CCMtg04-02-07MinI-.Ol~GV6V®®D CI'T'Y ~~~1VIll~II~SI010T
Longwood City Commission Chambers
--~ 175 West Warren Avenue
Longwood, Florida
APRIL 2, 2007
7:00 P.M[.
Present: Mayor John C. Maingot
Deputy Mayor Mike Holt
Commissioner Brian D. Sackett
Commissioner Dan Anderson
Donovan A. Roper, Acting City. ~~ttorney
John J. Drago, City Administrator
Sarah M. Mirus, City Clerl~
Marilyn Douglas, Purchasiing Manager
Carol Rogers, Director of P'inanr.ial Services
Richard Kornbluh, Division Manager of'Utilities
Paul Sizemore, Interim .Director of Community Services
Ryan Spinella, Executive Assistant
Tom Jackson, Police Chief
Fran Meli, Recreation Prog;r~m 1YIanager •
Michael Clelland, Battalion Chief
Absent: Commissioner H.G: "Butch" Bwsdy, Jr. (Excused)
Teresa S. Roper, Acting City Attorney (Excused)
1. CALL TO ORDER. Mayor Maingot calked the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
2. ~ A moment of SILENT MEDITATIOPI was followed by the .PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE.
3. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMEr1TS. None.
4. RECOGNITIONS... ~ -
A. District #5 Nomination of tlhe Business Person of the Month Award
for Apri12007.
Commissioner Sackett nominated LVlichael Patient, Information Videos,
LLC, for the~Apri12007 Business Person of the Month Award.
Nomination carried by a unaa~imous voice vote with Commissioner Bundy
absent. '
~~ •
CC 04-02-07/63
5. BOARD APPOINTMENTS.
A. District #1 Nomination to the Charter Advisory Committee.
u
Mayor Maingot deferred his nomination.
B. District #2 Nomination to the Charter Advisory Committee.
Commissioner Anderson deferred his nomination.
C. District #3 Nomination to the Charter Advisory Committee.
Deputy Mayor Holt deferred his nomination:.
D. District #4 Nomination to the Charter Advisory Committee.
Absent.
E. District #5 Nomination to the Charter Advisory Committee.
Commissioner Sackett deferred his nomination.
6. PUBLIC INPUT.
A. Public Participation.
William E. Adams, 279 East Jessup Avenue, said he was here to give his ~
side of a dispute. he is having with the City. He said this dispute started in
June 2004 when the City came on their property clear cutting all trees and
vegetation. When asked to stop, the City said their property was to be used.
as a retention pond for the stormwater management system. He said they
explained to the City their property was a natural lake and wetland system,
not a retention pond. He affirmed, after talking wi"th Mr. Miller, they
agreed to let St. Johns River Water Management resolve this issue. He
said an agent from the St. Johns River Water Management inspected their
property and said it was a natural lake and not a retention pond. He then
cited the City for unauthorized work. At this time, they thought the
situation was resolved. In October 2006, they received a letter from the
City giving them three options for their property; 1. Hire a contractor to
clear the lake, 2. Pay the City $10,932.91 and they would do it, or 3. Give
the City their property. He stated they were told to .make a choice within
30 days. He said they called the City and tallced to Paul Sizemore and
.Amy Stevenson and told them that none of the options seemed fair. He
stated they again contacted 1VIs. Stevenson to ask what the aquatic
managementprogram consisted o£ She advised it was mechanical and .
chemical removal of vegetation from the stormwater system. He said at
this time their problem was howtheir property interfered or even became
part of the City's stormwater system, since they were informed in 2004 it .
was not a retention pond. He declared they contacted Mr. Sizemore and
Ms. Stevenson again in late October to ask if the City needed their
CC 04-02-07/64
property, maybe they would i:rade the Jessup Street right-of--way adjacent
to their home as .compensation. He said they took this proposal to other
_ ~-- departments and the City's Economic Development Firm. They said it
would not be possible because of the development of the Commuter Train
Station. He stated they then asked if there was anyone else in the City they
could talk to and were told no. They then felt the need to consult an
attorney. He said, meanwhile, they asked the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection. to come ,~.nd inspecttheir property. He stated, as
for their requirements,'they were not in violation keeping the vegetation as
is. He said. they still could not figure out. how their property interfered with
or became part of the City's stormwater management system. On
November 2"d their attorney c;ontacted the City to ask them to provide
specific data referenced in their October 10th letter. He also asked for an
extension of the deadline. He states( they received the extension; but no
information. On December 1 `ith their attorney e-mailed Mr. Sizemore to
again request information regarding; their situation. He also forwarded the
letter from Florida Department of F;nvironmental Protection that stated
they were not in violation choosing to leave the vegetation as it is. He
affirmed the only response they received was repeating the same
information, not the information they requested. On Januaryl9th, they
received a letter from the Cit3r re-stating the City's Codes telling them to
make their decision. by Janua.~y 31St. He said they wished they had been
shown the permanent design standard that is referenced in the Ordinance.
He said on February 8th they received a Notice of Violation, February 16tH
they received their Final Warning, ;end .March 8th they received a Notice of
Hearing. He advised on March 27th they appeared before the Codes
Enforcement Board with they- lawyer and were found in violation of the
City Ordinance. He said they were ~to receive a letter from the City, not. yet
received, stating they have two weeks to either pay the City $11,000 to
clean their property, or give tlae City their property.
Mayor Maingot pointed out that this matter was now in the control and
handling of Codes Enforcement and was beyond the Commission's
control.
Mr. Adams reviewed photographs of the property.~He said he hoped these
pictures show they have maintained their property. He stated they take
pride in the appearance and rrtaintenance of their property and this has
been very frustrating. He said if the City maintained the City owned
adjacent property there would be no issue of stormwater draining into or
out of this lake. He declared during the worst hurricane season on record,
their property did not interfere with the stormwater system. He said he
would like to ask a few questions.
Mayor Maingot advised he could n~~t ask questions.
CC 04-02-07/'65
Mr. Adams inquired if he was saying, since this matter has gone before the
Codes Enforcement Board, the Commission had no jurisdiction over the l
matter.~He said he would like to request an extension. ~ _
Mayor Maingot explained that once a matter goes before the Codes
Enforcement Board, which is a quasi judicial board, it was. beyond the
Commission's control
Mr. Roper advised one of his available avenues would be to seek a motion
for a re-hearing before the Codes Enforcement Board. He said the order
would come- from the Codes Enforcement Board,, not the City. He stated if
there: has been new information since the last hearing,, he would have the
right to request this from the Board. He advised there were. strict appellate
time periods to be followed if he desired to take this before. the Circuit
Court level.
7. .CITY ADMINISTRATOR'SBEPORT. No report.
8. MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS' REPORT.
District #1. Mayor Maingot reported he attended the Seminole County Chamber
of Commerce meeting on March 22"d
District #2. No report.
District #3. Deputy Mayor Holt extended a Happy Birthday to Chief Jackson. He
requested the Commission be notified regarding any project requiring a CAPP. .
meeting. He requested the memorandum regarding the 14~' Avenue Stream and
Seawall be placed on a future meeting agenda..
Mr. Drago advised Mr. Sizemore would be going to the Water Management
District. regarding who owns .East Lake and trace the water flows.
Deputy Mayor Holt said this was quite complex and it would be good to have
more history,
District #4. Absent.
District #5. Commissioner Sackett said Relay for Life was this past weekend and
he extended a thank you to the City Clerk, Mayor, Fire Department and all who
joined. in the walk to help raise a grand total of $57,000 for the American Cancer
Society.
9. CONSENT AGENDA.
A. Approve Minutes of the March 19, 2007 Regular Meeting and
Minutes of the March 26, 2007 Special Meeting.
S. Finance Division of the Financial Services Department recommends ~
payment of approved and estimated bills for Apri12007.
CC 04-02-07/6.6
_ ~ C. The Recreation Davision of the Community Services Department
1' recommends the City Commission approve a purchase order to Rep
_,`°-' Services, Inc. for the purchase and installation of two shade structures
for Magnolia Park and Sandalwood Park for $38,686.53. and
authorize the City Administrator to sign all appropriate documents.
Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the Consent Agenda as
submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Sackett.
Commissioner Sackett said he would like the wording in the minutes of
March 19~' under the City Attorney's Report where he had made a
statement to place the actual .names in the statement rather than him or he.
Commissioner Anderson moved to amend the motion to table Item
9 A to the next meeting for correction. Seconded by Commissioner
Saelcett.
Ms. Mirus advised Commissioner `>ackett had turned in his Form 8B to be
filed with the minutes.
Motion to amend carried by a uianimous roll call vote with
Commissioner.Bundy absent.
Discussion was, held regarding Item 9 C.
Main motion carried, as amended, by a unanimous roll call vote
with Commissioner Btmdy absent.
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS. None.
11. REGULAR BUSINESS.
A. City Administrator requests the City Commission review the
Community Building use police and fee schedule relative to city
residents renting the building four non-residential use and take action
the Commission deems appropriate.
Mr. Drago said he had brought this matter up under his report at the last
meeting. He advised one group has the building rented for a year in
advance through a City residE:nt. TLus is the same group requesting a break
on the cleaning fees. He affirmed the Commission requested this be placed
on the agenda to discuss policy issues in regards fo a resident 'renting for
non-residential use. He said when reviewing the Code for the Community
Building, there were a couple of other areas that needed to be corrected.
He stated they also needed to discu:~s the hourly fee for police officers.
Commissioner Sackett said he thou;~ht the issue that happened with this
group was that the building was not left clean. He stated he would rather
CC 04-02-07/67
see the cleaning fees increased or the security deposit: He said this would
become more of a consequential factor.
Commissioner Anderson said he did not see the need for addressing this
issue. He said the one thing that did concern him was individuals using
their residential status to rent the building on behalf of a group outside of
the City for a commercial enterprise. He stated the resident rental rate'was
for the citizen to be able to use the building for a private personal function.
He said he did not have a problem with a resident renting the building for
a wedding they will be attending. He stated he would like to have
consideration given to how to make sure it is rented out for personal
functions,. not on behalf of a commercial entity.
Deputy Mayor Holt said we do need to tighten the grips. However, we do
not need to punish some of the groups who can't afford to double or triple
the deposit. He stated they could re-think this matter. He said he would
like to see the contract and what the requirements are in the contract. He
inquired if the contract required a driver's license..
Mr. Drago responded in the affirmative. He said there was nothing. in the
Code that states the.outside rent must be paid if we know a resident is
renting the building for an outside group.
Deputy Mayor Holt said the verbiage bothered him. He inquired how they
would know if the resident was renting for anon-resident. J
Mr. Drago said they would sometimes admit prior to renting the facility
and sometimes after the fact. Other times, after the building is rented, the
person using the building will come in with the floor plan and they live
outside the City. He said the language covers all three scenarios.
Commissioner Anderson said if adding they were responsible for the
actual cleaning fees, this would not penalize those who use .and enjoy the
building.
Mr. Drago said he could always add additional cleaning fees or other fees
as an additional item.
Mayor Maingot said the reason they have a different time frame in terms
of booking of the facility was to give preference to the residents. He stated
it needed to be clearly stipulated there will be consequences if being
untruthful. He suggested some additional language and said the City
Administrator would need to determine whether to rent the building.
Commissioner Sackett inquired why the City was dealing with a second
person who is not the person signing the contract. He said we should not
be dealing with any person other than the one signing the contract. ~
CC 04-02-07/68
Mr. Drago said the contract was currently structured in a way that it puts
~~ the onus on the person who signs it.
~I
-I~
Deputy Mayor Holt said if tlxe building is damaged or the people incur
additional fees, then the building should not be rented to the individual in
the future. He said someone should go in and inspect the building prior to
the people leaving.
Mr. Drago said the cleaning crew has been inspecting the building and
informing the City of its condition. He advised once the party has ended,
the: police officer leaves. The: cleaning crew locks the building.
Mr. Roper suggested adding all reasonable and necessary cleaning fees at
the end of paragraph h.
Commissioner Anderson said the issue was to make sure whoever rents
the. building is responsible for the cleaning fees. The other issue is
whoever rents the building be the c-ne who signs the contract and held
accountable. He said the other piece he would like to see was if doing a
personal rental, as a resident; it is not on behalf of an organization.
Mr. Drago said he would .have Mr. Roper word the contract so it is
contractually tied to the policy. He stated another issue was in Section
,, - 50-94. Private use of Community ~~uilding, City's liability for personal
)~ property needed to be amended. He said the word.private needs to be
taken out of the heading and under (c) the last sentence needs to be
trcken. He affirmed the fees may need to be reviewed from time to time.
He stated the $25 hourly fee for the. police officer was too low. He advised
the hourly fee~for the police officer needed to be $40 an hour He said the
minimum time needed. to be changed from three hours to four hours..
Commissioner Anderson suggested this be worded so to allow the City
Administrator to define the fees as policy so the Commission would not be
required to keep revisiting,the Ordinance.
Deputy Mayor Holt. said he would lkesee a procedure for the police
officer to do a walk through.
Chief Jackson explained the police- officers are only required to be present
-during. the serving of alcohol. They are not present for the set up of the
party or the cleanup. He said if the Commission wants the officer to be
there as the last person. to lock up, the hourly fee would be from the time
alcohol begins to be served through the cleanup time.
Deputy Mayor Holt said the problem does not seem to be during the event,
but during the lingering after the event. He stated the officer would not
need to be there with the cle~u~ing crew.. He said tighter reins need to be
addressed..
CC 04-•02-07/69
]B. The Finance Division of the Financial Services Department
recommends City Commission read by title. only, set April 16, 2007
as a public hearing date and approve the first reading of Ordinance `-J
07-1827 which amends the Fiscal Year 06/07 Budget.
Mr. Roper read Ordinance No. 07-1827 by title only.
Deputy Mayor Holt moved to approve Ordinance No. 07-1827 and
set April 16, 2007 as a public hearing date, as presented, Item 11
B. Seconded. by Commissioner Sackett and carried by a
unanimous roll call vote with Commissioner Bundy absent.
C. The Purchasing Division of the Finance Department requests that the
City Commission hear a presentation regarding The Gordian Group
providing professional consulting services for Job Order Contracting
(JOC) and take whatever action. the Commission deems appropriate.
Ms. Rogers said Ms. Douglas went to a Purchasing Conference and came
back with an idea. for a way to improve the City's procurement process.
She stated Mr. Charles Crane was here to give an overview of how the
process works. She said this was a job order costing system that should
save .money, time, and effort in the procurement process and enable the
City to streamline or eliminate the bidding process by having contractors
permanently in place and locking in the pricing structure on some of the
more common projects. ~
Charles Crane, The Gordian Group, said they do one thing. They assist
public agencies throughout the United States in implementing a
procurement system known as Job Order Contracting. He stated this
procurement ystem was a way to accomplish a large number of individual
constriction projects wi"th a single competitively bid contract. He affirred
hundreds of jobs could be done under one contract without the need to go
back out to bid. He said this was competitively bid and meets or exceeds
every State regulation and it applies to a lot of different areas. A typical
mission for Job Order Contracting is a small to medium size, straight
forward, stand alone construction, renovation, or demolition project. He
said the optimum_ job range for this particular system would be for a job
costing from $25;000 up to $1,000,000. He reviewed various types of jobs
this system was suited for and stated it was particularly good for
emergency projects. He affirmed it simplifies the procurement process of
construction projects by taking out a lot of the day to day repetitive things.
It will reduce the procurement lead time by approximately 90%. He said
the average time from deciding to do a job and~having a contractor on site
was 28 days. He declared this system would save 8-15% of the
construction costs. He said this system will increase participation by small
business owners. He stated this system has been •implemented by over 120
major public agencies. He reviewed clients throughout Florida. He ~
explairied Longwood would. have a catalogue of construction tasks
CC 04-02-07/70
customized specifically for the City. He explained the prices were locked
;~ in for a year. He said their group worked with the City to develop the.
_~ catalogue and specifications at no ~=ee. When the City begins to use the
system is when they would begin to pay alicensing fee for the use of the
documents and software. He- advised this system has been recognized by
the National Institute of Governmental Purchasing. .
Mayor Maingot inquired how often the catalogue was updated to reflect
cost increases of materials. .
Mr. Crane said the prices were solid for one .year. He said the prices would
not change at the end of the year. They write into the terms and condition
a formula that adjusts the contractor's adjustment factor.
Commissioner Anderson inquired :if the protection for the contractor was
when coming to the next job.
Mr. Crane explained the program was set up on a minimLUn and maximum
amount of work. If the job is done on time and at the pre-established
prices, they are going to conl:inue to receive jobs up to the maximum.
amount.
Commissioner Sackett inquired how they eliminate defaults.
~~ Mr. Crane said they would be protected tinder bonding as they would
normally do in the traditional systE:m. He said the difference with. this was
they come and conduct the pre-bid's.
Deputy Mayor Holt asked what they would behoove from the City of
Longwood, one of the smallest cities in Seminole County.
Mr. Crane said they were already established in this area and Longwood
would be expanding. the area. and be profitable for them.
Mayor Maingot inquired to their ff;es.
Mr. Crane explained they set up the program at no cost. He explained their
fees are percentage based. Over the life of the program, the City would
pay approximately 2.5% and. would generally save 8-15% of the
accumulative value.of projects.
Mr. Drago said with road construction one of the biggest problems is with
the time it takes to design it, and the. time it takes to develop the bid
documents. He stated with this system, because the contractor is on board,
the contractor and engineer can engineer the project in the field. He said
• small service items take a lot of time to obtain quotes and this would. save
time and jobs would be donF; quicker with less staff time.
CC 04-02-0'1/71
Mr. Crane explained the City would only be committing to the minimum
dollar amount of the contract. They would not be required to give `
additional wor-k if they find the contractor is not a good contractor doing
quality work. He explained the work the contractor receives is
performance based. He said the Job Contract can be customized and
designed to the needs of the City.
Commissioner Anderson said the law and the taxpayers' interests have
been satisfied because it has been competitively bid.
Commissioner Sackett inquired if the contractor was on call.
Mr. Crane responded in the affirmative.
Deputy Mayor Holt said he did -not like the idea of a contractor giving out
the work. He stated the City was a large contractor and the City had a
book of standards. He said he did not see how it would behoove the City
of Longwood to use this .system.
Mr. Crane said the average size job of all their clients throughout the
United States was $78,000. He stated the optimum size job. for this
particular system was $25,000 to $1,0.00,000. He said this system was
focused on small to medium size jobs. He declared it becomes a
partnership and a trust between the owners and the contractors.
Commissioner Anderson said, if he was not mistaken, one of the things
this does is use contractors in the area-that otherwise would not be worth
their time to go through the entire bid process and have no guarantee of
future jobs. Under this system, they only go through that process once.
Mr. Crane responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Maingot asked the City Administrator if he found this would be.
helpful and a cost savings to the City:
Mr. Drago said considering we were a small organization he thought it
would be beneficial. He gave the recent roofing jobs as an.example.
Commissioner Sackett said he would like to move forward. He stated he
would like to have some small town recommendations or places similar to .
Longwood where it has been used. He stated he would like to see some
numbers of what the savings would have been for a project if using a firm
like this.
Mr. Drago said he was not sure he could quantify what it would cost under
JOC versus what the City did.
~~
Commissioner Sackett suggested a list of change orders over the past year.
CC 04-02-07/Z2
Mr. Drago said he would have l~in<<ncial Services contact some smaller
~~ municipalities and provide a :enema to the Commission of their findings.
Commissioner Anderson said he would like to see the City move forward
with this.
Deputy Mayor Holt said he would `like to know the scope of work this
would include in its procurement only. He stated it was just another level
of bureaucracy. He said there were too many questions.
Mayor 1Vlaingot said a lot of questions have been raised. He said he saw
this as venh~.ring .forth into a situati~~n where they have a lot. to gain.
It was the concurrence of the Commission to move forward to the nett
step.
12. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT.. NLr. Roper said they distributed a
memorandum earlier on mediation and mediators. He stated addressing the issue
of mediators. did come up .at the .March 19tr` Commission meeting. This
memorandum was simply a follow through. to provide the Commission
information on what the Florida Stahztes attd Florida Rules require with
mediators.
13. CITY CLERK'S REPORT. No report.
14. ADJOiJRN. Mayor Maingot adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
ATT~:ST:
. ,/ .
', ~ ~i~GO
Sarah M. Mirus, CMC, City Clerk
CC 04-C-2-07/'73
~_~
This Page Left Blank Intentionally. .
~)
CC 04-02-07/74