Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 02-12-08 regular agenda — reading text

Hofstad requested Council consideration for adoption of Ord. 1751, which accepts the new 12 -inch water main serving the Presidio Condominiums into the City's water distribution system and a one - year warranty from Presidio Developers, LLC for materials and workmanship of the 12 -inch water main, and ratifies payment in the amount of $ 3, 180. 25 for the additional work required from the discovery of the existing 6 -inch water main. The Mayor asked if there were any questions that Council wished to ask. Dr. Pullen began by advising he went to the Utilities Department and did background research on the issue, and while there clarified with Mr. Hofstad that Mr. Hofstad works for the City Manager, and not for the Council. Dr.. Pullen questioned why this wasn't part of the Development Order, and Mr. Hofstad discussed the fact that the project predates the development of the utilities Department, and since that time the City Engineer, Chief Engineering Technician and the CRA Planner has changed, and they were major players in the original development. Dr. Pullen questioned why there was no agreement established with the developer when discussion began. Mr. Hofstad responded the original Construction Agreement went through several iterations; from being drafted in engineering with input from CDS and the City Attorney; and it went through several different variations of that and conceptual approval from the parties involved. However, Mr. Hofstad could not answer why the agreement was never executed; he informed it is up to the developer to come to the City and execute the agreement, and the developer may have been hesitant to do so if he knew he was not going to start construction in the near future. Questioning ensued regarding the City paying to construct a sidewalk for the developer in the amount of $ 4. 000.00. Mr. Hofstad advised he was unfamiliar with the sidewalk situation but advised that during a portion of routing the waterline, the sidewalk had to be torn up to install the waterline. He further advised that the project had gone through the CRA budgeting process and was approved at one time for $28, 000, which included the sidewalk, waterline, and the change order, which was under the $ 28,000 budgeted. Dr. Pullen questioned why the invoice from the Presidio Developers LLC dated October 27 in the amount of $ 27, 178. 25 was not processed at that time. Mr. Hofstad again advised that the cost included sidewalk installation, the it included and the original cost of the waterline installation, which was still at a staff level decision. He stated the change order is what increased the cost, plus the cost of the sidewalk, which is a separate issue, and all together the total is $ 27, 178. 25.  293 Regular Council 1/ 22/ 08 ORD. 1751, PRESIDIO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS Dr. Pullen asked who broke up the amounts into three different invoices. Mr. Hofstad responded that the developer was told, through the.CDS Department, to be specific with their costs, and the initial cost from the developer was over• $30, 000.00. Mr. Hofstad advised that Michael Beedie, the City's Operations Manager, reviewed their estimate and asked them to reduce the cost, based on materials. Mr. Hofstad advised the process was gone through and the figures were reviewed thoroughly and they were requested to come more in line with what was typical for installation work of that nature. Dr. Pullen questioned why all these expenses are not included in the ordinance for approval, the only amount being authorized is $ 3, 100.00, yet there is an invoice in the amount of over 27, 000. 00. The City Manager explained the reason only the $ 3, 100 is included is because the remaining amount is well within her purchasing authority, which is anything $ 20, 000 and under. Dr. Pullen wanted to know why the ordinance does not include the acceptance of the sidewalk, since the City is paying for it. The City Attorney explained that the ordinance is needed because the City is accepting a public it was done improvement that was not constructed by the City or by one of our contractors; pursuant to a site plan development order. She continued it was done at staff level, since Staff has the administrative authority to make those determinations and to work with people to get it done. She clarified that Council is not authorizing a payment in this ordinance because the wording of the ordinance says to ratify, since the payment has already been done. The City Attorney cautioned that if the work that was done .is not paid for, which is in work line with a verbal repaid. The agreement at staff level, the .City would be subject to a lawsuit for getting the City Manager further stated the way she perceives it from a legal standpoint is that they were change order issues, and this is only the change order requirement over what was caused by the work that was, encountered since the order put the cost of the total project over the City Manager' s purchasing authority. Dr. Pullen again questioned why the cost of the sidewalk wasn' t included in the ordinance. The City Attorney responded the sidewalk is part of the site plan development order that was required in the site plan development process, which was done many years ago. Upon further questioning by Dr. Pullen regarding the sidewalk, Missy McKim, CDS Director, explained the sidewalk was paid for by the City because it was damaged as part of the water project and the diversion that had to be made, which was an unexpected repair. Clarification was given by the City Attorney that the ordinance has not been approved by the CRA Board because the CRA has nothing to do with public improvements. Mr. Minich clarified, for his -benefit and understanding, that the project was still under the 20,000 until it was discovered there was a change order.that had to be implemented caused by the unexpected discovery of the 6 -inch water main that drove the cost over $ 20, 000, and in order-to. delay stopping the project and wait for approval, the decision was made in the field to go ahead and move forward. Mr. Hofstad responded yes, the City was contacted on August 29, an estimate was provided on August 31, and Staff reviewed it and found it consistent with their pricing and told the contractors to move forward. Mr. Miller questioned why the City is paying over $ 3, 000 to avoid the 6" water main when the October invoice has the amount of only $ 1, 500. 00. Michael Beedie, utilities Operations Manager, explained the $ 1, 500 is just for the labor involved in avoiding the water main; it does not include the materials and everything else involved in avoiding the water main,. which are included in part of the invoice. 294 Regular Council 1/ 22/ 08 ORD. 1751, PRESIDIO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS Mr. Miller asked the City Attorney if it would be better to have one amount in the ordinance instead of having a partial payment of the other project. The City Attorney responded she was not familiar with the invoice he was referring to; that if Council wants to put a different amount of money in the ordinance for ratification, that would not be a problem with the ordinance because the payment has been made. She advised it's important that Council address the issue at this point and reminded them, again, that the substance of the ordinance is truly to accept the improvement itself and the warranty that is being offered by the developer. The City Attorney further stated that even though it is after the fact, the ordinance still would have been required. The City Manager offered her explanation that the only thing being ratified is the amount beyond her approval authority. She explained it's no different then buying parts for a project on different days; at the end of the month invoices are received for one amount but the amount can consist of several projects. The City Manager advised the Purchasing Director is present if further explanation is desired. Further questions were asked regarding the sidewalk but it was noted the questions have already been answered and that a question already asked cannot be repeated.. The Mayor opened the public hearing. There was none. Mr. Minich moved to adopt Ord. 1751 on first reading. Mr. Holmes seconded motion. Mr. Minich praised the Staff responsible for making the decision to move forward with the project; the decision saved the City money and it was the right decision. Mr. Holmes echoed Mr. Minich' s comments, stating the decision demonstrated common sense and integrity, and responsibility with the taxpayers' money. Mr. Hartwell commented his only concern is the length of time it took to bring the issue to Council for ratification. He stated he has no objections to on site decisions; that is what the City staff is hired to do, but suggested that in the future this type of issue be brought to Council in a timelier manner, even if a special meeting is needed. Mr. Miller agreed that City staff should be empowered to make on -the -spot decisions; however, he commented this was never approved by the Council and was not in the development order, so what Council is being asked is to ratify, to pay for something that was done, that it was one, complete project. Mr. Miller advised he would like to amend the motion to include the entire amount. The City Manager stated her concern that by including the entire amount jeopardizes her Policies and is within the Purchasing approval authority for $ 20, 000 and under, which Procedures, and to include the whole amount negates that authority. Mr. Miller amended the motion to change the amount in Line 34 from $ 3, 180.25 to $ 23, 178.25. Motion died for lack of a second. The Mayor called for the vote on the motion to adopt Ord. 1751 on first reading and it carried by a vote of 5 to 2 with Holmes, Reeves, Garvie, Hartwell, and Minich in favor and Miller and Pullen opposed. The Mayor commended the Utilities Department for their integrity, honesty, and professionalism they have shown over the years, and told them to keep up the good work.  295 Regular Council 1/ 22/ 08 FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS t The City Manager advised that the application for Playful City USA .will be delayed until either the first or second meeting of February; but no later than February -26, and that a new item has been requested by Mr. Hartwell regarding the Sunshine