|
Description |
Special Called Meeting, Palatka City Commission; 5:30 p.m. |
||
|
Date |
6/22/2006 |
Location |
Palatka City Commission |
|
|
|||
|
Time |
Speaker/Item |
Note |
|
|
Call to Order |
Mayor Flagg |
||
|
Present |
Mayor Karl N. Flagg, Commissioners Mary Lawson Brown, Allegra Kitchens, James Norwood, Jr. and George Sanders |
||
|
Also Present |
City Manager Allen R. Bush, City Attorney Donald E. Holmes, City Clerk Betsy Jordan Driggers, Finance Director Ruby M. Williams, Planning Director Adam Mengel, Police Chief Gary Getchell, Fire Chief James White, Parks Supt. Jeff Norton, Golf Supt. Lynn Davis, General Services Mgr. Ken Venables |
||
|
Invocation |
Father John Jacobs, Chaplain, Palatka Police Dept. |
||
|
Pledge of Allegiance |
Ken Venables |
||
|
Reading of Call: |
Mayor Flagg called the meeting to order and read the following call:
|
||
|
CONSENT AGENDA |
a. Award the Palatka Golf Clubhouse air
conditioning bid to Palatka Heating & Air in the amount of $19,828.00,
per the results of a Request for Quotes; b. Declare a Fire Dept. 1978 Chevrolet Step Van #2880 as surplus |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg noted Item 1(a), Golf Course Air Conditioning Bid Award, will be pulled for discussion by consensus. |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Brown moved to pass Consent Agenda Items 1b as presented. Commissioner Sanders seconded the motion, which passed unopposed. |
||
|
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 1(A) |
Award of Job for Palatka Golf Club Air Conditioning Replacement to Palatka Heating & Air in the quoted amount of $19,828.00 - |
||
|
|
Ken Venables, General Services, said this project was not a budgeted item, but an immediate need arose for this. After discussions with Lynn Davis, Golf Course Supt., a quote specification was put together for replacement of three a/c units. The spec includes the basics of the project, and also included the replacement of the Price-Martin Center a/c. They were faxed to Artic Air, Palatka Heating & Air, and Southern Air. Quotes were received and a public quote review was held Tuesday, June 13. He did a cursory review of the proposals, and Mr. Davis did an in-depth review, which was provided to the Commission in the agenda packet. In this review, he delineated the differences in the quotes. Certain spec items were not met by Southern Air, as that quote specifically excluded the removal and replacement of the fence surrounding the 3 units. The posts are set in concrete, and one wall contains electrical conduit, which will involve an electrician. While the other two quotes did not specifically include or exclude the fence, the specs specifically include complete removal and re-installation of the fence. Only one bid included a time line to complete the project, as called for in the specs. Given the summer season, timing is critical. One concern was that if a timeline was not included in the quote, there is no indication of when the project will be completed. After careful analysis, and in looking at the potential savings per the SEER ratings, it is his opinion that accepting Palatka Heating & Air’s quote is in the best interests of the City. |
||
|
|
Lynn Davis, Golf Course Supt., said when he reviewed the quote he took into account warranties while doing his comparison, per the bid specification. In some cases the bid warranties met or exceeded other warranties, and they had to use other companies and bids as comparables. In order to make the prices comparable, they added comparable warranties. Both Palatka Heating & Air and Artic Air offered a 10/10 warranty, while Southern Heating & Air offered a 1/5 warranty. Also, exclusion of the fence would cause additional expense for the City. In the request for quotes, as to item #2, replacement of 15-ton air handler with two 7.5-ton condensers and a comparable unit with no more than SEER rating 13. Two companies quoted a 9.4 - 9.5 SEER rated unit, but one company offered a 10.3 SEER option for an extra $1,300. The difference in savings in 1 seer is around $42/ton per year, or a $540 savings over one year. The $1,300 additional price tag can be covered in one year, and the unit will have an additional 17-year life expectancy for additional savings. FP&L states this unit will save approximately $4,400/year in electrical costs. |
||
|
|
Casey Cason, Southern Air, 3849 Reid Street, said they responded to the invitation to bid on one item at the Price Martin Center and 3 items at the Golf Club. They attended the bid opening, and their bid for Price Martin was the lowest and best based upon the specs. They believed their bid for the Golf Club was also lowest and best. Mr. Venables said the bids would be reviewed by the department heads and they would make a recommendation on acceptance. He was later informed they would be awarded the bid on the Price Martin Center, but not the Golf Club. He called Mr. Davis and inquired as to why, and he stated it was due to the fence removal and warranty, so he opted to go with another bid. They believe their bid is the lowest and most responsible. He passed out information supporting his claim to the Commission (filed). |
||
|
|
As to the fence, a section of fence would have to be removed. His company does not do fence work, so that is why they excluded it. The other companies did not address the fence. He contacted a fence installer, and received a bid of $200 to remove and reinstall the fence section. They will remove and replace the fence at their cost, and will not charge the City. Had they included the fence work, their bid is still $208 lower than the next highest bid. |
||
|
|
As to Item A-3, the other bidder states they will include a 10-year warranty on parts and labor. This is not a factory warranty. Extended warranties come in many shapes and sizes. They can quote any specific extended warranty upon request. They also offered a Q&A on the warranty the other company is using. There are many things not covered under their warranty. Routine factory required maintenance is not included, and the owner has to keep extensive records proving maintenance was done in order to keep the warranty active. Also, the warranty only applies to residential and light commercial, and may not apply to the clubhouse. They can purchase the same warranty for $310, but are not convinced it would be in the best interest of the City, considering the cost and required maintenance, and items not covered. They were the only bidder to bid a heat pump; the other bidder bid a straight system. The existing carrier system is a heat pump; the spec asked for a bid on a comparable unit. Theirs is comparable; the other is not. An a/c without a heat pump costs three times more to operate. Theirs includes a 5-ton heat pump system. The other bid does not meet the bid specification. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Sanders asked if the installation is the same for heat pump vs. straight system. Mr. Cason said they both install the same. As to Commissioner Sanders question as to whether a 5-ton was sufficient to heat and cool the building, Mr. Cason said they were asked to bid a comparable system, so they bid a 5-ton unit. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Norwood asked if it is customary for the City to ask bidders to adjust bids for warranty work when they do not match. Mayor Flagg said that was a valid point, and said these products are made by different manufacturers, and obviously don't match; this goes for the warranties, also. The fence item is a specific item. There may be enough generic language in the RFQ that they didn't anticipate this occurring. They need to be more specific in their specifications when sending out RFQ’s. He asked Mr. Holmes for an opinion. |
||
|
|
Don Holmes, City Attorney, said bottom line, there is enough discrepancy between the bids that they are better off to start over. After a quick review, it doesn't appear that the bid spec was specific enough that the bidders were bidding on the same thing. The fence was only mentioned by one bidder, who specifically excluded it. He would have felt better if all three had mentioned the fence. He believes Mr. Cason is correct that the Palatka Heating & Air $18,450 bid isn't figured on the 10.3 SEER option. If you are taking a true comparison, they are giving the nod to Palatka Heating & Air because of the SEER rating and 10/10 warranty on one unit. When looking at the 5-ton air handler for the locker room, the only one to option a 10/10 warranty was Artic Air, while no one else did, but their bid was not favored. There could be a good reason for that. The bids are so different they can't really be compared without extensive explanation. By Mr. Cason's adding another option, that amounts to a counter-offer. It is not easy to compare these bids due to the differences. The spec needs to be more specific. If they want warranties, the base bid should include the standard warranty, and optional warranties should be specific. If they want a 10.3 SEER, that's what they should specify. He understands that none of the City's people are air conditioning experts. It is his recommendation to refine the bid specs and re-let the bid. Also, they need to take sealed bids. The Clerk noted they did take sealed quotes. Mr. Venables said the City's purchasing policy dictates they date at least three sealed quotes. |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg stated they should send out more specific specs as soon as possible to the three companies that originally quoted. Mr. Holmes concurred and stated the fence needs to be specifically addressed by each company. |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Sanders moved to "fine tune" the specifications and obtain new quotes from the three original responding vendors. Commissioner Kitchens seconded the motion, which passed unopposed. |
||
|
RESOLUTION |
The Clerk read a resolution entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PALATKA, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AND ATTEST TO AN AGREEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF PORTIONS OF RIGHT OF WAY ALONG SR15, SR20 AND SR100 WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Norwood moved to adopt the resolution as presented. Commissioner Sanders seconded the motion. |
||
|
Roll Call Vote |
Commissioners Brown, Kitchens, Norwood, Sanders and Mayor Flagg, Yes; Nays, none. The resolution was declared adopted. |
||
|
Riverfront Development Legal Counsel RFP |
Staff Recommendation to appoint a committee to review and award contract - Mr. Bush read his memorandum of recommendation into the record (filed). He recommends appointing a review committee comprised of himself, Mayor Flagg, Linda Myers, Robert Taylor and Don Holmes, to either make a recommendation to the Commission as to an award, or make the award themselves. Following the guidelines in the RFDQ, the agreement should be prepared in a relatively short time. Payment for these services will come from Tax Increment Funds, and will go before the CRA. |
||
|
Motion |
After discussion, Commissioner Kitchens moved to appoint a review committee comprised of Mr. Bush, Mr. Holmes, Mayor Flagg, Linda Myers and Robert Taylor to review Riverfront Development Legal Counsel proposals and make a recommendation to the Commission to award the bid, per award option #1. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. |
||
|
Roll Call Vote |
A roll-call vote was requested and taken, with the following results: Commissioners Brown, Kitchens, Norwood, Sanders and Mayor Flagg, yes; Nays, none. The motion passed. |
||
|
Designation of Voting Delegate to the 2006 FLC Annual Convention |
Commissioner Norwood moved to appoint Commissioner Kitchens as the voting delegate to the 2006 FLC Annual Convention. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. Commissioner Kitchens asked that she be allowed to pass this time as she is not yet certain she will be attending the convention this summer; she will surely accept the nomination next year. There being no further discussion on the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed three in favor, two opposed. |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Kitchens moved to designate Vice Mayor Brown as the alternate voting delegate to the 2006 FLC Annual Convention. Commissioner Norwood seconded the motion, which passed unopposed. |
||
|
Report of 5-Year Downtown Redevelopment Planning Team |
Len Freeman, Chairman, 5-Year Downtown Redevelopment Planning Team, reported that the 5-year team is working on numerous areas of concern. The Team voted to recommend the City and 5-year Team advertise a request for input on redevelopment of the public green space, and to write letters to event organizers and historic users of the Riverfront Park, and the public in general on current and anticipated needs and uses of the waterfront. They will look for input from anyone and everyone. The 5-year team gave approval to Mr. Norton to use a $196,000 grant to look for a professional planner to take the public input and develop a plan to redevelop the green space; any money left over could be used to rebuild the restrooms and concession stand. This grant was originally to be used to provide a cover for the amphitheater. |
||
|
|
He stated Larry Starling of Wolfson's Bass Tournament attended their last meeting and brought forth some interesting ideas. They need launching facilities and have a need for boaters to be able to come on shore. Most of their 450 boaters don't come on shore after the tournament is over; they go back to wherever they launched their boat, and don't take part in activities. The current dock is not adequate as a boating facility; it is more of a pier. It needs to be revamped. A follow-up recommendation is to hold a workshop after the team has heard from the public to also take input. All input, whether in the workshop or not, will be considered legitimate. He asked for the Commission's concurrence with their idea to solicit for input on re-planning the green space. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Freeman to confirm that they informed Mr. Norton to use his grant funds for waterfront improvements. Mr. Freeman said they were asked to give input on possible uses of the grant funds, as no one wanted to use it for an amphitheater. The 5-year team wanted to use it for planning to redevelop the park. Mr. Norton said it could be used for that purpose, and could be used for rebuilding the restrooms and concession stands. |
||
|
|
Mr. Bush said the 5-year team gave a directive to the Parks Director to seek a planning firm with these grant funds. This is what he assumes he is coming to the Commission about tonight. Since that meeting, there have been other ideas that have come up for use of the grant. He wants to hold off on a recommendation tonight, as they have another proposal they want to take to the Team to get a recommendation on. Mr. Freeman said the 5-year team feels it is extraordinarily important to begin improvement and revitalization of the waterfront, as this goes in tandem with the redevelopment of downtown. Before this is done, the Team believes they should look to the historical users for their input, as well as future users. Many people are interested in maintaining public access to the green space. They would like to take public input on the subject. There is great concern by the 5-year Team that whatever they do with the green space, they will be living with for a very long time, and the public needs to have input into the reformation of that area. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Brown said she understands his request, but also hears that they have instructed Mr. Norton to do a certain thing. Mr. Freeman said they didn't instruct him to do anything. Commissioner Brown she thinks it is a good idea to hear from people on the redevelopment and the waterfront. The recommendations from the 5-Year Team should come to the Commission as recommendations, and the Commission will decide if they want to go forward on those recommendations. They look to them for knowledge and guidance, but they need to let the Commission make the decisions. If they have suggestions on that large of a scale, they need to come back to the Commission on those. Mr. Freeman said that is what they are doing tonight. They did not instruct Mr. Norton to do anything. He came to them asking for an approval or recommendation to allow him to do something different with the grant, and they unanimously agreed to do use it to hire a planner. They were asked for their feelings and ideas on a recommendation to change the grant to something that was more acceptable to the Team. They believe it is a good idea to hire a professional planner. Commissioner Kitchens said apparently Mr. Norton went to the Team for instruction, and Mr. Bush needs to remind him whom he takes instructions from. The City took lots of public input via the EDSA hearings, which were well-advertised and attended, and the Long-Range waterfront Development Committee has also presented a beautiful plan, so they have at least two plans now, one of which cost a good deal of money. They need to look at those two plans first. The historical users are the citizens; the festivals are relatively new and use it several times per year. She doesn't believe they need to hire one more planner to come in from out of town and start this "hullabaloo" all over again and get the citizens upset. |
||
|
|
Mr. Bush said the issues brought out by Mr. Starling have to do with existing facilities. He and Mr. Norton will come to the next meeting with a proposal to use the grant in question to bring the existing facility up to par. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Brown asked if the Commission can hear what he will be presenting. Mr. Bush said the City Dock needs to be replaced. It doesn't lend itself well to tournaments or boaters. They will come in with a plan to renovate the entire dock to accommodate boaters, and will look for a recommendation from the group. This will benefit the public. They will take input from Wolfson's and other users on the refurbishment of the dock. He agrees that they don't need another plan. Commissioner Kitchens said she noted in the minutes of their meeting that Wolfson's said regardless, they will come back anyway. Refurbishment of the dock will seal that deal. Commissioner Brown concurred that they don't need another study, and said Mr. Norton has photos of what Eustis did with their waterfront, which was quite nice, and they see what others have done with their waterfront in their travels. They have done plenty of studies; they need to get to work. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Norwood said the developer did make a commitment to hold meetings with stakeholders like Blue Crab Festival. In reading the Team minutes, he has not done that. He wants to make sure they honor what they say they will do, and the developer needs to do what they need to. Commissioner Brown said the developer has nothing to do with the riverfront. Mayor Flagg said the developer made it clear that there were so many diverse groups out there that wanted so many different and opposite things, that it was not in his best interest to hold those meetings at that time, and felt the City should facilitate and control those meetings, as the city controls that land, not the developer. The developer comes to the table as a partner. The developer needs to facilitate anything related to that area. The citizens of Palatka want the green space protected, but it still needs to be revitalized and redeveloped. The EDSA and Long-Range Waterfront Committee plans need to be pulled out and looked at before a new process is begun. This Commission has to be the one to take the action as far as putting the plans together and in place. As to directives, all he has to go on is the minutes, and he wants to make sure the Team stays focused on the proscribed area the Commission has given them to work with. Other departments are being pulling into this on issues related to traffic studies and the like. If the Team has a concern on any area, the minutes can reflect that, but the Team doesn't need to spend an hour or longer discussing and deliberating on those concerns. He expects Mr. Bush to make recommendations to the Commission for approval or consensus, and then the department heads that are responsible for making these things happen should take over, report back to the Commission on their progress, and carbon copy any other group involved. |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg asked the Clerk to provide the Team with the two aforementioned plans as discussed so that they are not reinventing the wheel. They need written recommendations from the minutes as to the input from the Team. Bottom line, the community will ultimately hold the five elected officials responsible. The Team has their support, but the Commission is directing and steering the ship. They all need to be focused on their goals progressively. Mr. Bush and Mr. Norton will be at the next meeting to make their presentation on what they want to do. He appreciates that The Team is giving them an update, which they are grateful for, but no one needs to think that the green space along the waterfront is in jeopardy of anything. He agrees that the use of the Park will have a profound affect on the redevelopment. |
||
|
|
Mr. Bush recommended no action be taken on the part of the Commission tonight. Mr. Freeman said they are coming with a recommendation. This is a time of great changes. They get input from many people, and the public is very interested in having their say as to what will happen to the green space. The discussion has been limited to no development on the green space, especially now that no marina will be built south of the Bridge. Most people are happy that no marina will be built. Numerous users are still concerned about what will ultimately happen to the green space. Many people are interested in how the green space will be reconfigured. Commissioner Kitchens is correct that numerous studies have been made. The EDSA plan is three years old. It does not speak to the city dock, restrooms and concession stand and parking area at the far south of the park. The Hodge/Long Range Waterfront Committee plan was fairly holistic, but much has changed since then. A hotel is contemplated along with other commercial changes, which makes the Hodge plan outdated. That is also true of the UF plan. He likes the idea that they get started on revitalizing the Pier, and that should come before the 5-year team for consideration, along with input from other users. This is important to the Team. The pier and waterfront is Palatka's front door, and is sometimes not what it needs to be. It is a vital part of the redevelopment district. That is why the Team is focusing on that area. They believe public input is needed from historic users, potential users and the public. |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg said they are not disagreeing, but once that recommendation comes from the Team to the Commission, the Commission needs to set up those workshops, with the Team sitting in on them. This is how it will be. Mr. Freeman said they look forward to setting up a joint workshop. He also urged the City to consider hiring a professional planner. They expect to receive much public input once the workshops are held. A development similar to the Eustis development would be beautiful, but you can't do it without a plan. All these ideas need to be put together by a professional planner. They need a professional planner to take public input. The EDSA plan doesn't incorporate all these new plans. There has been a lot of money put into plans that haven't been implemented, but this plan will be implemented. The plans already in place can be used as tools. It is not hard to remove a few shrubs, but if they rehab a restroom and put it in the wrong place, it is tough to tear it down and move it. A professional planner with public input is the best option. It doesn't matter where the money comes from to do so. The Team is adamantly in favor of seeking public input on this to give the Commission the information they need to make these decisions. |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg thanked him for his input. He looks forward to moving forward. The Commission is pro public input, which needs to take place in a public hearing. |
||
|
|
Mr. Freeman said Downtown Palatka Inc. would like to share some news. Mayor Flagg asked him to put it in writing and submit it as a report. |
||
|
Adjourn |
At 6:47 p.m. upon a motion by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Kitchens. |
||
Produced
by FTR Log Notes™
www.ftrgold.com