Loading...
06/14/1996CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER June 14, 1996 Present: Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner J. B. Johnson Vice-Mayor/Commissioner Robert Clark Commissioner Ed Hooper Commissioner Karen Seel Commissioner Staff and Project Team Members Elizabeth M. Deptula City Manager Kathy S. Rice Deputy City Manager William C. Baker Asst. City Manager Bill Baird General Services Manager Jay Ravins Controller Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk Gwen Legters Board Reporter Mich Sauers Globe Facilities President Barry Strafacci Globe Facilities General Manager Mark Healey Boston Concessions Group District Manager Dean Rowe Rowe Architects Clark McKinnon Project Architect The special meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. in City Hall, for the purpose of discussing Ordinance 6061-96 and funding for the Harborview Center. First Reading Ordinance 6061-96 - Deleting Subsection (3) of Section 22.83 relating to special events to allow special events on holiday weekends on City beaches. The City Manager stated this ordinance will delete the provision that does not allow special events on Clearwater beach on holiday weekends. This will enable scheduling the grand opening of Pier 60 Park on Labor Day weekend, and enhance the City’s image as a tourist community. Jean Sherry, Tourism Development Director, responded to a concern deletion of the provision could open the beach to undesirable events. It was indicated a Special Events Committee will evaluate, approve and oversee all events. If problems occur, the City could adopt a new ordinance or policy to manage special events. Commissioner Clark moved to approve deleting Subsection (3) of Section 22.83 relating to special events to allow special events on holiday weekends on City beaches. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The City Attorney presented Ordinance 6061-96 for first reading and read it by title only. Commissioner Johnson moved to pass Ordinance 6061-96 on first reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: "Ayes": Johnson, Clark, Hooper, Seel and Garvey. "Nays": None. Harborview Center 1. Overview of Meeting Purpose and Expected Results Referring to the extensive packets of materials provided to the Commissioners and the press, Ms. Deptula reviewed the project to date. Reservations had been expressed regarding the necessity for additional funding, acquisition and reliability of the numbers, the construction management process and how the project reached this point. Staff was requested to provide a full accounting and accountability for the project. Ms. Deptula listed the team members available to answer questions, stating she has met with contractors and consultants, and walked the Center. She expected today’s overview of the history of the Maas Brothers property, now known as the Harborview Center, and documented paper trail to result in a clear understanding of the current status. She hoped a full discussion of ongoing operations will provide a clear and unambiguous understanding of the final project. While this is not an audit, she agreed an accounting is appropriate and felt it will clarify if value was received for the money spent. She commended staff for their tremendous effort in compiling the information on short notice. The information will be preserved in an archive file. She questioned Commission expectations of today’s meeting and whether they will be satisfied if the above conclusions are met. While the majority agreed, Commissioners Seel and Clark wished to reserve judgment until all the facts are on the table. 2. History of the Project Ms. Deptula felt the City can be proud of the Harborview Center as an example of refurbishing an old building to benefit the public. She cautioned against unrealistic expectations, as the building cannot be expected to break even in the traditional sense. The previous Commission had decided the building would not be charged for its construction and renovation, forgiving $13 to $15 million of debt that would otherwise burden the facility. In response to a question, Commissioner Seel indicated, while the figure she calculated last week was in error, the actual cost of the project is not known. Ms. Deptula expected the Commission to reach agreement on a final amount by the end of today’s meeting. Referring to the history, Ms. Deptula said the City Commission first decided to look for a conference/convention center site in March 1990. That discussion continues today among those who feel a convention center should be built on Clearwater beach. In June 1991, the City Commission and CRA considered purchasing the former Maas Brothers building for $1.9 million. In December 1991, some Commissioners expressed concerns regarding buying the property without specific development plans. In June 1992, a City Commission task force was formed to determine potential uses for the property. The primary recommendation of the 15-member task force was for the City to enter negotiations with the Florida Gulf Coast Art Center (FGCAC.) This proposal did not come to fruition when it failed to obtain necessary voter approval. Other considerations regarding closing Drew Street and Commission concern for the importance of public access, activities and water vista were discussed. Throughout 1992, transfers of property occurred between the CRA and City. Frequent discussions ensued regarding who should own the property. The City ultimately became the owner. In October 1992, Creative Contractors removed dangerous external precast panels for $34,000. Operational expenses such as power bills, roof work, and security system costs were accumulated in a special project, not a construction budget. In 1992, after the referendum for the art center had failed, the City Commission issued an RFP (Request for Proposal) to develop the site and entertain additional options. In May 1993, the City Commission, City Clerk, and City Attorney traveled to Atlanta, Georgia to inspect Dave and Buster’s, a popular entertainment center, as a possible use for the Center’s third floor. The Commission decided the first floor would remain a community activity room. CIP funds were transferred from the City Hall Annex community room to this project. In March 1994, a proposal was made for SteinMart to move into the building’s mid level. Ms. Deptula reported people from around the country have requested information regarding this use as a way to defray the cost of operating a conference center. Mixed uses in the building resulted in extraordinary expenses, such as meeting fire rating regulations. The Commission had expressed concern about going forward without a plan for the rest of the building. The City entered into an agreement with Dean Rowe to assist the City in renovation because of time constraints imposed by SteinMart requesting prompt completion of renovations. In August 1994, the City Commission discussed a first floor community room, allowing trade shows to take precedence. Commission discussion continued for several meetings regarding the use and purpose for the first floor. Today the understanding is, while Parks and Recreation has events penciled in, these events may be moved if Mr. Strafacci is able to schedule revenue producing events. In November 1994, as SteinMart Phase 1 was being completed, staff advised the Commission savings could be generated by proceeding with portions of Phase 2 immediately. The Commission concurred and directed staff to proceed with Phase 1a immediately. Discussions with Pickles Plus began in January 1995. The small sandwich shop/deli facility was to be located on the first floor. Final approval did not occur until August 1995. The Commission, staff, and the principles of Pickles changed the concepts and specifics of the lease a number of times. In July 1995, major discussions ensued regarding the cost of a proposed third floor catering kitchen. A final verbal offer regarding contract terms for a third floor restaurant was made on July 20, 1995, and the City Commission approved the concept. Two weeks later, the City Commission rescinded their approval and changed the terms of the contract. Contract terms were never agreed in writing. As Globe Facilities, the contract manager of Harborview Center, felt more revenue could be generated by a rental banquet facility under their control, supported by a catering contractor, staff requested the Commission change their direction from a restaurant to a banquet room. In October 1995, the Commission discussed purchasing equipment the restaurant firm had purchased in anticipation of the July 1995 contract which was not consummated. The City purchased much of that equipment and those expenditures are reflected in the budget detail. In January 1996, the Commission consensus was to contract with one caterer. Information regarding the top contender was obtained and the City is ready to contract with a caterer. While Ms. Deptula acknowledged that criticism regarding lack of planning may be justified, she noted the minutes demonstrate the history of staff responses to changing Commission direction. In response to a question regarding why a pro forma of potential expenses and revenues was not prepared, it was indicated staff lacked the expertise to prepare a pro forma. Globe Facilities was hired while the City was still grappling with the issue of what would be in the Center. She noted Commissioner Fitzgerald and Mayor Garvey were outspoken regarding the need to stop and plan a total picture, but the majority of the Commission desired to move in the direction that was taken. Ms. Deptula did not feel it was staff’s prerogative to stop the City Commission from going forward. The Mayor concurred with this analysis. 3. Financial Information: Reconciliation of budget, expenditures, and other costs associated with the project Ms. Deptula distributed a report titled, “Harborview Center Costs -- What is the Real Number?” The report listed the history of approved costs, expenditures and a recommended budget increase to complete the construction project. Extensive backup, in the form of budget analyses, and history of amendments for the various projects was provided and reviewed. All funding resources were identified, summarized and documented. Highlights of the report are as follows: Purchase price and closing costs, $1,926,710; approved construction project budget, $10,793,610; and approved furniture, fixtures and equipment (FFE) budget, $496,406, for a subtotal of $13,216,726. Ms. Deptula noted Mr. Ravins included in the analysis other operational costs, not related to construction costs. Emergency removal of deteriorating exterior panels from the vacant Maas Brothers building was required and included in the total of building operations costs. While it has not been City policy to charge the costs of normal staff operations to any specific project, a full accounting of actual costs would require such a notation, so each department was requested to provide a detailed accounting of their expenditures. SteinMart’s costs for interior renovations had not been included previously. Ms. Deptula asked the Commission which, if any, of the following they wished to include in the totals: Maas Brothers emergency repairs and building operations of $136,565; City departmental labor and materials expenditures of $142,408; and SteinMart expenses of $356,370, for a subtotal of $13,495,699. The currently recommended budget increase of $730,900 for completion of the construction project, would bring the subtotal to $14,582,972. In response to questions, the City Manager said the $100,000 loaned to Pickles Plus is included in the above numbers. As a 50 percent rent credit will be extended for renovation funds expended by SteinMart, it was felt half these costs should be reflected in the accounting. Ms. Deptula stressed the above accounting represents every penny expended on the subject property. Discussion ensued regarding whether the Commission wants to use total construction costs, or the total expenditure as the final figure. While some did not feel the Harborview Center project should be charged for departmental support not charged to other City projects, others felt an accounting of all expenses is necessary to achieve a total picture. In response to a question, Ms. Deptula said an enterprise fund is one that has a reasonable expectation to pay for itself. She noted the decision whether or not to forgive operational and maintenance debts or to require the Harborview Center to pay for itself are policy decisions to be made by the Commission. Discussion ensued regarding in-kind costs and other related costs of ownership. One Commissioner felt the costs to secure and prevent further deterioration of the vacant building should not be charged to the Harborview Center. Ms. Deptula said an RFP went out to see if someone would take over the building before its renovation, and several uses were considered, but very little revenue was generated during that time. A question was raised whether the cost of ownership in the private sector would include building operations and maintenance. Ms. Deptula affirmed it would. To simplify future discussions, she suggested using the construction project cost figure of $13,216,726, and total project cost of $14,582,972, providing a clear understanding which figure is being addressed in each case. Related costs were discussed regarding electrical work, landscaping, parking lot paving, convention center studies, and lost revenue from pulling the parking meters. It was indicated no estimates are included for Budget, Central Permitting, or City Management time. Ms. Deptula pointed out none of the Commissioners’ time was factored, either. While she offered to estimate and include these costs, she did not feel it was appropriate. Discussion ensued regarding what happened to the money allocated for the catering kitchen. The cost accounting does not show the money was spent, so $490,000 should be available for the catering kitchen. Ms. Deptula said, while the original plan called for two kitchens, this was changed to one large kitchen and a banquet room now called the Clearwater Room. The additional funds are needed to finish the banquet room, and purchase kitchen and catering equipment. In summary, Ms. Deptula said subtotals #1 and #2 as depicted on Exhibit A to these minutes are givens; subtotal #3 is to include half of SteinMart’s costs and an estimate of additional staff time. Discussion ensued regarding how to report these costs. Ms. Deptula said the cost of preparing a business plan and a formal budget cannot be recouped by a rate increase as might occur with other enterprise funds, such as the Marina. She recommended memo entries to track expenditures rather than budget amendments. It was indicated half the administrative, or staff costs, are included in the operational budgets of enterprise funds. Discussion ensued regarding construction versus operation costs. Ms. Deptula reiterated the project cost in “human toll” is difficult to determine and recommended the Commission focus on what number to use. Commissioner Clark moved to use subtotal #3, $13,495,699, with the addition of $178,000, in round numbers, to reflect the payback to SteinMart through their lease, as the figure of the building’s cost thus far. The motion was duly seconded. In response to a question, Ms. Deptula said the rent credit reduces City revenue, and may be considered a factor in the operation costs. Using these numbers, the rounded figure would be $13,673,700. Commissioner Seel did not support the motion because she felt labor should be included as the true cost of the project. Mayor Garvey did not feel operating expenses should be included as part of the construction cost. Upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Johnson, Clark and Hooper voted “Aye”; Commissioner Seel and Mayor Garvey voted “Nay.” Motion carried. Brief discussion ensued regarding a funding summaries attachment. Ms. Deptula wanted the Commissioners to be clear about the Penny for Pinellas summary showing interest charges on loans. It was indicated, when a Penny for Pinellas project borrows money from another fund, it repays the fund from which it was borrowed. Because the City gets the money over a ten year period, it looks as if the project costs more. Ms. Deptula noted the first page of the funding summary should be corrected to read $1,926,710 for the First Quarter 92/93 Infrastructure Tax. In response to a question, she said the $100,000 under Harborview Center relates to the loan to Pickles Plus to be repaid over two fiveyear periods. The meeting recessed from 10:32 to 10:45 a.m. The City Manager said she was reminded of a $25,000 no-interest bank loan approved by the CRA to Pickles Plus. The interest of $5,478.27 is to be prepaid to the bank by the CRA through a grant program no longer being practiced by the City. Ms. Rice will research and provide more information later. Mr. Ravins distributed “Harborview Convention Center Project Related Expenditures as of 6/12/96.” He explained, during the last two days, he fine tuned the line numbers in the Phase II construction costs to reflect an approximate $24,000 increase in the available balance. While the total balance did not change, the architectural fees allocated for the kitchen were separated from those allocated for the Clearwater Room, to more accurately reflect what has been spent. Discussion ensued regarding how draw requests are submitted and approved, purchase orders prepared and payment documented. A question was raised if funds in excess of $400,000 are actually available to complete the kitchen. Ms. Deptula read into the record a recap of the funding resources detail approved for the Harborview Center as follows: General Fund, $1,435,120; Infrastructure and Penny for Pinellas, $8,499.006; Special Development Fund, $3,032,600; CRA, $150,000; and Harborview Center Fund, $100,000, for a total of $13,216,726. A question was raised why Mr. Ravins’ summary does not detail total expenditures in Phase II between November 17, 1994 and September 7, 1995. Mr. Ravins responded he reported totals by phase because Rowe Architects was unable to provide line item allocation of expenditures in the time available to prepare this report. 4. Construction Project Issues: Accountability, construction management process (CCD’s), architect contract Ms. Deptula said Mr. Baird has spent an extensive amount of time reviewing construction details during a walkthrough of the building with Mr. Strafacci. Having just received the preliminary construction punch list, he has not had an opportunity to review and amend the list based on his walkthrough. She hoped the revised punch list will be available for Commission review next week. The punch list was compiled by the architect and consulting engineers. Clark McKinnon, Project Architect, detailed the preparation process of the construction project punch list. He responded to questions, stating only finance and building inspection staff accompanied him during the punch list inspection. Mr. Baird will coordinate getting interested parties together for inspection and preparation of documentation. Concern was expressed a final number cannot be obtained today because the punch list is incomplete. Mr. Rowe indicated very little remains to be accomplished, and what there is has been counted in the report before the Commission. The remaining items will not require significant expenditures. A description of the construction management process followed. Mr. Rowe explained the architect teams with the contractor, a fee is negotiated up front, and general requirements, such as overhead, are agreed upon. He said the terms “general requirements” and “conditions” are used interchangeably. A cost-plus fee basis is used to develop a budget. He explained the bid process, stating all work is done under a construction change directive (CCD.) Contracts are adjusted for down time, and items are rebid when they come in over what was budgeted for a particular section. He described the complexity of the construction documents and drawings, stating he is waiting to be paid for the new drawings prepared as a result of the recent change in plans regarding the banquet hall and catering kitchen. In response to a question, he said Mr. Baker authorized him to do the work that would not be disruptive once the center opened. A question was raised whether it is common for municipalities to approach projects without spending limits. Mr. Rowe responded it is not common but it has been done. A maximum price is usually guaranteed when the approach is defined. He explained the problems he encountered as the numbers for the kitchen and restaurant started coming in. While the kitchen was supposed to be designed to feed 800 to 1,400, an 8,300 square foot dining area would only seat 266 people, according to code. Current standards show the high end cost of a restaurant is $135 per square foot, so the cost of a 8,300 square foot restaurant would be well over $1 million before any furniture, fixtures or kitchen equipment were added. Assistant City Manager Bill Baker reported on the construction management process and CCD’s (construction change directives.) He explained how the contract for the Harborview Center was tied to the Municipal Services Complex contract because of the urgency to move out of the City Hall Annex within one year. As time estimates for design and construction would span two years, staff was told to use the design/build scenario to construct the complex. The City Commission was aware of this decision. Then City Manager Mike Wright advocated a procedure for overall architectural management, to include an architectural manager, architect, contractor, and City interface. He said the City saw a way to save money by having a contractor and a single architect to provide construction management. The MSB project started with a three-person team on a fast track basis, with Mr. Rowe providing all the services. During space needs studies in February 1994, the possibility arose to renovate the Maas Brothers building, bring it to ADA standards and make it available to SteinMart by mid-May of 1994. To accomplish this, an architect was needed to start immediately and the City Commission authorized Mr. Rowe to take it on. The City amended his contract to include the Harborview Center renovations. Mr. Baker indicated, as SteinMart neared completion, the City Commission decided to finish the Harborview Center, so Phases IA and II were authorized. He listed the piecemeal construction and design elements that went forward at the City Commission’s direction. When discussions turned to first and third floor restaurants, $300,000 was reserved to apply toward the cost of a restaurant, without knowing what actual costs would be. After the restaurant contract was not executed successfully, the decision was made to create a banquet room and use the reserved money toward a catering kitchen. The requested funds are based on market evaluation of costs to create a banquet/kitchen facility and bring the Harborview Center project to completion. Mr. Baker said Mr. Rowe’s fee for amending the plans is moderate, and was approved at a City Commission meeting. In response to a request from the City Manager, Mr. Baker described the process the City used in reviewing the documents presented. As the City Commission approved funds, Mr. Baker held weekly meetings with the architect, and contractor, to identify the money and what to do with it. As the architect drew up plans, he authorized the contractor to bid. When bids were within budget, instigating work orders were processed. If bids went beyond budget and sufficient adjustments could not be made to get the work done, staff brought the matter to the City Commission. He referred to Pickles Plus Too shell work as an example. He said staff does not bring a funding request to the City Commission unless they are sure it is needed. In every step of the budget, items were based on professional calculations or bids. In response to questions, Mr. Rowe said the Donnell firm was brought in because of their expertise in costing and managing large convention centers. Mr. Rowe felt it would have been better had Globe been on board earlier. Once Globe came in, it was determined definite changes were needed. Mr. Rowe related how he was able, at the request of the prior City Commission, to come up with a way to remove the columns and install exposed trusses for $175,000 without disturbing SteinMart or the roof. In response to a question regarding the cost for Pickles Plus Too, Mr. Rowe indicated $100,000 was estimated for what was thought was going to be a small pub/delicatessen. Instead, this is going to be a small restaurant, which has increased the cost. Questions were raised regarding the life span of the building as modified and what percentage of the wiring and plumbing has been replaced. Mr. McKinnon said the building was stripped down to the basic structure. Asbestos was removed, and the roof and skin replaced. The original building consisted of the lower level with a parking deck and the south half of the building. In 1964, an additional parking deck was added. Two floors were added later. No insulation was found in the exterior walls, so IFIS was used on the exterior to improve aesthetics and insulation. Existing storm drainage was in good shape, but the Fire Marshal required two stand pipe sprinkler systems to be converted to one system. The freight elevator was rehabilitated; an escalator and a new passenger elevator were installed. Electrical and mechanical systems are totally new, but much of the existing plumbing was retained, especially below grade. New bathrooms were placed on the south wall. He estimated the life of the building has been extended 20 to 30 years. He stated there have been some surprises. Blockage in existing plumbing has also occurred. He said the facility is as like a new building as it can be. Questions were raised regarding whether feasibility studies were done. Mr. Rowe said feasibility was studied with regard to the initial remodeling, but no study was conducted for Phase II. Mr. Rowe said budget analyses were done as they went. Completion of one unfinished section of the upper roof, visible while riding down the escalator, is being held pending the decision on the banquet facilities. The roof will be penetrated by mechanical systems if the banquet hall and kitchen go forward. Discussion ensued regarding Mr. Rowe’s contract. It was indicated he is asking $21,000 in fees for the new construction, above what was budgeted. Ms. Deptula expressed concern staff has been unable to produce a copy of the signed contract, but had no doubt the City Commission approved the budget amendments and fees. Mr. McKinnon responded to questions, stating he was not aware of any warranties being waived because the building is not new, or of additional maintenance contracts being required. One letter of specific concern related to exempting tile work from warranty because of the unleveled floors. Mr. McKinnon indicated it is standard practice for a tile contractor to put in writing that he is not responsible for the effect of variations in substrate flooring on his tile project. He reported no abnormal tile loosening has occurred and extra materials are available in storage if any tile replacement is needed. Matt Renconn responded to questions regarding the computer operated, zoned air conditioning system. He said each floor has a separate air handler and it is possible to cool one ballroom at a time. 5. Harborview Center Ongoing Operations: SteinMart lease, Harborview Center operations, and restaurant versus banquet room It was indicated SteinMart has a separate electric meter and pays its electrical cost. Discussion ensued regarding the lease terms. Ms. Deptula will locate and copy the memo outlining the terms. Ms. Deptula introduced Barry Strafacci, onsite manager of Harborview Center operations. She said he is subject to the same budget process as City departments. Mr. Strafacci listed the things he has done since he moved in, with regard to catering events and scheduling use of the Clearwater Room. In response to a question, he had to stop showing the Clearwater Room to people wanting to book Christmas parties because all available space is full for the month of December. He did not stop showing the room because his agenda item was postponed. Discussion ensued regarding the rationale of approving a catering contract before a kitchen is built. Ms. Deptula indicated it was hoped to bring the caterer on board to help design the catering kitchen as part of project closure. A question was raised why the City is paying outside consultants to decide on equipment. Mr. Rowe reviewed the background of McFarland and Associates’ involvement, stating they were retained first to evaluate equipment being considered for purchase. Discussion ensued regarding net food and beverage profit, the percentage paid to the caterer, and the City’s profit. Terms of Clearwater Room rental were discussed regarding return on the food and beverage service, overhead coverage and Globe personnel salaries. Mr. Strafacci indicated he was comfortable with the numbers as reported. He was anxious to receive approval to proceed with marketing his “product.” Concern was expressed funds were approved in 1995 and a catering kitchen scheduled to open in January 1996, but nothing has been done. Mr. Rowe said they were assigned the task of designing the kitchen last Fall and McFarland had prepared preliminary designs. The did not proceed at full speed because of rumors indicating the kitchen project could be dropped. He reiterated the $300,000 budgeted was not sufficient to complete the project. It was indicated the $750,000 being requested is needed, in addition to the unspent funds, to finish the banquet room and catering kitchen, and bring the project to closure. In response to questions, Mr. Sauers and Ms. Deptula said the City is obligated to provide a full banquet kitchen and all equipment. The kitchen would need the capability of preparing and cooking all foods except specialty items like pastries. Discussion continued regarding the type of cost/benefit analysis done when plans changed to a banquet hall and kitchen, the factors considered when deciding the type of restaurant wanted, whether one or more caterers was more desirable, and the feasibility of a mobile kitchen like the one used by Boston Concessions. Selection, contract terms, and desirability of a local catering firm were considered. The City Commission had expressed a desire for selection of a local firm because it was hoped to capture as much local business as possible. Based on the desire for a local firm and the perceived need for a nationally established catering contractor, the recommendation for a partnership between Boston Concessions and Delectables was brought to the Commission. It was indicated Delectables was already in business and had an existing clientele from catering functions before the Kapok closed its largest banquet space. That business is coming to the Harborview Center now. Discussion ensued regarding costs for catering a function. It was reported one customer said the Harborview Center charges $25.00 a plate plus room costs, while Delectables quoted a cost of $12.00 a plate, for the same menu. It was not known what other factors may have been involved, but Mr. Sauers offered to follow up with the customer in question. Mr. Sauers stated the issue of rents, percentages and exclusive catering were debated at length and he gave evidence regarding the available options to the City Commission last Fall. He received direction to go with the one caterer concept. When the contract with Boston Concessions expires, the City may want to reopen the bid process. Commissioner Seel requested a revised operating budget for the Harborview Center, stating the figures are “way off.” Mr. Strafacci did not agree, stating the reports shows the Center within $18,000 of the deficit prediction. He will meet with Budget Director Tina Wilson today to work on next year’s budget and make any necessary adjustments needed to ensure the accuracy of this year’s budget. One issue he noted is they have not received budgeted income from Pickles Plus. Discussion ensued regarding a completion date for Pickles Plus. Mr. McKinnon did not know the exact date, stating they are waiting for submission of architectural plans for the deli. A question was raised whether the City can go back out to bid if Pickles Plus does not come through. Ms. Akin will review their contract. She indicated their time frame is based on completion of construction and she was not sure the City was ready. Mr. Baker said the lease stipulates they must open within three months of receiving the Certificate of Occupancy and they get the first three months rent free. No drawings submission date was established. Discussion continued regarding the $25,000 interest-free bank loan to Pickles Plus mentioned in earlier discussion today. Ms. Rice reported the CRA guaranteed lump sum prepayment of the interest on the five year loan. Pickles Plus received the funds in December 1995 and has begun to pay on the loan. They are using the funds for leasehold improvements, such as miscellaneous electrical work, tables for the patio and other furniture and equipment. Commissioner Clark did not expect to see this type of a deal in the future. Ms. Rice agreed, stating the lump sum payment was a practice of the former CRA that is no longer being followed. Ms. Rice responded to an earlier question regarding definition of a catering kitchen. She said two sections in the caterer’s contract refer to a production kitchen, which is not defined in the contract, but is defined in the RFP. 6. Recommendations for Project Closure: Recommended budget amendment Referring to the report titled, “Recommendations to Bring Harborview Center Project to Completion”, Commissioner Johnson spoke at length. He pointed out the Commission could not have voted against the items brought forward last year because that would have stopped progress. He hoped no Commission ever engages in this type of project in the future. He expressed concerns the additional funding may not be strictly necessary and he did not want to burden the project with another million dollars in debt. He felt the items listed below the $498,400 subtotal were wants, rather than needs and could be delayed. Ms. Deptula stated $498,400 would take care of the basics. She reviewed the handout, “Commentary - Funding for Catering Kitchen” providing a breakdown of the approved budget, less costs for work already completed and expenditures. A question was raised regarding $82,400 additional funding requested for the cost of completing the Pickles Plus space. Ms. Deptula said the actual bids greatly exceeded the $80,600 originally approved. Mr. Baker reviewed how the process evolved and why Pickles Plus was not approached to repay the additional amount. It was indicated lengthy debates had occurred regarding City versus vendor responsibilities. Discussion ensued regarding $55,000 budgeted for the proposed marquee sign. Mr. Strafacci said this was an estimate by one firm, and the figure may be reduced when the item is bid. While some Commissioners did not agree with advertisers subsidizing the marquee, others urged staff to investigate who might be interested in underwriting the cost. The meeting was opened for public comment. Jeffrey Storey expressed concern the facility had been touted as one that could be used by the entire citizenry of Clearwater and urged further consideration of a public restaurant. Ms. Deptula cited parking problems, site constraints and potential legal reasons why this is not feasible. In addition to the need for separate access to the building, such a proposal would push completion of the kitchen and banquet room back even further, delaying the revenues needed to go forward. Stacy Benton spoke at length on behalf of Scheller and Benton, the restaurateurs who proposed Clearwater on the Bluff as the third floor restaurant. She talked about why negotiations failed, citing many instances where her experience and her architects’ research do not agree with what the City’s architects report. She expressed concern they had purchased a large amount of used restaurant equipment with the understanding they had a contract with the City. While Ms. Rice had indicated the City could not take their proposal to the City Commission, Ms. Benton said she was never notified their deal was no longer on the table. Ernst Scheller reviewed the ups and downs of negotiations with Ms. Rice, Mr. Rowe and Mr. Baker. He said some of their kitchen equipment was bought by the City and is in use in the Harborview Center. He did not agree with Mr. Rowe’s reports regarding what is needed to complete the kitchen and banquet facility and felt he still has a deal with the City. Mr. Raymond, architect for Scheller and Benton, related his understanding of the issues, stating the Fire Marshal does not require a separate exit unless they have 600 seats. He indicated the existing restrooms are adequate for the restaurant and fall within the distance travel requirements. He estimated it would cost $450,000 to build and furnish a 4,500 square foot restaurant, based on his calculation of $95.00 per square foot. He estimated additional equipment and air handler needs, urging the City Commission to consider the restaurant concept. Mr. Raymond responded to questions how he proposes to access and air condition the restaurant when no activities are in the center. Mr. Rowe responded with his understanding of the square footage and restroom calculations. Ms. Rice was asked to respond to the allegations of Ms. Benton and Mr. Scheller. She said she remembered the conversations differently. After lengthy discussions, she was not able to reach an agreement regarding what each party would do. She had stated the City could not ask the City Commission for money to provide the things they were asking. Because Benton and Scheller were upset they were left holding the used equipment, she offered to purchase from them the equipment the City could use and allowed them to store the remainder in the Annex. She was sorry they remembered the conversations differently, but stressed she provided several pieces of correspondence and verbal direction where the City was going with the facility. In response to a claim the City was using their equipment, Ms. Rice said they were allowed to store their excess equipment at the Annex until they could sell it. Ms. Benton complained a deal to sell the remaining equipment fell through because pieces were missing, or not accessible when she attempted to retrieve them. Ms. Rice responded she informed them in writing the equipment had been moved, and the location. Kate Kilbride complained of the difficulties she experienced for several weeks trying to book the Clearwater Room and obtain information regarding rates and availability. She objected vehemently to spending $14 million of taxpayers’ money on something that will never see a return. Lucius Pitts stated it is obvious to everyone the City is going to have to find the money to complete this project. He indicated, if money is found, it can be found for other projects as well. The meeting recessed from 1:52 to 2:08 p.m. Commission and staff discussion returned to the subject of project closure. General discussion ensued regarding the $5,000 paid for evaluation of the used equipment, the original $300,000 allocation being included in the available $450,000, and whether a mobile kitchen is needed. Mr. Strafacci explained, in response to questions, it is not a mobile kitchen, but equipment that includes rolling stock such as warmers on wheels to provide service for buffets and concessions. He said the list was pared significantly before it was submitted. In response to questions regarding rehabilitation of an upper level men’s restroom, Mr. Rowe said trying to save an old men’s room remaining from the Maas Brother’s building was a mistake. These funds will enable cleaning up the restroom and bringing it to code. Mr. McKinnon responded to a question regarding fire stair hardware. While it is operable, some of the old hardware looks bad and they want to replace it before it fails. Mr. Rowe responded to questions regarding proposed Clearwater Room upgrades to chandeliers, trim and ceiling treatment. Commissioner Seel was not comfortable agreeing to closure before the punch list is completed. Discussion ensued regarding repairs needed to complete the punch list. Mr. Baird will meet with the team at the beginning of next week to determine the repairs still needed. Ed Parker, the construction contractor, said minor allowances adequate to take care of the remaining costs have been factored in the totals and most are already paid. He was willing to stand behind that amount. He stressed no additional costs would be incurred. Commissioner Seel moved to wait until a final review is completed before deciding on the final figure. She felt one additional walkthrough would be satisfactory and expanded on the definition of a punch list. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve $498,400 for completion of the building, leaving the lower portion of the list to be approved at a later date. There was no second. The motion to postpone completion pending a final walkthrough was duly seconded. Commissioner Clark indicated he was not concerned about the punch list, but supported the motion because he did not want any more surprises regarding completion of the project. Upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Seel, Clark and Hooper voted “Aye”; Commissioner Johnson and Mayor Garvey voted “Nay.” Motion carried. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 2:25 p.m.