The URL can be used to link to this page

10-14-08 Agenda Spec/WS úôéäúîððôêêôîï úôéäî÷ùøñëüäûøüúõ÷ñîëôùü êíøúôüñæîëòêõîíðøøéôïöéèøêùüäîúéîûøë íðùøñëüäûøüúõúôéäõüññ÷ôëêé÷ñîîëúîï÷øëøïúøëîîð éÕØúÔÉÄÆÔÑÑ×ÈËÏÔÊÕÜÍÍËÎÍËÔÜÉØÜÈÅÔÑÔÜËÄÜÔÙÊÜÏÙÊØËÇÔÚØÊÆÕØËØÏØÚØÊÊÜËÄÉÎÜ××ÎËÙÜÏÔÏÙÔÇÔÙÈÜÑÆÔÉÕÜÙÔÊÜÛÔÑÔÉÄÜÏØÌÈÜÑ ÎÍÍÎËÉÈÏÔÉÄÉÎÍÜËÉÔÚÔÍÜÉØÔÏÜÏÙØÏÓÎÄÉÕØÛØÏØ×ÔÉÊÎ×ÜÊØËÇÔÚØÍËÎÖËÜÐÎËÜÚÉÔÇÔÉÄÚÎÏÙÈÚÉØÙÛÄÉÕØúÔÉÄúÎÏÉÜÚÉùÎÈÖêÐÔÉÕÜÉ ÕÎÈËÊÍËÔÎËÉÎÉÕØÍËÎÖËÜÐÎËÜÚÉÔÇÔÉÄÔÏÎËÙØË×ÎËÉÕØúÔÉÄÉÎËØÜÊÎÏÜÛÑÄÜÚÚÎÐÐÎÙÜÉØÄÎÈËËØÌÈØÊÉüÙÜÍÉÔÇØÑÔÊÉØÏÔÏÖÙØÇÔÚØÊ ÜËØÜÇÜÔÑÜÛÑØ×ÎËÐØØÉÔÏÖÊÔÏÉÕØúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏúÕÜÐÛØËÊ êíøúôüñðøøéôïöüöøïùü íÈËÊÈÜÏÉÉÎêØÚÉÔÎÏ Î×ùØÑËÜÄûØÜÚÕðÜÄÎËëÔÉÜøÑÑÔÊÕÜÊÔÏÊÉËÈÚÉØÙÐØÉÎÜÏÏÎÈÏÚØÜ êÍØÚÔÜÑðØØÉÔÏÖ Î×ÉÕØúÔÉÄúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏÉÎÛØÕØÑÙ×ÎËÉÕØ×ÎÑÑÎÆÔÏÖÍÈËÍÎÊØÊ úÎÏÊÔÙØËÜËØÌÈØÊÉ×ÎËÆÜÔÇØËÎ×ÉÕØËØÌÈÔËØÐØÏÉÊÎ× æüôçøëëøìèøêéòôéøûîüëùôïö êØÚÉÔÎÏ ©Î×ÉÕØúÎÙØÎ×îËÙÔÏÜÏÚØÊÎ×ÉÕØúÔÉÄÍØËÉÜÔÏÔÏÖ ÉÎÍËÎÕÔÛÔÉÔÎÏÎ×ÒÔÉØÛÎÜËÙÔÏÖÜÏÙÎÉÕØËËØÑÜÉØÙÈÊØÊÆÔÉÕÔÏ ÎÏ úÎÐÐØËÚÔÜÑøÏÉØËÍËÔÊØÊêÜÑØÎËëØÏÉÜÑÎ×öÎÎÙÊÎËêØËÇÔÚØÊ©ÉÎÜÑÑÎÆÊÈÚÕÈÊØÊ×ÎËÜÊÍØÚÔÜÑ ØÇØÏÉ ìÈÜÊÔóÈÙÔÚÔÜÑõØÜËÔÏÖ êíøúôüñøçøïéëøìèøêéûøêéî÷éõøûøêéòôéøûîüëùôïöúîðíøéôéôîï üÍÍËÎÇØÜÊÍØÚÔÜÑØÇØÏÉËØÌÈØÊÉÉÎØÏÙÎËÊØÉÕØûØÊÉÎ×ÉÕØûØÊÉòÔÉØÛÎÜËÙÔÏÖúÎÐÍØÉÔÉÔÎÏÊÍÎÏÊÎËØÙÛÄ ûØÊÉòÔÉØÛÎÜËÙÔÏÖÉÎÛØÕØÑÙÎÏùØÚØÐÛØË ×ËÎÐ ÜÐÉÎ ÍÐÜÏÙùØÚØÐÛØË ×ËÎÐ ÜÐÉÎ ØÜÚÕÖËÜÏÉÔÏÖÜÉØÐÍÎËÜËÄÈÊØÍØËÐÔÉÍØËñùë êØÚÉÔÎÏ ÷×ÎËÈÊØÎ×ÉÕØÐÈÏÔÚÔÍÜÑÛØÜÚÕÜÏÙüÏÚÕÎËíÜËÒÜÏÙÉÎÜÈÉÕÎËÔÃØÊÉÜ××ÊÈÍÍÎËÉ×ÎË ÑÔ×ØÖÈÜËÙÜÊÊÔÊÉÜÏÚØøðêÜÊÊÔÊÉÜÏÚØÉËÜÊÕÍÔÚÒÈÍÜÏÙÈÊØÎ×ÉÕØÊÐÜÑÑúÔÉÄÊÉÜÖØÜÏÙÉÎÚÎÏÊÔÙØËÜ ËØÌÈØÊÉÉÎËØÊØËÇØÉÕØüÏÚÕÎËíÜËÒÑÎÉÜÏÙÜÑÑÎÆúÔÉÄÑÔ×ØÖÈÜËÙÊÉÎÚÕÜËÖØ ÍØËÚÜËÚÎÏÉÔÏÖØÏÉ ËØÚØÔÍÉÎ×ÜúØËÉÔ×ÔÚÜÉØÎ×ñÔÜÛÔÑÔÉÄôÏÊÈËÜÏÚØÜÏÙõÎÑÙõÜËÐÑØÊÊüÖËØØÐØÏÉÉØÏ ÙÜÄÊÍËÔÎËÉÎÉÕØ ØÇØÏÉÜÏÙËØÚØÔÍÉÎ×ÜÑØÉÉØËÎ×ÜÍÍËÎÇÜÑ×ËÎÐÉÕØêØÜÖÜÉØúÑÈÛÍËÎÍØËÉÄÎÆÏØËÊ úÎÏÊÔÙØËÜÚÎÏÉËÜÚÉÜÆÜËÙÉÎîéêØËÇÔÚØÊôÏÚ úîïéëüúéüæüëùîéêøëçôúøêôïú ÊØÚÎÏÙÑÎÆÛÔÙÙØË×ÎËÜÏÏÈÜÑÚÈÊÉÎÙÔÜÑÊØËÇÔÚØÊÜÏÙÎÉÕØËËØÌÈØÊÉØÙÓÜÏÔÉÎËÔÜÑÊØËÇÔÚØÊ×ÎËúÔÉÄ ÛÈÔÑÙÔÏÖÊÔÏÉÕØÜÐÎÈÏÉÎ× ÍØËÄØÜË×ÎËöËÎÈÍüÊØËÇÔÚØÊÜÏÙÍËÔÚØÊÜÊÊÈÛÐÔÉÉØÙ×ÎËöËÎÈÍ ûÉÕËÎÈÖÕùÊØËÇÔÚØÊ÷ÈÏÙÔÏÖÔÊÜÇÜÔÑÜÛÑØ×ËÎÐÇÜËÔÎÈÊÙØÍÜËÉÐØÏÉÜÑÎÍØËÜÉÔÏÖÛÈÙÖØÉÊ×ÎË÷ä úÎÏÊÔÙØËÜÚÎÏÊÈÑÉÔÏÖÚÎÏÉËÜÚÉÆÔÉÕûÜËÄ íëîíîêøùêî÷éæüëøúîïêèñéôïöúîïéëüúé êÉËÎÚÒúÎÏÊÈÑÉÔÏÖüÊÊÎÚÔÜÉØÊôÏÚûêúü×ÎËÜËØÇÔØÆÎ××ÔÏÜÏÚÔÜÑÛÈÊÔÏØÊÊÊÎ×ÉÆÜËØÜÏÙÍÈÛÑÔÚÊÜ×ØÉÄ ÊÎ×ÉÆÜËØ æîëòêõîíüöøïùü îÑÙêÚÕÎÎÑêÌÈÜËØíÜËÒðÜÊÉØËíÑÜÏíËØÊØÏÉÜÉÔÎÏ íËÎÍÎÊØÙùÎÆÏÉÎÆÏôÏÚØÏÉÔÇØÊ×ÎËî××ÔÚØûÈÔÑÙÔÏÖ ÎÊÜÑ ëØÇÔØÆÎ×ðÜËÔÏÜõÔÊÉÎËÔÚùÔÊÉËÔÚÉëØÊÈËÇØÄëØÚÎÐÐØÏÙÜÉÔÎÏÊ ùËÜ×ÉëØÙñÔÖÕÉúÜÐØËÜîËÙÔÏÜÏÚØ úÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏúÎÐÐØÏÉÊ íÑØÜÊØÛØÜÙÇÔÊØÙÉÕÜÉÔ×ÜÍØËÊÎÏÙØÚÔÙØÊÉÎÜÍÍØÜÑÜÏÄÙØÚÔÊÔÎÏÐÜÙØÛÄÉÕØúÔÉÄúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏÆÔÉÕËØÊÍØÚÉÉÎÜÏÄÐÜÉÉØËÚÎÏÊÔÙØËØÙÜÉ ÉÕÔÊÐØØÉÔÏÖÊÈÚÕÍØËÊÎÏÆÔÑÑÏØØÙÉÎØÏÊÈËØÉÕÜÉÜÇØËÛÜÉÔÐËØÚÎËÙÔÏÚÑÈÙØÊÉÕØÉØÊÉÔÐÎÏÄÜÏÙØÇÔÙØÏÚØÈÍÎÏÆÕÔÚÕÉÕØÜÍÍØÜÑÔÊÛÜÊØÙ éÕØúÔÉÄÏØÔÉÕØËÍËÎÇÔÙØÊÏÎËÍËØÍÜËØÊÊÈÚÕËØÚÎËÙ ðøðîëüïùèð éîðÜÄÎËÜÏÙúÔÉÄúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏØËÊ ÷ëîðëÎÛØËÉüûÜËÚÔÏÊÒÔüÊÊÔÊÉÜÏÉúÔÉÄðÜÏÜÖØË éõëîèöõùÜÇÔÙéõÜËÙØÏúÔÉÄðÜÏÜÖØË ùüéøîÚÉÎÛØË êèûóøúé üöøïùüôéøðêíüêíøúôüñæîëòêõîíðøøéôïöî÷îúéîûøë æüôçøëëøìèøêéòôéøûîüëùôïö ôéøðûø÷îëøúîððôêêôîï úÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏÔÊËØÌÈØÊÉØÙÉÎÚÎÏÊÔÙØËÜËØÌÈØÊÉ×ËÎÐñÔÜ÷ØËÔÜÏÚØÒûøêéøÇØÏÉúÎÎËÙÔÏÜÉÎËÉÎÆÜÔÇØ úÎÙØêØÚÉÔÎÏ ÎÛØÕØÑÙÎ××ÉÕØÊÎÈÉÕØÏÙÎ×ÉÕØÐÈÏÔÚÔÍÜÑÛØÜÚÕ ÜÏÙêØÚÉÔÎÏ ÉÎÜÑÑÎÆÇØÏÙÎËÊÜÑØÊÎÏÉÕØÛØÜÚÕÙÈËÔÏÖÉÕØØÇØÏÉéÕÔÊØÇØÏÉÔÊÍËÎÍÎÊØÙÉÎÛØ ÕØÑÙÎÏùØÚØÐÛØËÜÏÙ ûüúòöëîèïù ðÊ÷ØËÔÜÏÚØÒÎÏÛØÕÜÑ×Î×ûøêéòÔÉØÛÎÜËÙÔÏÖÕÜÊÊÈÛÐÔÉÉØÙÜêÍØÚÔÜÑøÇØÏÉíØËÐÔÉüÍÍÑÔÚÜÉÔÎÏÉÎ ÕÎÑÙÜÒÔÉØÛÎÜËÙÔÏÖØÇØÏÉÎÏÉÕØÐÈÏÔÚÔÍÜÑÛØÜÚÕÎÏùØÚØÐÛØËÜÏÙ ôÏÎËÙØËÉÎÕÎÑÙÉÕÔÊ ØÇØÏÉÜÊÍËÎÍÎÊØÙÉÕØÉÆÎÚÎÙØÊØÚÉÔÎÏÊÏÎÉØÙÆÎÈÑÙÏØØÙÉÎÛØÆÜÔÇØÙ úÔÉÄúÎÙØÎ×îËÙÔÏÜÏÚØÊêØÚÉÔÎÏ ÉØÛÎÜËÙÔÏÖÆÔÉÕÔÏÉÕËØØÕÈÏÙËØÙ ×ØØÉÎ×ÉÕØ ÐÈÏÔÚÔÍÜÑÛØÜÚÕêØÚÉÔÎÏ ÍËÎÕÔÛÔÉÊÇØÏÙÎËÊÊØÑÑÔÏÖÖÎÎÙÊÎËÊØËÇÔÚØÊÎÏÉÕØÐÈÏÔÚÔÍÜÑÛØÜÚÕÎË ÆØÊÉÎ×ÉÕØÐÈÏÔÚÔÍÜÑÛØÜÚÕÜÑÑÉÕØÆÜÄÉÎÉÕØÆØÊÉËÔÖÕÉÎ×ÆÜÄÑÔÏØÎ×êÉÜÉØëÎÜÙü üô×ÉÕØ ÆÜÔÇØËÊÜËØÜÍÍËÎÇØÙÉÕØúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏÆÎÈÑÙÛØÜÛÑØÉÎÚÎÏÊÔÙØËÉÕØêÍØÚÔÜÑøÇØÏÉíØËÐÔÉÜÊÜÊØÍÜËÜÉØ ÔÉØÐüÉÉÜÚÕØÙÔÊÉÕØÆÜÔÇØËÑØÉÉØËÚÎÍÔØÊÎ×ÉÕØÎËÙÔÏÜÏÚØÊÜÏÙÜÚÎÍÄÎ×ÜÊÈÍÍÎËÉÑØÉÉØË×ËÎÐÉÕØ íÜÑÐûØÜÚÕúÎÈÏÉÄêÍÎËÉÊúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏ üËØÇÔÊØÙÊÔÉØÍÑÜÏÆÜÊÊÈÛÐÔÉÉØÙÛÄðÊ÷ØËÔÜÏÚØÒÆÕÔÚÕÔÊÔÏÚÑÈÙØÙÜÊÍÜËÉÎ×ÉÕØ×ÎÑÑÎÆÔÏÖÜÖØÏÙÜ ÔÉØÐ×ÎËÉÕØêÍØÚÔÜÑøÇØÏÉÜÍÍËÎÇÜÑüÑÊÎÔÉÔÊÐÄÈÏÙØËÊÉÜÏÙÔÏÖÉÕÜÉÜÖËØØÐØÏÉÕÜÊÛØØÏËØÜÚÕØÙÆÔÉÕ ÉÕØÎÆÏØËÎ×ÉÕØêØÜÖÜÉØÍËÎÍØËÉÄÉÎÜÑÑÎÆÜÚÚØÊÊÉÕËÎÈÖÕÉÕØÔËÍËÎÍØËÉÄ×ÎËÉÕØØÇØÏÉÜÊÆØÑÑÜÊÉÕØÔË ÊÈÍÍÎËÉ ëøúîððøïùüéôîï êÉÜ××ËØÚÎÐÐØÏÙÊÜÍÍËÎÇÜÑÎ×ÉÕØËØÌÈØÊÉÉÎÆÜÔÇØêØÚÉÔÎÏÊ ÜÏÙ Î×ÉÕØúÔÉÄúÎÙØÎ× îËÙÔÏÜÏÚØÊ ðøðîëüïùèð éîðÜÄÎËÜÏÙúÔÉÄúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏØËÊ ÷ëîðëÎÛØËÉüûÜËÚÔÏÊÒÔüÊÊÔÊÉÜÏÉúÔÉÄðÜÏÜÖØË éõëîèöõùÜÇÔÙéõÜËÙØÏúÔÉÄðÜÏÜÖØË ùüéøîÚÉÎÛØË êèûóøúé üöøïùüôéøðêíü êíøúôüñæîëòêõîíðøøéôïöî÷îúéîûøë êíøúôüñøçøïéëøìèøêéòôéøûîüëùôïöúîðíøéôéôîï ôéøðûø÷îëøúîððôêêôîï úÔÉÄúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏÔÊËØÌÈØÊÉØÙÉÎØÏÙÎËÊØÉÕØûØÊÉÎ×ÉÕØûØÊÉòÔÉØÛÎÜËÙÔÏÖúÎÐÍØÉÔÉÔÎÏÍËÎÍÎÊØÙÉÎÛØ ÕØÑÙÎÏùØÚØÐÛØË ×ËÎÐ ÜÐÉÎ ÍÐÜÏÙùØÚØÐÛØË ×ËÎÐ ÜÐÉÎ ÍÐÎÏÉÕØÐÈÏÔÚÔÍÜÑÛØÜÚÕÊÍÎÏÊÎËØÙÛÄûØÊÉòÔÉØÛÎÜËÙÔÏÖúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏÔÊÜÑÊÎËØÌÈØÊÉØÙÉÎ ÜÍÍËÎÇØÜÉØÐÍÎËÜËÄÈÊØÍØËÐÔÉÍØËñùë«ÊêØÚÉÔÎÏ ÷×ÎËÉÕØÈÊØÎ×ÉÕØÐÈÏÔÚÔÍÜÑÛØÜÚÕÜÏÙ üÏÚÕÎËíÜËÒÜÏÙÉÎÜÈÉÕÎËÔÃØÊÉÜ××ÊÈÍÍÎËÉ×ÎËÑÔ×ØÖÈÜËÙÜÊÊÔÊÉÜÏÚØøðêÜÊÊÔÊÉÜÏÚØÉËÜÊÕÍÔÚÒÈÍÜÏÙ ÈÊØÎ×ÉÕØÊÐÜÑÑúÔÉÄÊÉÜÖØúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏÔÊÜÑÊÎËØÌÈØÊÉØÙÉÎÚÎÏÊÔÙØËÜËØÌÈØÊÉÉÎËØÊØËÇØÉÕØüÏÚÕÎË íÜËÒÑÎÉÜÏÙÜÑÑÎÆÎÈËúÔÉÄÑÔ×ØÖÈÜËÙÊÉÎÚÕÜËÖØÍØËÚÜËÜÏÙÒØØÍÉÕØÍËÎÚØØÙÊ ûüúòöëîèïù üÉÉÜÚÕØÙÜËØÜÊÍØÚÔÜÑØÇØÏÉÍØËÐÔÉÜÍÍÑÔÚÜÉÔÎÏÊÔÉØÍÑÜÏÜÏÙÛÈÙÖØÉËØÚØÔÇØÙ×ËÎÐñÔÜ÷ØËÔÜÏÚØÒÎÏ ÛØÕÜÑ×Î×ûØÊÉòÔÉØÛÎÜËÙÔÏÖüÑÊÎÜÉÉÜÚÕØÙÔÊÜÑØÉÉØËÎ×ÊÈÍÍÎËÉËØÚØÔÇØÙ×ËÎÐÉÕØíÜÑÐûØÜÚÕúÎÈÏÉÄ êÍÎËÉÊúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏ éÕØØÇØÏÉÍËÎÙÈÚØËÆÔÑÑÛØËØÊÍÎÏÊÔÛÑØ×ÎËØÇØÏÉÐÜÏÜÖØÐØÏÉÜÏÙÚÎÎËÙÔÏÜÉÔÎÏÜÊÆØÑÑÜÊÊÔÉØÚÑØÜÏÈÍ ÜÏÙÊÔÖÏÜÖØéËÜÊÕÚÎÏÉÜÔÏØËÊÆÔÑÑÛØØÐÍÉÔØÙÛÄÊÉÜ××ÙÈËÔÏÖËØÖÈÑÜËÆÎËÒÕÎÈËÊüÑÉÕÎÈÖÕÏÎÉ ËØÌÈØÊÉØÙÊÉÜ×××ØØÑÊÉÕÜÉÜÏøðêêøëçèÏÔÉÏØØÙÊÉÎÛØÎÏÊÔÉØîÈËíÎÑÔÚØÊÉÜ××ÕÜÊÔÏÙÔÚÜÉØÙÉÕÜÉ ÉÕØÔËÊÉÜ××ÜÊÊÔÊÉÜÏÚØÆÎÈÑÙÏÎÉÛØÏØØÙØÙéÕØØÊÉÔÐÜÉØÙÎÇØËÉÔÐØÚÎÊÉ×ÎËÑÔ×ØÖÈÜËÙÜÏÙøðê ÜÊÊÔÊÉÜÏÚØÔÊÜÍÍËÎÅÔÐÜÉØÑÄ ÊÉÜÖØËØÏÉÜÑ ÜÏÙÉËÜÊÕÛÎÅÚÎÊÉ ×ÎËÜÉÎÉÜÑÚÎÊÉÎ× ÇØÏÉÍËÎÙÈÚØËÔÊËØÌÈÔËØÙÉÎÍÜÄ Î×úÔÉÄÚÎÊÉÊ ôÊÈÍÍÎËÉÉÕØÈÊØÜÏÙÚÕÜËÖØ×ÎËÍÜËÒÔÏÖÔÏÉÕØüÏÚÕÎËíÜËÒÑÎÉÜÊÑÎÏÖÜÊÔÉÔÊÐÜÏÏØÙÛÄÎÈËÑÔ×ØÖÈÜËÙÊ ÜÏÙÉÕØÄËØÚØÔÇØÜÑÑÍËÎÚØØÙÊ üËØÇÔÊØÙÊÔÉØÍÑÜÏÊÈÛÐÔÉÉØÙÛÄðÊ÷ØËÔÜÏÚØÒÔÊÜÉÉÜÚÕØÙéÕÔÊÊÔÉØÍÑÜÏÐÎÇØÊÉÕØØÏÉÔËØÊÔÉØÏÎËÉÕÎ× úÜÊÜÈËÔÏÜ ëøúîððøïùüéôîï êÉÜ××ËØÚÎÐÐØÏÙÊÚÎÏÊÔÙØËÜÉÔÎÏÎ×ÜÍÍËÎÇÜÑÎ×ÉÕØØÇØÏÉÍØËÐÔÉÉØÐÍÎËÜËÄÈÊØÍØËÐÔÉÊÉÜ××ÜÊÊÔÊÉÜÏÚØ ÊÉÜÖØËØÏÉÜÑÜÏÙÉËÜÊÕÛÎÅØÊÚÎÏÉÔÏÖØÏÉÎÏÉÕØ×ÎÑÑÎÆÔÏÖ üÍÍËÎÇÜÑÎ×ËØÌÈØÊÉØÙÆÜÔÇØËÊ ëØÚØÔÍÉÎ×ÜÑØÉÉØËÜÍÍËÎÇÜÑ×ËÎÐÉÕØêØÜÖÜÉØúÑÈÛÍËÎÍØËÉÄÎÆÏØËÊ ÊÈËÜÏÚØÉØÏ ÙÜÄÊÍËÔÎËÉÎÉÕØØÇØÏÉ ëØÚØÔÍÉÎ×ÜõÎÑÙõÜËÐÑØÊÊüÖËØØÐØÏÉÉØÏ ÙÜÄÊÍËÔÎËÉÎÉÕØØÇØÏÉ ðøðîëüïùèð éîðÜÄÎËÜÏÙúÔÉÄúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏØËÊ ÷ëîðùÜÇÔÙõÜËÙØÏúÔÉÄðÜÏÜÖØË éõëîèöõóÎÊØÍÕêÜ××ÎËÙ÷ÔÏÜÏÚØùÔËØÚÉÎË íÜÉÊÄïÜÙÜÑíÈËÚÕÜÊÔÏÖðÜÏÜÖØË ùüéøîÚÉÎÛØË êèûóøúé üöøïùüôéøðêíûêíøúôüñæîëòêõîíðøøéôïöî÷îúéîûøë úîïéëüúéüæüëùîéêøëçôúøê ôéøðûø÷îëøúîððôêêôîï úÔÉÄúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏÔÊËØÌÈØÊÉØÙÉÎÜÆÜËÙÉÕØÜÏÏÈÜÑÚÈÊÉÎÙÔÜÑÊØËÇÔÚØÊÚÎÏÉËÜÚÉ×ÎËÉÕØÚÑØÜÏÔÏÖÎ×ÇÜËÔÎÈÊ úÔÉÄÛÈÔÑÙÔÏÖÊÔÏÜÙÙÔÉÔÎÏÉÎËØÌÈØÊÉØÙÓÜÏÔÉÎËÔÜÑÊØËÇÔÚØÊÜÊÏØØÙØÙÛÄÙØÍÜËÉÐØÏÉÊÉÎîéêØËÇÔÚØÊ ôÏÚÊØÚÎÏÙÑÎÆØÊÉÛÔÙÙØËÔÏÉÕØÜÐÎÈÏÉÎ× ÍØËÄØÜË ûüúòöëîèïù ëØÊÍÎÏÊØÊÉÎÎÈËËØÌÈØÊÉ×ÎËÍËÎÍÎÊÜÑÊÆØËØÊÈÛÐÔÉÉØÙÛÄÉÕÔËÉØØÏ ÇØÏÙÎËÊ×ÎËÙÜÔÑÄÚÈÊÉÎÙÔÜÑ ÊØËÇÔÚØÊÜÏÙÎÉÕØËËØÌÈØÊÉÓÜÏÔÉÎËÔÜÑËØÑÜÉØÙÙØÍÜËÉÐØÏÉËØÌÈØÊÉÊÍØËë÷íêÍØÚÔ×ÔÚÜÉÔÎÏ additional cost of the City. The committee would like to recommend acceptance of the proposal from O.T. Services, Inc. in the amount of $118,116.00 for Group A cleaning services and to award Group B through D "as-needed" services to O.T. Services as well. FUNDING SOURCE Funding is available from various departmental operating budgets FY 2008/2009. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends award of annual custodial services and other requested janitorial services for City buildings as listed in RFP #2008-41 specifications A through D to O.T. Services, Inc. in the amount of $118,116.00 per year for Group A services and prices as submitted for Group B through D services. ~ N ~- -O U C C 7 N O p (6 N i 7 N ~ ~ C ~ o~ ~~ C ~ O O C N E N d O U O' X W W C`~ U N U W O z a p o z J C _ ~ M m ~1 > H ~ N t U o ~~ V ~ N c m ~ Q C ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ p W 7 ~ N U ~ ~ ~ Q ~_ i (~. `~ ~ m W ~ ~ U J ~ v `~° o Q G> N 'O U Q Q ~ ~ > Q O N 7 (6 ~ ~ O T D ' MM W ~ ~ U ~ ~ 7 E 7 = ~ N J O M M N GO 0 = ~ N 'O V M M O ~ ~~ ~ M r C Q 3 Z O O O pj M M 01 N N X W M ~ ~ ~ X ~ N N N f0 ~ N U_ Z N O N O d C (6 O ~ ~ p 7 V M _ ~ N V N N V N - r V ~ ~ } ~ (6 N N C ~ O C O N Z a~ N T O N d ~ ~ O F r N ~ ~ _ N 7 (n N O ~ ~ N N O ~ LL C N IL V ~ N Q O J O ~ p ~ . X ~ M ~, N N 00 i Q O i ~ M " " Q O 0 o a~ v ° ~ 0 0 Z o ~ } _ _ M Z o _T U O o O N V O O o O Z ° I rn M I Z ° O } M O N O M N U c 7 O C O O L (6 O O .~ ~c (6 rn c ~ ~ ~ N" o ,~ o ~ o ~ 0 M ~ N N > N O fn N O) O) C C .~ .~ ~ ~ O ~ U U .~ .~ ~ ~ ~ a~ Y a°~i Y a°~i Y a°~i '< n ~ n ~ d > ~ N 3 N 3 '. ~ O II ~ Q N N ~. d M GO d M GO d M GO I yJ O O T M T M T M '. fA V O o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W Y ~ o u~ u~ u~ ~: U fA ~ U F z 3 a~ o O fA ~ ~ O ~ ~~ Y ~ a ~ p ~ U .N- a C L N 7 ~ ~, ~ N h ~ M O ~ ~ M f0 (n T C ~ p N M N N ~ ~ ~ Q U O O Q = T fn J Q ~ ~ L w a v y U z y c7 y a s Z O ~ p W w c d V c d Z Y Q c d ~ ~ ~ d ~ N ° d V j ~ ~ ~ O M ii Q ~ ~ ~ U ~ W :° > :° Q ~ :° Z a~~i -o L Z W ~ ~ U ~ ~ w ~ w ~ Q u o C7 ,i a° W ~ to ~ w 71~~'~lld ~~~a PURCHASING DIVISION TO: Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager Richard Ackerman, Assistant Chie# Fire Department Capt. Jeffrey, Police Department Clayton Gilbert, Building Maintenance Superintendent FROM: Amy Robinson, Senior Buyer l/~~ SUBJECT: Discussion of the Custodial Services Contract Award DATE: September 09, 2008 On September S, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. a meeting was held in the Purchasing offiice to discuss the custodial services contract award. List of attendees are listed below: Richard Ackerman, Assistant Chief Fire Department Capt. Jeffrey Goldman, Police Department Richard Ackerman, Assistant Chief Fire Department Clayton Gilbert, Building Maintenance Superintendent Patsy Nadal, Purchasing Manager Amy Robinson, Senior Buyer The following vendors were recommended by each department with comments: • Decicco's Commercial Services (Lowest Bidder) Clayton Gilbert, Building Maintenance Superintendent Comments: Recommended this vendor because it was the lowest bidder, 2nd choice is O.T. Services. ^ O.T. Services ~2"d Lowest Biddery Capt. Jeffrey Goldman, Police Department Comments: Recommended this vendor due to past experience, i.e. O.T. services has cleaned the Police Department in the past and no complaints were reported. Robert Barcinski, Assistant City Manager Comments: Have concern about low bidder's cost for City HaH11T buildings. It is $12,OODlyear less than we are now paying to the current vendor O.T. Services. Concerned about the quality of work and they (lowest bidder) gave no bid for carpet cleaning & window washing. Recommends O.T. Services for the contact award. Sparkling Image (3`d Lowest Bidder) Richard Ackerman, Assistant Chief Fire Department Comments: Recommended this vendor at first for a change only but did not realize this vendor cleans only bathrooms. Next recommendation was O.T. Services. A# the conclusion of the meeting all parties agreed to recommend O.T. Services for the Custodial Services Contract Award. Please contact this office with any questions at 243-716'1 or 243-7'[63. Thank you in advance to your attention to this matter. Cc: Patsy Nadal, Purchasing Nianager,~ ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: October 9, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM SP.C - SPECIAL/WORKSHOP MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2008 PROPOSED SOFTWARE CONSULTING CONTRACT/BSCA ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before Commission is consideration of a propsed contract with Barry Strock Consulting Associates, Inc. (BSCA) for a Finance/Public Safety Report Card reviewing the City's financial business software and public safety software. BACKGROUND Barry Strock was part of the Municipal Solutions consulting team that conducted the recent efficiency study for the City. He has provided a proposal (copy attached) to develop a Report Card analyzing the City's financial business software and public safety software. His firm will provide an evaluation of the various software modules as defined and required throughout the City, along with an analysis of current costs, projected replacement or upgrade costs, and a ten year projection of direct and indirect costs associated with the software applications. You will recall that we have in the FY 2009 capital budget some $1.2 million to purchase replacement software for dispatch and other police and fire functions. In addition, we have $170,000 in the FY 2010 CIP for the Naviline software from HTE. Now HTE is offering us the Naviline package at about a 50% discount if we purchase it before the end of this calendar year. Before we make these purchases, I believe we should have an outside expert evaluate the replacement and upgrade software available on the market and help us in choosing the package which best meets our needs at the most reasonable cost for the long term. Mr. Strock's portion of the Municipal Solutions report was helpful, he is now somewhat familiar with our city and the weaknesses in our current software packages, and his proposal for this phase of work seems very reasonable. The fixed fee cost of his proposed contract is $19,850. Any costs above this amount for other services will require written approval from the City. RECOMMENDATION I recommend that the Commission approve and authorize execution of the BSCA contract for a Finance/Public Safety Report Card reviewing the City's financial business software and public safety software. BSCA Systems Consulting CoNT~,cT To FINANCE ANALYTICAL REPORT CARD City of Delray Beach Florida SYSTEMS CONSULTING C O N T R A C T BARRY STROCK CONSULTING ASSOCIATES, INC. 154 ROSEMONT STREET, ALBANY, NY 12206 OCTOBER 7, 2008 BSCA Finance Analysis Report Consulting Contract with the City of Delray Beach BSCA (Barry Strock Consulting Associates, Inc.) with offices located at 154 Rosemont Street, Albany, NY 12206, will provide consulting services to the City of Delray Beach (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") with offices located at City of Delray Beach, 100 N.W. 1St Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444. I. SCOPE OF SERVICE As part of this fixed fee contract, BSCA will deliver to the City: two copies of the seventh edition of The Municipal Computer Systems Handbooks; Municipal Background Information Questionnaire; Management Questionnaire; and Staff Questionnaire. This fixed fee contract is for $19,850 inclusive and including of all work effort, travel time and travel expenses to provide a Financial Report Card report to analyze all of the financial business software [i.e., financials, payroll, property database, building permits] and public safety software [i.e., police, fire, EMS, CAD, RMS, field reporting and other related applications]. BSCA will provide an evaluation of the various software modules as defined and required throughout the city and among all of the city departments, along with an analysis of current costs, project replacement or upgrade costs, and a ten year projection of direct and indirect costs associated with the software applications. There will be at least two trips planned for discovery and intake of the various departments. II. Pa ment Terms City Provisions The City will be responsible to provide printing, duplication or reproduction services and will assume all distribution costs for sending materials to the desired parties. Payment Terms All travel time, travel expenses, and other related hours associated with this fixed fee contract are included in this fixed fee. Dollars Descri tion 16% $3 176 U on si nin contract 10% $1 985 U on com letion of first on-site visit 30% $5 955 U on thi da s after contract execution 21% $4 169 U on submission of draft Re ort Card 23% $4 566 U on submission of final Re ort Card too~io $19,850 Hourly Rate For only those services rendered BEYOND THE FIXED FEE DEFINED TASKS or if the contract were canceled prematurely, charges will be at an hourly rate of $165.~~ per hour plus travel time and other costs incurred during the carrying out of the duties associated with this contract. BSCA will provide a detailed itemization of all tasks and hours expended. Hourly rates will be billed as the actual time expended at 15-minute minimum intervals. Thus, for example, if 25 minutes is expended, then one half hour is billed. Billing will be as follows: On-site hours at the City or other directed sites as time is expended. Travel Hours will be billed at 60% of the time expended in traveling from BSCA Geneva [near Rochester] or Albany office in New York. Off-site hours for services rendered that are NOT ASSOCIATED WITH FIXED FEE TASKS DEFINED ABOVE to be provided for any preparation, consultation, research, analysis, evaluation, or presentations associated with this contract are billed as time is expended. Prior to incurring any costs in excess of the fixed fee defined tasks BSCA shall receive written approval from the City. III. OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS Limitation of Liabilities BSCA makes no representation or warranties, express or implied, with respect to the services it has or will furnish including, but not limited to, any implied warranties or merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose and assumes no liability to the City except as specifically set forth in this contract, or any mutually agreed amendments thereto. Any loss is limited to fees paid to BSCA for services rendered with this contract. Term Upon execution of this contract by both parties it shall commence and be completed within 120 days. Venue The laws of the State of Florida shall govern and the venue shall be in Palm Beach County. President Barry Strock Title Date Barry Strock Consulting Associates, Inc. City Manager City of Delray Beach Title Date David Harden, City Manager ~9 From: Shutt. Brian To: Wynn. Kimberly Subject: FW: Strock IT Study Date: Friday, October 10, 2008 2:58:28 PM Attachments: revised format aat with bsca finance report card 10-08.doc Brian Shutt -----Original Message----- From: Shutt, Brian Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 3:20 PM To: Harden, David Cc: Ruby, Susan Subject: RE: Strock IT Study I have attached the revised agreement, (see the highlighted terms and we also removed some language under the payment terms that dealt with late fees), after speaking with Barry Strock on the phone this afternoon. The only other change that I would like to see, Mr. Strock did not agree, is a change to the payment due dates. I would like to see more of the payment moved back to the time of the submission of the draft report, however, Mr. Strock stated that due to cash flow issues he would need to leave percentages essentially the same. Brian Shutt -----Original Message----- From: Ruby, Susan Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 12:55 PM To: Shutt, Brian Subject: FW: Strock IT Study Please review and handle this Susan A. Ruby City Attorney 200 N.W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 telephone: 561-243-7091 facsimile: 561-278-4755 email: ruby@ci.delray-beach.fl.us -----Original Message----- From: Harden, David Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 3:27 PM To: Ruby, Susan Subject: FW: Strock IT Study Please review the attached contract and let me know if you have any issues with it. Feel free to contact Mr. Strock directly with any questions you might have of him. -----Original Message----- From: Barrythebsca@aol.com [mailto:Barrythebscanaaol.com] Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 11:09 AM To: Harden, David Subject: Re: Strock IT Study David, I will send you another hard-copy signed contract via overnight UPS. But in the meantime, attached is an electronic version of the contract. Thanks again for your interest. Barry Strock, President Barry Strock Consulting Associates, Inc. 154 Rosemont Street, Albany, NY 12206 Phone: 518 459-4252 Fax: 518:459-4265 Cell: 518-461-5009 ************** Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswa1100000001)</HTML> *** eSafe scanned this email for malicious content *** *** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders *** MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Environmental Services Director THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: October 6, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM WS.1 - SPECIAL/WORKSHOP MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2008 OLD SCHOOL SQUARE PARK MASTER PLAN ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Staff will present a final version of the master plan for the proposed Old School Square Park project for Commission comment and direction. BACKGROUND In accordance with direction given by Commission at the September 9th Workshop Meeting, staff and the City's project consultant convened a series of meetings with the key stakeholders for the Old School Square Park project to further discuss and refine master plan components, activity programming and other elements of the park expansion proposal. As of out last meeting on October 2nd, we achieved consensus regarding the modifications to the master plan, and will present that revised plan to Commission for comment and direction. {'w'a ag~7 s• ~fEi3 ~Y.~. . °;.°a ..: ,~., k~F. ~~ ty ~• ra ~-- From: Barcinski. Robert To: Wynn. Kimberly Cc: Smith. Douglas; Harden. David Subject: FW: OSS Park Date: Friday, October 10, 2008 7:50:57 AM This should be put in the agenda with the info on the Old School Square Park. She will not be at the meeting. From: Marjorie Ferrer [mailto:marjorie@delraybeach.com] Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 3:56 PM To: Barcinski, Robert Cc: bwood@delraybeach.com; dcolonna@delraycra.org; fwheat02@bellsouth.net; michael@listickandkrall.com; rita@my-ccs.com Subject: OSS Park Bob, As requested, I am supporting the concept of the park being presented to the commission next week, with the 100-ft tree being maintained in its current position. Thanks for all your work! Marjorie Ferrer GREATER DELRAY BEACH G~a+nber of Commerce Memo to: The Delray Beach City Commissioners From: Francisco Perez-Azua, Architect & Vice Chair, Chamber Economic Development Re: Downtown Incentives For Delray Beach Office Buildings Date: October 10, 2008 On behalf of the Greater Delray Beach Chamber of Commerce and our Economic Development Committee, I am pleased to present some thoughts and recommendations to the City regarding programs to incentivize office building developments. The Chamber believes that in this difficult economy we should explore all opportunities to create jobs and build our city's tax base. We are bullish on positioning Delray Beach as a community that is "user friendly," that is, a great place to both do business and build business. We present these recommendations to the City with the full understanding that this is simply a starting place for discussion and we look forward to that. Before addressing the specific topic of potential parking incentives, we need to put the downtown Delray Beach office market into perspective. Both the Downtown Delray Beach Master Plan and the city's Comprehensive Plan highlight the need for additional office space in the Downtown district. This need is simple to understand. In order to complement the success of the retail and existing residential environment, we need a sizeable, quality workforce. Examples of the types of target business clusters we should be trying to attract are financial, technology, bioscience and medicine. There is an abundance of developable land. Though much of the land holds entitlements for multi-family residential construction, the reality is that, given the current state of the residential real estate market, most of these projects will not be constructed over the next decade. It does not take a" leap of faith" to suggest that the timing is propitious to develop the necessary infrastructure upon which to build our business identity. Delray Beach does not suffer from a bad business image. Rather, The City has no business image and, the timing is ideal to devote attention to the creation of the image we want to portray in attracting new and expanding business operations. Our present downtown office business base consists primarily of relatively small professional and financial services enterprises. There seems to be a demonstrated need for Class A and Class B office space, both currently nonexistent in Downtown Delray Beach. Downtown Delray Beach is not headquarters for any firm of substantial size. That is not meant as a criticism and may indeed represent an opportunity to attract a cadre of entrepreneurs. With that foundation now laid, let us exemplify a situation presenting advantage to economic development efforts in Delray Beachpublic transportation and Green building public policies. The City has created and implemented a popular Downtown Roundabout Shuttle Bus Service. This service is quickly becoming a vital element to our transportation corridors, carrying a broad cross-section of our City's permanent and transient populations, i.e., daily visitors, tourists, workers, students and residents. Couple the growth in demand of this service with the remarkable increase in Tri-Rail ridership and we witness a viable alternative to the automobile for the South Florida workforce. High gasoline prices and increased employer use of the Tri-Rail discount program have been cited repeatedly as causes for this shift in commuter behavior. We strongly believe that these habits will continue to grow in the foreseeable future! Further encouraging public transportation usage are the Green Building policies now commonplace (and soon becoming essential). These policies strongly encourage the use of public transportation in order to reduce environmental and land development impacts from automobile uses. For example, LEED Alternative Transportation strategies from the U.S. Green Building Council include credits for buildings sited within close proximity to commuter rail stations/bus stops and for office buildings providing bicycle racks for at least five per cent of building users along with showers and changing facilities within the building. Further credits toward LEED Certification are given for office buildings that provide parking requirements below minimum code requirements. In other words, by providing development options that encourage public transportation, Delray Beach is placing itself in the enviable position of being in the forefront of green building and transit-oriented developments. Recommendations 1. Create the following incentives to promote office building developments: a. General Parking Incentives for all zoning districts: i. For office buildings, area calculations for public lobbies, public exit corridors, public stairs, common mechanical/electrical rooms, public restroom facilities, public elevators, and public trash rooms shall not count towards parking calculation requirements. ii. Allow various forms of Automated Parking Systems: 1. Within enclosed parking garages so they are not visible from the public right of way. 2. As parking spaces not for the general public. b. Create a "Downtown Office Core" district along Atlantic Avenue: Definition: Downtown Office Core shall be that portion of the CBD bounded by I-95 to the west and Swinton Avenue to the east; and for that portion of the CBD located east of Swinton Avenue it shall be that portion of the CBD bounded by Swinton Avenue to the west, NE. 2"d street to the north, S.E. 2"d street to the south, and NE. and S.E. 6th Avenue to the east; and, for that portion of the CBD located east of N.E. 6th Avenue it shall be that portion of the CBD bounded by N.E. 6th Avenue to the west, N.E. 1st street to the north, Atlantic Avenue to the south, and the Intracoastal waterway to the east. 2 ii. The parking requirements for Office Use with in the Downtown Office Core shall be either of the following two options: 1. One parking space per each 300 S.F. of office space or fraction thereof; or 2. For office buildings, one parking space per each 500 square feet or fraction thereof with the following conditions: a. The office building development shall pay an impact fee (or in- lieu fee) towards both, the maintenance and operation of public transportation to and from the tri-rail station (such as the Downtown Roundabout Shuttle Bus Service), and towards the construction, maintenance, and operation of parking garages. b. Employers within the office building shall implement a "Parking Policy Plan" as Defined by the Land Development Regulations. iii. Upper-story conversions from Residential-Use to Office-Use fronting Atlantic Avenue shall be exempt of adding parking spaces. iv. Additions to Retail establishments fronting Atlantic Avenue shall not be required to provide additional parking requirements. c. Create a "Federal Highway Office Core" district Requirements: Definition: The Federal Highway Office Core shall be that portion of the CBD bounded by 5th Avenue to the West, 6th Avenue to the East, George Bush Blvd. to the North and N.E. 2"d street to the south for the north section, and S.E. 2"d street to the north and S.E. 10th Street to the South for the south section. ii. The parking requirements for Office Use within the Federal Highway Office Core shall be one parking space per each 300 S.F. of office space or fraction thereof. 2. The City should retain the services of a specialty consultant to analyze the City's current parking demand and project future demand, and create a "Parking Policy" for Delray Beach. A Parking Policy may include the following: a. Evaluation of existing Parking. b. Parking Spaces required in urban core, vs. suburban areas vs. beach district c. In-lieu Fees d. Calculation of the increased potential square footage of buildings allowable by the recommended changes to the parking requirements, including projections of increased traffic counts and increased property tax revenues to the city. e. Shared Parking f. Parking Pricing g. Parking Decals and/or Parking Permits i. for Downtown residents ii. for City wide residents iii. for City staff h. Parking Garages i. Management ii. Income/Expenses analysis iii. Future growth -determine needs for the future, including potential locations to retain the parking in areas where it is needed. iv. Long term Maintenance Plans v. Safety and Security vi. Walkability Improvements to destinations vii. Parking fees i. Long-term Planning for Parking Supply increase j. Parking Rules i. Rules for Downtown Employees k Parking User Information 1. Public Transportation i. Downtown Roundabout Shuttle Bus Service 1. Ridership study 2. Cost analysis 3. Alternate funding recommendations 4. Routes ii. Palm-Tran routes iii. Bus stop analysis: Location, Design. iv. Bus stop requirements for new projects m. Clean Air Act n. Ridesharing o. Recommended structure of a city Parking Management Department and revised structure/role of the Parking Management Advisory Board APENDIX A: Employer Parking Policy Plan 1. An "Employer Parking Policy Plan" should be approved by the Parking Management Board. 2. Employer Parking Policy Plans should include the following: Parking Policy Considerations Ridesharing Programs Membership to Tri-Rail employer discount program Parking Permits Parking Rules Employer's Premises Parking and Mass Transit Fringe Benefit Taxation Parking Facilities and the ADA Clean Air Act Vehicle Searches Safety and Security 3. Updates and modifications to Employer Parking Policy Plans must be approved by the Parking Management Board. 4. Employer Parking Policy Plans should be updated, at a minimum, once every five years. 4 APENDIX B: City A~roved Automated Parking Systems The LDR's should not restrict Automated parking systems to Single-Level Mechanical Parking Lifts as per LDR 4.6.9(D)(ll). Alternative Automated Parking Systems such as Klaus Auto- Parker and Klaus Automatic Parker Systems should be allowed. The following are a few examples of other automated parking systems: Done In OFe]ef tc Rc~k Our +reh101o NO.41rls IOYAlF wsNClaa are ~hIrFSO tame leTr Ir1O e1riR11+ 1P0 I~ ROYF deIOYF YehlOle NO.4 Ir1O p10rrOR1'1 Obn b4 101MafO~~ ms +ren~c~e can ae parr~sd. P~k~ apaoaa cn ihs OGGft7aCh IGYGi Of4 OOCO~Eab wITh41n IhINl11~ 1hs Dldtram~, io paFk out+rorYde Nc.2 lu~r Ilr} pldil~oml Ho. 4 anb IT1o4~ Rlal'hrFl'1 NO. $10 1hs FI~IYr. Automatic Parker From: Harden. David To: Wynn. Kimberly Cc: Smith. Douglas Subject: FW: Office building incentives Date: Friday, October 10, 2008 3:11:54 PM Please add this to the backup. From: Dorling, Paul Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 2:46 PM To: Harden, David Subject: RE: Office building incentives Mr. Harden, I have reviewed these incentives with representatives of the office advisory group and have provided them some insight on my position on the incentives. Overall I believe some of these recommendations are good ones and associated changes should be considered by City Commission in the near future. However, that said, I am concerned with several of the recommendations and do not believe they are in the best interest of the City. I am also concerned over the potential collective impact of the incentives should multiple incentives be implemented simultaneously. If incentives are to be considered I believe it to be most prudent to implement them over time; verifying the potential impact of each. The following comments apply to (tai) I believe the current regulations are based on gross floor area that includes a percentage of non-leasable space. Therefore, if the non-leasable portion were removed from the calculation the parking requirement would be higher. Therefore, I believe our current requirements are appropriate and consistent with other municipal codes, acknowledging that this issue is treated differently between municipalities. (1aii) While the accommodation of automotive parking systems may have merit we should approach this with some reservation. To date no single parking lift operations (currently allowed) have been established and thus no track record exists. Before expansion of this parking option the acceptance of parking lifts should be verified. It is noted that in the interim, automotive parking systems as described can be approved on a case by case basis via the waiver process similar to the current Atlantic Plaza redevelopment proposal which will come before the City Commission in the upcoming months. (1 bi and 1 bii) The expansion of the downtown office core and associated parking reductions should be expanded to the CBD zoned properties west of Swinton Avenue. The further expansion of the office core area subject to reduced parking should also be expanded an additional block north and south, east of Swinton Avenue (expanding to two blocks north and south). This expansion can be supported given the success of the downtown and the recent addition of public parking garages. (1 bii2) The reduction to 1 space per 500 sq. ft is too great a reduction (in most cases 1000 feet of office space will accommodate more than two offices or persons). The City attorney has also expressed concern over the legal ability to extract payments (impact fees) to subsidize shuttle operations. Further, the reduction is based on the assumption that the fee paid to supplement the shuttle service would support an adjustment to the Shuttle routes to provide additional options to onsite parking. This is not likely to be the case at least until multiple users in a specific area exercise this option. (1 biii and 1 biv) I believe the complete exemption of parking for second floor office space conversions and additional retail space fronting on Atlantic Avenue is too permissive. Paul Dorling, AICP Director of Planning and Zoning City Of Delray Beach 100 N.W. 1st. Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 561-243-7040 dorlin na ci.delraV-beach.fl.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Terrill C. Pyburn, Assistant City Attorney THROUGH: Susan A. Ruby, City Attorney DATE: October 9, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM WS.3 -SPECIAL/WORKSHOP MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2008 GREEN TASK FORCE ELECTRONIC BULLETIN BOARD ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Green Task Force Electronic Bulletin Board. BACKGROUND On May 13, 2008, the City Commission directed our office to seek an Attorney General's Opinion regarding the Green Task Force's desire to conduct electronic workshop meetings on-line through the Internet. As we looked into the requirements to meet the Sunshine Law, in conjunction with past Attorney General's Opinions on the matter, and after talking with our IT Department, it became clear that there is not now currently in existence any software that meets the start and stop time and retrieval of records requirements that the Attorney General's Office has recommended as a condition of approval in its earlier opinions. As a result, we began searching to see if it was possible to create software capable of meeting the Sunshine Law requirements and Dan Sloan, Chairman of the Green Task Force, in conjunction with Ed DelPortillo, Project Manager, found a company (Computerworx) that was capable of modifying some existing software to meet our needs. It appears likely that the software design will cost an estimated amount somewhere between $1,000.00 and $7,500.00 to create, and yearly recurring maintenance will run approximately 15% - 20% of the creation costs. At this time, we are seeking direction from you as to whether or not you want us to proceed with obtaining proposals. FUNDING SOURCE We currently have no funds budgeted for this type of service. RECOMMENDATION The City Attorney's Office recommends City Commission discretion. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Amy E. Alvarez, Historic Preservation Planner Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning THROUGH: City Manager DATE: October 1, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM WS.4 - SPECIAL/WORKSHOP MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2008 REVIEW OF MARINA HISTORIC DISTRICT RESURVEY RECOMMENDATIONS ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before the City Commission a is review of the Marina Historic District Resurvey conducted by GAI Consultants, Inc. Staff seeks direction from the City Commission on the adoption and implementation of the noted recommendations. BACKGROUND A resurvey of the Marina Historic District was completed in June 2008, and the survey report makes the following recommendations: * That the southern boundary be amended to remove those properties south of 708 SE 3rd Street, and 300-305 SE 7th Avenue; *That a second Period of Significance (POS) be adopted to span 1947-1960; *That the amended district be nominated for listing on the National Register of Historic Places; *That if there is not support for listing of the entire district on the National Register of Historic Places, then those eligible properties both within the amended district and the removed portion are encouraged to seek either national or local individual designations, as applicable. First, the survey recommends that a majority of those properties located within the 300 block of SE 7th Avenue be removed. The removal was justified in the report, and would not be in conflict with the recently adopted ordinance to provide for the removal. As the process permits property owners to apply for the removal, Staff recommends that the option be left to the property owners. Once the application and all required materials as outlined in the LDRs are submitted, Staff would then schedule the request for HPB consideration. The process will require a Public Hearing before the HPB and two Public Hearings by City Commission. Next, the survey recommends that a second POS spanning 1947-1960 be recognized. The POS for the Marina Historic District presently spans 1922 - 1943, and has not been altered since the initial district was designated in 1988. The recommended POS does not include years 1944-1946, as there are no remaining buildings built during this time. It is recommended that the new POS include these years so that a time gap is not created. It is important to note that the "Period of Significance" identifies the growth periods of a historic district and places the POS within its historical context. Further, varying styles of architecture would be recognized to illustrate the historic district's evolution through its development during these periods. The architectural styles currently recognized include Art Moderne, Mission, Mediterranean Revival, Minimal Traditional, Monterey, Masonry and Frame Vernacular, Craftsman Bungalow, and Ranch. Coincidentally, recognition of the development from 1944-1960 would not include any additional architectural styles. However, it is important to note that the more recent examples of these styles differ from those recognized in the current POS as the styles evolved and the detailing varies. As a general note, it is important to consider that while these styles may exist in large numbers within the City as a whole, there is not a large concentration of any single style within any of the City's five historic districts. Therefore, the protection of any of the eligible resources is important in maintaining the historic environment of each district. With respect to listing on the National Register of Historic Places, it is important to recognize that while the listing would provide additional recognition for the district, additional review criteria or restrictions would not be placed on those properties located within the boundaries. Staff recommends that the City submit an application for listing with the assistance of residents within the historic district. If listing of the entire historic district is not supported, it is recommended that those properties identified in the survey report seek individual listing National Register of Historic Places. In addition, there are two properties located within the area to be removed that would be classified as contributing which would also be eligible for individual listing on the Local Register of Historic Places. The recommended listing would be up to the individual property owners to seek individual designation of their properties. While not a recommendation to be considered, it is important to point out that the survey report reclassified the property at 238 SE 7th Avenue from contributing to non-contributing "due to inappropriate new construction on the property." The property owners have been receiving an Ad Valorem Tax Exemption on improvements made to the contributing structure in 1999, which will end on December 31, 2009. The repercussion of this reclassification is that the property owners will be required to pay back the exempted taxes plus interest. It is important to note that this issue was raised by City and State Staff when the new construction was considered by both the HPB and the City Commission on appeal. With respect to the acknowledgement of a survey's recommendations, it is recommended that they be presented to the HPB for consideration, and then formally recognized by the City Commission via a resolution. RECOMMENDATION Send the survey report to the HPB for recommendation, and direct Staff to prepare a resolution for City Commission. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Catherine Kozol, Police Legal Advisor THROUGH: City Attorney DATE: October 10, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM WS.S - SPECIAL/WORKSHOP MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2008 DRAFT RED LIGHT CAMERA ORDINANCE ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This is a draft ordinance that will allow the City to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public by issuing an Ordinance Violation for vehicles that are observed running red lights by a traffic control monitoring system/device. BACKGROUND Numerous studies have shown that the running of red lights is a major cause of motor vehicle collisions and a safety hazard affecting other drivers as well as pedestrians. Various National organizations, including the Governors Highway Safety Association, International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, have supported the use of traffic control monitoring devices for more effective and efficient traffic law enforcement. Just recently, on October 2, 2008, the National Safety Council adopted a new public policy supporting the use of automated enforcement (red light cameras and speed cameras) for traffic safety. While there may be some concern as to the installation of red light cameras; such as individuals braking suddenly to avoid running a red light possibly causing a rear end collision and the possibility of challenges to the system and ordinance, the positive reasons for installation greatly outweigh them. Not only has it been shown that these cameras have become deterrents for people running red lights, but this system will allow law enforcement to focus more of their time on criminal activity in the area resulting in a better use of personnel and resources. Moreover, these cameras can be a valuable device to aid law enforcement in determining perpetrators of crime if they travel through a monitored intersection as well as to assist traffic accident investigators in their investigations. Adoption of an ordinance such as this is the first step in setting up a red light camera enforcement process. Palm Beach County has already adopted an ordinance which will apply in the unincorporated area. Once an ordinance is adopted the next step will be selection of a vendor to operate the system for us. RECOMMENDATION That the City Commission discuss any changes you might like to see in the ordinance and by consensus authorize the ordinance to be finalized and placed on an upcoming agenda for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. -08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, SY AMENDING CHAPTER 70, "TRAFFIC CODE", OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, SY ENACTING ANEW SECTION , "DANGEROUS INTERSECTION SAFETY", PROVIDING FOR RECORDED IMAGE, MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT OF RED LIGHT INFRACTIONS AND FOR RELATED PROCEDURES AND PROVISIONS, COLLECTION OF FINES AND PENALTY, TO FACILITATE USE OF CODE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM FOR DANGEROUS INTERSECTION SAFETY; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach is located in a high density traffic area and regularly experiences traffic experiences traffic incidents related to the failure of motorists to obey duly erected traffic control devices; and WHEREAS, the r~ulning of red lights causes a safety hazard affecting every citizen and traveler in the City of Delray Beach; and WHEREAS, the violation of red light traffic signals is recognized as the number one cause of urban motor vehicle collisions; and WHEREAS, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recognizes the act of violating a red light traffic signal as the most dangerous form of aggressive driving and WHEREAS, the National Safety Council has adopted a new public policy supporting the use of automated enforcement (Red Light Cameras and Speed Cameras) for traffic safety. WHEREAS, the apprehension of violators of red light traffic signal through means of law enforcement observance, chase and citation is difficult, dangerous and expensive; and WHEREAS, the installation and use of traffic control photographic systems permit law enforcement resources to be efficiently utilized in responding to other serious criminal and traffic offenses; ancl, WHEREAS, red light legislation penalizing or assessing civil fees against the owner of a motor vehicle has proven extremely effective at reducing red light violation and traffic accidents; and WHEREAS, the City finds it to be fair and reasonable to use the same procedure employed by the state of using unmanned cameras to enforce toll violations on the State's system of toll roads has been detem-uned to be fair, reasonable and sufficient by the State in order to effectively enforce laws regulating the payment of tolls without the need to commit the extreme amount of personnel that mould be necessary without the use of Luzmarnled cameras; and WHEREAS, similarly, the use of Luzmanned cameras will be effective in enforcing laws requiring drivers of motor vehicles to stop for red lights and will have the effect of freeing law enforcement personnel to respond to other, and sometimes more significant, incidents as well as serious crime; and WHEREAS, Section 316.008, Florida Statutes, grants municipalities, with respect to streets and highways Linder their jurisdiction and within reasonable exercise of the police power, the authority to regulate and monitor traffic by means of law enforcement officers and security devices; and WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach is vested with home rule authority pursuant to Article VII, Section 2 of the Constitution of the State of Florida and Chapter 166, Florida Statutes, to enact an ordinance malting the failure to stop for a red light indication a code violation, and to provide for enforcement of such violations; and WHEREAS, Opinion 05-41 of the Attorney General of the State of Florida, dated July 12, 2005, issued to Samuel S. Goren, City Attorney for the City of Pembroke Pines, confirms the authority of the City to enact an ordinance malting the failure to stop for a red light indication a code violation, to use Luzmarnled cameras to monitor intersections in the City for such code violations, and to record the license tag numbers of vehicles involved in such violations; and WHEREAS, the Attorney General has opined that the cities may not issue traffic citations under the State law to drivers for violations observed by the use of Luzmanned cameras and not otherwise observed by law enforcement officers; and WHEREAS, in order to be consistent with State law and the referenced Attorney General Opinion, the City will issue a Notice of Infraction for failure to stop at red lights to a registered owner of a vehicle for a violation of this ordinance and will not utilize uniform traffic citations prescribed by Chapter 316 of the Florida Statutes for violation of this ordinance and will not prosecute offenses of this Ordinance through the County Court, but, rather, through the City`s code enforcement program, procedures and processes; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to reduce the running of red lights by creating an additional enforcement mechanism to protect the public health, safety and welfare by implementing an automated photographic red light traffic enforcement system in efforts to reduce violations of steady red traffic signals at intersections in the City of Delray Beach. NOW, THEREFORE, SE IT ORDAINED SY THE CITY CONIlVIISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: ARTICLE DANGEROUS INTERSECTION SAFETY 2 ORD. NO. -08 Sec. Intent. The purpose of this chapter is to authorize the use of an tuzmarnled cameras/monitoring system to promote compliance with red light signal indicators as described by this chapter, and to adopt a civil enforcement system for red light signal violations. Failing to stop at steady red light signal places the offending vehicle in violation of the city intersection safety ordinance. This ordinance prohibits vehicles from obstructing, occupying or passing into an intersection when a steady red light is projected from a traffic control device. This ordinance will also supplement law enforcement personnel in the enforcement of red light signal violations and shall not prohibit county, state or local law enforcement officers from issuing a citation for a red light signal violation in accordance with normal statutory traffic enforcement techniques. Sec. .Use of image capture technologies. The City shall utilize image capture technologies as a supplemental means of monitoring compliance with laws related to traffic control signals, while assisting law enforcement personnel in the enforcement of such laws, which are designated to protect and improve public health, safety and welfare. This section shall not supersede, infringe, curtail or impinge upon state or county laws related to red light signal violations or conflict with such laws. This ordinance shall serve to enable the City to provide enhanced enforcement and respect for authorized traffic signal devices. The City may utilize image capture technologies as an ancillary deterrent to traffic control signal violations and to thereby reduce accidents and injuries associated with such violations. Notices of infractions issued pursuant to the ordinance shall be addressed using the City`s own Code Enforcement Hearing Officer pursuant to Section 37.45 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Seach and not through the uniform traffic citations or county courts. This shall not bar the use of uniform traffic citations and the county courts when City police personnel decide not to rely on this ordinance as the enforcement mechanism for a specific violation Sec. .Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this ordinance: Ir~erseetion shall mean the area embraced within the prolongation or connection of the lateral curb line; or, if none, then the lateral boundary lines of the roadways of two roads which j oin or intersect one another at, or approximately at, right angles; or the area within which vehicles traveling upon different roads joining at any other angle may come in conflict. Motor zeYiide shall mean any self-propelled vehicle not operated upon rails or guide way, but not including any bicycle or electric personal assisted mobility device, moped or motorized scooter. Notice of Infraction shall mean a City of Delray Seach citation issued for a Red Zone Infraction 3 ORD. NO. -08 Ouner or zehide our~r shall mean the person or entity identified by the state departrr~ent of motor vehicles, or other state vehicle registration office, as the registered owner of a vehicle. Such term shall also mean a lessee of a motor vehicle pursuant to a lease of six months or more. Recorded images shall mean images recorded by a traffic control signal monitoring system/device on: T~ or more photographs; T~ or more electronic images; T~ or more digital images; Digital or video movies; or Any other medium that can display a violation; and that showy the rear of a motor vehicle and on at least one image, clearly identifying the license plate number of the vehicle. Red zor~ irrfrac~ion shall mean a traffic offense whereby a traffic control signal monitoring system established that a vehicle entered an intersection controlled by a duly erected traffic control device at a time when the traffic control signal for such vehicle's direction of travel was emitting a steady red signal. Hearing Officer shall mean the City`s Code Enforcement Hearing Officer, as described in Chapter 37, Section 37.45 (S)(1)(a) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of DelraySeach. Traffic control infraction renew officer shall mean the City Police Deparhr~ent employee designated by the City Police Chief to review recorded images and issue Red Zone Infractions based upon those images. Traffic control signal shall mean a device exhibiting different colored lights or colored lighted arrow, successively one at a time or in combination, using only the colors green, yellow, and red which indicate and apply to drivers of motor vehicles as provided in F.S. ~ 316.075. Traffic control signal mrnatoring st~teir~/deuice shall mean an electronic system consisting of one or more vehicle sensors, w~rldng in conjunction with a traffic control signal, still camera and video recording device, to capture and produce recorded images of motor vehicles entering an intersection against a steady red light signal indication. Sec. Adherence to red light traffic control signals. Motor vehicle traffic facing a traffic control signal's steady red light indication shall stop before entering the crosswallc on the rear side of an intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until a green indication is shown on the traffic control signal; however, the driver of a motor vehicle 4 ORD. NO. -08 which is stopped at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the cros`Swalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering the intersection in obedience of a steady red traffic control signal, may make a right turn (unless such turn is otherwise prohibited by posted sign or other traffic control device) but shall yield right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the traffic control signal at the intersection. Sec. .Violation. A violation of this ordinance known as a Red Zone Infraction shall occur when a motor vehicle does not comply with the requirements of Section Violations shall be enforced pursuant to Section This ordinance shall not prohibit law enforcement personnel from issuing a citation for a red light signal violation in accordance with standard statutory enforcement techniques this section shall not supersede, infringe, curtail or impinge upon state laws related to red light signal violations or conflict with such laws. Notices of infractions issued pursuant to this ordinance shall not be by the Florida Uniform Traffic Citation and shall not be subject to prosecution or appeal in the County courts. Sec. .Review of Recorded Images. (A) The owner of the vehicle which is observed by recorded images committing a Red Zone Infraction shall be issued a Notice of Infraction The recorded image shall be sufficient grounds to issue a city Notice of Infraction. (S) The City shall designate a Traffic Control Infraction Review Officer(s) who shall meet the qualifications set forth in F.S. §943.13 or F.S. §316.640(5)(A), or any other relevant statute. The Traffic Control Infraction Review Officer shall review recorded images prior to the issuance of a notice of violation/infraction to ensure accuracy and the integrity of the recorded images. The Traffic Control Infraction Officer shall also verify that the traffic control monitoring system/devices which captured the recorded images was functioning properly at the time the recorded images were captured Once the Traffic Control Infraction Review Officer has verified the accuracy of the recorded images and functionality of the traffic control monitoring system/devices, he or she shall complete a report, and a Notice of Infraction shall be sent to the vehicle owner at the address on record with the Florida Departmealt of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles or the address on record with the appropriate agency having such information in another state. Sec. .Notice of Violation/Infraction. The notice of violation/infraction shall include: (A) The name and address of the vehicle owner; (S) The license plate number and registration number of the vehicle; 5 ORD. NO. -08 (C) The make, model, and year of the vehicle; (D) Notice that the violation charged is pursuant to this ordinance; (E) The location of the intersection where the violation occurred; (F) The date and time of the Red Zone Infraction; (G) Notice that the recorded images relating to the vehicle and a statement that the recorded images are evidence of a Red Zone Infraction; (H) The civil penalty imposed; (I) Images depicting violation; Q) A signed statement by the Traffic Control Infraction Officer that, based on inspection of recorded images, the vehicle was involved in a Red Zone Infraction; (K) The procedures for payment of the civil penalty and contesting the Notice of Infraction. Sec. Vehicle owner responsibilities. (A) A vehicle owner receiving a Notice of Infraction may, within (30) thirty days of the date of the Notice of Infraction (1) Pay the assessed civil penalty pursuant to instructions on the Notice of Infraction; or (2) Request a appeal before the Code Enforcement Hearing Officer to contest the Notice of Infraction pursuant with procedures as outlined in this ordinance. (S) The failure to comply with the provisions of this section within (30) thirty days from the date of the Notice of Infraction shall constitute a waiver of the right to contest the Notice of Infraction and will be considered an admission of liability and in such case an order maybe entered against the violator for an amount up to the maximum civil penalty, plus any administrative costs. Sec. Appeal to Hearing Officer. The City`s Hearing Officer is authorized to consider appeals under this ordinance. Within thirty (30) days of the date of the Notice of Infraction, the vehicle owner may file an appeal with the City Code Enforcement Hearing Officer pursuant to the directions and the Notice of Infraction. A hearing on the appeal shall be scheduled for all appeals in which the vehicle owner requests such a hearing within thirty (30) days, except those in which the vehicle owner submits an affidavit pursuant to Section in which the vehicle owner affim~s under penalty 6 ORD. NO. -08 of perjury that the vehicle was not under his or her care, custody, or control or that of someone with the vehicle owner's consent. (A) Upon receipt of the request for an appeal, the City shall schedule a hearing before the hearing officer to occur not later than sixty (60) days after the City`s receipt of the Notice of Appeal. A Notice of Hearing shall be provided to the vehicle owner no less than ten (10) days prior to the hearing, and shall be provided by certified and U.S. mail to the same address to which the Notice of Infraction was sent. (S) The following shall be perniis~srble grounds for an appeal: (1) At the time of the infraction, the vehicle was not under the care, custody, or control of the vehicle owner or an individual with vehicle owner's consent, established pursuant to affidavit as provided in Sec. (2) The motor vehicle driver was issued a citation by a law enforcement officer, which was separate and distinct from the citation issued under this section, for violating the steady red traffic control signal; (3) The motor vehicle driver was required to violate the steady red traffic control signal in order to comply with other governing laws; (4) The motor vehicle driver was required to violate the steady red traffic control signal in order to reasonably protect the property or person of another; (5) The steady red traffic control signal was inoperable or malfunctioning or (6) Any other reason the Hearing Officer deems appropriate. (C) All testimony before a Hearing Officer shall be under oath and shall be recorded (D) The traffic control infraction officer may testify at the hearing The vehicle owner may then present testimony and evidence. (E) The formal rules of evidence shall not apply, but fundamental due process shall be observed and shall govern the proceedings. (F) Recorded images indicating a Red Zone Infraction, verified by the traffic control infraction review officer, are admissible in any proceeding before the City`s Hearing Officer to enforce the provisions of this Chapter, and shall constitute prima facie evidence of the violation 7 ORD. NO. -08 (G) Upon determination of the Hearing Officer irrelevant, immaterial and unduly repetitious evidence maybe excluded but, all other evidence of a type commonly relied upon by reasonable prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs shall be admissible. (H) Unless an affidavit is provided pursuant to Sec. , it is presumed the person registered as the vehicle owner with the Florida Department of Motor Vehicles or any other state vehicle registration office, or an individual having the owner's consent was operating the vehicle at the time of a Red Zone Infraction. Sec. .Vehicle owner affidavit ofnon-responsibility. In order for the vehicle owner to establish that the motor vehicle was, at the time of the Red Zone Infraction, either: (a) in the care, custody, or control of another person without the consent of the registered owner; or (b) was subject to a short term (less than six months) car rental agreement entered into between a car rental agency, which is licensed as required by applicable law and is authorized to conduct business in the state, and the operator of the vehicle. The vehicle owner is required within twenty-one (21) days from the date listed on the Notice, to furnish to the City, an affidavit setting forth the circumstances demonstrating, either: (a) that the motor vehicle was not in the vehicle owner's care, custody, or control, and was not in the care, custody or control of another person with the vehicle owner's consent, or (b) that the motor vehicle was subject to a short teen (less than six months) rental agreement between the car rental agency receiving the notice and the vehicle operator and provide a true and correct copy of the short teen car rental agreement, as applicable. The affidavit must be executed in the presence of a notary, and include: (A) If lmown to the vehicle owner, the name, address, and driver's license number of the person who had care, custody, or control of the motor vehicle, without the vehicle owner's consent, at the time of the alleged Red Zone Infraction; or (S) The name, address and driver's license number of the person who rented the motor vehicle from the car rental agency which has received the Notice, at the time of the alleged Red Zone Infraction; or (C) If the vehicle was stolen, the police report indicating the vehicle was stolen at the time of the alleged Red Zone Infraction; and (D) The following language immediately above the signature line: "Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing affidavit and the facts stated in it are true". Upon timely receipt of a sufficient affidavit pursuant to this section, any prosecution of the notice issued to the vehicle owner shall be terminated Proceedings maybe commenced by the City against the responsible person identified in the affidavit, and in such event, the responsible person shall be subject to the same process and procedures which are applicable to vehicle owners. 8 ORD. NO. -08 Sec. .Penalty. A violation of this ordinance shall be deemed a non criminal, non moving violation for which a civil penalty in the amount $125.00 shall be assessed As the violation relates to this ordinance and not to the state statutes, no points as otherwise provided in F.S. §322.27, shall be recorded on the driving record of the vehicle owner or responsible party. Sec. .Administrative charges. In addition to the penalty pursuant to Sec. ,there shall be imposed and assessed against the violator an administrative cost of $25.00 in the event of an unsuccessful appeal of the Notice of Infraction Sec. .Collection of fines. The City may establish procedures for the collection of a penalty imposed herein and may enforce such penalty by civil action in the nature of debt collection Sec. .Exceptions. This ordinance shall not apply to Red Zone Infractions involving vehicle collisions or to any authorized emergency vehicle responding to a bona fide emergency; nor shall a notice be issued in any case where the operator of the vehicle was issued a citation for violating the state statute regarding the failure to stop at a red light indication for the same event or incident. Sec. .Appeal of Order. An aggrieved party, including the City, may appeal an Order of a hearing officer to the appellate division of the Circuit Court by Writ of Certiorari as stated in Sec. 37.45(1Vi) of the City of Delray Seach Code of Ordinances. Sec. .Enforcement. This ordinance maybe enforced by any other means available to the City. Section That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or ward be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid Section That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed 9 ORD. NO. -08 Section That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage on second and final reading. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the day of 2008. ATTEST MAYOR City Clerk First Reading Second Reading 10 ORD. NO. -08