Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
07-19-11 Regular Meeting
City of Del ray Beach Regular Commission Meeting w RULES FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Tuesday, July 19, 2011 Regular 1. PUBLIC COMMENT: The public is encouraged to offer comments with the order Meeting 6:00 of presentation being as follows: City Staff, public comments, Commission discussion and official action. City Commission meetings are business meetings and the right to p'm' limit discussion rests with the Commission. Generally, remarks by an individual will Public be limited to three minutes or less. The Mayor or presiding officer has discretion to Hearings adjust the amount of time allocated. 7:00 p.m. Delray Beach City Ha11 A. Public Hearings: Any citizen is entitled to speak on items under this section. B. Comments and Inquiries on Non-Agenda Items from the Public: Any citizen is entitled to be heard concerning any matter within the scope of jurisdiction of the Commission under this section. The Commission may withhold comment or direct the City Manager to take action on requests or comments. C. Regular Agenda and First Reading Items: Public input on agendaed items, other than those that are specifically set for a formal public hearing, shall be allowed when agreed by consensus of the City Commission. 2. SIGN IN SHEET: Prior to the start of the Commission Meeting, individuals wishing to address public hearing or non-agendaed items should sign in on the sheet located on the right side of the dais. If you are not able to do so prior to the start of the meeting, you may still address the Commission on an appropriate item. The primary purpose of the sign-in sheet is to assist staff with record keeping. Therefore, when you come up to the podium to speak, please complete the sign-in sheet if you have not already done so. 3. ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION: At the appropriate time, please step up to the podium and state your name and address for the record. All comments must be addressed to the Commission as a body and not to individuals. Any person making impertinent or slanderous remarks or who becomes boisterous while addressing the Commission shall be barred by the presiding officer from speaking further, unless permission to continue or again address the Commission is granted by a majority vote of the Commission members present. APPELLATE PROCEDURES Please be advised that if a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at this meeting, such person will need to ensure that a verbatim record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. The City neither provides nor prepares such record. 100 N.W.1st Avenue Delray The City will furnish auxiliary aids and services to afford an individual with a Beach, FL disability an opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, 33444 program, or activity conducted by the City. Contact Doug Smith at 243-7010, 24 Phone: (561) hours prior to the event in order for the City to accommondate your request. 243-7000 Adaptive listening devices are available for meetings in the Commission Fax: (561) Chambers. 243-3774 REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. INVOCATION 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG A. NONE 4. AGENDA APPROVAL 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A. June 14, 2011- Workshop Meeting B. July 5, 2011- Regular Meeting 6. PROCLAMATIONS: A. Recognizing and Commending the Delray Blazers Travel Basketball Team 7. PRESENTATIONS: A. Life Saving Award Presentation recognizing Ben Seaman 8. CONSENT AGENDA: City Manager Recommends Approval A. RESOLUTION NO. 28-11/BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT: Approve and adopt Resolution No. 28-11 providing support for the City's beach renourishment proiect and a funding commitment to provide for the local match through an Interlocal Agreement with Palm Beach County. B. SERVICE AUTHORIZATION NO. 22/MATHEWS CONSUTLING, INC.: Approve Service Authorization No. 22 with Mathews Consulting, Inc. in the amount of $77,981.00 for professional services related to design and engineering of upgrades to Lift Station 100A located at the north end of Veteran's Park. Funding is available from 442-5178-536-31.30 (Water & Sewer Renewal & Replacement Fund: Professional Services/Engineering/Architect). C. VALET PARKING QUEUE EXPANSION/BRIGHT HORIZONS d/b/a 32 EAST: Approve a request from Bright Horizons d/b/a 32 East to expand the valet parkin queue from 6 to 8 spaces by incorporating the remaining two (2) spaces on the block located at 32 East Atlantic Avenue. D. AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT WITH BCJE, INC.: Approve Amendment No. 2 to the Management Agreement with BJCE, Inc. for the Municipal and Lakeview Golf Courses. E. AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT WITH DUBIN AND ASSOCIATES: Approve Amendment No. 2 to the Management Agreement with Dubin and Associates for City tennis facilities. F. EASEMENT DEED/TEMPLE SINAI OF PALM BEACH COUNTY: Accept an Easement Deed from Temple Sinai of Palm Beach County for the installation of a bus shelter at 2475 West Atlantic Avenue. G. HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT/OCEAN BOULEVARD, LLC: Approve a Hold Harmless Agreement with Ocean Boulevard, LLC for work to be performed within the State right-of-way for the property located at 921 South Ocean Boulevard. H. SUB-GRANT AGREEMENT/DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT: Approve aSub-Grant Agreement with the Division of Emergency Management in the amount of $150,000.00 for implementation of the Residential Construction Mitigation Program (RCMP). Funding is available from 118-1935-334-42.00 (Neighborhood Services: FEMA-Residential Mitigation). L LETTER OF SUPPORT/JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT LTAGI FUND: Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter in support of funding allocations for Countywide Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) funds for FY 2012. J. EXTENSION OF A MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT AGREEMENT WITH MOTOROLA, INC.: Approve an extension to the Maintenance and Support Agreement between the City and Motorola, Inc. in the amount of $114,368.52 for maintenance and support for all of dispatch with the exception of the law enforcement officers' portable radios. Funding is available from 001-2111-521-46.20 (General Fund: Repair & Maintenance Services/Equipment Maintenance). K• SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST/8TH ANNUAL FAMILY FUN DAY AT POMPEY PARK: Approve a special event reauest for the 8th Annual Family Fun Dav at Pompey Park produced by the Parks and Recreation Department to be held on August 13, 2011 from 3:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m; and authorize staff support for security, fire inspection, trash removal and clean up assistance, trash boxes, use of the lame City stage, and preparation and installation of event signage. L. REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACTIONS: Accept the actions and decisions made by the Land Development Boards for the period July 5, 2011 through July 15, 2011. REGULAR AGENDA: A. AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES/RCC CONSULTANTS, INC.: Consider an Agreement for Professional Services with RCC Consultants, Inc. to complete a study on possible consolidation of public safety communications with the Cities of Boynton Beach and Boca Raton. Funding is available from 112-2172-521- 31.90 (Law Enforcement Trust FD: Professional Services/Other Professional Services . B. SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST/EXTREME VOLLEYBALL PROFESSIONALS (EVP) TOUR: Consider approval of a new event, Extreme Volleyball Professionals (EVP) Tour, sponsored b_y EVP Tours and supported b_y the Downtown Marketing Cooperative, to be held on September 17, 2011 from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., grant a waiver to the City Code of Ordinances, Section 101.25, "Commercial Enterprises; Sale or Rental of Goods or Services", and to allow the sale of sponsor products and for promotions and Section 101.32, "Assemblies", to allow assembly on the beach; authorize staff support; contingent upon receipt of a turtle permit fourteen (14) days prior to the event and a Hold Harmless Agreement. C. ACCEPT PROPOSAL FOR FIRE ASSESSMENT FEE STUDY:Consider a request toselect a consultant to determine how much of our Fire-Rescue costs could be funded by an assessment, and what the assessment amounts should be to complete funding of our FY 2012 budget. D. PROPOSED MILEAGE RATE: Consider approval of a proposed milla~e rate for FY 2012, and set the budget review and adoption schedule. E. OFFER OF SETTLEMENT IN DEMETRIA BRIDGETT V. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH: Consider an Offer of Settlement in the total amount of $55,000.00 in Demetria Bridgett v. City of Delray Beach. Staff recommends denial. F. MODIFICATIONS TO STANDARD FORM VALET PARKING LICENSE AGREEMENT:Consider approval of the proposed modifications to the City's standard form Valet Parking License Agreement setting maximum fees, validation program requirements, si~na~e requirements and ADA regulations. G. FILLING UNEXPIRED TERM OF COMMISSIONER FETZER:Consider the process for filling the unexpired term of Commissioner Fred B. Fetzer. H. APPOINTMENT TO THE FINANCIAL REVIEW BOARD: Appoint one (1) alternate member to the Financial Review Board to serve a (2) year term ending July 31, 2013. Based upon the rotation system, the appointment will be made by Commissioner Fetzer (Seat #2). 1' APPOINTMENTS TO THE EDUCATION BOARD: Appoint two (2) regular members to serve a two (2) year term ending July 31, 2013 and one (1) student member to serve a one (1) year term ending July 31, 2012 to the Education Board. Based upon the rotation system, the appointments will be made by Commissioner Fetzer (Seat #2), Commissioner Fetzer (Seat #2) and Commissioner Frankel (Seat #3). J. APPOINTMENTS TO THE POLICE ADVISORY BOARD: Appoint one (1) regular member to serve a two (2) _year term ending July 31, 2013 and one (1) regular member to serve an unexpired term ending July 31, 2012 to the Police Advisory Board. Based upon the rotation system, the appointments will be made by Commissioner Fetzer (Seat #2) and Commissioner Carney (Seat #1). K. APPOINTMENT TO THE NUISANCE ABATEMENT BOARD: Annoint one regular member to the Nuisance Abatement Board to serve a two (2) _year term ending on July 31, 2013. Based upon the rotation system, the appointment will be made by Commissioner Fetzer (Seat #2). L. APPOINTMENT TO THE PUBLIC ART ADVISORY BOARD: Annoint one regular member to the Public Art Advisory Board to serve a two (2) year term ending July 31, 2013. Based upon the rotation system, the appointment will be made by Commissioner Fetzer (Seat #2). M. APPOINTMENTS TO THE PARKING MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD:Appoint two (2) Citizen-at-Lame Representatives to the Parkin Management Advisory Board to serve a two (2) year term ending July 31, 2013. Based upon the rotation system, the appointments will be made b_y Commissioner Fetzer (Seat #2) and Commissioner Gray (Seat #4). N. APPOINTMENTS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY COUNCIL: Appoint five (5) regular members to serve three (3) _year terms ending July 31, 2014, and one (1) student member to serve a one (1) year term ending July 31, 2012 to the Neighborhood Advisory Council. Based upon the rotation system, the appointments will be made b_y Commissioner Gra_y (Seat #4), Ma_yor McDuffie (Seat #5), Commissioner Carney (Seat #1), Commissioner Fetzer (Seat #2), Commissioner Frankel (Seat #3) and Commissioner Gra_y (Seat #4). 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT/CDS DELRAY REDEVELOPMENT, LLC/CDR ATLANTIC PLAZA, LTD.: Consider approval of a Development Agreement with CDS Delray Redevelopment, LLC., and CDR Atlantic Plaza, LTD. regarding the Atlantic Plaza Proiect. B. ORDINANCE NO. 20-11: Consider a city-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 4.4.13, "Central Business (CBD) District", Subsection (G), "Supplemental District Regulations", and Section 4.4.24, "Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD)", Subsection (G), `Supplemental District Regulations", to increase the parking requirements for restaurants. C. ORDINANCE NO. 21-11: Consider a city-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) to expand the applicability of the payment of in-lieu of parking program. D. RESOLUTION NO. 27-11: Consider approval of Resolution No. 27-11 establishing a budget for the Stormwater Utility System, establishing the rates for FY 2012 Stormwater Management Assessments, and certifying and adopting the Stormwater Assessment Roll. E. ORDINANCE NO. 22-11 (SECOND READING/SECOND PUBLIC HEARING): Consider a city-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 4.6.9, "Off Street Parking Regulations", Subsection 4.6.9(C), "Number of Parking Spaces Required", and Appendix "A", "Definitions", by adding the definition of call centers and providing for specific parking requirements for call centers. F. ORDINANCE NO. 23-11: Consider a city-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 2.4.3, "Submission Requirements", Subsection (K), "Fees", Paragraph (1), "Development Applications", to increase development application fees. 11. COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC- IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. City Manager's response to prior public comments and inquiries. B. From the Public. 12. FIRST READINGS: A. ORDINANCE NO. 24-11: Consider an ordinance amending the historic district classification for 32 East Atlantic Avenue from non-contributing to contributing. If passed, a public hearing will be held on August 2, 2011. 13. COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: A. City Manager B . City Attorney C. City Commission WORKSHOP MEETING JUNE 14, 2011 A Workshop Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, was called to order by Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie in the First Floor Conference Room at City Hall at 6:00 p.m., on Tuesday, June 14, 2011. Roll call showed: Present - Commissioner Thomas F. Carney, Jr. Commissioner Fred B. Fetzer Commissioner Angeleta E. Gray Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie Absent - Commissioner Adam Frankel Also present were - David T. Harden, City Manager Brian Shutt, City Attorney Kimberly Wynn, Acting City Clerk Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie called the workshop meeting to order and announced that it had been called for the purpose of considering the following Items. WORKSHOP MEETING AGENDA 1. JOINT MEETING WITH THE EDUCATION BOARD Mrs. Janet Meeks, Education Coordinator, presented this item and introduced members from the Education Board (Lydia Carreiro, Dr. Debra Kaiser, Catherine DeMatto and Jose Herrera). She discussed current projects and issues regarding Delray Beach Schools. Mr. Fetzer thanked the Education Board for their presentation and efforts and asked how the Commission could help. Mrs. Gray questioned how the mix of adults, middle school and elementary children would work when Delray Full Service Center is relocated to Village Academy. Dr. Kaiser explained that a meeting was planned to discuss the move and how it would function. Some options discussed were use of a different entrance or additional fencing. Mrs. Gray asked if Village Academy would handle the Delray Full Service Center program. She talked about the graduation rate for minorities at Atlantic Community High School, which has been well above average for the past two years, and highlights of the Let s Move campaign. Mayor McDuffie discussed the effectiveness of vocational academies and the successful graduation rate among minorities at Atlantic Community High School, especially with the IB program and the Public Safety academy. He provided a brief update on the Digital Divide program and the need for additional funding for equipment and support. Mr. David T. Harden, City Manager, suggested that a formal request be presented to the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) for assistance in funding the Digital Divide program. Mrs. Meeks verified with the Commission that they approved of demolition of Delray Full Service Center. It was the consensus of the Commission that the Delray Full Service Center be demolished. 2. PRESENTATION OF FY 2010 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT - CALER, DONTEN, LEVINE, PORTER & VEIL, P.A Mr. Scott Porter of Caler, Donten, Levine, Druker, Porter & Veil, P.A., provided a financial overview of the City of Delray Beach, Florida Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010. It was the consensus of the Commission that the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for fiscal year ending September 30, 2010 was an excellent report. 3. PROPOSED ORDINANCE REGARDING CONVERSION OF OVERHEAD UTILITIES TO UNDERGROUND Mr. Richard Hasko, Environmental Services Director, presented this item. He introduced Mr. Tony Newbold, Mr. Derek Vander Ploeg and Mr. Bill Morris, consultants for the project. Mr. Hasko discussed a proposed ordinance that will require land development projects to convert existing overhead utilities to underground alignments within the West Atlantic Avenue Overlay and Central Business District at the developer's expense. Mayor McDuffie asked about the proposed Utility Trust Fund and how it would benefit the City; he also questioned under what conditions a waiver could be granted to applicants. Mr. Hasko explained that the use of the fund would be limited. Mr. Vander Ploeg went further to explain that once enough funds were accumulated, larger projects could be done at a later date. He discussed access to the utilities in different areas of the City. Mrs. Gray asked if the City reviewed the City of Coconut Creek's ordinance and what was the charge for fee waivers. Mr. Newbold discussed the City of Coconut Creek's procedures and the fee waiver briefly. Mrs. Gray asked what the expected expenditure for maintenance would be. Mr. Hasko explained the expenditures and cost of maintenance. He discussed how the City would work with FP&L in getting the areas converted. Mr. Harden discussed some of the options that the City could use to regulate the underground utilities. 2 Jnne 14, 2011 Mr. Carney asked who would be responsible for the costs associated with moving overhead to underground utilities. He suggested that the developer and not the residents be responsible for any maintenance costs and stated he is not prepared to make a recommendation. Mayor McDuffie stated the failure of FPL to do routine maintenance on utilities for years in the area was evident and felt in the city after Hurricane Jeanne and Hurricane Wilma. Mr. Randal Krejcarek, City Engineer, discussed the responsibilities of FPL with regards to utility maintenance based on the City's current contract. Mr. Newbold and Mr. Vander Ploeg stated that the City of Deerfield Beach underwent a similar type of conversion project. Mayor McDuffie asked about the Cannery Row Project and how the underground conversion was handled. Mr. Krejcarek advised that the project was not completed. Mayor McDuffie agreed that this is potentia]1y a great project. It was the consensus of the Commission that staff proceed with the ordinance but review the limitation of the Developer's liability to the fullest extent possible. 4. DISCUSSION OF DRAFT PRESS RELEASE AND PHOTO COVERAGE POLICY Mr. Harden introduced this item. He explained that because the City gets numerous requests from organizations for press releases and photo coverage a policy needed to be established to create guidelines. Mr. Richard Reade, Sustainability Officer/Public Information Officer, gave an overview of the proposed policy. He discussed some of the highlights of the proposed policy regarding press releases and the type of events that the City will provide photo coverage for. Mr. Douglas Smith, Assistant City Manager, further discussed the proposed policy pertaining to minors in photos and public records per Florida Statutes (F.S.) Chapter 119. He advised that the City Manager wanted to remove language that allowed the City Manager to approve press releases on a case-by-case basis. Mrs. Gray discussed some instances where press releases and photo coverage should be available that are not City sponsored events. She referenced an occasion when the Lieutenant Governor visited the City. Mr. Carney asked if there was a press release done for the Lieutenant Governor when she visited the City. Mr. Harden advised no press release was done because it was well publicized by the Delray Chamber and local media. Mayor McDuffie suggested established guidelines for proclamations be reviewed. 3 Jnne 14, 2011 Mr. Fetzer supports the social media policy and would like the City Manager or designee to use their discretion except when an item is considered controversial. Mrs. Gray advised that she agreed with the policy; however, she did not agree with covering City sponsored programs only. It was the consensus of the Commission to support the photo coverage and press release policy. Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie adjourned the Workshop Meeting at 8:24 p.m. City Clerk ATTEST: MAYOR The undersigned is the City Clerk of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, and the information provided herein is the Minutes of the Workshop Meeting of the City Commission held on Tuesday, June 14, 2011, which Minutes were formally approved and adopted by the City Commission on City Clerk NOTE TO READER: If the Minutes you have received are not completed as indicated above, this means they are not the official Minutes of the City Commission. They will become the official Minutes only after review and approval, which may involve amendments, additions or deletions to the Minutes as set forth above. 4 Jnne 14, 2011 JULY 5, 2011 A Regular Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, was called to order by Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie in the Commission Chambers at City Hall at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, July 5, 2011. 1. Roll call showed: Present - Commissioner Tom Carney Commissioner Adam Frankel Commissioner Angeleta E. Gray Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie Absent - Commissioner Fred Fetzer Also present were - David T. Harden, City Manager Brian Shutt, City Attorney Chevelle D. Nubin, City Clerk 2. The opening prayer was delivered by Reverend Michael McClure with West Park Baptist Church. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America was given. 4. AGENDA APPROVAL. Mayor McDuffie requested that Item 9.D., Reconsideration of a Vote for A Community Redevelopment A~ency Board Appointment, be postponed to the regular meeting of July 19, 2011. Also, Mayor McDuffie requested that Item 9.G., Appointment to the Financial Review Board, be postponed to the regular meeting of July 19, 2011. Mayor McDuffie stated with regard to Item 9.K., Appointments to the Nuisance Abatement Board Mr. Lee Cohen would like his name withdrawn from consideration. Mrs. Gray stated she does not want Item 9.G. pulled from the Agenda because this is the first time that someone's appointment has actually been asked to be reconsidered. Mr. Carney moved to approve the Agenda as amended with Item 9.D., Reconsideration of a Vote for A Community Redevelopment Agency Board Appointment remaining on the Agenda, seconded by Mr. Frankel. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Frankel -Yes; Mrs. Gray -Yes; Mayor McDuffie - Yes; Mr. Carney -Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 07/05/11 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mrs. Gray moved to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 21, 2011, seconded by Mr. Frankel. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor McDuffie -Yes; Mr. Carney -Yes; Mr. Frankel -Yes; Mrs. Gray -Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 6. PROCLAMATIONS: A. None 7. PRESENTATIONS: A. None 8. CONSENT AGENDA: City Manager Recommends Approval. 8.A. REQUEST FOR SIDEWALK DEFERRAL/114 N.W. 16th STREET: Approve a request to defer the installation of a sidewalk along N.W. 16th Street and N.W. 2nd Avenue for the property located at 114 N.W. 16th Street. 8.B. RESOLUTION NO. 26-11/ABANDONMENT OF SIDEWALK EASEMENT/HYATT PLACE: Approve Resolution No. 26-11 to abandon a 5'x 55' sidewalk easement located on the property at 115 N.E. 1st Street associated with Hyatt Place development. The caption of Resolution No. 26-11 is as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, VACATING AND ABANDONING A SIDEWALK EASEMENT DEDICATED BY AN EASEMENT DEED RECORDED IN O.R.B. 2138, PAGE 740, AS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A". (The official copy of Resolution No. 26-11 is on file in the City Clerk's office.) 8.C. EASEMENT AGREEMENT/FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT/POMPEY PARK CONCESSION STAND PROJECT: Approve an easement agreement between the City and Florida Power & Light (FPL) regarding a pad mounted transformer and associated underground electrical utilities for the Pompey Park Concession Stand Project. 8.D. MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL/HYATT PLACE: Approve a minor subdivision plat for 104 N.E. 2nd Avenue Plat (a/k/a Hyatt Place) located on the north side of N.E. 1st Street, between Pineapple Grove Way and 2 07/05/2011 N.E. 1st Avenue. 8.E. SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES GRANT CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT: Approve a Consortium agreement to provide support to various agencies, organizations, governments and individuals to complete work on a Regional Sustainable Communities Initiative funded under a sustainability grant from US Department of Housing and Urban Development. 8.F. DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT/GRANITE WORTHING, LC: Approve a Developer's Agreement with Granite Worthing, LC. in the amount of $12,535.00 for funding of the re-design of Worthing Park. 1. SERVICE AUTHORIZATION NO. 07-05.1/AECOM: Approve Service Authorization No. 07-05.1 with AECOM in the amount of $12,535.00 for funding of the re-design of Worthing Park; contingent upon approval of the Developer's Agreement. Funding is available from 117-4133-572-68.19 (Recreation Impact Fee FD: Other Improvement/Worthing Park Improvement). 8.G. FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL/FRANKLIN AT DELRAY BEACH: Approve the Final Subdivision Plat for Franklin at Delray Beach, located on the west side of Federal Highway, approximately 320 feet south of S.E. 10th Street and north of the Plaza at Delray. 8.H. MODIFICATION #2 TO SUBGRANT AGREEMENT/NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM: Approve Modification #2 to the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) Subgrant Agreement to extend the contract date to February 4, 2012, pursuant to direction from the Department of Community Affairs. 8_I. FUNDING AGREEMENT/COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA)/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR POSITION: Approve a Funding Agreement with the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) regarding the funding of the Economic Development Director position. 8.J. INITIATION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 2011- 1: Formally initiate Comprehensive Plan amendment 2011-1 pursuant to Section 9.2.1 of the Land Development Regulations. 8.K AGREEMENT/EZLINKS GOLF, INC. /MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE AND LAKEVIEW GOLF COURSE: Approve an Agreement with EZLinks Golf, Inc. to provide the City with Point of Sale computer systems and other services for the Municipal Golf Course and Lakeview Golf Course. 8.L. SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT/KCMCL PINEAPPLE GROVE, LLC: Approve a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with 07/05/2011 KCMCL Pineapple Grove, LLC for the Hyatt Place at Pineapple Grove, to pay $7,500.00.00 of improvements to the intersection of N.E. 1st Avenue and N.E. 1st Street to the City. 8.M. AGREEMENT/DEB PETROLEUM COMPANY, INC.: Approve an Agreement with DEB Petroleum Company, Inc. for provision to the City of an emergency backup supply of diesel and unleaded fuel from the gas station at 380 W. Linton Boulevard as necessary during disaster response activities. 8.N. AGREEMENT/DEB PETROLEUM 2, INC.: Approve an Agreement with DEB Petroleum Company 2, Inc. for provision to the City of an emergency backup supply of diesel and unleaded fuel from the gas station at 2100 W. Linton Boulevard as necessary during disaster response activities. 8.0. REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACTIONS: Accept the actions and decisions made by the Land Development Boards for the period June 22, 2011 through July 1, 2011. 8.P. AWARD OF BIDS AND CONTRACTS: 1. Contract award to All Phase Roofing and Construction in the amount of $16,922.00 for re-roofing of the Fleet Maintenance tire bay roof. Funding is available from 334-3351-591-46.10 (General Construction Fund: Repair & Maintenance ServicesBuilding Maintenance). Mr. Frankel moved to approve the Consent Agenda, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Carney -Yes; Mr. Frankel - Yes; Mrs. Gray -Yes; Mayor McDuffie -Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 9. REGULAR AGENDA: 9.A. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST/MILAGRO CENTER: Consider a conditional use request for Milagro Center to allow the establishment of a child care center to operate within a portion of the existing 7,500 square foot clubhouse facility at the Village at Delray multiple family residential development located at 695 Auburn Avenue. (Quasi-Judicial Hearing) Mayor McDuffie read the City of Delray Beach procedures for aQuasi- Judicial Hearing for this item and all subsequent Quasi-Judicial items. Chevelle D. Nubin, City Clerk, swore in those individuals who wished to give testimony on Item 9.A. and Item 9.B. Mayor McDuffie asked the Commission to disclose their ex parte communications. Mr. Frankel stated he spoke to Cito Beguiristain, received a telephone call this afternoon from Attorney Michael Weiner, spoke with Brian Hinners, he has been 4 07/05/2011 to the Grand Opening and has spoke to other people from the Auburn Group about this project. Mrs. Gray stated she received a telephone call from Attorney Michael Weiner, spoke to Brian Shutt, City Attorney, and was present at the Opening of the Milagro Center. Mayor McDuffie stated he received a telephone call from Attorney Michael Weiner, visited the site numerous times, attended a number of ribbon cuttings and events there, spoke with some of the Board members on the Milagro Center, and has spoke to several people about the project. Mr. Carney stated he received a telephone call from Attorney Michael Weiner but did not talk with him. Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning, entered the Planning and Zoning Department project file #2011-128 into the record. Mr. Dorling stated this is a conditional use request to establish a private child care facility known as Milagro Center which will occupy a portion of a 7,500 square foot clubhouse of the Village at Delray multiple-family residential development. Mr. Dorling stated child care facilities are allowed as a conditional use in this zoning district. The Milagro Center intends to operate after school from 2:15 to 6:00 p.m. Monday-Friday and will also serve children from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on non-school days including the summer months Monday-Friday. The child care center will occupy the residential amenities initially approved by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board within the clubhouse for Village at Delray. These include the multiple purpose area and large kitchen and cafe area, outside play areas around the pool and support pool facilities like restrooms. All of these enhanced recreational components were provided for the residents to justify the increase in density to 18 units per acre for this development. The applicant has attempted to mitigate the losses in internal recreational components but at a much reduced level Mr. Dorling stated the clubhouse amenities originally approved at 2,517 square feet now reduced to 529 square feet (79% reduction in size). He stated there are also some issues as it relates to LDR amendments for child care centers and one of those issues is a drop-off area that needs to be provided. Mr. Dorling stated these amenities were provided for the residential component and now are being taken over by the Milagro Center in this proposal. At the meeting of June 20, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing in conjunction with the conditional use request for the Milagro Center. While the Planning and Zoning Board was concerned over the utilization of community recreational amenities by a private entity, the applicant's attorney indicated the facility would continue to be available for residents when the Milagro Center was not open. With that assurance and after lengthy discussion, the Board moved a recommendation of approval of the conditional use request for the Milagro Center with a vote of 4 to 2. With the applicant's assurance of additional residential access to the facility addressed part of staff's concerns, these facilities will not be available for the residents for significant periods particularly during the high use months in the summer. Staff recommends that the Commission not approve this because they believe it is not appropriate to the degree that they are absorbing recreation components. Mr. Dorling stated if the Commission decides to approve this that it be done subject to the six (6) conditions listed on page two of the memo. Staff is also skeptical that the facilities once set up with office equipment, 5 07/05/2011 child care play areas, and other activity areas associated with the Milagro Center; actually will be open to the residential community given legitimate safety and security concerns. Staff recommends denial of the conditional use request. Michael Weiner, Attorney with Weiner & Lynne, P.A., 10 S.E. 1St Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444, stated since the Planning and Zoning Board approval Milagro curtailed its operations and its willingness to decrease the size of its program so that they will meet staff's concern. Mr. Weiner stated the Milagro Center is a 501(C)(3) non-profit organization whose mission is to enrich children's lives through cultural arts, academic support, and living values. He stated they were established in 1997 and for nine months during the school year children from kindergarten through 5th grade will be served at this new facility and after school from 2:15-6:00 p.m. Mr. Weiner stated the children typically arrive between 2:15 and 3:45 from their respective schools and then the children are picked up by their parents between 4:00-6:00 p.m. He stated since many of the children are in walking distance of this new facility they expect a significant amount of children will be walked back to their home. Mr. Weiner stated a substantial portion of these students will be living in the Village at Delray with their parents. Approximately one-quarter of the students will be living in the Village at Delray and more than half the students will be walking from the surrounding area to this facility. He stated from 6:00- 9:00 p.m. Monday-Friday there will be a program for teens and noted that no more than 43 students will use the facility at any one time. Mr. Weiner stated during the summer months there will be a program for children that will last from 8:00-6:00 p.m. five nights a week (no weekends) and will also be limited to 43 children; drop off times begin at 8:00 a.m. and lasts until 10:00 a.m. and pick up starts at 4:00 p.m. and lasts until 6:00 p.m. Mr. Weiner stated approximately 650 square feet is going to be used exclusively for the Milagro Center. He stated the shared area may be used by any resident (except for the limited times) and other programs such as the TED Center, Boys & Girls Clubs, and other kinds of programs will be conducted in that area. On the weekends should a resident desire to do so the facility will be open for activity such as birthday parties and the like. There will be no more than five full-time staff members at Milagro. Mr. Weiner stated the individual families that the Milagro Center assists are from all the surrounding local neighborhoods and will not open until complete licensing by the Health Department. He stated the remaining area for outdoor activity that is available to the residents includes two tot lots. Mr. Weiner stated this is almost two acres of open space and Milagro is using less than 3% of the open area. He made reference to LDR Section 3.1.1 and stated they are consistent with the Future Land Map, all concurrency is met, consistency with the LDRs is met, LDR Section 2.4.5(E) is met, and they are in line with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated they meet LDR Section 4.3.3(E) which deals with child care facilities and they meet the requirements for child care facilities under the City's land development regulations. Ellen Okrent, 340 S.W. 6th Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444 (Executive Director at the Mila~ro Center), verified that everything Mr. Weiner said this evening is true and believes a piece of what the Commission is missing is the vision that Auburn Development has provided for this community in that it is allowing them the opportunity to open this center for the community on behalf of the families that live in the 6 07/05/2011 local neighborhood. Ms. Okrent stated the Milagro Center is benefiting the city and she urged the Commission to consider the conditional use request. Brian Hinners, Auburn Group and Board member of the Milagro Center, stated he believes in the vision of the Milagro Center and affirms everything that Mr. Weiner has discussed this evening. Mr. Hinners stated this will be a great enhancement to the neighborhood, the community and for the children of the Village of Delray. Mayor McDuffie stated if anyone from the public would like to speak in favor or in opposition of the conditional use request for the Milagro Center, to please come forward at this time. Carolyn Fazio, 1035 South Federal Highway, #217, Delray Beach, FL, (resident, business owner, parent of five, a grandparent of seven, and a Milagro Center volunteer), stated providing a new physical environment will do a lot to help the children and the staff. Ms. Fazio stated the parents of the children are very involved in this and the Milagro Center helps these children academically, socially, morally, and ethically. She stated this new center gives them the opportunity to have a space and to share a space with the community and to learn even more what it means to be from Delray Beach. Ted Steiger, 263 N.E. 12th Street, Delray Beach, FL (mailing address: 702 S.W. 34th Avenue, Boynton Beach, FL 33425), stated his wife is heavily involved with the Milagro Center and stated it adds to the value of the community. Mr. Steiger stated he is also involved with the Autistic and Children Needs Foundation and is overwhelmed by the potential location where they might carry on their school practices. He urged the Commission to consider this. Laulenson Bracledor-Jason, 825 S.W. 6th Avenue, Delray Beach, FL, volunteers at the Milagro Center and stated he has learned many life skills there. He stated they need more space and urged the Commission to support. Jason Exantis, (address unknown) attends the Milagro Center, stated the Milagro Center has changed his life and stated this will give them more space. Maureen Turner, 1012 Del Harbour Drive, Delray Beach, FL 33483, stated she had the opportunity to visit the Milagro Center and noted that the children are getting a lot of attention and support. Ms. Turner stated their families are very involved and supports going forward with this project. Marie Lou (address unknown) thanked the Milagro Center for taking care of her children and stated they have learned a lot at the Afterschool Program. She stated her nephew has a learning disability and the Milagro Center has found him many resources. She stated the Milagro Center has changed the future for so many children. 7 07/05/2011 Deborah Wilson, 217 S.W. 6th Avenue, Delrav Beach, FL 33444, stated her son used to attend the Community Center and now attends the Milagro Center. She stated her son is hyper and the Milagro Center is like a "mom and dad" to her son. Ms. Wilson stated it teaches the kids to have respect for themselves and others. She urged the Commission to consider the new center. Anna Lee (address unknown) stated it will be good to have the new center because the Milagro Center needs more space. Kendra Williams, 416 River Road, West Palm Beach, FL, employee at the Milagro Center and stated she is excited about the possibility over moving into a new space. Ms. Williams stated they have so many artistic projects in the center but currently they do not have room. She stated the Milagro Center is a great asset to the community. Grace Greenberg, Delrav Beach resident (High Point), 5078 Lakefront Boulevard #A, Delrav Beach, FL 33484, stated from a business perspective she feels the Milagro Center represents Delray Beach and would put us on the map in a positive tone with other municipalities to say we care about our people and that we want them to have the best facility possible. Drew Tucker, George Bush Boulevard, Delrav Beach (Board member at the Milagro Center), stated there is a lot of talk about the economy and what we can do to make it better. Mr. Tucker stated we can invest in things that are going to really make a difference such as the Milagro Center. He stated there are so many challenges in education and feels these kids are going to make a difference not only just in the lives of this community but in the lives of everyone in this nation as well. There being no one else from the public who wished to address the Commission regarding the conditional use request, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Dorling gave the following rebuttal: Mr. Dorling stated he does not doubt that the Milagro Center has a great program and does great work. However, Mr. Dorling stated it comes down to the fairness to the residents of Village of Delray who were given assertion that they would have some recreation amenities available to them and in this case they are being utilized by a very needy group but not for the residents that they were originally proposed for. Mr. Dorling stated the pool function is not part of the outside recreation that has been promised or is it part of this conditional use. Mr. Dorling stated the applicant's attorney talks about only 3% of the open space but you could also use it as one-third of the outside recreation tot lot space for the entire community. Mr. Dorling stated the applicant also did indicate that he does meet and is in compliance with LDR 3.1.1 and staff acknowledges in the staff report that he is in fact not compliant with that LDR. Mr. Dorling stated there is an analogy made between community outclasses and a private child care facility. He stated there is a big difference between the two and noted that one is appropriate in the clubhouse for residents and one is not. Lastly, Mr. Dorling stated there was a chart that 8 07/05/2011 talked about this community and compared it to other communities and amenity packages. He stated this one has more because they are required to have more to get 18 units to the acre versus 12. NIr. Weiner stated with respect to the Land Development Regulations this clubhouse is more than 7,000 square feet and is the size of two good size houses. He stated they are providing an additional amenity that will assist the community as well as the outside neighboring area. He stated they are providing an additional amenity that will assist the community as well as the outside neighboring area and therefore they are not taking anything away but they are adding to it. NIr. Weiner stated the staff report states that LDR Section 2.4.5(E) was met and that they could not find anything for the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Weiner stated the only issue was the concurrency issue which they have gotten solved and they now have their Traffic concurrency letter. Mr. Weiner stated he has demonstrated substantial competent evidence with respect to the issues on conditional use and urged the Commission to vote for the conditional use tonight for the Milagro Center as a child care center at this particular facility. NIr. Carney commented on the original approved site plan and stated it was with that site plan that the increase in density was going to be measured and the approval given for this particular space to have the amenities for the community. He stated this is not a referendum on how valuable he thinks the Milagro Center is which he feels is incredibly valuable. NIr. Carney commented about the statistics and stated only 25% of the children which will be utilizing the facility come from the community so in fact 75% of these amenities are being provided to people outside the community. NIr. Carney stated the issue is the site plan was approved and density was increased because of the promise to provide these amenities to this community. NIr. Weiner stated no one at the time of this approval said you needed an exact number of square feet and the City Commission's grant of approval for increased density was based on various conditions and this was a specific condition but without numbers. NIr. Weiner stated they exceeded by so much that had they only built a 2,100 square foot clubhouse they still would have been given their density and granted it because that is still far in excess of what other similar projects are granted at densities and at unit counts similar to this one tonight. NIr. Weiner stated the reason there are 21 spaces on the other side of that particular gate and the reason that the clubhouse is two mid-size houses is because they knew that they would have to give more amenities than any other place so by decreasing it for some shared use they do not fall below that standard. Mr. Dorling stated when the site plan was provided the Commission was given a picture that said you are going to get a 7,000 square foot clubhouse, these tot lots, and a pool. NIr. Dorling stated there were some amenities that were shown without those parameters which the Commission was given. NIr. Carney asked if staff believes there is a material decrease in the amenities being provided to the community as a result of this facility. Mr. Dorling stated he believes there is a significant diminishment of interior recreation opportunities for these residents with this set up. Mrs. Gray stated she loves the Milagro Center and the Village at Delray but she has not heard from any residents on how they feel about some of their amenities 9 07/05/2011 being taken from them. She stated the residents in this community will not be able to use the clubhouse or the amenities until after 6:00 p.m. Mrs. Gray asked if there is a way to cut down on the clubhouse and allow more amenities for the residents that are living there and asked if there is some type of compromise. Mr. Weiner stated the Milagro Center is an amenity to those people who are moving into this particular apartment complex and under the circumstances for utilization of the interior clubhouse no one comes in to watch television at 9:00 a.m. and then leaves at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Weiner stated clubhouses are often underutilized in any particular project more for the purposes of first being seen but then not being used. Mr. Frankel stated the Auburn Group has lived up to their promises. He stated the Milagro Center that the Commission toured and showed to the Lieutenant Governor of the State of Florida that it is being occupied by Milagro is a first class facility. Mr. Frankel expressed concern over the space for the residents and stated as an example if he is moving into this community, he would not want his area being occupied by a group. Mr. Frankel stated if he wants to use the clubhouse or a recreation area he does not want to be excluded. Mr. Frankel supports the applicant and stated they have done everything to help the community. Mayor McDuffie made reference to the Planning and Zoning staff report and stated their motion included those six and an additional requirement that the facility be open for the residents when the Milagro Center was closed and is identified and offered by the applicant's attorney at that meeting. Mr. Dorling stated this was the staff conditions and then through that discussion that additional one was added to that motion. Mayor McDuffie stated of the seven conditions is there anything that the applicant has not met. Mr. Dorling stated of the seven conditions the applicant has not resolved condition #1, he has not seen condition #2, they have reduced the maximum students to 43 because they did not have enough play area to meet the Health Department's requirement; staff has not received condition #4-6 nor a confirmation of condition #7 that the facility would be available for the residents of the community when the Milagro Center was not open. Mayor McDuffie asked if there is anything in the conditions that the applicant cannot provide. Mr. Weiner stated the applicant can provide all seven conditions. Mayor McDuffie stated the people who rent at the Village at Delray are due the facilities that they have been promised. Brief discussion continued by the Commission. Mrs. Gray asked if the applicant would work more with the residents to try to get more space. Mr. Hinners stated the intent all along is that they would be working with other non-profits in the community to provide activities for the kids, recreational and sports programs, etc. and the sharing of the space was something that they always envisioned. Mr. Hinners stated the TED Center approached them and asked if they could do some adult education. He stated they are planning to do numerous programs. The City Attorney briefly reviewed the Board Order with the Commission who made findings according to their consensus (attached hereto is a copy and made an 10 07/05/2011 official part of the minutes). Mr. Carney moved to adopt the Board Order (approving the conditional use application) subject to the seven (7) conditions listed on Exhibit "A", seconded by Mr. Frankel. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Frankel -Yes; Mrs. Gray -Yes; Mayor McDuffie -Yes; Mr. Carney -Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. At this point, the time being 7:24 p.m., the Commission moved to the duly advertised Public Hearings portion of the Agenda. 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 10.A. ORDINANCE NO. 22-11 (FIRST READING/FIRST PUBLIC HEARING): City-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 4.6.9, "Off Street Parking Regulations", Subsection 4.6.9(C), "Number of Parking Spaces Required", and Appendix "A", "Definitions", by adding the definition of call centers and providing for specific parking requirements for call centers. If passed, a second public hearing will be held on July 19, 2011. The caption of Ordinance No. 22-11 is as follows: office.) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, BY AMENDING SECTION 4.6.9, "OFF-STREET PARKING REGULATIONS", SUBSECTION 4.6.9(C), "NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED", PARAGRAPH (4), "REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFICE USES"; AND BY AMENDING APPENDIX A, "DEFINITIONS", BY ADDING THE DEFINITION OF CALL CENTERS; TO DEFINE AND PROVIDE FOR SPECIFIC PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR CALL CENTERS; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 22-11 is on file in the City Clerk's The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. A public hearing was held having been legally advertised in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida and the Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida. 11 07/05/2011 Paul Dorling AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning, stated this is a city- initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) that will introduce the new definition for a call center use and to provide a specific parking requirement for the use. Mr. Dorling stated the Call Centers are currently included in a General Office category and subject to inadequate parking requirements. The Call Centers are defined as a central business office for purposes of making and receiving large number of telephone calls, for purposes of customer support, information inquiries, product services, etc. Such uses are known to house an increased number of employees in smaller office spaces (cubicles) than more typical office uses. Therefore, there is an increased need for parking. The parking requirement is increased based upon an anticipated a number of supervisors (2 per 1,000 square feet) and, more importantly, on the number of work stations. Avery similar approach has been taken with amendments to the LDRs for the use of Personal Service Provider (Beauty Salons, Spas, etc.) in excess of 5,000 square feet. At its meeting of June 1, 2011, the Pineapple Grove Main Street (PGMS) Committee reviewed and recommended approval; at its meeting of June 9, 2011, the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) reviewed and recommended approval; at its meeting of June 13, 2011, the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) reviewed and recommended approval; at its meeting of June 14, 2011, the West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition (WARC) reviewed and recommended approval; at its meeting of June 20, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed and recommended approval. Staff recommends approval. Mayor McDuffie declared the public hearing open. There being no one from the public who wished to address the Commission regarding Ordinance No. 22-11, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Frankel moved to approve Ordinance No. 22-11 on First Reading/First Public Hearing, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Gray -Yes; Mayor McDuffie -Yes; Mr. Carney -Yes; Mr. Frankel - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 10.B. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT/CDS DELRAY REDEVELOPMENT, LLC/CDR ATLANTIC PLAZA, LTD.: Consider approval of a Development Agreement with CDS Delray Redevelopment, LLC. and CDR Atlantic Plaza, LTD. regarding the Atlantic Plaza Project. Brian Shutt, City Attorney, stated this is a Developer's Agreement regarding the Atlantic Plaza project. Mr. Shutt stated pursuant to Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes, municipalities to enter into agreements with developers and the intent is that on larger projects where there are certain timelines in the LDRs and the project may not be completed within those timeframes so the Florida legislature has said that they will allow the City to lock in the development approval at this period of time for a certain period of time in order to allow the project to go forward without the developer having to worry about the plans changing or not getting an approval or extension at a later date. 12 07/05/2011 Mr. Shutt stated when staff first started working with the developer regarding the development agreement the Statute provided for a term of up to 20 years and the Statute has now been changed to allow for a term of up to 30 years. The agreement that is in front of the Commission now provides for a term of up to 10 years to allow the project to vest. In numerous meetings that City staff has had with the developer, Mr. Shutt expressed concern over the length of time (10 years). Mr. Shutt stated a couple of other issues that staff has talked about with developer is an assignment provision and the possible termination where if the City has an issue with the developer, however, if a portion of the agreement has been assigned to someone else, the City may terminate a portion of the agreement but not the whole agreement. Mr. Shutt stated Planning and Zoning, Community Improvement, and Environmental Services has been involved in all of the meetings as well. Jeffrey Lynne, Weiner & Lynne, 10 S.E. 1St Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444, stated Chapter 163 Florida Statutes creates the local government development agreement act and requires that there be two public hearings the second public hearing being July 19, 201 L Mr. Lynne concurs with staff and stated the agreement is a collaborative effort for more than a year. Mayor McDuffie declared the public hearing open. There being no one else from the public who wished to address the Commission regarding the Developer's Agreement, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Carney expressed concern over the assignment provision in that we are banking on the current developer to do what he says he is going to do. Mr. Lynne stated this is why there is language in the agreement stating "The developer may assign this agreement to any association that will be the property owner's association or to a lender as collateral without maintaining the 20% interest. Upon assignment, the original developer is released from all obligations and may default of an assigned party shall not be considered a default of the original developer." continued. Brief discussion between Commissioner Carney, Mr. Lynne and Mr. Shutt Mrs. Gray asked if there is any other way around this. The City Attorney stated he still has concerns but he is not aware of a way to get around those concerns. The City Attorney suggested that the Commission approve this to move it to the July 19, 2011 City Commission meeting and stated there will be another public hearing so this will not be approved until the Commission approves this at the public hearing on July 19, 2011 in the City Commission Chambers starting at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Frankel moved to approve to move this item to the regular meeting on July 19, 2011 in the City Commission Chambers at 7:00 p.m. seconded by Mr. Carney. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor McDuffie -Yes; Mr. Carney - Yes; Mr. Frankel -Yes; Mrs. Gray -Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 13 07/05/2011 At this point, the time being 7:49 p.m., the Commission moved to Item 11, Comments and Inquiries on Non-Agenda Items from the City Manager and the Public. ll.A. City Manager's response to prior public comments and inquiries. At the June 21, 2011 meeting, the City Manager stated Marie Hanna came and expressed concern over a number of issues relating to Rainberry Woods. The City Manager stated regarding police issues Officer Rusczyk is assigned full-time to the Rainberry Woods community and this community is one of six within the City that has a designated full-time police officer from the Problem Oriented Policing Unit dedicated exclusively to problem solving and community policing efforts and initiatives. He stated this neighborhood receives a focused and heightened level of comprehensive police services. Regarding the issues raised regarding abandoned homes Officer Rusczyk stated that all homes that are in foreclosure, and abandoned/ unoccupied are boarded up. Office Rusczyk works closely with Code Enforcement Officer William Brown to make sure these homes are properly monitored and properly secured. It should be noted that many of the foreclosures within the community are currently occupied. With regard to illegal drug use and gang parties, there is zero tolerance for criminal activity and any criminal activity that is observed or investigated is documented and arrests are made if applicable. In the past, Officer Rusczyk has worked with Detective Chinque (Police Department Gang Specialist) in addressing gang related graffiti and activity within the community. This was well over one year when he was initially assigned to Rainberry Woods. Detective Chinque stated there are currently no known gang members residing in the community nor is he aware of any gang activity and Officer Rusczyk concurred. With regard to lighting, the City Manager stated the lighting survey for the community was previously completed in 2010 by the Problem Oriented Policing Unit and this survey was forwarded to Engineering for review and action if applicable. Officer Rusczyk works closely with the Rainberry Woods Homeowners' Association and attends all their meetings and there is an open line of communication between the residents and the officer. Also included in this partnership is Jennifer Costello, Neighborhood Planner/Community Improvement. Officer Rusczyk is scheduled and coordinated multiple community cleanups in an effort to beautify the neighborhood and build community support and bonding. The City Manager stated he has also personally contacted banks that hold title on foreclosed properties within the community in an effort to address conditions at these locations. He has additionally coordinated various youth activities including a recent football clinic for the kids that reside in Rainberry Woods. The community has seen a 25% reduction in crime since his assignment there in January 2010. With regard to foreclosed homes, the City Manager stated the City has purchased two foreclosed bank owned homes in the Rainberry Woods subdivision under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. One has been sold with the closing pending. NSP funding is restricted to acquisition, rehabilitation and resale of the units only per Federal guidelines. The City would have to use another source of funds to acquire and convert a unit in this subdivision as a substation. With regard to a board up of existing units, the City Manager stated staff has secured 12 vacant units over the past 3 months; two of these units have required the City to go back and re-secure several times and secure the services of a professional company on these two units. Based on staff s work with the 14 07/05/2011 Police Department, they believe that adequate attention and resources have been made available to address this issue. In addition, staff volunteers for scheduled cleanups coordinated by the Neighborhood Planner in partnership with the Police Department. These initiatives are designed to address urgent and obvious nuisances that affect residents' quality of life. The City Manager stated the City was unable to complete Phase III of the Rainberry Woods Neighborhood Action Plan that included demolition of the racquetball courts and some minor drainage issues because funding has not been available since 2008. Street resurfacing is based on the City's rating lists and those rated below the established threshold have been resurfaced. The City Manager stated the project referenced the Strategic Task Team Neighborhood Improvement Plan with the funding that was available through this program the following infrastructure improvements were completed: pavement narrowing, two speed tables, and one round-a-bout; this construction includes roadway reconstruction, paver bricks, sodded swales, driveway apron replacement, pavement markings and traffic signage, asphalt pavement, concrete sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and associated miscellaneous improvements. Funding has not been available for the past several years. In addition to the Strategic Task Team Program the following streets were resurfaced under the Annual Street Resurfacing Program: N.W. 49th Avenue, N.W. 6tn Court, N.W. 6th Street, and N.W. 47th Avenue. The City Manager stated Amanda Wallace came before the Commission requesting a waiver of the conditional use fees for a Large Family Day Care. The Planning Director wrote Ms. Wallace a letter setting forth the requirements of the Land Development Regulations regarding fee exceptions. For your child care home to be considered for a fee exception, the LDRs require your business to be anon-profit organization currently receiving a portion of your annual operating budget from the United Way and/or the City and requires your business to have a 501(C)(3) designation. The City Manager stated Mr. Dorling indicated that while the Florida Family Child Care Home Association is a 501(C)(3), Ms. Wallace's for-profit business does not appear to meet either of the required criteria above. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.3(K)(8)(b) any official request for relief should be addressed to the City Manager for consideration. The City Manager stated he has never received any formal request; however, stated the City Code does not provide for fee exceptions for afor-profit business. 11.B. From the Public. 11.B.1. Pastor Howard Barr, St. Paul Missionary Baptist Church, 46 S.W. 1~~ enue, Delray Beach, FL 33444, expressed concern over a letter that was sent to the Commission first verbally and then written by email Mr. Barr stated the letter dated May 12, 2011 from the City Manager stated that the concerns and issues whether large or small were allotted 15 minutes of the Commission's time at a Workshop. Pastor Barr stated he is very displeased that after taking their time to vote, pay taxes, and to assist this community that they are only allowed 15 minutes to be heard. 11.B.2. Marcia Beam, Priest at St. Matthew's Episcopal Church, 404 S.W. 3''d Street, Delrav Beach, FL 33444, stated she was born and raised in Delray Beach and 15 07/05/2011 feels the concerns of every person should be heard. Reverend Beam commented about racism and stated although the City is doing some great things it is important that every voice be heard. 11.B.3. Kyle Gibson, 1418 57th Court, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Pastor at African Methodist Enisconal Church located in Liberty City (sneaking on behalf of T.R. Francisco), stated far too long this community has been overlooked without the input of the people that live in the community and feel they are being ignored. 11.B.4. David Randolph, 105 N.W. 11th Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444, stated the last time he was before the Commission he expressed concerns regarding his address and the community in which he resides. Mr. Randolph stated at that time he offered an invitation for everyone to visit him at that address to see some of the things that were happening on his street and to this date he has not received the courtesy of a telephone call about what he was concerned about. He stated the Chief of Police did come out to his home regarding the situation for two days; however, he received no contact from the City Commission. Mr. Randolph urged the City Commission to work with him and others. 11.B.5. Chuck Ridley, 210 N.W. 2°a Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444, speaking on behalf of the Village Council, local clergy, and community stakeholders expressed his disappointment in this Commission's unwillingness to engage in an honest discussion regarding important issues in the community. Mr. Ridley stated the Commission directed staff to schedule an informal meeting with the Village Elders on May 12, 2011. He stated there is a lot of work to do to repair the relationships between the west Delray Beach community and public entities charged with representing the community's interest. Mr. Ridley stated the initial correspondence of the Village Elders was that they would like to meet with the City Commission to discuss community issues and concerns such as increasing community input and involvement in critical decisions impacting the northwest and southwest community, educating residents about major issues impacting them, developing affordable and quality family and senior rental opportunities. He asked the Commission to waive a decision to have a single subject Workshop similar to the way Milagro Center asked the Commission to waive an ordinance this evening. Mr. Ridley stated for years they have felt neglected and he urged the Commission to not lose their credibility within this community. 11.B.6. Dr. Josh Smith, 3616 Avenue De Gien, Delray Beach, FL 33445, stated their ethnic group may not necessarily show up in representative numbers at the polls and believes this is a significant factor with regard to whether the Commission addresses their concerns or whether they have the desire or information to address their concerns. Dr. Smith stated he and others pay taxes and feel that they have a constitutional right to be represented by the City Commission. He stated the fact that the Commission would deny them the right to express their concerns in a Workshop with regard to the development of West Atlantic Avenue is an indication that the Commission does not represent them. Dr. Smith stated they are not listened to and are mostly summarily dismissed and feels they 16 07/05/2011 are victims of taxation without representation which is a violation of their constitutional rights. 11.B.7. Dedrick Straghn, 26 S.W. 5t'' Avenue, Delrav Beach, FL 33444, stated for several years he has been actively involved in the community discussions and activities as it relates to the perception of this Commission as it relates to the African- American community. Mr. Straghn stated members of the Commission and including the City Attorney have worked to systematically silence the concerns of the black community. Mr. Straghn asked the Commission for civility, to be heard, and to act on their civil rights. He urged the Commission to show them the same level of respect that they are asking them to show and that they have watched them show the other communities throughout this city. 11.B.8. Dr. Richard Halford, 13548 Sabal Palm Court, Delrav Beach, FL, stated we all need each other and we have to do our best to act like a total community. At this point, the time being 8:22 p.m., the Commission took a short break. The Commission reconvened at 8:28 p.m. and moved to Item 9.B. of the Regular Agenda. 9.B. WAIVER REQUESTSBURGERFI RESTAURANT: Consider waiver requests to Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 4.6.7(J)(3), "Roof Signs", to allow a sign to be placed above the roofline and Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 4.6.7(E)(7), "Design Standards Matrix", to allow a sign to be placed on an elevation that does not face a dedicated street frontage for BurgerFi Restaurant located at 6 South Ocean Blvd. (Quasi-Judicial Hearing) Chevelle D. Nubin, City Clerk, swore in those individuals who wished to give testimony on this item. Mayor McDuffie asked the Commission to disclose their ex parte communications. Mr. Frankel stated he received an email dated July 4, 2011 from Fran Marincola, an email dated July 4, 2011 from Mike Ferrier on behalf of the New Monmouth Condominium Association, and this afternoon he received a telephone call from Attorney Michael Weiner. Mrs. Gray stated she received emails, a telephone call from Attorney Michael Weiner, and emails from Fran Marincola. Mayor McDuffie stated he had a conversation with Michael Weiner, and emails from Fran Marincola. Mr. Carney stated he received emails from Fran Marincola and Mike Ferrier. Mr. Carney stated he also attended the last Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB) meeting where this was the agenda item to listen to all the presentations and stated he had a brief conversation with the architect which included this subject and ten others, and received a telephone call from Attorney Michael Weiner. Mayor McDuffie stated if anyone from the public would like to speak in favor or in opposition of the waiver requests, to please come forward at this time. There being no one from the public who wished to address the Commission regarding the waiver requests, the public hearing was closed. 17 07/05/2011 Lula Butler, Director of Community Improvement, stated this is consideration of a waiver request of LDR Section 4.6.7(J)(3) to allow a sign to be placed above the roofline and LDR Section 4.6.7(E)(7) to allow a sign to be placed on an elevation that does not face a dedicated street frontage for BurgerFi Restaurant located at 6 South Ocean Boulevard. Mrs. Butler stated on June 22, 2011, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board reviewed the waiver request for three signs. She stated the first sign has already been erected because it does not require waiving that Code. Mrs. Butler stated the applicant asked for two flat wall signs and one projecting sign for this business. She stated the projecting sign is on the east elevation and is proposed on a small wall parapet above the roofline. Mrs. Butler stated under the City's Code LDR Section 4.6.7(J)(3) Prohibited Signs include Roof Signs, which are defined as a sign erected on the roof, or above the roofline or on the parapet. Staff believes that the projecting sign can easily meet the Code by lowering the sign on the wall and still have the same visual affect. The sign will be illuminated and staff believes that they can easily come into compliance on this sign. Mrs. Butler stated the second sign is the waiver to LDR Section 4.6.7(H)(7) Sign Matrix states that a flat wall sign is allowed one per business facing each dedicated street frontage. Mrs. Butler stated we define the dedicated street frontage as a lot that has a boundary adjoining a street. Mrs. Butler stated in this proposal, the agent is asking for a sign to be on this particular elevation and this particular business is not on a dedicated street but is actually an interior lot along A-1-A because there is a building behind it. At its meeting of June 22, 2011, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB) recommended that both signs to be considered for a waiver request. The Board believes that the projecting sign is tastefully designed and has no major impact. SPRAB asked that the applicant lower the sign so the top of the sign would align with the mesh fence on the top roof. The applicant submitted revised plans in compliance with SPRAB's recommendation. Mrs. Butler stated Section 2.4.7(B) of the LDRs allows the City Commission to grant waivers to this Section of the code governing signs after making findings that the granting of the waiver. (1) shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; (2) shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; (3) shall not create an unsafe situation; and (4) does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant. Mrs. Butler stated although SPRAB's recommendation is to approve both signs for waiver staff recommends that the Commission deny both signs for waiver requests because on the projecting sign the applicant can easily come into compliance and still have his projecting sign and that the other sign would be a privilege that would not necessarily be available to other applicants asking for the same waiver. Michael Weiner, Attorney with Weiner & Lynne, P.A., 10 S.E. 1St Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444 (speaking on behalf of the applicant), stated they have had discussions with staff and noted they are lowering one sign that resulted in the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB) to recommend in favor of these two signs. Mr. Weiner stated the signs will be located on A-1-A and Atlantic Avenue. Mr. Weiner stated they meet all the Sign Code regulations except for the two waivers which they are allowed to ask for under the standards that are set forth. He briefly discussed the 18 07/05/2011 waiver for the wall sign and made reference to Section 4.6.7 (Design Matrix Standard) and noted that it states that you are allowed "one facing each dedicated street frontage." He stated they meet the requirements of the waiver code. NIr. Weiner briefly reviewed the requirements and noted they meet all these requirements of LDR Section 2.4.7(B) for the waiver. NIr. Weiner stated the sign has been lowered to where it has been visually attractive and to the lowest possible point. He stated they made a better building and better signage and urged the Commission to support. Mayor McDuffie stated if anyone from the public would like to speak in favor or in opposition of the waiver requests for BurgerFi Restaurant, to please come forward at this time. Fran Marincola, owner of Cafe Luna Rosa, stated the sign does impinge on the residents and wants the sign below the roofline. Mr. Marincola stated the Beach Master Plan is being ignored and although the projection sign is tasteful but feels the north sign should be moved and the other sign should be moved down below the roofline as like Cafe Luna Rosa sign and Boston's sign. Andy Katz, 220 South Ocean Boulevard, Delray Beach, FL 33483 Representing the Beach Property Owners' Association BPOA), commented about the north facing sign and stated the Beach Master Plan that the BPOA worked with staff on and was passed by the City Commission stressed the elimination of sign clutter. Mr. Katz stated expressed concern over the sign clutter that is being proposed on the west side of A-1-A. He stated these three signs will be butting up against one another and it is not only visible from Atlantic Avenue but it is going to be visible for several hundred yards on the east sidewalk of A-1-A for anyone using that sidewalk heading southbound. NIr. Katz stated the BPOA feels this sets a bad precedent. He urged the applicant to be respectful of the neighborhood in the sense of community and stated the sign will not enhance the look of A-1-A but it will instead distract and be visible for a large distance away from the corner. Therefore, Mr. Katz stated the BPOA supports City staff and urged the Commission to reject this particular sign. Alice Finst, 707 Place Tavant, Delrav Beach, FL 33445, commented about the parapet and feels it serves no purpose except that it blocks the view of the people looking out from their porch. Mrs. Finst stated in all her years of watching SPRAB she does not recall of any sign allowing the advertising of what is inside the building. She commented about the building sign on the north side and stated if the City decides to expand their recreation building it could create a potential problem with the signage. Mrs. Finst suggested that this go back to the drawing board and start over. There being no one else from the public who wished to address the Commission regarding the waiver requests, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Butler gave the following rebuttal: 19 07/05/2011 Mrs. Butler clarified that with regard to NIr. Weiner's comments that this building could have had a flat wall sign along A-1-A at 93 square feet and they chose to do something less than 50 square feet and he alluded to the fact that they were aggregated that total square feet and they can move it around the building. Mrs. Butler stated that is not how we do signage in this city. Mrs. Butler stated the Code says what the maximum size can be and it is based on the percentage of the building frontage. She stated it is tastefully done but he cannot take what he did not use on the east elevation and apply it to the north elevation. Secondly, Mrs. Butler stated businesses such as Old Calypso it is a window sign and window signs do not go to SPRAB. She noted that businesses are allowed to use 20% of their windows for signage (i.e. Carobs & Pepe's). Mrs. Butler stated Old Calypso was probably done on a Master Sign Program and noted that SPRAB does have the authority to grant waivers under a Master Sign Program because the Master Sign Program looks at large developments and gives SPRAB the opportunity to consider the signage that a large development that may not have been anticipated under the City's Code need to get adequate signage. Mrs. Butler stated those only come to the Commission if they appeal SPRAB's decisions (i.e. shopping centers). Mrs. Butler stated the City's LDRs defines a lot frontage and noted it is a lot boundary adjoining a street. She stated just because a building can be seen from the street it is a far stretch to say then that it qualifies as a frontage. Mrs. Butler stated the projecting sign is done tastefully and if it is moved down this will not affect its visibility. Staff received letters from the Monmouth Condominium Association expressing concern over the lighting and it is an impact to them during the evening hours. NIr. Weiner gave the following rebuttal: NIr. Weiner stated Johnnie Brown's also had advertising as to what was available for it and therefore this is not the only sign that advertises wording of what is available. Mrs. Butler concurred that Mr. Weiner is correct with regard to this. He stated they are arguing about facing aright-of--way not about whether they are fronting on a right-of--way. Mr. Weiner stated so the Commission could see their good faith and sensitivity to the neighborhood they reduced signs substantially in each location because it was more important to be seen than it was to have a large glaring sign. Mrs. Butler stated the City is very consistent with interpreting where your front door is and what constitutes what faces a dedicated street right-of--way. She stated you cannot take a building that is an interior building along a street and say just because you see that part of it then it is facing. The City Manager stated just because a neighboring building chooses to be set back that allows an interior lot to put a sign there. The projecting sign can be seen from Atlantic Avenue and if it was mounted on the part that sticks up above the roof all that is north of the awning support so the awning support will not interfere with that sign even if it is lowered to the top line of the roof and the sign will be northward of that bracket that supports the awning. 20 07/05/2011 In his opinion, Mr. Carney stated allowing the north elevation would be granting a special privilege. Mr. Carney stated with regard to the projection sign he did not mind where it was to begin with because it felt it met the objective of being viewed north and south on Atlantic Avenue. Mr. Carney stated facing street frontage does require frontage in terms of the road and allowing the north elevation would be granting a special privilege. He stated the lighting on the projection sign he did not mind where it was to begin with because he thought it met the objective of being viewed north and south on Atlantic Avenue. Mr. Carney stated the bigger sign that he objects to he feels you do not really have to have that sign to see that restaurant when you cross Atlantic Avenue. He stated with regard to the lighting on the projection sign and where it was located, he feels there is nothing that is going to drown out the light coming from the Marriott and that little sign is irrelevant to the condominium. Mr. Carney stated the Beach Master Plan strongly discouraged multiple signs on single buildings. However, Mr. Carney stated he supports SPRAB's recommendation with regard to the projection sign. Mrs. Gray concurs with staff's recommendation. Mr. Frankel briefly spoke about the Delray Beach Master Plan and stated there are too many signs being erected at A-1-A and Atlantic Avenue. Mr. Frankel concurs with staff's recommendation to deny the waivers. Mayor McDuffie concurred with comments expressed by Commissioner Carney. The City Attorney briefly reviewed the Board Order with the Commission who made findings according to their consensus (attached hereto is a copy and made an official part of the minutes). Mr. Carney moved to adopt the Board Order as presented, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Carney -Yes; Mr. Frankel - No; Mrs. Gray -Yes; Mayor McDuffie -Yes. Said motion passed with a 3 to 1 vote, Commissioner Frankel dissenting. 9.C. TRANSFER OF PUBLIC ART BOARD FUNDS/INSTALLATION OF EAGLE SCOUT STATUE: Consider approval to transfer money from the Public Art Board funds to pay for installation of the Eagle Scout Statue at Old School Square Park. Funding is available from 115-1702-579-31.90 (Special Projects Fund: Professional Services/Other Professional Services). Mr. Frankel moved to table, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Frankel -Yes; Mrs. Gray -Yes; Mayor McDuffie - Yes; Mr. Carney -Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 21 07/05/2011 9.D. RECONSIDERATION OF A VOTE FOR A COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD APPOINTMENT: Consider a request to reconsider the vote for an appointment made to the Community Redevelopment Agency Board at the June 21, 2011 Regular Commission Meeting. Mr. Frankel moved to reconsider Commissioner Gray's appointment to the Community Redevelopment Agency Board that was made at the Regular City Commission Meeting of June 21, 2011, seconded by Mr. Carney. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Gray - No; Mayor McDuffie - No; Mr. Carney - No; Mr. Frankel - No. Said motion was DENIED with a 4 to 0 vote. 9.E. APPOINTMENT TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD: Appoint one (1) regular member to the Code Enforcement Board for an unexpired term ending January 14, 2012. Based upon the rotation system, the appointment will be made by Commissioner Frankel (Seat #3). Mr. Frankel moved to reappoint Kurt Lehmann as a regular member to the Code Enforcement Board for an unexpired term ending January 14, 2012, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor McDuffie -Yes; Mr. Carney -Yes; Mr. Frankel -Yes; Mrs. Gray -Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 9.F. APPOINTMENT TO THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY: Appoint one (1) regular member to the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) to serve a three (3) year term ending July 1, 2014. Based upon the rotation system, the appointment will be made by Commissioner Carney (Seat #1). Mr. Carney moved to appoint Ryan Boylston as a regular member to the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) to serve a three (3) year term ending July 1, 2014, seconded by Mr. Frankel. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Carney -Yes; Mr. Frankel -Yes; Mrs. Gray -Yes; Mayor McDuffie -Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 9.G. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN POSTPONED TO REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 19, 2011. 9.H. APPOINTMENT TO THE GREEN IMPLEMENTATION ADVANCEMENT BOARD: Appoint one (1) regular member to the Green Implementation Advancement Board to serve a two (2) year term ending July 31, 2013. Based upon the rotation system, the appointment will be made by Commissioner Carney (Seat #1). Mr. Carney moved to reappoint Jeff Benavides as a regular member to the Green Implementation Advancement Board to serve a two (2) year term ending July 31, 2013, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Frankel -Yes; Mrs. Gray -Yes; Mayor McDuffie -Yes; Mr. Carney -Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 22 07/05/2011 9_I. APPOINTMENTS TO THE EDUCATION BOARD: Appoint three (3) regular members to the Education Board to serve a two (2) year term ending July 31, 2013. Based upon the rotation system, the appointments will be made by Commissioner Fetzer (Seat #2), Commissioner Carney (Seat #1) and Commissioner Fetzer (Seat #2). Due to his absence, Mr. Fetzer's appointment has been deferred to the next regular meeting of July 19, 2011. Mr. Carney moved to reappoint Ora Sorensen as a regular member to the Education Board to serve a two (2) year term ending July 31, 2013, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Gray -Yes; Mayor McDuffie -Yes; Mr. Carney -Yes; Mr. Frankel -Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. Mr. Frankel moved to reconsider the appointment of Ora Sorenson, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor McDuffie -Yes; Mr. Carney -Yes; Mr. Frankel -Yes; Mrs. Gray -Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. Mr. Carney moved to appoint LeaAnne DeRigne as a regular member to the Education Board to serve a two (2) year term ending July 31, 2013, seconded by Mr. Frankel. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Carney -Yes; Mr. Frankel -Yes; Mrs. Gray -Yes; Mayor McDuffie -Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. Due to his absence, Mr. Fetzer's appointment has been deferred to the next regular meeting of July 19, 2011. 9_J. APPOINTMENTS TO THE POLICE ADVISORY BOARD: Appoint one (1) regular member to serve a two (2) year term ending July 31, 2013 and one (1) regular member to serve an unexpired term ending July 31, 2012 to the Police Advisory Board. Based upon the rotation system, the appointments will be made by Commissioner Fetzer (Seat #2) and Commissioner Carney (Seat #1). Due to his absence, Mr. Fetzer's appointment has been deferred to the next regular meeting of July 19, 2011. Mr. Carney stated he would like to defer his appointment to the next regular meeting of July 19, 2011. 9.K APPOINTMENTS TO THE NUISANCE ABATEMENT BOARD: Appoint three (3) regular members and two (2) alternate members to the Nuisance Abatement Board to serve a two (2) year term ending July 31, 2013. Based upon the rotation system, the appointments will be made by Mayor McDuffie (Seat #5), Commissioner Carney (Seat #1), Commissioner Fetzer (Seat #2), Commissioner Frankel (Seat #3) and Commissioner Gray (Seat #4). 23 07/05/2011 Mayor McDuffie stated he wished to reappoint Patricia Conlon as a regular member to the Nuisance Abatement Board to serve a two (2) year term ending July 31, 2013. Mr. Frankel so moved, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Frankel -Yes; Mrs. Gray -Yes; Mayor McDuffie - Yes; Mr. Carney -Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. Mr. Carney moved to appoint Greta Britt as a regular member to the Nuisance Abatement Board to serve a two (2) year term ending July 31, 2013, seconded by Mr. Frankel. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Gray -Yes; Mayor McDuffie -Yes; Mr. Carney -Yes; Mr. Frankel -Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. Due to his absence, Mr. Fetzer's appointment has been deferred to the next regular meeting of July 19, 2011. Mr. Frankel moved to appoint Theresa DiPerna as an alternate member to the Nuisance Abatement Board to serve a two (2) year term ending July 31, 2013, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor McDuffie -Yes; Mr. Carney -Yes; Mr. Frankel -Yes; Mrs. Gray -Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 9.L. APPOINTMENTS TO THE PUBLIC ART ADVISORY BOARD: Appoint three (3) regular members to the Public Art Advisory Board to serve a two (2) year term ending July 31, 2013. Based upon the rotation system, the appointments will be made by Commissioner Carney (Seat #1), Commissioner Fetzer (Seat #2) and Commissioner Frankel (Seat #3). Mr. Carney moved to reappoint Ora Sorensen as a regular member to the Public Art Advisory Board to serve a two (2) year term ending July 31, 2013, seconded by Mr. Frankel. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Carney -Yes; Mr. Frankel -Yes; Mrs. Gray -Yes; Mayor McDuffie -Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. Due to his absence, Mr. Fetzer's appointment has been deferred to the next regular meeting of July 19, 2011. Mr. Frankel moved to reappoint Mary Minieka as a regular member to the Public Art Advisory Board to serve a two (2) year term ending July 31, 2013, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Frankel -Yes; Mrs. Gray -Yes; Mayor McDuffie -Yes; Mr. Carney -Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. At this point, the time being 9:54 p.m., the Commission moved to Item 12, First Readings. 24 07/05/2011 12. FIRST READINGS: 12.A. ORDINANCE NO. 20-11: City-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 4.4.13, "Central Business (CBD) District", Subsection (G), "Supplemental District Regulations", and Section 4.4.24, "Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD)", Subsection (G), `Supplemental District Regulations", to clarify the parking requirements for restaurants. If passed, a public hearing will be held on July 19, 2011. The caption of Ordinance No. 20-11 is as follows: office.) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, BY AMENDING SECTION 4.4.13, "CENTRAL BUSINESS (cBD~ DISTRICT", SUBSECTION (G), "SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS", SECTION 4.4.24, "OLD SCHOOL SQUARE HISTORIC ARTS DISTRICT (OSSHAD)", SUBSECTION (G), `SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS", TO CLARIFY THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR RESTAURANTS; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 20-11 is on file in the City Clerk's The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning, stated this will remove the current parking incentive enjoyed by restaurant uses along Atlantic Avenue from Swinton Avenue to NE/SE Sm Avenue, between the east-west alleys that are located immediately north and south of Atlantic Avenue. Mr. Dorling stated in 1993, the parking requirement for restaurants within the original DDA area was increased to six (6) spaces for each 1,000 square feet. This was half the requirement for restaurants elsewhere in the city, where the requirement was (and remains) at 12 spaces for the first 6,000 square feet and 15 spaces for each 1,000 square feet over 6,000 square feet. This incentive was created to attract restaurant uses into the downtown. This incentive has been extremely successful and we are now experiencing an economically unhealthily saturation of restaurants within certain portions of the downtown area. At its meeting of June 9, 2011, the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), and they had some concern about what they felt was over reaching impact for the entire Central Business District (CBD) and they believe that the scale down version is better. Mr. Dorling stated the CRA was actually at the Planning and Zoning Board 25 07/05/2011 meeting when this recommendation was forwarded to the Commission. He stated they also had discussion about creating and working with staff to incentivize retail and some other uses. At its meeting of June 13, 2011, the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) recommended approval and at its meeting of June 14, 2011 the West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition (WARC) recommended approval. Mayor McDuffie asked Mr. Dorling if there was a change in the CRA position since this was written. Mr. Dorling stated the CRA saw the amendment when it involved the entire CBD area and the Old School Square District. He stated their version actually showed it changing from 6-12 spaces per 1,000 square feet with the exception of West Atlantic which would continue to enjoy the 6 spaces per 1,000 square feet and Pineapple Grove Main Street which would also have 6 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Mr. Dorling stated they thought it was too broad an area and they had a discussion at the Planning and Zoning Board and the Director was asked if this was an area that she felt the Board would be comfortable with she did indicate that was the case. Mr. Frankel stated he will support; however, feels organizations need to come together and commented about the retail spaces going out of business signs. Mr. Carney concurred with comments expressed by Mr. Frankel. Mayor McDuffie stated he will support his tonight; however, he feels the Commission needs a lot more information about what is going on downtown and take a look at all types of businesses in the CBD. Mr. Frankel moved to approve Ordinance No. 20-11 on FIRST Reading, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Gray - Yes; Mayor McDuffie -Yes; Mr. Carney -Yes; Mr. Frankel -Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 12.B. ORDINANCE NO. 21-ll: City-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) to clarify the applicability of the payment of in-lieu of parking program. If passed, a public hearing will beheld on July 19, 2011. The caption of Ordinance No. 21-11 is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, BY AMENDING SECTION 2.4.5, "PROCEDURES FOR OBTAINING DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS", SUBSECTION (O), "IN-LIEU OF PARKING AND PUBLIC PARKING FEE REQUEST", SECTION 4.4.13, "CENTRAL BUSINESS (CBD) DISTRICT", SUBSECTION (G), "SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS", SECTION 4.4.24, "OLD SCHOOL SQUARE HISTORIC ARTS DISTRICT ~ossxaDy~, 26 o~~os~2o11 SUBSECTION (G), "SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS," SECTION 4.4.28, "CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT-RAILROAD CORRIDOR (CBD- RC)", SUBSECTION (G), "SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS", AND SECTION 4.6.9, "OFF-STREET PARKING REGULATIONS", SUBSECTION (E), "LOCATION OF PARKING SPACES", PARAGRAPH (3), "IN-LIEU FEE"; TO CLARIFY THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PAYMENT-IN-LIEU PROGRAM; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. office.) (The official copy of Ordinance No. 21-ll is on file in the City Clerk's The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. Paul Dorling AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning, stated this is a city- initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) to provide additional opportunities for property owners to voluntarily participate in the payment in-lieu of parking program. Mr. Dorling stated currently the option is available for properties within the CBD, CBD-RC, and OSSHAD zoning districts. There are number of qualifications that must be satisfied including that they be in-fill development that has been vacant for more than five years, they involve a change of use, or adding floor space to an existing building. Mr. Dorling stated there are prohibitions to providing the in-lieu option for new development or changes of use which increase floor area that either occurs within two years of granting a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) or for new development. The current LDRs mandate that the City Commission make a finding that it is impossible or inappropriate to provide the required number of on-site or off-street parking spaces, and that no parking spaces are to be eliminated in the case of building additions. The Parking Management Plan dated August 2010 recommends that the parking in-lieu program be expanded to provide property owners the option to voluntarily participate in the in-lieu program, whether or not a hardship exists. This amendment eliminates those current qualifications and eliminates the requirement that the City finds that it is either inappropriate or impossible to provide the required spaces. It will extend this option to new development, use conversions to existing buildings, and building additions or renovations that result in a requirement to provide new parking or additional parking. Additional language is added that the City Commission must find that adequate public parking options are available and that the request is consistent with LDRs, City Comprehensive Plan, and all currently adopted City policies and studies. At its meeting of June 1, 2011, the Pineapple Grove Main Street (PGMS) Committee reviewed and recommended approval; at its meeting of June 9, 2011, the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) reviewed and recommended approval; at its meeting of June 13, 2011, the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) reviewed and recommended approval but that the consideration of the following is made: (1) that 27 07/05/2011 developments that are exclusively residential not be eligible, (2) sufficient public parking is available when considering commercial projects, (3) that adequate components, such as the residential component, of a mixed-use project be addressed separately. At its meeting of June 14, 2011, the West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition (WARC) reviewed and recommended approval; at its meeting of June 20, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed and recommended approval. The City Manager stated this ordinance needs to be looked at and considered very carefully. He expressed concern that maybe it is going too far in liberalizing the availability of in-lieu spaces. Mayor McDuffie stated he would like to know what the inventory is of these spaces. Mr. Frankel moved to approve Ordinance No. 21-11 on FIRST Reading, seconded by Mr. Carney. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor McDuffie -Yes; Mr. Carney -Yes; Mr. Frankel -Yes; Mrs. Gray -Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 12.C. ORDINANCE NO. 23-ll: City-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 2.4.3(K), "Fees", Subsection 2.4.3(K)(1), "Development Applications", to provide for an increase in fees. If passed, a public hearing will be held on July 19, 2011. The caption of Ordinance No. 23-11 is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, BY AMENDING SECTION 2.4.3, "SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS", SUBSECTION 2.4.3(K), "FEES", PARAGRAPH (1), "DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS"; TO MODIFY THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FEES; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 23-11 is on file in the City Clerk's office.) The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning, stated during the process to change the fee schedule in 2003, the City Commission directed staff to process changes as needed every two years. Mr. Dorling stated the last overall fee schedule adjustment was approved by the City Commission on August 4, 2009 by Ordinance No. 33-09. The amendment provides fora 5% increase and some additional fees were added. 28 07/05/2011 He states upon review of the fee schedules for Palm Beach County, the City of Boca Raton, the City of Boynton Beach and the City of West Palm Beach, the City of Delray Beach still remains on the low end of the fee schedules. Staff suggests an increase of 5% is justified. No fee adjustments are proposed for Rezoning and SAD Modification petitions as the current fees are comparative with adjacent municipalities. Also, Mr. Dorling stated significant increases were made to the Beach Overlay Review fee in 2008 and 2009 so no additional fees are proposed in those categories. He stated Class I and Class H site plan fees are significantly lower than those of adjacent municipalities so an additional increase of approximately 10% is suggested as is recommended for the Class V site plan category. At its meeting of June 20, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval with a 6 to 1 vote. Mr. Carney asked how often other municipalities review their fee schedules. Mr. Dorling stated Palm Beach County in the last year increased their fees significantly but is not sure of the interval that they look at things. Brief discussion by the Commission continued about whether there is anything precluding the City from raising fees every year. The City Manager stated the one thing that is restricted is a business license and the fee can only be increased every two years with an increase of only 5% by Statute. Mr. Carney moved to approve Ordinance No. 23-11 on FIRST Reading, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Carney - Yes; Mr. Frankel -Yes; Mrs. Gray -Yes; Mayor McDuffie -Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. At this point, the time being 7:24 p.m., the Commission moved to the duly advertised Public Hearings portion of the Agenda. 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 10.A. ORDINANCE NO. 22-11 (FIRST READING/FIRST PUBLIC HEARING): City-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 4.6.9, "Off Street Parking Regulations", Subsection 4.6.9(C), "Number of Parking Spaces Required", and Appendix "A", "Definitions", by adding the definition of call centers and providing for specific parking requirements for call centers. If passed, a second public hearing will be held on July 19, 2011. The caption of Ordinance No. 22-11 is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, BY AMENDING SECTION 4.6.9, 29 07/05/2011 "OFF-STREET PARKING REGULATIONS", SUBSECTION 4.6.9(C), "NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED", PARAGRAPH (4), "REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFICE USES"; AND BY AMENDING APPENDIX A, "DEFINITIONS", BY ADDING THE DEFINITION OF CALL CENTERS; TO DEFINE AND PROVIDE FOR SPECIFIC PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR CALL CENTERS; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. office.) (The official copy of Ordinance No. 22-11 is on file in the City Clerk's The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. A public hearing was held having been legally advertised in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida and the Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida. Paul Dorling AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning, stated this is a city- initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) that will introduce the new definition for a call center use and to provide a specific parking requirement for the use. Mr. Dorling stated the Call Centers are currently included in a General Office category and subject to inadequate parking requirements. The Call Centers are defined as a central business office for purposes of making and receiving large number of telephone calls, for purposes of customer support, information inquiries, product services, etc. Such uses are known to house an increased number of employees in smaller office spaces (cubicles) than more typical office uses. Therefore, there is an increased need for parking. The parking requirement is increased based upon an anticipated a number of supervisors (2 per 1,000 square feet) and, more importantly, on the number of work stations. Avery similar approach has been taken with amendments to the LDRs for the use of Personal Service Provider (Beauty Salons, Spas, etc.) in excess of 5,000 square feet. At its meeting of June 1, 2011, the Pineapple Grove Main Street (PGMS) Committee reviewed and recommended approval; at its meeting of June 9, 2011, the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) reviewed and recommended approval; at its meeting of June 13, 2011, the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) reviewed and recommended approval; at its meeting of June 14, 2011, the West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition (WARC) reviewed and recommended approval; at its meeting of June 20, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed and recommended approval. Staff recommends approval. Mayor McDuffie declared the public hearing open. There being no one from the public who wished to address the Commission regarding Ordinance No. 22-11, the public hearing was closed. 30 07/05/2011 Mr. Frankel moved to approve Ordinance No. 22-ll on First Reading/First Public Hearing, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Gray -Yes; Mayor McDuffie -Yes; Mr. Carney -Yes; Mr. Frankel - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. At this point, the time being 10:13 p.m., the Commission moved to Item 13, Comments and Inquiries on Non-Agenda Items from the City Manager, City Attorney, and the City Commission. 13. COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. 13.A. City Manager The City Manager stated the City's tax roll for July 1, 2011 looks a little better than it did as of June 1, 2011. He stated the millage is the same and instead of being a $1.5 million short the City would be $1 million short. The City Manager stated he will have more information for the Commission at the Workshop next week. 13.B. City Attorney The City Attorney had no comments and inquiries on non-agenda items. 13.C. City Commission 13.C.1. Mr. Carney Mr. Carney asked whether or not the City Manager received any feedback on what the Commission discussed regarding Gulf Stream in terms of what the added tax value was with the annexations. Mr. Carney stated he would like to see how much in tax base they are adding. 13.C.2. Mrs. Gray Mrs. Gray had no comments and inquiries on non-agenda items. 13.C.3. Mr. Frankel Mr. Frankel complimented Sarah Martin with the Downtown Marketing Cooperative (DMC) and the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) for the fireworks. He stated it was very well attended and kudos to everyone involved. Secondly, Mr. Frankel stated he received an email dated July 3, 2011 from the Friends of Delray and the subject matter was New Friends of Delray Report Available. Mr. Frankel stated he opened up the email and it stated that the Friends of Delray Intelligence Report for July is now available on the website (friendsofdelray.com). Mr. Frankel stated he went to the website and the first thing he sees is a header page that reads "Welcome to the Friends of Delray. We are concerned 31 07/05/2011 that local media continues to reduce coverage of Delray Beach. Residents are left without any source of real news about our City and especially lacking is any investigative reporting. Therefore, we at the Friends of Delray have started The Delray Intelligence Report. Our information comes from involved residents who pass us information as it happens. We make every effort to verify the facts and encourage a response when we are wrong." Mr. Frankel stated this is signed by Vincent P. Dole, Editor. Mr. Frankel commented about the July 2011 Intelligence Report and stated he read a story which says "Speculation: There is a Strong Rumor Flying around Delray Political and Business Elite that the Following Political Scenario May Be Unfolding." Commissioner Angie Gray made an announcement on Facebook that she intends to run for Mayor that may be a sign that Commissioner Adam Frankel is moving on. Rumors are rapid that Frankel will be heading to the State Attorney's office for a new job that will force him to resign since elected officials cannot be "sworn to two positions". Mr. Frankel stated he would like to respond to Mr. Vincent Dole and the Friends of Delray and noted since this email has gone out he has now received several inquiries from current clients questioning if he will still be acting as their legal counsel in pending manners. Mr. Frankel stated he has similarly received calls from offices of elected officials and other attorneys asking the same. Mr. Frankel read the following statement into the record to Mr. Dole and Friends of Delray: "If you take the responsibility to create some type of publication they should also take the responsibility to have some degree of accuracy. When you state opinions or political positions I understand and respect that, but when you print statements that affect my livelihood that have absolutely no basis in truth or fact at all you create a reckless harmful situation. I have not now nor have I ever had any conversation with anyone about working in the State Attorney's office, I have not been in a place where that conversation remotely relating has occurred, I am not now nor do I ever intend to work for the State Attorney. I am a criminal defense attorney that just created a private practice in January in downtown Delray Beach. Before that I worked in the Public Defender's office of Palm Beach County. My law partner does personal injury work and at no time has either of us considered to be a prosecutor. So, I challenge this local "Intelligence Report" to document any source or facts that has related to this inaccurate and damaging written statement. It would not have taken a great deal of effort to simply call me if someone was curious or had any questions about my legal career." 13.C.4. Mayor McDuffie Mayor McDuffie stated the 4th of July Celebration was well done. He stated he liked the fact that the City did not close Atlantic Avenue until 3:00 p.m. Mayor McDuffie stated at 2:00 p.m. there were wall-to-wall people on the beach in both directions and by the time 9:00 p.m. rolled around the attendance was unbelievable. He stated it took him two hours to get off the barrier island and get home. Mayor McDuffie thanked the Downtown Marketing Cooperative (DMC) for a terrific 4th of July and stated it was a great night. Mayor McDuffie stated that we have to find a way to stop private boaters from anchoring up in front of the barge because the barge almost wound up on the beach. 32 07/05/2011 There being no further business, Mayor McDuffie declared the meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. City Clerk ATTEST: MAYOR The undersigned is the City Clerk of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, and the information provided herein is the Minutes of the Regular City Commission Meeting held on July 5, 2011, which Minutes were formally approved and adopted by the City Commission on City Clerk NOTE TO READER: If the Minutes you have received are not completed as indicated above, this means they are not the official Minutes of the City Commission. They will become the official Minutes only after review and approval which may involve some amendments, additions or deletions as set forth above. 33 07/05/2011 IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A PRIVATE CHILD CARE FACILITY FOR THE MILAGRO CENTER AT fi75 AUBURN AVENUE ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 1. This conditional use request has come before the City Commission on July 5, 2011. The conditional use request is to establish a private child care facility for the Milagro Center at 675 Auburn Avenue. 2. The City staff, applicant, and other persons have presented documentary evidence and testimony to the City Commission pertaining to the conditional use request of the Milagro Center. All of the evidence is a part of the record in this case. Required findings are made in Sections I and II below. L COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A. FUTURE LAND USE MAP: The use or structures must be allowed in the zone district and the zoning district must be consistent with the land use designation. The subject property has a Future Land Use Map designation of MD (Medium Density 5-12 dulac} and is zoned RM (Multiple Family Residential -Medium Density). The RM zoning district is consistent with the MD Future Land Use Map designation. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.6{D}{1), within the RM zoning district, child care facilities are allowed as a Conditional Use. Based upon the above, positive findings can be made with respect to consistency with the Future Land Use Map. Are the requirements of the Future Land Use Map met? Yes / No B. Concurrence: Facilities which are provided by, or through, the City shall be provided to new development concurrent with issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. These facilities shall be provided pursuant to levels of service established within the Comprehensive Plan. 1 City Commission Meeting on July 5, 2011; Item 9.A. Are the concurrency requirements met with respect to water, sewer, drainage, streets and traffic, parks, open space, solid waste and schools? Yes / No C. Consistency: Compliance with performance standards set forth in Chapter Three and required findings in LDR Section 2.4.5(E) (5} far the Conditional Use request shall be the basis upon which a finding of overall consistency is to be made. Other objectives and policies .found in the adopted Comprehensive Plan may be used in making a finding of overall consistency. A review of the Objectives and Policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan was conducted and no applicable Objectives or Policies were found. Are the consistency requirements met such that the proposed project is complementary to and compatible with adjacent land uses and the beneficial aspects of the project outweigh the negative impact of identifed points of conflict? Yes / No ll. LDR REQUIREMENTS A. Section 2.4.5E 5 re wires certain findin s: The conditional use will riot: 1. Have a significantly detrimental effect upon the stability of the neighborhood within which it will be located; 2. Hinder development or redevelopment of nearby properties. Will Section 2.4.5(E)(5} be met? Yes / No B. LDR Section 4.3.3(E) -Childcare Facilities: Lot Area. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.3 (E}(1), the minimum lot area required for child care facilities is 7,500 square feet. The proposed child care facility is associated with the Village at Delray residential development which is located on an 1'1.03 acres site. Floor Area: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.3 (E)(2), child care facilities shall contain a minimum floor area of 35 sq. ft. per child, exclusive of space devoted to bathrooms, halls, kitchen, 2 City Commission Meeting on July 5, 2011; Item 9.A. offices and storage. It appears that of the 4,114 sq. ft. total child care structure a total of 1,938 sq. ft. would be usable floor area thus, allowing a maximum capacity of 55 children (1,938135 = 55.37). The applicant has requested a capacity of 50 children. Outdoor Area; Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.3 (E}(3}, there shall be a minimum of 75 sq. ft. of outdoor play area per child. The play area shall be located on the same lot as the principal use and shall not be located in the front yard setback or adjacent to any outdoor storage area. A 6' high fence or wall shall surround the play area. The site plan measures 3,282 sq. ft. outdoor play area which was approved for the community as a whole. Even if this was now reserved exclusively for the child care use, which wauld be contrary to the performance standards of LDR Section 4.4.6(1) used to approved the increased density for the residential development, the proposed outdoor area would only accommodated a total of 43 students {3,282175 = 43.76). Loading Area: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.3 (E){4), a pick-up and drop-off area for children shall be provided in a convenient area adjacent to the building and shall provide clear ingress and egress to the building. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(3}(c}, provisions must be made for stacking and transition of incoming traffic from a public street, such that traffic may not backup into the public street system. Provisions must be made to provide for 100' of clear stacking from the first point of transaction of the daycare drop-off line. The suggested drop-off area will be located in-front of the parking area for visitors to the Clubhouse. Are the requirements of Section 4.3.3(E) met? Yes ~ No C. LDR Section 4.6.9 C 7 h -- Parkin Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C}(7)(h), child care facilities must provide 1 parking space per 300 sq.ft. of total floor area. Further, parking is to be designed to enable vehicles to enter and exit a site in a forward manner. The 4,114 sq. ft. facility requires 14 parking spaces and a total twenty one parking spaces are being provided. The applicant has depicted on the site plan the parking spaces that are going to be used for the child care center and those that will be used by the club house. It is noted that the number of parking spaces originally approved for the clubhouse has now been reduced from 21 spaces to only 6 parking spaces to serve a community of 192 residential units {a reduction of 71 % in parking spaces for the clubhouse). 3 City Commission Meeting on July 5, 2011; Item 9.A. Are the requirements of Section 4.6.9{C)(7)(h) met? Yes / No 3. The City Commission has applied the Comprehensive Plan and I~DR requirements in existence at the time the conditional use application was submitted. ~. The City Commission finds there is ample and competent substantial evidence to support its findings in the record submitted and adopts the facts contained in the record including but not limited to the staff reports and testimony of witnesses supporting these findings. 5. Based on the entire record before it, the City Commission approves / denies the conditional use application subject to the conditions attached hereto in Exhibit "A" and hereby adopts this Order this 5th da of July 2011, by a v e of 4 in favor and 0 opposed. f TEST. ~ ~~.; C evelle Nubin city clerk Nelson S. McDuffie, M 4 City Commission Meeting on July 5, 2011; Item 9.A. EXHIBIT "A" Conditions Related to the Milagro Center Day Care 1. Relocation of the loading area so that it does not interfere with the parking area. is required in order to comply with LDR Section 4.3.3(E)(4); 2. A letter from the Palm Beach County Traffic Division indicating that the project meets the traffic concurrency standards of Palm Beach County is provided; 3. That the proposed outdoor play area be increased or the maximum capacity be reduced to a total of 43 students, 4. That the applicant provides a copy of the Credit Underwriting Report issued and approved by the FHFC listing those specific amenities within the clubhouse andlor the Village at Delray development that were required to be for the RESIDENTS ONLY. 5. That the applicant provides a copy of the Land Use Restriction Agreement between the Florida Housing Finance Corporation and Auburn Corporation which was recorded as a deed restriction against the Village at Delray Development outlining what amenities are required for the use of RESIDENTS ONLY; and 6. That If any of the amenities required by the Credit Underwritin Re ort ar conditioned in the Land Use Restriction Agreement are included in this request then a letter acknowledging this will be required from the FHFC. 7. Facility would be available for the residents of the community when the Milagro Center is not open. 1 City Commission Meeting on July 5, 2011; Item 9.A. IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, i=LORIDA ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA WAIVERS REQUESTED BY BURGERFI RESTAURANT 1. These waiver requests came before the City Commission on July 5, 2011. 2.. The City staff, applicant, and other persons have presented documentary evidence and testimony to the City Commission pertaining to the waivers requested by BurgerFi Restaurant. All of the evidence is part of the record in this case. 3. Waivers: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(8}(5}, prior to granting a waiver, the approving body shall make a finding that the granting of the waiver: (a) shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; (b) shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; (c) shall not create an unsafe situation; and (d) does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner. 4. Signs:. (a) Flat Wall Sign. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.7(E)(7}, a flat wall sign is allowed one per business facing each dedicated street frontage. Should the waiver be granted to allow the flat wall sign? Yes No / (b} Proiectiing Roof Sign. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.~.7(J)(3), a sign erected on the roof or above the roofline or on the parapet is not allowed. Should the waiver be granted to allow the projecting roof sign? Yes / No 5. The City Commission has applied the Comprehensive Plan and LDR requirements in existence at the time the original site plan was submitted. City Commission Meeting on July 5, 2011; Item 9. B. 6. The City Commission finds there is ample and competent substantial evidence to support its fiindings in the record submitted and adopts the facts contained in the record including but not limited to the staff reports, testimony of experts and other competent witnesses which supports the findings set forth in this Order. 7. Based on the entire record before it, the City Commission approves the waiver request as to the roof sign with the condition that the sign be lowered so the top of the sign would align with the mesh fence on top of the roof and denies the request for the flat wall sign. The City Commission adopts this Order this 5th day o'~July, 2011, by a vote of 3 in favor and 1 opposed. n S. McDuffie, ATTEST: Chevelle Nubin City Clerk City Commission Meeting on July 5, 2011; Item 9. B. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Linda Karch, Director of Parks and Recreation THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: July 13, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 6.A. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TULY 19, 2011 DELRAY BLAZERS TRAVEL BASKETBALL TEAM PROCLAMATION ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This proclamation before Commission is to recognize the Delray Blazers Travel Basketball progam and staff for their continued involvement and many achievements. WHEREAS, Delray Beach Blazers Travel Basketball program 9th grade team, competed on April 29th, 30th, and May 1St in the 2011 Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) District Championship in Coral Springs, Florida, and competed on June 3rd, 4th, and 5th in the 2011 Amateur Athletic Union "Best of the Best" Super Regional Championship in Coral Springs; and WHEREAS, the team competed against the best teams sanctioned by the AAU; and WHEREAS, the Delray Blazers 9th grade team defeated EACH 1 TEACH 1 to win the AAU District Championship then defeated the South Florida Panthers to win the AAU Super Regional Championship. By winning the District and Regional championships the team has been invited to participate in the AAU Super Showcase at Disney Wide World of Sports in Orlando, Florida; and WHEREAS, the Delray Blazers 9th grade team and staff received letters from Bill Hager, Florida State Representative District 87, congratulating the team on winning the AAU Super Regional Championship; and WHEREAS, the Delray Blazers Travel Basketball program has (1) 4th grade, (2) 7th grade, (1) 9th grade, and (1) 11th grade Lady Blazers teams; and WHEREAS, the involvement and achievements of the Delray Blazers Travel Basketball program have generated much civic and community pride and support for continued success. NOW THEREFORE, I, NELSON S. MCDUFFIE, MAYOR of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, on behalf of the City Commission, do hereby recognize and commend: Coach Itevin Hugginx, Coach Dominick Ramxey, Coach Peter Wolfe, Coach Mark Roxeme and Delray Blazerx Travel Baxketball Playerx for their representation of the City of Delray Beach and offer them congratulations on their outstanding performance in the 2011 AAU District and Regional Championships. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Official Seal of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, to be affixed this 19th day of July, 2011. d~:~t.r;~;'~~. .~~~ t ~"~ F1c~~c~.c~a mouse of I~,.epre~ent~ti~es .Representative ]3it1.~~ger T]as~r~c~ 87 DisfricE Office: Tallal~ssee Uffice: 3D1 Yan~at~o Road lla1 The Capitol Suite T24B 4D2 S. Monroe Street Boca Raton, E~Z 3343'1 Tallahassee, FL 32.399 is~i) ilia-b6~~ (sso) Asa-2~ Email: BiU.klagex~znykloridak~ause.~nv June ~,~, 2011 Kacy 'Young Rccreatio~ Supezvisox Pompey I'az~k 1101 hl'l~+l end Street Delray Beach, I'L 33444 Dear Ms. Young: It is my tr~tderstandillg that yoar Delray Blazers have rece~.tly woo. the AALT Super Regional Championship. Congratulations on this remarkable achievement? Please accept rriy best wishes for continued success. If ever I may be of assistance to yau, or any of your teams, please do nat hesitafie fia contact me. Sincerely, g Bill Hager State Representative House District 87 Travel hoops team blazes through "Battle of the Best" tourney -Sun-Sentinel Page 1 of 2 /news/palm-beach/defray-beach/fl-cspf-blazers-063 0-20110706,0,781599. story Sun-Sentinel Travel hoops team blazes through "Battle of the Best" tourney STAGY CASE coralsprings(a~tribune.com 11:34 AM EDT, July 6, 2011 The Delray Blazers travel basketball club made its mark during the "Battle of the Best" Super Regionals Tournament recently at the Coral Springs Gymnasium. Under head coach Dominick Ramsey, the ninth-grade team. from Pompey Park captured the championship with an 83-71 victory over the South Florida Panthers. "We played very hard at the tournament," Ramsey said. "If they consistently play hard each game, they will each have success, win or lose." Using Ramsey's inspirational motto of "first and foremost, always having faith," the Blazers opened up tourney play with three pool games. The opener saw Ramsey and company defeat 561 Select, 70-66. In Game 2, Delray's finest got the best of the South Florida Panthers, 67-60, before coming up short in its 73-701oss to the South Florida Elite. Despite finishing 2-1 in pool play, the Blazers' earned a spot in the semis against Each One, Teach One by winning the tiebreaker of point differential. Delray blazed through Each One, Teach One, for the 80-68 victory to solidify a spot an center court in the championship game. In their next meeting with the South Florida Panthers, the Blazers didn't waste any time pulling ahead. "We started the game on a 12-0 run and were never down," Ramsey said. Leading by 22 points at one point, the Blazers fnished strong and closed out the first-half scoring still ahead by 18 points. In the second half, the Panthers raced out of the locker room with a 10-0 run to get right back in the game. Blazers' captain Thomas Owens wanted to put a stop to that, doing his best to pull his team together. "As a unit, we can accomplish anything," said Owens, "and that's what we did in the Battle." httpalwww.sun-sentinel.cominews/palm-beach/delray-beachlfl-csp~ blazers-0630-2011070... 7/13/2011 advertisement Travel hoops team blazes through "Battle of the Best" tourney -Sun-Sentinel Page 2 of 2 To accompany Owens, Michael Evans came off the bench to provide an offensive spark. The Blazers' shooting guaxd averaged 15 points per game, which was complemented by the shot-blocking ability of small forward Joshua Strainge. "I made sure to time everything just right," said Strainge, who garnered the center and power forward positions. "When I would jump, I made sure to locate the ball to see where it was going, so I could block it as best I could." After basking in the glory of their Battle success, the Blazers are now preparing for the rest of their summer schedule. As part of the Amateur Athletic Union, Delray is scheduled to participate in some national tournaments, as well as the Super Showcase Invitational in late July, .before the season ends. On its home court at Pompey Park in Delra Beach, Ramsey's team is still honing in on the fundamentals of dribbling, passing, and team sets. "We just keep on the basics," said Ramsey, "so that once we get onto that court at game time, everything is just like clockwork." Copyright ©2011, South Florida Sun-Sentinel http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/palm-beach/delray~-beacl~lfl-cspf-blazers-0630-2011070. _. 711 312 0 1 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Danielle Connor, Acting Fire-Rescue Chief THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: July 14, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 7.A. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TULY 19, 2011 LIFE SAVING AWARD PRESENTATION RECOGNIZING BEN SEAMAN ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Presentation of a Life Saving Award to Mr. Ben Seaman. BACKGROUND On June 20th a child from Delray Beach was in a private pool and unable to swim. Local resident, Mr. Ben Seaman, found the young boy at the bottom of the pool. He quickly jumped in and pulled the child to the side of the pool. When the boy was pulled to the pool deck he was pulseless and not breathing. Mr. Seaman started CPR, doing compressions on the child's chest and performing rescue breathing. Delray Beach Fire Rescue personnel arrived shortly thereafter and began treating the child with Advanced Life Support. He was transported to a local hospital where a full recovery is expected. Citizen Performs Rescue and CPR to Save a Life DELRAY BEACH- On a hot sunny day taking a swim is great way to cool off and spend a summer day for most kids. Recently, this normal summer activity almost turned into a tragedy for a Delray Beach family, were it not for the quick thinking of a Delray Beach man. On June 20t" a child from Delray Beach was in a private pool and unable to swim. Local resident, Mr. Ben Seaman, found the young boy at the bottom of the pool. He quickly jumped in and pulled the child to the side of the pool. When the boy was pulled to the pool deck he was pulseless and not breathing. Mr. Seaman started CPR, doing compressions on the child's chest and performing rescue breathing. Delray Beach Fire Rescue personnel arrived shortly thereafter and began treating the child with Advanced Life Support. He was transported to a local hospital where a full recovery is expected. While no one ever knows why things happen, one thing is for certain: this child is alive, walking, talking, and able to be loved by his family today because of the selfless and courageous efforts of Mr. Seaman. Without a doubt, he saved this child's life.....and without a doubt the outcome would not have been so positive. The American Heart Association teaches that First Responders are a crucial link in the chain of survival for victims of cardiac arrest. This case demonstrates this theory to a tee. This young boy is alive today due to the rapid water rescue and high quality CPR performed by Mr. Seaman. Every minute that goes by without CPR decreases a victim's chance of survival and Mr. Seaman's actions surely are the deciding factor in this child's positive outcome. The fact that this young boy is demonstrating no neurological deficits or lasting effects of the near-drowning is a testament to the good will of this man. Drowning is the second leading cause of pediatric deaths in the nation, according to FEMA. Drowning is also one of the most preventable deaths. Residents and visitors of Delray Beach are exposed to swimming pools, canals, lakes, the ocean, and other waterways. It is crucial that children learn to swim at a young age, AND that adults take the appropriate safety measures to prevent access to these waterways by their children. Delray Beach Fire Rescue encourages all members of the community to learn CPR by contacting your local American Heart Association or American Red Cross office. Also, learn to stay safe around water at the department-sponsored Water Safety Day on July 23~d at Pompey Park Pool from 12-5. Free water safety sessions will be provided to all in attendance. For more information on our Water Safety Day go to the Delray Beach Fire Rescue website at: www.mydelraybeach.com/Delray/Departments/Fire-Rescue MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Paul Dorling, AICP, Director Planning and Zoning THROUGH: City Manager DATE: July 7, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.A. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TULY 19, 2011 RESOLUTION N0.28-11/BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROTECT ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before Commission is consideration of Resolution No. 28-ll supporting the Delary Beach Renourishment Project. BACKGROUND The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is undergoing its annual update of the Florida Beach Management Program Long-Range Budget Plan and developing a prioritized list of State Beach Erosion Control Projects. The culmination of this process is the preparation and submittal of the Department's Fixed Capital Outlay, containing Local Government Funding requests to establish State funding priorities for FY 2012-13. We are in the process of preparing the detail project descriptions and cost estimates for the ongoing Delray Beach Renourishment Project. Along with this information the FDEP requires a resolution of support and acknowledgment of funding commitment for the local share. The attached resolution meets this requirement. RECOMMENDATION By motion, approve Resolution No. 28-ll supporting the Delary Beach Renourishment Project. RESOLUTION N0.28-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY PEACH, FLORIDA PROVIDING IT'S SUPPORT FOR THE CITY OF DELRAY PEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECT AND ITS ONGOING FUNDING COMMITMENT TO PROVIDE FOR THE LOCAL MATCH. WHEREAS, Americas beaches provide vital economic, recreational, storm damage reductiory and environmental benefits to the Nation; and WHEREAS, nearly sixty percent of all Americans live within 50 miles of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, and the five Great Lakes; and WHEREAS, the Nations beaches are the leading tourist destination for millions of domestic and foreign visitors, providing jobs and business profits which in turn produce billions of dollars of tax revenues for federal, state and local governments; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Peach continues to support the City of Delray Peach's renourishment project regarding its beaches; and WHEREAS, the City of Delray Peach has the ability to provide the necessary local match through an interlocal agreement with Palm Peach County. NOW THEREFORE, PE IT RESOLVED PY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY PEACH, FLORIDA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City of Delray Peach is providing its support for the City of Delray Peach renourishment project and affirms it's ability to provide the necessary local match for its funding request through an interlocal agreement with Palm Peach County. PASSED AND ADOPTED dis dayof ,2011. MAYOR ATTEST: City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Victor Majtenyi; Deputy Director of Public Utilities Richard C. Hasko, P.E.; Director of Environmental Services Department THROUGH: David Harden; City Manager DATE: July 8, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.B. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 19, 2011 SERVICE AUTHORIZATION N0.22/MATHEWS CONSULTING. INC. ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Service Authorization #22 to Mathews Consulting, Inc. in the amount of $77,981.00 for professional services related to design and engineering of upgrades to Lift Station 100A (P/N 2011-041). Lift Station #100A is located at the north end of Veteran's Park. BACKGROUND Lift Station 100A is located at the northeast corner of Veteran's Park, northeast of the shuffleboard courts. The wastewater collection basin of 100A encompasses an area reaching as far north as George Bush Blvd, south to SW 4th Street, as far west as SW 1st Ave, and east to the Intracoastal waterway. The station was built in the early 1990's, has three 30-hp pumps, and a 6" discharge pipe. Staff considered the wetwell to be near capacity in regards to storage and pumping, therefore recommended a capacity study be performed of the station. On December 7, 2010, City Commission approved a Service Authorization to Mathews Consulting, Inc. in the amount of $45,686 to perform a capacity analysis of Lift Station 100A. The analysis considered projected population growth and planned redevelopment projects within the station's basin area. A final report was submitted summarizing findings and providing recommendations for upgrade. The study, completed in June 2011, revealed that the lift station is not adequate to serve future wastewater flow projections, thus recommending the station be upgraded. The report identified three options for consideration, with their respective associated planning level costs: Option 1) construct a new wetwell adjacent to the existing and then demolish the existing station ($388,111); Option 2) construct a new 12-foot diameter wetwell in the same location as the existing, which would require taking the existing station out of service and by-pass pumping ($392,459); and Option 3) construct a second wetwell adjacent to the existing and tying the two together for tandem operation ($326,218). Option 3 appears to be the least costly of the three, provides the least potential for disruptions to the system (as the existing station remains on-line until tie-in) and would require a minimal amount of bypass pumping. Proposed development projects within this wastewater collection basin have already been submitted to the City for consideration: Atlantic Plaza and Hyatt Place (scheduled to be completed in Fall 2012). Staff will request funding for the construction of the upgrade in next year's Capital Improvement Program budget (FY 11/12). Under this service authorization the consultant will provide professional services relating to design, surveying, permitting, geotechnical evaluation, construction document preparation, and project bidding, as well as construction administration services during the construction phase. Total cost for services under Service Authorization #22 is $77,981. FUNDING SOURCE Funding is proposed from account #442-5178-536-31.30, Water & Sewer Renewal and Replacement FundlEngineering-Architectural, after budget transfers. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Service Authorization #22 to Mathews Consulting, Inc. in the amount of $77,981.00 for professional services relating to the design and construction of Lift Station 100A Upgrade, project number 2011-041. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH CONSULTING SERVICE AUTHORIZATION DATE: SERVICE AUTHORIZATION NO. 07-22 FOR CONSULTING SERVICES CITY P.O. NO. CITY EXPENSE CODE: CITY PROJECT NO. MATHEWS CONSULT. PROJECT NO. 1606 TITLE: Wastewater Lift Station 100A Ul?~rade This Service Authorization, when executed, shall be incorporated in and shall become an integral part of the Contract. TITLE: Agreement for General Consulting En ink eerin~ Services I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Delray Beach owns and operates wastewater Lift Station 100A, a triplex submersible pump station located at the north end of N.E. 1st Street, on the north end of Veterans Park in Delray Beach, Florida, just north of Atlantic Avenue and west of the Intracoastal Waterway. Atlantic Plaza, a commercial area located just west of Veteran's Park, is currently being redeveloped and will require the relocation of certain wastewater forcemains which currently extend through the proposed redevelopment. In conjunction with the forcemain relocation, the City desires to upgrade the capacity of LS 100A to accommodate necessary renewal & replacement improvements as well as to provide capacity for future City growth and redevelopment. The City contracted with Mathews Consulting (MC) to evaluate the long-term capacity needs of the wastewater lift station based on current capacity needs and future anticipated growth for the LS 100A service area. As a result of the study, the following upgrades were selected by the City for the station: • Construction of a second 8-foot diameter wetwell adjacent to the existing wetwell, with associated valve vault and access hatches. The two (2) wetwells are proposed to be connected and operate in tandem. • Installation of three (3) new submersible pumps rated for 692 gpm @ 107 ft TDH, 40 Hp. The new wetwell will house one pump, and the existing wetwell will house 2 pumps. • Discharge piping from the new wetwell consisting of check valve, plug valve and emergency pump-out. The existing wetwell discharge piping and valve vault will be reused for two of the three new pumps. o7illil l 1 • New lift station control panel rack assembly consisting of pump control panel, FPL meter, disconnect switch and ATS. The existing generator will be moved & reinstalled for the upgraded station. It is assumed the existing RTU panel and antenna will be reuse with the new control panel. • The enclosed area with gravel, 6-foot high chain link fence and landscape screening will be modified and/or expanded as necessary to house the new facilities. This consulting service authorization provides for surveying, engineering design, permitting, bidding and engineering services during construction of the proposed lift station improvements. II. SCOPE OF SERVICES Phase I - Study and Report Phase Not Applicable. Phase II -Preliminary Design Phase Not Applicable. Phase III -Final Design Phase Consultant shall provide final design phase services in accordance with Article IILC of the Agreement for Engineering Services with the City, dated May 30, 2007. 1. Field Investigation: Field reconnaissance of the lift station site shall be performed, including photograph log walk-through. In addition, potential underground existing utilities will be identified. 2. Utility Coordination: Coordination with utility agencies (electric, phone, gas, and cable TV) shall be performed to collect record information. This Subtask includes reconciling apparent discrepancies between record information and existing photographic and field- verification information. 3. Design Drawings: Consultant shall prepare construction drawings which shall include: cover sheet, general notes, civil plan drawings, mechanical, structural, electrical and instrumentation drawings, and detail sheets conforming to the requirements of the current City of Delray Beach Minimum Construction Standards. The drawing scale shall be 1" = 20' for plan and 1" = 2' for profile. Consultant shall prepare the engineering design elements on topographic survey information prepared by Consultant's surveyor using AutoCAD Release 2009 format and available As-Built Drawings. Consultant shall coordinate with the City in order to design the proposed lift station modifications and upgrades in accordance with the requirements and design standards of the City. Drawings (four codes) shall be submitted for City review at 60%, 90% and 100% (Bid Set) design stakes. 07/11/11 2 4. Specifications: Contract documents consisting of "front-end" documents and technical specifications shall be prepared and shall conform to City of Delray Beach Standards. Specifications (four codes) shall be submitted for City review at the 60%, 90% and 100% (Bid Set) design stages. 5. Cost Estimate: At the 60%, 90% and 100% stages, Consultant shall prepare a detailed opinion of probable construction cost based upon the level of design drawings and specifications approved by the City. The cost opinion shall reflect changes in general scope, extent or character of design requirements incorporated during the various design review stages. Opinion of probable construction cost (four copies) shall be submitted for City review at the 60%, 90% and 100% Bidding) sta~es• 6. Meetings: Consultant shall attend kick-off meeting and two (2) design meetings with the City and provide written summary of the issues discussed. 7. QA/QC: Consultant shall provide internal QA/QC reviews on the 60%, 90% and 100% (Bid Set) Design Documents (e.g. drawings, specifications and cost estimates). 8. Final Deliverable: Consultant shall furnish two (2) sets of the 100% (Bid Set) design drawings and specifications to the City (Environmental Services Department). Additional deliverables shall be made to the Purchasing Department as listed under Phase IV below. Phase IV - Biddin~/Ne~otiation Phase Consultant shall provide bidding phase services in accordance with Article IILD of the Agreement for Engineering Services with the City, dated May 30, 2007. 1. Bid Advertisement: Consultant shall assist City in advertising for and obtaining bids or negotiating proposals for construction (including materials, equipment and labor). It is anticipated that work shall be awarded under a single construction contract. Consultant shall provide up to ten (10) sets of bidding documents to the City to issue bid package. The City shall receive and process deposits for bidding documents and shall maintain a record of prospective bidders to whom bidding documents have been issued. 2. Demand Star Bid Submittal: Consultant shall furnish the bidding information to the City in electronic format to be used in conjunction with "Demand Star". This includes one (1) set of electronic PDF files of the drawings, specification and front-end documents. 3. Pre-Bid Conference: Consultant shall attend pre-bid conference and provide a written summary of issues discussed. 4. Bid Clarification: Consultant shall issue addenda and shall provide supplemental information or clarification, as appropriate, to interpret, clarify, or expand the bidding documents to all prospective bidders during the bid period. 5. Contract Award: Consultant shall attend the bid opening, prepare bid tabulation sheets and assist City in evaluating bids and proposals, and in assembling and awarding contract for o7/t vt t 3 construction. Consultant shall submit to City a written recommendation concerning contract award. 6. Final Deliverable: After Contract Award, Consultant shall furnish to the City the As-Bid design drawings as follws: one (1) mylar set, one (1) set of AutoCAD (Version 2009) files and one (1) set of pdf files in electronic format on CD. Consultant shall also provide one hard co~y only of the Contract Documents (i.e. front-ends and technical specifications). Phase V -Construction Administration Phase CONSULTANT shall serve as the City's engineering representative during the course of the estimated 165 days (5.5 months) construction period. It is assumed that the first three (3) months of the construction contract will primarily consist of paperwork, shop drawings, progress meetings, and equipment procurement/manufacturing. Months 4 and 5 of the project will consist of construction work at the site. The last 2 weeks will be the period between substantial completion and final completion (punchlist items). The general services during construction shall include the following tasks: 1. MC shall attend a preconstruction meeting and monthly construction progress meetings for the project. MC shall prepare and distribute meeting agendas and meeting minutes. 2. MC shall review shop drawings, results of laboratory tests, samples, certifications, O&M manuals and any other data which the construction contractor is required to submit for review and approval during construction. Review will be for conformance with the design concept and compliance with the construction contract documents. MC shall maintain a shop drawing log indicating the dates of contractor submittals, rejections, and approvals. 3. MC shall provide interpretation of plans and specifications. MC shall consider the Contractor's suggestions and recommendations, evaluate them, and submit them with recommendations to the City for a final decision. MC shall answer RFI's providing clarification of the design. 4. Resident Project Representation: MC shall provide a Resident Project Representative (RPR) through substantial completion of the construction project (165 days, or 5.5 months). For this project, it is assumed that there will be no construction work activities at the project site during the first three (3) months of the contract (during which time shop drawing submittal/review and equipment procurement/manufacturing will occur). Part-time inspections (4 hrs/day, two days per week, for a total of 70 inspection hours) will be provided for months 4 and 5 once the Contractor has mobilized to the site. City Inspectors will provide additional inspections as required. MC's RPR responsibilities shall include: a. Field observation and inspection of the progress and quality of construction work to determine whether it is proceeding in accordance with the Contract Documents. CONSULTANT shall notify the City immediately if work does not conform to the Contract Documents. b. MC shall serve as the City's liaison with the Contractor. Assist the Contractor's Superintendent in understanding the intent of the Contract Documents. 07/11/11 4 c. Verify to the best of MC's knowledge that tests, equipment and system startup are conducted in the presence of appropriate personnel, and that the Contractor maintains adequate records thereof. Observe, verify accuracy, record, and report details of the test and/or procedures to the City. d. Record results of observations and inspections. The following shall be documented: 1) MC's time and activities related to the project, 2) weather conditions, 3) time, nature and specific location, and quantity of work being performed by the contractor, 4) equipment on-site, equipment in use, contractor's manpower on-site and contractor's supervision on-site, and 5) verbal interpretations given to the contractor, if any and specific observations, inspections or tests performed. Record any occurrence or work that might result in a claim for a change in contract sum or contract time. Maintain a list of visitors, their titles, and time and purpose of their visit. e. Review the Contractor's record drawings monthly to confirm proper updates are being made. CONSULTANT will maintain a separate set of record drawing mark-ups in addition to the Contractor's efforts. £ Verify that all construction improvements are installed at the vertical and horizontal positions shown on the Contract Documents. g. Monitor the construction schedule and report to the City conditions which may cause delay in completion. h. Maintain all construction records in an orderly manner. Include correspondence, Contract Documents, Change Orders, Construction Change Authorizations, Supplemental Instructions, reports of site conferences, shop drawings, product data, samples, supplementary drawings, color schedules, requests for payment, and names and addresses of Contractors, subcontractors and principal material suppliers. i. Review applications for payment submitted by the Contractor and material vendors and forward them to the City with recommendations for disposition. j. Prepare RFPs, review contractor proposals, review contractor change orders, recommend proposals to the City for change order processing, and assist the City with negotiating price for change orders. 5. En ink eerin a~ nd Specialty Inspections: MC's engineers shall visit the project site during pertinent stages of construction to observe as an experienced and qualified design professional the progress and quality of the executed civil, mechanical, electrical and instrumentation work of the Contractor and to determine if such work is proceeding in accordance with the Contract Documents. CONSULTANT's efforts will be directed toward providing a greater degree of confidence to the City that the completed work of the Contractor conforms to the Contract Documents. During such visits, the MC shall 1) keep the City informed of the progress of the work, 2) endeavor to guard the City against defects and deficiencies in such work, and 3) disapprove or reject work as failing to conform to the Contract Documents. 07/11/11 5 6. MC shall provide startup and testing services for the project, including witnessing pipeline pressure testing, pump performance testing, hydraulic testing, and other startups needed to demonstrate successful operation of the system. 7. MC shall perform Substantial Completion and Final Completion inspections for the Utility Site improvements. For the purpose of this provision, Substantial Completion shall be deemed to be the stage in construction of the project where the project can be utilized for the purposes for which it was intended, and where minor items need not be fully completed, but all items that affect the operational integrity and function of the project are capable of continuous use. 8. MC shall provide final project certification of completions necessary to close out regulatory permitting for the project and to obtain acceptance for operation of the system(s). 9. MC shall review the Contractor's electronic Record Drawings for completeness. Record Drawings are required to be submitted to the regulatory agencies before receiving final acceptance for operation of the system(s). A minimum of one (1) hard copy and one (1) electronic version of approved Record Drawings will be submitted to the City upon completion of the project. Other - Permitting At the outset of the Design Phase, the Consultant shall meet with the appropriate permitting agencies to determine potential permitting requirements. Agencies anticipated to have jurisdiction over the project include: (1) Palm Beach County Health Department (PBCHD) for construction of the wastewater lift station modifications and upgrades. Permit applications shall be completed as required for PBCHD. Associated permit application fees shall be determined by Consultant and paid by City. ^ PBCHD Application for Construction of a Wastewater Collection/Transmission System. In addition to preparing the permit applications for appropriate regulatory agencies, Consultant shall assist the City in consultations with the appropriate authorities. Consultation services shall include the following: ^ Attend up to one (1) pre-application meeting with the staff of each of the regulatory agencies. ^ Attend up to one (1) meeting with each of the regulatory agencies during review of the final permit applications. ^ Respond to request(s) for additional information from each regulatory agency. Other - Geotechnical Consultant shall furnish the services of a professional geotechnical engineer to provide subsurface investigations of the project area that will include: ^ Perform one (1) standard penetration test (SPT) boring to a depth of thirty (30) feet. o7/i vi i 6 ^ Evaluate field data collected and provide geotechnical engineering evaluation report. Other -Survey Consultant shall furnish the services of a professional surveyor to provide survey services consisting of field topography and horizontal locations referenced by baseline stationing. All existing facilities and utilities within the established project limits will be referenced by baseline station with an offset distance (left or right) from baseline for the project and will include the following: 1. Topography survey to depict existing ground profile and characteristics at proposed project area. The survey shall include pertinent data which shall include the following: a. Location of all visible fixed improvements within the project limits, including physical objects, roadway pavement, railway tracks, canals, driveways, sidewalks, curb, trees, signs, fences, power poles, buildings, and other encumbrances, including point of curvature and point of tangency. b. Location of all known above and below ground existing utilities: FP&L, BellSouth, Cable TV, Natural Gas, Potable Water (pipe diameter, TOP, valves, fire hydrants, and meters), Reclaimed Water Mains (pipe diameter, TOP and valves), Force Mains (pipe diameter, TOP, and valves), Sanitary Sewer (pipe diameter, manhole inverts and direction, rim elevations, laterals, and clean-outs), Storm Sewers (pipe diameter, manhole inverts and direction, catch basins, and rim grate elevations), and all other accessible structures. This will include coordination with Sunshine and City of Delray Beach. Underground piping shall bepot-holed by City in a timely fashion. c. Identify platted rights-of--way (including bearing and distances for centerline), lot numbers, house address, ownership lines, block numbers and dedicated easements. d. Elevations shall be indicated approx. every 25 feet, at a minimum, to indicate site grades, centerline grades, edge of pavement grades, and shoulder grades, low points, railway ditch bottoms, and all right-of--way lines. Intermediate grades shall be indicated at all grade breaks, driveways and sidewalks. Sufficient grades shall be indicated on the driveways and parking areas to indicate direction of grade. e. Provide and reference benchmarks at maximum 600-foot intervals. Elevations to be referenced to an existing established City or County Benchmark. 2. The above topographical survey data will be prepared in AutoCAD (Version 2009) format at a scale of 1"=20', as one continuous file. The City of Delray Beach standard layering system shall be followed. Other -Field Verification Consultant shall furnish the services of a professional underground services company to provide underground field locations of affected existing utilities. The work shall consist of measuring 07/11/11 7 and recording the approximate horizontal location of affected utilities within the project limits. It is anticipated that approximately ten (10) utility locations will need to bepot-holed. ASSUMPTIONS Work described herein is based upon the assumptions listed below. If conditions differ from those assumed in a manner that will affect schedule of Scope of Work, Consultant shall advise City in writing of the magnitude of the required adjustments. Changes in completion schedule or compensation to Consultant will be negotiated with City. 1. City will provide Consultant record drawings of all available existing facilities and proposed facilities, which shall serve as the basis of design in this project. The information will be provided to Consultant within 5 calendar days of NTP. 2. City personnel will assist in field verification of affected existing City facilities. This includes marking in field (in a timely manner) existing water mains, sanitary sewers & laterals, force mains, reclaimed water mains and drainage in the field for the Surveyor. 3. Consultant assumes that all existing and proposed lift station alignment is within City of Delray Beach rights-of--way, City property or existing easements. It is assumed no additional easements are required for the project. 4. Design services do not include rehabilitation of the existing wetwell, valve vault or piping. 5. City is responsible for all permitting fees, including costs of public notification in local newspapers. 6. The Contract Documents will be prepared as a single contract. No pre-purchase of materials and/or equipment is presumed. 7. A single bidding effort for the project is assumed. Re-bidding of the project is considered Additional Services. 8. The design is to be based on the federal, state and local codes and standards in effect at the beginning of the project. Revisions required for compliance with any subsequent changes to those regulations is considered an Additional Services Item not currently included in this Scope of Work. 9. Consultant assumes that there are no contaminated soils or groundwater in the project area. 10. Material testing services are not included in this Authorization. 07/11/11 8 ADDITIONAL SERVICES Consultant may provide additional engineering services that are not covered under this Service Authorization. These additional services may be required due to uncertainties discovered during implementation of the scope of services. Services performed under this task will be on as-directed basis in accordance with a written Notice-to-Proceed from the City Manager. The Notice-to-Proceed issued shall contain the following information and requirements. • A detailed description of the work to be undertaken. • A budget establishing the amount of the fee to be paid in accordance with the Agreement. • A time established for completion of the work. III. TIME OF PERFORMANCE The completion dates for this work will be as follows (starting at written notice-to-proceed). Refer to Attachment A for the project schedule. En~ineerin~ Services Survey Phase III -Final Design (i> • 60% Design Submittal • City 60% Review • 90% Design Submittal • City 90% Review • 100% Design Submittal Permitting~~~ Phase IV -Bidding/Award Phase V -Construction Admin. Time per Phase Cumulative Time 20 days 20 days 30 days 50 days 7 days 57 days 21 days 78 days 7 days 85 days 15 days 100 days 45 days 100 days 60 days 160 days 165 days (~>Geotechnical, Surveying, ana' Fiela' Verification will be completea' a'uring Final Design Phase. 1~1Permitting will overlap with 100% a'esign time frame. * The schedule is based upon conducting a review meeting within 7 calendar days after the City receives the design submittal. All review comments shall be provided to Consultant within 7 calendar days after the City receives the submittal. An adjustment to the overall schedule will be required in case the review meeting takes longer to be conducted and/or obtaining comments takes longer to receive. 07/11/11 9 VI. COMPENSATION The compensation for services provided shall be billed on an hourly basis plus reimbursable expenses for each phase of work in accordance with Article VII, Method II, up to the following not to exceed cost for each phase. Refer to Attachment B for budget summary. En ing eerin~ Services Phase III -Final Design Phase Phase IV -Bidding Phase Phase V -Construction Administration Permitting Surveying Geotechnical Field Verification Out-of-Pocket Expenses Additional Services Estimated Fees $ 33,724.00 $ 5,760.00 $ 22,906.00 $ 1,402.00 $ 4,038.00 $ 2,811.00 $ 4,340.00 $ 3,000.00 ~~~ $ 15,000.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST ~ 77,981.00 ~~~ Notes: ~~~Out-of-Pocket Expenses include the following.• printing/reproa'uction a~a'postage. ~~~Total project cost does not include the $I5, 000 for Additional Services (if authorized by the City). 07/11/11 10 This Service Authorization is approved contingent upon the City's acceptance of and satisfaction of the completion of the services rendered in the previous phase whereas encompassed by the previous Service Authorization. If the City in its sole discretion is unsatisfied with the services provided in the previous phase or Service Authorization, the City may terminate the contract without incurring any further liability. The Consultant shall commence work upon City Commission approval and this Service Authorization to be included as part of the contract without any further notice to proceed. Approve by: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH: Date: Nelson S. "Woodie" McDuffie, Mayor MATHEWS CONSULTING, INC. Date: Rene L. Mathews, P.E., President Witness Attest: Approved as to Legal Sufficiency and Form STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2011 by Rene Mathews, President of Mathews Consulting, Inc., a Florida corporation, on behalf of the corporation. He/She is (personally known to me) or (has produced identification), Florida Driver's License and (did/did not) take an oath. Signature of person taking Acknowledgement o~illill ll Q z w x U H Q Q. m a~ Q 7 C N r ~ N ~ L Q L C~ G LL C f~ V N O Z r r r V O O N Q N 7 Q 7 ~ ~ N r f f ~ V N O M v y ~ r N v y ~ r ~ d r f~ 'a r f~ "a r }' fA ~ N r o ~ ~ ~i m ~ ~ ~i m ~ > ° N N (n '~ (n '~ C + f0 ~ a H ~ O r ~+ ~ N C N ~ ~ 'a Z 3 O ~ ~ y c y c N ^ `-' 3 O O ~ N y 0 O 0 O O ~ r Q ~ C1 C1 Q ~ 3 ^ ~ C c°o ~ U C rn ~ U ° ~ r ~ ~ 'a L r tl7 L r U7 ~ Z fn ii d , m O U O U (/7 > Z W ~ 2J Q (/) Z O U w w c~ w U ~~TT~ ,~ ^ti n 4~ __ N ~H 0 ATTACHMENT B City ofDelray Beach Liff Sfafion IOOA Upgrade -Design, Bidding, CMS BudgetSummary Labor Classification and Hourly Rates Senior Principal Senior Senior Eng. Sub- Engineer Engineer Engineer Inspector Inspector Technician Clerical Total Consultant $147.60 $135.30 $110.70 $100.45 $84.05 $99.43 $56.70 Labor Services 4 .,.,. .,., .,.,., $541 .,.,. 4 $541 5 30 40 $8,774 4 16 12 $3,948 2 8 8 $2,173 8 8 $2, 263 J J $2,:r1G 8 6 $1,993 8 $1,181 Z_ .............. ..................Z.................. .................................... .,.,. .,.,., .,.,. ................_4................. .,.,., .,.,., $964 ......... .,.,. .,.,. .,.,. .,.,., ..... ...................................... .,.,., .,.,., $8, 000 .,.,. 46 87 0 0 0 64 0 $24.924 $8.000 4 2 4_......... Z 4_......... 4 ....................................... 2 24 10 4 4 Substantial/Final completion inspections 4 Final project certifications 2 Record Drawings Sub consultant - EDA Subtotal 50 0 Permitting 4 6 Surveying -Design Base Drawings 4 8 3eotechnical 2 2 Field Verification 2 2 Subtotal 12 18 a ...., ...., ...., bor Subtotal Hours 128 115 '_abor Subtotal Costs $18,893 $15,560 $ Labor Total Costs 552.915 Subconsulfanf Costs Total $20.060 Subconsulfanf Multiplier 1.1 $ubconsultant Total $22.066 4 70 0 I 50 I 70 I 0 I 0 0 0 4 0 SO .,.,., 70 /u O 023 $5,884 $7,557 $0 1 Reimbursable Expenses 53.000 Project Total $77,981 07/11/11 13 o i 0 n S, n a~i O' 1 ~ I II ~1 II= ri Q ~ W o 0 a~ ~ 0 ~-- 3 v = ~I~ ~I~~ =~ ~ fl ° snE ST v u i ~ NE 1ST STREET ~ o o o N it 0 0 Q L_ !~ ~ Z ~ u _.._ O a 0 0 ~` t E. ATLANTIC AVE. 0 W ~Q ~ • ~ O Q w ~ Q ~~ Q J /!~ ~ ~ ( o .~ ~ ~• = Q v l F- d • • ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ^~~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~fl z D ~ ~~ ~ _ U ~ // `1 ~ CITY of DELRAY BEACH LIFT STATION 100A UPGRADE DATE:07/15/2011 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT LOCATION MAP LOCATION MAP 434 sourH BWNiON AvEN10E, oELRAY BEACH, ROFiDA 33444 2011-041 1 0 F 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Scott Aronson, Parking Management Specialist Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Director of Environmental Services THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: July 14, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.C. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 19, 2011 VALET PARKING QUEUE EXPANSION/BRIGHT HORIZONS D/B/A 32 EAST ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before the City Commission is that of approving a request from 32 East to expand it's valet parking queue. BACKGROUND The restaurant, located at 32 East Atlantic Avenue, has operated a valet queue on the south side of East Atlantic Avenue, between Swinton Avenue and NE/SE 1St Avenue, since the program's inception in the mid 1990's. The queue has consisted of the six (6) easternmost spaces of eight total spaces on the south side of the street. The restaurant, in 2009, secured parking at the Delray Beach Public Library surface lot located on SW 1St Avenue, substantially increasing the valet's available parking. Given the increased pricing of nearby queues and large capacity of the Library Lot, the valet is able to accommodate additional vehicles. Additionally, the current queue configuration, leaving two of the eight spaces, at times creates confusion for visitors parking in the area. Staff has suggested eliminating this confusion, and better serving clients of the queue, by assimilating the remaining spaces into the valet queue. This increase will produce an additional $100 per month per space, totaling $2,400 per year. In anticipation of the approval of the proposed revisions to our Valet Parking License Agreements, an amendment to this existing license agreement is not provided. This expansion, if approved, will be included in the modified agreement. Considering the value the valet program provides the City by increasing the available municipal parking pool at its most critical time, staff recommends approval of the applicant's request. REVIEW BY OTHERS The Parking Management Advisory Board, at its meeting of June 28, 2011, unanimously recommended approval of the applicant's request. RECOMMENDATION By motion, recommend approval of the request from 32 East to expand its valet parking queue from 6 to $ spaces by incorporating the remaining two (2) spaces on the block. O O Y a> .-~ 0 I 0 0 N O 0 Z 0 0 I 0 iyy ,~ ' ~ 1 t~ ~ rd~ ' ~ T ,~ ~M't,. `,~ ~ . - ,'q 1 ~~~. E ~ ~+~ ~ `~ .ly '1wjrn ~~ i .c -~~- -. ~ ~ r ,.,. rY. %r 'r; f a. t'' I ' '~' ~"'" ~ ~ ~ ~--?~'E.`~A~fLAN~f~iC AVENUE' ~ F 4 +!r . v , IL ~ y ~~ ~ ,b ,. AS'~~ ` k ~la s Y~' ISM ' ~ ~' ~. ~~~I~? ~ ,l _. 1~~, y a~ (7y~M 4;y~~ ~ ~ U ^ !9" 111 ~ ~~/~////.iw n.. q hi' ~~~ ~ *n'"iR'~' ~ ~' ~ l'~" ~ ,~, - , ~ ~'~ ~, a 6: ~ ~-. ti ~~ r ^~ ~ ~ ~, ~~ ~ ~ ~`rk'•'WEn ,' ~;~ '' ~ ~ ~ rya! ~ t..-: ,. ~ , O ,`~ ~ it ~ a+,na ~it,4~91 T~. a { r ~• ,,1 ~ ( _~` ` '~..~ ~~ " ~ W ~' a r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~` H 7_ { + T ~~ .~ ~:~ ~ ~ ~~ r ~. ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ r5 ~ y iy yy i 8 fd.~(~~ .-t~~ ~~ ~,.. ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ` iii ' +~ ~. r ,,• ~' ~ ~ ,, .. ~ 1!~~ `.. A~ }'i~ ~ ~ ~X ti ~ ~ ~ ~p ~z ~. ~~~~~~ 1 ~~ ~s ~.. rar- S.E. 1ST ST '° ~~ '~ ,, ~, ~ ~ CITY of DELRAY BEACH 32 EAST DATE:11/04/2010 ®pd ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT ~ 434 SOUTH awHroN AVENUE, DBAAY BEACH, ROFiDA 33444 FILE 2010-200 # 1 o f 1 ,~ ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: July 13, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.D. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TULY 19, 2011 AMENDMENT N0.2 TO THE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT/MUNICIPAL GOLF CLUB AND LAKEVIEW GOLF CLUB ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Commission is requested to approve Amendment #2 to the Management Agreement dated October 1, 2004 between the City and BJCE, Inc. for the Municipal and Lakeview Golf Courses. BACKGROUND Attached is Amendment #2, which Commission authorized at the June 21, 2011 Regular Meeting. The amendment extends the term of the agreement four (4) years to September 30, 2016 and reduces the management fee by 10% beginning with FYll-12. The total annual reduction is $15,300. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Amendment #2 to the Management Agreement between the City and BJCE, Inc. for the Municipal and Lakeview Golf Courses. AMENDMENT N0.2 TO THE MUNICIPAL GOLF CLUB AND LAKEVIEW GOLF CLUB MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT DATED OCTOBER_l~, 2U44 THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 to the Municipal Golf Club and Lakeview Golf Club Management Agreement is made this day of 2011, by and between the CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, a Florida municipal cozporation (the "City"), and BJCI1, INC., ("Company"}. WITN>;SSETH: WHEREAS, the Clty and Company euz7ently have an Agreement far Management Services at the Municipal Golf Club and Lakeview Golf Chzb dated October 4, 200} and amended August 15, 2008 that will expire on September 30, 2012; and, WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement to provide for a revised expiration date and contract amount. NOW, THEREI+'ORE, far good and valuable cansideration, the receipt and suffzeiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Incornaration _of_Recitals. The parties hereby represent that the above recitals are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 2. Term. Paragraph 4 of the Agreement is amended to reflect that this Agreement shall terminate on September 30, 2016. 3. Payment. Paragraph 6 of the Agreement is amended to reflect that the City shall pay Company for the performance of work at a base monthly rate of $1.1.,475.00, payable at the first of the month. 4. Effective Date of Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement. This Amendment shall not be effective until it is approved by the City Commission and signed by both of the paz~ies with the effective date being October 1, 2011. 1 IN WITNESS WHERE4Is,, the parties hereto have cause this Amendment No. 2 to be duly executed this day of , 2011. ATTEST; City Clerk CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA By: Approved as to fa~Yn: City Attorney Nelson S. McDuffie, Mayor WITNESSES: B7CE, INC., a Florida caiporation By: Name Printed Title: Date Signed: 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: July 13, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.E. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TULY 19, 2011 AMENDMENT N0.2 TO THE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT/ DUBIN AND ASSOCIATES ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Commission is requested to approve Amendment #2 to the Management Agreement dated October 1, 2004 between the City and Dubin and Associates for City tennis facilities. BACKGROUND Attached is Amendment #2, which Commission authorized at the June 21, 2011 Regular Meeting. The amendment extends the term of the agreement four (4) years to September 30, 2016 and reduces the management fee by 10% beginning with FYll-12. The total annual reduction is $4,700. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Amendment #2 to the Management Agreement between the City and Dubin and Associates for our tennis facilities. AMENDMENT NO.2 TO THE DELRAY BEACH MUNICIPAL TENNIS CENTER AND DELRAY SWIM AND TENNIS CLUB MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT DATED OCTOBER ~ 2004 THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 to the Delray Beach Municipal Tennis Center and Delray Swim and Tennis Club Management Agreement is made this day of 2011, by and between the CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, a Florida municipal corporation (the "City"), and DUBIN & ASSOCIATES, INC., ("Dubin"), WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City and Dubin currently have an Agreement for Management Services at the Delray Beach Municipal Tennis Center and the Delray Swim and Tennis Club that will expire on September 30, 2012; and, WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement to provide for a revised expiration date and contract amount. NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Incornoa•ation of Recitals. The parties hereby represent that the above recitals are hereby incorporated as if fully set fozrth herein. 2. Term. Paragraph 4 of the Agreement is amended to reflect that this Agreement shall terminate on September 30, 201 G, 3. Payme~zt. Paragraph 6 of the Agreement is amended to reflect that the City shall pay Dubin for the performance of work at a base monthly rate of $3,525.00, payable at the first of the month. ~1. Effective Date of Amendment No. 2 to tlae Agreement. This Amendment shall not be effective until it is approved by the City Commission and signed by both of the parties with the effective date being October 1, 2011. 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have cause this Amendment No. 2 to he duly executed this day of , 2011. ATTEST: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA By: City Clerk Nelson S. McDuffie, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney WITNESSES: DUB1N AND ASSOCIATES, INC., a Florida corporation By: Name Printed Title: Date Signed: 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Randal L. Krejcarek, P.E., LEED AP, GISP, City Engineer Richard C. Hasko, PE, Environmental Services Director THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: June 29, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.F. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 19, 2011 EASEMENT DEED/ TEMPLE SINAI OF PALM BEACH COUNTY ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before the Commission to accept a proposed Bus Shelter Easement from Temple Sinai of Palm Beach County, 2475 W Atlantic Ave., Delray Beach, FL 33445. BACKGROUND The attached easement document is for the installation of a bus shelter at 2475 W Atlantic Ave. A location map is also attached. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends acceptance of Bus Shelter Easement. Prepared by: RETURN: R. Brian Shutt, Escl. City Attorney's Office 20o N. W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 EASEMENT DEED THIS IND~+ T RE ~ m de this ~~ day of l~ ~ 201 b and between ~e~ ~~~ ~i~1a t ~ T~~irot ~,l`'~~r~i mailing address of ~'~ ~7a' $~, ~'~~~rt~ ~~cr Y~~•1~ - ° , party of the first part, and the CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, with a mailing address of 100 N.'W. 1st Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444, a municipal corporation in Palm Beach County, State of Florida, party of the second part: WITNESSETH: That the party of the first part, for and in consideration of the mutual promises herein contained and other good and valuable considerations, does hereby grant, bargain, sell and release unto the party of the second part, its successors and assigns, a right of way and perpetual easement for the purpose of the construction and installation of a bus shelter associated foundarion and ADA Americans with Disabilities Act com Iiant alightingarea with full and free right, liberty, and authority to enter upon and to install, operate, and maintain such bus shelter well under, across, through and upon, over, under or within the following described property located in Palm Beach County, Florida, to-wit: DESCRIPTION See Exhibit "A" (Easement Area) Concomitant and coextensive with this right is the further right in the party of the second party, its successors and assigns, of ingress and egress over and on that pox•tion of land described above, to affect the purposes of the easement, as expressed hereinafter, That this easement shall be subject only to those easements, restrictions, and reservations of record. That the patty of the first part agrees to provide for the release or subordination of any and all mortgages or liens encumbering this easement. The party of the first part also agrees to erect no building or affect any other kind of construction or improvements upon the above- describedproperty. Party of the first part does hereby fully warrant the title to said land and wi11 defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever claimed by, through or under it, that it has goad right and lawful authority to grant the above-described easement and that the same is unencumbered except as provided above. Where the context of this Easement Deed allows or permits, the same shall include the successors or assigns of the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Easement Deed set their hands and seals the day and year f rst above written. WITNESS #l: C~ e~ f ~l (name printed or typed) ~ ~.~ ~ ~, (name printe or typed) STATE OF {~-~ ~~-~ ~ fl COUNTY OFF ~l ~ kit ~~ Il c=~ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this / ~, day of ~~ ~' ' ~~~ ~i ~ ~' , 201 ~ by ,~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~.~, ~-- ~! ~ ~ (name of officer or agent), of J °:~ ~ -~ ~ ~~ ,. ~v ~ t (name of corporation}, a ~~ l' ~ ~~ A (State or place of incorporation) corporation, on behalf of the corporation. He/She is personally known to me or has produced _`-t~ ~ ~~ ~ s' C~ t ~ (type of i ntification) as identification and did/did not take an oath. ~-~ c.~..~ i~~ ature f otary Public - Ya'te of ~ v ~ r ~] ~ (SEAL} No7'ARY PUBLICSTATL OF ~`IARTDA ,,,,,,,~,,,,, ,~~ay stern ~ Cam~nissi~a#nll790547 ,, ,,,,, Expii~g, AUG. 24, 2D22 .~ ~~r~n~~rr~z+dA~4ene~~~se~:iate~ , .~" r ~~. ~~ 2 SKETCH & LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT " A " ( ~ THIS IS NOT A SURVEY LEGEND L.~1.D.D. LATERAL 33 R/W RIGHT OF WAY NW 2nd STREET O.R.B P.B. OFf7ClAL RECORDS BOOK PLAT BOOK PG PAGE P.O.C POINT OF COMMENCEMENT ~ P.O.B POINT OF BEGINNING P. 0. T POINT OF TERMINUS ~ C/L U.E. CENTER LINE UTILITY EASEMENT ~ PC POINT OF CURVE ~ R RADIUS ~v L LENGTH OF ARC Q D DELTA W ~o ~~ ~~ ~~ ` TEMPLE SINAI a ~ W 3 ~ o o ~ ~ cn ~ ° ¢3 D=00'46'.5" o ~ Z . 0 oqo L=30.00 ~ ~ ° -2222.01 RADIAL 09 :39'2 Z o R- g 2" ~ o w N Qa . ~ RADIAL 0.00 ~' m m mZ N.08'~`10.00' US M~N ° P.O.B. EASE p=00'46'25" ~ p=p2'S1'57" L=30.14 , P.O.C.-"~ 83'59'00"E. L=111.64' , R=2232.01 "~ ' S. W. CDR. 295.67 R=2232.01 TEMPLE SlNA! WEST 0 ATLANTIC AVENUE A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE PLAT OF TEMPLE SINAI OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BDOK 46, PAGE 53, PALM BEACH COUNTY RECORDS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING A T THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TEMPLE SINAI PLA T,• THENCE N. 83 59'E. ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT-OF WAY LINE OF ATLANTIC AVENUE A DISTANCE OF 295.67 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CIRCULAR CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 2,232.01 FEET,• THENCE RUN EASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE WITH A DEL TA OF 2 51 'S7" A DISTANCE OF 111.64 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE N. 08 52'57"W. RADIALL Y A DISTANCE OF 10.00 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH WITH A RADIUS OF 2,222.01 FEET WHICH BEARS N. 08 52'57"W.; THENCE RUN EASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE WI Th' A DEL TA OF 0'46'25" A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET,' THENCE S. 09 39'22 "E. A DISTANCE OF 10.00 FEET TO A POINT LYING ON THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID ATLANTIC AVENUE AND A CURVE CONCAVE TD THE NORTH WITH A RADIUS OF 2,232.01 FEET,• THENCE RUN WESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE WITH A DELTA OF 046'25" A DISTANCE OF 30.14 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEG/NNING. , BRUCE CARTER & ASSOC IATES, INC. SURVEYORS-PLANNERS 405 S.E. 6TH AVE. (SOUTH FEDERAL HIGHWAY) DELRAY QEACFi, FLORIDA 33483 PHONE (561)-2b5-1910 /FAX (561)-265-1919 TEMPLE SINAI X2475 WEST ATLANTIC AVENUE BUS EASEMENT THIS SKETCH lS NUT VALID UNLESS !T BEARS AN ORlGIANAL SIGNATURE AND AN EMBOSSED SURI~EYORS SEAL, p B R TE OF FLORIDA DATE 7-06-11 DRAWN BY BC F.B. PG. NA SCALE NTS PAGE 1 OF 1 3~N`d2~J-N3 H~IH , ~llN`d-Ild r A Z~~ 1^ r _ ,. UZQ ~~. ~ X ~ W ~ N ~ rN ~W~ ~n Za c0Q ~ Q NW ~ ~_ ~ ~°° ~~ , ~-_ I~ m N ~"~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ . ~ ~ ~~ ,. 1 \ . N axa ~.. ~--- ~ Q N V .~ ~ ~~ ~ U W U ~ ~.._ Z :.' ~ ~ I I ~~ 1 ,' .\ I w., ,~, ~ __.. I c~ ~. ,. li i i i i I ~: i :~ i ` ~ '~ ` I ~~ :1 ~~ ~, _. :1 '~ I .\ I ~. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Trade M. Lutchmansingh, P.E., Assistant City Engineer Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Environmental Services Director THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: July 11, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.G. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 19, 2011 HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT /OCEAN BLVD. LLC. ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Request Commission approve and authorize the Mayor to execute a Hold Harmless Agreement for Work Performed within the State Right-of-Way with Ocean Blvd. LLC. (Contractor) for property located at 921 South Ocean Boulevard. BACKGROUND Contractor is planning to install three water service lines (domestic, fire and irrigation) and one sanitary sewer service line from existing utilities within the State Right-of-Way on Ocean Boulevard (AlA). As a result, a permit from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is required. Since the City will be maintaining that part of the service within the FDOT right-of-way, FDOT requires that the City sign the permit application. The Hold Harmless Agreement provides the City with a one year warranty for all work completed within FDOT right-of-way by Contractor. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval. HOLX~ HARMLESS AGRE~:IVIENT TOR V~OR,I~ PERFORMED VYITI~IN ~'HE STATE RIGID`-OI+~WAY 'T'HIS HQLD IIATtMLI~1SS AGREEMENT, is entered into this day of 201_ by and between the CITY OF DELRA,'Y 16EACH, ELORTDA, (hereinaflei• referred to as "CITY"} and ~ Cszp~y~ ~ 1~c~ . , ~ 1_ C~ , (herei~zafter refer~•ed to as "DEVELOPER"). VyIZ1TNlaSSE`I'H: WHEREAS, IIEVI+aL()PER wishes to install/construct utilities in the right~o~ way of the State of l~ lorida; and WI~~,R + AS, the C~:TY is reclui~'ed to sign the pe~•jnit o~~ behalf of the DEVELOPER to allow the it~stallatio~~lcanstruction to take place in ilxc State ~•ight-ol=way; and '4~VX~IrttEAS, il~e CI'T'Y is required to incle~n~iil'y and hold harmless tl~e State for tl~e work perfor~~Yed by DE'VFLOI'I+,R its the State right-off way; a~~d WHERZaAS, this Agreement shall provide that DEVELOPER s11a11 bald hay°mless and defend the CITY and the State for the wank pcrfornxed in the State ~•ight-of way by the DEVELOPER, its ca~~tractor or agent. NO'4V, THEREFORE, for the mutual covenants and ~x~atters set forth laerei~i, as o#' the date set forth above, tl~e parties hercby agrec as follows: 1. 'I~he recitations set forth above are incorporated herein. 2. DEVELOPER, in consideratia~~ of the payment of `t'en Dollars {$1 Q.00}, receipt of which is hereby aclcnowlcdged, agrees to defend, indem~lify, and bolt! l~arnlless tl~e CI~I`Y and the State, their agents, officers, ctnployees and servants from any and all claims, s~iits, causes of action or any Claim Wl]atsoever made, and damages, including, but slot li~~~itecl to reasanablc attorney's fees atlcl costs at the trial and appellate levels, wllich tray result frOt11 qtly activity conducted by DL,V~LOPT~t, its cot~iractors or agents it1 relation to the work perforntecl in the State right-of-tvay atld as more particularly showtl ot1 the etlgineeritlg plans stabinitted for the development knowtl as ~ G(S ~p vY1 RE? ~ i ~C~i,~ CC'.. `~ ~ ~ ~d ~-•~- ~C e c~ r, l~ ~ Uc~ . ~~ ~ ~~y ~3~~~~dti r ~~~ r.• ~~.. ~~-; ~~+y cap, ~~~-~,~~,,~ ~~~-~ , 3. D~V)CLOPER warrants and guaraaltees to the CITY that all work oat the utility irnproveanent shall be constructed in accordance with the applicable codes of the City of Delray Beach acid the State of Florida. The D)CVIuJ[~OPE~'S wat~atlty atld gzaaratltee shall re,nain ia~ effect for oils year from the date of final acceptatlca. Utu•etnedied defects idetatifiecl for correction during the warraaltylguarantee period bttt retnainiaag after its expiratioal shalt lac considered as part of the obligations of the guarantee and watranty. Dcfccts it1 the itlstaElation or coxtstt•uction of the utility' improvement, uthieh are retneclied as a result of obligations of ills warraaltylguararttee shall subject the t•emedied portion o.f the work to an extetlded ~'arrantylguarantee period of one year after the elefect has be~;t1 remedied. DI~VLIIOPL+'R shall deliver this agtcentent to its Surety. The Surety shall be bnunci witll atxl f©r the D)CVIi;I.OPi'lii ia1 the DTV>CLO~~~'S faithful observance ofthe guarantee. 4. DrVIa~T,OX'lCit, shall supervise and direct ills installation and coalstructiaal of the utility ianprovomont, applying such skills attd expertise as may be necessary to perform the ~vork in accordance with ills approved engineering plans. D~VLLOP ~ R shall be solely respoiisibie fez the meads, methods, teclztliques, sequences aaxcl procedures of the construction and i3lstallatiota oftlle utility improvement. 5. Any claims, lawsuits or disputes that may arise undo this Agreettlcaat shall be governed by the Laws of Florida, with vetnte in Palm l3eacl~ County, Florida. 2 ~. This Agreement constitutes tlxe entire agreement and understanding of the parties, as it pet•tains to the construction or installation of tl~e utility. There are no ~•epresentations or unde~•sta~idiiags of any kind trot sei forth Herein. Airy a~nendt~3ents to this Agreement must be u~ writing at~d executed by both parties. 7. li)EVI~LOPICR or its coaitraetor shall maintain worker's compensation inst~ranee in an amount recluiz•ed by law and general liability insurance in the amouzat of ogre naillio~i dollars ($1,0~0,000.Q0} gover~~ing bodily i~~jury and property da~~~age in stand~ird form, insuring CITY and the Mate as additional i~an~ed insureds. X}~''VTLO~'IJR or its contracto~• shall provide this Information to the C~`f`~' on a Certificate of lnstuar~ce, that is acceptaUle to the CITY, prior to coz~jmencing i~~stallatinn or construction. S. D~VILdI'r~t shall be bound by all the terms and eonditioa~s found in the Utility Permit Agreement between the CITY and the State for tl~.is project and attael~eci hereto as Exhibit ~~~~~ 9, This agreement shall not be valid u~~less signed by the City's Mayor and City Clerk. ZN 'I~VX'1'NESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto Dave entered into this agreerne~~t the day and year first written above. ATTEST: ~Y~ .~.~_,o..._ City Clerk Approved as to Foam: L'y: City Attorney CITY ~I+ I.)FLIZA'X 131~~ACI-I, I+~,ORII)A By: Nelson S. Mcl7uf~e, Mayan 3 `WITNESSES DL~LL4PJlaR: (Print o~• "1'ylae Name) (Pri~at or Typo Nataae} STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BFACII i ((~~ I3y: ~ c..a~ ~ t n ~C'. ~`d r ~a~ { ~~ ~.c`•~~n, (Print ar T}rpe 1rTame) r Address: t~ v.~ f ~ i >~ ~oc~. ~ U L . S~c~ i~7~ 1 C~1 Plio~~e: ~~ I~ 3 ~ - p ~ ~~3 ~-- Tlae foregait;g instrc~~~ae~tt wasr acknowledged before me dais ~~ day of ~, , 20d~. by . ~Co-~` ~~~ (L , /I.~, , (name of off cer or agent, title of o#'fice~• or agent) of ~ X17 ~3i,+.,~(~'~ C~-~. - (name of corporation ack[lowleElgirig), a (state or lae~ a corporatian} corPoratio~a, on behalf of tl~e corpoz'atioza. He1Sl~e is rsotially known to ine or has p~'oc3ttcecl (type of i e~ tton~s--id ati~cation anci did (clicl ~aot) talfe an oath, Signat• re afNc~tary Public- J State of Florida ~.nurunrnr.nnn..nanne.anauuun.. SU2ANNE BELANO ,.mi:ru„ ;.~,~tk~~J Comtn# E3Dfl748487 `;~, .~~ expires 4/1tz/201? ~ r; Fr~'no~ ~~' ,i,av~ . f~borida Notary Assn„ fnc .fir ., r.a :r~Ir rG[eelarncrllla[r if rs9lrrnaP Rr1tE ]4-46 STATE OF FLORIDA ©EPARTPAENT OF TRANSPORTATION 7t0-010-55 UTtL.ITY P~RM~T o c~L s~io PEfZMIT NO.: Sl?CTiON NO.: STATI: ROAD COUNTY FDOT construction Is proposed nr underway. ^ Yes ®No Financial Project Id: Is this work related to an approved Utitlty Work Schedule? ^ Yes ®No If yes, Document Number: PERMiT7EE: City of Delray Beach ADDRESS: 434 South Swinton Ave. TEt_t;PHONE NUMBi=R: (561) 243 - 7336 CITYISTATEIZIP: Delray Beach, Florida 33444 The above PHRMITTEE requests permission from the State of Florida Depar#ment of Transportation, hereinafter coifed the FdOT, to construct, oparata and maintain the following: 3 water services and taps and 1 sanitary sewer service FROM: 921 South Ocean Blvd. TO: 921 South Ocean Blvd., Defray Beach, Florida Submitted for the PERNIITTEE by: Name and Company [Typed or Printed t,agibly~ Contact Information AddresslTelephonalE-Mall {if applicable) Signature date Doug Winter Companies, Erik Cooper 561-471-98$3 - G 1. The Permillea declares that prior to filing this application, the location of ail existing utilities that it owns or has an interest in, both aerial and underground, are accurately shown on the plans and a letter of notifica#ion was mailed on to the fallowing utilities known to be involved or potentially impacted in the area of the proposed installation: Sunshine S#ate One Call of Florida. Inc. Ticket #125103353 2. The local Maintenance or Resident Engineer, hereafter referred to as the FDOT Engineer, shop be notified a minimum of for#y eight (48) hours in advance prior to starting work and again immediately upon completion of work. The FDOT's Engineer Is , ~„~, , located at ,Telephone Number The Permittee's employee responsible for MOT is , Telephone Number (This name may be provided at the time of the for#y eight (48) hour advance-nonce prior to starting work). 3. All work, materials, and equipment shall be subject to inspection and approval by the FDOT Engineer. 4. All plans and installations shall conform to the requirements of the FDOT's UAM in effect as of the date this permit is approved by FDOT, and shall be made a par# of Phis permit. This provision sha[I not limit the authority of the FDOT under Paragraph 8 of this Permit. 5. This Permittee shall commence actual construction in good faith within days after issuance of permi#, and shall be completed within days after the permi##ed work has begun. if the beginning date is more than sixty (ti0) days from the date of permit approval, the Permittee must review the permit with the FDO7 l;nginaer to make sure na changes havo occurred to the Transportation Facility that would affect the permitted construction. 6. The construction and maintenance of such utility shat! not in#erfere with the property and rights of a prior Permittee. 7. It Is expressly stipulated that this permit is a license for permissive use only and that the placing of utilities upon public property pursuant to this permit shall not opera#e to create or vest any property right in said holder, except as provided in executed subordination and Railroad Utility Agreements. 8. Pursuant to Section 337.403, Florida Statutes, any utility placed upon, under, over, or along any public road ar publicly owned rail corridor that is found by FDOT to be unreasonably interfering in any way with the convenient, safe, or continuous use, or maintenance, improvement, extension, or expansion, of such public road ar publicly awned rail corridor shall, upon thirty (30) days written notice to the utility or its agent by FDOT, be removed or relocated by such utility at its own expense except as provided in Section 337.403(1), Florida Sta#ules, and except for reimbursement rights set forth in previously executed subordination and Railroad Utility Agreements, and shall apply to all successors and assigns for the permit#ad facility. 9. I# is agreed that in the event the relocation of said utilities are scheduled to be done simultaneously with the FDOT's construction work, iha Permittee will coordinate with iha FDOT before proceeding and shall cooperate with the FDOT's contractor to arrange the sequence of work so as not to delay the work of the FDOT's contractor, defend any legal claims of the FDOT's contractor duo fo delays caused by the Permittee's failure to comply with the approved schedule, and shall comply with all provisions of the law and the FDOT's current UAM. The Permittee shall not be responsible for delay beyond I#s control. 10. In the case ofnon-compliance with the FDOT's roquirements in effect as of the date Phis permit is approved, this permit is void and the facility will have lobe brought into compliance or removed from iha RItN at no cost to the FDOT, except for reimbursement rights set forth in previously executed subordination and Railroad Utility Agreements. This provision shall not limit the authority of the FDOT under Paragraph 8 of this Permit. 11. it is understood and agreed that the righ#s and privileges herein set out era granted only to the extent of the State's right, title and interest in the land to be entered upon and used by the Permittee, and the Permitter will, at al[ limes, and to the ex#enk permitted bylaw, assume all risk of and indemnify, defend, and save harmless the State of Florida and the FDOT from and against any and all toss, damage, cast or expense arising in any manner an account of iha exercise ar attempted exercises by said Permittee of the aforesaid rights and privileges. 12. During construction, all safety regulations of the FDOT shall be observed and the Permittee must take measures, including placing and the display of safety devices that may ba necessary in order to safely conduct the publ€c through the projecE area in accordance with the Federal MUTCD, as amended by the UAM. 13. Should the Permitter be desirous of keeping its ulilitias in place and out of service, the Permittee, by execution of this permit acknowledges its present and continuing ownership of its utili#ies located between and within the FDOT's RNV as set forth abovo. Whonever the Permittee removes its facilities, it shalt be al the Parmittae's sofa cost and expense. The Permittee, at its sole expense, shall promptly remove said out of service utilities whenever the FDOT determines said removal is in the public inters. 14. In the event contaminaFed soil is encountered by the Permittee or anyone within the permitted construction limits, the termittee shall immediately cease worts and notify the FDOT. The FDOT shall notify the Parmltae of any suspension or revocation of the permit to allow contamination assessment and remediation. Said suspension or revocation shall remain In effect until otherwise notified by FDO7 15. For any excava#ion, construction, maintenance, or support activities performed by or on behalf of the FDOT, within its RI4N, the Permittee maybe required by the FDOT or its agents to perform the following activities with respect to a Permittee's facilities: physically expose ordirecl exposure of underground facilities, provide any necessary support to facilities and/or cover, de-energize or after aerial facilities as deemed necessary for protection and safety. Page 1 of 2 RULE 94-4& STATE. OF FLORIRA ©EPARI'MENT OF TRANSPORTATION 740-010 85 UTILITY PERMIT 0GC'~108l90 16. Pursuant to Section 337.401(2), Florida Statutes, the permit shall require rho permit holder to be responsible for damage resulting from the issuance of the permit. The FDOT may initiate injunctive proceedings as provided in s.120.69 to enforce provisions of this subsection or any rule or order issued or entered into pursuant thereto. 17. Pursuant to Section 337.402, Florida Statutes, when any public road or public[y owned rail corridor is damaged or impaired in any way because of the installation, inspection, or repair of a utiiily located on such road or publicly owned rail corridor, the owner of the utility shall, at his or fret own expense, restore the road or publicly awned rail corridor to its original condition before such damage. If the owner fails to make such restoration, the authority is authorized to do se and charge the cast thereof against the owner under the provisions of s.337.404. 18. The Permittee shall comply with ail provisions of Chapter 555, Florida 5tatutas, Underground Facilities Damage Prevention and Safety Act. 19. Special FDQT instructions: IL is understood and agreed that commencement by the Permittee is acknowledgment and acceptance of the binding nature of all the above listed permit conditions and special instructions. 2(3. By receipt of this pemtiit, the Permittee acknowledges responsibility to comply with Section 119.07, Florida Statutes. 21. By the below signature, the Permittee hereby represents that no change to the Ft~OTs standard Utility Permit form, as incorporated by reference into Rule i4-46.001, #ar this Utility Permit has been made which has not been previously caked to the attention of the FDQT {and signified to by checking the appropriate box below) by a separate attached written document showing all changes and the wriiten and dated approval of the FDQT Engineer. Are there attachments reflecting changels to the standard form? ^NO ^ YES if Yes, pages are attached. PERMiTTEE City of Delray Beach SIGNATURE DATE: Name ~ 7itie of Authorized Permittee or Agent {Typed or Printed L.egibiy) APPROVED BY: --`` \(.~t~ S~a .~~ c G~V~(~4Y~tx~@Y~ S~V. ~~1(~tC~~+j~ DATE: Distric# Maintenance Engineer or Designee UTILITY PERMIT FINAL INSPECTION CERTIFICATION DATE: DATE WORK STARTED: DATE WORK COMPt_ETED: INSPECTED BY: {Permittee or Agent) GRANGE APPROVED t3Y: DATE: District Maintenance Engineer or Designee the undersigned Permittee do hereby CEf2TiFY that the utili#y construction approved by the above numbered permit was inspected and installed in accordance with the approved plans made a part of this permit and in accordance with the FgOT's current UAM. All plan changes have been approved by the Fi]OT's Engineer and are attached to this permit. I also certify that lire work area has boon loft in as good or better condition than when the work was begun. PERMITTEE: SIGNATURE: DATE: Name 8~ Titie of Authorized Permittee or Agent Typed or printed Legibly CC: pistrict Permit Office Permittee t'age 2 of 2 ~ ~: ~; ,~~: . ~ r t. ` i~ i 3~~a `o I i ~~ ~ ' i~ 0 Y .;~~ , a ~~ ~ t 1 ~r~ E ~ r: o I~,fiy.. ~ ` ~° :~ L' o 'y~ i ~~ 1 1a4 ~ r r 'i 9~ak>„~µ ~ ~ .jam" gf ,. ~ ~~ ~BAUF-1Niq A~? , ~ v~°"'^~ ~.~ "t ' "~' m ~ ~~ ~'~' '1~'MF+~ + '~Id ~~~ `~ ~ rl, '~, ~ ~ '~ ,.. ~ ,. ~, ~~ ~ ~ dam, .,~ ~~ ~.. ~~. ti ~?''~f:,, ~ Yr+~ ~ aYi ~Y ~ ~~ ', a~ i. .. ~~+~ ~ 11 ~~ 2i4- ~. ~i ry t % ^ 11 ,y i , A ~ i f 6' 3'uNOiL 1~~, .N"ry~, ~ _- ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ SITE ~ .~.. ti. ~~ i! ,y ~ ~, _ „' yr'• 1N~ ,,,~ e•• o U n a ;µ o ; °; F ~ ~^ ; nl -I Q Y n I .o $" ~el,e .+ a .~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ .~ _. ~~.; •:r s ~_. ' ,k Y~ ~ ~ r ~ ; ~ ~~~4,~i~ °- v t. _~~ , ,~ R k yy ~ ~ ~~~7 ~p ,! •~ iM ~ _ Zi, . _ ~rMtii^ rc h ,~~ ~} ~. ~~. • r~ a ~ '~ . h! c- .! ,~~ t ~'`~ - ~ ~ '~4• fit,, ~ i i, 1 %;, + ~. fir- • ~ I 4 I r y ~ /•T~ ~ 1 7t ~~ ' j• ~ ~ 1~ ~ iY ~ ., (~, ~ .~~ S _H I ~ OW. ..~1 ~ y K ~l W ~4 '~f ~, CITY of DELRAY BEACH LOCATION MAP DATE:D7/12/2011 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT 921 S. OCEAN BLVD. 434 sourH BWNiON AVBdUE, DELFiAY BEACH, ROFiDA 33444 TAC ID#501 1 of 1 ~~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Lula Butler, Director, Community Improvement THROUGH: David Harden, City Manager DATE: July 13, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.H. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TULY 19, 2011 SUB-GRANT AGREEMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION PROGRAM (RCMP) ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Approval of sub-grant Agreement 12RC-SS-10-60-02 between the City of Delray Beach and the Florida Division of Emergency Management in the amount of $150,000 for implementation of the Residential Construction Mitigation Program (RCMP). BACKGROUND The Division of Emergency Management (DEM) has awarded a grant to the City of Delray Beach in the amount of $150,000. These funds must be used by the City to implement activities authorized under Section 215.559 of the Florida Statutes, Hurricane Loss Mitigation Program. This is an eligible cost- reimbursement contract, and as such, the recipient (City) must make other funding arrangements to complete this project. The City of Delray Beach mitigation project will consist of hardening qualified single-family homes in need of hurricane retrofitting. Eligible improvements may consists of re-roofs, window and door opening protection, brace bottom chord gable, soffits and roof vents and roof to wall connections. The City of Delray Beach will retrofit up to twenty (20) homes under this initiative. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of sub-grant Agreement 12RC-SS-10-60-02 between the City of Delray Beach and Florida Division of Emergency Management, in the amount of $150,000 for implementation of the Residential Construction Mitigation Program (RCMP). Contract Number: 12RC-5S-10-60-02- Project Code: RCMP 2012-003 CFSA: 52.016 STATE-FUNDED SUBGRANT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by the State of Florida, Division of Emergency Management, with headquarters in Tallahassee, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Division"), and City of Delray Beach (hereinafter referred to as the "Recipient"). THIS AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO BASED ON THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTATIONS: A. The Recipient represents that it is fully qualified and eligible to receive these grant funds to provide the services identified herein; and B. The Division has received these grant funds from the State of Florida, and has the authority to subgrant these funds to the Recipient upon the terms and conditions below; and C. The Division has statutory authority to disburse the funds under this Agreement. THEREFORE, the Division and the Recipient agree to the following: (1) SCOPE OF WORK. The Recipient shall perform the work in accordance with the Budget and Scope of Work, Attachment A of this Agreement. (2) INCORPORATION OF LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES The Recipient and the Division shall be governed by applicable State and Federal laws, rules and regulations, including those identified in Attachment B. (3) PERIOD OF AGREEMENT. This Agreement shall begin upon execution by both parties and shall end June 30, 2012, unless terminated earlier in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph (12) of this Agreement. (4) MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT Either party may request modification of the provisions of this Agreement. Changes which are agreed upon shall be valid only when in writing, signed by each of the parties, and attached to the original of this Agreement. (5) RECORDKEEPING (a) As applicable, Recipient's performance under this Agreement shall be subject to the federal OMB Circular No. A-102, "Common Rule: Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreement to State and Local Governments" (53 Federal Register 8034) or OMB Circular No. A-110, "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreement with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations," and either OMB Circular No. A-87, "Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments," OMB Circular No. A-21, "Cost Principles for Educational Institutions, " or OMB Circular No. A-122, "Cost Principles for Non-profit Organizations." 1 (b) The Recipient shall retain sufficient records to show its compliance with the terms of this Agreement, and the compliance of all subcontractors or consultants paid from funds under this Agreement, for a period of five years from the date the audit report is issued, and shall allow the Division or its designee, the State Chief Financial Officer or the State Auditor General access to the records upon request. The Recipient shall ensure that audit working papers are available to them upon request for a period of five years from the date the audit report is issued, unless extended in writing by the Division. The five year period may be extended for the following exceptions: 1. If any litigation, claim or audit is started before the five year period expires, and extends beyond the five year period, the records shall be retained until all litigation, claims or audit findings involving the records have been resolved. 2. Records for the disposition of non-expendable personal property valued at $5,000 or more at the time it is acquired shall be retained for five years after final disposition. 3. Records relating to real property acquired shall be retained for five years after the closing on the transfer of title. (c) The Recipient shall maintain all records for the Recipient and for all subcontractors or consultants to be paid from funds provided under this Agreement, including documentation of all program costs, in a form sufficient to determine compliance with the requirements and objectives of the Budget and Scope of Work - Attachment A -and all other applicable laws and regulations. (d) The Recipient, its employees or agents, including all subcontractors or consultants to be paid from funds provided under this Agreement, shall allow access to its records at reasonable times to the Division, its employees, and agents. "Reasonable" shall ordinarily mean during normal business hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., local time, on Monday through Friday. "Agents" shall include, but not be limited to, auditors retained by the Division. (6) AUDIT REQUIREMENTS (a) The Recipient agrees to maintain financial procedures and support documents, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, to account for the receipt and expenditure of funds under this Agreement. (b) These records shall be available at reasonable times for inspection, review, or audit by state personnel and other personnel authorized by the Department or the Division. "Reasonable" shall ordinarily mean normal business hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., local time, Monday through Friday. (c) The Recipient shall provide the Department with the records, reports or financial statements upon request for the purposes of auditing and monitoring the funds awarded under this Agreement. (d) If the Recipient is a nonstate entity as defined by Section 215.97, Fla. Stat., it shall comply with the following: If the Recipient expends a total amount of State financial assistance equal to or more than $500,000 in any fiscal year of such Recipient, the Recipient must have a State single or project-specific 2 audit for such fiscal year in accordance with Section 215.97, Fla. Stat.; applicable rules of the Executive Office of the Governor and the Chief Financial Officer; and Chapters 10.550 (local government entities) or 10.650 (nonprofit and for-profit organizations), Rules of the Auditor General. EXHIBIT 1 to this Agreement shows the State financial assistance awarded by this Agreement. In determining the State financial assistance expended in its fiscal year, the Recipient shall include all sources of State financial assistance, including State funds received from the Division, other state agencies, and other nonstate entities. State financial assistance does not include Federal direct or pass-through awards and resources received by a nonstate entity for Federal program matching requirements. In connection with the audit requirements addressed in this Paragraph 6(d) above, the Recipient shall ensure that the audit complies with the requirements of Section 215.97(8), Fla. Stat. This includes submission of a reporting package as defined by Section 215.97(2)(e), Fla. Stat. and Chapters 10.550 (local governmental entities) or 10.650 (nonprofit and for-profit organizations), Rules of the Auditor General. If the Recipient expends less than $500,000 in State financial assistance in its fiscal year, an audit conducted in accordance with the provisions of Section 215.97, Fla. Stat, is not required. In the event that the Recipient expends less than $500,000 in state financial assistance in its fiscal year and elects to have an audit conducted in accordance with the provisions of Section 215.97, Fla. Stat, the cost of the audit must be paid from the nonstate entity's resources (i.e., the cost of such an audit must be paid from the Recipient's resources obtained from other than State entities). Additional information on the Florida Single Audit Act may be found at the following website: https://a~s.fldfs.com/fsaa/ (e) Report Submission 1. The annual financial audit report shall include all management letters and the Recipient's response to all findings, including corrective actions to be taken. 2. The annual financial audit report shall include a schedule of financial assistance specifically identifying all Agreement and other revenue by sponsoring agency and Agreement number. 3. Copies of financial reporting packages required under this Paragraph 6 shall be submitted by or on behalf of the Recipient directly to each of the following: The Department of Community Affairs at each of the following addresses: Department of Community Affairs Office of Audit Services 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 and Division of Emergency Management Bureau of Mitigation 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 The Auditor General's Office at the following address: Auditor General's Office Room 401, Claude Pepper Building 111 West Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1450 4. Any reports, management letter, or other information required to be submitted to the Division or the Department of Community Affairs pursuant to this Agreement shall be submitted on time as required under OMB Circular A-133, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 10.550 (local governmental entities) or 10.650 (nonprofit and for-profit organizations), Rules of the Auditor General, as applicable. 5. Recipients, when submitting financial reporting packages to the Division or the Department of Community Affairs for audits done in accordance with OMB Circular A-133 or Chapters 10.550 (local governmental entities) or 10.650 (nonprofit and for-profit organizations), Rules of the Auditor General, should indicate the date that the reporting package was delivered to the Recipient in correspondence accompanying the reporting package. (f) If the audit shows that all or any portion of the funds disbursed hereunder were not spent in accordance with the conditions of this Agreement, the Recipient shall be held liable for reimbursement to the Division of all funds not spent in accordance with these applicable regulations and Agreement provisions within thirty days after the Division has notified the Recipient of such non- compliance. (g) The Recipient shall have all audits completed in accordance with Section 215.97, Fla. Stat. by an independent certified public accountant (IPA) who shall either be a certified public accountant or a public accountant licensed under Chapter 473, Fla. Stat. The IPA shall state that the audit complied with the applicable provisions noted above. The audit must be submitted to the Division no later than nine (9) months from the end of the Recipient's fiscal year. (7) REPORTS (a) The Recipient shall provide the Division with quarterly reports and aclose-out report. These reports shall include the current status and progress by the Recipient and all subrecipients and subcontractors in completing the work described in the Scope of Work and the expenditure of funds under this Agreement, in addition to any other information requested by the Division. (b) Quarterly reports are due to the Division no later than 15 days after the end of each quarter of the program year and shall be sent each quarter until submission of the administrative close-out report. The ending dates for each quarter of the program year are March 31, June 30, September 30 and December 31. (c) The close-out report is due 30 days after termination of this Agreement or 30 days after completion of the activities contained in this Agreement, whichever first occurs. (d) If all required reports and copies are not sent to the Division or are not completed in a manner acceptable to the Division, the Division may withhold further payments until they are completed or 4 may take other action as stated in Paragraph (11) REMEDIES. "Acceptable to the Division" means that the work product was completed in accordance with the Budget and Scope of Work. (e) The Recipient shall provide additional program updates or information that may be required by the Division. (f) The Recipient shall provide additional reports and information identified in Attachment D. (8) MONITORING. The Recipient shall monitor its performance under this Agreement, as well as that of its subcontractors and/or consultants who are paid from funds provided under this Agreement, to ensure that time schedules are being met, the Schedule of Deliverables and Scope of Work are being accomplished within the specified time periods, and other performance goals are being achieved. A review shall be done for each function or activity in Attachment A to this Agreement, and reported in the quarterly report. In addition to reviews of audits conducted in accordance with paragraph (6) above, monitoring procedures may include, but not be limited to, on-site visits by Division staff, limited scope audits, and/or other procedures. The Recipient agrees to comply and cooperate with any monitoring procedures/processes deemed appropriate by the Division. In the event that the Division or the Department determines that a limited scope audit of the Recipient is appropriate, the Recipient agrees to comply with any additional instructions provided by the Division or the Department to the Recipient regarding such audit. The Recipient further agrees to comply and cooperate with any inspections, reviews, investigations or audits deemed necessary by the Florida Chief Financial Officer or Auditor General. In addition, the Division will monitor the performance and financial management by the Recipient throughout the contract term to ensure timely completion of all tasks. (9) LIABILITY (a) Unless Recipient is a State agency or subdivision, as defined in Section 768.28, Fla. Stat., the Recipient is solely responsible to parties it deals with in carrying out the terms of this Agreement, and shall hold the Division harmless against all claims of whatever nature by third parties arising from the work performance under this Agreement. For purposes of this Agreement, Recipient agrees that it is not an employee or agent of the Division, but is an independent contractor. (b) Any Recipient which is a state agency or subdivision, as defined in Section 768.28, Fla. Stat., agrees to be fully responsible for its negligent or tortious acts or omissions which result in claims or suits against the Division, and agrees to be liable for any damages proximately caused by the acts or omissions to the extent set forth in Section 768.28, Fla. Stat. Nothing herein is intended to serve as a waiver of sovereign immunity by any Recipient to which sovereign immunity applies. Nothing herein shall be construed as consent by a state agency or subdivision of the State of Florida to be sued by third parties in any matter arising out of any contract. (10) DEFAULT. If any of the following events occur ("Events of Default"), all obligations on the part of the Division to make further payment of funds shall, if the Division elects, terminate and the Division has the option to exercise any of its remedies set forth in Paragraph (11). However, the Division may make payments or partial payments after any Events of Default without waiving the right to exercise such remedies, and without becoming liable to make any further payment: (a) If any warranty or representation made by the Recipient in this Agreement or any previous agreement with the Division is or becomes false or misleading in any respect, or if the Recipient fails to keep or perform any of the obligations, terms or covenants in this Agreement or any previous agreement with the Division and has not cured them in timely fashion, or is unable or unwilling to meet its obligations under this Agreement; (b) If material adverse changes occur in the financial condition of the Recipient at any time during the term of this Agreement, and the Recipient fails to cure this adverse change within thirty days from the date written notice is sent by the Division. (c) If any reports required by this Agreement have not been submitted to the Division or have been submitted with incorrect, incomplete or insufficient information; (d) If the Recipient has failed to perform and complete on time any of its obligations under this Agreement. (11) REMEDIES. If an Event of Default occurs, then the Division may, after thirty calendar days written notice to the Recipient and upon the Recipient's failure to cure within those thirty days, exercise any one or more of the following remedies, either concurrently or consecutively: (a) Terminate this Agreement, provided that the Recipient is given at least thirty days prior written notice of the termination. The notice shall be effective when placed in the United States, first class mail, postage prepaid, by registered or certified mail-return receipt requested, to the address in paragraph (13) herein; (b) Begin an appropriate legal or equitable action to enforce performance of this Agreement; (c) Withhold or suspend payment of all or any part of a request for payment; (d) Require that the Recipient refund to the Division any monies used for ineligible purposes under the laws, rules and regulations governing the use of these funds. (e) Exercise any corrective or remedial actions, to include but not be limited to: 1. request additional information from the Recipient to determine the reasons for or the extent of non-compliance or lack of performance, 2. issue a written warning to advise that more serious measures may be taken if the situation is not corrected, 3. advise the Recipient to suspend, discontinue or refrain from incurring costs for any activities in question or 6 4. require the Recipient to reimburse the Division for the amount of costs incurred for any items determined to be ineligible; (f) Exercise any other rights or remedies which may be available under law. (g) Pursuing any of the above remedies will not stop the Division from pursuing any other remedies in this Agreement or provided at law or in equity. If the Division waives any right or remedy in this Agreement or fails to insist on strict performance by the Recipient, it will not affect, extend or waive any other right or remedy of the Division, or affect the later exercise of the same right or remedy by the Division for any other default by the Recipient. (12) TERMINATION. (a) The Division may terminate this Agreement for cause after thirty days written notice. Cause can include misuse of funds, fraud, lack of compliance with applicable rules, laws and regulations, failure to perform on time, and refusal by the Recipient to permit public access to any document, paper, letter, or other material subject to disclosure under Chapter 119, Fla. Stat., as amended. (b) The Division may terminate this Agreement for convenience or when it determines, in its sole discretion, that continuing the Agreement would not produce beneficial results in line with the further expenditure of funds, by providing the Recipient with thirty calendar days prior written notice. (c) The parties may agree to terminate this Agreement for their mutual convenience through a written amendment of this Agreement. The amendment will state the effective date of the termination and the procedures for proper closeout of the Agreement. (d) In the event that this Agreement is terminated, the Recipient will not incur new obligations for the terminated portion of the Agreement after the Recipient has received the notification of termination. The Recipient will cancel as many outstanding obligations as possible. Costs incurred after receipt of the termination notice will be disallowed. The Recipient shall not be relieved of liability to the Division because of any breach of Agreement by the Recipient. The Division may, to the extent authorized by law, withhold payments to the Recipient for the purpose of set-off until the exact amount of damages due the Division from the Recipient is determined. (13) NOTICE AND CONTACT. (a) All notices provided under or pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing, either by hand delivery, or first class, certified mail, return receipt requested, to the representative named below, at the address below, and this notification attached to the original of this Agreement. (b) The name and address of the Division contract manager for this Agreement is: 7 Dexter Harrell, Community Assistance Consultant Bureau of Mitigation Division of Emergency Management 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Telephone: 850-413-9820 Fax: 850-413-9857 Email: Dexter.Harrell@em.myflorida.com (c) The name and address of the Representative of the Recipient responsible for the administration of this Agreement is: Mr. P. Nigel Roberts, Neighborhood Services Administrator City of Delra~r Beach 7525 NW 88 h Avenue, Tamarac, Florida 33321 Telephone: 564-243-7282 Fax: Email: robertspn@mydelraybeach.com (d) In the event that different representatives or addresses are designated by either party after execution of this Agreement, notice of the name, title and address of the new representative will be provided as outlined in (13)(a) above. (14) SUBCONTRACTS If the Recipient subcontracts any of the work required under this Agreement, a copy of the unsigned subcontract must be forwarded to the Division for review and approval before it is executed by the Recipient. The Recipient agrees to include in the subcontract that (i) the subcontractor is bound by the terms of this Agreement, (ii) the subcontractor is bound by all applicable state and federal laws and regulations, and (iii) the subcontractor shall hold the Division and Recipient harmless against all claims of whatever nature arising out of the subcontractor's performance of work under this Agreement, to the extent allowed and required by law. The Recipient shall document in the quarterly report the subcontractor's progress in performing its work under this Agreement. For each subcontract, the Recipient shall provide a written statement to the Division as to whether that subcontractor is a minority vendor, as defined in Section 288.703, Fla. Stat. (15) TERMS AND CONDITIONS This Agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. (16) ATTACHMENTS (a) All attachments to this Agreement are incorporated as if set out fully. (b) In the event of any inconsistencies or conflict between the language of this Agreement and the attachments, the language of the attachments shall control, but only to the extent of the conflict or inconsistency. (c) This Agreement has the following attachments: Exhibit 1 -Funding Sources Attachment A -Budget and Scope of Work Attachment B -Program Statutes and Regulations 8 Attachment C - Statement of Assurances Attachment D - Request for Reimbursement Attachment E - Justification of Advance Attachment F - Quarterly Report Form Attachment G - Warranties and Representations Attachment H - Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion (17) FUNDING/CONSIDERATION (a) This is acost-reimbursement Agreement. The Recipient shall be reimbursed for costs incurred in the satisfactory performance of work hereunder in an amount not to exceed $150,000.00, subject to the availability of funds. All requests for reimbursement of administrative costs must be accompanied by the back-up documentation evidencing all such administrative costs. (b) Any advance payment under this Agreement is subject to Section 216.181(16), FIa.Stat., and is contingent upon the Recipient's acceptance of the rights of the Division under Paragraph (12)(b) of this Agreement. The amount which may be advanced may not exceed the expected cash needs of the Recipient within the first three (3) months of the contract term. If an advance payment is requested, the budget data on which the request is based and a justification statement shall be included in this Agreement as Attachment E. Attachment E will specify the amount of advance payment needed and provide an explanation of the necessity for and proposed use of these funds. (c) After the initial advance, if any, payment shall be made on a reimbursement basis as needed. The Recipient agrees to expend funds in accordance with the Budget and Scope of Work, Attachment A of this Agreement. (d) Request for reimbursement should be submitted at least quarterly and should include the support documentation for all costs of the project submitted on the Request for Reimbursement. Any Requests for Reimbursement that fails to include Attachment D with the supporting documentation may be returned or delayed in processing. Final invoice shall be submitted 30 days after the expiration date of the agreement. If the necessary funds are not available to fund this Agreement as a result of action by the United States Congress, the federal Office of Management and Budgeting, the State Chief Financial Officer or under subparagraph (19)(h) of this Agreement, all obligations on the part of the Division to make any further payment of funds shall terminate, and the Recipient shall submit its closeout report within thirty days of receiving notice from the Division. (18) REPAYMENTS All refunds or repayments due to the Division under this Agreement are to be made payable to the order of "Department of Community Affairs", and mailed directly to the Division's Contact listed above. 9 In accordance with Section 215.34(2), Fla. Stat., if a check or other draft is returned to the Division for collection, Recipient shall pay the Division a service fee of $15.00 or 5% of the face amount of the returned check or draft, whichever is greater. (19) MANDATED CONDITIONS (a) The validity of this Agreement is subject to the truth and accuracy of all the information, representations, and materials submitted or provided by the Recipient in this Agreement, in any later submission or response to a Division request, or in any submission or response to fulfill the requirements of this Agreement. All of said information, representations, and materials is incorporated by reference. The inaccuracy of the submissions or any material changes shall, at the option of the Division and with thirty days written notice to the Recipient, cause the termination of this Agreement and the release of the Division from all its obligations to the Recipient. (b) This Agreement shall be construed under the laws of the State of Florida, and venue for any actions arising out of this Agreement shall be in the Circuit Court of Leon County. If any provision of this Agreement is in conflict with any applicable statute or rule, or is unenforceable, then the provision shall be null and void to the extent of the conflict, and shall be severable, but shall not invalidate any other provision of this Agreement. (c) Any power of approval or disapproval granted to the Division under the terms of this Agreement shall survive the term of this Agreement. (d) This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, any one of which may be taken as an original. (e) The Recipient agrees to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act (Public Law 101-336, 42 U.S.C. Section 12101 et seq.), which prohibits discrimination by public and private entities on the basis of disability in employment, public accommodations, transportation, State and local government services, and telecommunications. (f) Those who have been placed on the convicted vendor list following a conviction for a public entity crime or on the discriminatory vendor list may not submit a bid on a contract to provide any goods or services to a public entity, may not submit a bid on a contract with a public entity for the construction or repair of a public building or public work, may not submit bids on leases of real property to a public entity, may not be awarded or perform work as a contractor, supplier, subcontractor, or consultant under a contract with a public entity, and may not transact business with any public entity in excess of $25,000.00 for a period of 36 months from the date of being placed on the convicted vendor list or on the discriminatory vendor list. (g) Any Recipient which is not a local government or state agency, and which receives funds under this Agreement from the federal government, certifies, to the best of its knowledge and belief, that it and its principals: 10 1. are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by a federal department or agency; 2. have not, within afive-year period preceding this proposal been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under public transaction; violation of federal or state antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property; 3. are not presently indicted or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with commission of any offenses enumerated in paragraph 19(g)2. of this certification; and 4. have not within afive-year period preceding this Agreement had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default. If the Recipient is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, then the Recipient shall attach an explanation to this Agreement. In addition, the Recipient shall send to the Division (by email or by facsimile transmission) the completed "Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility And Voluntary Exclusion" (Attachment G) for each intended subcontractor which Recipient plans to fund under this Agreement. The form must be received by the Division before the Recipient enters into a contract with any subcontractor. (h) The State of Florida's performance and obligation to pay under this Agreement is contingent upon an annual appropriation by the Legislature, and subject to any modification in accordance with Chapter 216, Fla. Stat. or the Florida Constitution. (i) All bills for fees or other compensation for services or expenses shall be submitted in detail sufficient for a proper preaudit and postaudit thereof. (j) Any bills for travel expenses shall be submitted in accordance with Section 112.061, Fla. Stat. (k) The Division reserves the right to unilaterally cancel this Agreement if the Recipient refuses to allow public access to all documents, papers, letters or other material subject to the provisions of Chapter 119, Fla. Stat., which the Recipient created or received under this Agreement. (I) If the Recipient is allowed to temporarily invest any advances of funds under this Agreement, any interest income shall either be returned to the Division or be applied against the Division's obligation to pay the contract amount. (m) The State of Florida will not intentionally award publicly-funded contracts to any contractor who knowingly employs unauthorized alien workers, constituting a violation of the employment provisions contained in 8 U.S.C. Section 1324a(e) [Section 274A(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA")]. The Division shall consider the employment by any contractor of unauthorized aliens a violation 11 of Section 274A(e) of the INA. Such violation by the Recipient of the employment provisions contained in Section 274A(e) of the INA shall be grounds for unilateral cancellation of this Agreement by the Division. (n) The Recipient is subject to Florida's Government in the Sunshine Law (Section 286.011, Fla. Stat.) with respect to the meetings of the Recipient's governing board or the meetings of any subcommittee making recommendations to the governing board. All of these meetings shall be publicly noticed, open to the public, and the minutes of all the meetings shall be public records, available to the public in accordance with Chapter 119, Fla. Stat. (o) All expenditures of state financial assistance shall be in compliance with the laws, rules and regulations applicable to expenditures of State funds, including but not limited to, the Reference Guide for State Expenditures. (p) The Agreement may be charged only with allowable costs resulting from obligations incurred during the term of the Agreement. (q) Any balances of unobligated cash that have been advanced or paid that are not authorized to be retained for direct program costs in a subsequent period must be refunded to the State. (20) LOBBYING PROHIBITION (a) No funds or other resources received from the Division under this Agreement may be used directly or indirectly to influence legislation or any other official action by the Florida Legislature or any state agency. (b) The Recipient certifies, by its signature to this Agreement, that to the best of his or her knowledge and belief: 1. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the Recipient, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan or cooperative agreement. 2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan or cooperative agreement, the Recipient shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying." 3. The Recipient shall require that this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for 12 making or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. (21) COPYRIGHT, PATENT AND TRADEMARK ANY AND ALL PATENT RIGHTS ACCRUING UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS AGREEMENT ARE HEREBY RESERVED TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA. ANY AND ALL COPYRIGHTS ACCRUING UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS AGREEMENT ARE HEREBY TRANSFERRED BY THE RECIPIENT TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA. (a) If the Recipient has apre-existing patent or copyright, the Recipient shall retain all rights and entitlements to that pre-existing patent or copyright unless the Agreement provides otherwise. (b) If any discovery or invention is developed in the course of or as a result of work or services performed under this Agreement, or in any way connected with it, the Recipient shall refer the discovery or invention to the Division for a determination whether the State of Florida will seek patent protection in its name. Any patent rights accruing under or in connection with the performance of this Agreement are reserved to the State of Florida. If any books, manuals, films, or other copyrightable material are produced, the Recipient shall notify the Division. Any copyrights accruing under or in connection with the performance under this Agreement are transferred by the Recipient to the State of Florida. (c) Within thirty days of execution of this Agreement, the Recipient shall disclose all intellectual properties relating to the performance of this Agreement which he or she knows or should know could give rise to a patent or copyright. The Recipient shall retain all rights and entitlements to any pre-existing intellectual property which is disclosed. Failure to disclose will indicate that no such property exists. The Division shall then, under Paragraph (b), have the right to all patents and copyrights which accrue during performance of the Agreement. (22) LEGAL AUTHORIZATION. The Recipient certifies that it has the legal authority to receive the funds under this Agreement and that its governing body has authorized the execution and acceptance of this Agreement. The Recipient also certifies that the undersigned person has the authority to legally execute and bind Recipient to the terms of this Agreement. (23) ASSURANCES. The Recipient shall comply with any Statement of Assurances incorporated as Attachment I. 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH: By: Name and title: Date: FID# STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANGEMENT By: Name and Title: Brian Koon, Director Date: 14 ExxISIT -1 STATE RESOURCES AWARDED TO THE RECIPIENT PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT CONSIST OF THE FOLLOWING: SUBJECT TO SECTION 215.97, FLORIDA STATUTES: NOTE: If the resources awarded to the recipient represent more than one State project, provide the same information shown below for each State project and show total state financial assistance awarded that is subject to Section 215.97. Florida Statutes. State Project - State awarding agency: Division of Emergency Management Catalog of State Financial Assistance title: Residential Construction Mitigation Program Catalog of State Financial Assistance number: 52.016 Amount of State Funding: $150,000.00 COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO STATE RESOURCES AWARDED PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT ARE AS FOLLOWS: Only the goods and services described within the attached Agreement and Attachment A are eligible expenditures for the funds awarded. NOTE: Section .400(d) of OMB Circular A-133, as revised, and Section 215.97(5)(a), Florida Statutes, require that the information about Federal Programs and State Projects included in Exhibit 1 be provided to the recipient. 15 Attachment A Budget and Scope of Work The City of Delray Beach mitigation project will consist of hardening qualified single-family homes in need of hurricane retrofitting. The City of Delray Beach will retrofit up to twenty (20) homes within Palm Beach County. The City of Delray Beach will efficiently monitor the work detail including labor hours, material costs, material specifications, and installation specifications. All construction and installations will be done in strict compliance with Florida Building Codes Specifications. Example activities include: • Replacement of roof covering/ re-roofing, • Installation of window and door opening protection, • Brace bottom chord gable end, • Soffits and roof ventilation • Roof to wall connections. DEM must complete Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) and grant approval for each property prior to commencing RCMP mitigation work. In addition, The City of Delray Beach will adhere to the following: 1) Pre-mitigation inspections must be conducted on each house receiving retrofit work • Provide list of the properties identified for mitigation • Photos must be taken of all sides of the house. • Applicant will identify retrofit measures to be taken on each home • Provide cost estimate for each structure, including all related expenses. 2) Based on the pre-mitigation inspection report, each home must have a scope of work write-up that specifically states the retrofit measures to be performed for each home. 3) Recipient will provide Attachment A-2 for each home (complete checklist with all data required for benefit-cost analysis) that receives retrofit measures. The Division will conduct a Benefit Cost Analysis to determine cost effectiveness, no work could start before project's cost-effectiveness is determined and approved. 4) Copies of permits and scope write-ups are to be provided with payment requests. (Recipients are encouraged to send payment requests on a monthly or quarterly basis.) 5) All RCMP work must be completed by June 30, 2012 and state should be notified to schedule a final inspection. 6) Final deliverables are required for project closeout and final payment. This information must be received no later than 30 days after project completion or July 30, 2012, whichever occurs first. The package must include the following: • Post inspection reports/certificate of completion for each home • Florida Building Code product approval with material specifications for all products used in the project (i.e. shutters, impact resistant glass, roof, etc) • Photos (in color) of mitigation work • Database documenting the homes completed • The database shall list each homeowner's name, address, pre- and post- inspection dates, retrofit measures completed, retrofit cost, homeowner's insurance company and policy number, the name of the program used to leverage the RCMP, and the amount of that leverage. • Completed Performance Measurement form* 16 *RCMP staff will provide the Performance Measurement Form to The City of Delray Beach for completion. The form will be developed based on the performance measurement framework presented in your application. 17 EXPENDITURE CATEGORIES RCMP AWARD 1. SALARY AND BENEFITS $7,500 2. OTHER PERSONAL /CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $6,750 3. ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES 4. EXPENSES $135,750 5. OPERATING CAPITAL OUTLAY 6. FIXED CAPITAL OUTLAY TOTAL EXPENDITURES $150,000 SALARY AND BENEFITS: $7,500 of grant will be spent for salary and benefits of project OTHER PERSONAL /CONTRACTUAL SERVICES: The City will budget $6,750 for lead paint inspection contractual. We estimate 15 inspections at a cost of $450 each. EXPENSES: $135,750 will be spent on the direct cost hardening materials and labor. We project to do up to 20 projects ranging from $2,500 to 15,000 per projects. 18 Attachment B Program Statutes and Regulations Section 215.559, Florida Statutes (1) OMB Circular No. A-110 (2) OMB Circular No. A-87 (3) OMB Circular No. A-21 (4) OMB Circular No. A-122 (5) OMB Circular No. A-102 (6) American's With Disabilities Act (Public Law 101-336, 42 U.S.C. Section 12101 sec.) (7) Cash Management Improvement Act of 1990 (8) Immigration and Nationality Act Section 274A(e) 19 Attachment C Statement of Assurances (This page is left blank intentionally) 20 Attachment D DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT REQUEST FOR ADVANCE OR REIMBURSEMENT OF RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION PROGRAM FUNDS RECIPIENT NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE: PAYMENT No: Project No: RCMP2012-003 DEM Agreement No:12RC-5S-10-60-02- SALARY OTHER ADMIN EXPENSES OPERATING PREVIOUS TOTAL DCA USE ONLY AND BENEFIT PERSONAL/ CONTRACTUAL SERVICES EXPENSES CAPITAL OUTLAY PAYMENT CLAIM AMOUNT APPROVED COMMENTS TOTAL CURRENT REQUEST $ I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief the above accounts are correct, and that all disbursements were made in accordance with all conditions of the Division agreement and payment is due and has not been previously requested for these amounts. RECIPIENT SIGNATURE NAME AND TITLE DATE: TO BE COMPLETED BY DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT APPROVED PROJECT TOTAL $ ADMINISTRATIVE COST $ GOVERNOR'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT $ DATE 21 Attachment D-1 DETAIL OF SALARY AND BENEFIT Subgrantee: Contract Number: 12RC-5S-10-60-02- Claim Number: Project Number: RCMP2012-003 Vendor Description of Services Provided Date Paid Check Amount Number Pa e Total 22 Attachment D-2 DETAIL OF OTHER PERSONAL/CONTRACTUAL SERVICES Subgrantee: Contract Number: 12RC-5S-10-60-02- Claim Number: Project Number: RCMP2012-003 Vendor Description of Services Provided Date Paid Check Amount Number Pa e Total 23 Attachment D-3 DETAIL OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES Subgrantee: Contract Number: 12RC-5S-10-60-02- Claim Number: Project Number: 2012-003 Vendor Description of Services Provided Date Paid Check Amount Number Pa e Total 24 Attachment D-4 DETAIL OF EXPENSES Subgrantee: Contract Number: 12RC-5S-10-60-02- Claim Number: Project Number: RCMP2012-003 Vendor Description of Services Provided Date Paid Check Amount Number Pa e Total 25 Attachment C-5 DETAIL OF FIXED CAPITAL OUTLAY Subgrantee: Contract Number: 12RC-5S-10-60-02- Claim Number: Project Number: RCMP2012-003 Vendor Description of Services Date Paid Check Amount Provided Number Pa e Total 26 Attachment E JUSTIFICATION OF ADVANCE PAYMENT RECIPIENT: Indicate by checking one of the boxes below, if you are requesting an advance. If an advance payment is requested, budget data on which the request is based must be submitted. Any advance payment under this Agreement is subject to s. 216.181(16), Florida Statutes. The amount which may be advanced shall not exceed the expected cash needs of the recipient within the initial three months. [ ] NO ADVANCE REQUESTED No advance payment is requested. Payment will be solely on a reimbursement basis. No additional information is required. ADVANCE REQUEST WORKSHEET [ ]ADVANCE REQUESTED Advance payment of $ is requested. Balance of payments will be made on a reimbursement basis. These funds are needed to pay staff, award benefits to clients, duplicate forms and purchase start-up supplies and equipment. We would not be able to operate the program without this advance. If you are requesting an advance, complete the following worksheet. (A) (B) (C) (D) FFY FFY FFY Total DESCRIPTION 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 1 INITIAL CONTRACT ALLOCATION 2 FIRST THREE MONTHS CONTRACT EXPENDITURES' 3 AVERAGE PERCENT EXPENDED IN FIRST THREE MONTHS Divide line 2 b line 1. 'First three months expenditures need only be provided for the years in which you requested an advance. If you do not have this information, call your consultant and they will assist you. MAXIMUM ADVANCE ALLOWED CALULATION: Cell D3 X $ RCMP Award MAXIMUM (Do not include match) ADVANCE REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CALCULATED MAXIMUM [ ] Recipient has no previous RCMP contract history. Complete Estimated Expenses chart and Explanation of Circumstances below. [ ] Recipient has exceptional circumstances that require an advance greater than the Maximum Advance calculated above. Complete estimated expenses chart and Explanation of Circumstances below. Attach additional pages if needed. 27 ESTIMATED EXPENSES BUDGET CATEGORY 2009-2012---------------- Anticipated Expenditures for First Three Months of Contract ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS PROGRAM EXPENSES TOTAL EXPENSES Explanation of Circumstances: 28 Attachment E-1 Justification of Advance 1. Where to submit Advance Payment Requests: Florida Division of Emergency Management Bureau of Mitigation Residential Construction Mitigation Program 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 2. Required Information: A. First time recipients: Must provide estimation (with justification/rationale) of expenditures for the first three months of the contract. 8. Continuing Recipients: Must provide data comparing prior year expenditures to advance payments received. (3 years if applicable). DIRECTIONS FOR COMPLETING ADVANCE PAYMENT JUSTIFICATION FORM 3. Lines 1-5 Columns 1-3: -Enter SFY/FFY for each column in which data will be reported. - For lines 1-4, enter the first three months expenditures for each previous fiscal year. -Total the expenditures for each column and enter totals on Line. 5. Column 4: -Total the expenditures for each line item and enter the sum in Column 4. Column 5: -For each line item, divide the total entered in Column 4 by 3 and enter the total (average) in Column 5. 5. Lines 6-8 Columns 6-10 -Enter SFY/FFY for each column in which data will be reported. Line 6: Enter the total advance received from each fiscal year. Enter total for all columns in Column 9. Divide the total entered in Column 9 by 3 and enter the total (average) in Column 10. Line 7: Enter the totals from Line 5 above for Columns 6-10. Line 8: For each column, subtract Line 6 from Line 7 and enter the difference on Line 8 for the appropriate fiscal year, total and average. Lines 6 and 7: Divide the totals listed in column 9 by 3 and enter the total (average) in column 10. 29 6. Advance Payment Request - Go to Line 7, column 10. This amount is the average total expense for the prior year contracts and should be considered when determining the projected advance payment amount. 30 Attachment F DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION PROGRAM QUARTERLY REPORT FORM RECIPIENT: Project Number: RCMP2012-003 PROJECT LOCATION: DEM ID #: 12RC-5S-10-60-02- QUARTER ENDING: Provide amount of advance funds disbursed for period (if applicable) $ Provide reimbursement projections for this project: July-Sep, 20$ July-Sep, 20$ Oct-Dec, 20 $ Jan-Mar, 20 $ Apr-June, 20$ Oct-Dec, 20 $ Jan-Mar, 20 $ Percentage of Work Completed (may be confirmed by state inspectors): Project Proceeding on Schedule: [ ]Yes [ ] No Describe milestones achieved during this quarter Apr-June, 20$ Provide a schedule for the remainder of work to project completion: Describe problems or circumstances affecting completion date, milestones, scope of work, and cost: Cost Status: [ ]Cost Unchanged [ ]Under Budget [ ]Over Budget Additional Comments/Elaboration: NOTE: Division of Emergency Management (DEM) staff may perform interim inspections and/or audits at any time. Events may occur between quarterly reports, which have significant impact upon your project(s), such as anticipated overruns, changes in scope of work, etc. Please contact the Division as soon as these conditions become known, otherwise you may be found non-compliant with your subgrant award. Name and Phone Number of Person Completing This Form 31 Attachment G Warranties and Representations Financial Management Recipient's financial management system shall provide for the following: (1) Accurate, current and complete disclosure of the financial results of this project or program (2) Records that identify the source and use of funds for all activities. These records shall contain information pertaining to grant awards, authorizations, obligations, unobligated balances, assets, outlays, income and interest. (3) Effective control over and accountability for all funds, property and other assets. Recipient shall safeguard all such assets and assure that they are used solely for authorized purposes. (4) Comparison of expenditures with budget amounts for each Request For Payment. Whenever appropriate, financial information should be related to performance and unit cost data. (5) Written procedures to determine whether costs are allowed and reasonable under the provisions of the applicable OMB cost principles and the terms and conditions of this Agreement. (6) Cost accounting records that are supported by backup documentation.. Competition. All procurement transactions shall be done in a manner to provide open and free competition. The Recipient shall be alert to conflicts of interest as well as noncompetitive practices among contractors that may restrict or eliminate competition or otherwise restrain trade. In order to ensure excellent contractor performance and eliminate unfair competitive advantage, contractors that develop or draft specifications, requirements, statements of work, invitations for bids and/or requests for proposals shall be excluded from competing for such procurements. Awards shall be made to the bidder or offeror whose bid or offer is responsive to the solicitation and is most advantageous to the Recipient, considering the price, quality and other factors. Solicitations shall clearly set forth all requirements that the bidder or offeror must fulfill in order for the bid or offer to be evaluated by the Recipient. Any and all bids or offers may be rejected when it is in the Recipient's interest to do so. Codes of conduct. The Recipient shall maintain written standards of conduct governing the performance of its employees engaged in the award and administration of contracts. No employee, officer, or agent shall participate in the selection, award, or administration of a contract supported by public grant funds if a real or apparent conflict of interest would be involved. Such a conflict would arise when the employee, officer, or agent, any member of his or her immediate family, his or her partner, or an organization which employs or is about to employ any of the parties indicated, has a financial or other interest in the firm selected for an award. The officers, employees, and agents of the Recipient shall neither solicit nor accept gratuities, favors, or anything of monetary value from contractors, or parties to subcontracts. The standards of conduct shall provide for disciplinary actions to be applied for violations of such standards by officers, employees, or agents of the Recipient. Business Hours The Recipient shall have its offices open for business, with the entrance door open to the public, and at least one employee on site, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., local time, Monday through Friday. Licensing and Permitting All subcontractors or employees hired by the Recipient shall have all current licenses and permits required for all of the particular work for which they are hired by the Recipient. 32 Attachment H Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility And Voluntary Exclusion Contractor Covered Transactions (1) The prospective contractor of the Recipient, ,certifies, by submission of this document, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal department or agency. (2) Where the Recipient's contractor is unable to certify to the above statement, the prospective contractor shall attach an explanation to this form. CONTRACTOR By: Signature Name and Title Street Address City, State, Zip Date Recipient's Name Division Contract Number 33 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Catherine M. Kozol, Asst. City Attorney/Police Legal Advisor THROUGH: Police Department DATE: July 6, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.I. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TULY 19, 2011 LETTER OF SUPPORT/.TUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (.TAG) FUND ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Approval for the allocation of the Justice Assistance Grant Federal Funds for the Fiscal Year 2012. BACKGROUND The Criminal Justice Commission of Palm Beach County is seeking the City's approval in obtaining Federal Funds for the County of Palm Beach from the Federal Justice Assistance Grant. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement requires that 51% of the local governments representing at least 51% of the County's population agree with the allocation of the funds. The proposed allocation of the funds to be distributed is listed in the attachment. If the Commission approves the allocation of these funds to the programs listed, a requirement of the grant is a letter of approval from the Mayor, a draft of which is attached. RECOMMENDATION The Police Department recommends approval. ~~ACN ~o ~' ~ ~;, G~ ~' ~ ~ 0 0 ~~ORI9~ Criminal Justice Commission 301 North Olive Avenue, Swte 1001 Wes[ Palm Beach. FL 33401.4705 (561) 355-4943 FAX: (561)355-4941 www.pbcgov.com/cjc C Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners 15aren T. Marcus, Chair Shelley Vana, Vice Chair Paulette Burdick Steven 1. Abrams IIutt Aaronson Jess R. San[amaria Priscilla A. 'Caylor County Administrator Robot Weisman it n t'grro/ oppprfunt7y Afffrmnri>r.tcrion F_mp/ayo- June 27, 2011 To All Palm Beach County Mayors: The Criminal Justice Commission (CJC) seeks your approval in the allocation of FY2012 (Federal Fiscal Year 2011) JAG funds. The total FY2012 allocation to Palm Beach County is $458,797. JAG blends the previous Byrne Formula and Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) Programs to provide agencies with the flexibility to prioritize and place justice funds where they are needed most. The CJC voted to support continuation of existing programs. The recommendation for the FY2012 allocation is as follows: FEDERAL SUBGRANTEE PROJECT TITLE FUNDS RECOMMENDED Palm Beach County Juvenile Assessment Center $318 000 _ _~AC~Securit , Palm Beach County County-wide Re-entry Services $110,000 Palm Beach County Program Evaluation $30,797 TOTAL $458,797 The Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) requires that fifty-one percent (51%) of the local units of government representing at least fifty-one percent (51%) of the county's population agree on the allocation of these funds. For your convenience, we have prepared a sample letter for your use. This sample letter can also be e-mailed to you by e-mailing a request to Michael Szakacs at MSZAKACSCa~PBCGOV.ORG. Due to the application deadline, we ask this letter be received at the Criminal Justice Commission Office, no later than July 29, 2011. pnnfed an recycled paper Criminal Justice Commission 301 North Olive Avenue. Suite 1001 West Palm Beach. FL 33401-4705 (561) 355.4943 FAX: (56!)355-4941 www.pbcgov.cofnlcjc D Palm Beach County Boat of County Commissioners Karen T. Marcus. Chair Shelley Vana. Vice Chair Paulette Burdick Steven L. Abrams Burt Aaronson Jess R. Santamana Priscilla A. Taylor Counry Administrator Robert IVcisman An Equa/ Opportureitj• .4,(J`innotiveAttrorr Fmp/oym' Please send the letter to: Palm Beach County Criminal Justice Commission Attn: Michael Szakacs 301 North Olive Avenue, Suite 1001 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 If you should require additional information or have any questions, please contact Michael Szakacs at (561) 355-4939. Your immediate attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely ~ ~ Michael L. Rodriguez Executive Director Cc: Ms. Barbara Cheives, CJC Chair All Palm Beach County Police Chiefs prrnfed on mcyc/od paper July 6, 2011 Mr. Clayton Wilder Florida Department of Law Enforcement Office of Criminal Justice Grants 2331 Phillips Road Tallahassee, FL 32308 Dear Mr. Wilder: In compliance with the State of florida Rule IID-9, F.A.C., the City of Delray Beach approves the distribution of $458,797.00 of Federal Fiscal Year 2011 (FY2012) Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAC) for the following projects within Palm Beach County: Subgrantee Project Title Federal Funds Recommended Palm Beach County Juvenile Assessment Center $ 318,000.00 (JAC) Security Palm Beach County County-wide Re-Entry Services $ 110,00000 Palm Beach County Program Evaluation $ 30,797.00 Total $ 458,797.00 Sincerely, Nelson S. McDuffie, Mayor City of Delray Beach MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Catherine M. Kozol, Police Legal Advisor/Asst. City Attorney THROUGH: Police Department DATE: July 8, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.,T. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TULY 19, 2011 EXTENSION OF THE MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT AGREEMENT/MOTOROLA INC. ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This is an extension to the Motorola Maintenance and Support Agreement that will be effective from October 1, 2011 through September 30, 2012. BACKGROUND This Agreement extends the current agreement in effect between Motorola and the City of Delray Beach for the maintenance and support system for all of dispatch with the exception of the non-supported portable radios XTS 3000. The total amount will be $114,368.52. FUNDING SOURCE Funding will be from Acct. # 001-2111-521-46.20 RECOMMENDATION The Police Department recommends approval. des f-k ~~"LELTI~Rt~' April 25, 2011 City of Delray Beach Attn: Katie Hartman 300 West Atlan#ic Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 RE; Extension to Maintenance and Support Agreement: 500001000431 Product: Motorota SmartZone Radio System Dear Ms. Hartman: By means of this letter, Motorota, lnc. hereby extends the City of Delray Beach's malntenance and sup~art agreement as referenced above. Enclosed are two (2) copies of the updated equipment inventory, Statements of Work and Pricing Worksheet for the period 10/01/2011 through 913012012. All terms and conditions shall remain in full force and effect. Please indicate acceptance of this extension by signing the acceptance block below and returning one copy to my attention at Motorola, Inc. 8000 W Sunrise Blvd RCV West 11-14J, Plantation, Florida 33322 or fax it to my attentlon at 954-723-4791 on ar before 1010112011. Failure to return this fully executed letter on ar before 10/01/2011 will result in a lapse in maintenance, which will be subject to a 10% recertification and reimplementafion fee. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please contact me directly at 954-723-471$ or 954- 520-8868. In addition you can also send an email to me at cndee motorolasolutions.com. Sincerely, Cindee Markes Customer Support Mgr. Motorola, Inc. Accepted by: MOTOROL 1NC. Signed b Printed Name: Cindee Markes Title: Cusliamer Suggort Manager Date:. _~' c~S_~ c~ ('J ~, Attest: Chevelle Nubin, City Clerk City of Delray Beach City of Delray Beach Signed by: Printed Name: Titie: Date: J Approved as to form & legal sufficiency: Catherine M. Kozol, Asst. City Attorney Pricing Worksheet Effective ©ate. 10/1/2011 Customer: Delray Beach~Cit~of Contrac# Number. S00001000431 Service Products Provided Dispatch Technical Support Network Monitoring OnSite infrastructure Response Infrastructure Repair with Advanced Replacement Local Radio Combo Package GenWatch Hardware & Software Support Maintenance Total: $ :, ... 1'14,368.52 2 Customer: Delra Beach Cit of Effective: 1 011 12 0 1 1 Cwt ii Equipment Description 14 Quantar Repeaters 4 Centracom Gold Elite Consoles 6 Control Stations 4 RCH Digital Remote 1 Moscad (1 PC, 3 RTU) 1 GenWatch Hardware & Software 10 XTS1500 Portable 1$2 XTS2500 Portable 17 XTS5000 Portable 10 XTL2500 Mobile 5 XTI_5000 Mobile 12 Astro Spectra Consolette Best Effort 51 Astro Spectra Mobile Best Effort System Descrip#ion 1 Prime Site 1 Hard Drives Receive Site 1 Dispatch Center 7 Channels 3 Tt~~L~ Statement of Work Network Monitoring, OnSite Infiastrttcture Response and Dispatch Service Overview: Motorola will provide Network Monitoring, Dispatch Service and OnSite Infrastnzcture Responso services to the Customer. These services are applicable only for the following system types: SmartZone up to release 6.2, Smar-tZone/OrnniLink v2.0,3 and higher, Smar-tNet, Private Data (with a wireless nehvork gateway) v2.0.3 and higher, and E91 I . 1.0 Description of Services Network Monitoring is a service designed to electronically monitor Elements of a Communicakion System for Events, as set forth in the Monitored Elements `T'able. When the Motorola System Support Center (SSC) detects an Event, trained technologists aclatowledge the Event, run remote diagnostic routines, and initiate an appropriate response. Appropriate responses could include, but are not limited to, continue monitoring the Event for further deveIopntent, attempt remote Restoral, or transfer the Event 6y opening a Case for dispatch of a Servicer. The Servicer will respond to the Customer Location based an pre-defined Severity levels set forth in the Severity Definitions Table and Response times set forth in the Response Time Table in order to Restore the System. Motorola will provide Case management as set forth herein. The SSC maintains contact with the on-site Servicer until System Restoral occurs and Case is closed. The SSC will Continuously track and manage Case activity from open to close through an automated Case tracking process. This Case management allows for Motorola to provide activity and performance reports, The terms and conditions of this Statement of Work {SOW) are an integral part of Motorola's Service Terms and Conditions ar other applicable Agreement to which it is attached and made a part thereof by this reference. 2A Motorala has the following responsibilities: 2,1. Recommend any needed Connectivity or monitoring equipment and coordinate installation ofsuch equipment upon Customer's request, 2.2. Provide dedicated Connectivity necessary for monitoring SmartZone, SmartZone/ OmniI,inlc, and Private Data system types, 2.3. Verify Comiectivity and Event monitoring prior to Sys#em Acceptance or Start Date. 2.4. Continuously receive service requests. 2.5. Remotely access the Customer's System to perform remote diagnostics as pernitted by Customer pursuant to section 3. t 2.b. Attempt remote Restoral, as appropriate. 2.7. Create a Case as necessary when service requests are received. Gather information to perform the following: 2.7.1. Characterize the issue 2.7.2. Determine a plan of action 2.7.3. Assign and track the Case to resolution. 2.8. Dispatch a Servicer, as required, by Motorala standard procedures and provide necessary Case information collected in section 2.7 2.9. Ensure the required personnel have access to Customer information as needed. 2.10. Disable and enable System devices, as necessary, for Servicers. 2.1 1. Servicer will perform the following on-site: 2.11.1. Run diagnostics on the Infrastrtreture or FRU. 2.11.2, Replace defective Infrastructure or FRU, as applicable. Customer, Servicer or Motorola may provide Tnfrastruchire or FRU. 2.11.3. Provide materials, tools, docurnentakian, physical planning manuals, diagno~t~?8/test equipment and any other requirements necessary to perform the Maintenance service. 2.11,4, if a third party Vendor is needed to Restore the System, the Serer may accompany that Vendor onto the Customer's premises. ,~ 4 /, T~JRt~L~ 2.12. Verify with Customer that Restoration is complete or System is functional, if required by Customer's repair Verification preference in the Customer Support Plan required by section 3.4, If Verification by Customer cannot 6e completed within 20 minutes of Restoration, the Case will be closed and the Seroicer will be released. 2.13. E~ ,calate the Case to the appropriate party upon expiration of a Response time. 2. ] 4. Close the Case upon receiving notification from Customer or Servicer, indicating the Case is resolved. 2.15. Notify Customer of Case Stales, as required by the Customer Support Plan at the following Case levels 2.15.1. Open and closed; or 2.15.2. Open; assigned to the Setvicer, arrival of the Servicer on site, deferred or delayed, closed, 2.16. Provide the following repot#s, as applicable: 2.16.1. Case activity reports to Customer. 2.1G.2. Network Motutaring Service reports for Customer Systems}, excludes E911. 2.16.3. Performance/Availability Repot#s for SmartZone, Smat#zonef OmniLink, and P~•ivate Data Systems only. 3.0 Customer has the following responsibilities: 3.1. Allow Motorola Continuous remote access to obtain System availability and performance data. 3.2. Parchase Connectivity, installation and monitoring equipment necessary for monitoring the System if recottu~ended by Motorola. Failure to put'chasc such equipnietit as recommended by Motorola tray prevent Motorola from renderutg the services described in this Statement of Work, 3.3. Order and maintain dedicated dial-up phone lines for telephone service for SMARTNET and E911 System types. 3.4. Provide Motorola with pre-defined Customer information and preferences prior to Start Date necessary to complete Customer Support Plan. 3.4.1. Case notification preferences and procedure 3.4.2. Repair Verification Preference and procedure 3.4.3. Database and escalation procedure forms. 3.4.4. Submit changes in any inforntation supplied in the Customer Support Plan to the Cus#omer Support Manager. 3.5. Provide the following information when initiating a service request: 3.5.1. Assigned System ID number 3.5.2. Problem description and site location 3.5.3. Other pertinent information requested by Motorola to open a Case. 3.b. Notify the System Support Center when Customer performs any activity that impac#s the System. (Activity that impacts the System may include, but is not limited to, installing sofivare or hardware upgrades, performing upgrades to the network, or taking down part of the system to perform maintenance.} 3.7. Allow Servicers access to Equipment (including any Connectivity or ntonitoriug equipment) if remote service is not possible. 3.8. Supply Infrastructure or FRU, as applicable, in order for Motorola to Restore the System as set forth in paragraph 2.11.2 3.9. Maintain and store in an easy accessible location any and all Software needed to Restore the System, 3.10. Maintain and store in an easily accessible location proper System backups. 3.1 I. For E911 systems, test the secondary/backup PSAP connection to be prepared in the event of a catastrophic failure of a system. Train appropriate personnel on the procedures to perform the function of switching to the backup PSAl'. 3. I2. Verify with the SSC that Restoration is complete or System is functional, if required by the Repair Verification Preference provided by Customer in accordance with section 3.4. 3.13, Cooperate with Motorola and perform all acts that are reasonable or necessary to enable Motorola to provide these services. }l 5 tITR~~ Severity Definitions Table Severity Level Froblem Types Severity 1 ^ Response is provided Continuously ^ Major System failure ^ 33% of System down ^ 33% of Site channels down ^ Site Environment alarms (smoke, access, temp, AC power. ^ This level is meant to represent a major issue that results in an unusable system, sub-system, Product, or critical features from the Customer's perspective. No Work-around or immediate solutiar is available. Severity 2 ^ Response during Standard Business Day ^ Significant System Impairment not to exceed 33% of system down ^ System problems presently being monitored ^ This level is meant to represent a moderate issue that limits a Customer's normal use of the system, sub-system, product, or major non-critical feahires from a Customer's perspective Severity 3 Response during Standard Business Day ^ Intermittent system issues ^ Information questions ^ Upgrades/preventative maintenance ^ This level is meant to represent a minor issue that does not preclude use of the system, sub-system, product, or critical features from a Customer's perspective. It may also represent a cosmetic issue, including documentation errors, general usage questions, recommendations for product enhancements or modifications, and scheduled events such as reventative maintenance or roduct/s steer a rades. Response Time Table (Customer's Response Time Classification is designated in the Service Agreement). Severity Regular Premier Limited Level Response Time Response Time Response Time Severity 1. Within 4 hours from receipt Within 2 hours from receipt Within 4 hours from of Notification of Notification receipt of Notification CoEltInUOUSI Continuousl Standard Business Da Severity 2 Within 4 hours from receipt Within 4 hours from receipt Within 4 hours From of Notification of Notification receipt of Notification Standard Busniess Da Standard Business Da Standard Business Da Severity 3 Within 24 hours from Within 24 hours from Within 24 hours from receipt of Notification receipt of Notification receipt of Notification Standard Business Da Standard Business Da Standard Business Da ]Vloniitore~ Elements Table {Listed by technology) 5 stem Tie 1~ • ui anent _,. SmartZone 6,0 ..__ No~tel; Packet Routing Network; Zone Controllers; Database Server; FuIlVision Server; Zone Statistical Server; Air Traffic Router; System Statistics Server; User Configuration Server; Packet Data Gateway Server; PBX; Interconnect Server; Motorola Gold Elite Gateway (MGEG}; AEB; CEB; ARCADACS Cross Connect Switch; Simulcast RF Site (Site Controllers, Comparators, Stations); Intelli Repeater RF Site {Stations);Intelli Site Repeater RF Site (Site Controllers, Stations}; MOSCAD Overlay (TenSr, Station, Chalmel Banks, TRAK GPS, Environmental Alarms, Microwave SmartZone X1.1 Zane Controllers; Database Server; Digital Interface Unit (DIU); Central Electronic Bank (CEB} Interface; AEB; Fu1lVision Server; Air Traf£rc Reuter; System Statistics Server {Multi-Zone); Zone Statistical Server; User Configuration Server; NOVA 2000 (Interconnect); Remote RF Sites {Site Controllers Including Simulcast, Stations); MOSCAD Overlay (Stations-Non Trunked, Camparater, TenSr Channel Banks, Environmental Alarms, Microwave SmartZone 3.0 - 3.5 Zone Controller; Database Server; User Server; Digital Interface Unit (DT[T); Central Electronic Bank (CEB) Interface; AEB; User Configuration Server (3.5); Historical Server (User Server I6); AEB Central Electronic Bank (CEB); MBX (Interconnect); Remote RF Sites (Site Controllers -Including Sin~uicast, Stations); MOSCAD Overlay {Stations, TenSr Channel Banks, Environmental Alarms, Microwave SMARTNET Monitored by MOSCAD SiteSentry Site Controllers; Stations; Environmental Alarms; Channel Banks Private Data Wireless Network Gateway (WNG}; Radio Nehvork Controller RNC ;Base Station E911 - Centralink Classic -Monitored by SEB Teltronics ALl Teltronics ANI E911 - Centralink Classic- Monitored by RAC Teltronics ALI E91 I -02000/Palladium Palladium ALI Teltronics ANI `T~-RL.~ Statement of Work Technical Support Service 1.0 Description of Services 'the Technical Support service provides centralized remote telephone support for technical issues that require a high level of communications systems expertise or troubleshooting on Equipment. The Motorola System Support Center's (5SC) Technical Support Operation is shafted with technologists who specialize in the diagnosis and resolution of system performance issues, Teclmical Support Service (i) does not include software upgrades that may be required for issue resolution; and {ii} does not include Customer training (iii) is only available for those system types supported and approved by Technical Support Operations, Technical Support is applicable to the following system types; Astro 25 G.x, SmartZone v2.0.3 and higher, SmartZone/OmniLink, E911, Private Data v2,0.3 and higher, SmartNet and Conventional `l~vo- Way. The terms and conditions of this Statement of Wark (SOW) are an integral part of Motorola's Service Terms and Conditions pr other applicable Agreement to which it is attached and made a part thereof by this reference, 2.0 Motorola has the following responsibilities: 2.1. Respond is requests for Technical Support for the Restoration of failed Systems and diagnosis of operation problems in accordance with the response times set forth in the Remote Technical Support Response Times Table and the Severity Level defined in the Severity Definitions Table. 2.2. Advise caller of procedure for determining any additional requirements for issue characterization, Restoration; including providing a known fix for issue resolution when available, 2,3. Attempt remote access to System for remote diagnostics, when possible. 2,4. Maintain communication with the Servicer ar Customer in the field until close of the Case, as needed. 2.5. Coordinate technical resolutions with agreed upon third party vendor(s), as needed. 2.G. EscaIate and manage support issues, including Systemic issues, to Motorola engineering and product groups, as applicable. 2.7. Escalate the Casa to the appropriate party upon expiration of a Response time. 2.8. Provide Configuration Change Support and Work Flow changes to Systems that have dial in or remote access capability. 2.9. Determine, in its sole discretion, when a Case requires mare #han the Technical Support services described in this SOW and notify Customer of an alternative course of action. 3.0 Customer has the following responsibilities: 3.1, Provide Motorola with pre-defined information prior to Start Date necessary to complete Customer Support Plan. 3.1.1. Co~ttplete database and escalation procedure forms, 3.1.2. Submit changes in any infarntation supplied in the Customer Support Plan to the Customer Support Ma~tager. 3,2. Contact the SSC in order to access the Technical Support Operation, provide name of caller, name of Customer, System 1D number, Service Agreement number, site(s) in questions, and brief description of the problem. 3.3. Supply on-site presence when requested by System Support Center. 3.4. Validate issue resolution prior to Blase of the Case. 'T `+~i'RLRA 3.5. Allow Motorola remote access to the System by equipping the System with the necessary Connectivity. 3.6. Acknowledge that Cases will be handled in accordance with the times and priorities as defined in Remote Technical Support Response Times Table and the Severity Level defined in the Severity Definitions Table, 3.7. Cooperate with Motorola and perform al I acts that are reasonable or necessary to enable Motorola to provide the Technical Support service to Customer. Severity Definitions Table Severity Level Problem Types Severity 1 Response is provided Continuously Major System failure ^ 33% of System down ^ 33% of Site channels down ^ Site Environment alarms (smoke, access, temp, AC power. ^ This level is meant to represent a major issue that results in an unusable system, sub-system, Product, or critical features from the Customer's perspective. No Work-around or immedia#e solution is available. Severity 2 ^ Response during Standard Business Day ^ Significant System Impairment not to exceed 33% of system down ^ System problems presently being monitored ^ This level is meant to represent a moderate issue that limits a Customer's normal use of the system, sub-system, product, or major non-critical features from a Customer's perspective Severity 3 Response during Standard Business Day ^ Intermittent system issues ^ Infarntation questions ^ Upgrades/preventative maintenance ^ This level is meant to represent a minor issue that does not preclude use of the system, sub-system, product, or critical features from a Customer's perspective, It may also represent a cosmetic issue, including docuntentaiion errors, general usage questions, recommendations for product enhancements or modifications, and scheduled events such as reverttative maintenance or roduct/s stem tr rades. Remote Technical Support Response Times Table SEVERITY RESPONSE Seven 1 Within 1 Hour front recei t ofNotiiication, Contirtuousl Severn 2 Within 4 Hours from recei t ofNotiFcation, Standard Business Da Severn 3 Within next Business Da ,Standard Business Da I~l4L~I~ Statement of Work Infrastructure Repair I.0 Description of Services Infrastructure Repair is a repair service for Motorola and select third party In&•astructure as set forth in the applicable attached Exhibit(s), all of which are hereby incorporated into this Statement of Work (SOW) by this reference. Customer's System type determines Fvluch exhibit is applicable (i.e. SmartZouie system exhibit, SmartNet system exhibit). Infrastructure may be repaired down to the Component level, as applicable, at the Motorola Lafrastructure Depot Operations (TDO). At Motorola's discretion, select third party Infrastruchure may be sent to the original equipment manufacturer or third party vendor for repair, if Infrastructure is no longer supported by the original equipment manufacturer or third patty vendor, Motorola may replace Infrastructure with similar lnfrastructure, when possible. The terms and conditions of this Statement of Work (SOW} are an integral part of Motorola's Service Terms and Conditions or other applicable agreement to which it is attached and made a part thereof by this reference. 2.0 Motorola has the following responsibilities: 2.1. Provide repair return authorization numbers when requested by Customer. 2.2. Receive malfunctioning lnfrastuucture from Customer and document its arrival, repair and retunu. 2.3. Perform the following service on Motorola Infi~ustructure: 2.3.1. Perform an operational check an the Infrastructure to determine the nature of the problem. 2.3.2. Replace malfunctioning FRU or Components. 2.3.3. Verify that Motorola Infrastriictiii`e is returfled to Motorola manufactured specifications, as applicable 2.3.4. Perform a Box Unit Test on all serviced Infrashucture. 2.3.5. Perform a System Test on select Infrastructure. 2.4. Provide the following service on select third party Infrastructure: 2.4.1. Perform pre-diagnostic and repair services to confirm Infrastructure malfunction and eliminate sending Infrastructure with no trouble found {NTF} to third party vendor for repair, when applicable. 2.4.2. Ship malfunctioning Infrastructure to the original equipment manufacturer or third party vendor for repair service, when applicable. 2.4.3. Track Infrastructure sent to the original equipment manufacturer or third party vendor for service. 2.4.4. Perform apost-test after repair by Motorola, original equipment manufacturer, or third party vendor to confirm malfunetioning Infrastructure has been repaired and functions properly in a Motorola System configuration, when applicable. 2.5. Re-program repaired Infrastructure to original opeu~thfg parame#ers based on templates provided by Customer as required by Section 3.3. if Customer template is not provided or is not reasonably usable, a standard default template will be used. If IDO determines that the malfunctioning Infrastructure is due to a Sofivare defect,lDO reserves the right to reload Infrastructure with a similar Software version. Enhancement Release{s}, if needed, are subject to additional charges to be paid by Customer unless the Customer has a Motorola Software Subscription agreement. 2.6, Properly package repaired Infrastructure, 2.7. Ship repaired Infrastructure to the Customer specified address during normal operating hours of Monday through l~riday'1:OQam to 7:QOpm CST, excluding holidays. FRU will be sent two-day air tmless otherwise requested. Motorola will pay for such shipping, unless Customer requests shipments outside of the above ruentianed standard business hours and/or carrier programs, such as NFO (next flight out). In such cases, Customer will be subject to shipping and handling charges 3.0 Customer has the following responsibilities: 3.1. Contact or instruct Servicer to contact the Motorola System Support Center {SSC) and request a return authorization number prior to shipping malfiunctioning Infrastructure ar third party Infrastructure named in the applicable attached Exhibit. 90 >r~c.~ 3. I.1, Provide model description, model number, serial number, type of System and Firmware version, symptom o£ problem and address of site location for FRU or Infrastructure. 3.1.2. Indicate if Infrastructure or third party Infrastructure being sent in for service was subjected to physical damage or lightning damage. 3.1.3, Follow Motorola instruc#ions regarding inclusion or retuoval of Firmware and Sollware applications from Infrastructure being sent in for service. 3.1.4. Provide Customer purchase order number to secure payment far any costs described herein. 3,2 Properly package Infrastructure and ship the malfunctioning FRU, at Customer's expense and risk of loss to Motorola. Customer is responsible for properly packaging the Customer malfunctioning Infrastructure FRU to ensure that the shipped Infrastructure arrives un-damaged and in repairable condition. Clearly print the return authorization number on the outside of the packaging, 3.3 Maintain templates of Solhvare/applications and Firnnvare for re-loading of Infrastructure as set forth in paragraph 2.5. 3.4 Cooperate with Motorola and perform all acts that are reasonable or necessary to enable Motorola to provide the Infrastructure Repair services to Customer. 4.(} Itt addition #o any exclusions named in Section 5 of the Service Tetttts and Conditions or in any other underlying Agreement to which this SOW is attached, the following items are excluded from Infrastructure Repair with Advanced Replacement; l . All Infrastnictiue over seven (7} years from product cancellation date. 2. Physically damaged Infrastructure. 3. Third party Equipment not shipped by Motorola, 4. Consumable items including, but not limited #o, batteries, connectors, cables, tone/ink cartridges. 5. Tes# equipment. 6. Racks, firntihire and cabinets. 7. Firmware and/or Software upgrades. 11 SmartZone System Inclusions, Exclusions, Exceptions and No#es for Infrastructure Repair Intros#ructure Exhibit Arttemta Systems Excludes all Equipment such as bi-directional amplifiers, multicouplers, combiners, tower top pre- am lifters, antennas, cables, towers, tower Lighturg, and transmission lines. Base Station(s) and Re eaters} Includes: Quantar, Quanlro, Di ital MSFS000 and MTR2000 OiVLY. Central falectronics Bank{s} Includes Logging Recorder, Interface and Network Flub Excludes Nice Logging Recorders Channel Banks Includes Pretnis 's and Telco . Excltdes Siemens Corn orator s Tncludes S ectralac, Di tree, and Astratac Conr orators. Computer(s) Tncludes computers (Pentium I, II, ILI,1V) directly interface with or control the communications System, including SiteLens and Systetmvafch Ll. Includes keyboards, mice and trackballs. Excludes laptop camputers and all 286, 386, 486 computers. Excludes defective or phosphor- burned cathode ra tubes CRTs} and brtrned-in Flat anel dis la ima a retention. Console{s) Includes consoles (Centracom TT, Centracom Gold Classic, Centracom Gold Elite) as part of complete camrnunication System -ONLY. Includes headset jacks, dual faotswitches, and oaseneck micro hones. Exchrdes Centracom 1. Controlle s -Trunkin includes SmartNet II rime and remote controllers. Excludes SSMT and SCMS controllers. Dictaphones, Logging Recorders and Excludes all Types and models. Recordin E ui ment Di ital Interface t3nit s Included Di trot Si Wolin Modems Included u on modem model availabili Digital Voice Modem(s) Included a on modem model availabili Ernbass Switch Includes AEB, AIMi, ZAMBI, AMB Management Ternritrals Tncludes computers (Pentium T, II, III, I V}directly interface with or control the communications System, including SiteLens and Systemwatch II. Excludes laptop camputers and all 286, 386, 486 corn cr[ers. MBEX s or NOVA Interconnect Included Microwave F,quipment. Exclyded from service agreement but Wray be repaired an an above contract, time and material basis, All E ui ment must be slti ed to II)O. Excludes an on-site services. Monitor(s) Includes all Motorola certified monitors connected to camputers that directly interface with or control the communications System. Excludes defective or phosphor-burned cathode my tubes CRT(s) and burned-in flat panel displays image retention. Mani#ors not shipped by Motorola andlor cannot be confirmed by a Motorola facto ~ order number. Moscad Only NFM (Nehvork Fault Management}, as part of cornntunication System only. Standalone MOSCAD and System Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) must be quoted separately. Excludes Fire alannin s stems. Network Fardt Marra ement Includes Full Vision. Excludes NMC Printers Tncludes rimers that directl interface with the communications S =steno. ItAS(s) Excludes RAS 11011, 1101 and 1102 Receiver(s) includes Quanta= and MTR2000, ASTRO-TAC Receivers. Simulcast Distribution Arn lifier(s lttcluded Site Frequency Standard(s) Lrcludes Rubidium, GPS ancENetclocks systems sold with the Motorola System. Excludes MFS -Rubidhmr Standard Network Time and Fre acne devices lJrtiversal Simulcast Controller Inchided interface s UPS Systems. Excluded from service agreeme=nts but may be repaired an an above caUract, time and material basis. All UPS Systems must be shipped to IDO for repair. Excludes any on-site services. Excludes alt batteries. Zane Matrager Exchtdes HP715133, HP 71 SI50 servers, Excludes x-terminals NT3S 14C and NDS17C Zone Controller(s) Includes console terminals. Excludes ALL Sun1IMP hard drives except fLN349SA 0820 1 GB drive. Excludes the following Sl.1NIIMP CPUSET's: TLN3278B 0406, TLN3343A 0424 and TLN3278A 018110389. 12 ~Vl'T+RL~I~ Statement of V~ork Loeal Radio Combo Package 1.0 Description Local Radio Combo Package provides operational check and board level repair services for mobile, portable, twa-way and mobile data. An operational check is an analysis of the Equipment to identify external ar internal defects. Local Radio Combo Package also includes service on standard palm microphones and single mobile controls heads, provided that they are required far normal operation of the two-way mobile and are included at the point of manufac#ure. Service is only included on Equipmen# specifically named in the applicable Agreement to which this Statement of Work is attached. 1/ocai Radio Combo Package excludes repairs to: optional accessories; iDEN accessories; iDEN mobile microphones; non-standard mobile microphones, mobile external speakers; optional or additional control heads, single and multiple unit portable chargers; batteries, mobile antennas; mobile power & antenna cables and power supplies. The following are excluded from Local Radio Cmnbo service unless they are purchased as an option for an additional fee. The options are OnSite, Radio Survey and A~talysis, Portable Remote Speaker Microphones, Portable Antenna Replacements Mobile Remote Control Heads. The terms and conditions of this SOW are apt integral part of Motorola's Service Terms and Conditions or other applicable agreement to which it is attached and made a part thereof by this reference. 2.0 Motorola has the following responsibilities: 2. f Service to be performed at the Servicer facility during Standard Business Days. 2,2 Perform an operational check on the Equipment to determine the nature of the problem. 2.3 Remove/reinstall mobile or data Equipment from/to Customer's vehicle as needed for additional servicing. 2.4 Test and Restoro the Equipment to Motorola factory specifications. 2.5 Remove any dust, and/or foreign substances from the Equipment. 2.6 Reprogram Equipment necessary to return Equipment to ariginat operating parameters based on the template in the Equipment, if the template information can be retrieved from the Equipment, or from a backup diskette provided by Customer containing the template information, if the Customer template is not provided or trot reasonably usable, a generic template utilizing the latest Radio Service Software (RSS) version for that Equipment will be used. Tice Equipment will require additional programming by the Customer to Restore the original template. 2.'1 Notify Customer upon completion of repair for pickup of Equipment. 3.0 Customer has the following Responsibilities: 3.1 Deliver attd pick up Equipment to/from the Servicer facility. 3.2 Inform Servicer of description of problem for Equipment brought in far service. 3.3 if the Equipment will not power up, or if desired, sitpply Servicer with a backup diskette with the Software template or programming in order to assist in returning the Equipment to original operating parameters. [f applicable, record the current flashcode for each t~adio. 3.4 If Motorola must use a generic template to restore Equipment to operating condition, Customer is responsible for any programming required to Restore Equipment to desired pat~tmeters. 3.5 Cooperate with Motorola and perform all acts That are reasonable ar necessary to enable Motorola to provide the Lacai Radio Combo Package service to Customer. 13 Tl~~..~ Statement of Work Local Radio Combo Package OnSite Option -Pick up & Delivery I.0 Description of Service Equipment will be picked up from and delivered to the Customer's location, within a designated radius of the Servicer facility. Schedule pick~~ps wlll be mutually agreed upon and ou#lined in the Customer Support Plan. Tlus Option covers lquipment that is specifically named in the applicable Agreement to which ttris Statement of Work is attached. 2.0 Motorola has the following responsibilities: 2.1 Use reasonable efforts to pickup and deliver Equipment per the muhially agreed upon Customer location, days of week, and preferred time. if a pick upfdelivery cannot occur according to the preferred schedule, Customer will be contacted prior to the scheduled pick up/delivery, to arrange a mutually agreeable alternative date and/or time for pick upldelivery. 2.2 Generate service receipt and leave with Customer. 3.0 Customer has tho following responsibilities: 3.1 Designate mutually agreeable location for service pickup and delivery, days of week, and preferred time. 3.2 Provide problem description along with unit, 14 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: July 13, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.K. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TULY 19, 2011 SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST/8TH FAMILY FUN DAY AT POMPEY PARK ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION City Commission is requested to approve the 8th Annual Family Fun Day at Pompey Park produced by the Parks and Recreation Department proposed to be held August 13, 2011 at Pompey Park from 3:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Commission is also requested to approve staff support for security, fire inspection, trash removal and clean up assistance, trash boxes, use of the large City stage, and preparation and installation of event signage. BACKGROUND Attached are a special event permit application, site plan, and budget received from Abby Murrell, Recreation Supervisor, for this event. The event will include a kiddie corner, youth and adult games, best BBQ ribs and cake contests, vendors and live entertainment. Parks and Recreation will be responsible for overall event management, vendor approval and other site management tasks. The estimated costs for staff assistance is $4,504, stage rental $530, trash box costs $35 and event signage $250 for a total cost estimate of $5,319. Per Event Polices and Procedures, since this is a City sponsored event, there are no charges for City services or equipment. Also, a Hold Harmless Agreement and Certificate of Insurance are not required. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the special event permit, staff support for security, fire inspection, trash removal and clean up, providing trash boxes, setup and use of the large City stage and event signage. ~ELAAY 6EACH Parks ~ ~ecreat'ion Pompey Park T0: I~~C~ORANDUM David Harden, City Manager Recreation THRU: t~inda Karch, Parks and Recreation Director 1101 NWnt d Street FROM: Abby Murrell, Acting Site Supervisor III ~~~ Delray Beach SUBJECT: $~ Annual l=amity Fun Day Noise Waiver Florida, 33444 DATE: July ~, 2011 Phone: On Saturday, August 13, 2011, the Parks and Recreation Department viii host the 8~ (S61) Z43-7359 Annual Family Fun Day Event at Pompey Park from 3:OOpm -10:OOpm, The event is a family based community affair that engages families in momentous activi#ies and games l=ax; that creates lifetime memories. All programming for the festival is designated to (set) z~3-7342 celebrate cultural expression in a variety of forms. Scheduled activities include, a kiddie corner, youth and adult games, Best BBQ ribs and cake contests, and live entertainment, E-Mai[; mu rail m delra beach.com To that anti, please receive this correspondence as a request for a noise waiver, live musical entertainment Including a i)J will take place between' the hours of 3:OOpm - vuebsite: 10:OOpm. www. mydelraybeach. com Should you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to It~~~~~ contact me at exf. 7359. in ~~~~~' cc: Robert Barcinski, Assistant Cily Manager i,inda Karch, Parks and Recreation Director g Alberta Gaum, Recreation Superintendent Andrea Smith, Recreation Supervisor I! File ~4~~f~1 .,~,m ?~~ ~~~~~~~ ~u~. a ~ ~0~1 - - n~i QfEY BFJICH me~ieaCEi[Y i 1993 2003 Requesting street closure: yes n (IF yes, need time0date for closure aid reopening} Event Sponsor/I'roducex: _ Event ContactlC inator: Name: 0 rn Address: t Telephone umber; E-mail Address: ] 1 ~ ~If ~ ~~Z 1~ ~ Cellular Dumber: ~r d~~ ~~ ~~~n iI Page 1 of S Planned Activities (Outline of activities/~xu loer of cti iti i.e. enter ainm t, c{"fix d+r~n's ride , am(~[~~s, other py(J,og$$r nos • ~ #1'1 ~~t~ ~~ i~ ! Li'If/.~ .7 _ ~ ~A w ! !!~'i. ~ 1 y~ ~i ~ ~ ~l i 7 .f ti ~ Page2of5 Number of Individuals Served Previous Year (if applicable): the targeted pQQpulatian r-d expected ~Z2.5 ~~~~7~_ A.~r~ ~arCOt ~~ Sponsor Category (please check) Cit Non-Profit/Charitable ra Private ~ Co-Sponsor -Non-Profit/Private (lf Non profit crttacla proof of 50Ic(3), c(4), c(6), C(1~), or' c(79) ar (rl) Event Location {Describe area boiuidaries of eventllocation): Site plan attached: yes no~ -~'(~ -~ ~lv(,~ (Site pfan required for eltfire evsrr.t site, Liclude locations of teats, stage, portalets, dun~psters, portable lighting, and laarricade location if applicable.) Rent~•tl of Old School Square: yes na~ (If yes, attach proof of approval) Dental of Old School Square Park: yes uo~ (If yes, attach proof of rental agreement tivith Parks & Recreation) Private Property Use; yes no_ `~ (If yes, attach letter giving authorization from property o-vnec) Event budget Revenue & Expenses attached: yes no (Required for all events) Describe your MarketinglPromotions Pro •am (Horv will you market/promote, i,e. TV, radio, posters, flyers, tveb sites, other): Pa e of S Previous veer Revenue/Expense summarv attached: yes na (Required for all events) Arts and Economic linpact Calculator attached: yes no~ Obtained on line at www.AmericansForTheArts.org (Required for all events except minor events and SK Runs) 0 ou have cash s onsors far the event: es no~ D y p y (Indicated on budget} Do you have inlcind sponsors for the event: yes no~. (.Indicated on budget) Servin or sellin alcoholic bevera es: es no~ g g g Y ~f yes, what entity is obtaining the Alcaho] License perinit7 (tf yes, cagy of tr`certse urtd ~lcol'xvl lirrbrlfty iitsrrrat~ce required hva {2) weeks prior to event) ~ / Event certificate of insurance attached: yes no j~ `~ (I~egtrired tt~o (2) weeks prrar• to event fx€rnii~:g the City ns rrrirlitivnaT insured, Elsa regrcla•etl faf• veaadars) Playing of amplified mEtsie: yes no (Waiver requi,•ed) i1 ~~~" Wi11 there be entertainment: yes no ~~~~ (If yes, attached list of Performers andlor DJ's) If yes, sponsor agrees all entertainment evil be family oriented and contain no obscenities: yes no Requesting 1'aliee assistance: yes~r no (traffic control/security} Will supplement with private security: yes no~ (I, f yes, !teed pln~~ attaelxed) Requesting Emergency Medical assistance: yes na~ Requesting barricade assistance: yes___T_~ no~^ (If no, holy are yon handli~tg?) f ~^'~ ~ ~~~ctt Requesting trash removallclean up assistance: ye ~ na (If no, how are yon handling?) Requesting trash boxes/containers and liners: yes no Requesting st nse:•-~• yes. no e eck type) Large stage (14' x 36') S 11 stage (IG' x 21'}Ialf small stage (S' x ~~.') a I Page 4 of 5 Requesting signage; ~ yes na 'T`ype: ~1'x4'Tivent sign Parkitzg Signs Banner hanging Indicate dates required {Waiter required if rnnr•e tlran one (I) week pr'iar• to event) Requesting City Portable Generator; (If yes, size & power) yes no~ Food and beverage vendors: yes ~ no If yes, approximate number Ll +-s•v~ (Health Departineaat approval required) yes n Other vendors: (Indicate type) yes n~~ Tents: yes no If yes, How rrrarry Wlrat size or• size required (If yes, tent per•rrrits arad fife inspections may be rxeeded) Will the event include amusement rides: yes no (If yes, type and location and copy of liability lnsrrrarace required, also regrrlres state license and irtsvectiorr. ) Will the event be gAted: yes no (Shotiv on-site Wrap) Will there be a charge for the event: yes no (If yes, indicate ticket paces) $ Will there be frewarks or other pyrotechnics: yes no (If yes, contact Fire Marsltal to obtain and eornplet per•rnit applicrrtian) Will there be cooking with compressed gas: yes no_ (~jf'yes, contact Fire tNarslral for inspections) ~, ~~ ~ ~ l ~ ~.~-~ }~ Will you be providing port-a-lets for the event: yes na ~ (If yes, locate arr-site Wrap, If rro, indicate ltow ynrr will Irrrndde restraortt needs) 1,s reserved parking requested: yes na_ (1f yes, indicate locations and' pr~rpase for rose) x Page S of S Event Permit Attachments: Revenuell~xpense Budget ~,~RevenuelExpense Recap Last Yeats Event Site Flan Arts and Econarttic Impact Calendar Letter Requesting Noise Ordinance Waiver Letter Requesting Waiver Consumption Aicoltol Beverages Proof of Non-Prolxt Status General Liability Insurance Certificate ,__. ,_.,~Alcahol Beverage Liability Certificate TPt'oof of Rental Agreement ar Authorization Letter frorn Private Property O~vner Hold 1-latrnless Agreerrtent, notarized. Sub~trittal Date Regtxiretnents: • Minor Event 45 days prior to event + Intermediate Event 90 days prior to event • 1Vlajor Event 120 days prior to event • Neighborhood Block Party 3t) days prior to event ~J o ~~. ~ ~ ~ Evertt Co trac~ rlCoardtnator Dat Please print: V Please enclose the appropriate Wort-refuttdable application fee payable to the City of Delray Beach, 1D0 N.W. 15° Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444. Required vvitlt permit application, For Staff Use 4trly ~/ ,Date Received Application fee received ! 0 v oA c~ s~. r3 a Q r-~ U cci 4] L-i 21 Q N Cfj ~." N O 0 O V bA O D bA vi at ~s., r~~ `~~ ~~t ~ ~ E~rent: Pom a Par 2Q11 m~~ F`un Da In The Park ~~1 >~i __ ~~~ ~~/ Ages: f ,k ~ ~ Community (All Ages) ~ _._, ~~~ s:~~ 1~~ Days ~ - _ ~ Saturday, August 13, 2011 _y--- ~~~ ~ ~ ~~.~_s9~~__~ ~ 5 ; Summer ~~~ ~~~ r_,S?c_~t~on4,-~-~5~ Pompey Park, 1101 NW end Street ~~~ ~~~ C~nt~ctyP~~s©n' Abby Murxell _ r~~ ~~~ ~ ~~--~ fa1 Coma: ~~~sfi ~ -~ Phone: 561-243-7356 ~'ax:561-243-?342 ~/ l~t - aryryl~{~ ik ~. ~- y., x~ '~ it ---. ~u ~-' ; ~ s .r -' _ i ~ _ ~'~~ ~~ ~rogr .. ~~SG'~•~Y?:^~~3s.~~.r.,,, x ...:~.. P> >~.__..-tip ~ _ ~.::r- ,,, ~..,.,~~ r__. i :_ ". ...~~...,,- ~ •.s_v.--~_ .fin- .=' h ~ Delray Beach Parks and Recreation Department presents the B~' Annual Family Fun bay at ~~+ ~~ Pompey Park on Saturday, August 13, 20i1. Families are invited to join the fun between 3:00 pm and 10:00 pm, with plenty of activities far everyone, including Best 13BQ Ribs Contest, a Cake ~~~ / ~ Contest, a kiddie corner, youth and adult games, live entertainment and featured performers, ~~~ ~~ etc. There will also be dozens of vendors for the whole family to enjoy. This is a day that is not ~~~ ~~ worth missing Please make sure to bring your lawn chair and shade umbrella ~1 j~~~~t~rr~.~l~,leGt~'V~S .~,~~.'. ~~F<.~~Y. f~~=~~~,,_~.-~,.,~ .4 ~~i'i~r=t~-ti~~..,.,, .T .,. .. f3 ~Lc•.(F'_. .?v. -~_S ~.--~:-^. ~_... ~~~ A festtnal is an event, usually staged by a local community, which centers on some unique ~ ~+~ aspect of that community. A!i programming for the festival is des[gned to celebrate cultural ~ ~ ex ression in a variety of forms and to encourage understanding and appreciation for different ~~~ p ~~~ cultures. Festival International events are free to the public and designed to encourage family ~~~ '~t participation from ail sectors of the community ~~~ -~~ , Budget _ _ s ~. -~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~~~ r~i + ~~~ T~1 ~~~ -~t ~~~ ,o, ~~~ I~t -~~ ~~~ p~pp((~~ aa ~n{ ~~ t r ~."4-. {~ ';~' - y I~,.f1 {Tp~1^~(]~ -F'~L~PrWJl µli yryy-yy ply 4 YA ~eL~~w-. -, ~ !,F-. y)Yri ~V~,.. ' ~_'; Y _ Entertainment (Sound, DJ and Feafured Pe~•£ormers) $ 2500.00 BBQ Contest 1~,2° ,and 3` place trophies $ 100.00 Cake Contest is ,2" ,and 3` place trophies $ 100.00 Kiddie Comer Youth Activities $ 300.00 Tafal Collected ii~•anx Veiaclars 10 vendors $250 $ 250.00 Contest BBQICaEce Contests 10 BBQ Contest Entries ct $65110 Cake Contest Ent<'ies X65 $ X300,00 ~'ot~l ~ ~~ x -• ~ ` x - i $,-.-5~t10. ~~ 3000 00 ~~e~[~~ ~-'~v~~t Budged I~irt~~ ~ z - ~ ~~~1c,,~e~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 77 1~er~_~{Q07~~~.~.r3'l,`Z-~~~{~`~1ECShc_ Y ~ ; ~ 3 ~ t - ~ _- v -~$ ?~ ~ , events) ~ .~_. ~SQO.UO $ ~ - - - . .. ~ .t.._.. ~_ ~~ _ _, . -- ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~t ~~~ ~.~ ~*~ ~~~ '~~ f~1 ~~t ~~~ ~~~ ~~i -!i ~~< -~t ~~~ -~~ ~~~ ~~ ~.~~. Event: Pompey Park I`amily ~'un Day 2Q~0 Days V , _ _ _ _. :~ IV'w s ~ Saturda 8c Sunda Y Y ~S°e-a-son:; <~'__~, --; r August 7 & 8, 2010 Lbea#~on~ ' ~ --- ':'s Pompey Park, 1101 N~rV 2nd Street Co;~aet=P.ersoas? Rhonda'U'iriliia~ns-Turner ~villian~sr ir,ci.delra;~r-beacla.0,us Cattact~~#.~;r~~1,` Phane: 561-243-7356 Fax:561-243-7342 ~rogram.Descx~ption _.„ ~ .- Pompey Park Delray Beach Parks and Recreation Department presents an Annual Family Day and Barbecue Fest at Pompey Park on Saturday of every year. Families are invited to }ein the fun between 4;0© pm and 1L•O[) pm, with plenty of actititles for everyone, including Best BBQ nibs Contest, games, live entertainment, talent: show and contest, motlvatianal speakers, free food, and prizes. 'there will also be dozens of vendors for the whole family to enjoy This Is a day that is natworth missing. Please make sure to bring your lawn chair and shade umbrella! A festival is an event, usually staged by a local cammunity, which centers fln some unique aspeck of that community. All programming far the festival is designed to celebrate culture! expression in a variety of forms and to encourage understanding and appreciation far different cultures• Festiva! International events are free to the public and designed to encourage family participation from ail sectors of the community. Entertainment R SaundlDJ ~ Private Security ~~~,i ~ TMShirts Snacks BBQ Contest r Garlic Crab Contest Cake Contest ~~~ }~ `~ Talent CDnteSt Live Band A & Associates International Staffand Volunteers Staff acid Volunteers 15 ~0&2 X58;3` 8- lace --~-r0 f~ r~ ls`~88.2 - 3~ 3 $-~5 place rr r{ ls -z~`8;2~` 3r ~9,-~ niece r` ~~ Is~ -~~2.na-~9a3`~~A~ ~~ A P Foad ::° .~ ~ zooaoa.~~~: ' 10 vendo~•s x $200 Non -- - Food -_ C©ntest 15 BBQ/Cra6slCatce x $ __:.900:00 `_~; BBQIContestl $60 anti $ ;.250 0Q '` Talent 10 talent x $25 .'~©,#alr.`1 r _ ~. ~ $~ ~~X650 ~0 $.:1.07`53 0~ ~taf#' and $espainsrb ylitzes ,T._~ - amity Day Coardina~or i. Plan the Family Fun Day Activities 2. Managing the administrative details necessary to the coordination of tmonthly newsietters, agenda's, spreadsheets, etc) 3, Make Daily phone contacts 4. Responsible for check in S. Oversee on-site program 5. Order Trophies and purchase ail supplies 7, Set-up Meeting with the Police Dept Office Assistance Assist tl~e Coordinator. Duties ~vilf include monitoring activities. o Called Funds and Applications o Assistant Coordinator ~~~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Jasmin Allen, Planner Mark McDonnell, AICP, Acting Director of Planning and Zoning THROUGH: City Manager DATE: July 14, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.L. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 19, 2011 REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACTIONS ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The action requested of the City Commission is review of appealable actions which were taken by various Boards during the period of July 5, 2011 through July 15, 2011. BACKGROUND This is the method of informing the City Commission of the land use actions taken by designated Boards which may be appealed to the City Commission. After this meeting, the appeal period shall expire (unless the 10 day appeal period has not occurred). Section 2.4.7(E), Appeals, of the LDRs applies. In summary, it provides that the City Commission hears appeals of actions taken by an approving Board. It also provides that the City Commission may file an appeal. To do so: • The item must be raised by a Commission member. • By motion, an action must be taken to place the item on the next meeting of the Commission as an appealed item. REVIEW BY OTHERS Site Plan Review and A~earance Board Meeting of July 13, 2011 A. Approved (3 to 1, Rustem Kupi dissenting and Nick Sadowsky absent), a request for architectural elevations and color change for Delray Commercial Center, located at the northeast corner of Congress Avenue and SW 10th Street (955 & 975 South Congress Avenue). B. Approved with conditions (4 to 0), a Class I site plan modification associated with the addition of speed bumps to the parking drive aisle for Ocean City Properties, located at the southeast corner of Pineapple Grove Way and NE 1st Street (220 NE 1st Street). C. Approved with conditions (4 to 0), a Class I site plan modification and architectural elevation changes associated with modifications to an existing restaurant with roll-down hurricane shutters for Paddy McGees, located on the north side of East Atlantic Avenue, east of NE 3rd Avenue. Historic Preservation Board Meeting of July 6, 2011 No appealable items were considered by the Historic Preservation Board. The following item which was considered by the Board will be forwarded to the City Commission for action: 1. Recommended approval with conditions (3 to 2, Rhonda Sexton and Pam Reeder dissenting and Roger Cope and Annie Adkins Roof absent), a request to amend Ordinance 10-10 to provide for the reclassification of the property located at 32 East Atlantic Avenue from non-contributing to contributing. RECOMMENDATION By motion, receive and file this report. Attachment: Location Map ~~~, CITY COMMISSION MEETING - - - - ~T,~~~~~~~ _ _ _ _ N ' JULY 19 2011 ~ z~ U~,~ ~n~~~ i ~ ~ ~ PLANNING AND ZONING ~~ ~ LOCATION MAP ~F~ acn~E DEPARTMENT SPRAT: A. DELP,AY CO~A~AERCIAL CENTER 8. OCEAN CITY PROPERTIES C. PADDY MCGEES -- D/GITA[ BASE MAP SYSTEM -- -- DLS -- MAP REF: S:\Planning & Zoning\DBMS\File-Cab\CC-DOC\7-19-11 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Catherine M. Kozol, Police Legal Advisor/Asst. City Attorney THROUGH: Police Department. DATE: July 8, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.A. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TULY 19, 2011 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES/RCC CONSULTANTS, INC. ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This an agreement between the Cities of Delray Beach, Boca Raton and Boynton Beach with RCC Consultants Inc. to study the possible consolidation of each city's public safety communications centers. BACKGROUND This agreement will allow the cities to obtain the professional services of RCC Consultants to provide consulting and engineering services to study possible combination of the three cities public safety communications centers for police and fire dispatch. RCC will conduct a comprehensive consolidation study to determine the feasibility of and benefits to be derived from the consolidation of E9-1-1 call taking and public safety dispatching of the police and fire departments within the cities. The compensation for the work set forth in this proposal by RCC is a total of $54,000.00 with each City paying $18,000.00 each. FUNDING SOURCE The funding will be the Police Department's Law Enforcement Trust Fund, the LETF account number is 112-2172-521-31-90. RECOMMENDATION The Police Department is recommending approval of the study. AGREEMENT FOR PROI'ESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT NO. THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into as of the day of Apri12011, by and among the City of Boca Raton, a municipal corporation of the State of Florida (hereinafter referred to as `Boca Raton"), the City of Boynton Beach, a municipal corporation of the State of Florida (hereinafter referred to as `Boynton Beach"), the City of Delray Beach, a rnwucipal corporation of the State of Florida {hereinafter referred to as "Delray Beach") (Boca Raton, Boynton Beach, and Delray Beach are sometimes hereinafter referred to individually as a "CITY" and collectively as the "CITIES"), and RCC Consultants, Inc., a Delaware corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT"): WHEREAS, the CITIES require certain professional services in cormection with the possible consolidation of their public safety communications centers (the "Services"); and ~'VHEREAS, CONSULTANT was selected based on the award made by the Houston-Galveston Area Council pursuant to the Agreement behveen the Houston-Galveston Area Council and CONSULTANT, effective June I, 2010, to provide consulting and engineering services for wireless communications and information per contract No. EN06-! 0; and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT represents that it is capable and prepared to provide the Sen~ices; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto also desire that this Agreement shall 6e construed to authorize each CITY to request, and CONSULTANT to provide, expert witness services fn connection with court proceedings arising out of projects in which CONSULTANT provided the Services; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 -EFFECTIVE DATE The effective date of this Agreement shall 6e the date upon which the last of the parties to this Agreement has signed this Agreement, and shall terminate upon completion and acceptance of the Services and the CITIES' payment therefor, subject to earlier cancellation as provided herein. ARTICLE 2 -SERVICE TO BE PERFORMED BY CONSULTANT The Services to be performed by CONSULTANT are set forth in Consultant's proposal, dated March 9, 2011, to the CITIES, a copy of which proposal is annexed hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference {hereinafter, the "Proposal"). ARTICLE 3 - C011IPENSATION Each CITY shall pay CONSULTANT for the Services in accordance with the "Summary of Proposed Fees" section of Exhibit A. ARTICLE 4 - STAA'DARD OF CARE CONSULTANT shall exercise the same degree of care, skill, an~diligenee in the performance of the Services as is ordinarily provided by a professional comrnurrications consultant, under similar circumstances and CONSULTANT shall, at no additional cost to the CITIES, re-perform Services which fail to satisfy the foregoing standard ofcare, ARTICLE S - INIIEMNITICATION CONSULTANT shall indemnify and hold harniless each CITY, its officers, and employees from liabilities, damages, losses and costs, including, but not limited to reasonable attorney's fees, to the extent caused by the negligence, recklessness or intentional wrongful misconduct of CONSULTANT and persons employed or utilized by CONSULTANT in the perforrrrance ofthis Agreement. Any casts and expenses, including attorney's fees, appellate, bankruptcy ar defense counsel fees incurred by any CITY to enforce this indenutificationclouse shall be borne by CONSULTANT, This indemnification clause shall continue inde0nitely and survive the cancellation, termination, expiration, lapse or suspension of this Agreement. ARTICLE 6 -INDEPENDENT' CONTRACTOR CONSULTANT undertakes performance of the Services as an independent contractor and shall be wholly responsible for the methods of performance. The CITIES shall have no right to supervise the methods used, but each CITY shall have the right to observe such performance. CONSULTANT shall work closely with the CITIES in performing 5etvices under t}us Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not receive any benefits, stipend or privileges afforded to C1TY employees. ARTICLE 7 -COMPLIANCE WITH LA~'1,'S In performance of the Services, CONSULTANT will comply with applicable regulatory and other applicable requirements including federal, state, and local laws, rules regulations, orders, codes, criteria and standards. Further, CONSULTANT aclrnowledges and without exception or stipulation shall be fully responsible for complying with the provisions of the Immigration Refotni and Control Act of I9$6 as located at $ U.S.C. 1324, et seq. and regulations relating thereto, as either may be amended. Failure by the a-varded firm to comply with the taws referenced herein shall constitute a breach of this Agreement and each CITY shalt have the discretion to unilaterally terminate this Agreement. ARTICL)/ S - WSURANCE During the performance of t}te Services under this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall maintain the following insurance policies, and such coverages shall be «ritten by an insurance company authorized to do business in Florida. WORKER'S COMPENSATION CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain, for the life of this Agreement, worker's compensation Insurance covering all its employees with limits meeting all applicable state and federal laws. This coverage shall include employers' liability with limits meeting all applicable state and federal laws. This coverage shall also be maintained by all subcontractors to CONSULTANT. Thirty (30} days notice of cancellation, lapse ar material modification is required and must be provided to each CITY. COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain, for the life of this Agreement, commercial general liability insurance. This coverage shall be on an "occurrence" basis. Coverage shall include premises and operations; independent contractors' products and completed operations and cantraetual liability, This policy shall provide coverage for death, personal injury or property damage that could arise directly or indirectly from the performance of this Agreement, The minimum limits of coverage shall be X1,000,000 per occurrence, combined single limit for bodily injury liability and property damage liability with ito more than a $16,000 deductible, Each CITY must be named as an additional insured, The additional insured requirement is waived if owners and contractors' pro#ecfive coverage is also provided, or required. Thirty (30) days written notice must be provided to each CITY in the event of cancellation. BUSINESS AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY CONSULTANT shall procnre and maintain, for the life of this Agreement, business automobile liability insurance. The minimum limits of coverage shall be $500,000 per occurrence, combined single limit for bodily injut}~ liability and property damage liability. This coverage shall be an "any auto" or "comprehensive fornt" type policy. In the event that CONSULTANT does not awn any vettieles, CITIES will accept hired and non-owned coverage in the amounts listed above. In addition, CITIES will require an affidavit signed by the CONSULTANT indicating the following: RCC Consultants, Inc. does not otivn any vehicles. In the event RCC Consultants, Inc. acquires any vehicles throughout the tern of this Agreement, RCC Consultants, Inc. agrees to purchase "any auto" or "comprehensh~e torn coverage as of the date ofacquisition. CONSULTANT'S Signature: Thirty (3D) days ~i7itten notice mtESt be provided to each CITY in the event of cancellation, lapse or material modification of any coverage required by this Agreement. PROI+ESSIONAL LIABILITY/ERRORS AND OMISSIONS CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain, for the life of this Agreement either professional liability insurance or errors and omissions insurance. This coverage is for damages arising out of the insured's negligence, mistakes or failure to take appropriate action in the performance of business or professional duties. Tlus coverage shall be on a "claims made" basis and kept For hvo (2) years after completion. The minimum limits of coverage shat! be ~1,DDD,DDD per occurrence with a deductible afno more than $ l0,DOD. Thirty (30) days written notice must be provided to each CITY in the event of cancellation. SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS 1. The insurance coverage and conditions afforded by this policy(s) shall not be suspended, voided, canceled or modified, except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been give~i to each CITY'S department Ehat originated this Agreement, 2. Certificates of insurance meeting the specific required provision specified within this Agreement shall be forwarded to each CITY'S Department that originated this Agreement, and approved prior to the start of any Services or the possession of any CITY property, as applicable. SUBCONTRACTOR'SINSIIRANCE CONSULTANT shall require each of its subcontractors to fake out and maintain during the life of the subcontract the same insurance coverages required of CONSULTANT. Each subcontractor shall furnish to CONSULTANT four copies of the certificate ofinsurance, and CONSULTANT shall furnish one copy offhe certificate to each CITY. ARTICLE 9 - CITYS' RESPONSIBILITIES Each CITY shall he responsible for providing reasonably required access to all project sites, and providing information on hand, including any data available in the files of such CITY. ARTICLE 10 -TERMINATION 01<' AGREEMENT The obligation [o continue Services under this Agreement may be terminated for cause by any party upon seven (7) days written notice of substantial failure by another party to perform in accordance with the terms hereof through no fault of the terminating party. Each CITY shall have the right to terminate its participation in this Agreement ar suspend performance (hereof without cause for such CITY'S convenience upon fourteen (14} days ~ti~-itteii notice to CONSULTANT, and CONSULTANT shall terminate or suspend perfonmance of Services with respect to such CITY on a schedule acceptable to such CITY or at the end of this fourteen {14} day period, at the option of such CITY. In the event of termination or suspension for CI'i Y's convenience, such CITY shall pay CONSULTANT for all Services performed through the effective date of termination or suspension, ARTICLE I I -NONDISCLOSURE OF PROPRIETARY INFORMATION CONSULTANT sheik consider alt information provided by CITIES and all repor#s, studies, calculations, and other documentation resulting from CONSULTANT'S performance of the Services to be proprietary unless such information is available from public sources or is a public record under Florida la-v. CONSULTANT shall not publish or disclose proprietary information for any purpose other than the performance of the Services ~vithouf the prior written authorization of the CITIES or in response to legal process. ARTICLE 12 - (INCONTROLLABLE FORCES Neither CITIES nor CONSULTANT shall be considered to be in default of this Agreement if delays in or failure of performance shall be due to Uncontrollable Forces, the effect of which, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, the non- 3 performing party could not avoid. The term "Uncontrollable Forces" shall mean any event which results in the prevention or delay of performance b}' a party of its obligations under this Agreement and which is beyond the reasonable control of the non-performing party. It includes, but is not limited to fire, flood, earthquakes, storms, lightning, epidemic, war, riot, civil disturbance, sabotage, Acts of C,od and governmental actions. No party shall, however, be excused from performance if nonperformance is due to forces which are preventable, removable, or remediable and which the non-performing party could have, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, prevented, removed, or remedied with reasonable dispatch. The non-performing party shall, within a reasonable time of being prevented or delayed from performance by an uncontrollable force, give written notice to the other party describing the circumstances and uncontrollable forces preventing continued performance of the obligations of this Agreement. ARTICLIi 13 -GOVERNING LAVV 1 VENUE / WAIVER OI' ,IUR'Y TRIAL This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the Stale of Florida. Any and all legal action necessary to enforce the Agreemenk will be held in Palmn Beach County and the Agreement will be interpreted according to the laws of Florida. 13y entering into tlmis Agreement, CONSULTANT and CITIES hereby expressly waive any riglmts either party may have to a trial by jury of any civil litigation related to this AgreemenE. ARTICLE 14 -MISCELLANEOUS 14.1 Nonwaiver A waiver by any CITY or CONSULTANT of any breach of this Agreement shall not be binding upon the waiving party unless such waiver is in t~riting and duly signed by both patties to timis Agreement. In time event of a mtritten waiver, such a waiver shall not affect the waiving party's rights with respect to any other or further breach. The making or acceptance of a payment by any party Svith knowledge of the existence of a default or breach shall not operate or be construed to operate as a waiver of any subsequent default or breach. 14.2 Severahility The invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability of any provision of this Agreement, or the occurrence of any event rendering any pomfion or provision of tlmis Agreement void or voidable, shall in no way affect the validity or enforceability of any other portion or provision of the Agreement. Any void or voidable provision shall be deemed severed from the Agreement and the balance of the Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if the Agreement did not contain the particular portion or provision held to be void. The parties further agree to reform the Agreement to replace any stricken provision with a valid provision that comes as close as possible to the intent of the stricken provision. The provisions of this section shall not prevent the entire Agreement from being held void should a provision whiclm is of the essence of the Agreement be determined to be void b}= a court of competent jurisdiction. 14.3 Political Campaigns buying the term of tlmis Agreement, the CONSULTANT or any employee or associate, shall not be involved in any poGticai campaign far and CITY elective office nor make financial contribution to any such campaign. ARTICLE 15 -INTEGRATION AND MODIFICATION Tlmis Agreemment is adopted by the CITIES and CONSULTANT as a final, complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the Agreement behveen the CITIES and CONSULTANT. This Agreement supersedes all prior agreements, contracts, proposals, representations, negotiations, letters or other comrmmunications behveen the CITIES and CONSULTANT pertaining to the Sen=ices, whetlmer written or oral. The Agreement may not be modified unless such modifications are evidenced by an ametmdment in writing signed by the CITIES and CONSULTANT. ARTICLE lb -SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS The CITIES and CONSULTANT each binds itself and its directors, officers, partners, successors, executors, adnministrators, assigns and legal representatives to the other parties to this Agreement. Any assignment, sale, pledge or conveyance of this Agreement by CONSULTANT must be previously approved in writing by the CITIES, which consent may be reasonably withheld. ARTICLE 17 -CONTINGENT FEES CONSULTANT warrants that it has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona #ide employee working solely for the CONSULTANT to solicit or secure this Agreement and that it has not paid or agreed to pay any person, company, corporation, individual or firm, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the CONSULTANT, any fee, commission, percentage, gift or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the a~~~ard or making of this Agreement. ARTICLE 18 - OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS CONSULTANT shall be required to work in harmony with other consultants relative to providing information requested in a timely manner and in the specified form. Any and all documents, records, disks, original drawings, or other information prepared under this Agreement steal! become the property of the CITIES upon completion, for their use and distribution as may be deemed appropriate by the CITIES. ARTICLE 20 -NOTICE Any notice, demand, communication, or request required or permitted hereunder shall he in writing and delivered in person or sent by cet•tified mail, postage prepaid as follows: As To Boca Raton: City ofBoca Raton Police Services Department 100 NW Boca Raton Blvd. Boca Raton, FL 33432 Attention; Daniel C. Alexander, Chief of Police And: City ofBoca Raton Fire Services Department 6500 Congress Ave, Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33487 Attention: Thomas R. Woad, Fire Chief As to Boynton Beach: City of Boyn#on Beach 100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd. Boynton Beaefi, FL 33435 Attention: Mafihe-v immler, Chief of Police and ~Villiam L. Binghatn, Fire Chief As to Deh•ay Beach: City of Delray Beach 300 W. Atlantic Ave. Delray Beach, FL 33444 Attention: Anthony Strainese, Chief of Police and David C. James, Fire Chief As to CONSULTANT: RCC Consultants, Inc. 1001'~'oodbridge Center Dr,, Suite 201 1~oodbridge, NJ 07095- 1125 Attention: Michael \'~. Hunter, President and CEO With a copy to: RCC Consultants, Itie. 2927 Habersham Dr. Tallahassee, I'L 32369 Attention: Joseph Y. Nasser, Ph.D, Sr. Vice President Notices shall be effective when delivered to the address specif ed above. Changes in the respective addresses to which such notice maybe directed may be made from time to time by any party by written notice to the other parties. Nothing contained in this Axticle shall be construed to restrict the transmission of routine comtnw~ications between representatives of CONSULTANT and the CITIES. ARTICLE 2I - I'RO,TECT TEAM The Services to be performed hereunder shalt be performed by CONSULTANT'S own staff, unless othertivise authorized in writing by the CITIES. The employment of, contract -vith, or use of the services of any other person or firm by CONSULTANT, as independent consultant or othenvise, shall be subject to the prior «ritten approval of the CITIES. No provision of this Ageement shall, however, he construed as constituting ati agreement behveen tiie CITIES and any such other person or firm. Nor shall anything in this Agteetnent be deemed to give any such party or any Ehird party any claim or right of action against the CITIES beyond such as may then otherwise exist without regard to tlris Agreement. CONSULTANT is liable for all the acts or omissions of its subconsultants or subcontractors. Sy appropriate written agreement, the CONSULTANT shall require each subconsultant or subcontractor, to the extent of the Services to be perfot~~ed by the subconsultant or subcontractor, to be bound to the CONSULTANT by the terms of this Agreement, and to assume toward CONSULTANT all the obligations and responsibilities which CONSULTANT, by ties Agreement, assumes toward the CITIES. Each subeonsuhant or subcontract agreement shall preserve and protect the rights of the CITIES under this Agreement so that the subconsulting or subcontracting thereof will not prejudice such rights. ~~'here appropriate, CONSULTANT shall require each subconsultant or subcontractor to enter into similar agreements wish its sub-subconsultants orsub-subcontractors. CONSULTANT aclcnotvledges and agrees that nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create any contractual relationship behveen and CITY and any subconsultant or subcontractor. IN WITNESS WI~R.EOF, the City of Boca Ratan, at a ~°egular tneetittg thereof, by action of the Boca Raton City Council directing the foregoing 6e adopted, has caused these presents to be signed by the Mayor of Boca Raton, and its seal to be hereunto affixed; the City of Boynton Beach, at a regular rneeting thereof, by action of the Boynton Beach City Council directing the foregoing be adopted, has caused these presents to be signed by the Mayor of Boynton Beach, and its seal to be hereunto affixed; the City of Delray Beaclt, at a regular meeting thereof, by action of the Delray Beach City Council directing the foregoing be adopted, has caused these presents to be sighed by the Mayor of Delray Beach, and its seal to be hereunto affixed; and RCC Consultants, Ittc has executed this Agreement, all as of the day and year first above written. Attest: Baca Ratan City Clerk Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: By: Boca Raton City Attorney Attest: Boynton Beach City Clerk Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: By: Boynton Beaclt City Attorney Attest: Delray Beach City Clerk Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: CITY OF BOCA BATON Date: By: Susan Wltelcltel, Mayor CITY Oh' BOYNTON BEACH Date: By: Jose Rodriguez, Mayor CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Date: By: Nelson S. McDuffe, Mayor By: Deh'ay Beach City Attorney IiCC CONSiJLTAN'rS,1NC. Attest: Assistant Secretary Date: By:_ Natne: Title; {Corporate Seal) 1uXIIIBTT A Co of Consultant's Pro osal Dated Marcli 9 2011 ~7 2cc March 9, 2011 To: CitJ~ of Boca Raton Police Chief Daniel C. Alexander 100 N.W. Baca Raton Blvd. Boca Raton, FL 33432-3704 Fh•e Chief Thomas R. Woad 6500 Congress Ave, Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 334$7 To: City of Boynton Beach Palice Chief Matthew Itnmler Fire Chief William L. Bingham 100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd. Boynton Beach, FL 33435 To: City of Delray Beach Police Chief Anthony Strainese Fire Chief David C. James 300 W. Atlantic Ave. Delray Beach, FL 33444 RE: Proposal for Professional Consulting Services -Public Safety Communications Center Consolidation Study far the Cities of Boca Raton, Boynton Beach, and Delray Beach Dear Su`s: RCC Consultants, lnc. (RCC} understands that the Palice and Fire Departments of the City of Boca Raton, the City of Boynton Beaclz, and the City of Delray Beach (hereinafter "Cities"} are interesting in conducting a comprehensive consolidation study to determine the feasibility of, and benefits to be derived from, the consolidation of their E9-1-1 call taking and public safety dispatching of the police and fire departments within the Cities. RCC Consultants, Inc. 2425 Millcreek Cour# • 'T'allahassee, TL 32308-4375 te1(S~o) 224-4451 • fax {S5o} 224-3059 Quote for Consolidation Study March 9, 20i 1 Page 2 of l4 The chiefs of the Cities see this as an opportunity to increase interoperability with neighboring agencies and reduce the overall cost of delivery of public safety and homela~fd security / emergency management services by consolidating the 9-1-1 call taking and dispatch operations ofthe Cities, Federal and state aid to cities, fawns and counties is dwindling at a time when costs and service demands continue to grow. Local govermnents, more than ever before, need to find new ways to deliver quality services with limited resources. increasingly, municipalities are ttirning to cooperation and consolidation to achieve efficiencies in service delivery. Achieving efficiencies, along with sound fiscal management, has been the result for many successful consolidations of Public Safety Answering Points and public safety communications centers / emergency operations centers throughout the country. RCC Consultants, uic. (RCC) has helped agencies such as Fairfax County, Virginia and Erie County, Ohio with consolidation of cairununications services, achieving success through cooperation and consolidation of public safety emergency communications centers. In Fairfax County, RCC assisted in the planning and design of a cooperative venture in which the County and the Commontivealth of Virginia worked together to create a consolidated communications and emergency operations center. The center houses the County's PSAP and emergency corrununications, the Virginia State Police divisional communications center atad the Virginia Department of Transportation Smart Traffic Center in a facility sharing both space and equipment. RCC helped Erie County, Ohio develop a comprehensive plan far consolidating eight disparate public safety communications centers into a single, efficient countywide center. RCC's strategy provided guidance in transitioning the equipment, personnel, policies and procedures into a single consolidated center. Building consensus among so many different agencies was a key challenge in the project, and taking the tithe to understand stakeholder needs and requirements helped build a strong governance structure for the consolidated center. In Michigan, RCC has developed an innovative concept for the virtual consolidation of PSAP's in a six county area in the north-central portion of the state. Creating a Regional Emergency Communications Center creates an opportunity to act more strategically to achieve importa~ft new benefits that are difficult to achieve without consolidation. By selecting RCC to help objectively analyze the feasibility of a regional communications center, the regional partners will achieve the following benefits: • A single comprehensive strategy for public safety communications • Ongoing public confidence and support • unproved operational policies and practices • lnproved accountability and quality • Technical systems flexibility • Long-term efficiency and cost containment Quote for Consolidation Study March 9, 2011 Page 3 of 14 + Improved performance • Improved disaster preparedness and survivability • Larger, more fully dedicated staff pool Standardized and enhanced training • Improved interoperability among agencies • More rapid and efficient integration to new teclmologies Bnrt•iers to Successful Consolidation Unfortunately, some consolidations of public safety communications centers fail -and they fail because of a variety of barriers. Some barriers are operational, such as the necessity to harmonize differences in personnel salaries, benefits and union contracts. Other barriers are more parochial, such as views of o~vnersliip and control. In more than rivo decades afhelping public safety agencies improve the efftciettcy of their communications centers, RCC's teams have helped our clients overcame the barriers to achieve successful consolidation: • Diverse Team Membership -Often several agencies are involved, each with different terminology, goals and priorities. Members may lack understanding of agency roles and contributions to the issues, and have differing perceptions on how government works. Lack Of Policy Guidance -The Consolidation team may not have clearly defined policy guidance from elected officials or city and/or county officials. • Lorv Team Authority ~- The framework for accomplishing consolidation is ambiguous or nonexistent, Nobody is in charge of the process; lead agency concept is confusing. • Internal Politics --Bureaucratic bias impedes team performance, and often there is a strong preference for agency autonomy due to narrow budget constraints and rigid resource controls. A powerful bias against adapting and integt•ating operations, policies, and controls hampers coordinated implementation. • Organizational Inertia --There is strong inertia toward familiar situational assessments and courses of action. Members may resist change or divergence from existing policies. By working with a consulting firm that has a depth of experience itt overcoming these barriers, the Cities will receive a solution that achieves a successful consolidation. RCC's i3~ork Plrr~r Wlll Ovet•conle the Bara•iers to Achieve Successful Corrsollrlatlort Our experience has tauglrt us the hard lessons of predicting and overcoming bat7•iers to consolidating public safety services and systems. Completing a comprehensive objective feasibility study designed to provide regional partners wide the right information to make tough decisions is a challenge. It requires a unique combination of proven experience, reliable technical resources and a cotntnittnent to understanding how public safety agencies and communications confers operate. Our experience has prepared us to build the trust and commitment that is necessary to achieve a successful consolidation. By partnering with RCC, the Cities get a company that understands how etnerge~~cy communications centers operate, and who can build the consensus that is vital to a consolidation. Quote for Consolidation Study March 9, 2011 Page ~ of 1 ~ The Cities will receive a solution that provides the basis for answering the essential question of should you proceed with developing a regional communications center, and provides sufficient information to help decision makers choose tl~e right direction. Reliable E.xperierlce irr Forging Partnerships and Breildirrg Corrserrsrrs irr Shared Corrlrrlrrrricatiars Systerrrs will Errsrrre Corrsoiidaliorr Success RCC's team has been assisting governments and public safety agencies far 25 years. The success of this feasibility study depends upon the ability of the consultant to get all regional partners involved in making and building consensus in the process. The Cities will benefit fi•om RCC's experience iji guiding the building of partnerships necessary for consolidation of communications centers and shared regional interoperable communications systems. The proposal that follows will demonstrate both the capabilities of RCC to perform this important study and the process that will be followed to ensure the project is successful. Sincerely, ~~~~ J. Y. Nasser, PhD Vice PresidentlGeneral Manager JYN/jk Quote for Consolidatio~a Study March 9, 2011 Page 5 of 14 17RO,TECT' TEAl17 A Carefully Chosen Project Team will Provide the Guidance Necessary to Successful Consolidation RCC has carefully chosen an expert project team to offer the best service to the feasibility study project, Our multi-disciplinary team enables us to match the p-•oject stakeholder's specific needs with the extraordinary and varied experience of our professionals and their proven ability to deliver quality public safety telecommunications consulting and engineering services on time and within budget. RCC is a respected leader in public safety communications because of the depth and breadth of rife knowledge and experience of our staff. The composition of our team also reflects the importance the Cities has placed on having the experience and tools necessary to meet the complexities of this project, Our team includes Project Management institute certified Project Management Professionals {PMP}, NENA certified Emergency Number Professionals (ENP}, and industry leaders with significant public safety communications center operations and maintenance experience. Our project manager and the Cities' team will also have the entire resources of RCC to draw upon should project eu•cumstances require additional support. RCC is proposing a team of experts at the forefront of the development of Next Generation 4-1-1 systems, This team has conducted many consolidation studies. Our corporate commitment to providing our experts to such standard setting bodies as NENA, APCO, NFPA, IJIS and others, demonstrates our belief that fundamental improvements to emergency communications are possible through careful planning and due diligence. This team will work with you to analyze models against a set of criteria based on your operational needs and viewed from a perspective that considers economic value in the proper context. Quote far Consolidation Study March 9, 2011 Page 6 of 14 ~- - " The Cities Project Team Joseph Nasser, Phd Executive Sponsor Uirit Hugghins, PE, ENP StaffinylSyskems _ _ _ti . Faysal Tay, PMP ENP Systeirtis I Personne) '; ~; i ;~ ',p ~ Oth©~ FGC ~ ~ -Personnel as _ Rcguircd i Page 1 T'igure 1-Dispatch Cansolidatiou Project Tearn Organisation Chart Project Majrrrger: Joseph Nasser, PhD As Project Manager, Dr. Nasser will provide coordination with fife City and other stakeholders to ensure timely, comprehensive communication. Dr. Nasser has a distinguished career in Public Safety, having served on many technical boards and as a former President of APCO. Dr. Nasser has appeared before the FCC, the FCC Office of Science and Technology, and the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences to address current and future public safety communications needs. Professional . PhD, PWU, 1991, Behavioral Science & Educational Twenty-eight years Law Enforcement Officer Background • • Fourteen years Fire Fighter and Ambulance Attendant Quote for Consolidation Study March 9, 2011 Page 7 of 14 • Fourteen years 9-1-1 /Communications / 1mergency Management Director for large Florida County • Twenty-four years Consulting Experience Summary of • Established the first nationwide 9-1-1 Call Taker and Experience & Dispatcher Training Institute for APCO International, Qualifications including basic, advanced, and Train The Trainer, 1984 • Established the first nationwide FCC Frequency Coordination system for public safety frequencies for APCO International, 1986 • FCC Advisory Committee Chairman for the National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee (NPSPAC) for use of frequencies in the $21-824 and 866-869 MHz bands. Created the first nationwide plan for public safety use of these frequencies, approved unanimously by agencies throughout the US and still in use today, 1987 Staffing Analyses: Clint Hugghins, ENP Mr. Hugghins will provide project engineering/consulting services in the areas of data collection, staffmg and facilities analysis, and deliverables preparation. Mr. Hugghins has participated in many PSAP consolidation analysis projects and will bring this relevant experience to bear in the RECC Cities. Professional + BSEE, Florida State University & Educational . Certified Professional Engineer {P.E.), Florida X62424 Background • Certified Emergency Number Professional (ENP) from National Emergency Number Association (NENA) • BICSI-certified Registered Communications Distribution Designer (RCDD) Su~~unaty of a 10+ years experience in public safety communications Experience & system needs assessment, staffing analysis, consolidation Qualifications feasibility, systems design, procurement, implementation management, and acceptance testing • Tecluiical expertise with the following public safety communications subsystems: E9-1-1, NG9-i-l, CAD, RMS, 7M5, mobile data systems, information transport systems, PBX nehvorks, and microwave radio systems • Recent consolidation analysis projects include: Alpena County, MI; Erie County, OH; Livi~~gston County, MI; Genesee County, MI; Sussex County, N3; Leon County, FL; Quote for Consolidation Study March 9, 2011 Page 8 of 14 and Jefferson Parish, LA Personnel and Standard Operating Procedures: Faysal Tay, ENP, PMP Mr. Tay will provide project engineeringlconsulting services in the areas of data collection, staffing and facilities analysis, and deliverables preparation. Mr. Hugghins leas participated in many PSAP consolidation analysis projects and will bring this relevant experie~~ce to bear in the RECC Cities. Professional • BSEE, Florida State University & Educational Certified Emergency Number Professional (ENP) from Background National Emergency Number Association (NENA) • Professional Management Institute certified Project Management Professional (PMP) Summary of a 10 years experience in public safety communications system Experience & needs assessment, staffing analysis, consolidation Qualifications feasibility, communications center design, systems design, procurement, implementation management, and acceptance testing • Technical expertise witlf the following public safety communications subsystems: E9-1-1, NG9-1-1, CAD, RMS, JMS, mobile data systems, and information transport systems. • Recent communications centers projects include: Fairfax County, VA; Township of West Chester, OH; State of Florida Warning Point/EOC; Genesee County, Ml APPROACIi: PROPOSED WORK PLAN AND SCOPE OF WORK The technologies available to emergency cointnunications are on the threshold of profound change. With the advance of Next Generation technologies, the methods by which emergency communications are handled on a day-to-day basis are moving from the silo approach of the past to an integrated, fused solution. This major change in the environment will influence virtually every facet of E9-1-1 call taking and dispatch, including the way agencies (and consultants) view consolidation opportunities. The oppozfianity to improve the methods of communications still requires an analysis of what is best for both the region as well as the local agencies. The simple application of technology will not solve the response level requirements and may create new problems if not done in a thoughtful, deliberate manner. Quote for Consolidation Study March 9, 2011 Page 4 of 14 RCC is well aware of the potential of available teclutology. However, our goal is to produce a body of work that best addresses the needs of the Cities' emergency services. We will structure our project based upon four basic tenets: • Improve the overall performance of emergency services, • Integrate the intelligence available through automated processes with operational practices (Fusio~t Center), • Wltere appropriate, combine the emergency communications functions, and • Achieve these goals in the most cost-effective and operationally efficient manner. The following is a description of the Scope of Services to be provided under the proposed agreetnettt. Phase I -Needs Assessment and )C;valuation of Alternative Solutions Task 1- P~•oject Iultiatiou and Mobilization RCC shall participate in a project kickoff and orien#ation meeting with the Cities' Project Tearn and stakeholders. The goals and objectives of this meeting are: • Review project scope, objectives, plans, and requirements with the Cities' Project Teant • Defttte RCC's and Cities' Project Team members and assigned roles and responsibilities • Identify Cities' materials and resources that RCC will require to perform the engagement • RCC will develop survey questionnaires for review and approval by the Cities' Project Team. These surveys rvilI assist with the gathering of pertinent technical, operational and governance data fi•otn the existing PSAPs. The questionnaires will be distributed by the Cities' Project Team prior to the KiekoffMeeting, with instructions to either return them to the Cities' Project Team prior to the Kickoff Meethtg or bring them to the meeting to be turned in. • Identify individuals to be interviewed to detertnitte requirements • Identify facilities and systems to be visited and inspected • Develop and agree to a complete list of tasks, timetables and deliverables Task 2 _ Data Collection RCC shall perform data collection tasks and conduct interviews with appropriate City and stakeholder personnel, in order to determine the requirements for the Dispatch Consolidation Study. RCC will produce a matrix of planned or ongoing facility improvements and identify how each may best fit into an overall strategy of regional communications. Of course, eve will rely heavily upon the participation of each involved stakeholder and tivork toward an accurate reflection of their infrastructure, short-term plans and long-term visioat. Quote for Consolidation Study March 9, 2011 Page 10 of 14 • RCC will develop survey questionnaires for review and approval by the Cities' Project Team. These surveys will assist with the gathering of pertinent technical, operational and governance data from the existing PSAPs. • RCC will convene a Project Kickoff Meeting to review the nceds and expectations of the Cities' Project Team and stakeholders. • The questionnaires will 6e revie~ved and discussed at the Project KickoffMeeting. • RCC team members will visit each PSAPldispatclt center operated by each of the participating agencies, and perform interviews to review data from the questionnaires, clarify any open questions and observe operations at each center. • Irt addition to the interview process, the following information may be gathered as appropriate; o Call Taker and Dispatcher position descriptions, classifications, and pay scales o Supervisory practices o Training standards and practices o Standard Operating Procedures and other personnel-based manuals including any training materials used, review of training records and an assessrttent of the effectiveness of the current hiring and retention policies of the agency. a User perceptions and comments. o Software and equipment inventories. o Statistical reports from automated systems. o LANIWAN diagrams. o Plans and review of the process involved with upgrades to existing technologies. o Purchasing criteria and guidelines for systems procurement. a A detailed breakdown of call statistics with respect to 9-1-I calls ansjvered, dispatches, and other PSAP activities as may occur, such breakdown to cover hourly demand by shift and account for seasonal variation. o Current arrangements for supporting activities, such as technical support, training, administration, etc. Task 3--Data Analysis RCC will review the data provided on the questionnaires and acquired during the Kickoff Meeting and site visits. • Analysis of technical information, including hardware and software con~gur•ation, nehvork connectivity, planned or in-progress upgrades; • Analysis of PSAP/dispatch operations; • Analysis of PSAP governance structure; • Analysis of current funding structure; Quote for Consolidation Study March 9, 2011 Page 11 of 14 • Analysis of staffing levels and staff development pa•og~•ams/policies; • Analysis of existing facilities; • Analysis of existing systems, capabilities, casts and maintenance agreements. Task 4: Develop Alternative Configurations There are many possible combinations and permutations when examhiing the best configuration of emergency coirununications and response resources in the area under study. Oirt of that mix of passibilitics, a small number of configurations will naturally rise to the top as the most viable, given the specific requirements and lessons learned over time. Part of the value RCC brings to the project is our ability, based upon knowledge earned over 25 years, to recognize the most viable alternatives and quickly rule out the remainder. Advantages and disadvantages of alternatives are best judged when those evaluating alternatives have a clear set of requirements, well-defitaed decision criteria, and consensus on direction. RCC will work with all of the stakeholders to ensure understanding of the decision prerequisites and to obtain consensus. When considering the overall regional approach to emergency communications, RCC will produce a reasoned approach to why recommendations are anode in a manner that allows the Cities' Project Team to ultimately decide which combia~ations of features and fianctionality are most appropriate to meet local needs. Each option proposed by RCC will have an independent analysis clearly highlighting the benefits and disadvantages and indicating risk management in the best possible terms. Toward that end, this task is comprised of the flawing activities: • RCC will identify a number of passible alternative configurations. RCC will select the t<vo or three most viable configurations and develop them for consideration by the Cities. • For each potential configuration, RCC will propose: o Number and locations of centers o Primary and secondary coverage areas (as applicable) o Number of positions (based on the projected call volume) o Required staffing to fill the identified number of positions o Net increase/decrease in staffing versus existing levels o Purchase versus reuse of existing telephone, radio, logging and CAD equipment o Networking considerations o Governance model o Cost analysis o Funding model Task 5: Preseia,t and Discuss Alternative Configurations RCC will present the mast viable configurations to the Cities' Project Team at a one-day, in- person Workshop to go over the alternatives aa~d gather feedback to use in selecting the optimum configuration. Quote for Consolidation Study Marcl~ 9, 2©11 Page 12 of 14 In selecting an optimum confguration for PSAP consolidation, RCC knotivs that the complexities require an operational and functional analysis prior to au economic analysis. No benefit is gained by mixing a group of municipalities that have little common ground. Multiple procedures across a disjointed geographical area will lead to user dissatisfaction and a general sense #hat the venture has failed. Conversely, appropriately grouped agencies sharing a comtnan base of operational and situational values enhance the chances of success, attd thus assure user satisfaction and trust. RCC has the experience to make appropriate recommendations based upon knowledge gained fi•om the many such projects we have completed in the past. Phase II -Develop Conceptual Design and High Level ;spatial Design far Nesv Dispatch Center Task 6; Determine "Critical Mass" for Consolidation As a separate discussion, RCC will determine what level of participation by fire Cities and their stakeholders is required to provide economic value to the participants, assuming operational viability. This analysis will identify lto~v many members need to join and what level of call volume must be served before the consolidation reaches the required level of viability. Task 7 - Detertuipe Optimal Configuration RCC's recomrendations will be based upon sound facts gathered throughout the project, achievable operational and economic objectives most likely to be found acceptable by the participants. Our professionals will suggest the best recommendation based upon their unbiased assessment of the situation and within the best interest of our client. RCC will determine, based on previous input fi•om the Cities' Project Team and information collected during the initial Tasks, the optimal configuration to pursue. This will include development of the selection/decision criteria and rationale, costs, benefits and likelihood of success. Task 8: Recommendation and Report RCC will deliver a report as specified in the "Deliverables" section. This report will captain RCC's assessment of the optimal alternative and recommendations for equipping, staffing, funding and governing the configuration. Tltis report will also contain ahigh-level transition plan for the migration from the current operational enviromnent to the recommended configuration. RCC will develop and deliver a PowerPoint presentation to be used in presenting the Recommendation and Report to the Cities and other stakeholder audiences. Aft agreed t~pon number of printed and electronic copies of the Report and PowerPoint file will be delivered at the final presentation. Task 9 -- Pr•ojeet Close Or~t RCC shall formally close out this phase of the project by: • Recommending final acceptance after review and acceptance of RCC's Recommendation Report by the Cities. Quote for Consolidation Study March 9, 2011 Page 13 of 14 • Such acceptance will be verified by provision of a written acknowledgement of acceptance by the Cities' Project Team. PROPOSRD SCHEDULI; The proposed schedule that appears on the following page is based an an assumed start date of July 6, 2010. The timeline is relatively stable regardless of date of receipt of a Notice to Proceed, provided RCC has sufficient advanced notice to allow for a proper ramp up to begin the project. Gd;es of Bocj R7.m Eby-im Bearlt and [Sa}ay BeaH~ G'sDn'd~ Gtt+saidaFm & WY 1~ ITask ka~ma ~ [ua!en ~ 5st ~ FNSR ~skeaeeessars ~I'19 _ ,P:.p,Y9 ~SiD'79 ~Oet'k6 SeYnrens E ~Phua~•GOncKtuai bla~n as Raporl ~ 35 drts l1on 7.Y1F1( Non &'t2A1~ cask ~ tFJeuw~~ ~ F~4a7nl iESSs Prderi [k5pj;hCgnsoFdN~a+Fivd,Fr n:ie.w:aasm SFF' S=,r.~a~r F,e~-~iM~e:~a+a~~ Proryess ~ Pro'etl 5utmmy - S3a5ero 4 Peke l ASSUMPTIQNS Services to be prodded by the Cities' Project Team and other related key assumptions include: • Identify locations and extents of desired service. • Provide documentation on existing individually owned cormnunications facilities by each participant. Quote for Consolidation Study March 9, 2011 Page 14 of 14 • Assist RCC in development of, distribution of, and collection of survey documents. • Facilitate RCC's visits to each site during field studies. • Assist in coordinating meetings tivith other stakeholders. It is assumed that only one meeting will be required for Project Orientation, Project Kickoff, Presentation and Discussion of Alternative Configuration, and Presentation of Recommendations Report. Should additional meetings be required, RCC will provide each additional such meeting at its published rates and p~iblished direct expense rates. • Each participating City shall enter uito an agreement with RCC to pay its pro rata share of the total cost of the consolidation study. SUM11~1RY OF PROPOSED + +ES The proposed labor cost and associated expenses for the engineering and consulting services described in this proposal are sununarized below. The compensation for the work set forth in this proposal shall be a frm fixed price of $54,000. Each participating City shall pay its pro rata share as follows; City of Boca Raton: $18,000 City of Boynton Beach: $18,000 City of Delray Beach: $18,000 Incremental payments will be made as follows: • Upon signing of the agreement, each participant will pay to RCC 10% of its pro rata share of the total fee ($1,800 each). • Upon completion of Task 5 "Present and Discuss Alternative Configurations" each participant will pay to RCC 40°/a of its pro rata share of the total fee ($7,200 each}. • Upon completion of Task 8 "Presentation of Recommendation and Report" each participant will pay to RCC SO% of its pro rata share of the total fee {$9,000 each). MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: July 14, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.B. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TULY 19, 2011 SPECIAL EVENT REOUEST/EVP VOLLEYBALL TOUR ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Commission is requested to approve a new event request the EVP Tour Volleyball Tournament proposed to be held on the Municipal Beach on September 17, 2011 from 8:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. This event is being co-sponsored by the Delray Beach Marketing Cooperative and EVP Tours. Commission is also requested to provide staff support for EMS assistance, trash removal and cleanup, lifeguard assistance, set up of half of the small stage and bleachers, and event signage. Also, requested is a waiver to the City Code, Section 101.25 to allow the sale of sponsor products and for promotions and Section 101.32 to allow assembly on the beach. BACKGROUND Attached for review is the special event permit, site plan, budget, a copy of the agreement between the DMC and EVP Tour, economic calculator and other related information. It is estimated that approximately 300 athletes will participate with an estimate of 1,000 - 3,000 spectators. Athletes will be parking at the Seagate Hotel. Alcoholic beverages will be served in the VIl' tent only and approximately 10 vendor tents will be set up. The estimated overtime costs for this event are $1,470, signage $250 and trash boxes $70. Per the Special Event Policies and Procedures, the DMC's costs will be approximately $850. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the event as proposed and staffing as requested; to include stage and bleacher set up and removal, signage, trash boxes and waiver of City Code Section 101.25 to allow sale and promotion of sponsor products and Section 101.32 to allow assembly on the beach with following conditions: 1. Receipt of an approved turtle permit fourteen (14) days prior to the event. 2. Receipt of a Hold Harmless Agreement fourteen (14) days prior to the event. _- _~=~ City of Delray Beach °EL~°'Y e~"" Special Event Permit- n~~--~~ Application ~ REVISED 11.2.14 ~ PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT ~~s3 zoos Event NamelTitle: \1 ~ ~ ~~'C~ ' ~ ~~-~~C~ Event Date{s): ~ (}~ ~ , ~ Times: ~Vi' Requesting street closure: yes {If yes, need timeldate for ciasure and reopening) no~ ....,,,._ Event SponsorlPraducer: ,~~~o~~ ~, 6 Event ContactlCoardinator; 1 }\ rn~. lc-d~S ~~ 1~tY1~j~-•~~~ ~~ _ ~ U Name: V -' Address: a(] Telephone Nu-nber: E-mail Address: '(~ Brief History of Event (If applicable): t',.t~ tL\~'~11~~ ~.'~~ . Planned Activities (Outline of activities/n ber of ae~ivities, i.e. ent a~nment, children's rides, games, other programs): ~ ~I~J Gtt, ~w~S tY1~~ LL`> ~U~r~ ~ IJ •~ Page 1 of 5 Page 2 0£ 5 Number of Individuals Served Previous Year (if applicable): the tar eted opulation and expected attendance: Dese •ibe how the program or project addresses community needs: Ihrs EU2tnf 1,ds t Describe your MarketinglPromotions Program {Ho will you marketlpromote, i.e. TV, radio, posters, flyers, web sites, other}: 11 ~ S}~YS ~~ ~ i5i4 Sponsor Category (please check) City ©Non-ProfitlCharitable ^ Private ^ Co-Sponsor -Non-Profit(Private i~ (If Nari! prvfrt attrrclt proof of SOlc(3), c(4}, c(G), C(10), or c(19) or (rl) vent Location (Describe area boundaries of eventllocation): c~cL~~~n ,--~ ~~~, ~ ~ vv~>(J , Site plan attached; YeS~ no (Site plan' regrdred fot• entire eveatt site. Include locations of tents, stage, I~ortalets, dtiinpsters, portable lighting, i-nd barricade Iaeatlo>~r if applicable.) Rental of Old School Square: yes no 1~ (lf yes, attach proof of approval) Rental of 41d School Square Park: yes no 1./ (If yes, attach proof of rental agreement with Parks & Recreation} Use: es no Private Property Y (If yes, attach letter giving authorization from property owner} Event budget Revenue & Expenses attached: yes ~ no (Required for all eve~tts} M:1SarahlForms end DocnmentslSpwial Event Perniit Application 13EVISED FINAL FYIO-It{2).doc Page 3 of S Previous year RevenuelExpense summary attached: yes no (Required far all events) Arts and Economic Impact Calculatox attached: yes V no Obtained online at www.Americansl?orTheArts.org (Required for ail events except minor events and SK Runs) Do you have cash sponsors for the event: yes_._ no (Indicated on budget) Do you have inkind sponsors for the event: yes no (Indicated on budget} -` Serving or selling alcoholic beverages: yes -V no Tf yes, fvhat entity is attaining the Alcnliol License permit? (1f yes, copy of license rrtrrl alcolral liability Insurance required tsvo (2) weeks prior to eveiittj ~,~~vr~g tw t9t~ `~.R-~rnA.( Event certificate of insurance attacHed: yes no (Regrrirerl tivo (2) weeks prior to event natrting the City as additlotral insured, also required for vejxdors} Pla in of ant lifted music: yes no y g P (Waiver regrrirerl) Will there be entertainment: yes no '~ (If yes, attached list of Performers and/or DJ's) If yes, sponsor agrees all entertainment will be f ;;~iily oriented and contain no obscenities: yes_ ~ no Requesting Police assistance: yes no•__,.,.,~ (traffic controllsecurity) Will supplement with private security: yes (If yes, irteed plan nttaclted) Requesting Emergency Medical a istance: yes~,,~,r, Requesting barricade assistance: yes_ _ (If no, how are you Handling?) Requesting trash removallclean up assistance: (If no, how are you handling?) Requesting trash boxes/containers and liners Requesting stage use: (If yes, clteck type} Large stage (1~1' x 3G') na_~ .~-- no no,_.~ Yes yes yes no~ no ~ no a Small stage (16' x 21') n Half small stage {8' x 21') M:ISarahU'onns and Dceuments[5pecial l;vent Permit Application REVESED FttJAI. FY10-t 1[2).doc Page 4 of 5 Requesting signage: yes Type; 4'x$'~vent sign Parking Signs Banner hanging Indicate dates required (lI'aiver required f more titan ane (Y) week prior to event} Requesting City Portable Generator: yes {If yes, size & power} Food and beverage velldars: yes .!~ If yes, approximate number (Health Department approval required} no no no ~ yes no Other vendors: yes na {indicate type) ~'7'1~1(1,`~C}(~ Tents; yes, \/ no~~--~~~~ If yes, How marry ~ tY/rrrt size or size requrrerl ~ ! lJ (If yes, tent perrnifs rcrarl frre irrspectrons may be neerled) Will the event include amusement rides: yes no~ (If yes, Type arad location and copy of liability irasarrarace regrdred, also requires state license grad lraspectiora.) es Will the ent be ated: no y g ev (SJtoly on-site rnap) Will there be a charge for the event: yes no (If yes, iradlcate ticket prices) S orks or other rotechnics: es Will there be fire no y py w (If yes, contact Fire Marshal to ohtalrt grad complete perrrrit application) Will there be cookin with corn ressed as: es g p g y p no V (If yes, contact Fire Marshal for inspections) Will you be providing port-a-lets far the event: yes rro ~~'i~-~'~.~~ ~'" ~~ (Xf yes, locate orr~site Wrap. If aao, irarlicate laow yoar will laaradl e restrooraa rreerls ~ Is reserved parking requested: yes na (If yes, indicate locations and purpose for arse) M:1SarahlFom~s and DocumentslSpecial t;vent Permit Application REVISED I'INAI, FY 14-11(2).doc Page 5 of 5 Event Pern~it Attachments: Revenue/ExpenseBudgec Revenue/Expense Recap Last Years Event Site Plan Arts and Economic Impact Calendar Letter Requesting Noise Ordinance Waiver Letter Requesting Waiver Conslunption Alcohol Beverages Proof ofNan-Profit Status General Liability Insurance Certificate Alcohol Beverage Liability Certificate Proof of Rental Agreement or Authorization Letter from Private Property Otivner Hold Harmless Agreement, notarized. Suhmit#al Date Requirements: Minor went 45 days prior #a event • Xntermediate Event 90 days prior to event • Major Event 120 days prior to event o Neighborhood Blocl;Party 3a clays prior to event ~~ ~ yen ontractor/ o rdinator Date ease print: Please enclose the appropriate non-refundable application fee payable to the City of Delray Beach, 144 N.W. I5` Avenue, Delray Beach, lilorida 33444. Required with permit application. For Staff Use Ottly Date Received Application fee received ~ ,~I:t5ara1~lForms and DocnmentsGSpecial Event Permit Application REVISED FINAL FYIQ-11[2].doc eTt3 ~~~., -e ~n Ir` ~7 L ~_ i. 1 ~'~ ~ yt_ tom- }-. ` ... . . , . ~, - r~.,~ J ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~` ~ r~" ~~t ~~ ;'~ ~~• '~ '~ ~~~ _~ ~ iLm a ~~ ,,'-. ~~ .m~a ~~ k ~~ ~ } ~~ r-. ~' 4 f _1_ t ~ ~ u x 1t _-' k - `,~~ ~~f ~~~1 ~ ~ . `# ~~ - ~d i k -;!• p ~ R~ E„ ~ e' 33 ~ ,+ ~ i 7~ i ~ ~~ ' `~~ - ~' ~• ~~ ~ ~ { ~~ , a ~: 4 ~;~ ~~ Eyf= ~~~ ~~ FJr-_ ; k ~' ++~4A ia~~ t~ ~_ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ .. -. ,~ t 4fi ~ ~- i~--~~ fi~~' ~ ~ ~~~ ~R ~~ r~ ~~ }~ ' .- ~~~~~~~~•~f ~~ }fir i,~n~ 1 (~~ ~ ~€ ! 3ro e } ,~' i. ~~ `~ {I( i ] fj ,~ k ` i I F = y: ~ i~ p~; ~~~ i ,i 1 ~ ~~ ~ -?~ ~ ~ t Z ~ ~ ~ _, ~ _ ' "" ~ ~ a~~ : s a ti ~-` ~~'~ ~ u I' : IFS ! _ '~ - ~1. t f , _' ~; ~: "~~~ ~ ~. - ~'"~ `~ ~ ~. ~ +, - ~ 1r = "s •~ ~ i . ~ ~~ ~~ i ~''~-" Delray Beach, FL September 17, 2012 Title Sponsor Presenting Sponsor Sponsor HastSponsor Merchandise Corporate Challenge Cabana Viiiage t2e istration $0.00 $0.00 $15,000.00 $30Q,00 $3,200,00 $Q.00 (rollout in 2012) I1 20Q,00 Price Qty Total Pro Teams 14 courts I Men I00 15 $3,750.00 Women I00 12 $2,500.00 id Men 7Q is $7oo.aQ Go l Women 70 iQ $700.00 AI Men 50 10 $500.OQ Women 5Q 10 $500.OQ Amateur 40 B Men 50 IO $500.00 courts Women 50 i0 $500.00 AA~ Men 5Q Q $0.00 Rec 50 10 $500.00 Ca-Ed Adv. 50 10 $1,050.00 0 0 $0.00 Nurnber of Teams 107 i i 200.00 Total Revenue $29,700.00 Permits $0.00 DMC TV Production $9,500.00 EVP Prize Money ~ Men's ' $4,000.00 EVP Women s $4,000.00 EVP Amateur $300A0 EVP VIP Beverages $300A0 Rental VIP Food $406.00 Vehicle $OAO Security $OAO Labor $2,000AO EVP Live Music $Q.00 T-Shirts $~}DOAO EVP Merchandise $500.OD EVP D] $300.00 EVP Producer $500.00 EVP Insurance $500.00 EVP Adman Expense $2,000.00 EVP Travel: Air $1,500.00 EVP Hotel $2,000.00 EVP Nfisc $2,000.00 EVP Total Cost $3fl,2flfl.fl0 Profit $50Q.OQ At 30°1o safes of sponsarsh as ~ ~ ~~~ ~ o a~ ~;•3 r. m 3 rn O f Y ~ Q T ~ ~ .~ ~ • ~ t r Q~ - ~ L ~, ~ r . ~, 3~~ +~ U~ i C U r V ~ ~a~~~~~~~3Ls ~ ~~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~" O ""~ Q. L ~ Q) ~ ~ ti U ~ ~`~~•~~ ~~ d Gi _ ~ y ~ ~ ,FO ~ N .,_. ~ 4 p _ ~.... ~ V1 Q~ y C~ U ~ O U N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N O s- " L' O a ~' a N R o N ~~ Qf N N UU .~vZ'Y~~as ' ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ •~~-'~ o~ c ~ ~ o V © ~ a~~ ro ~ ~N~o a O~ a QS r ro a a~,<?~ ~~ AC ^ ~ y ,w ~ V ~ o • _ ~ ~., ~ ~ o ~ ro ~ ~ m ® ~ ~ ~ o ~' c o° cn • q ~ N ~ F.± ~ ,y a~i ~ J ~ fi C ~ ~ ~ ~ m W O 4 ,tv m 'y ~ Q' `„ Tu C ~ ~ ~ .y U ~~ ~ ~ O ~ C ~^ ~ ~ .~ ~ v ~ ~ Q L ~ ' • ~ x ~ O ca .a w ~~~b~ °~~~ ~~ ~. Untitled Document Page 1 of 1 STEP 1: POPULATION POPULATION of your community: 50,OOD to 99,999 STEP 2: TOTAL EXPENSES {optional) Your Organization's TOTAi_ EXPENSES (please do not use commas): ~ 30200 STEP 3: TOTAL ATTENt~ANCE (optional) TOTAL ATTEtfOANCE to your organizatiort`s arts events {again, do not use commas): 3500 CaICU.laie, :; C~SEf ~: ..~-.~ , r, , ,,,.,,,:. Nonprofit Arts andCuiture $80,200 0.9 $19,859 $1,030 $1,976 Organizations: NonprafitArts and Culture $•~~ 275 2.1 $32,157 $3,149 $3,690 Audiences: Total Industry Impact: $109,475 3 $52 016 $4,179 $4,$6G ;The Sum of Or,anizrr'ons arcs ?,udiencesl _~t'If1~,~gttC f~BSUItS v Please see the fin, e grintbelnvi. Total Expends#ures: The total dollars spent by your nonprofit arcs and culture organization and its audiences; event-related spending by arts and culture audiences is estimated using the average dot€ars spent per person by aril avant attendees in similarly populated communities, Back to Calculator I=TE .fobs: Tho total number of full-lints equivalent (FTP) jobs in your contnnntiiy that are supported tty the oxpenditcrres made t3y your arts and culture organization andlor its audiences. An FTE can be one lull-lime entplayee, t}ra half-time employees, four employees vlho work quarter-time, etr.. back to Calculator Household Income: The total dollars paid to community residents as a result of the expenditures made by your arts and Culture organization andlor its audiences. i"fausehold incorrt2 includes salaries, v~ages, and proprietary incetme. Back to Calculator Government The total dollars received by your local and state governments (e.g., license fees. saxes) as a result of the Revenue: expenditures made by your arts and culture organization andlor its audiences. Back to Calculator y'Ihen using estintatosdcrived front this calculator, attivays keep the folbvrittg caveats in mind: {!y the results of this anaYysis are based upon the averages of sintll8rhf populated cammunities, (2} inputloutput rncdels were customizert for each of these similady populated communities. Drovidittg very specific entpluymenl, household income, and government revenue data, and (3) your results are therefore eels=hates. atxt should r:o! be used as a suhstitufe for conducting an economic impact study tltal I; customized far your commumity. ©Copyright 2i}07 by Americans far the Arts. vrww.Ame ricansForTheArts. or ljttp:/hv~vw.americansfortlieat•ts.orglinfortnatian services/t•eseareh/service~fcconot~~ic imp... 6/23f2411 ~~++ nn _~a -p' ~+ A A v wr~ - fl p~ _- _ _ - DATE (MMIDDIYY) ~t ~lT~-~~~1 ~~~L ~~ ~~~~/~~~L~~ ~ U~ ` ~~ r ~L~i 1 1~~7 ! 11V _~ 6122f2011 PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE 15 ISSUED AS A 14dATT1=Ft OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE FOR SERVICE CALL: HOLDER. TH15 CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR FRANCIS L, DEAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. WHEATON, ILLINOIS COMPANIES AF'F'ORDING COVERAGE= 8001745-2409 www.fdeaEl.cnm COMPANY RIVERPORT INSURANCE COMPANY A INSURED SPORTS AND REC. AROVID>=RS ASSN. PURCHASING GROUP COMPANY SPORTS ENDEAVORS INC EVP TOUR 13 , ., NETWORK DBA VOLLEYBALL , COMPANY PROCESSIONALS c 117 W. IMLLIAMS MICHIGAN CITY IN 46360 coMPANY , D CERT.#AP133908-00 C,QVERAGES - - THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED, NOTWITHSTANDINGRNY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTEIER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICRTE MAYBE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES, LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. CO POLICY EFFECT{VE POLICY EXPIRATION LrR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER DATE MMlD DATE MMID LIMITS GEN ERAL LEABILITY GSNeRALAGGREGATE ~ 2,OOf),000.00 A X COMMERCIAL GENERALLIABILlTY PRODUCTS-COMPADPAGG $ 2,000,000.00 CLAIMS MADE ~occuR PeRSOrIALaADVw.1uRY g 1,0©a,o©O.f)© OVYNER'S & CONTRACTOR'S PROT WRD 180035 1/31/2011 1/31/2012 EACH OCCURRENCE ~ 1,OOf},000.00 X INCLUDES ATHLETIC PARTICIPANTS FIRE DAMAGE (AnyaneFire ) u~ 30f},0©U.f)0 A9 ED EXP (My orre person) ~ S,OOQ.00 AUT OMOBILE: LIABILITY ANY AUTO COME3tNED SINGLE DlAIT ^y ALL OWNED AUTOS E30DILY INJURY P~* e~~n SCHE=DULED AUTOS f ) P HIRED AUTOS BODILY INJURY fperaccident) 5 NON-OWNED AUTOS PftOPERTYDAhIAGE GARAGE LIABILITY AUTOONLY•EAACCIDENT ^~ ANY AUTO OTHER THAk AUTO Oh1LY: EACH ACCIDENT $ AGGREGATE $ EXCESS LIABILITY EACH OGCURRPNCE $ UMBRELLA FORM AGGREGATE $ OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM ^y WOR KER'S COhIPEN5AT10N AND WC STATU- oTrs- EhIPL OYERS'LIA9ILIN TORY Gh11TS ER EL EACH ACCIDENT ^~ TtIE FfiOPW~r~W PARTrIeas~cECUrrdE INCL EL DISEASE-POLICY OMIT ~FIC~RS AnE: EXCL £L DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE ~ arH>=~ DESCRIPTION OF OPERAT[ONSlLOCATIONSNEHICLESISPECIAL ITEMS THE CERTIF=ICATE HOLDER 15 ADDED A5 AN ADDITIONAL INSURED BUT ONLY WITH RESPECT TO LEABILITY ARISING OUT OF OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED DURING THE POLICY PERIOD. -CERTIFICATE HOLDER - - _ CANCELLA710N _ - __- SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COM?ANY WILL City of.Delray Beach ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 3O PAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO MAIL SUCH NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KING UPON THE COMPANY, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. AUTHORIZEb REPRESENTATIVE ~YQIILIS L. ~CQit Apr. 4, 2011 1:33PP~ WednAStta~y< M~rc1116, 2011 S~rnh ~lurtirt ' ~cecutlv4 Direct~rr pu~~r~it~lHt) I~1lprkgkln~ Ggq~~P~tIVq, inG. Bear Sarefi; No. 4183 ~. 2 ~ 4 _ 2pEi lfintt~nw~ati [fr iVtlclylg~r~ Gt#y, tN d$~~ti pfii'aet; 312Y~87~5988 ppgrztfiun;s 7~~•3B7.1~98. sari; QUO=21$~~aal$ 7hls t`on#itms the ~gr~emeltt for thn oot~irrtowr~ M~rlc~tirlg Cauper'allve, Ind. {H~sk ~p'on~ur- ~I~ti palm -@e~t11 Gounky $pOr•t5 ~orrlmtsstnlr {ttnsk end} to'hnst the ~@i1 E~fP Pra Arn'a~~ Sepi;er~~(~et i.7, ~p11 pro~utQd ~y tltq t11~ Tour i:rgm Snr~ to GPni. The first Nghts fnr the X012 evenk WII! ba resnivetl far t'1ie hank sfronsor until I~nvember ]tl, ~t711. Tha LVP 7aur {S~7prt~ l;cld~di'l~i'~, trys:.~} is SO[~ly ra5~aorts11~1~ fqr ftdflfling khq ~i~vnxQrs~lip r~ellvereb~e5 HS stated In inch sporisors~lfs a~r~~tt7~nk It ~Igi~;r. The 1-1G~k$lfdilspi" x~ittt FI~St A~~itt:y ~r~ rnly a~tln~ as are agent In safe crf the sp~o'nsvrs#~,ip ~acka-des an bt~halr of fhe CV!' Tour.`fhe ~ll~ 7"bur mint sign X11 even[ spoissorshlp ~~t~e~mgrtk~ irt5lu~ln~ fiasit, fn•ktnd ar~d tro~le ~nlues In ntt ~f(arta iq suppa~k thu ~vol7l st3Ead aba~re. ~i1tr Nvst 5pvn$or arrd~tl3e kv5t Agcrnty ha~ie nU Ir~vtrlvorncnt~tn,t~t~tilling any delivar~tl~les of the CVP 7'nur (Sl~~nrts ~`lldtr~t!ClrS,1r1C,} ~. ~VP~u~v I~,nrnvl~la ti~v.event with_tha a) ltt)S~' 51'Oril~tlFk t3c~sl~r~atiart fbr tlftr ~(t1~ ~Vr VUllc~ybali ~aurnarrrant, b} MAI~Cetinl~ etrtt prvr~t~tions of i•I,U~'1' Si't~NSbtt nt ell a~ ~nur ztaps. ~) Atliletos: {~~t~ f~roPasfiort~l teams (Settkrti~yl end {~4} n~xtat~c~r'1~enm's {S~turday}. ~!) "iV Prbcfu~tlan: l9r(tcEuce nrrd ~119lrlli~it~ a (3(i) trllrlulu EV#~ "ErtrSt~t;lzeti"'t~'si3eW ilti3t Wlll h~gft11gY1k tftu aktjlr:t~S ant thq C~Ey. ~eni;h Spurts N+~trvork Int[udt~s 2~ Rv#11ef7nl Spntts Netwnrk~ ~I~sr~~. 4} Tdtrrnarrlerit 5t~lf; T`~ur ~n~~unc~r, Pro C?tr~irli3C acid l4rrtnt~~lr 1]Irr±cler. f} 2~rrillflan~event tnsvrprl.~k Witft. FI~r~T irITY~~r1d~F'I~S'~ Sl'QNSt7R ~s ~cicikipnal Ir~slired. ~} +/b~ldylj~ll t~gi~.i~mant I~rluding nets, Ilh~s afiti tl~llls. h} $ra;Qt';f1 cas~h'Nrize tritr~-vy and arriateur prizQS, . t~ Nlal~.p~v~r~gi~ ~~I$s righks ~r~ ~+.ven fq khe H~5"I` 5PC5NS~R. All b®er sold meant tav brands of fat? MVP ~QUr: sliv[isor nerd apprrvec~ by tfte lrvts ~Cq~r prior to the e~vellt. 51r4 IYI~~i ~r tleq ev~rrt. Apr. 4. X011 1; 33P~~ ldo. 4183 P. 3 _ e o 5P 501E w it ~ ~ c 1V .~'~u ` ~). ~a.~~~D oasis bid fey; A $S,R~a~ poyrtt~nt ttllll l~~ lna~IQ to l<~li''four t5ports Cnilerivar~, Ind}.~ilyon slgrtEng an Irk i~ra.Artt slransor. Yfte second payment of $5,Op0 will ~e l~tad4 nn June :I.S, 2~~2 arld the•flrtai payinertt of 5,t)oU e+~ or before 5epten~b~t 7~', ~.nza. rl,~.llna! '~ayfneht ft~ the 1:VP flour nthy~ti~ Ir:s& any atfearl Ul3on City fear incurred during tltr ovr~nt, tl7e City fie shall be capped of ~i3~ ~(r-el 3liortst~rsitip t~Yartua, 6i Sn[ec of Sport~nrsfilp Terms; the ii~S~f SpAN5t7fR trtay sAll ~~~nsdfsl3i}~ i3aGi{a~os us par tl~e A~ici~ndr3rt~ ~, Tl~o iiaSE ~pans~r wlp receive ~ 2{~~ cnr~,rnl~~for~ Qr~ all spor~svl'shil> said !~y its xtaff orr btf ralT~t~f'tH# 1=iJP I~ro Arrr ovens. All s}tonsorsl7fp a1;re~marat5 it~USt i~~ 3~ni to ti1~ i;V4~'1"our YIa F}Ix~at ~B~1~ut~•5aZ±3. ~) Afxe~` the ~a,5,q(10 hid fA~ is psis to tea I;VP Prb Aril il~e-~ t11~ nn~t $:tt3,tlQU try SpOnsorshtps sof~i iyy eltf~rar party will be `'reh~ted" to tf~e Fti35TSpptts4r. A~fte>° the ~ltl,a~l? Is rebr3tt:ti t0 Ifp~t s~r}nsnr, any addltfott~l s(sanSatslifp claflars over $~5,[ttlg cnifected by oitlter parlywlfl be slit as follows; BUSS of spArtsurshfp #ees arp desl~r~~kad #or the ~UI~ `l'our ~nfd u}tora fnv4lre end ~l)9'a is desi8r5ateci t0'[i1o Fi~yt 5pons+~r. cif f'o~it fr~r {ZO) t3~aGh valicyhali eotrrts. e) Por~lt~ fdr Arnpifflad $Utlnd; (~») 4p g art ~ta~a; {i#? 10 X 1b kants, {3) ~0 x 2(3 ~'en1s, f) f~ofrnit for Gorporate.slgnage at tfte ovens 1nrf~rding ~~~f ~ourk S1d0 i)attnt}rsjsignage aiad (x~ Irt~I~Rnble's. g~ 8orrrrft fir Sallie EVl' ~9orci~ancifso ~~~ies f lists, t-sl~lrts> laa$sr afG,~ hj pity s~rdfCes fncludiri~ (~i} str+lf parking p~rr~ill:c trrtd ~xi)'volwrlEeers t~ assist !+s ~rlday Setttl~ tirlti ~+7tui'ilEty te~rcE~wrl. t~ r~vn ;t x ~ lyor7ncrs l~ron~Catirs~ tho ti,~tys, dogs nrrd sportsrirs ~ wer~ks Uet+?ro fibs agent plarod at fiotel, ~.'rhe I~r15't• ACi~IyCY waif nrayfde tltr_ fnlf~~ving,t~,tl~,~VP TROrt f} $f~1,J0sl~or~sUrs131~ (~~ }said ta•thn iIQSI'SPD~fSQft ap f~,tYs flf7f:it 7i•fE fsVLP!'f ft} ~~~ Idot~;l nfghts fir ~•VP ~"4~Uft scalfF pi~as~ rrsviecv ti~eso terms ar~d if yc~u t+re lr~ agPt~erYle~lkr ar~thaPlre v~ith ya~r sfgrrnturc~ below and rettrrn t~ myafterrtion by f~x~at $OQ-2f$-5548, . ~- )ice/J F .+~~ 1 4~ fip5S tlailrng lll~~~...1/1111 ^• + l.-Y 7r~urGornrnis5lc~ner H65T,~P4~NS tz (b t;l ~~ta ~ ~ _ tosr,n~ cat e~ln boech ~ nty} i7at Aar. 4. 2011 1:34PM ~~~~?~~lt~ ~ ~o. ~ 183 P. 4 ~ 4 itle Spohsor ~,~,QO~ - - - - ~ - Rr~s~~tln~ Sp~r~sor ..~. . , ~ 7,~OU P~~~~~I~~t(r~~ Spar~sor ~ 5,000 ilvar $ x,500 ~ Bronze ~50Q ~ In v ~ p M1 J ~ C3. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ''' a ~ ~ n ~. Q tp O -i~p-5 u p ~ ~ C7. ~ m u ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ +O C p rn C v ~ w Q V ' O ~ ~ 91 w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 w+ IO r C ~ ~ *~ VI "~ ' ~ ~ ~ 1J r.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~C n n c p ~ ~ u ~ ~ ~: n: n: ~: ~ G ~ Ui ~ p l0 41 ~ ~ w ~ ~._ T -t- '~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ 0. La. Ck, CL p > m ~ ~ a~+ vi ~ ~ ~ s ~ cn ~ ~ ,~ ti ~m+ t ~ ~ ta.r i u i E u ~ ~ O ) F 1 ~~ _ ~ V} _ 1 ~ 1 1 E 1 ~ ( r-i r-t P•~ fJ fL fq C'} '(3 rt a rk f-i .-1 r-E C' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ V A t ~ CF. Wl p {~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C q r ds (j C ~ ,~ 1 ~ Ul {~ ~ ~ 4~1 V ~ vW ~ ~~i ~ Ul tt} 4~ ~ C ~ dl ~ ~ Q .crl CV s^I U} ~ = O ~ W ~ c L3 ~ ~ ll U p f11 ~ ~-: L 1 ., ~ ~ ~ U y ? N ~ ~ O ~ j ~ ' O ~ ~ ~ ' 4~ Ll ~ ~ Ll i_ , ~ ~ h ~ !n t} e7} C ~ l11 U ~-^ -=7 ~ ~ ~7 m ~ 4J ? Q1 Ol C1 L~ ~ tl ~ ~ f1. ~ ~ L'f1 Q D '- 41 to ~ ~~ ;.' <s 1^7 ~ Q ~ d 1-J Qj d L l-. c.~ 7 c:j ~ u a a L on ~ ~ 5 a~ . ~~ ~- ¢ ¢ ~a~~~~~ ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ca oe~ c: ° o ° tri t~ r~ p aoc3oc~aa ri~ooot?t7 0 d ~ la I~ UQ . n c; 4} ,~+ w w ,-i of c47 c~ tt ui ip a ~ ra ~t a ~ a ~ a !'t ti T ~~ ~~~~ _. ~,~ tom, ~~~~: 4 ~ e ~ ,., .,~t {~~ ` '~ `= ~-_ ,~ r ., x~~ ~r. - ~~ ® a a < ~«~ ~~ --- ~~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ o .a.-.~b ~ ~ I i ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~,r~~ X13 ~~ ~ , -_ ~}S "~ s $ dam: f ~~ '~ x i t F ~~ ~~,p3- ~` i k-j crmpetitinn among slxaris tit;ds can ~ tacrcc, txat clnn'E tc11 that to Rocs 11a1ting, fanntler of thr Eixtremc }Icrlleyhsrll 1'rofessionais "#'otlr (1rV!'). 13aNittg's 1iVl' Tour is the seatnsl- largcst beach t'ollt:yi~all torit-nantcltt eir- Ct1iE itr (IIC 40trttiry, aflcr t}1C AtiStsCiatir)k1 aaf Vol}eyhall }arafessii~nale, alai that's just tine with Itirn. "IVe'rc Etapp}' being loco. " he said. "l'tt'c tither icstrrs hate ccsntc and guile in alt ysars, brit tic"re still ha:rc attd gmtt'ing:' FVl''Tirrtr teas :ICi;lptecl from t}t>' tsrtguto+l i0lis:l\+'usl Yotlcybali t'rofestiictrrrls, f<trnuti in I'fx9, 13atlirtg cxl)lairtcd ih:rt the original 1>Lach t't)#ieyla:rll t)rgan37:ittCln tt'ir\t !runt a Icxal lcauntaitlcni ~('rtCti 1(! a rc:l~,ton;ll arl L}tt ltfi4hvt:st lx fore gc)ing n:stiottal in tc~)-1. ;.IVs 1(x1!( baby steps to tx~csn,c ihr: scc- orlrl-lurgst 1>bach t'ollcyh;rll l()vr in tits t)nitcc! Stags- ,krla3 tt~ithout a felt of rtaticattal a°xftustire until !lac East fit•i; years.;' 1tt~. kticl. "Uat<c t('( forrrnc(1 a ntc)rt: nati(Inal ~tsraatti identity, tt•a` st;artcil (ic)ing cVents utat- stcic the \1t(itrest. ht it~)$, aheit Its lscr.'arata: f:Vl' t\'c tt:r+3 tlnly ottti Iltatiunst) ctzttt ill t~3ra(IC.ntan, Ila. Ncnt' ttttitan.:tr4 ?.?. tcttts ss:•Ir+r~iuled fur ?'11i17:' '1-Itc f_VI'',r grcatrtlt is et'idt:nt not only its rite nrar,thcr of lorry :taps hilt also in rite nttrnfo-cr of ftl;tyc.rs, nett islttr clops, ~ i'1'i(~tl{f? t't~~ sponsors. prize luouey alt(l lCll'Vrtilolt cot'er:i~c. ' I;VI' has grott'rt front 12 mate and l2 fentaie play- ere in 1991 to 75 ntal( , :Ind 7S fsmalc players . note, ;tcrording kt fulling, n'lra stopped rc,mpetittg in ?0C7f Drat is slit! "It:ntds- ()n:' In ;tddition to tarry s1)ott- sc)r C'tarana f,iglat, E:VP lt;rs addr~d Ccnateast. Naked 3ui+:e anti Urrnd prix of 1ic)ustun as sponsors, according to ihr ltlUr`s it'r;'h51tC. Ill 21107. I:Vp will hotci ((iUrrlatttCrltS in Clcara'atcr. 13certiel(t ktea~:h, J;tcl:sunvilie anti \•liattti li+::rc1t, fla., att(1 tit Lcmg tslartd. N.1', fart t{ti tirst tints. (falling said tiro iutlrn<rrttet\ts-in Lung Island and Racine.ll'is., t\'hich tva~ Itew tt) the tarry last yctr---trill nf#i;r ~10,1k}i1 in prize mortsry ;artaf'\t'ii1 rte artt~tng the lorry`s eight ~ri~rrrs tclcris+<~d can C'ontcast. 1'hotigh l.oug Island actaal 1~F3CittC arc among Eltc uca'cst tour ctatps, l};;allittg expects then! tti he itttltata`icd spy tlx: stational ntarl;(~ting. "(1a3c~c a city )trrnps on laoar(1, Ire take. it tritlt its tt) c.:tc}t \•~nl--tvit}t h:ntners grad athlt:tc.s ar.; tvall;int? taiilltvart)s (for thz city atarl WIte;Professianals attd amateurs t1~•S1otl registration fee per tournarrtent per team), Wh~l: 2x2, 4x4 and bxb tournaments; 24-32 teams per event. Whq~e: Nat#onal tour will stop In cities in Fiorlda, South Carolina, C~a4E[orrs9a, liinols, Oregon, W}scansln, New York, Virginia, Washlttgf®tt, Colorado and Hawaii. a ~ ~~147 ~ Tutat• World Cltat»pionships veil! !,e held Hav 3 #rt Honolulu. For snore Inforrhation, visit w'wHi.evptourcom. >flPtl@Il,~~l~&~~t~11tXfltRi . ~ , k..i i e '~~?111,' ~ i~.)fi ;_F , I t~7' j(?~,'R L)r~~yt its" ~ ; f:vpl. it's i ~ ' -.. , ~ any of ilte l)iggc-st - adt:lntages of crsnaing on h(rrrd,", he s;ti(l. HDSt PAtl11B~8 1.uitf; Island atxl ltacirie rcprrsent C:I'I''s ci'tisrt !(;lsrittl; }x~;rch t~tslleyba}t ittta nett' :rri';iti tllr(akrgh }t:trtllCr'Sh111ti ttltll sports tYtinrttltitili)ttti ttttd ('tSlirl'ntion illtt) t'jSitt)1'~ llrlrl`atrX (~Vl3sl. As nowt cities, their S 1 tl.l1i111 hill fees ~Ktcs directly to iltc plilc ttxtttcy.ltttlting said, 'lire ~Itl,llf%1 ttiti fci~ tails ;rn inti:ststtc~tlt tltaat paid oil" fi)r R;rcinc, according to ti:tcirx (:ettrttty CVfi t~xecuti}'~ f3imcti>r l~:tt'id 1fl;:it1:, !rho a;stirttated t}IS 3uly ~9t1(i f;V1' tutrntarrnnt h:ta1 uhalf-million-dollar irtal)itCt i)lt ilia: a!L";l. '~~ItC tlatrrrialttCtti tV;lti `~nnt-kiy,' fllartk saki. "fiVl' sst tits fiovta oat,cl sutr[ts, .Inc1 al! tic h;~t to dca tt•;rs taint sL.ttt<Is t'i)r stating :tttd It;ey tlx: hi(1 f4c, ~1 SS,i}(1E} '$tc;.tcly', Set. L;na' gr:ntt f>tlrrt I'~is(~s~rritt SpEarts 17etY#clpn>`:ttt Ci}nnnitiyht;rl ~tlctitt^4'~(1 tr. tit get h;sck alt tr, ~31>tti~rtt ctfthe Itiid [~~ to gci 9?Vl' I,t•r~;' thank explains.l hiinging ;t 1k;trh \~ollsyf):e11 ttattrilalttcltt tit Itacins's l~'attth l3tach teats a tray` tit 1xlsitiratt rite c•itg' tt~tie)ttxlly. "~t)rtlt 13cceclt is (Ina` ttf only° ttru t`rcaclres tin rite direst ~ INi1ii'~t~ ~~T - ttat tint ~ot'Proiesslon~ts' ' °' - Yt F ~~, . i':In ul' t}rt, ylrcces~ illui ill>I>L;li of LVI) is lil;u it ullcr+ lrrirfcssil>1i711 Eurrnrunrlrt pl:ry .ti i I ` °~ le)l- ixrlll pr~fs~ inn; ! trot{ a1r);k crlr pl•lycrs. t ° e ,~ .. ~~ _• , ~" ~ l ~~` <-- ~~ ~: ~ Cll'tik 7~ rlrrlt: ;llul 75 ferlraic piaycr., ~ ~ _ , ~; ', ~ aP1)roxillrately 251xrrclrt ilrl corr4rletcd j ~ ~; r} ~ ~ ,4 }.- 1 3 ~ piaycl~; 1vi-a .krc ctrrnlxrr~iltr(i ,11x.1 ;Ilya t''G` -~_ ;; .. •~' l ~:.~~; - /t',. ~ c<nn1>Llc for prig trli)lr~y, ac(•ar(ling Ecr i .k £ ~ I .,t 7 ~ `, ~,. , ~ _ ~~ 13:llling. l~1r111I1'Ur\ l's1r1 CaflllrCll lilt prize s. -~ ~ ~ 1)laE1Cy Ill 1!1`C (ii1'}Fllllll, :11111 Ilrtr. 31raIC illlti ..,,,, ~. z: Illll:llt: L1'[lrlrl:rt (rl (iiC 1111) :IlllidCllr t}k1'Etila11 ilrr:llify far lilt 1rt:\t pro C1`e'lll, Irc S;Illi, , ~'" ~~ s ~' Es`Vi'~ti lliltiC111i1r![ t.~ily 1'. tally \l'rll'~ pilti ' EIl1• Icrp plilytfl UI ii rL'~[l)!r :1';111151 EIIC t()1) pfaycr tat' Iln(rlfrCr li:r tiro cirrnc~ to rrpre- slFll Illt',1C city 11 i111a117iliy, ~ It)' tC;iilil EIG1t~ OF TII~ i~Vp TOUR'S 22 events in 2rDt)7 wil)17e televised OCI Corncast. in(~III[It' ~Ilillll ['Iric:rga,'li•;Irrr itcrllra~;a ~[;kl'll ikIHI ~I't:EHr 1411if1r]I Ilt:7t~11, la;kll I_:4l:C.< {ir;ll Id ;I tertiiicd cle;lar I)cacll r>c~;l Ik~111[, l:Vl' 1r:i111Cd llitl'llrt: •~Ilast ~E'IrC1Il!. lri'il:rlr) E~IrlC7lku. 11'ir[r;litia pi71)'4d I))' iliC ~:illCllr:kl [`lull 14t :lrlreti tr ll)' Ul~ lilc ~Ci1T ~ :11111 IY.i~ ;l rir11'C-yr:lC 1'(x11- IIIII[)aC 1'(rilcyl);iii il) Lailcg~ 711x11 1)Yall~tilaFr- Cullucil:' he 5;11(1, "St) IIr15 l'1'Cllt irt`Il~ti treat to hrilrg tlrc tullr hark u- dtc ;rr(:;1.'I~}l(' ;lily er1'(rrse;~ti, ~I:lrtc(i pl;lying alt lit(` I:VP bring a JOI lie paolrJl'~^--1,2(Nl SI)~l'i:k- ZO[)7 ~;ICIIk' ~l()1r 11'lli iM -~lil1' I ~• I•I. l;lillrli ~[rFEC (ilrTlll~; ~illl)IrlCC lrCCill:ti i1l'(illktiE` li 1V;1\ [[ifti ;ard utn(rricly Ur }~11r1I1 13Ci1Cir. I1~5 ti;ll[I lili'rt° IS 7fitilr elk" 1krtiLiiriliE)' lil~il I2:1C'Irrt 41 "fllll :iilrrtrtiplrE`CC- alyd l'Ullil![!Illll'l'. Jls 1'1)1111' (1111{a 7l 11IirE't` ltl a;(1 rl) (Z'ckt'l11e 11T M'1JI (1:11' it (1::1111 irll Elre tUl1C :lllli ;i ~~lrlip-lip ~tl'I1lIIlJ.I'SIH]r:1115 ilt ir;l` 11'1)11 ill7lllkl Ills tikllllltltrilFllt ~~ Il'131•~ 11'illr ilrl[Tlllr:ltl(rll iilY(llkl 111i' i1Ct;l. ~?41,41(Ai EIl X11/_l' Ill[lit(')' 11r lil4 lirtil Il)tlC ~~ ~ MA111tM~tt ~i~~~ Mpttlll.$Rd11~~Y~1TiSM8#1~1~R,L'~B1 .~ r- „M , ~~ ~~~; ~° ~ d'' f ~4 ~ t~ ' ~~ ~ '~'=- ~~. z y ~ ~-".,F l ~~ i ~~~~ ~~„ ~. .,, ~, 0 • ~ r~ O 1 ~r^^. s~ ~~ .~ 0 ac ,! L 13.. V ~ v ~L }J Q~ ~ U Q ~ ~ ~ o --- ~ ,~ L o o yr w i to ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ N U L p ~ •- ~ ~ .-~ ~ W QJ V ~ a L1A Lam.. L'~.. C~ ~ .O Q ~'~-+ ~ ~ ~ ~_ O O ~ O ~3 vs C ~ ~} Gl ~ L i L V ¢ ~ u. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O N C_j ~ ~ ~ aj ~ (6 (6 (6 f6 f0 ~~ ¢ (6 t6 (Cf 4~~~ Q. ~~ ~~ W~ C O O O O O O U ,~ O O O w¢~~~Qx ~ ~ o~ coo ~~ m ~ ~ o s ~.~ ~ o s a ~- c~ ~ u J u o r~~~ ~e ~ a a, „ o a z z z z z~ ~- ~ z z z ~~n~n~,~ ~~d~~~r-E~~cDmmwm~t~-+a~oo~nt~v~nr~mr~N d ~ ~ ~ ~ .C t/1 ~ ~ W '~ ~ ~ ~ ~/'1 ~ cp ~ ~ ~ L ~~ ,Q ~ N ~ O v1 ' ~ O O O O ~ ~ 'O ~ ~ S2 ~ : Ql 41 ¢- d DES a f2.. ~ ~ '_~ ~ 4 c11 p ~ eQ~n ~ to ~ l!1 Vl O O v1 Q1 N. ~. ~ C a0... ~ ~ t/1 ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ l/7 ;~ d! ia, ~ v Sri N ~.~-_ 2 X ~ O O ~ cv m` ~v ~ ti3 J ~ Z Z ~ 0 'sn ~ ~ dv~Qc..avv~ca~ uc~x~F=i=-~-=u~Q~~~Ou.c,¢0~¢ 'r'lf ~~~~ ~ mm~i a ~] ~ r ~~` ~~ € F V ~~, 1 t~" "' __ t~ ;~ 'I ~ 1 '. ~; ~f; r ~4 ~~ .~"~ i ~ . , ~ ~= W ....~., Q Q w J L7 1 , ,~ z; ~ ~~ ...... ~ ....~, L • ~~ • ~. V y ~; i i ~ '' f.~~ Ey:~-~~``. .~ ~ Y' ~ ~. ~3 ~_.. ~~ ,~J v ~ ~ ~ ^ V ^ r1 ~ / h v 1 V) W ~ 'V .~"^+ a ~ °° ~ 0 . . ~.• w `..~ ~ ~ ®.. Cl') O w ~~ 0 ~~ 3 ~ m'f ~ ~.t. ~c a ~. -~.,~ f ~~ k `- `~ , ~._ 1 r ._ `'; ~~. ~ ~ 'S r ~ ~# i ~/ t, .. ~./7 n~ [W~ (V~iI V • ~r I-~ ,~ ~.~1./ ~ . ,~ ;~~' a ~ ~ `~ ~ ,~ O ~ '~ N ~ o o aA J ~ • - ,-- - * .~Y 4~~; 3' f _T l: t ~i- __ ~ .r~;~ ~ { $ ~i ~ ~ ~[ ~ ~ r~~i' f ![ ~ _ z ~~~~ i~~ , Wit. ~~~ ~ .,1 ,. ~t+~ t!o ~, -- ~. t ~ ~ s . ~ z ~~ ~ ~ ~ ^~--~ • ^^ S..L. [~ ~ L v ~ • -- .~-~ as `~" o rLa O a. aA ~ Q,, o ~ `~ ~ a ~ ~,.. ~ ~ W N o w ~.. a- fa .-~-. ~ ~]; Q GL Z 0 ~ ~ -}- ° o V ~ ~ E W .~"~ -~ 0 U 0~ -1-i 0 C MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: July 15, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.C. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 19, 2011 FIRE ASSESSMENT STUDY PROPOSAL ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The Commission is requested to select a consultant to determine how much of our Fire-Rescue costs could be funded by an assessment, and what the assessment amounts should be to complete funding of our FY 2012 budget. BACKGROUND At the Commission Work Session on July 12 there seemed to be general agreement among the Commission that, rather than increasing our property tax rate, it would be better to adopt a fire service assessment to provide the remaining funds needed for our FY 2012 budget. Developing the proper legal basis for a fire service assessment is a complex process which requires the assistance of an experienced consultant. I have attached a proposal from Government Services Group (GSG), and I expect to have a proposal from Burton and Associates by the end of the day Monday. GSG was recently selected by the City of Lake Worth through an RFP process to develop a fire service fee for them. GSG is also under contact with the City of Riviera Beach for the same service, and is the consultant used by Boynton Beach to develop their fee. We would expect to bill the fee ourselves for FY 2012, and convert to the uniform method in FY 2013 whereby the assessment would thereafter be included on the property tax bill like our stormwater assessment. Doing the necessary financial analysis, developing a fee schedule and implementing the assessment is a process which takes several months, as you will see from the time line included in the attached proposal. Therefore it is important that we engage a consultant without significant delay. RECOMMENDATION A recommendation will be provided after we review the proposal from Burton and Associates. (~ 1 i I It s I, 7 ~ ~rw~ Via Electronic Transmission July 13, 2011 Mr. David T. Harden City Manager City of Delray Beach 100 NW 1St Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444-2612 Re: City of Delray Beach -Fire Services Assessment Program Proposal Dear Mr. Harden, This correspondence is written to present a scope of services for Government Services Group, Inc. (GSG) to provide professional services and specialized assistance to the City of Delray Beach (City) and its staff with the development of a non-ad valorem funding alternative for the City's fire services through the development of a special assessment program. The proposed Scope of Services contemplates a phased approach to the assessment program. Phase One of this proposal includes those tasks necessary to and associated with the development of preliminary proforma assessment rates. An Assessment Report will be prepared and presented at the end of Phase One. It is at the end of Phase One that the City will be able to make an informed decision regarding whether to revise and/or proceed with implementing the assessment program. The remaining tasks outlined in the attached proposal comprise Phase Two of the project. Phase Two of this proposal includes the specific work effort required for the implementation of the program based on the City's policy direction as determined from the findings provided in Phase One. The objective of this project is to develop non-ad valorem special assessments based on public policy established by the City within the constraints of readily available data and legal precedent. To fulfill this objective, we will accomplish the following tasks: (1) Provide specialized services that assist the City in developing legally defensible methods of apportioning the assessments; (2) Assist the City's legal counsel with the implementation documents for imposing and collecting the special assessments using the separate bill method for the initial year with the ability to transition to the tax bill collection method in subsequent years; and (3) Provide assessment rolls that collect the annual assessments; the rolls will be capable of being efficiently updated in subsequent years. 1500 Mahan Drive, Suite 250, Tallahassee, FL 32308 I (850} 681-3717 R (850} 224-7206 (866} 896-4747 l 280 Wekiva Springs Rd, Suite 2000, Longwood, FL 32779 i (407} 629-6900 i (407} 629-6963 (877} 552-3482 I ~.~. Mr. David T. Harden July 13, 2011 Page 2 The enclosed work plan is designed to provide the following deliverables during this project: • Billing algorithms necessary to calculate the fire protection assessments pursuant to the proposed methodology; • The final fire protection assessment rates; • An Assessment Report which includes (a) the assessment cost calculations, (b) the description of the apportionment methodology, and (c)an implementation schedule; • Assist the City's legal counsel with the home rule assessment ordinance and all implementing resolutions for the annual assessment program that will allow for a separate bill or for the tax bill collection method; • An assessment roll in an electronic format capable of billing the assessments for Fiscal Year 2011-12 and capable of merging with the City's real property tax roll in conformity with the requirements of the uniform method of collection for Fiscal Year 2012-13; and, • The statutorily required notice and billing documentation that is required for using the tax bill collection method for the annual assessment program in subsequent years. Attached as Appendix A is the work plan under which GSG will assist the City in developing and implementing the assessment program. The scope of services is based on the assumption that the City will be an active participant and provide the necessary budget information and other data required to develop the assessment methodologies. GSG will work under a lump sum professional fee arrangement as described in the attached scope of services. The appendix also provides a list of project deliverables and a delivery schedule. Upon receiving notice to proceed, we will provide a detailed critical events schedule for project deliverables that is tailored to the City. Please note that GSG works with the premise of developing and implementing assessment programs with an eye on potential legal challenges in an attempt to maximize both the efficiency and the effectiveness of any defense. Nonetheless, the fees outlined in Appendix A for professional services do not include any provision for litigation defense. Accordingly, in the event there is a legal challenge, GSG would be available, on an hourly basis, to assist the City in its defense. Please review the attached scope of services and upon review and satisfactory determination, please sign where indicated to acknowledge acceptance of the scope of services and to serve as proper notice to proceed. Upon execution, please provide us with a signed copy for our files. We look forward to working with City of Delray Beach on this very important project. If you or any other City officials have any questions, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, ~~..,., Camille P. Tharpe Sr. Vice President Enclosure Appendix A FIRE SERVICES ASSESSMENT PROPOSAL Scope of Services PHASE ONE: Task 1: Evaluate Reports and Research Issues Evaluate the City's existing documents, ad valorem tax roll information, fire call data, agreements, reports and other data pertaining to the provision of fire services. Task 2: Identify Full Costs of Service Evaluate the full cost of the fire service delivery using the City's most current financial information and identify service delivery issues which may affect the apportionment methodology. Determine the net service delivery revenue requirements. Task 3: Develop the Apportionment Methodology Using the current ad valorem tax roll and fire incident data reported to the State Fire Marshal, develop the method of apportionment, classification of properties and the use of the data on the assessment roll. Review the assessment methodology for legal sufficiency and compatibility with alternative methods of collection. Task 4: Determine Preliminary Revenue Requirements Advise the City in determining the total fire service assessment revenue requirements to ensure the City recovers the costs of: (a) net fire service delivery revenue requirements, (b) implementing the program, and (c) collecting the assessments. Task 5: Develop Preliminary Assessment Roll Database Using the current ad valorem tax roll, create a preliminary assessment roll database. Test the sufficiency of the database by developing reports to access property information. Task 6: Apply Apportionment Methodology to Database Apply the apportionment methodology to the preliminary assessment roll database to test the data validity and legal sufficiency. Revise the apportionment methodology as necessary. Task 7: Calculate a Preliminary Proforma Schedule of Rates Using the developed assessment roll, calculate a proforma schedule of rates based on the developed apportionment methodology and revenue requirements for the assessment program. Task 8: Prepare and Present Assessment Report Prepare and present an Assessment Report, which documents proposed apportionment methodologies and proforma assessment rates. PHASE TWO: Task 9: Assist With Fire Services Assessment Ordinance Advise and assist the City's legal counsel in the drafting of a fire services assessment ordinance to establish the procedures for implementation of a fire services assessment program. Task 10: Assist With Initial Assessment Resolution Advise and assist the City's legal counsel in drafting an initial assessment resolution that conforms to the assessment ordinance and that implements the City's policy decisions and proposed methodology. Government Services Group, Inc. ~ A-1 Task 11: Assist With Final Assessment Resolution Advise and assist the City's legal counsel in drafting a final assessment resolution that conforms to the assessment ordinance and adopts final assessment rates. Task 12: Assist with Rate Adoption Process GSG will advise and assist with fulfilling the legal requirements for the adoption of the final assessment rate resolution, including: (a) Produce Notice Roll After verification of final rates for the assessment program, GSG will create the notice roll by applying the rates to the assessment roll. GSG will then produce the data exports needed for the production of notices. (b) Development and Distribution of First Class Notice GSG will assist the City in developing the first class notice and its distribution to affected property owners. Task 13: Create Final Assessment Roll GSG will update the assessment roll with any corrections and updates received from the City. Final rates will be verified and extended to the updated data in order to create the final assessment roll. Task 14: Assist with Billing Process GSG will assist the City with the separate bill collection method of billing for Fiscal Year 2011-12. Task 15: Develop Workplan for Transition to the Tax Bill Collection Method for Fiscal Year 2012-13 GSG will develop a workplan and proposed fee for the City to transition to the tax bill collection method for Fiscal Year 2012-13. COMPETITIVE BID STATEMENT City of Lake Worth Fire Assessment Program The Scope of Services required to conduct a fire assessment program for the City of Lake Worth was competitively bid through a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Special Assessment Development Services and awarded to GSG (City of Lake Worth, RFP #10/11-108). On May 17, 2011, the Lake Worth City Commission approved an agreement with GSG to specifically provide special assessment development services for a proposed fire assessment program. Copies of the bidding and awarding materials will be provided at the City's request. FEE AND COSTS PHASE ONE For the professional services and specialized assistance described in Phase One of the Scope of Services, GSG will work under a "lump sum" fee arrangement of $50,000. Except as noted below, this lump sum fee includes reimbursement for all out-of-pocket expenses. The lump sum fee for professional services for Phase One includes a total of three on-site visits to the City by GSG staff. While the purpose of these trips is negotiable, the intent of these meetings is to obtain initial information, participate in individual briefing sessions with elected officials, and present the assessment memorandum at a City Council Workshop. Government Services Group, Inc. ~ A-2 PHASE TWO For the professional services and specialized assistance described in Phase Two of the Scope of Services, GSG will work under a "lump sum" fee arrangement of $15,000. Except as noted below, this lump sum fee includes reimbursement for all out-of-pocket expenses. The lump sum fee for professional services for Phase Two includes a total of two on-site visits to the City by GSG staff. While the purpose of these trips is negotiable, the intent of these meetings is to assist in the final rate adoption process. Any additional on-site meetings by GSG may be arranged at our standard hourly rates provided below. All expenses related to these requested meetings will be billed in accordance with section 112.061, Florida Statutes. If necessary, in lieu of on-site visits, periodic telephone conference calls may be scheduled to discuss project status. The standard hourly rates for GSG are as follows: GOVERNMENT SERVICES GROUP, INC. Chief Executive Officer .............................................................................. $225 Senior Vice President ................................................................................ $175 Vice President ............................................................................................ $160 Senior Project Manager/Consultant/Project Coordinator ...................... $160 Consultant/Database Analyst/Technical Services .................................. $130 Administrative Support .............................................................................. $ 50 The lump sum fee does not include the costs of producing and mailing the statutorily required first class notices or separate bills. Mailing and production costs depend on the number of assessable parcels of property within the assessment program area, but average approximately $1.30 per parcel. Payment of mailing and production costs is due at the time of adoption of the initial assessment resolution or like document. For non-domestic notices, mailing charges will include the actual amount of postage beyond the domestic rate and if U.S. postage rates increase prior to mailing, the additional postage per notice will be charged. The City is responsible for any and all newspaper publications, including, but not limited to, making arrangements for publications and any costs associated therewith. The City is also responsible for any costs incurred to obtain information from the property appraiser or other public official that is necessary for the assessment program. Please note that GSG works with the premise of developing and implementing assessment programs with an eye on potential legal challenges in an attempt to maximize both the efficiency and the effectiveness of any defense. Nonetheless, the fees outlined above for professional services do not include any provision for litigation defense. Accordingly, in the event there is a legal challenge, both firms would be available, on an hourly basis, to assist the City in its defense. Government Services Group, Inc. ~ A-3 PAYMENT SCHEDULE The lump sum fee for professional services and specialized assistance will be due and payable on the following basis. Payment will be based on the following schedule, assuming that notice to proceed is received by August 2011. If notice to proceed occurs after this date, payment will be adjusted on the basis of a condensing of the anticipated number of months remaining to complete the project. Schedule Payment September 2011 50% of Lump Sum Fees for Phase One ($25,000) October 2011 50% of Lump Sum Fees for Phase One ($25,000) December 2011 50% of Lump Sum Fees for Phase Two ($7,500) January 2012 50% of Lump Sum Fees for Phase Two ($7,500) DELIVERABLES SCHEDULE PHASE ONE: Deliverable Notice to Proceed Kick-off Meeting/Data Collection Proforma Budget Development Proforma Assessment Rates Assessment Memorandum PHASE TWO: Deliverable Notice to Proceed Phase Two Ordinance Initial Assessment Resolution First Class Notices Published Notice Final Assessment Resolution Final Assessment Rates Bills Mailed ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO APPENDIX A By: City of Delray Beach Schedule August 2011 August 2011 August -September 2011 September -October 2011 October 2011 Schedule October -November 2011 October -November 2011 October -November 2011 October -November 2011 October -November 2011 November -December 2011 November -December 2011 December 2011 -January 2012 Date Government Services Group, Inc. ~ A-4 Appendix B ADDITIONAL SERVICES Additional Services The fees outlined in Appendix A for professional services do not include any provision for legal services regarding legal oversight and review. These services could be provided by the Tallahassee-based law firm of Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A. (NG&N). NG&N would be responsible for overseeing the legal component of this engagement and would be responsible for: 1) reviewing the legal components to ensure a valid assessment program in accordance with statutory requirements and legal precedents; 2) outlining the various alternatives required for the formulation of a legally sufficient methodological structure; and 3) providing insight as to the implementation requirements of the assessment program in a proper structure and defense. This will include the identification and drafting of any necessary ordinances or resolutions that may be required to implement such a program. The City can contact Heather Encinosa at the law firm of Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson at (850) 224-4070 to request a fee proposal. Government Services Group, Inc. ~ B-1 clTV n~ ®EL~AV BrACI~ FIRE A$$E$SMENT FEE DEVELOPMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ................................................................................................................. i Letter of Interest ............................................................................................................... ..1 1. Experience &Expertise ................................................................................................. ..3 1.1 Firm Background ............................................................................................... ..3 1.2 Areas of Specialization ...................................................................................... ..3 1.3 Industries .......................................................................................................... ..4 1.4 Assessment, Fee, Rate & Impact Fee Program Design .......................................4 1.5 Understanding Legal Issues - Subconsultant .................................................... ..5 2. Project Team ................................................................................................................. ..6 3. Project Methodology & Approach ................................................................................ 13 3.1 Project Management ........................................................................................ 13 3.2 Fire Assessment Methvdology .......................................................................... 14 3.3 Project Approach .............................................................~•---............................ 15 3.4 Overview of FAMS-XL© .................................................................................... 19 4. References .............................................................................................•----~................. 20 5. Cost Proposa! ................................................................................................................ 25 Bt~r~o~ s Assocu-~s C1TY OF DELRAY BEACH FIRE ASSESSiVIENT FEE DEVELOP3VIENT LETTER OF INTEREST LETTER OF INTEREST July 18, 2011 Mr. David T. Harden City Manager 100 N.W. 1ST Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Re: Proposal for Fire Assessment Fee Development Dear Mr. Harden: ~l~RT~N & ~-SSQ~IATES UTILITY RATES • ASSESSMENTS • FINANCIAL PLANNING Burton & Associates is pleased to present this proposal outlining our expertise in developing the methodology and assessments/fees for Fire Assessment Progra ms. We have successfully provided these services for more than 20 years in the state of Florida, and as such, we bring extensive experience to any project in financial forecasting and planning, cost allocation, and rate and assessment program design and development. Fire Assessment Program Design, Revenue Sufficiency and "Burton & Associates has served the City Fully Allocated Cost of 5er~ice Analysis - Our unique for over 15 years. Their ability to evaluate and explain complex issues in approach to providing comprehensive municipal financial understandable terms'has legitimized consultation services is to use our automated financial model our City CourtsiPs decision prQCess. discussed herein, to explore numerous assessment and In addition, Mike often pra~ides financial pion, assessment/fee structure and Lost allocation insights, through his many years of scenarios to develop a logical and defensible financial experience, #hat may riot be readily ' management plan and cast recovery mechanisms, in the apparent, butthat provide clarity as ta the consequences of our decisions to the context of predicted financial impact, market reality, public City and to our constituents. acceptability and politicai reality. A unique aspect of our Based upon my experience with Mike approach is that we do this in interactive workshops with and his staff, l :highly recommend them local government staff, with our computer models up-and- to elected officials that are#acing running. particularly complex and sensitive utility; ' issues." Our development and use of our automated, interactive Honorable Randall Henderson process allows very cast effective integration of your staff I Mayo, City of Fort Myers, Florida .- :. ' into the fiscal planning process while reducing substantially the man hours and calendar time which would otherwise be n ecessary. Most importantly, this process gives you a clear vision through graphical representations, as to the implications of alternative scenarios upon key financial indicators as well as the impact upon property owners in terms of their assessment. Burrron ~ Assocu-res 1 CITY OF DELRAY BEACH FIRE A$SESS#VICNT FEE C}EVELQPfVIEIVT LETTER OF INTEREST Given the legal environment surrounding certain funding programs, it is important to analyze those alternatives which provide you with significant fiscal and legal security. We have used this interactive process in Fire Assessment Program Development Projects far the cities of Coconut Creek, Cooper City, the Towns of Lauderdale-by-the-sea and Orange Park, Brevard and Putnam Counties and the cities of, Cape Coral, Deltona, Ocala, New Port Richey, Lynn Haven and Palatka. For more than ten years we have used this process to assist many communities in Florida to develop funding programs that best suit their requirements. We have also developed non-ad valorem assessments for stormwater and solid waste service for a number of Florida clients. Understanding Florida Statutes and Other Legal issues Relevant to Non-Ad Valorem Rate/Fee Program Development - In our experience with legal issues regarding the development of non-ad valorem assessment programs, we have always utilized the experience and expertise of the law firm of Lewis, Longman & Walker, PA {LLW). Mr. Terry E. Lewis, who works out of LLW's West Palm Beach office, has worked with Burton & Associates on many projects of this nature and his vast experience and keen understanding of the legal underpinnings with regard to implementing anon-ad valorem rate/fee program have proven very valuable. Mr. Lewis serves as Legislative Counsel to the Florida Association of Special Districts and represents more than 30 regional and local general purpose and special purpose governments. LLW's office in Tallahassee constantly monitors legislative activities, keeping their clients informed of pending actions and giving them the time they need to respond to possible changes in law. Summary - We believe that our Team's financial planning assessment development and legal expertise in this area would serve the City well and we look forward to the opportunity to be of service to the City and to work with you on this important project. We deliver superior services for an excellent price and we look forward to having the opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact meat {904) 247-0787. Very truly yours, .~ ~, ~~ ~ Michael E. Burton President BURTON & ASSOCIATES 2 CITY QF I~ELRAY i3EACFl FIRE ASSESSMENT FEE i?El/ELaPMENT 1. F)(PERIENCE ~ EXPERTISE 1. EXPERIENCE $~ EXPERTISE This section presents background information about the firm, areas of specialization, industries, and an introduction to our experience with fire assessment programs. 1.1 FIRM BACKGROUND Founded in 1988, Burton & Associates is a specialty firm providing financial planning and assessment and rate consulting services primarily to government agencies. We regularly provide such services to local governments including cities, counties, special districts, and authorities. We also provide consulting services to regulatory agencies and often provide expert witness services, including assisting in settlement agreements and the provision of written and oral expert witness testimony. Burton & Associates has conducted mare than S00 financial planning and rate studies far municipalities, counties and quasi-governmental agencies (authorities). Our approach truly integrates financial and capital planning, resulting in a long term financial master plan and specific assessment rates that fairly and equitably recover the annual costs of service from property owners. 1.2 AREAS OF SPEClAL1ZATION Burton & Associates provides consulting assistance in the following areas of practice: Non-Ad Valorem Assessment Program Development Fire Rescue 5tormwater Solid Waste Street Lighting& Underground Utilities Long-Term Financial Plan Development ® Cast of Service & Rate Studies ® Development of Impact Fees a System Development Fees, Capita! Cost Recovery Fees, etc. ® Development of Capital Finance Plans Integrated within an overall financial management program ® Bond Feasibility Reports A For inclusion in the official statements of revenue bonds w System & Property Valuation and Analysis Operations and Performance Reviews, Strategic Planning, Financial Feasibility Analyses and Annexation Analyses ® Assistance with the preparation of ordinances, inter-local agreements, and regulatory applications Expert Witness Testimony Services Bul~roa m Assac~ntss 3 CITY OF DELRAY BERCH FIRE ASSESSMENT FEE DEVELOPMEN f Z. EXPERIENCE & EXPERTfSE We have prepared numerous financial feasibility reports in support of revenue bond financing and have also participated in presentations to the major rating agencies, including Moody's, S&P and Fitch. We have also worked closely with our clients in the arrangement of bank financing, state loan programs, re-financings, and other alternative plans of finance. 1.3 INDUSTRIES Burton & Associates provides financial planning and rate consulting services to our clients in a number of different industries or areas including: / Non-ad valorem Assessments ^ Fire Rescue ^ 5tormwater ^ Solid Waste ^ Street Lighting / Water Resources ^ Water & Sewer ^ Reclaimed Water ^ 5tormwater Solid Waste ^ Sanitation ^ Recycling Electric / General Government Services ^ Police ^ Parks & Recreation ^ Library ^ Policy & Regulations 1.4 ASSESSMENT, FEE, RATE Se IMPACT FEE PROGRAM DESIGN Since our inception in 1.988, a primary field of expertise for Burton & Associates has been the development, review and provision of implementation assistance regarding cost of service, cost apportionment and rate/fee revenue recovery programs, including non-ad valorem assessments, for local governments in Florida. We have successfully developed, reviewed, updated and assisted in the implementation of over 80 such programs for local governments in the State of Florida ranging from fire assessment/fee programs, to stormwater fees, to impact fees and utility rates. Our investment in technology and staff have all been specifically geared toward upgrading and enhancing the process of cost apportionment and rate/fee program development for governmental bodies, specifically in the State of Florida. With each new program that we have developed or updated, we have also developed or assisted in the development of the ordinances and resolutions required for implementation of a new or updated program. From drafting the ordinance for our clients to assisting a client's internal legal staff with the writing of an ordinance or resolution, we have extensive experience in understanding the process, language and legal format{s) required for implementation of fee ordinances and resolutions. Each new or updated assessment fee/rate program typically requires some level of assistance regarding the implementation of the program. Initially, an implementation schedule must be developed which addresses key dates with regard to legal milestones BuRron ~ Assocrn~s 4 CITY OF DELRAY BEAChi FIRE ASSESSMENT FEE L7EVELOPMENT 1. EXPERIENCE $~ EXPERTISE for adoption and implementation as well as fiscal requirements to fulfill budgetary requirements of our clients. Budget deadlines must be considered as well as staffing issues and reporting responsibilities. Depending upon the desires of each client, we have provided assistance in the development of successful implementation programs. 1.5 UNDERSTANDING LEGAI. ISSUES - SUSCUNSULTANT In our experience with legal issues regarding the development of non-ad valorem assessments and rate/fee programs, we have always utilized the experience and expertise of the law firm of Lewis, Longman & Walker, PA (LLWj. Mr. Terry E. Lewis, who works out of LLW's West Palm Beach office, has worked with Burton & Associates on many projects of this nature and his vast experience and keen understanding of the legal underpinnings with regard to implementing anon-ad valorem assessment/fee program have proven very valuable. Mr. Lewis serves as Legislative Counsel to the Florida Association of Special Districts, represents mare than 30 regional and local general purpose and special purpose governments. LLW's office in Tallahassee constantly monitors legislative activities, keeping their clients informed of pending actions and giving them the time they need to respond to possible changes in law. Bu~on a Associnr~s 5 CITY OF C~ELRAY l3EACW FIRE A55E55MERIT FEE i]EVELOPMENT 2. PROJECT TEAM 2. PROJECT TEAM Our proposed project team organization was developed as a result of our understanding of the objectives, scope and key issues of this project and our prior experience with similar projects. We structure our project teams to provide our clients with project team members with experience in: / Cost of service analyses and the development of non-ad valorem rate/fee programs for numerous local governments. / Program structure and assessment rate design concepts, theory and their practical application to specific local circumstances. / Providing apportionment of casts in accordance with legal standards and your specific configuration and requirements to develop a fair and equitable distribution of the cost of service to property classes. / Development of special non ad valorem service assessments to recover the costs of service and of methodologies which appropriately determine logical relationships between the services provided and the benefit to real property a55e5sed. / Development of Impact fees to recover capital costs associated with serving growth. The chart below presents our proposed project team organization, complete with names of all professional representatives who will be responsible for this project. Resumes describing the experience and expertise of these individuals, including proposed subcontractors, are presented on the following pages. 0 uc' ~ - - ,~~ -, BURTON 8~ ASSOCIATES 6 CITY QF D~LRAY BEACH FIRE ASSESSMENT i=EE ®[VELOPMENT 2. PROJECT TEAM SELECTED CLIENTS Brevard County Town of Orange Park • Putnam County City of Deitona m City of Lynn Haven a City of Ocala City of Coconut Creek City of Cooper City City of Palatka m City of New Port Richey a Town of Lauderdale-by-the- Sea I N~USTItIES Fire/EMS ® Water Resources ® Water & Sewer a Reclaimed Water ® Stormwater ® Sanitation ® Genera! Government ® Police ® Parks & Recreation ® Library ® Roads IN®I~STRY ~UBLICATIONS® PRESENTATICaNS AWWA Manual M54 -Developing; Rate for Small Systems, Co- Authoredfor AWWA, 2004 Effective Water Conservation Rate Structures -Presented to the St. Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, FL, 2ao9 MICHAEL BURTON PRESIDENT GENERAL Ql9PsLIFICATIONS Mr. Burton has over 30 years of industry experience in government resources financial analysis and rate setting. He was a principal at Arthur Young and Company (now Ernst & Young); one of the largest national accounting and management consulting firms, and served as Director of the Florida Governmental Service -Financial Consulting Practice. Mr. Burton currently serves on the National AWWA Rate & Charges Committee where he co-authored AWWA Manual M-54 -Developing Rates for Small Systems published in 2004. He also serves on a Water Rates Affordability Sub-Committee. E3(PERIENCE Mike has extensive experience in a broad range of industries and issues. He regularly provides service in the fallowing areas: Development of Assessment Program Methodologies and Assessments/Fees a Design of Financial Management and Rate Programs g Development of Infrastructure Financing Programs & Cost Recovery Mechanisms ^ Development of User Charges Impact Fee Studies s Financial Advisory & Feasibility Services for Assistance in the Issuance of Revenue Bonds ® Strategic Planning for the Provision of Services for Governmental Jurisdictions & Private Developers s Rate Case Assistance to Private Utilities ® Rate Regulation Assis#ance to Jurisdictional Counties EDUCATION Bachelors of Industrial Engineering, 1970, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL BUhtTOM d ASSOCIATES 7 CITY OF DELRAY ~i[ACH FIRE ASSESSMENT FEE DEVELOPMENt ~. PROJECT FEAM SELECTE® E~LIENTS ® Brevard County Nassau County • City of Lake City • City of Lynn Haven • City of Palmetto City of Fort Myers, FL • City of t=ort Lauderdale, FL ® City of Sarasota, FL • Brunswick-Glynn Joint Water & Sewer Commission, GA • City of St. Petersburg, FL • Pinellas County, FL • Peace River Regional Water Supply Authority, FL • City of Coral Springs, FL • Tnwn of Front Royal, VA • City of Chesapeake, VA • City of Cocoa, FL • City of Baytown and the Baytown Water Authority, TX • City of St. Cloud, FL • City of Decatur, AL 11V®USTItIES • Fire/EMS • Water Resources • Water & Sewer • fieclaimed Water • Starmwater ® Sanitation ® Electric • General Government • Police • Parks & Recreation ® Library • Roads ANDREW BURIVHAM SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT ~EIVER,AL QUAI~IFICATIOIVS Mr. Burnham is Senior Vice President of Burton & Associates and has aver ten years of financial planning and ratemaking experience. Andy is a leader in our industry and has provided exemplary professional consulting services to our clients for many years. He has consistently received accolades far his responsiveness to their issues, attention to detail, and his extraordinary work ethic. Andy has served as the Project Director on a broad range of financial planning and rate development projects. EX~ERIEIVCE Andy provides service in the following areas: • Development of Assessment Program Methodologies and Assessments/Fees ® Long-Term Financial Plan Development ® Cost of Service and Cost Allocation Analysis • Rate Structure Design & Rate Studies ® Development of Impact Fees ® Development of Capital Finance Plans • Bond Feasibility Reports and State Loan Applications • System & property Valuation and Analysis Operations and Performance Reviews, Strategic Planning, Financial Feasibility Analyses and Annexation Analyses • Privatization/Managed Competition Analyses and Reports • Assistance with the Preparation of Ordinances, Inter-local Agreements, and Regulatory Applications • Analysis of the Acquisition and Sale of Utility Systems Expert Witness Testimony Services E®LICATIDIV Bachelors of Business Administration, 2000, Lake Superior State University, Sault Ste. Marie, MI; graduated Magna cum Laude; Recipient of Outstanding Business Student Award BURTON & ASSOCIATES $ CITY QF DELRAY BEACH FIRE ASSESSMENT FEE DEVELOPMENT 2. PROJECT TEAM SELECTE® CLIENTS ® Brevard County, FL ^ City of Lynn Haven, FL ^ City of Ocala, FL ^ City of St. Petersburg, FL ^ Pinellas County, FL ^ City of Mount Dora, FL ^ City of Dunedin, FL ^ City of Clearwater, FL ^ Volusia County, FL ^ City of Palmetto, FL ^ City of Punta Gorda, FL ® City of Sarasota, FL ^ City of 5t. Cloud, FL ^ City of Tarpon Springs, FL ^ Town of Front Royal, VA ^ Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority, FL ^ Orange County, FL ^ Okafoosa County, FL • City of Cocoa , FL ^ Seminole County, FL ^ Nassau County, FL ^ Indian Rocks Beach, FL • City of Fernandina Beach, FL • Town of Beverly Beach, FL ^ City of Decatur, AL ^ The Villages, FL ^ City of Polk City, FL III®usTRIEs • Fire/EMS • Water Resources • Water & Sewer • Reclaimed Water • Stormwater • Sanitation ® General Government ERIC GRAD CONSULTANT GENERAL QLIALIFIC,4T1®NS Mr. Grau is a Consultant with Burton & Associates. He has provided financial and rate consulting services to our clients for the past six years with Burton & Associates. He has superior financial, business, and analytical skills and has provided our consulting practice with solid financial analyses based upon applications of sound financial and economic concepts with an unparalleled attention to detail. Eric is skilled in the use of our interactive FAMS© model and his technical skills have enhanced our interactive process. He has provided our clients with exceptional problem solving analytics and a streamlined approach to financial planning and rate making. ExPERIENCE Eric's experience includes serving as Project Consultant in the following areas: ® Development of Assessment Program Methodologies and Assessments/Fees ^ Long-Term Financial Plan Development ® Cost of Service, Cost Allocation & Rate Studies ^ Development of Impact Fees • Development of Capital Finance Plans • Bond Feasibility Reports & State Loan Applications ® Annexation & Service Area Expansion Analysis • Customer, Demand, and Revenue Forecasts E®LICATI()N Bachelor of Science in Finance, 2004, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL; Graduated Cum Laude Burrrolr ~ AssocraT~s 9 CfTY OF ~ELRAY BEACH FIRE ASSESSMENT FEE L1EVC~QPfVIENT 2. PROJECT TEAM SELECTE® ~LIEfVTS • City of Fort Myers, FL City of 5t. Petersburg, FL • City of Tamarac, FL ® City of Tarpon Springs, FL -- • City of Port St. Joe, FL ® City of Lake Worth, FL . • City of Fort Lauderdale, Fl. • City of Coconut Creek, FL ® 5t. Johns River Water Management District, FL ® Village of I<ey Biscayne, FL ® City of ~ephyrhills, FL ® City of Clearwater, FL • City of Bonita Springs, FL • City of Cape Coral, FL • City of Daytona, FL ® Hendry County, FL • City of Huntsville, AL • City of Lake City, FL :; • City of Lakeland, FL ® Marion County, FL • City of Minneola, FL d City of Naples, FL ® Pasco County, FL • City of Port St. Lucie, FL Ilu® us~rRl~s • Fire/EMS ® Water Resources • Water & Sewer • Reclaimed Water • Stormwater • Sanitation __ General Government ® Parks & Recreation ® Library ® Roads ERICK VAIV MALSSEN CONSULTANT ~EiVEfdAL QUALIFICATIOIVs Mr. van Malssen is a Consultant with Burton & Associates. He has over six years of experience in providing financial and rate consulting services in Florida. He has superior financial, business, and analytical skills and has continuously provided our clients with exemplary financial analysis based upon applications of sound financial and economic concepts. He has strong Excel modeling skills and has experience working with large data sets and financial models, including our interactive FAMS© model and specific user charge and assessment modules. EXt~ERIE~CE Erick's experience includes serving as Project Consultant in the following areas: ® Development of Assessment Program Methodologies and Assessments/Fees • Long-Term Financial Plan Development • Cost of Service, Cost Allocation & Rate Studies • Development of Impact Fees ® Development of Capital Finance Plans ® Bond Feasibility Reports & State Loan Applications ® System & Property Valuation and Analysis • Operations and Performance Reviews, Strategic Planning, Financial Feasibility Analyses, and Annexation Analyses E®UC,~'rl®IV Masters of Business Administration, 2005, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL Bachelors of Science in Business Administration, Concentration in Finance, 2004, University of Centro! Florida, Orlando, FL BURTON ra ASSOCIATES ~0 ~fTY OF I~ELRAY 13EACf i FfRL ASSES.SfUIENT FFF I~EVELOI~fVIENT 2. PROTECT TEAM MICHAEL FRANCIS SELECTE® CLIENTS ® City of Clearwater, FL C O N S U LT A N T ® City of Lake Worth, FL ® Polk County, FL ° City of Hollywood, FL GENERAL UAL11=1CATIONS ° Palm Beach County, FL Mr. Francis is a Consultant with Burton & Associates. He has ° Dekalb County, GA over 9 years of experience in providing financial and rate • City of Peoria, AZ consulting services in Florida and throughout the United States ® City of Reno, IVV and Puerto Rico. He has superior financial, business, and ° Jefferson County, AL analytical skills and has experience in managing day to day ° Miami-Dade County, FL project activities, including scheduling, budgeting and client ® City of Venice, FL meetings. ° Emerald Coast Utility Authority, FL He has strong Excel modeling skills and has experience working ^ Puerto Rico Sewer and with large data sets and developing financial models, including Aqueduct Authority, PR our interactive FAMS© model and specific user charge and ° Fort Stewart, GA assessment modules. ° Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities, NC EXPERIENCE ® LakeAllatoona, GA Mike's experience includes serving as Project Consultant in the following areas: I N ®Ef s T R I E s Long-Term Financial Plan Development ° Fire/EMS Rate Structure Design & Rate Studies ° Water Resources ° Water & Sewer Cost of Service, Cost Allocation & Rate Studies ® Reclaimed Water Development of Impact Fees ® Stormwater ° Sanitation ° Development of Capital Finance Plans ® General Government ° ARC GIS Applications ® Police ° Parks & Recreation Operations and Performance Reviews, Strategic Planning, • Library Financial Feasibility Analyses, and Annexation Analyses • Roads a Customer, Demand, and Revenue Forecasts EDl1CATIAN Bachelor of Science in Management of knformation Systems {M!S), Minor in Marketing, 2003, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL Bur;~oR a AssoclRrES 11 CITY Cif I~ELRAY BEACH FIRE /~SSESSIVIE~IT FEE 17CVELOI~MENT Z. PROJECT TEAM TERRY LEWIS LEWIS LONGMAN & WALKER, PA E7CPERIENCE WITH SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS: Provides Legal Services and Technical Advisory Support regarding relevant legal issues to clients who are reviewing, developing or implementing Special Assessment Programs. Provides legal support for governmental clients who still have EMS Assessment Programs ar who are developing new fire assessment cost recovery programs to replace those assessment programs. LAND USE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW: • Represents more than 30 regional and local general purpose and special purpose governments including the West Coast Inland Navigation District, St. Lucie County, Palm Beach County, Leon County, West Palm Beach, and Lake Worth Drainage District in matters related to NPDES, Clean Water Act, and environmental resource permits, developments of regional impact and the Endangered Species Act. • Represents national and regional residential, commercial and agribusiness developers such as Atlantic Gulf Communities, Bonita Bay Properties, and the Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative before Federal, State and local agencies in matters involving Clean Water Act and environmental resource permits, rulemaking, and comprehensive plan compliance. • Serves as counsel on environmental and land use matters to The Nature Conservancy and Florida Association of Special Districts. • Prior to becoming a lawyer, was an environmental planner and served as the Agency Coordinator for the State Coastal Management Plan. • Was a Principal author of the State of Florida's Coastal Management Plan. ADMINISTRATiVEIGOVERNMENTAL LAWILEGISLATIVE LOBBYING: • Represents numerous governments and private clients in state agency rulemaking proceedings. • Represents private clients in licensure and disciplinary proceedings before state regulatory boards, including the Board of Psychologists, Construction Industry Licensing Board and the Board of Architecture and Interior Design. • Represents public and private clients before the Florida Legislature on issues involving Florida's Water Resources Act, Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act, coastal management, Everglades protection and local government accountability. • Serves as Legislative Counsel to the Florida Association of Special Districts and 5t. Lucie County. • Was a principal draftsman and successfully lobbied for passage of Special Districts Accountability Act and Community Development Act. EDUCATION • J.D., with honors, Florida State University College of Law, 1978. • University of Kansas, National Defense Foreign Language Scholar, Latin American Studies, 1969- 1971. • M.A., with honors, Florida State University, 1966. • B.A., with honors, Florida State University, 1965. Burero~t a Assoc~nres 12 __ _ _ __ CITY OF DELRAY 1~EACH FIRE A55E55MEf~iT FE SERVICES 3. laftOJECT METHOQOLOGY $: APPROACH 3. PRQJECT METHODOLOGY $e APPRQACH This section presents Burton & Associates' project management techniques as well as our approach, including an introduction to FAMS-XL©, our live and interactive modeling process. 3,1 PROTECT MANAGEMENT We have developed a proven project management approach to ensure on time and on budget completion of our projects. A number of in-person, interactive work sessions, with our financial/rate model up-and-running, will be scheduled during the project and key staff will 6e available at all times during the study, whether in person or via phone orinternet. In addition to the in-person meetings, we often use the Go-To-Meeting Internet forum to essentially conduct a remote interactive work session where our clients can see our computer screen through the Go-To-Meeting connection. Simultaneously, we can have a conference discussion via telephone while all parties are viewing the alternative scenario analyses on the control panel of the FAMS-XL© model. Another unique project management tool that we often use is a "Ball-in-Court" schedule, which tracks the continuous back-and-forth flow of information and data between City staff and our project team. An example is presented below. Sample Client Sample Study ~~ ~ '~~ - BaIFImCOUrt Schedule ,.. ..> .................:...: ....... Speafic5em'ce fee t~/Ud010 COmp7ele yeilOwahadedce[Is and IfJ5~a1Y11 0 x Pending Waskshee>s return to puston &ASSOfistes Cott allOwtl ~ .~- s.diiitlo: [he allacalimi of r~nL.to it d lil.l:010 COmPlatefemPlal snd~s .RS ~.•Oh Ea I':~-4,11, € :/:0.'YMI1 mOrrth3y [11a4gd ln)d_dolgn. C1IYPmlerl OliHrr I ~1J5[eIFOGl- .r f~~hcet l~~r Our[o~BASSndar sari II¢~ttn alldpafOnOfops[sloTlxcl Wuj'w d d¢ I:o~ pP "~i'... E 1t yU7„f ~ ~~ 4'1~4':OL. +nuirthiyxhalgel~ ate~~,lE .. p1e[e green shedM araaz and ~eturii io li6il j- gartan ffia:melata3 and rnennp . ....___ Reslalmed Water Aales 1]fl/2p30 dlscwsand tln[ermine approazh to mtlaEmetl waterrales gNen that Opsls 1~15flOll x x k Pending renYlnxuned urtu 2015 Reflalmed Watef Aal¢s 12fiJ2pID pevulvpiates basetl upon FYX+lS Snsts ]/Lf2011 x x % 0 0 o Pending Demand Ana[ysls fu1170f0 relporte demand analysis antl OraRfOr ]/15/2011 x Pending ]DiOpElEingpata/pnmand Bsingdate Into datadase, use fnr Analysis 1711371010 ground iruih tertot demand ections 1/aywu o PendEng 1010 BAEing OataJggl Enmgfafe 2015BhlEng pats into Hate Fsequen Ana !s 3Y1IM10 Oeslgn HbdN 173Ff2011 o pending adjust nonresidential efA to mmptle 6111Grequensy Analysts 1]/]f1030 asxge pmpedy by hlOdl Toreadl ff151p1] o o x PendEng csrsbomcr eale Oeslgn 371FJ2010 BurtOnffi ASSOdates and Clterttm 1!21!2011 % % o Pending diswss and decide on ffnal rate des Egn. gFY: k {n Caen Awalling gecelpl or torn ellon ~. AcNon Completed BurtroH s Assac~nres 13 CITY OF DCLftAY BEACH GIRL A55E551ViEIVT FE SERVICES ~. PROJECT METHODOLOGY ~St APPROACH 3.2 FIRE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY In order to implement fire assessments, there must be a relationship between the burden, or cost, of the assessment and the benefit received by the property being assessed. This is sometimes referred to as the benefit/burden relationship or the establishment of a rational nexus between the cost of the service provided and the benefit received. In establishing this benefit/burden relationship, it is important to consider the nature of the services being provided. For fire services, there are two primary components to the benefit received from the services provided. First, there is a "watch standing benefit" or availability benefit component. Properties benefit from fire and rescue services even if specific assistance is never required. This is because the City maintains a readiness to serve and in effect stands watch over, and is available to serve the potential fire and rescue needs of the properties within the City. This continuous ability and readiness to provide service is a benefit to all properties, regardless of the number of calls for service required. Therefore, some portion of the cost of service can be appropriately allocated to this watch standing or availability benefit component and be included in the assessments to all properties. Second, there is a "specific service benefit" component. Properties that actually receive specific service benefit by the actual service provided. Therefore, some portion of the cost of service should be allocated to this specific service benefit component and be apportioned in the assessments to properties in proportion to the actual service provided to specific property classes. This apportioning of service benefit costs to property classes is typically accomplished by analyzing historical calls for service, by identified call type. The more calls for service for a property class, the greater its proportionate share of the service benefit costs. Fire and rescue traffic calls for service often make up a large portion of historical calls for service. To the extent that costs associated with traffic calls for service can be recovered as first responder service, the revenues received can be used to offset costs to be recovered in the service assessments. Flowever, it is usually not possible to recover all of the costs of traffic calls from those specifically benefiting from the service. Therefore, traffic calls are typically excluded from the allocation to property classes derived from the calls for service analysis. Our approach, discussed in the following section, includes these fundamental principles of fair and equitable cost recovery in the development of fire assessment programs. We have employed similar approaches addressing these fundamental principles on Burt7oN ~ Assacrn~s 14 CITY OF DELRAV BEACH FIRE ASSESSMENT FE SERVICES 3. PROJECT METHODOLOGY & APPROACH numerous occasions in the development of fire assessments. A visual representation of the fire service cost allocation process is shown in the graphic below. 3.3 PROJECT APPROACH _ There are three primary outputs to our approach, 1J a five and ten year financial management plan, 2) recommended assessment rates by property class, and 3j an assessment roll of all properties in the City. The first output is a long term financial plan which is developed using our Financial Analysis and Managemen# System (FANS-XL c0) and associated decision support process. To develop this financial plan, we will use FANS-XL© to develop alternative five and ten-year financial management plan scenarios for your system that will truly integrate the capital and financial planning processes. The truly differentiating aspects of our interactive, automated process are that: 1. TAMS-XL© Simulates the Financial O~namics of Your Fire/Rescue Operation - It will be adjusted as required to simulate all aspects of the specific financial dynamics of your operation aver the forecast period. 2. FANS-XLm Inteerates Financial and Caai#al Plannine - It will allow us to truly integrate the financial and capital planning processes in a dynamic interactive decision support process which will allow testing of alternative capital plans, Burnorr a ,Assac~~-~s 15 CITY OF L7ELRAY <3EACW FIRE A55E5SMEiVT FE SERV#CE5 3. PROJECT METHODOLOGY ~ APPROACH alternative financing solutions, and other variables with instantaneous feedback as to their implications upon the financial plan for your system and the rates of your customers. 3. We Build Consensus in Interactive Work Sessions -During the project we wilk conduct several "interactive work sessions".with key City staff where FAMS-XLUO will be used to present key financial indicators graphically on a "control panel" which will allow you to visually see the implications upon key financial indicators of alternative scenarios. 4. FAM5-XL® Provides Choices and Consequences -These interactive sessions provide the basis for our clients to make informed decisions relating to the financial planning and assessment rate making processes by allowing them to see and understand their full range of realistic decision alternatives. We demonstrate possible consequences of each alternative including the short and long term financial ramifications, property impacts, and level of service. The rubber meets the road at the level: of the cost to the property owner and our alternatives analysis displays comparative results down to that level. 5. FAM5-XLO Offers Alternative Scenario and "What If' Analyses - We will conduct alternative scenario analyses in these interactive sessions with you, so that in the better part of a morning or afternoon we can explore and receive immediate feedback regarding numerous "what if' scenarios, such as alternative capital improvement programs, alternative financing solutions, lower or higher levels of working capital reserves, etc. An example of the control panel of our Financial Management Plan model for a fire assessment is presented on the following page. The assumption in this plan is that the assessments will be adopted at 100% cost recovery. To the extent that the assessments are adopted a less than 100% cost recovery, a subsidy of the difference will be required form the general fund. BuaroN a Assoc~ares 16 CITY OF f~EI.RAY PEACH FIRE ASSESSMENT FE SERVICES 3. PROJECT METHD€JDLD6Y & APPROACH Financial Management Plan ~~ rawxoFal2,~elsernlrxx,Flonion ~ rn.,a s ~ f' elffi9 3Y4]d v.Laa ci~l IYSb ' arns [~1s aX13 avJ4 [Time llnau ,: n...,.nv.aey.. Rn. aw,u.r rcmu rcmxo e.d+«,vd n.r.lwnuu O.LOIi O.OOti 0.00! O.OSN, E ].o3ti 11 urti 9d35h 5.3fi': 5.4056 9.-03K O.PK 41.Y4 ]ax~vn . 009^1 ':O.CVk RW'.6 99q;b _- .$tlS.d :.t4.054k 'S 33M ;;5351 'S,4 ib ':;:43'+~ _.. _.. « R3.4. IldrOn.ri.~ ~ Nay Mda.Mrd e.t. Ircnw.. ~ ~ ~ . ~ . O CQ4 9 Wk 9.90ti n oow ~ 9 tl3w ll U95 53351 5 34w ],4n5L 9 9i1 r ,1 11}M '~xxw Cffi :u.cCFC ~tl'cV.E- tl,004'':'.i 09W S'(iYSV 4331 2:5 ibi 5AOA. 54ak ~_..w.. .. ~.`... a~; ~oY n3u k. n< ~ r-M ~ ~ I :m. 000:': 000 000 0.-00 9M -PiO 0,(-0:. 4159 '0 9.pP tl~W A.7 ~ ;;) .. I....: ~ ,... o.. X IOOtt .. 100 ~, ..... 100K _100:5 ]0011 '.300k 10P56 ]tl0~ 100h IL-0ti 300M __ r.di«.nd nr..~.n~n $133.00 ]i]C4 ~ 3 yl~-,0 94)51 )..r.r :; :: »rwr $ 31I1f] Jt 1~Yt ~~ SGq:0.l 3~[W ~ ) ~M1F Rk]hl in0 M..9~11 3T6 E5 362 9822] .x-007 F3 .' :: [aplta[Profe[ts .~eene rs s.u n~r] Bormwin~Pralklion s d~~,..ro„ v ~ ~R&R Ftlgd eolenee ;1wr TnO i ~ ~.rto -_ 1 ~-~ _. _.... Rrtreslrlded Reserves . . _ l r.wi __ Aevenue Ys. Expenses ~ sv - - ~ v.' ,_.._ ~ sin I _ -P a~ + ~i'~ - il~~~ - ~:, _ _ __ - _ _ -.., I ~~~~ ~ [ ev _._ .. ~. - - .._ __ N 4~~-...V4 'dfuryil~- ,.`_1i . ts':'(_":.-JUb -42ar"hr.$%!~_ "~' ~a _r~' . BUH10N ~ 1~S50CrA1'ES To develop assessment rates by property class we will use the cost apportionment and assessment/fee modules of FAMS-XL© to properly apportion costs to property classes and to explore alternatives. These alternatives will also be reviewed in interactive worEc sessions with City staff and will include evaluation of the impact upon property classes and upon specific properties within each class as required. We will also conduct a survey of the assessments/fees of other similar operations and present a comparative analysis of your current assessment rates and alternative assessment rates evaluated. An example of a table and graph of the residential assessments at 100% cost recovery by property size is presented on the following page. This assessment program was developed to provide the option of differentiating the residential assessment by area of developed space in 500 square foot increments. It was designed to also provide for adopting the residential assessment to be the same per parcel (the more traditional approach}, which is represented by the highlighted assessment for 2,000 to 2,999 BllFrYON 8 ASSOCUlTES 17 __ CITY OF i~ELRAY i~FACH i=1RE ASSESSMENT FE SERVICES ~. PROJECT METHODOLOGY $t APPROACH square fleet, which is the size range for the average single family residential property. A table and chart for the residential assessment at 50% cost recovery is presented below the table and graph for 100% cost recovery. Similar table and graphs are developed for non-residential property lasses. Residential Assessment Rates - 100% BEack Range fn Sq Ft Number of Number of Number of Annual Of D8YBI0 edS M __-_T,.p-.-. -..~ .._. Parcels ..... . UnEts ._______-_ EU9 _ _._...__. __ __. ASSC39me11t Hale _.~__.._._.r___~ ~_,..._,~_.,._...._._._ ...............~.._,.__.__._.._...__.__..__..._........,..______....., 3 499 s i S $77.75 Relldential Property731siNbutlon 500 999 85 1 SS $77,75 1,000 1,499 27S 2' ~. 550 $]55.50 .... 1,500 1,999 431 3 1,293 $233.25 - 2,000 2,499 679 4 _ 2.716_ -~ $37,1,00 ---~ -~ °oo _-__-______-_- __-_ ___.. 2,500 2,999 629 5 3,145 $388.75 3,90D 3,499 316 6 1,8% $466.50 H10 3,SOD 3,999 128 7 896 $544.25 4,000 4,499 66 8 528 ~ $622.00 p 4,500 4,999 25 9 225 $699.75 ; 5,000 5,499 24 19 240 $777.50 aw g 5,500 5,999 13 it 143 $855,25 ~ ioo 6,000 6,499 5 12 60 $933.00 6,500 6,999 4 13 52 $1,010.75 ~ 7,000 7,499 3 19 A2 $1,089.50 7,500 7,999 3 15 45 $1,166.25 ,~ 8,000 8,499 2 16 32 $1,244.00 8,500 8,999 3 17 51 $1,32175 n 9.000 9,499 0 18 0 $7,390.50 SFFf~3~t2.~~~,~~j,~,~,~a ~~~g~s?~~ca~a~asa~? 9,500 9,999 1 19 19 $1,477.25 ~ -S$#~8~8&e~$~s~~~~c~sJ~$~~$~~4~~~3~~~,~,~ 10,000 10,499 1 20 20 $1,555,00 17,000 17,499 1 34 34 $2,643.59 Total Assessment Revenue=$1,659,000 2,708 iz224 BurrmNa. AssocinrEs Residential Assessment Rates - 50% Olock Range in SqR Number of Number of Numberd Annual of tleveEoped Space ParceFs Unlts EUS Assessment Rate 1 499 8 1 & $38.88 SRO 999 85 3 85 538.88 1,000 1,499 275 2 550 $77.76 1,580 1,999 431 3 1,293 $116.64 2,000 Y - 2,499 ~ -- 679 _ -- 4 ~ ~ 2,716 ~ ~ mm_ $355.52 2 SOD 2994 629 5 3,145 $194.40 3,OOD 3,499 816 6 1,896 $233.28 3,500 3,999 128 7 896 $272.16 4,000 4,499 66 8 528 $811.04 4,500 4,999 25 9 225 $399.92 5,000 5,494 24 SO 240 $388.80 5,500 5,999 13 it 143 $427.68 6,000 6,499 5 12 fifl $466.56 6,500 fi,999 4 13 52 $SOS.44 7,000 7,494 3 14 92 $594.32 7,500 7,999 3 IS 45 $583,2p 8,000 8,499 2 16 32 $62208 8,500 8,999 3 17 51 $660.% 9,0(10 9,493 R 18 0 $699.84 9,500 9,999 1 19 19 $738.72 30,000 18499 1 20 20 $777.60 17,OOR 17,499 1 34 34 $1,321.92 z,lRa 12,za4 IS BURTON $ ASSOCIATES 18 Total Assessmem Revenue = $830,000 BURTON 8 ASSDCIAT~$ CITY QF DEI.RAY i3EACH FIRE A55E55MENT FE SERVICES 3. PROJECT METHODOLOGY & APPROACH 3.4 OVERVIEW of ~AM5-XLO We have developed an empowering decision support process in which we use our interactive Financial Analysis and Management System (FAMS-XLm) model. To properly calibrate FAMS-XI-© to precisely simulate the financial dynamics of your operation, we will review your historical audited financial data, budget documents, financial policies, outstanding debt information, capital improvement program, and system configuration and subsequently make adjustments to the FAMS-XLO functionality as required to replicate your system. We then conduct a number of interactive decision support work sessions with your staff with the FAM5-XLO model up and running with the "control pane!" projected on a large viewing screen. In this way, we can evaluate alternative financial plan and assessment/fee scenarios with instantaneous feedback. This allows us to work with your staff towards solutions while building consensus and confidence in the decision alternatives and the short and long term financial and level of service consequences of each. The examples in the prior sub-section are outputs of this process and the example tables and graphs are viewed during the interactive work sessions and changes are made on-the-fly during the work sessions with the results seen instantaneously. In this way we can work with you towards solutions during these work sessions with a clear vision as to the effects upon all classes of property owners. Burman a Associarss 19 CITY QF DELRAY BEACH FIRE ASSESSMENT FEE pEVELOPMENT 4. REFERENCES 4. REFERENCES This section presents references for similar projects completed within the past three years for Florida entities. We encourage you to contact each of these clients who can speak to the success of Burton & Associates in preparation of a Fire Assessment Fee or Program. TF1E CITY OF COCONUT CREEI(j, FL„{2OOH1 We developed and assisted in the implementation of a Fire Service Assessment Program. We met with Gity staff to define the assessment methodology to be used to determine fair and equitable Fire Service assessments to recover the cost of the City's Fire Service program. We reviewed and analyzed the Fire/EMS budget{s}, allocated costs to Fire Service, compiled historical calls for service by type, obtained and compiled parcel data from the County, as well as other required informatign and data necessary to develop the Assessment Program. Utilizing our Fire Service Assessment Program Model, we determined the preliminary assessment amounts by property type. We then tested the Program for revenue sufficiency and adjusted the model to recalculate based upon specific cost and allocation parameters for each service type. Interactive work sessions were then conducted with City staff in order to review the preliminary results of the analysis. We developed a preliminary assessment roll and a report of the expected revenue which were presented tq staff along with a legal sufficiency analysis of the program. Adjustments were then made to the preliminary assessment roll and communicated to the Broward County Property Appraiser's office for public inspection prior to the official public hearing. After adoption of the Program by the City, we assisted with the initial implementation of the Program. We also assisted the City with an update of the Fire Service Assessments in the second year following initial implementation. $URTON&/45SOCIATE55TAFF:PCinCIpal-in-Charge: Michael Burton CLIENT CONTACT: Ms. Karen Brooks, Finance birectar, Coconut Creek Government Center, 4800 West Copans Road, Coconut Creek, FL 330fi3, (954} 973-6730, kbrooks@cgcon utcreek. net $REVARO COUNTY. FL (200$1 $' We developed and assisted in the implementation of a Fire Assessment Program •E for Brevard County. The County had adopted a Fire Assessment previously but was interested in evaluating alternative apportionment methodologies to mare fairly apportign costs to residential properties based upon size a value factors. We developed an alternative residential cost apportionment methodology that differentiated the fire assessment based upon size ranges and a value factor within size ranges which was based upon the "base rate" by property class. The base rate is the cost per square foot by building class that is maintained in the Property Appraiser's system and is used as the starting pgint in determining the building value for the buildingSs} on the parcels. The finding of benefit was that properties benefited from protection against loss of use of the buildings on the property relative to size and benefited from loss of economic value based upon a general BItRTnN s AssnclA~rss 2Q _ CITY OF DELRAY BEACH F]fiE ASSESSMENT FEE DEVELOPMENT 4. I~EEERE~VCES representation of value of the building. 1"he assessment program was approved and we assisted the County in review of the ordinance and public meetings and public hearings throughout the adoption process. We are currently providing an update to the original study. BURTON & ASSOCIATES STAFF: Principal-in-Charge: Michael Burton, Project Director: Andrew Burnham, Consultant: Eric Grau CLIENTCONTACT: Mr. Stockton Whitten, Assistant County Manager, County Manager's Office, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson, Bldg. C, Viera, FL 32940, [321) 633-2004 +, THE CITY OF DELTONA {2009) ~~~ ~ 4; We developed and evaluated a Fire Service Assessment for the City. We met with G~6w,~. a: ;~ City staff in several interactive work sessions to evaluate three alternative assessment methodologies, each based on current property data, to be used in the development of fair and equitable Fire Services Assessments to recover the cost of the City's Fire Service Program. We reviewed and analyzed the City's Fire/EMS budget, performed a cost allocation analysis to isolate the fire services costs, compiled historical calls by property type, worked with the Volusia County property appraiser to identify and compile the necessary property data, as well as growth and other required information. Utilizing our Benefit Assessment Module of FAMS-XE_O, we compiled and Sorted the property data and allocated the benefit to each parcel. We identified and evaluated alternative scenarios in several interactive work sessions with Gty staff. We tested each scenario for revenue sufficiency over aten-year projection period. We conducted one-on-one meetings with the City's elected officials to increase the level of understanding regarding the complexities and effects of the Fire Assessment Program. We conducted a work shop with City residents to discuss with and inform the public about the Fire Assessment Program. Due to economic conditions and economic sensitivity, the City voted not to proceed with implementation of the Program. BURTON & ASSOCIATES STAFF: Principal-in-Charge: Michael Burton CLIENTCoNTACr: Mr. Dave Denny, Deputy City Manager, 2345 Providence Blvd., Deltona, FL 32735, (386) 878-8100, ddenny@deltonafl.~ov -' - CETY OF CAPE_CORAL, FLORIQA {20O$1 ~`'~ We developed a new fire service assessment for implementation by the ~~ City. We met with City staff to evaluate alternative assessment methodologies to be used to develop fair and equitable fire services assessments to recover the cost of the City's fire service program. We reviewed and analyzed the budget, performed a cost allocation analysis to isolate the fire services costs, compiled historical calls by property type, worked with the County property appraiser to identify and compile the necessary property data, as well as growth and other required information. Utilizing our fire assessment program model, we compiled and sorted the property data and allocated costs between property types. We tested each scenario for revenue sufficiency over aten-year projection period. We conducted several interactive work sessions with City staff and ButrroN ~ Assoclares 21 __ CfTY OF L~ELRAY BEACH FIRE ASSESSMENT FEE i3EVELpPIViImNT 4.REEERENCE5 informational sessions with City residents. The final assessment program was not implemented 6y the City in light of the then current economic conditions. BURTON & ASSOCIATES STAFF: Principal-in-Charge: Michael Burton CLIENT CONTACT: Ms. Sheena Milliken, Mgt/Budget Administrator, P,Q. Box 150027, Cape Coral, FL 33915, (239) 574-0489, smillike@capecaral.net uR,,,s. TOWN OF ORANGE PARK lZpO91 p4: a'c^ o ~ n ~ We developed a Fire Service Assessment for the Town. We met with Town staff 'FL h' ~` '"'R ~ to evaluate alternative assessment methodologies to be used to develop fair and equitable Fire Services assessments to recover the cost of the Town's Fire Service Program. We reviewed and analyzed the Town`s Fire/EMS budget, performed a cost allocation analysis to isolate the fire services costs, compiled historical calls by property type, worked with the Clay County property appraiser to identify and compile the necessary property data, as well as growth and other required information. ltilizing our Benefit Assessment Module of FAMS-XL {Cj, we compiled and sorted the property data and identified two primary property classes: residential and non-residential. We used to model to allocate the costs between these property types and further to each specific parcel. We identified cost recovery options for the Town to satisfy political objectives to ease the burden an Town residents. We tested each scenario for revenue sufficiency over aten-year projection period. We conducted several interactive work sessions with Town staff and several informational sessions with Town residents. We also assisted the Town with its legal obligations by drafting, printing, and mailing the first class notification of consideration of a fire assessment. BURTON & ASSOCIATES STAFF: Principal-in-Charge: Michael Burton CLIENT CONTACT: Ms. Sarah Campbell, Acting Town Manager, 2042 Park Ave., Orange Park, FL 32073, {904) 278-3018, scampbell@tawnap.cam CITY OF LYNN HAVEN, FLORIDA (1996 - PRESENTI °~'~~~ We have provided the City with utility financial planning services for over 15 years, and in 2007, we developed a fire service assessment/fee program for the City. We defined the methodology to be used for the program and met with City staff to present the methodology and to validate the project objectives. We collected specific data {budget, historical calls for service, historic costs, service area maps, etc.) from the City. We collected specific parcel data from the Bay County Property Appraiser's Office. We then initialized our interactive fire assessment program model utilizing this data. We then reviewed and analyzed the output from the model and determined the preliminary assessment/fee amounts by property type and tested for revenue sufficiency. We adjusted the model based upon staff input and finalized the calculation of the preliminary assessments by property type. We met with City staff and conducted interactive work sessions to review alternative cost allatation scenarios. The City chose to defer a decision on implementation of the fire service assessment/fee. Assuming that the City decides to proceed with the fire service assessment/fee program, we will update our analysis and assist the City in implementation of the fire service assessment/fee program. BURTON a AssnclATls 22 CITY OF [~El RAY BEACH FIRE ASSESSMENT FEE (~E1/ELOPMENT 4. REf-ERENCES BURTON & ASSOCIATES STAFF: Principal-in-Charge: Michael Burton CLIENT CONTACT: Mr..fohn Lynch, City Manager, 825 Ohio Avenue, Lynn Haven, FL 32444, [850) 265-2121, jlynch@cityoflyrlnhaven.com „~ TFlE TOWN OF LAUDERDALE-BY-THE-SEA. FL 120091 ~`'~° °~, ~'~ ~ We developed a Fire Service Assessment/Fee Program for the Town. We defined N0.m61 ~ ~~ ~ the methodology to be used for this Program and met with Town staff to present the methodology and to validate the project objectives. We collected specific data [budget, historical calls far service, historic costs, service area maps, etc.) from the Town. We collected specific parcel data from the Broward County Property Appraiser's Office. We then initialized our interactive Assessment Program Model utilizing this data. We then reviewed and analyzed the output from the Model and determined the preliminary assessment/fee amounts by property type and tested for revenue sufficiency. We also included the development of Fire Service Assessments using an alternative cost apportionment and benefit criteria methodology for consideration by the Town. We adjusted the Model based upon staff input and finalized the calculation of the preliminary assessments by property type. We met with Town staff and conducted interactive work sessions to review the alternative cost allocation scenarios. The Town Council voted to implement the Fire Service Assessment at 50% cost recovery using the same cost apportionment and benefit criteria as was used in prior assessments in order to lessen the financial burden imposed on some citizens by the Fire Service Assessment program. BURTON&ASSOClATESSTAFF:Principai-in-Charge: Michael Burton CLIENT CONTACT: Ms. Connie Hoffmann, Town Manager, 4501 Ocean Drive, Lauderdale-By-The-Sea, FL 33308, [954) 776-0576, connieh@lauderdalebythesea-fL~ov CITY Of OCALA, FLORIDA i2007~, We developed and assisted in the implementation of a new fire service fee program. We met with City staff to define the assessment methodology to be used to determine fair and equitable fire service assessment to recover the cost of the City's fire service program. We reviewed and analyzed the Fire/EMS budget(sJ, allocated costs to fire service, developed a ten year financial plan for the provision of fire service, determined the portion of Fire service casts to be included in the fire service assessment, compiled historical calls for service by type, obtained and compiled parcel data from the Marion County Property Appraiser's Office, as well as other required information and data necessary to develop the assessment program. Utilizing our fire service assessment model, we determined the preliminary assessment amounts by property type. We then tested the program for revenue sufficiency and adjusted the model to recalculate based upon specific cost and allocation parameters for each service type. Interactive work sessions were conducted with City staff in order to review the preliminary results of the analysis. We developed a preliminary assessment roll and a report of the expected revenue which were presented to staff along with a legal sufficiency analysis of the program. The City determined to implement the fire service program as a fee to be billed on the utility bills Bu~xrolr A AS5~CIATEB 23 CITY C1F DEFRAY BEACH FIRE AS.5ES5MENT FEE DEVELOPMENT 4. REFEREfVCES issued by the City. We assisted the City in calibrating the property data used in the development of the fire service fee to the billing system data. BURTON & ASSOCIATES STAFF: Principal-in-Charge: Michael Burton, Project Director: Andrew Burnham CLIENTCONTACT: Ms. Becky Mattey, Currently Utility Director, City of Lake Worth, 7 fV. Dixie Hwy, Lake Worth, F1.33460, (561) 586-1665, rmattev@lakeworth.or~ CITY OF NEW PORT RICHEY, FLORIDA {2008) -• We deve{aped a fire assessment program for consideration by the City. We met with City staff to discuss the legal framework within which the assessment program was to be developed. We obtained the required information from the County Property Appraiser's office and initialized our fire assessment program model. We identified and allocated all cost associated with the delivery of the services involved, and benefit criteria were determined. We obtained, reviewed, and compiled historical calls for service, as well as al! other data required for a legally sound assessment program. We determined the range of expected service assessments by property type, and demonstrated the implication to the general fund of the assessment program. The project was completed with preparation of a preliminary assessment roll, a final report, and an oral presentation of the results of the study to City staff and their Council. After considerable consideration of public input, the City Council voted not to proceed with implementation of the fire assessment program, but voted to implement a street light assessment program that developed during study. BURTON&ASSOCIATESSTAFF:Principal-in-Charge: Michael Burton CLIENTCONTACT: Mr. Richard C. Snyder, Finance Director, 5919 Main Street, New Port Richey, Fl. 34652, (727) 853-1053 BURTON ~ ASSOCFATF:S ~4 CITY OF C3ELRAY BEACf-I FIRE ASSESSMENT FEE L?EVELOPMENT 5. COST PROPOSAL 5. COST PROPOSAL We have prepared a Project Work Plan & Cost Estimate Schedule, presented on the following pages. This Schedule shows that successful completion of this project will require approximately 247 man-hours for a total estimated project cost of $41,532 inclusive of out of pocket expenses. However, in recognition of the financial challenges facing local government today and of our willingness to be a partner in dealing with those financial challenges, we are willing to offer a 5% discount, or $2,p77 which will result in a total not-to-exceed discounted price of $39,455. However, if we are selected, we would recommend meeting with City Staff to discuss the specific scope of services desired at which time we could modify our work plan and cost estimate as appropriate to ensure that the City receives the specific scope of services desired for the mast cost effective price. .................. . ........ BURTON & ASSOCIATES 25 J n i a ` F 'a. ~. b ~ iLL ~i Zla ~i . '~~Ii~ ~ ~ AA Cd AV V W ~ ~ ` Q ~ T w a L ~ ~~~y O ~" sAd H ~ ~ ~ '~~ GJ tea, W d •~ 4 n LIJ LLI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~~ 7 u.a ~ ~ ~ ~ .:~.. ~ ~ ® ,~--~ S~ ~ Q Q ~_ CC ~ u_ ~' ~ d' ~--~ u'7 ul ~ M m 00 M ~ N W u'1 v7 ~ W •g Op e} ~, ~ M ~, ~~ ~ a ,h 0 0 o o a a o a a o a ca 0 ~ ~ D a o o Q ~ N o 0 o a o o ~ ~ ~ ~ o c ~ 0 0 o a o N N~ c-i ~o ~r v a ~ ~ ~ +n -o ~ ~ ° .~ 3 N H ff) ~ H N ~-I V W N ew e-I 00 y y A ~ 'p c tJT a` g N Q N p .--I N Q c-I 0 0 0 0 N y & 2 '~' ^ F n` a lA ~ a yi a ~ ~ N a °1 E ~ y F N n ~ O /~ ~~„ ~ +y = V j L Vi Z C b N ~ ~ a c b C ~ N ~ ~ v U ~ L ar.. O ~ ~ y Ul ~ C d ~ c K V1 ~ l6 ~~//JI C V L a a a VI O U 11 ~ y ~ b ^ a l~ ~ u Q ~ Q f0 y~~ C O ~ ` ~ ~ ~ w s Q N •~ v ~ o :~ a s ~'' f0 v 'tin Q ¢ v°Yi w °' S3 a y ~ V ~O s'n ~` ' N 7 ~ V a VI ~~ y0 ~ }' '~' 0 , ~ ~ ~ H N a ~ LL ~ ~ ~ W l L +a+ a a 'y a LL ~. ~~ D V1 ~ Y . a~ H 3 .D o a i= a h a w a ~ c m °' o~ m .n y a a m c +~ E a ~ ~ c v +. o h m ~ c t ~ v c i a ~ a ~ e n v ~ ~~ O y ~o a m " ~ a~ m ~ ~ ~ o oa a E © `~ ~ o Y IU ~ VI t..1 a ' ~ ~ 1% Q-' C f0 ~ N ~ l6 ~ L a tr1 a a Il O ~ ~ h0 ~ O. a VI ~ _, 14 ~ N y, C C ~ } y ~ 'O 0 0 ~ QJ a a } L ~ t ++ q.7 L '6 v~ a ~ •~ ~ ~ 0 Cf ~~ u ~ ~ ~ Gl C ~ +' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V C U Y- u ~ ~ •R c~ m ' ~ _v y e a > E +L' y ~' m r i aa+ c~ v w o ° 3 e~e R ~ C ~ vai ~ n .o ~ ~° m a ~ ~ .a+ °° ~ O F~ L "a `Y w tJ " ~. c ? a+' ~ [n 7 ~ a - b + a -O N y } as L G9 ~ b ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ y 'p C 91 } ? C( L , r C ~ O C~ ,~ V 7 C ~ N b a i L ~~ ~ a ~ (0 Q. 'y3 ~ `n F a y m y N a 'j O H O ~ [4 7 t6 qp C ~ C a.. O ..C F 6 i °' c F~ ~ 'n N y ~ L N b ~~ w ~ E ~ `° ~ a v~ `° o ~ a ~ o a c ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'm ~ }. ~ ~~ ~ ` ' a c ` ~ c u ~ ' " 7 8' - ~ ~ ~ a ~ m p a+ ~ 0 y G ~ w N O ~ N y a ~ ~ ~ a en ~ O ~ N U ~~ N V C C :^ ~ ~- fl c '+°. x a i ~ r ~ v _o a c a aFi ~ ~ ~ v ~ v c» ro iL m o ~ ~ ~ d y a ~ .c ~ E cn m v m .o . ~ o .5 ~ a v, II ~ ° b a a c Q~ c ,L., uaF 5 ~ 3 ~ w a V a 6v ~ ~ ~ Y O 0 U ~ i/i ~ ~ Ui ~~ Y N E ~ ~ L 4 b L N y0 a a O. La ~ I` a V [4 ~ `n y ~ p Y y ~ a ~ ~' Q c ~ a + + E '- ro ~ ~i ~ ~ " ~ p ~ " v o ~ p d v u '~' u e ~ y N V_ ~ to a ` c to p O 7 a a} w G~ t O LL Q v . ~ `Y h ' + GL '`1 e i :Q 'n F iswi N Y ~ O V Q Q - LL y L a ~ u ++ d d Q i ~ p1 a ~ "C ~ ~ YJ ra ~ O . a +' ~ O a } d ~ C ~i ~ v ~ ¢ yj Q C ~ ~ +t+ F ~ ~ y a+ L C . a - ~ C N ~° °' ~ ~ ~ E ~ o 4. d ' ~ ' ' ~ ' te , ~ O c ~ a a '~ ~ o ~ d ~ r J y ~ ~ "" e a u °1 ° ~ a Q ~i a t i v o ' c ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ro ~ ~ a i ~ ~ o ~ LL s . a ~ a ~ ~ a ~+ ~ Z ~ v ~rs a !~ i v O c i. S Q- a o a o v o 0 o ~ K u 'O U R U U U V v U r-i ~ v- =' - [r O ~ N N a E O ~ ~ ~~ ¢ O ~ ~ a '~ v .o Q g v ,,, u c 5 u L a. a F ~ ~ D a -_° ~ ~o ~ ci zs ei ~ ee s n rd a w ci N FF W ~ ~ ~ N Y ri N ~I ci c-I ~ ~ F "I N N O I- O ~ W w O N N ~. ~. m a a ~ z ~ ~~ i ~i6 O' t 1 ~I Z' Q ~:'I °` ~] ~ ~ C ~ 6S Q lA V D ~ ~ 7 ~ © 6!J L LL ~ Q ~ ~ C 4~ ~ ~ O ~ a h ~ ~ ~ 'u a" LL ~ F- C~ g f!~ L1k ~° ~"" w w ~ ~ ~ 11. V ] ~_ U~ ~ 6~ ~, co cn n ~a ~o co ao ~n m W L d O O O O O O O O O V o n n o n o ti o 0 3 `~ ~ ~ N V V N~ N d' N N A V 1 V N N N N N N N N ri W ~ ~ m 0 ~;, ~ m N O S N O N ~--~ N Q A 0. 0 ~ C 0 ~ O '~ O OJ O C O R ~ trJ = u c ~ 7 0 4- v] O ~ p • ~ C ' ~ m .c°J, N ~' O N N W P Q E z O u Y C = ii a L a l ~ N U ~~ C O Y ~ ~ . v ~ ~ ~ w '~ p + + + ~ + + O C U U h ~ C Y w ~ y". i+ ~ Y 7 N +y L ~n Y V ~ ~ ~ a~ a 3 ~ c t Yo -° c ~ ~ w m ~ E ~o +. O Y 'O ~ C ~' W C C 'U N ~ C L1 7 T7 v N U C C N m i ' m x "7- ° ~ E o ~ ~ _ o v m ~ v ~ ar . ~ m Y m ~ a c m ~ c a m E w ~ N ~ ~ N OJ ~ Y f0 ~ C C C p 7~ yin, ~ d ~+ ~ Ul ~ U p q N U1 ~ ~ ~ o ~ w ~ ~° a ~ • a ' • c '^ u ~ • v~ vo ~ va~ y. ~r vr ~~~ ~ O ~ •~ ~ ro r ~ ~ C Y/ Y L Y uJ ~ U Q Q~ ~ p D_ u, v v ~ o ~ Y O a Y O ~ ~ 41 7 ~ ~ d' y C Y j~~ ~ C ~ C U N O N ~ U 4+ ? ~ y j 91 ~ y U N ~ ~ ` Q Ll T N ~ Y +O+ C u ~6 ~ i~+ N V a~ L ~ Y- ~ Y 7 3 ~ ~. ~ y N ~ w +. O N_ a LL y v o a ~^ c w n }a U 'a ~ 'C ~ V V ~ V O U U O ~' L ~ ~ ° °i ° Q a c. v - c . ~ .v ~ f E m v i 3 3 v . 3 a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o f f v+ N ~ m~ ~ O O C Vi j a v C lA. ~ a o c c c u l Y j o c? Q N H m~~ ~ ~ U 0 N C N Q N _ C U Ul N y (0 ~ N UI 16 ~ `[ O ~ 7 ~ Vim- ~ u Q 7+ Vl "O GD ~ m Y ~ C C? N Y C ~ +L+ C inn ~~ ~ ~ d ~ N ~ C ~ e a p u "1 V C O 7 ~ LL ' • Q a ~ ~ c O 7 b 41 ~ •? m ~ a L Q d1 ~ w ~> m e Q~ 41 L 7 r s ~ a w 3 7 . O w ~ l y a, c a~ ~ on c ~ a si ~ vOi ~ ~ ~ c ~n -°- ~ c C ~ ~ a 7 ~ • ~ ~ a Y ' o R L ~ y e w m ~ Q N ?N ~ ~ N N ~ O m w Q i=u N ~ ~ C ~ Sv O N ~ a L ~ ~ Q ? O a~ ` LL a " 'O C N N C O ~ 7 C ~ 7 L C .~ ~ C O. LJI 7 ~ ~" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O , m [R 7 R N N C `° c ~ ~ O C ~ c ~ •m C Gl Cl U E c c u ~ N N U C c u '~ LL ~ N ~ d ~ o ~ E a -~ '+ c c d c E ~ . L a ' a ~ ~~ ~ tiv~~ ~~~_ ~~ ~ro m O U i i CO i u~ O 7 ~ i CC i i VI LL O i ~ 4 3 ~ 7 VI a Y O. ~ N N ~~ y N ~ Y~ U7 ~ N C - c .aG m i f?. vim] ^ W Y ~ ~ Q O O O ~ ry y ~ N ~" ~2 Q U Q c!6 O '~ ~ it G U Q LL 0.. d N ~ ccN ? d d [4 C i{l . 7 i}] ~ u v ti ..: ao c~ sc s u m N S' m J ¢ N O ®- ~, ~ ~ u - ~ ~ ~j n ~; a €~a ,~ ~ ~ I~ a~'~ _''., a ~~ ~,' a` ,,, '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ ~ G ~ .f Q. ~ u o ~, ~ ~ ~ T ~ ~ ~ L. LL L,J ~ C ~ ~~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ vat ~ ~ ` ° LL ~ LL Q . .. ~ ilJ g U ~ iu ~ L~.. X11 t- ~' . a ~ N ~ ~ G! V7 ,i LL ~ EJJ _ 5 (.) LL. ~ ~n v ~n ~n io a rn~ n ~ ~. N m z co ~ Z~ N V d ~ ~ m '~ N of n rt 'p^ m a m a ~i ,-i v m yr m ti ~ ~. 0 0 0 0 .-~ O N O m ~ o¢ o o Q o a s z z ~ a Q Q Q Q N Q N Q l~ N Q C~' N Q N Q O f0 O ~ Z Z o" o ~ cG ~ ?~ ~ O ~ ~ ° _ ~ w Y N N d' N 0 0 '7 O rl u'i O¢ O O¢ O 0 0 t o ~"~ M ~ ~ Z a ~ ~ ~ m s i ~ ~ Y d d p V {/~ ~ Q N N N N N N N N N N Q .-i N Q N ~--] N ~ ~ ~ m ~ u1 ~ ~ Z Z o ~ d ~ ~ .--i O ~'I ~1 '-I N '-F N V .--~ Q T'F N Q .--~ .--1 N O O N (p Z Z 'o ~ th n I y ~ E ~ w ~ ~ T C ~ o C ° v d VI U ~ h H N N ~ E L ~ y C a" -° a o ° ~ ~ Q ~ ° ~ w N C v R `°_ ar ° ' o G ~ Q. a ~ ~ R Y u ~ ~, c m a u° °. - a '-y sn jy U E ~ 7 L r i1 ~ l6 N V'1 ~ y N m a } ? y ~yif O~~~ ~ i~ D ~ ~ 1-~ c ¢ ~ O a-. a ?~ a v ~ v ~~ N h L L C `n i N ~ U ~ ~ G ~ a ~ ~ ~ a ~~ s~ ~~ L Q m a c ~ m _ ° _ u ~ . ~ ~ C ~ u Q i ~ ~ ~ V = - 7 = ~ d .G (j ,O ~' 61 N ~ N ~ . 4 N v ar c -" i ~~ = l.L O o a o ~ ~ 1 ~ d L F{""+ ` iL-~ 4] ~ ~ 41 Qi A N N D. 10 C O .`~ c ~ ~ G 1 N ~ ° ~ V a V1 ii v, c L t, .~ a ~ ~ ,L,, ~ a e a m ~ c ~ ~ ~ ¢ ~ ti ~ ~ •~ g ~ a c ~ ~ " ~ +h io ~ O o ~' c = ° $~ ~ ~ °^ is E ers i ~ ~ m " ~' _ ~ `° c ~ ~ ~ °- LL = H ~ ~ Wl ~ ~ ~ U V m m w ~ aw O. a d ~ d O o v C a a¢ ~' E~ m° ~ w u ° .c L o w y o a ~ ~ ~ n ;~ ° c 3 ~ '~ m ~ u ~ ~ -° v i ~ ~ ~ ~ o VI ~ ~ c ~p V C ijl ~p ~ nn C L O `" m a cr o ?! a o a a a Y r ¢ p ~ `O c a c N ~ ' O, ' N •`-' ~ io s~ii a ~" y e w ~ N K K C ~ W rv G c ~ t+ ¢ 'O ~ ~ ~ N 7 .Q L 3 ¢ N ~ ~ LL N ~ O a C a V ~ a .~ ~ G ° E ~ ~' f0 C G it LL a m ~ ~ 10 N `~ - p ~ ° Y d ei ,., ~ v y ' ~ N Q ~ y ~ Z N F d O L1 f ° u Ul Y ?' N t» E ?' f0 j ~^ ~ .+ ~. ~ C L u ~ ~ a ~ aL.+ ~ ~ ~- Y ~ . ~ m L C t O ~ c d Qi ° C E ai ~ ev w s0 0 ` ~ v~ v d ~ p w V d ~ O~ C ~ Qi W ~+' ~ 9~i O ~~ m m` cL a a ~ a ~ a a a. a. Z ~! u n . u ~ ~ ¢ u ~ ~ a ¢ -rs a ~ a o ° = ~ i C v h h a N in n. ~ ~ J -c a rri ~ J 'a ~j Q a ¢ ~a ~ u v ti w ¢ m .d a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Lfl ¢ W Y r-I N m N N ¢ ¢~ ¢ I ~ m m m ~ W ~ N 0 {~ 7. {{/l~~ a C~ Wi O ~~? a; a '~' ~ " ~' ~ ~~ - ~' ~ ~ wC ~ W O T Q ww`` 6dJ W M L LL ~ Q ~ ~ ~ _~ y ~ ~ i d ~ V y Q ~ ~ ~ '® W Q w 4 ~ d _F ?- ~ ua ~.i ~ ~ N tin N ~ O n r N O ~ ~ ti D m .-+ ti e a M m rv M tin 1 o e! tli ~' tilt QI N rl N 61 s u- +n. m +n a ~ +n -~ M ~ ° n M o A ~ a •~ a ~ ~, m ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ N N N ~ ~ '^ t A o ~ ~ g ~ ~ n `~ .~ o 6 F s N do ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~m . o a~ O M a M M c c ` n c-I ~ a ~ i/} il? n N Y L O S ~e ~ ~ o .~ a U w ~- w d U F w A4 ~ w w ~ LL l7 ~ r ~ N LL l9 a u ~ O ~ Y u~ O _ A F ~' Z 7 z ~ ~ ~ ~ o G 0 U 4 .~ p tin U N „~~ U Q ~ p v~ U y ~ ~ (d? e n p Ll O Z L] G? p Z p F Q cu w ua w w w w w z w c ~ w a a C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ vFi v~i © vFi h ~ "' ~ "' ~ to w¢ w w w a a 0 a ~ F^" O H F ~ w H D F O H ~ ".. O w F 0 y J H O N N n n w 4 a 0 a1i z 0 V 0 a, N M~ IM MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: July 15, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.D. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 19, 2011 PROPOSED MILEAGE RATE ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The City Commission must authorize a proposed millage rate for FY 2012 in accordance with State TRIM guidelines. BACKGROUND The City Commission is required each year to submit a proposed millage rate in accordance with State TRIM guidelines. After a series of cuts, the current spending requests from departments total $92,620,280. This is a reduction of 2.47% or about $2,345,476 below the 2011 budget after the midyear adjustments. A large part of this reduction comes from reducing funding for capital improvements. Of the $2,000,000 budgeted for the General CIP in FY 2011, $1,500,000 was from prior year's surplus, which I do not propose this year. The current millage of 7.19 would require further spending reductions or additional revenues of $3,104,240. After three years of cuts, I do not see any way to make additional large cuts without significantly affecting the services provided by the City. While the decrease in our property tax roll was small this year, we also experienced significant decreases in other revenue sources, particularly utility taxes, franchise fees and the communications services tax. The roll back rate of 7.491 mills will generate a net increase in tax revenue of $1,485,395. To close our budget gap with property taxes would require us to increase our property tax rate to about 7.8 mills. At your Work Session last week the Commission expressed interest in adopting a fire service assessment. Boynton Beach received $3,369,270 in the current fiscal year from their fire service assessment, and plans to increase their fees in FY 2012 to generate $4,698,823. I am confident we can generate the $3,104,240 we need from a fire service assessment to complete funding our budget. As for the budget adoption schedule, it appears there are no conflicts with the county or school district this year, so we can have our first budget hearing and tentative budget adoption on September 6, followed by our final budget hearing and adoption on September 20, 2011. RECOMMENDATION 1). If the Commission is willing to commit to adopting a fire service assessment, then I recommend setting the proposed millage at the current rate of 7.19 mills. As we proceed through the budget adoption process, it may be possible to reduce the millage somewhat to 7.15. 2). Schedule our first budget hearing and tentative millage adoption for 7:00 PM on September 6, and our final budget hearing and millage adoption for 7:00 PM on September 20, 2011. ~ d~ ~ ~ v ~, w ~ ~_ ~ w _ _ O Q ~ ~ 'C7 p h.. s--. d y ._ O N ''....hl' CV N d 3 M Q y <6 ;a> z ~` ~' ~' M , ~ ~ Q Ud m? ~3 ~a u7 y ~ ~ o~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ t0 N ~ d d? y ~ ~ C tMD ~` U F- ~ o0 d p ~ M y M d ~ d ~ ~ d 10 d ~F+ ~ n d ~ M ~ ~ ~ G~ ~ Op0 ~ I - ~ N C C ~ '~ N T N 4 R '~ ~ .~ LL L Q lU Q3 C X fl ~ ~ d 49 ~ S7f ~ ~ ~ Q U .N .w Cn ~ '~ f0 d d C3 ~ L ~ ~_ Q M COU' O V N O _ ~ __ ~ ~ p,,, O ~ C ~ N N h- ~ 'a+ ?t C o ~ ~ M ~ M y F- > rn N . - i O C3) fl 0 ~' ( G~ ( 4G =1 U CdS = i'' p w N t 6 d 0 Q 0 (~ N ~- T r T ~ > ~~ m m ~» y °'o 'o > i a ~ y N d to Q ~ N Q1 ~ co to y QQ ~ ti t q e LL IL a •~ ~~~ ~ •~ qq ` ° U U cK ii a _ [C N O p fp 4 A p 00 T h N 'd' p h+ `r~• CO V 51' O r 00 0 0 o a a o o O o o M M ~ M CS7 O T~~ N N N~ ~ f~~- M CO O N~ M ~ b' h•- O M 4~C3 0~0 d' V' V tf) 4(7 417 44J 40 40 h- h O) r N N N N N N N N N N N N M 6 h ~:Y O h V h 'cl' of «7 M IX7 h c0 V M N O i37 00 4G M op ^~trnv_rnv_rnv;oamm ~ to rnoC°oomtichocoo u~7 ~ tt 4~*3 o co vrnv_43)vrn tr 4n ~r rn o M N N M M d' V M .N-• CS7 N Cn (O M CS) CO M O CL7 M o0 rJ' M ~- O 6T h tp t17 ~!' N c- 06 N .- 4~0y- .- c0 O tf3 O tf3 O tf3 O tf3 h Sfi M N N~ O b~~ CNA ~ V N t17 O t17 O 4f3 O tS7 437 '+7 67 V (h O ~- ~- N N M (M M ~t sT 417 67 N ~I' 'GY 'c1' 'st ~ V V 'tt 'cF 'V• +S rl' Lt7 ._- 6M7 h ~ M ON O 4MO SAO OU' N ~ h r 4V M rY ~ 40 40 h•- OD CS) M M N ~- O 6i W h cL~ 41'7 ~Y M c4 ob I`~ Cp 417 c!' N C O C37 W h- (O N O 40 h- Op CA O ~ N N M 'cY 417 N CA Cp 441 CO tS7 h h I'~ by h h f^~ c0 cb r- tf3 '~r N o rn h 40 <t M o rn tt7 N 67 4O M CA 44 M 6 I'~ 'C' N CA N 00 M 443 u7 O cC1 N op M C37 CA a0 N f~- M Ct'1 t~frj ~~ N~~ O M W ~t ~Y rl' '~' V tC3 ~ 4.C7 tt3 4N43 417 tC3 c0 M M M M M M M M M r Mryy M 67 M 0 0 0 O~~ 0 0 0 0 0 Vh" N M ^7 117 (9 h M CA O C6 ~ IX> 0:1 IX7 q7 CO CO CO ~ O~ Cl) C37 C37 ~ M M M M M M M M M M M M M M '1f7 4A tC) tC7 t,f3 4t7 417 to to u7 t17 447 4(') 417 Ci 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O '7 V ~t ~I' 'b' b' V V V V rY ~7' V ~ h h h h- i^•- h- h- h h h h•- h h•- h tt7 tf3 tfj tf3 417 u7 tt3 4(7 417 4[3 try 417 417 4!7 M M M M C7 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M r tp M M 443 (43 C43 CO 40 40 40 4f7 40 SS7 40 C7' 0 0 Ci Ci C) C? O O O O C7 O O ^kt V N ~• f37 W 40 4f7 M N O C57 00 h N ti M~ V d CO M ti M uMO uMO 0~0 O O N tc'i h C> M 4(7 00 O M tn~ h CO ^ch rt N O ep h- tt7 M O c0 C4 47 4C3 Cp (O N OD M G37 L!7 h M O~ CY h N M M V ct 417 417 40 h h M M Cn M M~ "~" rl' 'd' ~' `~' b' SY V V V '~Y <.t 417 t17 to W d a o '~ C7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CC) p p t37 O O Cn (77 Cri 437 4h CS) 6) C37 4n M O ~ "U' V 4f7 C4 h M O O ~- N M <i' N O~ h^~ h h h h f'•- h- QO 00 00 OD 00 67 ~ iv ..., y C7 ~ d v,r N O "~ ~ ~ 4 43 ~ C ,~„ ~ ~ .~ o ~' >~ o -43 E E C E E E E E E E ~ o of • `~oooaoa o000 ~°~' >- ;~' „~. ~; o <v. c? v to co r- co R1 ~ a .ti; ~ O ~ •~ ~ ~ "~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > 43 ~~ ~~ M~ Q n~ a a a a n Q a ~~ a 1~0 > 2 ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z a MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Catherine M. Kozol, Asst. City Attorney/Police Legal Advisor THROUGH: City Attorney DATE: July 8, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.E. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TULY 19, 2011 OFFER OF SETTLEMENT IN DEMETRIA BRIDGETT V. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This is an offer of settlement by the plaintiff Demetria Bridgett in the amount of $55,000.00 in the case of Demetria Bridgett v. City of Delray Beach. BACKGROUND This case stems from a narcotics transaction on July 16, 2009 where the defendant sold illegal narcotics to an undercover police officer. Upon completion of the transaction, the undercover officer radioed the backup team who shortly thereafter drove by the defendant and asked the defendant her name. The defendant stated "Demetria Bridgett". The team as well as the undercover police officer then verified the plaintiff's photo as the person they saw during and shortly after the transaction. A warrant was then issued for the arrest of Demetria Bridgett. Demetria Bridgett was arrested on the warrant on November 3, 2009 at her employment where she was a registered nurse. She alleged that she was not the person who committed the illegal drug transaction but that it was her cousin who shares the same date of birth and bears a resemblance. The State Attorney's Office dropped the charges against Demetria Bridgett. The plaintiff then filed the current lawsuit against the City of Delray Beach alleging negligence and false arrest. Plaintiff has made a settlement offer in the amount of $55,000.00. RECOMMENDATION The City Attorney's Office recommends denial of this settlement offer. TNE'LAW OFFI[ES OF s.tephen -~cohen_~~~.~. Stephen M. Cohen, Esquire Licensed in Florida and New Mexico Florida Certified County/Circuit Court Mediator June 6, 2011 Catherine M. Kozol, Esquire 300 W. Atlantic Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 RE: Demetria Bridgett/Delray Beach Police Department Dear Ms. Kozol: In follow-up to the recent discovery exchanges as well as the deposition of my client, and in furtherance of the discussion we had immediately thereafter, please be advised that my client has authorized me to make a demand settlement in this action in the amount of $55,000.00. While my client has not sought mental health treatment for stress-related problems resulting from the wrongful arrest, it is undisputed that: a. Ms. Bridgett was not the individual involved in the sale/purchase of cocaine [or any other illicit narcotic] on the date in question; b. Delray Beach Police Department did not use resources and information available to them to verify that my client was not involved in the subject crime andlor to distinguish her from the person so involved; ~,. ;:'IS. Brldg;,:t SpEnt a night li. ti1C i~alril 'i32ixC11 l~:Uiui`F:y Jail dEle tU ti'le arrest for a crime she did not commit; d. Ms. Bridgett lost her job at the time of her arrest due to her inability to clear her name by means of obtaining either a nolle prossequi or dismissal of the criminal charges during her period of absence; and e. Ms. Bridgett and her children have suffered the effects of the arrest and resulting aftermath. I am authorized to resolve this matter within the next thirty (30) days without first taking the depositions of the officers involved in the matter. I believe the demand set forth herein is more than reasonable under the circumstances and would relieve the 4500 PGA Boulevard -Suite 104 o Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33418 Tel. 561.624.2201 ~ Toll Free 877.624.2201 ~ Fax. 561.624.2289 www.smcohenlaw.com ~ E-Mail: stephen~smcohenlaw.com Department from the time, expense and documentation of their shortcomings resulting from the taking of the depositions. PIease give me a call at your earliest convenience to discuss this matter and with the hope that we can reach a settlement. Sincerely, Stephen M. Cohen SMC/lro The Law Offices of Stephen M. Cohen, P.A. 4500 PGA Boulevard -Suite 104 ~ Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33418 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Scott Aronson, Parking Management Specialist Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Director of Environmental Services THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: July 13, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.F. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 19, 2011 MODIFICATIONS TO VALET PARKING LICENSE AGREEMENTS ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before the City Commission is that of approving proposed modifications to the City's form Valet Parking License Agreement setting maximum fees, validation program requirements, signage requirements and ADA regulations. BACKGROUND Earlier this year the cost of valet parking in some locations increased beyond what is perceived to be reasonably priced to $15 and $20. At the program's inception, valet parking fees were $3.00 weekday evenings and off season and $5.00 on weekend evenings and in season. Over time, through inflation, pricing had increased to $5.00 and $10.00 respectively. These prices have held steadily until this past season when one valet queue increased to $15.00. A neighboring queue increased to $10 with validation at the licensee's establishment and $20 if not validated. This pricing structure discourages use of the valet queue by those not patronizing the licensees establishment inconsistent with Section 2 of the agreement requiring the queue be available to all wanting to use it. In an effort to mitigate these negative impacts Staff proposes the amended Valet Parking License Agreement attached for your review and summarized as follows: 1) Maximum fee permitted is $10; However, an extended stay fee may be charged for vehicles staying over four (4) hours at queues west of the Intracoastal Waterway and two (2) hours at queues east thereof. Tickets must be time stamped in and out upon the customers arrival to assess the fee; 2) Provisions for validation programs with neighboring businesses; 3) Letter size requirements for advertised pricing to provide clarity for customers upon entering the queuing area; 4) Clarification requiring compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act in the parking lots used for the storage of vehicles; and, 5) An automatic renewal clause for accounts maintained in good standing through the contract term up to the time of renewal. In a meeting with the licensees and operators the question was raised about the disposition of revenue collected. In order to address this issue without creating the need for burdensome oversight the validation program 6b) Financial Donation was further modified to provide that contributions will be calculated on the cost of the valet queue spaces and leased parking lots registered with the City as part of the licensing agreement. Staff is confident these changes will result in the preservation of the program by keeping costs reasonable for customers opting to use valet services over self parking and reduce the number of valet queue requests with the provision of the validation programs. REVIEW BY OTHERS The Parking Management Advisory Board, at its meeting of May 24, 2011, recommended approval in a 9-1 vote, (Gergen dissenting) RECOMMENDATION By motion, approve the proposed form Valet Parking License Agreement, as provided for in the Staff report. THIS AGREEMENT ("The Agreement") is made this day of , 201_, by and between the CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, a Florida Municipal Corporation (the "CITY"), and , a Florida corporation ("LICENSEE"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, LICENSEE has requested permission to use a certain number of public parking spaces along Atlantic Avenue and certain side streets for valet parking queues; and WHEREAS, in order to use the parking spaces, the CITY requires that LICENSEE enter into this nonexclusive License Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00), the mutual covenants and conditions contained in this Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The parties hereby represent and warrant that the above recitals are accurate and correct and hereby incorporate them in this Agreement. 2. Parking Queues. The CITY agrees to allow LICENSEE the nonexclusive use of (#) parking spaces located for valet parking queues. The parking spaces are to be used for valet parking queues daily between the hours of p.m. to a.m. on ( # days per week). LICENSEE acknowledges that the valet parking queues may be unavailable for use during certain special events from time to time (as determined in the CITY's sole discretion) and during the special events, the license will not be valid. It is also understood by the terms of this Agreement that the valet queue location may from time to time be relocated by the CITY in its sole discretion after providing thirty (30) days' written notice to LICENSEE. The LICENSEE and or the Valet shall not restrict the use of the Valet Queues to only persons using the LICENSEE'S business, but the valet queue shall be open to anyone wanting to use the valet service offered by LICENSEE. The City Manager or his designee(s), shall enforce the provisions of this agreement, including the location, time, days of the valet service, parking limitations and requirements, and compliance with all applicable laws and ordinances. When required by law, the enforcement shall be accomplished through personnel authorized by law to enforce the law. further agrees that LICENSEE will provide the CITY with current written assurances and/or a lease agreement(s) for use of a private parking lot(s). The private lot(s) must also comply with minimum City codes for a parking lot(s). LICENSEE shall also provide the CITY with a copy of its current valet agreements, and a copy of its current insurance certificate as set forth in Exhibit A. LICENSEE will ensure that the valet service is operated in a manner that will not result in cars stacking on and/or blocking the travel ways of any alleyway, public street or parking lot. These assurances and agreements must be provided upon execution of this License Agreement when there is a change in any agreement referred to herein or upon the request of the CITY. Failure to comply with these conditions will be a basis for termination of this License Agreement. 4. Payment for Parking Queue Spaces. LICENSEE agrees to pay the CITY dollars ($.00) per month, per parking queue space utilized by the 10th of each month. A late fee of 5% will be charged after this date. If more than one License Agreement is issued for the queues, the fee will be shared proportionately. 5. Maximum Fee Permitted. At no time shall valet parking fees exceed ten dollars, $10.00). An extended stay fee in the amount of $5.00 may be assessed to vehicles parked in excess of four (4) hours, west of the Intracoastal waterway and in excess of two (2 hours east of Intracoastal waterway. Valet prices must be prominently displayed on valet stand and si~na~e. The base fee for validated customers shall be 50 % of the prevailing rate, not to exceed five dollars, $5.00). Extended stay fees are excluded from validation discounts. 6. Validation Programs. Valets shall provide validation programs with neighboring businesses in one of or combination of the following: a) Donation of Spaces: A nei~hborin~ business contracts the use of parkin spaces, in reasonable proximity of the valet queue, for use by the valet. Insurance costs for the spaces provided shall be the responsibility of the entityproviding same. b) Financial Donation: Neighboring businesses contribute towards the total expense of the City owned valet queue spaces and private parking lot(s), registered with the City in accordance with the license agreement, in exchange for validation of customer's vehicles. In no case shall a contribution exceed the cost of equal expense among all parties contributing to the queue i. e. License holder plus one neighboring business equals a contribution no greater than 50 %. License holder plus two neighboring businesses, contribution equals no greater that 33% each) businesses wishing to provide validated parking to customers. 7. Signage. The CITY agrees to post the valet parking queue spaces with valet parking times and days authorized. Sandwich board signs may not be used to advertise the valet service. Advertising signs will be allowed as prescribed by the City's Manager or his designee. 7 a, . Pricing Display: All displacepricing must be no less than three inches (3"~ in height in the same font, color and consistency of associated lettering. 8. Valet Service; Valet Equipment. The LICENSEE'S operator may for the storage of keys install a moveable, temporary, valet desk on the sidewalk, either public or private, during the hours of valet service so long as the desk does not impede the pedestrian flow. 9. Term and Renewal. This Agreement shall ewe-automatically renew, for accounts in good standing, on March 31 each year~~~sex^^ ~ '~^ rexe~=^~"~~~ +''^ ~'~'~~ "'~^r^ger ^r'~~r° ^ ^ ~ r ~~^'°* r^r'~~r° ^ °, if the City Manager determines, in his sole discretion, that the renewal is in the best interests of the CITY. The City Manager may add additional provisions to this agreement upon renewal, including but not limited to, the requirement to use an off-duty police officer during the time and dates the City Manager deems advisable. Accounts in arrears or unable to provide valid lease(s) and insurance at the time of renewal may be suspended without further notice until required payment or information is received. 10. Revocable License. This Agreement is only a nonexclusive License Agreement and may be revoked by the CITY at anytime with or without cause during the initial term or any renewals thereof upon providing written notice via U. S. Mail to LICENSEE. The revocation shall be effective when mailed. LICENSEE may cancel the agreement by providing written notice of cancellation no less than 30 days prior to cancellation. 11. Compliance with Laws. LICENSEE agrees to comply and adhere to all state laws and local ordinances regarding parking that exist or as amended from time to time. LICENSEE further acknowledges that due to the high traffic in this area, double parking unattended vehicles will not be permitted. 11 a) ADA Compliant Parldn~: LICENSEE acknowledges that handicapped parkin spaces, in leased parking lots, are subject to statutory regulation and may only be used for the parking of vehicles with valid ADA compliant license plate or hangi~~placard issued by any state. Direct access must be provided for vehicles unable to be operated by valet attendants, or to the following addresses: To CITY: David T. Harden, City Manager 100 N.W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 To LICENSEE: 13. Insurance. LICENSEE agrees to provide the CITY insurance for the valet service in the amounts and under the conditions prescribed in Exhibit A which shall at all times remain current. The City of Delray Beach shall be named an additional insured. 14. Indemnification. In consideration of the payment of Ten Dollars ($10.00), receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, LICENSEE shall protect, defend, indemnify and hold harmless the CITY from and against any and all claims, suits, actions, damages and/or causes of action arising during the Term of this Lease for any personal injury, loss of life and/or damage to property sustained in or about the parking spaces/queues by reason or as a result of the use and occupancy of the parking spaces/queues by LICENSEE, its agents, employees, licensees, invitees, and members of the public generally, and from and against any orders, judgments, and/or decrees which may be entered thereon, and from and against all costs, attorney fees, expenses and liabilities incurred in and about the defense of any such claim. In the event the CITY shall be made a party to any litigation commenced against LICENSEE or by LICENSEE against any third party, then the LICENSEE shall protect, defend, indemnify and hold the CITY harmless and pay all costs and attorney's fees incurred by the CITY in connection with such litigation, and any appeals thereof. 15. Third Parties. Nothing in this Agreement, whether express or implied, is intended to confer any rights or remedies under or by reason of this Agreement upon any person other than the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors, legal representatives, and permitted assigns, nor is anything in this Agreement intended to relieve or discharge the obligation or liability of any third persons to any party to this Agreement, nor shall any provision thereof give any third person any right of subrogation or action over or against any party LICENSEE for: (1) Valet parking of cars in either onstreet or offstreet public parking spaces; and/or (2) Valet parking of cars in the designated parking queues; and/or (3) Expanding the designated parking queues area. The penalty schedule for the above violations is as follows: 1st violation - warning 2nd violation - $200 3rd violation - $500 4th violation - Termination of License Agreement Notices of violation will be written by a Police Department representative and will be sent to the LICENSEE with a copy to the City Manager. Failure to make payment within thirty (30) days of receipt of the notice will result in termination of the agreement. LICENSEE acknowledges, however, notwithstanding the foregoing that the CITY may terminate this nonexclusive License Agreement without cause or for cause. LICENSEE will at all times comply with the City's policy/procedure for use of public parking spaces/queues which shall change from time to time subject to the sole discretion of the City. 17. Taxes. LICENSEE shall pay and comply with all laws regarding taxes, levies, assessments, fees and charges, including, but not limited to gross receipts, taxes, use taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes that may be imposed. 18. Assignment. This Agreement shall not be transferred or assigned without the express written consent of the CITY, which the CITY may withhold grants in its sole discretion. 19. Further Assurances. The parties shall from time to time execute and deliver such other and further instruments and documents and do all matters and things which may be convenient or necessary to more effectively and completely carry out the intent of this Agreement. 20. Binding Effect. All of the terms and provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon, inure to the benefit of, and be enforceable by, the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors, legal representatives, and permitted assigns. 21. Entire Agreement. This Agreement shall constitute the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter of it. All prior understandings and agreements between the parties with respect to such matters are merged into this Agreement, which alone fully and completely expresses their understanding. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed on their behalf this day of , 201_. THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, ATTEST: a Florida Municipal Corporation City Clerk By: Nelson S. McDuffie Approved as to form: City Attorney LICENSEE (CORPORATE SEAL) STATE OF By: Name Printed: Title: COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 201_, by , as (name of officer or agent, title of officer or agent), of (name of corporation acknowledging), a (state or place of incorporation) corporation, on behalf of the corporation. He/She is personally known to me or has produced (type of identification) as identification. Signature of Notary Public -State of Florida INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FORM Workers' Compensation per the Statutory limits of the State of Florida to include Employer's Liability Insurance with limits of at least $100,000/$500,000/$100,000. 2 Garage Liability Insurance of at least $1,000,000 combined single limits per occurrence to protect the City against all risks of injury to persons (including death) or damage to property wherever located resulting from any action or operation under the contract or in connection with the work. This policy is to provide coverage for premises/operations including auto liability, independent contractors, broad form contractual liability, products/completed operations. Garage Keepers Insurance with limits of no less than $60,000 per auto, with an annual aggregate of $500,000. 4 Automobile Liability of at least $300,000 combined single limits per occurrence for owned/nonowned/hired automobiles connected with the business. The City of Delray Beach and PRIVATE LOT OWNERS must be named as additional insured on the liability policies; and it must be stated on the certificate. 6 Thirty (30) days written cancellation notice required. 7 Best's guide rating B+, VIII or better, latest edition. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: July 15, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.G. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 19, 2011 FILLING UNEXPIRED TERM OF COMMISSIONER FETZER ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before the City Commission is to outline the process for filling the unexpired term of Commissioner Fred B. Fetzer. BACKGROUND Commissioner Fred B. Fetzer has submitted a letter of resignation from the City Commission effective August 1, 2011 which creates the need to fill his Commission Seat. The process for filling a Commission vacancy is set forth in Section 3.08(A) of the City Charter (copy attached). The remaining members of the City Commission are to select a person to fill the vacancy within two regular meetings of the vacancy taking place. In this case, the Commission will need to make the appointment by the August 16, 2011 regular meeting. The newly appointed Commissioner would then serve until March 2012, completing the term. In the event the Commission does not agree on a selection by the end of the August 16, 2011 meeting, a special election would have to be called and held within 60 days (from August 16) to fill the vacancy. Based on past practice, I would suggest that the Commission publicize the opening, and ask for applications to be submitted no later than July 29, 2011. The Commission could also set a time to interview candidates if you wish, although you may prefer to do that individually. The selection could be scheduled for the August 16, 2011 regular meeting. The swearing-in ceremony will need to take place at the next meeting. RECOMMENDATION Commission approve the process and schedule outlined above for filling the unexpired term of Commissioner Fred B. Fetzer. CHARTER, duties of (Mayor} {Commissioner} of the City, upon which I am about to enter. (So help me Gad.)" (Ord. No. 62-01, passed 118102, Adopted at Refer- endum 3/12/02} Section 3.06. MAYOR, VICE-MAYOR, AND DEPUTY VICE-MAYOR. (A) Duties of the Mayor. The Mayor shall pre- side at meetings of the Commission and represent the City in intergovernmental relationships. The Mayor shall be recognized as the head of the City government for all ceremonial purposes, service of process and by the Governor for purposes of military law. The Mayor shall execute contracts, deeds, intergovernmental agreements and certifi- cations, and other documents on behalf of the City, but shall have no administrative duties except as required to carry out the foregoing responsibilities. (B) Duties of the Vice-Mayor. In the absence or disability of the Mayor, the Vice-Mayor shall serve as Mayor, possessing all the powers, duties, and prerogatives of the Mayor. (C) Duties of the Deputy ice-Mayor. Whilo the Vice-Mayor is serving as Mayor, or in the absence or disability of the Vice-Mayor, or should the Vice-Mayor refuse to perform-the duties izz~pased by law, the Deputy Vice-Mayor shall have all the powers, duties, and prerogatives of the Vice- Mayor. (D) No Veto Power. The Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and Deputy Vice-Mayor shall each have a voice and a vote in the proceedings of the Commission, but no veto power. (Ord. Na. 62-01, passed 7./8/02, Adopted at Refer- endum 3112102) Section 3.07. FORFEITURE OF OFFICE. (A) Forfeiture of Office. Any Commissioner, including the Mayor, shall forfeit the office if that Commissioner or Mayor: (1} Ceases to possess the required qualifica- tions; or (2) Shall be convicted of a felony; or § 3A8 (3) Violates any standard of conduct or code of ethics established by law for public officials, as determined by a majority vote of the remaining Commissioners and Mayor; or (4) Fails to attend four (4) consecutive regu- lar Commission meetings, unless excused for good cause by a majority vote of the remaining Commissioners and Mayor. {B) Declaration of Vacancies. It shall be the duty of the remaining Commissioners to declare the office vacant as a result of forfeiture and to fill the vacancy as provided in this Charter: (Ord. No. 62-01, passed 118102, Adopted at Refer- endum 3112102) Section 3.08. VACANCIES; FILLING OF VA- CANCIES. The office of a Commissioner, including the Mayor, shall become vacant upon the incumbent's death, resignation, forfeiture, or removal from office in any manner authorized by law. Any vacancy in the membership of the Commission, other than at the close of a regular term, shall be filled according to the following procedure. (A) Vacancy in Office of Commissioner. In the event of a vacancy other than in the office of the Mayor, the remaining Commissioners, including the Mayor, shall appoint, by a majority vote, a qualified person to fill the vacancy. (1) If the term of office in which the vacancy occurs expixes on the last Thursday in March following the next regular City election, the person so appointed shall only serve until that date. (2) If the vacancy occurs sixty (60) or mare days preceding the date of the next regu- lar City election, and if the term of office in which the vacancy occurs does not expire on the last Thursday in March following that election, the person so ap- pointed shall serve until the last Thurs- day in March and the remainder of the unexpired term shall be filled at that election. (3) If the vacancy occurs less than sixty (60) days preceding the date of the next regu- CHT:S § 3.08 DELRAY BEACH CODE lar City election, and if the term of office in which the vacancy occurs does not expire an the last Thursday in March follnwix~g that election, the person so ap- pointed shall serve for the entire remain- der of the unexpired term. (4) If a majority of the remaining Commis- sioners, including the Mayar, are unable to agree, after two (2) regular meetings, upon the appointment of an individual to fill a vacancy. The Commission shall call a special electron to fill the vacancy. The special election shall be held within sixty (60) calendar days of the second regular meeting. {B) Vacancy in Office of Mayor. (1) If a vacancy in the office of Mayor occurs at least sixty (60} or more calendar days preceding the date of the next regular City election, there will be an election to fill the Mayor's seat which will be held at the time of the next regular City election. If a vacancy occurs rn the office of Mayor less than sixty {60) calendar days preced- ing the date of the regular City election, the Mayor shall be elected at a special election to be held on the second Tuesday in May. If a special election is held to fill the office of Mayor, those persons who previously qualified to run for the Mayor's seat and other candidates who qualify pursuant to this Charter and Chapter 34 of the Cade of Ordinances znay run. fox the Mayor's seat to be filled at the special election. Notwithstanding anything to the cnntraxy, the Mayar elected at the special election shall assume office after the first regular meeting after being elected. {2) When a vacancy occurs in the aft"ice of Mayor, the Vice-Mayar shall automati- cally succeed to the office of Mayor and shall serve until the last Thursday in March following the next regular City election. Thereafter, the Vice-Mayor shall return to his or her former seat and c~m- plete the remainder of his ar her Commis- sion term if any part thereof remains unexpired. If a special election is called to fill a vacancy in the office of Mayor, the Vice-Mayor selected at the organizational meeting shall serve until a new Mayor is seated and shall thereafter return to his or her soot. (3) The succession of the office of Mayar by the Vice-Mayar shall create a vacancy in the Commission. The vacancy on the Com- mission shall be filled in the manner set Earth in this Charter except the Commis- sioner appointed to fill the vacancy cxe- ated on the Commission as a result of a vacancy in the office of Mayor that occurs sixty (60) days nr more before the next election shall serve only until the last Thursday in March following the next regular City election. If a vacancy occurs an the Commissian as a result of a va- cancy inthe office of Mayor less than sixty (60) days before the next election, the Commission seat shall remain vacant, not- withstanding anything to the contrary within this Charter until after the assump- tion of office of the Mayor after the special election. (4} If the Vice-Mayor is unable or unwilling to succeed to the office of Mayor, then the Deputy Vice-Mayor shall succeed to the office of Mayor. If the Deputy Vice-Mayar is unable nr unwilling to succeed to the office of Mayor, the Commission shall then select a Mayor from the remaining Com- missioners. If the Commission is unable to select a Mayar by the end of the second regular meeting after the vacancy then a special election shall be held for the elec- tion of the Mayor. (5) If a vacancy occurs in the office of Vrce- Mayor, the Deputy Vice-Mayor shall auto- matically became Vice-Mayar and a new Deputy Vice-Mayar shall be selected by the Commission. If a vacancy occurs in the office of Deputy Vice-Mayor, the Com- mission shall then select a new Deputy Vice-Mayor. (C) Extraordinary Vacancies. In the event that all members of the Commission are removed by death, disability, resignation or forfeiture of of- CHT:6 ,~ ~ 1. r f ~ ~. qa ~, r ~ ... ~ ~ ~ f~'_~ir ,~ ti _ ~ ~, ~,r, 4., t: ~ r. r !t. ~m.. ,a,.. r , tl, ~, i',r r`~ ~'f ~ :Ilr ~ ~, ~i( ~ ~ ~ r i r.. f, . r.. ? n. I, _. ,.._ ., .. i .~i~~ i ;lip i r _u ~ .,. r.. ~~~ ti4i~ _ t~1 ~ -r .. .. ,., li, I I,. i~ ~, ~ fs r!~,. . r ~. i~ r ~ ~ !~"~ ~ ,'. ,~ ~ ~.. ~ '~ il!_ ~~. F.I. ~ I .r ~. ~ ~ r r~~i,_ ib.` _ .i ~'I. ~ ~ I11 y MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: July 6, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.H. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 19, 2011 APPOINTMENT TO THE FINANCIAL REVIEW BOARD ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before the City Commission for an appointment to the Financial Review Board. BACKGROUND Mr. Andrew Youngross, alternate member on the Financial Review Board, submitted his resignation effective June 20, 2011. Please see his resignation email attached. An appointment is needed for one (1) alternate member to serve a two (2) year term ending July 31, 2013. On October 6, 2009, the Delray Beach City Commission adopted Resolution No. 55-09 establishing the Budget Review Committee to review the City's budget, systems and procedures, technology improvements, or related materials and concepts and make recommendations regarding revenues, salaries and benefits, operating expenses, debt service expenses, capital outlay, grants to other entities and transfers to other funds or any other items that may favorably impact the City's budget and overall financial condition. The Commission later adopted Resolution No. 58-09 which renamed the committee as the Financial Review Board with the expanded responsibilities of analysis of revenues and expenses and business practices and processes. Resolution No. OS-ll provided for further amendments to clarify that the Board's duties shall fall under the direction of the City Manager or City Commission and to restrict the membership of the Board. The Financial Review Board shall consist of nine (9) members. Five (5) seats on the Board must be filled with a certified public accountant, accounting professional, finance professional, certified financial planner, investment advisor, insurance professional (property/casualty or health), business owner/manager/officer and someone with an MBA or MPA degree. The remaining four (4) members may be at large. The following individuals have submitted applications and would like to be considered for appointment: Applicant interested in being an at-lame member: Nayda Cottone-Ovadia Nursing (currently serving on the Nuisance Abatement Board) Bradley Winney Investor/Director (also applying for the Police Advisory Board) A check for code violations and/or municipal liens was conducted. None were found. Voter registration verification was completed and they are registered. Based on the rotation system, the appointment will be made by Commissioner Fetzer (Seat #2) for one (1) alternate member to serve a two (2) year term ending July 31, 2013. RECOMMENDATION Recommend appointment of one (1) alternate member to serve on the Financial Review Board for a two (2) year term ending July 31, 2013. FINANCIAL REVIEW BOARD 6/11 TERM EXPIRES REGULAR MEMBERS OCCUPATION 07/31/12 Warren Trilling Certified Public Uncspllppr 05/17/11 Accountant 07/31/12 Howard Ellingsworth, Chair Accounting llppc 10~20~09 Partner/CPA Rcappt07/OC/10 07/31 /13 John Hallahan Assistant Director of un~~p ~ppt oa/05/11 Operations RcapptOC/21/11 07/31/12 Rosalie Blood Vice President/ llppr 10/20/0 alr General Manager 11ppt07/OC/10 rcg 07/31/13 Christina Morrison Pearce Realtor 11ppr11/03/09 RcapptC/21/11 07/31/13 Jeff Ritter Consulting Uncsp llppt 04/05/11 RcapptOC/21/11 07/31/12 Luise Piane Executive llppc 07~20~10 Management ALTERNATE S 07/31/13 Anthony Cottone Business llppc °~~a1~11 Owner/Finance 07/31/11 Vacant Contact: Barbara Flynn X-7115 S~Cit~- C1erk~Board 11~Financial Re~riew Board Cobb, Venice From: Andrew Youngross Candrew@tecfla.com] Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 12:19 PM To: Cobb, Venice Cc: Shutt, Brian Subject: resignation from financial board Dear Denise, Effective immediately, Ihear-by tender my resignation from the Financial Review Board for the city of Defray Beach. This decision is based on conversations with the city attorney for determining if my current work for the city and any future work for the city may be a conflict of interest. Based on our conversation today, and from information that Mr. Shutt obtained this morning, we think that my appointment could create a conflict of interest. Please remove me from any future consideration from this board since my company will continue to provide services to the city now and in the future. I thank the city and the city commissioners for my consideration for this board and apologize for not being able to participate on this board. Sincerely yours, Andrew J. Youngross Tf you have piny questions or concerns please contact me. Sincerely, Andrew Youngross, P.E. Ext: 17 ~.. - ;: ~ ... r _. _~ _...,~.:.: .,,.. ,_ _ ,. ,.,~ .~ .w t, -- . 1~ ~ ~ i ~, f~SCA~i ~ yQ~ ~~~A~ ~ ,~. ~ www.TECI;LA.conn 312 Southeast 10th Street Delray Beach, Florida 33483-3426 Voice: 561.274.0200 /Fax: 561.274.0222 $ 561.272.7950 ELECTRONIC MEDIA DISCLOSURE In accepting and utilizing any farm of electronic media generafied and provided by Thompson ~ Youngross Engineering Consultants, I.I.C ('rYEC}, the Recipient covenants and agrees that all such drawings and data are instruments of service of TYEC, who shalt be deemed the author of the drawings and data, and shall retain all common law and other rights, including copyrights. The Recipient further agrees not to use the CAD datuments in whale ar in part, for any purpose ar project other than the project which is the subject of this Agreement_ The Recipient agrees to waive all claims against TYEC resulting in any way from any unauthorized changes or reuse of the drawings and data for any other project by anyone other than TYEC. In addition, the Recipient agrees, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to indemnify and hold TYEC harmless from any damage, liability or cost, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs of defense, arising from any changes made by anyone other than TYEC or from any reuse of the drawings and data withau# the prior written consent of TYEC. ilnder no circumstances shall transfer of the drawings and other instruments of service on electronic media far use by the Recipient be deemed a sale by merchantability and fitness for any particular purpose. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: July 6, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.I. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 19, 2011 APPOINTMENTS TO THE EDUCATION BOARD ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before the City Commission for appointments to the Education Board. BACKGROUND The terms for regular members Mr. Peter Raycroft and Ms. Sandra Tobias will expire on July 31, 2011. Ms. Tobias will have served two (2) full terms and is not eligible for reappointment. Mr. Raycroft will have served one (1) full term and would not like to be considered for reappointment. Secondly, there is a vacancy for a student member to serve a one (1) year tem ending July 31, 2012. Appointments are needed for two (2) regular members to serve two (2) year terms ending July 31, 2013, and one (1) student member to serve a one (1) year term ending July 31, 2012. Members of the Education Board must be a resident of the City, own property, own or operate a business within the City or have a child attending Delray Beach public schools. it is the intent, whenever possible, that the membership include persons with a background in business, real estate and/or education. The following individuals have submitted applications and would like to be considered for appointment: (See Exhibit "A" attached) A check for code violations and/or municipal liens was conducted. None were found. Voter registration verification was completed and all are registered with the exception of the student applicant who is not registered to vote. Based on the rotation system, the appointments will be made as follows: Term Expiration Date Commissioner/Mayor to appoint July 31, 2013 (regular member-two year term) Commissioner Fetzer (Seat #2) July 31, 2013 (regular member-two year term) Commissioner Fetzer (Seat #2) July 31, 2012 (student member-one year term) Commissioner Frankel (Seat #3) RECOMMENDATION Recommend appointment to the Education Board of two (2) regular members to serve two (2) year terms ending July 31, 2013, and one (1) student member to serve a one (1) year term ending July 31, 2012. o~iu EDUCATION BOARD TERM EXPIRES NAME & ADDRESS OCCUPATION 07/31 /2013 LeAnne DeRigne Educator a~ 07/o5/ii 07/31/2012 Jose Herrera Special Events Coordinator Unexp Appt04/21/11 07/31/2012 Derline Pierre-Louis, Vice Q-~ir a~ 07/15/08 President/Plan & Pudget Reappt o7/zo/1o Revie~r 07/31 /2012 Amanda Orndorff Unexp Appt 10/19/10 Educator 07/31 /2012 Debra Kaiser a~ o7/zo/1o Senior Director 07/31 /2012 Sandra Weatherspoon, Qzair Amt 07/15/08 Assistant PnnClpal Reappt07/20/10 7/31 /2013 Lydia Carreiro unexp a~ 10/06/09 Educator Reappt06/21/11 07/31 /2011 Sandra Tobias unexp a~ oz/z1/o6 Real Estate/Educator Reappt07/24/07 Reappt07/07/09 07/31/2013 Isabel Make a~ o6/z1/ii Educator/Consultant 07/31 /2011 Mr. Peter Raycroft Unexp Appt 01/03/08 Educator Reappt07/07/09 07/31 /2013 Myra Leavy Pazemore unexp a~ 1z/o7/1o Educator Reappt06/21/11 STUDENT MEMBERS (one term limit) 7/31 /2013 Madison Aracri Appt 06/21/ 11 Stlldel"it 2 YEAR TERM 7/31/2012 Student 1 YEAR TERM Vacant CITY REPRESENTATIVE: Janet Meeks -Education Coordinator 243-7231 COMMISSION LIAISON: Commissioner Fred Fetzer (I'ruraryMember) Commissioner Nelson McDuffie (Alternate Member) EDUCATION BOARD EXHIBIT A Mary-E lizabeth Cohn Qaudia Flores Nfiriam Hanan Julia Kadel Sandra Owea-~s Trevis Pridgen Sharon Roth Education/Sales & Consultant Banking-Assistant Vice President Retired Principal Director of Admissions Educator Student Retired Business Development Manager MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: July 6, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.J. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 19, 2011 APPOINTMENTS TO THE POLICE ADVISORY BOARD ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before the City Commission for appointments to the Police Advisory Board. BACKGROUND The term for regular member, Mr. Kevin Warner, will expire on July 31, 2011. Mr. Warner will have served an unexpired term, is eligible and would like to be considered for reappointment. Secondly, there is a vacancy due to Ms. Isabel Make being appointed to the Education Board at the June 21st City Commission meeting. The term is unexpired ending July 31, 2012. Appointments are needed for one (1) regular member to serve a two (2) year term ending July 31, 2013, and one (1) regular member to serve an unexpired term ending July 31, 2012. Please note that there is a vacancy for a student member. However, there are no student applicants at this time. In order to qualify for appointment, a person shall be either a resident of, own property, own a business or be an officer, director or manager of a business located within the City of Delray Beach. Membership shall include a diverse cross section of the community; business owners, religious and faith based organizations, youth, school officials and local organizations, where feasible. The following individuals have submitted applications and would like to be considered for appointment: (See Exhibit "A" attached) A check for code violations and/or municipal liens was conducted. None were found. Voter registration verification was completed and all are registered. Based on the rotation system, the appointments will be made by Commissioner Fetzer (Seat #2) for one (1) regular member to serve a two (2) year term ending July 31, 2013, and Commissioner Carney (Seat #1) for one (1) regular member to serve an unexpired term ending July 31, 2012. RECOMMENDATION Recommend appointment of one (1) regular member to serve on the Police Advisory Board for a two (2) year term ending July 31, 2013, and one (1) regular member to serve an unexpired term ending July 31, 2012. POLICE ADVISORY BOARD 06/11 TERM EXPIRES NAME & ADDRESS 07/31 /13 DeAnna Longo a~ o6/z1/ii 07/31 /12 Jennifer Morris Unexp Appt 10/19/10 07/31 /12 Ellen Major-Hanna a~ o~/zo/1o 07/31 /12 Vacant Unexp Appt 07/31 /13 MatthewMonahan Unexp Appt04/20/10 Reappt06/21/11 07/31 /13 Shelly Weil a~ o6/z1/ii 07/31 /12 Carl Forrest, Chairperson Unexp Appt 01/05/10 Reappt07/20/10 07/31/12 Lee Cohen Unexp Appt 06/21/11 07/31 /12 Edith Thompson a~ o~/zo/1o 07/31 /13 Catherine DeMatto a~ o6/z1/ii 07/31 /11 Kevin Warner Unexp Appt 01/05/10 07/31 /13 Elisha Porter (Student) 07/31/12 (Student) Vacant Contact: Venice Cobb 243-7056 S/CityQerk/Board 11/Police AchnsoryBoard City of Delray Beach Police Advisory Board -Applicants Exhibit A 1. Annette Annechild Resident 2. Wyana Claxton ResidentBusiness Owner 3. Walter Earley Resident 4. Mercatur Guerrier Resident 5. John Jackson Resident 6. Samuel Menard Resident 7. Robert Shell Resident 8. Kevin Warner Incumbent Resident 9. Bradley Winney Resident • Bradley Winney (also applying for the Financial Review Board) MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: July 6, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.K. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 19, 2011 APPOINTMENT TO NUISANCE ABATEMENT BOARD ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before City Commission for an appointment to the Nuisance Abatement Board. BACKGROUND The term for regular member Ms. Nayda Cottone-Ovadia, will expire on July 31, 201 L Ms. Nayda Cottone-Ovadia will have served an unexpired term, is eligible and would like to be considered for reappointment. An appointment is needed for one (1) regular member to serve a two (2) year term ending July 31, 2013. The Nuisance Abatement Board was established by Ordinance No. 59-96 on January 21, 1997, for the purpose of hearing evidence related to the existence of certain public nuisances on premises located in the City. The board consists of five regular members and two alternate members. Members shall be residents of, own property, own a business or be an officer, director or manager of a business located within the City, and are appointed by an affirmative vote of at least four members of the City Commission. The following individual has submitted an application and would like to be considered for appointment: Nayda Cottone-Ovadia Incumbent A check for code violations and/or municipal liens was conducted. None were found. Voter registration verification was completed and she is registered. Based on the rotation system, the appointment will be made by Commissioner Fetzer (Seat#2) for one (1) regular member to serve a two (2) year term ending July 31, 2013. RECOMMENDATION Recommend appointment of one (1) regular member to the Nuisance Abatement Board to serve a two (2) year term ending July 31, 2013. NUISANCE ABATEMENT 07/11 TERM EXPIRES REGULAR MEMBERS OCCUPATION 07/31 /2012 Wendy Smith Health Policy Unexp Appt 08/18/09 alt COnSUltant Amt 02/16/10 reg 07/31/2013 Greta Britt N/A Amt o~/05/11 07/31 /2011 Nayda Cottone-Ovadia Unexp Appt 09/07/10 Nuns' 07/31 /2012 Linda Laurence-Leib Office Manager Amt Alt a~/m/o9 Amt Reg 06/18/09 imexp Rea 08/17/10 07/31 /2013 Theresa DiPerna Personal Assistant Amt o~/05/11 ALTERNATES 07/31 /2013 Patricia Conlon Unexp Appt 09/21/10 Reappt07/05/11 Marketing Manager 07/31 /2011 Barry Tunick Retired Business Unexp Appt 07/20/10 O~le~' BOARD COUNSEL Steve D. Rubiry E sq POLICE LEGAL ADVISOR Cathy Kozol Contact: Venice Cobb S/CityQerk/Board 11/Nirissance Abatement MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: July 7, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.L. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 19, 2011 APPOINTMENT TO PUBLIC ART ADVISORY BOARD ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before City Commission for an appointment to the Public Art Advisory Board. BACKGROUND Regular member, Ms. Annette Gray submitted her resignation effective immediately. This creates a vacancy for one (1) regular member to serve a two (2) year term ending July 31, 2013. The Public Art Advisory Board is established for the purpose of advising and making recommendations to the City Commission with respect to public art policy and related issues including, but not limited to, the selection, construction, placement and/or funding of public art in/on City right-of-way, City owned property and private property where an agreement, acceptable to the City, has been executed regarding the art and the art is clearly visible by the public. The Public Art Advisory Board shall consist of seven (7) members. Three seats on the board must be filled with either an artist, architect, landscape architect or engineer. The Commission shall endeavor to appoint as many disciplines as possible to the board. Lay persons of knowledge, experience and judgment who have an interest in public art shall make up the balance of the board. The following individuals have submitted applications and would like to be considered for appointment: (See Exhibit A attached) A check for code violations and/or municipal liens was conducted. None were found. Voter registration verification was completed and all are registered. Based on the rotation system, the appointment will be made by Commissioner Fetzer (Seat #2) for one (1) regular member to serve a two (2) year term ending July 31, 2013. RECOMMENDATION Recommend appointment of one (1) regular member to the Public Art Advisory Board to serve a two (2) year term ending July 31, 2013. PUBLIC ART ADVISORY BOARD 07/11 TERM EXPIRES REGULAR MEMBERS OCCUPATION 07/31 /13 Ora Sorensen Business Owner Unexp Appt 10/16/10 Reappt07/05/11 07/31 /12 Dana Donaty, Qzair Artist Amt 07/15/08 Reappt07/20/10 07/31 /13 Vacant 07/31 /12 Sandi Franciosa Amt o~/zo/1o Administrative Asst/Retired 07/31 /12 Michiko Kurisu Artist/Photographer Amt 07/15/08 Reappt07/20/10 07/31/12 RichardMcGloiry Vice Qzair Electrical Engineer Amt 07/15/08 Reappt07/20/10 07/31 /13 Mary Minieka Administration Amt o~/z1/oa Reappt07/05/11 Contact: BJ Wigderson X7322 S/CityQerk/Boardll/I'ublic Art AchnsoryBoard Commission Liaison: Commissioner Frankel Cobb, Venice From: Wigderson, Betty,~o Sent: Monday, May 23, 2(111 11:49 AM To: Cobb, Venice Subject: FW: Board Resignation- I~AAB Annette Gray Hi Venice, Annette is resigning. Let me know if you need anything else. Thanks! BJ Wigderson City of Delray Seach 434 5. Swinton Avenue Delray Oeach, Fl_ 33444 5~~-z43-73~z wi~dersonCct7mvdeir~beach.com From: Annnette Gray [mailto:anisette@rainbowmarketinginc.net~ Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 1].:46 AM To: Wigderson, BettyJo Subject; Board Resignation Hella, unfortunately despite my significant efforts I have not been able to resole my scheduling conflict. Subsequently 1 am submitting my official resignation from the hoard. Best wishes. Respectfully Annette Gray ~ ---,. ~ ~ ~ y- .~~~ ?l/ . q ~ ~ k F ,. ~-~.. -..V y kr Office/Fa~: 866-342-5777 14545 K Military Tr. #306 Delray Beach Fl 33484 Info rainbowmarke#in inc.net www.rainbowmarketineinc.net https://twitter.comlannettegrayRM I htt~://www.youtube.com/watch?v_=IYSbmnploTl htt www.facebook.com a es Delra -Beach-Fl. Rainbow-Marketin 150208415005259 PUBLIC ART ADVISORY BOARD EXHIBIT A Applicants interested in serving as lay persons: Applicant Daniel Bellante Marilynn Gladstone Alexia Rouquette Samuel Spear, Jr. Occupation Business Owner Retired Real Estate/Nlarketing/Public Relations Computer Consultant Kera Trowbridge Interviewer-Panelist MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: July 7, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.M. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 19, 2011 APPOINTMENTS TO PARKING MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before City Commission for appointments to the Parking Management Advisory Board. BACKGROUND The terms for regular members, Mr. Bruce Gimmy (Citizen-at-Large) and Mr. Brian Rosen (Citizen-at- Large) will expire on July 31, 2011. Mr. Gimmy and Mr. Rosen will have served unexpired terms, are eligible and would like to be considered for reappointment. Appoinments are needed for two (2) Citizen-at-Large Representatives to serve two (2) year terms ending July 31, 2013. The Parking Management Advisory Board was established by Resolution No. 88-97 on December 9, 1997. The purpose of the Board is to advise and provide recommendations to the City Commission regarding parking management policy and related issues including but not limited to, the planning, financing, development, construction and operation of parking facilities within the boundaries of the Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA), as well as, all public parking areas located along State Road A-1-A within the corporate limits of the City. The following individuals have submitted applications and would like to be considered for appointment: Mark Denkler Bruce Gimmy Incumbent George Mancini Brian Rosen Incumbent A check for code violations and/or municipal liens was conducted. None were found. Voter registration verification was completed and all are registered. Based on the rotation system, the appointments will be made by Commissioner Fetzer (Seat #2) and Commissioner Gray (Seat #4) for two (2) Citizen-at-Large Representatives to serve on the Parking Management Advisory Board for two (2) year terms ending July 31, 2013. RECOMMENDATION Recommend appointment of two (2) Citizen-at-Large Representatives to serve on the Parking Management Advisory Board for two (2) year terms ending July 31, 2013. 07/11 PARKING MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD TERM MEMBERS CATEGORY EXPIRES 07/31 /11 Mark Krall a~ 09/20/10 P & Z Ratified 10/19/10 07/31/12 William Morse CHAMBERS a~ 0/21/10 Ratified 08/17/10 07/31/11 Herman Stevens CRA a~ 0/09/09 Ratified 09/10/09 07/31 /12 Margie Walden WARC Unexp Appt 10/19/10 Ratified 11/02/10 07/31 /12 Fran Marincola, Q~air a~ m/2o/o6 alt DDA Ratified 08/15/06 alt Reappt07/14/08 reg Ratified 08/19/08 reg Reappt07/12/10 Ratified 08/17/10 The representatives above are ratified by the City commission. The representatives below are appointed by the City Commission. 07/31 /12 Peggy Murphy Atlantic Avenue Comdor a~ 01/05/10 $etween Swinton Avenue and the Intracoastal 07/31 /12 Alan Kornblau Atlantic Avenue Comdor Unexp Appt 01/03/08 $etWeen SWiritOn AVenue Reappt 01/05/10 and Interstate 95 07/31 /12 John Gergen Atlantic Avenue and State Unexp Appt 05/06/08 Road AIA COTT1dO2S and Reappt o1/05/10 lying East of the Intracoastal Waterwa 07/31 /12 Cecelia $oone Old School Square Unexp Appt 03/21/06 H1St021C AT'fS I~LStt1Ct Reappt0l/15/08 Reappt0l/05/10 07/31 /11 Mr. $ruce Gimmy Citizen at-Large Unexp Appt 12/01/09 07/31 /11 Brian Rosen Citizenat-Large PARKING MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD ALTERNATE MEMBERS TERM MEMBERS CATEGORY EXPIRES 07/31 /12 Cary Glickstein &Z Unexp Appt 10/18/10 Ratified 11/16/10 07/31 /12 CHAMBERS Vacant 07/31/12 Veronica Covington CRA Appt 06/24/10 Ratified 08/17/10 07/31 /12 ARC Vacant 07/31 /12 Diane Franco DA Unexp 08/21/09 Ratified 11/17/09 Reappt07/12/10 Ratified 08/17/10 S/City Clerk/Boardll/I'arking Mana~xnent AchnsoryBoard Contact: Scott Aronson -Parking Management Specialist 243-7196 Commission Liaison: Commissioner Carney MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: July 7, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.N. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 19, 2011 APPOINTMENTS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY COUNCIL ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before City Commission for appointments to the Neighborhood Advisory Council. BACKGROUND The terms for regular members, Ms. Laura Reines (Zone 2), Ms. Gail-Lee McDermott (Zone 5), Ms. Linda Prior (Zone 6), Ms. Mary-Elizabeth Cohn (Zone 2), Mr. William Milner (At Large Representative), Ms. Patricia Westall (At Large Representative), and student members Ms. Andrea Poveda and Ms. Diane Ciuca will expire on July 31, 2011. Secondly, there is a vacancy for Zone (1) due to the resignation of Mr. Sal Cherch. Ms. Reines will have served an unexpired term and would not like to be considered for reappointment. Ms. Cohn will have served one (1) full term and would not like to be considered for reappointment. Ms. McDermott and Ms. Prior will have served one (1) full term, are eligible and would like to be considered for reappointment. Mr. Milner and Ms. Poveda will have served an unexpired term, are eligible and would like to be considered for reappointment. Ms. Westall will have served two (2) consecutive terms and is not eligible for reappointment. Ms. Diana Ciuca will have served one (1) full term and is not eligible for reappointment. Appointments are needed for five (5) regular members to serve three (3) year terms ending July 31, 2014, and one (1) student member to serve a one (1) year term ending July 31, 2012. Following these appointments there will still be two (2) vacancies for Zone 2 because there are no applicants at this time. There will also be a vacancy for a student member since there is only one (1) applicant at this time. The Neighborhood Advisory Council was established for the purpose of maintaining broad-based community involvement with the residents, creating neighborhood outreach initiatives, enhancing communication, improving the aesthetics of the neighborhoods and identifying any potential threats to the stability of the neighborhoods. The Council consists of fifteen (15) regular and two (2) student members. Twelve (12) members are residents with two (2) selected from each of the six neighborhood zones, and three (3) at large representatives, who may be selected from a community civic organization or business owner located within a neighborhood zone interested in the enhancement of its surrounding neighborhoods. A map of the appointment zones is included for your review. The following individuals have submitted applications for consideration: (See Exhibit "A" attached) Based on the rotation system, the appointments will be made as follows: Term Expiration Date Commissioner/Mayor to appoint July 31, 2014 (regular member-three year term) July 31, 2014 (regular member-three year term) July 31, 2014 (regular member-three year term) July 31, 2014 (reg. member-at large -three year term) July 31, 2014 (reg. member-at large -three year term) July 31, 2012 (student member-one year term) RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Gray (Seat #4) Commissioner Mayor McDuffie (Seat #5) Commissioner Carney (Seat #1) Commissioner Fetzer (Seat #2) Commissioner Frankel (Seat #3) Commissioner Gray (Seat #4) Recommend appointment of five (5) regular members to the Neighborhood Advisory Council to serve three (3) year terms ending July 31, 2014, and one (1) student member to serve a one (1) year term ending July 31, 2012. 04/11 NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY COUNCIL TERM EXPIRES DISTRICT NAME & ADDRESS 07/31/13 Zone 1 Susan Sims Uncspllpptll/1C/10 07/31/11 Zone 2 Laura Reines Uncsp 11ppt 12/08/09 07/31/13 Zone 3 Linda Laurence Leib Uncspllpptl0/17/OC Rcapptl0/1C/07 Rca t10/19/10 07/31/13 Zone 4 Suzanne Donohue 11ppt10/19/10 07/31/11 Zone 5 Gail-Lee McDermott Uncsp 03/03/08 Rcapptl0/07/08 07/31/11 Zone 6 Linda Prior Uncsp 11ppt 02/20/07 Rcapptl0/07/08 07/31/11 Zone 1 Lncsp 11ppt Vacant 07/31/11 Zone 2 Mary-Elizabeth Cohn 11ppt10/21/08 07/31/12 Zone 3 Shirl Fields 11ppt10/17/OC Rca t10/OC/09 07/31/12 Zone 4 Isabel Make Uncsp 11ppt 10/20/09 07/31/12 Zone 5 Matthew Hartley, 1s~ Vice Chair 11ppt10/17/OC Rca t10/OC/09 07/31/12 Zone 6 Joseph Kamarata, Chair 11ppt10/17/OC Rca t10/OC/09 07/31/11 At Large William 1Milner, 2nd Vice Chair Ucnsp 11ppr 02/03/09 Re resentative 07/31/11 At Large Patricia Westall Uncsp 11ppr 04/19/05 Representative Rcapptl0/25/05 Rca t10/07/08 07/31/12 At Large MargheritaDowney llppc 10~0C~09 Re resentative 07/31/11 Student Andrea Poveda 07/31/11 Uncsp 11ppr 04/OC/10 Student Diana Ciuca Rcappt08/03/10 Board ll/Neighborhood Advisory Council NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY COUNCIL EXHIBIT A Applicant Subdivision Zone 1 Theresa Dil'erna Pines of Delray Zone 3 Patricia Conlon Citation Club Ivan Ladizinslcy Eastwinds Mary Minieka (currently serving on the Public Art Advisory Board) Linton Lakes Zone 4 Bonnie Altenhein Del Ida Park Barbara Chester Lake Eden LeaAnne DelZigne Delray Lalces Mel Pollack (currently serving on the Board of Adjustment) N/A Alexia Rouquette Mays Plumosa Park Zone 5 David Armstrong Town of Delray Vicki Hill Sunset Park Gail-Lee McDermott Incumbent Osceola Park David Stein Osceola Park Zone 6 Annie Adkins Roof Captains Wallc Brenda Cullman Tropic Bay Dennis Guy Tropic Isles Linda Prior Incumbent Lavers Maureen Smith Tropic Isle Applicant At Large Representative Annie Adkins Roof Bonnie Altenhein David Armstrong Barbara Chester Lee Cohen Patricia Conlon Brenda Cullman LeaAnne DelZigne Dennis Guy Vicki Hill Ivan Ladizinslcy William Milner Incumbent Mary Minieka (currently serving on the Public Art Advisory Board) Mel Pollack (currently serving on the Board of Adjustment) Linda Prior Incumbent Alexia Rouquette Mays Maureen Smith David Stein Student Subdivision Captains Wallc Del Ida Park Town of Delray Lake Eden Citation Club Tropic Bay Delray Lakes Tropic Isles Sunset Park Eastwinds Linton Lalces N/A Lavers Plumosa Park Tropic Isle Osceola Park Andrea Poveda Incumbent CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA IVeigh,borhood Advisory Council -Appointment Zones ...~ ~~ CITY CtF DFZRAY 8EAC1{ FL ALADO~IAYG 6 ZONYNG DEPAATMIBIVI' MARCH 2006 „- _, . ~ ONE MILE ~ CRY LIMB •~~~~~~~~~~~~ -•OIGR'ALBA9EliMPSYSTAf-- GRAPHlC SCALE --- --- # -AREA IV[AMBER MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: July 14, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.A. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 19, 2011 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT/CDS DELRAY REDEVELOPMENT LLC/CDR ATLANTIC PLAZA, LTD ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before Commission to consider approval of a Development Agreement with CDS Delray Redevelopment, LLC., and CDR Atlantic Plaza, LTD. regarding the Atlantic Plaza Project. BACKGROUND At the July 19, 2011 Regular Meeting Commission passed the Development Agreement. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of the Development Agreement. Coversheet MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: R. Brian Shutt, City Attorney DATE: June 28, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.B. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 5, 2011 DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT REGARDING THE ATLANTIC PLAZA PROJECT ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Developer's Agreement regarding the Atlantic Plaza project. BACKGROUND Page 1 of 2 The Developer of the Atlantic Plaza project has requested that the City enter into the attached Developer's Agreement. Pursuant to Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes, municipalities may enter into developer's agreements, regarding a development project, in order to assure the developer that the existing laws and regulations shall govern the development agreement. This Agreement does not affect the previously approved agreements regarding the relocation of N.E. 7th Avenue, which provides that N.E. 7th Avenue must be completed by December 29, 2016. This Agreement provides that the previously approved conditional use, site plan and waivers shall be valid for the term of the Developer's Agreement. The normal expiration dates for the conditional use approval is December, 9, 2012 and for site plan approval is April 7, 2013. Under the terms of the Developer's Agreement the approvals shall remain in effect for a period of 10 years from the date of the execution of the Agreement. The Agreement also provides that sidewalk cafes and valet parking shall be allowed, pursuant to the existing regulations. Furthermore, once a certain level of construction has been achieved, the reconstruction and relocation of NE 7th Avenue and the completion of the major structural elements for buildings 1 and 3 of Phase IIA, the project will be deemed to be vested. Once a project is vested the previously granted approvals shall be deemed to be established, thus no expiration date. This Agreement further provides for a process to be followed in the event the City wishes to terminate the agreement and allows for assignment of the agreement in whole or in part by the Developer. Under the City's LDR's, where a developer is not performing in accordance with the site plan or other approvals, the City may revoke the approval. In this case, in accordance with the Developer's Agreement, the City must find that the developer is in default of the agreement and allow the developer time to cure the default before it may terminate the agreement. The language of the Agreement also allows it to be assigned in whole or in part, of which the developer must hold, directly or indirectly, at http://itwebapp/AgendaIntranetBluesheet.aspx?ItemID=4616&MeetingID=322 7/14/2011 Coversheet Page 2 of 2 least a 20% interest in the assigned entity. The developer may assign this agreement to any association that will be the property owner's association or to a lender as collateral without maintaining the 20% interest. Upon assignment, the original developer is released from all obligations and any default of an assigned party shall not be considered a default of the original developer. RECOMMENDATION Commission discretion http://itwebapp/AgendaIntranetBluesheet.aspx?ItemID=4616&MeetingID=322 7/14/2011 DEVELOPMENT AGREEME1~rT BETWEEN CITY OF DF,LRAY BEACH FLORIDA CDS DELRAY REDEVELOPMENT, LLC and CDR ATLANTIC PLAZA, LTD. THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is enured into this day of 2011 (the "Execution Date"), by and among CDS DELRAY REDEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, with an address of b45 East Atlantic Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida ("CDS Delray"); CDR ATLANTIC PLAZA, LTD., a Florida limited liability partnership ("Plaza") and its undersigned affiliates (collectively the "Developer Parties"), and the CITY OF DELRAY BEACII, a municipal corporation and a political subdivision of the State of Florida, with an address of 10(7 NW 1st Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444 {"City"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City wishes to encourage redevelopment of the properties currently surrounding and. includia~g the existing development referred to as "Atlantic Plaza", generally located at 777 E. Atlantic Avenue (collectively tl~e "Properties"); and WHEREAS, Developer Parties hold the fee simple title to the Properties as more fully legally described. within. Exhibit "A" as attached hereto and incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, the City approved a site plan and various entitlements for amixed-use project {tl~e "Project"j on the Prope~:ties, as identified within Exhibit "B" (collectively the "Approvals"); and WHEREAS, assurance to a developer that it may proceed in accordance with existing laws and policies, subject to the conditions of a development agreement, strengthens the public planning process, encourages sound capital improvement planning and financing, assists in assuring there are adequate capital facilities for the development, encourages private participation in comprehensive planning; and reduces the economic costs of development; and WHEREAS, the Properties are designated Commercial Core in the Comprehensive Pla~~, and zoned as Cea7iral Business District in the Existing Zoning (as that term is defined hereinafter); and WIIEREAS, the Developer Parties and the City mutually desire that the Properties be developed as permitted in the Existing Zoning, the Comprehensive Plan and this Agreement; and IC,ITEXI"17iR7A~latluntic plaza dev. agc final veasion b-22-7 i.doc 1 WHEREAS, Section 2.4.11 of the City's Laid Development Regulations authorizes the City to enter into this Agreement, consistent with Chapter 163, Fla. Stat.; and WHEREAS, Florida Statutes Chapter 163 specifically provide for and authorize local governments to enter into Development Agreements; and WHEREAS, the City has conducted two public hearings pz-aar to entering into this Agreement, on 3uly 5, 2011 and on duly T9, 2011, bath of which. were properly noticed by publication in a newspaper of general circulation and by mailed notice to the affected property owners, in accordance with Section 163.3225, Fla. Stat. (2011} (the "Adoption Hearings"}, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mut~.ra1 covenants and agreeme~~ts hereinafter contained, the parties mutually agree and bind themselves as set forth herein.: Section 1. The parties hereby agree that the consideration and obligations recited. and provided for under this Agreement constitute substantial benefits to bath parties and thus adequate consideration for this Agreement. This covenant sha11. be binding upon, and. inure to, the benefit of the parties, their successors, assigns, heirs, legal representatives, and personal representatives. Section 2. Rules of Legal Construction. For all purposes of the Agreement, unless otherwise expressly provided: (a) A defined term has the meaning assigned to it; (b} Wards in the singular include the plural, and words in plural include the singular; (c} A pronoun in one gender includes and applies to other genders as well; (d} The terms "hereunder", ttherelntt, tthereaf, "heretOtt and sUC11 slInllar terms sha11 refer to the instant Agreement in rts entirety and not to individual sections or articles; (e} The Parties hereto agree that Chas Agreement shall not be more strictly construed against either the City or any Developer Party as all parties are drafters of this Agreement; and (f) The recitals are true and correct and are incorporated into and fnade a part of this Agreement. The attached exhibits shall be deemed adopted and incorporated into the Agreement; provided however, that this Agreement shall. be deemed to co~itrol in the event of a conflict between the attachrr~ents and this Agreement. Section 3. Definitions. A11 terms shall have the sarr~e definition as set forth in Section 163.3221, Fl.a. Stat. (2011} unless a different definition in used herein. "Agreement" means this Agreement between the City and Developer Parties. R:1T'EX J'lC3RIt1NlaElanrric playa dev. agt final version 622„ t I.doc "City" means the City of Delray Beach, a municipal corporation and. a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and all departments, agencies and instrumentalities subject to the jurisdiction thereof. "Camprel~ensive Plan" means the comprehensive plan adopted by the City pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, which plan was in effect as of April 21, 2009. "Concurrency Requirements" and "Cancurrency" mean all those requirements imposed by Section 163.3180, Fla. Stat., in conjunction. with the applicable City Laws as of April 21, 2009, but anl.y to the extent that they relate to the City requirements, and t1~ey expressly exclude requirear~ents which may be i~a~posed by any other governmental entities or political subdivisions of the State of Florida, ar the School District of Palm Beach County, Florida. "County" means Falm Beach County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida. "Deveioprnent" means the carrying out of oily building activity, the making of any material change in the use or appearance of any structure or land, or the dividing of land into three or more parcels and such other activities described in Section 163.3221{4}, Fla., Stat. {2011). The Develap~x~ent is intended to be consistent with the certified site plan, attached hereto as Exhibit "B". "Effective Date" is the date after this instrument has been approved by the City Commission aid recorded in the public records of Palm Beach. County, Florida, pursuant to Section 163.3239, Florida Statutes {201.1.). „Existing ~ar~ing" is {aj the City's Future Land Use Map designation of "Ca~ntnercial Core" for the Properties as of April 21, 2009; (b) the City's zoning map designation for the Properties of "Central Business District" as of April, 21 2009; (c} the associated City Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies and Objectives, Land Developzn.ent Regulations, and other City Ordinances in effect as of April, 21 2009; (d} and all Approvals for the Project as set forth within Exhibit "B" "Land" means the earth, water, and air, above, below, or on the surface and includes any improvements or structures customarily regarded as land. "I.~aws" means all ordinances, resolutions, regulations, comprehensive plans, land development regulations, and rules adopted by a local goverC~ment affecting the development of land. „Property Interest" means any fee simple interest ar rights in the Properties. In addition, a Community Development District and/or a master property owners' association with appropriate authority relating to one or more of the Properties shall be deemed to hold a Property Interest. R.ITEXTIBRIAMailantic plazadev, agt final version 6-22-I I.dac 3 "Public Facilities" means ~~najor capital improvements, including, but not limited to, transportation, sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, educational, par]cs and recreational, streets, parking and health. systems and facilities. "Site Plan" means the Certified site plan approved as of the execution of this Agreement and as set forth in Exhibit "B". The term "site plan" shall also include any site plan Certified andlor amended with the approval of the City subsequent to the execution and recordation of this Agreement. 66Univer$al Approval Expiration Date" means that date by which all Approvals shall collectively expire, unless further extended, zaotwithstanding another earlier expiration date set forth. in any specific Approval. Section 4. Purr ose. The purpose of this Development Agreement is to establish certain conditions which will result in the Developer Parties making certain significant infrastructure investments of sufficient magnitude in the City to make the Project both physically and financia]]y feasible and to freeze, as of the Effective Date, the land development regulations which will govern development of the Project. This Agreement will provide both. parties with additional certainty during the development process. Section 5. Intent. The Developer Parties and the City intend for this Agreement to be construed and implemented so as to effectuate the purpose of this Development Agreement and the purpose and. intent of the Florida Loca] Government Development Agreement Act, Section 163.3220 - 163.3243, Florida Statutes (2011}, Section G. AppliCabilit,~y; Legal DesCri tp ion. This Agreement applies only to the land located within the boundaries of the legal description as set forth and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A". Section 7. Duration and Effective Date. This Agreement shall have an initial term of ten (10) years {"Term" as such Term may be extended pursuant to this Agreement), starting from the Effective Date, and shall be recorded in the public records of Palm Beach County and filed with the City Clerk. This Agreement shall become effective on the Effective Date and shall, at that point, Constitute a covenant running with the land. Pursuant to Section 163.3229, Fla. Stat., the Term of this Agreement may be further extended beyond the initial Term by mutual consent of the City and the Developer Parties, subject to a public hearing in accordance with Section 163.3225, Fla. Stat. (2011}. Sectiae~ ~. Permitted Development Uses and Building Intensities. {a) Approvals; Site Plan. The approved site plan and entitlements for the Project (collectively the "Approvals"} are set Earth within the attached Exhibit "B". (b) Central Business District Zanin . The Properties fall within the City's Central Business District ("CBD"} zoning designation. In approving the Project, the City has determined that the uses, intensities and densities of development permitted comply with the Existing Zoning. The City hereby agrees to nnaintain and R~,1TL3XTIRREANIailanticplazadev. ngt final version 6-24-I Ldoe 4 preserve a true and accurate record of the Existing Zoning with the City Clerk and/or other custodian, which regulations are hereby incorporated herein and. ~nade a part hereof (c} Density, Intensity, Uses and Building Het hg_ts. (1} The applicable intensity, uses, and building heights are stated in the Approvals which are set forth in Exhibit "B". (2) Downzoning shall be prohibited except as set forth in Section. 12(c). Section 9. Public Facilities; Concurrency. (a} Public Facilities. As of the Effective Date, the following public facilities are able to service the Project {to be provided by the City andlor other outside agencies, as applicable}: water and sewer; streets and traffrc; drainage; parks anal recreation; open space; solid waste; and schools. (b} Co~rcurrency. The City acknowledges and agrees that during the Term of this Agreement, the Project shat] be deernzed to have satisfied the Concu~rency Requirements. {c} Public Rights-o#=Way. The City acknowledges tl~.at the Developer Parties intend to apply for approvals to make irnprovernents to SE 6"' Avenue (northbound Fedora] Highway/U.S. Highway No. l } from Atlantic Avenue north to NE ls` Street, anal to Atlantic Avenue from SE d~~ Avenue east to the Intracoastal bridge, such as lane width repaving, parallel parking, landscape buffers, street lighting, and sidewalk improvements. (d} Utilities. The Developer Parties will construct the utilities (water, sewer, power, telephone, gas, cable, drainage devices) (hereinafter "Utilities") which serve the Project consistent with the approved Composite Utility Plan required by Section 2.~.3.F of the City's Land Development Regulations. (e) Parkin Facilities. {1} In accordance with. the Approvals, the Developer Parties will. construct certain temporary and permanent parking facilities, a portion of which maybe automated {collectively the "Parking Facilities"}. {2) The Parking Facilities shall be controlled by the Developer Parties and. owned and operated by the Developer Porkies. .Notwithstanding that the Developer Parties may otherwise sell, transfer, convey, lease or License tl~e Parking Facilities to third parties, nothing herein shall be construed to release the Developer Parties from the obligation to meet the minimum off-street parking requirements of the Existing Zoning. ~~~«X-,~~t,~rA~~a~~~p~~~ ~,~a ~e~. ast Fna, ~~~s4o~~ S-Z~-, ~ ~~~ 5 {3) Construction, ownership, maintenance, operation and repair of the Parking Facilities shall be the sole obligation of the Developer Parties. It is the responsibility of the Developer Parties to obtain building permits from the City for the Parking Facilities. (4) The City hereby agrees to not charge for parking within all roads internal to the Project, including Atlantic Court and 7~~' Avenue. (5} Sidewalk Cafes. The City agrees areas marked on Exhibit "C" are eligible to receive Sidewalk Cafe Fennits as set forth in the Existing Zoning. Should the Developer Parties desire to provide Sidewalk Cafes in the Project, the Developer Parties agree to submit such required application(s) to the City which applications} shall be reviewed pursuant to the Existing Zoning, subject to the provisions of Section 21 of this Agreement. {5} Valet Parkin. a. The City agrees the Developer Parties may request at Least two (2) valet parking stations within the Project. Approval of the locations and design of the valet parking stations shall be obtained from the City's Site Plan and Architectural Review Board {"SPRAB") before implementation into the Project. b. The control acrd operation of the valet parking stations shall in no way conflict with the terms set forth in that "Agreement for the Abandonment and Relocation of NE 7~~' Avenue" previously entered into between the Developer Parties and the City on February 17, 2009. Section ~ 0. Intentionally Omitted. Section 11. Local Development Permits. A description of all local development permits approved for the development of the Project as of the Effective Date of this Agreement is set forth and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B". These Approvals, the Existing Zoning, and this Agreement establish the criteria upon which the Properties sha]] be developed during the term. of this Agreement, except as provided in Section 21. Section 12. Project Approvals. (a} Universal Approval Expiration Date. It is the intent of the parties to provide for certainty in the Project's development process to avoid waste of economic and land resources, to encourage sound capita] improvement p]ana~ing and financing, to de-escalate the cost of housing and development, and to encourage commitment to comprehensive planning. As such, the parties hereby agree that al] of the Approvals for tl~e Project, as listed herein as Exhibit "B", as amended, shall have a Universal Approval Expiration Date concurrent with t1~e expiration of this Agreement. The Universal Approval Expiration Date shall be confirmed. by R:ITEXT33RlAN1a¢lantic plaza dev_ agt 5na€ version 6-2Z-t i-dnc G the recordation of a Certificate of Universal Approval Expiration Date in th.e form attached hereto as Exhibit "D". (b) Vesting. The City hereby acknowledges and agrees that the Developer Parties have committed to mare certain infrastructure investments of such significant rnagnitude so as to make the Project both. physically and financially feasible. Pursuant to LDR Sectian 2.4.4{D} of the Existing Zoning, all Approvals shall be considered forever established and the Project vested when. improve~ncnts set forth within Exhibit "E" have been consti~zcted and reeeivcd a certificate of occupancy or equivalent final approval. {c) Prohibition on Downzonin . (1) The Approvals, Existing Zoning and this Agreement sha11 govern development of the Properties for the Term of the Agreement. The City may apply subsequently adopted laws and policies to the Project only if the City holds a public hearing and the standards sot forth in Section 163.3233{2), Fla. Stat. {2011) have been met. (2) Pursuant to Section 163.3233(3), Fla. Stat. {2011}, this prohibition does not abrogate any rights that may vest pursuant to carnrnon law. Section 13. hrtentionally Omitted. Section 14. Construction. Band. No construction bond or bonds shall be required in an amount greater than that required for any given phase of the Project currently under construction.. When such bonded improvements are co~xzpleted for any such phase, the bond or bonds shall be returned to the Developer Parties, and post- construction/maintenance bonds provided, consistent with tl~e Existing Zoning and as otherwise modified by Section. 21 of this Agreez~ent. As anew phase is to be constructed, arrangements shall be made with respect to the pasting of a new bond or bonds for the impravemen.ts associated with such phase. Section 15. Workforce Housing. (a} Sectian 4.7 of the City's Land Development Regulations provides regulations governing the inclusion of "workforce housing" into developments, as the term is defined therein. (b} Section 4.7(I} of the City's Land Development Regulations :further recognizes the City Commission's desire to establish additional. incentives to encourage workforce housing including, but not limited to, requirements to provide additional workforce housing far developments that request increases in height and/or density pursuant to Section 4.3.4(J}(4}(b} and 4.4.13(I}. (c) The City has authorized an optional increase in height far the Project based upon. the Developer Parties' inclusion of workforce ha using, as set forth. in the Approvals (the "Height Incentive"). R,1'f'1:XTIT3IL~A).~1ai3antic ylaza dev. agt final veesiot~ 6-22-I l.doc {d) Section 4.~.2.b of the City's Land Developrn.ent Regulations authorizes the Developer Parties to meet the workforce housing requirement by: (i} providing units onsite; (ii} by praviding a monetary contribution; (iii) through. delivery of offsite units; or (iv) a combination thereof. (e) Section 4.'7.2.b of the City's Land. Development Regulations further provides that the Develaper Parties may meet the workforce housing requirement in whale or in part by praviding a monetary contribution, payable to the City of Delray Beach. Housing Trust Fund (ar its successors and assignsj, in the amount of ONE HIJNIr?RED SIXTY THOUSAND and NO/100 DOLLARS ($160,000.00) for each required workforce housing unit in lieu of providing the workforce housing unit within floe Project, which monetary contribution shall be due prior to issuance of a building permit for such. phase that utilizes the Height Incentive. (f) Nothing herein shall require the Developer Parties to provide workforce housing units in the Project should the Developer Parties not elect to utilize tl~e Height Incentive or otherwise require the Developer Parties to include workforce housing in any particular phase of the Project. Section 16. Cnnsistenc with Co rehensive Plan and Land Develo meat R~~ulations. The City hereby finds that development of the approved Project, once the conditions associated with the Approvals have been. met, is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and. land development regulations as of the Effective Date of this Agreement. The City further hereby affirms that its Comprehensive Plan and any plan amendments implementing or related to this Agreement have been found to be in compliance by the state land planning agency as required by Section 163.3229, Pla. Stat. (2011}. Section 17. Necessit of Com 1 in with Local Re ulations Relative to Develo ment Permits. The Develaper Parties and the City agree that the failure of this Agreement to address a particular permit, condition, fee, term, license, or restriction in effect on the Effective Date shall not relieve the Develaper Parties of the necessity of complying with the regulation governing said. permitting requirements, conditions, fees, terms, licenses, ar restrictions. Section 1$. Reservation of Development Rights. (a) Far the term of this Agreement, the City hereby agrees that it shall permit the development of the Properties in accordance with the Existing Zoning and this Agreement. (b) Nothing herein shall prohibit an increase in the density or intensity of development permitted on the Properties consistent with Section 21 herein. (c) The execution. of this Agreement shall not be considered a waiver of, or limitation upon, the rights of the Developer, or its successors ar assigns, which may vest pursuant to common law. R^:f EYT1B12SAN1atl0.nfic plaza dev. agt loaf version fi-22-1 Ldoc Section ~ 9. Annual Review. (a) The City shall. review the development that is subject to this Agreement every 12 months, comrneneing I2 months after the Effective Date. The City shall begin the review process by giving notice to the Developer Parties, a minimum of 30 days prior to the anniversary date of the Agreement, of its intention to undertake the annual review of this Agreement. The Developer agrees to pay any reasonable costs incurred by the City for the annual reviews in an amount not to exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) per year. {b) Any information required of the Developer Parties during an annual review shall. be limited to that necessary to determine the extent to which the Developer is proceeding in good faith to comply with t11e terms of this Agreement. (c) If the City finds on the basis of competent substantial. evidence that there leas been. a failure to commply substantially with the terms of the Agreemment, the City may terminate or amend this Agreement after providing 30 days written notice to the Developer Parties and at a public hearing. The Developer Parties shall be provided a reasonable dame to cure any failure before the City may terminate or amend this Agreement consistent with Section 29. Section 20. Notices. {a) All notices, demands and requests which may or are required to be given Hereunder shall, except as otherwise expressly provided, be in writing a~~d delivered by personal service or sent by telex, telecopy, telegram, United States Registered or Certified Mail, returir receipt requested, postage prepaid, or by overnight express delivery, such as Federal Express, to the parties at the addresses and telecopy numbers listed below. Any notice given pursuant to this Agreement sha11 be deemed given when received. Any actions required to be taken Hereunder which fall on Saturday, Sunday, or United. States legal Holidays shall be deemed to be performed. timely wHen taken on the succeeding day thereafter which shall. not be a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. To the City: City Manager City of Delray BeacH 100 NW 1 s~ Avenue Delray BeacH, FL 33444 With a copy to: City Attorney City of Delray BeacH 200 NW 15C Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 To the Developer Parties: CDS Delray Redevelopment, LLC R.1T$XTIBRIANIatlantic plaza dev. agt fina3 vea'sran 6-22-1 i.doc c/o William H. Milmae CDS Intenlational Holdings, Inc. Fax: (S61) 278-6930 With copies ta: Proskauer Rose LLP 2255 Glades Road, Suite 340W Boca Raton, FL 33431 Attn: Stuart Kapp, Esq. With copies to: Weiner & Lynne, P.A. 10 SE 1~t Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Attn: Jeffrey C. Lynne, Esq. {b) An.y Party to this Agreement may change its notification address(es) by providing written notification to the remaining parties pursuant to the terms and conditions ofthis section. Section 21. Requests to Amend Approvals. Nothing herein shall be deemed to prohibit the Developer Parties from requesting either existing or subsequently enacted laws, rules or regulatians to be applied to tl~e Project ("Amended Approvals"}, upon proper application by the Developer Parties to the City and subject to the procedures governing the requested Amended Approvals at the time of the application, provided the effect of any Amended Approval granted does not conflict with the laws, rules and regulations applicable to the Project at the time the application for the Amended Approvals is made. Any requested amertdrnent to the Site Plan. which the City classifies as a Class I or Class II site plan modification, or any requested a~x~end~nent which does not change the approved uses, densities, intensities or height for the Project, shall not be deemed an "an~end~r~ent" of this Agreement such as would otherwise require compliance with the public notice and hearing procedure set forth in Section 163.3225, Fla. Stat. (2011). Section 22, Exclusive Venue, Choice of Law, Sp,eci~c Performance. It is mutually understood and agreed by the parties hereto, that this Agreement shall he governed by the Iaws of the State of Florida, and any applicable federal law, both as to interpretation and performance, alyd that any action at law, suit in equity ar judicial proceedings for the enfarceinent ofthis Agreement or any provision hereof shall be instituted only in the courts of the State of Florida or federal courts and venue for any such actions shall lie exclusively in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County. In addition to any other legal rights, the City and the Developer Parties shall each have the right to specific perfaz~nance ofthis Agreement in court. Each party waives any defense, whether asserted by motion or pleading, that the aforementioned courts are an improper or inconvenient venue. Section 23. No Oral. Change or Termination. This Agreement and the exhibits and appendices appended hereto and incorporated herein by reference, if any, constitute the entire Agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. This Agreement R:1"1'EXTIBR7AN1at[nntic pl.ua dev_ a~+t tinnl version 6-?.3-1 f,doc 1 supersedes any prior agreements or understandings between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and no change, modification or discharge hereof in whole or in part shall be effective unless such change, araodifacation or discharge is in writing anal signed by the party against whom enforcement of the change, modification. or discharge is sought. This Agreement cannot be changed or terminated orally. Section 24. Compliance with Applicable Law and Subsequently Adopted Laws. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreezx~ent, throughout t11c Term of this Agreement, the Developer Parties and City shall comply with. all. applicable federal, state or local laws, rules, regulations, codes, ordinances, resolutions, administrative orders, permits, policies and procedures and orders that govez~a or relate to the respective Parties' obligations and performance under this Agreement, or as they may be amended from time to time. zf stale or federal laws are enacted after the execution of this Agreement which are applicable to and preclude the parties' compliance with the terms hereof, this Agreement shall be modified ar revoked as is necessary to comply with the relevant state or federal laws. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, the City may apply subsequently adapted laws and policies to the Project in accordance with F.S. Sec. 163.3233(2} (2011). Section 25. Representations. Each party represents to the others that this Agreement has been duly authorized, delivered and executed by such party and constitutes the legal, valid. and binding obligation of such party, enforceable in accordance with its terms. Sectic~r~ 2b. Presl~m Lions Tna licable. This Agreement shall be deemed to have been drafted by bot11 the Developer Parties and the City equally and any presumptions existing in interpretation hereof against the drafter shall be inapplicable. Section 27. No Exclusive Remedies. Nn remedy or election given by any provision in this Agreement shall be deemed exclusive unless expressly so indicated. Wherever passible, the remedies granted hereunder upon a default of the other party shall be cumulative and in addition to all other remedies at law or equity arising from such event of default, except where otherwise expressly provided. Section 28. Failure to Exercise Ri hts not a Waiver: Waiver Provisions. The failure by either party to promptly exercise any right arising hereunder shall not constitute a waiver of such right unless otherwise expressly provided herein. No waiver or breach of any provision of this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other provision hereof, and no waiver shall be effective unless made in writing. Section 29. Events of Default. (a) A Developer Party shall be in default under this Agreement if any of the following events occur and continue beyond the applicable grace period: a Developer Party fails to perform or breaches any term, covenant, or condition. of this Agreement which is not cured within. thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice from the City specifying the nature of such breach; provided, however, that if such breach cannot reasonably be cured within thirty (30) days, then a R.17'L'-X71BR7A\'w€lantic plaza dev, agt final version 6-22-1 I,dac 1 1 Developer Party shall not be in default if it coxxaences to cure such breach within said thirty (30} day period and diligently prosecutes such cure to completion. The City retains the exclusive right to deter~xzine, in its sole discretion, whether the Developer Party is employing good faith and diligent effort to cure such breach to completion. (b} The City shall be irz default under this Agreement if the City fails to perform or breaches any term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement anal such failure is not cured within thirty {30} days after receipt of written notice from a Developer Party specifying the nature of such breach; provided, however, that if such breach cannot reasonably be cured within.. thirty (30} days, the City shall not be in default if it commences to cure such. breach within said Thirty (30) day period anal diligently prosecutes such cure to completion. {c} It shall not be a default under this Agreement if either party is declared bankrupt by a court of competent jurisdiction. Ail rights and obligations in this Agreement shall survive such bankruptcy of either party. The parties hereby forfeit any right to terminate this Agreement upon the bankruptcy of the other party. (d} The default of any Developer Party nr successor or assignee of any portion of a Developer Party's rights hereunder shall not be deemed a breach. by any other Developer Party or any other successor or assignee of aizy portion. of the rights of a Developer Party hereunder ar any other successor or assignee. Sectinn 30. Rejnedies U on Default. (a} Neither party may terminate this Agreement upon the default of the other party until the expiration of the applicable notice and cure period set forth in this Agreement and in the event of such termination, such te~-~nination sha11 only apply to the particular party in default (i.e., specific assignee in default only). Notwithstanding the foregoing, and in accordance with Section 1b3.3235, Fla. Stat., if the City finds during the periodic review set forth in Section 19 that there has been a failure to comply with the terms of this Agreement, this Agreezxient may be revoked or modified by the City. In order to revoke or rr~odify the Agreement based upon Section 19 of this Agreement, the City's findings must be based upon substantial competent evidence. (b) Upon the occurrence of a default by a party to this Agreement not cured within the applicable grace period, the Developer Parties and the City agree that any party may seek specific performance of this Agreement, and that seeking specific performance shall not waive any right of such party to also seek monetary dazx~ages or any other relief other than tern~ination of this Agreement. Sectinn 3I. Severability. f any term or provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circwnstance shall, to any extent, hereafter be determined to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement or the application of such term or provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held R:ITFXT113R]ANluliana~ie p7teLa dev_ ugt ~n~l version fi42-I Ldac invalid or unenforceable shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. Section 32. Assignment and Transfer of Development Rights. {a) 1n accordance with Section 163.3239, Fla. Stat. (2011), the burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the bene~~its of the Agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to the Parties hereto. (b} A Developer Party (nr any Permitted Assignee as defined herein} may, without the City's consent ar approval, assign, in whole or in part, this Agreement or any of its rights and obligations hereunder, or nay extend the benefits of this Agreement to the following persons and/nr entities: (l} To any bolder of a Property Interest in which the initial Developer Parties (or any of them} hold, directly or indirectly, no less than a twenty percent (20%} beneficial interest; (2} To a master association, ox any sub-association formed for the purpose of being a property owners' association of property within. the Project, (3} To a lender as collateral in connection with any ''financing of th.e development of the Project; (collectively, a "Permitted Assignee"). (c) Any assigni~nent of any part of this Agreement to any person or entity who does not qualify as a Permitted Assignee shall first require the prior written consent or formal approval of the City, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. Any assignment in violation of this section shall be deemed void and ineffective as it pertains to that assignee. {d) A11 assignees shall assume, in writing, all applicable rights and obligations under this Agreement, and deliver a copy of such assignment to the City upon its execution, as a condition of assignment. (e} Upon assignment of all or a part of this Agreement, the Developer Parties (or Permitted Assignees, as applicable} shall be released from future obligations under this Agreement with respect to the part so assigned except for liability which accrued prior to the assignment. Nothing herein shall be deemed to release any liability of any Permitted Assignee for so long as such: Permitted Assignee shall be bound hereby. (f) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section., in the event there is one or more assignments of a part or parts of this Agreement, a default by any party to this Agreement with respect to the part of the Agreement then held by such party, sha11 only constitute a defaalt of the Agreement as it pertains to the defaulting assignee. R:1'I'E~~.XT1BRiANlatlmuie plaza dev. agt final ve~~sion 6-2?-31.doc 13 Section 33. lntentionally Omitted. Section 34. Lack of A enc Relationshi Nothing contained herein shall be eonsti°ued as establishing an. agency relationship between the City and any Developer Party and neither any Developer Party nor its employees, agea~~ts, contractors, subsidiaries, divisions, or affiliates shall be deemed agents, instruzx~entalities, employees, or contractors of the City for any purpose hereunder, and the City, its contractors, agents, and employees shall not he deemed contractors, agents, or employees of any Developer Party or its subsidiaries, divisions or affiliates. Section 35. Intentionally Omitted. Section 36. Enforcement. (a} In the event that a Developer Party, its successors and/or assigns fails to act in accordance with the terms of the Existing Zoning, the City may Seel{ any relief ar remedy to which it maybe entitled. (b} Enforcement of this Agreement shall be by action against any parties or person violating, or atterr~pting to violate, any covenants set forth in this Agreement. (e} This enforcement provision sha11 be in addition to any other remedies available at law, in equity or bath. Section 37. Amendment or Tertninatian by Mutual Consent. This Agreerz~ent may not be amended or terminated during its term except by mutual agreement of the Developer Parties and, the City and as otherwise consistent with applicable law. Section 3$. Intentionally Omitted. Section 39. No Third-Party Beneficiary. No persons or entities other than. the Developer Parties and the City, their heirs, permitted successors and. assigns, shall have any rights whatsoever under this Agreement. Section 40. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original but all of which, when taken together, shall. constitute one and. the sa~r~e agreement. Section 41. Governmental Functions. (a) Even though the City has certain co~ltracri~al obligations under this Agreement, such obligations shall not relieve any person subject to this Agreement from complying with all applicable governmental regulations, rules, laws, and ordinances. (b} To the extent future approval or permission must be obtained from t1~e City, such approval. ar permission shall be granted or denied in accordance with applicable governmental regulations, rules, laws, and ordinances, and no person shall have any vested rights with respect to such future approval requests. R~,1TA4XT113I21AN1atlandc plaza dev. age heal ve3sion 6-Z2-I Ldoc 14 (c) T1~e City h.as not waived its sovereign ixnmun.ity and the limits of tort liability set fortis in Section 768.2$(5}, Fla. Stat. {2011} of $100,000.00 per person and. $200,000.00 per occurrence shall. apply. {d) Any future action by City shall be without prejudice to, and shall not constitute a limit or impairment or waiver of, or otherwise affect City's right to exercise its discretion in connection with its governmental or quasi-governmental functions. Section 42. Intentionally Omitted. IN WITNESS WHEREOT, the City and the Developer Parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written. WITNESSES: Printed Name: Pri~~ted Name: By: CDS Group Holdings, LLC, a Florida limited liability company 13y: WITNESSES: Printed Nai~7e: Printed Name: By: William H. Milmoe, President WITNESSES: Printed Name: Printed Name: DEVELOPER: CDS DELRAY REDIEVELOPIVIENT, LLC, a Florida limited liability company William H. Milmoe, President CDR ATLANTIC PLAZA, LTD., a Florida limited partnership CITY: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, a Florida Municipal Corporation By: Delray Historic, Inc., a Florida Corporation, its sole general partner By: Nelson S.1VIcDuff~e, Mayor R.-\TL7:'I"1~3R.tAh'latlantic plaza div. agt final versia:~ 6-ZZ-I i.duc 1 List of Exhibits Exhibit "A" - Legal Description of Properties Exhibit "B" - Description of All Local Development Permits Approved for the Project (the "Approvals") Exhibit "C" - Approved Sidewalk Cafe Locations Exhibit "D" - Certificate of Universal Approval Expiration Date Exhibit "E" - ~rr~provements Required far Vesting R:\TEX"1'113RIAN~atlanEic y~Iaza dev. ngt final vevsion Ca-22-I l.doe ~ L EXHIBIT "~a" ALL OF BLOCK 116, TOWN OF LINTON {NOW DELRAY BEACH}, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 3, LESS TIIE SOUTH 7.0 FEET THEREOF AND LESS THAT PORTION FOR ADDITIONAL ROAD RIGHT OF WAY FOR N.E. 6TH AVENUE {U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1) AS RECORDED IN ROAD PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 210, ALL BEING RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, F1.,ORIDA. TOGETHER. WITH: THAT PORTION OF N.E. 7TH AVENUE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY LYING EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO BLOCK 11 G, TOWN OF LINTON {NOW DELRAY BEACH), ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 3, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. AND: ALL OF THE PLAT OF ATLAI~7TIC PLAZA, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 50, PAGE 129, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. CONTAINING 377,004 SQUARE :FEET OR 8.65 ACRES MORE OR LESS. EXHIBIT" "~" Exhibit "B" Descri tion of All Local Develo mutt Permits A roved i'or the 1?ro'ect (the "Approvals") Site Plan - Certified Site Plan -Approved. - Conditional Use for I~eight -Approved 1219108 by the City Commission - Abandorur~ent aa~d Offset Waiver -Approved 21 ].7109 by the City Coznanission - Site Plan and Waivers _ Approved. 3/11109 by SPRAB; 417109 by City Commission Valet Parking Stations - Valet parking leas been approved for use pursuant to Section 9(e}(6); the site plan for valet parking, once approved, is incorporated by reference into this agreement. EXHI~~T "C'° ~~ ~ 6 E 1 I vcrz~ar,~"~ov~gxvx~aao,uzo 3~ g xva ros~outixl ZC6E& ePuo~ 4toiei saoq '~~ ~ ~, a ~ FfEflrii-q9i Sl9S3 p8p1 QO{@S2`~Ot~y6435s~ ~ ~ 9 (~ [ N'~~ p o ry: `dp°~"`~° II b'Z`d'Id ~IZ2~I'b~"~Z~' jJ('j I •ou~ ° saleraossr~ pua ~ao~~ sapnu~ ~ ~ a: g N i°w~;! " -... J~IF17C~~ -~~ 7T'f~lY13QIS i 1, , 1 1 ~3 _~ _..-- ~~ 5---. _ ~ , ~ _ ~ I ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~. ~ b L___ ~ f ~ . €~z, a a ~~ ~~ ~~;~ qF=U ~Wxy ~C~€1 d'W Uf ~ ~ ~ iv ~~~q U~~ H~~r~~ ~~fl1 fq N 6~~~ ~~a~ ~~?O ~ ~~ ~7~~ z J ~ ~~d~d0 W ...,~1 ~a6~ z~ON ~Zf- O 4~a~ ayyap ..1~d~' ..~~-~ii *-F-Q ~ W aUr~„ff= W 6mw CA A. d ~ ~!~ a iWtE zr-zOsn h„~ 13 ~ r..~o ~t`r4. nl ~ ~ ziya isw-oci (evs) YQR{O'I3 ~13,~F~EI .I.V2T73Q 30~.i:I.T~ Z6vE£~!~a13 `uviaa'.eao9 ~~"' -~ ! r.- !1d(url-avs([9r} (18W tw(Fti 8J9q 3582 SS) tJJ \ ~- smsr~(d p¢¢g~l'Eq~tg }~i~ r ~ ~F-~i 1,3~t .a~I ~ saiscoassy paB Sao}} yy xaryuB ~7 33~, ~i ~~'ZCI ~~~.~,N~Z,~,~ ,: a ;~,/~p' FLL Y A yyyyccssii : i „p ^^y~m -.~y~Iy ' .l.LLSl ~,,/ .I1.E Y ~1111~ s {{f~ ,~F ~~ ~y tel.- z ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ L E [ f ~ .~.- r E~ I ~€ ~I ~i ~'. ,y # T7 °c J i ~' ,.,~ ._ ~~Y~ ~~ '~1 ~ ~ 2 I ~ 11 1 ~ ~r i V1 ~ f a. .~ J ( 1. I yOUQI. o~,iu ~ ~~ I ~ Z ~~~ ~ I , Q ~~~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~( °~ i =--- o ~I yy1 I FF R y I _ E ~ F ` '' ~ L 1 ±I ..,I ~' ~ ~ I, I y~ ~ AMC---.Fy ~n-,.rw.~ Ij II ~ I ~ i _ 3 ...:~.-:r~~~t+wn~~. ~.e.-rrw.~rwwY ~.~~~~~~ {~=.. ~ r i -~~_ '~Ai~ ~L ''iii `~ ~ ~~( G} a ~ ~ ~ H ~ ~~ ~ ~ J J ~~ o°~~ __ .,._ _ ~d^ -_ ~~04 _...~ ~ ~ _~~ 1 ~~Z I ,. _., ~ r - ~ ~ o 4„ w~~uf I '~, ,~-Taw .et~;_--cu ~.> ~ °~' a ~`-, ozro ¢~Vp ~.~_. I _ U~J~ I ~ ~~~~ P .tl a ~ i ~ ,„3 ~j 4K .. G~4~=" i~l h- w ~ to ~'~i~ mmi ~ ~~ ~ ~ z~~Os~n _ ~ .._ I i ~~ ~ ~. a ~~r E"~ -- s ...,: ~.~_z ~ f{ ~ gl Qom. ~: ~~ € ! i i 1S ~ XY3IG0695L (S9S1 LE455.~~pt~.`~alez a~oq VCCCH(7Td ~H~d"3$.S'Vx'liiCI di)1[.1.1~ i Ktm~l-wciiry) pear ua~l saoq ls,ta ~si .~n s.c~we~apr(as-p~~q~ie '' II ~Z~'Td ~IZI~I~Z.L~ a ,..;~a °oa~'sa~z~3ass~t pue ~aald xapuen ,.;:~~, - ~ ~''~~~I ' L ,LI£~IX~ -~36'~'~'THtYi~LIIS ., ._ x -,.. '~ _ -, ,, ~ ~., •, ~f ~(r ~ _~ ~~ ~ ¢ ~~ a to - ~ u_*~ L~ ~f~ ¢ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ..O-~% C ~~ Q-4 ~ T`- _ ~ ~, ~ p b ~ ~ 4 bb e~ ~ F ¢ n ,,~ / - - ~ -- {{ 1 /~ ;~ ~~ ~~ ~€ ' ~ p 1 ~3 U ~ a, tJ it ~ ~ ._.._~-- -° ~ w I _. ~._ _ ~ .Ll.r~ ..t q '~ ~ m~ N~ u~~w ,F~ i I~_ I C~ "~ ~~ ~}..~_~ ~ -~`:'~ , ' b ~ ~ ~~ ~} ~~ U l1. x maw ~~ ~~ ~l m m ai ~a U~ U~~ J ~~d~ QZ ~ 111 Z J ~ xa~ s~a ~` . pr_~` Wry _ r ' _--- -~~~n~ ~c ~~•x ~~ I ~ E~ ` [ ~ ~ Y' ~ ~ ~ I } ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~_' I ~ ~ ~ ,~HJ "'444... k ~-Z ~ - ~ _~A~d'~8 ~ k P~ Cam] Q i>: ',, a `"~` N ~~ 131 ~ U ~ _ _ ',, Q ~ m t ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ 'ro ~~ a ¢idil~vi ~F¢ ~ e ~~.M ~~ ; maw ~ ~ ~ cs_m~j ~jm ~~~yyJ ~ ~ ~ I ~ n q , I ~.Q 1`: ~ ~~ '~I I ¢ ~R 1 q.'I`' z ~ ~ ~a~m. ~ 1 i ~~a~ ~ ~ j4p ' y [ ~~ ,~ SJS U ~3.u~W ~ U r ~ ~ ~~ ~7~~ .~ ~ zd ~ U 1 ~ ,~ 6VZm - ^ a¢ Z ~ c3~7~t-O iI I '~ ~ OO.. J •T ~ ~ ~ - ¢u1~.~ -~= ` L ~a~(~uv=i zMZOVs _--_~- I~'N ~~ ._..~ ~~. _ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ 3 „ : H! ~ '~ E ~ 1 1 A f;~ ~3~~~ i ~ 3;S{i . i1 ~ ~ } <A I (~ ~ yF ~ „ '{, vt'nwtto EXHIBIT "®" Prepared. by and return to: R. Brian Shutt, Esq. City Attorney's Office City of Delray Beach, Florida 200 N.W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 CERTIF+~CATE OF ~,~NIVERSAL APPROVAL EXPYRATION MATE WHEREAS, the Developer Parties and the City of Delray Beach properly recorded that certain fully executed Development Agrecrnent ("Agreement") at ORB , PG ;Public Records of Palxn. Beach County, Florida, on ;and WHEREAS, the Effective Date of the Agreement is ,which date is, pursuant to the Agreement, the latter of thirty (30) days after floe Agreement has been received by the state land planning agency pursuant to Section 163.3239, Florida Statutes (2010) ar when site platy certification has been achieved; and WHEREAS, Section 12(a) of the Agreement provides that all of the Approvals for the Project (as those terms are defined therein) shat.] have a Universal Approval Expiration Date concurrent with the expiration of the Agreement, which date is ten (10) years frarn the Effective Date, and which date shall be canfin~ned by the recordation of this Certificate of Lniversal Approval Expiration Date in the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Delray Beach hereby records this Certificate of Universal Approval Expiration Date confirming that the Approvals for the Project shall expire ten (10) years from th.e Effective Date, which date is . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement as of the day and year first above written.. This Certificate shall not be effective unless signed by both the City and the Developer Parties. ATTEST: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH. FLORIDA By: City Clerk Nelson McDuffie, Mayor Approved as to Form: ~_ DEVELOPER PARTIES City Attorney By: Developer Parties Authorized Agent Print Natxae E~H~~~T c4~sr Vesting for the entirety of the Project will occur when the following two scopes of wank are completed: Upon the recordation by the City Engineer of that "Certificate of Substantial Completion" relating to the abandonment and relocation of NE 7th Avenue, as set forth i.n that certain Financial Guarantee & Agreement, dated February 1.7, 2U09, between the City and Atlantic Center, Ltd., as further referenced in Section l0 to that Easement Agreement (Vacated 7~h Avenue Easement) recorded in. the Public Records of Palm Beach County at ORB 23166, PG 1533, and in the form attached. thereto as Exhibit «~,,, And 2. The completion of the Phase IIA (buildings 1 and 3) load-bearing primary structural. elements, consisting of the below grade foundations, columns, walls, and other major structural campnnents, and upper level floor slabs, uppermost roof slab, main. columns, and beams, stairway and elevator structures, and other like major structural elements, considered part of what is generically associated with the "topping-out" of the primary stn.~cture. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: July 7, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.B. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 19, 2011 ORDINANCE N0.20-11 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This ordinance is before Commission for second reading toconsider a city-initiatedamendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 4.4.13, "Central Business (CBD) District", Subsection (G), "Supplemental District Regulations", and Section 4.4.24, "Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD)", Subsection (G), `Supplemental District Regulations", to increase the parking requirements for restaurants. Some years ago the City reduced the parking requirement for restaurants in certain areas of the downtown as an incentive to encourage development of new restaurants. Many restaurants have now developed in portions of the area where the incentive was provided. This ordinance would increase the parking requirement back to that which applies in the rest of the City for a portion of the area previously given a reduced requirement. BACKGROUND At the first reading on July 5, 2011, the City Commission passed Ordinance No. 20-ll. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 20- ll on second and final reading. ORDINANCE N0.20-11 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY PEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, PY AMENDING SECTION 4.4.13, "CENTRAL PUSINESS (CBD) DISTRICT", SUBSECTION (G), "SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS", SECTION 4.4.24, "OLD SCHOOL SQUARE HISTORIC ARTS DISTRICT (OSSHAD)", SUBSECTION (G), 'SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS", TO CLARIFY THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR RESTAURANTS; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section 1.1.6, the Planning and Zoning Poard reviewed the proposed text amendment at a public hearing held on June 20, 2011 and voted 6 to 0 to recommend that the changes be approved and WHEREAS, pursuant to Florida Statute 163.3174(4)(c), the Plarn~ing and Zoning Poard sitting as the Local Plarn~ing Agency, has detemlined that the change is consistent with and furthers the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Peach adopts the findings in the Plarn~ing and Zoning Staff Report; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Peach finds the ordinance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, PE IT ORDAINED PY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY PEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the recitations set forth above are incorporated herein. Section 2. That Section 4.4.13, "Central Pusiness (CBD) District", Subsection (G), "Supplemental District Regulations", of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Peacl-y Florida, be amended to read as follows: (G) Supplemental District Regulations: In addition to the supplemental district regulations as set forth in Article 4.6, except as modified below, the following shall also apply. (1) Central Core and Peach Area supplemental Regulations: (a) Within that portion of the CSD bounded by Swinton Avenue on the west, N.E. 2nd Street on the north, the Intracoastal Waterway on the east and S.E. 2nd Street on the south, the parking requirements for all non residential uses, except restaurants, hotels and motels, and business and professional offices, shall be one space for each 300 square feet of gross floor area or fraction thereof. The parking required for the creation of new floor area, skull also include the replacement of any previously required parking which maybe eliminated Within all other geographic areas of the Central Core and Peach Area within the CPD Zone District, the provisions of Section 4.6.9(C) shall apply, as further modified within this Subsection (G)(1). (b) When the parking requirements are applied to either new development, expansion of an existing use or a change in use, which results in the requirement of only one new parking space, a one space exemption shall be allowed. This exemption may only occur once per property. (c) If it is impossible or inappropriate to provide required parking on site or off-site, pursuant to Subsection 4.6.9(E)(4), the in lieu fee option provided in Section 4.6.9(E)(3) maybe applied (d) For all property located from Swinton Avenue on the west to NE /SE 5~ Avenue to the east, between Atlantic Avenue and the east-west alleys on the north and south sides of Atlantic Avenue, as shown on the Town of Linton Plat (I'.P. 1, P.G. 3, ,the parking requirement for restaurants is established at 12 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area up to 6,000 sa. ft. and then 15 spaces per 1,000 sa. ft. of gross floor area over the initia16,000 sa. ft., with the exception of Old School Square. The parking requirement for restaurants in the balance of the Central Core and Peach Area is established at six (6) spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. (e) The parking requirement for hotels and motels within that portion of the CPD bounded by Swinton Avenue on the west, N.E. 2nd Street on the north, the Intracoastal Waterway on the east and S.E. 2nd Street on the south is established at 0.7 of a space for each guest room plus one (1) space per 300 sq. ft. of floor area devoted to ballrooms, meeting rooms, and shops and 12 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area up to 6,000 sa. ft. and then 15 spaces per 1,000 sa. ft. of gross floor area over the initial 6,000 sa. ft., for restaurants and lounges within a hotel or motel on property located from Swinton Avenue on the west to NE /SE 5~ Avenue to the east, between Atlantic Avenue and the east-west alley on the north and south sides of Atlantic Avenue, as shown on the Town of Linton Plat (I'.P. 1, P.G. 3). In the balance of the Central Core and Peach Area, 2 ORD. NO. 20-11 the minimum parking requirement is six (6) spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area devoted to restaurants and lounges within the hotel or motel. (f) The parking requirements for residential units in multi-family structures and mixed use buildings shall be as follows: • Efficienc die ' unit 1.0 space/unit • One bedroom dwelling unit 1.25 spaces/unit • Two or more bedroom d~ellin unit 1.75 spaces/unit • Guest parking shall be provided cumulatively as follows: - for the first 20 units 0.50 spaces/unit - for units 21-50 0.30 spaces/unit - for units 51 and above 0.20 spaces/unit Within Townhouse and Townhouse type developments, parking may be provided in front of garage units provided that such parking does not result in the space for one unit impeding access to a space of the other unit. Location of Guest Parking Spaces: Guest parking spaces must be accessible to all visitors and guests and maybe centralized or located near recreational features within a development project. (g) The parking requirement for business and professional offices within the following portions of the CSD is established at one (1) space per 300 sq. ft. of net floor area. The portion of the CSD bounded by Swinton Avenue on the west, N.E. 2nd Street on the north, the Intracoastal Waterway on the east and S.E. 2nd Street on the south; 2. The portion of the CSD bounded by N.E. 5th Avenue on the west, N.E. 6th Avenue on the east, N.E. 2nd Street on the south and George Sush Plvd on the north; and 3. The portion of the CSD boundedbyS.E. 5th Avenue on the west, S.E. 6th Avenue on the east, S.E. 2nd Street on the north and S.E. 4th Street on the south ORD. NO. 20-11 (2) West Atlantic Neighborhood Supplemental District Regulations: The following supplemental district regulations apply in the West Atlantic Avenue Overlay District as defined in Section 4.5.6(P): (a) Commercial structures are limited to a maximum depth of 150 feet from the ultimate right-of-way of Atlantic Avenue, unless the parcel has frontage on N.W. 5th Avenue or S.W. 5th Avenue. Accessory uses such as parking areas, landscaping, and drainage retention areas may extend beyond the 150 foot limit. Establishment or expansion of structures beyond the 150 foot limit may be allowed as a conditional use, subject to the required findings of Section 2.4.5(E)(5). (b) There is no restriction on repair and/or reconstruction of non conforming single family residences located a minimum of 150 feet from Atlantic Avenue. (c) Six (6) parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area are required for restaurants and one (1) parking space per 300 square feet of gross floor area is required for all other non residential uses, except hotels and motels, and business and professional offices. Parking spaces for residential uses are required at the rates established in Section 4.6.9(C)(2). (d) The parking requirement for hotels and motels is established at 0.7 of a space for each guest room plus one (1) space per 300 sq. ft. of floor area devoted to ballrooms, meeting rooms, and shops and six (6) spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area devoted to restaurants and lounges within the hotel or motel. (e) If it is impossible or inappropriate to provide required parking on site or off-site, the in lieu fee option provided in Section 4.6.9(E)(3) maybe applied (f) Parking areas and accessways to parking lots must be located to the rear of commercial structures that have frontage on Atlantic Avenue. Where locating parking to the rear of the structure is impossible or inappropriate, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Poard may approve an alternate location. (g) The parking requirement for business and professional offices is established at one (1) space per 300 sq. ft. of net floor area Section 3. That Section 4.4.24, "Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD)", Subsection (G) "Supplemental District Regulations", of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Peach, Florida, be amended to read as follows: 4 ORD. NO. 20-11 (G) Supplemental District Regulations: Supplemental district regulations as set forth in Article 4.6, except as modified hereiry apply. (1) Parcels located along N.E. 1st Avenue between N.E. 2nd Street and N.E. 3rd Street (Banker's Row) shall comply with either provisions of Article 4.6 of these Supplemental District Regulations [Subsection (G)], or provisions of the Banker's Row Development Plary whichever is more permissive. (2) The perimeter landscaping requirements of Section 4.6.16(H)(3)(e) shall not apply. (3) All parking, except for single family homes and duplexes, shall be located in the side or rear yard or adjacent to a rear alley. No such parking shall be located in the area between any street and the closest building or structure. Where there are existing buildings or structures, the Historic Preservation Board may waive this requirement during the site plan review process, provided that it is detemlined that compliance is not feasible and that the character of the area will be maintained If approved such parking shall be substantially screened from off-premises view by a hedge or decorative fencing. (4) Parking Requirements: (a) All non residential uses, with the exception of restaurants, and business and professional offices, shall provide one parking space per 300 sq. ft. of total new or existing gross floor area being converted to non residential use. This requirement maybe reduced to one parking space per 400 sq. ft. of gross floor area, or by at least one space, where there is a mix of residential and non residential use in the same structure. (b) Restaurants shall provide six spaces per one thousand square feet of total new or existing floor area being converted to restaurant use, except for Lots 1 through 6 in Block 69 where 12 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area up to 6,000 s~a. ft. and then 15 spaces per 1,000 sa. ft. of gross floor area over the initia16,000 sa. ft. is required (c) Residential type inns shall provide one parking space per guest room/unit. Other accessory uses shall be calculated separately based upon square footage of the use area as provided for in subsections 4.4.24 (G) (4) (a) and (b) above. (d) Business and professional offices shall provide one (1) space per 300 sq. ft. of total new or existing net floor area being converted to office use. This requirement may be reduced to one parking space per 400 sq. ft. of net floor area, or by at least one space, where there is a mix of residential and office use in the same structure. ORD. NO. 20-11 (5) If it is impossible or inappropriate to provide required parking on site or off-site, pursuant to Section 4.6.9(E)(4), the in lieu fee option provided in Section 4.6.9(E)(3) may be collected For the purpose of this provisiony "inappropriateness" maybe considered in relationship to the historic character of this zone district. (6) When the parking requirements of Section 4.6.9(C) are applied to either new development, expansion of an existing use or a change in use, which results in the requirement of only one new parking space, a one space exemption shall be allowed This exemption may only occur once per property. Section 4. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or ward be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid Section 5. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed Section 6. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage on second and final reading PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the day of , 2011. ATTEST MAYOR City Clerk First Reading Second Reading 6 ORD. NO. 20-11 Coversheet MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners Page 1 of 3 FROM: MARK MCDONNELL, AICP, ASST. DIRECTOR PLANNING AND ZONING PAUL DORLING, AICP, DIRECTOR PLANNING AND ZONING THROUGH: CITY MANAGER DATE: June 29, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 12.A. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 5, 2011 ORDINANCE N0.20-ll ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Approval of achy-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) that will remove the current parking incentive enjoyed by restaurant uses along Atlantic Avenue from Swinton Avenue to NE/SE 5th Avenue, between the east-west alleys that are located immediately north and south of Atlantic Avenue (see attached location map). The parking requirement will be increased to be commensurate with parking requirements City-wide from 6 to 12 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. for restaurants. BACKGROUND Restaurant uses have enjoyed a huge success in downtown Delray Beach. Attracting restaurants, along with mixed-use developments, was an intentional part of the City's rebirth from its days of blight and distress. Other incentives, including utilizing shared parking, allowing off-site parking agreements, and approval of valet service, have all helped to shape downtown to the success it has become today. In 1990, the Land Development Regulations listed a parking requirement for all uses in the Central Business District at 1 space per 300 sq. ft. and required that any parking spaces that are eliminated through redevelopment be replaced. This 1 space per 300 sq. ft. parking ratio was the requirement for restaurants at that time. In 1993, the parking requirement for restaurants within the original DDA area was increased to six (6) spaces for each 1,000 sq. ft. This was half the requirement for restaurants elsewhere in the city, where the requirement was (and remains) at 12 spaces for the first 6,000 sq. ft., and 15 spaces for each 1,000 sq. ft. over 6,000 sq. ft. This incentive was created to attract restaurant uses into the downtown. This incentive has been extremely successful and we are now experiencing an economically unhealthy saturation of restaurants within certain portions of the downtown area. In 2004, the City of Delray Beach Downtown Cluster Study was conducted. Cluster 4, in particular http://itwebapp/AgendaIntranetBluesheet.aspx?ItemID=4626&MeetingID=322 7/7/2011 Coversheet Page 2 of 3 (along Atlantic Avenue from Swinton Avenue to NE/SE 5th Avenue, between the east-west alleys north and south of Atlantic Avenue), was identified as having an abundance of restaurants, and it recommended no further conversion of retail over to restaurants. While reference to the Cluster Study and its discouragement of restaurant conversions has been made in staff reports, such proposals and conversion have continually been made. It is noted that the Cluster Study was not officially adopted, but has been referenced in other adopted documents, such as the Downtown Delray Beach Master Plan. A diversity of uses within the downtown is desired to provide customers a variety of options (dining, shopping, entertainment venues, etc.) Limiting options to "dining only" will affect the economic complexion of our downtown. Recently, there has been increased concern by the business community that too many restaurants have saturated the downtown, and that something needs to be done to incentivize new restaurants to areas where they have not currently located (West Atlantic Avenue) and to encourage other types of uses including retail opportunities. This amendment will remove the incentive for restaurants in an area where the current incentives have been extremely successful and are no longer needed. The area is along Atlantic Avenue from Swinton Avenue east to NE/SE 5th Avenue, between the east-west alleys that are located immediately north and south of Atlantic Avenue. This amendment will provide more of an incentive to retain non-restaurant uses (discourage retail conversions to restaurants) in the Central Core. This change will be followed up with additional incentives for retail retention and expansion with a combined goal to ensure there is a mix of downtown activities that include those beyond exclusively restaurants. REVIEW BY OTHERS The Pineapple Grove Main Street (PGMS) committee reviewed the item at their June 1, 2011 meeting and discussed their concern over the approach to create a disincentive for restaurants, rather than creating an incentive to achieve what is desired, which is the retention and attraction of retail. They felt that the amendment should be crafted such that it gets us what we want, rather than what we don't want. One suggestion was to evaluate the current "credit' that is given to existing retail establishments when they go about converting to restaurant use; it was suggested that they start at zero and not be given credit for "existing" spaces when those spaces may merely be grandfathered. This approach would in fact increase the parking requirement similar to this amendment. The proposed approach to remove the current incentive (reduction) enjoyed by the restaurant uses, and return them to a level commensurate with the overall city requirement, is much more defensible. The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) reviewed the item at their June 9, 2011 meeting and recommended that P&Z work with CRA staff to incorporate this amendment with other parking changes such as reductions for offices, etc. There were also questions concerning whether or not doubling of the requirements was too much of a change, and if the area subject to the increase might be changed (i.e. only certain clusters). Since their consideration, the area has been significantly reduced. Staff will be working with the CRA staff and further incentives to encourage business diversity in the downtown. The Downtown Development Authority (DDA) reviewed the item at their June 13, 2011 meeting and a recommendation of approval was made. The West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition (WARC) reviewed the item at their June 14, 2011 meeting and a recommendation of approval was made. http://itwebapp/AgendaIntranetBluesheet.aspx?ItemID=4626&MeetingID=322 7/7/2011 Coversheet Page 3 of 3 The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the item at their June 20, 2011 meeting and a unanimous recommendation of approval was made, with the comment that the area affected by this amendment be generally limited to the Central Core area between Swinton Avenue to 5th Avenue, immediately north and south of Atlantic Avenue. The area recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board is reflected in the current ordinance. RECOMMENDATION By motion, approve Ordinance No. 20-ll on first reading for achy-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.5(M) of the Land Development Regulations. http://itwebapp/AgendaIntranetBluesheet.aspx?ItemID=4626&MeetingID=322 7/7/2011 '~/~b H15 '~/~b Hl~ '~/~b aNZ ~/~ b 1ST 3'N ~ IJ ~ ri 3'N ~ W O O~ ~' `-~ J `~ J ~ n N ~ ~ b '~~b H1S '~'S w z w ~ ~ ~ Nip ~ S ~O~~~b~ '~ '~ ~ ~ ~ -~ aNZ '~'S z Q Q ~,. ~, '1S ~ '~'S N O l N I M S C~ ° 0 H Z ~' a o 0 ~ q a cn W E d 'v Y O ~ a° //W/~ VJ U a a W N ~ U Q Z ~ ~ Z z W _0 W W a ~ ~ U ~ O ~ J (~ Z Y a 0 w m w a ~~ U ~ ww ~~ m~ ~~ ~~ z Z o~ N Z ~ W Z ~ Q ~ I Q I Z W ~ ~ Z ~ ~j Z ~ Q J ~ d y m ;~~, ~~d~. ~e, i e h \_ o \~?\ I PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: JUNE 20, 2011 AGENDA NO: IV. C. AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF ACITY-INITIATED AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDR), BY AMENDING SECTION 4.4.13, "CENTRAL BUSINESS (CBD) DISTRICT", SUBSECTION (G), "SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS", SECTION 4.4.24, "OLD SCHOOL SQUARE HISTORIC ARTS DISTRICT (OSSHAD)", SUBSECTION (G), `SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS", AND SECTION 4.4.28, "CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT-RAILROAD CORRIDOR (CBD-RC)", SUBSECTION (G), "SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS", TO CLARIFY THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR RESTAURANTS. ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is to make a recommendation to the City Commission regarding acity- initiated amendment to Land Development Regulations (LDRs) that will remove the current parking incentive enjoyed by restaurant uses in the CBD, CBD-RC, and OSSHAD (except in two areas: West Atlantic Avenue and Pineapple Grove Main Street, where additional redevelopment incentives are desired). The parking requirement will be increased to be commensurate with parking requirements City-wide from 6 to 12 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. for restaurants. Pursuant to Section 1.1.6, an amendment to the text of the Land Development Regulations may not be made until a recommendation is obtained from the Planning and Zoning Board. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Restaurant uses have enjoyed a huge success in downtown Delray Beach. Attracting restaurants, along with mixed-use developments, was an intentional part of the City's rebirth from its days of blight and distress. Creating other incentives, including utilizing shared parking, allowing off-site parking agreements, approval of valet service, have all helped to shape downtown to the success it has become today. In 1990, the Land Development Regulations listed a parking requirement for all uses in the Central Business District at 1 space per 300 sq. ft. and required that any parking spaces that are eliminated through redevelopment be replaced. This 1 space per 300 sq. ft. parking ratio was the requirement for restaurants at that time. In 1993, the parking requirement for restaurants within the original DDA area was increased to six (6) spaces for each 1,000 sq. ft. This was half the requirement for restaurants elsewhere in the city, where the requirement was (and remains) at 12 spaces for the first 6,000 sq. ft., and 15 spaces for each 1,000 sq. ft. over 6,000 sq. ft. This incentive was created to attract restaurant uses into the downtown. This incentive has been extremely successful and we are now experiencing an economically unhealthy saturation of restaurants within certain portions of the downtown area. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, June 20, 2011 LDR Amendment- Restaurant Parking Requirements in the Central Core In 2004, the City of Delray Beach Downtown Cluster Study was conducted. Cluster 4, in particular, was identified as having an abundance of restaurants, and it recommended no further conversion of retail over to restaurants. While reference to the Cluster Study and its discouragement of restaurant conversions has been made in staff reports, such proposals and conversion have continually been made. A diversity of uses within the downtown is desired to provide customers a variety of options (dining, shopping, entertainment venues, etc.) Limiting options to "dining only" will affect the economic complexion of our downtown. Recently, there has been increased concern by the business community that too many restaurants have saturated the downtown, and that something needs to be done to incentivize new restaurants to areas where they have not currently located (Pineapple Grove and West Atlantic) and to encourage other types of uses including retail opportunities. This amendment increases the required parking for restaurants to what it is in the balance of the City (12/1,000, then 15/1,000 for floor area over 6,000 sq. ft.) in the Central Core and Beach sections of the CBD. The parking requirement of 6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. remains unchanged for the Pineapple Grove and the West Atlantic neighborhoods. This amendment should not be characterized as an increase but more as a removal of an incentive which has been extremely successful and is no longer needed. This amendment will provide more of an incentive to retain non-restaurant uses (discourage retail conversions to restaurants) in the Central Core. This change will be followed up with additional incentives for retail retention and expansion with a combined goal to ensure there is a mix of downtown activities that include those beyond exclusively restaurants. REQUIRED FINDINGS Comprehensive Plan Conformance LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5) (Findings) requires that the City Commission make a finding that the text amendment is consistent with and furthers the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. A thorough review of the Comprehensive Plan was conducted and the following goals, objectives and policies support this proposed amendment: GOAL AREA "C" Blighted areas of the city shall be redeveloped and renewed and shall be the major contributing areas to the renaissance of Delray Beach. Objective C-3 The Central Business District (CBD) and surrounding neighborhoods, including A-1-A, Seacrest and Swinton Avenue represents the essence of what is Delray Beach i.e. a "village by the sea". The continued revitalization of the CBD is essential to achieving the overall theme of the City's Comprehensive Plan by managing growth and preserving the charm. The following policies and activities shall be pursued in the achievement of this objective. Policy C-3.1 The Central Business District (CBD) Zoning District regulations shall facilitate and encourage rehabilitation and revitalization and shall, at a minimum, address the following: ^ incentives for locating retail on the ground floor with office and residential use on upper floors. By returning the parking requirement to that which is consistent with this use City-wide, retail uses will become more attractive to the Central Core of the CBD. Restaurant uses will continue to be 2 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, June 20, 2011 LDR Amendment- Restaurant Parking Requirements in the Central Core incentivized in the Pineapple Grove and West Atlantic Avenue neighborhoods. This amendment is consistent with this policy of the Comprehensive Plan. REVIEW BY OTHERS The Pineapple Grove Main Street (PGMS) committee reviewed the item at their June 1, 2011 meeting and discussed their concern over the approach to create a disincentive for restaurants, rather than creating an incentive to achieve what is desired, which is the retention and attraction of retail. They felt that the amendment should be crafted such that it gets us what we want, rather than what we don't want. One suggestion was to evaluate the current "credit" that is given to existing retail establishments when they go about converting to restaurant use; it was suggested that they start at zero and not be given credit for "existing" spaces when those spaces may merely be grandfathered. This approach would in fact increase the parking requirement similar to this amendment. The proposed approach to remove the current incentive (reduction) enjoyed by the restaurant uses, and return them to a level commensurate with the overall city requirement, is much more defensible. The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) reviewed the item at their June 9, 2011 meeting and recommended that P&Z work with CRA staff to incorporate this amendment with other parking changes such as reductions for offices, etc. There were also questions concerning whether or not doubling of the requirements was too much of a change, and if the area subject to the increase might be changed (i.e. only certain clusters). Staff will be working with the CRA staff and further incentives to encourage business diversity in the downtown. The Downtown Development Authority (DDA) reviewed the item at their June 13, 2011 meeting and a recommendation of approval was made. The West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition (WARC) reviewed the item at their June 14, 2011 meeting and a recommendation of approval was made. Courtesy Notices Courtesy notices were provided to the following homeowner and civic associations: ^ Neighborhood Advisory Council ^ Progressive Residents of Delray (PROD) Letters of objection and support, if any, will be provided at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION By returning the parking requirement to that which is consistent with this use City-wide, retail uses will become more attractive to the Central Core of the CBD. Restaurant uses will continue to be incentivized in the Pineapple Grove and West Atlantic Avenue neighborhoods. 3 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, June 20, 2011 LDR Amendment- Restaurant Parking Requirements in the Central Core ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move a recommendation of approval to the City Commission of the amendment to Land Development Regulations, By Amending Section 4.4.13, "Central Business (CBD) District", Subsection (G), "Supplemental District Regulations", Section 4.4.24, "Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD)", Subsection (G), `Supplemental District Regulations", And Section 4.4.28, "Central Business District-Railroad Corridor (CBD- RC)", Subsection (G), "Supplemental District Regulations", To Clarify The Parking Requirements For Restaurants, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the text amendment and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M) C. Move a recommendation of denial to the City Commission of the amendment to Land Development Regulations, By Amending Section 4.4.13, "Central Business (CBD) District", Subsection (G), "Supplemental District Regulations", Section 4.4.24, "Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD)", Subsection (G), `Supplemental District Regulations", And Section 4.4.28, "Central Business District-Railroad Corridor (CBD- RC)", Subsection (G), "Supplemental District Regulations", To Clarify The Parking Requirements For Restaurants, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the text amendment and approval thereof is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M) (motion to be made in the affirmative). RECOMMENDED ACTION Recommend approval of the amendment to Land Development Regulations, By Amending Section 4.4.13, "Central Business (CBD) District", Subsection (G), "Supplemental District Regulations", Section 4.4.24, "Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD)", Subsection (G), `Supplemental District Regulations", And Section 4.4.28, "Central Business District-Railroad Corridor (CBD-RC)", Subsection (G), "Supplemental District Regulations", To Clarify The Parking Requirements For Restaurants, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the text amendment and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M). Attachment: • Proposed Ordinance 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: July 7, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.C. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 19, 2011 ORDINANCE N0.21-11 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This ordinance is before Commission for second readingto consider acity-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) to expand the applicability of the payment of in-lieu of parking program. BACKGROUND At the first reading on July 5, 2011, the City Commission passed Ordinance No. 21-ll. At that time I expressed some concern that perhaps we were making in lieu parking too easily available. After reviewing the ordinance more carefully, my concern is that in Section 6 of the ordinance, paragraph (3) allows in lieu spaces to be used for new development. I find that provision confusing because in the CBD-RC, West Atlantic and Central Core areas it says in lieu spaces can only be used where on site or off site parking "cannot be provided". How could there ever be a situation where parking "cannot be provided" for a new development built from the ground up? Only in OSSHAD does it add "or is inappropriate" and inappropriateness is limited to preserving the historic character of the district. I think that the language in paragraph (3) will mislead some developers into thinking that in lieu spaces can be used for any new development in any of the four areas where it is allowed. RECOMMENDATION Recommend consideration of Ordinance No. 21-ll on second and final reading. ORDINANCE N0.21-11 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY PEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, PY AMENDING SECTION 2.4.5, "PROCEDURES FOR OPTAINING DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS", SUBSECTION (O), "IN LIEU OF PARKING AND PUBLIC PARKING FEE REQUEST"; SECTION 4.4.13, "CENTRAL PUSINESS (CBD) DISTRICT", SUBSECTION (G), "SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS"; SECTION 4.4.24, "OLD SCHOOL SQUARE HISTORIC ARTS DISTRICT (OSSHAD)", SUBSECTION (G), "SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS"; SECTION 4.4.28, "CENTRAL PUSINESS DISTRICT-RAILROAD CORRIDOR (CBD-RC)", SUBSECTION (G), "SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS" AND SECTION 4.6.9, "OFF-STREET PARKING REGULATIONS", SUBSECTION (E), "PARAGRAPH (3), "IN LIEU FEE"; TO EXPAND THE APPLICAPILITY OF THE PAYMENT-IN-LIEU PROGRAIV~ PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section 1.1.6, the Plarn~ing and Zoning Poard reviewed the proposed text amendment at a public hearing held on June 20, 2011 and voted 6 to 0 to recommend that the changes be approved and WHEREAS, pursuant to Florida Statute 163.3174(4)(c), the Plarn~ing and Zoning Poard sitting as the Local Plarn~ing Agency, has determined that the change is consistent with and furthers the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Peach adopts the findings in the Plarn~ing and Zoning Staff Report; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Peach finds the ordinance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, PE IT ORDAINED PY THE CITY COMNIISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY PEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the recitations set forth above are incorporated herein. Section 2 That Section 2.4.5, "Procedures for Obtaining Development Approvals", Subsection (O), "In Lieu of Parking and Public Parking Fee Request", of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be amended to read as follows: (O) In Lieu of Parking and Public Parking Fee Request (1) Rule: An in lieu of parking or public parking fee request must be approved by City Commission with recommendations from the Parking l~ilanagement Advisory Board and other Boards as deemed appropriate. (2) Required Information: The following information must be submitted for an In Lieu of Parking or Public Parking Fee request: (a) Sketch Plan including current and proposed square footage. (b) Scope of work (i.e. expansion of use, change of use, new constructiory etc.). (c) Application and appropriate fee. (d) Current parking required and provided (e) Parking required and parking provided to facilitate proposal. (f) For public parking fee requests: Adjacent rights-of-way and proposed parking to be constructed (3) Procedure: Subject to Staff review and the provision of any additional information that shall be required an in lieu of parking or public parking fee request shall be processed in the following manner. (a) Receipt and certification is complete. (b) Request must comply with Sections 4.6.9(E) (3) or 4.6.9(E)(4). (c) Consideration by Parking Nkanagement Advisory Board and other Boards as deemed appropriate. (d) Approval by City Commission. (4) Conditions: Conditions maybe imposed pursuant to, but not limited to, Sections 4.6.9(E ) (3) ands 4.6.9(E) (4). (5) Findings: The City Commission must 2 ORD. NO. 21-11 Development Regulations, Ci ,~ Comprehensive Plan, and all currentl,~ adopted Citypolicies and/or studies. For In lieu requests, an additional finding must be made that adequate public parking options are available. For Public Parking Fee requests, an additional finding must be made that adequate public parking will be available pursuant to the requirements of Section 4.6.9(E Section 3 That Section 4.4.13, "Central Pusiness (CSD) District", Subsection (G), "Supplemental District Regulations", of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Peach, Florida, be amended to read as follows: (G) Supplemental District Regulations: In addition to the supplemental district regulations as set forth in Article 4.6, except as modified below, the following shall also apply. (1) Central Core and Peach Area supplemental Regulations: (a) Within that portion of the CSD bounded by Swinton Avenue on the west, N.E. 2nd Street on the north, the Intracoastal Waterway on the east and S.E. 2nd Street on the south, the parking requirements for all non residential uses, except restaurants, hotels and motels, and business and professional offices, shall be one space for each 300 square feet of gross floor area or fraction thereof. The parking required for the creation of new floor area, shall also include the replacement of any previously required parking which may be eliminated Within all other geographic areas of the Central Core and Peach Area within the CSD Zone District, the provisions of Section 4.6.9(C) shall apply, as further modified within this Subsection (G)(1). (b) When the parking requirements are applied to either new development, expansion of an existing use or a change in use, which results in the requirement of only one new parking space, a one space exemption shall be allowed. This exemption may only occur once per property. (c) If ' the required parking cannot be provided on site or off-site, .. ,the in lieu fee option provided in Section4.6.9(E)(3) maybe applied (d) The parking requirement for restaurants is established at six (6) spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. (e) The parking requirement for hotels and motels within that portion of the CPD bounded by Swinton Avenue on the west, N.E. 2nd Street on the north, the Intracoastal Waterway on the east and S.E. 2nd Street on the south is established at 0.7 of a space for each guest room plus one (1) space per 300 sq. ft. of floor area devoted ORD. NO. 21-11 to ballrooms, meeting rooms, and shops and six (6) spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area devoted to restaurants and lounges within the hotel or motel. (f) The parking requirements for residential units in multi-family structures and mixed use buildings shall be as follows: • Efficiency dwelling unit 1.0 space/unit • One bedroom dwelling unit 1.25 spaces/unit • Taw or more bedroom dwelling unit 1.75 spaces/unit • Guest parking shall be provided cumulatively as foIlows: - for the first 20 units 0.50 spaces/unit - for units 21-50 0.30 spaces/unit - for units 51 and above 0.20 spaces/unit Within Townhouse and Townhouse type developments, parking may be provided in front of garage units provided that such parking does not result in the space for one unit impeding access to a space of the other unit. Location of Guest Parking Spaces: Guest parking spaces must be accessible to all visitors and guests and maybe centralized or located near recreational features within a development project. (g) The parking requirement for business and professional offices within the following portions of the CSD is established at one (1) space per 300 sq. ft. of net floor area. The portion of the CSD bounded by Swinton Avenue on the west, N.E. 2nd Street on the north, the Intracoastal Waterway on the east and S.E. 2nd Street on the south; 2. The portion of the CSD bounded by N.E. 5th Avenue on the west, N.E. 6th Avenue on the east, N.E. 2nd Street on the south and George Sush Slvd on the north; and 3. The portion of the CSD bounded by S.E. 5th Avenue on the west, S.E. 6th Avenue on the east, S.E. 2nd Street on the north and S.E. 4th Street on the south (2) West Atlantic Neighborhood Supplemental District Regulations: The following supplemental district regulations apply in the West Atlantic Avenue Overlay District as defined in Section 4.5.6(P): 4 ORD. NO. 21-11 (a) Commercial structures are limited to a maximum depth of 150 feet from the ultimate right-of-way of Atlantic Avenue, unless the parcel has frontage on N.W. 5th Avenue or S.W. 5th Avenue. Accessory uses such as parking areas, landscaping, and drainage retention areas may extend beyond the 150 foot limit. Establishment or expansion of structures beyond the 150 foot limit maybe allo~d as a conditional use, subject to the required findings of Section 2.4.5(E) (5). (b) There is no restriction on repair and/or reconstruction of non conforming single family residences located a minimum of 150 feet from Atlantic Avenue. (c) Six (6) parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area are required for restaurants and one (1) parking space per 300 square feet of gross floor area is required for all other non residential uses, except hotels and motels, and business and professional offices. Parking spaces for residential uses are required at the rates established in Section 4.6.9(C) (2). (d) The parking requirement for hotels and motels is established at 0.7 of a space for each guest room plus one (1) space per 300 sq. ft. of floor area devoted to ballrooms, meeting rooms, and shops and six (6) spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area devoted to restaurants and lounges within the hotel or motel (e) If ' the required parking cannot be provided on site or off-site, the in lieu fee option provided in Section 4.6.9(E)(3) maybe applied (f) Parking areas and accessways to parking lots must be located to the rear of commercial structures that have frontage on Atlantic Avenue. Where locating parking to the rear of the structure is impossible or inappropriate, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board may approve an alternate location (g) The parking requirement for business and professional offices is established at one (1) space per 300 sq. ft. of net floor area. Section 4 That Section 4.4.24, "Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD)", Subsection (G), "Supplemental District Regulations," of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Peach, Florida, be amended to read as follows: (G) Supplemental District Regulations: Supplemental district regulations as set forth in Article 4.6, except as modified herein, apply. (1) Parcels located along N.E. 1st Avenue between N.E. 2nd Street and N.E. 3rd Street (Parker's Row) shall comply with either provisions of Article 4.6 of these Supplemental District ORD. NO. 21-11 Regulations [Subsection (G)], or provisions of the Banker's Row Development Plan, whichever is more permissive. (2) The perimeter landscaping requirements of Section 4.6.16(H) (3) (e) shall not apply. (3) All parking, except for single family homes and duplexes, shall be located in the side or rear yard or adjacent to a rear alley. No such parking shall be located in the area between any street and the closest building or structure. Where there are existing buildings or structures, the Historic Preservation Board may waive this requirement during the site plan review process, provided that it is determined that compliance is not feasible and that the character of the area will be maintained If approved such parking shall be substantially screened from off-premises view by a hedge or decorative fencing. (4) Parking Requirements: (a) All non residential uses, with the exception of restaurants, and business and professional offices, shall provide one parking space per 300 sq.ft. of total new or existing gross floor area being converted to nonresidential use. This requirement maybe reduced to one parking space per 400 sq.ft. of gross floor area, or by at least one space, where there is a mix of residential and nonresidential use in the same structure. (b) Restaurants shall provide six spaces per one thousand square feet of total new or existing floor area being converted to restaurant use. (c) Residential type inns shall provide one parking space per guest room/unit. Other accessory uses shall be calculated separately based upon square footage of the use area as provided for in subsections 4.4.24 (G) (4) (a) and (b) above. (d) Business and professional offices shall provide one (1) space per 300 sq. ft. of total new or existing net floor area being converted to office use. This requirement maybe reduced to one parking space per 400 sq.ft. of net floor area, or by at least one space, where there is a mix of residential and office use in the same structure. (5) If ' the required parking cannot be provided on site or off-site, or it is i ust inappropriate to provide it on sit , , the in lieu fee option provided in Section 4.6.9(E)(3) may be collected For the purpose of this provisiony "inappropriateness" maybe considered in relationship to the historic character of this zone district. (6) When the parking requirements of Section 4.6.9(C) are applied to either new development, expansion of an existing use or a change in use, which results in the requirement of 6 ORD. NO. 21-11 only one new parking space, a one space exemption shall be allowed. This exemption may only occur once per property. Section 5 That Section 4.4.28, "Central Pusiness District-Railroad Comdor (CSD-RC)", Subsection (G), "Supplemental District Regulations", of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Peach, Florida, be amended to read as follows: (G) Supplemental District Regulations: In addition to the supplemental district regulations as set forth in Article 4.6, the following shall apply. (1) When the parking requirements of Section 4.6.9(E)(4) are applied to either new development, expansion of an existing use or a change in use, which results in the requirement of only one new parking space, a one space exemption shall be allo~d. This reduction may only occur once per property. (2) If ' the required parking cannot be provided on site, or off-sit .. ,the in lieu fee option provided in Section 4.6.9(E)(3) maybe applied (3) The parking requirement for restaurants is established at six (6) spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Section 6. That Section 4.6.9, "Off-Street Parking Regulations", Subsection (E ), "Location of Parking Spaces", Paragraph (3), "In lieu Fee", of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Peach, Florida, be amended to read as follows: (3) In Lieu Fee: E~All new development, use conversion to existing buildings, building additions and/or renovations, that result in the requirement to provide new parking or additional parking, have the option of requesting some or all of the parking spaces to be approved by the City Commission through the payment in lieu of parldngTgram. Before granting such approvals, the City Commission must find that adequate public parking options are available and that the request is 7 ORD. NO. 21-ll consistent with the Land Development Regulations, Ci ,~ Corr~rehensive Plan, and all currently adopted Citypolicies and/or studies. Payment of a fee in lieu of required parking shall be pursuant to the following provisions. (a) The in lieu fee is authorized only in the CSD, CSD-RC, and OSSHAD Zoning Districts, incompliance with the Supplemental District Regulations provisions therein. (b) Arrangements for payment shall be approved by the City Commis.5ion at the time of the approval of the in lieu fee. The fee amount shall be based upon the location of the properly for which in lieu fees are being sought. Area descriptions and corresponding fee amounts are hereby established as follows: (See corresponding map). (1) Area 1: Parcels located east of the Intracoastal Waterway which are zoned CSD - $18,200 per space. (2) Area 2: Parcels located Est of the Intracoastal Waterway which are zoned CSD or CSD-RC and which are not included within the Pineapple Grove Main Street area, West Atlantic Neighborhood or Flock 691ocated in the Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD) - $15,600 per space. (3) Area 3: Parcels located within the OSSHAD zoning district, except for Flock 69 as noted in Area 2; and parcels located within the Pineapple Grove Main Street area which are zoned CSD or CSD-RC - $7,800 per space. (4) Area 4: Parcels located within the West Atlantic Neighborhood which are zoned CSD - $4,000 per space. ORD. NO. 21-11 _-~.__ ...................___ v ~ ____~ ~~ ~( ~_ 1~--r _,_ .__- ---- _____M,a3,v_----,- - , __ -~ -- n w a _ __ m , _r ~,a~ i~ : ,., ~ - ~~ o 0 . _ _ a ~ o ~~ ~ _ ~ ~ - _ _ .__ _ ~ -' ~ ~11 u . ~~ =_~~~ - T]~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~3C a _ ~~ ___, ,- ~ ~--_ ~, ~ w-- _,~ ~ ---- ~ '~ k :~ O H M ~ ~ ----- ~~ -- ~ ~ ~_r~__:f~ ~ ~~ -~-----,-- ~ e, ~; I b0 ~Vt1AN J f ____ ~ L __',- r ~~ ~_____ ~ma JLbM C ~_ _ ~ ~II II ''yII}I ~~ n 4 i __ ~ r it ~~m J V r.a (~ m ¢ ~ ~ _, _ _ ~ __~ _ V _ ~ m ` ug Q' ~ ~ ~ ' _ -, ~ ~ -_-. Q J ° ¢ ~ iw __,. - -~ - - I ~ -~ __. __ _- _.~ __ - ~ - _ Q a M ~ ~. i _. - _ ~ _ - w J _ __..___ _~ - - ~ a ~ I ~---^- J I r _~ L ~ L~_ J ..., ~ W d J J o ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ C, ~ u o, ~ J ~' . J < r _ " ~,. o.. ,- ~, o i z. .. ~ _ ., _ ; - .~ L _- ~ ~ - ~ ~.. ________,. ..,.. ~ ."+!o-_. V m a ~ t ~ ~ - ,~ - _- ~ ~ i I ~ z~ ~ ~a~,. - ~ a T -~, u~ z _~o& a L _ ~ I ~ w LL~ W r . ~~ I ~ -- aw m ° > ~ ~~ ~_ w z ~o o o ~ 'r z Q h ...,,,. ,e_ ~ __f_,._ _,_._....__-__~- y _.___ -_____--_____.- -. v ¢ d O I I ORD. NO. 21-11 (c) All proceeds from such a fee shall be used for parking purposes (d) For properly owners opting to pay in full, or lessees of properties, payment of the in lieu fee is due upon issuance of a building permit. The in lieu fee maybe paid in full upon issuance of a building permit or in installments. Applicants for an in lieu fee which is not paid in full at time of permit, must enter into an In Lieu of Parking Fee Agreement with the City prior to or upon issuance of a build permit. Such agreement shall be recorded with the Public Records Office of Palm Seach County, Florida. The obligations imposed by such an In Lieu of Parking Fee Agreement constitute a restrictive covenant upon a property, and shall bind successors, heirs and assigns. The restrictive covenant shall be released upon full payment of the in lieu parking fees including attoreys fees and costs. In Lieu of Parking Fee Agreements shall only be made between the City and the Owner(s) of the subject property. If an In Lieu of Parking Fee Agreement is entered into, installment payments shall be made over a three-year time period in three installments. The first installment shall be 50% of the total fee and is to be paid upon signing the agreement. The second installment shall be 25% of the total fee and is due on the second anniversary date of the signing of the agreement. The third and final payment of 25% of the total fee is due on the third anniversary date of the signing of the agreement. There shall be no interest due under this payment schedule. (e) In addition to in lieu fees due, where adequate right-of-way exists adjacent to a proposed project for which an in lieu parking fee has been approved the applicant must construct additional on street parking, not to exceed the total amount of spaces subject to in lieu fees unless authorized by the City Commission. The applicant will be credited up to one- hakf of a parking space for each full parking space constructed within public right-of-way. (For example, the applicant requests to pay the in lieu fee on 4 spaces; the applicant constructs 4 spaces in the right-of-way; the applicant must only pay the in lieu fee for 2 spaces). Crediting of spaces constructed in the right-of-way resukting in a fraction shall be rounded down Credit may not be taken for those parking spaces constructed in the public right-of-way which are required to rr~eet the performance standards for. new developments. (f) Requests to allow in lieu fee payments that are not associated with a site plan or a site plan modification shall expire two years after such request is approved The fee charged shall be the fee that is set forth in the Land Development Regulations at the time payment is made for spaces required to accommodate the associated site plan or site plan modification. Section 7. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or ward be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be 10 ORD. NO. 21-11 invalid such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid Section 8. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed Section 9. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage on second and final reading PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the day of , 2011. ATTEST MAYOR City Clerk First Reading Second Reading 11 ORD. NO. 21-11 Coversheet MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners Page 1 of 3 FROM: MARK MCDONNELL, AICP, ASST. DIRECTOR PLANNING AND ZONING PAUL DORLING, AICP, DIRECTOR PLANNING AND ZONING THROUGH: CITY MANAGER DATE: June 29, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 12.B. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 5, 2011 ORDINANCE N0.21-ll ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Approval of achy-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) that will provide additional opportunities for property owners to voluntarily participate in the payment in-lieu of parking program. BACKGROUND Payment of a fee in-lieu of providing required parking spaces is an option currently available to properties located within the CBD, CBD-RC, and OSSHAD zoning districts. Further, the parking space fee associated with this program is based upon the In-Lieu Fee District Area Number within which property is located. There are currently a number of qualifications that must be satisfied to be eligible for the City Commission to consider approval of a payment of a fee in-lieu of providing the required number of parking spaces. These qualifications are: • When additional parking is required that results from in-fill development that has been vacant for five (5) years or longer; From a change of use; • Adding floor space to an existing building. In lieu options are specifically prohibited for the following: • New development; http://itwebapp/AgendaIntranetBluesheet.aspx?ItemID=4625&MeetingID=322 7/7/2011 Coversheet Page 2 of 3 For Changes of use, or increases in floor space, if either occurs within two (2) years of the granting of a Certificate of Occupancy for new development. The current LDRs mandate that the City Commission make a finding that it is impossible or inappropriate to provide the required number of on-site or off-street parking spaces, and that no parking spaces are to be eliminated in the case of building additions. The City of Delray Beach Parking Management Plan dated August 2010 recommends that the parking in-lieu program be expanded to provide property owners the option to voluntarily participate in the in- lieu program, whether or not a hardship exists. The Plan notes that doing so will enable developments to participate in the shared parking pool within downtown and further enable the City's vision of a park- once downtown. This amendment would also encourage additional participation in the payment in-lieu of parking program. This amendment eliminates the current qualifications that properties must meet to be eligible to participate in the in-lieu program. It further eliminates the requirement that the City Commission find that it is either inappropriate or impossible to provide the required parking and removes the prohibition for this option for building additions which result in the elimination of existing parking spaces (any spaces that are lost would be offset by a corresponding in-lieu payment). All new development, use conversion to existing buildings, building additions and/or renovations, that result in the requirement to provide new parking or additional parking, will now have the option of requesting some or all of the parking spaces to be approved by the City Commission through the payment in-lieu of parking program. Additional language is added that the City Commission must find that adequate public parking options are available and that the request is consistent with the Land Development Regulations, City Comprehensive Plan, and all currently adopted City policies and/or studies. REVIEW BY OTHERS The Pineapple Grove Main Street (PGMS) committee reviewed the item at their June 1, 2011 meeting and made a unanimous recommendation of approval. The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) reviewed the item at their June 9, 2011 meeting and made a unanimous recommendation of approval. The Downtown Development Authority (DDA) reviewed the item at their June 13, 2011 meeting and a recommendation of approval was made, but that consideration of the following is made: - That developments that are exclusively residential not be eligible; - That it be found that sufficient public parking is available when considering commercial projects; - That adequate components, such as the residential component, of a mixed-use project be addressed separately. The West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition (WARC) reviewed the item at their June 14, 2011 meeting and a recommendation of approval was made. The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the item at their June 20, 2011 meeting and a unanimous http://itwebapp/AgendaIntranetBluesheet.aspx?ItemID=4625&MeetingID=322 7/7/2011 Coversheet Page 3 of 3 recommendation of approval was made. RECOMMENDATION By motion, approve Ordinance No. 21-ll on first reading for achy-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.5(1VI) of the Land Development Regulations. http://itwebapp/AgendaIntranetBluesheet.aspx?ItemID=4625&MeetingID=322 7/7/2011 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: JUNE 20, 2011 AGENDA NO: IV. D. AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF ACITY-INITIATED AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDR), BY AMENDING SECTION 2.4.5 (O), "IN-LIEU OF PARKING AND PUBLIC PARKING REQUEST", SECTION 4.6.9, "OFF-STREET PARKING REGULATIONS", SUBSECTION 4.6.9(E)(3), "IN-LIEU FEE", AND OTHER RELATED SECTIONS, TO CLARIFY THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PAYMENT IN- LIEU PROGRAM. ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is to make a recommendation to the City Commission regarding acity- initiated amendment to Land Development Regulations (LDRs) that will provide additional opportunities for property owners to voluntarily participate in the payment in-lieu of parking program. Pursuant to Section 1.1.6, an amendment to the text of the Land Development Regulations may not be made until a recommendation is obtained from the Planning and Zoning Board. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Payment of a fee in-lieu of providing required parking spaces is an option currently available to properties located within the CBD, CBD-RC, and OSSHAD zoning districts. Further, the parking space fee associated with this program is based upon the In-Lieu Fee District Area Number within which property is located. There are currently a number of qualifications that must be satisfied to be eligible for the City Commission to consider approval of a payment of a fee in-lieu of providing the required number of parking spaces. These qualifications are: When additional parking is required that results from in-fill development that has been vacant for five (5) years or longer; From a change of use; Adding floor space to an existing building. In lieu options are specifically prohibited for the following: ^ New development; ^ For Changes of use, or increases in floor space, if either occurs within two (2) years of the granting of a Certificate of Occupancy for new development. The current LDRs mandate that the City Commission make a finding that it is impossible or inappropriate to provide the required number of on-site or off-street parking spaces, and that no parking spaces are to be eliminated in the case of building additions. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, June 20, 2011 LDR Amendment-Fee In-Lieu of Parking The City of Delray Beach Parking Management Plan dated August 2010 recommends that the parking in-lieu program be expanded to provide property owners the option to voluntarily participate in the in-lieu program, whether or not a hardship exists. The Plan notes that doing so will enable developments to participate in the shared parking pool within downtown and further enable the City's vision of a park-once downtown. This amendment would also encourage additional participation in the payment in-lieu of parking program. This amendment eliminates the current qualifications that properties must meet to be eligible to participate in the in-lieu program. It further eliminates the requirement that the City Commission find that it is either inappropriate or impossible to provide the required parking and removes the prohibition for this option for building additions which result in the elimination of existing parking spaces (any spaces that are lost would be offset by a corresponding in-lieu payment). All new development, use conversion to existing buildings, building additions and/or renovations, that result in the requirement to provide new parking or additional parking, will now have the option of requesting some or all of the parking spaces to be approved by the City Commission through the payment in-lieu of parking program. Additional language is added that the City Commission must find that adequate public parking options are available and that the request is consistent with the Land Development Regulations, City Comprehensive Plan, all currently adopted City policies and/or studies, and additionally, the Downtown Delray Beach Cluster Analysis. REQUIRED FINDINGS Comprehensive Plan Conformance LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5) (Findings) requires that the City Commission make a finding that the text amendment is consistent with and furthers the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. A thorough review of the Comprehensive Plan was conducted and the following objective supports this proposed amendment: Future Land Use Element Objective A-5 states that "the City shall maintain its Land Development Regulations, which shall be regularly reviewed and updated, to provide timely, equitable and streamlined processes including, but not limited to, building permit processes for residential developments and to accommodate mixed-use developments, and other innovative development practices." This LDR text amendment is supported by this Comprehensive Plan objective and will implement one of the recommendations of the Delray Beach Parking Management Plan. REVIEW BY OTHERS The Pineapple Grove Main Street (PGMS) committee reviewed the item at their June 1, 2011 meeting and made a unanimous recommendation of approval. The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) reviewed the item at their June 9, 2011 meeting and made a unanimous recommendation of approval. 2 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, June 20, 2011 LDR Amendment-Fee In-Lieu of Parking The Downtown Development Authority (DDA) reviewed the item at their June 13, 2011 meeting and a recommendation of approval was made, but that consideration of the following is made: That developments that are exclusively residential not be eligible; That it be found that sufficient public parking is available when considering commercial projects; That adequate components, such as the residential component, of a mixed-use project be addresses separately. The West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition (WARC) reviewed the item at their June 14, 2011 meeting and a recommendation of approval was made. Courtesy Notices Courtesy notices were provided to the following homeowner and civic associations: ^ Neighborhood Advisory Council ^ Progressive Residents of Delray (PROD) Letters of objection and support, if any, will be provided at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION This amendment implements one of the recommendations of the City of Delray Beach Parking Management Plan of August 2010. While the fee in-lieu of providing parking program will remain as a viable option for development, it will now have greater opportunities for voluntary participation with adoption of this ordinance. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move a recommendation of approval to the City Commission of the amendment to Land Development Regulations, by Amending Section 2.4.5 (O), In-Lieu of Parking and Public Parking Fee Requests, Section 4.6.9, "Off-Street Parking Regulations", Subsection 4.6.9(E) (3), "In-Lieu Fee", and the Supplemental District Regulations of Section 4.4.13 Central Business District, Section 4.4.24 Old School Square Historic Arts District, and 4.4.28 Central Business District-Railroad Corridor District, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the text amendment and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M). C. Move a recommendation of denial to the City Commission of the amendment to Land Development Regulations, by Amending Section 2.4.5 (O), In-Lieu of Parking and Public Parking Fee Requests, Section 4.6.9, "Off-Street Parking Regulations", Subsection 4.6.9(E) (3), "In-Lieu Fee", and the Supplemental District Regulations of Section 4.4.13 Central Business District, Section 4.4.24 Old School Square Historic Arts District, and 4.4.28 Central Business District-Railroad Corridor District, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the text amendment and approval thereof is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M) (motion to be made in the affirmative). 3 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, June 20, 2011 LDR Amendment-Fee In-Lieu of Parking RECOMMENDED ACTION Recommend approval of the amendment to Land Development Regulations, by Amending Section 2.4.5 (O), In-Lieu of Parking and Public Parking Fee Requests, Section 4.6.9, "Off- Street Parking Regulations", Subsection 4.6.9(E) (3), "In-Lieu Fee", and the Supplemental District Regulations of Section 4.4.13 Central Business District, Section 4.4.24 Old School Square Historic Arts District, and 4.4.28 Central Business District-Railroad Corridor District, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the text amendment and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M). Attachment: • Proposed Ordinance 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: July 13, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.D. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 19, 2011 RESOLUTION N0.27-11 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION In accordance with Chapter 56, "stormwater", of the City Code, Resolution No. 27-ll establishes the budget for the stormwater utility system, establishes the rates for FY 2012 stormwater management assessments, and certifies and adopts the stormwater management assessment roll. Prior to consideration, a public hearing is required. BACKGROUND The assessment is proposed at the rate of $5.33 per month per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU), for a total annual assessment of $63.96 per ERU. This is the same as the current year assessment. Property owners within the Lake Worth Drainage District are given a 25% discount. A separate 25% discount is given to owners of property served by private drainage systems. The proposed budget for the stormwater utility fund is incorporated in Resolution No. 27-ll as Exhibit "A". The rate structure with condominium factors is attached to the resolution as Exhibit `B". The assessment roll will be available for review in the Commission Chambers at the July 19th meeting. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of Resolution No. 27-ll. RESOLUTION NO.27-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY PEACH, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING A BUDGET FOR THE STORMWATER UTILITY SYSTEM; ESTABLISHING RATES FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENTS FOR EACH PARCEL WITHIN THE BENEFITTED AREA, OTHER THAN NON-ASSESSED PROPERTY; PROVIDING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING; PROVIDING FOR THE CERTIFICATION AND ADOPTION OF THE STORMWATER ASSESSMENT ROLL IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 56 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, dick on July 10,1990, adopt Ordinance No. 21-90, which provides for the creation and establishment of a City-wide Stormwater l~ilanagement System; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach dicl, on April 27, 1993, adopt Ordinance No. 35-93 which amended Chapter 56 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach to provide for the method of establishing and collecting Stomlwater l~ilanagement Assessments; and WHEREAS, the statutory authority for the creation and implementation of Ordinance No. 21-90, as amended, is predicated on Article VIII, Section 2(b) of the Florida Constitutiory Chapter 166, Florida Statutes, as amended and supplemented; Section 403.0893, Florida Statutes, as amended and supplemented; Chapter 197, Florida Statutes, as amended and supplemented the City Quarter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida; and other applicable provisions of law; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach has found that owners, tenants and occupants of property within the geographical boundaries of the City will derive a special benefit from the effective management of stormwater and other surface water and from the operation, maintenance and expansion of the stormwater management system; and WHEREAS, Chapter 56 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach establishes that the rate for stormwater management assessments for each parcel within the benefited area, other than with respect to non assessed property, shall be established each year by resolution of the City Commission; and WHEREAS, Chapter 56 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Seach provides that such rate resolution shall not be adopted prior to the establishment of an operational budget for the system or prior to conducting a rate hearing as required by applicable law; and WHEREAS, Chapter 56 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Seach provides that such budget shall include, but not be limited to, a capital element, a debt service element and an Operation and Maintenance element and further requires that the rate hearing and rate resolution shall clearly establish what portion of the stomlwater management assessment reflects the capital element, the debt service element, if any, and the Operation and Maintenance element; and WHEREAS, a budget of operation for the year ending September 30, 2011, is set forth in Exhibit "A" and is established in conformity with the requirements of Ordinance No. 21- 90, as amended, and Chapter 56 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Seach; and WHEREAS, billing and collection of the stormwater management assessment shall be accomplished utilizing the uniform method of collection; and WHEREAS, a rate for stomlwater management assessments for the various classes of property (other than non assessed property) within the benefited area shall be calculated as provided in Chapter 56 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Seach, and as further set forth in Exhrbit "B" to this resolutiony and WHEREAS, a public hearing on this resolution setting the rates and adopting the budget and for the purposes of adopting and certifying a stormwater assessment roll was duly noticed; and WHEREAS, the City, upon adoption of the budget and rates, shall review the stormwater assessment roll to determine its conformity with the proposed rate resolution and, if, upon the completion of such review the City shall be satisfied that the Stormwater Management Assessment Roll has been prepared in conformity with the proposed rate resolution, it shall adopt said resolution and ratify and confirm the Stormwater Management Assessment Roll and certify that the Stormwater Management Assessment Roll is correct and proper and is to be used in collecting the stomlwater management assessments. Thereafter, the City Commissiony if no objections are made by persons affected by the assessment roll at the public hearing or if objections having been made are deemed insufficient by the City Commission, shall thereupon adopt the assessments as shown by the Assessment Roll; and WHEREAS, the owner of each parcel within the benefited area for which a stormwater assessment is levied shall thereafter be responsible for payment therefore. 2 RES. NO.27-11 NOW, THEREFORE, PE IT RESOLVED PY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY PEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City Commission does hereby adopt the aforementioned preamble in its entirety. Section 2. That the City Commission does hereby adopt, after public hearing, the budget as established in E xhibit "A" hereto which is incorporated herein Section 3. That the City Commission does hereby adopt, after public hearing, the rates as set forth in Exhibit "P" hereto which is incorporated herein. Section 4. That the City Commission hereby adopts and certifies the Stormwater Management Assessment Roll. Section 5. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption ATTEST: PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on this the 19~ day of July, 2011. MAYOR City Clerk 3 RES. NO.27-11 Exhibit "A" FY 2011-12 FUND 448 STORMWATER UTILITY FUND Dept 54 Stormwater Utility Div 11 Administration 12-10 REGULAR SALARIES/WAGES $ 224,280 15-20 CAR ALLOWANCE 2,220 21-10 EMPLOYER FICA 16,710 22-10 GEN'L EMP RETIREMENT 22,550 22-30 ICMA CONTRIBUTIONS 6,580 23-10 LIFE INSURANCE 660 23-20 DISABILITY INSURANCE 900 23-30 HEALTH INSURANCE 28,040 24-10 WORKERS' COMPENSATION 5,360 25-10 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 130 25-20 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROG. 130 * PERSONAL SERVICES 307,560 31-30 ENGINEERING/ARCHITECT 26,650 31-90 OTHER PROFESS SERVICES 20,330 32-10 AUDIT/ACCOUNTING FEES 2,010 40-10 TRAVEL & TRAINING 1,870 41-10 TELEPHONE EXPENSE 670 41-15 PORTABLE PHONE/MDD 960 42-10 POSTAGE 420 43-10 ELECTRICITY 2,420 43-50 STORMWATER CHARGES 1,480 44-30 EQUIPMENT RENTAL/LEASE 560 44-45 VEHICLE RENTAL-GARAGE 1,730 45-10 GENERAL LIABILITY 12,840 46-20 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 210 46-30 VEHICLEMAINT-GARAGE 1,130 46-90 OTHER REPAIR/MAINT COST 12,680 47-20 REPRODUCTION CHARGES 2,000 47-90 OTHER PRINTING COSTS 30 49-22 SHARE OF ADMIN EXP 105,000 51-10 STATIONERY/PAPER/FORMS 1,240 51-90 OTHER OFFICE SUPPLIES 1,800 52-10 FUEL/CUBE VEHICLES 500 52-20 GEN'L OPER SUPPLIES 3,120 52-22 UNIFORM/LINEN SERVICE 370 54-10 BOOKS & PUBLICATIONS 160 54-15 SUBSCRIPTIONS 550 54-20 MEMBERSHIPS 1,080 54-30 TRAINING/EDUCATION COSTS 1,840 * OPERATING EXPENSES 203,650 64-11 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT - 64-12 OFFICE EQUIPMENT - CAPITAL OUTLAY - 91-01 TRANSFER TO GENERAL FUND 120,000 TRANSFERS 99-01 PROJECT RESERVE * NON OPERATING 120,000 ** STORMWATERADMINISTRATION $ 631,210 Exhibit "A" FY 2011-12 FUND 448 STORMWATER UTILITY FUND Dept 54 Stormwater Utility Div 16 MAINTENANCE 12-10 REGULAR SALARIES/WAGES 14-10 OVERTIME 13-10 OTHER PAY 21-10 EMPLOYER FICA 22-10 GEN'L EMP RETIREMENT 22-30 ICMA CONTRIBUTIONS 23-10 LIFE INSURANCE 23-20 DISABILITY INSURANCE 23-30 HEALTH INSURANCE 24-10 WORKERS' COMPENSATION 25-10 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 25-20 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROG. * PERSONAL SERVICES 31-20 MEDICAL 34-70 PHOTO/MICROFILM SERVICES 34-78 REPAIR & UPKEEP CANALS 34-90 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICE 40-10 TRAVEL & TRAINING 41-15 PORTABLE PHONE/MDD 43-10 ELECTRICITY 43-25 IRRIGATION WATER 43-50 STORMWATER CHARGES 44-10 LAND RENTAL/LEASE 44-30 EQUIPMENT RENTAL/LEASE 44-45 VEHICLE MAINT-GARAGE 45-10 GENERAL LIABILITY 46-20 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 46-30 VEHICLE MAINT-GARAGE 46-90 OTHER REPAIR/MA1NT COST 47-10 PRINTING/BINDING SERVICES 49-16 COMML DRIVERS LIC RENEWAL 51-10 STATIONERY/PAPER/FORMS 51-90 OTHER OFFICE SUPPLIES 52-10 FUEL/CUBE VEHICLES 52-20 GEN'L OPER SUPPLIES 52-22 UNIFORMS/LINEN SERVICE 52-24 BUILDING MATERIALS 52-26 GARDENING SUPPLIES 52-27 EQUIPMENT <$1,000 53-20 REPAIRS-DRAINAGE 54-20 MEMBERSHIPS 54-30 TRAINING/EDUCATION COSTS * OPERATING EXPENSES 64-25 HEAVY EQUIPMENT * CAPITAL OUTLAY $ 190,660 10,000 300 14,000 22,750 480 770 41,740 16,040 180 170 297,090 100 9,420 40,000 990 2,520 8,470 8,040 3,200 800 78,090 17,510 1,430 49,650 80, 000 180 50 200 28,000 8,000 2,400 700 10,000 10,000 11,200 100 480 371,530 ** STORMWATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE $ 668,620 Exhibit "A" FY 2011-12 FUND 448 STORMWATER UTILITY FUND Dept 54 Stormwater Utility Div 61 CAPITAL 46-90 DRAINAGE SWALES $ 45,000 46-90 LIFT STATION LEVEL TRANSMITTERS 30,000 65-95 SW 2 ST BEAUTIFICATION 50,000 66-10 NEW FINANCIAL SYSTEM SOFTWARE 250,000 68-18 STORM WATER PUMP ST REHAB 50,000 68-52 FEDERAL HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION 500,000 99-01 PROJECT RESERVE 8,200 * CAPITAL OUTLAY 933,200 ** CAPITAL $ 933,200 FUND 448 STORMWATER UTILITY FUND Dept 71 Debt Service Div llDebt Service 71-16 STORMWATER NOTE 71-25 2007 UTILITY TAX BONDS PRINCIPAL 72-16 STORMWATER NOTE-INTEREST 72-25 2007 UTILITY TAX BONDS INTEREST * DEBT SERVICE ** DEBT SERVICE 35,870 810 18,360 49,790 104, 830 $ 104,830 *** STORMWATER UTILITY FUND $ 2,337,860 EXHIBIT "B" TO RESOLUTION NO. 27-11 Property Total 12 Month Description Rate Structure Assessment Single Family Residential 05.33/Mo./ERU) (12 Mo.) (1 ERU) ~ 63.96 Condominium (~5.33/Mo./ERU) (12 Mo.) (Condo Factor) ~ 63.96 (ERU/Unit) x CF* Single Owner Multi-Family Residential (~5.33/Mo./ERU) (12 Mo.) ~ 63.96/ERU Non-Residential Developed (~5.33/Mo./ERU) (12 Mo.) ~ 63.96/ERU Undeveloped (~5.33/Mo./ERU) (12 Mo.) (1.20 ERU/AC) ~ 76.75/AC A]1 properties within the Lake Worth Drainage District (LWDD), as indicated by the LWDD's boundary map, sha]1 receive a 25% discount. A]1 properties for which the City does not provide for the maintenance of street drainage systems shall receive a 25% discount. *A specific condominium factor (0.0 - 1.0) has been determined for each condominium development. A list of those factors is attached. 4 RES. NO. 27-11 City of Delray Beach, Florida Program: SWLIB/SWCONDO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT Prepared: 7/06/11, 12:42:32 CONDOMINIUM RATES FOR TAX YEAR 2011 Page: 3 Condominium Units ERUs Acacia House M 3 .91 Admiral Apts. 10 .70 Anchorage 8 .32 Ardmore 13 .7fl Arnold Industrial Park 3 1.00 Astor 98 .34 Atlantic Grove 49 .93 Avenue East Retail 6 1.00 Bahama House of D.~./Brook Haven/Ocean Reach Apts. 22 .70 Bahia at Delray 236 1.00 Balmoral 12 .57 Banyan House 6S .63 Banyan Tree Village 55 .96 Bar Harbour 85 .39 Barr Terrace 95 .38 Barrton Apts. 103 .46 Beach Cabanas 12 .64 Beach House of Delray 12 .70 Beekman 14 .70 Bella Vista 8 1.00 Berkshire By The Sea 48 1.00 Berkshire z 23 .79 Bermuda High 22 1.00 Bermuda High South 29 .96 Bermuda High West 46 1.00 Blairs Downtown 3 .89 Black 60 92 .13 Baca Isle/Point at Delray Beach 93 .69 Brooks bane 6 1.00 Cambridge 8 1.00 Captains Walk 57 .86 Casa Del Mar 11 .49 Casa Playa 11 .73 Chevy-Chase 16 .70 Churchill 30 .60 City Walk at Pineapple Grove 42 .54 Coach Gate ,. 7 .97 Coastal House 85 .41 Colridge 3 .87 Commodore Apts. 8 .70 Congress Commerce Center 149 1.00 Congress Park Office 33 .45 Congress Professional Building 4 1.00 Coral Cave 7 .70 Coral Trace Office Park 20 1.00 Costa Del Rey 37 .~68 Country Manors 440 1.00 Court of Delray. 43 .40 Courtyards at Martel Arms 8 .88 Cove Apts 5 .70 Crest ~ 6 .79 Del Harbour 1040 Del Haven Dr. 4 .70 Del Harbour 1820 S Ocean Blvd. 18 .32 Delhaven 24 .74 City of Delray Beach, Florida Program: SWLTB/SWCONDO STORMV~IATER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT Pxepared: 7/Ob/11, 12:42:32 CONDOMINIUM RATES FOR TAX YEAR 2011 Page: 2 Condominium Units ERUs ------__...._W..-..------~--------------------- Delray Beach Club ---------------- 77 ------........_..____._____- .48 Delray Beach Yacht Club 12 .53 Delray Dental Specialists 3 .70 Delray Estates ~ 324 .55 Delray Golfview 36 .57 Delray Harbour Club 50 .71 Delray Oaks 142 .95 Delray Oaks west 256 1.OD Delray Ocean Villas 15 .70 Delray~Park 6 1.00 Delray Place 42 .72 Delray Shores Professional 8 1.00 Delray Summit - 67 .4fl Domaine Delray 60 .91 Dover House 46 1.00 Downtown Lofts 7 .45 Duval Place 8 .71 Eastview of Delray Beach 3 .70 Eastview Village Square 24 1.00 Eastwinds 84 .69 Eight Hundred Ocean Place 8 1.00 Env~ronrnent I 92 .93 Faixwax 72 1.00 Fa11 Ridge 60 1.00 First Avenue 8 1.00 ~`irst Encounter 46 .70 ~'lbrida Blvd 3 .97 Fountain Square Office of Delray 13 1.D0 Georgia Street Industrial Park 3 1.00 Golfview Colony 8 1.00 Grand Bahama Professional 15 1.00 Greensward Village 135 .91 Grove 28 .99 Hamilton House 23 .84 Harbour Pointe of Delray 1D .70 Harbour Vi.l.las 13 .73 Harbourside I-III ,• 175 .76 High Point 1,992 .76 Imperial Manor 12 .70 Imperial Villas 199 .96 In raham House 4 _70 Inlet Cove 16 1.00 inner Circle 16 .72 Intercpastal Cave 4 .70 Jardin Del Mar 38 .83 Logo Del Rey 338 .86 La o Del Rey North Amsterdam 30 .57 Lakeside 212 .46 Lakeview Greens 128 .9D Landings of Delray Beach 64 1.00 Lanikai Villas 24 .S2 Latitude Delray Beach 76 .15 Lavers Delray Racquet Club 566 1.00 Ledges 3 .7D City of Delray Beach, Florida Program: SWLIB/SWCONDO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT Prepared: 7/06/11, 12:42:32 CONDOMINIUM RATES FOR TAX YEAR 2011 Page: 3 _~----------------------------_~_-~__~__- Condominium _-_------------- Units --~~~~M_~~WwWW_______~ ERUs -----------------------~_~___W~_~- Linton Ridge ---------------_ 84 __~__~~~_»_~___~_____~ .39 Linton Woods 24 1.00 Lyndon Arms 8 .64 Manor House 24 .67 Marina Ba 2 1.00 Marina De~ Rey 10 .70 Mark Downtown 28 .39 Martel Aims 30 1.0'0 Meridian Delray 59 .44 Miramar Gardens 48 .38 Narberth/Ocean Aire 14 .70 New Monmouth 17 .70 Ocean City Lofts 68 .31 Ocean East 8 .85 Ocean Place 29 1.00 Ocean Place-2155 30 .77 Ocean Terrace 8 .70 One Sixty Center 3 1.00 One Ten Apts 4 .70 Outrigger 25 1.00 Palm Square 8 .70 Palm Trail 22 .70 Palm Villas 60 1.00 Palm Villas at Delray Beach 4 .95 Park View Manor 16 .55 Patio Beach 10 .70 Pelican Pointe 56 .81 Penthouse Delray 80 .41 Pine•Beach South 6 .70 Pineapple Grove Village 160 .27 Pines of Delray 685 .72 Pines of Delray North 700 .99 Pines of Delray West 287 .78 Plum 7 1.00 Professional Centre at Delray Beach 4 1.00 Ranger 10 .70 Royyal Atlantic r• 16 .26 Sabal Pine 2SS .85 Sabal Pine East 222 .93 Sabal Pine South 128 .87 Sands Terrace 14 .36 Savoy 8 .70 Seabraeze of Delray S .69 Seagate Manor 63 .51 Seagate Residences 28 1.00 Seagate Towers 149 .49 Seastone Apts. 10 .34 Seaway Villas of Delray Beach 6 .70 Serena Vista 30 1.00 Seven Seventy 17th Ave. 9 .70 Sherwood Gardens 36 .55 Sloan Hammock Land 5 .98 South Congress Commerce Center 2 1.00 South County Professional 46 1.00 City of Delray Beach, Florkda Program: SWLIB/SWCONDO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT Pxepared: 7/06/11, 12:42:32 CONDOMINIUM RATES FOR TAX YEAR 2011 Page: 4 W~~----------.------------------- Condominium ------ ---------------- Units -------~---W~-~w---~-- ERUs ~~_~__------------------------------ South Ocean ---------------- 10 ___T___~_~~__~~~___~wM 1.00 South Shore Club 15 1.00 Southridge 37 1.00 Southridgge Village 68 .90 Southwinds 84 .69 Spanish River 81 .34 Spanish Trail 20 .59 Spanish Wells 240 .72 St Troppez 64 .43 Star-aIl 12 .70 Sunset Fines 66 1.00 Tahiti Cove 18 .79 Talbot House III 4 .70 Three Fifty Five Building 7 1.00 Tierra Verde at Delray Beach 300 .84 Town & Country 146 .57 Tropic Bay 1M17 399 .61 Tropic Harbor 222 .49 Tropic View 48 1.00 Twelve-O-Two 6 .S8 Valhalla 8 1.00 Venetian Drive Townhouse 4 .70 Venetian Village 14 1.00 Verano At Delray 252 .42 Village at Swinton Square 100 1.00 Villas Delray 7 .39 Vita Laga 14 .70 Wallace Dxive Commerce 13 1.00 Waterview Apts. 8 .67 Waterway East 22 1.00 Waterway North 15 .92 Wedgewood 6 .70 West Settlers 6 .2S Weston Palms 4 .16 White Columns 3 1.00 Williamsburg Inn 12 .70 Windemere House ,• 30 .63 Winston B .78 Woodbr~oke 13 .66 250 Congress Ave 4 1,00 5th Avenue At Delray S3 .34 Total condominium units 14,166 Average ERU/unit .7S 203 Records processed -- End of Listing -- MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: July 7, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.E. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 19, 2011 ORDINANCE N0.22-11 (SECOND READING/SECOND PUBLIC HEARING) ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This is second reading and public hearingto consider a city-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 4.6.9, "Off Street Parking Regulations", Subsection 4.6.9(C), "Number of Parking Spaces Required", and Appendix "A", "Definitions", by adding the definition of call centers and providing for specific parking requirements for call centers. BACKGROUND At first reading on July 5, 2011, the City Commission passed Ordinance No. 22-ll. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 22- ll on second and final reading. ORDINANCE N0.22-11 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY PEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, PY AMENDING SECTION 4.6.9, "OFF-STREET PARKING REGULATIONS", SUBSECTION 4.6.9(C), "NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED", PARAGRAPH (4), "REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFICE USES"; AND PY AMENDING APPENDIX A, "DEFINITIONS", PY ADDING THE DEFINITION OF CALL CENTERS; TO DEFINE AND PROVIDE FOR SPECIFIC PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR CALL CENTERS; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section 1.1.6, the Plarn~ing and Zoning Poard reviewed the proposed text amendment at a public hearing held on June 20, 2011 and voted 6 to 0 to recommend that the changes be approved and WHEREAS, pursuant to Florida Statute 163.3174(4)(c), the Plarn~ing and Zoning Poard sitting as the Local Plarn~ing Agency, has detem-tined that the change is consistent with and furthers the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Peach adopts the findings in the Plarn~ing and Zoning Staff Report; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Peach finds the ordinance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, PE IT ORDAINED PY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY PEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the recitations set forth above are incorporated herein. Section 2. That Section 4.6.9, "Off-Street Parking Regulations", Subsection (C), "Number of Parking Spaces Required" Paragraph (4), "Requirements for Office Uses", of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Peach, Florida, be amended to read as follows: (4) Requirements for Office Uses: (a) Pusiness and Professional Offices: Except governmental medical, and call center offices, shall provide: * 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of net floor area up to 3,000 sq. ft. and then 3.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of net floor area over the initia13,000 sq. ft. (b) Governmental Offices: Including public health and rehabilitative services, shall provide 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area (c) Medical and Dental Offices: Including clinics and mental health treatment facilities, shall provide 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area Call Centers: two (2~paces per 1,000 sa. ft. of gross floor area, plus one 1~pace per work station as shown on a floor plan schematic. Section 3. That Appendix A, "Definitions", of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Seach, Florida, be amended to add the following definition Call Center - A centralized business office used for the purpose of receiving and transmitting a 1arg~e clientele~roduct services, and debt collection. Section 4. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or ward be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid Section 5. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed Section 6. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage on second and final reading. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the day of 2011. ATTEST MAYOR City Clerk First Reading Second Reading ORD. NO. 22-11 Coversheet MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners Page 1 of 2 FROM: MARK MCDONNELL, AICP, ASST. DIRECTOR PLANNING AND ZONING PAUL DORLING, AICP, DIRECTOR PLANNING AND ZONING THROUGH: CITY MANAGER DATE: June 28, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.A. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 5, 2011 ORDINANCE N0.22-ll (FIRST READING/FIRST PUBLIC HEARING ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Approval of achy-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) that will introduce the new definition for a call center use and to provide a specific parking requirement for the use. The use is currently included under general office category and subject to an inadequate parking requirement. BACKGROUND The ordinance includes a new definition to Appendix "A" for the term, Call Center. Call Centers are central business offices for purposes of making and receiving large numbers of telephone calls for purposes such as customer support, information inquiries, product services, etc. Such uses are known to house an increased number of employees in smaller office spaces (cubicles) than more typical office uses. Call centers can fit as many as eight (8) or more agents per 1,000 sq. ft., where a conventional office has an average of four (4) employees per 1,000 sq. ft. Where these facilities have opened up, it is clear that the conventional office use parking requirement is inadequate. The proposed ordinance clarifies by definition that a Call Center is an office use, and is therefore permitted anywhere office uses are currently allowed. The parking requirement is considerably increased based upon an anticipated number of supervisors (2 per 1,000 sq. ft.) and, more importantly, on the number of work stations. A very similar approach has been taken with amendments to the LDRs for the use of Personal Service Provider (Beauty Salons, Spas, etc.) in excess of 5,000 sq. ft. REVIEW BY OTHERS The Pineapple Grove Main Street (PGMS) committee reviewed the item at their June 1, 2011 meeting and a unanimous recommendation of approval was made. The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) reviewed the item at their June 9, 2011 meeting and a unanimous recommendation of approval was made. http://itwebapp/AgendaIntranetBluesheet.aspx?ItemID=4614&MeetingID=322 7/7/2011 Coversheet Page 2 of 2 The Downtown Development Authority (DDA) reviewed the item at their June 13, 2011 meeting and a unanimous recommendation of approval was made. The West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition (WARC) reviewed the item at their June 14, 2011 meeting and a unanimous recommendation of approval was made. The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the item at their June 20, 2011 meeting and a unanimous recommendation of approval was made. RECOMMENDATION By motion, approve Ordinance No. 22-ll on first reading for achy-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.5(1VI) of the Land Development Regulations. http://itwebapp/AgendaIntranetBluesheet.aspx?ItemID=4614&MeetingID=322 7/7/2011 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: JUNE 20, 2011 AGENDA NO: IV. E. AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF ACITY-INITIATED AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDR), BY AMENDING SECTION 4.6.9 (C) "NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED", PARAGRAPH (4) "REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFICE USES", AND APPENDIX A "DEFINITIONS", TO ESTABLISH A PARKING REQUIREMENT AND TO DEFINE THE USE OF CALL CENTERS. ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is to make a recommendation to the City Commission regarding acity- initiated amendment to Land Development Regulations (LDRs) that will introduce the new definition for a call center use and to provide a specific parking requirement for the use. The use is currently included under general office category and subject to an inadequate parking requirement. Pursuant to Section 1.1.6, an amendment to the text of the Land Development Regulations may not be made until a recommendation is obtained from the Planning and Zoning Board. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The ordinance includes a new definition to Appendix "A" for the term, Call Center. Call Centers are central business offices for purposes of making and receiving large numbers of telephone calls for purposes such as customer support, information inquiries, product services, etc. Such uses are known to house an increased number of employees in smaller office spaces (cubicles) than more typical office uses. Call centers can fit as many as eight (8) or more agents per 1,000 sq. ft., where a conventional office has an average of four (4) employees per 1,000 sq. ft. Where these facilities have opened up, it is clear that the conventional office use parking requirement is inadequate. The proposed ordinance clarifies by definition that a Call Center is an office use, and is therefore permitted anywhere office uses are currently allowed. The parking requirement is considerably increased based upon an anticipated number of supervisors (2 per 1,000 sq. ft.) and, more importantly, on the number of work stations. Avery similar approach has been taken with amendments to the LDRs for the use of Personal Service Provider (Beauty Salons, Spas, etc.) in excess of 5,000 sq. ft. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, June 20, 2011 LDR Amendment-Call Centers: Definition and Parking REQUIRED FINDINGS Comprehensive Plan Conformance LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5) (Findings) requires that the City Commission make a finding that the text amendment is consistent with and furthers the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. A thorough review of the Comprehensive Plan was conducted and the following support this proposed amendment is noted: Future Land Use Element Objective A-5 states that "the City shall maintain its Land Development Regulations, which shall be regularly reviewed and updated, to provide timely, equitable and streamlined processes including, but not limited to, building permit processes for residential developments and to accommodate mixed-use developments, and other innovative development practices." The introduction of a definition to define Call Centers, and establish sufficient parking based upon documented demand, will help to provide clarity as to what call centers are, where they are allowed, and how many parking spaces are needed to accommodate such uses. This amendment is consistent with this Comprehensive Plan objective by updating the Land Development Regulations. REVIEW BY OTHERS The Pineapple Grove Main Street (PGMS) committee reviewed the item at their June 1, 2011 meeting and a unanimous recommendation of approval was made. The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) reviewed the item at their June 9, 2011 meeting and a unanimous recommendation of approval was made. The Downtown Development Authority (DDA) reviewed the item at their June 13, 2011 meeting and a unanimous recommendation of approval was made. The West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition (WARC) reviewed the item at their June 14, 2011 meeting and a unanimous recommendation of approval was made. Courtesy Notices Courtesy notices were provided to the following homeowner and civic associations: ^ Neighborhood Advisory Council ^ Progressive Residents of Delray (PROD) Letters of objection and support, if any, will be provided at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION Adoption of this ordinance will provide a parking requirement for call centers that more closely correlates to the parking demand of such uses. The ordinance further defines the use of a call center. The purpose of the ordinance to ensure sufficient parking is provided, thereby avoiding undo congestion and parking spillover. 2 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, June 20, 2011 LDR Amendment-Call Centers: Definition and Parking ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move a recommendation of approval to the City Commission of the amendment to Land Development Regulations, Section 4.6.9 (C) "Number Of Parking Spaces Required", Paragraph (4) "Requirements For Office Uses", And Appendix A "Definitions", To Establish A Parking Requirement And To Define Call Centers, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the text amendment and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M) C. Move a recommendation of denial to the City Commission of the amendment to Land Development Regulations, Section 4.6.9 (C) "Number Of Parking Spaces Required", Paragraph (4) "Requirements For Office Uses", And Appendix A "Definitions", To Establish A Parking Requirement And To Define Call Centers, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the text amendment and approval thereof is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M) (motion to be made in the affirmative). RECOMMENDED ACTION Recommend approval of the amendment to Land Development Regulations, Section 4.6.9 (C) "Number Of Parking Spaces Required", Paragraph (4) "Requirements For Office Uses", And Appendix A "Definitions", To Establish A Parking Requirement And To Define Call Centers, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the text amendment and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M). Attachment: • Proposed Ordinance 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: July 7, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.F. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 19, 2011 ORDINANCE N0.23-11 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This ordinance is before Commission for second reading to consider acity-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 2.4.3, "Submission Requirements", Subsection (K), "Fees", Paragraph (1), "Development Applications", to increase in fees development application fees. BACKGROUND At the first reading on July 5, 2011, the City Commission passed Ordinance 23-ll. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 23-ll on second and final reading. ORDINANCE N0.23-11 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY PEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, PY AMENDING SECTION 2.4.3, "SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS", SUBSECTION (K), "FEES", PARAGRAPH (1), "DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS"; TO INCREASE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FEES; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section 1.1.6, the Plarn~ing and Zoning Poard reviewed the proposed text amendment at a public hearing held on June 20, 2011 and voted 6 to 1 to recommend that the changes be approved and WHEREAS, pursuant to Florida Statute 163.3174(4)(c), the Plarn~ing and Zoning Poard sitting as the Local Plarn~ing Agency,l-iaas determined that the change is consistent with and furthers the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Peach adopts the findings in the Plarn~ing and Zoning Staff Report; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Peach finds the ordinance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, PE IT ORDAINED PY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY PEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the recitations set forth above are incorporated herein. Section 2. That Section 2.4.3, "Submission Requirements", Subsection (K), "Fees," Paragraph (1), "Development Applications", of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Peach, Florida, be amended to read as follows: (K) Fees: Processing fees shall be collected for development applications. The fees shall be as established herein and as modified by ordinance of the City Commission. (1) Development Applications: The following fees shall be charged for development applications. All fees are cumulative and separate unless otherwise indicated Combined applications shall provide multiple fees. (a) Comprehensive Plan Amendment $ 2~ 2,760 (b) Review of a ADA/DRI $ 0 Modification of a DRI $ 0 (c) Voluntary Annexation with Zoning (d) Rezoning of Land (e) Modification of a SAD Ordinance to add a use or uses (f) Conditional Uses, New Application Modification requiring Board Review (g) Master Plans Master Plan Modification (h) Formal review of a Sketch Plan [Section 2.4.1(P)] (i) Similarity of Use (j) Site Plan Review Class I (Non Impacting Modification) Class II (Non Impacting with Soard Review) Class III (NTinor Modification) Class IV (Major Modification) Class V (New Submission) (k) Extension requests for a previous conditional use, site plan or master development plan Class I Site Plan Modification Class II Site Plan Modification Class III Site Plan Modification Class IV Site Plan Modification Class V Site Plan Master Development Plan Master Development Plan modification Conditional Use Conditional Use Modification Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development $ ,~ 1,220 (4) $ 2,100 $ 2,100 $ ,~ 1,655 $ ~I9 675 $ 4~5 1,400 (1) (5) $ ~I9 675 $ X29 340 $ 4~ 200 $ 249 400 $ ~9 610 (1) $ ~ 1,010 (1) $ 4~5 1,400 (1) (12) $ ~ 65 $ 429 130 $ 2~9 305 $ 45-5 480 $ X49 675 $ ~I9 675 (5) $ X99 830 $ 329 340 $ 39 35 2 ORD. NO. 23-ll Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development $ ~9 295 (1) Plats NTinor Subdivision $ ~9 1,010 (1) Major Subdivision $ ~9 2,020 (1) Plat Recording Fee (3) (m) Abandonments Right-of-way $ 790 830 General Easements $ X99 410 Specific E asements $ 4~-5 205 (n) Master Sign Program $ 4~9 170 (o) Variances Board of Adjustment $ ~5 555 Historic Preservation Board $ ~ 265 (p) Formal interpretation by the Board of Adjustment (per item) $ ~5 70 (q) Certificate of Appropriateness byBoard (14) NTinor Development $ ~9 65 (2) Major Development $ ~5 585 (r) Certificate of Appropriateness byStaff $ 0 (13) (s) Request for Historic Designation $ f 9 65 (per property) Request for Q-iange of Historic Designation or Classification $ ~9 65 (per property) (t) Hearing before the Soard of Adjustment (per item) $ ~5 70 (u) Temporary Use Request involving City Commission $ 449 150 Action (v) Water Service Agreement Request - - without concurrent site plan $ 449 150 - - with concurrent site plan $ 0 (w) Land Development Regulations Text Q~ange $ 4~5 1,655 (x) Waivers and Internal Adjustments $ 449 150 per request (6) $ ~ 280 per request (7) (y) Appeals by Applicant $ ~5 375 (8) 3 ORD. NO. 23-ll (z) Adverkising (9) (aa) Zoning Verification Letter Interpretation of existing LDRs $ ~9 65 Requiring Research for Previous Development Activity $ X39140 plus $35 per hr in excess of 2 hrs (bb) North Peach/Seagate and Ocean Neighborhood $ 1,560 (1) Overlay District Review (cc) Application Fee for In Lieu Of and Public Parking Fee $ 249 255 (10) Requests (dd) Ad Valorem Tax Exemption (Review Concurrent with COA Review) $ 0 Ad Valorem Tax Exemption (Review after CO received for approved development) $ ~9 65 (ee) Re-submittal Fee will be charged on the 3rd and $ 299 210 (15) subsequent re-submittals (ff) Legal Review of Documents (per document) $ X59 160 (gg) Applicant's request for Postponement/Continuance (per request) $ ~ 80 (hh) Stand Alone Pars (per request) $ 59 55 (ii) Automatic Extension Requests (per Senate Pill 360) $ 499 105 (12) NOTES: (1) Plus an additional fee of $100 per acre, (or fraction thereof), begirn~ing at 3.01 acres; or $100 for each new 10,000 sq. ft. (or fraction thereof) above 100,000 sq. ft. of non residential or mixed use floor area; or $50 for each new 10 residential units (or fraction thereof) above 100 units, whichever is greater, up to a maximum of $3,000 per project. (2) This fee shall be credited against any other processing fee which maybe applicable to the request. (3) $30.00 for the first sheet of the plat, $15.00 for each additional sheet, or as modified from time to time by Palm Peach County, payable to Palm Peach County. (4) Fee may be waived by the City Manager, for properties that have already been developed, or for sites under one (1) acre in size. (5) Same fee that would apply for site plan modification (6) For requests made during the site plan /master plan review process. (7) For requests made subsequent to the site plan /master plan reviewprocess. (8) Includes appeals of both administrative decisions and Poard actions. 4 ORD. NO. 23-ll (9) The Applicant shall be responsible for all advertising fees including newspaper publications. The applicant shall provide pre-addressed envelopes with the required postage for mailed notices. If the required advertising fees are not paid at least four days (4) prior to the hearing, the presiding body, shall postpone action on the application until such fees are paid In the event such postponement results in additional mailing or publication costs, the applicant shall be responsible for the additional fees. (10) If approved this fee will be credited toward the associated site plan modification. (11) Recording fees of any documents shall be paid by the Applicant. (12) Two fees are required if both a Conditional Use and Site Plan or Site Plan Modification are being extended for one project. (13) There is no fee if the item is listed as an application permitted for Staff approval. (14) Certificates of Appropriateness not associated with a Site Plan, Site Plan Modification, and/or Conditional Use. (15) Re-submittal fees are only assessed if the 3rd and subsequent re-submittals are required because initial technical comments were not addressed in previous submittals and are not a result of new comments or revised proposals necessitated by staff comments. Section 3. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or ward be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid Section 4. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed Section 5. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage on second and final reading. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the day of 2011. ATTEST City Clerk First Reading Second Reading MAYOR ORD. NO. 23-ll Coversheet MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Jasmin Allen, Planner Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning THROUGH: City Manager DATE: June 29, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 12.C. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 5, 2011 ORDINANCE N0.23-ll ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Page 1 of 2 Consideration of aCity-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulation Sections 2.43(K)(1) to provide for increases in certain existing development application fees. BACKGROUND During the process to change the fee schedule in 2003, the City Commission directed staff to process changes as needed every two years. Accordingly, fee increases and adjustments have been made every two years. The last overall fee schedule adjustment was approved by the City Commission on August 4, 2009 by Ord. 33-09. That amendment provided fora 5% increase in most of the development application fees, established four new fees and modified the sliding fee structure for site plans, master plans and plat applications and added a sliding fee based on floor area for non-residential or mixed-use projects and a sliding fee for larger residential projects based on the number of units. Upon review of the fee schedules for Palm Beach County, the City of Boca Raton, the City of Boynton Beach and the City of West Palm Beach, the City of Delray Beach still remains at the low end of the fee schedules, and, with a few noted exceptions, an increase of 5% is justified. Where the fees have been increased they have been rounded up in increments of five dollars ($5.00). No fee adjustments are proposed for Rezoning and SAD Modification petitions as the current fees are comparatively consistent with adjacent municipalities. Further, as significant increases were made to the Beach Overlay Review fee in 2008 and 2009 no additional increases are proposed with this amendment. Finally, the Class I and Class II site plan fees are noted to be significantly lower than those of the adjacent municipalities. While the proposed fees within these categories have been increased above 5%, the proposed fee increase is significantly less than the average fees assessed by other municipalities http://itwebapp/AgendaIntranetBluesheet. aspx?ItemID=4621 &MeetingID=322 7/7/2011 Coversheet Page 2 of 2 shown on the attached rate comparison. An increase of approximately 10% to the base fee is recommended for the Class V site plan category. Additional background and analysis is provided in the attached Planning & Zoning Board Staff Report. REVIEW BY OTHERS The text amendment was considered by the Planning and Zoning Board on June 20, 2011. No one from the public spoke on the issue. The Board recommended approval on a 6 to 1 vote (Al Jacquet dissenting), by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.5(M) of the Land Development Regulations. RECOMMENDATION By motion, approve on first reading Ordinance 23-ll for a City initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations Section 2.4.3(x)(1), to provide for increases to certain existing development application fees, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.5(M) of the Land Development Regulations. Attachments: Ordinance No. 23-ll Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report of June 20, 2011 http://itwebapp/AgendaIntranetBluesheet. aspx?ItemID=4621 &MeetingID=322 7/7/2011 PLANNING AN©ZONING BOARD MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT MEETING OF: JUNE 20, 2011 AGENDA NO: IV,F. AGENDA ITEM: AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SECTION 2.4,3(K}(1} TO PROVIDE FOR AN INCREASE IN THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FEES, ~~ ITEM 13EFQRE THE BOARD The item before the Board is #hat of making a recommendation to the City Commission regarding an amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) to increase the land development application fees pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(M). Pursuant to Section 1.1.6(A), an amendment to the Land Development Regulations may not be made until a recommendation is obtained from the Planning and Zoning Board. W BACKGROUNI] AND'ANALYSIS This amendment is to Section 2.4.3 (K)(1) which outlines the current fee schedules for "Development Applications". During the process to change the fee schedule in 2003, the City Commission directed staff to process changes as needed every two years. Accordingly, fee increases and adjustments have been made every two years. The last overall fee schedule adjustment was approved by the City Commission on August 4, 2009 by Ord. 33-09. That amendment provided fora 5% increase in most of the development application fees, established new fees for legal review of documents, requests for postponement or continuation at the Board meeting by an applicant, a re-submission fee after the second revision, and a fee for "stand alone" bars requests. ft should be noted that no fee increases were applied to developments within historic districts or for individually designated historic properties. Ordinance 33-09 also modified the sliding fee structure for site plans, master plans and plat applications and adds a sliding fee based on floor area for non-residential or mixed-use projects and a sliding fee for larger residential projects based on the number of units. Development Application Fees A review of the application fees assessed by adjacent municipalities and Palm Beach County reveals that the City of Delray Beach still remains at the low end of the fee schedules in comparison #o our neighboring municipalities. With a few noted exceptions, an increase of 5% is justified. Where the fees have been increased they have been rounded up in increments of five dollars ($5.00}. This increase would place the City of Delray Beach's fees comparatively closer (slightly lower in most cases) to the fees charged by the adjacent municipalities. Exhibit "A" provides a comparative overview of the fee schedule of Palm Beach County, the City of Boca Raton, the City of Boynton Beach and the City of West Palm Beach. The comparative overview attempts to equate the fee schedules that mast closely reflect the development activities Planning and Zoning ~ : f Report - .tune 20, 2011 LDR Text Amendment -Land Development Application Fees identified. It is noted that there are several variables including sliding fees based on number units, acreage square footages of buildings, differing fees based on geographic locations etc. which have not been identified in the table. Exhibit "A" also shows an overall average fee, the proposed fee schedule and the resulting difference with the proposed increase. No fee adjustments are proposed for Rezoning and SAD Modification petitions as the current fees are comparatively consistent with adjacent municipalities. Further, as significant increases were made to the Beach Overlay Review fee in 2008 and 2009 no additional increases are proposed with this amendment. It is Hated that for Palm Beach County there is a significant difference in the range in fees for Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Conditional Uses, which, when included skews those average fees higher. When adjusted to exclude Palm Beach County, the average fee for a Comprehensive Plan amendment is $2,517 and $1,918 for conditional uses. While the proposed increase for a Comprehensive Plan amendment is slightly above the average fee cited above ($2,571}, it still remains well below the fees assessed by the City of Boca Raton and West Palm Beach. The proposed conditional use fee of $1,655 continues to be below the average fee of $1,918 as Hated above. Finally, the Class I and Class II site plan fees are noted to be significantly lower than those of the adjacent municipalities. While the proposed fees within these categories have been increased above 5%, the proposed fee increase is less that 50% of the average of the fees assessed by other municipalities. Aten (10%) increase in the base fee is recommended for the Class V site plan category. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5}, approval of an LDR amendment must be based upon a finding that the amendment is consistent with and furthers the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. While the amendment does not specifically further the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Pian, it is not inconsistent with them. REUtEW BY OThlERS` Caurfesy Nofices: Courtesy notices were provided to the following homeowner and civic associations: Neighborhood Advisory Council Delray Citizens Coalition ^ Chamber of Commerce Letters of objection and support, if any, will be provided at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. RECOMIVIENDED ACTION By motion, recommend to the City Commission approval of the amendments to the Land Development Regulations Section 2.4.3(K}(1) regarding proposed increases to the Land Development Application Fees, by adapting the findings of fact and !aw contained in the staff report and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.5(M) of the Land Development Regulations. Attachments: • Proposed Ordinance • Exhibi# 'A" 2 M in M o 0 (O 0 0 o M in M in N in M o N in M o (O 0 M o ~O in N in o in ~ in N in M in M o V o N in in o <O 0 O 0 V 0 N 0 0 o M in ~ in in o M in in in o 0 0 M o in o N in o o in in o o in in ~ V d d ~_ y 0 (O 0 0 N 0 O 0 O ~O In In r O 0 lfJ r 0 V 0 O 0 O 0 0 ~ 0 O ~ (O O M lfJ O O M lfJ r lfJ r 0 M 0 v In M lfJ rn 0 ~ 0 N 0 M 0 ~ In O O r lfJ In lfJ co O r lfJ co lfJ M lfJ co lfJ co 0 r 0 In 0 In In In 0 In 0 M In r lfJ co ° ~ O co lfJ In lfJ co 0 ~ 0 co 0 M In In L() p m m LL r N N < N < N (O (O V (O N V (O O V H M V (O (O M M N O O N M V N < <O N l0 (O ~ N M ~O N N d y O a 0 ` a M ~O ± O N ~O M (O M M v O) M M r M r (O O) M O (O M M N r M In N V r N v M N O) (O M ~O N O) V lfJ O~ r (O M M ~ ~O N N (O M ~O M M N ~O M N r O V M V M N ~O O) ~O N m ~ ~ ~ N m Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 In 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 In 0 lfJ 0 lfJ O O 0 0 0 0 In M 0 O 0 In 0 O L In ~ O ~ lfJ O N O ~ lfJ ~ ~ lfJ O M O M X lfJ O M O M r r r l0 O N l0 ~ N l0 N O O ~ °O O h m m ~ ~ r o ~ r E m O c O C o O M T O m O O 0 O In O O r O lfJ lfJ lfJ lfJ j O `~ O 0 O 0 O 0 In O) O M lfJ M O O M ( 0 ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ V V O ( 0 ( 0 ( 0 v o M ~ Mi O o V ` M N M V N N N N ~ - N ~ ~ 0_ ~ N N lfJ U O ~ M O O ° M N fR } a ~ ~ o v c°o L ~ 0 0 O M 0 0 O ~O 0 0 O O M 0 O O M 0 O O M ° Q ° U - O O O M 0 0 M 0 0 O M 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 N 0 O l0 O O y ~ O ~O N o O V 0 0 O M 0 0 In ~ 0 O V 0 V 0 In N 0 lfJ N 0 O 0 ~ ~ m ° ° M ° ° M - ~ O O O lfJ O O m N m U - J M _ J m a ~ ~ `o y ~ J ~ O' d T' J J l0 M V O l0 r M O m V (O ~ V M (O M (O M (O M (O N M l0 r l0 r O O V ~ O O M (O ~ N O O ~ O O O O O O c O In M r r ~ M 0 V V N ~ V M V N N N N N ~ M N ~ N N In M O ~ lfJ lfJ r N m to ~ m ~ N 00 N ~ N U_ O O m O U Q V In ~ 0 0 O 0 O_ 0 O In lr0 O ~ lfJ N d m 0 ~ 0 M In ~ O N * lM0 m N 0 O 0 N 0 N In V O ~ O ~ O m O CN, O M O ~ O ~ O ~ m ~ 0 m 0 M In 0) O (O lfJ ~ O N lfJ O O O lfJ ~ O d O d O lfJ O 0 V 0 V 0 In lr0 O ~ lfJ N lfJ M m ~ 0 O } M 0 l00 0 N 0 0 O 0 O 0 In r 0 l0 0 p ~ N ~ N N ~ N ~ ~- ~- ~ m N m N d N d m O O ~ ~ ~ m tll ~ m ~ y C fD C O > m ^ ~ C rL m ^ C ^ 0 C E c U N ~ d 0 y y 0 C m _ ~ 0 d U M 2 ~ -w ~ y y y y y am+ *' ~ ~C a Q m O) 0 Q C ~ . m an m Q ^ O ~ C ~_ Q V ° O ~ N N N N N N C C Q 0 Q c a Q ` a Q O m rn y m Q 0 a ' m m m ~= " ` y T V 3 ~ ~ m O a~ c ap O X ~ _ (0 ~ c ^ Q c ~ c c c U ~ U ~ U ~ U ~ U ~ ~ ~ 0 U 0 U V 0 U ~ m e m °' E ~ . c O ap a ~' ^ ` ^ ` ~ m .y m ^ m ; - ~' a ;; E v ._ y o m ~ m ~ m ` E m E C 3 °' m m ~ ~ m a 0 0 ~ c .o o m y > m y > m a m a m a y ~ _ ~ c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 a > s > W ~ a Q m y y m rn in m m x m m o c_ ' o ~ m ' rn ^ `o ~, a d tll O - y c m ~ 3 n 3 n y m J m J m > Q m w m O m O x E '> ~ c o _ Q :: W o O ~ O. 3 K C rL N N L O - _ - _ - y am tll tll tll tll tll tll tll tll tll tll fn fn m ~ ~ m W C C ~ O L L ~ J m C = a 3 3 Q L L N O) C O) C V d ~ K O d ~ ~ ~C j C N ^ C C tll m y m y ~ tll m y m y m ~ y m m T m T m T m T m T m T m T m T m T m T O c O ~p N ~ C y tll m ~ ~ . m' Q O Q O Q O a0+ y C Q N Q N > m > m ' d - > " > ' ~ C m w ~ ER U O U m K C Q m K Q fn O U O U rL rL y N N U U U U U ~ W ~ W ~ W ~ W ~ W ~ W ~ W ~ W ~ W ~ W rL rL O. K m (J d fn rL m » m + ~ U U U 2 L U m 2 m H ~ ~ ^ J ~ ~ d Q O Q O N O N m = O Q O Q m K m J 0 O. a , fn Q MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Amy E. Alvarez, Historic Preservation Planner Mark McDonnell, AICP, Acting Director of Planning and Zoning THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: July 13, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 12.A. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 19, 2011 ORDINANCE N0.24-11 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before Commission is consideration of Ordinance 24-ll which amends Ordinance No. 10-10 to reclassify the property located at 32 East Atlantic Avenue from non-contributing to contributing. BACKGROUND The subject structure at 32 East Atlantic Avenue, is on the south side of Altantic between Swinton Avenue and SE 1st Avenue. Constructed in 1948, the Masonry Vernacular structure is presently classified as non-contributing to the Old School Square Historic District. When the historic district was resurveyed in 2009, it recommended to reclassify the subject property to contributing, subject to expansion of the Period of Significance to include resources after 1943. However, the owner requested that the subject property not be reclassified. Upon adoption of Ordinance 10-10 on June 1, 2010, the Period of Significance for the Old School Square Historic District was expanded to 1965, but the subject property was not reclassified to contributing. In 2010, subsequent to the adoption of Ordinance 10-10, the subject property owner had further discussions with City and CRA Staff regarding the benefits of historic preservation and decided to apply for the reclassification to contributing. A Class IV Site Plan Modification for improvements to the front elevation of the building was submitted and reviewed concurrently with the reclassification request. The reclassification request was put on hold at the request of the applicant. Meanwhile, review of the site plan modification proceeded as anon-contributing building, and the proposed alterations and additions were approved by the HPB at its December 1, 2010 meeting. Due to concerns regarding the inappropriateness of the alterations and additions to the non-contributing building, the HPB Staff Report for the Site Plan Modification stated the following: "The proposed alterations are not in keeping with the building's original architectural character, and will further diminish any remaining details of the original front facade. Compliance with the LDRs, primarily Section 4.5.1, has not been achieved, nor has the intent of the noted Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines been met... the property owner "opted out" of the reclassification process, thereby eliminating the possibility of taking advantage of those benefits afforded to contributing properties. ...significant changes have occurred to the building which, as pointed out by the Historic Preservation Planner in 1996, were not appropriate and have had a negative impact to the integrity of the building. Therefore, additional improvements should take those extra steps necessary, as required by the review criteria, to protect those elements which remain, as well as provide appropriate and compatible solutions to the new development. ...Historic properties are able to receive certain benefits for their appropriate improvements. These benefits are not afforded to non-contributing properties. The benefits include a ten year tax exemption on the increased value resulting from HPB approved improvements, variances, along with eligibility for the CRA Facade Easement program. Staff has informed the property owner that should the proposed improvements be approved by the Board> a recommendation to deny the reclassification would be provided as the integrity would be further compromised. " Three waivers associated with the aforenoted site plan modification were approved by the City Commission at its February 15, 2011 meeting. The approved waivers permit the encroachment of balcony columns, ahigh-top counter area, and atwo-story entry arch feature to encroach in the five foot (5') setback area, as well as the encroachment of a canopy to the property line. The approved plans have been certified by the Director of Planning and Zoning. Once a Building Permit has been a applied for and the hold harmless agreement is accepted by the City Commission (required for a canopy encroachment into the right of way), the Building Permit may be issued. The Historic Preservation Board (HPB) held a Public Hearing and considered the subject request at its July 6, 2011 meeting. The Board expressed concerns over the recently certified site plan, and requested that the Class IV Site Plan Modification be re-reviewed and analyzed by Staff in consideration of the reclassification request. A recommendation of approval was made on a 3-2 vote, subject to Board review of the Class IV Site Plan Modification as a contributing property prior to Second Reading of the reclassification request. The Class IV Site Plan Modification has been scheduled for further HPB review at its July 20, 2011 meeting, and the Second Reading to reclassify the property to contributing has been scheduled for the City Commission meeting of August 2, 2011. As previously stated, the property owner is aware that due to the improvements associated with the certified Class IV Site Plan Modification approved by the HPB on December 1, 2010, the reclassification would not be supported because the integrity would be further compromised. Therefore, a recommendation to deny the reclassification may be forwarded to the City Commission pending the results of the aforenoted review by the HPB on July 20, 2011. RECOMMENDATION Approve on first reading an amendment to Ordinance No. 10-10, to provide for the reclassification of 32 East Atlantic Avenue as a contributing property in the Old School Square Historic District, and schedule the Second Reading and Public Hearing for the City Commission meeting of August 2, 2011. ORDINANCE N0.24-11 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMSSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY PEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE 10-10 TO PROVIDE FOR THE RECLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 32 EAST ATLANTIC AVENUE FROM NON-CONTRIPUTING TO CONTRIPUTING, PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, A SAVING CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Old School Square Historic District was originally designated and placed on the Delray Peach Local Register of Historic Places in 1988 with a Period of Significance sparn~ing from 1898 to 1943; and, WHEREAS, the Period of Significance for Old School Square Historic District was extended through 1965 with the adoption of Ordinance No. 10-10 by the City Commission at its meeting of June 1, 2010; and, WHEREAS, the properly at 32 East Atlantic Avenue was built in 1948, and is a representative example of the Masonry Vernacular style of commercial buildings; and, WHEREAS, the properly at 32 East Atlantic Avenue meets the eligbility criteria for contributing status, as the historic integrity of the building leas been maintained; and, WHEREAS, Section 4.5.1 of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Peach provides for the change of historic classification of historic sites and districts, and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Poard held a duly noticed public hearing in regard to the Reclassification of 32 East Atlantic Avenue on July 6, 2011 and voted 3 to 2 to recommend approval; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Peach adopts the findings in the Historic Preservation Poard Staff Report dated July 6, 2011; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Peach finds the ordinance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS the City Commission of the City of Delray Peach has conducted a duly noticed public hearing in regard to the reclassification of 32 E ast Atlantic Avenue. NOW THEREFORE PE IT ORDAINED PY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY PEACH FLORIDA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the recitations set forth above are incorporated herein. Section 2 That Attachment B of Ordinance No. 10-10 is hereby amended to indicate the reclassification of 32 E ast Atlantic Avenue as contributing and in accordance with and Linder the provisions of Section 4.5.1 of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Seach, Florida. Section 3 That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed Section 4 That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof any paragraph, sentence or word be declared by a court of competent j urlsdiction to be invalid such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid Section 5 That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage on second and final reading PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the 19~ day of July, 2011. ATTEST: City Clerk First Reading Second Reading MAYOR Ord No. 24-11 Ordinance 10-10 Attachment B Old School Square Historic District Property Classification List Address Classification Year Built Style 10 North Swinton Avenue Non-Contributing 1951 Masonry Vernacular 20 North Swinton Avenue Contributing 1935 Monterey 24 North Swinton Avenue Contributing 1925 Bungalow 46 North Swinton Avenue Contributing 1922 Bungalow 51 North Swinton Avenue Contributing 1913 Masonry Vernacular 51 North Swinton Avenue Contributing 1926 Mediterranean Revival 51 North Swinton Avenue Contributing 1926 Mediterranean Revival 51 North Swinton Avenue Contributing 2002 Neo-Mediterranean 52 North Swinton Avenue Contributing 1922 Bungalow 102 North Swinton Avenue Contributing 1898 Frame Vernacular 108 North Swinton Avenue Contributin 1925 Bun aloes 112 North Swinton Avenue Contributin 1935 Minimal Traditional 119 North Swinton Avenue Contributing 1924 Frame Vernacular 120 North Swinton Avenue Contributing 1920 Bungalow 124 North Swinton Avenue Contributing 1915 American Four Square 125 North Swinton Avenue Contributin 1925 Frame Vernacular 131 North Swinton Avenue Contributing 1940 Frame Vernacular 132 North Swinton Avenue Contributing 1925 Mission 137 North Swinton Avenue Contributing 1939 Minimal Traditional 138 North Swinton Avenue Contributing 1937 Minimal Traditional 145 North Swinton Avenue Contributin 1938 Minimal Traditional 202 North Swinton Avenue Contributing 1930 Frame Vernacular 209 North Swinton Avenue Contributing 1925 Mission 214 North Swinton Avenue Contributing 1920 Frame Vernacular 215-217 North Swinton Avenue Non-Contributin 1950 Masonr Vernacular 219-221 North Swinton Avenue Non-Contributin 1955 Masonr Vernacular 220 North Swinton Avenue Contributing 1940 Frame Vernacular 226 North Swinton Avenue Contributing 1920 Mission 227 North Swinton Avenue Contributing 1950 Frame Vernacular 234 North Swinton Avenue Contributin 1920 Frame Vernacular 242 North Swinton Avenue Contributing 1941 Masonry Vernacular 246 North Swinton Avenue Contributing 1941 Minimal Traditional 255 North Swinton Avenue Non-Contributing 1945 Frame Vernacular 275 North Swinton Avenue Contributing 1926 Frame Vernacular 300 North Swinton Avenue Non-Contributin 1998 Vernacular 303 North Swinton Avenue Contributing 1924 Mediterranean Revival 305 North Swinton Avenue Contributing 1913 Frame Vernacular 306 North Swinton Avenue Non-Contributing 1998 Vernacular 310 North Swinton Avenue Contributin 1930 Frame Vernacular 312 North Swinton Avenue Contributin 1930 Frame Vernacular 314 North Swinton Avenue Non-Contributing 1947 Masonry Vernacular 317 North Swinton Avenue Contributing 1950 Masonry Vernacular 321 North Swinton Avenue Contributing 1930 Frame Vernacular 333 North Swinton Avenue Contributin 1946 Masonr Vernacular 337 North Swinton Avenue Non-Contributin 1945 Frame Vernacular 1/4 Ordinance 10-10 Attachment B Old School Square Historic District Property Classification List Address Classification Year Built Style 353 North Swinton Avenue Contributing 1948 Masonry Vernacular 14-16 South Swinton Avenue Contributing 1900 Queen Anne 19 South Swinton Avenue Contributing 1940 Minimal Traditional 20 South Swinton Avenue Contributing 1925 Bungalow 23 South Swinton Avenue Contributing 1938 Frame Vernacular 27 South Swinton Avenue Contributing 1950 Frame Vernacular 31 South Swinton Avenue Contributing 1937 Frame Vernacular 35 South Swinton Avenue Contributing 1938 Frame Vernacular 38 South Swinton Avenue Contributing 1903 French Colonial 38 %2 South Swinton Avenue Contributing 1940 Frame Vernacular 40 South Swinton Avenue Contributing 1925 Bungalow 43 South Swinton Avenue Contributin 1941 Frame Vernacular 44 South Swinton Avenue Contributin 1930 Frame Vernacular 106 South Swinton Avenue Contributing 1902 Queen Anne 115 South Swinton Avenue Non-Contributing 1955 Masonry Vernacular 119 South Swinton Avenue Contributing 1948 Frame Vernacular 123 South Swinton Avenue Contributin 1947 Frame Vernacular 125 South Swinton Avenue Contributing 1922 Frame Vernacular 129 South Swinton Avenue Non-Contributing 1955 Masonry Vernacular 143 South Swinton Avenue Contributing 1925 Bungalow 188 South Swinton Avenue Contributing 1920 Gothic Revival 102 NE 1St Avenue Contributin 1925 Frame Vernacular 112 NE 1St Avenue Contributing 1925 Frame Vernacular 114 NE 1St Avenue Contributing 1921 Frame Vernacular 114 NE 1St Avenue Contributing 1922 Frame Vernacular 114 NE 1St Avenue Contributin 1941 Bun aloes 120 NE 1St Avenue Contributin 1925 Mission 123 NE 1St Avenue Contributing 1923 Bungalow 125-127 %2 NE 1St Avenue Contributing 1937 Frame Vernacular 131 NE 1St Avenue Non-Contributing 1958 Masonry Vernacular 134 NE 1St Avenue Contributin 1935 Frame Vernacular 138 NE 1St Avenue Contributing 1931 Mission 201 NE 1St Avenue Contributing 1938 Frame Vernacular 203 NE 1St Avenue Contributing 1938 Frame Vernacular 211 NE 1St Avenue Contributing 1938 Frame Vernacular 212-214 NE 1St Avenue Non-Contributin 1955 Masonr Vernacular 215 NE 1St Avenue Contributing 1938 Frame Vernacular 218 NE 1St Avenue Contributing 1922 Mission 219 NE 1St Avenue Contributing 1938 Frame Vernacular 223 NE 1St Avenue Contributin 1938 Frame Vernacular 226 NE 1St Avenue Contributin 1922 Mediterranean Revival 227 NE 1St Avenue Contributing 1938 Frame Vernacular 231 NE 1St Avenue Contributing 1938 Frame Vernacular 234 NE 1St Avenue Contributing 1922 Mediterranean Revival 235 NE 1St Avenue Contributing 1938 Frame Vernacular 2/4 Ordinance 10-10 Attachment B Old School Square Historic District Property Classification List Address Classification Year Built Style 238 NE 1St Avenue Contributing 1925 Mediterranean Revival 239 NE 1St Avenue Contributing 1938 Frame Vernacular 247 NE 1St Avenue Contributing 1938 Frame Vernacular 248 NE 1St Avenue Contributing 1925 Mediterranean Revival 302 NE 1St Avenue Contributing 1945 Frame Vernacular 304-306 NE 1St Avenue Non-Contributing 1955 Masonry Vernacular 310 NE 1St Avenue Contributing 1940 Frame Vernacular 314 NE 1St Avenue Contributing 1937 Minimal Traditional 318-320 NE 1St Avenue Non-Contributing 1955 Masonry Vernacular 326 NE 1St Avenue Non-Contributing 1945 Frame Vernacular 330 NE 1St Avenue Contributing 1924 Frame Vernacular 334 NE 1St Avenue Contributin 1907 Frame Vernacular 342 NE 1St Avenue Contributin 1946 Minimal Traditional 348 NE 1St Avenue Contributing 1925 Frame Vernacular 354 NE 1St Avenue Contributing 1925 Mission 131 NW 1St Avenue Contributing 1935 Mediterranean Revival 137 NW 1St Avenue Contributin 1925 Bun aloes 211 NW 1St Avenue Non-Contributing 1955 Ranch 215 NW 1St Avenue Contributing 1925 Frame Vernacular 225-227 NW 1St Avenue Non-Contributing 1955 Masonry Vernacular 231 NW 1St Avenue Non-Contributing 1950 Masonry Vernacular 235 NW 1St Avenue Contributin 1950 Masonr Vernacular 239 NW 1St Avenue Contributing 1925 Frame Vernacular 241 NW 1St Avenue Non-Contributing 1955 Masonry Vernacular 3 NE 1St Street Contributing 1926 Bungalow 5 NE 1St Street Contributin 1926 Bun aloes NE 1St Street Non-Contributin 2007 Parkin Gara e 5 NE 2n Street Contributing 1925 Frame Vernacular 9 NE 2n Street Contributing 1925 Frame Vernacular 21 NW 2n Street Non-Contributing 1950 Frame Vernacular 20 NW 3~ Street Non-Contributin 1955 Masonr Vernacular 12 SE 1St Avenue Non-Contributing 2007 Vernacular 22 SE 1St Avenue Non-Contributing 2007 Parking Garage 30 SE 1St Avenue Non-Contributing 2006 Parking Lot 36 SE 1St Avenue Contributing 1925 Frame Vernacular 48 SE 1St Avenue Contributin 1955 Masonr Vernacular 102 SE 1St Avenue Contributing 1928 Frame Vernacular 122 SE 1St Avenue Non-Contributing 1955 Masonry Vernacular 130 SE 1St Avenue Contributing 1930 Masonry Vernacular 134 SE 1St Avenue Contributin 1924 Frame Vernacular 10 SE 1St Street Contributin 1939 Frame Vernacular 14 SE 1St Street Contributing 1935 Minimal Traditional 18 SE 1St Street Contributing 1930 Mission 18 %2 SE 1St Street Contributing 1955 Frame Vernacular 15 SW 2n Street Contributing 1950 Masonry Vernacular 3/4 Ordinance 10-10 Attachment B Old School Square Historic District Property Classification List Address Classification Year Built Style 35 %2 SW 1St Avenue Contributing 1925 Frame Vernacular 101 SW 1St Avenue Contributing 1930 Frame Vernacular 105 SW 1St Avenue Contributing 1930 Frame Vernacular 109 SW 1St Avenue Contributing 1930 Frame Vernacular 13-19 SE 2n Street Non-Contributing 1955 Masonry Vernacular 2 East Atlantic Avenue Contributing 1913 Masonry Vernacular 8 East Atlantic Avenue Non-Contributing 1950 Masonry Vernacular 16 East Atlantic Avenue Non-Contributing 1945 Art Deco/Moderne 32 East Atlantic Avenue Contributing 1948 Masonry Vernacular 38 East Atlantic Avenue Non-Contributing 1955 Masonry Vernacular 40-44 East Atlantic Avenue Contributing 1925 Masonry Vernacular 4/4