Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 11-27-2007 regular agenda — reading text

authorize the City Manager to execute the contract upon approval by the City Attorney. Mr. Garvie seconded motion and it carried unanimously with Holmes, Miller, Reeves, Garvie, Pullen, and Minich in favor (Hartwell absent). AWARD STATE LEGISLATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES Pursuant to Volume 2, Chapter 4, Section 4. 01, Paragraph 4. 01.025 Fort Walton Beach Code of Ordinances and Section 4, Paragraph I of the Purchasing Policies and Procedures, request authorization to award RFP 08- 102, State Legislative Support Services, to the top ranked finn, the Advocacy Group at Tew Gardens, LLC for a fee not to exceed $ 40, 000. c Ted Litschauer, Police Chief, reported the committee reviewed and interviewed all six of the firms and based upon the combined ranking preference the top firm was The Advocacy Group at Tew Gardens.  11- 13- 07 Regular Council 208 STATE LEGISLATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES cont. it It was questioned if the City would pay for the hours and expenses of the firm. The City Manager explained will be a flat fee contract for all the Scope of Services listed in the RFP. The Mayor opened the floor for public input. As no one wished to speak the public input was closed. the Mr. Garvie moved to award RFP 08- 102, State Legislative Support Services, to the top ranked firm, Advocacy Group at Tew Gardens, LLC for a fee not to exceed $ 40, 000. Mr. Minich seconded motion. It was noted the During discussion the return on the investment for the use of lobbying services was questioned. was very successful in getting City engaged a lobbyist for the single effort on the communication tax issue and for the City and help legislation passed that benefited the City, and the finn can identify grant opportunities formulate grant proposals so they will be approved by the legislators. Reeves, The Mayor called for the vote on the motion and it carried unanimously with Holmes, Miller, Garvie, Pullen, and Minich in favor (Hartwell absent). FDEP CONSENT ORDER Consideration of a request to accept the terms of the settlement offer identified in FDEP' s letter dated October 26th, 2007, to resolve the matter concerning the domestic wastewater collection/transmission system connecting treatment Studio Townhomes Phase III, located at 102 and 104 Church Avenue SE, to the City' s wastewater plant. If approved, staff requestsauthorization to proceed with payment of the $ 600. 00 civil penalty resolve to this FDEP Consent Order. John Hofstad, Utilities Director, recapped the situation and explained the. required FDEP approval was never obtained to place the Phase ill sewer main into service for a townhome development that was completed in also mentioned that the process 2002, which resulted in the administrative penalties that have to be settled. He in which to track developments to insure a situation such as this does not arise again. r' has been changed without it being brought to It was questioned whether the City Manager had authority to pay the amount order through DEP has to be executed in order to Council. The Utilities Director noted the short term consent resolve the compliance issue. The City Attorney noted Council is actually settling possible litigation and it is before Council because only Council can settle litigation. Mr. It was commented that it appeared to be a management overview issue with all the approval processes. Minich called a point of order stating it is a time for questions for clarification. how The question was asked how the problem will be prevented in the future. The Utilities Director explained the process is now tracked through the CDS Department that uses a check list for each step before a certificate of occupancy is issued. The Mayor opened the floor for public input. As no one wished to speak the public input was closed. the terms of Mr. Minich moved to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager' s designee, to accept the settlement offer identified in FDEP' s letter, dated October 26, 2007, to resolve the matter concerning the domestic wastewater collection/t ransmission system connecting Studio at 102 & 104 Church Avenue SE, to the City' s wastewater treatment plant; and of the $600.00 civil penalty to resolve the FDEP Consent Order. Mr. Holmes Townhomes Phase ill, located to proceed with payment seconded motion. ., to track these issues so there are 0 During brief discussion it was commented that the new system in place needs no surprises; and it was questioned whether it would still need to come before Council if the fine were only Decree being 15. 00. The City Manager explained because of the nature of the agreement, it is a Consent o signed that states the City will waive any future issues and it is a settlement of potential litigation. Miller, Reeves, The Mayor called for the vote on the motion and it carried unanimously with Holmes, Garvie, Pullen, and Minich in favor (Hartwell absent).  Regular Council 11- 13- 07 20'9 DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL REQUEST Discussion of Council Member Pullen' s council request for all city staff contact with Jay adorn. Mr. Minich addressed the request for public information from Dr. Pullen that required 25 hours of staff time, questioned whether the request was related to City business, questioned whether Dr. Pullen had turned in all conversations he had, and questioned the reason for the request other than just wanting the information. Dr. Pullen replied he wanted information and asked for it, and yes it pertains to City business because the City was involved. He said he had reason to ask for it, he received the information, he has reviewed every piece of paper he received, and it was made available to everyone. He asked for the information because he wanted it and did not need a reason. Mr. Minich submitted if it is City business he did have to have a reason, that Dr. Pullen is a Councilman and if there is any business to do with the City it needs to be disclosed as it is public law; he could accept it if there was no reason and only wanted the information. Dr. Pullen stated he wanted the information, he asked for it and he received it. Mr. Minich recalled Dr. Pullen suggested that Mr. Holmes should pay for a phone call to the City' s labor attorney. He suggested Dr. Pullen should pay the City for the 25 hours of work put in for the information request. Dr. Pullen stated his request was made as a public records request under State law. He made a point of order that this is not proper. The Mayor said it is stated in the Protocol Guide if it takes staff an inordinate amount of time to provide, then; they need to lmow a little more so they can get specific input. He believed to ask carte blanche for everything violates the Protocol Guide. c Dr. Pullen stated his original request was not done as a request from a Councilmember; his request was as a private citizen. ~ The Mayor pointed out the request came out as a Council request because it came from a Councilman. .' !.. Further questions included whether the thrust of the request was for clarification or for specific findings for process improvements or policy changes. Dr. Pullen replied it was for clarification. It was questioned whether there was still more information needed after the issue had been through the process of the CRA, staff, and Council approval. Dr. Pullen said he wanted to see how the process worked. Mr. Minich expressed as a City Councilman he is held to a higher standard than regular citizens, and believed if Dr. Pullen is going to make bJanket requests to City staff without any reason other than he just wants it and it takes 25 hours, then he should pay the City back, especially following that he had asked Mr. Holmes to reimburse his request on City business to the labor attorney. . The Mayor read from the Protocol Guide that states inquiry by Council of any staff, as allowed by the Charter, should follow the guidelines, the inquiry must be directly related to official City business and must not require the production or copies of files, paperwork, or documents used in the course of duties of staff, communications with other staff members, the expenditure of an unreasonable amount of time on the part of the staff member. He questioned whether the request had a caveat that if it takes more than three days to do then maybe it should not be done. He expressed his concern with a lot of the blanket requests for information is that staff