10-29-51AdjMtg October 29,1951
An adjourned session of the .~egular Meeting of the City Council
of the City of Delray Beach held on October 22nd, was held in the Council
Chambers at 7:30 P. M. with Mayor Walter A. Roth in ~e Chair, and City
Attorney Nail E. Mac~[illan, City Manager Robert Lovelace, and the following
Councilmen present: R.J. Holland, W. A. Jacobs, 2chh N. Kabler, and
W. C. Muagrave, a quorum being present.
The minutes of the meetings of October l~th and 22nd were approved
as written.
Dr. W. C. Williams addressed the Council with reference to an exchange
of two ten acre tracts of land owned by ~e City, which adjoin two ten
acre tracts he owns in Section 20, for one five acre tract of land, and
Lot ?, Block 6, Rio Del Rey, which fronts on the So. Federal Highway,
Just North of S. E. 9th. Street.
Dr. Williams stated that he planned to start a m~ngo farm on his land
and needed this ~dditicnal acreage.
Councilman Kabler informed Dr. Williams that a policy had been
established by the Council not to sell any acreage the City owns; and
also that this is a possible future site for signs to advertise Delray
Beach along State Highway No. 9 which is being constructed.
Although Dr. T~illi~m-~ contended that the City should not hold
property when it dould be sold and be put on the Tax Rolls, the Counci1
did not favor the exchange offered, and no-action was taken.
Dr. Williams then complained of the assessed valuation of $ 500.00
an acre placed on his land in Section 20, which he considered excesaive~and
above the present market value.
~.~y"~higer Lovelace explained that this figure was used for acreage
in Section 20 east of Dr. Willi-m~ acreage, and along Germantown Road,
but that his land should probable be assessed for around $ 200.00 an acre,
Which is the valuation used in Sections 18 and 19 in the same immediate
vicinity.
After further consideration, a motion was made by Councilman Kabler
to authorize the City Manager and Tax Assessor to correct this apparent
error in assessing acreage in the N. W. 1/4 of Section 20, by changing
the figure from $ 500.00 to $ 200.00 an acre. The motion was seconded
by Councilman Holland, and upon call of roll carried unanimoulsy.
The following recommendation from the Zoning Board, referring to a
request filed on October 22nd by Mr. Frank P. Gracey, on behalf of his
client Mr. John Garrett, owner of Lot 10, Delray Beach Esplanade, for a
special permit to allow him to build an addition to his home, up to his
rear lot line, which weuld be built over a 5' utility easement which lies
on his property, and which request h~d been referred to the Zoning Board
by the City Council for consideration, was read as follows.-
Members of the City Council
Delray Beach, Fla.
Gentlemen:
The Zoning and Planning Roard met on October 26th to consider a
request filed by Fr-n~. P. Gracey, for his client Mr. John Garrett,
owner of Lot 10, Delray Beach Esplanade, for a special permit to add
_servant's quarters to his home, which would extend to his rear property
7 0
October 29,1951
line, or the south boundary of Laing Street, and over a 5' dedicated
utility easement, which request you referred to this Board for
recommendation.
After consideration, we recommend that this request be granted,
and that Laing Street, west of Andrews Ave. be made an alley, provided
the abandonment of the easement can be worked out from a legal
standpoint with the property owners affected, and that easement for
utilities be located in this alley in the future.
Very truly yours,
DELRAY BEACH ZONING & PLANNING BOARD
/s/
Kenneth Jacobson, Chairman
The Council was not in favor of changing Laing Street to an Alley,
feeling it would Jeopardize an approach to the Canal in the future.
City AttOrney MacMillan suggested that a special permit be
granted to Mr.. Garrett, subject to the existing easement, but as
the ZOning Board had not recommended a special permit, no action was
taken.
At the request of Councilman Kabler, with reference to estimated
assessments against property which woUld benefit by the installation of
a storm drainage sewer on sea SpraY Avenue, City Manager Lovelace
explained that estimated assessments had been computed in terms of an
average lot, and other lots were eStimated comparatiVely according
to the benefit to be derived, without knowledge of who oWned any of the
property. An attemp~ had been made to assess each lot according to
the benefit that particular lot would receive.
A proposed Pay Plan, covering a period of five years, as prepared
by the City Manager, was presented for a consideration of the Council,
as follows .'
THE PAY PLAN
A systematic and equitable pay plan is fundamental to efficient
city operation. Without one, the city may fine it difficult to attract
and retain the caliber of employees needed to render effective
service to the public. Such a plan should embody the following
principles:
1. Equal pay for equal work, and variations in Pay in proportion
to the relative di~£iculties o£ the various positions;
2. Pay comparable to that prevailing in private and other
public employment in the area;
3. Provision for adjusting salary rates within a range to
recognize efficienc~ and experience gained on the ~0~.
The duties and responcibilities of the various p~sitions were
October 29~1951
considered in establishing the relationship in levels of pay. These
relationships have been developed in accordance with the first principle
abov~.
Considerable information on prevailing local pay rates was gathered
two years ago, and this was brought up to date by a recent study. These
studies were consulted extensively in implementing the second principle,
above. However, labor supply and demand circumstances greatly effect
prevailing rates and an annual check on a few key classes of work should
be made to determine whether the wage pattern conforms to general practice
each year.
The plan provides ranges' of pay for each position with the maximum
30.1% higher than the minimum, and five stens from the minimum to ~e
maximum, inclusive. Ordinarily,-em~Io~me~t w~ut~ ~b~gin at~ ~he~bo~e~..of
the range, but~ in certain cases, it might be desirable because of
unusual ability or prior experience of an employee to begin at a higher step.
When an employee is promoted to a pos~ition, the minimum of which is
below his former rate; he should begin the new position at the next
step above his former rate.
Step increases would ordinarily be made in pay rates each year,
although they could be withheld if the supervisor felt the employee
did not show sufficient interest of ability to warrant an increase.
The plan has the advantage of being proportional to the various
levels of pay. It is commonly recognized that higher paid employees
carry more financial responsibilities within the community, and that the
effect of a change in the cost of living is proportionate to the level
of p~y. Flat rate increases discriminate against the higher paid employees
in periods of rising wages, and flat rate decreases discriminate against
the lower paid employees in periods of declining wages. Thus the
proportional increase and decrease feature is desirable.
THE INTERVAL SCALE
In developing the pay plan, the interval scale in appendix 1 was
worked out. Each point on the scale is 3.344%.higher than the preceding
point. Thus the interval between any two adjacent points is in the
same proportion to these points at any place on the scale. The interval
chosen comes out even at 1000 when the starting point is 100-- a
convenience in the use of the scale for all salaries or hourly rates
can be readily geared to it, and upward or downward rate trends can
be implemented almost automaticly by the simple expedient of moving
the entire pay plan up or down one or more intervals.
Two intervals make an adequate step or merit increase and all
ranges except Laborer and Skilled Laborer consist of five steps of
~e intervals_each. Ranges for Laborers and Skilled Laborer are
five steps of one interval each, because it is general practice to
use smaller ranges for these classes.
JOB CLASSIFICATION
Ail of the permanent full-time employees have been assigned to one
of the fifteen job classifications listed, with appropriate pay scales,
in Appendix 11. The classes adequately recognize differentials in
responsibility, skill required, and range of functions. They are
standard ~tassi~ce~ions, and standard definitions are available to
establish~and distinguish between the proposed classes.
0ct.29,1951
ADOPTION OF THE PLAN
It is proposed ~at the plan be adopted effective 0ct.1,1951.
PROPOSED PAY PLAN REGULATIONS.
1. Pay Rates .' The proposed pay rates as listed in Appendix 11
to this'report shall become effective October 1,1951.
2. Salary Ranges: The pay plan shall consist of salary ranges
as set forth in Appendix 11. Each range shall consist of a minimum and a
maximum and intermediate steps. These steps shall fall u~on points in the
Interval Scale, in Appendix 1, which are spaced at intervals of 3.344% of
the lower point of each interval. Usually steps in pay ranges shall consist
of two such intervals, and ranges shall consist of five steps, but in certain
cases it may be desirable to use steps consisting of one interval.
3. Administration of the Pay Plan: Ail salaries and wages for
full time employees for the fiscal ~ea~ 1952 shall be those adopted by the
City Council in regular session, Oct.8,1951. These are adopted to the
Interval Scale to ~e greatest possible extent for the first year of the
plan. Ail salaries and wages for full-time employees shall be geared to
the Interval Scale for ~e fiscal year 1953 and thereafter.
New employees shall begin at the minimum of the appropriate salary
range, unless in the opinion of the immediate supervisor and the City
Manager, it is desirable that the employee begin at a higher step
because of his unusual ability or prior experience, or because labor
m~rket conditions warrant it.
No employee shall bei~p~d more than the maximum of the appropriate
pay range for bis positioh.
In case a~ employee is promoted to a new position, the minimum
salary of which is below his former rate, he shall begin the new position
at Ehe next step of its salary range above his former rate.
An employee shall be eligible for an increase annually of one
step in the salary range if in the opinion of the immediate supervisor
and the City Manager, the employee has shown sufficient interest, ability~
and improvement in his ~ork to merit the increase. Such increases shall
take effect at the beginning of the fiscal year, and new employees
employed before March 1, of any year shall be eligable for such an increase
on October 1st of the same year, but those employed on or after ~ar.lst
shall not become eligible for such an increase until October 1, of the
following year. Thus an employee shall not be eligible for a merit increase
until after at least six months of service. (The only exceptions to the
preceding will be those three men (Cowart, Dempsey, and Fort) who were
hired ~t the beginning of the fiscal year 1952 and who were promised a
raise after six months service. They shall be raised one step in the
pay range after six months service, but that raise shall constitute the
merit raise which, normally would be effected Oct. 1st. They, therefore
shall not be eligible for a further raise after the initial one until
October 1,1953.)
Salaries and w~ges of independent officers and part-time workers
will be reviewed annually by the City Manager who shall recommend rates
to the City Council. ~enerally speaking, those rates and wages shall
be geared to steps in the Interval Scale but the normal merA~ increase
shall be limited to one interval since the City will not have received
the equivalent of a full work-year of service.
October 29,1951
Mr. Lovelace explained the plan in detail, and answered questions asked
by the Council and the aUdience, after which a motion was made by Councilm~_n
Musgrave, seconded by Councilman Holland, that the pay plan, as submitted
by the City Manager, be adopted. Upon call of roll the motion carried
unanimously.
The following Ordinance, providing for a minimum ceiling height
of 12' for buildings in all business districts, was brought up as an
emergency measure, and read in full:
ORDINANCE NO. G-127
AN EMERG~CY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
TP~ CITY OF DELRAY B~ACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING
S n-?ANAm A?H (1) OF
(1) OF PARAGRAPH(J),SUB--PARAGRAPH (1) OF PARAGRAPH
(L) OF S~TION 7 OF CHkl:% m II OF CITY CODE
.... · ~'CFTItE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH,FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, an emergency exists in the City of Delray Beach, Florida
in that the present zoning regulations of the City of Delray Beach,
Florida, do not provide minimum ceiling heights in certain business
districts, and,
WHEREAS, it is deemed necessary for the preservation of public
health, safety, and welfare, that minimum ceiling heights in those
certain business districts be established,
· NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY the City Council of the City
of Delray Beach, Florida as follows:
SECTION 1: That sub-paragraph (1) of Paragraph (i) of Section 7
of Chapter XX of the City Code of Delray Beach, Florida, be and the
same is hereby amended to read as follows: to wit,
"(1) Any use permitted in Residence A, Residence ~ Residence C,
Apartment Rouse and Local Buisness Districts, as regulated by this
Chapter, except that no tourist camp will be allowed. Al l business
buildings constructed in this district shall have a mt~imu~ height
from floor to ceiling of twelve feet."
SECTION 2: That Paragraph (1) of Paragraph (J) of Section ? of
Chapter XX of the City Code of the City of Delray Beach, Florida,
be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: to wit,
"Paragraph (1) Any use permitted in Residence A, Residence B,
Residence C, and Apartment Rouse Districts, as regulated by this Chapter
without the therein restrictions as to public or gainful use, aa to
home occupations and service to tre. nsient guests and merchandising in
boarding or rooming houses, clubs and similar buildings, or as to
accessibility to restaurants and other rooms immediately from a street.
Ail business buildings constructed in this district shall have a minimum
height from floor to ceiling of twelve feet~
SECTION 3: That Sub-Paragraph (1) of Paragraph (L) of Section
? of Chapter XX of the City Code of the City of Delray Beach, Florida,
be and the same is hereby amended to rend as follows: to wit,
"(1)
October 29,1951
"(1) Private residences, multiple family houses, apar*_~_~ts or hotels,
parking areas, ad~oifling or in area serving business ~r~cted in this
district, banks, modiste, ~aring apparel, furriers, millinery shops,
offices, including brokerage houses, jewelry stores, furniture stores,
confectionery and ice cream stores, drug stores, stationary stores,
shoes stores, sporting goods stores, luggage shops, sales and show rooms,
private schools, professional offices, barber shops, resturants, telegraphic
stations, photographic galleries, post office sub-stations, theatres and
motion picture houses, beauty parlors, music stores and radio stores, Ail
business buildings constructed in this district shall have a minimum
height from floor to ceiling of twelve feet."
SECTION 4: This is an emergency ordinance and shall take effect
upon its passage on first and final reading.
PASSED in regular session on first and final reading on t~is the
29th. day of October, 1951.
Mayor
ATTEST ~
City Clerk
Passed and adopted - October 29th,1951.
On First and Final Reading.
City Attorney MacMillan explained t~at the Ordinance would provide
the same exemptions in the City as in the State and county, which
confines exemptions to persons over 65 years of age who operate a small
business by their own efforts, with not more than one employee, nor
more than $500.00 capital, and to a disabled war veteran up to a license
fee of $50.00.
The Council discussed the provisions of this Ordinance, Councilman
Jacobs agreeing that the City Ordinance should correspond with the State
Statute to avoid debatable questions, but he still felt that a man over
65 years of age should be exempt from license fees.
Upon motion of Councilman ~Holland, seconded by Councilman
Musgrave, and unanimously carried, the Ordinance was placed on first
reading.
City ~ager Lovelace advised the Council that certain amendments
to the City Charter had been approved by the State Legislature, and
must be voted on at either the Primary or General Election. He recommended
that the following three Bills be submitted to the people at the
General Election for ratification .'
1. HOUSE BILL No. 1591 - Relating to the ~stablishment,
0c%.29,1951
Jurisdiction and Sessions of the Municipal Court, and the qualifications,
appointment and compensation of the Municipal Judge of such ~ourt, etc.
2. HOUSE BILL No. 1593 - Relating to the power of the City of
Delray Beach, to acquire Property , real or personal, for Municipal
purposes, etc.
3. HOUSE BIL~ No, 16~ - Providing for changes inthe territorial
l~m~ts of the City of Delray Beach, by annexation of any c~ntiguous
uninco .rporated tract or tracts of land within Palm Beach County, Etc.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF DELRAY BEACH,
FLORIDA, AMenDING SECTION 265 OF ORDINANCE NO. G-ii,
AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. G -90, PERTAINING TO
E~EMPTIONS FOR OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES.
Mr. Lovelaee recommended that House Bill No. 1592, providing for
the establishment and maintenance of a policy book, etc., be eliminated,
as being impractical.
A motion was made by Councilman Kabler, that the above three Bills
be submitted to the public for approval at the General Election to be
held on December 4th,1951, as recommended by the City Manager. The
motion was seconded by Councilman Musgrave, and carried unanimously.
City Attorney MacMillan advised that the present City Charter
requires that all proposed Charter changes must be published, and a
public hearing held. In the case of these proposed amendmants, this
provision had not been complied with. However, the Constitution of
the Stste of Florida provides that if a referendum is provided, this
does not have to be complied with. Mr. MacMillan stated that he had
obtained an opinion from the Attorney General, stating that he believed
the Charter provision would prevail.
City Manager Lovelace suggested that a declaratory Judgment be
obtained to be sure that these amendments would be valid if approved
at a referendum election, and upon motion of Councilm~__n Kabler, seconded
by Councilman Jacobs, and unanimously carried, the City Attorney was
instructed to obtain such declaratory decree.
The following two letters were then read, requesting the rocking
of S.E. 1st. Street from 4th Ave. to the South Federal Highway:
Members of the City Council, and
Robert Lovelace - City Manager
City Hall, Delray Beach, Fla.
Gentlemen:
At a regular business meeting bf our church held October 17,1951,
the Church Clerk was authorized to write to the City Council requesting
that the City look into the following matters, and, if possible, have the
work done:
1. Rock the side of Southeast First Street, .between Federal
Highway and Southeast Fifth Avenue, from the street to the sidewalk to
permit better parking during the church services;
2. Build approaches from Southeast Fifth Avenue into our parking
lot which is to the rear of our Church and
October 29,1951
3. Erect Church Zone signs near the Church to the North and
South on Federal Highway in order that the travelers will keep noises
to a minimum during Church hours.
We will indeed be truly gratefinl if this work can be done by
the City.
Very truly yours,
FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH
/S/By Mrs. ~.H. Allen
Church Clerk.
Honorable Mayor
Members of the City Council
City of Delray Beach, Florida
Gentlemen .'
At the time bhe sewer on S.E. First Str., was pub in, the Sbreet between
S.E.Fifth and bhe alley, west, was left in a bad condibion.
The loose sand on the north side of S E First is becoming a hazard.
Since the opening of the Margaret Ann store, the street is fast
becoming a main bhorofare and too, the people from the Baptist Church
use it for parking during services.
I have ample paved parking space back of ~he apartmenbs I own for the
tenants, however, I would appreciate it, if rock could be pub in
between bhe paved area and the curb.
Thanks for your considerabion in this matter,
Yours very truly,
A. B. Gawlor
105 Seabreeze Ave.
Delray Beach, Fla.
Re.' B~cking S.E.First Str between S E Fifth Ave. and S E 4th. Ave.,
Councilamn Jacobs questioned the Council's right to use ~xpayer's
money to improve private property in this way. The Council also felt
that rock received from the County should be used only for public benefit,
as has been the policy, and upon motion of Councilman Kabler, seconded
by Councilman Jacobs, the ~ity Manager was instructed to advise the
above petitioners of the City's procedure on the use of rock obtained
free from the County. Upon call of roll this motion was carried
unanimously.
A letter from Mr. C. C. Townes, offering to exchange certain acreage,
he owns in Section 18 for City owned acreage, which would provide a
road to the Police Pistol Range, was read as follows:
October 29,1951
After consideration, a ~motion ~as made by Councilman Holland,
that action be deferred, and that Mr. Townes be requested to meet with the
Council and submit f~rther details concerning his proposal. The motion
was seconded by 0ouncilman Jacobs, and carried unanimously.
A tabulation of bids received on October 20th, for construction
of a Jail building, was presented by the City Manager, as follows:
0ct.20,1951
Delray Beach, Fla.
Mr. Robert Lovel~ee
0ity Manager
Delray Beach, Fla.
Dear Sir:
We are pleased to submit this proposal for the construction of the Jail
building, addition $o the City Hail. Me agree ~o furnish the materials
and labor for the completion ~f this building for the te~al sum of
Eighteen thousand nine hundred dollars($18,900.O0).
Yours respectively,
Is~ A.H. er
CO~JNITY BUILDERS, INC.
(Awarded .contract 10/29/51)
October 29,1951
2800 N. Fed. Highway
BOX~407-Boca Raton, Fla.
0ct.20,1951
Weare pleased to quote the price of ($19,229'00) Nineteen
thousand two hundred twenty nine_dollars., for Construction
Municipal Jail, Delray Beaohi. Fla. According to plans by
Kenneth Jacobson.
/si H. scm=
CeOe
,~ Ray Construction Co.
Riviera Beach, Fla. Phone 35 640
Bid on Mu niciapl jail in Delray Beach, Fla.
C.O.Ray Construction Co. Will furnish labor and material according
to p~ans and specifications for the sum of twenty two thousand and
five hundred dollars.
Can meet all requirements as a contractor and as required in s pscifications.
C. O. Ray Construction Co.
Isl' 0. o. Ray
00t.19,1951
MUNICIPAL JAIL ADDITION TO MUNICIpAL
BUILDING D~RAY BEACH FLORIDA.
City of Delray Beach
Florida.
Gentlemen:
We propose to erect the Municipal Jail Addition to the Municipal
Building at Delray Beach in accordance with the plans and specifications
and Addenda ~1 and #2 as prepared by Kenneth Jacobsen, Architect, for the
sum of:
TWENTY-TWO THOUSAND NINE HUNDi~D AND FORTY-EIGHT D0~Z,ARS
($22,948.00).
If the sandblasting of the cells is omitted, deduct:
ox T~OUSA~D Da~S ($1,000.00).
RespectD,~l y 'submitted,
NADAL BAXENDALE INC.
/s/Rarr n. Watts Jr.
October 29,1951
Delray Beach, Fla.
0ct.18,1951
City Council
City of Delray Beach
Delr~y Beach, Florida
Qentlemen:
We propose to erect the addition to the municipal Jail in
accordance-with the pla~rs and specifications and addendum No. 1,
as prepared by Mr. Kenneth Jacobson, Architect for the sum of
$ 19,444.00.
This offer is based on the assumption that N.P.A. approval will be
obtained for this work, and that suitable priority will be provided for
the required allotment of steel and copper materials.
We c~n start this Jo~ 4mmediately utilizing steel now in our
possession, it being understood that this will be replaced under the
priority issued for the Job.
Yours very truly,
I~IESIE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
/S/O. W. Trieste, President
City M~nager Lovelace recommended .~hat the low bid submitted by
C~mmunity Builders, Inc. in the amount of $ 18,900.00 be accepted. He
felt that all bids received were too high, but that apparently a lower
bid was not available, and the low bid was submitted by a reputable firm.
Upon motion ofCouncilamn Musgrave, seconded by Councilman Jacobs, and
uns~4mously carried, the City Managers recommendation bo accept the low
bid of Community Builders, Ink in the amount of $18,900.00, for the
construction of a Jail Building, was approved.
With reference to Lot 34, Rice Addition, which Mr. Charles Piersol
had asked the City to release so that it might revert to its former owner
and be developed woth surrounding property as a restd~ntia! dtstrict¥. Mr.
Lovelace explained was on record as having been dedicated for park
purposes. Actually it was intended as a buffer, but ~he County will not
release i~ unless the City Council advises that it is no longer needed
for park purposes.
After consideration, a motion was made by Councilman Kabler that
the City Manager be instructed to prepare and submit to the County, a
statement that the City is willing to release this lot for any further
use for park purposes, providing delinquent City taxes will be paid.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Jacobs, and carried unanimously.
City Manager Lovelace advised the Coumcil that on July 23rd,1951,
October 29,1951
the City. Attorney had been instructed to obtain a declaratory Judgment as to
whether or not the portion of the McOabe Building, located on Lot 4, Block
100, which is used by the Unity Church, is or is not taxable, This judgment
was not obtained, and the entire property was placed on the 1951 Tax
Roll. He asked the Council's opinion as to whether the City should now
obtain this declaratory Judgment, or whether the Unity Church should
get it, as they were contesting the Taxing of the pro~erty.
After discussion, it was the consensus of opinion of the Council
that the Unity 6hurch had relied upon the action of the Council in
instructing the City AttorneM to obtain this decree, the Council was
morally obligated to do so,. and upon motion of Councilman Musgrave,
seconded by Councilman Holland, and unanimously carried, City Attorney
MacMillan was instructed to obtain a declaratory judgment on.the Unity
Church case at this time.
The meeting then adjourned.
Is~
City 0lark