|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
MARCH 17, 1998 7:00 PM Present were: Mayor Dave Hood, Commissioners Jeffrey J. Boyle, Thelma Irvin, 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 Father Rob Merola, St. James Episcopal Church. 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 25, 1998, special meeting, and the March 3, 1998, regular meeting have been sent to the Commissioners for review and asked if there were any corrections, additions, or omissions. Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to approve the minutes as submitted.
Item #5 - Audience Remarks Town Hall Meeting Mr. Martin Press, 875 Wilmette Avenue, stated the Volusia County Council will be asked to make a decision on April 16, 1998, that will affect every resident of Ormond Beach regarding a request by the Consolidated Tomoka Land Company for a zoning change of a 1,140 acre tract of land west of I-95 and south of Granada Boulevard. He added, if adopted, this change would allow as many as 2,880 homes on land now zoned for 249 homes. Mr. Press explained that the impact on Ormond Beach schools, roads, water, and other infrastructure would be enormous. He stated the people most affected by this change, the citizens of Ormond Beach, should have input in the review of this matter. Mr. Press proposed the City convene a "town hall meeting" in late March or early April to deal with this issue so a united position can be relayed at the County Council meeting in April. Mayor Hood, hearing no objection, asked Mr. Miller to schedule a "town hall meeting" by the first week in April. Mr. Jim Powers, 3 Santa Lucia, echoed Mr. Press’ concern and stated that development to the west is in competition with the core of the City. Citizen Comments During Meetings Mr. Powers stated he believes citizen comments are being squelched and recommended commentary be allowed at the end of the meeting regarding issues brought up during the meeting. Subdivision Laws Mr. James Law, 662 Hand Avenue, stated his purpose in speaking to the Commission is to exhaust administrative remedies before he takes his case to court regarding which laws will be applied to his subdivision proposal. Mayor Hood questioned if an appeal, if that is what Mr. Law is requesting, would have to be placed on a future agenda. Mr. Randy Hayes, City Attorney, stated that Mr. Law’s concern goes back to a subdivision plan which is in the Planning Department site plan process. He stated the application is incomplete, and no further action can be taken until all the documents are submitted. Mayor Hood explained to Mr. Law that until the application is complete at the Planning Department level, the City Commission does not have authority over the matter. Mayor Hood recommended Mr. Law work with Mr. Clay Ervin, Planning Director; and if an impasse is reached, he may appeal it to the City Manager, and then to the City Commission, as prescribed by ordinance. Gateway Pride II Mr. Bill Partington, 1284 Fernway Drive, representing the Ormond Beach Chamber of Commerce, advised he is establishing a committee for a project called "Gateway Pride II." He explained "Gateway Pride II" would develop plans and funding for signage, welcoming people into Ormond Beach at all of the major entrances to the City, as well as beautification of US #1. Mr. Partington requested the support of the City Commission and assistance from staff in working with the Department of Transportation (DOT). He requested a member of the City Commission, preferably Mayor Hood, since he worked on "Gateway Pride I," be appointed to serve on this committee. Mayor Hood expressed his willingness to serve on this committee and asked that this item be placed on the next agenda for a vote. Appreciation Expressed Ms. Brenda Disselkoen, widow of the former City Attorney, Fred Disselkoen, expressed her appreciation to Mayor Hood for the award presented in Fred’s memory at a recent Chamber of Commerce function, to Commissioner Gillooly for reading her letter into the record at a recent City Commission meeting, to Mr. Miller for his support and encouragement, and to Mr. Hayes for all his help. Manatee Sanctuary Signage Ms. Mercedes McCallen, 40 Longfellow Circle, requested that signs be posted designating the manatee sanctuary as a "no motorboat area." Goldy Property Ms. McCallen advised that the Goldy property, next to the Tomoka River and John’s Island, is now for sale. She encouraged the City to pursue a Florida Communities Trust Grant and to request the St. Johns River Water Management District to assist in the purchase of that property. She provided information identifying funding to Mayor Hood. Code Enforcement - Division Avenue Mr. James Privett, 215 Grove Street, read a letter from Clyde K. Hull, Sr., and Jessie May Hull, 42 Division Avenue, who stated a converted Greyhound bus is stored on his back yard line leaving no room to walk along the sides of the bus. Mr. Hull’s letter expressed concern regarding a possible fire starting as a result of the large gas tank. Mr. Hull wrote that the bus is started several times per week, the exhaust fumes are unpleasant, and this will adversely affect his property value. Mayor Hood asked Mr. Todd Herget, Chief Building Official, to resolve this matter and report at the next meeting. Mural Painting Mr. Don Hall, 200B Rosewood Avenue, suggested the City Commission consider allowing historically themed murals to be painted at City parks. He stated he is a mural artist and has proposals available. Mayor Hood suggested Mr. Hall meet with Mr. Miller and Mr. Ervin. He recommended placing this item on the next agenda. Mr. Clay Ervin, Planning Director, stated there have been several requests regarding the painting of murals, but there is a prohibition against murals in the Land Development Code because they have been found to be used as signage in many cases, and the City needs to be consistent in its application of rules. He advised there is a current Code Enforcement case where a mural was painted without a permit. Commissioner Boyle suggested the Quality of Life Board examine the possibility of allowing murals in certain cases and make a recommendation to the City Commission. Mr. Ervin recommended the Planning Board examine the issue instead of the Quality of Life Board because this issue would require a Land Development Code amendment. Mayor Hood requested that this issue go through the Planning Board process, and the Commission be provided a report. Mr. Ervin advised he will place it on the Planning Board agenda and inform Mr. Hall when the meeting will take place. Police Station Offices Mr. Tom Bourke, 422 South Halifax Drive, stated that on a recent visit to the Police Department, he noticed that the offices are very small and neglected. He advocated a new police station be built as soon as possible. Mayor Hood advised this issue will be discussed at the upcoming City Commission goal setting meeting. 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 Boyle asked Item No. 6(H) be discussed separately. Commissioner Gillooly requested Item Nos. 6(F), 6(G), and 6(H) discussed separately. Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, for approval of the Consent Agenda minus items 6(F), 6(G), and 6(H).
Item #6(F) - Pedestrian Walkway Under Granada Bridge RESOLUTION NO. 98 - 50
Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, for approval of Resolution No. 98-50, as read by title only. Commissioner Gillooly expressed concern that in 1997, Saboungi Construction Company came back four (4) times for increases over bids, and he questioned how the City can guarantee this fee will be firm. Mr. Ted MacLeod, Public Works Director, advised this is a "lump sum" bid where the contractor guarantees to do the project as specified for the amount bid, and the only change would be if the City asked them to do something not included in the original project. Commissioner Gillooly questioned how the engineer’s estimate is derived; to which Mr. MacLeod replied that the engineer’s estimate is based on his experience and is normally in the middle of the range of bids. Commissioner Gillooly asked if consultants are ever asked to assist the engineer to arrive at an estimate, to which Mr. MacLeod replied that sometimes they are involved, and to his knowledge these same companies are not bidding the jobs. Mayor Hood stated that Saboungi has been superior in getting the job done within the time restrictions and consistently comes in under budget, and Mr. MacLeod agreed that Saboungi has done very satisfactory work for the City. Commissioner Gillooly stated he was not implying Saboungi does not do a good job. Commissioner Boyle stated that one of the three (3) highest priorities for Fortunato Park was the sidewalk which will be considered on this agenda. He expressed concern regarding the bid process because the original bids were substantially higher than the cost which necessitated dropping items from the contract. Commissioner Boyle asked for more accurate estimates so the City isn’t continually in a position of needing to find more funds to complete projects. Commissioner Persis considers this underpass to be the "crown jewel" of the park. He stated the project will be one of which the City’s residents can be very proud.
Item #6(G) - Community Development Block Grant Annual Plan RESOLUTION NO. 98 - 51
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, for approval of Resolution No. 98-51, as read by title only. Commissioner Gillooly asked if the $30,000 budgeted in 1999 is sufficient funding for construction of the Child Development Center on Washington Street. Mr. Tom Lipps, Assistant to the City Manager, advised these funds are for land acquisition for the lot next to the Center which is currently being used for drainage. He stated the City now leases the property because there is a cloud on the title with a time limitation which will lapse, at which time the City may acquire the property. Mr. Lipps stated an appraisal will have to be done at that time and the figure adjusted to the results of the appraisal.
Item #6(H) - Transportation Improvement Program Project Priority List RESOLUTION NO. 98 - 52
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, for approval of Resolution No. 98-52, as read by title only. Commissioner Boyle stated Priority Nos. 6 and 7 on page 2 of the staff report are not explained in the report; whereas, the other priorities are explained in detail. He stated Priority No. 6 would build an extension of Tymber Creek Road from LPGA Boulevard north to Riverbend Road, and Priority No. 7 would build an extension to Hand Avenue from Williamson Boulevard west across I-95 and the Tomoka River to the Tymber Creek Road extension. He explained these roads would service a large tract of undeveloped and environmentally sensitive land. Commissioner Boyle stated he believes there are more pressing and immediate transportation needs for areas already developed, such as completing the four-laning of Williamson Boulevard and Clyde Morris Boulevard, which might be more appropriate. Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, to amend the priority list to delete projects listed as Priority Nos. 6 and 7. Commissioner Persis questioned staff as to why Priority Nos. 6 and 7 were included, and Commissioner Boyle asked why there was no information regarding these priorities. Mr. Ervin stated that Priority No. 6 has been identified in the City’s and County’s Comprehensive Plan Traffic Circulation Elements since 1989 to accommodate the projected growth as well as the existing Tymber Creek Subdivision and other residential developments north of SR 40. He stated Priority No. 7 is also identified in the City’s and County’s Comprehensive Plans and consistent with the phasing in of the City’s Capital Improvement Element. Mr. Ervin explained staff is attempting to be consistent on what was approved in 1989, and that some of the other projects identified will be accomplished with the Zone 1 County or Ormond Beach’s impact fee improvements. He stated these priorities deal with monies appropriated by the State of Florida, which is a different process and needs to be consistent with the existing documents. Mr. Ervin apologized for the fact there was no elaboration on these items. Mayor Hood stated that as a member of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), he is aware that the reason these items are listed is because this is money over which the MPO has jurisdiction to allocate, and the MPO can only allocate it to projects that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plans adopted by the communities. Mayor Hood indicated there are fifteen (15) other municipalities who are submitting a list much like this list, together with the County, to which the MPO negotiates a priority list. Mr. Ervin explained this is only the beginning of a long process before funding and construction would occur. Commissioner Boyle stated the Comprehensive Plan is nine (9) years old, and the City’s perception of the growth is a dynamic that changes almost annually. He noted the Comprehensive Plan is amended constantly for more development and growth. Mr. Ervin stated these priorities can be amended, but the need has not been identified to not have these streets included. Commissioner Boyle explained his concern is that once the roads are built, the door will be open for development, applying tremendous pressure on local governments to rezone, and allowing higher density development. Mayor Hood stated that those who are accused of being developer friendly are always accused of changing the Comprehensive Plan, and now the non-growth side wants to change it. He agreed that the Comprehensive Plan needs to be a "living, breathing document" that recognizes that communities change. He noted that the population growth never achieved the growth the Comprehensive Plan projected; therefore, the Comprehensive Plan should be reviewed, but it should be done consistently regarding growth issues. Commissioner Gillooly asked if the Commission can pull these priorities off the list next year, to which Mr. Ervin answered affirmatively. Commissioner Gillooly stated this is being discussed on March 17, 1998, and is due to the MPO on March 27, 1998, which is not adequate time to revisit this issue in detail.
Mr. Miller asked if staff should come back with alternate suggestions for Priority Nos. 6 and 7 since there is stiff competition for these funds. Mr. Ervin stated that there is a model in place, and to add alternatives would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Transportation Element at the City and the County. Mayor Hood stated there are no alternative projects that would conform with the law that could be funded, and Mr. Ervin explained that to add alternatives, data would need to be submitted to redo the entire transportation network for the northern portion of Volusia County. Mr. John Connors, President of the Ormond Beach Chamber of Commerce, explained that the issue is whether or not there will be a traffic circulation element that will need to be dealt with in the areas west of I-95 and Hand Avenue. He stated there is a need to take traffic off State Road 40 and other arteries as well as the increasing growth along Williamson Boulevard and the westward movement of certain traffic circulation elements. Mr. Connors stated it would be short-sighted to take this out of the City’s priority list. Commissioner Boyle stated that while he appreciated Mr. Connors’ comments, he does not absolutely accept the premise that these roads will reduce traffic on Sate Road 40. Mayor Hood stated most of these roads are in Volusia County, not the City of Ormond Beach. He stated the County believes these roads are necessary and their construction has been considered already. Commissioner Persis asked if these roads can be inserted in the list next year if the Commission chooses, and, if it is detrimental to take them off and then try to add then on again the next year. Mr. Ervin stated that, from experience, it is easier to delete than to add items. Mayor Hood stated that it will be too late to correct this if these are deleted now because there are fifteen (15) other municipalities with their projects waiting for funding.
Item #7(A) - CUP to Waive a Requirement for a Buffer Wall Mayor Hood advised this item has been withdrawn by the applicant; therefore, no action needs to be taken. Item #7(B) - Mini-Warehouses Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to close the public hearing on Item #7(B). The motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 98 - 8
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, for approval of Ordinance No. 98-8, on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #7(C) - Schedule of Development Review and Impact Fees Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to close the public hearing on Item #7(C). The motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 98 - 9
Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, for approval of Ordinance No. 98-9, on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #8 - "Battleship" Subdivision ORDINANCE NO. 98 - 10
Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, for approval of Ordinance No. 98-10, on first reading, as read by title only.
Item #9(A) - Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce Appointment RESOLUTION NO. 98 - 59
Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, to appoint Mayor Dave Hood as the City’s representative on the Board of Directors of the Ormond Beach Chamber of Commerce and for approval of Resolution No. 98-59.
Item #9(B) - Bid for Improvements to the South Ormond Recreation Center RESOLUTION NO. 98 - 60
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, for approval of Option Three (3) of Resolution No. 98-60, as read by title only.
Item #9(C) - Improvements to the Ormond Memorial Art Museum RESOLUTION NO. 98 - 61
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, for approval of Resolution No. 98-61, as read by title only. Commissioner Persis asked for clarification as to the amount to be appropriated; to which Mayor Hood advised $73,750.00 is being requested. Commissioner Persis congratulated Ms. Burt for her efforts on behalf of this project. Commissioner Boyle stated that the dynamic of what has been happening at the Art Museum the last few years has been remarkable, and he applauded the Art Museum for attaining the $200,000 State grant and raising the like amount. He noted that again the bids came in high, as they did with the Fire Station, South Ormond Recreation Center, and Fortunato Park.
Item #9(D) - Historic Tree Removal Request RESOLUTION NO. 98 - 62
Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, for approval of Resolution No. 98-62, as read by title only.
Item #10(A) - Purchase of Goldy Property Mayor Hood recommended discussing this item at the upcoming goals workshop; whereby, Mr. Ervin explained that the property owner has not set a price, and staff feels it is appropriate to obtain an initial appraisal to make a decision whether to go forward on a priority basis. Commissioner Boyle questioned the nature and outcome of the request by the applicant for the Land Use Rezoning Amendment. Mr. Ervin stated that several years ago the attorney for the Trust attempted to change the entire parcel to Commercial, to which staff explained this was not a realistic expectation. Commissioner Boyle stated that $300,000 of impact fees were committed to the Tomoka Basin when LPGA Boulevard was extended. He asked if those funds would be available for this type of land acquisition, to which Mr. Ervin responded those funds were not impact fees, but mitigation fees which St. Johns River Water Management District collected and is required to use on the Tomoka River. Item #10(B) - Impact on Wetlands Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, to direct staff to include an amendment in the 98-2 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle to review Objective 5.4, including Policies 5.4.11, 5.4.16, 5.4.46 and 5.4.49 of the Conservation Element, and Objective 2.2 of the Coastal Management Element, to delete provisions allowing impacts on isolated wetlands under five (5) acres in size and clarify that the amendment be consistent with the original versions of the various Objectives and Policies. Commissioner Boyle stated this would revise the Comprehensive Plan to remove the allowance for impact to smaller wetlands and restore the previous rules and protections which were relaxed in June, 1996.
Item #10(C) - Consideration of Non Staggered, Two-Year Commission Terms Commissioner Boyle moved to place a question on the ballot that would allow voters to restore two-year Commission terms and abolish term limits. Mayor Hood supported Commissioner Boyle’s motion but suggested appointing a Charter Review Commission to allow them to look at other Charter issues as well. Commissioner Boyle stated this is what was done in 1994, and he believes it failed the City badly. Commissioner Persis made copies of a report describing some of the achievements of the last Charter Review Commission which he considers an excellent example of foresight on the part of the City Commission in 1994. Commissioner Persis stated that being a Commissioner is such a complex job that it takes a learning curve of almost a year to know all that is necessary; therefore, he did not support a change at this time. He stated a committee studied the issue very thoroughly and openly just three and one-half (3½) years ago, and he stated that since the citizens of Ormond Beach voted on this issue not four (4) years ago, it has not yet had the opportunity to run its full course. Commissioner Boyle stated there is a growing dissatisfaction among the citizens with the four-year terms. He stated there are two (2) very serious inequities involved with the four-year term: the Commissioners in Zones 1 and 3, if they choose to run for Mayor, must resign in mid-term; and the Commissioners in Zones 1 and 3 never run with the Mayor, which would ensure a high voter turnout. Commissioner Boyle stated that part of the reason the four-year term passed is that the ballot wording was for staggered four-year terms, and a lot of voters were under the impression there already were four-year terms and the vote was to stagger them. He stated candidates are discouraged by a four-year commitment, and it increases the likelihood a Commissioner will not be able to finish the term, costing money for a special election. He indicated he does not believe there is a long learning curve, and the two-year term gives greater accountability. He stated every Commissioner is now serving a four-year term or the remainder of one for Commissioner Irvin, and a window of opportunity will not occur again, with equity, until 2003. Commissioner Gillooly stated that he campaigned for five (5) months and cannot envision anyone taking on such a campaign for only a two-year term. He stated campaigning is exhausting, and there is a learning curve to come up to speed on the job of Commissioner. Commissioner Gillooly agreed with Commissioner Boyle regarding the inequity of two (2) of the Commissioners needing to resign to run for Mayor. Commissioner Irvin agreed that the work of a campaign is too stressful for two-year terms.
Item #10(D) - Traffic Issues Related to Wilmette Avenue Mayor Hood stated the entire Commission has received letters regarding the problems on Wilmette Avenue and US#1, but it has been referred to the appropriate authorities to take the necessary remedies and all agree it is to be expedited immediately. Commissioner Boyle stated that in June, 1996, the City Commission promised a study for one (1) year after construction of Wilmette Avenue, at which time it would be brought back before the Commission. He stated that after completion of the construction, he passed complaints on to Mr. Ted MacLeod, Public Works Director, who immediately responded that FDOT had said it would take three (3) or four (4) months before the signal would be revised. Commissioner Boyle indicated that a year later, there is still a temporary signal, and seventeen (17) serious accidents with two (2) fatalities have occurred. He encouraged citizen input. Mr. MacLeod stated FDOT and Volusia County are proceeding with the installation of the permanent traffic signals, the mast arms are now being manufactured, and installation should take place in April. He stated FDOT has agreed to install the larger signage and will do a speed study. Commissioner Boyle asked if fourteen (14) months is the normal timeframe; to which Mr. MacLeod answered affirmatively and explained that new hurricane proof mast arms and foundations are being used. Commissioner Boyle also related there have been two (2) accidents at McIntosh and Wilmette Avenue, one (1) at Yonge Street, six (6) at North Ridgewood Avenue, and one (1) at North Beach Street. Mayor Hood explained on a state and federal highway, a traffic signal is not allowed unless certain traffic or warrant studies are obtained. He offered he understands Commissioner Boyle’s frustration, but there is a lengthy process that must be followed before a traffic light is constructed. Commissioner Boyle expressed appreciation for the explanations and asked that the Commission address the problem of speeding and keeping trucks off Wilmette Avenue. Mr. Mike Cornejo, FDOT Traffic Operations, stated a traffic light will be constructed in April and a speed and accident study is being conducted which will be completed in two (2) to three (3) weeks. Mayor Hood asked that a copy of this report be forwarded to the City. Mr. Will Buchanan, 131 Wilmette Avenue, stated safety concerns were noted when improvements on Wilmette Avenue were proposed, and they were not heeded but have now come to pass. He questioned how hurricane proof poles will correct the problems at this intersection. Mayor Hood explained that the poles will create a better traffic flow through the signaling process. Police Chief Larry Mathieson stated part of the problem is that the volume has increased due to the improvements to the intersection, and the greatest benefit will be realized when the left turn arrow is installed. He stated it has been determined that the primary causes of the accidents are because of left turns, and the speed of traffic through the intersection. Chief Mathieson indicated that speed enforcement has been enhanced in the area. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Cornejo why a light with the left turn arrow, made without the use of mast arms, could not have been installed long ago. Mr. Cornejo stated installation of turn arrows is based on turning movement counts. Commissioner Boyle asked how long these studies take on a routine basis. Mr. Cornejo replied the study takes one (1) or two (2) weeks, but there are numerous requests to address because FDOT receives requests from nine (9) different counties. He stated a light will be installed by April, but the studies will have to determine if a turn light is also to be installed. Mr. Buchanan stated speeding is a real problem in this area; whereby, Mayor Hood questioned the feasibility of four-way stop signs. Chief Mathieson responded that like FDOT, the City would have to study the traffic flow and traffic patterns that surround the major arterial roadways, which would require a study in conjunction with the Planning Department. Chief Mathieson stated 99 citations were issued in this immediate area in the past year, primarily for speeding. Mr. Buchanan stated that, in the past 35 years, there were very few accidents until the traffic pattern was changed to funnel all traffic down one (1) street. Mr. Brian Parker, 47 Wilmette Avenue, stated he moved to Wilmette Avenue because it was a quiet street, but the traffic has doubled or tripled. He asked if a bridge spanning the Halifax River is planned from Wilmette Avenue. Mayor Hood stated there is no chance a bridge will be built from Wilmette Avenue across the Halifax River. Commissioner Gillooly asked if there is any indication of increased traffic in The Trails. Mr. Ervin responded that one of the requirements to opening Main Trail was to monitor it prior to opening and after the opening and bridge construction. He stated the pre-opening traffic volumes have been obtained, and staff is now obtaining the post-opening volumes, which will be completed in approximately one (1) month. Commissioner Gillooly asked where the people are speeding, and Mayor Hood explained on Wilmette Avenue to the east of US#1. Mr. Don Elston, 15 Wilmette Avenue, complained regarding the noise and speed of vehicles and motorcycles and that trucks are utilizing the street, including City of Ormond Beach trucks. Mayor Hood asked Chief Mathieson if the Police could double or at least accelerate the enforcement in this area for the next thirty (30) days, and Chief Mathieson answered affirmatively. Chief Mathieson also suggested meeting with representatives from that community regarding community policing, along with the Planning Department and FDOT, to come up with joint solutions and recommendations. Mayor Hood asked for a report by mid-April. Commissioner Boyle commended Chief Mathieson for this very pro-active step. Chief Mathieson stated the Police Department would facilitate setting up the meeting to discuss enforcement, signage and any other issues necessary to come back with a comprehensive plan. Ms. Ann Leemkuil, 266 Melrose Avenue, stated that Melrose Avenue has the same problems that Wilmette Avenue has and asked if the Melrose residents may be included in this forum, to which an affirmative reply was given. Mr. Al McPherson, 83 Wilmette Avenue, stated that if Wilmette Avenue didn’t cross US#1, this problem would not have occurred. Mr. Sid Hinman, 197 Wilmette Avenue, stated the City’s plans to slow down and decrease the volume of traffic on Granada Boulevard have failed miserably. He stated priorities are misplaced; the symptoms are being treated and not the problems. Mr. Hinman stated his neighborhood was deemed expendable for the sake of business development and as a relief valve. He continued that traffic patterns and flows that had worked for decades insuring a quiet and safe neighborhood were destroyed, even though residents warned of trouble. He pleaded for the Commission to understand that the backbone of Ormond Beach is its permanent residents, and the residents want their neighborhood back. He asked that Wilmette Avenue be terminated at the intersection of North Yonge and Wilmette Avenue. Mr. Tom Bourke, 422 South Halifax Drive, stated this issue is at a crisis level and suggested using electronic devices to monitor speed since it is impractical to have a Police Officer on duty constantly. Chief Mathieson stated the City recently purchased a SMART radar trailer which is mobile, gives a radar readout of speed, and has the capability of recording certain information such as traffic flow. Ms. Sue Kupchunas, 67 Wilmette Avenue, reminded the Commission it had promised the stop signs were to be kept in place. Commissioner Boyle stated that it is clear the Commission has failed to fulfill the promises it made, and remedies are in order. He pointed out that traveling west on Wilmette Avenue, there are tree branches obscuring the stop sign at McIntosh Road. He stated he can attest to the fact that City trucks travel Wilmette Avenue as was testified to by a citizen earlier. Mayor Hood advocated zero tolerance for City employees driving a City truck on Wilmette Avenue and indicated these employees should be terminated immediately. Mr. MacLeod stated employees would be disciplined for violation of this rule, as any other rule. Item #10(E) - Legal Opinion on Firefighters’ Contract Mr. Randy Hayes, City Attorney, deferred any questions to Mr. Jim Blue, labor counsel, who was in attendance. Mr. Eugene Miller, City Manager, stated if both sides will sit down and agree to open the contract, it could legally be reopened; however, due to the sensitivity of this matter, staff is seeking direction. Mr. Miller referred to the correspondence that transpired in January, which was attached to the City Manager’s memorandum. Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to direct the City Manager to inform the Firefighters Local 3499 the City of Ormond Beach desires to amend the contract as it relates to wage adjustments for contract years 10/1/99 - 9/30/2000 and the year 10/1/2000 - 9/30/2001. Specifically, Article 28.1(A) in reference to the highest paid clause for the second and the third year of the contract. In addition, the Driver Engineer position’s salary will be addressed to reflect a promotion. Firefighters Local 3499 is to be advised only these items will be addressed, and there will be no effect on the pay increase approved by the 1998-99 contract year, except for the position of Driver Engineer which would be going up. Commissioner Boyle expressed his appreciation for the January correspondence, although he expressed disappointment that the Commission didn’t have it sooner. He stated, apparently on January 12, 1998, according to that correspondence, Mr. Heric and the Union opened the door for a side agreement which would have done essentially what the language in Commissioner Persis’ motion would accomplish. Commissioner Boyle stated his concern is that the Commission was not immediately informed of the offer by Mr. Heric for the side agreement as noted in the January letter, because it seems the contract provision that the Commission is now willing to revise, is the heart of the lawsuit that was filed against certain members of the Commission. Commissioner Boyle added that it is also interesting that the City has hired attorneys from that same firm and paid them $25,000, while another attorney from that same firm is now a principal in the law suit against the City. He stated it seems that a law firm can represent a City or file a law suit against a City, but not both, and suggested discussing this matter at the goal setting meeting. Commissioner Boyle stated the letter from Mr. Heric demanded action by the City Manager immediately on January 12, 1998, but it seemed that this issue was not important enough to bring to the attention of the Commission during the critical time between January 12, 1998, and January 30, 1998. A long discussion regarding the correct protocol followed. Commissioner Boyle suggested a side agreement be considered without the need for a shade meeting or to reopen the contract; however, Mr. Blue indicated this action would not be a side agreement, but an amendment to the Contract. Mr. Blue explained that instruction from the Commission is needed on what is to be done, and the Union must know what will replace this language, or they will have no reason to open the contract. Regarding the January letters, Mr. Miller explained that since the situation was sensitive he felt he needed some guidance and was seeking that guidance by continually asking the Union to supply the language that he could bring back to the Commission, and through a sequence of events the Union withdrew it. He stated, for example, one of the aspects in that letter of January 12th stated that the second year the Driver Engineer situation could be corrected by giving the Driver Engineer 5% under the Lieutenant salary. Mr. Miller indicated he would not want to recommend that, which would be a 20% to 25% increase in salary, because of the number of Driver Engineers that the City has or may have, depending on whether the City goes with the County in contracting Stations 11 and 13. Commissioner Boyle agreed this has been a very sensitive situation, and because of that, he would have thought that when Mr. Miller received the January 12th letter he would have come to the Commission to get direction, especially since on January 6th Commissioner Boyle stated he had a real problem with that clause. Commissioner Boyle stated at the time in the shade meeting when the vote was taken, the contract was an all-or-nothing vote, and now Commissioner Gillooly has publicly stated he has problems with that clause as well. Mayor Hood stated it was at the shade meeting that the Commission had to vote in ten minutes on that particular proposal that included the principle that the City would pay its firefighters the highest of any firefighter in the County. He stated the matrix was approved with Commissioner Persis and Mayor Hood warning a closer investigation needed be made. Mayor Hood stated to now criticize Mr. Miller and tell him to fix this problem is unfair. Commissioner Boyle stated his only criticism is that the Union offered to fix the problem back on January 12th, and the Commission never knew about it. Commissioner Boyle moved to amend the motion to meet in public to determine the language to be given to the Union. The amendment died for lack of a second. Commissioner Gillooly asked for advantages or disadvantages of a public versus a shade meeting. Mayor Hood explained that when you are negotiating with the other side, it makes no logical sense to be discussing your negotiating position in public, so that the Firefighters know exactly what the position is going to be, which is why a shade meeting is allowed in the first place. Mr. Blue agreed this is why there is an exemption from the Sunshine Law relative to the Public Employee’s Relation Act, but it is the Commission’s decision as to whether discussion regarding is done in the sunshine or the shade. He advised negotiations cannot be done in the shade unless an agreement is first obtained by the Union to reopen the contract. He stated the Union will need assurances that they are not going to get hurt, because they have an agreement.
Mr. Miller summarized for clarification that he will approach the Union representatives with that which is drafted in the motion, and will make it absolutely clear, and provide every assurance that they are not opening to a totally new compensation package. Item #10(F) - Status of Negotiations with Airship Company Commissioner Boyle requested a verbatim transcript of the following issue to be included in the minutes. Mayor Hood: We are now on Item F. Gene you have a report. Mr. Miller: Yes, I do. This is something that just happened late this afternoon. I am pleased to tell you that we have verbal commitment from Mr. Theo Wüllenkemper to locate his airship operation in Ormond Beach. This came about, I think Fred Baughman, the Mayor and I were involved, what late last week, two or three phone calls to Germany, two calls yesterday, and I think at least a couple calls today; and what we have verbally got an approval from. And reached an agreement that I will present to you, hopefully at a special meeting before the next regularly scheduled meeting, the lease agreement that we’ve been negotiating here for at least formally, for a year. This, I think, we’re marking about the third year of the initial discussion with WDL, now known as US Airship Operation; and I am very pleased to report that from the time that we presented to the City Commission the letter of intent, and Ted Kramer was here, of course, at that time; and the differences are very minor. In fact, the only significant difference that we’ve been negotiating here the last few days really results in the reduction of the 11.8 acres down to about 9 acres. And the essential ingredient of that reasoning was due to the State Legislature last year that they passed a statute, legislation, that would give tax exempt status to aviation related industry on airport property or aviation related industry. This negated their, USAL’s, need for an apron in front of the hangars, structures. So that, therefore, really got back to a footprint of the hangar itself and the offices that they plan to construct which reduced the acreage to, I think, down a little bit less than what we’re now talking about because we added another lot to the northwest of the hangar site that we’re originally been talking about so they’re now leasing 9 acres instead of 11.8. The upside of this whole thing, and its based upon the leverage that we have obtained through State grants on this the $2 million to be reimbursed with the construction of the hangar, but we also, as you well know, got about $600,000, I think it is about $680,000 for the construction opening up of a major roadway into the airpark, an opening up of a major portion of Phase III of the business park. Just to make this as brief as possible, the, if we would take, and this is contained in your information that you have in your packet, but just to recap it, is the cost of the airship project is $387,180. The cost without the project to do all of this infrastructure is $915,565, a difference of $528,385. The incentive packages, which package, which was contained in the letter of intent, no change back from quite some time ago, we offered a parking lot construction of $150,000, stormwater retention up to $50,000, land clearing $50,000, and security fencing of $10,000 for a total package of $260,000. Of that land clearing, 50% is a match by FDOT. So when you really get down to it, the really, the match for the WDL project itself is basically the $150,000 for the parking lot and $50,000 for the retention. So really we’re coming out with a net savings, if, if not this is still a policy consideration, but if the master plans for the opening up of the Phase III of the business park and opening up the airpark you have already approved in the master planning process for the airpark, the bottom line is that if we go ahead because of the grants and so forth, we will save $267,000 almost $268,000 in the process of going ahead as we have negotiated with WDL. And I’ve distributed the letter of commitment. We were hoping that we would have a signed lease agreement. Mr. Wüllenkemper was in Frankfort out of the office today. We, he got home late. I think the fax we just received late here, and remember they’re six hours ahead of us, so he was faxing us after he read that final document. After we exchanged by fax this afternoon, he was reading that document late into early morning hours before he faxed this so we could have it tonight. So, again, you know, even the staff, except Fred knew about this. We wanted to save it and announce it tonight because we knew it was on your agenda. This culminates negotiation, a tough negotiation that lasted, started with Fred, I mean sorry, with Ted Kramer three years ago, almost exactly three years ago today. If you have any questions about it, I, you know, I probably know too much, too much detail and Fred as well. He’s been a really, a savior when taking over Ted’s position in the middle of this process, but he got up to speed real quickly. Mayor Hood: Jeff. Commissioner Boyle: Yeah, I have some comments and questions. And I guess the first thing, it sounds like really good news, although, I’m still cautious because essentially the document we have in front of us is again another letter of intent. But I am looking forward to getting those documents and seeing them, and I must say I think there has been a very long standing consensus in this community in support of this project aside from the savings that we could realize in getting the infrastructure for opening the rest of our park and selling or leasing those lots. There are a lot of intangibles that come with this. You know blimps at nationally televised football games out of Ormond Beach, Florida, local tourist, etcetera, and I hope that the commitment is still there from Mr. Wüllenkemper for the value added jobs. I, in reading the document, that was a stumbling block at one point, I want to thank Mr. Baughman for the very thorough report. I must tell you that there is significant volumes of new information about this whole process that this Commission did not previously have, and I am very grateful for that. I hope, and it sounds from what Gene is saying, that we did not make substantial new concessions to get this deal done. I’ll be very curious to see what other new terms may have made the deal possible. I’m also very concerned about a clause that was in the last lease agreement that was presented to us by Mr. Baughman. That clause calls for the City to make good on the grant, if for any reason the $2 million grant from the State is withdraw. So I would hope that at the time, Mr. Miller, that you provide us with a copy of the written signed agreement from this company, that we also can obtain from the State a written commitment that that grant will still remain in place. Because under the terms that was in the information packet, it would be, it would be possible for us to sign the agreement with the, with the Germans, and then if the, some of the promises or some of the commitments regarding the grant were to fail, then we’d be on the hook for that money. So I hope we have some remedy there. Another thing, the report last Thursday, of course, wasn’t as optimistic as we are tonight, and that’s a dramatic turnaround; and I want to thank any and all people, including the Mayor, who I hear on the radio, had been working diligently to get that accomplished. I’m still a little bit concerned about this company after reading the chronology of negotiations that has occurred over the last twelve months, because I think anyone reading that would agree there have been many twists and turns. Some might even say in many, many of the dates and many of the events that occurred, you could even say there was an absence of good faith on the part of this company—constant demands for new terms and new incentives. So I hope that this is for real this time. I would also remind this Commission that this company was warned last fall that the grant was about to expire. Still they did not come to terms at that time. Then our City gave them an absolute deadline on December 1st. This, too, was ignored, and then they sent us a fax that they would be looking to other Florida cities for better terms and better conditions. And then later, Daytona Beach and Melbourne confirmed to us that the City had indeed been shopping to deal elsewhere. So at best, I think we really have to wonder and hope that this time the promises and commitments will be kept. I’ve mention the grant and the problem if the grant is withdrawn. I believe one stumbling block is tied to that grant—this company has to provide a minimum number of jobs. I believe 100 jobs. Also in the figures put out by the City Manager, we have to remember that according to the data we were given last Thursday, this City will borrow nearly a half a million dollars from our excess reserve fund to make site improvements at the airport for this project which includes the paved parking lot, the tree removal, security fencing, and that this will be paid back in lease revenue, etcetra, over a period of a number of years. And that my only concern, and when I asked Mr. Baughman to share with us some of the incentives, I just was concerned that the incentives would compare with other deals that we have made with other companies in the industrial park. I was worried that, perhaps, if we gave the blimp company, for example, too many incentives, we might compromise the integrity of deals we made with companies already here. So that was my main thrust on that. Also, in the staff report, I think you mentioned your discomfort, you claim that public discussion, such as we’re having tonight, hurts us in competing with other cities for economic development. But I would submit to you that when the Germans announced to us that they were going to shop the deal and they did so, that they probably shared with those other cities all the incentives that we had already put on the table to see if those other cities could top those and give them a better offer. I’m more concerned that this protracted negotiation process may have sent a wrong signal to other companies that might locate here. I hope that our future negotiating position has not been weakened by the great length we’ve gone through to try to get this deal. I’m also worried that we may have jeopardized our ability to get future state grants of the type now on this deal that has gone well past the expiration date. So I hope that you can give us some assurances on that, maybe at the goal setting or something, let us know that we’re okay with the State, that they understand our dilemma on this project and the great length everybody has gone to, to try to see it accomplished. I guess the new information in the staff report has also raised a number of serious questions in my mind about the Mayor’s role in this entire negotiation process, and I guess my first question for the City Manager is, at what point did the Mayor become an active negotiator for the City, and was this your decision to appoint him or invite him into the process. Mr. Miller: At any economic development effort, any city that I’ve ever been City Manager in and, I think Fred and I have had this discussion as well. His background is with the Department of Commerce, State of Indiana, worked a while with Fort Wayne, Indiana, and also worked with a area-wide economic development district just west of Indianapolis; and our thoughts are the same is that when you get involved with a major industrial prospect or creator of any type of job within your community and its a desirable firm or company, there is always an effort to involve the elected officials, the political leaders of the community. Mr. Wüllenkemper is a, I’d say he is a world class type of operator. He has business in all, well essentially, I can say safely all over the world; and his inclination and his style is that he wants to deal with the highest official. And he has identified in Ormond Beach as well as elsewhere the highest official is the Mayor, and City Managers and Economic Development Directors always are dealing with that, and we deal with it in a professional manner. There is nothing wrong with the Mayor being the focal point of and the person that’s the spokesperson, as long as that person, the Mayor, or any elected official works closely with the staff. And in the process of this and the process of this and in the last, for instance, the last, and I can speak from memory, the last couple of days, those calls have always been going to the Mayor from Mr. Wüllenkemper. Always we’ve had notice of those calls and approximately the time that they would come in. Fred Baughman and myself sat in those meetings and were advising the Mayor exactly what we thought was a good deal, and he sought our guidance. That took place. Now, and as I said, that is not an unusual situation and as long as the intent from our professional viewpoint, as long as that intent is pure, pure being that for the best interest of the community to create jobs and to do the things that Economic Development is supposed to do, we welcome that. That’s fine. All the, we get nervous as professionals in that type of situation when it gets into a situation where there is obviously some self-interest. I have no clue at all of any self-interest or benefit by Mayor Hood. Mayor Hood: Well let me just say because frankly, I’ve read your memos, I’ve heard your comments. First and foremost, I think my secretary will tell you, I have spent two vacations where I have literally had to get up at 4:30-5:00 in the morning and spent two hours on the phone on a regular basis with this gentleman. This deal basically was a situation where he started shopping around because he frankly, for whatever reason, there were some personality conflicts in which nobody was at fault. Fred wasn’t at fault, Gene wasn’t at fault. Theo, there are just times when you do business deals, which I do for a living, in which personalities reach certain points, and you just simply have to find a different way. It was only when I finally got hold of Theo and asked him to come spend an hour or two, I said just give me an hour or two of your life, and let me see if I can find a way to get Ormond Beach back on track as far as the place to put your world headquarters. From that point on, the only way I could get Theo to agree that we would be back in the hunt, as opposed to moving to Melbourne or Daytona Beach, was that he would deal directly to me and that I would give him whatever time he wanted of my time to do it. And that’s what I did. And I, frankly, I would have, at least 100 hours of my time in the last, since December, which I don’t mind doing. I figure that is my job. I’m more than willing to do it if I can find a way to bring 140 to 170 jobs pays $30-$35,000 a year. And I’m sorry sir, I believe that’s my obligation, and I believe that is my responsibility to do that. When you make all your comments about how it was this long term thing and how, were we giving concessions, and would we lose problems with the State; frankly, through Fred’s efforts and Gene’s effort, we covered every single one of those angles as we went forward. And one of the frustrations, I represent Budget Rent-A-Car, and they’re in the same situation that Theo was. When you have to negotiate these deals in public, it creates a situation that if you’re not a businessman, maybe you don’t understand, you create a situation, and correct me if I’m wrong Fred, where you basically take yourself out of the running in trying to bring good businesses to the community. Now, having said that, clearly the public has every absolute right to see what the deal is, to ask the questions that you have asked relative to incentives, changes in incentives. Are we being fair and equitable as it relates to incentives and to other businesses? And I’m the first one to say that that’s something we all ought to discuss. In fact, I think the problem is we need to call a special meeting so that we can find out whether the City Commission is going to approve the lease so that we can assure that we get the State grant put away and make that taken care of. All of these things need to be done. But the point is, is that if you expect commercial deals to do a letter of intent and expect you’re going to have a lease in 60 days, I’m going to tell you in 20 years of practicing law, if that’s happened one time, that’s the most. And that commercial business deals will take you a year to two years to get the details, because the devil is always in the details and when you’re drafting, what is the lease, almost 40 pages long, 30-40 pages, yes, so these are not easy situations. You cannot presume that either side is in bad faith because they are negotiating and trying to work out the details; and I, all I’m saying to you is, the time for a full discussion and for you to make your viewpoints as far as problems with this is we ought to have that special meeting. Let you look at the lease. If you don’t believe its in the best interest of the community, then at that point let’s deal with it. Commissioner Boyle: Well tonight we are not judging the merits of the lease. I just hope that it’s in good shape, and we can discuss that later. Mayor Hood: My point is, is all the questions and the worries that you are raising, I think are more appropriate when you actually have the lease in front of you and you can analyze it. Commissioner Boyle: But I have some, the question I just raised, and I asked Mr. Miller is, at what point did you become a negotiator? And I have no doubt that with your skills you were able to save this deal for us by meeting with Mr. Wüllenkemper. I have, and that’s in the document that we have, I just asked him a question. When did you become involved as a negotiator? And I guess I’m hearing December or January. And was it at Mr. Miller’s invitation? And I don’t have that answer yet, and I think that answer’s important. Mr. Miller: No it was not at my invitation; it was Mr. Wüllenkemper’s invitation. Commissioner Boyle: And that invitation occurred in January? Mr. Miller: Right. Commissioner Boyle: Well, in the document on the fax that the Germans sent to us on January 24th, and I believe you gave us a cover letter draft lease number six and a document from from Mr. Wüllenkemper, the fax date is the 24th of July. And in this document, on page 4 under the heading "Rental Adjustment," and I guess this was, excuse me, this was from Mr. Böhnke, am I pronouncing that correctly? Mr. Miller: Mr. Böhnke. Commissioner Boyle: Mr. Böhnke. Mayor Hood: Walter Böhnke. Commissioner Boyle: from Mr. Walter Böhnke, under rental adjustment it says, and I quote, "we refer to a conversation on rental adjustment between Mr. Dave Hood and Mr. Böhnke, where Mr. Hood promised to come up with an idea to settle this point. Maybe we should meet personally to settle this." That seems to indicate to me that the Mayor was an active negotiator well before Mr. Wüllenkemper’s invitation. Mayor Hood: I have been… Mr. Miller: Let me.. Mayor Hood: Excuse me.. Mr. Miller: Okay. Mayor Hood: I have been from the beginning, I think from when we got the letter of intent, I went to every meeting relative to the letter of intent. Then we had problems trying to negotiate the final terms of that. I went to every one of those meetings, and he’s absolutely accurate. I’m sure I did talk to Theo or to Walter at some point and time regarding those terms and conditions. It’s been an ongoing process. Commissioner Boyle: Well then I guess my next question… Mayor Hood: Frankly, in every one of those meetings, I believe, Gene, I believe you were present and Ted Kramer or Fred were present . Mr. Miller: Just let me add a little bit to that. Going clear back to the, to day one when Mr. Kramer and Mr. Ed Bossert of Hoyle Tanner, our engineers, first approached the City, we do what we normally do when we have a world class prospect coming to our City to look at industrial prospects and create jobs in our community. We put out the red carpet, and a part of that red carpet, I remember very distinctly, it predates Fred by 2½ years. We had a meeting at the country club. We had Mayor Hood, I believe it was the president of the Halifax Area Chamber of Commerce, president of the Ormond Beach Chamber of Commerce, Drew Page of Volusia Business Development Corporation Executive Director. We had our County Representative, I believe it was Stan Rosevear. I don’t know whether it was that first meeting, but anyway, we all gathered there; and from that process and throughout, there were always contacts. Well, they’re coming back. What can we do to throw out the red carpet again and show them that we really want them? And it always that occasion, the, of course, the chair of the City Commission is usually… Commissioner Boyle: We would expect the Mayor to be at all that. My question, my next question, is for Randy; and this is the question that people are asking. If the Mayor was an active negotiator, is this permissible? Does our City Charter allow for the Mayor to function as a negotiator for the City as an administrative function for purpose of this lease? Does our Charter allow it? Mr. Hayes: In a technical sense, the answer would be, "no." As a practical matter, I think the issue is whether or not the authority was delegated or abdicated by the administration; and that question, I don’t know the answer to, but I think probably it would be permissible in that instance. Commissioner Boyle: Well then, the question that follows up on that, and I understand that the Mayor was part of a team and a very useful and essential part of that team, but then once an elected official became a negotiator, and I guess this is why I put this question on the agenda and asked that we discuss this tonight, once this happened, did not all of his actions as a negotiator then become subject to full application of all the Sunshine Laws during the negotiation process? This question is for Randy. Mr. Hayes: It really depends on the level of the activity. If what you have is something that is strictly confined to fact-finding, then no it would not. If what you have, and it doesn’t matter whether its an official or team or committee, if what you have is active negotiations where terms and conditions are being proposed and counter-offered, then in all likelihood, that would be subject to Sunshine Law requirements. Commissioner Boyle: Okay, well I would hope.. Mayor Hood: Excuse me, help me understand. The Sunshine Law speaks specifically as to my inability to negotiate in any meetings in which other members of the City Commission are present, in which there has not been the proper notice. Am I not correct on that? Mr. Hayes: I didn’t follow your question. Mayor Hood: Okay. How is it a Sunshine Law violation for me, frankly in conjunction with the staff, to be negotiating with anybody or to be talking to anybody out there in the public on any issues that relate to the public. Mr. Hayes: Well, its very simple. The Sunshine Law is very liberally construed. The exemptions are very neatly tailored so if there are no exemptions, then it is liberally construed as open government in the sunshine. When you have a situation where you are negotiating terms and conditions, then the law states that that is subject to sunshine; and there is a body of law out there to support that. Mayor Hood: Okay, would you be kind enough to give me a legal opinion outlining your …. Commissioner Boyle: And, Mr. Mayor, that is what I was going to ask for. Mr. Hayes: I’d be happy to. Commissioner Boyle: And I guess I can wrap this up here, and we can move on to that special meeting you talked about. But I hope that we can come back with that opinion. If there is anything that’s still clear or fussy, maybe we can get the Attorney General to help us with that. But I, the reason I bring this up, Mr. Mayor, and no disrespect for your very skillful negotiations that helped save this deal, is that there may be some citizens out there who have a problem with an elected member of this Commission directly negotiating with City assets, either in or out of the sunshine, with a foreign company. And it just seems unlikely that it would be legal for that to happen, to negotiate a deal that you would then vote on. I can understand why the Germans wanted to talk only with you because once the deal is done, they got one vote locked up. So that was my concern about that. And then secondly, my real worry is that in the event that this project turns out to still be a good deal of Ormond Beach, I would hope that we have not laid aside our legal process in order to get that done. My understanding of the Sunshine Law is that you, companies can get exemptions, and they can get confidentiality, but they have to apply for it in a written document. And that once this City formed a negotiating team that is described in the information packet that we have in front of us, then that team was then subject to Sunshine Law applications concerning to advertising and public forums and the like which we are familiar with. And I hope this Commission will be allowed to look at this deal very carefully before we vote. I’m concerned that we hired $25,000 worth of legal work for this project. I don’t recall that coming before this Commission. And finally, if this turns out to be a project that has enough merit for our approval, but after an agreement that was possibly achieved improperly or illegally, then I guess those of us who have to vote on it will be faced with a serious moral dilemma. So I’m a little worried about that. I hope the opinion comes back very, very soon; and I would also ask the City Clerk for a verbatim account of this issue in the minutes tonight. Thank you. Mr. Miller: Mr., Mr. Mayor, I would like to, and I know there are perhaps some people on the dais as well as in the audience that, that don’t look at me like I’m defending the Mayor, but I’m going to have to at this point. I think we, we’re talking about negotiations, and we’re using the term very loosely. Negotiation or whether, as a courtesy, we meet in a red carpet, you know, luncheon, or whether we respect Mr. Wüllenkemper to call, and he only talks to the Mayor, and its a difference between a major, major investment in our community in creating jobs for the benefit of the community, I think that’s, first of all, foremost important. But in these discussions and, you know, I can talk to any member of the staff that’s been involved. All of those discussions, the Mayor has maybe talked, he has recently talked to Mr. Wüllenkemper. Mr. Wüllenkemper calls specifically for the Mayor; asks him to return at a certain time. We do the work. We prepare the analysis as to what they have proposed or what we have counter-proposed. Mr. Paul Lane, the Finance Director has been involved. You know, I can almost, all of the staff down here, certainly the Engineering Division, and they’re talking about drainage issues, just a multitude of issues. They’ve all been involved. We brought that information together. I have personally on every one of those occasions had the opportunity to review that information before handing it over in the recent months for the Mayor for discussion in Germany. I remember yesterday, very distinctly that Mr. Wüllenkemper was calling over. We were in the final, final process of the, some nitty-gritty things that really didn’t amount to much, but, nevertheless, were a concern. And I would point out, as long as I’m making this as long as it is now, that one of the reasons for the three year duration of this, is that we have somewhat of a barrier of communication. Although these people speak English, it’s not really clear; and they do have a consultant from Orlando that has handled most of the long-distance calls. And they have to refer in the room to the Germans and interpret and so forth, and this has contributed to the extra length of this negotiations. Mr. Baughman, again, coming from his background and experience, has told me and told the staff, told you I believe, that it takes for this magnitude of a project averages about two years. Well, so we’ve got another year, but back to my point. The Mayor says, "What do you think, Gene? What do you think, Fred?" And then ultimately, looking at me and saying, "Is this what you want to do?" "Tell me what you want to do." "Can we do this?" So, I, I, I’m guess I’m keen on, is he the negotiator? He is the person that is talking with Mr. Wüllenkemper, but we’re approving what he is saying. And anybody shoot me at this point if I am telling a mistruth, please. Mayor Hood: Well, the bottom line to this, Jeff, is whatever your criticism wishes to be. The reality of it, and its apparent to me you’ve never done a business deal because some of your criticism you would understand, that most business deals are predicated upon relationships. And, frankly, a lot of the time that was spent was building a relationship of trust with Mr. Wüllenkemper. To the point, in fact, that he felt he could deal with me, and I could deal with him. It is kind of bizarre to me. I mean on one hand we talk about we need economic development. Frankly, it would have been to my best interests not to have devoted all the time that I have devoted to try and keep this gentleman in the hunt and try to keep him in Ormond Beach. I’m going to tell you, if you look at my last two days, I have been in the office running from one phone call, interrupting all my other clients in order to deal with this stuff. If somebody else wanted to do this, you are more than welcome to do this. I think Mr. Wüllenkemper will tell you directly, Mr. Boyle, that had I not dealt with him, he would not be here, and he’d be looking somewhere else. And I believe Fred can confirm that and everybody else. Now if that’s illegal, then frankly, let’s find out. I’m going to obviously see what Mr. Hayes’ opinion is and be, welcome reading his analysis, which is a little bit different from any that I’ve ever read. But I’m welcome to see that; and we, I’m more than welcome. I am eager for you to look at this lease deal, and you decide whether it is in the best of the community. And if you think I’m willing to go out there and negotiate a deal that I think I’m going to bring back here that isn’t a good deal for the City and have anyone here have the ability to criticizes it, then you do not give me nearly the credit for at least having enough common sense. I’m not suicidal. I already know the problems with this, getting this through the Commission, and we have negotiated a deal that is nothing but a positive, positive. And I think we need to get the meeting on Tuesday, and you’re more than welcome to go at every single issue you would like to go through. Commissioner Boyle: Well, I’m not criticizing an agreement that I haven’t even seen yet. I’m very worried about the process and whether you were allowed to legally function as a negotiator. That’s all. And before I vote on this, I want to make sure, it can be the best deal in the world. But if the agreement was achieved illegally, then I have a problem with that. That’s all. And that’s going to be clarified for us by the legal people. Mr. Hayes: Just one point of clarification. My comments aren’t directed to one, any one specific individual in terms of the negotiation of this deal. It’s the process. It’s the team concept. It’s the same situation when you’ve got a committee to review RFP’s, and that sort of thing, that also has to be held in the sunshine. So it’s not one individual over another individual.. It’s, it’s the process that was utilized to achieve the end, and I’ll be happy to get the opinion for you. Mayor Hood: Thank you. That’s the analogy that you’re using for your legal conclusion, correct? Mr. Hayes: No that is not the sole analogy. What I am stating, sir, is that the only exceptions to Sunshine Law are by Statute. If there are none there, then it has to be conducted in the sunshine. Mayor Hood: Thank you. I look forward to your opinion. Gene… Mr. Miller: In summary, what we’ve alluded to I would like to, ask your consideration to expedite this to having a meeting next Tuesday, perhaps at 7 o’clock; and we, Fred, can we have the lease distributed as early as tomorrow to everyone or is, is that okay? Mayor Hood: I don’t believe you can because the lawyer had two things that had to be put in it. That is going to be Federal Expressed out tomorrow. I mean you can have the .. Mr. Baughman: You can probably have the lease, but not a signed copy. Mayor Hood: Correct. Okay, you can have that. Mr. Baughman: The signed copy has to be Fed Ex’ed back, so we won’t … Mr. Miller: As long as, you know, we have already agreed that there are no changes, right? So they can be reviewing it in the interim. Mayor Hood: Absolutely. Mr. Miller: So I guess I’m asking for your consideration to have a special meeting at whatever the time would be convenient to you next Tuesday to get this locked down. And let me also add something. I think Commissioner Boyle asked about the commitments from the State. The lease and the deal is contingent upon those deals being fulfilled, and what we need to be because of the, as indicated in the transmittal, the review of the sequence of events in the, in the negotiation, we have passed a couple deadlines. Now they have verbally told us that they would go ahead and honor those, but they didn’t want to formally go through the process because they wanted a signed deal before they would amend them. I think in some cases they have been amended two or three times. Commissioner Boyle: Didn’t they also want a commitment that there be 100 jobs and that there be a construction schedule? Wasn’t that part of the .. Mr. Miller: That was not a requirement in the grant themselves, no. Commissioner Boyle: Well can we get a written commitment that the grant is in place in time for next Tuesday’s meeting. Mayor Hood: No, … Mr. Miller: Now, what now? Mayor Hood: He wants a written commitment, Gene, from the Department of Commerce that they will put it in place, and the answer to that is "no." But the contract is conditioned upon getting that approval, so you have no risk. Mr. Baughman: Yeah, its conditioned upon getting the approval. I’ve talked with the Governor’s office in regards to the Department of Commerce grant. They have indicated that they will amend the grant based on getting a construction schedule. One of the items in the lease is upon execution of the lease, they will provide us a construction schedule. So what I need to do is take the executed lease and that construction schedule, go to Tallahassee, and then they will amend the grant at that particular time. Commissioner Boyle: So then what you are saying is, it will. We’ll be voting on this before we have any written commitment, but that the contract itself with the German company protects us. Mr. Baughman: Right. That’s true. Commissioner Boyle: Well, the reason I’m troubled, I remember seeing the clause that if the grant failed, we’re on the hook for the $2 million, and I didn’t…. Mayor Hood: That’s a different issue. Mr. Baughman: That’s a different, yeah, that’s a different grant. Commissioner Boyle: Well that’s the grant I’m talking about. Mr. Baughman: Well, okay. Commissioner Boyle: That’s the grant I’m worrying about. Mayor Hood: Why don’t we discuss all that when you discuss all the terms of the contract as opposed to peace meal. Commissioner Boyle: That’s fine with me, but I wanted you to know why I’m troubled, that’s all. Mayor Hood: Does anybody have an objection to meeting next Tuesday night on this issue alone? Carl? Commissioner Persis: I have no objection. Commissioner Gillooly: Nope. Commissioner Boyle: We won’t be voting, just learning about it. Mayor Hood: No, no you will be voting. Commissioner Boyle: We’ll be voting next Tuesday. Mayor Hood: Yes, sir. Commissioner Boyle: I think that’s a little quick with, we’ve got a three year process here, I’ll be honest with you. Mayor Hood: Well, is there anybody who does not wish to vote on this contract next Tuesday, other than Mr. Boyle? Commissioner Gillooly: When will we see the contract, Mr. Mayor? Mayor Hood: I understand that Fred will get you a copy of the contract tomorrow. Commissioner Gillooly: So I have about a week lead time on this? Okay. Mayor Hood: Is anybody else agree with Jeff’s viewpoint about not voting next week? It seems to be that you’re probably in the minority on that, so we will vote next week. Okay. Any other discussion? Commissioner Persis: I would just like to say this, that if this thing turns out not to be a legal point, we have just wasted an hour here. You guys have been going back and forth talking about this thing about what’s illegal and what’s not. It’s a done deal. We’re going to vote on it, and you guys have just been bantering back and forth. Commissioner Boyle, the City Attorney, the City Manager, the Mayor, back and forth, back and forth, and the rest of us all out here had to listen to all of this, and we’re all kind of glazed, glazed over, and …. Commissioner Boyle: Commissioner Persis… Commissioner Persis: Now wait a minute, let me just finish. We listened to you for, goodness gracious, 45 minutes in the last hour, good Lord. Mayor Hood: Okay. Commissioner Persis: My point is, if we find out a week from today or whenever Randy does his research, and it proves that it is in fact, the Mayor did not violate any laws, all I am saying is we wasted a whole lot of time here tonight because we have in this district, we have missed out on, we let Martin Marietta go. We lost a bunch of jobs. We failed to get the Bass Corporation here. We lost a bunch of jobs there. We didn’t get Cincinnati Bell. We lost a bunch of jobs there. Team Rental, Budget Rent-a-Car, the man who lives here, we’re almost throwing him out of our County because nobody can seal the deal. Nobody can do what it takes to get a true, first-class operator in this County, and now here we go. We should be all celebrating tonight the good news, and no, we’re nit-picking it absolutely to death, and I just can’t believe it. I just, I fail to really get to what your point was other than did the Mayor do something that was illegal concerning the negotiations of this deal. And that, to me, was what the whole point of what your argument was, and I wish you just could have said it as succinctly as I did. Mayor Hood: Thank you. Commissioner Boyle: Well, I would like to respond to Commissioner Persis. You are the same person that has lectured us on this dais about haste makes waste. I think your opinion as to what is a waste of time is a value judgment, and I would not belittle you for the time we wasted on the smoking ordinance or anything else, sir. And I, I’m very sorry you had to put it in those terms. I think every question I asked was very important. I think if the Mayor of this City has inadvertently or in any way violated the Charter by functioning as an administrator, I think that’s an important question that needs to be answered before we vote on anything. Thank you. Mayor Hood: Thank you, let’s move on to the next thing. Item #10(G) - Use of General Fund Reserves Mayor Hood asked that this item be postponed to the next meeting due to the lateness of the meeting. Item #12- Reports, Suggestions, Requests Loss of Tommy Strang Commissioner Boyle stated the City mourns the loss of Tommy Strang, a local resident, former City employee, and a past Clearwater Commissioner. Goal Setting Workshop Commissioner Boyle invited the public to attend the Goal Setting Workshop on March 27th and 28th to be held at the Casements. South Ormond Recreation Center Commissioner Irvin stated, on behalf of the residents of the neighborhood of the South Ormond Recreation Center, this complex is one of the most essential sources of recreation and entertainment in the neighborhood. She indicated the proposed improvements will improve the Center’s operations and the appearance of the entire neighborhood. She expressed her appreciation to staff for their recommendations and the Commission for its support. Commissioner Gillooly stated he was proud of his vote for this much needed recreation center. Ormond Memorial Art Museum Commissioner Gillooly expressed his pride in the vote for the Ormond Memorial Art Museum which is an asset to the community. Signage for Thompson Creek Commissioner Gillooly requested that the sign issue relative to manatee protection on Thompson Creek be placed on the next agenda. Mayor Hood stated staff can simply take care of signage, and it does not need to be placed on an agenda. Yard/Garage Sales Commissioner Gillooly asked that an item be placed on the next agenda regarding yard sales. Code Enforcement Commissioner Gillooly stated one of the items he will be discussing at the goal setting meeting on March 27th and 28th is code enforcement, and it will be one of his top priorities. Commissioner Persis agreed with Commissioner Gillooly regarding the code enforcement issue. MacDonald House Commissioner Persis expressed appreciation of an article in the New-Journal regarding the MacDonald House. He stated the picture of the MacDonald House looked great and will look even better once landscaping is done. Consolidated Tomoka Land Company Project Commissioner Persis expressed his appreciation to staff for attending the County Council meeting regarding the Consolidated Tomoka Land Company project. Fire Issue Commissioner Persis expressed his appreciation to the City Commission for support of his motion regarding the firefighters’ issue. Air Conditioner Failure Ms. Laura Jones, 59 Amsden Road, asked if it were possible to install ceiling fans in the Chambers for times when the air conditioning fails. Mayor Hood asked Mr. Ted MacLeod to address this matter. Item #11 - Close The Meeting The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 PM. |
|
|
