MEMORANDUM

  

To:                   Mayor Allen Green

                        Vice Mayor Dennis Kennedy

                        Council Member Bob Ford

                        Council Member Donald Burnette

                        Council Member Robert Pohlmann

 

From:              Kenneth W. Parker, City Manager

 

Subject:          Agenda Commentary for Regular City Council Meeting of

                         February 22, 2011

 

Date:               February 16, 2011

 

 

The 5:30 workshop will continue to focus on goals.  I will review the information that I have gleaned from the last two sessions with the City Council to make sure that I have heard what the City Council has said.  During the first two meetings the City Council has talked considerably about Community Appearance, Growth and Development, and Finance.  The Council did talk about the importance of Volunteerism.  An office area has been identified for a Volunteer Coordinator.  Some time ago, John Junco asked me about volunteer opportunities for Boy Scouts.  I provided him with an extensive list of volunteer opportunities.  Currently, Kent is developing a brochure concerning volunteer opportunities with the City.  I will provide you with the list of identified projects and opportunities.  The other element that the City Council identified as a priority was Public Safety.  Although discussed some, it has not received the same level of discussion as the other priorities.

 

A.           OPENING

 

Item 1 -           Pledge of Allegiance

Item 2 -           Silent Invocation

Item 3 -           Roll Call

 

B.           TOWN CENTER CRA MEETING

 

City Manager Comment: The staff has completed the request for proposal for final review by the CRA and the City Council.  The dual review and approval is required since both the CRA and the City are property owners.  Staff has identified several individuals who may be interested in proposing.  Staff has also identified organizations and associations to advertise the RFP, including the International Shopping Center Council, Florida Redevelopment Association, and other trade groups.  We are attempting to circulate the proposal as wide as possible.  We have identified some national firms as well that are involved in other redevelopment and development efforts.  There is a list of local individuals and companies as well that will receive notice from the City and the CRA about the Request for Proposal.

 

C.           SPECIAL AWARDS AND PROCLAMATIONS

 

Item 4 -           Donation for Gun Buyback Program

 

The Port Orange Police Department has the resources necessary to conduct a gun buy-back program utilizing the $5,000 donation.  There are no reoccurring costs at the end of the program and staff recommends acceptance.

 

Staff recommends Council accept a $5,000 donation from Mori Hosseini for the purpose of conducting a gun buy-back program in the City of Port Orange.

 

D.           BOARD APPOINTMENTS AND INTERVIEWS

 

Item 5 -           Board Appointments and Interviews-

 

a.    Code Enforcement Board (1 appointment to expire April 5, 2011, 2 re-appointments to expire April 5, 2014)

b.    Library Advisory Board (1 appointment to expire July 18, 2014)

c.    Districting Committee (10 appointments to expire March, 2021)

 

City Manager Comments: The Districting Committee is appointed to a 10 year term.  The City Council has sought in the past to balance the committee so that every region of the City is represented.  Normally, this Committee meets three to four times to develop plans for City Council Districts.  The City Community Development staff and the GIS staff work with the Committee to develop plans. 

 

Normally, the Committee comes back together for another meeting at the mid-point between in the census period to review the population distribution. If for some reason the Districts are no longer balanced population wise, the Committee can recommend District line changes. 

 

E.           CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Non-Agenda-15 Minutes)

F.            CONSENT AGENDA

Item 6 -           Project Manager’s Report

 

Attached is the Project Managers Report.  If you have questions, please contact any of the Project Managers or me.

 

Item 7 -           Authorization to Issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a Redevelopment Project in the Riverwalk Area

 

To facilitate redevelopment in Town Center, staff has prepared a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a development project on City & CRA lands within the Riverwalk Area of Port Orange Town Center.   A preliminary draft of the subject RFP was previously reviewed with the CRA on January 11, 2011.   The RFP accompanying this agenda form incorporates the changes requested by the CRA, as well as modifications to ensure compliance with City Purchasing Policies and Procedures and proper legal form.

 

Section 163.380, Florida Statutes, prescribes the procedures, requirements and conditions that must be met in order for a CRA to sell, lease or transfer property it owns within a community redevelopment area.   These procedures, requirements and conditions include providing notice to all parties that may have an interest in redeveloping in Riverwalk.  The subject RFP is intended to fulfill that statutory requirement.

 

Pending authorization from the CRA and City Council, the RFP will be issued on February 23, 2011.

 

Staff recommends Council authorize staff to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a redevelopment project in the Riverwalk Area

 

Item 8 -           Revalidation of Sole Source Vendor for purchase of Backwash Recovery Pumps at the Garnsey Water Treatment Plant

 

The Public Utilities is currently accepting competitive bids for the construction of backwash recovery system improvements at the Garnsey Water Treatment Plant.  Upon completion of this project, the plant will achieve the City’s goal of 4-log (99.99%) removal or inactivation of viruses from ground water. This treatment process provides increased protection against pathogens in public water systems that use ground water sources.   

 

On September 28, 2010, City Council approved Barney’s Pump Inc. as sole source supplier of parts and service for pumps at water and sewer treatment plants reclaim lakes, remote pumping stations, wells and lift stations for equipment standardization purposes. 

 

In an effort to expedite the construction schedule, the department recommends the advance purchase of two 450 gpm pumps from the approved sole source supplier.  The expected lead time for procurement of the pumps is 4-6 weeks.  In addition to expediting the construction completion schedule, the City will save approximately $2,200 in sales tax through direct purchase.  

 

Staff recommends revalidation of Barney’s Pumps Inc. as sole source supplier of pumps and services for standardization purposes and approval for purchase of two (2) Layne Verti-line pumps in the amount of $33,880.  This purchase is funded through project number WWP003.

 

Item 9 -           Daytona Frogman Triathlon

 

Tigershark Endurance Events, LLC is producing the “DAYTONA FROGMAN TRIATHLON” on April 16-17, 2011 in Daytona Beach Shores.  Tigershark Endurance Events LLC is requesting to allow cyclists participating in the event into the City of Port Orange routing cyclists over the Dunlawton Bridge and onto Riverside Drive and returning the same route to the beachside.  The total costs for the City to staff this event are $2,215.64.  The total cost includes $1,375.64 for Public Works personnel and $840.00 for Police personnel.  Tigershark Endurance Events, LLC has agreed to pay the total costs of $2,215.64.  Request and cost estimates are attached. 

 

The proceeds from this event will be donated to the Naval Special Warfare Foundation which supports the families of fallen or wounded Naval Special Warfare personnel.  Approval to stage this event has been given by the Volusia County Council and City of Daytona Beach Shores.  This event is sanctioned and insured through USA Triathlon.

 

Staff recommends Council approve charging Tigershark Endurance Events, LLC for full cost recovery for the Daytona Frogman Triathlon being held on April 17, 2011

 

G.           REPORT FROM ADVISORY BOARD

 

Item 10 -        Citizen Advisory Committee for TPO

 

A member of the Citizen Advisory Committee for TPO will report to the Council.

 

H.           FINANCE (John Shelley)

 

Item 11 -        Resolution No. 11-10 – Energy Charges

 

The Finance Department proposes a resolution adopting specific amounts for the energy usage charge related to water, sewer, and reclaimed water.  It should be noted that the attached rate Resolution decreases by four cents the energy rate per thousand gallons for water, decreases by 11 cents per thousand gallons for sewer energy, and decreases by three cents per thousand gallons the energy charge for reclaimed water. 

 

Should you have any questions pertaining to the attached rate resolution, please contact John Shelley or me.

 

Item 12 -        Monthly Financial Report

 

Attached is the Project Managers Report.  If you have questions, please contact any of the Project Managers or me.

 

I.              COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (Wayne Clark)

 

Item 13 -        Second Reading – Ordinance No. 2011-6 - Notification of Proposed Change (NOPC) to the Development Order for the Pavilion at Port Orange Development of Regional Impact (DRI) – Amendment #1 Case No. 10-17000001

 

Staff recommends approval.

 

Item 14 -        First Reading – Ordinance No. 2011-5 - LDC Amendment/Building Code References

Municipalities across the State of Florida are required to enforce the Florida Building Code (FBC) as adopted by the Florida Building Commission and Florida Statute 553.73. The Code in effect at this time is the 2007 edition of the FBC with 2009 amendments. The Land Development Code currently references the 2004 Florida Building Code. The proposed amendments will reference the most current version of the FBC instead of a specific date.

 

The proposed amendments also update the reference to Chapter One of the FBC which is designated for administration. The Building Officials Association of Florida (BOAF) publishes a model Chapter One for the FBC that has been accepted by municipalities across the state and has been effective. The City has adopted the model since it’s inception and staff proposes to continue utilizing the BOAF model Chapter One for the 2007 FBC

 

Staff recommends Council adopt Ordinance No. 2011-5, amending Chapters 7, 8 and 19 of the City’s Land Development Code regarding references to the Florida Building Code as recommended by the Construction Regulation Board and the Planning Commission

 

Second Reading: March 22, 2011.

 

Item 15 -        Resolution No. 11-11 - Revised Interlocal Agreement with Volusia County for Contractor registration, licensing, and disciplinary actions

 

Since 2000, the City has had an interlocal agreement with Volusia County to conduct building contractor registration, licensing and disciplinary actions. Most of the cities within Volusia County have similar interlocal agreements with the County. This allows for a central and uniform system for local regulation of specialty contractors and registration of State certified contractors. Contractors must either be State certified or local municipalities may issue Local Specialty Licenses for contractor categories not covered by Florida Statute 489.

 

The agreement has to be considered by Council at this time because the County has modified its ordinance related to specialty contractors. Recently the County included two new local specialty contractor categories for concrete contractor and paver contractor. This will allow local concrete and paver contractors to conduct business and apply for permits within Volusia County without needing to be a State certified contractor. The scope of their work will be limited to flat concrete and paver work including driveways, patios, sidewalks, building slabs, etc.

 

If approved, this agreement will be in effect for three (3) years and will be automatically renewed for successive three (3) year periods unless one party notifies the other in writing at least sixty (60) days before each three (3) year anniversary of their wish to terminate the agreement.

 

Staff recommends Council approve Resolution No. 11-11.

 

Item 16 -        Request to Refund a Portion of the Building Permit Fees for Bealls Outlet Interior Build-Out Permit #10-3637

 

Building permit fees are determined by Fee Resolution 07-16. Permit fees are based on the value of construction as published by the International Code Council Building Valuation Data. The fee resolution states in Section 2 (c) “All accessory structures, tenant build-out and interior alterations (unless otherwise noted) shall fall under the Utility Occupancy listing for value of construction.” The permit fee for Bealls Outlet interior build-out permit #10-3637 was calculated per the fee resolution.

 

The applicant, Dunlawton Nova Investors, LLC (a.k.a. Holub Development), requests that City Council consider reducing the $15,901.25 permit fee for this project to $5,272.58. The applicant requests that we calculate the building permit fee based on their estimated value of construction. Using the ICC Building Valuation data the value of construction is $58.69 per square foot, the build-out is for 22,163 square feet which calculates to a construction value of $1,300,746. The applicant has indicated their estimated value of construction is $236,921.

 

Staff has reviewed tenant build-out and interior alteration fees from other communities for comparison. The majority of the communities allow the applicant’s estimated value to be used for the calculation. Nearby examples are:

 

Ormond Beach: uses the applicant’s estimated value and will request contract documents to verify those values if needed.

 

Daytona Beach: uses the ICC Building Valuation Data for tenant build-outs but will consider the applicant’s estimated value with proper documentation if the applicant requests.

City Manager Comments: The owner of the old K-Mart building has brought to our attention that the table used in our fee structure was not intended to be used for tenant build out.  However, our rate resolution clearly states that the tenant build out will use the Utility Occupancy unless noted on the table.  We have looked at Ormond Beach and Daytona Beach to determine the method they are using.  Ormond uses the applicant’s estimated value with the applicant being required to provide documents to verify the values.  The Daytona Beach uses the valuation data table similar to what we do but will allow the applicant to provide documentation to use the contract amount. 

 

The applicant pointed out that sometimes this works to the City’s advantage and sometimes the contract values work against the City.  It tends to hurt the contractor when they are renovating a project like the old K Mart.  Because this building is not in one of our redevelopment areas, the City has no alternative but to charge the total fee.  What are the options?

 

1.     Status Quo.  Continue using the table even though that it was not intended to be used in this fashion.  It has worked for the City for a number of years.

 

2.     Use the Ormond Beach approach.  This would remove the interior renovations from the table and substitute actual contract values.  There will be instances where this will actually produce more revenue and at the same time there will be instances where it will produce less revenue to the City.  However the fees will be based upon the contract.

 

3.     Use the Daytona Beach approach which allows the City to use the table like we currently do or to substitute the contract amount. 

 

This provision has been in our building fee schedule for a number of years.  However, this is the first time that it has been brought to my attention.  When the fee schedule was brought forward by the former building official, he was looking for something that would relatively easy to administer rather than having to rely on contracts provided by contractors in order to compute build out.  All of us know that the miscellaneous category was not intended to be used for the build outs.  The existing system has been used throughout the City.

 

The builder has requested relief for the old K-Mart building.  What are the options available to the City Council related to the K-Mart project?

 

1.     The City Council could determine that it was not their intent to use the table as it is being used.  I would caution the City Council on this option since the Resolution clearly indicates that it was the intent of the Council that adopted the fee schedule.

 

2.    The City Council could determine that they want to incentive the redevelopment of the K-Mart building as an economic development incentive.  The incentive would be to use the contract amount for calculating the interior improvements.  It may behoove the City to look at incentives that could be used to encourage the redevelopment and improvement of older shopping plazas such as Dunlawton Square.  Currently, our redevelopment incentives only apply in the redevelopment areas.  Also, our economic development incentives do not apply to retail. 

 

3.     The City Council could determine that it agrees with the fee that has been charged and will make only changes going forward, not retroactive.

 

Item 17 -        Request to Waive or Reduce the Application Fee for the Review of a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) 5501 Williamson Blvd. Case No. 10-17000001

 

On November 3rd, 2010, Debra Ousley, Esq., applicant on behalf of CBL & Associates Properties, Inc., property owner, submitted an application to amend the Pavilion at Port Orange DRI. The requested Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC) would extend the buildout date for Phase I and II to December 31st, 2017 and identify the restructuring of the current ownership for the subject property. The proposed changes were classified as a non-substantial deviation to the approved DRI by the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (EFRPC).

 

The applicant is requesting that the City Council reduce the $15,000 application fee, since this fee applies to the review of a new DRI and the City does not have a separate fee for a NOPC to an approved DRI. Communities that process many DRIs typically have two fees; one for the review of a new DRI or substantial deviations to an approved DRI and a second for the review of non-substantial deviations to an approved DRI. The following are examples of fees from other cities for the review of non-substantial deviations to an approved DRI.

 

 

Since the non-substantial deviation to the DRI did not result in significant changes to the approved DRI, significantly less amount of staff review time was required than would be for the review of a new DRI.  The cost for staff’s review of this application was calculated at approximately $1,900.

 

Staff recommends recovery of the cost of staff’s time for processing the application.

 

J.            ADMINISTRATION (Ken Parker)

 

Item 18 -        Change Order for SHIP Funded Residential Rehab Project at 308 Grant Street/Traficante

 

Please reference attached Memorandum and Change Order Request.

 

Staff recommends Council approve a Change Order in the amount of $5,225 for additional costs associated with the SHIP funded rehabilitation of the Traficante residence at 308 Grant Street.

 

Item 19 -        Discussion of options for 113 Eddy Lane

 

113 Eddy Lane is located at the end of the road.  Because of the definition in our Land Development Code, the property owner is not able to construct a garage in what would normally be a side yard.   The Code defines a front set back as the point where the lot intersects the property line.  This creates a unique circumstance since the road dead ends into their property.  It is not a traditional cul-de-sac.  Three options are available.  We will want to be sure that 112 Eddy Lane is afforded the same set back as 113 Eddy Lane should option 3 be authorized by City Council.  The options are outlined in the memorandum that is included as part of the Agenda item.

 

Item 20 -        Administrative Code Change for Fire Department

 

On December 14, 2010, the City Council provided guidance on budget issues.  The Administrative Code change reflects that budgetary guidance.  The organizational change eliminates the EMS Division Chief and the Administrative Commander.  Although the chart eliminates two management level positions, those slots are reallocated to Firefighter Tech I positions.  The Administrative Code change reflects the Council’s budgetary directive related to the number of paramedics.  This will reduce the allotment to a total of 22 in the ranks of Lieutenant, Driver-Engineer, and Paramedic.  It places 18 individual positions on line.  The Council’s emphasis was to place “boots” on the ground.  This achieves that objective.

 

Staff recommends Council approve an administrative code change reorganizing the Fire & Rescue Department as proposed on the attached organizational chart

 

Item 21 -        Discussion on Public Safety Department

 

There are opportunities to examine organizational alignments.  A good time to do so is when a department head is retiring.  A number of local governments have combined the administration of their public safety activities under one department.  They have done so in order to coordinate, communicate and consolidate public safety functions.  With the retirement of Fire Chief Tom Weber, we have an opportunity to explore whether this is the best alignment for Port Orange.  We would be bringing together, for administrative purposes, Police, Fire and emergency management activities as well as the other functions currently under Police and Fire. 

 

The bringing together of the two departments under one administration is not uncommon.  In fact, there are several examples throughout Florida and the United States.  Combining resources provides an opportunity to produce budgetary savings.  However, budgetary savings should not be the only reason for combination.  Combination only makes sense if it bridges operational issues as well.

 

I have attached an organizational chart for your review.  If the Council moves in this direction, I would like to implement this on April 1 and transition into a full operational model by October 1.  The reason for the April 1 is the budget preparation and a variety of other items

 

K.           COUNCIL COMMENTS

 

Item 22 -        Comments/Concerns from Council Members

 

At this time council members may discuss various matters or concerns.

 

KWP/ckr