|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
FEBRUARY 17, 1998 7:00 PM Present were: Mayor Dave Hood, Commissioners Jeffrey J. Boyle, David Schecter, Frank Gillooly, Carl G. Persis, City Manager Eugene Miller, City Attorney Randy Hayes, and Veronica Patterson, City Clerk. A G E N D A
Item #1 - Call to Order Mayor Hood called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Item #2 - Invocation The invocation was given by Pastor Jim Raley, Calvary Christian Center. Item #3 - Pledge of Allegiance Mayor Hood led in the Pledge of Allegiance. Item #4 - Approval of Minutes Mayor Hood advised the minutes of the February 4, 1998, regular meeting have been sent to the Commissioners for review and asked if there were any corrections, additions, or omissions. Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, to approve the minutes as submitted.
Item #5 - Audience Remarks Skateboard Park Design Mr. Mark Turtlerich, 521 Parque Drive, stated he is a professional inline skater who has traveled across the country on tour for the past five (5) years. He explained he has skated on many setups and many different surfaces and knows what works and what does not work. He stated he is an icon in the skate world, and when not touring, he designs and builds ramps, skate parks, and traveling shows. Mr. Turtlerich related that the Ormond Beach skateboard park’s original plan was too elementary, but he stated Mr. Burton was adamant about making no changes. He stated after he complained to the City Manager, Mayor and City Commission members, he was granted a meeting with the Recreation Advisory Board on February 11th. He stated the Recreation Board listened and understood and advised Mr. Burton to work with Mr. Turtlerich’s group regarding their concerns. Mr. Turtlerich stated Mr. Burton then introduced Plan B which he developed, insisted would suffice, and advised that there was no time for changes. Mr. Turtlerich stated he is not asking for a super park, but a safe and desirable park that will be fun and keep the children interested more than one (1) month. He then turned the mike over to his associate who stated that an Olympic training facility is not expected, but the skaters do want a long lasting, functional skate park. He indicated that his group had been given no option to change the plan, even though the Recreation Advisory Board stated they should be granted this option. Mr. Eugene Miller, City Manager, reported the bids on the request for proposal will be received on February 19th after which the item will be brought back to the Commission for direction whether to go with the original plan, plan "B," or to change either plan. Commissioner Boyle stated he understands that the availability for input was closed at noon following the Recreation Advisory Board meeting, and he agreed that the input process should remain open. He added that in the original plan, the steel amenities would have a short life span and would be unsafe. Mayor Hood asked that staff assure there is a reasonable input process before it is brought back to the Commission. Commissioner Persis asked Mr. Burton if he is open to further input. Mr. Alan Burton, Director of Leisure Services, advised the process is proceeding. He indicated he asked for a list of elements that would be included in the skate park by Friday, but that was not submitted. He noted the City is using the top designer in the Country for skate parks of concrete design. Mayor Hood asked Mr. Burton how much time was given to obtain Mr. Turtlerich’s suggestions, and Mr. Burton answered that the meeting was held on Wednesday, and he asked for the information by the following Friday. Mayor Hood asked if anything has been submitted to date, and Mr. Turtlerich responded that they hadn’t realized the option was still available to them. He further stated that Mr. Burton’s design was not a blueprint, but an artist’s sketch, so it was difficult to tell much about the design. Mayor Hood stated that if Mr. Turtlerich would like input, it must be provided to Mr. Burton by Thursday morning. Law Suit Mr. Jack Hunter, 65 Horseshoe Falls Drive, stated he wished to reply to the Commissioners’ comments made at the last two (2) Commission meetings, where Commissioner Schecter repeatedly called the letter from his attorney blackmail. Mr. Hunter explained the suit alleges violation of Florida’s Sunshine Law, as well as abrogation of the City Charter, and the plaintiffs feel confident in winning their case. He objected to Commissioner Schecter’s unkind remarks about their intentions and stated Commissioner Schecter is far off base in calling this a witch hunt. Mr. Hunter explained his attorney’s letter was merely a suggestion for a settlement of the suit given at an early date in order to save attorney fees for the City. Mr. Hunter stated Commissioner Gillooly has made ridiculous comparisons to try to justify his position that the pay raise of 18.9% is warranted and to deny his vote was quid pro quo for the financial support he received. He stated Commissioner Gillooly used a comparison of the hourly wage rate between clerical employees of the City and the firefighters’ hourly rate. Mr. Hunter argued that the true work time of clerical employees covers an (8) hour period per day, while firefighters put in twenty-four (24) hour shifts where they can sleep on the job, play cards, exercise, and the like, although he notes firefighters put in eight (8) hours of work every twenty-four (24) hours and must be prepared to go out on a call every minute of that time. Due to the length of Mr. Hunter’s comments, Mayor Hood asked him to finish his statement at the end of the meeting. Proposed Use for The Rivers Site Ms. Mercedes McCallen, 40 Longfellow Circle, stated an environmental educational program has been proposed for The Rivers site, and she asked the City to select an evening to hold an open public forum to discuss the potential for such a use for this property. Mayor Hood stated the Commission would discuss this request at its goals workshop. Florida Manatee Sanctuary Ms. McCallen asked if the letter she requested at a recent City Commission meeting regarding the Florida Manatee Sanctuary had been sent; whereby, Mr. Miller indicated it had been sent. Mayor Hood asked that a copy be made available to Ms. McCallen. Factionalism on the City Commission Mr. Jim Powers, 3 Santa Lucia, expressed disappointment in the factionalism displayed at City Commission meetings by the citizens as well as the Commissioners. He stated at the last meeting there was a discussion regarding the Mayor’s free expression in a package delivered to the Commissioners, and he suggested a City Commission meeting is not a proper forum for scurrilous statements by ex-wives and ex-girlfriends. He stated that if misconduct occurs and there is no appreciable penalty provided, the tendency is to form factions, separating into special interests. He added Commissioners should not have to continually mount defenses and condemn public servants, such as the City Manager. Mr. Powers recommended the City Manager filter memos circulated between Commissioners as a common practice. He stated Ormond Beach has a strong Mayor, but he should not be negotiating the blimp base contract, nor intervening between staff and large developers. He recommended the City Manager hold a faction workshop for the Commission to gain a City Commission with more gentility. Comments Relative to Public Records Mr. Jim High, 38 Oak Brook Drive, expressed grave concern regarding Mayor Hood’s remarks at the last City Commission meeting concerning Mr. High’s personnel record. He stated the Mayor’s actions were unprofessional and inappropriate, especially when the Mayor threatened to have Mr. High removed when he tried to respond to the Mayor’s comments. Mr. High stated numerous residents had similar concerns regarding the Mayor’s actions, and he questioned the Mayor’s ability to function properly when he succumbs to such acts of hostility against him, or Commissioners who vote against him, or the new City Attorney. He indicated this is very detrimental to the City of Ormond Beach. Mr. High stated that he checked his personnel file on February 6th and indicated a great deal of the file is missing, even though he had received assurances by the City Manager, and the interim Human Resources Director at that time that his memos and rebuttals would be placed in his file. Mayor Hood explained that he had made the statement to which Mr. High referred while discussing documents that are public record, indicating that the personnel file of every employee, such as Mr. High, is a public record. He stated he never mentioned anything derogatory about Mr. High, nor did he suggest what was in his personnel file. City Manager Performance Mr. Gene Longfellow, 96 Ocean Terrace, stated he was pleased that all the Commissioners agreed at the last meeting that the City Manager has done a good job under difficult circumstances. Mr. Longfellow agreed Mr. Miller does a good job, and is professional, and he asked the Commission to give him their support and to work together. Growth in Ormond Beach Mr. Longfellow stated that at the last City Commission meeting, Mr. Kelley, former Zone 3 Commissioner, expounded on the merits of growth; however, he suggested a comparison to Orlando in that regard. He contended growth is not great, and Mr. Kelly’s opinions are not that of the majority. He asked the Commission not to support variances for development. Item #6 - Consent Agenda Mayor Hood advised that the action proposed to be taken for each item on the Consent Agenda is so stated on the agenda. He asked if any member of the Commission had questions or wished to discuss any one or more of the items separately. Commissioner Schecter asked that Item #6(F) be discussed separately. Commissioner Boyle asked Item #(E) be discussed separately. Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, for approval of the Consent Agenda minus Items 6(E) and 6 (F).
Item 6(E) - Evensen Dodge, Inc. Renewal Agreement RESOLUTION NO. 98-33
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, for approval of Resolution No. 98-33, as read by title only. Commissioner Persis asked what the process in choosing another firm to perform these consulting services would be, or if this is not an option. Mr. Miller stated that Evensen Dodge is one of the few totally independent advisors, and they are not paid unless there is a bond issue. He stated they are available to give advise, and there are only six (6) to twelve (12) firms with a national/international reputation which the City would consider. He added staff is very satisfied with Evensen Dodge and is recommending the City continue with this firm. Commissioner Gillooly asked if this firm advises the City where to invest its funds, indicating that he is concerned regarding the rate of return on the City’s investment. Mr. Miller advised this firm is only called upon if there is a bond issue, and Mr. Paul M. Lane, Finance Director, handles the City’s investments. He explained that within the external audit, a report is received which considers the rate of return on investments as compared to the treasury bill rate and other indexes of the financial market.
Item #6(F) - Retainer Agreement Mayor Hood stated there does not appear to be an Item #6(F) on the agenda; whereby, Commissioner Schecter explained Item #6(F), had been originally placed on the agenda but removed at his request on Friday. He requested discussion of this subject during the Commissioner’s comments section at the end of the meeting. Item #7(A) - The Tomoka Christian Church CUP Mr. Clay Ervin, Planning Director, explained this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) at the Tomoka Christian Church. He noted a previous CUP had been approved by the Commission but the church allowed it to lapse. He stated the same type of development is proposed with the exception of the placement of a wall. Mr. Ervin explained that on the first CUP recommendation, staff did not see the need for a wall and determined that landscaping and berming would be sufficient barrier. He related, however, that when this request was made, the Development Review Board voted unanimously to require the wall. Mr. Ervin indicated that Sean Daly of the Development Review Board stated he would be open to changing his mind if the developer could show sufficient screening and buffering from the residents. Mr. Ervin stated two (2) options are offered: the first would be to not require the masonry block wall and use landscaping and berms to buffer the property; or if the Commission’s concerns are not satisfied by the developer, then staff recommends the second option, Option "B," which would require the six (6’) foot high masonry block wall be erected. Mr. Ervin pointed out the Planning staff did not include a letter received by Ms. Gardinier in their information packet. He supplied this letter which described her objections to the proposal. Mr. Ervin stated that Ms. Gardinier has contended the St. Johns Water Management District disapproved the project, but he advised that is incorrect. He supplied a copy of the St. John’s approval issued May, 1997. Commissioner Boyle questioned the applicant would have to go back to St. Johns Water Management District for a new permit if this wall is required. Mr. Ervin indicated that a new permit would not be needed, but a modification of the requirement for compensatory storage may be required. Mr. Joe Thompson, 356 Chardon Road, stated this project was approved with the stipulation that a wall be erected; therefore, this request should be granted with the requirement for the wall. Mr. Thompson pointed out that the City’s track record for overseeing projects in the past has not been good, and the church does not have a good track record for keeping their property in the best possible condition. Mr. Stan Hoelle, the architect representing Tomoka Christian Church, stated the requirement for a wall was added late in the original discussion, and they did not have time to evaluate it when originally brought before the City Commission. He noted existing trees will have to be removed to erect a wall, and the church wants to leave the natural pine forest area intact. He stated the wall will not achieve the goals intended and is contrary to good planning. Mr. Hoelle pointed out the residential area where the house was purchased by the church and incorporated into the project and suggested the six (6’) foot wall required in front of this house would block sunlight and not allow the church to utilize the grassy nineteen (19’) foot setback. Mr. Hoelle stated a berm or landscaping is proposed to screen cars at Hidden Hills Drive, making a wall unnecessary here as well. Mr. Hoelle advised the day care center is limited to twenty-five (25) children in the play area at any time and is located in the most remote area possible from the residential area. Commissioner Gillooly asked Mr. Hoelle if any alternative buffer plans have been submitted; whereby, Mr. Hoelle stated they can agree with a double or triple planting, which will definitely screen the parking. Commissioner Gillooly asked if the wall was to be used as a sound barrier as well as a visual buffer, and Mr. Hoelle stated there should not be a sound problem since the playground area is next to the commercial area rather than the residential. He stated that if the wall is required, they request a four (4’) foot wall as opposed to a six (6’) foot wall, and pointed out that although the wall was required by the City Commission, it is not required in the Land Development Code. Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, to close the public hearing on Item #7(A). The motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 98-35
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, for approval of Resolution No. 98-35, Option "B", as read by title only. Commissioner Boyle pointed out this CUP was previously approved with the wall required, and if people were aware that something they thought the City had made a determination on was being reconsidered, he is sure many more people would have come to this meeting. He stated the Development Review Board agreed with the Commission’s original decision, giving citizens a further level of confidence that the matter would not be revisited. Commissioner Boyle noted that the St. Johns River Water Management District approval may have to be modified if the wall is required. He stated the project is still very vague as to an alternative to the wall, which was a concern of the citizens originally. He stated that at a City Commission goals setting workshop in 1997, the Commission agreed with the Mayor that landscaping is superior to walls; however, in this case, the wall would act as a buffer on a heavily traveled road. Commissioner Boyle stated the people were very clear that they wanted a wall, and he feels he has an obligation to the residents to allow the least impact as possible. Commissioner Boyle questioned that staff is still recommending the wall not be added even though the landscaping is not specific. He reminded the Commission that a citizen pointed out in the original hearing that the church had been somewhat negligent in maintaining the property, and there has not been any change as of today. Commissioner Schecter expressed agreement with Commissioner Boyle regarding the maintenance issue. He stated that after hours of debate at the original hearing, he is still convinced the Commission made the correct ruling, and he reaffirmed his opinion the wall should be required. Commissioner Gillooly also supported a requirement for a wall, and noted that had an alternative been sufficiently demonstrated, he may not have supported Option "B". Commissioner Persis asked who is responsible for the landscaping in the strip between the wall and the road. Mr. Ervin answered that the property owner would be responsible, and provisions are made in the Code that if proper maintenance is not taken, code enforcement action can be taken. Commissioner Persis asked if a certain level of landscaping would be required in this area, and Mr. Ervin explained that three (3) different types of landscaping material would be placed every thirty (30’) feet along the wall. Commissioner Persis questioned the type and color of material to be used for the wall, and Mr. Ervin replied a tan/beige split face block would be used to construct the wall.
Item #7(B) - Farmers’ Markets Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to close the public hearing on Item #7(B). The motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 98 - 4
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, for approval of Ordinance No. 98-4, on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #7(C) - Issuance of Permits Prior to Completion of Public Improvements for Non-Residential Subdivisions Commissioner Gillooly moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to close the public hearing on Item #7(C). The motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 98 - 5
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, for approval of Ordinance No. 98-5, on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #7(D) - Solid Waste Collection Fees Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Schecter, to close the public hearing on Item #7(C). The motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 98 - 6
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, for approval of Ordinance No. 98-6, on second reading, as read by title only.
Item No. 7(E) - Rezone 6 Properties on Bostrom Lane and Hand Avenue Mr. Clay Ervin explained Mr. Joseph Fortin, the property owner of a parcel at Hand Avenue and Bostrom Lane, had requested to develop his property as a duplex unit. Upon review, it was determined that the property could not be developed as such under the current zoning. He stated staff explained to Mr. Fortin that he could not receive a variance for use and the only methodology of allowing this use would be to rezone the property. However, this could not be done to just his single property, thus a transition zone was suggested pursuant to Mr. Fortin’s request and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Schecter asked Mr. Ervin if, after reading the staff report, it is fair to say the City made a mistake regarding what Mr. Fortin was told prior to his purchasing the property. Mr. Ervin stated that staff is not certain Mr. Fortin was given erroneous information since the person Mr. Fortin was dealing with is no longer an employee of the City, but there is a possibility that it did occur and there was a good possibility the Land Development Code and the Zoning Map were not interpreted properly. Ms. Thelma Irvin, 236 S. Ridgewood Avenue, stated on January 8, 1989, the Planning Board reviewed and denied the request for rezoning this property. She stated the reasons sited were that this rezoning would adversely affect property values in the predominantly single-family area. Ms. Irvin asked that this request be denied. Ms. Erlene Turner, 301 South Washington Street, stated she purchased a lot on Bostrom Lane with the intention of building a single-family home knowing the zoning was designated single-family residential. She asked that the zoning not be changed. Ms. Turner indicated she speaks for those who have lived and owned property on Bostrom Lane for many years. Mr. Joseph Thompson stated the City Commission denied this rezoning in 1989, and he questioned how many properties would benefit from this rezoning. He stated that since only one property owner would benefit, the City Commission should deny this request. Mr. LeRoy Bell, 323 Bostrom Lane, expressed concern for the children and elderly in this area. He stated Bostrom Lane has been a family street for many years, and he asked the Commission to deny this request so it can stay a family street. Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to close the public hearing on Item #7(E). The motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 98 - 7
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, for denial of Ordinance No. 98-7. Commissioner Boyle stated this change could potentially impact the people who have lived in the vicinity for many years. He pointed out that the Planning Board unanimously recommended denial, and it is plain to see that this type of zoning was never intended on this street. Commissioner Schecter stated he believes the City did make a mistake on this issue previously, but to make six (6) more mistakes would not correct the first mistake. He asked Mr. Ervin to meet with Mr. Fortin to explain the Commission’s concerns and determine if there is a creative solution that can be worked out.
Item #8(A) - Execution of an Employment Agreement for Permanent City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. 98 - 28
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, for approval of Resolution No. 98-28, as read by title only. Mayor Hood asked if Fred Disselkoen, the previous City Attorney, had a six (6) month termination clause in his contract, and Mr. Hayes responded that Mr. Disselkoen did not have a written contract. Mayor Hood expressed disagreement with the six (6) month termination clause, and he questioned if Mr. Miller has a termination clause is in his contract. Mr. Miller advised he has a six (6) month termination clause also. Mayor Hood stated that Mr. Miller is the only employee with this clause, and he disagreed with approving this contract when Mr. Disselkoen did not have a contract. He also stated that compensation to Mr. Hayes, more in line with the City of Port Orange’s attorney, is more appropriate, especially considering that Mr. Hayes is not board certified in Municipal Law, and the Port Orange attorney and New Smyrna Beach attorney are board certified. Commissioner Boyle stated the Commission only hires two (2) employees, and considering the other employee has the six (6) month clause, a precedent has been set. He stated that looking at all the studies, board certified or not, the contract salary is very fair and is $10,000 less than paid to the previous City Attorney. Commissioner Persis asked what Mr. Disselkoen’s actual salary had been; whereby, Mr. Hayes advised Mr. Disselkoen’s salary was $78,382, and this contract is for $68,000. Commissioner Persis asked Mayor Hood what salary the Port Orange City Attorney is paid, and Mayor Hood responded the salary of the Port Orange City Attorney is $60,000 with board certification, and she has been employed for four (4) to six (6) years by the City of Port Orange. Commissioner Persis stated it seems irrational to be giving a starting City Attorney, who is not board certified, $8,000 more than a City Attorney with four (4) to six (6) years experience who is board certified. Commissioner Schecter explained what the Commission is considering is a contract for a City Attorney who has not only done his job with amazing conviction, but has served the constituents of this City extremely well over the three and one-half (3½) years that Commissioner Schecter has worked with him. He stated the concept of pay should be continued in light of the fact that a salary survey was done at this Commission’s request, and the salary is fair and reasonable. Commissioner Schecter stated approving this contract is the right thing to do. Commissioner Boyle echoed Commissioner Schecter’s remarks and stated he is disappointed the Zone 4 Commissioner would characterize this contract as irrational. He stated Mr. Hayes has worked in the job with the people of this community, and this asset is worth far more than the $8,000 in question.
Item #9(A) - Non-motorized Boat Rental Franchise at Fortunato Park Mrs. Josephine Lebrun, 1 John Anderson Drive, stated if the Commission studies an issue, a vote is taken, and a commitment is made, then the issue should be settled. She stated this proposal again changes the design of the park to be open to commercial business. Ms. Lebrun stated this is now a community park for families, which is being used well, and she expressed her opposition to allowing a commercial enterprise in the park. Commissioner Boyle expressed agreement with Ms. Lebrun in that he is concerned that there is inadequate space for the vendor’s vehicle and trailer as well as parking for the people who would use this service. He also stated concern regarding the City’s liability. He indicated that while the vendor would technically have legal exposure through their insurance, in actuality, when tragedies occur, the cities that enter into these contracts still get sued. Commissioner Boyle stated residents have informed him that when large yachts and barges come down the river, there are eight (8’) foot wakes. He expressed concern where a child may be out on the river in a small boat not equipped to deal with these large wakes, and a tragedy may occur. Item #9(B) - Casements/Rockefeller Gardens Master Plan Mayor Hood stated staff is recommending this item be referred to the Quality of Life Board. Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to have the Casements/Rockefeller Gardens Master Plan item referred to the Quality of Life Board.
Law Suit (Continued from Audience Remarks) Mayor Hood informed Mr. Hunter he could finish his remarks at this time. Mr. Hunter stated he acknowledges firefighters put in eight (8) hours of work every twenty-four (24) hour shift and must be prepared to go out on a call every minute of that twenty-four (24) hours, but they can’t be paid $14 per hour during their true working time and $4 per hour during their non-working, but on the clock, time. He stated the seemingly low rate of $7.04 per hour for a starting firefighter is a fair average and a fair income considering their long hours. He asked that four (4) factors be kept in mind: Volusia County is, unfortunately, a low-paying area, and even more so if compared to the wages up north. He stated the records show the firefighters have received an average 4.81% raise over each of the past nine (9) years, and turnover has been exceedingly low; records show the pay of Ormond Beach firefighters is well above the average of all pay for this class in all cities in Volusia County; and the annual pay of Ormond firefighters, which goes from $21,083 for a step 1 to $32,706 for a step 10, is adequate. He added the firefighters have the opportunity to upgrade in position and pay to driver/engineer and to lieutenant. Mr. Hunter stated he firmly believes that if the firefighters’ wage contract is allowed to stand, this will be the beginning of disastrous financial results for the City. He contended that one scenario is that the firefighters’ union, smelling success, will try similar tactics in another city, resulting in pay increases above Ormond Beach’s scale and forcing Ormond Beach’s pay scale even higher. Item #10- Reports, Suggestions, Requests Firefighter Contract Commissioner Boyle requested the City Attorney to investigate the possible removal of the clause "highest pay in County" that was attached to the recent firefighters’ contract, and questioned if this clause can be removed by both parties without voiding the entire contract. Commissioner Boyle explained that as he stated on January 6th, he has always had problems with this clause. He also questioned if this clause is enforceable under collective bargaining law. Commissioner Boyle reaffirmed his complete, continued support of the remainder of the contract. He stated, if possible, he would be in favor of waiving the Thompson Rule and voting on removing the clause immediately. Mr. Hayes explained there is now a three (3) year binding contract, and if there is a reopener provision in the contract, there would be nothing to prohibit both parties from meeting to discuss the clause; but if there is not a reopener provision in the contract, another mechanism must be sought. He stated that he cannot tell if the contract has this provision or not without examining the contract. Commissioner Boyle requested that research be done on this for discussion at the next meeting. Commissioner Gillooly concurred with Commissioner Boyle’s observation regarding the contract, and he also reaffirmed his support for the basic contract. He mentioned that it was never his intent that Ormond Beach would match other fire departments’ salaries, and he agreed this needs to be discussed further. Commissioner Persis stated he doesn’t understand why the rush to vote on the contract, and stated it should have waited until all the elements could have been properly researched. Commissioner Schecter reiterated his statement at the last City Commission meeting that the settlement agreement was blackmail, and he contended that Mr. Hunter’s true intentions have now been shown to the public. He indicated the calls he has received over the past week have been 100% supportive. Commissioner Schecter stated that since Mr. Hunter stated at a previous City meeting that Commissioner Schecter was "always honest," he is concerned that Mr. Hunter is being used by a particular element in this City. He reiterated he supports his vote on the firefighters’ contract 100 per cent. Appreciation to Zone 2 Commissioner Commissioner Boyle stated this is Commissioner Schecter’s 101st meeting, and he is leaving to pursue an opportunity of a lifetime. He stated Commissioner Schecter’s legacy to the City of Ormond Beach is the incredible energy that he brought to the City and to his duties, as well as a total honesty in representing his zone and his City. Commissioner Boyle stated every vote Commissioner Schecter cast was done with the courage of conviction and integrity to his constituents. He stated that although they have disagreed from time to time, these disagreements have been healthy for the City and the constituents. Commissioner Boyle stated that it is interesting that a lot of good decisions people make in government are not realized immediately, but years in the future. He wished Commissioner Schecter continued success in the future. Commissioner Gillooly stated that although he has not served with Commissioner Schecter for long, he has been overwhelmed by his eloquence, integrity, and leadership. He wished Commissioner Schecter well. Commissioner Persis wished Commissioner Schecter well. Mr. Miller stated on behalf of himself and staff that over the long term Commissioner Schecter has been very compassionate and attempted at all times to be helpful to his constituents and courteous to the City’s professional staff. Mayor Hood presented Commissioner Schecter with a plaque recognizing his service from November 15, 1994, to March 3, 1998. Retainer Agreement Commissioner Schecter explained that on Thursday the agenda for tonight’s meeting contained a comment and memorandum from the City Attorney asking that counsel for the pending law suit be considered and approved. He stated that on the previous Tuesday the City Attorney provided him with information relative to the hiring of an attorney, and by Wednesday, he had discussions with an attorney whom he chose to use. He stated he did not have an opportunity by Thursday to provide the City Attorney with documentation on the terms of a retainer agreement. He stated his attorney did not have time to draft an agreement by Friday; therefore, he contacted the City Attorney and the City Clerk to inform them he could not present the retainer agreement at that time. Commissioner Schecter stated that since the City Commission was notified on Thursday that a retainer agreement would be provided and he now has the name of the attorneys, he would like approval to simply fill in the blank with the attorney’s name on the resolution which had been previously provided. Since this is his final meeting and this issue requires immediate attention, he asked the Commission to consider overruling the Thompson Rule to address this issue. Commissioner Schecter related that he has provided a copy of the draft retainer agreement to the City Attorney, and the City Attorney will determine the terms of the agreement, which will include an amendment to require the provision of a litigation budget and bi-monthly updates. Mayor Hood stated he has not seen the retainer agreement, and because of the Thompson Rule, which makes no exceptions, this issue needs to be placed on the next agenda. Mr. Hayes stated this is correct with the exception that a 4/5th majority vote may overrule the Thompson Rule. Mayor Hood stated he does not like to vote on anything he does not have the opportunity to review; therefore, he disagreed with addressing this issue at this time. Commissioner Schecter clarified exceptions have been made to the Thompson Rule in the past, so there is a possibility the Commission can vote tonight if there are four (4) votes to do so. He stated that what is before the Commission is a resolution authorizing the execution of a retainer agreement between the City and the firm, but the problem is that the City’s position is still up for debate since the City does not currently have a litigation budget. He stated his proposal is for the City Commission to approve that a retainer agreement he entered into, the specifics of which the City Attorney will work out with counsel. He clarified he is not asking for a specific agreement to be approved, and the City Attorney may bring back the specific agreement for approval after the terms have been established. Mayor Hood stated the threshold question is whether there are four (4) votes to waive the Thompson Rule. Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to waive the Thompson Rule to vote on this issue at this meeting.
Commissioner Boyle offered another option to resolve this issue. He stated that Commissioner Schecter is in a different position than he or Commissioner Gillooly in that this is Commissioner Schecter’s last meeting; therefore, since this Commission will be reconvening on February 25th to certify the election, he recommended a special session be held after certifying the election to address this issue. Mayor Hood advised he will be out of town on February 25th and will not be available. Mr. Hayes stated a special meeting would need to be called, and Commissioner Boyle asked if there would be time to accomplish this since a public meeting is already advertised for that day. Mr. Hayes stated anything less than seven (7) days is not appropriate unless there is an emergency situation; whereby, Mayor Hood stated this is not an emergency situation, and he recommended waiting until the next regular City Commission meeting when all the documents can be available for review. Commissioner Schecter stated that if the Commission is unwilling to waive the Thompson Rule while he is still a sitting Commissioner, he will have to wait for the item to be placed on the next agenda, and he is willing to do that. Commissioner Schecter’s Expression of Appreciation Commissioner Schecter thanked the City Commission for their assistance in the past years, but even more so, he expressed his appreciation to the citizens of Zone 2 who supported him in good times and bad. He stated he is humbled by the ability to serve in this City and will never forget this experience. Code Enforcement Commissioner Persis asked Mr. Miller the status of the Code Enforcement issues that were discussed at the last City Commission meeting. Mr. Miller stated that at the last meeting Mr. Hayes stated he would need approximately sixty (60) to ninety (90) days to present information regarding a new Code Enforcement process. Item #11 - Close The Meeting The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 PM. |
|
|
