Loading...
01-27-58 JANUARY 27TH, 1958. The Regular Meeting of the City Council was held in the Council Chamber? in ~he City Hall, at 7:80 P.M., withMayor J. LeRoy Croft in the Chal~, Czty Manager W. E. Lawson Jr., City Attorney Harry T. Newett and Commissioners Col. Dugal G. Campbell, Fred B. McNeese, George W. Talbot Jr., and George V. Warren being present, An opening prayer was delivered by Att'y. J. W. Nowlin. The Council unanimously approved the Minutes for the January lSth Regular Meeting on motion of Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Com- missioner McNeese. City Manager Lawson reminded the Council that, at the last regular meeting on January 1Sth, the Grimes Foundation submitted a letter on that day, dated January 1$th, concerning "Exceptions" taken relative to 'Terms' of The Sale of the Golf Course, by the City o~ Delray Beach to The Grimes Foundation, which letter, having been recezved only that day,~had not permitted time for the Cit~ A~torney to study same. The City Council, on motion of Commzsszoner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Talbot, unanimously agreed to appoint Att'y. Harry F. Lilienthal, ofWest Palm Beach, as associate counsel to work with the City Attorney in connection with the sale of the Golf Course to the Grimes Foundation. Mr. Warren G. Grimes expressed his opinion that previous meetings between himself, the City of Delray Beach and Counsel for both parties had been unable to solve this matter and he saw no reason for making arrangements for further meetings to discuss the alleged differences and variances in the proceedings relative to the Sale of the Golf Course to the Grimes Foundation. Mr. Dick Wilson commented on the apparent fact that people, through news publications and conversation, had been led to believe that the operation of the Golf Course resulted in a gold mine which, actually, is the furtherest possible result from such an operation. Commissioner Campbell referred to the day following the Referendum on the then proposed Sale of the Golf Course, on which day Mr. Grimes, the City Commission and counsel sat here in the City Hall and happily agreed to all terms and conditions of Sale as then provided. Mayor Croft reminded all present that the Council naturally desire an acceptable and satisfactory solution and ending to this issue and hoped that a meeting between Mr. Grimes, his counsel, the City of Del- ray Beach and its counsel might result in a satisfactory agreement be- tween all parties concerned. Though Mr. Grimes stated he would no 19nger have anything to do with operation of the Golf Course, Commisszoner Campbell reminded the Council and public that, until such time as the original sale of the golf course to The Grimes Foundation was found to be otherwise, that said Grimes Foundation should continue its operation of the Golf Course as it has done for approximately the past two months since date of pur- chase thereof, as evidenced by the activities of Mr. Grimes in connec- tion with said operation. The Council unanimously agreed, on motion of Commissioner McNeese, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, that letters from The Grimes Founda- tion, as well as those from the City Attorney together with opinions submitted by the City Attorney and Associate Counsel Att'y. Harry F. Lilienthal, relative to the Sale of the Golf Course to the Grimes Foun- dation, be read into the minutes hereof and made a matter of Public Record, all of which follow: · ~ JANUARY 27th, 19~8. THE GRIMES FOUNDATION December 20, 1957 City Council. Inasmuch as ou~ legal counsel have advised THE GRIMES FOUNDATION that there a~e grave legal discrepancies between the provisions of the Fee Sidle Deed on the one hand, and the provisions con- tained in the ordinances authorizing the execution of the Deed and the advertisement of sale on the other hand, we cannot see ou~ way clem to take over the operation o~ the Golf Course. It has been called to ou~ attention that you~ honorable body has dismissed you~ Golf 0o~ztttee and has thrown the burden of oper- ating the Golf Co~se on the GRIMES FOUNDATION. Neither the City nor the Foundation can af£ord to allow the operation of the Course to remain suspended in the air du~ing the time we are t~ying to decide the final course to be followed with respect to the above mentioned legal discrepancies. Therefore, we are asking your Golf Committee, while the controversy on the legality of the documents is being resolved, to continue operating the Course in the future as it has in the past. We sin- cerely hope that you will concu~ in this action. Resp ec tfully, (Signed) Warren G. Grimes President. " O '~ HARRY T. NEWETT December 23, 1957 M~. William E..Lawson, City Manager cours_e. With reference to the letter dated December 20, 1957, from the Grimes Foundation, I offer the following comment: The course was offered at public sale September 23, 1957 upon the basis of the advertised terms (not the resolutions). Mr. Grimes, for the Foundation, bid $350,000.00 ~upon Shose terms, and on November 6th, the Council accepted that bid. The tendered deed does not conform preoi~sely to the advertisement for the reason I was-~ir-~ted (perhaps unofficially) to include some of tho provisions Mr. Grimes advocated to the p~blic as reasons for approving the sale at referendum. That is, the alteration is for the 0ity,s benefit and if Mr. Grimes doesn't feel obligated to perform them, he can ask they be eliminated from deed because they were not in the advertisement. (Hereby, I refer solely to the depreciation formula). Thereby, based upon (1) the advertisement, (2) the bid, and (3) the Council, s acceptance of that bid, the contract terms were fixed. Therefore, the objections made by Mr. Grimes are, in my opinion, "camouflage" to publicly hide the fact that Mr. Grimes now realizes the 50 year restriction that it must be used as a golf course is and was not a good deal. (Incidentally, this restriction is 15551 and enforceable. And I might add, the 25 year re-purchase opt~ is not illegal, although unless phrased technically, it might not be en- forceable). It is my opinion there are no grave legal discrepancies; that tl~re is only an unilateral mistake of fact on the Foundation's part aS to the nature and extent of its transaction represented by its bid. The situation therefore boils down to the alternative of either Mr. Grimes accepting the deed with the terms set forth in the adve~tise- merit, or the City permitting him to rescind. I have outlined what I consider the legal aspects as between Mr. Grimes and the City above (and do not consider the rights of individual taxpayers who might intervene either for or against the sale to Grimes Foundation, which are always possible). 2 Continued-- To William E. Lawson -- from Harry T. Newett, 12-23-.~? With reference to Grimes Foundation letter of December 20th, the existence or non-existence of a Golf Commission has no legal bead- ing upon the sale. By action of the Council December 17th, under Charter authority, the Golf Commission was discharged. Certainly the Grimes Foundation has no authority to appoint one, or to say one is acting for the City, and particularly in view of his public statement he was operating the course since November llth, he can- not change position without agreement. If you wish me to draft a reply to Mr. Grimest letter, I shall follow your instructions. I sincerely hope legal action can be prevented, not because I fear the result, but I feel the best wel- fare of the City will be served thereby. However, these reasons are legal only in the sense that the obligations on Grimes Founda- tion under the existing transaction are only to operate a minimum golf course; that is, he could possibly put a skeleton force on it and meet legal requirements. Whether this is the Cityts desire is in the policy field. (Signed) Harry T. Newett - O - THE GRIMES FOUNDATION January 7, 1958 Mr. William E. Lawson: As the last attempt to settle the Golf Course problems, it has been suggested to have a meeting of the newly elected Council, their At- torney, THE GRIMES FOUNDATION Council, and a disinterested lawyer. Mr. Vance Brand, Council for THE GRIMES FOUNDATION, will be in Delray Beach Saturday, January 11, and if it can be arranged a meet- ing could be held at my home, 99 Seabreeze Avenue. It would be my suggestion that the attorneys meet at one o.clock to discuss the possibXlities and the Mayor and Council be invited for a three otclock meeting with the Attorneys. We consider this an urgent matter for the Golf Course without man- agement is not to the public interest. (signed) Warren G. Grimes President m O ' THE GRIMES FOUNDATION January 13, 1958 City Council Since our letter to the City of December 7, 1957 refusing the tender of the deed and returning the documents to the City, no action has been taken by the City to cure the defects in the documents. We again request the return of $350,000.00 as evidenced by our deposit with the City. In our letter of December 7th we stated that we had been advised that the title was not insurable in present form. Palm Beach Ab- stract and Title Company writes us: "REQUIRE~NTS TO BE COMPLIED WITH BEFORE SATISFACTORY POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE CAN BE~: Item 1. Proper document creating the interest to be insured: Satisfactory Deed. Item 5. Record Quit Claim Deed from Delray Estates, Ltd., and release of Mortgage recorded in Official Record Book ~4, page 529 as to those parts of Lots 14 and 19 in Block 36 and Lots 14 and 19 in Block 3?, Homewood, lying north of East and West Center Line of Section 19, Township 46 South, Range 43 East. continued--To City Co~mcil -- from The Grimes Foundation, l-13-58. Item 6. Furnish proof of Compliance by City with O~dinance authorizing sale (including ~g~e .o~ ~es o!ution and_~e~lly~~ ............. JANUA~ 27th, 19~8. JA~A~ 27th, 1958. The City Nanage~~ then ~ead Ordinance No. G-281: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DE~Y E· B~CH, FL~IDA, REZONING AND P~CING THE E~ OF N. OF N.E.~ of N.E.~, LESS ~I~OAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND THE V~ OF N.E.~ OF N,E.~ OF N.E.~ LYING ~ST OF SAL P~IL- ROAD IN SECTION 18, TO~SHIP A8 SO,H, ~GE A8~ EAST ~ C-8 DISTRICT, A~ ~NDING "ZONING ~P OF DE~Y BEACH, FL~IDA, 1~88." The Co~cil, on motion of Co~ssioner C~pbell and seconded by C~ssione~ McNeese, ~animously agreed that Ordinance No. G-281 be passed~ and adoL~ted on this second and final yea~ing. see ~o~o Copy of Ord. G.-281, Page 28-D) City Manager Lawson read the Pla~ing Board Report of Jan~ry 2~, RE: Deviation of side set-back-Lot ~, Pa~ Beach Shore Ac~es. Block E. "0~ board met this day to conside~ the petition of ~s. Alfred Ha~t, 822 No~th Ocean Blvd., to build ~o feet into the no~th side set-back 9f her property. This ~s in a R-l-~ zone where 12 feet side set-back is quired. The property has llO feet frontage on N. Ocean Blvd. Our board, six members being present, does not consider this a hardship case. Our board ~an~ously ~eco~ends denial. P~NNING & ZONING B~ Co~issioner Talbot moved that the request of Nfs. Alfred Ha~t be denied as reco~ended by the Pla~ing/Zo~ng Board. Motion seceded by Co~ssione~ McNeese and ~animously carried. The City ~nager then p~esented the ~equest and Pla~ing~ Board Report thereon concerning - "Annexation & Zoning of a parcel ~of l~nd north of N.E.Sth Street and east of N.E. Sth Avenue, app~ox~ately 80S ft by 100 ft, owned by N~. Charles F. R~ge; "Mr. Chas. F. R~ge p~oposes the a~exat~on by the city of an a~ea, approximately 808 ft by lO0 ft., no~th of Block S, Sophia Frey S/D, which fronts on N.E. 8th Ave., and would front on the east side of N.E. 8th Street, if extended as ~. R~ge p~oposes. The land to be a~exed is Lot 2~ of the 1st addition to Ken, ont. He proposes to build 800 feet of N.E. 8th Ave., within the City, ~o as to oo~ect N.E. 8th Ave., with Bond t~;ay and dedicate it to the cit~, af~e~ he has completed an agreement to buy it and the narrow ~tr~p o%' land separating it from Ke~ont. He then would complete an ~greement to buy Lot 2~, Ke~ont, and all together, he will then ha~ ~ tract 1~8 x This pOrtion of Ke~ont is zoned by Pa~ Beach Co~ty as thei~ :~-2, which corresponds with our Zoning R-8. He has submitted a rough plat of a lay-out showing seven lots ft deep and varying in width from ~0 to 80 feet wide, on the new street, which would have a fifty foot right-of-way. Our Board, six being present, reco~ends the annexation, sub-divi- sion layout and zoning, the ~tters of pavia, water co~ections and taxation being subject to negotiation with yo~ co~ission. P~ING & ~NING BOARD Co~issioner Campbell moved that the City Attorney be instructed JANUARY 27th, 1958. ~J7 Continued--To City Council -- from The Grimes Foundation, l-13-58. 1. The premises described as Tract No. 1 (area comprising golf course) shall be continuously used by the Grantee its successors and assigns for the purposes of a private golf course for a period of Fifty Years (50) from the date of the transfer of this deed. 2. In the event Grantee, its successors or assigns at any time during the period of twenty years (20) from the date of the transfer of this Deed decides to offer Tract No. 1 for sale and receives a bona fide bid for same, Grantee agrees that (a) thereupon Grantee ~will serve a notice by registered mail upon the City of Delray giving all pertinent information relating to the terms and conditions of such proposed sale, and (b) Grantee agrees to grant to said City an option for one year beginning on the date of mailing such notice to meet such terms and con- ditions of said proposed sale of Tract No. 1; and in the event City of Delray fails within said one year period to purchase Tract No. 1 and pay the consideration therefor, the Grantee shall be for- ever free without restriction whatsoever to sell Tract No. 1 or any part thereof upon whatever terms and conditions it so desires. 3. The foregoing provisions shall be covenants running with the land and shall be binding on the Grantee, its successors and assigns. Provided, however, that the foregoing shall not apply in any manner to Tract No. 2 as hereinbefore described. We trust it will be convenient with you to reply to this com- munication on or before January 20, 1958. (signed) Warren G. Grimes President - O HARRY T. NEWETT January 16, 19~8 Henry Lilienthal, Esq. Harvey Building West Palm Beach, Florida Re: Del~ay Golf Course. I enclose herewith a copy of letter from the Grimes Foundation to the City Council in the above matter. It is my understanding you are requested to furnish an opinion thereon in accordance with your employment. It would appear the points are: (1) present status; ~2) courses of action available to council; and (3) comment on terms of a future offering to guide the council if they rescind and re- offer. However, this is solely my interpratation, and is not suggested as a limitation or restriction. You will note it is requested the cotulcil settle this matter by January 20th. If you can get your answer back by that time it would be appreciated. (signed) Harry T. Newett JANU~ 2?th, 19~8. City Council: In order to assist you in determining a decision in connection with the proposed sale oX' the Golf Course, I offer the follow- ing opinion as to the matters raised by the letter of The Grimes Foundation to you dated Januar~y 13, 1958: 1. P~ENT STATUS: The City Charter does not require either resolUtlon~ ordinance as a condition ~recedent to offer- ing real property for sale. Sec. 7(a) (2) requires that the terms of such proposed sale and the base bid shall be advertised once a week for two consecutive weeks in a ~ newspaper or general circulation published in Delray Beach. Then the sale is at public auction, subject to approval by the council. However, additional terms may be provided by' ordinance as are deemed necessary. It is therefore my view that the contract is contained in the public advertisement made, the bid, and the acceptance of such bid by the Council; and that the variance between prior resolutions and the public advertisement are immater- ial. While I have concurrence of other attorneys in this view, I wish to also point out there are still others that take the view the authorizing legislation and the adver- tisement, bid and acceptance must concur. In this connection, I know it was the intention of the City Council in offering the property and of the highest bidder in making the bid that the buyer should obtain the right to operate a private golf course. I feel that the wording of the advertisement definitely precludes the Buyer from doing so; however, it was m~ opinion that even had the word "private" been used in the advertisement in- stead of the word "public", the same status would have resulted (and'hence such error is harmless). But, in either case, it would appear there is and has been a mutual mistake of fact, or of the legal effect of the terms. 2. COURSE OF ACTION: (1) If the council desires to enforce bhe contract~ '~t'"would have to furnish the bidder who was accepted, a deed conforming to the terms of published advertisement, remove the cloud upon the 0ity~s title as set forth in paragraph 2 (item 5) of letter of Grimes Foundation (which should be accomplished with no trouble), and furnish proof of compli~uce with Charter (not ordinance or resolution). (I might point out that the formula for re-purchase as contained in the published advertisement is less than the council intended; hence, the formula as set ~ in the previously tendered deed cannot be insisted upon.) (2) The council has authority and basis for rescinding all legislation and returning the money to the bidder if it desires. The reasons are: (a) Mutual mistake as heretofore mentioned. (That is, the intention was to permit private golf course; the formula for repurchase was less than intended; existence of divided legal opinion as to necessity that advertise- ment and subsequent action comply with resolutions author- izing Sale.) (b) Probability of being involved in future litigation. In this latter respect, a variety of questions exist. First, there is the possibility, the transaction could be .~ attacked on inadequacy of purchase price. Second, the bidder has obtained agreement that city would defend any suit which might question transaction for allegedly not being "bona fide sale" (which agreement appears to be subject to a variety of interpretations as to what it means). Thirdly, in a transaction of this nature, there are possibilities other questions may be raised still unforseen. 6 Continued--To City Council -- from Harry Newett. 3. ?ROpOSED NEW OFFER~ING: Thi~ phase of discussion assumes that council elects to rescind, and is brought in merely. because the bidder proposes such action. Further, it is limited solely to the proposals contained in said letter on page 3 thereof. First, as to zoning to be effected by the City under existing zoning ordinances, this would appear to be "R-3" District under which golf courses are a permissive use. However, zoning would not guarantee any permanency; because zoning permits a use only if the owner desires. Zoning does not require a use to be performed. Second, as to deed restriction. The proposal is that the existing area being played on must be used as a private golf course for 50 years. There is no penalty provided in the event of a violation; that is, in such event would the city be entitled to damages, or could it obtain injunctive relief or what. Further, under such restriction, suppose the bidder (or a subsequent trans- feree) should make rules which would preclude all resi- dents of Delray (as, for example, that the course would be used solely for the members of XYZ Union, etc), there could be no complaint on the part of the City. And if the manner is which such a restriction was being exercised by any resident of Delray the defense of the bidder is that he is entitled to operate a private golf course; otherwise, the restriction should be removed, and thereby it would be the Cityts bu~de$ (if it chose) to enforce such restriction. Third, option as right of first refusal. Under this proposal, no option exists unless the property is put on the market. That is, the city has no right, at any time, to say it elects to repurchase. The city needs the full year for the reason in order to exercise any such option it would likely have to have a bond issue. The immediate question presented to the Council .by the letter is: whethe~ to attempt to enforce the transaction in its present status, or to rescind and return the money to the bidder. Under the terms of the letter itself, this is the first consideration, and a re-offering is neither simultaneous or connected therewith. If the Council should rescind, then any re-offering would be at public auction as required by Charter. (Signed) Harry T. Newett. ~ O West Palm Beach, Flomida January 20, 1958 City Council: Re: Sale - Municipal Golf Course. I have been asked to assist in the arbitration of the differences between the City and The Grimes Foundation. The information I have hes been obtained from papers presented to me by the City Manager, Mr. Lawson, and the City Attorney, Mr. Newett, and by conferences with them and with Mr. Brand, attorney for the Foundation. I assume the following: 1. The City wishes to sell the golf course and other properties involved. 2. The Grimes Foundation desires to purchase. 3. The consideration of $350.000.00 bid by The Grimes Foundation for the properties involved and the equipment is a fair and rea- sonable offer when considered in the face of the obligation of the purchaser to restrict the use of Tract I to a private golf course for a period of years. ? JA~]UA.RY 2?th, 1958. Continued-- To City Council -- From H.F. Lilienthal, l-20-1958. 4. The Grimes Foundation is authorized to contract and bind itself as sought to be done. 5. The City can convey geed and marketable title te the property to be sold. My position in the controversy is not to decide the wisdom or folly of the move. That is the province of the City Council, the taxpayers and The Gmimes Foundation. Briefly let me review the situation and what has been done, as I understand it: A. The City has authority under its cha~ter to sell real estate which it owns, provided certain conditions are met, namely: (a) That a base bid of a minimum of three fourths of the Cityts assessed valuatlon on any lot proposed to be pure- chased shall be deposited with the City Commission. (b) The terms of such proposed sale and the base bid shall be advertised once a week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Delray Beach. (c) Any such lot or parcel shall be sold at public auction at the City Hall of the City of Delray Beach. (d) All such sales shall be approved by the City Council. (e) That the City Council may provide s~ch other provisions by ordinance as it may deem necessary, provided that the same are not inconsistent with the above and foregoing. B. The City Council by its Resolution 1065 adopted Augus. t 12, 1957, amended by Resolution 1069 adopted September 9, 1957, offered the golf course and other city property for sale pursuant to charter provisions. Certain conditions were attached to the sale as set forth in the resolution. In my opinion this procedure should have been by Ordinance and not by resolution. C. At the specified time, September 23, 1957, the City Council met to receive bids on the sale and the sole bid was that of The Grimes Foundation for $350,000.00. I have not examined the bid but I assume it met the conditions of the call for bids as set forth in the resolutlon. D. After receipt of ~he Grimes Foundation bid the City Council ordered an election to be held on November 5, 1957, in which only the qualified freeholders of the City could participate, submit- ting to such voters the question of ratifying or rejecting the offer of 'The Gmimes Foundation to purchase the golf course for the sum of $350,000.00 upon the following terms and conditions: (a) It shall remain as a golf course for at least fifty years. (b) The City may repurchase it after twenty-five yearns if %he City desires. (c) It shall revert to the City free of cost if at ~ny time within the fifty years its use as a golf coumse is discon- tinued. E. The total number of ballots cast in the election was 136~, of which 1022 were in favor of the sale and 3~0 against. F. Immedlately thereafter on November 6, 1957, the City Council approved the sale and The Gmimes Foundation paid to the City or made available to the City through escrow arrangement the full amount of $350. OOO. 00. G. The City then t~ndered to The Grimes Foundation a deed to the property containing a repurchase formula not acceptable to the Foundation or its attorneys. JA_~U~ARY 27th, 1955 Continued--To-City Council -- from H. F. Lilienthal, 1-20-1958. It appears to me that the problems which have arisen are primarily the result of failure to provide detailed terms and conditions in the first instance so there could be no musunderstanding. There is merit in the position now taken by each side. As now pending it is impossible to reconcile the contentions except by court litigation and I entertain serious doubt that the courts can pro- vide a soothing and workable formula for the deficiencies in the terms of the Cityfs offer and the Foundation,s bid~ Defects in the advertising have raised a well founded objection on the part of the Fo,n~dation to the proceeding as now stalemated. My belief is that only by starting anew and anticipating details not heretofore spelled out can this matter be resolved to the satisfaction of the pa~ties. It is impossible to reconcile the acceptance request of the Foundation, as contained in its letter of January 13, 1958, to the City Council, with the requisites of the City's initial proposal, particularly with respect to version clause and repurchase provisions. The restrictive cove- nants proposed by the Foundationfs letter of January thirteenth are repugnant in that F. 1. provides for use of Tract I as a golf course for fifty years whereas F.2.(b) would in effect free the course for sale at any time a bona fide offer might be received. If the City could not raise funds to exercise its option to pur- chase, the use of the p~operty as a golf course could be termin- ated. In conclusion, I am of the opinion the course to pursue is to start again on a definite and understandable basis, the terms of which should be set forth in a new city ordinance and carried through in the advertising for bids, the bid or bids, and the deed. Respectfully submitted, (Signed) Her~ry F. Lilienthal Commissioner 9~mpbell moved that the Golf Course matter be again referred to the City Attorney and that he be instructed to arrange, if possible, a conference with associate counsel and counsel representing The Grimes Foundation, the purpose of this conference to be; To determine what is necessary and possible to be done, to bring both parties into accord, such accord to be based on what was intended by the actions of the previous Council to sell the Golf Course under conditions that it be m~intained.as a golf course for a period of §0 years; ~hat the buyer g~¥e the c~ty the right of re-purchase for a period (to be determined), using a formula or plan acceptable to both parties in arriving at the re-purchase price and. terms.. Further, that the counsel be instructed to give consideration to all terms previously agree~ upon, as set-up by both the City of Delray Beach and Mr. ~Varren G. Grimes, and that these terms, where it is de- t?mined they are legal, be written into a re~olution and legal adver- tisement, same to be presented both to The Grzmes Foundation through Mr. Grimes, and the City Council for consideration and action, it being understood that, in the int?ri~, 'status quo will be.maintained. The motion was seconded by Commlssxoner Talbot and unanimously passed. City Manager La~son submitted and recommended a program of pro- vidSng two-piece uniforms for 18 laborers and I foreman in the garbage division of the PBb~c Norks Dept., which would not o~ly improve the morale o~ the ind~vxdual but greatly enhance the public relation value through the neat, clean and .m).ifor~ a~pearance of the garbage personnel in the discharge of their duties within the city. The Manager further, informed the Council that total cost for such provision, for the re.maunder of the current fiscal year, would be $1,698.00, half of which, namely $8~7.50, the employees are willing to pay, the City to share an equal amount of said cost. Commissioner Talbot moved that the City Manager be authorized to provide these two-piece uniforms for 18 laborers and i foreman in the garbage division of the Public Norks Dept:, obtaining competitive bids~ the city to share in the cost of said equipment in the amount of $847.80 which shall be made available from unappropriated surplus. Motion seconded by Commissioner McNeese and unanimously agreed. The City Manager informed the Council that the lease of the property now. being used for a Youth Center, at S.E. 1st Avenue and 1st Street, exp~redDecember $1st, and due to circumstances, the owner of ~he pro- perty is requesting increased rental. The Council, on motion of Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Com- missioner Talbot, unanimously agreed that this matter be tabled for two weeks and requested the City Manager to obtain, from the Recrea- tional Director, a detailed report of Youth Center activities and the number of participating Youths as well as their anticipated Program. City Manager Lawson presented the request of Mrs. Raymond Lucas to establish a Day Nursery at 725 Spofford Street, which the Council, on motion of Commissioner McNeese and seconded by Commissioner Talbot, unanimously agreed to refer to the Planning Board for its consideration~ The City Manager then presented the request of Mr. WilliamPriest for the re zoning of the ~est 80 feet of Lots 7 and 8, in Block 75. On motion of Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Talbot, the Council unanimously agreed that said request be referred to the Zoning Board. City Manager Lawson then submitted the reguest of NOWLIN & ADAMS, on behalf of Mr. T. M. O'Neal, for the ~e-zon~ng of ~art of Model Land Company's Lot 1, Block l, of the subdiVision of Sectmon 21-46-43, fro~ R-1-A to C-2. Com~i.'ssioner Campbell reminded the Council that a similar request for zoning change of th~s property had been denied on two previous oc- casions, ~he prior Council having taken time to inspect the land and general area. The Council, on motion of Commissioner Talbot seconded by Commis- .sioner McNeese, unanimously agreed to refer this request back to the Zoning Board. 10 JANUARY 2?th, 1958. ~Z~-' The City Manager then presented the request of Att'y. Charles Byron, on behalf of Mr. Nornmn Hallberg, for re-zo~.~ing of Lots 18, l?, 18 and the West $?~ feet of Lot 18, Wheatley Sub-Division. The City Attorney advised that, following denial of a similar request of a year or so ago~ Mr. Hallberg instituted proceedings against the City for such denial, on which suit no ruling has yet been rendered. On motion of Commissioner NcNeese, seconded by Commissioner Camp- bell, the Council unanimously agreed that the request to be referred to the Planning Board. City Manager Lawson submitted the request of Mr. Alphonse R. Thomas, through Att'y. A~thur T. Holloway, for permissive use of cer- tain lands within Lot l, Block "M" of the Village for construction and operation of a Nursing Home. Commissioner Campbell, inquiring of the City Attorney, was advised that the Planning Board is within its rights in recommending certain restrictions and limitations on the operation of a "nursing home"~ The Council, on motion of Co_m~_issioner Campbell and seconded by Commisser Talbot, unanimously agreed to refer this request to the Planning Board for their study and consideration in consultation with City Attorney Newett and subject to restrictions and limitations being considered. City Manager lawson read Resolution No. 1080: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLCRIDA, APPROVING PLAT OF "DEL-HARBOUR"; AND APPROVING ANNEXATION THEREOF. Commissioner Campbell moved that Resolution No. 1080, be passed and adopted on this first and final reading. Motion seconded by missioner Talbot and unanimously pass_ed. (Photo Copy of Res. 1080, see ~ages 28-A & 28-B.) The City Manager then read Ordinance No. G-~?9: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, ANNEXING TO THE CITY THE FOLLOf~ING DES- CRIBED PARCEL OF lAND LYING CONTIGUOUS TO THE EXISTING MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACN. SAID LAND BEING AND CONSTITUTING THAT CERTAIN PROPOSED SUBDIVISION KNO~JN AS "DEL-HARBOUR", ACCORDING TO THE PROPOSED PLAT THEREOF TO BE RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLA; AND PRO- VIDING FOR THE ZONING AND TAXATION OF SAID LANDS. Commissioner Campbell inquired a~ to water provisions concerning this sub-division and was advised that the developer had agreed to supply and provide for the installation within the sub-division, in accordance.with city requirements, water to be provided from a current main located just across A-1-A from Del-Harbour S/D. Commissioner Campbell then moved that Ordinance No. G-279 be placed on first read- ing. Motion seconded by Commissioner Talbot and unanimously carried~ City Manager Lawson then read Ordinance No. G-280: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLCRIDA, REZONING AND PLACING CERTAIN .lANDS IN SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 18, TO~SH~P 46 SOUTH, RANGE 43 EAST IN "C-3" DISTRICT, AND AMENDING "ZONING NAP OF DELRAY BEACH, FLCRIDA, 1956". On motion of Commissioner McNeese and seconded by Commissioner Iqarren, the Councml unanmmously agreed to pass and adopt Ordinance No. G-280, on this second and final reading, requesting that the Building Inspector be directed to so amend the City of Delray Beach Zoning Map 1986. (see Photo Copy of O~,d. G.280, Page 28-C) JANUARY 27th, 1958. The City Manager then read Ordinance No. G-281: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELP~Y BEACH, FLORIDA, REZONING AND PLACING THE E~ OF N.E.¼ · S° OF N.E.¼ of N.E.,, ~LE o RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND THE ~ OF N.E.¼ OF N,E.~ OF N.E.¼ LYING EAST OF SAL P~IL- ROAD IN SECTION 18, TO~ii~NSHIP &8 SOUTH, RANGE &$, EAST IN C-$ DISTRICT, AND ANENDING "ZONING NAP OF DELRAY BEACH, FLCEIDA, 1~88." The Council, on motion of Commissioner Campbell and seconded by C~,ssioner NoNeese, unanimously agreed that Or.dinance No. G-RS1 be passed~ and _ado~te_d on this seco~n~_and final ~a~dzng. ~see ~no~o copy of O~d. G. 2~1, Page 28 D) City Manager Lawson read the Planning Board Report of January 2~, 1958. RE: Deviation of side set-back-Lot 4, Palm Beach Shore Acres. Block E. "Our board met this day to consider the petition of Nrc. Alfred Hart, 622. North Ocean Blvd., to build two feet into the north side set-back of her property. This is in a R-l-AAA zone where 12 feet side set-back is re- quired. The property has ll0 feet frontage on N. Ocean Blvd. Our board, six members being present, does not consider this a hardship case. Our board unanimously recommends denial. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD~ Commissioner Talbot moved that the request of Mrs. Alfred Hart be denied as recommended by the Planning/Zoning Board. Motion seconded by Commissioner McNeese and unanimously carried. The City Ymnager then presented the reques't and Planning Board Report thereon concerning - "Annexation & Zoning of a parcel of land north of N.E.Sth Street and east of N.E. Sth Avenue, approximately 503 ft by 100 ft, owned by Mr. Charles F. R?sge; "Mr. Chas. F. Runge proposes the annexation by the city of an area, approximately 503 ft by 100 ft., north of Block S, Sophia Frey S/D, ~vhich fronts on N.E. 8th Ave., and would front on the east side of N.E. 8th Street, if extended as Mr. Runge proposes. The land to be annexed is Lot 29 of the 1st addition to Ken,mont. He proposes to build 500 feet of N.E. 8th Ave., within the City, so as to connect N.E. 8th Ave., with Bond ¥Yay and dedicate it to the city, after he has completed an agreement to buy it and the narrow strip o~' land separating it from Kenmont. He then would complete an ~greement to buy Lot 29, Kenmont, and all together, he will then ha~ a tract 148 x 508. This pOrtion of Kenmont is zoned by Palm Beach County as their '.{-2, which corresponds with our Zoning R-8. He has submitted a rough plat of a lay-out showing seven lots 148 ft deep and varying in width from ?0 to 80 feet wide, on the new street, which would have a fifty foot right-of-way. Our Board, six being present, recommends the annexation, sub-divi- sion layout and zoning, the matters of paving, water connections and taxation being subject to negotiation with your commission. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD Commissioner Campbell moved that the City Attorney be instructed to prepare necessary instruments providing for annexation of said lands subject to provisions, by Mr. Runge, for paving of N.E.Sth Avenue ex- tension and necessary water distribution line extension, and submission of final plat, as per sketch hereby approved, with all street and water line installations to be in accordance with City specifications and sub- ject to the approval of the City i~anager. Motion seconded by Commis- sioner McNeese and unanimously passed. JANUARY 27th, 1958. City Manager Lawson rea8 the £ollowing letter, dated Jan 2Ath '58; "The Planning Board believes tha~ with good salesmanship abutting property might be added to the city. Fire protection, lower water rates and lower insurance are three argu- ments which come to mind. On the other hand, we hear that the charter provisions are inadequate, and unworkable. None of us having legal training can pass on this, but have a feeling that on some fronts something could be done with them. We would appreciate the city attorney's opinion as to the workability of our charter provisions, andwhether they are in conflict with Florida State Statutes. THE PLANNING BOARD On motion of Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Talbot, the Council unanimously agreed that this letter be referred to the City Attorney for comment and possible recommendation, 'The City Manager read the following letters: TO CITY COUNCIL City of Delray Beach January 17, 1988. At the regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners held January 18, 1958, your Resolution No. 1085 was received and read. The Board directed I should answer your Resolution as follows; In regards to the widening and four-la~ing of Delray ~est Road, we are infommed that the Turnpike Authority.w~ll four-lane Delra~ West Road from the turnpike into the City limits when traffic requires it. The Board' has expressed itself as being willing to cooperate fully with the City of Delray Beach in attempting to have the Turnpike Au- thority comply wi~h this suggestion. ~e shall be happy to meet with you and the Turnpike Authority jointly at any time to discuss this problem. Approximately one year ago the Board of County Commissioners was directed by the State Road Department to develop a long term program of secondary road construction that might be scheduled for construc- tion as soon as our right-of-way requirements, which are now being ~nd taking all of our secondary funds, could be made available for road construction, and establishing a priority of work, the extension of Military Trail south to the boundary of Palm Beach County was give~ top priority. ~e are unable at this time to staffe definitely when funds will be available for such construction. Our right-of-way requirements, such as through the City of Delray Beach, from Delray Beach ~o Boynton, and through Boynton and on to Hypoluxo Road, on US #l will cost many, many thousands of dollars and it is estimated will take all of our secondary funds for at least the next two years. We appreciate y&ur interest in this matter and realize, with you, the importance of the extension of Military Trail. With regards to widening and reconditioning of Old Dixie Highway, the Board has in its County road construction program for the current budget ?ar the reconditioning of four miles of Old Dixie Highway, and it ~s our present intent to include the balance of the work in the next year's County road construction budget. Again, let me say that the Board of County Commissioners appreciates your continued interest in these matters of mutual concern to Palm Beach County and we ask for your continued interest and attention to these problems and your assistance in helping us to solve them. Sincerely /S/ ROY E. ~fICHAEL JR., Chairman 18 JANUARY 27th, PALM BEACH COUNTY To City Council January 17, 1958. At the regular meeting of the Hoard of County Commissioners held on January lSth, 1958, your Resolution No. 1086 was read and con- sidered. The Board of Comity Commissioners directed that I should answer your Resolution as follows: E-4 Canal, known to you as Bel Rio Canal, is one of the principal channels of the Lake Worth Drainage District and as such is under their direct control, supervision, and ownership. The responsibility for the maintenance of this canal rests with the Lake Worth Drainage District. The Board of County Commissioners is Without authority to maintain this canal. As continued development of the lands within the Lake Worth Drain- age District adjacent to the coast is intensified for residential purposes, problems of this nature will continue to arise. The Board recognizes that now and in the future more extensive measures will have to be devised for more complete maintenance of these canals within this area that is being used for residential rather than agri- cultural purposes. The Board recognizes this need and has from time to-time discussed it with the Lake Worth Drainage District. We would appreciate your giving this problem some thought and giving us your suggestions. We realize that to do a complete and proper job of maintaining an area where residential ?e is predominant will requ?e more mo~ey than is now being made avazlable to the Lake Worth Draznage Distr~ct in these areas. The thsught has occurred to us from time to time, and we have discussed it wzth the supervisors of the Lake Worth Drainage District that possibly a drainage district designed for strictly residential purposes could be developed within some of the lands now embraced by the Lake Worth Drainage District. We would appreciate' your thoughts on this matter. Sincerely /S/ ROY E, MICHAEL, JR., Chairman City Nan~ger Lawson then read a "Report of Yard Trash Collection" copies of whzch have previously been furnished Council Members, and copy of which is attached to and forms a part of these official minutes of the regular meeting. (see Photo C&py, Pages 28-E thru 28-H) Comm~.'ssioner McNeese moved that the CityManager be requested to provide for preparation of an Ordinance which shall cause to effect discontinuamce of FREE Trash Collection. Motion seconded by Commis- sioner Talbot and unanimously passed with the further request that ~he City Manager.provide for ample public hearings to be held prior ~o passage of Sa~d Ordinance. Commissioner Campbell suggested that as much newspaper publicity as possible, concerning the determination of the Council to eliminate %tee trash collection would be appreciated and, further, that from observation it a~pears that many pic?up trucks are going to the dump only half-f~lled and that the C~ty Manager might ~ell plant a tail on some of the City's pick-up equipment to determine those ~rucks which might effect greater pick-up loads, thereby operating ~ore efficiently. Commissioner Campbell moved that Bills, in the amount of SA2,S92.AS submitted by the City Manager, be paid subject to the app~val of the ~inance Committee. Motion seconded by Commissioner McNeese and unan- imously passed.~ The Council, on motion of Commissioner McNeese and seconded by Commissioner V~arren, unanimously agreed, in acceptance of the City Manager's recom~endation, to authorize the re-advertising For Sale of the Civic Center Building, badly damaged by fire, with a forty- five (~8) Day time limit. On motion of Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Talbot, the Council approved the removal of four date palms from JANUARY 27th, 1958. ~ Seagate right-of-way to the Delray Beach Playhouse grounds to aid the Playhouse landscaping project, subject to the approval of Nfs. Lucy N. Helm who originally planted these Palms as beautification of Seagate and the general area as a whole. Mrs. Alice M. Faulkner, of North Ocean Blvd., was requested to solicit further aid and advice from the meeting of Club Presidents to be held this week, which she had arranged to attend, concerning city-wide beautification programs. City Nanager Lawson read the following letter ~ust received from - SAMUEL J. SCOBEE Scobee Funeral Home Jan. 27th, 1958. TO: City Council: RE: The Delray Crematorium. On Oct. 10th, 1987, we began the operation of the Delray Crema- torium, located at $06 N.E. Sth Avenue. Since the operation of the Crematorium we have had some complaints from some of the neighbors. Most of these re psychological, in knowing that the crematory zs es- tablish at this address and in operation. Although it is in the pro- per zoning, I realize other people have investments in the same zone and I think their feelinss should be c?nsidered. After due consideration I have decided it would be best to move the operational aspect of the Delray Crematorium to another location. I would need approximately 50 feet of property and I think the Ceme- tery would be the proper place for the Crematorium. I would appre- ciate the Council taking action on this matter as soon as possible, to enable me to construct the necessary building and make preparations for moving the cremator. Your prompt consideration will be appreciated. /S/ S~qUEL J. SCOBEE. The Council, on motion of Commissioner Talbot and seconded by Com- missioner Campbell, unanimously agreed that this matter should be ro- ferred to the Zoning Board. Commissioner McNeese moved that the City Attorney be directed to prepare an Ordinance restricting the future location of a crematorium within the City li~ts. Motion seconded by Commissioner Campbell and unanimously passed. The Council, on motion of Commissioner Warren and seconded by Com- missioner Campbell, unanimously agreed that a request be made to tho Chairman of the Library Committee that a Plan for more OPEN (regular) Hours of the Public Library, together with any requirements in connec~, tion therewith, be submitted to the Council as soon as possible. Commissioner Campbell moved that, due to an Emergency situation concerning Drainage at Gleason Street and Casuarina Road, the City ~anager take necessary steps to correct and relieve this condition at City expense with an expenditure limitation of $400.00. Notion seconded by Commissioner Warren and unanimously agreed. MEETING ADJOURNED ~-- .... City Cl~rk ~, APPROVED: ~Z~~ //~_ 15 A RESOLUTION OF TEE CIT~ COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELRAY B~CH, i/)A, A~'PROVING P~T OF co~atlen, Jo~ed b7 JO~ W. ~~ ~ ~~8 M. ~s wife, are the fee s~l~ title holders of the foll~ describ~ pr~ertT, to-wit: ~~~ at ~ ~terseeti~ of ~ s~th l~e of De~ ~ach ~ea, ~e~ded ~ P~t Bock 23, p~e 167 with t~ easterly rlght-ef-w~ l~e of the ~t~aeoastal Water- ~ ~ said rl~t-of-w~ is a~ ~ reco~ed ~ P~t ~ok 17, p~es 17B ~d 18, public ~eords of Pa~ ~ach C~t2, ~orida; th.~ce S. 1° 25' ~= ~. al~ said ~itt-of-wa2 l~e, a diat~oe of 525.70 feet (f,r conwenie~e the south line of said ~ay ~aeh 8~rea ia ~~to be~ ~st- Wemt ~d all other be~i~s ~e relative therete); ~ence $. 0° 31' 1~ W., a dist~e of 765.02 feet, ~re or leas, .to a po~t ~ a l~ne p~allel to, ~ud 20~ feet northerlTf ~o~ (=~e~ed at ri~t ~glea), the E~t-West tar ~ection 1~ of said ~ction 28; the~e H. 89° 58' 15" E. al~ a~4 p~allel l~e, a diet,ce ef ~9.96 feet, ~re or less, to center 1~ of State Road A~ aa ~ow ~id ~d in uae; thence ~rt~rly ~ t~ ~c of a c~ve concave to the ~at, bei~ t~ center 1~ of said State Ro~ No. ~. ~v~ a radius of 17,188.~ feet, a ~st~ce of 884.~2 feet to the end of said c~ve; thence ~. $ 39' 30' S. alon~ ~e t~gent to aaa4 c~ve,a ~st~ce of ~0.33 feet to a po~t in the easter~ extension of the a~th l~e of said ~ay ~ach ~h~res; thence Nest ale~ amid $~ l~, a ~st~e of 826.~ fe,t to t~ pe~t of ~eg~~. $U~T te ~e ~lat~g ~i~t of way State Read No. A~e ~ ~t "Ae,~~ Beach ~ea, ~e~d~ ~e plat t~eef ~c~e4 ~ ~t ~ ~, ~ 1~7, ~blic recor~ ef Pa~ Beach~t2, ~o~t~n, aa ~ p~o~ a p~t of ~id p~o~t~ poled to bo filed of ?eoo~d entit~d u~t of ~~", to~~ with p~e fo~ ~e derelict ~oroof; ~ ~, said p~oood plat ~d son~ ~o~to ~a bo~ a~d~od ~d ~p~vod ~ the P~~ ~d p~ to bo sat~lFaoto~ ~ dealed for ~e ~17 ef ~ prop~2 ~ fer the p~t~tion of t~ health ~ t~ ~bit~ta ~ereof ~ t~ ~hit~ta of the City ~~ ~ac~ -1- N©~, THEREFORE, BE IT FtESOLVED BY THE CITY C(>TJNCI~ ~,!~' '?i~!i. C£TV OF DE~Y B~CH, FLORI~: 1. ~at the aforesaid ~lat and olans for the pro-. posed subdiwis!on ~d development ~o~ as ~DEL-HA~O~" be and they are hereby approved. 2. That the City bo~daries s~li be extended by ordnance, as provided by law: to include said property, ~d such o~di~ce ,~11 tncl~e and contain provisions for the zoni~ ~ taxation of said l~s~ 8. ~mt the ~yor, City Clerk ~d Dtrecto~ of ~blic Works are he,obi author-izod ~ directed to for~t~ approwe the p~t of D~-~O~ as presented. PASS~ in ~egular session this ~enty-seventh day of Jan~, A. D., 19~ ORDINANCE NO. · AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELH~AY BEACH, FLORiDA, REZONING A/~D PLACING CERTAIN LAI~DS IN S~3T~ST QUART~ OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 43 EAST IN "0-3" DISTRICT, AND AMENDING "ZOI/ING MAP OF D~.~AY BEACH, FLORIDA, 1956" · BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEIP~Y BEACH, FLORIDA: SECTIO/~ 1. That the following described property Lu tJxe City of Delray Beach, Florida, is herob)- rezoned and placed in "C-3 Wholesale Distribution and Light industrlal Districb", as defined by Chapter 29 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, to-wit: Ttmt part lying South of the right-of-wa~ of State Road No. 806 of the West Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Q~arter; and 5nat part of the Northeast Q~arter of the ~orth- west Quarter of the Southeast Quarter lying Southeasterly from the right-of-way oL State Road No. 806; and t~hat part of the Southwest Quarter o~' the Northeast ~uarter of Southeast Quarter l~'ing South of the right-of-way of State Road No. 806; all being in Section 18, Township 46 South, Range 43 East. SECTION 2. T':~.at the Building inspector of said city shall upon the el'fective dabe of this Ordina~ce change the "Zoning Map oi' De]r~.y Beach, Florida, 1956", to conform with the provisions ~l' Section I hereof. PASSED in regu~lar sessioW on the second and final 1st Reading 2nd Reading ORDINANCE ~O. G-281 A~ ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF T~ CI~ OF D~Y B~CH, ~RI~, RE~G BE IT ~~ ~ T~ CI'~ COUNCIL OF THE CI~ OF . Section 1. ~t the following described ~ ~he 0i$~ of ~ay Beach, Florida, ls hereby rezoned ~d placed ~ 0-3 ~lesale Dlstri~tion and ~ght Industrial Districtm, as def~e~ b2 ~apter 29 of ~he Code of ~d~nances of the Oi~ of ~lr~ ~ach, Florida, to-wit: ~e ~st Half ~f Nort~as$ ~arter of Noreh- east ~rter of Nort~ast Qu~ter of 18, 46 Sou , 43 East, less rai~oad P~t-of-wa2; ~d that p~t of Wes$ ~lf of Bortheast Quoter of Northeas$ of Northeast ~$er of Section 18, To. ship ~6 South, R~ge ~3 ~st, ly~ East of Seabo~d Airl~e Rall~oad Rl~t-of-waye Seotlon 2e Tkmt ~he Bulldi~ Inspector of said shall ~on the effective ~te of this Ordin~ce ch~ge She "Zoni~ M~ of ~lra2 ~a~h, Florida, 1956". to confo~ with She p~ovisions oyj Sec$ion I heroOfe P~$~ ~Pe~l~ ses~io~ on the second ~d fi~l ~d read~ December 6, 1957 REPORT OF YARD TRASH COLLECTION CURRENT OPERATION Personnel for the present trash collection force consists of 1 foreman, 4 truck drivers, 1 'tractor loader operator and 4 laborers. Equipment includes 1 pick-up truck, 4 trash trucks and 1 tractor loa~er. Normally 2 or 3 trucks work in conjunction with the tractor, while the remaining truck or trucks pick up individual trash piles which are small enough to permit loading by hand. Occasiona].ly, for bulky heavy trash piles, a truck crane and extra trucks are assigned from the street division. During the fiscal year of 1956, 73,987 cubic yards of trash were collected at a unit cost of 55~ per cubic yard. For the fiscal year of 1957 the quantity of trash collected increased to 83,448 cubic yards, while the cost of collection decreased to 32~ per c~ic yard. A particular study was made covering the period from January 10th to October 22, 1957, which includes the major por- tion of both the Spring and Fall pruning periods. The following statistics were disclosed: 1. The city was completely cleaned 14 times - an average of once every 20.½~ days. 2. A total of 69,000 cubic yards of trash were hauled to the disposal area in 5,520 trips - an average of 12½ cubic yards per trip. 3. To cover the city once requires 395 trips. 4. In an average working day, 27 truck loads are collected and hauled. At present trash is piled along the parkway in front of individual homes, vacant lots or "community piles" at various locations around the city. All types of refuse with the exception of wet garbage are placed on the trash piles with no apparent effort being made by the depositor to control bulk or time of deposit. Any type or amount of yard trimmings or debris from lot clearing which can be transported manually to the street right-of- way line is picked up free of charge by the city. The current policy provides that for lots which are cleared by mechanical means, the debris must be disposed of by the owner. It is common practice, however, for nursery and lawn maintenance personnel to load trimmings in a truck and deposit them in front of vacant lots or in "con, unity piles" for collection and hauling by the city. Although the local newspapers publish a weekly trash collection schedule, no control is in effect to confine the de- positing of %rash to the areas where if is to be collected. This results in an acctmulation of trash in various sec%ions of the city for a period of several weeks. Furthermore, a great deal of property owners, nurserymen and lawn maintenance men deposit yard trimmings within a day or two after collection has been made in one sector which results in unsightly, dead piles of trimmings un%il collection is made in the area the next time. POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS 1. Strictl.y enforce Sec%ion 14A-6 of the City Code. Briefly, this section requi'r%s"%h~t garden %rash'shall be de- posited upon the par~ay immediately in front of the premises of the person by whom such accumulation is made, on %he days prior to the dates specified by the city for collection of %rash. Certain exceptions are made where used alleys are in ex%stance. It is unlawful to deposit garden trash upon any other vacant or improved lot within the city. Strict enforcement of this section should have %he fol- lowing results: a. Notice would be published specifying the area to be cleaned two weeks in advance, thus allowing one week for depositing trash and one week for collection, Only slightly more than 1/5 of the city would then be littered with trash a% any one time. b, The large "community piles" would disappear because each resident would be responsible for the appearance of his own property, c. Violations of Section 14A-5 of the City Code regulating separation of household trash could obviously be pin- pointed %o the offending resident and thus eliminate ii. This is in contrast to the existing situation in many "conmtunity piles" where it is impossible to hold any individual responsible. d, Nurserymen and lawn maintanance men would be encouraged to haul the trimmings and debris from the site of origin to the disposal area rather than deposit it immediately in front of the premises of their clien!s. In some sections of the city approximately 90% of yard trimming is performed by nurserymen or lawn maintenance men who load the trash on trucks and dump it on the parkway in front of vacant lots or on "community piles". 2. Adopt a new ordinance. The following regulations could be included in an amendment to the present code or in a new ordinance: -3- a. Yard trash including trimmings, palm fronds and similar debris must be cut into lengths not to exceed 4 feet and tied in bundles weighing not more than 50 lbs. b. Loose trash, grass trimmings, leaves and any other debris which could be scattered by the wind must be placed in either disposable cardboard cartons or turnable containers weighing not more than 50 lbs. If such an ordinance were in affect and strictly en- forced, ~he following improvements should be effected: 1) Trash volume should be reduced by about 25% because of more efficient loading. Trucks should be able to haul roughly 33~ more per load. 2) The number of man hours required ~o load a truck should be reduced by approximately 25~. As a resul~ 1/3 more ~rucks could be loaded per day. 3) 'Use of the ~ractor loader should be reduced by approximately 4) Total volume of trash should be reduced a sub- stantial amount because nurserymen and lawn maintenance personnel would often find it more economical and convenient to haul the debris to the disposal area rather than cut and bundle it for the city ~o collect. 3. Purchase one packer type ~ruck. The current budge~ authorizes emplo~m~' 6f 3 addikional men and the purchase of one s~ake-body dump truck for the trash division. Labor cost for men would total ~5,705 and the cost of the truck would amount $4,500, or a ~otal expenditure of $11,205. If an ordinance were in effec~ requiring the cutting and bundling of yard trash, a packer type truck could be used to ex- cellent advantage. Since the movable bulkhead in the body of the truck compacts the refuse, this type truck will haul about times the volume of ~rash carried in the stake-body dump trucks. In addition, it can be operated by only two employees. Cost of a packer ~ruck is ~10,000. and labor for two men for 8 months is $2,995., a combined expenditure of $12,995. The difference be- tween ~he total of funds aukhorized in khe current budget ($11,205) and ~he cost using a packer truck ($12,995) is $1,790. While the initial cos~ of ~he me~hod using ~he packer type truck is higher, some savings would be realized by reduction in man hours as well as trip time of the truck which would require about 1/3 the normal runs to ~he disposal area. Under this method, as standard trucks wear out or are ~ransferred to other departments, they would be replaced by packer trucks. It is estimated that 3 packer type units could handle the ~o~al present output of trash. POSSI'SLE C}[ANGE OF POLICY Rather than attemptin~ to make changes in methods of operation to improve yard trash collection, another approach to the problem would be for the ci'ky to discontinue the service. At first thought this may appear startling, however, all cities in Florida do not provide yard trash collection service. The most prominent example of Florida cities which have retired from regular trash collection is the City of Ft. Lauderdale. City officials in Ft. Lauderdale contended that the collection of yard trash and tree trimmings free of charge was a luxury service which was becoming increasingly more difficult to provide. Before discontinuing the service %he city publicized the cost and the increasing problems with which they were confronted, and then ceased regular collection~ They do collect this material on a fee basis but only upon the request of the property owner. The service charge is ?$~ per cubic yard with a minimum charge of $8.00 for any single trip. One truck and driver perform this service for the entire city of Ft. Lauderdale. The city also licensed a number of private carriers for this type of hauling. Between these carriers, professional carriers, yard men and one city truck, the problem of yard trash and tree trimming collections no longer exists. Streets and parkways are now free of this type debris and the entire city has a much nearer appearance. Since the dollar savings was the paramount reason that Ft. Lauderdale changed its policy, a comparison of costs would be in order. During the last fiscal year the cost to operate one truck and driver was ~4, ~70. Before discontinuing the regular collec- tion the annual cost to the city was $61,044. Revenue during the past fiscal year from use of one truck and driver under the fee system amounted to $~,544, or a savings to the city of $59,300 per year. In addition, city officials report that the streets and parkways look 100% better now than they ever did before. Similar comparison may be shown for the city of Delray Beach. Current budget appropriations for operation of the trash division amounts to $~4,845. It is estimated that the annual cost of operation of one truck and driver would be $3,350. Dis- continuance of this service should result in a saving of at least $31,495 per year. A final thoug~to keep in mind is that the city is growing rapidly in area. Although Tropic Isles and Tropic Palm Subdivi- sions are relatively undeveloped at present, when all lots are improved, an area equivalent to ~ of the present city will accumulate additional yard trimmings. As a result the total cost of this service will gradually increase from year to year even though the trash division, through improved methods, were able to decrease the unit cost. Such funds which are now appropriated in the General Fund could be used for more essential service if the Ft. Lauderdale policy were adopted.