►
From YouTube: City Council Meeting 10-17-18 Part 6
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
C
B
You
the
process
for
the
final
evaluations.
All
presenters
were
independently
evaluated
by
the
council
based
on
member
discussion.
Members
may
adjust
their
scoring
member
shall
advise
procurement
at
the
end
of
discussion
if
they
adjusted
any
of
their
scores
and
I'll
revise
the
evaluations
spreadsheet.
B
A
member
may
motion
to
accept
a
short
list
ranking
as
presented
or
a
member,
has
the
right
to
request
free
ranking,
either
by
applying
ordinal
scores
or
group
consensus
like
we
did
last
time,
we'll
just
go
through
the
round
robin
discussion
on
the
firm's
and
then
after
that,
we'll
go
into
discussion
since
I'm
a
lefty
cannon
associates
vice
mayor
wine.
Could
you
start
us
off
on
discussion?
Please
you.
D
E
They
really
had
community-wide
planning
experienced.
They
addressed
all
the
elements
we
were
looking
for,
while
I
thought
their
timeline
was
long,
I
thought
it
provided
they
said
they
would
convert
it
and
it
provided
for
really
the
maximum
amount
of
citizen
input,
because
it
gave
up
all
different
opportunities
for
that
yeah.
They
had
a
good
annexation,
discussion
and
I.
You
know,
but
since
economic
development
is
really
their
key
there,
they
had
a
good
firm
that
was
supporting
them
on
that,
and
they
also
talked
about
the
local
character
and
how
important
that
was
so
Thank
You
Mara.
A
They
mentioned
Landscape
Architecture
a
couple
of
times
which
wasn't
really
one
of
our
focuses.
So
I
kind
of
threw
me
off
a
little
bit.
I
thought
the
fish
kind
portion
was
very
strong
I
liked
what
they
said
about
their
focus
on
annexation
and
the
future
of
retail.
They
were
the
only
ones
to
really
say
those
words
which
were
strong.
For
me.
Their
timeline
was
problematic.
A
They
had
the
two
months
there
for
the
project
award,
which
I
felt
like
could
be
an
indication
that
the
negotiations
were
going
to
be
prolonged
and
that
kind
of
put
a
that's.
How
my
mind
interpreted
it.
I
thought
their
their
eclectic
makeup
was
their
strong
suit,
but
their
timelines
could
cause
issues
in
the
process.
F
Okay,
I
thought
that
the
presentation
was
very
good,
including
their
frequent
mention
of
the
historic
charm
of
the
city,
our
annexation
goals,
the
review
of
the
scope,
and
they
made
good
reference
to
the
ldr
portion
of
the
project.
Their
presentation
on
why
we
should
select
them
was
also
very
passionate
and
resonated
with
us
very
well,
as
was
Jaime
Korea's
portion
of
the
presentation.
What
I
did
not
like
is
their
timetable
for
the
entire
process
or
the
fact
that
the
charettes
were
broken
into
two
separate
weeks
of
meetings.
C
The
time
line
was
way
too
long
when
his
rep
process
came
I
thought
this
should
have
been
one
process.
I
also
felt
they
were
relying
way
too
much
on
past
success.
Their
financial
analysis
was
not
as
in-depth
as
I
think
is.
We
need
there
seemed
more
like
a
real-estate
analysis
and
then,
when
we
talked
about
making
the
timeline
better,
that
they
were
willing
to
fast-track
it.
E
They
spoke
to
the
importance
of
historic
preservation.
Their
plans
were
tailored
to
place
while
using
best
practices
they
spoke
to
tactical
urbanism.
Bringing
growth
to
downtown
their
timelines
were
good
with
the
charettes
in
the
February
to
March
timeframe
in
the
completion.
The
feedback
loop
in
August,
which
really
puts
us
in
a
good
position
for
our
strategic
planning
process,
and
they
talked
about
smart,
smart
growth,
things
but
sensitive
to
historic
character
and
I'd
like
the
where
they're
talking
about
a
good
code
is
like
good
DNA
and.
E
There's
scenario
planning
they
talked
about
based
on
economic
reality,
they've
done
this
with
developers
and
cities
and
they
kept
talking
about
the
end
result
ground
in
reality.
So
they
were
not
going
to
have
some
something
unrealistic
and
they
talked
about
using
regulation
as
a
statement
of
brand
priorities
and
coaching
tools.
They
did
speak
to
annexation
and
they
mentioned
that
some
residents
may
be
fearful
growth
and
change,
and
it
was
an
enthusiastic
presentation.
Thank
You.
B
A
Keisling,
so
their
presentation
relied
heavily
on
the
case
studies,
which
I
thought
was
very
helpful
in
showing
the
real
worth
world
solutions
to
the
growth
issues.
In
those
cases
like
they
showed
us.
The
road
diet
concept
with
the
landscaping
and
the
walkability,
along
with
the
historic
preservation
aspect,
so
I
felt,
like
their
use
of
the
case
study,
really
showed
that
they
understood
what
we
were
trying
to
do
here.
A
I
would
have
liked
to
have
more
on
the
economist,
I
realized
she
couldn't
be
here
in
person
and
the
other
team
members
I
felt
like
maybe
they
didn't
bring
enough
people,
but
that
was
just
in
my
mind.
The
paper
packet
was
adequate,
but
it
wasn't
as
detailed
as
some
of
the
others.
The
Charette
seemed
very
the
timing
and
planning
seemed
aggressive
but
doable
and
the
five-day
workshop
that
they
detailed,
looked
powerful
and
I,
see
the
creativity
and
an
experience
to
be
their
strong
suits.
F
Overall
I
felt
their
presentation
was
adequate,
but
unexcited
the
timeline,
the
economic
analysis
and
the
implementation
were
all
done
pretty
well,
but
I
didn't
feel
they
did
a
very
good
job
on
the
annexation
discussion
or
the
historic
significance
for
our
community
emphasis.
Why
we
should
select
them
seem
to
folks
focus
mainly
on
the
books
they
published
and
I
thought
it
sort
of
lacked
personality.
I.
F
C
They
did
very
effective
before
and
after
simulations
for
okay
studies,
especially
the
project
in
Thomasville
which
which
which
which
which
I
think
did
show
how
the
historic
preservation
aspect
can
be
the
development.
They
also
express
the
importance
of
the
urbanism
from
a
technical
perspective,
how
to
invest
in
and
destroy
the
downtown
I
like
the
fact
that
they
worked
in
tandem
with
a
strong
urban
economists
who
will
be
running
real
time
again
with
Marvel's
during
this
rep
process.
C
I
like
also
the
fact
that
they
had,
because
they
had
worked
with
some
developers
that
they
know
how
to
make
policies
viable
I
found
it.
The
urban
planning
redevelopment
scenario
scenario
planning
were
all
good
things
I,
also
like
the
fact
that,
during
the
sûreté
process
that
they
would
be
available
around
the
clock,
so
that
people
would
be
able
to,
you
know
express
their
thoughts
to
them.
C
I
also
felt
that
their
planning
implementation
strategy
involved
what's
needed,
to
be
revised
in
the
code
in
order
to
make
changes
possible
I
like
the
fact
that
they
that
their
founder
actually
is
one
of
the
leaders
of
the
urban
planning
organizations
in
the
country,
especially
from
the
sûreté
side,
and
regarding
to
my
ability
of
development
plan
I
just
think
like
they
were
based
in
reality.
So
I
really
felt
favorably
about
them.
D
Found
them
to
be,
from
my
perspective,
a
little
bit
more
visionary
than
some
of
the
others
and
flexible
in
their
development,
because
of
that
they
didn't
give
us
the
cookie
cutter
presentation
that
you
would
expect
that
you
sometimes
get
from
people.
I
thought
they
spoke.
I
think
this
was
a
strong
point.
I
thought
they
spoke
at
a
very
understandable
level
that
they
were
speaking
to
our
level
and
and
in
that
flexibility
that
they
show
than
in
the
charettes.
D
A
So
I
thought
their
presentation
was
extremely
thorough
in
the
packet
that
was
provided
covered
all
the
aspects
they
explained
how
their
approach
was
gonna,
be
seamless
with
the
different
elements.
The
integration
factor
was
very
high
for
me,
and
the
team
appeared
to
be
very
strong.
The
team
leader
showed
command
of
all
the
aspects
in
the
paper.
Packet
again
was
impressive.
The
firm
is
known
for
engineering
focus,
but
I
still
saw
aspects
of
creative,
creative
planning
theory
in
the
presentation.
A
F
Matthews
I
did
not
feel
that
Stantec
did
a
very
enthusiastic
presentation
and
in
fact
it
lacked
the
energy
that
I
feel
we
need
for
the
project.
I
felt
they
were
very
vague
about
their
analysis
of
the
LD
R's.
The
review
of
the
annexation
process
and
the
Charette
process
in
general
I
just
didn't
feel
that
they
were
the
best
fit
for
us.
I
was
also
concerned
about
the
document
that
was
sent
to
us
separate
of
the
proposals.
Initially
on
this
company,
we
had
to
ask
for
additional
information
to
be
yes,
ma'am.
C
C
D
I
found
that
they
hit
all
the
high
points
they
were
positive
and
how
they
integrated
the
planning
and
financial
aspect
of
their
presentation.
I
think
they
tried
to
cover
too
much.
They
were
so
well
rehearsed
that
they
didn't
show
me
any
creativity,
they
just
the
one
negative
is
they
they
seem
to
be
too
concrete
in
the
way
they
presented
their
plan
and
I'm
and
I'm
a
little
bit
concerned
that
sometimes
they
might
not
be
able
to
if
they
get
off
script.
How
would
they
respond
to
say
and
and
then
developing
a
plan
like
this?
D
We
need
to
be,
you
know
open
and
out-of-the-box,
so
that
was
my
biggest
drawback
for
them,
but
otherwise
I
thought
I
would
be
curious,
but
we
weren't
allowed
to
find
out
what
Venice
thought
about
them,
because
I
think
Venice
would
it
would
be
political
to
us,
but
we're
not
supposed
to
talk
about
it.
So
I
listened
to
you.
E
Stated
they
don't
force
theories
and
evidence
in
Phasis,
the
art
thereof
so
and
they
they
talked
a
lot
about.
The
example
showed
a
lot
of
elements
that
we've
been
into
the
citizens,
master
plan
or
city
wide
master
plan,
but
they
didn't
include
a
city
wide
master
plan
kind
of
example.
In
my
opinion,
and
I
did
like
this
statement
that
they
create
the
public
realm
right.
E
They
had
a
good
discussion
on
economic
and
budgetary
analysis
with
their
financial
modeling
and
that
will
allow
I,
like
the
sensitivity
that
sensitivity
analysis
that
they
showed
and
the
capability
I
think
that
could
be
very
powerful.
They
really
didn't
speak
to
all
the
points
we
had
on
our
list.
At
least
I
didn't
think
so,
and
they
did
mention
up
looking
at
at
what
is
going
on
around
us.
E
So
that
would
be
like
looking
at
a
SWOT
analysis
and
their
timeline
would
put
the
the
charettes
in
the
peak
season,
which
is
really
great
and
it
is
a
condensed
timeline
and
which
would
again
put
time
for
our
strategic
planning
process
for
2020
and
they
included
a
staff
approval
phase.
But
they
really
didn't
include
a
council
approval
and
so
there's
some
things
I
think
they
were
potentially
missing.
Out
of
that.
F
Liked
their
presentation
very
much
and
felt
they
did
a
lot
of
homework
and
preparation
for
it.
They
were
very
focused
on
maintaining
the
historic
charm
of
our
waterfront
community
and
they
showed
that
they
were
genuinely
interested
in
working
on
our
behalf.
They
also
have
similar
experience
with
several
nearby
municipalities,
so
they
know
what
our
wants
and
needs
are
without
being
repetitive
of
other
areas
and
and
keeping
us
unique
to
their
process.
Their
review
of
the
annexation
process
and
the
old
the
ours
were
both
done
very
well.
F
The
only
thing
that
I
didn't
like
was
the
idea
of
appointing
an
advisory
committee.
I
had
a
little
bit
of
a
problem
with
that
I
think
they
will
alienate
people
in
the
community
by
singling
certain
people
out
that
they
think
represent
the
community
better
than
others.
Overall,
they
were
very
relatable
and
I
thought
they
were
very
well
prepared
to
take
on
our
project.
C
To
me,
they
appeared
to
lack
historical
and
current
knowledge
of
Punta
Gorda
in
in
terms
of
the
fact
that
not
not
noticing
the
amount
of
vacant
lots
and
things
we
have
it.
It
seemed
to
me
that
that
I
know
they
weren't
operating
with
enough
knowledge
about
what
we've
gone
through
over
the
last
20
years.
I
felt
that
their
Charette
process
was
grounded
a
bit
too
much
in
that
Kanak
methodology
and
can
be
resistant
to
reflection
of
possible
deficiencies
in
different
context.
I
felt
that
in
general,
their
process
is
a
bit
too.
C
It
was
a
rudimentary
process
for
us
about
the
other.
Three
firms
were
high
level
and
I
felt
with
them.
They
were
trying
to
begin
us
at
the
very
very
beginning,
and
it
seemed
like
they.
Hadn't
read
the
documents
we
gave
them
in
terms
of
the
formative
documents.
I
mean,
like
all
the
studies
we've
done,
they're
supposed
to
get
and
breed
to
know.
Like
simple
the
citizens
master
plan,
2005
should
have
given
him
a
platform.
I
stand.
C
They
wanted
to
start
us
off
from
like
ground
zero,
so
I
felt
that
there
were
kind
of,
in
their
own
mind
from
academic
standpoint,
wanting
to
bring
us
from
the
bottom
and
I
just
I
think
we
really
need
high
level
analysis
and
high
level
citizen
involvement
and
not
really
such
a
rudimentary
process.
I
also
didn't
feel
that
they
would
balance
community
desires
with
best
practices
in
urban
design
of
our
mutual
finance.
If
it
felt
that
that,
though
they
had
a
qualified
economist,
I
didn't
feel
that
they
were
gonna.
C
D
The
first
thing
is
it
annoyed
me
that
they
were
very
late
to
get
their
presentations
hearing,
that
they
were
ready
to
start
to
me.
That
was
an
issue
of
how
do
you,
as
one
of
the
other
presenters
say,
of
keeping
the
trains
on
time
that
that
was
annoying
to
me
now,
with
that
said,
positives
are
also
negatives.
To
me,
with
this
particular
particular.
D
Firm
because
they
are
doing
the
county
master
plan
and
we're
asking
them
to
do
us.
The
master
plan
and
I
asked
the
question
specifically
and
I
think
they
gave
gave
us
a
very
good
answer
is
how
do
you
separate
the
two,
because
the
needs
are
very
different.
That
can
be
both
a
positive
because
they
do
and
we'll
learn
the
differences,
but
that
can
also
be
a
negative
if
they,
if
they
get
they've,
muddled
men,
I
think
they
can
do
that.
I
think
they
they
answered
me
correctly
and
how
they
would
differentiate.
D
At
least
they're
gonna
go
get
a
little
taste
of
us
and
they
went
and
walked
around
with
with
various
citizens
and
stakeholders
and
the
community
and
then
put
their
presentation
together.
So
I
found
that
quite
impressive
I
think
they
can
do
the
job
I
think
they
can
do
it
very
well
and
again,
but
my
big,
but
is
also
my
big
positive
I,
think
they
are
doing
the
county
master
plan.
I
said
that
that
was
with
one
team.
F
E
Yeah
I
made
note
that
the
presentation
materials
relate
it's
kind
of
like
just
something
to
look
at
as
an
item
of
attention
to
detail.
They
kept
citing
the
county's
master
plan,
but
they
didn't
really
say
is
it's
the
facility's
master
plan?
It's
not
a
community-wide
master
plan,
they're
not
doing
some
similar
kind
of
thing.
So
it's
it's
like
apples
and
oranges
and
nice
that
they
did
talk
with
some
of
the
residents
I.
You
know
and
they
using
those
they're
gonna
use,
face
to
face
meetings
and
digital
tools
to
gather
data.
E
They
mentioned
that
they
would
look
at
the
the
things
around
us
that
would
influence
us
like
Sunseeker
and
that
they
want
the
plan
to
be
grounded.
In
reality
they
have
a
long
tenure
working
with
Kim,
Lee
horn,
I
think
if
they
cited
the
Bradenton
project
that
was
completed
ten
years
ago
and
I
kept
focusing
on
on
the
waterfront
which
is
important
to
us.
But
it's
not
holistic,
you
know
if
they
don't
they,
they
weren't
focused
on
a
holistic
view
of
our
city
and
they
didn't
discuss.
A
So
I
thought
they
brought
a
the
largest
team,
which
maybe
was
too
many
people,
and
so
it
just
made
me
think
of
maybe
too
many
moving
parts.
I
did
like
the
local
aspect
of
the
team,
the
local
visits
they
try
to
put
everything
into
our
local
context.
The
Bradenton
example
was
powerful,
the
schedule
was
adequate
but
and
they
seemed
like
they
were
ready
to
hit
the
ground
running.
A
I
definitely
had
an
issue
with
the
steering
committee
I
felt
like
they
were
already
gonna
just
go
out
and
use
groups,
and
we've
already
heard
that
we
need
to
bring
more
people
in
not
less
so
I
felt
that
that
was
a
real
downfall.
On
that
doctor
brains,
expertise,
he
was
comprehensive,
but
that
was
a
big
negative
for
me.
Kimly
horn
I
think
they
they
could
hit
the
ground
running
because
they
have
a
deeper
understanding
of
local
issues
because
they're
doing
other
jobs
in
in
the
area,
but
we
need
more
streamlined.
A
Flexible
codes,
not
start
from
scratch,
so
I
got
that
same
feeling.
That
jaha
had
is
that
they're
gonna.
They
wanted
to
start
with
a
blank
slate
and
work
up,
and
that's
really
not
what
we
need,
because
we
have
a
lot
of
stuff.
That's
working
well,
so
I
thought
the
paper
packet
was
interesting
and
it
was
detailed
with
the
photos
and
they
took
their
time
to
put
that
together
and
the
architectural
focus
was
their
strong
suit.
But
overall
they
were
not
not
my
favorite
any.
A
B
E
Regarding
that,
before
you
do,
because
one
of
the
questions
that
you
is
the
things
that
you
told
us
is
we're
not
allowed
to
talk
to
people
in
our
community
and
I've
received
feedback
from
residents
that
they
were
not
happy
that
they
couldn't
talk
to
us
about
this,
like
they
do
all
the
other
issues
that
we
face
in
the
city
and
we
welcome
resident
input.
And-
and
so
it's
is
there
as
a
Florida
statute
that
prohibit
us,
because
we
are
the
evaluation
selection
committee
or
something
that
that
basically
writing.
B
E
B
A
G
B
Okay
for
the
record,
I'll
read
into
the
ordinal
scores
for
each
council:
member
for
the
firms:
council,
member
Cummings
cannon
for
Dover,
one
Stantec,
two
Suites
Parkman,
three
mayor
Keesling,
Cannon,
three
Dover,
two
Stantec
one
suite
Sparkman,
4,
councilmember,
Matthews,
cannon
to
Dover
three
Stantec
for
suite
Sparkman,
one
Nancy,
prof
key
cannon
to
Dover
one
Stantec
3,
suite
Sparkman
for
council
member
wyne
cannon
for
Dover
to
Stan
tech,
3
suite
Sparkman
number.
One
I
want
to
remind
you
that
this
took
in
to
25%
of
the
threaten
and
75%
of
the
other
scores.
B
Okay,
shortlist
order
is
number
one
Dover
coal
and
partners.
We
have
a
tie
for
second
place,
Stantec
Suites,
partment,
Sparkman
and
cannon
in
fourth
place.
Since
this
is
a
CCNA
process,
we
do
need
to
break
the
tie
in
the
event.
We
cannot
come
to
a
fair
and
equitable
agreement
with
the
number
one,
so
I
am
going
to
pass
around
the
tie
breakers
and
if
you
can
put
one
or
two
or
second
or
third
place
that
would
work.
A
B
B
The
tiebreaker
Stantec
received
three
votes
for
second
place:
two
votes
for
third
place:
sweet
sparklin,
received
three
votes
for
third
place
and
two
votes
for
second
place,
so
the
revised
shortlist
order
is
number
one.
Dover
cold
partners,
number
two
Stantec
number
three
speak:
sweet,
sparkman
and
number
four
cannon.
Would
anyone
like
to
make
a
motion
to
accept
that
ranking.
B
B
Stepped
out
of
the
councilmember
council
meeting
when
you
were
discussing
about
the
waterfront
activity
center
and
I
do
have
a
suggestion.
A
recommendation
possibly
is
negotiate
a
separate
scope
of
work
for
that
specific
authorization
that
for
that
detail,
and
that
would
allow
the
consultant
to
provide
us
additional
sub
consultants
to
for
consideration
to
meet
those
required
expertise,
level
of
expertise.
So
we
can
do
that,
but
at
this
time,
as
far
as
we
need
to
determine
how
the
negotiations
will
proceed,
if
it'll
be
done
all
by
council
member
of
council
or
four
with
staffs
assistance,
so.
G
G
B
A
B
E
D
B
G
And,
and-
and
let's
put
it
this
way,
if
it
turns
out
that
you
decide
you're,
not
comfortable
with
that
economic
expert,
but
that
wouldn't
have
been
enough
for
you
to
reject
this,
this
consultant,
you
might
suggest
to
them
to
see
if
they
could
find
somebody
else.
If
you
can
articulate
why
it
is
it
you're
not
comfortable
with
them,
so
I,
just
I,
just
keep
it
cleaner
and
do
it.
B
I'll
probably
prepare
a
letter
to
them
on
for
them
to
email
out
tomorrow
or
the
next
day,
and
with
that
lateral,
you
know
kind
of
go
over
some
of
the
the
information.
As
far
as
to
prepare
it
put
your
proposal
together,
your
complete
scope
together
here
is
our
standard
position
list.
Put
your
you
know.
Person
in
that
position
give
us
your
hourly
rate,
submit
it
and
then
we'll
go
back
and
forth
and
negotiate
the
hourly
rates.
Once
we
have
a
acceptable
hourly
rates,
then
I'll
tell
them.
Okay,
now
plug
these
dollars
in
your
fee.
B
F
A
G
D
B
B
A
You
I
just
want
to
thank
all
the
firms.
I
mean
really
I,
ranked
them
all
pretty
highly,
because
I
felt
like
we
had
four
very
capable
professional
applicants
and
and
responders.
So
you
know
it
was.
It
was
hard
to
really
get
down
in
the
nitty-gritty,
but
that's
what
we
had
to
do
so
I
want
to
thank
you
all
for
submitting
and
taking
your
time
to
propose
to
us,
because
it's
really
important
and
I
thought
you
all
did
an
excellent
job.
So
I
just
want
to
say
that
so,
let's
do
what
are
we
doing
now.