Fort Walton Beach Council minutes — 01-22-08 regular minutes — reading text

tI. f). 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 the sidewalk tJ installation, and it included 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 1/ 22/ 08 Regular Council 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 ffom the developer was ovef $ 30, 000. 00. Mf. Hofstad advised that Michael Beedie, the City' s Operations Manager, reviewed their estimate and asked them to reduce the cost, based on materials. Mf. Hofstad advised the pfocess was gone through and the figures were r 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 of over only amount being authorized is $ 3, 100. 00, yet there is an invoice in the amount 27, 000. 00. The City Managef explained the reason only the $ 3, 100 is included is because the remaining amount is well within her authority, which is anything $ 20, 000 and under. purchasing 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 was done improvement that was not constructed by the City or by one of our contractors; it to a site order. She continued it was done at staff level, since Staff pursuant plan development 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 The City wording of the ordinance says to ratify, since the payment has already been done. in line with a verbal Attorney cautioned that if the work that was done is not paid for, which is at staff level, the City would be subject to a lawsuit for getting the work repaid. The agreement is that they were City Manager further stated the way she perceives it from a legal standpoint order requirement over what was caused by change order issues, and this is only the change the work that was encountered since the order put the cost of the total project over the City Manager' s purchasing authority. The Dr. Pullen again questioned why the cost of the sidewalk wasn' t included in the ordinance. order that was City Attorney responded the sidewalk is part of the site plan development in the site plan development process, which was done many years ago. required McKim, CDS Director, Upon further questioning by Dr. Pullen regarding the sidewalk, Missy as part of the water explained the sidewalk was paid for by the City because it was damaged project and the diversion that had to be made, which was an unexpected repair. the Clarification was given by the City Attorney that the ordinance has not been approved by CRA Board because the CRA has nothing to do with public improvements. still under the Mr. Minich clarified, for his benefit and understanding, that the project was caused by I"'" 20, 000 until it was discovered there was a change order that had to be implemented 20, 000, and in the unexpected discovery of the 6- inch water main that drove the cost over $ made in the field to order to delay stopping the project and wait for approval, the decision was the contacted on August 29, go ahead and move forward. Mr. Hofstad responded yes, City was on August 31, and Staff reviewed it and found it consistent with their an estimate was provided pricing and told the contractors to move forward. water main when the Mr. Miller questioned why the City is paying over $ 3, 000 to avoid the 6" October invoice has the amount of only $ 1, 500. 00. Michael Beedie, utilities Operations in avoiding the water main; it does Manager, explained the $ 1, 500 is just for the labor involved water main, which are not include the materials and everything else involved in avoiding the 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 I~ i improvement itself and the warranty that is being offered by the developer. The City Attorney Ii' 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 questionswere 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 agfeed 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. Millef 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 approval authority for $ 20,000 and under, which is within the Purchasing Policies and 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 I. I;', 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 1/ 22/ 08 Regular Council FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS The City Manager advised that the application for Playful City USA will be delayed until either