To:                   Mayor Allen Green

                        Vice Mayor Mary S. Martin

            Councilman Dennis Kennedy

                        Councilman Robert Pohlmann

            Councilman George Steindoerfer


From:              Kenneth W. Parker, City Manager


Subject:          Agenda Commentary for Regular City Council Meeting of

                        September 19, 2006


Date:               September 11, 2006



B.                 PUBLIC HEARING


Item 4 -           Discussion of Proposed Millage Rate FY 06/07


At this time, Council will discuss the proposed millage rate for FY 06/07.


Item 5 -           Resolution No. 06-94 - Adopting the Millage Rate for FY 06/07


Attached is a resolution adopting the final millage rate for FY 06/07.  Staff recommends approval.


Item 6 -           Resolution No. 06-95 - Adopting the Operating Budget for FY 06/07


Attached is a resolution adopting the operating budget for FY 06/07.  Staff recommends approval.


Item 7 -           Resolution No. 06-96  - Adopting the Capital Budget for FY 06/07


Attached is a resolution approving the final capital budget for FY 06/07.  Staff recommends approval.





Item 8 -           Appointment to Fire and Rescue Pension Fund (1 Term to Expire on February 15, 2008)


One appointment needs to be made to the Firefighters’ Pension Fund, which must be filled by a public member appointed by the City Council.  The term will  expire on February 15, 2008.  Attached is an application from Jim Reardon who has expressed an interest in serving on this Board.




E.                 CONSENT AGENDA


Item 9 -           Approve Annual Piggyback State and County Bid Purchases


Each year, Information Technology Department will purchase items that exceed $25,000 in value, each of which must be brought before Council for approval.  As in the past, we often desire to piggyback active State and County bid contracts and purchase direct from the State contract.  The commentary attached shows a list of these items by contract number, description, and expiration.  Evidence of State contract authorized vendors according to the attached list will be produced to the City Purchasing Coordinator during the requisitions process.  This practice complies with the City purchasing policies once authorized by City Council.


Staff recommends that Council approve the piggybacking of State and County bid purchases and the use of defined State contract equipment and supplies listed on the attached commentary for FY-07.


Item 10 -        HTE Annual Software and Technical Support Maintenance Agreement


This is the annual software and technical support maintenance agreement we purchase from HTE so that we can continue to receive their support and any new enhancements they may make to eleven (11) AS/400 software applications.  Each application is budgeted in Account No. 501-0700-590-46-36.


HTE’s billing cycle varies for each application throughout the fiscal year and exceeds the $25,000 authority limit.  The agreement supports the current City and archived Public Safety system operations.


Staff recommends that Council purchase the annual software and technical support maintenance from HTE at a cost of $96,095 for FY-07.


Item 11 -        IBM Annual Maintenance Agreement


Information Technology purchases an annual hardware and software maintenance contract from IBM with additional discounts below Florida State contract pricing.  Maintenance on the equipment is billed annually and due October beginning each fiscal year.  Hardware maintenance and upgrades are on the IBM equipment such as AS/400’s, peripheral devices, and PC’s.  The on-site maintenance provides for IBM to repair the equipment at our location and save us time by not having to locate vendors to fix machines when needed.  The software maintenance is used to correct AS/400 operating procedures and helps us when programs fail.  The amount due is $41,145 and has been allocated in account 501-0700-590-4610. 


Staff recommends that Council renew the existing annual IBM Maintenance Agreement for FY-07 in the amount of $41,145.


Item 12 -        Request to “Piggyback” the Parking Lot Bid for the Police Department and Buschman Park Phase IIB to Pave the Parking Lot at the Lakeside Pavilion


Staff would like to piggyback Beckman Paving’s contract for paving the Police Department and Buschman Park Phase IIB to pave the parking lot at the Lakeside Pavilion in the amount of $108,708.  Funding is available in the 2004 Capital Improvement Bond funds.


City Manager’s Comments:  This item was discussed at the last City Council meeting.  I submit to you that the paving of the parking lot is essential in meeting the budget estimates for leasing the Center. Currently, the facility has grass parking. That means the City will have to replace the grass at this location to support the parking requirements. Because the Center needs to be leased about 80 times during the next year to meet the budget, that would mean we would need to keep the turf in good condition as well as the drive lanes. We can't operate this Center in the same fashion as we have the Amphitheater. The Amphitheater is used far less frequent than the Center will be used.  Therefore, I ask the Council to separate the issues. The paved lot, in my opinion, is essential for us to achieve our financial plan.


The second issue was how much has the Trust contributed. Attached is an accounting of their contribution. They have contributed cash in the amount of $70,500. We used that cash to lever grant dollars from Volusia County. There were some in-kind contributions that they brought to the table that counted toward the local match.


After the storm events of 2004, the City made several decisions related to strengthening the building in order to use it for Emergency Management purposes. The strengthening of the building has been accomplished. The City paid totally for those upgrades.


Are there anticipated change orders? The answer is yes. Attached is the email related to the anticipated change orders. Many of the change order items are associated with upgrades needed for the shelter-alternative EOC.   One of the items is associated with connecting the generator to the building. Originally, we had discussed putting a connection to the building and using a portable generator. However, when we decided to use it as a potential shelter, feeding site, and alternative EOC, it was decided to make the generator permanent. That requires it to be wired to the building.


There are still some owner-provided items that will need to be installed. For example, we will need to connect the building into our fiber optic ring. Those funds are in our 2006-07 budget. Also, we have the EOC screens and cameras needed for the Center, too. Glen has pointed out that we will need to provide for a dance floor. He is looking at changing out a part of the carpet in the large room for wood flooring. The carpet has not been installed yet. There are some window treatments that will have to be installed, too.


We will be bringing the change orders forward. However, let me encourage the City Council to award the parking lot bid. It is essential for our business plan.


Item 13 -        Monthly Development Activity Report and the Building Activity Report for July and August, 2006


The attached staff reports include the Development Activity Report for August, 2006, and the Building Activity Report for July, 2006.  These reports provide information on proposed development and projects under construction, commercial code enforcement activity, and monthly building permits and inspection updates.  Staff recommends that Council accept the Staff Reports (Monthly Development Activity Report and the Building Activity Report) for July and August, 2006.


Item 14 -        Approve 2007 Critical Dates Calendar


Attached is the proposed Critical Dates Calendar for 2007.  The proposed changes to the calendars from previous years are as follows:


1.                  The addition of a resubmittal deadline on the Public Hearing Critical Dates Calendar to provide staff more time for processing/review of large scale Comprehensive Land Use Amendments; and

2.                  Moving the November and December Planning Commission meeting dates from the 4th Thursday of the month to the 3rd Thursday of the month in order to accommodate holiday dates during these months.


Planning Commission Recommendation:      The Planning Commission recommends adoption 6-0


Staff Recommendation:   Staff recommends approval.


Item 15 -        Prosecutor for Animal Control Ordinance Violations


Staff recommends the City increase the hourly rate for Attorney Keith Broll, Esquire, and the law firm of Rice and Rose to prosecute animal control ordinance violations and other ordinance prosecutions on behalf of the City of Port Orange.  Mr. Broll has been charging $120 per hour since he was retained in October, 2005.  At $135 per hour, the firm is billing at below market rate.  In addition, the performance of Mr. Broll and his firm in handling these matters for the City has been excellent.  The increased rate will amount to an approximate yearly billing increase of $2,000.


Staff recommends that Council authorize an increase in the hourly rate of Keith Broll, Esquire, and the law firm of Rice and Rose to prosecute animal control ordinance violations and other ordinance prosecutions on behalf of the City of Port Orange effective October 1, 2005.  The increased rate of $135 per hours shall be effective October 1, 2006.


Item 16 -        Approve Engineering Service for a Waterway Project


Staff appointed to evaluate and final rank the submittals received for engineering services for a Waterway Project have completed their task.  The committee consisted of Councilman Dennis Kennedy; Kent Donahue, Grants Coordinator; Larry Littlefield, Stormwater Engineer; Susan Lovallo, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director; and Steve Wolf, Parks Maintenance Supervisor.  The committee evaluated submittals from five firms, which they short-listed to three.  They then heard oral presentations from those three firms.  The final ranking deemed by the committee is:  


1 -        Dredging & Marine Consultants

2 -        Bergmann & Associates, Inc.

3 -        Applied Technology, Inc.


Staff recommends that Council approve this final ranking and authorize staff to enter into negotiations with Dredging & Marine Consultants.



F.                 TABLED ITEMS


Item 17 -        Change Order No. 2 – Quentin L. Hampton Associates, Inc., Engineering Fees – Cambridge Drainage Basin Improvement Project (Tabled August 15, 2006)


This item was tabled at the August 15, 200, City Council Meeting.


A question has come up concerning the fees associated with the inspection services and project management services for the Cambridge project.


Our project supervision fees were established in our base contract with Quentin L. Hampton & Associates.  The contract fee established in 1980 has remained unchanged.  When the Cambridge contract was awarded to Quentin L. Hampton & Associates, it was awarded as an addendum to our existing contract.


There are two components to the fee.  The first component is for inspection services, and the second is for project management and supervision.  Attached is a letter from Mark Hampton that outlines the costs associated with the Cambridge project.  As you will recall, there are two separate contractors.   We segmented the project in 2 types of projects.  We believed we received better overall prices because of the separation of the project into two components.


The fees associated with the Schuller contract are $167,500.  The two largest components are Construction Contract Administration and Inspection Services.  The Construction Contract Administration amount is $56,165.  I requested that Quentin Hampton’s provide me with the task breakdown and hour estimate for each task.  Over an 8 month period, it is estimated that 477 hours of time will be spent by the engineer on this project; 309 hours on the construction coordination; 44 hours on drafting; and 21.5 hours by the Administrative Assistant.  If we paid by the time method rather than the percentage method called for in the Quentin Hampton contract, we would be charged $68,300.


For this project, 1.5 inspectors have been allocated.  Because of the complexity of the job, it is estimated that this amount of staffing will be required.  The rate we are charged is in accordance with our contract with Quentin Hampton’s.  We are charged for the hours when the inspector is actually on the job.  If the contractor is not working, then we are not charged for the time.


The second contract (the one with Masci) works exactly the same way.  It does comply with the method established in our existing contract.  The Masci contract is the more complicated of the two because of the bridge and stormwater pump station work. Once again, Contract Administration and Inspection Services are the 2 largest amounts.  This contract period is for 12 months because of the type of work.


Are the fees reasonable?  Based upon the hour breakdown, it appears the Construction Administration fees are reasonable and the hourly rate charged for various services and tasks fairly reflect the cost we are charged by other professionals.  Attached is the hourly breakdown for the Contract Supervision/Administration for the Masci contract.


Our recommendation is to award the contract to Quentin L. Hampton Associates for the Cambridge contract.  It is important for us to move forward.  The construction contracts have been awarded.  We have authorization to proceed from DEP.  Contractors are ready to start construction.  We cannot start until we have these contracts in place.  The fees are reasonable.


Item 18 -        Final Close Out Change Order No. 1 for Garnsey Water Treatment Plant Sludge Processing Rehabilitation Construction Services Contract (Tabled September 5, 2006)


This item was tabled at the September 5, 2006, Council Meeting.  At that meeting, a question was raised concerning the amount of the Change Order.  The amount was $29,823.66.  There are 7 items included in the Change Order.  The items can be divided into City requested items and City directed items because of conditions at the plant.


At the beginning, a decision was made not to sole source the project.  There are 2 equipment manufacturers who were qualified to provide the equipment for the job.  The plant has twin sludge basins.  The north basin was down for repairs requiring the south basin to remain operational.  Some of the conditions in the south basin were under water.  Because the two basins were twins, the measurements were taken on the north basin.  When the water was drained from the south basin, it was found that the slope was slightly different.  The as-built drawings on the south tank did not indicate that the slope was different.  They were built at different times.  The solution was worked out with the contractor.  They were able to modify the shaft so that it fit properly.  The cost was $6,801.59.  Both the engineers and the contractor used best available data when they could not examine the southern basin because it was operational.


 The second major item was the discussion about the $6,275.97 steel plates that were welded to the beam on the thickness bridge.  There are 2 major manufacturers who were competing for the bid.  Prior to construction, the southern thickener had an EIMCO drive/lift mechanism.  The bridge beams supported the EIMCO drive/lift.  When the project was bid, Westech submitted the lowest proposal.  The City had the option of replacing the EIMCO drive/lift with an EIMCO drive/lift as a sole source; however, we made the decision not to sole source the replacement.  When the bids were opened, we estimate that we saved $100,000 because of the competitive bid process.


However, Westech indicated that, in their opinion, the existing beam would marginally support their drive/lift.  Their recommendation was to replace the entire beam.  We were concerned about warranty issues if we ignored their recommendation and instructed them to install on the existing beam.  Quentin Hampton’s hired a structural engineer to evaluate the structure and provide a recommendation.  The structural engineer recommended re-enforcing the beam rather than replacing the beam; therefore, we took the cautionary position and conservative approach to have the beam reinforced and removed any doubt.


Neither of these change orders would have changed the bid order. 


All other items are at the City’s request.  Let’s now examine each one:


·        Added pickets on the rake arm.  This item was requested and it added $659.00 to the project cost.  These make the rake operate more effectively and efficiently.

·        Glass lining for the Westech Silencer.  This is the muffler.  The old muffler was carbon steel.  In this corrosive environment, staff felt that continuing to replace the carbon steel was not the best option.  Options were evaluated and glass lining of the silencer was the best option.  This added $2,349./76 to the project.

·        Repair surface concrete.  The interior walls of the tank were deteriorated.  This was not readily apparent until after the tanks were drained and inspected.   Staff believed it was best for the long operation of the plant to make the repairs while the tanks were empty and available.  The cost was $3,892.

·        Add exit signs  - During the building permitting process, two exit signs were required that were not part of the original building.  The cost was $1,099.33.

·        Additional painting in the sludge press building – there were certain parts of the press building that were not part of the project.  Staff requested prices to paint additional areas.  This required the removal of equipment, preparation of the area to be painted, and the actual painting with a corrosive resistant epoxy paint.  The cost of the painting was $8,750.


One of the questions I raised to the engineer was about inspection services.  The City was charged only for the time the inspector was on the job and the contractor was actually performing work.  The City was not charged for services when there was no work being performed by the contractor.




I think the Utility staff used reasonable approaches to preserve the investment previously made by ratepayers for the Water Plant.  We could argue that the contractor and engineer should have known the conditions both on the beam and inside the south tank; however, the operation of the south tank made it impossible to verify the tank bottom and sides; therefore, it was reasonable for an assumption to be made that the tank and tank bottoms were the same.  The as-built did not indicate a different slope existed on the south tank.


As for the beam, the weight of the equipment of the two manufacturers is virtually the same.  The low bidder’s equipment was used on the north basin.  It is reasonable from the contractor’s point of view that his equipment would fit on the beam.  Please remember the southern basin is in use while the project is being bid.  When it was revealed by the contractor that the existing beam, in their opinion, was marginal to support their equipment, I believe all three entities used a reasonable approach to resolve the issue and to expedite the project.


It is true that time is being requested because of the delays.  The delays, in my opinion and in the opinion of our staff, are reasonable based on the work performed.


Because of our decision to competitive bid the project rather than sole source the replacement, the net savings to the City was $471,727.  The budget was $1,939,369 and the finished project cost is $1,467,642.


I have attached a letter from Quentin Hampton’s that includes additional information.  It is my recommendation that the change order be approved as recommended by the Public Utilities staff.  The contractor has performed the work.





Item 19 -        Citizen Advisory Committee for MPO


A representative of the Citizen Advisory Committee for the MPO will make a report to the Council at this time.


H.                 FINANCE


Item 20 -        Second Reading – Ordinance No. 2006-35 – Amending Section 2.263 of the Code of Ordinances Relating to Bidding Procedure


We recommend approval.



I.                     COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT


Item 21 -        Second Reading – Ordinance No. 2006-16 – Small Scale Land Use Amendment – D. Andrew Clark


We recommend approval.


Item 22 -        Second Reading – Ordinance No. 2006-23 – Ordinance Rezoning and Approving the 4th Amendment to the Master Development Agreement and Conceptual Development Plan for Clark Professional Center and Wedding Chapel PCD


We recommend approval.


Item 23 -        Second Reading – Ordinance No. 2006-25 – Approving the First Amendment to the Master Development Agreement and Conceptual Development Plan for Royal Palm PUD


We recommend approval.


Item 24 -        First Reading – Ordinance No. 2006-39 - Approval of Master Development Agreement and Approval of Conceptual Development Plan – Villas at Cypress Head


This is a request to approve the Villas at Cypress Head Master Development Agreement and Conceptual Development Plan.


Planning Commission Recommendation:      The Planning Commission recommends approval, 6-0 (McMasters excused).


Staff Recommendation:   Staff recommends approval.


Second Reading:               October 17, 2006


Item 25 -        Resolution No. 06-97  - Dedication of Town West Boulevard


Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution which will authorize the City’s intent to accept, open, dedicate, and establish for public purposes that certain roadway known as Town West Boulevard for a distance of approximately 8,260 feet as said roadway extends from Williamson Boulevard (CR 409) to Tomoka Farms Road (CR 415).


Item 26 -        Appeal of Planning Commission Decision – Van Horn


Stanley Van Horn, applicant/owner, requested approval of a variance from Chapter 17, Section 27, of the City of Port Orange Land Development Code (LDC) pertaining to minimum rear yard setback for the R-7SF zoning district.  The purpose of the request was to reduce the rear yard setback to allow an existing accessory structure to remain located 4 feet from the property line in lieu of the 26.8 feet required by Code.  If approved, the owner intended to leave the existing accessory structure in its current location.


Planning Commission Recommendation:      On August 24, 2006, the Planning Commission denied the request 6-0 (McMasters excused).  The Commissioners that voted no did so because the request failed to meet the variance criteria required by Chapter 19, Section 1(g)(2), LDC, that would justify approval.


According to LDC Chapter 19, Section 1(f), the Council’s decision to reverse or uphold the Planning Commission’s decision shall be based on the facts of the case presented during the Planning Commission meeting, the review criteria established for variance requests, and the Commission’s decision on the requested variance.  No new evidence may be presented, heard, or discussed.  Any new information must be presented as part of a new variance request.  Please see the attached appeal request letter from the owner.



J.                  PUBLIC WORKS


Item 27 -        Second Reading – Ordinance No. 2006-26 – Award Roll-Off Franchise Agreement – 4-Jays Management, Inc.


We recommend approval.


Item 28 -        Second Reading – Ordinance No. 2006-27 – Award Roll-Off Franchise Agreement – FSI/Fema Services Instantly, a division of Fence Service, Inc.


We recommend approval.


Item 29 -        Second Reading – Ordinance No. 2006-28 – Award Roll-Off Franchise Agreement – Halifax Wrecking Company, Inc.


We recommend approval.


Item 30 -        Second Reading – Ordinance No. 2006-29 – Award Roll-Off Franchise Agreement – Russo & Sons, Inc.


We recommend approval.


Item 31 -        Second Reading – Ordinance No. 2006-30 – Award Roll-Off Franchise Agreement – Samsula Landfill


We recommend approval.


Item 32 -        Second Reading – Ordinance No. 2006-31 – Award Roll-Off Franchise Agreement – Set Materials


We recommend approval.


Item 33 -        Second Reading – Ordinance No. 2006-32 – Award Roll-Off Franchise Agreement – Southeast Container Services


We recommend approval.


Item 34 -        Second Reading – Ordinance No. 2006-33 – Award Roll-Off Franchise Agreement – Veolia ES Solid Waste, Inc.


We recommend approval.


Item 35 -        Second Reading – Ordinance No. 2006-34 – Award Roll-Off Franchise Agreement – Waste Management, Inc., of Florida


We recommend approval.


K.                 PARKS AND RECREATION


Item 36 -        Resolution No. 06-98 - Approving a Supplemental Local Agency Program Agreement for the Causeway Boat Docks


This is a request to approve a Supplemental Local Agency Program Agreement in the amount of $18,838 for additional debris removal at the Causeway Boat Docks.  This will bring the project total to $103,838.


Staff recommends that Council approve the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute a Supplemental Local Agency Program Agreement in the amount of $18,838 for debris removal at the Causeway Boat Docks.



L.                  ADMINISTRATION


Item 37 -        Resolution No. 06-99 - Pending Senate Appropriations Bill Altering the Highway Beautification Act (HBA)


The attached fact sheet from the National League of Cities and supporting resolution from the Florida League of Cities indicates that the billboard industry is actively trying to change current laws governing nonconforming signs.  Staff urges Council to support the attached resolution and transmit our objections for the record to the Florida Congressional Delegation, Florida League of Cities, and National League of Cities.


Staff recommends that Council approve the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to forward copies of all documents to the Florida Congressional Delegation, Florida League of Cities, and National League of Cities.



M.                COUNCIL COMMENTS


Item 38 -        Comments/Concerns from Council Members


At this time, Council Members may discuss matters of concern.