HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-06-2008 Regular Meeting4489
STATE OF ALABAMA )(
COUNTY OF BALDWIN )(
The City Council, City of Fairhope, met in regular session at
5:30 p.m., Fairhope Municipal Complex Council Chamber,
161 North Section Street, Fairhope, Alabama 36532, on
Thursday, 6 March 2008.
Present were Council President Robert C. Gentle, Councilmembers: Debbie
W. Quinn, Daniel Stankoski, Cecil Christenberry, and Michael A. Ford, Mayor
Timothy M. Kant, City Attorney Marion E. Wynne, and Assistant City Clerk Lisa A.
Hanks. City Clerk Geniece W. Johnson was absent.
There being a quorum present, Council President Gentle called the meeting to
order. The invocation was given by George Yeend, Deacon at St. Lawrence Catholic
Church and the Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Councilmember Stankoski moved
to approve minutes of the February 25, 2008, regular meeting. Seconded by
Councilmember Quinn, motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
Mayor's Comments and Staff Reports:
• Mayor Kant addressed the City Council regarding the following two items:
1. The Highway 104 and Greeno Road bid will be voted on tonight. The
Governor has signed off on this project twice and we are ready to begin the
changes. The main reason this project needs to be approved is for safety
issues. There have been eleven (11) accidents, involving twenty-two (22)
vehicles at this intersection.
2. When we write the letter for Parker .Road to the Alabama Department of
Transportation, we need for Village North to be a part of this letter.
Barry Roberts, President of Board of Directors for The Haven, addressed the
City Council requesting that they deny the resolution for the Baldwin County Animal
Shelter. There are many reasons for our opposition to this resolution. The following
documentation was submitted on behalf of The Haven.
4490
6 March 2008
TO: Fairhope City Council Members and Mayor of Fairhope
FROM: Barry Roberts, President of Board of Directors for The Haven
Executive Summary: Recommended Denial of Baldwin County Animal Shelter Resolution
After reviewing the "facts" presented by Baldwin County Officials and their representatives, I
recommend, in the strongest teams possible, that the Fairhope City Council and the Mayor of Fairhope
deny the resolution sought by Baldwin County Officials requesting support from the City of Fairhope
with regard to construction of a new and larger central County Animal Shelter. It is not in the best
interest of the citizens and taxpayers of Fairhope to be committed to supporting the Cou nty's
objectives via a resolution which implies financial support for the next 20 yeas or more. A non -
monetary resolution of support could be considered acceptable. it and only ff the financial obligations
attached were mull and negligible. I submit this recommendation as a resident of the City of Fairhope,
and as an individual that is knowledgeable in the subject of animal shelter operation and management.
The basis supporting this recommendation is as follows:
1.) The County has failed to provide compelling data that the current county animal shelter needs are a
direct result of the City of Fairhope's current policies and partnerships with regard to animal control
programs. It could also be argued that the largest need is from the County population and not from the
Municipalities.
2.) The plan presented by the County includes premiums that exceed norms for construction costs,
appears to be deficient in operating revenues compared to cu mcu t services the citizeenss of Fairhope receive
for fimds forwarded, and would grossly "under -deliver" with regard to animal placement perventages
relative to Fairhope's current animal control and shelter operation agreement/partnership.
3.) The concept of "forcing" third parties (Vet clinics / offices) to collect, allocate, and accept overall
responsibility for taxes/fees that the County would impose upon those Baldwin County citizens that seek
proper cane and attention for their pets is an unfair and unjust imposition on the businesses that provide
this care, as well as being unfair to those pet owners that seek professional healthcare for their animals.
4.) Services within the City of Fairhope would decrease with regard to Animal Control issues. Response
time for the City's Animal Control Officer would be severely impacted ( potential double or triple the
time between calls and response presence), increase operating cost (additional mileage, fuel costs, vehicle
depreciation and insurance issues), as well as create controversy with respect to lost and recovered pets
that ate not successfully retrieved from a County facility in a timely manner by their owner(s),
fly submitted,
Batty Roberts
4491
6 March 2008
Premise or basis of the approach is incorrect:
Baldwin County states "this is a municipal problem" when referring to the growth in animal
control needs, as well as shelter expansion needs at the county site.
The need for animal control is a municipal issue by state law, but the statistics provided by
the county relative to population breakdown by location can be summarized as follows:
Baldwin County (not within a municipality):
Three municipalities with some form of animal
control, w/ shelter and adoption program:
Daphne
Fairhope
Bay Minette
All other County Municipality populations
51.6%
11.8%
8.9%
5.6% (subtotal 26.3%)
22.1 %
It appears that only 73.7 % of Baldwin County needs this proposal in its entirety, with the
remaining 26.3% having "decision space" with regard to the proposal.
Only 22.1% of the County's population has a "problem" to be addressed as municipalities.
"Peer Pressure Tactics"
"All the councils indicated a desire to participate"
Opinion: based upon not hearing the words "No Thanks".
Fact: not all the councils approached by the County have effective alternatives to utilizing
the County Shelter.
And
Fact: not all the councils approached by the County have partnerships and detailed insight
into shelter operations with very low euthanasia / high adoption rates that the City of
Fairhope has.
4492
6 March 2008
Proposed Construction Costs
Clarity points:
Is the cost to construct the facility being proposed actually $6,700,000? If so, where is the
bond interest and other borrowing related costs that can be translated into a Net Present
Value?
Is the proposed cost amount for all future sections to be built or is it lower square footage
than complete plan?
Let's pick some numbers and run some comparisons:
Assumptions: Estimated total cost:
Area of office and dock/storage building (scaled)
First Kennel / Run of Cages
Second Kennel / Run of Cages
Third Kennel / Run of Cages
4`h Half Kennel and 51h Half Kennel
Estimated square feet (first kennel+support areas +10%):
Estimated cost per square foot
Estimated square feet (two kennels+support areas+10%):
Estimated cost per square foot
$6,700,000
7000 ft sq
4600 ft sq
4600 ft sq
4600 ft sq
4600 ft sq
12785 sq.ft.
$520/sq. ft.
17393 sq.ft.
$385/sq. ft.
Estimated square feet (three kennels+support areas+l0%): 22002 sq.ft.
Estimated cost per square foot $305/sq. ft.
Estimated square feet (all kennels+support areas+10%): 26611 sq.ft.
Estimated cost per square foot $252/sq. ft.
Logic Check
This compares to a luxury home that includes all internal features (plumbing, floor coverings,
appliances, lights, landscaping) and the lot to build upon for about $200 - $220 per sq.ft.
Now utilize a publicly available construction cost estimator on the internet:
Assume 19600 sq ft of Kennels in masonry block wall with slab on grade floor,
7000 sq ft of Office Building in masonry block wall on slab.
Projected construction cost is $1,200,000 or roughly $45/sq. ft.
To be conservative for missed items and details not covered, use $2.4 million or $90 /
sq.ft.
The quoted number is still not close!
4493
6 March 2008
Concept of Vets collecting County imposed fees (licensing or other):
Is it fair for those that properly care for their animals to pay taxes / fees to compensate
for those animal owners that allow their animals to become neglected and a "shelter
animal candidate"?
No, it is not fair to select out caring owners of pets to carry the burden of negligent owners.
The burden should be equally shared by all residents when negligent owners can not be held
accountable.
Does each and every Veterinary Clinic / Office have the available (un-utilized) resources
to accomplish the increased record keeping tasks the County fees would require?
Most likely no. Nearly all Vet Clinics are small business run with a very sharp eye on the
bottom line. Spare resources are not to be found, and frequently part time helpers are
employed or wanted to complete all of the tasks on hand. Regardless, increased costs to the
Vet will be passed on to pet owners via increased pet health care costs.
How does each municipality ( and the county ) get "credit" for licensing fees paid by
residents?
Vet clinics are not equally spread among all municipalities, so location of Vet clinics for
credit on fees received is not logical or fair. Tracking and location determination by the Vet
clinic personnel is dependent on knowledge and frequency of updates with regard to
municipality bounds and annexations, which still leaves many municipalities at risk of not
getting credit for fees paid by residents. Declaration of customers is only moderately logical
and is still subject to accuracy and knowledge "deficits" and increases record keeping costs.
Voluntary Licensing Collection
The concept of Vets to collect the county fees is a key basis for future support assumptions:
voluntary licensing will grossly miss the majority of the animals.
The basis for claiming this starts with a look at Fairhope.
First of all, let me state that we love our animals here in Fairhope!
Many of the households in the city limits of Fairhope have one or more cats and or dogs. A
safe "guesstimate" is about one third. Of a total population of over 12,500 residents within
the city limits, that would translate to over 4000 animals within the city limits.
Fairhope has a very loosely enforced (this stated non -critically) animal tag system.
Guess how many people volunteered to visit City Hall and pay their $1.25?
4494
6 March 2008
In 2007, the City of Fairhope issued 79 dog tags and 3 cat tags. That's just over 2.1% of the
animals getting "voluntary" tags. If we overestimated the number of animals by a multiplier
of 2, that still leaves less than 5% of the animals getting relatively inexpensive "voluntary"
tags. And we love our animals!
So enforcement via Vet offices / clinics and denial of rabies tags is a logical if unfair
approach. I state unfair, because many of the animals (not all, but many) that the county
deals with may never have been to the Vet, and as such they would be "cared for" at a County
center supported by fees paid by animal owners that take care of their pets by seeking proper
healthcare, immunizations, and overall counsel on animal well being. The net implication:
Should those that care for their animals the best way possible pay for the minimal care of
neglected or undercared for animals? It's a "burden" on those that "do right to cover for
those who don't".
Annual Operating Cost Scenarios
Current cost to City of Fairhope of partnership with The Haven
(with 92% animal placement rate and current volunteer levels)
$60,000
County official Michael Thomas states that Cities with existing shelters can turn them into
adoption centers.
Total Cost Analysis for City of Fairhope (with middle results from Cnty to Haven):
Annual cost of construction sent to Baldwin County for Proposed Cnty Shelter
Annual operating costs sent to County for Proposed Cnty Shelter
Annual cost of operating Fairhope adoption facility (current site only)
(implies 2 employees for site only work, 50% est. animal placement)
Estimated Annual Total Animal Control Costs for City of Fairhope
Total Cost Analysis for City of Fairhope (with equal results to current Haven):
Annual cost of construction sent to Baldwin County for Proposed Cnty Shelter
Annual operating costs sent to County for Proposed Cnty Shelter
Annual cost of operating Fairhope adoption facility ( plus offsite work )
(implies 3.5 volunteers for all work, 92% est. animal placement)
$25,331
$36,263
$100,000
$161,594
$25,331
$36,263
$330,000
Estimated Annual Total Animal Control Costs for City of Fairhope $391,594
4495
6 March 2008
NOTE: Adoption centers alone do not place the number of animals that offsite events which
reach out to the adopting public do. Offsite events require volunteer time, publicity,
equipment ( trailer + vehicle to tow, cages, tables, shades/awnings, etc.) all of which add to
the overall adoption success rate, but add to the annual operating cost as well.
Construction cost, annual operating cost and population splits by municipality are
from late 2007 meeting notes between Baldwin County Commission and Baldwin
County Mayors Regarding Animal Control.
Estimated areas of construction square footage are scaled (using generous
allowances) from scaled architectural drawings provided to the Fairhope City
Council by the County representatives dated Feb. 7, 2008.
The publicly available cost estimate was obtained on the internet at
costest.construction.com and utilizes all the inclusions/exclusions that website links
to an estimate.
Haven related numbers / costs are inserted where needed for comparison basis.
Councilmember Quinn introduced in writing the following resolution, a
resolution in support of a new and larger County animal control facility.
Councilmember Quinn said the County came and talked to the City Council and
wants to collect a fee from pet owners. This would be a door to door collection. The
veterinarians would be taking up the fee for the County. I spoke to three (3) vets and
they do not want to do this. The County would pick up all dogs and cats and we
would only get the ones to be adopted. If your dog or cat gets out, you would have to
go to Magnolia Springs to pick up your animal. Fairhope has 500 animals per year.
This facility would allow for one hundred twenty (120) more runs for the County
Shelter.
Council President Gentle stated the County should come to Fairhope and visit The
Haven to use as an example. Councilmember Ford read allowed the costs and area of
the proposed building. He said the costs seem excessive. Mr. Roberts said this was
an unconditional way to handle the calculations. Part of the fog is in their
calculations.
After further discussion, Councilmember Quinn moved to deny the resolution
supporting a new and larger County animal control facility. Seconded by
Councilmember Christenberry, motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
Councilmember Christenberry introduced in writing the following resolution,
a resolution authorizing Mayor Kant to execute an agreement between the City of
Fairhope, Alabama Department of Transportation, and Regency Centers Corporation,
for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of U. S. Highway 98 and
Parker Road in Fairhope, Alabama. The total cost to install the traffic signal will be
100% funded by Regency Centers Corporation. The Alabama Department of
4496
6 March 2008
Transportation ("ALDOT") will do a warrant study with the possibility of a signal
light. Councilmember Ford asked; why is there not a light at Veterans Drive?
Councilmember Quinn replied; there is not one warranted at this time.
Councilmember Christenberry commented that ALDOT stated more accidents are
involved at traffic signals than other intersections. After further discussion,
Councilmember Christenberry moved for the adoption of the resolution. Seconded by
Councilmember Stankoski, motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
RESOLUTION NO. 1442-08
WHEREAS, The City of Fairhope shall enter into an agreement with the State of
Alabama, acting by and through the Alabama Department of Transportation, and
Regency Centers Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Permittee) for the
installation, maintenance, and operation of a traffic signal at the intersection of U. S.
Highway 98 and Parker Road in Fairhope, Alabama;
WHEREAS, This Agreement requires participation by the City of Fairhope, the State
of Alabama, and the Permittee for the installation of a traffic signal at the above
mentioned intersection. The Permittee will furnish and install the equipment and/or
associated hardware utilized in the accomplishment of the work. The total cost to
install the traffic signal will be 100% funded by the Permittee; and
WHEREAS, In the event the State contributes funds to the work, the Permittee will
be credited or debited for the under -runs or overruns.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Fairhope, Alabama that Mayor Timothy
M. Kant is hereby authorized to execute an Agreement between the City of Fairhope,
the State of Alabama, acting by and through the Alabama Department of
Transportation, and the Permittee for the installation, maintenance, and operation of a
traffic signal at the intersection of U.S. 98 and Parker Road in Fairhope, Alabama.
Adopted and Approved this 6th day of March, 2008.
4497
6 March 2008
Councilmember Quinn introduced in writing, and moved for the adoption of
the following resolution, a resolution accepting the public streets, public right-of-way,
and all of Fairhope's public utilities within Dogwood Subdivision for maintenance.
Seconded by Councilmember Christenberry, motion passed unanimously by voice
vote.
Resolution No. 1443-08
WHEREAS, the Owners of Dogwood Subdivision desire to have all public streets and public
right-of-ways dedicated on the plat filed for record in the Probate Records of Baldwin
County, Alabama, on Slide 0002367-F, and all Fairhope public utilities located in public
right-of-ways accepted for maintenance by the City of Fairhope, Alabama, and;
WHEREAS, the City of Fairhope, Alabama, has received notice from the engineers of the
project that the design and capacity of the public improvements have been designed in
conformance with City requirements as indicated on the recorded plat, and;
WHEREAS, the Public Works Director has indicated that the improvements meet City
requirements, and;
WHEREAS, the City of Fairhope, Alabama, is not and in no manner will be responsible for
the maintenance of common areas in the subdivision as indicated on the recorded plat, and;
WHEREAS, the City of Fairhope, Alabama, has received from the owners of Dogwood
Subdivision maintenance bonds for the public improvements constructed for a period of 2
years, and;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA that the public improvements indicated herein for Dogwood
Subdivision are hereby accepted for public maintenance subject to the bond posted.
Adopted, this 6th day c
Attest:
eniece W. Johnso , City Clerk
4498
6 March 2008
Gina Littlepage, 201 Young Street, Fairhope, Alabama, addressed the City
Council requesting a speed bump to be installed on Young Street, the block between
Morphy and Nichols. Captain Steve Griffis of the Fairhope Police Department
addressed the City Council and presented the following traffic study at Young Street.
Nu -Metrics Traffic Analyzer Study
Computer Generated Summary Report
City: OPE
ST.- M
Street: YOUNG ST.ORPHYI HORN
A study of vehicle traffic was conducted with HI -STAR unit number 1830. The study was done in the Driving
lane at YOUNG ST. MORPHY/ HORN in FAIRHOPE, AL in BALDWIN county. The study began on
Jan/26/08 at 06:00 and concluded on Jan/31/08 at 07:00, lasting a total of 121.00 hours. Traffic statistics
were recorded in 2 minute time periods. The total recorded volume showed 1525 vehicles passed through
the location with a peak volume of 6 on Jan/28/08 at [01:06-01.081 and a minimum volume of 0 on Jan/26/08
at [12:00-12:021. The AADT count for this study was 302.
SPEED
Chart 1 lists the values of the speed bins and the total traffic volume for each bin. At least half the vehicles
were traveling in the 31 - 36 MPH range or lower. The average speed for all classified vehicles was 32 MPH
wittt'94.'31% vehicles exceeding the posted speed of 25 MPH. The HI -STAR found 2.14 percent of the total
vehicles were traveling in excess of 55 MPH. The mode speed for this traffic study was 31MPH and the
85th percentile was 39.87 MPH.
<
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
48
51
58
81
66
71
76
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
1
to
1
to
1
to
1
to
1
to
1
to
1
to
1
10
15
20
2S
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
>
4
1 20
61
1196
372
421
252
84
52
19.
6
7
0
0
0
CHART 1
CLASSIFICATION
Chart 2 lists the values of the classification bins and the total traffic volume accumulated for each bin.
Most of the vehicles classified during the study were Passenger Vehicles. The number of Passenger
Vehicles in the study was 1334 which represents 89 percent of the total classified vehicles. The number of
Vans & Pickups in the study was 151 which represents 10 percent of the total classified vehicles. The
number of Busses & Trucks in the study was 0 which represents 0 percent of the total classified vehicles.
The number of Tractor Tailers in the study was 9 which represents 1 percent of the total classified vehicles.
<
10
12
14
16
18
20
40
t0
t0
to
t0
1
t0
1.
to
t0
9
11
13
15
17
19
39
>
22
118
326
445
302
121
1 151
9
CHART2
HEADWAY
During the peak traffic period, on Jan/28/08 at 101:06-01:081 the average headway between vehicles was
17.143 seconds. During the slowest traffic period, on Jan/26/08 at [12:00-12:02) the average headway
between vehicles was 120 seconds.
WEATHER
The roadway surface temperature over the period of the study varied between 37.00 and 89.00 degrees F.
Mar/07/08 01:53 Page: 1
4499
6 March 2008
Nu -Metrics Traffic Analyzer Study
Computer Generated Summary Report
City: FAIRHOPE
Street: YOUNG ST: MORPHY/ HORN
A study of vehicle traffic was conducted with HI -STAR unit number 1823. The study was done in the Driving
lane at YOUNG ST,- MORPHY/ HORN in FAIRHOPE, AL in BALDWIN county. The study began on
Jan/26/08 at 06:00 and concluded on Jan/31/08 at 07:00, lasting a total of 121.00 hours. Traffic statistics
were recorded in 2 minute time periods. The total recorded volume showed 1094 vehicles passed through
the location with a peak volume of 5 on Jan/29/08 at [23:38-23:40] and a minimum volume of 0 on Jan/26/08
at [12:00-12:02]. The AADT count for this study was 217.
SPEED
Chart 1 lists the values of the speed bins and the total traffic volume for each bin. At least half the vehicles
were traveling in the 31 - 36 MPH range or lower. The average speed for all classlfed vehicles was 31 MPH
-w1th.q:L2ff6 vehicles exceeding the posted speed of 25 MPH. The HI -STAR found 2.54 percent of the total
vehicles were traveling in excess of 55 MPH. The mode speed for this traffic study was 31 MPH and the
85th percentile was 38.59 MPH.
<
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
51
56
61
6P
71
76
to
to
to
1
to
1
to
1
to
1
to
1
to
1
to
1
to
1
to
to
tto
to
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
775
>
0
19
74
187
274
280
133
43
26
15
9
3
0
0
CHART 1
CLASSIFICATION
Chart 2 lists the values of the classification bins and the total traffic volume accumulated for each bin.
Most of the vehicles classified during the study were Passenger Vehicles. The number of Passenger
Vehicles in the study was 922 which represents 87 percent of the total classified vehicles. The number of
Vans & Pickups in the study was 123 which represents 12 percent of the total classified vehicles. The
number of Busses & Trucks in the study was 0 which represents 0 percent of the total classified vehicles.
The number of Tractor Tellers in the study was 18 which represents 2 percent of the total classified vehicles.
CHART2
HEADWAY
During the peak traffic period, on Jan/29/08 at [23:38-23:40] the average headway between vehicles was 20
seconds. During the slowest traffic period, on Jan/26/08 at [12:00-12:02] the average headway between
vehicles was 120 seconds.
WEATHER
The roadway surface temperature over the period of the study varied between 37.00 and 85.00 degrees F.
Mar/07108 01:51
Page: 1
Based on the traffic study, Captain Griffis stated there were no problems observed
with the traffic flow. There were no citations of any kind written in this area to
warrant the need for a speed bump to be installed. However, we will watch the area
and if you have any problems do not hesitate to call the Fairhope Police Department.
4500
6 March 2008
Ken Eslava, on behalf of The Harbor Board, addressed the City Council
requesting a Public Works Project for repairs to mooring piling at Fly Creek Marina
and the estimated cost is around ten thousand ($10,000) dollars. The City of Fairhope
will purchase all materials and have someone else install which should lessen the
price of the project. Councilmember Christenberry stated that the boat slips are not
free. The fees are paid on an annual basis. After further discussion, Councilmember
Christenberry moved to grant the request of The Harbor Board. Seconded by
Councilmember Quinn, motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
Councilmember Ford addressed the City Council and stated that several
citizens called him regarding the actions taken by the City Council on February 25,
2008 at the regular City Council meeting. Councilmember Ford said there were
several issues he wanted to bring up and get answers from the City Council.
• The City Council broke our own rules.
• We voted 5 to nothing to ask for an Attorney General's opinion. We went to
the League instead of the Attorney General.
• Ordinance No. 1330 and Ordinance No. 1225 says we have to go by the rules.
• The Council President, in order to speak, must ask someone to chair (at
his/her discretion). This is usually the Assistant or someone else he chooses.
Council President Gentle said he asked City Attorney Wynne to write a letter
regarding his opinion if the Mayor's veto was valid and if the City Council followed
proper procedures. The following is City Attorney Wynne's letter:
4501
6 March 2008
WILKINS, BANKESTER, RILES & WYNN
TAYLOR D. WILKINS. JR.
BAYLESS E. RILES
MARION E. WYNNE, JR.
KENNETH R. RAINES
MARCUS E. MCDOWELL
ROBERT W. WALLER. JR.
CLAUDE E. BANKESTER haze-Iwbl
KREG L. MORRIS (I —a—.)
The Honorable Tim Kant, Mayor
c/o City of Fairhope
P. O. Drawer 454
Fairhope, AL 36533
Council President Robert Gentle
c/o City of Fairhope
P. O. Drawer 454
Fairhope, AL 36533
E
ROBERTSDALE OFFICE
B ESIS HIGHWAY SS NORTH
CHICAGO STREET
February 28, 2008 ROBERTSDALE, ALABAMA 36567
Dear Mayor Kant and Council President Gentle:
The purpose of this letter is the clear up the status of the ordinance regarding salaries for the
next mayor and council. We have all been somewhat confused about where it stands. This letter is
based on my understanding of the factual history of the ordinance, munerous conversations with
Tracy Roberts, legal counsel at the Alabama League of Municipalities, and my own research.
First, the veto was a valid veto. Mayor Kant followed the correct procedure to issue his veto.
Second, the council did override the veto by the required 2/3rds vote. There is a question as
to whether or not the council followed its own rules in that the Motion to add the issue of the veto
override to the agenda was not made, seconded and unanimously agreed to. This is a technical legal
matter and it could only be answered by a challenge to the ordinance and a court ruling. Mr. Roberts
said the attorneys at the League discussed this issue and decided that the council is not bound by the
agenda rules unless the ordinance setting forth the agenda rules states the council cannot deviate
from its rules. Ordinance 1330 does not say that. The council is not bound by the agenda. I am not
sure that this is correct, but it is the opinion of the attorneys at the League. The council could
instruct me to seek an A.G. opinion as to this technical issue.
The ordinance must be published after the vote overriding the veto. The first publication of
the ordinance was in error and it was not signed by Mayor Kant as it appeared to be in the
publication.
Russ Henderson's article in the February 28`I' Press Register indicates that he misunderstood
what I told him, or perhaps I did not make myself clear. I did say the veto may not matter since it
was overridden and an ordinance is presumed to be valid and properly enacted. The burden is on the
person attacking the ordinance to show its invalidity. I did not say the fact that it had already been
4502
6 March 2008
Fairhope- letter to Mayor and City Council
Page 2 of 2
published meant that the veto did not matter. The veto does matter. A publication after veto is
necessary.
At the council meeting, Council President Gentle asked me to get an A.G. opinion.
However, since that time the Council may have concluded that would not be necessary. What is the
status of the request for an A.G. opinion and what is the question you wish to propose? I think the
question may now have changed from what it would have been immediately after the meeting.
Sincerely, /0 )
MARION E. WY E
City Attorney, Ct
fFairhope
MEW/cpc
City Attorney Wynne stated Geniece Johnson, City Clerk, had the Mayor's letter in a
timely manner. Council President Gentle said that City Attorney Wynne's opinion
not to seek an Attorney General's opinion was based on agreeing that the veto was
accepted in time and valid. His letter to the City Council asks if we still want an
Attorney General's opinion and what are the questions to be asked. City Attorney
Wynne said the Alabama Code Sections 11-45-4 an 11-45-5 state when a veto is
presented, an override can be made and voted on. I am deferring to the Alabama
4503
6 March 2008
State law which overrides the City Ordinance in my opinion. Councilmember Ford
said to City Attorney Wynne; "I am not questioning your opinion, I just want to know
if the procedures were proper and the veto was proper." Council President Gentle
said you were voted down with the veto overturn. Councilmember Stankoski said the
facts have changed, but you still can get an Attorney General's opinion.
Council President Gentle commented that City Attorney Wynne said that State law
overrides the City of Fairhope's Code. Do you want an Attorney General's opinion?
What did we do wrong?
Councilmember Christenberry defended City Attorney Wynne. When the letter was
read by Assistant City Clerk Lisa Hanks, Mr. Wynne began looking at the rules for
elected officials. A veto has never happened in the history of Fairhope. I wish we
could have a "Come to Jesus", a knock down drag out meeting to get this out in the
open.
Council President Gentle said the Ordinance was published and the next salaries will
be what were published. City Attorney Wynne stated the veto and the override is
valid. Councilmember Ford mentioned he tried to call a special meeting, but it never
happened. No one would agree to the meeting. You needed two Councilmembers to
call the meeting.
Councilmember Stankoski stated that the last City Council meeting was a very
unusual meeting. It was Government by ambush. It was a legal ambush. However, it
does not meet the spirit of the City of Fairhope. We asked if we could undo the veto.
Councilmember Ford said this all started with inappropriate remarks by the Mayor;
and then, the Council with the Governmental Structure Committee. Council
President Gentle asked; are you talking about the night I appointed Chuck Zunk?
Councilmember Ford replied yes, you talked about ambush Councilmember
Stankoski, the Mayor and I were ambushed when this committee was appointed. So
you started it.
Councilmember Christenberry thanked Sherry Sullivan for the press releases she
sends to each Councilmember. However, we never received the one from last week.
The Mayor was out of town. I found out about the press release from the newspaper
reporters.
Councilmember Ford stated he didn't want to see the City self-destruct. We need to
meet and let it all hang out. We did this once with "The Triangle" and got everything
all out. Council President Gentle said it is going to take everyone here and we need
to be transparent. We struggled with the salary issue at the last two meetings.
4504
6 March 2008
Councilmember Ford said he thought we had an agreement to hold the special
meeting. He also mentioned the Mayor made a comment that he might be going to
veto the ordinance.
Mayor Kant told the City Council that if they were going to get an Attorney General's
opinion they need it in the form of a resolution with specific questions. Council
President Gentle stated that the initial question was "Is the veto valid?"
Councilmember Stankoski said we were challenging the validity of the time the letter
was received and we have that answer. We all agree with that. What is the question
you want asked?
Council President Gentle asked Councilmember Ford was the question to be asked;
"Was the veto legal?" Councilmember Ford replied we need to ask about the veto,
procedures, and discussion proper.
City Attorney Wynne said you must state specifically what you want to ask in the
form of a resolution. The Council must instruct me to seek an Attorney General's
opinion. I cannot ask for an opinion for one person. It must be the entire City
Council seeking the opinion.
Councilmember Quinn stated the question was moot and the knowledge of the facts
changed. Councilmember Stankoski said the question for the Attorney General
originally asked "was the veto in the envelope legal?" Councilmember Quinn
commented she wished the Mayor had come to us before he presented the veto. It
was disrespectful not letting the Council know ahead of time.
Councilmember Quinn moved to rescind the request for an Attorney General's
opinion since facts have changed. Seconded by Councilmember Stankoski, motion
passed by the following voice votes: AYE - Quinn, Stankoski, Christenberry, and
Gentle. NAY - Ford.
Council President Gentle told the City Council lets all get together and air this out.
He held up pages of the Code of Alabama and stated we all need to know these. The
Assistant City Clerk was asked to make copies of the documents and put in the
Councilmember's boxes and give a copy to the Mayor. He mentioned the press may
want a copy too. He told Councilmember Ford that when we sit down together, we
will discuss the code.
City Attorney Wynne addressed the City Council and asked "am I to understand, I am
not to get an Attorney General's opinion." Council President replied that is correct.
4505
6 March 2008
Councilmember Stankoski addressed the City Council and asked that the
Street Committee minutes from their March 5, 2008 meeting be made part of the
minutes. The following are the minutes from the Street Committee:
The Fairhope Street Committee met Tuesday, March 5, 2008 at the City Administration
Building, 161 N. Section Street
Present: Councilman Dan Stankoski, Councilman Cecil Christenberry. Councilwoman
Debbie Quinn, Mayor Tim Kant; Gregg Mims, City Planner; Jennifer Fidler, Public Works
Director; Ken Eslava, Asst. Public Works Director; Dan Ames, Purchasing Agent. Jamie
Lowell, Volkert & Assoc. John Cameron, P.E., Volkert & Assoc. Nick Amberger, ALDOT,
Wayne Curry ALDOT. Eric Dyas, Craig Dyas, Jane Jackson. Absent: Bob Gentle
The meeting tonight was to discuss the proposed traffic/road improvements at Hwy 104 &
Greeno Road by the City and State that will be considered at the March 6 City Council
meeting. A letter was received by the City from Eric Dyas (attached to minutes) asking that
he be informed of any improvements planned adjoining Village North. The Street Committee
met to discuss the awarding of the bid before being brought to the March 6 City Council
meeting. Dan opened the meeting and asked John Cameron of Volkertto advise those
present on what is before the Council. He said they had sought bids on Fairhope Intersection
Improvements — AL 104 & US Hwy 98 and opened bids on 2/12/08. After bid tabulation
their recommendation was to award the bid to the low bidder Summit Industries with a bid of
$632,389.60 and told of the improvements planned — adding a right turn lane on 98 and
Veterans Drive going to AL Hwy 104, widening Hwy 104 at the intersection of Hwy 104 and
US 98 and installing a left turn lane with improved light, and not allowing northbound traffic
into the crossover at the intersection of US 98 and Veterans Drive, all northbound traffic will
be directed to a right turn once they get to US 98. It was noted that 50% of this project will
be reimbursed by ALDOT. Discussion followed and Dan asked the ALDOT representatives
what they would recommend, go forward or not go forward. Wayne Curry responded it
would be hard to walk away from now, they would recommend to ahead with the plan.
Everything had been approved by the state, bids let and approved, and there is an immediate
need for improvements at the Veterans Drive and Hwy 98 intersection. Dan said it has always
been the goal of the City to look forward down the road, what the traffic situation might be in
5-10 years from now, and to move traffic safely. The question was asked what would happen
when Village North is developed would a stop light be approved at Veterans Drive and US
Hwy 98 if requested. Mr. Curry replied that once these improvements are put in place the
state would not participate in improvements at Veterans Drive and US Hwy 98. It would be
up to the developer and he would have to submit a letter to request a light, and as before a
traffic study would be done to determine the need. Dan questioned if these proposed
improvements need to be done today and ALDOT responded yes.
Craig Dyas asked and was told the cost of doing the proposed improvements. Craig asked if a
signal is placed at Parker Road and Hwy 104 will the problems at Veterans Drive be
alleviated. No one knew for sure. Wayne Curry said there is nothing written in stone that a
traffic light could not be placed at Hwy 98 and Veterans Drive in the future, the state would
4506
6 March 2008
just not participate in this. Eric Dyas said in 2002 they submitted a plan for PUD and it was
approved and at that time a traffic light was proposed for Veterans Drive and Highway 98
and that their plan that they worked so hard with, and approved by the City, and everyone
agreed to goes hand in hand with road proposals at that time. Eric said this new plan will cut
the traffic at their PUD 50%. Cecil Christenberry asked isn't Veterans Drive still going to
have two way traffic and he was told yes. Further discussion led to Craig asking why
couldn't these improvements be phased in. Wayne Curry said again that something needs to
be done now about the Veterans Drive and US 98 situation that ALDOT is entrusted with
doing the safest thing for the community and also prudent use of state funds. Dan said that
this has been discussed in at least six public meetings since April 05 and it was never
anyone's intent to cut them out of anything, these meetings had been publicized. Debbie and
Jennifer said this plan is nothing new. The plan to install a roundabout at one time was talked
about and Volkert said they had also done the work on that plan so when that one was not
used they were still able to come up with design for this plan. Nick Amberger said the people
will still come to the planned PUD they will just leave in a safer way. Eric Dyas said he
disagreed. The light at Parker Road was asked about and it is also on the agenda to be
considered March 6`h City Council meeting. Volkert said they have done the study but this is
still a state road and they have to permit it. The question was asked what if this is not done
now and Wayne Curry responded that it is a lengthy process and it may take years before it is
approved again, that we have a good plan, funding approved go ahead with it, if not approved
now the money will be used elsewhere. Eric Dyas asked if their traffic study was included in
plans and Volkert said yes, documents had been received from Bill Metzger and included in
traffic study. Nick Amberger said that they sit across from people every day who propose
projects and they have to act on what is there now, even if this PUD is developed in the next
year this is plan for now and will improve traffic situation. Eric Dyas said they are concerned
as anybody about traffic situation but do not want to undermine their project. Wayne Curry
said the worse that could come would be three signalized intersections, these improvements
are best for the area today. Craig asked about phasing this in again and was told that all three
changes would need to be done to accomplish these improvements and it needs to be
addressed now. Dan asked what if the City Council did not approve bids March 6`h and was
told the process would have to start over again; that they have 20 days from date bid was
opened to act. Further discussion led to Dan asking if anyone had anything other to add that
has not already been discussed.
After all the discussion no action was taken. Meeting was duly adjourned at 6:30 PM.
4507
6 March 2008
n*?-6-2M CS:53 !'fa[tls6iiIQHWE 11" 12so3Qlm" to.-""107 P.-"S
Fti➢-i3 1�sZ2 kttlFR F#�ifiLr{1N P.ee j
y
MILLER. HAM LTOK SNIDM & *DOM, U-C.
ATMIM AM COMMMAtLAM
,�rrayecae awarart�t€xr
a—.«�
� ,u.+rm,.y yaoaa.:.AuaKslASeaa
w
' K �, ►9he�kffhR �ty1y6L'i!<fi rawe�.m(es.x.�s1Nm
A, 06
yci l�i�i,Crc
t.
'`
LRWP'
iFQ 1`f, io+ae -
� � Dav�t'i'RepaAtltst �� t•.9
92d•i7TS
CItytifE
Y C?. 429,
bi�rb Aisbaan� 36533
Dw MA Tr Itatt
iksf�l'ViElage7r"aet6
Ak a f o:Uaw up to = 0OCIVeuxiou on Xondq. and at �Ik sagtlatdotl of�Mtmt �LC�' /
theof thfa 1t/ltw is to s ro mxrlse the wwo mw= that my fonulymm." 20,�j htM" :•
the CW*pmpnsai to t'hr lberomtwsyd end #d k ilkw =g t,lic �`ct t t
mob40of WWIL
♦,I°ebean�,r�gLersometfiror,thatthet�tpiwbe+oaa�atempittiay•,vdcit�dadto '
Itrpteva flow cf ttaf�Ie is dds at,L As for.back as Ingo 2006 1 czp mwtd canoe& ibaatt tip kMmt.
r�mnzcs 16 tm to in" "tiwd biro on !he p oslaw tsar my fstnitY+gay�ts th�i¢t �t a•�iier tb
I+ytbYfo WatirL Ddvcnar $:imiie fir e�at�a iaz�y T, 2oa;<, copra o�i�,'ei,� K. p%•r�abp 1� ibat
theetoC, rm-ltmanDanStnkmMend CgimdiPraidtn3MbtimdG.Itdtuo th3t<PC=. tad
rtQ that l qtAle6ttdit)a'WdvItAlscbtls3i'hbjt i.Cnlyof4r 1t7Eo&Iut ad�`ioc#�l'-
��dwcitt' �>��;�
'.. � s ss ;Sr 'tc `.cr s y •. 1"w. � •, -. +'• . r .(v �u,,r +�y'� 1wr
OM ODOM%
�.IliMa - IMM7►f• •: lllR[M ',E }r.
.. YOr19MDQ ian� ,. tM ! �K #aM A "Plop"
Pll�W� Ys3O
4508
6 March 2008
"W-6-1 e9;53 "M!Frdpjm WILD i25199=?s Tta;9"lJ:t@W PA-5
FW33-21W I Wa 2 etu.t,t;-=t ►!~nit CH P.e3
make, K ' [two Sotdeer a Odom m.d.,G
M.yor YJ{y1`i.rim
.February
Pecs 2
I km thri t9s pm+ajea bad vpwtm* rowSW the paint whonlybsd docisiam bourn made
coaceryde�.etrm intended tzpm +memo, but bids werebing eat not sought in order for the Gi" cantoact
warts to be ikm
• It isj Underl WdW !bat Club pnpjpd fot whtth bids have now banal let it intmdt d to
atualiamig �vebl=3 that ourrmsly moat, aed bave msiistcd fan came time, m ttps intatsocdon of [U.S..
Highway 9s anti N. Sediion st. Mete vftifie ty, I tmdmund tW thib woac involver " lot mvW
the interaoc4on of Ata'xu= IfiiOwsy 104 ad U.S. Il3ghway 93 by addn a turn team W 104 anti then
faroing cm ftboaad trat5c on Svdicm Sta w to acceaa ti.S. ilhwsy 9$ =4 fracc t O4s radwt then
from N, S lion St Aa part Off dW effort, It is my mtdeaawtding that narthbo and trafiio MN. Section
Street, at i atn necdam with U.S. W;bmy 98, will be pmailtcd to hurt tight (soulbbo=0 otaly. is
eft, the " soMon to the longatondigg traffic problems at the US, ll W*y9W Serum
SUM . =Om is to prevent aembboard ttatt'ie on N. Section Scoot tram Wag this Wnrsrcdon.
In r y converuska with you and wb b t.Sa hdbca, I have arnmVW to ondins the many cone ms
&*thnvwAhddvprqmW. his ant aty itrtetrtioa to belabaf these maey syeoifa¢ caneerns hemp
3nstcad, I rf�apiy wiser m m3detacpre the brns:]cr point that s aithis aatdtra will, in+eur view,
ai�niEcutt� ttttdttmirro t]to viability ofihe Vi7G jrr ri"o43h Pt7D pmeviooahr sp�rosed by the: t�ty wbtcit
appraval 114mod the basin oftayr 6mily's willinpess to,eatbe ous loo ntnnEteg dtspwte with tba O y is
late 2002 #y effectively ehrainetkS 30% of the b%ffie fran the bout of this propa,ed dcvelopmec d it
it our view Pm the perm would be ovitm2ft .
Yo tnaty recap that during ohm devt4meci of the Vill%p North MUD in 2002, it was
tmdaretoad y my Eawly mW by the City tear a!iglu way needed at fie WarWdon of N. Soctioa S=C
m4U.S.Rowway9S. In the ttafflc #ody pmapaaxt by Silt Yc::Wr ss part of the village Noaih FUD
gTI1Csaicea, Main comtrmod ihn a stood far a traMe dgnat wr sted at thu due and
�oomnmeadtod tlsat r�tae ha wed irr •'ve cf wlrDtbcr the tii ipsga hfoafh PlJE4 warn canxte or
not, In a dd6ic n4 the Village Noath PM ordiomft itself acb mwlodged the City's plan to install alight
them
In A aM it has been SawmUy=detsbood ter cupy ycus thm the saMon to the pmbisrnt that
have ftiO& *I dw intomwtiam of U.S, Highway 93 sad N. Sextiem Sfrest ma dd he addrtnotl theta gh
the fnatal of & ftffic Tb* VIUaxel *M PiUD wu doveloped with that
mduaaaa6 4 dO vly in mind: I mn ad a 5o3s to eotitprebend why the City waWd now ptvose an
alommialive sWotion particularly when such schdon is more axpe mivr,' will rmmelt in sig Rent
asmnts of tiddtpa val tfafUc bring rotated text to a neighbmhood In has vebeme ntly opposed
proposals b4 ieved to rrsaalt in inetnesed traffic, sad will so Mvasoty impact our preriottsiyalx, ooved
war w on Mar E.y. t rem.r. yvn iad6oshd *O faro Ce" of set ns,inm sww st %amen sfrcaa wpatd t+e
unity. Amaaa, utreaymae,aas�in�,,Slur.C�ycsLmrmsrcemlowataaern.w�oerrt�itma;cm
4509
6 March 2008
MW-6-2M W.54 Frth;rWAKK WXD t2%?$Cftz TC9"Wto P.vs
FMj-Lj*= 8 14122 Klurt FWIILTCN P. 04
RMer,'Iminfto SWdet & Odom, "0Pane 3
-
and that
v this mCW and would sum
YM m at your to
tnsa Coaredem Of= Pd pains forwalL
Endomm
I
Cot IL F. Poi�� PE (via ha=U 47MO4)'
t, .1 Way= Curio (vi it fmim0c 470.7739)
Mr. Ctdl Ch6ucnba>,}' (via Neshao 9U4774
lie-Imm. Pm tia rteshbne 92&4*6i
ni4fta!6 O'k928' ��i�
E v.;
FAIRHOPE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
SO TASULATI
aBRUARY 12,
ENGINEERS ESTlWATF.
AMMOMAINACKMOM
AStAl T S*RVV-Ft-S.
F FOL"MENT CORP
HOSEA 0. WEAVER A SONINC.
_fUYMR WDUSME LC
ntu DESMPTIDN ow OTY
UNUCOST I TOTAL
uWrOOGT TOTAL
UNITCOST TOTAL
WTOOST TOTAL
UWCOST TOTAL
UNIT TOTA.
37 ss .=.Squs . . . ..
S 414 S
A wvs
$ 5W, $ �r�_m
3
00
.... . .............. . ...__6:E9
�040, s�FW06
s 9,
.......... _mn_
s I L4CqW
...... . ....... ....
39 A.
.... .. _
3,w
s loop. 3_tomoq
s— '65.
lkwr
s
3 m
s 1.35
3 LAMM
= OWN— 77.300
!lw
40 V'OWC Hayb� FA
Ix
$ ow s
OR
.......... .
s -M
-ir 3 w
...........
3 741
3 1 W035
s 700 1 5 WW
k3p0M
1_64ND).
_jjojj
-..m m
, _.,oK 15
32
.2
77,�M
VV$ 27.",W
5 IF lefmi�
f 3W
3 ig.'"m
s '50!, 2092300
43 G�WD_ E— I CY
MAIM LF
_��FtVLIN�W
s I'm 5 Sw W
A_ ?m S 9 ��.m
s �mls 2,1MW
s Us S,13.,90
I )p s 2W W,
1 ZW _$9�00
6 13m! s I �.m
3 3M!$ IZ-A-3C
s 16W
S 21-
$ 9.A100.5.
.. .
1-1000 s 00
... ... ..... _0L505 .. . ........... . 2t.w
Al,,rgBR. LF
—
3 7M 1 ?m m
—
s it S I .
_W
3 A"
5 7 15&.
3 aW
S MOO
S 14 14;�m
_Aj� —
kA
5
3 3`0M t 1751M
1 1110 jl� 22
ZOV.00
5 M30 1,1� 1!�
1 4111
1 1.11120
$ *0 00 s 75M
�_X�_Isqm T LF
W
4 r �3 s 3�25m
3 oso s Wo
5 c
s 30 f s VQ 00
s QL25
1 024
S
s 162�.00
s .1 2 �.
s 0,40 S 23moo
5 0�
CM
5 I.WOU
S 112A
S O�K. 'S1754 50
I
s v�
s 0_7
s .20
s c :l i. s 30
s' w-
S nm i s 6.1moo
6 Orr
L_ on.
s
621i.0—o
-5 221 -.V DOW W_
_h; Va Ugr " 2, T_ A Y
.4,
Y,u 3
5 vo� W
s
s 07,
1 &M
s F--m
A_,33wso_
s_
s
915--3
Z S 131494
_p V T�SCWLV�
bfl�oq
4mis A.�W
S 4m�
A_l 381M
S 4
4 F,
i I W
1 40 S 1"m
I lm_______LW L5.
s 1.5 T!
5%
$ 13750
s 6 j
$ 40�
s . .........
Ask.,
20
35373G
14, 6C
$ 575 3 00
$ $75 s 35-15
s Q-!s
sis $
Ift'a- a—
TA._2.0
WS s W 1 -3?S%
EA
_Urt 2 0_ _
Vt 7�SS 4m �� �".T-2- I EA
26. w 1 500
. _ _1 - _
.1 t
.5
-
SS'"",mc 3, ft— Cc- LS
3,
i I S 8 SMOD I a SOOw
s '50
w
3 4,495 77
149577
301W t'; M
LS
s smw s 15,WDOII
3 f Or DD i s
is a0W
$ mW
s
3 25"05.:
s 25 V_4
I'SWW ;o.
S
4 w
s 2.m
s loom
-I.. 2w x s SW W'S
GL Lw
i . ....... W
PUM
I swom
A_� c� -L 4,� W
-Molt
s I..Sm
6 We,
19 3 W 16
I 2pam 22 =
3 2 W �02--1
15(nJIM $ 5SW W
2.&X W 1 5 5.=W
$ IWO W
3 �.� w
s iW0W s 4.wo 00
I T 1)
C4 e-
3.7XW S 12,MOM
.0 12,5W W
S_ 3,40CW,: 3 13= W
3 NWIS S�sw 00
3 _mCw
3 2C OD
s mw000
3 CfACM
s Z!5&W s I r 1-44 00
s 2ex 7.3m 00
S 2.ml.
s 3.55
19 'o
s 930000
5 3MW S I�mm
1 u W s e��-
REM19 AW—k-3"
I—C—.1�
5 1 low s
M_ _ A SN
s 6,� W
% 4vlC
s 522
3393W
S 3SS S Z�W
eel
4i- 13,MW
I sbx
S ACWIS 12,sm m
s 9 W
1 m m
s
5 2,�
s 6 M2
s
s 10
4&n
1 me %
—I'm
s $56 $ mm
s I.m s 12�.
s ?"Wz
$ VOV m
$ m 91.
5 M,M?o
S my as
s =ME
QS
4511
6 March 2008
Councilmember Stankoski continued by stating that Judge Floyd came to the City
Council to ask to calm traffic at the Woodlands. We were told it was a State owned
road. When the study was done, we asked for "The Triangle" to be included in all
discussions and studies. The Alabama Department of Transportation ("ALDOT")
told the Street Committee; regardless of what you do, this project needs to be done to
correct these intersections. As the Mayor mentioned previously, there have been
eleven (11) accidents at the Veterans Drive and Greeno Road intersection.
Fortunately there was not loss of life, only property damage.
He explained the new and recommended traffic turns, signals, and the only turn South
on Greeno Road off of Veterans Drive. The Governor has signed off on the plan.
Most of the cost will be for the turn lanes. As for "The Triangle", ALDOT will look
at once it is developed. We will spend the least amount of money for the safety of the
City. The Street Committee did not accept or deny this bid. I will not vote on this
issue because I live near "The Triangle" property.
Council President Gentle asked; when do the bids expire? Dan Ames, Purchasing
Manager, replied; after the bid is accepted from the lowest bidder, he/she has twenty
(20) days to return their bond and certificate of insurance.
Eric Dyas addressed the City Council and stated he was a property owner adjacent to
the intersection in question. He asked Mr. Ames, what is the date for bids, March
13`h? Mr. Dyas said; I appreciate what Councilmember Stankoski has said and what
has happened. The following are a handful of facts that need to be mentioned:
• In December 2002, the PUD Plan was approved with a host of
understandings: Village Center would be on Section Street. The Council did
not want the commercial part on Highway 98 (Green Road). There would be
a two-way arterial street.
• These intersection improvements will alter all traffic, it will fundamental
change). Prior to December, when the PUD came on line, a traffic signal was
going to be placed at Veterans Drive and Highway 98 (Greeno Road). Bill
Metzger told me it was not up to the City Council for a traffic signal. If
ALDOT does not warrant a signal, one will not be installed.
• Our land developer said it is going to be a big problem. If the project is done,
our PUD Plan will be gigged. We want to work with the City. I am in accord
with that. If this is done, we will be in a box and permanently damaged.
• In December, we thought everyone was in agreement. We would have met
with the Street Committee and brought our developers to speak with you.
4512
6 March 2008
Dan Ames stated that after twenty (20) days, the lowest bidder can give us an
extension in writing if he/she wishes. Council President Gentle asked; what was
ALDOT's position on this project? Councilmember Christenberry responded; it is all
or none. You either do one or none. Public safety is first, but we should help all
parties.
Councilmember Quinn commented that Councilmember Stankoski stated we have
had twenty-nine (29) meetings and conversations regarding this issue. We made sure
there was two-way traffic and it was not cut off. The Village Plan is supposed to
serve around one and a half miles not the whole Eastern Shore. Councilmember Ford
said; "I understand Eric's stand and feel we should extend the bid and discuss later."
Mr. Dyas stated that experts have commented we are going to be in a pinch if the
intersection improvements go through. Council President Gentle asked; why don't
we go ahead and approve this for safety. He suggested getting Mayor Kant to write a
letter to ALDOT asking them to look at the Village North PUD when it comes on line
for a traffic light study.
Councilmember Quinn commented the improvements were for public safety and no
one wants to see lights at every intersection. Mr. Dyas stated you don't want one at
Veterans Drive because you just authorized a light at Parker Road for Corte.
Councilmember Christenberry said a nice lady from Colonial Acres was concerned
with four (4) lanes on Highway 104. He commented there was no right answer now.
Mr. Dyas stated that in 1972, the thing that stood out or was a stumbling block was
opposition from Colonial Acres and Highway 104 Northbound next to that
neighborhood.
After further discussion, Councilmember Ford moved to extend the bid and look into
the project further. Seconded by Councilmember Christenberry, motioned failed by
the following voice votes: AYE — Christenberry and Ford. NAY — Quinn and
Gentle. Councilmember Stankoski recused himself.
Council President Gentle said the best way to solve this issue is to approve the bid
and have the Mayor write a letter to ALDOT. Councilmember Quinn reiterated that
ALDOT said no matter what we do, this intersection needs to be fixed.
Councilmember Ford said we are reneging on approval we gave to Dyas six (6) years
ago.
Both Councilmember Quinn and Councilmember Stankoski said this was a three (3)
piece deal. Councilmember Stankoski said if you go forward with the bid, you can't
pick and choose; all three (3) must be done together. Council President Gentle asked;
how long did you go over this last night? Councilmember Stankoski replied one and
a half hours; he stated that in November 2005, Mr. Dyas asked for a traffic survey.
4513
6 March 2008
"You had to have known something was going on here." Mr. Dyas replied in
December a light was approved with the Village North PUD Plan. ALDOT didn't
care and didn't look at any of this.
Councilmember Quinn said if we postpone this, we do not have time to vote on the
bid. Mr. Ames stated if we write a letter to the lowest bidder to extend, there are no
guarantees to the extension and will ALDOT agree to this extension.
After further discussion, Councilmember Quinn moved to accept the low bid of
Summit Industries, LLC provided all specifications are met, for Fairhope intersection
improvements at Alabama Highway 104 and U. S. Highway 98 (Green Road) and to
request ALDOT to work with the City and "The Triangle" developers at the
intersection of Veterans Drive and Highway 98 (Greeno Road) when that
development comes on line. Seconded by Councilmember Christenberry, motion
passed by the following voice votes: AYE — Quinn, Christenberry and Gentle. NAY
— Ford. Councilmember Stankoski recused himself. This purchase will be funded by
the Gas Tax with approximately fifty (50) percent to be reimbursed by ALDOT.
4514
6 March 2008
CITY OF FAIRHOPE 2/19/2008
BID TABULATION
BID NO.002-08 PAD AND POLE MOUNT TRANSFORMERS 25 KVA - 1000 KVA
- L1A0L Y .1EACH:
, 7S " " ,,
�..:.'
.. S, - •, ....
,4 AO
20i 6 "'
EC Za 3 PHASE )MOUNT*
UA{tT.0 RBV
3EACNa: 15Q I(V' -'
,y
6i10.00 $
,2031U.00
,soT 26.
SPEC2a13 PHASE PAD:MOOU TtNT{N
U. IRBY '
,...� ,. W.
1 k. -`. $-.
,',,,.: i, ,00 $.:','...'
3,180
026.
(SPE02s 3PHAS6► NTrt
STUART C. IRBY
3 EACH - >50 KVA __1
$
16,S00.00 1 $
49,500.D0
I 20TO26
(SPEC 2a) 3 PHASE PAD MOUNT
I STUART C.IRBY 11 EACH ISDDO KVA 1 $ 19120S.00 1 $ 19.205,00 1 20TO26 HSPEC 2b) 3 PHASE PAD MOUNT I
STUART C. IRBY 15 EACM 50 KVA $ 2,41f5.00 $ 37,275.00 11T016 (SPEC 2c)1 PHASE PAD MOUNT
STUART C. IRBY 10 EACH 300 KVA $ 2,680.00 $ 26.800.00 14TO1; (SPEC 2c11 PHASE PAD MOUNT
DELTA-Y ELECTRIC CO., INC.
2 EACH
75 KVA
S S,787.00
S 11,574.00
1 10
(SPEC 2a) 3 PHASE PAD MOUNT
DELTA-Y ELECTRIC CO., INC.
3 EACH
1150 KVA_
ji $ 6,862.00
$ 20,596.00
1 10
1 (SPEC 2a) 3 PHASE PAD MOUNT
DELTA•Y ELECTRIC GO.. INC.
3 EACH
S00 KVA
$ 1A,I10.1K1
$ 43,230.00
30
(SPEC 2s) 3 PHASE PAD MOUNT
DELTA-Y ELECTRIC CO., INC.
3 EACH
7SO KVA
$ 17 890.00
$ S3 670.00
10
(SPEC 28) 3 PHASE PAD MOUNT
DELTA•Y ELECTRIC CO., INC.
1 EACH
SOO KVA
$ 14,2S8.00
$ 14,2511.00
1 SO
(SPEC 26) 3 PHASE PAD MOUNT
DELTA•Y ELECTRIC CO_, INC.
1 EACH
1000 KVA
$ 24,334.00
$ 24,334.00
1 10
(SPEC 2bI 3 PHASE PAD MOUNT
DELTA-Y ELECTRIC CO., INC.
15 EACH
SO KVA _
$ 2,2W.00
$ 43,200.00
10
(SPEC 2c 1 PHASE PAD MOUNT
DFLTA-Y ELECTRIC CO., INC.
5EACH
S00 KVA
$ 5,237.00
$ 52,370.00
10
(SPEC 2c)1 PHASE PAD MOUNT
DFLTA-Y FIECTRIC CO., INC.
10 EACH
125 KVA
I $ 1,385.00
1 $ 13,950.00
1 10
(SPEC 2d)1 PHASE PAD MOUNT
DELTA-Y ELECTRIC CO., INC.
10 EACH
150 KVA
I $ 2,062.00
1 $ 20,620.00 1
10
](SPEC 2d) 1 PHASE PAD MOUNT
DELTA-Y ELECTRIC CO.. INC.
Rocommondattdn: To accept the lowest responsible bidders as highlighted above TOTAL FOR ALL TYPES: $ 209,050.00
T
o �? a./ • irPCf �J '�
Aaron Norris Daniel P. Ames
Electrical Sunarintendent Porrh.d,.. ansn....
Councilmember Quinn moved to accept the low bids of HD Supply Utilities
and Stuart C. Irby provided all specifications are met, for their respective categories
of transformers. Seconded by Councilmember Christenberry, motion passed
unanimously by voice vote. This purchase will be funded by Electric Operating
Funds.
4515
6 March 2008
Councilmember Christenberry moved to pay bills as presented. Seconded by
Councilmember Stankoski, motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
Councilmember Christenberry moved to address the following item not on the
printed agenda. Seconded by Councilmember Ford, motion passed unanimously by
voice vote.
Councilmember Stankoski introduced in writing Ordinance No. 1355, an
Ordinance to authorize the issuance of the City's General Obligation Warrant in the
principal amount of $1,300,000.00. In order to take immediate action,
Councilmember Christenberry moved for immediate consideration. Seconded by
Councilmember Stankoski, motion for immediate consideration passed unanimously
by the following votes: AYE - Quinn, Stankoski, Christenberry, Ford, and Gentle.
NAY - None. Councilmember Quinn then moved for final adoption of Ordinance
No. 1355. Seconded by Councilmember Christenberry, motion for final adoption
passed unanimously by the following votes: AYE - Quinn, Stankoski, Christenberry,
Ford, and Gentle. NAY - None.
There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting
was duly adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
Ae:::�
Robert C. Gentle, Council President
isa A. Hanks, Assistant City Clerk