Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08041983 GCf01w� f t MINUTES OF SPECIAL JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL AND GOLF COURSE BOARD OF DIRECTORS - AUGUST 4, 1983 MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY MAYOR PAT FLOOD, JR. AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT: MAYOR PAT FLOOD, JR., VICE MAYOR ROBERT FITZMAURICE, COUNCILMEN RICHARD SZELUGA, JIM GALLAGHER, COUNCILWOMAN DOROTHY McKINLEY/ CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL KILBRIDE. GOLF COURSE BOARD OF DIRECTORS: CHAIRMAN ARTHUR TROWBRIDGE, VICE CHAIRMAN DON LIVINGSTON, DANIEL MELIA, DONALD VICKERS, DAVID NISBET. ABSENT: CLAY PRICE, HARRY MORRIS, CARROLL SIMES. MAYOR FLOOD STATED THAT THE FIRST THING TO BE DISCUSSED IS THE NOTICE TO BID FOR THE LEASING OF THE PRO SHOP WHICH WAS /?,FPARED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. HE ADDED,.FOR THE RECORD, THAT MR..McFAUL, BEEN WITH THE JACKSONVILLE BANK, MR. SLADE, THE BOND ATTORNEY, AND ATTORNEY KILBRIDE ALL AGREED THAT THERE WERE NO PROBLEMS WITH LEASING THE PRO SHOP OR THE SNACK BAR. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN SZELUGA, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GALLAGHER, THAT THIS SUBJECT BE POSTPONED TO A LATER DATE IN ORDER FOR THE COUNCIL TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO STUDY THE NOTICE OF BID AND THE REQUIREMENTS. VICE MAYOR FITZMAURICE ASKED HQW ILONG_IT_WOULD___BE__DELAYED COUNCILMAN GALLAGHER AMENDED HIS SECOND, COUNCILMAN SZELUGA AMENDED HIS MOTION TO ALLOW THIS SUBJECT TO BE BROUGHT UP AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON AUGUST 17. ATTORNEY KILBRIDE ASKED IF THE PRESENCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WAS DESIRED AT THE COUNCIL MEETING TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION OR COULD THEY MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION NOW.AND THE DECISION BE MADE ON THE 17TH. CHAIRMAN TROWBRIDGE STATED THEY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE PRESENTATION NOW SINCE THEY WOULD LIKE TO IMPLEMENT THE MOVE BY OCTOBER 1. MR. MELIA ADDED THAT IT WOULD ALSO SIMPLIFY THE MAKING OF THE BUDGET. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: VICE MAYOR FITZMAURICE COUNCILMAN SZELUGA ff GALLAGHER COUNCILWOMAN McKINLEY NAYS: MAYOR FLOOD MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY VICE MAYOR FITZMAURICE, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN McKINLEY, THAT WE PERMIT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE GOLF COURSE TO PRESENT THEIR CASE REGARD- ING THE LEASE. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: VICE MAYOR FITZMAURICE COUNCILMAN GALLAGHER COUNCILWOMAN McKINLEY MAYOR FLOOD NAYS: COUNCILMAN SZELUGA MOTION CARRIED. MR. MELIA STATED THAT THE REASONS FOR LEASING THE PRO SHOP ARE: THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WOULD LIKE TO GET OUT OF THE HABERDASHERY BUSINESS; $15,000. WOULD BE SAVED FOR THE PRO'S SALARY; $11,000. COULD BE SAVED IN CART COMMISSIONS; SAVE $4000. IN INTEREST - NO INVENTORY WOULD BE NEEDED. THE PRO WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INVENTORY. BECAUSE OF THE SAVINGS OF $30,000. AND THE HEADACHES THE PRO SHOP HAS PRESENTED, WE WOULD LIKE PERMISSION OF THE COUNCIL TO SEND OUT TO BID. ONE OF THE MAJOR HEADACHES IS TRYING TO KEEP THE INVENTORY DOWN. INVENTORY KEPT GOING UP TO AROUND $30,000. DESPITE REQUESTS TO THE PRO TO CUT DOWN. $15,000. HAD BEEN BUDGETED FOR INVENTORY. FINALLY HAD TO TELL THE PRO THAT NOTHING COULD BE ORDERED WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE OF EITHER MR. TROWBRIDGE OR MR. MELIA.- ALSO, WE WANTED TO RUN A DISCOUNT SHOP TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO BUY. IT WAS THE OPINION'~OF THE BOARD.5~O~ DIRECTORS THAT A MAN RUNNING HIS OWN BUSINESS WOULD DO A MUCH BETTER JOB. MR. MELIA MADE THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED BY COUNCILMAN SZELUGA: "LAKES" MEANS THE PRO HAS THE RIGHT TO ANY GOLF BALLS LOST IN THE LAKES. THE CITY WOULD PAY THE SALARIES OF THE EMPLOYEES HIRED TO TAKE CARE OF THE GREENS FEES AND CART FEES, BUT THEY WOULD WORK UNDER THE PRO. THE PRO WOULD BE OFFERED FREE USE OF A CART IN LIEU OF COMPENSATION WHICH WOULD NOT GO..AGAINST THE BOND INDENTURE ACCORDING TO MR. McFAUL AND MR. SLADE. THE PRO WOULD HAVE THE OPTION TO AVAIL HIMSELF OF THE CITY BENEFITS AT A NEGOTIABLE COST. INSURANCE.) HE WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION. RAY LADD ASKED PERMISSION TO DEFEND HIS POSITION.,~?MAYOR FLOOD STATED HE DID NOT KNOW WHAT POSITION HE HAD TO DEFEND, BUT GAVE HIM PERMISSION TO SPEAK. MR. LADD STATED THAT THE GOLF SHOP GROSSED $70,000. THROUGH JUNE AND THE CITY MADE $14,000. ON THAT, REPRESENTING A 20% PROFIT. THE GOODS WERE O~LYMARKED UP 26%. WE HAVE BEEN RUNNING A DISCOUNT SHOP AND HE CANNOT ENVISION PEOPLE PAYING AT LEAST $5. MORE FOR AN ITEM. HE IS DEFINITELY NOT INTERESTED IN SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION. THE GOLF COURSE HAS BEEN RUNNING QUITE SUCCESSFULLY~ THROUGH. JUNE OF THIS YEAR THE GOLF COURSE SHOWS A PROFIT 0F.~$125,000. WHENIHE ABPLIE~?FOR THE JOB~ HE WAS TOLD BY THE COUNCIL THAT IT WAS A ONE YEAR CONTRACT AND THAT IF HE DID A GOOD JOB, HE .WOULD BE RETAINED. HE DOES NOT PLAN TO JUST STEP DOWN. HE INFORMED THE COUNCIL THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE 400 MEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO SEE HIM STAY AND HE WOULD LIKE TO STAY, BUT HE IS.~NOT INTERESTED IN LEASING. HE THOUGHT THAT IF EVERYBODY'S EFFORTS WERE DIRECTED IN A MORE POSITIVE VAIN TOWARD~THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE GOLF COURSE, WE WOULD ALL BE BETTER OFF, BUT TO SPEND ALL OUR TIME ON NEGATIVE ELEMENTS IS NOT GOOD. HE,.THOUGHT THIS WAS JUST ANOTHER WAY THAT A CERTAIN ELEMENT WAS TRYING TO GET RID OF HIM. HE DID NOT, THINK HE WAS BEING HANDLED FAIRLY. IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION FROM COUNCILMAN GALLAGHER,.MR. LADD STATED THAT THE BEST WAY TO GO ISA PRO MANAGER. SOMEBODY HAS TO BE IN CHARGE. IF SOMEONE IS JUST GOING TO LEASE THE PRO SHOP, HE IS NOT GOING TO DEVOTE ~HE HOURS TO IT. LEASING OUT THE OPERATION IS THE WORST WAY TO GO. IF IT WAS A GOOD WAY, HE WOULD BE APPLYING. MR. L~D ALSO MENTIONED THAT HE HAD DEVOTED MANY, MANY HOURS AND HAD NEVER HAD A VACATION OR AN INCREASE IN PAY. IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION FROM COUNCILMAN SZELUGA, MR. LADD REPLIED THAT HE WAS HIRED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ONE YEAR AS THE GOLF PROFESSIONAL, WHICH IS SO STATED IN HIS CONTRACT. THE TITLE OF PRO MANAGER IS~EN~!iN THE CONTRACT ALTHOUGH HE RAN THE WHOLE OPERATION FROM 'DECEMBER, 1981, UNTIL FEBRUARY WHEN THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WAS APPOINTED. HE IS STILL NOT THE PRO 'MANAGER. MAYOR FLOOD POINTED OUT THAT MR. LADD HAD BEEN HIRED AT A SALARY OF $15,000. PLUS COMMISSIONS AND SINCE CART FEES HAD BEEN INCREASED, THIS MEANT HIS COMMISSIONS INCREASED. MR. LANCASTER STATED THAT MR. LADD HAS WORKED VERY HARD AND IS A GOOD PROMOTER B.UT APPARENTLY HE DOESN'T REALIZE THAT OU~ OF THE $125,000. PROFIT, $80,000. HAS TO PAY iNTEREST. $3000. WILL PROBABLY BE LOST EACH MONTH FOR THE NEXT FOUR MONTHS. AT THEEND OF THE BUDGET YEAR WE MIGHT BREAK EVEN. THE PR~ SHOP OPERATION?IS A SICK. OPERATION. HE WAS TOLD TO MARK .GOODS UP 40~ AND HE'S GROSSED 25 WITH NO MAJOR EXPENSES INVOLVED.TO NET 20%. THE 20~ IS NOT TRUE BECAUSE $1000. WORTH OF INVOICES HAVE BEEN FOUND WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN RECORDED AS PAYABLES SO THAT WILL DECREASE THE NET PROFIT. THERE HAS NOT BEBN GOOD - 2 - MANAGEMENT IN THE PRO SHOP. MOST PEOPLE COULD MAKE A LIVING IN A PRO SHOP. MAYOR FLOOD ANNOUNCED THAT MR. McCARTHY'S LETTER DATED MAY 31, 1983, WILL BE DISCUSSED WITH COMMENTS LIMITED TO THE CITY COUNCIL, THE BOARD' OF DIRECTORS, MR. LADD, MR. KRAGES AND MR. ROBERTkMcCARTHY. MR. McCARTHY READ HiS LETTER AND OUTLINE OF CERTAF~V IRREGULARITIES PERTAINING TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE GOLF COURSE AND POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE GOLF COURSE TRUST INDENTURE AND FLORIDA'S GOVERNMENT- IN-THE-SUNSHINE LAW. HE MENTIONED ONE?ITEM THAT HE OMITTED FROM HIS OUTLINE - ON DECEMBER 2, MR. MORRIS MENTIONED THAT A 50~ DISCOUNT ON CARTS WAS GIVEN TO A CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL AND HE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE NAME.OF THE PERSON AND WHY/HE.~WAS GIVEN HALF PRICE. SINCE MR. McCARTHY'S OUTLINE ENDED WITH THE REQUEST THAT MR. TROWBRIDGE AND MR. MELIA BE DISMISSED, MR. MELIA WAS ALLOWED TO RESPOND TO THE ALLEGATIONS. MR. MELIA STATED THAT IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND HOW THEY OPERATE, HE WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK TO JANUARY, 1982. 9 MEMBERS WERE APPOINTED, 7 REGULAR, 2 ALTERNATES. ONONE OF THEM EVER RAN A GOLF COURSE AND THEY WERE NEW TO WORKING WITH A MUNICIPALITY. MR. LADD ACTED AS SECRETARY. HE WAS A PRO AND HE DID RUN GOLF COURSES. WE DECIDED TO DO WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY AT THE MEETINGS TO SAVE MONEY. ALSO, WE FELT WE COULD CORRECT OUR MISTAKES. AND NEVER EXPECTED ANYBODY TO GO OVER OUR MINUTES AND PICK OUT TRIVIAL MISTAKES. IN THE BEGINNING WE DEPENDED ON MR. LADD FOR ANSWERS, PROCEDURES AND GUIDANCE. FOR INSTANCE, MR. LADD TOLD US THAT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS NEVER PAID FOR CARTS AT ANY COURSE WITH WHICH HE WAS AFFILIATED. HE ALSO BROUGHT UP THE MATTER OF DISCOUNTS FOR MEALS. THESE ITEMS WERE DISCUSSED AT MEETINGS AND THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF THE SUNSHINE LAW. MR. MELIA ASKED THAT THE MOTIVES OF MR. MCCARTHY BE CONSIDERED. HE HAD TO READ PAGES OF MINUTES, LISTEN TO HOURS OF TAPES, SAT FOR HOURS AT OUR MEETINGS, STUDIED THE CITY ORDINANCES, THE STATE SUNSHINE LAW AND THE BOND INDENTURE, AND COMPOSE AND WRITE HIS LETTER. WHAT COULD CAUSE A PERSON TO INVEST HIS TIME AND TALENT AS MR. MCCARTHY HAS? IF YOU ASKED HIM, HE WOULD SAY IT WAS FOR THE GOOD OF THE GOLF COURSE, BUT CON- SIDER THIS. WHEN HE FOUND IN OUR BOND INDENTURE A PARAGRAPH FORBIDDING THE FREE USE OF ANY FACiLiTIES, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A SIMPLE MATTER TO POINT THIS OUT TO A MEMBER OF THE BOARD AND FREE USE WOULD HAVE BEEN STOPPED, BUT HE CHOSE TO BRING A REPORTER FROM THE MIAMI HERALD TO OUR MEETING. HE THEN INSISTED ON POLLING THE BOARD MEMBERS ON USE OF CARTS. WHY? WAS HE TRYING TO CHTCH SOMEONE IN A LIE IN FRONT OF THE REPORTER? IS THIS THE WAY TO'HELP OUR COURSE? ANY ADVERSE PUBLICITY CAN HURT US WHEN WE HAVE TO RENEW OUR~FINANCING. THERE ARE RUMORS THAT CERTAIN PEOP~EVWOULD LIKE TO SEE THE MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE FAIL AND BECOME A PRIVATE COURSE. KEEP ALL THIS IN MIND WHEN WE GO THROUGH THIS LETTER. COUNCILMAN SZELUGA ASKED MR. MELIA IF HE COULD INTERRUPT AND MR. MELIA REPLIED THAT HE COULD NOT. COUNCILMAN SZELUGA SAID HE HAD A POINT OF 'ORDER. MR. MELIA ADDRESSED HIMSELF TO MAYOR FLOOD SAYfNG THIS IS A JOINT MEETING BETWEEN THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND THE CITY COUNCIL AND IF ANY MEMBER OF EITHER ~FOTHOSE BODIES WISHED TO INTERRUPT HIM, THEY MUST ASK HIM TO STEP ASIDE. MAYOR FLOOD STATED THAT MR. McCARTHY WAS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE UNINTERRUPTED AND COUNCILMAN SZELUGA HAD THE RIGHT TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. MELIA, BUT HE PREFERRED THAT HE BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE FIRST. COUNCILMAN SZELUGA ASKED IF HE COULD DEFEND HiS INTERRUPTION. MR. MELIA STATEDTHAT HE DID NOT YIELD THE FLOOR. COUNCILMAN SZELUGA RETORTED THAT MR. MELIA HAD THE FLOOR BUT HE HAD ASKED - 3 THE MAYOR FOR A POINT OF ORDER, COUNCILMAN GALLAGHER STATED HE WOULD LOSE THE TRAIN OF THOUGHT IF MR. MELIA WERE NOT ALLOWED TO CONTINUE AND COUNCIL- WOMAN McKINLEY DECLARED THAT COUNCILMAN SZELUGA WAS OUT OF ORDER. MAYOR FLOOD INSTRUCTED MR. MELIA TO CONTINUE, BUT JUST SO IT COULD NOT 'BE SAID THAT ANYTHING WAS TRYING TO BE ELIMINATED, HE ASKED COUNCILMAN SZELUGA WHAT HIS POINT OF ORDER WAS. COUNCILMAN SZELUGA REPLIED THAT MR. MELIA HAS BEEN ASKED TO DEFEND THE ALLEGATIONS PRESENTED BY MR. McCARTHY AND NOT TO LISTEN TO ANY INNUENDOS ABOUT THE PARTICULAR PARTY. HE WOULD RATHER STICK TO THE SUBJECT AND MATERIAL PRESENTED. MAYOR FLOOD REMARKED THAT COUNCILMAN SZELUGA'S POINT WAS WELL TAKEN, BUT TOLD MR. MELIA TO GO AHEAD. MR. MELIA ASKED FOR A RULING ON THE POINT OF ORDER. MAYOR FLOOD STATED HE DID NOT FEEL MR. MELIA WAS OUT OF ORDER. MR. MELIA WENT THROUGH MR. McCARTHY'S LETTER AS FOLLOW~: APRIL 8, 1982: PURCHASE OF CO~YIN~ MACHINE, COST A~._~OXIMa~SL~ $3000., WI~H- OUT GOING TO BID. POSSIBLE VIOLATION. OF CITY ORDINANCE? THE MACHINE COST $2300. WHY DID HE SAY $3000.? THE COMPANY HAD A STATE CONTRACT AND NO BID WAS NECESSARY. A MOTION WAS MADE AND PASSED AT A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING. APRIL 22~ 1982: PURCHASE OF A 500 POUND ICE MAKER, COST ?, WITHOUT GOING TO BID. VIOLATION? MR. McCARTHY DIDN'T KNOW HOW MUCH IT COST. COS~ SLIGHTLY U~DER $~00. WITHOUT GOING TO BID. WE HADANEMERGENCY SITUATION. WE HAD THE GRAND OPENING COMING UP AND ALSO A PRO-AM. WE COULDN'T DO IT WITHOUT AN ICE MAKER. THE CITY ~OUNCIL APPROVED IT. JUNE 24, 1982: ALLOTTED $400. FOR GOLF COURSE SUPERINTENDENT TO ATTEND SEMINAR (PER DIEM TRAVEL EXPENSES TO BE AUTHORIZED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OR BOARD OF DIRECTORS)~ THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS APPROVED AT A MEETING. THE MONEY WAS ALREADY IN THE BUDGET AND THE BUDGET WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. AUGUST 12, 1982: MR. MELIA INFORMED THE BOARD THAT A POLL OF THE BOARD MEMBERS REVEALED THE 50~ DISCOUNT GRANTED TO THE CIFY EMPLOYEES WAS.NO.~O~C-ER IN EFFECt? THAT STATEMENT HAS A THREE 'PART CONCLUSION]: 1. MEMBERS POLLED BY TELEPHONE? PRRS~AL CONTACT? WITHOUT MOTION. POSSIBLE SUNSHINE AMENDMENT VIOLATION? 2. PRIOR MINUTES DO NOT SHOW ACCEPTANcE OF THIS POLICY BY THE BOARD OF ~RECTOR$. POSSIBLE SUNSHINE AMENDMENT VIOLATION. 3. AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO GRANT $0~ DISCOUNT TO CITY EMPLOYEES AND DIRECTORS. POSSIBLE ViOLA~QN OF S~CTION 513 NO FREE SERVICES. IN REVIEWING THE MINU~ FOR ~l~ ~~, MR.~MELIA FOUND THAT HE WAS ABSENT. HE 1)O~$N'T KNO~ WHERE ~1~ ~R~a~iON CAME FROM. HE EXPLAINED THAT MAYOR FLOOD CALLED TO HIS ATTENTION THE FACT THAT MONE~WAS BEING LOST IN THE FOOD AND BEVERAGE OPERATION BECAUSE OF THE DISCOUNT AND HE REMEMBERS SO~fNFORMING THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, BUTDOES NOT REMEMBER ANY POLL. OCTOBER 14, 1982: CONSTRUCTION OF THE SNACK BAR. BID APPROXIMATELY $2160. ACTUAL APPROXIMATE COST $8000? MR.MELIA HAS RESEARCHED THE RECORDS AND CAN'T FIND ANFTHZNG FOR $8000. TO~L COST OF SNACK BAR $3762.58. $2160. WAS THE COST OF THE OUTSIDE, MATERIAL AND SLAB LABOR. IT DID NOT INCLUDE ELECTRIC, NO INTERIOR FINISH OR PLUMBING. NOVEMBER 11, 19827 FREE USE OF ELECTRIC CARTS. THIS WAS DISCUSSED AT AN OPEN MEETING. THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF THE SUNSHINE LAW. AS SOON AS WE FOUND OUT IT WAS IN VIOLATION OF SECTION $13, FREE USE WAS DISCONTINUED. - 4 ~7~CEMBER'_32~;VW9820-~%MRj~ MCCARTHY MENTIONED THAT HE HAD INADVERTENTLY OM~TTED'~ FROM HIS LETTER A REFERENCE TO A POINT BROUGHT UP BY MR. HARRY-. MORRIS WHO HAD INFORMED THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD THAT ONE INDIVIDUAL WAS BEING ALLOWED TO USE A CART AT H~LF-PRICE. MR. LADD EXPLAINED THAT THIS DiD NOT REFER TO ONE PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL BUT THAT WHEN THREE PEOPLE, FOR EXAMPLE, W~NTED TO PLAY TOGETHER, THE THIRD PERSON PAID HALF THE FEE FOR A CART. MR. MORRIS FELT HE SHOULD PAYJTHE FULL PRICE. JANUARY 17, 1983 COUNCILMAN GALLAGHER POINTED OUT THAT THIS WAS A WORKSHOP MEETING WHERE THE LEASING OF THE PRO SHOP AND FOOD AND?BEVERAGE OPERATIONS WAS DISCUSSED AND THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF'~HE TRUST INDENTURE. MARCH 10, 1983 - COUNCILMAN GALLAGHER STATED THAT HERE AGAIN ~THERE WAS ONLY A DISCUSSION RE CHANGING THE BOND INDENTURE AND THEREFORE NO VIOLATION. COUNCILMAN GALLAGHER STATED THAT HE HADN'T SEEN ANYTHING HERE THAT COULD BE SUBSTANTIATED TO EVEN REQUIRE THIS MEETING. MR. McCARTHY REMARKED THAT EVERY- THING SEEMS TO BE EXCUSED. MAYOR FLOOD ASKED HIM IF ANY AC?ION WAS TAKEN OR ANYTHING CHANGED? MR. McCARTHY SAID ACTION WAS TAKEN ON THE FENCE AND MAYOR FLOOD POINTED OUT AGAIN THAT THiS WAS A BUDGETED ITEM. MR. McCARTHY ADDED THAT PERHAPS THE FREE USE OF CARTS WAS TAKEN CARE OF AND PERHAPS NOT, IF WE GO DOWN FURTHER. MAYOR FLOOD STATED THAT MR. McCARTHY'MENTIONED MR. TROWBRIDGE. HE SAID HE HAD HEARD ENOUGH ABOUT MR. TROWBRIDGE AND HE WASN'T GOING TO BRING THIS UP, BUT ON THE DA¥iOF THE PRO-AM, HE SAW MRS. LADD AND MRS. McCARTHY IN A CART AND UPON CHECKING, MRS. McCARTHY DID NOT PAY FOR~THE CART. HE DIDN'T SEE THAT IN MR. McCARTHY'S REPORT. IF THERE'S NO FREE CARTS, THERE'S NO FREE CARTS. MAYOR FLOOD APOLOGIZED TO MRS. LADD AND!?MRS. McCARTHY FOR BRINGING THIS UP, BUT SAID SOMETIMES ALL OF US DO THINGS THAT AREN'T EXACTLY KOSHER BY THE INDENTURE. MR. McCARTHY.~SAID HE COULDN'T SEE THE COMPARISON. THEY WERE NOT PLAYING GOLF. MA~OR FLOOD RETORTED THAT~IT DOESN'T MAFTER. IT SAYS NO FREE CARTS. MAY 26, 1983 MR. McCARTHY ~UESTIONED THE FACT THAT W~i~E CHAIRMAN TROW- BRIDGE COULD NOT REMEMBER THE NAME OF LUCY NELSON LEE WHO WAS APPOINTED ON A TEMPORARY BASIS A~ TH~.~F~OD ~DCBEUERAGE MANAGER, THE MINUTES MENTIONED HER NAME. THE BOARD SECRETARY EXPLAINED THAT FOR PURPOSES OF FUTURE REFERENCE WHENEVER A FIRST NAME IS MENTIONED AT A MEETING, THE LAST NAME IS ALSO ADDED. ATTORNEY KILBRIDE SAID THERE WAS NO PROBLEM WITH THAT SINCE THE MINUTES ARE NOTVERBATIM. RATES AND CHARGES - MR. McCARTHY STATED THAT IT WAS HIS OPINION THAT THE PRO- CEDURES FOR CHANGING RATES AND CHARGES AS DRAWN UP IN THE ORDINANCE SHOULD PERTAIN TO ANYTHING REGARDLESS IF IT'S $20. OR .20 AND SHOULD BE APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL. ATTORNEY. KILBRIDE EXPLAINED THAT THE INTENT WAS TO TURN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE COURSE OVER TO THE BOARD AND TO GIVE THEM AS MUCH'LEEWAY AS POSSIBLE. THE COUNCIL DID NOT WANT TO GET INTO HAVING TO APPROVE EACH CHANGE. THE RATES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE GREENS FEES, CART FEES~AND MEMBER- SHIP FEES. OTHER CHARGES ARE INTERNAL MANAGEMENT.. THE COUNCIL WAS SATISFIED WITH ATTORNEY KILBRiDE'S EXPLANATION. MR. McCARTHY ASKED MR. TROWBRIDGE IF HE SAID TO HIM: "I ALWAYS PAY AFTER I PLAY 18 HOLES". MR. TROWBRIDGE DENIED MAKING SUCH A STATEMENT, HE TOLD MR. McCARTHY THAT DAY THAT HE WOULD PAY AFTER COMPLETION OF THE ROUND. HE WAS BUSY IN THE CLUB HOUSE OR HE WOULD HAVE PAID BEFOREHAND. MAKOR FLOOD COR- ROBORATED MR. TROWBRIDGE'S STATEMENT AND ADDED THAT HE PERSONALLY HAD PULLED MR. TROWBRIDGE OFF THE COURSE THAT DAY .TO TAKE CARE OF SOME OTHER BUSINESS AND MADE SURE THAT HE PAID EVEN THOUGH HE DID NOT COMPLETE THE ROUND. HE ALSO TOLD MR. TROWBRIDGE THAT IF HE WAS CAUGHT AGAIN WITHOUT PAYING, HE WOULD - 10 - MR. McCARTHY STATED THAT AN UTTER DISREGARD FOR THE TAXPAYER'S DOLLARS IS SHOWN AND NAMED MR. MELIA AS WELL AS CHAIRMAN TROWBRIDGE. MR. MELIA~.SUB- MITTED THAT IF HE HAD DISREGARDED THIS MONEY HE WOULD HAVE HAD AN ATTORNEY SITTING WITH HIM ALL THE WHILE HE WAS CHAIRMAN, THEN PERHAPS NO MISTAKES WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AND WE WOULD NOT BE HERE TONIGHT, BUT ACCORDING TO MR. MCCARTHY HE HAD NO REGARD FOR THE MONEY. WE HEAR COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE COST OF GOVERNMENT. THIS MEETING TONIGHT IS ONE REASON WHY. HERE ARE MEN WHO PUT IN THEIR TIME FOR THE GOOD OF THE COMMUNITY AND THEY HAVE TO L'ISSEN TO THESE TRIVIAL COMPLAINTS. MR. McCARTHY HAD TO DIG PRETTY DEEP TO PRESENT THESE PAGES OF TRIVIA TO YOU. CHAI~RM~N~' ~OWBRIDGEC~UOTED~ THE ~ FO~LOWI;~J ~'ERDM ~ M~ £ MCCABTH Y ' S LETTER: "AN EMPLOYEE, WHO HAS SINCE RESIGNED, STATED THAT HE RECEIVED FREE GOLF USAGE FROM CHAIRMAN MR. TROWBRIDGE". CHAIRMAN TROWBRIDGE STATED .HE WOULD LIKE THAT SUBSTANTIATED. HE NEVER HAS TOLD ANY EMPLOYEE THAT HE COULD USE A CART FREE. MAYOR FLOOD STATED THAT HE AND THE CITY CLERK RESEARCHED THE RECORDS~'.AND PRE- SENTED WHAT WAS FOUND. ON APRIL 8, 1982, A COPYING MACHINE WAS PURCHASED FROM BREVARD COPYING PRODUC~S. UNDER A GSA CONTRACT, SO THAT NO BID WAS REQUIRED. THE STATE LAW ALLOWS MUNICI- PALITIES TO?MAKE PURCHASES IN THIS MANNER. WHEN MR. McCARTHY READ ~HE PART OF HIS LETTER REFERRING TO THE PURCHASE OF AN ICE MAKER WITHOUT GOING TO BID AND STATED THAT IT WAS A POSSIBLE VIOLATION OF A CITY ORDINANCE, MAYOR~.~FLOOD ASKED HIM THE NUMBER OF THE ORDINANCE AND MR. McCARTHY DID NOT KNOW.. MAYOR FLOOD EXRL~INED THAT HE HAD ASKED FOR THE NUMBER BECAUSE HIS RESEARCH INDICATED THERE IS NO SUCH ORDINANCE. THERE WAS ONLY A MOTION MADE IN 1977 GOVERNING PURCHASES WITHOUT GOING TO BID. AT A SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING ON APRIL 27, 1982, THE COUNCIL APPROVED THE PURCHASE OF THE ICE MACHINE FOR APPROXIMATELY $2~00. WITHOUT GOING TO BID, WHICH IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE STATUTES. ON JUNE 24, 1982, DON. LI¥ZNGSTON, GREENSCCOMM~TTEE CHAIRMAN, REOUESTED _ ~ .z~cRrVED PERMISSION FRoM THE BOARD FOR THE GOLF COURSE SUPERINTENDENT TO ATTEND A SEMINAR IN ALABAMA. $400. WAS ALLOTTED OUT OF $700. TRAVEL EXPENSES WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN THE GOLF COURSE BUDGET AND APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL. SINCE THIS WAS AN Al:PROVED BUDGET ITEM, NO SPECIAL ~BROVAL WAS NEEDED FROM THE COUNCIL ...... AT THIS POINT, MAYOR FLOOD INTRODUCED MR. DAVID CARTER FROM THE STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WHO HAD BEEN REQUESTED TO SIT IN ON THE MEETING. POLL OF THE BOARD - 8-12-82 - RESEARCH INTO THE MINUTES REFLECT THAT MR. MELIA WAS NOT PRESENT AT THIS MEETING AND NO DISCUSSION WAS HELD REGARDING THE 50% DISCOUNT TO EMPLOYEES. HOWEVER, MAYO~FLOOD STATED THAT HE WAS PRESENT AT A MEETING THAT MR. LADD CALLED SOMETIME IN APRIL WHERELM~. LADD STATED HE FELT ALL EMPLOYEES SHOULD GET A 50% DISCOUNT ON FOOD AND BEVERAGE. MAYOR FLOOD FELT AT THE TIME THAT THIS WOULD HAVE TO INCLUDE ALL CITY EMPLOYEES~ IN AUGUST, MR. CLEDES, FOOD AND BEVERAGE MANAGER, INDICATED 'THAT THE OPERATION WAS LOSING MONEY AND THIS POLICY WAS DISCONTINUED. CONSTRUCTION OF SNACK BAR - TOTAL COST WAS $3762. NO GENERAL CONTRACT WAS ISSUED. QUOTES WERE RECEIVED F~R:DIFFERENT PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION, NONE OF WHICH WAS OVER $1000. NOT NECESSARY TO GO TO BID. - 6 - FENCE AT GOLF.."COURSE - 12-2-82 - TOTAL COST $327.51. DEPARTMENT HEADS HAVE RIGHT TO SPEND MONEY ALLOCATED IN THE BUDGET WITHOUT SPECIFIC APPROVAL OR A PUBLIC HEARING.. WORKSHOP MEETING - 1/17/83 - RE TURNING PRO SHOP AND FOOD AND BEFERAGE OPERA- TION INTO CONCESSIONS. NOTICE OF THIS MEETING WAS POSTED, BUT NO MINUTES ARE TYPED FOR WORKSHOP MEETINGS. THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF THE ~US~i'ZNDE~URE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THIS SUBJECT. NOR A VIOLATION OF THE SUNSHINE LAW. FREE USE OF CARTS -~'~1-11-82 WITH REGARD TO THIS, MAYOR FLOOD ASKED MR. MWFAUL HOW WE COULD CHANGE THE TRUST INDENTURE AND WAS INFORMED THAT IT WOULD TAKE $1~ OF THE BOND HOLDERS TO O.K. IT, BUT THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH BOND HOLDERS WHO HAVE ENOUGH PERCENTAGE TO DO ANYTHING. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ATTENDING SEMINAR - 5-26-83 - TRAVEL EXPENSES ARE IN THE BUDGET. IT WAS DISCUSSED AT A MEETING BUT NO MOTION WAS MADE. FOOD?AND'BEVERAGE MANAGER - 5 -26-83 - WHEN MR. CLEDES RESIGNED AS MANAGER HE RECOMMENDED LUCY LEE NELSON. AS PERSONNEL MANAGER, MAYOR FLOOD TOLD CHAIR- MAN TROWBRIDGE SHE BE PAID FOR A MANAGER'S JOB ON A TEMPORARY BASIS AND IT WAS BROUGHT UP~'~T~'THE~"NEX~,~BOARD.~MEE~ING. THIS WAS AN EMERGENCY SITUATION AND MAYOR FLOOD THOUGHT THIS WAS THE BEST WAY TO HANDLE. RATES AND CHANGES - WHEN MEMBERSHIP RATES WERE CHANGED PUBLIC HEARINGS WERE HELD, BUT JUST TO CHANGE THE PRICE OF3'AABUCKET OF BALLS, THI~3IS NOT A MAJOR CHANGE. THE $1. SURCHARGE WAS DISCUSSED AT A MEETING. THERE WAS NO VIOLATION. NO ACTION WAS TAKEN. AS FAR AS CART RATES ARE CONCERNED, MR.i3McFAUL ADVISED MAYOR FLOOD THE ONLY INDENTURE VIOLATION WOULD BE FREE USE OF CARTS. MAYOR FLOOD STATED THAT HE THOUUHT IT WAS PATHETIC FOR PEOPLE TO TRY AND DIG UP SOMETHING AGAINST A GROUP OF MEN WHO ARE DEVOTING THEIR TIME. THE BAD PUBLICITY COULD HURT US WHEN WB'~iGO BACK TO BONDING. THERE MIGHT BE SOME PROCEDURE P~OBLEMS. IT'S TOO.~'~BAD THAT PEOPLE COULDN'T TRY TO SOLVE THINGS WITHOUT HAVING A MEETING LIKE THIS. IT WAS A WASTE OF THE TAXPAYERS' MONEY FOR THE CITY CLERK TO SPEND 17 HOURS OF HER TIME RESEARCHING ALL THIS. VICE MAYOR FITZMAURICE STATED HE WAS DISTRESSED AT HAVING TO SIT HERE AND TRY TO DISCERN WHAT IT WAS ALL ABOUT. HE IS CONCERNED THAT MOS~?OF THESE CHARGES ARE OVER A YEAR AND A HALF OLD AND THAT ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN~ON THEM. HE ASKED MR. McCARTHY?WHY THIS WAS BROUGHT UP NOW? MR. McCARTHY REPLIED THAT HE HAD COMPILED THE MINUTES HE HAD RECEIVED ONLY WITHIN THE LAST 2-3 MONTHS AND WAS CONCERNED THAT THE INDENTURE AND ORDINANCE HAD BEEN VIOLATED. VICE MAYOR FITZMAURICE ADDED THAT THE CH~GES HAD BEEN ANSWERED TO HIS SATIS- FACTION. HE AGREED THAT .THINGS MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED DUE TO INEXPERIENCE. HE HAD A PROBLEM WITH MR. McCARTHYIS STATEMENT THAT THE SNACK BAR COST APPROXIMATELY $8000. MR. McCARTHY REPLIED THAT THIS WAS A RUMOR. HE HAD NO WAY OF KNOWING HOW MUCH IT COST. VICE MAYOR FITZMAURICE THOUGHT IT ODD TO,%CHARGE SOMEONE WITH A RUMOR. $~000. WAS ALLOCATED IN BUDGET FOR THE SNACK SHOP. THE BIDS CAME IN FOR $2160., TOTAL COST $3762. VICE MAYOR FITZMAURICE COULD UNDERSTAND WHY THINGS OF RECENT VINTAGE WERE BROUGHT UP BUT NOT THE OLD THINGS. MR. McCARTHY REFERRED TO HIS LETTER WHEREIN HE STATED HE WOULD LIKE TO ENLIGHTEN THE COUNCIL ABOUT POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS SINCE THE COUNCIL IS NEW. MAYOR FLOOD POINTED OUT TO MR. MCCARTHY THAT THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT WAS ALWAYS READY TO GIVE OUT ANY INFORMATION DESIRED. THE ONLY $8000. SPENT WAS FOR THE CANOPY~OVER THE CLUB HOUSE. - 7 - COUNCILMAN GALLAGHER.~'REMARKED THAT HE HAD NOT HE~RD ONE THING THAT WOULD SUBSTAntIATE THE DISMISSAL OF EITHER MR. MELIA OR MR. TROWBRIDGE. MR. McCARTHY RESPONDED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT VARIOUS ITEMS. MR. McCARTHYYREAD EXCERPT_FROM MINUTES OF FEBRUARF~iS, 1982, WHERE MAYOR FLOOD INFORMED THE COMMITTEE THAT ALL PURCHASES OVER $1000. MUST GO TO BID. MAYOR FLOOD EXPLAINED AGAIN THAT THE COPYING MACHINE WAS PWR~HASED UNDER A STATE CONTRACT AND THEREFORE IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO GO TO BID. ATTORNEY KILBRIDE CORROBORATED THIS. COUNCILMAN GALLAGHER ASKED MR. McCARTHY IF HE_:WAS SATISFIED WITH THEEXPLANA- TION FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE ICE MACHINE WHICH WAS APPROVED AT A SPECIAL: COUNCIL MEETING ON APRIL 22, 1982, AND HE STATED THAT HE WAS. COUNCILMAN GALLAGHER POINTED OUT THAT THE PER DIEM TRAVEL EXPENSES WAS APPROVED ' BY THE CITY COUNCIL. MAYOR FLOOD ADDED IT WAS APPROVED AS PART OF THE BUDGET. IN ORDINANCE NO. 0-81-26-A, SEC. 12.5-3 (f) COMPENSATION, IT SAYS: "A DZRECTOR OF THE BOARD SHALL SERVE WITHOUT COMPENSATION, BUT MAY-BE REIMBURSED FOR TRAVEL EXPENSEST~-MILEAGE EXPENSES AND OTHER PER;'DIEM EXPENSES AS MAY BE AUTHORIZED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND APPROVED BY THE MAYOR,[." MAYOR FLOOD STATED THAT THE USE OF THE WORD "MAY" INSTEAD OF "SHALL" ALLOWS FOR SOME LENIENCY SO THAT IF THE MONEY ALLOTTED IS OVERSPENT, THEY COULD COME BACK FOR APPROVAL FOR MORE. VICE MAYOR FiTZMAURICE POINTED OUT THAT MR. McCARTHY WAS TALKING ABOUT THE GQLF COURSE SUPERINTENDENT, NOT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AND IT WAS STATED ~AT THE SUPERiNTENDENT'S BUDGET ALSO HAD TRAVEL EXPENSES ALLOTTED AND APPROVED. COUNCILMAN SZELUGA REMARKED THAT BECAUSE THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE BUDGET, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THEY CAN TRAVEL. HE FELT THE COUNCIL SHOULD AUTHOR- IZE. · TTQRNEY KI~BRIDE?ABKED'~IF.~HE'WA$~T~LKING ABOUT,'TRAVELS'BY AN'.EMPLOYEE, IN THIS CASE, THE SUPERINTENDENT, WHICH IS NOT COVERED IN THAT SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE. MR. SZELUGA STATED THAT AS FAR AS THE SUPERINTENDENT WAS CONCERNED HE WOULD GO ALONG WITH THE FACT THAT HE BELIEVED MR. MfCARTHY WAS REMISS ON THIS ONE POINT IN MISINTERPRETING THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. HE ADDED THAT LATER ON HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ON SOME MATTERS' PERTAINING .TO EMPLOYEES AND DIRECTORS. ATTORNEY KILBRIDE STATED IT WAS HIS OPINION THAT WHEN THE COUNCIL APPROVES TRAVEL AND PER DIEM EXPENSES IN THE BUDGET?~R THE BOARD. FOR A SPECIFIC EXPENDITURE TO BE AUTHORIZED IT MUST BE ARPROVED BY THE MAYOR AND MAYOR FLOOD SAID HE DID AUTHORIZE THAT EXPENDITURE. MR. McCARTHY WAS SATISFIED WITH THIS EXPLANATION. WITH REFERENCE TO MRS' MELIA~'INFORMfNG THE~.BOARD?~AT A;MEETING ON AUGUST 12, 1982, OF A POLL HE TOOK, SINCE MR. MELIA SO STATED AND THE MINUTES REFLECTED THAT HE WAS NOT PRESENT AT THAT MEETING, COUNCILMAN GALLAGHER STATED THERE WAS NO SUBSTANCE TO THIS MR. McCARTHY~PRESENTED A SET OF MINUTES DATED AUGUST 12, 1982, WHICH iNDICATED THAT MR. MELIA PRESIDED AT THAT MEETING. HE ADDED THAT THIS COULD BE A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR ON THE MINUTES. COUNCILMAN GALLAGHER STATED THATSHE~HAD THE3OFFICIAL MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 12 MEETING FROM THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE WHICH SHOWS MR. MELIA.AND MR. ROUX BEING ABSENT AND OBVIOUSLY SOMEONE IS IN ERROR. IT'S A QUESTION OF WHICH IS THE CORRECT MINUTES. MAYOR FLOOD POINTED OUT THAT MR. LADD WAS DOING THE MINUTES AT THAT TIME AND' THE .RECORDS IN CITY HALL SHOW HE WAS ABSENT. THE MINUTES YOU HAVE DID NOT COME FROM CITY HALL. MR. McCARTHY AGREED. HE GOT THEM FROM MR. LADD. MR. LADD WAS ASKED WHICH WERE THE CORRECT MINUTES. HE REPLIED THAT RELUCTANTLY, HE HAD NOT SEEN ANYTHING. WHEN ASKED TO COME AND LOOK AT BOTH SETS OF MINUTES HE -REPLIED THAT HE WOULD RATHER NOT BE PUT IN SUCH A PRECARIOUS POSITION. HE STATED THAT AT THE FOLLOWING MEETING, THE MINUTES HAVE TO BE APPROVED AND SUGGESTED THAT THE NEXT MINUTES BE REFERRED TO TO SEE IF THERE WERE ANY COR- RECTIONS. COUNCILMAN GALLAGHER REQUESTED MR. LADD TO LOOKAT THEM ANYWAY' - 8 BECAUSE THEY WERE TYPED ON DIFFERENT MACHINES AND HE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHICH MINUTES MR. r LADD TYPED. MAYOR FLOOD SAID HE WOULD TURN BOTH SETS OVER TO THE STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THEM TO DETERMINE WHICH TYPEWRITER WAS USED. THE MINU~ES IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CAME FROM MR. LADD AND HE WOULD. LIKE TO KNOW WHERE THE OTHER SET OF MINUTES CAME FROM. WHEN REQUESTED, MR. McCARTHY TURNED OVER HIS SET OF MINUTES FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION.. MR. McCARTHY WAS SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION REGARDING CONSTRUCTfON OF THE SNACK BAR. NOVEMBER 11, 1982 MR. MCCARTHY STATED HE HAD BROUGHT UP THE QUESTION OF FREE USE OF ELECTRIC CARTS BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO MR. MELIA AND NOT POLLING OF ANY OF THE BOARD AT THAT MEETING. MR. MELIA STATED HE HAD RE- QUESTED A POLL, WHICH WAS DENIED. MR. McCARTHY DENIED MAKING SUCH A REQUEST AND REPEATED THAT HE HAD SPOKEN ONLY TO MR. MELIA. HE HAD ASKED MR. MELIA IF HE HAD THE AUTHORITY TO, GET ~FREE USE OF THE CARTS. PRIOR M~NUTES DO NOTI~,SHOW AUTHORIZATION OF ELECTRIC CARTS FOR THE BOARD MEMBERS. IS THERE A MOTION IN PRIOR MINUTES, AS MR,'i~ MELIA HAS STATED, THAT THEY VOTED THEMSELVES THE USE OF CARTS. MAYOR FLOOD STATED THAT MR. MELIA HAD SAID THAT MR. LADD BROUGHT THIS UP''~ SAYING THAT HE HAD NEVER BEEN AT ANY OTHER GOLF COURSE WHERE FREE USE WAS DENIED. MR. LADD WAS ASKED TO VERIFY THIS S~ATEMENT. WHILE MR. LADD WAS MAKING HIS WAY TO THE PODIUM· ATTORNEY KILBRIDE, FOR THE RECORDS, ASKED MR. McCARTHY IF HE HAD JUST PRESENTED TO THE' BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND THE CITY COUNCIL, A COPY OF THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 12, 1982. MR. McCARTHY VERIFIED AND IDENTIFIED THE MINUTES FOR THE RECORD. THE MINUTES WERE TURNED OVER TO THE CITY CLERK AND MARKED AS MR. McCARTHY'S EXHIBIT A, TO DISTINGUISH THEM FROM THE OFFICIAL MINUTES. MR. LADD REMARKED THAT EVERYBODY SHOULD BE MADE TOTALLY KNOWLEDGEABLEAAS TO THE SITUATION PERTAINING TO FREE GOLF CARTS THAT WERE ISSUED TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. WHEN THE COURSE FIRST OPENED UP MR~ TROWBRIDGE WORKED AS THE STARTER TWO DAYS A WEEK AT NO PAY.~.~ON'3~HE BASIS OF THAT, BECAUSE ALL HIS EMPLOYEES WERE ENTITLED TO CART PRIVILEGES AT THAT TIME, HE GRANTED MR. TROWBRIDGE FREE CARTS. ABOUT A MONTH LATER MR. PRICE REQUESTED FREE USE BECAUSE OF THE TIME HE WAS SPENDING ON GOLF COURSE MATTERS. MR.. LADD TOLD HIM HE WAS NOT DOING ANY WORK OVER AND ABOVE WHAT THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS WERE DOiNU. AFTER ANOTHER MONTH PASSED MR. MELIA APPROACHED MR, LADD AND SAID HE THOUGHT HE OUGHT TO HAVE FREE CARTS BECAUSE OF ALL THE WORK HE WAS DOING. HE WAS REFUSED. THEN IT GOT TO THE POINT WHERE ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE'BOARD OF DIRECTORS WERE WORKING EXTREMELY HARD AND THEY THEMSELVES HAD TO MAKE A DECISION. AFTER ONE OF OUR MEETINGS, WHEN WE WERE NO LONGER ON TAPE, THE BOARD MEMBERS THEMSELVES, WITH HIS APPROVAL, AGREED THAT THEY SHOULD GET FREE CARTS. MR. LADD TOLD THEM THAT WHEREVER HE HAD WORKED BEFORE CART PRIVILEGES WERE ALLOWED. DECEMBER 2, 1982 FENCE ERECTED AT GOLF COURSE - MR. McCARTHY QUESTIONED WHO THE FOUR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WERE WHO AUTHORIZED THE EXPENDITURE WHEN CONTACTED AROUND THE GOLF COURSE. MAYOR FLOOD ASKED IF MR. McCARTHY CONSIDERED THAT IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A DEPARTMENT HEAD WHO ASKED SOME OF THE MEMBERS. THE EXPENDITURE WAS PART OF THE $$000. ALLOTTED. COUNCILMAN GALLAGHER POINTED OUT A DEPARTMENT HEAD CAN AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF A BUDGETED ITEM AND ASKED MR. McCaRTHY IF HE WAS SATISFIED WITH THAT. IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE IN THE MINUTES OR APPROVED BY THE BOARD. - 9 - DECEMBER 2,.19~2: FENCE ERECTED AT GOLF COURSE. APPROXIMATE COST $300. THIS WAS ALREADY IN OUR BUDGET. MR. MORRIS SUGGESTED THAT FENCE BE EXTENDED SO PEOPLE COULD NOT WALK ON COURSE AND PLAY FREE. IT WAS MENTIONED AT SEVERAL MEETINGS AND NO ONE OBJECTED TO IT. JANUARY 17, 1983: WORKSHOP MEETING PERTAINING TO HAVE THE PRO SHOP AND FOOD AND BEVERAGE OPERATIONS TURNED INTO CONCESSIONS. POSSIBLE VIOLATION OF TRUST INDENTURE SECTION 576. MR. MELIA STATED HE DIDN'T SEE HOW ANYTHING COULD BE VIOLATED IF NOTHING WAS DONE. IT WAS JUST DISCUSSED. MARCH 10, 1983~ MAYOR FLOOD REPORTED W~TH REGARD TO FREE USE OF CARTS. TO CHANGE INDENTURE. MR. MELIA SAID, AGAIN, WE TALKED ABOUT IT. NOTHING WAS DONE. MAY 26~ 1983: CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WENT TO A SEMINAR IN ORLANDO. THAT MONEY WAS ALREADY IN THE BUDGET. NO MOTION WAS NECESSARY. MR. McCARTHY HAD STATED THAT CHAIRMAN TROWBRIDGE COULD NOT TELL HIM THE NAME OF THE PERSON HIRED TEMPORARILY TO MANAGE THE FOOD AND BEVERAGE OPERATION. MR. MELIA ADDRESSED HIMSELF TO MR. McCARTHY, STATING THAT SOME DAY HE MIGHT GET OLD AND LOOK AT SOMEBODY AND NOT';'REMEMBER THE NAME.~ MR. McCARTH~DIDN'T BELIEVE THE CHAIRMAN HAD THE AUTHORITY TO PROMOTE OR INCREASE SALARIES. MR. MELIA STATED THE BOARD HAS THAT RIGHT. HE ADDED THAT THINGS HAPPEN IN BETWEEN MEETINGS AND A GOOD CHAIRMAN SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE A DECISION AND REPORT IT AT THE NEXT MEETING. RATES AND CHARGES: IT APPEARS THAT THE BOARD IS CHANGING RATES AND CHARGES WITHOUT FIRST SUBMITTING TO PUB~ICCHEARING AND WITHOUT NOTIFYING THE CITY COUNCIL AND WAITING FOR APPROVAL OR 30 DAYS. PRICE OF RANGE BALLS INCREASED TO $1.$0 A BUCKET, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY. MR.LMELIA STATED THAT BEFORE THE INCREASE THE RANGE BALLS WERE $1.32. WHEN THE ORDINANCE MENTIONS THAT APPROVAL HAS TO BE OBTAINED EOR RATE CHANGES, IT MEANS GREENS FEES, CART FEES,~'~.MEMBER- SHIP FEES. FOLLOWING MR. McCARTHY'S LINE OF REASONING WE WOUf~D HAVE TO GET APPROVAL TO RAISE THE PRICE OF A HAMBURGER AND HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. THIS IS NOT THE INTENT. $1.00 SURCHARGE TO ALL MEMBERS - THIS WAS NEVER DONE, ONLY DISCUSSED. CART RATES DECREASED FOR NON-MEMBERS BUT NOT FOR MEMBERS. MR. MELIA READ AN EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF MAY 12, 1983: "MR. MELIA REPORTED THAT SOME COMPLAINTS HAD BEEN RECEIVED THAT WE WERE GIVING GOLF CARTS AWAY FOR $2. HE TALKED TO MEMBER~..~DELORES McCARTHY AND EXPLAINED TO HER THAT WE'WERE TRYING TO COMPETE WITH OTHER COURSES IN THE AREA AND THAT IF WE DIDN'T GET SUFFICIENT USE OF OUR CARTS IT WOULDuMEAN RAISING MEMBERSHIPODUES. ALSO, THAT A CART COULD NOT BE RENTED FOR $2. SHE FINALLY AGREBD, BUT SAID THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY PROBLEMS MONEY-WISE IF PEOPLE WERE NOT ALLOWED TO RIDE CARTS FREE. SHE ADDED THHN~'~THAT MIKE CLEDES, WHO WAS THE FOOD AND BEVERAGE MANAGER AT THK_. TIME, WAS ONE. WE TOLD HERO, TO COME TO ONE OF THE MEETINGS AND MAKE HER ACCUSATIONS BUT~TB~T IT WOULD HAVE TO BE AGAINST MR. LADD BECAUSE HE WAS IN CHARGE OF THE PRO SHOP. SHE SAID NOTHING ELSE.' ~B,?M~LIA TALKED TO MR. CLEDES WHO SAID HE COULD ONLY REMEMBER ONE TIME WHEN HE CHARGED IT AGAINST HIS BILL~AND PAID A~AALATER DATE." HE QUOTED FROM ANOTHER SET OF MINUTES WHICH STATES THAT STANDARD CART FEES WILL BE $12. FOR EVERYTHING EXCEPT SPECIAL PACKAGES. ON THE MORNING THAT MR. McCARTHY SAID CHAIRMAN TROWBRIDGE DID NOT PURCHASE A GOL~ CART TICKET, CHAIRMAN TROWBRIDGE WAS IN THE DINING ROOM AS USUAL DIS- CUSSING THINGS WITH THE PEOPLE THERE. OUR TEE TIME CAME UP AND WE CALLED TO HIM TO COME ON, WHICH HE DID. HE DIDN't SAY: "I ALWAYS PAY AFTER I PLAY 18 HOLES". HE SAID? "I'LL PAY. SOMETIMES I PAY AFTER I PLAY IF I FORGET TO BAY." - 5 - BE TAKEN TO THE COUNCIL. MR. McCARTHY SAID HE HAD NOT KNOWN THE FINAL OUTCOME ANDMAYOR FLOOD STATED THAT HE HAD NEVER ASKED. COUNCILMAN SZELUGA STATED THAT AFTER HEARING ALL THE REMARKS, HE WOULD LIKE TO .~F~..WHAT THE PROBLEM IS. THE PROBLEM LIES IN TWO DOCUMENTS, THE ORDINANCE ~E~TING THE GOLF COURSE AND AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE. HE READ CERTAIN EXCERPTS PERTINENT TO THE MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION. ONE P-ARTiCULAR SECTION (12.5-5J. S~ATESITHE BOARD 'SHALL HAVE THE POWER AND DUTY TO' ADOPT RULES AND REGULATIONS. COUNCILMAN SZELUGA ASKED WHERE AREi3THESE RULES? COUNCILMAN SZELUGA ASKED WHO IS OPERATING THE GOLF COURSE? WHO IS MANAGING IT? THERE IS NOTHING IN THESE DOCUMENTS WHICH SAYS WHO SHALL GOVERN, OPERATE, MAKE THE RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR VARIOUS DEPARMENTS? STANDARD OPERATING PRO- CEDURES HAVE NEVER BEEN ESTABLISHED. IN THE BEGINNING THERE WAS A?~F~NAGER UNTIL THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WAS APPOINTED. THE OPERATION IS RUN LiKE A DAY-TO-DAY FARMER WHO CAN'T MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHAT TO DO. NO DEPARTMENT HEADS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED. HE BELIEVES THE COURSE IS MAKING MONEY AND IS A GOOD THING, BUT THERE ARE TOO MANY LOOSE ENDS. HE DOES NOT BELIEVE STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN A DEROGATORY ~ANNER, BUT TO ESTABLISH A GOOD VIABLE OPERATING SYSTEM~ HE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHEN THE GOLF COURSE IS GOING TO HAVE A COMPLETE WRITTEN SET OF OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR ALL OF THE FACILITIES. COUNCILWOMAN McKINLEY INFORMED COUNCILMAN SZELUGA THAT?SHE HAD IN HER HAND THREE PAGES DATED DECEMBER 1981, "SEBASTIAN.MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE RULES AND REGULATIONS". COUNCILMAN SZELUGA ASKED TO SEE THEM. MAYOR FLOOD TOOK EXCEPTIONi~TO THE IMPLICATION THAT MR. LADD WAS DOING ALL THE WORK. HE REPEATED A REMARK THAT HE HAS MADE BE~ORE THAT MR. LADD IS ONE OF THE BEST PROM~ERS HE HAS EVER SEEN BUT HE IS ONE OF THE P~OREST MANAGERS. HE ADDED THAT NONE OF THE PROBLEMS WOULD BE SOLVED AS LONG AS THERE IS SUCH NEGATIVE ATTITUDES. NEGATIVE CRITICISM DOESN'T HELP. HE WILL SUPPORT THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ALL THE WAY.? THEY HAVE DONE A TERRIFIC JOB, AND MADE MONEY. VICE MAYOR FITZMAURICE ASKED THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS IF THEY WOULD.COMPiLE SOME ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS OF VARIOUS MEMBERS AT A MEETING SOME MONTHS AGO. MR. MELIA REPLIED THAT THEY WANT TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS IN WRITING, BUT THEY ARE SPENDING A LOT OF TIME AT THE COURSE AND AT MEETINGS AND NOT ACCO~ PLISHING MUCH. THEY'RE AFRA'ID OF BE~G?i~NO~I.VE~ IF SOMETHING NEW IS TRIED, PEOPLE LOOK DOWN OUR THROATS WAITING FOR OUR NEXT MISTAKE TO BRING IT BEFORE THE COUNCIL. THAT'S A LOUSY ATTIWUDE TO WORK'WITH. WE'LL WRITE A LETTER BUT GET THE PEOPLE OFF OUR BACKS. COUNCILMAN SZELUGA STATED THEREEWAS NOTINTENTION ~0 MDKE ANY DEROGATORY REMARKS AGAINST ANF INDIVIDUAL ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.. HE WAS JUST REFERRING TO POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. HE KNOWS THEY DEVOTE A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT~ HE JUST WOULD LIKE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES SET UP WHICH WOULD GET PEOPLE OFF THESR BACKS. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES SHOULD ENCOMPASS THE'OPERATION OF THE PRO SHOP, FOOD AND BEVERAGE, LOCKER ROOM, MANAGEMENT OF THE MAINTENANCE DEPART- MENT. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS SHOULD BE ONLY IN A POLICY MAKING POSITION RATHER THAN IN AN OPERATING POSITION. LEAVE THAT TO YOUR.SUPERINTENDENTS, AND OVERSEE THE OPERATION, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL. MR. MELIA ASKED ATTORNEY KILBRIDE IF HE WOULD DEFINE "MANAGER". THE PAST COUNCIL SAID WE WERE TO MANAGE, BUT OBFIOUSLY COUNCILMAN. SZELUGA DOES NOT WISH TO ABIDE BY THAT. DOES THAT MEAN HIRING, FIRING? ATTORNEY KILBRIDE REPLIED THAT HE THOUGHT IT DID. THESE SAME QUESTIONS WERE ASKED ABOUT A YEAR AGO. THE INTENT WAS TO TWRN OVER TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMPLETE OPERATIONAL CONTROL. NOBODY HAD ANY OBJECTIONS TO THIS. - 11 - MOTION BY VICE MAYOR FITZMAURICE, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN McKINLEY, THAT THIS COUNCIL TAKE NOTE OF MR. McCARTHY'S LETTER OF MAY 31, 1983, AND THAT NO FURTHER ACTION BE TAKEN ON SAME. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: VICE MAYOR FITZMAURICE COUNCILMAN SZELUGA COUNCILWOMAN McKINLEY COUNCILMAN GALLAGHER MAYOR FLOOD NAYS: NONE CARRIED. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN GALLAGHER, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN McKINLEY, THAT THE VARIOUS CHARGES WERE REVIEWED BY THE COUNCIL AND WE FIND ABSOLUTELY NO SUB- STANTIATiON TO ANY OF THEM THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE DISMISSAL OR ANY REPRI- MAND TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND ALSO THE COUNCIL APPRECIATES THE JOB THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS IS DOING AND WOULD LIKE THEM TO CONTINUE IN THE WAY THEY ARE OPERATING. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: NAYS: MEETING ADJOURNED 10:23 P.M. VICE MAYOR FITZMAURICE COUNCILWOMAN McKINLEY COUNCILMAN GALLAGHER MAYOR FLOOD COUNCILMAN SZELUGA CARRIED. - 12 P~t Flood, Jr. Mayor City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 127 t-I SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 TELEPHONE (305) 589-5330 JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL & GOLF COURSE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AUGUST 4, 1983 - 7:00 P.M. AGENDA ROLL CALL PLEDGE' OF ALLEGIANCE NEW BUSINESS: PROPOSED BID FOR LEASING OF PRO SHOP DISCUSSION REGARDING MR. McCARTHY'S LETTER ADJOURN Deborah C. Kregm City Cl~rk NOTE: IF ANY PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, HE WILL NEE~.A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND THAT, FOR SUCH PURPOSE, HE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH .THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.