cra-1 14-0409 sistrunk boulevard funding for …retrospect, it was not enough to create the type of...

Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Meeting Minutes - APPROVED May 6, 2014

COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING

City of Fort Lauderdale

City Hall, 100 N. Andrews Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

www.fortlauderdale.gov

Meeting Minutes - APPROVED Tuesday, May 6, 2013 3:00 PM City Commission Conference Room Chairman Seiler called the meeting to order at approximately 3:02 p.m. Roll was called and a quorum was present. Present: Chairman John P. “Jack” Seiler

Vice-Chair Romney Rogers Member Bruce G. Roberts

Member Dean J. Trantalis Member Bobby B. DuBose

Also Present: Lee R. Feldman, Executive Director John Herbst, City Auditor

Jonda K. Joseph, Secretary Cynthia A. Everett, General Counsel

Alfred Battle, Economic and Community Reinvestment Manager (Northwest)

No public comments were submitted by email for this meeting.

CRA-1 14-0409 SISTRUNK BOULEVARD - FUNDING FOR LIGHTING UPGRADE - $358,117 - Florida East Coast Railway to NW 24 Avenue

Economic and Community Reinvestment Manager (Northwest) Al Battle reviewed Commission Agenda Memorandum 14-0409 and added that while the lighting was installed pursuant to specifications, there was a recognized desire for a higher level of lighting. The $358,000 price covers bulbs and part of the fixture housing. Chairman Seiler asked who made the initial recommendation. Battle said the lighting illumination levels were tested after installation by the engineer hired for construction management and they met City specifications. The Executive Director advised that the design met the minimum standard for roadway lighting but in retrospect, it was not enough to create the type of atmosphere desired. Battle confirmed for Member Trantalis that the additional illumination will act as a crime retardant. Vice Chair Rogers was concerned that it equates to about $1,700 per light fixture. The Executive Director indicated



that the price includes installation. Battle explained that the purchase is sole source from the original manufacturer. Member DuBose noted his frustration with how long this has been unresolved in terms of all the efforts made to find a solution. Everything met the requirements, but when implemented, the lighting level dropped because of the housing design. This is a unique specialty design. Chairman Seiler was concerned that it is sole source and about the cost. He requested the backup on it. Member DuBose explained that this situation is because of the specialty design. He emphasized that any desired additional information should be provided today because this has been unresolved for some time in the face of the City’s desire to promote revitalization, safety and so forth. Chairman Seiler wanted to know if there are any other manufacturers or installers. Member DuBose noted that this is not a new issue. These questions have been asked repeatedly. If answers are not readily available today, that is a problem. The Executive Director explained there is a unique pole and unique housing unit. The City is forced to use the manufacturer’s representative for the housing unit. The bulb itself is probably a market item. For economies of scale, the goal is one supplier of the bulb, housing unit and installation. Installation would be done by the City’s current contractor. It involves rewiring each fixture. It will require traffic maintenance because the installer will be in the roadway. Staff was unable to answer Member Roberts’ question of the original installation cost. Member Trantalis felt that $186 per installation is not significant when the equipment is factored-in. The real concern is the $1,500 for the bulb and housing. Further discussion ensued about the cost and that it is sole source. Member DuBose pointed out that, according to the Executive Director, this is the only available option. Chairman Seiler explained that he first heard of this replacement last week. Member DuBose was frustrated it took that long to bring this to Chairman Seiler’s attention. This is crucial to the overall plan for the Sistrunk corridor. In response to Chairman Seiler, Battle said the original cost was to replace the entire fixture which would not be comparable. Typically the life expectancy of a capital investment is 20 years or so but could vary with a light bulb because they may periodically be replaced as a part of normal maintenance. Chairman Seiler said there is a possibility the City could sue the engineer if the City was not informed that the lighting level could not be adjusted by simply changing the bulb. Battle pointed out the current bulbs are not LED. The cost may be more expensive because it will be a totally different fixture. The Executive Director explained that there is a wattage rating for every housing. In order to increase the lighting level, it is not possible to put a higher wattage bulb in a low-wattage fixture. Member Trantalis pointed out that Chairman Seiler is questioning why the City is confined to such a limited use. The Executive Director explained that the light pole was fabricated and not off the shelf. Member Trantalis noted that in the future, off-the-shelf products should be used. The Executive Director commented that staff presents four types of fixtures for Neighborhood Capital Improvement Program (NCIP) projects in an effort to standardize. Vice-Chair Rogers agreed with Member DuBose that more backup information is needed. Member Trantalis said he relies on Battle’s advice that this is the only option. Chairman Seiler wanted to consult other electrical companies about the price. The Executive Director said staff has done its due diligence. The installation unit price was part of the cooperative agreement under which all street light repairs are conducted. The City Auditor added that the cooperative agreement is based on large-scale repetitive work and it is competitively bid. The installation pricing is probably the most reasonable part. Member Roberts felt the issue has to do with the actual hardware. Chairman Seiler brought attention to the predicament if the manufacturer goes out of business.



Member DuBose indicated that there were also problems with the existing lights and the grid. In response to Chairman Seiler, the Executive Director said that there are multiple warranties. The issue with wiring was not related to the fixture. Battle responded to Vice-Chair Rogers’ question that the City did not get a price for the same bulb style with increased wattage. Vice Chair Rogers felt more homework needs to be done. He wanted to have more information. Chairman Seiler suggested that perhaps the wattage could simply be increased without overhauling the entire fixture. Member DuBose indicated when increased wattage was tested, it did not make much difference. At the minimum, the lighting level before the project should be restored. Chairman Seiler felt this is a failure from an engineering standpoint that the City was not informed. Member DuBose agreed. The City Auditor drew attention to email discussion of similar questions he posed last week to Battle which is attached to the commission agenda memorandum. The dialogue has been ongoing for quite a while. A number of tests were performed establishing that the lighting level met all City criteria. There is no cause of action against the engineer. Chairman Seiler pointed out that the email is dated November 27, 2012, calling attention to the problem then. The estimate then was $150,000. Member Trantalis noted that the comparison involved different fixtures and different bulbs. Battle confirmed for Vice-Chair Rogers that no poles are being added. Member Roberts was comfortable with the labor cost. Chairman Seiler commented that the email states the City does not have an ordinance for street lighting. He wished to know who signed off on minimum illumination of 0.35. He wanted to know the foot candle level before the enhancement project. The Executive Director agreed to try to provide the pricing negotiation background for the evening meeting. Member Trantalis did not want to delay the project, citing safety reasons. He believed it is overpriced but this is what happens when there is unique product design. Chairman Seiler reviewed the email discussion attached to the commission agenda memorandum. He was concerned that Member DuBose brought up concerns about the lighting level in November 2012 just after the installation. Vice-Chair Rogers understood from the email discussion that the illumination was three times higher than what was specified yet it is still not adequate. The Executive Director explained that until about two years ago, the City was using specifications from the 1980s. Chairman Seiler explained that he would expect staff to research and determine that the lighting would be inadequate prior to installing it. It appears that Sistrunk is now less illuminated than it was prior to this improvement project. The Executive Director explained that everyone who was involved with the project in terms of specifications no longer works for the City. Phillips is the manufacturer. Battle confirmed for Chairman Seiler that there is only one distributor in this area. The Executive Director explained there are two components. The bulb is less critical; the bigger issue is the housing unit. The new bulb cannot be used in the existing housing. Chairman Seiler asked the Executive Director to pursue a written confirmation that a competitive bid is not possible and there are no other options. Motion made by Member Trantalis and seconded by Member DuBose to approve the item in an amount not to exceed $358,117. AYES: Member Trantalis, Member DuBose, Vice-Chair Rogers, Member Roberts and Chairman Seiler. NAYS: None. Chairman Seiler opened the floor for public comment. Charles King, 105 North Victoria Park Road, said this is no surprise. People think the light fixtures look ridiculous. The Commission approved unique, one-of-a-kind fixtures that are out of keeping with the remainder of the city. The purpose of the CRA is to fight blight and raise



property values together with integrating this area into the rest of the city. This is a huge waste of money. There was supposed to be an effort to decrease crime in the area. This was a step backward. He went on to refer to comments made by Mayor Seiler in the news media regarding CRAs and the Inspector General. Chairman Seiler indicated he has not made any such statement. Member DuBose pointed out that this was done through a neighborhood charrette prior to this board being seated. It is something that occurs in other neighborhoods as well. L.F. Rosenthal, 1237 NW 3 Avenue, said Berlin has a famous park where various lights are featured. Innovative, historic district lighting is difficult. Phillips is a huge company and has a complicated distributor situation. If the City does anything innovative, it will take a lot of time. He thought there should be patience and understanding that staff is doing the best they can. There was no one else wishing to speak. CRA-2 14-0514 RESOLUTION - GRANT ACCEPTANCE AND INTERLOCAL

AGREEMENT - NE 13th STREET COMPLETE STREET PROJECT - NE 4 Avenue to NE 9 Avenue - $1.5 million - Broward Redevelopment Program

The Executive Director confirmed for Member Trantalis that staff will engage the neighborhood to help with the design. Chairman Seiler opened the floor for public comment. Laura Croscenco, representing Middle River Terrace Neighborhood Association, indicated that the eastbound area is blocked at the railroad track where school buses stop. There are children, bicycles and trains. The agreement calls for parallel, on-street parking which necessitates removal of traffic lanes. Dialogue ensued between Croscenco and Member Trantalis about neighborhood involvement. Croscenco advised that this issue went before the advisory board and was completely ignored. Chairman Seiler indicated that the advisory board represents the community. Member Trantalis said the neighborhood was completely engaged on this topic during a recent charrette. Croscenco pointed out that attendees were from 13 Street Alliance and South Middle River. Member Trantalis believed that people from every neighborhood participated. He believed she is concerned that the funds are being accepted contingent on a specific plan for street improvements. The answer is no. They are suggestions. Chairman Seiler explained it is not possible to design the street without the rest of the neighborhood being present. It will be scheduled on a future agenda when everyone will have an opportunity to speak. She provided photos of the subject area for the record. Steve Stahl, 1709 NE 8 Avenue, said he attended a meeting where the Transportation and Mobility Department gave a presentation. Additionally, the association president who conducted a charrette did not allow residents to comment. He was unable to attend that gathering but understood it was set up in such a way that it was destined to fail. Member Trantalis disagreed. He said it was a large, very engaged group. Economic and Community Reinvestment Manager (Northwest) Al Battle did a great job facilitating. Stahl went on to say that on-street parking would force motorists to drive through his neighborhood to access 4 Street. Member Trantalis recognized this issue. If there was more discussion during the planning stage, Stahl wanted an opportunity to speak. Chairman Seiler assured it would be possible. There was no one else wishing to speak.



Motion made by IVIember Trantalis and seconded by Member Roberts to approve tlie item as recommended. AYES: Member Trantalis, Member DuBose, Vice-Chair Rogers, Member Roberts and Chairman Seller. NAYS: None.

The meeting adjourned at 3:56 p.m. and the City Commission reconvened the conference meeting with Item BD-1.

lOhn PXJack" Seller Chairman

ATTEST:

Jonda K. Joseph Secretary

City of Fort Lauderdale Pages

April Sagii inor

Attachments:

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Jonda Joseph Tuesday, May 06, 2014 3:36 PM April Saginor Wendy Gonyea FW: CAM 14-0569 proprietary purchase and installation of lighting for Sistrunk Boulevard DOC050114.pdf; ATT00001.htm

This is for CRA-1 May 6 CRA mtg. there is lengthy discussion on what the Auditor brought forward during questions on this item. It needs to be scanned in

From: John Herbst Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 3:33 PM To: Jack Seller; Romney Rogers; Bruce G. Roberts; Bobby B. DuBose; Dean Trantalis Cc: Lee Feldman; Cynthia Everett; Jonda Joseph

Subject: Fwd: CAM 14-0569 proprietary purchase and installation of lighting for Sistrunk Boulevard

Below is my discussion with Alfred last week.

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Alfred Battle <ABattle(S)fortlauderdale.gov> Date: May 2, 2014 at 5:17:30 PM EDT To: John Herbst <[email protected]> Cc: Lee Feldman <[email protected]>, Jenni Morejon <[email protected]> Subject: RE: CAM 14-0569 proprietary purchase and installation of lighting for Sistrunk Boulevard

1. <!~[if !supportLists]~><!~[endif]~>Who designed the project with substandard lighting? The lighting level for the project is not substandard. The idea to increase the lighting levels on Sistrunk was first raised by community members and the City Commission as the project was rolling towards completion. In November 2013 city staff asked Craven Thompson Engineers (CTA), the city's project manager, to review the plans and field test the lighting levels for the corridor. CTA confirmed that the lighting levels were adequate. A copy of the email from Chris Bennett with Craven Thompson provides verification that the lighting standard for project is adequate and has been attached for your information. Next, city staff at Parks Facilities conducted some additional research on the issue and provided some options if we wanted to pursue increasing the lighting levels. Those options were tested by installing them on a few of existing fixtures and observing the lighting levels. A option using a LED fixture was recommended and is identified for purchase in the agenda item. 2. <!~[if !supportLi$ts]~><!~[endif]~>Are we seeking reimbursement from the architect/engineer? N/A based on my answer above. 3. <!~[if !supportLists]-><!-[endif]~>Does the Southeast Florida Governmental Purchasing

Cooperative Group Contract cover both the hardware and the installation through Imperial Electrical Incorporated?

The Southeast Florida Governmental Purchasing Cooperative Group Contract only addresses the installation. The hardware is being purchased from Sesco Lighting Inc. Al Battle Jr.

1

914 NW 6'" street, Suite 200 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311 (954) 828-8952 or 4514 (954) 828-4500 [email protected] From: John Herbst Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 2:08 PM To: Alfred Battle; Jenni Morejon Cc: Lee Feldman Subject: CAM 14-0569 proprietary purchase and installation of lighting for Sistrunk Boulevard A couple of questions:

1. <!~[if !$upportLists]~><!-[endif]~>Who designed the project with substandard lighting? 2. <l~[if !supportLists]~><!~[endif]~>Are we seeking reimbursement from the architect/engineer? 3. <!~[if !supportLists]~><i~[endif]~>Does the Southeast Florida Governmental Purchasing

Cooperative Group Contract cover both the hardware and the installation through Imperial Electrical Incorporated?

John Herbst, CPA, CGFO, CGMA City Auditor City of Fort Lauderdale Ph: (954) 828-4350 E-Mail: iherbst&fortlauderdale. gov

You can't wait until the crisis to examine tlie fundamentals. Under Florida law, most e-mail messages to or from City of Fort Lauderdale employees or officials are public records, available to any person upon request, absent an exemption. Therefore, any e-mail message to or from the City, inclusive of e-mail addresses contained therein, may be subject to public disclosure.

2

Alfred Battle

Chris Bennett <[email protected]> Tuesday, November 27, 2012 5:43 PIVI IVIari< Friedman Paula Hollihan; Alfred Battle Sistrunk lighting levels

Mark: Since we haven't received a lighting level test report from CFE/Enterprise yet, I've done some more digging on our side and have additional information for you, as we wait to see if and when Enterprise will do the illumination test that was requested 10 days ago.

From: Sent To: Cc: Subject

Our electrical engineering sub went out to the field last week and tested a couple of spots for me with his own light meter. In the 4 locations that he tested, the lowest reading he got was 0.50 foot-candles (just west of NW 14* AVE)... On average all 4 tests came out over l.Ofc. This is all above the noted minimum on the design plan photometries (0,35 per plan). This means we meet and exceed the illumination level that this project was designed to provide.

As for design standards and typical design rules, I also have additional information. It seems that the City has (or used to have) a lighting code from 1998 entitled "City of Fort ljuderdale Street Lighting Regulations." This Article has a section in it listing illuminance levels that should be met for roadways in the City. In general, for a roadway like Sistrunk, I read the article as requiring a minimum footcandle level of 0.23fc and an average footcandle level of 0.90fc. As noted above, our quick test of 4 different locations shows that we meet this requirement.

From here I don't think there's much else we can do. If the City wants brighter lights then I think it would require an internal discussion to determine if it's worth the extra cost and effort. I would give you a rough estimate of $150k to replace the current light fixtures plus an additional $25k-$50k for the 25 light poles that still need to go up in a future project on the south side of Section 3. This is a total cost of $150k to $200k, depending on the contractor, just to get brighter lights that may not really be necessary.

Let me know if you need any additional information. I'll keep on Enterprise to get us additional light test results and hopefully CFE will give you a price soon to provide and install new 150W fixtures.

Thanks, -Chris

From: Chris Bennett Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 3:52 PM To: 'Mark Friedman' Cc: Paula Hollihan ([email protected])

Subject: RE: Sistrunk lighting level (email 2 of 2) I

Here's email 2 of 2.

See attached. j

j From: Chris Bennett Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 3:51 PM To: 'Mark Friedman' Cc: Paula Hollihan (phollihan^craventhompson.com); '[email protected] Subject: RE: Sistrunk lighting level (email 1 of 2)

1

Here's the photometric plan from the Sistrunk project plan set. (email l or 2 - due to liie size)

I spoke with David and he hopes to do the light/illumination test by Tuesday, 11/27/12. I know that David had to get the device from his main office as well as a computer that has the testing software and he needs to coordinate with a specific guy who does this type of work, so we think Tuesday will be the best possible date to get this done.

As for any specific specifications on lighting requirements, here's what we have dug up for you, so far: Since the City has no specific city ordinance for street lighting, I am asking one of our electrical engineers to give me a better idea of what type of lighting specs would be typical for a roadway like Sistrunk. So far he has advised me that a minimum illumination level of 0.33 is common, so the 0.35 minimum that is shown on the Sistrunk design drawings seems to be acceptable. I will have more information for you tomorrow (hopefully), so I can update this response.

Thanks, -Chris

From: Mark Friedman rmailtoiMFriedman f̂ortlaijclgrciaig.qovi Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 2:36 PM To: Chris Bennett Cc: Mark Friedman Subject: FW: Sistrunk lighting level

Chris:

With respect to the e-mail below, you never sent me the lighting spec info, and I never received the photometric plan nor the photometric confinnation from Enterprise. I still need it all.

Thanks, Mark

Mark S. Friedmait, AIA, NCARB Architect / Construction Managot

Construction Management Division, Public Worlis Department City of Fort Lauderdale City Hall, Fourth Floor 100 N. Andrews Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Tel: (954) 828-5952 Fax: (954) 828-5074 Cell: (954) 422-2793 E-mail: MFriedmania>fortlauderdale.aov

The infomnation contained in this s-mail message and any attachments is confidential and privileged inlormation intended only for the use of individuals or entitles named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have rec^ved this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail at the originating address.

From: Albert Carbon Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:32 AM To: Mark Friedman

2

Cc: Hardeep Anand Subject: FW: Sistrunk lighting level

Mark,

Check the specifications for lights and lamination and get back with me.

Albert

From: Alfred Battle Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 7:10 PM To: Albert Carbon Subject: Sistrunk lighting level

There is concern from Comm DuBose about the brightness of the gold light poles.

Dont believe i t is easy to adjust illumination but please ask Mark to get an answer to be ready to address the issue Sent from my Samsung smartphone on AT&T

3

Alfred Battle

Subject:

Sent To: Cc:

From: Paula Hollihan <[email protected]> Wednesday, December 19, 2012 2:13 PM Albert Carbon; Alfred Battle; Mark Friedman Chris Bennett; Robert Cole Commissioner DuBose lighting concerns

I understand that there was a meeting with Commissioner DuBose today to discuss street lighting. Based on that meeting, we were asked to explore options and benefits of increasing lights from 100 watts to 150 watts. If you would like us to pursue this further, we could bring in an electrical sub to determine if the wattage could be increased using the current fixtures and if a 150 watt fixture is available for these lights. Also, he would investigate how the higher wattage would affect lighting levels. This would also require preparation of a new photometries plan.

Please let us know if you would like us to proceed with the additional assessment.

Paula Hollihan, P.E. Senior Supervising Engineer CRAVEN THOMPSON &AssoaATEs, INC. 3563 NW 53rd Street Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 Ph: (954)739-6400 Fax: (954) 739-6409 [email protected]

1

cra-1 14-0409 sistrunk boulevard funding for …retrospect, it was not enough to create the type of...

Documents