01-22-51 JAi~ARY 22ND, 1951.
Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Delray
Beach was held in the Co~mcil ~hambers at 7:30 p.m. with Mayor
J.L.Saunders in the Chair~ and City Attorney John Moore, City
Manager Charles E. Black~ and the following Co~cilmen present:
R.J.Holland~ Jo~ N. Kabler~ and )Yalter A.Roth~ a quor~ being
present.
The minutes of the meeting~ of January lst~ 9th~ and 17th~
were approved as written.
The following Resolution was introduced by the City Attorney~
and read in f~l:
R E S O L U T I O N N 0. 78~
A R2SOLUTION OF T>~ CI~ C0~CIL OF T>~ CI~ OF
DEL~iY BEACH: FLORIDA~ C~{GING T~ TI~ OF Ti-~
R~G~ I~ETINGS 0F TT~ CI?f COUNCIL FROM Ti~ SEC-
0~ AND FOURTH T~ZSDAYS IN EACH MONTH TO T~tE SECO~
AND FOURTH MONDAYS IN EACH MONTH.
BE IT RESOL~D by the City Comcil of the City of
Delray Beach~ Florida as follows:
That the regular meetings of the City Co~cil of this
City shall be changed from the second and forth Tuesdays of each
month to the second and fourth Mondays of each month.
PASSED AND ~0P~D in regular session on this the
22nd day of January, A.D.19[1.
(Signed) J, L. Sa. unders
Mayor
ATTEST:
Ruth R, Smith
City Clerk
Upon motion of Councilman Kabler, seconded by Councilman
Roth~ and unanimously carried~ the foregoing Resolution No.?S%
was passed and adopted as read.
Mr. Ralph Hughson, Building Inspector~ filed a request of
Mrs. Glenna H. Clark~ o%~mer of Lot 10 of an unrecorded plat of
Southways Subdivision~ Section 9~ fronting on N. Ocean Boulevard~
for permit to replace a wall on her property~ which would encroach
about 3' on County right-of-way. He stated that he understood
the County would not object, if the Council would approve of
the permit.
Attorney J.W.Nowlin, on behalf of Mrs. Clark, explained
that she had purchas'ed this property subject to right-of-way
for Ocean Boulevard, depending on the location of the Boulevard.
~rs. Clark agreed to remove the wall at any time~ upon re-
quest of either the City or the County, without litigation.
A motion wa? then made b',~ Councilman Roth, that the request
of Mrs.Clark for a permit to replace a wall on her property, which
would encroach approximately 3' on County right-of-way~ be granted~
subject to her furnishing an affidavit that she will remove the
wall upon request~ without litigation. The motion was seconded
by Councilman Kabler~ and upon call of roll carried unanimously.
A letter from Nowlin g~ Adams, Attorneys, representing their
client Lysle t~f. Jo~hnson, owner of Lots 12,13 and 14~ Block 75,
requesting an adjustment on delinquent taxes and liens against
this property, was read as follows:
N 0 ~V L I I? ~ A D A M S
Attorneys and Counselors at Law
Hunter Building
12 S. E. Fifth ~venue
Delray Beach, Florida
January 17~ t951.
Honorable City Council, ,
Delray Beach,
Florida.
Gentlemen:
We represent Mr. Lysle '2. Johnson who recently sold
lots 12, 13 and 1~ of Block 75 of this city. Mr. Johnson
desires to pay up the delinquent taxes on this property
but, after receiving a statement of the taxes and noticing
the large amount of interest, penalties and cancellation
fees, he asked us to contact you to see ii~ some adjustment
should not be made. According to the statement received
from your City Tax Collector the amounts due on these lots
are as follo'~:
Tax sale Year Block Lot Description Net amount Total
Cert. No. of taxes ~
liens
2635 1926 ?~ 12
6051+ 1927
None 1928 thru
1939 TA~S 271.03
Iht. f~ C an.
fee 3~9.98
621. O1
10~ att. fee 62.10 6~3.11
Tax Sale Year Block Lot Description Net amount Total
Cert. No. of taxes
and liens
~A 1922 ?~ 12 Paving (E. Line
l12N tlaru Lien
1932
1126 1927 75 12 Sidewalk (E. line
thru Lien
1937
19~0 }'t.~,8~ ?~ 12 Clearing Imp.~2
1925 thru
1936 1127 ?~ 12 Sewer 279.
Int.,~C an. 6 ~.
83~.66
t~ At~. fee 1~0.3~ 1Q?6.O1
17~9.12
2636 1926
60NN 1927 7N 13 Taxes 271.03
1928
None thru Int. e Canc.
1939 fee
621. O1
10~,~ Att. fee 62.!O, 6~33.11
~6A 1922 7~ 13 Paving (~i. line
1128 thru
1932
1129 1927 7N 13 Sidewalk (E.Line
thru
1937
Pt. 48~ 19~9 7~ 13 Clearing Imp.~il2
1130 1926
t~hru
1936 ?N 13 Sewer 279.91
Int.~ fee 6~.
93N.66
1~? Att.fee 140.3~__ 1276.01__
Total Due 1759.12
2637 1926 75
60~6 1927
1928 Taxes 276.39
Int. ~: fees 3%7.12
~33.
10~] Att.Fee 63.36
~?A 1922 thru
1131 1932 Paving (E.line
1927 thru
1937 Sidewalk (E.line
Pt.~ i,,~ 1940 Clearing
1133 1926 thru
1936 Sewer 279.91
Int. & fees 6_~.~I[_
~6~6--935.~
1~ ~%tt.Fee 1~0.~__ 1076.01_
TOTAL DUE 1772.
You will notice that there is over []~1~?00.00 listed
against each of these lots but that the original amozuat
of taxes and liens against each lot is approximately
'i'~0.00. The interest~ cancellation fees and attorney's
re.rs on eac!~_ of' these lots~ therefore~ amo:.mts to approxi-
mately (~1~200.00 or more than t~.zice the amount of the
original taxes and !fens.
Mr. Jo~son is perfectly willing to pay the full amoomt
due for the original taxes and liens and is also willing to
pay any actual expense that the City has incurred but he
would appreciate it if some consideration could be sho~. him
on t~:e tremendous amount 0:7 interest, penalties and cancella-
tion fees.
Very truly yo~s~
t.~O.fLIh ~:: J~AI(S
By: J. '2. Now!in
Attorney J.W.Nowlin addressed the Cotu~cil with reference
to this request. He stated that ti~ese lots ~,,;ere origi~',.ally
o~.aaed by the Delray rioter Corporation~ of '~.:hich I,[r. Jo_hnson
was part owner~ and title had reverted to the State of Florida
ttnder the }furphy ict in 1939. During the time adjustments '~.~ere
being made by the City on delinquent taxes and liens title ~,,~as
in the name of the State. !ir. Johnson repurcP~ased t~e lots in
19~ and he was asking the Cotu~ci! to make some adjustment on
the interest~ penalties and costs~ in excess of the original
amount of the taxes and liens. He felt that some adjustment
might be made~ as ~,[r. Johnson~ or his Corporation~ ~.,~as 'the orig-
inal o~ter of the property.
City Attorney ~i~oore advised that no adjustments had been
allowed during 19~0~ and to make an e::ception in this case might
be setting a dangerous policy.
After fztrther discussion~ action was deferred for checking
similar applications since 19~0.
The reconnnendation of the Zoning ]']oard that request of
Byrd & iihitley~ Attorneys for their client !aul G!anton~ to
of Lot ~o~ Section 9~ from a Residence
rezone the ~ot 200' o'~
"A" District to an Apartment House District~ be denied~ which
was considered on December 26th~ 19~0~ and action deferred
until this meeting~ was agait'~, brought up for consideration;
Attorney Rhea '.'fhi~,ley~ representing i(r. Glanton~ addressed
the Council. He stated that at the time this lot had been re-
zoned~ with the exception of the 15'0' west o£ Ocean ~-~ou!evard~
,3th Street was not in being~ and the .,Tztture character of that
neighborhood could not be formulated. !ire e:zplait':ed that all
property zrontir~? on ot~'~ otreet now was either zoned for apart-
ments or for limited business~ or was outside Of the City Limits
and not zoned. The land north of ,3th Street on Ocean Boulevard
is also zoned as business property or for apartment house con-
struction, h%th the opening up of 8th Street this land is now
located on the corner of two State roads~ and residence "~i"
zoning is not consistent with the changed character of the neigh-
borhood~ Hr. ~'gaitley contended~ and the o~a~er will not be able to
develop it or sell it as residential property~ therefore to main-
tain a Residence "A" zone would a~;~o~u%t to confiscation of the land.
Although the Zoning Board recommended denying the request for
resoning~ and some property ov~ers protested it at a former meeting
Nr. '.~hitley stated that the basis for decision on such things
should be the circ~mstances which prevail~ and not the n~ber of
people for or against it.
Several o~mers of property in this vicinity were,~e~mn~,~' present
to protest the change of zoning as requested~ claiming that l~r.
Glanton imuew of the zoning when he purchased the property~ and
others had purchased valua'hle land there and built homes~ relying
on the Cov, ncil to keep 'that zoning~ also that the attractiveness
of the City is due to the many fine homes along Ocean Boulevard.
They urged the Council to take no action until deAinite F~tans had
been made for building on this corner by the owner.
After further discussion~ a motion was P, ade by Councilman
Kabler~ seconded by Councilman i~olland~ that the reco~;~endation
of the Zoning Board be approved~ and 'the request for rezoning of
this lot to an Apartment House ~one be denied. Upon call of roll
the motion carried unanimously.
The City 5ngineer's assessment roll as to the cost of paving
improvement on ~.,/' 1st Street~ between 5'th and Sth 2venues~ was
presented and read as follows:
ASSESS~..ENT ROLL
Construction~ Grading and Paving of N.W'.lst Street~ from
N. i?. [th Avenue to N. ~. $th !:venue.
Description Owner Front Assessment Total
P__oot_q_~ per Foot Assessment
Block 20
N. ~0' ofE. 13~' ~. Edmonds 13~' i.',)1.95'2~ {}263. ~9
N.[0'ofW.13[' James ~ Viola Smith !3[' " 263.~9
N-~; ~ of Block 12(Honroe's Subdivision)
Lot 20 Will Smith 76.72' " .1~-9.79
Lot 21 Isiah Close ~0' " 97.63
Lot 22 Raleigh Harris ~0' " 97.63
Lot 23 Paul Jones %0' " 97.63
Lot 32 Jessie Huse ~0' " 97.63
.,N -}? of ,~loc:~ ~ (Monroe's Subdivision)
Lot 20 A.J.Jordan ~0' " 97.63
Lot 21 Regina Hughes ~0' " 97.63
Lot 22 A. Simon Eassa %0' " P7.73
Lot 23 Robert Johnson 5'0' " 97.¥3
Lot 24 Charlie ~?~. Harie %~'hite76.63' " 149.61
Block 19_
S.~%' of ~.~.6~' J.C.~mldreth ?~illiamson 6~' " 126.91
if.~O' of E.11~'
of $. 13 ~ ' O.S. Mansfield 50 ' " 97.63
W.]~O' of ~.1o~'
of S.13~' Joe Crowell ~0' " 97.63
Approz. S.66' of
t~. 13~' ~ary Nesbitt 13~' " 263.~9
Block 11
o.-:f of S¥1e~s
?f.~0' of S13~' Vernon L Horsman c~
Mathew F ergan 13 ~ ' " 263 ·
~f.~O' of S. 13%' Rebecca Davis ~0' " 97.63
Block ~
t7.22.2' of S 13~' Theodore ~ Louise Jones 22.2' 1.9~2~ 43.3~
17.~0' of E.2~O~of
S. 13 5 ' " " " " 50 ' " 'xY. o3
!7.50'of E.200' of
S.13[' },label Battle [0' " 97.63
Lf.50'of ~q.l~O' of
S. 13 ~ ' " " 50 ' " 97.63
'U. 50'of E.125' of
S.135' Watson & Dollie Baldwin 50' " 97.63
~_..50'of S.135' Ariedeen Close [0' "
1, ~,)0. [[' :~'~;3,036.10
The following resolution was then read:
~SOLUT!0N NO. 786
A R,~oO~Uli0r, THS] CITY CO'??CiL 0F T!lZ
CITY 0F DELRA2' BEACI{~ ?LORIDA~ A~ PROVING
· ~'~ R~-OR2 AND ~oS~:~ol.~_,..~_ ROLL SUB1[ ....
BY TEll CITY ~o-ii,~:~,~R SAID Clef C01fCZRN-
lNG II~t RO ~,~ ........ z BY G~:~DIi,~G =i~D '~:',':Vi;~'G N. ,.~.
~ ~ = ~ FRO[ N. b~. ~TH ~Vml~Um }~.~'~.
1ST STR~:~=.~ ~
,.~_u:~o~ 2he City Engineer of the City of Delray Beach~
FZorida, has~ in pursuance 2o the Charter of said City~ sub-
mitted to the City Council for approval~ a report of the cos2
and the Assessment Roll for the grading and paving of
1st Street~ from N.~,7.~2h Avenue to N.W. Sth Avenue~
NO~,7~ ~'~-:-~va~'~~=~,,.:~ ~,~ ~ ~;'.~ IT ~SOL~ED by the Cit~ Oo~ci[ of
2he City of Delray Beach~ Florida~ as follows:
SECTIONi: Tha2 said report and assessment roll~ as
submit2ed by the City ~n2ineer~ be and the same is hereb~
approved.
PAoo~D :-~!:D AD0i:~TED by the uzty Co~cil of the City of
Delray Beach, ?lorida~ this 22nd day of January, i~.D.l.~l
J.L.Saunders
Mayor
~TT~,oE:
Ruth R. Smith City Clerk
Upon motion of Councilman Roth~ seconded by Coumcilman
Kabler~ and unanimously carried~ the foregoing Resolution No.786
was passed and adopted as read.
City Manager Black advised that he had received two pro-
posals for painting the water tanks~ one for cleaning and paint-
ing the old tank only~ and one for spot painting and cleaning
the new tank. 0nly one bid had been received for a complete job,
cleaning, repairing where needed, and painting both tanks. This
proposal was from K.L.Sharpe of Orlando, Florida. He stated that
permission should be asked of Mr. Sharpe, who was present, to
open his ~id, if additional bids were going to be asked for on
a complete job.
As the City Manager had not advertised for sealed competitive
bids, the City ~ttorney advised that thi~ must be done. ~.
Sharp was willing to let his bid stand unopened until other bids
are received. He also stated that each Contractor will make his
o~m proposals on whatever work he feels is necessary~ that his
proposal under contract would cover repairing, spot painting and
completely repainting the interior and exterior o.? both ta~<s
now~ and also the second and fifth year, and after that every
third year.
A motion was made by Councilman Kabler, seconded by Council-
man Holland~ that the City Manager be instructed to advertise
by mail~ under general specifications~ for the reconditioning
and maintenance of both ta~zs, and hold Hr. Sharpe's bid, to be
opened when other bids are received.
Attorney J.W.Nowlin, appearing for Henry Gordon, ovmer of
the Delray ~.[achine Shop located at 30 N.E.2nd Avenue~ urged the
Council to proceed v~ith the drainage of this area as soon as
possible. He explained that during every rain, water comes up and
inside of Mr. Gordon's building, and as more streets and park-
ing areas are paved, the condition becomes worse.
The following letter from ~.~r. George S. B~'ockway, Consult-
ing Engineer on this drainage project, was i.resented by the
City Manager~ and read in full:
January 10~ 19~1
Mayor, and Board of Co~m~issioners
City of Delray ]3each
Delray Beach~ Florida.
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your instructions, we have made a sur-
vey and _~ave prepared detailed plans and specifications for the
construction of storm sewers to provide drainage of the storm
water in the vicinity of Northeast Second Avenue and Northeast
First Street. Our findings and reco~_m~endations are as follows:
First we present a summary of the general conclusions~
followed by a more detailed discussion and presentation of the
supporting data.
General Conclusions
1. The area bo'ended by Atlantic 2venue on the south, North-
east Fourth Street on the north~ Swinton ~kvenue on the west~ and
the Intracoastal Waterway on the east should be considered as a
single storm w~.ter drainage area.
2. The best location for the tr~mk sewer line would be on
Northeast First Street.
3. The trunk sewer line should be of a size and depth to
accommodate future laterals to drain this area more efficiently
as the needs arise.
4. All sewer lines~ subject to surcharge from the Intra-
coastal Waterway~ should be of corrosion resistant material.
[. Adequate drainage facilities in this area will not only
enhance property values in areas that are now flooded by storm
water, but in adjacent areas as well.
Description of Drainage Area. In general~ the land slopes
from northwest to southeast fro~...n the Florida .i'~ast Coast Railroad
to the Intracoastal Waterway. The land slopes west from the Florida
East Coast Railroad to Northeast Second ivenue~ and east from
Swinton Avenue to l{ortheast Second Avenue, forming a natural basin
in the vicinity of Uortheast Second Avenue. There is also a small
nat~ral depression on Northeast First Street between Northeast
Fourth and Fifth Avenues.
The drainage area is mostly residentia!~ with a com-~ercial
area bordering the Florida ~ast Coast Railroad~ and is approxi-
mately forty per cent built up. It is anticipated that~ in the
future, the business district will expand into a portion of this
area.
The area is now served bM sanitary sewers. T'~e tr~mk sani-
tary sewer line is located on Northeast Second Street. The later-
als are mainly located in the north-south alleys.
Location of Tr~mk Storm Sewer Line. Although Northeast Second
Street is located in the center of the drainage area~ it would
be impractical to locate the sewer there, because of the elevations
of the existing sanitary sewers and house cord~ections. If the storm
se}zer were placed above the north and south sanitary sewers, it
1/22/
would be at too high an elevation for fut~lre extensions o£
the storm sewer system. If placed below the northsouth sani-
tary sewers~ the cost would be greatly increased.
As the gro~uad slopes from northwest to southea ~t~ it would
be i~practical to locate the trunk line further north~ as this
would result in placing the trunk line at an excessive depth in
order to provide for future extension o£ the storm sewer system.
Therefore~ this leaves Northeast ?irst Street as the only
choice. 2uture laterals to the north will be ~'o!lowing the nat-
ural slope of the gro-~d. The elevations of tiao existing sani-
tary sewer are such that placing the storm sewer under them will
not result in an excessive depth. The low area between Fourth
and Fifth .Avenues will then be drained by the initial installa-
tion.
Design of Sewer. A well designed drainage system provides
maximum protection against flood damage~ at minim~n cost. In
areas where some protection must be provided~ but where the effect
of flooding is not too damaging~ the drainage system may be
designed to take care of ordinary storms but be insufficient to
handle infrequent though more intense ones.
It is kno~ that the more a storm is~ the less frequently
it occurs. As far as can be determined~ there is no absolute
limit to the intensity of rainfall which may occur~ but obvious-
ly~ it is ~economical to design a drainage system to handle
extreme storms nhich may occur on an average of only once in one
hundred years. Drainage systems are designed to handle storms
having frequencies of from one per year average to one per ten
year average~ depending on the value of the properties in the
drainage areas and on the nuisance ~alue of flooding. Design for
two year frequency in most cities is co~aon practice~ for all
areas except the most expensively developed ones. Designers rarely
use rainfall frequencies greater than once in ten years.
A rainfall frequency for the maximu~n storm of once in two
years has been used in the design of this storm sewer.
lhen rain falls upon any surface~ part of it flows over
tlne surface to an outlet~ part of it evaporates~ part may
penetrate thorough the surface covering~ and part remains on
the surface in pools and ponds. The storm water runoff is less
than the total rainfall~ and the rate of r~off is correspond-
ingly less than the rate of fall. The percentage of 'the rainfall
which reaches the storm sewer varies widely with diflerent sur-
faces. Flat grassed areas on sandy soil rarely deliver more than
twenty per cent~ while paved surfaces and roofs deliver about
ninety per cent. This percentage is called the runoff coefficient.
In the drainage area under considePation~ these runoff coefficients
vary from block to block~ and were used in determining sewer
sizes and grades. The total area tributary to the proposed storm
sewer is approximately seventy-seven acres.
Selection of ?i~,~ 1,~aterial. After the design of the storm
system~ (Determination of size and grades) it becomes necessary
to select the type oF pipe to be used. It is apparent tinat the
storm sewer~ at the outlet~ will be subject to ta~ surcharge of
brackish ~,~ater from the Intracoastal !~aterway as far west as
!~ortaeast Sixth" .= .
'~ ' ~v~nue The soil along portions of 'this same
section is also relatively unstable. This would indicate the
selection of a pipe material that is non-corrosive~ has relat-
ively few joints and has some fle:~ibility in t~ joints
We recommend the use of transite sewer pipe for this sec-
tion~ as it is an asbestos cement composition and is non-corro-
sive. It is .furnished in thirteen foot lengths~ giving fewer
joints~ and the type of joint is such that wet trench condit-
ions ~.~ill not impede the co~struction. For the remainder of the
work~ we recommend either transite pipe or corrugated metal pipe~
however~ the corrugated metal pipe should be asbestos bonded~
and have a paved asphaltic invert, t'fe believe that this ~zil!
double the life of the pipe. Ue also recommend that the connect-
ing bands be longer 'than the standard type usually furnished.
This will decrease the possibility of infiltration at the joints·
Importance of Drainage. In any m~maicipality, drainage is
important from several stand pSints. The quick removal of sur-
face water is essential to personal comfort and public health~
to the non-interruption of commerce~ industry and business in
general~ and the protection of all types of public improvements.
Some people in the drainage area may not be directly benefited
by the proposed storm sewer~ in that they now do not have storm
water standzn~ in front of their property. However~ they undoubt-
edly travel v~ouga the flooded areas~ and should be required to
pay for the paving damaged due to standing and flo~.~ing surface
water. ~]nclosed is a cost estimate oY t~e proposed work. This
estimate is based on letting the work out by contract·
Very truly yours~
George S. Brockway
Estimate of Cost of Storm Sewers for
The City of De!ray Beach~ Florida.
o,~0 Lin.Ft of 36" storm sewer '~ . , .
· ~12 O0 per lin.ft.----i~; 8,160 O0
99~ Lin.Ft. of 30" ~ ' 0~ O0
.~ s~orm sewer ,!' ': 9 O0 per lin·ft.----
370 Lin. Ft. of 27" storm sewer '?, ~il ?.00 per lin.ft.---- 3~990.00
11~ Lin. Ft. of 27" railroad crossing~ the lump sum of-- 3~00.00
670 Lin.Ft. of 1~" storm sewer ,:'? ;[~.~0 per lin.ft.- ....
· r~ "~ 2~000.00
~00 Lin.Ft of 12" storm sewer % ,i',~.00 per lin. ft.----,,,~
12 1,~anholes ~: ~00 )0 each. 2~00.00
co Inlets '~'' i]~16
..... ~_. . 0.00 each- 20.00
TO~AL ~10. O0
City Idanager Black reconm~ended that the first section of
the project~ or the main tr~k sewer line~ as outlined b~
Brocl~ay~ be started i~m~ediately~ and upon motion of C,~uncilman
Kabler~ seco~ded b); Co,mci!man Roth~ and ~animousl~T carried
the City Attorney t,~as instructed to prepare a resolution re-
quiring plans~ specifications and an estimate o2 the cost of the
first section of this proposed drainage project.
! motion ~,,~as then made by Cocci!man [.[abler that ]~[r. Brocks?ay
be requested to submit an assessment plan~ or to establish an
~+ district~ for this section of the drainage area~ to be
approved b~,.~ the City~ Co~ecil~ the City ~,:ana~er ~nl the City 2ttor-
ney~ ~n~s plan to be turned over to the i:ro?e~ty 0~me~s i~rotective
~%ssociation comuittee to try and secure si~31n~d cash co~uittments
in support of the p~o3ect. The motion %.~.s seconded b' Co~cilman
Holland~ and upon call of roll carried ~animously.
I-~r. Arthur A. ~arcus~ operator of the De!ray Deach
addressed the Co~cil. He stated that unless th~ Co%~cii ~,~!u
it could ~ass an enersency o~dinance to exten~ the hou~ of clos-
in~ auction sales~ possibly on the ~roucad that they believed tbs
p~esent Ordinance ~,3as unconstitutional~ he had ?~o alternative but
to ~?i!e a suit in Cou~t.
It was explained . ~'~at the Couneii ~_ ~ ~ ~-
t~ . , an ~a~en steps to a~end
tine Auction Sale Ordinance in the regular man~er~ ~:k~ich ~,~ou!d
take ~+~ days to become effective~ and a motion ~,~as made b'~ Co~m~-
cilman Kabler~ and seconded b~r Councilman Roth~ th.at u:~e Cmo,
:~ttorn~,~. be authorized to defend the C~ty 0rdinsmce in Court.
Upon call of roll the motion car?-~ied unani?~ously.
I~ayor oaumders t~_en reco~m~endea the~I. ~ w'o~ntm~=nt? - '- ~-- of ?.~Z.Rans-
' ...... ~ ~ ~ Jr. as me?,~bers
del!9 s:rs. ~.~-~.~ra~,on~ and ~rs. :'Cichae! ~:~cne.m~ 9 _.
of the Youth Recreation Co~-u:~ittee~ to re?lace ?Ciriam Bro~,m_~ ~ar-
shall Hamilton and Vrs Jo~ i.T.nmeme Upon motion of Co~uci~r~an
Roth~ seconded ]~y Couztci!man ]:~o!land~ aztd ~ani~-::~ov~sly carr'3ed~
the recom/,~endation wa~ ap?roved.
The reappointment of ~qe~eth Jacobson as ?. member o2 '~-~
'~:oning ~oard for a term of three years ~,:as reco~;oaended by !,[ayor
Saunders~ ~,~hich ~,zas approved on motion of Cou~ci!man '2otb9 seco-
nded by Councilman Mabler~ and unanimously carried.
~ayor Saumders reco:.mtended t:~e appointment of ,:~.oe~-zo.rd ',,ebb~
Jr. to replace 'F.G.Lan~ Jr. as a member of the Golf Co~ission~
and the appointment ~,[as approved-upon motion of Councilr. aan :Uo!land~
un~,nmmo,_.olM carried.
seconded by Co~cilman Roth~ and ~ ' ~ ~
~oz, mlzo~ee :~or one current year
The fo!lop, ring ?inance .......
~,~r.as appointed by ~[ayor ~a~ders: Jo]~ i~.~[abler~ Chair~aan~
.~aloe.~ Roth aha R J.Holland.
Upon r~otion of Councilman Roth~ seconded by Councilman
Holland~ and ~ani?.ouslM carrie~ the City 2ttorne~ v~as instructed
to recLuest the ~!or'~ ~ C ~= ' ' ~ ~ ~ _ic
. za~ ~]ast ,oao~ ~azl~.,~a~ Co. to mr.~tal__ tr~f~
gates at one ~. ~ 1st Street railroad cross~~
The Co~cil rec!uested ;~:~e C-~t~r
~ ._., ~,:~,nager to contac u the local
Postmaster vzit~ reference to providing additional mail boxes to
be located throughout the City~ and also to have the sign on the
i~.[unic ipa! .....
o~,,rzm: '~mns ?ool repainted.
~ e ~ =
_h following letter from C.,~y ,.~ttorneM John
re_Terence to ,~ttorneM's fee on the validation of City of Delray
Beach Reft~mding Bonds~Series 19~!~ was read:
J 0 il i:[ H 0 0 R E
~ittorney 2t Law
Moore Building
Delray Beach~ Florida
January so 19~1
Mayor and City Co~cil~
City of Delray Beach~
City Hall ~
Delray Beach~ Florida.
~-~--,~ ' ~ City of
Re: R~ ~ ,mdmng Bonds
Delray Beach~ Series~ 195'1
Gentlemen:
In arriving at a reasonable attorney's fee to
submit to the City of Delrayn,,,~acn~= ~ ~ I have consulted present
and former City and Co~ty :~ttorneys. Their opinion~ as well
as my ovm~ is to the effect that ]~3~000.00 is a reasonable
fee for the validation of these bonds~ and is in line t.~ith
fees customarily charged for handling ref~,mding issues o: this
size~ particularly in view of the fact that this validation
resulted in a net saving to the City of close to one-quarter
of a million dollars.
I am~ therefore~ submmutmn5 herewit~ my bill for
services rendered in the validation of these bonds~ in amount
of :~)3 ~000.00.
Yours very truly,
(Signed) John Iqoore.
Upon motion of Councilman Roth~ seconded by Co~cilman
!to!tand~ and ~animousl7 carried: this bill vras apI_:~roved
payment.
Cotuncilman Roth~ on behalf of the Jr. Chamber of Colm:~erce
Fishing Tournament Co~r~,"~ittee~ presented a sketch of their ~:~ro-
posed Trophy Display w:~'~ich them planned to set up in the City
?ark~ as previously approved by the Council. He e~:plained that
they would build their framework against the south side of the
building~ insert zhow cases in the ~,rindot.ls~ and post their re-
cords in the space in the center. They also planned to erect an
a~.ming over the display to protect the trophies from the
and add to the attractiveness of ~he disI:,lay.
_i :~otion ~,,~as made i:,~,~ Coum, cilman Holland that ti~e plan and
sketch as described be approved. '~he motion was seconded by
Councilman i(abler~ and upon call of roll carried~ Co~,uacilman
Holland~ Kai~ler and Saunders voting favorably~ a~d Comncil~.~,an
Roth not voting.
City !.[anager Black advised the Council that it was not
possible to keep in touch ',.,rith a Police Officer on motorc'~cle
dutM~ as the motorcycle w:'~.s not equipped with a radio. He rec-
om_',:~ended the purchase of a radio equipt~ed ~:~otorcycle~ and pre-
sented an estimate from the East Coast itarley-Davidson Motorcycle
Co. in ~/est Palm ~:~each~ of '.i'j~t~300.O0 less ~i~33 ~.~0 allowance for
the old machine.
After consideration~ a motion was made by Councilman Holland~
and seconded by Councilman Roth~ to instruct the City i,[anager to
secure sealed bids on a Harley-Davidson radio equipped ~::otorcycle.
Upon call of roll the motion carried unanimously.
The following reconzmendations of Councilman Holland~ with
reference to traffic regulations on N.E.lst '~venue between
Atlantic Ave. and 1st Street~ were al:proved upon motion of
Counci!man Kabler ~ seconded by Councilman Roth ~ and unanimously
carried:
1. Allow only 10 minute parking on the west side of
N.i].lst Avenue op?osite the Post 0ffice'~ for a
distance of abo~.~t 200' south o.,2 1st Street.
2. Require school busses to pull on to school prop-
erty to load and unload school children~ as a
s~fety measure.
The Council also authorized the installation of parkinc
meters on both sides of N.l~.lst Ave. south of the 10 ~-:~inute
parking zones~ where parallel parking is allowed.
Upon motion of Councilman Kabler~ seconded bM Councilman
Roth~ and unanimously carried~ the combination of the offices
of Building and Plumabing Inspectors was approved~ to become
effective February !~th~ 19~1~ fir. Ralph ilughson to have charge
of the combined office at a salar~r of ()37~.00 per month.
The meeting then adjourned.
Ruth R. Smith
City Clerk