouses should be permitted as a conditional use in Residential Single Family (RSF) zoned districts. The review criteria for a boathouse as a conditional use is similar to the review criteria for existing boathouses which need to be repaired or replaced, however, new boathouses are
allowed to be up to 800 square feet in size. Staff does not support this change to the ordinance.
Several other topics were discussed in great length, including the protrusion amount permitted by right and liveaboards, however, no changes were recommended by the Planning Board. Following several discussions the Planning Board did not feel that any change to the current regulations relating to protrusion limits was warranted. The Planning Board also did not feel that there was a need to further relax the regulations relating to livaboards. The original draft of the boat dock ordinance also created an overlay district for Old Marco Village Subdivision. This overlay provided reduced setback requirements for properties within the Old Marco Village subdivision which contain 50 feet or less of waterfrontage. This overlay district was struck from the ordinance because the majority of the Planning Board did not feel the overlay was necessary.
Staff also did not support the Old Marco Village Subdivision Overlay because the overlay would apply to only a small number of properties (approximately 12). Further, staff felt that the overlay was not warranted as no setback variances requested for boat dock facilities within the Old Marco Village Subdivision had been requested since 1998.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion.
Reviewed by Department Director Reviewed by City Manager
Council Action: Motion by: Second by:
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Meeting Date: August 4, 2003
Agenda Item: Prepared By: A. William Moss, City Manager
5(E) Date: July 30, 2003
Agenda Section:
Business: Discussion
Subject: Date for Public Hearing Department: City Manager
For the Acquisition of FWS Assets
BACKGROUND:
On July 24, 2003 the Florida Water Services Corporation, the Marco Island City Manager, and representatives of other entities signed a Utility System Asset Acquisition Agreement. The Agreement provides for the purchase of the Florida Water Services Corporation assets of the Marco Island/Marco Shores utility system by the City of Marco Island for $85.3 million. The Agreement provides for a closing by December 8, 2003. The Agreement was signed by the City Manager subject to formal approval by the Marco Island City Council within 45 days of the execution of the Agreement.
Section 180.301, Florida Statutes, provides that no municipality may purchase a water, sewer, or wastewater reuse utility until the governing body of the municipality agrees on the purchase and makes a determination that the purchase is in the public interest.
In determining if a purchase is in the public interest, City Council is required to consider specific issues as referenced in the statutes. These include financial information, the existing rate base of the utility for regulatory purposes, the physical condition of the facilities being purchased, the reasonableness of the purchase price and terms, the impact of the purchase on utility customers, additional investment required, alternatives to the purchase and potential impact on utility customers if the purchase is not made, and the ability of the City to provide and maintain high quality and cost effective utility services.
City Council is asked to consider a special called meeting for the public hearing to be held at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 at Mackle Park.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Discussion.
Reviewed by Department Director Reviewed by City Manager
Council Action: Motion by: Second by:
| 
