Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-28-1994 Special MeetingCITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING July 28, 1994 A Special Meeting of the Cape Canaveral City Council was held on July 28, 1994, at the City Hall Annex, 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. The meeting was called to order at 6:30 P.M. by Mayor Pro Tem John Porter. ROLL CALL: Mayor Joy Salamone Absent Mayor Pro Tem John Porter Present Councilmember Arthur Berger Present Councilmember Leo Nicholas Present Councilmember Rocky Randels Present City Manager Bennett Boucher Present City Attorney John Kancilia Present Acting Deputy City Clerk Susan Stills Present PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Ordinance 25 -94. Amending City's Code of Ordinances, Chapter 70, Taxation, by repealing and reenacting Article III, Occupational License Tax, for second and final reading_ • Mayor Pro Tem John Porter read the title of the Ordinance. • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING CHAPTER 70, TAXATION, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, BY REPEALING IN ITS ENTIRETY, ARTICLE III, OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE TAX, ADOPTING A NEW ARTICLE; ESTABLISHING A NEW FEE SCHEDULE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Motion by Mr. Randels, seconded by Mr. Berger to adopt Ordinance No. 25 -94 at second and final reading. Mr. Randels commented on the guidelines used by the Equity Study Commission and subsequent results in order to provide a fair and equitable ordinance. According to the Florida Statutes, the rates could have been increased up to 10 percent, however, the rate structure was only increased by 9 percent. Mr. Randels reiterated on the performance of the Equity Study Commission by noting how the group simplified the existing license structure, reduced the number of categories from 21 to five, established minimum fees, updated license fees, and restored equity to the occupational license tax structure by utilizing comparable ordinances from 16 other municipalities. Mayor Pro Tem Porter acknowledged those in the business community with objections to the ordinance and also recognized the presence of Mr. Fred Fishback and several members of the Equity Study Commission who were present to address any questions or concerns. r City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Special Meeting • July 28, 1994 Page 2 Mr. Arthur E. "Bud" Burns addressed Council with his objections regarding the fees charged for mini- storage units. Mr. Burns distributed copies of his concerns to Council and staff. His objection was based on the words "fair and equitable" in the second paragraph of the cover page of the occupational license. Mr. Burns expressed that his mini- storage facility should not have been categorized as a dwelling, but as a service. Mr. Fishback responded to Mr. Burns' objections and addressed the classification of his mini - storage facility in comparison with a rented dwelling. In concept, a mini- storage facility was more similar to a rented dwelling that any other category. The concept that the Equity Commission tried to maintain throughout the process was that a larger business with a greater number of units or employees should have an occupational fee greater than a business with fewer units or employees. Mayor Pro Tem Porter questioned Mr. Fishback regarding a former objection of fees based on per unit or square footage charges. Mr. Fishback answered that a per unit fee was better related to impact because of the number of units for rent and the amount of traffic involved. Mr. Berger pointed out that sectioning the overall unit more adequately benefitted the customer with suitably sized storage for their particular needs. Mr. Berger suggested that a minimal rate be paid for the size of the overall storage facility in light of the expense involved in the process of sectioning the overall unit. Mr. Jim Means commented that Mr. Burns' percentage increase was a rather small increase compared to that experienced by many of the other businesses. Mr. Nicholas asked Council to poll the audience in response to the occupational license in order to ascertain how many concerns needed to be addressed. Mr. Hans K. Saurenmann questioned if the discussion referred to taxes or license. He defined a license as a flat fee, however, taxes were fees based on square feet. Mr. Saurenmann explained that his business was already taxed and that an occupational license should be a flat fee and that there should not be so many categories. Mayor Pro Tem Porter noted the time and since there were several remaining concerns before Council for discussion, he asked Mr. Kancilia if deferment of the workshop meeting at 7:00 p.m. was in order. Mr. Kancilia agreed that the workshop should be deferred until the conclusion of the special meeting. Mr. Burns rebutted Mr. Fishback's answers to his concerns and stated that the occupational license was cluttered with real estate terms which would cause his license to be renewed at a higher level. He also reiterated that his occupational license fee was not in the category of his business. He restated that warehouses were not dwelling units. Mr. Kancilia stated that occupational licenses were taxes. The State recognized that an occupational licensing ordinance was a taxing ordinance, not a regulatory ordinance. There were a number of bases upon which an occupational license tax would be imposed. The basis a city could not utilize was sales or revenue since these were in the form of an income tax. The Equity Study Commission had substantially reduced the inequities of the former occupational I City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Special Meeting • July 28, 1994 Page 3 • • license structure. Mr. Nicholas commented that the terminology of dwelling needed to be changed to fit the classification of a mini- storage facility. He suggested that the proposed fee of $2.00 per unit be lowered based on the actual usage of a mini- storage facility in comparison to other usages in the same category. Mr. Kancilia explained that the proposed changes to the occupational license ordinance could not be made without going through the advertising requirements again. Mr. Nicholas questioned if Tuesday, August 2nd, would be adequate time to implement changes. Ms. Deborah Haggerty, City Treasurer, stated that her staff would need appropriate time to prepare the licenses since the statute mandated that the occupational licenses go on sale Monday, August 1st. She also asked Mr. Kancilia if the occupational license ordinance could pass as stated with the exception of, perhaps, dwellings for rent which could be addressed at another time. Mr. Kancilia explained that if certain classifications were omitted the opportunity may be missed to enact a new rate. Further discussion followed on proposed changes to the classification or cost per unit. Motion by Mr. Nicholas, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Porter to amend the ordinance on Page 10 in the category "dwellings for rent" in such manner that Council change the category from "dwellings" to "property for rent" and that Council change the mini- storage complex from "$25.00 plus $2.00 per unit" to "$25.00 plus $1.00 per unit" and that Council change the last line "operators of other dwellings not specifically stated" to "operators of other property not specifically stated". Mr. Berger questioned why rates were being included in the amendment. Mr. Nicholas answered that if rates were not changed at this point they could not be changed for another year. Mayor Pro Tem Porter based his decision on the recommendation of the Equity Study Commission to lower the rate. Mr. Randels felt that the ordinance should go forward and delete the mini- storage classification and no license be purchased until Council could address the matter. Discussion followed on the consequences of deleting the mini- storage classification from the ordinance until Council could address the matter. Motion on the amendment failed with members voting as follows: Councilmember Berger Against Councilmember Nicholas For Mayor Pro Tem Porter For Councilmember Randels Against Mr. Berger suggested that the mini- storage classification be deleted from the main ordinance until Council could reach an equitable solution for the category. Mayor Pro Tem Porter proposed that this suggestion be placed in the form of an amendment. Motion by Mr. Randels, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Porter for an amendment that a particular mini - warehouse category remain the same as last year. Mr. Kancilia noted one procedural point in that the amount of the fee for last year should be read into the record as part of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Special Meeting • July 28, 1994 Page 4 • amendment. He also added that if the fee remained the same as last year in order to further study its equity, the opportunity to increase the fee could not be done for another year. Mr. Randels clarified his motion by stating that on the mini- storage warehouses Council would adopt the old rate of $62.50 per building for the upcoming year. Mr. Fishback commented that instead of reconvening the Equity Study Commission for one category that Council set an amount. Mr. Randels withdrew his amendment and Mayor Pro Tem Porter withdrew his second to the amendment. Mr. Berger questioned Mr. Fishback on his recommendation to lower the fee for mini- storage warehouses. Members of the Equity Study Commission informally recommended $1.50 per unit as the fee. Mr. Berger then asked Mr. Burns what was his recommendation to solve the fee problem. Mr. Burns stated that even at the fee of $1.50 per unit, his warehouse fee in the future would be over $300. Mr. Berger stated that there should be a flat rate for mini- storage businesses. Further discussion followed regarding mini- storage businesses. Mr. Nicholas questioned Mr. Kancilia as to the City's ability to raise the occupational licenses in the future under the State Statute guidelines. Mr. Kancilia answered that after the enactment of a comprehensive ordinance the fee could not be increased by more than 5% every other year. Mr. Porter defined the options available to resolve the problem: 1) Council could keep the fee at its current level, 2) Council could reduce the fee, or 3) Council could remove the portion relating to mini- storage warehouses as suggested by Mr. Randels. Mr. Porter polled Council on each members position based upon these options. Mr. Kancilia noted also that there were certain housekeeping amendments that still needed to be addressed. Motion by Mr. Nicholas, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Porter to amend Page 10 "dwellings for rent" to "property for rent," change "dwellings" at the bottom of the page to "property," and on mini- storage businesses change the "$25.00 plus $2.00 per unit" to "$25.00 plus $1.50 per unit." Motion on the amendment failed with members of Council voting as follows: Councilmember Berger: Against Councilmember Nicholas: For Mayor Pro Tem Porter: For Councilmember Randels: Against Mr. Clark asked Council to brief him on the revised occupational license since he was on vacation during its inception. Mr. Porter explained that the State had mandated that all municipalities and governmental entities in the entire State of Florida study the structure and equity of its occupational license fees. He further explained that the City convened a volunteer group of business men and women from the community to review the City's entire occupational license structure. Mr. Kurt Ronstrum stated that he not only served on the Equity Study Commission, but in so doing he voted on fees that would more than double the fees on two (2) of his businesses. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Special Meeting • July 28, 1994 Page 5 • Mr. Fishback questioned Mr. Kancilia on the adjustments made to a category classified as miscellaneous to a fee of $93.75. His concern was that any new business could only be charged $93.75. Mr. Kancilia explained his reasons for recommending the fee of $93.75 to any "new" category that had not been included in the previous occupational license ordinance. Mr. Fishback reiterated his concern and stated that this created inequities in the system. Mayor Pro Tem Porter addressed the internal housekeeping amendments to the ordinance. Mr. Randels presented the first amendment under service - oriented businesses on page nine whereby the category of cleaning and janitorial services was omitted. Motion by Mr. Randels, seconded by Mr. Nicholas to amend the category of cleaning and janitorial services under service- oriented business to include a rate of $50.00 with a $1,000 surety bond requirement and to delete the surety bond for private investigators. Mr. Nicholas questioned the benefit of surety bonds. Mr. Kancilia responded that surety bonds were insurance against certain risks and that fidelity bonds protected against dishonesty on the part of the profession; therefore, if a claim were made against the City, the City could go back against the bond. He further explained that the bond protected against costs incurred for enforcement of the ordinance. Further discussion followed on the effectiveness of using a surety bond. Motion on the amendment carried with members voting as follows: Councilmember Berger For Councilmember Nicholas For Mayor Pro Tem Porter For Councilmember Randels For Motion by Mr. Nicholas, seconded by Mr. Randels to amend the ordinance to delete the requirement for surety bond from all categories listed in the ordinance which consisted of cleaning and janitorial, decorating, and detective agencies. Mayor Pro Tem Porter asked Mr. Berger due to his personal involvement with being required to provide surety bonds in his business if a surety bond was effective. Mr. Berger felt that a surety bond was no longer required. Motion carried on the amendment with members voting as follows: Councilmember Berger Abstained Councilmember Nicholas For Mayor Pro Tem Porter For Councilmember Randels For Mayor Pro Tem Porter called the question on the main motion for Ordinance No. 25 -94. Motion on the ordinance carried with members voting as follows: Councilmember Berger Against Councilmember Nicholas For Mayor Pro Tem Porter For City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Special Meeting 110 July 28, 1994 Page 6 • Councilmember Randels For There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:05 P.M. Approved this 6th day of Se Pbeinher , 1994. CArgAVe gi 4 if,e, 44. S •," e, I Y;S. • „ Susan4tillk, ACTING DEPUTY-CITY CLERK it /4, . ** otpvi, 1.c. Porter, MAYOR PRO TEM 1 The Orlando Sentinel Published Daily $214.50 *tate of floriba S.S. COUNTY OF ORANGE Before �the undersigned authority personally appeared e HETSY who on oath says that he /she is the Legal Advertising Representative of The Orlando Sentinel, a daily in newspaper published at COCOA County, Florida; RRFVARD that the attached copy of advertise �q being a NOTICE Of PUBLIC . 11 in the matter of day 28 I in the BREVARD Court, was published in said newspaper in the issue; of 107113/94 Affiant further says that the said Orlando Sentinel is a newspaper published at in said COCOA County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said $ ['VAR) County, Florida, each Week Day and has been entered as second- class mail matter at the post office in COCOA in said RCVM County, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he /she has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this ad ertis .m - ntfor publication in the said newspaper. / � /�i ; The foregoing instrument was acknowledged bef 1. e this 15 day of JULY , 19 94 , by ::a %' HADDAD who is personally known to me and ho did t - R (SEAL) BEVERLY C. SIMMONS NOTARY My Comm Exp. 3/1O/97 PUBLIC Bonded By Service Ins F�a4` No. CC263839 I1PerK in fltt+ate. Sentinel S.S. RANGE ,rsigned authority personally appeared , who on oath says _egal Advertising Representative of The Orlando Sentinel, a daily hed at COCOA in County, Florida; oppy of advertis being a NOTICE Of PUBLIC : H UL Y ?A , i�V aid newspaper in the issue; of 07/13/94 Court, ;ays that the said Orlando Sentinel is a newspaper published at , in said County, Florida, I newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in County, Florida, Ind has been entered as second -class mail matter at the post in said County, Florida, ne year next preceding the first publication of the attached 3ment; and affiant further says that he /she has neither paid iny person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, .efund for the purpose of securing this ad ertis; m - nt4for 3 said newspaper. kl strument was acknowledged bef + e this 15 , 19 94 , by y/ IHADD,AD y known to me and ho did t day of BEVERLY C. SIMMONS My Comm Exp. 3/10/97 Bonded By Service Ins No. CC263839 I IPerscogrxtan foter9,ft 2 ied co_ppy of advertise ei being a 'NOTICE Sit` PUULM, . t1 �f JULY 2ti WARD J in said newspaper in the issue; of 07/113/914 Court, Cher says that the said Orlando Sentinel is a newspaper published at , in said County, Florida, said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in County, Florida, )ay �and has been entered as second -class mail matter at the post roA in said County, Florida, of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached artisement; and affiant further says that he/she has neither paid ed any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, or refund for the purpose of securing this ad erti m� nt4for in the said newspaper. 19 94 , by :I :A °�� anally known to me and ho did t � ig instrument was acknowledged bet. e this 15 HADDAD day of BEVERLY C. SIMMONS My Comm Exp. 3/10197 Bonded By Service Ins No. CC263839 I 1Pelsonai Kamn INOte. 3 (SEAL) Ocv MET c1MMvi ) My Comm Exp. 3/10/97 Bonded By Service his No. CC263839 i Prat* Kam tlO+e►tft )rlando Sentinel hed Daily 50 rte of,foriba s.s. \ITY OF ORANGE ore �the undersigned authority personally appeared euD who on oath says 9 /she is the Legal Advertising Representative of The Orlando Sentinel, a daily in JAR) published at COCOA County, Florida; e attached copy of advertisemi being a NOTICE Of PUBLIC . H matter of jULY 28 UREVARI) ublished in said newspaper in the issue; of 87/13194 Court, Sentinel rJ oriba S.S. RANGE arsigned authority personally appeared , who on oath says Legal Advertising Representative of The Orlando Sentinel, a daily hed at COCOA in County, Florida; y of advertiserrm being a NOTICE Of PIL; Tr . fl aid newspaper in the issue; of al /13194 Court, says that the said Orlando Sentinel is a newspaper published at , in said County, Florida, 1 newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in County, Florida, and has been entered as second -class mail matter at the post in said County, Florida, ne year next preceding the first publication of the attached ament; and affiant further says that he /she has neither paid any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, refund for the purpose of securing this ad erti y m� nt4for e saki newspaper. strument was acknowledged bef ,19.94,by y known to me and ho did t BEVERLY C. SIMMONS My Comm Exp. 3/10/97 Bonded By Service Ins No. CC263839 11Personaity wawn i1ottettt FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR IL COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS NAME —FIRST NAME—MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE Arthur Berger City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral MAILING ADDRESS 411627 Adams Avenue CITY Cape Canaveral COUNTY Brevard THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: NXCFTY 0 COUNTY 0 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED July 28, 1994 NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: City of Cape Canaveral MY POSITION IS: ELECTIVE 0 APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non - advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure . in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including e parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain of a relative; the special private gain of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 3.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one -acre, one -vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, father -in -law, mother - in -law, son -in -law, and daughter -in -law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corpo- ration are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. * * * * * * * * * APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for *recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE 'i ECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict i the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 da s after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the fo • s in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be ad publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. • DISCLOSURE . F LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, 1 2TVfei/4 e✓" 8e/lot-x- ,her 'by disclose that on /7 -Z S" (a) A measure came or will come before my agency whi (check one) inured to my special private gain; • inured to the special gain of my business associ inured to the special gain of my relative, ,19 TKS4 e Tun S .=i✓C • inured to the special gain of whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain of is the parent organization or subsidiary of a pri cipal which has retained me. - (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of m conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: Date Filed , by , which NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY N ATUTES §112.317 (1991), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRF MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWIN FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN T TO EXCEED $5,000. CE FORM 8B - REV. 1/94 PAGE 2