091988-Workshop Session41 8 MINUTES
City Commission. Sanford, Florida
September 19, 19 88
the City Manager's Conference Room of the City Hall in the City of Sanford, Florida, at
4:00 o'clock P. M. on September 19, 1988.
Present:
Mayor-Commissioner Bettye D. Smith
Commissioner Whitey Eckstein
Commissioner John Y. Mercer
Commissioner Bob Thomas
Commissioner A. A. McClanahan
City Attorney William L. Colbert
City Manager Frank A. Faison
City Clerk H.N. Tamm, Jr.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman.
The Commission reviewed the Model Gateway Concept for Lake Mary Boulevard. The
City Engineer reported that the City Planner's recommendation was to refer said report to
the Planning and Zoning Commission for their recoK~endation to the City Commission.
The Commission authorized the Model Gate Concept for Lake Mary Boulevard be
referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their recommendations.
The City Manager submitted a review of proposals to replace the City Hall
telephone system as follows:
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
September 15, 1988
TO:
Mayor and City Commission
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: Telephone System Replacement Proposals
At Mayor and City Commission
proposals for telephone system
solicited, received and review
your consideration.
direction, requests for
replacement have been
by staff is presented for
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS. RFP's were sent to eight (8)
telephone vendors; of these, eight (8) vendors responded
with proposals, and are included for your review.
All vendors were provided with information requested by them
prior to submitting their proposals. Most visite~ City Hall
and all off-site locations.
STAFF REVIEW. Once received, the proposals werc analyzed
and found to contain various system configurations, options
and associated costs, resulting in further meetings with
each of the vendors for clarification and analysis.
During~. this review phase with each vendor, emphasis
placed upon identifying system replacement nseds oni~ and
associated costs. Working carefully with each vendor, e%ch
proposal was evaluated and amended resulting in changss
purchase price. AdditiQnal and perhaps needed equipmeDu and
· '- " ~' ' '! .
assoczated cosus were ~eparate~ out of the proposals
provide a purchase pric~ to include system replacement costs
only in order, to obtain ~objective' "apples to apples" cc3t
comparisons between the...mendors. Attachment ~1 provides
list of bidders, purchase price as originally submitted, the
amended purchase price and reason ~or the purchase price
change.
Based upon amendad purchase price, reflecting system
replacement only, Attachment $2 provides a more detailed
cost projection for system replacement, incorporating 1st,
5th, and lOth yaar associated costs includin~ ~s~.ntenance
and required Soutt~ern Bell telephone costs (TELCO) into the
analysis~ process. This cost analysis can be summarized in
the following lower c~st ranking by vendor:
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
419
September 19,
19 88
!
Purchase Price 1st Year Cost
5 Year Cost 10 Year Cost
!. Southern Bell Jarvis Jarvis Jarvis
2. United Toshiba United Toshiba Executone Executone
3. GTE GTE GTE/United Executone
Toshiba (PBX)
4. Jarvis Executone Southern Bell GTE
Differences in cost rankings between vendors are shown in the
"Notes" section in Attachment %2. Since industry standards tell
us that buying a telephone system is about a seven year decision,
the five year and ten year costs are the most revealing.
ADDITIONAL SYSTEM NEEDS. Several needs which have been identified
but not addressed in this cost analysis for system replacement are
listed below:
City Hall. Analysis of calls received through the
switchboard indicate that 75% of all calls received are
routed to the Building Inspection and Utility/Customer
Service Divisions. Customers would be better served if
able to call direct without "going through the
switchboard".
Fire Station and Shop Complexes· At present, if a call is
received at these locations, someone must go and find the
person being called.
RECOMMENDATIONS.
That the list of vendors be reduced from eight (8) to three
(3), based upon a lower total five-year cost projection.
These vendors are Jarvist Executone, and Southern Bell~ and
that staff then
Work with those three (3) vendors to provide proposed
"fixes", and associated costs for additional system needs,
and a revised cost analysis, reflecting 1st year purchase,
installation and Telco costs, plus a 5-year cost estimate.
The Commission requested the City Manager contact Alex Reece and report his
remarks to the Commission.
The City Engineer submitted a memo on the downtown drainage problem and the
alternatives to solving the problems, as follows:
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM:
Director of Engineering and Planning
SUBJECT: Correction of Downtown Storm Drainage Problems
DATE:
September 13, 1988
Mr. Faison:
We are nearing completion of modification~ t# the contours in
Rand Mall and installation of the additional storm drainage
catch basin on First Street. It appears that these minor
items have had some beneficial affect, however these changes
can not be expected to eliminate long standing drainage
problems in the downtown area. Major problems result from
run-off from an approximately 120 acre drainage area
extending southward to 22nd Street, being channeled through
one 48" di~n;ater pipe which crosses beneath First Street on
its way to Lake Monroe.
Working closely with our consultant, Conklin, Porter, &
Holmes, I have examined a number of alternatives for "long
term" correction. All of these alternatives involve
installation of new piping to handle the storm water. One
obvious solution could be the installation of an additioral
pipe parallel to the existing 48" pipe which crosses under
First Street and runs through Rand Mall, and beyond.
Installation of this pipe would be extremely disruptive and
there would be significant limitations on the maximum si.e
pipe that could be installed. .~he ~arallel pipe would also
create significant potential problems with the Department of
Environmental Regulation and St. Johns River Water Manage-
ment Dist~'ict in that a new point discharge at the sea wall
420
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
September 19, 19 88
would be created. Because of
estimate of this restricted
prepared.
these considerations, a cost
alternative has not been
Some time ago I mentioned the feasbility of diverting a
significant amount of the storm water from the south end of
the 120+ acre drainage basin into an under-utilized existing
large diameter culvert situated in the general vicinity of
Pine Avenue. As originally conceived, this diversion can not
be installed until after significant progress has been made
on the combined sewer separation. This limitation exists
because we can not divert stormwater at this point until
after the sanitary sewage had been removed from the lines
connected to the interceptor.
As result of recent flooding problems in Downtown I have exa-
mined the system more closely and believe a new alternative
for storm water diversion is feasible, independent of the
combined sewer separation/vacuum sewer project. This.
alternative involves the installation of a large diameter
stormwater interceptor line just "down stream" of the
existing leaping weirs which theoretically separate the
sanitary sewerage from the storm water. These leaping weirs
are generally installed along 2nd Street between Myrtle
Avenue and Cypress Avenue. Under this concept a new storm
drain interceptor line would be installed in the right-of-way
of 2nd Street tieing to the existing large diameter culvert
in the vicinity of Pine Avenue and extending westerly at
least to Park Avenue and possibly to Myrtle Avenue.
Conklin, Porter & Holmes have prepared a preliminary profile
of the proposed interceptor and have determined that it
appears feasible to construct, with only two or three utility
conflicts to be dealt with. They have also prepared cost
estimates for three different feasible alternatives. Each of
these estimates includes replacement of existing brick sur-
facing on 2nd Street or 6th Street as the case may be with
brick. Replacement of the brick wearing surface is extremely
expensive. I have asked that the potential saving in each
case by the use of asphalt instead of bricks, except at brick
street crossing intersections, be identified. A summary of
the attached cost estimates for the interceptor line is as
follows:
Alternative 1 - Myrtle Avenue to Pine Avenue via 2nd Street
BriCk Replacement Asphalt Surface
$!,080,160.50
$757,160.00
Alternative 2 - Park Avenue to Pine Avenue via. 2nd Street
Brick ReplacementAsphalt Surface
$894,205.50
$654,120.00
Alternative 3 - Park Avenue to Pine Avenue via. 6th Street
Brick Replacement Asphalt Surface
$736,460.00
$433,452.25
Alternative 2 is a lesser included subset of alternative l,
with the potential for extending the interceptor westward to
Myrtle Avenue at a later date, if found warranted. While
alternatix~e 3 is significantly less expensive than either
aluernative 1 or 2 it can not be executed for a period of
approximately two years. (It should be recognized that the
cost estimates presented are very preliminary and are subject
to fine tuning during final design of the project.) Although
DER permitting appears probable, that also can not be assured
until final design is ~omplete. It is recommended, therefore,
~at City Commission authorize staff to negotiate an
Engineering Services Contract for final design of a drainage
system to zesolve the longstanding Downtown Drainage Problem.
All factors considered, it is reccmmended that final design
be authorized for Alternative No. 2 install storm water
interceptor between Park Avenue and Pine Avenue via. 2nd
Street.
The action of the Con~ission was to use Alternative 3, wait till
of the Vacuum Sewer Contract and begin preparing the plans and specific%tions.
after award
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
September 19,
421
19 88
!
The City
as follows:
Manager submitted a memo regarding the Personnel Rules and Regulations,
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION
FROM: CITY MANAGER
RE: REVISED PERSONNEL RULES
OCTOBER 1, 1988
There were
changed the
Rules and
State Law
sections:
September 12, 1988
AND REGULATIONS, DATED
1988.
The action of the Commission was to authorize the revised Personnel Rules and
Regulations be placed on the agenda of September 26, 1988.
The City Manager recommended revisions to Section 22-16, City Code for Political
sign regulations. The City Commission requested the City Attorney draft an ordinance to be
placed on the agenda of September 26, 1988.
The City Engineer submitted recommendations for the reclaimed water program, as
as recommended by Conklin, Porter & Holmes and the Utility Director. The City Attorney
was requested to give an opinion on the elimination of the sewer charge "cap" for single
family residences for sewer customers where reclaimed water is available and to prepare an
ordinance for the agenda of September 26, 1988.
The Commission discussed the request from New Tribes Mission to park three
recreational vehicles between First Street and Seminole Boulevard and East of San Carlos
Avenue for the period of November l, 1988 to June 30, 1989.
The Commission authorized said request be placed on the agenda of September 26,
The Executive Director of the Sanford Housin~ Authority submitted a copy of an
application for a grant for a Neighborhood Patrol Program. The City Manager explained tkat
the Housing Authority was requestinc four Police Officers to be assigned to the SHA
Projects, from the Special Operations Section of the Patrol Division cf the Sanford Police
Dept. and will be supervised by the Sergeant assigned to the Neighborhood Patrol. This
proposed grant will provide~ for community liaison, crime prevention, public education and
immediate enforcement of criminal violations.
that were
errors,
redundancy, and
were undertaken in
more constant flow
a. 5.4 Overtime
b. 5.5 Compensatory Time
c. 5.6 Flex-Time
d. 6.8 Military Leave
e. 14.3 Testing
2. There were numerous minor changes
undertaken which address typographical
grammar, sentence structure,
clarification.
3. There were changes that
general format which provided a
of thought and arrangement.
Recommend approval.
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an explanation
as to type of changes and revisions accomplished in the
attached revised "Personnel Rules and Regulations."
1. revisions that were undertaken that
content of the existing "Personnel
Regulations" to comply with Federal and
which are contained in the following
422
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
September
The Commission has authorized this be placed on a worksession agenda when the
grant has been approved.
The Commission discussed the "Curfew Law" and "Loitering Law". The Commission
requested the City Attorney review the curfew and loitering laws, and make recommendations
to strengthen said laws.
Recommendation submitted from the Recreation Director and City Manager to keep the
fees at the Marina and dispense with the police officer the slow months. The City
Engineer outlined changes that could be made to the East side of the lot.
The Commission authorized to discontinue the
and that the parking area be changed.
The City Engineer recommended acceptance
use of police Officer
at this time
of a contract with Schweizer, Inc.,
Architect, for improvements to the Civic Center to provide a Senior Citizen area.
The Commission authorized said request be placed on the agenda for September 26,
1988.
The City Manager submitted a recommendation from the Scenic Improvement Board for
the City to install a fountain in Lake Carolla, ~t an estimated material cost of $15,000.
The Commission agreed that there should be no new projects begun until the
present projects are managed with the manpower the City now has. If the SIB could do this
with donations, the Commission would have no objections.
The City Engineer submitted revisions to regulations for tent permits.
The Commission authorized the City Attorney to draft an ordinance for revisions
for tent permit for the agenda of SePtember 26, 1988.
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned.
Attest: